

h, ° o 











” ^"""^ " -2— ---7 - 

<4. o-J' ,.... ...._ <> .*» 

0 



^ * * * ' y^ 

sy- ^ »> ” ■'^ K _4 

0' '-..o'* V*" %. ••- 

' >•»- C-. v) .v:^'» V V^ 'i*^' 

'-^r, V /aW. -V 


^ » t ^ 




* > 


r " c,^ '^rv ■’ >^iimnFy *» 

o.. 0^ A 

^ O^ c ® " “ ■» ' 

^ rV .*’,-r><Nv % I'd’ t* 



vr*'S^ 


^ -^IP- 

.0^ ^ ^'.. *' O' 

^v o « o .<?►'■. V '• 




« - - ■"' ♦ 

“ ❖'"V 

V t 

, ' . . s ^ O "O 'O , ^ * 0 w 

o, ,-{k*' fO'^ e'^’t 

\'‘^'y-^ ^o- 

” ‘ ^ ^ • o- cv <0^ ' * ^ 


' 2>° ■^<#-^ , 

^o '‘rr.-’' o"^ V'*^ 

✓/a ^ 

'''''°- aV s***'^ ^ 

o 

^o. 0^ 

k. •> /\ ft 







vr*V 

O ^o - 

♦ O • ^W\J& ■«. 

, 'o.,* .0^ A 

o’^ .“JL"’ "^O 4 !^ .•' 






'- •>- A 

^ V 


ip’K^ ->1 




j. ,■► • <j r o 

' - ”«’ 

V •''•«- O 

* W/ mm^ ♦ 

'* 

- 0^ ^ 

" «- '^o . 

^ o 




>. ♦ » N o ^ A 


•' ’ o ^ 


a9 

t O « 


" aV 




i 


" 


'ey 


jP "vV t. 


* 40 

® -< 5 ? ^ 

,- \'''^^^'y %*-,•’^0' v^- 

^ ^ f.6^^* ^‘iy 

• w __ 




* w 

'o.k- 0^ ^ ^ 

^ * Cj r ® ** ® -» '^^O ^ ^ ^ 

^ C^ •‘U^>. ^o O ♦" 

5>> 

_ ^ • 

^ Q - rv . « 

C'^ . '-'A'* 0> 

: V4^ 

* * 

^ . A - 

<A 'o , » '* 0 

-V -w.. rkV 

O A 

A 


o <l5 


*'< 

^ V 




O) -vT. S ‘ A 
-- - 'f'o A .'' 
























A ♦ 









o « 0 " 9^ '> ' 

r 


^ <* cP'^cx •* ^^illllll^^ ® A^'^ 

/ ^ '.^ip* •v 

(T ''o •'-^*’' .'V <‘^ '»..* .0^ ’o. '..« 

o^ t ®" ®» A • ^' • • /.o^ 6 ®" ® •» o 

• 4P 


■; : 

A <. '» • ‘ ' 

0^ O 

-^bV^ ■" 

p, . \ A' '**' * 

.’ 0^ 

• A^ ♦^Sg/k*’ ^ * 

'- : 

r,- ■?►'■ Aj. •>.'V^\^,• ^ “ 

^ A 'o, A ,0^ ^ ' .. s' A " 

/£. ^ii//yy^^ ^ ^ 







♦ V V, • 

0^ , 

0 " « ^ '^o A^ .*■'•-» 






A 


* -V 


'\ 


<5^^ C' 

•* ’^o' '’o V 

;*■ 0 j- •'>''^*' A o -0 <f. - 

A ■t<. .& .j<\W;h.' \A 

* -tAWXV 

'•'^ ■^<?' '.'^'S''. «.v - 







■{^‘ 0^ 
; oA o^ 




O N o ^ 

^ .Ok a 


4 O 
" kV ^ 

L ' ^y- a'^ • ° ‘= ° 

r' 'b'^'^j' '^ii^“ ° 

r ^ ^ * ^®WSr " 

' ,0^ 

.'.■^Plt'- -^oV*^ ' 


o ^ 9a. 


a 





0 • 
k ’ 


o V 


* *4 0 

o ^ 

v' ■ ''^- ^ '^'4.\VC'C3^ ' N-^ jj ' 

‘v. "7<^T’ o^ ■‘^A*’ aO ^ 

c) '' •, 1 • a'J o h 0 . ^ '-C^ •' ^ A 

■ .-!► '>!tei^' >j> .«, /^%(?A,*<. .v ■#--. A'i- 

, ■,... • 






.* o«- <,*'?..* / 

.^-"<=0 /AAkA //. 

^ ^ fA « 


<t o A ^ 

^„.yyC; “ 'i-'^ °'^ ^ ". 

^ A o ^ <X^ O ^ • 1 1 * O W O 

\P^ "■ ,..., '•'c. A ••:nL'* '> V' 

k*. .>W/k' A ''^fe** 'j^' *’ 

l' '^va'^ •i§!^l^° '^J'V ';^SM: VA^ * 

,V-^ 


r 4 j. a V 

.0^ . 

(y 0 0 " O ^ ^ , K ' • <, 

■' - - .-e. . - 



? ■' ‘^'^j' " “ x'^' 

0^ .3 *^...‘ A 

rv* . 0 " o j, ^o . • *■ 



■<i>. A , .■«t, v, " 

- •»*oV^ 



*“ % 

c°‘ . 

> * A ' 

• <^ ® 

• vO-A AX 

o A ^ o .o'^ 

"•'■•* "oko’ ^ - 

^ o \ V • /-S -* ® Oc^ v<A ® a 

<A '«•»'* a\^ 


h ^ /* V < 

,Vv>V * 


O^ *' o « “• • A® ’ * 

O. A^ ^l^Ay>A* 

A ,p> 

L - ^ 



A 

A*" . 





















r 



I 


I# 


t 

\ 

i 

I 

\ 

! 


1 


I 

I 


I 

* 



\ 




r- 


f 


\ 


















t 




I. 




« t 



i 






4 

i 


I 


¥ 







A I 



*• 


( 

I 



€ 


i t. 








f 


OFFICIAL REPORTS 

• 

C ■»' ■ , 

A > ■' - 
. 1 \ ‘ 

OF THE 

» ‘ . . 

DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS 

‘^1 

• OF THE A i 

^ ^ 1 

''-onsF i4>-iF'.r\9> \ 

OHIO STATE CONVENTION, 

h , 

CALLED TO 

ALTER, REVISE OR AMEND 

1 THE 


CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE, 


HELD AT COLUMBUS, COMMENCING MAY 6, 1850, AND AT CINCINNATI, COMMEN¬ 
CING DECEMBER 2, 1850. 


REPORTED BY J. V. SMITH, 

Official Reporter to the Convention. 


COLUMBUS: 

PRINTED BY SCOTT & BASCOM. 

1851. 





I » ■■ 


r* 


y 







I 


I 




). 




I', 




f 


/ 


I 


/ 


/ 


;»* 


s< 


. t 

V 


\ 

>4 


> 


' / 




/ 


I 


f 


( 


I « 




V 


i 




/• 


'j'.' 


' ' .'V 

' •• . ’ > ' ?■ ..A . 

• I' 


3 ; K 5 5 2. 5- 
l25i) ' 

•Am- 

I * 

► ' \ 

f : ' ■ * ' - . • 





.FEB 24 1903 

Di otD.. 



f 



• t ' 





I t 
_ f 


V- i»rf' 





\ 


•V 



INDEX 


Accounts— 

Appointment of standing committee thereon, 54. 

Act calling the Convention, 1, 

Adjournment of the Convention— 

Resolutions of Mr. McCormick, 106; invitation of City Council 
of Cleveland, 239; resolutions of Mr Larwill, and discussion 
thereon, 265; of Mr. Manon, 265; proceedings of public 
meeting in Zanesville, 389; proposition to adjourn to Cincin¬ 
nati, 665; invitation from citizens of Eaton, Preble, co., 416 : 
from citizens of Mt. Vernon, 369; adjournment over July 
4th, 618. 

Adjournment— 

Proposition of Mr. Lawrence to adjourn to Columbus, and de¬ 
bate thereon, 694, 695; resolutions to adjourn, 352, 798, 802, 
997; consideration of resolution to adjourn, 1096; resolution 
for adjournment on 10th March, 1255. 

Amendments to Constitution— 

Report on future amendments ordered to be enrolled, 1437. 

Amendment of Laws, 203. 

Amin Bey, Envoy of Sultan of Turkey— 

Mr. Lawrence’s preamble and resolution inviting him to a seat 
within bar of the Convention, and discussion thereon, 729; 
report of select committee appointed to invite him to a seat 
within bar ol Convention, 742: reception by the Convention, 
748; address of the President of the Convention, and re¬ 
sponse thereto, 749. 

Andrews, Mr. Delegate from Cuyahoga— 

Remarks on proposition of Mr. Holmes to prevent the immi¬ 
gration of black and mulatto persons within the State, 1227; 
speech of, on extension of right of suffrage, 1256. 

Annual Sessions of General Assembly. See Biennial Sessions. 
Temporary provision therefor, (Mr. Stillwell’s amendment,) 
211, 212, 225. 

Appointing power— 

General Assembly restrained from exercise of, 229, 230. 

Apportionment— 

Mr. Reemelin’s resolutions, 43, 78, 107, 123, 132; appointment 
of standing committee thereon, 45; resolution of Mr. Brown, 
of Athens, 88; of Mr. Otis, 239, report of standing commit¬ 
tee—draft of an Article, 416 ; report of standing committee 
considered in coramittee,of the whole, 677, 1357, 1365, 1370, 
1375; Report, No. 2, of standing committee, 1320; resolution 
of Mr. Holmes relative to printing, 1321; Mr. McCloud’s pro¬ 
position for Senatorial apportionment, 1321; Mr. Hitchcock’s 
proposition for amending sec. 6, 1380; amendments of com¬ 
mittee on. as amended, 1422; report of committee on Revis¬ 
ion and Enr. considered, 1442. 

Archbold, Mr. a Delegate from Monroe— 

Remarks on form of oath for delegates, 3; on the order of bu¬ 
siness, 6, 32, 35; on the veto power, 55, 92, 96; on securiny 
copy-right to Debates, 65; on the language ot preamble to 
resolutions for the election of officers by the people, 66, 67; 
on submission of written reports by committees, 76; on Mr. 
Gray’s resolution relative to fugitive slaves, 87; on Mr. Ree¬ 
melin’s scheme of apportionment, 109, 123 ; on correction of 
reports of Debates, 115, 406; resolutions relative to a State 
census. 132 ; remarks on proposition for single House of the 
General Assembly, 139, 143; on biennial sessions, 161, 164, 
216; on term of State Senators, 193; on annual publication 
of receipts and expenditures, 208; on impeachment of offi¬ 
cers, 209 ; on eligibility of U. S. officers or State officers to a 
seat in General Assembly, 226; on county Legislative Boards, 
253; on compensation of members ot General Assembly, 263; 
on salary of Governor, 281, 283, 284 ; on term of office of Au¬ 
ditor of State, 288, 299; on corporations, 322, 1269; on the 
resolutions of Mr. Vance, ot Butler, on the decease of Hon. 
John Riley, 348; personal explanations, 348, 406, 662; re¬ 
marks on the individual liability of corporators, 348, 382, 
397; on prescribing a limit to contraction of State debt, 425 ; 
relative to a sinking fund, 427, 429, 438 ; on internal improve¬ 
ments, 455; on the powers and duties of sinking fund com¬ 
missioners, 477, 480, 487; amendment relative thereto, 534; 
remarks on electing members of Board of Public Works by 
districts, 537; on article on “ Public Institutions,” 491; on a 
revised code of legal procedure, 572; Latin law phrases, 537; 
on the Judiciary article, 612, 659; in reply to Mr. Reemelin, 
626; on adjournment to Cincinnati, 669; on the position, 
influence, and conduct ot newspapers, 730; on education 


of colored children, 689; on capital punishment, 698, 700; on 
taxinir churches, 711, 728; on finance and taxation, 724, 772, 
779, 780, 781, 783, 786, 788, 789, 1352, 1357, 1363, 1397, 1429 ; 
on public improvements by State Treasury grants,783, 784 ; 
correction ot Reports, 794; on terms of Senators and Repre¬ 
sentatives, 803, 805; petitions presented by, 828, 8-57 ; remarks 
on the right ol legislative repeal, 829, 830, 831, 858, 905, 928 ; 
on rights of private property taken for public use. 835, 837, 
838, 888; speech on the right of repeal, on the disposition 
to flatter the almoners of power and in reply to the charge 
that his tendencies were aristocratic, 858; remarks on Public 
Debt and Public Works, 945, 953 ; on Jurisprudence and Law 
Reform, 967; on proposition to restrict debate, 971; on the 
right of petition, 973; amendment to report on Preamble, 977, 
1129, remarks on amendment to report of select committee 
on Preamble and Bill of Rights, 979, 1097, 1099, 1108, 1304, 
1305 : on election of Supreme Judges by the people, 997 ; on 
amendments to report of committee on Judicial department, 
1007, 1311; on amendment to report of committee on Banks 
and Currency, 1055,1056; on the Temperance question, 1083, 
li 94,1328; on resolution restricting debate, 1030; amendment 
relative to municipal corporations, and remarks, 1278,1279, 
1280; remarks relative to having more full reports of Co'‘. 
vention, 1294 ; on amendment to report on Education, 1312 ; 
church taxation, 1340; on representative apportionment, 766, 
1357, 1358, 1350,1374 ; amendment to report on Apportion¬ 
ment, 1340; report. No. 1, of standing com. on Miscellaneous 
subjects, &c., 1382; of select committee on Finance and Tax¬ 
ation, 1421; amendment of report on Miscellaneous subjects, 
1432. 

Assumption of Debt— 

General Assembly restrained from, 427-8. 

Attorney General— 

Term of office, compensation, &c., 288. 

Auditor of State— 

Term of office, compensation, &c., 288; communication from, 
318. 

Banking and Currency— 

Resolutions of Mr. Dorsey, 19 ; appointment of Standing Com¬ 
mittee thereon ; resolution of Mr. Hartman, 49, 490; of Mr. 
Clark, 88; of Mr. Taylor, 229 ; of Mr. Sawyer, 241 ; report ot 
Chairman ot Standing Com., draft of an ai tide, 648 ; minority 
Report 649-50 ; report of Standing Committee considered in 
Com. of the Whole, 690; Mr. Gregg’s proposition to provide 
for taxing loans, discounts and capital of Banks, 779 ; petitions 
for aconstitutional currency, 875, 928: Mr. Case’s amendment 
to Report, 989; Mr. Dorsey’s proposition to, 991; Mr. Holt’^ 
proposition to and and remarks thereon, 1033. 

Barber Mr., a delegate from Miami— 

Remarks on salary of Governor, 282, 283; on adjournment over 
of Convention, 389, 526; on his resolution in respect to bank 
taxation, 406; report as minority of Standing Com. on Fi¬ 
nance and taxation, 466 ; remarks on Finance and taxation, 
705, 708, 709, 718, 1429; petitions presented by, 734, 849, 875, 
1005, 1217; remarks on Biennial Sessions; resolution relative 
to time of meeting, 1217 ; amendment to Report on Finance 
and Taxation, and remarks, 1344, 1353, 1364. 

Barnet Mr., a delegate from Montgomery— 

Remarks on publication ol debates in German, 58 ; on time of 
general election, 148 ; relative to Dayton Cemetery Associa¬ 
tion, 729 ; amendmentto Report on Finance and t-xation, 781; 
remarks in reply to Mr. Archbold, relative to Public Improve¬ 
ments, 785 ; remarks on amendments to Rep, on Education, 
1316; on Finance and Church Taxation, 1342. 

Barnet Mr., a delegate from Preble— 

Remarks on right of petition, 40 ; on times of general election, 
148 ; on terms of Senators, 195 ; on duelling, 230 ; on Militia 
system, 419, 421: on Sinking fund, 474, 475; on Apportion¬ 
ment, 678; on his motion to amend Report on Elective Fran¬ 
chise, 680; on Finance and taxation, 708, 1354; on mode ot 
drawing money from the Public Treasury, 811; on compen¬ 
sation of members of General Assembly, 868 ; on Public Debt 
and Public Works, 947 ; on Rep. on Preamble, 975, 984; on 
Rep. on future amendments to Constitution. 1066; on extend¬ 
ing of Elective Franchise to colored race^638 ; on Representa¬ 
tive apportionment, 1372 

Bates Mr., a delegate from Jefferson— 

Remarks on purchasing newspapers for members, 13 ; on open 




IV 


INDEX, 


ing sessions with prayer, 14; resolution of petitions, 271, 415; 
amendment to section on compensation of members ot Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, 2C0 ; remarks on Capital punishment, 303 ; on 
Militia system, 411, 412, 413, 418; relative to the exclusion of 
colored children from Common schools, 684; on Capital pun¬ 
ishment, 691, 692, 699, 701, 974 ; petitions presented by, 835, 
849, 927; remarks in relation to legalizing the sale of ardent 
spirits, 1075,1095 ; remarks in relation to amend to Rep. on 
Leg. Dep. prohibiting immigration of blacks and mulattoes, 
1223 ; remarks on rep. and amendments to same on Temper¬ 
ance, 1395. 

Burnet Mr., a delegate from Tuscarawas— 

Remarks on furnishing newspapers to members, 12 ; resolution 
on legislative quorum, 51; remarks on his resolution tor re¬ 
publishing amended laws, 78 ; on German publication of de¬ 
bates, 103; on apportionment, 109 ; on amendment of laws, 
203 ; on ineligibility to other offices of members of General 
Assembly, 204 ; on ineligibility of U. S. or State officers to 
General Assembly, 226; on abolition of Capital punishment, 
302; on corporations, 322 ; amendment to rules of order, 369, 
392 ; remarks on Militia system, 409, 419 ; on adjournment to 
Cleveland, 527 ; amendment to article on Public institutions, 
493; remarks on Finance and taxation 708; on compensation 
ol officers, 824, 941; amendment relative to eligibility to seat 
in General Assembly, 842; amendment relative to formation 
of new counties, 866 ; amendment relative to officers of the 
General Assembly, 893 ; amendment relative to compensation 
of Governor, 941; r* marks on amendment to report on pub¬ 
lic debts and public works, 1006; petitions presented by, 1011; 
remarks against legalizing traffic in spiritous liquors, 1073 ; 
on Report in Leg. Department, 1193 ; amendment on report 
in Legislative Department, 1202; remarks on amendment to 
report on Education, 1316,1317; amendment to report on Fi¬ 
nance and Taxation, 1364 ; remarks on amendment to report 
on apportionment, 782, 1378, 1389 ; Biennial Sessions of Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, 148,155, 164,179, 211, 224. 

Blickensderter Mr , a delegate from Tuscarawas— 

Remarks during debate on veto power, 278; resolution relative 
to census returns, 675; amendment to report on Executive De¬ 
partment, 941; statement relative to the Public Debt, 949 ; 
amendment to report of Com. on Pre. and Bill of Rights and 
remarks thereon, 982; remarks on report of Committee on 
Public Debt and Public Works, 1005 ; petitions presented by, 
1103 ; amendment to report on Legis. Dep. relative to appro¬ 
priations for Colonization and remarks thereon, 1221. 

Brown Mr., a delegate from Athens— 

Resolution relative to apportionment, 88 ; amendment relative 
to impeachment of civil officers, 210 ; petiiions presented by, 
264, 302; proposition relative to election and term of State 
officers, 829, 290 ; remarks thereon, 290, 299 ; petitions pre¬ 
sented by, 704, 825, 937, 944 ; remarks on Finance and Taxa¬ 
tion, 708, 1345; amendment relative to County Clerks and 
Clerks of Courts, 797, 798 ; remarks on amendment to report 
of .Judicial Department relative to the jurisdiction of Courts, 
&c., 1037 ; amendment to rep. in Judicial Department, 1038 ; 
remarks on amendment to report on Education, 1312, 1316. 

Brown Mr., a delegate from Carrol— 

Remarks on the veto power, 89, 276, 278; on the eligibility of 
U. S. or State officers to seats in General Assembly, 226 ; re¬ 
marks in favor of Annual Sessions, 817; petitions presented 
by, 995, 1183 ; remarks on report of Com. on Ex. Dep., 993; 
on amendment to report on Judicial Department, 1007; rela¬ 
tive to enactment of curative laws, 1215 ; remarks relative to 
Legislative repeal, 1244 ; amendment to report in corporations 
other than banks, and remarks thereon, 1264; remarks on 
amendments to report on Education, 1313, 1316 ; on taxing 
State stocks, 1351. 

Board of Public Works, 488. 

Cahill Mr., a delegate from Crawford— 

Remarks on the right of petition, 40 ; on Biennial sessions of 
General Assembly, 187 ; on Capital punishment, 303 ; on pub¬ 
lication of debates in German, 60; resolution in favor ot un- 
qualitied repeal, 83, 490 ; substitute for section limiting State 
debt. 427; petitions presented by, 886 ; remarks on Legisla¬ 
tive repeal, 1237 ; remarks on subject of apportionment, 1423. 

Calls of the Convention, 654, 675, 682, 709, 809, 812, 828, 835, 841 
844, 865, 908, 931, 937, 949, 958, 970, 977, 1009, 1027, 1029, 1039, 
1052, 1071, 1082, 1096, 1109, 1153, 117.3, 1185, 1191, 1196, 1202 
1207, 1217, 1223, 1225, 1242, 1261, 1275, 1283, 1303, 1308,1314, 
1325, 1330, 1354, 1361, 1382, 1388, 1419, 1422, 1431, 1442. 

Capital Punishment— 

Resolution ot Mr. Hunter, 51; of Mr. Perkins, 51 ; report of 
standing committee on Jurisprudence, 302; debate thereon, 
302 ; select committee on. 304; report (rom select committee 
—Draft of an article, 655, 673; report of select committee 
considered in committee ot the whole, and discussion there¬ 
on, 691, 696 to 703 ; yeas and nays on motion to indefinitely 
postpone report of select committee thereon, 703; amend¬ 
ment to report on Preamble, 974. 

Case, Mr. a Delegate from Licking— 

Remarks on his resolution relative to Bill ot Rights, 87; on the 
General Assembly, 197; on duelling, 231; on individual lia¬ 
bility of corporators, 375; relative to language of petitions 
and memorials, 430; on prison discipline, 498 ; on a reformed 
code of civil procedure, 514, 519; on the elective franchise, 
680 ; on capital punishment, 692 resolution relative to bind¬ 
ing ot “ debates,” 734, 1449; remarks on Mr. Sawyer’s motion 
to pass report on finance and taxation, 756; on taxing State 
and United States bonds, 757; resolution amending report on 


finance and taxation, 787, 788, 790; remarks on the right of 
legislative repeal and the position of the democratic party 
relative thereto, 825, 895,1118,1119,1121,1122 ; on the rights 
of private property taken for public use, 890; on a question 
of privilege relative to an article in Cincinnati Enquirer of 
Jan. 7th, 935, 937, 942; petitions presented by, 965, 1202; 
amendment to rep. of com. on banks and currency) and re¬ 
marks thereon, 989,990,1042; remarks on amendments to re¬ 
port on banks and currency, 1055; motion to refer credential 
of Mr. Vance, member elect from Butler, to committee on 
privileges and elections, 1161; remarks on a question of priv¬ 
ilege, 856,1218,1219,1450; amendment to report on finance 
and taxation, 1431; resolution relative to amending report 
on corporations other than banks, and remarks thereon, 
1445; allowing mileage to secretaries, door-keepers and ser- 
geant-a^arms, 1448; of thanks to sergeant-at-arms, messen¬ 
ger boys, &c., 1449; authorizing president of convention to 
audit accounts of reports, &c., 1450. 

Case, Mr. a delegate from Hocking— 

Remarks in reply to editorial in Cincinnati Enquirer, 942. 

Census ot State— 

Mr, Archbold’s resolution, 132. 

Chambers, Mr. a delegate from Muskingum— 

Remarks on election of printer to convention, 23 ; on purchase 
of newspapers for members, 30; on printing, 25, 465 ; on the 
right of petition, 38 ; on the publication of debates in conven¬ 
tion, 58, 69 ; on biennial sessions, 157 ; on term of senators, 
194, 213 ; on eligibility of office holders to seats in General As¬ 
sembly, 226; amendment to section defining the method of 
amending laws, 263; remarks on amendment to militia re¬ 
port, 421 ; on office of lieutenant governor, 267; on the sal¬ 
ary of governor, 283; on individual liability of corporators, 
333, 375 ; presented proceedings of citizens of Zanesville on 
adjournment, &c., 389 ; petitions presented by, 562; remarks 
on election of members of board of public works, 489; on ju¬ 
risprudence, 502; on proposition to adjourn to Cleveland, 
526 ; to adjourn over, 532, 723; to adjourn to Cincinnati, 663 ; 
resolution for adjournment, 747; remarks on continuing dis¬ 
cussion of reports in committee of the whole, 756; on fi¬ 
nance and taxation, 784,1357; petitions presented by, 140,176, 
232, 339, 614, 795; remarks in reply to Mr. McCormick, rel¬ 
ative to position of whig party, 809 ; amendment relative to 
formation of new coundes, 868 ; amendment relative to com¬ 
pensation of members of General Assembly, 867 & 8 ; re¬ 
marks on communication of J. V. Smith, (Reporter,) 1012; 
on Case’s amendment to report on banks and currency, 1042 ; 
on report on future amendment to constitution, 435, 1066, 
1071; on report of select committee on temperance question, 
1083; on legislative repeal, 1152 ; on election of State prin¬ 
ter, 1187 ; on report of committee of legislative department, 
biennial sessions, 1206, 1214 ; relativ' to African colonization, 
1222; on judiciary reform, 1297 ; on amendments to report 
on apportionment, 1378, 1391; resolution appointing com. to 
take charge of State property, 1448. 

Chaney, Mr. a delegate from Fairfield, in place ot Mr. Robertson, 
resigned— 

Credentials presented, 675; appointed to committee on elective 
franchise, 679 ; remarks on elective franchise, 680, 681; pe¬ 
titions presented by, 801, 849, 886, 928 ; remarks relative to 
compensation of members of General Assembly, 867 ; on re¬ 
port of committee on banks and currency, 1050. 

Charity, Institutions of.—See “ Public Institutions.” 

Claims — 

Mr. Woodbury’s proposition respecting, 264. 

Clark, Mr. a delegate from Lorain— 

Remarks on election of printer to convention, 6 ; on circular to 
clerks of courts, 22 ; resolution relative to banking, 88; re¬ 
marks on terms ot Senators, 195 ; amendment to section fix¬ 
ing salary of governor, 279; remarks thereon, 279 ; petitions 
presented by, 302; remarks on capita] punishment, 303; on 
individual liability of corporators, 371; on compensation for 
right of way, 404 ; personal explanation, 448; amendment rel- 
ativo to sinking fund, and remarks thereon, 475; remarks on 
the judiciary, 545, 549 ; amendment as to terms of judges 
619 ; remarks thereon, 620, 658, 659 ; amendment to judiciary 
report relative to election of clerks, 796; amendment rela¬ 
tive to compensation of members of General Assembly, 867 
&8; resolution limiting time to be consumed by any one 
delegate in debate, and remarks thereon, 965, 970; amend¬ 
ment to reports on banks and currency, 1054; remarks on the 
temperance question, 1075. 

Clerks of courts— 

Mr. Green’s resolution calling for information, and discussion 
thereon, 14, 15, 21; report of select committee thereon, 20, 

Code of laws— 

Mr. Holt’s resolution, 1.33. 

Codings, Mr. a delegate from Adams— 

Remarks on impeachment of officers, 209; on capital punish¬ 
ment, 303; on biennial sessions, 214; on corporations 313’ 
substitute for article on corporations, 415; petitions present- 
ed by, 416; remarks relative to a sinking fund, 446 458’ 
relative to a revised code of legal procedure, 405,518 • relative 
to the Judiciary article, 611; relative to the terms of Judges 
6ol; on biennial sessions, 808; on submitting laws to the 
people, 882; on jurisprudence and law reform 964 972* 
amendments to report on Preamble, 975; remarks on’iuris’- 
diction of Supreme Court, 1002; on tenure of office of Su- 









INDEX. 


V 


I)reme Judges, 1003; on report on future amendments to 
Constitution, 1070; on report of committe on the subject of 
Temperance, 1073,1395; in relation to punishment for libel, 
1102; proposition on subject of Judiciary, and remarks 
thereon, 1117: remarks on special privileges, 1185; on re¬ 
port on Legislative Department, 1193 ; relative to prohibition 
of immigration of negroes, 1225, 1226; relative to taxing 
banks, &c.,1282; on report on Judiciary, 1286; on apportion¬ 
ment, 1365; amendment to report on apportionment, 1374. 

Committees— 

On rules, 10; on messengers, 10; relative to official report of 
Debates, 10 ; on printing, 10; on arrangement of business, 10; 
on purchasing documents for members, 10; on appointment 
of Reporter, 20; on accounts standing, 37; appointment of 
standing committees, 45 ; report of select committee on tran¬ 
scribing journal, 86; reports from select committees, 696, 
985. 

Colonization by the State— 

Proposition on the subject by Mr. Blickensderfer, 982. 

C 0 mmuni cations— 

From Young Men’s Mercantile Library Association of Cincin¬ 
nati, 675; from Wm. Neil, of Columbus, relative to use of 
Hall, 695 ; from Mechanic’s Institute, 704; from Indiana Con¬ 
stitutional Convention, 747; from Western Art Union, 742; 
from Common Council of Cincinnati, 818; from Maryland 
State Convention, 819, from New England Society of Cin¬ 
cinnati, 824 ; from Daniel Drake, for use of Convention Hall, 
842; from the Auditor of State, 932; from Mr. Vance, of 
Butler, announcing his resignation, 969; from J. V. Smith, 
Reporter, on subject of publication of Debates, 1012 ; from 
Editorial Convention, on the election by the people of State 
Printer, 1025 ; from Mr. Johnson, of Coshocton, 1307. 

Compensation of State officers, 203. 

Comptroller— 

Mr. Nash’s proposition, 268. 

Contingent laws— 

Action prohibiting, 227. t 

Cook, Mr. a delegate from Portage— 

Remarks on right of petition. 56; on printing extra copies of 
report on Judiciary, 392; amendment to Militia report, 409 ; 
remarks thereon, 409, 421; petitions presented by, 206, 318, 
665,1183. 

Corporations other than Banking— 

Appointment of standing committee, 45; resolution of Mr. 
Leech, 83 ; report of standing committee, 228, 259, 1192; de¬ 
bate in committee of the whole, 251; discussion on article 
proposed by standing committee, 304, 313, 318, 328, 337, 360, 
369, 378, 392, 399, 415. 

Correction of Reports, 86,115, 406. 

County Board of Selectmen, 252. 

County Courts, 603. 

County indebtedness— 

Mr. Swan’s resolutions of enquiry, 18, 29. 

Criminal prosecutions— 

Resolutions of Mr. Graham on rights of accrised, 164. 

Curative statutes—see retroactive laws— 

Curry Mr., a delegate from Union— 

Remarks and amendments on the order of business, 34 ; on the 
subject of impeachment, 115, 209; on duelling, 230; on the 
length of legislative sessions, 261 ; on the office of Lieutenant 
Governor, 267 ; on vacancies in State offices, 290 ; on Militia 
system, 408 ; on limit to State debt, 426 ; on the evils ot in¬ 
temperance, 429; presentation of petitions, 429; minority report 
from Standing committee on Education, 635; remarks ex¬ 
planatory thereof, 661; substitute for report of majority of 
Standing Committee on Education offered, 688,689 ; remarks 
on Mr. Holmes' motion to amend section 4 of report on Edu¬ 
cation, 639; amendment relative to eligibility to office, 850; 
amendment relative to laws passed to take effect upon the con¬ 
tingency of approval of any authority not prescribed in the 
constitution, 874, 877; remarks on Mr. Stanton’s motion to 
amend section 6 of report on Public Debt and Public Works, 
953 ; amendment to report on Public Debt and Public Works, 
959 ; remarks on the rep, of select com. on Temperance, 1093, 
1325 ; on amendments to report on Education, 1322. 

Cutler Mr., a delegate from Washington— 

Remarks on publication of debates, 75.76 ; on biennial sessions, 
169 ; proposition for per diem and mileage of members of Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, 260; remarks thereon, 262 ; on militia system, 
420, 421; amendment to section limiting State debt, 423 ; re¬ 
marks on a S'nking Fund, 472. 

Debt—See “County indebtedness” and “Public Debt and Public 
Works.” 

Debates and proceedings— 

Communication of official Reporter and appointment of Com¬ 
mittee thereon, 5, 10, 225; Mr. Sawyer’s resolution for publi¬ 
cation in English and German, and discussion thereon, 36 ; 
Mr. Stanbury’s resolution relative to copy right, 42.44,45, 63; 
Mr. Reemelin’s resolution for publication in German, 51, 57 ; 
report of Committee on the subject of reporting, and as to 
number of copies of debates considered, 67 ; paging of debates 
explained, 102; report on German publication of debates, 
102 ; resolution upon, 165 ; communication of S. Medary, 200, 
211; referred to select committee, 200, 211 ; communication 
of Messrs. Reinhard & Feiser, publishers of the Westbote, 
upon German publication of Debates, 260; resolution of Mr. 
Ewart on payment of assistant reporters, 465, 486; resolu¬ 
tions of Mr. Reemelin upon German publication of debates 
in Cincinnati newspapers 673; resolution of Mr. Farr, tor 


binding debates, 674 ; communication from publishers of 
Westbote for publication in German, 260. 

Defaulters ineligible to office, 226. 

Delegates, list of, 2. 

Directors of Penitentiary, 490. 

Disqualilication for office, 226. 

Divorces—legislative restriction thereon, 227. 

Documents for the Convention— 

Mr. Libey’s resolution to furnish members with, 9; Mr. Saw¬ 
yer’s amendment to same, and discussion thereon; Mr. Saw¬ 
yer's resolution to furnish Columbus newspapers to members 
and discussion thereon, 12; Mr. Cutler’s resolution to furnish 
members with Journal of Convention of 1802, 13 ; report of 
committee, 19, 36; resolution directing State printer to for¬ 
ward to members, 674. 

Doorkeepers, 5, 41. 

Dorsey Mr., a delegate from Miami— 

Remarks and resolution on turnishing members with newspa¬ 
pers, 12; remarks on publication of debates, 16, 17 ; on the 
veto power, 95; on banks and currency, 134, 137 ; on terms 
of Senators, 195 ; on ineligibility to other office of members 
of General Assembly, 206; on ineligibility to General Assem¬ 
bly, 221; presentation of petitions, 226 ; remarks on term ol 
State officers, 299 ; on corporations, 316 ; on individual lia¬ 
bility of corporators, 333, 336, 354, 355, 377; on the reception 
of petitions, 439 ; on adjournment to Cleveland, 529 ; on ap¬ 
portionment, 677, 678 ; on the Elective Franchise, 681; on the 
exclusion of colored children from Common Schools, 684 ; 
on Education, 688; petitions presented by. 704,886 ; remarks 
on Finance and taxation, 705, 707, 710,1397 ; on exempting 
Church and other property from taxation, 717, 1346; on tax¬ 
ing State Stocks, 778; on biennial sessions, 805, 821; on the 
right of legislative repeal, 902, 928,1140 ; on Public Debt and 
Public Works, 956, 959 ; proposition on banks and currency, 
991; amendment to report on banks and currency, 1052, 
1407; remarks on amendment to report on Banks and Cur¬ 
rency, 801, 1054, 1407; amendment to rep. on future amend¬ 
ments to constitution and remarks thereon, 1065; remarks 
against legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors, 1090, 1331; on 
amendment to report on Preamble and Bill of Rights, 1102, 
1305; amendment to report on Finance and Taxation and re¬ 
marks thereon, 1352; remarks on Representative apportion¬ 
ment, 1358, 1359, 1360, 1361, 1366, 1374, 1375, 1379, 786, 1391, 
1392, 1393 ; resolution relative to banks, 1425. 

Duelling—parties thereto made ineligible to office, 229. 

Eaton—invitation by citizens thereof in respect to adjournment, 
416. 

Education— 

Mr. Stidger’s resolutions as to surplus revenue fund, 37,46; ap¬ 
pointment of Standing committee, 45; committee ot the whole 
on Mr. Stidger’s resolutions, 48; resolutions of Ashtabula Ed¬ 
ucational society, 301; report of standing committee—draft 
of an article, 635; minority report of standing committee, 
(Mr. Curry) 635; report of Standing committee thereon con¬ 
sidered in committee of the whole, 682,1312, 1314 ; proposi¬ 
tion to exclude colored children from Common Schools, 682, 
689; proposition to augment Common School fund, 684 ; 
proposition for Normal Schools, 690; final passage of report, 
1323 ; report of Standing Committee on Revision and Enrol¬ 
ment^ 1423; report of Standing Committee on Revision as 
amended, ordered enrolled, 1440. 

Elective Franchise-^ 

Appointment of Standing committee thereon, 45 ; resolution of 
Mr. Loudon, 50; resolution of Mr. Orton, 85 ; petitions rela¬ 
tive to, 86 ; report of Standing committee—draft of an article, 
635; report of Standing committee thereon considered in 
committee of the whole, 678 ; petitions for extension of right 
ot suffrage to colored persons, 704 ; petitions for extension 
of right of suffrage to women, 886 ; report of Standing com. 
thereon considered in Convention, 996, 1177, 1182,1356; re¬ 
port of Standing committee, ordered to be enrolled, 1437. 

Election Districts—debate thereon, 146. 

Election of officers by the people— 

Resolution of Mr. Williams and discussion thereon, 66; time of, 
148. 

Embezzlement of Public Funds— 

Disqualification for office. 226. 

Ex. post, facto laws— 

Mr. Mason’s amendment to substitute for retroactive laws in 
sec. 35 of Leg. report, 233, 241. 

Evening sessions proposed, 867, 970. 

Ewart Mr., a delegate from Washington— 

Remarks on publication of debates, 76; resolution limiting 
speeches to fifteen minutes, 272; remarks on the salary of 
Governor, 283 ; presentation of petitions, 302, 405 ; remarks 
on corporations, 309, 319 ; on compensation of official repor¬ 
ter, 532 ; on the judiciary article, 614 ; amendment as to ju¬ 
risdiction of county courts, 618; remarks on taxation of 
church property, 728, 729,1338 ; relative to the passage of 
laws contingent upon approval of any other authority ihan 
that provided in the constitution, 876 ; petitions presented by, 
895, 972,1024 ; resolution providing for expiration of term of 
Judicial officers and transfer of business to those elected un¬ 
der new constitution, 1217; amendment to report on Legis- 
lative Dep.relative to repeal, 1228 ; resolution fixing sine die 
adjournment, 1225 ; remarks on report No. I and 2 of the 
Committee on the schedule, 1409,1410; amendment to report 
No. 2 on schedule, 1417; amendment to report on Legislative 
department, 1420. 








INDEX 



Executive Department- 
Resolutions ot Mr. Mason relative to lieutenant governor and 
veto power, 36 ; appointment ot standing committee there¬ 
on, 45 ; discussion in committee of the whole on Mr. Mason’s 
resolutions relative to lieutenant governor and veto pow¬ 
er, 52; committee of the whole on same resolutions, and dis¬ 
cussion thereon, 8S; report trom standing committee, 221; 
discussion thereon, 266,279, 287, 292; report of standing com¬ 
mittee as amended in committee of the whole, considered in 
convention, 938, 977; salary of governor, 939, 942; term of 
office for secretary and treasurer of State, and attorney gen¬ 
eral, 940; veto power, 943; bureau of statistics, establishment 
of, 943, 1364; officers of, when elected, terms of office and 
salary, 993 ; report of committee on rev. and enr. considered 
in convention, 1434. 

Extradition of colored people, 11. 

Equal Rights— 

Petitions for, 849 ; exemption of churches, burial grounds and 
literary institutions, from taxation, 710 to 722; of State and 
United States bonds from taxation, 722,724, 730,734, 742, 747, 
749, 756, 771, 787, 788, 791; of a certain amount of property 
from sale on execution for debt, 875. 

Ewing, Mr. a delegate from Hancock—(see list ofmembers.)— 

Farr, Mr. a delegate from Huron— 

Remarks on printing, 27 ; on publication of debates, 75 ; reso- 
luiion on taxing stocks, 85 ; amendment to 28th section of 
legislativ.i department, 227; presentation of petitions, 405; 
amendment to resolution of adjournment, 662; resolution for 
binding debates, 674; petitions presented by, 457, 802,83.5, 
1052,1092; remarks on Mr. Gregg’s amendment relative to 
eligibility to a seat in General Assembly, and relative to or¬ 
ganization thereof, 841, 870 ; remarks relative to amendment 
or repeal of special acts of incorporation, 845; amendment 
relative to removal of county seats, 875; to report on future 
amendment to constitution, 1071. 

Fifteen Minutes Rule— 

Resolution of Mr. Ewart, 272, 364, 492; of Mr. Sawyer, 475, 
655; of Mr. Lidey, 591. 

Finance and Taxation— 

Appointment of standing committee thereon, 45 ; resolution ot 
Mr, Cahill, 86; report of standing committee—Drait of an ar¬ 
ticle, 466 ; Mr. Barbee’s minority report, 466; report of stand¬ 
ing committee considered, and discussion in committee of 
the whole, 704, 1334; amendments proposed, 722, 723,724, 
771, 780, 782, 786. 787, 788, 791, 792, 1395; report of standing 
committee considered in convention, 787, 791, 1396, 1428, 
1431; of standing committee No. 2, 1270; of majority stand¬ 
ing committee No. 2, read second time, 1280 ; of select com¬ 
mittee on, 1421; proposition of Mr. Case of Licking on. 1421, 
1431; report of majority of committee, 1421; amendments 
of committee on, considered, 1437. 

Firestone, Mr. a delegate from Wayne— 

Remarks on furnishing newspapers to members, 12; on right 
of petition, 40; on publication of debates in German, 61,105; 
on publication ot debates in English, 75; on election districts, 
146; on biennial sessions, 155; on presentation of petitions, 
206, 278; on dueling, 230; on salary of governor, 287; on in¬ 
dividual liability of corporators, 344, 396. 

Florence, Mr. a delegate from Pickaway— 

Amendment offered to resolution fixing hour ot meeting, 675; 
petitions presented by, 867. 875,1102; remarks on fixing day 
of vote on constitution, 1417. 

Forbes, Mr. a delegate from Mahoning— 

Remarks on providing for the printing of the convention, 7; 
on the order of business, 36 ; on publication of the debates, 68. 

Fugitives from Slavery— 

Resolution of Mr. Gray, and discussion thereon, 87. 

Future amendments to the Constitution — 

Appointment of standing committee thereon, 45. 

General Assembly— 

Qualifications ot members, 188, 196, 226; term of senators, 189; 
quorum to do business, 198 ; contested elections, 199; pas¬ 
sage of laws, 199, 203, 263; vacancies in, 202; privilege from 
arrest, 202; proceedings public, except, &c, 202; adjourn¬ 
ment, 202; compen-ation of officers, 203; ineligibility of 
members to other offices, 204; taxation, powers and duties, 
107; statement ot receipts and expenditures published annu¬ 
ally, 207; impeachment of officers, 209; time of first session, 
211, 225; who eligible to seats in, 226; persons ineligibb-, if 
guilty of defalcation or embezzlement, 226 ; prohibitions, di¬ 
vorces, suspending power of appointments to office, 227, 228; 
restr-iined from passing retroactive laws, <fec., 232,241 ; pro¬ 
hibition of extra compensation, <fcc., 252; signature of bills on 
passage, 256; per diem and milage ofmembers, 260,261; re¬ 
strained from assuming local debt, 427 ; limited in creating 
State debt, 427, 

Gillett, Mr. a delegate from Lawrence— 

Remarks on appropriating private property for public use, 260- 
on compensation of members of General Assembly, 260 ; on 
the veto power, 276; presentation ot petitions, 278, 337, 
545; remarks relative to the election of an officer to be 
styled Commissioner of Agriculture, 500; on report on Pub¬ 
lic Debt and Public Works, 953,955; resolution restricting 
debate, 12,55; remarks on propriety of establishing a Bureau 
of Statistics, 1364. 

Governor— 

Qualifications of, age and residence, 268 ; election of, 272; trial 
of contested elections, 272; pardoning power, 272; ineligi¬ 
bility of federal officers, 273; authenticates, grants and com¬ 


missions, 273; qualified veto considered, 274; salary of, 279, 
287; power to fill vacancies, 290, 292; proposed power ot 
appointment, 490; remarks on finance and taxatii/n, 708 ; 
petitions presented by, 712,841,895, 965, 11.37, il83, 1236, 
1354. 

Graham, Mr. a delegate from Franklin— 

Resolution upon organization of probate courts, 86; upon 
rights of accused in criminal prosecutions, 164, 

Gray, Mr. a delegate from Lake— 

Resolution respecting tugitive slaves, 87 ; inviting U. S. Sena¬ 
tor Hale to seat within bar of Convention, 819; amendment 
to report of committee on Preamble and Billot Rights, 984; 
resolution fixing the hour of meeting, 1039; amendment to 
report on Legislative Department, relative to erection of new 
counties, 1214; petitions presented by, 1322 ; amendment to 
report on Apportionment providing for single districts, and 
remarks thereon, 1423. 

Gregg, Mr. a delegate from Columbiana— 

Remarks on publication of debates in German, 60, 61 ; remarks 
and amendment on publication of debates in English, 73 ; on 
election districts, 147 ; on the office of State Printer, 200; re¬ 
marks and proposition on comp, ot members ol Grm. Assein. 
261; on salary of Governor, 279; on granting right ot way 
to corporations, 402, 404; on State debt, 423, 425,426; amend¬ 
ment and remarks as to Sinking Fund, 475; remarks on a 
reformed system of legal procedure, 504; communication 
from Wm. Neil, presented by, 695; petitions presented by, 
783; remarks on motion to reconsider resolution relative to 
census, 676'; on his proposition to tax loans, discounts, and 
capital of banks, 779; amendment to sec. 26 of report on Le¬ 
gislative Department, relative to eligibility to seat in General 
Assembly, 840,841,844; amendment relative to compensa¬ 
tion ofmembers of General Assembly, 869; relative to sub 
mission ol laws to the people, 877, 880 ; remarks in reply to 
Mr. Case, of Licking, 937; on report on Pub. Debt and Pub. 
Works, 960, 1062, 10'63 ; on proposition to give Pub. Printing 
to lowest bidd^-r, 1211 ; on amendments to report on Educa¬ 
tion, 1314; amendment to report on Education, 13l7; re¬ 
marks on finance and taxation, 1201, 1398; amendment to 
report on Miscellaneous subjects, 1400. 

Green, Jacob, a delegate Irom Defiance— 

Resolution for appointment of committee on Printing, 7; re¬ 
marks explanatory of report on Education, 661; resolution 
on opening morning session with prayer, 675 ; remarks rela¬ 
tive to election of Superintendent of Common Schools by the 
people, 1318 ; amendment to report on Apportionment, 1389. 

Green, John L. a delegate from Ross— 

Remarks on furnishing newspapers to members, 13; on his 
resolution catling for information of business of courts, 14 ; 
on publication of Debates, 17, 70; on circular to clerks of 
courts, 22; on the order of business, 35; on publication of 
Debates in German, 58, 59,102. 105; his plan of a Judiciary, 
115; remarks on term of Senators, 189; on the majoriry vote 
for bills, 200; on ineligibility to other office of member of 
General Assembly, 204; on retroactive laws, 232, 243,247, 
276, 279 ; amendment as to term ot State officers, 300; re¬ 
marks on limit to State debt, 427; on establishing a Sinking 
Fund, 452; on adjournment to Cleveland, 529; on the Judi¬ 
ciary article, 646; on adjournment to Cincinnati, 666; pre¬ 
sentation of credentials of Mr. Worthington, 675; remarks 
on finance and taxation, 709, 781; on taxing State stocks, 734 ; 
amendment proposed to report on Finance and Taxation, 
787, 792; remarks on proposition for a substitute for report 
on Finance and Taxation, 792; on biennial sessions, 804, 807, 
petitions presented by, 849, 908 993 ; remarks on report on 
Pub. Debt and Pub. Works, 956, 960 ; on report on Preamble 
and Bill of Rights, 974, 983 ; on election of Supreme Judges 
by tbe people, 997, 1000 ; on report on Future Amendments 
to Constitution, 1069; on report of select com. on Temper¬ 
ance, 1077, 1091; speech on right ot Legislative Repeal, 1167, 
1171, 1241; personal explanation as to remarks made on 
Repeal question, 1173; remarks on report on Leg, Dep. 1189, 
1190, 1191, 1195,1199,1200; relative to enactment of curative 
laws. 1216,1217; amendment to report on Corporations other 
than banks, and remarks thereon, 1262, 1266; remarks on 
amendments to report on Judiciary, 1285, 1287, 1295, 1299, 
1309; relative to having more full reports of Convention, 
1294; amendment to, and remarks on Apportionment, 1361, 
1422; remarks on Representative Apportionment, 1370, 1373, 
1381, 1384; on Mr. Holt’s proposition relative to Banks and 
Currency, 1406; amendment to, and remarks on Preamble, 
1418; resolution of thanks to Hon. Wm. Medill, President of 
Convention, and remarks thereon, 1448. 

Groesbeck, Mr. a delegate from Hamilton— 

Resolution providing seats for Reporters of Cincinnati Press, 
690; remarks relative to the taxation of burial grounds, 721, 
729 ; proposition to amend report ot Committee on Finance 
and Taxation, 721; remarks on taxing State stocks, 759 ; on 
terms of judges, 794 ; on qualifications for judges, 795; on 
the right of Legislative Repeal, 825, 829, 848, 909', 1154, 1169 ; 
on rights of private property taken for public use, 837, 888 ; 
on granting use of Convention Hall for lectures, 842; peti¬ 
tions presented by, 849, 886; amendment to section providing 
that cities, counties and towns shall not contract debts, &c., 
960; remarks relative to rights of accused to trial, and the 
mode thereof, 975 ; relative to jurisdiction of Supreme Court, 
1002; relative to amendments to report on Judicial Depart¬ 
ment, 1012; amendment to report on Legislative Department, 
1205; remarks in relation to city charters and corporations. 






INDEX. 


Vll 


1276; in relatiuu to municipal corporations, 1279 ; • n church 
taxation, 1335 on representative apportionment, 1371; 
amendment to report on county and township organizations, 
1436; resolution relative to allowing extra compensation to 
Secretaries of Convention, 1442; remarks on tiuauce and 
taxation, 1446. 

Hamilton, Mr. a delegate from Union — 

Remarks on proposition to adjourn over, 665; speech in relation 
to proposition of Mr. Leech, relative to giving the public 
printing to lowest bidder, 1207,1211; remarks on amend 
ments to report on Education, 1314. 

Hale, Jno. P., U. S. Senator— 

Invited to a seat within bar of Convention Chamber, 819. 

Hard, Mr. a delegate from Jackson— 

Petitions presented by, 676, 802, 886; motion to reconsider 
vote on Mr. Vance’s amendment relative to legislative repeal, 
discussion and vote thereon, 895, 905, 908, 928, 931; remarks 
on the risilit of petition, 40. 

Harlan, Mr. a delegate from Greene— 

Petitions presented by, 264, 348, 849, 965, 1005. 

Jlawkins, Mr. a delegate from Morgan— 

Remarks on the form of oath for members, 3, 4 ; on arrange¬ 
ment of business, 25, 7 ; on purchasing newspapers for mem¬ 
bers, 13 ; on circular to clerks of courts, 23; on langtiage ol 
preamble to Mr. Williams’ resolution, 66; on publication of 
debates, 89, 90, 95, 67, 69, 74 ; on veto power, 88, 309 ; on ap¬ 
portionment, &c., 130; on adjournment to Cleveland, 265, 
526; on creating the office of lieutenant governor, 268; on 
the salary of the governor, 283 ; amendment as to extra ses¬ 
sions, .301; remarks on capital punishment, 304 ; on corpora¬ 
tions, 310; on individual liability of corporators, 356, 357, 
369 ; on amendment to rules of order, 392; on militia sys¬ 
tem, 409; on limitation of State debt, 423, 425; on sinking 
fund, 428, 436, 439, 440, 442, 444, 467, 468, 471, 473 ; on the 
return of a currency petition, 430, 439 ; on powers and duties 
of sinking fund commissiom rs, 476, 485 ; on prison discipline, 
495 ; on presentation of petitions. 532, 592, 618, 655, 665; on 
resolution on preparation for adjournment, 590; remarks 
on a hfteen minutes rule, 591; on the judiciary article, 603 : 
on adjournment to Cincinnati, 666,671; resolution relative to 
transmission of reports to printer, 676; petitions presented 
by, 614, 734, 812, 819, 908, 941, 1052,1096, 1237 ; remarks on 
elective franchise, 679, 680; on education, 687; on capital 
punishment, 691, 692, 699, 703; on finance and taxation, 710, 
719,1363,1399; on taxing State bonds, 771, 1.347; on taxing 
United States bonds, 788; amendment relative to the com¬ 
pensation of judges, 795-6; remarks on biennial sessions, 806, 
812; on the right of legislative repeal, 825, 1242, 1249; on lo¬ 
cal legislation, 834 ; on rights of private property, taken for 
public use, 835, 836; on formation of new counties, 866; re¬ 
solution relative to census returns, 908 ; remarks relative to 
the establishment of the office of comptroller of the treasury, 
944 ; relative to public debt and public works, 945, 953, 959, 
961,1006,1063; relative to the right of petition, 972; amend¬ 
ments to report on preamble and bill of rights, and remarks 
thereon, 973, 976, 979; amendments to report on preamble 
and bill of rights, 783, 1099,1109; remarks on jurisdiction of 
supreme court, 1001; amendment and remarks on report of 
committee on judicial department, 1007, 1028; remarks on 
amendment to report on banks and currency, 1042, 1050-1 ; 
amendment and remarks thereon, on report on banks and 
currency, 1054; remarks against legalizing traffic in spirituous 
liquors, 1073, 1079,1329; on report on legislative department, 
1193,1197, 1198; on amendment to report on preamble, &c., 
1120, 1125; reply to Mr. Reemelin on a question of privilege, 
1126; remarks on proposition to give public printing to low¬ 
est bidder, 1213; relative to African colonization,1223; on 
report of committee on preamble and bill of rights 1305; on 
report of committee on apportionment, 1376; on subject of 
printing, 1419. 

Henderson, Mr. a delegate from Richland— 

Remarks upon the brevity and point of prayer, 14 ; on the right 
of petition 40; on the veto power, 99; on dueling, 231; on 
individual liability of corporators, 376 ; on militia system, 414, 
420; on adjournment to Cincinnati, 767 ; petitions presented 
by, 972; remarks on report of committee on executive de¬ 
partment, 978; on report of committee on banks and curren¬ 
cy, 1054,1056; amendment to report on preamble and bill of 
rights, and remarks thereon, 1414,1417. 

Hitchcock, R. a delegate from Cuyahoga— 

Remarks on petition for removal of colored people, 11; on cir¬ 
cular to clerks of courts, 12,24, 41; on publication of debates, 
74, 75, 76 ; on apportionment, 109; on biennial sessions, 184 ; 
on trial of legislative contests for seats, 199 ; on impeachment 
of officers, 209; presentation of petitions, 239; remarks on 
qualifications for the office of governor, 269; on the salary of 
governor, 283, 286; amendment relating to salary of State of¬ 
ficers, 286; remarks on compensation by corporations for 
right of way, 404, 405; on the militia system, 408, 410, 414, 
421; on limitation of State debt, 423,424, 425,426; on sinking 
fund, 431, 434, 435, 438, 440, 441, 442, 449, 552, 554, 555, 460, 
464, 467, 468, 469; on powers and duties of sinking fund com¬ 
missioners, 479,482; substitute for Mr. Reemelin’s amend¬ 
ment, 487; remarks relative to board of public works, 488; 
on finance and taxation, 730, 731, 709, 719,1341,1342; on the 
pcjlitics of “free sellers,’’ 728; as to what church property is 
taxed, 730; resolution calling for information relative to is¬ 
sue of State stocks, 742, 744; petitions presented by, 887; re¬ 
marks relative to the right of way for public improvements. 


887; on “public debt and public works,’’ 312, 949, 959, 961; 
relative to “law reform,” 968 ; on preamble and bill of rights, 
973, 974; on temperance question, 1088; on right of negro 
suffrage, 1179; on report on legislative department, 1194, 
1201; on report on apportionment, 1378. 

Hitchcock, P. a delegate from Geauga— 

Administers oath of office to delegates, 4 ; remarks on printing, 
27 ; on copy-rights of debates, 65 ; on the veto power, 101; 
on German publication of debates, 102,104 ; on single House 
of General Assembly, 144 ; on biennial sessions, 156; on the 
majority vote for bills, 199; on impeachment of officers, 209, 
210; on retroactive legislation, 241; on county legislative 
board, 256; the appropriation of private property for public 
use, 259; on the office of lieutenant governor, 300 ; on filling 
vacancies in State offices. 290; on terms of State officers, 296; 
on capital punishment, 303 ; on corporations, 310,325; on re¬ 
peal of acts of incorporation, 331; on individual liability of 
corporators, 237, 343, 389; on compensation by corporations 
for right of way, 402, 403, 404; on limit to State debt, 427; 
on a sinking fund, 443; on powers and duties of sinking fund 
commissioners, 484 ; on public institutions, 494; on prison 
discipline, on revised code of legal procedure, 503, 511; on 
adjournment to Cleveland, 527 ; on adjournment over, 532 ; 
on election by general ticket of justices of supreme court, 534; 
on the number of justices of supreme court, 536; on the or¬ 
ganization of a district court, 566; on taking cases under ad¬ 
visement, 549; on the judiciary article, 574, 596, 613 ; on the 
jurisdiction of county courts, 613, 616; on clerk of county 
courts, 618 ; on the terms of judges, 619, 620, 627 ; resolu¬ 
tions to adjourn. 662; remarks thereon, 662; on adjournment 
to Cincinnati, 670; remarks on the right of petition, 973; on 
the preamble and bill of rights, 974, 976,982, 1102, 1184,1304; 
on motion to instruct the committee on executive department, 
to amend report, and demand of yeas and nays, 978; on re- 
port on public institutions, 988; on report on militia, 9 h 2, 
995 ; on election of supreme judges by people, 998, 1000,1002; 
oetitiona presented by, 1006; remarks on report of commit¬ 
tee on public debt and public works, 1006,1063 ; on amend¬ 
ment report of committee on judicial department, 696,1007, 
1009, I0l9, 1295, 1300, 1312; amendment to report of com¬ 
mittee on judicial department. 1029; remarks on report on 
future amendment to constitution, 1066,1071; speech on the 
right of legislative repeal, 1162, 1241; remarks relative to 
prohibiting emigration of black and mulatto persons, 1221 ; 
on deqaanding previous question, 1260; on amendments to 
report on corporations other than banking, 1262; on bank 
taxation, &c., 1283 ; on report on preamble and bill of rights, 
1305; on amendments to report on education, 1313, 1320; 
on report on temperance question, 1331; on finance and tax¬ 
ation, 1.345; on report and senatorial apportionment, 1365, 
1367, 1380, 1389, 1391; amendment to report on apportion¬ 
ment, and remarks thereon, 1383; remarks on statutes of 
limitations, 1409; on fixing day to vote on new constitution, 
1416. 

Holmes, Mr. a delegate from Hamilton— 

Amendment to resolution prescribing oath of office, 4 ; remarks 
on the order of business, 33; on publication of debates in 
German, 58; on publication of debates in English, 74; on 
biennial sessions, 186 ; on terms of State officers, 294; on in¬ 
dividual liability of corporators, 334, 384; report from stand¬ 
ing committee on apportionment, 416; remarks on printing 
said report, 465; petitions presented by, 532; motion to 
amend instructions to committee on education, 689 ; petitions 
presented by, 812, 1005, 1094 1118, 1183; motion to amend 
section 35, of report on legislative department, 824 ; remarks 
on right of legislative repeal, 830; amendment relative to eli¬ 
gibility to office, 841; remarks relative to grand juries, 975 ; 
on amendment to report of committee on judicial department, 
1007, 1038 ; on report on public debt and public works, 1063; 
on report of select committee on temperance, 1094, 1325; on 
report of committee on legislative department, 1201; on pro¬ 
position to give public printing to lowest responsible bidder, 
1213; amendment and remarks relative to prohibiting immi¬ 
gration of blacks and mulattoes, 1221,1222; remarks on cor¬ 
porations, 1269; on taxing banks and other municipal corpo 
rations, 1283 ; resolution relative to printing report No. 2, on 
apportionment, 1321; remarks on church taxation, 1343; on 
report of committee on apportionment, 1360,1368,1372,1375, 
1376,1387,1390; amendment to report of committee on ap¬ 
portionment, 1422. 

Holt, Mr. a delegate from Montgomery— 

His plan for a codification of the laws, 133; proposition for 
qualified veto, and remarks thereon. 274; reports from stand¬ 
ing committee on jurisprudence, 302; remarks on terms ot 
officers, 298; on capital punishment, 303; on repeal of acts of 
incorporation, 331; on powers and duties of sinking fund 
commissioners, 483; on public institutions, 494; on prison dis¬ 
cipline, 499; on article on jurisprudence, 501, 502, 509; on 
proposition to adjourn to Cleveland, 529, 53; on the organi¬ 
zation of the supreme court, 536: on the judiciary, 598; pe¬ 
titions presented by, 545, 579 ; motion to incorporate section 
4 of minority report on education in report of majority, 689, 
remarks on capital punishment, 699 ; on taxing State stocks, 
764; petitions presented by 771; remarks on his amendment 
relative to the possession ofthe/ee simple of real estate, the 
use of which is only required for the public, 883, 892; motion 
to reconsider vote by which the words ex post facto were 
substituted for “retroactive,” in report on legislative depart¬ 
ment, 928; amendment to report on public debt and public 












viii 


INDEX. 


works, 9G2 ; amendment to report on jurisprudence, and re¬ 
marks thereon, 325, 962, 963, 972 ; remarks on amendment to 
report on judicial department, 1030,1296,1310 ; proposition 
and remarks thereon, relative to banks and currency, 1033 ; 
resolution on right of legislative repeal, 1177 ; remarks on re¬ 
port, and amendment to, on future amendments to constitu¬ 
tion, 1067,1072; on legislative repeal, 1142; on granting spe¬ 
cial privileges, 1185; on report on legislative department, 
1188, 1195, 1197 ; resolution instructing committee on bill of 
rights to incorporate certain matter in their report, 1202; re¬ 
marks on biennial sessions, 1206; relative to enactment of cu¬ 
rative and retroactive laws, 1216,1221; relative to State sup¬ 
port of common schools, 706, 1309. 

Hootman Mr., a delegate from Ashland— 

Resolutions on Banking, 49 ; remarks on biennial sessions, 188; 
on the Judiciary article, 588 ; petitions presented by, 429, 490, 
875, 908, 972. 

Horton Mr., a delegate from Meigs— 

Remarks on biennial sessions, 171; on corporations, 304, 305, 
325; on fifteen minutes rule, 656; on apportionment, 678, 
1379 ; on Finance and taxation, 710, 722, 724 ; on taxing State 
and U. S. stocks, 731, 743: petitions presented by, 841, 977; 
remarks on^the restriction of debate, 842; on report of Com. 
on Militia, 993, 995; amendment to resolution of Mr. Leidy 
restricting debate, 1153 ; remarks on Bank taxation, (fee., 1396. 

Hour of meeting, 19,93,133,155, 178, 446. 676, 870. 

Humphreyville Mr., a delegate from Medina— 

Remarks on oath of office by delegates, 3; on memorial for ex- 

. tradition of colored people, 11; on purchasing newspapers 
for members, 13; on opening sessions with prayer, 14; on 
publication of debates, 59, 68 ; on the veto power, 94 ; on Mr. 
Reemelin’s scheme of apportionment. 110; on amendment of 
laws, 203 ; on ineligibility to other offices of members of the 
General Asssembly, 206; on impeachment of officers, 211; on 
duelling, 229; on retroactive legislation, 249; on appropria¬ 
tion of private property for public use, 260; on qualification 
for office of Governor, 269 ; on salaries of State officers, 286 ; 
on repeal of acts of incoi'poration, 326 ; on individual liability 
of incorporators, 350; on printing extra copies of Judicial 
report, 390 ; on grant of rights of way to corporations, 402; 
on the Judiciary article, 602, 613 ; on organization of county 
courts, 603, 615, 616, 617; on limiting speeches tafifteen min¬ 
utes, 655 ; motion to strike out proviso of sec. 4 of minority 
report on Education, 689; petitions presented by, 696, 1024, 
1308 ; remarks on capital punishment, 701; on Finance and 
taxation, 706, 710, 715, 722, 779, 1336 ; on inviting Amin Bey 
to a seat within the bar of the Convention, 729 ; resolution 
relative to procuring copies of the general laws, 734 ; amend¬ 
ment to report on Finance and taxation, 779, 787; remarks 
relative to contracting Public debt for construction of works 
of Improvement, 785 ; relative to qualifications for office, 795; 
relative to Clerks of Courts, 796 ; on the right of Legislative 
repeal, 825, 827, 829, 843, 1120, 1176,1230 ; on rights of pri¬ 
vate property taken for public use, 840, 887 ; amendment to 
section 35 of rep. on Legislative department relative to right 
of Legislative repeal and remarks thereon, 843, 844, 849, 895; 
amendments to report on Legislative department relative to 
right of protest, 869 ; remarks relative to passage of laws to 
take effect upon contingency of approval by any authority 
not provided for in constitution, 877, 880; notice of motion 
to change rules relative to effect of previous question, 895; 
resolution to change rules relative to eflect of previous ques¬ 
tion, 928 ; amendments to report on Ex. Dep., 944 ; remarks 
on a sinking f und, 961; amendments to preamble and remarks 
thereon, 974, 977 ; remarks on report of committee on Public 
Institutions, 986, 988 ; on report of committee on Judicial de¬ 
partment, 1011, 1287,1297, 2298 ; on report and amendments 
on Banks and Currency, 1057; on report and amendments on 
future amendments to constitution, 1069 ; on relation to ne¬ 
gro suffrage, 1180 ; on amendments to report on Legislative 
department, 1193 ; on giving public printing to lowest bidder, 
1209 ; on colonization of blacks and mulattoes, 1222 ; on 
amendments to report on corporations other than banks, 
1263; on amendments to report on Militia, 1302 ; on report on 
Education, 704, 1312,1317 ; on motion to reconsider report 
of select committee on Temperance question, 1325; on reso¬ 
lution of Mr. Sawyer relative to duties of secretary, &c., 
1433. 

Hunt Mr., a delegate from Lucas— 

Resolution on representative apportionment, 45; ineligibility of 
Judges to offices, 85 ; remarks on sinking fund, 440; amend¬ 
ment to article on public institutions, 493; presentation of 
credentials of Mr. Chaney, 675 ; petitions presented by, 676, 
958 ; motion to reconsider vote upon Reemelin’s amendment 
to report on Education, 688 ; remarks on biennial sessions, 
808. 

Hunter Mr., a delegate from Ashtabula— 

Remarks on the subject of Education, 301; on equal rights, 301; 
report as chairman of select Committee on capital punish¬ 
ment, 665; petitions presented by, 1237, 1290; remarks on 
elective franchise, 1337. 

Impeachment of Officers— 

Resolution and remarks of Mr. Curry, 115; report of standing 
committee on Judicial department respecting removal of 
inferior officers, 259; provisions considered, 264. 

Individual liability of corporators, 332, 388. 

Ineligibility of members of Gen, Assembly for other offices, 204. 

Ipterest on Public Debt— 

Amendment of Mr. Chambers to Legislative report, 207. 


Invitations to the Convention— o- • 

From Young Mens’ Mercantile Library Association of Cincin¬ 
nati, 675; from Ohio Mechanics’ Institute, /04; from Pres t 
of Western Art Union, 742. 

Johnson, Mr a delegate from Coshocton— _ 

Petitions presented by, 389; communications relative to vote 
on report on Corporations, 1307. . ^ 

Jones, Mr. a delegate from Hamilton. (See list of members.) 

Judicial Department— , _ ... - 

Appointment of standing committee thereon, 4o; resolution of 
Mr. Hunt, on ineligibility of Judges toother offices, 85; of 
Mr. Graham, to inquire into the proprietj of certain changes, 
86; of Mr. Dorsey, on imposition of penalties by the Legis¬ 
lature, 87 ; plan of Mr. Green, of Ross, 115; of Mr. HMt, f 
r-“port ot standing committee—draft of an article, 4Uo, 
490; discussion on printing thereof, 390; plan of Mr. Ranney, 
501; discussion of article as reported by standing commitU^, 
533; petitions relative to jurisdiction of county courts, 696; 
report of standing committee thereon considered in commit¬ 
tee of the whole, 793, 1285, 1438; do do considered in 
convention, 997, 1001, 1009, 1020, 1025, 1036,^1294, 1300; 
amendments proposed, 794, 795, /96, 801, 1295; clerks ot 
courts,' 796, 800. 

Judges, 793. . , ^ t.. ■_ a 

Election of Supreme Judges, 553; memorial from Richard 
Randolph. 849; report of select committee on, 1116 ; propo¬ 
sition of Mr. Collings on the subject, 1117; final passage of 
report, 1312; report. No. 2, of standing committee, 1425; of 
committee on Rev. & Enr., 1439. 

Jurisprudence— 

Appointment of standing committee thereon, 45; resolution of 
Mr. Smith, of Wyandot, 46; of Mr. Morris, relative to the 
expediency of dispensing with “John Doe and Richard Roe,” 
in ejectment, 49 ; report of standing committee—draft of an 
article, 302, 337 ; discussion of the same, 501; report ot stand¬ 
ing committee, as amended, considered in convention, 962; 
report of committee ordered to be enrolled, 1437. 

Kennon, Mr. a delegate from Belmont— 

Remarks on the publication of the debates, 71; on biennial 
sessions, 168, 175; presentation of petitions, 206, 318, 997; 
report, as chairman, of standing committee on Judicial de¬ 
partment, 390; remarks on the Judiciary, 390; on individual 
liability of corporators, 398; on the duty to receive petitions, 
416 ; on adjournment to Cleveland, 527; on number of Jus¬ 
tices of Supreme Court, 5.35 ; on Judiciary article, 547, 556, 
574, 577; on terms of judges, 619; on adjournment to Cin¬ 
cinnati, 671; on taxation of U. S. bonds, 788; on term of office 
of clerks of courts, 797 ; on right of Legislative repeal, 847, 
905, 1133,1135, 1136,1137, 1138 ; on right ot way for public 
improvements, 887; on report on “Public Debt and Public 
Works,” 948; on amendments to report on Judicial depart¬ 
ment, 1019, 1022, 1027, 1298; on amendments to report on 
Banks and Currency, 1053; on report ot select committee on 
Temperance, 1089; on report on Legislative department, 1194. 

King, Mr. a delegate from Butler— 

Remarks on apportionment, 122; on single house of General 
Assembly, 123,145; presentation of petitions, 348,849; on 
appointment of officers in benevolent institutions, 493; on 
sinking fund, 440 ; amendment for excluding colored persons 
from public institutions, 493; remarks on terms of district 
courts, 595 ; on adjournment over, 660, 661; on adjournment 
to Cincinnati, 670; questions propounded to Mr. Vance, of 
Butler, 852; remarks on the right of Legislative repeal, 858; 
amendment relative to the right of, do, 895; amendment to 
report on Apportionment, 1423. 

Kirkwood, Mr. a delegate from Richland— 

Remarks on publication of debates in German, 59,105; on bi¬ 
ennial sessions, 179, 222; on compensation of State officers, 
204; amendment to 19th section of Legislative report, 205, 
206; remarks on duelling, 231; amendment, and remarks, 
on appropriation of private property for public use, 259; 
presentation of petitions, 297; remarks on his amendment to 
section defining eligibility to office of Governor, 268, 271; on 
the veto power, 276 ; on individual liability of corporations, 
360; on printing extra copies of Judicial report, 391; on 
compensation, by corporations, lor right of way, 402, 403, 
405; on militia system, 418, 419; on limit to State debt, 423, 
424 ; on terms suitable for petitions, 430, 449; on sinking 
fund, 437, 445; on powers and duties of sinking fund com¬ 
missioners, 480, 487; on the number of Justices of Supreme 
Court, 535; on a judicial system, 540 ; on the organization of 
the District Court. 544; on the Judiciary article, 575, 594 ; 
amendment relative to criminal jurisdiction of county courts, 
618; remarks on adjournment to Cincinnati. 669; on finance 
and taxation, 705, 706, 719, 723, 786,1396, 1388,1430 ; amend¬ 
ment proposed to Judiciary report, 795,798; remarks on 
right of way, 835 ; amendments to sec. 38 of report on Le¬ 
gislative department, relative to right of way, and remarks 
thereon. 839, 840; remarks on right of repeal, 844, 845, 847, 
848,1176,1238,1246,1248,1251; amendment relative to right 
of repeal, 848; remarks on “Public Debt and Public Works,” 
946, 948, 960; amendment to report on “ Public Debt and 
Public Works,” 961; remarks relative to “Law Reform,” 
967; on report on Preamble, 975,1183 ; on report of commit¬ 
tee on Public Institutions, 987; on amendments to report of 
committee on Judicial department, 1008; amendment to re¬ 
port on Banks and Currency, and remarks thereon, 1057; 
remarks relative to license question, 460, 1073, 1075, 1095; 
amendment to resolution of Mr. Leidy, restricting debate. 











INDEX, 


IX 


H53; report of committee on Privileges and Elections, in 
case of Mr. Vance, 1173; remarks on amendment to report 
on Legislative department, 1188, 1193 ; amendment to, and 
remarks, on subject of biennial sessions, 1206; resolution au 
thorizing Door keeper to employ assistant, 1273; remarks on 
city charters and corporations, 1277; amendment and re¬ 
marks on Judicial department, 1285; remarks relative to 
having more lull reports of Conven ion, 1294 ; on law retorm, 
1297; on banks and currency, 1406; on subject of printing, 
1418. 

Larsh, Mr. a delegate from Preble— 

Remarks on his motion to make the qualifications of age for 
members of General Assembly that of an elector, 189; on 
the terms ol Senators, 196, on the veto of Governor, 275; on 
his amendment requiring State officers to reside at Columbus, 
288; on the terms of officers of State, 295; on corporations, 
322; on compensation, by corporations, tor right of way, 
404, 448; amendments and remarks on militia system, 456, 
419; remar ks on limit to State debt, 427; on the e'ective 
franchise, 681; amendments moved to report on Education, 
688 ; petition.^ presented by, 783, 801, 886, 941; remarks rela 
live to private property taken lor public use, 840; relative 
to right of repeal, 845,1248; amendments to report on Legis¬ 
lative department, 869, 1192; amendments to report on Ex¬ 
ecutive department, 940; remarks on “ Public Debt and 
Public Works,” 947, 960, 1063; on amendment to report of 
committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights, 982, 1417, 1418; 
on report on Public Institutions, 988; on proposition on re-*^ 
port of committee on the Militia, 991; on jurisdiction of 
Supreme (.ourt, 1002; on report on future amendments to 
Constitution, 430, 1065, 1067 ; on temperance question, 1095; 
on a question of privilege raised by Mr. Reemelin, 1128; 
resolutions relative to adoption of new Constitution, 1293; 
remarks on report on Judicial department, 1298, 1301; reso¬ 
lution limiting time of speaking, 1359 ; remarks on subject of 
printing, 1418; report of committee on the revision of the 
Journal, 1449. 

Larwill Mr., a delegate from Wayne— 

Remarks on being called to the chair during temporary organ¬ 
ization, 2 ; on providing for ihe printing of the Convention, 
7, 6; on printing, 26; on the publication of debates in Ger¬ 
man ,60, 68, 73 ; on single House ot General Assembly, 145 ; 
presentation of petitions, 238, 712, 755 ; remarks on adjourn¬ 
ment to Cleveland, 265, 526; on pardoning power of Govern¬ 
or, 273; on salary of Governor, 280; on printing extra cop¬ 
ies ot Judicial report, 392; on compensation by corporations 
for right of way, 402,405; on militia system, 410; on the 
right of petition, 416; reports back from standing committee 
on banks and a currency petition, 439; remarks on, 439; on 
election of Board of Public Works, 489 ; on prison discipline, 
498 ; on the Judiciary, 589, 606 ; on the terms of Judges, 619; 
presentation ot credentials of Hon. E. Wilson, 681 ; remarks 
on the Elective Franchise, 681; on proposition to adjourn to 
Columbus, 694 ; on Finance and taxation, 707, 710, 778 ; re¬ 
marks on official term of Clerks of Courts, 797; on restriction 
of debate, 841; on salaries of Supreme Judges, 1004 ; on re¬ 
port of committee on Banks and Currency, 1042,1053; on re¬ 
port of committee on future amendments to Constitution, 
1066, 1071; on report of select committee on Temperance, 
1091,1332; amendment to resolution of Mr. Leidy restricting 
debate, 1153 ; remarks on granting special privileges, 1184 ; 
on amendment to report on Legislative department, 1214 ; 
on Legislative repeal, 1239; on report on Judicial department, 
1311; on amendments to report on apportionm'nt, 1379, 
1381; amendment to Report No. 2 on Schedule and remarks 
thereon, 1416; remarks on preamble, 1418 ; on corporations 
other than banks, 1445. 

Lawrence Mr., a delegate from Guernsey— 

Remarks on duelling, 231; presentation of petitions, 238, 532, 
835, 867, 928, 1362; remarks on abolition of capital punish¬ 
ment, 302 ; on adjournment to Cincinnati, 667, 669 ; on capi¬ 
tal punishment, 691,692; on proposition to adjourn to Co¬ 
lumbus, 694 ; on the course pursued by editor of Ohio States¬ 
man, relative to July adjournment, 694 ; on his resolution n- 
viting Amin Bey to a seat within the bar ot convention, 729 ; 
record of vote on resolution exempting U, S. bonds from tax 
ation, 793; remarks on compensation of members of the Gen. 
Assembly, 869 ; on the rights of private property taken lor 
public use, 891, 892; on right of Legislative repeal, 1174 ; on 
giving public printing to lowest respective bidder, 1211; on 
report of committee on Militia, 1302; communication from 
Mr. Johnston t)f Coshocton, 1306 ; remarks on the traffic ia 
intoxicating drinks, 1324 1326,1333, 1395; on representative 
apportionment, 1358, 1380 ; resolution fixing a per diem of 
messenger boys, 1409 ; resolution instructing committee on 
Revision, &c., to amend report on miscellaneous subjects, 
1445 ; remarks on Finance and Taxation. 1447 ; resolution 
tendering thanks of Convention to Clersymen of Cincinnati, 
1448 ; resolution tendering thanks to Young Men’s Mer. Li¬ 
brary Association, 1450 ; resolution lor signing the Constitu¬ 
tion. 1461. 

Leadbetter Mr., a delegate from Hohnes— 

Remarks on his resolution for the arrangement of business, 5; 
reports Irom Standing committee on Executive department, 
211; remarks on county legislative boards, 256; on the office 
of Lieutenant Governor, 268 ; on the veto power,|276 ; on the 
salary ot Governor, 282 ; on salaries of State officers, 287; on 
filling vacancies in State offices, 292 ; amendment to article 
on Public Institutions, 499 ; remarks on a revised code of le¬ 


gal procedure, 511, 525; on the Judiciary article, 569 ; on a 
fifteen minutes rule for speeches, 591; presentation of peti¬ 
tions, 654 ; remarks on adjournment to Cincinnati, 672; res¬ 
olution appointing H. O’Key Sergeant at Arms, 679 ; remarks 
relative to article on Education, 688 ; on capital punishment 
692, 693 ; petitions presented by, 771, 1183 ; remarks on the 
right of Legislative repea 1, 831, 1174 ; motion to adjourn, 928; 
amendment to report on Public Debt and Public Works, 961, 
1006 ; report on Executive department, 963 ; remarks on re¬ 
port or Preamble and Bill of Rights, 1097, 1104 ; report of se¬ 
lect committee on Judiciary department, 1116; remarks in 
relation to African colonization, 1222; on amendments to re¬ 
port on corporations other than banks, 1263, 1270 ; on Judi- 
ciary reform, 1289; resolution and remarks on his resolution a 
relative to having lull reports of constitution; 1293 ; amend¬ 
ment to report on Judiciary, 1300; remarks on amendments 
to report on the militia, 1302 ; remarks on amendments to re¬ 
port on Education, 1312, 1315, 1317 ; on subject of licensing 
sale of ardent spirits, 1329 ; on taxing State stocks and U. S, 
stocks, 1347,1348,1350, 1351 ; on Finance and Taxation, 1356; 
on statutes of lim tations, 1409 ; amendment to report on Pre¬ 
amble 1426 ; resolution tor transmission of papers and docu¬ 
ments, 1461. 

Leech Mr, a delegate from Guernsey— 

Remarks on printing, 25 ; on publication of debates in German, 
60; on publication ol debates in English, 75; on printing 
Journal, 77 ; on his amendment to section 36 of report on Le-t 
gislative department prohibiting special acts of incorporation, 
251; on his amendment to article on Militia, 422 ; on State 
debt, 426; relative to the position of the Democratic party in 
Ohio on the right of Legislative repeal—in reply to Mr. Case, 
900. 936 ; petitions presented by, 928 ; amrndment to report 
on Preamble and Bill of Rights, 973 ; amendme t to report 
of standing committee on Executive department and remarks 
thereon, 978 ; amendment on com. and report of Editorial 
Convention, 1025; femarks on report of Com. on Banks and 
Currency, 1044, 1053; on report on Preamble and Bill of 
Rights, 1100, 1119,1121; resolution instructing committee to 
amend report on Preamble and Bill of Rights, 1185; remarks 
on subject of the election of State printer, 1187; amendment 
to report on Public Printing jpelative to letting to lowest bid¬ 
der and remarks thereon, 1207,1210; remarks on corpora¬ 
tions, 1265, 1291; report of select Committee on printing, 
1410 ; remarks on the subject of Printing, 1419 ; on proposi¬ 
tion of Mr. Sawyer, relative to transcribing journals, 1433; 
report from committee on Printing, 1439. 

Legislative Department— 

Appointment of standing committee thereon, 45; resolution of 
Mr. Firestone, 50; of Mr. Leech, 50; of Mr. Benn tt relative 
to quorum, 51; of Mr. Larsh relative to organization of 
House of Representatives, 52; of Mr. Ranney, 66; of Mr. 
Bennett relative to amendment of laws, 78 ; ol Mr. Forbes as 
to religious tests, 88 ; report of Standing committee, 93, 138; 
discussion thereon, 139, 142,155,165, 179, 188,197, 262, 207, 
211, 225, 229, 241, 251, 261. 

Lidey Mr , a delegate from Perry— 

Remarks on form of oath for delegates, 3 ; on opening sessions 
with prayer, 14 ; on printing, 24,69, 72; on publication of de¬ 
bates 75 ; on duelling, 230 ; on salary of Governor, 282; on 
terms ot State officers, 291; on Militia system, 407, 409, 410, 
412,413; on Prison discipline, 498; on adjournment over, 
532; resolution limiting speeches to fifteen minutes, 591; 
amendment relative to organiz Aion of House ot Representa¬ 
tives, 870; petitions presented by, 965; amendment to re¬ 
port on Preamble and Bill of Rights, 973 ; remarAS on amend¬ 
ment to report on Public Institutions, 987; on report of com¬ 
mittee on Militia, 891, 995; amendment to report of select 
committee on Temperance, 1084; resolution restricting de¬ 
bate, 506; amendment to report on Legislative department- 
1137 ; resolution re ative to reception of petit ons, 1237 ; re¬ 
port on Militia, 1271,1303; remarks on report on Education 
1316. ^ 

Lieutenant Governor— 

Debate on the creation of the office,267 ; when powers and du¬ 
ties of Governor devolve upon, 273; compensation of, 288. 

Limitation of State debt, 423. « 

Loudon Mr., a delegate fro n Brown— 

Remarks on memorial for extradition of col’d people, 11; on ap¬ 
pointment of 3d assi-stant secretary, 78 ; on single House of 
General Assembly, 146 ; on his amendment to report on Le¬ 
gislative department, 198 ; on duelling, 230; on the salary of 
Governor, 288; on printing extra copies of Judicial report, 
392; on mi’itia system, 407, 408, 411, 419, 421, 422 ; remarks 
on reception of petitions from negroes, 416 ; report from 
Standing committee on Finance and Taxation, 466 ; remarks 
on powers nd duties of Sinking fund commissioners, 476, 
477; on Public Institutions, 494 ; on the Judiciary article, 611; 
on adjournment, 664; resolution for adjournment till De¬ 
cember and to Cincinnati, 665 ; remarks thereon, 666; re¬ 
marks on Finance and taxation, 704. 706, 709, 711,713, 722, 
726, 781, 782, 786.1334, 1343,1345, 1347, 1354,1447; on sala¬ 
ries of Judicial officers, 796; on compensat.on of members 
of Gen, Assembly, 868: on contested elections, 875; petitions 
presented by, 415, 908,972,985, 993,997, 1052; proposition 
lor evening sessions. 970; remarks on Colonizatii n, 983 ; on 
report of committee on Militia, 982,994, 995; on report of 
committee on Judicial Department, 680, 1032, 1286,1295 
1296; on amendmentto reporton Banks and Currency, 1042 
on amendment to reporton LegislatiYe department, 1193 








X 


INDEX. 


1200; on question of order &c., 1220; resolution relative to 
holding niiht sessions, 1250; report of standing committee 
No. 2 on Finance and taxation, 1270 ; remarks on Bank tax¬ 
ation, 1283, 1397, 1429. 

Lotteries—prohibition ot, 232. 

Manon Mr., a delegate trom Licking— 
liemarks on the publication ot the debates, 70,102, 106; on ap¬ 
pointing 3d assistant secretary, 77; on time of general elec¬ 
tion, 148 ; on biennial sessions, 187; on the office of State 
printer, 200; on ineligibility ot United States or State officers 
to General Assembly, 226, 227, 229; on county legislative 
boa-ds, 255 ; on compensation of members of General As¬ 
sembly, 260; on adjourn men t to Cleveland, 265,532; on qual¬ 
ification for office of Governor, 270,272; on the salary of 
Governor, 284 ; resolution on majority requisite for an ad¬ 
journment, 292; remarks on capital punishment, 303; on 
corporations,' 323; remarks on individual hability of cor¬ 
porators, 346, 374 ; remarks on militia system, 409 ; remarks 
on a hard money petition, 418, 429. 439; on prison discipline, 
499; on a reformed code of legal procedure, 525 ; on law Lat¬ 
in, 538; resoluti nin e-pect to a quorum of Conv ntion, 
579 ; remarks on limiting speeches to 15 minutes, 656; re¬ 
marks on notion to amend apportionment reoort, 677 ; peti¬ 
tions presented by, 337, 679, 937,989, 1092; motion to amena 
report on Elective Franchise and remarks thereon, 680; mo¬ 
tion co amend amendment to report on Education, 685 ; re¬ 
marks on taxation, 710, 713, 720, 781, 1334, 1354, 1355 ; reso¬ 
lution to amend report on Finance and taxation and remarks 
thereon, 791; remarks on his motion to amend Judicial re¬ 
port, 794, 1399 ; on terms of Clerks of Courts, 797 ; on terms 
of Senators and Representatives, 803 806 ; on rights of pri- 
va;» property taktnfor public use, 884,886; on report on 
Public Debt and Public Works, 948, 956,1005 ; on the restric¬ 
tion of debate, 965; on Preamble, 974, 1184; on amendment 
to I eport on banks and currency, 134,1053; in relation to the 
Temperance question, 1083,1094,1326,1395 ; on resolution to 
adjourn, 1096; on report on Legislative department 1188, 
1194,1200; resolution relative to furnish Enquirer and Ga¬ 
zette with list of absentees as noted on the journal at every 
call of Convention, i 192 ; amendment to report on Legisla¬ 
tive department, and remarks thereon, 1205, 1220 ; remarks 
on nght ot Legislative repeal, 1240; on election and term of 
county officers, 1261 ; on resolution of Mr. Sawyer, relative 
to address to the people, 1293 ; amendment o report on Ju¬ 
dicial department, 1295; remarks on amendment to report 
on Education, 1316 ; on Representative apportionment, 1374, 
1376, 1.381, 1389; on subject of Printing, 1418 ; amendment 
to report on schedule, 1420 ; amendment to report on appor- 
t onment, 1423 ; amf-ndment to resolution of Mr. Sawyer rel- 
a ive to printing 3000 copies ot journals ot Convention, 1450. 

Mason Mr., a delegate from Clark— 

Remarks on oath of office for delegates, 3 ; on circular to clerks 
ot Courts, 22. 23; on the order of business, 35 ; on his reso¬ 
lutions on Lieut. Governor and veto power, 52, 53, 275; on 
misrepresentation of hisremarks by editor of Ohio Statesman, 
85 ; on German publication cf debates, 104 ; on biennial ses¬ 
sions, 181; on term of Senators, 192, 194; on amendment of 
laws, 203 ; on eligibility of United States or State officers to 
General Assembly, 226; on the appropriation ot private prop 
erty for publi-; use, 258; on eligibility to office of Governor, 
270 ; on the residence of State officers, 288 ; on corporations, 
315; on repeal of acts creating corporations, 328, 329 ; on in¬ 
dividual liability ot corporators, 392; on a revised code ot 
legal procedure, 525; on adjournment to Cleveland, 629 ; on 
adjourniug over, 531; on the Judiciary article, 589, 592, 597 ; 
on his early political associations in reply to Mr. Robertson^ 
654 ; on the Elective Franchise, 681; motion relative to pro- 
visirm for separate education of colored children, 684 ; re¬ 
marks on Education, 688 ; on capital punishment, 701,702; 
on Finance and taxation, 709, 725 ; amendment proposed to 
Sec. 3 of report on f inance and taxation, and remarks there¬ 
on, 771, 777 ; remarks on term ot office of Clerks of Courts, 
797, 800; on term of office for Senators and Representatives. 
808 ; petitions presented by, 812: amendment relative to or¬ 
ganization of House of Representatives, 870; amendment rel¬ 
ative to passage of laws to take effect upon contingencies, 
874, 880 ; remarks on right of private property taken for pub¬ 
lic use, 884 ; in support of hi« proposition for a qualified ve 
to power, 942; in support of his proposition for the estab¬ 
lishment of a Bureau of Statistics in office of Secretary of 
State, 943 ; on report on Preamble, 975 ; on report on Pub¬ 
lic Institutions. 986; on term of offi< e of Supreme Judges, 
1003 ; on report on future amendments to Constitution, 1072 • 
against legalizing the sale of spirituous liquors, 454 ; in rela¬ 
tion to a question of privilege raised by Mr. Reemelin, 1089; 
on granting special privileges, 1185 : on report on legislative 
department and amendment, 1189 ; in relation to Ex post fac¬ 
to laws 1215; on subject of curative laws, 1215, 1216,1220; 
on right of legislative repeal, 1241; c.n Judiciary reform, 1288 ’; 
resolution relative to expediency of establishing a bureau of 
statistics in Secretary of State’s office and remarks thereon, 
1361; remarks on Representative apportionment, 1371,1444 • 
amendment to report on corporations other than banks, and 
remarks thereon, 1445. 

McCormick Mr, a delegate from Adams— 

Remarks on arrangement of business, 8 ; on printing, 27; on 
copyright of reports of debates, 44, 64 ; on apportionment, 
118; on a single House of General Assembly, 119, 144; on 
ferm of Senators, 193 ; on biennial sessions, 213 ; presenta¬ 


tion of petitions, 238, 501; remarks on pardoning power of 
Governor, 273; resolution for select committee on Temper¬ 
ance, 278 ; amendment as to terms of State officers, 291 re¬ 
marks on, 92, 296 ; on individual liability of corporators, 351; 
on adjournment to Cleveland, 528 ; on his motion lor the 
election by the State at large, of Jnstices ot the Supreme 
Court; 533, 535 ; on Latin law phrases, 537; on tf.e Judicial 
article, 557, 575, 584 ; on the terms of Judges, 633; On appor¬ 
tionment, 678 ; on his amendment to report on Education, 
786; on proposition to adjourn to Columbus, 694 ; on taxing 
State bonds, 747; on taxing U. S. bonds, 790; amendment 
proposed to Judiciary report relative to compensation of 
Judges, and remarks thereon, 795, 796 ; remarks relative to 
Clerks of Courts and Counties, 799 ; on terms of Senators and 
Representatiues, 806; on an editorial in Ohio State Journal, 
809; on rights of private property taken lor public use, 838 ; 
amendment to report on Legislative department relative to 
teats in the General Assembly, 841; remarks relative to right 
of Legislative repeal, 901, 917 ; petitions presented by, 230, 
501, 941, 1183, 1354: amendment to report on Public Debt 
and Public Works, 961; remarks on jurisdiction of Supreme 
Court, 1001 ; report from select committee on retailing ar¬ 
dent spirits, 1005, 1008 ; remarks on report and amendments 
to same of committee on Judicial department, 1015, 1297 ; on 
report and amendments to same on Banks and Currency, 
in relation to prohibiting sale of spirituous liquors, 1073,1082, 
1094 ; on amendment to Preamble and Bill of Rights, 1100, 
amendment to report on Judicial department, 1300 ; remarks 
on amendments to report on Education, 1313, 1315 ; resolu¬ 
tion relative to a plan tor Judicial districts, 1337 ; amendment 
to report on Finance and taxation, 1427. 

Married women— 

Report of committee on jurisprudence relative to their rights 
of property, 302; petitions relative thereto, 696. 

Messengers—5, 10, 18, 41, 624 

Mitchell, Mr. a delegate from Knox— 

Remarks on printing, 27, 71; on order of business, 34 ; on right 
of petit on, 55; on election of officers by the people, 67, 493; 
on publication of debab s, 75; amendment to Mr. Gray’s res¬ 
olution respecting fugitive slaves, 87; remarks on the veto 
power, 96. 98, 277; on Dorsey’s bank proposition, 137; on 
duf ling, 230; on retroactive legislation ; 236; on the inviola¬ 
bility of paivate property, 259, 258 ; on eligibility to office of 
Governor, 269, 271; presentation of petitions, 389, 405,416, 
498, 1183; remarks on individual liability of corporators, 395, 
401; on currency, petition, &.C., 418,430, 439, 447; substitute 
proposed to militia report, 422; remarks on limit to State 
debt, 423, 425; on prison discipline, 498 ; on the article of 
“jurisprudence,” 515, 521; on the judiciary, 586; on tne 
term of judges, 623, 633 ; on adjournment to Cincnr.ati, 667; 
on capit al punishment, 700,701; on church taxation, 715,716, 
718; on finance and taxation, 725, 1355, 1450; on taxing State 
stocks, in reply to Mr. Horton, 7.33; on Mr. Sawyer’s motion 
to pass report on finance and taxation, 756; on taxing State 
stocks, 767; prooosition to amend Mr. Mason’s amendment 
to report on finance and taxation, 776 ; remarks on mode of 
drawing money from the treasury, 811; on the right of legis¬ 
lative repeal, 827, 832, 833, 846, 1109,1143, 1148, 1230, 1246; 
amendment relative to eligibility to office, 841; remarks on 
compensation of members of General Assembly, 867; on the 
power of suspending laws, 874 ; on submission ot laws to the 
people, 880; in reply to Messrs. Hitchcock and Stanberry, 
888; relative to rights of private property taken for public 
use, 890, 892; amendment to report on public works ana 
public debt, 961; remarks on “law reform,” 964, 967 ; amend¬ 
ment and remarks on report of committee on public institu¬ 
tions, 988; remarks on report of committee on militia, 995 ; 
on amendment to report on judicial department, 1011, lOlo’ 
1023; reply to Mr. Holt’s speech on banks and currency, 1036^ 
1043; plan of. for a judiciary system, 1041; remarks on re 
port of committee on public debt and public works, 1063; on 
amendment to preamble and bill of rights, 1109,1304 ; on re¬ 
solution restricting debate, 1137; petitions presented by, 1183; 
remarks on a question of privilege, 1196, 1218, 1219, 1449 • 
amendment to report on legislative department, and remarks 
thereon, 1205; remarks on giving public printing to lowest 
bidder, 1212; speech on corporations, 1273; remarks on re¬ 
port of select committee on temperance. 1333, on senatorial 
and representative apportionment, 1362, 1373, 1378; on 
amendments to report on temperance, 1395; on subject of 
printing, 1418; on amendments to report on schedule, 1440- 
resolution relative to hour of meeting, 1450. ’ 

Militia- 

Appointment of standing committee, 45 ; report of standing 
committee, 164 ; discussion on article reported, 407, 418; re¬ 
port No. 2, of standing committee, 875; considered in conven¬ 
tion, .350, 991, 994; committee of the whole, 1302. 

Miscellaneous subjects and propositions— 

Appointment ot standing committee, 45; report of standing 
committee, 142. “ 

Morehead, Mr. a delegate from Harrison— 

Presentation of petitions. 291. 

Morris, Mr. a delegate from Clinton— 

Remarks on furnishing newspapers to members 12; on right 
of petition, 40; on publication of debates, 71; on veto pow¬ 
er, 89; on single House of General Assembly, 145; on time 
of general election, 148; on biennial sessions, 170; on extra 
compensation of official contractors, &c., 252; on adjourn¬ 
ment to Cleve.and, 265; on lieutenant governor, 267; on 


N 









INDEX 


XI 


printing extra c -pies judicial report on militia system, 407, 
413, 420; on a revised code of legal procedure, 503; presen- 
tat on ot petitions, 675, 783, 886, 908, 928, 940, 972, 1217; re¬ 
marks on capital punishment, 703; amendment relative to 
terms of clerks of courts, 797, 800; remarks on biennial ses¬ 
sions, 809; amendment relative to compensation of members 
ol General Assembly, and remarks thereon, 867; remarks on 
his proposition to dispense with the legal fiction and of John 
Doe and Rickard Roe in law proceedings, 968; against traffic 
in spirituous liquors, 1088; relative to passage of curative laws 
1215. 

Morrow, Jeremiah — Invited to seat within bar of convention 
chamber, 155. 

Municipal corporations. 405. 

Nash, Mr. a delegate from Gallia— 

Remarks on election of printer to convention, 24, on publica¬ 
tion of debates, 74 ; on Mr. Reemelin’s scheme of apportion¬ 
ment, 110; on biennial sessions, 229; amendment and re¬ 
marks on publishing annual statement of receipts and expen¬ 
ditures, 207 ; on eligibility of United States and State offit-ers 
as members of General Assembly, 226 ; remarks on dueling, 
263,231; on retroactive legislation, 236; on compensation of 
members of General Assembly, 262; on adjournment to 
Cleveland, 265, 530; on his motion to create the office of 
comptroller, 268; on corporations, 307,316; on repeal of acts 
of incorporation, 330; on individual liabi.ity of corporators, 
331; on a revised code of legal procedure, 503, 504 ; on judi¬ 
ciary article 599, 618, 642; on the terms of judges, 619, 643; 
on adjournment, 665; resolution accepting invitation of Y. 
M L. Association, 676; remarks on motion to amend report 
on education, 684, 667, 688; on finance and taxation. 771; on 
Mr. Mitchell’s amendment to Mr. Mason’s proposition 
providing for inviolability of “public faith,” 777; on biennial 
sessions, 815,816, 1206; on new counties, 866; amendment 
relative to compensation of members of General Assembly, 
869 ; remarks on the relations ot the judiciary to the General 
Assembly, 873; relative to the powers of the General Assem¬ 
bly, 876 ; on the uniformity of laws, 881; petitions presented 
by, 895, 965, 1005 ; remarks on report on public debt and pub¬ 
lic works, 947, 1005; on report on jurisprudence, 962, 971; 
on preamble and bill of rights, 673, 976, 980, 981, 1100, 1184, 
1303,1304; on salaries ot supreme judges, 1005; on amend¬ 
ments to report on banks and currency, 1056; on report of 
select committee on subject ot temperance, 1074, 1084, 1087 ; 
amendment to report on preamble and bill of rights, 1100, 
1102; remarks relative to right of suft'rage, 1180; resolution 
relative to filling vacancy in com. on preamble, 1186; remarks 
on report on legislative department, 1188, 1182, 1193, 1195, 
1197, 1199; relative to expost facto laws, 1214; excluding 
colored persons from our State, 1227; legisla-ive repeal. 1242, 
1252, 1263; resolution relaiive to altering standing rules of 
convention, 1255 ; speech on corporations, 1267 ; remarks on 
representative and senatorial apportionment, 1367; amend¬ 
ment to report on schedule, 1429; remarks on amendment to 
report on schedule, 1440. 

Morris, Mr. a delegate from Clermont— 

Remarks on corporations, 304, 313, 323; presentation of peti¬ 
tions, 348, 841, 895, 1290; remarks on grant of right ot way 
to corporations, 402; on right of committee on executive de¬ 
partment, 332, 978; report of standing committee on corpo¬ 
rations other than banks, 1192; amendment to report on cor¬ 
porations, 1438; remarks on amendments to report on corpo¬ 
rations, 1445. 

Oath of Delegates, 3. 

Administered by Judges Hitchcock and Stilwell, 4, 

Obligations of Contracts — 

General Assembly restrained from impairing, 232. 

Officers of Convention — 

Klection of, 5 ; compensation of, 41, 532. 

Officers of State— 

Compensation of, 203; impeachment of, 209; when eligible to 
seats in General Assembly, 226. 

Order of business— 

Mr. Leadbetter’s resolution, 5; Mr. McCormick’s substitute, 6; 
Mr. Robertson’s propositi on, 8; report of committee, 29; dis¬ 
cussion thereon, 31. 

Organization of the Convention, 2. 

Orton, Mr. a delegate from Sandusky— 

Resolution on elective franchise, 75; remarks on biennial ses¬ 
sions, 186; on printing extra copies of judicial report, 391; 
petitions presented by, 696, 704; amendment to preamble and 
bill of rights, 974 ; resolution for sine die adjournment, 997; 
amendm'ent to report o legislative department, 1189; re¬ 
marks relative to giving public printing to lowest bidder, 1210; 
on subject of printing, 1419; amendment to Mr. Loudon's re¬ 
solution relative to night sessions, 1250. 

Otis, Mr. a delegate from Summit— 

Remarks on oliering his resolutions on eligibility of members 
of General Assembly to other offices, on divorce and on pub 
lie deht, 85; amendment lo 19th section of legislative report, 
204,206; his scheme of apportionment, 139; amendment rel¬ 
ative to formation of new counties, 866; remarks relative to 
fee simple of real estate appropriated to public use, 883 ; on 
report on public debt and public works, 945, 946: petitions 
presented by, 1005,1202, 1323; remarks on amendments to 
report on judicial department, 383, 1011,1025; remarks on 
church taxation, 1343, 1347; on apportionment, 1361, 136^, 
1374, 1376, 1377; on bank taxation, 1396. 

Pardoning power of Governor, 272. 


Patterson, Mr. a delegate from Highland— 

Resolution relative to real estate titles in the Virginia Military 
District, 46, 206; amendments and remarks on filling vacan¬ 
cies in State offices, 298; resolution restricting debate, 868; 
motion to reconsider vote on section 31 ot report on legisla¬ 
tive department, relative to submission o t laws to approval by 
the people, 877; amendment to report on preamble and bill 
of rights, and remarks thereon, 1099; remarks on Manon’s 
amendment t6 report on legislative department, 1205; amend¬ 
ment to report on legislative department, 1214; resolution 
relative to quitting detective titles to real estate, and remarks 
thereon, 1409 

Peck, Mr. a delegate from Belmont— 

Remarks on the veto power, 98; presentation of petitions, 206, 
793, 908, 985, 1103; report from minority of standing com¬ 
mittee on banking and currency, 649; remarks on the terms 
of judges, 656. 

Perkins, Mr. a delegate from Trumbull— 

Resolution relative to the object and end of punishment, 51, 
302; remarks on the veto power, 100; on revocation of cor¬ 
porate franchises, 326; resolution requiring standing com¬ 
mittee to report, 618; petitions presented by, 228, 965; re¬ 
marks relative to taxation of State s'oeks, 772; amendment 
relative to eligibility to office, 841 ; amendment and remarks 
on report of committee on preamble and bill of rights, 984, 
1098; resolution appointing committee to report a judiciary 
system, 1041; remarks on temperance question, 1,074; on 
erection of new counties, 1214 ; on African colonization. 1221; 
on a proposition to prevent immigration of blacks and mu- 
lattoes, 1224 ; on proposition of Mr. Sawyer relative to tran¬ 
scribing unfinished journal after adjournment of convention, 
1433; remarks on resolution to print 3000 copies of journal 
of convention, 1449 ; personal explanations, 497,'85, 200, 348, 
446, 447, 662, 935, 942, 1126, 1129. 

Penitentiary—State, 490, 

Petitions— 

For the extradition of colored people, 11, 415, 416 ; for equal 
rights, 14, 38, 40, 56, 85, 86, 142,164, 206, 278, 301,318, 665; for 
extension of right of suffrage, 265, 278, 292, 429, 562, 41, 239 ; 
to dispense with oaths of office, 57 ; to establish office of Su¬ 
perintendent of Schools, 57 ; from Green Plains yearly meet¬ 
ing of Friends, 86 ; relative to future amendments of Consti¬ 
tution, 114 ; for inviolability of private propel ty, 114; to abol¬ 
ish capital punishment, 142, 490 ; on banks and currency, 206, 
238, 348, 348, 416, 429, 490 ; for reducing the Constitutional 
limits of counties, 211, 532, 635 ; to secure the rights of mar¬ 
ried women to their property, 264, 348, 562, 618 ; for submis¬ 
sion of bills to popular vote and qnadrennial sessions, 301; 
against negro suffrage, 337 ; on the subject of land monopoly, 
for biennial election of officers, 416; tor an easy method of 
testing constitutionality of laws, 465; miscellaneous, 56, 86, 
114, 133, 178, 197, 206, 301, 318, 337, 348, 500,; relative to 
traffic in intoxicating liquors, 114,133,178, 197, 206, 2.38, 239, 
265,278,291,301, 318,336, 416,429, 466,476, 490, 500,518, 
532, 545, 562, 579,590, 618, 6^, 655, 655 ; to exempt Society 
ot Friends from military duty, 416 ; to punish murder with 
death, 416; of T. Rainey on Education, 500; petitions against 
licensing the sale of intoxicating drinks, 676, 679, 704, 712, 
734, 755, 771, 783, 793, 801, 812, 819, 828, 835, 841, 849, 857, 
867,875,886,895, 908,927, 737,841, 944.958, 965, 972,977, 
984,993,997,1005, 1024,1032, 1041, 1052, 1062, 1071,1092, 
1096,1103,1118, 1137, 1153,1183,1202, 1236,1270, 1290, 1300, 
1308, 1322, 1337,1354,1362, 1382 ; for equal rights, 677, 849, 
886, 928; for a provision againstthe immigration of black and 
mulatto persons into the State, 5, 801, 819, 849, 984 ; for an 
amendment to report of standing committee on judicial de¬ 
partment, 696 ; on the subject of law reform, 696 ; for an ex¬ 
tension and greater security of the rights of married women, 
696,1183,1250 ; for the expulsion of any member of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly who shall present himself on the floor ot either 
House, drunk, during the session, 696 ; for a provision pro¬ 
hibiting fugitive slaves, or persons claimed as such, being ta¬ 
ken out of the State, 755; lor a provision exempting certain 
persons from performing military duty, 783 ; that the new 
constitution may recognize God and Jesus Christ as his Me¬ 
diator, 783 ; for the listing for taxable purposes, all individ¬ 
ual and corporate property, 793, 977 ; against the exclusive 
right of licensed lawyers to practice in courts of Justices and 
for extension of jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace, 801; for 
the taxation of all property equally, 812,849 ; relative to right 
of trial by jury, tenure of Judicial office, and jurisdiction of 
Courts of Common Pleas, 849; against the prohibition of the 
use of ardent spirits, 857 ; for a gold and silver currency, 886, 
927; for a provision limiting the amount of land hereafter to 
be acquired in the State to 160 A , and a Homestead Exemption 
875, for a provision prohibiting the General Assembly for 
creating banking institutions, 928 ; for a provision authori¬ 
zing the formation of counties with an area of 300 square 
miles, 941: for a provision making it an indictable offence for 
members of the General Assembly to disobey the instructions 
of their constituents, 972; for a provision for the speedy col¬ 
lection of small debts, 9,89; for a provision against sectional 

■ and religious tenets to be taught in schools, and requiring all 

I school expenses to be paid out of State Treasury, 1052 ; for a 
pfovisioU in the new constitution making an oath taking un¬ 
necessary, 1082 ; for a provision defining the basis of govern¬ 
ment, leaving banking corporations, and the sale ot ardent 
spirits to the people, 1183 ; for a uniform standard by which 







Xll 


INDEX 


judges of elections can determine the color of persons asking 
privilege to vote, 1236. 

Poll Tax- 

Section relative thereto considered, 704. 

Prayer— 

Invitation to clergymen to open sessions with, 4, 674 ; sessions 
of convention opened by, 37, 62, 77, 114, 164, 178, 206, 241, 
228, 259, 278, 326, 336, 369, 389, 405, 415, 446, 518, 555, 562, 
579, 590, 607, 6 8, 675, 679, 685, 690. 696. 712, 722. 734, 771. 
783, 801, 812, 819, 849, 867, 927, 972, 984. 996, 1005,1011, 1039, 
1062, 1092, 1096, 1102, 1116, 1173, 1270, 1290, 1308, 1337, 
1421. 

Preamble and Bill of Rights— 

Apportionment of standing committee thereon, 45; resolution 
of Mr. Cutler, 50; Mr. Mitchell’s proposition, 51; resolution 
of Mr. Cahill, 83 ; of Mr. Case of Licking, 87; sundry propo¬ 
sitions, 87, 88; report from standing committee, 885; con¬ 
sidered in convention, 1099,1303,1427; convention, 982,1096, 
1103,1109,1118, 1137,1183; resolution of Mr. Holt, with pro¬ 
position on, 1177; final passage of, 1307; report of standing 
committee on revision and enrollment on, 826.1411,1427; 
resolution of Mr. Henderson, with amendment to, 1414; 
amendment of committee on revision considered in conven¬ 
tion, 1428. 

President—Hon. Wm. Medill, a delegate from Fairfield— 
Remarks on his election, 5; points of order, 8, 11. 13, 22, 31,38, 
41, 44, 59, 67, 76, 83, 359, 416, 429. 439, .531. 6.50, 664, 674 ; 
communications presented by, 5, 107, 154,200, 239, 260, 318, 
409, 360; statement of the order of business at opening of 
. winter session, 675; various announcements by, 678, 972, 
1390,1439, 1448; illness of, announced, 679; petitions pre¬ 
sented by 704,819 886.1039.1118; points of order, 756, 793, 
823, 867, 1052, 1125,1129,1177,1220, 1444. 1450; communica¬ 
tions presented by, 675, 704, 742, 747, 818, 819, 825, 842, 932, 
969,1025, 1012; remarks on enrolling preamble, 1428. 

Privileges and Elections— 

Resolution for appointment of committee, 19; committee ap¬ 
pointed, and report, 45; credentials of new members refer¬ 
red to, 675, 1162; report of committee on, 6*8, 696,1173. 

Printing, public— 

Resolution of Mr. Chambers, 86. 

Printing for the Convention— 

Mr. Sawyer’s resolution to appoint S. Medary printer, 6; Mr. 
Green’s (of Defiance) resolution to appoint a select committee 
of five, 7 ; Mr. Dorsey’s substitute f or the resolution to ap¬ 
point S. Medary printer, 8; report of select committee, and 
discussion thereon, 24; resolution relative to debates and 
proceedings, 43; S. Medary appointed printer, 43; rate of 
compensation, 43; reports of standing committees printed, 
133,154. 

Privilege, from arrest, members of General Assembly, 20. 

Private property-^ 

Rights of owners when taken for public use, 257, 260. 

Public Debts and Public Works— 

Appointment of standing committee thereon, 45; resolution of 
Mr. Barber, 86 ; of Mr. Gregg, 87 ; amendment of Mr. Cham¬ 
bers to legislative report, 207 ; resolution of Mr. Reeraelin, 
229; report No. 1 of standing committee, 259, 298, 265 ; con¬ 
sidered, and discussion thereon, 423, 431, 440, 446. 475, 487; 
report of standing committee as amended in committee < f the 
whole, considered in convention, 945, 1005,1062. 1435; debt 
of counties, towns and cities, not to be assumed by the Leg¬ 
islature, 945; amount of money to be raised annually for pay¬ 
ment of public debt, 945; sinking fund, 961, 

Public Works, Board of— 

Election, powers and duties, 488, 489; sale of, Mr. Stanbery’s 
amendmrnt against, 489. 

Public Institutions— 

Appointment of standing committee thereon, 45; report of, 328; 

discussion thereon, 490. 
ublic Use— 

Rights of private property when taken therefor, 259, 260. 

Punishment— 

Resolution of Mr. Perkins, 51,490; report of select committee, 
655. 

Qualifications of members of General Assembly, 188,197, 225. 

Qualifications for office— 

Resolution of Mr. Larsh, 116. 

Quigley, Mr. a delegate from Columbiana— 

Remarks on the publication of the debates, 71; on veto power, 
101, on dueling, 230; amendments to section authorizing 
county legislative Boards, 256; remarks on individual liabili¬ 
ty of corporators, 370 ; presentation of petions, 405, 5.32 ; re¬ 
marks on the judiciary article, 69 ; on education, 682,685; on 
capital punishment, 696; petitions presented by, 793, 886,955; 
remarks on amendments to report on banks and currency, 
1045: on legislative department, 1239. 

Randolph, Richard— 

Memorial from, 849. 

Ranney, Mr. a delegate from Trumbull— 

Remarks on furnishing newspapers to members, 12; on circu¬ 
lars to clerks of courts, 21; on copy-rights of debates, 63; on 
qualified veto power, 90,93; on apportionment, 121; on bi¬ 
ennial sessions, 152,218,225; on terms of Senators, 191; on 
compensation of State officers, 203 ; on penalties for engaging 
in a duel, 229; on retroactive legislation, 245 ; amendment to 
section on appropriation of private property for public use, 
259; amendment and remarks on the qualifications for the 
office of governor, 268, 271; remarks on terms of State offi¬ 


cers, 290; on repeal of acts of incorporation, 326; amend¬ 
ment relative to individual liability of corporators, 332 ; re¬ 
marks thereon, 404, 332; on printing extra copies of judicial 
report, 392 ; on a sinking tund, 413; on powers and duties of 
sinking fund commissioners, 481; on election of penitentiary 
directors, 490, 492 ; on prison discipline, 496 ; plan of a judi- 
cial department, 501; remarks on a reformed code of legal 
procedure, (jurisprudence,) 506, 5 8; remarks explanatory 
of his judicial plan, 534 ; amendment fixing county terms of 
judicial courts, 538; remarks on his motions to amend report 
on elective franchise, 680, 681; on education, 16, 687 ; on cap¬ 
ital punishment, 693 ; on the laying of a poll tax, 704; on fi¬ 
nance and taxation, 829, 852, 712, 717, 1429, 1447 ; on taxing 
State and United States stocks, 743, 714, /90; on election of 
clerks of courts, 796, 797, 798, 799; on biennial sessions, 806, 
1206 ; motions to amend Section 35, of report on legislative 
department. 824; remarks on the right of legislative repeal, 
832, 846, 1239, 1241; 1243; amendment to report of legisla¬ 
tive repeal 1231, 1241; on rights of private property taken lor 
public use, 837, 902; petitions presented by, 849,886 ; amend¬ 
ment relative to formation of new counties, 866; remarks 
relative to suspension of laws, 871; relative to public school 
laws, 875 ; relative to submission of laws to the people, 882 ; 
amendment relative to compensation of governor, 942; re¬ 
marks on public debt and public works, 949, 959; on report 
on jurisprcdence, 963, 966; on his amendment to report on 
preamble, 975, 976, 982; reporton future amendments to con¬ 
stitution, 985; amendment to report of committee on public 
institutions, 987 ; remarks on election of supreme judges by 
the people, 1000; on amendments to report of committee on 
judicial department 685; on amendments to report of com 
mittee on banks and currency, 1055, 1007, 1010, 1015, 1027, 
1.301 1310; on report on future amendments to constitution, 
1066, 1068; resolution authoriz ng committee on revision to 
direct certain printing, 1071, 1094'; remarks on amendments 
to report on preamble, &c., 1097, 1110,1113, 1112, 1120, 1123, 
1305, 1418; personal remarks on the repeal question, 1173 , 
remarks on reporton legislative department, 475. 1187, 1189, 
1200; relative to enactment of curative laws, 1216; on ques¬ 
tion of privilege, 1220; amendment fixing term and time of 
electing county officers, 1261; remarks on city charP'rs and 
corporations, 1227; on taxing corporations, 1282; amend¬ 
ment to report on corporations other than banking. “49,1290, 
1440: remarks on apportionment, 1362,1375,1377,1381,1383; 
reports of select committee on revision and enrollment, 1411, 
1427, 1431, 1434; on education, 1423 ; amendment to report 
on finance and taxation, 1446 
Reemelin, Mr. a delegate from Hamilton — 

Remarks on appointing a printer to the convention, 5, 7; on 
publication of debates, 17; on printing, 25; on publication 
of debates in German .57, 58, 60, 103 ; on his scheme of ap¬ 
portionment, 78, 109, 125; on biennial sessions, 148, 219; on 
term of Senators, 191; explanation relative to German print¬ 
ing, 201; remarks on compensation of State officers, 204; 
amendment and remarks on payment of interest on State 
debt, 207; remarks on publishing annually receipts and ex¬ 
penditures of public money, 207; resolution in favor of pro¬ 
hibiting appointments by General Assembly, 228; remarks on 
penalties for engaging in a duel, 229; on retroactive legisla¬ 
tion, 235 ; on county legislative boards, 254; on corporations, 
on repeal of acts of incorporation, 329; amendment relative 
to individual liability of corporators, 332; remarks thereon, 
332, 334, 339, 3-56, 367, 398 ; on militia system, 411, 421; pre¬ 
sentation of petitions, 416, 635; remarks on limit to State 
debt, 424, 425,427; on sinking fund, 434, 459,461, 473; on 
powers and duties of sinking fund commissioners, 482; 
amendmenfs relative thereto, 486; remarks on prison disci¬ 
pline, 494, 498; on Latin law phrases, 536; on fees of pro¬ 
bate, 618; remarks on his motion to amend report on appor¬ 
tionment, 677; on the elective franchise, 670; on education, 
682, 687, 688 ; resolution calling for reports of State officers, 
688; petitions presented by, 696, 793 875, 977,10.52 ; remarks 
on church taxation. 713,1334,1336, 1337, 1339,1342, 1346 ; on 
his amendment providing that he neglect to list monies loan¬ 
ed, or liquidated credits, should be a bar to the collection of 
the same, 723, 724; remarks relative to date of issue of State 
stocks, 742 771; report from select committee relative to pub, 
doc., 747, 751 ; remarks relative to bank taxation, 779; on 
postponing discussion on finance and taxation, 782; resolu¬ 
tion relative to furn shing Indiana constitutional convention 
with certain documents, 782; remarks on salaries of judii ial 
and other officers, 795,’796; on biennial sessions, 804, 806; 
on ri ht of legislative repeal, 833, 853, 92,4927, 1129, 1132, 
1234, 1248. 1252; on right of private property taken lor pub¬ 
lic use, 835,889; on claims against the State, 840; amend¬ 
ment to report on legislative department relative to eligibility 
to seat in General Assembly, 840, 843; remarks on compen¬ 
sation of members of the General Assembly, 868; amendment 
relative to organization of House Representatives, 869; re¬ 
marks relative to passage of laws to take effect upon contin¬ 
gencies, 877. 879; amendment relative to formation of new 
counties, 893; remarks on the question of “repeatability of 
charters,” in reply to Mr. Kennon, 927 ; amendments to re¬ 
port on executive department, 939, 941, 943 remarks on re¬ 
port on public debts and public works, 948, 959, 961; on his 
amendment to report on preamble, and remarks, 974, 110; 
on amendment t.) report of standine committee on preamble 
and bill of rights, 981, 984,1097,1101, 1304; resolution reviv¬ 
ing committee and instructing them to enquire into cause of 
delay in publishing debates, 985; remarks on report of com 










INDEX, 


xiii 


mittee on public institutions, 986; on election of supreme 
judges by the people, 997; on salaries of supreme judges, 3, 
1004; speech on report on banks and currency, 1045; re¬ 
marks on report on banks and currency, 1053, 1055 ; in rela¬ 
tion to licensing the sale of ardent spirits, 1072,1087, 1332; on 
amendments to report on preamble and bill of rights, in re¬ 
lation to credits and collection of debts, 498,1106, 1119,1129; 
on amendments to report on preamble and bill of rights, in 
relation to repeal, 1130; on a question of privilege, 1126 ; on 
que-tion of order in debate of right of repeal, 1176; on grant¬ 
ing special privileges, 1184; on report on legislative depart¬ 
ment. 1187 1189, 1190, 1193,1194, 1195, 1197, 1200, 1204; on 
question of privilege, raised by Mr. Mitchell, 1196; amend¬ 
ments on report on legislative department, 1203; remarks re¬ 
lative to public printing and State printer, 1213; on question 
ot privilege, 1219; relative to prohibiting immigration of 
blacks and mulaitoes, 1224; on election and term of county 
officers, 1260-1; on subject of city charters and corporations, 
1276,1277, 1283; on report of committee on corporations 
other than banking, 1291; on Mr. Sawyer’s resolution rela¬ 
tive to having more lull reports of convention, 1294; on 
amendments to report on education, 1313, 1317, 1323; reso¬ 
lution relative to corporations other than banks, 1336; amend¬ 
ments and remarks on finance and taxation, 1356,1363. 1396, 
1398, 1429; remarks on apportionment, 1361, 1368; 1384-5, 
1390; amendment to report on apportionment, 1375, 1388; 
remarks on Mr. Holt’s propositions in relation to banks and 
the currency, 1401; on the subject of printing, 1418; report 
ot minority ot select committee on finance and taxation, 1421; 
amendment to report on finance and taxation, 1429; remarks 
on resolution relative to journals ot convention, 1433. 

Repeal, right of— 

Resolutions of Mr. Cahill, 83; amendment of Mr. Robertson to 
section 35 ot legislative report, 249 ; debate thereon, as to acts 
of incorporation, 251, 825, 829, 843. 848, 895, 921, 1127,1143, 
1149, 1176, 1235, 1236,1237, 1239, 1242,1243, 1246, 1248, 1251, 
1253 ; Mr. Stanton’s amendment to section 35 of report on 
legislative department, 826,827; Mr. Vance of Butler’s amend¬ 
ment 829, 834, 895 ; Mr. Humphreyville's amendment to sec¬ 
tion 35 of report on legislative department, 843. 845, 849, 865 ; 
Mr. Ranney’s amendment to report on legislative department, 
1231,1243 ; Mr. Swan’s amendment to report on legislative 
repeal, 1241; Mr. Kirkwood’s amendment to report on leg¬ 
islative repeal, 1251. 

Reports ol debates—Correction of errors in, 794, 945. 

Resolutions— 

Of Mr. Hawkins relative to officers of Convention, 3; of Mr. 
Vance, of Butler, on the oath of office, 3 ; of Mr. Vance, of 
Butler, relative to standing rules, 5 ; of Mr. Sawyer, for the 
temporary adoption of rules, 5 ; of Mr. Archbold, for payment 
ofpo8tage,5; of Mr. Manon on doors of lobbies, 5; of Mr. 
Hootman for appointment of Messengers, 5 ; of Mr. I.eech for 
assistants to Secretary and Sergeant, 10 ; of Mr Lead better on 
journalizing petitions, 17 ; of Mr. Ewart relative to compen¬ 
sation of officers ot Convention, 18, 41; of Mr. Cutler on hour 
of meeting, 19; of Mr. Hawkins on transcribing journals, 19, 
83 ; of Mr. Dorsey on public debt, corporations and banking, 
of Mr. Hunt on Representative apportionment, 45; of Mr. 
Green of Ross upon consideration of amendments. 47; of Mr. 
Larsh, on organization of H. of Rep., 52,490; of Mr. Hum- 
phreville for printing rules, 66 ; of Mr. Holmes for informa¬ 
tion and estimates from Secretary of State, of the population, 
66 ; of Mr. Cahill on the right of repeal. 83 ; of Mr. F trr on 
taxing stocks of citizens, 85 ; of Mr. Archbold on a State cen¬ 
sus, 132 ; of Mr. Graham on rights of accused in criminal 
prosecutioTis, 164; of Mr. Firestone copies of debates to prin 
ters, 165; of Mr. Nash accepting invitation of Library Asso¬ 
ciation, 675; of Mr. Green, of Defiance, lor opening morning 
session with prayer, 675; of Mr. Blickensderfer r ^’ative to 
census returns, 675 ; fixing the hour of meeting, 675. 870,1039, 
1186, 1219 ; of Mr. Hawkins for transmission of copy to Prin¬ 
ter to the Convention, 676; of Mr. Dorsey relative to amend¬ 
ment of reports of standing committees, 676 ; of Mr. Cham¬ 
bers relative to improvement of Convention hall, 678. 694 ; of 
Mr. Manon relative to retrenchment of expenses of Conven¬ 
tion, 678 ; of committee relative to transmission of reports to 
Printer. 679; ot Mr. Leadbetter appointing Henry O’Key Ser¬ 
geant at Arms. 679; of Mr Reemelin calling fo.** reports of 
State officers, 698 ; reported by select committee relative to 
census returns, 690 ; of Mr. Groesbeck providing seats for re¬ 
porters of Cincinnati press, 690; relative to adjournment to 
Columbus, 695 ; relative to invitation from Mechanics Insti- 
tutf*, 704; of Mr. Humphreville relative to procuring co ies 
of General laws, 734 ; of Mr. Case, of Licking, relative to 
binding of debates, 734 ; of Mr. Hitchcock, of Cuyahoga, call¬ 
ing upon Auditor for information relative to issue of State 
stocks, 742; of thanks to officers of Western Art Union, 742; 
from select committee relative to Pub. Doc., 747; on adjourn¬ 
ment, 747, 798; relative to furnishing Indiana Constitutional 
Convention with certain documents, 775, 782; amending re¬ 
port on Finance and taxation, 787, 791; for procuring copies 
of Chase’s Statutes, 798; inviting U. S. Senator Hale to seat 
within bar of Conventi‘>n chamber, 819; of thanks to City 
Council of Cincinnati, 819; relative to restrictions of time 
consumed by any member in debate, 9fl. 868, 1137 ; preclu 
dmg farther debate on report on Legislative departrrent, 868 ; 
limiting effect of the previous question. 928; of Mr. Reemelin 
relative to reviving committee heretofore appointed, on the 
subject connected with Reporter to the convention, and in¬ 


structing same to enquire into delay ol publication of debates 
985 ; of Mr, Orton for sine die adjournment, 997 ; of Editori¬ 
al Convention relative to a State Printer, &c., 1025; of Mr. 
Perkins appointing a committee to report on a Judiciary sys 
tern, 1041; of Mr. Ranney relative to authorizi jg certain 
printing to be done for committee on Revision, 1071; of Mr. 
Leech instructing committee to amend report on Preamble, 
1185; of Mr, Nash relative to filling vacancy in committee on 
Preamble, 1186; of Mr. Manon relative to furnishing Enqui¬ 
rer and Gazette with list of absentees, 1192; of Mr. Ewart 
providing for expiration ot terms of Judicial officers, and 
transferring busines to those elected under new Con , 1217 ; 
of Mr. Mitchell requiring certain committees to make report, 
1218 ; of Mr. Loudon relative to night sessions, 1250; of Mr. 
Nash altering standing rules of Convention, 1250; of Mr. 
Stillwell providing for fixed salaries for members of General 
Assembly, 1272; of Mr. Worthington relative to erection of 
new counties, 1272 ; of Mr. Kirkwood authorizing employ¬ 
ment of assistant doorkeeper, 1273 ; of Mr. Sawyer appoint¬ 
ing committee to draft an address to people on adtjpiion of 
new Constitution, 1293; of Mr. Larsh on the subject of voting 
for or against adoption ol new Constitution, 1293 ; of Mr. Saw¬ 
yer relative to having more full reports of Convention, 1293 ; 
of Mr. McCormick on the subject of Judicial districts, 13.37 ; 
of Mr. Reemelin rel. to corporations other than banks, 1343 ; 
of Mr. Larsh limiting time of speaking, 1359 ; of Mr. Stick ney 
amending report on schedule, 1421; of Mr. Case, of Licking, 
re ative to submitting hard money section of report on banks, 
&c., to the people separately, 1421; of Mr. Dorsey relative to 
banks, 1425; of Mr. L^^idy amending report on schedule, 1322; 
of Mr. Stanton relative to submitting t04i separate vote, the 
question of single Bep. and Sen. districts, 1425; of Mr. Saw¬ 
yer relative to bringing up journal alter adjournment, 14.32; 
of Mr. Mitchell relative to holding night session*, 1433 ; of se¬ 
lect committee on Printing, 1439 ; ot Mr. Stanbery on the sub 
ject ot corporations other than banks, 1441; of Mr. Stanton 
to take a recess, 1441; of Mr. Stickney fixing time to vote on 
constitution, 1441; of Mr. Scott providing for the election of 
- Treasurer and Secretary of State in October, 1851, 1441; of 
Mr. Greene, ot Defiance, fixing hour of meeting, 845,1442 ; of 
Mr. Groesbeck relative to extra compensation of Clerks of 
Convention, 1442 ; of Mr. Sawyer relative to compensation of 
Secretaries of Convention, 1447 ; of Mr. Lawrence tendering 
a vote of thanks to the Clergymen of Cincinnati, 1448; of 
Mr. Case allowing secretaries, doorkeepers, and sergeants at 
arms mileage, 1448 ; of Mr. Chambers appointing a commit¬ 
tee of two to take charge of State property in the hall, 1448; 
ot Mr Greene, of Ross, tendering a vote of thanks to Hon. 
Wm. Medill, President of Convention, 1448; of Mr Stanoery 
tendering a vote of thanks to W. H Gill, Secretary, and J, V. 
Smith, Reporter, and his assistants, 1448; of Mr. Case, of 
Licking, tendering thanks to sergeants at arms, doorkeepers 
and messenger boys, 1449; ot Mr. Riddle instructing com. on 
revision to amend report on miscellaneous subjects, 1449 ; of 
Mr. Case, of Licking, relative to binding debates of Conven¬ 
tion, 1449; of Mr Sawyer relative to printing 3,000 copies of 
journals of Convention, 1449; of Mr. Lawrence tendering 
thanks to Young Men’s Mercantile Library Association, 1450 ; 
of Mr. Case authorizing President of Convention to audit ac¬ 
count ot Reporter, &c., 1450 ; of Mr. Riddle relative to com¬ 
paring journal, 1450; of Mr. Bennett directing sergeant at 
arms to distribute pamphlet copies of constitution among the 
members of Convention, 1450 ; ol Mr. Manon relative to es- 
tabishing a bureau of statistics in Sec. of State’s office, 1360; 
of Mr. Sawyer limiting debate, 1382 ; of Mr. Lawrence fixing 
per diem of messenger boys, 1409; ot Mr. Patterson for qui¬ 
eting titles to real estate, 1409; of Mr. Stanton relative to 
Printing, 1410; of Mr. Henderson amending Preamble, 1414 ; 
ot Mr. Ewart amending report on Legislative department, 
1420; of Mr. Ranney amending report on schedule, 1421; ol 
Mr. Stillwell amending report on schedule, 1421 ; of Mr. 
Scott, of Auglaize, an ending report on schedule. 1421. 

Report from the Secretary ot State upon census of the State, 141. 

Reporter official, J. V. Smith of Hamilton— 

Report relative to action taken prior to assembling of Conven¬ 
tion, on compensation of assistants, &c., 5 ; Mr. Sawyer’s res- 
o'ution affirming election of Legislature and discussion there¬ 
on, 18 ; report of select committee thereon, 20; resolution of 
Mr. Ewart, 465, 586; report of committee on accounts and 
settlement of compensation, 532. 

Retroactive laws— 

General Assembly restrained, &c., 232, 241. 

Riley John, tribute of respect to, 347. 

Rules of order,5: Mr. Vance’s resolution for the appointment of a 
committee thereon. 5 ; report ot committee, 4.5; discussion ot, 
62; amendment, 392. , * 

Riddle Mr,, a delegate from Hamilton 
Remarks on qualification for members for General Assembly, 
188; on county legislative boards, 255; on the office of Lieut. 
Governor, 267 ; on pardoning power of Governor, 272; on 
the crime of treason, 273; on salary of Governor, 283, 318 ; 
on Governor’s appointing power, 491; motion to strike out 
first section of report on capital punishment, 691; petitions 
presented by, 744. 704, 783, 985, 1354 ; report from select 
committee, 819 ; remarks on salaries of Supreme Judges and 
Governor. 1004 ; amendment to report of committee on Ju¬ 
dicial department. 1038; remarks on report of committee on 
Legislative department, 1201; on Finance and Taxation, 1447; 
amendment to report on miscellaneous subjects, 1449; reso- 









XIV 


INDEX, 


lution relative to comparing journal of proceedings of Con¬ 
vention, 1450 ; remarks on article of jurisprudence, 504 ; on 
number of justices of Supreme Court, 534 ; on proposition to 
adjourn over, 664, 665, 

Robertt'on Mr., a delegate from Fairfield— 

Remarks upon arrangement of business, 8, 9; on right of peti¬ 
tion, 39, 416; remarks and resolutions on publication of de¬ 
bates, 42, 70 ; on publication of debates in German, 81; on 
the veto power, 91, 94, 274, 276; on apportionment and single 
House of General Assembly, 128, 142 ; on term of Senators 
194 ; on his amendment to Legislative report affirming the 
right ot repeal. 249 ; on crime of treason, 273 ; on salary of 
Governor, 280, 281; on repeal of corporate franchises, .327; 
on individual liability of corporators, 341, 378, 396; on Bank 
taxation, 406 ; on militia system, 420 ; on limit of State debt, 
423, 426; on newspapers, &c., 448 ; on State debt, &.C., 457; 
on election of Penitentiary directors, 493 ; on Prison discip¬ 
line, 495, 499 ; on adjournment to Cleveland, 530; presenta¬ 
tion ot petitions, 533 ; proposition for judicial districts, with 
remarks, 572, 573 ; remarks on the judiciary article, .573, 579; 
on his amendment, 579 585; on terms of Judges, 619, 629, 
630, 651; on adjournment, 663 ; on adjournment to Cincinna¬ 
ti, 667. 

Roll Mr , a delegate from Hamilton— 

Remarks on circular to Clerks ot Courts, 21,24, 36 ; on amend¬ 
ments to report on Banks and Currency, 1044 ; resolution al¬ 
lowing Si,50 per day to James Pollock, 1446. 

Sabbath— 

Resolution relative to observance ot, 202. 

Sawyer Mr., a delegate from Auglaize— 

Remarks on his resolution to appoint S. Medary printer to the 
Convention, 6 8 ; on his resolution to furnish members with 
newspapers, 12,13; on publication of debates in German and 
English, 15, 16. 102, 106 ; on circular to Clerks ot Courts, 20, 
21 ; on Printing, 26, 202 ; on Anglo Saxon race, &c., 38 ; on 
copy riuht of Convention reports, 42; on reception ot negro 
petitions, 86, 415; on|demand lor yeas and nays on Mr Gregii’s 
re.-olutiou respecting fugitive slaves 87 ; (»n veto power, 89, 
93, 275 ; on single House of General Assembly, 143 ; on bien 
nial sessions, 162,218; on the qualification of age tor mem¬ 
bers of the Geriei-al Assembly, 189 ; on termot Senators, 192; 
on amendment of laws, 203 ; on compensation of State offi¬ 
cers, 204; on annual publication of receipts, expenditures, Ac., 
208; on impeachment of civil officers, 211; on eligibility ot 
U. or S'ate officers to G^'n. Assembly, 226; on retroactive 
legislation, 234 ; on adjournment to Cleveland, 239, 526, 529 ; 
resolution on Banking and Currency, 241 ; remarks on coun 
ty legislative boards, 259; on individual liability of corpora¬ 
tors, 338, 357, 395; on adjournment over of Convention, 389, 
€74 ; on compensation by corporations for right ot way, 403 ; 
on militia system, 407, 409,422; on appointment of certain 
officers, 491; on “Root” of intemperance, 495 ; adjournment 
to Cleveland, resolution and remarks, 526, 529 ; on Latin law 
phrases, 536 ; on the cost ot different judicial systems, 556; 
on the course of debate on Judiciary, 584 ; on fifteen minuies 
rule, 655; on elective franchise, 680 ; on his motion to insert 
the word “white” in report on Education, 682 ; on capital 
punishment, 691: on adjournment to Columbus, 695 ; on the 
levying of a poll tax, 705 ; on taxing church and other prop¬ 
erty and burial grounds, 728, 759 ; resolution relative to fur¬ 
nishing Indiana Constitutional Convention with certain doc¬ 
uments, 755 ; remarks on continuing discussion of report on 
Finance and taxation, 755 ; in reply to Mr. Mason and rela¬ 
tive taxation of State bonds, 778 ; on resolution to instruct 
standing committee on Finance and taxation, 788 ; resuming 
consideration oi report on Legislative department, 802 803 ; 
on terms for Senators and Representatives, 808 : on the right 
of Legislative repeal, 826,1234 ; resolution restricting debate, 
841 ; remarks on granting use of hall for lectures, 842; on 
formation of new counties, 865 ; on right of way for public 
improvements, 892; amendment relative to right of Legisla 
live repeal, 895, 921, 1176 ; relative to Mr. Case’s question of 
privilege, 937; on public debt and public works, 946, 1005; 
on communication of J. V. Smith, Reporter, 1012; on amend¬ 
ment to report of committee on Judicial department, 1019, 
1030; on amendment to report on Banks and Currency, 1049; 
on report of committee on future amendments to Constitu¬ 
tion, 1069 ; on report of select committee on Temperance, 
1075, 1076, 1324,1395; on amendments to report of commit¬ 
tee on Preamble, 1099, 1458 ; personal explanation of, in re¬ 
ply to Mr Hawkin’s charges against Mr. Robinson, 1128 ; re¬ 
marks relative to negro suffrage, 1180, 1258; on report on 
Legislative department, 1187, 1192, 1193, 1194,1199; on bien¬ 
nial sessions, 1206 ; on giving public, printing to lowest bid¬ 
der, 1209, 1212; on corporations, 1270; resolution and re¬ 
marks appointing committee to draft address to people of 
Ohio on adoption of new constitution, 1293 ; remarks on re¬ 
port of committee on Education, 1317 ; on church taxation, 
1345; on Finance and taxation, 1347, 1.356, 1447 ; on his 
amendments to report on apportionment, 1379, 1385 ; resolu¬ 
tion limiting debate and remarks the’-eon, 1382; resolution 
relative to transcribing journal after adjournment of Conven¬ 
tion, and remarks, 1432 ; report of select committee on Fi¬ 
nance and Taxation, 1439 ; remarks on amendments to re¬ 
port on schedule, 1440 ; resolution relative to compensation 
of Sec’ys and assistant Sec’ys and remarks, 1447; resolution 
relative to printing 3,009 copies of journal of Convention, 
1449. 

Schedule— 


Report No. 1 of committee on, 804, 1409 ; No. 2 comniittee on^ 
804, 1410; report No. 2 considered in committee of whole, 
1416, considered in convention, 1419, 1421, 1440; No. on 
schedule, 1421. 

Scott, Mr. a delegate from Auglaize— 

Resolution amending schedule 1421; relative to election of Sec¬ 
retary and Treasurer of 8tate in 1851, 1441. 

Scott, Mr. a delegate from Harrison— 

Remarks on corporations, 304. 

Seal of State, 273. 

Sellers, Mr. a delegate from Knox— 

Secretary—Mr W. H. Gill, of Guernsey - 

A • nr AnsiAfant. 5; aoDointment of, 11, 63, 77 , com¬ 


pensation, 41. ■ c 01)0 

Secretary ot State—-Term of office, compensation, &.C., 2, 8. 
Communication fi om, 301, 318. 

Signature of Bills by presiding officers of General Assembly, 260, 

Single House of Assembly. 119, 123, 127, 129. 

Sergeant-at-Arms—Mr. John W. CarroLton, of Hamilton 
Election of, 5; authorized to appoint assistant, 11; compensa¬ 
tion, 41; resignation of Mr, Carrollton, 678 ; dispatch tor ab 
sentees, 835, 845, 875. 

Sinking Fund, 427, 440, 467. 

Commissioners of, 476, 487, 488. 

Smith, Mr. a delegate from Highland— 

Remarks on corporations, .323; presentation of petitions, 416, 
665. 

Smith, Mr. a delegate from Warren- 
Report from committee on appointment of Reporter, 20; re¬ 
marks on the right of petition, 39, 40, 41; on elections by the 
people, 67 ; on the publication of the debates. 68, 73, 76; on 
a single House of the General Assembly, 155: on biennial 
sessions. 165; resolution inviting surviving member of first 
convention, to a seat within bar of convention chamber, 155; 
remarks on the impeachment of officers, 209, 210 : petitions 
presented by, 302, 579, 590 ; remarks on corporations, 319 ; 
on the life and character of Hon. John Riley, 347; on print¬ 
ing extra copies of judicial report, 392 ; on compensation by 
corporations for right of way, 404 : on a militia system, 410, 
419, on terms suitable for petitions, 439; amendment of ar¬ 
ticle on public institutions, 499; remarks on proposal to ad¬ 
journ to Cleveland, 527; on the judiciary article, 563,574, 
651; on proposal to arljourn over, 664 ; petitions presented 
by, 392, 579, 590, 677, 232,944, 965, 977,1153; remarks on im¬ 
provement of convention hall. 694 ; on capital punishment, 
699 ; on taxing State stocks, 739 ; on terms of Senators and 
Representatives, 808 ; amendment to section 35 of report on 
legislative department, 824 ; motions lor adjournment, 828, 
834; amendment to section 31 of report on legislative de¬ 
partment, relative to uniform operation of laws. 880, 883; re¬ 
lative to rights of private property, 883; remarks on final 
adoption of constitution, 1457. 

Smith, Mr. a delegate from Wyandot— 

Remarks on circular to clerks of courts, 22 , on the order of 
business, 36; on the right of petition, 39 ; on the publication 
of debates in German, 57, 58 ; on the publication ot the de 
bates in English, 76 ; on single House of General Assembly, 
144 ; on amendment of laws, 203; on the office of Lieutenant 
Governor, 267 ; on the abolition of capital punishment, 303 ; 
on individual liability of corporators, 373; on capital punish¬ 
ment, 697; amendment and remarks relative to publishing 
speeche-s of members, 1294; remarks on declining to vote on 
Kirkwood’s motion relative to exemption of church property 
from taxation, 72U; on term and election of county officers, 
1261; relative to clerks of courts, 799 ; on demanding previ¬ 
ous question, 908; amendment to report on executive de¬ 
partment, 940 ; to resolution restricting debate; 965, 970; re¬ 
marks on report on preamble, 975, 984; on amendment to 
report on judicial department, 1007,1038,1289. 

Smith, J. V —Reporter to convention from Hamilton— 
Communication to convention on the publication of debates, 
1012. 


Stanbery, Mr. a delegate from Franklin— 

Remarks on the order of business, 32; on copyright of conven¬ 
tion reports, 42; on apportionment, 107; on biennial ses¬ 
sions, 157, 212 ; on amendment ot laws, 203 : on compensa¬ 
tion of State officers, 204 ; on annual publication of receipts 
and expenditures, &c., 207 ; on duelling, 229; amendment to 
sec. on compensation of members of General Assembly, 263; 
remarks on the salary of governor, 284 ; or the terms of State 
officers, 292 ; on corporations, 311, 314, 325 ; presentation of 
petitions, 429 ; remarks on a sinking fund, 441, 445, 450, 457, 
459, 467, 469, 471, 475; on the number of justices ot the su¬ 
preme court, 535; on the terms ot district courts, 592; on the 
terms ot judges, 628; on submission of laws to the people, 
878 ; on legislative charter of propositions introduced in the 
convention, 884 ; relative to right of way, 888; relative to the 
right of legislative repeal, 912,1236,1243; on report of com- 
raittee on jurisprudence, 967 ; petitions presented by, 985; 
amendment to report on judcial department, 1029,1295,1310; 
remarks on amendment to report on banks and currency' 
1043,1044, 1053, 1055; on report on preamble, &c., 1120,1304’ 
1328; amendmentand remarks on granting special privileges, 
1187; remarks on report on legislative department, 1195, 
1198; on Mitchell’s question of privilege, 1196; amendment 
and remarks thereon to report on legislative department, 
1204 ; remarks in relation to curative statutes, 1220; resolu¬ 
tion relative to corporations other than banking, 1441; of 
thanks to Secretary, Reporter and Assistants of Con., 1448. 










INDEX. 


XV 


Stanton, Mr, a delegate from Logan— 

Remarks on presenting memorial for extradition of colored 
people, 11; on printing, 24, 25, 26; on the order of business, 
33, 34; on the publication of the debates, 68, 71; on written 
reports by committees, 76; on apportionment, 127 ; on elec¬ 
tion districts, —; on biennial sessions, 159, 161; on dueling, 
232; on retroactive legislation, 237; on terms of State offi¬ 
cers, 297, 300, 301; on corporations, 306, 312, 346, 327 ; on 
repeal of acts of incorporation 328, 331; on individual liabili- 
ty of corporators, 332, 388, 395, 397, 403; presentation of pe¬ 
titions, 11, 336,476, 590; remarks on compensation by cor¬ 
porations for right of way, 403; on militia system, 409, 412, 
456; on sinking fund, 434, 474 ; on election of board of pub¬ 
lic works, 489 ; on the judiciary article, 604 ; on the terms of 
judges, 630, 661; petitions presented by 875,1236; resolution 
of thanks to officers of Western Art Union, 742; remarks on 
taxing State and United States bonds, 749 ; record of vote 
on proposition to exempt United States bonds from taxation, 
793 ; resolution lor adjournment, 798 ; remarks on biennial 
sessions 806; on the right of legislative repeal, 825, 1245,1306; 
amendment to section 35 of report on legislative department, 
relative to repeal, 825, 827; remarks on erroneous publica¬ 
tion of his speech of December 13th, 854; amendment rela¬ 
tive to compensation of members of General Assembly, 867; 
remarks on submission of laws to the people, 878, 882; on 
retroactive and curative laws, 893; amendments to report on 
executive department, 939, 940; remarks on his amendment 
to report on public debt and public works, 950, 956 ; on elec¬ 
tion of supreme judges by the people 1100; amendment to 
report of committee on judicial department, and remarks 
thereon, 1028; remarks against legalizing tradein spirituous 
liquors, 1074, 1080, 1081, 1327; in relation to enactment of 
curative laws, 1217, 1220; on election and term of county of 
fleers, 1261; amendment and reply to Mr. Archbold’s propo¬ 
sition on municipal corporations, 1279, 1278; remarks on 
amendments to report on education, 1318 ; on apportionment, . 
1362, 1375, 1376, 1390, 1.393; on proposition of Mr. Patterson 
securing to every man a title to his home, 1409; res. relative 
to printing, 1410 ; amendment to reporton the schedule, 1420; 
remarks on changing vote on report on finance and taxation, 
1434 ; on requiring Secretary of State to print 1000 copies of 
enr. cens., 1447. 

Statement of receipts and expenditures of public money— 
General Assembly required to publish annually, 207 ; Mr. Stan¬ 
ton’s motion to strike out section thereon, 209. 

State Printer—200. 

State Debt—(See Public Debt.) 

Superintendent of Public Instruction—268. 

.Siebbins, Mr a delegate Irom i.ucas— 

Petitions presented by, 704. 

Stidger, Mr. a delegate from Stark— 

Resolution relative to surplus revenue fund, 37 ; remarks on 
the right of petition, 40; on his resolution relative to surplus 
revenue fund, 47; on publication of debates, 76 ; explanation 
of paging to debates, 102; remarks on time of general elec¬ 
tion, 148; presentatiou of petitions, 206, 427, 416; amend¬ 
ment on appointing power of General Assembly, 228; re¬ 
ports chairman standing committee on education, 635; mo¬ 
tion to enter communication of Library Association on jour¬ 
nal, 675 ; petitions presented by, 679; remarks on his report 
on education, 682, 689; amendment to report on preamble, 
976; on judicial department, and remarks thereon, 1036,1311; 
report of standing committee on education. No, 2, 1280,1319 

Stickney, Mr. a delegate from Seneca— 

Petitions presented by, 1096: remarks on law reform, 1297; 
resolution relative to time of vote on constitution, 1441. 

Stillwell, Mr. a delegate from Muskingum— 

Remarks on publication of debates in German, 57; on appor¬ 
tionment, 116; on ineligibility to other office of members of 
General Assembly, 205; on biennial sessions, — ; on eligibil¬ 
ity of United States or State officers to General Assembly, 
225; presentation of petitions, 238,278, 337, 518, 590, 607, 635, 
713, 801, 941, 965; remarks on retroactive legislation, 248; 
amendment and remarks on compensation of members Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, 261; remarks on corporations, 311; on sink 
ing fund, 442, 446; resolution as to hour of meeting, 446 ; re¬ 
marks on the judiciary article, 625, 636; on legislative repeal, 
1162 ; amendment and remarks on corporations other than 
banking, 1262; resolution fixing hour of meeting, 1186; re¬ 
marks on report on legislative department, 1190; amendment 
to report of committee on legislative department, 1192; reso¬ 
lution in relation to fixed salaries of members of General As¬ 
sembly, 1272; amendment to report on municipal corpora¬ 
tions, 1280 ; remarks on report on judicial department, 1300-1; 
amendment and remarks thereon to report on finance and 
taxation, 1344,1363, lemarks on report of committee on ap¬ 
portionment, 1375, 1377; on amendment to report on finance 
and taxation, 1399; resolution amending report on schedule, 
1421, 

Struble, Mr. a delegate from Hamilton— 

Style of laws, 138,203. 

Suspension of laws, provision on power of, 227, 

Swan Mr , a delegate from Franklin— 

Remarks on biennial sessions, 298 ; on terms of State officers, 
on individual liability of corporators, 368, 393 ; on limit to 
State debt. 424 : on a sinking fund, 446; on powers and du¬ 
ties of sinking fund commissioners, 476; on the judiciary 
538, .551, 562 : on a county court, 615; amendment relative 


to right of repeal, 844 ; remarks relative to a right of repeal, 
846, 1114-5, 1176, 1228, 1229, 1251; amendment relative to 
organization of H. of Representatives, 870 ; amendment rela¬ 
tive to submission of laws to the people, 877,880; amendment 
relative to the taking of private property for public use, 883 ; 
petitions presented by, 318, 337, 886, 1290 ; remarks on amend¬ 
ments to report on Judicial department, 1011, 1299; on amend¬ 
ments to report on pub. debt and pub. works, 1063 ; amend¬ 
ment to report on Legislative department, 1272 ; amendment 
on subject of Legislative repeal, 1214; amendment and re- 
marks to report on corporations other than banks, relative 
to taxation, 1281; remarks on amendments to report on pre¬ 
amble and bill of rights, 1305 ; report of standing committee 
on Judicial department, 1425. 

Swift Mr., a delegate from Summit— 

Remarks on his motion to print 4,000 copies of the debates, 69 ; 
amendment to resolution for adjournment, 660 ; remarks on 
proposition to adjourn over, 663, 664 ; petitions presented by, 
628, 801, 886, 1250. 

Taxation— 

Of Banks, resolution of Mr. Barber, 405 ; of church and corpo¬ 
rate property, resolution of Mr. McCormick, 241; powers 
and duties of the General Assembly, 207, 263 ; resolution of 
Mr. Thompson, of Shelby, 265 ; of Stocks, resolution of Mr. 
Farr, 85. 

Taxation of churches, literary institutions and burying grounds, 
711 to 721; propositions of Messrs. Groesbeck, Worthington, 
Taylor and Humphreville, 721. 

Taxation of State and United States bonds, 722, 730, 734, 747, 749, 
757, 787, 790 ; Mr. Horton’s motion to strike from section pro¬ 
posing to tax State and United States stocks, the words “ State 
and,” 724 ; question taken in committee of the whole on Mr. 
Horton’s motion to exempt State stocks from taxation, 769; 
Mr. Mason’s amendment to sec. 3 of report, 770, 779 ; yeas and 
nays on proposition to exempt U. S. bonds from taxation, 

' 790 ; communication of Auditor of State, 932. 

Taylor Mr., a delegate from Erie— 

Remarks on oath of office by delegates, 3,4; on election of 
printer to the Convention, 7 ; on publication of debab-s, 16 ; 
on Printing, 26 ; on publication ot debates in German, 61; on 
presenting petition of Benjamin Somers, 114 ; on apportion¬ 
ment, 126 ; on single House of General Assembly, 126,144 ; 
on biennial sessions, 187 ; on trial of contested seats in Gen. 
Assembly, 199 ; on his resolution on Banks and Currency, 
on county Legislative boards, 252, 255; on terms of State 
officers, 994 ; on corporations, 308; on repeal of corporate 
franchises, 327 ; on the presidential canvass of 1848, 413; on 
sinking fund, 474 ; on powers and duties ot sinking fund 
commissioners, 486 ; on a ref ormed code of legal procedure, 
502, 507, 523 ; on Latin law phrases, 537 ; on judicial districts, 
595; on jurisdiction of county courts, 615; on the elective 
franchise, 1259 ; on Mr. Sawyer’.s motion to insert the word 
“white ” in the article on Education, 682, 684; on amount of 
permanent school fund, 687 ; on capital punishment, 701; pe¬ 
titions presented by, 703, 755, 819, 1024 ; remarks on the res¬ 
olution inviting Amin Bey to a seat within bar of convention 
chamber, 729 ; on Finance and taxation, 770, in favor of an¬ 
nual sessions 816 ; i elative to right of Legislative repeal, 825; 
relative to organization of a board ot select men in each Co., 
in which Legislature should vest local legislative power, 834; 
on mode of organizing House of Representatives, 214 ; on the 
relation of the Judiciary to the Legislative department, 872 ; 
on submission of laws to a vote of the people, 878 ; on report 
on public debt and pnblic works, 948; on manner of appoint¬ 
ing commissionets for revision of practice and proceedings 
of courts of record, 962 on reporton jurisprudence, 963, 
on amendment to report of standing committee on preamble 
and bill of rights, 979, 1101; on amendment to report ot com. 
on preamble and bill ot rights 984 ; on report ot committee 
on militia, 982 ; on election ot supreme judges by the people, 
999 ; amendment and remarks on report of committee on ju¬ 
dicial department, 1038 ; on report of committee on future 
amendments to constitution, 1067 ; on temperance question 
against legalizing sale of liquors, 1079, 1327 ; amendment to 
report on elective franchise, 1182; remarks relative to giving 
public printing to lowest bidder, 1212 ; relative to provision 
in constitution prohibiting immigration of blacks, &c., 1224 ; 

, relative to municipal corporations, 1278; on amendments to 
I report on Education, 1313 ; amendment and remarks on rep. 

on finance and taxation, 734,1.344 : remarks on Representative 
; and Senatorial apportionment, 1369,1381,1390,1392 ; amend¬ 
ment and remarks on Senatorial and Representative apjior- 
tionment, 1379, 1380 ; remarks on banks and currency, 1406. 

■ Temperance—see petitions— 

[ Select committee thereon, 278; report of committee on juris¬ 
prudence, 392 ; petitions against the prohibition of the use ot 
ardent spirits, 857, 1052 ; petitions for the e.xpulsion of any 
' member of the General Assembly coming upon floor of either 
’ House in a drunken condition, 696 ; report ot selei't commit¬ 
tee against traffic in intoxicating drinks, 1308; final pa-sage 
of report of select committee against traffic in intoxicating 
drinks, 1308 ; reconsideration of vote on final passage, 1325. 

Thompson Mr., a delegate from Shelby— 

Resolution upon equality of taxation. 265 ; amendment and re- 
\ marks on Governor’s proclamation, calling extra sessions of 
General Assembly, 360 ; remarks on the right of Legislative 
repeal, 922; amendment to preamble, 974; petitions presen- 
. ted by, 1 92, 1103; remarks on the 3\mperance question. 













XVI 


INDEX, 


1075,1089; amendment and remarks thereon to report on Ed¬ 
ucation, 1313. 

Thompson Mr., a delegate from Stark— 

Motion to amend report on elective franchise, 680; petitions 
presented by, 755,928,1217 ; substitute proposed for Mr. Cur¬ 
ry’s amendment to section 6 of report on public debt and pub¬ 
lic works, 959; remarks on Legislative repeal, 1239. 

Tcwnshend Mr., a delegate from Lorain— 

Remarks on the right of petition, 40; on single House of Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, 144 ; presentation of petitions, 415, 857 ; re¬ 
marks on motion to reject petition of W H. Day for the right 
of sulFrage to persons of color, 415 ; motions to amend the re¬ 
port on the elective franchise, 681; remarks in reply to Mr. 
Sawyer, relative to the exclusion of colored persons from 
schools, 683. 690; resolution of thanks to officers of Mechan¬ 
ics Institute, 704 ; amendments and remarks on report of 
committee on militia, 994 ; remarks on rep. on future amend¬ 
ments to constitution, 1070, 1072; speech on negro suffrage, 
1177, 1182. 

Treason, 273. 

Treasurer of State—term and tenure of office, compensation, &c., 
288. 

Vacancies in State offices, how filled, 298, 291, 292. 

Vance Mr., a delegate fiom Butler- 

Remarks on oath of office by delegates, 3 ; on order of business, 
31; on rules of order, 46 ; on publication of debates, 69, 72 ; 
on election districts, 147; on ineligibility to other office ol 
members of General Assembly, 205 ; on impeachment ol of¬ 
ficers, 209 ; on divorces, with amendment, 227 ; on retroac¬ 
tive legislation, 232; on introducing his resolution of respect 
to the memory of John Riley, 346 ; remarks and proposition 
on indivioual liability of corporators, 392 ; on limit to State 
debt, 426 ; on a sinking fund 440,463, 467 ; on a revised code 
of legal procedure, 511, 514,524; on the Judiciary article, 
557, 575, 607; presentation ol petitions, 579, 618 ; president 
pro tern., 679, 081, 685, 690 ; amendment to Mr Case’s resolu¬ 
tion relative to taxation of U. S. bonds, 787 ; remarks on Ju¬ 
dicial system, 794; as chairman of standing committee on 
preamble and bill of rights, 802 , on the right of Legislative 
repeal, 828, 849,1174. 1231,1243; amendment relative to right 
of Legislative repeal, 895, 905, 1176 ; communication to the 
president of Convention, announcing his resignation and the 
reasons therefor, 969; credentials of his re-election presented, 
1161 ; amendment and remarks on report of Committee on 
Legislative department, 1198 • amendment to report on Leg. 
department discouraging immigration of free bl ck popula¬ 
tion of other States to Ohio, 1228 ; remarks on Bank taxation, 
&c., 1283; amendment to report on Finance and taxation, 
1439. 

Vance Mr., a delegate from Champaign— 

Remarks on biennial sessions, 170, 218 ; report as chairman of 
committee on Public Institutions, 328; remarks on appoint¬ 
ing power of Gov., 491; on article of public institutions, 494, 

Warren Mr., a delegate from Delaware— 

Presentation of a communicati m from the citizens of Dela¬ 
ware, inviting the Convention to remove its sessions to that 
place, 265 ; petitions presented by, 1005, 

Way Mr,, a delegate from Monroe— 

Petitions presented by, 928. 

Way, right of— 

Grant to corporations, 401. 

Williams Mr., a delegate Irom Warren— 

Remarks on his resolution relative to election of State, county 
and township officers by the people, 66, 67 ; draft of an arti- 
ticle upon banks and currency; minority report from stand¬ 
ing committee, 650 ; remarks on Mr. Green’s resolution of 
thanks to President .Medill. 1448. 

Wilson Mr., a delegate from Wayne, elected to fill vacancy caused 
by resignation of Mr, Firestone— 

Appointed on committee on Finance an taxation, 678; petitions 
presented by, 801, 

Woodbury Mr., a delegate from Ashtabula— 

Remarks and amendment relative to purchase of newspapers 
lor members, 13 ; remarks on biennial sessions, 183 ; amend¬ 
ment to section on compensation of members of General As¬ 
sembly, 260; remarks on his proposition relative to claims 
again^t the State, 264 ; on qualifications for office of Govern¬ 
or, 270; presentation of petith-ns, 295, 562; remarks on mi¬ 
litia system, 409; on his amendment to section establishing 
a sinking fund, 449 ; on prison discipline, 495 ; on a reformed 
code of legal procedure, 504,505; on the judiciary article, 
567, 601; on his motion to amend report on elective fran- 
cfise, 679, 680; on Finance and taxation, 719, 1337,1.342; 
amendment to report on Finance and taxation, 787 ; petitio.,s 
presented by, 835; amendment to report on Legislative de¬ 
partment, 840 ; amendment to report on Executive depart¬ 
ment. 940, 943; amendment to preamble and bill of rights, 
972; remarks on amendment to report on Judicial depart 
ment, 1029 ; on amendment to report on preamble and bill of 
rights, 1101; on right of suffrage, 1181; relative .to State Su¬ 
perintendent of common schools and assistants 1319; remarks 
on reconsidering report on traffic in ardent spirits. 1323; re¬ 
marks on report of committee on apportionment, 1359. 

Worthington Mr., a delegate Irom Ross in place of Mr. C’laypool, 
resianed— 

Credentials presented, 675 ; appointed on apportionment com., 
678 ; remarks on improvement of Convention hall, 694 ; on 
Finance and taxation, 709, 711, 786; amendment relative to 
rights of private property taken for public use, 893: remarks 


on his amendment to report on public debt and public works, 
959; on report of committee on executive department, 978 ; 
on report of committee on militia, 996, 1302; on point ot or¬ 
der raised by Mr. Reemelin, li29; on report on Legislative ; 
department, 1201; on negro suffrage, ]259; on amendments 
to report on corporations other than banks, l«.b3. 

Yeas and Nays— . , ..u 

On appointing a committee on jurisprudence, 34; on the recep¬ 
tion of petitions, 4U, 41, 440; on securing copy right of de- j 
bates, 45; on publisuing debates m German, 58,105, 106,673; | 

on the adoption of rules, 62; during debate on publication of I 
reports, 73 74, 76, 77; on the hour of rneeting, 15o; on fix- 
ins hour of meeting, 676, 870; on motion to adjourn, 679, 
mi m m2. SIS. sk.sss. 835, 849. 870.875 905,928.940, 
944, 958, 996. 1041, 1092, 1095, 1096, 1171, 1236, 12o0. 1255, 
1308, 1322,1382,1433 ; on motion to recommit report of stand¬ 
ing committee on education, 689; on motion relative to ex¬ 
clude colored children from schools, 690; on motion to in¬ 
corporate section 4 ot minority report on education, in report 
of the majority, 690; * n proposition lor establishment of 
Normal schools, 690 ; on motion to lay resolution lor im¬ 
provement of Hall on the table, and other motions pertaining 
thereto, 696; on motion to indefinitely postpone report of se¬ 
lect committee on capital punishment, 703 ; on motion that 
names ef absentees be not entered on journal, 710 ; on motion 
to go into committee of the whole, 756, 788 ; on motion to 
amend report on finance and taxation, 787 ; on Mr. Caris’ res¬ 
olution relative to taxing United Stab s bonds. 791; on term 
of office for Senators, 810; on motion to print memorial of 
D. Drake, 819; on motion to print communication from Ma¬ 
ryland convention, 820; on biennial ses-iions, 823 ; during de¬ 
bate on right ot legislative repeal 824, 825,833-4, 844, 845, 848, 
865 895, 931, 937, 1240-1, 1253-5; on dispensing with all fur¬ 
ther proceedings under calls of the convention, 828, 845, 908, 

931 970, 1196,1283; leave given to record votes after call of 
yeas and nays, 793, 828 ; on striking out section 38 of report 
' on legislative department, providing that the legislature should 
vest local legislative powers in certain county boards, 834 ; 
during oebate on right of way and on rights of private prop¬ 
erty taken for public use, 839, 883, 884, 886, 892-3; during 
debate relative to eligibility to office, 841, 843, 869; on the 
restriction of debate, 842, 965, 970, 971; during debate on 
subject of new counties, 866-7; during debate on compensa¬ 
tion of members of General Assembly, 867-9 ; during debate 
on organization of House of Representatives, 869; dunng de¬ 
bate on passage of laws to take effect upon contingencies, 
874,880; during debate on retroactive and curative laws, 
895,1215 ; during debate on executive department, 939, 944 : 
during debate on public debt and public works, 945, 947, 949, 
958, 959, 962, 1064; during debate on adoption of report of 
sthnding committee on jurisprudence, 972; on sustaining the 
demand tor the previous question, 886, 909, 937, 944, 971,1029, 
1088, 1092,1109, 1173, 1186,1223, 1245, 1248,1270. 1271, 1284, 
1292, 1301, 1303,1307, 1308, 1.312, 1329, 1331, 1352, 1353, 1364, 
1389, 1417,1419,1422,1428,1430,1437, 1438, 1439, 1445; on 
motion to take a recess, 1041; on the qualified veto power, 

943; on the order of business, 945, 965; on motion to instruct 
committee on executive department to amend their report, 

979 ; on agreeing to amend the report of committee on pub¬ 
lic institutions, 987; on amendments to report of the com¬ 
mittee on public institutions, 988-9: on taking up report ot 
committee on banks and currency, 989; on motion to recom¬ 
mit said report to convention, 980; on motion to lay said re¬ 
port on table, 980; on motion to postpone said report till 
Monday, 980; on motion to amend militia report, 982,994; 
on motion to reconsider a certain vote on, 996; on motion 
to recommit report, 996 ; on motion to lay on table resolu¬ 
tion, for sine die adj’nt. 997; on report of committee on ju¬ 
dicial dep., 999,1000-1-2-3, 1007, 1012, 1025, 1032, 1036,1041; 
on proposition to print report on editorial convention, 1025; 
on striking out “anti-hard” in report of com. on Banks and 
Currency 1051; on amendments to report on Banks and Cur¬ 
rency, 1051, 1054, 1056. 1060,1061, 1408; on motion to take 
up resolution in relation to recess, 1052 ; on motion to lay on 
table report and amendments to, on Banks and Currency, 
1053 ; on motion to refer communication of O. Editorial Con¬ 
vention to select committee, 1069 ; on amendments to report 
on future amendments to constitution, 1070, 1072, 1082; on 
motions to lay subjects under debate on the table, 1088, 1098, 
1037, 1302, 1303,1311; on amendment to report of select com¬ 
mittee on Temperance, 1092, 1334; on committing to com¬ 
mittee ot the whole, the report on Legislative department, 
1692; on recommitting report on Temperance, 1095 ; on mo¬ 
tion to take a recess, 1095; on motion to go into committee 
ot whole, 1186; on motion to discharge committee from fur¬ 
ther consideration of report on Le islative department, 1096, 
1186,1202 ; on resolution for sine die adjoutnment, 1096 ; on 
amendments to report on preamble and bill of rights, 1098, 
1099, 1109, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1109, 1129, 1176, 1177, 1185, 1186, 
1307,1417, 1418, 1428, 1429; on resolution restricting debate, 
1153, 1255, 1359; on amendments to report on elective fran¬ 
chise, 1182, 1183, 1260; in relation to call of Convention, 1191, 
1250, 1308, 1388, 1422 ; on amendment to report of commit¬ 
tee on Legislative department, 1202, 1203, 1205. 1206, 1207, 
1214, 1215, 1221, 1228, 1529, 1271, 1272, 1281, 1426, 1422 ; on 
resolution fixing hour of meeting, 1217, 1218 ; on resolution 
relative to reception of pet tions after a certain p riod, 1237 ; 
on Mr. Ranney’s amendment relative to repeal law, 1242; on 
resolution relative to holding night sessions, 1250; on recon- 








ORDINANCE OF 1787. 


xvu 


sideration of report and amendments on corporations other 
than banks, 1264. 1276, 1278, 1283, 1285, 1292; on considera¬ 
tion of report No. 3 on militia, 1271, 1303; on recommitting 
report on Legislative department to standing committee, 
1271; on resolution providing for fixed salaries to members 
of General Assembly, 1272; on resolution relative to forma¬ 
tion of new counties, 1272; on resolution lor assistant door 
keeper, 1273 ; on motion to reconsider vote on final passage 
of report on corporations other than Banking, 1292 ; on con¬ 
sideration and amendments to Judicial report, 1297,1299, 1301, 
1302 ; on final passage of report on preamble and bill of rights, 
1307 ; on final passage of report on retailing ardent spirits, 
1308; on amendment to report of committee on Education, 
1318,1320; on final passage of, 1323 ; on motion to reconsid¬ 
er report on Temperance question, 1326; on motion to go in¬ 
to committee of whole on Temperance question, 1330; on 
amendments to report on Finance and taxation, 1347,1352, 
1358, 1364, 1395.1399, 1428, 1431,1438.1439,1447; on amend¬ 
ments to report of apportionment, 1379,1388, 1390,1394 ; on 
Mr. Manon’s amendment to Judiciary report, 1400; on en¬ 
grossing Mr. Gregg’s amendment to report on miscellaneous 
subjects. 1400 ; on resolution fixing per diem of messenger 
boys, 1409 ; on resolution of Mr. Patterson securing to every 
man a title to his home, 1409 ; on resolution of Mr. Hender¬ 
son amending preamble, 1416 ; on amendment to report on 
schedule, 1420,1421,1426 ; on recommitting report on sched¬ 


ule, 1422.1444 ; on motion of Mr. Case relative to hard mon¬ 
ey, 1421,1422; on passage of report on apj^ortionment, 1423, 
1425 ; on amendments to report on Education, 1440 ; on res¬ 
olution of Mr. Dorsey relative to Banks, 1425 ; on resolution 
of Mr. Stanton relative to single districts, 1426; on passage of 
report on miscellaneous subjects, 1432; amendments tore- 
port on miscellaneous subjects, 1432, 1445; on resolution rel¬ 
ative to transcribing journal, 1433 ; on reconsidering vote on 
section 13 on judiciary, 1435 ; on striking out the words “ an 
entire” in section 13 of report on judiciary, 1436 ; on amend¬ 
ments to report on public debt and public works, 1436 ; on 
reconsidering vote ordering the article on elective fri nchise 
to be enrolled, 1437; on the passage of report on finance and 
taxation, 1439; on adoption of resolution of Mr. Scott relative 
to election of Treasurer and Secretary of State in Oct. 1851, 
1441 ; on resolution of Mr. Lawrence instructing committee 
on revision to amend report on miscellaneous subjects, 1446; 
on resolution of Mr. Case, of Licking, relative to amending 
report on corporations, 1446; on resolution of Mr. Ranney 
relative to striking out section 5 of report on corporations, 
1446 ; on amendments to report on corporations other than 
banks, 1446; on resolution allowing James Pollock, lamplight¬ 
er, (fee., $l,.50per day, 1446; on resolution allowing mileage 
to secretaries, sergeant at arms and door keepers ot Conven¬ 
tion, 1448; on resolution of thanks to Hon. Wm. Medill, 1448. 


OEDmANCB OF JULY 13, 1787. 


AN ORDINANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES NORTH 

WEST OF THE RIVER OHIO. 


Be it ordained hy the United States in Congress assem,' 
bled, That the said territory, for the purposes of tempo¬ 
rary government, be one district; subject, however to 
be divided into two districts, as future circumstances 
may, in the opinion of Congress, make it expedient. 

Be it ordained hy the authority aforesaid, That the es¬ 
tates, both of resident and nonresident proprietors in 
the said territory, dying intestate, shall descend to and 
be distributed among their children, and the descend¬ 
ants of a deceased child in equal parts; the descend¬ 
ants of a deceased child or grand child to take the share 
of their deceased parent in equal parts among them ; 
and where there shall be no children or descendants, 
then in equal parts to the next of kin, in equal degree; 
and among collaterals, the children of a deceased bro¬ 
ther or sister of the intestate, shall have, in equal parts 
among them, their deceased parent’s share; and there 
shall, in no case, be a distinction between kindred of 
the whole and half blood; saving, in all cases, to the 
widow of the intestate, her third part of the real estate 
for life, and one third part of the personal estate ; and 
this law, relative to descents and dower, shall remain 
in full force until altered by the legislature nf the dis 
trict. And until the Governor and judges shall adopt 
laws as hereinafter mentioned, estates in the said terri¬ 
tory may be devised or bequeathed by wills, in writing, 
signed and sealed by him or her, in whom the intestate 
may be, (being of full age,) and attested by three wit¬ 
nesses ; and real estates may be conveyed by lease ar.d 
release, or bargain and sale, signed, sealed and deliver¬ 
ed by the person, being of full age, in whom the estate 
may be, and attested by two witnesses; provided such 
wills be duly proved, and such conveyances be acknow¬ 
ledged, or the execution thereof dnly proved, and be 
recorded within one year after proper magistrates, 
courts, and registers, shall be appointed for that pur¬ 
pose ; and personal property may be transferred by de¬ 
livery ; saving, however, to the French and Canadian 
inhabitants, and other settlements of the Kaskaskias, 
3 


St. Vincents, and the neighboring villages, who have 
heretofore professed themselves citizens of Virginia, 
their laws and customs, now in force among them, rel¬ 
ative to descent and conveyance of property. 

Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, T hat there shall 
be appointed, from time to time, by Congress, a Gover¬ 
nor, whose commission shall continue in force for the 
term of three ye'ars, unless sooner revoked by Congress; 
he shall reside in the district, and have a freehold es¬ 
tate therein, in one thousand acres of land, while in the 
exercise of his office. 

There shall be appointed, from time to time, by Con¬ 
gress, a Secretary, whose commission shall continue in 
force for four years, unless sooner revoked; he shall re¬ 
side in the district, and have a freehold estate therein 
in five hundred acres of land* while in the exercise of 
his office : it shall be his duty to keep and preserve the 
acts and laws passed by the legislature, and the public 
records of the district, and the proceedings of the Gov¬ 
ernor, in his executive department; and transmit au¬ 
thentic copie.s of such acts and proceedings, every six 
months, to the Secretary of Congress; there shall also 
be appointed a court, to consist of three judges, any 
two of whom to form a court, who shall have a common 
law jurisdiction, and reside in the district, and have 
each therein a freehold estate, in five hundred acres of 
land, while in the exercise of their offices; and their 
commissions shall continue in force during good beha¬ 
vior. 

The Governor and judges, or a majority of them, 
shall adopt and publish in the district, such laws of the 
original States, criminal and civil, as may be necessary 
and best suited to the circumstances of the district, and 
report them to Congress, from time to time; which 
laws shall be in force in the district until the organiza¬ 
tion of the General Assembly therein,unless disapproved 
of by Congress; but afterwards the Legislature shall 
have authority to alter them as they shall think fit. 

The Governor, lor the time being, shall be command- 










XVlll 


OEDINANCE OF 1787. 


er-in-chief of the militia, appoint and commission all 
officers in the same, below the rank of general officers; 
all general officers shall be appointed and commissioned 
by Congress. 

Previous to the organization of the General Assembly, 
the Governor shall appoint such magistrates and other 
civil officers, in each county or township, as he shall find 
necessary for the preservation of the peace and good 
order in the same. After the General Assembly shall 
be organized, the powers and duties of magistrates and 
other civil officers shall be regulated and defined by the 
said assembly ; but all magistrates, and other civil offi¬ 
cers shall be regulated and defined by the said assem¬ 
bly ; but all magistrates and other civil ofiicers, not 
herein otherwise directed, shall, during the continuance 
of this temporary government, be appointed by the 
Governor. 

For the prevention of crimes and injuries, the laws 
to be adopted or made, shall have force in all parts of 
the district; and for the execution of process, criminal 
and civil, the Governor shall make proper divisions i 
thereof, and he shall proceed, from time to time, as 
circumstances may require, to lay out the parts of the 
district in which the Indian titles shall have been ex¬ 
tinguished, into counties and townships, subject, how¬ 
ever, to such alterations as may thereafter be made by 
the Legislature. 

So soon as there shall be five thousand free male in¬ 
habitants, of full age, in the district, upon giving proof 
thereof to the Governor, they shall receive authority, 
with time and place, to elect representatives from their 
counties or townships, to represent them in the Gener¬ 
al Assembly; provided, that for every five hundred 
free male inhabitants, there shall be one representative, 
and so on, progressively, with the number of free male 
inhabitants, shall the right of representation increase, 
until the number of representatives shall amount to 
twenty-five ; after which the number and proportion of 
representatives shall be regulated by the Legislature ; 
provided, that no person be eligible or qualified to act 
as a representative, unless he shall have been a citizen 
of one of the United States three years, and be a resi¬ 
dent in the district, or unless ho shall have resided in 
the district three years ; and, in either case, shall like¬ 
wise hold in his own right, in fee simple, two hundred 
acres of land within the same; provided, also, that a 
freehold in fifty acres of land in the district, having 
been a citizen of one of the States, and being resident 
in the district, or the like freehold and two years’ resi¬ 
dence in the district, shall be necessary to qualify a 
man as an elector of a representative. 

The representatives thus elected shall serve for the 
term of two years; ana in case of the death of a rep¬ 
resentative, or removal from office, the Governor shall 
issue a writ to the county or township for which he 
was a member, to elect another in his stead, to serve 
for the residue of the term. 

The General Assembly, or Legislature, shall consist 
of the Governor, Legislative Council, and House of Rep¬ 
resentatives. The legislative council shall consist of 
five members, to continue in office five years, unless 
sooner I’emoved by Congress; any thi’ee of whom to be 
a quorum; and the members of the council shall be 
nominated and appointed in the following manner, to 
wit: as soon as representatives shall be elected, the 
Governor shall appoint a time and place for them to 
meet together, and when met they shall nominate ten 
persons, residents in the district, and each possessed of 
a freehold in five hundred acres of land, and return 
their names to Congress; five of whom Congress shall 
appoint and commission to serve as aforesaid; and 
whenever a vacancy shall happen in the council, by 
death or removal from office, the House of Representa¬ 
tives shall nominate two persons, qualified as aforesaid, 
for each vacancy, and return their names to Congress; 
one of whom Congress shall appoint and commission 
for the residue of the term. And every five years, four 
months at least before the expiration of the time of ser¬ 


vice of the membei’s of council, the said house shall 
nominate ten persons, qualified as aforesaid, and return 
their names to Congress; five of whom Congress shall 
appoint and commission to serve as members of the 
council five years, unless sooner removed. And the 
Governor, Legislative Council, and House of Represen¬ 
tatives, shall have authority to make laws, in all cases, 
for the good government of the district, not repugnant 
to the principles and articles in this ordinance establish¬ 
ed and declared. And all bills, having passed by a 
majority in the House, and by a majority in the coun¬ 
cil, shall be referred to the Governor for his assent; 
but no bill or legislative act whatever shall be of any 
force without his assent. The Governor shall have 
power to convene, prorogue, and dissolve the General 
Assembly when, in his opinion, it shall be expedient. 

The Governor, judges, legislative council, secretary, 
and such other officers as Congress shall appoint in the 
district, shall take an oath or affirmation of fidelity, 
and of office; the Governor before the President of 
Congress, and all other officers before the Governor. 
As soon as a legislature shall be formed in the district, 
the council and house assembled in one room, shall 
have authority, by joint ballot, to elect a delegate to 
Congress, who shall have a seat in Congress, with a 
right of debating, but not of voting, during this tempo¬ 
rary government. 

And for extending the fundamental principles of civ¬ 
il and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon 
these republics, their laws and constitutions, are erec¬ 
ted; to fix and establish those principles as the basis 
of all laws, constitutions and governments, which for¬ 
ever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory ; to 
provide also for the establishment of States, and per¬ 
manent government therein, and for their admission to 
a share in the federal councils, on an equal footing 
with the original States, at as early periods as may be 
consistent with the general interest. 

It is hereby ordained and declared, by the authority afore¬ 
said, That the following articles shall be considered as 
articles of compact, between the original States and the 
people and States in the said teri’itory, and forever re¬ 
main unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit: 

Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peacea¬ 
ble and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on ac¬ 
count of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, 
in the said territory. 

Art. 2. The inhabitants of the said territory shall 
always be entitled to the benefit of the writ of habeas 
corpus, and of the trial by jury ; of a proportionate rep¬ 
resentation of the people in the legislature, and of ju¬ 
dicial proceedings, according to the course of the com¬ 
mon law. All persons shall be bailable, unless for 
capital offences, where the proof shall be evident or 
the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate, 
and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted. 
No man shall be deprived of his liberty or property, 
but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the 
land; and should the public exigencies make it neces 
sary, for the common preservation, to take an 7 person’s 
property, or to demand his particular services, full 
compensation shall be made for the same. And m the 
just preservation of rights and property, it is understood 
and declared that no law ought ever to be made, or 
have force in the said territory, that shall, in any man¬ 
ner whatever, interfere with or affect private contracts 
or engagements, bona fide, and without fraud, previ¬ 
ously formed. 

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge being 
necessary to good government and the happiness of 
mankind, schools, and the means of education shall for¬ 
ever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall al¬ 
ways be observed towards the Indians ; their lands and 
property shall never be taken from them without their 
consent; and in their property, rights and liberty, they 
never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and 
lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded 
in justice and humanity shall, from time to time, be 











ORDINANCE OF 1787. 


XIX 


made, for preventing wrongs being done to them, and 
for preserving peace and friendship with them. 

Art. 4. The said territory, and the States which 
may bo formed therein, shall forever remain a part of 
this confederacy ol the United States of America, sub¬ 
ject to the articles of confederation, and to such altera¬ 
tion therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to 
all the acts and ordinances of the United States, in Con¬ 
gress assembled, conformable thereto. Theinhabitants 
and settlers in the said territory shall be subject to pay 
a part of the federal debts, contracted, or to be con¬ 
tracted, and a proportional part of the expenses of gov¬ 
ernment, to be apportioned on them by Congress, ac¬ 
cording to the same common rule and measure by 
which apportionments thereof shall be made on the 
other States; and the taxes for paying their proportion 
shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction 
of the legislatures of the district or districts, or new 
States, as in the original States, within the time agreed 
upon by the United States in Congress assembled. The 
legislatures of those districts, or new States, shall nev¬ 
er interfere with the primary disposal of the soil, by 
the United States, in Congress assembled, nor with any 
regulations Congress may find necessary for securing 
the title in such soil to the bona fide purchasers. No 
tax shall be imposed on lands, the property of the Uni¬ 
ted States; and in no case shall nonresident proprietors 
be taxed higher than residents. The navigable waters 
leading into the Mississippi and St. Lawrence, and the 
carrying places between the same, shall be common 
highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants 
of the said territory as to the citizens of the United 
• States, and those of any other States that may_ be ad¬ 
mitted into the confederacy, without any tax, impost, 
or duty therefor. 

Art. 5. There shall be formed in the said territory 
not less than three, nor more than five States ; and the 
boundaries of the States, so soon as Virginia shall alter 
her act of cession, and consent to the same, shall be¬ 
come fixed and established as follows, to wit: The 
western State, in the said territory, shall be bounded 
by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and Wabash rivers; a di¬ 
rect line drawn from the Wabash and Post Vincents, 


due north, to the territorial line between the United 
States and Canada; and by the said territorial line to 
the Lake of the Woods and Mississippi. The middle 
State shall bo bounded by the said direct line, the Wa¬ 
bash, from Post Vincents to the Ohio, by the Ohio, by 
a direct lino drawn due north from the mouth of the 
Great Miami to the said territorial line, and by said ter¬ 
ritorial line. The eastern State shall be bounded by 
the last mentioned direct line, the Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
and the said territorial line; provided, however, and 
it is further understood and declared, that the bounda¬ 
ries of these three States shall be subject so far to be 
altered, that if Congress shall hereafter find it expedi¬ 
ent, they shall have authority to form one or two States 
in that part of the said territory which lies north of an 
east and west line drawn through the southerly bend, 
or extreme of Lake Michigan. And whenever any of 
the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabit¬ 
ants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its dele¬ 
gates, into the Congress of the United States, on an 
equal footing with the original States, in all respects 
whatsoever; and shall be at liberty to forma perma¬ 
nent constitution and State government; provided the 
constitution and government so to be formed shall be re¬ 
publican, and in conformity to the principles contained in 
these articles; and, so far as it can be consistent with 
the general interest of the confederacy, such admission 
shall be allowed at an earlier period, and when there 
may be a less number of free inhabitants in the State 
than sixty thousand. 

Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involun¬ 
tary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in 
punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have 
been duly convicted ; provided, always, that any per¬ 
son escaping into the same, from whom labor or ser¬ 
vice is lawfully claimed in any one of the original 
States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and 
conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or 
service as aforesaid. 

Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid^ That the reso¬ 
lutions of the 23d of April, 1784, relative to the sub¬ 
ject of this ordinance, be and the same are hereby re¬ 
pealed, and declared null and void. Done, &c. 






CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE.OF OHIO. 


« 


[Adopted in 1802 .] 


We, the people of the eastern division of the territory 
of the United States, northwest of the river Ohio, 
having the right of admission into the General Gov¬ 
ernment, as a member of the Union, consistent with 
the Constitution of the United States, the ordinance 
of Congress of one thousand seven hundred and 
eighty-seven, and of the law of Congress, entitled 
“An act to enable the people of the eastern division 
of the territory of the United States, northwest of the 
river Ohio, to form a constitution and State govern¬ 
ment, and for the admission of such State into the 
Union, on an equal footing with the original States, 
and for other purposes; in order to establish justice, 
promote the welfare, and secure the blessings of 
liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and 
establish the following constitution or form of gov¬ 
ernment, and do mutually agree with each other to 
form ourselves into a free and independent State, by 
the name of the State of Ohio : 

ARTICLE I. 

Sec. 1. The legislative authority of this State shall 
be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist 
of a Senate and House of Representatives, both to be 
elected by the people. 

Sec. 2. Within one year after the first meeting ot 
the General Assembly, and within every subsequent 
term of four years, an enumeration of all the white 
male inhabitants, above twenty-one years of age, shall 
be made in such manner as shall be directed by law. 
The number of representatives shall, at the several 
periods of making such enumeration, be fixed by the 
Legislature and apportioned among the several coun¬ 
ties, according to the number of white male inhabitants 
above twenty-one years of age in each, and shall never 
be less than twenty-four, nor greater than thirty-six, 
until the number of white male inhabitants, above 
twenty-one years of age, shall be twenty-two thousand ; 
and after that event, at such a ratio that the whole 
number of representatives shall never be less than 
thirty-six, nor exceed seventy-two. 

Sec. 3. The representatives shall be chosen annu¬ 
ally, by the citizens of each county, respectively, on 
the second Tuesday of October. 

Sec. 4. No person shall be a representative, who 
shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, 
and be a citizen of the United States and an inhabitant 
of this State; shall also have resided within the limits 
of the county in which he shall be chosen, one year 
next preceding his election, unless he shall have been 
absent on the public business of the United States, or 
of this State, and shall have paid a State or county tax. 

Sec. 5. The senators shall be chosen biennially, by 
the qualified voters for representatives; and on their 
being convened in consequence of the first election, 
they shall be divided, by lot, from their respective 
counties or districts, as near as can be, into two classes: 
the seats of the senators of the first class shall be vaca¬ 


ted at the expiration of the first year, and of the second 
class at the expiration of the second year; so that one 
half thereof, as near as possible, may be annually cho¬ 
sen forever thereafter. 

Sec. 6. The number of senators shall, at the several 
periods of making the enumeration before mentioned, 
be fixed by the Legislature, and apportioned among 
the several counties or districts, to be established by 
law, according to the number of white m^le inhabitants 
of the age of twenty one years in each, and shall never 
be less than one-thiid, nor more than one-half of the 
number of representatives. 

Sec. 7. No person shall be a senator who has not 
arrived at the age of thirty years, and is a citizen of 
the United States ; shall have resided two years in the 
county or district, immediately preceding the election, 
unless he shall have been absent on the public business 
of the United States, or of this State; and shall, more¬ 
over, have paid a State or county tax. 

Sec. 8. The Senate and House of Representatives, 
when assembled, shall each choose a Speaker and its 
other officers; be judges of the qualifications and 
elections of its members, and sit upon its own adjourn¬ 
ments: two-thirds of each House shall constitute a 
quorum to do business; but a smaller number may 
adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of 
absent members. 

Sec. 9. Each House shall keep a journal of its pro¬ 
ceedings, and publish them; the yeas and nays ot the 
members, on any question, shall, at the desire of any 
two of them, be entered on the journals. 


i 

I 

i 


1 


Sec. 10. Any two members of ei'her House shall ! 
have liberty to dissent from, and protest against, any 
act or resolution which they may think injurious to the 
public or any individual, and have the reasons of their ' 
dissent entered on the journals. 

.Sec. 11. Each House may determine the rules of i 
its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly 
behaviour, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, 
expel a member, but not a second time for the same 
cause; and shall have all other powers necessary for 
a branch of the Legislature of a free and independent 
State. ' 


Sec. 12. When vacancies happen in either House, 
the Governor, or the person exercising the power of 
the Governor, shall issue writs of election to fill such 
vacancies. 


Sec. 13. Senators and representatives shall, in all 
cases, except treason, felony, or breach of the peace, 
be privileged from arrest during the session of the 
General Assembly, and in going to and returning from 
the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, 
they shall not be questioned in any other place. 

Sec. 14. Each House may punish, by imprison¬ 
ment, during their session, any person, not a member, 
who shall be guilty of disrespect to the House, by any 
disorderly or contemptuous behaviour in their pres- 









CONSTITUTION OF 1802 . 


XXI 


» 


ence; provided such imprisonment shall not, at any 
one time, exceed twenty-four hours. 

Sec. 15. The doors of each House, and of commit¬ 
tees of the whole, shall be kept open, except in such 
cases as, in the opinion of the House, require secrecy. 
Neither House shall, without the consent of the other, 
adjourn for more than two days, nor to any other place 
than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. 

Sec. 16. Bills may originate in either House, but 
may be altered, amended or rejected by the other. 

Sec. 17. Every bill shall bo read on three different 
days in each House, unless, in case of urgency, three- 
fourths of the House where such bill is so depending 
shall deem it expedient to dispense with this rule; and 
every bill having passed both Houses, shall be signed 
by the Speakers of their respective Houses. 

Sec. 18. The style of the laws of this State shall 
be—Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the 
State of Ohio.” 

Sec. 19. The Legislature of this State shall not 
allow the following officers of government greater 
annual salaries than as follows, until the year one 
thousand eight hundred and eight, to wit:—The Gov¬ 
ernor, not more than one thousand dollars ; the Judges 
of the Supreme Court, not more than one thousand 
dollars each; the Presidents of the Courts of Common 
Pleas, not more than eight hundred dollars each; the 
Secretary of State, not more than five hundred dollars ; 
the Auditor of public accounts, not more than seven 
hundred and fifty dollars; the Treasurer, not more 
than four hundred and fifty dollars : no member of the 
Legislature shall receive more than two dollars per 
day, during his attendance on the Legislature, nor 
moi’e for every twenty-live miles he shall travel in go¬ 
ing to, and returning from, the General Assembly. 

Sec. 20. No senator or representative shall, during 
the lime for which he shall have been elected, be ap¬ 
pointed to any civil office under this State, which shall 
have been created, or the emoluments of which shall 
have been increased, during such time. 

Sec. 21. No money shall be drawn fi’om the treas¬ 
ury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. 

Sec. 22. An accurate statement of tha receipts and 
expenditures of the public money shall be attached to, 
and published with the laws, annually. 

Sec. 23. The House of Representatives shall have 
the sole power of impeaching; but a majoi’ity of all 
the members must concur in an impeachment: all im¬ 
peachments shall be tried by the Senate; and when 
sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be upon oath 
or affirmation, to do justice according to law and evi¬ 
dence ; no person shall be convicted without the con¬ 
currence of two-thirds of all the Senators. 

Sec. 24. The Governor, and all other civil officers 
under this State, shall be liable to impeachment for 
any misdemeanor in office ; but judgment in such case 
shall not extend further than removal from office, and 
disqualification to hold any office of honor, profit, or 
trust, under this State. The party, whether convicted 
or acquitted, shall, nevertheless, be liable to indict¬ 
ment, trial, judgment and punishment, accordingtolaw. 

Sec. 25. The first session of the General Assembly 
shall commence on the first Tuesday of March next; 
and forever after, the General Assembly shall meet on 
the first Monday of December, in every year, and at 
no other period, unless directed by law, or provided 
for by this constitution. 

Sec. 26. No judge of any court of law or equity, 
Secretary of State, Attorney General, r(*gister, clerk of 
any court of record, sheriff or collector, member of 
either House of Congress, or person holding any office 
under the authority of the United States, or any lucra¬ 
tive office under the authority of this State, (provided 
that appointments in the militia or justices of the peace 
shall not be considered lucrative offices,) shall be eligi¬ 
ble as a candidate for, or have a seat in, the General 
Assembly. 

Sec. 27. No person shall be appointed to any office 


within any county, who shall not have been a citizen 
and inhabitant therein, one year next before his ap¬ 
pointment, if the county shall have been so long 
erected; but if the county shall not have been so long 
erected, then within the limits of the county or coun¬ 
ties out of which it shall have been taken. 

Sec. 28. No person who heretofore hath been, or 
hereaiter may be, a collector or holder of public mo¬ 
neys, shall have a seat in either House of the General 
Assembly, until such person shall have accounted for, 
and paid into the treasury, all sums for which he may 
be accountable or liable. 

ARTICLE II. 

Sec. 1. The supreme executive power of this State 
shall be vested in a Governor. 

Sec. 2. The Governor shall be chosen by the elec¬ 
tors of the members of the General Assembly, on the 
second Tuesday of October, at the same places, and in 
the same manner, that they shall respectively vote for 
members thereof. The returns of every election for 
Governor, shall be sealed up and transmitted to the seat 
of government, by the returning officers, directed to 
the Speaker of the Senate, who shall open and publish 
them, in the presence of a majority of the members of 
each House of the General Assembly : the person hav¬ 
ing the highest number of votes shall be Governor; 
but if two or more shall be equal and highest in votes, 
one of them shall be chosen Governor by joint ballot 
of both houses of the General Assembly. Contested 
elections for Governor, shall be determined by both 
Houses of the General Assembly, in such manner as 
shall be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 3. The first Governor shall hold his office until 
the first Monday of December, one thousand eight hun¬ 
dred and five, and until another Governor shall be elec¬ 
ted and qualified to office ; and forever alter, the Gover¬ 
nor shall hold his office for the term of two years, and 
until another Governor shall be elected and qualified ; 
but he shall not be eligible more than six years, in any 
term of eight years. He shall be at least thirty years 
of age, and have been a citizen of the United States 
twelve years, and an inhabitant of this State four years 
next preceding his election. 

Sec. 4. He shall, from time to time, give to the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly information of the state of the govern¬ 
ment, and recommend to their consideration such mea¬ 
sures as he shall deem expedient. 

Sec. 5. He shall have power to grant reprieves and 
pardons, after conviction, except in cases of impeach¬ 
ment. 

Sec. 6. The Governor shall, at stated times, receive 
for his services a compensation which shall neither be 
increased nor diminished, during the term for which 
he shall have been elected. 

Sec. 7. He may require information, in writing, 
from the officers in the executive department, upon 
any subject relating to the duties of their respective 
offices, and shall take care that the laws be faithfully 
executed. 

Sec. 8. When any officer, the right of whose appoint¬ 
ment is, by this constitution, vested in the General As¬ 
sembly, shall, during the recess, die, or his office by 
any means become vacant, the Governor shall have 
piwer to fill such vacancy, by grantii'g a commission, 
which shall expire at the end of the next session of the 
Legislature. 

Sec. 9. He may, on extraordinary occasions, con¬ 
vene the General Assembly, by proclamation, and shall 
state to them, when assembled, the purposes for which 
they shall have been convened. 

Sec. 10. He shall be commander-in-chief of the 
army and navy of this State, and of the militia, except 
when they shall be called into the service of the United 
States. 

Sec. 11. In case of disagreement between the two 
Houses, with respect to the time of adjournment, the 
Gf)vernor shall have power to adjourn the General As- 











xxM 


CONSTITUTION OF 1802. 


sembly to such time as he thinks proper; provided, it 
be not a period beyond the annual meeting of the Leg¬ 
islature. 

Sec. 12. In case of the death, impeachment, resig¬ 
nation or removal of the Governor from office, the Spea¬ 
ker of the Senate shall exercise the office of Governor, 
until he be acquitted, or another Governor shall be duly 
qualified. In case of the impeachment of the Speaker 
of the Senate, or his death, removal from office, resig¬ 
nation, or absence from the State, the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives shall succeed to the office, 
and exercise the duties thereof, until a Governor shall 
be elected and qualified. 

Sec. 13. No member of Congress, or person holding 
any office under the United States, or this State, shall 
execute the office of Governor. 

Sec. 14. There shall be a seal of this State, which 
shall be kept by the Governor, and used by him offici¬ 
ally, and shall be called “ The Great Seal of the State 
of Ohio.” 

Sec. 15. All grants and commissions shall be in the 
name, and by the authority of the State of Ohio, sealed 
with the seal, signed by the Governor, and counter¬ 
signed by the Secretary. 

Sec. 16. A Secretary of State shall be appointed by 
a joint ballot of the Senate and House of Representa¬ 
tives, who shall continue in office three years, if he shall 
so long behave himself well: he shall keep a fair regis¬ 
ter of all the official acts and proceedings of the Gover¬ 
nor ; and shall, when required, lay the same, and all 
papers, minutes and vouchers relative thereto, before 
either branch of the Legislature: and shall perform 
such other duties as shall be assigned him by law. 

ARTICLE III. 

Sec. 1. The judicial power of this State, both as to 
matters of law and equity, shall be vested in a supreme 
court, in courts of common pleas for each county, in 
justices of the peace, and in such other courts as the 
Legislature may, from time to time establish. 

Sec. 2. The supreme court shall consist of three 
judges, any two of whom shall be a quorum. They 
shall have original and appellate jurisdiction, both in 
common law and chancery, in such cases as shall be 
directed by law; provided,- that nothing herein con¬ 
tained shall prevent the General Assembly from adding 
another judge to the supreme court after the term of 
five years, in which case the judges may divide the 
State into two circuits, within which any two of the 
judges may hold a court. 

Sec. 3. The several courts of common pleas shall 
consist of a president and associate judges. The State 
sliall be divided, by law, into three circuits; there 
shall be appointed in each circuit a president of the 
courts, who, during his continuance in office, shall re¬ 
side therein. There shall be appointed in each county 
not more than three nor less than two associate judges, 
who, during their continuance in office, shall reside 
therein. The president and associate judges, in their 
respective counties, any three of whom shall be a quo¬ 
rum, shall compose the court of common pleas; which 
court shall have common law and chancery jurisdiction 
in all such cases as shall be directed by law; provided, 
that nothing herein contained shall be construed to pre¬ 
vent the Legislature from increasing the number of 
circuits and presidents, after the term of five years. 

Sec. 4. The judges of the supreme court and courts 
of common pleas, shall have complete criminal jurisdic¬ 
tion in such cases and in such manner as may be point¬ 
ed out by law. 

Sec. 5. The court of common pleas in each county 
shall have jurisdiction of all probate and testamentary 
matters, granting administration, the appointment of 
guardians, and such other cases as shall be prescribed 
by law. 

Sec. 6. The judges of the court of common pleas 
shall, within their respective counties, have the same 
powers with the judges of the supreme court, to issue 


writs of certiorari to the justices of the peac^ and to 
cause their proceedings to be brought before them, and 

the like right and justice to be done. 

Sec. 7. The judges of the supreme court shall, by 
virtue of their offices, be conservators of the peace 
throughout the State. The presidents of the courts of 
common pleas shall, by virtue of their offices, be con¬ 
servators of the peace in their respective circuits;^ and 
the judges of the court of common pleas shall, by virtue 
of their offices, be conservators of the peace in their re¬ 
spective counties. 

Sec. 8. The judges of the supreme court, the presi¬ 
dents and the associate judges of the courts of common 
pleas, shall be appointed by a joint ballot of both 
Houses of the General Assembly, and shall hold their 
offices for the term of seven years, if so long they be¬ 
have well. The judges of the supreme court, and the 
presidents of the courts of common pleas, shall, at stated 
times, receive for their services an adequate cornpen- 
sation, to be fixed by law, which shall not be dimin¬ 
ished during their continuance in office; but they shall 
receive no fees or perquisites of office, nor hold any 
other office of profit or trust under the authority of this 
State or the United States. 

Sec. 9. Each court shall appoint its own clerk for 
the term of seven years; but no person shall be ap¬ 
pointed clerk, except pro tempore, who shall not pro¬ 
duce to the court appointing him a certificate from a 
majority of the judges of the supreme court, that they 
judge him to be well qualified to execute the duties of 
the office of clerk to any court of the same dignity with 
that for which he offers himself. They shall be re¬ 
movable for breach of good behavior, at any time, by 
the judges of the respective courts. 

Sec. 10. The supreme court shall be held once a 
year in each county, and the courts of common pleas 
shall be holden in each county, at such times and pla- 
cesas shall be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 11. A competent number of justices of the 
peace shall be elected by the qualified electors in each 
township in the several counties, and shall continue in 
office three years, whose powers and duties shall, from 
time to time, be regulated and defined by law. 

Sec. 12. The style of all process shall be, “ The 
State of Ohio ; ” all prosecutions shall be carried on in 
the name and by the authority of the State of Ohio ; 
and all indictments shall conclude, “ against the peace 
and dignity of the same.” 

ARTICLE IV. 

Sec. 1. In] all elections all white male inhabitants 
above the age of twenty-one years, having resided in 
the State one year next preceding the election, and 
who have paid or are charged with a State or county 
tax, shall enjoy the right of an elector ; but no person 
shall be entitled to vote except in the county or dis¬ 
trict in which he shall actually reside at the time of the 
election. 

Sec. 2. All elections shall be by ballot. 

Sec. 3. Electors shall, in all cases except treason, 
felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from ar¬ 
rest during their attendance at elections, and in going 
to and returning from the same. 

Sec. 4. The Legislature shall have full power to ex¬ 
clude from the privilege of electing, or being elected, 
any person convicted of bribery, perjury, or any other 
infamous crime. 

Sec. 5. Nothing contained in this article shall be so 
construed as to prevent white male persons, above the 
age of twenty-one years, who are compelled to labor 
on the roads of their respective townships or counties, 
and who have resided one year in the State, from hav¬ 
ing the right of an elector. 

ARTICLE V. 

Sec. 1. Captains and subalterns in the militia shall 
be elected by those persons, in their respective compa¬ 
ny districts, subject to military duty. 










CONSTITUTION OF 1802. 


XX u 


Sec. 2. Majors shall be elected by the captains and 
subalterns of the battallion. 

Sec. 3. Colonels shall be elected by the majors, 
captains and subalterns of the regiment. 

Sec. 4. Brigadiers general shall be elected by the 
commissioned officers of their respective brigades.' 

Sec. 5. Majors general and quartermasters general 
shall be appointed by joint ballot of both Houses of the 
Legislature. 

Sec. 6. The Governor shall appoint the adjutant 
general. The majors general shall appoint their aids 
and other division staff officers. The brigadiers gen¬ 
eral shall appoint their brigade majors and other brig¬ 
ade staff officers. The commanding officers of regi¬ 
ments shall appoint their adjutants, quartermasters, and 
other regimental staff officers; and the captains and 
subalterns shall appoint their non-commissioned offi¬ 
cers and musicians. 

Sec. 7. The captains and subalterns of the artillery 
and cavalry, shall be elected by the persons enrolled in 
tneir respective corps; and the majoi’s and colonels 
shall be appointed in such manner as shall be directed 
by law. The colonels shall appoint their regimental 
staff; and the captains and subalterns their non-com¬ 
missioned officers and musicians. 

ARTICLE VI. 

Sec. 1. There shall be elected in each county one 
sheriff and one coroner, by the citizens thereof, who 
are qualified to vote for members of the assembly ; 
they shall be elected at the time and place of holding 
elections for members of assembly; they shall continue 
in office two years, if they shall so long behave well, 
and until successors be chosen and duly qualified ; 
provided, that no person shall be eligible as sheriff for 
a longer term than four years in any term of six years. 

Sec. 2. The State Treasurer and Auditor shall be 
trieuuially appointed by a joint ballot of both Houses 
of the Legislature. 

Sec. 3. All town and township officers shall be cho¬ 
sen annually, by the inhabitants thereof duly qualified 
to vote for members of assembly, at such time and place 
as may be directed by law. 

Sec. 4. The appointment of all civil officers, not oth¬ 
erwise directed by this constitution, shall be made in 
such manner as may be directed by law. 

ARTICLE VII. 

Sec. 1. Every person who shall be chosen or ap¬ 
pointed to any office of trust or profit, under the au¬ 
thority of this State, shall, before the entering on the 
execution thereof, take an oath or affirmation to sup¬ 
port the constitution of the United States and of this 
State, and also an oath of office. 

Sec. 2. Any elector who shall receive any gift or 
reward for his vote, in meat, drink, money, or other¬ 
wise, shall suffer such punishment as the laws shall 
direct; and any person who shall, directly or indirect 
ly, give, promise, or bestow any such reward, to be 
elected, shall thereby be rendered incapable, for two 
years, to serve in the office for which he was elected, 
and be subject to such other punishment as shall be 
directed by law. 

Sec. 2. No new county shall be established by the 
General Assembly which shall reduce the county or 
counties, or either of them, from which it shall be ta¬ 
ken, to less contents than four hundred square miles ; 
nor shall any county be laid ofl‘ of less contents. Eve¬ 
ry new county, as to the right of suffrage and represen¬ 
tation, shall be considered as a part of the county or 
counties from which it was taken, until entitled by 
numbers, to the right of representation. 

Sec 4. Chillicothe shall be the seat of government 
until the year one thousand eight hundred and eight. 
No money shall be raised until the year one thousand 
eight hundred and nine, by the Legislature of this State, 
for the purpose of erecting public buildings for the ac¬ 
commodation of the Legislature. 


Sec. 5. That after the year one thousand eight hun¬ 
dred and six, whenever two-thirds of the General As¬ 
sembly shall think it necessary to amend or change this 
constitution, they shall recommend to the electors, at the 
next election for members to the General Assembly, to 
vote for or against a convention: and if it shall appear 
that a majority of the citizens of the State, voting for 
representatives, have voted for a convention, the Gene¬ 
ral Assembly, shall, at their next session, call a conven¬ 
tion, to consist of as many members as there be in the 
General Assembly, to be chosen in the same manner, 
at the same place, and by the same electors that choose 
the General Assembly; who shall meet within three 
months after the said election, for the purpose of revis¬ 
ing, amending, or changing the constitution. But no 
alteration of this constitution shall ever take place, so 
as to introduce slavery or involuntary servitude into this 
State. 

Sec. 6. That the limits and boundaries of this State 
be ascertained, it is declared, that they are as hereafter 
mentioned, that is to say: bounded on the east by the 
Pennsylvania line ; on the south by the Ohio river to 
the mouth of the Great Miami river; on the west by 
the line drawn due north from the mouth of the Great 
Miami, aforesaid ; and on the north by an east and west 
line drawn through the southerly extreme of Lake Mi¬ 
chigan, running east, after intersecting the due north 
line aforesaid, from the mouth of the Great Miami un¬ 
til it shall intersect Lake Erie or the territorial line, 
and thence with the same, through Lake Erie, to the 
Pennsylvania line aforesaid, provided always, and it is 
hereby fully understood and declared by this conven¬ 
tion, that if the southerly bend or extreme of Lake Mi¬ 
chigan should extend so far south, that a line drawn due 
east from it should not intersect Lake Erie, or if it should 
intersect the said Lake Erie, east of the mouth of the 
Miami river of the Lake, then and in that case, with 
the assent of the Congress of the United States, the nor¬ 
thern boundary of this State shall be established by, 
and extend to, a direct line running from the southern 
extremity of Lake Michigan to the most northerly cape 
of the Miami bay, after intersecting the due north line 
from the mouth of the Great Miami river as aforesaid, 
thence north east to the territorial line, and, by the 
said territorial line, to the Pennsylvania line. 

ARTICLE VIII. 

That the general, great and essential principles of lib¬ 
erty and free government may be recognized and for¬ 
ever unalterably established, we declare. 

Sec. 1. That all men are born equal, free and inde¬ 
pendent, and have certain natural, inherent and unal¬ 
ienable rights; amongst which are the enjoying and de¬ 
fending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and pro¬ 
tecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness 
and safety ; and every free republican government, be¬ 
ing founded on their sole authority, and organized for 
the great purpose of protecting their rights and liber¬ 
ties, and securing their independence: to effect these 
ends, they have at all times a complete power to altei’, 
reform or abolish their government, whenever they may 
deem it necessary. 

Sec. 2. There shall be neither slavery nor involun¬ 
tary servitude in this State, otherwise than for the pun¬ 
ishment ot crimes, whereof the party shall have been 
duly convicted; nor shall any male person, arrived at 
the age of twenty-one years, or female person arrived 
at the age of eighteen years, be held to serve any per¬ 
son as a servant, under the pretence of indenture or oth¬ 
erwise, unless such person shall enter into such inden¬ 
ture while in a state of perfect freedom, and on condi¬ 
tion of a bona fide consideration received, or to be re¬ 
ceived for their service, except as before excepted. 
Nor shall any indenture of any negro or mulatto, here¬ 
after made and executed out of the State, or if made in 
the State, where the terra of service exceeds one year, 
be of the least validity, except those given in the case 
of apprenticeships. 






XXIV 


CONSTITUTION OF 1802. 


Sec. 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasi¬ 
ble right to worship Almighty God, according to the 
dictates of conscience; that no human authority can, in 
any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights 
of conscience ; that no man shall be compelled to at¬ 
tend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to main¬ 
tain any ministry, against his consent; and that no pre¬ 
ference shall ever be given, by law, to any religions so¬ 
ciety or mode of worship, and no religious test shall be 
required, as a qualification, to any office of trust or pro¬ 
fit. But religion, morality and knowledge, being es¬ 
sentially necessary to good government and the happi¬ 
ness of mankind, schools and the means of instruction 
shall forever be encouraged by legislative provision, not 
inconsistent with the rights of conscience. 

Sec. 4. Private property ought and shall ever be 
held inviolate, but always subservient to the public 
welfare: provided a compensation in money be made 
to the owner. 

Sec. 5. That the people shall be secure in their per¬ 
sons, houses, papers and possessions from unwarranta¬ 
ble searches and seizures : and that general warrants, 
whereby an officer may be commanded to search sus¬ 
pected places, without probable evidence of the fact 
committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, 
whose offences are not particularly described, and with¬ 
out oath or affirmation, are dangerous to liberty, and 
shall not be granted. 

Sec. 6. That the printing presses shall be open and 
free to every citizen vvho wishes to examine the pro¬ 
ceedings of any branch of government, or the conduct 
of any public officer; and no law shall ever restrain the 
right thereof. Every citizen has an indisputable right 
to speak, write or print, upon any subject, as he thinks 
proper, being liable for the abuse of that liberty. In 
prosecutions far any publication respecting the official 
conduct of men in public capacity, or where the matter 
published is proper for public information, the truth 
thereof may always be given in evidence; and in all in¬ 
dictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to de¬ 
termine the law and the facts, under the direction of 
the court, as in other cases. 

Sec. 7. That all courts shall be open, and every per¬ 
son, for an injuiy done him in his lauds, goods, person 
or reputation, shall have remedy by the due course of 
law, and right and justice administered, without denial 
or delay. 

Sec. 8. That the right of trial by jury shall be invi¬ 
olate. 

Sec. 9. That no power of suspending laws shall be 
exercised, unless by the Legislature. 

Sec. 10. That no person, arrested or confined in 
jail, shall be treated with unnecessary rigor, or be put 
to answer any criminal charge, but by presentment, in¬ 
dictment or impeachment. 

Sec. 11. That in all criminal prosecutions, the ac¬ 
cused hath a right to be heard by himself and his coun¬ 
sel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation 
against him, and to have a copy thereof; to meet the 
witness face to face; to have compulsory process for 
obtaining witnesses in his favor; and in prosecutions by 
indictment or presentment, a speedy public trial, by 
an impartial jury of the county or district in which the 
offence shall liave been committed: and shall not be 
compelled to give evidence against himself, nor shall he 
be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence. 

Sec. 12. That all persons shall be bailable by suffi¬ 
cient sureties, unless for capital offences, where the 
proof is evident.or the presumption great; and the priv¬ 
ilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspen¬ 
ded, unless, when in case of rebellion or invasion, the 
public safety may require it. 

Sec. 13. Excessive bail shall not be required; ex¬ 
cessive fines shall not be impos. d, nor cruel and unusu¬ 
al punishments inflicted. 

Sec. 14. All penalties shall be proportioned to the 
nature of the offence. No wise legislature will affix the 
same punishment to the crime of theft, forgery and the 


like, which they do those of murder and treason. ^ When 
the same undistinguished severity is exerted against all 
ofi'ences, the people are led to forget the real distinction 
in the crimes themselves, and to commit the most fla¬ 
grant with as little compunction as they do the slightest 
offences. For the same reasons, a multitude of sangui¬ 
nary laws are both impolitic and unjust: the true de¬ 
sign of all punishments being to reform, not to extermi¬ 
nate mankind. 

Sec. 15. The person of a debtor, where there is not 
strong presumption of fraud, shall not be continued in 
prison after delivering up his estate for the benefit of 
his creditor or creditors, in such manner as shall be pre¬ 
scribed by law. 

Sec. 16. No ex-post facto law, nor any law impair¬ 
ing the validity of contracts, shall ever be made; and 
no conviction shall work corruption of blood, or forfeit¬ 
ure of estate. 

Sec. 17. That no person shallj be liable to be trans¬ 
ported out of this State, for any offence committed with¬ 
in the State. 

Sec. 18. That a frequent recurrence to the funda¬ 
mental principles of civil government, is absolutely ne¬ 
cessary to preserve the blessings of liberty. 

Sec. 19. That the people have a right to assemble 
together, in a peaceable manner, to consult for their 
common good, to instruct their representatives, and to 
apply to the legislature for a redress of grievances. 

Sec. 20. That the people have a right to bear arms 
for the defence of themselves and the State: and as 
standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to 
liberty, they shall not be kept up; and that the milita¬ 
ry shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil 
power. 

Sec. 21. That no person in this State, except such 
as are employed in the army or navy of the United 
States, or militia in actual service, shall be subject to 
corporeal punishment under the military law. 

Sec. 22. That no soldier, in time of peace, be quar¬ 
tered in any house without the consent of the owner ; 
nor in time of war, but in the manner prescribed by 
law. 

Sec. 23. That the levying taxes by the poll is griev¬ 
ous and oppressive; therefore, the Legislature shall nev¬ 
er levy a poll tax for county or State purposes. 

Sec. 24. That no hereditary emoluments, privileges, 
or honors, shall ever be granted or conferred by this 
State. 

Sec. 25. That no law shall be passed to prevent the 
poor in the several counties and townships within this 
State from an equal participation in the schools, acade¬ 
mies, colleges and universities within this State, which 
are endowed, in whole or in part, from the revenue ari¬ 
sing from donations made by the United States, for the 
support of schools and colleges; and the doors of the said 
schools, academies and universities, shall be open for 
the reception of schjlars, students and teachers%f ev¬ 
ery grade, without any distinction or preference what¬ 
ever, contrary to the intent for which said donations 
were made. 

Sec. 26. That laws shall be passed by the Legisla¬ 
ture, which shall secure to each and every denomina¬ 
tion of religious societies, in each surveyed township 
which now is, or rnay hereafter be formed in the State, 
an equal participation, according to their number of ad¬ 
herents, of the profits arising from the land granted by 
Congress for the support of religion, agreeably to the 
ordinance or act of Congress making the appropria- 

Sec. 27. That every association of persons, when 
regularly formed, within this State, and having given 
themselves a name, may, on application to the Legisla¬ 
ture, be entitled to receive letters of incorporation to 
enable them to hold estates, real and personal, for ’the 
support ot their schools, academies, colleges, universi¬ 
ties, and for other purposes. 

Sec. 28. To guard against the transgression of the 
high powers which we have delegated, we declare. 







CONSTITUTION OF 1802. 


XXV 


that all powers, not hereby delegated, remain with the 
people. ' 

SCHEDULE. 

Sec. 1. That no evils or inconveniences may arise, 
from the change of a territorial government to a per¬ 
manent State government, it is declared by this conven¬ 
tion, that all rights, suits, actions, prosecutions, claims 
and contracts, both as it respects individuals and bodies 
corporate, shall continue, as it no change had taken 
place in this government. 

Sec 2. All fines, penalties and forfeitures, due and 
owing to the territory of the United States, north west 
of the river Ohio, shall inure to the use of the State. 
All bonds executed to the Govei’nor, or any other offi¬ 
cer in his official capacity, in the territory, shall pass 
over to the Governor or the other officers of the State, 
and their successors in office, for the use of the State, 
or by him or them to be respectively assigned over to 
the use of those concerned, as the case may be. 

Sec. 3. The Governor, Secretary and judges, and 
all other officers under the territorial government, shall 
continue in the exercise of the duties of their respective 
departments, until the said officers are superseded un¬ 
der the authority of this constitution. 

Sec. 4. All laws, and parts of laws, now in force in 
tliis territory, not inconsistent with this constitution, 
shall continue and remain in full effect until repealed 
by the Legislature, except so much of the act entitled 

an act regulating the admission and practice of attor¬ 
neys and counsellors at law,” and of the act made 
amendatory thereto, as relates to the terra of lime which 
the applicant shall have studied law, his residence with¬ 
in the territory, and the term of time which he shall 
have practiced as an attorney at law, before he can be 
admitted to the degree of a counsellor at law. 


Sec. 5. The Governor of the State shall make use 
of his private seal until a State seal be procured. 

Sec. 6. The president of the convention shall issue 
writs of election to the sheriffs of the several counties, 
recpiiring them to proceed to the election of a Govern¬ 
or, members of the General Assembly, sheriffs and cor¬ 
oners, at the respective election districts in each coun¬ 
ty, on the second Tuesday of January next; which elec¬ 
tions shall be conducted in the manner prescribed by 
the existing election laws of this territory: and the mem¬ 
bers of the General Assembly, then elected, shall con¬ 
tinue to exercise the duties of their respective offices 
until the next annual or biennial election thereafter, as 
prescribed in this constitution, and no longer. 

Sec. 7. Until the first enumeration shall be made, 
as directed in the second section of the first article of 
this constitution, the county of Hamilton shall be enti¬ 
tled to four Senators and eight Representatives ; the 
county of Clermont, one Senator and two Representa¬ 
tives ; the county of Adams, one Senator and three Rep¬ 
resentatives ; the county of Ross, two Senators and four 
Representatives; the county of Fairfield, one Senator 
and two Representatives; the county of Washington, 
two Senators and three Representatives; the county of 
Belmont, one Senator and two Representatives; the 
county of Jefferson, two Senators and four Representa¬ 
tives ; and the county of Trumbull, one Senator and two 
Representatives. 

Done in convention, at Chillicothe, the twenty-ninth 
day of November, in the year of our Lord one thou¬ 
sand eight hundred and two, and of the independence 
of the United States of America, the twenty-seventh. 

In testimony whereof, we have hereunto subscribed 
our names. 

EDWARD TIFFIN, Presidmt. 
Attest: Thomas Scott, Secretary. 









MEMBERS AND OFFICERS OF THE SECOND OHIO CONVENTION. 


Hon. WM. MEDILL, President. W. H. GILL, Secretary. 


J. V. SMITH, Reporter. 


Names of Delegates 


and Officers. 


From what Co. 


Andrews, S. J. 

Archbold, Edward... 

Barbee, William. 

Barnett, Joseph. 

Barnet, David. 

Bates, William S. 

Bennett, Alden I. 

Blair, John H. 

Blickensderfer, Jacob 

Brown, A. G. 

Brown, Van. 

Cahill, Richard W.... 

Case, F. 

Case, L... 

Chambers, David ,... 

*Chaney, John.. 

Clark, H. D. 

Collings, George. 

Cook, Friend.. 

Curry, Otway. 

Cutler, Wm. P. 

Dorsey, G. Volney ... 
Ewart, Thomas W. -. 

Ewing, John.. 

Farr, Joseph M. 

Florence, Elias.. 

Forbes, Robert. 

Gillett, H. N. 

Graham, John.. 

Gray, H. C. 

Green, Jacob J. 

Green, John L. 

Gregg, Henry H. 

Groeabeck, W. S. 

Hamilton, C. S. 

Hard, D. D. T.. 

Harlan, A... 

Hawkins, William ... 
Henderson, James P.. 
Hitchcock, Reuben... 

Hitchcock, Peter. 

Holmes, G. W. 

Holt, George B. 

Hootman, John J. 

Horton, V. B. 

Humphreville, S. 

Hunt, John E. 

Hunter, B. B. 

Johnson, John. 

Jones, J. Dan.. 

Kennon, William .... 

King, James B. 

Kirkwood, S. J. 

Larsh, Thomas J. 

Lawrence, William .. 

Larwill, John. 

Leech, Robert. 

Leadbetter, D. P. 

Loudon, James. 

Lidey, John. 

Manon, H. S. 

Mitchell, M. H. 

Mason, Samson. 

Morehead, Samuel... 

Morris, Isaiah.. 

McCloud, Charles.... 

McCormick, J. 

Nash Simeon.. 

Norris, S. F.. 

Orton, C. J.. 

Otis, William S. C.... 
Patterson, Thomas.., 
Peck, Daniel. 


Cuyahoga... 

Monroe. 

Miami. 

Montgomery. 

Preble. 

Jefferson .... 
Tuscarawas . 

Brown. 

Tuscarawas . 

Athens. 

Carroll. 

Crawford ... 

Hocking. 

Licking. 

Muskingum.. 

Fairfield. 

Lorain. 

Adams. 

Portage. 

Union. 

Washington . 

Miami. 

Washington . 
Hancock .... 

Huron. 

Pickaway ... 
Mahoning ... 
Lawrence .,. 
Franklin .... 

Lake. 

Defiance. 

Ross. 

Columbiana . 
Hamilton.... 

Union. 

Jackson . 

Greene. 

Morgan. 

Richland .... 
Cuyahoga ... 

Geauga. 

Hamilton.... 
Montgomery. 

Ashland. 

Meigs. 

Medina. 

Lucas. 

Ashtabula ... 
Coshocton... 
Hamilton.... 

Belmont. 

Butler. 

Richland .... 

Preble. 

Guernsey.... 

Wayne. 

Guernsey.... 

Holmes. 

Brown. 

Perry. 

Licking. 

Knox. 

Clark. 

Harrison .... 

Clinton. 

Madison. 

Adams. 

Gallia. 

Clermont.... 
Sandusky ... 

Summit. 

Highland.... 
Belmont. 


Post Office. 


Cleveland. 

Woodsfield. 

Troy. 

Dayton. 

Camden. 

Smithfield. 

Bolivar. 

Georgetown. 

Canal Dover. 

Athens. 

Carrollton. 

Liberty Corners.. 

Logan. 

Newark. 

Zanesville. 

Carroll. 

Elyria. 

West Union. 

Atwater. 

Marysville. 

Constitution. 

Piqua . 

Marietta. 

Findlay. 

Norwalk. 

Darbyville. 

Petersburg. 

Quaker Bottom.. 

Columbus. 

Painesville. 

Defiance. 

Chillicothe. 

New Lisbon. 

Cincinnati. 

Marysville. 

Reed’s Mill. 

Yellow Springs.. 
McConnellsville.. 

Newville. 

Cleveland. 

Burton. 

Cincinnati. 

Dayton. 

Jeromeville. 

Pomeroy. 

Medina C. H. 

Maumee City.... 

Austinburgh. 

Coshocton. 

Madisonville. 

St. Clairsville_ 

Reily. 

Mansfield. 

Eaton. 

Washington. 

Wooster. 

Cambridge. 

Millersburgh. 

Georgetown. 

Somerset. 

Hebron. 

Mt. Vernon. 

Springfield. 

Greene. 

Wilmington. 

West Camden ... 

West Union. 

Gallipolis. 

Batavia. 

Fremont. 

Akron. 

Hillsborough .... 
St. Clairsville 


Place of Nativity. 


Connecticut. 

W ashington, D. C... 

Kentucky. 

Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania. 

Virginia. 

New York. 

Tennessee. 

Pennsylvania. 

Ohio. 

Virginia. 

Pennsylvania. 

Connecticut. 

Connecticut. 

Pennsylvania. 

Maryland. 

Connecticut. 

Ohio. 

Connecticut. 

Ohio. 

Ohio. 

Ohio. 

Ohio. 

Pennsylvania. 

New York. 

Virginia. 

Pennsylvania. 

Connecticut. 

Virginia. 

Pennsylvania. 

Ohio. 

Virginia. 

Virginia.. 

New York. 

Ohio. 

Ohio.. 

Ohio.. 

Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania. 

Ohio. 

Connecticut. 

Ohio. 

Connecticut. 

Pennsylvania. 

Vermont. 

Massachusetts. 

Ohio. 

New York. 

Ireland. 

Ohio. 

Pennsylvania. 

Virginia. 

Maryland. 

Ohio. 

Ohio. 

England. 

Pennsylvania. 

Massachusetts. 

Kentucky. 

Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania. 

Ohio. 

Ohio. 

Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania. 

Vermont. 

Ohio. 

Massachusetts. 

New Hampshire... 

New York. 

Massachusstts. 

Kentucky. 

Vermont. 


Years in 

the State. 

Age. 

Occupation. 

Married 

or 

Single. 

24 

48 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

20 

40 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

45 

61 

Merchant. 

Married. 

19 

66 

Farmer. 

Married. 

46 

49 

Milier. 

Married. 

23 

44 

Physician. 

Married" 

19 

43 

Physician. 

Married. 

40 

57 

Farmer. 

Married. 

38 

60 

Farmer. 

Married. 

52 

52 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

38 

48 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

30 

45 

Farmer. 

Married. 

13 

32 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

15 

37 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

40 

69 

Farmer. 

Married. 

40 

61 

Lawyer & Farmer. 

Married. 

18 

44 

Lawyer & Farmer. 

Married. 

50 

50 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

13 

52 

Physician. 

Married. 

43 

43 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

37 

37 

Farmer. 

Married. 

37 

37 

Physician. 

Married. 

34 

34 

Clerk of Court.... 

Married. 

16 

44 

Merchant. 

Maaried. 

15 

39 

Printer. 

Married. 

44 

52 

Farmer. 

Married. 

32 

57 

Farmer. 

Married. 

33 

51 

Farmer. 

Single. 

27 

38 

Surveyor. 

Married. 

13 

33 

Editor and Printer. 

Married. 

29 

29 

Editor. 

Single. 

22 

44 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

13 

40 

Printer & Druggist 

Married. 

31 

34 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

29 

29 

Editor. 

Married. 

32 

32 

Merchant. 

Married. 

47 

47 

Farmer. 

Married. 

40 

53 

Miscellaneous. 

Married. 

20 

47 

Physician. 

Married. 

43 

43 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

44 

68 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

44 

44 

Lumber Merchant. 

Married. 

30 

59 

Lawyer & Farmer. 

Married. 

23 

35 

Blacksmith. 

Married. 

17 

47 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

18 

42 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

52 

52 

Merchant. 

Married. 

16 

40 

County Surveyor.. 

Married. 


42 



31 

31 

F armer. 

Single. 

44 

51 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

35 

47 

Farmer. 

Married. 

14 

36 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

41 

41 

Surveyor. 

Married. 

36 

36 

Merchant. 

Married, 

48 

47 

Merchant. 

Married. 

24 

25 

Attorney at Law .. 

Single. 

33 

52 

Farmer. 

Married. 

44 

54 

Farmer. 

Married 

45 

54 

Farmer, &c. 

Married 

13 

40 

Farmer. 

Married 

42 

42 

Lawyer. 

Married. 

31 

57 

Lawyer. 

Married 

25 

55 

Farmer. 

Married 

47 

62 

Farmer. 

Married 

40 

42 

Merchant. 

Married 

35 

35 

Lawyer. 

Married 

18 

45 

Lawyer. 

Married 

12 

36 

Lawyer. 

Married 

5 

34 

Editor. 

Married 

19 

41 

Lawyer. 

Married 

40 

50 

Farmer & Manuf.. 

Married 

22 

52 

Lawyer. 

Married 


* In place of Daniel A. Robertson, resigned. 















































































































































































































































































































































MEMBERS OF SECOND OHIO CONVENTION. 


XX vu 


Names of Delegates and Officers. From what Co. 


Perkins, Jacob. 

Quigley, Samuel. 

Kanney, R. P. 

Reemelin, Charles. 

Riddle. A. N. . 

Roll, E. C. .. 

Sawyer, William. 

Scott, Josiah. 

Scott, Sabirt. 

Sellers, John. 

Smith, John A.. 

Smith, G. J.-. 

Smith, B. P. 

Stanbery, Henry. 

Stanton, Benjamin. 

Stebbins, Albert V.. 

Stilwell, Richard.. 

Stickney, E. T. 

Stidger, Harman.. 

Struble, James. 

Swan, J. R. . 

Swift, L. 

Taylor, James W. 

Thompson, H. 

Thompson, Joseph. 

Townshend, Norton S. 

Vance, Elijah. 

Vance, Joseph. 

Warren, W. M. 

Way, Thomas A. 

Williams, J. Milton. 

Woodbury, E. B. 

*Wilson, E. 

tWorthington, James T. 

Medill, William, President . 

Gill, W. H., Secretary . 

Prentiss, W. S. V., Assist. Sec'y.. 
Mortley, David H., Assist. Sec'y.. 

Smith, J. V., Reporter . 

Reed Henry, Assist. Reporter - 

iOkey, H., Sergeant-at-Arms - 

Arnold, James, Door-Keeper . 


Post Offiee. 


Trumbull ... 
Columbiana . 
Trumbull.... 
Hamilton.... 
Hamilton.... 
Hamilton.... 
Auglaize .... 
Harrison .... 
Auglaize .... 

Knox. 

Highland.... 

Warren. 

Wyandot.... 
Franklin .... 

Logan. 

Henry. 

Muskingum . 

Seneca. 

Stark. 

Hamilton.... 
Franklin .... 

Summit. 

Erie. 

Shelby. 

Stark. 

Lorain. 

Butler. 

Champaign.. 

Delaware,... 

Monroe. 

Warren. 

Ashtabula ... 

Wayne. 

Ross. 

Fairfield. 

Guernsey..., 

Knox. 

Morgan. 

Hamilton..., 
Franklin .... 

Monroe_ 

Richland .... 


Place of Nativity. 


Warren. 

Calcutta. 

Warren. 

Dent. 

Cincinnati. 

Cincinnati. 

St. Marys. 

Cadiz.. 

St. Marys.. 

Utica. 

Hillsborough .... 

Lebanon . 

Carey. 

Columbus. 

Bellefontaine .... 

Damascus. 

Zanesville. 

Republic. 

Canton. 

Derbis. 

Columbus. 

Akron. 

Sandusky. 

Sidney. 

New Franklin.... 

Elyria. 

Hamilton. 

Urbana. 

Scioto Bridge.... 

Graysville. 

Lebanon . 

Kelloggsville. 

Jeromeville. 

Chillicothe. 

Lancaster. 

Cambridge. 

Mt. Vernon. 

McConnellsville.. 

Cincinnati. 

Columbus. 

Woodsfield. 

Mansfield. 


Ohio. 

Pennsylvania ..., 
Massachusetts ... 

Germany. 

Ohio. 

Ohio. 

Ohio. 

Pennsylvania ... 

Ohio. 

Pennsylvania ... 

Ohio.I... 

Ohio. 

Georgia. 

New York. 

Ohio. 

Connecticut .... 
Pennsylvania ... 

New York. 

Pennsylvania ... 

New Jersey. 

New York. 

Connecticut .... 

New York. 

Pennsylvania ... 

Virginia. 

England.... 

Maryland. 

Pennsylvania ... 
Pennsylvania ... 

Maryland. 

Ohio. 

New Hampshire 

Ohio. 

Ohio. 

Delaware. 

Pennsylvania ... 

Ohio. 

England. 

New York. 

Connecticut.... 

Delaware. 

Pennsylvania ... 


Years m | 

the State, i 

Age. 

Occupation. 

28 

28 

Farmer. 

20 

53 

Physician. 

25 

36 

Lawyer. 

17 

36 

Farmer. 

44 

44 

Surveyor. 

34 

34 

Lawyer. 

45 

45 

Blacksmith. 

40 

48 

Attorney at Law.. 

38 

38 

F armer. 

25 

55 

Farmer... 

35 

35 

Attorney at Law.. 

50 

50 

Attorney at Law.. 

26 

31 

Attorney at Law.. 

36 

47 

Lawyer. 

40 

40 

Lawyer. 

31 

39 

F armer. 

43 

53 

Lawyer. 

14 

38 

Farmer. 

40 

50 

Physician & Farm. 

37 

50 

Farmer. 

32 

47 

Lawyer. 

14 

42 

Farmer. 

8 

20 

Editor. 

19 

42 

Attorney at Law.. 

46 

56 

Farmer. 

20 

34 

Physician. 

32 

48 

Lawyer. 

50 

65 

Farmer. 

39 

47 

Farmer. 

19 

44 

Farmer. 

41 

41 

Attorney at Law.. 

38 

44 

Attorney at Law.. 

49 

49 

Farmer. 

48 

48 

Farmer. 

18 

48 

Attorney at Law.. 

16 

24 

Printer and Editor. 

23 

23 

Attorney at Law.. 

15 

30 

Joiner. 

3 

23 

Editor. 

14 

31 

Editor. 

50 

55 

Collector. 

44 

53 

Carpenter. 


Married. 

or 

Single. 


Married- 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

W arried. 

Married. 

Married. 

Single. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married, 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Single. 

Single. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married, 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Single. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Married. 

Single.d, 

Married. 


* In place of Leander Firestone, resigned, t In place of Wesley Claypool, resigned, J In place of John W. Carrollton, resigned. 




































































































































































































ft;.. * , ' fi4'^*^^i***^*'^ 

|v/^S,i::::i^‘:^' i 


inr 





5^' fe »* f 


‘Ji*)**? f;' in ^?i} 

Ui»,;i^'V.*v.v,f»l'*^1 jViik 


tlx W-flti' 

'M 


w»m «I3:v:‘;!.5eiJ’-»‘ §?■ 



«»'4.'*yyj if»^- 

r Af#. 


irjtr: 

A ^ 

! • r*•»•'•«**,<^. ••« »K \ .^hi 

tv.* f'i«,«!W>*t/lJf>t(ff3^ >,<4 'W •»•••'’< -4‘■i »* ^«'»«*’t» • • «»^ 4* Ji 

ii■.»., »*>,-/•• ''■»^»• • ^ W■#'#'« 

y • 4 • (4i^,i*,>>'< * * ^».* ••»»»**^«« X .'’•^ 

;,«.v . „, 


Kl:;.. 

tv «t»vi 

i >*-\Vt;{» W 



V i!^.; V .'s.. k/i< f *W 




V;.,;.-. .\i4^..-,--.s,T4^^4Miin 

i‘ *« ir •■• •. 




‘•a'xA* • 




\\ •AjUjrWV* 


. 


fcJ%*4s.V 

S'iiBl*-'; Vi a I..Cy 11.T»'ii 11# • 


'>• ^. I. 







S-ift.N4fMl 


-? •& :.. X' j. ..V* * #. 

tiT’v'X "^f« r*:' i ;.. v-ji »r><rtXt -h • • •/ .' ':. 

• *?'^'’^*’^^^.^'J'**T[^’ rVfii«'«r*’v>'it^-'**24*''-'';**^?-:^'>'*<* f* M. .. *I-ii5*t^';,v\»4t^4\fcii* '-U'^T^kC 



i'f'':‘sJ''^^}j.,.,fvv. .K;- 'i’.Jlj 

,;. k 
















r 



OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE CONVENTION TO FORM. A NEW 
CONSTITUTION FOR THE STATE OF OHIO. BY J. V. SMITH, REPORTER. 


OHIO STATE JOURNAL EXTRA. 

Columbus, Opiio, May 1850: Scott & Bascom, Publishers. 


MONDAY, May 6, 1850. 

The members elected to the Convention to revise, 
amend, or change the constitution of this State, assem¬ 
bled in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the 
city of Columbus, in the capital of the State, this day, 
under and by virtue of the provisions of “ an act to call 
a convention,” passed February 23d, 1850, in the words 
following, to wit: 

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the 
State of Ohio, That a Convention to revise, amend, or 
change the constitution of this State, be, and the same 
is hereby called, to consist of one hundred and eight 
members, who shall convene in the Hall of the House 
of Representatives, in the city of Columbus, on the 
first Monday in May, A. D. 1850, and the said conven¬ 
tion shall have power to adjourn to such place or pla¬ 
ces, in this Staie, as said convention may deem pro¬ 
per. 

Sec. 2. That the qualified electors of the several 
counties and senatorial districts of this State, shall, on 
the first Monday of April next, assemble at their usual 
places of holding elections in their several townships 
and wards, and elect a number of members, having all 
the qualifications of an elector, to represent, respect¬ 
ively, said counties and districts in said convention, 
equal to the number of Representatives and Senators 
in the General Assembly to which said counties and 
districts are now respectively entitled by law, to wit: 

[Here follows a recital of the apportionment.] 

Sec. 3. The said election shall in all respects be 
conducted, and the returns thereof made, and the re¬ 
sult thereof certified, in like manner as is provided by 
law for the election of Representatives and Senators 
in the General Assembly. The officers of said election 
shall be entitled to the same compensation as is by law 
provided for like services, and shall, with the voters, 
be subject to the same penalties imposed by the sever¬ 
al laws regulating elecfions, and to preserve the purity 
thereof, so far as the same may be applicable. The 
Sheriffs of the several counties shall issue proclama¬ 
tions for the election of members of said convention, 
in like manner as they are by law required to do for 
the election of members of the General Assembly. 

Sec. 4. That this General Assembly shrdl appoint 
by joint resolution, a Reporter, who shall engage and 
organize an efficient corps of assistants, and report the 
debates and proceedings of said convention, under the 
direction and control thereof, and the convention shall 
secure the copy right for the State, and provide for the 
publication of said proceedings and debates in a dura¬ 
ble form. The Reporter shall have authority to fnake 
arrangements for the daily publication ol said proceed¬ 
ings and debates, with the publishers of the Ohio 
Statesman and Ohio State Journal, and superintend the 
same: Provided, that said publication shall be given 
to neither of said papers exclusively: and provided 
further, that the whole price paid for such publication, 
shall not exceed the sum of twenty-five cents per thou¬ 
sand ems for composition. The Reporter shall, upon 
the organization of the convention, report to the same, 
the number and names of his assistants, the compensa¬ 
tion allowed to each respectively, and also the arrange¬ 


ments he has made for the daily publication of the .pro¬ 
ceedings and debates, as above mentioned, and submit 
the same to the action of said convention. 

Sec. 5. That the members of saitl convention shall 
be entitled to a compensation of three dollars per day, 
and mileage, at the rates allowed to members of the 
General Assembly, and be entitled to the same privi¬ 
leges. Said convention shall have power to appoint 
and employ such officers and assistants as may be ne¬ 
cessary, and fix their compensation. It shall, on its 
order, receive from the Secretary of the State, all ne¬ 
cessary stationery, jmd the officers of the State shall 
at all times furnish to it, on requisition, such informa¬ 
tion as may be in their power. 

Sec. G. That the sum of forty thousand dollars be, 
and the same is hereby appropriated out of the gener¬ 
al revenue of the State, to pay the expenses of said 
convention. 

Sec. 7. That the journal of the proceedings of said 
convention shall be filed in the office of the Secretary 
of State ; and the amendments, revisions or alteration.s 
agreed upon by said convention, shall be submitted to 
the people for their adoption or rejection, by a vote 
for that purpose, at such time as the convention shall 
direct; and every person having the qualification of 
an elector, under laws now in force, may vote thereon, 
in the township or ward in which he shall reside, and 
not elsewhere. The convention shall prescribe the 
form and manner of voting, and of the publication, or 
notice of the alterations, revisions or amendments of 
the constitution agreed upon by said convention, and 
also of the notice to be given of said election. At the 
election mentioned in this section, the’ judges of said 
election shall receive the vote in the form to be pre¬ 
scribed by the said convention; and all the provisions 
of the- laws of this State in relation to elections, shall 
ripply to the voting upon said amendments, revisions 
or alterations, so fai- as the same can be made applica¬ 
ble thereto, and the votes given upon said alterations, 
amendments or revisions, shall be given and canvassed, 
and all proceedings shall be had in respect to the same, 
as nearly as practicable, in the manner prescribed by 
law, relative to votes given for Governor. It shall be 
the duty of the Governor to lay before the General 
Assembly at its next session after the taking of said 
vote, the vote for accepting or rejecting said revisions, 
alterations or amendments, which vote shall be can¬ 
vassed by the said General Assembly, in the same man¬ 
ner as votes for Governor are now required to be can¬ 
vassed : Provided, however, that if said convention 
shall complete their labors and adjourn sine die at any 
time before'lhe first day of September, 1850, then the 
amendments, revisions or alterations agreed upon by 
said convention, shall be submitted to the people h.r 
their adoption or rejection, by a vote for that purpose, 
on the second Tuesday of October next ensuing. 

Sec. 8. Should any vacancy or vacancies occur by 
death, resignation or otherwise, in the number of mem¬ 
bers elected to said convention, the acting Governor 
shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancy or va¬ 
cancies, and the same shall be filled in the manner pre¬ 
scribed by law, for filling vacancies in the office of 
Senator or Representatives in the General Assembly. 


1 
























2 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Sec. 9. The Secretary of State is hereby I'equired 
to cause to be transmitted to the several Clerks of the 
Courts of Common Pleas in this State, such a number 
of copies of this act, as shall be sufficient to supply a 
copy thereof to each Board of .Judges of Election in 
their respective counties. 

THE ORGANIZATION. 

At 11 o’clock, M., Mr. SAWYER advanced to the 
Clerk’s desk, and said: Gentlemen of the Convention, 
for the purpose of a temporary organization, I would 
call Mr. Larwell to the chair. 

The question being put and carried, Mr. Larwell 
took the chair and said: I take the opportunity to ex¬ 
press to the gentlemen of the Convention, my sincere 
obligations for the honor they have conferred upon me. 
I have only to regret that you have not called to the 
task, which to be sure will be a short one, one who 
has had more experience and is better qualified to dis¬ 
charge that duty. While I shall occupy this seat, I 
will endeavor to discharge that duty to the best of my 
abilities, and I trust that I shall meet with every indul¬ 
gence that is needed, from gentlemen of the Conven¬ 
tion. 

Mr. ROBERTSON: I move that Mr. Holmes of 
Hamilton county, act as temporary clerk for this tem¬ 
porary organization. 

The motion was agreed to, and Mr. Holmes being 
called by the chairman, took a seat at the clerk’s table. 

' Mr. LIDBY. Mr. Chairman: I move that the coun¬ 
ties and districts be called, that the delegates elected 
may come forward and present their certificates at the 
clerk’s desk. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER. I move that ReubeiV Hitchcock, Jr. 
be appointed assistant secretary. 

Which motion being put and carried, Mr. Hitchcock 
of Cuyahoga, took a place on the right of the clerk pro 
tern. 

The CHAIRMAN. The secretary will now proceed 
to call over the names of the counties and delegates. 

The SECRETARY proceeded to call the roll and the 
following gentlemen appeared and presented their cer¬ 
tificates. 

Archbold, Edward, of Monroe ; 

Barbee, W., of Miami; 

Barnett, Joseph, of Montgomery andPreble; 

Barnet, David, of Preble; 

Bates, Wm. S., of Jefferson; 

Bennet, I. A., of Carroll and Tuscarawas; 

Blair, John H., of Brown and Clermont; 

Blickensderfer, Jacob, of Carroll and Tuscarawas; 

Brown, Van, “ “ “ “ 

Brown, A. G., of Gallia. Jackson, Athens and Meigs; 

Cahill, R. W., of Crawford and Richland; 

Case, Flavius, of Perry and Hocking; 

Case, Lucius, of Licking; 

Chambers, David, of Muskingum ; 

Clark, H. D., of Lorain; 

Claypoole, Wesley, of Pickaway and Ross; 

Collings, George, of Adams, Pike, Scioto and Law¬ 
rence ; 

Curry, Otway, of Hardin, Logan, Marion and Union 

Cutler, Wm. P., of Washington; 

Dorsey. C. Volney, of Miami, Shelby and Darke; 

Ewart, Thos. W., of Morgan and Washington; 

Ewing, John, of Hancock, Seneca and Wyandot; 

Farr, J. M., of Huron and Erie ; 

• Fierstoue, Leander, of Wayne and Ashland ; 

Florence, Elias, of Pickaway and Ross ; 

Forbes, Robert, of Mahoning; 

Gillett, H., of Lawrence and Scioto ; 

Graham, John, of Franklin ; 

Gray, H. C., of Ashtabula and Lake; 

Greene, J. J., of Defiance, Putnam, Van Wert, Paul¬ 
ding and Williams. 

Green, John L., of Ross and Pickaway; 

Groesbeck, Wm. S., of Hamilton; 

Hamilton, C. S., of Marion and Union; 


Hard, D. S., of Jackson and Gallia; '' 

Harlan, Aaron, of Greene; 

Hawkins, Wm., of Morgan; 

Henderson, .las. P., of Crawford and Richland; 
Hitchcock, Reuben, of Cuyahoga; 

Hitchcock, Peter, of Geauga and Trumbull; 

Holmes, Geo. W., of Hamilton; 

Holt, Geo. B., of Montgomery ; 

Hootman, John J., of Wayne and Ashland; 

Horton, V. B., of Meigs and Athens; 

Humphreville, S., of Medina; ' 

Hunt, John E., of Lucas, Henry, Wood, Ottawa and | 
Sandusky; 

Hunter, B. B., of Ashtabula and Lake; ' 

Johnson, John, of Coshocton; • 

Jones, J. Dan, of Hamilton; 

Kennon, Wm., of Belmont and Guernsey; 

King, Jas. B., of Butler; ^ ; 

Kirkwood, S. J., of Crawford and Richland; 

Larsh, Thos. J., of Montgomery and Preble; ' 

Larwell, Jno., of Wayne and Ashland ; . 

Leech, Robert, of Coshocton and Guernsey; 

Leadbetter, D. P., of Knox and Holmes; 

Lidey, Jno., of Fairfield, Perry and Hocking; j 

Loudon, James, of Brown; ; 

Mauon, H. S., of Licking; 

Mason, Samson, of Champaign, Clark and Madison; 
Medill, Wm., of Fairfield, Perry and Hocking; 

Mitchell. Mathew IL, of Holmes and Knox; 

Morehead, Samuel, of Harrison; 

Morris, Isaiah, of Clinton; 

McCloud, Charles, of Champaign, Clarke and Mad¬ 
ison ; 

McCormick, Joseph, of Adams and Pike; 

Nash, Simeon, of Gallia, Jackson, Athens and Meigs; 
Nori’is, S. F. J., of Clermont; 

Orton, C. J., of Ottawa, Wood and Sandusky; 

Otis, Wm. S. C., of Summit; 

Patterson, Thos., of Fayette and Highland; 

Peck, Daniel, of Belmont; 

Perkins, J., of Geauga and Trumbull; 

Quigley, Samuel, of Columbiana; 

Ranney, R. P., of Geauga and Trumbull; 

Reemelin, Chas., of Hamilton; 

Riddle, A. N., of Hamilton; 

Robertson, D. A., of Fairfield ; 

Roll, E. C., of Flamilton; 

Sawyer, Wm., of Allen, Mercer, Auglaize, Patnam, 
Paulding, Defiance and Williams; 

Scott, Josiah, of Harrison and Jefferson; 

Scott, Sabert, of Allen, Mercer and Auglaize; 

Sellers, Jno., of Holmes and Knox; 

Smith, J. A., of Fayette and Highland; [ 

Smith, Geo. J., of Greene, Warren and Clinton; I 
Smith, Benj. P., of Hancock and Wyandot; j 

Stanbery, Henry, of Franklin and Delaware; ! 

Stanton, Benj., of Hardin and Logan; 

Stebbens, A. V., of Henry and Lucas; 

Stillwell, R., of Muskingum; 

Stickney, E. T , of Seneca; s 

Stidger, Harmon, of Stark; | 

Struliel, Jno., of Hamilton; I 

Swan, .1. R., of Franklin and Delaware; I 

■Swift, Lucien, of Summit and Portage; ^ 

Taylor, James W., of Huron and Erie; 

Thompson, Hugh, of Darke and Shelby; 

Thompson, Joseph, of Stark; 

Townshend, N. S., of Medina and Lorain; 

Vance, Elijah, of Butler; Li 

Vance, Joseph, of Champaign, Clarke and Madi j| 
son; 

Warren, Wm. M., of Delaware 
Way, Thos. A., of Belmont and Monroe ; 

Williams, Milton, of Warren; 

Woodbury, E. B., of Ashtabula and Lake. 

The list having been called, the Secretary announc¬ 
ed that all the Delegates elect were present, except 
four, Messrs. Andrews, Cook, Gregg, and Lawrence. 






















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


3 


Mr. HAWKINS offered for adoption the following 
resolution: 

Resolved, That until otherwise ordered, the officers 
of this Convention shall consist of a Tresident, a Sec¬ 
retary, an Assistant Secretary, a Sergeant-at-Arms and 
a Door-keeper. 

Mr. STANTON. I make a point of order, whether 
this question or any other can be submitted to the 
Convention, till the members be sworn. 

A m»tiou to lay on the table was then made and 
agreed to. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler, addressed the Chair, and sub¬ 
mitted and read the following resolution: 

Resolved, That the members elect of this Conven¬ 
tion be, and they are hereby required, severally to take 
an oath to support the eonstitution of the United States, 
and also an oath of oflice. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Chairman; I do not wish to 
offer an amendment, but to make an inquiry, whether 
we are to pay any attention to the present constitu¬ 
tion of the State of Ohio. I suppose that we have as¬ 
sembled here in pursuance of the provisions of the pre¬ 
sent constitution—that we still owe allegiance to that 
constitution, and have to act in obedience to its man¬ 
dates. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler. We can’t support the pre¬ 
sent constitution. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I suggest Mr. Chairman, that we 
have not the power to alter this constitution. I will 
now, in my place, move that the ressolution be so 
amended, that we shall take an oath to support the 
constitution of the United States, the State of Ohio, 
and also the oath of office. 

A MEMBER. Mr. Chairman: I take the liberty of 
suggesting to gentlemen, if it would not meet their 
views so to amend the resolution, as to require mem¬ 
bers to support the Constitution of the United States, 
and guard the interests of the State of Ohio ? 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Mr. Chairman: Before the ques¬ 
tion is taken upon the motion of the gentleman on my 
left, (Mr. ) I move that the resolution be refer¬ 

red to a select committee of seven. There is, perhaps, 
some more questions about this matter, than at the first 
moment we might suppose. I have no doubt that the 
question of allegiance may accompany the opening of 
this Convention. I have no doubt that we must raise 
our right hand and swear to the support of the State 
interest and the constitution of the confederacy. As it 
seems, at the first moment, to cast a doubt upon judi¬ 
cious minds, I have therefore moved that the subject 
be sent to a select committee, who shall give their at¬ 
tention to it; and the committee will be able to report 
shortly. 

Mr. HAWKINS. This is a proposition for organiza¬ 
tion. I rise to inqnire whether we can appoint com¬ 
mittees until there shall be an organization here ? Or¬ 
ganization I consider a pre-requisite to authorize the 
president to appoint committees; and it is the duty of 
the chairman to see, not only that we have a right to sit 
here, but that we are qualified. 

Mr. LIDEY. I do not see any impropriety in dele¬ 
gates coming forward and qualifying to support the 
constitution of the United States, and discharge their 
duties as delegates. For my part, I think that is nec¬ 
essary. In this I differ with some of my friends; and 
as one gentleman well remarked, I do not believe that 
we can proceed to appoint any committee until we 
have a president and secretary. I think there is no 
gentleman upon this floor willing to support the con¬ 
stitution of the United States, but would also discharge 
with fidelity his duties to the State of Chio. That in 
my opinion, is all the oath required. I hope the reso¬ 
lution will not Ije committed at this time at least. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman : It seems to me that 
this oath of office need not be so comprehensive. I 
think, with the gentleman from Butler, that the oath 
taken under solemn sanctions, to discharge faithfully 
our duties as delegates in this convention, will include 
all our duties and obligations here. 


Mr. ARCH BOLD, I certainly listen with great de¬ 
ference to the remarks and observations of gentlemen, 
and to any suggestions they can make. Yet it seems 
to me that it is just as competent for us to appoint a 
committee, when it is the object of such committee to 
make an organization, as it is for us to elect a Secreta¬ 
ry or to take any other step toward an organization. 
We are yet in a chrysalis state, to use a Congressional 
expression. If the gentleman’s argument hold good, 
we could not even send a member here temporarily to 
the Secretary’s table, as we have just now done, to call 
the convention together. We may do anything for or¬ 
ganization. I incline to the opinion that we are re¬ 
quired to swear to support the constitution of the State 
of Ohio. I consider that we are officers of the State, 
and might take unconstitutional steps even in our de¬ 
liberations upon the change of the constitution ; and I 
ask gentlemen if they are able to determine, beyond 
all question, that this is not the fact? Not only so, but 
my opinion here is strengthened and fortified by the 
opinion of other gentlemen. Still I am not wedded 
to any opinion. If gentlemen think it worth while to 
make their inquiries a little more complete, a commit¬ 
tee would be able to do so better than we can here at 
once in our seats. Surely, the gentleman from Morgan 
will agree with me, that, whatever is necessary to our 
organization, we may do, 

Mr. LEADBETTER. Mr. President: I would in¬ 
quire for information, if any obligation which we may 
come under is not entirely voluntary on the part of 
members. 

Mr. MASON. Mr. President: I incline to think 
there is inconsistency in taking an oath to support the 
constitution of Ohio, for the very reason that that in¬ 
strument is to be submitted to this Convention—not 
to conform the action of this Convention to its provis¬ 
ions, but with a view to its' revision, correction, and 
amendment. How do you support the constitution of 
the State ot Ohio, in the very act of taking it down and 
superceding it? Now, a member of the General As¬ 
sembly takes an oath to support the constitution of 
Ohio, and why ? that he may conform his acts, as a 
member of the Legislative body, to its provisions—that 
he may not violate it, nor do anything repugnant to 
its plain requisitions. Well, sir, that reason does not 
exist here at all. Instead of conforming our proceed¬ 
ings to the present constitution we propose to set it 
aside. What does the proposed oath amount to? You 
take an oath to sustain, uphold, and maintain it in all 
its unity and integrity. That is your oath. At the 
same time you are laying hands upon it—not violent 
hands, but consecrated and authorized hands. Well, 
then, you are to take an oath to support the constitu¬ 
tion while you are taking it to pieces in a constitution¬ 
al manner! I suppose that we meet here at any rate, 
under the authority, sanction, and protection of the 
constitution of the United States. We come here with 
a sincere desire to perform our duties with reference 
to the great trust which has been confided to us; there¬ 
fore, we must take the oath, first, to maintain the con¬ 
stitution of the United States, and then the oath of of¬ 
fice. These are both pertinent and very consistent 
with the position we occupy. After all I have said, 
sir, I would not desire to pi olong this debate nor fall 
into any difficulty about the matter. For one, I am 
willing to take the oath which the amendment pro¬ 
poses—to support the constitution of Ohio, though it 
would be a. veiy inconsistent thing to do so, unless it 
were understood that we take it knowing that we 
shall immediately violate it. In that sense every gen¬ 
tleman can take it conscientiously. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HUMPHREYVILLE. Mr. Chairman: It seems 
to me that this question has no difficulty about it. As 
I seconded this amendment, I beg leave to offer a rea¬ 
son in support of it. As preliminary to a few remarks 
I will read from the constitution of the State of Ohio. 

I suppose we hold our seats here by virtue of the con¬ 
stitution of Ohio; and I am opposed to violating either 
my oath or that instrument in the very first act which 













4 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


we do here. Let me read from the constitution the 
following language: 

“ Every person who shall be chosen or appointed to 
any office of trust or profit under the auth(trity of the 
State, shall, before entering upon the execution there¬ 
of, take an oath or affirmation to support the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States and this State, and also an 
oath of office.” 

Now, sir, I hold that we are acting under the author¬ 
ity of this constitution, and I hold that we have not 
come here to violate it in any particular. I hold that 
this constitution is still binding upon us, and that it 
will remain so, until the people by their vote abrogate 
it, and adopt the constitution which we may recom¬ 
mend. Let me illustrate the idea. Suppose we ap¬ 
point a chaplain to this Convention, to serve for a pre¬ 
scribed salary. The constitution provides against tiie 
pay of such an officer. Is there any gentleman in this 
Convention who would be willing to violate the con¬ 
stitution by voting an order for this ])ayment of nuuiey 
out of the treasury ? I apprehend that all our orders 
for the payment of money are to be guided by this 
constitution, because it will remain in full force and 
virtue until it shall be repealed. Therefore I hold that 
we ouiiht to take an oath to support the constitution 
of Ohio. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I have no disposition to lie stren¬ 
uous. It appears to my mind that we are acting un¬ 
der and by virtue of the present constitution. If that 
constitution has imposed upon us any obligations we 
ought to be sworn to abide by them. But this seems 
to be understood difterently by the gentleman from 
Clark (Mr. Mason) —he viewing it some’hing like an 
act of constitutional suicide, and that the constitution 
proposed here to destroy itself. I do not understand 
it so. It ap[)ears to me tliat the provisions of the con¬ 
stitution intended to secure the perpetuity of some in- 
struinent of that kind. In passing from the old con¬ 
stitution to the new, I desire to treat the ohl with re¬ 
spect. It was a very good one in its day, and I desire 
to respect it until by the sanction and voice of our con¬ 
stituents it shad have been aunnlh-d. If the present 
constitution imposes any obligations upon us, we 
should abide by them, but if it really imposes no ob¬ 
ligation upon us, why then our oath would be of none 
etiect. 

The question was now demanded and taken upon 
the reference to a select committee, and the motion 
was lost; and then the question recurred upon Mr. 
Haw kin’s amendment, upon which a division was de¬ 
manded. 

iMr. VANCE, of Butler. I wish to say one word. 
Looking to the duties wduch devolve upon me as a 
member of this Convention, I would certainly be un¬ 
willing to take an oath to sujiport the constitution of 
Ohio. Now what is the nature of the duties devolv iim 
upon us? It is to make a change in the constitution. 
We propose to construct an entire new constitution, 
embracing no part of the old one. Well; suppose we 
are called upon to vote upon any proposition sijbmitt{'d 
in connection with the amendment of the constitution, 
and suppose that pr()[)osition should be in violation of 
some known j)rinciple found in the constitution of Ohio: 
Now, under such circumstances, how coidd we act 
when we are bomid to support the provisions of the 
constitution of Ohio ? It does seem to me that if gen¬ 
tlemen will j-eflect for a single moment, they will see 
the impropriety of requiring members to support the 
existing constitution of the State of Ohio. It is true, 
this Convention should not undertake in any way to 
violate the constitution of the State of Ohio. It is also 
true that we are bound and governed l)y that constitu¬ 
tion until it shall be amended, or we shall get another. 
But it is also true when we look to the nature of the 
oath of office, we see a difficulty that will .arise will 
be obviated. What do you do? You take an oath to 
faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of dele¬ 
gates here. How are those duties to be discharged, if 


we are faithful ? How is the constilutio.. to be altered, 
if altered at all ? Is it not to be altered in conformity 
with the provisions of the old constitution which point 
out the mode? It does seem to me that the oath of of¬ 
fice, in connection with the oath to support the consti¬ 
tution of the United States will be all-sufficient, We 
are limited by the provisions of the constitution of the 
United States. We are not limited by the constitution 
of Ohio, except so far as to conform to the mode of pro¬ 
ceeding pointed out in that constitution : this is all. I 
repeat it again, that I believe, if members will reflect 
for a single moment, that they cannot conscientiously 
take the oath of office under the amendment proposed 
by the gentleman from Morgan. What! take an oath 
to sujiport the constitution of Ohio, and in the next 
hour be called upon to sup[)ort a proposition in direct 
opposition to some of the provisions found there ! Cer¬ 
tainly w’e cannot do this, unless we act inconsistently, 
or under the mental reservation suggested, which I am 
not willing to be trammelled by. I hope that the 
amendment wdll not prevail. I have no objections that 
the resolution should be referred to a committee of 
seven, or any other number, but I am opposed to the 
amendment now offered, and do not see how I could 
take the oath if the amendment should jirevail. 

The division was then taken upon Mr. Hawkins’ 
amendment, and it was lost. 

Mr. HOLMES. In order to bring this debate to a 
close and get at what gentlemen seem all to desire, I 
will offer an amendment to the resolution. I propose 
to strike out all after the word “resolved,” and insert, 
“ That the members elect be and they are hereby re¬ 
quired severally to sup[)ort the constitution of the Uni¬ 
ted States, and faithfully dischai’ge their duties as del¬ 
egates to this convention. 

A MEMBER. That is all embraced in the original 
resolution. 

Mr. HOLMES. If it is included in the other reso¬ 
lution, I withdraw the amendment. 

Mr. TAY LO R. I move an amendment wdiich I think 
will simplify the propo.sitiou. Here is a disparity of 
o[)iuiou already. Here we have the expression of sen¬ 
timents honestly entertained, that the resolution does 
not pro{)erly represent our wishes. And if the propo¬ 
sition must prevail that we shall take upon ourselves 
the solemn sanction of an oath, gentlemen, whether on 
this or that side of the House, have both the right and 
the power to put their own constructions upon their 
duties. Thus their consciences will be reached by 
the resolution. I move that that resolution be so amen¬ 
ded as to prescribe that tlie oath shall be taken to 
faithfully discharge our duties as members of this con¬ 
vention. 

A VOICE. That is the very thing we have. 

So Mr. Taylor’s amendment was not entertained. 
The original resolutio i was then ado])ted. 

On motion, it was ordered that the delegate from 
Geauga, (.Judge Petkr Hitchcock) be requested to ad¬ 
minister the oath of office. 

Air. LIDEY moved that the delegates elect be sworn 
by rising and lifting up their hands in their places. 

Mr. HOLMES suggested that delegates shmdd swear 
by being called to tlie Clerk’s desk in convenient num¬ 
bers. 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the question on Mr. Li- 
dey’s motion, and the same being taken it was lest. 

Mr. HOl.MES’ suggestion was then taken up by 
consent and the delegates were severally sworn in by 
Judge Hitchcock, who administered the oath in the 
following words: 

“ You solemidy swear that you will support the con¬ 
stitution of the United States, and that you will hon¬ 
estly and faithfully to the State of Ohio discharge your 
duties as members of this Convention.” 

Judge Hitchcock was then sworn in by JudgeSriLL- 
WELL. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved that his resolution relative to 











CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


5 


the officers of the Convention be taken up, which was 
agreed to and the resolution adopted. 

Mr. SAWYEll. Mr. President; I move that we now 
proceed, by ballot, to elect a President lor this Conven¬ 
tion, to serve during the session. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The CHAIRMAN appointed Messrs. Hunt and Cham¬ 
bers tellers. 

Mr. BENNBT, of Tuscarawas. Before this ballot¬ 
ing proceeds, I desire to make the question, and to un¬ 
derstand whether a majority of all the votes cast are 
not requisite to elect? 

SEVERAL VOICES. A majority of all the votes 
must elect. 

The CHAIRMAN supposed there was no difference 
of opinion on that subject, and called for nominations 
for President of the Convention. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. Mr. President: I would nom¬ 
inate Col. William Medill, of Fairfield, for President 
of this convention. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I would nominate Mr. Joseph 
Vance, of Champaign county. 

The balloting was then had. and the tellers reported 
as follows; 


William Medill received. 60 votes. 

Joseph Vance “ 38 “ 

Reuben Hitchcock . 1 vote. 

Peter Hitchcock “ 1 “ 

Blank. 3 votes. 


The CHAIRMAN. Wm. Medill, having received 
a majority of all the votes cast, he is therefore declared 
to be duly elected President of this Convention. 

Whereupon, the PRESIDENT, being conducted to 
the Chair by Mr. Hitchcock, of Geauga, and Mr. Saw- 
TEr, addressed the Convention as follows: 

Before assunii g the chair, allow me, gentlemen, to 
express to you my grateful acknowledgements for tha 
honor which you have been pleased to confer upon 
me in thus selecting me to preside over your delibera¬ 
tions on an occasion of so much importance and of 
such deep interest to the people of our State. 

I have had experience enough to know that the po¬ 
sition assigned me is one of no ordinary responsibility 
and care, but in the performance of its duties I feel 
that 1 may rely on your co-operation, and upon that 
confidence and kind indulgence which you have alrea¬ 
dy manifested toward me. 

Whilst in all my votes I shall be governed by my 
own judgment, and views and sentiments of my imme¬ 
diate constituents, I shall endeavor to execute the du¬ 
ties of the Chair with impartiality and with the most 
scrupulous regard for the rights and feelings of all. 

I again thank you for so distinguished a mark of 
your favorable consideration and regard. 

The convention then proceeded to elect a Secretary. 

Mr. STIDGER nominated Mr. Wm.H.Gill, of Guern¬ 
sey. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, said that as the mo¬ 
tion of Mr. Sawyer to proceed, by ballot, to elect a 
President, did not include other officers he hoped the 
remaining officers would be chosen without the form¬ 
ality of going into a ballot. 

The PRESIDENT announced the nomination of Mr. 
Gill, and a motion having been made and secondetl 
that he be declared elected as Secretary of the con¬ 
vention, the same was agreed to without a division. 

Mr. Gill came forward and was sworn in. 

Mr. ROBERTSON moved that William S. V. Pren¬ 
tiss, of Knox, be elected assistant Secretary. Agreed 
to without a division. 

Mr. HOLMES moved that John W. Carrolton, of 
Hamilton, be elected Sergeant-at-Arms. Agreed to 
without a division. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that James Arnold be elected 
Door-keeper. Agreed to. 

Upon motion of Mr. HOLMES, the Convention ad¬ 
journed until to-morrow morning at 10 o’clock. 


TUESDAY, May 7, 18.50. 

After the Secretary had concluded the reading of the 
journal, 

Mr. ARCHBOLD asked and obtained leave to have 
some verbal alterations made in the journal of yester- 
day. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, offered the following; 

Resolved, That a committee of thirteen members be 
appointed by the Chair, whose duty shall be to form 
rules for the government of the proceedings of this 
Convention. 

Mr. HUMPH REVILLE, thought this was out of 
ordei’—“ the first business in order would be to ap¬ 
point a committee on privileges and elections.” 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to amend by'Striking out 
the word “ form” and insert the word “ report.” 
Agreed to and the resolution adopted. 

Mr. HOOTMAN offered the following: 

‘■'■Resolved, That the Convention appoint four Mes¬ 
sengers to serve during its session in the city of Colum¬ 
bus.” 

Mr. LIDEY moved that the resolution be referred 
to a select committee of three. Agreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER offered the following, which was 
agreed to. 

“Resolved, That the rules for the government of the 
last House of Representatives of this State, as far as 
applicable, be adopted for the government of this Con¬ 
vention until otherwise ordered.’' 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the 
report of .1. V. Smith, relative to the official report of 
the debates and proceedings of the Convention. 

On motion of Mr. ORTON, the same was referred to 
a committee of five. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD offered the following resolution, 
which was agreed to : 

Resolved, That the President of tho Convention be 
and he is hereby authorized and required to audit and 
allow for payment, as part of the expenses of the Con¬ 
vention, the postage accounts of the members and 
their officers, oil all letters and papers by them received, 
and on all such letters and documents as a member or 
an officer may see fit to send by mail marked “ paid.” 

Mr. MASON offered a resolution directing the Ser¬ 
geant-at-Arms to have two additional doors cut in the 
bar of the Hall, so as to make an entrance direct to the 
aisles on the right and left of the centre. 

Mr. SAWYER thought the matter had better be re¬ 
ferred to a committee. 

Mr. HAWKINS remarked that the object of closing 
up the side entrances was evidently to render the Hall 
inside of the bar, less convenient of access for the 
crowd who might throng it to the great inconvenience 
of members. 

Mr. VANCE. If the gentleman from Licking, (Mr. 
Manon) will change seats with me, I will not oppose 
his resolution. (A laugh.) 

Mr. MITC HEL, appreciated the inconvenience (to 
members located as was Mr. Vance, but he also appre¬ 
ciated die general inconvenience from having but one 
entrance, and he thought the Door-keeper would be 
able to secure the comfort of those who might sit by 
the side entrances. 

Mr. GREEN said there was some diversity of opin¬ 
ion upon the matter, and he would therefore move to 
lay the resolution on the table for the present, which 
motion was agreed to. 

Mr. LEADBETTER offered a resolution that acoin- 
mittee of nine be appointed, to report the order of busi¬ 
ness for this Convention. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. I understand the resolution 
offered by the gentleman from Butler, (Mr. Vance,) to 
relate only to a preparation rules for the Convention. 

I am under the impression that it is necessary that we 
should adopt a method to arrive at business, and think 
that it is better that a committee should be appointed 
to report the order of business. If any member has a 















6 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


better plan, by which our business can be expedited, 

I shall cheerfully agree to it. 

Mr. HAWKINS concurred in the propriety of passing 
a resolution like the one just proposed. It was neces¬ 
sary to itemize business and distribute it among difier- 
ent committees. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to strike out all after the 
word “ resolved ” and insert the following: 

1st. That a committee of three delegates be appoint¬ 
ed whose duty it shall be to report what changes al¬ 
terations or amendments they deem necessary in the 
preamble to the constitution of Ohio; who shall be call¬ 
ed the “Committee on the Preamble.” 

2nd. That a committee of twenty-one delegates"be 
appointed whose duty it shall be to report chang¬ 
es, alterations or amendments they deem necessary in 
those provisions of the constitution of Ohio which re¬ 
late to the election, qualification, term of office, powers 
and duties of the executive and ministerial officers, whose 
duties have reference to the State govei-nment at large; 
who shall be styled the “ Committee on the executive 
and ministerial department.” 

3d. That a similar committtee be appointed whose 
duty it shall be to report what changes, alterations or 
amendments they deem necessary in that portion of 
the constitution of Ohio which has reference to the leg¬ 
islative department of this government; who shall be 
styled the “ Committee on the legislative department.” 

4th. That a like committee shall be appointed whose 
duty it shall be to report what changes, alterations or 
amendments they may deem necessary in that portion 
of the Constitution of Ohio which refers to the judicia¬ 
ry and judiciary proceedings, who shall be styled the 
committee on the Judiciary. 

That a committee of delegates shall be appoin¬ 
ted, whose duty it shall be to report what changes, al¬ 
terations or amendments are necessary in that portion 
of the constitution of Ohio which has reference to the 
organization of the militia, who shall be styled the 
committee on Military Affairs. 

6th. That a similar committee be appointed, whose 
duty it shall be to report what changes, alterations, or 
amendments they deem necessary in that portion of 
the constitution of Ohio which refers to electors and 
elections, who shall be styled the “ committee on Elec¬ 
tors and Elections.” 

7th. That a like committee be appointed, whose du¬ 
ty it shall be to report what changes, alterations or 
amendments they deem necessary in that portion of 
the constitution of Ohio which refers to the subdivis¬ 
ion of the State into counties and townships, and the 
officers thereto belonging, who shall be styled the 
“committee on Counties and County Affairs.” 

8th. That all miscellaneous matters embraced in the 
constitution of Ohio be referred to a committee of 
delegates, whose duty it shall be to report what chan¬ 
ges, alterations or amendments they deem necessary 
to the same, who shall be styled the “ committee on 
Miscellaneous Affairs.” 

9th. That a committee of delegates be appoin¬ 
ted, whose duty it shall be to report what changes, al¬ 
terations or amendments are necessary in that portion 
of the constitution of Ohio embraced in the “ Bill of 
Rights,” who shall be styled the “ committee on Rights 
and Privileges.” 

10th. That a committee of delegates be appoin¬ 
ted whose duty it shall be to report what changes, al¬ 
terations or amendments are necessary in that portion 
of the constitution of Ohio which refers to the tenure of 
realty and the devise thereof, who shall be styled the 
“ committee on Real Estate and Descents.” 

11th. That the foregoing committees, together with 
the committees on rules and credentials, constitute the 
standing committees of the Convention, and no origi¬ 
nal resolution touching the change, alteration or amend¬ 
ment of the constitution of Ohio, shall be subject to 
debate, until the same shall have been referred to the 
appropriate standing committee and reported to the 
Convention. 


Mr. ARCHBOLD. I have formed no definite opin¬ 
ion of the amendment, only having heard it read once, 
and would like to see it refei’red, together with the 
original resolution to a committee. On the whole I am 
favorably impressed with the amendment; but there 
is one resolution—the 11th—to which, I think, this Con¬ 
vention will not agree: it is that no original resolution 
touching a change of the constitution shall be subject 
to debate, until the same shall have been referred to 
the appropriate standing committee. This seems too 
much like shackling the freedom of members. I move 
that the original resolution, (Mr. Leadbettee’s) with 
the accompanying amendments, be laid on the table 
and printed. 

After some remarks by Mr. SAWYER, the motion 
to lay on the table and print was agreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER thought that the first thing to be done, 
before any printing w'as ordered, would be the ap¬ 
pointment of a public printer. He had no disposition 
to disguise the matter, and would frankly state that he 
presumed, from the complexion of the Convention, 
that S. Medary would be chosen Printer for the Con¬ 
vention, and he would offer a resolution “ that Samuel 
Medary be, and he is hereby appointed Printer to this 
Convention.” Mr. S. remarked that some gentlemen 
might object to the resolution, inasmuch as the com¬ 
pensation for printing was not named; but he pre¬ 
sumed that would be fixed by an appropriate commit¬ 
tee. He would frankly state that he preferred to give 
the printing to Mr. Medary, but he should only do so at 
reasonable and proper prices. . 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to strike out all after “ Re¬ 
solved,” and insert “ that a committee of five members 
be appointed to contract for the printing of this Con¬ 
vention.” He thought it would be unwise to appoint 
a printer without fixing his compensation. 

Mr. REEMELIN. If I understand the resolution, it 
proposes that the committee shall contract for the print¬ 
ing. I am in favor of the resolution, but I want to 
know the price to be paid for the work, and I wish that 
the committee may be required to report what arrange¬ 
ments it may make, so that the Convention may act up¬ 
on it, and, in fact, choose its own printer. I am unwil¬ 
ling to delegate to a committee the power to contract 
for the printing, and I hope that the gentleman will so 
modify his resolution that I can vote for it. 

Mr. MITCHELL suggested that the committee 
should consist of five instead of three, which sugges¬ 
tion was accepted. 

Mr. LARWILL offered the following as an amend¬ 
ment: “the compensation to be fixed hereafter.” 

Mr. REEMELIN wished the resolution read again. 
He thought the gentleman from Muskingum (Mr. 
Chambers) must see that the committee would have 
full power to hawk about the streets for printers, and 
contract for the work—he repeated that he could not 
consent to clothe a committee with this plenary power. 

Mr. SAWYER thought that the original resolution 
was about right. He did not wish to appoint a com¬ 
mittee with power to “ hawk about the streets ” for 
printers, nor did he wish to let out the work at less 
than fair and living prices. 

Mr. CLARKE remarked that it was not so clear, 
“from the complexion of the House,” that Mr. Meda¬ 
ry would be elected printer for this Convention. 
Those who assumed that he would be, were better 
judges of “complexions” than he was. He was un¬ 
willing that Mr. Medary should do the printing, unlese 
he would do it as low and as well as any other indi¬ 
vidual. Mr. Chambers’ resolution should go further 
and require the committee to invite propositions from 
the different printers of the city Was there anything 
improper in ihis ? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I propose to modify my resolu¬ 
tion by adding the following, which may, perhaps, 
meet the views of the gentleman from Hamilton, to 
wit: “That before entering into a contract with any 
individual, the committee shall receive proposals from 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


7 


the printers, after giving public notice, and report to 
this Convention.” 

Mr. RBEMBLIN. There are a few words in that 
which I do not like, for the reason that it will delay 
the whole matter perhaps for weeks. I refer to that 
part of the verbiage which relates to public advertise¬ 
ment. There are two printers in this city, and for 
all the purposes of consultation, and understanding 
could be had before night, so that a committee could 
report on the subject in the morning. I see no reason 
for public advertisement unless we had ten or filteen 
days, so that it could reach different quarters of the 
State. I think that either of the printing offices in 
this city are fully prepared to do our printing. 1 know 
that Medary is, and I am opposed to all delay on the 
subject, as we need a printer as soon as possible. 

Mr. STANTON. I hope the question will be taken 
on the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, (Mr. 
Larwill,) and that it will prevail, and then we can 
modify the proposition so as to suit the views of the 
gentleman from Hamilton. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I would merely observe in re¬ 
gard to the term “ notice,” that I did not intend it to be 
public. I only intended that the committee should 
give notice that they would receive propositions— 
that notice could be given to the printers of this city 
in twenty minutes. It is necessary that some notice 
should be given, and I have no doubt but that the 
printers of this city would be ready in half an hour to 
give a response to such notice, and be prepared for a 
contract. Then the prices will be established, and 
there will be no misunderstanding or delay. 

Mr. SAWYER. I will accept the amendment of the 
gentleman from Wayne. 

Mr. NASH. To me there are some inconsistencies 
between the pending amendment and the original re¬ 
solution, as they now stand. For example, we direct 
a man to build a house, and at the same time we tell 
him, after the work is done, what price we will give 
him, which is, according to my notions, a queer way 
of making a bargain. I have a notion that it always 
“ takes two to make a bargain.” I am rather inclined 
to believe with the gentleman from Auglaize, that Mr. 
Medary is to do the printing of this Convention, and I 
think the gentleman from Lorain will find it out. But 
I am of the opinion that the contract should be made 
at once, so that we may know the terms beforehand, 
and at the close of the Convention we shall not have a 
wrangle about what is to be the compensation; and I 
think, also, that this matter should go to the committee 
in order that Mr. Medary may know under what con¬ 
tract he is to work for the Convention, and may know 
what we shall have to pay. 

Mr. HAWKINS. It appears to me that the Delegate 
from Gallia, (Mr. Nash,) mistakes the proposition. It 
does not necessarily follow that because the compen¬ 
sation is to be considered subsequently to the passage 
of the resolution, that it is to be fixed at the end of the 
session. The resolution may be passed now, and to¬ 
morrow we may fix the compensation. All it propo¬ 
ses is, that the matter of compensation should be sub¬ 
sequently considered. It is not proposed, as I under¬ 
stand it, to fix the compensation at the end of the ses¬ 
sion, but at some subsequent period to this. Pass the 
resolution to day, and fix the compensation to-morrow. 

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Morgan has re¬ 
marked upon the propriety of fixing the compensation, 
subsequently to the appointment of an individual to do 
the work. If I understood the gentleman from Mus¬ 
kingum, (Mr Chambers) with whom I perfectly a- 
gree, our first duty is to fix the compensation, and with 
the gentleman from Auglaize, (Mr. Sawyer) I go for 
a fair price—a living price— such a price as will be 
ample to the printer and honorable to the Convention, 
and when that is done, we are prepared, at the proper 
moment, to ascertain what we will do, and who shall 
do the work. The proposition of the gentleman from 
Muskingum, has been objected to, and I think proper¬ 
ly on the ground that it vests in the Committees power 


to contract. The Convention I'eserves that power, and 
it seems to me that that power ought not to bo exer¬ 
cised until we ascertain what is the proper compensa¬ 
tion to be given. Let us by a committee, ascertain 
that; and when thatisdone, let us proceed to designate 
the printer who shall do the work. I do hope that we 
shall have an opportunity to separate the question of 
compensation, from the question whoshalldo the work, 
as to reach the point now, as to what is a full and prop¬ 
er compensatinn. 

Mr. BENNETT. I understand the gentleman from 
Muskingum, to modify his resolution by striking out 
the word “ public.” 

The PRESIDENT. It is modified. ‘‘ Give notice ” 
is the reading now. 

Mr. FORBES. I am favorable to the proposition of 
raising a committee to ascertain what the printing can 
be done for. I feel willing to give a full, fair and hon¬ 
orable compensation for this printing. If it authorizes 
the committee to receive proposals simply, I shall vote 
for it, but if it authorizes a committee to contract, I do 
conceive that would be placing too much power in the 
hands of a committee of five. I am in favor of ascer¬ 
taining what our printing can be done for before we 
say who shall be the printer. I have not much doubt in 
my own mind that what the gentleman from Auglaize 
says 8 correct, with regard to the complexion of this 
body, but at the same time I want to know what we 
are going to pay our printer before we appoint him. 
That I think can be best ascertained by a committee. 

Mr. LARWILL. It seems to me there is no great 
difficulty to be apprehended about the passage of the 
original resolution. The power is still with the Con¬ 
vention to fix the compensation hereafter, and if Mr. 
Medary should think proper to accept the printing 
with this proviso, it leaves the whole field open. I 
presume we shall have a competent committee here¬ 
after to fix the price, such an one as will be satisfacto¬ 
ry to this Convention, as well as Mr. Medary. The on¬ 
ly object is to get some person to do the work, and 
have the printing in progress. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. 1 propose an 
amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from 
Muskingum. If it be in order, I would add the words 
“ That in the mean time the Secretary be authorized 
to employ a printer to perform all the necessary print¬ 
ing of the Convention, at prices not exceeding those 
paid at the last session of the Legislature for similar 
work.” 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I accept the amendment. 

Mr. NASH. As I understand it the resolution does 
not provide that the committee shall make the contract 
absolutely until after they report to the Convention. 

Mr. GREENE of Defiance. Before the amendment 
proposed by our friend from Cuyahoga was offered, I 
had prepaied a resolution, which, it strikes me, will 
meet the views of the gentleman from Muskingum, 
as well as gentlemen on the other side, which I will 
read: 

“ Resolved, That a committee of five members be ap¬ 
pointed to inquire and ascertain the best terms on 
which the printing for this Convention can be contrac¬ 
ted for, and that they report the names and terras of 
the several persons proposing to do such printing, and 
that in the meantime the Secreta-y of the Convention 
be instructed to cause the necessa^ printing to be 
done, at the prices usually paid for similar work done 
for the General Assembly.” 

I offer this as an amendment to the amendment now 
before the House. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I accept that as a substitute for 
my amendment. 

Mr. SAWYER. My friend from Greene proposes to 
authorize the Secretary to contract. He is willing that 
Mr. Medary should do the work, but wants it to come 
through different channels. My friend over the way 
has no particular objections to Mr. Medary, but he 
wants the Secretary of the Convention to contract for 
the work. Now I propose to contract, myself, with- 











8 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


out the iiiterveiition of the Secretary of the Conven¬ 
tion or any other Secretary. The proposition as it now 
stands amended, says that Mr. Medary shall do the 
printing, and that the Convention shall hereafter fix 
the price. I had a conversation with Mr. Medary this 
.morning upon this subject, and he informed me that he 
is perfectly willing to do the printing at a fair price— 
at the former prices fixed for the same kind of work. 
As I before observed, we do not yet know what kind 
of work this is to be. After a while, when we get to 
work, we can ascertain that. I am satisfied that gen¬ 
tlemen do not wish to hawk this matter about the 
streets of Columbus, to get Mr. Medary or any other 
man down to the starving point. I am willing that 
the printer should be liberally paid—I say, liberally. 

Mr. RE EMELIN. I am in hopes that the gentleman 
from Auglaize will accept of my amendment as a sub¬ 
stitute, which I beg leave to read: St'ike out all after 
the word resolved, and add, “ That Samuel Medary 
be, and he is hereby appointed printer to this Conven¬ 
tion, to be paid therefor the prices paid by the last Gen¬ 
eral Assembly for similar work, and to be ascertained 
in accordance with existing laws.” 

The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman from Au- 
gla ize accept? 

Mr. SAWYER. The Convention can do as it pleases 
about the matter. I understood Mr. Medary this 
morning that he would do it at the former rates, if the 
work be of a similar character. It may be found, upon 
examination, that a very small amount of printing is 
to be done for this Convention. It seems to me that 
it would be very wrong to require Mr. Medary to print 
one volume of the journals of this Convention at the 
same ratio that he would print a thousand volumes : 
and if there is to be but one bill to print, it would be 
wrong to require him to print that one Convention bill 
at the same price that he executed the bill printing at 
the last session of the General Assembly. I am not 
willing to accept that modification, because I believe 
it would be doing him injustice. 

Mr. LARWILL. I have a word to say. My im¬ 
pression is that the oi’iginal resolution is still the best. 
If gentlemen can satisfy themselves what they intend 
to allow for the printing, it seems to me that a little 
delay as to fixing the price would be better than ma¬ 
king any definite terms at this time through a commit¬ 
tee. I wish to have a voice myself in saying what Mr. 
Medary shall receive. It is proper that we should 
make him a reasonable compensation, and I presume 
he would not ask anything more. 

Mr. DORSEY, I have a resolution that I wish to 
offer by way of substitute, and which I will now read, 
for information, if it be in order: 

“ Resolved, That Samuel Medary be apjiointed printer 
to the Convention, and that he be paid at such price 
as may be agreed upon between himself and the 
aforesaid committee of five.” 

Mr. CHAMBERS. It appears to me that there is 
an evident incongruity between the original resolution 
and the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Hamilton, for it reiterates the same matter. I would 
ask how the original resolution would read if the 
amendment of the gentleman from Hamilton were 
adopted. 

Ihe PRESIDENT. The amendment then would 
be, in fact, the original resolution by retaining only 
the single word “ resolved.” 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I understand it now, and call for 
the yeas and nays. 

Mr. LIDEY. I do not see any impropriety in the 
demand for the yeas and nays, but I prefer a diflerent 
course. ^ I move that the wliole subject be referred to 
a committee of three to report this afternoon. 

His motion prevailing, the resolution and amend¬ 
ments were referred accordingly. 

SELECT COMMITTEE. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President: I submit the 
following resolution to the Convention : 


Resolved, That a committee of 21 be appointed to 
report a method for conducting the business and delib¬ 
erations of the Convention, and to designate the neces¬ 
sary standing committees. 

Mr. HAWKINS. It appears to me, that this is rather 
a supernumerary. There has been a commtttee on 
Rules already appointed. There has been a proposi¬ 
tion submitted for the purpose of raising some twelve 
j or thirteen standing committees, to which the separate 
items of business are to be referred. The present re¬ 
solution contemplates something like this—to super¬ 
cede eiilirely both the other propositions. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President: The committee 
heretofore appointed is a committee to prepare rules. 
The committee now proposed is an entirely different 
committee. It is a committee to report a method for 
conducting the business of the Convention and to de¬ 
signate the necessary standing committees. No such 
committee as that contemplated by this resolution has 
been appointed. 

The PRESIDENT interrupted here, and stated that 
the resolutions offered by the gentleman from Adams 
(Mr. McCormick) were laid on the table. 

Mr. ROBERTSON continued. The object of this 
resolution is, simjily, to report the necessary standing 
committees and also to report a method of conducting 
the deliberations and bu.siness of the Convention, and 
that the views of all portions of the State may be rep¬ 
resented in this committee, it is proposed that it shall 
consist of one member from each Congressional dis¬ 
trict. When this committee shall have been ajipointed, 
all propositions like that submitted this morning by the 
gentleman from Adams (,Vlr. McCormick) may be re¬ 
ferred to this committee. The passage of this resolu¬ 
tion will set the machinery of the Convention in mo¬ 
tion, and by relieving us from the difficulty and confu¬ 
sion of settling preliminaries, which can soon be dis¬ 
posed of in committee, greatly expedite the initiative 
business of the Convention. 

Mr. McCORMICK. The coui'se pursued by other 
Conventions for the amendment of State constitutions, 
has been to appoint committees for the purpose of pre- 
paiing and laying out the business of the Convention. 
The New York Convention apjiointed a committee of 
seven. The Virginia Convention appointed a commit¬ 
tee of seven, and the Kentucky Convention also appoint¬ 
ed a committee. These different committees delibera¬ 
ted, taking the different subjects of their constitutions 
into consideration, and seeing the variou.s matters like¬ 
ly to be embraced in their deliberations, they reported 
a number of standing committees, and to each of these 
standing committees was assigned its peculiar work. 

The first proposition, which was offered this morn¬ 
ing, to raise a committee of nine was similar to the pre¬ 
cedents set us by New York, Virginia and Kentucky. 
Th- resolution now offered by the gentleman from Fair- 
field is [ii’ecisely similar, except it increases the num¬ 
ber of delegates in the c-.mmittee. The resolution I 
offered this morning was a proposition enabling us to 
arrive directly at the object of our labors, and it em¬ 
braced every thing contemplated in the resolution of¬ 
fered by the gentleman from Fairfield. It appears to 
me that we only commence where we might conclude 
if we adopt the last resolution. I therefore move that 
it be laid upon the table and printed. 

Mr. ROBERTSON (by leave.) There seems to be mis¬ 
apprehension in the minds of gentlemen, as to the nature 
of this resolution. I simply proposed to raise a com¬ 
mittee and then his resolution or others, can be refer¬ 
red to that committee, obviating the necessity of laying 
upon the table ; the w hole object being to set the ma¬ 
chinery of the Convention in motion. The gentleman 
from Adams has presented here what might be consid¬ 
ered a report from a committee. That report and all 
like [uopositions could be referred to this committee, 
and upon wdiich report the Convention will beready 
for definite action. Therefore I consider this is the 
beginning, and not the end. It is the initiative, and not 













9 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the finale in the matter. I hope the resolution will not 
be laid upon the table. 

A division of the question was now demanded—the 
first question being, shall the I’esolution lie on the table ? 

The motion was lost. 

Mr. DORSEY. I hope the resolution offered by the 
gentleman from Fairfield will pass; but there is one 
single amendment which I desire to olfor, and which I 
have no doubt, the gentleman intended to include. It 
is to insert after the words “ twenty-one,” the w(>rds 
“consisting of one Irotn each Congressional district.” 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Yes, sir,I accept the amendment. 

Mr. LEAD BETTER. I have a word to say upon 
the question. The proposition I submitted was simi¬ 
lar to this, and was laid upon the table. There is no 
necessity of cumbering our table with resolutions, in 
order to print them. I am not tenacious about my 
proposition, but it would be precisely the same propo¬ 
sition as this of the gentleman from Fairfield, if it were 
amended by striking out “ nine ” and inserting twen¬ 
ty-one.” 

Mr. STANTON. I move to strike out the words 
'• twenty-one ” and insert “ nine.” I regard nine as a 
much more suitable number for the transaction of bus¬ 
iness. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I will make a single remark. 
The design of having so large a committee was that 
all portions of the State might be represented, and that 
every subject matter which may come before the Con¬ 
vention might be fairly weighed and considered. It 
is an initiative committee. It may be subdivided, and 
doubtless will be, into several committees. It is pro¬ 
posed to do that by a committee which might be done 
by the Convention, the committee being created mere¬ 
ly for convenience. I confess that in most cases I al¬ 
so am oppo ed to large committees. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. In relation to the 
number of the committee in the New York Conven¬ 
tion, I believe it was 17 instead of 7. I have the pro¬ 
ceedings before me. 

The question was then taken an the amendment of 
Mr Stanton, which was lost; and then the resolution 
was adopted. 

DOCUMENTS FOR MEMBERS. 

Mr. LIDEY. I otter the following resolution: 

“ Resolved that the Secretary of State provide each 
member of the Convention with a volume containing 
the constitutions of the several States, and also with a 
copy of a volume entitled the “ New Constitution,” 
published by S. Medary. 

Mr. NASH. I desire to make an inquiry: who is to 
pay for these books ? I do not know whether the Sec¬ 
retary of State has the ability to buy them for us. If so, 
I would be very much obliged to him for one of them. 

Mr. SAWYER. I propose to otter an amendment, 

^'Resolved, That the Sei geant-at-Arms be required to 
furnish the members of this Convention with a suita¬ 
ble number of copies of the collated constitutions.” 

My object in ottering that amendment is, sir, that 
these books may be sup[)lied for our information and 
correct action. We ought to be furnished with a copy 
of the constitution of every State in the U/iion. We 
ought also to be furnished with copies of the .lournals. 
Debates, and Proceedings of the difterent State Con¬ 
ventions, in order to enable us to act understandiugly. 
I have some other resolutions upon the same subject 
that I intend to otter at the proper time. One is this. 
The Convention may think that I am for giving pretty 
largely. But I am for giving the Convention informa¬ 
tion upon the subject in which we are now engaged: 

“ Resolved, That the editors of the Ohio State .Jour¬ 
nal and of the Ohio Statesman furnish to each member 
of the Convention during the session, six dollars worth 
of their daily and weekly papers for distribution.” 

I mean, sir, that we will take each six dollars worth 
of these papers containing our proceedings and debates 
here, and send them home as we make progress, sup¬ 
posing that our action here will confine us to near the 


time when the people will be called on to vote upon 
the acts of this Convention. I propose to submit, in 
due time, further, “ that [blank] co])ies of the .Journal, 
Debates and Proceedings of this Convention be jiriut- 
ed by the [mblic printer, 15 per cent, of which shall 
be printed in the German language, and that 600 co¬ 
pies of the same shall be printed for the use of the 
Convention and the State.” I propose that one copy 
of each shall be given to each member of the Conven¬ 
tion, and at least one copy of each shall be deposited 
in the State Library, and that one copy shall be sent 
into every county in the State, and one to every libra¬ 
ry. and a oopy to each State in the Union. The De¬ 
bates of this Convention I consider as of more impor¬ 
tance than any other public document that may eman¬ 
ate from any deliberative body in the State that is 
likely to convene for years. 

Mr.-. I should be glad to know something of 

what will be the cost of all this. I should like to see 
the figures. It has been suggested that the cost will 
amount to about $3000. 

Mr. NASH. I suppose there will be a propriety in 
having the reports of the debates and proceedings of 
the Conventions of ditterent States, for they will fur¬ 
nish us with a treasury from which to draw our speech¬ 
es. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HAWKINS. I propose here to inquire into the 
expense. A short time since we showed a disposition 
to be economical and to know the precise amount of 
expenditure incurred. I suggest whether it would not 
be well in this case. 

Mr. RANNEY. I am opposed both to the original 
resolution and the amendment. I do not oppose them 
on the ground that it is not important that the mem¬ 
bers of this Convention should have the proceedings 
of other States for their guidance, but on the ground 
that it would be setting a bad precedent. I presume 
that every member will be better satisfied to furnish 
himself with the books necessary for his information 
than if they were paid for by the State. It is true that 
the expenditure for this purpose would not be large, 
but it is the principle to which I object. We have seen 
this principle growing among us. We have seen it in 
Congress imposing serious burdens upon the country, 
and it has become a general subject of complaint, and 
if we, of this Convention, start ott'by appropriating to 
ourselves these books and documents, it will be setting 
a precedent which future Legislatures will feel author¬ 
ized to improve upon. I am entirely ofiposed to the 
a[>propriation of one single cent for the purpose of 
purchasing any thing to put into the hands of the mem¬ 
bers of this Convention, for the reason that it involves 
a dangerous principle. 

Mr. HENDERSON. I hope the gentleman will so 
modify his resolution as to designate the precise num¬ 
ber. 

Mr. SAWYER. What a suitable number might be, 
1 suppose would be determined by the Sergeant-at- 
Arms. A copy of the constitutions of the ditterent 
States I would like to have. I have one, though not a 
late edition. I have also, what perhaps no other mem¬ 
ber has, a copy of the constitution of California. That 
constitution is a good one, and I intend to copy large¬ 
ly from it. I would be willing to adopt it, indeed, for 
the State of Ohio, so far as it would be applicable. I 
desire sir, that these books should be in our hands. If 
gentlemen are rich enough to buy them for themselves 
they are not like me. I am not. I want the people 
themselves to pay for their own enlightenment, for I 
don’t get pay sufficient for that; and I have a constitu¬ 
ency who who are not so niggardly as to oppose me 
for endeavoring to enlighten them, even if the expense 
does come out of their pockets. They are exceedingly 
desirous of knowing what we are doing. “ Let us have 
more light,” is the motto, or ought to be, of every right 
minded man. 

Mr. HENDERSON. I would like to know definite¬ 
ly, if these volumes, after we use them, are to be our 










10 


CONVENTION REPOIITS 


property, or whether they are to be deposited in the 
Stale library ? 

Mr. LIDEY. I am notparticvdar, sir, about the pas¬ 
sage of this resolution, but I oifered it in good faith. 
As one gentleman has remarked that he can buy his 
own books, I can do the same, but the whole amount 
of the cost will not exceed 300 dollars, and as far as 
my constituents are concerned, that will be but a mite 
amongst 14,000 or 15,000. I don’t want them myself. 
I believe I can do my part without these books as well 
as any other gentleman. But with the gentleman from 
Auglaize, I want to give the Convention an opportuni¬ 
ty to do up their business in good order. What is 300 
dollars to this great State of Ohio ? I don’t want to 
carry my books home, if we can leave them for a good 
purpose, and besides we have so many apt men here, 
that we shall have perhaps forty or fifty new constitu¬ 
tions written out before the week passes. One gen¬ 
tleman says that he will not vote one single cent for 
such an object, but I am not so particular myself about 
a few coppers, nor do I think that that gentleman will 
be in a few weeks hence. But, sir, to be serious, I 
care not much about the passage of the resoluton. 

Mr. NASH. I would suggest, as this is a matter of 
some importance, that it should be sent to a commit¬ 
tee to make proper inquiries as to what we have to 
purchase and what would be the probable expendi¬ 
ture. 

Mr. SAWYER. I am willing to make that modifi¬ 
cation—let it be referred to a committee of five. 

The motion to refer the resolution and amendments 
was then put and carried. 

Mr. STANTON moved that the Convention take a 
recess until 3 o’clock, P. M. 

Mr. LIDEY said, before the question was put he 
would like to know who were to compose the several 
committees which had been ordered. 

The PRESIDENT remarked, that a great many com¬ 
mittees had been ordered to be appointed by the 
Chair, and with a view to a fair representation of the 
difierent portions of the State, it will be almost im¬ 
possible to announce them to-day. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved an adjournment 
till to-morrow morning at 10 o’clock; which motion 
prevailed. 

WEDNESDAY, May 8, 1850. 

COMMITTEES. 

The PRESIDENT. With the permission of the 
Convention I will now announce the names of the mem¬ 
bers of the committees raised yesterday. The first 
committee to which was referred the resolution of Mr. 
Vance, of Butler, relative to rules for the government 
of the Convention, will consist of Messrs. Vance of 
Butler, Harlan, Hunt, Loudon, Chambers, Hawkins, 
Archbold, Stidger, Florence, Codings, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Townshendand McCormick. 

The second committee, to which was referred the 
resolution ol Mr. Hootman relative to mess&ngeTs will 
consist of Messrs. Hootman, Graham and Holmes. 

The third committee to which was referred the re¬ 
port of J. V. Smith relative to the official report of the 
debates of the Convention, will consist of Messrs. Or¬ 
ton, Taylor, Groesbeck, Blickensderfer and Stanton. 

The fourth committee, to whom was referred the re¬ 
solution of Mr. Sawyer, relative to printing, will con¬ 
sist of Messrs. Lidey, Nash and Leech. 

The fifth committee, to which was referred the reso¬ 
lution of Mr. Robertson, relative to standing commit¬ 
tees, will consist of Messrs. Robertson, Reemelin, Smith, 
Holt, Mason, Sawyer, Staiibery, Blair, Green of Ross, 
Stickney, Mitchell, Horton, Cutler, Stillwell, Kennnn, 
Leadbetter, Otis, Quigley, Larwill, Hitchcock of G.' 
and Clark. 

The sixth committee, to which was referred the re¬ 
solution of Mr. Lidey, relative to furnishing-co¬ 

pies of the constitutions of the several States to mem¬ 
bers of the Convention, will consist of Messrs. Vance 


of Champaign, Swan, Riddle, Peck and Brown of 
Athens. 

additional secretaries and sergeants. 

Mr. LEECH offered the followiim: ^ ; 

^‘Resoved, That the Secretary of this Convention be, j 
and he is hereby authorized to employ such number of : 
assistants as he may deem necessary to aid him in per- i 
forming the duties of his office ; and that the Sergeant- i 
at-Arms be, and he is hereby authorized to appoint an : 
assistant. 

Mr. HOOTMAN moved to strike out the words “ an 
assistant” in the last line and insert “ two assistant 
sergeants.” 

A MEMBER. If the gentleman can satisfy me that 
these additional assistants are necessary, I will vote 
for them, or for a larger number, but until I am thus 
satisfied I must oppose it. ' 

Mr. HAWKINS. I am satisfied that more assistance 
is necessary, but it will be observed that the resolution i 
does not appoint these assistants—it authorizes the Sec- i 
retary and Sergeant to appoint if necessary. 

Mr. LARWILL hoped that the resolution as amend¬ 
ed would pass—if assistance is called for it should be 
freely accorded. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. In the early days of this State 
government we used to have in each branch of the Leg¬ 
islature, but one Clerk, one Sergeant-at-Arms, and one 
Doorkeeper, but we have now grown so great that we 
must have quite a number of each of these officers. In 
those early days the Sergeant-at-Arms used to bring the 
wood up these stairs and build huge tires himself— 
now, his successor in that office, must have a large 
number of assistants and that too, in this instance at 
least, with less work to perform. It seems to me that 
we have too many sinecures about the State House, 
and that now, as we are about to engage in the forma¬ 
tion of a new constitution, we had better set an exam¬ 
ple of economy. It has been remarked that our Door¬ 
keeper is physically incompetent'' —now, sir, if this is 
the case, I think we have made a decided mistake and 
there will be no trouble in finding enough who are 
abundantly able aud willing to perform the light duties 
of this station — especially at this season when there 
are no fires to build and attend. 

The question upon the amendment (Mr. Hootman’s) 
was taken and the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL. If in order, I propose to amend 
the resolution so that the Secretary aud Sergeant may 
employ such assistance as may be necessary for such 
length of time as they may require. It is evident that 
more assistance is required at one time than at another. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I expect to incur the charge of 
being parsimonious, before the close of the session, 
but I think this resolution a proper one to be passed. 

It will be recollected that we now have a rule requi- 
iug the journal of each day to be read on the succeed¬ 
ing morning fi’om the transcribed record—this will re¬ 
quire an additional Clerk. 

Mr. CUTLER. I would move to strike out the 
words “ such number of assistants as he may deem 
necessary,” and insert the words “one assistant.”— 

It is proper that the Convention should limit the num¬ 
ber, and it is necessary that there should be one assis¬ 
tant by his side to record the proceedings upon the 
loose sheets and another to transcribe them into the 
record. 

Mr. SAWIER. I am favorably impressed with the 
motion just made. We all know the mania for office, 
and, unless we thus limit the number of appointments 
our Secretary will, to say the least, be veiy much an- 
noyed by applications. If the gentleman on my right 
(Mr. Chambers) goes entirely by “ precedents,” he 
will remember that when we commenced life in the 
lude log cabin we had but two chairs, two plates, two 
knives and forks &c., and we made them do veiy well 
foi'the time, but the next year we had three and the 
next four, and, I presume his expenence is some like 
mine, as the family increased every year, we had to 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 11 


increase our necessary accomodations and finally allow 
for some little extravagances as they came along up. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, moved to ameud the 
amendment by striking out “not exceeding one” and 
insert “not exceeding two.” 

Mr. CUTLER. I would prefer that the Convention 
should fix the number, and I think that one assistant is 
necessary, and but one. 

The question being taken on Mr. Barnett’s amend¬ 
ment, the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. CUTLER’S amendment was then agreed to. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. We adopted a resolution 
the first day of the Convention, that the officers should 
consist of a I’resident, Secretary, Assistant Secretary, 
Sergeant-at-Arms and a Doorkeeper. I move that the 
resolution be amended so as to read “Second Assistant 
Secretary.” 

Which was agreed to. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. Before the question is taken, 
I vvould suggest that we should consider the compen¬ 
sation to be made to these Assistants. The law call¬ 
ing the Convention, provided that we shall fix the com¬ 
pensation of our officers. I would suggest that we 
add to the resolution the words “at a compensation 
not to exceed two dollars per day.” 

Mr. SMITH of Warren, suggested the propriety of 
passing the resolution in its present shape, and after¬ 
wards pass a resolution fixing the compensation of sub¬ 
ordinate officers. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. I have no objection, but it 
seems to me that the proper course would be to fix the 
compensation of an officer before making the appoint¬ 
ment. 

The resolution, (Mr. Leech’s) as amended, was then 
agreed to. 

EXTRADITION OF COLORED PEOPLE. 

Mr. STANTON. If in order, I have a memorial 
which I will present at this time. Mr. S. then pre¬ 
sented a memorial from sundry citizens of Logan and 
Hardin, praying the Convention to authorize the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly to pass an act providing for the extra¬ 
dition of the black population of Ohio, remarking that 
it was drawn up by an able and distinguished citizen 
of his district, one who received the full vote of his 
party for the seat which he (Mr. S.) now held in this 
Convention, and that it was worthy of the attention 
and examination of members. Mr. S. suggested that 
in this instance it might be proper to print. He moved 
that it be laid on the table and printed. 

Mr. NASH. If we commence by printing this, we 
must print all memorials presented, and which may 
be multiplied to an indefinite extent. I am unwilling 
to print this, and then refuse to print others on the op¬ 
posite side of the question. I move a division of the 
question. 

Which was ordered, and the same turning first on 
laying on the table, the same was agreed to. 

Mr. STANTON. Where a memorial prays for a 
specified object, without presenting an argument, and 
is read from the Clerk’s desk and is understood, there 
is no necessity for printing. But here is a memorial 
with an argument upon which, as I remarked, a gen¬ 
tleman of ability and high standing has spent much 
time and labor, and desires it read by members of this 
Convention. Out of respect to that gentleman, I hope 
it may be printed. 

A MEMBER. I hope the memorial may not be 
printed. Why not refer it to an appropriate commit¬ 
tee, at the proper time, as all memorials ought to be? 

I think that, at this point in the proceedings of the 
Convention, the expense would be unnecessary. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I think that the largest 
liberty ought to be allowed in all these cases, when a 
memorial is presented here, which is intended to give 
new insight, and instruct us in regard to any subject 
upon which we may be called to act. If we have pow¬ 
er to act upon the subject, I see no reason for objecting 
to the printing of the memorial. If I understand the 


statement of the gentleman, as to the contents of the 
memorial, we are asked to do a thing that we have not 
the power to do. We are asked in that memorial to 
authorize and require the Legislature of the State of 
Ohio, to remove the entire colored population from the 
State, and to make provisions prohibiting their intro¬ 
duction and emigration into the State. The constitu¬ 
tion of the United States provides against such a pro¬ 
vision as that, and if such an one were incorporated 
into the constitution of the State of Ohio, and if, un¬ 
der that provision, the Legislature should pass and at¬ 
tempt to carry into effect a law of extradition, they 
would be restrained by the authorities of the United 
States. Negroes are considered as citizens in many of 
the States oi the Union, and treated as such, enjoying 
the privileges and immunities of other citizens of the 
same States. The constitution of the United States 
provides in substance that the citizens of each and every 
State shall enjoy the privileges and immunities of cit¬ 
izens in every other State of the Union. If I am right, 
then we have no more right to remove the black pop¬ 
ulation from the State of Ohio, than we have to remove 
the white population—than we have to remove any 
sect of Christians or any peaceable population. 

Mr. LOUDON. I wish that this memorial may be 
printed, for it is upon a subject in which many ot my 
constituents feel a deep interest. For my part, as a 
member of the Convention, if there is any thing wor¬ 
thy in this memorial, I wish to have the benefit of it, 
for myself and my constituents. There is a feeling, sir, 
in the section of the country I come from, upon that 
one particular subject, embraced in the memorial, that 
outweighs, perhaps, all other feelings, with regard to 
the doings of this Ohio Convention. A majority of the 
people of the county I represent, without regard I may 
say to whether they are of the democratic party or of 
the whig party, believe with the fathers of this State— 
the pioneers of 1802, when they drew up the constitu¬ 
tion under which we are now assembled, that this 
should be a State for the white man, and the white man 
only. The history of those times warrants me in 
making this declaration. It was so in Clermont 
one of the oldest counties in the State, and 
the members of the Convention in 1802 were e- 
lected upon that ground. I wish that the memorial may 
be printed, that I may be enabled to gather some items 
from it, and that I may be enabled to inform my con¬ 
stituents if there is anything originalin it. As this sub¬ 
ject is to be acted upon at some time, we may as well 
begin now as at any future day. 

Mr. NASH. Before acting upon this subject, I -wish 
to make an inquiry; whether upon the motion to print, 
it is in order to discuss the matters proposed and which 
are contained in this proposition? 

The PRESIDENT said that there must be some little 
latitude of discussion allowed in matters of this kind. 

Mr. STANTON. I have merely to say, that I did 
not suppose that the question of the power of the Con¬ 
vention to act upon the matter of the memorial would 
be discussed now. I did not propose to go into a dis¬ 
cussion on the question. The reason why I desired 
that the memorial should be printed is this, and only 
this : it is because we cannot get a full knowledge of 
its contents by its reading from the Clerk’s desk. If 
it is referred to a committee, the committee may re¬ 
port pro and con, and at best the members may get 
some little idea of the matter. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga. As a remark has 
been made relative to the intention of the framers of 
the constitution, I will submit that the journals ot the 
Convention will show a very different purpose on the 
part of its members from that which has been indicated 
here, to wit: to make this State a place for the resi¬ 
dence of “white people only.” On the contrary, so 
far from this bein^ the case, a large proportion of that 
Convention were iii favor of giving to the colored cit¬ 
izen the same rights as to suffrage, and in other par¬ 
ticulars, which were to be extended to other citizens 











12 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


of the State. I have before me the journals of that 
Convention to confirm this statement. Upon the 22d 
of November, 1802, when the article relative to sutiVage 
was under consideration, a motion was submitted to 
amend that article by striking out, after the word “ all,” 
in the first line and first section, the word “white;” 
and upon that motion the result taken by ayes and 
noes was as follows—14 to 19. This, sir, to my mind, 
is conclusive evidence that it was not the purpose, at 
least of all who framed the constitution, to exclude 
colored citizens from a residence in this State. On 
the other hand, they seemed to have understood that 
they should remain here. Many in that Convention 
were in favor of extending equal rights and privileges 
to them. 

The question being taken on the motion to print, 
the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER. Mr. President, I offer this resolu¬ 
tion : 

Resolved, That the editors of the Ohio Stafe Journal, 
Ohio Statesman, undi furnish to each member 

of this Convention, during its session, six dollars 
worth of their daily and weekly papers, for distribu¬ 
tion. 

I call the attention of the members of this Conven¬ 
tion to this subject. I suppose they all heard the res¬ 
olution when I offered it yesterday. I am clearly of 
the opinion that we ought to adopt this resolution. I 
discover that in the other States where they have con¬ 
ventions of this character, that they appropriate larger 
amounts than I have proposed. Kentucky, for in¬ 
stance, appi’opriated thirty dollars in the purchase of 
newspapers for each member, in order to disseminate 
the proceedings among the people. I observed yester¬ 
day, and I deem it of the utmost importance, that the 
people should be informed, so that when we consum¬ 
mate our work, and go home to them for their ratifica¬ 
tion of the instrument we may make, we may find the 
people prepared to vote upon it. By means of these 
papers we shall disseminate a large amount of infor¬ 
mation of what we may do here. I believe the mea¬ 
sure to be highly important. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I am opposed to this resolution. 
I am in favor of everything that is economical in this 
'Convention, as an example to those that shall follow 
after us. The gentleman aims at disseminating: infor¬ 
mation. Now we know that the people of Ohio are 
great readers, for we have an immense number of 
•newspapers printed throughout the State. What will 
our editors be about during the session of the Conven¬ 
tion ? There is no State in the Union, probably, 
where information is more ra])idly disseminated than 
in this State. There is another difficulty about the 
matter. As I understand the postage laws, every 
member will have to go to the post office and ])ay the 
postage on their papers in advance ; and in this case, 
we shall have to get up another resolution and pay 
for the postage. 

Mr. SAWYER remarked, that this was provided for 
already. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. It remains for me only to say, 
that I am opposed to the whole system of charging 
our postage to the State, and I hope that some gentle¬ 
man will move a re-consideration of the resolution of 
yesterday. 

Mr. DORSEY. I am in favor of the resolution of¬ 
fered by the gentleman from Auglaize. I believe it 
important to distribute information in regard to the 
proceedings of the Convention among our constituents. 
Now, sir, as to the expenditure that may be incurred 
here, I shall be disposed to be as economical as we can 
possibly be. But when we take the question as to dis¬ 
tributing information of the proceedings of this Con¬ 
vention among our constituents, I am willing to afford 
all the information in regard to our doings tliat we can 
give. I am, therefore, in favor of distributing papers 
• of both political parties containing the ])roceedings of 
the Convention. The resolution offered by the gentle- 
<^man from Auglaize proposes to distribute a certain 


amount of English and German papers among the mem- | 
bers. So far as my own district is concerned, the dis- i 
tribution of German papers would suit me, for I have a : 
large German constituency, and I would be glad to dis- ! 
tribute papers among them. There are gentlemen here ! 
who have no such constituency, I beg leave to offer the i| 
following resolution as a substitute for the one offered t 
by the gentleman from Auglaize; d 

“ Resolved. That six dollars worth of the Ohio States- U 
man, Ohio State .Journal, and W.estbote, each, or the 
same amount divided among these papers, as members |( 
may choose, be allowed to each member of this Con- | i 
vention for distribution to his constituents.” | 

Mr. SAWYER. I have no objection to the sub.stitute. > 
Mr. BENNETT. I hope that neither the substitute J 
nor the original I’esolution will prevail. There appears 
to be some plausibility in the argument about dissemi- i 
nating information among the people of Ohio, but I ap- i 
prehend that this mode is unnecessary. Our people are i 
a reading people—a newspaper reading people. The t 
proceedings of the Convention will be published in the i 
organs of the Convention at the Capital. I rom them 
the substance at least of its proceedings will be re- - 
published in the various county papers of the State. 
And now, sir, what will be the effect when you come 
to take action under it, after the passage of such a reso¬ 
lution. We cannot expect to furnish every reader in 
Ohio with a copy of a Columbus jiaper. We can fur¬ 
nish a few, making the many pay for it. I do not be¬ 
lieve that the people of Ohio will thank us for any such 
liberality, and I hope the resolution will not pass. 

Mr. RANNEY. I am opposed to the resolution. It i 
is true, and it is very proper, that the people of the 
State should be informed in regard to the doings of the 
Convention. But, sir, I am well satisfied, that this is 
not the proper mode of furnishing that information, , 
nor will it devolve upon the members of this Conven¬ 
tion to furnish it. It has been well remarked that the 
people of Ohio are a reading people. Suj)pose that we 
should appropriate two thousand dollars for the pur¬ 
chase of newspapers, at least five hundred dollars 
more would be required to pay the postage upon those 
papers. What is to be gained ? You can send only a 
few papers each day, to be distributed in your district. 

To whom are those papers to be sent? They are to 
be sent to the Captains. Esquires, Judges of the sever¬ 
al counties. Such a plan would do nothing, really, to¬ 
wards carrying information among the mass of the 
people. I am therefore opposed to the resolution, for 
it is proposing to pay out of the common fund of the 
people for that information which can be furnished 
only to a very few, and to those havi ig means within 
their reach to get information from other quarters, 

Mr. MORRIS. I am opposed to the passage of the 
re.solution, for we are here to set an example. I am 
in favor of disseminating this information, but I put 
my hands into my pocket (and every gentleman can 
do the same thing) to pay for these papers and docu¬ 
ments. The passage of such a resolution would be 
setting a bad example for the Legislatures of our State 
to follow; for when about to pass resolutions of a sim¬ 
ilar nature, they would say, “See what the Convention 
of Ohio has done. Let us do the same.” I think that 
above all other bodies, we ought to set the example of 
economy and reform, and for that reason I hope the 
resolution will not prevail. 

Mr. FEIRSTONE. I also hope that the resolution 
will not prevail. We have been preaching economy to 
the people ofOhio, The people of Ohio have been com¬ 
plaining of heavy taxes from year to year. Their com¬ 
plaints have come to our ears, and we have said in an¬ 
swer to these complaints, that we should be more eco¬ 
nomical. And now in this Convention that is to frame 
a new constitution, it is proposed to tax the people for 
the benefit of a few of our leading constituents who 
are good at electioneering. For one, 1 am opposed to 
faxing the mass of the people for the benefit of a few 
leading men. Are these papers going to be sent to the 
mass ? The leading men in each county and township 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


13 


are to be selected out as the leading favorites, to whom 
these documents are to be sent. Tlie people of this 
State have been taxed to death, for they are continu¬ 
ally paying taxes. It is our duty, as members of the 
Convention, to get along as economically as we can. 
Suppose we have to sit m convention for a considera¬ 
ble time, forty thousand dollars only has been appro¬ 
priated for such a purpose. Sir, that is a sufficiently 
small sum to get along economically with, without go¬ 
ing into the extravagant expenditure of twenty-five 
hundred dollars for the sake of gratifying a few of our 
constituents. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. If I understand the effect of 
the resolution, it is to appropriate six dolhu’s worth of 
these papers, or in other words, eighteen dollars ahead 
to each member of the Convention, to be expended 
in these documents. Now, sir, I would suggest to my 
friend from Auglaize, when we are about to adopt 
such a course of liberality to our constituents, wheth¬ 
er we sho lid not keep an eye to ourselves at the same 
time. The Legislature in their wisdom appropriated 
forty thousand dollars to pay the expenses of the Con¬ 
vention. Well, sir, my friend from Auglaize, Mr. Saw¬ 
yer, if I understood him aright, said we should prob¬ 
ably sit in Convention until near the time fixed bylaw 
for the result o( our delibei’ations to be acted upon by 
the people. Well, sir, simply as a matter of finance, I 
would suggest to iny friend whether it would be expe¬ 
dient to draw so largely from this small fund for the 
purpose suggested by him. I have made a calculation, 
if the resolution is adopted, and I find it will involve 
an amount of expenditure a little less than two thous¬ 
and dollars to say nothing of the postage. Adding the 
postage, it would make two thousand dollars, one- 
twentieth part of the sum appropriated to pay the 
expenses of the Convention, which will of course cur¬ 
tail the amount of our valuable labors to that extent. 

I suggest to my friend, then, whether we had not bet¬ 
ter look at home first, and take care of ourselves in 
this matter. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I am opposed to this proposition, 
because I believe it can accomplish but little of the 
good desired by the mover of the resolution. What 
will be eighteen dollars worth of these papers dis¬ 
tributed among the people of each district repre¬ 
sented here ? What would they be among the live 
thousand voters in Morgan? Now', there are a good 
many individuals who take the papers; and they have 
the means of ascertaining what we are doing here. It 
is a favor they have not asked at our hands, and it is 
one not contemplated among the objects for which 
we have been sent hare. I suppose that fifty years 
ago the national legislature was not much ahead of 
what we ai’e at the present day. Now, sir, he who is 
fortunate enough to be elected to Congress obtains at 
least a cart-load of books. Farther, if he dies while 
a member of Congress, he is buried, and his funeral 
expenses are paid by the national government. If 
he* is cpiite respectably connected at home, he is 
transferred to a distant State and intei'red. and after a 
while a monument is erected to his memory, at the 
expense of the national treasury. lor myself, I ad¬ 
mire the doctrine of strict construction. I have never 
been able to find an express grant of power, nor im¬ 
plied power, to do any of these things. I do not wish 
to set an example here, which may leave a pernicious 
influence. The information which is proposed to be 
disseminated would be very desirable, but it accom¬ 
plishes little in regard to informing the aggregate of 
our constituency. 

Mr. SAWYER. I have a word more to say in regard 
to the resolution which I offered. I am still in favor 
of it, notwithstanding all that has been said against it. 
Now, the gentleman on my left opposes it for the rea¬ 
son that a few politicians will get the documents into 
their hands. I will venture to say that that gentleman, 
when the member of Congress from his district, or a 
member of the Legislature, sends him documents, is 


very glad to receive them. I will venture farther, and 
say that doubtless he has applied for documents at their 
hands, that he might be enlightened. Suppose these 
documents should go exclusively to a few politicians 
in the State. These men are to a certain extent, whole¬ 
sale dealers, for they deal out what they get, to their 
friends. My friend from Ross has another motive that 
induces him to oppose the resolution, and it is this, 
that if we appropriate this money there will not be 
enough for him. I am in favor of appropriating this 
money for this object, and if there is not cziough of it, 

I am willing to go without my pay. Which is the best 
Democrat, and the dearest lover of the people ? If there 
is no other member of the Convention that will vote 
fur it, I shall, for I belitJve the people will sustain me. 
If gentlemen are afraid that their acts should be 
known, it is evident that their deeds are evil, and that 
they jirefer darkness rather than light I assure yom 
that I have more at heart than any thing I have ever 
been engaged in, the grand success of the work in 
which we are now engaged, the framing of a good con¬ 
stitution, that shall be adopted by the peo 2 )le To effect 
that object, and enable the people to act understand- 
ingly, I want that they should have all the light they 
can get. You talk about the papers of the State pub¬ 
lishing our debates ! They will not publish a hundredth 
part of the ^proceedings, that will emanate from the pa- 
jpers of this city, which will lie filled uj) almost exclu¬ 
sively with the daily rejport of our debates. I remem¬ 
ber well when the consliiution of the United States 
was adopted by the Legislatures of the dift’erent States, 
every line and letter of it, was discussed upon every- 
slump in the country. Every syllable of that instru¬ 
ment was opjposed, by the most powerful party then in 
this country, and I exjpect something like this o^pposi- 
tion, in relation to the constitution which we are now 
to form. The constitution of Kentucky, was adopted by” 
the members of the Convention unanimously, at the- 
close of its-sittings, save one individual vote, but it is 
quite doubtful whether it has been adepted by^ the 
peo^de. As far as I have seen the pajpers of that State, 
before the election, they were bitterly opjposed to it, 
and the election that took place yesterday, may have 
resulted in its rejection by the people. 

Mr. BATES- I am opjposed to the resolution, be¬ 
cause it is anti-demo(n’atic in doctrine—it taxes the 
many for the benefit of the few. 

Mr. WOODBURY. I wish to offer an amendment 
like this, to stiike out all after the word “ resolved ” 
and insert “ this Convention will not, and no legislative 
body ought to appi’opriate the money of the State for 
the ]purchase of books and jpapers for its members.” 

The PRESIDENT remarked, that under a rule which 
had been adopted, the amendment of the gentleman 
from Ashtabula was out of order. 

Mr. IIUMl’HREVILLE. It appears there is a dif¬ 
ference of oipinion upon this subject. The object ajp- 
pears to be simply to disseminate information with re¬ 
gard to the proceedings of the Convention—not politi¬ 
cal information. If I understand the matter, it is pro¬ 
posed that the proceedings here will be jpublished fropn 
time to time, by themselves—wholly disconnected 
from politics. I would suggest, and shall move that 
the resolution with the amendments, be submitted to 
the coramitiee which we have apjpointed on the subject 
(pf furnishing books. My impression is, that would be 
the best disposition we can make of the matter. Per¬ 
haps we can harmonize as to the amount of papers 
prosper to be furnished for distribution, better in this 
way than anv other. 

Mr. STANTON demanded the yeas and nays upon 
this motion, which were ordered, and being taken, re¬ 
sulted yeas 64, nays 41. 

So, the resolution and proposed amendment were re¬ 
ferred. , 

Mr. CUTLER. I offer for consideration this resolu¬ 
tion, [which was agreed to.] 

^^Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms is hereby re- 

















14 . CONVENTION REPORTS. 


quirecl to procure from the Secretary of State for the 
use of the members of this Convention, any extra 
numbers in his possession of the Supplement to the 
House Journal of 1848-9, containing the journal of the 
proceedings of the Convention which framed the Con¬ 
stitution of the State of Ohio.” 

EQUAL RIGHTS. 

Mr. THOMPSON of Stark. I have a memorial, sent 
here by a number of citizens of Stark and Columbiana 
counties, asking that equal rights to the whole people, 
without regard to color or sex, may be engrafted as a 
provision of the new constitution, and which I desire 
to have read. 

The paper was read accordingly, with the signatures 
annexed. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved that it be referred to the 
same committee with the former memorial presented 
this morning by the delegate from Logan, 

The PRESIDENT said, that memorial was laid on 
the table. 

Mr. SAWYER said he felt constrained by a sense of 
duty to his constituents to say here and now, that he 
would not sit here and permit even his fellow-citizens 
to petition that negroes shall be entiiled to all the pri¬ 
vileges and immunities of white men, without raising 
his voice against it. He moved the rejection of the 
memorial. 

Mr. THOMPSON said he did not consider himself 
committed to the support of the doctrine of the peti¬ 
tioners. [A laugh.] 

After some further conversation, the paper was laid 
on the table. 

GATE-WAYS TO THE LOBBY. 

On motion of Mr. HUNT, the resolution offered by 
Mr.Manon on yesterday, with reference to two additional 
gate-ways to the lobby, was taken up for considera¬ 
tion. 

Mr. HOLMES suggested an amendment, instructing 
the Sergeant-at-Arms to cause the two gate-ways to 
be opened near the east and west walls of the cham 
ber; which was acceded to by Mr. Manon. 

Mr MITCHELL considered that the change propo¬ 
sed would by no means accomplish the desired end, 
which was to accommodate as far as possible all the 
members of the Convention, unless the matter were 
first referred to a committee. He desired some change 
to be made, by which persons holding conversation in 
the lobby might not disturb the contemplations of 
members occupying the outer seats. He moved that 
the resolution be referred to a select committee. 

The motion was lost. 

And then the resolution was adopted. 

STANDING COMMITTEES. 

On motion of Mr. McCORMICK, the resolution of¬ 
fered by Mr. Leadbetter, on yesterday, with Mr. 
McC’s amendment pending — for the formation of 
standing committees, was taken from the table and re¬ 
ferred to the select committee of twenty-one,” raised 
under the resolution of Mr. Robertson. 

CHAPLAIN. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Montgomery, offered the follow- 

• ... 

“ Resolved, That the President of this Convention in¬ 
vite the clergymen of this place to make an arrange¬ 
ment among themselves by which some one of them 
will open the morning sessions of this Convention with 
prayer.” 

Mr. LIDEY demanded the yeas and nays upon the 
adoption of the resolution. 

Mr. HAWKINS. This practice of employing chap¬ 
lain service, had grown up since the day when he had 
/the honor to be first a legislator. He did not, per¬ 
haps, understand the effect of the proposition fully, 
and he desired to know whether it involved any ex¬ 
pense. 

Mr. BARNETT assured the gentleman that there 
was nothing to be paid. The service was to be gra¬ 
tuitous. 


Mr. LIDEY had seen a little of the operation of such 
propositions, and was opposed to anything of the 
kind. If gentlemen wanted to pray here, they could 
come together for the purpose in the early morning, 
before the Convention should be called to order. He 
believed it was right for every Christain to pray for 
himself, instead of employing a chaplain to pray for 
him; and especially he considered it entirely out of 
order, to invite a gentleman here to offer prayers which 
would be generally unheeded. He called for the yeas 
and nays, that it might be seen who was in favor of 
such an inconsistency. 

The yeas and nays were ordered upon the adoption 
of the resolution, and being taken, resulted yeas 84, 
nays 19. Resolution adopted. i 

Those who voted in the affirmative were— 

Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Burnett of Montgomery, 
Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Claypoole, Codings, Cur¬ 
ly, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Feirstone, 
Florence, Forbes, Giliett, Graham, Gray, Greene of De- ■ 
fiance. Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga. Holmes, Holt, Hootmaii, Horton, 
Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, 
Larsli, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Manon, '• 
Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick. Nash, j 
Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, 
Riddle, Robertson, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Smith of , 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stan- , 
bery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stillwell, Stickney, Swan, 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Townsend, Vance 
of Butler, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Williams, Mr. i 
President—84. 

Those who voted in the negative were— 

Messrs. Barnet of Preble, Bates, Case of Hocking, 
Case of Licking, Clarke, Harlan, Humphreville, Jones, ' 
Lidey, Mitchell, Perkins, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of j 
Auglaize, Sellers, Stidger, Slruble, Thompson of Stark, ,1 
and Woodbury—19. _ | 

When Mr. BATES’ name was called upon the deter- 1 
mination of this question, he rose and said he was not | 
influenced by any feeling of hostility to religion or any |j 
of its institutions and ordinances, to give the vote j 

which he was about to give in the negative. His im- [I 

pression was that the surest way to call down bles- ' 
sings on our heads was by a laithful discharge of our 
duties. 

Mr. HENDERSON explained that he voted ^4ye, with 
the understanding that the prayer proposed should be 
brief and to the point. [Some laughter.] 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE desired to say a few words 
in explanation of the vote he had just given. He had 
voted No, not out of any disrespect to religion or the 
ministers of religion, but because he believed the Con¬ 
vention had no authority to pay ministers for divine 
service here ; and he believed also that the Convention 
had no right to invite ministers to render service here 
without pay. Taking this view, he had voted consci¬ 
entiously. He was in the constant habit of attendin<^ 
upon divine service and public worship, and contribm 
ting to its support, though he was no professor of religion. 

THE JUDICIARY. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. I offer for adoption the fol¬ 
lowing : 

‘‘ Resolved, That the Secretary of this Convention be 
directed to address a circular to the several clerks of 
the Supreme Court, Courts of Common Pleas, of the 
Superior and Commercial Courts in the City of Cincin¬ 
nati. and the Superior Court in the City of Cleveland 
requiring them to furnish without delay inf^urination on 
the following subjects: 

1. The number of appearances to each term of their 
respective courts, (omitting in this connection petition 
for partition and for the sale of real estate,) distint^uish- 
ing criminal from civil, and law from chanceiy cases, 
and whether originating in said court, or brought there 
by appeal, certiorari, or writ of error. 













CONVENTION REPORTS 


15 


2. The number of cases tried at each term of their 
respective courts, and how, (by jury or otherwise,) 
specifying the nornber at law and number in chancery. 

3. The number of days their respective courts 
were in session during the year—designating the num¬ 
ber of days the courts of common pleas were in ses¬ 
sion at special terms and called courts. 

4. That the clerks of the courts of common pleas 
be required to state also, 

First. The number of cases in which letters testa¬ 
mentary of administration and guardianship have been 
granted by their said courts respectively within the 
year*. 

Second. The number of settlements made on the es¬ 
tate of deceudents, minors, idiots, and lunatics within 
the year. 

Third. The number of cases of petition for partition 
and lor the sale of real estate by executors, adminis¬ 
trators and guardians within the year. 

That said inl'ormation be required to embrace all of 
the business aforesaid in said courts for the year eigh¬ 
teen hundred and forty nine. 

Mr.GREEN. The object of the resolution, I suppose, 
will be apparent to every gentleman. It is simply 
sought to obtain information which might very mate¬ 
rially guide the deliberations of the committee hereaf¬ 
ter to be raised by this Convention upon the Judiciary 
department. It seemed to him important that that 
committee should be informed of the number of ap- 

earances and cases tried in the coui’ts, distinguishing 

etween criminal and civil, and law and chancery ca¬ 
ses. It further required information as to the number 
of days the respective courts named were in session 
during the year, with a view of looking into the ex¬ 
pense of the establishment. He offered the resolution 
now, for the reason that some time must necessarily 
elapse before this information could be obtained, and 
in order that it may be here in time for the action of 
the committee. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, (when his voice became au¬ 
dible at the Reporter’s desk,) was understood to say, 
that in the county of Butler, the issue docket of the 
courts exhibited a much larger show of business than 
the appearance docket—the former having upon it about 
fifteen hundred cases, five hundred per term, while the 
latter exhibited but little above two hundred during 
the term. He considered, therefore, that it would be 
better to go to the issue docket for certainty about get¬ 
ting at the amount of business in any of the courts. 

Mr. GREEN supposed that all that was desired by 
the gentleman from Butler, would be attained by the 
adoption of the resolution, for it proposed to ascertain 
the number of appearances as well as the number of 
the cases tried. 

Mr. VANCE. Did the resolution take the whole 
year of 1849 ? 

Mr. GREEN. The whole year. The latter clause 
of the resolution required information of the amount of 
business before the courts of common pleas throughout 
the State. The whole object was to get a fair and re¬ 
liable exhibit of all the business of the several courts in 
the respective counties of the State for the year 1849. 
If any modification of the resolution could elicit more 
infoimation, he should offer no objection. He was of 
opinion, however, that it was now sufficiently broad 
to answer the end proposed. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, seeing that it was near the hour for 
recess, and desiring to have an opportunity to look at 
the resolution, before acting upon it, moved the recess,, 
but withdrew the motion at the request of ; 

Mr. GREEN, who added, that he considered this 
subject of sufficient importance to justify the expense 
of printing the resolution, and he thought perhaps it 
had better be at once laid upon the table, and, if the 
Convention ibought proper, ordered to he printed. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler suggested that it might be 
better for the resolution to go to the committee. 

Mr. GREEN had no objection to that course, except 
that it would induce the consumption of time. 


Mr. CLARK proposed to amend the resolution, so as 
to require these reports to embrace the number of 
judgments rendered during the year, and the amount 
of costs accruing. 

Mr. HAWKINS proposed to amend the amendment, 
by adding the words, “ and also the number of licen¬ 
sed taverns in each of the counties respectively.” 

On motion by Mr. SMITH of Warren, the resolution 
and pending amendments were now laid on the table, 
for the present. 

And then on his further motion the Convention took 
a recess till 3 o’clock, P. M. 

3 o'clock, P. M. 

Mr. ROBERTSON said he was instructed by the 
“ Committee of twenty-one,” to present the following- 
resolution for the consideration of the Convention. 
He hoped that the resolution would pass; he thought 
it would facilitate the action of the Convention: 

Resolved, That the committee appointed to report a 
method for conducting the business and deliberation 
of the Convention, and to designate the necessary 
standing committees, have power to procure such print¬ 
ing as they may need. 

Which was agreed to. 

Mr. HAWKINS inquired if the question pending at 
the recess, was now before the Convention? 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, remarked that the original 
motion, together with the pending amendments, had 
been laid on the table; he would now move to take 
them up. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT. The resolution and pending 
amendments are now before the Convention. 

Mr. CUTLER had an amendment to offer which, 
however, he would not press if the gentleman from 
Morgan (Mr. Hawkins) did not accept. The follow¬ 
ing amendment was then read : 

And to report the cost to each county of its civil and 
criminal jurisprudence during the year 1849 — what 
proportion of the same results from the appointment 
of associate judges—and the cost of all criminal prose¬ 
cutions occasioned by intemperance. 

Mr. HAWKINS asked and obtained leave to with¬ 
draw his amendments. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, moved the com 
mitment of the resolution, with the amendments, to a 
select committee of five. 

Mr. RANNEY considered the objects of the resolu¬ 
tion to be veiy important to the future action of the 
Convention. He was satisfied that the motion made 
to refer would have the effect to embody everything 
necessary to guide them in the course of their labors. 

Mr. HAWKINS entertained some doubts in regard to 
the authority of the Convention to demand the servi¬ 
ces of those parties, particularly as they were gratui¬ 
tous. He did not know whether they would feel 
bound to perform the duties required of them. 

The motion to commit was then put and carried. 

Mr. SAWYER said he had been necessitated to make 
several propositions to the Convention; he would 
promise that hereafter he would not trouble the body 
so much, and begged leave to offer the following: 

Resolved, That six hundred copies of the journal, de¬ 
bates and proceedings of the Convention be printed by 
the printer to this Convention, fifteen percent, of which 
shall be printed in the German language. 

The volume which he held in his hand was the re¬ 
port and journal of the debates in the Kentucky Con 
stitutionai Convention. It w^as published in one single 
volume. Each day’s proceedings, journal, the dift’er- 
ent motions made by members, every proposition, and 
the speeches made on the difierent subjects embraced, 
were all contained in that volume, as he understood, 
'and the constitution itself. He proposed to publisl) by 
order of the Convention, six hundred copies of a wol-k 
of this kind, larger or smaller. He named six hundred 
because they wanted a copy of the report themselves 

_a bound copy to preserve—they were entitled to it, 

and he hoped that no gentleman would object, howey- 








16 CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


er their extreme anxiety to protect the public treasury, 
might induce them to stint themselves of a copy. He 
doubted whether his friend opposite, or any gentleman, 
would object to it. For one, he desii-ed to per])etuate 
the fact, by one volume in his own library, throughout 
all time, that he was a member of the Convention that 
framed a good constitution for the State of Ohio. That 
would bdte one hundred and eight copies, besides some'' 
for the officers of the Convention. Then he proposed 
that they send a copy to every literary institution in 
the State. Also, one to each county in the State, and 
a copy or more to every State in the Union and to the 
United States, in order that the libraries of Congress 
and of the States should have a copy. And if there 
were any extra copies for themselves after all that was 
done, it was desirable. He (Mr. S.) had applied to a 
member of the late Kentucky Convention to procure 
him a copy of the report of the “ Debates,” &c., for 
his use in this Convention. He (Mr. S.) however, 
could not obtain a copy without paying an exorbitant 
price, in consequence of the small number of copies of 
the work, and the large demand for it. 

In the resolution wliich he offered he proposed to 
print 15 per cent, of the number of copies in the Ger¬ 
man language, iii order that they might have a report 
of the deliberations and proceedings of this Conven¬ 
tion. It was an important subject and worthy of much 
consideration—they were entitled to it—he believed 
it to be important and necessary, and therefore he made 
the motion. It was necessai-y to be done at this time, 
for this reason, the printer who would do the printing 
of those debates ought to know how many copies lie 
had to print, so that a sufficient number of copies of 
the sheets might be struck off before the typfe was dis 
tributed.. It was necessary for another reason; the 
subject of the public printing was now under the con 
siderrtion of a committee, Thd prices for the work 
would vary, and it was therefore necessary for the juin- 
ter to know how many copies of the report we would 
order, that he might designate what prices he would 
print tliem for. 

Mr. TAYLOR said that the proposition of the gentle¬ 
man from Auglaize (Mr. Sawyek) was a most perti¬ 
nent one. He con.sidered the gentleman’s observa¬ 
tions in relation to the number of copies of the debates, 
to be particularly important. The printing of the first 
thousand copies of the debates of this body would prob¬ 
ably cost more than the next nine thousand copies. 
The setting of the type would be the principal item 
of expenditure ; that secured, nothing remained Init 
the cost of press work and paper. In his (Mr. T’s.) 
opinion, the gentleman from Auglaize (Mr. Sawyer) 
had not named a number of copies greater than would 
be required. He went beyond Mr. Sawyer’s propo¬ 
sition. Not only should the delegates of the Conven¬ 
tion retain in their possession a copy of the debates— 
not only should they give a copy to each State—not 
only should they give a copy to each literary institu¬ 
tion—a copy to each county—but they should place in 
every township of the State a copy of the report of the 
deliberations of this Convention, in order, when occa¬ 
sion required, that they might be able, by reference to 
it, to ascertain in what spirit this constitution was 
framed. Gentlemen should help the carrying out of 
this proposition because it vvas economical, and would 
prove effectual in spreading information in regard to 
the deliberations of this body. It was effectual and 
economical, because the more they multiplied those 
editions of the report—the larger the edition that was 
circulated—the less would be the cost of a single vol¬ 
ume. He would makethe prediction that the work could 
not be had for less than five dollars a copy, but if the 
circulation were very much extended it might be got 
for three dollai s a copy. It was just suggested to him 
that they might be got for one dollar a copy, but he 
did not coincide in the opinion. He would sLite that 
there was a leeling against the Convention voting any 
of the public money to advance the interests of any 


papers in this city to the prejudice of the country 
press. Already the law allowed the city pajjers 12^ 
cents per thousand ems for the coinposition ot the re¬ 
ports. That he considered a sufficient Zarg'csse; those 
reports would fill three-fourths of those daily papers ; 
the result would be, that they were pa,id in that re¬ 
spect, hal (the principal item of the expenditure of a daily 
paper. Tlie proprietors would thus only have to pay 
their journeymen one-half of what they are obliged 
to pay, and the State would be reducing the weekly 
expenses of their offices. Besides, they would have 
the benefit of the increased circulation which would in¬ 
evitably result from publishing the proceedings of the 
Convention. That was enough in all conscience to 
give to the press of this city. It happened that the 
press of the State was represented in this body by 
gentlemen | and they had the right to speak of any of 
those propositions which sought to extend privileges to 
the press of this city which the country press did not 
obtain. The country press would have to publish those 
reports without any remuneration. If the proposition 
of the gentleman from Auglaize (Mr Sawyer) was so 
modified that the English edition of the debates was 
extended- 

Mr. SAWYER here begged to say that his feelings 
were entirely with the gentleman from Erie, (Mr. Tay¬ 
lor.) He was clearly of opinion that there should be 
a larger number. He would state this, that the copv 
right of the report would belong to the State. If they 
printed a large number at this time, he would venture 
to say that there would be enough sold next year to 
pay the expenses of all the reports of this Convention. 
Such, he understood had been the case in Kentucky. 
He believed that it would be so here. There was 
no book extant or which would be extant, that would 
have a greater run. 

Mr. TAYLOR considered that the expense of print¬ 
ing the fifteen per cent, in German, would probably be 
as gi’eat as the whole of the English edition. They 
would really duplicate the expenditure for the report¬ 
ing of the debates if the project for the printing of a 
German edition were carried into effect. There would 
be exti-aordinaiy labor attendant on it—they would be 
obliged to get translators to translate the deliberations 
of this body into the German language—they would 
have to employ German compositors to set the type, 
<fec., &c. He (M. T.) wished to hear from gentlemen 
something in relation to the extraordinary expendi¬ 
ture which worild be soincurred. 

Mr. DORSEY concurred in the importance and ne¬ 
cessity of a large edition, because, not only, by so doing 
they lessened the expenses, but perhaps would assist 
in defraying a portion of the expenses of the Conven¬ 
tion ; and, also because he considered that much impor¬ 
tance would be attached at a future time to the delib¬ 
erations of the Convention. He rose particularly to 
carry out the idea suggested by the last speaker in regard 
to j)rinting an edition of the reports in the German lan¬ 
guage. He knew that it had been heretofore the cus¬ 
tom to have a portion of the different State papers print¬ 
ed in the German language. But he wished to 
raise his voice for one against any proposition of the 
kind proposed. He represented a large German con¬ 
stituency for whom he entertained the greatest respect, 
but still he was not in favor of printing any copies of 
the debates to be issued to them in their language; 
and for this sim])le reason, that he (Mr. D.) held it to 
be a matter of importance in this country that the En¬ 
glish language should not only be the predominant, but 
tlm only language used. It was necessary in all large 
C|J)mmunities that there should be but one language 
in general use, and there could not be a better one than 
that in which we were carrying on the deliberations 
of this body. 

It was one part of the policy of the old Roman gov¬ 
ernment, in order to bind together their own people 
and those whom they had conquered, to force upon 
them, if possible, their own language. They intx*o- 



















CONVENTION REPORTS 


n 


duced it into their courts and into their pleadings, and 
every possible moans were taken to cause it to be a- 
dopted. If that were the course pursued by conquer¬ 
ors, how much more applicable was it when peo¬ 
ple put themselves voluntarily under our iitrol. Heco 
wished that the reasons why he urged the printing of 
an edition only in the English language should be ta¬ 
ken into consideration. He had done so in order to 
make our German friends among us, of us; and to 
make them American in language, and more and more 
in feeling. And, while he had the greatest respect for 
the German population, he was in favor of printing our 
debates simply in English in order to force them, as it 
were, to leani our language, that they might avail them¬ 
selves of that information which he knew them anx¬ 
ious to possess. Therefore he moved to strike out so 
much of the resolution that proposed to print copies of 
the debates in the German language. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, said that on yesterday a com¬ 
mittee was raised to whom was referred a communi¬ 
cation from the gentleman appointed by the Legisla¬ 
ture as Reporter to this body. The object of referring 
that communication was to settle definitely the action 
of this Convention in what form those reports should 
be made. It would depend very much on the report 
of that committee how he (Mr. G.) should vote on the 
proposition before the Convention. The debates of 
the Convention which recently sat in Pennsylvania 
amounted to ten or twelve volumes. If they might 
form some presage from what had taken place here to¬ 
day, he considered that if our debates were reported 
verbatim, they would exceed, or at least come up to 
the result of the debates in Pennsylvania. Should 
they not wait for the report of the committee as to 
whether the reports be taken in full or otherwise ? If 
they decided on a full report, and the debates ran to 
ten or twelve volumes, he would ask if they would 
vote for the proposition of the gentleman from Aug¬ 
laize ? He therefore moved to refer the resolution and 
pending amendment to the same committee to whom 
was reierred the report from Mr. J. V. Smith. 

Mr. REEMELIN said he did not rise for the purpose 
of discussing the propriety of printing any number of 
copies of the debates in either the English or the Ger¬ 
man language. He would not, however, let the sub¬ 
ject pass from before the Convention without expres¬ 
sing his dissent from the opinion of the gentleman from 
Miami (Mr. Dorsey.) He (Mr. R.) did not go with 
him in relation to the English language having such ef¬ 
fects on the German population, that it made them 
better citizens. He thought the argument very super¬ 
ficial. He considered it very preposterous to attempt 
by such a move as he (Mr. Dorsey) contemplated to 
force the German population into the use of the Eng¬ 
lish language. The German population was a portion 
of the constituency that were to cast their votes for or 
against the Constitution they were about to frame. He 
had expected better things from the gentleman who 
represented that intelligent portion of the country 
which the gentleman from Miami came from. There 
was a portion of the population among us who did not 
understand the language and who could not undershind 
or learn it, from the age at which they arrive in the 
country. He (Mr. R.) thought it right that if the Con¬ 
vention deemed it proper to impart information to 
one portion of the citizens, it was most necessary, cer¬ 
tainly, to impart it to the balance. He only made these 
remarks in order to show the gentleman from Miami 
(Mr. DorsfA) that he could not efiect his object so far 
as the German population were concerned. 

Mr. DORSEY said ho respected the German popula¬ 
tion as much as any other in the State, and appreciated 
the devotion of the gentleman from Hamilton (Mr. 
Reemelin) to that language. He used the words “force 
the German population " into the use of English, be¬ 
cause they expressed best what he meant. Ho meant 
to put before them those strong inducements whicli 
would incline them to acquire oar langiiage. Ho (Mr. 
D.) believed that to use force to make them better re¬ 


publicans, as it was erroneously thought he had implied, 
could not be done. He admired the Germans for their 
sound republicanism. What he did desire was to mve 
them a unity—a oneness with our own people, hy the 
use of the one language, which they otherwise could 
not attain. Language was the great connecting link 
which bound men together; and one great means of 
effecting that unity was to give them our own language 
as an inducement to the acquisition of what they desi¬ 
red to possess. 

Mr. REEMELIN in reply said he had not misunder¬ 
stood the gentleman. He considered the objections of 
the gentleman from Miami, (Mr, Dorsey,) were like 
that of the man who would not go into the water 
until he could swim. All of the German popula¬ 
tion were desirous of learning English, blithe knew 
that many of them were unable to speak the language 
from various causes. He was not absurd enough to 
suppose that a people could not love freedom and hap¬ 
piness, though they spoke one language in preference 
to another. That had nothing to do with the question. 
The question was whether they would impart informa¬ 
tion to the German population, in their own language. 
It was not a boon that they asked, but it was a right 
which they demanded as participants in the government 
of the State. 

The gentleman from Miami, (Mr. Dorsey,) this 
morning, was in favor of giving them German newspa¬ 
pers, (to which I am opposed,) but now when the Con¬ 
vention was asked to give them information of a nature 
the most important, he would not concede it. In re¬ 
gard to the question of cost, referred to by the gentle¬ 
man from Erie, (Mr. Taylor,) he would say, that the 
cost of setting German type was not greater than that 
of English. It was said to be greater, but there being 
so many German compositors now in the country, he 
thought it could be done as cheap as English composi¬ 
tion. He was not discussing the general merits of the 
resolution, but merely the question of whether or not 
this Convention would impart information to all, or to 
a part, as contemplated by the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Miami. 

Mr. FORBES remarked that the question was one 
of reference, and did not touch the merits of the reso¬ 
lution. 

Mr. DORSEY did not see the absurdity of his prop¬ 
ositions. The gentleman himself would admit that 
there was not so much absurdity in what he had said, 
when he himself (Mr. Reemelin) had admitted that 
the Germans were desirous of learning the English lan¬ 
guage. 

After some further discussion and remarks, the 
question on the reference of the resolution and amend¬ 
ment was put and carried 

Mr. LEADBETTER said the subject which was un¬ 
der consideration had brought a matter to his mind, in 
relation to which he would offer the following: 

^'Resolved, That in presenting memorials and petitions 
the Secretary shall only enter upon the journal or rec¬ 
ord of the proceeding the fact of presentation and the 
object thereof.” 

Mr. L. said that he had discovered by looking at the 
journal that the memorials and petitions which had 
been presented to-day, were about to appear upon it. 
If they were all to be published in the report of the de¬ 
liberation they would have the book filled up with trea¬ 
tises on “ nigger-ology,” which he wished to have ex¬ 
cluded from it. 

Messrs. NASH and SMITH of Warren remarked 
that there was no necessity for adopting the resolu¬ 
tion, as it was well understood that the memorials them¬ 
selves should not go on the journal, only the reterence 
and the name of the committe to whom referred. 

Mr. LEADBETTER said he would withdraw his 
resolution with ihe express understanding, however, 
tliat no memorial, &c., &c., should be entered on tho 
journal. 

Mr. HOOTMAN, from the committee to whom was 
referred a resolution relating to the appointment of 






18 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


four messengers, reported back the resolution with the 
recommendation “ that the Sergeant-at-Anns have the 
power to appoint.” 

Mr. LIDEY was opposed to the appointment of mes¬ 
sengers. If members were too lazy to carry up their 
little papers to the Secretary’s desk let them sit still. 
He thought it unjust to the community to throw away 
their funds in that way. 

Mr. HOLMES concurred in the report of the com¬ 
mittee. As to what the last speaker said as to econo¬ 
my, he went with him. But there was an economy 
called the ‘‘ small potatoe economy”—an economy “ sa¬ 
ving at the spigot and losing at the bung-hole.” The 
amount required for the payment of those boys would 
be small, and if they had no expenditure more unrea¬ 
sonable than that of paying a few boys to attend to the 
business of the hall, they would get along very well. 

Mr. STANTON moved that the resolution and re¬ 
commendation of the committee be referred back with 
a view to be amended; which was agreed to. 

APPOINTMENT OF A REPORTER. 

Mr. SAWYER offered for consideration the follow- 
ing; 

“ Resolved, That J. V. Smith be and he is hereby ap¬ 
pointed Reporter to this Convention.” 

Mr. S. said ; Although the proposition might be con¬ 
sidered superfluous, he had offered it because he con¬ 
sidered the Convention quite as well qualified to ap¬ 
point their own Reporter as the Legislature were to 
appoint one for them. He had no objection to the gen¬ 
tleman selected by the Legislature ; butstill he desired 
the Convention to make their own selection. He was 
no more willing that the Legislature should select a 
Reporter to the Convention than he would be willing 
for them to select the Secretaries, Sergeant-at-Arms or 
Doorkeeper of the Convention. He repeated that he 
’ had not the slightest objection to the Reporter selected 
by the Legislature. He only desired to reaffiimi Mr. 
Smith’s appointment. 

Mr. STANTON said, as the whole subject of report¬ 
ing is now in the hands of a committee, which would 
report at an early day, he moved that the resolution be 
referred to the same committee. 

After some fui’ther conversation, in which Mr. Stan¬ 
ton, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Swyer participated, Mr. 
Stanton withdrew his motion. 

Mr. HAWKINS said he would rather the phraseolo¬ 
gy of the resolution was somewhat changed. He 
would rather simply concur in the appointment of the 
Legislature. 

Mr. SAWYER interrupted, and said the appointment 
of the Legislature was the veiy thing to which he ob¬ 
jected. 

Mr. HAWKINS understood that to be the point of 
the objection. He understood the gentleman to be 
well satisfied with the appointment. But, for his part, 
he was rather disposed to be somewhat courteous to 
the Legislature—both to the past and coming Legisla¬ 
tures. He could not .forget that these bodies still held 
the purse-strings of the Treasury, and he was disposed 
to be courteous towards them on that account. He 
was rather apprehensive that the Convention would 
yet have to appeal to them for additional supplies be¬ 
fore it could get through with its business. He did 
not desire therefore unnecessarily to offend against the 
Legislature. To his apprehension the Constitutional 
Convention was not so important a body as some gentle¬ 
men seemed to suppose. This body could not touch a 
single dollar in the treasury beyond the sum appropria¬ 
ted for its expenses. He would much rather the reso¬ 
lution were so changed in its terms as to make it a 
mere expression of concurrence in the appointment of 
the Legislature. 

Mr. McCLOUD proposed to amend the resolution by 
striking out the word “appoint” and inserting the 
word “adopted”—so as to read, “Resolved, that J. 
V. Smith be, and he is hereby adopted,” &c. [A 
laugh.] 

The amendment was withdrawn. 


Mr. SMITH, of Warren, said he did not like the phra¬ 
seology of the resolution; but the Legislature had ap¬ 
pointed a Reporter by joint resolution; and, although 
it was a matter of doubt with some whether they had 
any authority to do so, yet, if the appointment was only 
to be merely re-affirmed by the Convention, he sup¬ 
posed it ought to be done in a respectful manner. He 
moved, therefore, that the resolution be referred to a ' 
select committee of three—not that he was opposed to ■ 
the resolution, but for the purpose of presenting it in [ 
respectful language. 

Mr. McCORMICK proposed to amend the resolution j 
by striking out all after “ resolved” and inserting a i 
proposition to make the 4th section of the act callmg 
the Convention the subject of reference. 

The question on the motion to refer the resolution to 
a select committee of three was then taken and carried. 

The PRESIDENT subsequently appointed Messrs. 
Smith of Warren, McCormick, and Roll, to constitute 
said committee. 

Mr. HOOTMAN, from the select committee to which 
was referred the resolution of yesterday for the ap¬ 
pointment of messengers to the Convention, reported 
a resolution authorizing the Sergeant-at-Arms to ap¬ 
point four messengers; which was considered and 
adopted. , 


compensation of officers. 

On motion of Mr. EWART, it was | 

Resolved, That a select committee of five be appoint¬ 
ed to report to the Convention the proper compensa¬ 
tion for all the officers of this Convention not fixed by 
law. 

Mr. SWAN offered the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the Auditor of Slate be and he is 
hereby requested to address circulars to each of the 
county Auditors of this State requesting from them, and 
each of them, answers to the following inquiries: 

First. What amount of indebtedness is your county 
authorized to incur by vote or otherwise for railroads 
and public improvements other than county buildings; 
and the date of the law, and the number of the vol¬ 
ume and page of the statute book authorizing such in- 
ebtedness? 

Second. What is the present amount of indebtedness 
of your county ; for what object was the same incur¬ 
red, designating the amount for each object and the 
kind of evidence of the debt issued by the county ? 

Third. What is the present market value of the evi¬ 
dence of debt mentioned in the preceding inquiry? 

Fourth. What was the income, if any, in 1849, de¬ 
rived to the county from the investments above refer¬ 
red to ? 

Fifth. What is the present market value of the stock 
&c. which the county has received or is entitled to on 
account of said indebtedness or the probable amount 
for which said stock &c. could be sold ? 

Sixth. What is the total amount of county taxes of 
your county for the year 1849 ? 

Resolved, further. That the Auditor of State be and 
he is hereby requested to make up and communicate 
to this Convention a tabular statement of the answers 
of the several auditors to the above inquiries; and 
that the Secretary transmit a copy of these resolutions 
to the Auditor of State. 


Mr. CUTLER moved the reference of the resolution 
to the same select committee to which were referred 
similar inquiries in relation to the judiciary. 

Mr. REEMELIN hoped that the resolution would 
not be referred, especially to that particular committee. 
He considered the Convention had already created a 
very large number of select committees—too many to 
create another for this purpose. He thought that the 
proposed inquiries should be addressed to these audi¬ 
tors as soon as possible, for it was notorious that they 
were never ready to respond in such cases. 

Mr. CUTLER had no preference for the committee 
named. If the gentleman preferred any other com¬ 
mittee he would withdraw his motion. His object in 
moving the reference was, simply that these inquirie 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


might be perfected, bo that the Convention might not 
have to consider a series of resolutions of this class, 
offered from time to time, throughout the session. He 
would suggest that if any gentleman intended to move 
any other similar imjuiries it would be well to present 
them at once and have them all refered to the same 
select comnyttee. 

On motion by Mr. MORRIS, the resolution was re¬ 
ferred to a select committee of three. 

HOUR OF MEETING. 

Mr. CUTLER offered for consideration the following: 

Resolved, That when this Convention adjourn it will 
be till ten o’clock A. M., and when it take a recess it 
will be till three o’clock P. M. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, proposed to amend by 
striking out the word “ten,” aud inserting the word 
“ nine.” 

Mr. EWART apprehended that business would be 
expedited by allowing time for the committees to work. 
He supposed there would not be much business of im¬ 
portance before the Convention for some time to come, 
as most of the work, at the first, would have to be ar¬ 
ranged and proposed in committee. 

Mr. LOUDON called for a division of the question 
upon Mr. Hitchcock’s motion, and the question being 
taken on striking out, it was lost. 

The resolution was then adopted. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention adjourn¬ 
ed. 


THURSDAY, May 9th, 1850. 

NEW MEMBER. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga presented the cre¬ 
dentials of his colleague, Sherlock J. Andrews, of 
Cuyahoga, who appeared and was sworn in, the requi¬ 
site oath being administered by Mr. Hitchcock of Ge¬ 
auga, a Judge of the Supreme Court of Ohio, and a 
member of the Convention. 

Mr. HAWKINS offered the following resolution, 
which was agreed to: 

“ Resolved, That until permanent rules be adopted in 
relation to the subject, it shall be the duty of the Sec¬ 
retary of this Convention to cause the journals to be 
transcribed into a book of record, from which record 
the journal shall be read on the morning of the suc¬ 
ceeding day.” 

Mr. McCORMICK offered the following, which was 
agreed to : 

“ Resolved, That a committee on Privileges and Elec¬ 
tions be appointed, consisting of nine members, to 
whom shall be referred the certificates of members 
claiming seats in the Convention.” 

Mr. VANCE of Champaign. I am directed by the 
committee to whom was referred sundry resolutions 
relative to furnishing certain books and newspapers to 
members of this Convention, to make the following 
Report: 

“ The committee to which was referred a resolution 
that the Secretary of State provide each of the mem¬ 
bers of this Convention with a volume containing the 
constitutions of the several States; also with the work 
entitled “ the New Constitution,” published by S. Me- 
dary ; also that the Sergeant-at-Arms be requested to 
furnish the members of this Convention with a copy 
each of the collated copies of the constitutions of the 
different States of the Union, and also a suitable num¬ 
ber of the journals and debates of the recentConstitu- 
tional State Conventions, and that the samebe paidfor 
out of the funds appropriated for that purpose by the 
last General Assembly. The committee, after consul¬ 
tation, have directed me to report that it is inexpedient 
to purchase said books, journals, &c., at the public ex¬ 
pense, and to ask that they be discharged from the fur¬ 
ther consideration of the subject. i 

Mr. GREENE, of Defiance, offered a resolution to the 
effect that it should be in order, immediately after read¬ 
ing the Journal, for members to correct any errors in 
the authorized reports of the debates in the Convention, 
so that the weekly editions of the newspapers and the 


book edition of said debates should appear correct._ 

Mr. G. remarked that there were a few verbal and typo¬ 
graphical eiTors in the imblished proceedings which 
needed correction. 

Mr. SAWYER asked if this would not occupy tw 
much time ? It was evident that the Reporter had to 
contend with every disadvantage at the commencement 
of the session—this would be remedied in time. He 
would remark, in passing, that ithe reports were as ac¬ 
curate as any he ever saw. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I would suggest to the gentle¬ 
man from Defiance, that he should so amend his resolu¬ 
tion that the Reporter should, at the request of mem¬ 
bers, make any verbal correction in his reports. I have 
had some little experience in this business of reporting, 
and I know that it is impossible to make a perfect re¬ 
port of all that is said in so large a body as this. 

Mr. TAYLOR. It is generally admitted that the 
official Reporter of the Convention is remarkably cor¬ 
rect—still some inaccuracies will occur. I would sug¬ 
gest that any member be allowed to make any correc¬ 
tion in his published remarks that shall not “overrun” 
a printed line. 

Upon motion, and with the assent of Mr. Greene, of 
Defiance, the resolution was referred to the same com¬ 
mittee to whom was committed the report of J. V. 
Smith. " 

Upon motion of Mr. HOLMES, the vote taken yes¬ 
terday upon the resolution relative to opening gate¬ 
ways on the sides of the hall, was re-considered, and 
then amended, so as to provide for removing the bar or 
banisters separating the lobby from the Convention 
room, several feet further back. 

Mr. DORSEY. I send to the Secretary the follow¬ 
ing resolutions, which, after being read, I shall ask to 
have laid on the table and printed, for the consideration 
of the Convention, until they can be referred to the ap- 
priate committees. 

First. That the credit of the State of Ohio shall 
never, in any manner, be given or loaned to, or in aid 
of any individual, association or corporation, nor shall 
the State own, or be liable for any stock in any corpora¬ 
tion or association whatever. 

Second. Special laws creating corporations shall not 
be passed, except for municipal purposes, for the con¬ 
struction of such works and for the performance! of 
such business as necessarily require sovereign prero^^ 
gative powers, rights and privileges. The Legislature 
may pass general laws under which associations may 
be formed for business, religious and charitable purpo¬ 
ses, but no rights, privileges, exemptions or immuni¬ 
ties shall ever be granted to any corporation or asso¬ 
ciation which are not enjoyed by every individual in 
the State, nor shall the action of any Legislature ever 
vest in any corporation, association or individual any 
right or power which may not be repealed or taken 
away by any succeeding Legislature. And all corpor¬ 
ations shall have the right to sue and be subject to be 
sued in all courts, in like cases as natural persons. 

Third. The Legislature shall have no power to pass 
any special charter for Banking purposes, but corpora¬ 
tions or associations may be formed for such purposes, 
under a general law, provided that no bill or evidence 
of debt of a less denomination than five dollars shall 
ever be issued or circulated as money in this State. 

Fourth. The stockholders of every corporation or 
associatio a for issuing bank notes or any kind of paper 
credit to be circulated as money shall be responsible in 
their individual capacity for all the debts and liabili¬ 
ties of the same, of every kind whatever. 

Fifth. The Legislature shall have no power to pass 
any law sanctioning in any maimer directly^ or indi¬ 
rectly, the refusal of any individual corporation or as¬ 
sociation issuing bank notes ot any description to pay 
the same in specie on demand. 

Si 3 :th. The Legislature shall provide by law for the 
registry of all bills or notes issued or circulated as mo¬ 
ney, and shall require ample security for the redemp¬ 
tion of said bills or notes in specie. 








20 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


Seventh. In cases of the insolvency of any bank or 
banking association or corporation issuing bills to circu¬ 
late as money, the bill-holder thereof shall be entitled 
to preference in payment over all other creditors of 
such association. 

Eighth. No act of the Legislature, authorizing cor¬ 
porations or associations with banking powers, shall go 
into effect, or in any manner be in force, under the 
same, after being published in at least one newspaper 
in each county of the State where any newspaper is 
published, for three months next preceding the election 
for members of the Legislature, shall at such election 
next succeeding the passage of the same, be approved 
and voted for by a majority of all the electors voting at 
such election.” 

Mr. D. moved that the resolution be laid on the ta¬ 
ble and printed. 

Mr. MANON demanded a divison of the question ; 
and the same turning first on laying on the table, it 
was agreed to. The question then recurring on order¬ 
ing the resolutions to be printed, it was carried. 

APPOINTMENT OF OFFICIAL REPORTER. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren, from the select committee 
to which was referred the resolution to appoint J. V. 
Smith Reporter to this Convention, submitted the fol¬ 
lowing : 

Whereas, by joint resolution of the General Assem¬ 
bly of the State of Ohio, passed March 14th, 1850, J. V. 
Smith was appointed Reporter for this Convention; 
and whereas, it is deemed proper that the appoint¬ 
ment of Reporter should receive the express sanction 
of the Convention; Therefore, 

Resolved, That the said J. V. Smith be, and he here¬ 
by is, appointed Reporter for this Convention in pursu¬ 
ance of the fourth section of the “ act to provide for the 
calling of a Convention to revise, amend, or change 
the constitution, and the election and compensation of 
of members thereof” passed February 23, 1850, and 
is admitted to a seat on the floor as such. 

The question being upon the adoption of the resolu¬ 
tion, the same was agreed to. 

Mr. HAWKINS desired to call the attention of the 
Convention, as there was nothing now under consid¬ 
eration, to a mode of advertising adopted by some of 
the tradesmen of Columbus, at the expense of the 
State, by sending letters to members through the post 
office. It was a small matter, but it was a sort of petty 
larceny. 

Mr. MANON concurred in the remarks just made, 
aud was not ashamed to make it a object of comment 
—it was a species of petty larceny on a small scale 
which he should rebuke. 

Mr. CUTLER said that in order to give some com¬ 
mittees time to prepare their reports he would move a 
recess; which was agreed to. 

3 o'clock, P. M. 

the judiciary. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga, from the select com¬ 
mittee to which was referred the resolution of Mr. 
Green of Ross, of yesterday, in relation to the business 
before the judiciary of the State for the year 1849, re¬ 
ported a resolution in lieu of that committed. 

The resolution reported was then read by the Sec¬ 
retary, and is as follows: 

Resolved, That the Secretary of State be required to 
address a circular to the clerks of the several courts of 
record in this State, requiring them to furnish without 
delay, information on the following points: 

1. W hat number of terms of said courts were held 
during the year 1848, and what the length of time oc¬ 
cupied thereby, including special terms or called courts, 
and distinguishing the length of time occupied each by 

2. Howmany suits of law (exclusive of those brought 
from courts of justices of the peace) were commenced 
in such courts, and what the entire number of such suits 
pending during the year 1848, what number was tried 
by a jury, how many by the court, and how many oth¬ 
erwise disposed of. 


3. The aggregate amount of debt or damages, and 
also the costs in such cases, distinguishing between the 
same. 

4. What number of such suits were brought into 
said courts by writs of error or certiorari, respectively.* 

5. How many suits in chancery were comrnenced 
in said courts, and what the entire number pending du¬ 
ring said period, and also how many were heard and 
not decided by the court and what number otherwise 
disposed of; and the amount of the decrees rendered 
and of the costs, distinguishing between the same. 

That the Clerks of the several Courts of Common 
Pleas be requested also to state: 

First. The number of criminal cases commenced, 
the number pending, the number tried, and the number 
otherwise disposed of, and also the number of convic¬ 
tions and acquittals during the same period, together 
with the aggregate amount of costs, distinguishing in 
all these particulars between minor offences and those 
punishable capitally, or by imprisonment in the Peni- 
tentiaiy. 

Second. The length of time occupied by the grand 
juries in their several counties, and the expenses at¬ 
tending the same, including the fees of witnesses, ju¬ 
rors, sheriffs, &c. 

Third. The amount of salary paid to the prosecuting 
attorneys in their respective counties. 

Fourth. The number of causes during the period 
aforesaid, brought into their respective courts on ap¬ 
peal from the judgments of justices of the jieace, and 
also the number set down for tidal therein, alter the re¬ 
versal on writs of certiorari from the justices’ courts; of 
the judgments rendered in such inferior courts; and al¬ 
so the number of all such causes tried by the court or 
jury, and the number otherwise disposed of, and the 
aggregate amount of costs thereof. 

Fifth. In each of said causes where trials are had by 
the court or jury, state the amount of the debt or dam¬ 
ages found or assessed by such court or jury, and the 
amount of costs, and also the amount of costs, and also 
the amount of the i-ecovery before the justice. 

Sixth. How many causes arising in certiorari from 
justices of the peace were pending during the period 
aforesaid: how many judgments, how many affirmed 
and what the aggregate amount of the costs of such 
affirmance and reversal respectively. 

Seventh. The number of letters testamentary, of ad¬ 
ministration and of guardianship, granted by their re¬ 
spective courts during the period aforesaid. 

Eighth, The number of settlements made on the es¬ 
tates of decedents, minors, idiots and lunatics, during 
the period aforesaid. 

Ninth. The number of cases of petition for partition, 
and for the sale of real estate by executors, adminis¬ 
trators and guardians within said year; and also the ag¬ 
gregate amount of costs in the cases embraced in this 
and the two preceding inquiries. 

Tenth. The number of tavern licenses, with the pri¬ 
vilege of retailing spirituous liquors, by their'respective 
courts, and the amount of revenue derived therefrom, 
during the same year. 

Mr. SAWYER. Mr. President, I confess very 
frankly that I do not understand much about the judicial 
system. But I venture to suggest that no adequate in¬ 
quiry has been made into the very large and very ex¬ 
traordinary expense which will attend these inquiries; 
and as for the benefit which is to result from these re¬ 
ports, I confess that I am not able to perceive it. I do 
not see the use of this information, or to what valuable 
purpose it can be applied. Inquiries as to the number 
of cases tried in the courts of law and chancery ; as to 
how many cases have been appealed and taken up 
from the inferior to the superior courts, by certiorari, 
and on writ of error; as to how many tavern licenses 
have been issued in each county of the State, besides 
the other items of information which I cannot enume¬ 
rate—all these must require considerable labor and ex¬ 
pense, for which no provision has been made. I in¬ 
troduced a proposition the other day, which involved 
















CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


21 


a little expense, and which I conceive would have 
been a source of much valuable information, but that 
proposition was voted down on the ground of the ex¬ 
pense it involved. Now, I apprehend that these re¬ 
ports will cost more than the jiapers which I desired 
to procure and distribute. Sir, there are other branch¬ 
es and other interests pertaining' to government be¬ 
sides the judiciary. But I see gentlemen of the legal 
profession are always very forward in procuring facil¬ 
ities to enable them to pursue their investigations as 
members of the bar and the judiciary. I see them 
frequently very forward in the publication and pur¬ 
chase of books. It has been but a few years since we 
purchased a large number of Chase’s Statutes for the 
use of the legal profession; and it seems that there is 
now to be made another attempt to extend this kind 
of patronage. It may be because of dullness, that I 
cannot apprehend the importance of this resolution 
and I ask gentlemen making this report to tell me of 
the advantages of this information—especially those 
inquiries which we are to send out all over the State. 
How many taverns have you licensed ? How many 
cases of litigation have been taken up to the supreme 
court ? How many cases have been entered upon the 
court dockets ? For the soul of me, I cannot see the 
value of such information here. It seems me that you 
had much belter inquire how many bushels of wheat, 
potatoes, or oats have been raised in each township of 
the State; for I believe the agricultural interests of 
the State to be entitled to quite as much respect as the 
interests of the judiciary. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. I had supposed sir, 
that the object of this information was well understood. 
So far as its expense is concerned, I apprehend that it 
is to cost nothing, except what may be the value of the 
time which we consume here in debating the subject. 
There is no provision for any other expenditure, and I 
do not see how any other can be incurred. With ref¬ 
erence to the object of this resolution, inquiries which 
it contains are important, because it is indispensable 
that some system for the administration of justice should 
be established, and because it becomes us to know 
what are the actual wants of the State with reference 
to this subject, and what are the defects of the existing 
system. My friend, the delegate from Tnmibidl, (Mr. 
Perkins,) who is a member of the committee with me, 
has made the following summary of these inquiries, 
which I will read. 

Ist. What amount of judicial labor is necessary to 
the business in each county ? 

2nd. What has been the amount pfdd to Associate 
Judges. 

This item has been made the subject of considerable 
discussion in portions of the State where some of the 
committee reside, looking to the abolition of the office 
of Associate Judge. Of course it becomes important to 
ascertain the amount of expense incurred by the con¬ 
tinuance of these judges. 

3d. How much of the business now done in the com¬ 
mon pleas and superior courts, can be entrusted to an 
inferior tribunal? 

4th. To ascertain this, what number of small causes, 
either civil or criminal, have been disposed of in said 
courts, and what proportion, both in number and time 
employed, do they bear to those of greater importance? 

5th. What has been the effect of allowing appeal and 
certioraris from justice’s courts ? 

6th. What expenses have attended the system of 
grand juries, and what proportion of indictments found 
by them have resulted in convictions ? 

7th. What has been the amount of money paid to 
prosecuting attorneys? 

8th. What the amount and expenses of the probate 
jurisdiction ? 

9th. What the number of licensed tavern keepers, 
and the revenue derived from the same ? 

These are the subjects of inquiry. It is true, and 
any gentleman can see, that it imposes a large amount 
of labor upon the clerks of the several counties, for 


which they ought to be remunerated; but I know of no 
power in the Convention to provide such compensation. 
But the manifest importance of the information sought, 
it is expected, will induce the clerks to furnish it, with¬ 
out any assurance of pay. As to the information in ref¬ 
erence to tavern licenses, that item w as suggested by the 
gentleman from Morgan, (Mr. Hawkins,) and also by 
the gentleman on my left, wffio is a member of the com¬ 
mittee, the particular object of which I cannot state: 
but I suppose the subject of license, or the authority of 
the Legislature to license the sale of ardent spirits, ei¬ 
ther by wholesale or retail, is matter that, it may be, 
will come before this Convention. In that event, this 
item would of course become important, while the 
trouble and expense of obtaining it will be very trifling. 
I have thus rehearsed the object which the committee 
had in view, in making this report—the principal ob¬ 
ject being nothing more than to ascertain the amount of 
judicial labor performed in the State, with the attend- 
ent expenses, iii order that we may the better ascertain 
w'hat reforms are necessary in that department, and 
that we may act intelligently in the transaction of busi¬ 
ness. 

Mr. SAWYER. I can see a propriety in the inqui¬ 
ries proposed in the resolution offered yesterday by the 
gentleman from Franklin, (Mr. Swan,) but I can yet 
see no adequate necessity for adopting the inquiries of 
the resolution under consideration, and I shall therefore 
vote against them. 

Mr. PERKINS. I am not a little surprised at the 
opposition which this resolution has received. I had 
supposed that its importance would be apparent to eve¬ 
ry mind in the Convention, for the reason that we have 
to constitute a judicial department. That power must 
vest somewhere; and I have been veiy incorrectly in¬ 
formed of my duty if one of the chief objects of this 
Convention be not to reform the judicial system of the 
State. These inquiries, then, are submitted to enable 
us to determine to what judicial tribunials the adminis¬ 
tration of that department of the government should 
be referred. These inquiries look to the correction of 
some abuses of the judiciary power—among which the 
removal of trifling cases of litigation, from the inferior 
to the higher courts, has been the subject of consider¬ 
able complaint. The object of one branch of these 
inquiries is to ascertain what has been the result of 
this practice, and whether these removals have been 
attended with anything but vexation and expense. 
For my part, I do not look upon these inquiries as un¬ 
important in any sense. Tlio proper administration of 
the judicial department must always remain a veryim- 
portaiit consideration, and I apprehend that this report 
will be found to contain nothing supei-fluous—nothing 
but what will be found of most pertinent and impor¬ 
tant application in our deliberations here. 

Mr. SAWYER. I asked the gentleman what would 
be the probable cost of this information; and since he 
does not know I would call upon the delegate from 
Hamilton county, (Mr. Roll) who I understand holds 
the office of Clerk of his county. I desire that he should 
state how long it would require him to respond proper¬ 
ly to all these inquiries ? It is my opinion, sir, that 
this information could not be obtained in three months 
time; and that would carry it beyond the time when 
it could be of any value here. 

Mr. ROLL. As this is a subject of interest to me— 
being Clerk of one of the Courts where I reside, I 
desire to submit a lew remarks. It seems to me that 
the committee have mistaken the amount of labor to 
be imposed upon the Clerks by this resolution. I heard 
the resolution read by the Secretary, and if I heard 
aright, it imposes sufficient labor, almost, to form the en¬ 
tire constitution of the State. The labor which it 
would impose upon me would occupy at least two 
months of time. I do not believe, were we to give 
succinct answers to all the inquiries proposed, that we 
would be enabled to get through in that time. It would 
require the exclusive attention of an extra clerk to be 
devoted entirely to the work. While I should be ex- 













22 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


tremely solicitous to afford this body all the informa¬ 
tion in my power, which might be important to their 
deliberations, I am constrained to say, that, amidst the 
multitudinous mass of labor imposed upon my office, 
extending through more than ten months in the year, 
I could not furnish this information in less than two 
months. Now, if it is important that this information 
should be had, I would suggest whether these inqui¬ 
ries could not be propounded in more general terms, 
which might be more easily responded to with matter 
equally tangible for the action of the Convention? I 
do assure the Convention that if answers to all these 
questions be necessary, even down to the minutest of 
them, it would inevitably involve a great deal of trouble 
and interference with the bar, on account of the with- 
di’awal of the books and papers of the court. I pro¬ 
fess, sir, that I do not know what to do with the ques¬ 
tion. I do not desire to delay business, but I am com¬ 
pelled to state that, so far as Hamilton county is con¬ 
cerned, all these inquiries cannot be answered satisfac¬ 
torily in time for the information to be of any value 
here, but if the I'esolution could be made more gener¬ 
al in its character and demands, perhaps something like 
the substance of the desired information might be col¬ 
lected. 

Mr. CLARK of Lorain. I move to amend the reso¬ 
lution by inserting, in the proper place, the words, 
“ and that all judgments taken by confession, be exclu¬ 
ded from these reports.” There is no manner of utility 
or necessity for embracing such cases in these reports; 
for they do not take up the time of the court at fill. I 
propose that amendment, 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. I supposed, on yesterday, 
when I offered this resolution, that its importance and 
pertinence to our deliberations, could not but be ap¬ 
parent. The gentleman from Cuyahoga, (Mr. Hitch¬ 
cock,) and the gentleman from Tmmbull, (Mr. Per¬ 
kins,) have sufficiently explained the object and chai*- 
acter of the information sought. I should have no sort 
of objection to the adoption of the report, were it not 
that I apprehend it covers so extensive a field that the 
object may be defeated. I concur, to some extent, in 
the views of the gentleman from Hamilton, though 
I can’t go so far as he does. I have had some ex¬ 
perience myself in the courts—having been for a num¬ 
ber of years employed in the business of a county 
Clerk, and I have some idea of the amount of labor 
necessaiy to furnish this information; and I apprehend 
that if the report be adopted, the information will be 
received so tardily as to be renderetl nearly useless to 
the Convention. In presenting the original resolution, 
I had one leading object in view—to ascertain the 
whole amount of litigation in the Slate, distinguishing 
civil from criminal, and law from chancery cases; and 
also to ascertain the time occupied by the Courts of 
Common Pleas, in the several counties of the State, in 
the discharge of their judicial functions, for the purpose 
of simply ascertaining the amount of compensation paid 
to the associate judges in the several counties of the 
State. I cannot see any necessity, sir, for requiring in¬ 
formation upon all the points suggested by the resolu¬ 
tion reported by the committee. What light will be 
reflected from statements showing the specific amount 
of judgments and decrees ? Every gentleman of the 
profession knows that in many instances it happens 
that no larger amount of costs are incurred, and more 
time consumed, in a cause involving one hundred dol¬ 
lars, than in a cause involving five thousand dollars.— 
It is not the amount for which the judgment or decree 
is rendered, so much as the principle, and frequently 
the litigious spirit of parties which runs up the ex¬ 
penses of a law-suit. My principal object was to ascer¬ 
tain the amount and description of business in the sev¬ 
eral courts, in order that the committee which is to be 
entrusted with the re-organization of our judicial sys¬ 
tem, may have that light before them. I am entirely 
indifferent as far as I am concenied individually, as to 
what may be the choice of the Convention between the 
two resolutions. 1 think, however, that the same end 


might be attained, and certainly with much less delay, 
by the adoption of the resolution as offered by myself. 
I only fear that, if the report be adopted, the object 
which I have in view will be frustrated by delay. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot. As the gentleman from 
Hamilton thinks it will require too much time to get a 
full response to the resolution reported, I move that it 
be referred back to the committee, and the gentleman 
from Hamilton be added to that committee. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman can make his 
motion to recommit, and afterwards his motion to 
make an addition to the committee. 

Mr. RANNEY. I have listened attentively to what 
has been said in regard to the impossibility of comply¬ 
ing with the provisions of this resolution, and I am still 
unconverted. My friend from Summit county informs 
me (and he has served a long time in the capacity of a 
clerk) that he thinks it would be competent for any 
clerk out of Hamilton county to produce a satisfactory 
answer to the inquiries embraced in the resolution in 
one day. I do not pretend to know what would be 
the amount of labor required in Hamilton county. Un¬ 
doubtedly it would take much more time there. That 
would be owing entirely to the amount of business— 
which would not be an unfortunate circumstance, so 
|.far as the incumbent of the clerkship there can be con¬ 
cerned. The gentleman from Ross (Mr. Green) in¬ 
quires why it is important to separate between impor¬ 
tant and unimportant causes. The reason is apparent, 
for without such a discrimination how would you be 
able to act upon the question of allowing of appeals 
in minor causes ? How would you determine upon 
the proper tribunal to which the judicial system might 
be most wisely entrusted ? How would you deter¬ 
mine whether it is best to prevent the removal of small 
causes out of the inferior courts by appeal, certiorari, 
and writ of error? As to inquiring into the amount of 
compensation paid to the associate judges, the answer 
to that can be ascertained in any clerk’s office in the 
State, upon merely finding out how long the courts 
have remained in session. This item could be furnish¬ 
ed in a single moment. With regard to the other mat¬ 
ter, that of distinguishing between the smaller and lar¬ 
ger causes, I admit that there must be more labor 
about that; but still, 1 think that any clerk out of Ham¬ 
ilton county could go to his docket and determine ev¬ 
ery thing asked for in the space of a single day. I be¬ 
lieve also that the clerks generally will be perfectly 
willing to furnish this information. And if it should so 
turn out that we can’t be informed upon these subjects 
fully from Hamilton county, it docs not follow that we 
should not obtain any report from the balance of the 
State ; and, with respect to the balance of the Slate, I 
do not believe there will be any complaints made by 
the clerks. I believe they will furnish the information 
most readily ; so that when we come to determinehere 
in Convention where the judiciary power should be 
administered, by what tribunals and in what manner 
executed, we shall find ourselves in the possession of 
a most valuable fund of information on the subject. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Do I understand that the resolu¬ 
tion reported contemplates that this information shall 
be furnished for the year 1848 ? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. I intended tohave 
explained that when I was up before. The original 
resolution contemplated information for the year 1849, 
but it wdll be recollected that in the year 1849 the 
cholera prevailed extensively in many portions of the 
State; and it was thought by the committee that in 
consequence of that, the year 1849 would not furnish 
a fair index of the amount of legal business in the 
State. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. If the motion to recommit does 
not prevail, I shall make a motion to print. 

Mr. MASON. Mr. President: since this subject has 
been introduced I hav'e entertained very serious doubts 
in regard to the information sought—its value, I mean, 
to this body. That the information intended to be 
procured by the friends of the proposition might, and 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


probably would be useful to the legislator, or to the 
moralist, and it may be to others, I do not doubt. Nay, 
more: it is a kind of statistics that would awaken 
more or less of curiosity in the minds of all. All that 
I believe. And I make this remark for the purpose of 
bringing to notice a discrimination that exists in my 
own mind between what would be tjie value of 
that information, when obtained for a proper, and 
when obtained for an improper object. Now, I doubt 
whether there is a member on this floor who cannot 
rise in his place and furnish his fellow members with 
all the information in his county sought for by the res¬ 
olution—such as the duration of the terms of the courts 
in the respective counties in which they reside, &c. 
We do not need to send out to the several county clerks 
to inform us that the court sits one, two, three, four, 
or five weeks in county A, or in county B. All that 
is necessaiy is, for each member to rise in his place, 
and, if the information be of any use, give it to the 
body. 

I know not to what extent we should goin providing 
for the judiciary system. Some Constitutional Con¬ 
ventions fulfill their mission by establishing one or two 
courts by name, and then conferring upon the Legisla¬ 
ture the power to establish such an additional number 
of courts as their wisdom and the wants of the people 
may suggest. T am sure, sir, that we need no part of 
this information to know whether we want a Superior 
court and a court of Common Pleas. And if this body 
should consult upon the establishment of a Probate 
court, I venture to say, there is not a gentleman on this 
floor, whose business-habits and intelligence would not 
enable him to inform the body as to the amount of 
business which might render it expedient to establish 
a court of Probate. 

From the beginning, sir, I have conceived that this 
proposition would demand a veiy great amount of un¬ 
compensated labor on the part of the several county 
clerks. I have no doubt that the respect and courtesy 
which they might feel toward this body, and the au¬ 
thority under which it is assembled, might induce them 
to labor many days and weeks to furnish the informa¬ 
tion ; but when obtained, I imagine that it would not 
change one single projet for the reorgmiization and es¬ 
tablishment of our judiciary system. We know now 
the number of courts we want. There is not a gen¬ 
tleman on this floor but knows what amount of judi¬ 
cial labor is required in his county, and we have no 
need to inquire out of doors on the subject. Nor need 
we inquire at all how long the court sits, for whether 
the court sits one week or two, you cannot dispense 
with it on that account, you must still provide a court. 
The minuteness of the information it is true, would be 
interesting. But with reference to the duties which 
have convened us here, I believe it woidd be valueless. 

I hope, therefore, that the Convention will not burden 
the clerks by making this requisition upon them. For 
one, I am not willing to do it. At the same time, I 
do not set myself up zealously in opposition to the 
resolution for obtaining information which gentlemen 
desire. 

One word as to the expense, which seems to have 
been overlooked. How many reports shall we have, 
if the resolution be responded to? From how many 
counties would they come? We may expect at least, 
some 80 or 90 reports—some of them of considerable 
length, even if they should be condensed into tabular 
statements, with all the skill that could be brought in¬ 
to requisition from its most talented and experienced 
officers. They would have to digest a form, and the 
report would have to be printed; and when you shall 
have paid the printer’s bill, you will begin to under¬ 
stand the cost of this undertaking, of wliicli it has been 
said ‘‘It will cost nothing.” Sir, what will be the post¬ 
age on these reports to be sent to and from the several 
Clerks’ offices in the State? Sum up these two items 
of charge, and then you will begin to know what this 
call will cost. For sir, we have a very liberal (?) ap¬ 


propriation of $40,000 for the expenses of this Conven¬ 
tion; but I understand that sum will be more than ex¬ 
hausted if we remain here a little more than thirty five 
days; and every gentleman who has a fancy for cyph¬ 
ering can very easily demonstrate that, for our expen¬ 
ses here fall but a trifle below four hundred dollars a 
day, and in that estimate, I do not include printing 
at all. I would not withhold this information, howev¬ 
er, from any gentleman who deems it important, for 
there have appeared for the resolution in this debate, 
gentlemen for whose judgments I entertain the most 
sincere respect. I have thought that, for the moment, 
gentlemen might have confounded the purpose for 
whicli we obtained it, and the use that is to be made of 
it, with the general interest and value of these statis¬ 
tics—for valuable they would be—but, as I humbly 
conceive, of no sort of value to this body. 

Perhaps, Mr. President, to make my remarks prac¬ 
tical, I ought to submit a motion, that the resolution be 
indefinitely postponed. I do so. 

Mr. HAWKINS thought this a summary method of 
disposing of an important inquiry. Reformation in the 
administration of justice was a subject deemed by the 
people as important as any other. It was the opinion 
of his constituents generally, that justice was adminis¬ 
tered now at much too high a price—there was too 
much uncertainty, and too much delay. He believed 
that the sentiment in the county in which he resided 
was, that a reformation in the Judiciary and in the 
practice of the Judicial Courts, was necessary. It was 
demanded by the interests of the people—whether the 
inquiry proposed was too minute or too wide in its 
range he would not now say; but, to a very great ex¬ 
tent, it appeared to him important, in order that they 
might be able to decide and act in reference to those 
matters. The judiciary and administration of justice 
had become burden ome, perplexing and expensive; 
so much so, that in many instances it amounted to a 
denial of justice. It was important for them to know 
the amount of litigation—the character of that litiga¬ 
tion, and the cause of it also, as well as the cost. All 
those matters were important. Some gentlemen sup¬ 
posed that those subjects belonged to the Legislature. 
If the Legislature from previous experience, had not 
seen proper to attempt the reformation, did it not de¬ 
volve on that Convention, as a duty, to enjoin on the 
Legislature what was now demanded by the voice of 
the people? In his opinion, the Convention came 
there to build up a new constitution—to impose addi¬ 
tional obligations on the Legislature; and, on the oth¬ 
er hand, they came there, in some instances, he appre¬ 
hended, to prohibit the Legislature from doing that 
which it had previously been permitted to do. Our 
constitution, when framed and adopted by the people, 
was to consist principally of injunction and prohibition 
on the Legislature, between both extremes ; of course 
there would be a large discretionary power. He found 
that gentlemen objected to some items of that inquiry. 
It had been objected, “why inquire in regard to the 
number of taverns licensed ?” He believed that a close 
connection could be traced between the amount of tav¬ 
ern licenses granted, and the use of spirituous liquors; 
and, consequently, to the results arising from the use 
of liquor. He could refer to a case which occurred in 
his own county, and which cost the people of that coun¬ 
ty something like two thousand dollars. Why was that 
expense incurred? Because a murder was commit¬ 
ted ; and why was that murder committed ? Because 
of the sale and use of liquor. It was well, therefore, 
for them to obtain information in relation to the use and 
sale of spirituous liquors. In his opinion, there was, 
perhaps, too much minuteness in the proposed inquiry. 

It was too extensive, perhaps; but, a large portion of 
it appeared to him to be of much importance, and with 
that view he would vote against the motion. 

Mr. MASON, at the suggestion of an esteemed 
friend, would withdraw his motion. The inquiry, per¬ 
haps, contained some items in relation to which it 












24 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


miglit be desirable to obtain some information. He 
withdrew the motion, still, however, maintaining the 
opinion of the inexpediency of the inquiry. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyaliogaconsidered it almost 
impossible to ascertain the principal objections to the 
report, so far as its details were concerned. He thought 
that when the suggestion of having it printed was car¬ 
ried out, and w'hen the members of the Convention 
had read it, all difficulty on the subject would be re¬ 
moved. So far as the difficulty cf obtaining the infor¬ 
mation sought here from the different clerks, was con¬ 
cerned, it would be found on investigation, to depend 
entirely on the ascertainment ol tlie aggregate amount 
of costs and judgments in cases brought from a lower 
to the higher court on appeal. It would be necessary 
to consult the execution docket with a view to obtain 
the information sought, and to spend from two to four 
hours in the examination of it, makirig the necessary 
memoranda. The whole of the information desired 
might readily be had from any Clerk with whom he 
was acquainted. He did not know how it might be in 
the county of Hamilton, There certainly might be 
some difficulty in ascertaining the amount ol costs 
paid; he was informed that the payment of the costs 
was often delayed for months and years. If that prac¬ 
tice prevailed to any gi’eat extent, then they couhl not 
get any definite information on that point, on which to 
act. It was true that in Hamilton county there would 
be much more difficulty than in any other in the State. 

The gentleman from Hamilton, Mr. Roll, knew best 
as to the inquiry imposing a burdensome duty on the 
clerks of that county. The expenses of litigation oc¬ 
cupied much of the attention of the committee—they 
to a great extent were made up from the litigation of 
causes in the appellate court, which originated in the 
magistrates’ courts. In many instances the amount 
involved in the litigation was a mere trifle in compari¬ 
son with the costs incurred. 

The committee, therefore, wished to ascertain those 
facts, and if it was found that one-half the costs of 
litigation in the State resulted from the practice of ap¬ 
pealing from the magistrates’ courts to the appellate 
court, it was important that they should know what 
was the amount of expenses incurred by this trifling 
litigation, and to examine if there w’ere any means to 
avoid it. Thus, to devise some method by which the 
rights of those demanding justice, might be vindicated 
without incurring the present existing expenses. It 
was wuth that view that the committee made the inqui¬ 
ry. He (Mr. H.) was not tenacious of the report in 
its present form; suggestions could be made which 
might render it agreeable to every member in the Con¬ 
vention. 

He would say a woi-d with regard to the expense ol 
the inquiry for this information. It would amount to 
the sum of $4,35 to send it through the entire State— 
or, perhaps, in some counties, as in Hamilton, there 
were two or three courts more than in others, that 
would be fifteen cents moi’e. The return postage 
would be about the same amount. The entire expense, 
however, of the postage, would not cost the State as 
much as the remarks which he was making. He 
thought twenty-five dollars would cover the expense 
of printing, &c., of the report. In comparison with 
the importance of the information sought, and with its 
influence on the deliberations of the Convention, what 
was that trifling expense ? It seemed to him that it 
should not be taken into consideration. If, however, 
they were imposing too much labor on the clerks in 
relation to information w’hich they cannot get, then 
they should curtail their inquiries so that they could 
get some. The great object was to ascertedn the 
amount of cost incurred in trifling litigation. 

Mr. ROLL desired to afford all the information which 
he could as a clerk impart. But as he said before, he 
had only heard the resolution read at the Secretary’s 
desk. Perhaps on a closer examination of the resolu¬ 
tion he might change his mind in regard to its merits. 


as it seemed desirable by many members that 
formation be obtained. He felt a like desire to afford | 
all the information he possibly could. In Hamilton [ 
county the costs were not made up until the person ; 
adjudged to pay the costs called to pay them. | 

then was a most onerous labor imposed on the clerk, 
by the inquiry. He thought that much of the informa¬ 
tion sought to be obtained by the report, could be had 
from the Auditor’s report—such as the payment of jtt" 
rors, &c. &c. But if it were desirable that the infor¬ 
mation be had, he would again say that it could not be 
obtained under two months—he could say so on the 
part of the clerk of Hamilton county. It had been said 
“ that it couhl be had in one week he however, nev¬ 
er saw the clerk who could do it. ^ The average 
gregate amount of cases on the civil, chancery and 
criminal dockets of Hamilton county, was about two 
thousand eight hundred, the duties of the clerk were 
consequently very onerous. The tenn of their civil 
court had recently terminated and the criminal court 
would shortly commence its sittings; therefore, he 
thought that returning all the information required 
would require much more labor than gentlemen were 
willing to allow. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK moved that the report be laid [j 
upon the table and ordered to be printed. j 

A division of the question having been demanded, 
the motion to lay on the table was agreed to. > 

Mr. STANTON said he could not see a particle of 
propriety in printing the report. The only part of the 
desired information wdiich was of importance, was to 
ascertain the amount of costs incurred in the litigation 
of causes brought on appeal from a lower to a higher 
tribunal. What they w'anted to ascertain was whether 
fifty dollars costs were paid in the litigation of a case 
in which the amount involved might be only one dol¬ 
lar. They all know at the present moment that such 
instances occurred. 

The question occurring being on the printing, it was 
put and lost. 

Mr. LIDEY from the select committee to whom was 
referred a resolution appointing a printer to the Con¬ 
vention, made the following report: 

The select committee to whom was referred the res¬ 
olution offered by Mr. Sawyer, appointing S. Medary 
printer for the Convention to revise, amend or change 
the constitution of Ohio, have had the same, with the 
pending amendments, under consideration, and now 
bog leave to report the following resolutions, and re¬ 
commend their adoption; 

“ Resolved, That Samuel Medary be and he hereby is 
appointed printer for this Convention. 

“ Resolved, That the printer for this Convention be 
paid at the following rates, to wit: 

For composition on Jounials, Debates, and 
Reports, per 1000 ems.35 cents 

For press work on the same per token.35 “ 

For composition on all work in bill form per 
1000 ems.25 “ 

For press work on the same per token.30 “ 

Provided, however, that the work shall be done and 
computed in accordance with existing laws on the sub¬ 
ject of State printing. 

Mr. NASH said he was not sufficiently acquainted 
with this matter of printing to know if the prices re¬ 
ported were or were not correct, not being a printer 
himself. He therefore proposed to send the report to 
a committee and moved to strike out all after “ re¬ 
solved,” and insert that a committee of five be ap¬ 
pointed by the chair to receive proposals for doing the 
printing of this Convention, having first given the vari¬ 
ous printers in the city reasonable notice to hand in 
such proposals, and that said committee report the 
names of the persons proposing to do the printing, and 
the tenns for the same. 

“ Resolved, That until otherwise ordered, the Secre¬ 
tary give out the printing at prices not exceeding those 
paid for similar work by the last General Assembly. 

















CONVENTION EEPOllTS. 


25 


Mr. SAWYER inquired whether the report of the 
committee corresponded with the prices paid by the 
last Legislature for printing. 

Mr. LEECH. In answer to the question propounded 
by the gentleman from Auglaize, (Mr. Sawykr) he 
would remark that the prices paid for printing by the 
last General Assembly of Ohio, were not a correct cri¬ 
terion to guide the committee, in investigating the sub¬ 
ject submitted for their consideration. The compensa¬ 
tion to be paid to the printer for this Convention—the 
price to be paid to him per thousand ems, for composi¬ 
tion, and that per token, for press work, ought to depend 
in a great measure, on the amount of work to be per- 
foiTued. If this Convention should require less print- 
ing to be done, than was required by the last Legisla¬ 
ture, then, the rates for composition and press work 
should be higher than those paid last winter, even ad¬ 
mitting that they are sufficiently high to amply com¬ 
pensate the printer, of which he was, to say the least, 
exceeding doubtful. That this position was a sound 
one, ho thought no gentleman w'ould j)retend to deny. 

He would also remark that the committee, in ma¬ 
king the report now under consideration, acted with 
an eye single to a system of the most rigid economy. 
He held that the resolution of the committee proposed 
to give the printing to Mr. Medary at fair, honest liv¬ 
ing prices, and he challenged gentlemen to the con¬ 
trary. 

Mr. LIDEY replied that he did not know exactly. 
He understood that the prices paid for the printing of 
bills last year was a correct price. The prices reported 
by the committee were the bill prices. He was willing 
to go for those prices, for it was hard work. For in¬ 
stance, what would the publisher have to pay for set¬ 
ting the type after finding the materials ? At the pres¬ 
ent day it was twenty-five cents per thousand ems. He 
thought the proposition to pay those prices correct. He 
did not wish any man to labor for nothing, he did not 
wish to do so himself. The matter set was to be meas¬ 
ured by the law of 1847, it was to be measured in the 
solid. 

Mr. NASH said that the subject which was referred 
to the committee was not in regard to what compen¬ 
sation was to be paid for printing. He was in favor of 
parties sending in their own bids for the work. The 
Convention should get its work done by contract, be¬ 
cause if they passed the resolution appointing Mr. Me¬ 
dary printer, and if he refused afterwards to do the 
work for the compensation designated, they had no 
power to make him do it. They had no proposition 
from him, stating for what prices he would do the 
work, or a proposition from any other printer. He 
thought that before they made any specific offer, it 
would be well to refer the matter to a committee, in 
order that they might make inquiries in regard to the 
cheapest and best mode of getting the work done. In 
fact, that they might make such inquiries as business 
men would make in relation to the prices of work with 
which they were unacquainted. 

Mr. STANTON desired to know what amount of 
printing was involved in this report. If it included 
the printing of the debates, journals, &c., it would in¬ 
clude a very large amount. The fourth section of the 
act provided that the debates and proceedings should 
be printed in a durable form. Whether the report re¬ 
ferred to the printing which the Reporter was author¬ 
ized to contract for, he did not know. Neither did he 
know if the Convention was now making a new con¬ 
tract or not. 

Mr. TAYLOR hoped that some manifestation would 
be made in the report so as to include only the printing 
ordered by the Convention. 

Mr. REEMELIN said that every member would see 
the importance of having some one to do their work. 
They were now all offering different propositions every 
day, and he did not know by whom they were at present 
printed; he supposed they were printed by Mr. Meda¬ 
ry. The subject of State printing had always been 
connected with more or less excitement. And he found 


that when those opposed to him on that floor heard the 
name of Sam Medaiy mentioned, it created a nervous 
excitement on their side of the House. There had been 
a great deal of humbug in relation to this question of 
printing. Objections should not be made to the major¬ 
ity exercising its right to appoint their officers as they 
thought proper; and they should pay their printer a fair 
living price—they should separate the matter from all 
other questions, and consider it in the light of employ¬ 
ing a clerk or any other olficer of the House. He did 
not coincide in the suggestions of Mr. Nash, that the 
contract for printing should be open to every bidder. 
He was not in lavor of putting a good mechanic against 
a poor one ; besides, there was another unequal circum¬ 
stance in the matter. The persons who were favored 
by the Whig party would underbid Mr. Medary, at pri 
ces which could not remunerate them. It was perfectly 
well known that parties made propositions to do the 
work at prices which were not living prices. The 
terms of the resolution provided that the work be done 
in accordance with the existing law. The law to which 
he referred had been established with a view to correct 
the abuses which had crept into the method of State 
printing. The printer of course would be responsible 
for all excess over the provisions of the act. He would 
ask gentlemen on the other side if they desired to cre¬ 
ate trouble in relation to election of this officer ? Would 
they oppose the election of an officer to do the work 
which was daily accumulating on their hands, merely 
to make political capital ? He hoped not. He asked 
that the majority be allowed to appoint the man whom 
they desire to do their work, and who would be respon¬ 
sible to the Convention, he asked them to appoint Mr. 
Medary. If the prices reported were too high, he for 
one would vote to reduce them. He might be paid for 
printing the debates twelve and one-half cents per 
thousand, and ten cents for running over, which was 
two and a half cents less than the work had ever been 
done for before. It was with extreme reluctance that 
he entered on the subject. Could they separate from 
Mr. Medary his peculiar character as leader of the 
press in Columbus, there would be less debate, less 
humbug and less demagoguery on the subject. He 
hoped the Convention would settle it by giving him fair, 
living pi’ices. 

Mr. CHAMBERS would not have interfered in the 
debate were it not for the extraordinary doctrine ad¬ 
vanced by the gentleman from Hamilton, (Mr. Rkme- 
LiN.) He had hoped that no man would have said:— 
‘‘ Elect a printer because he is of our party, and give 
him a liberal compensation.” They had claimed a 
right on the other side, to elect a printer, and he had 
no objection to their electing, or to whom the man 
should be, provided that he did the work on fair terms. 
He thought that as the people of Ohio had sent them 
there to frame for them a constitutional organic law, 
they should try to keep down a recurrence of that ex¬ 
citement which had been so extensive throughout the 
State. The gentleman from Hamilton said that ” tlm 
name of Sam Medary caused a nervous excitement in 
that hall.” He (Mr. C.) felt no excitement at all at 
the mention of his name. He knew Sam Medary like 
a book. He put it to the conscience of the gentleman, 
if he were about to build a house, whether or not he 
would like to see who could do it the cheapest. Now 
it was well known that there were two respectable 
printing establishments in this city; one owned by 
Medary and the other owned by Scott & Bascom. 
Both competent printers, and both capable to do the 
work. All that his side ol the House asked, was, to 
inquire of those parties, ” how much will you do this 
work for per thousand, and how much per token? He 
contended that the true mode of doing this business 
was to appoint a committee to report upon the subject. 
But if the majority would have no one to print for the 
Convention but Medaiy, then he wished to ascertain 
for what prices he would do the work. That was all 
his side of the House asked. He would refer to the 
manner in which these things had been managed here-^ 





26 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


tofore. He underatood that the printing of the Senate 
last year was not given to a printer, but to a gentleman 
belonging to the party of the majority here—it was 
decided by the legislature that Medary should have all 
the printing, notwithstanding that he had received more 
State printing than any other man in the State of Ohio. 

The gentlemen who held the balance of power in the 
Senate, agreed that the contract for the printing should 
be given to a certain man who was not a printer. He 
might take the contract, but Medary should do the 
printing. He hoped that they would proceed on a 
better principle. He was of the opinion that the 
printing of the Senate last year could have been done 
for a thousand dollars less than what it did cost, if it 
had been given to a direct Tprinter. That getting 
printing done second hand was very expensive. He 
was opposed therefore to the adoption of the report of 
the Committee. 

Mr. LIDEY would ask Mr. Chambers as a printer, 
if the prices contained in the report were greater than 
the ordinary price paid for such work. 

Mr. CHAMBERS replied that he had not been in 
the business for many years, and did not know. 

Mr. LARWILL did not profess to know anything 
about the value of printing itself, but if the prices re¬ 
ported were fair, he was willing to vote for Medary 
and pay him the price. By supporting Medary he 
was not going farther than his political opponents 
when they had the power, and if he were in the po¬ 
sition of the gentlemen on the other side, he would 
not hawk the printing about the market in order to 
make political capital, which possibly might be the ob¬ 
ject contended by gentlemen opposed to the report. 

Mr. STANTON remarked that it was proposed to 
appoint S. Medary printer to the Convention, and to 
give him certain prices ; to that he had nothing to ob 
ject. If he understood the resolution aright, it propo¬ 
sed to give him thirty-five cents per thousand ems for 
the composition of bills, journal, reports, &c., &c. 
Now he held in his hand a law by virtue of which he 
had a contract already for the composition of those 
very reports. 

Mr. SAWYER explained that the report did not con¬ 
template thirty-five cents per thousand, only twenty- 
five. 

Mr. STANTON demanded the reading of the reso¬ 
lution, which was agreed to. 

Mr. STANTON considered that he was not mistaken, 
so far as the question he alluded to was concerned. 
Reports, journal, &c., &c., were to be paid for at the 
rate of thirty-five cents per thousand ems. Here was 
a law, by virtue of which the aggregate cost of the 
reports, set up by Medary and Scott & Bascom, was 
not to exceed twenty-five cents per thousand. He 
would ask, were those thirty-five cents to be in ad¬ 
dition to the twenty-five cents already provided for ? 
Did gentlemen wish to pay sixty cents per thousand 
for this printing? That was the plain English of it. 
He was indifferent whether the amendment of the 
gentleman from Gallia (Mr. Nash) prevailed or not. 
All he asked was that Medary have fair prices, and no 
more. He believed the prices reported more than fair 
prices, and would put into Medary’s pocket more than 
he ought to get. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I cannot think it possible, sir, that 
the resolution before us contemplated any such thing 
as suggested by the gentleman. The law under which 
this Convention has assembled, has clearly indicated 
the manner in which the daily publication of the re¬ 
ports, proceedings and debates of this body, in the 
newspapers of this city, should be made out, and it has 
anticipated, as is well known, that these reports thus 
prepared, will be consolidated and thrown into book 
form. I am willing to vote for that resolution, fixing 
these rates as applicable to any other printing ordered 
by the Convention, except for the stenographic or pho¬ 
nographic reports of its proceedings, which it has au¬ 
thorized. For I am unwilling that these publications 
should be included under these terms, by any implica¬ 


tion whatever. This distinction ought to be fully un¬ 
derstood, and it ought to be made, because it is clear¬ 
ly intended by the law summoning this Convention. In 
respect to the rates offered by the resolution, I must 
be allowed to dissent from the gentleman from Mus¬ 
kingum, that we should invite proposals for competi¬ 
tion from the different offices here. They cannot doit 
without inviting the personality that has marked the 
press of Columbus. No general proposition of this 
kind can be presented here, without being entangled 
with the personal feuds that have defiled the press of 
this city. The personal aspect of this printing question 
is one which I had hoped was not again to be a matter 
of dispute here. We should pay the best price which 
IS given to the description of labor required here, and 
after ascertaining that, select the individual to do the 
work. The system of competition, when considered 
as applicable to printing, is a vicious one. Apply it to 
any other department of industry, and its viciousness 
will be immediately evident. I believe the rates which 
have been proposed for the ordinary printing of the 
Convention are just and reasonable rates, and believ¬ 
ing them to be so, I am prepared to vote for the same. 
But, sir, I do desire that the question of the consolida¬ 
ted fuller reports of this body, prepared by the Repor¬ 
ter appointed by the Convention this day, shall be kept 
separate from the resolution now before us. It has 
been kept separate so far. The committee which has 
just reported had in charge the ordinary printing of the 
Convention, but the statement in regard to the full re¬ 
port of all the proceedings which may come before us 
was not referred to that committee, but to another com¬ 
mittee altogether, which is still in session, upon the 
subject of the reports of these proceedings. Sir, I beg 
leave to offer the following amendment: “ And provi¬ 
ded further, that the printing ot the report of the pro¬ 
ceedings and debates by J. V. Smith be held subject to 
the further f)rder of the Convention.” 

Mr. SAWYER. My party predilections are pretty 
well known to every person. So that it is well known 
what I am, and to what party I belong. I left home 
with a resolution to leave behind me all party feelings. 
I did not bring them with me, and they shall not affect 
my conduct here if I can help it. When I offered a 
resolution appointing Samuel Medary printer, no gen¬ 
tleman here can say that I had not the light to do so, 
or that I violated any principle. I belong to the party 
in the majority, and I had as good right, in that resolu¬ 
tion, to appoint Samuel Medary to be the printer for 
the State, as any gentleman upon the other side of the 
house would have to appoint Mr. Scott State printer. 
This matter of printing has been referred to a commit¬ 
tee. That committee has reported; and they fixed the 
rates which we should pay for our printing. There 
are two practical printers upon that committee, as I 
understand. They made that report upon their honor, 
and state that the rate therein named was a fair com¬ 
pensation; and nothing more than a lair compensation. 
The worthy gentleman from Muskingum got up in his 
place and stated that he believed, if we allowed the 
report of that committee, we should give Mr. Medary 
20 or 25 per cent, more than he ought to have. One 
member of that committee gets up and interrogates 
him, and asks him to state, as a printer, whether he be¬ 
lieves Mr. Medary can do the jirinting for a smaller 
sum than that named, and at last he (Mr. Chambers) 
is compelled to say that he is not a judge in such mat¬ 
ters. Is there any gentleman upon this floor who is 
ready to stand up in his place, and say that the price 
named by the resolution is too much ? The two gen¬ 
tlemen upon this committee, who are both practical 
printers, say that it is a fair price. 

The gentleman from Logan I think, misapprehends 
the reading and construction of the resolution. I think 
it refers exclusively, to the printing of these resolutions, 
reports and the printing of the Convention, which we 
are about to enter, and in short, all the proceedings of 
this body, but it has nothing to do with these daily re¬ 
ports which are made through the medium of the news- 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 27 


papers. If Mr. Medary, as is true, has type set up for 
the publication of his paper, and if he can to-morrow 
use the type for the publication in book fonn, it is not his 
fault. Now, under the circumstances, I believe the res¬ 
olution is right. As to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Erie, I am not prepared to say whether 
that amendment will do much good or harm. I sup¬ 
pose, Mr. President, that we have as much right, pro¬ 
bably, to revise the proceedings of the Legislature, in 
relation to the compensation agreed to be paid for the 
publication in the papers, as we have a right to re-ap¬ 
point Mr. Smith our reporter. Let me observe, by way 
of conclusion, that I came here determined to divest 
myself of party feelings and predilections, and prepared 
to do everything that will make the character of the 
Convention such an one as will please the people. I 
hope that you gentlemen of the Whig side, have come 
here with similar views. It is true that you never de¬ 
nounce party, but I ask you to look back at your con¬ 
duct. Your first act, after you came into the hall, was 
to aiTay party against party. You were not satisfied 
with the selection of the presiding officer of this body, 
and, if I may be permitted to say it, we selected a 
man of whom you and I need not be ashamed. You 
now acknowledge him a person of capacity, and I take 
it, you are really sincere in laying aside your party pre¬ 
dilections for once. Now, my friends, do not complain 
of the few remarks which I have made upon the sub¬ 
ject. Let us quit even. You have made a spur at this 
side and we have made the same at you. Now, I come 
in as a kind of mediator. [Great laughter.] Let us pass 
this resolution [continued laughter] now, and from this 
time let us work to make a constitution which will be 
for Whigs and Democrats, or in other words, for repub¬ 
licans. Are you agreed to this? If you are, let this 
resolution pass, and let us not say that the price is too 
high. 

Mr. FARR. I believe there is a misapprehension in 
regard to some points of the question under considera¬ 
tion. The price paid by Mr. Medary to journeymen is 
25 cents per thousand ems, of which we give him, for 
publishing the reports, 12^ cts., and then he has the 
trouble of revising, comparing, and in fact the whole re¬ 
sponsibility of the matter. In regard to the statements 
made by my friend from Erie, I do not agree with him 
that there should be a distinction between the printing 
of the reports of the Convention and the otlier kinds of 
printing. In regard to the prices named in the resolu¬ 
tion, I consider them altogether reasonable—35 cents, 
I believe, for the composition, and 25 cents per token 
for press-work. I do not consider those prices as ex¬ 
travagant, but fair living prices for the work. This 
matter of bidding for work of tliis kind, is exceedingly 
contemptible, and when a man makes such a proposi¬ 
tion to me, as a printer, I will have nothing to do with 
him. I tell him my regular prices, and if he wishes 
work done lower, he must go elsewhere. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. I uo not myself know 
whether the Convention has the power to appropriate 
the money for this printing. I do not know where the 
money is, that we can appropriate. Perhaps by the 
law authorizing us to appoint a printer, for that printer 
is to is tu be an officer of the Convention, we can make 
him compensation, because we are authorized express¬ 
ly by the law, to appoint the necessary officers; and 
provide for them compensation. That compensation 
is to be paid out of the sum which is appropriated to 
defray the expenses of the Convention. Well then, if 
this printer is an officer of the Convention, we can fix 
his compensation. From the necessity of the case, I 
should consider him as an officer of the Convention. 
It seems to me, that we cannot get along without a 
printer; and we certainly cannot have a printer, unless 
we consider him as an officer of the Convention. 
Whether the price fixed is reasonable or not, I do not 
know. I would as soon Mr. Medary would do the prin¬ 
ting, as any other man, provided he would do it upon fair 
terms. There ai'e other printers in the state, in whom, 
I perhaps, should have more confidence. I do not ob¬ 


ject to him upon that ground. Now the 4th section, of 
the law provides, that the General Assembly shall ap¬ 
point l)y joint resolution “ a Reporter, who shall I’eport 
the proceedings and debates of this Convention, under 
the direction and control thereof, and the Convention 
shall secure the copy right to the state, and provide 
lor the publishing of such proceedings and debates in 
a durable form.” Now what is this Convention to do? 
We are to secure the copy right. How are we to do 
that. I do not exactly understand for I cannot for my 
life conceive how it will be done. 

We have a committee appointed, whose duty it is to 
ascertain in what manner this publication shall be 
made. That committee, has as yet, not reported. If 
that committee shall report, that every thing in con¬ 
nection with the proceeding of this Convention shall 
be published, such a report would fill 10 or 15 large 
volumes. But as I said before, this committee has not 
yet reported. The business of the reporter, is to make 
a contract with these printers, to publish in their pa¬ 
pers the daily proceedings of the Convention. 

In connection with this, they are to be published, I 
understand, in book form, and circulated among the 
people, so that the people may get information in re¬ 
gard to what we are doing here. I do not know what is 
to become of our copy right. The publication of the 
dehates will be made by the printers of these two pa¬ 
pers, and for that puhlication, they receive 25 cents 
per thousand ems—if the debates are to be published 
in that form, I don’t see the necessity of publishing 
them again I do not want to act upon the subject, un¬ 
til we get a report from the committee. 

Mr. TAYLOR upon suggestion, withdrew his amend¬ 
ment. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I concur in part, with the amend¬ 
ment proposed. I also concur with the remarks of the 
gentleman from Logan. It appears to me, that the 
Convention have not duly cpnsidered the subjects con¬ 
nected with this matter. The State of Ohio for some 
purpose, which has not been intimated here, saw fit to 
provide for the publication of the proceedings of this 
Convention, as they transpired, in the two daily pa¬ 
pers of this city. They have also seen fit to provide, 
that for the purpose of preventing any other person 
publishing these proceedings in book form, and making 
them the subject of profit and gain, that this Conven¬ 
tion shall attend to securing the copy right of its pro¬ 
ceedings. They have designed that no other publica¬ 
tion should be made than is made in this book and the 
two daily papers of this city. 

I conceive that the inquiry which the gentleman 
from Logan makes here, is a very appropriate one.— 
Now in the resolution embracing the printing of the 
journal of our debates and proceedings, in permanent 
form, I am of the opinion, that the compensation pro¬ 
vided would be too high. I conceive that the proceed¬ 
ings and debates of the Convention can he thrown 
into book form, and published according to the re¬ 
quirements of the law, by taking the matter that is al¬ 
ready set up, and in this way the work can be done 
cheaper than if it were to be set up anew. I do not 
hesitate to say, that I shall vote to give Mr. Meda^ 
the printing, but I wish to ascertain what will be a fair, 
and no more than a fair price. 

Mr. McCORMICK. I have noticed that one-fourth 
part of the time of the Legislature each year is con¬ 
sumed in discussing the subject of printing. The reso¬ 
lution offered by the committee, it appears to me, em¬ 
braces the whole subject matter over which we have 
any control; that is our debates and proceedings. If 
then, we do not now settle the whole question, the 
discussion which so happily commenced yesterday, and 
re-commenced and continued to-day, will be re-com¬ 
menced and continued at a future day when we pr^ 
ceed to elect a printer to print our debates. Take it 
for granted that the word journals, as mentioned in the 
resolution, includes what is termed the “ proceedings” 
of the whole Convention. If our jounials are not our 
proceedings, they are nothing. The proceedings and 










28 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


journals being correlative terms—the debates of the 
Convention being another and a different thing. In 
this we provide for a public printer, who shall print 
our journal. We have provided for a printer who shall 
print our proceedings, and therefore unless the motion 
to amend strike out the word ^‘journals,” as well as 
the word “ debates,” it would not reach the cause of 
grievance assigned by gentlemen who oppose the pas¬ 
sage of the resolution. But I would oppose the amend¬ 
ment going that far, becaiise I think it highly neces¬ 
sary that we should settle the whole (juestion at one 
sitting, or one discussion, and not again produce this 
excitement in the Hall, and consuming time in the dis¬ 
cussion of that eternal topic—the public printing. I 
differ very materially with the gentleman from Geauga, 
in his construction of the law. It has been, unfortu¬ 
nately, the case with me during a few years past, either 
on the account of the construction of my own mind, or 
on account of the construction of the Supreme Court of 
Ohio, that when one of the judges of that Supreme 
Court gives a construction to a law, I begin to suspect 
that opinion. Sir, the gentleman did not give a con 
struction to this whole sentence. There is more in 
that portion of the statute than he exj)lained—than we 
heard. The sentence in itself is a whole, complete sen¬ 
tence. It reals thus: “That this General Assembly 
shall ai)point by joint resolution a reporter, who shall 
engage an efficient corps of assistants, and report the 
debates and proceedings of the Convention, under the 
control and direction of that body.” If then we have 
a right to provide for the publishing and reporting our 
proceedings and debates, we have a right at once to 
appoint a printer who shall print those debates. If we 
have a right to appoint the printer who shall print the 
debates, we have a right to stipulate the price at which 
these debates shall be printed. It is for this purpose, 
and for the purpose of settling the question fully that I 
am opposed to this amendment, and propose to support 
the whole resolution as reported by the committee. 

Mr. NASH. I have sat here for the last half hour 
perfectly bewildered at the excitement which has 
grown out of nothing. There is nothing in my amend¬ 
ment that puts up the printing to the lowest bidder. 
The gentleman from Hamilton was the first man who 
undertook to drive the public printing into the field of 
party politics. I said nothing about printers of this 
kind in what I offered. The amendment which I of¬ 
fered is a single proposition, and has no reference to 
this matter of a public printer. I make no objections 
to any individual whatever doing the work, but I do 
not understand the power of the committee to be as 
expressive as this report assumes. The Convention 
can appoint a committee of its own members, who 
shall ascertain what is a reasonable price, by asking 
practical men to hand in their prices, for which they 
are willing to do the work. The committee shall re¬ 
port to this Convention the prices, and this body can 
then decide which of these offers it will accept. Has 
that any thing to do with any individual, either with 
Mr. Medary or anybody else in Columbus ? I agree 
with the gentleman that this idea of giving it to the 
lowest bidder is one that I should not fancy very much. 
But I want to give a fair and reasonable price, and 
therefore want a committee appointed for the specific 
purpose of ascertaining what would be a fair and rea¬ 
sonable compensation for the work to be done. The 
committee were not authorized to do any thing of this 
kind. Give to such a committee the whole matter 
under consideration, and provide specifically for the 
kind of work we want. I do not wish to throw any 
obstruction in the way of the Convention appointing 
their printer. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I think the gentleman may well 
exclaim, “ Oh, wad some power the giftie gie us, to see 
ourselves as ithers see us!” It is not the first time that 
such an excitement has been raised, when this subject 
of printing has come up. I am extremely sorry that, 
in the few remarks I made, I should have stirred up so 
much bile on the other side. When I said that there 


was a good deal ol demagogueism and humbuggery 
about this matter of printing, I had no particukr refer¬ 
ence to gentlemen upon the other side oi the house.-— 
Their conduct reminds me that there is a passage in 
Scripture like this : “ The wicked flee when no man 

pursueth.” I have made no charge of demagogueism 
against any gentleman in this Convention, but i 

think, the name of Medary was mentioned, there j 
was a peculiar nervousness among the gentlemen on 
the other side of the house. I wish to call the attention : 
of the Convention to the fact, that in their extrenae de- i 
sire for economy, they are likely to make a bad bar- j 
gain, on account of the time spent in this debate. ^ I 

I never had but little to do with printing', but Irom , 
my experience in the matter I am prepared to say that 
the best thing the Convention can do, is to get the ; 
printing out of their hands and appoint a printer, who 
shall do the work. I have no desire to drag political 
questions in here. If I have referred a little to the 
past, and it has proved a sore and unpleasant matter to 
the gentleman on the other side, why I can’t help it. 

A MEMBER. I do not rise for the purpose of en¬ 
tering into this discussion, but I think it must appear 
to every gentleman, who has listened to the discussion, 
that this resolution should go to a committee. It has 
been suggested to me by gentlemen here, that the 
law fixing the price and regulating the printing of the 
State, is not in force. I am not aware whether 
this is a fact or not. If it is so, then that portion which 
refers to existing laws will be of im effect. On ac¬ 
count of the various conflicting opinions which have 
been expressed here, I should hope that a reference 
made of be taken upon this subject. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. The important matter in the 
question now before the Convention is, the fairness of 
the terms to be paid for this printing. Thirty-five cents 
per thousand ems, I regard as a low and extremely 
moderate price for this kind of work. I have myself 
paid that price for composition on a weekly publication 
in the city of Cincinnati. I have before me the official 
report of the debates and proceedings in the Wisconsin j 
Constitutional Convention, to which I wish to call the 
particular attention of gentlemen who would give out 
the printing to the lowest bidder. The Secretary was 
authorized by resolution, to receive sealed proposals for 
the printing of the Convention. The first proposal of¬ 
fered under this resolution, was to do the printing for 40 
cents per thousand ems—the second proposal, you will 
observe, there was a competition—offered to do the 
work for 40 cents, the third for 29 cents—and the foui tb 
bid, to which I commend the attention of gentlemen on 
the other side, I will read. “The undersigned, pro¬ 
prietors of the Wisconsin Argus printing establishment, 
hereby propose to do the incidental printing of the Con¬ 
vention for the sum of one cent. Signed H. Tenny, J. 
Smith and B. Holt.” And, sir, the Convention, as I am 
infonned, did act upon and accept this bid. Here is 
the action of this magnanimous Convention of Wiscon¬ 
sin upon this subject, and it carries out the principle of 
those who believe the State ought to give out the print¬ 
ing to the lowest bidder. For one, 1 would be glad to 
insert in the constitution which we are about to frame, 
a provision that in all cases the State should require of 
contractors for its work, sufficient sureties that they, the 
contractors, should in all cases pay to their “ hands ” 
and workmen, the very highest wages of their respec¬ 
tive trades. Sir, it should be the object of Government 
to protect and elevate the condition of labor, not to de¬ 
press it. I tell you, sir, that no individual will offer to 
do this printing at an extremely low price unless he in¬ 
tends, at the same time, to grind the workingman down 
to the starving point—to pay the lowest wages and, per¬ 
haps, employ boys and apprentices to do the work of 
journeymen. Political animosities and business jeal¬ 
ousies are not a sufficient incentive to make men forget 
entirely their private interests—avarice is a stronger 
passion I hope that we may now settle, for the future 
action of legislative bodies, this question of public 
printing. Whenever our Whig friends are in the ma- 















CONVENTION REPORTS 


( 


29 


jority, I hope that no Democrat will be found unwilling 
to pay the fullest reasonable price for the work. Why, 
sir, if the people had put up our seats in this Conven¬ 
tion to the highest bidder, men would have been found 
willing to come here for 75 cents and for 50 cents a day. 
Some would have been found willing to come here 
without compensation and pay something for the privi¬ 
lege. We could get the places of these messenger 
boys—of these sergeants and doorkeepers, filled for 
less than half a fair and honorable compensation. If 
you wish to build a house, would you ask your mechan 
ics to perform the work for less than the fair and rea¬ 
sonable price fixed for the several kinds of work. Ac¬ 
cording to my opinion, it is dishonorable even to ask a 
tradesman to take less than a fair and living price lor 
his goods. The Representatives of the people should 
act in the same honorable and magnanimous manner 
when acting for the State that they should in their pri¬ 
vate transactions. I am disposed to vote for the origi¬ 
nal resolution. 

Mr. HAWKINS. What this Convention desire is sim¬ 
ply to get at what would be a fair and I’easonable com¬ 
pensation for the work contemplated in this reso¬ 
lution. Now sir, from the little intercourse I have had 
with this body, I think there is not a clear and distinct 
understanding as to the work contemplated by the 
resolution. I still maintain, that the resolution con¬ 
templated the printing of the journal and proceedings 
of this Convention, under the 4th section of the act call¬ 
ing this Convention. Now sir, the Reporter of the Con¬ 
vention has already made a binding contract to print 
the journals and proceedings of this Convention, in 
each of the daily papers of this place. Neither you, 
nor any body else has a right to interfere with that con¬ 
tract. We must pay the price to those two journals 
for that work, contracted to be paid. This officer, ap¬ 
pointed by the Legislature, has entei'ed upon his du¬ 
ties, and made a contract at a stipulated price,—12^ 
cents per thousand ems. If then you add 35 cents 
more for turning the matter into book form, you give 
47 cents per thousand ems, for the publication of that 
matter in the book, provided this Convention shall con¬ 
clude to take the matter set up in these newspapers 
and throw it into a permanent book form. Now, if the 
price contemplated in this resolution, for printing the 
debates is too high, they should not be embraced in 
the resolution. If the resolution could be so framed or 
modified as to make this matter a little more clear and 
distinct, I should be glad to see it pass. I wish to add 
another word. We have appointed a committee upon 
the subject of the publication of this journal in a per¬ 
manent shape. It is first to be determined whether 
the whole matter of the proceedings of this Conven¬ 
tion is to be set up or not. That committee has not 
yet reported. We should by no means pass this reso¬ 
lution until we know what is the best form in which 
to publish this journal. I propose therefore, for the 
sake of certainty, that the resolution shall be modified 
so as not to include the debates and journals in a per¬ 
manent form. 

Upon motion, the Convention adjourned. 


FRIDAY, May 10, 1850. 

NEW MEMBER. ' 

Mr. SWIFT announced the arrival of his colleague, 
Mr. Friend Cook of Portage, who appeared and was 
sworn in by Mr. Hitchcock of Geauga, a member of 
the Convention and a Judge of the supreme court of 
Ohio. 

STANDING COMMITTEES. 

Mr. ROBERTSON from a select committee made the 
following report: 

The committee appointed to report a method for 
conducting the business of the Convention, beg leave 
to report the following : 

That sixteen committees be appointed by the Pres¬ 
ident to which shall be respectively referred so much 
of the constitution and other matters as relate to the 
specific subjects hereinafter designated as appropriate 


to each committee and that they report what amend¬ 
ment or provisions are required therein. 

1. A committee on the Legislative department, to 
consist of 9 members. 

2. A committee on the Executive department, to 
consist of 7. 

3. A committee on the Judicial department, to con¬ 
sist of 13. 

4. A committee on the apportionment of representa¬ 
tion, to consist of 21. 

5. A committee on the Elective Franchise, to con¬ 
sist of 5. 

6. A committee on Corporations, other than corpora¬ 
tions for Banking, to consist of 5. 

7. A committee on Banking and Currency, to con¬ 
sist of 7. 

8. A committee on Public debts and Public works, 
to consist of 9. 

9. A committee on future amendments of the consti¬ 
tution, to consist of 5. 

10. A committee on Education, to consist of 5. 

11. A committee on the Militia, to consist of 7. 

12. A committee on Finance and Taxation, to con¬ 
sist of 5. 

13. A committee on the Public Institutions of the 
State, to consist of 5. 

14. A committee on the Preamble and the Bill of 
Rights. 

15. A committee on Jurisprudence, to consist of 9. 

16. A committee on such Miscellaneous subjects and 
propositions as are not referred to in the foregoing fif¬ 
teen committees, to consist of 7 members. 

Resolved, That all propositions made by any mem¬ 
ber for the amendment or alteration of the constitution, 
be first submitted to the consideratsin of the Conven¬ 
tion before reference to any commfttee.” 

Mr. HOLMES. As these resolutions involve mat¬ 
ter of considerable interest to the Convention, and as 
its exact reading by the Secretary had reached him but 
very indistinctly, he moved that they be laid on the 
table and ordered to be printed. 

The motion was agreed to. 

reporting. 

Mr. ORTON, from a select committee, made the fol¬ 
lowing report: 

The select committee to whom was referred the 
communication of the Reporter, likewise the resolution 
of Mr. Sawyer, providing for the publication of six 
hundred copies of the journal, debates and proceedings 
of the Convention, with accompanying amendment, by 
Mr. Dorsey ; also, Mr. Green, relative to members 
proposing in writing, corrections to the authorized pub¬ 
lished debates, have had the several matters above 
mentioned under consideration, and beg leave to re¬ 
port the following resolutions: 

Resolved, That we approve the doings of the Repor¬ 
ter, prior to the sitting of the Convention. 

Resolved, That the proceedings and debates be con¬ 
densed into a volume of not more than 1200 pages, 
such for instance, as the New York Convention debates, 
and that 1000 copies be published in the English lan- 
guage. 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to publish the jour¬ 
nal in book form, separate and apart from the proceed¬ 
ings and debates, and that in the opinion of this Con¬ 
vention, it will be inexpedient for the several commit¬ 
tees on the constitution, to accompany their reports 
with written explanations of the reasons which have 
influenced them, in agreeing thereto. 

Resolved, That whenever a member is incorrectly re-, 
ported, he may apply to the Reporter for correction, 
and in case of disagreement between them, the matter 
may be brought before the Convention for disposition. 

On motion by Mr. ARCIIBOLD, the report was laid 
on the table and ordered to be printed. 

COUNTY DEBTS. 

Mr. SWAN from the select committee to which was 
referred the resolution oflered on Wednesday, provi¬ 
ding for inquiries as to certain debts of the counties, 












30 


CONVENTION IlEPOETS. 


reported and recommended the adoption of the follow¬ 
ing, which was read: 

Resolved, That the Auditor of State be, and he is 
hereby requested to address circulars to each of the 
County Auditors of this State, requesting from them 
answers to the following inquiries: 

1st. What amount of indebtedness is your county 
authorized to incur by vote or otherwise for railroads 
and public improvements, other than county buildings; 
and the date of the law, and the number of the volume 
and page of the Statute Book, authorizing such indebt¬ 
edness. 

2d. What amount of indebtedness for such improve¬ 
ments, has been authorized by the vote of the county, 
and not yet actually incurred. 

3d. What is the present amount of the indebtedness 
of your county; for what object the same was incurred, 
designating the amount for such object, when due, and 
the kind of evidence of the debt issued by the county. 

4th. What is the present market value of the evi¬ 
dence of debt mentioned in the preceding inquiry. 

5th. What was the income, if any, in 1849, derived 
to the county from the investments above referred to. 

6th. What is the present market value of the stock, 
&c., which the county has received, oris entitled to on 
account of said indebtedness, or the probable amount 
at which said stock, &c., could be sold. 

7th. What was the total amount of the county taxes 
of your county, for the year 1849, specifying the amount 
for each object. 

8th. If any townships of your county, have been au¬ 
thorized by law, to subscribe or otherwise contract 
debts for railroads or other public improvements, state 
the amount of the debts authorized to be incurred, and 
the object of such debts. 

9th. What amomit was paid to grand juries in the 
year 1848. 

10th. What amount was paid to prosecuting attor¬ 
neys during the same period. 

11th. What was the amontof costs in criminal cases, 
exclusive of the above, in 1848? 

Resolved, That the Auditor of State be and he is here¬ 
by requested to address circulars to the Mayors and 
other presiding officers of the principal cities and in¬ 
corporated towns of this State, requesting answers to 
the first seven of the above inquiries, in respect to the 
debts, &c., of such cities and towns. 

Resolved, That the Auditor of State be and he is here¬ 
by requested to make up and communicate to this Con¬ 
vention, a condensed tabular statement of the answers 
of the several Auditors and city and town officers, to 
the above inquiries; and that the Secretary of the Con¬ 
vention transmit a copy of these resolutions to the Au¬ 
ditor of State. 

Mr. LARWILL moved to lay the resolution on the 
table and to print. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. Is that motion debateable? 

The PRESIDENT. It is not, sir. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I would like to state a 
reason why I think it should not prevail. [Several voi¬ 
ces—“ leave, leave.”] The committee have had some 
conversation with the Auditor of State, and he is of 
opinion that it is important that these inquiries should 
be propounded to the county Auditors at as early a day 
as possible; and it seems to me that if this motion were 
to prevail, it would induce unnecessary delay. If I un¬ 
derstood the feeling of the committee, they have no 
desire to print; and unless it be considered important 
for the inlbiTiiation of the Convention, I hope the mo¬ 
tion will not prevail. 

Mr. LARWILL. I am inclined to the opinion, that 
there are different opinions in the Convention, upon the 
propriety of sending forth this document. I am not 
prepared to say that I would go to so gi’eat a length in¬ 
to this matter, as the gentleman proposing the resolu¬ 
tion, I would like to see it printed. 

Mr. MORRIS. If this information is necessary, it 
seems to me that it is important we should have it as 
soon as possible; and I think it is necessary. We are 


met here for the purpose of deliberating upon proposi¬ 
tions connected with fundamental law, and I consider 
this information necessary and important to guide us in 
our future action. If we order the printing now, I 
think it would cause a delay which would not only be 
wholly unnecessaiy, but which would operate materi¬ 
ally against the interest which ought to be advanced. 

I hope, therefore, that the motion will not prevail. 

The motion to lay on the table, and print, was reject- j 
ed; and then the resolution was adoi)ted. | 

ADJOURNING OVER TILL MONDAY. ! 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Before the Convention proceed¬ 
ed to the consideration of the orders ol the day, he de¬ 
sired to make a motion, which he found it necessary 
to preface with a few remarks. The select committee i 
on Rules had been in session and appointed a sub¬ 
committee, and it had been found by them that the 
time of recess night and morning did not furnish time 
sufficient for the performance of their duties, and, un¬ 
less the Convention were willing to indulge in a little 
more leisure, it would be impossible for them to make 
suitable progress, with the business before them. It 
would also be recollected that on yesterday some 
change was directed to be made in the location of the 
banister which separates from the lobby; and in or¬ 
der that this order might be executed, and give time 
to the committee, he would move that when the Con¬ 
vention adjourn to-day it shall be till Monday. 

Mr. REEMELIN suggested that perhaps it might be 
better for the committee to ask leave of absence. He 
did not like this adjourning over. It was running 
ahead of precedent. He expected other committee re¬ 
ports to-day requiring consideration, and thought that 
as much as possible of the time of the present week 
should be occupied for the purpose of becoming com¬ 
pletely organized by the formation of standing com¬ 
mittees. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, perceiving that the gentleman 
from Hamilton (Mr. Reemelin) was quite willing.to 
dispense with the presence of the committee, confessed 
that, as thei’e were but thirteen of them, they might 
not be able very much to enlighten the Convention up¬ 
on the subjects which might be under consideration. 

But he was of the opinion that the whole Convention 
had better adjoura, while the cai’penters might be in 
operation with saw and hammer. 

Mr. HAWKINS thought perhaps it would subserve 
all purposes just as well for the Convention to adjourn 
now till to-morrow morning. 

Mr. CUTLER considered the suggestion of the gen¬ 
tleman from Morgan (Mr. Hawkins) a good one. The 
report of the select committee on Business was now on 
the table to be printed, and could best come up for ac¬ 
tion to-morrow; whereas, if the Convention adjourned 
over till Monday, it would be putting ofi' the consider¬ 
ation of that report too long. He considered it impor¬ 
tant that that report should be acted upon, and the an¬ 
nouncement of the standing committees should be had 
as soon as possible. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. The committee charged with 
the duty of presenting a method for conducting busi¬ 
ness, had considered this subject well, and regarded as 
very important that these committees should be provi¬ 
ded as soon as possible. He hoped that no adjourn¬ 
ment would take place till this matter should be dis¬ 
posed of, so that when the Convention should meet on 
Monday, it might be fiilly organized and prepared for 
action; for the business of the committee could not be 
begun until they were announced. He therefore sug¬ 
gested to reconsider the vote to lay on the table, and 
print the report of the committee on the method of con¬ 
ducting business; fo^ he believed that if it were now 
read over by the Secretary in a distinct voice, that the < 
Convention would agree to adopt it. The committees 
could then be appointed by Monday, and the Conven¬ 
tion go to work. 

ThePRESIDENT said the question was on the adop¬ 
tion of the resolution, that when the Convention ad¬ 
journ, it shall adjourn till Monday. 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


31 


Mr. ROBERTSON then would move to lay that res-|' 
olution on the table for the present. 

Mr. SAWYER would merely observe thatit was un- ' 
derstod in the committee on business, that action upon i 
their report shoidd not be delayed for printing. It was i 
altogether important that the President should have 
this matter with him from the present hour till Monday. 

The PRESIDENT said the gentleman could give 
notice of a motion to re-consider, and when the pend¬ 
ing question was disposed of, his would be in order. 

Mr. Robertson’s motion to lay Mr. Archbold’s res¬ 
olution on the table was agreed to. 

STANDING COMMITTEES. 

Mr. SAWYER now moved to re-consider the vote 
by which the resolution reported by the select commit¬ 
tee on Business had been laid on the table and ordered 
to be printed, adding his trust that as a matter of ex¬ 
pediency, and for the sake of forwarding business, the 
motion would prevail, and that the report would be 
now passed upon. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said if the vote was reconsidered, 
he should immediately desire it again to be laid on the 
table and printed. He considered this report to be 
one of the most important preliminary measures of 
that body, and that it was of the utmost importance 
that it should be well understood, when it came up 
for action. For one, he was unwilling to risk his vote 
upon a matter of so much importance as that of a 
proposition embracing organic rules for that body, 
without first having the opportunity to read it over de¬ 
liberately for himself. The report might be said to 
embrace a sort of constitution for that body; and it 
was of great importance that they should have a con¬ 
venient constitution, and not one which might impose 
iron shackles upon members. He desired to see for 
himself what it was to be, exactly, before it should be 
passed upon. The printing of the report would inter¬ 
pose no sort of impediment to the examination of the 
paper by the president, and the consultations for the 
formation of the standing committees. He hoped the 
printing would be insisted upon, and that every dele¬ 
gate would consider well what kind of organic law 
should be imposed upon them. For himself, he de¬ 
sired the largest liberty consistent with a proper dis¬ 
charge of the duties of the body, and the dignity of its 
position before the people. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler was not disposed, upon that 
floor, to impose upon gentlemen an unnecessary amount 
of labor of any kind ; but he must say that the report 
under consideration embraced business of the most 
important character to every delegate, and the whole 
ought to be thoroughly understood before gentlemen 
are called to vote upon it. He did not suppose the 
printing of the report would cause any very great de¬ 
lay. It was not very lengthy, and he presumed that 
if it were sent to the printer in any reasonable time it 
would be furnished to the Convention by the com¬ 
mencement of the session in the afternoon. If that 
should be the case, the Convention would then be at 
liberty to act upon it, by adopting, rejecting,or amend¬ 
ing it, as they see proper. He wished to notice one 
other matter m this connection. There was a resolu¬ 
tion ofl’ered by the member from Monroe [Mr. Arch- 
bold] for adjourning over till Monday. He did not 
feel particularly anxious to urge the passage of that 
resolution, nor was it supposed by the mover that the 
Convention would adjourn immediately upon the adop¬ 
tion of that resolution,—especially if they were to act 
upon the report made by the delegate from Fairfield, 
[Mr. Robertson.] That would furnish business to 
occupy their attention throughout the day. But, it 
would be recollected, that there was a committee ap¬ 
pointed for the purpose of reporting rules for the gov¬ 
ernment of the Convention; and that another com¬ 
mittee had been appointed for the purpose of ta¬ 
king charge of propositions connected with the meth¬ 
od of conducting the business of the Convention— 
the committee which had made a report that morning, 
Now, it would be seen that the duties of those two 


committees to some extent conflict; and it would be 
impossible for the committee on rules to proceed to the 
discharge of their duties, till they could ascertain the 
spirit ot the report of this business committee. For in¬ 
stance: it was thought to be the duty of the commit¬ 
tee on rules, to designate the standing committees, and 
to determine the number of members which should be 
appointed for each ; but that duty had been taken from 
them and given to the other committee. The other 
committee had reported this morning, and the Conven¬ 
tion had ordered the printing of their report. Now it 
was important that the committee of thirteen should 
have printed copies of that report, for the purpose of 
ascertaining what portions of business had been acted 
upon which would otherwise come under their notice 
and supervision: and for that reason he desired the 
printing of the report. As he had remarked before, 
the report made this morning was a report embracing 
very important subjects, which ought to be considered 
well by every member before the Convention should 
come to vote upon it. Fie did not suppose the printing 
of it would require any very great length of time. It 
was comparatively a short report, and if put into the 
hands of the printer without any delay, he inclined 
to think that it could be furnished for action at the af¬ 
ternoon session. If so, and it were the pleasure of the 
Convention to adopt it, the President would have from 
that time till Monday to arrange the committees, and 
the committee of thirteen would have the report before 
them from which to determine what portion of their 
business had been anticipated by it. For this reason, 
also, he should go against the motion to reconsider. 
One other remark before he would conclude. When 
the resolution was offered by one of the committee of 
thirteen, providing that when this Convention adjourns 
to-day, it shall adjourn till Monday, it was not intend¬ 
ed to require the Convention to adjourn now. There 
would be no necessity if there was business to occupy 
the Convention, lor an adjournment till evening. If 
the Convention could be furnished with the pi'inted 
copies of the report, in time to act upon it, as he had 
supposed, there could cei’tainly be no objection to ta¬ 
king up the resolution offered by the gentleman from 
Monroe, and adjourning over till Monday. There 
were several reasons why he would prefer this course. 
One was, the Convention had already authorized some 
changes in the interior of the Hall, with reference to 
the gateways and bar; and it would be necessary to 
adjourn over while that work might be going on. He 
had one other reason for this adjournment. It was not 
true, as some seemed to suppose, that business could 
be expedited at this stage of the session by long ses¬ 
sions in the Chamber. On the contrary, if the Conven¬ 
tion wished to progress rapidly with business, it would 
be necessary that the committees should have ample 
and sufficient time in order to prepare business for the 
action of the Convention. The Convention could not 
progress with business which has not been prepared in 
committee; and the committee must have time and op¬ 
portunity to prepare business for the action of the Con¬ 
vention. It would be time saved to adjourn over. A 
member of the committee on rules had just reminded 
him that thirteen would be a large number to absent 
themselves, and each one of them would be as reluctant 
; to do so, as he would to neglect the discharge of his 
duties in committee; but he would remark, that since 
rules had been adopted for the temporary government 
; of the Convention, it was not so important that this 
committee should report. Nevertheless the body could 
I not be expected to do much business till the commit- 
; tee report. Believing that the Convention would have 
the opportunity of acting upon the report in the after- 
. noon, he would not urge the adoption of tiie resolution 
. to adjourn over. He would, however, oppose the re- 
• consideration, for it was certainly important that the 
. Convention should have the report in printed form. 

Mr. HAWKINS said the report proposed onljr two 
things. One was, that sixteen standing committees 
i should be appointed; and the other, that every propo- 








32 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


sition should be offered for discussion by the Conven- 
tiou before it could be referred to a committee. No 
one could dispute the propriety of the appointment of 
those standing committees. The resolution following 
this portion of the report had relation to the disposition 
of business yet to be presented, and proposed simply, 
that every proposition shall be investigated by the Con¬ 
vention before it is submitted to a committee. The re¬ 
port imposed no “shackles;” nor did he understand it 
to be as a “ constitution,” or organic law of the body; 
for at any future day, the Convention would still retain 
the power to add other delegates to these committees, 
to increase the number of them, and also to make any 
change which they might think proper to make in 
regard to their organization. He hoped that the re¬ 
consideration would be had, and the report acted upon. 
The question might be separated, and, if the latter res¬ 
olution were not satisfactory, it might be avoided or 
postponed. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, said it had been cor¬ 
rectly stated, that the report contained but two propo¬ 
sitions. One was, that sixteen standing committees be 
appointed; and he apprehended that there was no gen¬ 
tleman present but was willing to assent to this branch 
of the report. The other proposition was, that any 
original matter offered by any member for considera¬ 
tion, should be offered first for consideration in the 
Convention, before going to any committee. This was 
all of the report. Now it seemed to him that there 
was no difficulty in understanding this, nor anything 
to be apprehended from it. There was nothing here to 
restrict the appointment of any other committee, nor 
in any other way, to restrict the action of the Conven¬ 
tion. It was probable that most of the business 
would be done by committees. Certainly the first thing 
to be done was to get these committees; for until they 
were appointed, they could not be required to work.— 
It was proposed to appoint sixteen standing commit¬ 
tees, and the total number necessary to constitute them 
would be something like one hundred and thirty. It 
was manifest that the President must have some time 
to make this large number of appointments. It seem¬ 
ed to him that if gentlemen would consent to the re¬ 
consideration, and take up and pass upon the report 
now, that they might be prepared to adjourn over till 
Monday. But, if the business were not done to-day, 
it would be the middle of next week, probably, before 
the committees could be announced. If there was any¬ 
thing incorrect in these propositions—anything that 
would restrain the power of the Convention—anything 
that would restrict the privilege of debate, he would 
not advise such a course. But the report contained 
nothing of this nature. He did hope, therefore, that 
gentlemen would consent to the re-consideration, and 
that the report would be taken up and agreed to. 

Mr. CURRY hoped that the Secretary would read 
the report now. He had no objection for his part to 
the re-consideration, if he could understand the report 
from the reading. 

The report was now again read through by the Sec¬ 
retary. 

Mr. DORSEY hoped that the motion would not pre¬ 
vail. He supposed that before long the old maxim, 
**festine lente,''^ would be applicable to the proceedings 
of this body. It would not take a great time to have 
those rules printed and laid before the members of the 
Convention for their consideration. And, unless that 
were done, no one would be capable of adjudicating 
correctly on the report of the committee. He was not 
able to judge, from hearing the report read, at the Sec¬ 
retary’s desk, whether there were more or fewer com¬ 
mittees required. It did appear to him that the divis¬ 
ion of the business of the Convention among sixteen 
committees, was a division greater than was required. 
He could not speak positively on the subject until he 
knew the natime of the business to be specifically com¬ 
mitted to the proposed committees. There might be 
a “running in” of the duties of one committee on an 
other, and a difficulty of ascertaining what business 


was to be allotted to the consideration of the one, and 
what to the other. Therefore, in order to have more de¬ 
liberation on the subject, he was decidedly in favor 
of having the report printed. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD had great respect for the remarks 
of the gentleman from Geauga (Mr. Hitchcock.) With 
his massive intellect, he was enabled to ascertain ac¬ 
curately all those perplexing matters, which he (Mr. 
A.) and other gentlemen were unable to define. He 
considered that the distribution of the business to the 
different committees, could be more comprehensive. 
For instance, in regard to the committee on the Judi¬ 
ciary and the committee on Jurisprudence. They ap¬ 
peared to him to be cousins german to one another; 
but no doubt, after the necessary consideration, gen¬ 
tlemen would be able to ^ive a definition of the dif¬ 
ference existing in the duties of the two committees. 
He was in favor of propositions coming before a com¬ 
mittee of the whole—it would facilitate the transac¬ 
tion of business. He, and others, came there with the 
expectation of having a short session, and he thought 
the course suggested would go far to carry into effect 
the wish entertained by many in regard to the contin¬ 
uance of the sittings of this Convention. 

Mr. STANBERY said he concurred in the remark 
made, that the step they wei'e about to take was a 
very important one. They were sent there to amend 
or change the constitution—that was their business. 
They were at the fifth day of the session, and as yet 
they had not proceeded to amend the constitution; not 
only had they not commenced to do so, but they had 
not settled in what manner they would enter on the 
order of businers. That is, they had not, as yet, got 
their “ harness on.” It was a very important thing to 
start well, and to start just as soon as possible. Here, 
then, was a proposition to start the business of the 
Convention—to do some work. Was it a thing diffi¬ 
cult to be understood—to be conned over day after 
day ? He apprehended not. The committee had de¬ 
termined on the report in a very short time, and at 
last, with very great unanimity. He would now take 
up the proposition and go over it with a view to see if 
there was any difficulty in determining the question 
now. The report of the committee refeiTed only to 
the mode of entering on the business of the Conven¬ 
tion ; not to what amendments were to be made, but 
as to the manner of making these amendments. Now, 
what did the committee report ? It reported that six¬ 
teen committees should be appointed by the President 
of the Convention, to whom would be respectively re¬ 
ferred the subjects subsequently designated. Those 
committees, it was intended, were to report to this 
Convention what amendments would be required to be 
made in the constitution. The first was the committee 
on the Legislative department, and was to consist of 
nine members. Was there any objection to a commit¬ 
tee of that sort ? If there were any objection, it was 
on the dividing up of the department. The Legisla¬ 
tive department covered a great deal of our constitu¬ 
tion—a great deal of the old, and would very much of 
the new one which they were about to frame. How 
were they to divide that department? Were they to 
divide between two or three committees all the vari¬ 
ous subjects connected with that department—was one 
committee to report in regartto the construction of the 
legislative body—another to determine the number of 
members of it, and a third to judge of the qualifica¬ 
tions necessary to entitle a man to election to that 
body? 

There would be great difficulty, he considered, in 
their harmonizing so as to produce a complete result. 

It would certainly be most necessary that they should 
work together so as to make one system. There was 
only one subject, in his opinion, that could be legit¬ 
imately separated from the legislative department, 
and that was the apportionment of representation— 
why was it? First—because it was easily divisible 
from the matters to come under the consideration of 
the committee on the legislative department; and se- 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 33 


condly, because the duties of the committee having 
charge of the apportionment would not conflict with 
those of the former committee. They could be working 
harmoniously at the same time. The first committee, 
for instance, would settle the entire of the legislative 
department. When all that was effected there was 
another thing of importance to be done, and that was, 
how wei-e their representatives to be elected—whe¬ 
ther they were to be elected by the white basis, or by 
the white and black basis—by the separation of cities 
from counties—or whether they were to be elected by 
single or double districts; all these very important 
questions belonged to a dilferent department from the 
legislative. The consideration of such subjects was 
apart from and foreign to it; therefore, they were sep¬ 
arated. 

The tenure of members, their qualifications and eli¬ 
gibility, the organization of the Legislature—what 
would constitute a quorum, authorize the calling of 
the yeas and nays, the right of protest, the privileges 
of members, the appi’opriation of public money, the 
power to fill vacancies in the Legislature, the doctrine 
of impeachment, whether the Legislature should sit 
biennially or annually, and the duration of the session, 
were all subjects belonging to the legislative depart¬ 
ment. And when they had got those matters settled, 
they had gotten every thing that belonged to the legis¬ 
lative department, according to the Constitution as now 
framed. 

He then came to the committee on the “ Executive;” 
it was to consist of only seven members—that was a 
sufficient number. The qualifications which were nec¬ 
essary for voting for Governor, or the Judges, or any 
other officer, were the same as for voting for a Repre¬ 
sentative, so it was not necessary to send ihe subject 
■of qualification to any other committee. Then there 
was to be a Judiciary committee, and the number of 
members was to be thirteen. In the first committee, 
the number was nine, in the second seven, and in the 
third thirteen—that increasing number had been deci- 
ided on for very obvious reasons. 

What was the Judiciary committee to provide for?— 
it was to provide for the number of .Judges in the va¬ 
rious courts, the nature of those courts, and their 
number, together with the qualifications of Judges for 
office. Those were all very important matters. He 
considered that as the Judges were to be elected by the 
people—which he for one was in favor of—it was im¬ 
portant that the persons charged with the judicial de¬ 
partment, should define the qualifications necessaiy for 
a Judge. He did not think that the question of quali¬ 
fication should be sent to any other committee. Jn his 
opinion, there was no impropriety in having a distinct 
-committee for the judicial department, and a different 
■committee for jurisprudence; for the gentleman fi’om 
Mo nroe, should see that there was a distinction, as 
clear as light, between the two departments. Juris¬ 
prudence had relation to the laws to be administered— 
the judiciary to the courts in which the laws were to 
be administered. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said the human mind was always 
some time in coming to a decision. The gentleman 
had drawn a distinction between the two committees 
alluded to, but was the distinction so very strong as to 
be appreciable on its being first brought to notice ? 

Mr. STANBERY proceeded. The next committee 
was that on the apportionment of Representatives. A 
very important one, and one with which they would 
have no trouble. The committees on “Corporations, 
other than banking corporations,” and the committee on 
Banking and Currency wei'e the next in order. The for¬ 
mer consisted of five, and the latter of seven members. 
Here the whole subject of corporations and corporation 
franchises, were divided; but, the subject matter divi¬ 
ded was easily divisible, for corporations for banking 
and currency were clearly distinct and divisible from 
corporations for other different objects. He thought, 
that as the subject of banking and currency had always 
excited much attention throughout the State and as 

3 


some gentlemen in this Convention entertained strong 
opinions on the subject, it was right to send it to a spe¬ 
cial committee. 

Then came the committee on Public Works and 
Public Debts, having for consideration a subject which 
did not interfere with any question coming before any 
of the other committees. The next committee was 
that on the future amendment of the new constitution. 
There was one mode of amending it, by the calling of 
a Convention; but that was a very objectionable and 
dilatory mode. There was however another mode 
which recommendetl itself strongly to his mind, and 
that was by specific amendment. It was a mode which 
would effectually avoid all that discord and debate 
which would result from calling a Convention. Each 
specific amendment havingbeen passed by both Houses 
of the Legislature, was then to be submitted to the 
people, singly—they would not be obliged to vote on 
the good and the bad all joined together, but on each 
singly. It was for that reason they sent the subject to 
a separate committee. The committee on Education 
followed, and then came the committee on the Militia* 
That was a subject which should occupy an important 
position in our constitution, therefore they sent it to a 
separate committee. The next committee was the 
committee on Finance and Taxation. That was the 
only one which might conflict with the operations of 
any other committee. Its reports might run into 
those of the committee on the Public Debts, &c., &c. 
The subject of taxation was intimately connected with 
the public debt; however, for one, he acquiesced, and 
would vote for the appointment of the committee. 

The fourteenth committee was that on the Preamble 
and the Bill of Rights, a very important matter. He 
did not intend to enlarge upon the subject, as every 
member saw the importance of it. The fifteenth was 
the committee on Jurisprudence—he was not much in 
favor of it, but he saw a very clear distinction between 
the subject and the Judiciary. And then came the 
omnium gatherum, the committee on Miscellaneous Sub 
jects. Now the Convention had the whole of them.— 
If there were any other committees that should be 
raised—any other subjects more important in them¬ 
selves, than the subjects to be taken into consideration 
by those committees, it was quite competent for any 
member to move that they be referred to a select com¬ 
mittee. The report did not require that there should 
not be any greater number of committees than sixteen. 

Mr. HOLMES said that having made the motion to 
lay on the table, perhaps it would be right to make a 
single remark. He did not desire to embarrass the 
action of this Convention in any manner, but to give 
his entire attention to facilitating its action on any mat¬ 
ter that came before it. It had been the practice to 
refer most matters to committees in order that they 
should report on them, so that action might be had 
knowingly and understandingly. He desired that the 
Convention should take action forthwith, and in order 
to expedite business he begged leave to withdraw his 
motion to lay on the table. 

Leave being granted, the motion to reconsider was 
then put and carried. 

Tlie motion to lay on the table and order the report 
to be printed, was lost. 

Mr. HAWKINS asked a division of the question by 
taking a vote on that portion of the report recommend¬ 
ing the appointment of the committees. 

Mr. STANTON asked for a further division of the 
question, by taking a separate vote on the appoint¬ 
ment of each of the committees. 

Mr. HOLMES did not see the necessity of taking a 
separate vote on the propositions, as they had been 
openly and fully discussed. He ho^ed that the gen- 
tleman would withdraw his motion and take a vote 
directly on the entire proposition. 

Mr. STANTON replied that the reason he requested 
a division was, because some of the committees were 
not necessary, and the appointment of them would here¬ 
after result in some waste of time. There was the com- 












34 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


mittee on Jurisprudence, which would bring up the 
entire question of law reform, and a vast amount of dis¬ 
cussion would inevitably eventuate. 

Mr. STANBERY thought it best to decide the mat¬ 
ter now. So far as the question of time was concern¬ 
ed it was advisable to raise the committee now. The 
gentleman would find that question of law reform a 
Hydra—it was a subject that would be constantly re¬ 
curring. He thought, therefore, that it would be much 
better to have it go to the committee now, as there was 
a large amount of public opinion bearing on the sub¬ 
ject. 

Mr. STANTON remarked that there were other 
things which occurred to him iii relation to the com¬ 
mittees proposed. He thought that some of the com¬ 
mittees would necessax'ily conflict, and for that reason 
some were unnecessary. For instance, how could the 
committee on the Apportionment act definitely unless 
they knew how many members the committee on the 
Legislative Department had decided that the Legisla¬ 
ture should consist of ? He therefore called for a di¬ 
vision of the question. 

Mr. CURRY said he felt rather backward in moving 
an amendment to a report coming from a committee 
consisting of so many gentlemen of worth and talent. 
It seemed to him, however, that the number of mem¬ 
bers of some of the committees provided for in the re¬ 
port was too small. 

Mr. HAWKINS begged to ask what was the ques¬ 
tion now before the Convention. 

The PRESIDENT replied that it was on the adoj> 
tion of that portion of the committee’s report recom¬ 
mending the appointment of the first committee. 

The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and sev¬ 
enth propositions having been severally read, were 
then adopted. 

The eighth proposition was then read, as follows: 

“ A committee on Public Debts and Public Works, 
to consist of nine.” 

Mr. CURRY rose merely to say that not only were 
many of the committees too small, but the committee 
now under consideration, and others, such as the com¬ 
mittee on Coi’j)oration8 other than banking corpora¬ 
tions, and the committees on Education, and Finance, 
and Taxation, were composed of too few members. It 
seemed to him that they should be increased in num¬ 
ber. He considered that committees having important 
subjects committed to their charge should be composed 
of a reasonably large number. He merely threw out 
the suggestion that some gentleman might take it up. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD moved to amend by striking out 
the word “nine” and inserting the words “twenty- 
one.” He wished to amend the proposition by ma¬ 
king the committee to consist of twenty-one, in ox’der 
that there might be one from each Congressional dis¬ 
trict on the committee. There were many parts of the 
State which had no share in those public works; why, 
then, should they be excluded from representation on 
this committee, and make it to consist of but nine mem¬ 
bers, who might perhaps be from those portions of the 
State the most benefited by the public works ? 

Mr. MITCHELL observed that he considered it 
right to submit to the Convention the reasons which 
operated on the committee in assigning to that com¬ 
mittee the number designated. In determining the 
numbei's that they would apportion, the committee 
were principally actuated by a consideration of the du¬ 
ties devolving on those committees. It would be seen 
also that the committees to which they had given the 
largest number had to depend in a great measure on lo¬ 
cal information. Those were the reasons which had 
actuated them in assigning the numbers to the commit¬ 
tees designated in the report before the Convention. 
In regard to the committee under consideration, he 
would say that all information relative to the subject 
matter to come under its observation, could be had in 
this city. They had within their reach all the public 
documents, reports to the General Assembly, reports 
from the board of public works and the Auditors’ re¬ 


ports, from which they were to draw the facts upon 
which their report would be predicated. Those were 
the reasons which induced the committee to assign this 
number to the committee on Public Debts, &c. &c. 

The motion to strike out was not agreed to. 

Mr. LARSH moved to amend, by striking^ out the 
words “ public debts and public works,” and inserting 
the words “ the public debt, finance and taxatioil.” 

The amendment was not sustained. The resolution 
was then passed. 

The ninth jiroposition was adopted. 

The tenth proposition reads—“A committee on Edu¬ 
cation, to consist of five.” 

Mr. CURRY moved that the word “ seven” be inserted 
in lieu of “ five.” The amendment was agreed to, and 
the proposition then adopted. 

The eleventh proposition reads—“ A committee on 
the Militia to consist of seven.” Adopted. 

The twelfth proposition reads—“A committee on 
Finance and Taxation to consist of five.” 

Mr. CURRV moved to strike out the word “five” 
and insert the word “seven,” which motion on a divis¬ 
ion was not concurred in—yeas 40—nays 54. 

The original proposition was then put and adopted. 

The thirteenth and fourteenth propositions were then 
read and agreed to. 

The fifteenth proposition reads, “ A committee on Ju¬ 
risprudence to consist of nine members.” 

Mr. STANTON thought it right to ascertain now, 
whether they were to go into all the perplexing details 
of legal reform, or were they to confine themselves to 
the duty for the performance of which they were sent 
there, which was to frame a new constitution. He 
could not imagine what business this Convention had 
with a committee on jurisprudence. He could not see 
why they should embarrass themselves with a com¬ 
mittee and reports on questions to which the Conven¬ 
tion would not turn its attention ultimately. He sup¬ 
posed that this Convention was like all other delibera¬ 
tive bodies—that they thought they had more wisdom 
than any other body that would ever sit hereafter, and 
that it would not be safe to leave anything to be de¬ 
termined by future posterity. He felt a good deal dis¬ 
posed to make a stand on the question now, and there¬ 
fore demanded the yeas and nays on the adoption of 
the proposition. 

The question was upon agreeing to the 15th proposi¬ 
tion, to wit: A committee on jurisixrudence, to con¬ 
sist of 9 members, 

Mr. STANTON ordered the yeas and nays, which re¬ 
sulted as follows: 

Yeas. —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blick- 
ensderfer. Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Case of Hocking, Chambers, Cla.k, Claypoole, Collings, 
Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Firestone, 
Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Groesbeck, 
Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hoot- 
man, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, 
Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, More- 
head, Morris, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, 
Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigly, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Robertson, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stil- 
well, Stickiiey, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Way, 
Woodbury, and President.—96. 

Nays.— Messrs. Archbold, Dorsey, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Green of Ross, Hamilton, McLoud, Stanton, and 
Williams.—8. 

So the proposition was concurred in. 

When the name of Mr. Smith of Warren was called, 
he asked and obtained leave to explain the vote he 
would give. He said he was opposed to the Conven¬ 
tion going into what was denominated “Law reform.’ 







CONVENTION REPORTS 


35 


He thought however, that there was no impropriety in 
raising the committee at present;—in all probability it 
would be raised at some future period of the session, 
and he therefore would vote in the affirmative. 

The sixteenth proposition reads.—A committee on 
such miscellaneous subjects and propositions as are 
not referred to in the foregoing fifteen committees, to 
consist of seven members. 

The proposition was adopted. 

The Convention then concurred in the first resolu¬ 
tion of the report, recommending the appointment of 
the before named sixteen committees. 

Whereupon the question turning, being on the adop¬ 
tion of the second resolution, viz: 

Resolved, “That all propositions made by any mem¬ 
ber, for the amendment or alteration of the constitu¬ 
tion, be first submitted to the consideration of the Con¬ 
vention before referred to any committee.” 

Mr. HAWKINS moved that the resolution be laid on 
the table. 

The reading of the resolution was demanded and had. 

Mr. HAWKINS then said that at the suggestion of 
a gentleman he would ask to have his motion changed 
to a reference to the committee on rules. 

Mr. MASON said the object was, if any member of 
this body desired to amend or alter the constitution, or 
any part of it, by that resolution he was required first 
to submit it to the consideration of the Convention be¬ 
fore it should be sent to a committee. The proposi¬ 
tion did not, nor would it, if adopted, interfere at all 
with the action of any of the committees instituted by 
the resolution which had been just adopted. They 
would be untrammeled in their inquiries, their exami¬ 
nations and their actions. But if any gentleman in that 
body, having a proposition to offer, and not feeling en¬ 
tirely safe or willing to submit to the deliberation of 
the respective committees some long cherished princi¬ 
ple, it would be his privilege to rise and offer it in the 
form of a resolution, to be adopted by this body. 
There might be, in the progress of their deliberations, 
propositions offered, that a majority of this body would 
consider eccentric propositions, for the reception of 
which the public mind was not now prepared. Such 
propositions receiving the action of this body, would 
not go to the committee until they should have been 
considered and debated. He did not consider the pro 
position in the nature of a rule which should emanate 
from the committee on rules, to govern this body and 
regulate its action on any proposition that might be pre¬ 
sented, but to attach a right to submit ajjroposition and 
to have it considered before this body, and have it dis¬ 
posed of before it went to the committee. He would 
add in conclusion, that he did not know but the resolu¬ 
tion may have received the unanimous^ approbation of 
the committee of twenty-one. And it did not receive 
it without consideration and debate. Propositions and 
amendments were before the committee, and were 
considered, and this resolution was at last adopted 
unanimously, as one which gave a large scope to fair 
debate, leaving every member to submit his proposition 
in a written form to the Convention. He could see 
nothing in it that might not be adopted as a great con¬ 
venience and suitable laile to regulate the conduct of 
members in regard to the introduction of jpropositions, 
not interfering at all with the method of transacting 
business. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD again expressed his opinion in fa¬ 
vor of referring propositions, in the first instance to a 
committee of the whole. It was in that committee that 
advances toward unanimity were made in the consid¬ 
eration of debated subjects. He thought the work of 
the Convention could be best got through by adopting 
the principle of the committee of the whole. The 
“ committee of the whole ” was a labor saving machine. 
If the gentleman from Clark (Mr. Mason) would al¬ 
low the matter to go to a committee of thirteen, he 
(Mr. A.) would insure that much attention would be 
given to the subject. He did not wish to be understood 
as desiring that everything should go to the committee 


of the whole. But, it would be well to consider wheth¬ 
er or not a great amount of business could not be sent 
to that committee. 

Mr. FORBES remarked that he would feel much 
better satisfied if the subject were referred to the com¬ 
mittee on Rules, as it would not thus retard the action 
of the Convention. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren did not see any impropriety 
in adopting the present resolution. He thought it did 
not come within the range of the action of the com¬ 
mittee on Rules. 

Mr. GREEN said that, as one of the committee of 
twenty-one, he had assented to the proposition without 
well understanding it. He did understand it now. It 
seemed to him a work of supererogation. He would 
ask gentlemen, how could any proposition be submit- 
tedto a committee until brought before this body ? This 
body, if they thought it expedient, would order a prop¬ 
osition to be referred; if inexpedient, they would say 
so. This was not a declaration of preliminary action; 
it was a declaration of common sennse, and he hoped 
they would make many of them. 

Did gentlemen expect that members, with their va¬ 
rious resolutions and propositions, could obtain access 
to the standing committees when sitting in secret con¬ 
clave 1 Much inconvenience would manifestly ensue, 
if resolutions, &c., were in the first instance referred 
to the committees. In the Parliament of Great Britain 
abstract propositions were made, on which future leg¬ 
islation was predicated, and discussed before legislative 
action was taken on the subjects. If that were the 
pi’oposition made here, it might save much time. He 
wanted information—he wanted to know how they 
could get a proposition referred to a committee, standing 
or select, without bringing it before this body. 

Mr. HAWKINS considered that the resolution effected 
nothing whatever; it required nothing, nor did it forbid 
anything. The motion which he made was merely for 
the purpose of passing it by with respect. He did not 
know how any proposition could be brought before 
those standing or select committees unless they were 
brought before the House first; consequently the rule 
was useless. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD desired the matter to be referred to 
the committee on Rules. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren expressed his opinion that there 
were no valid grounds for objection to the resolution. 

Mr. GREEN wished to inquire of the gentleman, if 
he supposed the effect of the resolution would be the 
adoption of any proposition submitted to this body. 

Mr. SMITH, in reply, said that he did not. 

Mr. GREEN remarked that he could see no use in the 
resolution, because all propositions should come before 
this body before they could be referred. 

Mr. SMITH understood the objections made. He did 
not suppose the resolutions contemplated that every pro¬ 
position would receive the sanction of the Convention, 
but that they would be referred to one of the standing 
committees, and that it be in the power of the Conven¬ 
tion to refer. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD asked what w^as the advantage of 
sending a question to the committee of the Whole. 

Mr. SMITH presumed that one of the rules to be re¬ 
ported would be that by which the Convention could 
resolve itself into a committee of the Whole, on the mo¬ 
tion of any member. 

Mr. RE EMELIN had been convinced from the obser¬ 
vations of the gentleman fi’om Ross (Mr. Green) that 
there was no necessity for passing the resolution. He 
would vote for the reference, as he thought it right and 
proper. 

The motion to refer was carried. 

Mr. GREEN inquired if it was understood that the 
report was to be printed ? It seemed to him to be well 
to have it printed and laid on the tables of members, in 
order that they would be able to ascertain of whom the 
standing committees were composed, to which their dif¬ 
ferent propositions would be referred. He moved, 
therefore, that so much of the report of the committee 










36 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


of twenty-one as had been adopted, be ordered to be 
printed. 

Mr. CHAMBERS suggested that it would be best to 
withdraw the motion until the committees were appoint- 

ed. 

Mr. GREEN would ask to withdraw his motion; 
which was agreed to. 

And on motion of Mr. RANNEY, 

The Convention took a recess. 

3 o’clock, r. M. 

Mr. MASON otfered the following: 

Resolved, Tliat it is expedient so to amend the Con¬ 
stitution as to create the office of Lieutenant Governor, 
provide for his election and to prescribe his qualifica¬ 
tions, powers, duties and compensation. 

Resolved, That the constitution be so amended as to 
provide that every bill or resolution which shall have 
passed both houses of the Legislature, shall, before it 
becomes a law, be presented to the Governor; if he ap¬ 
prove, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it with 
his objections to that House in which it shall have 
ongnated, who shall enter the objections at large on 
their journal and proceed to reconsider it; If after such 
reconsidei’ation a majority of the whole number pre¬ 
sent shall agree to pass the bill or resolution, it shall be 
sent together with the objections, to the other house, 
by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if ap¬ 
proved by a majority of all the members present, it 
shall become a law, notwithatanding the objections of 
the Governor. But in all such cases, the votes of both 
Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the 
names of members voting for or against the bill or res¬ 
olution, shall be entered on the jouraal of each House 
respectively. If any bill or resolution shall not be re¬ 
turned by the Governor within-days, (Sunday ex¬ 

cepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the 
same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed 
it, unless the Legislature shall, by their adjournment, 
prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. 

The same gentleman moved that the resolutions be 
laid upon the table and printed, which was agreed to. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot desired that the Conven¬ 
tion would take up the report made by Mr. Hitchcock 
of Cuyahoga, from a select committee yesterday, rela- 
ive to the amount of business before the Judiciaiy of 
the State for 1848, and re-commit the same. He be¬ 
lieved that the inquiries could be so 2 ')ropounded as to 
elicit answei’s in time for the deliberations of the Con¬ 
vention. 

Mr. ROLL. Since yesterday 1 have had a conver¬ 
sation with the gentleman from Cuyahoga, and have 
consulted with other gentlemen on the subject of the 
information jiroposed to be obtained in the report made 
by Mr. Hitchcock. I believe that by a modification 
of those inquiries, all the information which it is desira¬ 
ble should be laid before this body, may be submitted 
to them, and I shall now vote to have this matter re¬ 
committed to the committee who reported it, in order 
that these inquiries may be made in a different form.— 
And, so far as I am concerned, I will endeavor to lay 
all the infoimation that I may be able to obtain, before 
this body with as little delay as possible. 

The report was then taken uj) and re-committed. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. I move that two 
members be added to the committee. I make the mo¬ 
tion with the hope that the President will ap^ioiut gen¬ 
tlemen who have been Clerks of courts. 

Messrs. Roll and Ewart were added to the com¬ 
mittee. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I move that we take iqi the res¬ 
olutions jiresented this morning relative to the adjourn¬ 
ment of this body. 

Whichbeinpagreedto; uponmotion of Mr. Archbold, 
the following resolution was also agreed to : 

“ Resolved, That when this Convention adjourn, it be 
until Monday morning at 10 o’clock.” 

Mr. NASH moved t.hat the Convention now adjourn, 
which was disagreed to. 


Mr. RANNEY. I now move to take up the report 
made by Mr. Lidey as Chairman of a select committee 
in regard to the selection of a printer for this Conven¬ 
tion, which w'as agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT, in answer to an inquiry made by 
a member, observed that when the report was laid on 
the table, there was pending an amendment projiosed 
by the gentleman from Gallia and an amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Geauga, to strike out 
the word “ debates.” 

Mr. RANNEY. I move to take it up at this time, 
because I regard it of great importance, that the Con¬ 
vention should at once come to a determination in re¬ 
gard to this matter of jirinting. We are constantly or¬ 
dering jirinting to be done; and we should know, as 
early as possible, upon what terms it is to be done. I 
agree entirely, Mr. President, with my colleague, that 
the first thing necessary, in order that this Convention 
may procure its printing to be done, is the appointment 
of a printer for this body, wdio shall be considered one 
of its officers. This is the only method by which we 
can reach the matter, under the act calling the Con¬ 
vention. I have heard no objections against the aj)- 
pointment of the individual named in this resolution. 
I do not know that any individual sincerely objects to 
the ajipointment of Mr. Medary, as not being a fit and 
jiroper jierson to discharge the duties of the station.— 
For my jiart, so far from that being the case, it would 
be, in every sense, agreeable to me. If we should elect 
him a printer to this Convention, we have made an ad¬ 
vance so far, and we shall have a printer, amenable to 
this body and under its control. The next thing after 
such appointment, would be to see what they would 
require that printer to do, and what printing is neces¬ 
sary for our use. When they have decided, that, and 
ordered what their printer shall do, the next (juestion 
that naturally occurs is, what shall he be paid for such 
wmrk ? Now in regard to the compensation, I will say, 
generally that I agree entirely with the gentleman 
from Fairfield; I go for a fair and liberal compensation, 
whoever may be appointed to do our printing. I would 
give him a fair compensation, ujion the same ground 
that I would to the Sergeant-at-Arms, or any officer of 
this body, for I look upon it as exceedingly imjiortant 
that the Convention should, both by precept andexam- 
jile, allow a fair equivalent to labor of every kind, and 
none is more useful than this of printing. In [luvsu- 
ance of such a purjiose, I am extremely desirous that 
the Convention should, at an early day, fix uj)on the 
amount they will pay. I have no doubt, from the tes¬ 
timony of the committee, that in regard to the printing 
of all our proceedings, except the debates, the prices 
fixed uj)on are fair and just. We have already author¬ 
ized the publication of the debates and ju’oceedings of 
the Convention, and I can only say, for one, I am in fa¬ 
vor of that course; and in favor of having the work jier- 
formed by the iirinter to this Convention, and under 
the general principle which I have stated, at a fair 
equivalent. 

I will say further, that I am in favor of publishing a 
larger number of the debates of the Convention than 
are indicated in the resolution offered by the gentle¬ 
man from Auglaize, or that are mentioned in the re¬ 
port of the committee to whom was referred the re¬ 
port of .1. V. Smith. I am in favor of having a larger 
number, because I believe it will add comiiaratively 
little to the expense. What shall be paid for the pub¬ 
lication of the Debates? Having settled chat, we 
ought to forward and authorize the jiublication of these 
reports. I think that, iqion the compensation to be al¬ 
lowed for the publication of these reports, the commit¬ 
tee have not given us so full a report as I could have 
wished. It seems to me that the committee have not 
had their attention directed to this matter. For the 
purpose of affording to the Convention information 
upon this subject, and ascertaining what would be a 
fair equivalent for the publication of these debates, I 
will move that this resolution be recommitted to the 
committee who had the same subject under cousidera- 













CONVENTION EEPORTS. 37 


lion, and who have already reported to us that tliey 
may give the benefit of their experience, extend their 
inquiries still farther, and obtain specific information 
as to the prices for which this work can be done. For 
my part, at the present stage of the debates, I have not 
sufficient information to enable me to say whether the 
price named in the amendment offered by the gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton, would be a fair equivalent for the 
work or not. I am in favor of the publication of the 
debafes, and therefore am opposed to the motion of 
my colleague to strike out of the resolution the word 
“debates.” I think we ought retain it, and decide at 
an early day how many copies of these debates we 
will publish, and what we will pay for them. The 
rule that shall guide my vote throughout will be a fair, 
honorable and liberal equivalent for the labor required. 

Mr. PERKINS. If I understand the motion, it is 
equivalent to an amendment I offered to the original 
resolution. I do not know what rule has been ado])ted 
here, but if I understand the rules of a body of this 
chamber, a committee, when it has once reported, is 
disbanded. There is no committee, in a correct sense 
of the term, to which propositions can now be referred; 
for a special committee differs from a standing com¬ 
mittee in this, that the latter is in existence during the 
session to which anything can be referred at any time. 
But when any proposition has been referred to a sj)e- 
cial committee, there is an end of it after the commit¬ 
tee shall have reported, as far as it is concerned; and 
if it goes to a special committee again, it must be a new 
one, or to the same re-appointed. This is what I un¬ 
derstand the rule to be. If the gentleman saw fit, the 
president could appoint another, or retain the old one. 

The resolutions and amendments were then re-com¬ 
mitted to the same committee who reported them. 

Mr. NASH. As this matter has been referred back 
again, I would move that two additional members be 
added to the committee. 

Which was agreed to, and Messrs. Chambers and 
Larwill were designated by the President as the addi 
tional members. 

Mr, TAYLOR. The report already laid upon the ta¬ 
ble by the committee on reporting, makes an incidental 
reference to the subject of printing the debates and 
proceedings of the Convention. I think that if the res¬ 
olution were before us, this whole subject of printing 
our reports and debates, might be discussed. I there¬ 
fore move the resolution reported by the commitee be 
taken up. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. That report has 
been laid upon the table and ordered to be printed. It 
ought to be printed before we act upon it, and I hope 
it will not be taken up until then. 

The question upon taking up said report being then 
taken, the motion was lost. 

Mr. ROLL then moved to adjourn, and according to 
a previous vote the Convention then adjourned till Mon¬ 
day morning at ten o’clock. 

MONDAY, May 13, 1850. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Hitchcock. 

NEW MEMBER. 

Mr. QUIGLEY presented the credentials of his col¬ 
league, Henry H. Gregg, who appeared, took the re¬ 
quisite oath of office, which was administered by Mr. 
Hitchcock of Geauga, and took his seat as a Delegate 
from Columbiana and Mahoning. 

Mr. BARBEE stated that his colleague, Mr. Dorsey, 
had been called home by the news of the sudden ill¬ 
ness of a member of his family, and he (Mr. B.) asked 
leave of absence for a few days, which was granted. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren offered the following, which 
was agreed to: 

Resolved, That a standing committee, to consist of five mem¬ 
bers, be appointed by the I'resident, which shall be styled “ the 
committee on Accounts,” and to which shall be referred, for ex¬ 
amination and allowance, all claims properly incidental to the 
Convention. 

Mr. VANCE of Champaign, from the committee to 


which was referred a resolution to furnish the mem¬ 
bers of the Convention with certain newspapers re¬ 
ported “ that it is inexpedient to furnish any papers at 
the expense of the State for distribution among our 
constituents, and ask leave to be discharged from the 
further consideration of the subject. Which report 
was agreed to. 

Mr. STIDGER offered the following : 

Resolved, That the Auditor of State be and is hereby requested 
to furnish for the use of this Convention, in addition to his re¬ 
port to the G< neral Assembly of March 13, 1850, on the subject 
of the surplus revenue, lull and distinct answers to the following 
questions: 

1st. What per centum of the interest on sums originally depo¬ 
sited was applied for the use of common schools, and what was 
the aggregate amount of the school fund derived from that source? 

2d. What amount of the surplus revenue, it any, has been re¬ 
paid into the State Treasury since the date of the report referred 
to, and how much is now due from the counties severally ? 

3d. In what manner and to what purposes has the amount of 
the principal of surplus revenue repaid to the State by the sever¬ 
al counties been applied ? 

4th. Whether the repayment of the principal of surplus reve¬ 
nue to the State, has in any wise diminished the common school 
fund ? If so, how much 1 

5th. If a diminution of the school fund has been occasioned by 
the causes referred to, from what source is it contemplated to 
raise means to pi'eserve and keep up the amount of the chool 
fund heretofore derived from the interest on surplus revenues. 

Mr, HAWKINS hoped that the resolution would be 
so amended as to extend a little of the inquiiy as to the 
disposition which had be^jn made of the amount of sur¬ 
plus revenue paid into the State. He was aware that 
a considerable portion had been paid out, and he de¬ 
sired to extend the inquiiy further, so as to ascertain 
under what law, what particular section of a law the 
money had been paid. There were $335,000 of sur¬ 
plus revenue paid into the State, which had been dis¬ 
bursed in the redemption of turnpike bonds. He want¬ 
ed to know under what law and what section it was 
paid out. The law of 1843 required that this revenue 
should be collected in, and distinctly provided for its 
disbursement. It was pledged, irrevocably pledged^ 
for the redemption of the seven per cent, bonds, falling 
due in 1851, authorized by that law. The object of di¬ 
recting that surplus revenue to be collected for, was to 
have it on hand to pay the seven per cent, bonds in 1851, 
That revenue was pledged to that purpose—the act re¬ 
quired that these pledges should go on the face of the 
bonds. As he was informed, some $340,000 of the sur¬ 
plus revenue had been paid in the redemption of turn¬ 
pike bonds; he therefore desired to extend the inquiry 
in order to know under what law it had been done. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said the inquiiy as he un¬ 
derstood, was one of vast imparlance—of great impor¬ 
tance to the State, and to the members of that Con¬ 
vention. It was an inquiry of daily recurrence with 
the people “ what has become of our surplus revenue; 
what disposition has been made of that portion of it 
which has been paid into the State?” And, looking 
on this question as one of vast importance, in order that 
gentlemen might have an opportunity to examine the 
resolution and to suggest such alterations or amend¬ 
ments as an examination, and the experience of mem¬ 
bers might dictate, he moved that the resolution be 
laid on the table and ordered to be printed, which was 
agreed to. 

ORDER OF BUSINESS. 

Mr. SAWYER said he believed the rules of the last 
House of Representatives which the Convention had 
adopted, required that the morning reports be made from 
standing committees, then the presentation of petitions, 
memorials, and after that, the presentation ol resolu¬ 
tions, and other business followed. Would it not be 
better to have some regular order that would prevent 
the discussions which arose on petitions and memorials, 
&c., &c., from being mixed up with the debateswhich 
would ai'ise on the I'esolutions ? 

The PRESIDENT said, that the rules of the last 
House of Representatives, though not strictly applica¬ 
ble to this body, might be made so to a certain extent. 
The twenty-first rule of the House said “ that as soon 
as the journal was read ihe Speaker shall call for the 










38 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


presentation of petitions and memorials, first—second¬ 
ly, bills for a second reading—third, bills for their 
third reading—fourth, notice of intention to introduce 
bills—fifth, the introduction of bills on leave—sixth, 
the reports of standing committees, and seventh, the 
reports of select committees.” He suggested that three 
of these rules might be adopted in relation to petitions, 
&c., &c., and reports from standing and select commit¬ 
tees. He would sugggest that for the pi’eseiit, the or¬ 
der of business be tlie presentation of petitions, &c., 
second—reports from standing committees, and third, 
reports from select committees. 

The Convention acquiesced. 

PETITION FOR EQUAL RIGHTS. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren presented the petition of 
Robert Harnson, John Harrison, and fifty-two other 
citizens of New Burlington and its vicinity, in Clinton 
county, praying this Convention so " to revise, amend, 
or change the present constitution of this State, as to 
grant and secure equal rights, privileges and protec¬ 
tion to all the native and naturalized inhabitants of this 
State, without any restrictions on account of their color 
whatever.” He said that the petition was in respect¬ 
ful language, and it was biief; he moved that it be re- 
■ceived and read. 

The PRESIDENT remarked that unless there were 
objections, the petition would be received as a matter 
of course. 

Mr. SAWYER understood that the petition was one 
praying that, in the new constitution, it be provided 
that colored people shall be allowed equal rights and 
privileges with white men. That, he understood from 
the language of the gentleman from Warren [Mr. 
Smith] and the reading of the title, to be the purport 
of the petition. 

The PRESIDENT inquired if he understood the 
gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] to object to 
Its reception ? 

Mr. SAWYERrepliedthathe did object. He thought 
the subject matter of the petition was one that they had 
no right to consider; to him it was revolting. The prop¬ 
osition was to permit negroes to have equal rights with 
us here ; it was a question not to be considered. He 
certainly did believe, with the Declaration of Indepen¬ 
dence. that all men were born free and equal and pos¬ 
sessed certain inalienable rights. He agreed with the 
principles laid down in that Declaration—he endorsed 
them to the fullest extent. He believed a negro had a 
right to hold office—he believed that a negro had a 
light to sit in that seat—[meaning the President’s]—he 
had a right to sit as President in a Convention, but not 
in this Convention—he had a right to sit as a judge, to 
serve as a juror, to be a witness, to vote as an elector, 
and, in short to have a right to possess and control 
everything that he had. But, every man in his own 
place, and in his own order. These United States he be¬ 
lieved, were designed by the God of Heaven to be gov¬ 
erned and inhabited by the Anglo Saxon race and by 
them alone. If they colonized the African in Liberia 
or some other country adapted to him, he was willing, 
that there the language of the Declaration of Indepen¬ 
dence should be held out to him practii^ally, and that 
they should there enjoy everything which he (Mr. S.) 
enjoyed here. And in that sense and only that was 
the Declaration of our Independence, so far as it rela¬ 
ted to the negro race, reconcilable with truth. It was 
not true that all men had equal rights and privileges. 
For instance, gentlemen here in this Convention had 
certain rights and privileges, and so they had about 
their own homes, that other men had not. Therefore, 
literally, it was not true that all men had the same 
rights; in point of fact they would find those distinc¬ 
tions at every step they took, in the social or in the do¬ 
mestic circle. He had privileges at home that other 
men had not—he had privileges in relation to his prop¬ 
erty and the conduct of his affairs which no other man 
had. 

In this regard the declaration of Independence was 
not true—the doctrine of the equality of right contained 


in it referred to the government of this country it re- 
feiTed to the Anglo Saxon race. He vvas not willing 
to sit there as a member of the Convention and submit 
to have propositions of the kind presented, and he make 
no objection to them. He made the objection now, 
and would object to every petition on the subject, 
which the ingenuity of man could devise. He did not 
object, that foreigners, after naturalization, should have 
all the rights and immunities which the constitution 
gave them. They had all the rights which the natives 
of the U. S. possessed, except that of being eligible for 
the office of President. 

But the negroes were a separate and distinct race 
and had not those privileges, and no negro, with his 
consent, should ever have them here. He would be 
found to be one in this Convention, when the subject 
came up, willing to accord to the negro his just and 
proper rights. He considered that when a negro set¬ 
tled in and became an inhabitant of the State, it was 
proper to protect him in his rights. He would go for 
regarding the rights and protecting the interests of the 
colored people now in the State. He would here state 
once for all, that he did not consider negro slavery with 
the abhorrence that other gentlemen did. He was very 
far, however, from being willing to eugraft into the new 
constitution a provision establishing slavery in this 
State. The abstract principle of human slavery he ab¬ 
horred in his soul. He considered that slaveery on the 
whole, had been a curse to the white race but produc¬ 
tive of good to the negro, &c., and believed that in the 
providence of God, the institution had benefited that 
race of men. History informed us and every thing ap¬ 
pertaining to the race, that the African, by being 
brought into contact with the white race was material¬ 
ly improved. It liad made him a more intelligent rnan 
than he was to be found in his native wilds of Africa. 
There, as all history informed him, the negroes were 
veiy little removed from the condition of dumb beasts 
—they wallowed in the mire like hogs, and there was 
nothing of civilization in their aboriginal condition. 
'The opinion of the civilized world was that the cruci¬ 
fixion of the Saviour was a most horrible act. The de¬ 
testation of the world followed the Jews throughout 
centuries for doing an act which, it is admitted, pro¬ 
duced for us illimitable blessings. In the days of old, 
Joseph’s brethren selling their brother into bondage 
was a stigma on those men and a curse to the nation, 
and should have been attended with the heaviest pun¬ 
ishment. Notwithstanding that it was a reprehensive 
act, yet he thought in the hands of God and in his 
providence, it was the means of bringing about a sub¬ 
lime end. Like this, he believed that there were many 
things which though looked on with distrust here, might 
yet lie made, in the hands of God, to subserve the best 
purposes. He trusted, however, that the period would 
soon come when nothing like slavery would be found 
among us. 

In the position which the Convention now occupied 
as white men, he opjiosed and objected to any petition 
of this kind brought here, being read, being printed, 
or being considered. The committee appointed to pre¬ 
pare business for the action of the Convention, conclu¬ 
ded that negro sufirage was a subject that did not de¬ 
serve having a committee, at least the committee dis¬ 
pensed with any recommendation on the subject. They 
thought it would be giving too much importance to the 
matter. Lest he might be giving too much considera¬ 
tion to the subject m debate, he would remark that 
this was the last time he should say anything on the 
subject, unless it was absolutely necessaiy. He would 
therefore demand the yeas and nays on the reception of 
the petition. 

Mr. CHAMBERS said that in all his acts in this Con¬ 
vention. he would make it a point to attempt brevity, 
and in no way, by unnecessary discussion, occupy the 
time or attention of the Convention. He rose only for 
the purpose of suggesting to the gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize whether or not his objection should not be with¬ 
drawn, and that it would facilitate the action of the 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 39 


Convention by receiving and referring the petition. He 
thought the gentleman rather premature in making his 
objections generally to those memorials, and particu¬ 
larly in reference to the subject of the black man hav¬ 
ing rights and privileges in this State. He had sup¬ 
posed that the gentleman hailing as a Democrat, would 
let such a petition pass and not make a particular ob¬ 
jection, and go into an argument on the subject. He 
thought that the gentleman and himself would act to¬ 
gether on the subject. He himself would probably 
agree with him in not assenting to place the black man 
on the same level with the white man. He did not 
know that he would hold an argument now on the sub¬ 
ject—expediency would come into the Convention, and 
many would be governed by it; perhaps he would him¬ 
self. Therefore he thought that it would be better not to 
make any objection, but allow all these petitions to be 
received and sent to the proper committee to be con¬ 
sidered. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren, knew that there was a di¬ 
versity of opinion in the Convention on the subject 
matter of the petition, and therefore he proposed to de¬ 
fine his position on the subject. That petition came 
from the section of country that he had the honor to 
represent, and it presented the views of a considerable 
portion of his constituency; comparatively, however, 
a small portion of the people of his district. As far as 
he knew the petitioners, they were of a respectable 
character. He would state his connection with the 
subject. Shortly before leaving home he received a 
letter from a person, who he believed was one of the 
petitioners, informing him that such a petition had been 
gotten up in the village in which he resided, enclosing 
a copy of it, and stating that he had been selected by 
the petitioners to present it, and advocate its doctrines 
in this Convention, provided they were in accordance 
with his own. He replied, acknowledging the receipt 
of the document, and stated that he considered it to be 
couched in respectful language. And, he stated that 
the petitioners had the right to be heard on the floor of 
this Convention—that they had a right to have their 
views presented to the Convention, and that if they 
thought proper to send it to him, and charge him with 
its presentation, he would present it. He had written 
to the gentleman who had addressed him that he could 
not, as then advised, support the prayer of the petition. 
He stated that whatever might be his own individual 
views or opinions, he considered it to be his duty if any 
of the citizens of the State of Ohio should send him pe¬ 
titions praying for any subject that fairly came within 
the scope of the deliberations of the Convention, and if 
they were in proper language, he would present them. 
He had done that, and he hoped the Convention would 
receive it. In regard to the ultimate object of the 
prayer of the petition, he supposed he would not differ 
with the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer] but 
he did not consider it proper to go into a discussion on 
the subject now, because it was premature. He hoped 
it would be received, and when the standing committees 
were announced, that it would be referred to one of 
them for consideration. 

Mr. MORRIS wished, before the question was taken, 
to say a word. He was in favor of the right of peti¬ 
tion, and on that account he would vote in favor of re¬ 
ceiving the petition. He would state that he was en¬ 
tirely opposed to the prayer of the petition. 

^ Mr. SMITH of Warren observed that as the peti¬ 
tioners were fully advised that he did not accord with 
them in sentiment as to the object of the petition, for 
the purpose of showing them and every one else what 
was his action here, and that he had (in his opinion) 
properly discharged his duty, if the gentleman from 
Auglaize still objected to the reception of the peti¬ 
tion, he would think it right to call for the yeas and 
nays. 

Mr. SAWYER did not withdraw his objection. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD would define his position as the 
yeas and nays were about to be called. He was not 


in favor of extending the right of suffrage to the negro 
race, but he would vote to receive the petition. 

Mr. VAN BROWN said that as the vote was about 
to be taken on the reception of the petition, he thought 
it proper that he should define his position. He would 
vote for the reception of the petition, and its reference. 
But in doing that, he did not wish it to be understood 
here or elsewhere, that he would vote for extending 
the right of suffrage to the African race. They were 
considered a degraded people among us, for what rea¬ 
son it was not his purpose to inquire; the opinion ob¬ 
tained, however, and they could not, by force of public 
authority, bring them on an equality with the white 
race. Until there was an entire social revolution in the 
intercourse between the two races—until the time 
should come when the black man could go to your 
house as a suitor for your daughter, and ask and obtain 
her in marriage, and until you could welcome the issue 
of that marriage, and receive with pride your little 
grandson “ William Cuffy,” or some such name, that 
would follow—and when a man could introduce them 
to his friends, and they would be received into the soci¬ 
ety of the white race—until then the two races were 
separate and distinct. When this revolution had taken 
place in the intercourse between the negro and us, 
then would be the proper time to give them the right 
of suffrage. He considered that extending the right 
of suffrage to our colored population, would be pro¬ 
ductive of serious inconveniences ; in his opinion it 
would have a tendency to degrade labor. He would 
vote for the reception of the petition, but he would not 
give a vote for the extension of the right of suffrage 
to the negro race. 

Mr. FLORENCE hoped that the gentleman would 
withdraw his call for the yeas and nays. 

Mr. MITCHELL rose not to detain the Convention 
with any discussion, but merely to relieve the commit¬ 
tee appointed to report in regard to the number of com¬ 
mittees necessary for the transaction of business, from 
the wrong impression left by the remarks of Mr. Saw¬ 
yer. That committee did not omit to report to this 
Convention a committee on the subject. Itdidnot think 
it proper to raise a committee specially to consider the 
question- of the right of negro suffrage, as the entire 
subject matter would come under the consideration of 
the committee on Suffrages. 

Mr. ROBERTSON presumed that no gentleman 
wished to be misunderstood on the vote about to be 
taken. He thought it proper that all respectful peti¬ 
tions from citizens of the State, on the subject matters 
that may come before the Convention, should be refer¬ 
red to the appropriate committees. In regard to the 
petition now presented, his mind was inado up; he 
would vote against its prayer, but would also vote for 
its reception. He thought the gentleman from Auglaize 
was wrong in his views in regard to the mere reception 
of this petition. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot called for the yeas and 
nays. His opinions accorded with those of the gentle¬ 
man from Warren, [Mr. Smith.] Whenever a peti 
tion w'as presented, coming no matter from what part 
of the State, and drawn up in proper and respectful 
language, it was their duty to receive it. He was in 
favor of receiving evei’y petition that was respectful 
in its language, no matter how much he might be op¬ 
posed to its prayer. 

Mr. LARWILL asked if the call for the yeas and 
nays had been withdrawn ? 

The PRESIDENT replied that it had not. 

Mr. LIDEY wished to know whether these constit¬ 
uents of the gentleman from Warren, [Mr. Smith,] 
were white or black men? ^ If they were black men 
he would vote against receiving the petition, but if 
they were white men he would vote for its reception. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren said he did not know, he 
supposed, half of the men named there. He had a 
general acquaintance with their names, but was not 
intimately acquainted with their persons. He knew 
nothing in regard to their color—he presumed they 









40 


CONVENTION REPOETS 


' . " ~ ' ■ 

were white men. The person who addressed the let¬ 
ter containing the petition to him, said it was signed 
by forty of the most respectable people in the neigh¬ 
borhood. It might be possible that some of them 
were of the colored race. He had no doubt, however, 
that a majority of them were voters. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said there was a peculiarity 
about the position of many gentlemen. They pro¬ 
fessed a reluctant willingness to vote for the reception 
of the petition, and yet they were exceedingly careful 
to say that they would vote against its prayer when 
presented for the consideration of the Convention. 
Not one gentleman here had been so bold as to say he 
would vote for the object of the petition, and he, [Mr. 
H.] would now say that there was one delegate in 
this Convention who would stand up for freedom, and 
not only would he, [Mr. H.] vote for the reception of 
the petition, but he should, at the proper time, vote 
AYE on its prayer. 

Mr. HENDERSON said that a few days ago a pe¬ 
tition was presented by the gentleman from Columbi¬ 
ana, [Mr. Quigley,] signed by many ladies of that 
county. The subject matter of that petition was quite 
as extravagant as that of the present. It would be 
recollected what was the action of the Convention in 
regard to that petition. It was received and laid on 
the table with the intention to give it a reference to 
the appropriate committee. In that action he thought 
the Convention was right, and on the present occasion 
he considered that it would be proper to follow the 
same course. No matter how extravagant the object 
of a petition might be, he was in favor of receiving it 
and giving it an appropriate reference, and having it 
considered by the Convention. His position was this, 
he was opposed to negro suftrage in toto, but should 
give his vote for the reception of all respectful peti¬ 
tions. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga did not rise to de¬ 
fine his position on the subject matter of this petition, 
it had been so long defined that his constituents and all 
that knew him, knew it. But he rose to say to the 
gentleman from Medina, [Mr. Humphreville.] that 
when the final vote would be had, the gentleman, if he 
did not find himself in respectable company, would at 
least find himself with respectable numbers. 

Mr. STIDGER observed that he found the doctrine 
of the right of petition for redress of grievances, was 
embedded in the bill of rights. It was doubtless as¬ 
sumed by many—with great propriety perhaps—that 
the withholding of the right of suffrage from the black 
people was a great grievance. That being the case, 
and finding this doctrine in the bill of rights, the peo¬ 
ple had a right, indisputable, to petition for redress of 
what they considered a grievance. Some gentlemen 
took the position that they would vote for the recep¬ 
tion of all petitions couched in respectful language, im¬ 
plying that if the petitions were not drawn up in re- 
epectful langugae, they would vote against their recep¬ 
tion. He held to the broad principle that they should 
receive all petitions. 

Mr. MORRIS said the petitioners represented them¬ 
selves to be from Clinton county. He was personally 
acquainted with a number of them, and they were men 
of respectability. He was acquainted with, perhaps, 
one-half of them, and he knew they were white men. 
He would vote for the reception of the petition, but 
against its prayer. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren did not know that he would 
be very astute in discovering the distinction between 
petitions that were respectful, and their language such 
as would be considered debateable, and petitions disre¬ 
spectful in their language. He would state that al¬ 
though he would hold to the right of petition and the 
obligation of members of the Convention to present any 
petition that was pertinent to the questions to come be¬ 
fore the Convention that there were petitions praying 
for objects that he would not feel any obligation to 
present. Suppose they were called upon to adopt a 
provision looking to a secession from the Union of the 


United States, he would not present such a petition un- \ 

der any circumstances. The other day we had pcti- t. 

tions presented praying the extension of the light of ji« 
suffrage to the female portion of the community, a^d ; I 

we had a memorial presented, asking us to provide for ."i 
the extradition of colored people frtnn the State. Gen¬ 
tlemen would remember that these petitions were re¬ 
ceived. He would think it very hard, if a portion of ; 
the people of the State, when asking in respectiul lan¬ 
guage the consideration of the subject presented, were 
not to be heard or considered. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND said he would vote of course 
for the reception of the petition and all other respect¬ 
ful petitions presented to the Convention, whether pre¬ 
sented by black men or white men. 

The only reason why he had not replied to the gen¬ 
tleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] was, that he 
deemed this discussion entirely out of place. The sub¬ 
ject would come up on the report of the committee on 
'the“ Elective Franchise ” and would be fully discussed, 
and whatever he had to say on the subject, he would 
reserve until that time. 

Mr. TAYLOR remarked that it seemed to him, that 
all the discussion on the merits of the subject, if not 
out of order, was certainly out of place. Although 
the observations which had been offered were very 
temperate, yet he thought that by a discussion on the 
subject now, the time of the Convention would be un¬ 
necessarily consumed. 

Mr. FEIRSTONE observed that he would, as far 
as he could, oppose the prayer of this petition, and 
never vote that a negro should have the same rights 
and privileges as the white man. But there was a 
very respectable portion of the community who 
thought differently on the subject. That difference of 
opinion was an honest r)ne. Berhaps gentlemen who 
voted for the prayer of the petition from conscientious 
motives, will think they vote right. He was for the 
reception, and the reference of the petition to the ap¬ 
propriate committee—that would be the committee 
on Elective Franchises. But as to the merits of it, 
when that question came up, he would vote against the 
prayer of the petition. 

Mr. HARD was in favor of receiving the petition 
but was opposed to extending the right of suffrage to 
the colored people, as his votes would subsequently 
show. 

Mr. BARNETT of Preble felt himself called on to 
say a few words in reference to his position. It was 
this—that the right of petition would seem to be the 
last right that should be denied to any individual who 
was a citizen or inhabitant of the State of Ohio. He, 
therefore, without saying one word in reference to his 
being in favor of the object of the petitioners or against 
it, would state that his position here was to permit 
eveiy one to have the right of petition, whether white 
or black. He therefore would vote for the reception 
of this and all other petitions, with this exception, that 
they be appropriate to the deliberations of the Conven¬ 
tion, and be couched in respectful language. 

A Member. And not on a frivolous subject. 

Mr. CAHILL would vote on all occasions against 
the extension of the right of suffrage to the negro pop¬ 
ulation, but was in favor of the reception of all re¬ 
spectful petitions. 

The question being on the reception of the petition, 
and the yeas and nays having been demanded at an 
early state of the debate, were taken and resulted yeas 
101, nays 2, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet 
of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, 
Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, Clay- 
poole. Ceilings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Ewing, 
Farr, Firestone, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, 












CONVENTION IlEPORTS. 41 


Hniiter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, 
Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Manon, 
Mason, MitcheJl, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Per¬ 
kins, Quigley, Raiiney, Reemelin, Riddle, Robertson, 
Roll, Scott of Hnrrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warretj, Smith of Wyaji- 
dot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbiiis, Stilwell, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of 
Butler, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Way, Williams, 
Woodbury and President—101. 

Nays —Messrs. Lkley and Sawyer—2. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren said as the standing commit¬ 
tees had not yet been announced, he would move that 
the petition be laid on the table, and at the proper 
time would move its reference. 

Mr. THOMPSON of Stark presented the petition of 
John Harrison and fifty oilier citizens of Fairview. It 
was similar, he said to the one he presented on a pre¬ 
vious day. The petition prayed that provision be made 
in the New Constitution, securing to the citizens and 
naturalized and native inhabitants of the State, equal 
rights and privileges without regard to color. He hoped 
that the petition would meet with a favorable reception, 
particularly as he noticed, by the signatures, that the 
ladies were connected with it. 

The Convention acquiesced in receiving the peti¬ 
tion. 

Mr. STILWELL presented a petition from Stanley S. 
Chinn and fifteen other citizens of Fairview and vicin¬ 
ity praying to have a provision incorporated in the New 
Constitution granting the right of suflrage and all other 
rights, privileges and immunities enjoyed by the oppo¬ 
site sex to all white women in our State over the age 
of eighteen years. 

On motion the petition was laid table. 

Mr. WILLIAMS said he had in his hand a petition 
coming exclusively from black people. It came from 
a small portion of the people of the county which he 
represented. As this was his first appearance in a de¬ 
liberative body, he did not know whether it was proper 
to present it, or not. He wished however to lay it be¬ 
fore the Convention for their deliberation and action. 

The petition sought to establish a platform of equali¬ 
ty, and prayed that all distinctions between white and 
colored men be abolished; he moved the reception of 
the petition, the caption of which read thus: “ The pe¬ 
tition of Jonas Wilson and twenty other colored people 
of the county of Warren, praying this Convention to 
remove everything from the Constitution that makes 
distinction between people on account of color.” 

Mr. ROLL objected to the reception of the petition. 

Mr. SAWYER called for the yeas and nays on the 
question of reception. 

Mr. HARLAN asked if it were a motion to reject. 

The PRESIDENT. Objection being made to its re¬ 
ception, it cannot be received unless by a vote of the 
Convention. 

The question being on the reception of the petition, 
a division was had and resulted yeas 76, nays 26, as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet 
of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, 
Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Case of Ljcking, Chambers, Clark, Cook, Cutler, 
Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Greene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunt¬ 
er, Johnson, Kirkwood, Larsh, Leech, Leadbetter, Ma¬ 
son, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Perkins, 
Quigley, Ranuey, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Steb- 
bins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Vance of Champaign, Warren, Way, Williams, Wood¬ 
bury—76. 


Nays —Messrs. Cahill, Claypoole,Colling8, Feirstone 
Florence, Gillet, Green of Ross, Hard, Holmes, Hart¬ 
man, Jones, King, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Manon,. 
Peck, Riddle, Robertson, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Smith of Wyandot, Struble, Thompson of Shel¬ 
by and President—26. 

compensation of officers. 

Mr. EWART, from the select committee, appointed 
to consider and report upon the proper compensation of 
officers, whose pay has not been fixed by law, report¬ 
ed the following: 

Resolved, That the three Secretaries, Sergeant-at-Arms, Assis¬ 
tant Sergeant-at-Arms, and the Door-keeper be allowed each three 
dollars per day, and the four messenger boys one dollar per day- 
each, for their services during the session of the Convention. 

Mr. EWART stated the resason that no allusion was 
made to the compensation of reporters, was, that they 
had considered that matter referred to the committee 
on Reporting. 

The report was adopted, and the resolution agreed to. 

THE judiciary. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga, from the select 
committee to which was recommitted the resolutions 
asking for information with reference to the Judiciary,, 
reported the following: 

Resolved, That the Secretary of State be requested to address 
a circular to the clerks of the several courts of record in this 
State, containing the following inquiries, and requesting imme¬ 
diate answers thereto. 

1. What length of time was occupied by the regular terms of 
your court, during the year 1848 1 and what length of time by 
special terms or called courts? 

2. What was the total number of civil suits (exclusive of those 
brought from justices’courts and petitions,) pending during the 
same period ? 

That he also address to the Clerks of the court of 
Common Pleas the following inquiiies: 

1. What was the length of time occupied by grand jurors in.! 
your county during the same period? 

2. What was the total number of causes brought into your 
court from justices’ courts ? What the entire number pending ? 
and what the number disposed of during the same period? and 
what is your estimate of the average cost of such suits? 

3. What was the total number of probates of wills, and of grants 
of letters testamentary, administrative, or guardianship ? What 
the number of settlements made on the estate of decedents, mi¬ 
nors, idiots and lunatics? And what the number of petitions for 
partition, and for the sale of real estate by executors, administra¬ 
tors and guardians,during the same period? 

4. What was the number of taverns licensed by your court to 
retail spiritous liquors? and what the amount of revenue derived; 
therefrom during the same period ? 

Resolved, That the clerks of the Commercial court of Cincin¬ 
nati, and the Superior court of Cleveland, be requested to em¬ 
brace in their answers, both the years 1848 and 1849, distinguish¬ 
ing between the same. 

Resolved, That upon receiving the information above request¬ 
ed, the Secretary of State be requested to condense and arrange- 
the same, and report it to this Convention in a convenient tabular- 
form, adding thereto the number of Justices of the Peace in the^ 
several counties ot this State. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. From the reading of the re¬ 
port at the Secretary’s desk, it seems to me (though Ii 
may be in eiTor) that it omits all the information pro¬ 
posed in the original resolution, in regard to criminal! 
cases. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. I will explain the- 
reason of this omission. Upon examination of the re¬ 
port of the Attorney General of the State for the year 
1848, it was ascertained that it contained a tabular' 
statement upon this subject, embracing sixty-five coun¬ 
ties, and presenting the precise information sought for,, 
and it was believed by the committee that probably 
the information derived from the clerks would not be 
much more definite than the information therein em¬ 
braced. The report also leaves out all information a® 
to costs and damages, because the committee were ol 
opinion that such information could not be obtained in. 
time for the action of the Convention, and because it 
would be imposing too great a tax upon the clerks. 
The committee also omitted the inquiry with respect 
to costs in criminal cases, because it was embraced ia 
the resolution reported by the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin [Mr. Swan,] making inquiries of the Auditors. As 
to the last inquiry—that relative to the number of tav- 












42 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


era licenses—all the committee did not see that it could 
have any direct bearing upon the business of the Con¬ 
vention; but as some supposed that questions might 
arise to which such information might be applicable 
in some shape, the committee thought best to report it. 

The report was then agreed to, and the resolution 
adopted. 

COPY RIGHT OF CONVENTION REPORTS. 

Mr. STANBERY otfered for consideration the fol¬ 
lowing : 

Resolved, That it is in expedient to conform to so much of the 
4th section of the act to provide for calling the Convention, as re¬ 
lates to securing a copy right for the State, of the report of our 
proceedings and debates. 

Mr. HOLMES desired the mover of this resolution to 
explain his object in introducing it. 

Mr. STANBERY. The Convention will see, that by 
the 4th section of the act calling the Convention, we 
are required to secure for the State the copy right of 
our proceedings and debates. It is time to consider 
that proposition, and I had hoped that the matter would 
have engaged the attention of the committee on Re¬ 
porting—but I see from their i*eport that it is omitted. 

The law of copy right, as the Convention must 
know, depends upon the constitution and laws of the 
United States, and looking to those laws, I cannot see 
that it is practicable even if it were expedient, to bring 
the publication of our pi'oceedings and debates within 
their requirements. 

If in any sense, the State can be considered the au¬ 
thor or proprietor of our proceedings and debates—so 
that the matter spoken here shall be made the subject 
of exclusive publication by the State or its assignee, 
yet it is very clear we cannot comply with the law of 
copy right. 

We have already contracted for the daily publication 
of the proceedings and debates in two newspapers of 
this city, and no less than five daily publications have 
been made by each of these papers. It is this matter 
so published and to be published in daily papers, that 
afterwards is to be published in book form and copy 
righted. 

That, I repeat, is impracticable. These debates hav¬ 
ing been once published, can never afterwards be 
locked up, or their further publication or re-publication 
forbidden. Copy right must be secured before any 
publication, by certain preliminaries, which we have 
not observed, and which we could not fulfil, and at the 
same time ^o on with the daily publications. The idea 
of publication first, and copy right afterwards, is pre¬ 
posterous. 

But, sir, if it were practicable, I do not think it ex¬ 
pedient to secure an exclusive right to the publication 
of our proceedings and debates. That proceeds upon 
the idea of making a profit out of this exclusive publi¬ 
cation. I would quite as soon think of making money 
out of the publication of our laws, or of the constitu¬ 
tion we may frame. We must not forget that there is 
a higher object than profit in this publication, and that 
is the largest possible circulation among the people. 
The primary object of the publication is that the peo¬ 
ple may see what we do, and have the best opportunity 
of considering all the arguments for and against any 
proposed change in our constitution. This being so, 
why should we interpose any barriers to the fullest and 
most unrestricted publication? If copy right has any 
effect, it is to curtail this free publication—to secure it 
exclusively to some one proprietor, and to forbid it to 
all others. It shuts out all competition, and obliges 
the people to purchase the book of the proprietor and 
his agents, at just such price as he may choose to fix. 

Mr. SAWYER. The fourth section of the law un¬ 
der which we have convened here says: “The Con¬ 
vention shall secure the copy right,” referring to the 
book edition of our proceedings and debates. Are we 
not bound to do it, sir? is the simple, naked question. 
If we are not bound to do it, I question whether we 
are bound to do anything mentioned in that act. 

' Mr. STANBERY. It is clear that we cannot be 


bound to do that which is impossible to be done. We 
are not bound to do what is impracticable, and I was 
arguing to show the impracticability of this requisition. 

I have looked in wain amongst the journals of the pro¬ 
ceedings of such bodies for any precedent of this kind. 
Now the State might make some money, perhaps, by 
such a course ; but I think it would be bad policy; and 
while it might be securing a little money to the treas¬ 
ury, it would be doing a great evil and injustice to the 
people at large, by shutting them out from the free 
reading of matter which would enable them to decide 
upon the merits of our work when it comes to be pre¬ 
sented to them. 

Mr. SAWYER. I am not satisfied that the resolu¬ 
tion ought to prevail. Ido not pretend to be a lawyer, 
as the gentleman from Franklin is, but I know very 
well this fact—that is, I have been informed of it that 
the State of Kentucky has made money enough out of 
the sales of the authorized edition ot the proceedings 
and debates of the Convention, nearly, to pay the entire 
expenses of getting up that work. This was the idea 
which induced our Legislature to say that the State 
should have the exclusive right to the sales of the re¬ 
ports of this Convention. It seems to me that this 
copy-right would be a veiy great advantage to the city 
press of Columbus. I move that the resolution be laid 
on the table and printed. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Will the gentleman withhold 
his motion one moment? 

Mr. SAWYER. Yes. I withdraw it. 

Mr. STANBERY, [interposing.] I cannot but think 
that the State of Kentucky never made a cent out of 
her Convention reports by means of a copy-right. But 
any gentleman can be satisfied of that at once, by just 
looking at the volume upon the page next to the title; 
and if the certificate of copy-right be not found there, 
as the law requires, then there must be some mistake 
in the gentleman’s impression that, bj/ means of a copy¬ 
right, Kentucky was enabled to realize a profit from 
the publication of the debates in her Convention. 

Mr. SAWYER. Let me make a suggestion. As I 
understand the report of the select committee charged 
with the subject of printing, the entire cost for paper 
and printing of these reports, will be, per copy, one 
dollar and a quarter, or one dollar and a-half. I am 
not positive which—but they have reported the actual 
cost of each copy, according to the prices assumed. 
Now I do know that one copy of the Kentucky Con¬ 
vention proceedings costs five dollars and a-half. It 
may be that the booksellers make large profits upon 
the work, but if the profits can be made so large, I 
think that a portion at least ought to go into the State 
treasury. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I perfectly agree with the remarks 
of the distinguished legal gentleman from Franklin [ Mr. 
Stanbery.] I had already come to the same conclusion 
before 1 came into this Convention, and I had prepared 
a resolution in relation to this very matter, which I in¬ 
tended to offer. I would remark, in addition to what 
has been said by the gentleman from Franklin, that if 
the State has any right (and I deny that she has,) to 
the exclusive publication and sale of these debates, 
she has also a right to interfere so as to suppress alto¬ 
gether iheir sale and distribution amongst the people. 
But I deny that the State has this right, and regard it 
of the utmost importance that our proceedings and de¬ 
bates should go out freely to the world, in an au¬ 
thorized form. I desire to see no monopoly in this 
thing. I theretore suggest a substitute for the resolu¬ 
tion of the gentleman, which I have hastily drawn up. 
and send to the Secretary. 

The paper was read by the Secretary, as follows: 

Resolved, That the Ohio Statesman and Ohio State Journal be 
authorized to publish, under the sanction of the Convention, the 
debates of the Convention, in pamphlet or book form, on their 
own private account. 

Mr. ROBERTSON continued. I am unwilling that 
any individual should ])ublish our debates in a mutila¬ 
ted form, and that is the reason I name these papers 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


43 


only. I wish it distinctly understood that I am satis 
fied that any citizen has a right to publish these pro 
ceedings and debates. And I name these papers for 
the lurther reason that they are publishing our pro¬ 
ceedings in newspaper form, under the sanction of the 
Convention already. I will make a single remark 
more. I am also in favor of publishing our debates 
in the German language. The cost will not be so great 
as gentlemen imagine. Seventy-five thousand citizens 
of the State, I learn, are German people; and I wish to 
give them the advantage of reading our proceedings 
and debates here, in their own language. They pay a 
large amount ol taxes, and I would be willing to ap¬ 
propriate some portion of that amount towards the pur¬ 
chase ^ and distribution of our debates amongst them; 
and, sir, I desire to see them published in the German 
paper of this city. 

Mr. STTDGER [doubtfully heard.] I suggest that 
it would be improper to strike out the original resolu¬ 
tion, because the proposition ot the gentleman from 
Franklin declares to the world the reason why we 
can’t obtain the copy-right. I suggest, therefore, to 
the gentleman from Fairfield the propriety of offering 
his amendment, not by way of substitute, but by add 
ing to the original resolution. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Perhaps that would be the bet¬ 
ter course. I accept the suggestion. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD [holding up the first sheet of the 
Convention Reporter .I find copies of this work laying 
on our tables; and! find also a report from a select 
committee recommending the printing of one thou¬ 
sand copies of these proceedings and debates in book 
form. Now, by the terms of the resolution of the gen¬ 
tleman from Fairfield, both the city editors would be 
authorized to print them on their own private account. 
I would like to know what effect that would have upon 
the report of the commirtee ? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. That’s another matter. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. My inquiry is, what effect would 
this resolution have upon the order of the Convention ? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. It would have no effect at all. 
The object of my resolution is simply to authorize the 
publication of these reports as printed in these two es¬ 
tablishments under the sanction of the Convention, 
to prevent others from publishing them. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD then moved to refer the resolution 
and^ amendment to the select committee on reporting ; 
which motion prevailed, and the reference was made. 
apportionment. 

Mr. RE EMELIN rose to submit a resolution in refer¬ 
ence to an amendment of the constitution of the State. 
I have waited so far,, [he said,] for the purpose of hear¬ 
ing from the committee on Rules, in order to find out 
whether in moving an amendment to the constitution, 
we are to proceed as in the introduction of a bill. Al¬ 
so, when any gentleman moves an amendment, wheth¬ 
er he should adopt such language as shall conform to 
what must be the language of the constitution, or 
whether the language maybe merely declarative. Fol¬ 
lowing the example which has already been set by an¬ 
other gentleman, I have adopted merely declarative 
language. I offer the following: 

^solved. That it is expedient, so to change the present consti¬ 
tution of Ohio, as to take away from the General Assembly the 
power to apportion Senators and Representatives among the sev¬ 
eral counties of this State. 

Resolved, That it is expedient, to engraft upon the new consti- 
mtion, a provision for a self-acting apportionment of Senators and 
tei res^tatives, based upon the following principles: 

I- 1 he whole population in each county to be the basis for re¬ 
presentative purposes. 

/I ■ ^ Senatorial apportionment and purposes, the State to be 
aiviaed into Senatorial districts, to be permanently fixed in the 
new constitution. ’ ~ ^ 

quota of population requisite for a Senator or Repre- 
sentatwe, to be permanently fixed in the new constitution. 

4. Each county to be entitled to at least one Representative. 

5. No provision to be put into the new constitution, limiting 
the number of Senators or Representative, of which the General 
Assembly shall consist. 

6. In all cases, where a county or Senatorial district may, ac¬ 
cording to its population, be entitled to more than one Senator 
or Representative, such county or Senatorial district to be sub¬ 


divided into such number of separate districts and single dis¬ 
tricts, as may be equal to the number of Senators or Represen¬ 
tatives, to which such county or district would be entitied, by 
some local authority resilent therein, such, for instance, as ’the 
Board of County Commissioners or a similar body. 

7. The apportionment to be made every five years, if the first 
United States census now being taken, to be the basis, and so 
every five years hereafter, if an United States census should be 
taken—if otherwise, for the intermediate five years, the General 
Assembly to make provision for a State census. 

8. No new counties to be erected, nor the county lines to be 
changed, except with the consent of a majority of all the voters 
of all the counties affected thereby, at two consecutive elections. 

Mr. REEMELIN continued. The course generally 
pursued with such propositions, has been, I believe, to 
move that they be laid on the table and pi’inted. I 
now make that motion, giving notice that I shall call 
them up for consideration at the proper time ; which 
motion was agreed to. 

Oil motion, by Mr. LIDEY, the Convention then took 
a recess. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. BARBEE offered the following, which he moved 
be laid upon the table: 

Resolved. That the publishers of the Ohio Statesman and the 
Ohio State Journal shall publish and bind in a durable form, each, 
five hundred copies of the debates and daily proceedings of this 
Convention, as reported by J. V. Smith, which shall be in form 
and general arrangement that of the New York volume of de¬ 
bates, which work so bound shall be ready for delivery within 
thirty days after the rising of this Convention, and for which they 
shall be paid out of the State Treasury one dollar and twenty-five 
cents for each volume so published and bound. Should, howev¬ 
er, the work exceed in matter that of the New York volume of 
debates, the price shall be provided for such excess; and that 
Samuel Medary be and is hereby appointed, and required to do 
all other printing that may be required by this Convention, at the 
following rates, to wit: For composition per 1000 ems, 35 cents; 
for press work per token, 30 cents. 

Mr. BARBEE continued: My object in offering this 
resolution, is that it may go before the proper commit¬ 
tee, the committee on Printing, to which this subject 
has been referred. I am extremely anxious myself, to 
see the end of this matter relative to the printing and 
publishing of our debates, and therefore, I move you, 
that the resolution be referred to the committee on 
Printing. 

Mr. NASH. I understand the committee is ready to 
report upon the subject of printing. ^ If this matter is 
referred to them, the committee will be obliged to de¬ 
lay their report. 

Mr. LIDEY moved that the resolution be laid upon 
the table, which was agi’eed to. 

Mr. LIDEY, from the select committee on Printing, 
reported the following: 

The select committee to which was recommitted the report on 
printing, beg leave to submit the following: 

Resolved, That Samuel Medary be and he is hereby appointed 
printer for tliis Convention, to do such printing as the Conven¬ 
tion may order. 

Resolved, That the printer for this Convention be paid at the 
following rates, to wit: 

For composition on journals, debates and reports, per 

1000 ems.30 cents. 

For press work on the same per token.35 “ 

For composition on all work in bill form per 1000 ems..25 “ 

For prass work on the same per token.30 “ 

Provided, however, that the work shall be done and computed 
in accordance with the provisions of an act entitled “ An act to 
provide for the State printing, passed March 12th, 1845. 

JOHN LIDEY, 

R. LEECH, 

JOHN LARWILL, 
SIMEON NASH. 

Mr. SAWYER here moved the previous question, 
but this motion not prevailing, and the question then 
being on agreeing to the report, it was agreed to. 

Mr. ORTON, from the committee on Reporting, made 
the following report: ' 

• The committee to whom was referred the resolution of the 
member from Franklin, in reference to the copy right of the de¬ 
bates and proceedings, and the amendment of the member from 
Fairfield, respectfully report the same back, and recommend that 
the resolution be adopted and the amendment indefinitely post¬ 
poned.” 

The question being on agreeing to the following re¬ 
solution, reported by the committee : 















CONVENTION EEPORTS 


44 


'^Resolved, That it is inexpedient to conform to so much of the 
4th section of the act to provide for calling the Convention as re¬ 
lates to securing a copy right for the State, of the report of the 
proceedings and debates ”— 

Mr. McCORMICK. I hold in my hands an amend¬ 
ment to that resolution, which I wish to offer. I move 
to amend by striking out all after the word “ resolved,” 
and insert “ that the Reporter be ordered forthwith to 
to secure to the State of Ohio, a copy right of the de¬ 
bates of the Convention.” 

Mr. HAWKINS. There is an amendment already 
pending to the original resolution. I suppose the ques¬ 
tion, in the first place, would be on the rejection of the 
amendment, and then on the adoption of the resolution 
itself. As I understand it, this is a motion adverse to 
the original proposition. 1 do not see how we can re¬ 
ceive the amendment. It seems to me the question 
should be on the oi-iginal proposition. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would say that the 
question upon agreeing to the report is a single one. 
Gentlemen can call for a division of tlie question, and 
then the question would be first on the adoption of the 
original resolution, [ Mr. S i anbeuy’s, ] and then agreeing 
to the recommendation of the committee to indefinitely 
postpone the amendment, [Mr. Robertson’s.] 

Mr. ROBERTSON demanded a division of the qiies- 
tion. 

The PRESIDENT. A division of the question be¬ 
ing called for, the question will be first as to agreeing 
to so much of the report as recommends the adoption 
of the original resolutio i, to which the gentleman 
from Adams offered an amendment. 

Mr. HAWKINS. There seems to me a propriety in 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Fair- 
field—that the publishers of the two daily journals 
here, should be allowed to publish on their own ac¬ 
count, these reports. It is the intention of this amend¬ 
ment to remove all doubt as to the right, and I think 
it would be well for us to adopt it. 

Mr. McCORMICK. We have, by the adoption of 
the report of the committee on Printing, appointed a 
printer to this Convention and prescribed the terms 
upon which he will do the printing. Some days since, 
we appointed a committee, whose duty it was to re¬ 
port what printing was necessary to be done for this 
Convention. That committee lias made a report, which 
is already lying on our tables, recommending the pub¬ 
lication of our debates alone and separate from other 
printing. It is true, that this report of the committee 
may be set aside—that we may reject it—that we may 
determine by resolution that we will not publish these 
debates. But I feel disposed to think that a majority 
of this Convention would be favorable to the publica¬ 
tion of these debates in some form or other, and if 
they are favorable to this they are unfavorable to the 
proposition that lies upon our tables, for dividing that 
work between an individual who is now, by resolu¬ 
tion of this Convention, printer, and one of its officers, 
and one who is not an officer of this body. The law, 
under which we are called together, provides and re¬ 
quires that we shall take such steps as will secure to 
the State of Ohio the copy right in our debates and pro¬ 
ceedings. This law means something or it means no¬ 
thing. We have been recognizing its provisions up to 
this day. We have appointed officers in accordance 
with its dictates and requisitions. We have done all 
things which that law has required us to do, up to the 
present time, and this is the first motion—the first 
movement on the part of any individual of this Con¬ 
vention, to set aside the requisitions or authority of that 
law, by disregarding one of its most particular require¬ 
ments. Now, Mr. President, if this law is to be set 
aside, in part, let us proceed and set it aside entirely. 
If it be binding in any one portion, it is binding upon 
us as a whole. If it is invalid in any one of the requisi¬ 
tions it is invalid in the whole. If we reject any por¬ 
tion of the requirements of the statutes, let us rescind 
the various resolutions which we have adopted in ac¬ 
cordance with its requisitions, and cast ourselves abroad 


upon an unknown sea of waters, procuring our own 
chart and sailing thereby. i • 

But I apprehend there is no such difficulty in this 
requisition of the law, as has been supposed by some, 
to exist. I w'as struck with astonishment at hearing 
the honorable gentleman from Geauga saying that he 
could not conceive in what manner the copy right 
could be secured for the State. . I must confess I was 
myself, until I examined the matter, entirely ignorant 
of the modus operandi by which it could be done. I 
had never looked into this matter. I hiid, in short, as 
some gentleman on the other side of the house,^ re¬ 
marked, never gone very far into this question of se¬ 
curing a copy right. 1 have lately taken the trouble to 
examine the law, and it does seem to me there is no 
difficulty about securing the copy right to the State. 
The copy right law provides that any person, either in 
publishing a book, or on proposing to publish a book, 
shall file in the district Clerk’s office, the title page of 
said book The question in this case then, turns upon, 
first, the person; and secondly, upon tlie publication, 
I apprehend. The State of Ohio is the authority, or 
person that publishes these books. The State of Ohio 
is an individual in law ; is recognized in this confede¬ 
racy, and by the courts of law, as a person—as an in¬ 
corporation for all practical purposes. The State of 
Ohio is as much entitled to avail itself of the clear 
provisions of the copyright, as a county, or any cor¬ 
poration would be—as any individual. Is there any 
difficulty under the laws of Ohio in a corporation se¬ 
curing the copy right in maps, pictures and books that 
they might publish ? No one will say that there would 
be any difficulty about this. There is none with re¬ 
gal’d to a corporation or individual. Why should not 
the same apply as well to the State of Ohio ? The 
State is only an enlarged corporation, entitled equally 
with individuals, to the benefits of this law. I take 
it then, sir, that under the law, and the definition given 
of persons by the law, that this State of Ohio is as 
much entitled to secure a copy right by its proper 
officers, as any private individual. 

Well, then, if the State is competent to secure the 
copy right to herself, has she waived that right, or is it 
now too late to take advantage thereof? If I understood 
the gentlemen from Franklin this morning, (and if I 
am incorrect I hope he will correct me,) he took the 
position that the publication of the proceedings thus 
far in the newspapers of this city, and in the pamphlet 
laid upon our desks this morning, now precluded the 
securing of the copy right, even if the State had been 
entitled to secure it at first. If I understood the gen¬ 
tleman correctly, this was his declaration, and the very 
position he took. I do not so understand it, sir. The 
publication of this book is not completed until the 
finis ” is written at the end of the last page. The 
publication is the whole work. It is an unit, a con¬ 
nected subject or proposition. Neither the publication 
of the first page, nor the fiftieth page, nor any other 
page that precedes the last page, completes the full 
and perfect work. The work, in order to fulfil the le¬ 
gal definition of the term publication, must be the pub¬ 
lication, printing, and circulation. And therefore, up 
to the hour in which the entire work is published, to 
this State most certainly belongs the exclusive right to 
become the publishers and secure the copy right of 
this book, which we now propose to publish, by a res¬ 
olution of this Convention. It is for this reason that I 
offered the amendment. The proposition here is to 
leave this matter to individual enterprise, to bring in¬ 
dividuals into competition with the State in the pub¬ 
lishing of our debates. At the same time, I do notun 
derstand that any proposition from any individual is 
now before this Convention, to secure the publication 
of the debates in an authentic form, which shall give a 
currency and authority to whatever may transpire here 
throughout the State. If we intend to give validity to 
the full reports of our debates and proceedings—if we 
have any respect for ourselves in their publication, we 
must attend to it, and see that they are published in 









CONVENTION REPORTS 


45 


such a manner as will give authenticity to them, so 
that the community will look upon them as authentic 
documents. No such proposition is now before the 
Convention. There is a proposition, as I said before, 
to print our journals. There is a law which we pro¬ 
pose by this amendment to abrogate, which requires us 
to publish our proceedings in the two daily papers of 
this city. If you disregard a portion of this law—the 
publication in the papers—then we may set aside the 
whole, and disregard all its requirements. Under these 
circumstances, it appears to me that a sense of expe¬ 
diency, right, and self-respect, requires us to disagree 
to this report of the committee, to act in accordance 
with the requisitions of this law, and for the purpose of 
settling the question, now and forever, so that we may 
not again be troubled with it. 

The question being then upon Mr. McCormick’s a- 
niendment, to the original resolution. Mr. Robertson 
demanded the yeas and nays, which being taken result¬ 
ed yeas 40, nays 64, as follows: 

Yeas. —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Cuny, Farr, 
Forbes, Gregg, Hard, Hootman, Hunt, Kennon, King, 
Kirkwood, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, Patterson, Quigley, Roeme- 
lin. Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
WaiTen, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickuey, Stid- 
ger, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Way, 
Williams.—40. 

Nays. —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensder- 
fer. Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Lick¬ 
ing, Chambers, Clark, Claypoole, Ceilings, Cook, Cut¬ 
ler, Ewart, Ewing, Firestone, Florence, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Groes- 
beck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Plenderson, Hitch¬ 
cock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Larsh. 
Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Norris, Orton, Otis, 
Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Riddle, Robertson, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Highland, Staubery, Stilwell, Stru- 
ble, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Vance 
of Butler, Vance of Champaign, Woodbury, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent.—64. 

So the amendment was disagi’eed to. The question 
then being on agreeing to so much of the report of the 
committee as recommended the adoption of the origi¬ 
nal resolution, [Mr. Stanbery’s.] 

Mr. NASH said, I am unwilling to vote for that pro¬ 
position, in the shape in which it is now presented, for 
this reason, that it proposes to violate the provision of 
the Statute. I am unwilling to say aye to a resolution 
of this character. Whether it is impracticable to se¬ 
cure a copy right is another and a different question. 
I move, therefore, that it be laid on the table for the 
present. Which motion was agreed to. 

On motion, the Convention adjourned. 


TUESDAY, May 14—10 o’clock, A. M. 
standing committees. 

On Privileges and Elections. —Messrs. Kirkwood, 
Curry, Forbes, Norris, Bates, Dorsey, Case of Hock¬ 
ing, Woodbury and McCloud. 

On the Legislative Department. — Messrs. Sawyer, 
Reemelin, Chambers. Barnet of Montgomery, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Way, Cahill, Morehead and Hunter. 

On the Executive Department. —Messrs. Leadbetter, 
Riddle, Vance of Champaign, Blair, Cook, Brown of 
Carroll, and Gillet. 

On the Judicial Department. —Messrs. Kennon, Swan, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Mason, Vance of Butler, Stau¬ 
bery, Groesbeck, Stilwell, Smith of Warren, Ranney, 
Kirkwood, McCormick and Humphreville. 

On Apportionment. —Messrs. Hrdmes, Morris, Bar- 
net of Preble, Dorsey, Hunt, Stickuey, Patterson, 
Claypoole, McCloud, Manon, Henderson, Case of Hock¬ 
ing, Cutler, Lawrence, Scott of Harrison, Bennett, 
Gregg, Hootman, Swift, Woodbury and Farr. 

On the Elective Franchise. —Messrs. Robertson, Green 
of Ross, Townshend, Otis and Scott Auglaize. 


On Corporations, other than Corporations for Banking. 
—Messrs. Norris, Stanton, Reemelin, Sellers and Ew¬ 
art. 

On Banking and Currency. —Messrs. Larwill, Roll, 
Peck, Mitchell, Leech, Williams and Florence. 

On Public Debts and Public Works. —Messrs. Haw¬ 
kins, Stebbins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Harlan, Swan, 
Jones, Johnson, Blickensderfer and Larsh. 

On Future Amendments to the Constitution. —Messrs. 
Ranney, Warren, Hamilton, Smith of Wyandot, and 
Gray. 

On Education. —Messrs. Stidger, Curry, Quigley, 
Greene of Defiance, Brown of Athens, and Smith of 
Highland. 

On Militia. —Messrs. Lidey, Thompson of Stark, 
Gray, Loudon, Gillet, Scott of Auglaize, and Barnet of 
Preble. 

On Finance and Taxation. —Messrs. Loudon, Horton, 
Firestone, Ewing, and Barbee. 

On the Preamble and Bill of Rights. —Messrs. Vance 
of Butler, Groesoeck, Nash, Stanbery, Orton, Case of 
Licking, and Bates. 

On Public Institutions of the State. —Messrs. Vance of 
Champaign, King, Struble, Graham, and Way. 

On Jurisprudence. —Messrs. Holt, Andrews, Colliugs, 
Archbold, Case of Licking, Thompson of Shelby, Clark, 
Green of Ross, and Otis. 

On Miscellaneous Subjects and Propositions. —Messrs. 
Archbold, Blair, Chambers, Hard, Quigley, Nash and 
Perkins. 

On Accounts. —Messrs. Ewart, Clark, Taylor, Forbes, 
and Hamilton. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler, from the committee appoint¬ 
ed to prepare rules, reported a series of rules, and 
moved that the report be laid on the table, and order- 
dered to be printed; which was agreed to. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, from the committee on Privileges 
and Elections, made a report. He stated that the re¬ 
port was a lengthy one, and might not be read. He 
would state that there had been no difficulty in de¬ 
termining the rights of members to the seats they 
claimed, all who had presented certificates were enti¬ 
tled to their seats. There was, however, one seat va¬ 
cant—that of Mr. Lawrence of Guernsey. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the report was con¬ 
curred in. 

Mr. HUNT offered the following: 

“ Resolved, That the committee upon Apportionment be in¬ 
structed to inquire into the expediency of providing in the con¬ 
stitution of this State for allowing to pach county m the State 
one representative.” 

Mr. CUTLER moved that the resolution be refer¬ 
red to the standing committee on Apportionment. 

The reading of the resolution was called for, and be¬ 
ing had— 

Mr. CUTLER remarked that he had not before un¬ 
derstood the language of the resolution, and he would 
now, leave being granted, withdraw his motion. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. I move that the memorial 
which I presented yesterday be now taken up and re¬ 
ferred to the committee on Elective Franchises; which 
was agreed to. 

Mr. THOMPSON of Stark. I move that the peti- 
tion presented by myself on the same occcasion be 
now taken up and referred to the same committee ; 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. STILLWELL moved that the petition presented 
by him, yesterday, from citizens ot Guernsey county, 
betaken up and referred to the committee on the Elec¬ 
tive Franchise ; which was agreed to. 

Mr. MASON. I would make a siiigle remark which 
I intended to offer before the question was taken on 
the reference of thesepetitions. J here are some ot these 
petitions and memorials which, it seems to me it would 
bo well to have brought before this body, and some¬ 
what considered before their reference to a committee— 
By this means, the committee would have at least some 
knowledo-e of the sense of the Convention on the sub¬ 
ject thus referred, and their whole business would bo 
1 greatly forwarded. 













46 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


Mr. WILLAMS. I move that the memorial .presented 
by myself yesterday, be taken up and referred to the 
committee on the Elective Franchise. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler. I will state that the com¬ 
mittee of twenty-one have reported resolutions for the 
action of the Convention, the substance of which is, 
that petitions of this character are to be submitted either 
to the Convention or the committee of the whole, be¬ 
fore reference to a standing or select committee. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved an amendment to the motion, 
by adding “with instructions to report that it is inex¬ 
pedient to grant the prayer of the petition.” 

Mr. TAYLOR. If that amendment is insisted upon, 
I shall demand a division of the question. 

Mr. LOUDON asked for the reading of the petition, 
which request was complied with. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would like to know whether 
the motion of the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Haw¬ 
kins] has reference to all petitions and meinonals of this 
kind, or whether it is to be applied to this one, which 
I have presented alone. I do not know why any dis¬ 
tinction should be made between this and any other of 
like character. If we receive and appropriately refer 
one petition of this character, we should take the same 
course with all—there should be no invidious distinc¬ 
tions. I have, however, already declared, that while I 
advocate its reception and reference, I am opposed to 
granting the prayer of the memorial which I presented. 
I would show to all these petitions the courtesy of 
sending their petitions to a standing committee, and let 
the whole subject be reported upon. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. I rise to ask the member 
from Morgan to withdraw his amendment. 1 am 
ready to meet this question at any time, and as I have 
said, as at present advised, I shall vote against the 
prayer of the petition. But, sir, there is in Ohio, a 
very large and respectable class of citizens who have 
views on this subject antagonistical to the views of, 
probably, the great majority of this Convention, and 
although 1 may agree in view with the member from 
Morgan, I do think that we should refer these petitions 
to a committee unfettered and unmanacled by such re¬ 
strictions, at this early stage of our proceedings. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I have no desire to press my amend¬ 
ment upon the Convention, but I had thought that it 
would be better to bi'ing the subject up now and have 
an exchange of view^s in the Convention before the 
memorials are referred. We should gain but little by 
a reference now; the committee would report for and 
against the prayer of the petition, and thus leave the 
whole matter open. I would be glad to hear something 
of the sentiments of members upon the subject, and for 
this pui-pose, and not to make an invidious distinction 
between this individual petition and others, that I 
moved my amendment. I am willing, however, to 
withdraw it, and will ask leave so to do. Which was 
granted. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler. As I might have been mis¬ 
understood in my remark of a few minutes since, I 
will repeat what I said before. It will be recollected 
that a committee of 21 was appointed a few days since 
to prepare rules for the government of this Convention. 
That committee have offered as a part of their report, 
resolutions for the consideration of the Convention, the 
object of which is to submit business of this character 
either to the Convention or to a committee of the whole 
before it should be referred to any standing or select 
committee. Some little discussion arose upon the 
question submitted by that committee and it was, af¬ 
terwards, refeiTed to a committee of 13, who were 
charged with the duty of drawing up rules for the gov- 
erament of the Convention. This committee of 13, or 
in other words, the committee on rules took the ques¬ 
tion into consideration and they have reported a rule the 
substance of which is precisely the same as the resolution 
referred to them. It is true that these rules have not been 
adopted, neither can we undertake to say whether 
this rule will be adopted, but if it is, all petitions and 
memorials of the character of the one just before the 


Convention will be submitted to this body or to the 
committee of the whole before they are referred to a 
standing or a select committee. We should place eve¬ 
ry thing of this kind upon the same basis, and therefore 
these petitions should be considered in committee of 
the whole before reference. In that way we should 
get the sense of the Convention upon the subject, by 
which the standing committee w'ould be guided and. 
thereby much time and discussion might be saved. I 
make these remarks that the gentleman might under¬ 
stand that such a rule had been reported, and that the 
gentleman who presented this memorial might not 
suppose that he is treated in a discourteous manner by 
the reference proposed. I voted for the reeeption of 
this petition on yesterday, and in this I acted from 
princijjle—by this I did not intend to favor the prayer 
of the petition, for on the final question I shall cast my 
vote against granting that prayer. Nevertheless, this 
petition, like all others, should have its appropriate at¬ 
tention from this Convention, and I shall vote to receive 
all petitions, from whatever source, provided they are 
respectful. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. If I understand the gentle¬ 
man from Butler, the resolution reported from the com¬ 
mittee on Rules is similar to the one ofi’ered by the com¬ 
mittee of 21, and re-committed to the committee of 13 
on Rules. But if I recollect the substance of the ori¬ 
ginal resolution, it had no express reference to memori¬ 
als and petitions from inhabitants of this State. I 
thought it had reference to propositions made by mem¬ 
bers of this Convention, which might be submitted to 
the Convention before reference to standing or select 
committees. I think, however, that as the gentleman 
from Morgan has asked leave to withdraw his amend¬ 
ment we had better assent and let the petition have its 
appropriate reference. 

The petition [presented by Mr. Williams] was then 
referred to the standing committee on the Elective 
Franchise. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I ask that the petition from the 
citizens of Guernsey county, presented by myself, be 
taken up and similarly referred, which was agreed to. 

Mr. MORRIS. I move that the resolution presented 
yeste: day,by the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stan- 
bery] upon the subject of a copy right of the book of 
debates in this Convention, be now taken up. 

Mr. SAWYER. As Mr. McCormick, who takes a 
deep interestdn this subject, is confined to his room by 
illness, I hope the motion will be withdrawn. 

Mr. MORRIS. Cei’tainly, sir, I withdraw the mo¬ 
tion. 

Mr. PATTERSON offered the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on the Judiciary be instructed to 
inquire into the expediency of inserting a clause in the constitu¬ 
tion quieting titles to real estate in the Virginia military district, 
to any person who has title by himself or those under whom he 
claims, having quiet possession and title thereto for a term of 
twenty-one years. 

Mr. NASH moved to lay the resolution on the table 
and print. 

Which motion, after a division, was carried. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot offered the foPowingt 

Resolved, That the committee on Jurisprudence be instructed to 
inquire into the expediency of so amending the constitution that 
the Legislature, at its first session after the adoption of the amend¬ 
ed constitution, shall provide by law for the appointment of three 
commissioners, whose duty it shall be to revise, reform, simplify 
and abridge the Statutes and rules of practice, pleadings, forms 
and proceedings of the Court of Record of this State, and to re¬ 
port thereon to the Legislature, subject to their adoption and 
modification. 

On motion of Mr. CURRY, the resolution was laid on 
the table and ordered to be printed. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the resolution, (Mr. 
Stidger’s,) relative to the disbursement of the sur¬ 
plus revenue of the State, was taken up. Mr. Haw¬ 
kins moved to amend the resolution by striking out the 
word “ and ” in the 3d question, and insert after the 
words “to what purposes” the words “and under 
what law.” 

Mr. SAWYER. With the leave of the getlemanfrom 
Morgan, I would suggest that the Convention go into 






CONVENTION REPOETS. 


a^committee of the whole. As there need be less for¬ 
mality ill our discussions there, we may have a free 
expression of the sentiments of members, and the va¬ 
rious amendments and motions made need not be en¬ 
tered on the journal. In committee of the whole the 
President can leave the chair and participate in the de¬ 
bate. There is no call for the yeas and nays and, in a 
word, from what little experience I have had in de¬ 
liberative bodies, I consider that there is a decided ad¬ 
vantage in taking the initiative steps in business in 
committee of the whole. I will move that the resolu¬ 
tion be referred to committee of the whole, with a view 
then, to move that the Convention resolve itself into 
committee of the whole. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I yielded the floor for a sugges¬ 
tion, not for a motion. This is merely a resolution of 
inquiry, which I propose to extend one item further, 
so as to include not only for what purposes the surplus 
revenue has been disbursed, but by what authority. I 
have examined the law and can find no authority for 
disbursements which have been made, on the contrary 
I find an express pledge of the surplus revenue for an¬ 
other purpose. I hope the amendment will be agreed 
to. , . 

Mr. SAWYER. When I was up before I held the 
floor by courtesy of the gentleman, [Mr. Hawkins,] 
now by another tenure—my own right. I move that 
this resolution be referred to the committee of the 
whole. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I may be obtuse in my appre¬ 
hension of the object of this resolution, but I would 
respectfully inquire what are the precise objects 
of it? It strikes me that these inquiries have ref¬ 
erence expressly to legislative action, and that we 
have nothing to do with it here. Unless gentlemen 
give better reasons for their consideration, I shall move 
the indefinite postponement of the resolution. 

Mr. STIDGER. I will take this opportunity to dis¬ 
avow the existence of anything of a political character 
in this resolution, so far as I am concerned. The con¬ 
stitution under which we have lived for more than 
forty years contemplates the fostering care of govern¬ 
ment over all educational institutions, and I intend that 
there shall be express provision in the constitution 
which we are about to form for the same watchfulness 
and regard for the education of the people. A portion 
of the interest upon the surplus revenue has been ap¬ 
plied to educational purposes, it having been loaned to 
individuals at seven per cent, interest, five per cent, 
of which was to be applied for educational purposes. 
By a recent act of the Legislature a portion of that 
revenue has been called in. Now, I seek to inquire 
by this resolution whether, by its repayment to the 
State, that portion of it is to be withdrawn from appro¬ 
priations for educational purposes. I do not wish that 
the resolution should be embarrassed by anything of 
a political character—if it will have the effect of for¬ 
warding the object I have in view, which is to extend 
the means and opportunities of education to all classes 
in the State, I shall be entirely satisfied. 

The motion to commit the resolution and pending 
amendments to the committee of the whole, was <;ar- 
ried. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross, offered the following: 

Resolved, That all propositions for the amendment or revision 
of the constitution of the State of Ohio, shall be considered in 
committee of the whole before being referred to a standing com¬ 
mittee. 

Mr. NASH. I suppose that the report of the com¬ 
mittee on Rules covers that whole ground. 

Mr. GREEN. I had anticipated such a rule. I had 
also intended to offer the following: 

'^Resolved, That until otherwise ordered, at 11 A. M., of each 
day, this Convention shall resolve itself into a committee of the 
whole on the State of this Commonwealth.” 

My object is this: The report made this morning 
by the committee on Rules, has been laid on the table 
and ordered to be printed; it may be some two or three 
days before this is done and the report laid upon our 


47 


tables. It will then have to be taken up, discussed 
perhaps amended and finally adopted; aB of which 
will consume several days of time. Gentlemen have 
already introduced a number of resolutions proposing 
a reference of topics, involving the most important 
questions, to standing and select committees. I pro¬ 
pose that in the meantime the Convention shall take 
the course indicated in the resolution which I have of¬ 
fered, and when the rules are adopted they will, of ne¬ 
cessity, supersede the action now proposed. It is for 
the purpose of getting to work immediately, and ha¬ 
ving all these propositions now before the Convention, 
referred to the committee of the whole, considered 
there and disposed of as may be deemed most advisa¬ 
ble. 

Mr. SWAN. It seems to me that we shall occupy a 
great deal of time unnecessarily in discussing proposi¬ 
tions which must again come before the Convention 
when the standing committees report. We make no 
progress by such discussions now. It is like a deba¬ 
ting society in which no action follows. The proposi¬ 
tions should be referred at once to the appropriate 
standing committees, and the propositions come up for 
discussion on motions to amend. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. The committee appointed to 
prepare rules for the government of this body, have 
reported such rules and ordered them to be printed. 
I am alsojunaccustomed to deliberative bodies, and can¬ 
not speak advisedly, but apprehend that the subjects 
involved in this proposition have been acted upon by 
the committee on Rules. If so, it strikes me that it 
would be better for us not to consider and debate a 
single rule until we know what the committee on 
Rules have adopted, and with this view, therefore, I 
move that the resolutions be laid upon the table. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD asked for the withdrawal of the 
motion, and the request being agreed to, he expressed 
himself in favor of sending the provisions contained in 
the resolutions of Mr. Green, to a committee of the 
whole, unless, as a matter of course, some member 
moves to order them to another committee. He thought 
that sometimes there might be a convenience about 
sending to another committee. The friends of a mea¬ 
sure might at times wish to send to another committee 
—that such was the practice in kindred cases in the 
General Assembly. When the bills had been read 
a second time, the Speaker announced that these bills 
were ready for commitment or engrossment, as the 
House might direct. Then if no motion was made to 
send to a standing or select committee, the Speaker 
announced that they were committed to a committee 
of the whole House, and made them the order of the 
day, at a designated time. By adopting that course 
here, the committee of the whole would have the 
preference, and would be the committee, unless the 
Convention saw fit to give the matter another direc¬ 
tion. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. I should prefer the resolution as 
originally offered. I understood from the honorable gen¬ 
tleman from Butler, the Chairman of the committee on 
Rules, that they had reported a proposition substan¬ 
tially the same as that reported by the committee of 
twenty-one. That report requires all propositions for 
amendment, revision or alteration, should be first con¬ 
sidered in Convention, before reference to a standing 
committee. Now, sir, for the purpose of testing the 
convenience of the two modes of operation, I desire 
that the resolution should be adopted, and we then 
shall ascertain the better mode of proceeding. In re¬ 
ference to the one suggested by the honorable .gentle¬ 
man from Franklin, I would remark, that in my judg¬ 
ment, there will be decided benefits resulting from that 
course of proceeding. If these propositions are sub¬ 
mitted to a committee of the whole, they may discuss 
them, without the debale being embarassed by those 
rules of strictness which necessarily govern discussions 
in the Convention. There should be a free interchange 
of sentiment and opinion upon every proposition that 
is submitted without the necessity of bringing it to the 















48 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


action of the body, in order to determine their opin¬ 
ion as to its adoption or rejection. There is a Ireedom 
of debate and freedom of action in such interchange of 
•opinion which we cannot enjoy in this body. It has 
been elsewhere remarked, that whenever any contest 
in a legislative body has been waged for freedom, it 
was always in the committee of the whole, the grand 
committee, that victory has been achieved. I think, 
.sir, that every gentleman, who has had any acquaint¬ 
ance with legislative proceedings, will concur wdth me 
in the opinion, that there are many decided advanta¬ 
ges in submitting propositions to the committee of the 
whole. The honorable gentleman from Fairfield, seems 
to think that there is no necessity for considering tliese 
propositions, but thinks that they should be immediately 
referred to a standing committee, and that propositions 
can be offered by way of amendment, to the reports of 
these committees when received. Now, in the first 
place, it seems to me, that it would be as well, that 
there should be some kind of action here before the 
standing committees are encumbered with a mass of 
propositions, which may be thrown upon them, wdth- 
‘Out consideration or without deliberation. 

And again, sir, you have constituted sixteen standing 
committees, to each of whom has been committed sub¬ 
jects of various importance, and which will require the 
deliberations of this Convention. Now. sir, howr are 
these committees to act? I will take for instance, the 
committee on the Legislative Department. If there is 
one subject more than another, which has led to the 
calling of this Convention, it is, in my judgment, the 
crying evil resulting from excessive legislation. The 
people every where throughout the State, desire some 
reform in this respect. Again, sir, you find one of the 
most potent motives producing a call for the Conven¬ 
tion, and which has resulted in the election of delegates 
now assembled in this place, was the difficulty growing 
out of the administration of justice, and the present 
organization of the judicial department, which, in my 
opinion, must undergo a thorough reform. Now, sir, 
take either of the committees, to which all these sub¬ 
jects may be referred; I would ask you if these com¬ 
mittees would not desire all the light which can be 
shed upon the subjects upon which they are to report. 
Take the Judicial department for instance. Thirteen 
gentlemen, eminent for their legal abilities and high 
attainments in their professions, have been appointed 
to consider that subject. And, sir, I ask you if it is 
supposed that these thirteen gentlemen combine all the 
wisdom upon this subject. May they not be benefited 
by suggestions thrown out by the humblest member 
upon this floor? Most unquestionably. If, therefore, 
they go to their labors, having the benefit of the light 
and information suggested and thrown out in the shape 
of propositions offered by other gentlemen upon this 
floor, which may have been already considered and 
discussed in committee of the whole, we shall have a 
report from that committee, which will in all proba¬ 
bility be a unit, a perfect piece of symmetry, so to 
speak; in other words, a report, all the parts of which 
will constitute a perfect whole. Now, sir, we all know 
how difficult it would be to debate or amend a report 
so presented, when if not debated previously, in com¬ 
mittee of the whqle, gentlemen might have presented 
propositions which would totally and entirely destroy 
the symmetry of a report, and which would render it 
absolutely necessary that the whole should be re-com¬ 
mitted, re-organized and re-arranged. And so it would 
be in regard to the details. When these details are to 
be arranged and perfected, every thing depends upon 
the course we adopt. If we discuss them in a com¬ 
mittee of the whole, many valuable suggestions may 
be made in this way, which would aid materially a 
committee on the Judiciary or on the Legislative De¬ 
partment, or any other department, in the conclusions 
to which they might arrive. 

It seems to me, that before the committee go to work, 
and before any business has been committed to them, 
it would be decidedly advantageous to them and this 


body, if we should pause for a day or two, and allow 
gentlemen to bring in their propositions and let them 
be referred to a committee of the whole, there to be 
freely discussed; and then the Convention might take 
such action as they may deem proper, either in the vyay 
of imperative instructions or in any fonn of inquiry. 

By taking such a course standing committees would 
have some data from which to form an opinion, as to 
the general feeling which operates upon gentlemen in 
this body, in reference to the important questions be¬ 
fore them. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD remarked, that he did not, when 
he rose before, intend to indicate that he had any pref¬ 
erence for the rule reported by the committee on Rules, 
upon the same subject, and he did not wish to do so 
now, but he wished to state this, that he thought the 
Convention could not be prepared to act upon this 
point, and upon all other points involved in the report 
of the committee on rules, until we had that report be¬ 
fore us. If he understood the gentleman aright, there 
is a difference between the resolution as submitted and 
the report made. 

On motion of Mr. KIRKWOOD, the resolution of Mr. 
Green was laid on the table. 

Mr. SAWYER renewed his motion that the Conven¬ 
tion should now resolve itself into a committee of the 
whole, upon the resolution offered by Mr. Stidger, re¬ 
lative to the surplus revenue, which was agreed to, 
and the Convention resolved itself into a committee of 
the whole. Mr. VANCE of Butler taking the chair. 

The CHAIRMAN remarked that the question for 
consideration was the resolution number six, of these 
resolutions. 

Mr. NASH. I move to strike out the first section of 
the resolution. It was correctly stated by the gentle¬ 
man from Morgan that the law to which these resolu¬ 
tions refer pledges the surplus fund for particular pur¬ 
poses. Under that law this fund is now, and has been 
repaid into the State Treasury for a specific purpose, 
and when repaid, that law directly appropriates it in 
part, to a specific object, which is the redemption of 
the seven per cent, stock, to which the gentleman re¬ 
ferred. A million and a half of the amount is thus dis¬ 
posed of by the law of ’33 and ’34, is beyond the reach 
of the Legislature, or of this Convention. There is in 
the law a provision, however, that five per cent, of this 
fund shall be applied as a common school fund, and 
when repaid into the State Treasury, applied to the 
redemption of the severr per cent, stock—that five per 
cent, of it shall be paid by the State instead of being 
paid by the counties, who are irnder obligations to pay 
by the law originally providing for its distribution. If, 
then, we inquire for the fund already disposed of by the 
Legislature, we shall find that it has already been ap¬ 
propriated, both principal and income. One per cent, 
is already appropriated to the counties, and is depos¬ 
ited in the county Treasury, or repaid into the State 
Treasury. Now, it strikes me that there will be no 
advantage to us in making inquiries about this matter. 
This Convention has nothing to do with (juestions of 
this character. In my humble opinion, it is not the 
business of this Convention to declare in what particu¬ 
lar manner this fund shall be appropriated, or that it shall 
indicate the particular method in which it may be ap¬ 
plied to educational purposes. It will be for the Leg¬ 
islature to provide the means by which education is to 
be secured to the increasing population of this great 
State. I must say, therefore, in conclusion, that it is a 
matter with which we have nothing to do, unless this 
Convention is looking around to provide the funds 
which shall carry on the education of the people. 

Mr. HAWKINS thought it was worth while to make 
these inquiries. There are many constitutions in the 
United States that have secured the means, as well as 
imposed upon the Legislature the duty of providing 
means of education. If there are funds which were 
designed by the people of this State to be pledged for 
that express purpose, it would be well enough to pro- 
Ivide in the constitution that subsequent legislatures 









CONVENTION REPORTS 


49 


should not squander this fund, and therefore he desired 
an investigation of the subject. 

Mr. LIDEY said that he was somewhat astonished 
on hearing the remarks which were made by the gen¬ 
tleman from Morgan, and he wanted to know if we 
were going into a matter ol this kind, and intended to 
appropriate the fund derived from the Surplus Reve¬ 
nue, which the general government can withdraw at 
any time, by giving notice to that eftect. This fund, 
as he understood it, we could be called upon to refund 
at any period. He was a member of the Legislature 
when this money came into the State, and he was op¬ 
posed to the way in which it was put out, and he sup¬ 
ported the measure which proposed, to leave it in the 
State Treasury. The money we have now in our hands. 
He did not see the need of any inquiries on the sub¬ 
ject, and he would like to know whether the Legisla¬ 
ture can in any manner dispose of this fund. He 
thought the inquiries altogether useless. 

A division being called for on Mr. Nash’s motion to 
strike out, the same was had, and resulted yeas 51, 
nays 39. So the motion was carried. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the committee rose, 
and 

Mr. VANCE, the Chairman, reported that the com¬ 
mittee had taken the resolution under consideration, 
and reported the same back with one amendment, viz: 
to strike out all after the word resolved in the first res¬ 
olution. 

The PRESIDENT then announced that the question 
was upon agreeing to the report of the committee. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved that the resolution and 
amendments be laid on the table. Lost. 

Mr. MANON. If there is any information to be 
gained upon this point, I for one, should be glad to 
have these inquiries made, I cannot see that there 
would be anything lost by making such inquiries. The 
expense of printing would be trifling indeed, and a 
small matter, compared to the importance of the sub¬ 
ject, and I therefore move that the whole matter be re¬ 
ferred to a select committee of three. 

Mr. CUTLER. I would suggest that the resolutions 
be referred to the standing committee on Education. 
If there is any light to be obtained upon this subject, 
they would in their inquiries upon this question be en¬ 
abled to gain much information which would be use¬ 
ful. If there is any light to be had upon the subject, 
they certainly ought to have it. I am not prepared to 
say whether information of this kind would be desira¬ 
ble or not. The usual course for resolutions of this 
character, when they come up, is, that that they be re¬ 
ferred to standing committees, and they can report 
them back with such modifications as would be desira¬ 
ble. I move that the resolutions and pending amend¬ 
ments be referred to the standing committee on Educa¬ 
tion. 

Tlie motion was agreed to. 

, On motion of Mr. CLAYPOOLE, the Convention 
took a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. MORRIS. I offer for adojitioii the following 
resolution: 

Resolved, That the committee on Jurisprudence' be instructed 
to inquire into the expediency of dispensing with the names of 
John Doe and Richard Roe, and all other fictitious characters in 
the action of ejectment: and that all actions involving the title to 
lands be prosecuted in the names of the real persons interested. 

Mr. MORRIS continued; I presume these Messrs. 
John Doe and Richard Roe are old acquaintances to the 
Convention, especially to gentlemen of the legal pro¬ 
fession. I have known them all my life, and I pre¬ 
sume they have been known for centuries. It seems 
to me that they have sometimes been known as distur¬ 
bers of the peace, and as such, I would like to know 
whether we cannot dispense with them entirely in this 
republican land of ours. They are incompatible with 
our republican institutions; that is, I conceive there is 
no necessity for the continuance of these legal fictions 

4 


in the practice of the courts. If any legal gentleman 
can show any, I should like to hear from him. But I 
presume there will be no objection to the resolution, as 
it is a mere matter of inquiry. I hope it will be adopt¬ 
ed. 

The resolution was then adopted. 

BANKING. 

Mr. HOOTMAN. I offer for consideration the fol¬ 
lowing; 

Resolved, That the committee on Currency be instructed to in¬ 
quire into the expediency of so amending the constitution as to 
prevent the Legislature having power to pass any special charter 
for banking purposes, and that no bill or evidence of debt shall 
ever be issued or circulated as money in this State. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I would rather see the Conven¬ 
tion disposed to inquire into the whole subject our¬ 
selves. This thing of throwing the burden of all our 
inquiries upon the committees I think is not exactly 
right. I suppose it is the duty of every member here 
to inquire and confer freely with each other upon this 
subject; and I would much rather see some definite 
affirmative proposition made here in relation to it, in 
order that we might investigate it for ourselves. I 
hope a different course maybe deemed proper: for 
these committees are organized for the express pur¬ 
pose of making inquiries upon the several subjects 
which they are appointed to consider, without instruc¬ 
tions. I would much rather the gentleman would 
make his resolution an affirmative proposition at once 
—such as the Convention might investigate. 

Mr. OTIS. I call for the reading of the resolution. 

The resolution was accordingly read again by the 
Secretary. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot. I move to amend the 
resolution by striking out the word “ special,” so as to 
read “ that the committee inquire into the expediency 
of so amending the constitution as to prevent the Leg¬ 
islature from passing any charter for banking purpos¬ 
es,” &c. 

The amendment was adopted. 

Mr. SAWYER. I move to strike out these words: 

“ be instructed to inquire,” so as to make it imperative 
that the committee report such a proposition. 

Mr. HAWKINS, [in his seat.] Agreed. 

The PRESIDENT suggested that the reading would . 
not be very clear after striking out the words recited. 

Mr. SAWYER. My object is to get a definite re¬ 
port—to say that the committee be required to report 
against banking. That’s the English of it. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman might arrive at 
his object, perhaps, by a proposition of this kind:— 

‘^Resolved, That it is inexpedient so to amend the constitution as 
to prohibit banking.” 

Mr. SAWYER. That is the amendment I wish to 
make. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I hope the amendment will not 
be adopted. I have no objections to letting any mat¬ 
ter of inquiry go to any of the standing committees; 
but when gentlemen make their propositions impera¬ 
tive, it alters the case materially. I have no objection 
to the original resolution; but if the amendment carry 
it will then nin a sad tilt against some of our prejudi¬ 
ces. [Laughter] 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I much prefer that a resolution 
of this character should be in the form of an inquiry, 
when addressed to a committee; and for that reason I 
cal} for a division of the question; and then the first 
question will be on striking out. " I like the original 
resolution best. 

Mr. CUTLER. I move to lay the resolution and pro¬ 
posed amendment on the table. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I demand the yeas andnays up¬ 
on that motion. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. As the matter is about to be put 
to vote, I suppose the friends of the proposition may 
have a chance to make it as perfect as possible. I wish 
to amend by adding to the amendment ol the gentle¬ 
man from Auglaize. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman cannot offer his 













50 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


amendment while a motion is pending to lay on the ta¬ 
ble. 

Mr. CUTLER. If the gentleman from Monroe de¬ 
sires to discuss the subject, I withdraw my motion. 
My object in making this motion was this : We have 
already on our table a proposition involving the same 
principle with this resolution.' That jn’oposition is 
printed, and, in due course ot business, it will be sent 
to the committee of the Whole, which I regard as the 
more proper place for the primary discussion of these 
topics. I moved to lay on the table, in order that this 
proposition might ultimately take that course. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Monroe 
can propose to amend any portion of the lesolution pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I hope the words will be stricken 
out, in order that the Coiiventton may consider the 
resolution as a distinct affirmative proposition, to the 
end that we may have some expression of the sense of 
the Convention ini’elation to it. I am desirous of com¬ 
mencing that which I look upon as the business of this 
Convention—which is to propose distinct propositions, 
obtain some definite expression upon them here, and 
then send them to appropriate committees, to be incor¬ 
porated into the constitution. We send our proposi¬ 
tions to the standing committees, and expect then' to 
report. But now I liad much rather have an expression 
of opinion by the Convention than the o 2 )inion of any 
committee with reference to a propositictn of this kind. 
It has been unfortunate for us, that, throughout the 
history of the legislation of the State of Ohio, our Leg¬ 
islatures, without looking first into the practicability 
of a proposition have generally taken it up, and expend- 
(;d all the time and labor and money they could upon 
it, and only rejected it when they could go no farther 
with it in the way of expense. It has been the prac¬ 
tice in the Legislature to introduce bills, which mani¬ 
festly could not gain the assent of five members, to read 
them twice, print and engross, and reject on the third 
reading, when it would be ascertained that nearly the 
whole House were opposed to them—reject them when 
they had incurred all the expense that could be incurred 
in the enactment of laws. I would much rather follow 
the example set us in this respect by some of the Leg¬ 
islatures of the eastern States. There they consider 
every proposition—even petitions and memorials— 
they have a conference on the question of their merits 
b(Tore reference ; and when found to embrace nothing 
of a practical and useful character their consideration 
there ceases, but if found to embrace matter likely to 
meet with fiivor they are then referred to the appro¬ 
priate conimittee with instructions to bring in a bill in 
form. 

It seems to me there is a manifest propriety in this 
mode of proceeding, by saving the time of reading, en¬ 
grossing and printing, which none can have any idea 
of passing. I have witnessed in this chamber, sir, nu¬ 
merous cases of lengthy bills presented, carried through 
all the forms of legislation, and then thrown under the 
table—the time and expense incuiTed being a total loss 
to the State. I was about to move, sir, liad not this 
(juestion been I’aised, to take up from the table the 
consideration of resolution No. 5, offered by the gen 
tleman from Clark [Mr. Mason.] That is a distinct 
affirmative proposition. And after a reference to the 
committee of the whole, if, upon investigation there, 
it should be reported favorably to the House, then it 
might go to the proper committee to be incorporated 
as a part of the new constitution. I hope the amend¬ 
ment will prevail sir, and that in future we shall have 
distinct affirmative propositions upon all such subjects; 
and that after we shall have completed tlie investiga¬ 
tion of them in committee of the whole, such as we 
shall determine to favor can be sent to the standing 
committees, to be by them properly prepared and in¬ 
corporated into the new constitution; while such as 
shall be voted down here wtnild not be sent to waste 
the time and perplex the deliberations of committees. 


Mr. GREEN of Ross. I move that the resolution 
and amendment be referred to the committee of the 
whole on the state of the commonwealth. 

PROPOSITIONS TO AMEND. 

On motion by Mr. LOUDON, it was 

Resolved, That the committee on the Elective Franchise be in¬ 
structed to inquire into the expediency of engrafting a clause in¬ 
to the constitution more effectually to prevent the emigration 
and settlement of negroes and mulattoes within the territory of 
this State. 

On motion by Mr. FIRESTONE, it was 

Resolved, That the committee on the Legislative Department be 
requested to inquire into the expediency of so amending the con¬ 
stitution as to have biennial, instead of annual sessions of the Le¬ 
gislature. 

On motion by Mr. LEECH, it was 

Resolved, That the standing committee on the Legislative De- 
psrtment be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so a- 
mending the constitution of Ohio, as to require that every law en¬ 
acted by the General Assembly shall embrace but one object, 
which shall be expressed in its title. 

Mr. CUTLER. Mr. President: I offer the follow- 

ing: 

Resolved, Tliat the eighth article of the constitution of this State, 
embracing the well settled and long established principle of self- 
government, defining clearly the rights of persons and property, 
guarding well against the encroachments of power, and securing 
to all the largest liberty consistent with the public good, accords, 
in its principles, with the cherished sentiments ot the people of 
Ohio, and ought, by the action of this Convention, to be contin. 
ued without material alteration, as their bill of rights. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I move that the resolution be re¬ 
ferred to the committee of the whole. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I think it would be better to re¬ 
fer it to the standing committee on the preamble and 
bill of rights. 

Mr. CUTLER. I prefer that the resolution should 
take the direction proposed by the gentleman from 
Mox’gan. I did not offer it for the purjiose of discus¬ 
sion, but as a mere abstract expression of opinion. I 
had supposed that we might advance the business of 
the Convention by comparing notes in this way; and 
I had thought that we would succeed best by com¬ 
mencing upon those topics about which we may be ex¬ 
pected to agree. I think these general principles em¬ 
braced in this eighth article of the old constitution are in 
accordance with the sentiments of a great majority of 
the people. I suppose, however, if the committee had 
some e.xpression of the mind of the Convention with 
reference to this proposition, their labors would be very 
materially lightened; for if they are to be compelled to 
form a better article than that, they will have enough 
to do. I think we may advance in our Imsiness by 
considering this proposition in committee of the whole, 
and when we shall have obtained some expression of 
the views of the Convention, let it go to the appropri¬ 
ate standing committee. There appears to be some 
diversity of opinion, whether our labors are to embrace 
the formation of an entire new constitution, or whether 
they shall be directed to the consideration of amend¬ 
ments to the existing constitution. I think the latter 
would be the safer course; and with reference to this 
eighth article, I hojie we shall say that we desire it not 
t(j be changed; and I think that in this I represent the 
views of my constituents. Nevertheless, there are 
some changes of the constitution which I know would 
be in accordance with their feelings and wishes. But 
so far as I am informed of their feelings upon the sub¬ 
ject, it is this, that the less we do with the leading ar¬ 
ticles of the constitution the better. Those wfiich 
have subserved our purposes of government so long 
and so well, they think we had better pass over for 
the benefit of generations to come. 

On motion of Mr. LARWILL, the resolution was 
laid on the table and ordered to be printed. 

PREAMBLE. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I move the following proposi¬ 
tion, and ask its reference to the committee on the Pre¬ 
amble and Bill Rights. 

The paper was referred accordingly, after reading by 
the Secretary, as follows : 









CONVENTION liEPORTS. 



We the people of the State of Ohio, in order to se¬ 
cure to ourselves and posterity the blessings of a just 
and free government, trusting to the favor and protec¬ 
tion of Almighty God, do ordain and establish tlie fol¬ 
lowing constitution; 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. 

Mr. HUNTER otfered for adoption the following, 
and asked that it be referred to the committee on the 
Bill of rights: 

Resolved, That the committee on the Bill of Rights be instnict- 
ed to inquire into the expediency of incorporating into the new 
constitution, the following provision, viz : 

“ Human life shall not be taken as a punishment for the com¬ 
mission of any crime whatever ; but the highest punishment for 
any crime shidl be imprisonment dui'ing life in the State I’eniten- 
tiaiy.” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. 1 understand the rules of the 
last House of Representatives have been adopted for 
the temporary government of this body; and under 
these rules whenever any member oilers a proposition 
and moves its reference to a particular committee, it is 
not in order to move a change of the reference to an- 
oliier committee. I mention this, because I think the 
gentleman’s motion does not direct his resolution to the 
proper committee, and because I wish to give notice 
that, if his motion does not prevail, I shall move to 
change the reference to another committee. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman can now move 
the reference to another committee. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I know my privilege, sir. I 
think the committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights 
is not the appropriate committee for this proposition, 
and if the gentleman’s motion should be lost I will then 
move that this resolution (which is a very proper one, 
as I think, for the consideration of the Convention,) be 
sent to the committee on Jurisprudence. This is a 
proposition involving matter of the most profound 
Btate policy, and should be decided upon the most 
mature consideration of the minds of this great State. 

The question was taken on the motion to refer to the 
committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights, and the 
motion was lost. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I now move that the resolution 
be referred to the committee on Jurisprudence. 

Mr. MANON. I would like to see the resolution so 
modified as to instruct the committee to bring in a bill 
to that effect. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will forward his 
amendment in writing. 

Mr. MANON. I offer no amendment. 

The question was then taken on Mr. Archbold’s 
motion, and it was agreed to ; so the resolution was 
referred to the committee on Jurisprudence. 

LEGISLATIVE QUORUM. 

Mr. BENNETT offered the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on the Legislative Department 
be requested to inquire into the expediency of so amending the 
Constitution as to constitute a majority of all the members of 
each House, a quonim for the transaction ot business. 

Mr. SAWYER. Mr. President: this plan sir, of pre¬ 
senting matter before the Convention, I do not think is 
the best. There is no expression of opinion given by 
this mode. I think it would be better if the Conven¬ 
tion has any mind to debate, to make these questions 
directly, and then by what may be said or done Here, 
the committees would be enable to come to some cor¬ 
rect understanding as to' what should be their coui se 
of action. Now I have been named upon the com¬ 
mittee to which this resolution is proposed to be re¬ 
ferred, and I have no intimation as to what are the 
views of the Convention upon the subject. But if the 
Convention is not in a mood for discussions, it is hardly 
worth while to move these Resolutions, for the reasons 
which I have already stated. I will therefore move 
the same amendment to this which I offered to the 
other; that isjto make it imperative upon the Commit¬ 
tee to report. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, [in his seat.] Change 
it so as to make it expedient for the Committee to re¬ 
port. 


Mr. SAWYER. I suppose the object could be ef¬ 
fected by employing this language : “ That the com¬ 

mittee be instructed to report a provision making a 
majority a quorum.” It is right, sir. I believe it to 
be the correct doctrine ; and I hope the committee will 
be so instructed, after the proposal shall have been du¬ 
ly considered here. So fully persuaded am I, of the 
correctness of this principle, that, even if the Conven¬ 
tion should instruct the committee otherwise, I think I 
should be willing to report against the instructions. 

The resolution as proposed to be amended was now 
read from the Chair. 

Mr. BENNET. That was the plan, sir, upon which 
I first intended to draw up the* resolution. I desired 
merely to get the sense of the Convention. ^But it was 
by observing the course which masters had been taking 
that I was induced to give it the form I did. I accept 
the projiosed alteration. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the resolution was 
then refeiTed to the committee of the whole on the 
state ot the Commonwealth. 


PUNISHMENT. 

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. President: I offer a resolu¬ 
tion similar, in part, to the resolution offered by the 
member from Ashtabula, Mr. Hunter, and I would not 
trouble the Convention with it, did it not include ano¬ 
ther matter which I wish to .see brought to the notice 
of the Convention. I move its reference to the com¬ 
mittee of the whole. 

The resolution was then read, (the reference being 
agreed to,) as follows: 

Resolved, 1. That the sole end and justilicotion of the restraint 
of the liberty of the citizens, and the infliction of punishment, is 
the protection of society. 

2. That the object of punishment should govern the rule of its 
extent and application. 

3. That the safety of society is fully secured by the confine¬ 
ment of oft'enders. 

4. That, therefore, the State has no right to appropriate to it¬ 
self the proceeds of the labor of criminals confined in the Peni¬ 
tentiary or otherwise, except only so far as may suffice to pay the 
currrent expenses of their support, and the expenses incurred in 
their arrest and trial. 

5. That any surplus earned by such criminals, after paying 
the expenses above referred to. should be under their own con¬ 
trol, subject to their draft on being legally discharged, or to be 
devised by will in case of death. 

6. That capital punishment should be abolished* 

debates and proceedings in the german language. 

Mr. RE EMELIN. I move the adoption of the fol¬ 
lowing resolutions: 

Resolved, That the Reporter for this Convention be and he is 
hereby authorized and directed to enter into arrangements with 
one or more of the Gennan newspapers of this State, for the 
daily and weekly publication in their columns of the proceed¬ 
ings and debates of this Convention, as published in the Ohio 
Statesman and Ohio State Journal, provided, however, that the 
cost to the State of such publication shall not exceed that of the 
papers afore mentioned. 

Resolved, That the paper or papers entering into such arrange¬ 
ment with the Reporter ot this Convention, be and they are here¬ 
by authorized to publish the proceedings and debates of this 
Convention, as first published in the respective paper or papers 
on their own private account in pamphlet or book form, or botli. 
as they deem proper. 

Mr. MORRIS. I move to lay the resolutions on the 
table. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I know that question is not de- 
bateable, and must ask the gentleman^ to withdraw it 
for a moment. 

Mr. MORRIS withdrew his motion accordingly. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I hope the resolution will not be 
laid on the table, for it will cause great delay, and if a 
resolution of any kind is to pass, giving thejs^e debates 
and reports in the German language, it should be done 
soon, for the printers who may undertake the work 
will have to brfbg up a great deal of matter heretofore 
published. While I am up I may say also, that I re¬ 
gret to bring up this subject, while' some gentlemen 
who take the most interest in it, are not present. But 
I feel that I can’t delay any longer. I will merely state 
that I have letters from publishers of Gennan papers, 
who are willing to undertake this work on the same 












52 


\ 


CONVEIsriON EEPORTS. 


terms which have been accepted by the papers in this 
city. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I would inquire whether the reso. 
lution contemplates any expense beyond that prescrib¬ 
ed by the law authorizing the Convention ? That 
provides only for an expense ol twenty-five cents per 
thousand ems. 

The reading being called for, the resolution was again 
read through by the Secretary. 

Mr. NASH. I move to strike out from the first part 
of the resolution, after the word “ one,” the words “or 
more,” so as to read “ one newspaper.” 

Mr. REEMELIN. 1 had not expected an attack up¬ 
on this proposition, from the opposite side of the House, 
for I considered it no more than justice, if we j)ublish 
at all in the German la'nguage, to publish in a Whig 
as well as a Democratic newspaper. It will not cost 
more than 25 cents per thousand ems, I learn that by 
both parties coalescing in the city, they can engage a 
translator upon such terms as will lessen the cost. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. If the gentleman from Gal¬ 
lia will withdraw his motion, I will move to amend by 
inserting after the word “ more,” the words “ not ex¬ 
ceeding two.” 

Mr. NASH. I accept the modification. 

Mr. SWAN. I propose to amend the amendment, 
by adding the words “ one German paper in Columbus 
and one in Cincinnati.” I propose that amendment. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. There is also one published 
in Chillicothe. [Laughter.] 

Mr. REEMELIN. With due deference to the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin. I would not like the adoption 
of his amendment, for the single reason, that I desire 
to make no distinctions or restrictions in the resolutions ; 
and because it will be a hardship on any paper which 
undertakes it. I care not who takes it, so the paper 
has a large circulation. I sec no particular reasons for 
any restriction at all, as to number. 

Mr. LARWILL. I am in favor of the amendment of 
the gentleman from Franklin, unless I could be inform¬ 
ed that the circulation of the Cincinnati German papers 
are much larger than that of the German paper in this 
city. The latter, I am informed, has a circulation of 
three thousand. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The paper in Cincinnati, it is 
distinctly stated, has the largest circulation in the State. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I suggest the propriety of chang¬ 
ing the resolution so as to authorize this publication in 
papers liaving the most genei’al circulation. We don’t 
want any particular, local circulation, we want a gen- 
ral circulation, for these debates. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I accept the amendment of the 
gentleman from Knox. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman cannot accept a 
modilication of his resolution while a prior amendment 
is pending. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I ho[)e the amendment of the 
gentleman from Franklin will be agreed to. The Ger¬ 
man paper published in this city is the paper almost 
exclusively known and read amongst the German peo¬ 
ple througliout central Ohio. I know it is so in Fair- 
field, and if these debates are not in this paper they 
will be of but little beuefi|; to the German people of 
that county. It is manifestly proper, that this paper 
should be selected, because it is published at the seat 
of government, for which reason it is sought for by the 
Germans of the state; and I hope that paper will be 
designated. It would be exceedingly improper to give 
the whole to the German papers in Cincinnati. I am 
willing that one Gennan paper there should be desig¬ 
nated to publish these debates, but the other should be 
at the Capital. 

Mr. LARSH. I move that the resolution and amend¬ 
ments be referred to the select committee having charge 
of the subject of printing. 

Mr. VANCE was understood to say. that that com¬ 
mittee was discharged, and really had no existence. 
On motion by Mr. LEECH, the resolution and amend¬ 


ments were then referred to a select committee of three. 
The Rresident subsequently apppointed to constitute 
said committee Messrs. R(!emelin, Blickensderfer, and 
Swan. 

MR. LARSh’s proposition TO AMEND. 

On motion by Mr. LARSH the following resolution 
was read and referred to the Committee of the Whole 
on the state of the Commonwealth, to wit: 

Resolved, That it is expedient so to amend the Constitution as 
that the Secretary of State, or some other State officer, elected 
])y the whole people, shall preside over the House of Representa¬ 
tives at the commencement of each session, until they shall have 
elected a Speaker. 

MR. mason’s proposed A3IENDMENT. 

On motion by Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention now 
took up the consideration of Mr. Mason’s proposition 
to amend the Constitution, offered on Friday last—ere 
ating the office of Lieut. Govenior, and authorizing the 
Executive veto, and the same was referred to the com 
raittee of the Whole on the state of the Commonwealth. 

On motion by Mr. SMITH of Warren, the Conven¬ 
tion now resolved itself into a committee of the Whole 
on the state of the Commonwealth, (Mr. Chambers in 
the Chair,) and took up the consideration of Mr. Ma¬ 
son’s proposition to amend the Constitution, which was 
read through by the Chairman. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved to strike out the word 
“majority,” wherever it occurs in the 2nd section; 
but— 

The CHAIRMAN did not entertain the motion, say¬ 
ing that it would be as well to proceed in order, first to 
the consideration of the first resolution. 

The first resolution was then read, and is as follows: 
Resolved, That it is expedient so to amend the Constitution as 
to create the office of Lieutenant Governor, provide for his elec¬ 
tion, and prescribe his qualifications, powers, duties and compen¬ 
sation. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. Mr. Chairman: I move 
to amend by striking out the word “ com})ensation,” in 
the 3d line of the first resolution, and changing the po¬ 
sition of the word “and,” so as to read “prescribe his 
qualifications, powers and duties.” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. 1 think this iirovision would be 
very pi’oj;)er for the consideration of the General As¬ 
sembly, but very improper for the consideration of this 
Convention. I hope the motion will jirevail. 

Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman: I will limit myself to 
a remark or two on the precise motion of the gentle¬ 
man. I suppose that it is thought eminently proper, 
sir, to provide in the constitution for the fact of com¬ 
pensation to a State officer, by making at least a decla¬ 
ration that compensation shall be given to him accord¬ 
ing to law—such compensation as may be provided by 
law. 1 should be soriy, sir, to create a new office, of 
the importance of that which is proposed to be crea¬ 
ted by the resolution, and not declare in the constitu¬ 
tion that he shall have a compensation, to be provided 
by the Legislature. Allow me to say, sir, that it is no 
part of luy object to declare that the constitution shall 
ascertain and fix this compensa ion, but that the con¬ 
stitution shall provide for a compensation. I do not 
know that I would be willing to fix the compensation 
in the constitution at all. I do not knpw but I would 
be willing to fix a minimum. I do not know but I would 
be willing to say that this officer shall receive a per 
diem compensation during the session of the General 
Assembly—supposing him to have conferred upon him 
the power of presiding over the deliberations of the 
Senate. I do not know but I would be willing to 
declare, in the constitution, that he should receive a 
per diem for that service, or any other he might ren¬ 
der, while engaged in performing the service of the 
Governor, in case of his disability or death. That he 
should receive such compensation as may be provided 
by law, is the spirit of the language of the resolution; 
and I cannot see any objection to the term as it stands. 
Indeed, I apprehend that our work would be very in¬ 
complete if we should say nothing in the constitution 
upon the subject of compensation. I do hope, sir, that 








CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


53 


this resolution will find favor with the Convention, so 
far as to permit the office to be created ; and I have the 
pleasure to say, that there is yet no indication that such 
will not be the decision of the body. This motion pre¬ 
sents no such question. This is all I feel called upon 
to say upon that particular proposition. I hope the 
gentleman will be induced to re-consider the suggestion 
about striking out the word, especially after the expla¬ 
nation has been made that nothing more is contempla¬ 
ted than that the Convention should so far consider of 
the matter of compensation as to determine whether 
it should be provided by law, or whether it should 
constitute a more specific provision in the Constitution. 
Whether the one, or the other, or both, shall be done, 
I shall rest satisfied — not doubting that one or the 
other, at least, ought to be done. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I have no general hostility to the 
gentleman’s proposition at all. I would suggest that 
the object of both the gentlemen from Medina and my¬ 
self might be attained by transposing two words so as 
to read, “ that it is expedient so to amend the constitu 
tion as to create the office of Lieutenant Governor, as 
to provide for his election and compensation, and to 
prescribe his qualifications, powers and duties.” 

Mr. MASON. I accept the modification. 

And then the first resolution was passed over. 

The CHAIRMAN now announced the consideration 
of the second resolution, which he read, and it is as 
follows; 

Resolved, That the Constitution be so amended as to provide 
that every bill or resolution which shall have passed both houses 
of the Legislature, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to 
the Governor; if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not he shall 
return it with his objections to that House in which it shall have 
jriginated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal 
and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration a ma- 
ority of the whole number present shall agree to pass the bill or 
resolution, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the 
other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if 
approved by a majority of all the members present, it shall be¬ 
come a law, notwithstanding the objections of the Governor.— 
But in all such cases, the votes of both Houses shall be determined 
by yeas and nays, and the names of members voting for or against 
the bill or resolution, shall be entered on the Journal of each 
House respectively. If any bill or resolution shall not be return¬ 
ed by the Governor within-days, (Sundays excepted) after 

it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in 
like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Legislature shall, by 
their adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a 
law. 

Mr. HAWKINS proposed to amend by striking out 
all after the word “ resolved.” 

Mr. MASON. I will not presume to inflict on this 
committee a regularly constructed speech, nor to go 
into the argument at large, on the various considera¬ 
tions that are brought into view by the proposition that 
is now moved to be stricken out. The state of my 
health would not permit of it, if I were otherwise dis¬ 
posed ; and I candidly avow I am not willing to enter 
into an elaborate debate of this question. I will refer 
to some of the considerations which have induced my 
desire for the introduction of such a proposition as this 
into our constitution. I have long desired that the 
Governor of the State of Ohio should stand in some 
official relation to the legislation of the State. I have 
have long considered it a defect that the General As¬ 
sembly has not found, and in point of practice I have 
understood, did not so far feel itself under the obliga¬ 
tion of courtesy, as to send to the Governor their bills 
and resolutions, that he might be required to transmit 
to the executive of other States, or to the executive of 
the United States. He is to find that out in the best 
way and manner that he may. I know that there ex¬ 
ists in the public mind strong prejudices for and against 
the power called the veto power. It might have been 
supposed, probably, by some, that I would not have 
been the first person to have offered such a proposi¬ 
tion as this. Sir, I have ever been in favor of just 
such a provision in the constitution as the one I have 
now submitted. I have ever been opposed to the ve¬ 
to power, believing that it conferred on one man a 
pow'er greater than ought to be conceded to any one 


man in a republican form Jof government. “ Veto, 
I forbid,” is a proposition that I never could be per¬ 
suaded to introduce into a deliberative body.— 
But, the proposition that is now submitted, does no 
more than this; it places in their hands or in the power 
of the executive to ask—and not only to ask, but under 
a constitutional requisition to require, the General As¬ 
sembly to reconsider its action—its final vote, the vote 
last had on the bill or resolution that had passed, with 
the advantage of an official communication of the rea¬ 
sons operating on the mind of the executive that a pro¬ 
position in the shape it was passed should not become 
a law. It is a reconsideration; it is not a veto. And, 
sir, I am not so timid as that I am afraid of the word 
veto. I never was afraid to perform any duty, as far 
as I remember, but I do not choose to apply the term 
“veto” to this proposition for two reasons. First, 
that there is much of prejudice connected with it, in 
the public mind. Secondly, because it is not a veto, 
and it has scarcely so much as the resemblance or sim¬ 
ilitude even of a veto. The object is to secure to the 
country more careful and well considered legislation. 
That is the object of the power that is here proposed 
to conceded to the Governor. All gentlemen who 
have been members of deliberative bodies—all who 
have been in the habit of observing the action of legis¬ 
lative bodies, have become satisfied that much of our 
legislation is done in haste, some of it in passion, some 
of it under excitement, and some of it is done with 
great, I might add, reprehensible carelessness. 

When a bill shall have passed both houses of the 
Legislature, and shall have been presented to the Gov¬ 
ernor for his examination, he examines it in the quiet 
and stillness of his office, without having participated 
in the heats, or in the passions, or in the prejudices 
of the bodies that have acted on the subject. He 
brings to the consideration of a measure all of that 
calmness, deliberation and undisturbed action of his 
mind, that are eminently calculated to produce a just 
and certain judgment in regard to the merits of the bill, 
and every proposition submitted to him. H he can¬ 
not sign it, he is required to return it to the body in 
which it originated, showing cause by written rea¬ 
sons, that are required to be recorded on the joumm 
of that body, to be examined by that body. And, if 
after a calm examination in the additional light that 
may be reflected by the argument of the Executive, 
that body shall pass the measure, by the same majori¬ 
ty that passed it originally, it shall then be transmitted 
to the other branch, with the Governor’s reasons. It 
shall then be entered on thejuurnal of that house, and 
the yeas and nays shall be there taken on the adop¬ 
tion or rejection of the proposition under consideration. 
In that way the people will secure all the delibera¬ 
tion that is desirable in the passage of a law that is to 
become their rule of action. Thus, the effect of the 
existence of this provision in your constitution will 
be to superinduce greater attention, pains-taking and 
deliberation in the respective bodies of the Legislature. 
The power of sending back for further consideration a 
proposition sent to the Governor may not be asserted 
once in a session, perhaps not once in five or ten years. 
The fact that there is another power to judge, to ex¬ 
amine and to present to the countiy an issue with that 
Legislatu*’e, is a fact the effect of which cannot be lost 
on that deliberative body. I should value this power 
greatly, if it were for nothing more than the great 
vantage I would expect the country to derive from the 
greater caution in the action of their representatives 
in the Legislature. ' • , • 

And again, sir, the effect of confeiTing this power 
on the Executive; in the State of Ohio, is one that 
commends itself to my sincere judgment. The office 
of Gov’enior, in the State of Ohio, has become one al¬ 
most de^^raded in the constitution itself. It has been 
created, and some nominal pow^eis conferred on it, but 
no such power has been contributed to give dignity and 
consideration to Executive office; and I make these 









54 


CONVENEION llEROKTS. 


remarks with no sort of pleasure—these remarks are 
self-evident to the minds of the intelligent gentlemen 
composing this committee. You have all seen, with 
myself, that the oflice of Governor of Ohio is of so 
little public dignity and consideration, that his very 
recommendations, under the constitution, to the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, are aboTit so many reasons for disre- 
gai'ding whatever he says to that body. The eflect of 
this propo.sition will be to ensure the iurther examina¬ 
tion and consideration of the Legislature, with the 
aid of the reasons why the measure ought to be reject¬ 
ed or modified. I would therefore give that officer the 
power of exerting some check and control over the 
forwardness and waywardness of Representative and 
Senatorial bodies. And when the reasons shall be 
known, which he may assign, ihat a given bill should 
not become a law, and when those reasons shall be 
published to the people, there will then be made up 
an issue between the Executive and the Legislature. 

I have had the honor of being a member of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, and of the different branches of it more 
than once. 1 claim to know somewhat of the action 
\\ of that body. It is the foundation ol power in the State 
a of Ohio. It is the great absorbing and overshadowhig 
\ power of the State. They can make and unmake not 
only law, but men and. offices. It is the fountain of 
patronage. All the while ^ur Governor is boarding 
and holding his “Zevees,” in a wretchedly furnished bed 
room in some public hotel, [laughter] at the seat of 
government; and who is never thought of, unless there 
is a convict to be pardoned, or there is a notary public 
to be appointed in one of your villages. It is true he 
has got the high sounding titles of “ commander-in¬ 
chief of the army and admiral" of your navy, in the 
State of Ohio. For forty years have those honors clus¬ 
tered around his brow and yet his office is laughed at, 
ridiculed, and has become the laughing stock of the 
peopie'^! But in these things I may be mistaken and 
gentlemen may differ with me. I honestly entertain 
this opinion and I deeply felt a conviction that we 
ought to connect the Chief Magistrate of the State 
vvith the Legislative power, so as to give him the right 
to call on the Legislature to reconsider what they have 
done hastily, in passion, in prejudice, and what they 
may have done in ignoi’ance. 

There is another reason—there is a great deal of lo¬ 
cal legislation—and if there were no local legislation, 
still the legislative power is placed in the hands of gen¬ 
tlemen who come from small and comparatively narrow 
and Tmited districts, of the countiy. There is a want 
therefore of ‘^^komogeneousness" in your legislation. You 
should have men elected by the whole people of the 
State to preside over the deliberations of your Legisla¬ 
ture, and another man also elected by the people at 
large who, by this proposition, will have the right to 
call on the Legislature to reconsider what they have 
done. I expect from this proposition the effect of in¬ 
troducing more congrui‘y into your legislation; more 
consistency of provision; and more of that which is 
homogeneons would belong to the people of the entire 
State than were legislation concocted, as it may be, by 
that wretched system of log-rolling, “ you help me and 
1 will help you.” In that way many laws are passed 
that are iniquitous, and that do not apply to, or regard 
the interests of the whole State. 

I want a man there who will have some check and 
some control, as here indicated, for the purpose of 
correcting some of those evils. I may attach too much 
importance to this view of the subject. The desirable¬ 
ness of the object will not be questioned by any gen¬ 
tleman in the committee. The means by which it is 
proposed to bring it about, may be esteemed by many 
a one, as not the wisest, nor perhaps the best calcu¬ 
lated to produce that end. I entertain the opinion that 
it will have the efi'ect I have ascribed to it. To some 
extent it will make our laws more as they should be, 
and more as I consider laws ouglit to be, partaking of 
the character of the general institutions, and general 


sentiments of the entire people, where views too narrow 
have been engrafted into a bill. Your executive, elec¬ 
ted by yourselves and your constituents, will be em¬ 
powered to do what?—to veto ? No. To say it shall 
not become a law ? No, sir; but to call on that body 
and ask them to reconsider what they have done. I want 
a man in office to call upon that proud body that 
domineering, overshadowing power to review their 
work—tell them what is to be done, and to give them 
his reasons for so doing, and then let them repass the 
bill on their own responsibility, with these reasons on 
the record against them. If they choose, let them do it. 
They know what these objections are, and the coun- 
tiy will know how to go into the ensuing election to 
decide upon the merits of this controversy between the 
executive and the Legislature. I wish to take notice 
of one efiect certain. 1 do not wish to speak more at 
length on this question, for reasons that I have already 
expressed. I will, however, take notice ol the motion 
that has been already made. I had supposed when I 
submitted the proposition, that some members ot the 
committee might be inclined to carry it further than I 
have done. I had supposed there would be gentlemen 
here who would favor the carrying of the power to the 
extent of requiring a two-third vote in relation to a bill 
or proposition sent back by the Executive. I vvill not 
enter into the argument ol that important question. I 
have seen the operation of it, and there are others in 
the committee who have seen it, and some who may 
' have been pleased with it. But allow me to say iii all 
sincerity and candor, I have never been able to bring' 
my judgment and understanding to the conclusion that 
it was desirable to give one man the power of two- 
thirds of the House of Representatives and of the Sen- 
ate. 

I have ever regarded it as inconsistent with the ge¬ 
nius of our institutions. I mean that in no other de¬ 
partment nor in any other institution of this State, is 
power accumulated in the hands of any one man—and 
I would not give the Governor of your State, a gentle¬ 
man possessing no higher talents, experience or attain¬ 
ments than many members to be found in the different 
branches of the Legislature, a power equal to two-thirds 
of the Legislature. I would not give him a power so 
large that it could not be overcome without i-esorting 
to a vote of two-thirds of all the members present in 
the two Houses of the Legislature. I would not put 
it in the power of the Executive to defeat the will of a 
constituent body. I may differ, sir, with other honor¬ 
able members of this committee in regard to this ques¬ 
tion, but I hold that the legislative power is appropri¬ 
ately, and most justly and effectively deposited with 
the representatives of the people in the two branches of 
the Legislature. I would not defeat that will by any 
action of the Executive. But I would do this: if it 
should be defeated, let it be done through the moral pow¬ 
er exerted on the minds of the legislators themselves, 
when they come to examine the reasons that have been 
submitted as so many objections to their action; and 
if, on the consideration of these reasons, they come to 
the conclusion that it should not become a rule of ac¬ 
tion, then it is that members would become the instil¬ 
ments of defeating their own measures; otherwise, it is 
defeated by one man, and that man perhaps not of high¬ 
er attainments than the very men to be found in the two 
branches of the body. I do not know what effect the 
argument may produce on the minds of others—it is 
not new, I suppose, to any gentleman: it is not new to 
me. If, however, it were proposed to cany the power 
to an extent greater than that, that moment you have 
converted me into an opponent of the proposition. Even 
if that were done, I do not mean to say that I would 
regret having introduced this proposition. It is a pro¬ 
per one in my judgment. 

Before I came hei*e I contemplated, if no one else 
did, to submit this proposition to the consideration of 
this body. Therefore, I shall not regret having intro¬ 
duced it. I knew that it would come before this body in 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


some form when they came to take action on the legis¬ 
lative department. I shall deeply regret if it should 
be the pleasure and purpose of this body to carry the 
power beyond the extent indicated in the proposition. 
There is another point to which I wish to call attention, 
and it is, that I will not allow myself to be driven from 
the support of the proposition, if it should be carried 
to the extent of requiring a majority of all the persons 
elected to botli houses of the Legislature in order to 
re-pass a bill that has been returned by the Executive. 
If the wisdom of this body should suggest that w’e 
should adopt it, 1 shall not object, for, indeed, there is 
no very considerable objection to it. They have adop¬ 
ted the principle in the New York Constitution of re¬ 
quiring a majority of two-thirds of the members pres¬ 
ent on the passage of a bill or proposition returned by 
the Governor for the consideration of the Legislature. 
Ill the Arkansas Constitution, and others, 1 understand 
it requires a two-third majority of all the members 
elected. I do not deem it worth the trouble of making 
the amendment in regard to the majority of those ‘‘pre¬ 
sent,” and a majority of those “elected.” All the 
members might not be present—some might be absent 
from difterent causes—there might be a vacancy—some 
may be sick, or have returned home at the moment the 
vote was taken. In that case it would require a little 
more than a majority of all voting—yet, would support 
the proposition, nevertheless 1 declare, I prefer that the 
bill should be passed by he saine power and the same 
sort of a majority that passed the bill originally, for I be¬ 
lieve that we shall have done enough for the dignity of 
the office of Governor, and for the improvement of 
legislation if we adopt the provision as it is stated in 
this resolution. 

Sir, I am Sony to have taken up so much of your 
time, and that I have occupied it so little to my own 
satisfaction—and yours. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD cordially agreed with the distin¬ 
guished gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] in the sen¬ 
timents contained in the first part of his remarks. But 
he went farther. He wished to place some real power 
in the Governoi’’s hands. He proposed in his fonner 
amendment to strike out the word “ majority,” where 
it occurred in the sixth line of the second section and 
insert the words “two-thirds,” then there would be the 
same amendment in the seventh line before the word 
members. He concurred in every thing that the gen¬ 
tleman had said in relation to the degradation of the 
office of Governor, and thought it was any thing but a 
sinecureship. He did not mean that the officers who 
had occupied that office were degraded, some of them 
were of his most valued friends. It was not to the offi¬ 
cers he objected, but to the want of dignity and respec¬ 
tability connected with the office. The gentleman had 
alluded to the legislative course of some parties; he 
would, however, appeal to all who had been in the 
legislature and ask them if they could not look back 
upon that part of their career in which they were en¬ 
gaged in defeating measures and preventing unwise 
legislation with the utmost complacency. 

It had passed into an axiom that the world was gov¬ 
erned too much? Had they not been called on several 
times to-day, to take upon themselves the business of 
the General Assembly ? It was a general sentiment 
that the Legislature should not be in session more than 
once in two years, unless called together by an ex- 
traordinaiy occasion. In his county there was not a 
man, he supposed, in favor of annual sessions of the 
Legislature. The gentleman had beRuii to fix up a 
medicine for the General Assembly. When scribblers 
had written too much, they had the disease called the 
caccethes scribendi; it seemed to him that when the 
Legislature got here they were taken with the disease 
of cacosthes le^slendi. The doctrine of the gentleman 
from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] he considered to be good as 
far as it went, but notwithstanding it was offered with 
the best of intentions, it would prove a dead letter. 
The power of veto was not an arbitrary power, it was 


only an intimation of dissent to what the executive 
considered unwise. He hoped the gentleman had not 
made up his mind to reject the mode of amendment 
proposed. There were reasons which were weighty 
for passing that resolution. 

Air. MITCHELL did not know whether it would be 
in order to offer aii amendment, if it were, he proposed 
to offer the following: 

To strike out in second line the word “ both houses 
of.” Then strike out all after the words “proceed to,” 
in the sixth line, and insert the followung:—Lay the 
same over among the unfinished business of the ses¬ 
sion.” 

Whereupon the question, “ shall the same be a law’,” 
shall be distinctly submitted to the people, at their 
most general election during the ensuing year, and if a 
majority of those voting at said election shall vote for 
the same, then it shall be a law, but if less than a ma¬ 
jority vote therefor, then the same shall not be a law. 

Mr. NASH wished to know if the amendment were 
in order. There was a motion made to strike out all 
of the resolution, and a proposition was made to amend 
it in a particular way. The gentleman could get at his 
object by moving to strike out the whole resolution. 
He did not think the amendment in order now. 

The CHAIRMAN observed that he entertained some 
doubts. 

Air. AlITCHELL moved that the committee rise, re¬ 
port progress and ask leave to sit again. 

Air. ARCHBOLD. Will the gentleman have the po¬ 
liteness to w’ithdraw his motion for a moment. 

Air. AlITCHELL. I certainly will have the polite¬ 
ness. 

Air. ARCHBOLD then said he hoped the section 
wmuld not be stricken out. The gentleman from Clark 
[Air. Alason] had proposed a measure that deserved 
the consideration of the Convention, and that was the 
reason why he hoped that the motion of the gentleman 
from Knox [Air. Mitchell] would not be adopted, and 
that no member would move to strike out in the man¬ 
ner proposed by that gentleman. He did not think it 
right that on mere trilling questions the people should 
be troubled by voting as was proposed, when the Gov¬ 
ernor would veto some bill incorporating a village or a 
steamboat company on the Ohio river. 

TheCH AIRAIAN remarked thatthe gentleman should 
confine his remarks to the amendment. 

Air. ARCH BOLD said he would strictly confine 
himself. In relation to the banking question, ^ he 
thought that propositions for the creation or establish¬ 
ment of a banking system ought to be ratified by a 
vote of the people before acquiring the force of law. 

Mr. MITCHELL said that in offering the amendment, 
or rather in correcting himself on the suggestion of the 
gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash] he had not meaned 
to excite the gentleman from Monroe, [Air. Archbold.] 
He would again make the motion that the committee 
rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. 

The motion was concurred in and the committee 

rose. . 

Air. CHAAIBERS, chainnan of the committee of the 
whole, reported that it had had under consideration 
resolution number five, and asked that leave be given 
to the committee to sit again. 

Leave was granted. 

Air. LARWILL moved that the Convention do now 
adjourn, which was agreedto2 

WEDNESDAY. AIay 15, 1850—10 A. M. 

The journal of yesterday having been read, and au¬ 
thenticated by sundry corrections suggested by Mr. 
Nash, Mr. Smith of Warren, and Air. Bennet, 
leave of absence. 

Air. LARSH asked and obtained leave of absence for 
his colleague. Air. Barnet of Preble, who was called 
home unexi>ectedly by a communication received after 
the recess yesterday- Mr. L. stated that he might not 











56 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


require to be absent more tlian a few days or perhaps 
a week. 

Tlie request was acceeded to. 

MEMORIALS. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren said there had been forwar¬ 
ded to him a memorial by J. C. McMillan, John McMil¬ 
lan, and 35 others, citizens of the county of Greene, 
asking that there be inserted a clause in the pieamble 
of the new constitution, acknowledging God, his gra¬ 
cious providence, and the obligations of his law as re¬ 
vealed in the Scriptures; and further, that there be al¬ 
so inserted in the Bill of Rights a clause stating, that, 
as Christianity, morality and knowledge are essential 
to the good government of mankind, therefore the 
Church of God shall be protected, schools and the means 
of instniction be encouraged by legislative provision, 
so far as not incompatible with the rights of conscience; 
and he moved that the memorial be received, the read¬ 
ing dispensed with, and referred to the standing com¬ 
mittee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights. 

The motion was agreed to, and the reference made 
accordingly. 

EQUALITY. 

Mr. COOK said he held in his hand two memorials, 
signed by about fifty inhabitants of the counties of Stark 
and Portage—one praying that the new constitution 
may be so guai'ded as to secure to all the citizens of 
the State the enjoyment of equal rights and privileges, 
irrespective of complexion or race; and the other 
praying that the new constitution may accord to all the 
members of our Commonwealth equal rights, political 
and civil, without regard to sex or color. He moved 
that these memorials be received, read and referred to 
the committee on the Elective Franchise. 

The PRESIDENT. They will be received, unless 
objection is made, without motion. 

Mr. MITCHELL. It has been generally understood 
as a practice, I believe, as far as I have observed pro¬ 
ceedings here, that gentlemen presenting memorials, 
should take it upon themselves, in announcing their 
subject matter, to say also whether they are respect¬ 
ful in their terms, or whether they are frivolous. I 
simply call attention to this very convenient usage. I 
have no objections to the reception of such petitions as 
are couched in respectful terms. 

Mr. COOK. I believe I am personally acquainted 
with nearly every signer to these petitions. I ask for 
their reading, sir. The reading will show whether 
they are respectful in their terms. 

The memorials were both read through by the Se¬ 
cretary. 

Mr. SAWYER. I shall forever object, sir, to every 
petition of the kind, so far as the colored population 
are concerned. I don’t care if they prefer to let wo¬ 
men vote and hold office—that don’t disturb me. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. HAWKINS. I want to say a word with regard 
to the reception. These petitions have been received 
and read—have been communicated to the body, and 
now to I’aise a question of reception, seems to me noth¬ 
ing but mere formality, with very little meaning or 
sense in it. 

Mr. NASH. I would suggest to the gentleman from 
Auglaize the propriety of withdrawing his objection. 
We had his objection to a similar matter on yesterday, 
and the yeas and nays upon its reception. We might 
repeat this proceeding abcyit every^ morning, and spend 
an hour or two every day in a very uiqirofitable way, 
as I think. 

Mr. SAWYER. I am aware of all this. Still I have 
a right to object. It is my legitimate prerogative. I 
shall not take up the time of the Convention by so do¬ 
ing, nor call for the yeas and nays. I have not done 
so. But I do solemnly aver here, that I will raise my 
objection to every petition of this character. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I begin to see, sir, that we are 
likely to be annoyed considerably by petitions of this 
class, and I would suggest that we just as quietly as 


possible, allow all these effusions of folly and fanati¬ 
cism to go to the table, without debate or remark 
with the least possible notice. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. I would be perfectly willing 
that these and all other petitions should be received 
and referred in the usual manner, without discussion, if 
gentlemen on the other side would cease to oppose or 
to characterize them as “ eflusions of folly and fanati¬ 
cism.” Will they agree to this ? 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Anything: if the papers can on¬ 
ly get to the table. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I, for one, am not willing 
that these memorials should go to the table, without 
notice. The gentleman presenting them says, (and in¬ 
deed we know this ourselves,) that they are couched 
in respectful terms, and that they come from respecta¬ 
ble citizens of the State. And, although gentlemen may 
not be willing to grant the prayer of the petitioners, yet 
they ought to .consider that every individual citizen has 
a right to ask this body to do whatever they believe to 
be right and ought to-be done ! It will cost no more 
money—take up no more time, and certainly it will be 
much more respectful, to allow them to take the ordi¬ 
nary course of reference, and be reported upon, either 
for or against, as the committee may see proper. I 
hope that all memorials and petitions of the kind will 
be referred to the proper committee, and not be laid 
on the table. 

' Mr. MITCHELL. I, sir, am decidedly in favor of, 
as far as possible, suppressing all discussions upon ques¬ 
tions of reception; but I am not willing to allow the 
present occasion of presenting these petitions to pass, 
without making what I conceive to be a just and prop¬ 
er remark. I have very serious doubts whether rea¬ 
sonable minds can well reconcile it to themselves to 
conclude that petitions proposing to class the negro pop¬ 
ulation of the State of Ohio, with reference to their 
rights and interests, side by side with our wives and 
daughters, can be altogether respectful. I have serious 
doubts whether any petition for such an object can be 
made in respectful language; and I should be very glad, 
if gentlemen would suggest to their constituents the 
propriety of separating in their petitions, and distin¬ 
guishing carefully between those two subjects. I am 
opposed to combining them. 

Mr. HOLMES. I would inquire whether the sign¬ 
ers of these petitions are white or colored ? My vote 
must depend upon that. I intend in my action here, 
to be governed by this rule: to receive all petitions 
from all persons entitled as citizens to the right of pe¬ 
tition, which may be couched in respectful language. 
But I am unwilling to receive petitions from the col¬ 
ored portion of our population; or even seem to enter¬ 
tain any disposition to receive them, lest the fact might 
go abroad and encourage them to petition us from all 
quarters of the State. 

Mr. COOK. I believe that I am acquainted with 
nearly every individual signer of these memorials, and 
I believe they are all white. I think I am not mista¬ 
ken in that. I will say, however, that it would have 
no difference with me, in presenting these papers, 
whether the signers had been white or black. .Judg¬ 
ing from the tone of the remarks which have accom¬ 
panied the presentation of these petitions, I am led to 
conclude that, except I alter my democratic notions 
upon this subject, I shall be found extremely rad¬ 
ical, for I know of no one in the community so 
degraded whose respectful prayer I would not be wil¬ 
ling to hear; and I know of no deliberative body 
with delegated powers, so awfully dignified, to whom I 
would not present such a petition. 1 merely state that 
these individuals, as far as I know, are farmers and 
mechanics, with their sons, wives and daughters, and 
that, without exception, they are all of high respecta- 
bilty I would make one other observation. It seems 
to be getting very customary here for gentlemen to 
define their position upon this subject; but for myself, 
I do not think it a matter of very great importance. 








CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


57 


that my position should be any better known. I have 
no kind of fear that my constituents will ever misplace 
me upon this question. 

Mr. HOLMES. I am glad of the explanation. I 
have no objection to the reception of petitions coming 
from white citizens of the State, none whatever. 

The question was then taken on the reception, and 
agreed to; and. 

On motion by Mr. COOK, the memorials were refer¬ 
red to the committee on the Elective Franchise. 

OATHS. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. I present the me¬ 
morial of George R. Smith, of Cuyahoga county, ask¬ 
ing the Convention to frame a constitution without pro¬ 
viding therein for the administration of an oath by any 
officer of this State; and I ask that it may be read ! 

The memorial was I’ead by the Secretary. 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, it was referred to 
the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects and Proposi¬ 
tions. 

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION. 

Mr. HOLT presented the petition of sundry citizens 
of the county of Montgomery, asking for such a pro¬ 
vision in the new constitution as to secure to the de¬ 
partment of public instruction the appointment of a Su¬ 
perintendent, and moved that, without reading, it be 
referred to the committee on Education, 

The petition was so referred. 

CONVENTION REPORTS IN GERMAN. 

Mr. REEMELIN, from the select committee to 
which was referred the resolution in relation to pub¬ 
lishing the Convention proceedings and debates in the 
German newspapers of the State, which was offered 
and considered on yesterday, reported the same back to 
the Convention, recommending the adoption of the ori¬ 
ginal resolution with the amendment proposed by the 
delegate from Warren, [Mr. Smith.] 

Mr. STILLWELL. I don’t intend to discuss any 
question arising under these resolutions. But I wish 
to inquire of the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reem- 
elin] whether he is satisfied himself of the power of 
this Convention to appropriate money for this object, 
which a future Legislature will have to ratify ? The 
powers of this Convention are derived from two sour¬ 
ces : and first from the law creating it and providing 
for our election: and there are two sources of power 
in that law. The first is found in the fourth section— 
requiring the Reporter to make arrangements with the 
two newspaper establishments of this city for printing 
the reports ot the Convention in their columns, and 
prescribing that these printers shall recover a compen¬ 
sation for publishing these reports in a durable form. 
The other source of power is the appropriation in an¬ 
other section of the law, of the sum of forty thousand 
dollars for defraying the expenses of the Convention. 

Now, it has appeared to me that this sum will prove 
insufficient to cover the expenses of these reports after 
defraying the expenses of this body. Is the publica¬ 
tion of these reports to be considered as a portion of 
the expenses of the Convention? If it is, we have the 
power to make the appropriation. I would not be too 
strict in making a definition of the word “ expenses ” 
here. I suppose it should be taken in the sense of ev¬ 
erything necessary to carry into effect the objects of 
the Convention. What these things, necessary, are, 
must be gathered from what has been the usage of such 
bodies. But I believe no Convention has ever exerci¬ 
sed the power of publishing their debates iiitbenews- 
papers. But then we have an independent power, sep¬ 
arate and aside from that law; and that is, when the 
Legislature called us together, they determined that 
we should possess all the power necessary for the per¬ 
formance of all the duties incumbent upon us. But 
since the further publication of these debates and in 
German are not at all necessaiy in order to the full per¬ 
formance of our duties, I doubt whether it is compe¬ 
tent for us to make the appropriation, and, until these 


doubts shall be removed, I shall be compelled to vote 
against the resolutions. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot moved to lay the report up¬ 
on the table and that it be printed, but withdrew the 
motion immediately for 

Mr. REEMELIN, who desired to make a few re¬ 
marks in reply. I have discussed this question of pow¬ 
er, with those members of the General Assembly who I 
am informed drafted the particular law calling this Con¬ 
vention together, and with reference to this very point 
they assured me that they had no doubt of both the 
right and the power of the Convention to make these 
reports, and I have no doubt of it myself. The Con¬ 
vention possesses this power as a general prineiple, as 
well as under the act itself. It has this right not only 
under the law, but it was a right pertaining to the body 
for the purpose of enabling them to disseminate infor¬ 
mation of their proceedings. 

There seems to be an idea in the minds of some, 
that the intention is to preclude, and close the door 
against other printers of the State with reference to the 
publication of these debates. But I have drawn up 
these resolutions with a view not to close the door up¬ 
on them; and the committee reporting desire me to 
say, that it is our wish to give them all a fair chance. 
Neither have we any desire to take this contract from 
the Columbus German paper, or to give it to any other 
particular paper; we want to get the debates publish¬ 
ed in papers of the widest circulation. I was anxious, 
in the first place, to get them published here in this ci¬ 
ty, but I understand they can’t accept the arrangement 
upon the terms proposed. If this is the case, I suppose 
the Reporter will have to proceed to offer the same 
terms to other German publishers, and if they should 
not accept, why, then the matter would have to fall to 
the ground, sir. I say it frankly, I would not vote for 
any proposition to publish these reports in German, un¬ 
less it could be done as cheap as in English. The com¬ 
mittee also desire me to say, that they prefer one of 
those German papers which may publish these reports 
to be a democratic paper, and the other to be a whig 
paper. I have this morning received a letter from the 
proprietor of a German whig newspaper published in 
Cincinnati, stating that he was willing to accept the 
publishing of these Reports at 22 cents per thousand 
ems, including the translations. But he adds that he 
would be willing to take any terms which I would pre¬ 
scribe. I have no doubt, therefore, but that he will 
take the contract at 12^ cents. I repeat it, sir, there is 
no intention—none whatever—to close the door against 
the publication of these Reports upon any printer in the 
State. We desire to give fair play to all. Such is the 
scope of the resolutions; and I do hope the object will 
not be defeated or delayed with a view to give any par¬ 
ticular individual an advantage. It is exceedingly nec- 
essaiy that the matter should be acted on soon. If we 
delay longer, the difficulty will increase. I hope the 
motion to lay on the table will not be made again ; and 
that those interested in the proposition will come for¬ 
ward at once to its support, so that the Reporter may 
proceed to make the requisite arrangements. The Re¬ 
porter is a man not at all interested, and will act im¬ 
partially ; he is the friend of all, and the enemy of none, 
and will give a fair opportunity for honorable compe¬ 
tition amongst all who may be willing to take the con¬ 
tract. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot. I withdrew my motion 
to hear the remarks of the gentleman from Hamilton; 
and notwithstanding his reasoning, I am still disposed 
to renew it. I do so for this reason: It appears that 
the proprietor of the German paper in this city says 
he cannot publish these proceedings for the price al¬ 
lowed. That paper is one of general circulation 
throughout the State; and, until we shall have time to 
consult and determine upon such other German papers 
of the State as it would be proper to authorize to pub¬ 
lish these proceedings, T shall oppose the adoption of 








58 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the resolution. I therefore renew rny motion to lay 
on the table. 

Mr. RBEMELIN demanded the yeas and nays upon 
this motion, which were oi’dered, and being taken, the 
vote stood—yeas 38, nays G3, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Bates, BrowTiof Car- 
roll, Cahill, Chambers, Claypoole, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, 
Farr, Fii'estone, Florence, Gray, Green of Ross, Hard, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Hunter, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitch¬ 
ell, Morris, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Robertson, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stickney, 
Swift and Mr. President—38. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bennett, Blair, Blickens- 
derfer, Brown of Athens, Case ot Hocking, Case of Licking, Clark, 
Ewart, Ewing, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hum- 

S hreville, Hunt, Johnson. Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lou- 
on, Mimon, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Quiglej^ Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Aug- 
aize. Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stebbens, Stilwell, Stidger, Stru- 
ble. Swan, Taylor. Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Williams and 
Woodbury—63. 

So the Convention refused to lay the resolutions on 
the table. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I wish to inquire whether it is 
proposed to pay the expense out of funds appropriated 
by the Legislature ? 

Mr. REEMELIN. In regard to that part of the sub¬ 
ject, I have not examined it very carefidly. I suppose, 
however, that it will be paid out of the appropriation 
made by the General Assembly, to defray the expen¬ 
ses of this Convention. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I wish to say one word in rela¬ 
tion to this question. I think that it would be aii up¬ 
hill business to publish these debates in the German 
language. The puldishers of the two daily papers of 
this city are to publish these debates, I think, for 12^ 
cents per thousand ems, and we have been distinctly 
informed by them that they would do it at that price. 
Now I submit to the Convention whether, for the pur¬ 
pose of disseminating information of what we may do 
here among the German pojDulalion alone, we shall in¬ 
cur an expense greater than that which the Legislature 
had contemplated in the act calling this Convention ? 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. I wish to make an inquiry of 
the chairman of the committee on Printing, whether 
these papers propose to do the printing upon the same 
terms asjthe papers of this city ? I understood him to 
say the publishers of these papers at Cincinnati pro¬ 
posed to do it for 22 cents per thousand ems. Now 
this resolution proposes to give the work of jminting 
the proceedings and debates in the German language, 
to the publishers of two papers, provided the expense 
does not exceed a certain amount. Now, sir, suppose 
that one of the two papei’s that might be selected could 
not be engaged to do it. The printing must go to only 
one then ; and what would be the effect of such a state 
of things ? I should much prefer that the resolution 
should designate the papers, as the law under which 
we are acting has done, in which the reports of our 
proceedings appear. 

Mr. REEMELIN. So far as I am concerned, I have 
no objections to designating the papers to whom this 
work should be given in the resolution. The papers 
selected should be two papers, taken from the two 
great parties dividing the State. I am willing that the 
Whig party should receive their share of the benefits 
of the measure. 

Mr. SAWYER. For the purpose of procuring this 
report and ascertaining something more al»out tlie wil¬ 
lingness of parties, who are interested in this matter of 
printing, and obtaining more definite information than 
we have yet had, I move that the report be recommit¬ 
ted to a select committee of five. 

Mr. REEMELIN. • I hope, sir, that the motion wilj 
mot prevail. This subject is one certainly easy to be 
comprehended and easily understood. The report sim¬ 
ply proposes to give the Reporter power to enter into 
an arrangement with the publishers of papers in the 


German language, to publish the proceedings and de¬ 
bates of the Convention in their papers. The editor of 
the German Whig paper in Cincinnati has offered to do 
it for 25 cents per thousand ems, and 8ays,thathe is wil¬ 
ling to do it at that price, and is willing to enter into 
any arrangement to that effect. He is exceedingly 
anxious to give information of what may be done here 
to his readers, and to do it under the authority of the 
Convention, and at such a price as the Convention is 
ready to give him. I hope that the resolution will pass 
in the shape as originally presented, with the amend¬ 
ment offered by the gentleman from * 

Mr. SAWYER. A member of the Convention has 
announced, that these reports cannot be published at 
the price here designated. I again say and would ask 
the Convention, what is the use of passing resolutions 
of this kind, until we know, that the arrangements we 
may enter into, with the publishers of these Genian 
papers, may be carried into effect. I think that it ought 
to be re-committed to a select committee of five. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Permit me to correct the gentle¬ 
man, when he says that we have no definite informa¬ 
tion as to the terms which these papers fjffer to do the 
printing for. WTiy, there are two papers in Cincinnati 
who stand ready to do it, and I believe if they make 
arrangements to do it, the work will be done faithfully, 
and to the satisfaction of all concerned. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot. In the remarks which 
have been made by the gentleman from Hamilton, it 
strikes me, he stated that the Wesibote, a paper hav¬ 
ing a large circulation, says that it cannot publish these 
proceedings on the terms offered. If so, I am in favor 
of having this report re-committed, in order to see 
what arrangements can be made, and not to show any 
partiality in the matter. There is no other paperinthe 
State, that has the circulation among the Germans, 
that the Westbotehfui. I am anxious that these debates 
should be published in the German papers, from the 
fact, that I have a large German constituency. I am 
decidedly opposed to all partiality in the matter or any 
intrigue, and for that reason I first moved to lay upon 
the table; and now I am in favor of a recommitment, 
in order that the matter may be fully investigated and 
to see if an arrangement cannot be effected by which 
to publish in the Wesibote and if not, in what German 
papers they can be published, by which the German 
j)opnlation of the State shall have a full and complete 
knowledge of the proceedings of the Convention. I 
am opposed to publishingitin any paper that has a gra¬ 
tuitous circulation, or is published in one corner of the 
State. 

Mr. BARNETT of Montgomery. I hope the mo¬ 
tion will not prevail. I think there is a gi’eat proprie¬ 
ty in having these debates published in the German 
language. In the county, (Montgomery") in which I 
reside, there is a large German population, and a great 
znany of them who cannot read in English. We must 
take men as we find them, and it is necessary, in order 
that the Germans may understand what we ai*e doing 
here, that they should have these debates printed in 
their own language. I am well acquainted with one 
gentleman named in this debates, as being anxious to 
publish these debates in the German, and I know that 
he is a gezitleman fully qualified to make a pei-fect 
translation of these debates into the Gerrizan language. 

I hope the motion to re-commit will not prevail. There 
is a laz'ge proportion of the population of this State, 
who are Germans and of German descent. I trust, 
therefore, that the Convention will see proper to pub¬ 
lish these debates in two papers. One of the gentle¬ 
men named to do the printing in the German, would 
no doubt pizblish it in book form, after it shall have 
been published in the paper. 

Mr. HOLMES. I cannotconceive why there should 
be the least diffei’ence of opinion and expression in ref¬ 
erence to the simple proposition befoi’e us. The gen¬ 
tleman from Wyandot presumed, or at least I inferred 
from his remarks that he did so, that the selection of 








CONVENTION REPORTS 


59 


papers presents a serious objection to his mind. For¬ 
sooth, if that selection does not suit the gentlemaji, 
why, sir, will he not be ready to encourage the selec¬ 
tion of any other paper, which should publish informa¬ 
tion which is absolutely so necessary to a large and re¬ 
spectable portion of the population of this State. It 
matters not to me what particular journal is selected 
to publish the proceedings of this Convention, nor in 
what portion of the State of Ohio it is published. 
Whether it is from the remotest corners of the State, 
northeastern, northwestern, or southwestern. This is 
a matter of no importance to me. The object proposed 
in the resolutions, is to give the German population of 
Ohio, information upon the subjects here discuss'd, so 
that they may act intelligently, and not to smother up 
this information in a language with w'hich they are en¬ 
tirely unacquainted. Sir, if the German paper of this 
city choose not to publish the proceedings ot the Con¬ 
vention either in the paper, or in pamphlet or book 
forn, why, then, sir, let us give it to those papers 
where we can procure the publication. As my col¬ 
league justly remarks, we have two papers which are 
the organs of the two great political parties of the 
State, who are willing to make the publication of our 
proceedings upon the same terms that have been given 
to the two English papers of this city. The object of 
the publication of our proceedings in the German lan¬ 
guage is, to submit the doings of this Convention to the 
large German population of the State. I care not what 
the selection of the papers may be, but I do not wash 
to confine my action because such selection may not 
suit me, and say, fi.rsooth, that the German population 
of Ohio shall be ignorant of the proceedings of this Con¬ 
vention. Sir, I speak thus strongly upon the matter 
because I feel a deep interest in it, and because I wish 
that the 14,000 intelligent Germans here who may wish 
to read the proceedings of this Convention, may act in 
accordance with a just apprehension of the subjects 
upon which they may be called to decide. If they are 
not published in book form, I suppose the publication 
will not be confined to Hamilton county. It would be 
a most singular position, that because the papers are 
not selected at the seat of Government, that we are to 
withhold the publication of our proceedings from other 
journals. The proposition presented by my colleague 
is a plain and simple one, and does not require a spe¬ 
cial committee. 

Mr. NASH here inquired what motion was now be¬ 
fore the House ? 

The PRESIDENT in reply said, that the question 
was upon re-commitment of the resolutions presented 
by Mr. Reemelin, with the accompanying amendment, 
to a select committee of five. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. There is one thing in these re¬ 
solutions I do not understand, which I should be glad 
to have explai led, and that is this: The committee 
authorize the Reporter to contract with two papers at 
not more than 25 cents per thousand ems. Now what 
will be the effect and what would be the under.stand- 
ing of the Convention upon the subjects, in case one 
paper only should be wdlling to enter into an arrange¬ 
ment. Would that one paper receive 12^ cents per 
thousand ems. or would the Reporter be authorized to 
give him 25 cents ? I fear that there would be some 
ambiguity in a resolution of this character, so that the 
Reporter might not properly understand what would 
his duty in this case. 

Mr. NASH. The amendment I propose is to that 
very point and intended to do away with all uncer¬ 
tainty about the matter, and therefore I move that the 
resolution be amended by adding, “that not more than 
12^ cents per thousand ems be paid to any one paper 
for the publication of the proceedings of the Conven¬ 
tion.” 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE. So far as the question ef¬ 
fects my very respectable German constituency, the 
publiction of the proceedings here, in any paper, but 


especially if it is in a Democratic paper, will suit them. 
They care very little whether they should be publish¬ 
ed in a Whig paper or not. 1 have no Whig German 
constituency. If any gentleman wishes the reports 
published in a Whig paper, I will not object. I advo¬ 
cate the publication of these reports in the German 
language for the benefit of a large number of Germans 
in this Stale, who otherwise would be comparatively 
ignorant of our proceedings here. I suppose that these 
debates and proceedings will be relerred to in after 
years for the construction of the constitution we may 
frame. I want the German population as well enlight¬ 
ened as the “ Anglo-Saxon race,” as it is termed. The 
Germans are well enlightened on many subjects, why 
keep them in the dark on this ? So far as I know, we 
have but two Germans, in the county which I have 
the honor to represent, who are subscribers to the Ger¬ 
man papers published in Cincinnati, while there are a 
considerable number to the paper published here. I 
want the German paper published here, to have fair 
play in the matter. I will go for a reference to a se¬ 
lect committee that inquiries may be made, so that if 
the publishing of these proceedings is to be given out, 
the paper here, at least, may have a fair opportunity of 
putting in its claims. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. I rise for the purpose of 
obtaining information in regard to the publication of 
these German papers. I understand that the German 
paper published in this city is a weekly paper. In re¬ 
gard to those of Cincinnati I am not informed. 

Mr. REEMELIN here remarked, that the papers 
were both daily and weekly. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren continued. I should like 
to know, if a contract is made to publish our proceed¬ 
ings in the German paper of this city, whether it is 
proposed that these debates shall go out in the weekly 
paper, or whether they are to be published in another 
form. I am inclined to think, Mr. President, that un¬ 
less they should be published in another form than the 
weekly, the paper would not be of sufficient capacity 
to publish all the current debates as they may transpire 
here. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. I should much prefer that 
this matter should go to a select committee.^ There is 
another difficulty about this matter, and in making 
these suggestions, I wish gentlemen distinctly to under 
stand that I am not opposed to the proposition abstract¬ 
ly considered, for I represent a numerous German 
population, who are, I believe, for the most part, men 
of very good sense, and capable of reading the lan¬ 
guage, although I do not know whether they would care 
very much about being flattered in the way which gen¬ 
tlemen seem inclined to flatter them. There is this 
difficulty, that the law of last winter provides that these 
debates, when published in the newspapers of this city, 
shall be under the supervision and superintendence of 
the Reporter. The language of this act is as follows: 
“The reporter shall have authority to make arrage- 
ments with the publishers of the Ohio Statesman and 
Ohio State Journal for the daily publication ot said de¬ 
bates and proceedings, and shall sriperintmd the same, 
provided.” &.c. He is an officer of this body has 
been made so by its direct action, upon him the respon¬ 
sible duty is devolved to see that these debates are 
faithfully prepared, and in addition too, you have adop¬ 
ted a resolution which authorizes any gentleman to 
suggest in the Convention, or to the Reporter, such 
proper alterations where mistakes have been made, as 
will place the gentlemen right before the coxiiitry. 
Now, sir, I wish to inquire who is to supervise and su¬ 
perintend the publication of these debates in the Ger¬ 
man papers? Is our authorized Reporter to do it? Is 
he a Gei'man scholar, competent to the ta.sk ? I must 
confess that if you were to lay a report printed in Gei- 
man on my desk, I should be entirely unable to read 
it, though many of these gentlemen might do it. The 
gentleman from Hamilton county ^Mr. Reemelin^ 
would do it, for I understand that he is an accomplish- 





60 ■ CONVENTION REPOETS. 


ed German scholar. If that gentleman were to have 
the supervision of tlio publication of these debates, I 
should have no objection to their publication in Ger¬ 
man. But I wish that some little should be observed 
in this business. Now, si”, we all know how very diffi¬ 
cult it is when any publication is in course of transla¬ 
tion, to convey the precise meaning intended by the 
author, owing to the differect views which the transla¬ 
tor rnay have. How are we to know that the publica¬ 
tion in a German paper may be correct ? One of these 
papers perhaps published here and one in Cincinnati. 
Who is to supervise the publication made in Cincin¬ 
nati? But the same type can be used for both. 
Agreed. Who is to supervise the publication here ? I 
do not wish that the debates and proceedings of this 
'Convention should be publisihed unless under its au¬ 
thority, and as a matter of course, that every thing may 
be corrected before it receives the sanction of the Con¬ 
vention. I say again, sir, that I have no sort of objec¬ 
tion to the proposition, if it can be so arranged and 
presented as to remove all the difficulties and objec¬ 
tions which I have stated, and I hope, therefore, that 
the honorable gentleman will consent to have the mat¬ 
ter referred, in order that the various difficulties sug¬ 
gested may be considered, and that we may have the 
benefit of the light which they will throw upon the 
.subject. 

Mr. LEECH. I desire the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton [Mr. Reemelin] to inform this Convention, if he 
can, what is the circulation of the German papers pub¬ 
lished in Cincinnati. I am credibly informed that ozie 
of those papers—the German Whig paper—has an ex¬ 
ceedingly limited circulation—that it has veiy few sub¬ 
scribers, and is circulated, for the most part, gratuitous¬ 
ly. Is this true ? 

The object, Mr. President, in proposing to publish 
the proceedings and debates of this Convention in the 
German language, is obvious. It is for the purpose of 
having them disseminated extensively among the Ger¬ 
man population of the State, in a language which they 
can understand—in their native dialect. That object 
will be most effectually accomplished by publishing 
them in the German papers which have the lai’gest— 
the most extensive—the most general circulation. This 
proposition is self-evident, and requires no elucidation. 
I learn from the veiy best authority, that “ Der West- 
bote” published in this city, has a larger and more gen¬ 
eral circulation than any other German paper in Ohio. 
For this reason, sir, in connection with others which 
operate upon my mind, I am desirous that our proceed¬ 
ings and debates be published in that paper. I am 
strongly in favor of the motion made by the gentleman 
from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] to refer the report of he 
committee, now under consideration, to a select com¬ 
mittee of five, for the potent reason urged by the gen¬ 
tleman from Wyandot [Mr. Smith;] and I hope the 
motion may prevail. If this reference is made, it may, 
perhaps, afford an opportunity to enter into arrange¬ 
ments by which our proceedings and debates may be 
published in the German paper of this city, “ Der West- 
bote.^’ 

Will the gentleman from Hamilton now have the 
goodness to communicate to the Convention, the de¬ 
sired information relative to the circulation of the Ger¬ 
man papers in Cincinnati. 

Mr. REEMELIN. As information has been asked 
upon the subject, I will report first to the gentleman 
from Ross; my resolution provides that the Reporter 
shall be authorised to make ai’rangemeiits, and provide 
for the translation of the reports from the Ohio States¬ 
man and Ohio State Journal. The intention of the re¬ 
solution is, to give the publication to two newspapers. 
The German newspajiers in Cincinnati, translate a 
great deal, for in fact they are made up to a great ex 
tent of tran.slations. They may occasionally commit 
errors, but they are very slight. The gentleman 
from Guernsey is entirely mistaken when he asserts 


that the “ Republicaner ” has not a veiy general circu¬ 
lation. 

Mr. LEECH. Permit me to correct the gentleman 
from Hamilton. I did not assert that the paper which 
he named, has a limited circulation. I stated that I 
was informed that such was the case. 

Mr. REEMELIN resumed. On the contrary I can 
say, that that paper has a general circulation through 
the State. I do not believe there is a county in the 
State in which that paper is not taken, owing to the 
fact that the Whigs have made great efforts to extend 
its circulation. As to its circulation being gratuitous, 
I cannot speak advisedly, for I know nothing about it; 
but I can say that I have been assured that the editor of 
the “ Republicaner ” pronounced, publicly, the state¬ 
ment to be false. Let that go for what it is worth. The 
circulation of the three papers I should judge to be 
something like the statement I shall submit to you. 
The Westbote, in this city, has a more general circula¬ 
tion throughout the State, with the exception of the 
particular localities where German papers are publish¬ 
ed, but hardly any circulation in the county of Hamil¬ 
ton. The Whig paper at Cincinnati has already a 
general circulation throughout the State, among the 
Whigs, and is taken by some Democrats. The Demo¬ 
cratic paper, the “Volksblatt,” has also a general cir¬ 
culation throughout the State, but not so general as the 
Westbote. The circulation of the three German pa¬ 
pers are:—The Volksblatt, 1400daily, weekly 3000; the 
Republicaner, 900 daily—weekly, from 1400 to 1500 ; 
the Westbote, 3000 weekly. Before I sit down I wish 
to make the remark, that I am for leaving the rnatter 
open to fair competition. Our object is to be fair and 
impartial, and I think that throughout we have acted 
with the utmost impartiality. I hope the motion to re¬ 
fer will not be agreed to, as it will only delay the mat- 
ter. 

Mr. CAHILL. I have the honor to represent in this 
Convention a large German constituency, as honest and 
enlightened as any other. The paper published in this 
city has a larger circulation by several hundred, in the 
county I represent, than any other German paper. I 
hope that this subject will be recommitted, so that 
there may be arrangements made for the publication 
of the debates in the German paper here. 

Mr. LARWILL. I do not like to trouble the Con¬ 
vention with a matter of this kind, but I am in favor 
of recommitting the subject under consideration to the 
committee on Printing, in order that we may have the 
matter thoroughly investigated. I have also the hon¬ 
or to represent a large and respectable population of 
Germans, and a considerable number of them are ta¬ 
king the paper published in this city. If the printing 
is to be taken entirely away from the Westbote, the 
publication of the proceedings in any other German 
paper would be of very little use to them, and it might 
1)0 the means of governing my vote I should be 
pleased to see the publication in a Whig as well as a 
Democratic paper, but I should be loth to say that 
they should be published in the Democratic and Whig 
papers of Cincinnati, and not in the paper of this city, 
which, I am persuaded in my own mind, has a more 
general circulation throughout the State than any other 
])aper of the Democratic party. The paper published 
here has a wider circulation because it is published at 
the seat of Government, where they look for informa¬ 
tion from all parts of the country. I hope that in view 
of these circumstances, the resolutions will be re-com¬ 
mitted, 

Mr. GREGG. I have only a few words to say. I 
am satisfied myself that no accurate report of these 
proceedings can be published in the German language, 
that is, to be put into book form, unless it goes through 
the press of this city, and unedrgoes a revision here. 
The first reports of debates and proceedings that are 
published in thenewspapers-the daily reports-frequent- 
ly abound with typographical and sometimes other in¬ 
accuracies ; and when they have been first published. 












61 


CONVENTION EEPOllTS. 


the reporter or proof reader of these debates the next d ay 
can see the inaccuracies and correct them before they 
should be transferred to a book form. Tliis correction 
is necessary before the matter is published in a book 
designed for the library and as a work of reference. 
If these reports are to be entirely transferred to the 
city of Cincinnati, how is any member of this Conven¬ 
tion to know that an exact and accurate rej)ort of the 
debates and proceedings of this Convention will be 
published there? The custom at Washington City, in 
publishing the reports of Congress, is like this: the 
reports pass through the daily paper; they are read 
by the members of Congress as they appear in the dai¬ 
ly press; the inaccuracies of the report are marked 
and sent to the printing office before they are transfer¬ 
red to the Congressional Globe, for instance, or the 
National Intelligencer, to be put into book form.— 
Knowing these to be the facts, I shall certainly vote to 
refer it to a committee, that they may so amend the re¬ 
port and put it in such a shape that it may pass. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I will say a word upon this 
subject. Ill the first place I agree with the remarks of 
the gentleman from Columbiana [Mr. Gregg.] I am 
satisfied that he is better able to advise the Conven¬ 
tion upon this subject, than any member of this body, 
because he has had large expeiience in the publishing 
ol Congressional debates. Now, sir, the We&lhote, it is 
admitted, I believe, by eveiy gentleman in the Con¬ 
vention, has the largest general circulation of any 
German paper in the State. It is true, that the Ger¬ 
man papers of Cincinnati have a large circulation, 
but a large portion of that circulation as I am well in¬ 
formed, is in Indiana, Kentucky, and throughout the 
Western States. So far as the State is concerned, the 
circulation of these papers, is mostly confined to the 
county of Hamilton. In the county of Fairfield, the 
Westbote is the only German paper circulated to any 
extent. The whole object of the publication of these 
debates in the German language, which I regard ex¬ 
tremely important, will be defeated by the form of the 
resolution now presented, because the effect of their 
adoption would necessarily be, to give the publication 
of these debates to the papers of Cincinnati. Sir, I 
am not willing, if we can possibly avoid it, to give the 
publication of these debates to a paper so far removed 
from the Convention. There is great force in the re¬ 
marks offered by the gentleman from Ross. If we 
wish to publish correct reports of our debates in the 
German language, we must have these reports pub¬ 
lished at home, where they can be daily corrected, and 
besides this, there is great propriety in publishing here 
where we can conveniently secure copies for distribu¬ 
tion. I hope for these reasons, that the report will be 
re-committed to a select committee, who may take the 
subject into consideration, and if it is necessary to pay 
more to publish these debates in the city of Columbus 
in the Westbote^ than is proposed to be paid to the pa¬ 
pers in Cincinnati, I am willing to give more. The 
gentleman from Cincinnati [Mr. Holmes] is mistaken, 
jn supposing that we object to publishing our debates 
in the German papers of Cincinnati, simply because of 
their locality. We desire to have the debates pub¬ 
lished in the German papers of this city, for the sxiffi- 
cient reason, that it has the largest general circulation, 
and because the debates would then be published un¬ 
der the immediate supervision of the Convention. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Before the vote is taken, I wish to 
occupy your attention for a single moment. As I un¬ 
derstand it, these resolutions clearly state the condi¬ 
tions upon which this German edition is to be publish¬ 
ed—which are, thatthe report is to be revised, correct¬ 
ed, and put into a perfect form by the official Reporter 
of this Convention; and to secure a correct German 
edition, all that would be necessary is the naked sim¬ 
ple translation of the revised and corrected report. Those 
who conduct and issue these editions, are necessarily 
compelled to make their translations complete, as they 
would probably issue rival editions, and they mustmake 


them full and correct, or else they would lose the con¬ 
fidence of the German population in the State, Is the 
Westbote the paper of the most general circulation 
among the Germans in the State? Grant it! Who 
seeks to deprive the Westbote of the opportunity of con¬ 
curring in this publication? If they have the advan¬ 
tage of locality and general circulation, let them step 
in and be paid 12^ cents per thousand ems, and fill 
their columns with leadable matter, and take the gift 
of copy right which the Convention offers to them. The 
resolution proposed by the gentleman from Hamilton 
[Mr. Reemelin] is'■impartial, but I think the proposi¬ 
tion to commit for the purpose of ascertaining whether 
we cannot make an especial contract in this city with 
the Westbote upon higher terms than have been men¬ 
tioned, is partial and local, and, I am afraid, will alto¬ 
gether defeat the proposition to publish our proceed¬ 
ings and debates in the German language; for I shall 
oppose any proposition for the publication of these de¬ 
bates in the German language, unless designed to reach 
the whole population of the State, and if we, by special 
committee or otherwise, shall agree to give 22 or 20 
cents to the local paper for publishing these proceed¬ 
ings, the effect would be, to defeat the whole-object to 
be gained by such publication. Pass the resolutions of 
the gentleman from Hamilton—let our reporter in a 
fair and impartial manner, after understanding the will 
of the Convention, invite proposals, but do not by any 
means, give the local press the advaiitage over the 
press of other localities, or indicate a pi-eference in any 
way. 

Mr. GREGG. I will grant one thing, that if you 
take the report, corrected as far as may be with the 
hurry of business upon the daily press, of either of- 
the daily papers of Columbus, and then correct them 
for the book form, they would be able to make perfect 
translations for the Gennan papers in Cincinnati, and 
if these reports were taken from the daily papers, they 
would not make a report worthy to be published in 
book form, because they would abound with so many 
of the inaccuracies that unavoidably appear in the dai¬ 
ly I’eports. No reporter or printer can report and print 
the proceedings of a Convention of this character for 
the daily papers and have their reports perfectly accu¬ 
rate. If a German translator should wait until these 
reports pass through the daily papers of this city and 
were corrected for a book editon, and then receive 
sheets of that book edition, he might make a transla¬ 
tion in that wav that would be accurate and correct. 

Mr. FIRESTONE. Much of the time of the Con¬ 
vention has been already consumed in discussing this 
question, but I have a few remai'ks to make upon 
what has been presented here, which I wish to oiler. I 
am in favor of a re-commitment of this matter to a se¬ 
lect committee, as proposed by the gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize. I am favorably impressed with the remarks 
made by the gentleman from Columbiana, who is a 
practical printer, when he says to this body that the re¬ 
port of our debates printed in the German papers would 
not be done correctly from the fact that they are taken 
from English papers which abound with inaccuracies. 
It appears to be necessary, then, that there should be 
a printer chosen at the Capital, under the observation 
of the Reporter of this Convention, or of those who 
take part in these debates, in order to have accurate 
reports of them go into book form. I, for one, am 
not willing to vote for the resolutions to have them 
printed in the German papers, except I can have one 
of them located in the city of Columbus. I object to 
these resolutions for the reason I have stated, and I 
object still further to their passage, for the reason that 
a large portion of the German population of this State 
will never see the debates and proceedings of the 
Convention, unless printed here in the Gennan paper. 
The Germans of the northern part of Ohio do not 
know, I presume, the names even of the jjapers pub¬ 
lished in Cincinnati. In my county, there is not a pa¬ 
per taken from that city, nor in Ashland, or in Stark 













62 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


or Columbiana. These papers are not circulated in the 
northern part of the State. 1 should be opposed to 
vote for the printing of these debates in the German 
paper, unless I was ])retty certain that it had a general 
circulation. The Germans of the northern part ot 
Ohio will have to bear a portion of the expenses of this 
Convention, and they will be taxed to meet such ex¬ 
penses. The great majority of the Germans of this 
State will never see these debates excejitthey be pub¬ 
lished in the paper located in this city. I am not wil¬ 
ling to vote to lay taxes upon a majority of the Ger¬ 
man ])opulation of the State, exce])t they can reap the 
Ijenelits. I am in favor of the re-commitment of the 
subject to a select committee of five. 

The question upon Mr. Sawykr’s motion to refer 
the resolutions [Mr. Rkkmelin’s] to aselect committee, 
was then taken and the motion prevailed. 

The TRESIDENT designated Messrs. Saw yer,Green, 
Leech, Sjiith of Wyandot, and Gregg as that com¬ 
mittee. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the report of the com¬ 
mittee on Rules was taken up, and on his further mo¬ 
rion was committed to the committee of the whole, 
lud made the special order for tliis day. 

The Convention then resolved itself into a committee 
of the whole, 

Mr. CHAMBERS in the Chair. After considerable 
discussion on various amendments proposed, the com¬ 
mittee rose, reported progress and asked leave to sit 
again. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren moved that the Convention 
take a recess. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the Convention adjourn, 
which was disagreed to. 

The motion of Mr. Smith of Warren prevailed, and 

The Convention took a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

On motion by Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into committee of the whole, 

Mr. CHAMBERS in the chair, and proceeded to the 
consideration and discussion of the report of the com¬ 
mittee on rules. 

[In accordance with the general advice of delegates, 
the debate and proceedings both in committee of the 
whole and in Convention, on the various amendments 
proposed to the report of the committee on rules, ex- 
ce})t the record of the ayes and noes, are omitted.] 

After some time spent in discussion, the committee 
rose and reported sundry amendments to the report of 
the committee onrules, which, with slight modifications, 
were agreed to. 

The yeas and nays were demanded ujion the agree¬ 
ing to the 49th rule, [“ that no standing rule of this 
Convention shall be suspended except by a vote of 
two-thirds of the inendiers present.”] as amended by 
Mr. Claypoole, [by strikingout all after the word'rihat,” 
and inserting '‘no one of the foregoing rules shall be 
altered or amended, except on one dav’s notice, or sus- 
|)ended, except by a vote of two-thirds of the mem¬ 
bers present,”] and being ordered, resulted yeas 100, 
nays 3, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barl)ee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Bates, Bennet, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown, of Carroll Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Claypoole, Colliugs, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Ew¬ 
ing, Farr, Firestone, Florence, P’orbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, 
Green of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Ilitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootmau, Horton, Humph- 
reville. Hunt, Hunter, .Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, 
Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, I.eech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Manon, 
Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash Norris, Orton, 
Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Ptobertson, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Hamson, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stanberry, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Stni- 
ble, Swim, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thomitson of Stark, 
Town.sliend, Vance of .Butler, Vance, of .Champaign Warren, 
Way, Williams, Woodbury, Mr, President—100. 

Nays —Messrs. Clark, Lidey and Swift—3. 

iSo the rule as amended, was agreed to. 


Mr. WOODBURY moved to amend the 19th rule : ' 

19. Upon a call of the Convention, the names of the members 
shall be called by the Secretary alphabetically, and the absentees 
noted; the absentees shall then be again called, and those still ab- 
sent, and for whom no sullicient excuse is rendered, shall not re¬ 
ceive a certificate for the time he or they shall thereafter be ab¬ 
sent, 

By inserting at the end of the second line, “without 
leave;” also insert after the word, “noted,” the words, 
“ the absentees noted shall then be again called, and 
those still absent, for whom no sullicient excuse shall 
be rendered, or shall not within one hour thereafter 
appear in the Hall of the Convention and give notice 
of his preseiice, shall not receive a certificate for the 
time he or they shall thereafter be absent,” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga, moved to amend 
the amendment by striking out the words, “ and the 
reasons of his or their absence should be entered on 
the journal;” on which motion, 

Mr. WOODBURY demanded the yeas and na^s, 
which being ordered, resulted yeas .55, nays 47, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet ot Montgomery, Blick¬ 
ensderfer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Clark, Cur¬ 
ry, Cutler, Ewart, Farr, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Henderson, Hitchcock ot Cuj’ahoga, Hitchcock of Ge¬ 
auga, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Ilumphreville, Hunt, Hunter, 
Johnson, Kennon, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mason,Mitch¬ 
ell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, 
Robertson, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, 
Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vjmee of Butler, 
Warren and Mr. President— 55. 

Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennet, Blair, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Licking, Chambers, Claypoole, CoHings, Ewing, Fires¬ 
tone, Florence, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Hard, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Holt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, 
Loudon, Nash, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Ramiey, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of WaiTen, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, 
Struble, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Champaign, Way, 
Williams and Woodbury—47. 

So the motion to strike out prevailed. 

The question afterwards recurring on Mr. Wood¬ 
bury’s amendment as amended— 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered resulted, yeas 26, nays 76, as follows : 

Yeas — Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Montgomery, 
Blickensderfer, Cahill, Clark, Cook, Curry, Fireston, Gregg, 
Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hum- 
phreville. Hunter, Johnson, Lidey, Manon, Ranney, Scott of 
Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Stebbins, Stilwell, Struble, Town¬ 
shend, Woodbury, Mr. President.—26. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Bates, Bennet, 
Blair, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, 
Case of Licking, Claypoole, Ceilings, Cutler, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, 
Florence, Forbes, Gillet, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Hard, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Jones, Kennon, King, Ilirkwood, Larsh, 
Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, 
Morris, McLoud, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis Patterson, Peck, Per¬ 
kins, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Robertson, Roll, Sawyer, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stanbery, Stickney, Stidger Swan, Swift, Tayh.r, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Vance of Cham¬ 
paign, Warren, Way, Williams—76. 

So the amendment was di.sagreed to. The report of 
the committee on rules, as amended, was then adopted. 

Mr. HUNT offered for adoption the following: 

“ Resolved, That the Secretary be and is hereby authorized to 
appoint an assistant Secretai'y. 

The PRESIDENT remarked that he had intended to 
inform the Convention that the Clerk had on two differ¬ 
ent occasions expressed to him a de.sii’e for additional 
assistance'. 

On motion by Mr. LOUDON, the resolution was re¬ 
ferred to a select committee of three. 

The PRESIDENT de.signatedMessrs. Hunt, Loudon, 
and Vance of Champaign 

On motion by Mr. NASH, the Convention adjourned. 


THURSDAY, May 16, 1850—10 A. M. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Woodrow. 

Mr. LOUDON. The select committee to whom was 
referred the resolution authorizing the Secretary to ap¬ 
point an additional assistant Secretaiy, have had the 















CONVENTION REPOIITS 


63 


subject under consideration and direct me to report the 
following resolution: 

“ Resolved, That an additional assistant Secretary is required in 
this body, and that the Convention proceed to elect one by ballot 

On motion of Mr. LARWILL, the report was laid 
upon ihe table. 

Mr. MORRIS. I move that the report of the com¬ 
mittee on Reporting relative to the resolution jiresent- 
ed by the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stasbery] 
on tiie subject of securing a copy right in the Uilicial 
Report of the debates of the Convention be taken up. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. NASH. I move to lay the report upon the table 
and let it lie there without taking any action upon it. 

Mr. McCORMICK. The amendment which I offer¬ 
ed on Monday last to the effect that the Reporter of 
this Convention should be ordered forthwith to secui’e 
a copy right for the book edition of the debates, was 
voted down. Would it not be necessary, if that amend¬ 
ment went to a committee to re-consider that vote, I 
hope that some gentleman will move it for a re-consid¬ 
eration, if it is not too late. 

Mr. STANBERY. I will move for a re-consideration 
of the vote. 

A division, on the motion of Mr. Nash to lay the re- 
port,on the table was demanded and had, which re¬ 
sulted as follows: yeas 41. nays 54. 

Mr. HOLMES. If it would not be out of order, I 
would move a re-consideration of the vote upon the 
proposition submitted by the gentleman from Adams, 
[Mr. McCormick.] 

A division being demanded and had on the question,, 
resulted as follows: yeas 44, nays 48; so the motion to 
I’econsider was lost. 

The question being upon agreeing to the following 
resolution as recommended in the report of the com¬ 
mittee : 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to conform to so much of 
the 4th section of the act to provide for calling the Convention as 
relates to securing a copy right for the State of our procedings 
and debates; ” 

Mr. BENNETT moved to strike out the word “inex¬ 
pedient” and in.sert “impracticable.” 

Mr. SAWYER. I call for a division, for tiie pur- 
po.s(‘ of having the word “inexpedient” stricken out in 
tin.' first line of the resolution, and insert the word “ ex¬ 
pedient.” 

Mr. RANNEY. I am in favor of the report of the 
committee, and the adoption of the resolutions which 
they have submitted. It has looked to me from the 
beginning as a matter, not entirely an impossibility, 
l)ut altogether inexpedient, to secure the copy right of 
these debates. Further reflection ha^ satisfied me that 
it is a legal impossibility to do so. It is agreed on all 
hands, that the right to secure such copy right is denied 
under the laws and constitution of the United States. 
We have rights to literary property outside of the pro¬ 
tection of the constitution and laws, which secures for 
the encouragement of learning, to authors, the right to 
be protected in the exclusive enjoyment of their works 
for a limited period, pi’ovided they are citizens and 
residents of the United States, and in case of their death, 
secures to their widows and children, for a limited pe¬ 
riod, the exclusive copy right for another period of 
years. Now, Mr. President, I would ask, vyho is the 
author of these debates? Is it the State of Ohio, for 
the proposition is to secure to the State this copy right? 
Is whatever we may say here, presumed to belong to 
the State of Ohio ? Well, this proposition is too absurd 
for a single moment, to secure a copy right in the ge¬ 
nius which displays itself in the remarks made by mem¬ 
bers of this body, and which in case of the death of any 
of these gentlemen, would belong to their widows and 
children ! It seems to me, therefore, to talk about ap¬ 
propriating the genius displayed upon this Hoor, in this 
manner, is an utter perversion of both the constitution 
and law. It is not for the encouragement of authors, 
because it does not encourage us to make fine speech¬ 
es. But, Mr. Fresident, there is another reason why 


this matter of our debates and proceedings cannot be 
copy righted. I should like to know whether the sub¬ 
ject matter of del^atcs and proceedings of public bodies 
is in its nature capable of being put under the screw of 
monopoly. I do not know of a single instance where 
it ever has been done, and I believe I am warranted 
by the laws of the land in saying that it cannot be done. 
This matter was greatly discussed in the case of Whea¬ 
ton & Donaldson, vs. Peters ife Gregg, in the supreme 
court of the United States, in which Chief .Justice 
McLane, one of the judges of that court, stated in a 
single paragraph the law, which I will read. 

“ It rnay be proper to remark that the court are unanimously 
of opinion, that no Reporter has, or can have, any copy right in 
the written opinions delivered by this court; and tliat the Judges 
thereof cannot confer on any Reporter any such right.” 

Now what is the reason, Mr. President, that these 
written opinions of the Judges of the Supreme Court 
of the U. S. cannot be made the exclusive property' of 
the individual Reporter ? Why’^ cannot the Judges of 
the court secure a copy right, in the learning and 
wisdom embodied in these opinions? Because, when 
made, they belong to the public, and do not belong to 
one class or another class of individuals. Now, sir, 
there is a perfect similitude or similarity^ betw een those 
opinions and the debates that are delivered here. We 
come here to represent the public. We come here 
from the people; and consequently, what we may ut¬ 
ter liere, -as well as the votes we may give here, belong 
to the people. Are these debates to be locked up from 
them? Well, sir, you might with a great deal more 
propriety lock up the judicial decisions of the court of 
the last resort, which has relation only to the rights of 
particular individuals. This w'ould admit of more jus¬ 
tification, than to lock up the opinions of the mem¬ 
bers of this Convention, under the copy right, where 
those opinions and proceeding are the very matters to 
which the people of this State are to look for informa¬ 
tion, when they come to vote upon the great questions 
submitted to them. I, will confess to you, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, that I am extremely unfriendly' to a monopoly- 
in literature and talents, and I am extremely unfriend¬ 
ly to tliis whole scheme of copy righting our debates. 
I would only- go so far as the law plainly goes. Upon 
the ground of expediency alone, I would be decidedly 
against the securing of this copy right even if it could 
be legally, secured. What is the object in publishing 
our debates at all ? Is it not, that the people of this 
State may be informed of the reasons, motives and 
views of those who present them a constitution for 
their adoption or their rejection ? Is this object to be 
carried out or attained by locking up these debates un¬ 
der a copy right ? What is the object of a copy right? 
Why, it is to secure to one individual the exclusive 
right to pi'int and sell the products of his minti and 
deny it to all others. This is the effect of such a law, 
and the securing such a personal, exclusive right, is 
the very governing motive that operates upon the in¬ 
dividual who secures a copy right. 

Have we any such motive to lock up these proceedings 
and confine them to any particular man ; but should it 
not, rather, be the great object for which we publish 
the proceedings of what may transpire here, that we 
shall have the right to a thorough and general circula¬ 
tion of them among the people of this State ? I would 
not restrict the publication of these debates to any par¬ 
ticular individual or class of persons, or make such pub¬ 
lication in any manner exclusive, but I would prefer, 
rather, to encourage the publication of them as widely as 
possible, for the reason that all are alike interested 
in knowing the foundations upon which we place the 
Constitution which we may adopt here. It has been urg¬ 
ed here with great earnestness, that by securing a copy¬ 
right, the State would be gainer by the sale ot the books. 
We have already tried our hands in several schemes for 
making money', in constructing roads and canals, besides 
a variety of other things, in all of which the State has 
failed to prosper. I believe, Mr. President, that she w-ould 
not be any more fortunate if she were to embody all 










64 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the genius aiul wisdom of this body in a copy right vol¬ 
ume of its debates and proceedings and I have not the 
least idea that the State would be any richer for it. 
lam in favor of the publication of these debates by the 
printers appointed to this body. 1 would not preclude 
any other individual from publishing them to the world. 
But it is said that we disregard the 4th section of the law 
by which this body is called together. They seem to be 
apprehensive that we are utterly precluded from giving 
entire liberty to individualsto publish these debates. Sir, 
the 4th sec. of the law is a,felodese. It provides in the first 
place thatour debates shall be published in two papers of 
this city. In the next place we have the provision for se¬ 
curing the copy right! But I will admit that the 4 th sec¬ 
tion of the law binds this body to secure a copy right to 
these debates. It binds us to do something. Then I 
want to know, provided it is binding upon us, whether 
it is right. I believe that I would go as far as any gen¬ 
tleman in obedience to the law. But, Mr. President, I 
cannot fail to discriminate between those enactments 
that are encroachments upon the rights of other bodies, 
and those enactments which have a judicial force and 
right. What right had the Legislature to put this 
body into leading strings ? Do you sit here by legis¬ 
lative commission? I do not, sir, acknowledge any 
such authority. The whole power of the Legislature 
over this subject was exhausted when they passed the 
act which fixed upon the preliminaries that led to the 
assembling of the Convention, and there they should 
stop. They have no right to enter these walls and say 
what shall or shall not emanate from us. How are we 
to secure this copy right ? Have they a right to come 
here and make suggestions as to what we must do in 
tins matter, or control our votes ? In this particular 
the law has undertaken to go beyond the capacity of 
the Legislature in the premises. It has undertaken to 
do what the Legislature has no power to do; and there¬ 
fore I will not obey it. I have no disposition to do 
what the law commands me to do. I sit here as a ser¬ 
vant of the people of the State to discharge my duty 
faithfully to my constituency, without any dictation 
from any legislative body. We are here to fix and 
settle upon the principles that shall guide our future 
legislation. Are we to sit here under the mandates of 
legislators under the old system, which we are about 
to supplant? We sit here to give rules for future leg¬ 
islators and not under the dictation of those who pre¬ 
ceded us. I. 

Mr. McCORMiCK. I wish one word, if this debate 
be in order, by way of reply to the gentleman from 
Trumbull. I am happy to hear that the gentleman 
makes his living by the law, and I hope he secures a 
good one. I am happy to hear that he is a law-abiding 
gentleman, and I hope he will so continue. But, sir, 
should it ever fall to his lot to administer the law from 
the Bench, I should hope that I might live out of his 
juiisdiction. [Laughter.] I am not going to contend 
very sincerely for the utility or the propriety of secu¬ 
ring this copy right, strictly a copy right. I had the 
object, however, in the few remarks which I made to 
you, and in the amendment which I introduced ujion 
the subject, which I intend to apply at some future 
day. Inasmuch as a discussion will arise in regard to 
the law and obligations of the law, which has been 
passed by the Legislature, I had wished, if possible, 
to commit some gentlemen of this house as to their no¬ 
tions of the obligations resting upon us, under the la^v. 
That object I secured by the vote which rejected the 
amendment I offered to the report of the committee. 
So f ar, then, as to the expediency or utility or constitu¬ 
tional power of the Legislature to enact that law, as far 
as I am concerned, I care not a single button. I wish 
these debates to go broad-cast over the land, and I wish 
that they may reach every man, every voter, within the 
State of Ohio, so that the reasons which may influence 
our debates in the fonoiation of the constitution we 
may adopt, will be in the hands of all, that tht^y may de¬ 
liberate well before they vote for the adoption or rejec¬ 


tion of the instrument which we may form. 1 wish the 
greatest latitude to be given to the publication of these 
debates. There is no gentleman upon this floor, who 
will go farther or vote more liberally, to secure their 
circulation throughout the State than I will. So far 
as that is concerned, there will be no difference of 
opinion between the gentleman from Trumbull and 
myself. There is, however, a slight diflereuce of 
opinion in regard to the practicability of this matter. 
Permit me in justice to mysell, to remark that I had 
not intended to submit the crude and undigested^ re- ; 
marks on Monday, laboring under disease at the^ time | 
as I was. I had rather wished the report to be referred | 
to a committee, before the vote should be taken. I am f 
well satisfied with the accuracy of the legal proposi- j 
tion which I then argued. L was satisfied with it then, | 
I have no cause to change my opinion, but on the con¬ 
trary am more firmly fixed in these opinions froin the | 
arguments which have been adduced upon the subject. : 
The gentleman has read a part of the opinions of^ the ! 
court in the case of Wheaton versus Peters,^' decided j 
by the U. S. court, as authority in the case, and as ap- ■ 
plicable to it. I beg leave to make an issue with the | 
gentleman from Trumbull, upon the subject. I say } 
that there cannot be a fair application of that decision j 
to the point before this Convention. The court there ; 
decided simply this, “ that the written opinions of j 
that court were part of the public records of the court,” j 
the purpose being to file them in the clerk’s office, j 
therefore no copy right could be taken in them by the i 
reporter who merely reported the decisions. As he i 
copied these written opinions, they w^ere not the ema¬ 
nations of his own mind, but the emanations of the i 
court. The mere act of copying these written opin¬ 
ions could secure to himself no particular especial 
benefits under the copy right law. Could any man lay . 
claim to the journals of the Legislature ? As well ! 
might an individual lay claims to the journals of Con- . 
gress and the reports of committees made to the Legis- j 
lature or to Congress. But here is a very dissimilar ; 
case. The debates of this body do not appear upon i 
our journals. Ipso facto the debates of the Conven- j 
tion do not appear at all unless the individual deliver- ; 
ing his speech may choose to record it there for his own 
gratification or for some other purpose may choose to 
publish it himself. Here the law, however, steps in. 

The law provides for a Reporter of these debates, i 
That which would not appear in the Journals, or in any I 
way be preserved, is, by the operation of the law, se- ! 
cured and reduced to writing so that it may be perpet- ; 
uated. Now, this is a very different thing from the j 
mere Journals. It is entirely a different thing from the i 
opinions of courts reduced to writing and filed in the I 
office f)t ihe Cleik. The debates of this Convention 
never would have extended or perpetuated beyond the 
moment of their delivery, were it not that the law pro- i 
vides a Reporter who shall reduce these debates to | 
writing. Now, to whom belongs the right of publish¬ 
ing these debates, if it does not belong to those who ^ 
pay for securing the perpetuity of these debates? It ; 
does not belong to the individual on whom it devolves 1 
to reduce these debates to writing, for he waives his i 
right by accepting a cojupensation. Tliese debates are 
something which has not an existence, except an ephe¬ 
meral one, until a practical existence is given to it by i 
the operation of another and diffi-rent individual. The ! 
State of Ohio says it will publish these debates, and to j 
that end secure a Reporter, who shall reduce them to ' 
writing. To the Slate of Ohio belongs the right of se¬ 
curing the benefits of the publication in dui'able form ' 
of these debates, by reducing them to writing, in the 
same manner, and by the same process as if an individ¬ 
ual were to write out his speech or make selections 
from his speeches, for jiublication in book form, and 
secure a copy right. The individual State of Ohio, and : 
the individual man, are, in point of law, the same and j 
identical. I do not, Mr. President, feel disposed at | 
the present time, to say any thing more upon the sub- j 

J 

i 

* ‘ 

















65 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ject, but am opposed to the adoption of this report, and 
I will therefore move, for the purpose of having some 
modification of it made that will meet the general views 
of the members of the Convention, that it be referred, 
with the amendments, to a special committee of five. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, was in favor of sending the re¬ 
port to a select committee as indicated by the gentle¬ 
man from Adams. It so happens that although this is 
an important question, I have to accuse myself of a 
want of sutficient attention to the subject. I have not 
examined it to any extent. But I will state that so 
far as my impressions ai'e concerned, I believe it is 
neither inexpedient or impracticable to secure this copy 
ris:ht. The Supreme Court of the U. S. has made de- 
cisioas which favor this opinion. Tiiey have decided, 
for instance, that an abridgement of a work is not an 
infiingement of a copy right. Authors are always in¬ 
imical to abridgements, because they tend to reduce 
the sales of the original work. I agree with the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin, that by publishing in newspa¬ 
pers, we authorize all newspapers to copy on their own 
account. The decisions of the courts go to show that 
the abandonment of a copy right in a publication in 
one form does not imply the abandonment of a copy 
right in another form. No man would feel disposed to 
rise here and give an opinion ex cathedra or an opinion 
not sufticiently matured; but such are my impressions, 
and they are, at least, warranted by some legal analo- 
gies. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. I am not disposed 
to take up the time of this Convention, all I wish is 
simply to inquire what effect upon the publication of 
our proceedings here, the copy right will have, when 
.secured. I do not pretend to know much about this 
uuitter of copy right. Unless I am very incorrectly 
informed, the moment you secure to the State of Ohio 
a copy right in these debates, you stop all publication 
of our proceedings. It secures to the State the publi¬ 
cation of these proceedings—the State can alone pro¬ 
vide for them. No newspaper, no individual can pub¬ 
lish them. Who, but the State, can contract for their 
publication? Certainly not this body. We do not 
represent this State for the purpose of securing a copy 
right, and if we order the publication of these debates, 
it seems to me that we shall have to wait until this 
State is represented in a corporate capacity, in order 
to contract for their publication, so that it would be de¬ 
layed until after the next session of the General As¬ 
sembly, and after the time when the people shall be 
called to vote upon the new Constitution. I do not 
wish to induce the difficulty I have suggested, and for 
that reason I am not in favor of referring this report to 
a select committee. I would be better suited to have 
the whole matter lie upon the table, and there to rest. 

Mr. MASON. Upon this proposition, I wish to 
make a few remarks. I must confess that I have not 
been satisfied with the resolution offered by the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin, from the time it was first offer¬ 
ed ; that this body will not conform itself to the pro¬ 
vision of this particular law. It has somewhat the air 
of nullification without being so intended. Sir, I pre¬ 
fer the attitude of a masterly inactivity upon this whole 
.subject. [Laughter.] Again, for I do not intend to be 
elaborate in any remarks that I may submit, the gen¬ 
tleman from Adams supposes that the copy right can 
be secured. Well it may be or it may not be. Mr. 
Bresident, that is a judicial question, to be determined 
by the courts according to the due process of law, when 
the issue shall be made up between the State of Ohio, 
claiming under the copy right, and some publisher.— 
Let the evil take care of itself. I suppose, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, we ought allow in this case the largest liberty 
to all. Let every publisher, every editor, and every 
man in Ohio act upon his own responsibility in regard 
to the whole matter. There can be no obligation, how¬ 
ever, unless we obtain this copy right. I do not hold 
to the opinion, sir, that the copy right can be secured 
bv the State of Ohio, when the same author, or party, 
or person, or corporation has authorized the publica¬ 


tion of the very work itself through the length and 
breadth of the land. The two ideas are totally repug¬ 
nant to each other. Again, without any argument 
upon it, I submit to the consideration of the Conven¬ 
tion, that a copy right cannot be obtained by any mem¬ 
ber of this body or by the members of any deliberative 
body in these United States, in the speeches which they 
may deliver. Why not? Simply because, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, it is contrary to public policy—to a higher law 
than that which may emanate from the Legislature, 
and that it would be so declared in any competent Ju¬ 
dicial Court in the United States, I have no doubt. No, 
sir, we are sent here to debate these propositions for 
our advantage, and if it could be so, for the information 
of the public—the public having a right to these de¬ 
bates—that is older, if I may so say, stronger—more 
primary than any we can derive under the act of Con¬ 
gress, enabling the author to secure the copy right in 
the products of his own toil and mind. As I remarked, 
I would not argue the point at any length, but I sub¬ 
mit it to this Convention that no copy right can be 
obtained. Gentlemen in your speeches, try it, if you 
would obtain a judicial decision. I should like to see 
some ambitious gentleman upon this floor make an at¬ 
tempt to get a copy right for his own speeches!— 
[Laughter.] 

He might obtain a copy right under the act—then 
the question will arise when these speeches come to be 
published and republished, and when some friend of 
the author wishing to give him additional distinction 
and celebrity in the community, should undertake the 
enterprize of their publication, and we shall have the 
question decided judicially, whether the remarks, ar¬ 
guments and speeches of a member of this Convention 
convened under the constitution to revise and amend 
that instrument, can be copy righted—whether the ar¬ 
guments, learned or unlearaed, foolish or wise, of the 
members of the Constitutional Convention of Ohio, can 
be copy righted. Whenever that experiment shall be 
made, I think it probable that gentlemen will learn 
about those days (whoever that gentleman might be, 
I allude to no particular individual in my remarks,) 
what the law of copy right is, as applied to speeches in 
deliberative bodies. Now, sir, I close by declaring 
that from the first I preferred the proposition of the 
gentleman from Fairfield, [Mr. Robertson] and to his 
proposition I prefer ^'■masterly inactivity.''' By these 
views I shall be governed. By these my future votes 
will be guided, in relation to the whole question. I 
have no serious objections to a reference of the report 
to a committee of five members. I shall expect noth¬ 
ing from such a report, for I do not believe this body 
needs any enlightenment upon the question. I am not 
opposed to a reference, nor am I in favor of it. I have 
declared what I am in favor of. My opinion is, that it 
would be well enough to let the subject a’one. I have 
no sympathy with an^ such motive or purpose as seeks 
to obtain our votes, with reference to entrapping us in¬ 
to this matter with a view to some ulterior end. I do 
not wish any gentleman, as innocent and inexperienced 
as I am, to be caught by the traps of any gentleman 
who may be laying them for me. I am not generally 
in favor of setting aside any laws. But, sir, I believe 
this law is impracticable, and I believe it to be an ut¬ 
ter nullity —de se. by reason of repugnant j)royis- 
isons in the same section. The two ideas of publica¬ 
tion in the newspapers, and of a copy ivght, are totally 
repugnant, absurd and irreconcilabie with the "whole 
law of copy right. Now, sir, I am willing to vote for 
the proposition of the gentleman from Fairfield, unless 
the gentleman has become tired of it. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Not at all tired of it, sir. 

I prefer it, sir, to any of the propositions that have 
been submitted. The'papers of this city are publish¬ 
ing the debates and procedings in newspaper pamph¬ 
let and book form. Let them go on. If they need 
any of our help, and cannot go on without aid from us 
I hope they will make known their wishes. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren. I move that the report 









66 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


and pending amendments be laid upon the table, with 
the understanding that they are to lie there. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. HUM PH REV ILLS. I offer for adoption the 
following: 

“ Resolved, That the rules heretofore adopted be printed for the 
use of the members of this Convention ” 

Mr. LEECH moved to amend by striking'out all al¬ 
ter the word resolved and insert the following. “ Tliat 
the Secretary of this Convention be and he is hereby 
directed to have printed, for the use of the members, 
two hundred and fifty copies of the Rules adopted for the 
government of the Convention.” 

The amendment was accepted by Mr. Humphre- 
viLLE, and the resolution, as amended, was agreed to. 

Mr. HOLMES. I offer for adoption the following; 

“ Resolved, That the Secretary of State is hereby requested, at 
as early a period as practicable, to furnish this Convention with 
a statement in tabular form, embracing the following items of in¬ 
formation, to wit: 

1st The enumeration of the white male inhabitants over 21 
years of age, in the years 1839 and 1843, of each county separate¬ 
ly, and of the year 1847, so as to show the number in each ward 
and township respectively. 

2d. The census of 1840, specifying the white, colored, and total 
population in each county. 

3d. An estimate of the present white, colored, and total popula¬ 
tion in each county, based upon the census of 1840, and the enu¬ 
meration of 1837—the above items to be so arranged and pre¬ 
sented as to show, as far as possible, the enumeration and popu¬ 
lation within the limits of the counties, as at present organized. 

4th. That he furnish the committee on Apportionment with a 
map of the State, of the latest edition, to enable the said commit¬ 
tee, to determine definitely the limits of the counties respect¬ 
ively.” 

Mr. HOLMES. We have been informed that such 
inlbrmation is in the Secretary’s posse.ssion; and, if so, 
he will at once give it to the Convention. I hope the 
resolution will be adopted, for I desire to lay this infor¬ 
mation before our committee. A large portion of the 
committee are also desirous to have it at as early a day 
as possible, in order that we may get to work. 

The resolution was adopted. 

APPORTIONMENT COMMITTEE ROOM. 

Mr. HOLMES. I offer for adoption the following; 

“ Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arras be directed to procure a 
room suitably prepared, as near the State House as may be con¬ 
venient, for the use and deliberations of the committee on Appor¬ 
tionment.” 

Mr. HOLMES, in continuation. Our committee is 
the largest of the standing committees, and we have no 
room in which to meet for deliberation ; and, as our 
labors are expected to be somewhat protracted, onerous 
and arduous, I have thought it advisable to offer this 
resolution. 

The resolution was adopted. 

THE LEGISLATURE. 

Mr. RANNEY. I offer for adoption the following : 

'^Resolved, That the committee on the Legislative Department 
be instructed to inquire into the expediency of requiring every 
bill on its final passage to receive the Votes of a majority of all 
the members elected to each branch of the Legislature, by yeas 
and nays, before it shall become a law,” 

The resolution was adopted. 

ELECTIONS BY THE PEOPLE. 

Mr. WILLIAMS, I offer the following for consider¬ 
ation : 

“ Whereas, There is a deep and just dissatisfaction amongst 
the people in regard to appointments to ofiice—especially by the 
legislative department of government; converting that body, as 
they do tosomeex ent, into a mere political arena, embittering the 
feelings of party spirit, and corrupting the pure fountain of leg¬ 
islation, therefore, 

“ Resolved, That the new constitution provide for the election 
of all State, County and Township officers immediately by the 
people.” 

Mr. NASH. I move ’that the preamble and resolu¬ 
tions be referred to the committee on the Legislative 
Department. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think, myself, that the paper 
ought to go to the committee on Elective I'ranchise, 
though, perhaps, it is not very material which direction 
it should take, 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I move to amend the motion by 
adding '' instructions to the committee to stinkeout the 


preamble,” and as soon as the question is settled, I pro¬ 
pose to offer a few remarks. 

The PRESIDENT stated the question upon this mo¬ 
tion. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD iiroceeded. It appears tome, Mr. 
President, that a deliberative body, called together to 
amend the Constitution of a great State, should be care¬ 
ful in all their acts and investigations, and be very 
choice of the language they employ—should take care 
not to reflect in harsh and bitter terms upon 1( rmer 
servants of the people. We should recollect, that, how¬ 
ever humble may be the estimation which gentleman 
here may individually place upon themselves, whatev¬ 
er goes forth from this body to the people, will be re¬ 
garded as coming from a high place We should be 
very careful about sending forth any accusation of cor¬ 
ruption against any lormer General Assembly. It 
strikes me that there is involved in this jirearable, a 
very grave charge of this character—a charge, which, as 
I think is not true, and which could not be made to ap¬ 
pear as true in any instance. I believe that our lormer 
General Assemblies have been composed of men—er¬ 
ring men—just like ourselves—of like passions, and 
subject to errors, fears, hopes, joys and sorrows—but 
in the main, honest men, intending to do right, and act 
their part well. I cannot sit here, sir, and allow a 
declaration of this body to go forth, arraigning the con¬ 
duct of former servants of the people—that they have 
been men of bad intentions—have not deserved the 
confidence they have received, without rising up 
against it. I know that responsibilities have been cast 
upon our Legislatures which they have not desired, 
and that they had labored under difficulties, not of their 
own seeking, whilst they have generally discharged 
their duties with ordinary honesty. 

It should be remembered that there are two powers 
which control us in this country. One is that which 
is referred to the legislative department, and the other 
is a power behind the throne, and greater than the 
throne itself—I mean the power of the press: and 
gentlemen, when they bring in their accusations of this 
character, so harsh and bitter, and biting, should we 
not consider whence they have derived the information 
upon which they are founded ? whether it has all come 
through a pure channel; or whether it is to be ascribed 
merely to the public press. And if derived from the 
latter source, they ought to reflect whether the conduc¬ 
tors of our public press were all of them paragons of 
perfection, whether they are all men ot the most un¬ 
sullied honor, and the most unsuspected purity in the 
country ; whether their press have never given out any 
false detail of public scandal at which tliey ought to 
blush; whether they have never made any groundless 
accusations against honest public servants. He cast no 
reflections upon individuals or particular parties. Each 
party had its black-bailers, to color over the character 
of its opponents with the darkest shades: and men 
who would compare well as to the purity of their in¬ 
tentions with the patriots of seventy-six, have often 
been represented as the most unworthy of mankind. 
I am well aware of that fact; and therefore I think the 
preamble ought to be stricken out. It is manifestly 
too highly colored, and seems not to have been well 
considered. I am not willing to make the declaration 
that \ye consider ourselves but just emerged from the 
era of legislative corruption. 

Mr. NASH. I rather hope the gentleman will be 
induced to withdraw the objectionable part of his 
proposition, and not allow it to go upon the journal. 
I agree with the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Arch- 
bold,] that it does not become us to throw out such 
insinuations either against one party or the other. 

Mr. HAWKINS. If we are to express an opinion 
at all it should certainly have respect to the truth; and 
I believe this preamble contains nothing more. I be¬ 
lieve it accords very well with the feelings of my con¬ 
stituents. I would not therefore refuse to let it go 
upon the journal. It suits but too well the idea of the 
people of Morgan county. 











CONVENTION EEPORTS, 


67 


Mi\ SAWYER. 1 rise to a question of oi-der. In 
parliamentary law the preamble forms no part of the 
proposition, and it does not come up for consideration 
until after the resolutiouis adopted or the bill is passed. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is now on com¬ 
mitting ; and I understand the gentleman to move to 
amend the motion by adding instructions to the com- 
•mittee to strike out the preamble. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. I call for a division 
of the question. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not very tenacious on this 
subject; but it seems to me rather Tinpojmlar to ex¬ 
press the truth here in this body. I did not intend by 
the preamble to allude to any party whatever. I came 
up here, sir, representing both the great political par¬ 
ties in the comity I have the honor to represent; and I 
do not mean by that preamble any thing more than to 
declare that the tendency of these apjiointments to of¬ 
fice by the legislative department has been to embitter 
party spirit and convert the General Assembly into a 
mere political arena, and to some extent corrupt the 
pure fountain of legislation. While there is a very ex¬ 
tensive, and, as I think, a very just dissatisfaction in re¬ 
lation to this subject amongst the people at large, it is 
very certain that the principle which gives directly to 
the sovereign people the sole power of appointments to 
office, is gaining ground. I don’t suppose that this will 
be controverted; indeed, I came here instructed, I may 
almost say, to give my vote that all officers should be 
elected by the people. However, if my preamble is 
really offensive to any gentleman, I feel willing, of 
course, to withdraw it. I thought it an appropriate 
way of expressing the feeling of the people upon that 
point, and therefore I applied it to my resolution. I 
now ask leave to withdraw my preamble. 

The leave was granted. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I am now entirely in favor of 
the resolution with the modification just made. I also 
am pledged to the general policy of popular elections; 
though 1 may not go quite so far as the gentleman on 
my right, I consider it would be bad policy to adopt 
the principle and let it be carried out into practice, that 
all officers should be elected by the people; for it might 
be necessary to have a notary public in the county 
whose salary would be very inconsiderable; and all 
such appointments, as I think, should be referred to 
some tribunal where they might be conferred without 
involving the labor and expense of a popular election. 
It is for this reason that I can’t go with the gentleman 
in the declaration that all officers should be elected by 
the people, for some of them would be so inconsidera¬ 
ble that they would but ill repay the trouble of canvass¬ 
ing the claims of candidates and calling the people to¬ 
gether. The doctrine reminds me of the old maxim— 
De minimus non curat lex; or, as John P. Hale of the 
United States Senate has it, “The law don’t care for 
little fishes.” 

Mr. MITHELL. I move to amend the resolution 
by inserting after the word “State,” the words “and 
judicial,” so as to read “ State and judicial officers.” 
I believe that “ State officers” has come to be under¬ 
stood rather as a technical phrase, applicable to those 
State officers who are appointed to their places, and as 
distinguishing them from elective officers. 

Mr. SAWYER. I look upon this resolution as pro¬ 
posing instractions to the committee to which it is to 
be directed; and I would like to make the vote upon 
it a test question. It is to go to the committee, of 
which I am a member, I should like to have some ex¬ 
pression of the mind of the Convention upon* it. I 
propose to amend the resolution so as to instmct the 
committee to report upon the subject. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I shall vote for sending the res¬ 
olution to the committee, not that I expect that they 
will report it back in the same tenns in which it is now 
presented. It goes to the committee simply as a sug¬ 
gestion, to be reported back in form or a proposition, 
with various restrictions and limitations, such as shall 
be placed in the constitution. 


Mr. MORRIS. I move that the resolution and pro¬ 
posed amendment be referred to the committee of the 
whole. 

The motion was lost, and the question recurred upon 
the amendment proposed by Mr. Sawyer. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. I think the gentleman 
from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] had better withdraw his 
amendment. I do not think, if I nnderstand the com¬ 
plexion of the Convention, and if I am correct in what 
I suppose to be the mind of the people of Ohio, that 
there will be any necessity for instructing the commit¬ 
tee upon the subject matter of this resolution. 

Mr. SAWYER, [interposing.] If that is to be taken 
as the sense of the Convention, I very freely withdraw 
the amendment. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. I wish to remark that I 
suppose, with regard to the election by the people of 
judicial, county, township, and other officers of the 
State, (with a very few exceptions, such as the mem¬ 
ber from Monroe has appropriately referred to)—there 
can be very little disagreement in this body. I think 
the committee will have but very little difficulty in the 
matter, and that the resolution had better go to them 
without instructions. 

The question upon Mr. NASH’S motion to refer the 
resolution to the committee on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment was now taken, and the same was agreed to. 
PUBLICATION OF THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN BOOK 
FORM. 

Mr. STANTON. I am requested, by a member of 
the select committee, appointed to report upon the pub¬ 
lication of the debates and proceedings of the Conven¬ 
tion, to ask that their report upon that subject, made 
on the 10th of May, be now taken up for consideration. 

The report being taken up by unanimous consent, 
was read by the Secretary, as follows: 

' '^Resolved, That we approve the doings of the Reporter, prior 
to the sitting of the Convention. 

Resolved, That the proceedings and debates be condensed in¬ 
to a volume of not more than 1200 pages, such for instance, as the 
New York Convention debates, and that 1000 copies be published 
in the English language. 

Resolved, That it is expedient to publish the Journal in book 
form, separate and apart from the proceedings and debates, and 
that in the opinion of this Convention, it will be inexpedient for 
the several committees on the Constitution, to accompany their 
reports with written explanations of the reasons which have in¬ 
fluenced them in agreeing thereto. 

Resolved, That whenever a member is incorrectly reported he 
may apply to the Reporter for correction, and in case of disagree¬ 
ment between them, the matter may be brought before the Con¬ 
vention for dispostion. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I move to amend the second reso¬ 
lution by striking out the words “ one thousand,” and 
inserting in their place the words “ five thousand.” 

Mr. VANCE of Butler. I call for a division of the 
question. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I am assured that the cost of these 
reports will not exceed one dollar and twenty-five cents 
per copy, and one thousand copies will not be more 
than sufficient to supply the members here, and fur¬ 
nish those which we may desire to send abroad to oth¬ 
er States. I desire to have a number sufficient also to 
supply every county, township and library in the State 
of Ohio with a copy; and I believe that five thousand 
would be as small a number as we ought to order un¬ 
der the circumstances. The difference between print¬ 
ing one thousand copies and five thousand copies will 
not be so great as gentlemen may apprehend. I am in¬ 
formed that the printer is prepared to furnish them at 
one dollar per copy. A bookseller of the city has es¬ 
timated the cost, upon the established prices of print¬ 
ing, atone dollar and a quarter per copy; but the 
chairman of the select committee on printing, [Mr. Li- 
dey] who is himself a practical printer, upon a very 
precise calculation, has estimated the cost at one dol¬ 
lar and twenty cents. I hope that the number I have 
suggested will be agreed to. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. Since a division of the 
question has been called for, I shall vote for striking out. 
I think five thousand would be an unnecessarily large 
number. I would suggestto the gentleman from Morgan 











68 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


I- 

the number of two thousand live Imudred. I think 
there is a j)ropriety in the suggestion that we should 
supply every township in the State with a copy of the 
publication. With an edition of twenty-five hundred 
I think that after supplying the townships we would 
have a surplus sufficient to send a copy to each of this 
literary institutions of the State, and a copy to each of 
the States in the Union. On consultation with a gentle^ 
man near me who thinks that twenty-live hundred 
would hardly be a sufficient number, I will state, that 
1 should not my.self object to three thousand copies, 
which would certainly be sufficient. 

Mr. STANTON. There seems to be a good deal of 
confusion about this question—arising from the fact 
that the subject of printing, and the expense, and the 
number of copies, have been referred to so many dif¬ 
ferent committees, who have acted upon these various 
subjects in so many forms, and from time to time, so 
that it is very difficult to ascertain and distinguish the 
report of one committee from another. It seems to 
me there is some connection between this question and 
the matter before the Convention this morning. I con¬ 
fess 1 cannot see what is to be the result exactly, of 
ordering any number of copies of these debates. If 
we are to order twenty-five hundred copies, we want 
to know at what price exactly, and by whom they are 
to be furnished. [A voice—that has been already set¬ 
tled.] Well, if we give to one of these publishers the 
right to publish any number he may choose and offer 
them for sale, it seems to me this should have some in¬ 
fluence upon the Convention, as to the number of cop¬ 
ies which should be ordered here. But I understand 
that the two newspaper publishers of this city ai’e now 
jirintiug on their own private account precisely the 
same edition of these debates. These publishers are 
to throw the work into the market, while we are to re¬ 
publish another edition, which is to be distributed 
amongst the counties and townships and literary insti¬ 
tutions of the State. I confess that I hardly know 
what to do with the question myself. 

Mr. NASH. The committee to which was referred 
the subject of the appointment of an individual to do 
the ordinary Convention printing, and fixing his com¬ 
pensation, considered and settled these two points, but 
the question as to the amount of printing, was left sub¬ 
ject to the future order of the Convention. As a matter 
of course, the rej)ort could have nothing to do with the 
number ordered to be printed, it simply settled that 
whatever printing of this kind the Convention should 
order him to do, the printer should receive 30 cents 
per 1000 ems for composition, and 3.5 cents per token 
for press work. 

M. HUMPHREVILLE. It has been very well re¬ 
marked that this question of price has already been set¬ 
tled, and I apprehend that if the gentleman from Lo¬ 
gan, [Mr. Stanton,] had been in his place for the last 
few days, he would have been apprized of this fact. 
The gentleman seems to suppose that we stand in pre¬ 
cisely the same position that we did when he left, but 
he will see that we have made some progress. I con¬ 
ceive, sir, that it is important that we should continue 
to make progress, and that this question should be set¬ 
tled now. The printer wants to be about the work; 
and if we wait till the session is half through, we shall 
greatly retard the printing—the reports will be delay¬ 
ed, and an unreasonable length of time will elapse be¬ 
fore we can be supplied with them. As to the number 
of reports which we should order, my opinion is, that 
1,000 copies would be insufficient, and that .5,000 copies 
would be more than the State ought to order. But I 
agree with the gentleman from Warren, that 2,.500 
or 3,000 copies would be aboutthej)roper number, and 
I hope that will be the number fixed. I hope also, that 
the various publishers of these reports on their own 
private account, will have the privilege to publish as 
large editions as they may choose, and be allowed, 
without restriction, to sow them broad-cast all over 
the State. I am utterly opposed to setting up any 
kind of monopoly in this business. Let the Gouven- 


tion order the proper number which ought to be sup¬ 
plied by the State, and leave all the balance to indi¬ 
vidual enterprise. 

Mr. FORBES. Since a division has been demanded, 
the first question will be on striking out. I shall vote 
for striking out the one thousand copies, (which I re¬ 
gard as entirely too small a number,) not with a view 
of filling the blank with five thousand copies ; but, 
(after some conference with my friend on my left,) I 
am pursuaded that 3,000 copies will be the extent which 
we ought to go with the order for these rej^orts in the 
English language. There is no question in my mind, 
but that before we get through with this resolution, we 
shall have a proposition to print an edition in the Ger¬ 
man language; and perhaps if we were to leave a 
blank here we might be better able hereafter to fix 
the proper number of copies for the English edition. 
I think about 3,000 copies would be sufficient if the 
matter is to be settled now. This would leave some 
room, if it should be thought necessary, to authorize 
a German edition. With those views, I go for striking 
out. 

The question was then taken on the motion to strike 
out the words one thousand,” and it was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT then stated the question to be on 
filling the blank with the words “five thousand.” 

Mr. FORBES proposed to fill the blank with the 
words “ three thousand.” 

Mr. SMITH of Warren proposed the words “two 
thousand five hundred.” 

Mr. VANCE of Butler. I wish to make a single re¬ 
mark before the question is taken. But before jiro- 
ceeding to do so, I wish merely to say, that I have given 
very little attention to this subject from the first. In 
truth, I have felt but very little interest in it. My feel¬ 
ing at first was rather against the publication ot these 
debates, but upon reflection I have thought it the part 
of prudence in us to give them the publicity propo¬ 
sed, because I saw tliere was a strong feeling for this 
publi;ation on the part of the Courention. And now, 
my remark is this: It is known that thei'e are two 
authorized newspaper publishers of these debates, 
and that one of them has been appointed to do the 
printing for this Convention. And it is also known 
that both of these publishers have been employed for 
the purpose of giving publicity to these reports through 
their newspaper columns, and if they see ju'oper, both 
of them may publish any number in the book form, on 
their own account. In fact we have the former por¬ 
tion of the volume already laid on our tables by one of 
these publishers. It is'plain, then, that the cost of mul¬ 
tiplying copies will be but little more than the press 
work and paper employed, and that the consequences 
will be that these publishers will be able to sell much 
cheaper than the State—so much so, that it will be im¬ 
possible for the State to sell at remunerating prices. 
This being the case, I would not be in favor of order¬ 
ing a vei-y large number. I will, however, vote for pub¬ 
lishing 2,000 copies, since the difference in the cost of 
2,000 copies and 1,000 copies must be very inconsider¬ 
able—only about the price of the additional press work 
and paper. 

Mr. LARWILL. I second the motion for filling 
the blank with five thousand, and I wish it expressly 
understood that in doing so, I did not suppose that the 
State of Ohio ought to go into any speculation, so much 
as to sell even a single copy of the work. I did not 
believe that the State should act in suchaparismonious 
manner. Authenticated copies of these reports seem 
to be a matter looked for not only in the State of Ohio, 
but throughout the United States ; and it is my honest 
conviction that five thousand copies would not be more 
than sufficient for general distribution, writhout the ex- 
ectation of selling one of them. I am for gratuitous 
istribution only, on the part of the State, and leaving 
the matter of .speculation entirely to those who may 
choose to enter upon it. And I firmly believe that fif¬ 
ty thousand copies will be sold before the demand can 
be supplied. I do tmst, therefore, that gentlemen will 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


69 


not act SO parisnioniously a.s to restrict this order for 
printing to the number of two or three thousand copies, 
for when we come to supply members of the former 
Legislature, which authorized this Convention, and the 
members of the Legislature which shall next assemble 
under the auspices of the new constitution, when eveiy 
county, township, library, and literary institution of the 
State, and the State libraries of every State in the 
Union, shall have been supplied, it seems to me that of 
the five thousand copies there will not be a single cojiy 
left. I believe, (if I have been correctly informed) 
there are some one thousand nine hundred townships 
in the State of Ohio: and it should be remembered 
that after all the demands which I have moved shall 
have been supplied, there should be a surplus left for 
distribution by the Governor. 

Mr. LIDEY. I expected, when I saw this report 
called up, that we were going to have another discus¬ 
sion about printing. I am not very tenacious for my 
judgment with reference to this matter, but I shall vote 
for the largest number proposed. I presume that those 
gentlemen who talk a great deal, are expecting to be 
gralified with tlie appearance of their speeches in these 
reports, and of course they ought to vote for the largest 
number. I shall vote for five thousand copies for the 
rea^on, that if we print only three thousand it will cost 
almcst as much as five thousand—the difference being 
<'nly about six hundred dollai’s, according to the figures 
which I have made, making a close calculation upon 
the prices fixed for printing and the actual cost of bind¬ 
ing and paper. 

Mr. SWIFT. I should be in favor of the number 
suggested by the gentleman from Wayne, if I thought 
it could cany; but supposing that to be out of the qutW'- 
tion, I move to fill the blank with four thousand. 

Mr. OTIS. If in order I would move to stake out 
ail of the original resolution after the word “resolved” 
and insert the following, which I will read and then 
send to the Secretar}^: 

“ Resolved, That in order to comply with so much of the 4th 
section of the act to call a Convention, as requires this Conven¬ 
tion “to provide for the publication of its proceedings and de¬ 
bates in a durable form,” the Secretary of this Convention is 
hereby instructed to subscribe for 500 correct copies of the pro¬ 
ceedings and debates in book form, to be bound in a durable man¬ 
ner, not exceeding per volume; one half of said number to 

be pubhshed by the publishers of the Ohio Statesman, and the 
other half to be published by the publishers of the Ohio State 
Journal —the same to be completed in thirty days from the rising 
of this Convention, and deposited in the office of the Secretary of 
State.” 

The PRESIDENT. The question is now on filling 
the blank. When the original proposition shall have 
been perfected, it will be in order for the gentleman to 
move a substitute, 

Mr. HAWKINS. In proposing to insert 5000 copies, 
there was one reason which I neglected to offer. It 
has been suggested that it would be well to distribute 
this work amongst the literary institutions of the State, 
but I hope gentlemen will recollect that there are a 
large number of benevolent institutions in the State, 
having equal claims upon us for this gratuity. I hope, 
with my friend from Wayne, that the Convention will 
not be disposed to act parsimoniously in this matter. It 
is not for the purpose of selling, but the whole object 
of our publishing is for gratuitous distribution, and I 
would remark, that after we shall have supplied all the 
demands mentioned, we should be able to receive a 
liberal number of copies subject to the order of future 
legislatures, which may assemble under the new con¬ 
stitution, who, otherwise, will purchase these books at 
whatever price may be asked. Various other numbers 
have been suggested, in case my proposition should 
fail, and it is also suggested that, at the proper time, 
there is to be a proposition made to strike out the 
whole resolution for the purpose of ordering only two 
thousand copies, and dividing that number between 
the two publishers of this city. Now I had supposed 
that when we had appointed a printer, he was the in¬ 
dividual to do all the printing which might be ordered, 
still, as I understand the gentleman from Summit, he 


proposes to disregard that appointment, and divide the 
printing. I hope the largest number proposed will be 
inserted, in order that every proper demand may be 
supplied by the State, and especially that those benev¬ 
olent institutions, wliose object is the amelioration of 
the social condition of their fellow-citizens, such as the 
numerous Masonic lodges, and lodges of Odd FeTows, 
and the six or seven hundred Divisions of the Sons of 
Temperance in the State. These are all associated for 
promoting the good of their fellow-citizens, and each 
one of these institutions should be entitled to receive 
a copy fi-om the State. 

Mr, VANCE of Butler, Both papers are already paid 
12^ cents each per thousand ems for composition on the 
daily publication of these reports. In addition to this 
we have appointed Mr. Medary our printer, to whom 
we are to pay 30 cents additional per thousand ems on 
all printing, including these reports in book form, and 
35 cents per token for all press work. This being the 
case he can. after striking ofi’ the number ordered by 
the State, issue a large edition on private account, at 
the additional expense only of paper, press work and 
binding, and he can sell much lower than the State, 
and their books being earliest in the market, and sold 
for the lowest price, will be sought for, while the State’s 
edition will remain unsold. I do not know that I am 
prepared to make an accurate calculation, but it is my 
opinion that these publishers will be able to furnish the 
books at the cost of about 60 cents a volume, which 
will be less than the cost to the State by the 30 cents 
per thousand, which pay for setting this type, and the 
35 cents per token for press work. 

Mv. HAWKINS. The remarks of the gentleman 
from Butler would be very applicable if the question 
were as to whether we should order any copies at all. 
But since it is determined to make some gratuitous dis¬ 
tribution of these reports it becomes simply a question 
us to the amount which shall be distributed. If the 
only object were to get the work at a cheap rate, it 
might be good policy to wait till after the public de¬ 
mand shall have been supplied, and take what may re¬ 
main upon the hands of the booksellers. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I shall vote for the smallest num¬ 
ber. I am sorry we could not agree to retain the num¬ 
ber reported by the committee. I always wish to pay 
some respect to the report of acommittee, because they 
generally investigate with care every subject upon 
which they report. I shall go for the smallest number, 
believing that after we shall have supplied ourselves, 
that will be as far as we ought to go. The idea of 
sending out information to the people in this way, is 
absurd. We have a population of 300,000 thinking and 
reading people, and there is no man who understands 
the business of publishing, that can stand up here and 
argue that 5,000 copies are sutficient to supply the 
reading demand of 300,000 people. Now, with regard 
to distributing to townships, what citizen, I ask, would 
think of going to the township clerk to borrow a book 
of this kind for the sake of reading it ? You don’t pro¬ 
pose to distribute more than two or three copies per¬ 
haps, to each township; and to think from these sour¬ 
ces to fill the minds of 300,000 reading and thinking 
people!—why it is perfectly puerile. 

But I go against the resolution upon another princi¬ 
ple. I believe that all the publications ol books, re¬ 
ports, and documents, either by the State or by the Uni¬ 
ted States, amount generally to nothing more than a 
dead weight upon the Government. I know that by 
my own experience; and I appeal to the expeiience of 
any gentleman who has been in the habit of receiving 
public documents, which have loaded down the mail, 
under the frank of a member of Congress, if after re¬ 
ceiving and opening the book, and unfolding a leaf or 
two, they do not generally lay it aside and never look 
at it again ? I profess to be a reading man, and there¬ 
fore I am not at any time entirely ignorant of the scope 
and contents of these public documents, and frequent¬ 
ly I read them in the newspapers long before I receive 
them in the book form. I received one this morning, 











70 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


(the President’s message and accompanying docu¬ 
ments,) looked at it but a moment, and never expect to 
look at it again; and the reason is, that I have read 
them all before. I make it a point to look into such 
documents as early as I can, and I always find them in 
the newspapers. And now 1 will venture to say of 
these debates here, that eveiy reading man will read 
them as soon as he can get hold of them through the 
newspapers ; and that all the projected speculations up¬ 
on these Convention Reports will be a total failure. But 
there is another consideration. The publishers of this 
city are now engaged in publishing these debates on 
private account. 1 don’t see what the Convention will 
do ;—if we go abo\it distributing these same reports 
gratuitously, we cannot but interfere with their busi¬ 
ness ; we shall, in fact, be doing them a serious injmy. 
Taking this view of the matter, I was pleased with the 
proposition of the gentleman Irom Fairfield, [Mr. Rob¬ 
ertson.] 

Mr. ROBERTSON. My proposition was very dif¬ 
ferent from that advocated by the gentleman from Mus¬ 
kingum, [Mr. Chambers.] I am in favor of ordering 
five thousand copies of the debates for the use of the 
State. I am also in favor of giving to all publishers, 
the right (which I believe they possess without our 
leave) of publishing these debates in any foiTii they 
please. My design in offering the amendment to the 
resolution of the gentleman from Franklin was merely 
to avoid a direct vote upon the copy-right question, be¬ 
cause I wish to let the matter'go svh silentio. I knew 
there were doubts in the minds of some (though there 
was none in my mind, as to whether any publisher 
could lawfully publish these reports on their own pri¬ 
vate account, disregarding the law of the Legislature. 
And I now say again, that I am willing and desirous 
that these reports should go out, with the sanction of 
the Convention, in the periodical or book form; and 
in order to secure that sanction and a correct and au¬ 
thorized edition published on private account, I hope 
we shall have a committee of Revision appointed to su¬ 
pervise the work. [A voice—“ Will you send your 
committee into the Journal office.”] A gentleman near 
me asks if I would send a committee to the Journal of¬ 
fice ; I answer, I would send a committee to neither 
office: but every publication of our debates would be 
laid on the table of the coznmittee, and if it wei’e incor¬ 
rect, it could,not receive the sanction of the Conven¬ 
tion. 

I am in favor of printing five thousand copies, be¬ 
cause, in the progress of years I believe they will be 
needed: and I would have Mr. Medary do the work 
because he is the authorized printer of this body. The 
Democratic party is inthe majority here, thegentlemen 
on the other side should, therefore, consent to give the 
printing at reasonable prices to a Democratic printer, in 
accordance with the wishes of a majority of the Con¬ 
vention. 

Mr. MANON. I acknowledge myself rather friend¬ 
ly to “ free trade and sailor’s rights and I intend to 
go for the largest number, or none at all. I am op¬ 
posed to this taking only enough to supply oui’selves. 
I am entirely willing to distribute these reports to all 
the literary and benevolent institutions, and to all the 
officers of the State. I insist that we have no right to 
appropriate these debates to ourselves exclusively; but 
that so far as possible, they should be made to subserve 
the public advantage. I think five thousand copies 
will not be too large a number. But we have already 
spent more public money by the time lost in debate 
upon this subject, than would pay the difference be¬ 
tween the cost of three thousand aud five thousand 
copies; and I think our constituents ought to know 
that fact. 

On motion of Mr. MASON, the Convention took a 
a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. GREEN said he had no intention of offering any 
'lengthy remarks upon the subject under consideration. 


He was, however, a little surprised to see a disposition 
manifested by gentlemen in this Convention, he 
would not say to squander, for the term might be con¬ 
sidered in an offensive sense, but he would say, to 
spend the public money on subjects that appeared 
to him to be totally useless. The proposition, as he 
now understood, was to fill up the blank in the propo¬ 
sition of the committee on printing the debates, with 
five thousand. The question, then, would naturally 
arise, in the first place—should the proposition be 
agreed to ? What were we to do \rith these books af¬ 
ter they were published? How could they be distri¬ 
buted, or w'ho was to distribute them? Now, he had 
made a computation, based on the theory of the gentle- i 
man from Morgan [Mr. Hawkins,] who he believed 
was in favor of filling up the blank with the number 
five thousand. He estimated the number to be distri¬ 
buted in this wise: There 'were three thousand nine 
hundred and fifteen school districts in the State. They 
were each to get a copy of the work. Then twenty- 
five were to be given to the various colleges, &x;., &c.; 
thirty to the different States in the Union; a hundred 
and fifty to the Masonic Lodges; two hundred to the 
Odd Fellow’s Lodges; three hundred to the Temper¬ 
ance Societies, and a hundred and eight to the mem¬ 
ber’s of the Convention. The total number distributed 
would be but four thousand seven hundred and twenty- 
eight, so that after having fui’nished all those, there 
would still be a balance left of two hundred and seven¬ 
ty-two copies. That computation of course included 
tiie townships, they being comprised in the school dis¬ 
tricts. What have they to do with the balance ? He 
supposed the proper place to send the overplus copies, 
would be to those young nurseries of democracy, “where 
the young idea is taught to shozit.” He could not 
imagine what was to be done with the residue. 

He was not disposed to be niggardiy in expending 
the public money, whenever it was right and proper, 
but he conceived that this was running the thing a little 
into the ground. Who was to distribute those docu¬ 
ments ? He would not enter into the question of pow¬ 
er—some gentlemen might suppose theyw'^ere supreme 
—that this Convention had a right to do every thing as 
in their wisdom they pleased, and that there w’as no 
one to call them to account for their course in this body. 
He hoped that there would not be another Convention 
in Ohio for fifty years, but if there were, he should not 
like to be a member of it. [Laughter.] However, he 
wished to know who w’as to distribute these documents? 
He would much rather that the Legislature should have 
the distribution of the debates, &c., &.c. The Legis¬ 
lature was to vote the money to pay for them, aud it 
struck him it would be best to let that body have the 
distribution. But he might say here, once for all, that 
he could not vote for any proposition in the shape of 
the one now before this body. There was a proposi- 
tioq, however, which he would agree to; he w’ould 
read it t it was, in effect, ‘’ that the Secretary of this 
Convention conti’act with the printer to this Conven¬ 
tion for two hundred and fifty copies of the debates 
and proceedings of this Convention, as published in the 
daily Ohio Statesman aud corrected, to be done up into 
book form and bound up in a durable manner, and that 
the same when completed, be deposited in the office of 
the Secretary of State, to be disposed of as the next 
General Assembly may direct.” 

He had designated the Convention printer, and pro¬ 
posed that the columns of the daily paper when broken 
up into a book form and bound, were to be purchased. 
He had not supposed that it would be proper or expe¬ 
dient to divide this job with any one else. And, two 
hundred and fifty copies seemed to him to be as many 
as could be properly, or sensibly or reasonably be dis¬ 
posed of. What would they have? They would have 
a copy for each county in the State, and a copy for eve¬ 
ry State in the Union; even that would not exhaust the 
number. Why was there this desire to expend money 
in the printing of a superfious number of copies of these 
debates? Was it to give information to the people? 














CONVENTION REPORTS 


71 


Why, it was going to them on the winds and on the 
wires, every day. No one would think of reading these 
debates after they were published: — the book would 
be valuable to the Temperance societies if they made 
it a part of their rules that each member should pledge 
liirnself not to “drink” until he had read that book 
through. Such a provision he thought would protect 
the Temperance societies from “relapsing heretics.” 
He would say again, he could see no use in publishing 
more than two hundred and fifty copies. 

There was another thing in the resolution; it was a 
very serious proposition. The resolution provided that 
the debates and proceedings be condensed into a vol¬ 
ume not exceeding twelve hundred pages—now he 
wished to know how that process of condensation was 
to be brought about, and who was to do it. In all prob¬ 
ability the debates would exceed much more than 
twelve hundred pages—how then were they to be con¬ 
densed so as to only amount to 1200 pages?—what sort 
of a book were they going to send out to the world— 
were they gping to send out a mutilated record of a 
garbled joui’nal ? Who was to superintend the conden¬ 
sation ? Whose valuable lights were to be extinguish¬ 
ed in the process ? Some gentleman may want to lay 
this volume by, that their posterity might look at it, 
and in times to come see what great men their fore¬ 
fathers wei’e. Well, humble an individual as he was— 
comparatively a farthing candle in the light of the sun, 
yet he did not wish to be extinguished. But he de¬ 
sired to know how this work was to be carried on, and 
by whom? The Reporter? The Reporter was a ve¬ 
ry impartial and honorable gentleman, yet he would 
not be willing to intrust it to him. In sober serious¬ 
ness that resolution did not seem to him to be properly 
digested. . At the proper time he would move to strike 
out the entire of it and insert a provision requiring the 
publication and purchasing of 250 copies bound in a 
book form. 

Mr. QUIGLEY observed that he was not very par¬ 
ticular in regard to the number of copies to be pub¬ 
lished. There appeared to him. so far as he could 
learn, a general determination to fill up the blank with 
some number of copies. He would favor the idea that 
they should at the lowest calculation fill it up with a 
number sufficient to afibrd one copy to each township, 
one for each county, and one for each State. But more 
especially was he in favor of the propiety of one copy 
for each township. The constitution, if adopted by 
the people, would be a new doctrine to the township 
trustrees, who for the most part were made up of re¬ 
spectable farmers, not making much pretension to 
legal attainments. They were often in the habit of 
examining the constitution of the State, in order to 
arrive at a just and proper conclusion on matters which 
came before them. When the new constitution, if 
adopted, was pi’esented to them as a rule of conduct, 
they would refer to it continually to see how they 
were to discharge the duties devolving on them in their 
official capacity. And no doubt there might be a dif¬ 
ference of sentiment in relation to this, that or the 
other section or article of the constitution, connected 
with the subject referred to them. He thought that if 
it were not necessary, it was at least proper that they 
should have a copy of the work, in order to be able to 
settle any difficulty in regard to the meaning of any 
section applying to the subject coming before them, 
BO that they might arrive at the true construction of 
this or that section. He thought there was a propriety 
in not sinking below a number sufficient to give a copy 
of the debates, &c., &c., to each township. 

Mr. MORRIS was opposed to filling up the blank 
with “ five thousand.” He had no idea that they would 
ever be appropriated to any valuable purpose; they 
would be like the journals of the General Assembly, 
almost useless, never looked at. He considered that 
fifteen hundred copies would be enough. 

Mr. KENNON did not rise to enter into a discussion 
of the question. He thought that gentlemen were 
giving too much importance to the journal of proceed¬ 


ings of this Convention. He would ask where they 
would send five thousand copies of these debates? 
There had been a great many Conventions held lately 
in the United States—in Kentucky, Virginia, New York 
and elsewhere. Were we bound to send copies of our 
debates to them, and to the several States ? He un¬ 
derstood that the papers of this city were going to 
publish them on their own private account, and if any 
one would allow him to prophesy on the subject, he 
would prophesy that they would not make money by 
it. Who would read them ? What members here had 
read the debates in the Kentucky, Virginia or New 
York Conventions—who had looked for them—sought 
for them for the purpose of inquiring ? He doubted 
if any man would ever look at our debates after they 
were published in book form. He considered that the 
full reports in the journals of the city afforded suffi¬ 
cient information on those subjects which the people 
would be called upon to determine. It was proposed, 
he understood, to give each member of the Conven¬ 
tion a copy—that might be very well—and a copy to 
every member of the last Legislature, and perhaps to 
the succeeding Legislature. He entertained doubts if 
they would ever be read by any member, or by fifty 
people in the entire State, after the Convention had 
adjourned. 

Mr. STANTON said that when this report was un¬ 
der consideration in the committee, it did not seem to 
be imagined by any member of it that the duty of se¬ 
curing the copy right of the debates should be disre¬ 
garded—every one seemed to recognize the necessity 
of so doing, and no gentleman on the committee seem¬ 
ed to wish to abandon the copy right, as referred to in 
the fourth section of the law. In view of this, he sup¬ 
posed, as a matter of course, an authorized edition 
must be published. The subject of condensation was 
spoken of in the the committee, it was not understood 
however that any gentleman's speech was to be con¬ 
densed, but it was suj^posed that there would be a con¬ 
siderable amount of documentaiy matter—not attach¬ 
ed to the debates, that might be omitted. In the se¬ 
ries of resolutions already before the Convention there 
was a provision that the various committees should not 
communicate in writing the reasons on which their re¬ 
port was predicated. That was done for the purpose 
of compressing the book into the narrowest space. In 
the committee, he was of opinion that if the copy right 
were to be secured, and if there were to be no pulica- 
tion of the debates but that one authorized by the Con¬ 
vention, there should be a larger number of copies 
published by order of the Convention. He was over¬ 
ruled in that, but he acquiesced in the report of the 
committee. He was inclined to think that the number 
named in the resolution reported by the committee was 
sufficient, together with the amount to be published by 
private enterprise. But however, he begged to say 
that the book sellers were better able to judge in re¬ 
gard to the number of copies of the work likely to be 
sold, than this Convention. 

The law under which the Convention assembled, re¬ 
quired that the debates and proceedings should be re¬ 
ported, “ and the Convention shall secure to the State 
and provide for the publication of said proceedings and 
debates in a readable form.” But as the Convention 
had abandoned the idea of securing it, he could not 
see how far the 4th section of the act was obligatory 
on them to publish; and if one were to be abandoned, 
they should abandon the other, it seemed to him. 

Mr. MITCHELL said that this subject had all the 
time stnick his mind in a very different form from that 
presented by any gentleman on that floor. ^ The State 
of Ohio, when contemplating the assembling of this 
Convention, contemplated also that the proceedings 
and debates would be of some value in the future, and 
to secure a full and fiiithful Report, she appointed an 
experienced Reporter to take these debates, and furth¬ 
er, in order to secure an authentic copy in durable form, 
she concluded to secure to herself the right to control 
the entire edition of the work, whatever it might be. 











CONVENTION EEPORTS 


72 


From the disposition already manifested here, it ap- 
pe aved to him that they were about to refuse to comply 
wit h her requisition to obtain the copy right of the 
book, and to deprive the State of a single copy for her 
own control. In regard to the question now before the 
Convention, he would say that he considered the prop¬ 
er question to be, what number of copies the State 
needed for legitimate and proper use. He did not pur¬ 
pose that gentlemen should vote themselves a single 
number of this book—he did not intend to vote himself 
a single number, or to any other gentleman, any more 
than he would vote papers to the members of the Con¬ 
vention. They came there to do business for their stip¬ 
ulated wages—three dollars a day—and anything over 
that he considered would be, in common parlance, 
“ our little stealings in.” He thought that whatever 
amomit of copies tlie State might need, they could ob¬ 
tain cheaper now than she could possibly hereafter, 
if they allowed the publishers to take the j)ublica- 
tion into their own hands, and make it a matter of pri¬ 
vate speculation. He was certain that they could get 
them cheaper now, for under their engagement with 
the State printer, the cost would be only for the com¬ 
position, which included the entire volume, and the 
press work, which would go as far as the number of 
copies struck olF, and the binding. One thing was cer¬ 
tain, that by providing for the State now, what number 
of copies she might reasonably wish to use, she could 
get the volume cheaper, by the amount of the profit of 
the bookseller, than she could ever get it again. When 
the State would hereafter go and purchase that volume 
she would necessarily be obliged to go on the same 
terms as any other individual. The gentleman from 
Butler [Mr. Vance] seemed to be laboring under the 
impression that the book would be inevitably furnished 
by those individuals at just the cost price, and that the 
State, or any one else who wanted five thousand cop¬ 
ies, could procure them at cost. In his [Mr. M’s] opin¬ 
ion it was not only the cost of the material entering 
into the manufacture of a product that determined 
its price—it was the demand. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler said he had not undertaken 
to say so. What he had said was this: that there were 
two printers in this city who could publish those pro¬ 
ceedings and debates—one was paid for setting up the 
type, the other partly, perhaps not fully. The setting up 
of the type, (the principle labor,) paid for, he had said 
“ they might furnish the additional number of copies, 
and could sell them cheaper than the Slate could.” 
He understood that they had commenced already. Un¬ 
der these circumstances the balance of the labor would 
not cost more than sixty to seventy five cents a vol¬ 
ume. 

Mr. MITCHELL remarked that he perhaps misun¬ 
derstood the gentleman. As he now understood him, 
he [Mr. Vance,] was in favor of securing the proper 
and requisite quantity of these books. 

Mr. VANCE said he had expressed his willingness 
this morning. 

Mr. MITCHELL begged to be pardoned as he had 
not understood the gentleman. The question however, 
to be considered was not in regard to the price of com¬ 
position, but in relation to the number of copies of 
the debates the State would require. There was no 
gentleman present who had been familiar with statisti- 
x;al matters for the last ten years, who was not struck 
with the fact that in the State there was not a general 
collection of those pamphlets and valuable statistics by 
•which men could guide their future action by consult¬ 
ing the past. For that reason they should always have 
a care to preserve, in appropriate places, those impor¬ 
tant documents that would be of use in future times. 
He knew of no work of more value to be deposited 
in the archives of the State than the volume now under 
consideration. 

^ Mr. NASH had some recollection about the publica¬ 
tion of public documents. In the session of 1839—40 
when the Legislature authorized the publication of the 
Revised Statutes, it was claimed that a large edition 


was necessary because they would be required in all 
parts of the State. Ten thousand copies were^ 
ized to be printed ; and what was the result ? I he hall 
of them, for the last five years have been hawking 
about the country at seventy five cents a volume. The 
Legislature, in their wisdom, also undertook to take out 
of the hands of the Reporter, the reports of the decis¬ 
ions in Bank, and then they passed a law requiring 
1500 copies of the reports to be printed. Instead ot 
selling that number they only sold about 500, aiid the 
balance had not been sold from one year to auothei. 
Last winter, he understood they reduced the edition 
to 1000 copies, one half more than was necessary. 

He understood that gentlemen wanted a copy of the 
debates, for each township. His impression was that 
there were between thirteen hundred and fourteen hun¬ 
dred townships in the State—averaging twelve tovv'U- 
ships to th 3 county. Suppose they took that as the b^ 
sis of the distribution; to furnish each township would 
take, say fourteen Imndred—to each member of the 
Convention one—one hundred and eight, and one to 
each ot the institutions in the State, their two thousand 
copies would more than supply all they had demand 
for. ' They could not find an outlet for them if the Con¬ 
vention undertook to publish five thousand. Like the 
Revised Statutes and the Reports in Bank, they would 
have them stowed away in the State library, and after 
a while they would tell the Librarian to sell them foi 
fifty cents a copy, in order to purchase other books to 
be placed in the library. 

Mr. MITCHELL said that he was informed by 
Judge Swan that the edition of the Revised Statutes 
was twenty thousand copies. 

Mr. NASH made the correction. He only alluded 
to it for the purpose of showing that in this calculation 
of the publication of Documents, the country always 
overshot the mark. 

Mr. RANNE V would go for the largest number, for 
the reason that the difference in expense between pub¬ 
lishing five hundred copies and five thousand copies was 
comparatively trifling. He was of opinion that five 
thousand copies were demanded for distribution in the 
different portions of the country, and could be used, 
beneficially in various ways. The Legislature was in 
the habit of publishing its Journals, which generally 
contained a mass of useless lumber that was not often 
resorted to, but still they were deemed of sufficient im¬ 
portance to be published. Who was there that did not 
know that there would be ten times the amount of in¬ 
terest contained in this volume, that there ever was or 
could be in any Journal of the Legislature. Then why 
not distribute it to townships in the first place—why 
not a greater propriety of doing so than in distributing 
the .Journals of the Legislative bodies 1 He was anxious 
that the Convention should authorize a large system of 
public instruction, and he considered that this body or 
the State could do nothing better calculated to bring 
home important information to the rising generation, 
than to authorize the publication of these debates. He 
was convinced that it would go far to secure informa¬ 
tion of a public character to the people. He would 
vote for the largest number, as he conceived the expen¬ 
ses would not be very greatly increased. 

Mr. LIDEY remarked that after the sittings of the 
Convention of 1802, when the population of the State 
was but a few thousand, comparatively speaking, 900 
copies of the proceedings &c., &c., were sent out to 
the citizens of the State. He could tell gentlemen 
that they were running against their own faces all the 
time. For his own part he did not care anything about 
the matter of the expense in this regard. He went 
in for the largest number of copies. He could vote for 
the largest number with a good conscience—better, 
perhaps, than that with which some gentlemen had 
voted on propositions some days since. The gentle¬ 
man from Gallia [Mr. Nash] said that the Re\used Stat¬ 
utes were lying about unsold. Why were they? Be¬ 
cause the Legislature had, since the publication, re¬ 
pealed about one half the laws, and therefore they 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 73 


were no longer valuable. But would the Legislature 
repeal ,the debates of this Convention ? He thought 
they would stand for all the time, whether the new 
constitution was adopted or not. He thought that 
o()00 copies were not too many. There were tliou- 
sands in this State who would want them to lay by in 
their archives, for preservation and future use. He 
himself had the pleasure of having in his possession 
public documents, handed down to him from his pa¬ 
rents, that were published forty-five years ago, which 
he valued very highly . He presumed that they would 
all help to pay for this expense, and he was satisfied 
that the people of this great State would never say 
one word in regard to the printing or binding of those 
debates in a book form. And he would further say, 
tiiat the people would not “jaw’’ them so much for 
this publication, as if they staid here for three or four 
months squandering the public money in a debate asto 
who should get the printing, for, after all, that was the 
real cause of all this protracted debate. They were 
sitting here at a daily cost of $400,00, and they had 
already wasted five days on this question of pi’inting, 
which was too much time to expend in discussing this 
subject. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren did not consider the argu¬ 
ment of $400 a day, “any objection to taking time to 
decide this ({uestion and to decide it properly.” They 
were sent here for the purpose of discussing and de¬ 
liberating upon the various propositions to be submit¬ 
ted to them. He was in favor of the publication of the 
journal and debates, or rather the debates and pro¬ 
ceedings of the Convention. By the law under which 
they sat here—if they referred their sitting here to 
legislative power—they were directed to publish their 
proceedings in a durable form. He was in favor, for 
one, of carrying out that provision of the law in its 
letter as well as in its spirit. He would then sustain 
the proposition in some shape or form, by publishing a 
limited and a reasonable number of their debates. He 
did not see any necessity for publishing an edition of 
this work, comprising 5,000 copies. He had remarked 
this morning that he would not object to publishing an 
edition of from 2,500 to 3,000. 

Mr. LARWILL believed that it was on his motion 
that 5,000 copies were mentioned. He had heard— 

The PRESIDENT. Tim gentleman from Moi’gan 
[Mr. Hawkins] originally moved to strike out “1000” 
and insert “ 5000,” and the gentleman from Wayne 
[Mr. Larwill] concuiTed. 

Mr. LARWILL assented. He said that he was go¬ 
ing to observe that he had heard the observations of 
gentleman with much satisfaction—he was not at all 
afraid to hear arguments on the question. He thought 
it one of sufficient importance to deserve the attention 
of the Convention. But after all that was said, he had 
heard nothing to change his first views on the subject. 
He understood that the State of New York ordered the 
publication of 10,000 copies of its debates in Conven¬ 
tion, double the number called for here. It had been 
stated by gentlemen that two of the editors of this city 
had proposed printing this work on their own account. 
He could say that the editor of the Statesman had in¬ 
formed him that he would not print it on his own ac¬ 
count—and heunderstood that the copy in progress of 
publication in another office was not a correct one, as 
it had not undergone the revision of the Reporter, and 
therefore could not be acceptable to the people in an 
imperfect state. He made his remark with no ill- 
feeling, but only that the publisher might make this 
work acceptable to the public by having it corrected. 

Mr. GREGG asked it it were in order to ofi’er an 
amendment. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is now on filling 
the blank. 

Mr. GREGG was so unfortunate as not to believe that 
the world was to be saved by the publication of the de¬ 
bates of this Convention. He would give the substance 
of the amendment he wished to have oftered — “That 
every member of this Convention purchase two copies 


of the debates for himself, and that 1500 be purchased 
for the use of the State.” [Laughter.] 

Mr. STANTON wished to submit a motion that 
would test the sense of the Convention in regard lo 
printing at all. He had supposed that when they 
abandoned the copy right, they had abandoned the 
publication under the act of the Legislatui’e. He 
would move the indefinite postponement of the resolu¬ 
tion, with the pending amendments. 

Mr. MORRIS moved to amend by filling up the blank 
with the w’ords “ fifteen hundred.” 

The PRESIDENT. An amendment has precedence 
of a motion to postpone. 

Mr. EWART moved that the report and pending 
amendments be laid on the table, on which motion he 
called for the yeas and nays, which resulted yeas 21, 
nays 82—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Bamet of Montgomery, Bates, Brown of 
Athens, Chambers, Claypoole, Collings, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, 
Gillet, Graham, Hamilton, Harlan, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Mor¬ 
ris, Perkins, Stanton and Stilwell—21. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Bennett, Blair, Blickens- 
derfer. Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Lick¬ 
ing, Clarke, Cooke, Curry, Ewing, Farr, Firestone, Forbes, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Gi’een of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, 
Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
Loudon, Manou, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ran- 
ney, Reemelin, Riddle, Robertson, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith ol 
Warren, Smith ol Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stickney, Stid- 
ger, Stiuble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of 
Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Vance of Champaign, War¬ 
ren, Way, Williams, Woodb ury and Mr. P resident—82. 

So the motion was not sustained. 

Mr. CUTLER understood the gentleman from Wayne 
[Mr. Larwill] to have said—before the motion to lay 
on the table was made—that the report of the proceed¬ 
ings, as published in one of the journals of this city, 
was not correct. He was not willing that so serious a 
charge should be made against the Reporter of the 
Convention without some explanation. The law pro¬ 
vided that the Reporter should superintend the publi¬ 
cation in the two papers. He did not know how the 
report could be correct in one paper and incorrect in 
the other. 

Mr. SAWYER said that typographical erroi’s could 
not be kept out of the first publication of the reports. 
In the paper which he received this morning, he was 
represented as moving a proposition to the effect that 
it was “expedient” to incorporate banking associa¬ 
tions. In the Statesman it was properly published “ in¬ 
expedient.” There were in the State Journal two let¬ 
ters left out, thus placing him in the most ridiculous po¬ 
sition. This, however, like most of the errors in the 
reports, was typographical, for which the Reporter was 
not at all responsible. 

Mr. LARWILL understood that me Statesman"had 
not as yet published the pamphlet form. The reports 
in the Statesman and Journal were published from the 
same manuscript. The matter at the Journal office had 
been worked off into the pamphlet form, without wait¬ 
ing for revision and correction by the Reporter. The 
Statesman having a greater amount of type, was mia- 
bled to keep the forms standing until all corrections 
were made, before issuing it in a more permanent form. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga remarked that 
there had been some transpositions in the reports in the 
Statesman. One of the speeches of the gentleman from 
Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] was put into his mouth, and 
was also incorporated with one of the gentleman from 
Franklin [ Mr. Stanbery’s ] speeches. He under¬ 
stood from the Reporter, that he divided the copy of 
the report, whatever it might be, between the two pa¬ 
pers. They sent him the proof-slips for his correction, 
and then they interchanged with one another. In 
some cases mistakes might occur between the two pa- 
pers. As to the remark of the gentleman from Wash- 
ington, [Mr. Cutler,] the explanations of the gentle¬ 
man from Wayne [Mr. Larwill,] showed the cause 














74 


CONVENTION REPOllTS. 


of the incorrectness of the first two is’sues of these re¬ 
ports from the Journal office. 

M. SAWYER. I (lid not allude to the typography 
of the .Tournals’ publication with any feeliegs of un- 
kindness whatever. Some errors were almost una¬ 
voidable ; and as to the accuracy and faithfulness of 
Mr. Smith’s reports, I must say they are the most ad¬ 
mirable I have ever seen. 

Mr. STICKNEY would remark, in reply to an allu¬ 
sion to Mr. Medary’s pamphlet edition of the debates, 
that he was informed that that gentleman, although 
ready to strike off the first number, would issue no such 
edition unless by order of the Convention. 

Mr. HOLMES. This Convention seems to have re¬ 
solved itself into a general “ speaking meeting,” and if 
the proceedings ami debates of the last five clays are a 
sample of those of the session, I, for one, shall vote 
against the publication of a single volume of these de¬ 
bates. But, sir, if we shall have a volume of the ear¬ 
nest and dignified debates and proceedings that should 
emanate from such a body as this, I am in favor of the 
publication of five thousand copies. Kentucky, a much 
smaller State, and ranking far below Ohio, published 
an edition of five thousand copies of her Convention 
debates, end yet, when I left Cincinnati, it was very 
hard to obtain a single copy—so great had been the 
demand for them. I was in Frankfort, Kentucky, 
while the Convention was in session, and becoming 
acquainted with many of the Delegates, I had a strong 
desire to see the published debates. We can spend 
the public money in no better manner than by publish¬ 
ing a large number of cc'pies of these debates. It is 
well known that copies of the report of debates in the 
earlier State Conventions bf this country are very dif¬ 
ficult of access, and in many instances unfortunately 
no report was secured. Who will estimate the value 
to the American people of a full rejiort of the debates 
■in the Convention which framed the constitution of 
these United States ? It is almost impossible to find a 
copy of Elliott’s report of the debates in the Virginia 
Convention, and who is there that does not covet a 
copy ? But, sir, we have debated this question long 
enough. I hope the main (piestion will now be taken. 
If five thousand copies are too many, cut the number 
down to four thousand, and if the majority wish a less 
number, let us get down to the number that all will 
agree upon, and have done with this inlerrainalde de¬ 
bate as to the amount of printing which the Conven¬ 
tion will order. 

The question being upon filling the blank in the res¬ 
olution relative to printing the book edition of the de¬ 
bates and proceedings of the Convention, with the 
words “ five thousand,” 

Mr. MORRIS demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted yeas 46, nays 57, as follows: 
Yjeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Cook, Ew- 
ng, Farr, Firestone, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Hawkins, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, .Tones, 
King, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitch¬ 
ell, Norris, Orton, Quigley, Ilanney, Riddle, Robertson, Roll, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith ot Wyandot, Stebbins, Stick- 
ney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, 'Thompson of Stark, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent—46. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case 
of Licking, Chambers, Clarke, Claypoole, Collings, Curry, Cutler, 
Ewart. Florence, Gillet, Graham; Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Ma¬ 
son, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Patter¬ 
son, Peck, Perkins, Rcemelin, Scott of Harrison, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stillwell, Thompson 
of Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Vance of Champaign, 
Warren, Way, Williams, Woodbury—57. 

So the motion was lost. ^ 

The question recurring on the motion to fill the blank 
with Ihe words “four thousand.” Mr. Lidey deman¬ 
ded the yeas and nays, which being ordered, resulted 
yeas 47, nays 56, as follows: 

Yeas.— -Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Cook, 
Ewing, Farr, Firestone, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, 
Hard, Hawkins, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
.Tones King, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 


Mitchell Norris, Orton, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle Robeitson. Iloll, 
Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith o^^yandot Stebbins 
Stickney, Struble, Swim, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson 
of Stark, Townshend, and President.—47. 

Nays.— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgi^ery. Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, C^e 
of Licking, Chambers, Clarke, Claypoole, Colhngs, Currj, Cnb 
ler, Ewart, Florence, Gillet, Graham, Cray, Green of Ros8, Gie g, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Kennon, 

Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, 1 ^Rerson, 
Peck, Perkins, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Smith ot Highhuid, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, ^ 

Butler, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Way, Williams, and Wood - 
bury.—56. 

So the motion was lost. _ v. 

The question next recurred on the motion to iili the 
blank with the words “three thousand.” Mr. Mitch- 
ELcdemanded theyeas and nays, which being oideied, 
resulted yeas 56, nays 47, as follows: 

• Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case 
of Licking, Clark, Ewing, Farr, Firestone, Forbes, Green of iJe- 
fiauce, Groesbeck, Flard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock ot Cuy¬ 
ahoga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, .Tones, Ken- 
non. King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 
Manon, Slitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Pattersiin, Perkins, 
Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Robertson, Roll, &iawyer, tecott of Au- 
glaize. Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Strable, 
Swan, Thompson of Shelby, 'Thompson ot Stark, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Way, and Mr. President.—56. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, ITarnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown ot Athens, Binwn of Ca^oll, 
Chambers, Claypoole, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, fo^- 
j. ence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Rijss, Gregg, Hamilton, 
Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, I.arsh, Mason, 
Morehead, McCloud, Morris, Nash. Otis, Peck, Reemehn, Scott ot 
Flarrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Staiibery, 
ton, Stillwell, Stidger, Swift, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Wil¬ 
liams and Woodbury—47. 

So the motion prevailed. 

On motion of Mr. IIUMPFIREVILLE, the second 
resolution of the report [recited above] was amended 
by inserting the words “ with an index” after the word 
pages. 

Mr. OTIS moved to amend the second resolution by 
striking out all after the word “ resolved” and inserting 
the proposition offered by him this morning and read 
[recited above in forenoon’s proceedings] for the infor¬ 
mation of the Convention. He had only amended it 
by striking out the words “ twenty-five hundred ” and 
inserting the words “ five thousand.’' 

Mr. NASH. Now that ihe Convention has decided 
to print three thousand copies of these debates it is our 
duty to get the work done at the least cost, and we can 
get these volumes cheaper by subscribing tor the edi¬ 
tions to be issued by the two papers of this city, than 
in any other way. 

Mr. GREGG could not see how the cost to the State 
was to be diminished by iiurchasing the volume from 
two publishers instead of one. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The Convention has fixed the 
price of all the printing which it may order; it has ap- 
jiointed a printer to do its work, and it has just'now 
declared the amount of printing it will have done, and 
is it possible that at this hour gentlemen on the other 
side will rise in their places and propose to give the 
whole or a part of this same printing to other parties? 

I shall demand the ayes and noes when the question is 
taken and we shall see who will record their names 
in favor of sucli a proposition, at this time, as that of¬ 
fered by the gentleman from Summit [Mr. Otis.] 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga I voted to fill the 
blank with “ three thousand” because I believed it of 
great importance to secure the publication, in an au¬ 
thentic form, of that number of copies of the debates 
and proceedings of this Convention. It being decided 
that that number shall be printed, our next question is 
“ how shall this publication be secured in substantial 
form with the least expense to the State?” It is no 
part of our duty to pension an individual—to extend 
gratuities to any parties. The resolution of the gen¬ 
tleman from Summit is to subscribe for three thousand 
copies ot the book form of these debates, as published 
by one or both of the newspaper establishments of this 
city. The price to be paid is to be fair and liberal. 














CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


t 


aud nothing more than fair and liberal. As I have no 
friends to reward and no enemies to punish, I feel it 
my duty to cast my vote to get these volumes printed 
and bound at a fair price—and the least that is fair. 
|]Mr. H. proceeded to show by an arithmetical calcula¬ 
tion, that, to procure the three thousand copies f)f the 
book form of these debates and proceedings of the 
Convention, by subscribing for the edition to be issued 
by one or both of the nevvspaper establivshments of this 
city at the prices named by one of them, would in his 
opinion cost about fifteen hundred dollars less than to 
order them to be separately printed by the pnnter to 
the Convention.] I am disposed to vote for the 
amendment of the gentleman from Summit, [Mr. Otis.] 

Mr. FARR. I rise merely to correct an error of fig¬ 
ures into which the gentleman from Cuyahoga has fal¬ 
len. He says that the three thousand copies can be 
procured at a cost of fiftem hundred dollars less than the 
sura proposed to be paid to Mr. Medary for doing this 
work. Now, by a careful estimate of the cost of prin¬ 
ting 3,000 copies of the Debates and Proceedings, esti¬ 
mating them to comprise 1,200 pages, it will be found 
that the sum total for printing, according to the prices 
stipulated in the resolution appointing the Printer to 
this Convention, will not amount to fifteen hundred 
dollars! 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I have, as ray votes and remarks 
will show, desired to get the printing of this. Conven¬ 
tion done at the lowest fair prices. While the subject 
of the compensation for printing was under discussion, 
it was right and proper for gentlemen of the other side 
to propose their plans, and, perhaps, to endeavor to serve 
their political friends. When the question “ Who shall 
be the printer ?” was up, it might have been proper 
for them to seek to divide tlie printing, that a part of 
the work might be done by those whom they prefer¬ 
red *, but, sir, 710W that bcth these questions are settled, 
now that the price of the work is fixed and the indi¬ 
vidual appointed to do it, our friends of the opposite 
side have no right to protract this debate by useless 
attempts to divide the printing, and take it, or any part 
of it, from the individual appointed to do the printing 
of this Convention. 

Mr. HIICHCOCK of Cuyahoga wished to be under¬ 
stood that he should have no objections to taking the 
whole three thousand copies of Mr. Medary, now that 
he was appointed printer. But he wished them at the 
prices indicated by those who projiosed issuing the 
book edition on private account. 

Mr. BENNET would also be ii^ favor of taking the 
whole number of Mr. Medary. 

Mr. MITCHELL. When the subject of printing was 
before the Convention we invited from the other side 
any suggestions they had to offer. It was then proper 
for them and for us to discuss the whole matter. But 
now that they have ac(juiesced in the amount of com¬ 
pensation to be allowed, and in the appointment of the 
printer, I do think it wrong and in very bad taste, to 
say the least, for gentlemen on the opposite side to 
consume time thus unnecessarily in discussing shall 
print these debates and proceedings, and what jirice 
shall be paid. I regret to see it. I was one of the 
number who contended that the pnnting should be 
given out at a fair price, and no more, and, if gentle¬ 
men will come forward and give reasons for a recon¬ 
sideration of the vote fixing the compensation of the 
printer, and the vote appointing the printer, I will listen 
cheerfully. But no such reasons are attempted, and I 
conceive that we are not consulting our own self-re¬ 
spect in this discussion. 

Mr. CUTLER inquired whether the resolution ap¬ 
pointing Mr. Medary printer to this Convention, ap¬ 
pointed him to do the work now in question ? 

Mr. NASH. As one of the committee on Printing, 
I will state that I signed the report on the ground, and 
with the understanding that the printing of our debates 
and proceedings was still an open question. 

Mr. CUTLER. My own impression was that the 
resolutions fixing the compensation of the printer, had 


75 


reference only to the resolutions, bills, orders^ reports 
of committees, &c., which would be ordered in the 
regular course of business. It strikes me that this 
charge of “unfairness” comes with rather an ill grace 
I’ron gentlemen on the opposite side. 

Mr. LEECH. I do not rise for the purpose of de¬ 
bating the question now before the Convention. I have 
but a few remarks to make. There appears to be a to¬ 
tal misunderstanding upon the part of some gentlemen, 
in reference to the report of the select committee on 
Printing. The contents of that report, sir, are fresh in 
my recollection. I can sjieak with absolute certainty 
as to their import. The report appointed Samuel Me¬ 
dary as printer for this Convention, and authorized 
him to do all the printing which the Convention might 
order. In this assertion the report will bear me out— 
the “ understanding ” of the gentleman from Gallia 
[Mr. Nash] to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Mr. FIRESTONE. Ihave not yet said aiiytliing up¬ 
on the subject of printing. 1 have been advised that 
it has heretofore been a standing vexed question, which 
has occupied much time in the Legislature, and I had 
detei’minedjfor myself to “ touch not the unclean thing,” 
except so far as my vote might be concerned. Last 
week we had a proposition, some two days under 
consideration, as to who should be our printer, and 
what prices should be paid to him, and then was the 
proper time for those opposed to Mr. Medary to have 
make known their objections. We went on and 
ai>pointed our printer, and gentlemen on the other side 
of the chamber appeared fully satisfied both with the 
individual selected aud the prices, and if they were re¬ 
ally satisfied, as they pretended to be, I would now re¬ 
spectfully ask them, why, when an order is to be made 
for printing these debates, why lug in an amendment, 
to divide this part of the printing between Mr. Medary 
and Mr. Scott? Why bring up the question again as 
to who shall be printer ? Gentlemen say “ they have 
no friends to reward—no enemies to punish.” I have 
heard that song sung before, and seen its pledge viola¬ 
ted, even by the present Chief Executive of the nation. 
I am not to be deceived by it again. I am utterly un¬ 
willing to take this printing out of the hands of the 
printer we have appointed, and give it to an individual 
wlio is not an officer of the Convention. 

Mr. LIDEY rose and was recognized by the chair. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I am under the impression that 
this is the fourth or fifth time the gentleman from Per¬ 
ry has had the floor. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Perry has 
not spoken before upon this question. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. We are precisely even then. 
The gentleman first called me to order, and now I 
have interrupted him. [A laugh.] 

Mr. LIDEY rose to an explanation, going to show 
that the gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash,] had no 
good ground of complaint that he did not under¬ 
stand the report of the select committee on Printing, 
because he both examined and signed the report 
with his own hand. He then went into a statement 
of figures to show that the member from Cuyahoga 
[Mr. Hitchcock,] was mistaken in his estimate, that 
the printing could be done so many hundred dollars 
cheaper than had ajipeared from his [ Mr. L.’s ] calcu¬ 
lation. He proceeded then to demonstrate that, by 
the prices ascertained, to wit: 30 cents for composi¬ 
tion, 35 cents for press work, $4,00 a ream for paper, 
and 50 cents a copy for binding, the items ol cost lor 
3000 copies of the Reports would be— 

For composition.$ 960 

“ Press work. 900 

“ Paper. 900 

“ Binding. 1500 


Total.:. $4260 

aud that the cost of 5,000 copies would not vaiy mate¬ 
rially from $600 above that sum, according to a rule 
which everywhere regulates the prices of printing, to 
wit: that the lower you bring down the number of 














76 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


copies ordered, the greater must be the proportion ot 
cost to each copy. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren said he desired to put an end 
to this interminable debate, and for that purpose he 
would propose himself in the character of a mediator. 
He would propose, then, that the gentleman from Sum¬ 
mit modify his resolution, so as to give all the patron¬ 
age to the Convention pi'inter. He made this proposi¬ 
tion from the consideratioiiif that, although the resolu¬ 
tion of the committee on printing, which gave the ol- 
fice of printer to Mr. Medary, did not, in express tenns, 
direct and provide that the printing of the debates and 
proceedings should be given to that officer, yet lie be¬ 
lieved that, at the time the resolution was adopted, it 
was understood that whatever printing the Convention 
might order, should be done by Mr. Medary. Such, 
at all events, was his understanding. He would vote 
for the proposition of the gentleman from Summit if 
the form he liad suggested were adopted. 

Mr. OTIS accepted of the modification. 

Mr. STIDGER called for a division of the (juestion 
upon Mr. Otis’s amendment- 

The PRESIDENT said the question was upon striking 
out all after the word “ resolved,” in the 2ud resolu¬ 
tion. , 

Mr. EWART stated the reason why he should vote 
for striking out. He was o[»posed to all this printing. 
He thought the spirit of the law calling the Conven¬ 
tion, which provides that the Ohio State Journal and the 
Ohio Statesman shall publish the proceedings and de¬ 
bates of the Convention would be carried out by author¬ 
izing the publishers of these papers to issue the same 
matter in durable fonn. Hence he had voted all day 
against this printing. He thought, if the printing was 
given to anybody, it ought to be given to Mr. Medaiy, 
for he considered him to be entitled to it under the res¬ 
olution reported by the printing committee. 

Mr. STIDGER would explain the vote he was about 
to give. He intended to vote for sinking out the en¬ 
tire section for the reason that he thought the Conven¬ 
tion had not detennined to print a sufficiently large 
number of copies and if he could get the whole strick¬ 
en out or the subject recommitted, he would have ano¬ 
ther vote upon it, at all events. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga went again into a 
statement of figures to support his former estimates of 
the cost of printing—adding, that it would not be do¬ 
ing himself justice were he not to remark, as he intend¬ 
ed to do when he last had the floor, that he was wil¬ 
ling to give the benefit of this printing to Mr. Medary; 
but he was not willing to give to him or any other man 
more than a fair compensation for it. He believed that 
the spirit of the resolution under which the printer was 
appointed required the Convention to give the work to 
Mr. Medary ; and he read the resolution which pre¬ 
scribes the duties of the printer. The resolution before 
the Convention proposed to order the printing of 3000 
copies of Convention Reports, and the pending motion 
was to strike out all after the word “ resolved” and in¬ 
sert a proposition to purchase 3000 copies of the same 
work which Mr. Medary had proposed to print in num¬ 
bers. This, he doubted not, could be done at a cost of 
$1200 less than the cost of the order for the same num¬ 
ber of copies in the terms of the resolution ; and this 
was the course he preferred to take. It was only an¬ 
other mode of procuring the same matter and saving a 
large amount of money by the arrangement. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot said the gentleman from 
Cuyahoga had fallen into a small error by reasoning 
from false preinises. The gentleman had gone on to 
show that by the terms of the prospectus for the State 
Jo^imal edition of the Convention Reports, they might 
be obtained for a dollar: and he seemed to think that 
the proprietor of the Ohio Statesman would publish the 
same matter at the rate. But he was mistaken in that. 
Mr. Medary had determined that he would not print 
them at that rate : and there was no doubt but the pro¬ 
prietors of the State Jonmal would be glad to get out 


of the dilficulty in which their proposition had invol¬ 
ved them. 11 - 

Tlie yeas and nays were now demanded by Mr. 
HAWKINS and ordered upon the question of striking 
out, and being taken, resulted yeas 39, nays 63, as lol- 
lows: 


Yeas—M essrs. Andrews, Barbee, Baraett of Montgomery, Ben- 
nkt, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown ot Carroll, Clim¬ 
bers, Claypoole, Collins, Cutler, Curry, Ewart, Flormice, r^ 
ham, Gray, Green of Ross, Gillet, Hamilton, Hard, Harl^, Hitch¬ 
cock of Cuyahoga, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Mason, McC ou , 
Morehead, Morris, Nash, Otis, Scott of Harrison, ^naith ot Higb- 
land. Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Stid^er and 

Swift—39. ^ x TT 1 • 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Bates, Blair, Cahill, Case ot Hiking, 
Case of Licking, Clark, Cook, Ewing, Farr, Firestone, I orbes, 
Gregg, Greene of Defiance, Grocsbeck, Hawkins, Hitchcock oi 
Geauga, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootrnan, HumphreviUe, 
Hunt, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadoet- 
ter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, McCormick, Mitchell, Non-is, Orton, 
Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Rauney, Reemehn, 111(10^, 
Robertson, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith ot Wy¬ 
andot, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Thompson or Stark, 
Thompson of Shelby, Tow-nshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Wnv. Wfiodhnrv. Williams and Mr. President— 63. 


So the motion to strike out was lost. 

Mr. CUTLER now inquired if it would be in order 
to move to sti-ike out a part ot the words of the reso¬ 


lution ? 

The PRESIDENT replied inthe negative. The sense 
of the Convention had just been expressed against 
striking out. 

xMr. CUTLER. If there was no other way of getting 
at it, he supposed the report might be recommitted tor 
amendment. 

Mr. SAWYER. If the amendment was important 
any gentleman would be ready to move a reconsidera¬ 
tion of the vote against striking out. What was the 
amendment 1 

Mr. CUTLER would strike out, after the word “ de¬ 
bates.” in the first line, the words “ be condensed into 
a volume of not more than 1200 pages; such, l^or in¬ 
stance as the New York Convention Debates,” and 
transpose the words “three thousand,” so as to read, 

Resolved, That 3000 copies of the proceedings and 
debates of this Convention with an index, be published 
in the English language.” 

Mr. GREEN of Ross wished to set himself right be¬ 
fore the Convention. He had voted to strike out, not 
from any factious feeling, or any disposition to deprive 
Mr. Medary of this job, but because he wanted to get 
the resolution in such ^^hape that he could vote for it. 

On motion by Mr. SAWYER, the vote against strik¬ 
ing out was reconsidered, and Mr. Cutler’s amend¬ 
ment was adopted by unanimous consent. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved to amend by striking out 
all after the word “ debates ” in the second resolution 
of the report; which was agreed to. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD then moved to amend the third 
resolution by striking out after the word“ debates” in 
the third line, the words “ and that in the opinion oi 
this Convention, it will be inexpedient for the several 
committees on the constitution to accompany their re¬ 
ports with written explanations of the reasons which 
have influenced them in agreeing thereto.” 

He had understood that the object of the committee 
in employing this restriction against written reports, 
was to make our book small. But if he wanted to ex¬ 
tend our book, that would be the very provision he 
would put in. The object of reference to a committee 
was simply, that they might take the subject into a 
more calm and deliberate consideration than would 
be taken in the Convention, The very idea of a com¬ 
mittee was, that reasoning might be condensed, and 
that thoughts and reflections might be chastened and 
matured, and presented to the body in due fonn. 

Mr. STANTON said the committee had considered 
this matter with some care; and the chief difficulty 
suggested in connection with the publication of the 
Convention debates and proceedings was, that they 
would be excessively voluminous, and the consequence 
perhaps, wmdd be that it would be impracticable to 



















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


])ablish at all. The conuiiittee of course turned their 
attention to the best mode of bringing the volume into 
as small a space as possi1)le. Their judgment was that 
the principal part of the work in. the committees, 
would be the elaboration of matter and bringing it 
out in the form of articles and sections of the constitu¬ 
tion—this would be the result of" their deliberations. 
They saw that in the performance of such service there 
would necessat'ily ai’ise in the committees a very great 
variety and conllict of opinions; and that, if these 
opinions were to be sustained by argument before the 
Convention, there would be frec[uent written reports, 
both from the majority and minority; and the.se re¬ 
ports might run up in some instances from 20 to 40, 50 
and 60 pages. Well, if the presentation and printing 
of these reports would tend to restrain debate, it 
would be granted that it were better to encourage 
them. But it was considered that speeches would 
come in, no matter how much might be said and writ¬ 
ten in committee; that it would all have to be said over 
in the Convention, and then, if we print them, we 
should have duplicate copies of the argument—one 
oral, and the other written; and upon the whole, it 
was believed that much time and expense would be 
saved by the course recommended. The resolutions, 
however, amounted to nothing more than recommen¬ 
dations; and they propose nothing more than that 
these reports of committees, if made in writing, shall 
not be incorporated with the printed debates and pro¬ 
ceedings. If then, the resolution should be adopted, 
still, nobody will care how many reports be written. 

The question was then taken upon Mr. Archbold’s 
motion, and the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. LEECH. I move to strike the word ^'tnexpe^ 
dient" out of the first line, and insert in lieu thereof, 
the word “ expedient." I hope my amendment will be 
adopted. Sir, I believe it is expedient and proper to 
publish the journal in book form, separate and apart 
from the proceedings and debates.” The journal con 
tains the only record of our proceedings, which is kept 
by a sworn otficer of the Convention. Surely, then, it 
should be published. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross was opposed to this amendment 
and trusted the Convention would vote it down with¬ 
out a division. We had already ordered the publica¬ 
tion of three thousand copies of the journal of this 
C nvention—for a full and faithful journal is embodied 
in the report of the debates and proceedings of this 
■ body. Take out from this report the debates, and you 
have a perfect journal; and it was in this way in a 
much better form for use than if published separately. 
There was not the least necessity for this separate pub¬ 
lication of the mere journal. 

The motion [Mr. Leech’s] was disagreed to without 
a division. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to amend the second 
resolution of the report, by inserting after the word 
“ Convention,” the words “in book form,” which was 
agreed to. 

The question then being upon agreeing to the report 
of the committee as amended. 

Mr. ROBERTSON demanded the yeas and nays, 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 82, nays 15, as fol¬ 
lows : 

ITiose who voted in the affirmative, were 

Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee. Baniett, of Montgomery, 
Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Clark, Claypoole, Collings, Cook, 
Cutler, Farr, Firestone, Florence, Forbes, Gillet, Graham, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck. Hard, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, 
Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lidey, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCormick, Nor¬ 
ris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranny, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Robertson, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stick- 
ney, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, Woodbury, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent—82. 

Those who voted in the negative, were 

Messrs. Chambers, Curry, Ewart, Hamilton, Harlan, Horton, 


77 


Larsh, McLoud, Mason, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Stil- 
well and Smith of Highland—15. 

So the report as amended, was agreed to 

On motion of Mr. LIDEY, the Convention adjourned. 

FRIDAY, May 17, 1850. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Tyno. 

THIRD ASSISTANT SECRETARY. 

On motion by Mr. LARWILL, the resolution report¬ 
ed yesterday, from the select committee on the subject 
of the appointment of another assistant Secretary, was 
taken up for consideration. 

Mr. LARWILL. I now move that the resolution be 
amended by striking out all after the word “ resolved,” 
and inserting the words “ that the Secretary be and he 
is hereby authorized to appoint an additional assistant 
Secretary.” 

Mr. SAWYER. I cannot but think that this Conven¬ 
tion is as capable of selecting an assistant Secretary, as 
the Secretary himself. I understand, and I am free to 
say it, that the principal Secretary of this body has 
been beset with numerous applications for this place 
of assistant. I understand also, and I believe it is true, 
that gentlemen from certain portions of the State, that 
have a right to claim something here, have been and 
will be put down or neglected; and I wish to see 
whether this accusation covers any portion of the State 
to which I belong, and from which there have been sent 
forth no mean public servants. I wish to understand 
whether its voice is to be heard or disregarded here. 
I speak freely; and these are the reasons why 1 speak. 
I understand that if this assistant is to be appointed by 
the Secretary, that he will appoint some favorite of his 
own. But for this I do not wish to be understood as 
finding fault with this Secretary. But this I say, that 
the Convention is as capable of selecting the present 
assistant, as they are of selecting the two first. I In ipe 
the original resolution will be adopted, and that the 
Convention will proceed to the election by ballot. But, 
if the voice and interests and wishes of that portion of 
the State which I represent shall be entirely neglected, 
let it be so. I shall have done my duty 

Mr. MANON. I think this ought to be about the 
last day to be occupied with matters of small moment, 
and I take leave to expres.s the hope that the business 
of tlie Convention will soon begin to some purpose. I 
do not desire to assume the guardianship of this body 
in any sense, but, I am constrained to say, that 1 am 
unable to see the necessity of creating another officer 
for the Convention. I mention the fact, that the Secre¬ 
tary and his assistants do not seem to be occupied more 
than the members of this body, indeed, they are occupied 
but a few hours of the day. They serve upon no commit¬ 
tee, and that takes away the excuse that they should 
not be required to work when the Convention is not in 
session. I speak in no spirit of unfriendliness towards 
the Secretaries. I supported the nominations, and vo¬ 
ted for the principal and first assistant. We have at 
least one committee of this Convention, sir, which is 
burdened with a great deal of writing; and they do it 
themselves. I have heard no talk of employing assistance 
for them. I refer to the committee of twenty one. We 
do our own writing, sir, and I doubt not that every oth¬ 
er committee of tiie Convention will do the .same. I am 
inclined to think, sir, that we have at least one officer of 
this body, who is kept very busy. I mean the Reporter. 
I see that gentleman with his assistants, putting in their 
time very closely. But the Reporter has not spoken to 
me on this subject, nor have any of his fiiends but I 
have seen it. From these various observations, I have 
determined for myself, that, until better advised, I shall 
oppose this resolution. I beg leave now to say, once 
for all, that my vote shall be cast upon all occasions, as 
now, in accordance with what I conceive to be the 
wishes of my constituents and my duty to the State. 
In short, I do myself, what I shall admire in others ; I 
put in my time so as best to enable the Convention to 
get through in the shortest possible time, for I do not 
wish to be caught here in dog days. I do not forget 











78 


CONVENEION REllOETS 


that I have been sent here, not as a speaker, but as a 
business man, to take time “ by the forelock, and not by 
the wings.” I now move that the resolution, together 
with the amendment, be referred to a select committee of 
three, that they may examine and report the case to 
the Convention, and I for one will be governed accord- 
ingly. 

Mr. LOUDON. As I was one of the committee 
which reported the resolution, it mightnol be amiss for 
me to state the grounds upon which we proceeded. 
We reported upon the best information we could get. 
I believe that it is in the recollection ol every member 
here, that the President made some remarks upon the 
introduction of the resolution, that he had been I’e- 
questetl by the Secretary to make the matter known 
that an additional assistant was needed. And since I 
have myself considered the routine of service required 
of the Secretary, having some knowledge experiment¬ 
ally of that kind of business myself, I have come to 
believe that he may require the assistance of another 
man. I believe that it was by my motion that the ori¬ 
ginal resolution was laid on the table. My object in 
doing so, was to gain the opportunity of making a lit¬ 
tle inquiry into the matter, and seeing whether an as¬ 
sistant was absolutely necessary ; and after the investi¬ 
gation, as one of the committee, in connection with 
others, I was agreed to the fact that the services of an 
assistant secretary might be required, and we reported 
accordingly. The manner of the report, referring the 
officers’ election to the Convention, was somewhat con¬ 
trary to the usual course pursued ; but we adopted the 
course after matui’e deliberation upon the matter. 
We trusted to allay some feeling which was manifested 
upon the subject; but we desired, as much as any¬ 
thing, to relieve the Secretary from the responsibility 
of the selection. I have been since informed by a 
member of the committee, that having conversed with 
the Secretary, he believes that he has no objection that 
the Convention should appoint—no feeling in the case, 
except that he desires an election to be made as soon as 
possible. 

Mr. SAWYER. I will state that the Secretary in¬ 
formed me that he preferred that the Convention should 
make the appointment, that he had no desire to make 
the selection himself. 

Alter some further conversation, in which Mr. Lar- 
wiLL, Mr. McCormick, Mr. LEADBETTER,and the Pres- 
DENT, took part, 

The motion to recommit was lost. 

The question recurring upon Mr. Larwill’s amend¬ 
ment, 

Mr. CHAMBERS said he was decidedly in favor of 
the amendment, because he considered the Secretary 
as the proper person to make the selection. It was a 
mere matter of business, and out of the number of ap¬ 
plicants for the place, he certainly could make a better 
selection than could be made by the Convention. He 
had himself some experience in these matters, and was 
entirely in favor of the amendment. 

Mr. SAWItER, [in his seat.] And I am decidedly 
opposed to it. 

The amendment was agreed to, and the resolution as 
amended, was adopted. 

THE LEGISLATURE. 

Mr. BENNETT. I offer the following; 

“Wheheas, Great inconvenience results from parte of the 
same statute being contained in different volumes of the laws 
therefore, 

Resolved, That to make the administration of justice more cer¬ 
tain, by rendering the laws more easily comprehensible, the Leg¬ 
islature should be required, whenever they deem it expedient to 
amend an act, to re-publish that act, as amended, in one entire 
statute." 

Mr. REEMELIN. I move that the resolution be re 
ferred to the committee on the Legislative Department. 
There has been, I believe, a somewhat similar proposi¬ 
tion referred to that committee. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot. It strikes me that it should 
be referred to the committee on Jurisprudence. A res¬ 
olution has been referred to that committee compre¬ 


hending the same matter precisely—the resolution in¬ 
troduced by myself on Monday, I think. 

Mr. BENNETT. I care not where the resolution 
shall be referred. I had not noticed whether similar 
matter had been lieretofore introduced. My object 
was merely to call attention to the subject which the 
resolution embraces. 

The resolution was referred to the committee on the 
Legislative Department. 

APPORTIONMENT. 

On motion by A^r. REEMELIN, the reolutions in¬ 
troduced by himself on Monday were taken up for 
consideration, and read by the Secretary, as follows: 

“ Resolved, That it is expedient so to change the present con¬ 
stitution of Ohio, as to take away from the General Assembly 
the power to apportion Senators and Representatives among the 
severid counti<'S of this State. 

Resolved, That it is expedient to engraft upon the new consti¬ 
tution, a provision for a self-acting apportionTnent of Senators and 
Representatives, based upon the following principles : 

1st. The entire population in each county, to be the basis for 
Representative purposes. 

2d. For Senatorial apportionment purposes, the State to be 
divided into Senatorial districts, to be permanently fixed in the 
new constitution. 

:5d. The quota of population requisite for a Senator or Repre¬ 
sentative, to be permanently fixed in the new constitution. 

4th. Each county to be entitled to at least one Representa¬ 
tive. 

5th. No provision to be put into the new constitution, limiting 
the number of Senators or Representatives of which the Gener¬ 
al Assembly shall consist. 

6th. In all cases, where a county or .Senatorial district, may 
according to its population, be entitled to more than one Senator 
or Representative, such county or Senatorial district to be sub¬ 
divided into such number of separate, distinct and single dis¬ 
tricts, as may be equal to the number of Senators and Represen¬ 
tatives to which such county or district would be entitled, by 
some local authority, resident therein , such, for instance, as the 
Board of County Commissioners, or a similar body. 

7th. The apportionment to be made every five years; of the 
first, the United States census now being taken, to be the basis, 
and so every ten years hereafter, if an United State census should 
be taken—it otherwise, and for the intermediate five years, the 
General Assembly to make provision for a State census. 

8th. No new county to be erected, nor the county lines to be 
changed, except with the consent of a majority of all the voters 
ot all the counties cfiected thereby, at two successive elections. 

Mr. REEMELIN said : Mr. President—As I have 
intended to submit a few remarks with reference to the 
propostions under consideration, before their reference 
lo the committee on Apportionment, I suppose I may 
as well submit them now as at any other time. I sup¬ 
pose there is not a member of this body, but will ac¬ 
knowledge the importance of the subject; and in fact, 

I may be permitted to say, that no part of the old con¬ 
stitution has led to the meeting of this body, so much 
as this subject of apportionment. In remarking upon 
the old constitution, there are some events of history 
necessary to be brought forward in reviewing the past; 

I wish to say that I do not recur to the.se events for the 
purpose of making invidious reflections, but merely for 
the purpose of inducing the Convention to coiTect the 
errors which I conceive to be involved in this subject. 
Nor do I wish to be understood as lavoring in the 
slightest degree the sickly sentiment, that there is a 
" betweenity ” between right and wrong, or that I de¬ 
sire to cover up an error under any specious guise. I 
do not favor that sentiment; and those who have ob¬ 
served my course shall bear me witness that I never 
have acted upon it. On the contrary, I have always 
insisted upon the principle that the right is always ex¬ 
pedient; audit is for this reason now, that I am about 
to refer to these tacts in the past history of the State 
of Ohio—not with any view to give offence, but with a 
desire of presenting them clearly to the Convention, 
in order that the errors of the past may be corrected! 
and avoided for the future. 

The first question which arises for consideration, is, 
who shall rule in the State of Ohio ? Under the old 
apportionment the people have no chance whatever to 
express their sentiments and feelings. Public opinion 
has been stifled repeatedly, and I may say, at all times, 
by representative apportionment, made not for the good 
of the people, but to strengthen a party ; not with a 


t 


I 

( 














CONVENTION EEPOETS 


79 


view of giving the people a chance to express their 
sentiments and feelings, but with the purpose of con- 
1‘erring office and power upon particular parties and 
individuals connected with them; these, I say, have 
heretofore been the prevailing questions, when any 
bill of apportiontimt has been under consideration. Ap¬ 
portionments have been arranged by a veiy few men 
perhaps, very often by a single chairman of a com¬ 
mittee, sitting in his room at a hotel, taking a map in 
his hand, not asking himself what will be for the good 
of the people ?—what apportionment will give the best 
chance for a fair representation? He asks himself no 
such question, but goes to marking upon the map his 
black lines, and red lines, and blue lines, to see how 
by an apportionment some particular party, or some 
favorite object can be best subserved and sustained. 
And when the report would come in here, all kinds of 
party feeling would be excited; and it woidd be ob¬ 
vious to every one, that, not the interests of the people, 
but the interests of men—of private and particular in¬ 
dividuals and parties only were at stake. How such 
apportionments operated, we might refer to our politi¬ 
cal history in 1849, when a large majority in the State 
decided in favor of whig principles, the popular voice 
was stifled in consequence of apportionment. We 
might look at the events of 1848 and there see the ma¬ 
jestic rising up of the people to get rid of the party 
which had by lon^ use become intoxicated with pow- 
er, endeavored to be suppressed by an unjust apportion¬ 
ment. I charge nothing upon any particular party or set 
of men, while I refer to these facts. I acknowledge 
there is a latent difficulty in the old constitution which 
rendered it nearly impossible for any party to estab¬ 
lish by legislation an entirely fair representative appor¬ 
tionment ; and wherever men are possessed of power 
they desire to hold on to it. The power is not with 
man, nor never has been, to divest himself entirely of 
this feeling. It is too deeply engraved upon his breast 
—it is a part of his very nature: and the feeling natu¬ 
rally rises up within him. This strong desire for pow¬ 
er has led to many difficulties in all former apportion¬ 
ments, in addition to the great difficulty which arises 
in consequence of the increasing population of the State 
and of particular localities. The result was that the 
popular voice was stifled in particular counties, by put¬ 
ting other counties on top of them. I believe that the 
history of nearly every apportionment in the State, 
will bear me out in the statements of the fact, that un¬ 
fair apportionments, more than every thing else, have 
been the fruitful cause of the political ill-feeling, excite¬ 
ment and enmity, which should never be encouraged 
in the State of Ohio. For instance: the county of Pre¬ 
ble is largely whig, and the county of Butler largely 
democrat. I do not make this selection from any feelino^ 
of invidiousness, but merely lor illustration. The voice 
of Preble county was always drowned by that of the 
county of Butler. A similar grievance has existed and 
still exists in the representation of other counties and 
in many other portions of the State, and sometimes a 
democratic, at other times a whig voice was entirely 
suppressed and kept down in our legislative halls. 

That such has been the fact no man can deny, neith¬ 
er can it be denied that these unfair and unequal ap¬ 
portionments have been the cause of much dissatisfac¬ 
tion and excitement, neither can it be denied that such 
causes ol dissatisfaction and disttirbance will continue 
to exist so long as the Legislature shall retain the pow¬ 
er of making these apportionments. 

The limitation fixed upon the representation in the 
Legislature was one of great difficulty in the old con¬ 
stitution ; and, as I said at the outset, this body has 
been convened with special reference to this thing. I 
do not wish to complain of our previous legislation, 
nor do I intend to make any reflections upon the fra¬ 
mers of the old constitution, They were wise men, 
and the members of this Convention will do a good 
work if they prove themselves as far-seeing as the fra¬ 
mers of the old constitution ; and if they make a con¬ 
stitution as far in advance of the present, as the old one 


was ahead of the age in which it was made, I for one 
shall be very happy to sign it and see it ratified. Then 
indeed our work will deserve to be praised, and the 
talents and patriotism of its authors will be long re¬ 
membered. I believe I can say, that, at the period the 
old constitution was made, it was the be.st that could 
be made—and being liberal in its provisions and stern¬ 
ly republican, it has been copied largely by the Con¬ 
ventions of other States. Still, without making any 
reflections upon them, I may say that they erred. 
They did not foresee the rapid increase of population, 
and the unprecedented progress of improvement in 
the State. They suspected not—they never dreamed, 
that within forty years from the time of their deliber¬ 
ations, two millions of people would be represented 
upon this floor. They never so much as dreamed ol 
the greatness to which this people was destined so soiui 
to attain. 

But the fact that we have attained to greatness and 
that we are still growing, is now obvious to all; and 
being obvious, this Convention may easily avoid the 
eiTors of the past in this respect. They should, at least, 
avoid falling into precisely the same errors of the old. 
Convention. Tliey will avoid fixing any limit or any 
restriction upon the rising growth of a great people. 
I say, we should not fall into the same error which they 
committed—having before us the fact of our former 
rapid growth and improvement, and looking to the im¬ 
portant geographical position of the State with respect 
to the North and the East on one side, and the South 
and West on the other, with an area of land of greater 
fertility than perhaps any other of the same extent, in 
the world, and a people rising in greatness to the ful¬ 
fillment of the highest destinies of civilization, 1 say, 
it would be passing strange if we were to fall into 
precisely the same error which has so unhappily 
marred the work of our predecessors. I know there 
are certain men who are forever driving down stakes 
to limit the progress of society, and continually fixing 
limits to improvement. The limited horizon of their 
own mind they wish to make that of society at large. 
These men are the limitationists, while there is another 
class ever busy at pulling up stakes and clearing away 
obstacles to progress. I do not know but upon other 
subjects it might do no great harm to fix constitutional 
limitations, but I am clear and decided as to this; on 
the question of representation we ought to give to pub¬ 
lic opinion the most unrestrained opportunity to express 
and develop itself, and to enforce its determinations; 
we ought to give all parts of the State, and all portions 
of its population its due representative influence. 

There is another great political principle involved in 
this question, which is not commonly seen, or at least 
has so far been overlooked. And in saying so, I do not 
mean to be understood as claiming a pre-emption right 
to it, as some gentleman, writing to the Cincinnati Ga¬ 
zette, seems to be afraid I am about to do. I assure 
him, and this Convention, that I lay no claim to spe¬ 
cial originality on this subject, nor shall I take out a 
copy right for my resolutions. I have no douht that 
other gentlemen have thought upon the same subject. 
The minds of men will often run in the same channels, 
and this has no doubt been the case on this subject, iu 
devising measures for obviating past difficulties. 

The principle in this—and I submit whether it is not 
a correct political axiom—Give to no public functionary 
the power to control the action of his successor. Would 
any member of this Convention place this power in 
the hands of the Governor, or of our judicial tribunals, 
or in any other department of the Government? And 
would it not be an error, a fatal error, to give the pow¬ 
er of controlling the appointment of their successors 
to a legislative body, or to transfer that authority to 
other hands than those from which they received it ? 
Woidd we agree that any officer of the Government 
might determine who should be his successor, or to 
wliat particular party he should belong ? Or should we 
not rather avoid and carefully provide against the ex¬ 
ercise of this power in every department of the gov- 









80 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


ernment ? I ask, then, should we not avoid the errors 
which the experience of the past has pointed out ? 

I am aware that a thing may be right in the ab¬ 
stract, but perhaps prove impracticable in the details. 
1 know that my plan will be likely to meet with pecu¬ 
liar obstacles, not so much with reference to geograph¬ 
ical position, as in consequence of objections which 
may present themselves at iirst view. Let us then in- 
(juire whether the plan will accomplish the end in view, 
when we come to extend it so as to fix the details ? 
The end which I have in view, is to take away from 
the Legislature the power to fix and determine the 
character of their successors, and I hope to be able to 
show that the details of the plan are all practicable. I 
find, from conversation with members, that one objec- 
lion, and perhaps the principal objection, to its adop¬ 
tion, consists in the aversion which we feel to having 
ti large representation. One gentleman—a correspon- 
<leut of the Cincinnati Gazette —seems to harp on this 
:is a very formidable objection to the plan. I know it 
is according to the composition of the minds of same 
men to contract and compress the exercise of political 
power, that is, to limit its exercise to the few. This 
• is a fundamental error, and may be cherished, perhaps, 
with no intention of wrong-doing, but those who do 
cherish it generally make every effort in their power 
to support and spread it. They wish to restrict, limit, 
and circumscribe the number of individuals who exer¬ 
cise power, because, perhaps, they can have more in¬ 
fluence, and bring that influence to bear more effectu¬ 
ally upon the minds of a few men, than upon the minds 
-of the many. With others it is a mere prejudice 
against large legislative bodies, for which they have no 
particular reasons. 

The matter of expense for a large representative 
body, I have also heard seriously urged as one of the 
reasons why they will go against my plan. 

Now permit me to say here, once for all, that if there 
ever has been any people led astray upon any subject, 
ihe people of Ohio have been upon this subject of the 
expenditures of their State government. I say what I 
now say advisedly ; there is not a government in the 
world so cheaply administered as that of the govern¬ 
ment of Ohio. A report before me shows a popula¬ 
tion of two and a half millions, and the total expen¬ 
ses of government but three hundred thousand dollars. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD [in his seat.] $160,000 were the 
expenses of the civil list in 1848. 

Mr. REEMELTN continuing. I have no objection 
to any sum on account of its amount. Whatever may 
have been the cause of the increase since 1848, Iknow 
not; but I, for one have never objected to any legiti¬ 
mate expenditure for the Government under which I 
live. There may be some expenses not sti’ictly correct, 
but on the whole, the real expenses of the Government 
are as low as can be expected—lower than those of any 
other Government, 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, [interrupting further, and Mr. 
Ree.melin giving way.] I will explain. The ordinary 
expenses of the civil list i.s somewhere from $110,000 
fo $120^000. Last year, when the General Assembly 
was a longer time in session than usual, it amounted to 
a good deal more. But ordinarily it is somewhere be- 
n\ een $110,000 and $120,000—leaving out, I believe, 
the ordinary expenses of the Lunatic Asylum, the 
Blind Institution, the Asylum for the Deaf and Dumb, 
and the School Fund. 

Mr, REEMELIN resumed. The report before me 
puts it down at $307,000. I said $300,000. These 
expenses have increased since I was a member of the 
Senate. But the particular point is, that government of 
Ohio is really a cheap goveniment; and I do not be¬ 
lieve that any member of the Convention can point to 
any other government on the face of the globe so cheap¬ 
ly administered. I believe that salaries generally are 
lower here than in an other of the United States, and 
salaries in the United States are lower, I know, than 
anywhere else in the world. The gentleman from 


Clark [Mr. Mason,] but the other day, made a most 
appropriate reference to the very small salary our Gov¬ 
ernor receives. I wish to say, that upon this matter of 
the expenses of the State government, the people have 
been led astray so far, that whenever we talk to them 
about the expenses of the Legislature, of the .Judiciary, 
and officers of State, they supjiose these constitute all 
the sources of their taxation. But it is the debt of 
Ohio, sir, that makes her taxes onerous together with 
the expenses of her counties and townships, and espe¬ 
cially of her cities. These are some of the means by 
which the taxes of the people are increased—this un¬ 
limited power of taxation in counties and cities. It is 
not the government itself, of which the people ought 
to complain, but the bastard attached to it, in the shape 
of a public debt, and in the shape of county and town- 
shiji and city debt, and the unlimited taxing power 
there exercised. The fact is, that the expenses of the 
Legislature amount to only about sixty-five thousand dol¬ 
lars per annum, or perhaps seventy-five thousand. Now 
is it not strange that the people should have been led 
astray so completely ?—that they should have been so 
long looking for I’eform, and not find out where reform 
is needed—that they should have been drawn away so 
completely from the real subject of their contempla¬ 
tion ? They are willing, for instance, to pay a million 
for a House for their Representatives to meet in ; but 
they begrudge the few dollars it will require in addi¬ 
tion to be adequately I’epresented. They are willing 
to be taxed millions to favor local interests, but they 
would grudge their coppers for the expense of having 
these interests correctly and fully represented. They 
will open their purses freely for the support of a pi’i- 
vate speculation, but for the sake of an efficient repre¬ 
sentative government they are not willing it should be 
touched at all. 

It is of the utmost importance in any government, 
that all the parts of the State should be heard—that 
no man should represent too large a constituency; for 
if it be not properly administered, it is even a hard 
case to have a representative government at all. If 
we are to have any at all, we should have one in which 
the voice of every branch and every part can be heard. 

I have observed this fact, that those States of the Union 
which have the la7'gest representation, are generally 
the best ^ovexTied. Let any man examine the subject, 
and he will find that I am correct—he will find that 
such governments, by having full representations, are 
better administered. It may be, possibly, that they 
have more frequent scenes of popular excitement; but 
the excitement will all the time be a healthy excite¬ 
ment. Excitement is the very soul of a republican gov¬ 
ernment; that is, never to be too strongly excited, and 
never to be entirely donnant. Herein lies the error of 
the French government, and the error of the French 
people. To-day they arc the mildest people in the 
world, and to-morrow they rise up in a flare, and the 
third day they go down again to sleep. But when we 
come to our people, we find that their’s is a continual, 
healthy excitement. It keeps the public mind awake 
and active. They require never to be restrained. Give 
them a direct representation, and give the people fre¬ 
quent chances to be heard, and they will have that 
healthy excitement, which is necessary for bringing the 
rejiresentatives to their account with the people, and 
keeping them directly responsible. I might refei- t() 
Massachusetts for an example. She has a representa¬ 
tion of between two and three hundred. I might also 
refer to England. She has a representation of nearly 
six hundred in her parliament. France, also, is an ex 
ample with reference to this matter. I had the plea¬ 
sure of being present and witnessing the proceedin<^'S 
in her House of Delegates at Paris, and, as I said be¬ 
fore, at one time, they would proceed in a most order¬ 
ly and dignified manner, and then, immediately, when 
some exciting question would arise, there would be a 
flare-up. I was present, also, some seven years a<^o, 
and saw the representatives of Switzerland in session! 
Switzerland has a large representation, and I never yet 








CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


81 


saw a representative body as solemn, and orderly and 
reflective, in all my life. 

I say again, Mr. President, I hope this Convention 
will not fall into the error of the old Convention with 
reference to this subject of representation. I hope they 
will show that they are not forgetful of the past, it 
would be very strange, indeed, Mr. President, if we 
had not learned, from the experience of the past, how 
to avoid this error. It would be very strange if we had 
not learned by this time, that the people of Ohio ought 
to be unrestricted in their representation. 

I am in favor, sir, as I have proposed in these resolu¬ 
tions, of fixing one basis of representation—the entire 
population—and ordaining that that shall be a guide 
hereafter. For, I have learned, that, while power is 
apt to be with the few, the right is generally with the 
many. The plan which I have offered proposes to fix 
the population—the entire population—men, women 
and children, all included—as the basis of representa¬ 
tion. I may say, however, that I am not very particu¬ 
lar upon this point. I would not regard as a very great 
matter, a diftereiice of opinion between this and a ba¬ 
sis of the white male population. I say, if such an 
opinion should exist, I should not regard it as repug¬ 
nant to the plan. But I must confess that I do not like 
it—nor I never have—that '' the lords of creation,” 
should forever be placed so far foremost in every thing. 
I always thought it better to keep in view the repre¬ 
sentation of the whole people, and I believe it would 
be useful for every representative to, feel that he repre¬ 
sented not only the men, but the women and children, 
their interests and future wants. I think this would 
be the better policy; but, as I said before, I am not 
very tenacious. I believe, however, that I am right. I 
believe that the whole population should be the basis: 
and with respect to this, 1 believe that the constitution 
of the Unitecl States is vastly wiser in its provisions, 
than any other constitution that has ever yet been 
framed. 

As I said before, I am not veiy tenacious upon this 
point. If it is the pleasure of the Convention to fix 
the basis upon the number of the white male popula¬ 
tion, I shall make no strenuous objections. It is not 
necessary that we should go into details in regard to 
this matter here, but we can fix and settle the general 
principles upon which such representations are based. 
The proposition which I offer, is to settle the princi¬ 
ples of apportionment, and make the basis of popula¬ 
tion irrevocable, and put the power of changing it en¬ 
tirely out of the hands of the Legislature. If we adopt 
this plan, and insert in the constitution, propositions 
such as I offer, or those of a similar character, it pla¬ 
ces the power irrevocably with the people, and no Legisla¬ 
ture will hereafter be able to control its successors and to 
FROWN down public sentiment. If they think proper to do 
so, the public sentiment of Ohio will have an opportu¬ 
nity to express its voice, audit will make itself heard. 
I hope, sir, that we will put no more restraint upon the 
energies, feelings, and sentiments of the people of 
Ohio, and that we will by making the population as 
the basis of representation, declare distinctly the mode 
by which they shall be represented, so that all parts 
of the State, and all its people, may be heard. 

That part of the proposition has been also referred 
to, not only in private conversation, but in a public 
manner—to give to each county one representative. I 
think that those of us residing in the stronger portions 
of the State so far as population is concerned, can well 
afford to be a little generous upon the subject to those 
portions who are denied a representation. I think that 
we who are thus favored in this particular, and are fa¬ 
vored more than all others by the fostering care of gov¬ 
ernment, might have a little generous feeling and give 
to each county this demand at the present time, under 
the existing order of things, a representation. I was 
anxious to see how many counties, which are at pre¬ 
sent denied a voice, would be affected if a represen¬ 
tation should be adopted such as I have suggested: and 

6 


from the statement I have made, I find that there are 
but eight counties that would most likely be affected 
under the plan. The advantage that would accrue to 
them would be in securing four Representatives, to 
which they otherwise might not be entitled—and the 
counties that would be benefited by such an arrange¬ 
ment wouhi be Defiance Henry, Mercer, Ottawa, Aug¬ 
laize, Fulton, Paulding, Putnam, Van Wert. These 
counties, I think, would gain under a new apportion¬ 
ment. Under a fair and equal representation we should 
have a system which w'ould give all the counties a 
more just and liberal representation, and one by which 
they would decidedly gain, by being represented by 
those whose interests would be more identical with 
theirs. They would not, as so often happens under 
the present state of things, be represented by persons 
living out of their neighborhood and district, in a re¬ 
mote part of the county perhaps, but by those whose 
feelings and interests were identical with those by 
whom they were elected. And it would not be long 
before the representation would be equal; and it will 
not be more than ten years before every county in the 
State would have population enough to come here en¬ 
titled to a Representative. I am willing for one, whose 
interests and predilections might be supposed to be 
against such a proposition, representing as I do in part, 
the county of Hamilton, to extend to those counties in 
the State this privilege. 

' I now come to the part of the provision which refers 
to single districts. Permit me to say, Mr. President, 
that so far as I am concerned, the gentleman from 
Franklin, I hope, will have an opportunity to explain 
more fully to this Convention than I possibly can, his 
views upon this question, as he, more than any other 
member of this Convention, has paid attention to this 
particular point. Let me say, however, that when this 
proposition was first made, in the Senate of Ohio, of 
the single district system, I stated on the floor of the 
Senate that I favored it, and why I have been misrep¬ 
resented on this subject, I know not. I was opposed 
to such a system because I believed it to be a violation 
of the constitution, as it then existed, and a violation of 
the compact between the counties and the State, but 
also stated that I was in favor of the principle, and of 
inserting it into the new constitution. I have honestly 
believed in the principle, that the Representative should 
be held directly responsible to his constituents, that 
said Representative should represent a compact and 
distinct body of the people—that he should be made 
directly to feel, that whenever he should disregard the 
wishes of his particular constituents—that he was in 
danger, speaking politically, of having his head chopped 
off. Let each feel himself responsible to a distinct 
constituency. I have often felt the inconvenience of 
double districts, more, perhaps, than any other mem¬ 
ber of the House. I have had to represent various in¬ 
terests, sometimes adverse and dissimilar to those of 
other portions of the county, and yet, at the same time, 
I was regarded under the constitution, as the rep¬ 
resentative of the whole county. The members from 
the city would complain that those from the county 
interfered with their peculiar arrangements, and so the 
members from the county districts would complain of 
the interference of those from the city, with the all lirs 
which immediately interested only their constituents. 
We were, in fact, representatives of a part, and, at the 
same time, of the whole. We were representatives in 
a two-fold character, and we often exercised an undue 
authority and exerted an undue influence. The exer¬ 
cise of our authority was often irksome-—we were 
without a full view of all the circumstances which 
should have governed our action. 

Feeling this difficulty in my own mind, and having 
felt it for a very long period of time, I for one, am wil¬ 
ling to insert a provision in the Constitution for single 
districts. I may say here, also, that there was another 
reason why I was peculiarly averse to the principle of 
the bill that divided Hamilton county, believing, 









82 


CONVENTION REPOHTS. 


honestly, and from a conviction of its justice that the 
principle was a good one. I was afraid that the dis¬ 
honest application of an honest principle would create 
prejudices against the principle itselt. Such has, un¬ 
fortunately, been the case. The single district system- 
has suffer^, not because it is unjust, but because the 
application in this (^Hamilton] county was a violation 
of the constiUition. I may be misrepreseau^ and no 
donbt will be. for bringing forward a proposition here, 
not consistent with my past political course, ^^ uy, 
?ir. I have for a long time honestly believed in the jus¬ 
tice of this proposition, and I am not now afraid to 
meet prejudices which have arisen against it because 
it was dishonestlv applied under the old cDustitution, 
and which I then endeavored to avoid. 

As ret^ards the 8th article of the resolution, which is 
against the making oi any new county, I wiU frankly 
state that 1 drafted that provision wdth a view that no 
new county shall be erected hereafter. I was will¬ 
ing to exclude now counties as far as j^ssible, bui lO 
keep the door open so that wiien a majority of ali the 
peoole of all the counties should deem a change neces- 
sarv, it misht be made. I am ever averse to fixing I 
limits too closely, to contract or to shut oat all chmce j 
of reform. And I would therefore, be in favor of giv¬ 
ing to a majority of voters the power to make such a 
r. hAii gp, if they deemed it necessary The making of a 
new county seat should not be the reason, as it haSj 

heeu_it should be based upon public necessity, and 

such a proposition should receive a majority of all the 
voters. So far. as we in the county of Hamilton, are j 
concerned, we have no feeling upon the subject. 1 
believe that the Representatives of Hamilton have been i 
fomid voting asamst new* counties, on the ground that, 
it created unuecessaiy and expensive legislation; that j 
it mxdtipiied offices ^d consumed a great deal of lime.! 

I will also, Mr. President, now refer to the 7th sec¬ 
tion of the plan before us, according to which the State 
is re-apportioned every five years. The census of the . 
United States now bein? taken forming the basis of 
the first apportionment, and the State census to be pro¬ 
vided for by the General Assembly to be the basis ofi 
the alternate five years. The United States census 
miiht not be as complete as we could desire it. and the 
State census would therefore enable us to obtain such 
additional information as the United States might not 
deem desirable for its purposes. We would thus have 
the advantage of the Unil^ States census every ten i 
years, which would save the expense of taking a State ■ 
census oftener than every ten years, while we would 
have a new apportionment every five years. Let me 
now correct an error, which seems to have taken pos- 
^es^.ion of some men's minds, that under the plan be¬ 
fore us we w'ould have a House of three hundred mem-. 
hers, and a Senate of one hundred and fifty members. 

I have made a calculation based upon the last return 
made to the General Assembly, of the male, white in -' 
habitants in 1847—calculating six inhabitants to one! 
white male inhabitant, and taking a population of thir- j 
tv thousand as a basis for Senatorial representation and! 
fifteen thousand as a basis for the H ^iise. and 1 find 
that it will give ns a House of one hundred and twen¬ 
ty-six Representatives, and a Senate of from sixty-five 
to seventv-five Senatore. 

tMr. R. here i-ead a list of coimties showing that 
fact, and then resumed.] ! 

I acknowledge the calculation to b? a very cursoiy*' 
one which the census, actually to be taken, may chan ire i 
i*^mewhat in detail. In some portions of the State the 
white male inhabitants bear a smalle;, and in some a | 
larger proportion to the whole population; but still tlie i 
calculation is near enoush for the purpc>se I have in' 
view, and it shows conclusively that the pLn before ns ■ 
will not give near as numerous a general assembly as^ 
has been generally supposed, from a mere superficial 
examination of the subject. Should a provision be in¬ 
serted giving a fraction more than three-fourths over 
and above the ratio already designated—an additional 


Senator or Representative—it might increase the num¬ 
ber a trifle. But I am confident that the House would 
in no case consist of a larger number than one hun- 
j dred and fifty, nor the Senate of more than seventy- 
five. Sir, there are few States which have not a num¬ 
ber of Representatives approaching that number, and 
the fact is obrious that the people of Ohio would have 
had less difficulty* if they had had a system of appor 
tionment b}* w*hich they could have increased the num- 
! her of their Representatives. I find in the examination 
of the subject, that most of the counties may remain 
. separate and distinct, and should tbe single dis- 
' trict system be adopted, but few counties w*ould 
I have to be dirided. I find also, that it will not be ue- 
cessar}* to unite many counties in a Senatorial district. 
Some portions of the State will ever be more densely 
popidated than the rest, for obvious reasons; but many 
of tbe thinly settled parts of Ohio will soon have an 
in reased population, and thedifierent portions of the 
Slate w*iil then be more evenly balanced. It will not 
be many years, before, under a self-acting apportion¬ 
ment bill the officer charged with the duty, can figure 
out, in a few hours, a coinect and equal apportionment 
to all parts of Ohio. Tbe people w*iil easily understand 
it, it will become permanent, and all parts will accom¬ 
modate themselves to it. 

Politicians can no longer pre-calculate the chance of 
party success—their cyphering w*ill be rendered nuga¬ 
tory by the results of the census, whose effect? they 
cannot foresee: and this is one of the strongest rea¬ 
sons why I have urged this plan for your considera¬ 
tion. There is not a man in this Convention who can 
pre-calculate the political destinies of Ohio, or the 
bearing the plan will have upon his party, if this sys¬ 
tem is adopted. The voice of the people will be heard 
and politicians will have to square themselves to the 
will of the people, and not the people to an apportion¬ 
ment fixed by politicians. Whatever the phase of pub¬ 
lic opinion may be. it will have a chance for utterance, 
for the population of Ohio will be represented in ail 
its parts and smaller numbers. 

I acknowledge freely that I anticipated great difficul¬ 
ties in putting the plan before us, into practical opera¬ 
tion, but upon examination I found its application 
easier than I expected, and so I have ever found it, for 
the right is ever easier accomplished than the wrong. 
It is a law of nature that the WTong shall find obsta¬ 
cles which the right shall not find I find that the 
State of Ohio is ea-ily divided into Senatorial Districts 
without riolating any of the principles I have stated 
—most of the counties fonning distinct Senatorial dis¬ 
tricts by themselves ,and all tbe counties which will 
have to be pot together being of contiguous territory, 
and haring interests in common, I repeat that I do not 
say my caculation is entirely correct, but sufficiently 
50 to conriuce me that if we meet this question in the 
proper spirit the plan may, after amendment, be easily 
rendered practical. In view then of the principles I 
have stated, and the many reasons I have urged for its 
adoption I hope that gentlemen will not allow them- 
^eves to be led away by their prejudices, and that the 
little increased repesentation will'not prove a finiff ol>- 
stacle to its adoption. A measure securin? so great a 
good to the x>eople of Ohio, should call up' all our bet¬ 
ter feeling and a fixed detcrminatioji to bring it to a fi¬ 
nal accomplishment. Let us then adhere inflexibly to a 
principle which we all admit to be right and in adjus¬ 
ting the details, so arrange it that it may go into easy, 
practical operatior;. If we have the ’will, it can be 
done. 

I may as well, before 1 close, repel the insinuation 
made among some of tbe members, that the plan I have 
advocated has been made \\*ith a view of giving to the 
couuty of Hamilton an undue influence, in cons^nence 
of a large floating population m it. Tbe thought never 
entered my mind 1 am never guided by seotional or 
local feelings of this kind, and I have always endeav¬ 
ored, in aU my political action, to keep clear of them. * 














83 


CONVENTION liEPOKTS. 


I wish population to be the basis, but as I said before, 

I am not at all tenacious about the matter, for I am 
willing, if that wiil prove an obstacle in the way of 
bringing about the desired reform, to throw it up alto¬ 
gether. I hope, sir, that party interest and party feel- i 
mg will be thrown entirely aside in this question, and 1 
that no local feelings will guide us in the discharge ofj 
our duties. ! 


I hope then, in conclusion, that I have established the | 
position that the Legislature should possess no power j 
to make an apportionment, and I think that the prop -1 
ositions I have stated are in their general features cor¬ 
rect and just, and such I believe they would prove to I 
be, when carried out in detaiL Adopt the self acting i 
apportionment provision, and the j>eople of Ohio will j 
have an opportunity to be heard and represented in all j 
the various sections of the State. It is umecessary for 
me to state that propositions, such as these, submitted j 
for the first time, must necessarily be imperfect, and I 
hope and desire, that the matter may be fully examin-! 
ed and so amended that under it. by the law of prog- i 
ress and increase which is continually changing and | 
modifying the structure of society, the people may | 
have a fair chance to develop their resources and en- j 
force their ideas. j 

It is in this spirit that I have submitted my proposi-, 
tion. I deem it to be correct in principle and justi 
in all its parts;—let us then forget our previous 
prejudices—compromising them if need be, but ever • 
steering by the beacon light of right and justice. Then 
the people of Ohio will for the first time in their gov- ? 
emment have a true system of representation, under 
which the past scenes over which we all weep, will be 
forgotten, and only remembered as facts in our history ■ 
which we would all gladly obliterate. Take away' 
the power of apportionment from the General Assem-1 
bly, and you remove one great cause of corruption and' 
prevent that undue excitement which has always been 
attendant upon issues of that kind. Do not stint and | 
cramp a people such as ours, in the number of their, 
representatives and you will have secured to the con-. 
stitution we are about to make an extended existence. I 
Had the framers of the old constitution adopted a simi-' 
lar principle, it would have lasted at least twenty years 


longer. 

Mr. RE EMELIN concluded by saying that he was 
afraid he had troubled the Convention too long, but he 
preferred to malie these remarks at the present time, in 
order to place this matter right before the people. He 
conclude by moving that the proposition under con-; 
sideration be referred to the committee on apportion¬ 
ment, unless some gentleman might desire to make. 
s >me remarks upon it at the present rime. i 

.Mr. SWAN moved that, when the Convention ad-' 
p>um it adjourn until Monday. The object was very! 
ch ar—it was in order that the standing committees] 
mi"ht meet and have an opportunity to proceed with 
the business to come before them. 

The motion was agreed to. j 

.Mr. HAWKINS offered for adoption the following : i 
Resolved, That so much of a resolution heretofore adopted as ; 
requires the journals to be read from the record, be and the same I 
is ^reby rescinded. 

Mr. NASH wished to know how long it would take, 
wnth the- assistance of the additional clerk, to bring np 
*he record. The object in bringing up this record to ! 
be read, was that its correctness might be tested by' 
the Convention ' 

The PRESIDENT said he was informed that it would 
require ten days. 


Mr. HAWKINS said that he had introduced this re¬ 
solution in vriew of the law that had been passed in 
1837-8 or 9, in relation to this subject. It had been 
suggested by gentlemen that it would be more proper 
to have the journal corrected on the motion of mem¬ 
bers. Under the present rule, corrections would not 
be made until the proceedings had been entered on 
the journal, consequently we would have a murilated 


journal. He moved to rescind that, in order that error* 
might be corrected on the loose sheets. There would 
theref jre, be no need of their being corrected on the 
record—it was merely to avoid the mutilation of the 
journal after the proceedings had been entered on the 
record. 

Mr. S.\WYER desired to know from the gentleman 
from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] or some other member, 
why it was that they could not have the previous day’s 
proceedings printed and laid on their tables every 
morning. Such had been the case in other bodies, f.nd 
he believed in the Legislature of Ohio. If it were pos¬ 
sible to print and lay on each member’s table the pro¬ 
ceedings had yesterday, it ought to be done, because 
this was a very important Convention, ano it was im¬ 
portant to him and to every member that they should 
be correctly represented. 

Mr. HAWKINS thought that it would be impracti 
cable after a long sitting here, to have the reports, jour¬ 
nal. (fcc.. See., made out, printed, and laid on members 
tables on the next morning. The reporters had to 
transcribe a great portion of the journal in making up 
their reports, after the Convention adjourned. To 
have the reports. Sec., printed by the next morning, 
seemed to him impracticable. 

Mr. SAWYER inquired if the gentle man were in¬ 
formed by a printer or any one else. 

Mr .HAWKINS. No. 

Mr. Sawyer knew that in Congress, in the morn¬ 
ing, the proceedings of the previom day were laid on 
the tables at the commencement of the session. They 
met in Congress at 12 o’clock M., we meet at 10 o’clock 
A. M. They ought to doit in this Convention. It was 
at least worthy of an effort on the part of sentlemen 
who had attended to the subject more than he had. If 
it could be done in Congress, he did not see why it 
could not be done here. They had the State printer 
who was an efficient officer in all respects; he could do 
it. If it could be done it ought. 

Mr. NASH had supposed that the moment they 
adopted standing rules on the matter, there was an end 
of it. 

The PRESIDENT remarked, that the resolution of¬ 
fered was to rescind that part of the rules which re¬ 
required the reading of the book containing the journal 
of the previous day’s proceedings. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD observed, that it appeared to him 
to be perfectly correct in principle. He suggested 
that it would be better to appoint a committee to ex¬ 
amine into the entire record. , 

Mr. LARSH moved that the resolntion be referred 
to a select committee of three, with instructions to re¬ 
port a rule on the subject. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. CAHILL presented the following resolution for 
adoption: 

Resolved, Thai the BDl of Rights be so antended as to &3rm 
the rights of the people b j their Eepre-sentatiTes in the General 
Asseribiy convened, to alter, amend or repeal any law of the State, 
whenever the public good may require it. 

Resolved, lliat the ^sumption by the Legislature, of die pow. 
er to enact laws which a subsequent Legisktnre cannot ^ter, 
amend or repeaL fr at war whh the principles of Republican gov- 
emment, and subversive of liberty. 

The resolnrion being adopted, 

Mr. CHAMBERS then moved that it be referred to 
the committee of the whole Convention; which was 
agreed to. 

Mr- LEECH offered the following: 

Resolved, That the standin? -cmimittee “on Corporationfi, other 
than corporations for banking.” be instructed to inquire into the 
expediency of sc amending the constitutioa cd" this as to 

prohibit the Legislatare from creaang any corporatiaoLS oy spe¬ 
cial laws. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to amend by srriking oat 

the words •• speckd laws.” 

Mr. HOLMES moved that the resolution and pend¬ 
ing amendment be refeiretl to the “committee on Cor¬ 
porations other than for ba nki n g .” 

Mr. COLLINGS said that before the question was 











84 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


put, he would raise a point of order—under the rules 
they were required to submit every proposition to the 
Convention before they were referred to a committee. 
He took it that every proposition submitted to the Con¬ 
vention should be presented in the form of a distinct 
positive or negative proposition. 

The PRESIDENT said the question was one on 
which the Chair could not decide. The Chair would 
suppose the presentation of a proposition a suflicient 
compliance with the rules. 

Mr. LARSH could see no possible good to result 
from referring propositions, without discussion, to se¬ 
lect committees. The object of debate on proposi¬ 
tions submitted to the Convention was to produce an 
expression of opinion, which would guide or influence 
the committees in determining upon the subjects re¬ 
ferred to them. He thought the best plan to effect that 
expression of opinion would be to refer propositions to 
the committee of the whole, where they would be fully 
debated. Thus the committee in charge of the several 
departments could obtain some knowledge of the 
views of members on the different projmsitions referred 
to them. He therefore moved that the resolution be 
referred to the committee of the whole. 

Mr. CPIAMBERS was opposed to referring the reso¬ 
lution to the committee of the whole. He thought that 
the resolution wore on its face an object pertinent to 
the business which they came here to transact, and that 
it was entirely consistent with the rules of the Conven¬ 
tion. He considered that the rule requiring that every 
proposition should be brought before, and considered 
by the Convention, was perfectly fulfilled by offering 
it and naming the committee to which it was desired it 
should be referred. In his opinion, it would not be at 
all proper to go into a committee of the whole on every 
proposition presented. But if a gentleman desired 
that the Convention should go into committee of the 
whole, on a proposition, he could say so. He thought, 
however, that it would be better in all cases to let pro¬ 
positions go, in the first instance, to the appropriate 
committee; afterward, if it wex'e desirable, the Con¬ 
vention could consider them in the committee of the 
whole. 

Mr. LEECH said that it would be observed that the 
resolution which he had submitted was one of inquiry, 
and was addressed to a committee—the “ committee 
on Corporations other than for banking." He regarded 
tnis resolution as merely directory, its object being to 
direct the attention of the committee to a reform 
which he desired to have incorporated in the constitu¬ 
tion. Such being the case, he could not see the propri¬ 
ety of referring it to a committee of the whole. Why 
not permit the resolution to go directly to the appro¬ 
priate committee ? 

Mr. GREEN of Ross, understood the question before 
the house to be on referring to the committee of the 
whole. He was opposed to this system of referring 
every proposition to the committee of the whole. He 
did not know what would become of those single 
propositions, after the committee to which they should 
have been severally referred, had made their reports. 
It would be useless after the departments to which 
those isolated propositions legitimately belonged, had 
reported, to bring up the report of the select commit¬ 
tee on these single propositions. Those subjects might 
come up as amendments, but no one supposed that 
they would get a separate and distinct consideration. 

Mr. MITCHELL said that the great reason why 
propositions were referred to the committee of the 
whole was to afford an opportunity to have them dis¬ 
cussed, and to furnish the committees with the reasons 
which led them to certain conclusions. Why were 
they here gathered to the number of one hundred and 
eight men ? To come to one final, united conclusion. 
And why were there so many together ? Certainly to 
interchange views—to hear the reasons which opera¬ 
ted on each other’s mind, and which led them to a cer¬ 
tain conclusion. 


Here they commenced the work—here were they 
at the great work that was to occupy a great portion 
of the time of this body. Now the subject submitted 
to the Convention was one of the important subjects 
on which the public had much feeling, and desired 
that this Convention should act advisedly and appro¬ 
priately concerning it. 

He would offer to the Convention the reason why he 
had submitted his amendment. He was opposed to 
all positive corporations, so called. He was opposed 
to what they called private corporations in a republi¬ 
can government. He could occupy a considerable 
time in offering his reasons, but he did not consider it 
expedient to do so now. There was one reason how¬ 
ever, which satisfactorily settled this in his mind. The 
popularity of these corporations had grown up from 
causes entirely different from those oj)erating in their 
creation now. In modern times the incorporation gi¬ 
ven to such combinations of men was exclusively mu¬ 
nicipal ; obtiuned from absolute powers from, proba¬ 
bly, despotic governments; and hence, every privilege 
that was secui’cd to any particular portion^ of the peo¬ 
ple, were so many privileges obtained from that power 
which claimed all privilege and all power. 

A slight interruption here took place on a point of 
order, but was decided in favor of 

Mr. MITCHELL, who said—he was calling the at¬ 
tention of the Convention to the historical fact, that the 
popularity of corporations grew up under a state of 
things entirely diHerent from what we were living un¬ 
der—entirely antagonistic. Then, the doctrine was that 
all power concentrated in the crown; now it was dif¬ 
ferent—they claimed that all power emanated from the 
people, and was concentrated in them, and was only 
abridged in proportion as they gave it up to their gov¬ 
ernment, for the good of the whole. Why, then, should 
governments grant special privileges to bodies of men. 
It was giving that which they should not give—it was 
conferring privileges which it was never designed they 
should confer. The incorporation of bodies of men, 
with special privileges, was the arraying of combina¬ 
tions against individuals. In his opinion the duty of 
government was not to protect combinations against 
the individual, but to protect the individual against 
combinations. These were the reasons, in part, why 
he was opposed to corporations altogether; and he was 
opposed to the Convention encouraging any corpora¬ 
tions, because he believed it was a wrong done to in¬ 
dividual freedom. 

Mr. HOLMES observed that it would be perceived 
by the Convention that if arguments should be made 
bn a motion to go into a committee of the whole, going 
into the merits of subjects—those matters would be 
discussed half a dozen times before they would be cal¬ 
led on properly to consider them. He onJy alluded to 
the matter in order to call attention to the amount of 
discussion evolved by persons introducing resolutions 
on the spur of the moment. There should be one 
speech here on the reference—another in the committee 
ot the whole, aixd then again other speeches when it 
came into the Convention. It would be best, in his 
opinion, that prnpositions should go to one of the stand¬ 
ing committees, for they would examine it clearly; and 
it would also save lime. There would be an ample 
opportunity afterwards to discuss the subjects, and for 
the members of the Convention to explain their motives 
in relation to their action on the matters brought before 
them. He did not wish it to be understood by his vote 
now, that he was in favor of corporations. 

Mr. HAWKINS remarked that as he understood the 
nature of the proposition, it was a resolution instruct¬ 
ing the committee to make an inquiry. He supposed 
that it involved a serious question. He considered the 
resolution involved no question necessary to authorize 
its being sent to the committee of the whole. It was 
merely a naked inquiry. 

Mr. BATES supposed that the rule did not require 
that a mere resolution of inquiry should be sent to the 









CONVENTION llEPOETS. 


85 


committee of the whole. The committee of the whole 
was the appropriate reference for resolutions contain¬ 
ing distinct propositions. 

The cuiestion being on the reference of the resolu¬ 
tion and pending amendment, to the committee of the 
whole, the question was put and negatived. 

The ciuestionthen being on referring the resolution to 
the committee on Corporations, the motion to refer 
was agreed to. 

Mr. FARR offered the following, which, on motion, 
was referred to the committee on Finance and Taxa¬ 
tion : 

Resolved, That the committee on Finance and Taxation be 
instructed to inquire into the expediency of so framing the con¬ 
stitution ns to require the Legislature to tax State stocks held by 
i ndividuals within the State, the same as other evidences of debt. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. I move that the Conven¬ 
tion take a recess. 

Mr. SWAN moved that the Convention atliourn, but 
withdrew the motion at the request of Mr. Hunt, who 
offered the following resolution which was adopted : 

Resolved, That the committee on the Legislative department 
inquire into the expediency of a provision in the new constitu¬ 
tion, making all judges of the courts of this State ineligible to elec¬ 
tion to any other office while upon the bench. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved that the Convention now 
adjourn, but withdrew the motion at the request of 
Mr. Smith of Warren, on whose motion the Convention 
took a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. ORTON. I desire to withdraw the resolution 
which I offered this morning, and oiler the following 
as a substitute. 

Leave was granted. 

Resolved, That the committee on Elective Franchise be instruct¬ 
ed to inquire into the expediency of conferring the right of suf¬ 
frage upon foreigners who shall have i-esided in the State of Ohio 
one year, and have taken the oath of allegiance. 

Mr. ORTON. I move that the resolution be referred 
to the committee on the Elective I'h'anchise. My 
object in presenting this resolution, is to direct the at¬ 
tention of that committee to the single principle invol¬ 
ved. This resolution does that without including any¬ 
thing else, the former resolution did not. 

The motion to refer was agreed to. 

Mr. OTIS. I beg to offer the following resolution, 
and move its reference to the committee on Legisla¬ 
tive Department: 

Resolved, That it is expedient so to amend the constitution, that 
no person elected to the General Assembly shall be eligible to the 
Senate of the U. S., or to any civil or judicial office within this 
State, or shall be appointed by the Governor ^or General As¬ 
sembly, to any office or agency to which a pecuniary compensa¬ 
tion is attached, during the time for which he shall have been 
elected—and all such appointments of, and all votes given for 
any such member, to or for such office or agency, shidl be void. 

And so lurther to amend the constitution, that no divorce shall 
be granted by the General Assembly. 

Also the following: 

Resolved, That it is expedient so to amend the constitution as 
to provide therein for a sinking fund for the payment of the pub¬ 
lic debt within a period not to exceed twenty years from the adop¬ 
tion of the proposed constitution ; an'd that the stocks or public 
debt of the State be not subject to taxation. 

Mt. OTIS moved that the resolution be referred to 
the committee on Taxation and Finance. Agreed to. 

Mr. LARSH wished that some member would tell 
him what was gained by this course of receiving reso¬ 
lutions and sending them to committees, without any 
expression of opinion having been had. He under¬ 
stood that propositions were presented to the Conven¬ 
tion for the purpose of giving the members of the com¬ 
mittees some expression of opinion on which they 
might act in the committee. He thought they were 
doing no good by pursuing such a course. 

Mr. OTIS in reply said: The object in offering 
these resolutions and asking that they be referred was 
to bring the subjects before the several standing com¬ 
mittees, so that they might have them before the com¬ 
mittee before they made a report. If the resolutions 
thus referred to them, were not adopted by the com¬ 


mittee as a part of the reports they should make, it 
would then be competent for the members wi.-jhing to 
have principles of their resolutions engrafted into the 
constitution, to exjiress their opinions before the com¬ 
mittee of the whole, in which those reports of the stand¬ 
ing committees would be debated. It was with that 
view, and that the propositions should not be debated 
over again, that the reference was moved. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. NASH moved that the Convention adjourn. 

Mr. LEADBETTER hoped that the motion would 
be withdrawn for a moment, as he wished to bring a 
matter of business before the Convention. He hoped 
that before they went any farther they would settle 
the question relative to the number of assistants to be 
allowed to the Official Reporter. They ought to settle 
it before they went into their regular business. Better 
settle it this afternoon than to take up another day in 
relation to it. 

Mr. NASH again moved that the Convention adjourn. 

Mr. MASON. I will ask the gentleman to withdraw 
his motion for a few moments. 

Mr. NASH. I will withdraw. 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. 

Mr. MASON. 1 will ask this body to have the cour¬ 
tesy to take notice of a paragraph in a newspaper. It 
will be recollected by honorable gentlemen, that I sub¬ 
mitted some remarks yesterday morning to the Con¬ 
vention on the subject of the resolution offered by the 
gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] in relation 
to obtaining the copy right in our debates and proceed¬ 
ings, in conformity with the law under which we are 
now assembled. Whatever I said on that occasion, I 
suppose, (I do not know the fact,) according to the 
usage here, was reported by the official Reporter to 
this body. The remarks then made, I suppose, will 
appear in the journals of this city, probably this even¬ 
ing, as I understand that is the practice. I have not 
seen that report, nor have I any desire to see it before 
publication. When it is read by the public, I think the 
people will be surprised in not being able to detect or 
find any foundation, in all the remarks I made, for the 
paragraph that I find in the leading editorial of the 
Statesman of last evening. I refer to this paragraph in 
that editorial: 

“ The very low and contemptible insinuations of Samp¬ 
son Mason, this morning, carefully as they were ex¬ 
pressed, showed at once what had been lurking under¬ 
neath plausible exteriors since the subject of jirinting 
was first broached on the second day of the session.” 

I have no recollection, sir, in these remarks of ha¬ 
ving made any allusion, and, therefore, of having made 
any insinuation to the prejudice, or the interest, or the 
character of this paper, [the Statesman.] I do not 
now recollect that it was at all in my mind in anything 
that I thought proper to submit to the consideration of 
this body in those remarks. I of course was taken 
with surprise to see this paragraph. And, I am free to 
admit, I felt somewhat mortified at finding my name 
in connection with the language here employed. 

It is said the insinuations were “ low,” and not only 

low,” but “ wry low’'—that they were “contempti¬ 
ble.” And, of all the gentlemen on this floor, my name 
alone was singled out, to be made prominent as he ob¬ 
ject of a most extraordinary, of an unjustifiable andim 
defensible attack. If the author of that paragraph 
knew myself and my heart as well as I trust I do, h© 
would not have been provoked to have jienned any 
thing in the paragraph to which I have referred. I 
never in my life, had the slightest controversy, personal 
or otherwise, with the editor of the fetatesman. I have 
not made a remark, or submitted a motion, touching 
the question of printing, with which his name has been 
connected, so far as 1 remember, during the sitting of 
this Convention. I have abstained from making a re¬ 
mark, or making a motion, during the entire of the de¬ 
bate some of which has been more or less exciting; I 
liave remained in my seat, satisfied to do so, knowing 











86 


CONVENTION llEPORTS 


tliat the subject was one of great delicacy and difficul¬ 
ty. I have, with iny own consent sat silently in iny 
place, only Voting on such propositions as were sub¬ 
mitted to the Convention, entirely willing and desirous 
to keep on the outside of a difficult and exciting ques¬ 
tion. I do not wish—(though I might possibly be ex¬ 
pected; andl trust not,however)—I do notwish to indulge 
in any severity of language in reply. I desired to say 
this as this paragraph will be read by my constituents, 
and by many men with whom I am acquainted. I was 
sorry that my name should be singled out. I wish that 
my obscurity had been my protection, but it seems 
otherwise. I was unwilling that my constituents should 
understand, from this article, that 1 had humbled my¬ 
self and so deported myself as to subject me to the ex¬ 
traordinary language, for it is extraordinary certainly, 
when applied to myself, that is applied to me in this 
article. Very sincerely I thank the gentlemen of the 
Convention for allowing me the opportunity of making 
this explanation. 

Mr. MANON begged leave to say that he had been 
called upon by one of the assistant clerks, to whom 
he had alluded in the morning, who had informed him 
that he was not absent, and had now got his work 
'‘brought up ” all satisfactorily. That was sufficient 
for him to know. He had perhaps been misinformed 
on the subject, and now willingly made the explana¬ 
tion, that the clerk might not be in any manner mis¬ 
represented. 

Mr. NASH renewed his motion that the Convention 
adjourn, which was agreed to. 


MONDAY, May 20, 1850.—10 a. m. 

Mr. COOK. I have in my hands a petition signed by 
102 citizens of Randolph, in the county of Portage, which 
I desire to be read, “ asking that the new constitution 
may accprd to all the members of our commonwealth, 
equal rights, political and social, without regard to sex 
or color.” 

Mr. SAWYER. I wish to say one word. I object to 
this, and all similar petitions, and shall continue to do 
so, and if gentlemen are desirous of saving time, they 
may cease pi'esenting their negro petitions, for they are 
of that class of petitions which I consider an inoult to 
the freemen of Ohio. There are some things that I 
hold that even a white man has no right to petition for. 
I will not take up the time of the Convention by cal¬ 
ling the yeas and nays. 

The question being upon the reception of the peti¬ 
tion it was agreed to and referred to the committee on 
“Elective Franchise.” 

Mr. COOK. I have another petition, which I wish to 
jiresent, signed by 27 inhabitants of tlie same town, a 
little different in character from the other one I presen¬ 
ted. I call for its reading and move that it be referred 
to the committee on Elective Franchise. 

The petition was accordingly referred. 

Mr. THOMPSON. IVIr. President, I desire to presen- 
a petition similar to the one just offered. It is signed by 
some sixty or seventy persons. I know them very well, 
they are my neighbors, and very sensible persons. I 
move that it be referred to the committee on Elective 
Franchise. 

The petition was accordingly referred to thatcommit- 

tee. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I have another of a similar char¬ 
acter. It is this, that equal rights should be secured 
to all the citizens of our commonwealth irrespective of 
complexion or I’ace. I move its reference to the com¬ 
mittee on Elective Franchise. 

Referred as above. 

Mr. STANTON desired to have a correction made 
in the reports of the Convention on the 10th inst. In 
his remarks of that date, he was made to say, “ allude 
to future posterity,” it should be, “future generations.” 
At the close of another paragraph he was made to say, 
“eventure,” the word used was “ensue.” He made 
this mention, not to reflect upon the reporter; under 


the circumstances he was surprised at the correctness 
of the reports. , , - 

xMr. HUMPHREVILLE did not see why we should 
have anything to do with the errors in the Journal edi¬ 
tion of the reports. If it was the reportof the proceed¬ 
ings published by the printer to the Convention, then 
we might have a control over it, but as we have not, 
he saw no necessity for the course suggested. 

Leave was granted to have the corrections made. 

Mr. MASON. I hold in my hands papers, being me- 
morials from a body known,! think, as the Green I lain, 
Ohio, Yearly Meeting of Friends. One ol them prays 
that the right of suffrage may be extended to all our 
people, without respect to sex or color, and the other 
one includes that idea, and further “to eradicate and 
put an end to all violence and bloodshed,” and especi¬ 
ally it does not recognize any power in the execution 
of municipal law. 1 ask to lay these upon the table, 
and I move that they be referred, one of them, to the 
committee on Suffrage, and the other to the committee 
on the Legislative Department. 

The memorial in regard to the rights of suffrage, 
was referred to the standing committee on Elective 
Franchise. 

The memorial signed by Samuel C. Howell, and Su¬ 
sanna Brown, asking that the new constitution may 
guarantee the privileges and immunities ot citizenship 
to all persons, without regard to sex or color, was re- 
feiTed to the committee on the Legislative De})artment. 

Mr. HAWKINS, from the select committee to which 
was referred a resolution relative to transci ibing the 
journal of this Convention, submitted the following re¬ 
port : 

“ The select committee to which was referred a resolution re¬ 
scinding so much ol the resolution herofore adopted as re¬ 
quires the journals of this Convention to be “read from the 
record ” have considered the subject and now report, that in 
their opinion, it will be a more certain means of securing a 
perfect and accurate record of the journals, to have them read 
and corrected as now required by the third standing rule; 
and that after they shall have been so read and coiTCCted, they 
shall be accurately transcribed in a book of record. The com¬ 
mittee therefore recommend that the resolution heretofore passed 
relating to that subject, be rescinded. That the Secretary of this 
Convention be required to cause the journals (after reading and 
correction) to be accuretely transcribed into a book of record, 
and that there shall be a standing committee appointed whose du¬ 
ty it shall be, to compare the record with the journal, and see that 
tlie transcribing is accurately done.” 

The report was agreed to. 

Mr. CFIAMBERS I offer for adoption the follow¬ 
ing. 

“ Resolved, That the committee on the Legislative Department 
inquire into the expediency of providing that the printhig of the 
laws, journals, bills and other legislative documents lor each 
branch of the Legislature, be let, by contract, to the lowest res¬ 
ponsible bidder, by the Secretary, Treasurer, and Auditor of 
State, the contract to continue for three legislative terms. ” 

Agreed to. 

Mr. CAHILL. I offer for adoption the following : 

“ Resolved, That the standing committee on Finance and Taxa¬ 
tion be requested to inquire into the expediency of so amending 
the constitution that all moneys in this State whether invested in 
State Bonds, Banks, Rail Roads or any other incorporations be 
taxed the same as the Farmer, Mechanic and Merchant are taxed. ” 

Agreed to. 

Mr. GRAHAM. 1 offer for adoption the following: 
“ Resolved, That the committee on the Judiciary give consider¬ 
ation to the following suggestions, to wit: 

1. The propriety of providing tor county courts with exclu¬ 
sive jurisdiction of Probate and testamentary business, with such 
further civil and criminal jurisdiction as may be thought proper. 

2. A provision with a view to a more summary and less expen¬ 
sive mode of disposing of criminal business. 

3. The expediency of abolishing the office of Associate Judge. 

4. The election of Judges and Clerks by the people. 

5. The policy of creating as few tribunals as possible, so ar¬ 
ranged that they will be efficient and will receive a speedy ad¬ 
ministration of justice and with as little departure from the pres¬ 
ent system as practicable. ” 

Agreed to, 

Mr. BARBEE. 1 ofler for adoption tlie following : 
Resolved, That the committee on Public Debts and Pubhc 
Works inquire into and report on the expediency of incorpora- 
ing into the constitution a provision that every law authorizing 












CONVENTION REPORTS 


87 


I ho borrowing ot money, or issuing State stock, whereby a debt 
hiUl be created or increased, on the credit of the State, shall 
-specify the object for which the money shtdl l)e appropriated and 
ihat every such law shall embrace no more than one such object, 
which shall be single and specitically stated and that no such law 
'hall take effect until it shall be distinctly submitted to the people 
at the next general election, and be approved of by a majority of 
the votes cast for or agiiinst it at such election. That all money 
to be raised by the authority of such law, to be applied to the 
specific object stated in such law, and to no other purpose what¬ 
ever.—This provision shall not extend or apply to any law to 
raise money for the purpose of suppressing insurrection, repell¬ 
ing hostile invasion, or defending the State in war, 

Agreed tt). 

]\Ir. CASE of Licking. I offer the following for 
adoption: 

Resolved, That the committee on the Preamble and Bill of 
Rights be instructed to inquire into the propriety of engi'afting in¬ 
to the Bill of Rights the following guarantees : 

That every person is entitled to hold a reasonable amount of 
real and personal estate exempt from forced sales for debts hete- 
alter contracted. 

That no person shall ever be arrested or imprisoned for debt. 

Mr. ARCHBOLI). I move to amend the resolution 
by striking out “ Preamble and Bill of Rights,” and 
inserting “Jurisprudence.,’ It seems to me that this 
disposition ol the matter would be a better one. 

Mr. CASE. 1 would much prefer that it should go 
to the committee indicated in the rc'solution, although I 
ain not very tenacious about it. I think it more appro¬ 
priately belongs to that committee. If the gentleman 
can assign any reason why it should belong to the com¬ 
mittee on Jurisprudence, and not the committee on the 
Preamble and Bill of Rights, why I should be glad to 
hear it. 

A vote being then taken upon Mr. Archbold’s 
amendment, the same was disagreed to. 

The question being then taken upon,the adoption of 
the original resolution, it was agreed to. 

Mr. DORSEY. I otfer for adoption the following, 
which I wish read : 

1. Resolved, That the committee on the Judiciary be instructed 
to mquire into the expediency of so amending the constitution 
as to prevent the legislature of this State passing any law impo¬ 
sing fines or penalties in money as a punishment for crime. 

2 Resolved, That the committee on the Bill of Rights be in¬ 
structed to inquire into the q)ropriety of inserting in said Bill the 
provision following : 

That all elections shall be free and equal, and that no property 
qualification for eligibility to office or for the right of suffrage 
shall ever be required in this State. 

The resolutions were adopted. 

Mr. GREGG. I offer for adoption the following: 

‘^ Resolved, That no increase of the public debt of the State of 
Ohio, over and above the sum of fifty thousand dollars, shall 
ever take place without a vote of the people in favor of said in¬ 
crease—and in submitting the question to a vote of the people, 
the proposition or law so submitted shall contain a distinct clause 
for a tux to be levied for the payment of said debt to be contract¬ 
ed.” 

On motion of Mr. ROBERTSON, the resolution was 
referred to the standing committee on “ Public Debts and 
Public Works.” 

Mr. GRAY. I offer the following I'or adoption. 

Resolved, That the new constitution be so framed as to re¬ 
quire the passage of a law prohibiting any officer connected with 
tlie administration of justice in this tltate, from aiding in the ar¬ 
rest or detention of any person claimed as a fugitive from slave¬ 
ry or involuntary service.” 

Mr. MITCHELL. I move to amend the resolution 
by inserting at the end thereof, “ That such oflicers of 
tne State of Ohio hereal'ter shall not be required to 
take an oath to support the constitution of the United 
States.” 

Mr. SAWYER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
passage of the resolution. I want to see whether we 
uce willing to engraft in our new constitution such a 
{ ulpable violation of the constitution of the United 
States. And therefore I ask the yeas and nays. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I withdraw the amendment I 
edered. 

Mr. NASH. I move that the resolution be referred 
to the committee on the “Legislative Department.” 

Mr. LARSH. I would suggest whether it would uot 


be better to refer it to the “ Omnibus Committee,” or 
the Committee on Miscellaneous Matters. 

Mr. LARSH. I would agree to the amendment that 

it should go to the committee on matters and things in 
general. 

Mr. GREEN. I have no objection to vote for the 
passage of the resolution if put into a different shape, 
if made a resolution of inquiry, I will go for it. 

The question being taken upon referring the resolu¬ 
tions to the standing committee on miscellaneous sub¬ 
jects and propositions, the same was disagreed to 

Mr. ARCH BOLD said that he did not wish to make 
his appearance on that stage too often, but he bespoke 
the kind attention of the Convention, promising to be 
brief. It was at least doubtful whether the resolution 
was not in direct conflict with the constitution of the 
United States. That constitution provides that fugi¬ 
tives shall uot be discharged in consequence of State 
regulations, but shall be delivered up. It might well 
be contended that this provision imposed a duty on the 
State to deliver up. But he was not bound to disclose 
whether, as a member of the Genei’al Assembly, he 
would be for or against such a measure embodied in 
an Assembly act. But if proper to be enacted at all, it 
was proper to be enacted by the discretion of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly. It was a piece of minute legislation. 
The Assembly could mould its provisions to suit pub¬ 
lic opinion and the evervarying and unforeseen exi¬ 
gencies of the commonwealth. The Convention was 
about to frame a constitution, a law of laws, a law to 
the law-making power. Such an instrument ought to 
contain the great general principles of liberty and se¬ 
curity, and ought to contain nothing else. If this body 
should descend into the work of minute legislation, a 
large portion of the electors would be disgusted—the 
instrument proposed would be rejected, would fall still¬ 
born from their hands, or if accepted would only lin¬ 
ger out a short, sickly existence, in consequence of 
these doses of slow poison, administered at its birth. 
He thought the same objection would apply to several 
of the propositions which they had heard on the floor 
this morning. One was, that there should never be 
imprisonment for d; bt in this State. The old constitu¬ 
tion contained a benevolent, and, he thought, a suffi¬ 
cient provision in favor of unfortunate debtors. Under 
that provision the Assembly had long ago abolished 
imprisonment for debt. Indeed it might well be ar¬ 
gued that imprisonment for debt had never existed in 
Ohio. Our laws had never gone further than to furnish 
the means of compelling insolvent or unwilling debt¬ 
ors to give an account of their transactions on oath. 
The honest debtor had sufficient protection under our 
present laws. Did gentlemen wish this Convention to 
give an intimation to the Assembly to go further and 
protect the dishonest and the fraudulent ? 

He warned the Convention that thei'e was danger in 
these minute intermeddlings. They might be disposed 
at present to give the wildest license to men, who had 
got the property of others in their hands and were in¬ 
clined to set the laws of morality at defiance. Public 
sentiment might change. Some years hence the pub¬ 
lic might think that evasive and unwilling debtors 
ought to be compelled to render a schedule and give 
an account of their doings, under the responsibility of 
an oath. If such shouldi be the case, did they wish to 
forestall the operation of public sentiment by a consti¬ 
tutional provision ? Some things ought to be left to the 
discretion of posterity. A statute could be altered, 
amended, modified, repealed, or re-enacted, as the ex¬ 
igencies of the State and the vai’iations of public sen¬ 
timent might demand, without a subversion of the fun¬ 
damental laws. A constitution, moreover, was an un¬ 
wieldy instrument for minute legislation. It could not 
descend into ])articulars, so as to explain itself suffi¬ 
ciently, without intolerable pi'olixity. 

There was still another objection to the resolution. 
It commands a future General Assembly to pass a stat¬ 
ute Where was the sanction in case of refusal? Such 








88 


CONVENTION KEPOETS. 


refusals had already taken place on this continent. Sup¬ 
pose the members prove refractory, how would t^iey 
punish them ? Was it proper, was it decorous, to issue 
commands without the power to enforce obedience? 
Every individual blushed for himself, when he had 
been found guilty of such an indiscretion. 

Stern and severe judgments had already been passed 
here upon the motives and conduct of former legisla¬ 
tive bodies, without much allowance for human frailty 
or imperfection. Their own conduct would soon have 
to pass through a similar ordeal. They were never 
more likely to expose themselves to the severity of 
criticism than when they invaded the province of the 
ordinary legislature. 

Mr. SWAN. I move to lay the resolution upon the 
table; which was agreed to. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I offer for adoption the following : 

Resolved, That the committee on the Preamble and Bill of 
Rights, he instructed to inquire into the expediency of recogni¬ 
zing in said bill the right to pecuniary redress for injuries result¬ 
ing from the manufacture and sale of spirituous liquors. 

Which was adox)ted. 

Mr. FORBES. I offer for adoption the following : 

Resolved, That the committee on the Legislative Department be 
instructed to inquire into the expediency of so amending the con¬ 
stitution as to prevent any person who denies the existence of a 
God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, from holding 
any office in the civil department of this State. 

Which was disagreed to. 

APPORTIONMENT. 

Mr. BROWN of Athens. I wish lo offer the resolu¬ 
tion in relation to the apportionment, in connection 
with a resolution already offered and referred, and I 
wish that this may take the same direction. I think 
that the former resolutions were committed to a com¬ 
mittee of the whole Convention. 

Resolved, That as a mode of carrying into effect a per¬ 
manent self-acting scheme of apportionment of members of 
the General Assembly without Legislative mtervention, it is ex¬ 
pedient to provide in the constitution, that it be made the dut}^ 
of the Secretary of State (or other proper officer) immediately 
on the completion of each successive census, to divide the 
whole number of counties into the total number of population m 
the State, for an average ratio ; and that thei’e be allowed one 
Representative to each county containing said ratio, or a fraction 
not less than half thereof, and one additional Representative to 
each county containing twice said ratio, and tu'o additional Rep¬ 
resentatives to any county containing three and a-half times said 
ratio, and three additional Representatives to any county con 
taining five times said ratio or upwards; and that any county 
containing less'than half said ratio, shall elect with an adjoining 
county, tmtil by increase entitled to a separate Representative; 
and that it be made the duty of the Board of Commi^ioners of 
any county or city, ehtitled to two or more Representatives, to 
divide such county-or city into a corresponding number of Rep¬ 
resentative districts, as nearly equal as may l)e without dividing 
wards or townships therein, and to certify the same immediately 
to the Secretary of State; and tliat there be allowed one Senator 
to each city or county containing not less than two, nor less than 
three Representative disbicts, and one Senator to every two, and 
not exceeding three Representative disti'icts, composed of one or 
more entire counties contiguous and most convenient and adapted 
to each other ; the Senatorial districts to be consecutively num¬ 
bered, and never to exceed half the number of Representative 
districts, and no city or county exclusive of such city to have 
more than one Senator. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. I move that the 
resolutions be laid on the table and printed, in order 
ihat we may examino them. Agreed to. 

Mr. CLARK. I have a resolution which 1 wish to 
offer for adoption: 

“ Resolved, That this Convention adopt the following as a part 
of the constitution of this State : 

BANKING. 

Skction 1. It .shall be the duty of the Legislature, at its first 
session after the adoption of this constitution, to pass a general 
banking law, open to all alike, the bills to be registered and the 
bill holders made safe. The present cxistin banks shall be al¬ 
lowed to continue business only upon condition that they organ¬ 
ize under such law, or consent that their capital and property 
be taxed the saiiie as the capital and property of individuals.— 
Such law shall require all banks after 1853 to pay three-fourths 
gold coin on redeeming its bills if requested. None but a gen¬ 
eral law shall hereafter be passed authorizing banking in this 
State. 

Section 2. At the election when this constitution is submit¬ 
ted to the people, each voter may vote “/ar hanks" or “ against 


hanks ” jupon his ticket, and if there is a majority who vote “/or 
banks," the above section shall stand as apart of this constitution, 
but if a majority shall vote “ against hanks," the above section 
shall stand qualified as follows : that after the year 1851, no bank 
in this State shall make, issue or pay out any bill of a denomina¬ 
tion less than $5 ; after 1852, none less than $10 ; after 1853, none 
less than $20 ; after 1854, none less than $50 : after 1858, none 
less than $100; and after 1864, none of any denomination what¬ 
ever, after which period no banks of issue shall be allowed in this 
State. Also, after that period the paper money or bills of the 
banks of other States shall not be allowed to be paid out or cir¬ 
culated in this State, and any so paid out or circulated shall be 
void and of no value ; nor while banking is allowed in this State, 
shall paper money or bills of the banks of other States of a less 
denomination than is allowed to be paid out by the banks of this 
State, and any so paid out shall be void and of no value ; nor 
shall any bills so paid out, pay or extinguish and debt or be pay¬ 
ment of any other property or thing, nor shall any action be 
brought upon any contract when foreign paper so paid out shall 
form any part of the consideration. 

Mr. CLARK. I move that they be laid upon the ta¬ 
ble and printed. 

Agreed to. 

THE VETO POWER. 

Mr. RANNEY. If in order, I would move that the 
Convention resolve itself into a Committee of the 
Whole upon resolution number five, [Mr. Mason’s.] 

The motion was agreed to, and thereupon the Con¬ 
vention resolved itself into Committee of the Whole, 
[Mr. Chambers in the Chair] and proceeded to the 
consideration of resolution number five. 

Mr. RANNEY. I would inquire if a motion was 
made to strike out the second resolution. 

The CHAIRMAN, in reply, said that there was no 
such motion before the Convention. 

Mr. RANNEY. Then I will move to strike out the 
second resolution. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. According to my recollection, 
at the time the committee I’ose and reported progress, 
there wms a motion pending to strike out “ majority” 
in the 6th and 9th lines, and insert “two thirds.” 

Mr. MASON. Would it be in order to move to 
amend tlie portion of the resolution which it is now 
proj)osed to strike out ? 

The CHAIRMAN, in reply, said it wouldbe in order. 

Mr. MASON. Well, sir, in the 7lh and 8th lines, for 
the word “present” I wish to insert the word “ elect¬ 
ed,” so that it will read a majority of the whole num¬ 
ber elexted. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will have the 
privilege to so modify the resolution if not objected to. 

The proposed amendments were agreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY. Is the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Clark adopted by unanimous consent ? 
If thei’e is to be a veto incorporated in the constitution, 
I should prefer the present form or a substitute for the 
original proposition. Now, sir, I shall ask a division 
upon the question of striking out “ present ” and in- 
.serting the word “ elected.” 

A division was then taken, which resulted, ayes 45 
nays 37. —So the question was carried. 

jMr. HA^VKINS. I shall vote for this amendment, 
having moved to strike out the whole section. I desire 
to make it as odious as possible before the question is 
taken, in order to ensure its rejection. I want no such 
provisions in our constitution, and I hope that those 
who design to reject the wliole of it, will vote for this 
amendment. Because I think if the amendment is 
made, that it will ensure its rejection. I think there 
are more members of the Convention wdio will favor 
the proposition if it stands as it does now. At the 
proper time, I desire to express my views more at 
length in relation to this matter. 

Mr. STANTON. I have one suggestion to make. 
It is a question ol order. It strikes me, that the com¬ 
mittee have already decided that question. There 
was no division of the question called for upon deter¬ 
mining the number that should overrule. The gen¬ 
tleman from Auglaize modified the original proposi¬ 
tion ns moved by the gentleman from Clark, that upon 
a bill returned by the Governor to the two Houses, the 










CONVENTION REPORTS, 


89 


veto should be overruled by the majority of the mem¬ 
bers present. He moved to strike out a “majority of 
the members pi’cseut,” and insert “a majority of mem¬ 
bers elected.” The motion to strike out and insert 
was carried as an entire motion. I understand, there¬ 
fore the committee have decided so far as itcan decide, 
that the veto be overruled'by a majority of all the 
members elected. It is not in order, therefore, to make 
a motion to strike out and change the number. 

Mr. SA^VYER. I have a deciJed opposition to the 
motion made to insert “ two thirds,” and I will state 
very briefly my reasons for the same. If we insert 
two-thirds, I think it will l)e an unnecessary number. 
It will give the executive of the State more ])ower than 
I think he is justly entitled to. I am decidedly in fa¬ 
vor of having the veto overruled by a majority of the 
members “ elected” as it now stands in the bill. There 
is a propriety, in my humble oj)iaiou, in the Constitu¬ 
tion of the U. S. naming two tlnrds. The House of 
Representatives who are elected by the j)eople—the 
Senators by the States; representing the sovereignty 
of the States. The President of the U. S. is himself, 
elected by the whole people of the U. S Tiiere is 
great propriety in concentrating the balance of power 
in that body—in that branch of me Government, and 
to give to the President of the U. S. a larger power 
than is necessary to give to a Governor. Here, repre¬ 
sentatives—while representatives and senators, are 
both elected by the people, from ddferent sections and 
localities of the State, the Governor is elected by the 
great mass of the voters of the State. I do th nk 
that a majority of all the members elected, if they 
vote upon a bill that lias received from the Governor a 
veto and which he has returned with reasons for veto¬ 
ing the same, and it conies up before the houses for a 
re-consideration—that a majority is amply sufficient. 

But I have a greater object to accomjdish. It is this. 
This is not an ordinary Legislature. I look upon it as 
a very important body. It is important to the success 
ol our undertaking that we have harmony and concert 
of action. Our Whig friends upon the other side of the 
house are committed upon this rpiestion. They have 
argued this question before the jieople upon every 
stump in the country, through a number of years.— 
They are this day commitled against the proposition. 
It has not changed my jiosition, however, nor my opin¬ 
ions in relation to the veto as at present exercised by 
the President of the United States. Whether it is ap¬ 
plicable! to the State of Ohio or not, is another question. 
If, sir, we adopt aconstitutiou including a veto, I know 
Whig members of the Convention are committed 
against the proposition. I know, further, that their 
constituents are committed against it. I want that 
when we shall have adopted a constitution, that every 
member of the Convention shall go up to the desk and 
put his name to it. If this unqualified veto is inserted 
they will not do it, I fear, and I think they ought not 
to do it. But, sir, I will do it, if thi.s Convention even 
should adopt the veto power, because I do not look 
upon it as so great and very important a matter. To 
give this veto power, however, is more power than I 
am willing to grant to any one man. Therefore I hope 
the amendment will not prevail. 

Mr. MORRIS. I am opposed to both the original 
resolution and amendment, I am opjiosed to all vetoes. 
And I wish the people to govern themselves by their 
representatives. We have three distinct departments 
of government. Executive, Legislative and Judicial. 
It is the duty of the Executive to execute laws enacted 
by another department. As to the two-third vet(j, I 
have always been opposed to it. As to the original 
resolution, I consider it as a nullity, and merely to make 
the office of the governor a little more consequential, 
a little more digniiied, in granting him the power to 
call the Legislature to re-consider a vote. I am en¬ 
tirely opposed to clothing him with any such authority, 
and for that reason, I shall vote against all such propo¬ 
sitions, coming in what shape or form they may come 


before the Convention. The veto power I consider as\ 
a ni(niavi Ji'[^cal powe r, a prerogative against which our \ 
fathers of the revolution fought, and in resisting which, \ 
many of them sacrificed their lives. Because King ( 
George would veto eveiy law made for the benelit of ; 
the jieople, at that time our fathers conqdained of it; I / 
do not wish to incorporate it into our republican system,, 
and therefore I hojie that neidier the amendment nor 
the original resolution will prevail. 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll. I arise to oppose the veto 
power as oflered in the resolution, and in every resolu¬ 
tion that may be presented to this Convention. It is 
said, sir, that this is an age of progress. Now, I think 
if we introduce the veto povver into the constitution of 
the State of Ohio, at this time and at this day, we 
should be jirogressing on the back track. Why, sir, 
any member of this Co.ivention, or any citizen of tlie 
State of Ohio, who is acquainted with her political his¬ 
tory from the former to the present time, and her his¬ 
tory while she existed under a territotial government, 
knows at once that this veto power is an unpopular 
power in the State and the United States. It is a power . 
(lerivRd from the prerogative of the British King.— 
Yiuir forefathers who built up the constitution of the 
State of Ohio, had passed from under the territorial 
government in which laws most wholesome, passed by 
Representatives of the people, had been thwarted and 
deferred by this same veto power. I dislike every¬ 
thing that smacks of the one-man power, and if you 
put the veto power into the constitution oT this State,^ 
it goes to fetter the action of the Representatives ot 
the people. Well, now, when our forefathers, in 1802, 
framed the constitution, and left the veto power out of 
the constitution of the State of Ohio, I ask you, sir,— 

I ask the Convention—I ask every body, if we shall 
now in the middle of the 19tli century, when every 
township in the State has its churches—when district 
schools are on every hill and in every valley—whether 
you will put into the hands of one man, the power to 
thwart the will of the Representatives otthe people? 

And, sir, when you have before you now a matter 
which is under discussion, by which the representation 
in the General Assembly will be increased in number 
—when a plan will be likely adopted, bringing the 
Representative and his constituents nearer together— 
a more perfect and proper understanding shall exist 
between them,—I ask you, sir, if you will put into the 
hands of a single man, the power, alter a matter has 
undergone the ordeal of both branches of the Assem¬ 
bly—to set aside their decision and defeat the law. I 
think, sir, the people suffer as much from the want of 
good laws as from the enactment ot bad ones. It so 
happen.s in all these cases, the lodgment of power in 
the hands of the Executive is liable to gross abuse. 
Now, sir, within my recollection, if you were to go 
around, and inquire who was Governor of Ohio, 
where there were twenty men present, they would 
look at each other in perfect surprise, and perhaps not 
a person among them all would be able to tell you. 
One reason of that was that the Governor has no Ex¬ 
ecutive power, and he has no power entrusted to him 
which he was likely to abuse. It has been made a 
political test, to try the strength of parties. 

On the other hand, if you should go over into the 
State of Pennsylvania, which has given birth to many 
members of this Convention, where the Go\ ernoi has 
always had the veto power—where he has always had 
an amount of executive patronage to bestow if you 
were to meet little boys or girls and ask them who was 
the Governor of the State ol Pennsyhania, they would 
answer you just as readily as they would give you the 
name of their teacher, because of this thing the veto 
power in the hands of the Executive. The knowl¬ 
edge of the Executive power especially the veto 
power '’'overnment goes abroad over the hills and the 
creeks of every portion of the land, where it is con¬ 
centrated in the hands ol one man. 

It has been remarked here, that the whig party are 















90 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


oppoBed to the exercise of the veto, ])Ut I ’wdll tell you 
further, gentlemen, that a large majority of the demo¬ 
cratic party are with us on that point! In the county 
which 1 represent, a constituency who are against the 
veto power, my opponent for this seat, who stood high 
in the confidence of the democratic party, came out 
over his own signatui-e, and took the same ground 
with myself, and we both received the lull strength 
ol our parties. And any gentleman of different views 
who would come out in favor of the veto, would run 
far behind the ticket. I shall upon this, as upon other 
occasions, vote against any thing that has the name of 
veto upon it. There is another proposition here, which 
I think is a very good one, that no bill becomes a law 
unless it receives a majority of the votes of all the mem¬ 
bers elected to the General Assembly. That looks to 
me to be a wholesome provision. I do not care in 
what way you make it, or in what shape you present 
it, I will never advocate the adoption of a constitution 
that has the veto power in it. I hope I am understood. 

Mr. RANNEY. The question now under discussion 
is a very important one, and one w'hich ought to be dis¬ 
cussed at this early [)eriod in the proceedings of the 
Convention with much deliberation. There are many 
of my personal and political friends, whose judgment I 
highly esteem, who think the veto power in some shape 
or other, ought to be incorporated in the constitution. 
For that reason, I have given a careful and candid con¬ 
sideration to the subject.—Again the veto power has 
never encountered any of my prejudices. Whenever 
it has been exercised in the federal government it has 
met my approbation. Notwithstanding all these cir¬ 
cumstances inclining me to look favorably upon this 
subject. I am unhesitatingly brought to the conclu¬ 
sion that the veto power ought not to find a place in 
the constitution in any case whatever. Those who 
would frame constitutions for a people must look to the 
modes of thinking and opinions of that people in the 
first instance. If we should go on and make mere theo¬ 
ries for our system of government, it would be most 
assuredly fatal, as much so as the splendid theories of 
Europe, framed for the American colonies, without any 
adaptation, to their real wishes and wants. The peo¬ 
ple of the State of Ohio in their territorial government 
had a short experience of the veto power. 

Our fathers when they assembled and framed a con¬ 
stitution under which we have lived and prospered for 
upwards of 50 years, refused to insert in that instru¬ 
ment, the veto. They were nearly unanimous in the 
opinion, that it ought not be incorporated. This refu¬ 
sal to insert there such a provision, met with the appro¬ 
bation of the people then, and from that time to the 
present, it has met with the approbation of the peo¬ 
ple, and I believe that the settled convictions of the 
people are against the incorporation of the veto power 
into the Constitution. It would be enough to deter¬ 
mine the question, to propose and examine it for a mo¬ 
ment upon principle. What reasons are here urged 
for the incorporation of the veto power into this Con¬ 
stitution? In fact but two are urged. The first is that 
it will arrest hasty and inconsiderate legislation. We 
are told that a great deal of this has been done in this 
Stiite. I acknowledge it at once, and I confess that 
such is the fact. And I most heartily agree with the 
gentleman from Clark, izi all he said in regard to much 
of the legislation in tliis State. The second reason 
urged for incorporating such a provision into the Con¬ 
stitution, is that it will give importance and dignity to 
the Executive office. Now so far as the first proposi¬ 
tion is concerned, I wdll agree with the gentleman, 
that it is most desiralile that the Convention shouhl 
fix upon some expedient by which hasty and inconsid¬ 
erate legislation shall be prevented hereafter. I would 
concede this at once. 

But what is the cause of this serious evil? It arises 
ijj from the fact in my humble opinion, that the peojile of 
i Ohio have heretofore delegated too much powei' to the de- 
I partmentsof Government. Where will you go to apply 


the remedy ? Will you look to the nature of the dis¬ 
ease? What is the disease ? It has arisen from the 
fact that the legislatures have exercised powers which 
never ought to have belonged to them. Therein has 
been found the great evil of the system. Novv where 
shall we go to find the remedy? The remedy is found 
hereaftmin retaining among the people very many of 
the powers which have been exercised by the legisla¬ 
ture. The gentleman from Clark has properly referred 
to one witli which the legislature have been heretofore 
invested—the large patronage at their disposal—-the 
pow'er to confer office. Who now proposes to continue 
that power ? I would at once strike it down. When 
(you have taken this away from them, you have taken, 
in my opinion, one jiower which has gone so far to dis¬ 
credit legislative bodies, and which has been one of 
^he chief means of producing so much hasty and in¬ 
considerate legislation. Indeed we believe that it has 
been productive of more injury to the State, and of 
more difficulty than was portrayed in the pz’eamble 
and resolutions offered by my friend upon the left. 
Make them no longer the sources of office as the gen¬ 
tleman from Clark has remarked. Again, sir, I would 
not stop here to arrest hasty and inconsiderate legisla¬ 
tion, I would determine the question whether they 
should have all the power to enact laws of the great¬ 
est importance. I will not stop to designate what they 
shall be. I vv'ould not give the power to the legisla¬ 
ture to enact all laws until they have lieen submitted 
to a direct vote of the people. That will cut down 
their power. 

Again, beginning at that, although but little perhaps, 
but vou would .soon shear them of much of their 
strength. Take from them all the power of local gov¬ 
ernment and you have left nothing to the Legislaturt; 
to do, but pass those general laws to which all should 
be subject. Under such a state of things, I cannot con¬ 
ceive that there would be any great danger of the Leg¬ 
islative body being led into the enactment of any del¬ 
eterious laws. I have the honor to submit the propo¬ 
sition in the resolution which the gentleman from Gal¬ 
lia has alluded to, and I look upon it as a most impor¬ 
tant check upon the power of the legislative body. It 
is that no bill shall ever creep through that body until 
it has received a majority of the votes of both branch¬ 
es elected to the Legislature, by yeas and nays. First, 
we shall know who have passed these laws, and they 
could not slip through at the heels of the session, w’ith- 
out a discussion and examination. Here every man 
will be compelled to leave his track behind him, that 
his constituents and the world may look at. Who 
shall be held responsible for the passage of an enact¬ 
ment last winter at the close of the session, raising the 
rate of interest from six per cent, to ten ? I was for¬ 
cibly struck at the time in looking at the law passed, 
with the need of more deliberation in the passage of 
laws. How did it get through the Legislature? I nev¬ 
er could find the man that could remember that he vo¬ 
ted for it. [Laughter.] A law more deeply entering 
into the interests of the State of Ohio than any which 
has been found upon the statute book of Ohio for twen¬ 
ty years. 

My friend from Clarke seems to suppose that it is ne¬ 
cessary that the Governor should interfere in this mat¬ 
ter of legislation. It is an important theory and one 
which I wish to see pursued in practice, that the pow¬ 
ers of the Government should be divided—that dis¬ 
tinct branches of the Government should be charged 
with distinct duties, and I wish to see them made re¬ 
sponsible for their exei'cise and their respective duties 
clearly defined. The object of the Executive Depart¬ 
ment, is to see that these laws are faithfidly executed. 
But in what cases is this power of the Executive to 
be exercised ? Is he to pass upon the policy and ex¬ 
pediency of all laws? This would be a sad departure 
from the principles so solemnly taught to the country 
by the gentleman’s National Executive. Gentlemen 
must not complain if their teachings have some etfect 










CONVENTION REPOiri\S 


91 


upon U8, aud if after the pains that have been taken 
to convince us of the clanger of the veto power, we 
hesitate to invest the Governor with such a power, so 
far as he is concerned, I for one atn nearly converted 

In regard to the dignity of the Executive oilice, 1 
do not know that my bump of veneration is high 
enough; but I am not much in favor of dignity, I be¬ 
lieve, of any sort. My friend from Clark complains 
bitterly against the iuadec]uacy of the salary of this 
office. The Governor, he says, is obliged to hold his 
levees in a bed-room ; and it is a part of his proposi¬ 
tion to invest him with moi’e power and giving him 
more money, in order that he may be able to hold his 
levees down stairs. Now, sir, I suppose real dignity 
to consist in the nature of tlie duties a man has to per¬ 
form, and the manner in which he discharges them; 
but, as for this adventitious dignity, which recpiires le¬ 
vees, and costly ec^uipage—all the pomp and parade 
and splendor of wealth and power—I must confess I 
have not much sympathy with it. I do not believe the 
happiness or security of the community would be im¬ 
paired by dispensing entirely with all such dignity. 

I was almost converted again by the preaching which 
we had from the stump a few years ago, when they 
told us, that the dignity of the federal government was 
to be brought down to the simplicities of the log cal)- 
in, instead of the splendid formalities of the white 
house. But I do not conceive there is any necessity of 
giving any more dignity to the Executive. However, 
1 would rather add to the dignity of the Governor by 
giving him a more liberal salary, than by taking away 
powers which belong to the people, and giving them 
to the Executive; but I do not think it necessary to do 
either. I believe that neither woidd be conducive of 
the public welfare. I conclude by expressing my 
agreement with my friend from Carroll [Mr. Brown,] 
and by declaring here, that I shall vote against all ve¬ 
toes, every where, in every form, and upon all occa¬ 
sions. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I desire to make a remark or 
tv«o upon this subject: and I am compelled to express 
my astonishment, that the advocates of the veto power 
are, so far as this debate has progressed, found upon 
the other side of the Convention, and amongst those 
opposed to the party to which I have the honor to be¬ 
long. Why, sir, I learned in the primer of my politi¬ 
cal faith, that the veto power was a great safe-guard of 
popular rights; that, instead of being in this country a 
kingly power, as has been asserted, it was precisely 
the contrary; that it was the authoritative power of the 
people. We are told, sir, that in England, it is a king¬ 
ly power; but what was the origin ot that power, was 
it kingly? We are all familiar with the origin of the 
veto power. It was originated as a protection to the 
people against oppressive legislation: and it was orig¬ 
inally so exercised as long as it was used faithfully. 

The fathers of the revolution—the men who came 
into conflict with King George and his soldiery—hesi¬ 
tated not to incorporate the veto power into the con¬ 
stitution of their country. Had they believed that it 
was a power opposed to the rights of the people, this 
would not have been done. It was because tiiey be¬ 
lieved it was for the preservation of the liberties of the 
people, that this power was given to the President of 
the United States: and the history’ of the countiy at- 
ests, as admitted by the gentleman from Trumbull, 
that it has rarely, if ever, been employed against the 
interests of the people. And therelbre it is, that the 
democratic party — that glorious old part) , which laid 
the foundation, and fixed the keystone to the arch ol 
this great Confederacy — that p;trty, which declared 
all men to be endowed with the equal rights of fi’ee- 
—;ka8 made the preservation of the veto power 
one of its leading principles. And, sir, it is because 
this great power has so often overturned and annihila¬ 
ted the hopes of the enemies of the democracy in this 
country, that it has been opposed by them with the 
most bitter hate, from the days of Andrew Jackson to 


the period of calling this convention. And, sir, 1 am 
amazed tolind that gentlemen of the democratic party 
have become converts to this doctrine of their politi¬ 
cal enemies. You know, Mr. Chairman, that this is a 
principle which has a] ways been recognized as a popu¬ 
lar safe-guard in the National Government, and why is 
it not e<pmUy benelicial in a State Government ? Wil 
it not be, in the Constitution of the State of Ohio, a- 
good a safe-guard for the people, as democratic, and as 
popular as in the Constitution of the United States?— 
Will any gentleman tell me the reason why this princi¬ 
ple— this power, as it is called—is not equally appli¬ 
cable in both cases? 

I know the reason, and every gentleman familiar 
with the history of this State, also knows why the veU. 
power is not in tlie ct)Ustitulion ol Ohio. It was this: 
Rrior to the adoption of the present constitution, the ; 
Governor of the territory was not elected by the peo¬ 
ple. He was appointed by higher power at Washing¬ 
ton, and his authority liad freciuently conflicted with 
that exercised by the territorial representatives of the 
people. This contest was protracted and waged with 
much bitterness and feeling, and this was the reason 
why the veto was omitted in the exi.sting constitution; 
and in Michigan, where the same feeling for the same 
cause existed, the veto power was also omitted in the 
constitution of that State. But, shall we continue to be 
governed by this feeling now, when the occasion for il 
has passed away, and when we have been enlightened 
upon this subject by the experience of half a century? 

The gentleman from Carroll [Mr. Brown] alluded 
to one t)f the eflects of the veto in Pennsylvania, and 
he stated that here in Ohio many could not tell wh<> 
the Governor was, whilst in the State of Pennsylvania it 
was one of the eflects of the veto power to make the 
Govenioris name familiar to every boy in the common¬ 
wealth. Yes, sir, the veto was exercised by Governor 
Shunk when a majority of the Legislature of Pennsyl¬ 
vania presented him wi^h bank charters. He had the 
courage and magnaniniity to place upon them his veto. 
He sent their charters back to them, and what was the 
efl’ect of that act of Governor Shunk? It \vas to make 
an appeal to the people upon the question involved, and 
that is the whole of the veto power. I will vote for 
the veto, not to aggrandize the Governor, but because 1 
am unwilling, with the little knowdedge I have of le¬ 
gislation, to trust all the sovereignty to that department. 

I want to apply some check. II we cannot have all 
our laws enacted by the whole people, I want some in¬ 
dividual to stand between the Legislature a,nd the peo 
pie to wrhom an appeal may be made; an individual who 
is above all legislative authority, and to whom all can 
look up for a veto, when public interest demands it, and 
say to him, your name goes down to infamous memory 
unless yt>u forbid that act. 

Yes, sir I wish to confide a veto power in the hands et ^ 
one elected by the whole people, who wall leel that his 
responsibility is great, and that his character is histori¬ 
cal; a sentiment that will find a place in the bosom oi 
only a portion of a Legislative body. We know how 
many there are to be found willing to betray the peo¬ 
ple in almost every legislative body; how iiiany there 
are weak enough to be deceived; thnid enough to al¬ 
low themselves to be compelled to belie their own sen¬ 
timents of right. ^ . 

I, sir, must go for incorporating this power into the 
constitution, because, I am satisfied that, on many ac¬ 
counts it will be beneficial. It is no positive powei , 
but merely a negative, merely suspensive. It can un¬ 
do nothing, and is really nothing but a power to reiei a 
question of legislation to the people, ihis isits whole 
scope and character. Are you atraid ot that? ria\e 
we not seen enough ot the legislation of our own State 
to know that we have often felt the want ot some 
man elected by the wliole people, to stand here at the 
capital, and see the popular will faithfully represented. 

We are often led astray, Mr. Chairman, by mere 
words — often deceived by catch words, and pretences,. 









92 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


and considerations different from those which appear 
to be present with ns. Many of our friends, on tin; 
other side, I believe, (I say it without imputing iin- 
I proper motives,) are thus governed. They remember 
well, how the old hero, Andrew Jackson, overthrew 
that vast national power—the Bunk of the United 
' States, at a time when they did all they could to up¬ 
hold and sustain it, and they have been excited ever 
since upon this subject, and have uniformly opposed 
the veto power. But is it not remarkable, that even, 
at this day, they should be able to convert a portion of 
the democracy to their views on this subject? 

Mr. Chairman: I have hastily drawn up a propo- 
sitiou, which I will read. I have desired to make some 
amendment to the resolutions before the committee, by 
which the veto shall secure to the people all the bene¬ 
fits which I think it ought to secure. I do not know 
that it will be in order to oiler it as an amendment, at 
this time, but I will read it for the information of the 
committee: 

Resolved, That the constitution be so amended as to provide 
that every bill or i-esolution which shall have passed both branch¬ 
es of the Legislature by a vote ol'less than two-thirds of all the 
members elected, shall, before it becomes a law be presented to the 
Governor, if he approve, he shall sign it, if not he shall return it 
with his objections to the House in which it shall have originated, 
who shall enter the objections at large upon their journal, and if 
it be not repassed by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected 
to each branch of the Legislature, the further consideration of' 
the bill or resolution shall be postponed to the next ensuing ses- 
sion of the Legislature, when if approved by a majority of the 
member s of each branch thereof, it shall become a law. 

Thus, by the method proposed, an appeal may be 
made directly to the people, and if they send another 
Legislature here in favor of the law which the Gover¬ 
nor has vetoed, they have thereby ap[troved it. I de¬ 
sire to secure all the advantage of such an appeal. J 
have also had some crude notions in favor of having 
important laws submitted for the approval of the peo¬ 
ple, if such a thing could be conveniently done, so anx¬ 
ious am I to bring the enactment of laws to the test of 
public opinion. For, I declare to you, Mr. Chairman, 

have no confidence in the infallibility of legislative 
bodies. I am not willing to trust them when they are 
approached by the corporated and money powers of 
the State. I am not willing to trust them alone when 
bankers fill our lobbies. No, sir, never ! And there¬ 
fore I desire the insertion qf the veto power in the con¬ 
stitution we are about to frame. 

Mr. NASH. I don’t propose to argue the question at 
all, Mr. Chairman, but really I must be allowed to say, 
that this discussion, thus far, has seemed to me in very 
bad taste. In the first place, I do not think it becomes 
us to hurl wholesale assaults here against gentlemen 
who have been members of the Legi.slature heretofore. 
I do not know what we have to do with imjieaching the 
integrity of gentlemen who have been members of the 
General Assembly, in the consideration of the proposi¬ 
tion to amend the constitution, or what the history of 
parties has to do with it. As 1 understand, this propo¬ 
sition is one upon which we are to decide, with refer¬ 
ence to settled and fixed princijdes. One of these prin¬ 
ciples is, that there should be two branches of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, which is to constitute the law-making 
power. We divide the Legislative department into 
two branches, for the purpose of securing a greater 
safe-guard against hasty and improvident legislation. 
But, as I understand the proposition of the gentleman 
from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] it proposes to accomplish 
simply the same thing—to provide a safe-guard against 
hasty legislation. He predicates it upon that single 
proposition, as I understand. It is his opinion, that 
notwithstanding the General Assembly be divided into 
two branches, there is still danger that laws may be 
passed in haste, and without due consideration. There¬ 
fore he wishes those statutes to be submitted to the 
Governor, in order that in his retirement, he may con¬ 
sider and examine them, and see whether or not tliey 
are liable to objections; and, that if he thinks they 
have been the result of hasty or improvident action, he 


may send them back, and call the attention of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly to the reasons for his objections; and 
the General Assembly being called upon to reconsider 
and ascertain, whether, in point of fact, they have passed 
any law under a misapprehension of its character, and 
if they have, then, as a matter of course, and as honest 
men, they will reconsider and revise their judgment, and 
make it conformable to sound discretion. 

The proposition all lies in this ; and I am therefore 
compelled to say that it has nothing at all to do with 
the history of party politics in the State ol Ohio, or in 
the general government. Neither can I admit that the 
exercise of the veto power by Governor St. Clair, nor 
the use that is or has been made of that fact here or 
elsewhere, as having any thing at all to do with the 
matter under consideration, which is whether the pro¬ 
position offers any safeguard against hasty and improv¬ 
ident legislation. I cannot see, especially in this Con¬ 
vention, called to remodel the constitution of the State 
—a work which calls particularly for compromises of 
personal opinions and predilections ; what we have to 
do with any thing out of the Convention. I under¬ 
stand that we are here to deliberate and vote ; how ? 
according to the prescription which any demagogue 
may have thought it necessary to put forth on paper ? 
Certainly not. But, under the sanction of an oath to 
do our duty as individuals, clothed with high but lim¬ 
ited power.s, conscientiously for the best interests of 
the people of Ohio. For myself, I can look no further 
than this. I have no right to look any further ; for if 
I do, I look beyond the circle of my individual respon¬ 
sibility, and that would be to sacrifice a just sense of 
my responsibility, which I have no right to do. 

In these remarks I do not say where the veto power 
should be placed. That is another question. In my 
opinion, it may be rendered entirely unnecessary. 
With the precautions proposed to be thrown around 
the legislative department, I think, with the gentle¬ 
man from Trumbull, [Mr. Rannky] that hasty and 
improvident action may be sufficiently provided against 
and that the exercise of the veto power may be ren¬ 
dered entirely unnecessary. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. As I made the motion to strike 
out, I feel disposed to say a few words, in which I pro¬ 
pose to be brief, and, if possible, to the point. I have 
listened attentively to the remarks of the gentleman 
from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] who delivered some 
truths, mixed, however, with a good deal of error. I 
tell that gentleman that if the General Assembly has 
ever erred or gone astray, it has never been by setting 
themselves in opposition to the will of the people. It 
is a very rare thing for a representative in the Legisla¬ 
ture to feel any disposition of that kind. It seems to 
me that no Legislative body in this State is likely to 
err upon the side of setting the popular will at defiance. 
But, on the contrary, errors in Legislation have been 
generally committed in such bodies by mistaking pub¬ 
lic sentiment and for the want of courage and manli¬ 
ness to sup])ort the right, in confidence that the people 
would finally decide correctly. 

Again: the gentleman from Trumbull falls into an 
error in desiring that all important laws should be sub¬ 
mitted for approval of the whole people. Now I ad¬ 
mit that there may be some occasions when it would 
be proper to call upon the whole people to sanction a 
law, but to submit all that might be enacted by their 
representatives, would be an operation entirely too 
cumbrous. We know, of course, that the people of 
our country are the source of all power and majesty, 
and of all truth and goodness and purity and tran- 
scende)italism; [laughter,]jbut we should recollect also, 
that in their primary capacity, they resemble a set of 
committees before they have reported, which cannot 
know the conclusions which all the other committees 
have arrived at. any more than they can tell what 
should be the conclusions of the body itself. There¬ 
fore, nothing can be more convenient for the people 
than a legislative department—for legislation to be per- 













CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


93 


/ 


formed directly by two millions of men, would be very 
cumbrous work. We do not forget that the people are 
sovereign; but, like all other sovereigns, they were 
liable to be treated with a great dealof tlattery. Asia¬ 
tic manners were not peculiar to Asia, and there are 
always men enough to be found in every deliberative 
body who would rather oiler llattery to those sover¬ 
eigns than honest facts. It was a syren voice that in\ 
vited the people to take the immediate administrationj 
of all affairs into their own hands. Like other sover^ 
eii?ns, the people could best exert their wisdom in a 
Wise selection of ministers. As a Legislature, the 
electors consisted of half a million of men, widely 
scattered and uncommuuicating. They would soon 
consist of two millions by increase of population.—k 
Some very great occasion might demand the employ¬ 
ment of this extensive and ponderous machinery; to 
employ it on ordinary occasions, would be like using a 
spit as big as a ten acre held to roast a shoulder of 
mutton. 

The people would tolerate much freedom of thought 
and language in honest and well inteiitioned public ser¬ 
vants. It was no compliment to their understanding to 
suppose that they wished to be treated like an Asiatic 
Despot, with nothing but the sugared and honeyed 
words of llattery and adulafion. Secure in the pos¬ 
session of sovereign, inherent and indisputable power, 
they could well alford to encourage their servants in 
great freedom ot thought and speech. 

1 make the proposition, sir, that we must trust some¬ 
where. If we can’t have conhdence in legislative bo¬ 
dies that they will act virtuously, a representative gov¬ 
ernment cannot exist. We must trust somewhere, and 
we must have a general assembly. 

I must say that 1 think that the veto power would 
subserve a good purpose in legislation. It would be 
valuable as a prevention of erroneous and inconsider¬ 
ate legislation — throwing it back for the reconsider¬ 
ation of the Legislature, and for the decision of the peo¬ 
ple. I shall give my assent to the veto, as authorized 
by the constitution of Pennsylvania and New York, 
and the constitution of our glorious Union. 

Mr. RANNEY rose to an explanation. The gentle¬ 
man (he said) seems to suppose that it was my proposi¬ 
tion to submit all laws to the people. I said only some 
of the most important. 

Mr. SAWYER, [by leave.] Mr. Chairman; I ob 
ject to the measure which the gentleman from Fairfield 
has set up for me. I have been a democrat as long as 
he has. 

Mr. ROBERTSON, [interposing.] I desire just to 
say, that in my remarks I did not question the democ 
racy of any individual. I wish the gentleman to uii 
derstaud that I made no such allusions whatever. ] 
merely spoke of the fact of political ditference of opin¬ 
ion. 

M. SAWYER. I am aware of that. The gentle 
man is too courteous to do such a thing. The gentleman 
did not intend to question my democracy, nor the 
democracy of the gentleman from Trumbull, nor of 
any other gentleman who takes the same views which 
we do: but I ask you sir, to look and see who is the 
best democrat, the gentleman from Fairfield or myself, 
llis proposition is, that unless two-thirds of the mem¬ 
bers of both houses of the Legislature shall vote for a 
bill, then it shall go to the governor and be subject to 
his veto. That is his proposition. My democracy teaches 
me to go with the majority; or, in other words, that 
the majority shall rule. Now suppose the people, who 
have been pretty severely fleeced by a banking com¬ 
pany, to) come up and petition the Legislature to re¬ 
peal such a bank charter, and suppose you have a 
majority of only two or three, four or five, or six in fa¬ 
vor of the repeal of that corrupt charter. By your 
scheme, such a majority cannot repeal this corrupt law; 
and suppose even you have a governor of the same po¬ 
litical class with the majority—still you cannot repeal 
according to your democratic notion of a two-thirds 


majority. But according to my notion of democra¬ 
cy, a majority should rule iii^ evciy instance. This 
is what 1 sa^^ If a majority of eveiy member of the 
legislature elected shall pass a law, it shall be a law. 
It shall be a law if such a majority all vote not¬ 

withstanding the Governor’s veto. Is not that demo¬ 
cratic sir? Don’t it look like your old fashioned notions 
of democracy? 

The gentleman has not drawn the true distinction 
between our position as a State Government and the 
National Government. I admit that the veto was prop¬ 
erly incorporated into the Federal Constitution. I ven¬ 
ture to say, that in the history of this country no in¬ 
stance has yet occurred in which the veto of any Presi¬ 
dent of the United States has not been nobly sustained 
by the people; and it has been exercised by all the 
most prominent of them, from Jefferson even down to 
John Tyler. 

I am gratified with the allusion coming to us from 
over the way, that party criminations and recrimina¬ 
tions are in bad taste in this hall. From the day that I 
took my seat first in this Convention, I have repudiated 
such a course here, and I shall continue to do so. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the proposition of the 
gentleman from Fairfield is wrong. Still, if it is to 
be put into the constitution, I shall not refuse to sign 
my name to it. But I should much prefer the propo¬ 
sition to stand as it is. But let me remark further. I’he 
committee on the legislative department are unani¬ 
mously agreed to report a constitutional provision 
that no proposition shall become a law unless it re¬ 
ceive the assent of a majority of all the members elec¬ 
ted in both branches of the General Assembly, and 
that upon a call for the yeas and nays on the final pas¬ 
sage, such a provision would go far to prevent the[)re- 
sent system of doing business m the legislature: which 
is, (I have seen it frequently,) for a member to walk 
outside of the bar upon the assurance that the yeas and 
nays will not be called upon the final passage of a bill 
which he cannot support. I venture to say that ontf- 
half of the laws of our State are not now passed by 
the consent of a majority of all the members in both 
bmnehes of the General Assembly. If the Conven¬ 
tion agree to this proposition, which the committee 
have determined to report, even if the constitution 
be adopted without the veto power, it will not be so 
material. All the advantage of the veto power is to 
prevent hasty and inconsiderate legislation; and after 
a bill shall have been passed upon by a majority of all 
the members elected, the Governor, in his reasons for 
a veto, may be able to throw additional light upon the 
subject. 

' On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the committee now 
rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit 
again. 

And then, on motion by Mr. NASH, the Conven¬ 
tion took a recess. 


3 o’clock, P. M. 

Mr. BENNETT of Tuscarawas, inofiering the follow¬ 
ing resolution said, that it was perceptible to eveiy 
member, that meeting as they did at 3 o’clock P. M., 
the time between the hour of dinner and 3 o’clock P. 
M., was of but little avail. 

Resolved, That when this Convention take a recess, it be to 
meet at 2 o’clock P. M., until otherwise ordered. 

Mr. NASH moved that the resolution be laid on the 
table, which was concurred in. 

Mr. SAWYER from the standing committee on the 
Legislative Department reported a proposition and ask¬ 
ed that it should be read the first and second time by 
its title, and referred to the committee of the whole. 

The report was then read by its title. 

Mr. KING moved that the report be laid on the ta¬ 
ble, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. SAWYER thought such a course inexpedient. 
The usual form was to have a report read a first and 














94 


C(WVEN'riON llEPORTS. 


no gentleman in this body who would be more anxious*; 
to regard its members with greater courtesy and re¬ 
spect than himself. He was satisfied that no member 
harl a more earnest desire so to conduct himself than 
he had. Butin the discussion of questions, like the 
one now before the committee, many questions would 
arise, in relation to which, in his estimation, it would 
be necessary to refer to the past political history of the 
country—and feeling that to be necessaiy, he expected 
in what remarks he might make on any subject re¬ 
quiring it, to take thatliberty; but he would assure gen¬ 
tlemen that it never would be done with any feeling of 
animosity, or unkind motives, but simply to illustrate 
the subject under consideration. In that manner, he 
referred in the course of his observations this morn¬ 
ing, to the history of the political parties of this State. 
He regarded it as almost childish, for any jnember to 
say to this committee, that political feeling should not 
enter into the action and deliberations of this body. 
If there were one here who had no political attach¬ 
ment, he had better return home. It was no place for 
him. We were sent to this Convention, by two, or 
rather three political parties, and we came here too, as 
political partizans, yet as citizens of Ohio, impelled by 
a high sense of duty. He for one, came here deeply 
impressed with the necessity and importance of pre¬ 
serving the ascendancy of popular I’ights. He would, 
therefore, on proper occasions, freely refer to political 
questions, and to the conduct of public men, who t)c- 
cupied an eminent position among the political parties 
of this State or Union. 

The gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawver] had 
supposed that he [Mr. R.] had questioned his Democ¬ 
racy, because of the remarks he had made in relation 
'• <the veto power. He desired to do no such thing. 
And he would here add a few more remarks in reply 
to the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer.] He 
<liscovered nothing in tlie remarks of that gentleman 
which could bo regarded as an argument against the 
veto power. The i[lustration of that gentleman against 
the veto power is this: “Suppose the Governor of 
Ohio should veto a bill passed by the Legislature to re¬ 
peal the charter of a swindling bank; would that be 
Democratic?” I grant, .sir, that such an instance of the 
abuse of the veto might occur, but even that would not 
in any manner invalidate the correctness of the veto 
principle. If the gentleman would look into the po¬ 
litical history of the country, he would find that on 


many occasions the executives of the State and gener¬ 
al governments had vetoed bills to establish corporate 
privileges, but he could not remember any instance in 
this country in which the veto power has been exer- 
ci.sed for the preservation of corporate abuses and priv¬ 
ileges. The gentleman had said that it was democrat¬ 
ic tor the majority to govern ; but he [Mr. R.] denied 
that the Legislature -was the majority of the people,— 
and it was because he believed that the sovereignty 
should always reside with the majority of the people, 
to be wielded within the limits of the constitution, that 
he was in favor of the veto. It was true that the Gov¬ 
ernor of a State boi’e but a very small proportion to the 
whole people, and so did the Legislature. What he 
advocated was that whenever the Governor believed 
that a law which had been passed by less than a two- 
third vote of the Legislature, should not have been 
passed, he should have the power to appeal to the peo¬ 
ple, and if the people sent up to the next Legislature 
thereafter a majority in favor of it, then it should be¬ 
come a law. There is in this no “ one man ” power, 
but merely the power of suspension ; it was emphati- 
,<rartly an appeal to the people. It was altogether dif¬ 
ferent from the kingly veto, for in monarchies, kings 
were not the representatives of the people when exer¬ 
cising the veto power to preserve their authority. But 
in a republican government the executive veto was ex¬ 
ercised, as experience attests, for the preservation, and 


second time, and then refen-ed to the committee of 
the whole. 

The question then being on laying the rej)ort on the 
table and be ordered to be printed, was put and sus¬ 
tained. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved that the Convention resolve 
itself into a committee on the wh Ae. 

The motion was agreed to. 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

Mr. CHAMBERS in the Chair. 

The question before the committee was the consider¬ 
ation of the 5th resolution, and the pending amendment 
of the gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Archbold.] The 
proposed amendment was to strike out the word “ma¬ 
jority,” and insert the words “ two-thirds.” 

Mr. STIDGER would move, if in order, to insert the 
words “three-fifths.” 

Mr. ROBERTSON did not design to trespass on the 
time of the committee, to any extent. It had always 
been his intention never to present a resolution or to 
speak on any question, unless he conceived that the im¬ 
portance of the occasion or subject demanded it. When 
gentlemen spoke this morning against the incorpora¬ 
tion of the veto power in the constitution vve werej 
about to form, he was anxious that their views should/ 
not go out to the country without dissent. This conj 
sideration prompted his remarks. It had been ob^ 
jected to him, that in the course of his remarks, hev, 
made references to political parties, that should find ‘^ot for an invasion of the rights of the people. He re- 
uo place in the Convention. He hoped that there was '^rded the President of the United States and the Gov¬ 


ernors of the States as the more immediate representa¬ 
tives of the whole people. He would not at this time 
enlarge further upon this subject, as he rose to make 
only a few remarks in reply and explanation. He had 
not intended to say this morning any thing on this sub¬ 
ject, till he found the veto strongly opposed by politi¬ 
cal friends. But he now understood that there were 
gentlemen in the committee ready and able to defend 
the veto power better than he could, and he would 
prefer listening to their remarks on this important sub¬ 
ject. 

In conclusion he would say tliat he earnestly hoped, 
notwithstanding appearances this morning, that there 
would be a large vote here in favor of engrafting the 
principle he had so feebly advocated, upon the consti¬ 
tution we are about to frame. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said that after the able dis¬ 
cussion which was had on the subject of the resolution, 
he did not ri.se to make a speech, but merely to explain 
the vote he was about to give, and in explanation he 
would say, that personally he was in favor of the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Archbold.] 
He believed with others, that it was not safe to lodge 
too much power in the hands ot the executive, howev- 
ei’, the power proposed to be given was a mere appeal 
from the action of the Legislature to the people. But 
while he expressed his personal approval of the amend¬ 
ment, he should say that he would be under the neces¬ 
sity of voting against it. 

Before he left home the subject matter relative to 
this power being lodged in the hands of the execu¬ 
tive, was discussed to a considerable extent, and the 
wishes of his constituents, so far as he knew them, 
were that no veto such as was contemplated in the 
amendmentof the gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Arch¬ 
bold] should be ingrafted on our constitution. They 
thought it unnecessary in a State constituted as ours. 
A majority of them, he 6U])posed, believed it necessary 
in the constitution of the United States, for the reason 
that various sectional interests were represented in 
Congress, and a particular interest might predominate 
to the prejudice of others. We have no such sectional 
interests represented here; the people here being 
“homogenous” in their wants, in their desires and in 
their necessities. He however was in favor of some 
check or balance to control hasty legislation; and, 
viewing the question as he did at present, he would 
vote against the amendment of the gentleman from 

















CONVENTION llEPOETS. 


95 


Monroe, [^r. Archboi.o] but in favor of the knoclifi- 
ration of the resolution made by the geutlemf^i from 
Clark, [Mr Mason.] He belitved thpre sh(Kxld be 
some check on the future action of the Legislature, 
and he believed that the check provided for in that 
resolution was necessaiy, and would be beneficial. 

Mr. DORSEY said that after the length to which the 
discussion of this question had been carried, he was 
desirous of making but a few remarks on the subject 
of the vote which he intended to give on this resolution. 

The subject of the veto power had been largely dis¬ 
cussed, both ill regard to the general government and 
to our own government; and, although the doctrine of 
the veto power had been'supported by the party with 
which he acted, yet his judgment on the subject was 
not shaped by that fact. His views' on the subject did 
not rise from any particular party predilections. There 
were subjects to come before this body, upon which, 
no doubt'it,would be divided ; but, he was truly glad 
to perceive that at the beginning of the debate on this 
question, there was a promise that it would not be 
made a party question. He was glad to see that the 
debate upon this (juestion was commenced by a gen¬ 
tleman of the opposite political party ; and he did be¬ 
lieve that that question had now presented itself before 
the Committee in a shape which a majority of both 
political parties would be able to realize, and to which 
they could accord their assent. Now, it was not be¬ 
cause the veto ]>ower had received the assent and ad¬ 
vocacy of the party with which he acted, that he would 
be in favor of this resolution. It was not because the 
veto power has been used for carrying out some of 
the great principles of democracy, and the principles 
advocated by his party, but it was because he believed 
it to be a great conservative power necessary to be in¬ 
troduced into our government, for great and valuable 
purposes. They had heard much about a “ one man 
power”—about the “ power of one man placed in op¬ 
position to the representatives of the people,” as if the 
Governor of the State, in his official capacity, were not 
equal to the representatives of the people. But it was 
improper as applied to great Democratic doctrines and 
principles. He held that one of the first and most im¬ 
portant principles in a republican government, was the 
equal distribution of power among the parts of that 
government—that there should be checks and balances 
in one department of the government acting on the oth- 
ei's. No w,as constituted at present, no such check existed 
—no such acting or re-acting power existed in any of 
the departments of the government of the State of 
Ohio. And it was because he was in favor of some 
such power—not an absolute veto—that he would sup¬ 
port the proposition. It was for the purpose of pre¬ 
serving this just and equal distribution of power which 
he believed to be necessaiy in every government, and 
which, he would be allowed to say, was a question 
brought up for discussion in the formation of the con¬ 
stitution of the U. S. They were the fathers of the 
republic who advocated the doctrine. They found 
such men as James Madison and the great James Wil¬ 
son of Penn., standing up strenuously in favor of a 
qualified veto; and, when the vote was taken on the 
question, they found it was passed without a dissenting 
voice. 

Might not this body take as an example the discus¬ 
sions and actions of that Convention in which the fath¬ 
ers of the republic adopted this principle as essential to 
securing an equal distribution of power throughout the 
different branches of the national Government ? 

But, it would be asked, did a similar reason exist for 
introducing a veto power into a State Government ? He 
was not prepared to say that equally potent reasons ex¬ 
isted. Nor was he prepared to advocate a veto power 
in our State Government, to the extent to which it had 
been introduced into the United States Government, for 
the simple reason that here both branches of the Legis¬ 
lature come up directly Lorn the people—both repre¬ 
senting directly the people. And, for that reason he 


held that a simple majority of that Legislative body 
should be sufficient to pass a bill against the executive 
negative. But whilst he held this to be true, he was 
still willing, nay, anxious, that this negative power 
should be gi-anted to the Governor; and he did think 
tliat very important, and very satisfactory reasons could 
be given for such a grant of power. He saw nothing 
of force in what had been said in relation to the digni¬ 
ty that should be given to the Governor’s office. He 
believed that all offices had dignity when well filled, 
under the provisions by whicli they were instituted. 
But that was not all. He held that a very great and 
abiding influence would be exerted on the Legislature 
by putting this negative in the hands ol the executive. 
What else would be effected? Was it simply that the 
Governor, by this negative, would be able to force a re¬ 
consideration of important matters on the Legislature? 
No, it was not that. It was the knowledge which ex- 
ested among the various members of the Legislature 
tliat if the subjects on which they were called to de¬ 
liberate, were not carefully considered, weighed, and 
deliberately acted upon, there was a power which pre¬ 
sented reasons for their re-consideration, spread them 
forth throughout the country, and caused them to be 
held up belore the ininds of the people, at the same 
time that it called for a re-consideration by themselves 
—and it was this primary action, this primary ^effect, 
inducing calm, cool and earnest deliberation on the 
subjects that were to be brought before them, previous 
to a vote being given, which was going to have a more 
beneficial effect, and produce better results than the 
mere act of forcing a re-consideration. The Governor\ 
was the representative, emphatically the representative 
of the people; and as much the representative of the 
people as were the two houses of tne Legislature in 
their collective capacity. Thei’e was one idea which 
struck his mind, and which he had not heard advanced 
here. That the divisipn of responsibility which wasV 
always found in large assemblies of men, might often \ 
cause actions to be performed there, which would not 
be proposed b)’^ any one man in his single capacity; he 
being equally, though no more responsible to the people 
than were the bodies who acted in a collective capacity 
Now that was precisely the situation in which stood 
the government of the State and the two houses of the 
Legislature. 

The Governor, said Mr. D., concentrated in his own 
person a responsibility which he held to the people of 
the State,—a similar one, a precisely equal one, and 
no greater, was divided among the whole of the mem¬ 
bers of the two houses of the Legislature. And when 
that responsibility was not a whole, it could not be 
felt to the same extent by every individual member of 
that body. It all concentrated in its united force in 
the person of the single representative who occupied 
the office of Governor; and for that reason, and that only 
he would always remember this responsibility and act 
under it, it might be that he would often act as a salu¬ 
tary check on the hasty or improper action of those 
bodies. For these reasons he would vote, when the 
proper time came, for the resolution as introduced by 
the gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] and for these 
reasons he would not support the amendment of the 
gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold.] Though 
there might be strong reasons for the amendment, and ' 
though he would rather vote for a “two-third” veto 
than none at all, but as he had a choice he would vote 
for the simple negative that should be set aside by a 
majority. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said that no man was in favor of 
an unqualified veto. No man would advocate such a 
proposition for a moment. But the proposition of the 
gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] did not amount, 
to a veto, either qualified or unqualified, it did not 
even authorize the Governor to remonstrate with dig¬ 
nity or effect. It only authorized that high officer to 
write a phillippic against the General Assembly; or, 
as the Indians v^rould say, make a great talk, to engage 









96 CONVENEION RERORTS. 


iu a scold. The members of the Assembly would be 
irritated by such an ineffectual remonstrance. They 
would reply to that functionary, as Mr. Curran once 
did to Hawkesworth. That gentleman once supposed 
that he had totally annihilated one of Curran’s argu¬ 
ments, and set down filled with self-gratulation. 
Curran rose slowly muttering out, Emory, Emory, 
Emory Hawkesworth, not one copper is all your talk- 
worth.” The Assembly would make a similar reply 
to the Governor. They would be in possession of ac¬ 
tual power; according to the plan of the gentleman 
from Clark, the Governor would be in possession of a 
shadow, a mere name. The Governor would be 
solemnly invited by this provision, to affront a large 
body of popular and influential men. What chance 
would he have of success in the contest, which would 
ensue. The Assembly would be immerous, he 
but one. They would soon be scattered abroad in the 
diflerent counties, in immediate contact with the peo¬ 
ple, he would be confined in this city. Their will 
would be carried into eff ect, his w’ould be set at nought. 
Few Governors would have the courage to make a re¬ 
monstrance, and enter into a contest under circumstan¬ 
ces so discouraging. The proposition ol the gentle¬ 
man from Clark, was merely better than none, and but 
little better. He would, perhaps, rather have that 
than have nothing, but he would rather give the Gov¬ 
ernor the same powder which he posseses in good old 
Democratic Pennsylvania, the Keystone of the Federal 
arch. There could be no danger in following such a 
precedent. But he had last week expressed his opin¬ 
ion on this subject, and would add no more. 

Mr. MITCHELL said he had not designed to occu¬ 
py the attention of the committee on the present occa¬ 
sion. But inasmuch as the vote of the Convention was 
about to be taken on the subject under consideration, 
and inasmuch as the various views entertained by the 
members had been already submitted to the committee 
and to the country, he thought now was the most ap¬ 
propriate time to offer his reasons for the course he 
was about to pursue. He had listened wdth much 
pleasure to this entire debate, thus far. He had been 
pleased to witness the little of party asperity that had 
lieietofore manifested itself among them, and esjiecial- 
ly when they were discussing a subject which had 
been used as a fire brand to stir up parties for the last 
twenty years. And, he was particularly gratified in 
being able to agree with some of the opposite side in 
some things. He was glad to be able to coincide with 
the gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] in one view of 
the subject which he presented—also, with the gentle¬ 
man from Gallia, [Mr. Nash.] He agreed that the 
great object in giving this power to the Governor, or 
to any one connected with the Legislative Department, 
w’as to arrest hasty and imprudent legislation. This he 
conceived was the true and proper use to be made of 
this power in any place. But, he could not agree with 
the gentleman from Gallia [Mr. Nash] as to the impro¬ 
priety of alluding to the past political history of the 
country, or to past political events. Why, they must 
allude to all the past if they would regulate their judg- 
m< nt aright as to what was to have a a bearing on 
the future. They should carefully consider the past, 
and there was no part of the past that this Convention 
should be afraid to allude to. It was the duty of gen¬ 
tlemen to allude to it in a proper manner, but not to 
harrow up personal feelings, not to cast gibes and 
sneers at those who had occupied the position of polit¬ 
ical opponents, but to ask them as members of this 
Convention, calmly to review their course and correct 
their errors. In the allusions he might now or at any 
time make to political parties, it was not for the pur¬ 
pose of injuring any man’s feelings—he alluded to them 
only for the purpose of eliciting information and knowl¬ 
edge which might in a measure, guide and correct the 
action of this body. 

Neither did he agree with the gentleman from Mon¬ 
roe, [Mr, Archbold,] that they should not allude to 


the past doings of the Legislature. They should ,al¬ 
lude freely, but not in a disrespectful or invidious man¬ 
ner, bat as a matter of history—as the transpiring of 
things connected with what they were about to do 
here, they ought to recur to them Ireely and fearlessly. 
Neitlnn' did he agree wdth the gentleman from Monroe, 
[Mr. Archbold,] in relation to the duties of this Con¬ 
vention. He had seemed to think that it was a subor¬ 
dinate body to the Legislature—that it was inferior to 
it—no! This Convention knew no superior, save only 
the Creator of man and the people of the State. These 
were the only powers superior to this Convention 
now, or in time to come. Why, they w'ere here about 
to prescribe rules which should hereafter regulate and 
restrain future Legislators, to fix a bound which they 
cannot pass. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD here begged to explain. The gen¬ 
tleman misunderstood him, in what he supposed him 
to have said. He certainly never intended to say that 
this body was subordinate to any Legislature. W’hat 
he said was, that if the Convention descended into 
minute detail, future Legislatures rrjight deem it prop¬ 
er to think and act difi'erently I'rom this body. 

Mr. MITCHELL then misunderstood the drift of 
the observations of the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. 
Archbold.] But he conceived that his remarks, when 
published, would most probably justiiy the conclusion 
he had drawn from them. He, of course, received the 
explanation most cheerfully. 

It would be a strange thing indeed, if they were to 
trample upon the rights of future legislatures, when 
prescribing their bounds. They were to have just 
what rights this bedy would grant to them, and no 
more, lie begged leave also, to call attention to some 
of the remarks made by the gentleman from Clinton, 
[Mr. Morris,] this morning. Lie begged his attention 
to the fact which, to his astonishment he had asserted, 
it was that the Kings of England had a veto. Why, 
there was not a man in the land, in the least conver¬ 
sant with the organization of the government of Great 
Britain who did not know that the power assumed by 
the King, was in no sense a veto. He was regarded 
as a co-ordinate branch of the lawmaking power. In- i 
deed, the King himself was the source of power, and i 
from which all Legislative action emanated. When | 
he placcci his signature to a bill, it was not to signify 
his assent or disproval of it, but as forming apart of 
the enacting power. The one in fact, out of which j 
all others grew. | 

He wished to call the attention of the gentleman | 
from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] to some of his remarks. I 
That gentleman asserted that it was a great democrat- < 
ic principle that the majority should govern. He had I 
heard that before, and thought it camiC in a very strange j 
connection and from a strange side here. In the contests 
which he had been obliged to hold with political ad- j 
versaries, for years past concerning this veto, this was i 
the very argument used against him. He was opposed 
generally with this syllogism “ w-as it not a democratic 
principle that, the majority should govern?” He had 
always answered to the broad proposition thus stated, i 
“ no.” 

He begged to call the attention of the gentleman to 
what the proposition implied in its broad and unlimi- j 
ted sense. Why the doctrine that the majority should | 
govern w^as as applicable to the House of lords in Eng- ; ^ 
land as to the Llouse of Congress in the United States. 
Suppose a controversy arose between him and another 1 
gentleman, one contending that the house of lords was j 
a democratic body, the other the contrary; and sup¬ 
pose the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer,] were ! 
called upon to decide on the doctrine. The question i 
wmuld be asked him “ was it democratic doctrine that 
the majority shall govern ?” “ Undoubtedly,” he would 
reply; and thtm said his adversary “ you are beaten!” 
The house of lords is a dernoeratic body for there the 
majority governs. No proposition had been morfe a- 
bused than that—none more misapplied. 









CONVENTION REPOETS. 97 


That the majority should govern was a principle ap¬ 
plicable to all organized bodies ; and it is a democratic 
principle only when applied to the mass of the people 
in a State. In any other view it is as applicaple to the 
House of Lords in England or to the Chamber of Leers 
in France, to the congi’ess of crowned heads in Vienna, 
as in to thd democratic bodies in America. But 
there were two principles concerned in this discussion, 
very important principles, and which he was much a- 
fraid the people in this country were overlooking. 
Now those who thought that the resolution was the 
result of mere passion or excitement, were much mis¬ 
taken. Those who supposed that the institutions of 
the countiy, which had their fonn as we now found 
them, grew out of passion, were in great eiTor. 

The science of government occupied to no small de¬ 
gree the minds and the attention of men in the United 
Provinces previous to the revolution. He took it that 
among the first men who directed attention to it was 
the gi-eat Franklin. At Albany, in 1757, he submitted 
a proposition to the principal men of the colonies there 
assembled to consult about the French war, so called— 
a plan which contained the chief principles embodied 
in that scheme of government which at last so happily 
resulted in our glorious constitution. The subject of 
“ government ” was then undergoing learned and able 
discussions, nor was it only at that time, but since the 
English revolution of 1648, and, from that time dow^i 
to the present, had the rights of the people, and the 
propriety of securing them, occupied the attention of 
mankind. 

He would call attention to these tv\'o great princi¬ 
ples which then occupied the attention of men. One 
of them was that suggested by the elegant Sir Wm. 
Draper, the elder, “ that government was founded on 
authority, and not on any contract—that the people 
derived their rights from the crown, and not by virtue 
of any inherent right in themselves—that the doctrine 
that the people had all right to government was a 
mere theoiy, and had no existence in justice or phi¬ 
losophy.” The opposite side contended, with the ac¬ 
complished Montesquieu at their head, “thatitwas the 
inalienable right of the people to govern themselves, 
and one which, when invaded or denied by sover¬ 
eigns, was an usurpation and a wrong.” 

Another point argued, was, that the peojde enjoyed 
all right, that natural liberty was the unrestrained ex- 
erc ise of the will, and that laws were encroachments 

o natural liberty. Now that last proposition was im¬ 
portant when they were considering the force of the 
application of the veto. If it were ti-ue that every 
law passed was but a curtailment of our liberties, then 
the application of the veto saved to the people the 
residue of liberty left, without the passing of more 
laws. It was only a right to secure the people against 
encroachment on their liberty, and could therefore 
never be an evil. Hence, because it was in character 
with our institutions, that he was in favor of it. What 
did they do by a veto in this country ? They simply 
left the people in the enjoyment of the same laws that 
they had before a particular bill was passed, and to 
give them an opportunity to determine whether any 
hirther restrictions should be made. Then the applica¬ 
tion of the veto commended itself in that it secures 
all the rights to the people yet undisturbed. Many 
gentlemen seemed to have got in their minds an idea 
that if the governor could prevent the passage of a 
law, he would therefore withhold from the people 
some darling right. 

Now, this proposition belonged to the two broad an¬ 
tagonistic principles to which he had alluded. One 
principle was that right proceeded from the governors; 
the other, that the people had all rights inherent. Ta¬ 
king the latter as the proper one, they would have no 
harm resulting from the application of the veto power, 
and even an absolute veto was not so objectionable as 
gentlemen might suppose. He was one who believed 
that one of the great evils under which they had snf- 

7 


fered, was hasty legislation. And he would be glad to 
see some provisions—he cared not how many—put into 
the present constitution, in order that the people who 
would come after us should be preserved from what 
we have suffered in this respect. 

Another principle—a fundamental one, and one 
which we were inclined to overlook, was the view pre¬ 
sented by the gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason.] It 
was the necessity of adding dignity to the office of Gov¬ 
ernor. He had listened with great respect to the re¬ 
marks of the gentleman. He was satisfied that the 
gentleman in making them designed to injure no one’s 
feelings, to injure no officer of the government, and not 
to project any principle which he considered alien to 
the principles of republicanism, still it did strike his 
mind, that the direct tendency of the theory he was 
running, was the establishment of a pianciple that was 
positively hostile to republican principles—that was 
that offices as offices should be dignified. One of the 
positions maintained by those who maintain that au¬ 
thority was the true foundation of government, or that 
a monarchy was a just and natural government—was 
that the monarch and all in authority, must be so sur¬ 
rounded with pomp and dignity, as to impress the peo¬ 
ple with a sense of his authority. In fact some had 
drawn the existence of kings and monarchies from the 
veiy fact of men living in grand palaces, and making 
a luxurious display before their fellow men, and for 
that reason, men were inclined to pei’mit such to gov¬ 
ern them. He knew this was a doctrine which the gen¬ 
tleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] did not desire to pro¬ 
mulgate here. Our government was entirely a gov¬ 
ernment of contract—officers were employed as agents, 
for the discharge of certain duties, and in proportion 
to the serviceableness and capacity of officers, so were 
the officers respectable and dignified. He had not had 
the pleasure or benefitof a personal acquaintance with 
many of the Governors of this State. Three of them 
he had known. Now he would not hesitate to say, 
that few, if any among the gentlemen with whom he 
had become acquainted, offered to his mind greater 
claims for respectability and standing. He considered 
the present Governor a perfect model for a republican 
chief magistrate. Simple, plain and frank in his man¬ 
ners, and just what he ought to be ; and whether he 
held his levees in a “wretchedly furnishedbed-roorn,” or 
amid the glitter and the splendor of a palace, would 
not in his mind make a shade of difference in the re¬ 
spect with which he regarded hmi, nor did he ever 
know any one of them who was not entitled to the 
greatest respect; not because they were Goveniors, but 
by reason of acquirements and moral worth. With 
one gentleman he had had a long and cherished inti¬ 
macy, a man whose abilities and kindly qualities, had 
ever gained him the respect and admiration of all who 
had the happiness to know him. 

He referred to Governor Bartley. He knew him 
before he was elected as Governor of the State, and 
he would say that Govenior Bartley was as worthy of 
respect before his election as he was after it, and wheth¬ 
er he held the office or not, still he was entitled to re¬ 
ceive respect, independent of all connection with of¬ 
fice. 

He did not regard this as a small matter. Men were 
clearly intellectual beings, and if false principles be 
suggested to their minds, they were liable to take hold 
of them and cherish them even as though they were 
true. If they spread abroad false principles, so cer¬ 
tain would fatal results eventuate. Just as the grain 
which the husbandman scattered from his hand, would 
certainly produce its kind. 

He would not go for this veto as adding anything to 
the dignity of the office, but he expected that men 
holding office should be entitled to the respect of the 
people by their moral character and capacity for the 
performance of their duties. As he understood it, the 
opinion largely prevailed that this veto proviso should 
be incorporated into the new constitution, for the pur- 









98 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


pose of having questions submitted to the people. 
That was what they desired and what he was satistied 
this Convention ought to do. 

The object of the proposition which he read the other 
day for information, was to enable the people to ascer¬ 
tain how a majority of their fellow citizens of the State 
would decide, and to take from the present use ol the 
executive veto its uncertainty as to results. Did they 
not know that their political adversaries had always 
contended that the question was not settled on the elec¬ 
tion of the President of the United States ? Was it not 
true that in 1832, there were as many issues made on 
the election of Jackson as there were sections of the 
country. In some places it was his veto on the Mays- 
ville turnpike bill, in another the bank charter, or soine 
other measure. He thought that the people did satis¬ 
factorily settle by that vote what veto or vetoes they 
approved of. He thought the latter. But tliey would 
often have occasions in which issues would be thrown 
into the contest as irrelevant to one another as could 
be; and when that took place, how could it be said 
that the people had settled the question. People of 
sense would not be satisfied with that kind of a decis¬ 
ion. He believed it to be the characteristic of our peo¬ 
ple to bow in submission to the wishes of the majority 
of their fellow citizens, and if they could be convinced 
that the majority would be in favor of a certain meas¬ 
ure, they would submit to it and support it. But to 
attain that end we needed some certainty. His proposi¬ 
tion was, that the question which called forth the veto 
should be put to the people, and they would thus have 
a vote on it one way or the other, and when they had 
that vote, they might rest assured that they would have 
little bickering or contention in regard to whether it 
were right and proper or not. And he thought it would 
do much to keep the people of Ohio in a state or cordi¬ 
ality and hai’mouy, one of the most desirable states that 
a republican people could wish. H6 did not know 
whether the present were the proper time to bring the 
amendment before the committee. At the time it was 
brought before the committee, on a previous day, it was 
deemed out of order to pi’opose to amend the resolution 
then. For that reason he had not presented it; if it 
were in order now, he desired to do so yet, he was not 
j)articular. 

The gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Archbold] re¬ 
marked that many propositions might be submitted to 
the people, of a frivolous nature. He instanced the case 
of a local act. The gentleman forgot however, the fact 
that the Convention most probably would not sanction 
corporations. In all probability the Convention would 
decide all laws should be of general force. That settled 
the question. If a case of the kind alluded to 
could happen, then they should secure in some portion 
of the instrument they were about to frame, some pro¬ 
vision that would extend to such a case and obviate the 
objection. He had addressed these remarks to the 
committee not because they arose out of a political 
contest which we have just passed through, but because 
they were the conclusions of his mature and deliberate 
judgment, from viewing the matter in the light he had 
viewed it here. He favored this measure for the pur¬ 
pose of preserving to the people a large residue of 
their liberty and for the purpose of asking whether 
they would do this or not. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga called for a division of 
the question. 

Mr. MITCHELL obtained leave to offer an addition¬ 
al remark to what he had already said. He remarked 
that he desired to call attention to the fact of the large 
number of States which had adopted the veto power. 
They would think, looking at the state of things in 
Ohio, that there was no State in the Union that had this 
,power in its constitution. He was astonished to find 
how large a number had it. There were no less than 
twenty-two out of thirty that had the principle of the 
i veto in them. The State of South Carolina had a sin- 
i gular provisfon in its constitution. It was, that no law 


should have force until the great seal of the State was 
placed to it. Whether it might be considered a veto or 
not he could not say; it might have that effect. He 
supposed that the Governor was the keeper of the seal, 
and by refusing to affix the seal, he could negative a 
law. Of those twenty-two there were twelve requi¬ 
ring a two-thirds vote to overrule the veto, ten renui- 
red a majority, and and all but two of that ten requi¬ 
red a majority of those elected. He would say a word 
in relation to the veto power itself. 

He conceived that in the States of Illinois and Indi¬ 
ana they had as perfect a veto as in Vermont and 
Marne, yet in the latter it required a two-thirds vote, 
in Indiana but a majority. He would here remark 
that the power of* the executive veto was entirely ex¬ 
pended when the Governor had refused his assent to a 
law and sent it back to the Legislature, with his rea¬ 
sons for so doing. 

Then, there were seven out of thirty that had no veto 
power—one in New England, the smallest, one in Del¬ 
aware, one in Maryland, one in Virgiiiia, one in North 
Carolina, one in Tennessee, one in Ohio. These were 
the only States that had no veto; and it was worthy of 
remark that most of those States continued to use the con¬ 
stitutions which they had adopted prior to the formation 
of the United States Constitution, and have not as yet 
effectually amended their constitutions. Most of the 
new States had adopted the veto, with the requirement 
of two-thirds to over-rule. Those who had adopted 
that plan had consulted the height of good serise. 

Mr. PECK, (who was heard with much difficidty at 
the Reporter’s desk,) said that the proposition of the 
gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason,] seemed to him to 
to be to some extent a veto. For the most part, laws 
of the highest public importance were not passed until 
near the close of the session; bills thus passed were then 
sent to the Governor for his assent or dissent. Instead, 
however, of returning those bills with his assent or 
dissent thereto, he put them in his pocket and retained 
them until after the Legislature had adjourued. To that 
extent his proposition was a positive veto. 

It was urged by those who advocated the veto that 
the Governor was the representative of the whole peo¬ 
ple—elected by the entire community. They know 
perfectly well how the Governor was elected—he was 
elected by a party, and if this veto power were con¬ 
ferred on the office, it would, in his opinion, be made 
to subserve to party purpose merely. The proposition 
made by the gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] was 
not sufficiently understood by those in favor of the ve¬ 
to, and, in that condition of the matter, the gentleman 
from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] like the quack doctor 
who undertook to prescribe for a disease which he did 
not understand, undertook to turn into fits a diseast^ 
which he professed himself competent to cure. And 
when he turned it into fits” he knew all about the 
treatment of it. So it was with the gentleman from 
Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] having given Mr. Mason’s 
proposition “fits,” was now quite at home in the treat¬ 
ment of it. [Laughter.] He was much surprised in¬ 
deed that any member occupying the position which 
the member from Clark [Mr. Mason] did, should 
make a proposition of the kind. He was happy to see 
so many members on the other side of the house agree¬ 
ing with him that this power was entirely unnecessary. 
It seemed to him that the propositions made, properly 
applied to our existing constitution, and not to the 
amendments contemplated to be made in it. 

If, as suggested, all the patronage and power should 
be taken from the Legislature to elect officers or apply 
the public moneys, there could be no necessity for any 
restraining power over them. If the Legislature as¬ 
sembled but every two year's, merely to pass laws, 
there would not in his opirrion, be marry occasions of 
improvident legislation. It seemed to him that the 
veto was set up to remedy a thing which should be 
corrected in another mamrer; if they could do so, they 
decidedly should prevent the evil which the veto itselt 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


was intended to remedy. The great evil in this coun¬ 
try was an excess of legislation. We borrowed the 
gr ater part of our forms and our notions from Europe, 
where the people were living under absolute govern- 
mert, and where every thing found in the shape of 
privilege or legislation, was valued by them as an alj- 
solute gain to liberty. But in this countiy the people 
themselves were the sovereigns, and had nothing to 
gain, and eveiything to lose in conferring powers on 
the Legislature. Now, they sent the Legislature hero 
to do that for them which they could not do in their 
individual capacity. The laws in a republican form 
of government could only be earned into operation by 
the support of public opinion, and if the Legislature 
refused to pass laws desired by the public, the people 
would attain their object without the instrumentality 
of the legislative co-operation. 

Even supposing that the Legislature passed a law 
which was inexpedient or improper, it would be sent 
to the Governor for his approbation or rejection, it 
would then be sent back by the Governor—a man of 
no more than average ability—then, in ninety-nme ca¬ 
ses out of a hundred, would be passed over again by 
the Legislature, unless, as before suggested, the Gov¬ 
ernor should put the bill in his pocket and retain it 
until the Legislature should adjourn. In that way it 
seemed to act as an absolute power, or had no opera¬ 
tion whatever. It was objected that it was necessary 
to invest the Governor with this power in oi-der to give 
the office dignity. It was his opinion that if they 
would have a dignified Governor they should elect a 
man who had dignity without the office. And if it 
were necessary to give the office more dignity, raise 
the salary to a respectable sum, and not put a whip in 
the Governor’s hands, with which he might scourge us. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman: ItrusttheCou- 
veution will indulge me for a few moments, while I 
shall submit a few considerations. It strikes me, sir, 
that the veto power should be incorporated into the 
new Constitution. It strikes me, sir, that, abridge as 
you may your legislative power, confine its action as 
you may to a few general principles, and still the ne¬ 
cessity for the exercise of the veto power will become 
even greater-than at present. Let the Executive and 
Legislative departments assume antagonistical positions 
upon any great principle, and it appears to me more 
proper that the issue should be refened to the people, 
than now when an antagonism may arise upon more 
minute and less important matters. I think then that 
the fact of our being about to form a new Constitution, 
and to enter upon a new state of things, is no reason 
why we should dispense with the veto power; but to 
the contraiy, it is a strong argument why it should be 
incorporated into the Constitution. Our government, 
as I take it, is a representative Democracy. The repre¬ 
sentatives of the State are not the people, they are the 
representatives. So it is with the Executive of thfe 
State. He is the representative of the masses—of the 
whole State. Now, sir, I conceive that these represen¬ 
tatives of the people are both entitled to equal consider¬ 
ation. If either be entitled to the preference it is the 
Executive. Every voice is heard in his election. It 
is not so with the Legislative department. Its mem¬ 
bers are elected severally from small localities, counties 
and districts, and frequently on mere local and tempo¬ 
rary questions, while the election of the Governor turn^ 
entirely on some great principles which divide the pep^ 
pie of the State. 

The Governor of the State then, it is evident, is the 
more reliable exponent of the public sentiment. As an 
evidence of this, I will refer you, sir, to one fact; the 
Governors of Maryland and Georgia, and of a third 
State which I forget, were severally Democratic, when 
at the same time a majority of their several Legislatures 
were of the opposite party. Now, under such circum¬ 
stances, does it not appear to be the dictate of common 
sense, that wherever an issue arises between these two 
branches of the government it should be referred to the 


99 


people? Is it not the dictate of common sense that 
when two agents of a principal disagree their action 
should be suspended till the wishes of the principal 
shall be known? And this, sir, is the sum and sub¬ 
stance of the veto power—it is a temporary conseiva- 
tive of power, till the sober second thought of the peo¬ 
ple is heal’d; and, for my part, I wish, whenever the 
Executive and the Legislature cannot harmonize, that 
its voice should be heard. 

Is not your Executive competent to exercise this 
power with pradence and discretion? Surely he is. 
Elected with reference to his being the head and front 
of his party, with express reference to his qualifications, 
not merely to discharge the duties of an Executive, 
but to recommend the consideration of questions of 
State policy to the Legislative department. And is it 
probable that his veto would be exercised in a reckless 
manner ? No, sir, it is not. He is but one man—the 
Legislature “is legion;” and nothing but the conviction 
that the Legislature was wrong, and that he himself 
would be sustained by the people, would ever induce 
him to interpose his veto, and encounter “ the fearful 
odds ” arrayed against him. 

Another argument going to show that the Govemoris 
the tme exponent of the public sentiment in the State 
is this: Under any apportionment which we can make, 
there will be inequalities. Large numbers of votes in 
various districts of the country will be necessarily sunk 
and swallowed up. But there is no such thing in the 
election of a Governor. Therefore he represents the 
people more perfectly than it is possible for them to be 
represented by the Legislative body. It strikes me that 
if public sentiment is to be fully and fairly represented, 
itmust be by clothing the Governor with the veto power. 

Besides, sir, we have an example of the effects of 
this principle in our National government. I believe 
there has not a single veto emanated from the National 
Executive but which has ultimately been sustained by 
the people of the United States. And now, if “ histoiy 
be philosophyby teaching example,” shall we not adopt 
such an example in the State of Ohio ? 

Besides, sir, when the experience of other States of 
this Union before us, particularly that of the State of 
Pennsylvania—(it has been but recently that a bill 
passing the Legislature of that State has been vetoed 
by its Governor—a bill which was supposed by the Ex¬ 
ecutive to be one of an odious and exceptionable char¬ 
acter. Whether it was so or not it is not for me to de¬ 
termine ; suffice it to say that the principle appears to 
be a good one upon which the Executive ol that State 
has exercised his veto in this- case. It was employed 
to resist and hold in check the operation of a bill for 
gerrymandering and districting the State for mere par- 
tizan pui-poses)—I do think, sir, that some provision of 
the kind will be found to be necessary in the Constitu¬ 
tion of the State of Ohio. I do not believe any self- 
adjusting system of apportionment can ever be adopted 
in the State, but that ultimately we will have to fall 
back upon the Legislature of the State every ten years, 
or perhaps oftener, to apportion the State for Represen¬ 
tative and Senatorial purposes. How desirable it would 
be then for the party in the minority—or, as it might 
be, in the majority—to have a man, divested of all feel¬ 
ings of local interest and representing the feelings and 
interests of the entire State, ready to employ the power 
of tne veto to correct unequal legislation upon this sub¬ 
ject. 

Besides, sir, I have another reason why I would wish 
the Executive to be clothed with the veto power. It is 
this c Beforo your laws are enacted it would pioduce a 
more close and heai’ty co-operation between the Execu¬ 
tive and the Legislative departments; and while bills 
would be maturing they would receive more of the at¬ 
tention of the Executive as well as the Legislature, 
knowing, as both parties would, that if they should not 
harmonize, the whole matter would be referred to the 
eople, and before whom also they would themselves 
e placed in antagonistic positions. I apprehend there- 









100 


CONVENTION REPOETS 


fore, that all our questions in legislation would be better 
matured, and that the result would be the enactment of 
more wise and wholesome laws than we have had for 
years past or shall have for years to come without the 
exercise of the veto. 

Mr. PERKINS. The committee may be weary of this 
discussion, but I have an excuse for trespassing a short 
time upon your patience. I have set here all day, re¬ 
ceiving every now and then raps over the knuckles 
from my whig friends who have represented opposi¬ 
tion to the veto power as one of the principles ol the 
party, until I have felt it nccessa^ to rise and put in a 
plea lor freedom of opinion in this matter. I propose 
to vote for a two-thirds veto—that is, a veto power in 
the hands of the Governor, controlled only by a vote 
of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature. I 
was sent here by a whig constituency, and if it be true 
that to take ground in favor of this measure involves a 
dereliction from party obligation, I wish to say that my 
devotion to party does not go farther than my devotion 
to my convictions and my duty. 

I shall, in a very few words, give ray reasons for the 
opinions I have adopted. 

In the first place, I am willing to admit, for the sake 
of argument, the truth of the dogma, that this govern¬ 
ment is and should be properly a government merely 
of a majority, that a majority has not only the pow¬ 
er, but also the right, to decide all questions concern¬ 
ing the franchises and privileges of individuals—that 
the power to command on the one side, imposes the 
duty of obedience on the other; in short, that the 
voice of the people is the voice of God. Even in 
this case, Mr. Chairman, we are still at liberty, nay, 
bound not to lose sight of the distinction between a 
well considered and settled popular opinion, and a stid- 
den freak of temporary passion. We all know that 
the motives and influences which govern in the elec¬ 
tion of the Chief Executive officer, and that of the 
members of both branches of the Legislature, are fre¬ 
quently those which have no connection with the per¬ 
manent policy of the government—that questions fre¬ 
quently grow out of temporary causes which interfere 
with a fair expression of the popular will. This is suf¬ 
ficiently proved by the numerous instances occurring 
in our history and in that of our sister States, in which 
an Executive of one character has been elected, and a 
Legislg4;ure of another. I believe, therefore, that 
wheie a difference of opinion arises between the Ex¬ 
ecutive and the Legislative departments of the State 
Governments, it is fair to presume that the Executive 
may, by possibility, represent the feelings and wishes 
of tlie people at large, better than the Legislature. It 
is also possible that the Legislature may be the true 
exponent of the popular will, but the conflict implies 
a doubt, and in my opinion a doubt of sufficient conse¬ 
quence to justify and require a reference of the whole 
matter to the people for decision; that is, that the Ex¬ 
ecutive should have the power to stay the action, sus¬ 
pend the enacting power of the Legislature, and await 
the decision of a succeeding election to resolve the 
doubt. This radical idea, this recognition of the dis¬ 
tinction between a confirmed conviction of the reason 
of a people, and a passing freak of temporary passion, 
has, in all ages been connected with the system of 
republican government. It has led to the division ol 
the Legislature into two branches; to the election of a 
Senate for a comparatively longer term of office, and to 
the adoption of constitutions placed by their express 
terms above the danger of sudden alteration. If a bare 
Legislative majority should, in all cases, decide a dis 
putqd question, then there could be no necessity for 
two houses. Why not unite the Senate and the As¬ 
sembly, and let the majority in one house rule on all 
occasions? What propriety is there in electing a Sen¬ 
ate for a longer term? What propriety even in the 
adoption of a constitution at all, if we recognize no 
difference between permanent and temporary law? 

But this argument is not the one, Mr. Chairman, 


which bears the most strongly upon my mind. I do 
not believe that either a Legislative or a popular ma¬ 
jority can ever establish the rule of right and wrong. 
My doctrine is—(and I stop not to inquire whether it is 
Whig or whether it is Democratic)—my doctrine is, that 
rights are antecedent to all law and independent of it, 
—that government is but a form, an expedient to se¬ 
cure to individuals the recognition and enjoyment of 
those rights, which are, however, in no way depend¬ 
ent upon it for their original sanction and existence. 

Now if the province of the Legislature could or 
would be so defined in the constitution we are about 
to adopt, as to confine its action within the exact scope 
of its duty, so as to prevent it from assuming powers 
it has no business to assume, and interfering with rights 
it has no business to interfere with, I should not, per¬ 
haps, conceive of any necessity for a veto power. But 
the doctrine avowed heie is not that which I have now 
expressed. The doctrine of this body, if I understand 
it, and the doctrine in the main of both the great polit¬ 
ical parties of this country is the doctrine of the Brit¬ 
ish constitution, that the legislative body is omnipotent, 
except, indeed, so far as we may now proceed to con¬ 
trol it by the express provisions of the constitution ; 
that within the terms of the constitution, there is no 
power which the Legislature cannot assume, no right 
which it cannot appropriate and destroy, no tyranny 
and despotism which it cannot exercise, under the 
forms and in the name of law. So long as this idea of 
he nature and scope of legislative power prevails, I 
do not believe that the limitations and restrictions 
which will be adopted in the new constitution will be 
sufficient to prevent the sacrifice by the Legislature of 
private and individual rights—rights which in my opin¬ 
ion are more sacred than the supposed expediency of a 
State, and which I especially desire to see guarded and 
preserved. I do not believe that under any constitu¬ 
tion which can be carried through this body, the Leg¬ 
islature will be sufficiently restrained from encroach¬ 
ing upon the liberties of the people, under the pre¬ 
tence of subserving the public good. 

And I here beg leave to point out the difference be¬ 
tween the legislative and other departments of govern¬ 
ment in referrence to the extent of their discretion and 
power in this respect. The judiciary, for instance, ope¬ 
rates within certain limits which are exactly fixed and 
prescribed in the constitution and laws. It cannot go 
beyond its duties without directly encroaching upon 
law, and placing itself in opposition to the charter 
from which it derives its powers. So it is with tln^ 
Governor. He cannot encroach upon rights, nor de¬ 
stroy, nor assume nor appropriate rights in any manner 
whatsoever. It is his province simply to execute the 
co7nmission delegated to him by the laws, and if he at¬ 
tempts to encroach beyond his sphere, he must appear 
at once in the light of an usurper and a rebel against 
the authority he was chosen to support. 

To the Legislative department, on the contrary, is 
expressly delegated an almost boundless discretion, 
and an almost unlimited authority—the power to de¬ 
fine rights, to create, to sacrifice, assume, and appro¬ 
priate rights—the powder to balance expediency against 
justice—and weigh out advantage against duty—and 
this authority, so immense and so capable of infinite 
mischief, if improperly exercised, can all be exerted 
without any violation of its constitutional functions or 
any departure from its constitutional sphere. It ia 
then, in the Legislative department of the government, 
that the rights of the p, ople will be usurped and 
sacrificed, in my opinion, if at all. And it is this body, 
possessing by far the most vast and dangerous discre- 
ti n of any body under the constitution, that we should 
especially watch and restrain. 

Mr. President: I am not one of those who believe 
that Republican forms of government ai-e ever to be 
subverted in this country. I have perfect faith in the 
success of Republican Institutions, and I do not con¬ 
ceive that whatever constitutional fonns may be now 











101 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


adopted, any lasting encroachment will be made 
upon the essential liberties oi the mass of the peo¬ 
ple. But, sir, so far as any encroachments upon the 
popular rights may be made, they will be made by 
the Legislative body. They will not proceed from a 
military dictator; they will not proceed from the Ju¬ 
dicial power. They will not proceed from an overri¬ 
ding executive, butjtroin an irrational, excited, triumpli- 
ant party majority in the halls of the Legislature. I 
am, therefore, especially anxious t' guard well the 
limits of the exercise of the Legislative power. 

The encroachment will be made in the form of law, 
and under the ffigis of the constitution. It will bo de¬ 
fended by the plea of expediency, or of some supposed 
or conjectured public good. It will creep in, a wolf 
in sheep’s clothing, in the regular exercise of constitu¬ 
tional authority, and when the evil shall have been ef¬ 
fected, when right shall have fallen as it always must 
fall in the contest with power, nobody will be responsi¬ 
ble for the injury, for no one will have trespassed be¬ 
yond his authorized sphere. 

I beg leave here, to announce the rule by which I 
shall be guided in ray action, while a member of this 
body, upon all questions which shall tend to limit its 
discretion. I shall vote for every wholesome proposi¬ 
tion of this nature. 1 shall vote for the proposition that 
all laws shall be passed by a majority of all the mem¬ 
bers elected to both houses, and that the vote be taken 
on the final passage of every bill, by the yeas and nays 
recorded on the journal. I shall vote to take away 
from the Legislature all power to pass local, partial, 
private, and ea; posi facto laws. I shall vote for an ex¬ 
ecutive veto. I shall vote to take away from the Leg¬ 
islature all power to appoint officers, or to interfere 
with the Judiciary; and in fine, I shall vote to define 
and limit as closely as possible, the exact line in which 
the Legislative Department shall move. 

Mr. QUIGLEY did not propose to detain the com¬ 
mittee with any protracted remarks. In the first place, 
( he said,) I am very glad to observe that there is an 
agreement amongst gentlemen in one essential particu¬ 
lar, and that is, that the whole source of political pow¬ 
er is with the people. In the second place I have 
learned from gentlemen that there has been and may 
be, what is called reckless and improvident legislation. 
In the third place all seem to be agreed that some 
check is necessary to be placed u])on this improvident 
legislation: and the important question is, what that 
check is to be. The venerable gentleman from Clark, 
in whose judgment I have great confidence, first offer¬ 
ed a resolution upon the subject, which, with all defer¬ 
ence to his opinion, I think cannot effect the object, in¬ 
asmuch as it only requires the Governor to return the 
bill for reconsideration and then leaves the power with 
the Legislature to act, just as before the veto. I do 
not think it is necessary for me to remark upon this 
subject since the able discussions which we have had 
so completely supercede the necessity of any argument 
which I could offer. It is my opinion however, if we 
are to have any check at all we ought to have a per¬ 
fect—an operative check—a check that will have some 
decision of character about it. I conceive that the con¬ 
stitution should require two-thirds of a legislative body 
to constitute a majority sufficient to resist the power 
of the Governor. I think I am prepared to draw an 
inference from what has been said by all parties in the 
committee. Inasmuch as they have all admitted in 
some sense the propriety of a check upon legislation, 
I infer that they all consider the veto power at least, a 
harmless principle. I think this is a just inference. I 
am satisfied in my own mind that with a provision re¬ 
quiring a majority of two-thirds to resist it, the veto 
power will be cerlahdy harmless. Besides, sir, this is 
not an arbitrary power. It prohibits no legislation. 
It does not debar the action of the Legislature, it only 
defers action upon laws which in the opinion of the 
Governor and perhaps of the people, may be inconsist¬ 
ent or unreasonable It merely declares that the en¬ 


actment of such laws shall be referred to the people. 
It is therefore a harmless power. With these infer¬ 
ences and views I shall go for a provision requiring 
a majority of two-thirds to resist the veto. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. I have very little to 
say, Mr. Chairman, upon this subject But it seems 
to mo that the idea of giving to the vGovernor a veto, 
is inconsistent with our profession. It looks as though 
we distrusted the capabilities of the people for self 
government. In fact, it is based upon the assumption 
that the people are incapable of self government. It 
implies, also, another fact, that we distrust our own 
qualifications to elect such men to do the business of 
the State as are worthy of being trusted. We are 
afraid to trust the legislative department of the govern¬ 
ment, and therefore we put it under the care of the 
Governor; or, perhaps, gentlemen wish to add another 
branch of the Legislature, or make the Governor of the 
State a constituent part of the legislative power. But 
this is not according to my idea. I suppose there 
should bo three powers in the government, separate 
and distinct from each other. We have the legislative 
power, the judicial power, and the executive power 
and they are all based upon this principle—that the 
people, although all the powers of government I’est 
with them, cannot exercise these powers themselves in 
person. Therefore the representatives of the peo¬ 
ple, from whom the judicial power emanates, decree 
that the judicial department shall decide all questions 
of law and settle all disputes and controv( rsies. Thus 
the judiciary became the agents of the people—having 
no power but what is derived from the people; but 
still it is necessary that the people should exercise this 
power through the agency of this department. Then 
when we come to the legislative department, we see 
that the people must have laws, and although they 
may assemble, yet they cannot legislate in a^ body. 
They must delegate this power to the legislative de¬ 
partment by defining the duties of that body. Then, 
by the consent of parties, the duties and responsibili¬ 
ties of the legislative department being understood, 
they are to be kept distinct from the other departments 
—they are to attend to legislation. And as for the Gov¬ 
ernor, his duty is to execute the law, exclusively; and 
he should not interfere with the legislative power. Now, 
sir, it does seem to me inconsistent with our theory of 
government, to mix up the duties of the various depart¬ 
ments in the manner proposed in the proposition under 
consideration, and therefore I object. But how do 
gentlemen reason ? They say the Governor is the 
representative of the whole people, because the whole 
people have voted for him. He is the representative 
of the masses, and therefore he may with propriety in¬ 
terfere with the proceedings of the Legislature. But, 
why not carry this reasoning out? It the Governor be 
the representative of the whole people, and he alone 
knows the sentiments and wants of the peoi>le, and 
can best provide for them, why not dispense with the 
Legislature, and give to the Governor the power to 
make laws ? Why have a Legislature, if the Governor 
is so much before that body in all these essential re¬ 
spects ? Why interpose a Legislative at all ? Why 
not dispense at once with all the expense and formali¬ 
ties of legislation by a General Assembly, and let the 
Governor make all the laws 1 It seems to me that 
this would be the more consistent course, if we are to 
authorize the Governor to interfere at all with the leg¬ 
islative department. But if we intend to have a legis¬ 
lative department, let it be a department that can en¬ 
act laws, and let the Governor remaui in his proper 
sphere. 

Well, it has also been urged, that many of the laws 
of a general nature should be submitted to the people# 
for their approval ‘ but it seems to me, that upon this 
plan, we might also better dispense with the Legisla¬ 
ture, appoint a commission to suggest laws, and let the 
people do the rest. But if we are to retain a legisla- 








102 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


/ 


tive body, it seems to me that that body should have 
the power within itself to enact laws. 

I may be wrong in this. It may be advisable to have 
a veto, and give the Governor more power. But so far, 
for forty eight years of the State government, we have 
got along without this power in the hands of the Gov¬ 
ernor ; and I don’t know but we might as well contin¬ 
ue without it. To be sure, if we must have this pow¬ 
er in the hands of the Governor, I think it will be pret¬ 
ty safe in the manner proposed. But it does seem to 
me, entirely inconsistent with our ideas of govern¬ 
ment. 

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, to see in this Convention 
so much distrust of the legislative department. A 
stranger to come in here, and listen to this discussion, 
would suppose that we had lost all confidence in that 
department; and that we seem to be acting under the 
apprehension, that the entire body of our Senators 
and Representatives—elected only for periods of one 
and two years—wanted to trample upon the rights of 
the people. Was ever such a thing known, as a legis¬ 
lative body, elected only for periods of one and two years 
disposed to trample upon popular rights? There may 
be hasty, and even corrupt legislation, but the remedy 
always comes with another election. There is no such 
thing as the people being deprived either of their lib¬ 
erty or their property by corrupt legislation, under the 
constitutional restrictions now imposed. I hope the 
amendment will not be adopted, and that the resolu¬ 
tion itself will be rejected. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross next obtained the floor; and 
upon his motion, the committee rose, reported pro¬ 
gress, and obtained leave to sit again. 

Mr. STICKNEY moved that the Convention do now 
adjourn, but withdrew for 

Mr. LARSH, who desired to call attention to an 
error that had got into the reports of proceedings and 
debates as published in the Statesman printing house. 
He had observed in the first form of these reports, that 
the name of his colleague [Mr. Barnett] of Treble 
county, had been omitted in the list of delegates. He 
called attention to the fact, that it might be noticed by 
the Reporter. 

Mr. McCORMICK also desued to call attention to 
an error in a publication emanating from the State 
Journal printing establishment, and laid upon the ta¬ 
bles of members. ^ The work purported to be Conven¬ 
tion Reports, and in it he found language attributed to 
him of which he utterly disclaimed the paternity. 

Mr. STIDGER remarked that it would be observed 
that the authorized edition of the Reports commenced 
at page 17. He was informed that this was for the 
purpose of leaving room for a list of members, with 
full names,residence, district, occupation, age, nativity, 
pernaps a preface. The list of members from 
which the gentleman’s [Mr. Barnett,] name was 
omitted, was necessarily an imperfect one as it only 
included the names of delegates in attendance at the 
or^nization—four being absent at that time. The list 
to be published on the pages proceeding the report of 
the fiist da)rs proceedings would be full and accurate. 

He read the following correspondence between Mr. 
Medary and himself. 


^ ESQ.--Dear Sir: 1 observe that your report ol 

me debates m book lorm in its paging, commences with page 17 
Does any other matter precede this, or is the paging wrong ? 

Yours, &c., ^ H. STIDGER. 

look into the New York and Kentucky Debates you 
will hnd that the hrst 16 pages are occupied with the names of the 
members, and preface, &c. I intend the copy I print to contain 

S. MEDARY. 

The PRESIDENT now announced the standing 
committee, under the resolution of this morning, ap° 
pointed for the duty of comparing the copied with the 
authorized journal, to consist of Messrs. Jones, Larsh 
Smith of Wyandot, and Perkins. ’ 

The Convention then adjourned. 


TUESDAY, May 21, 1850—10 a. m. 

Mr. SAWYER, from the select committee to which 
was referred Mr. Reemelin’s resolution relative to 
printing the proceedings and debates of the Conven¬ 
tion in two German newspapers of the State, submit¬ 
ted the following: 

The select committee to whom was referred the resolutions in 
relation to publisliing the proceedings and debates of this Con¬ 
vention in German newspapers of the State have had the same 
under consideration, and now beg leave to report the following 
resolutions and recommend their adoption : 

Resolved, That the Reporter for this Convention be and he is 
hereby authorized and directed to enter into arrangements with 
the publishers of the German newspaper of Columbus, and the 
publishers of one of the German newspapers at Cincinnati, for 
the publication of the proceedings and debates of this Conven¬ 
tion in their respective journals, at prices not exceeding 121^ cents 
per thousand ems each for composition, and not exceeding 15 
cents per thousand ems, each, for translating. 

Resolved, That the publishers of the newspapers entering into 
these arrangements with the Reporter tor this Convention, be, 
and they are hereby authorized to publish the proceedings and 
debates of the Convention as first published in their respective 
j oumals, in pamphlet or book form, on their own private account. 

WM. SAWYER, 

R. LEECH, 

H. H. GREGG, 

B. P. SMITH. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross said he had stated his views 
and objections to this proposition on a former occasion. 
His opinion was still unchanged. In the first place, 
he seriously doubted the power of the Convention to 
make the aiTangement proposed; and in the next place, 
he did not think it was expedient. He rose merely to 
state, that as a member of the committee reporting, he 
dissented from the report. 

Mr. MANON was inclined to think the resolution 
proposed a little more expense than he would be will¬ 
ing to incur. He was willing to print the Reports in 
German, but he was not willing to pay for the transla¬ 
tion proposed. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga said: The Convention 
had agreed to pay to each of the English journals of 
this city twelve and a-half cents per thousand ems for 
publishing these repoi’ts, and now it was proposed to 
publish the same matter in Gemian, and to pay more 
than double what had been allowed for the same print¬ 
ing in the English language. The cost of the English 
printing was 2.5 cents per thousand ems, and the cost 
of the German 55 cents—including translating. This 
might be all right and proper, but the estimate of the 
population of the State was two millions; 1,900,000 
of which were to be supplied with these I'eports at 
less than half the^ cost which it was proposed to pay 
for supplying the remaining 100,000. If this was 
equality, it was a new kind; it was established by a 
ditferent rule from any that he had ever heard of. 

Mr. MANON proposed now to amend by striking 
out all that part of the resolution relative to pay for 
translation. 

Mr. SAWYER thought the Convention might ven¬ 
ture to strike out the word “ each,” wherever it oc¬ 
curs in the resolution. He thought, that perhaps, for 
15 cents the reports could be translated for one pa¬ 
per and then copied by the other—so saving the ex¬ 
pense of one translation. He made the suggestion 
then, although he was satisfied that it would not have 
been proper to do so in the report. Pie replied to 
some objections to publishing these reports, in the Ger¬ 
man language. It should be recollected, that both in 
the United States and in the State of Ohio, inducements 
were held out to the German population, and to all the 
population of the old world, to come over and make 
this countiy their home, and there were now amongst 
us numerous old men—men of literature, science and 
enterprize—men of enlarged views, but ignorant of 
our language, yet anxious to become acquainted with 
our institutions, and be informed of our system of laws 
and government. What should be done with these 
adopted citizens ? Would it he acting either wisely or 
in good faith towards them, to withhold this printing ? 
He confessed that he could himself prefer that tht^y all 






CONVENTION REPORTS. 


103 


spoke the English language; but he had learned to some 
extent to adopt his acts to the circumstances under which 
he was placed. These people were here amongst us, 
and it seemed to him very proper that we should pro¬ 
vide them with the means of political information. So 
long as we hold out inducements for them to come here, 
it was but right that we should place them upon a level 
with others of our fellow-citizens, with respect to the 
means of public enlightenment. From the best infor¬ 
mation he could get, these German publishers would 
make nothing by the operation. He supposed these 
papers would pnnt the rejiorts in a condensed form, 
without any consideration from the State; but he de¬ 
sired that they should be printed inextenso, and he was 
ready and willing to record his yea and nay upon the 
question. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Was the German paper in the 
city a daily and weekly ? t 

Mr. REEMELIN replied that it was proposed to 
publish a semi-weekly; but at present there was pub¬ 
lished only a weekly. In reply to another question, 
Mr. R. stated that he had made a calculation which 
satisfied him that the Westbote could contain a week’s 
proceedings in one number, by excluding advertise¬ 
ments. 

Mr. LARWILL had a casual conversation with the 
editor of the German paper in this city, this morning, 
and was informed that he was not anxious for this 
printing, for he would make nothing by it. 

Mr. BENNETT was in favor of striking out. He 
was not in favor of printing. He had as many German 
constituents as perhaps any gentleman on the floor, 
and he knew that they were extremely anxious to be 
informed of the character of our institutions, and the 
affairs of the State. He fully appreciated the argu¬ 
ment made on a fonner occasion, that our German fel¬ 
low-citizens could not be better prepared to decide up¬ 
on the constitution which this Convention should sub¬ 
mit to them, than by a perusal of these reports. He 
dissuaded the friends of the proposition from insisting 
upon the pay for translation because he considered it 
would increase the opposition which had existed to 
printing in the German language, by giving to the op- 
osers the opportunity to point to the increased expen- 
iture above that of the printing in the English lan¬ 
guage, He was just as anxious to publish in the Ger¬ 
man as in the English language, and was willing to 
vote for the same expense for both. 

Mr. SAWYER desired to ask the gentleman from 
Tuscarawas how he expected to obtain the printing 
which he was desirous to present to the German peo¬ 
ple, if the pay for the translations were stricken out ? 

Mr. BENNETT had no positive means of knowing 
that such a thing would not defeat the publication, but 
he would say, in reply, that he had been informed it 
would not. 

Mr. REEMELIN said the Convention having taken 
the matter out of his hands by a reference to che se¬ 
lect committee, he should have nothing further to do 
in arranging the details. He still thought his original 
resolution the best for all, for it left the Reporter free 
to adopt the best arrangements for the purpose. But 
let that go. I care not much for the detail, I am anx¬ 
ious to get at the substance. I am not guided by local 
feeling; I care nothing for men, except so far as they 
are necessary to accomplish the end in view. I have 
been misunderstood as favoring this or that paper by 
my proposition. I have harbored no such feeling, and 
1 cannot conceive why my position on this subject has 
been misconstrued. My original proposition left the 
matter open to all, and the Reporter w-ould long ago 
have accomplished the arrangement. Now it is pro¬ 
posed to restrict the Reporter to particular papers. 
Well, let it pass! Let the facts speak for themselves, 
and we will see who was partial, and who was impar¬ 
tial. 

I desire to say a few words on the main question ; 
but before I do so, I wish again to repeat that the two 


papep in Cincinnati are ready and willing to do the 
printing on the terms proposed, including translation. 
I give this information because I think it right that the 
Convention should have in full view all the facts con¬ 
nected with the subject, and not with the purpose of 
throwing any impediments against the paper here. 
I have ever desired, and still desire the publication in 
the paper here on account of its general circulation, 
and I am aware that it can be done if the proper 
spirit is shown on all sides. But if the paper here 
asks more than other papers—if its demands will make 
the German publication cost more than the English, 
then I desire the publication in other papers of gene¬ 
ral circulation, who will do it at the same price as the 
English. I want the publication on equal terms, no 
more, no less. I should regret if the German printing 
were defeated in consequence of its higher expense 
than the English, and that it would be defeated if it 
did cost more, I regard as an established and admitted 
fact. The papers might make something out of a 
book edition, to make up any loss they sustained by 
the publication in their papers. 

And now I will biiefly advert to the true principle 
which should guide our action on this subject. I know 
well the feelings which exist upon first view in the 
minds of many, when it is proposed to print in any 
other language than that which is considered as the 
language of our people. I can fully appreciate the 
feelings of native pride, and of attachment to the 
language which we speak as our mother tongue, and 
appreciating them to their fullest extent, I can forgive 
the man who is canied away by them into an opposi¬ 
tion to a measure such as the one before us. 

But it is a superficial view after all, it is a mere pre¬ 
conceived notion, it is a mere impulse that will give 
way on more sober reflection. Let us take things as 
they are,—let us think coolly on this subject, and we 
will find that all the dangers to the English language, 
all the imagined attacks upon native pride, are merely 
shadows of our imagination, which a clear examination 
dispels. I trust that I have not, and will not fall from 
that modesty with which I, under the peculiar posi¬ 
tion I occupy, should urge this measure, but knowing 
the subject well, I deem it my right and duty, though 
I exercise it reluctantly, to clearly state the true prin¬ 
ciple upon which it should be based. 

VVe have among us a large German population. It 
is here—it is a part of our people, and a part of its vo¬ 
ting population. That population is constantly increa¬ 
sing, becsuse this is the natural point to which that 
particular immigration tends. The middle States of 
this Union, based, as its general govennent is, on prin¬ 
ciples of confederation, similar to those of the old Ger¬ 
man empire, containing, as the middle States do, a 
race of people homogeneous with the immigrants, 
this government had always been liberal to immi¬ 
grants, and being a free country it would continue to 
attract the emigration of Germany. 

Brazil might continue to make its tempting offers of 
gratuitous landed possessions. Russia might forever 
persevere in its endeavors to coax the Germans into its 
southern provinces, and Austria may strain every nerve 
to get them to Hungary. The reply to all these propo¬ 
sitions would ever be, as I have often heard it, from 
farmers, from mechanics, from old and young, “if we 
emigrate, we emigrate not from our country, but from 
our governments; we will go to a free land, we will 
exchange our kings for a republic.” 

Here, in the United States, and eBpeciall5^ in Ohio, 
would be the point to which they would tend. Here 
they find the soil, the people, and the goveniment that 
suits them. What then is the true policy to be pur¬ 
sued. Is it to repulse them? Is it to deny them an in¬ 
sight in our institutions ? Is it to disregard their desire 
for infoi-mation ? I think not. America has adopted 
another policy, its action is guided by more enlightened 
motives. The statesmen of America have known that 
public opinion does and should rule here. The people 










104 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


govern, and the general government and eveiy State 
in the Union has tiierefore adopted the policy, of giving 
the public eye an insight in all the ramifications of the 
government, and thus to make it truly a Republic, a 
res-publica. 

That is the American policy, and we should follow 
it implicitly in this case. The Germans in our State 
arc a part of that public opinion—their feelings and 
their sentiments go into the ballot box—they are a part 
of the whole. To deny them an insight into the gov¬ 
ernment and into all its details, is a suicidal policy, and 
one which must have the most direful efi’ects. So far 
from making them clanish by printing in German, you 
make them so by not doing it. Force is a bad principle, 
It but exasperates, while kindness is sure to win. I 
was forcibly reminded the other day, when this subject 
was up, of an occurrence of which I was an eye wit¬ 
ness in early lile, and which illustrates the point in 
view. 

It will be recollected that France, at one time, pur¬ 
sued the most suicidal policy of driving from its limits 
the Huegenots of France. Many of them settled in 
Belgium, many in England and some in Germany. In 
the State in which I was born, they had forixied sever¬ 
al settlements, living in peace and industry, keeping up 
their old habits and their native language. The pres¬ 
ent king on his accession to the throne, acting from im¬ 
pulse, desiring that his people should be a homogenous 
people, and believing that but one language should be 
spoken in his realm, issued an edict directing that the 
public worship and the schools should be in German 
only. One Sunday, on a visit to one of these French 
villages with the daughter of the pastor of that village, 
who was then Gouvemanie in our family, we found the 
whole people of that village extremely excited. They 
had congregated around the church, muttering excited 
execrations against their protestaiit king, and complain¬ 
ing that their fathers had fled from one tyrrauny to 
hand over their children to another. Wo entered the 
church. We found it deserted. The pastor only in 
the pulpit, and only one old man, perhaps approaching 
rapidly a hundred years, to witness and participate in' 
the religious exercises. The pastor j)reached and pray¬ 
ed in German to empty halls. After the ceremony was 
finished the old man fell upon his knees and uttered 
in a loud voice the Lord’s prayer in French. Fie felt 
no doubt, that God was no respecter of languages, and 
that not having understood German, he would ofi’er up 
his simple prayer in his own language, and it too would 
be heard and received by the God of all nations of the 
earth. 

Ihe old man was imprisoned for a disturbance of 
the public worship. The matter came to the cars of 
the king,—-he relented of his policy,—he saw his error 
—he substituted kindness for force, and the result was, 
that excitement was allayed, and that soon they be¬ 
came a homogenous jieople with the rest, and the 
French language has almost disappeared from amongst 
them. Prejudice ever disappears under the genial 
rays of the noonday light of kindness and friendship. 

We all remember the fable of the contest between 
the wind and the sun, to make the traveller pull off 
his coat. The wind blew, but the man buttoned his 
coat the tighter, while the warm rays of the sun soon 
compelled him to pull it off. 

I a|)preciate, as I said before, the natural impulses 
which arise when the question of German printin'^ is 
mentioned, but I think they are but impulses, winch 
vvill be given up for sounder views on closer examina¬ 
tion. I know also, that that portion of this body, act¬ 
ing with the party opposed to us, have had another 
prejudice to overcome. The Germans in our State are 
largely democratic and they are an impediment to the 
success of that party. We are not apt to love those who 
give us blows, but 1 am glad to perceive that they are 
beginning to give up the rejmlsive policy they have 
hitherto practiced, and that they arc c^^mmencing to 
act on more liberal views. This is their true policv. 


and it will do much to disarm prejudice and to settle 
finally this perplexing question. Let us all meet it in 
candor, without prejudice, and with a desire to give all 
our people full information upon all matters connected 
with our government. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga hoped the pending 
amendment would be adopt(?d, and also a further 
amendment, if necessary, authorizing the contract to 
be made with any other German newspaper, in the 
place of the Columbus publisher, should he refuse to 
accept. It seems to me now, (hecontinued,) that these 
publication^ can be made in the German language for 
the same price as in the English language: and the 
only question now presenting itself is this—shall we 
pay more than double, for the sake of publishing 
in the German newspaper of this city ? Two papers 
in Hamilton county, are willing to j)ublish them at the 
rate of 12^ cents per thousand ems each—saying noth¬ 
ing about reducing them to the German language. 
But this paying double price, in order to get the publi¬ 
cation in a particular paper, it seems to me is wrong. 
I shall vote for an amendment, to the effect, that, 
if the itaper here cannot publish, the contract may go 
to another paper. I am willing that this publication 
should be made in the German language, if it can be 
done upon the same tenns as in the English language: 
and being assured by one who knows, that it can be, 
this is all I ask for. Now, it may be said that this is a 
little matter, but my idea about it is this. So far as res¬ 
pects my own concerns, I may be generous or not, as 
I j)lease. But, when I come to expend the public 
money, then are bounds set to my economy. It is not 
mine, but the people’s money, and, as their agent, I 
will use die strictest economy. 

Mr. MASON. I do not rise to prolong this debate, 
and I do hope the Convention will not be disposed to 
do so. But, as the gentleman from Hamilton county 
[Mr. Reemelin,] has thrown out some very valuable 
and important suggestions, both in regard to the details 
presented, and in regard to the views, motives, philos¬ 
ophy and principles upon which, in my judgment, the 
Convention should act in reference to this proposition 
it ought not to be forgotten by any member of the Con¬ 
vention, that this is almost the first occasion which has 
ever pi-esented itself in Ohio, when the difiereut 2 >oliti- 
cal opinions could be directly confided to the German 
mind in any form whatever. As a large portion of the 
Gennan mind is inaccessible to the American, sjieaking 
in the English tongue, this affords a very proper and 
inviting occasion to commend valuable intorination to 
that portion of our fellow citizens, in regard to the 
construction and fundamental iirinciples and fundamen¬ 
tal law of our form of government, its sjiirit and ten¬ 
dencies. And I would not have gentlemen overlook 
this most im})ortaut consideration. It will be with 
particular i)leasure that I shall vote for this i)roj)osition, 
hoping that it will be made to conform to the sugges¬ 
tions of the gentleman from Hamilton. We are wontto 
consult and economize in publishing any such thing, 
and in all 2 )riuting; and I know not why we should 
not be willing to receive his intimation that the pub¬ 
lication can be made at the same cost with which it is 
made in the Ohio Statesman and in the Ohio State Jour¬ 
nal. I rose merely to say this much, Mr. Chairman, 
and I have no disposition to say aay thing further if 
I understand the matter. It is certainly not like any 
ordinary question, whether we will print in the German 
language or not. It is a most important occasion—an 
opportunity most inviting—and of which we ought to 
avail ourselves; and the means arenowiii our hands 
by which we may instruct our German fellow-citizens 
more fully in our rej)ublican institutions, so far as our 
ilebates and proceedings here can have that tendency. 
And I ho{)e there will be no abridgment of them, as 
the gentleman from Franklin says, and I think there 
will be no occasion for it. We have^^amongst us a large 
proj)ortion of German people and we are willing to 
have thit proportion largely increased. And I may say. 









105 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


without being liable to misconstruction, tliat I live in 
a district where votes can be bestowed for ollice by 
that class of people. But that makes no dilference; they 
are among—in fact they are numbered with us. They 
are not aliens, but welcome as fellow-citizens. They 
are united with us; they are members of our family, 
and it becomes our duty to throw in their way all the 
means of instruction in regard to our political institu¬ 
tions which may be in our power. But, sir, I have de¬ 
tained the Convention too long. I could almost hope 
that we may not be tempted to prolong the debate, 
but that there would be much unanimity in assenting 
to the proposition reported by the committee, with the 
modifications suggested by the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton county. 

After some further conversation and debate, turning 
principally upon the comparative amount of circulation 
to which the Westbote, and the Volksblatt, and the Re- 
publkaner, have respectively attained in this State, in 
which Messrs. Larwill, Reemelin, Dorsey, Sawyer, 
Leech, Kirkwood, Cahill, Henderson and FARi||took 
part. 

Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas and nays upon Mr. 
Manon’s amendment, striking out the allowance for 
translation, and the same being ordered and taken, re¬ 
sulted yeas 67, nays 32, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennet, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, Cook, Cur¬ 
ry, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of 
Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, 
Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lidey, Loudon, 
Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, 
Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stan¬ 
ton, Stdwell, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Town- 
shend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams and Woodbury—67. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Farr, 
Firestone, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Holt, Hootman, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Nor¬ 
ris, Orton, Quigley, Robertson, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Way and Mr. President—32. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. NASH. I move to amend by striking out of the 
resolution all after the word “resolved” and insert the 
resolution originally offered by the gentleman from 
^milton, [Mr. Ree.aielin.] 

Mr. SAWYER. I suggest to the gentleman who of¬ 
fered this amendment that it would be just what the 
present report is, except that report confines it to one 
here and one in Cincinnati. If that amendment is ad¬ 
opted both may be selected in Cincinnati. 

Mr. NASH. I wish to leave that to the disci-etion 
of the Reporter. I do not wish to tie up his hands in 
such a way that he cannot make any contact. I un¬ 
derstand that an arrangement can be effected on these 
terms with two papers in Cii cinnati. Whether they 
can be made between a paper here and a paper in 
Cincinnati is an unsettled question. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Such an anmigement can be 
made. 

Mr. NASH. On the condition that 2.5 cents per thou¬ 
sand ems be paid. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I think that an arrangement can 
be so made. Still it may be better to leave the ques¬ 
tion open. 

Mr. NASH continued. I should prefer to leave the 
question open. I am perfectly willing to vote for the 
original proposition. I am unwilling to go farther, and 
I wish the Reporter to make an investigation and ascer¬ 
tain as to the publication that will secure their widest 
diffusion of the reports. 

Mr. FIRESTONE. I stated, upon a former occasion, 
when this printing matter was before this body, what 
would be my course in relation tp the matter. The 
matter at that time was referred to a committee—the 
committee this morning made a report—that report i 
now befme the Convention. In my opinion it was a 
wholesome one. Now the original proposition comes 


up about printing the proceedings of this body in the 
German papers of the State. I desire that one of these 
German papers should be located in the city of Colum¬ 
bus. It has been admitted upon this floor, by the 
gentleman Irom Hamilton county, that the publishers 
of the German papers who may pi’int the proceed¬ 
ings of this body will be losing considerable money 
but they will willingly do it for the benefit of the Ger¬ 
man population in their localities. It has been admit¬ 
ted too, that the paper published in this city, has a more 
general circulation than those in Cincinnati. Then I 
would ask my friend on the right, would the German 
population receive more benefit from the publication 
of these proceedings in the papers of Cincinnati than 
the papers published in this city ? Sir, I am opposed 
to the resolution as amended, and will vole against it 
from the simple fact that I consider it as not treating 
the German population with justice. The Germans 
of the northern part ol Ohio know nothing about the 
Cincinnati papers, and I suppose there are many in the 
interior of Ohio who know nothing about them. They 
bear a certain poi-tion of the expenses of the Conven¬ 
tion, and should we confine the publication of these de¬ 
bates to a mere locality—one county in this State? lor 
the circulation of the Cincinnati papers is mostly con¬ 
fined to Hamilton county and the States of Kentucky 
and Indiana. There is no doubt they have a large cir¬ 
culation in those States, but I am not willing to lay 
taxes upon four-fifths of the German population, scat¬ 
tered throughout the State, in order to benefit a mere 
locality. Would it be dealing justly with the Geiman 
population of th> State? I approve of the idea that 
they should get this information published in their own 
language. They are as justly entitled to it as those 
who do not undei*.stand their language and read only 
the English. They are citizens of the State of Ohio— 
they have rights as citizens of Ohio, and they should 
have the benefits of the publication of our debates. For 
these reasons I am opposed to confining this publica¬ 
tion to a mere locality and shall vote against the propo¬ 
sition as amended, and against the motion to strike out. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. The substance of the matter, as 
the report now stands, is, that “ the Reporter shall 
contract with the publisher of the German paper in 
this city, and one paper in Cincinnati, for the publica¬ 
tion of these debates in their newspapers, paying to 
them 25 cts. per thousand ems. This proposition I am 
in favor of, and for such an one I shall vote. The 
amendment proposed by the gentleman on the op¬ 
posite side of the chamber, is to leave out the Ger¬ 
man paper in this city as one of the papers, and to 
leave it optional with the Reporter to contract with 
the Westbote or not. To this amendment 1 am op¬ 
posed, because it will defeat the object of publication. 
By excluding the Wetsbote, the people of the part 
of the State from which I came, would not receive 
any benefit. The gentleman from Gallia stated that at 
least three-fourths of the German population of the 
State were residents of Hamilton county. I differ 
with the gentleman altogether. I do not believe, sir, 
that this can be the case, and I think that he is labor¬ 
ing under a very great error in that particular. Butin 
regard to the publication in the different German pa¬ 
pers, the paper published in this city does circulate 
through this county, and in all the adjoining counties 
to a very great extent. The delegate fi'om Crawford 
informs me that about 300 copies of the Westbote are 
circulated in his county; I do not know the precise 
number that are circulated in niy own county, but the 
number is very large. For the reason which I have 
assigned, I shall vote against the amendments pro¬ 
posed, and shall vote for the resolutions proposed in 
the report of the committee. 1 he first question would 
be upon striking out, and therefore I call for a division 
of the question. 

Mr. GREEN, f rise for the purpose of making an 
inquiry. If I understood the chairman of the commit¬ 
tee who have reported this resolution, the gentleman 














106 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


from Auglaize, the publisher of the Gemiau paper in 
this city is unwilling to contract for the publication of 
these debates unless paid a compensation larger than 
that named in this resolution. 

Mr. SAWYER. I have not stated that. The pub¬ 
lisher of the German paper informed me that he could 
not afford to do it. but did not say whether or not he 
would. 

Mr. GREEN. As to the particular localities, I am 
not individually concerned. It does seem to me that 
the most expedient course would be to leave this mat¬ 
ter, so far as the selection of a printer is concerned, to 
the Reporter. He is an honorable and impartial gen¬ 
tleman, an officer of this body, and would cany out 
the wishes and views of the members. The object to 
be obtained by this proposition, is obtained if we leave 
it to him ; the selection of the paper, and the settle¬ 
ment of all the details. 

Mr. MANON. I will not boast of the patriotism of 
my German constituents, as some of the gentlemen 
have done. I presume that the members of the Con¬ 
vention are all aware of the fact that the weekly edi¬ 
tion of the Ohio Statesman and Ohio State Journal nev¬ 
er got anything like a full report of the proceedings of 
either this Convention or the session of the General 
Assembly. What is the result ? Why we, in the coun¬ 
try, send up our dollar and get the daily session paper. 
That will be about the result of this publication of the 
Genaian papers. I have no doubt that if you pass this 
resolution a week will not pass without some of my 
constituents writing to me, and probably ehclosing 
each their dollar to get a copy of the German ses¬ 
sion paper, whether it should be published in Cincin¬ 
nati or in this city. The expense would be no greater 
to them, whether it was published here or in Cincin¬ 
nati—the German population of the State will, to a 
great extent, subscribe for the ‘‘session paper” printed 
in their language, wherever it may be published. 

Mr. STANTON. I suppose that there must be an 
end to all things, and therefore I call for the previous 
question. 

The call for the previous question being sustained, 
and the question turning first on striking out, 

Mr. ROBERTSON demanded the yeas and nays, 
which being ordered resulted yeas 32, nays 69, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnet of Pre¬ 
ble, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carol), 
Curry, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, 
Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Horton, Kennon, Larsh, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift— 
32. 

Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Bates, Blair, Cahill, Case ot 
Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Firestone, Forbes, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson. Jones, 
King, Kirkwood, LarwiU, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Ma- 
non, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Robertson, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Steb- 
bins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way 
Williams, Woodbury and Mr. President.—69 

So the Convention refused to strike out. 

The question being then upon agreeinsr to the report 
as amended. ^ 

Mr. MASON. I desire to ask the Chairman of the 
committee, whether he expects that the report of our 
proceedings will be published in a whig German paper, 
or in two democratic papers ? 

Mr. SAWYER. It is not necessaiy to ask me that 
<luestion, for I have stated repeatedly here, that I had 
not brought party prejudices with me into this Con¬ 
vention. For another reason, I desire that our proceed¬ 
ings shall be published in a whig German paper, in 
order that the German whigs of this State, may know 
the action oftheir Representatives here. As ademocrat. 
I believe that the democratic party will be the gainers by 
their action being well known, and I desire that the 


German whigs shall read the report of all our proceed- 
ings. 

The question being upon the adoption of the report 
of the committee as amended. 

The yeas and nays were demanded by Mr. Ewart, 
and being ordered, resulted yeas 96—nays 5, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnett of Mont] 
gomery, Barnett of Preble,, Bates, Bennet, Blair, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Athens, Brown, of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, 
Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, 
Ewing, Farr, Firestone, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray) 
Green of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
LarwiU, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, M^on, Mason, 
Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, 
Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, 1^6- 
ertson, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith ot Wymdot, 
Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance 
of Butler, Warren, Way, Woodbury, Mr. President— 95. 

Nays —Messre. McCloud, Perkins, Stanton, Switt and Williams 
—5. 

So the report, as amended, was agreed to. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I wish to explain the vote I have 
given upon the subject, by remarking that I do not 
think we possess the power under the law calling the 
Convention, to pass such resolutions. 

Mr. STANTON. If in order, I would move to take 
up the memorial of Dr. Wright, in reference to the 
extradition of the black population of Ohio. 

The motion was agreed to, and the memorial was 
refeiTed to the standing committee on the Legislative 
Department. 

Mr. CURRY. I offer the following for adoption: 

Resolved, That the standing committee on the Judicial Depart¬ 
ment are hereby instructed to make such provision, in their re¬ 
port upon that subject, as that all civil officers in this State, ex¬ 
cept the Judges of the court of last resort, shall be presentable for 
proper cause, by information or indictment, and shall, upon such 
information or indictment, be triable and removable by the courts 
of law. 

Mr. LARSH. I move that the resolution be laid on 
the table and printed. ' 

Mr. EWART demanded a division of the question, j 

The motion to lie upon the table was agreed to, but ' 
the Convention refused to print. 

Mr. CAHILL. I offer for adoption the following: 

Resolved, That the standing committee on Future Amendments 
to the constitution, be instructed to inquire into the expediency ' 
of so amending the constitution that, whenever two thirds of the ; 
members of the General Assembly shall vote for any amendment, I 
said amendment shall be submitted to the people at the next gen- | 
eral election, and if a majority of electors voting at such election 
shall decide in favor of the proposed amendment, it shall become i 
part of our constitution. 

Mr. STANTON. I move that the resolution be laid j 
on the table. , 

Not agreed to. ' 

Mr. CAHILL. I move that it be referred to the | 
committee on Future Amendments to the Constitution, i 

Agreed to. 

On motion by Mr. QUIGLEY, the Convention took ^ 
recess. ■ 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

ADJOURNMENT. 

Mr. McCORMICK presented the subjoined resolu¬ 
tion, and said that he did not purpose pursuing the 
subject further at the present time, but he would say 
that at some future day, and that not very distant, in i 
all human probability, they would have to leave this 
city, and that they would be under the necessity of 
adjourning their sittings to some other place or point 
more conducive to their health than this city. Under 
these circumstances he thought it proper to present 
this resolution, and to call the attention of the Convem 
tion to the fact, as he did by this resolution. 

Resolved, That at the earliest day practicable, the Convention 
do adjourn its sitting to the city of Cleveland, or such other 
place as by the Convention may be deemed most desirable. 

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to make the 
necessary arrfingements for such an adjournment. 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


107 


On motion of Mr. McCORMICK, the resolution was 
laid on the table. 

The PRESIDENT announced that he had received 
a communication from the Trustees of the Capitol Uni¬ 
versity, extending to the President and members of the 
Convention, an invitation to attend the inauguration 
of Rev. Professor Reynolds, as President of the Uni¬ 
versity, on this evening—which communication was 
read. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved that the Convention' resolve 
itself into committee of the Whole, on the orders of 
the day. 

The motion was agreed to, and the House then went 
into the 

COMMITTEE OP THE WHOLE, 

Mr. CHAMBERS in the chair. 

Mr. SAWYER hoped that the matters which had 
been before the committee on yesterday would be laid 
aside, in order to take up the series of resolutions of¬ 
fered by the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr, Reeme- 
LiN.] The former subject had been discussed at con¬ 
siderable length, and he would now like to go on an¬ 
other ‘‘track.” 

Mr. HAWKINS thought they should get through 
w’ith the proposition last under consideration. It had 
been extensively discussed, both it and its amend¬ 
ments. He would move that they would dispose of 
it, and afterwards go to something else. It was with 
that view they went into committee at present. 

Mr. SAWYER observed that the object of making 
the motion he had made was this: The reports that 
would be made by the committee on the Legislative 
Department touched the question of all those resolu¬ 
tions in relation to the veto power. There might be 
clauses engrafted in the constitution that would entire¬ 
ly supersede Ihe necessity of passing upon this resolu¬ 
tion on the veto. He thought it altogether right and 
important that they should leave the discussion of this 
question alone at present. 

Mr. STANTON agreed with the gentleman from 
Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] that the discussion of the 
question was to a very considerable extent premature. 
It was very clear that they could not form a distinct 
impression of what might be the character of the res¬ 
olution, until they knew what was the complexion of 
the report from the committee on the Legislative De¬ 
partment, And he agreed with the gentleman that it 
would be better to postpone the further considei’ation 
of the matter until they reached a point in their delib¬ 
erations at which they could arrive at a more distinct 
impression in relation to it. 

The question being on taking up resolution number 
7, [Mr. Reemelin’s] the committee divided, and stood 
as follows: affirmative 42, negative 36. 

So the resolutions were taken up. 

APPORTIONMENT. 

The CHAIRMAN announced the question before the 
committee to be the consideration of resolution number 
7, presented by the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 
Reemelin.] 

Mr. STANBERY. I propose, Mr. Chairman, to say 
a few words upon the plan for apjiortionment now un¬ 
der consideration. 

This plan declares, in the first place, that it is expe¬ 
dient to take from the Legislature the power of appor¬ 
tionment, and to construct a self-acting system—a sys¬ 
tem which is to work out an apportionment every five 
years, without the aid of legislation, by the regular 
play of certain machinery. 

It is hardly worth while to consider this proposition 
in the abstract, or to inquire at large, whether such a 
system is practicable. All that we need look to is the 
system now proposed, which it is said does accomplish 
this object. 

The elements of this system are, a basis for repre¬ 
sentation founded upon the entire population—a fixed 
ratio—a permanent arrangement of Senatorial districts 
—a provision tbat each county shall have at least one 


representative, and a power given to local authori¬ 
ties to sub-divide, every five years. Senatorial districts 
so as to make single districts for Senators, and to subdi¬ 
vide counties so as to make single districts for Repre¬ 
sentatives. 

I admit that this plan does away with all Legislative 
action. Nothing is left for the Legislature to do. But 
it is any thing other than a self-acting system. So far 
as apportionment includes the division into districts, 
and that is the most material thing, this plan simply 
transfers that power from the Legislature to the local 
authorities. 

It is true that one provision of the plan, so far as 
Senatonal districts are concerned, is, that these districts 
are to be permanently fixed in the constitution, but it 
is distinctly provided in another part of the plan, that 
these very Senatorial districts are to be divided by the 
local authorities, whenever any district, so fixed in the 
constitution, grows to such a population as entitles it 
to two Senators. Of course there is nothing permanent 
or self-acting, even in that part of the system. The 
whole matter of apportionment, so far as the division 
into districts is concerned, both for Senators and Rep¬ 
resentatives, requires the constant action of these local 
authorities. It is to be accomplished by an agency 
foreign to the constitution. It is not accomplished by 
the self-acting machinery of the plan. It is therefore 
a mere delusion to call this plan a self-acting plan. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The Senatorial districts are to be 
permanent, and only those counties or districts which 
would have more than one Senator would have to be 
subdivided by the local authorities. There are not 
more than four such counties in the State now, accord¬ 
ing to my ratio, and with a little higher one there would 
be but two. 

Mr. STANBERY. Precisely so. A Senatorial dis¬ 
trict is to be permanent only so long as it does not re¬ 
quire sub-division—but so soon as the population in 
any one of these districts doubles the ratio, it is then 
to be changed. There is anything but permanency 
even in that part of the plan? 

I will not stop to consider whether this important 
duty of districting can be more safely committed to 
local authorities than to the Legislature. It is that 
power, place it where you will, which has always been 
liable to abuse. It is the most dangerous power in¬ 
volved in the whole business of apportionment. My 
only present purpose was to show that this plan can¬ 
not work by itself, but that it requires precisely the 
same extraneous aid as the present system, only that it 
comes from a different quarter. 

I will now consider the details of the plan. 

It provides that the basis of representation shall be 
the entire population. In this respect it differs from 
the old plan, which fixed the basis upon the white 
male populaion above the age of 21. Neither the old 
plan nor the new, looks to any other basis than that of 
population. Both reject property or taxation as ele¬ 
ments of the basis. 

As between the entire population and the white 
males over 21, I incline to favor the entire population. 
That basis comes more clearly up to the idea of a just 
representation, than a basis founded upon a mere frac¬ 
tion of the population. It is true that the representa¬ 
tive is elected by a fraction of the population—by the 
white males over 21 years of age. But the question 
here is not who shall elect the representative, but who 
are represented by him after he is elected. As to that 
there can be no question, that every man, woman and 
child in his district is his constituent. He is bound to 
guard and protect the rights of all male and female 
black and white. He makes laws for them all, and 
represents them all. All the people are represented,, 
and therefore all the people should form the basis ac¬ 
cordin'^ to which representatives are to be apportioned. 

I do'^not know that there is much practical difference 
in the two modes—for the voting population, or that 
portion of the population composed of white males 














108 


CONVENTION IIEPOIITS 


over 21, bears a very constant proportion to the entire 
population. There may be inecpialities in this propor¬ 
tion in various parts of the State. If so, for that very 
reason I prefer the basis by wdiich all are sure to be 
equally represented. 

The next feature of the plan is the formation of per¬ 
manent Senatorial districts, to be fixed in the Consti¬ 
tution. I should be very much opposed to this provi¬ 
sion if it were in fact permanent, but as these districts 
are, by a subsequent clause, made subject to change 
and sub-division, the objection need not be argued. 

The fixed ratios comes next. 

As this part of the plan was most strongly urged upon 
our attention by its author, and has been greatly mis¬ 
understood by some members of the Convention, it re¬ 
quires special notice. 

We are to understand by a fixed ratio, or quota, as it 
is sometimes called in the plan, a fixed amount of pop¬ 
ulation, one amount for a Senator, another amount for 
a Representative, and that for all time to come, and at 
every apportionment, each number so fixed is the unit 
to be represented by a Senator or Repi'esentative. We 
are to fix for instance an amount of 15,000 men, women 
and children, as the ratio for a Representative. Where- 
«ver in any county there are 15,000 people, they are to 
have one member; if 30,000 they are to have two. As 
the jmpulation increases the ratio remains unchanged. 
It is to be precisely the same fifty years hence, that it is 
now. 

I cannot say less than that this feature of the plan, 
as applied to such a State as our own, shows little 
forethought. It is a crude idea to enter into any perma¬ 
nent plan, but above all, into a constitution. Gentlemen 
may imagine any amount of population as a fixed ratio, 
and a moment’s consideration will show its impractica¬ 
bility. 

Let us take for the fixed ratio, the number which is 
recommended by the member from Hamilton, 15,000. 
He estimates our present population at 2,500.000. That 
is perhaps too large an estimate, but taking it to be our 
true population, it gives us, according to his fixed ratio, 
166 members, for the lower house. The Convention of 
course understand the process of arriving at the number 
of Representatives by a fixed ratio. We are to take the 
entire population of the State as the sum, for which the 
ratio is a divisor, and the quotient, that is, the number 
of times that the ratio is contained in the sum gives the 
number of representatives. 

Now, taking the ratio of 15,000, what number of 
members will it give us when it comes to be a})plicd 
to the population of this State in 1860 ? Suppose our 
increase of population for the next ten years to be 
only 1,000,000, which is greatly below our rate of 
increase heretofore, we shall then have 3,500,000 
people, and under the operation of this fixed ratio, no 
less than 233 members in the lower house, I will 
follow the system one step further, and we will find 
that in 1870 we shall have 5,000,000 of population, and 
333 members of the lower house. What sort of a host 
will be seen here half a century hence can scarcely be 
estimated. 

Sir, the vast hall we are now erecting will not hold 
such a multitude. We must find some Mulciber to build 
another Pandemonium fit to contain them, and then too 
we shall see some popular and restless spirit, raised to 
the bad eminence of leader to such a body, teaching 
them rebellion, and swaying them by their passions. 

But to show yet more satisfactorily the absiu’dity of 
a fixed ratio, let us apply this ratio to the past. Going 
back then to our population in 1840, this ratio of 15,000, 
when applied too it, gives us 101 members. It gives us 
62 members upon our popululion of 1830, 32 members 
on our population of 1820, 15 members on our popula¬ 
tion of 1810, and growing beautifully less, it leaves us 
uutb only three members when applied to our popula¬ 
tion of 1800. 

I am not so smitten with the love of a French cham¬ 
ber of deputies as to wish to imitate it in any respect. 


especially in its numbers. If we are to look for exam¬ 
ples we shall find them all around us in the represen¬ 
tative bodies of the various States in the Union, and 
we shall see, that it does not require 500 men, nay, not 
a fifth of that number to preserve the liberties ot the 
people, and to kee]i wholesome laws for their security 
and protection. 

I am therefore against a fixed ratio, and a constantly 
increasing number of representatives, and in favor of a 
fixed number, and then, whether the ratio increases or 
diminishes, the body remains the same. One hundred 
members for tlie lower house is large enough for the 
present and the future. As we advance beyond that 
number we turn a deliberative assembly into a mob. 

A larger body may represent more fully all local inter¬ 
ests, but it becomes unfit for deliberation, and fails to 
exhibit the order and propriety that should character¬ 
ize a legislative body. 

The next feature in the plan is that each county is to 
have at least one Representative. 

This pi-ovision is directly repugnant to the first pro¬ 
vision, which is that the basis of representation shall be 
population. Here the basis changes. Instead of popu¬ 
lation or numbers, representation is here founded upon 
something else, local interests or property. 

I undertake to say that no scheme of apportion¬ 
ment that was ever conceived and worked out in the 
pursuit of political power, shows such glaring inequali¬ 
ties, as this proposition. 

We are to remember that we have some counties 
with a population equal to a State, and others with a 
population scarcely equal to an ordinary township. 

The county of Paulding for instance has a population 
of about 1600, all told, and Hamilton has a population 
of about 137,000. 

Let us now take the proposed ratio of 15,000, and 
see how it will work according to this idea. Hamilton 
with 137,000 people would have only nine members. ' 
Paulding with only 1600 people would have one, that is 
the representative jrower of the people of Paulding 
wouhf be just one ninth of Hamilton, and yet the actual 3 
population <»r people to be i-epreseiited in Paulding 
stand as one eighty fifth to those in Hamilton. A sim¬ 
ilar inequality arises if we reject the fixed ratio of pop- ( 
ulation, and adojrt in its stead a fixed number of repre- ; 
sentatives. If for instance the population of the whole s 
State is 2,500,000, and the number of Representatives j 
is fixed at 100, then the ratio will be one member for j 
25,000 people. Hamilton would get 5 of these mem- i 
bers and have an unrepresented fraction of 12,000, and i 
Paulding still would have one. 

Such monstrous inequality, I repeat, never was pro- i 
duced by the most fraudulent apportionment. I admit 1 
I have taken an extreme case to show it in its worst ; 
aspect. Let us now take a county containing a popu¬ 
lation of 10,000—and we have several below that mark 
—100 members being the whole representative power i 
of the State, and aftbrding at the present time a ratio ' 
of 25,000 for a member—we give to the county contain¬ 
ing only 10,000 one member, and to Hamilton county ’ 
only 5. In other words, the representative power of 
the county containing 10,000 is one-fifth that of Hamil¬ 
ton county, whilst its actual population is about one- 
lourteenth—a voter in one county has nearly three 
times the elective power of a voter in the other. But 
in truth, ihe inequality is still greater—for after you 
set off'to each of the counties below the ratio, one 
member each, out of the 100 members, you must ne¬ 
cessarily increase your ratio in dividing out the remain¬ 
ing members among the counties having a population 1 
equal to, and exceeding the ratio for the whole State— * 

and as you increase the ratio, you diminish the mem¬ 
bers. 

This part of the plan is quite as objectionable as the 
old boiough system of England. I know of no dis¬ 
tinction between boroughs without people and coun¬ 
ties without people. Ii the plan of representation is 
to represent localities, or local interests and not people, 








CONVENTION REPOETS. 


then this mode will answer, but if we are to carry out 
the republican idea of a representation of people, and 
nothing else—and the just rule of equality, then this 
mode must meet with universal condemnation. ^ 

The only other part ot the plan which it is necessary 
to notice, is the provision for single districts. I need 
not say that I entirely approve of this provision. If 
we adopt any system of apportionment, this is the on¬ 
ly just one. It is exactly in accordance with the true 
meaning of apportionment, that is, a distribution into 
equal parts. If we take the number of representatives 
at 100, and apportion them at all, the only true mode 
is to apportion them into one hundred parts—not by 
ones, and twos and threes, and so on. The only ne¬ 
cessity for apportionment is, that there may be distinct 
representation of parts, as contradistinguished from the 
whole, or any fraction less than the whole. 

Wherever there is a body of people, entitled by num¬ 
bers to a representative, they should have a represen¬ 
tative. Then we know who is the representative and 
who are his constituents. Then duty and responsibili¬ 
ty are well understood and defined. Then local inter¬ 
est and individual rights are most securely guarded. 

The gentleman from Hamilton was pleased to say 
that he had always favored the idea of single districts, 
even by the division of counties, as eminently just, but 
that under our present constitution it was never allowa¬ 
ble. He undertook to say that the division of Ham¬ 
ilton county was not only unconstitutional, but corrupt; 
that it was an honest j rinciple dishonestly carried out. 

I regret, sir, that such denunciation should have 
been indulged in here. I shall certainly not retort it— 
but as the gentleman from Hamilton, has made special 
reference to myself in relation to this question, it is not 
out of place to say a word or two about it. 

During the time I have held the office of Attorney 
General, only two questions of a political character have 
been sent to me. The first arose upon the printing or¬ 
dered by the Senate in December, 184G. When the 
bill for that pnnting was presented to the Auditor, he 
refen’ed the question for my opinion, as to the power 
of the Senate, as an independent branch of the Legis¬ 
lature, to disregard the contract under which that 
printing had been given to another. The question was 
not without difficulty, but I came to the conclusion 
that the Senate possessed the power, and under my ad¬ 
vice the printing was paid for. I am aware that this 
opinion was contrary to the views of many of my po¬ 
litical friends. 

Very shortly afterwards, the question of the consti¬ 
tutional power of the Legislature to divide a county 
for Senatorial or Representatives purposes, arose in the 
Legislature. Upon the motion of a prominent member 
of tl)e democratic party, that (question was sent to me 
for an official opinion. I could have wished that it had 
not been sent to me, for I knew quite well that any 
opinion I might give, upon a political question of that 
character, would be fiercely assailed. 

But, sir, I had no option. It came within the line 
of express duty—and I addressed myself at once to its 
deliberate consideration. I separated myself for days 
from all intercourse with my political friends—and will 
now say, that whilst I was so engaged notone of them 
sought, in the most distant manner, any allusion to the 
subject. f 

No one saw that opinion until it was prepared. 
Right or wrong, it was the result of my own judgment. 
And now, after so long an interval—after so much dis¬ 
cussion—all I have to say is, that I deliberately adhere 
to the opinion so given. If the question were again 
referred to me I would give no other answer than that 
I believe the division of Hamilton county was a consti¬ 
tutional act. 

It is not my purpose or wish to argue here that ques¬ 
tion. I cannot see that such a discussion would be at 
all profitable. Nevertheless, if it is brought on I shall 
not shrink from it. 


109 


Mr. NASH moved to strike out the second resolu¬ 
tion. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga would move to 
amend a portion of the original resolution. He under¬ 
stood the motion now made, the striking out of the se¬ 
cond resolution, involved all the remaining six provi¬ 
sions. 

The CHAIR intimated that such was the case. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said he proposed to amend the 
resolutions by adding “provided that such districts 
shall consist of contiguous territory, and no township 
or other election district shall be entitled to more thai; 
one Representative.” 

The amendment was adopted. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend, by striking out the 
sixth paragraph of the second resolution. 

The question being put, the committee refused to 
strike out. 

Mr. BENNETT of Tuscarawas supposed that the strik¬ 
ing out of the second resolution, carried with it as a 
matter of course, all these propositions into which it 
was divided. Therefore, if it were in order, he pro¬ 
posed to amend—he proposed to add an additional 
proposition, as follows: “ That the ratio of represen¬ 

tation increase ten thousand every ten years.” 

The object of it was, said Mr. B., entirely in regard 
to the increa.se of population. He would not altogeth¬ 
er decide that they had got the correct number, but it 
struck him, that some such provision should be en¬ 
grafted into the constitution, which would tend to re¬ 
lieve them from some of the evils referred to by the 
gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery,] as result¬ 
ing from a rapidly increasing population. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said there might be some I’eason 
for the amendment oftered by the gentleman from Tus¬ 
carawas, [Mr. Bennett.] But it seemed to him that 
lie and every one else would discover that such a pro¬ 
vision would practically soon become impracticable. It 
was predicated on the supposition that there would be 
an everlasting increase of population. Now they could 
not expect any thing of the kind. By the ratio pro¬ 
posed, if a county had now thirty thousand in popu¬ 
lation, it would be entitled to one Representative, in 
ten years to two-thirds, and in twenty years, to one-tliird 
of a Representative ; and in thirty years, if the popula¬ 
tion had not increased, it would be entitled to none at 
all. Gentlemen would see that by a provision of this 
kind the ratio of population proposed would be a mere 
arbitrary arithmetical standard. It was giving the mat¬ 
ter entirely up to a blind mathematical principle. He 
expected that when this matter had gone round and 
round, and had been discussed and amended, this Con¬ 
vention would find that they would have to leave some¬ 
thing to posterity. They would find out that those 
who came after them twenty years hence, would have 
some talents, some brains, some i-eason, and some capa¬ 
bilities. It seemed to him that they were running into 
the impracticable. The resolution of the gentleman 
from Tuscarawas [Mr. Bennett,] was in fact a very 
ingenious argument to show the imju’acticability of the 
ratio pi'oposed. 

There seemed to be an insuperable difficulty about 
this matter. He was confident that the adjusting of 
this matter would be a most difficult part of their ope¬ 
rations. Nor had he been able to conceive any plan in 
his own mind that satisfied himself; yet he was for 
calm delibei'ation, and he invited consideration wheth¬ 
er or not it would be better to leave something to pos¬ 
terity—whether or not it would be advisable to leave 
something to the judgment and discretion of those who 
would come after us. 

Mr. REEMELIN said the question to be considered 
was exactly this: would the people square themselves 
with the goveniment, or the government with the peo¬ 
ple ? Oi’, in other words, would they say how many peo¬ 
ple were to have representation, or were they to lose 
sight of all true principles of representation? Fifteen 
thousand or twenty thousand, was a number sufficient 









110 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


for any one man to represent. But, however, the ques¬ 
tion was not in regard to the increase of population 
as referred to by the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. 
Stanbery.] The queston was, how many men were 
to be represented by one man; that question was 
brought up by the proposition of the gentleman from 
Tuscarawas, [Mr. Bennett.] Under that proposition 
the ratio would be 25,000 for one Representative, in ten 
years 35,000, in twenty 45,000, and ultimately 100,000, 
and perhaps at last 200,000. He, for one, was not 
quite willing to go for that proposition, for at last they 
would lose sight of the true object of representation. 
The oidy question that could arise, was, what amount 
of people should be represented on this floor—but in 
any case, he thought that they should allow a margin 
of something between 15,000 and 30,000. 

The plan was to give a fair representation to the 
counties by avoiding the evil of putting too many 
counties together in the same district. He did not like 
to apply here the rule of the tailor, who told his custo¬ 
mer, “ you must conform your size to my coat, and not 
expect my coat to be conformed to your body.” It 
was nothing but a mere whim of a French philosopher 
•to say that large representative bodies were mere mobs. 
He believed the people would have a far better chance 
to have their rights protectedjby a larger representation 
than by a smaller one. It was foundj|here in the Legis¬ 
lature of Ohio, that the Senate was often more unruly 
than the House, and it appeared that the same rule ex¬ 
tended to the national legislature, for it had become 
iiardly an uncommon thing for them to get into fist-cuffs 
in the Senate of the U. S. His idea was to avoid the 
difficulty which suffered one man to represent too large 
•a constituency. He had been somewhat in favor of a 
plan similar to that proposed by the gentleman from 
Tuscarawas; but he would rather it were so modified 
• as to provide that the number of people represented 
shall not get too large to be represented by one man. 
The tiling was to be well represented. The gentleman 
from Franklin had used his ingenuity to show that, by 
fixing a ratio of representation in the Constitution, we 
would gradually get to too large a House of Represen¬ 
tatives. In 1880 the House would get up to 333. Well 
suppose it does, is that any argument against it ? A 
certain number of people should have a representative, 
and to secure against too large a constituency being 
represented by one man, was far more important than 
to keep down the House to a small number. It is easy 
to ridicule any thing, and I might turn round and get 
up a counter-table, which would expose the plan of 
that gentleman, to limit the number of repi’esentatives 
to 100, to far more ridicule and far more serious objec¬ 
tions than those submitted by himself. Limit the 
house to 100, and you have— 

In 1850, 25,000 people represented by one man. 

1860, 35,000 

1870, 50,000 “ 

‘‘ 1880, 80,000 

;aad so on; so that your restrictive principle works all 
the time against the people being well and truly rep¬ 
resented. 25,000 or 30,000people was as much as any 
one man siiould represent in the House, and 50,000 to 
60,000 in tiie Senate. 

But the principal thing he was driving at was, to 
fret out of the hands of the Legislature the power to 
fix the character of their successors. He desired to 
say, in reply to his friend, the gentleman from Monroe, 
l[Mr. AaciiBOLD,] that he was willing to trust to pos¬ 
terity; he was wdling to trust the Legislature also, as 
far as men ought to be trusted; but, he would ask the 
gentleman whether h(f would be willing to continue in 
tile hands of the Legislature the power to nominate 
their successors—would that gentleman be willing to 
trust any man to legislate upon a matter in which he 
was interested personally ? Certainly he would not. 
Such a thing was not admissible under the old parlia¬ 
mentary law. It was his desire to remove all tempta¬ 
tion to legislate for successorships, he would not lead 
them into temptation; he would make them more 


humble, not because of any distrust as to their qualifi¬ 
cations, but because he would place them in a position 
where they should have no temptation to violate any 
of the important trusts confided to them; he hoped that 
he had not been understood by gentlemen as disposed 
to give a representative to each county as a county. 
His proposition only went so far as to give such coun¬ 
ties whose population was now below the ratio to be 
fixed; but he was disposed, to secure the end in view, 
to put several counties together, who were now below 
the ratio, and give them a separate representation as 
fast as they might be entitled to a separate representa¬ 
tive acccording to the ratio of population. Neverthe¬ 
less, he did like the idea of giving to each county at 
least one representative. He liked that idea. He 
would be pleased to give to these younger children of 
the State a little encouragement, to show them that 
rhe larger counties were not so very tenacious of their 
tights that they could not be generous; and he assured 
the gentleman from Franklin that he would find the 
people of Hamilton county perfectly willing to extend 
this advantage to the counties in the North-West. For 
the present, however, his proposition was, that ihese 
counties should be joined together in their representa¬ 
tion, and that as any one of them hereafter should in¬ 
crease in population to the repi’esentative ratio, it should 
be entitled to a representative by itself. He believed 
the time would come when this region would be the 
most populous part of Ohio, and perhaps even stronger 
than the Southern portion. He did not doubt that in 
less than twenty years the political power of the State 
would begin to travel North of the National Road, and 
if we were generous to them now, perhaps the time 
would come when we might be glad of th6ir generos¬ 
ity towai'd us. He regretted that the gentleman from 
Franklin had used his ingenuity entirely for the dis¬ 
couragement and destruction of the plan he had propo¬ 
sed, instead of making an effort to build it up or to 
offer a better. He was willing that his proposition 
should be modified and improved, and he hoped that 
amendments would be offered freely. He supposed 
that it was not the intention to take any final vote upon 
the proposition here, but that it would be reported to 
the Convention with amendments, and referred again 
for the consideration and the action of the Committee 
on Apportionment. 

Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE. I am friendly to the out¬ 
lines of the resolutions offei’ed by the gentleman from 
Hamilton, but I think amendments should be made to 
them in the details. I think that some plan will pro¬ 
bably be adopted in form somewhat similar to this. I 
do not rise to make a speech, but an amendment has 
occurred to me that will make this a self adjusting ra¬ 
tio, which perhaps will meet the mind of the Conven¬ 
tion. I may be mistaken, but I will offer it in the spirit 
of candor, and if it does not meet the minds of gentle¬ 
men it can be voted down. I offer it as an amend¬ 
ment to the amendment of the gentleman from Tuscar¬ 
awas—striking out the whole of his proposition and 
insert the following: 

“ As often as the whole number of inhabitants in the State shalj 
be increased ot diminished by one tenth, the ratio of representa¬ 
tion shall be increased or diminished aecordingly, by one tenth of 
its number.” 

Mr. NASH. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that this 
amendment does away with some of the objections, if 
I have understood the reading correctly. But I must 
say, that I have been struck favorably with the propo¬ 
sition of the gentleman from Hamilton, and more than 
that, it has been for some time settled in my mind that 
something of this kind should be adopted. The argu¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Franklin evades the true 
question involved. His argument is, that this system of 
apportionment, does not approach to anything like 
equality. By equality of apportionment, it is understood 
that representation must be apportioned according to 
population. The only principle which lies at the foun¬ 
dation of the whole, is, that equal numbers of the peo¬ 
ple of Ohio are to have the same strength of represen- 







CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Ill 


tation. While I agree that his proposition may be ab¬ 
stractly correct, yet I think it should not be wholly 
disconnected with other considerations. Are we to be 
conlined to the multiplication table, and the division ta¬ 
ble in settling the question ol representation in a great 
State like this ? Are there no other considerations to 
be regarded? Nothing else but of having a given di¬ 
visor and dividend, to h^nd a quotient ? Certaiidy not. I 
confess that I do not so understand our duties here ; we 
are to regard other considerations. 

What then is wanted, now, when we are about to 
create for the people of Ohio a legislative body, and 
determine what character it shall possess ? In the first 
place we want to bring into this body the intelligence 
of the State: and in the next place, (and this is far the 
most important) we wantthe integrity and honesty of the 
State. We want to have some system adopted that will 
bring these here; and if this is gained, I do not care 
whether the system be based upon Pike, Daboll, or any 
other arithmetic. If we can get the intelligence and 
integrity of Ohio into the Legislature, then all the in¬ 
terests of every man, woman, and child, in the State, 
now, and for all future time, will be safe. But, sir, you 
may have your apportionment by mathematical rule, 
and if you cannot draw forth the intelligence and in¬ 
tegrity of the State, you will have a legislature that 
will drive the people to destruction. It has been^said, 
quaintly but truly, by Thomas Carlyle, that “ dislmnes- 
ty is a thing that cannot live in the world; that dishon¬ 
est men, that look to the expedient, and lose sight of 
the right, never can govern a people.” Whenever in 
any government there is a failure to select the integrity 
and intelligence to rule in the State, that government 
must fail to accomplish all its important ends. I hold 
that no Legislative body, composed of dishonest men, 
can ever govern safely. I say, then, that we are not to 
regard the simple question of deciding by number, in 
creating a legislative body. We are to look higher—to 
aim for the intelligence and integrity of the State to con¬ 
stitute the legislature; and if we attain that, we shall 
have nobly discharged our duty. Plaving this idea in 
full view, as a paramount and controling principle, let 
us see what can be done. 

In regard to this question of apportionment, sir, I 
aftirm that you cannot have absolute equality. That 
is wliat you never did, and never can have. You must 
disregard your fractions. Absolute equality is an ab¬ 
surdity,—it is an end that cannot be obtained. What 
then are we to do ? What is to be accomplished ? 
In the history of eyery government in this country, 
both State and National, and of every goveimment in 
the world, we find that they have always had regard 
to local divisions created by law. From the earliest 
day, we have had local divisions of counties and town¬ 
ships ; and they have been regarded in all our politi¬ 
cal organizations, and we have ever looked to them in 
our representation. These are political divisions, which 
already exist. If you had no such political divisions, 
you might undertake to divide, and say—so many men 
shall elect one Representative, but you cannot now 
draw new lines, so as to secure a given ratio. You can¬ 
not attain this end, so long as you regard these politi¬ 
cal divisions. You must take in a county here, and 
throw away a county there, so as to make the fraction 
larger or smaller. Here, then, we have these divi¬ 
sions, and in all our elections, we are obliged to regard 
our county lines, in the matter of representation. It 
was so, in the first organization of the government. 
It was a representation of counties under the old con¬ 
stitution, &,8 every one knows who is acquainted with 
the old constitutional apportionment. I cannot believe 
that the framers of the old constitution ever dreamed 
that the time would come when every county of the 
State, would not be entitled to at least one Represen¬ 
tative. The language of the constitution is utterly in¬ 
consistent with any other idea—and why 1 The Re¬ 
presentatives are apportioned amongst the counties, 
and the Senators amongst the counties and districts. 


The language, according to my appprehension, implies, 
that a Senatorial district might be composed of more 
than one county, but that a Representative district 
never could be. I say, sir, that under these political 
divisons, whatever apportionment may be made, we 
shall be compelled to have fractions. 

Now the idea of the plan suggested by the gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton is, that this Convention .should set¬ 
tle the district lines permanently, and mark the terri¬ 
tory from which each Representative and Senator shall 
be elected,—modified only by the amount of popula¬ 
tion such territory may contain hereafter. Now, with 
reference to fixing these lines in such a way as to take 
the power of ai)portionment out of the hands of the 
General Assembly, I beg leave to say that there are 
two ways in which this can be done. The one, is 
this—of providing for the election of Representative.s 
by fixed districts; and the other is—fixing and pre¬ 
scribing that a certain number of voters or population 
shall elect one Representative and Senator, and leave 
the General Assembly to apportion the whole, amongst 
the several comities, accoixling to their population. 1 
know of no other system which would not refer the 
whole matter to the General Assembly, and thei’e are 
reasons which operate upon my mind so strongly 
against leaving the matter to the General Assembly, 
that I .should prefer to mark out the territory of the 
districts. I think there are reasons so strong and over¬ 
whelming, and irresistable, why the subject of appor¬ 
tionment should not belong to the General Assembly, 
that if it should not be settled by this Convention to 
take it altogether out of their hands, our work would 
lose much of its value, and our labor would be nearly 
vain. Who does not know the difficulties we have en¬ 
countered in Ohio, growing out of our representative 
apportionment by the Legislature ? Why, sir, our Re¬ 
presentatives have been here, right or wrong, on the 
very verge of a revolution, for four years past. And 
now within a few days, we learn, that in the State of 
Pennsylvania, by a disagreement between the Legisla¬ 
ture and the Governor, they find themselves there 
standing upon a similar precipice; and their difficulty, 
is referable to the same cause with ours. And now, in 
view of these things, I ask, should not this difficulty 
be got rid off? I apprehend that it should. To 
this point I stand firmly; and here I am glad to find 
myself in agreement with the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton. 

In the first place, wherever you have parties, you 
will have men desirous of making districts to subserve 
the purpose of party. My recollection is, that even in 
eai’ly times, men made districts to favor their own pros¬ 
pects, and with the view to secure their future suc¬ 
cess. 

I have understood from old members of the Legis¬ 
lature, in times gone by, that they complained of the 
manner in which the State used to be districted. Is it 
the right way ? Is it the way in which a great work 
of this kind is to be done, in which the interests of the 
people ought to be regarded, that men should set down 
to the work of districting the State, with a map in their 
hands—looking at the complexion of the counties in 
which they may reside, and looking solely in making 
such districts to their personal or party ends ? Is that 
the principle by which to cultivate political integrity 
among politicians? Is that the principle which should 
govern men, and will it conduce to make statesmen 
out of politicians ? Certainly not; for it tends rather 
to action upon the narrow principle of self, and self 
alone. But this is not all. Whgn you have political 
parties, and one or the other of them has a majority, 
why, then, sir, you are compelled to meet with another 
difficulty—a difficulty which has existed in this State, 
and which cannot be got rid of very easily. I say, 
sir, under the old system of apportionment by the 
Legislature according to the population, it is a difficulty 
which cannot be got rid of, and it is one which will 









112 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


meet you every four or five years, when you come to 
make an apportionment. 

Why, sir, without mentioning names, I will menton 
what I once heard a gentleman say in regard lo this 
matter, when 1 asked him if he thought it right so to 
apportion the State as to secure a majority of the Re¬ 
presentatives to a party in a minority in the State ? He 
replied, ‘‘ yes; if my party is right, we are bound to se¬ 
cure all w'e can by the means that legitimately come 
within our power.” Why, sir, no man would coolly 
undertake to defend a principle of that character, un¬ 
less looking solely to the success of his party, and in 
that success mainly to his own political advancement. 
Each has his own aspirations—his friends had their as¬ 
pirations ; and by the organization of distncts in a par¬ 
ticular way these aspirations may be gratified. 

These views are not peculiar to the opinions of any 
one man or another, one set of men or another, one par¬ 
ty or another; it is human nature working out jn its 
natural direction, regarding self-interest solely us the in¬ 
terest by which it should be governed. We have 
thrown into our legislation this principle of unadultera¬ 
ted corruption—this principle which every few years 
tempts men to do wrong. It is one of the petitions 
in that prayer to which gentlemen have alluded, “ Lead 
us not into temptation.” It is true in all tlui business 
of life. It is the duty of eveiy man who has any re¬ 
gard for the obligations of conscience to discharge his 
duty so that he may not lead his neighbors into temp¬ 
tation and thereby lead others to follow his example. 
This is a principle that ought to be regarded. I say 
that wherever this system of legislative apportionment 
by legislative power has been adopted, it has led to po¬ 
litical corruption. Look to the history of New York 
for the last thirty years. What has it been ? Admit¬ 
ted upon all hands to have been a system which looks 
solely to party aggi’andizement and nothing else. In 
that respect there is no difference between the public 
minds of one party or another in New York. I have 
reminiscences running far back as far as 1820, when 
the people of Massachusetts had a convention to amend; 
their constitution. As it then existed, they had a rep¬ 
resentation of nearly 600. It was an evil greatly com¬ 
plained of, being a representation based upon town¬ 
ships. There was an effort to get rid of it, and that 
effort was voted down by the people, and upon that 
ground. I recollect of hearing it then said that they 
would never agree that their Legislature, should exer¬ 
cise the power to apportion representation upon popu¬ 
lation, because it had led to corruption in New York; 
to such an extent indeed that they would not follow the 
example in the old Bay State, by the adoption of such 
a principle. It was voted down upon the ground that 
the system of legislative apportionment led to political 
conniption in many forms. They have held on in Mass¬ 
achusetts from that day to this to the repi’esentation by 
townships, as there was no way of getting rid of the 
system except by granting power to the Legislature to 
apportion representation among tlie townships. 

It has corrupted, as the gentleman from Hamilton 
said the other day, the legislative power. In my opin¬ 
ion, it is a principle which ought never to exist, and 
which should never be given to a body of public men— 
a principle which almost inevitably leads them to dis¬ 
regard the public interests in order to gratify their 
selfish ambition in a struggle for supremacy. Sir, can 
you hope for an honest legislative body when you 
throw into that body the very principle to corrupt us ? 

I believe, sir, that the history of this whole country— 
the histoiy of eveiy State in the Union, has shown us, 
wherever this principle of legislative apportionment 
has been adopted, that it leads to the corruption of pub¬ 
lic men, by leading them into temptations which they 
could not or would not resist. In my humble opinion, 
therefore, this consideration out-weighs every other. 
If we do not get rid of it and eradicate this festering 
evil, which has given origin to and sti'engthened the 
bitter party warfare that has agitated our land for the 
last ten years; if we leave it as we found it, unhealed 


and unpurified, we fail to do our duty. I am willing 
to do it. I am ■ willing to go for almost any thing, so 
deeply impressed am I with the corrupting tendencies 
of this system of apportionment. AVe mu.st withdraw 
fruitful sources of agitation froin the jurisdiction ol the 
legislative department. 

One woid, sir, as to the principles which should gov¬ 
ern us in this matter of the apportionment of repre¬ 
sentation in adjusti 7 ig the districts into which the State 
should be divided. One question as to the amount of 
representation. It is claimed here that the system 
suggested in these resolutions will give too large a re¬ 
presentation. Very well. If it is going to give too 
large a representation, we must raise the ratio higher; 
so that our General Assembly shall not consist of more 
than 100 members, or, at the most, of 120. You might 
fix the limit, say 150, beyond which it should not go; 
and then the only thing to be hereafter done will be 
to say that the General Assembly shall not exceed the i 
number of 150, and when you take the census and find 
that any county having two representatives has less 
population than another county which has but one, one 
of the representatives from the county having two can 
be be transferred to the county having but one. You ' 
can transfer fi'om one county to the other without in¬ 
creasing the representation beyond that limit. I do i 
not believe there would be any insuperable difficulty 
in fixing the number beyond which the House shall 
not go. AVhen you have reached that point, you have I 
established a principle of self adjustment. You can¬ 
not have absolute equality; and inequality is to be dis¬ 
regarded to some extent in this great effort to secure 
these higher and more important aims ; this gi’eat ob¬ 
ject of eradicating the coiTupting influence from our 
legislative power. 

Mr. BROWN of Athens. I do not pui^pose to make 
a speech upon this subject at the present time, for I 
have made no preparations for doing so, nor am I ac¬ 
customed to speak in such assemblies as this. The 
subject under discussion is one to which I have paid 
( a great deal of attention from time to time, and I list¬ 
ened with peculiar gratification to the address of the 
gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemklin] the other 
day, in explaining and amplifying the plan which he 
had previously submitted to tlie consideration of the * 
Convention. I heartily concur with most of the re¬ 
marks made by that gentleman. I approve the prin¬ 
ciple aimed at in these resolutions which are the 
subject of present discussion. But it occurred to me 
as the greatest defect in his proposition that it seemed i 
to contemplate too large a representation. In revolv- > 
ing it over in my own mind, I thought a remedy might i 
be provided, and as the gentleman invited discussion, 1 
I would state hei’e in what I think his proposition may 
be susceptible of amendment. My views upon the 
subject were embraced in the resolution which I offered, 
and which has been laid upon the table and printed, 
numbered 11. The first proposition of the gentleman’s 
resolution is, that it is expedient so to change the pres¬ 
ent constitution of Ohio as to take away from the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly the power to apportion Senators and 
Representatives among the several counties of this 
State. In this proposition I concur, as highly desira¬ 
ble under the present circumstances. The second is, 
that it is expedient to ingraft upon the new constitu¬ 
tion, a provision for a self-acting apportionment of 
Senators and Representatives, based upon the princi¬ 
ples lie has named. Now in furtherance of these prin¬ 
ciples, and as a mode of carrying into effect a perma¬ 
nent self-acting scheme, without the intervention of 
the legislature, my proposition is, that it would be ex¬ 
pedient to provide that the Secretary of State, or some 
proper officer, not a member of the Legislature, shall, 
as often as the census shall be taken, as a means of ob- 
taing a medium I'atio—divide the whole number of 
counties into the number of population. This is based 
upon the presumption that all the counties are not ex¬ 
actly equal, in point of population. In carrying out 
this, and upon consultation, I find that there would be 












CONVENTION REPORTS 


113 


only a few counties whicli would be entitled to more 
than one Representative, and a few would be entitled 
to less than one; so that the aggregate, according to the 
best estimate I can make, of what may be expected 
to be shown by the next census, will be something 
like 88 Representatives. This proportion allbrds a 
permanent mode of ascertaining this ratio, without re¬ 
sorting to any other authority for that purpose. It 
gives the number of counties at all times as a starting 
point, the number of counties to be divided into the 
number of population, for the ratio. This would in¬ 
sure to the greater part of the counties at least one 
Representative, by giving to every fraction greater than 
half, one Representative. There would be but very 
few that would fall below that number. It has been 
very justly remarked that the idea of perfect equal 
representation is out of the range of possibility. It 
has not been effected in any State, nor do I believe it 
can be. I find provisions in most of the constitutions 
of the States, that the representation should be based 
upon equality of population, yet in carrying it out, in 
every State, the Constitutions of which I have exam¬ 
ined,* I find that political divisions are regarded. The 
State of New York, whose representation is fixed, has 
had for many years a House of 128 members, its 
number of counties being less than 50. Even that 
large number does not give a Representative to eveiy 
county. It is provided in the constitution of New 
York that the county of Hamilton shall elect with the 
adjoining county, until it shall be entitled to a Repre¬ 
sentative. There are some smaller States, which have 
&o small a number of counties that every county can 
have-at least one Representative. This is the case in 
New Jersey, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and in some 
ether States. Again, there are various other States, 
especially new States, which are in a transition pro¬ 
cess in which every county could not, by any possi¬ 
bility, have a representative, without increasing the 
number of Representatives beyond convenient bounds. 

The proposition of the gentleman contemplates a 
very large number for the Senate. In looking over the 
constitutions of the various States I find that Massa¬ 
chusetts has the largest number in the Senate, being 
forty. Virginia, with a representation of one hundred 
and thirty-tour in the House, has a Senate of thirty- 
two. Something like this is provided in all the States. 
They are limited, and many of them have provisions 
that the Senate shall not be less than one-fourth or one- 
third, nor more than one-half, of the representation in 
the lower House. This I would rather consider to be 
an objection to the proposition of the gentleman. I 
should think it would be well to limit the Senate to 
half or less than half the number of the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives. In connection with the resolution I have 
drawn up, I have also made, for the purpose of show¬ 
ing how the scheme would apply, a schedule of the 
representation as it stands at the present time. My 
proposition was that no county should have more than 
four Representatives and two Senators. 


Schedule of first apportionment of Senators and Representatives. 

1. City of Cincinnati, one senator and two representatives; 

2. Hamilton county, except city, one senator and two represen 
tatives; 

3. Butler, one senator and two representatives; 

4. Montgomery, one senator and two representatives; 

5. Preble and Darke, one senator, and one representative each; 

6. Miami and Shelby, one senator, and one representative each; 


_ C Auglaize and Mercer . ? 
' ^ Paulding and Vanwert > 
Q C Defiance and Williams ) 

j Lucas and Fulton.5 

g ^ Henry and Wood .... ^ 


Hancock and Putnam. > 


one senator 


one senator 


one senator 


one representative; 
one representative; 
one representative; 
one representative; 
f one representative; 
^ one representative; 

Marion.> c one representative; 

Allen and Hardin... > one senator ^ one representative; 

11. Logan and Union, onesenator, and one representative each; 

12. Champaign and Clark, one senator, and one representa¬ 
tive each , 

13. Greene and Fayette, one senator, and one representative 


10 . 


each ; 

14. Clinton and Warren, one senator, and one representative 
each ; 


15. 
each; 
IG. 

17. 

18. 

19. 
each; 

20 . ' 


Clermont and Brown, one senator, and one representative 
Adams and Highland, one senator and one representative- 


C Scioto 

I Jackson and Pike 


onesenator I representative; 

one senator ^ representative; 

Ross, one senator and two representatives; 

Pickaway and Madison, one senator, and one representative 


Franklin and Delaware, one senator, and one representa¬ 
tive each; 

21. Knox and Morrow, one senator, and one representative 
each; 

22. Richland and Ashland, one senator, and one representative 
each; 

23. Crawford and Wyandot, one senator, and one representa¬ 
tive each; 

C Seneca.I nno 5 One representative; 

I Sandusky and Ottawa > ® { one representative; 

Erie and Huron, one senator, and one representative each; 
Lorain and Medina, one senator, and one representative 


24. 

25. 

26. 
each; 

27. 

28. 


Wayne, one senator and two representatives ; 

Holmes and Coshocton, one senator, and one representa¬ 
tive each; 

29. Muskingum, one senator and two representatives; 

Licking, one senator and two representative s; 

Athens and Meigs, onesenator, and one representative each; 
Gallia and Lawrence, one senator, and one representative 


30. 

31. 


32. 

33. 
each 

34. 


Washington and Morgan, one senator, and one represent¬ 
ative each; 

35. Guernsey and Monroe, one senator, and one representative 
each; 

36. Belmont, one senator and two representative; 

37. Jefferson and Harrison, one senator, and one representa¬ 
tive each; 

38. Carroll and Tuscarawas, one senator, and one representa¬ 
tive each; 

39. Stark, one senator, and two representatives; 

40. Columbiana and Mahoning, one senator, and one represen¬ 
tative each; 

41. Portage and Summit, one senator, and one representative 
each; 

42. Cuyahoga, one senator, and two representatives; 

43. Geauga and Lake, one senator, and one representative each; 

44. Ashtabula and Trumbull, one senator, and one representa¬ 
tive each; 

Making 44 Senatorial Districts, and 88, I think, of the 
representative Districts. If any one will take the pains to 
look over this adjustment, they will find counties put 
together for Senatorial Districts, such as are contiguous 
to each other and having similar interests, and in al¬ 
most every instance similar party associations, so that 
there could be no complaint of injustice upon that 
ground. There have been heretofore instances of com¬ 
plaint of sinking majorities in one portion of the State by 
the other. I do not conceive that there is any simple divi¬ 
sion that would come so near to a fair adjustment, that 
is, in the apportionment of Senators, as this. It may 
be complained that the county of Hamilton would have 
less than its proportionate representation. This is true; 
but it is compensated for by the fact, that it has a 
denser population. There would be no practical dis¬ 
advantage in such an arrangement, when it is reflec¬ 
ted that large, dense communities will unavoidably 
have grater political and other influence, than a sparse 
population—it is perhaps fairly equalizing the whole 
country, by adopting such an apportionment as I have 
presented. This whole matter of apportionment will 
have to be based upon some principle of equalization, 
and not assuming population as the unbending basis, 
but regard must be paid to other interests and circunn 
stances as well as population. 

Mr. GREGG. Will the gentleman inform us upon 
what enumeration the calculation is based. 

Mr. BROWN continued. It is not based upon any 
particular enumeration, nor will it make any differ¬ 
ence. The proposition now presented, will obviate 
any difficulty of that sort. The number of repre.senta- 
tives will depend upon the equality and inequality of 
the counties, rather than upon the number of inhabi¬ 
tants, but will still be adjusted appropriately to the 
whole population of the State.^ I will say, however 
that this calculation before me is based upon a double 
calculation, the census of 1840 and the enumeration of 
1847. It is likely when the next census comes to bo 










114 


CONVENTION RETOETS. 


taken, it will develope the same inaccuracies, that upon 
the principle assumed, would require some changes in 
this plan. Some counties, which would apparently, 
taking these two enumerations into consideration, be 
entitled to two representatives, might perhaps on an 
actual enumeration of 1850, be entitled to one, while 
others might be entitled to more. But these are minor 
difficulties, which can be adjusted by means of a ratio 
established by the means proposed. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I can easily believe that the 
gentleman who has made this calculation, has not 
founded it upon any census or enumeration whatever, 
for he gives as much political power to the county of 
Belmont, with thirty-seven or eight thousand people, 
as to the two counties of Guernsey and Monroe, with 
sixty three or four thousand. This shows at once, that 
the ge^jtleman has not founded his calculation upon 
any census or enumeration. 

There is no doubt that this subject is one of intrin¬ 
sic difficulty, and I hope, therefore, that the commit¬ 
tee will rise and that this resolution will be sent to one 
of the standing committees, so that due time may be 
given for mature deliberation. 

On motion, the committee rose and reported that it 
had under consideration the resolution of the gentle 
man from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] relative to appor¬ 
tionment, with amendments, and asked leave to sit again. 

Mr. HAWKINS hojied that the committee would not 
obtain leave to sit again. This matter was fully dis¬ 
cussed in committee ; projiositions had been presented 
by different gentlemen, and they had oj)inions on it 
from all sides of the House. He considered that until 
they got a report from a standing committee, they would 
not know precisely on what to determine. It appeared 
to him that the committee of the whole had no distinct 
question before it, during the discussion which was 
had upon the resolutions reported. He hoped therefore, 
that the committee would not have leave to sit again. 

The question then occumng, being, shall the com¬ 
mittee of the whole have leave to sit again ? The same 
was decided in the affirmative. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the report of the commit¬ 
tee on the Legislative Department be taken up, with a 
view to refer it to the committee of the whole. 

The motion to take up was agreed to. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK moved that the report be read a 
second time by its title, which was agreed to. 

On motion by Mr. SAWYER, the report was refer¬ 
red to the committee of the whole. 

Mr. NASH moved that the Convention adjourn, 
which was agreed to. 


M. 


WEDNESDAY, May 22,1850—10, A 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Doolittle. 

PETITIONS, &c. 

Mr. KEN NON presented a petition from T. B. Lind¬ 
say and fifty-five other citizens of Fairview, Guernsey 
county, praying that a jirovision be made in the new 
constitution prohibiting the traffic in intoxicating li- 
(juors. 

Referred to the committee on Miscellaneous Sub¬ 
jects. 

Mr. BATES presented the petition of William Mat¬ 
thews and thirty-three other citizens of Jefterson coun¬ 
ty, praying for the same object. 

Referred to the same committee. 

Mr. EWART presented the memorial of Edwin Cor¬ 
ner, of McConnellsville, Morgan county, in relation to 
future amendments to the constitution. 

Referred to the committee on the Future Amend¬ 
ments to the Constitution. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren said that there had been 
transmitted to him for presentation a memorial from a 
Dr. A. Brooke, of Clinton county. He was acquainted 
with the gentleman ; he was a man of intelligence and 
good character, as far as he knew, but was carried 
avvay with all the wild vagaries of the age. The pe¬ 
tition was rather extraordinary in its character. Tlie 


argument of the petitioner was against all government 
whatever, if he comprehended it correctly. He would 
ask leave to read a portion merely, in order that they 
could understand its prayer: 

Believing that there exists a Divine government in 
the form of certain, physical, moral or social laws to 
which men are by nature subject, and that all human 
laws corresponding to these, are useless, su 2 )erfluous 
and of no benefit, and what are o^iijosed to them are 
unjust and unnecessary, &c., &c., &c. The undersigned 
cannot consent to the existence of any human govern¬ 
ment, owes no allegiance to, and has no claims upon 
it for protection, &c., &c. He therefore prayed that 
the new constitution may grant to him and such as 
have conscientious scruples, the same liberty of con¬ 
science in resjiect to government, which is allowed by 
the present constitution of Ohio in relation to the sup¬ 
port of religion. That the Convention may erect a 
just “ goveinmeut,” as defined by Jefferson, and not, by 
coercive taxation and other appliances, to compel assis¬ 
tance in its suiqiort, infringe uj)on the consciences and 
the rights of those who do not and cannot “ consent ” 
to its establishment. He [Mr. Smith,] was opposed to 
all such wild theories, but for the purpose of having the 
jietition properly considered, he moved that it be re¬ 
ferred to the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects. 

The motion was agreed to. 

IMr. SWAN said he had a memorial transmitted to 
him from R. A. Harrison and 24 others, citizens of Me¬ 
dina county, praying that a clause may be incorporated 
in the constitution making private projierty inviolate, 
but subservient to the jiublic welfare; provided the 
value of the j)roperty be paid in money to the owner 
prior to its aiipropriation. 

The jietition was then read, and on motion, referred 
to the committee on the Preamble and bill of Rights. 

Mr. COOK presented a petition from H. D. L. Web¬ 
ster and 134 other citizens of Ohio, praying that a 
clause be inserted in the new constitution conferring 
the right of suffrage on females. 

Referred to the committee on the Elective Fran¬ 
chise. 

Mr. TAYLOR said he held in his hand the memorial 
of Benjamin Somers, of Erie county, who, it would be 
recollected, was a member of the Ohio Legislature 
some years ago. The document being of a voluminous 
nature, he had accordingly jirejiared an abstract of its 
contents which he would read. It was as follows : 

The memorial of Benjamin Somers of Vermillion 
township, Erie county, Ohio, praying for the following 
provisions in the constitution of Ohio: 

An Executive, consisting of a Governor whose term of office 
shall be four years, and ehgible to one re-election; a Lieutenant 
Governor to serve in case of death or disability of Governor, 
and to be President of the Senate: a Secretary of State ; an Au¬ 
ditor, Treasurer and Attorney General ,• the four last so arranged 
that two shall be elected biennially, and, with the Governor, to 
constitute a council, who shall possess the same veto power over 
the acts of the General Assembly that the President of the United 
States now does. 

That the Legislature shall consist of a Senate with 31 members, 
to be elected by single districts, tenn of office six years, and so 
arranged that one third shall be elected biennially; and a House 
of Representatives, elected biennially in single districts—term of • 
office two years—and numerous enough to allow at least one re¬ 
presentative to each county. Session of Legislature, biennial, 
unless Governor call special sessions; and the House failing to 
elect Speaker for one week. Governor to appoint one of their 
number. 

Judges elective for 10 or 15 years, one to be chosen every two 
years, and not eligible to re-election; President Judge to hold 
county court. Separate court of probate. 

Equal political rights, irrespective of birth or creed. Free 
schools for six months in the year; but if taxes are imposed for ' 
their support, that the attendance of children shall be compulso¬ 
ry. Free banking; equal taxation of banks, and no corporations, 
but municipal. 

No entailment of property, beyond the children of persons li¬ 
ving at the time. | 

Homestead exemption of $500, and some rule of land limita- ' 
tion. 

Women to have separate rights of property, and to be entitled 
to vote on all questions of taxation submitted to a vo te of the 
people: as taking stock in Railroads, building houses, &c. “ No , 
taxation without representation." 














CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


115 


LhnitB of counties, 200 square miles. A board of county super¬ 
visors, and as much democratic power as possible in the town¬ 
ships. 

All the officers above named to be elected by the people. 

As it was too comj^reliensive to admit of a separate 
reference he therefore moved that the petition be laid 
on tlie table: which was agreed to. 

RESOLUTIONS. 

Mr. CURRY hoped that the Convention would in¬ 
dulge his request to take up the resolution which he 
had offered on the previous day and which had been laid 
on the table. 

The motion was agreed to, and the resolution was 
then taken up and read. 

Mr. CURRY said, that he found in the report of the 
standing committee on the Legislative Department the 
following provision, in the 23d section: “The House 
of Representatives shall have the sole power of im¬ 
peachment, but a majority of all the Representatives 
must concur in the impeachment. All impeachments 
should be tried by the Senate, and when sitting for 
that purpose, the Senators shall be upon oath or affirm¬ 
ation to do justice according to law and evidence ; no 
person shall be convicted without the concurrence of 
two-thirds of the Senators.” The following section 
was in these words : “ The Governor and all civil of¬ 

ficers under this, shall be liable to impeachment for 
any misdemeanor in office, but judgment in such case 
shall not extend further than removal from office, and 
disqualification to hold any office of trust, honor or pro¬ 
fit. The party, whether convicted or not, shall never¬ 
theless be liable to indictment, trial and judgment, ac¬ 
cording to law.” 

The object in offering the resolution was to call the 
attention of the Convention, and particularly of the 
standing committee on the “Judiciary ” to the subject 
of impeachment. The question, was upon the propri¬ 
ety of changing this feature of the constitutional law, 
and the resolution he had presented, was made in abso¬ 
lute terms through iiiadvertance. It should have been 
a resolution of inquiry. It had been an opinion enter¬ 
tained by many gentlemen, within his knowledge, that 
the existing constitutional rule on this subject, was not 
a correct rule. It was believed that the power of im¬ 
peachment, as it had existed under the present consti¬ 
tution of the State, and as it was intended to be esta¬ 
blished by this report, was an almost nugatory provi¬ 
sion—an almost useless rule. It was believed that in 
many instances, he might say in hundreds of instances, 
since the establishment of the existing constitution, 
the civil officers of the State had done such things, and 
committed such acts, as should have induced their re¬ 
moval. 

But the process of impeachment had been so diffi¬ 
cult, that it was almost impossible to be successfully 
canied through in such instances. Cases of that kind 
with the exception of one or two important instances, 
had been suffered to go unnoticed—so far as action was 
concerned; no man had been found willing to under¬ 
take the trouble and expense of coming to the Legisla¬ 
ture and endeavor to induce the process of impeach' 
meut. It would readily be perceived by members, 
(at least it so struck his mind,) that in veiy many in¬ 
stances it would conduce very much to the further¬ 
ance of justice to provide some more direct and ef¬ 
fective mode of holding civil officers accountable for 
their actions in this organic law which they were about 
to establish. He did not know that the process of 
bringing civil officers by indictment before the courts 
of law to be removed on proper cause, was the most 
desirable mode. But he thought this to be a subject 
proper to be brought before the committee on the ju¬ 
diciary department, and he hoped the indulgence would 
be extended to him of allowing this matter to take that 
direction, to be disposed of as they saw fit. He moved 
that the resolution be referred to the committee on the 
■judicial department. 

The motion was^agreed to. 


PERSONAL EXPLANATION. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD desired to make a short personal 
explanation. He was represented in the published re¬ 
ports of the debates, had last Friday, as saying that the 
“civil list of this State in 1848 amounted to $160,000.” 
He supposed it was a mere iiiadvertance or a typo¬ 
graphical error, by which he had been so misrepre¬ 
sented. He had never intended to commit such a 
blunder as to say that the amount of the civil list was 
$160,000. He would take the occasion to say that he 
had nothing wliatever to complain of in regard to the 
accuracy of the reports. The reporters were entirely 
competent to the discharge of their professional ser¬ 
vices, and, as far as he knew, had been extremely gen¬ 
tlemanly in their intercourse with members. What he 
said oil that occasion was, that the expenses of the civil 
list amounted to from $106,000 to $110,000. He would 
have written to the editors of the papers to have this 
typographical error corrected, but that it had gone on 
record; and for that reason lie made the explanation 
here. He wished to make this explanation because 
any school-boy that might take up the document of the 
year 1848, could readily see that the expenses of the 
year did not amount to $160,000. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the Convention resolve 
itself into a committee of the whole, upon the con¬ 
sideration of the report of the committee on the Leg¬ 
islative Depai’tment. 

Mr. STILLWELL moved that they take uj) resolution 
No. 7, as he wished to offer a few remarks on the sub¬ 
ject. 

Mr. REEMMLIN supposed that when they went 
into committee of the whole it could take up what¬ 
ever question it pleased. He would now make the 
simple motion to go into committee of the whole. 

At the suggestion of Messrs. Green and Archbold, 
the motion to go into committee was was withdrawn. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross offered the following resolu¬ 
tions, which, on motion of the same gentleman, were 
laid on the table and ordered to be printed. 

Resolved, That it is expedient so to amend the constitaition that 
hereafter the judicial power shall be vested in— 

1. A SUPHEMB COURT ; 

2. COURTS OP COMMON PLEAS ; 

3. COUNTY COURTS ; 

4. JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ; 

5. OTHER COURTS CREATED BY LAW. 

1. THE SUPREME COURT. 

The State to be divided into seven judicial districts of contigu¬ 
ous territory. One judge of the Supreme Court to be elected in 
each district by the quahfied etectors therein. 

Those first elected to be classed so that thereafter one judge of 
the Supreme Court will be elected every-. 

One term of the Supreme Court (consisting of a single judge) 
to be held in each county in the State once in every year—provis¬ 
ion to be made that the Supreme Court may be in session in sever¬ 
al counties at the same time. 

One term of the Supreme Court, to consist of three, to be sty¬ 
led the “ District Supreme Court,” to be held in each district once 
in every year. 

One term of the Supreme Court, consisting of all the judges, 
to be styled the “Supreme Court in Bank,” to be held annually 
at the seat of government. 

The Supreme Court of Nisi Prius, to have appellate jurisdiction, 
for the trial by jury of issues of fact, and such other matters as 
may be prescribed by law, where the amount in controversy shall 
be over S300. 

The District Supreme Court to have jurisdiction of all such 
matters as may come into said Court on error, as may be prescri¬ 
bed by law. 

The Supreme Court in Bank to be a court of last resort tor the 
correction of errors, to be regulated by law. 

2. COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS. 

The State to be divided into sixteen judicial circuits (of which 
Hamilton county shall be one) of contiguous territory, so as not 
to disturb county lines. 

One judge of the Court of Common Pleas to be elected in each 
circuit by the qualified electors therein. Term of office --. 

Two terms of the Court of Common Pleas to be held in each 
county annually. 

The Courts of Common Pleas to have original jurisdiction in 
all cases where the amount in controversy exceeds one hundred 
doilars, and in such other cases as may be prescribed by law. 

Appellate jurisdiction from the judgments of the county courts 
and courts of justices of the peace, as may be prescribed bylaw. 

Criminal jurisdiction in all cases except such minor oflences 
as may be given by law to the county courts—provided, that in 








116 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


all capital cases the party accused may elect, and on such election 
may be tried in the Supreme Court of the county. 

Provisi 9 n to be made for an exchange of circuits by the judg 
es, in all cases of necessity. 

3. COUNTY COURTS. 

One judge of the coimty court, to be elected by the qualified 
electors therein. 

Tire county courts within their respfjctivc counties to have ex¬ 
clusive jurisdiction of all matters of probate and administration ; 
the settlement of decedents, estates, guardi;mship, dower, paiti- 
tion, sales of real estates by executors, administrators and guai'- 
diaiis. 

Of such minor offences as may be prescribed by law, the trial 
whereof shall be by infonnation. 

Of appeals from the orders and resolutions of the county com¬ 
missioners concerning roads and highways. 

And in such special cases as may be prescribed by law. 

As many terms of the county court to be held as the business 
may requii-e. 

Compensation of judges of county courts to be paid out of the 
coimty treasury. 

4. A sufficient number of justices of the peace to be elected, 
and with the same powers and duties as prescribed under the ex¬ 
isting constitution. 

5. Other courts to be established by law in incorporated cities 
and towns, to be suborduiate to the supreme court, with jurisdic¬ 
tion and power to conform to the courts herein provided for. 
The judges of such courts to be elected by the qualified electors 
in such city or town, for such term and with such compensation 
as judges of courts of similar dignity herein provided for. 

The minimum compensation of judges to be fixed. 

Clerks of supreme courts in each county to be elected by the 
qualified electors, who shall be, ex-offi,cio, clerks of the common 
pleas and county courts, except in the county of Hamilton. 

Clerks of the several courts in Hamilton county, and of such 
courts as may be created by law, to be in like manner elected. 
Judges of tlie supreme court and courts of common pleas, remov¬ 
able by joint resolution of the General Assembly, two-thirds of 
the House of Representatives and a majority of the Senate con¬ 
curring. 

Mr. LARSH presented the following: 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to engraft any provision in the 
Constitution, which shall require of a candidate for any elective 
office, any other qualification than citizenship, age, and residence 
in the particular district in which he is a candidate. 

Mr. SAWYER supposed then, by the resolution pre¬ 
sented, a black man could be a representative in the 
Legislature, He understood that no qualification ex¬ 
cept eitizenship, age, and residence. Would the clerk 
please to read it again. 

The resolution was accordingly read. 

Mr. SAWYER said he did not like the resolution at 
all; besides, it was was imperative. If the gentleman 
would alter it so as to make it an inquiry into the ex¬ 
pediency of so amending the Constitution, he would 
not object to it. 

Mr. LARSH made some remark which was inaudi¬ 
ble at the table, and was understood to move the ref¬ 
erence of the resolution to the committee on the pre¬ 
amble and bill of rights. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD would make a motion which, 
though not debatable, he would ask leave to preface it 
with a few remarks in order to explain. The two sub¬ 
jects of the legislative department and the apportion¬ 
ment of representatives were now the engrossing topics 
here. Members were, no doubt, well satisfied in their 
own minds, about the structure of the .Judiciary, near¬ 
ly every man could do so to suit himself. Many could 
fix up schemes of apportionment to suit themselves, 
but he must confess he was not able to do so. But 
they had other subjects to debate in the committee of 
the whole; they had to discuss the proposition of the 
gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] in relation to the 
executive department. On the other two subjects, 
members should have some little time to consult, and 
deteiTuine what had been done in the other twenty-nine 
States of the Union on the same matters. He thought 
that going into committee on these subjects would be 
productive of no benefit. He inoved that they go into 
a committee of the whole on the proposition of the 
gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason.] 

Mr. STANTON asked for a division of the question. 

The motion to go into committee was agreed to. 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

Mr. CHAMBERS in the Chair. 


Mr. ARCHBOLD called for the question on the lat¬ 
ter part of his motion. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved that the Convention take up 
the proposition of the gentleman from Clark, [Mr. 
Mason.] 

Mr. SMITH of Warren hoped that the motion would 
not be sustained. He objected as a matter of conve¬ 
nience, to going first to one subject and then to another, j 
On the previous day, the committee was discussing the 
subject of the apportionment of Representatives. It 
had been intimated by the gentleman from Muskingum 
[Mr. Stillwell,] that he was desirous of expressing , 
his views on that subject. He hoped the committee j 
would hear the gentleman; besides there was another 
reason, and that was, that the subject having been dis¬ 
cussed yesterday, was fresh in the recollection of gen¬ 
tlemen. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD remarked that he had not been 
aware of the wish of the gentleman from Muskingum 
[Mr. Stillwell.] 

Mr. HAWKINS withdrew his objections. 

Mr. STILLWELL observed that he had no particu- , 
lar desire to speak on the subject. | 

The CHAIRMAN said the matter was entirely in the >: 
hands of the committee. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren moved that the committee i 
take up resolution. No. 7, [Mr. Reemelin’s,] relative i 
to the apportionment, which was agreed to. 

Mr. STILWELL proposed to submit some observa- i 
tions on the subject now under consideration, not so 
much for the purpose of attempting to give information 
to this committee, as to make some suggestions, that 
other members might correct his errors. He supposed 
that all were agreed to the proposition that the major- j 
ity should govern. He supposed it to be the principle 
and foundation of our institutions; and whether that 
right was exercised by the majority in their individu¬ 
al or in their representative capacity seemed to him to 
make no difference. So far, then, as the resolution un¬ 
der consideration propounded the principle that popu¬ 
lation should be the basis of representation, he concur¬ 
red. If, however, the gentleman who presented these • 
resolutions intended to limit that population to a par- j 
ticular bound he would dissent from it. i 

He had supposed they all concurred in those princi- j 
pies. He had supposed that it was a true Democratic 
principle, if that name would commend it the more to i 
the attention or favor of any party in the committee. i 
In this he was mistaken, as gentlemen had announced 
on this fioor that population was not the true basis of i 
representation, but that other matters were to be taken i: 
into consideration, particularly that territory was to be 
taken into equal consideration with population. Cer- ' 
tainly in applying this principle of population, temto- > 
ry must be taken into consideration. Not because it ; 
was a proper basis, but because it was a convenient ': 
mode of designating the population represented. If 
they would arrive at any practical result, they must ‘ i 
first determine the ratio of representation, and then di¬ 
vide the whole territory to bo represented into parts, 
each containing the population designated by that ra¬ 
tio. So far, then, has territory to be considered, not as 
an original element, but only as a matter of conveni¬ 
ence in making the apportionment. Supposing that 
the committee would agi’ee with him upon this subject > i 
he would say nothing more on it. 

The next question was the number of which the 
Representative body should consist. There were two > 
circumstances to be considered in determining this. | 
In the first place, it was necessary that the body should i 

contain a number sufficient to represent the intelligence, 
interests and feelings of the coiLstituents—next, that ' 
it sliould consist of a convenient number. 

In a country where the interests of the people were 
diversified, and the territory was widely extended, it 
was necessary that a numerous body should be elected. 

But in our country, a country in which no such divex’sity 
of race or of interests existed, it seemed to him that it 












CONVENTION REPORTS 


117 


was not necessaiy that we should have a large Repre¬ 
sentative body. It always appeared to him, that the 
smaller the body,the more convenient it was for the trans¬ 
action of business. The gentleman from Hamilton 
[Mr. Reemelin,] had referred to the more numerous 
Representative bodies in England, in Switzerland, and 
in France, in illustration of the theory of laiye Repre¬ 
sentative bodies. But he had omitted a very important 
feature in the organization of the British House of 
Commons. He had omitted to state that forty mem¬ 
bers constituted a quorum to transact business, and 
that the ordinary municipal legislation was usually 
performed by less than one hundred members. 

It was only on occasions when some great political 
question was brought under dispussion that the entire 
House attended—such for instance as the Reform Bill, 
&c., or the Catholic question. Then the whole force 
on both sides was brought forward; but, in the gener¬ 
ality of instances it was rare that more than fifty to a 
hundred, out of five hundred members, attended in that 
body. There was another very great distinction in 
those bodies to which the gentleman had not referred. 
Did the gentleman suppose that when all the members 
of the House of Commons attended, that numerous 
members, as in this country, took part in the debate ? 
It was very far from being the case. For, in the most 
important discussions that had ever occurred in that 
body before the reform of the House of Commons, the 
debate was confined to one or two sessions. The de¬ 
bates in that body which led to the resignation of the 
Walpole ministry, to the recognition of American In¬ 
dependence, and to the formation of the celebrated 
coalition ministry, were confined to a session of one or 
two days; so also were the debates on the Catholic 
question and on the reform bill. The reason was, that 
in that body each party was represented by a few great 
leaders; all the members did not participate in the dis¬ 
cussion, but it was left to the leaders (representing 
the views of their parties,) to speak; thus some half a 
dozen speeches only were made on such great ques¬ 
tions. If the gentleman had introduced the proposi¬ 
tion that speeches were to be made only by a few on 
one side or the other, then they could approximate to 
that body. 

In a great measure the discussion of questions in the 
French Chamber of Deputies, was confined to the 
leaders of the opposition, on the one side, and the min¬ 
istry on the other, and the chiefs of the small sections 
who held opinions intermediate between the two 
great parties. If the gentleman is in favor of such 
numerous deliberative bodies, is he willing to adopt 
this mode of proceeding ? 

There were several other propositions contained in 
the resolutions ofiered by the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton [Mr. Reemelin.] The gentleman proposes that 
the State should be divided into Senatorial districts, to 
be permanently fixed in the new constitution. That 
the quota of population for a Senator or Representative 
should be permanently fixed in the new constitution; 
and that each county should be entitled to at least one 
Representitive. If the gentleman was correct in his 
first proposition, that population should not be the ba¬ 
sis of representation, he was also correct in the prin¬ 
ciple that a ratio for representation should be penna- 
nently fixed by this Convention. If, however, the 
Convention adopted that proposition, he believed that 
the ratio should be fixed at such a number as would 
make the Senate and House of Representatives man¬ 
ageable Houses. 

The next proposition was in relation to limiting the 
number of representatives. He would consider all these 
propositions together, because if they adopted the one 
the other followed; they depended on the same princi¬ 
ples. It is true that the scheme suggested had some 
advantages. It would remove some of the difficulties 
which had heretofore produced so much dissatisfaction. 
But it seemed that the gentleman had been inadvertent in 
the argument he hadmade. He(the gentleman fromHam- 


ilton) had supposed that the same state of things would 
exist under the new as under the old constitution. He 
had argued that the evils with regard to apportionment 
which existed under the present constitution woidd 
continue under the one they were about to frame. Un¬ 
der the present constitution the Legislature was direct¬ 
ly interested in making the apportionment of the rep¬ 
resentation, The Legislature was the fountain of 
power, and distributed almost all the offices; they cre¬ 
ated new counties, and did many other things which 
rendered the possession of power very important to 
each particular party. And it was not surprising that 
in such instances they would look rather to their own 
party interests, than to general interests of the State. 

But this Convention proposed to take from the legis¬ 
lature all power, except that of passing general laws. 
When these powers were taken away, the temptation 
to do wrong was removed; and it would not be sup¬ 
posed that they would then do wrong for the very pur¬ 
pose of doing wrong. The only inducement that re¬ 
mained to them, to make a fraudulent apportionment, 
was the election of the United States Senator, and the 
apportionment for the election of Congressional repre¬ 
sentatives. This resolution under consideration did not 
purpose to obviate the difficulty in regard to the latter, 
and the constitution of the United States prevents the 
removal of the former difficulty. But both seem of 
minor importance, compared with the powers of the 
General Assembly under the present constitution. He 
thought, then, that it would be wiser to consider things 
as they would exist under the new constitution, and 
not as they had been under the old one, in determining 
the mode of apportioning the representation and deter¬ 
mining where that power would be most safely depos¬ 
ited. 

He again asserted the principles that representation 
should be based on population, and denounced the pro¬ 
position of the resolutions, that it should be appor¬ 
tioned on any other basis. 

He opposed that proposition, because it was unequal, 
and because it abandoned the democratic principle, 
that representation flowed from the people. 

By the enumeration of 1847, the counties of Defi¬ 
ance, Henry, Marion, Ottowa, Paulding, Putnam and 
Van Wert, contained 7,.'505 freewhite male inhabitants, 
and which constituted the one-forty-ninth part of the 
free white male inhabitants of the State, and were en¬ 
titled to that proportion of political power. By the 
scheme proposed by the gentleman from Hamilton 
[Mr. R.] the House of Representatives would consist 
of one hundred and twenty-six members, of which 
those same counties would be entitled to seven-eigh¬ 
teenth parts—almost three times the political powerto 
which they were entitled under a just apportionment. 
By the same enumeration, the county of Paulding con¬ 
tained two hundred and ninety-four free white males, 
the one thousand and eightieth part of the free white 
male inhabitants of the State, and was entitled to that 
proportion of political power. But the resolution of 
the gentleman from Hamilton, gives to that county one 
Representative. By this mode, the man residing in 
the county of Paulding would have more than nine 
times the political power, than the man residing in 
F ranklin county. 

It seemed to him that a scheme which produced in^ 
qualities of this kind must be a vicious system, for if 
it were a just system it would produce an equality of 
power. He would here remark that the gentleman 
from Hamilton [Mr. Remeelin] arriving at the results 
at which he had amved, should have been less severe 
in his denunciation in relation to previous apportion¬ 
ments. Fle said that the apportionment of 1848 was 
dishonest.” But it so happened that the counties that 
obtained political advantages under the mode of ap¬ 
portionment now proposed by the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton were of the same political party as that to which 
the gentleman himself belonged. He f Mr. S.] did not 
say, and did not believe, that the plan for apportion- 











118 ' CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ment proposed and advocated by the gentleman from 
Hamilton was dishonest, or that it was prepared for the 
purpose of producing these unfair and unequal results. 
But he would commend to the attention of that gentle¬ 
man the remark that dishonesty of purpose might bo 
attributed to his present scheme of apportionment by 
a person disposed to be censorious, with as much pro¬ 
priety at least, as the gentleman charged dishonesty 
upon those wlio made the apportionment ol 1848. 

The ground he took was, the mode of apportionment 
proposed by the gentleman from Hamilton did not 
produce the practical results that were to be desired. 
It was impossible to form any scheme of apportion¬ 
ment by which exact justice could in all cases be ar¬ 
rived at. But no plan ought to be adopted by which 
294 men in one part of the State should have the same 
power as 4000 men in another. 

He agreed with the gentleman from Hamilton, that 
Representatives should be chosen by single districts. 
But he did not agree that these districts must necessa¬ 
rily in all cases be boimded by county limits, or that 
they should be designated in the manner provided by 
the I’esolution under consideration. 

So far as distiicts would be found bounded by coun¬ 
ty lines, containing the proper number of inhabitants, 
it would be convenient to regard those lines in consti¬ 
tuting the districts. This can be done in many cases. 
But it is obvious that this cannot be done in all cases, 
without abandoning the just principle that population 
should be the basis and measure of representation. 
The population of the counties varies so much, and the 
deficiency under, or the excess above the ratio of rep¬ 
resentation would be so great as to render it impossi¬ 
ble even to approximate a just distribution of Repre¬ 
sentatives. 

By adopting smaller districts, as townships and 
wards, containing a much less number of inhabitants 
than counties, this singularity in representation, might 
be, in a great manner avoided. A near approximation 
could be made to the just standard of representation. 
The deficiency or excess of population in every case 
would be inconsiderable. 

It is said by the gentleman from Hamilton, that a 
different system has been adopted, and that the smaller 
States are each entitled to one Representative, without 
regard to population. That arose from the necessity 
of the case—no other rule with regard to the small 
States, could be adopted without in some cases entirely 
depriving them of representation. But in the larger 
States, and in all cases where it could possibly apply, 
population was made the basis of representation. 

Tnat was an entirely different thing. There they 
were States, sovereign in themselves, that were to be 
represented; but counties were not so. They were 
only municipal bodies and had nothing as such to 
represent disconnected with the people, and as such 
had no rights to protect, and no interests to represent. 
It might be said however, that the persons living 
in diff erent counties were not so well acquainted with 
one another as those living in the same county. 

That might be true, but as the districts were to be 
formed of contiguous territory, no man would be a can¬ 
didate for representative who would not be known to 
his neighbors, andhis qualifications as fully appreciated 
as if resident in the same county. 

It had been said by the gentleman from Hamilton 
that, if the apportionment were made by the Legislature, 
that it would be made for party purposes. That cer¬ 
tainly is a difficulty that cannot be entirely avoided. 
But, as we have before seen, it will be much less under 
the new than under the old constitution. 

This objection is by no means obviated by the taking 
of the power of apportionment from the Legislature, 
and vesting it in local boards. They will also have po¬ 
litical feelings and interests. It would not diminish the 
evil, but only spread it at once over a wider surface— 
carry into each county that which now exists only at 
the seat of goveimment. The action of the local boards 


would be more private, and less subject to the control lu 
of public opinion. They would, also, be much more j| 
liable to be influenced by individual interests, and make j , 
the apportionment to suit their own interests, and those i 
of other aspiring candidates. 

In every county there is a set of trading politicians, ! 
who make office hunting their business, some court¬ 
house clique, as it is usually called, who hold office, or an¬ 
other body who seek office, that control the political j 
action of the county. These wmuld be the persons 
who would control and direct the apportionment, if j 
vested in local hands, as proposed in the resolutions. | 
He would prefer that the power should remain in the 
Legislature than be placed in such hands. j 

He had not any proposition prepared to present to I 
the committee, nor did he think it necessary to offer 
any amendment. The pending amendment enabled ^ 
him to make these few remarks. His general proposi- 
tion would be that the constitution should fix the num¬ 
ber of representatives from seventy-five to one hundred | 
certainly not greater than the latter number, and that 
after the enumeration had been made, the Legislature 
should apportion the number thus fixed to the different 
parts of the State according to population, by single dis- j 
tricts formed of contiguous territory, bounded by coun- j; 
ty lines as far as practicable, and in other cases of town¬ 
ship and ward lines. Thus giving a just proportion of i 
political power to all paj’ts of the State, and to each in- j 
dividual. _ i 

With respect to the Senate, he cared not whether it 
consisted of one-half or one-tliird of the number of the ' 
House of Representatives. It ought to be one-half or 
one-third so the Senatorial distiict could be formed by 
adding two or three contiguous Representative districts 
together so as to form a Senatorial district. County 
lines should be regarded, as far as practicable, in form- i 
iug these districts, and they should be as compact as 
possible. 

This was the general substance of the proposition he 
would make. It confonned to the Democratic princi- i 
pie that population should constitute the basis of rep¬ 
resentation. It did not propose to substitute any new ' 
and untried mode of making the apportionment lor one 
which we understood. It did not ti'ansfer the high 
honor of apportioning the representation of the State i 
from the General Assembly, chosen by the whole peo¬ 
ple, to small local boards, sitting in private, and sub- | 
ject to be conti’olled for the advancement of private in- | 
terests. Whether this took the enumeration of the < 
male, or the white, or the entire white and black pop- I 
ulation as the basis of the apportionment, it mattered 
nothing. The result would be almost the same, in ei¬ 
ther case. If it were important to maintain this great 
principle of distributing political power equally 
amongst those from whom all power flowed, they ought , 
to adopt the principle he proposed, unless they intend- i 
ed to violate that principle, or to consult some particu- ^ 
lar interest, or it could be shown that the system was i 
not practicable or expedient. 

Mr. McCORMICK. I rise with some diffidence to ' 
address the committee upon the subject now under 
consideration, because it is a great and momentous 
question. It is not one to be determined in the hurry 
of an hour, or one sitting of this committee ; but one 
which should commend itself to our consideration here 
and elsewhei’e for discussion and re-discussion, consid¬ 
eration and re-consideration, until we may be enna- 
bled to discover some basis or plan which shall prove 
satisfactory to the majority, at least, of the minds of 
this body. It is, sir, the most important question 11 
which can be brought before us. It is the question of 
all others—that upon which all others are based—upon 
which all others rest; for unless we do establish this, 
in some satisfactory manner, acceptable not alone to 
the members of the Convention, but also to the people, 
our labors will have been in vain. Sir, we may adopt 
what judicial system we please, or what system of the 
executive or co-executive department we please; and 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


119 


although they may not be well received, and although 
upon second thought they may not be the best plans 
which might be desired, yet they can be endured. But 
if the representation of the people—if the legislation 
of the people—if the voice of the people is not fairly 
heard in our Legislative Halls, it will never be submit¬ 
ted to. Why are we here, sir, sitting in this Hall, de¬ 
liberating from day to day upon these momentous 
(luestions ? Are we respecting our own views—are 
we expressing our own will ? Is the object which 
w’e are endeavoring to accomplish, merely for our own 
advancement ? Or should we reflect the voice, will 
and mind of those who sent us here ? Are we supreme 
in our position ? Are we not here to reflect the opin¬ 
ions of the people as their servants—to obey their will, 
and carry into operation their thoughts and intentions ? 
If we are organized here in the form of a Convention 
for the purpose of reflecting the will of the people, and 
are the mouth-piece of their utterance, how much more 
should every Legislature which may hold its session 
subsecpieiitly to the adoption of the instrument which 
we frame, be the mouth-piece of the whole people, 
whom they represent ? 

The whole question of independent legislation comes 
up under these resolutions. We may as well meet it 
here, and discuss it here, before giving it to a standing 
committee, as to undo their labors after that committee 
shall have made their report. I do not agree with the 
gentleman from Hamilton in several of his propositions, 
nor will I concur with the gentlemen on the other side 
of the House in some of their propositions. I object, 
sir, to the first proposition under the second resolution; 
that the population of a county shall be the basis for a 
representation. I object to allowing the population of 
the State to be the basis for representative purposes. 
What do you propose to do by this? You recognize 
population—the people—in your enumeration, and yet, 
when you come to the ballot box, you recognize and 
exercise a right and choice in granting the elective fran¬ 
chise. This objection is not confined alone to a foreign 
and alien population in our midst; but, sir, it is good as 
to another and different population. There are men 
who are pressing and will press the question of the ne¬ 
gro population and suffrage upon us here, and we 
should meet it like men. If we recognize and make 
our representation in the halls of legislation upon the 
negro basis, why, sir, I ask in the name of humanity, 
in the name of common sense, in the name of justice, 
should we deny the right of the ballot to the negro? 

I object, sir, also to another of these propositions, 
that each county shall have a representative, and in so 
doing, lam apparently acting against the interests of the 
county which I here represent in part. The county is 
one of the smaller ones of the State ; but I object to 
county representation, for reasons different from those 
assigned by the gentlemen from Franklin and Muskin¬ 
gum. Sir, I do not fear that the smaller counties will 
not be represented. I do not fear, that if they are not 
represented by a particular number upon this floor, 
they will not be heard, but I do fear that the smaller 
counties will be represented by so few members, that 
their voice will be overwhelmed by the superior I'epre- 
sentation of the larger counties of the State, who will 
be more combined in their delegation, and will have 
greater influence than a single, isolated and very con¬ 
fined constituency. 

There is danger, also, to result from large delegations, 
and the concentration of power in the hands of those from 
some particular district or county. These persons can 
combine their strength for operating upon individuals, 
and the greater their influence, the greater will be 
the danger resulting from their action. This is -the 
reason why the county of Hamilton, with five or seven 
representatives in this hall, could, with wisdom, pru¬ 
dence, and skill, operate more effectually for weal or 
woe, upon the residue of the State, than'ten or fifteen 
members from isolated counties, who, operated upon by 
conflicting interests, could not well combine their 


strength. These combinations are easily efi’ected, 
and easily understood by any man acquainted with 
Legislative bodies. We have seen it in Legislative 
Halls ; day after day, year after year, we find isolated 
members, without support, continually overwhelmed 
and the rights of their constituents trampled upon by 
the delegations of larger constituencies combining to¬ 
gether to effect a peculiar object. 

While, then, sir, I would inci’ease the ratio of repre¬ 
sentation beyond the number of legal voters in the 
smaller counties, and yet retain the legal voters as the 
basis of representation, I should fear no such danger as 
was apprehended by the gentleman from Franklin, in 
having a large, cumbersome representative body. Sir, 
fifty years will not give to this State the population that 
gentleman’s calculation gives it in twenty. It is not 
to be apprehended that we will increase in population 
in the same ratio in which we have increased for the 
last forty years. The rule of population is that an in¬ 
crease in numbers produces a decrease in the per cent, 
of such increase, and governed by this rule we can ar¬ 
rive at no very very startling or inaccurate results. 

Suppose, for instance, you take as a ratio 30,000, then 
you would have a House composed of 83 members. 
Supposing the population to be more than two millions 
and a half—which it is not, but I will take this as a 
number for illustration—and you take the proposition 
offered by the gentleman from Athens, and divide the 
population of the State by the number of counties; it 
will give you a ratio of 28,700 and a fraction, and 87 
Representatives. Suppose you take a ratio of numbers, 
limiting the House to 100 members, and you would 
then have 25,000—very little difference in this ratio. 
But there must be, on account of the fraction, and on 
account of the increase of population, a difference in 
after years, and an increase also in representation; and 
it is necessary to provide for that increase. Now if 
taking the ratio of 30,000 we shall have a house com¬ 
posed of 83 members, which is suflEiciently limited, 
even if we admit the per cent, of increase to be as 
great as that assigned by the gentleman from Franklin, 
we shall in twenty years have a House of Representa¬ 
tives of no more than one hundred and fifty members. 
If to that you add the proposition submitted to the com¬ 
mittee as an amendment, you will find that in ten or 
twenty years will but slightly increase the original 
number of 83. Thus you can always confine the num¬ 
ber of Representatives to nearly the number we set out 
with here. 

I do insist, Mr. Chairman, that there is not, nor will 
there be, more than 100 Representatives necessary to 
represent fully and fairly all the interests of the people 
of Ohio in their legislative hall. But it may be said 
sir, “that is all true,” but how are you to provide for 
the other House. You thus fix a ratio of representation 
which will operate well, and there is no difficulty in 
arranging it so that the Legislature will never have oc¬ 
casion to change it for that House, but how will you 
provide for your other House. 

Mr. Chairman, I have yet to learn that more than one 
House is necessary. Old practices, and arguments 
adduced from old practices, are proposed to us as pre¬ 
cedents and authority, whereby we are to be governed 
in our daily deliberations and conclusions. Against 
such a mode of procedure I most solemnly protest. 
That we should draw wisdom from whatever source 
we may—that we should apply that wisdom to the la¬ 
bors which now lie before us is true, proper, and nec- 
essaiy; but that we should be bound by any precedent or 
governed by any practice, ancient though it may be, 

I most earnestly deny. The Conventions of the differ¬ 
ent States of the Union, I appreliend, engrafted dif¬ 
ferent Houses into their constitutions^ because they 
found such a provision in the constitution of the Uni¬ 
ted States. I can see no other reason for it. This mode 
of govemment did not exist prior to the adoption of that 
constitution. There were, it is tnie, in some of the 
colonies, a House of Burgesses and a Council with the 












120 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


Governor; but two Houses distinct and apart, acting 
for legislative purposes, did not exist, nor did such a 
plan come in vogue until the adoption of the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States. Do we stand in the same 
relation to each other as the States ol the Union do ? 
Why sir, the Congress of the United States represents 
dift'erent and distinct bodies—the sovereignties ol tlie 
States and the sovereignty ol the individual man. Ihe 
people are represented in the lower House- the States 
in the Senate. Do such different sovereignties exist 
within our boundaries ? 

The people of Ohio are an unit, they are one and in¬ 
divisible. Their interests are one and indivisible. 
Their wants are one and the same. Then why pro¬ 
pose that legislation for them should be placed in two 
and distinct bodies ? If the voice of the people is to 
be heard and regarded as the voice ol sovereignty, it 
can as well find expression in one House, through one 
class of delegates, as two—or more than one. But 
again : If you wish to have these two Houses, let us 
have some I’eason for it—some distinction, or some 
qualification in the electors of these’Representatives. 
If you will have it so, let those from 21 to 30 years of 
age, elect a Representative, and those Iroin 30 and 
upwards, elect a Senator; or make a property qualifi¬ 
cation in the elector and elect. But will this add 
wisdom to your deliberations ? Will it give weight 
or influence to law? Will it give dignity to your State, 
or add wisdom to your counsels ? 

The proposition to fix permanently the apportion¬ 
ment of the representation of the State is demmided 
of us, and no solution of the difficulty in apportioning 
the State for two branches—so that the representation 
shall be fair and equal—has yet ,been oftered by the 
friends of the double legislative system. Nor, sir, can 
I yield any assistance in the emergency. That one 
House may be provided, in which the voice of every 
elector can be heard, all agree; that two Houses can 
be ci’eated, in which the same equality of popular rights 
shall exist, no one here asserts; so that the creation of 
two Houses, boldly sets out with the declaration that 
popular rights may be disregarded—the friends of that 
measure being themselves the judges. To this viola¬ 
tion of right, I will not willingly yield any assent; 
and until reasons—paramount reasons are given, re¬ 
quiring this sacrifice, that some great good may be 
attained, we should not readily fall in with the propo¬ 
sition—merely because it is an usual and customary 
provision in the constitutions ol the various States. 
Nor, sir, can I say that I am so entirely satisfied that 
but one House is sufficient, as to declare my adhesion 
to such a provision firmly. To many of us it is new— 
in the minds of all it must be undigested; and I ask 
time and opportunity for deliberation before necessity 
requires final action. 

The grand argument for two houses is, that checks 
and balances are provided for imperfect and hasty leg¬ 
islation. The experience, the history of our State does 
not sustain the argument. But admit that checks and 
balances are necessary—and I do not question it, can 
they not be provided at a cheaper rate, and more effi¬ 
ciently, by adopting the provision of the gentleman 
from Clark. Give to the Governor the veto, a veto 
overruled by two-thirds majority, and it seems to me, 
a better check is provided, than the system hitherto 
pursued. Let us see the effect: a bill vetoed by the 
Governor goes back to the Legislature, accompanied 
bv the reasons which influenced his mind in so acting. 
If those reasons be good and sufficient, the Legislature 
yields readily to their influence; if not, the bill becomes 
a law. But it may be said that a large and captious 
minority may dissent from the will of the majority, 
and coincide in opinion with the Executive, who has 
exercised his veto for frivolous reasons. So be it—and 
what is the result. Those reasons are borne on the 
wings of the press, to every voter in the State, and the 
question enters largely into the next election, and the 
people, they w’ho bear the burdens, and endure the 


f 

* 
P 

toils inflicted by the laws, become immediately and (j 
directly, a co-ordinate portion of the legislative pow- f, 
er, and who sir, who I ask, should have a larger » 
voice in all questions of doubtful policy than they ? > 

They are the Issachar, whose neck is ever stooped to 
the burthens, burthens too large to be endured in 
silence. _ , . j' 

But in reply it may be said, the voice of the people is | 
already expressed in their selectioii of the Legislature. 
Granted sir—granted, and what if it is? The expres¬ 
sion of that voice was as to a general trust, but the ve- i • 
to places not a general trust, but a single and distinct 
proposition before them—and will it be claimed, be¬ 
cause they have once generally spoken, they shall not 
again speak on that single proposition. Shall the ox 
be muzzled that treadeth out the corn ? or shall the sov- ^ 
reignity, that should be ever potent, become subjuga- ■ 
ted by the acts of the uninstructed agent ? But I think I 
can see another grand result growing out of this plan. It 
is constantly remarked, that the executive is powerless, , i 
and no duties appertain to the office, worthy the name ' j 
or dignity. Give to the Governor the veto; give to him , j 
grave duties, and large responsibilities, and the office | 
will become a dignity which might well panoply the 1| 
noblest brow; which he wdio bears may bear with the | [ 
pride of satisfied ambition, but yet with fear and trem- i 
bliug. _ I 

It does seem to me that there is a wrong somewhere; 11 
that there is a too strong tendency to depart from the I ^ 
line of simplicity, and create a system of government | \ 
which will be far behind the republicanism of the age. 
Complexity, intricacy, wheel within wheel, appears to j 
be the system, which finds favor in this Hall, and in- t 
stead of a few simple distinct provisions, elaborations i 
shall swell our labors into the dimensions of a statute 1 

book. To the most superficial observer of that which j 

transpires around him, must be apparent, the advance- j 
inent of the American age, and the estimation in which 
the American mind, holds the fact of government. 

It is but a few months since there were gather- i 
iug together upon the shores of the Pacific, a great 
mass, of every nation, people, kindred and tongue.— i' 
In that mass was written, recognised, supreme sov- j i 
reignty—no form or vestige of government, but all ac- i 
tuated by the most selfish of all considerations—the j ^ 
thirst for gold. Thus they met together. In that mul¬ 
titude the American mind was predominant, and al- , 
though they had no constitution, although they had no j 
vestige of government, recognizingno laws, save the self- j 
existent, great fundamental principles thundered forth ; i 
by .lehovah from the topmost heights of Sinai —yet | ^ 
crime, and violence, and wrong had neither a name or 1 
place among them. A better goveniment, I assert, exist- i i 
ed on the banks of the Sacramento and the Pacific coast, 1 1 
amid thatZato/essmass,than everexistedwithin thebounds ; i 
of Europe, under the best forms of their political organi- i 

zations. Sir, facts like this speak sti’onger than language, ] j 
and we should feel and acknowledge their influence. If 1 
we create houses of legislation consisting of 150, 200, ! 

or 300 members, if we create large and numerous I! 
bodies of officers throughout the State, and in every 
township and county therein, if we create a form of i 
government which shall be seen ai\d felt in all its various ' 
and complicated parts, our labors may be wonderful, 
and the results may be splendid, but their operation 
will be a blighting and a curse to the people. 

Mr. RANNEY. I agree, Mr. Chairman, with the 
gentleman from Adams, that the principles contained 
in these resolutions ai’e of the most vital importance. 

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will forbear 
one moment, the Chair will say to the committee that 
it is generally understood in committee of the wdiole, 
there may be taken great latitude of debate: but as no 
departui’o from the question can be justified under a 
strict construction of the rules, it is hoped that gentle¬ 
men will address themselves strictly to the question, 
and that every member will take care to make his re¬ 
marks applicable to the subject under consideration. 
















121 


CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


Mr. RANNEY. The remarks which I intend to sub¬ 
mit, (and I will submit them either now, or at another 
time, if it be the pleasure of the committee to rise,) 
shall be addressed strictly to the resolutions under con¬ 
sideration. 

If I understand these resolutions, they embody these 
principles substantially. First —Depriving the legisla¬ 
ture of all control over the subject of apportionment. 
Secondly —Engrafting this principle in the new constitu¬ 
tion to be here fiumed. Thirdly —Referring the divis¬ 
ion of counties entitled to more than one representa¬ 
tive to some local authority. There is much else per¬ 
taining to them, but it all lies in the details. But, in 
regard to details, I shall not attempt to examine them. 
I shall be perfectly willing to leave to the very intelli¬ 
gent and very large committee charged with the sub¬ 
ject, the labor of working out the details of the plan. 
In the view I shall take of it, the subject resolves irself 
into these three inquiries. 

In the first place: ought this power of apportion¬ 
ment to be again vested in the Legislature'? It would 
seem to me as though the sad experience of the State 
would enable us to answer this question without hesi¬ 
tation. I feel no hesitation myself in saying the peo¬ 
ple have answered it in a way which leaves but little 
room for doubt. The scenes which have been enacted 
by our legislative body, whenever this subject has been 
up, have been such as entirely to disgust the people 
with the conduct of those entrusted with the power of 
apportioning Senators and Repre.sentatives among the 
people. It is plain, from the very nature of this power, 
that it ought never to be delegated—and why not? 
What do you send your legislative body here to do? 
They are sent here as the servants and ageiUs of the 
people. Should you confer upon these servants and 
agents the power to say for you, how many and what 
serv'ants and agents you shall hereafter send up here? 
The very nature of this power—embracing the number 
and character of agents who shall represent the people 
—I say, in its very nature, this is a sovereign, inherent 
power of the people themselves, and it ought never to 
be parted from. There is a most manifest impropriety 
in one set of servants and agents saying to their princi¬ 
pal what servants and agents he should employ to suc¬ 
ceed them. I say, this principle is, in its very nature 
and character a sovereign power which ought never to 
be parted with, but it should be always exercised by 
the people themselves. In my part of the State, the 
people are most tenacious upon this point—that this 
Convention should proceed to fix upon some principle 
of apportionment, for Senators and Representatives, 
which shall extend to every elective office in the Slate— 
including the judicial officers. I say the people in my 
part of the State are more tenacious upon this point 
than upon any other: and this constituted the strongest 
reason why they voted so unanimously for the calling 
of this Convention. They look for a reformation of the 
evils they have suffered: and from this fact may be 
traced the principle upon which we may determine 
whether this power ought to be delegated to the legis¬ 
lature. I like to recur to principle; I am weaiy of 
this eternal talk about the details while we lose sight 
of the principle. Is it not a plain principle that no po¬ 
litical power should be delegated which can be exer¬ 
cised by the people ? Is it not a general and economi¬ 
cal rule, observed by every sensible man, that no prin¬ 
cipal should employ an agent to do what he may better 
do himself? And if this be true, then no sensible peo- 
jde should delegate to an agent power to do that for 
them which they can better do for themselves. All 
delegated power is peculiarly liable to abuse. Trust 
may be placed in men, but not where there are strong 
temptations to induce its violation. A prudent man 
performs his most important functions himself, and re¬ 
serves for the control of others those matters which of¬ 
fer the smallest inducements for the betrayal of his in¬ 
terests. This is all I ask with respect to the subject of 
apportionment, I say, as the people, in their sovereign 


capacity, are capable of fixing this principle; and be¬ 
ing competent to perform that duty for themselves, it 
is unwise to delegate it to the public servants. 

But this is a principle which need not be confined to 
this subject alone. It is a principle which may be en¬ 
grafted upon every department of the government. 1 
have often said vve are delegating too much power. 
*‘The world is governed to much.” And this is as true 
of us here, as it is of any other government in the 
world. We have got now to take back power. Instead 
of placing lestrictious in the Constitution, to restrain 
from the abuse of power, we have now to take it back, 
to withhold it, wherever it is not absolutely necessary 
that it should be delegated. Because, Mr. Chairman, 
while we pray that we may not be led into tempta¬ 
tion, the injunction ought to rest upon ourselves, that 
we should not lead others into temptation. I do not 
intend to say here, that the people will send corrupt 
men to the Legislature. I Ijelieve no such thing. But 
it is a fact, that the lust of office, and the blandish¬ 
ments of power, are so operative upon men, that, when 
the question comes up, whether they shall perpetuate 
power in their own hands, or in the hands of their 
friends or of their party, we have seen many strong- 
minded individuals giving way before these considera¬ 
tions. Now, should we deliberately throw these ele¬ 
ments of corruption into the legislative body? We 
have seen how it has operated time after time; and we 
have seen flow from this fountain nothing but bitter 
waters. Shall we then place this power there again? 
I say no, Mr. Chairman. It would be wisdom for the 
people to take from the Legislative body, every source 
of corruption. We are all men, sir; and we send such 
men as ourselves to the Legislature good men to be 
sure ; but 'mt without the common frailties of humani¬ 
ty. They do not come up here perfect, but are liable 
to all the temptations to which human beings are sub¬ 
ject; and I would remove from them every source of 
temptation, as I would myself pray to be delivered 
from temptation; and as I believe this power of apixrr- 
tionment to be a most prolific source of corruption, I 
would certainly take it from them. 

But the gentleman from Monroe has told us that we 
are bound to trust something to posterity. Now I am 
as willing to trust to posterity as any gentleman; but 
I believe if we take care of ourselves, we may trust 
that posterity will take care of itself. I do not believe 
in the doctrine that public intelligence will retrogade; 
but on the contrary I believe that posterity will have 
more light, and be better able to direct and manage all 
the sources of political power than we are. This is 
my progressive democracy. But the question under 
consideration is not for posterity; it is only for our¬ 
selves ; for if we do not take away this power from the 
Legislature, the next General Assembly will come here 
clothed with authority and charged with duty to re¬ 
apportion the representative and senatorial districts of 
the State. Therefore, this is a question for ourselves 
and not for posterity. I would not impose any burdens 
upon posterity, but leave it to its own care while we 
proceed to take care of oui'selves. From all that I have 
now said I come to the conclusion that no such power 
ought to be delegated to the Legislature. 

The next question is in the resolution, which de¬ 
clares it expedient that this principle should be engraft¬ 
ed on the new constitution. It would seem to me, Mr. 
Chairman, that when you have settled the question that 
the Legislature are to have no power of apportionment 
in the State, that you must proceed to fix this principle 
in the constitution. But there are two consideiations 
that must be looked at in making this change. In the 
first place, you are to keep in view the unity of the 
counties; and secondly, the equality of representatton. 
These things are to be continually kept in view. What 
are our county organizations ? T. hey are most important 
political bodies, invested frequently with large politi¬ 
cal jurisdiction: and being important political bodies 
they may be well entitled to some consideration, while 










122 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


we are upon the question of representation in the two 
houses of the General Assembly. This is not a new 
principle, sir. We have seen this same principle car¬ 
ried into the federal government. We have seen there 
one branch of the Federal Legislature made to consist 
entirely of a representation enjoyed equally by the 
several State sovereignties of the Union. It is for this 
reason, that in my judgment, our counties should not 
be lost sight of, in any apportionment for representa¬ 
tives in the General Assembly. The other principle 
has respect to the equality of numbers, in the several 
representative disti-icts. This principle also should be 
kept well in view; and neither of the two ought be 
sacrificed or disregarded; and I affirm here, that you 
may maintain the one inviolate and preserve the other: 
there is no need of abandoning either. If there should 
be found any counties so small, or so partially settled 
as not to be entitled to a representative, let the people 
of such county, (as in the State of New York,) vote 
with some other county, imtil their number of voters 
shall be increased so as to entitle them to a distinct rep¬ 
resentation. It should be recollected that the small 
counties in the State are sparsely populated and while 
many of the older counties in this, as well as in the old¬ 
er States are not increasing in population, every day 
adds to the importance in point of population and im¬ 
provement, of these new counties in Ohio. 

Now, what is the objection to fixing this principle 
permanently in the constitution? I listened attentive¬ 
ly, and I confess with pleasure, to the remarks of the 
gentleman from Franklin, yesterday, as he went on to 
show that, under this plan, the House of Representa¬ 
tives would become too large and unmanageable, 
bringing himself at last to this curious conclusion: — 
That some aspiring leader would be likely to spring up 
and lead them all oft’ from their fidelity to their con¬ 
stituents. That, if I recollect right, was his only de- 
♦ duction, but, in my judgment, no such thing need be 
apprehended at all; but on the contrary, the responsi¬ 
bility of the^ representative to his constituents would 
be stronger in the inverse ratio of the number he might 
represent. No aspiring leader would be able to lead 
such a representative from the path of duty so readily, 
I apprehend, as he might succeed with a smaller num¬ 
ber, because the larger number would be less open 
and liable to corniption, and all the appliances and in¬ 
fluences of party machinery, for the same reason that it 
is easier to bribe and corrupt one man, or mislead him, 
than a dozen. But while the gentleman was veiy 
pungent in his remarks, showing the ridiculousness of 
such a body becoming so large, I could not see that he 
was very practical; but as a friend near me remarked, 
while he struck down the plan proposed, he did not 
give us a better one. Why do you not give us a reme 
ay? The gentleman is too good a lawyer not to know 
that if he would quash the writ he must first give us a 
better. We must have an apportionment. If the plan 
proposed is not correct, he should furnish us with a bet¬ 
ter one. But there is really no difficulty growing out 
of the increase of population hereafter. All that is 
necessary is to increase the ratio for a representative 
as the census shows the the population to have increased. 
Then the number would always remain the same. 

My friend from Medina has proposed a remedy which, 
in my judgment, deserves consideration. But, suppose 
you start oft here with 100 members, with an annual 
increase of one-tenth—can’t you see that this principle 
would always keep the body merely the same in num¬ 
ber ? It is a plain question of figures, and I think j 
could work it out myself. I think this principle of a 
self-adjusting ratio might be fixed in the constitution 
by the aid of mere mathematics—so that it could be 
ascertained at any time by figures and the ceirsus, how 
many representatives each county would be entitled to. 
There would be no difficulty in fixing a representation 
for the House of Representatives, but there will be I 
apprehend, some difficulty in constructinff a represen¬ 
tation lor the Senate. I hope there will not be; but if 


it should so turn out, I think I would go with ihe 
gentleman from Adams [Mr. McCormick] in favor 
of one House. But I would not willingly surrender 
the check of two branches in the General Assembly. 

If we can apportion the Senators without laying the 
axe at the root of the tree, while we take care to pre- j' 
serve the pure fountain of eqal representation, I shall 
vote for both, and I think both can be preserved. ^ - 

While there is, therefore, so much in the resolutions I 
of the gentleman from Hamilton, to commend them to 
my regard, I am sorry to see in the 2d resolution, mid j 
the sixth proposition contained in it, a suggestion which, 
in my judgment, is utterly at war with the leading | 
principle of the resolution. The proposition is to take ; 
away from the Legislature the power to apportion the 
Senatorial and Representative districts amongst the 1 
counties, because it is a corrupting source of power, ' 
and ought to remain with the people, and then in this 
sixth proposition, it is suggested to take the same pow¬ 
er and give it into the hands of ninety different tribu- i 
nals, to checker up the State upon the most approved 
principles of gen-ymandering. Sir, I would rather 
leave this power with the Rrepresentatives in these j i 
Halls, whose acts are subject to the examination and i: 
censure of the people, and the public press. This i 
power, here, would be ten times better guarded against ^: 
courruption, than if it were to be peddled out to these i 
90 difterent, inferior, and less responsible tribunals, j: 
Are men farther removed from corruption as you de- i 
scend from the General Assembly ? No, sir. Your I 
men are all alike; and, sir, when you get this power 
into the counties, and get it vested in a board of Com- j i 
missioners, the board will begin to divide in their at¬ 
tachments to this and that aspiring man in the county, i 
and aspiring men on the other hand, will begin to look ! 
out in the election of these commissioners, to see what I 
kind of men they could use, who would not of course < | 
be the most honest men that could be selected ; and 11 
thus it would fall out, sir, with all the agents of this j 
power, from the highest to the lowest of them, for the :! 
plain reason that this is a power which the people j 
themselves ought to exercise. Again, let me ask, is :, 
it certain that in eveiy county entitled to two or more |; 
representatives, that two men, who are best qualified to j 
represent the people of such county in the Legislature, ; 
will be found to live on difterent sides of an arbitrary 11 
line ? If not, then the people of such county will be j i 
deprived of the right of being represented by their 1 1 
best men. But again, this suggestion will entirely de- j 
prive you of the principle of county representation—a i ■ 
principle which in my judgment, should be kept stead- j ■ 
ily in view, as well as equality in representation. I j 
cannot therefore vote for this sixth proposition, to in- i: 
vest the county commissioners with the power of di- j * 
viding the counties. But with respect to the two other I' 
pi-inciples contained in the resolutions, I can vote for 1; 
them with pleasure. They are vital principles, afifect- ’ i 
ing the purity of every representative government, and j 
I hope never to see them abandoned. I have made [ j 
these remarks, Mr. Chairman, because I think every j' 
member having views to submit upon this subject, ’ I 
should deliver them to the committee, in order that i 
the committee to which it is to be referred, might | 
avail themselves of all the light that can be thrown I j 
upon it. ! 

Mr. KING. I have listened with a great deal of ' 
pleasure, to many things to which I can heartily sub¬ 
scribe. The gentleman from Trumbull has gone over i 
the field of argument and fixed a representation for the j 

Flouse. He has also told us that there would be no i 

difficulty in constructing a Senatorial representation | 
on the same plan, and declared himself in favor of the 
continuance of that branch of the General Assembly. j 
Now, I. tor one, would like to hear him explain how j 
he would constract an eipial Senatorial representation i 
and preserve all the counties as distinct elective dis¬ 
tricts ? 

Mr. RANNEY. I am not prepared to go into an ex 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


amination of the question intelligibly at this time. I 
expressed my belief that the Convention will find no 
difiiculty in apportioning the Senatorial districts. Cer¬ 
tainly the number of Senators will bear some definite 
proportion to the whole number of representative dis¬ 
tricts; this being the case, I suppose that the Senatori¬ 
al districts can be constructed upon the principle which 
I have advocated; but I confess I have not examined 
the subject sufficiently to be able to offer any definite 
and intelligible plan. But I will say again, it this can¬ 
not be done, rather than encounter all the evil and cor¬ 
rupting influences which are incident to a legislative 
apportionment every four years, I shall be willing with 
the gentleman from Adams [Mr. McCormick] to go for 
one branch of the legislative department. 

Mr. KING. The gentleman sets out with an appor¬ 
tionment fpr the popular branch of the Legislature by 
election districts, to be composed of counties; and I 
agree with him as to the principle upon which he 
would proceed. I can also very easily see how a just 
and equitable apportionment of representative districts 
can be made, but as to the representation in the other 
branch, I think I can see a very great difficulty. Will 
the gentleman admit that the Senate shall be composed 
of the same number as the House of Representatives ? 
If so, the apportionment can be made, but not other¬ 
wise. I will inquire, then, into the propriety of crea¬ 
ting and supporting two bodies of the same size mere¬ 
ly to operate as checks upon each other, in the same 
department of the government. Or will the gentle¬ 
man constitute a Senate of one-half the number of the 
House of Representatives ? If he do this, he will find 
it impossible to make his apportionment without divi¬ 
ding counties; and in doing that all the deleterious ef¬ 
fects of the apportionment under the old constitution 
will again present themselves. The new plan will be 
liable to the same abuses as the old. From this plain 
statement it appears to me at once and conclusive, that 
the position taken by the gentleman from Adams is cor¬ 
rect, and that it points to the only correct conclusion 
to which the Convention can arrive on this subject, and 
I am only waiting for a suitable occasion to present a 
proposition which shall embody the views taken by 
that gentleman; and when the proper time shall arrive, 
and the report on this subject shall come into the Con¬ 
vention, if no other gentleman will do it, I shall move 
a proposition for a single branch in the legislative de¬ 
partment. I submit these remarks merely to call the 
attention of the Convention to the consideration of this 
very important subject. 

On motion by Mr. SMITH of Warren, the committee 
now rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit 
again. 

On motion by Mr. GREEN of Ross, the Convention 
took a recess. - 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. HOLT offered for adoption, the following: 

Resolved, That for the organization of the Judiciary of this 
State, the following plan be adopted; 

Section 1. There shall be a Supreme Court and a Court for 
the correction of errorshaving general jurisdiction. 

Section 2. The State shall be divided into five Judicial Dis¬ 
tricts, composed of compact territory, bounded by county lines, 
and having as nearly as may be, equal population. 

Section 3. There shall be elected by the electors of each Ju¬ 
dicial District, five Judges of the Supreme Court, who at the 
time of their election, and during their continuance in office, shall 
reside therein; OR 

Section 3. There shall be elected by the electors of the State 
at large, five Judges of the Supreme Court, in each of the said 
Judicial Districts, who at the time of their election, and during 
their continuance in office, shall reside therein. 

Section 4. Five of the said Judges, one from each of the Ju¬ 
dicial Districts, having the shortest time to serve, shall compose a 
Court for the correction of errors. 

Section 5. The term of office of said Judges, shall be five 
years, but subject to such a classification by the Legislature, that 
the official term of one Judge, from each Judicial District, shalJ 
expire every year. 

Section 6. Provision shall be made by law for holding a suf¬ 
ficient number of terms of the Supreme Court, in every county 
in the State, which may be held by any one or more of the said 
Judges; also for holding a sufficient number of terms of the 
Court for the correction of errors, in each of the Judicial Dis¬ 
tricts. 


123 


Section 7. There shall be elected by the electors of each 
county, one county Judge, who shall have jurisdiction of pro¬ 
bate matters, and the settlement of intestate estates, and such 
limited, civil and criminal jurisdiction, as shall be conferred on 
him by law. 

He shall hold his office for the term of four years, and provi¬ 
sion shall be made by law for compensation. 

Section 8. There shall be elected by the electors of every 
township, a competent number of Justices of the Peace, whose 
election, jurisdiction and duties, shall be regulated and prescribed 
by law. Their term ot office shall be three years. 

Section 9. Courts of Conciliation. 

Section 10. Local Courts. 

Oil motion by Mr. HOLT, the resolution was laid 
on The table and ordered to be printed. 

The Convention then resolved itself into acommiltee 
of the whole on Mr. Reemelin’s Resolution, (No. 7.) 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. If I had any ambition at all to 
make a set speech, this is the hour, of the whole twen¬ 
ty-four, which I would not choose for such an eflbrt. 
It is an hour in which men are, generally, the most lan¬ 
guid and listless, and the powers of the speaker him¬ 
self, however humble, are somewhat diminished, or at 
least in less lively operation than at any other time ol 
day. I assure the committee, if it will give me atten¬ 
tion for a very short time, there shall be no oratorical 
display—for I have no desire for any thing, except to 
be humbly aiding, if possible, in bringing our labors 
to a happy termination—to an issue beneficial to the 
people of this great State. 

I hope sir, that neither of these amendments will 
prevail, and I shall not endeavor to offer any substi¬ 
tute which might improve them; for I do not wish to 
aid at all in perfecting this matter—indeed I think that 
the resolution is rather in the predicament of the school 
boy who was studying the catechism, and told his play¬ 
mates that he had got past redemption. I therefore 
hope that no amendment will be made, and will ad¬ 
dress my humble arguments to that point. I have 
listened with great attention to the views expressed 
by my friends on both sides of the chamber. 

In the first place, it has been made a question wheth¬ 
er we shall have one or two branches of the General 
Assembly; and we are told that if we should have but 
one branch, we should get rid of at least one half of 
the difficulty. Gentlemen seriously ask us, “Why 
should we have two branches of the Legislature?” and 
they put it as though it was a most puzzling question. 
We are told that Ohio is different from other States; 
that her popidation being homogenous, the necessity 
that exists in the legislative department of the Gen¬ 
eral Government and of other State governments for a 
Senate and House of Representatives, does not exist 
here. 

The able argument ot the gentleman from Adams 
[Mr. McCormick] was to this point, and I am told that 
some of the committee have been somewhat affected 
by listening to that voice which, though beautiful, and 
strong and sonorous, is yet a syren voice. Humble as 
I am, I shall endeavor to give that gentleman an an¬ 
swer to his question—“why should we have two 
branches of the Legislature?” It is because we are gov¬ 
erned too much; we have too much legislation. Gen¬ 
tlemen here complain of the frauds and conniption 
which are imputed to our past Legislatures. Now, in 
my unimaginative, unpoetical, and matter-of-fact part 
of the State, I have not heard men express thernselves 
so disgusted with the Legislature, and so impatient to 
rid themselves of the system. There is no such gene¬ 
ral conviction of these legislative corruptions and leg¬ 
islative designs, in my sober and work-day part of the 
world. Still, the people in my district do think that 
w'e are governed too much; they do think that the gov¬ 
ernmental machine runs too fast; that laws are made 
with too much facility and repealed with too much fa¬ 
cility. They think that government should be an effi¬ 
cient agency of the people for the keep, ng of the peace 
and the securing of order. But, sir, the last thing they 
would do, would be to give the control and direction of 
the whole to one directory alone—to one branch of the 
Legislature alone. They think, that in such a, case, laws 
would be passed with much greater facility. I ask 











124 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


geutlemen who are so much opposed to the present or¬ 
ganization of the legislative department, if measures 
originating in one house wore not most severely scruti¬ 
nized in the other. Do not Senate bills most easily 
pass the Senate, and House bills the House ? such has 
been my experience. I could wish to keej) myself out 
of sight altogether were it not for the necessity of giv¬ 
ing my evidence against mere gratuitous assertions. I 
wul say that I never, during my whole legislative ca¬ 
reer, lost, with but one exception, a bill in the body of 
which I was a member, and that was thrown out on 
the second reading. I never did attempt to pass a stat¬ 
ute, with this exception, that was lost in the branch of 
which I was a member. 

If this scheme of a unit Legislature shall prevail, in¬ 
stead of a child being able to carry your volume of laws 
you will need a team or a wagon to haul them. My 
constituents complain that the laws are altered too oft¬ 
en and desire that they should, at least, remain in ojc- 
eration long enough for them to become acquainted 
with them. But I presume that this Convention will 
not attempt such an innovation as the organization of 
but one branch of the Legislature. I call it an innova¬ 
tion although two States of the Union have tried the 
same experiment.—Vermont and Pennsylvania, and in 
both the States it has proved entirely impracticable, and 
has been abandoned with disgust. No other State has 
attempted it since and I hope that Ohio will not be the 
next to make such an innovation in government If il¬ 
lustrations and examples were needed 1 might point to 
Paris m 1793 as an example of the danger of a large 
body of men in one assembly, without a co-ordinate 
branch to act as a check upon their action, and I might 
point to known failures in our own country. I am so 
veiy humble in my understanding and so slow in my 
mental operations, that I choose in my investigations 
and reflections to adopt the manner of reasoning recom¬ 
mended by Bacon, that is to be guided by nature and 
to learn by experience—others more brilliant in mind 
may take the old theatrical plan, which disdains to pay 
any attention to matters of fact. It seems to me that 
we had all better inquire more of nature and expe¬ 
rience, for this plain matter of fact world, is growing 
older and wiser every day—experience is better than 
mere hopothesis. 

I was a little astonished to hear the gentleman from 
Trambull [Mr. Ranney] endorsed by the gentleman 
from Hamilton, assert that they were the incurable 
evils and corruptions of the legislative department that 
have called us here to-day—they tell us that this Con¬ 
vention would not have assembled for 21 years, had it 
not been for the unpardonable sins of the Legislature. 
I assure gentlemen that they are mistaken in a matter 
of fact, and perhaps they are as far astray in principles 
as they are in their facts upon which they base their 
argument. The humble Representative of the county 
of Monroe, was for several sessions, working alone in 
this Capitol to secure the calling of this Convention. 
No other county had, through her Representatives, 
called fora Convention to revise the constitution—the 
humble Representative from Monroe argued the matter 
alone, and I can assure gentlemen that the people of 
that county desired the Convention; not because of 
abuses and corruptions in the legislative department, 
but it wa^ because of defects in the judiciary system. 
I can tell gentlemen that the flowers and figures of 
rhetoric were then as freely bestowed on the pioneer 
in that movement, as they have been upon the General 
Assembly, on this occasion. I have heard no such 
high crimes, no such unadulterated corruption of mo¬ 
tives attributed to former General Assemblies, by 
gentlemen here, bad as they choose to picture those 
bodies, as were attributed then to the humble servant 
ol Monroe, while he stood here in the Legislature, the 
single advocate for the calling of this Convention. 
Gentlemen will see that flowers of rhetoric have been 
employed on both sides. 

lam no advocate for a defective legislative system. 


and do not stand here to justify anything that has been 
done amiss by former legislative bodies. If there is a 
desire to know my opinions upon matters of past oc¬ 
currence, they must go to the public archives the 
muniments of the State. I repeat, sir, that gentlemen 
over estimate the evils that have resulted under the 
old apportionment law. Why ! to hear the remarks that ; 
have been made here, one would suppose that the | 
people of Ohio had passed through terrible scenes 
that ciril war had raged, that our gutters had over- : 
flowed, and that our streams were red with the blood ; 
of the slain.—That there had been massacres and fusi- ! 
lades.—That Couthons and Cai’riers had been sent to 
our provincial towns, our Lyonses and Nantzes, to fill ' 
ship.s with citizens, and scuttle them in the middle of 
rivers.—To buiy in ohe long, broad ditch, whole rows of 
victims and hecatombs of the slain. If we had really 
suffered all the evils depicted by the eloquent advo¬ 
cates of the single districts, and self-acting ” appor¬ 
tionment scheme, it would be better that we should 
commit political or State suicide, than longer to sub¬ 
mit to such hondble evils. I am no apologist for any 
abuses, but it is clear that gentlemen have vastly over¬ 
rated the inconveniences of our legislative system. 
Where has there been a drop of blood shed, property 
confiscated, or a person deprived of his liberty or per- , 
sonal rights ? I would not extenuate a real evil, but it . 
is very evident that some gentlemen who have ad¬ 
dressed the Convention in favor of this new self-act- ^ 
ing ” or perpetual motion apportionment scheme, and 
of one legislative branch, ai’e endowed with more po¬ 
etical and imaginative minds, than some of us, and the 
great majority of the people who live down in this 
plain matter-of-fact work day world of ours. [Laugh¬ 
ter.] 

The evils alluded to, have also been talked of and 
discussed in old Monroe; the people there have asked 
me what remedies I propose for their cure ; I said give 
each branch a casting vote within itself, either elect an 
unequal number to each branch, or else send your Sec¬ 
retary of State, or some proper officer, to prescribe and 
give the casting vote in case of an unequal division of , 
votes. It seems to me, that there should be an uneven , 
number elected, and on the same principle that you I 
would elect three—five, or some uneven number of j 
men to decide a case left to arbitration. And that a 
majority ought to be a quorum. Had this been done i 
in the old constitution, the most opprobrious part of I 
our squabbles would never have occurred. Under 
such a system, with all the “ log-rolling ” that gentle¬ 
men have spoken of, any attempts at disorganization i 
would have made but a small figure, and would have 
soon ceased to attract notice. I hope the gentlemen i 
of the committee, will accompany me with their atten- I 
tion on this part of the subject, because gentlemen 
have seriously proposed to send the old ship of State I 
out to sea with eveiy sail set, with a cargo beyond val¬ 
uation, and full of passengers, to buffet with the winds 
and waves, without captain, or crew, or pilot. That 
is a fearful alternative! But it is really so. Can we 
not tmst the Legislature to some extent, when the 
abolition of the elective power of that body will have 
removed almost all temptation to do wrong? 

Gentlemen talk of a self-acting apportionment 
scheme—if they could secure such a scheme I would 
be glad, but I much fear that their efforts wall result as 
have all attempts to discover a perpetual motion in me¬ 
chanics. Sir, there is no ‘‘ perpetual motion,” except 
in the attempt of ambitious gentlemen to discover it. 

[ Laughter. ] When the gentleman from Hamilton [ Mr. 
Reemei.in] first brought in his scheme, for a “ self¬ 
acting ” apportionment, he almost made me a convert 
to his ideas. I did not utter a word against it, it look¬ 
ed so fair an plausible—but I have since heard the 
lengthy and able arguments of the friends of the 
measure — the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Ran¬ 
ney,] from Athens [Mr. Brown,] from Adams [Mr. 
McCormick,] and the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Keemelin] himself, and having listened attentively, I 
think the scheme is altogether impracticable. [Great 
laughter.] No one doubts the integrity of the gentle¬ 
man who proposes the scheme, but it has failed and it 
must fail. For instance, the plan of the gentleman 
from Athens, proposes to give the same power to the 
county of Belmont, with its population of about 37,000, 
that it docs to Guernsey and Monroe, with a popula¬ 
tion of about 65,000, and I am informed that the same 
inequalities follow the application of the system to oth¬ 
er portions of the State. 

I listened with pleasure to the gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull ; he is a graceful, fluent speaker; he pleased my 
imagination very much and I hope for an argument 
that might be worthy of his rhetoric. He told us not 
to part with our liberties—the gentleman could tell the 
people and he did, “ not to part with power, which they 
could exercise themselves.” He is safe, if saying that, 
for he can, while grass grows and water runs, assemble 
all the people of this State in a Legislature or any other 
body. 

Again, if the people can lay off the districts them¬ 
selves, they ought not to call on the Assembly to do it. 
The people ought never to trust to agents that which 
they can as well perform in person. The apportionment 
is an act of sovereignty which the people can exercise 
in person, therefore they ought to exercise it in person. 
But the gentleman did not tell how. The people at 
large would make a legislative body of more than halt 
a million. How would the gentleman assemble them ; 
How would they deliberate; how would they vote. 
How will he form his senatorial districts. The gentle¬ 
man from Butler [Mr. King] rose and challenged him to 
state how the senatorial districts were to be laid off'; 
he could give no explanation, and for a very good rea¬ 
son, he had none to give. The gentleman’s speech was 
eloquent, was pleasing, was plausable, it had but one 
defect, want of logic. 

The self acting apportionment scheme is to form sen¬ 
atorial districts, but the mode of operation is not dis¬ 
closed. 

It is unquestionable that we are to have a Senate. 
How are the districts to be composed and recomposed ? 
When separate counties, either in consequence of a rel¬ 
ative or absolute decrease of population, lose their right 
to separate representation in the Senate, who is to join 
them together ? When an increase of population enti¬ 
tles them to separate representation, who is to divorce 
them ? These operations are to be performed hereaf¬ 
ter, and gentlemen cannot trust the Assembly, the elec¬ 
ted and responsible agents of the people, with any dis¬ 
cretion in the matter, for fear of some imperfection in 
their work. Is our own work likely to be perfect ? 
If we sit here until we fix an apportionment scheme 
in which human ingenuity will not be able to detect 
some errors, and which will not induce some inconve¬ 
niences in practice, we shall stay until the clarion of the 
Archangel shall summon us to our last account. Is it 
better to submit to blind chance, than to trust to the 
future representatives of the people ? If the ratio is to 
remain stationary, the number of members will forever 
increase, till they become a numerous host. Not only 
so, but time will make the inequalities so great, that we 
shall have another English rotton borough system, in 
which old Saram, with a dozen voters, had about as 
much political power as the great county of Middlesex. 
We shall have our old Sarums, and other opprobriums, 
for time will unquestionably make the disproportion 
between districts, now established, perfectly enormous. 
If, in order to avoid this evil, we resolve to diminish the 
representation of the counties and districts failing in 
relative or decreasing in actual numbers, how is the 
change to be made ? Who is to compel them to resign 
part of their representation ? Will they do so volunta¬ 
rily ? 

Here, Mr. REEMELIN, of Hamilton, rose and ex¬ 
plained, that it was not contemplated ever to dimin¬ 
ish the actual representation of any county or district. 


125 


They might lose their relative importance by the in¬ 
crease of other sections; but every county would al¬ 
ways retain as much representation as it w’ould be en¬ 
titled too at the adoption of the constitution. An actual 
decrease of population was not to be expected. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD continued. Then the Assembly 
would finally become too numerous; besides an actual 
decrease ot population was in the list of possible events. 
A fair apportionment now, will soon, by lapse of time, 
become an unfair one, and whom will you trust to ad¬ 
just the inequalities, if not the law-making power ? 

I must not be expected to imitate gentlemen, and de¬ 
pict the evils which are to flow from this self-acting 
scheme. I fear everything. I know not what to fear. 
No man can tell what new evils may be introduced. If 
gentlemen harness fiery coursers to the car of State, lash 
them into fury, then throw down the reins and send 
them off without a charioteer, no man can tell where 
they will bring up, or where the cai’riage will be over¬ 
turned and dashed to pieces. 

Heaven knows I am no advocate of corruption. 
Whoever, iii times past, has heard my humble voice 
within these walls has heard me proclaim over and 
over again that the true standard of expediency 
is the standard of absolute moral rectitude. That 
each political party was only bolstered up by the 
sins of the other. If commanded to use the utmost 
force of my sagacity to point my friends to the path of 
continued political success I could only say— 

“ What conscience dictates to be done, 

Or warns us not to do 
This teach us more than hell to shun 
That more than Heaven pursue.” 

If either party would act upon these principles with’ 
unwavering faith it would become eminently success¬ 
ful. And parties will at length leaiii that nothing is to 
be gained by fraud and corruption, as nothing has been 
gained in times past. 

But has there been much actual, kowing, acknowl¬ 
edged corruption. Was there ever any bribery? It 
is not pretended. Party spirit resembles public spirit. 
It is somewhat akin to patriotism. Men deceive them¬ 
selves under specious appearances. They are not ful¬ 
ly aware of the evil tendency of their actions, while 
they suppose they are promoting public interests. And 
in reality the expectants of office, the men who hoped 
for legislative elections were most concerned. No man 
had been deprived of life, liberty or property or any 
other valuable right in consequence of legislstive ap¬ 
portionments. 

Plere Mr. ARCH BOLD proceeded to argue that by 
making a majority of each branch a quorum and by 
giving each a casting vote, and above all by abolishing 
legislative elections, the evil would be much diminish¬ 
ed. 

On many questions affecting the peace of our fireside 
and coming home to our business and bosoms, party 
spirit has not yet acquired much bitterness. Parties 
are divided on questions of policy belonging to the gen¬ 
eral government, such as the tariff system and internal 
improvements. In state policy they differ on ques¬ 
tions of the currency and on matters of elections. But 
whoever saw a statute of limitations carried by a solid 
column of whig voters ? Who ever saw a judiciaiy 
bill carried by a solid column of democratic voters ? 
No man had witnes.sed such an occurrence. 

Political men, aspirants to office, were more affected 
than any body else. The storms, which we are told 
“ have agitated the State,” have raged chiefly in this 
city, in this very building. They have not interrupted 
the peace of the country. While the verjr fiercest of 
these tempests was raging, the fanner follo'wed his 
plough, the wagoner whistled merrily behind his team, 
the mechanic handled the tools of his trade, all in per¬ 
fect peace. It was in reality a tempest in a tea-pot. 
[Laughter.] 

I implore gentlemen not to be so far carried away 
by these new ideas, though clothed in eloquent and- 








126 


CONVENTION IIEPOIITS. 


fascinating terms, as to give in to these sell-acting and 
one-branch schemes. Surely it must be a desperate 
disease that requires such desperate remedies. Gen¬ 
tlemen’s imaginations were much stronger than their 
logic. 

As far as can be perceived, the Secretary ot State is 

to possess the future apportioning power. lithe scheme 

does not become an abortion or a still-birth, that ol- 
licer seems destined to become the lountain of politi¬ 
cal power. May we not be erecting a thone higher 
than the throne of that mighty money king, which the 

gentleman from Hamilton and mysell, have sworn to 

abolish by a vow much more durable in its obligation, 
then that which banded together the armies of St. 
Paul. 

Can we not take a middle course ? The example of 
other States might aid us. New York had reserved to 
her Legislature the power of determining the number 
of members, to which her varous counties are entitled; 
but authorized the local authorities to divide the coun¬ 
ties into Repi’esentative districts, when they are enti¬ 
tled to more than one. 

As to the Senatorial districts, why not make a con¬ 
stitutional provision, thatthey shall not only consist of 
contiguous territory, but that they shall be as nearly 
squares or oblongs as county lines will permit. Begin 
like geographers, at the extreme north and add none 
but Southern territoiy- until the district is made up, or 
you get to the Southern boundary of the State. This 
would limit discretion and prevent Gerrymandering. 
The idea is new. I have not matured it. I earnest¬ 
ly hope that time will be given for calm and mature 
deliberation. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Whatever, sir, may have been the 
original occasion of the discussion in favor of a revis- 
ioirof the Constitution, I think no one who has obser¬ 
ved the electoral canvass, or who has made, himself ac¬ 
quainted with the public mind in his own district, can 
have failed to observe that with respect jo the Legis¬ 
lature of Ohio the people are disposed to reclaim and 
restore to themselves, a large portion of the power here¬ 
tofore exercised at the Capital; and, as far as possible, 
to be guided by the principle, that the people should 
govern directly—that the government of the State 
should be withdrawn, in a great degree from the Leg¬ 
islature, and exercised by the county and township 
authorities. The idea of the omnipotence of Parlia¬ 
ment has been disclaimed by American Statesmen. 
We have pointed with pride to the limitations of pow¬ 
er in the Constitution of the United States. But few 
general powers of legislation are intrusted to the Con¬ 
gress of the United States, and these, every one, spe¬ 
cific and well defined. And T believe the spirit of the 
popular mind in Ohio, is, that the Legislature shall ex¬ 
ercise no indefinite discretion, but that its powers shall 
be limited and restrained, as far as possible, to a few 
general subjects of State legislation, and restricted 
from the exercise of any power, legislative or other¬ 
wise, which can be more properly entrusted to the lo¬ 
cal tribunals. In this belief, Mr. Chairman, I w’elcome 
the resolutions of the gentleman from Franklin. 

I acknowledge the truth of the pictures drawn by 
several gentlemen of the effects of improper appor¬ 
tionments. I believe that a county tribunal would be 
less liable to cornq)tion, and therefore a safer deposit¬ 
ory of this power. It has been remarked, indeed, by 
some of those who assent to the principle, that this 
power should be taken from the Legislature, and vest¬ 
ed in the counties, that these counties should all be 
units for the election of Representatives and Senators ; 
in other words, that the single district system shall not 
be adopted as the policy of the State. If, however, a 
l)oard of selectmen or supervisors are elected in each 
township of a county, and vested with the power of 
apportionment, we shall have established a repository 
of it as little liable to abuse as can probably be devi¬ 
sed, and one which is not obnoxious to serious objec¬ 
tion. 


Let us give a local and graduated system of legisla¬ 
tion to the people of Ohio, for it is derived from the 
purest and most venerable epoch of the English histo¬ 
ry. There are but two names in the list of English 
rulers that I reverence; these are Alfred, the Saxon 
monarch, and Oliver Cromwell. In the policy of Al¬ 
fred, we recognise the genius of construction. His 
name is inscribed on the whole civil polity of England, 
upon every hundred, township and^ county which con¬ 
stitute the chief merit of her political system. Our 
civil fabric already partakes of this Saxon original, and 
the perfection of our republican system will be attain¬ 
ed when we restore the bulk of legislation to the mass 
of the people, restricting, by zealous safeguards, its re¬ 
mote delegation, until the fabric of the State resembles 
a pyramid in structure, the firmest structure in politics 
as well as in physics. 

I have thus indicated the republican principle on 

which the proposition forlocal apportionment rests. The 

division of a county into districts will be conducted by 
tribunals more capable of making equal apjiortionments 
than any Legislature can be. A I’emoval of the exer¬ 
cise of this power, from the political capital to the po¬ 
litical township is proposed. I agree ^yith the gentle¬ 
man from Tmmbull, that this apportionment power 
must rest somewhere, and wherever it may be reposed, 
it will produce periodical agitations and excitement. 
But the point is, that we remove it from the centre to 
the circumference, from the capital to the counties and 
townships, to localities where each one knows his neigh¬ 
bor ; and where all have a fireside acquaintance with 
those who are directly responsible for its exercise. I 
am sure, sir, that no board of supervisors would attempt 
such fantastic tricks upon this subject, as have been so 
often witnessed in the State Legislature. I admit how¬ 
ever that in these cases, there may be occasional scenes 
of partizan excess and injustice, but the rights of the 
minority will certainly have a much better chance of 
being respected, than they would have, upon the adop¬ 
tion of the principle, that the numerical majority in a 
county shall control the political complexion of the 
entire delegation. I venture the prediction, that when 
the single district system shall be adopted, there will 
be an influence brought to bear upon the board of se¬ 
lectmen or supervisors which will prevent nefarious 
schemes or division. They will not dare to consummate 
them sir. Nobody thus elected by the people of the 
townships, will dare to commit such substantial and 
positive injustice. 

A few words with respect to the proposition, that 
each county shall have one representative. This sub¬ 
ject has been very fully elaborated in debate. I re¬ 
gard it as vital to the j^olicy of elevating the political 
rank and importance of the counties. That the actual 
carrying out of this plan might produce some apparent 
inconvenience, I do not doubt, and it may encounter 
objection from the counties having a larger representa¬ 
tion. But, I think, it is the duty of those counties to 
anticipate the progress of population, and the develop¬ 
ment of resources in these new counties, so far as to 
give them this advantage in representation. But it is 
said, what ratio shall be established ? If you fix the 
ratio so small as it will be required to be, on this prin¬ 
ciple, you will make the legislative body too numerous: 
sir; the nearer the conformity to the important princi¬ 
ples of eftective representation, the better will be the 
character of the legislation. In every deliberative 
body there will be found a common law of self-respect 
among the members, which will exercise a better in¬ 
fluence on their proceedings than any theory of official 
dignity, founded on their paucity of numbers. Sir, 
look at the present Congress of the United States—the 
Senate and the House of Representatives. The latter 
jnuch the larger body, has already submitted the mem¬ 
bers to the hour rule, not a bad lesson in parliamentaty 
rhetoric, and by the intervention of committees and 
the necessity of direct and earnest appeals in de¬ 
bate, affords a more satisfactory forum than the Senate. 


t. 


} 


I 



< 1 

t' 


I' 


I 

i 

























127 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


That body is small and hence the last five months has 
witnessed an intrigue to forestal the action o f the most 
dignified body in the world, yet how- naiTowly has it 
recently escaped a scene of assassination. In the 
House the popular impulse of the country is yet alive, 
its numbers afford the best prospect for the extrication 
of the national honor from present peril. For these 
reasons I have no apprehension of the probable size of 
the Ohio Legislature, if based upon the ratio proposed 
by those resolutions. 

The attempt to fix the Senatorial districts by the con¬ 
stitution seems to me less practicable. It has been 
done in New York, where the population is more sta¬ 
ble, but the counties of northwestern Ohio are so fluc¬ 
tuating in this respect as to make the task of detail ex¬ 
tremely difficult. 

Mr. Chairman : however successful w-e may be in 
maturing a proposition to give the apportionment of 
representation directly to the people, for one, I see 
great difficulties in securing so desirable a result in re¬ 
gal'd to the Senate, and until gentlemen can show clear¬ 
ly how we can take the apportionment of Senators 
from the Legislature, I will not renounce the idea of 
making the legislative department of the government 
a unit. And why this reverence for a Senate ? Our 
fathers, before the revolution, vindicated their rights in 
single legislative assemblies, while the first encroach- 
men'ts on those rights proceeded from small executive 
/ councils, similar to a Senate. If we look to the earlier 
' history of Napoleon, we shall see him warring against 
an Assembly of five hundred members, and it was only 
until he had reduced their number to one hundred— 
the favorite maximum of the gentleman from Franklin 
that he could sneer at them with impunity as a ‘‘ hun¬ 
dred gabblers,” and by the force of bribery and intim¬ 
idation, obtain from the Council of Ancients, as small 
and accessible a body as the American Senate, the rank 
and power of First Consul—the first step in the career 
w'hich made him the tyrant of the French people and 
the bane of Christendom. He could corrupt and intim¬ 
idate the Council of Ancients, but stood powerless be¬ 
fore five hundred representatives of the people. A 
Senate has no claim upon our veneration. I may be 
reminded of the Roman Senate, but, sir, that was not 
only a single body, but composed of at least 400 mem¬ 
bers, and yet, in despite of modern theories, it was the 
noblest and most dignified in ancient histoiy—a body 
that could strike into stone the footsteps of the intru¬ 
ding Gaul. Who will say that such a body in America 
would not be equally capable of self-respect, and equal¬ 
ly entitled to be entrusted with political power ? 

I trust that the people of Ohio will entertain this prop¬ 
osition, and give to it due attention, though now de¬ 
nounced as an “ innovation.” That they will continue 
to discuss it in their private assemblies and through the 
press, and send up to us their own intimations, whether 
w-e shall constitute a single constituent Assembly, or 
retain the machinery of the existing system. But nu¬ 
merous complaints are made against the old system, and 
if people are sincere in these complaints, will it not be 
proper for us to present them with one which shall con¬ 
template the Legislative body as a whole. Let the 
Convention do this, and let them insert in the new con¬ 
stitution a prohibition against all special and partial leg¬ 
islation, and restricting the power of the Legislature to 
the enactment of laws under a few general heads, re¬ 
quiring the votes of a majority of all the members elec¬ 
ted to be recorded in the affinnative ; and also establish 
under such organic limitations a single legislative body, 
and, in my judgment, we shall have simply, faithfully, 
anddirebtly represented the popular will. 

Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman: I do not propose 
to detain the Convention with any thing that should be 
dignified with the name of a speech, but there are a 
few principles to which I would direct the attention of 
the committee, that in my judgment should not be de¬ 
parted from in our deliberations here. It seems to me 
that there is a disposition on the part of some gentle¬ 


men who have discussed this question, to disregard one 
of the primary and leading principles of republican¬ 
ism—and that is, that the majority shall govern. I 
agree with the^ gentleman from Monroe, (Mr. Arch- 
B LD,) that to give one man in one county the political 
power and influence of three men in another county, is 
an outrage upon the principles of republicanism; and 
I give notice now, that I shall claim here, for the peo¬ 
ple whom I represent, that eveiy voter for a member 
of the Legislature of the State, in my county, shall have 
as much influence in the enactment of the laws of the 
commonwealth, as the vote of any other man in any 
other portion of the State. I will not consent to the 
setting up of any rotten borough system which will 
give one member of the Legislature to Paulding coun¬ 
ty, and only one member to the county of Logan. I 
am in favor of a system of representation, by which as 
nearly as practicable, every man in the State shall have 
an equal voice in making the laws; and for the pur¬ 
pose of effecting this object,! do not know but I would 
be willing to go for the proposition of the gentleman 
from Muskingum, (Mr. Stilwell,) and make the ap¬ 
portionment by townships, disregarding all county 
lines. If, upon examination, I shall find that the State 
would not be capable of being gerrymandered worse 
by townships than by counties, I shall go for disregard¬ 
ing county lines; but I have not yet made uji niy 
mind. 

Another principle which it seem to me should not be 
disregarded in this discussion, is, that we should keep 
the number of Representatives in the Legislature, with¬ 
in such reasonable limits as not to render the expense 
of the department burdensome, nor make the body 
unwieldly. But this idea of a single branch for the 
legislative body, is a novelty to me ; and now, while 
I am told by the gentleman from Erie, that the popular 
representative body in France resisted the encroach¬ 
ment of the tyrant with the greater number of repre¬ 
sentatives, and that a different body did not make such 
successful resistance, I would ask the gentleman if the 
government under Robespien'e was more tolerable 
than the government under Najioleon—for if it was, 
then I have been mistaken. 

But, Mr. Chairman, you cannot give a member to 
each county. Taking 2000 voters as a minimum, you 
will have 175 members, which in my judgment would 
be a very unwieldly number of representatives. The 
House of Representatives of the United States has 
been referred to ; and that body is so unwieldly on 
account of numbers, as to suppress debate almost en¬ 
tirely. No proposition can pass in that body, except 
under the operation of the screw, and the operation of 
rules which prevent all amendment and mature delib¬ 
eration. Measures are compelled to be received and 
■passed as they are reported by the committees, or in 
the crude maimer in which they may be presented by 
members, because no time can be given for open, and 
fair, and free discussion. Why, sir, the hour rule leads 
to such interminable discussions, that it becomes neces¬ 
sary to make miles to stop debate, and that no man 
shall speak more than five minutes; and yet, with all 
this instrumentality, scarcely any business can be done, 
and I venture to say that nine-tenths of all the business 
goes over at the end of the session for want of time. 
Now I submit, sir, whether this is not a sufficient indi¬ 
cation that you ought to keep the legislative body 
within narrow limits? In my humble judgment there 
is no necessity for the representatives of a tenitorynot 
more than two hundred miles square in extent, should 
be increased beyond the number which now constitutes 
that body. 

These two principles being established and kept in 
view, I am prepared to go to work and proceed to the 
inquiry as to what means would bring the represen¬ 
tation of the people the most perfect equality. If the 
princi[)le of the proposition of the gentleman from 
Hamilton is practicable, with modifications so as to 
keep the legislative body within reasonable limits, I 














128 


CONVENTION KEPORTS 


tlou’t know but I might be disposed to adopt it; but I 
question whether it is susceptible of such modifica¬ 
tions. I admit the full force of the objection, that the 
practice of legislative apportionment is a source of 
great political corruption. I differ with the gentleman 
from Monroe, who seems to regard the pi ostration of 
legislative business, which it has induced in the Gener¬ 
al Assembly of Ohio, as the only evil resulting— 

Mr. ARCHBOLD interrupting, and Mr. Stanton 
giving way, said: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, I must 
have been a little unfortunate in expressing myself. I 
certainly did not intend to say that the prostration of 
business was the only evil resulting from the system; 
but I said that the prostration of business had been 
made a prominent circumstance among the evils result¬ 
ing from this system; and had not the delay and pros¬ 
tration of business been referred to the subject of legis¬ 
lative apportionment as the cause, it would have all 
ended and been forgotten, as all other scenes of mere 
quarrel and squabble in the Legislature—scenes which 
ought to be denounced every where, and which I never 
pretended to justify. 

Mr. STANTON. I did not understand the gentle¬ 
man as justifying these outbreaks ; but I did understand 
him to say, that the evils resulting from fraudulent le¬ 
gislative apportionments were not so great, as to justi¬ 
fy ail argument for taking that power away from the 
Legislature; and if I have understood him correctly in 
this, I beg leave to say, that I differ with him. I hold, 
sir, that the evils resulting from these fraudulent legis¬ 
lative apportionments, are by no means confined to the 
prostration of business which they have induced; nor 
are these the greatest evils of the system which have 
come to the notice of the public eye. I hold, sir, that 
in all cases, when a majority rules through fraud, a 
far greater evil is perpetrated against the popular sov¬ 
ereignty, than if the operations of legislation in the 
State were suspended for months. I beg leave, (with 
no partisan feeling) to offer an illustration of this.— 
There has been for a long time before the country, ques¬ 
tions affecting trade and commerce, upon which the 
people have divided throughout the whole country; and 
these are questions upon which the prosperity of the 
country very much depends. A majority of the peo¬ 
ple of Ohio have a right to their voice in making the 
laws with reference to this great question of national 
policy. And now I know, that in 18.35, by means of a 
fraudulent apportionment, a minority of the Legisla¬ 
ture misrepresenting the people here, gave the vote of 
the State to a United States Senator, who cast his vote 
against the known wishes of the people of the State, 
upon these questions so vitally affecting the trade and 
commerce of the country. This, Mr. Chainnan, is a 
thing which I wish to avoid for the future ; and I will, 
if I can, take away from the General Assembly, the 
power to practice public fraud, by taking away from 
them the power to apportion the Representatives of the 
people, 

Mr. Chairman : I do not see how 5 mu can do better 
than to adopt the principle of the proposition offered 
by the gentleman from Athens, [Mr. Brown,] unless 
you divide the counties. But if you apportion the 
representatives among the counties, and allow of no 
fractions, then I am in favor of giving to the local coun¬ 
ty authorities the power of distributing the members 
where the county is entitled to more than one. 

Upon this princiide I remark in the first place, that 
I agree with the gentleman from Monroe, when he 
says the masses in neither party desii'e to govern by 
fraud. They wish to give to each voter the same 
weight in political affairs ; and from this fact I infer 
that ihe people of the several counties will not toler¬ 
ate those who owe responsibility as county officers in 
the practice of public fraud. Ihis is my first answer. 
In the next place if this is not so, if the county officers 
should not be restrained from gerrymandering, they 
will at all events gerrymander both ways—as the popu¬ 
lar majority shall happen to preponderate in the diifei'- 


ent counties. In the Legislature the majority of all 
the counties is on one side: but if the county of Mon¬ 
roe gerrymander they will only smother the whig voice 
in that county; and if the county of Logan gerryman¬ 
der they will only smother the democratic voice in 
that county. So you will perceive that this will pro¬ 
duce an equalization which could not be had by any 
partisan Legislative apportionment. 

This, however, does not get rid of the difficulty of 
the proposition to apportion senatorial and representa¬ 
tive districts among the counties. The difficulty is, 
that there must always be fractions, and there is noth¬ 
ing to prevent a majoiity from giving to themselves an 
advantage by the use of them in any apportionment. ^ 

I hope to have an opportunity to consider and modi¬ 
fy perhaps, the proposition of the gentleman from Mus¬ 
kingum, proposing to do away with county lines and 
making the representative apportionments amongst the 
townships which may be laid out in square form all 
over the State. Either that mode, or the mode propos¬ 
ed in the New York constitution of apjiortioning amongst 
the counties and the county authority, sub-dividing 
where they are entitled to more than one Representa¬ 
tive. I don’t know that I have any thing better to sug¬ 
gest at present. 

I have thrown out these plain suggestions, which I 
have considered practical. I don’t want to go into any 
flourishes of rhetoric, nor, as the gentleman from Mon¬ 
roe says, into much logic, either. I have attempted 
merely to throw out a few practical hints for the pur¬ 
pose of fixing attention upon this difficult subject; for 
it certainly is cpnnected with intrinsic difficulties. We 
perceive them at every step as we advance. But I feel 
gra'ifiedto observe, that a due sense of the importance 
of the subject has been already manifested, and that it 
is the determination of members generally to go to 
work for the purpose of avoiding the practice of pub¬ 
lic frauds in future upon this subject. I say, it is with 
most unspeakable gratification that I have found this 
to exist* 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I will take the liberty, Mr. 
Chairman, of oflering a few suggestions upon the im¬ 
portant subject under consideration ; and in the first 
place, make a remark in relation to the views of the 
gentleman fpm Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] on the pro¬ 
position to district the State by townships for legisla¬ 
tive purposes, as advocated by the gentleman from 
Muskingum, [Mr. Stillwell.] I am satisfied, sir, 
that the breaking up of county organizations in the 
manner proposed, would not meet with favor from the 
people of Ohio, and I trust will not receive the appro¬ 
bation of the members of this committee. 

The subject under consideration is justly regarded 
as of the highest importance. The chief reason, sir, 
why we are here at this time, to frame a new consti¬ 
tution, is because of the difficulty arising out of this veiy 
aiiportionment question, in the past legislation of this 
State. This difficulty—producing the conflict about 
Hamilton county, is the reason, I am perfectly convin¬ 
ced—(and the history of the legislation of the last 
two years amply supports the opinion,) that this Con¬ 
vention has been called. And the citizens of Ohio 
most earnestly desire that we shall dispose of this appor¬ 
tionment question; and there is a manifest desire on 
the part of the honorable members of this body, to 
gratify public expectation. We have already ascer¬ 
tained that in seeking to accomplish that object, seri¬ 
ous difficulties arise; and 1 apprehend, sir, that the 
greatest difficulty presented is, to determine the man¬ 
ner in which we shall apportion the State into Senato¬ 
rial Districts. The consideration of' this difficulty has 
prompted the inquin: may not the Senate be dispensed 
with altogether? If we can dispense with the Senate, 
and getalong as well with asingle legislative body, then 
the difficult/ vanishes, and we wull soon be able to 
agree upon a plan for a self-adjusting apportionment of 
this State into legislative districts. 

I or a long time, sir, I have been convinced that a 
















CONVENTION REPORTS 


129 


second branch for legislative purposes, in a fi-ee State, 
is wholly unnecessary and worse than useless; and 
that the Senate has been preserved in the new States 
in this Union, only because it had been a branch of the 
old State Governments, as originally framed. Like the 
fiction in law, the Senate is retained by the influence 
of custom and precedent, when the reason for it has 
pased away. Tiie reason we will find upon examina¬ 
tion, for a plural legislative body no longer exists. 

I propose to present a few observations for the pur¬ 
pose of suggesting impiii-y upon this subject. The Hon. 
gentleman from Logan, [Mr. STAXTON,j and the Hon. 
gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbof n,] express their 
astonishment that such an idea as that of a single le¬ 
gislative body, had ever entered the imagination of 
any member of this Convention. I assure those gen¬ 
tlemen that there are several advocates of this project 
on jthis floor; and I would like to hear an argument, 
if any can be made, by any gentleman on the other 
side of the question, in fiivor of a plural legislative 
body for this free State of Ohio, in which eveiy citi¬ 
zen is politically equal with his neighbor. 

Why was the Senate originally made part of our 
State governments ? I address my views in answer to 
this inquiry to the sound judgment of those who are 
better qualified than myself to remove any fallacious 
impression that may be entertained. The State Senate 
was originally intended to operate as a check upon the 
people, who were supposed to be fully represented in 
the popular branch. To accomplish this end the Sen¬ 
ate originally, in almost every State of this Union, rep¬ 
resented the landed interest, for land-holders only 
could be Senators; and thus was that body, to some 
extent, an imitation of the British House of Lords.— 
This remark applies only to State Senates. 

There was another and a good reason, for adopting 
something like the British legislative system in our 
national government, where two distinct sovereignties 
are represented. The sovereignty of the States in the 
Senate, and the sovereignty of the people in the House 
of Representatives. 

There is nothing in our federal system more happily 
adjusted than this mutual balan(;e of sovereignties. A 
single legislative branch would soon shipwreck this 
glorious Union. But the House of Representatives 
maintains the sovereignty of the people. The Senate 
the rights of the States. 

Little Delaware and Rhode Island are as powerful 
in the Senate of the United States as the Empire State 
of New York, or Pennnsylvania the Keystone! But no 
analogous reason exists for a plural legislation in the 
States. Wherever plural sovereignties are recognized, 
a plural legislature may be proper—as in the British 
government, where the House of Lords represents the 
the nobility and the church ; the House of Commons, 
in part, the people. 

I can see no good reason for following the British 
precedent of a Senate in our State governments. We 
have no material out of which to constnict that branch. 
We have but one sovereignty, embracing the whole 
people—how prone we are to follow precedent without 
inquiry or reflection ? 

We often act like the Italian peasant, who threw his 
panniers upon his donkey, filled one side with market¬ 
ing, and balanced the other with astone, and when asked 
for the reason, woidd answer that his fathers had always 
done so before him, and he saw no cause for a change. 

The peasant was not alone in his attachment to pre¬ 
cedent ; for among those who possess intellect and cul¬ 
tivated minds, we find a similar blind attachment to 
precedents, manifested often in a more dignified man¬ 
ner; sometimes with owlish gravity, and much display 
of learning, talents and brilliancy. We are generally 
too lethargic in intellect, and have so much else to do, 
that we care not to go back and inquire whether we have 
always been right in the past, and it is only when acci¬ 
dent or some pressing necessity arrests our course, that 
we stop to inquire .is this necessary ? is it right? 

9 


Thus it is, that the difficulty of making a permanent 
apportionment of the State for Senatorial purposes, has 
accidentally started the inquiry, must we have a Sen¬ 
ate ? And let me ask, why shall we not dispense with 
the Senate ? The progress of the Democratic principle 
has been such, that the reason for a State Senate has 
passed away, for the Senate was established originally, 
as I have shown in almost every State of the Union, to 
represent the landed interest; and Senators were re- 
quiredto have a free-hold qualification. In Virginia, it 
is true, the members of branches of the Legislature 
are required to possess such free-hold qualification. 

In the progress of free principles. Democracy has al¬ 
ways been retarded in its march, by the timidity of a 
portion of its advocates. The fathers of this Republic, 
who promulgated the Democratic theory of govern¬ 
ment, were, to a great extent, afraid to risk its applica¬ 
tion in practice. Many of them dreaded the unshack- 
eled power of the people. This fear originated the 
Senatorial branch of the State Legislatures. And the 
idea still lingers in the minds of many of our ablest 
men, that our people cannot be safely entrusted with 
unrestrained power; that they are wayward and pas¬ 
sionate, and prt)ne to commit grievous errors, unless 
held in check by governmental gyves and manacles. 

This assumption, which originated the Suite Senates, 
has been sufficiently strong, aided by the influence of 
precedent, to preserve the same in all the State consti¬ 
tutions which have been lately framed, although the 
free-hold qualification of Senators has been abolished 
in all of them, except Louisiana. 

The States which still require the free-hold (jualifica- 
tioii for Senators are Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Delaware. 
In Virginia, members of both branches of the Legisla¬ 
ture are required to possess a free-hold. Since the 
framing of these constitutions, the capacity of the Amer¬ 
ican people for unrestrained self-government has been 
established and acknowledged. 

I have briefly referred to the origin ol the Senate in 
the States of this Union. I have shown that it was a 
branch to protect the landed interests; or to check the 
supposed indiscretions of the people represented in the 
House, or lower branch of the Legislature. 

For what purpose, then, shall we retain the Senate 
now? Shall we preserve it as a check upon the swp- 
msed indiscretions of the people? If that be the ob¬ 
ject it will fail, as it has filled heretofore. As it failed 
in 1840, when the Whigs carried the State; as it failed 
in 1843, when the Democrats carried the State, which 
our Whig friends will call a popular indiscretion. And 
the Senators will be as liable as other men to be carried 
away, whenever a storm of political excitement may 
arise in the State. The only manner in which I can 
imagine a Senate to be a check upon the will of 
the people, is when that body does not represent the 
dominant party in the State, and then we would have 
a conflict between the House and Senate, such as has 
often been witnessed in this and other States. A 
check which, I apprehend, will not be esteemed desi¬ 
rable by any member of this Convention. 

But there is another argument which appears to pos¬ 
sess some force, in favor of a plural legislative body. It 
is claimed that when there are two branches one will 
check the other, and so prevent hasty and improvident 
legislation. If this be true in practice, the argument 
ti favor of a double legislative body is complete. But 
'.lew is it? How has it been? Look to the Legisla¬ 
tive history of our State, and do we find that hasty and 
m pi’ovident legislation has been prevented ? 

Do we not hear all around us the complaints of the 
people, that the laws have been changed too often; 
and have been frequently repealed the session after 
their enactment; that there has been too much law 
making and too little deliberation. If there were one 
legislative body instead of two to make laws, is it prob¬ 
able that there would be as much law making, and so 
manifest a want of deliberation ? I think not. When 









180 


CONVENTION llEPOETS 


a difterent j)!irty prevails in each branch of the Legisla¬ 
ture there laay be an appearance of deliberation, but 
there is in reality only a party conflict, often carried 
on with great bitterness, rarely productive of benefi¬ 
cial results, and generally the cause of violent political 
animosities. Under such circumstances both parties 
will go to extremes, and perform acts that would nev¬ 
er be provoked if they did not mutually check the will 
and power of each other. In the history of this and 
other States we have many examples of such conflicts, 
any one of which is a powerful argument against a 
plural legislative body. 

The Senate is to be preserved, we are told, to en¬ 
sure deliberation on the part of legislators, but it has 
failed to accomplish that end. Immediate, undivided 
responsibility to the people^is at last, the only influence 
that will ensure deliberation, and a faithful discharge 
■of duly by pubic servants. 

So manifest has been the beneficial results of the 
popular election of judges whenever tried, that the 
bar and all classes are in favor of an elective judiciary. 
I know something about the hostility to the eleclion of 
judges by the ])eople, which pi’evailed a few years 
ago. For I had the honor of being a member of a Re¬ 
form Convention in the State of New York, in 1837, 
which drafted a proposed constitution, for the conside¬ 
ration of the people of that State. Among other pro¬ 
visions, it contained a clause for the election of judges 
by ihe people, and altho' a radical plan for a con¬ 
stitution in other respects, no feature in it excited more 
hostility than this. But our country has progressed in 
democracy, and now the direct accountability of the 
judges to the people is considered the best security for 
their good conduct. Direct accountability and responsi¬ 
bility is the secret of insuring the obligative discharge 
of duty from every public officer. 


Instances are numerous of men being mild and gen¬ 


tle when accountable to the people; and des 2 )ots and 
tyrants, when I’elieved of all responsibility to human 
power. 

You will never euro the evil of hasty and improper 
legislation by your Senate check and your divided re¬ 
sponsibility. A single branch will better accomplish 
that desirable object. In a single branch. Representa¬ 
tives will feel greater accountability to the people, 
greater responsibility—good men will be sent to the 
Legislature—there will be more deliberation. 

The most important deliberative assemblies that 
have occurred in the history of the world, have been 
single bodies. The ancient Germans, from Avhom we 
have derived the individuality which distinguishes the 
American freeman, had a single legislative body. The 
Congress which declared the independence of our 
country, was a single body. The Congress of confede¬ 
ration has been referred to, as an examj^ile against a 
.single Legislature. I desire no better examjile in its 
favor. That Congress carried our country through the 
terrible ordeal which achieved its freedom. That as¬ 
sembly which framed the constitution under which the 
States of this republic are united, was a single body. 
This Convention is a single body, and so was the Con¬ 
vention which framed our present constitution. Thus 
we see that a double legislative assembly is not essen¬ 
tial to deliberative action. 

There must then be another reason for a second 
branch, and if we are to 2 :)reserve the Senate in our 
leg’slative system, let it become something real, and 


chamber, and make that the superior branch!—the 
Senate. The members of this board would doubtless 
serve without comijensation. They are now in this 
city, in secret session, and may be readily consulted. 
But if tlio j)eo 2 ile are to govern in Ohio, let there be only 
one legislative branch, and give to the Governor a veto 
by which he can a 2 )peal from the Legislature to the 
jieople, and we will then, I am satisfied, have less cause 
to complain of the instability and want of deliberation 
in the legislative department of our State government 

Mr. HAWKINS said he did not rise to make a 
speech, although he did not know that his constituents 
would not ex 2 )ect his occupying some time in this de¬ 
bate. In j)art lie rose for the pui’imse of making his 
acknowledgments to the gentleman from Fairfield [Mr. 
Robertson] for his advice. Until this morning he 
had not thought anything in relation to the projiosition 
of a single branch t)f the legislature—they had not 
heard a whis^^er from any man abount it. The gen¬ 
tleman fiom Fairfield [Mr. Robertson] seemed sur¬ 
prised that there should be at this time “alingering 
idea in favor of two branches of the Legislature.” 

Mr. ROBERTSON (interpo.sing) remarked that he 
had not said that, but had said “ that there was a lin¬ 
gering idea in the minds of many, and doubtless of 
some here, that the people were not to be trusted with¬ 
out the check of a second branch of the Legislature.” 

Mr. HAWKINS. The gentleman appealed to the 
other side of the house, and intimated tliat if there 
should be any reasons fur not having two branches of 
the Legislature, he wmuld furnish them. He did not 
know but what that might be understood as indicating 
that on this side of the house there was but one 
o^nnion about it. [Laughter.] He entertained no idea 


begged 


to correct the gentleman so 


distinct in our government, and not a mere fiction. 


Tlie preservation of that branch will be an exjienso to 
the people which they must i>ay in taxes. If you 
want a Senate to represent any special interest, there 
will then be some reason for })rescrving it, but other¬ 
wise it is a useless jiiece of legislative machinery. If 
we must have a second legislative branch to check the 
peo{)le, or to check their immediate representatives 
at some future day, and in the 
and fury annihilate your banks, 
Board of Control in this Senate I 


who may come here 
ebulition of passion 
why then instal the 


of that kind, and 
far as he was concerned 

Mr. .ROBERTSON observed that he had said “gen¬ 
tlemen on the other side of the question,” and not as was 
stated by the gentleman, “the other side of the house.” 

Mr. HAWKINS was willing to be corrected. How¬ 
ever he would say that he looked upon this jjroposition 
as merely harrowing up party feelings, and as a simple 
attempt to introduce “ the eloquent ” into this cham¬ 
ber. It rai.scd iq) that monster here—that demon of 
discord w'hich had done such incalculable damage to 
the State and brought such disgrace on its character. 
He did not want to run over the old tale again. He 
had sutfered with patience in listeniim to the speeches 
of gentlemen to-day and on yesterday. His embar¬ 
rassment increased in relation to the subject under 
consideration. On the jnevious day when the veto 
question was up, they were told that Representatives 
were liable to corruption ; and then the nece.s8ity of 
referring their decisions to the jieople was used as an 
argument in favor of the veto. Although their con¬ 
stituents might be wise and virtuous, and might think 
their Representatives here—such men as they had wisely 
confided in as men of integrity—men who were pledged 
to a constituency to represent them 1‘airly and honora- 
bly who came there and raised their hands to Heaven 
and swore to jiertorm their duties with fidelity to the 
State, yet it was assumed that notwithslandiu" all 
that they might be bought up and corrupted, a°d it 
was unwise to trust them. Hence, they should have 
some other person to tell the Legislature that they were 
wrong—that they were a corrupt set of rascals and had 
been bribed to disregard their diitie.s—and would need 
to have all their actions relerred back to theii’ constit¬ 
uents for approval or rejection. Again, to day they 
-were told that it was not even necessary to have two 
brances in the Legishiturc—that the one was no check 
iqion the other—that it was a useless exjiense, and that 
the ojiinion in favor of two branches was merely enter- 


1 


tained on account of jn’C-conceived notions. 

The gentleman from Fairfield, [Mr. Robertson,] had 
assumed here that the two branches were no check on 
One another,— 

Mr. ROBERTSON (interposing.) Unless opposed 
I to each other politically. ^ 


I 



















CONVENTION REPORTS 


131 


Mr. HAWKINS. Even when agreed in party, on 
all occasions, and under all circumstances, they were 
checks upon one another. Every one knew that there 
were hundreds of bills passed in the one branch and 
defeated in the other. That matter had been well dis¬ 
cussed when the constitution of the United States had 
been formed , and, if they would refer to the reasons 
then expressed, and respect them, perhaps gentlemen 
would not be surprised that there were “lingering 
opinions*’ here in favor of two branches. 

He was decidedly opposed to the veto pow’cr in the 
hands of a single individual. The gentleman from 
Fairfield, [Mr. Robertson,] was in favor of the veto, 
and so anxious was he to make a necessity for that 
power, that he was disposed to have but one bi*anch 
of the Legislature. It was to be supposed that if there 
was danger of corruption in the Legislature, a single 
branch could be more easily corrupted ; it would take 
less money and less trouble than to control the action of 
two branches. 

He believed that the framers of the United States 
constitution proceeded upon the supposition that they 
were to have virtuous and intelligent people in the com¬ 
munity, who would understand their duties and dis¬ 
charge them in view of their own great interests.— 
With that view they would elect representatives to rep¬ 
resent their wishes and wants in both Houses of 
legislation. They had provided that there shoxdd be 
two branches—that one should review wliat might be 
passed by the other—they required, le?t a measure 
might be hurried through, that it should be read on 
three different days, unless the rules were suspended 
by a majority of three fourths. They had relied on 
these guards as sufficient—they were sufficient unless 
the people were afflicted with a corrupt set of men— 
they were sufficient, ordinarily, to seciu’e pure and 
faithful legislation. 

He concurred in the policy of having a lieutenant 
Governor, and of establishing an apportionment plan 
that would be tempered by justice. If it were possi¬ 
ble, it certainly was desirable. 

The statement that what has been said and done 
here, did not extend beyond this hall, was certainly in¬ 
accurate. There was no part of the State in which 
the transactions of the Legislature was not commented 
upon.—There were no parts so remote from this— 
none so obscure, where the reports (inaccurate and 
meagre as they had heretofore been) were not read and 
commented upon. He had been applied to a hundred 
times—when it was ascei'tained that the Convention 
would be called—and asked whether or not it was pos¬ 
sible by some means to prevent a I’ccurrence of Legis¬ 
lative abuses. If ilie reforms looked for were not ac¬ 
complished, the people in his part of the State would 
look upon the expenditui’e incurred by calling this 
Convention as a mere waste of public money. And in 
view of the possibility of a recurrence of legislative ac¬ 
tion similar to what it had been heretofore, it was the 
general sentiment that the fewer the sessions the bet¬ 
ter.—Three or four or five years between each ses¬ 
sion was favored by some individuals there. ^ But by 
all means he would favor the withdrawal of this power 
of determining the apportionment from the hands, of 
the Legislature. When they had done that, and strip¬ 
ped the Legislature of its power to elect officers—so 
far as it was possible—they Wuuld not need to appre¬ 
hend a recurrence of those scenes of disorganization 
and^disreputable proceeding. 

“"mV. SAWYER rcmarl;jed that, in his opinion, the com¬ 
mittee had spent as much time in di.scussing this ques¬ 
tion, as properly belonged to that branch of the subject. 
There were othersubjects to come up besides this; and, 
it occurred to him, that gentlemen, after hearing all that 
had been said, should be allowed time to mature their 
different plans. There might be new schemes presen¬ 
ted, and no doubt every gentleman would reflect deep¬ 
ly on the subject. Other plans would be matured and 


presented to the Convention, sometime after the com¬ 
mittee had reported on the subject. 

Mr. REEMBLIN said, that hedesii-cd now briefly to 
close this debate. He was exceedingly obliged to gen¬ 
tlemen all round, for the different suggestions which 
had been made. The plan I have submitted, has, to be 
sure, been put to a severe test in the scrutiny it has had 
to undergo, and I watched the progress of the debate 
with much anxiety; but without the least self-glorifica¬ 
tion, and with due deference to the views of all who 
have spoken, I may say that the plan has come out 
unharmed, and that it rather looms up more in perfect 
harmony than I had anticipated. Not only is its main 
principle inviolate, but even its details are beginning to 
be more fully and more satisfactorily developed. 

I have, during the discussion, been to work to perfect 
the proposition, and to place it into a definite shape. I 
have availed myself of some valuable suggestions which 
have been made, and endeavored to avoid, not only the 
real objections to a part of the details, but am even 
willing to give way to what I conceive to be mere pre¬ 
judice. I am ready to give up a part, and thus meet 
gentlemen half way. Will they give up a part of theirs, 
and meet me in a spirit of compromise? If they do, I 
think I may safely say, that a self-acLing apportionment 
can be made for thenew consdliUioji, perfect as near as hu¬ 
man work can be in all its ])arts, and so nearly ecpial, 
that even the most fastidious will not cavil. I say this 
after a close examination, and knowing what I say to 
be so. 

I will now submit to the committee the results I have 
arrived at, and they will see that I am right in the as¬ 
sertion I have made. 

I have drawn up the provisions into definite shape, 
and they are as follows: 

The apportionment for Representatives to be made 
every five years. Of the first apportionment, the Uni¬ 
ted States census to be the "basis, and the same census 
to be the basis every ten years; for the intermediate 
five years a State census to be taken as may be directed 
by law. 

Senators to be apportioned every ten years, the Uni¬ 
ted States census always to be the basis. 

The apportionment for Representatives to be made 
by the Secretaiy of State in conjunction with the Gov¬ 
ernor in the following manner. They shall ascertain, 
through the census indicated, the aggregate population 
of the State, and if that population be 2,000,000, they 
shall divide it by 100; if 2,500,000, they shall divide it 
by 110; if 3,000,000, they shall divide it by 120, and 
so on, adding ten to the divisor for every 500,000 addi¬ 
tional population. Dividing the aggregate by the disd- 
sor specified, it will give the quota necessary for a Rep¬ 


resentative in 1850. at 20,000 

in 1860. at 23,000 

in 1870. at 25,000 

in 1880. at 27,000 


And a House consisting— 

in 1851 to 1860 of about 110 members, 

in 1861 to 1871 “ “ 115 “ 

in 1871 to 1881 “ “ 120 

in 1881 to 1891 “ “ 125 

It will be seen that I avoid, by the scale indicated, 
not only too large a body, and a too rapid increase of 
members, but I avoid the far more important consider¬ 
ation of one man representing too large a constituency. 

I still adhere to the point, that each county shall have 
at least one Representative, not only because it is neces¬ 
sary to the symmetry of the plan, but because it really 
is not as unjust ns some suppose. 

It is conceded by all, that a county containing a pop¬ 
ulation of a fraction over one-halt the quota shall have a 
Representative, and so shall any such remaining frac¬ 
tion in the more populous counties have an additional 
representative. This would leave but two or three 
counties not entitled to a Representative, and regarding 
as I do, this a small matter, and one which a very few 
years will render entirely equal, I think we may well 













132 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


exercise a little generosity to the counties affected by 
this proposition. The elder brethren should not be too 
strict to their younger brethren of the same family. 

I adhere also to the single district system; it is right 
and easily accomplished. 

In reference to the Senatorial districts, I anticipated 
great and unsurmountable difficulties, and during the 
discussion, I became more and more fearful of the prac¬ 
ticability of that part of the plan; but I rejoice to be 
able to say that the difficulties vanished when I came 
to reduce the system into shape. 

I propose that the quota for a Senator shall be treble 
that for a Representative. 

I also propose to erect definitely, in the constitution, 
36 Senatorial districts, which I will now read. I have 
given with every district the number of white male in¬ 
habitants in it, according to the State census of 1817. 
Some are now more populous, rione less. By multiply¬ 
ing the white male inhabitants with 5, it will pretty 
nearly indicate the entire population. 

No. of white male 


Disteicts. inhabitants. 

1. The city ol Cinoinnati. 15,000 

2. The rest of the county ot Hamilton. 10,000 

3. Butler and Preble.10,300 

4. Montgomery. 8,000 

5. Clermont and Brown.10,180 

6. Warren, Clinton and Greene. 12,525 

7. Clark, Champaign and Madison. 9,696 

8. Miaixii, Darke and Shelby.10,612 

9. Logan, Hardin, Union and Marion. 99,05 

10. Mercer, Allen, Van Wert, Putnam, Paulding, Defi¬ 

ance, Williams, Auglaize and Fulton. 9,000 

11. Lucas, Henry, Wood, Sandusky and Ottowa_ 9,000 

12. Seneca, Hancock and Wyandot. 9,235 

13. Delawfire and Franklin.11,286 

14. Ross and Pickaway. 10,248 

15. Highland, Fayette and Adams.10,341 

16. Gallia, Scioto, Pike and Lawrence. 10,000 

17. Licking. 7,458 

18. Hockmg, Athens, Meigs and Jackson.11,387 

19. Fairfield and Perry.10,000 

20. Muskingum. 8,036 

21. Morgan and Washington. 9,954 

22. Coshocton and Guernsey.10,251 

23 Tuscarawas and Carroll. 9,145 

24. Jetferson and Harrison. 9,170 

25. Mahoning and Columbiana. 10,844 

26. Belmont and Monroe. 10,924 

27. Stark. 7,765 

28. Wayne and Ashland.10,766 

29. Knox and Holmes. 10,010 

30. Richland and Crawford. 9,618 

31. Ashtabula and Lake. 8.715 

32. Trumbull and Geauga. 9,643 

33. Portage and Summit. 10,485 

34. Medina and Lorain. 9,186 

35. Huron and Erie. 8,308 

36. Cuyahoga. 8,124 


This would give but two or three double senatorial 
districts. Ciucimiati would no doubt have two Sena¬ 
tors, and the district of Warren, Clinton and Greene 
would also most likely have two, if we allow a frac¬ 
tion of more than one half an additional Senator, and 
such might be the case with one or two other districts. 

It would with the first census make a Senate of 37 
to 41, but it would in no case exceed 4.5. 

The districts are of contiguous territoiy and of simi¬ 
lar interests, and of pretty nearly equal population. 
The counties of Licking, Muskingum, 8tark and Mont¬ 
gomery would each be entitled to a Senator, althou"h 
their population is rather below the others, but I think 
the inequality would not prove an ultimate impedi¬ 
ment, as in a party view it would be equalized in the 
four counties. 

I do not propose these districts as a definite arrange¬ 
ment,—they will no doubt be modified; but I do pro¬ 
pose them to show that a self-acting senatorial appor¬ 
tionment can he made without violating any fair 
principle. We can make permanent senatorial districts 
of contiguous territory, of similar interests and of near¬ 
ly equal population. 

I repeat we can have both for representatives and 
senators a self-acting apportionment, if we will only 
accommodate our views to each other, and do not insist 


too strenuously on preconceived notions. I for one will 
jneet all in this spirit. 

Nor do I find any very great difficulty in arranging 
the other details. I shall perfect them in a day or 
two, and then hand them to the committee on Appor¬ 
tionment. It is composed of 21 members. They will 
sift the matter closely, and I am sure from their hands 
the whole will come in a shape pretty nearly satisfac- 
toiy to all. I do not thus draw up my proposition with 
any feelings of distrust to the committee, or because 
they could not do it as well, but because having pre¬ 
sented my plan I think it both due to myself and to 
them, that they should have it in a definite shape I 
hope the committee will not think me too forward in 
thus preparing work for their hands. If they should 
do so however, the slightest intimation from them will 
induce me to witlihold my proposition. 

I will not now re-enter into the general discussion. 

I am satisfied as it is. I have only desired to show that 
the plan is pi’acticable, and having, in my humble opin¬ 
ion, done so, and believing that it is generally desired 
that the discussion should now close, I now move that 
the committee rise and report. 

Mr ARGHBOLD moved to amend by adding '‘and i 
have leave to sit again.” j 

The motion to amend was not agreed to. 

The motion to rise and report was agreed to, and the j 
committee then rose. 

Mr. CllAMliERS, from the committee of the whole, I 
reported that the committee had had under considera- | 
lion, resolution No. 7, [Mr. Reemelin’s] on apportion- ; 
ment, which he was directed to report back, with sun¬ 
dry amendments. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the resolution be re- i 
ferred to the committee on Apportionment. 

Mi\ CHAMBERS moved that it be referred to a se- ■ 
lect committee. 

The 1’RE SI DENT observed that a motion to refer to 
a standing committee had x>i’ecedence of a motion to 
refer to a select committee. g 

Mr. CHAMBERS. It was clear that many gentle- ' 
men had given much of their attention to this subject 
—there were many gentlemen in the Convention w’ho I 
j) 08 se 88 ed much information on the subject. He did 
not know exactly what was the composition of the i 
committee on Appordonment. It was possible that h 
they could not attend to this matter in the proper man¬ 
ner. Ho thought that business would be much facili¬ 
tated by referring the resolution to a committee com- < 
posed of the gentlemen who had taken such a promi- ’ 
nent position in the discussion of this subject. It • i 
might then, after the select committee had rejiorted, ■ I 
be referred to the committee on Apportionment. ' 

The question being on referring the resolution and , ' 
amendments to the standing committee on Apportion¬ 
ment, the motion to refer was sustained. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD ofiered the .following: : 

Resolved, That it be provided in the Constitution, that an enu- t 
meration of the people of this State, shall be made under the au- j | 
thority thereof in the year 1855, and at the period of every ten {1 
years thereafter. ' 

And that at the first regular Session, after every such enumera- 11 
tion, and after every census taken under the authority of the | | 
Federal Government, the General Assembly shall apportion the j 
Senators and Representatives amongst the several counties and 
districts of this State. But where any county shall be entitled to I 
more than one Senator or Representative, the General Assembly | 
may, by law, authorize the County Commissioners to divide tlte i I 
county into Senatorial and Representative Districts. 

In laying off the Senatorial and Representative Districts, the ) 
General Assembly shall begin at the north western angle of the 1 i 
State, and shall lay off the districts in a compact form of conti¬ 
guous territory, and as near square as the nature of the case will i 
admit. And when a District can be made up by attaching coun- ' 

ties laying north and south of each other, the same shall be ' 

done. And counties laying east and west of each other shall on¬ 
ly be put together when no district can be formed of counties 
laying north and south, 

Mr. ARCHBOLD did not know that there was any¬ 
thing peculiarly acceptable in the view presented in 
his resolution; but it was manifest that the Conven¬ 
tion should devise some remedy for the inconveniences 


















































133 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


of the present system of apportionment. He olfered 
the resolution, conceiving that every genlleman had a 
right to present his views on the subject. lie thought 
that by laying the State oh'in paralellograms or ob¬ 
longs, It would ill a great measure remove all “gerry¬ 
mandering.” He moved that the resolution be relerred 
to the committee on the Apportionment. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren moved that the committee of 
the whole be discharged from the further consideration 
of re.solution No. 11; which was agreed to. 

Mr. BROWN of Athens moved that the resolution be 
be referred to the committee on Apportionment. 

Mr. KEEMELIN suggested that it would be better 
to take up the report of the committee of the whole, 
and refer the entire matter, except such as they wishecl 
to retain. 

On motion of Mr. CASE of Hocking, the Convention 
adjourned. 


THURSDAY, May, 23, 1850—10 A. M. 

Mr. LEECH. I rise to announce the arrival of my 
colleague, WILLIAM LAWRENCE, and ask that he 
be sworn in. 

Mr. LAWRENCE then coming forward, the requi¬ 
site oath was administered by Mr. HITCHCOCK of 
Geauga, and Mr. L. took his seat as a delegate from 
Guernsey. 

On motion by Mr. LEECH, the credentials of Mr. 
Lawrence were referred to the committee on Pidvi- 
leges and Elections. 

Mr. BATES presented the petition of Caleb S. Wor¬ 
thington and 122 other citizens of .leherson county, ask¬ 
ing that a clause may be inserted in the Constitution 
prohibiting the legislature in any way from legalizing 
the sale or traffic in intoxicating drinks. 

The petition was relerred to the committee on “ Mis¬ 
cellaneous subjects and jn'opositions.” 

Mr. NASH. I have a petition of G. Richardson and 
0 others, citizens of Gallia county, upon the same sub¬ 
ject, and I would desire the same relerenco. 

It was accordingly referred. 

Mr. HARLAN. I present the petition of John Arm¬ 
strong and 64 others of Greene county, praying that a 
clause be inserted in the preamble of the constitution, 
acknowledging God, his gracious Providence and the 
obligations of his law as revealed in the Scriptures; and 
also a clause in the Bill of Rights, declaring that as 
Christianity, morality and knowledge are essential to 
the good government and happiness of mankind, that 
therefore the church ol God shall be protected, schools 
and means of instruction be encouraged by legislative 
provision, as far as is not inconsistent with the rights of 
conscience. 

The petition was referred to the committee on the 
Preamble and Bill of Rights. 

Mr. HOLT. I offer for adoption the following: 

Resolved, That the following provisions be incorporated into 
the new constitution: The legislature, at its first session after the 
adoption of this constitution, shall appoint five commissioners, 
whose duty it shall be to reduce into a written and systematic code, 
the whole body of the law of this State, or so much and such 
parts thereof as the said commissioners shall find practicable and 
expedient. And the said commissioners shall specify such alter¬ 
ations and amendments in the law's as they shall deem proper, and 
they shall at all times make reports of their i)roceeding3 to the 
legislature, when called upon to do so. 

It shall also be the duty of the said’commissioners to revise, 
reform, simplify and abridge the rules and practice, pleadings, 
forms and proceedings of the courts of record of this State ; and 
as far as practicable and expedient, they shall provide for the ab¬ 
olition ot the distinct forms of action at law, now in use, and that 
justice be administered in all said cases in an unifoiTn mode of 
pleading, without any distinction between law and equity. 

Provision shall also be made by law, at the first session of the 
legislature after the adoption of this constitution, for filling vacan¬ 
cies, regulating the term of office and compensation of the said 
commissioners, and the ssiid code shall be published prior to its 
being presented to the legislature for adoption. 

This resolution came from no committee—lias the 
sanctions of no committee at this time, but I present it 
now that the members of the Convention may have the 


matter under consideration, that they may be prepared 
to act upon it. I move that it be laid on the table and 
printed. 

Agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. SMITH of Wyandott, resolution 
No. 9 was taken up and referred to the committee on 
J urisprudenco. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I offer for adoption the following: 

“ Resolved, That-extra copies of the reports of all stand¬ 

ing committees, except the committee on Privileges and Elections, 
be printed for the use of the members of the Convention.” 

I have been written to by a number of my constitu¬ 
ents, desiring me to send up to them the reports of the 
standing committees of this body, for they are looked 
upon with considerable interest, and they wish when 
these committees shall have reported, to make particular 
examination of the reports. 

Mr. SAWYER named 150 as the number to fill the 
blank. 

Mr. BARNETT. I would like to have that number 
increased, so that we could have some copies for distri¬ 
bution. I would name the number of 500 to fill the 
blank. 

Mr. MORRIS considered it an uimecessary expense, 
and expressed himself against the proposal. 

Mr. HENDERSON. It strikes me, that it is a mat¬ 
ter that should not be referred to the committee on Prin¬ 
ting, but shoxdd be acted upon immediately; and I 
think that the number should be laz*ger than that na¬ 
med. I would name 600. 

Mr. ORTON. I would suggest 650, that number giv¬ 
ing just half a dozen to each member. I have had sev¬ 
eral letters from my constituents requesting documents, 
and I hope the resolution will pass. 

Mr. SAWYER. At an early period of the session I 
introduced a resolution that the Convention should pur¬ 
chase a certain number of copies, (to be furnished to 
the members) of the “ Ohio Statesman ” and “ Ohio 
State Journal,” for the very purpose of disseminating 
this very information among our constituents. I have 
been led to figure a little how much these reports would 
cost under the resolution, and I am clearly of the opin¬ 
ion that we ought to have adopted the course I propo¬ 
sed at first, for it would have been less expensive and 
more effective among the people. In order that calcu¬ 
lations may be made about the printing of the reports, 
I move that the report, with the pending amendments, 
be laid upon the table. 

Agreed to. 

On motion by Mr. HAWKINS, the committee of the 
Whole was discharged from the further consideration 
of resolution number five ; and the same was then re¬ 
ferred to the “ standing committee on the Executive 
Department.” 

Mr. STANTON. I offer for adoption the following: 

Resolved, That hereafter when the Convention adjourns, it shall 
be until half past 9 o’clock, A. M.; and when it takes a recess, it 
shall be until 2 o’clock, P. M., until otlierwise ordered. 

Mr. MANON. The gentleman has anticipated me 
somewhat in this matter, as I have a resolution ol the 
same nature partly w^ritteu. I would like to have it 
read something like this: “ That this Convention, when, 
it adjourns, shall adjourn until 8 o’clock in the morn¬ 
ing, and that there be no recess.” Let us have but 
one session, and let the committees have the afternoon 
of the day to themselves for deliberation. I would be 
glad to amend the resolution of the gentleman from Lo¬ 
gan, so as to have it express this idea. 

Mr. MASON. I do not think it wise to debate this 
resolution at the present time. The business of the 
Convention is now in the hands of committees. I 
would be very glad that the entire afternoon should be 
allowed for several days to come, so that the commit¬ 
tees could get time to do something, for it so happens 
that by the time they get engaged in the subject of their 
deliberations, they have to break up their meeting 
without arriving at any })ractical result, or accomplish¬ 
ing any thing, for the want of time. I know this is the 












134 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


case with the committee on the Judiciary—a commit¬ 
tee of fiome importance, but whose deliberations are 
constantly interrupted by the sessions. You propose to 
go early into an afternoon session, even at the very hour 
at which the committee on the Judiciary meets every 
day, and in that you allow no time, Tinless you expect 
these large committees to go into night sessions, which 
ought not to be expected, after the fatigues of the day. 

would propose, therefore, that we have but one ses¬ 
sion a day, and that a morning session, for at least a 
week. Give us some opportunity to prepare the busi¬ 
ness of the Convention. I will make such an amend¬ 
ment to the proposition before us, so as to embrace the 
idea of adjournment at the close of the morning ses¬ 
sion, until the next day, for at least a week. 

Mr. MANON. I propose to strike out of the resolu¬ 
tion, all after the word “ resolved,” and insert the fol¬ 
lowing : 

“ That this Convention meet at 8 o’clock, A. M., and have no 
session in the afternoon, until otherwise ordered.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, moved to strike out 
‘‘ 8,” and insert “ 9,” in the amendment, which being 
accepted by Mr. Manon, the resolution as then amend¬ 
ed w'as agreed to. 

On motion, by Mi’. CUTLER, resolution No. 9, was 
taken up and referred to the standing committee on tlie 
Preamble and Bill of Rights. 

On motion by Mr. DORSEY, resolution No. 4, was 
taken up. 

Mr. DORSEY. Before moving the reference of these 
resolutions to the proper committee, I beg leave to 
make a few remarks before the Convention, in regard 
to the motives which I had in ofiering any thing with 
respect to the power of corporations in this State. The 
basis, Mr. President, upon which these resolutions 
w^ere founded, was in my mind this : that although 
great and varied opinions had existed with regard to 
the whole subject of credit and corporations in the State 
of Ohio, yet there was a principle which existed in the 
nature ol things, and it was that upon which T based 
the following resolution, viz: that the trade in money 
was capable of being placed upon the same basis as the 
trade in any other article whatever. And I believe this 
to be the true principle in regard to all corporations 
for banking or lor any other purposes. Believing that 
such a principle would apply to trade in money as well 
as trade in any article whatever, I framed the resolu¬ 
tions which will be offered for the consideration of the 
committee. 

Now, Mr. President, if this is so, I may be asked, 
why is it necessary to legislate at all upon this matter? 
Why is it necessary to frame any laws whatever with 
regard to banking corporations, if trade in money is in¬ 
tended to be lelt open to all the laws which regulate 
trade in ordinary matters? The reason is this. It is 
because the whole monetary system—the whole histo¬ 
ry of paper money has become so entirely connected 
with our commercial, and I might say, social relations, 
that it is absolutely necessary for us to have some fixed 
and continuous rule with regard to it. Now, sir I am 
aware that there are varied opinions existing in this 
Convention, with regard to this matter—opinions, per¬ 
haps, which divide us as political parties, allhouHi 
when I speak of political parties, I do not wish to be 
understood as attaching any invidious or improper 
meaning to any party here. I wish that upon this sub¬ 
ject which I regard as so important, we might act as 
one man and divest ourselves, as far as possible, of all 
party feeling and political prejudice—that we mio-fit 
apply ourselves coolly, calmly and dispassionately,'^to 
consider this matter. We have here, as I ihiidt I may 
fairly and justly say, so far as this Convention is con¬ 
cerned, three different divisions—I will not call them 
parties—under which may be classed all the members 
of tins Convention. We have first, those who ai’e to¬ 
tally and entirely opposed to the formation of corpora¬ 
tions, in any shape or form, for the issue of money. 
Second, we have those who belong to what may be 


called the old banking party—those who are content 
with the old system of corporations for banking purpo¬ 
ses. There is a third party, among whom, I believe, 
may be found included a majority ol the members ol 
this Convention—who think that the whole system of 
banks and of corporations for banking purposes may 
be so reformed as to take away from the system the 
abuses with which it has been attended, and that banks 
and corporations may be made useful, beneficial and 
subservient to the very best iutei’ests ol the community. 
And in order that this maybe accomplished, it becomes 
necessary to establish some general princixile in regard 
to this subject. I propose in the very tew remarks 
which I may offer here, to lay down a few general 
principles, which seem to me should be incorporated 
in every system of this kind. 

The first and most important general jninciple, is, 
that we should make the cui rency ol the country a 
sound currency. And now, Mr. Rresideni;, when I 
make this remark in reference to a sound currency, I 
wish to be properly understood, because so much has 
been said upon the subject of a sound currency, that I 
almost dislike to repeat the term before this Conven¬ 
tion. It has been liable to so much abuse, and the po¬ 
litical parties have rung so many changes ujron it, that 
I am almost afraid to venture on the subject, lest it can¬ 
not be divested of those political bearings ol which 1 
wish entirely to divest myself. H I know myself, 1 
intend to bring the subject up here without any political 
bearing whatever. The subject of the currency is one 
of great and abiding importance, and it is absolutely 
necessary that we should have some rules by which a 
sound currency may be attained. We may compare 
this subject of the cuiTency to the atmosphere around 
us, w’hich comes home to every man. Every man feels, 
it—every man knows more or less in his own person 
the purity, the excellence of that atmosphere. If it 
becomes so corrupted as to be unfit for the proper uses 
of life, then, sir, derangement is produced throughout 
the whole system—“ the whtde head is sick, and the 
whole heart is faint.” And as it is w ith regard to the 
natural atmosphere, so it is with the monetary system. 
If the currency be not in a healthy state, then every 
individual portion of the community feels the effects, 
and derangement takes place in all the great and im¬ 
portant concerns of the country. Allow me to say, 
that I do think that one of the great evils attendant 
upon the whole matter, is that there has been, too much 
legislation upon the subject. When a delegation of 
the merchants of France w’aited upon Napoleon, and 
he asked them, “ Gentlemen, what can I do for you?” 
the remark was, “ Let us alone.” Well, sir, this is a 
great truth in regard to this system. “ Let it alone 
interfere with it as little as you can. Such is the great 
law which should govern trade, contemned too often 
by the so-called laws of wise legislation, for it has often 
occurred that attempts of this kind have been made, 
producing the greatest possible evil iu the whole mon¬ 
etary, as in the commercial system. Now, sir, at the 
same time that I hold this to be true, I hold it equally 
importan that some action should be taken upon it. 1 
know that there exist in the minds of a large number 
of both political parties, prejudices against corporated 
associations. There has been an idea prevalent, that 
corporations and, associations draw together and cen¬ 
tralize the means of wealth and the power of the coun¬ 
try, iu particular nuclei, where it would become more., 
powerful than it could otherwise be. 

There is a centralizing power in W’ealth, and it has a 
continued tendency to centralize itself. I honestly be¬ 
lieve that it is the formation of corporations iu the va¬ 
rious parts of the country, which keeps wealth distrib¬ 
uted. I believe it to be pre-eminently true that the 
corporations throughout this country, instead of aggre¬ 
gating wealth, tend to keep it separate to a sufficient 
extent for beneficial purposes in the community. At 
the same time, I believe it to be true, that the power 
and tendency of wealth is sufficiently great to central- 















CONVENTION REPORTS 


135 


ize and prevent ns from passing any laws that have a 
peculiar and direct tendency to foster and give privile¬ 
ges to wealth, whether it he in the individual or corpo¬ 
ration. Why, sir, it was said a long lime ago, by some 
man, who undoubtedly lived not in this country, and 
had not before him the every day experience of every 
commercial country in this matter, that ‘‘knowledge is 
powei\” Sir, had that man lived at the present day, 
he would have known better—he would have known 
that in every commercial countiy, “money is power.” 
This being pre-eminently true, it docs not become ne¬ 
cessary to pass laws which foster w'ealth. cither in the 
individual or corporation; hence, while I am in favor 
of a system which tolerates corporations, and believe it 
to be for the benefit of the community to have corpora¬ 
tions framed, which, as I believe, prevents wealth 
from being centralized in the handsof the millionaire— 
I am not in favor of granting to those corporations any 
privileges and immunities which do not belong to the 
great body of the people. Now, sir, it has unfortu¬ 
nately happened in this countiy, that the system has 
been attended with a great many abuses, and so great 
have these been, that I am not at all astonished that 
many men, with correct minds, with correct view’s, for 
whose opinions I have great and abiding respect, have 
thought it necessary to go to the other extreme, and 
go against corporations in any shape or form whatever. 

But, sir, there is danger in extremes of all kinds. It 
is true in politics as in philosophy, that the middle path 
is generally the path of safety. It is for ihe purpose of 
pursuing that middle path, that the resolutions were 
drawn up by me in the shape I have presented them to 
this Convention. The first resolution provides, “that 
the credit of this State shall never, in any manner, be 
given or loaned to, or in aid of any individual, associa¬ 
tion or corporation, nor shall the State own or be liable 
for any stock in any corporation or association whatev¬ 
er.’ One of the great abuses which have grown out of 
corporations is, that it has been thought necessary to 
loan the credit of the State to those corporations, there¬ 
by giving to them a factitious value and giving them a 
factitious infitience in the minds and over the affairs of 
the community. It is to do away with this evil, espe¬ 
cially so far as it is connected wdth the banking system, 
that we propose, in this first resolution, to strike at 
once at the foundation of the abuses, and not to give 
the credit of the State to any cor[)oration whatever. 
Now, sir, there has always existed a contest between 
the system of cash and the system of credit. The pow¬ 
er of the paper money system is essentially a system of 
credit. There must always exist between the cash or 
hard money, and the paper system, to a certain extent, 
a contest. One of them is governed by the great and 
universal niles which govern trade ; the other, while it 
is capable of being subjected to a great extent to those 
rules, yet is supported, vivified, brought into life and 
kept in being by certain laws which are peculiar to it¬ 
self. It stands in precisely the same relation to the 
great system of trade, which the animated body sus¬ 
tains in regard to the great laws which govern the 
w’orld. The one is a world of itself, the other is a 
world within a world. The very moment the animal 
body, freed from its own peculiar laws, becomes sub¬ 
ject to the great laws of the natural world, it is de¬ 
stroyed. So the banking sy.stem, upheld and support¬ 
ed by laws peculiar to itself, is destroyed if left to the 
lone and single power of the laws of trade—it requires 
its own laws as much as does the animal body, and is 
destroyed in the same way by the absence of those 
laws, but it is as necessary and as much to be Kup]X)i't- 
ed in the commerciul world, under proper i*estrictions, 
as animated beings in the natural world. 

But, sir, government credit never can contend with 
the cash system, and why ? I hold, sir, that there is an in¬ 
superable reason against it. Now, the credit of a sin¬ 
gle individual, or single corporation, may contend with 
the cash system, because it can draw the assistance 
which is necesssaiy for its support from ])er:H)us with 


whom it is not connected, and with whom it is not 
identical. But this is not true in regard to the system of 
government credit. A system of government credit, I 
repeat again, can never contend with coin or ca^h, be¬ 
cause it must draw its support from that very people 
who use, circulate, and who are to derive the advanta¬ 
ges, T there be any, from that credit; iberefore, it can 
never be supported in a contest which always exists 
between credit or paper and the cash system. The 
second resolution is one which will come more par¬ 
ticularly under the consideration of the standing com¬ 
mittee on Corporations other tlian Banking, rather than 
that of the committee on Banks and the Currency, and 
yet there are two great principles laid down in this 
second resolution, to which I beg leave to call the at¬ 
tention of the Convention. 

The first thing that I would call your attention to in 
the second resolution is the principle, “ that no privi¬ 
leges, exemptions and iinmuni ies shall ever be grant¬ 
ed to any corporation which do not belong to the whole 
community.” This is a great and important principle. 
It is a well known fact that it is the enjoynn nt of these 
peculiar privileges and immunities which has caused 
almost all the evils that have grown out of corpora¬ 
tions. It is the cause of the prejudices which have 
existed against corporations. Strip them, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, of these peculiar privileges and immunities, of the 
peculiar exemptions enjoyed by them to the exclusion 
of the rest of the community, and you will find at once 
that you do away with the principal source of their 
corruptions, and not only so, but you get rid of far 
more than half of all the objections that have ever 
been urged against them. There is another principle 
involved in this second resolution. It is that the Leg¬ 
islature shall never vest in a corporation, association or 
individual any right or power which cannot be repeal¬ 
ed or taken away by a succeeding Legislature. I hold 
this to be another important principle. I say, sir, it is 
a pi'inciple upon which the people of the State of Ohio, 
as to party, are not divided. In consultations which I 
have had with large numbers of the people of the 
State, I do not know that I have found one man out of 
fifty who was willing to make any exceptions to this 
general, broad principle, that the Legislature always 
has hud, and always will have, in its sovereign power, 
the right to supervise and repeal the acts of iiny pre¬ 
ceding Legislature. If it is contended that in this way 
contracts are made void, why, sir, by the introdnetiou 
of such a clause into all contracts, those who enter in¬ 
to corporate associations under the law of the State 
containing such provisions, well know upon what they 
will have to depend, and hence this objection is void. 

The third resolution provides, “ that the Legislature 
shall have no power to pass any special charter for 
banking purposes ; but coi’poratioiis or associations may 
be formed for such purposes, under a general law, pro¬ 
vided, that no bill or evidence of debt of aless denom¬ 
ination than $5, shall ever be issued or circulated as 
money in this State.” The formation of special corpo¬ 
rations, endowed with special privileges, is altogether 
one of the worst features of the granting privileges to 
corporations. It will always happen that when it is in 
the power of the Legislature to grant special privile¬ 
ges, that those desirous of obtaining such privileges 
will bring into the legislative hall an undue influence, 
which may enable them to obtain such privileges and 
rights from the legislative body, in opposition to the 
general will. Not only should we expect this to be 
true, but j)ast exy)ei'ience teaches us that it is true ; and 
we ought to be disposed at once to favor an idea that 
meets such a difiiculty. The last part of the proposi¬ 
tion provides, that no hill or evidence of debt of less 
denomination tlian $5— 

This is one upon which there is great diversity of 
feeling among tlie people of this State. I^ have fre¬ 
quently heard the remark made, that there is no good 
reason'why a dollar bill should not be just as good as a 
dollar of specie; but there is a great and abiding differ- 









136 


CONVENTION IIEPOIITS. 


ence. In tlie lirst place, we know that there is, to some 
extent, an intrinsic value in coin, which does not exist 
in paper; but a greater and more imjiortant reason than 
all this, is, that by preventing the issue of all small bills, 
you coniine within the State and among the communi¬ 
ty, a specie circulation, upon which is based the paper 
circulation. This, alone, is suHlcient reason for pre¬ 
venting the issue of small bills. It will always happen 
that where small bills are used, specie disappears from 
the common, ordinary circulation of any country, and 
that to prevent this from taking place, it is necessary 
that small bills be prevented from being issued or cir¬ 
culated by any corporation within the State. I wish to 
go hastily over these resolutions, because I am not will¬ 
ing to detain the Convention at any great length. The 
fourth resolution provides: “ The stockholders of every 
corporation or association for issuing bank notes, or any 
kind of paper credit, to be circulated as money, shall 
be responsible in their individual capacity, for all the 
debts and liabilities of the same of every kind what¬ 
ever.” 

This is not a new doctrine. It is one which has been 
long before the people. There are diderences of opin¬ 
ion with regard to the extent to which this liability 
should be introduced. It has been proposed by some, 
to confine the liabilities to the circulation of corporations, 
audit has been proposed to introduce liability to the 
amount of stock held by stock-holders. I hold it here, 
as in every other case, that where the good of the com¬ 
munity is at stake, the largest responsibility is that 
which is the best. I have therefore provided that they 
shall be responsible in their individual capacity for 
their debts"and liabilities of every kind whatevei*. One 
reason why I am in favor of this is because the inti'o- 
duction of a feature of this kind, produces a total revo¬ 
lution in the whole system of banking. Instead of 
bringing together large numbers and congregating them 
in a single corporation endowed with banking powers, 
it confines the whole business of banking to smaller as¬ 
sociations and number of persons, who are acquainted 
with the business capacities and responsibilities of 
each other. It prevents all this extended evil of the 
circulation of Bank paper. It does away with a great 
many of the objections that have been urged against 
the whole system of Banking. It confines banking 
within its proper limits, where it can act beneficially 
and where it cannot act in a manner detrimental to 
other interests. I now come to the 5th proposition, 
“That the Legislature shall have no power to })ass any 
law sanctioning in any manner, directly or indirectly, 
the refusal of any individual, corporation or associa¬ 
tion, issuing Banknotes of any description, to pay the 
same in specie on demand.” 

This is another of the great evils which has been 
attendant upon banking associations in iheir old form. 
It has happe7ied at various times, that the banking in¬ 
stitutions of the State, and throughout other States of 
the Union have suspended specie payment in times of 
financial difficulty, and by thus refusing to redeem 
their issues, great revulsions in the whole commercial 
and monetary system of the country have been pro¬ 
duced. It is to prevent an evil of this kind, and to 
take the power out of the hands of the Legislature for 
granting any sanction to corporations for acts of this 
character, that this resolution has been introduced. 

Difficulties of this kind are fresh within the memo¬ 
ry of many liere. You remember the great commer¬ 
cial crisis of 1837 to 1839, and the almost unexampled 
distress. We recollect that this was brought about 
particularly by the refusal of the banks to redeem 
their notes in .specie. It is to prevent a recurrence of 
such difficulties, so far as it can }) 08 sibly be done, that 
we propose to prevent the sanction of the Legislature 
being at any time extended to any such refusal. Now, 
sir, I know it maybe said that it is impossible to guard 
against difficulties of this kind, and to prevent all 
monetary and commercial I’evulsions. Sir, 1 am well 
aware that monetary difficulties always will occur in 


every commercial country. I know, too, if we do 
away with corporations, we shall have individual fail¬ 
ures. I am aware that difficulties in eveiy country 
where monetary transactions are extended, are con¬ 
stantly occurring, but it is right, nay it is highly im¬ 
portant to declai’e that the sanction of law should not 
be given to any thing which can assist in the creation 
of these difficulties. 

Cth. “The Legislature shall jn-ovide by law for the 
registry of all bills or notes, issued or circulated as 
money, and shall require ample security for the re¬ 
demption of said bills or notes, in specie.” 

Now, sir, at the first glance, this may look like a de¬ 
parture from the general principles laid down at the 
commencement, in presenting my resolutions, that 
trade in money should, so far as possible, be regulated 
by the same laws which regulate trade in any other 
commodity, yet as trade of every kind has its peculi¬ 
arities, so trade in money has also its own. One of 
these peculiarities is that it more particularly concerns 
in its ramifications, the interests of the whole commu¬ 
nity, than any other branch of trade whatever, and 
for this reason that power which provides for the 
wants of the community, and which has a right and 
which ou^ht to look out for the safety and the well be¬ 
ing of it, is in duty bound to provide some measure for 
regulating this trade, so that it may be really benefi¬ 
cial and not detrimental to society. It should provide 
'therefore, ample security for the bill holders, and it 
consists in having a fund placed where it is accessible 
not to those engaged in issuing money, but to those 
who supervise the well-being of the community—a 
fund by which the notes cii'culated throughout the 
community, as money, will be redeemed at their spe¬ 
cie value. Now, sir, in what can this fund be made 
to consist ? It may consist in the bonds of the State, 
deposited with the authorities of the State; it may con¬ 
sist in the bonds of the several counties ; it may con- 
.sist in the deposits of individuals ; all these together 
furnish an amount of capital upon which may be 
based a paper circulation, and which has the additional 
advantage of bringing into active use, an amount of 
capital which would otherwise remain dead and inac¬ 
tive, producing little or no beneficial elfecls to society. 
Another question arises, Mr. rresident,in regard to this 
trade in money, whether it would be right to limit the 
whole amount—the aggregate amount of circulation of 
the various corporations of the State ? 

Now, this is an important question. I believe, how¬ 
ever, sir, that there is no necessity for placing a maxi- 
urn sum as a limit to the aggregate sum of money to 
be issued in this Stale. I believe that these are mat¬ 
ters which can regulate themselves, provided you take 
away all those improper trammels which have hereto¬ 
fore hedged it in. One of these great evils is the fixed, 
stated rates of interest which we have to pay to banks 
of loan and discount. In regard to this trade in money, 

I am in favor of hedging it in with just as few tram¬ 
mels as are absolutely necessary. 1 know here I run 
counter to a great deal of the common prejudice of the 
community. But I believe I am stating a great truth. 

1 do not see any reason why the price of the use of 
money should be limited any mure than tlie price of a 
horse or any commodity in the market whatever. All 
usuaiy laws are therefore unnecessary—they are in 
themselves unjust. Instead of being calculated to bene¬ 
fit the people, they are emphatically an injury to them. 

It is a remarkable fact that no usuai-y laws have en¬ 
sured the ends for which they were passed, because 
they go against the great principles of trade which 
will not lend themselves to be shackled. For this rea¬ 
son the different corporations of the State ought to be 
guided only by the simple laws of trade, which allow 
the price of commodities always to increase in propor¬ 
tion as the demand becomes large, and thus you do 
away at once with the necessity for limiting the aggre¬ 
gate amount of money to be issued by the various cor¬ 
porations of the State—because competition will regu - 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


137 


late this matter here as it has every where else. It 
will regulate two great things, the price ol’ the com¬ 
modity and the quality in the market, the rate of in¬ 
terest to be paid for money, and the amount of money 
which is or which can be kept in circulation. 

The last proposition is this— 

“No act of the Legislature authorising corporations 
or associations with banking powers, shall go into ef¬ 
fect, or in any manner be in force, unless the same, 
after being published, in at least one newspaper in 
each county of the State where any newspaper is pub¬ 
lished, for three months next preceding the election 
for members of the Legislature, shall at such election, 
next succeeding the passage of the same, be approved 
and voted for by a majority of all the electors voting 
at such election.” 

This is a veiy important matter, and in accordance 
with the suggestion made by some gentleman n[)on 
this iloor, I would be willing to see a provision of this 
kind incorporated upon a large number of the acts of 
our Legislature—that it should be necessary for them 
to be submitted to the revision of the people, and 
passed a second time by the legislative body before 
they would become efficient. It is especially more ne- 
cessaiy in a matter which so largely, intimately and 
vitally concerns the whole community, as does the 
whole system of banking. 

Now, sir, the provisions made in the last section of 
the resolutions which I have submitted to the Conven¬ 
tion, give in this way the highest possible sanction to 
legislative bodies—the sanction of the people, brought 
together directly and expressly for giving an opinion 
upon this subject. We shall not then have this com¬ 
plaint of hasty legislation upon acts of this kind. We 
shall no longer have the complaint wo have frequently 
heard, that banking charters, and laws providing for 
corporations have been passed through legislative 
bodies by improper inllueuce, because no such influ¬ 
ence can be brought to bear upon the great mass of the 
people, nor, as a general rule, be bi’ought to bear upon 
the succeeding Legislature. 

Now sir, 1 Submit these resolutions to the committee 
upon Banks and the Currency. I submit them with 
the assurance which I have in my own mind, that a sys¬ 
tem of corporations even possessed of banking powers 
is capable of being framed, which will be beneficial to 
the people of this State—which will supply them with 
a good currency ; which will supply them wdth that 
which has become so completely incorporated in their 
whole system of commercial and I might almost say 
their system of social life, so entirely and completely 
conected with them that you cannotif you would, sepa¬ 
rate it from them. That such a system which might 
be beneficial, may be attained without the known dif- 
culties and changes which have effected the old sys¬ 
tem, a system which will recommend itself by the ad¬ 
vantages which it will carry with it, and recommend 
itself to the whole community, I firmly believe. With 
these feelings I move to refer the resolution number 
4, to the committee on Banks and the Currency. 

Mr. MITCHELL said he certainly had not designed 
to have said anything on the subject at this stage of the 
proceedings of the Convention. He had not expected 
any occasion for it, nor did he now purpose to enter 
into any discussion of the great and important subject 
that Mas here brought before the Convention. He 
simply rose to add a remark by way of protestation, on 
behalf of the democracy, against the insidious and de¬ 
ceptive theory here put ibrih in the shape of a demo¬ 
cratic theory. There were abundance of gentlemen on 
the^ opposite side o+’ the House fully alile to sustain 
their side of the question, and if the duty wez'e de¬ 
volved on them they would walk up to the mark. But 
80 long as they found members straggling from this side 
of the House, volunteering to their assistance, they 
would .sit quiet, as they did yesterday and thus far to¬ 
day—not a word would drop from them. If they could 
catch all such straggling members, they would save the 


disturbance that they might create among his party. 
If a few more gentlemen, like the gentleman from 
Miami [Mr. Dors.p.y] should appear in the contest, as 
the geutlcman had done, gentlemen on the other side 
would be completely relieved from the necessity of 
ofiering any arguments on this subject. He called the 
attention of the gentleman from Miami [Mr. Dorsky] 
to the exhibition presented before him. He would ask 
him to look at the gentlemen smiling at the idea of the 
help they had received from a straggling member of 
the opposite side of the House. 

To the gentleman’s concluding remarks ho would say 
one word. To his other he would not now reply. He 
had said that “this system was so connected with the 
business of the country that they could not dispense 
with it.” That was an argument he had heard from 
many lips very often. It was not a modern argument 
at all. It was not a new discovery that the gentleman 
had made in his latter days or since his boyhood, and 
he would beg to tell the gentleman that it was not 
original. It was an argument that was made before 
he was born. It was the very argument used nearly 
half a century ago in England, and it was the very ar¬ 
gument that had beed used in this chamber by a very 
disliuguished man, whose name had obtained immor¬ 
tality by reason of its connection with the infamous 
banking system that had been thrown upon the State 
of Ohio. As he was on the subject he would remark 
that when that system was rightly understood, it was 
nothing under heaven but a scheme and device of 
Satan. It was a scheme of rapacity. It was nothing 
but a cloak for usury. It ever had been so used and 
ever would be, until time should be at an end, or rath¬ 
er untl the system itself had an end, which he humbly 
trusted would be long before time should draw to a 
close with most of us. 

The gentleman had talked about a revolution in this 
system and the money market. When gentlemen talk¬ 
ed of such things he was reminded of the revolutions 
in the regions of the damned. It was nothing but an 
eternal revolution from iniquity to iniquity, and it 
would so remain, until they removed the infamous sys¬ 
tem from amongst mankind. 

He had no objection to the reference of the proposi¬ 
tion. He would give it his full consideration. It might 
be collected from what he had heretofore said on the 
subject what kind of consideration he would give the 
proposition. He, for one, would let it remain where 
it was. 

Mr. MANON did not expect to make a bank speech, 
or any other kind of a speech ; indeed he would pledge 
himself never to occupy the attention of the Conven¬ 
tion for more than five minutes at any one time. But 
he merely wished to say that he did not wish to have 
his Democracy measured by the gentleman Irorn Knox 
[Mr. Mitchell’s] half bushel. To his constituents, 
and to them only, was ho accountable for his course in 
this body. 

Mr. DORSEY observed that some little excitement 
a’ipeared to have been created by the remarks he h^ 
made. The principal reason of his rising was to dis¬ 
claim at once any connection with his Satanic majesty 
in concocting this proposition; [laughter] however in¬ 
famous it may have appeared to the gentleman, it was 
not fabricated by any connection of the kind. He had 
said before that there were divisions in the Convention 
on the subject. But he held that this matter of cur¬ 
rency did not, or rather it need not divide the tvyo par¬ 
ties in this chamber. It had heretofore been a dividing 
line between the two pai ties, because there was a par¬ 
ty which was in favor ot all the abuses of the old cor¬ 
porations. Living in the midst ol a large whig com- 
munitv, acquainted and united with them and knowing 
their ^eelinc^s, he would say that while a portion of that 
party were to be found willing, openly or tacitly to sup¬ 
port those abuses, yet he was bound to say he had 
found the g -eat mass of his own party (he did not like 
to use the word party so frequently) as much op posed 











138 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


to the corruptions as those who ranged themselves nn- 
der the democratic banner. He was gHd to make 
these remarks here, because he considered it an lionor 
that it could be said that a large portion of both prirties 
were strongly and emphatically opposed to the old and 
conupt system that grew out of corporations. And, 
it was for the purpose of doing away with these evils 
that he formed this proposition ; not that it was per¬ 
fect and unsusceptible of amendment, but because it 
contained sentiments which he believed to be enter¬ 
tained by a large number of men of both parties. 
He would also say thatif asystem ofthiskind had been 
brought up and sujrported by the democratic party, as 
it w’ould have been by the whig party in 1845, they 
never would have seen the present system of banks, 
established in Ohio. He thought the plan proposed 
was one which would be liable to but very few of the 
objections which lay against the old system. 

Mr. SMITH (doubtfully heard,) of Wyandot hoped 
that the gentleman wouht withdraw his motion. There 
was a choice in bad things, and he would like to know 
the time and place in which they would make that 
choice. It might as well be determined at one sitting, 
as to whether or not they would expend a large amount 
of time to no purpose. He would ask the gentleman 
to withdraw, in order to olfer an amendment to the pro¬ 
position. 

Mr. DORSEY withdrew his motion to refer. 

The following amendment was then read: 

Strikeout all after the second proposition, and insert 
the following: “ 3d. That no future Legislature shall 
have the p jwer to pass any law authorizing any corpo¬ 
ration or individual to issue any promissory note or oth¬ 
er evidence of debt, to circulate as money.” 

THE LEGISLALIVE DEPAUTMENT. 

On motion by Mr. RE EMELIN, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into committee of the whole, [Mr. Haw¬ 
kins in the chair,] and took up the consideration of the 
report from the committee on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment, which was made by Mr. SAWYER on Monday. 

Ihe report was read through by Mr. Chairman, and 
was as follows: 

ARTICLE I.—OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER. 

Sec. J. The legislative power of this State shall be vested in a 
Genera] Assemby, which shall consist of a Senate and House of 
Representatives, both to be elected by the people. 

Sec. 2. The representatives shall be elected biennially by the 
electors in each county, on the second Tuesday of October. 

Sec. 3. ^ No person shall be a representative unless he possess 
the qualification of an elector, and have attained the age of 
twenty-fivt! years. Ho shall also have resided within the limits of 
the county in which he shall be chosen, one year next preceding 
his election, unless he shall have been absent on public business. 

Sec. 4. Senators shall be chosen biennially by the electors in 
each Senatorial district, respectively. Their term of office shall 
be lour years, and on their being convened in consequence of 
their first election, they shall be divided by lot from their respec¬ 
tive districts, as near as can be, into two classes; the seats of 
Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of 
two years, and of the second class at the expiration of four years, 
so that one hall thereof, as near as possible, shall be chosen bien¬ 
nially, thereafter. 

Sec. 5. The qualifications for a Senator shall be the same as 
for a Representative, except that he shall have resided in the re 
spective senatorial district two years pi-ecediug his election ; and 
shall have attained the age of thirty years. 

Sec. 6. Eacly House shall be the judge of the elections, re¬ 
turns and qualifications of its members. Two-thirds of each 
House shall be a quorum to do business, but a smaller number 
may adjourn from day to day, and be authorized to compel the 
attendance ol absent members, in such manner and under such 
penalties as may be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 7. Each House shall choose its own officer.s, and may de¬ 
termine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for dis¬ 
orderly conduct; and with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel 
a member, but not he second time for the same cause ; and each 
House shall have all other powers necessary to provide for its 
safety and lor the undisturbed transaction of its business. 

Bec. 8. Each House shall keep a correct journal of its pro 
ceedings, and take efficient means to publish the same ; the yeas 
and nays shall, at the desire of any two members, be entered up¬ 
on the journal, and on the passage of every bill, in either House, 
the question shall be taken by yeas and nays, and entered upon 
the journal, and no law shall be passed without a concurrence of 
a majority of all the members elected to each House. 

Sec. 9. The printing of the laws, journals, bills and other le¬ 
gislative documents for each branch of the Legislature, together 


with the printing required for the executive department, end of¬ 
ficers of tr'talr', Shall he let on contract to the lowest responsible 
bidder, by the secretary, treasurer and auditor of state; the con¬ 
tract to continue for two k'gislative terms; and the mode and 
manner to be proscribed by law. n -u i. 

Sec. 10. Any two members of either House, shall have the 
right to dissent from and protest against any act or resolution, 
which they may think injurious to the public or any individual, 
and such iirotost shall be entered upon the journal. 

8ec. 11. All vacancies which may happen in either House, 
shall, as soon as possible, be filled b}' an election, and the Governor 
shall issue the necessary v rits of election according to law. 

fcEC. 12. Senators and Representatives shall, in all cases ex. 
cept treason, felony or breach of peace, be privileged from arrest, 
during the .session of the General Assembly, and in going to and 
returning from the same, and for any speech or debate in either 
House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. 

Sec. 13. The proceedings ot both Houses shall be public at 
all times, except in such cases, as in the opinion of a majority 
of two-thirds of those present require secresy. 

Sec. 11. Neither House shall, without the consent of the oth¬ 
er, adjourn for more than two days, nor to any other place than 
that in which the tw’o Houses shad be in session. 

Sec. 15. Bills may originate in either House, hut may be al¬ 
tered, amended or rejected in the other, provided, however, that 
all bills providing for the raising of revenue or for any appro¬ 
priation of public money, shall originate in the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives. 

Sec. 16. Every bill shall be fully and distinctly read on three 
difierent days, unless in case of urgency, tliree-fourtlis of the 
House, in which the question shall be pending, shall deem it ex¬ 
pedient to dispense with this iTile, and every bill shall contain but 
one act, embrace but one object, which shall be clearly expressed 
on its title, and no law shall be revised or amended by reference 
to its title, hut in such case the act or part of an act revised or 
amended, shall be engrafted into the new act, and published at 
length. 

Sec. 17. The style of the laws of this State shall be—“Be it 
enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio.” 

Sec. 18. The General Assembly shall by la v fix the term of 
office ot all officers, not otherwise fixed in the constitution, and 
determine upon and regulate the compensation of all such offi¬ 
cers, provided that no change therein shall affect the incumbent 
then in office for the term of office for which he shall have been 
elected or appointed. 

Sec. 19. No Senator or Representative shall, during the term 
for which he shall have been elected, nor during the period of 
one year subsequent to the expiration of his term of office, be 
elected or appointed to any civil ofiice under this State, which 
shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have 
been increased during the term for which he was elected, nor 
shall any such Senator or Representative during such period be 
appointed or elected by the General Assembly to any other office 
whatever. 

Sec. 20. No tax of any description whatever shall be levied oi 
exacted, except in pursuance of law, and every law which impo¬ 
ses, continues, increases or revives any tax, or which provides 
for the raising of revenue, shall state distinctly the object of the 
same, to which only it shall be applied. 

Sec. 21. No money shall he drawn from the treasui-y, except 
in pursuance of a distinct and specific appropriation made by 
law, and no appropriation shall be made for a longer period than 
two years. 

Sec. 22. An accurate and detailed statement of the receipts 
and expenditures of the public money, and ol' the names of the 
persons who shall have received the same, and the amount they 
have received shall annually be published. 

Sec. 23. The House ot Representatives shall have the sole 
power of impeachment, but a majority of all the Representatives 
must concur in the impeachment. All impeachments shall be 
tried by the Senate, and when sitting for that purpose, the Sena¬ 
tors shall be upon oath or affirmation to do justice according to 
law and evidence ; no person shall be convicted without the con¬ 
currence of two-thirds of the Senators. 

Sec. 24. The Governor and all civil officers under this State, 
shall be liable to impeachment for any misdemeanor in office, but 
judgment in such case shall not extend further than removal from 
office, and disqualification to bold any office of trust, honor or 
profit. The party, whether convicted or not, shall nevertheless be 
liable to indictment, trial and judgment according to law. 

Sec. 25. All regular sessions of the General Assembly shall 
commence on the first Monday in January, biennially. 

Sec. 26. No person holding any office under the authority of 
tlie United States, or any office under the authority of this State, 
the emoluments or compensation of which exceed one hundred 
dollars, shall be eligible as a candidate for, nor have a seat in ei¬ 
ther house of the General Assembly. 

Sec. 27. No person shall be elected or appointed to any office 

in this State, unless he possesses the qualifications of an elector. 

Sec. 28. No person, who shall be convicted of a defalcation or 
embezzlement of the public funds, shall be capable of holding any 
office of trust, honor or profit; nor shall any person holding any 
public money for disbursement or otherw ise, have a seat in either 
house of the General Assembly until such person shall have ac¬ 
counted for and paid into the treasury all money for which he 
may be accountable or liable. 

Sec. 29. No bill of divorce shall ever be granted by the Gen¬ 
eral A.sspmbly, nor shall any other judicial power, except the pow- 














CONVENTION llEPOliTS. 139 


er connected with impeachment, ever be exercised by the General 
As'einbly. 

Sec. 30. Columbus shall be the seat of government; until oth¬ 
erwise ordered by law, 

Sec. 31. No power of suspending laws shall bo exercised, un¬ 
less by the Generd Assembly, nor shall any law be passed contin¬ 
gent upon the approval or disapproval of any other authority, ex¬ 
cept as provided in this constitution. 

t'Ec 32. The appointment of all civil officers not otherwise di¬ 
rected by this constitution, shall be made in such maniu r as may 
be directed by law; provided, however, that no appointing power 
shall ever be vested in, or exercised by the General Assembly. 

Sec. 33. No person who shall light a duel or assist in the same 
as second, or otherwise, shall be eligible to or capable of holding 
any office of trust, honor or profit. 

Eec. 34. Lotteries and the sale of lottery tickets for any pur¬ 
pose whatever, shall forever be prohibited in this State. 

Sec. 35. The General Assembly shall have no power to pass 
retro-activ e laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts or 
their remedies. 

Sec. 36. The General Assembly shall provide for the creation 
and government of municipal corporations by general imd uni¬ 
form laws. 

Sec. 37. The General Assembly shall never authorize the pay¬ 
ment of any extra compensation to any officer, public agent, or 
central tor, after the service shall have been rendered or the con¬ 
tract entered into, nor grant by appropriation or otherwise any 
amount of money to any individual on any claim, real or preten¬ 
ded, when the same shall not have been provided for by pre¬ 
existing laws. 

Sec. 38. The General Assembly shall, by law, provide for the 
organization of a board of select men for each county, to consist 
of a delegate from each township and w'ard, to be elected annu¬ 
ally by the people thereof, in which board the General Assembly 
shall vest such local legislative power over all matters which 
concern such county exclusively. 

Sec. 39. Private property shall ever be held inviolate, and no 
private! property shall ever be taken for public use, unless the 
public good imperatively demands it, but in all cases, full and ad¬ 
equate compensation in money shall lirst be made to the owner. 

Sec. 40. Every person who shall be chosen or appointed to 
any office of trust, honor or profit under this State, shall, before 
entering on the execution thereof, take an oath or affirmation to 
support the constitution of the United States, and of this State- 
and also an oath of office. 

The consideration of the second resolution being 
announced by the Chairman— 

Mr. KING said—It had been his intention, when the 
report came up for consideration, to oiler some amend¬ 
ment to the first section, but, upon reflection, he pre¬ 
ferred to waive the opportunity—being desirous first 
to hear the members of the committee express them¬ 
selves upon the proposition for the apportionment of 
Senators. He was understood, also, to prefer to with¬ 
hold his amendment till after the proper committee 
should report upon the same subject. If it should ap¬ 
pear that the committee could not report satifactorily. 
It would only offer an additional argument that the 
single branch is the best. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. If the gentleman had matured 
his proposition—if he has really light and knowledge 
upon the subject, why not make it known, and let us 
have the benefit of it? 

Mr. HOLMES moved to amend by striking out from 
the first section after the word “ Representatives,” the 
•words “both to be elected by the peojile.” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. We had a committee on the elec¬ 
tive Franchise to report, who should constitute the 
electors of the State, and in the second section of this 
report it was provided that the representatives should 
be elected by electors in each county ; also, in another 
section it was provided that the Senators should be 
elected by the electors. And now, here it was pre¬ 
scribed that Senators and Representatives should be 
elected by the people. Well, since women and chil¬ 
dren, and colored persons were people, [laughter,] 
there might be some mi-sconstruction of the sense, and 
tlicrefore it would be better, perhaps, to strike out the 
words. They were entirely unnecessary, if not con¬ 
tradictory to the other sections of the proposition. 
[Several voices—“ all right”—“ agreed.”] 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. ROBERTSON moved to amend further by stri¬ 
king out from the first section the words “ Senator 
and,” so as to read, “ which shall con.sist of a House 
of Representatives.” 

The amendment was rejected—Mr. Archbold ad¬ 


dressing the Chair (unobserved) while the question 
was taken. 

On motion by Mr. STANTON, this vote was recon¬ 
sidered, in order to give Mr. Archbuld an opportunity 
to speak upon Mr. Robertson’s motion ; aiul the ques¬ 
tion recurring upon the adoption of the amendment— 

Mr. ARCH BOLD said he would like to know of the 
gentleman his reasons for making the motion to strike 
out. 

Mr. ROBERTSON [in his seat] said he did not care 
about offering any reasons now. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD proceeded. He understood the 
gentleman from Fairfield felt satisfied with what he 
had said on yesterday, and did not desire to be heard 
again. He was hoping for further enlightenment from 
that gentleman. Being a pupil in the great school of 
the world, he w'as always glad to be instructed. But 
the gentleman had said many things in his speech yes¬ 
terday which were interesting to his mind; and he 
was willing to give him in return, the result of his own 
reflections. Now, the gentleman from Fairfield, like a 
good many other speakers, in his discursive way, went 
a great distance back into the origin of things; and he 
said a good many hard things about aristocracy, and 
aristocratic leaders—with an evident application of his 
remarks, which he [Mr. A.] understood. Now, he was 
very sensitive upon that subject, and unwiliingto incur, 
as he was unwilling to submit to any such censure. 
He claimed to be of the simon pure Democracy; and 
when any gentleman came up here to despoil him of 
that claim, he was prepared to debate the ground with 
him, and he would dispute it inch by inch: he would 
make it a matter of war to the knife : he would draw 
the sword, throw away the scabbard, and exclaim— 

-“ Lay on ! Lay on Macduff, 

And damned be he who first cries. Hold! Enough !” 

He did not intend to let the gentleman from Fail field 
bear away the palm of Democracy from all seekers for 
the prize. 

The gentleman had made the discovery that the Sen¬ 
ate was of aristocratic origin. It was true, he did not 
place his discovery exactly upon the ground that he (Mr. 
A.) was willing to place it. But should we disregard a 
good thing on account of its origin ? Why, how camo 
we to the enjoyment of the present advantages result¬ 
ing from the improvements in chemistry? These dis¬ 
coveries had their origin with’the alchymists conjuring 
with the devil to find out the philosopher’s stone, and 
the elixir of life. And should we reject all improve¬ 
ments in that science on account of the origin of the 
discoveries which led to them? Roger Bacon invented 
gunpowder, which may be applied to the destruction of 
human life ; but it may also be applied to the valuable 
purpose of quarrying rocks for building. Should we 
deprive ourselves of the advantages of gunpowder, 
because of the evil purposes to which it has been ap¬ 
plied ? But Francis Bacon has arisen, telling us to in¬ 
quire into nature, and ascertain to what good purpose 
every element, and every invention, whether of a good 
man or a bad man, may be applied ; and reasoning in 
accordance with his system of philosophy, it would not 
be hard to prove that two branches of the Legislature 
might be advantageously employed, although he admit¬ 
ted that the principle had a bad origin, a thousand years 

°The gentleman from Fairfield clainied, that m 1846, 
he was a pioneer in siqiport of the principle of an elec¬ 
tive judiciaiw ; but in this, unfortunately, the gentleman 
was at least four or five years behind the Lmes. [Laugh¬ 
ter.] If he will go into the old county ot Monroe, he 
will find that the doctrine of the election ol judges by 
the people was advocated by the Demociatic newspa¬ 
per there years before the time when he became a con- 

to the question. In the first place his reason for 
believin" that the second branch might be employed 
upon democratic principles, was to be found in the 
complaint on all hands, that we possessed too many 








140 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


laws. The people told US that we not only passed our 
laws with too much facility, but we repealed them too 
fast—especially that we repealed them too fist. These 
complaints were in the mouths of justices of the peace, 
constables, and civil officers of every description—even 
lawyers themselves felt like some bewildered wild boy 
endeavoring to find his way through forests with which 
he was unacquainted, because the farmers had fenced 
up the old blazed track 

Now, as to the two branches of the Legislature, we 
did not propose to elect more men to both than per¬ 
haps the gentleman would send up to his single branch. 
We propose to divide into two branches for the purpose 
of securing a more mature deliberation upon all the 
subjects ol legislation, and providing a check, so that 
our laws shall be passed and repealed with less facility 
—particularly that they shall be rejiealed with loss fa¬ 
cility. Now, we all know that in every legislative body 
there were leading men who would become acquaint¬ 
ed with their rules and members and establish an influ¬ 
ence in it; and that such men could get anything pass¬ 
ed they might ask for. In the caseof the single branch 
Legislature instances of difficulty of this kind would 
multiply, and the second branch, if not useful for any¬ 
thing else, it would be useful for keeping down such 
influences. For when a bill gets into another branch, 
where it did not originate, it was always required to 
pass through a new ordeal, and it would not have the 
same chances to pass as in the house where it originates, 
unless good cause can be shown why it should pass. 
Hence, in point of fact, two branches in the Legislature 
are beneficial to each other, because they f prevent a 
multiplication of statutes, and do something certainly 
towards meeting the complaints against the size and 
bulk of the law books—tending to the same state of 
things which existed in Rome in the days of her latter 
emperors. It was said that Justianian, when he framed 
his code, found the statutes to consist of a good many 
camel’s loads, and a good many wagon loads. 

But there was yet one point upon which he intended 
to dispute the palm of Democracy with the gentleman 
from Fairfield. He would ask the gentleman to re¬ 
consider what he had said about his democratic side 
of the issue, and see if there is not another side of it 
which might be called the aristocracy ; and which, 
like the apples of the lake Asphaltes, appear very 
pleasant to the eye, but are pleasant in appearance 
only. But which side stands the Simon pure ? The 
gentleman will have but one House, because ho wants 
to bring matters nearer to the people. If that were 
his great object, let him be consistent. Why did he 
agree to the proposition to elect Representatives only 
once in two years, instead of every year ? Would not 
that be bringing the matter nearer to the people ? 
Certainly it would; evidently: undeniably. But now 
our object was really to get as near the people as pos¬ 
sible that the Representatives may be very sensitive— 
having a quick understanding to perceive the popular 
impulse and give instant effect to that impulse. He 
had not heard the gentleman raise his voice against the 
biennial provision. Upon this j^oint the gentleman 
had surely been lost to his duty—had been asleep at 
his post. It was certainly democratic for a legislative 
body to reflect the popular will instantaneously, as 
near as may be; and upon the gentleman's principles 
the object would be subserved much better by annual 
sessions, than biennial sessions. So a session evei-y 
six months, or every quarter, would bring legislation 
so much nearer the people than only one session in a 
year. These propositions were self-evident. The 
gentleman could not avoid the force of them. It was 
very plain that if we desired every popular impulse to 
go into a law, the Legislature should meet quartely, or 
semi-annually—nr otherwise many a popular impulse 
must fail to find its place in the statutes. This, to his 
mind, was very much like the gentleman’s mathemati- 
.cal demonstration. 

But the inquiry was, which has the time democracy 


—the Ohio valley or the Hocking valley ? What was 

the consequence of bringing the Legislature nearer 
the people? What was the consequence of getting 
populariinj)ul8e8 into the Legislature? We could get 
enough of them. There was no scarcity of the com¬ 
modity. Because there are always cunning men 
enough to be found in every distj’ict, who manufacture 
a sort of public opinion in a single month. But it re¬ 
quired usually a long time to arrive at any pnr<3 ex¬ 
pression of the poj)ular will from those of our fellow- 
citizens who drive the plow, and lift the axe and 
wield the sledge with their stalwart arms; it required 
some time to get up a free and pure expression ot the 
popular will from these soui’ces. And such were the 
true and reliable sources of popular opinion. The 
truth was, tlie gentleman was providing for an actual 
aristocracy in popular guise. Who could not see that 
the sharj), the cunning, and the knowing men, habitu¬ 
al office hunters aud bar-room politicians—men of sin¬ 
ister designs, who can manufacture home-made thun¬ 
der and lightning with the greatest facility, would be¬ 
come the leaders in eveiy section of the country. 
Ilaving little else to do, they can visit the taverns aud 
talk politics. He could tell the gentleman that he was 
advancing in the road to aristocracy. _ He was reced¬ 
ing from i-epublicanism, and approaching an oligarchy 
—a government, the actual springs of which would be 
found in those sharp and cunning men, who cau al¬ 
ways get an inkling of things a little faster than others. 

He would tell the gentleman from Fairfield that “ as 
the tyrants of old prevailed by force, so modern specu¬ 
lators prevail by fraudand when this Convention 
could listen with approbation to the syren voices of the 
new teachers upon this subject, they would already 
have made a large stride toward the establishment of 
an actual aristocracy. 

An aristocracy in popular form was an insiduous 
thing. Despotisms aud aristocracies always arose in 
this way. None but dolts, none but drivellers would 
be in a hurzy to throw off the mask, until it was per¬ 
fectly safe to throw it off. Augustus, when he was 
master of the world, kept his place in the Senate, wore 
the garb of a citizen, avoided all ostentation; and on¬ 
ly claimed a first place amongst equals. Content with 
despotic power, he despised its mere trap])ings. Au¬ 
gustus was not so foolish as James the First, who was 
always magnifying his own power, aud challenging 
the absolute obedience of his subjects, while he de¬ 
lighted in gewgaws and trinkets, and wore about him 
all the ])araphcrna]ia of royalty. But the Roman ty¬ 
rant, while he exercised a jzower the most despotic 
and searching, always wore the })laiiiest garb in the 
Senate, and whenever he would rise in that Assembly 
to address them used the most respectful and insinua¬ 
ting language to the Conscript Fathers, his fellow-citi¬ 
zens. 

He would not pretend to say that the gentleman 
from Fairfield had advanced a proposition which could 
not be sustained by argument. Every man could lay 
down general principles, and make fair deductions; 
and upon this subject of republicanism, the point was, 
to know what was exactly necessary to constitute a 
fair expression of the will of the people. The middle 
course is best. Extremes meet. Gentlemen of ultra 
opinions in politics were too frequently found canyiug 
the matter too far—when, as Milton says, ‘'We come 
to the point where gravitation turns ’tolher way.” It 
seemed to him that the gentleman was making danger¬ 
ous advances in that road. He had no doubt that the 
farmers—the substantial bone and sinew of the coun¬ 
try, would have far less influence, under the gentle¬ 
man’s system, than the noisy street demagogue. The 
aristocrat always pz’oceeded in this way. He alvyays 
carried on his designs under popular forms until he 
finds it safe to throw off the mask. Whenever he wants 
to set up a real aristocracy he will be full of chuckliugs 
about home goveniment, the dear people, and he vvill 
rally his followers under a flag painted all over with 
popular forms. 
















141 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Now, he was willing to attribute all honesty of purpose 
to the gentleman from Fairlield; but would say to him 
that this cant about aristocracy was a little invidious, 
and contained an inuendo, such as—'‘you are notcpiite 
so much attached to the true Democt-acy as lam.” Now, 
he, [Mr. A.] preferred to take it for granted that we 
were all, every one of us, attached to the dear people 
as much as possible; [laughter,] and that we loved 
them most cordially and would make every effort in 
our power, as much as possible, to advance the dear 
people’s interests. [Continued merriment.] 

But, we have another class of men who would be 
found the most dillicult to manage. He meant the pa¬ 
triots. [Renewed laughter.] Whenever any actual 
aristocracy was prevailing, such as the old law of im¬ 
prisonment for debt, the system of entails, or the law 
of primogeniture, then was the time for these patriots 
to grow and flourish. Then they might be useful. Then 
they were in clover. But whenever abuses were all 
abolished, whenever equality was perfectly established, 
so that nothing more could be done to i*elieve the peo¬ 
ple, and gravitation began to turn t’ other way, then it 
was that more than all other men in the world, these 
patriots were entitled to the sympathies of all good men. 
They would be taken so all-aback, and look so woe¬ 
begone, that no man could withhold his sympathies. 
Whenever the authority of the laws had been weaken¬ 
ed just as far asit could be without running far into ab¬ 
solute licentiousness, then it was that these patriots 
were bad off. Then these gentlemen found themselves 
at the said spot “ where gravitation turned the other 
way.” But still they would proceed; that was habit 
He would give an illustration. These patriots were now 
calling upon the country and saying: “ don’t let these 
land monopolists have more than 80 acres a piece; and 
if they should happen to get more, you ought to send 
a commission to inquire into it.” They did not want 
it retro-active law now. Oh, no! only a prospective 
one, so that if a man gets eigthy-wie acres, government 
may send a commission and confiscate the odd acre. 
Or if a man purchases eighty acres in a rich alluvial val¬ 
ley, a government commission may go out to enquire 
whether it is not worth more than eighty acres on a 
poor hill-top, belonging to his neigh’oor, and reduce him 
to the right standard of value. 

According to the system, if a diligent and frugal man 
gets a little too much land either in quantity or value, 
a governmentcommission must issue to level him down¬ 
ward and place him upon an equality with other men. 
Now was it not a most plain and obvious result, that 
under such a system land must eventually sink in value, 
and this was proceeding on the principle of lowering 
the poor and of making every man poor, and keeping 
them so in order that we may love them. [Laughter.] 

But upon the supposition that this minute, meddling, 
intolerable despotism were established, he gave it as 
his opinion, that in less than half a century these same 
patriots would be employing the most indignant elo¬ 
quence to give it over to the unmitigated scorn and ha¬ 
tred of mankind; as an odious and abominable tyranny; 
would speak of it as an intolerable oppression, and 
would be willing to go for free trade in Icind and every 
thing else. He expressed again the hope, that no gen¬ 
tleman would understand him as attributing any inten¬ 
tional wrong, or unfairness to the gentleman from Fair- 
field, or to his argument; but he would tell that gen¬ 
tleman, that the reasonings of different men might lead 
them to different conclusions, and yet at the same lime, 
all of them remain true and faithful patriots. He 
would also tell that gentleman that this charge of aris¬ 
tocracy could be used both ways. It could be bandied 
as well on the one side, as on the other, and be carried 
on indefinitely, after the example of the French people 
in 1793, until the shoe-blacks might become aristocrats 
to the stable-boys. [A laugh.] Would the gentleman 
be so kind as to define and mark out the exact point 
where democracy leaves off and aristocracy begins? 

But, to be serious, we should pass over all these 


things and forget them, in our earnestness to find out, 
what will be lor the good of the State—what will best 
promote the happiness of this great people—and, what 
ought we to do with reference to the judgment, which 
in our own breasts, we shall pass upon our own con¬ 
duct at the period of old age and death? For if wo 
give way to these things, and allow ourselves to fall 
under the baleful influences of doctrines destructive to 
all rational freedom, the time may come when we shall 
have to exclaim with Madame Roland, when at the 
guillotine she saw the statue of Liberty: 

“ O Liberty ! what crimes have been committed in thy name !’' 

Mr. McCORMICK wished to be understood as dis¬ 
claiming any special title to patriotism. He did not 
pretend to any exclusive “ Simon pure ” democracy, 
lie could not, therefore, be included in the gentle¬ 
man’s category, and if the gentleman had intended his 
speech to apply to him, he had missed his mark. But 
the proposed amendment, the discussion of which was 
introduced by himself, he conceived demanded serious 
attention—time for thought—time for reflection—upon 
all the inferences and arguments that could be brought 
to bear upon the subject. For himself, he confessed 
that he was not prepared at this time to debate the 
question. He asked for time. He wanted time for 
deliberation and preparation. He did not wish to 
throw out any crude thoughts upon the committee, or 
upon the people of Ohio, tie w^as willing to admit 
that the beaten track was the best, and should be con¬ 
tinued until a better one might be devised; but not one 
suggestion had been intimated by the gentleman from 
Monroe. It hardly ajipeared from his remarks, that he 
was the father of a certain amendment which would, 
give the election of judges to the people, 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, interposing, said he did not claim 
to be the father of any policy—the election of judges or- 
any thing else. 

Mr. McCORMICK. That followed as a matter of 
course, in his mind. He, the gentleman from Monroe, 
was before the gentleman from Fairfield, in this and a 
great many other propositions ; and he was always un¬ 
der the impression that the gentleman from Monroe was 
the father of this particular one. But it seemed that 
the gentleman had not marked the pi’ogress of events 
during the last half century. There could be no doubt 
that the science of government was experimental, and 
all experimental sciences were capable of being per¬ 
fected from time to time. Advancements in the scien¬ 
ces of chemistry, medicine and all experimental sci¬ 
ence had been, in all time, and are still being developed 
to this very hour, and perhaps, during the last ten or 
fifteen years, more important developements have been 
made in these sciences than during the whole period of 
the preceding century and a half. And now, as he de¬ 
sired to know wdiat developements had taken place in 
the science of government, and appropriate them for 
the benefit of the State, he would ask the gentleman 
from Fairfield to withdraw his amendment for the pre¬ 
sent ; and if upon enquiry and reflection he should find 
that facts and arguments could be found to sustain it, 
and recommend it to the Convention, he would renew 
the motion. But if it could not be maintained, he 
hoped it would be lost. Nevertheless, if he was to be 
driven from his position at all, it must be done by facta . 
and reasoning; the shafts of ridicule could have no ef¬ 
fect upon him. 

On motion by Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, the 
committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave 
to sit again. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren moved that the Convention 
adjourn, but withdrew it, for the present, at the re¬ 
quest of 

The PRESIDENT, who announced that he had re¬ 
ceived a communication from the Secretary ot State, 
in answer to a resolution of inquiry passed by the Con¬ 
vention conceniing the census and enumeration. 

Mr. NASH moved that it be laid on the table and 
printed. 












142 


CONVENTION KEPORTS 


Mr. MANON liad nodonbt that every member of the 
Conveiuion would be glad to liave two or three addi¬ 
tional copies of the communication. 

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 

Mr. MANON then moved that five hundred and fifty 
copies be ordered to be printed. 

Mr. BENNETT of Tuscarawas wished to inquire 
what was the object of [irinting so many copies. 

Mr. MANON replied that members would require 
more than the ordinary number, perhaps. He himself 
would want some two or three copies—members 
might want copies to send to some edito or other. 

Mr. BENNETT of Tuscarawas would merely say that 
it stmck him as madness to print so many copies us 
was suggested. He admitted the propriety of printing 
for the use of the Convention. But it would be re¬ 
membered that a portion of the report was based only 
on an estimate, and consequently could not be certain. 
He saw, therefore, a great objection to distributing 
such information over the State. It might perhaps, al¬ 
though not correct, be sufficiently near so as to answer 
the purpose of the committee of the Convention. But 
by sending it abroad in its present shape, it struck liim 
that no great object could be attained. 

Mr. MANON remarked that the eypense of printing 
more than the usual number of copies ordered, would 
be very trifling. 

The question being on ordering the report to be 
printed, the House divided as follows—affirmative 51, 
negative 43. 

So the report was ordered to be printed. 

The question then tuniing on ordering five hundred 
and fifty copies to be published, was put and sus¬ 
tained. 

On motion of Mr. SMITH of Warren, the Conven¬ 
tion adjouiTied until 9 o’clock to-morrow morning. 


FRIDAY, May 24, 1850.—9, A. M. 

The Convention met at 9 o'clock, A. M. 

Mr. BAl'ES presented a memorial from the “Socie¬ 
ty of Friends” in Ohio, in relation to “injurious dis¬ 
tinctions on account of color,” and said the memorial 
contained no direct proposition for the action of the 
Convention. It was drawn out by the proposition 
lately made to effect the removal of the colored people 
now living in the State. 

The memorial was referred to the committee on the 
Preamble and the Bill of Rights. 

Mr. BATES also presented a memorial from the same 
body, asking the Convention to take measures to abo¬ 
lish capital punishment in this State, which w'as refer¬ 
red to the committee on the Judiciary. 

Mr. SAWYER said that he was charged with the 
presentation of a petition from F. Book and ninety-six 
citizens of Sandusky county, most of them Germans. 
The prayer of the petition w^as in effect, that the Con¬ 
vention order the publication of a portion of their pi’o- 
ceedings in the German language. He would ask that 
the petition be read by the Secretary for the informa¬ 
tion of the Convention. 

The petition w'as found to be drawm up in Gei'man, 
and the Secretary being unable to read it; 

At the request of Mr. Sawyer, it was read by Mr. 
Reemelin. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYFR, the petition was refer¬ 
red to the committee on Education. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD saitl that the committee on Miscel¬ 
laneous subjects had under consideration the memorial 
of Dr. A. Brooke of Clinton county,asking the abolition 
of all human government. The committee had direct¬ 
ed him to report back with the observation, that a com¬ 
pliance with the terms of the memorial would be a kind 
of political suicide—they would be abolishing them¬ 
selves, and hoped that the Convention would take no 
further action upon it. He moved tint the commit¬ 
tee be discharged from further consideration of the sub¬ 
ject, which w'as agreed to. 

Also, the petition of T. B. Lindsey and fifty-five citi¬ 


zens of Guernsey county, and Wm. Matthews and oth- ; 
ers, citizens of Jeflerson county, asking the insertion of | 
a clause in the new constitution to prevent the legaliza- i 
tion of the traffic in intoxicating liquors. The com¬ 
mittee, said Mr. Archbold, had given those petitions | 
much consideration. They thought that the sumptuary j 
laws were of very debatable expediency; but, they j 

came to the conclusion that the Convention should not i 

take any action on the subject, as they thought it with- 1 
in the discretion of the ordinary legislative powers. 

On motion, the committee was discharged from the i 
further consideration of the petitions. 

Also, the petition of G. R. Smith, of Cuyahoga county, | 

asking that a constitution be made without providing 
that any oatli be administered to any officer or witness 
by authority of this State. Mr. A. said that the com¬ 
mittee had the most respectful consideration of the 
scruples of their friends, the Quakers. How any one 
else, who believed in a great first cause, the friend of , 

virtue and the foe of vice, any one but an atheist could ' 

object to being reminded of his duties on such solemn 
occasions, the committee could not comprehend. i 

On motion, the committee was discharged from the i, 
further consideration of the petition. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the several petitions 
reported back were then laid on the table. j 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, from the committee on Privileges j 
and Elections, reported that the committee had had i i 
under consideration the certificate of Wm. Lawr,ence, , ■ 
and found him to be duly elected as a member of this 1 1 
Convention and entitled to a seat therein. 

The House concurred in the report. ; 

On the motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention re- ^ | 
solved itself into a 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, ! 

Mr. HAWKINS in the chair. 

The question under consideration was the amend- 
ment offered to the first section at the second line, of 
the report of the committee on the Legislative De¬ 
partment (recited above.) The pending amendment I 
read “ strike out Senate, and.” 

Mr. ROBERTSON said he had been requested by 
the gentleman from Adams [Mr. McCormick] to with¬ 
draw that amendment, as the gentleman desired to ad- : 
dress the committee at some future period on this sub- | 
ject. He x’ose merely to comply with his request, and ] 
lie would say that he would not have made the motion, 
had he been so fortunate as to have heard the remarks 
made on this subject by the gentleman from Butler, ! 
[Mr. King] who also desired to have it laid over for | 
future consideration. He supposed when proposing to 
amend the rejiort in regard to the Senate branch of the I 

Legislature, that it would elicit discussion as to the ' 

expediency of so amending. He therefore had not 
made the motion to offer any observations of his own I 

at that time, he had already presented some veiy dis- ' 

cursive remarks on the subject, without any prepara- j; 

tion on the spur of the moment. |; 

It might be expected that he would occupy the time j i 
of the committee in making some re[>ly to the peculiar I 
speech of the gentlemanfrom Monroe, [Mr. Archbold] ’ 
made on yesterday morning. To that gentleman he 
would say. that he had no desire to enter the lists and 
attempt to shiver a lance with him. Such a combat 
might be very amusing to the “outsiders” and per¬ 
haps to some of the “insiders,” and somewhat re¬ 
lieve the graver deliberations of this Convention—not¬ 
withstanding, he was not desirous of accepting the 
glove which the gentleman had thrown down. And 
although that gentleman had so much desired such a 
conflict, he must seek some other opponent- He did 
not purpose to enter upon any such “ Quixotic ” expe¬ 
ditions as that—for he had no desire either to encoun¬ 
ter wind-mills or giants. 

It was the singula* peculiarity of the gentleman from 
Monroe [Mr. Arc hr old] that when anything w'as said 
about the Legislature of Ohio, or about democracy, or 
about any doctrine or principle for which some demo- 










CONVENTION 


EEPORTS. 


143 


crutic characteristic was claimed, nud to which the 
gentleman objected, that the intention of all such ob¬ 
servations wa'i to make an attack on him in his legisla¬ 
tive capacity or democratic character. And under that 
impression the gentleman made his amusing declara¬ 
tion yesterday. He was not thinking of the gentleman’s 
democracy. He never alluded to Ins legislali’>e ca¬ 
reer. The thought never entered his mind of institu¬ 
ting a comparison between the democracy of Monroe 
and Fuirtield, or between the democracy of the mem¬ 
ber from Fuirtield [himself] and the democi'acy of the 
gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbolo,] or between 
the democracy of any two members in this body. The 
idea never entered his imagination to inquire whether 
that gendemau was soundly democratic or not. The 
people would dec de that question from his acts here. 

The proposition ot a single legislative body was well 
worthy of the attentive consideration of the members 
of the Convention, and in rising to wididraw his amend 
ment, he remarked that he was convinced investiga¬ 
tion would commend the proposed legislative reform 
to their judgments, and although it might be consider¬ 
ed new, it was not visionary, nor so theoretical that it 
would not pos^ ess many advantages over the double 
legislative assembly, when applied practically. lie 
hoped the proposition would receive the unprejudiced 
consideration of the members of this Convention. He 
would now ask leave to withdraw his motion to amend. 

Mr. SAWYER would rather, under the circumstan¬ 
ces, that proposition would not be withdrawn, bi-cause 
upon that one thing depended a good dei 1 ot their de¬ 
liberation. It occurred to him that it would be better 
for the committee to give some intimation by a vote 
whether it expected to retain that provision or not. 
The next section of the report, and indeed almost eve¬ 
ry other section, hung upon the striking out of these 
two words, “ Senate and.” He would state here that 
he was opposed to striking out. He believed that the 
safety of the guvernmeat and of the people required 
that there should be two branches in the General As¬ 
sembly. They were aware, who listened to some re¬ 
marks made the other day on the veto power, that he 
was not disposed to give into the hands of the execu¬ 
tive any extraordinai y power on that subject And he 
gave his reasons very frankly, but they would not 
weigh a feather in the scale if he were not convinced 
that it was necessary. The re;-ort proposed that two 
branches of the Legislature were to be provided lor— 
to be elected by the people. One was to act as a check 
upon the hasty legislation of the other. Ho would 
hero say that he hoped the committee on the E.xecu- 
tive Department would introduce into their report a 
provision creating the office of Lieutenant Governor. 
He was decidedly in favor of it. 

In the House of Representatives, according to the 
provisions of the report, all appropriation bills would 
originate—they were to be passed by a majority of all 
the Representatives and then sent to the other branch : 
so, that if any thing improper should be discovered in 
the^bills during their transit from the one body to the 
other it would be corrected in the upper branch. He 
proposed that they elect those two branches by sec¬ 
tional divisions of the State, and that there should be a 
LieutenantGovernor elected by the [)eople, who would 
act as President of the Senate. And, when a bill sent 
from the House to the Senate was considered, and a 
tie vot<i occurred, he jiroposed that thatofiicer elected 
by the people should have the power of giving the cast¬ 
ing vote. By that means, the people were heard twice 
in their Repiesentative cajmeity; and this would, iu his 
opinion, entirely obviate ail necessity for an nnquali- 
lied veto power. He thought it necessary therefore to 
take a test vote now whether or not they would decide 
on one or two branches in the Legislature. Ifthey 
had but one branch and no Lieutenant Governor, the 
necessity would exist to a very great extent, for the ve¬ 
to power in the hands of the Governor. But inquire 
into to the democracy if those measures was alto¬ 


gether out of place; their conslitneuts would decide on 
that subject before they got through their delibera¬ 
tions—as to whether he was a better democrat than his 
friends from Monroeor Jederson would make nothing 
the one way or the other. They would have subjects 
up that would test the purity and true democracy of 
some gentlemen here. He asked that a vote be taken 
now. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD said he had listened with great 
deference to the remarks of the gentleman from Fair- 
field, [Mr. Robertson.] 

A Member here observed that the gen'leraau had 
spoken twice on the subject. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD observed that it would be remem¬ 
bered that the Conventiim was in committee of the 
whole. 

The CHAIRMAN remarked that the rules of the 
Convention applied as far as possible to the debates iu 
the committee of the whole. 

A Member. Let the gentleman have leave. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD would not ask leave. He did not 
care so much about the rules of the House. He would 
not consent, as a free man, to ask leave. 

Mr. SAWYER (interposing) said it would be better 
to allow the gentleman to speak, if there were no oth¬ 
er gentleman desirous of speaking. Under the rule 
the gentleman had no right to speak again, having 
spoken' on the subject before. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. Does the ancient member of 
Congress rise on this floor and contend that I have no 
right to speak ? (laughter). 

Mr. SAWYER. I do contend so, as “an ancient 
member of Congress.” (Renewed laughter,) 

Mr. ARCHBOLD did not know what rules they 
might have adopted; but it never was understood that 
the rules of the Convention were applicable to the com¬ 
mittee of the whole. He had not tlie slightest unkind 
feeling against the gentleman from Fairfield [Mr. Rob¬ 
ertson] in the remarks which he delivered yesterday. 
Ho did not institute any comparison at all between his 
attainments as a Democrat and himself. All he inten¬ 
ded was, to indicate what were his motives and those 
of his colleague on this subject. The gentleman would 
sui’ely recollect that he chose to put his argument on 
aristocratic and Democratic grounds. And he argued 
that nothing retained us in this reverence of those old 
institutions of our ancestors but an affection for aristo¬ 
cratic forms. He argued that they were old relics of 
barbarism—nothing retained us in our affection for the 
two branches of the Legislature except a leaning to¬ 
wards aristocracy. He was conscious that the gmitle- 
man, in the generosity of his heart, had not intention¬ 
ally treated the members of his own party in that man¬ 
ner. He wished the gentleman from Adams [Mr. Me 
Cormick] was now in his seat, lie and the gentleman 
from Fairfield [Mr. Robertson] were twin brothers in 
politics. They were on the same j^latfcrni and had got 
the same doctrines from the same fathers of the church. 
The gentleman from Adams spoke, for instance of him- 
sell’, [Mr. A.,] as one who only saw matters in the 
light of “his ancestors.” 

If the gentleman referred to ancestors, and his [Mr. 
A..’s,] he was ready to admit that they were humble 
and obscure, he referred them to the battle fields of 
the revolution. Their bones had whitened the shores 
of Lung Island, having died on the Jersey and Guern¬ 
sey prison ships. In the war of 1812, every adult 
male of the name on the continent had mingled in every 
scene of peril from the Norlherti shore of Luke Erie to 
North Point ami Fort McHenry. Tliey watched the 
“ star spangled banner at the dawn’s early light,” as 
well as at “the twilight’s last gleaming ” of the histo¬ 
rical night of Francis K. Key’s immortal song. They 
taught Ills infancy to pronounce that song with trans¬ 
ports. If every family and every name had made ex¬ 
ertions as strenuous, no foeman’s footstep would have 
polluted our soil. 

But as to going back, he would only say that he was 










144 


CONVENTION KEPOllTS 


the veiy author of this progressive movement. Hum¬ 
ble as he was he had stood here for tivo winters as the 
only advocate for calling this Convention. He could 
get his friends’ votes. He could not get them to utter 
a word. He stood alone and the “ world ” all around 
“judged him perverse,” and no note ot approbation 
or encouragement came from Fairhcld or Adams. Now, 
Mr. Chairman, he could look round on these benches 
“ frequent and full,” and exclaim “ my sect thou scest;” 
the doctrines which the Convention was debating eve¬ 
ry day—the doctrines of the popular election of Jiidges 
—of proper restrictions on banldng—the doctrine of a 
majority question and a renovated linancial sytem—all 
these doctrines were prominent before the people of 
Monroe several years ago, and he believed the gentle 
man from Fairlield [Mi-. Robertson] himself was 
then but a “ catecheumen.” Let gentlemen come 
here and bring forward tlieir strong arguments to con¬ 
vince us that a single branch of the Legislature will 
contribute to the happiness of the people—that it is 
right and prudent in itself—that it would secure to the 
people all their constitutional rights. If they proved 
all that satisfactorily, they would then have his hearty 
support. 

Fie was in favor of a Lieutenant Governor or some 
man to give a casting vote in the Senate. He wished 
to have some officer clothed with a power that would 
enable him to prevent a recurrence of such scenes in 
the Senate Chamber as he [Mr. A.] had been often an 
unwilling witness of. No proposition should receive 
any greater favor because it was new or because it 
was old. In either case he would exercise his judg¬ 
ment according to the rules that he had long since 
formed for the control of his conduct. 

Ml-. TAYLOR desired to call the attention of the 
committee to the pending question, whether the gen¬ 
tleman from Fairti eld should have leave to withdraw 
his amendment. He hoped it would not be withheld. 
In the first instance it was necessary, in his opinion, to 
ascertain what was to be the legislative power, if pos¬ 
sible—what were to be the duties of that body. Those 
things ought to be ascertained before they could appro¬ 
priately proceed to consider the form in which this 
power was to be exercised. The present discussion 
will turn on the proposition, ai-e the duties of the leg- 
islature so multifarious—is it so liable to corruption 
and abuse as to need two houses? And if they had 
ascertained by the progress of this discussion, that the 
legislative department would be restricted in its powers 
—to pass nothing but general laws, perhaps subject to 
the further restraint ol a qualified veto by the Gover¬ 
nor ; every such step was an argument in favor of the 
unity and simplicity of the Legislature. They had the 
right then to ask the majority of this body to deter¬ 
mine these preliminary issues. Besides, gentlemen 
will thus be afibrded an opportunity to reflect on this 
question. It was in that view that he hoped the com¬ 
mittee would not insist on an argument at the present 
time : if they did so, there were many here ready for 
the discussion. 

It was desirable, also, that this discussion should be 
postponed, in order that the subject might be enter¬ 
tained by the people. It was trae, that the pi-oposition 
for a single constituent assembly was an innovation, yet, 
he was of the opinion that if it had been made twelve 
months ago, and subjected to the canvass which had 
taken place it would have received the popular appro¬ 
val. He desired, even at the eleventhhour, tohearfrom 
the people and the press on this. He would repeat, in 
conclusion, that the strongest consideration in favor of 
granting leave to the gentleman from Fairfield to with¬ 
draw his amendment, was that the committee could 
thus proceed to settle the powers and duties of the Leg¬ 
islature, and having ascertained them, then the proper pe¬ 
riod would come to interchange opinions in regard to 
the necessary organ of those legislative functions. 

Mr. SAWYER remarked that under all the circum¬ 
stances it would be better to allow the gentleman from 
Fairfield to withdraw his amendment. 


Mr. SMITH of Wyandot said ho was opposed to 
giving leave to withdraw. They had now sat from the 
dth to the 24th day of May, and not one principle had 
as yet been settled. He was opposed to making this 
section of the report a matter to be debated day after 
day and giving an opportunity of discussing the stand¬ 
ard of democracy, and matters of progress. It gen¬ 
tlemen called it progress to strike out “ Senate and,” it 
was progress that looked to him like going back to the 
old. He believed the matter should be brought to a 
close at once. There were but few, he apprehended, 
in the Houso who entertained the views held by the 
gentlemen from Erie and Fairfield [Messrs. Taylor and 
Robertson.] He had yet to learn that this plan was 
democratic. Had it ever been set forth in any newspa- 
per--uever. He never heard the matter mooted in his 
section of the country. It was like the progress of the 
school boy who went three steps backward when lie 
went one step forward. [Laughter.] The matter 
should be disposed of now. If they gave leave to with¬ 
draw, the subject would come up day after day and be 
deliberated over and over again. If gentlemen wished 
to discuss the question it was better that they should i 
do so now. ; 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. It seems to me that j 
we might as well dispense with this business at once. 

The reason assigned by gentlemen for striking out, is 
that we should wait until this subject shall be agitated j 
among the people and when that agitation has existed \ 
among the people, we shall then resume our discussion 
upon it. The gentleman from Erie has told us that | 

he has no doubt if this subject had been thought of a I 

year ago, there would have been a great majority of 
the people in favor of the proposition here advanced. 

It may be so, for it is a fact, that if you start any pro¬ 
ject no matter how absurd it may be, and agitate it a- / 
mong the people, it will gain converts. I do not say 
that this is absurd by any means, but I do say, if we 
should adopt it, that there might be a different feeling 
in the minds of many and if we have got to wait for 
such agitation, we had better at once adjourn to some j 
future period, than remain here. Really I do not see 
how we can proceed with the balance of this report 
until this question is settled. Let us determine it, 
and having done so, proceed to perfect the system as i 
well as we can. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. I hope leave will not be grant¬ 
ed to the gentleman from Fairfield to withdraw his 
amendment. This question is so intimately connected 
with one or two others, that I cannot see how they can 
be considered profitably until this is settled. We shall t 
need to trouble ourselves very little with the matter of 
apportionment if all the legislative power is to be vest¬ 
ed in a single branch, and sir, I can at once decide in | 
my own mind upon the propriety of giving the veto 
dower to the Governor when this question is thorough¬ 
ly settled. I hope therefore, that the consideration of j 
the question will not be postponed. I jiresume that ' 
good and sufficient reasons for two legislative branches 
can be given and I should very much like to hear them; i 
such reasons I think have not been presented yet. I 

A pure democracy I understand to be a government 
by the people directly when assembled en the 

whole body discharging alike legislative, judicial and 
executive functions. But every one understands that 
a form of government so simple would be inconvenient 
and indeed impossible for a large and populous State, 
and hence the necessity of delegating power to agents 
or representatives. If such delegation of power is nec¬ 
essary to constitute for us an efficient government, ought I i 
we not to avoid complicating the machinery of govern¬ 
ment beyond what the necessities of the case require ? 

And if one body can properly transact all the business 
of the legislative department, where is the necessity 
for two ? I know it is said that the action of one body 
may be rash and inconsistent, and that a second branch 
is needed to act as a check upon the first. But sir, are 
we not told that the veto power in the hands of the 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Governor is the best possible check upon such incon¬ 
siderate legislation ? Do we need two checks ? I 
should think not; besides, it would seem to me that a 
senatorial body is a very expensive and cumbrous ma¬ 
chine for such a simple purpose. If we are to have the 
veto power surely that ought to be sufficient. If, Mr. 
Chairman, a Senate would secure no other purpose but 
to obstruct the expression of the will of the people, 
would it not be decidedly anti-democratic ? 

I do not think with the gentleman from Gallia, that 
the plan of having two branches to the Legislative de¬ 
partment was adopted originally, after much reflection, 
from a conviction of its utility. The plan is evidently 
copied from the British Parliament, and there it was a 
a growth under peculiar circumstances, not a creation 
of the result of reflection. If I rightly remember En¬ 
glish History, there have been two branches in Eng¬ 
land for about GOO years. The first branch, that from 
which the present House of Lords has sprung, was 
composed of feudal barons, those who were the king’s 
tenants in capite. They were summoned according to 
custom when the king wished to consult them or to ob¬ 
tain their aid in his expeditions. 

The wealth and power of the barons was materially 
lessened by the crusades, while the commoners gradu¬ 
ally acquired wealth from the development of com¬ 
mercial enterprise consequent on that great movement. 
The kings and barons became very desirous that these 
commoners shoxild contribute of their wealth, and re¬ 
lieve the nobles in part of taxation, by giving voluntary 
aid to the king. They were accordingly often sum¬ 
moned to court, or desired to send one or two from 
each large town, or from each county to say what aid 
they would give. They imjjroved these opportunities 
to petition for redress of grievances, and by voting aid, 
steadily increased their privileges, and when these 
were established by precedents they afterwards de¬ 
manded them as rights. In this gradual manner the 
existence and power of the House of Commons grew 
up; this body is the only representative of the English 
people, while the House of Lords represent only the 
great landed interest of the country. There may then, 
sir, be a propriety in having two Houses in England. 
There is, also, doubtless a propriety in having two leg¬ 
islative branches in our National Government, one to 
represent the people at large, the other the State sove¬ 
reignties, But do such reasons exist here? have we 
two distinct interests to be represented ? I suppose 
not. 

Mr. Chairman, I did not rise so much to speak in fa¬ 
vor of a single House as to ask that good reasons for 
two Houses may be presented. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. If there is any possibility 
of agreeing upon a basis in this regard, in the committee 
of the whole, I should myself be in favor of a full 
discussion at this time. I do not think there is such a 
possibility, sir. So far as I am concerned, I am ready 
to meet this question at all times by my vote. I de¬ 
sire no further instructions, from the people or from any 
other quarter, in regard to what shall be my action up¬ 
on the propositions now submitted to this committee, 
to make your legislative government consist of but one 
branch. But I know, sir, if we take a vote upon it 
even now—if there is a considerable portion of the 
members of the Convention that are desirous to advo¬ 
cate a proposition of the kind submitted by the gentle¬ 
man from Fairfield, and as also indicated by the gentle¬ 
man from Butler, that the subject will be renewed in 
Convention and re-discussed there. Willing and desi¬ 
rous that any gentleman who wishes to discuss this 
proposition shall have ample time and opportunity to 
present his views here, I have no doubt they can be 
met upon the other side, and successfully too. I think 
the proper course would be to permit the gentleman to 
withdraw his amendment, so that when we come into 
Convention every member can express his opinions. 

Mr. MORRIS. I am opposed to the amendment being 
withdrawn. I think this is an important question and 

10 


145 


ought to be decided at this stage of the proceedings_ 

whether wo will have two branches of the Le'^islature 
or one. For my part I am opposed to the motion for 
striking out, and am in favor of two branches, in the 
old fashioned way. Ours is emphatically, a government 
of checks and balances. I think, sir, it is extraordinai*y 
and pa.ssingstrange, that gentlemen who a lew days since 
advocated the veto power for a check upon the two 
branches, will now contend that one of these bi'anclies 
can be done away with. All the subsequent part of the 
report is predicated upon the idea of having a Senate 
and House of Representatives, and I hope therefore that 
the vote will be taken directly. 

Mr. LARWILL. I only rise to say, that lam in ia- 
vorof the motion, that the gentleman from Fairfie d 
shall have leave to withdraw his amendment, from rea¬ 
sons very similar to those I have heard from other gen¬ 
tlemen. As for myself, I do not feel at this time per¬ 
fectly prepared to vote upon this question. It is one 
which I have never heard discussed to a very great ex¬ 
tent among my friends. A short time before the election, 
this question come up for discussion in a public meet¬ 
ing in the town in which I reside, and it was there ai’- 
gued, to some considerable extent, by a gentleman in 
whose judgment I have the greatest confidence, that 
the best policy for this Convention to take, was to have 
but one House in the General Assembly. There was, 
however, at that meeting, no reply nor vote taken upon 
the subject. My own mind was not changed by the 
arguments there offered, and I confess it has not been 
changed by anything I have heard since. I believe 
there is more safety in having two houses of the Gener 
al Assembly, than one. The gentleman from Monroe, 
remarked that he had never been foiled in attempting 
to pass any bill through any of the houses in which he 
had the honor of sitting; and I have no doubt that 
such influence is exerted to a very great extent in our 
Legislature. I think that we might have some gentle¬ 
men in the General Assembly, who would exert a great¬ 
er influence in any one body, than they would in two 
houses. It seems to mo that having two houses, 
affords a safeguard and check against hasty legislation. 

1 will still go farther, and, to provide a check against 
hasty legislation, I would go for the veto power also, in 
addition to having two houses. I believe, sir, that it 
is better to have two houses and the veto, for we will 
have less legislation, and that which will meet the 
minds of the people better than 'i left alone and un¬ 
guarded. It seems to me that the difficulty has been, 
we have had too much legislation. The great object 
with members of the Legislature, has been to return 
to their constituents and show them how they have been 
the means of passing some bill through the Legislature. 

I have taken a difterent view of the subject. I think 
that our Statutes have grown too large entirely. There 
is scarcely a lawyer in the State of Ohio, that can now 
comprehend what we have upon our Statute books, 
much less the farmer, or any other class in society. 1 
trust that the gentleman [Mr. Robertson,] will have 
an opportunity to withdraw his amendment. 

Mr. KING. One of the reasons why I oppose a dis¬ 
cussion upon this subject at this time is, that the ques¬ 
tion cannot be presented in the strongest form. Now, 
sir, I do not desire unnecessarily to waste the time of 
the Convention, but I do desire that all the questions 
which come up here, may be satisfactorily settled. I 
do not desire that this or any other subject should le- 
ceive more attention in this body than its importance 
demands ; and above all, I do not desire that personal 
conflict should grow out of this or any matter of our 
considerations, or that members of the Convention will 
conceive that every observatio*) that may be brought 
is intended as a personal allusion. Certainly the feel- 
in*^ which throughout has manifested itself here, is to 
avoid every thing of this kind—to deliberate calmly, 
and to use our best exertions to form the best possible 
system of government—the wisest organic law. We 
do not want a discussion as to the democmey of indi- 









146 


CONVENTION REPOllTS 


viduuls—or as to tho consistency of tlieir political 
character. We want nothing to do with persons. We 
have assembled here for tho purpose of amending or 
changing the constitution of the State. We hear 
much said about tho olden legislation of the State, and 
the power of inlluential members to control ihcir re¬ 
spective legislative bodies. All will admit that such 
has been the case—that a great deal of legislation has 
been of a mere local character, which we jiropose to 
( ut oir entirely. Now, sir, if we shall succeed in re- 
s'ricting the power of tiie Legislature in passing laws, 
u) those of a general character, we shall get rid of that 
species of legislation, about which so much has been 
said, and that class of acts passed merely out of cou)-- 
t'sy to individuals. We should have more judgment 
and deliberation among the members composing such 
a body. Now my oj)iuions are not indoxihly fixed as 
to Ijow I shall linally vole upon the question. It will 
df'pend upon the powms conferred upon the Gcjieral 
Assembly; if they shall be general, including Icgi.da- 
tiou for the benefit of corporations, then, sir, I am in 
favor of having an additional branch. For I look upoj) 
a General Assembly as possessing most dangerous 
power, and think that it should be conlined in its ope¬ 
rations. We liave had enough of such legislation. Let 
us define the powers of tlie General Assembly, and let 
us see what protection the peoplo shall need—then wc 
can decide in what manner it sliall be constituted. 

Mr. LOUDON. As much discussion will be had up¬ 
on the subject, 1 would merely suggest to members, 
in order to expedite business, to allow the genii man 
to withdraw his amendment, so that we can progress 
widi the balance of the report and see how many is¬ 
sues we can make upon tho propositions contained in 
it. It may bo that members of the Convention, will 
agree with )nost of the report and if that be so, it will 
look like progression. Sir if we W(‘re to debate for ten 
days upon this single proposition, in the committee of 
tho whole, the same discussions wiJlcomcup, the same 
proj)ositions ill be renewed in the Convention by va¬ 
rious speakers, who would bring their arguments to 
bear witli double force. We cannot expect to get 
clear of debate upon this matter. Then in order to 
save time, I suggest to the gentleman, to withdiaw 
his amendment, so that we can proceed with the bahiuce 
of tlie report, and_give the various friends oii the other 
side of the House a fair shake." The course I may 
take, depends upon the amount of argnnient I can sift 
from the flowery oratoiy presented by the ditlerent in¬ 
dividuals who may address us upon the subject. 

The question l)eing then upon granting leave to the 
gentleman from Fairfield [Mr. Koreutso.',] to withdraw 
his amendment, it was put and leave was granted. 

Mr. CASK of Licking. I move that we jiroceed to 
the consideration of the first section of the Report. 1 
move to amend it by adding to it the 17th section of 
the Report, prefixing the word “and,” so that it may 
read after the 1st section, “ and fhc style of the laws of 
this State shall be ‘ Be it eJiacted by iho General As¬ 
sembly of the State of Ohio.’ ” 

There is a manifest congruity between these two 
sections and they should be unitt d. I find in looking 
at the constitutions of the difierent States, tliut such is 
the practice. 

The amendement was disagreed to. 

Mr. STANTON. I wouid move to amend the se¬ 
cond section, by striking out the words ‘‘ by the elec¬ 
tors in each county.” Tho section would then read, 
“die Represenlali\N?s shall be elected biennially.” 

My reason for making this amendment is this, I do 
not understand that this second section is designed to 
prescribe the time and manner of electing Represen¬ 
tatives. I suppose that matter propeily belongs to 
the committee on Apportionment. 'J'iie miinher cl 
members and the manner in whiclt they shall be elect¬ 
ed are matters which properly belong to that commit¬ 
tee, and should be settled by them. If tiiat commit¬ 
tee should report, that members should not be elected 


biennially, there would be an incongruity in the dif¬ 
ferent parts. It seems to me therefore, better to leave 
tiiat question to be scttleil iiereafter. 

Mr. REEMELIN. 1 think that if these words are 
stricken out, it will make unnecessary labor lor tho 
committee on Ajipnrtionnient. I do not think that it 
is a part of the duties of the committee on Apportion¬ 
ment to define the time and inaiiner of electing Repre¬ 
sentatives, hut merely to jiresent a piau of upporlioa" 
meat. 1 think that the words should remain as they 
arc. 

Mr. IIITCIJCOCK of Cuyahoga. I will suggest to 
ihc gentleman from Logan an amendment, which 1 
lliink will meet the views on ])olii sides, after “ by 
electors,” instead of the words “each county,” insert 
“ their respective districts.” 

Mr. REEMELIN. I wish merely to say in regard 
to tills, that it brings up the question, wliollier we are 
to have districts or counties? It is a question which 
has been agitated before, and opens a very large field 
(jf discussion. 

Mr. HOLMES. There seems to be a difference of 
opinion wiili legurd to the shajie this section should 
have when properly matured. It would be well to 
leave the matter open until the duties of electors and 
representatives are fixed by this body. I think it would 
he better than to pass ovt r what members in.ay honestly 
dill'er about in this report, as we shall have opportuni¬ 
ty to discuss what shall be done with reference to tills 
matter when it comes up liereafler. 

Mr. SAWYER, I think the section should stand 
just as it is. There is not one woi’d too much in it, nor 
one vvoid loo litlie. If you strike out the words “ elec¬ 
tors” or strike out the words “in each county,” then, 
sir, I might claim a right to vote in your county be¬ 
cause I am an elector. I want it distinctly stated what 
qualifications will entitle me to vole in tlie county in 
whic h I reside. I ;.m not willing to leave here a clause 
in the hill, dependent upon a report whicli may be 
made by anollier committee subsc(]nenlly. This re¬ 
port is made first—if tliey want to present another re¬ 
port, let their report suit this one, and let them adapt 
their work to onrs. 

Mr. BARBEE. 1 would move to strike out tho 
words “county or district.” That seems to me to 
cover the whole ground. 

Mr. NASH. This word “elected” covers all that is 
really necessary in this place. “ The represen'atives 
shall be elected biennially.” Y'ou designate in the sec¬ 
tion the lime and place of election, but it seems to me 
that these are questions not to he settled in a moment. 
The amendment offered by tlio gentleman from Logan 
places this matter in the right [losition, for the effect 
of it will be to refer the manner of election, and also 
the “ districts in which they should be elected ” to the' 
proper committee. This word “elected” covers the 
wliule ground. 

Mr, FIRESTONE. I am o 2 )posed to the amendment 
to the amcnumc*nt. Now, sir, if w’e should adopt the 
amendment, we siiould have a goorl deal of dishonesty 

and pipe-laying in our elections. We will suppose a 
district where one county i.s Democratic and the other 
Whig, or supjiose one is Whig and the other Free Soil. 
Then if you should adopt such a plan as ibis, a fjw vo¬ 
ters could be easily tiansierred from one part of the 
distiict to .uiolliei, as iniglit suit ilio schemes of parties. 
Suppose a local question sh-mld come up. of "real im¬ 
portance, one county being in favor of, and the other 
having no piuliculai imerest in it. Hired voters could 
1)0 easily traiisferretl liom one comity to the other. For 
tlieso reasons J think the voters should be confined to 
the counties in whicli they reside, and 1 ihiuk the sec- 
;iou ought to sTind just as it is now, and in just the l.iu- 
gungc ns (1 by the commiitee. 

Mr. HUMl’H RE VILLE. It occurs to me that this 
discussion is soniewhal out of | lace. I siipjiose thoie 
is no doubt but what this Coiivetilion will deteriuiue 
whether tho “ representatives shall be elected bycouii- 


1 


I 














147 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ties or single districts,” and that question will more 
properly come up when tlie report ol the committee 
on Apportiomnent is submitted to the Convention. 
When that question is settled, all the other parts ot the 
constitution cun be so adjusted as to match and lit 
themselves to that report. It will be impossible, per¬ 
haps, until we get reports Irom various committees, lor 
us now to settle the details of any particular depart¬ 
ment so that they will absolutely match and lit in with 
the other parts of the constitution. There must be 
something, neces.sarily, left lor adjustment hereafter. 

1 shall be in favor of having that question so settled in 
the constitution, (whether Representatives shall be 
elected by comities or by single districts, or in wliut 
other manner they should he elected,) that lliero shall 
be no possibility of misconstruction, or any thing left 
to mere conjecture lierea.lter. 

Mr. GREGG. Mr. Chairman, if we are now to vote 
upon the Apportionment (question, I wish distinctly to 
understand it, so that 1 may regulate my vote accord- 
iui^ly. I sat liere a day or two ago, during the debate 
upon the apportiomnent and heard the cry of corrup¬ 
tion 1 corruption ! until one could almost feel as if the 
very earlii beneath his feet were a perfect mass of cor- 
rupiion—and now, sir, what is iulimatod or proposed 
to be done ? Why sir, in addition to apportioning the 
Representativc.s among iho several counties, it is now 
proposed to introduce a new source of corruption—to 
throw into the hands of county com iiissioners, or other 
authorities who may be elected for an entire dilferent 
purpose, to divide counties—and if they should see 
proper, to run a zigzag line through each and every 
county entitled to more than one Representative in the 
Legislature, to suit possibly lire ideas of some favoured 
individual, or to suit their party predilections. This, sir, 
would truly be a new source of corruption, added to 
the one already harped upon so freely. Although I do 
not wish to impute corruption to the commissioners of 
our counties,—but still they are all liable to the weak¬ 
ness of poor human nature—and corruption may creep 
in with this new source of power placed in their hands,— 
and as it is wholly useless, I am decidedly opposed to 
invading county hues, and cutting them up into separate 
districts,—wishing to have the apportionment in the 
hands of the Re[u’eseutatives of the people, who do 
their work, in open session, and before the light of day, 
and who have their acts at all limes reported for the pub¬ 
lic press, and therefore liable to the praise or censure of 
the newspapers of the Slate. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. It is very })robable that 
this section will have to undergo some change during 
the progress of our debates. It the proposition sub¬ 
mitted by the genlleman from Muskingum, a few days 
ago, in regard to llie division ol counties and ol town- 
8hi[)8 should prevail, by adding some township of one 
county to the township of another, why, of course there 
would be a [iropriety in adopting some amendment to 
this section, but perhaps it will be as well to go on with 
the residue of the report and we can hereafter accomo¬ 
date our future action to it. 

Mr. STaNTON. I did not suppose that the commit¬ 
tee who made this report, contemplated that this sec¬ 
tion was to prescribe any mode for the election ot Rep¬ 
resentatives—the manner of election is a matter for 
subsequent consideration. I say, therefore, that there 
is no necessity for saying any thing about the manner 
of election in this section. I do not propose to go into 
the question of election by counties or districts. The 
( ommittee on Ajiportionmeiit will report how inacy 
members there will be, and as to the manner in which 
they shall be elected, and all that, seems to me to be¬ 
long to another part of the constitution. 

Mr. CASE of Licking. It apjiears to me that all 
difticulties will be avoided by striking out tiio word 
“county,” and substituting “ representative districts.” 
Whether vve agree upon counties or a division of coun¬ 
ties, disregarding county hues,it will matter not. What¬ 
ever wo lix upon relative to the bounds of counties or 


township lines, it will still be a Represontalivo district, 
and will be still de.signated and known as Representa¬ 
tive districts. By sti iking out the word “ county ” aud 
substituting Representative district, it will meet any 
contingency that may arise m the case. 

Mr. MASON. I wish to call your attention to the 
fact, that a Representative district may comprehend 
more lhau a county. It would not be right for an elec¬ 
tor residing in the district, to be permitied to go at 
large in tin; county in which he lived aud vote where 
he pleases in any jiortion of il. I concur with the gen¬ 
tleman who last spoke, and if he will permit mo I will 
make a suggestion—that we use the word “ elective,” 
a well-known word, and a word that I hope will liud a 
place in the constitution, to denote the responsibiliiies 
of the elector. “Elective district” and representa¬ 
tive district are two distinct ideas aud are two distinct 
facts. The term representative district will come in 
the third section of the clause under consideration, as 
the gentleman will in a moment see. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. I suppose the 
question to be upon tlio amendment I submitted. I 
shall be most decidedly opposed to permitting an elec¬ 
tor to vote in any county or township he chooses, aud 
if it is susceptible of that construction, it is clear tliere 
should be an ainendmont to meet that case. I would 
renew my motion to strike out tho words “each coun¬ 
ty,” aud insert “ their respective districts.” 

Mr. HOLMES. It seems to me, sir, that with all 
the amendments and snggesiions, that when the Appor¬ 
tionment committee reports, in all probability this very 
section will have to undergo amendments. 

Mr. CURRY. I would like to ask the gentleman from 
Hamilton whether it is not plain that, if the amendment 
prevail, to strike out tho words, “ by the electors in each 
comity,” the section must remain perfectly reconcileable 
and consistent with the report hereafter to be made by 
the committee on Afiportiomnent ? Whether there can 
he left any necessity for a change in tho section. 

Mr. HOLMES. I am aware that the suggestion to 
strike out tho words, “ their respective election dis¬ 
tricts,” will cover the whole ground. 

Mr. CURRY. I am not understood. As I understand, 
if the amendment of the gentleman from Logan {ire- 
vails, the section will read, “ the representatives shall 
be elected biennially, on the 2d Tuesday in October,” 
and the question which I make to the gentleman from 
Hamilton is: If that amendment prevail could there 
over arise any nece.ssity for a change of the sections, 
on account of future action? I understand the gentle¬ 
man, but I think I shall take leave to diti'er with him. 
I think it is unnecessary that we should describe, either 
by counties or districts. We should fix the facts only, 
and leave to the discretion and judgment of the com 
miltee to draw up the details. 

Mr. STANTON, (iu his seat.) Your report will fi.x. 
that in another part. 

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir, we can say “biennially 
by the electors;” hut there maybe a difference about 
that. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler. I understand that the pro- 
posi ion is, to strike out these words “ by tho electors 
ill each county.” 

The CHAIRMAN. The first amendment is, to strike 
out the words “by the electors in each county,” but 
there is also, an amendment to this amendment, pro¬ 
posing to strike out the words “iu tiieir respective 
election districts.” The question is, upon the amoud- 
inent to the amendmeii. 

Mr. VANCE. I shall be in favor of the first^ amend¬ 
ment, and opposed to the last amendment offered• I 
will occiqiy only a moment in staling my reasons. It 
has already been seen, aud as we proceed I presume 
it will be still more apparent, that portions of the re¬ 
ports that are to bo made on dilferent subjects, will 
cover the same ground. Wliilc passing upon the first 
section of tho pending report, it was repeatedly sug¬ 
gested, that some of the provisions of that section, 












148 


CONVENTION llEPORTS 


might conflict with portions of the reports, to be made 
hereafter by other committees; and 1 myself think it 
not uidikely. So it may be also with tlie second sec¬ 
tion. It has been truly contended, that portions of 
this section might conflict with other reports that 
might be coming in from other standing committees, 
provided they report fully upon the various subjects 
referred to them; and for this reason, it is contended 
that we should not now act definitely upon such pro¬ 
positions. But I think otherwise. It will be recol¬ 
lected that the 48th rule provides— 

“ The President shall appoint a committee consisting of five 
members, who shall be styled a committee of enrollment, revi¬ 
sion and arrangement, whose duties shall be regulated by the pro¬ 
vision of the preceding rule.” 

That committee, I believe, has not yet been appoint¬ 
ed, but whenever appointed, it will be a very impor¬ 
tant committee in several points of view—especially 
in reference to the difficulty now under con.sideration. 
My opinion is, that when we are called apon to act 
upon the reports of any one of these committees, not¬ 
withstanding that we might be satisfied that portions 
of the report might with propriety belong to the delib¬ 
erations of another committee, still we should perfect it 
as we go along. Each member should feel himself 
prompted to otter such amendments as he may deem 
advisable. We should not lay it aside because it might 
belong more particularly to another department of our 
labors. If w^e do this, if we perfect these provisions as 
we go along, these committees to which I have refer¬ 
red will be called upon to arrange them all under their 
appropriate heads. If this committee should find them 
improporly arranged in any report, they can be sepa¬ 
rated and attached w^here they properly may belong. 
For this reason, as before remarked, I shall vote in fa¬ 
vor of the amendment first proposed. That would leave 
the section in such a form that it could not conflict 
with the report of any other committee on the subject. 
If we proceed in this manner, a committee of arrange¬ 
ment can do the rest. The last amendment, the amend¬ 
ment to the amendment, I cannot, as at present advised, 
sustain: for in my views, instead of relieving the com¬ 
mittee from any difticulty, it would only increase the 
difficulty. I will vote for the first amendment to strike 
out the w’ords '' by the electors of each county,” leav¬ 
ing it with the committee to settle the question, when 
the Other report shall come in, as to what kind of dis¬ 
tricts we shall form for representative purposes. 

The question was now taken upon the amendment 
to the amendment, and it was rejected. 

And then the original amendment was adopted by a 
division—affirmative 46, negative 37. 

Mr. STIDGER. I now move further to amend the 
section, in the second line, by striking out the words 

second Tuesday in October,” and inserting the words 
‘‘first Monday in November,” so that the section will 
read “ the Representatives shall be elected biennially 
on the first Monday in November.” 

The question having been stated by the Chairman, 

Mr. STIDGER said: That large portion of the com¬ 
munity who are engaged in agricultural pursuits, will 
veiy readily appreciate the objects of my amendment. 
It is well known that the farming community, about the 
time of their October elections, are very busily en¬ 
gaged in getting in their crops; and however anxious 
they might be to exercise the privileges guarantied to 
them by the institutions of their country, their inter¬ 
ests at home frequently deprive them of that privilege. 
But, if the time were deferred till the first Monday ir, 
November, their fall work would be through, and no 
such cause would exist to deprive them of the exer¬ 
cise of this right of freemen. I do not know, Mr. 
Chairman, that any further remarks are necessary, for 
it occurs to me that the very announcement of the sub¬ 
ject should recommend it to the favorable consideration 
of the committee. 

Mr. BARNET of Montgomery. I hope the change 
will not be made. It seems to me it will be too great 
an innovation. Now, in my section of the State, all 


good farmers endeavor to be done with their seeding, 
previous to the time of the October election; but, an¬ 
other thing I would suggest, that corn husking comes 
on about the time the gentleman has proposed, which 
it might be inconvenient for the farmer to postpone. 
Whereas, the second Tuesday in October, instead of 
being the business time of the year—coming between 
the time of seeding and corn harvest, is certainly the 
time which above all others, the faimers in my section 
of the country can best afford to expend about the 
election. 1 hope the amendment will not prevail. 

Mr. MORRIS. The people of Ohio have been so 
long accustomed to assemble at the polls on the sec¬ 
ond Tuesday in October, that I think they would not 
like to see it changed. All gcod, industrious farmers 
will have their wheat sown in the month of Septem¬ 
ber ; and the second Tuesday of October is always a 
time of leisure for the farmer, (occurring, as it does, 
between wheat sowing and gathering corn,) as much 
as any other time of the year. Being a practical farm¬ 
er, he had some knowledge of their operation. The 
fact is, that this time of the election has come to be so 
well known amongst the electors, that they would be 
almost ready to start to the polls, when the time comes 
round, even if it should be changed to November. 

Mr. MANON said gentlemen should not forget that 
different portions of the State embrace different cli¬ 
mates. I have frequently hired men to work in the 
harvest, after they have completed two week’s work 
in the harvest of the same year, in the south part of 
the State ; and mine has been completed in time to go 
to the north part of the State and work in the harv'est 
there. I would state also, that in my part of the State 
if we get through with seeding by the 20th of October 
we think we do well; and I do not doubt that many 
farmers at the north think they are doing well enough 
if they can get through any time in the month of Octo¬ 
ber. I shall vote for the amendment, and I hope it 
will prevail; so that the State election shall come on 
at the same time with the Presidential election. 

Mr. BARNET of Preble. I wish to add an addition¬ 
al reason why this change should not be made. It is 
this: We have a good many invalids and old men in 
the Slate of Ohio, who are voters, and desirous of tur¬ 
ning out at the elections, and the second Tuesday in 
October is generally pleasant weather, and the roads 
are generally good; but before the first Monday in 
November, it is generally the case that the weather be¬ 
comes unpleasant and the roads bad; so that if the 
proposed change were made, this class of voters would 
be seriously incommoded. 

Mr. DORSEY demanded a division of the question, 
which was ordered; and then the Convention refused 
to strike out. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. RBEMELIN now proposed further to amend the 
second section, by striking out the word “biennially,” 
and inserting the word “ annually.” 

The CHAIRMAN having staled the question to the 
committee— 

Mr. REEMELIN said: The amendment I have sub¬ 
mitted, Mr. Chairman, does not, necessarily, include 
the proposition for biennial sessions of the Legislature. 
We may have annual sessions and biennial elections. 
But as 1 am opposed to both propositions, I think I may 
as w'ell meet the whole question now, as at any other 
time; for I suppose, if we have biennial sessions, we 
must dispense with annual elections. In approacliinCT 
thi.s question, I am free to say thatdifterences of opinion 
may very well exist—having once in my life been in fa¬ 
vor of biennial sessions and biennial elections, I at least 
should freely accord to all a free scope of opinion. I 
have but little liope that any remarks that I can make, 
will change the result. I am almost afraid that we are 
(o have biennial elections and biennial sessions, for I 
am aware that there are many members who have 
come up here with instructions from their constituents, 
and which instructions I do wish them to obey, for I 





















CONVENTION REPORTS. 149 


should myself vote according to instructions if I had 
any, even if they went against iny own predilections. 

1 think, sir, if we reflect for a moment upon this 
question, we shall find that we are in danger of taking 
a step that will lead to more difficulty than we antici¬ 
pate. Let us look about, then, and see where we stand. 
What kind of a General Assembly shall we have under 
the new constitution? In view of all the opinions which 
we have gathered from each other with reference to 
what that constitution will be, wo must expect to have 
a General Assembly stripped of certain inij)ortant pow¬ 
ers which it before possessed; stripped of the power 
to enact special laws or creating special corporations; 
stripped of the appointing power; stripped of the ap¬ 
portionment power, and of the power of special legis¬ 
lation. We shall have a General Assembly reduced 
materially in power and the scope of duties, in all its 
arrangements; and we shall thus take away from them, 
as much as possible, all temptation to the abuse of their 
powers. All this will be done with special reference 
to the complaints that we have too much legislation, 
wliich have come up from all quarters. We are then 
to have a General Assembly left to the exercise of but 
few powers—embracing only the few general duties of 
general law-making, treasury-watching, and a few other 
simple duties pertaining to the taxing power, and for 
the regulation of the duties of the Executive, and the 
Judiciary—all general in their character, so that no cor¬ 
rupt influence can easily be brought to bear upon it. 
Adopt these provisions, and we shall materially lessen 
the amount of legislation. Such, I doubt not, will be 
the ultimate result of our deliberations. 

But now comes the additional provision that the Leg¬ 
islature shall not meet oftener than once in two years. 
Lot us look how our Government will then stand. 

We shall have an ever acting Governor; an ever act¬ 
ing Auditor of State; anever acting Secretary of State; 
and an ever acting Treasurer of State—paying out, and 
receiving money, continually. In addition to this, 
we shall have an ever acting Judiciary—never to go 
out of existence,—ever sitting and deciding, upon ques¬ 
tions pertaining to questions of that department. But 
then we have another important element, an ever act¬ 
ing people ; now, just developing their resources, and 
requiring necessarily, a great deal of general legislation, 
for years to come: and in view of this fact, I wish now, 
to ask the Convention, if we are not traveling too fast, 
and whether we are not weakening too rapidly the po w 
ers of legislation,—whelherif we prescribe biennial ses¬ 
sions, we shall not make one portion of our Govern¬ 
ment too strong, and the legislative body entirely too 
weak. Under the old constitution, the legislatui*e swal¬ 
lowed up all the rest of the government. They consti¬ 
tute not only the Legislature, but the Executive and 
Judiciary to some extent. Now it seems to me, that by 
confining the Legislature to their appi^opriate law mak¬ 
ing hinctions, we shall have accomplished everything 
the ])eople have asked for; that is we shall have es¬ 
tablished a just equilibrium in the government. We 
shall have an active Legislature—if they meet annu¬ 
ally ; an active Governor ; and a more active Judiciary, 
thus restoring the harmony that has been so long di.«- 
turbed under tlie old Constitution, in all the ditferent 
departments of government. But if you take away 
Irom the Legislature the power to meet annually, and 
from the people the power of annual elections, you will 
not only destroy the equilibrium proposed, but you 
will also make the legi.slative department too weak in 
comparison with the other depai'tments. For it must be 
borne in mind, that you are going to confer upon the 
Governor, the power to call extra sessions, which is so 
far a direct interference with the powers of the Legisla¬ 
ture. Itisapowerposessed by most of the reigning mon- 
archs of the world; and in the present growing state of the 
country, would it not have to be exercised frec[uently ; 
and will not the Governor, also, be frecpiently liable to 
the abuse of that power ? Might not some partizau 
Governor find it convenient to call the Legislature to¬ 


gether two or, three months preceding an important 
election, for the purpose of carrying some favorite and 
perhaps oppressive measure ? 

I have said, that, at the first view of this question, 
six years ago, when the question of a new constitu¬ 
tion was first agitated, I was in favor of biennial ses¬ 
sions. But upon subsequent reflection and conversa¬ 
tion with others, I changed that opinion—and without 
being invidious, I may mention Judge Cowen and 
Judge Tappan—especially the first named gentleman, 
whom I have always found exceedingly well informed 
upon questions aftecting the construction of govern¬ 
ment—preserving in his capacious mind all the time, 
those plain English ideas of government, which enable 
the people to keep the chance in their hands to reform 
their government, which makes it popular and dem¬ 
ocratic—(if the word is not oftensive to any)—and he 
showed me enough to change my mind, and convince 
me, that we ought not to travel away from the people, 
through these biennial sessions. 

I find also these views enforced in my mind by read¬ 
ing Macaulay’s History of England and that of Mac¬ 
intosh. I find that on the continent of Europe where 
the popular influence is kept down—the people are 
without one single check which frequent elections and 
frequent sessions of Parliament att'ord. Therefore I 
conclude that frequent elections are the safe-guard of 
popular rights. I And that the English people, where 
they have changed almost every other principle upon 
questions of goverment—while they have modified 
the construction of the House of liOrds and the House 
of Commons—still they have insisted upon the princi¬ 
ple of frequent meetings of the Parliament and fre¬ 
quent elections as the only means of defending them¬ 
selves against the corru})tions and encroachments of 
powei’—of keeping the public mind active, and inform¬ 
ed of the aflairs of government. 

I have stated on a former occasion, another matter 
which has fallen under my observation, to which I will 
now again revert. It is the difference between the 
mind of Continental Europe, and the construction of 
the English mind upon this subject. I find that the 
English people are careful to keep themselves daily ad¬ 
vised of questiotis of government—and the English 
mind upon these subjects have been kept constantly on 
the qui vive, as a Frenchman would say. I find that, 
on the continent of Europe, they have been so much 
unused to political excitement, that the popular mind 
has become completely dormant, and I find one reason 
for this, which I intend shall constitute one fact in my 
argument. It is this: that in Continental Europe, the 
people have .suflered the power of requiring frequent 
elections and frequent parliaments to pass out of their 
hands—while the people of England have carefully 
preserved this principle and thus preserved more i^ow- 
er to themselves. 

I know that I am liable to be asked what the politics 
of Europe have to do with this question; and I con¬ 
fess that it is not proposed to have biennial, or septen¬ 
nial assemblies, and I may therefore be charged with 
straining the point. But I will ask gentlemen wheth¬ 
er we are not traveling in the way which has led them 
too the unenviable political position which Continental 
Europe now occupies?—whether we are not by our 
tendency to biennial sessions and biennial elections, 
even now traveling that very road? Ithinkweaie; 
with due deference, of course, to the ojanions of oth¬ 
ers. I mer ■'ly express my opinion, not for the piupose 

of obtrudingtheiradoption upon others, (tor, I confess, 

I am not so) tenacious of them myself, that I would 
refuse to vote for the now constitution, if bienn.al ses¬ 
sions and biennial elections were in it;) but lor the pur¬ 
pose of bringing the minds of membeis to oeai upon 
some ot the abuses which have followed upon these 
tendencies. Should, however, their minds be led to a 
different conclusion from mj- own u[)on this subject, 
I shall acquiesce with pleasure in the judgment ot the 
Convention. I say, then, we are traveling in the same 











150 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


road wilh Coutinontal Europe. Their example should 
be 518 a guiding principle to us, warning us that we 
ought to have iVcqueut meetings of the Legislature, 
and frequent elections. 

It is a dangerous thing for the people to abate their 
vigilance and watchfulness over the administration of 
the Government. They should not become careless 
of public aft’uirs, and be lulled tosleepby the .syren voice, 
that all is right: the people are naturally prone to peace 
more than excitement. Give them repose: and they 
had rather not be waked up. But, Mr. Chairman, I 
forewarn you, that, whenever you sufter the public 
waichfulness to run down in this way, you will be 
traveling in the very road which has led to the results 
which were so unhappily realized in Continental Eu¬ 
rope. 

Let us look at the results which must inevitably fol¬ 
low the adoption of the biennial principle. You will 
have your llepresentatives elected every two years on¬ 
ly. You will have your Senators elected evey four 
years only; for I would not give a straw for a Senate 
elected at the same time and to serve for the same term 
with the House of Representatives. If w e were to have 
a Senate elected in this way I should be disposed to go 
for a single branch Legislature. You elect your Rep¬ 
resentatives for two years: 5ind here follow’s a gap in 
public opinion. For two yccirs the people will have no 
chance to act again upon any great question of State 
policy. You have no annual election for Governor nor 
lor annual Judicial officers, nor any other annual elec¬ 
tion for officers of State, and your public opinion will 
have no chance to express itself. And if you prolong 
the time to four years as you must do with your Sena¬ 
tors, it will be worse yet. I can very well imagine 
how any one inclined to favorbiennial sessions and bi¬ 
ennial elections, woidd desire to be clear of those im¬ 
portant elements of our Government, popular vigilance 
and the ever attentive action of the people. But how 
the man who is in favor of keeping the public mind ac¬ 
tive, and who is in favor of the people freely govern¬ 
ing, can be in favor of biennial sessions and biennial 
elections is to me a ^natter of astonishment. 

Why, what will be the result? First of all, there 
will be less watchhdness over public agents, and this 
would cause great rejoicing, especially at the WTiite 
House iiuW'ashington ; if the result pervaded the whole 
country, \\ hat a time ibr clerks, for claim agents, and 
for every othei person who has a chance to get hold of 
the public treasure. Your expenses of Government 
would not be looked into as they should be ; and the 
old proverb would be verified, “ that when the cat has 
gone away the rats and mice wmuld hold a jubilee up¬ 
on the table and in the cupboard.” I say, if you take 
away the watchfulness of the people and the watch¬ 
dogs of the treasury, (<as we sometimes call certain 
members of the General Assemby,) the rats and the 
mice about your capital will hold a jubilee. I make 
no personal allusions here, to the gentleman from Mon¬ 
roe, who has won for himself the title I Inrve recited, 
but if I should fall under his notice for this remark, I 
hope he will not be too severe upon me, and deal kind¬ 
er with me, than he did yesterday with the gentleman 
fiom Fairfield. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD interposing, and Mr. R. giving 
way, said : Generally, the gentleman from Hamilton 
and myself have been boon companions upon the subject 
of taxation and care for the treasury. Upon these sub¬ 
jects we have seen eye to eye—have stood together— 
have fought shoulder to shoulder in many a battle. 
But now when we were about to part company, per¬ 
haps to ‘lail under different flags, 1 was compelled to 
remind him of what we had been about for the last 
quarter of a century. 

Mr. REBMELIN proceeded : I have said, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, that the tretisury would not be watched as close¬ 
ly as it might be, if the Legislature did not come here 
oltener than once in two years. I know that the hang¬ 
ers-on of the treasury do not like to be watched. I 


have witnessed their trepidation to the time when their j 
financial details came to be looked at, and it is for this i 
retison that 1 want annual sessions and annual elections I 
so that they may be overlooked. _ | 

But let us look further at results. If you prescribe j, 
biennial sessions of the Legislature you will have to 
delegate the taxing power for two years. You will ! 
have to see for two years how your tuxes are to be lev¬ 
ied for the expenses of government lor ihe State Legis¬ 
lature, for the judiciary, for school and road purposes, 
and things of that kind. You will also have to see that i 
your public wmrks shall be taken care o.t—(and I do i 
hope that they will hereafter be overlooked by the p 
Legislature, instead of the Board of Bublic Works and 
the Auditor of State.) You see here a large margin to j 

be left for State officers to play upon. We may have || 

a short harvest or a full harvest. If a short harvest en¬ 
sue, the public works will not bring in so much reve¬ 
nue and the consecpience will be tluit additional taxsi- i 
tion will have to be resorted to, for which emergency 
you must provide, and you must make ai-rangements ■ 
and detail the power somewhere to levy a heavier tax. ; 

In connection with lhe.se results I wish merely to j 
call the attention of the Convention to that other con- i 
stitutional provision, which is to prescribe that not a 
dollar shall be drawn from the treasury except as it ; 
shall be authorized by law, and that not a dollar shall 
go into the treasury except as the law shall direct. 
Here too you have to leave a large margin for your fi- 
nanci5d officer. i 

lam in fsivor of providing in the constitution that 
a majority of every member elected to the General 
Assembly, shall vote in favor of every distinct appor- 
priation of money from the Treasury, upon a call for 
the yeas and nays. For it is a fact that seven-eighths of | 
the revenues of Ohio ai'e appropriated without proper i . 
legishitive consideration—the Legislature knows, in 
fact, nothing comparatively of the revenues and real ,| 
expenses of the government. This provision would 9; 
require closer scrutiny into public exjmnses, but bien- ; | 
nial sessions would render almost nugatory this provi¬ 
sion. j 

Another difficulty results, if w'emust follow out and 
adopt the principle before us—and that is one which I 
have felt myself repeatedly, when I have been on a 
finance committee. I know how hard it is to get men . 
to make the necessary examinations into the finances ' 
of the State. It is dull work, sir, to examine figures 
and accounts in the different public offices here. This 
used to be done annually, imperfectly to be sure too 
often, but still it was done; and T remember very well, 
the difficulty we have had, to get even 07ie man from 
either House, to perform this service—and too often it 
has been too much neglected. Now how much w'orse 
would this be, if your committee had to exsimine into f 
the management of the fiiicinces of two years, instead | 
of one? How much more onerous and responsible j 

would be the duty of your committee? The result I 

would be, that they wmuld just pass through the Au¬ 
ditor’s office without making any^ of the examinations | 
demanded by’^ the interests of the State. Sir, I 8pe5ik 
from the book on this subject. I have had experience ! 

of wdiat I affirm; and I know that men are averse to 
this particular kind of hdior; iind that if they have to 
go through the examinations of tw-o years of service 
in the offices, they will be less likely to perform their 
duty, than if their examinations extended only to a t 
single yi ar. 

Now I suppose the main argument that ctin be pre¬ 
sented for biennial sessions, is the question of expense. 

I know that this coiisidemtion has a great de.il of 
weight with the people. They seem to have an idea 
that the annual meeting of the Legislature will cost 
more than biennial. But I make the prediction, and 
perhaps 1 may live long enough to see its fulfillment. 
fkal talcing iai or iicelve years biennial sessions 

will cost as much, il not more than annual sessions, on 
account of the longer sessions which will have to be 














CONVENTION JIEPOIITS 



biennially, and the freqneiicy of extra sessions 
that will arise. These long sessions, and extra ses¬ 
sion, so frequently and justly the subject of popular 
comjtlaint, would be in a great degree avoidctl by an 
uual sessions. I woidd sooner juefer, sir, a constitu¬ 
tional restriction that the General Assembly should 
not continue in session more than sixty days—that that 
body will hereafter be annually convened on the first 
Monday in .January, at least I hope that such a ])ropo- 
sition will be adopted, and I am almost sure it will be. 
But I do not intend to discuss it now, and 1 only refer 
to it as far as it may have a bearing upon this question. 
If we prescribe that the Legislature shall meet on the 
first Monday in January, does any one suppose that 
they can be kept together after the 15th of March? 
I assure you, sir, that when the 15th of March shall 
roll .around, and the spring sun shall begin to break 
through the sky, the farmers and business men of the 
body will insist upon the close of the sessiin; and 
meeting thus annually, they can easily get through, 
by the first Monday in March. If we adopt the bien¬ 
nial sessions, they will not be able to get through the 
public business by that time. They will have to be 
m session till April or May, and when that time of the 
year arrives, discussion and examination will cease— 
when a member then rises to make a speech, he will 
be compelled to sit down, under the cry of question ! 
question! from all parts of the House. Why, sir, un¬ 
der this feeling of excitement and hurry to get through, 
I have seen ninety bills passed in a single day !—bills 
about which two-thirds of the members could know ab¬ 
solutely nothing—bills whichnoneuiiderstood butthose 
particularly interested; and this will be found to be the 
case, and we will have neither less legislation nor less 
change in legislation, by adopting the biennial policy. 

I believe, if we are to have biennial sessions^ we 
shall have to have frequent extra sessions, which are 
always unpopular with the people, and which always 
more or less throw the action of the government out of 
its regular order. Now, sir, the very thing which I de¬ 
sire to secure is regularity of action. Give us a regu¬ 
larly acting Governor ; a regularly acting judiciary ; 
and for God’s sake, let us also have a regularly acting 
General Assembly, for this is the acting and conti'olling 
department of the government, and w'e shall have a 
good government. 

These are the views which I had intended to present 
in this argument; and I repeat again, that I do not 
make a single remark for the purpose of influencing 
any gentleman to violate his instructions, nor do I wish 
to be understood as too zealously attempting to force 
the impressions of my own mind upon the minds of 
others. I have risen for the purpose of arresting and 
bringing to view all the considerations connected with 
this important principle, so that we may make the gov¬ 
ernment active and equal in all its departments. 

_ I admit, if wo adopt this principle of biennial ses¬ 
sions, I shall be fearful as to the future ; but, knowing 
that there will be a provision in the new constitution 
which will give to the Legislature the power to amend 
the constitution, upon the proposition being submitted 
to the people, my apprehensions are not so great as 
they otherwise would be. But still, I confe.ss, I am 
fearful of this tendency, for we may go on from bien¬ 
nial to triennial, quadrennial, and ultimately to septen¬ 
nial sessions, until perhaps the Legislature may,not be 
required to meet oltener than once in ten years—and 
thi apprehension determines me in favor of annual 
se.'jsions. 

know that biennial sessions are an experiment 
which has been tried in some of the slave States, and 
lyUnderstand it has worked very well thei e. But there 
is a peculiar difference between a slave State and a free 
State such as ours. I can very well understand why it 
should be the policy of a slave State to restrain, to 
some extent the freedom of Legislative action, and 
avoid bringing every policy to the popular test. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD (in his seal). Illinois is nota slave 
State, nor Wificoiisin, nor Iowa. 


Mr. REEMELIN. I know that in Illinois, they have 
biennial sessions, but 1 know also, that it produces great 
inconvenience there, and in some other free Slates, but 
that makes no ditierence in the point I make, which is, 
that it is good policy, in a slave State to get rid of the 
influence of public opinion,upon the ‘‘peculiar institu¬ 
tion.” But the same consideration does not operate in 
favor of biennial sessions in a free State. Besides, sir, 
how very frequently does it happen in those States, 
with biennial sessions, that their United States Sena¬ 
tors are chosen by the Governor; and that power will 
have to be often exercised by the Governor, in the 
event of the adoption of that |)rinciple here, i trust, 
therefore, that gentlemen will hesitate and consider 
well, before they proceed to adopt a measure, which 
compels the delegation of any power which, in the 
hands of the Governor may be at any time exercised 
against the people. 

I have made these remarks, Mr.Chairman, in no spirit 
of invidiousness, or personal feeling whatever against 
those w'ho may differ with me. Perhaps even my friend 
from Monroe, may see proper to come to my assistance. 
He has said that I was too distrustful of the Legisla¬ 
ture, but I ask that gentleman, in view of our past ex¬ 
perience, whether we will not have less care on the 
public treasury, with biennial than with annual ses¬ 
sions. I ask him, whether a vote for biennial sessions 
is not an expression of severer distrust of legislative 
pow'er than any wo can make, and whether it will not 
weaken that pow’er too much in comparison wuth other 
departments of the Government. I trust also, my friend 
from Trumbull, [Mr. Ra.nney,] will come to the rescue, 
in arresting a measure, which must unavoidable be fol¬ 
lowed by a delegation of the taxing pow’er and the 
power to expend money from the people’s immediate 
agents, to executive officers 

But be it as it may, whether in a minority or in a ma¬ 
jority, I have done my duty, and in conclusion, 1 ask 
only fair, candid and full consideration for the views 1 
have presented, promising to extend the same to those 
of others, 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Having been placed upon this 
committee, which has reported upon the Legislative 
power, and having given my assent to the report, I 
will now endeavor to submit a few remarks to sustain 
it. I, sir, am pledged to vote for biennial sessions; but 
in assuming that [hedge I may say that I took it with 
a great deal of ease to myself; because a man can nev¬ 
er be led so easily as in the way in which he wishes to 
go. This is my position, sir, and when I make up my 
mind upon any matter I am not to be driven from my 
position without good reason for so doing. The gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton has not given mo any reason 
why I should change my views upon this important 
question. T cannot give my assent to the proposition, 
that because we have made brief work for the legisla¬ 
tive department and taken from them a large portion 
of their former power, the General Assembly ought to 
meet annually. Now, I think the very fact that we 
are about to contract the powers of the Legislature and 
give them less to do, is one reason why they ought not 
to meet annually : for it is plain that if they have less 
to do, they can the sooner do it. It is by means of bi¬ 
ennial sessions sir, that I hope to prevent those scenes 
of legislative disorder and confusion, which for the last 
two years have disgraced the State of Ohio scenes 
enacted by men combined together upon [larty princi¬ 
ples, and because they have the power they wish to 
exercise it for partizan purposes : therefore, I will en¬ 
deavor to cut them down, and take away Iroin them 
the opportiinity of that kind of action ; and I think the 
restriction to a session once in two years will go tar to- 
wrw’ds accomplishing that end ; and while this arrange¬ 
ment will suffice for the labor to be done, 1 am persua¬ 
ded that it is considered a most desirable one among 
all the [)eople. We know that among the excitable 
people of Ohio, we lose a great deal of time annually 
in the canvass. V/e ?re ourselves individually aware 















152 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


of the time and money which we have spent in this 
way to no purpose. 

There is another consideration; biennial sessions 
will save a great deal of expense to the State: and 
this, as the gentleman from Hamilton has well remark¬ 
ed, will be a strong argument. Whenever we send a 
legislative body up here, they have to be paid for their 
time, and they necessi^rily create a great expense for 
piinting and other contingencies. Under the proposed 
arrangement, these expenses will have to be incurz’ed 
only once, in two years—another consideration. It 
has been well said, and truly, that we are too much 
governed, and have too much legislation. This is a fact 
which I presume all parlies will accord. Now I would 
refer members to the fact, that we have heretofore had 
vast excesses in legislation, and I will make this asser¬ 
tion without the fear of contradiction, that the State of 
Ohio might have progressed and succeeded, just as well 
in all her business atl'airs, and prosperous progress, if 
one-lialf her statutes had never existed. It is a fact 
known to me that laws have been enacted, and amend¬ 
ed, and re-amended, by our Legislature ; and that the 
people have never known what the law was, till after 
these laws and amendments have been repealed. These 
excesses will be avoided in a great measure, by recpii- 
I’ing the Legislature to meet biennially. The gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton has made an objection to this prin¬ 
ciple, because the Governor will have the power or be 
constrained to call extra sessions. That objection has 
no w^eight wdiatever, because the Governor has now the 
pow'er, and does exercise it. It is a necessary power, 
and that is another reason in favor of biennial sessions, 
and because we may employ it, it offers another reason 
in favor of biennial sessions: for if any business emer¬ 
gency should arise, requiring the assembling of the 
legislative body, the Governor will have the pow'er to 
do it. The gentleman thinks the Governor may abuse 
this power; but neither will this argument hold good, 
especially with those w’ho hold that the Governor ought 
to exercise the power of a check upon legislative ac¬ 
tion. I think the powder will be very safely entrusted 
to his hands, and that he wall never exercise it but in 
accordance with the popular will. For this reason the 
objection is of no w^eight whatever. But, sir, we have 
the example ol other States, wdio have recently framed 
constitutions iqion the ])rinciple of biennial sessions; 
and I think those gentlemen who speak of progress, 
ought to be willing to accord this as om* of the im¬ 
provements of the age 

Mr. Chairman, I think the majority of the people are 
in favor of biennial sessions; at least, that is the opin¬ 
ion of a majority of my constitumits. 'I'he gentleman 
from Hamilton argues that w’e should have frequent 
sessions of the Legislative body in order to keep the 
people inaction—that the Legislature should meet annu¬ 
ally in order to to keep the people alive, and the more 
frequent the elections, the better; but this argument 
I do not intend to answer, nor do 1 think it necessary 
to be answered. 1 am of the opinion that the public 
good has been many times consulted and subserved, 
and that the stability of government has been frequent¬ 
ly promoted, by providing some check u{)on the exer¬ 
cise of the legislative power. Our United States Sena¬ 
tors, for example, are elected for the term of six years. 
This is a much longer period than w^e propose, for the 
term of either branch of our State Legislature, and in 
my opinion the Senate of the United States, has in many 
instances subserved this valuable purpose—from the j 
fact they hold their oliice till the popular ebulition has 
passed away : and so they have been able to keep the 
government steady. 1 have not prepared myself to 
make a reguilar speech, Mr. Chairman, onthis question, 
and having said enough to indicate my views in shm-t 
to the committee, I give way for other gentlemen. | 

Mr. RANNEY said that the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton [i\Ir. IIeemet.in] should never appeal to him in vain 
for assistance to prevent power not absolutely necessa¬ 
ry to be delegated by the people, from being surrender-1 


ed by them. Ho could sympathise with the gentleman in 
his position in regard to this question, he told us that he 
had lately been converted from the biennial to the an¬ 
nual theory. Now some of the reasons so ably set forth 
by the gentleman, had until recently operated to deter 
mine him [Mr. Kanney] in favor of annual sessions, and 
he would confess himself a recent convert from the an¬ 
nual to the biennial theory. A closer examination had 
satisfiedhim that those reasons, though plausable, were 
yet fallacious. Thatthe whole reasoning was based upon 
false premises, and that consequently the conclusion 
must be wrong. He would say in the first place that 
eveiy man on this floor or elsewhere who undertook to 
represent others is bound to conform his vote to what 
he know's to be the will of those he represents. If a man 
could not do that, his duty w'as to abandon his post and 
give it to another. He came hei’e under no instructions 
on this point; but he knew what the opinions of the 
people were in his county: a large majority of them 
were in favor of biennial sessions. It would be his 
duty to conform his vote to their will, even if he differ- 
with them. But, on that subject he did not differ with 
his constituents. 

The gentleman correctly said that one of the princi¬ 
pal means by which the people had been able to secure 
generation after generation, a portion of their liberty 
under the British and colonial government was owing 
to the fact of having frequent elections and meetings 
of the public bodies. And one of the chief means re¬ 
sorted to by monarchs who sought to stifle public opin¬ 
ion to obstruct improvement among the people, and 
to retain absolute power in their own hands, was to 
prevent the frequent assembling of the Barliaments 
and Legislative assemblies. That was idl true but had 
it any connection with our institutions. It had none. 
The theory was not applicable, for according to the 
principles of the English constitution, all power was 
vested in the crown, and the people only obtained what 
liberty they possessed, from time to time, by piecemeal, 
as they could snatch it from the hands of arbitrary jmw- 
er. In this country all power was in the hands of the 
people and eznanated from them. That was the differ¬ 
ence. In the one the people snatched liberty from the 
hands of absolute power, in the otherwhere all power 
was in the people, their powers could only be lost as 
they surrendered them. He could not see therefore 
how the liberties of the people could be effected by 
the frequency or unfreciiiency of the assembling of’ 
the Legislature. Therefore running a parallel be¬ 
tween this country and England, under the supposi¬ 
tion that frequent assemblies of the public bodies were 
necessary in the United States as in that country, ap¬ 
peared to him to be drawing parallels from things en¬ 
tirely dissimilar. There, as all ])ower was with the 
monarch, all that could be detached was gained to the 
people; but as they are here the source of all power, 
nothing can be gained for tliem by legislative bodies. 
There, all power exercised by these bodies was taken 
from a monarchy,—here from the people. There, the 
})eo])le could not fail to gain by their action, here they 
I cannot fail to lose. He did not conceive that the posi¬ 
tion of the gentleman in regard to the necessity of fre- 
(lucnt agitation of public questions was very tenable. 
He did not anticipate that the people were going to 
forget their principles and their sentiments even though 
it were provided that they should not have an election 
oftener than once in two years. It had been a subject 
j of complaint thatthe people were so frequently called 
to the polls that the ijnportauce of the duty they were 
about to discharge was lost sight of by the frequency 
of election. He did not say that that was a conclu¬ 
sive reason in support of biennial sessions: he only 
threw it out against the assertion of the gentleman 
that our rights would be surrendered by a biennial 
election.' 

The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemehn] had 
hiken one thing for granted, which he [Mr. Ranney] 
did not take as a matter of course. The gentleman 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 153 


took it that this Convention was going to authorize the 
election of Senators hut once in four years. If the 
Convention came to that conclusion, he confessed that 
tile gentleman would Iiave a stronger argument in fa¬ 
vor of annual sessions than any other, in his opinion. 
But was that about to be determined upon ? The 
gentleman took it as a matter of course that they 
were obliged to elect Senators but once in four years 
if they had biennial sessions of the Legislature. He 
knew that precedents in some of the other States, 
where they had biennial sessions, were against him. 
He admitted that in some other States they had jiro- 
visions for the election of Senators but once in four 
years, and he agreed that it was a consideration enti¬ 
tled to considerable weight. But when it was looked 
at and considered that it was a new precedent in this 
State—that it was a delegation of power for too long 
a period, he did suppose that such apian would not be 
ado[)ted. And he supposed that the people were not 
willing to duplicate the present duration of continu¬ 
ance in office. He knew that it was contended that the 
Senate should be a more permanent, conservative body 
than the House of Representatives. But the argument 
had no weight on his mind. He would remark that 
in the New England States—in Maine, Massachusetts, 
and Connecticut—and ho believed in all of them—^the 
election of Senators took place every year. And, he 
defied any man to point out a State more stable and 
uniform in its policy, legislation, and political institu¬ 
tions, than Massachusetts. And, in that State, when 
they serif up their Representatives eveiy year, they 
sent up their Senators also, to the General Assembly. 
As he said before, he did not take it as a matter of 
course that they would adopt the term of four years’ 
continuance in oflicc for Senators; nor did he consider 
that they would be useless unless elected for four years. 

He saw no reason why the public voice should not 
reach the Senate as well as the House of Representa¬ 
tives. Why that the public will should not have force 
in the Senate as in the House. Or, why that public 
opinion and the public judgement should not predomi¬ 
nate in carrying a measure through the Senate, as well 
as through tiie other branch. He would only say that 
the two branches of the Legislature gave a double 
measure of consideration to the public business. It 
enabled them to have their laws considered and ma¬ 
tured in two separate places, at two different times, 
and by two different bodies of men. This constituted, 
in his mind, the only necessity or propriety of two 
branches. 

The gentleman said that power would gradually leave 
the j)eople, without frequent meetings of the Legisla¬ 
ture. How was it to go from the people ? There was 
but one way in this country, that he knew of. In the 
first place, it was all with them. How then, was it to 
get from them ? Why, this Convention was sitting here 
to frame a specific constitution, defining in what man¬ 
ner and how much power was to go from the people, 
to be adopted or rejected by them. That was their 
business. There was no way of taking power from 
the people unless by their own act at the ballot box, 
where of their own accord they decide what amount 
of power they would delegate. Therefore, he could 
not see how the powers of the people could be either 
decreased or augmented by adhering to the annual ses¬ 
sion of the Legislature, in pref erence to adopting the 
proposed biennial system. Whether annual or bien¬ 
nial, they can exercise such power as the people choose 
to invest them with and no more. He agreed with the 
gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] that the 
question of having the legislative body annually inquire 
info the public accounts was truly worthy of much con¬ 
sideration. But he could not see any difficulty iit pro¬ 
viding by general laws that money should be taken 
and appropriated for the expenditure of two years as 
well as for one. 

He agreed it would be more convenient perhaps to 
appropriate for one year than for two. But the gen¬ 


tleman says we must have the Legislature here to 
‘‘ watch the treasury.”—“When the cats are gone,” he 
says, “ the mice may play about in the cupboards.” We 
have had a little experience on this subject, and this 
was better than a great deal of theory. We have had a 
Legislature, as we all know, for the last twenty years 
watching the treasuiy. How did they watch it ? About 
as a dog would a man’s dinner. The people of this 
State were now paying the interest, and would shortly 
bo called upon to pay the principal of a public debt of 
over twenty millions incurred during the last few years 
and whilst the Legislature was “watching the treasury.” 
Was not that debt contracted by the Legislature that 
was “ watching ? ” They watched it with a ven¬ 
geance—as the journals of the Legislature would show ; 
they were watching the best opportunity to get into it. 
So far as that was concerned, he believed that when 
the Legislature was restricted to the passing of gene¬ 
ral laws and when they had honest men elected by the 
people, and responsible to them presiding over the 
Departments entrusted with the public funds, there 
would be as much safety insured to the public as if the 
legislative bodies came up here frequently with the 
key of the treasury to enable them to get into it. His 
opinion was that the Legislature were very unsafe 
“watchers ” of the public treasury. Believing that the 
sense of his constituents and of a great portion of the 
State was in favor of the Legislature meeting biennial¬ 
ly—believing that biennial sessions would in a great 
measure rectify the evil which all agreed existed—too 
much legislation and the instability of the law—and be¬ 
lieving that it would help to sccui'e many of the ob¬ 
jects desired by the public will, by decreasing the bur¬ 
dens of the people, he was constrained into the sup¬ 
port of the biennial Legislature and could not support 
the proposition of the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 
Rf.emelin.] 

On motion of Mr. STANTON, the committee rose, 
reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. 

On motion of Mr. LIDEY, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 

SATURDAY, May 25—9, A. M. 

Mr. STICKNEY. I have a memonal here, from A. 
I'iHin, which I wish to present to the consideration of 
the Convention, praying that various amendments may 
be engrafted upon the new constitution. 

Upon the motion of the same gentleman, the memo¬ 
rial was referred to the committee on Miscellaneous 
subjects and propositions. 

Mr. ORTON. I ofter the following for adoption: 

Resolved, That the Reporter of thi-J Convention be authorized 
to employ a transcribing clerk. 

I presume that the members of the Convention are 
all aware that the Reporter lias not force sufficient to 
enable him to get out two copies of our debates and 
proceedings for the “ Statesman ” and “ Journal,” so 
that each can have copy, jiroducing very great incon¬ 
venience to the printers. As all are probably aware 
of the fact, I hope that the resolution will pass. 

Mr. NASH. There can be no necessity for such a 
resolution as the Reporter already has the power under 
the law, to employ assistants. He is authorized by 
that law to employ a corps of Reporters, and the law 
makes provision for their payment. I should like to 
know what we have to do with it, and what control 
we have over him or his action. If we pass this reso¬ 
lution, it gives no more authority than he has already, 
and therefore I move to lay it upon the table. 

Agreed to. 

Mr. GREGG. Theie is one question in which I 
take an interest, and that is the one embraced in the 
resolution laid on the table in regard to the printing of 
extra copies of our reports. I wish to call the matter 
up, and I should like to have the blank filled with 
“ 600 copies.” In the district which I represent, there 
are no less than six newspapers. It is of some impor¬ 
tance that these reports should be circulated at least 














154 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


as far as the public press is conci riietl, it' not a little 
beyond. I theret’oro move that the resolution be now 
taken up. 

Agreed to. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I move to strike out the word 
extra,’'in the first line of the resolution, so that it 
would read— 

Resolved, That si.x hundred and fifty copies of the reports of 
all standing committees, except the committee on Privileges and 
Elections, be printed for the use of the members of the Conven¬ 
tion. 

Mr. SAWYER. (The question being on striking out 
the word “extra”) I do not know whether it would be 
in order strictly to say what 1 intend to upon the sub¬ 
ject of printing these reports. I wish that when 1 get 
out of order that the Chairman would please straighten 
me. I am opposed to the whole thing and here is a 
pretty sample ol what yon get. The report of the 
committee on the Legislative Department has been up 
two days, and we have progressed about an inch and 
a half. [Laughter.] I do not think that it would be 
beneficial to the community at large to see these rf> 
ports. So far as we have progressed I do not think 
that the bill before u.s would be a fair index of what 
we will finally do. It is the first report w’^e have made, 
and it is expected that every gentleman will urge his 
objections or give in his adhesion to it. But, sir, do 
you rember what a talk was made when I offered a 
propo.sition to publish these very reports in the Daily 
Ohio Statesman and .Journal—it was a “ total waste of 
money for useless purposes.-’ Those gentlemen who 
complained so much and were so exceedingly anxious 
to save the public money at the start, and refused to 
furnish extra numbers of the copies of the debates and 
proceedings of the Convention, are the very first per¬ 
sons now to make and support a proposition of this 
kind. If you })roceed in this course and you are to 
have an extra number of copies of every report j)re- 
sented, you will treble the amount of expenditure that 
you would have incurred in publishing these same re- 
poiTs in the Statesman, Journal and the Westbote, and 
ordering an extra number of the same for the benefit 
of the membei's. Mr. Speaker, I will move an indefi¬ 
nite postponement of the resolution and call for the 
yeas and nays. 

Mr. CUTLER. I wish to say that 1 am perfectly 
willing that the usual number of copies of the reports 
should be published for the use of members. It ap¬ 
pears to me utterly useless to distribute through the 
community information which is contained in these re¬ 
ports. What does it amount to ? Simply a plan pro¬ 
posed by that committee for the action of the Conven¬ 
tion—an expression of their own opinion. In a single 
day after the passage of one of these articles through a 
committee of the whole, it may be entirely changed, 
and you would have to re-print the amendments and 
send them out to the people before they would get a 
correct expression of what is done here. The printing 
is merely for the convenience of members and facility 
in the j^transaction of business. As a matter of infor¬ 
mation to the people it appears to me that it would be 
utterly useless without you send out an engrossed co¬ 
py of the reports after the Convention has passed upon 
them, for the latter would be such documents as they 
could rely upon. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I wish to say a few words 
upon the adoption of the resolution. The gentleman 
seems to be exceedingly fearlul of the expense of this 
printing. I have made some figures upon this matter 
of expense. It is known that printing of this kind 
costs thirty cents per token for press work. I do not 
know how many sheets these reports will contain, but 
it costs for each sheet, to supply the usual number, six¬ 
ty cents, counting by tokens—by the rule that printers 
have. To print the number proposed would require 
six tokens of press work, so that the extra expense 
would be $1,20, and the whole amount J'or two sheets 
would he $2,40 for each report. I observe that the 


report which has been already made, is not printed in 
the daily proceedings i s published in the newspapers, 
consequently our constituents have no means ol knovv- 
ing what we are about e.xccpt so far as they^ gather it 
from the mere reports of the amendments offei ed. For 
one, I am anxious to have a few copies to send to ray 
constituents, in order that I may be appr.sed ol their 
views. After the reports are amended as much as 
the report now laid before us, if there be a diversity 
of opinion as to their various provisions, v*’e ought to 
look for suggestions from our constituents. I hope the 
motion to print will prevail. The expense is compar¬ 
atively nothing, and ought to have no influence wliat- 
ever, in our deci.sion. If these reports were printed | 
in the daily publication of our debates and proceedings/ 
this would not be necessary, but as it is it is almost in¬ 
dispensable. We do not sit here as n Star Chamber or 
Inquisition, to keep our work a secret from the people, 
l)ut we want the people to know what we are about, 
in order that from remonstrances, petitions and siigges- 
lions which they might send up, we may gain some 
valuable hints. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. I feel inclined to concur with my 
friend from Auglaize. The reports are not such mat¬ 
ters, as ordinarily ctnislitute reports of committees, but 
only propositions, that would be altered and changed 
into ({uite other and different shapes, before the public 
could ever read them. The Convention has solemnly 
determined not to publish what were ordinarily regar¬ 
ded as rejmrts of committees, that is, the strong argu¬ 
ments and mature reilections of members, written out at 
leisure,in their chambers. It has determined thatnoth- ] 
ing but crudities, sudden speeches, immature thoughts j 
of members made upon this floor, and sometimes with ' 
very little reflection, should be recorded, and go forth 
to the world. We call in the skilful embalmer with his 
spices, frankincense and myrrh, to preserve the abor- ■ 
tions, the still-births, [loud laughter,] in one word, the 
slunk kittens. Butif members choose to retire to their ^ 
chambers, and there employ thought, reflection and j 
consideration, we have resolved that the mature offer- j 
ing of their minds should never see the light, and ! 
should be sent to the tomb of the Capulets, there to re¬ 
main. [Continued laughter.] To drop the metaphor, ! 
members had been directed not to condense their j 
thoughts or mature their arguments, for if they did, 
those arguments would be suppressed. I apprehend I 
this Convention may have over-rated ihese^thiugs. We i 
may need the best thoughts and soundest arguments in 
the most condensed form, in order to recommend our 
plan to the people. It is not to bo taken for granted 
that the people will accept our proposition upon trust. 

We may find need of our strongest arguments. | 

Mr. REEMELIN. I desire to make a simple sug- . 
gestion. If the Reporter should make copies of the re¬ 
ports of the committees to be printed with the proceed- [ 
ings and debates, the object would be attained. The i 
reports would go into the papers, and the subsequent ' 

amendments and discussions that take place in regard 1 

to them, would explain there. • 

Mr. SAWYER. I am just informed by the Reporter 1 
that these reports will hereafter appear with the de- | 
bates. The reason of their omission heretofore is, that i 
the newspapers have not had room for the full reports, 
and the reports of committees have been teraporarily 
deferred. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. With that understanding I ask 
leave to withdraw my resolution. i 

The PRESIDENT then laid before the Convention a i 
communication from J. V. Smith, Reporter for the Con- i 
vention, announcing that in accordance with a resolu- ' 
tion of the Convention, he had made proposals for the ; 
publication of the report of the debates and proceed¬ 
ings of the Convention to the proprietors of the West- \ 

bote, a weekly German paper, published in this city, I 

and the Repuhlicaner, a daily German newspaper, pub¬ 
lished in Cincinnati, and tliat his proposals had boon 
accepted. ! 


















CONVENTION liEPORTS. 


The cominunicalion was laid upon the table. 

The PRESIDENT also laid betore the Convention a 
communication relative to the daily publication of the 
Debates in the Journal and Statesman of this city. 

JEIlKMIAH MOIIROVV. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. 1 oiler for the adoption the 
following : 

Resolved, That the President of this Convention be requested 
to extend to the iJou. Jeremiah Morrow, of the county ol War 
rt n one of the surviving members of the Convention which 
formed the present constitution, an invitation to a seat within the 
bar of fbis Convention during his stay in this city. 

Agreed to. 

Mr. STANTON. I offer for adoption the following: 

Resolved. That from and after this day, when the Convention 
takes a recess, it shall be until 2 o’clock P. M., and when it ad¬ 
journs, it shall be until 9 o’clock A. M., until otherwise ordered. 

Mr. HAWKINiS. I hope die resolution will pass, 
for unless we occupy more time, we shall never be able 
to terminate our Debates. There are many delegates 
here, who wish to express themselves fully and ireely 
upon the subjects that come before us, and on that ac¬ 
count it will be necessary for us to have longer sessions. 

Mr. MASON. I will make a remark in relation to tlie 
passage of this resolution, that is in relation to die time, 
which the committees necessarily must have. In ref¬ 
erence to the committee on appoitiomuent, a resolution 
was passed, in relation to fiiriiishing ol information to 
that committee from various officers, and it was expec¬ 
ted that the action of the committee on that account 
would be necessarily delayed. That uilbrniation has 
been furnished by the Secretary of State but it lias luR 
been priated. They have held one or two meetings 
which have been merely meetings of conversation. 
No plan has been fixed upon by that committee, nor 
can they until they get that information, and have time 
to digest and reflect upon the subjects of their deliber¬ 
ations. 1 would suggest that the Oonvention would 
delay upon agreeing to an early hour of lecess and ad¬ 
journment for a few days. For my part, I am willing 
to vote for long sessions in due time, perhaps next 
week. I think by taking such a course at this time, it 
would be only retarding the business of the Conven¬ 
tion. 

Mr. STANTON. 1 cannot consent to change this 
resolution. We are at the close of the third week, and 
the Convention has not been in session four hours a day 
on an average. There are now before the Convention 
reports of committees sufficient to occupy the time ol 
the Convention eight hours every day. So there need 
be no delay. ^ 

Mr. McCORMICK. I would merely suggest to the 
Convention, by way of inquiry, tliat we are yet to re¬ 
ceive information from the Secretary of State, the Audi¬ 
tor of Slate, and the auditors of the different counties, 
which it is absolutely necessary we should have, before 
we are prepared fur deliberation, and before we get 
to this very report which is now before the Conven¬ 
tion. We require such information, and I humbly sub¬ 
mit that we are making more haste than pi'ogress in 
this matter. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I once had feelings very similar 
to those of the gentlemen from Logan (Mr Stanton) 
about this matter of time. But I tell gentlemen that 
we do not expedite business by long sessions in this 
chamber. If gentlemen are favorable to loud and long 
talking, let them liave long sessions ; but if on tlie con¬ 
trary, they are favorable to matured thought, let us 
have short sessions. But little progress is made while 
the daily sessions are so long continued at tlie present 
state ol proceedings; but towards the close of the sts- 
siou, longer sessions will become necessary. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I move to lay the I'esolution 
upon the table. 

Mr. BTANTON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—Yeas 63, Nkiys 30, as follows: 

Yeas^—M essrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnett ol Preble, 
Bates, Bennett, Hlickensderler, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Cahill, Claypoole, Cook, Cuth^r, Dorsey, Florence, Graham, 


Gray, Greene of Defiance, Greene of Ross, Gregjr, Groesbeck, 
Hard, Hende rson, Hitchcock ol Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga! 
Holmes, Holt, Ilootmun, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson’ 
Keimon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter’ 
xMitchell, Morris, McCormick, Orton, Otis, I’eck; Perkins, Quigley! 
Raniiey, Kiddle, Robertson, Sellers, Staiibery, Stebbins t>tick* 
ney, Etidger, Ewan, Swift, Taylor, Thomson of Stark,’ Town¬ 
send, Vanceot Butler, Way and Williams—()3. 

Navs —Messrs. Chambers,Clark Ewing, Farr, Firestone, Forbes, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hunter, Lidey, Loudon, Mason) 
Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Patterson, Reenielin, Sawyer, Scou 
of Augltiize, Smith of Highland, Smith ot Warren, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stanton, Stilvvell, Thomson ol Shelby, Vance, of 
Campaign, Warren, Woodbury and Mr. Prcsident-^0. 

So the resolution was laid on the table. 

COMMITTE OF THE WHOLE. 

Mr SAWYER. I move that the Convention reaulve 
itself into comuiittee of the Whole upon the ordera of 
the day. 

The Convention then resolved itself into committee 
of the Whole, (Mr. Hawkins in the Cliair.) and resum¬ 
ed the coitsideraLiun of the report (number one) of the 
committee on the Legislative Department, introduced 
by Mr. Sawyer oii Monday last. 

The question being upon striking out the word “bi¬ 
ennial.” 

Mr. FIRESTONE. This is a question, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, as 1 consider, of considerable importance to this 
Convention and to the people of this State, and it is a 
question, too, which they have beeiidiscussing to some 
consid rable extent. Tiiey expect us to act honestly 
and carefully in our deliberations. It is not a new 
question that has been sprung in this committee or 
sprung in this Convention, bat it has been fully deba¬ 
ted by the peojde for a twelvemonth or more, and has 
been a topic of conversalion for our Lyceums, in the 
village bar-room, and in the meetings of the people,, 
held to consider tlie amendments necessary to be in¬ 
corporated in the new constitution. And, sir, we lind 
tliere is scarcely a paper—especially it a political pa¬ 
per, it matters nut of what party, but wliat has had 
something to say upon the importance of doing away 
with annual sessions ot the Legislature, and ha\ ethem 
only once in two years. The banner has been uiduri- 
ed, and we have seen written upon it in legible charac¬ 
ters, biennial sessions of the L egislalure. It has been 
already said upon tliis Boor, that we have had too much 
legislation. It has not only been said here, but it has 
been said throughout the State. Yes, sir, the people 
have become sick and ti.ed of the amount ol legisla¬ 
tion which we have had in times gone by. They con¬ 
sider that the entire statutes have become too large— 
that the laws have become too numerous, so that in¬ 
stead of making matters clear, in our statutes, they 
have thrown only a cloud over them, lendering them 
the more complicated. It has come to the point, that 
an individual, if he enters into a law suit lor a paltry 
sum ot one or two dollars, he is under fhe necessity of 
feeing and procuring a lawyer to expound the law for 
him, and the justice can scarcely given decision until 
he has one of these learned gentlemen to declare whai 
the law means. The people want this matter ot legis¬ 
lation more clear and deiinite—they want to under¬ 
stand it—they do not want the enactment ot bills one 
year, and the repeal of the same next year-—they want, 
in fine, that legislation should be simplified down us 
much as possible. But, Mr. Chairman, this is not the 
only question. The people calculate they have aright 
to look to their pockets. They think they have a i ighl 
to enquire into the expenses ol legislation, asthe^ have 
to foot the bill. It may be well enougli fur those indi¬ 
viduals who are so fortunate as to be elected niembeis ' 
of the Legislature, to conic and receive then ihiee dol¬ 
lars a day and lose half of the session in quarrelling 
about wlio sliall be Speaker of the House or Senate, 
but it is an entirely ditfercut thing to the people, wuo 
ha\ e to loot tliis bill. They have a right to complain, 
for they consider it an unnecessary expense—and leg¬ 
islation not so much needed ; for it has actually taken 
money irom their pockets unuecessarily to gratify a 








156 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


few hungry office seekers. Willi regard to the mat¬ 
ter of this expense, it is not the frequent sittings only 
of the Legislature—not merely the three dollars a day 
while here, but you will always find restless and am¬ 
bitious spirits here, who are anxious to have it said, 
when they go home, that they had a part in passing 
some bill throughthe House. My friend from Monroe, 
whose remarks were made a few days ago, brought to 
my mind how very easily bills can pass, for he made 
the declaration that he never failed but once in making 
a bill pass. This is the way the legislation goes, and 
the people have to foot the bill. We have many local 
interests coming up in the Legislature. I’crhaps a 
member from Hamilton county wishes a rail-road or a 
canal, which his constituents are exceedingly desirous 
should be chartered, and at the same time, a memlier 
from some other county is desirous to get charters for 
■tlie like purpose—and what course do they pursue to 
bring about the desired object ? Why, they get togeth¬ 
er, and one says to the other, if you will vote for my 
bill, I will vote for yours: and thus is the system of 
log-rolling carried out for the benefit of a few who live 
TU certain localities. Well, now, people have become 
sick of this kind of legislation. If we go on with this 
Constitution and simplify the matter down, and em¬ 
power the Legislature to enact only some general laws, 
there is no necessity for meeting here every year, for 
they would not have a large amount of business to 
transact. The gentleman from Hamilton, in the course 
of his very ingenious remarks, said that it would be 
very difficult to keep them beyond the 1,5th of March, 
when the sun begins to shine a little warm, and as they 
will not convene till the first Monday in .Taiiuary, they 
would not lose time, 1 am glad if they cannot be kept 
longer—if it will be so, I should rather wish they might 
go the 15th of February. Whv, we have become so 
accustomed to quarreling and fighting about miimpor- 
tant measures, that some Representatives think it is ab¬ 
solutely necessary that they should talk, quarrel and 
fight about them, and so prolong their sessions from 90 
to 100 days. The ides of March is the time upon which 
CsDsar fell in the Roman Senate, and I hope it will be 
the time when every memlmr of the Legislature will 
have to go home, for there is no necessity of our sittinsr 
here longer than that time. But it is argued by the 
gentleman from Hamilton county, that the people will 
go to sleep—that it is actually necessary that there 
should be an election for Senator and Representative 
every year in order to keep them wide awake. Well, 
now, I would ask, are the people of Ohio to be govern- 
ed by passion ? Must you keep them constantly exci¬ 
ted, must you arouse their passions by your political 
excitements in order to make them guard their inter¬ 
ests ? I trust not. I trust that the community of this 
State are intelligent—that they reason upon these mat¬ 
ters, and will guard well their interest, without a ne¬ 
cessity for any excitement whatever. They guard their 
interests well in the Presidential election eveiy four 
years. We have a cojnmunity which you need not 
drive by storm or passion. We have school-houses in 
eyeiy vaRey, we hear the church bell toll fi rom every 
hill, and is it possible that the peo^de cannot guard their 
interests unless you excite them every year? Excite¬ 
ments of this kind are not necessary, because the peo¬ 
ple are generally well-informed upon the subject of 
politics. In fact the studv of politics is an all absorb¬ 
ing theme with the peoide of this State. 

You will hear discourses upon political maUei s in 
the little coteries that assemble in your village bar¬ 
rooms, to the Ajaxes Telamons in your hulls of legisla¬ 
tion. The little white-headed boy, before he dotis his 
petticoats, will stand up for his political rights, and 
contend as warmly and vigorously as the veteran or 
sage who boasts that he has never changed his party; 
while the village Miss will inquire into the political 
creed of her young Adonis, before she will let him 
come even within gun-shot of popping the (juestion. 
, [Laughter.] The student at college, before he receives 


his parchment, will come home and claim the privilege 
of instructing his fellow citizens upon the subject of 
politics. Political questions are discussed every day, 
and it is not necessary to get the people excited, in or¬ 
der that they may guard their interests. I think it is 
paying a poor compliment, indeed, to the intelligence 
of the ])eople, to say that they need such excitement. 
It is said, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot watch the 
treasuiy xinless we come here every year; but I tell 
you, the people have said to you that you have watched 
the treasury too long already, for their benefit. That 
matter was well answered by the gentleman from 
Trumbull, and it is not necessary for me to dwell upon 
it at great length. We have been watching the trea¬ 
sury ev^ery year—every day—until we have taken ev¬ 
ery dollar from it—run the State twenty millions in 
debt. We have heaped burdens upon the people un¬ 
til they begin to say, we will bear them no longer. 
Then what necessity is there of meeting every year, 
increasing the expenses of the State, in order to gratify 
a few hungry leeches that wish to Ije sucking at the 
treasury? I consider the report as made, in having 
biennial sessions of the Legislature, as the most impor¬ 
tant pai’t of that report. I think the people will consid¬ 
er that we have no attended to their interests, and 
that we have not done justice to them, if we do not 
engraft such a principle in the Constitution. They 
have instmeted me upon this matter—they have 
throughout the State complained of their grievances, 
and I think we should give due heed to them. 

I am opposed to striking out that part of the report 
in regard to biennial sessions. 

With these few remarks I submit the question. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. We certainly must 
have an extraordinary constituency in Ohio, if the rep¬ 
resentations that are made here are correct. And a 
very etxraordinary rule indeed, for the gentleman who 
has just sat dovvn says “that the people are all tired of 
too much legislation; that they are opposed to so much 
legislation—to the expenses of it, and to the whole 
matter.” Well, now, I would ask that gentleman who 
it is that puts in place those men who legislate too 
much, and who create all those expenses? Who is it? 
Is it a fact that the people are opposed to so much legis¬ 
lation, and that they are afraid of enormous expeiises? 
Why if it be so, why in the name of common sense, not 
send men here who will do differently? Have they not 
the whole management in their own hands? Cannot 
they select men who will be honest and act lionestly? 
that will legislate just enough and no more. Why, one 
of the two things must be true: either that we have no 
man who will act honestly if placed in the legislative 
department, or that the people are not capable of se¬ 
lecting those men. Now which horn of the dilemna 
will the gentleman adopt ? One of them must be true 
—either that there are no honest men among us, or 
the people are incapable of selecting honest men, on 
the hypothesis of the gentleman. I do not believe one or 
the other. I believe that we have honest men, and I be- 
ieve that if the people were left to their own action, they 
would send up honest men. The difficulty lies not with 
the ])eople, but back ofthat. Iwillnotsay v^^hatitis. It 
is not ihe great and unbiassed and unprejudiced mind 
of the people that fills the halls of the Legislature: if it 
could be left to the people to do it, tht'se complaints 
would be done away with. 

Now I have no disposition to go at length into this 
question. I do not profess to be an orator, and do not 
expect to make oratorical flourishes. I merely state 
my own opinions and view^s on this subject. I am op- 
]>osed to this change from annual to biennial legisla¬ 
tive sessions. I believe the interests of the State re¬ 
quire annual sessions, and will be found to require it. 
And I believe the people are capable of selecting hon¬ 
est men to represent tliem in the legislative depart¬ 
ment. But how is it about this clamor in regard to the 
excess of legislation? What does it arise from? It is 
all agreed that there is too much of it, but if the gen- 











CONVENTION REEOllTS. 


157 


tleinan will point out any republican government that 
has ever existed without this excess of legislation, he 
can point out what I cannot. It is the price of the 
privileges we enjoy. It is inevitably in a goveniment 
like ours that there will be more excess and more 
change of laws, than where the government is vested 
in the will of a despot. From the necessities of the 
case we must have it and will have it, il we have any 
Legislature at all. 

1 must confess that I am alarmed when gentlemen 
get up and say the people are tired of this department of 
the government—are unwilling to trust it and would 
curtail and limit it. Is it so that this department of 
government is to be annihilated? Is it so that peo¬ 
ple must be be led to destroy this part of the government? 
Is it so that every mait who is elected to office is cor¬ 
rupt? Why, sir, when we come to that concision— 
when the people of the State generally believe that this 
legislative department should not be trusted, farewell to 
our republican institutions. If there be any department 
in especial which can be trusted, it is this department— 
a department emanating directly from the people them¬ 
selves, and the more you excite the public against this 
department, the farther you go to pi-epare us for a dif¬ 
ferent form of government, which I nor any one else, 
wish to see introduced into this country. I hold that 
the safety of the republic depends in a great measure 
on the frequency of elections, and the farther you re¬ 
move those elections from the people, the more severe 
blow do you strike at republican institutions. How is 
it ? What is the struggle of reformers at this time in 
England ? These elections are septennial, but parlia¬ 
ment meets every year. What are these reformers 
striving for ? To make elections more frequent, to have 
triennial, biennial or annual elections of the Parlia¬ 
ment. The reformers of England and the greater part 
of the community in Europe are in favor of annual 
elections and an annual Parliament. W'ell, here the 
retbrmers say, those elections must not be so frequent, 
while the English reformers say, give the people fre¬ 
quent elections, give them annual elections. They see 
the inconvenience of having the election unfrequently, 
and seeing the evils arising from it, they would have 
them more frequent. If in that country annual par¬ 
liament and annual election would be beneficial, I do 
not see why we should not have them here. I am of 
opinion that our institutions cannot be perpetuated un¬ 
less we have frequent elections, and I do believe that 
altering the annual elections and making it biennial 
would be one step taken towards destroying our re¬ 
publican institutions. 

Mr. STANBERY. This seems to me a very impor¬ 
tant question, as much so perhaps, as any to be brought 
under the consideration of this body. 

I undertake to say sir, that no such State as Ohio has 
ever made this experiment of biennial sessions. Of the 
twenty States of this Union only ten have tried it. 

Mr. SAWYER. Will the gentleman name them. 

Mr. STANBERY. Delaware, North Carolina, Ken¬ 
tucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas, Tex¬ 
as, Illinois and Iowa. 

A Member And Louisiana. 

Mr. STANBERY. And here for the benefit of the 
gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer] who said he 
liked the Constitution of California so very much, I 
will state, that it provides for annual sessions. 

But what States were those which have biennial ses¬ 
sions ? All of them but two. Slave States, requiring lit¬ 
tle legislation comparatively, and the two free States, 
hardly together containing a population half that of 
Ohio. 

Let us look sir, at this proposition. For periods of 
two years legislation is to be suspended in Ohio. Well 
what is Ohio, that she of all other States in this Union 
can consent to make this experiment? 

With a pub’ic debt of nineteen millions to be annual¬ 
ly provided for,—with a revenue of nearly three mil¬ 
lions to be annually collected and disbursed, with vast 


lines of Public works,—with a large amount of Public 
land, and other property—with more public institutions,, 
than perhaps, any other State in the Union, with'all 
these great public interests requiring annual super¬ 
vision and accountability, we are called upon to say 
that the legislative authority is to come into action on-- 
ly once in two years. 

I speak, Mr. Chainnau, not without some reflection, 
on this subject, for not long ago I was inclined to favor 
this amendment. I felt in common with the people,, 
the evil of too much legislation, and looking to that 
evil alone, this remedy seemed the readiest and most 
effectual. Further consideration has satisfied me that 
I was wrong, and I now feel convinced that whatever 
may be the evil of excessive legislation, the total sus¬ 
pension of the law-making authority for so long a pe¬ 
riod would be infinitely worse. If we make this 
change in our constitution, it will run through all our 
laws. Any one who will take the trouble to examine 
our existing laws for the administration of all the de¬ 
partments of government, will see that they contem¬ 
plate, the annual exercise of the legislative authority. 
All these laws mustbe changed in order to be accommo¬ 
dated to the new system. Once eveiy year, according to 
our long established system, all the departments of 
government perform their entire functions, and the 
circle of operations is complete. What do gentlemen 
contemplate on the other side ? Our government, 
like all others, acts through three great departments— 
legislative, executive and judicial. Now which of 
these is the especial representative of the people? 

Mr. MITCHELL. All of them. 

Mr. STANBERY. Do the Judges elected for seven 
years, represent the popular will, as fully as members 
of the Legislature elected for one ? Is that democratic 
doctrine ? 

Mr. RIDDLE. No sir. 

Mr. STANBERY. I was surprised to be answered 
by a democratic lawyer, that the legislative depart¬ 
ment was not that feature of our government which 
most directly represented public opinion. As to the 
judicial department, it is very much the same under 
all forms of government. It has very little power any¬ 
where, and about as much with us as in England or 
France. The Judges may hold by a different tenure, 
or a different mode of appointment, but their duties 
and powers are every where the same. Their proper 
function is to interpret and apply the laws, whatever- 
they may happen to be, whether they suit the people 
or not. Nor is the executive department, in any proper 
sense, the popular representative. It is composed of 
officers, elected it may be by the people, but charged 
with the performance of fixed duties. The chief ex¬ 
ecutive officer, though elected by the people, is beyond 
their control during his continuance in office except by 
means of their true representatives in the legislative 
department. 

Now, what do we hear proposed as] democratic doc¬ 
trine? That we shall allow the two departments of 
government furthest removed from the people, to be in 
full play ail the time—not once in two years, or once 
in each year—but all the time—and stifle the other de¬ 
partment—the immediate and direct representative of 
the people, for two successive years. Yes, sir, we are 
to stop the popular voice—to mesmerize the people, 
and put them to sleep just as long as possible. We are 
to say to the people, “ you shall not be heard here 
every year—you shall not hold your public servants to 
annual account.'’ 

Why not say but once in three years, or four or five 
years ? 

Mr. SAWYER. Why do you not say once in six 
months ? 

Mr. STANBERY. Because it is not necessary to say 
so. If it were, I would say what is said in the consti¬ 
tution of Virginia, “ the General Assembly shall meet 
once, OR OFTENER, every year.” 

Gentlemen suppose that there is a strong popular 












158 


CON VENTION IlEPORTS. 


iV.eliiig in favor of the proposed change, and that it 
grows out of the evil of excessive legislation. Is it at 
all cerUiiu that this particular evil is to be cured by this 
change? I doubt it very much. But, in truth, this 
popular feeling has been created, not so much by the 
multiplication of laws, as by a general dissatisfaction 
with our Legislature for the last two or three years. 
The great patronage and power of appointment hith¬ 
erto concentrated in that body, has been so exercised 
as to bring it into odium. All that is to be corrected 
ity other amendments. Sir, I undertake to say that 
when this gi’eat change comes to be well considered, 
It will find no favor with the people—and if we now 
adopt it, whatever el ;e we may adopt, this change, 
this provision for biennial session, will, soonest of all 
things else, bring another Convention here. In the 
great struggle whicti for years has been going on in the 
old world, the people are constantly demanding fre¬ 
quent elections and annual parliaments. I will say to 
gentlemen who represent German constituencies here 
put this provision into your constitution and not one of 
them but. wdl vote against it. And so, too, with En¬ 
glishmen and other naturalized citizens, who ail realize 
so fully the value of this privilege, they wmuld all say 
with the Germans, “ at least once a year.” 

But, sir, how are we to get along with the business 
of the State, if this cliauge be adopted? Let us look 
well to that. I have said we have a great debt to pro¬ 
vide for, and a revenue of near three millions to be an¬ 
nually collected and disbursed. Looking to these mat¬ 
ters alone, how is our business to be transacted ? About 
one half of this revenue arises fVom direct taxation—a 
great portion of this revenue comes from tolls on our 
cauals—and what remains comes from various quarters. 
Nearly all these sources of revenue, except only that 
of direct taxation, are subject to constant fluctuation. 
Take for instance our canal tolls. They range from year 
to year from $-500,OOU to $800,000—and even upon the 
same annual sum received, the nett proceeds constant¬ 
ly vary by I’eason of the greater or less expenditure for 
i’epairs. The revenue derived from direct taxation is 
the only fund which can be relied upon with conlideuce 
and it is that fund which must be annually arranged to 
meet the fluctuations in all other parts of the revenue. 

This involves the annual exercise of the taxing pow¬ 
er—a power which should always be exercised by the 
Legislature, and by the Legislature alone. It is true 
that to ensure the regular payment of the interest upon 
our Canal debt, the Auditor of State has the right to 
fix every year the rate per cent, to be levied for that 
purpose. This qualified power of taxation, as it has 
been called, lias given great dissatisfaction to some gen¬ 
tlemen. But if we are not to have animal sessions, then 
the Auditox*, or some other officer, must levy all our tax¬ 
es. Every year the rate must change, usually it has in¬ 
creased. It is scarcely ever the same two years in suc¬ 
cession. There must therefore be a power to provide 
for such changes, and that power ought not to pass out 
ot the hands of the Representatives of the people. 

Nor is it a light matter, that for two entire years at 
a time the great revenues of the State are to accumu¬ 
late in the bauds of the executive oflicers, without any 
accountability. According to our present revenue up¬ 
wards of $5,000,000 are to be collected before any ac¬ 
count is to l>e rendered to the Legislature. 

The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Rannky] bad 
said that we did not require any Legislative body to 
wattb the treasury. That instead of guarding the mon¬ 
ey, ilie Legislature squandered it, and lie seemed to 
place mere confidence in a single officer than in the 
representatives elected by the people. 

Mr. RANNEV begged to remark that be had by no 
means said he would not trust the treasury iuio the 
frauds selected by the people. On the contrary his 
proposiiioii was not to trust any one, not selected by 
the people. 

Mr. STAN BE RY. The gentleman would not trust 
one hundred men elected by the people, but was per¬ 


fectly willing to confide in one man so elected. Ac¬ 
cording to the gentleman, it is much easier to find a 
hundred rogues than one. But the gentleman from 
Trumbull was quite mistaken in sujiposiiig that our 
Legislature has of late years been squandering the pub¬ 
lic money. Bublic opinion operating as it always wjll 
upon our Legislature, has foryears cliecked very eliect- 
iially the further increase of our public debt. If there 
is 011 }" danger of the Legislature in that respect, fix a 
limitation against further debts, in the constitution. But 
is there no danger from the exei’cise of any power, ex¬ 
cept that which belongs to the legislative department ? 
We have numerous executive officers employed in col¬ 
lecting and disbursing our revenue; very many officers 
at the head ol our State institutions, vested with great 
power, as they properly should be. Heretofore we 
have been in the habit of calling all these officers to 
account once each year before the representatives of 
the people, and this was a wholesome practice, which 
it is now proposed to abandon. 

Sir, is this the way in which a pmdent man maua- 
ges his own affairs? If we appoint agents to super¬ 
intend our private business—to collect and disburse our 
monies, do we allow more than a year to go round with¬ 
out a settlement ? Do we not know that short pe¬ 
riodical settlements ensure punctuality and safety ? 
But we are now, under fear of the legislative depart¬ 
ment, to act as if no evil or usurpation could come 
from either of the other departments. We are toact as if 
there is nev’er to be such a thing as usurpation or defal¬ 
cation in a public officer. We are, for great intervals, 
to withdraw all supervision and accountability from 
such officers. For one I cannot cansent to that. If 
the treasury were safe, yet I would not consent to 
leave our public institutions without the animal super¬ 
vision of the representatives of the people. I would 
not leave tlie wretched inmates of our Beuitentiary— 
subject it might be, for two long years to the tyranny of 
keeper or guards, without redress. I would not trust 
the unfortunate beings in our asylums for such a length 
of time, in the hands of executive officers, without 
the check of legislative visitation. Hither!o we have 
at the end of each year—as the business of the 
State was finished—constantly required every execu 
tive officer, to render an account of his stewardship to 
the representatives of the people. Now we are called 
upon to chansre all that. Who can sa) how much execu¬ 
tive usurpation, corruption and peculation is to result 
from leaving all the business of the State for so long 
a tim"^', in the hands of a Governor, Treasurer, Audi¬ 
tor, and other executive officers, without so much ?is 
asking what they have been doing? 

Mr. Chairman, this theory ol biennial sessions may 
do for a small stale—for a state without much debt— 
without much revenue—without much public property 
—without many public institutions, but it will never 
do for Ohio. No state of the magnitude of Ohio, has 
ever ventured on this modern experiment. Look at 
Massachusetts, rcnnsylvaniaand New York, these great 
States which rank with Ohio—has any one of these 
consented to suspend all legislative power for two 
years? 

I repeat, sir, if it be ^mly in the management of our 
taxation and revenue, we cannot get along with bien¬ 
nial sessions. Every year necessary laws are to be 
passed to meet fluctuations in our revenue—to make 
apjiropriations to disprse of a surplus, or to meet a 
deficit. The estimates of the Auditor, based upon the 
uiicerlain contingencies of the future, m.iy not be re¬ 
alized, and at once legislative fiction is required to meet 
an unforeseen emergency. The loss of the wheat crop 
—a change in trade, or^great damage by floods, disap¬ 
points the estimated revenue from the canals, and re¬ 
quires legislation. Are we fo allow the Auditor of 
State, at his own discretion, to levy a tax in order to 
supply the deficiency, and to make the necessary ap¬ 
propriations to meet such a state of things ? 








CONVENTION REPORTS 


159 


Mr. AllCIiBOLD. Who uow makos appropriations 
ior canals ? 

Mr. tSTANBliiiiY. The repairs are })aid out of the 
gross receipts—and that very charge causes lluctuu- 
liOns in the not proceeds—and all such iluctuations re- 
tpiire logisladvo irction. But, Mr. C'liuirnian, we should 
not couhne our view to one subject fur legislation. 
Every where over this great State, are matters requi¬ 
ring legislative aid. In view ot all these great inter¬ 
ests we should pause belbre taking the step now pro¬ 
posed. It were better not to decide the question until 
We have time to hear the deliberate expression of pub¬ 
lic opinion, if, at last, it is decided tliar the step shall 
be taken—that the e.x.perinient must be made—i hoi)e 
it may be in some form that will allow us to retract— 
and that instead of insertingintheconstitution a positive 
provision either way, we may provide that the Legis¬ 
lative session shall he annual or biennial, as the Legis¬ 
lature may from time to time determine. 

Mr. STANTON^ I have always had great confi¬ 
dence ill the intelligence and integrity of the two gen¬ 
tlemen who have last addressed the committee, and 1 
cannot find myself dili'ering I’rom them malerialiy, 
u})on any important question, without examining ca)e- 
fully to see whether I may not be mistaken. The 
gentleman from Franklin, however, is peculiarly situa¬ 
ted in regard to this question, and 1 suy this without 
meaning the slightest rellection either upon his intelli¬ 
gence or his i itegiity. I can understand how his po¬ 
sition might unconsciously influence his judgment, 
for somehow or other it always happens that the opin¬ 
ions of a liepresentative do graduate most marvelously 
with the interc.sts of his constituents. I can under- 
rtiand how it is that the citizens of Columbus may de¬ 
sire ail annual expenditure of some thousands of dol¬ 
lars at the Capital. Tliis is not a reply to the gentle¬ 
man’s ai gumeut, 1 giant, but it is a consideration which 
might have sumo influence upon the opinions of the 
gentleman from Fianklin. But there are other mem- 
liei’s who are ditlereiitly situated—whose constituents 
are dilferently afl'ected upon this quesiioii; as a por¬ 
tion of the annual expenditure here, on account of the 
silting Legislature, comes out of the pockets of my 
constituents. My constituents jiay what his constitu¬ 
ents secure, and the consequence is, I do not lind my¬ 
self so much embarrassed oii account of dilference of 
opinion between the gentleman and myself as I might, 
if he were difl'erenlly situated. 1 propose, therefore, 
though not at length, to see whether his arguments are 
sound. 

The question has been propounded by gentlemen on 
the other side in a very singular maimer. They ask, 
why should not the Legislature meet annually, and 
they complain that they have not heard any argument. 
I will answer the question by perpetrating a Yankeeisin 
—by asking another question—Wliy should it meet an¬ 
nually ? And I do not understand why this mode of 
argument might not apply as well in one case as in the 
other—except as I shall note hereafter. 

Mr. Chairman, I shall first notice the argument for 
annual sessions. It seems to me, in order to show the 
importance of annual sessions, the necessity and de¬ 
mand ill the community for annual legislation must be 
established. But no such argument has been oflerod, 
except the one connected with the finances of the State 
—none whatever. It seems to me that ihero is but 
little necessity for legislation in lafState which has been 
.settled some 50 or GO years; whose resources are con¬ 
siderably developed ; whose population has become set¬ 
tled and their business habits fixed. But I cannot un¬ 
derstand the necessity of frequent changer in tlie laws 
of a general nature afiectiug trade and business. These 
subjects of legislation need no anmud change. But it 
is said by gen lemen on the other side, that there is an 
annual necessity for exercising the taxing power, and 
the appropriation of the public revenue: and that there 
should be an annual session of the Legislature to secure 
tiieaccouutabiiity of the disbursing officers of the Slate. 


This is the sum and substance of their argument. It is 
deemed important that the taxes, receipts, disburse¬ 
ments, accoimls, sc’ttlements, and reports ot all the pub¬ 
lic officers should be carefully overlooked. I grant it; 
but it does not follow as a necessaiy consequence, that 
there must be an annual session, and an annual appro¬ 
priation, and an annual oversight of the Legislature, as 
gentlemen argue. I confess that onr appropriations 
must assume an annual form ; that is, the Legislature 
when it shall meet biennially, must appropriate in ad¬ 
vance for tlic exj)en8es of the State and public works, 
for the two succeding years—so much for the expenses 
of 1850, and so much for the e.xpenses of 1851. 

Mr. ARC 11 BOLD (in his scat). There has not been 
made an apropriation for public works by the Legisla¬ 
ture for the last twenty-five years. 

Mr. STANTON. I know that, sir ; but let that pass. 
Will any gentleman liave the goodness to tell me whv 
any Legislature cannot make an appropriation which 
shall run two years ahead / Why may they not ask 
the disbursing oflicer to pay out a given sum annually, 
as well as the Auditor of State and the Canal Commis¬ 
sioner ? But it is said that tlie public officers should 
report annually. Let them do so; and their rejuirt 
should be laid before the General Assembly, and com¬ 
mittees appointed to make investigations. It docs 
seem to me that the people might elect a man to be 
Treasurer of State who might be entrusted with the 
public money for two years; for if he were disposed 
to steal, I should think one year, or even nine luonliis, 
or six months, would belong enough for such a job. 

Mr. Chairman: It has been said by the gentleman 
from Franklin that the Legislature should meet annu¬ 
ally for the purpose of looking into the superintend¬ 
ence and management of the Penitentiary, and all the 
benevolent institutions of the Slate—that these institu- 
iions should not be left to the sole care of their oilicers 
for 80 long a period as two years; but, sir, if 1 under¬ 
stand these matters aright, there are directors appoint¬ 
ed to liave control over the officers of these institutions, 
and the jiower of removal; and I apprehend that un¬ 
der sucli a supervision the duties of lhe.se officers could 
hardly fail to be faithfully discharged toward that un¬ 
fortunate portion of the human race over whom their 
control is exercised. 

It has been said that this principle of biennial ses¬ 
sions may be well enough applied in slave States— 
States of small resources and little necessity for taxa¬ 
tion, but that in the older States tlie popular wants arc 
more numerous, and the duties are more responsible, 
the annual sessions cannot be dispensed with. Now, 
to my mind, those older States, which have reached 
some degi'ce of maturity and stability, liave the less 
need of legislation on that account, and lliat they fur¬ 
nish a very strong argument why the annual session 
should be dispensed with. If the States of Illinois and 
Iowa do not require the intervention of annual legisla¬ 
tion, for the laying out of their new counties—the ma¬ 
king of tlieir roads—and all the growing demands of a 
rapidly increasing population, it seems to me that they 
may well he dispensed with in this State. It seems to 
me that Ohio hn.s reached that point where the ne xs- 
sity for annual sessions of the Legislature must be vast¬ 
ly less than in those new States. I can midcrsland 
very well why the framers of the old cons'.itutioii, who 
met here in the year 1802, representing only 50.000 
people and some eight or nine counties, inserted a pro¬ 
vision for annual sessions in the Legislature. 1 can un¬ 
derstand that they foresaw that these woods would 
soon be reduced to cultivated fields th:'t roads and 
new counties would be required, and that the constant¬ 
ly increasing demands of the people, spreading and 
iinprov’ing in everv’’ direction, would lendei annual 
legislation necessary to provide tor the convenience 
aifd interests and the commerce of the State. But these 
demands are nearly all done away. All those necessi¬ 
ties for legislation which grew out of that early condi¬ 
tion of things, it seems to me, may be pretty generally 













160 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


dispensed with in the prese7it condition of the Statei 
There is, to iny mind, Mr. Chairman, one very conclu¬ 
sive reason why we should adopt biennial sessions, 
and that is, we ought to provide that our laws shall 
have greater stability. It is one of the crying evils of 
the day, that in this age of progress nothing is stable 
and permanent in our legislation; that even the laws 
by which the titles to our property are held are not 
published abroad and known among the people before 
they are repealed, and we know nothing about them. 
This eternal fiuctuatioii of the laws has been one of 
the results of annual sessions of the Legislature—and 
it has been the source of incalculable vexation and 
mischief to the people. In this way the thing has 
grown up; and if we continue the annual sessions the 
same cause of complaint will exist hereafter as hereto’ 
fore. Gentlemen need not tell me that the evil would 
be done away with by taking away in a great measure 
the power of local and special legislation. This will 
not be the case. But the truth is, by the proposed re¬ 
solutions upon the legislative department, all the neces¬ 
sity that has heretofore existed for annual sessions will 
be taken away. Because, as I understand, we propose 
to give all the power of legislation over the subjects 
of banking, joint stock companies, and charters of in¬ 
corporation for churches, roads and villages to the regu¬ 
lation of general laws, to be provided for supplying 
the local wants of the people. 

Mr. Chairman, I desire if possible, that the people of 
Ohio shall have the opportunity of testing by some lit¬ 
tle experience and the light of some short time—say 
for a year or 18 months, the practical workings and op¬ 
erations of the doings of their Legislature. I want 
to have the opportunity of knowing by that much ex¬ 
perience and trial, whether’ any change in the laws ef¬ 
fecting my rights is requisite. I want the trial of that 
length of time at least, to see how it shall work. But 
if you authorize annual sessions you will have no such 
thing. You may know nothing about the practical op¬ 
erations of a law until it shall have been repealed.— 
The same evil exists all over the State, and it arises in 
this way: Some gentleman, perhaps some magistrate 
in the oounty of Monroe, has come to the conclusion 
from his observations upon some particular case, that 
such a law works injustice in a particular case, and he 
writes to his Representative here for a modification of 
the law to suit his case, and the modification is made 
accordingly. This is arguing as I understand it, from 
particulars to generals, and this is what produces such 
a great mass of legislation, and so much uncertainty 
about the law. I want to get rid of this fluctuation in 
the laws. I want to bring every statute to the test of 
practical operation, before it is superseded. 

I suppose,^ sir, that no constitution was ever formed 
in which it was not prescribed, that no money should 
be drawn out of the Treasury, except in pursuance of 
an appropriation made by law. Now what I have to 
say, is this ; that in proportion as you increase the op¬ 
portunities for applications for appropriations, you will 
increase the number and the amount of appropria¬ 
tions : and it is plain that frequent meetings of the Leg¬ 
islature hold out inductments for these applications. 
It is also plain to my mind, that the very magnitude of 
the appropriations which will have to be made, if 
the Legislature met biennially, would operate as a re¬ 
straint against increasing the amount to an unreasona¬ 
ble extent; the appropriations for two years expenses of 
the Government would necessarily be double the amount 
required for a single year; and the responsibility of the 
aggregate amount of this appropriation wouldbe thrown 
upon a single body of men. And the same body would 
also be responsible for the exercise of the power of tax¬ 
ation for two years. All this resting upon their minds 
would induce caution, care, prudence, and discre¬ 
tion. But in the case of annual sessions the aggregate 
amount being only half as large, the restraints would 
not be BO operative and the demands for appropriations 
would be more numerous, while the responsibility 


would be divided. I have Jio doubt at all, about the 
correctness of this principle and that its operation 
would effect a vast amount of saving to the Treasury. I 
One word more about the democratic character of 
this proposition. It has been said that power should 
be retained by the people as much as j)ossible and be 
suiTendored into their hand.s as frequently as possible, 
and this is urged as a consideration in favor of annual 
sessions. Now I just want the attention of the com¬ 
mittee till I answer this. I suppose it is good democ¬ 
racy not to take away power from the people nor re¬ 
tain it any longer than can be avoided. I suppose al¬ 
so, that when we elect representatives the pow’er of 
legislation remains practically and substantially with 
the people, except during the time the Legislature is 
in session ; when that time expires it rests substantially 
with the })eople. Now how is it ? If you have annual 
sessions of the Legislature, then once a year your sov¬ 
ereignty is delegated and the power of the people exer¬ 
cised by representatives ; but if you have biennial ses¬ 
sions, this power will be delegated and exercised only 
once in two years, that is, it will be exei’cised during 
the period of two or three months of that time, and du¬ 
ring the residue of the two years the power will rest 
substantially with the people, for it cannot be exer¬ 
cised while the members are scattered all over the 
State. I hold sir, that the less frequently you delegate 
this power the less it can be exercised ; and that this 
is according to one of the most important fundamental 
principles of democracy, namely: that power should 
be retained in the hands of the peojile as much as pos¬ 
sible. It seems to me that this is a good argument on 
the score of democracy. 

That w’as a strange argument used by the gentleman 
over the way [Mr. Stanbery] which was answered 
so happily by the interrogative of the gentleman from 
Auglaize. 

The question is this: What are the necessities of the 
peeple in regard to the exercise of legislative power? 
One gentleman has said that your judiciary power is in 
constant operation; that your executive power is in 
constant operation, and therefore your legislative pow¬ 
er should be ever alive and active. Let us examine 
into this. I cannot for the life of me imagine how it 
is that in any State in the condition of the State of Ohio, 
where every thing is fixed and settled, where all the 
public resources are pretty well developed, in a State 
of 200 miles square, embracing more than two million 
of people, with a matured system of jurisprudence— 
why it is, that because w’e are under the constant ad¬ 
ministration of an executive department, and an inde¬ 
pendent judiciary, we require new laws to be made 
every year to govern us more perfectly. Will any gen¬ 
tleman tell me? I don’t understand that our laws are 
like old clothes, that wear out with the using—that 
they all should be laid aside when but a year old. If 
the law be good now, I want to know if it will continue 
to be a good law for fifty years? No sir; we only 
want to change the law as often as circumstances 
change. W'e should resort to legislation only for the 
purpose of adopting the laws to the altered condition 
of circumstances around us. I grant you that we may 
out-grow our law, as a child out-grows its clothes: and 
that as often as we out-grow the law, so often I grant 
you the power of legislation should be called into re¬ 
quisition. But no slight changes in our circumstances 
or condition should justify the intervention of legisla¬ 
tion. When we have found a wholesome system of ju¬ 
risprudence under which the laws are administered, 
where, I ask, is this constant necessity for change? 
The gentleman from Franklin was never more mista¬ 
ken than when he told us that the people would not 
look upon a change to biennial sessions with approba¬ 
tion. To illustrate what the popular feeling really is 
upon this subject, I will mention one circumstance. 
When I was a candidate for this seat, the inquiry was 
put to me upon a certain occasion: ‘‘Are you in favor 
of annual or biennial sessions of the Legislature?” I 










CONVENTION llEPOETS 


161 


very promptly answered that I was in favor of biennial 
sessions, but the printer in publishing my answer made 
a mistake, and printed it that I was in favor of tri-an¬ 
nual sessions. Of course, after my attention was di¬ 
rected to the error, I called on the printer and reques¬ 
ted him to correct it, and he did so. But after the cor¬ 
rection was made, I was frequently told that it was bet¬ 
ter as it stood. Now, thei'c is no question with me. 
but that the public mind has been fully made up and 
definitely expressed in favor of biennial sessions, and I 
submit, that if we expect and desire the constitution to 
be approved by tlie people, if we insert a provision 
prescribing annual sessions for the Legislature, we 
must be very careful what else we put into it. 

A few other provisions along with this, such as a hard 
money currency, and negro suftrage, would be fatal to 
the whole thing. 

I have but one other remark and that is:— 

Mr. HITCHCOK of Cuyahoga, (interrupting.) I 
wish to ask the gentleman how much the people would 
gain by the rejection of annual sessions. 

Mr. STANTON. I have no doubt that it is intended 
to incorporate a provision into the new constitution by 
which it may heaeafter be amended in any part upon 
the proposition of the Legislature, to be submitted to 
the people at large. And if it is true, as gentlemen 
on the other side seem to apprehend, that serious evils 
are to grow out of the adoption of biennial sessions, 
the people can have their remedy through the instru¬ 
mentality of such an amendment. 

Mr. TAYLOR expressed the opinion that the propo¬ 
sition in favor of biennial sessions had not been fully 
discussed, and was not a strong conviction in the north¬ 
ern part of the State ; that if the present debate was 
in the heari^ig of the people it would remove any tran¬ 
sient impression in favor of the change. In his inter¬ 
course with popular assemblies he had observed that a 
single consideration was sufficient to do so, and that 
was, the treamry and debt of Ohio. Until the State was 
disburthened of the taxation thence resulting, the Leg¬ 
islature should not dispense with the annual accounta¬ 
bility of all connected with the public finances. He 
could confidently state that this was a controlling con¬ 
sideration whenever the subject was discussed among 
his constituents. 

It was fortified by those views of our political sys¬ 
tem which had been so ably urged by other gentlemen, 
and which he was indisposed to repeat. 

As to economy, most that could be said was to loose 
speculation; but, in his judgment, annual sessions, if 
properly restricted, would be as economical as a pro¬ 
longed biennial session, added to the contingency of 
extra sessions. 

He had risen, however, on account of the reference 
which gentlemen had made to the past history of the 
Legislature of Ohio, and because they seem to draw a 
conclusion in favor of biennial sessions from what they 
term the evil of excessive legislation. If the phrase 
was changed to disproportionate legislation, he might 
concur. The remedy was not in any proposition for 
annual or biennial sessions. If the powers of the Leg¬ 
islature should bo unlimited, as hei’etofore, the mass 
of laws would be undiminished under any system. If 
the government of the State could be distributed be¬ 
tween the State Legislature and the county authorities 
as he hoped, then the evil complained of would disap¬ 
pear. In a free State, where the popular mind was ac¬ 
tive and enterprising, there must be an aggregate of 
laws far exceeding the enactments in communities 
where human rights were not known and maintained. 
The remedy was back of the form of the Legislatui’e, 
and ought not to be confounded with it. Restrict the 
scope, the limits, the competency of the General As¬ 
sembly ; strip that body of the appointing power; pro¬ 
hibit special and local legislation ; deny the power to 
incur debt, and also elevate the legislative bodies in 
each county, and we shall strike at the root of exces¬ 
sive legislation. He hoped, in conclusion, that undue 

11 


importance in this respect would not be given to the 
amendment. The reform in question was irrespective 
of the question whether the sessions of the Legislature 
were annual or biennial. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said. His remarks should have 
one quality generally agreeable to an audience—they 
should be brief. He felt impressed with the solemni¬ 
ty of the occasion, impressed with the conviction that 
we had arrived at a crisis. He had taken his seat in 
that body under the impression that members were 
unanimously in favor of biennial sessions. But the 
ripe age, the great experience and the collossnl intel¬ 
lect of the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock] 
are against us. The fervid eloquence, the command¬ 
ing genius of the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stan- 
bery] as well as a vast array of the talents and influ¬ 
ence of this body (including the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton,) [Mr. Reemelin] are against us. I’ublic opinion 
seems to have become settled. This great State with 
its millions of inhabitants was about to take a step, 
which he verily believed would rejoice the hearts 
of the friends of liberty throughout the world, and 
which would give greater stability and pennanency to 
our our institutions. But now this vast array of tal¬ 
ents and influence, in the presence of which he felt his 
own humility, was all employed in persuading the 
people to make a retrogade movement. It op[)res8ed 
him with grief and he verily believed that the civil¬ 
ized world would participate in the sensation. 

Mr. Chairman, said he, forgive a little human weak¬ 
ness. Born in another jurisdiction, he had been car¬ 
ried into the proud old ‘‘ancient dominion,” before 
memory had made its first efl'orts. There he early be¬ 
came acquainted with the writings of her gifted sons; 
her .Teffersons, her Madisons, her Marshalls, her Ran¬ 
dolphs, her Henrys and her Lees, and honestly thought 
Virginia the very first of nations, occupying the most 
exalted place in the communities of the world. Inbi& 
school days he had been entranced with the eloquence 
of Fisher Ames, and fervently wished that great man 
had been a Virginian. When Mr. Ames stood amongst 
the representatives of the people in Congress, implo¬ 
ring them to mak e aprovision for eflectuating the trea¬ 
ty of 1795, not to sutler themselves to be seduced by 
the voice of young ambition, not to plunge an infant 
nation into the wars and conflicts of Europe, he re¬ 
minded his compeers of their endearing relations to 
posterity. He called up before their mental vision, 
the unnumbered millions who were soon to occupy 
this great continent, and told them that each man, hon¬ 
ored with a seat in that Assembly, ought to regard 
himself as the patriarch, the legislator ot half man¬ 
kind. He [Mr. A.,] also stood in an Assembly of 
“conscript fathers,” who occupied the same endearing 
relations to a coming and countless posterity. Flow 
insignificent, how minute, how paltry were the inter¬ 
ests of the mere politician, the ambitious aspirant, com¬ 
pared to the interests of the man, the citizen, the fath¬ 
er, the progenitor of unnumbered thousands. In this 
spirit he invited his friends to the consideration of the 
subject. We endeavor to do perfect justice to the ar¬ 
guments of our opponents. The gentleman from 
Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] has argued that a Senatori¬ 
al term of four years, and a Representative term of 
two years, will I’emove those olficers too far from the 
people. That bad men will be elected, dt times, who 
will become careless and unfaithful to the interests of 
the people. The argument had weight; carry out the 
principle to election terms of six years, eight years, ten 
years twelve years, and it become irresistible, overwhel¬ 
ming. Then will not gentlemen treat our side of the 
question with candor? They contend for shorter terms 
of election. Carry that principlefurther, to terms of 
one year, six months, three months, and we should 
have a feeble, fluctuating Legislature; subject indeed 
to external impulses, but those impulses not originating 
with the body of the people—with the toiling millions, 
but with the cunning demagogues, the professional of- 











162 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


fice-liuiiters. The real question was, which should 
govern, the substantial yeomanry—the children ot in¬ 
dustry, or the idle, cunning, bar-room politician. 

It was evident that strong arguments could be made 
on both sides of the question. Both principles were 
true in the abstract; the application only was difficult. 
On our principles one-half the Senators and all the Re¬ 
presentatives will be elected every two years, and hold 
one session. That seems to be a fair medium between 
extremes, the golden mean, which as far as possible 
reconciles both principles. But he had exhibited this 
view of the matter before, and would not tire the 
Convention by a repetition of his own argument. 

An entire change of men at short intervals, will gen¬ 
erally be followed by sudden and violent changes of 
measures. Fickleness was a defect, a vice, either in 
personal or social character. What sane man joined 
his fortunes to those of a changeling, to those of a person 
infirm of purpose and of will. Stability, consistency, 
rational lirniuess, were essential elements in every 
valuablecharacter. Let this great State, while its in¬ 
stitution are entirely pop ular, while no interests are 
thought of or consulted, except those of this great peo¬ 
ple. exhibit these valuable elements of character. 0, 
his heart exulted, it expanded with the^ idea, that the 
genius of this mighty State would exhibit herself mild, 
calm, benignant, ever attentive to popular interest and 
popular wishes, yet firm, considerate and stable in her 
purposes. 

O, then, this State would become the model republic, 
the worthy example of all lands. Her example would 
rejoice the hearts of good men, to the remotest cox'- 
nei's of the civilized world. We heard much about 
conservatism!! Who are the bold innovators now? 
Who are the progressives ? Come on, we will bear 
them company. 

Mr. TAYLOR interposing, and Mr. A. giving way, 
said; The people of Erie saw the evil of any irre¬ 
sponsible control over the finances, whether exei'cised 
by the Auditor of State, or otherwise; aud they would 
concur with the gentleman from Monroe, in extending 
the supervision of the Legislature over this important 
subject, but if the complaint of the gentleman was cor¬ 
rect, that for twenty-five years this supervision had 
been inadequate, the most substantial reform would be 
to make it annual, instead of biennial. He would add 
that his constituents desii’ed, as a fuiTher safeguai’d on 
this subject, that the constitution should expressly pro¬ 
hibit an increase of the State debt. 

The gentleman from Franklin [Mi*. Stanbery,] and 
the gentleman fx’om Ei’ie [Mr. Taylor,] had argued 
that the Assembly must meet eveiy year in order to 
supei'intend our finances, to oversee those immense 
appropriations which we eveiy year made for the pay¬ 
ment of the interest on our public debt and repairs of 
our public works. The citizens of Erie county had all 
been in favor of biennial sessions, but he [Mr. Tay¬ 
lor,] spoke one sentence; he told them that the As¬ 
sembly must meet annually, in order to make those im¬ 
mense appropriations and presto, the whole hemis¬ 
phere was illuminated with a light, sudden and won¬ 
derful as that which blazed from Aladdin’s wonderful 
lamp, and the people of Erie were contented with its 
flickering rays. Why did not the gentleman deal out 
one word of truth to his constituents ? Why did he 
not tell them that no such power had in fact been ex¬ 
ercised by the Assembly for the last twenty-five years. 

If the gentleman would take the trouble to examine 
he would find that, after parting with all real authority 
on the subject, the Assembly had for a few years gone 
through the miserable farce of making appropriations 
for the interest of our State debt, but about the year 
1830 had dropped it as an idle ceremony. 

He would also find an act of Assembly creating a 
small board of three men, and in two paragraphs, be¬ 
stowing on them the power of appropriating the public 
money for the purpose of repairing our public works, 
no less than threfe times ; yes the word “ appropriate” 


was the word employed three times in two paragraphs, 
to describe the power of the small board. Why the 
locks and dams of our public improinements had been 
swept away by the great flood of December, 1847 ; 
whoever passed along next spring saw hundreds of 
men employed in making repairs, but not one dollar 
had been asked of the people’s representatives—assail¬ 
ants had a shorter road to the treasury. 

If the gentleman would come and take his seat in 
the Assembly expecting to exercise any actual control 
over the public money, he would find himself in the 
situation of the knight of old romance, walking in the 
enchanted forest, where delicious music invited him 
into castles of ease, and power, and pleasure, and in¬ 
dulgence, resplendent with gold, and gems, and pearls, 
but as soon as he essayed to pass the portals, all vanish¬ 
ed into thin air. 

The gentleman from Franklin had argued that the 
Assembly might send its committees to examine the 
doings of the State Auditor and review his appropria¬ 
tions. Yes, the Assembly might do so but it would 
veiy much resemble the sending a committee of school 
boys to examine the school master. That officer has 
all the actual power on the subject. He has the ad¬ 
vantage of comprehensive knowledge of minute ac¬ 
quaintance with the details of business. If anything 
has been done wrong he knows it and knows how to i 
conceal it from novices. The members of the Assem¬ 
bly are generally new men, elected for very short terms, 
and but little acquainted with the details of the finan- j 
ces. No man is a good farmer the first time he ever i 
strikes a furrow ; no man is a good blacksmith the first j 
time he ever lifts a hammer. A committee of assem- f 
bly men sent to examine the doings of the State Au- I 
ditor would resemble a committee of very good far- ] 
mers aud very good lawyers sent to examine the works i 
of a fine cabinet maker or musical instrument maker. ! 
The artist would laugh at them as novices. In his 1 
short legislative experience the Assembly had never | 
imposed so humiliating a duty upon any of its mem- j 
hers; scarcely a man would volunteer to place himself 
in so humble and helpless a position. The actual 
power ought to be restored to the peojde’s represen¬ 
tatives ; with power would come knowledge. 

He was well aware that much of the odium that had 
rested on the General Assembly ought to have rested 
elsewhere. The people were maddened with the bur- j 
then of excessive taxation. Did they know that if the 
expenses of government were rejiealed to the last cop- ! 
per, they would only pay five-franks where they now j 
pay a dollar! !! | 

He was a friend of the Assembly, as the immediate j 
representative of the people. He had joined in none * 
of those tirades of invective which sophomore elo- ; 
quence had poured out on that body. He wished to j 
give it respectability. He wished the laws to have [ 
moral force. He wished them, as well as the legis¬ 
lators to have the benefit of the sober second thought 
of the people. If, on the contrary, it was resolved to j 
urge the car of State faster and faster, by short terms j 
of election, by single branch Assemblies, by extrane- j 
ous influences, it might be urged to madness, and the 
younger members of this body might live to repeat ! 
the dying exclamation of that g^ifted lady which he had | 
(juoted on a former occasion : “ Oh, liberty, what I 

crimes are committed in thy name.” ' 

Mr. SAWYER. I am very anxious, sir, to get along | 
faster with the business before us, and if I thought the ‘ 
question upon agreeing to the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] would be ta- i 
taken now, I would take my seat without saying a 
word. [Many voices. “Go on, proceed.] 

Mr. Chairman, it was once remarked by John Ran- ■ 
dolph, while listening to a very long and prosy speech, i 
in Congress, in which the member made very frequent 
allusions to posterity, and repeated that he was speak¬ 
ing to posterity, that if the gentleman kept on much 
longer he would have his audience before him. [Much 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 163 


merriment.] Many of the speeches which have been 
made here within a few days, were certainly not in¬ 
tended for the Convention, but must have been for pos¬ 
terity. I believe that ten or fifteen minutes is gener¬ 
ally long enough to speak on any one subject. Gentle¬ 
men should reflect that others have some intelligence 
upon all these topics, and are reflecting for themselves; 
they certainly do not need to hear the same thing told 
more than once ; and another thing I will state that I 
have a holy horror of the continual reference which is 
made here to Old England and to her constitution, to 
Franco and to the various European governments.— 
Why cannot gentlemen I’efer to America, to our own 
institutions for precedents? I have obsei’ved when 
any reference is made to the constitutions of these United 
States, the oldest among them are selected for prece¬ 
dents and examples. Why do you not take the con¬ 
stitutions the most recently formed, and therefore, in 
all probability, the nearest up to the age we live in ? 
But perhaps, if gentlemen only referred to our own 
country, and the modern precedents, we might not 
know, so unmistakeably, that they were deep read and 
very learned persons ! The gentleman from Hamilton 
[Mr. Reemelin] has taken particular pains to inform 
us that he has been in Europe, that he has visited 
F'rance and Switzerland, and he gives us the results of 
his reflections upon all that he saw and heard there. I 
hope we may have less of this. 

It was understood that the report of this committee 
on the legislative department was a unanimous one, 
but here we have a prominent member of that commit¬ 
tee offering an amendment which would, if adopted, 
materially change the features of the report. If the 
gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] had made 
the eloquent speech in the committee which he has 
made here, in support of his amendment, it might have 
changed the conclusions of the committee, and his a- 
mendment in favor of annual sessions might have been 
incorporated into the report. But then the country 
would have lost the benefit of the published speech 
made upon the occasion. T^iis may be a sufficient ex¬ 
cuse. .... 

The main objection urged against biennial sessions 
of the Legislature is the unfrequency of elections. But, 
sir, they forget that we shall, in all probability, have 
important elections every year. You may elect Sena¬ 
tors this year and Representatives the next. The 
members of the Legislature, the Governor and Lieut. 
Governor,—for sir, I can but think that we shall create 
the office of Lieut. Governor,—will be elected this 
vear; the members of Congress, the Board of Public 
Woi’ks, the Auditor, Treasurer and Secretary of State the 
next year, so that the people will be called out to make 
important elections eveiy year. I consider this an arn- 
ple and conclusive answer to the objection that if this 
Convention decide upon biennial sessions, the people 
will be too seldom called to the polls. 

The gentleman from Geauga. [Mr. Hitchcock] whose 
talents and experience I respect, as does every man on 
this floor, says that our English brethren are far ahead 
of US in reform—that the Republicans of that country 
were unanimously in favor of frequent elections while 
the Republican party of this Convention seemed to be 
in favor of biennial sessions. It is very easy to be 
mistaken in names. We very well remember when 
the term Whig, as applied in the days of the Revolu¬ 
tion, meant a very different thing from what it did 
at the same time, in England, what we called Wldgs 
then, the English designated as. and what they 

called loyal subjects we called tories. Soit may be 
at this day, what they designate as Republicans may 
be any but Republicans or the friends of Republi¬ 
can measures in this country. 

One word in reply to the gentleman from Franklin 
[Mr. Stanbeuy,] although the gentleman from Logan 
[Mr. Stanton] partly anticipated me. He informed 
the Convention that he was once in favor of biennial 
sessions of the Legislature, but that he had changed his 


mind upon that subject and was now convinced of the 
policy of annual sessions. There is a possibility, sir, 
that a man’s mind may be swayed and influenced, un¬ 
consciously it may be, by his associations and locality. 
That gentleman is kind hearted and obliging in his 
disposition, and he is willing to listen to, and regard 
the wishes and interests of his constituents. 

Allow me to ask, how long since was he in favor of 
biennial sessions ? Was it not while he was a resident 
of Fairfield county—and has not this “ change” come 
over his mind since he became a citizen of the county 
of Franklin? May it not be that his present constitu¬ 
ents, as they come in large numbers to the markets of 
this city, take their delegate by the arm and suggest to 
him the peculiar necessity of annual sessions, and tell 
him that they are the producers, and that the members 
of the Legislature and those that gather at the capital 
during the session, are the consumers of their products, 
and add much to the trade and support of the town and 
vicinity? They would say : “ Now, Stanbery, we are 
interested in this thing, and we trust that we shall be 
accurately represented.” (A laugh.) The gentleman, 
in order to convince us of the necessity of annual ses¬ 
sions, has referred to the public institutions here, viz: 
the Penitentiary, the Lunatic, Deaf and Dumb and 
Blind Asylums, and has urged the meeting of the Leg¬ 
islature annually for their support and sustenance. 
But there are other “ institutions” here who are equally 
interested in the frequent assembling of the Legisla¬ 
ture. I refer, Mr. Chairman, to the “ Institution” just 
across the street, right over there, sir, [pointing to 
the American Hotel, amid much laughter,] and that 
other large “Institution” just below there, [the Neil 
House,] and the beautiful stores of all’kiuds, which fill 
up the space betwen those two “ Institutions.” [Con¬ 
tinued merriment.] I tell you, sir, that those “institu¬ 
tions” are deeply interested in this question, and 
they exercise a potent influence, I tell the gentleman 
from Frankliu that he would be recreant to his trust if 
he did not heed these things; he would not represent 
his constituents; but I also tell him that the interests of 
the constituents of every other member are adverse to 
all this, and that the interest of the few opposed to the 
many. 

The gentleman has also urged in favor of annual ses¬ 
sions that the Legislature will need to meet here every 
year to provide for the payment of the annual interest 
on our State debt. I am not one of those who take so 
much interest in the prompt payment of these bonds. 
I am in favor of a course that may be regarded by some 
as “ repudiation.” From an indication given the other 
day from the other side of the house, I find that the 
committee on Finance and Taxation are required to 
inquire into the expediency of providing for a speedy 
liquidation of the public debt of Ohio. The bankers 
and monied men of this country are the holders of the 
bonds of this State, many of which were sold at 50 
cents to 60 cents on the dollar. It will also be recol¬ 
lected, Mr. Chairman, that our present bankers, who 
are the holders of these bonds, refuse to be taxed on 
their property as all other property owned by private 
individuals is taxed. Do you not see, sir, that the 
object of the bankers of Ohio is to have our State debt 
paid off—to have these bonds paid before their bank 
charters expire, so that when they come on to the tax 
list with us there will be no public debt, and no taxes 
to be levied for the payment of such a debt?^ My 
constituents are heavily taxed for the liquidation of 
the public debt, and I want this debt to be continued — 
the time of payment extended until, by the expiration 
of the exclusive privileges now enjoyed under the 
bank charters, the property of the bankers and bond 
holders may lie taxed equally with all other property 
for the purpose of paying tlie public debt. It will be 
recollected that these State bonds are not taxed now 
as other property, and I want a provision in this con¬ 
stitution which shall subject them to taxation just as 
all other evidences of debt are taxed—this may also 










164 


CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


be called by some “repudiation.” I said that I was 
not anxious to provide for the speedy payment of these 
bonds in order to raise their market value for the ben- 
elit of the bankers of this State, who hold a large pro¬ 
portion of those bonds, and who bought them for about 
one half of their nominal value. The gentleman from 
Franklin [Mr. Stanbkry] is anxious that we should 
provide for the payment of the State bonds—for the 
interests of the bond holders. Sir, I wish to speak a 
word for that other class of citizens—the tax payers of 
Ohio. I would be willing to keep the price of the bonds 
down to the point at which they were originally sold, 
and not raise them at the expense of the two millions of 
tux payers of the State. The holder of a hundred dol¬ 
lar bond, gave from fifty to sixty dollars for it—he re¬ 
ceives six per cent, interest upon the face of the bond, 
which will be twelve per cent, interest per annum. 

It is clear that annual sessions will increase the taxes, 
and that biennial sessions will decrease the amount of 
those taxes. I confess that if the choice is given me 
between the two, I would decide that it is better that 
the bankers and bond-holders of the State should suf¬ 
fer some inconvenience than for the people to be bur- 
thened with the large expenses of a legislative session 
for the benefit of a small and wealthy class. 

The gentleman from Franklin gives it as his opinion 
that if this Convention decides upon biennial sessions, 
the majoiity of the German voters will go against the 
new constitution. If that is the case, he ought to urge 
the fact, for the Germans are an important part of the 
population. But, sir, I do not agree with the gentle¬ 
man. At the Convention by which I was nominated 
for this seat, and in which were a number of intelligent 
Germans, a direct vote was given in favor of biennial 
sessions. Allow me to say that if you decide upon an¬ 
nual sessions, nine-nenths of the Germans of Ohio will 
vote against the adoption of the new constitution on 
account of that feature. They would nearly as soon 
vote for a constitution with a “negro sufirage” clause, 
as with an “annual session” clause. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren moved that the committee 
rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Will the gentleman from Warren 
withdraw the motion a moment? I wish to explain. 

Mr, SMITH withdrew it. 

Mr. Chairman : The gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. 
Sawyer] has risen up in a great passion with the last 
apeaker, and has indulged in a bitter invective. He 
complains of our tediousness. The three last speakers, 
the gentleman from Logan, the gentleman from Lake, 
and myself, occupied the floor just fifty-one minutes, an 
average of about sixteen or seventeen minutes apiece ; 
so that the gentleman himself has spoken about as long 
as any of us. But the gentleman has been to Con¬ 
gress, and has an advantage over us little men. He 
has got a stock of old Congressional jokes, which he is 
retailing out to us. Before the one-hour rule was es¬ 
tablished, a dull, prosy speaker had bored the House 
two or three days with a speech in which he had men¬ 
tioned posterity. The lamented Lowndes, it was, if I 
remember correctly, told him that if he went on that 
way, he would see posterity before he concluded. 

The gentleman has had very superior advantages, 
but here, fro forma, we are all ecjuals. I have as good 
a right to steal the thoughts of others as he has. I will 
accordingly steal a verse or two for his benefit: 

“ O, wad some Power the giftie gie us.” 

As the gentleman is a good plagiarist, he can supply 
the rest. [Loud Laughter.] 

Mr. Stanton had occupied the floor just twenty-five 
minutes, so that Messrs. Taylor snd Archbold had 
just twenty-six minutes between them. 

Mr. SMITFI of Warren renewed his motion, and the 
committee rose and reported that they had had under 
consideration the report (No. 1) on the Legislative De¬ 
partment, had made progress therein, and obtained 
leave to sit again. 

On motion, the Convention adjourned. 


MONDAY, May 27, 1850. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Warnock. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLB. I am charged with the 
presentation of a petition from S. R. Richards and 18 
other males, and 14 female citizens of Westfield town¬ 
ship, Medina county, asking, for reasons therein stated, 
that the new constitution may accord to all the mem¬ 
bers of our commonwealth equal rights, political and 
social, without regard to sex or color. Also, the same 
paper, signed by seven citizens of the same township, 
stating that they cannot conscientiously subscribe to 
the above petition, because it is not “ tme Democracy.” 

Mr. SAWYER here remarked, I agree with the last, 
exactly. 

U[.on the motion of Mr. HUMPHREVILLE, the pe¬ 
tition was referred to the committee on the Elective 
Franchise. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler. I have a petition from Al¬ 
fred I. Anderson and 48 other colored citizens of the 
town of Hamilton, in the county of Butler, praying 
that the constitution may be so amended as to grant 
them the right of suffrage. 

Upon motion of the same gentleman, the petition 
was referred to the committee on Elective Franchise. 

Mr. FORBES. I am charged with the memorial of 
James C. McMillan and thirty-seven other citizens of 
Ohio, praying that a clause may be inserted in the pre¬ 
amble of the constitution, acknowledging God, His Gra¬ 
cious Providence and the obligation of His law, as re¬ 
vealed in the Scriptures, and further in the bill of 
rights, to insert a clause or section stating as Christiani¬ 
ty, morality and knowledge are essential to the good 
government and happiness of mankind, that therefore 
the church of God shall b j protected, schools and the 
means of instruction be encouraged by legislative pro¬ 
visions, so far as not inconsistent with the rights of 
conscience. 

Upon the motion of the same gentleman, the memo¬ 
rial was referred to the committee on Preamble and 
Bill of Rights. 

Mr. LIDEY. The committee on the “Militia” 
make the following Report: ^ 

ON THE “ MILITIA.” 

Sec 1. That all white male inhabitants shall be enrolled in the 
Militia, residents of this State, being eighteen years of age and 
under forty five years, and shall perform military duty, as may 
be directed by law. 

__Sec. 2. Captains and Subalterns shall be elected by those per¬ 
sons subject to military duty, in their respective company dis¬ 
tricts. 

Sec. 3. Colonels, Lieutenant-Colonels and Majors, shall be 
elected by those persons, subject to Military duty, in their les- 
pectivu Regiments, Battalions or Squadrons. 

Sec. 4. Brigadier Generals and Brigade Majors and InspectCrs 
shall be elected by those persons, subject to Military duty, in their 
respective Brigades. 

Sec. 5. Majors General shall be elected by those persons sub¬ 
ject to Military duty, in their respective Divisions. 

Sec. 6. One Adjutant General, and one Quartermaster Gener¬ 
al shall be elected by the qualified electors of this State, at the 
first general election after the adoption of this constitution, and 
shall hold their office for the term of four years from and after 
the first Monday of January subsequent to their election, and each 
of them shall keep their respective office at the seat of govern¬ 
ment. They shall receive an annual salary of three hundred dol¬ 
lars each. 

Sec. 7. The Governor to appoint his aid-de-camps, the Major 
Generals their division stati', the Brigadier Generals their brigade 
staff. Colonels or commandants of regiments, battalions or squad¬ 
rons, their staff, and Captains their non-commissioned officers and 
musicians that may be provided by law. 

Sec. 8 . The Legislature shall enact laws to organize and disci¬ 
pline the militia, provide for volunteer corps or troops. 

Sec. 9. The Legislature shall provide by law for the protection 
and safe keeping of the public arms apportioned to this State by 
the general Government, and,provide all other efficient provisions 
as may be deemed expedient. 

Upon motion ol the same gentleman, the report was 
laid upon the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. GRAHAM. I offer for adoption the following : 

Whereas, the enormous and unnecessary expenses incurred 
in the prosecution of criminal offences of a minor character is 

the subject of a general and just complaint a mong the people._ 

In order to remedy this evil as far as may be by constitutional 
provisions; therefore, 









165 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Resolved, That the committee on Preamble and Bill of Rights 
be instructed to inquire into the propriety of incorporating in the 
bill of rights the following sections, to wit: 

In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a right to be 
heard, by himsed' and by counsel; to demand the nature and 
cause of the accusation; to be confronted by the witnesses against 
him; to have compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his favor; 
and in all prosecutions by indictment, or information, a speedy 
public trial by an impartial jury. He shall not be compelled to 
give evidence against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or 
property, without due course of law. And no person shall be 
holuen to answer for any crime, the punishment of which may 
be death, or imprisonment in the Penitentiary, unless on a pre¬ 
sentment on an indictment of a grand jury. 

Upon motion of the same gentleman, the resolutions 
were referred to the committee on the Preamble and 
Bill of Rights. 

Mr. FIRESTONE. I offer the following for adop¬ 
tion: 

Resolved, That the Reporter to this Convention be required 
hereafter to furnish the editors of the Ohio Statesman and the 
Ohio State Journal each a copy of the dailj’’ proceedings of this 
Convention.” 

I offer this, not at the recpiest of the Reporter, but 
from a sense of justice to this Convention and the pub¬ 
lishers of the two papers. There is considerable cora- 
jjlaint known to exist with regard to this matter. 

Mr. HAWKINiS. I move that the resolution be laid 
on the table. 

A division on the question upon this motion being 
demanded resulted as follows: Affirmative 44, negative 
36. 

So the resolution was laid on the table. 

Upon motion by Mr. SAWYER the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a commtitee of the whole, Mr. Haw¬ 
kins in the chair, and proceeded to the consideration of 
the report [Mr. Sawyer’s"! upon the legislative de¬ 
partment. 

The CHAIRMAN. When the committee of the 
whole rose, the question pending was upon an amend¬ 
ment to strike out the word “ biennial ” in the first 
line of section II, 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. It will be recollected that 
when I moved on Saturday that the committee should 
rise and report, I indicated at the time that I intended 
to submit a few remarks to the committee upon the 
question now pending. I rise for the purpose of car¬ 
rying into effect that intention. I wish to remark, Mr. 
Chairman, that I at all times feel an unfeigned reluc¬ 
tance in obtruding myself upon the notice of the Con¬ 
vention in the way of making a speech, I will prom¬ 
ise however, that in regard to the question now pend¬ 
ing, I will occupy the time of the Convention but for a 
short period, and will not enter into a regular argument 
upon the proposition now submitted for our considera¬ 
tion. I know that the question presented is one of 
considerable importance, not perhaps as a matter of 
principle but as a matter of expediency. I think that the 
constituency which I have the honor to represent, feel 
a deep interest in the question, and will expect that I 
should at least reflect their opinions in this Convention, 
upon the subject matter now before us. Before coming, 
Mr. Chairman, to the question immediately pending, I 
wish to make one remark. * I regretted very much to 
hear an observation which dropped inadvertently, I 
trust, from the honorable gentleman from Auglaize, on 
Saturday, about the time he closed his speech, upon 
the proposition before us. It was upon the subject of 
repudiation. Now Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that 
that gentleman, or any other member of this Conven¬ 
tion would entertain for one moment, under any possi- 
'ble state of facts that may have existed, or does now 
exist, the idea of repudiating the public debt of the 
State of Ohio. 

Mr. SAWYER interrupting, (and Mr. S. giving way) 
said: If the honorable member will yield the floor, I 
wish to say that I do not want the sympathy of the 
gentleman, or the sympathy of the .Journal, in saying 
that I did not understand myself in the remarks I 
made. I did understand myself fully, and I did it de- 
Mberately, with my eyes open; but I do not want the 


.Journal to put into my mouth what I did not say. 
They should wait until an unbiassed report shall be 
given of my remarks upon the (Question, before they 
should have passed upon it, 

Mr. SMITH resumed. I am not in favor of the 
publisher of any paper misrepresenting the remarks 
that any gentleman should offer. The remarks I was 
about to submit, have no reference to any editorial 
comments that have appeared, or may appear in the 
Journal, or any other paper. Sir, 1 condemn as ex¬ 
plicitly as any other gentleman of the Couvention can, 
any unjust remarks that may be inade in reference to 
the arguments and opinions of members in the Journal 
or any other public paper. But I wish to say in re¬ 
gard to the question now pending, that if it is to be 
understood that in advocating biennial sessions of the 
Legislature in future, I am either directly or remotely 
in favor of the repudiation of the j^ublic debt of the 
State of Ohio, then, sir, I abandon the proposition, I 
would rather, that your Legislature should sit every 
three months, or every six mouths, than by any action 
of ours hei*e, to have it ever supposed that either this 
Convention, or the people whom we represent, in the 
most remote degree, favored the repudiation of the 
public debt. Sir, I wish that word repudiation, so far 
as our Legislative or Conventional vocabulary is con¬ 
cerned, to be verbum non nominandum —a word not to 
be named. Why, sir, what is it that has so much con¬ 
tributed to the glory, renown and reputation of Ohio, 
as the maintenance of the public faith, which has al¬ 
ways been preserved by your Legislature, even in the 
worst times of the legislative history of the country ? 
But, enough in regard to that subject. 

The question now immediately before us, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, is, whether hereafter, we shall, by a constitutional 
provision, declare that the Legislature of Ohio shall sit 
biennially, instead of annually. With some little legis¬ 
lative experience—it has been but little—I must con¬ 
fess that I have long favored such a provision as this. 
I am not a new convert to the doctrine of biennial 
sessions. I have long entertained the opinion that it 
would be a salutary provision to incorporate into the 
organic law of this State. I therefore, perhaps, do not 
entertain the zeal of a new convert upon this question. 
I do not know that any gentleman in this Convention 
does, I am not so wedded to my opinion that you 
cannot convince me of my error; but I say this, that if 
during the progress of this discussion, I shall be con¬ 
vinced by any sound arguments, that the measure 
which I at pi’esent advocate, and the opinion which I 
at present entertain, is wrong—that it would be de¬ 
structive to our interests, and that the interests of the 
whole people of this State would suffer by the intro¬ 
duction of this provision, then, sir, I will recant my 
error, if error it is, that I at present entertain. In the 
political acceptation of the term, I am here without any 
instructions from my constituents upon this question. 
In relation to this matter, I have made no pledges be¬ 
fore the people. Sir, my opinion upon the question 
has not even been asked by my constituents. But, sir, 

I believe that if upon any question which is likely to 
be presented for our consideration, the people of the 
section.of country I have the honor of representing on 
this floor, have made up a settled, firm, deliberate and 
intelligent opinion, it is upon the very question now 
before us. I do not know that upon that question there 
is any great diversity of opinion among any of the po¬ 
litical parties ot the State. 

Whether there is or not, I do not stand upon this 
floor, upon a question of this kind, to reflect the pecu¬ 
liar opinion of this or that party. Sir, if I un¬ 

derstand my action here, I shall be governed by a 
higher and nobler motiv'e than that. I profess to rep¬ 
resent upon this floor, as near as 1 can, what I deem to 
be the true interests of the people of the State; and un¬ 
less I can do that, by my vote, sir, I will not hold a seat 
upon the floor of the Convention. These, sir, are ray 
opinions in regard to this matter. Fora deliberate, in- 









166 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


telligent, and matured public opinion, I have great re¬ 
spect. I know that all acts of legislation—I know that 
all the proceedings of this Convention, which will come 
in conflict with a well-settled, deliberately matured, 
]3ublic opinion, will carry with them little or no moral 
force whatever. I repeat, then, sir, that in regard to 
this question, I believe it is one upon which the opinion 
of the people of this State has been deliberately formed, 
and that that opinion is still entertained. For a tran¬ 
sient, temporary and united public opinion—one which 
has been created for a particular purpose—I do not 
profess to entertain much respect or much sympathy; 
and, sir, when I understand what public opinion is; 
and when I understand that it has been deliberately, 
intelligently and correctly formed, then it is a matter of 
pride and pleasure to me in all my acts as a legislator 
or a member of this Convention, to reflect that public 
opinion as far as I can. 1 admit, sir, that upon this 
subject, as well as all others, we are sent here to judge, 
to deliberate, to discuss, and then to act—to form such 
a constitution as will suliserve and protect the interests 
of the people of the whole State. Our oath requires 
this. We have been sworn not only to support the 
constitution of the United States, and discharge our du¬ 
ties as delegates to this Convention faithfully and hon¬ 
estly, but to discharge our duties to the State of Ohio. 
I shall, sir, as far as my feeble abilities will allow, car¬ 
ry out the terms of that oath, according to its letter and 
spirit. I repeat again, sir, if, as a member of the Con¬ 
vention, 1 believed that the public sentiment now pre¬ 
valent on this subject throughout Ohio, was wrong, and 
that by carrjdng it out, in this Convention, we would 
injure our common community, mar the prosperity of 
the State, and inflict an injury upon the people which 
could not be repaired, then I would pursue such a 
course as my judgment would dictate, and appeal to 
the people in justification of my course. That is my 
doctrine in regard to the matter of public opinion, and 
in regard to this doctrine of instnictions. It may be 
unpopular, but such as it is, I here publicly avow it, and 
will do so on all proper occasions. 

Well sir, now, I am in favor of biennial sessions, and 
I am haapy to agree with the prevailing public opin¬ 
ion. What are the reasons, Mr. Chairman, in favor of 
the proposition? Several of the gentlemen who have 
already addressed the Committee, have referred to the 
arguments and reasons in favor of it. I do not know 
that any thing that is new can be said in support of the 
proposition. The reason that strikes me most forci¬ 
bly? and which seems to be the pi’evailing opinion of 
many gentlemen here, is that that the people are “gov¬ 
erned too much,” or in other words that we have too 
much legislation. Well, sir, that is not the only rea¬ 
son. Our Legislature is not sufficiently stable ; there 
is too much change, too much vacillation too much al¬ 
tering, amending, and repealing. This, sir, does not 
^Pply to your local legislation only, but it applies with 
equal force to your general legislation. I under¬ 
take to say, Mr. Chairman, that no people can be well 
governed, no people can be happy, where the legisla¬ 
tion of the country is uncertain, where it is continually 
changing, and where it is impossible for the common 
mass of citizens, to understand what the law of the 
country is. The people of Ohio, according to the 
course which has heretofore prevailed, do not know 
what the provisions of the general laws of the State, by 
which they are to be governed are, until about \he 
time a succeeding Legislature is ready to reyeal them 
1 wish to puta n end to this speciesof legislation, and I 
know of no better course, Mr .Chairman, than to incor¬ 
porate the provision of biennial sessions. 

Your Legislature meets here in the month of Decem¬ 
ber, and they generally continue in session until the 
month of March. What time are your laws distributed 
among the people ? Perhaps in the month of July, 
August, or it may be not until the month of Septem¬ 
ber. Latterly, I believe, provuion has been made for 
publishing the laws of a general nature in one or more 


public newspapers of each county. But, sir, the peo¬ 
ple want a more authoritative expression of what the 
law is. I know that this mode is calculated to do some 
good, but still it does not follow, even if the laws are 
published during the months of April or May, thatthey 
would be permitted to stand as passed by the Legisla¬ 
ture, longer than the following annual session. We all 

know tlie coiu'se which has been hitherto pursued in 
this respect: there is really no such thing as stability in 
our legislation; nothing is certain, but the certainty of 
change. Why, sir, permit me to refer now to a fact 
which has been already adverted to by gentlemen up¬ 
on this floor. In the sessions of 1839 and 1340,1 had 
the honor, together with several gentlefnen, whom I 
believe are members of this Convention, of being con¬ 
cerned in the revision of the general statutes of the 
State of Ohio. It was a work of very great labor, and 
I think it has been said 20,000 copies of the work con¬ 
taining the result of our labors, were published by au¬ 
thority. I allude to Swan’s Statutes, a very large v6l- 
ume containing over 1000 pages of matter. We did 
not suppose at that time, that it was a perfect system 
of law. We did not suppose that it would always re¬ 
main the laws of Ohio ; but we did believe that the 
hand of innovation, that change and repeal, would not 
be written upon that volume, to any very considerable 
extent, for at least five or six years. We believed that 
the statutes thus revised and republished, at a very 
great expense to the State, would at least continue the | 
law of the land for some reasonable or decent length | 
of time. But, sir, what has been our subsequent ex- j 
perience ? We have had amendments, alterations and 
repeals almost without number. Not a session of the i 
Legislature has since been held, but has brought forth i 
amendment after amendment, many of them crude and | 
ill digested. I will refer now, Mr. Chairman, for fur¬ 
ther illustration, to the school laws of the State of 
Ohio. Sir, in 1837 and 1838, the school law of the 
State of Ohio, was enacted by the Legislature.— ! 

It was, I think, drawn up and reported in the Senate, 
by a very worthy and respectable gentleman, who was 
Chairman of the committee on schools, and who then 
represented the county of Trumbull. He brought to 
the task both industry and ability. The bill was care¬ 
fully prepared, and well considered. How long did 
that law continue in force ? Your school laws now em¬ 
brace a volume. If there be any law within the State, 
that ought to be plain and easily understood—capable 
of being clearly construed, it is this very school law, 
which is carried out by the action of the people them¬ 
selves, in their school districts, and upon which they 
are call d directly to act, every month in the year. I 
submit then to this Convention, that if there be any 
statute which would subject even a professional gen¬ 
tleman in detennining its true meaning, and giving 
many of its provisions a sensible construction, to a 
painful and distressing degree < f uncertainty, it is this 
veiy act, or rather interminable series of acts in rela- | 
tion to your common schools. This is all wrong—let 1 
us know what the law is—and let that law have at i 
least some son of permanency. There is a constant j 
pi’opensity to amend, to alter, to repeal; and that pro- i 

pensity has been most effectually carried out—a dispo- I 
sition for a continual change; and I will venture to say, ] 
that there has not been a session of the Legislature 
since, in which some part of the original act has not | 
been altered or repealed. Now, sir, I want to prevent 
such incessant changes. I do not object, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, to the representatives of the people reflecting the 
wishes of the people, in regard to this or any other 
general statute, but I do want your laws of a general 
nature, to remain in force sufficiently long that we may 
understand their features; and that the people, who are 
to carry them out, may understand their meaning and 
their ti’ue construction, before they are repealed. 

Well, sir, how is it in regard to the act regulating 
the duties of justices of the peace and constables in ci- ; 
vil cases? It was supposed in 1839 and’40, that the ' 














CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


167 


Statute regulating the duties of these officers, embraced 
all the provisions which the exigencies of the people 
at that time required. I submit to gentlemen whether 
in the numerous amendments and alterations that liave 
been made to this act there has been any impi’ovement? 
And I do say that in regard to some of these amend¬ 
ments which your juslices of the peace are called upon 
every day to construe, and which the people should 
clearly understand—laws which come home to their 
business and bosoms—there is a most distressing un¬ 
certainty. Some of their provisions are so loosely 
drawn, and, I say it with due respect, so inconsistent 
with each other, that you cannot determine their mean¬ 
ing. It is not unfrequently an exceedingly difficult 
matter to determine what is repealed and what re¬ 
mains in force. It is an imputation which is frequent¬ 
ly brought against members of the Legislature who are 
lawyers, that it is their interest and policy to make the 
laws so ambigous that they cannot be easily under¬ 
stood. I wish to vindicate the character of the pro¬ 
fession from any charge like that. I do not believe 
that any member of this honorable body will enter¬ 
tain such an idea for a moment, but I know that such 
an opinion is entertained to a considerable extent. If 
there be any members of a legislative body careful 
above all others, when a bill is under consideration, to 
put it in language so plain that there can be no misun¬ 
derstanding of its meaning, they are the lawyers. Such 
a statement as this is due to the profession. I know 
that such has been the uniform course of the members 
of the legal profession upon the floor of the legislative 
halls of Ohio. 

It may be charged, and perhaps justly, that they 
have occupied a great deal of time in arguing and dis¬ 
cussing propositions—but sir, the charge that members 
of the legal profession, engaged in the busine s of leg¬ 
islation, attempt by the particular phraseology of the 
stfitutes, to make them ambiguous, of doubtful mean¬ 
ing, and not capable of being understood, is a calumny 
against the profession, which requires denial, and de¬ 
mands rebuke. Why, sir, we have a proposition now 
before us, offered by the Hon. gentleman from Mont¬ 
gomery, (Mr. Holt,) in which it is proposed “that the 
Legislature at its first session after the adoption of the 
Coi stitution shall appoint five. Commissioners, whose 
duty it shall be to reduce to a systematic code the 
whole body of the law, or whatever parts the said 
Commissioners shall deem proper.” I submit to my 
Hon. friend, that if we shall insert a clause in the Con¬ 
stitution requiring all our statutory laws to be embod¬ 
ied by this commission into one code, and it shall re¬ 
ceive the sanction of your Legislative body and be¬ 
come a law of the State, how long would it continue to 
be the law ?—how long would it be before the work of 
amendment will begin ? How long before the amend¬ 
ments and alterations would be as voluminous as the 
original body of the law itself? Why, sir, if this sys¬ 
tem of innovation were to prevail and we were to have 
annual sessions of the Legis'ature, where every mem¬ 
ber of the Legislature comes up, actuated by an hon¬ 
est desire I admit to obey the will of his constitu¬ 
ents and in order to make his mark upon the Jounial, 
must bring forward his proposition amendatory of 
some^ general act, how long would it be before the al¬ 
terations and amendments to your code would consti¬ 
tute a volume as large as the code itself? 

Well, sir, there is another very important matter 
which I think would be effected by this change in your 
Constitution. I have already referred to tbe fact, that 
a large proportion of your statutory law is of a charac¬ 
ter vague and uncertain. It is the desire as well as the 
inteiest of the people to know what the law is. Per¬ 
haps the most difficult task which a lawyer in the State 
of Ohio is called upon to discharge, in the performance 
of his professional duty, is not in consulting the great 
number of common-law volumes but in construing and 
determining the meaning of your Legislative acts. The 
Legislature pass a law one winter—at the next session, 


perhaps, they amend it—at the following session they 
repeal some of its provisions. How does it operate ? 
They do not merely repeal a particular section, or a 
particular act, but they provide—not unfrequently, that 
“all other acts and parts of acts, coming within the pur¬ 
view of this act, be and the same are hereby repealed.” 
Thus arises this incongruous and inconsistent legisla¬ 
tion, and thus do Legislatures frequently proceed to 
amend and repeal an act without fully comprehending 
the act sought to be amended, or repealed, or the scope 
and operation of the repealing clause. This is the way 
these incongruous provisions are introduced into your 
legislation. I wish to correct this. I believe, Mr. 
Chairman, that if the Legislature should meet but once 
in every two years, that the character of your legisla¬ 
tion would be elevated. It would have more stability, 
permanency—more congruity. There would be a dif¬ 
ferent kind of spirit infused into our deliberative bod¬ 
ies. There would not be such a disposition to change— 
there would be more uniformity in our legislation—it 
would command public confidence and public respect, 
and that, I consider the most important object to be 
attained. Let the laws remain in force until we be¬ 
come acquainted with their provisions—with their con¬ 
struction—let them receive a judicial determination if 
they involve any great principle, before the Legislature 
shall proceed to change them by amendment. Sir, if 
there is any thing that the people of Ohio desire, I claim 
that it is stability, uniformity and permanency, in the 
legislation of the State. I wish to carry out their prin¬ 
ciples and effect that object. I do not claim that bien¬ 
nial sessions will be a perfect cathoiicon—a perfect 
“cure-all”—but I believe, Mr. Chairman, that it will 
be a great panacea; that it will give more moral force 
to the legislation of the country—that it will be, at 
least, a very valuable medicine to introduce into the 
body politic. These are my candid opinions—opinions 
that I have long entertained, and until I am conscious 
that I am laboring under an error, it is my duty to ear¬ 
ly them out by my acts. Why, sir, the character of 
our legislation is, whether justly or not, becoming a 
reproach—and a matter of ridicule. My venerable 
friend from Geaugea, (Mr. Hitchcock) expressed much 
alarm at the sentiments expressed upon this floor in re¬ 
gard to the Legislative Department of the Government. 
It is a matter of alarm, not that these opinions are en¬ 
tertained, but because of the necessity, real or suppos¬ 
ed, for these opinions. It is a matter of alarm, unless 
you can make your Legislative Department respecta¬ 
ble, unless your legislation commends itself to an en¬ 
lightened public opinion—if your laws are to be chang¬ 
ed before the people know what the law is, I defy you 
to make a Legislative body in this or any other State 
command public respect or public confidence. Why, 
sir, it is one of the great causes why your Legislature 
is in such disrepute. I know, Mr. Chainnan, that 
there have been other causes and other influences which 
have contributed very materially to produce this pub¬ 
lic opinion in Ohio. It is unnecessary to refer to them, 
all know what they are; one prolific source of dissat¬ 
isfaction, is, excessive and changeable legislation. Al¬ 
teration, amendment, repeal, are inscribed upon our 
whole system. I hope this Convention may be able 
to correct this great and growing evil. 

What ai’e the objections to biennial sessions of the 
Legislature? It is claimed that our public debt must 
be paid, and that provision must be made for its pay¬ 
ment. 

Well, sir, that meets my hearty concurrence. There 
is no difference between the gentleman on the other 
side and myself, upon that question. It is said that 
the treasury of your State requires guarding and watch¬ 
ing. I concur also in that opinion. It is said too that 
your public works, amounting in value to some millions 
of dollars, require the guardianship of annual sessions 
to preserve them for the benefit of the State. I agiee 
that they require, and should receive, ample protec¬ 
tion. Well, sir, if you convince me that proper pro- 












CONVENTION REPORTS 


1G8 


visions cannot be made to pay your State debt—that 
your treasury cannot be properly guarded—that your 
public works cannot be i)roiecTed and preserved, un¬ 
less the Legislature meets annually, then, i\lr. Chair¬ 
man, and not till then, I will be satisfied of the inex¬ 
pediency of my course upon this proposition. 

Mr. STANBERY interrupting, and Mr. L. giving 
way, said: I will ask the gentleman one question—to 
show' how the Legislature can provide two years ahead 
for the rate of per cent, to be fixed for the general rev¬ 
enue? 

Mr. SMITH resumed. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do 
not know that I am prepared to ai'gue this question in 
a financial point of view; and without treating the in¬ 
terrogatory disrespectfully, because I entertain for the 
gentleman from Franklin, and his arguments, the high¬ 
est possible respect, I would beg leave resj)ectfully to 
refer the question to some gentleman w'ho has exam¬ 
ined the subject, so far as regards this particular part 
of it, wdth more attention than I have done, and who 
is better prepared than I am to discuss that branch 
of the subject. I do not think that it would be an in¬ 
superable difficulty. I was going to remark, that I 
have been a member of the Legislature of the State of 
Ohio for several sessions, but I must confess, sir, al¬ 
though it may be to my i-eproach, that I have never 
been able fully to comprehend the various matters 
connected with the finances of the State.* My time, 
was devoted to other duties. I do not believe there is 
one in ten of the members of the Legislature, that un¬ 
derstand thoroughly the various questions of finance 
and the operations of your exchequer. I must confess 
that I never did. This matter lias always been left in 
both Houses to a committee of Finance—they have 
examined the matter to some extent, and rejiorted to 
both Houses, which have generally agreed to what 
they reported. I believe that a commission might be 
instituted, composed of one or more persons, to exam¬ 
ine thoroughly the reports when made by the respec¬ 
tive officers of State, and the offices from w'hich they 
emanate. Let these reports undergo a thorough ex¬ 
amination by an able commission selected for that pur¬ 
pose, composed of men that understand these mal- 
tei’s, and then, Mr. Chairman, if there is any thing 
wrong—if perfect honesty and integrity have not been 
observed by any of these public officers, let them be 
turned over to the tender mercies of the Attorney 
General of the State, and the proper judicial tribunal. 
Such a commission I believe would be more effective 
than a legislative committee. 

The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] al¬ 
leges that if you have a session of the Legislature only 
once in two years, there will be but little excitement, 
or, rather, that the people will dwindle into a calm 
indifference in regard to the measures of government. 
Sir, I entertain no such opinion. I prefer calmness 
and deliberation in all the transactions of life, rather 
than undue and heated excitement. 

Sir, it is not to be claimed or argued, that in the noon 
of the nineteenth century, free institutions in Ohio are 
destined to settle down into the stupor of despotism 
and indifference. No such feeling actuates the people 
of Ohio. Sir, I should fear the other extreme more 
than I should fear that. I should rather fear a disposi¬ 
tion to disregard the majesty of the law'. I should 
fear the disruption of the social system, resulting from 
too much excitement, more than I would fear any injii- 
ries resulting to the progress of free institutions, from 
the fact of your Legislature convening but once in two 
years. What is it the people of Ohio want? They de¬ 
sire repose. Of what are they tired—of what are they 
weaiy? Sir, it is this continual, everlasting agitation; 
that is it. Politics are the all-absoi’bing toj^ic of the 
country. Office-hunting and office-seeking, are the all- 
absorbing objects of life. We are a nation of office- 
holdeis and office-seekers, from the highest to the low¬ 
est of us. I wish to stop this incessant agitation—I 
w'ish time afforded to the people to settle down into 


calm and re])ose—not the calm of despotism—not the 
calm of indifference in regard to the conduct of execu¬ 
tive officers and the acts ot public agents, but that op¬ 
portunity may bo afforded them for calm deliberation, 
to form correct judgments, and to exact proper account- 
aljility from their agents. I do not desire that they 
should be continually carried away by tem])orary ex¬ 
citements, passions, and party struggles. Sir, I believe 
not only that the interests of the people would be 
greatly promoted, but that the legislation of ^our State 
would be greatly elevated, by the adoption of the prop¬ 
osition now under consideration. 

The people here are the source of power. We do 
not look ,to a monarch or a king for the purpose of 
granting us power, but it is already possessed; audit 
is for us, in our conventional capacity, to determine 
how often the Legislature of the State should meet to 
discharge their appropriate duties. 

These, Mr. Chairman, are my present reasons for 
advocating the proposition now befoi’e us. As I have 
already said, I am open to conviction. If 1 am con¬ 
vinced by any course of argument, or by any satisfac¬ 
tory reason, that my present opinions are wrong, I am 
ready to change them. I am not so indissolubly wed¬ 
ded to this measure, as to reject all argument, and to 
disregard all reason. I came here for the purpose of 
deliberating upon the various questions that may come 
up. 1 shall not change my opinions, unless convinced 
that they ai’e erroneous, then I shall abandon them, 
and not until then. But, sir, as this question was new 
before us, I thought it my duty to exp < ess my present 
opinions upon this subject at this time, and shall not 
further occupy the attention of the committee at pre¬ 
sent. 

Mr. KEN NON had no intention of making an argu¬ 
ment on the subject under consideration. He would 
state, however, his views on the subject. The first 
question was, shall we have a biennial or an annual 
session ? He was decidedly in favor of a biennial ses¬ 
sion of the Legislature. First because it seemed that 
public opinion was in favor of the change; secondly, 
because it would have some (not a very great) tenden¬ 
cy to prevent so much legislation; and, in the third 
place, because it would have a tendency to prevent 
such frequent alterations of the law. Again, because 
it would effect a great saving to the State—not less 
than seventy to eighty thousand dollars a year. When 
he Came here he had not the least doubt in regard to 
this measure. Indeed, he was prepared to vote for 
making the change. He confessed, however, that some 
of the arguments presented had a liitle shaken his faith 
on this question, especially the arguments of the gen¬ 
tlemen from Franklin and Geauga [Messrs. Stanbery 
and Hitchcock] —which offered to consideration se¬ 
rious objections to biennial 'sessions. One of the ob¬ 
jections was couched in the question submitted to the 
gentleman from Warren, [Mr. Smith,] how to ascer¬ 
tain the per centage on the revenue levy. How was 
that to be done ? If the gentleman told him what 
amount of taxes he desired to raise, he [Mr. K.] could 
tell him; so could the Auditor, so could any man who 
understood arithmetic. 

But the gentlemen’s (and other’s) arguments wont 
to show that it could not be ascertained by any one but 
the Legislature alone. It was said that the revenue 
came from general taxation, amounting to about two 
millions of dollars, and the other portion of it from 
tolls on canals, &c. &c. It was argued that there might 
be a deficiency, resulting from various contingencies— 
that the amount received would be much less than was 
anticipated, and therelore, that it was necessary for 
the Legislature to meet annually, to provide for such 
deficiencies. Then it was argued that they “ could not 
estimate the public expenditure of two years.” They 
had always been accustomed to calculate for one year; 
how ? by calculating the probable amount required. 
Then undoubtedly they could estimate the appropriations 
required for two years. All that was necessary (in case 










CONVENTION REPORTS 


169 


some source of revenue failed,) was to make a per ceut- 
age on the grand levy of the State for the amount re¬ 
quired. If gentlemen said one million, or two or three 
millions it was merely an arithmetical calculation. 
When the auditor knew precisely Avhat he received 
from tlie sources of revenue, and the Legislature knew 
what amount was intended to be raised,—if they as¬ 
certained the deficiency, he had no dilficulty in raising 
the amount, and striking the per centage. 

Again: it was objected that we have many public in¬ 
stitutions—for the blind, the insane, the deaf and dumb, 
and others,—all to be provided for, and their officers 
looked after and called to account, lest they might 
make an improper use of the money entrusted to them. 
Now, the cost of one session of the Legislature (as the 
last) amounted to more than the whole amount of 
money appropriated to the support of all those institu¬ 
tions put together. So that in regard to money, and 
that only, if the whole amount were improperly used 
or carried off by thoes officers, it would be a saving to 
the country if the Legislature did not meet at all. But 
that, however, was a very small consideration. 

Then again: it was said by the gentleman from Geau¬ 
ga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] that these are not democratic prin¬ 
ciples—that the reformers in England were striving to 
have the Parliament elected annually, whilst we, on 
the other hand were seeking to elect the Legislature 
biennially. There was a very good reason why it 
should be so there and not in this country, and yet both 
parties acting on precisely the same principles. What 
was the object of the annual election or session in 
England ? There the government was divided into 
three distinct branches. There was the lower House, 
or the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the 
Crown. The government was divided between the 
three powers. But there constantly was an encroach¬ 
ment by the aristocratic branch [the House of Lords] 
upon what were called the lower classes, and these 
were represented only in the House of Commons.— 
Therefore, it became a great object to the people that 
they should elect their representatives to the House as 
often as possible, to resist the encroachments of the 
other power. Not so here, where the people possessed 
every power. He agreed that the legislative depart¬ 
ment represented the public sentiment more than any 
other. He did not regard the judiciary or executive 
departments as reflecting public opinion at all. And if 
the judicial department should ever attempt to reflect 
or express public sentiment, it would become that 
which it never should be; it would do that which was 
foreign to its isrovince, for its nature was that of an ex¬ 
pounder of the law as it is. 

But would the Legislative branch reflect the public 
opinion and sentiment any more because it was elect¬ 
ed every year or every two or every three years, and 
meet here annually or once in two years or in three 
years? So far from that being the case, it seemed to 
him that they would reflect public opinion more prac¬ 
tically if they were elected buteveiy two years. How 
was the public opinion to be ascertained on any sub¬ 
ject? Suppose matters which received the action of 
the Legislature were submitted to the pepole, how was 
public sentiment to be formed upon those subjects ? By 
examination of the merits of the laws passed. But, at 
present perhaps not one man in ten had an opportunity 
of knowing whether a law should be changed or not. 
However by giving the people two years to reflect and 
decide on it, we could then ascertain public opinion 
and secure a representation of it and the subject at is¬ 
sue. 

But he did not desire to talk upon the subject of 
mere money, so far as the government was concerned. 
What the people wanted was the best government— 
the best representation, and the best executive and ju- 
diciaiy system that could be devised. But even in a 
money point of view there would be a saving made by 
the change. And he would say that if there were any 
one question definitely settled by the people of Ohio, 


it was that we should not have annual sessions. He 
would vote therefore for biennial. 

Mr. CUTLER said he had no disposition to enter in¬ 
to the discussion on this question. For his own part 
he would say that he had been a patient and gratified 
listener to all that had been said on the subject; at the 
same time he wished to give an intelligent vote. He 
regarded the question as one of high importance, and 
so far as he was concerned he stood there without any 
I)rejudice whatever. He wished only that all should 
consult exclusively what was best for the good of their 
common State. What he had to say was rather in the 
way of proposing inquiries to gentlemen whose opin¬ 
ions were matured on this subject, with a view to ob¬ 
tain answers satisfactory to his mind and the minds of 
other gentlemen who had dwelt on this aspect of the 
same, subject. 

He was somewhat startled liy the declaration made 
by the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery,] and 
he believed the same idea was conveyed by the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin,] that the cal¬ 
culation of our finances, and the control and manage¬ 
ment of our public property, was entirely contingent 
on annual legislation. That he understood to be the 
substance and drift of their remarks. Now all the 
departments of the government are placed in the hands 
of agents, who are themselves under the control of 
general laws, w;hich we placed on the statute books 
about the same time that the public works were 
placed on our soil. They had been amended and 
altered certainly. But the inquiry that came up in his 
mind was, whether those amendments, or changes, or 
general provisions, could not be as well provided for 
by a biennial as an annual session. Look at the man¬ 
agement of the public works, confined to aboard, the 
servents of a general law. There could not be found 
a single enactment directing them in performance of 
their duties, except in form of a general law. They 
received the revenue and tolls arising from the public 
works, disbursed them in payment for repairs, and 
if there were a surplus, that went to the fund for the 
payment of the interest on the public debt. Then 
there was an Auditor, what was he to do ? All his du¬ 
ties were defined by general laws, and so far as he 
[Mr. C.] knew, there was no necessity for an annual or 
biennial Legislature to direct the Auditor in the dis¬ 
charge of his functions, except such as were of a gen¬ 
eral nature, and were or could be incorporated into the 
general laws. 

So with regard to public institutions. They were all in 
the hands of boards of directors who are themselves in 
exclusive subjection to general provisions of law. Per¬ 
haps it might be said some of these general laws ought 
to be changed: but then, again, the question arose, 
could not the change be made as well by a biennial as 
an annual session. 

There was another aspect in the matter; and it was 

the necessity that the Legislature should annually 
maintain a kind of supervision ” over the action of 
those executive officers who were acting under the pio* 
visions of a general law. The gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton, in a \GYj feline manner, compared the action of the 
annual session of the Legislature to a cat watchmg 
mice: that they were placed here to watch the con¬ 
duct of those officers. He compared the officers of the 
executive to rats “ peeping from their holes, watching 
the coming of their common enemy,” and going b^k 
when they saw the Legislature approj^hnig.^ He 
thought there was more of fancy than of fact in this 
representation. And he would feel under great obliga¬ 
tions to that gentleman or any one else, who w(mld le- 
fer him to any mistake, or blunder, or wrong figui^, 
or attempt at fraud, on the part of any executive offi¬ 
cer, that had been brought to light by an annual Legis¬ 
lature, which could not be brought to light by the same 
men, acting with the same motives, in a biennial Leg¬ 
islature. . , j r 1 

Mr. REEMELIN interposing, reten-ed to the defal- 








no 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


calion of Mulrine, and said that robbery, which had 
been discovered by the investigation of an annual ses¬ 
sion, would have run on undiscovered lor two years, if 
there had been a biennial session. 

Mr. CUTLER recollected that fact. He knew that 
thei’e was a committee to investigate the matter: it was 
called the committee on “rascality,” and in his opinion 
did an infinite service to the State. But who appoint¬ 
ed and who composed that committee? Was it a 
committee of the members of the General Assembly? 
No; they were persons unconnected with the Legisla¬ 
ture; they received their appointment from the Legis¬ 
lature, but were not members of it, and were occupied 
for a year in the investigation of the subject. The 
whole result was merely “ bolting the door when the 
horse was stolen and the horse was stolen when we 
had the Legislature sitting here every year. And, if 
there were any balance to be struck between the two 
systems he thought the annual Legislature had a heavy 
account to settle in this matter. He did not say that 
those frauds were the result of annual legislation, but 
did it not show that annual legislation in itself was im¬ 
potent to prevent those frauds? He did not think that 
any legislative committee, or any select committee, or 
any action of the Legislature had ever contributed es¬ 
sentially to bring to light any maladministration of any 
officers, that could not have been done by a biennial 
Legislature: and that was the point he wished to make. 

Mr. VANCE of Champaign here made some remarks 
which were inaudible at the table. When his voice 
became sufficiently loud to be heard he was under¬ 
stood to say tqat he had been a sufferer by the transac¬ 
tion alluded to. He had to pay a portion of the mon¬ 
ey embezzled, as he was one of the securities for the 
defaulter. The fraud was detected when the Legisla¬ 
ture was in session, and if it had not been discovered 
for tw’o years, perhaps every one on the bond would 
have been ruined. 

Mr. CUTLER resumed. He had that incident in 
his mind, but the impression was so indistinct that the 
particulars of the case had e.scaped his memory. He 
knew that tliere had been a defalcation, but his im¬ 
pression was that the Legislature were not aware of it 
until they went to get their pay and could not obtain 
it, because there was no money in the treasury. 

There was another view of this matter, connected 
with the action of the Legislature, in regard to the levy 
of taxes for general revenue purposes. That he under¬ 
stood to be a piincipal objection of the gentleman from 
Franklin [Mr. Stanbery.] 

It was said by that gentleman that annual sessions 
were necessary in order that to the hands of the Le*^- 
islature might be committed the important duty of 
levying, or fixing the amount of levy for revenue pur¬ 
poses. How did it stand ? Here was the appropria¬ 
tion bill of last year, (holding the documentin his hand,) 
and was of a character similar to the appropriation bills 
of previous years. Well, if there were no annual ses¬ 
sions, of course in the appropriation bill of a biennial 
Legislature there would be no provision for the annual 
payment of members. The other items of the bill were 
for the most part made up of fixed salaries, that did 
not change from year to year.—The salaries of the 
Governor, the Auditor, Treasurer, Attorney General, 
Fund Commissioner, Board of Public Works, &c., &c.l 

&c. But after the fixed salaries were taken out_ 

which could be settled by a biennial as well as by an an¬ 
nual Legislature—we then found some contingencies 
in the bill. It contained a “Contingent fund for the 
Governor, $4,000; for the Auditor of State, $2,000 ; for 
the Treasurer, 1,000; ” and then some contingencies de¬ 
pendent on the Kitchens and Wardrobes of our vari¬ 
ous public institutions. An appropriation for meat, 
furniture, servants’ hire, clothes &c., &c., for the Lu¬ 
natic and other Asylums. He admitted that in 
regard to these latter items there might be some 
little variation from one year to another. But he 
thought that a little scrutiny would enable the Legis¬ 


lature to calculate for two years as well as for one. 
After that there was a certain amount to be raised, on 
the aggregate valuation, that varied but a mere trifle 
from year to year. In fact he could see no difficulty in 
the Legislature determining the per centage lor two 
years in advance for all these items. 

The amount of the levy for the past year, was seven- 
tenths of a mill, and one-fifth of a mill lor school pur¬ 
poses—the latter item he supposed it would be granted 
could be regulated biennially as well as otherwise. 
Take out the expenses of the Legislature for the alter¬ 
nate year, and the necessary direct estimate and su¬ 
pervision of the finances of the State, devolving upon 
the Legislature, would amount to an annual levy of 
about ^ a mill. For this he thought some general pro¬ 
vision could be safely made. If a few thousand surplus 
dollars were raised, the people would lay out of the 
use of that money a short time, which he thought pref¬ 
erable to convening them at the expense of some 
$80,000 to look after so small a matter. 

There was another view of the matter about which 
he had some doubts. They found in the 20th section of 
the report of the committee, this provision : 

“No tax of any discription whatever, shall be levied or exacted, 
except in pursuance of law, and every law which imposes, con¬ 
tinues, increases or revives any tax, or which ijrovides for the 
raising of revenue, shall state distinctly the object of the same, 
to which only it shall be applied.” 

In the 2Ist section there was the following: 

“No money shall be drawn from the treasury except in pursu¬ 
ance of a distinct and specific appropriation made by law, and no 
appropriation shall be made for a longer period than two years.” 

If he understood the intent and meaning of these 
sections, it was to take from the auditor the power gi¬ 
ven him by a general law, and one which stood very 
much in the light of a contract to which the faith of 
the State was affixed. The object of the secton was 
to take away the power of making up at all times and 
at all hazards the monies necessary to pay the interest 
on the public debt. He was opposed to that. He 
would be allowed to say that although it was within 
the range of possibility that such a provision could be 
carried into effect by an annual Legislature, he thought 
it could not by any means be effected by a hurried ses¬ 
sion of the Legislature, and he thought that one of the 
strongest arguments for not agreeing to the amendment 
now under consideration. 

He would not enter at this time into a discussion of 
all the bearings of this subject, but he would ask how 
was it possible, for instance, that the Legislature sitting 
here biennially in fhe winter time, could determine for 
two years in advance, all the contingencies incident to 
the wheat crop ; and that was a greater regulator of 
our finances, than the Legislature ? The Auditor, be¬ 
fore determining upon the amount of levy to be made, 
was obliged in his estimates to have reference to the 
amount of produce to be carried on our canals. Now 
how was it possible for the Legislature sitting here 
once in two years, to calculate on the rains, the drought 
or the blights which might so materially injure and 
dry up all our sources of prosperity. Though he ad¬ 
mitted there was a bare possibility for an annual Leg¬ 
islature to do this, he thought it would be beyond the 
prophetic power of our wusest men to calculate these 
contingencies two years in advance. He believed that 
it was neces.sary that such an estimate should be made 
by one individual. 

He considered it expedient that this matter should 
be left in the hands of an officer whose attention was 
directed exclusively to such subjects, and who would 
possess all the necessary information to guide him in 
his estimates, before the the levy was determined upon. 
He would go for the biennial session, not only for the 
purpose of defeating these two sections, but also to pre¬ 
vent taking from the hands of the Auditor what the 
State, by contract, had placed there. In regard to the 
last item his mind was pretty well satisfied. 

Mr. MORRIS observed that although there had been 
80 much said, and well said too, he was induced to of- 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


171 


fer a few remarks by way of defining his position. He 
was, and ever had been, since the question was agita¬ 
ted, in favor of biennial sessions. He considered him¬ 
self strictly, virtually, instructed by his constituents, 
and obeyed them the more willingly, because their 
opinions entirely coincided with his own. He knew 
from experience—having been clerk of a court for more 
than twenty years—that we have had too much legis¬ 
lation, and he knew that it had been said with great 
propriety, that excess of legislation has been the bane of 
the country. He knew that often before the laws were 
promulgated, candidates were before the people for the 
Legislature, and sometimes the member who served 
the year previous was a candidate for re-election, the 
people not having tested the utility or propriety of any 
measure advocated by them. So the people were un¬ 
acquainted with the merits of a law proposed to be re¬ 
pealed or altered—they did not know whether they 
were good or bad laws. Therefore he was in favor of 
biennial sessions, in order that the people might have 
an opportunity for sober second thought, to mature, and 
to determine before they sent on men, at three dollai’s 
a day, to alter a law. And as to expense, it was said 
that the cost of a biennial session would equal that of 
an annual—he would say thfrt he could not conceive 
by what arithmetical process gentlemen made such a 
calculation. He could not realize how two days at 
three dollars a day cost no more than one day at-three 
dollars. 

He was in favor of restricting these gentlemen as to 
the length of their session : ][ie would be in favor of a 
session of ninety days. They should take from the Leg¬ 
islature all their patronage: also, the appointing power, 
and give it, to the people. Let the people elect their 
own officers. If the people were competent to elect 
men to come here and appoint officers, why not com¬ 
petent to appoint the officers themselves? That he 
took to be true Democracy. The people granted too 
much power to this legislative department, and the Leg¬ 
islature had abused it. 

The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] as¬ 
sumed that it was necessary for the Legislature to at¬ 
tend here every year to watch the public treasury. 
From their course of (action heretofore, he [Mr. M.] 
considered it would be like setting a wolf to watch a 
sheep. How did they watch it last winter? They 
came here and spent five weeks doing nothing, before 
they organized and proceeded to the transaction of the 
public business. He had had the honor of a seat in the 
Legislature in the years ’37-’38 and *39, and he recol¬ 
lected that thousands more than they were entitled to 
were voted to public contractors. But gentlemen in 
the lobby pulled members by the sleeve and whispered, 
“ Let the poor fellows have it—what signifies eight or 
ten thousand dollars to a State like Ohio; it is nothing 
at all—a mere trifle.” And so they did get it. He con¬ 
sidered that all legislators and all statesmen should 
do business for the people in the same manner as they 
would do it for themselves. They paid a man the full 
amount of his contract; then what obligation were they 
under to pay a man any more ? That was the way the 
Legislature had drawn upon the treasury, and they 
drew largely too. And they got us into a State debt 
of twenty millions, by the improvidence of their legis¬ 
lation. What did the canals produce which had been 
constructed at such an enoi’mous cost ? They never had 
been able to collect one half the amount of principal 
invested in them, and instead of their contributing to 
the revenue, we were still obliged to tax the people to 
make up that wffiich the canals failed to supply. Who 
paid all this taxation? The yeoman—the man who 
held the plough and the spa>de—the hard working far¬ 
mer and mechanic. He would instance a case illustra¬ 
tive of improvidence of a previous Legislature. If he 
were wrong in regard to this matter, the gentleman 
from Warren [Mr. Smith] could correct him. Some 
years ago several individulals undertook to form a ca¬ 
nal in Mercer county, and after having expended some 


seventy thousand dollars upon it, the State took it off 
their hands and expended about as much more, making 
$150,000 in all. What had it produced? They never 
had been yet able to collect toils sufficient to pay the 
sahuy of a gentleman appointed to collect them. It 
w'as almost a solitary w'aste, and they now talked seri¬ 
ously of filling it up! Who improvidently expended 
this money? The Legislature. It was the Legislature 
that had incurred our enormous public debt, by en¬ 
couraging and supporting plans of a such like nature. 
He would say again, that during the time he had the 
honor of a seat in the Legislature, a great many thou¬ 
sand dollars were voted to be paid to sundry individu¬ 
als, as extra allowances to contractors on the carrals, 
against all of which he voted. He spoke from the 
book,as the gentlemarr from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] 
said: many speculations had been made by persons on 
the pulrlic works under improvident legislation. 

Then he would say, let there be few laws—the fewer 
the better. Let the people have time to understand 
them, and let them have time to test them. That was 
the true policy; it was true democracy, too. He 
thought the people had a right to do as they pleased, 
for all power was vested in the people; and the pow¬ 
er of the executive, and of the judiciary and of the le¬ 
gislative departments, all emanated from the people. 
But the legislative department had obtairred too much 
power, and he hoped the Convention would curtail 
them, and that the Legislature would hereafter do bet¬ 
ter than they had done, and legislate more for the in¬ 
terests of the commurrity. 

Mr. HORTON said he hesitated very much to ob¬ 
trude his views on this comnrittee. Since he had been 
in this body he had sat very quietly, and listened to all 
that had been said, and contented himself with merely 
voting on the questioirs submitted. But he entertained 
opinions on this subject, which he considered it pro¬ 
per to express. He would ask therr that the committee 
bear with him for a few minutes. He had listened with 
surprise to the repeated and wholesale denuncia¬ 
tions of the Legislature. He was more than astonish¬ 
ed at times to hear these denunciations, corning from 
gentlemen who had been members ol these same Le¬ 
gislatures. They talked about corruptiorr and spoke 
in a manner, as if there was no honor or honesty in the 
Legislature. He never had been a member of a legislative 
body, and if the representations made on this floor 
were correct, he hoped he rrever would have the mrs- 
forturre to be a member of orre. 

But with all deference to gentlemerr, he must say 
that he thought it was the expression of opinions not 
deliberately formed or matured, and he vvould ask 
these gentlemen if it were not better to think as he 
did in this matter, and not to judge of the legislation 
and Legislature of Ohio, as if there were nothing good 
or honest in it. He would ask, therefore, that the past 
Legislatures of the State be considered honest, until 
they be proved corrupt; that, he understood, "was the 
general rule in all “ criminal ” cases. He had heard 
much said about “ who was willing to trust the peo¬ 
ple ?—who had most confidence and faith in the peo¬ 
ple ? ” It appeared to him that the question was not 
whether this man or that man w'as willing to ti-ustthe 
people, but rather whom would the people trust? 
This appeared to him the legitimate question. The 
people in past times trusted the Legislature, and they 
must, by a necessity, to a greater or less extent, trust 
the Legislature in the future. Now, he had had no ex¬ 
perience in deliberative bodies, certainly not in legis¬ 
lative, and he would present his views, not as a poli¬ 
tician, not as legislator, but as a plain business man 
would present them. His life had been spent in the 
transactions of business, and he proposed to present 
his views in a business aspect. 

It struck him then that the duties which they were to 
perform were real and genuine business transactions. 
They came there representing the whole people ; and 
this Convention, its action and for the duty they were 










172 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


here to perform was, for the time being, in place of the 
jieople of Ohio. They were to make a Constitution 
which was to be nothing more or less than a letter of 
attorney delegating certain powers from the people to 
certain bodies who were to ti’ansactthe business of the 
people in the Legislature and other departments of the 
State government. Well then the question as applica¬ 
ble to this debate was this, that whether in that letter 
of attorney we would give to the legislative depart¬ 
ment power restricted more or restricted less ? The 
question is whether in deputing the legislative power 
to the two branches of the Legislature we would re¬ 
quire of them to account to their constituents once a 
year or once in two years ? It struck him that it was 
a plain bcsiriess question that should be determined in 
a business way. And how did we determine business 
matters ? When they talked of progress in business 
what did they mean ? We did not mean taking a new 
course to-day unless they knew the path that was be¬ 
fore them, through the experience of tlie past which 
was behind them. Take for instance a man who did a 
business of two millions a year, and having done that 
business every year, until he has had experience in it, 
the question occurred, would he change his policy ? If 
there were good reasons shown by others in the same 
business, or afforded by his own experience, then he 
would change his policy, if he were a wise man. And, 
if he were a wise man he would not change his mode 
of doing business unless for a good reason, and an in¬ 
telligent reason, and a perfectly clear reason: and if 
other parties here concurred in it, that reason must be 
understood by the others, and approved of by the oth¬ 
ers before the change can be rightly determined upon. 
He hoped there was no one wlio would doubt the cor¬ 
rectness of such a course as applied to the ordinary 
transactions of life. 

The question then comes up, what was the experi¬ 
ence in this matter? What was the expei’ience of this 
country, for we need not go into England or France or 
ony other country for information. What was the ex¬ 
perience in relation to biennial or triennial or annu¬ 
al or semi-annual sessions of the Legislature ? First let 
us look at the thirteen old States. In them tlujre was 
one that had a biennial session; two that had semi-an¬ 
nual, and all the rest annual. All the old States had an¬ 
nual sessions except Rhode Island and Connecticut, 
which had semi-annual, and North Carolina, which had 
a biennial session. The experience of all these States 
should determine this question. Massachusetts was a 
large State and enjoyed a reputation world-wide for pru¬ 
dence and wisdom ; she had the annual system—so had 
New York and Pennsylvania; great States, with large 
populations and immense resources. Virginiahad adop¬ 
ted this plan also. Then the question came up, was 
there any thing analogous in the condition of North 
Carolina with the great State of Ohio. Were her j^eo- 
ple so numerous, so enterprizing, so progressive, as the 
people of this State ; and, was her people increasing as 
ours; had she such public institutions—did she owe so 
much money as we did ?—“She was remerkable for 
stability,” as gentlemen said. Does Ohio want the 
same kind of stability of North Caroline ? He thought 
not. He had stated that Rhode Island and Connecticut 
had semi-annual sessions of their legislative bodies. 

Look, then, at the Legislatures of North Carolina, 
'Connecticut and Rhode Island, and see which had the 
most stability: so far as statutes were concerned, they 
were about equal. But Louisiana had biennial sessions 
and her statutes were five times the amount of those 
of Connecticut. 

Mr. STANTON (in his seat.) Because she has a 
written code. 

Mr. HORTON resumed. Then he supposed that 
would be brought up when the question of jurispru¬ 
dence came on. It was a part of their duty to provide 
for a code, and that argument, as used in support of 
biennial sessions, would be thrown back to gentlemen 
'by some member. 


Mr. STANTON (in his seat.) That is all we want. 

Mr. HORTON. He had before said that they ought 
to have some good reason for this })roposed change, anti 
not the mere opinion of men in favor of biennial ses¬ 
sions. It should be proved, and proved by experience; 
if not in our own State, by other Slates. There was 
no prudence or no wisdom in changing a policy, unless 
the change had been sanctioned, not by lancy, not by 
guess work, but by actual, practical experience. 

He had before referred to the old thirteen states; and 
he would now refer to the other States in the the union 
with a view to see what had been their policy. 

He would now call the attention of the Convention to 
some of the new States; for instance, our own, the 
State of Ohio—the largest of all the new States--the 
third State in the Ujiion; and, if she should continue 
to exercise a wise public policy, unquestionably des¬ 
tined to become the second State of the Union—she 
had been prosperous beyond any community that had 
ever existed. No community had ever gone on devel¬ 
oping its resources with such rapidity and regularity. 
Well may we be proud of what Ohio is—notwithstand¬ 
ing, in the opinion of some, she has been so long borne 
down—•suffering and writhing under the incubus of 
legislation. Why, there was no telling what she might 
not have been, had she been free from this evil. 

In this place he would beg to refer to the argument 
of the gentleman from Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] in rela¬ 
tion to the present position of Ohio and her progress. 
If he understood that gentleman correctly, he had said 
that this State had acquired to a considerable extent 
the maximum of her prosperity. 

Mr. STANTON (interrupting) said he had stated 
that the State had made considerable advancement in 
pupulation and the development of her resources. 

Mr. HORTON proceeded—to a considerable extent 
developed, the gentleman had explained. Well, accor¬ 
ding to well ascertained facts and calculations, the in¬ 
crease of the State of Ohio, within the 10 years last 
past, from 1840 to 1850, was greater than the whole 
population of any state having biennial sessions of the 
Legislature. 

A Voice. Excejit Illinois. 

I’erhaps Illinois should be excepted; but the increase 
of Ohio could not even fall much short of Illinois. Still 
we had been told that the resources of Ohio were to 
a considerable extent developed; but the fact was, the 
resources of the State were only beginning to be de¬ 
veloped, as would appear upon the single reflection 
that only two-fifths of the territory of the State had 
been brought under cultivation. 

He would recur now to the reasons which had been 
brought up in this argument in favor of biennial ses¬ 
sions; and first, the argument that biennial sessions 
were demanded by public sentiment. This, after all, 
was the great argument; and he proposed briefly to 
inquire in regard to the public sentiment upon this 
question. If there were a deliberate public sentiment 
in favor of this change, and if that sentiment had been 
clearly expressed, he admitted that it was our duty to 
acquiesce, and to place such a provision in the consti¬ 
tution. He believed that we were bound to represent 
the public sentiment upon all subjects ; but there were 
so many channels through which to express public sen¬ 
timent, and some of them questionable, that much 
doubt was necessarily involved here. If all that gen¬ 
tlemen claimed were true, the matter was settled. But 
only the other day the venerable member from Geauga 
rose in his place and gave a very definite and compre¬ 
hensive expression on the other side ; and he was fol¬ 
lowed and sustained by the gentleman from Franklin, 
who also expressed himself very definitely and with 
much force. 

It was clear from what transpired when this subject 
was up before, that there was alarge circle ofpopulation 
around the Capital here, that had an interest in the con¬ 
tinuance of annual sessions, and in this way, it appear¬ 
ed that we had public sentiment on the other side. A 










173 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


large number of people around this centre, Columbus, 
not only in Franklin county, butin the counties around, 
entertain the same sentiment. Froni below, in the 
Scioto Valley, which was a somewhat important region 
of the State, we had as yet heard no expression in fa¬ 
vor of biennial sessions. Wliat we might hereafter 
hear he did not pretend to know. The gentleman from 
Belmont said that in his county, the people were gen¬ 
erally in favor of biennial sessions; but he did not un¬ 
derstand the gentleman to say, that the question there, 
had been made the subject of full and deliberate dis¬ 
cussion. It might have been discussed in the bar-rooms 
and on the street corners, but expressions from these 
sources were not always the true exponents of public 
sentiment. The great public heart of the country, did 
not express itself through this channel—it never gave 
forth “an uncertain sound.” No man ever yet witnessed 
the expression of any great public sentiment through 
such amedium; but whenever the great heart of Ohio 
was moved, the pulsations of that heart were sure to 
be felt all over the State. And the gentleman from 
Erie [Mr. Taylor] had stated with great candor and 
clearness, that he did not think that the expression ol 
public sentiment upon this subject, was so fixed, but 
that it might be easily set aside by deliberate discus¬ 
sions. 

Mr. STANTON [in his seat.] Public sentiment 
needed a little patching up. 

Mr. HORTON. He thanked the gentleman from 
Logan for the idea—this patching up of public senti¬ 
ment: for he recollected the account which that gen¬ 
tleman gave us the other day, of having written an ar¬ 
ticle in a newspaper, in favor of biennial sessions, 
wherein the word was printed “ triennial,” and had 
not the gentleman corrected the mistake, it was prob¬ 
able from what he could learn, that the people send¬ 
ing him here would have all been in favor ol trienni¬ 
al sessions. 

Mr. MITCHELL rose to make an explanation, and 
Mr. H. giving way, he said: He conceived the gen¬ 
tleman from Meigs had made a mistake in the loca¬ 
tion of the county to which he referred. He ought to 
have stated that the letter was written from the county 
of Knox. 

Mr. HORTON proceeded. Well he understood that 
the counties of Knox and Logan were in the same cat¬ 
egory. 

The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] had 
given his views with great force, and they clearly in¬ 
dicate that Hamilton county is not carried away with 
this new theory of biennial sessions. 

The committee had yet no expression of any fixed 
public sentiment in favor of biennial sessions, except 
what had been given by the gentleman fi-om Warren, 
[Mr. Smith,]. the gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. Ken- 
xoN',] and the gentleman from Muskingum, [Mr. Cham¬ 
bers.] He believes that from one end of Muskingum 
valley to the other, if public sentiment was not fixed in 
favor of biennial sessions, gentlemen would themselves 
favor such a public sentiment. The gentleman from 
Washington had some doubts about the propriety of 
continuing the annual sessions, but he [Mr. IL] did not 
suppose his arguments would remove those doubts. 
But he, for one, wished to inquire further. Unless 
some other, and more definite expression of public 
sentiment should come in, he would not regard the 
public mind as at all fixed upon the subject. In his 
part of the country he knew there was no such thing 
as a fixed public sentiment upon this question. True, 
he had been told by the member from Lawrence [Mr. 
Gillett] that in his county it was in favor of biennial 
sessions—but all the way from Washington down to 
Lawrence, (including Athens,) no such sentiment exist¬ 
ed. The gentleman from Gallia [Mr. Nash] was here 
to contradict this if it were not correct; and he would 
stand corrected by that gentleman. 

What was the cause of the popular excitements 
against annual sessions, of which gentlemen had spo¬ 


ken ? Was it because the Legislature of Ohio had 
been so corrupt, that such dissatisfaction and distrust 
had been expressed against them upon this iloor ? 
Was it because of the vacillations in the statute law? 
If there was no other cause than these, he hoped Gen¬ 
tlemen would yet reconsider their censures. For^the 
honor of the State, and the people at large, at least 
gentlemen ought to be manly enough to confess the 
truth on this subject. 

The apportionment law of 1848 i)roduced great ex¬ 
citement between the two great parties of the State, 
and the feelings of the great mass of citizens were ar¬ 
rayed on one side or the other of that question. The 
people were excited on that occasion, and not the 
Legislature ; or rather the excitement of the Legisla¬ 
ture was the consequence of the public feeling in the 
State, whether that feeling was right or wrong. About 
two years ago a convention was held in this city, upon 
the great question which was then agitating the pub¬ 
lic mind, and that convention prefigured the course 
which was taken by the succeeding Legislature. If 
tlierefore, anything was wrong, it had not its origin 
with the Legislature, for all know that the constitu¬ 
ents of either party would have ostracised any member 
who refused to take the ground demanded by his par¬ 
ty. He affirmed that it was not right for any gentle¬ 
man to come here and suppose any other than this the 
true state of the case. The evil was not reached by 
cursing the Legislature; the fault was with the people. 
When the people commit errors, the consequences 
must be met and sustained, and borne with patience; 
because it takes time to remedy the mistakes of the 
people. It is not fair to make the Legislature the 
scape-goat for the sins of the people. He contended 
that these expressions of disapprobation which had 
been wreaked upon the legislation of the State, should 
fall farther back, upon the people themselves. He- 
now came to the second point made by gentlemen.—■ 
Justability of legislation.—He had no doubt whatever 
that the Legislature had been frequently guilty of hasty 
legislation. He had no doubt that many a young law¬ 
yer, anxious to see his name on the journal, and let his- 
constituents know that he had succeeded in the enact¬ 
ment of statutes, had aided in hasty legislation. We 
had been told by the gentleman from Monroe, he had. 
nearly always succeeded in passing all his measures ; . 
and no doubt many a younger and less prudent man 
had done the same thing. This was no doubt a source 
of evil, but he questioned the wisdom or the propriety 
of instructing the people in legislative action, even if' 
unnecessary legislation is sometimes the result. But 
will biennial sessions of the Legislature prevent the 
evil complained of? He tlioughtit would not produce 
the result claimed. 

What had been the experience of other States with 
reference to biennial sessions? Compare Alabama 
with Louisiana; one has annual sessions, the other bien¬ 
nial sessions ? The gentleman tells us that Louisiana 
had a code; a vast amount of statute laws, and there¬ 
fore she was not a proper criterion for our judgment, 
but Mississippi had biennial sessions and she was with¬ 
out any code: and now will any gentleman just take 
the trouble to go into the librai’y and compare the a- 
mount of biennial legislation in Mississippi with the 
amount of semi-annual legislation in the State ol Con¬ 
necticut ? Gentlemen might also look at the State of 
Missouri, she had been a State for thirty years, and 
placing Missouri and Ohio in comparison, gentlemen 
would find nothiug in their favor. Tennessee was one 
of the largest of the new States, a State of great re¬ 
sources, she had biennial sessions of her Legislature, 
and gentlemen could also compare that State with the 
State of Alabama, and see what might be drawn from 
the experience of those two States in favor of biennial 
sessions. 

Gentlemen would have to state their propositions in 
favor of biennial sessions, and support them with more 
proof. It would be unwise for this Convention to be 


/ 












174 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


governed by mere opinion in this matter. In connec¬ 
tion with this he would refer to one feature in the ex¬ 
isting constitution. There was sitting before him a 
venei’able gentleman [Mr. Morrow] who had a share 
in the formation of that constitution under which we 
had lived so long, and according to some gentlemen, 
suliered so much. One of the real evils under which 
we have labored in this constitution, was brought into 
it by the very course of policy which is now attempted 
to be introduced here. The restrictions in our judicia¬ 
ry system were brought about because of the fact that 
at that time in the State of Kentucky the ^ number of 
judges were increasing to a vei’y 'nconvenient extent; 
Ohio was making the old constitution, and as an in¬ 
stance of special legislation in fundamental law, the 
Convention of that day were induced to prescibe in the 
constitution that the State of Ohio should never have 
but four judges, and every gentleman knew that this 
was the great evil of our present constitution. Let us 
avoid hasty legislation in the fundamental law we are 
framing. 

He had no doubt that the election of officers by the 
Legislature had been one of the most fruitful causes of 
extra legislation in this State. He was glad to perceive 
indications from all quarters in favor of taking away 
this evil, and he submitted whether this was not a much 
better remedy for excessive legislation than a provision 
for biennial sessions. He was fearful of wearying the 
I)atience of the committee by making too large a draft 
upon their time, but he craved indulgence, and appeal¬ 
ed to his past silence for their consideration. With ref¬ 
erence to the complaint against special legislation, he 
utterly discai’ded the idea that we ought not to have 
any special legislation. How was it possible for us to 
})rovide in the constitution that all legislation should 
be general ? How could this be done now, when the 
^State was only just beginning to develop its resources? 
Such a provision might be applied, if it were a fact 
that the resources of the State were completely devel¬ 
oped, or nearly so ; but such was not the fact. We had 
immense systems of railroads and public improvements 
on hand ; and whatever individual members might 
thiidv of the wisdom and pindence of investing large 
sums of money in roads, bridges and manufacturing 
>e8tablishments—that was not the question; the people 
required these things—they would have them; and 
they ought to have them. It was a want of the times 
and a means of developing our vast resources and 
working out the destiny of our noble State. 

He came now to the question of economy, which he 
confessed had been argued with some force. He did 
not understand the arithmetic of the gentleman from 
Belmont, by which he stated the annual saving of ex¬ 
penses of the General Assembly to be $70,000. It oc¬ 
curred to him that the annual appropriation for legis¬ 
lation was about $60,000, and by providing for biennial 
sessions no man could claim a saving of more than one- 
lialf that sum. 

Mr. KENNON (in his seat). Until the last year the 
average had been $60,000. 

Mr. HORTON. But last year was no criterion— 
$30,000 annually was all that could be asked for this 
saving; and if his calculation was correct that sum di¬ 
vided among all the people of Ohio, will amount to a 
cent and a half iier head. There are other modes of 
saving money to the State more efficient. Why, there 
was the item of postage last year, amounting to $10,- 
000, worth perhaps the consideration of economical 
gentlemen; and the expenses of public printing per¬ 
haps might be reduced; but for his part he did not be¬ 
lieve that the State spent any too much money for leg¬ 
islation, if that legislation is wisely directed. 

While he was upon this point, he would like the 
gentleman from Washington, to explain his idea about 
agents. He threw out the idea that the Legislature, 
need not be set to watch over the public treasury, be¬ 
cause every man would admit that there had been more 
complaint of dishonesty in the Legislature of the State, 
than anywhere else. 


Mr. CUTLER (interposing,) said he was very unfor¬ 
tunate in his use of terms, if he had conveyed any such 
idea. He had not intended to say, that the Legisla¬ 
ture upon the annual plan, were either dishonest or 
corrupt. His object before the committee, was simply 
to make a comparison, between the two methods of 
doing business. 

Mr. HORTON. How were the public interests to be 
secui’ed in the hands of public agents. Through ihe 
intervention of the Legislative or the Executive de¬ 
partment ? 

Mr. CUTLER. The Executive, certainly. 

Mr. HORTON, continued. He now recurred his doc¬ 
trine of the power of attorney. The question was, 
whether you can exercise a more salutary control over 
your agent, by calling him to an account annually, than 
biennially. He would consider this in connection with 
the assertion, that we had no supervision of the public 
finances: he did not suppose, however, that we had no 
such supervision. He had no doubt that the policy in¬ 
dicated by the gentleman from Washington was the true 
policy ; but he could not think that there was any in¬ 
tention of letting the public money go wholly unac¬ 
counted for. He agreed with the gentleman from 
Washington in relation to the duties of the Auditor: but 
was it not right and proper that every public officer 
should be made accountable? Was it not practicable 
for the finances of Ohio to be controlled by the people ? 
He thought there was no doubt about it. There cer¬ 
tainly could be none. Did gentlemen think there 
were no means of bringing our financial agents to a 
proper account? He had no doubt they were all hon¬ 
est men, and in order to keep them so, he desired to 
make them accountable in the strictest foi’m. Besides, 
the people should know what was done with the finan¬ 
ces, and you could not bring this matter home to the 
minds of the people without frequently recurring to 
periods of accountability. 

Objections had been made to the instability of annu¬ 
al legislation; but here was a general law, regulating 
the receipts and disbursements of public money of 25 
years standing—a law by which the whole financial 
power of the State was controlled; yet. it had never 
been modified or abridged by any of the wicked annu¬ 
al legislatures which had supervened—they never had 
taken away this power from the Auditor. If there 
was so much vacilation resulting from the annual meet¬ 
ing of the Legislature, why was it that this law had re¬ 
mained so long untouched? The financial business of 
the State had been as safely and honorably managed 
in Ohio, as in any other State of the Union; and even 
more so than in any other State except Massachusetts 
and New York. The stocks of Ohio stand second and 
third best’on the Continent. They were worth 119 cents 
as he understood, which did not look as though the 
commercial world considered the Legislature of Ohio 
very unstable in its operations. 

He wmuld not detain the committee any longer. He 
was against this change in the policy of the State. Not¬ 
withstanding all the reasons which had been brought 
up to support it, he was opposed to it, without a good 
reason for the change; a better reason than he had yet 
heard for this new policy. He spoke not to disparage 
the arguments of gentlemen. He desired to be respect¬ 
ful to all. He was an unbeliever in what was called 
progress— he was a sincere progressive. But in order 
that the doctrine of progress might not become a by¬ 
word, he should be careful to favorno movement caJlad 
by that name unless it were really worthy of it. He 
would not move without going forward. He was averse 
to all sidewise and backward or downward movements. 
His movements must be all forward, and, to carry out 
the true meaning of the phrase. They must also be 
upward. And there could be no progress in politics 
unless light was thrown from the past, through the pres¬ 
ent, forward to the future. No change should be made un¬ 
less that light shine strongly and clearly upon every part 
of the subject, andhe thought that light had not been shed 









CONVENTION REPORTS 


aufficiently upon the subject to justily the proposed 
change. 

Mr. BIENNON did not like much to have his arith¬ 
metic impeached. He found, upon examination, that 
the expenses of the Legislature, for last year, instead 
of $70,000 were $92,000, and that would give a larger 
mean than he had before assumed. 

Mr. NASH said : I have a few words to otfer on this 
subject, and wish to refer to certain matters of fact re¬ 
latin'^ to it—not that I have anything new to disclose, 
or intend to pass again over ground already traversed. 
This question of the finances seems to present a great 
difficulty. But why should we require annual sessions 
to take care of the finances ? Why should we require 
annual sessions to look after any matter which can be 
as well reconciled with biennial sessions ? Gentlemen 
say that it is necessary that the Treasury should be 
watched by annual meetings of the General Assembly; 
otherwise there will be no security for the public prop¬ 
erty or the public funds. And there have not been 
wanting instances wherein the Legislature, by annual 
sessions, have saved the State from loss. I think I can 
wive gentlemen aid in this particular. I recollect what 
occurred in this chamber and in the Hall below in 
times past, when I was a member of the Senate of Ohio 
in 1840. I refer to the passage of that arbitrary act 
to stop all operations under the “ Plunder Bill,” so 
called. I gave my vote for that resolution on the 
ground that it was the only salvation of the State from 
repudiation. But its passage was to meet a contingen¬ 
cy that had occurred. Now what is the argument?— 
It is this: That contingencies of this kind would hap¬ 
pen when it would be desirable that the General As¬ 
sembly should be in session, and, therefore, annual ses¬ 
sions were to be preferred. These contingencies will 
undoubtedly arise. But did gentlemen suppose that 
the meeting of the General Assembly each year on the 
first Monday in January would meet all unlocked for 
contingencies ? Are these frauds to occur at no other 
time in the year than during the session of the Legis¬ 
lature ? Now that such contingencies will arise oidy ar¬ 
gues that there should be contingent arrangements to 
meet them. But to meet such contingencies there is 
no necessity for annual sessions. Stated sessions have 
no relation to contingencies. Your Governor has the 
power to call extra sessions, if any such contingency 
should happen, demanding the intervention of the 
legislative power. You cannot imagine a contingency 
to arise requiring the presence of the General Assem¬ 
bly wherein the Governor would not have the power to 
meet it by calling the Legislature together. Do gen¬ 
tlemen in business transactions propose a rule in exact 
time to meet contingencies that are unforseen ? No, 
sir, when a contingency happens in the affairs of a bus¬ 
iness man, he has some contingent arrangement to meet 
it. So it should be in the affairs of the State ; when¬ 
ever contingencies arise in public affairs, they ought to 
be met by contingent arrangements. I can’t compre¬ 
hend the principle that before contingencies happen 
you must establish such a rule to meet them, as though 
contingencies would conform themselves to your times 
and rules, and would all occur precisely on the first 
Monday of January. 

Another argument was based upon the state of our 
State finances. It is insisted that we should meet annu¬ 
ally, to have a legislative committee examine into the 
condition of our finances. Gentlemen speak about the 
State finances, as though they comprehended all the 
details of the public offices, and the manner in which 
all their accounts are kept; but, sir, I have had the 
honor of a seat upon the floor of the Senate for four 
years, and during that time gave as much attention to 
the public finances as members ordinarily do; yet when 
placed upon the commission to investigate the manner 
of the expenditure of public money on our public 
works, sometimes called the committee on rascality, I 
was compelled to delve into these offices for near two 
years. I then found that I knew little or nothing about 


175 


them, scarcely more than though I had never lived in 
the State of Ohio. Let any gentleman go into these 
offices and examine their detaOs, and he will find what 
I say is true. I undertake to say, that no committee of 
the Legislature ever did, or ever can, comprehend the 
details of these offices any further than they may be 
able to get information of them from the public officers 
themselves. Why, sir, in these public offices you have 
a revenue of two and a half millions, which is to be 
collected and disbursed in ten thousand directions; and 
the duties of these agents are subdivided, and the in¬ 
dividual who undertakes to comprehend this business, 
becomes lost in details, until he has gone down to the 
bottom, then he may begin to recombine and recon¬ 
struct them till he comprehends the whole. 

There may have been a few men in your General 
Assembly who have understood the business of these 
offices, but they have all been members for many years, 
like our present Governor, who gave his time and in¬ 
tellect day and night to these matters during all these 
years ; or like another gentleman who was for a short 
time a member of the General Assembly,—I allude to 
John H. James, who exhibited a most thorough acquaint¬ 
ance with these matters; but before he came here he had 
been connected with the operations of the fund board 
and had fully mastered our whole system of finance, 
both in its principles and in its details. But as to 
watching the treasury effectually through a legislative 
committee, the thing never has been and never can be 
done. It you wish this business to be watched and un¬ 
derstood, and comprehended as it should be, you will 
have to create an office which has never yet existed in 
the State. You must create the office of Comptroller, 
and make it the duty of the incumbent of this office to 
go into every one of these offices and examine and 
comprehend their details, and sift them to the bottom, 
till by combining and recombining and constructing 
and reconstructing the whole, he shall be able to make 
these offices what they never have yet been, a check 
upon each other, so that the books in one office shall 
detect the errors in the books of another. 

This is no original suggestion of mine. I heard it 
suggested years ago, by a man who was one of the ear¬ 
ly servants of the State, and who has been long and 
honorably connected with the management of its fi¬ 
nances, and who still lingers on this side eternity at 
the age of eigoty. I speak of the Hon. T. P. R. Bu¬ 
reau of Galipolis. This gentleman has frequently spo¬ 
ken of the necessity and importance of such an office, 
and his ideas and conclusions upon the whole subject 
are as clear to my mind as the noonday sun. 

I do not undertake, Mr. Chairman, to arraign any 
individual with mismanagement in their public offices. 
On the contrary, I think there has been none. But I 
do say, that in my opinion, the State has already out¬ 
grown the present financial system; a system adopted 
early in the history of the State, and which has re¬ 
mained unchanged. If any gentleman will take the 
trouble to go into their offices and make the necessary 
examinations, I think he cannot fail to be satisfied of 
the correctness of this opinion. I say, then, if the ob¬ 
ject be the security of the State finances, it cannot be 
accomplished, except as I have indicated, or through 
the agency of a committee with power to sit and act at 
all times, whether the Legislature be in session or not. 
But there is not anything, I apprehend, in this argu¬ 
ment, drawn from the condition of the State finances, 
which bears against biennial sessions, or from which 
anything can be drawn in favor of annual meetings ol 
the Legislature. Yet, it seems to me, that this is the 
main argument relied upon by gentlemen who support 
annual sessions; and, sir, I must confess that I remain 
entirely unconvinced by it; and from what I know of 
the finances of the State, I must remain unconvinced 
till I shall have lost what of knowledge which I ob¬ 
tained upon these subjects while I was delving into 
these offices during my two_ years service upon the 
committee to examine the action of your board of pub- 






176 


CONVENTION KEPOETS. 


lie works, and the expenditure of your money upon 
your public works. 

It has been said, however, that the management of 
the public debt will require annual sessions. But it 
has already been stated in this debate, that annual leg¬ 
islation has no connexion with these matters,—the re¬ 
pairs on our public works and the payment of the in¬ 
terest on the public debt—legislation has nothing to do 
with these ; no law is anually required to keep this ma¬ 
chinery in motion. This system, it may be recollected, 
by which the interest upon the public debt is annually 
paid and the management of the canal fund secui-ed, 
originated among the first laws upon the subject of our 
internal improvement in the State—a law of which it 
has, been said, by men out of this State and out of this 
country, that it exhibits a reach of statesmanship and 
foresight surpassing any thing in legislation the world 
ever knew. This was the opinion all over Europe : and 
that too, as it has been said by my friend from Meigs, 
[Mr. Hortont,] has remained unaltered upon your stat¬ 
ute book, and why had it so remained ? There was not 
a winter in which I had the the honor of a seat on the 
floor of the Senate, in which there were not made ef¬ 
forts to repeal it; and this was the only argument by 
which these efforts could be resisted, namely : that this 
law contains asolemn pledge that it shalliiotbe altered 
or repealed, while the luiblic debt remains unpaid. 
Had it not been for this argument that law would have 
been repealed either during the session of 1839-40, or 
any one of the three sessions following. But the gen¬ 
tleman, who then represented the county of Fairfield, 
[Mr. Spangler,] and the Auditor of State, [Mr. 
Brough,] placed themselves as a wall of iron against 
all and every attempt to jeopardize the credit of the 
State by any such changes. They acquitted them¬ 
selves like men in this matter, braving the opposition 
of many of their party that they might stand by the in¬ 
tegrity of Ohio. They looked upon the fair fame of 
the State as a matter of higher consideration than any 
success in election. These men saved the State from 
repudiation. 

Herein is found the stability of that law, in this 
solemn pledge and promise made to our creditors, 
which cannot be violated without disregarding the 
public faith of the State. This fact then, cannot be 
brought forward as an argument for the stability of 
legislation in this State. 

Let us look at another branch of our legislation— 
the law regulating the management of the canals, and 
the expenditure of the public money in that depart¬ 
ment. This law was conceived and matured wdth the 
same forecast as the other, but it remained only until 
a year after the Ohio and Miami canals were comple¬ 
ted—works which were done at an expense less by 
far than any other wmrks of the same magnitude in 
this country. But when it became an object to get 
out one set of commissioners and get in another, the 
law was changed, and it continued to be changed win¬ 
ter after winter, carrying in their changes the State i n- 
*to that ruinous policy which increased the State debt 
from six to nineteen millions. If you ^o into the his¬ 
tory of this matter you will soon see wnat sort of sta¬ 
bility existed in regard to the expenditure of your 
public money. That very change did not cost the State 
of Ohio less than eight or ten millions of dollars. And 
all this because it became an object with the Legisla¬ 
ture to have sometimes one set of men aud sometimes 
another. The old commissioners were unwilling to 
go into a wild and wasteful expenditure of public mo¬ 
ney in public improvements ; they held back, and they 
were swept away as an obstruction to the progress of 
public improvement, and the State in its enormous debt 
18 now paying the penalty for their folly. 

It is perhaps unnecessary to allude to these results 
further for the purpose of showing^ the instability of 
our legislation, but I will relate one instance which oc¬ 
curred during the session of 1839-40, which will illus¬ 
trate the facility with which changes have been effect¬ 
ed upon subjects of general legislation. 


In the act of that session, regulating the duties of 
executors and administrators, a provision ne-w to our 
jurisprudence was introduced by which the widow of 
a decedent was declared to be entitled to the same 
rights in his personal property where there was a will 
as though he had died intestate. This was a ne w pro¬ 
vision and was passed without being duly considered, 
at least by some members. The next session the 
change in the law was called to the attention of mem¬ 
bers, and Mr. Bartley, the then Senator from Richland, 
introduced a bill, which was passed, restoring the pre¬ 
vious law to our statute book. The winter succeeding 
an effort was made to change the law back again; and 
this was based on some case which had come uj7 in 
Fairfield county, wherein the law of the previous win¬ 
ter had been introduced as affecting the rights of the 
widow. It was insisted that a change of the law could 
not change her right; but, sir, by special personal soli¬ 
citation to Senators the bill was carried through. It 
has since been changed again, and now remains where 
the law was prior to 1840. This is a specimen of the 
influence brought to bear on general legislation. 

The gentleman from Meigs [Mr. Horton,] intimates 
that these allusions to the fOnner improvident, hasty, and 
sometimes fraudulent legi?lation of the State, are in¬ 
appropriate here. But I do not understand that any 
one here has undeilaken to charge any previous Leg¬ 
islature with corruption. But so far as ray personal 
observations have extended, through a period of four 
years of legislative services, I cannot say that the ac¬ 
tion of the Legislature had not been influenced by any 
other consideration than a regard for the public good. 
Members in the Legislature have allowed circumstan¬ 
ces, which did not look solely to state policy, to govern 
them—appeals to them to support and protect the fan 
cied interests of their constituents. I have not wit¬ 
nessed the operation of any more pernicious influence 
than this. But then, it seems to me, that when we 
come to consider of amendments to the Constitution, we 
ought to regard them as facts, with a view to remove 
from the Legislature all temptation to do anything which 
a sound and impartial judgment might condemn. This 
is as far as any one has yet gone; and I will admit that 
thus far the tmth will justify any man in going. 

Mr. ARCFIBOLD (interrapting) said, I have no 
doubt of the truth of the gentleman’s remark about the 
corrupting tendencies of these public improvements to 
favor commercial speculations ; but I want the gentle¬ 
man to state whether he does not think it more expe¬ 
dient for sovereign people to abandon these specula¬ 
tions altogether? 

Mr. NASH continued. That, Mr. Chairman, does 
not come within the range of my remarks ; it has noth¬ 
ing to do with the question before the committee. If 
that gentleman had been here in the session of ’39-40, 
and had been disposed to save the State from a viola¬ 
tion of good faith towards her citizens, I suppose he 
too would have been satisfied with my disposition to 
stop expenditures and save the State from insolvency. 

There is only one other topic to which I will allude, 
and then I will close. It has been claimed here that 
the principle of biennial sessions is anti-Democratic. 
VVe are again met with a word that is often used for 
argument. Words undoubtedly have power; they 
come to be regarded as the signs and symbols of real, 
substantive matters, which take hold of the public feel¬ 
ing and are often used to mislead the public judgment, 
but whenever I hear an argument sustained by the use 
of such terms, I cannot but mistrust that there is a lurk¬ 
ing feeling of doubt of the con-ectness of the opinion 
advanced, and that it has been advanced to subserve 
sinister or party purposes. This word Democracy has 
been much abused, aud I know of no other word 
which might with more reason maintain an action for 
libel against the many who so wickedly abuse it. What 
does it mean ? It is certainly not a word of double 
meaning. It means simply a goveniment of the peo¬ 
ple—no more, no less. 
















177 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


But, what has the question, whether the General As* 
sembly shall meet annually, or biennially, to do with 
the character of the government—whether it be a de¬ 
mocracy or otherwise. This is not the case in Europe ; 
there you have two classes of people, with interests di¬ 
rectly in conilict—directly antagonistic, and waging a 
war to the knife, in a struggle for the ascendancy, which 
has continued for the last 50 or (10 years. There, or- 
ijanized power is in the hands of the few, and the mas¬ 
ses are atravgbwg to withdraw it from them. You will 
sec everywhere, as you pass over the continent, these 
tw'o parties straggling for the supremacy ; and here lies 
the necessity for frequent parliaments there; to watch 
tlio exercise of power, which is always, there, escaping 
from the many to the few. 

But the case is otherwise in this country. Here, de¬ 
mocracy is a fixed fact. This is our starting point for 
all political thinking and acting. The people must go¬ 
vern in this countiy, and they will continue to govern, 
whether for weal or for woe. 

Tlie problem to be solved, is, not whether a democ- 
racv, or an aristocracy, or a monarchy, is the best gov¬ 
ernment; but it is a problem which has never yet been 
solved—whether this democracy can organize and pre¬ 
serve a good stable government. This is what we are 
about. We have got this fact to demonstrate, and we 
must do it as right-minded and courageous men—men 
ready to do what it is admitted ought to be done. We 
are. as I understand our duty, simply to organize this 
democracy, and leave it to secure the ends of jill good 
government. The men who fidlow us in IcgisLiUon, 
must represent the intelligence and integrity of the 
people,; they should reflect public opinion, only so far 
as that opinion is right; and that public man, who has 
not the moral courage to stand uir and resist the ex¬ 
citements and transient tempests of the popular waves 
around him, is unworthy to be an instrument in the go¬ 
vernment of this people. 

Sir, are not the people as liable to err, us kings? 
Monarchs are misled and play the wildest pranks of 
power, in the face of high heaven; and are not the peo¬ 
ple occasionally liable to the same influences and errors? 
most unquestionably. Still, (and I announce it as my 
abiding faith) I believe in the veracity of humanity ; I 
believe that pirblic opinion left to itself will work out 
the truth and follow it. But there are many ways of 
mi.sleading public opinion. There will always be found 
flatterers, around the power that distributes patronage. 
It was the remark of Aristotle more than 2000 years 
ago, that a demagogue in a democracy, and a sycophant 
ill a monarchy, wore the same chaiactei; Ijoth laboi- 
iiigto mislead the power that distributes office and official 
mnoluments, a king in the one case, and the people in 
the other. And in both characters he is identically the 
same ; a compound of wickedness and corruption, sel- 
fi.sh wholly; a character to be avoided by the people, 
if they do not wish to be misled to their owm destruc¬ 
tion. ' 

Mr. HORTON (interrupting.) The gentleman lias 
indulged in some discussion, relative to the instability 
of government; and he has shown us, that the people 
are liable to be deceived—a fact that nobody doubts. 
1 should like now, to have him point out the remedy. 

Mr. NASH. That is just what I was coming to. 

I w'^as coming to thisprobiem; it lies at the foundation 
of our government, and that is, that in a democracy, 
it is our province here, only to organize the elements 
of government, and leave the people to secure the rest. 
When we have gone thus far, we have fulfilled our 
mission, and I believe, if we are willing to trust them, 
the people will arise and work this problem to suc¬ 
cess. Because there are influences operating upon the 
jiopular intellect and heart in this country, wholly un¬ 
known to the democracy of antiquity ; and o}ie great 
fact which stands out in most auspicious prominence 
in this age of ours, is that Christianity, with the Bible, 
is working upon the hearts of this people, and impart¬ 

12 ' 


ing a savour of light and knowledge, which was never 
felt amongst the highest forms of ancient democracy. 

I say, then, the’fact, that public bodies are liable to 
be excited and misled, shows this necessity, that be¬ 
tween the sessions of your law-making power there 
should be time for excitements to subside. Public 
opinion should always be calmly and deliberately ex¬ 
pressed, after a mature examination of the question.— 
How often has it happened in this country, that ex¬ 
citements, got up as of to day, pervading the masses of 
community, have burned intensely and might have in¬ 
fluenced Icgislatioti for a time, had not the develop¬ 
ments of the future shown their tendency and ju’event- 
ed the mischief. It is always very dangerous to elab¬ 
orate popular excitement into law ; let us give time 
for reflection—at least a year and a half, so that the 
good sense of the people can be l)rought to bear fully 
upon eveiy iDroposition, until all feeling and excite¬ 
ment shall have passed away, and reason have time 
to assume its throne, and settle the principle upon 
some basis of stability, of permanence for all future 
time. But if you are to have annual sessions, and pass 
laws under extraneous influences, to l)e changed the 
very next session, when another class of public men 
shall come in, or when it may become neeessai’y to 
turn out one set of puldic agents and fill their places 
with another, you can have no stability in your legisla¬ 
tion ; whereas, this evil would be avoided in a great 
measure, if the public mind could have time and re¬ 
pose to examine the operations of your laws and un¬ 
derstand their workings and tendencies. It is often 
impossible to know whether a measure is right or 
wrong, will l)e salutary or otherwise, until it has been 
subjected to a careful and thorough examination and 
discussion, until all its future bearings have been ta¬ 
ken. It is very certain that stability of government 
is best secured by affording time for popular reflection. 
I want the people to give an intelligent and dispassion¬ 
ate judgment upon all questions, and this can be done 
no otherwise than by a' full presentation of them to the 
public mind—so that the public mind can comprehend 
them; no intelligent judgment pan be otherwise ex¬ 
pressed. But while annual sessions shall continue, this 
tiling of popular excitement will have no time to sub 
side. It requires time after the storm has passed away, 
for the waves of the ocean to subside; so also it re¬ 
quires time for the waves of popular commotion to go 
down, after the cause of excitement shall have passed 
away. But with an annual Legislature no time will be 
afforded for the subsidence of these popular storms; 
ere the waves have retunied to their peaceful slum¬ 
bers, the causes of commotion will be again in opera¬ 
tion ; and thus the surface of society will continue to 
be swept by a succession of popular storms, and its 
deeps be kept in continual commmolion. The mist 
flung from the darkening waves will continually ob¬ 
scure the eyes of the popular reason, and no clear view 
of the naked truth can be obtained liy the public mind. 
The people must reflect, if they would act rightly; act 
uiidei’standingly ; act so as to secui’e the end of all gov¬ 
ernment, good order in the community, the development 
of its physical resources, and of the moral and intel¬ 
lectual capabilities of the individual. 

But what is our danger? Has Democracy anything 
to fear from an organized government becoming hard ^ 
ened into despotism ? Are the unsafe tendencies of 
Democracy in this direction? Certainly_ not. You 
might as well suppose that a stincture built upon the 
ocean wave would remain quiet and at rest, while the 
waters were moving beneath, as that any government 
can harden to an iron consistency, while resting upon 
the popular mind; tlie public mind will move, will act, 
and this is the powder which moves the government, 
and is able at any time to shake it to its fall. No, sir, 
our danger lies not in acting in obedience to form. Our 
tendencies are toward anarchy—our danger will be 
found in the public mind’s coming to disregard law and 
order; in enthroning mere human will in the place of 








178 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


law. There lies our danger—when passion shall take 
the place of judgment, and every man set up his own 
will as the law unto himself. Then will come the con¬ 
flict of passion with passion, and prejudice with preju¬ 
dice, and opinion with opinion, and without any com¬ 
mon standard of right the sword and the spear must 
arbitrate the result. A Democracy only goes down in 
anarchy; and despotism can never arise out of the bo¬ 
som of a Democracy, but through aiitirchy. Wlien an¬ 
archy, the absence of law and order, and the protec¬ 
tion to life and property can no longer be endured, 
there is no remedy but in despotism, in the supremacy 
of one iron will over all other wills. This is the only 
access up out of the depths of anarchy to stability, and 
security and order. This must be, or humanity must 
perish. Such has been the history of all Democracies; 
and no otherwise has a Democracy ever merged into 
a despotism. Then, sir, it behooves us above ail things 
to guai’d against these tendencies of human nature to 
conflict and confusion. We ought to regard our laws 
as inflexible principles—inflexible as the laws of the 
universe, as the laws of nature and God. Our laws are 
the common bond of the nation, the only ligament that 
holds us together. Hence the one great object which 
we should have in view—the great danger which we 
have to pi'ovide against is this of shutting up this de¬ 
mocracy into obedience to law. In my humble opin¬ 
ion, an organized government of laws with a popular 
administration, are the only means of perpetuating free 
government; and who would not endeavor to throw 
oil on the ti'oubled waters which may threaten the su¬ 
premacy of law; this reverence in the hearts of the peo¬ 
ple for law as opposed to mere will. By bringing the 
minds of men to calmness and deliberation upon these 
topics, we shall fulfil our duty, not only to this genera¬ 
tion but to those who are crowding the future eager to 
occupy our places and fulfil our duties. 

Sir, these considerations ought to find a place in ev¬ 
ery man’s mind ; they lie at the foundation of human 
nature and human action ; they are ideas which must 
govern us; to which we must look for guidance and 
direction, if we expect to attain to suitable and whole¬ 
some legislation, as the result of a sound public opin¬ 
ion ; or any other desirable results, which will enable 
us to progress in the march of nations, upon this earth 
of ours and work out this great unsolved problem, the 
capacity of the masses for self-government, to create 
and maintain order and law, the security of ])ei-son and 
property. If we rightly fulfil our mission, we shall la¬ 
bor to create in the hearts of this peojile and in our 
own, a reverence for law human and divine, and for 
moral and intellectual worth wherever found. An ig¬ 
norant and depraved people can never be a free peo¬ 
ple ; nor can any nation prosper the legislators and ad¬ 
ministrators of which are not men of clear heads and 
pure hearts. Dishonesty and insincerity can never 
rule a people safely. Let the people elect honesty and 
sincerity and wisdom to office, and then happiness and 
prosperity are secured now and for all future time. 

On the motion of Mr. Manon the Committee rose, 
re])oited progress, and obtained leave to sit again. 

Mr. McCOKMICK moved that the Convention do 
now adjourn; and the yeas and nays were demanded 
and ordered, and being taken the votes stood yeas 47 ; 
nays 49 ; as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bennett, 
Brown of Carroll, Claypoole, Cook, Cutler, Dorsey, Graham, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga! 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman. Horton, Humphrevillc, 
Hunt* r, Johnson, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, 
Leadl etter, Mitchell, McCormic, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck! 
Quigley, Riddle, Robertson, Scott of Harrison, Stanbery, Stick- 
ney, hlidger, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Vance of Butler, Vance of Champaign, Mr. President. 47. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, 
Blickf nsderter. Brown of Athens, Cahill, Chambers, Clark, Col- 
lings, Ewing, Firestone, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Hawkins, Holmes, Hunt, Larsh, Lidey, Loudon 
Manen, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Perkins, Ran- 
ney, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Steb- 


bens, Stilwell, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Townsend, Warrren, Way, 
Williams, Woodbury. 49, 

So the motion was lost. 

The question then being on the motion of Mr. Ma¬ 
non, to take a recess until 3 o’clock P. M., the motion, 
after debate, was declared by the President to be in¬ 
consistent Muth the provisions of a resolution passed 
May 23d, 1850, in relation to afternoon 8es.sions—said 
resolution being still in force. 

Mr. VANCE of Champaign moved that the Conven¬ 
tion adjourn— 

On which motion Mr. MANON demanded the yeas 
and nays, and, being ordered, resulted, yeas 60, nays 
35, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blair, Brown of Carol!, Cahill, Claypoole, Ceilings, Cook, 
Cutler, Dorsey, Graham, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, 
Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Mason, Mitchell, McCloud, 
McCormick, Nash, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, 
Riddle, Robertson, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Thompson 
of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Vance of Cham¬ 
paign, Way and Mr. President.—60. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Chambers, Clark, Ewing, Firestone, Forbes, Gillett, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Hawkins, Holmes, John¬ 
son, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Morehead, Morris, Ranney, Reeme¬ 
lin, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Steb- 
bins, Stilwell, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Warren, Wil¬ 
liams and Woodbury—35. 

So the Convention adjourned. 

TUESDAY, May 28, 1850. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Warnock. 

PETITIONS. 

Mr. BATES presented the petition of Susan M. Wol¬ 
cott and 300 ladies of Steubenville, Jefierson county, , 
stating “ they believe the evils of intemperance have i 
been greatly aggravated by the existence of laws au- j 
thorizing the grpting of licenses to sell intoxicatino- 
drinks ; and as judging from the past there is no well i 
grounded hope that this system will be abolished by f 
legislative action, they ask that a provision may be in- 
serted in the constitution, to be submitted to a vote of s 
the people, prohibiting the Legislature from the pass- 1 
age of any law whereby the right to sell such drinks ? 
shall be granted to any one, or the traffic therein in | 
any manner legalized.” ( 

Mr. BATES said he was aware that the committee 1 
on Miscellaneous Propositions, to which similar peti- 'i 
tions were referred, have made an adverse report, and ' 
by a vote of this body have been discharged from'their ! 
further consideration. Still he believed that a petition b 
emanating from so highly respectable a class as this ? 
does, is entitled to the attention of this body. There- i 
fore, without intending the least disrespect to the com¬ 
mittee which has already reported, he moved its refer¬ 
ence to the committee on Jurisprudence, of which the i 
gentleman near him [Judge Holt] is chaiiman, not -I 
doubting but it will receive that respect and consider- ! 
ation to which it is entitled. 

Also, the petition of S. McMillen and 207 others of . ' 
the same place, praying for the same object. 

Referred to the committee on Jurisprudence. 

Mr. REEMELIN presented the petition of Valentine ■ 
Kefler, of Oircleville, praying that persons havin^r no | i 
permanent residence should reside at least three months { 

pievious to the election in the township in which they || 
proposed to vote. ^ | 

Tlie petition was referred to the committee on the ■ I 
Elective Franchise. ||| 

Mr. HUNT presented a memorial from Thomas Bro- ! 'I 
phy, in relation to banks and the exemption of home- ^i 
steads from execution. |a 

Referred to the committee on Junsprudence. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the resolution offered i 
by Mr. Stanton on a previous day, in relation to the 
hours of adjournment and recess, was then taken up 
and read. ^ 















CONVENTION REPORTS 


179 


Mr. HAWKINS moved the adoption of the resolu¬ 
tion. 

On motion of Mr. SMITH of Warren, the words “2 
o’clock P. M.” were struck out, and the words “ 3 
o’clock P. M.” inserted. 

Mr. ORTON wished to amend by striking out “ 9 
o’clock A. M.,” and inserting “ 10 o’clock A. M.” 

Mr. HAWKINS did not approve of the amendment. 
It was important that the Convention should have as 
much time as possible to devote to the disposition of 
the repox’ts of the committee already made. He hoped 
that the Convention would meet at an early hour, and 
occupy as much time as was desirable in the discussion 
of the questions pending. 

Mr. CHAMBERS hoped that the words “ 9 o’clock 
A. M.” v^ould not be stricken out. There was no dif¬ 
ficulty in their meetiong at 9 o’clock A. M.: they could 
meet in the cool of the morning and blow off some su- 
perflous steam. He put it to gentlemen to go to work 
as business men and endeavor to fix up this constitu¬ 
tion in the speediest manner consistent with propriety. 
The eye of the people was upon them, and it was but 
too true that they had done nothing for three or four 
weeks. He wished that they should meet at the ear¬ 
liest time, and he also was for meeting at 2 o’clock P. 
M., but perhaps 3 o’clock P. M. would answer. 

Mr. MANON would call for a division of the question 
and would then move to insert 8 o’clock A. M., and 
when gentlemen wished to make long speeches, he 
would move that the committee to which he belonged 
would be allowed to go to their wock. 

The motion to strike out ‘‘ 9 o’clock A. M.” was put 
and lost. 

The question then being on the adopiion of the reso¬ 
lution, it was put and carried. 

On motion of Mi*. SAWYER, the Convention resolv¬ 
ed itself into a 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, 

Mr. HAWKINS in the chair, on the report of the 
committee on the Legislative Department. 

The question before the committee was announced 
to be another amendment of the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton [Mr. Reemelin] to ^‘strike out the word ‘bien¬ 
nially ’ and insert the word ‘ annually.’ ” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said he had not intended to say a 
word on the question under consideration, and would 
now say but few. He would vote in accordance with 
his own sentiments, and of those whom he represen¬ 
ted—in favor of biennial sessions; but before doing 
that, he wished to allude briefly to some of the objec¬ 
tions which had been made to that measure. In re¬ 
gard to the connection between the finances of the 
Slate and biennial sessions, it was objected that it 
would be out of the power of the Legislature to assess 
intelligently and properly the per centum for taxation, 
as well by meeting but once in two years, as they 
could by sitting annually. It struck him that if the 
mode of taxation remained the same it now was, there 
could be no difficulty. The difficulty was supposed to 
originate in this state of facts: that our income arising 
from our works of internal improvemt vaiying every 
year, by reason of the amount of business done upon 
them, and by the varying of the amount of expenses 
incident thereto, it was impossible to fonii a correct 
estimate of what would be the net amount of income 
to be derived from them, and therefore the Legislature 
would not know what sums to raise by taxation, in 
addition to that income, to supply the necessities of the 
State. He wished to know how long such a power 
had been exercised 1 

A Voice. Every year. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD resumed—Then he was laboring 
under an entire mistake. He understood that the ne t 
income arising from our public works, was pledged to 
the payment of our State debt, and went to that pur¬ 
pose. He understood that the additonal amount required 
was raised not by the Legislature, but by the auditor : 
that it was his duty and had been for the last twenty 


five or thirty years so to do. He understood too that 
the audicor had always exei'cised that power of assess¬ 
ing a direct taxation in addition to the amount of in¬ 
come arising from the public works, which went to the 
payment of the interest on the State debt. 

Mr. STANBERY remarked that the gentleman was 
correct in regard to that, if they had nothing to pay 
but the public debt. Butin addition to that they were 
to raise from $2.50,000 to $300,000 every year. It was 
the Legislature that said every year, what amount of 
taxes the people should pay for this purpose. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD replied that he had understood the 
difficulty suggested to be that the Legislature,not know¬ 
ing the uncei'tain amount arising from public works, 
would not know how much to raise in addition for 
general revenue. 

The question then was, could the Legislature vsdtfq 
a reasonable degree of certainty, ascertain how aiuch 
would be needed for the current expenses of our gov-, 
ernment proper, and meet that amount by ani equally 
certain adjustment of taxation ? Now it was not ne-. 
cessary for him to say that all these sums of money ne¬ 
cessarily paid out for the ordinary expenses of our gov-, 
ernment^ aside from our works of internal improve¬ 
ment, arose exclusively from appropriations made by 
the Legislature. The Legislature appropriated every 
dollar of this money yearly, and would biennially if 
the report before the committee were adopted. They 
certainly would know how much would be expended 
for the various necessities of the government, as it 
would be all passing under their own hands and under- 
their own eyes ; and it would be g very simple exer-. 
cise of a rithmeticfil power to ascertain tli'e aiWNUd. 
thus appropriated. 

The next question was, could the biennial Legisla¬ 
ture, with reasonable certainty, make such an assess¬ 
ment for taxation as would meet the required amount? 
He had before him, (and he looked upon it with some 
interest,) the last report of the Auditor of State, who, 
however he might differ with him in some matters, he 
believed to be a veiy efficient officer. It was the Au¬ 
ditor’s report for 1849, to which he alluded, and at page 
eight, the Auditor gave a table for the last six years, 
commencing in 1844, in which was included the real 
property, the personal property of the State, audits to¬ 
tal value ; the rate of State tax, the amount of State tax 
levied every year, with the aggregate for six years, and 
the amount of State tax collected every year, and the 
total for the six y^ars. And having given that table, he 
made these remarks in his report, at the second para¬ 
graph under the table: “ This table shows, that the to¬ 
tal amount of taxes levied upon the property of the 
State, real and personal, during the six years, amounted 
to the sum of $(),85G,975 06, of which the nett amount 
of $6,661,971 87, has been collected and paid into the 
State treasury. The difference between the amount 
levied and the nett amount paid into the treasury, is 
only $195,003 19, which is the total amount of losses, 
delinquencies^ and cost of collection ; being less than 
three per cent, upon the gross amount levied during the 
six yeai-s.” 

An examination of the table would show that this 
amount of three per cent, less than the gross amount 
levied, was not only the average loss during the six 
years, but also the loss during each year. 

Here, then, was an undoubted approximation to a cer¬ 
tainty in the matter of lingering taxation. He thought 
that the Legislature, knowing perfectly what they wan¬ 
ted, would, from this experience of six years, be able 
to ascertain what per cenlnm would be required for 
two years to meet those wants, by just making a deduc¬ 
tion of three per cent, for loss, &c., and then arrive at 
a certainty sufficient for practical purposes. Then turn¬ 
ing to page seven, of the same report, he found the fol¬ 
lowing : 

“ The punctuality in the payment of the taxes levied for the 
support of the State government and institutions, and the pay¬ 
ment of the interest upon the State debt, furnishes gratifying evi¬ 
dence of the prosperity of the State, and the good faith of out 













CONVENTION EEPOETS. 


180 


citizens. The tf)tal value of taxable property on the grand list of 
1848, was $,4^31,067,991. On this sum there was levied for State 
purposes $1,265,769 26, ot which the sum of $1,223,12:3 79 was 
collected and paid into the State treasury during the year, leaving 
only $42,646 47 for the delinquencies and losses, and the expen-, 
ses of collection, being.less than 3V-j per cent, on the amount of 
the levj\” 

Now, that was upon the whole auiouiit of taxation— 
of direct taxation, levied for purposes for which the 
Legislature alone appropriated money, and for the 
State debt also. Why could not the Legislature then 
calculate with sufficient certainty from these known 
facts, how much would he required to be raised, by 
taking into account the three per cent for loss, thus 
arriving at a certainty, (sufficient for practical purpo¬ 
ses,) of the amount they should levy.? It struck him 
then that if our taxation remained in its present condi¬ 
tion, there could not be any objection to biennial ses¬ 
sions on that score. He had not intended in the re¬ 
marks he had made to have gone any further. He 
tl'ought the matter might not be thoroughly understood 
and for that reason he had endeavored to put it in its 
proper light, and with a view that if he did not under¬ 
stand it, that he might be corrected. 

It was also objected that by dispensing with the an¬ 
imal and adopting the biennial session, we removed a 
guard from our treasmy: that we should have an annu¬ 
al investigation into the finances of the State, by dis- 
[lensing with which we subjected ourselves to the risk 
of loss. There might be something in that objection, 
but he did not suppose that our executive officers could 
subject the State to any loss, except by dishonesty— 
and he could not see how, in the discharge of their du¬ 
ties, any improvidence of expenditure could be incur¬ 
red. The}" could not appropriate any money. He be¬ 
lieved, however, that tiie board of public works ap¬ 
plied money to the rci^air of the public works. 

Mr. AROHBOLD—(interposing)—observed that the 
Legislature had not appropriated a cent to the repair 
of our public works, for years. There was a general 
statute giving the canal fund commissioners the power 
to apjiropriate money necessary for repairs, nor had the 
Legislature made any ajipropriation for the interest on 
tin* public debt, since 1830. 

IMr. OTIS. Does the gentleman wish to continue 
that action ? 

Mr. AKCHBOLD. No sir, certaialy not. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD resumed. He was not familiar 
with the details of this matter, not so much so as if ho 
had been a member of the Legislature. He understood 
that the same board which expended the money did 
not appropriate it. The Fund Commisioners made the 
appropriations and the Board of Works expended the 
money so approj)riated. 

Mr. REEMBLIN. Did the gentleman wish that 
such a policy should be continued hereafter. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD wished to answer the question by 
saying that it was impossible for such a system to ex¬ 
ist. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD continued. He had not supposed 
that the question of whether this power should left to 
the Board of Fubli: Works or not, necessarily was con¬ 
nected with the present question. He had been en¬ 
deavoring to show that it was not at all difficult to 
carry out the present system of taxation by a biennial 
Legislature. He now jn-oposed to examine the ques¬ 
tion, whether or not by having biennial instead of an¬ 
nual sessions, the safe guai’d over our treasury would be 
removed. It was supposed that it was necessary to 
pass under revision annually the accounts of our exec¬ 
utive officers, and for that purpose that the Legislature 
shoidd meet here every year. Admitting such revision 
to be right and proper, did it necessarily follow that 
the revisionary power must be placed in the Legisla¬ 
ture ? Was there not sufficient wisdom in this Con¬ 
vention to devise some more efficient body than the 
General Assembly to revise the public documents. 

The Legislature assembled here, a numerous body, 
from different parts of the State, charged with a variety of 
otherduties and they appointed a committee on Finance, 


from their own body upon whom this duty of revision 
was devolved in addition to their other duties as mem¬ 
bers of the Legislature. What did they do? What was 
the practical result of their investigations ? Was such 
a body well adapted to the cxaminatioji of intricate mat¬ 
ters of account? "Would not a small board, organized 
for the purpose, (and charged with no other duties) dis¬ 
charge this duty more satisfactorily and more fully 
than a committee appointed by the Legislature ? If this 
matter of supervision were an insurmountable difficul¬ 
ty in the minds of gentlemen here, such a bo.ard as he 
had referred to would obviatit; it would be much les.s 
expensive and much more competent, and much more 
laborious and efticient in the discharge of its duties than 
any legislative committee. 

It was said also, that we required the yearly meet¬ 
ing of the General Assembly in order to revise our law.s, 
or, us the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Swax] ex¬ 
pressed it “ when we put our machine in motion it was 
defective and to some extent required patching up.’’ 
Well, he admitted that our law system was detective 
and required alteration, but so far as experience show¬ 
ed him, it was better to let the machine make its mark 
before they went to patching ” it. Let them s ^e the 
workings of the machine so long as to be able to ascer¬ 
tain where the defect lay, and then remedy it. How 
was it at present ? The Legislature adjourned about 
the 1st of March and already j)arties are organizing 
themselves for nominations for the next Assembly; 
even before the people will have an opportunity of 
knowing what laws the last General Assembly have 
passed, the character of the next will be determined. 
It struck him that it would be better to let the people 
have an opportunity to understand the laws, before 
they elected men to revise and amend them. And he 
believed that they would not have so many cnide 
and immatured minds ” in the Legislature if they adopt¬ 
ed this plan. He wished now to say a word in rela¬ 
tion to the assertion of the member from Franklin that 
but a small interest was taken in the election of mem¬ 
bers of this Convention. He did not believe so. He 
thought that great interest had been taken by all par¬ 
ties in the nomination of candidates for seats in this 
Convention, in all portions of the State: not so much 
perhaps in those counties in which the contest was not 
close as in those in which it was. But from the re¬ 
marks made to him by others, he was quite willing to 
compare the material of this Convention (selected with¬ 
out excitement, as was said,) with the material of 
which the Legislatui'e, chosen during these annual ex¬ 
citements which gentlemen deem so beneficial, was 
usually composed. They might suffer by the compari¬ 
son perhaps, but he did not know that. He thought 
the effect would be, (if the Legislature met but once 
ill two years,) to make the people feel the importance 
of electing projier men, the action of the Legislature 
would effect their interests more, and if their interests 
were impaired or injured they would have to suffer 
the longer before the evil could be remedied. For 
that reason the people would be more careful to select 
mature minds, to select careful and prudent men, and 
making such selections the laws passed by such men 
would be more carefully matured and rendered more 
conducive to the welfare of the people. It would in 
his opinion lead to the selection of prudent men and 
prevent the election of those who made it a business 
to get into the halls ol legislation by keeping up a con¬ 
tinual excitement. 

St)methiug had been said about public sentiment in 
reference to this question. He might safely say that 
in his county, without any distinction of party, (and 
there were strong party men on both sides there.) 
nineteen-twentieths of his constituents desired bien¬ 
nial sessions of the Legislature; many approved of 
triennial. They felt that they had been oppressed— 
that they had been injured, not for the last two years, 
merely, as some gentleman had said, but for many 
years, by the action of our Legislature meeting here 
















181 


CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


once a year. They believe that, having the power in 
their own hands, once in two years was often enough 
for them to part with it; they said that when the Leg¬ 
islature was not in session, they held all power in their 
own hands, and that they were their own masters, and 
further they said that once in two years was often 
enough to delegate this power to others, when it had 
been so frequently abused to theirprejudice. The peo¬ 
ple did not think that they were exercising power only 
when represented in this Hall; they thought it was at 
such times they had lost, and were likely to lose it; 
they thought there were times when power was exer¬ 
cised to their prejudice, by those to whom they had 
delegated it, and that when the Legislature was not 
here, that they were not losing their power. They 
thought that the legitimate object of legislation was 
the protection of persons and property—that when law 
makers legislated for other purposes, they traveled out 
of their proper sphere, and that by sending up men 
once in two years to examine the laws that had been 
passed for those purposes, they were exercising all 
necessary and proj)er precautions for their own safety, 
and they thought that by reason of excessive and ille¬ 
gitimate legislation, unsightly excrescences had grown 
on the form of our body politic, which they now wish 
to remove, and against the recurrence of which they 
wished to be guarded by the adoption of the measure 
under consideration, and other measures they had indi¬ 
cated to their delegates in this Convention. So far as 
public sentiment then, was concerned, there was but 
one opinion among the people of his county, and that 
was decidedly in favor of biennial sessions. Their 
views fully concurred with his own, and as a matter o 
pleasure, as well as duty, he would record his vote in 
favor of biennial sessions. 

Mr. MASON. I had desired to submit a few remarks 
upon this question either in the committee of the whole 
or when the question should again come up in the Con¬ 
vention for discussion, and it is not material tome if I 
should have an opportunity finally of doing so. It is 
not at all ray purpose to go into an argument at the 
present time. I will not take up much of the time of 
the committee in the remarks I propose to submit. I 
believe, that the advocates of biennial sessions will 
agree that there are some advantages resulting from an¬ 
nual sessions, as well as some evils attendant upon 
them. I think, too, that both sides of the question 
agree, that there may be, or are, some advantages in¬ 
cident to biennial sessions, as well as some evils, atten¬ 
dant upon them. Now if I mistake not, gentlemen up¬ 
on both sides of the question, concur to a certain extent 
in regard to both the advantages and disadvantages 
of the two systems. It has been my purpose to state 
rather in the form of a proposition than of argument, 
the points on which I understand gentlemen to con¬ 
cur, and the points in which I understand them to dis¬ 
agree. I think that all sides agree that there are some 
important advantages resulting from annual sessions of 
the Legislature which cannot be so w^eli secured from 
biennial sessions, and I think this proposition will be 
disputed by none. I will state some of them—and 
first, a more strict and frequent accountability of the 
public servants and agents employed in the adminis¬ 
trative departments of Government, can, and would be 
enforced. Now, Mr. Chairman, am I wrong, in supposing 
that both sides agree to this distinct proposition—that 
a more rigid scrutiny could be and probably would be 
instituted into the conduct of the public agents em¬ 
ployed, especially in the administrative departments of 
Government. It is not necessary for me, that I should 
inquire here, whether that be decidable or not. I ap¬ 
prehend all will assent to its desirableness; if the fact 
can be made so. 

Mr. MITCHELL intemipting, (and Mr. M. giving 
way,) said, I desire simply to remark, that as one of 
the members of this Convention and committee, I do 
not agree to the proposition stated by the gentleman. 

I would agree that a more strict accountability row/d he 


proposed by it in that way, but I cannot agree that a 
more strict accountability would he had. 

Mr. IMASON resumed. Mr. Chairman, we cannot sub¬ 
ject our reasoning upon questions of politics to that se¬ 
vere test to which you can sub ject a question in mathe¬ 
matics. It is rare that we can reach any thing like certain¬ 
ty in our reasoning upon the subject of politics. I do not 
know but I would concur with the honorable gentleman 
who has interposed the inquiry and has made the state¬ 
ment he has. It may be, as stated by him, but if done, 
it most certainly would be a desirable thing—namely, 
to hold your public agents to a more frequent and strict 
accountability, as you could do by annual rather than 
biennial sessions. We are agreed upon this; but it is 
doubtful whether we could realize that desideratum. 
I submit another proposition in which many, if not all 
the friends of the two systems concur. It is this ; Ap¬ 
propriations of money could and probably would be 
more wisely adapted to the wants of the public service 
and the circumstances of the times, if made annually, 
than they could be if made at more distant intervals. 

Well now, Mr. Chainnan is it really tme, that any 
body doubts the proposition, that appropriations from 
the public treasury could be more wisely adapted to 
the wants of the country and the public service, and 
the circumstances surrounding us, if made annually, 
than they could possible be if made at a period of eve¬ 
ry two years; for does not human sagacity fail to anti¬ 
cipate all those circumstances and events that might 
require the exercise of this power ? I pass from this 
consideration, believing that it is one of the advantages 
incident to annual legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, I do not undertake to state, as you 
will observe—those of you who have honored me with 
your attention, or to measure the amount of benefit or 
advantage that may result to the public service by an 
annual appropriation; but that it would be more wisely, 
more economically made and administered, is a propo¬ 
sition in which all the gentlemen present will concur. 
That you may dispense with a part or all the advanta¬ 
ges resulting from annual sessions, without any serious 
detriment to the Republic, is a question upon which I 
do not enter. I desire to state another proposition— 
and I do not know but it has the concurrence of every 
mind. There is some demand for annual legislation in 
aid of the legitimate business of the country. Now, is 
there a gentleman here who will rise and deny this pro- 
sition, if there is, I will with pleasure give him an op¬ 
portunity of doing so. I said that there was some de¬ 
mand, I do not say how much, for annual legislation in 
aid of the legitimate business of the couutiy. 

Mr. Chairman, it is for these honorable members to 
say how much or how litle aid can be derivetl from 
annual legislation. They are obliged to admit that 
there may be some—perhaps many acts of the Legisla¬ 
ture—that the legitimate business wants of the country 
may demand annually. That they are obliged to ad¬ 
mit. The people may be able to postpone the gratifi¬ 
cation of those wants and get along without legislation. 

I do not desire to enter into that question, but to sub¬ 
mit it to honorable gentlemen to form their own opin¬ 
ion of the value of it; the fact they must admit. Now, 
let us consider. What are the evils of annual sessions? 

I have briefly recorded the advantages, which, perhaps 
a large majority of minds here will assent to, though 
they may estimate, at a very different rate, the value 
of these advantages. What are the evils of annual ses¬ 
sions? Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentlemen 
who have spoken, that one of the evils of annual ses¬ 
sions of the Legislature, is excessive legislation and 
over-action in that department of government. That 
evil exists, and it has been deeply felt. Ihe second 
evil is the increased expenditure, by the amount of the 
cost of one session—which it is believed we can dis¬ 
pense with. 

I desire to make a remark or two to the committee, 
upon some of these points: First, as to excessive leg¬ 
islation. I wish to examine the proposed remedy as a 











182 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


question of economy, and to do it with exceeding brev¬ 
ity. First, as to the question of economy. If biennial 
sessions are established by law, Mr. Chairman, extra 
sessions must be, and they are in the report before us 
provided for, and they will be held. Now, then, add 
the expenses of these extra sessions to the cost of a lon¬ 
ger duration for the biennial sessions, and the system of 
biennial sessions, involving as tliey do the necessity of 
extra sessions, will be found to be equally expensive 
with that of annual sessions. 

Does any body doubt this ? There may be reasons 
for doubting it, but I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that it be¬ 
longs to the uncertainties of the future, wdiether you 
save a dollar or not. You will have to place in the hands 
of the Executive authority, to act upon the views and 
opinions he may entertain, in regard to the necessity 
for calling an extra session, for you cannot very well 
foresee and provide for exigencies that may happen, 
without these extra sessions, so that the Republic may 
not come to any detriment. You would not consider 
your work as at all complete, if there was not a provis¬ 
ion in your constitution for exti-a sessions. Nay, more- 
Mr. Chairman, your present constitution, in addition to 
annual sessions, provides for extra sessions, and wisely, 
too. I know that we may say, we will take the hazard. 
That is none of my business. What I wish to do is, to 
bring before the minds of Hon. gentlemen, the advan, 
tages of each system, and the evils incident to both. In 
tlie next place, as to the question of excessive legisla¬ 
tion. Biennial sessions are no more exempt from the 
temptation of over-action, and excessive legislation, 
than annual. I will not undertake to say what that 
temptation is, or from what quarter it flows in upon the 
halls of legislation; but I will simply say, that this 
temptation, if over-active at a biennial session, is the 
same that it is at an annual. I would adduce some rea¬ 
sons why the opinion might be well entertained, that 
the temptation of over-action at biennial sessions would 
be considerably increased. Th e temptations, however, 
to excessive legislation and over-action, w'ould be about 
the same, whether the session be annual or biennial, 
under the provisions introduced into the new constitu¬ 
tion. One of these provisions I will refer to, being that 
p'ovision by which the Legislature is to meet the first 
Monday of January, eveiy year, instead of the first 
Monday of December. 

Mr. Chairman, I will give it as my opinion, that by 
this provision, you will save one entire month in the 
duration of your sessions, whether annual or biennial. 
Now it is not in human nature for a gentleman to come 
up here early in the month of December amidst the 
storms and snows of winter and be in liaste to return 
to his dear constituents to nestle in their bosoms, before 
the return of the genial w^armth of spring. No, sir it 
is not in human nature. You are demanding too much 
from the infirmities of poor human nature if you expect 
that your Legislature will adjourn before the vernal 
equinox. Now sir, they are obliged in the nature of 
things to remain all winter, here in comfortable quar¬ 
ters, for a man would be a great fool to quit a good 
home, in the dead of Winter, in the cold and frost, when 
he can do nothing at home, when he cannot serve his 
constituents, with half of the patriotism nor with half 
the comfort to himself as he can in the halls of Legis¬ 
lation. The public expenditures will be nearly the same 
whether your sessions are annual or biennial. 

There are other provisions in this report to protect 
the people against excessive legislation. I refer to 
those provisions which require a majority of members 
elected to pass a law, and this under the responsibili¬ 
ties of the yeas and nays on the final passage of every 
bill, and this is the most terrific thing to a dodging pol¬ 
itician that was ever invented by man’s ingenuity. To 
put down a man’s name on a public journal showing 
how he voted is too bad ; and yet it is proposed to do 
that very thing in the new constitution. The effect 
will be decidedly salutary in purifying legislation and 
making it more elevated. Mr. Chairman, I have sub¬ 


mitted my proposition, I will only add in conclusion 
that annual sessions are not recommended to me from 
the circumstance that they keep the people excited-— 
such a recommendation does not reach my mind--it 
falls harmless at my feet,—I cannot sympathise with 
it. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, it becomes a Chris¬ 
tian body like this to undertake to encouarge, by its 
regulations or laws, anymore worldly-mindedness and 
attachment to the things of this life than w^e are prone 
to entertain without any such political stimulus ap¬ 
plied to us. Much rather would I withdraw the pub¬ 
lic mind from becoming heated with these hateful and 
disorderly excitements. No good ever came out of 
them—no good will ever come out of them. I desire 
peace above all things. You may say that it belongs 
to my age to desire repose. Well, I thank God that 
there is a prospect before us when man can repose— 
when he can rest from this endless agitation of the 
waves and storms. If there is one thing more than 
another that a democratic republican gevernment wants 
to perpetuate stability, it is repose—time to cool—time 
for consideration—time when the sober second thought 
may spring up in the hearts of men; of all the recom¬ 
mendations of biennial sessions, this is the one that 
commends itself the most to my mind—they would 
give the public mind time for repose—time to deliber¬ 
ate—time to think. 

The second great recommendation of biennial ses¬ 
sions is that they enable the people to know what their 
servants had done before being called upon to return 
them again to the same employment. You would know 
the conduct of your public agents in time to correct 
what was wi'ong in their management of your affairs. 
But if your sessions are annual, I will not say that the 
people have no opportunity, but I will say that they 
have an insufficient opportunity, to know the conduct 
of their servants. The whole people cannot obtain 
the requisite information. You want time to diflfuse 
this information through the mass. A little leaven, 
good or bad, if you will give it time, will leaven the 
whole lump. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD (interrupting, and Mr. M. giving 
way,) said, I suppose there is no man upon this floor 
who thinks of doing away with annual sessions. The 
gentleman argues here as if we were to abolish annu¬ 
al elections. Let the gentleman consider what a nu¬ 
merous host of officers w'e have to elect—representa¬ 
tive, judicial, the county board, &c. That considera¬ 
tion ought to enter into our minds. 

Mr. MASON resumed. Well, the suggestion is ave- 
ry good one, as it comes from those who advocate an¬ 
nual sessions. It is true it is an argument proposed to 
you by my friend in favor of annual sessions, which 
you ought not to leave out of sight. Y'^ou cannot occu¬ 
py the public mind, you cannot strike to any advantage, 
unless you get up some amount of popular heat. It I 
shall hereafter vote for biennial sessions—I am not sure 
but I may—my desire is to give a vote which shall re¬ 
sult most to the prosperity and honor of the State. I 
am not quite sure how I shall vote, but, sir, biennial 
sessions are recommended to me by the circumstance 
that the people will have more time to see and judge 
of the goodness and quality of the work of their pub¬ 
lic servants. I need not repeat what I have said, and 
in which all agree, that our legislation hitherto has 
been excessive. It has been a very great wrong in¬ 
flicted upon this people. I know, however, that among 
those whom I have the honor of representing, it is the 
great cause for desiring to have biennial sessions. Ev¬ 
ery gentleman that comes up to the Legislature comes 
here with the laudable desire of distinguishing him¬ 
self; to obtain, if he may, an honorable distinction 
among his fellow citizens. And they have a large and 
wide field lor their ambition, whether the sessions are 
annual or biennial. I would be willing, nevertheless, 
to go for annual sessions, if I had a good degree of as¬ 
surance that they would not be protracted as they have 
been heretolore, and that they would be limited to 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 183 


about sixty days, which I hope will be the limit to this 
Convention. And I hope that we shall enforce our ar¬ 
guments upon this question by our example. If the 
sessions are not more than sixty days, I believe that the 
household could be kept in better order. Is there not 
some reasonable probability that the household would 
be kept in better order, if every one of the public ser¬ 
vants was called to settle his accounts at the end of the 
year? 

1 have no ambition to gratify, Mr. Chairman, no 
pride of opinion. If I vote for annual sessions, I will 
have to modify and retract the published expression of 
my opinion in favor of biennial sessions. My opinions, 
as to the value of biennial sessions, have, upon a care¬ 
ful examination and after hearing gentlemen who have 
spoken upon this question, been considerably shaken. 
Well, now, I know that a man does not commend him¬ 
self, perhaps, to his fellow men, who admits he has 
changed his opinion although he has good cause for do¬ 
ing so. I do not hold that one ought to be dogged and 
stubborn, whether right or wrong, when his opinion 
might lead him into error. But at the same time, there 
have been remarks made and arguments thrown out, 
which have influenced my mind to reconsider my for¬ 
mer opinions on the subject. All I say now is, that I 
shall give such a vote as I may think will best promote 
the interests of the State in the greatest degree. 

With these remarks I am content hereafter, to give 
my vote as I shall determine to do, when we come into 
the Convention, and when the debate is closed. When 
I finally make my opinion, I shall endeavor to main¬ 
tain it afterwards in my vote upon this question. 

Mr. WOODBURY. When this argument commen-i 
ced, my own mind was not made up ; how I should vote 
upon this question I did not know; and in room of 
being convinced, as some gentlemen are, from the ar¬ 
guments which have been brought forward by the 
friends of the amendment that it would be best to go 
for annual sessions, I have been convinced the other 
way. It is said that those who ai’e in favor of annual 
sessions have the weight of argument and evidence.— 
Well I am willing to admit that to a certain extent, 
they have the weight of evidence upon their side, but 
when you come to apply it to the subject, you will soon 
find the difference. They have a mass of evidence 
which has been accumulating for 48 years; but there is 
no_ man who has taken hold of that evidence and ap¬ 
plied it to the subject; neither will they do it. It has 
accumulated in such a mass that no man dare touch it. 
Here is the evidence which exists of the Legislature 
sitting every year to attend to the interests of the peo¬ 
ple and watch the public treasury in relation to this 
matter. I agree with the gentleman from Trumbull, 
that the Legislature have been sitting here year after 
year, to look after the interests of the people, and 
while they have been doing so, they have taken from 
the people 10 millions of dollars to pay the interest of 
the debt which they have created. They have created 
a debt of 20 millions, making 30 millions in the whole. 
That debt has benefitled some parts of the State, I ad¬ 
mit, while it has injured other parts of the State. Tlie 
creating that debt has created the necessity of calling our 
Legislaturetogether,and of their continuinglougtogether 
when so called,and this end,to some extent,produced the 
cry against our legislative bodies. Now, sir, it is folly 
in the extreme that our annual sessions should continue 
unless some better reason can be given than I have 
yet heard. The large public debt which the people 
have got to pay, and which the Legislature saddled 
upon them, has lessened the value of property in par¬ 
ticular parts of the State, while it has enhanced it in 
others. I do not propose, as a remedy, to repudiate 
that debt, but pay it olf. Now, what is this vast ex¬ 
penditure worth to this government, for that should be 
taken into consideration, because it would, to a certain 
extent, determine the necessity of calling the Legisla¬ 
ture annually, aud would show the wisdom with which 
they have heretofore conducted our business. I believe 


the amount of the net proceeds of our internal improve¬ 
ments is about $2.50,000. II money was worth six per 
cent, they are worth $4,067,000, making an entire loss 
to the State of $25,933,000 during twenty five years, 
whilst your Legislature has been sitting annually to 
watch the treasury. 

Well, now, one reason which I would assign for this 
extravagance is this. That they commenced an expen¬ 
diture of the public money when they commenced a 
system of internal improvements, and projected these 
extravagant schemes of building up cities and towns 
and made extensive preparations ibr the building of these 
internal improvements—before these schemes of the 
Legislature were published, and before the people 
knew what they were about; and before the people re¬ 
ceive an estimate of the expenditure, and before they 
can count the cost, another Legislature is called and 
other improvements are projected. And now, since 
they have commenced, the argument is, that they must 
be pushed through and finished. We cannot stop now, 
say they, when these works are once commenced, and 
when they are finished, they will pay all the expenses 
of the State. These are the arguments that have been 
used, until the people at last became satisfied they were 
not true, and that this system of improvements would 
not benefit the State; not because they had justly con¬ 
sidered the subject matter before the money had been 
expended, but from an investigation afterwards; and as 
soon as one mode of contracting debts is stopped, an¬ 
other system is devised. We choose to have the peo¬ 
ple reflect upon these matters. The course which is 
pursued by the Legislature, of passing laws which per¬ 
mit a county, town or city in the State, by a vote to tax 
the people of the county, town or city, and compel 
them to invest their money in improvements which in¬ 
terests but a small majority, and if understood by the 
people, would not be permitted. Now, if there can be 
any system devised by which such legislation can be 
stopped, I shall be glad of it. A great deal of the 
legislation, so far as it respects cities, counties and local 
corporations, can be taken from the Legislature and dis¬ 
tributed where it properly belongs. I presume at this 
time it is not expected by any member of this com¬ 
mittee, but what the Legislature will be restricted to 
making general laws and prohibited from passing local 
laws. When you have effected that, you have taken 
away at least three-fourths of the business of the Leg® 
islature in passing laws. The time has been, when a 
man could not ride through the streets of this city with¬ 
out being incorporated. [Laughter.] It has been so 
for many years past. Almost every member of the com¬ 
munity is incorporated either into a library, lyceum, 
church, banking corporation, or some other association, 
in order that by some means or other, individuals should 
themselves escape responsibility, and if a loss is to be 
borne, that the community shall bear it. 

If general laws are to be passed now, and local leg¬ 
islation is to be prohibited, which I apprehend will be 
the case, there will be no class of community that can 
have special benefits and privileges granted by our laws. 
But we are told notwithstanding, that there are some 
things or interests which must have annual legislation, 
and for which it is necessary to have the Legislature » 
meet annually here for the transaction of such particu¬ 
lar business. No reason was given for that conclusion, 
nor was this business pointed out, which needs this 
annual Legislature. If there is any business in our 
country which needs annual legislation, I would like to 
know what it is. They have got the books filed for 
48 years, and if with this evidence they are unable to 
tell what it is that needs annual legislation, may we 
not reasonably conclude that it does not exist. Are 
the gentlemen prepared to show that the laws are bet¬ 
ter or have been bettei’ administered for the last five 
years, than they were 20 years ago. If they are not, 
•Gentlemen here ought to be able to show why it is ne¬ 
cessary to hold legislative sessions so often. When you 
pUiSs general laws, you ought to pass laws that would 











184 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


be*sufficient to meet the wants of the community for at 
least 18 months. For the laws which are passedin the 
Legislature, are not circulated in the community so that 
they can pay any attention to them, under three or six 
months after they are passed. Laws passed last win¬ 
ter are not distributed in a large portion of the State 
at this time, and they know nothing about these laws. 
The people want time to reflect and determine upon 
these matters—they want time to consider what amend¬ 
ment? are needed. Men are sent here to make laws— 
when they come here, they do not know what amend¬ 
ments are necessary to the laws passed the year be¬ 
fore. Notwithstanding all this, they are anxious to 
do something for their country when they are elected 
officers of State, and so they go to making local laws, 
and as if this were not enough to occupy their attention, 
they must needs go to repealing laws and making new 
provisions in the laws that ai'e already made which 
need no amendment. Not one fourth of the number 
of laws passed are general laws, but are local laws, de¬ 
signed for peculiar localities and sections, carving out 
of the rights of individuals special privileges for a fpw. 
If you prohibit the Legislature from passing such laws, 
you have taken away one great source of their power, 
at least three quarters of their legislation. And when 
you have taken away all these powers from legislation, 
and the election of various officers, you may say yon 
have reduced the time which that body must necessari¬ 
ly employ, at the least calculation, four-fifths. But we 
are told by the gentleman from Meigs, that we should 
never make a change while we can show by absolute 
experience, that it would be preferable to do so. 

But if wo should adopt such reasoning as that, who 
would ever make improvements for the benefit of him¬ 
self or his fellow man. But it is a fact indeed, that 
our situation could not be made any worse, when al¬ 
ready you have sacrificed thirty millions dollars of the 
people’s money in the making of this enormous debt 
which is hanging like an incubus upon the j)eople. 
Truly then, I ask, if it is not an object for us to re¬ 
duce our expenditure, and give the people an opportu¬ 
nity to know what their servants have done before they 
shall be entrusted with new powers. I think so. I 
believe it will reduce the expenses of the Legislature 
to a very great extent by having biennial sessions in 
room of annual. That those gentlemen living in that 
portion of the country, which have received the largest 
share of these benefits of the past legislation, which 
applied to their localities, should be in favor of this 
game of legislation, is not at all strange. They would 
not represent the wishes of their constituents properly 
if they did not come out in favor of this system. It is 
otherwise in part of the State. We have received no 
be;iefit in the section of the country in which I live 
from the legislation in times past, any farther than the 
expenditure for protection of human rights and the ad¬ 
ministration of justice. Any thing farther than this 
we have not received; any thing, and every dollar 
that has been expended, other than this, has been to 
our injury. I am not opposed to an expenditure of 
money which is nececessary, but am in favor of paying 
off the debt which has been already created. If our 
laws are to be general laws, let the sessions of the Leg¬ 
islature be biennial. There is much danger now in 
men making laws without consideration, as they ought 
to be fully understood and administered before those 
who enact them are re-elected, so that the community 
may have the means of knowing what they are voting 
for, and have time to fully consider the laws in their 
full length and breadth. Then they would be prepared 
to go for or against those who make the laws. Under 
our present circumstances what portion of the commu¬ 
nity are enabled to know, who goes for or against a law 
for the appropriation of money. Why, at the present 
time, it is utterly impossible. I have been unable to 
find but one man, who was willing to confess that he 
voted for the interest law of last session. I would 
think, that if the Legislature were to pass laws of this 


kind, it would be necessary to have annual sessions of 
the Legislature, in order to repeal such laws. 

One great reason why we have legislation which was 
not duly considered, and laws passed laws which aie 
not necessary or for the interest ol the community, is 
the fact, that the Legislature are elected and meet here 
without any legitimate business lor them to do, ^^^1 
wishing to do something, they pass laws which there 
is no necessity for, or repeal those already instituted, 
so you could not tell any thing about them, without a 
iudicial construction, and not only that, but it is almost 
impossible for any man to understand them, except 
some person who was thoroughly versed in the law's. 
Well this hasty aiid crude legislation has been caused, 
to a very great extent by the fact, that the men who 
passed the law's did not consider lully the responsibili¬ 
ties attached to them, and the community that re-elect¬ 
ed them did not know the operation and extent of the 
law before them. . 

To be impressed with a due degree of his responsi¬ 
bility, it is necessary that the legislator should under¬ 
stand that his constituents will know what laws have 
ben passed, who voted for or against them, and their 
effects. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. I am aware that the 
committee are anxious to take the question and there¬ 
fore I promise not to detain them very long, but ask 
their indulgence for a few moments. I am one of 
those, sir, who came here uncommitted, unpledged and 
uninstructed upon the question now submitted lor the 
consideration of the committee. I am not aware that 
there is in the community among the people I have the 
honor to represent, any well settled opinion upon this 
subject. I have heard expressions both for and against 
the change proposed in our policy. I am aw’are sir, 
however, that my constituents do demand reform, es¬ 
sential, radical reform in our present constitution, and 
it is my purpose to express that sentiment by my ac¬ 
tion upon this floor. While they demand reform they 
demand that the measure proposed should be proved 
to be a reform before it will meet their approbation. 
They do not accede to the proposition which seems to 
have labored in the minds of some upon this floor, 
that change necessarily implies reform. I speak their 
sentiments here when I announce it as my pui-pose to 
adhere to that experience which has guided us hither¬ 
to in all our political histoiy, until it is shown that the 
change demanded is one which wall be an improve¬ 
ment. Hence I would demand of the defenders of the 
proposed change now under consideration, which was 
asked by the gentleman from Meigs, that they should 
prove the benefits of the measure before they call up¬ 
on us to yield our assent to it. Upon them rests, as 
the lawyers say, the 07ius probandi. It is not sufficient to 
say that the arguments are not in favor of annual ses¬ 
sions, but it must be shown to us that these arguments 
are in favor of biennial sessions. 

Now sir, what is the reform that the people of this 
State demand upon this subject ? What the evil and 
what the remedy proposed ? It is answered that there 
is too much legislation, and that it is crude and undi¬ 
gested; but how sir, is this to be remedied? Will it 
operate to prevent crude and undigested legislation, to 
bring together here once in two years representatives 
of two millions of freemen, to determine upon the in¬ 
terests of the State, and crowd these deliberations into 
the least possible period, so that at the close of the Leg¬ 
islature when the genial warmth of spring shall return, 
of which the gentleman* from Clark speaks, and when 
members, as he says, shall desire to return to nestle in 
the bosoms of their constituents, in their anxiety thus 
to return and enjoy themselves, the important meas¬ 
ures of the day will be crowded through the Legisla¬ 
ture rapidly, hastily and without consideration, as all 
who have been upon this floor can testify is now fre- 
(piently the case. It may be sir, that it will be an ap¬ 
propriate i-emedy, but I do not see how, nor do I pro¬ 
pose to examine that point. 


















CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


185 


I have few remarks to make upon another view of 
the subject. What is demanded is a change in the 
mode of legislation. Great complaints have existed 
against the Legislature, arising out of the various 
causes we have heard assigned by gentlemen upon 
this floor, and more especially out of the personal con¬ 
troversies which have prevailed here for the last few 
years, from sundry influences, unnecessary now to be 
mentioned. Now, sir, what do we propose here? 
What changes does this report propose ? This report, 
section 38, proposes to constitute by law, a board of 
select men, who shall have the entire charge of the 
local legislation necessary, in every county in the State. 
Then our future Legislatures are not to be charged 
with this duty, if this report is adopted; and this has 
been one of the great sources of over legislation. But 
again, sir, although we have no right now to speak 
authoritatively upon the subject, it is probable that 
the power to create corporations by special legislation, 
will be taken away from the Legislature. Such is the 
proposition which has been submitted, as I understand, 
and when it comes before the Convention, it will have 
my hearty concuirence, and perhaps will meet with a 
cordial support, on all sides, upon this floor. Then that 
portion of the past evil—that source of evil as through¬ 
out exhibited in our legislation, will bo done away 
with. Again, sir, we propose to take from the Legis¬ 
lature the power of creating special banking corpora¬ 
tions, and some upon this floor are for taking away the 
power of authorizing banking at all, and if either mea¬ 
sure succeeds, this seiious legislative evil is done away 
with. Again, sir, we propose to take from the Legis¬ 
lature, the source of almost all complaints that have 
existed by another measure which is urged I believe 
on all hands, and that is, to take from the Legislature 
the appointing power, and restore it to the people, to 
whom it belongs. Again, sir, we propose to take 
from the Legislature another subject of discussion 
and debate, which has occupied the attention of 
the Legislature much of the time for years—which 
more than any other thing has caused that body to be 
regarded with reproach and distrust, and as departing 
far from their duty.—I refer to the public printing. 
We propose by section 9 of this report, to take from 
the Legislature the entire power over this subject; to 
dispose of it in such a manner that it shall be no longer 
a matter of controversy in this State. Again, what were 
the prominent objections and difficulties last winter, 
■which caused so much complaint of our law-making 
power? Was it not the fact, Mr. Chairman, that for a 
long series of weeks, no officer could be found authori¬ 
tatively to occupy the seat which you now occupy? To 
remedy that, it is proposed to place the election of the 
officer who shall act as Speaker, in the hands of the 
people, by the election of a Lieutenant Governor. 

Again sir, for I do not intend to dwell upon ‘these 
points very long. We propose to take from the gentle- 
from Clinton [Mr. Morris] and the gentleman from 
Ashtabula [Mr. Woodbury] the very substratum of 
their arguments in opposition to annual sessions. We 
propose to take from the Legislature the power of cre¬ 
ating debts for the purpose of public improvements, 
the great abuse of which constitutes the very basis of 
those gentlemen’s arguments. 1 do notknow, sir, wheth¬ 
er that measure will carry. I know that it is a propo¬ 
sition upon which I come here, instructed by my con¬ 
stituents, and one which so far as I have heard any ex¬ 
pression of sentiment, receives a hearty concurrence on 
every side of this chamber. Not only so but among the 
many propositions which we have here, I hopp that 
all will agree in taking away the power which is con¬ 
ferred upon counties and towns, to become joint stock¬ 
holders in corporations. If this is done, then the argu¬ 
ment of the gentleman is gone—especially so much 
of it as relates to these matters. 

Mr. WOODBURY interrupting (and Mr. H. giving 
way,) said; Permit me to ask the question, what are 
you going to have the Legislature do, in having a ses¬ 


sion each year, after all these powers are taken away ? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK resumed. Now, sir, upon that sub¬ 
ject I propose to make one further remark, and then I 
will answer the gentleman. It is said that the Legisla¬ 
ture have involved us in a debt to the extent of not less 
than 30 millions of dollars. How much was that deVjt 
reduced in times gone by, when once the plunder law 
was enforced ? Monthly, weekly, thousands were go¬ 
ing out of the treasury, but fortunately we had an an¬ 
nual session which repealed that law and stopped the 
plunder of the treasuiy. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, for the question which the gen¬ 
tleman propounds. What would there be to do for the 
Legislature ? Why, sir, I will answer. The Legisla¬ 
ture will find sufficient employment to guard the inte¬ 
rests of this entire State, of a people increasing with a 
rapidity almost unknown before; to look to the gene¬ 
ral interests of the people ; make the appropriations 
and provide for their disbursement. These objects, and 
the annual examination into the disbursement of all the 
funds which the government employs in the different 
departments, will require no little time and labor. And 
these are matters of annual recurrence. It is not my 
intention to argue this point particularly. Now, sir, I 
submit to the committee, that when you take away the 
sources of complaint to which I have alluded, you have 
stricken out the main foundation of the argument of 
gentlemen on the other side. Sir, there is another in- 
(juiry which I wush to make here. Are all these mea¬ 
sures that are already suggested, such as should be 
passed ? I apprehend not. But many of them will, 
in all probability, succeed. Now, sir, is it not necessa¬ 
ry for us to be a little prudent, lest, in introducing 
these measures into the constitution of the Stale of 
Ohio we may go a little too far? We may administer 
a dose which being intended to cure, may kill the pa¬ 
tient. I remember, that during the prevalence of the 
fatal scourge which visited us last summer, it was not 
unfrequently the case, by an over dose, that the cholera 
was bi’oken up, and the collapse saved, but the vitality 
of the patient was destroyed, and there was no neces¬ 
sity of a collapse in order to terminate life. We should 
avoid a similar error in our constitution mending. It 
is advisable for us to be a little careful about doing too 
much, by the way, if gentlemen please, of reform. Then, 
Mr. Chairman, my proposition, and my main proposi¬ 
tion to which I wish to call the attention of the com¬ 
mittee is, by other remedies to remove the very evils 
which has been the cause of all this complaint about 
annual legislation. Another important subject has been 
well discussed by gentlemen upon this floor better ac¬ 
quainted with it than myself. I refer to the necessity 
of annual sessions to guard the public treasury. It has 
been answered that there are but few appropriations to 
be made by the Legislature ; that the principal power 
of lev^-ing all that is necessary to pay the interest on 
our public debt is vested in the Auditor. The 20th sec¬ 
tion of this report takes that power from the Auditor, 
and vests it in the General Assembly. If that measure 
carries, of course every answer that has been made to 
this argument is fully met. Another subject of consid¬ 
erable importance is the matter of expenses. I cannot 
go into detail upon that. This, alone, is of minor im¬ 
portance, but in connection with the more important 
subject of over-legislation, I invite attention to the tes¬ 
timony of experience. Indiana and Illinois are adjoin¬ 
ing States. The former has annual, the latter biennial 
sessions of her Legislature. Indiana has as lai g® ^ P®P" 
ulation, and as important interests to protect as Illinois. 
Examine their legislation from 1838 down. Their stat¬ 
utes stand side by side in your library. You will find 
that the general legislation of Illinois exceeds that of 
Indiana, and that the expenses of one of her bieiimal 
sessions are greater than those of two annual sessions 
in the latter State. We are also referred to Iowa; but 
that is a new State, and but little can be learned fiom. 

her experience. i • i • • i 

The example of nine slave States having biennial. 










186 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


sessions of the Legislature is also adduced. For my 
own part, I am not inclined to go to that section of the 
country for authority upon the subject of legislation or 
of political rights, for reasons not necessary to be men¬ 
tioned here. 

My friend, from Ashtabula has told us thatwe are 
going to take away special legislation. I hope, sir, that 
we may. Our volume of laws for 1849 contains 57 
pa^es of general laws, while there are over .300 pages 
of local laws. The general laws of Illinois for the 
same year rise to 240 pages of equal size. There was 
perhaps a reason for that, for it was the first year after 
the adoption of their new constitution and therefore 
increased legislation was necessaiy, but it will be found 
that even before that time, under the old constitution, 
there was more general legislation than gentlemen 
seem to suppose. The same year the general laws of 
Missouri embraced 139 pages, and the local laws about 
550 more. 

Now, sir, take Illinois and Indiana side by side, and 
take the experience of our State for the last 48 years, 
and say, after we have cut off the main sources of the 
evil complained of, is it best for us to launch out upon 
a sea of experiment, untried by a State of the charac¬ 
ter of this ? Is it sound policy to do so ? There is 
another remark which, if the committee will indulge 
me, I will make upon the subject of too much legisla¬ 
tion. The gentleman from Meigs [Mr. Horton] ad- 
rerted to it a few days since. I refer to the paraly¬ 
zing influence said to have been exerted upon this 
State by this over legislation. I will only say that if 
a stranger had come into our hall and listened to our 
debates, it seems to me that he would unavoidably 
have drawn the inference that we were the worst gov¬ 
erned State in the world, and that throughout our bor¬ 
ders there must be ignorance, vice, poverty, misery 
and wretchedness; but if he should have traveled 
through our beautiful State, he would have seen the 
very reverse of this picture; how different I need not 
here describe. 

There is another remark which I wish to make upon 
this subject of excessive legislation. Why, sir, what 
are we doing now? What are we sent here for ? To 
change the fundamental laws of our State—to place 
our whole governmental organization upon a new 
basis. W'e propose to remodel the judiciary—to re¬ 
model, to some extent, the executive department—the 
legislative department—to require general laws to be 
passed for banking corporations, for railroads, bridges, 
manufacturing corporations, for turnpike companies, 
&c., &c. 

It is proposed in short, to make general laws for the 
creation of all corporations, of whatever character. 
Gentlemen tell us we are also to have a provision in 
the constitution, that the Legislature may submit pur¬ 
posed changes in it to the people, and thus effect its 
amendment, and that if biennial sessions should be 
found inexpedient, the people can con*ect the error by 
an amendment. Sir, how many years will it take to 
perfect the system of legislation under the new const! 
tution which we are proposing to adopt? How long 
will it be before we shall have our ship fairly launched, 
and before she will be completely equipped, rigged 
and fitted for duty in every respect? Is it not the part 
of prudence, to insert in the new constitution the clause 
that our legislative session shall be held annually until 
we shall be fairly launched under the new constitution, 
and then, if necessary, provide for biennial sessions by 
an arqendment? I submit the question to gentlemen. 
Is not this the wisest, the best course ? Such would 
seem to me to be the dictates of prudence. 

It is however said, that we ought to have biennial 
sessions for the purpose of avoiding the excitement at¬ 
tendant upon annual elections. But the gentleman 
from Monroe has answered that argument most effec¬ 
tually by his suggestion. I need not repeat it. We 
propose to elect the Governor, Auditor of State, Trea- 
sui'er, Secretary of State, Attorney General, four or 


more Supreme Judges, 20 or 30 Circuit Judges, Coim- 
ty Boards of Selectmen, and a whole list of other offi¬ 
cers by the people. Sir, is it best to make these elec¬ 
tions biennial, and so have all these matters upon oui 
hands at every alternate year, or would it be better to 
have elections take place more ffiequently, and thus 
divide the excitement created by so numerous an elec¬ 
tion? You have witnessed our elections for President 
of the United States, when our other election for State 
officers are connected with it; you know that it is a 
source of excitement, which taxes the excitability oi 
the people to a very great extent. Indeed after they 
are passed, all susceptibility of excitement seems foi 
a time to be gone—to be bunied out. 

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if we adopt the 
suggestions of gentlemen we shall lose more by the 
over excitement of a single session than we shall by 
the more moderate excitement, which would be at¬ 
tendant upon annual elections. This is my answer to 
the argument of the gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. 
Nash,] that biennial sessions would naturally lead to 
biennial elections, and thus time be given for the pub¬ 
lic mind to become calm, and the evils of these annual 
political excitements be avoided. But, sir, the facts 
stated by the gentleman from Monroe, although by 
him introduced for another purpose, have fully answer¬ 
ed this argument. The great number of the officers 
to be’elected’absolutely requires annual elections in or¬ 
der to avoid the effect of over-excitement necessarily 
attendant upon crowding them all into one year. 

Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to detain the commit¬ 
tee but a short time. Perhaps I have already trans¬ 
gressed upon their patience too much. 

I stand now where I did at the outset, uncommitted 
except so far as my judgment is convinced. Thus far 
the arguments in favor of the proposed change have 
failed to work conviction in my mind, and of course I 
cannot now vote for it. If such convictions shall be 
wrought by any argument hereafter adduced before the 
question is finally decided, I shall hold myself bound 
to act accordingly. 

Mr. ORTON said. I desire to say a few words in 
explanation of the vote I am about to give, and my rea¬ 
son for so doing is that the explanation may accompany 
my vote to my constituents. Years ago, sir, I was in 
favor of biennial sessions of the Legislature, and so 
avowed myself on all proper occasions. The evils of 
excessive legislation were manifest to me as to others, 
and I grasped at biennial sessions, because it was the 
first measure of relief which presented itself. In so 
doing, Mr. Chairman, I am now convinced that I com¬ 
mitted a mischievous error. I am now satisfied that 
the best measure for the reformation of the great and 
increasing evils which have been so forcibly depicted 
in this debate, are, first, annual sessions, restricted to 
sixty, fifty, forty days, if you please—I will gladly go 
for the least number. Secondly, prohibit the Legisla¬ 
ture from local and class legislation; and thirdly, pro¬ 
hibit the tacking together of bills for different purpo¬ 
ses, and provide that no bill shall pass but by a majori¬ 
ty of all the members elected, and by yeas and nays. 
A system like this, sir, will reach the evils under con¬ 
sideration. 

I am convinced, sir, that biennial sessions will wea¬ 
ken the responsibilities of office holders to the people. 
I believe further, that the great State of Ohio has so 
many diverse and diversified interests that biennial 
sessions would prove disastrous. For these and other 
reasons, which I will not now allude to, I cannot vote 
otherwise than in favor of striking out and substituting 
annual sessions. 

Mr. HOLMES said that the subject under considera¬ 
tion was a very simple one, and to his mind—and it did 
not require any thing but a common sense view of the 
matter—to determine the action of the Convention in 
regard to it. He was satisfied that in the vote he was 
about to give upon this subject that he reflected the 
opinions and wishes of the people whom he represeu- 










CONVENTION IlEPOllTS 


187 


ted. He would here state that there was no subject 
oil which he had conversed so freely with the citizens 
ot Hamilton county, as upon the subject ol biennial 
sessions of the Legislature. He had been clearly and 
explicitly instructed by his constituents in reference to 
this very question. He did not guess at the matter at 
all. During the last four or five years his position in 
that county had brought him in contact with a large 
portion of its citizens; and on the subjects of taxa¬ 
tion and biennial sessions of the Legislature, he had 
talked with them very fully and freely, and he doubted 
not would I’ellect the opinions, wishes, &c., of a large 
majority of them by the vote he would give. 

He had been not a little amused at the arguments of 
gentlemen on the necessity of the Legislature meeting 
here every year. Some referred to the Legislature as 
the most corrupt body in Ohio, and in effect implied 
that if a premium were offered for the greatest vidains 
and rascals, a person need only have gone to the Leg¬ 
islature of Ohio to have made the discovery and taken 
the premium; yet, notwithstanding these grave char¬ 
ges, the want of integrity and the will for an honest 
and faithful discharge of public duty, gentlemen have 
repeatedly said that the members of the Legislature 
are the only safe-guards of the public interests and 
public trusts, and came here to take care of the inter¬ 
ests of the dear people. But strange to say, a wonder¬ 
ful metamorphose has taken place, a new discovery has 
been made—another body infinitely more corrupt and 
dishonest has appeared in the minds of honorable gen¬ 
tlemen, for on the appearance of the Legislature all the 
corruption and dishonesty took flight from the halls of 
legislation, and like the raven sent out from “ Noah’s 
ark, returned no more,” but found quarters moi'c con¬ 
genial among another set of high public functionaries 
—the public officers of the State—and these officers 
and your treasury must be watched. By whom ? By 
the very gentlemen who had been termed a short time 
before the veriest scoundrels to be found, who had by 
some extraordinaiy twist of the imagination of certain 
gentlemen, become the pinks of honesty and integrity. 
Now he did not look on the public officers or the Leg¬ 
islature in the light that some gentlemen had placed 
them. He held that all men placed in the position of 
public functionaries were honest men until they were 
proved to be the contrary; so would he regard the 
Legislature and our public officers. 

It had been urged, that there was a necessity for the 
Legislature to meet here every year in order to pass 
the necessaiy legislative enactments to meet the wants 
and demands of the public interests. But one of the 
strongest arguments which inclined him to vote for bi¬ 
ennial sessions, was the fact, that all power of special 
legislation was to be taken from the Legislature. Gen¬ 
tlemen might think it absolutely necessary in order to 
the security of the interests of the State, that the Leg¬ 
islature should convene annually, look after the I’eports 
of the public officers, act as giiardians of the peo¬ 
ple’s rights, detect fraud in high places and bring 
to the bar of public justice aU public delinquents. 
Have these high public duties been performed hereto¬ 
fore? If so, when—where?—Does it require annual 
sessions for these matters, especially when we are in¬ 
formed by gentlemen that oar Legislature will become 
economical?—Mr. Chairman, the curse of our State, 
has been too much legislation. Biennial sessions, in 
my humble judgement, will go very far to remedy the 
evils complained of. Your laws will be more stable, 
your legislation more matured, and the people’s pock¬ 
ets protected against extravagant and useless expendi¬ 
ture of their money. Mr. Chairman, it has been said 
that annual sessions were necessary for the benefit of 
our public institutions. This argument has no force 
our public institions are under the control of high 
minded honorable and efficient public agents, that have 
heen selected by the Legislature for their intelligence, 
honesty and capability to discharge their duties, and so 
far, have been faithfully done, to their own credit and 


the best interests of the State. He was amused to hear 
the arguments ofgeutlemen, in effect arguing that the 
Legislature must come uj) here every year and organ¬ 
ize to listen to reports of public officers and of our pub¬ 
lic institdtions. It was true certainly, that there were an¬ 
nual a])propriations to meet annual wants, which were 
created by annual sessions and which could be avoided 
and be a saving of no ordinary amount. But they 
knew what they wanted, and they could be made 
as well in a biennial session as well as in an annual. 

But there was another matter which presented itself 
to his mind in relation to these annual sessions. An 
extraordinary light had suddenly broken in on the 
minds of some gentlemen ; and, it was no more or less 
than that the Auditor of State had been assessing and 
lixing the rate of taxation for a great number of years. 
No fault found with the manner in which that public 
functionary discharged the duty of that responsible 
trust. But it has fallen to the lot of the perceptive ge¬ 
niuses of this great Convention of individuals coming 
up from all parts of the State to make the wonderful 
discovery. Why, the Auditor of State had been the 
only officer who had the control of that matter for the 
last twenty-five years. During all this time your Leg¬ 
islature was annually in session—the Auditor pursued 
the even tenor of his way, in accordance with the laws. 
“Rip Van Winkle at last woke up,” looked about, 
shook his head gravely, cried corruption, and intimated 
that nothing but annual sessions could save the people 
from themselves,—and yet urged as an arguinent to 
show the necessity of the Legislature convening an¬ 
nually to look after the State finances. It occurred to 
him that gentlemen desired the Legislature to come up 
here for the very purpose of waiting for “ the moving 
of the waters.” “ He did not know that there would 
be any real necessity for their meeting, but then it was 
necessary to come up here and organize, and perhaps 
something would come to their hands.” They were 
to come up here and sit down pleasantly, enjoying all 
good things of life, as they undoubtedly would, for Co¬ 
lumbus is a great city, and her worthy citizens know 
how to take care of the “distinguished ” at three dol¬ 
lars a day. and wait for “ the moving of the waters.” 
That appeared to him to be the argument of some gen¬ 
tlemen on the floor. 

In conclusion he would say that past experience, 
some reflection and frequent interchange of opinions 
with the people of the county he had the honor, in part, 
to represent, that have induced him to favor bienni¬ 
al sessions, belie ving that there was no necessity in reason 
forthe Legislature meeting yearly. What he had said on 
this occasion was merely desultory: but a random shot 
sometimes told as well as if were dh’ected by a strong 
arm and steady nerve. If he had said anything which 
might have led gentlemen to change their opinions in 
regard to the propriety of annual sessions, he was con¬ 
tented. 

Mr. MANON did not think it at all necessary to give 
an explanation of the vote he would give. He ha 
heard nothing in the arguments advanced or anything 
that could induce him to change his vote, or give an 
explanation of it. He could not by any possiblity oi 
means perceive the necessity of men getting up ana 
taking three hours to make an explanation, when per¬ 
haps they could do it as well in five minutes. 

Mr. CAHILL hoped the motion to strike out would 
not prevail. If there were any one measure more 
clearly demonstrated than another, and more desired 
in the district he had the honor in part to represent, it 
was the insertion of a provision in the ne w constitution 
to change the sessions of the General Assembly from 
annual to biennial sessions. His constituents were tired 
of so much legislation. They wanted a ew laws, plain 
and simple in their provisions, so that they could read 
and understand for themselves. In addition to that 
they wished when laws were made they should re¬ 
main stable, at least long enough for the people to un¬ 
derstand them, before they were repealed. That very 










18S 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


desirable object could not be effected by annual ses¬ 
sions. The Legislature once met, they of course felt 
themselves in duty l)ound to do something for their con¬ 
stituents, as they had assembled for that ])urpose. The 
consequence was that local legislation to a large amount 
was inflicted on the people, very much of it from the 
date of its inception to its passage into laws, remained 
for all practical purposes a dead letter; or if attempted 
to be carried into elfect, often produced an injury rath¬ 
er than a benefit. He thought the olqect so much de¬ 
sired on all sides could be the most easily attained 
through the medium of biennial sessions. Let them 
take away by constitutional provision the power to leg¬ 
islate for merely local purposes. Let them take away 
the power to pass acts of incorporation for railroads, 
turnpikes and local corporations, and insert a provis¬ 
ion by which all acts ol a similar nature might become 
laws under a well defined statute; as in New York. 
Local legislation being thus disposed of^ there would 
be no further necessity for annual sessions. They 
would then have as lew general laws as possible and 
these with biennial sessions would be better understood 
die people. Then too they might expect to see that 
dignity in legislative bodies (of which so much has 
been said,) which it was so necessary such bodies 
should possess. What had occasioned the loss of the 
dipiity of our Legislature but excess of legislation ? 

But gentlemen might say that the Legislature had 
not been brought into disrepute. He would require 
no better evidence than the fact that they had been 
sent there to divest the Legislature of its power to do 
mischief, by passing too many laws—to shorten its sit¬ 
tings, and to authorize it to meet but half as often as 
it now did. That was sufficient evidence for him, and 
he would vote accordingly. 

Mr. HOOTMAN said, there was no position in which 
a man could be placed where he was less liable to con¬ 
viction than where he was placed on the defence of 
his views and principles; he being more disposed to 
parry than to weigh argument. That being the case, 
he had endeavored to divest himself of all prejudice, and 
listen attentively to the arguments of gentlemen who 
had taken the side to which he had been opposed on 
this subject; yet he mu«t say, after having listened at¬ 
tentively to all the arguments, dispassionately and with 
as little prejudice as possible, he still held the views he 
at fiist entertained, that was, that of biennial sessions, 
and he should therefore vote to sustain the report. If 
there was one subject on which his constituents had 
expressed themselves clearly, it was that of biennial 
sessions, and he the more readily voted that way when 
he knew that he was giving expression to their views. 
He came there determined not to spend the time of 
that Convention in making speeches, but would con¬ 
tent himself by casting his vote silently as his judgment 
rnight dictate and the wishes of his constituents mi^ht 
diiect. He would not therefore detain the committee 
further, by any additional arguments, as he apprehend- 
ecl the committee had settled the matter in their own 
minds, and were prepai’ed to vote on the subject. 

The question then being on striking out. it was put 
and lost. 

On motion, the committee rose, and reported pro¬ 
gress. 

Mr. BENNETT inquired if the report were not now 
before the Convention. 

The PRESIDENT replied that the report was now 
before the Convention for its action. 

On motion by Mr. SMITH of Warren, the Conven¬ 
tion took a recess. 


TUESDAY, May 28, 18.50. 

3 o’clock, p. .m. 

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 

On motion by Mr. HAWKINS, the report of the com- 
nnttee on the Legislative Department, with the pend¬ 
ing amendments thereto, was again referred to the 
committee of the Whole, and made the special order 
for this day. 


And then, on motion by Mr. SAWYER, the Conven¬ 
tion resolved itself into 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, 

(Mr. HAWKINS in the chair,) and resumed the 
consideration of the above report, just made the spe¬ 
cial order. 

The CHAIRMAN said, if there was no further 
amendment to be proposed to the second section, the 
committee would pi’oceed to the consideration of the 
third section, which he read. 

Mr. LARSH proposed to amend by striking out from 
the third section the words, “ and shall have attained 
the age of twenty-five years.” 

Mr. SAWYER would like to hear the gentleman’s 
reasons for his motion. 

Mr. Larsh replied, that if any gentleman would give 
him a reason why a man twenty-one years old should 
have the right to vote, and not be allowed to exercise 
any otlier right, he would then give a reason for the 
motion. 

Mr. RIDDLE said: I am in favor of striking out; 
my reasons, sir, are simply these. I believe, for the 
purj^oses of representation, that when a white male 
per.son shall have arrived at the age of 21 years, he is, 
and should be, competent to occupy a seat in the pop¬ 
ular branch of the General Assembly. The laws of 
your State, sir, have made him competent and quali¬ 
fied him for any other business in life. He can alien 
real estate and connect himself in marriage, without 
the advice of a guardian; and should he be held ca¬ 
pable by the laws of your land to transact every oth¬ 
er description of business, except to be the represen¬ 
tative of his fellow citizens—to make their laws ? 
Now, sir, I should like to hear fi'om the gentleman 
from Auglaize, and I have no doubt but what he is 
qualified, being chairman of the honorable committee 
which made this report. I should like to hear that gen¬ 
tleman give some substantial reason why a white male 
who has arrived at the age of majority, and is endowed 
with a capacity to transact every other business con¬ 
nected with this life, being a perfectly sane person— 
why he should not have the privilege of occupying a 
place in the Representative branch of the General As¬ 
sembly ? And if this would be carrying out the other 
doctrines of reform, (of which I understand the gen¬ 
tleman is an advocate, and in which I, to some extent, 
will harmonize with him, together with a large major¬ 
ity of the members upon this floor) I should like to 
know it. I hope at least that we shall hear some good 
reason from some gentleman belonging to the commit¬ 
tee which which made this report, because this report 
is looked upon by the people abroad, to some extent, 
as having been adopted here ; coming as it does from 
so high a source in the Convention, it must be supposed 
to reflect public opinion. I want to know, sir, why an 
intelligent man, such an one as would be selected by 
the people to occupy a position in the Legislature, if he 
should happen to be under twenty-five years of age, 
or between twenty-one and twenty-five, I would like 
to know why his voice should not be heard in the leg¬ 
islative councils of the State of Ohio. These, sir, are 
some of the reasons why I support the motion of the 
gentleman from Preble, and I hope, (unless some good 
reason should be given, why it should not) that the 
amendment should prevail. 

Mr. SAWYER. I am asked for a reason, and it is 
said by high authority, that a man ought to have a rea¬ 
son, and be able to render it, “ for the hope that is in 
him.” The best answer to the question asked of me, 
and the best w’ay to return it, is to ask the gentleman 
to look round upon this Convention. The people in 
their sovereign capacity have delegated their power to 
us, and the average of our ages here is about 40 years 
—the youngest a little under, 25 and the oldest 60. 
You see then, sir, that so far as this is concerned, it is 
prelty good evidence that we ought to fix the age of a 
representative' at some point; and if it is true that a 
man learns and acquires wisdom by age, then the line 
















CONVENTION RErOllTS 


189 


is not drawn loo high. But there is another con.sidei’* 
ation still. Some of us do not arrive at the maturity 
of our intellect and power before the age of 35 or 
40, or 50, and some of us perhaps not even ihen. [A 
laugh.] Again, sir, it might destroy the prospects of 
many ; if they were permitted to come into the Legis¬ 
lature at the age of twenty-one, they might do some 
foolish tiling, as young men sometimes will, and injure 
their prospects for life. One indiscreet act might j 
destroy a young politician for all future usefulness. 
Whenever their brain shall become somewhat hard 
and solid, then let them come here and Icgitlate as 
the agents of the people. At the age of twenty-live, 
men should have the power, if over, to transact all or¬ 
dinary busines, and there is a manifest propriety in 
fixing that age. I believe that it ought to be even 
higber than that for a Senator. Other gentlemen will 
doubtless disagree with me: but I believe that it is 
better to have the maturity of intellect among our 
Representatives; but I confess that I care but very lit¬ 
tle about the matter. 

Mr. LARSil. The gentleman from Auglaize has 
instanced the members of this Convention as a crite- 
riou, Imt this is in my judgement as good an argument 
as he could have adduced in favor of striking out, for 
th law constituting this Convention, says the mem¬ 
bers shall have the cpialifications of electors, without 
prescribing that they shall not be under 25 or 28 years 
of age. Now I am not afraid to trust the people about 
their choosing who they will place in the Legislature ; 
and I am not afraid of trusting young men. If a man 
21 years of age, should be the best man in the country, 

I do not want to see a provision in the constitution de¬ 
claring that the people shall not, send him. I do not 
know but it would be about as well to prescribe that 
:i Representative shall be worth $200, or that he shall 
bo six feet high, as to say that he shall be 25 years of 
ace, or any age over 21. There hiay be wisdom in 
the saying, “ old men for counsel and young men for 
war,” but it is not alwj^ys the case that old men are 
the wisest. 

Mr. MANON said, I would be glad to go even furth¬ 
er than the gentleman from Treble, and strike out the 
balance of the section, that is, the words requiring the 
representative to possess the equality of an elector. 1 
am willing to trust the people about the selection of 
young men. I do not suppose that any restriction 
would cut me oft'. But I think if a man is an elector 
amongst the people, he should have the right to be 
their servant. 

The amendment was now rejected. 

Mr. CUTLER proposed to amend the same section 
by inserting after the word “ twenty-five,” the words 
‘‘ prior to the day of his election.” He did this for the 
puq)Ose of obviating what had been sometimes a difti- 
culty at the elections. 

Mr. KIRKVVODD suggested the insertion of the words 
“ at the day of the election.” 

Mr. CUTLER raid he had no objection to any modi¬ 
fication of the wording. 

The amendment was rejected. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren proposed to amend the same 
section by inserting after the word “ on,” in the fourth 
line, the word “ the ” ; and ijy inserting in the fifth line 
the words “ of the United States,” for “ of this State.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga proposed (if in or¬ 
der) further to amend the same section by striking out 
all after the word “ election.” He did this for the pur¬ 
pose of hearing any reason which might be offered, go¬ 
ing to show why the absence of a man during any por¬ 
tion of the time preceding his election, should disqual¬ 
ify him. 

But upon the suggestion of the Chairman, he with¬ 
drew the proposition. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren said: The phraseology pro¬ 
posed in his amendment was the same as that contain¬ 
ed in the present constitution. He desired to go as far 
as he could for preserving the phraseology of that in¬ 


strument, and only to change it as the change of priii- 
ci])le might reipire. 

Mr. SAWYER said the Convention had this matter 
under consideration also ; and it was supposed by put¬ 
ting ill the words “ public business,” the phrase would 
imply all that was intended by the gentleman’s amend¬ 
ment. 

Mr. SMTl’Il of Whirrcn thought the words “public 
business” very equivocal terms. He had known sev¬ 
eral men to leave the State of Ohio for some of the 
j eastern cities on business for railroad conqianies aiul 
large and extensive corporations. Now under certain 
j circumstances this might be deemed public business. 

1 He thought as these terms had been received so long 
1 and iheir construction known to the constitution for 
48 years, it would be well to preserve the same phra¬ 
seology. He thought there was a manifest propriety 
in this though perhaps it was not very material. 

The amendment was adopted. 

No other amendment being oftcred to the third sec¬ 
tion, it was passed over. 

The CHAIRMAN now announced the consideration 
of the 4th section, and it was read. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross proposed to amend the 4th 
tion by striking out all alter the word “ respectively ” 
in the second line, to the end of the section. 

The question havjng been stated by the Chairman, 
Mr. GREEN of Ross said: It will be seen if this 
amendment is adopted, some further amendment will 
be necessary in order to define the term of Senators. 
My oljject is to get at the four years term, prescribed 
in this section, and also the “ride and tie ” system, 
which it proposes. In view of the very decided vote, 
taken in committee just before dinner, I presume that 
biennial elections and biennial sessions of the Legisla¬ 
ture, may be considered as settled for all present pur¬ 
poses ; but whether that vote was correct or not, 1 am 
opposed to the four years term of office for Senator as 
fixed in that portion of the section proposed to be 
stricken out. It might seem, indeed it is strange, sir. 
in looking through this report, and seeing how carefully 
and cautiously the powers of this, the legislative depart¬ 
ment of the government are attempted to be guarded, 
that a provision of this sort should have found its way 
into it. We have heal’d a good deal within the last 
few days, about the corruption of the legislative de¬ 
partment ; and of the absolute necessity of imposing 
some checks upon it. Various propositions have been 
made by gentlemen, in the shape of resolutions looking 
to this object; many of which have been embodied by 
the committee in this report: they, the committee, 
seem to have been animated by solemn awe and appre¬ 
hension of danger, and in addition to the restriptions 
on legislation, they have affixed a penalty for being a 
legislator—providing in the 19th section of the report, 
that no person elected as Senator or Representative 
shall be eligible during his term of service, a}id for one 
year thereafter, to any office of honor or trust under this 
government, or the government of the United States. 
These gentlemen, sir, seem to think that there is some¬ 
thing pestiferous in the atmosphere—somelhing cor¬ 
rupting in the influences surrounding men in the halls 
of legislation, and have therefore provided that it shall 
require a whole year of purification, before a member 
shall be restored to a healthy state of honesty, and be 
deemed worthy of exercising the rights of a citizen. 
Verily, sir, if the half that we have heard against the 
legislative department be true, they have “ done the 
things they ought not to have done, and left undone the 
things they ought to have done ;” “ and there is no 
health in them.” They have sinned against heaven 
and in the sight of men, and are no more worthy to be 
trasted. [Laughter.] I say, then, sir, that it is a lit¬ 
tle remarkable that gentlemen holding such opinions 
should be willing to extend to a branch of this suspec¬ 
ted department of the government a period of four 
years of service. Why, sir, only the other day, in the 
debate upon the resolutions offered by the gentleman 
















190 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


I'roin Hamilton, on the subject of ap])Oi’tioiiing the State 
for Senators and Representatives, we heard it gravely 
argued that it was absolutely necessary that we should 
have a numerous body in the House, because, as it was 
argued, as you increased the number of Representatives 
you diminished the danger of corruption. By the re¬ 
port before us, it is proposed to elect members of 
the House for two years ; but the Senate, a body to 
consist of only half the number of the House, is to be 
elected for twice the length of term. In view of the 
dangers of corruption, the House must be large—but 
a longer term may be given to half the number in the 
Senate, and the term doubled. I can explain this on 
no other principle than that gentlemen are of opinion 
that a Representative may be seduced in two years, 
but it will require four years to debauch a Senator. 
I have somewhere seen it stated, that, “he who has 
never seen a villain, is a young man, though he has 
lived to the years of Methusalah.” There may be 
truth in the aphorism: nevertheless, I am not therefore 
disposed to be constantly on the look-out for rascals. 
And notwithstanding the hard things that have been 
said by gentlemen of the Representative branch of the 
Government, I am of opinion that the difficulty lies be¬ 
yond the system. There is much of honesty and patri¬ 
otism in Ohio; and I have no fear of dishonest legisla¬ 
tion, if care be taken to choo.se honest men. It is not 
because I distrust the capacity of the people to se¬ 
lect men who may be trusted for four years, but 
for a different reason, that I am opposed to this four 
years’ term for Senators, and therefore have offered this 
amendment. It is according to my observation and 
reading, that if there is more danger to be apprehended 
under our system of State government, from one de¬ 
partment than another—that is, from one branch of the 
Legislative department than the other—it is the Senate, 
rather than the House. I feel more disposed to put 
checks and limits and guards upon the Senate, than 
upon the House of Representatives. 

What good reason is there why the Senatorial term 
should be longer than that of the Representative. Why, 
sir, they are elected, if not by the same constituency, 
by the people; they have the same qualifications; they 
are elected to perform the same duties—and here, by 
this report, it is proposed to vest in the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives exclusively, one of the most important at¬ 
tributes of sovereignty, the right tooriginate money bills. 

But I shall be told, I suppose, in answer, that the 
Senate should have a longer term than the House, in 
order that we may have stability in legislation—in or¬ 
der that there may be a check upon the popular branch 
—that there may be a staid and grave body iji the leg¬ 
islative department, which in a time of excitement, 
may resist the popular commotion. Sir, what check is 
the Senate upon the House of Representatives greater 
than the House is on the Senate ? Why, sir, each have 
the power of originating bills, with the single excep¬ 
tion to which I have referred; and if the Senate pass a 
bill, and the House reject it, there is a check upon the 
power of the Senate, and vice versa. But how is it 
with reference to this matter of stability and legisla¬ 
tion 1 Whence is it derived? Do you suppsoe that a 
man acquires any great degree of wisdom by occupy¬ 
ing a seat here for one session of tlie Legislature ? I 
have had the honor, sir, of sitting here in the Senate 
for four winters, and I do not know that I was made 
much wiser by it. 

Experience, Mr. Chainnan, which is perhaps the 
best of all teachers, has taught us that it is with bodies 
of men as with individuals. Long continuance in office 
is apt to lead to corruption. The alarm-cry of corrup¬ 
tion, which for sometime has been the order of the day 
here, would seem if true, to render it important that 
we look to the lessons of experience, and hedge in this 
powerful branch of the government. Gentlemen in¬ 
sist on a long term for Senators, that we may have a 
grave, dignified body of experience, to give stability 
to legislation, and check the impulsesof popular clamor. 


Sir, look at the history of other States, to say nothing 
of our own. I venture to say, that whenever an out¬ 
rage has been perpetrated upon order and propriety— 
upon those rules that ought to govern statesmen, upon 
the rights of the people—you will find that the Senate 
chamber has been the scene of greatest disorder.— 
Every gentleman will recollect the ever memorable in¬ 
stance 111 which the popular will was violently stifled 
in Pennsylvania, by 13 of the Senate, who sought by 
fraud to force Aaron Burr upon the people of the United 
States. Have they forgotten the immortal 17 in New 
York, who committed a flagrant high-handed outrage 
upon popular rights, by withholding from the people 
the national ballot box ? How Tennessee, Maryland 
and Indiana have been left without full representation 
in the United States Senate, owing to the factious and 
disorganizing spirits of their Senates ? Sir, I draw a 
veil over the disgraceful scenes that have occurred in 
this chamber. Would to Heaven that they could be 
forever blotted from the history of Ohio. As an adopt¬ 
ed son of Ohio, I desire that those scenes should be 
forgotten—or, if not forgotten, never be mentioned. 

Sir, on the subject of stability of legislation, I have 
yet to learn that a long senatorial term is essential to 
the object. We have precedents, Mr. Chairman, in 
some of the States that have been referred to by gen¬ 
tlemen with great commendation, as being remarkable 
for their sound, stable and practical legislation. Mas¬ 
sachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, ^ 
Connecticut, North Carolina, Georgia, and Tenessee, all 
these have adopted the system of electing Senators for j 
the same term with their Representatives. 1 concur | 
with gentlemen who have commended the stability of ; 
New England legislation. What has worked well ' 
there may work well here. Great changes frequently 
occur in the opinions of our people. They are sprung ^ 
upon us suddenly. This is the age of progress, as w'e 
are continually reminded by gentlemen—if this be so, I 
would it not be well to keep the public servants in this 
department as much as possible within reach of the i 

popular arm, that they may not feel themselves so far 1 

removed from accountability as to risk disobedience to j 

the popular will. Without further elaborating this | 

point, Mr. Chairman, I trust gentlemen will go with i 

me in fixing the senatorial term for a period of not lon¬ 
ger than it is at present. 

I am also opposed. Mr. Chairman, to the “ride and 
tic” system proposed by the report—that is electing one ) 

half the Senators biennially. Sir, I desire that the ; 

whole body of the Representative department shall be i 

elected at the same time; I say the Representative de- i 

partment, for I repudiate the heresy wliich claims that ^ 

the Executive and .Judicial are equally representatives i 

of the people. They do not represent the people— 
they represent the majesty of the law after the people’s i 
representatives have spoken it. I desire that at the 
period designated for the selection of agents for the t 
discharge of the high function of making laws that 
all the peojde shall be engaged in it. Sir, we have oc¬ 
casionally seen, under the system of classification i 

which exists under the present constitution, the evils ; 

that flow from it. Eighteen Senators hold over, per¬ 
haps equally balanced politically—a close or doubtful 
district of those to elect may decide the political com 
plexion of the body. All the elements of corruption ! 
are set to work, every species of fraud resorted to to 
secure it. I desire as far as practicable to prevent it. ' 

But why not elect your Senators all at the same 
time ? Why renev^ one half every two years?—shall 
I be told that by this means fresh public sentiment is 
infused into one half the body—I answer that I prefer 
a fresh infusion of public sentiment into the whole 
body. And why not? Do gentlemen fear that it will 
be too popular—too rampant —and that it is therefore 
necessary to have one half the body who are not fresh 
from the people, to check, to control the other half that 
are? 

But sir I did not rise to make a speech-—and having 














CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


said all that I have to say, I shall as is my habit on such 
occasions, take my seat. 

Mr. KANNEY proposed further to amend by insert¬ 
ing after the word “ respectively,” in the second Jiue, 
the words “on the second Tuesday in October.” He 
proposed this amendment inasmuch as it was not spe¬ 
cified when the election of Senators was to be held. 

Mr. CHAMBERS suggested whether the gentleman 
had not better withdraw his amendment till the ques¬ 
tion could be taken on the proposed amendment. 

Mr. RANNEY acquiesced and proceeded to address 
the committee upon the amendment of the gentleman 
from Ross, [Mr. Green.] He concurred with the gen¬ 
tleman in his motion. He hoped that the four years 
term would be stricken out. This amendment, redu¬ 
cing the Senatorial term to two years and taking away 
the provision that half the Senate shall be elected at 
one time, did not proceed upon the principle that all 
the Senators and all the members that had been here¬ 
tofore elected, or that might be hereafter elected, were 
all rascals—far otherwise. And if gentlemen had stood 
up and contended that particular legislative powers 
had been misdirected and abused, therefore it was not 
proper to delegate such powers again to the Legisla¬ 
ture, it was neither reasoiibale nor fair for another gen¬ 
tleman to turn round and say to him that he had been 
charging the previous Legislatures of the State with 
all sorts of corruption and rascality. It was his belief 
that members of the Legislature had generally been 
honest men, and that future Legislatures might be made 
up of those that might be left of the same sort. It was 
his belief that they were all just such men as ourselves, 
and it was his purpose to take away from them all mo¬ 
tives and inducements and persuasions which might 
lead them to wrong doing in future. This he concei¬ 
ved was all that had been said or intended in the way 
of censure upon the former legislators by any gentle¬ 
man here. 

With reference to the proposed amendment, he said, 
this practice of electing Senators every two years, was 
an old custom in the State and he was opposed to go¬ 
ing before the people and proposing any change in the 
term for which their power was to be delegated from 
time to time, without some good reason to offer for it. 
His own idea was that the people should not delegate 
their power for any longer term than necessary. It 
was difficult for him to tell what might transpire be¬ 
fore the end of the 4 years, which might render a man 
entirely unfit to be his representative and why then 
should not the people have the privilege of employing 
another, before the end of so long a period. They 
have the right; why should the Convention deny the 
exercise of it? Would gentlemen say, that they were 
not willing that the people should be trusted ? Why 
was it that the House of Representatives had come to 
be called the popular branch as contra-distinguished 
from the Senate. It was true that when we came to 
speak of the British parliament, it might be a very pro¬ 
per nomenclature, to call the House of Commons the 
popular branch. He was apprehensive that our ideas 
of the popular and unpopular branches of the Legisla¬ 
ture were borrowed from the Bntish. He wanted 
none but popular branches. The Senate ought to be 
as popular as the House. No man could stand here, 
and give any reason to the contraiy. He abjured the 
old notion, that you ought to bring into the Senate a 
sort of hang back influence. That idea had no sym¬ 
pathy in his understanding. It was a part of the old 
argument that the people were incapable of self-gov¬ 
ernment, to say that the Senate ought to hang back and 
hang on, to save the people from themselves. We had 
been told that other States had adopted this policy; but 
we should recollect that other States began under in¬ 
stitutions differing from ours, and when they changed 
their constitutions they continued to elect their officers 
for the same period. He knew this was the fact in the 
State of New York. Undoubtedly we ought to look 
with respect upon the action of our sister States; and 


191 


here was a gentleman telling us that eight States of the 
Union, embracing ail the New England States elected 
their Senators annually, instead of once in four years. 

Mr. REEMELIN. What was their qualifications ? 

Mr. RANNEY. I know of none, except that of be¬ 
ing electors. No other is required by the New En'^- 
land system, I believe. They may prescribe soine 
qualification as to property and some as to age and res¬ 
idence. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The districts are apportioned ac¬ 
cording to population in Massachusetts and not accor¬ 
ding to the voters. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Massachusetts and New Hamp¬ 
shire require freehold qualifications for their Senators. 

Mr. RANNEY. Well, the gentleman from Fairfield 
is wrong, or I am. This may have been a provision of 
the constitution at some time, I do not doubt, but in the 
new constitution of Massachusetts it is not admitted. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga, [reading from the 
constitution of New Hampshire,] “No person shall be 
eligible to a seat in the Senate, who is not seized of a 
freehold estate of the value of £200.” 

Mr. RANNEY. Is that the last constitution? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. It is published as the last here. 
It is dated 1792. 

Mr. RANNEY. Aye. The statute of Limitations has 
run against that. [A laugh. ] But how would that help 
the argument, provided it were so ? If they were wil¬ 
ling to trust political power only for one year, how 
much longer should be the period for which it ought to 
be trusted in the State of Ohio ? Did any man suppose 
that a man would be better qualified for Senator, be¬ 
cause he had got the power to hold on longer than two 
years ? He was not among those. If the people of the 
New England States, so distinguished for their stable 
and enlightened legislation, elect their Senators every 
year, and make no distinction between the terms of 
Senators and Representatives—and if he might add 
Georgia and North Carolina to the list, making eif^ht 
States of the Union—might not this Convention safely 
propose two years for the term of our Senators?—a 
term which we have always been accustomed to. 

A four years term for Senators would be a novel 
thing for the people, and in his judgment would not 
meet with their approbation. Two years was a mean 
between the practice of all the States: it was what we 
were accustomed to and he thought it ought to be con¬ 
tinued. He would have both the Senate and House 
members elected for the same term, at the same time, 
and should posses the same qualifications. Why then 
ask for two branches, was the objection ? One reason 
was that by two branches we secure a double consider¬ 
ation of every proposition. Whenever a bill passed 
from one House to the other, it became subject to a 
new set of influences, which to some extent did not 
exist, were it originated; and thus a large amount of 
unconsidered legislation would be arrested which 
might creep through a single branch. He could not 
entertain the argument that we ought to have a body 
more concervative and hang-backative. He repudiated 
it from his very soul—he had not one single particle of 
sympathy for it, and it never could have any founda¬ 
tion whatever, in his political creed. 

Mr. REEMELIN said he was exceedingly happy t» 
find his friend from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney] again by 
his side. He liked his argument much better now, 
than when he addressed the committee on a former oc¬ 
casion. He was in full agreement with him upon this 
question, and hoped the amendment would prevail. 
He was in hopes also that the gentleman would be 
willing to go farther, and say with Mr. Jefferson, that 
where annual elections terminate, tyranny commences.. 
He thought the arguments of gentlemen for this 
amendment were very^ conclusive against a longer 
term for Senators, but if the amendment should pre¬ 
vail he could not see any possible use for the Senate, 
and he added that if the amendment were made it 
would be a strong inducement for him to vote with his. 












192 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


friends the gentleman from Adams [Mr. McCormicck] 
and the gentleman from Fairfield [Mr. Robertson] for 
a single branch only. 

Mr. SAWYER thought that the amendment [Mr. 
Green’s of Ross] went too far. If the gentleman 
wished that Senators should hold their office for two 
years,- he ought to move, simjdy, to strike out the word 
“four,” and insert the word “ two,” and make tlie bal¬ 
ance of the section to correspond therewith. He was, 
however, opposed to the amendment. There was a 
distinction between the House of Representatives and 
the Senate—the former might be called the ‘‘iiopular 
branch,” from the fact that its members are elected the 
oftenest, and the body thus brouglit a little nearer to 
the people ; this may be the reason of the appelation. 
If this Convention decides upon biennial sessions of the 
Legislature, he thought it would be a wise policy to 
‘•mix up” the elections so that the Senators and Rep¬ 
resentatives would be elected, a part one year, and the 
balance the next. It occured to him that, if the Sena¬ 
tors were all to be elected in one year, there might 
come across the country a wild, popular excitement, 
such as swept over the State in 1828, and again in 1840. 
Some such popular excitement may come again, and 
the members of the Legislature Ijeing all elected at 
one time, fill your Senate and House of Representa¬ 
tives with a class of men whose places, or a part of 
them, the people of Ohio might, the next year, be glad 
to see filled by other and more recently chosen Rep¬ 
resentatives. 

But he [Mr. Sawyer] was decidedly in favor of bi¬ 
ennial sessions, and the election of Senators for the term 
of four years—he believed this would give more stabil¬ 
ity to the Government, and ensure more legislative ex¬ 
perience, especially if half of the number went out 
evei y two years, their places to be filled with new men, 
while there would always be in the Senate, one half 
holding over—men who had been there two years. 
This one-half holding over would act as a sort of bal¬ 
ance-wheel. I wish merely to state that in the com¬ 
mittee, gentlemen reserved the right to make amend¬ 
ments to the report after it was made to the Conven¬ 
tion. I know that biennial sessions may yet be deci¬ 
ded upon, notwithstanding the success of this motion 
to strike out “ four years ” and insert “two years,” as 
the term of the Senatorial office. 

Mr. MASON. I know that we may engraft in the 
new constitution a lU’Ovision establishing biennial leg¬ 
islative sessions, notwithstanding the success of this 
motion, but what would be the result? Y'ou would 
destroy the symmetry and the proportion heretofore 
existing in the coiistitution, by destroying the proj)or- 
tion and the relations Ijctween the two branches- 

Heretofore members of the House have been elect¬ 
ed for one year, of the Senate for two yeai’s, just dou¬ 
ble the time. If this motion of the gentleman from 
Ross [Mr. Green] should carry, you make a retro¬ 
grade movement. Y"ou then put the Senate on the 
same_basis as the House—there will be this change, 
the Representative will hold his office as long as the 
Senator, and the members of both branches will go out 
of office at the same time. So that there will be a void 
—a dead blank in your legislative de 2 )artment, without 
a single man to stand there with any jn-evious exjjeri- 
ence whatever, 

A Member (in his seat). Some of the old members 
may be re-elected. 

Mr. MASON. I am told that that objection is obvi¬ 
ated by the possibility that somebody who has been a 
member will be returned—but that is a chance, a mere 
possibility—you make no jirovision that there shall be 
a single man in your Legislature who has had a day’s 
experience in those halls, for his own guidance, or the 
enlightenment of his fellow-members. The truth is, 
sir, when our discussions run oft’ into what is more or 
less “ democratic,” we do not know where we ai’e. 

I agree with the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. 
Ranney] that the Senate is as much the popular branch 
as the House of Representatives. I will go a step far¬ 


ther, and perhaps the gentleman behind we [Mr. Ran- 
ney] will not be inclined to follow here. I believe that 
the .Judiciary department, under the new constitution 
will be as ceriainly, will be as clearly the recognized 
()opular department of the government as the House of 
Re])resentatives. This distinction of a “iiopular branch” 
had its origin in a country where there was an aristo¬ 
cratic branch of the Legislature—comiiosed of mezi 
who held their seats by hereditary right, and another 
branch cornjzosed of men more directly representing 
the jzeojzle. I admit, that we maintain the distinctiozi 
after it lias lost its original signification; ziiid the Sen¬ 
ate, in the past and in the future, has beezi and will re- 
maizi, as distinctly and emphatically the represezita- 
tive bi’aiich—the popular branch—as the House of Re¬ 
presentatives. Whether the peojile employ their pub¬ 
lic servants for one, two, thi-ee or four years, has noth¬ 
ing to do with the question, whether the department in 
which they are chosen to labor is poiiular or not.— 
Whether any individual eznployed in the public ser¬ 
vice is a ti’ue reprcsezztative of the ^leople in that ser¬ 
vice, depends not on the length of the tizne of his ezn- 
liloymeut, but ozi the fact whether he has derived his 
autlzority from, and is accountable to the people : or 
has derived it frozn birth or royal appoizitment. 

I lielieve that this body will fulfil! its mission best, if 
it will allow itself to construct a system which it thinks 
will be most conducive to the hajqiiness and pi’osperi- 
ty of this great and growing jieojile. There is a differ¬ 
ence between what is jzopular ojzinion concei*ning a 
given jzrojzosition and an attemjzt to znould and znanu- 
lacture a pojiular opinion. Who knows, or who has a 
right to say here, if it be the judgznezit of this body 
that it will be the wisest couz’se to have your Sezzatoi’s 
elected for four yeaz's, that the jzeople will cozzdeznzi 
that judgznent? If aziy gentlezziazi here chooses to tuz’zz 
“Batz-iot” and znake a popular 023izzion against the judg¬ 
znent of this Convention, he may do so — I will not. 
No znazz would thizik of electizig a Representative for 
three znoziths, of having “ quai’tei’ly ” Re 2 zresentatives, 
or half-yearly Senators. There is nothizzg by which 
you can always ascertain the exact 2 ^eriod whicii a pub¬ 
lic servant should serve his cozistituents, and avoid ex- 
tz'eznes. There is no fixed rule by which you can de- 
terznine the exact amouizt of service to be 2 )erforzned, 
but it is clear that there ought to be a fi’equent accoun¬ 
tability. , 

If the Repi’esezitative of the people, havizzg a term 
of two years to serve, but whose duties as such Rejzre- 
sentative ai’e liznited to ozze sessiozi ozily izi the period 
of two years, have you not the sazne measure of ac¬ 
countability uzider the biennial as under the annual 
systezzz ? Mr. Chairman, I would like to say from thi.s 
2 >lace, in the hearing of the peo 2 )le of Ohio, that there 
are great public considerations inviting thisCozivention 
to construct a Legislative deparlznent upon such prin¬ 
ciples as shall have a tendency, in its judgznent, to ele¬ 
vate the character of the General Assembly of Ohio, 
azid it is evidezit that a zizazi elected for four years has 
more time aaid opportunity to qualify hiznself for the 
great duties of legislation thazi if elected for one or 
two yeai’s. A man who serves two terzns, has zzzore 
experience than he who serves but one year, and I un¬ 
dertake to say that the 2 zeo 2 )le of this State will Ihazik 
you for experienced legislators. The intelligence of 
that people _ demands of this body that it should give 
them a Legislature coznbining expez-ience in, azzd know¬ 
ledge of, tlze great and high functions of Legislators. 

A Senatoz’ial body, whose amozmt of Legislative expe¬ 
rience can never zneasure zzzore than about CO days, is 
not the body called for by the peoide. The amendznezit 
leaves no provision for one half of the Senators to go 
out of office at one time, and leave the other half to 
z'etuz’zz at the next sittizzg, ladezz with the experience of 
a pz’evious session, to izzfoi’m the izew members of the 
state of business — every zzzeraber must light his owzz 
taper azzd fizzd out as best he may where the business 
stopped at the last adjournment. They may go for this 
information to the citizens of Columbus, to the Audi- 















CONVENTION llEPORTS 


193 


tor or Secretary of State, and diligently inquire as to 
the action of the last General Assembly. Mr. Chair¬ 
man, lvalue experience in the public servici —you 
may hold it very lightly, yet I undertake to say that the 
people of Ohio seta peculiar value upon the experience 
and wisdom of their public servants. Infuse constant¬ 
ly new material into your Legislative bodies—that you 
may do, and ought to do, but it is best that you 
be careful to have a good stock upon which you may 
engraft the young scions, that they in time may bear 
wholesome and mature fruit. Why should a great and 
grave and intelligent body, as this is, allow itself to be 
carried away and drawn into the adoption of a theory, 
new and untried, relative to the term of senatorial ser¬ 
vice. I call the attention of the committee to the fact 
that, if this motion to strike out “four,” and insert “ two 
years,” prevail, and the Convention decides upon bien¬ 
nial sessions, that your Senators will have a less period 
of service under the new than under the old Constitu¬ 
tion. The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] 
is in favor of annual sessions, and his argument, on the 
present occasion against a senatorial term of four years, 
is consistent with what he has done, and means yet to 
do. I intend to keep my eye on that gentleman for 
the rest of the session. [Laughter.] I want to know 
who are in favor of, and who against certain measures. 
I think there may be a danger of our being “carried 
oft'” in this matter. We may yet find that we have 
committed a blunder in the adoption of these provis¬ 
ions by a too great willingness to follow theones. If 
we fall back upon the adoption of two years as a sen¬ 
atorial term, then I say we must fall back upon the 
adoption of annual sessions. I will not insist upon the 
term of four years for Senators, although I would pre¬ 
fer it—if any man thinks that his political opinions and 
feelings lead him in an opposite direction, I have no 
quarrel or controversy with him. 

But I desire stability, and yet a reasonable, enlight¬ 
ened progression; for I believe in progression in the 
science of government, as well as in the other sciences. 
I am willing to agree to a great many things that will 
be advocated here, by those who intend to be progress¬ 
ive ; for instance, I agree that we shall go to the peo¬ 
ple for the election of every officer of the State, and I 
tell the people of Ohio, through you, that when they 
have got that—as they will have by the unanimous 
vote of this body — they have got everything necessa¬ 
ry, for the entire control of everything of a political 
nature. If we prefer four years for the Senatorial 
teiTO, it is because we believe we have consulted the 
best interests of the people. I tell you, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, the people appreciate and like stability; and thejr 
will not have any other feeling or opinion, until politi¬ 
cians mislead them. When the people are the recog¬ 
nized source of all power, as they will be in this new 
Constitution, then they will say, “servants, go on and 
make good laws, such as shall have the elements of 
stability and conservatism rightly combined ”—and I 
hope my friends will pardon me for using a word so 
obnoxious as conservatism. We want the machinery 
of our government to work out truth and justice; and 
we do not, and we cannot expect to find these ends 
worked out, by constant fluctuation and instability — a 
ceaseless change. We shall find that we have not lost 
all our power, because it is lodged in the hands of Sen¬ 
ators, elected for four years; it only lies dormant: and 
the people will know that the power is in their own 
hands. Mr. Chairman I would be very happy if this 
provision might obtain the approbation of this body — 
I shall not be very unhappy if it does not. But you 
need not urge upon me the consideration that the peo¬ 
ple do not want it, because I believe you are mistaken. 
You think you ai’e carrying out the views of your con¬ 
stituents, in voting for a shorter term; but they could 
not have declared for this — they could not decide at 
all in the m i tier, until they saw the whole structure of 
the Legislative department, and it is very evident that 
since this mere outline of that department has been 

13 


reported here and published, no member has heard an 
answering voice from his constituents. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD submitted. That the machineiy of 
this amendment was fixed for the ])urpose of undoing 
all that was done this forenoon. He supposed gentle¬ 
men would understand the game. If the amendment 
should prevail, the effect would undecide and i-etro- 
grade what was done this forenoon against annual ses¬ 
sions. But he thought there was little danger that the 
committee would do so foolish a thing. The gentle¬ 
man from Trumbull had warned the committee not to 
burn their fingers by taking power too far away from 
the people. How was that? Were we not fresh from 
the people ? Had not the people instructed us to go 
for biennial sessions? Shall not the people know? 
Had not they considered? Could not they combine 
two ideas? He ventured to say that if gentlemen 
would tell all they knew here it would appear that a 
very great majority of the people were in favor of bi¬ 
ennial sessions, which carried along with it the idea of 
the election of Senators for four years. Who ever 
heard amongst the people of Ohio of the idea of elect¬ 
ing the two Houses for the same term ? He would tell 
the committee that the people were in favor of a Sen¬ 
ate for four years, a House for two years, and they 
were also in favor of biennial sessions. Did any gen¬ 
tleman suppose that the people would instruct the con¬ 
script fathers to go for biennial sessions, and then take 
any steps against a four years senate? 

He desired that everything should be made more 
stable in our legislation. It was a good argument for 
two branches, and for the election of Senators, every 
alternate two years, to say, that at least part of our 
legislation would by this means be made to agree with 
what had been done before. Where this is the case, 
and where the Senatorial term was for four years, 
there must be some coherence between the old work 
and the new. He liked the source from which this 
amendment came, and the support which it had re¬ 
ceived from certain members of the committee on 
Jurisprudence. He had long been afraid that these 
gentlemen would be in favor of fixing a long term for 
the judicial officers of the State. They were now com¬ 
mitted in favor of a short tenu for Senators; and he 
would keep his eye on them, in the hope that they 
would report in favor of a short term for the judiciary 
officers. 

Mr. RANNEY here read from the amended Consti¬ 
tution of Massachusetts, the clause prescribing the term 
and qualification of Senators. 

Mr. McCORMICK said: One word, sir, before the 
question is taken. I am in favor of this motion, but 
not on account of the motives attributed to us by the 
gentleman from Monroe. It is not because I am in fa¬ 
vor of annual sessions, for I am not. The term is too 
long for any member of the Legislature to hold a seat. 
It is true, as has been remarked by the gentleman from 
Clark, [Mr. Mason,] that he cannot serve but two reg¬ 
ular sessions, upon the supposition that we are to have 
biennial sessions, and that no extraordinary occasion 
shall arise, demanding a call session. But, sir, so long 
a term would remove his responsibility too far from the 
people who elect him. Immediate responsibility is 
the true principle upon which we should proceed in 
establishing the tenure of all officers. Any man who 
shall be elected to serve for the term of four years in 
any legislative capacity, will have to serve for so 
long a period that he will wish for its termination. 
There are few men, as I apprehend, now who will wish 
a re-election, although there are some who have served 
more than four years, in both the House and Senate. 
It is too small a business, sir, for gentlemen of experi¬ 
ence and accumulated wisdom, to be confined in the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly. It is incompatible with their growing 
powers, to limit gentlemen of experience aiid vastly ac¬ 
cumulated wisdom, to the routine of duties in this Hall, 
or in the Hall below. They will seek a higher sphere 
of influence, where they may operate more largely 









194 


CONVENTION EEPOETS. 


and with astounding effect, with their great capital, 
their enlarged minds and profound business habits. 
The man who is elected to the Senate for four years, 
has been elected for as long a term as he wishes to 
serve. He cares not, and he need not care, what 
the opinions of his constituents may be, for he has se¬ 
cured his private ends ; and for this reason, if for no 
other, I am in hopes the report will be amended. There 
is no necessity for falling back upon annual sessions if 
we strike out. True, it will destroy that harmony, of 
which some gentlemen sometimes speak with so much 
veneration—that beautiful proportion of things, which 
to some, so strongly commends the old system. But 
that the term for the Senate should be made the same 
as for the House, is not so awful that gentlemen need 
start back in affright, or be palsied with horror. If 
gentlemen be honest in their declarations of confidence 
in the people, we may as well fix the term of service 
for two years; for the I'e-election of faithful public 
servants is not a difficult achievement; and if they be 
not honest, tlie people should have an opportunity of 
expressing their opinion. There is no necessity, I say, 
for annual sessions of the Legislature, if the elec¬ 
tion of Senators be fixed for two yeai's. For according 
to eveiy proposition which has been offered here—ac- 
coi’ding to the proposition which w'as debated a few 
days since, ottered by the gentleman from Hamilton, 
the districts from which the Senators and Representa¬ 
tives are to be elected, will be entirely different; that 
s, the number of their constituents wfill be different. 
There is no proposition, I apprehend, for making the 
Senatorial districts of the same size with the Represen¬ 
tative districts—for electing the Senators and Represen¬ 
tatives from precisely the same districts, but the pre¬ 
vailing idea is to recluce the number of Senators and 
increase their constituencies. If that be the case the 
larger constituency makes the Senator and the smaller 
the Representative ; and, I apprehend, that is all that 
can be asked by any gentleman for check and balance 
in the legislative department of two branches. The 
most that can be demanded by the friends of the sys¬ 
tem is that the several branches shall have different 
constituencies. The difference of term is not a mate¬ 
rial consideration. 

But it is argued again, that half of these gentlemen 
of the Senate should hold over two years longer than 
the rest, in order that the new Senate may have a lit¬ 
tle Legislature leaven of the old lump, in order that the 
newdy initiated members may rise easily to the knowl¬ 
edge, dignity and capacity of legislators. Mr. Chair¬ 
man, if we are to be/eat'ewed in the Senate by mem¬ 
bers of the old lump —it that works so gloriously in this 
hall, why should it not be applied to the hall below ? 
But I do wish that it may be eradicated entirely. I 
prefer new material. Foi*, gentlemen themselves be¬ 
ing judges, the old cannot be very desii able. Accor¬ 
ding to their own judgement as expressed here, it were 
better to take men entirely new and untried. If the 
Legislature of Ohio has been the corrupt body repre¬ 
sented here—if scenes have been transacted in the Sen¬ 
ate chamber, which should be blotted out from histoiy, 
as amongst the things that are a disgrace to our name, 
and age, I do humbly suggest and submit to the com¬ 
mittee, that the less of such men we have left in the 
new halls of legislation, the better for the people. 
Far better we should engraft upon a mild stock than a 
stump containing so much bitter rottenness. Butw^e 
must give to the Senate permanence. 

The gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] has just 
discovered that the people shall elect all their officers. 
Well, I suppose the people will not regard his absolute 
shall, as being very potent; nor do I apprehend that 
the people, had he said “ they might,” w'ould regard 
bis permission as a very liberal grant; but with or with¬ 
out his concurrence or consent, will do that which 
seems to them best. That which strikes )ne as most 
singular about the matter is, that this gentleman ap- 
jjears to be a very sudden convert to the principle of 


the selection of all officers by the people. His conver- 
tioii is too violent, and upon all new and sudden con¬ 
verts, I beg leave to say, we are apt to look with some 
degree of distrust. If I recollect aright, in a commu¬ 
nication addressed by that gentleman to the people of 
his district, previous to the election, he expressed 
hostility to the system of popular elections. ^ 

Mr. MASON rose to explain, and Mr. McC. giving 
way, he said: The gentleman is correctly informed 
that in reference to the judges, in a communication to 
the public, in answer to some interrogatories pro¬ 
pounded to me, I announced my preference for the ap¬ 
pointment of the judiciary officers by the Senate, or 
by the Legislature, upon the nomination of the Gover¬ 
nor, and that I did not regard the theory of electing 
that branch of the government in the same light with 
some of our democratic friends. He hoped, however, 
his democratic friends would not refuse to fraternise 
with him. 

Mr. McCORMICK resumed. Gentlemen will bear 
me witness, when I say, I have avoided the use of par¬ 
ty terms on this floor, but since I am thus brought into 
so intimate a connexion with them, I will say to the 
gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] that the rules of 
the MelhodistChurcli must be rigidly appliedtohim; and 
he must be placed upon a long probation before he can 
expect reception into full fellowship. The time which 
has elapsed since the election is not sufficient for so 
old an offender as he. 

But the party to which I belong would not only have 
these elections all made by the people, but they would 
have the appointment of their officers recurring to the 
appointing power frequently ; and there could be no 
good reason offered why the people should be robbed 
of this power, to the extent proposed in this report. 

Mr. ROBERTSON, rising with the constitution of the 
State of Massachusetts in his hand, begged leave to 
read, for the purpose of showing a passage conflicting 
with that which had been read by the gentleman from 
Trambull. 

Mr. RANNEY stated he had read from the amended 
constitution of Massachusetts, adopted in the year 
1840. 

Mr. ROBERTSON thereupon declined making any 
further explanation. 

Mr. ROBERTSON said he was in favor of the mem¬ 
bers of the Senate being elected for the same term as 
those of the House of Representatives. He was in favor 
of but one branch of the Legislature, but if the coffi- 
mittee decided upon two branches, he desired that they 
be elected for the same term, for the simple reason 
that all legislative bodies ought to be a simple reflec 
tion of the public mind. 

Mr. CHAMBERS said it had been well remarked 
by the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] that 
gentlemen who were favorable to biennial sessions, 
should look to the amendments which they suffered to 
be made in this report. The report was made consis¬ 
tent as a whole, and he hoped that gentlemen who were 
in favor of biennial sessions w’ould cai*ry out that con¬ 
sistency by rejecting the proposed amendment. What 
liad they done ? They gave the Senators a term of four 
years, because they wished that their term of office 
should be double that of the Representatives. Now, 
gentlemen had become very suddenly democratic, and 
particularly the gentleman fi'om Ross, [Mr. Green.] 
They considered this to be too long a term for a man 
to be elected to the Senate. Now, this w’as to him, 
quite a new doctrine and a new opinion; and, to show 
that it was not a doctrine that prevailed to any extent 
at all in the other States of the Union, he had looked 
hastily into their constitutions to see the pi'ovisions they 
had made in regard to Senators. He found, to his as¬ 
tonishment, that there were eleven States in which the 
Senatorial term was fixed at four years, and there was 
one that fixed the term at eight years, (that was intol¬ 
erably aristocratic,) and that was the Democratic State 
of Virginia, the bulwark of Democracy. 











CONVENTION REPORTS 


195 


Mr. ARCHBOLD (interposing) supposed the gentle¬ 
man did not wish to tall into a mistake; in Virginia 
there never was such a term of oflSce ; it was always 
four years. 

Mr. CHAMBERS resumed. He referred to the hook 
published by Joseph H. Riley & Co., of this city, who 
he presumed were not mistaken in the statement, “ Vir¬ 
ginia elects by districts, term eight years.” 

Maryland fixed the term for Senators at six years; 
that was also democratic, he presumed. Well she was 
sometimes democratic and sometimes whig—there was 
much vascillation in regard to party in that State. He 
went on the principle of following old established pre¬ 
cedents. We in this State had been in the habit of 
electing our Senators for double the term of our Re¬ 
presentatives, and he thought it a good system, not¬ 
withstanding the jeers of the gentleman from Ross [Mr. 
Green] about the “ride and tie” system. 

They knew that it was a very good plan, for when 
one man had rode a while he hitched the horse and 
went ahead, while the other came up and mounted, 
and thus they got along very well. He thought 
it better to have a portion to hold over, and pre¬ 
serve part of the legislative body, who from their ex¬ 
perience would serve as a nucleus or nest egg, around 
which new legislators might be arranged to commence 
the transaction of business. Why, sir, under this pro¬ 
position of electing both branches at once, suppose the 
people should happen to send up here an entire set of 
greenhorns, without experience, how would they suc¬ 
ceed in the transaction of their business. The people 
would not desire such a state of things, and it is evi¬ 
dent from the composition of this Convention, that our 
constituents value experience in matters of legislation. 
Why is it, Mr. Chairman, that you and I and many 
other grey heads in this Convention have been sent up 
here to assist in forming a new constitution ? It was 
no doubt because we happen to have some experience 
in legislative bodies, and we were sent here on the pre¬ 
sumption that we were so much the better qualified to 
assist in perfecting this work. 

It was true their qualifications might be limited, but 
at all events they knew something about legislation. 
But without jesting, it appeared to him to be important 
that there always should be a portion of the legislative 
bodies standing fast, who understood the course of leg¬ 
islation ; and that when men came here to form a new 
Legislature, they would know something about the pub¬ 
lic finances, the State debt, the course of business in 
regard to our public works, and other matters. These 
olqects were so plain that he who ran might read. Un¬ 
der that view of the case he did consider that it was 
prudent and proper that we pursued the old prece¬ 
dents, and follow the practice of the majority of the 
States in the Union, and give the Senators a larger term 
tlian the representatives. In all cases in which the 
time was doubled or trebled there was some mode fix¬ 
ed by which there were always some to be elected by 
a certain rotation. So it was in the United States gov¬ 
ernment. The Senators were elected for a term of six 
years. He supposed there was no question about the 
ju’opriety of the construction of that body. No pru¬ 
dent man could question it. The U. S. senators went 
out periodically, one third at a time. We propose one 
half. He hoped the friends of biennial sessions would 
stand fast by this system and oppose all such amend¬ 
ments. 

Mr. DORSEY was understood to say that he did not 
know with what view the gentleman from Ross [Mr. 
Green] had offered his amendment; if, for the purpose 
of opposing biennial sessions it was a ruse that was not 
going to be successful. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross wished to explain. He had had 
no such design. He had been unwilling to obtrude his 
opinion on the committee, in reference to this question 
of biennial sessions, and had kept it to himself. He did 
not offer the amendment from any feeling growing out 
of the vote had this morning. 


Mr. DORSEY did not intend to attribute any improp¬ 
er motive to the gentleman ; he presumed that in goil 
faith he presented the amendment to the committee 
[doubtfully heard.] If he were in favor of annual ses¬ 
sions he would be found advocating an equal term for 
senatorial and representative office, and he was now in 
favor of the amendment introduced, limiting the terra. 
It was objected that they hereby reduced the Senate 
to precisely the same basis as the House of Represen¬ 
tatives. Now even if that were true, he would not 
consider it by any means a forcible objection against 
the amendment. But it was not so : we did not by 
this amendment reduce the Senate to the same basis 
as the House, nor could they do so unless they made 
the number of the Senate precisely the same with that 
of the House. Look through tin? constitutions of the 
various States of the Union and they would find the- 
Senate to be composed of members varying from one- 
fourth to one-half that of the House; in some less even 
than one-fourth. That fact established the great prin¬ 
ciple of the different basis on which sbmd the two 
Houses, for the reason that the Senate being a small¬ 
er body than the House represented a much larger and 
more extended constituency, whether they regarded the 
number of people or the extent of territoiy as the ba¬ 
sis of representation.—The great object which he bad 
in supporting a Senate at all, in this constitution, and> 
he did support one on principle. He was opposed Un 
having a single House. It was not that by so doing we- 
were enabled by prolonging the time to introduce 
more stability into our legislation; ii was that by hav¬ 
ing two houses we could secure a greater amount of 
consideration and of due, proper and mature reflection, 
to be given to the various propositions that would be 
brought up for the action of the Legislature. The rea¬ 
son why he was in favor of the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Ross was because he held that the term of' 
four years was too long for any^ legislative office ; he- 
had nearly said for any office at all within the gift oU 
the people of this State, but he would not say so. There- 
might be offices to which that term was not applicable^ 
he would say, however, that it was too long for any 
legislative office to be held from the people. The re¬ 
sponsibility should be more direct and the legislators 
should be brought more frequently in contact with their 
constituents in order that they might more effectually 
and more fully represent their feelings. 

It was argued that we wanted more experience in 
order to carry on the more successfully legislative 
action. In regard to that he would say that he con¬ 
sidered the feature which was going to be introduced 
into the constitution, as shadowed forth by the vote 
this morning, as going far to secure that experience 
and wisdom which was so much wanted in the Legisla¬ 
ture. It was said thi.s moniing that the great reason 
why we had crude, immature and improper legislation, 
was not on account of any specific term of office, but 
on account of the material of which our legislative 
body was composed. He was not ready to say that 
that statement was not veiy nearly right. He believed 
that the inti’oduction of bienial sessions into the consti- 
tuilon would have great and abiding effect in introdu¬ 
cing a far better set of legislators into the halls of leg¬ 
islation. He considered they were thereby going to 
secure that experience and talent which was necessary 
and requisite; and thereby going to do away with that 
hasty action of the Legislature, of which there had been 
so much complaint. These were the reasons why he 
was in favor of the amendment by which the Senato¬ 
rial term was reduced to two years, while he was also in 
favor of biennial sessions. 

Mr. BARNETT of Treble wished to amend the 41 b 
Section, in order to perfect the .sense, and presented 
the following as amendatory to that section: 

Sec. 4. 3d line, strike out the words “ be divided,” and insert 
the word “ form.” 4th line, strike out all but the two last words, 

“ the seats ” and insert “the districts” having odd numbers into 
one class, rad those having even numbers into another class, and 
determine by lot which class. 5th line, strike out the words “of 










196 


CONVENTION liEPORTS. 


the tiretcL'iss.” 6th line strike outthe words “ ot the second ” and 
insert the word “ which .• 

j^o that it w’ill read, when amended—“ they sliall form the dis¬ 
tricts having odd numbers into one class, and those having even 
numlicrs into another class, and determine by lot ot v|Tiich class 
the seats of Senators shall b e vacated at the expiration ot two 
years, and which class at the expiration of four years.” 

Mr. BARNETT then said, in order that this atnend- 
uieiit might be the better understood, he would endeav¬ 
or to explain to the committee the object sought by it. 
It was this, that the section contemplated the Senators 
should be divided into two classes by lot. Under that 
arrangement there might be some difficulty about the 
proper distribution of Senators throughout the State. 
I'he umendment contemplated that we should number 
the districts from one up to the number that would be 
agreed upon, or the State entitled to; and, that we 
sliouki put in one class the odd numbers, and in the 
«>tlter class the even numbers, and determine by lot 
Nvhich class should continue in office for two years, and 
which for four years. So, that they would elect, or 
migiit elect thereby a Senator alternately throughout 
tlie State, in alternate districts. Now, if they began 
to number the State, or the districts within the State, 
bemnning at the south-west corner, and number one, 
two, three, four, &c., &c., it would then afford a repre¬ 
sentation from alternate districts, which would divide 
the Senators elected at one term, equally over the State. 
They would thus permit the people, through the Sena¬ 
tors, to reflect their will at the particular time of elec¬ 
tion. . , 1 • 

Mr. CLARK did not rise to inflict a speech on this 
committee. He would much rather be a listener than 
a speaker; and he believed he had not, on any occa¬ 
sion, obtruded himself on the House at any length ; he 
would endeavor not to torture the committee but for a 

moment. . 

He confessed he was not over pleased with this 
provision; he confessed that when he read this pro¬ 
vision to elect Senators for four years, he was some¬ 
what astonished that the committee should have re¬ 
ported a proposition of such a character—^a proposition 
to make so great and important a change in ourcousti- 
turion. There ought to be weighty reasons shown be¬ 
fore it is adopted. The old constitution required Sen¬ 
ators to be elected for only two years ; this proposition 
deviated from it materially. When he first read the 
report he tried to contrive why the change was propo¬ 
sed. He wished to learn, if it were possible, what 
moved the minds ol the committee to deviate thus far 
and report a term of office for four years. It struck 
him at first that it was possibly by reason of the new 
scheme got up for biennial sessions, and that that 
scheme could not be carried into effect unless the Sen¬ 
atorial term of office was changed from two to four 
years. But, when he looked into it, he could not see 
any difficulty in electing Senators for two years as well 
as representatives. He was fearful when the proposi¬ 
tion was up, in a prior section, to have biennial sessions 
.stricken out and annual sessions inserted, if it failed, 
that this provision would stand as it now did, for four 
years. He said he was, to some extent, pledged for 
biennial sessions, but upon reflection and careful con¬ 
sideration he was strongly inclined to believe that an¬ 
nual sessions were preferable. 

What was the reason for the adoption of this long 
term of office ? The honorable chairman who re¬ 
ported the proposition, had given some of his reasons. 
He [Mr. C.] had always had the highest respect for 
him and for his democracy, and whatever he might 
now think of it, he would n it call it in question. 
One of his prominent reasons for reporting this propo¬ 
sition for four years, was “ to repress popuhir ebulli¬ 
tions of feeliii"—to put down such excitement as pre¬ 
vailed here in 1828.” He was astonished when a dec¬ 
imation of that character fell from the lips of the hon¬ 
orable gentleman—“ to put down such an excitement 
as that of 1828 ! ” He would like to know how long 
it was since the honorable gentleman liad been con¬ 


verted in this matter? W as lie satisfied that that move¬ 
ment was a matter of folly—that the part he acted in 
it was wrong, and that we should adopt a provision in 
this new instrument to put down such movements of 
the people ? Another reason urged by the gentleman 
was - stability-that a four years term would give 
much greater stability to legislation. Why not re¬ 
port a Senate for life, if stability was what the comrmt- 
tee were after ; the same argument would apply. He 
was not prepared to go in favor of establishing life o - 
fices;hehad more confidence in the people than to 
believe that it was right or necessary to give these 
long terms to officers, with a view to repress and tie 
dovvn the feelings and will of the people. Was it 
true that in States in which elections were frequent 
that there was no stability in legislation ? He would 
refer to Gonnecticut, that had a session every year 
since 1818—the time of the adoption of her present 
constitution; before that they had a session twice a 
year. He would wish that gentlemen would refer him 
to a State in which the legislation was more stable— 
more judicious and more wise than Connecticut. In 
that State not only was the Senate and House elected 
every year, but also almost every officer of the govern¬ 
ment, from the Governor down. And it was not only 
so there in regard to the election of the Legislature, 
but through most of the New England States, the 
same system of annual elections prevailed. It was so 
in New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, &c.; he 
would like gentlemen to point out in what State in the 
Union laws had more stability, and where the affairs 
of a people were better conducted than in the New 
England States ? 

There was one reason why the legislation in the 
New England States had been more stable than in this 
State: it was because they had been very particular 
and careful in their selection of persons as legislators. 
If the people of this State had exercised the same care 
and caution in selecting persons to frame laws, there 
would be much less cause to complain about the insta¬ 
bility of legislation. He considered one of the most 
efficient means of securing stable legislation, was to 
select competent men for that business. 

Mr. SAWYER inquired if the honorable gentleman 
were to be understood as censuring the democracy of 
Ohio? Did he understand him to say that the New 
England States were democratic? • 

Mr. CLARK replied that he had not stated their leg¬ 
islation had been more democratic. That was not the^ 
issue. He said it had been more stable. He was wil- ‘ 
ling, however, to say that the legislation of Connecti¬ 
cut had been equally democratic with this Slate; and 
as for Massachusetts, he was not so well acquainted, 
but he believed she had been more sinned against than 
sinning. He was willing to take the Connecticut stat¬ 
ute books since 1818, when her constitution was formed, 
and the statute books of Ohio, and compare the demo¬ 
cracy of their legislation. He would say that so far as 
the protection of persons and property was concerned, 
the New England States had attended to the matter as 
carefully as any others in the Union; and that the pro¬ 
tection of persons and property was the great object of 
all government. But it was said, as another reasiou for 
having a Senate elected for four years, that it was to 
have a part of them to hold over—that experience on 
the part of some of the Senators was necessary. The 
same reason applied to Representatives. 

But he had said more than he designed, his main ob¬ 
ject was to express his tmqualijied disapprobation of these 
four years terms—that in expressing it, he but express¬ 
ed the sentiment of nine-tenths of the electors of Lo¬ 
rain—that they never would vote fora constitution with 
a provision of four years office for Senators. He should 
therefore vote for the proposed amendment to strike 
out four and insert two years, and he hoped it would 
[)revail. 

Mr. LARSH wished to express his sympathy with 
the gentleman from Lorain [Mr. Clark.] He seemed 











197 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


to have been astonished that we were about to make 
any alterations in our constitution, and no doubt he 
was when the committee declared the necessity of bi¬ 
ennial sessions. If they now determined to elect for 
four years it would astonish the gentleman a great deal 
more. If these small matters caused the gentleman so 
much astonishment, he [Mr. L.] did not know whei-e 
he would be after a while. He wished to say one 
thing in regard to holding our Representatives account¬ 
able to the people by short terms of office. Now in 
regard to that matter, would it not be as well to hold 
the people to a little responsibility, as the Representa¬ 
tives, and make that responsibility bear a little before 
they were elected as after they were elected? He did 
not think that by holding their elections at very short 
periods, that they were as likely to get as able men to 
take office as if they were held at longer intervals. 

In regard to the tenure of office, he was well satis¬ 
fied that the people of this State would expect that the 
Senators should be elected for the same length of time 
as the Representatives; so far as he knew the views 
and sentiments of the people, that was his opinion. He 
moved that the committee rise, report progress, and 
ask leave to sit again. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

The amendment to the amendment was here with¬ 
drawn, and the question then turning on the amend¬ 
ment to strike out the word “four” wherever it occur¬ 
red. 

The question halving been put, the House divided 
—affinnative, 50, negative, 38. 

The question then occurred on striking out all after 
the word “year,” which being put was sustained. 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, the com¬ 
mittee rose, reported progress, and asked and obtained 
leave to sit again. 

On motion of Mr. LlDEY, the Convention adjourned. 

WEDNESDAY, May 29, 1850. 

IMr. COLLINGS. I have received petitions from 
199 female and 127 males, citizens of Brown county, 
praying that an article may be inserted in the new 
Cl nstitution prohibiting the Legislature from the pas¬ 
sage of any law, authorizing the sale of intoxicating 
liquors, or in any wise legalizing the traffic therein. 
Upon motion of the same gentleman, the petition was 
referred to the committee on Jurisprudence. 

Mr. BARBEE. I hold in my hands the memorial of 
James N. Tullis, praying that the constitution may 
prohibit the Legislature from gi anting license to man¬ 
ufacture or sell intoxicating liquors, except for chemi¬ 
cal, medicinal or mechanical purposes, which I would 
ask to be I'eferred to the same committee. The me¬ 
morial was accordingly referred to the committe on 
Jurisprudence. 

On motion ol Mr. SAWYER, the Convention resf)lved 
itself into a 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, 

Mr. HAWKINS in the chair, andjoroceeded to take up 
section 5th of the Report on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment. 

Mr. CASE of Licking. I move to amend the 5th sec¬ 
tion by striking out the word “ thirty” in the 3d line 
and insert “ 21” so that the resolution as amended will 
read, 

“ The qualifications for a Senator shall be the same 
as for a Representative, except that he shall ha^*^e resi¬ 
ded in the respective Senatorial district two years pre¬ 
ceding his election; anti shall have attained the age of 
21 year.«!.” 

Before the vote is taken upon that question, said Mr. 
CASE, I propose briefly to submit some reasons why 
in my oj)inion, the motion should prevail. For one I 
am unwilling to vote for any qualification, for any offi¬ 
cer provided fer in the constitution, in respect to age, 
other titan that of his being an elector. I think that 
amply sufficient. We have had in this Convention pro¬ 
fessions upoti all hands, of confidence in the ijitcdli- 


gence and judgment of the people but I have yet to 
see in the action ofthis Convention, any thing that comes 
up to these professions. For one I am free to con¬ 
fess. that I have an abiding confidence in their capaci¬ 
ty to judge of the qualifications of their officers, partic¬ 
ularly in relation to age. I have no fears from the peo¬ 
ple being left uiitrammeled in this particular, nor have 
I any fear that any beardless, unqualified youth, will 
ever get into this chambei-, or any other responsible of¬ 
fice in the gift of the people. When fixing 30 years of 
age as the maximum, I am surprised that gentlemen 
did not go further and provide that no man over 60 
years of age should be elegible. W'hy not make such 
a restriction ? There is in my opinion, cpiite as much 
propriety in one as in the other. There is more dan¬ 
ger of the people being led astray in the election of per¬ 
sons too old than too young. You will find that near¬ 
ly all the reforms and all the progress of this or any 
other age, have originated with young men who are 
bold and dariiig, and have seldom came from men far 
advanced in life. Now, sir, that the people may be trus¬ 
ted without this restriction in respect to age,is evidenced 
in this Convention. I ask what are the qualifications 
of the members of this body? simply, that of being elec¬ 
tors. And yet, sir, have the people manifested by the 
delegates sent up here, that any other qualification is 
necessary? Supposing that the age of delegates to this 
body had been limited to that of 30 years, would a bet¬ 
ter body have been obtained? I doubt it sir. Then we 
have here, a practical illustration that the people may 
be trusted upo.i this subject, and sir, if they may be 
trusted in the election of delegates to the Convention, 
I apprehend^they may be trusted upon any other im¬ 
portant matter. Then, sir, I object to this limitation, 
for it betrays a mistmst of the people, and it is not in 
accordance with the professions I have heard from all 
quarters of this chamber. I hope we shall have action 
as well as profession upon this subject. 

We have precedents of limitations of this character 
in respect to the maximum of age. In the New York 
constitution of 1821, there was a limitation in respect 
to .Judgeships—that no person should hold the office of 
•Judge after he had attained the age of 60 years—in 
my humble judgment a very foolish, ridiculous provision 
—a provision that drove from the bench of New York 
one of the most eminent jurists of this country ; yes, 
sir, at the age of 60 years. Chancellor Kent, in the pnme 
of his manhood, and the vigor of his intellect, was 
compelled to retire from the bench of New York ; and 
yet, after he had left that bench, under the provisions 
of that constitution, he composed his immortal com¬ 
mentaries, which have not only been justly commended 
in his owm country, but have commended themselves 
to the notice of the profession in England. The illus¬ 
trious example I have named is but a single instance of 
the impropriety and folly of fixing a qualification in 
respect to age It is not more ridiculous than the one 
here proposed, in my opinion. Why, sir, the only 
qualification in respect to age in the House of Lords 
and House of Commons in England, is 21 years. They 
have had experience century after century, and no one 
there has ever yet proposed that it should be raised 
above 21. When we look into the history ol^ immortal 
men of that country, we find that many of them en¬ 
tered rarliament at the age of 21. Many of her young 
men, before they were 25, had a world vvide fame for 
attainments in statesmanship. I may cite, in this con¬ 
nection, a striking instance in the case of William Pilt, 
who was Prime Minister of Englandat the age of 24 ; 
and yet William Pitt, with all his vast powers of in¬ 
tellect, w’ould, under the limitation here proposed, be 
prescribed and pronounced totally ^unfit to have a seat 
in the Legislature of Ohio. Yes, sir, at the most criti¬ 
cal era in the history of his country, when too youth¬ 
ful in the opinion of some gentlemen for a seat in the 
Legislature, ho stood up manfully, from year to year, 
against the most vigorous and powerful opposition that 
was ever arraved or combined in the British House of 









198 


CONVENTION EEPORTS, 


C<;ii)moiis. This is not the only instance, Fox, the 
greatest debater and orator that ever existed in the re¬ 
cord of men, if so good a judge as Burke nxny be relied 
upon, entered Parliament at the age of W), and was an 
acuve, useful member of the House of Commons al 
the age of 21, and before he was 25 was a leader of 
the opposition hosts in that body. 

There is Earl Grey—the lather ot the Reform Bill, 
that second magna cliarta. Sir, at the age of 22 he was 
a bold and fearless champion of the people in the House 
of Commons. At that age he stood up and confronted 
Pitt in the House of Commons, and hurled defiance at 
the Ministerial benches. At 23 he was chosen by the 
House of Commons one of the managers to conduct the 
impeachment of Hastings, and sat in the Westminster 
Hall, by the side of Burke, Sheridan, Fox, Windham, 
and a host of other British worthies, and there assisted 
in the impeachment of Hastings, in a manner that made 
the ruler and oppressor of an hundred million Asiatics 
quake and tremble, and won for himself a reputation 
that any man in this body might envy. But notwith¬ 
standing this he would have been jjroscribed here, and 
deemed unfit to hold a seat in the Legislature of the 
State of Ohio. Many other instances might be cited. 

I recollect the caseof Lord Chesterfield, who was driv¬ 
en out of the House of Commons on account of his mi¬ 
nority—after this youthful commoner had delivered a 
firey phillipic against the Ministry, it was whispered 
in his ears by one of the opposition, that he knew him 
to be a minor, and if he dared to vote he would enforce 
the penalties of the law upon him. Yet, we here, sir, 
in this Republican country, undertake to proscribe men 
like these. I cannot agree to this. Is it possible that 
in .his country—in Ohio, that our climate, soil, longi¬ 
tude and latitude are more unfavorable to the forma¬ 
tion and development of human character, genius and 
'talent, than Great Britain. 

I apprehend not. It is true, that there was a time 
'when men undertook to say, that there was an inferi¬ 
ority not only among thebrute creation of this continent, 
but even among the human kind, as compared with Eu¬ 
rope. Bvffon a distinguished French naturalist publish¬ 
ed a book some 70 or 80 years ago, in which he under¬ 
took to demonstrate that the animals that inhabit the 
North American continent were inferior in nearly eve¬ 
ry particulai-, to the same kind ol animals on the Eu¬ 
ropean continent. That same doctrine was followed up 
by the Abbe Raynal (another French writer) and ap¬ 
plied to the human species inhabiting this country. It 
was left to Thomas Jefferson in his able “ Notes on Vir 
ginia,” to refute this error and combat these two phi¬ 
losophers, and to demonstrate to the world that not 
only the brute creation but the human kind were equal 
he! e to those of any other part of the globe. I hope 
that we shall hear less talk about the intelligence of 
the people and in place of it acts that come up to these 
high sounding professions. I am but a single Repre¬ 
sentative, but I desire to manifest my confidence in 
the people, by the position I here take upon this ques¬ 
tion, for I have an abiding faith in their intelligence and 
capacity. For my part, I will put nothing in this con¬ 
stitution that we are about to form, that betrays a want 
of confidence in the people or a jealousy of young men. 
Why, sir, with a clause like that in your constitution 
you will array our young men against it, and if adopted 
drive them from your State. Birds of passage, no longer 
warmed by the genial sun, fly to more favored regions. 
So will it be with our young men, if you adopt this pro¬ 
scriptive clause. Look into the constitutions of the new 
States and you will there find no clauses proscribing 
young men merely because they are young. 

I hope, sir, that when we come to take a vote upon 
this question, that the yeas and nays will be demanded, 
80 that we will have an opportunity -jf knowing, by en¬ 
during record.'J, wlio they are in this body that are will¬ 
ing to come up and manifest by their votes, that they 
have confidence in the intelligence and judgment of 
the people. 


Mr. BROWN of Carroll. I do not rise to enter into 
a discussion of the proposition now before the commit¬ 
tee. I leave it as I find it. I rise to say, that in my 
opinion, we are disposed to break down the old land¬ 
marks that have been set up by the lathers of the 
State in early times. Now I think we should confine 
our action as members of this Convention, not in pull¬ 
ing down the old structure and out of the framnents 
fixing up a new one. I think it is uncalled for by the 
peo})le. It did not enter into the minds of the people 
of the State when they sent us here, that we should go 
to work and build up a new constitution and stuff it 
with all the “isms” and wild theories that are brought 
here. The people of our State are a law abiding and 
orderly people. They are not fond of all these changes 
that are proposed by some gentlemen upon this floor. 
They want to let well enough alone. They sent us 
here to amend and alter what might be wrong in the 
old system. They sent us here to make the amend¬ 
ments that we might find to be necessary for the condi¬ 
tion of the people of the State of Ohio, and they are 
not in favor of going to the British House of Commons, 
Parliament or to any of the new States that have sprung 
into existence, who have branched out in any new sys¬ 
tem of experiment. I hold to the good old adage, “to 
let well enough alone.” I hear no complaints from any 
part of Ohio, that the young men of the State are fet¬ 
tered in their ambition by our organic law. You are 
not sent here for the purpose of making these changes; 
and I think the duty of this body, is to look along over 
the present constitution of the State of Ohio, and on 
all those points and sections of it, upon which we have 
heard no complaints from the people, pass silently over; 
but wherever we find that it is necessary to alter or 
amend, and such alterations are demanded by the 
people, to do the work in as short time as possible and 
tiien go hoisie. 

Mr. RANNE Y. I move to amend, by striking out all 
after the word “Representatives.” 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. Before the question is ta¬ 
ken I moke to amend section 5, in the 3d line, by ma¬ 
king it conform to the language used in the 3d section, 
by inserting the word “next” after the word “year.” 

Mr. CA^ E of Licking. I wish to take the question 
upon “21 years.” By adopting the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Trumbull, we should fall back 
upon 25. 

Mr. RANNEY. I voted yesterday to retain the 
clause fixing the age of Senators at 25 years. All 
will see the absurdity of a Representative being but 
21 years and the S nators 25. 

The question then being taken upon the amendment 
to strike out the word “30” and insert the word 21, and 
a division being demanded, resulted as follows—aff. 
47—neg. 49. 

So the Convention agreed to strike out. 

The question was then taken upon striking out all af¬ 
ter the word “representatives,” as moved by the gen¬ 
tleman from Trumbull, in section 5—so that it will 
read, “The qualifications for a Senator shall be the 
same as those of a Representative,” which resulted as 
follows—aff’. 46—neg. 42. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved to amend the 6th section, 
2d line, by striking out the word “two-thirds,” and in¬ 
serting in place thereof, the words “majority of all the 
members elected,” which was agreed to. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. LEECH. I move to amend this section by stri¬ 
king out the words “be authorized to,” in the 3d line, 
which was agreed to. 

The CHAIRMAN then read 

Sec. 6 Each House shall be the judge of the election returns 
and qualifications of its members. Two-thirds of each House 
shall be a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may ad¬ 
journ from day to day, and be authorized to compel the attend¬ 
ance of absent members, in such manner and under such penal 
ties as may be prescribed by law. 

Mr. LOUDON. I move to amend this section in the 
first line by striking out “ each House” and insert the 
following: 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


199 


The county Commissioners, clerk of the court-and justice 

of the peace shall have power to hear and determine all contests, 
be judges of the qualifications and give certificates to members 
legally elected. 

Mr. LOUDON. This proposition is not original with 
myself. It is a suggestion made to me by a citizen of 
the State of Ohio; one of that class of citizens whom 
we all profess to have particular good feeling for, es¬ 
pecially about the second Tuesday of October; one of 
that class whom I heard my old and worthy friend 
from Champaign once eulogize as being always to be 
found about sun rise, at this time of the yeai’, at the 
tail of a plow. That is the character of the gentleman 
who suggested the idea to me. In my goodness I prom¬ 
ised him that I would present to the Convention this 
proposition, and as I see the bill before me, I will re¬ 
deem my pledge to my consituent—to your constituent, 
a citizen of Ohio. That gentleman said that he had 
noticed for a great many years in your Legislature 
there was great difficulty originating in contested elec¬ 
tions, and great expense incurred in Hamilton county 
a few years ago, where there was a contest of this char¬ 
acter. They had to call upon some men of the best 
talent in Ohio at an enormous expense, who were au¬ 
thorized by the Legislature to go to Cincinati in order 
to take depositions. This was all done at the expense 
of the State. What interest, I would ask, had the peo¬ 
ple in Geauga or Ashtabula county, in the election of a 
member froin Hamilton? It was a matter that con¬ 
cerned Hamdton county alone, and she ought to have 
settled that dispute. I would ask gentlemen from the 
northern part of the State, if they got mto a quarrel a- 
bout a contested seat in the Legislature, whether it 
would be right to make the citizens of other portions 
of the State bear the expense incurred. As to the 
mode of disposing of these cases I am not quite satis¬ 
fied myself, what I want, but I think it can be better 
done in the immediate vicinity than in the Legislature, 
composed as it is, of persons promiscuously gathered 
together from all parts of the State, ha^'ing no knowl¬ 
edge personally of these matters. Perhaps these mat¬ 
ters might be determined by county commissioners or 
by a certain number of justices of the peace brought 
together. 

But sir, it seems to me, that county commissioners, 
clerks, and justices of the peace, who are brought to o- 
pen books would be better enabled todojustice to their 
parties than the Legislature would be, elected as it is 
irom all parts of the State, and having no knowledge 
of the locality. How fashionable it is becoming, with 
gentlemen in high political excitements, to get up a 
“contested election.” They want to get up to Colum¬ 
bus to spend the winter, to attend levees and see the 
gentry [great laughter.] They sit here allwinter while 
the Legislature is getting up this investigation and 
canvass this matter from month to month. Somebody 
—the man who has the certificate, gets his seat, while 
the other man takes his place as an outsider—but mind 
you, both parties sre sure to pocket the dimes of the 
people. Now sir, I say in all candor, and I hope that 
some legal gentleman will devise a plan for having 
these difficulties settled in the counties where they 
take place, for it would be benificial to the whole State 
ofOhio, and believing that it would be beneficial I 
have offered these suggestions. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. It is not my pur¬ 
pose to make any argument upon this subject—to make 
a statement of this matter upon which, in our section 
of the State, there has been considerable inquiiy and 
uniform expression of sentiment, that it is essenthd for 
us to provide some mode for the adjustment of con¬ 
tested seats,” other than submitting to the Legislature 
itself. I will not detain the committee by any re¬ 
marks upon the great injustice that has been done—to 
the veiy great expense that has been incurred unne¬ 
cessarily upon the fierce political controversies that 
have arisen out of this matter. It would be right, if 
the appointment of selectmen .should be adopted by 
the Convention, it is proper that citizens of Geauga 


and Brown, or any other county, who have confided in 
these men a general superintendence of their local af¬ 
fairs, should trust to them the decision of the “ con¬ 
tested seat ” between the two who may claim a seat 
from their respective counties, in the Legislature. I 
make these remarks because I would like to call at¬ 
tention to the subject. 

Mr. TAYLOR. 1 rise to ei'plain my vote upon the 
proposition offered by the gentleman from Brown. If 
I was satisfied that a county tribunal, such as was con¬ 
templated by the gentleman from Cuyahoga, would 
be an exclusive tribunal for the adjustment of these 
contested cases, I would cordially vote for it. It is ap¬ 
parent however, that contested seats in the House of 
Representatives, members of which are elected by 
counties, might be decided by the body contemplated 
in the amendment. But those of Senators, elected as 
they will be from a larger district, composed of more 
than one county, could not be decided by such boards. 
For this reason I shall be obliged to vote against the 
amendment, but whenever it can be shown that such a 
proposition will be competent to dispose of all legisla¬ 
tive contests of this kind, I will cheei-fully support it. 

The 6ih section as amended would read: 

“ Each House shall be the judge of election returns and quali¬ 
fications of its members. A majority of all the members elected 
to each House shall be a quorum to do business, but a smaller 
number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance 
of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as 
may be prescribed by law.” 

7th. “Each House shall choose its own officers, and may deter¬ 
mine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disor¬ 
derly conduct, and with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a 
member, but not the second time for the same cause ; and each 
House shall have all other powers necessary to provide for its 
safety, and for the undisturbed transaction of its business.” 

Mr. STANTON. I move to amend the section by 
striking out in the third and four'll lines, these words: 
“ but not a second time for the same cause.” 

The question then being taken upon the amendment, 
the Convention refused to strike out. 

The CHAIRMAN read: 

Sec. 8. “ The House shall keep a correct journal of its pro¬ 

ceedings, and take efficient means to publish the same; the yeas 
ahd nays shall, at the desire of any two members, be entered up¬ 
on the journal, and on the passage of every bill in either House, 
the question shall be taken by yeas and nays, and entered upon 
the journal, and no law shall be passed without a concurrence of 
a majority of all the members elected to each House.” 

Mr. MITCHELL. I move to amend the section by 
inserting after the word “law,” “ or resolution design¬ 
ed to have the force of law', or to draw money from tho 
Treasury.” 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY (speaking inaudibly,) moved to amend 
this (the 8th) section by inserting after the words 
“ and on the passsge of every bill in either House” the 
words “making appropriations for individual or local 
purposes.” , 

Mr. CUTLER expressed himself opposed to the sec¬ 
tion as it stood. 

Mr. SAWYER remarked that there seemed to be a 
peculiar desire manifested on that side (looking toward 
Mr. Hitchcock) to attack each and every section of 
this repoi’t. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. The gentleman from 
Auglaize looks over this way and talks of the action of 
“ that side”—I wish he had waited—that he had deter¬ 
red his ominous remai’ks until he saw the vote upon the 
motion. 

Mr. SAWYER. Well, I believe I have done the 
honorable member [Mr. Hitchcock] injustice. It 
was the gentleman from Washington who made the 
motion and sustained it. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. It was the gentle¬ 
man from Monroe who opposed the motion. 

Mr. CUTLER. I will take all the responsibility of 
the expressions of opposition to the section from this 
part of the chamber upon myself. I am opposed to 
this restriction upon Legislative freedom. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga proceeded to say that 
he was decidedly in favor of the provision as it stands 












200 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


in this [the —] section, nnd he believed it would be 
found most beneficial. He did dot believe any bill 
should be passed into a law unless it found favor with 
a uiaj(jrity of all tlie members elected to each branch 
of the Legislature. It would bo ])Otent to stop the 
abs([uatulation of membei’s, which had, of late years, 
been carried on to so great an extent under the name 
of “ pairing off.” The j)eople lived for thirty years 
midc*r the old Constitution without any necessity ari¬ 
sing for a provision like this, reapiiring a majority of all 
the members elected to pass a bill, because, during all 
that time, members felt it to be their duty to be always 
in their seats attending to the interests of the State. 
But, within a few years past, “ reform has been intro¬ 
duced into the modes of legislation as well as into so¬ 
cial life, and that reform was, when a member wished 
to b(? ab.seiit, for his pleasure or on business, to “ pair 
off,” by which means they have felt licensed to go home 
during a session and neglect their duties. By the 
adoption of this provision ho believed tjjis modern 
“ reform” p)raclice of “pairing off” would be abolish¬ 
ed. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. I am a decided friend of 
the majority principle, and therefore I am in favor of 
.so modifying this provision of the section as to estab¬ 
lish a majority (juorum. But it seems to me that we 
Jire abf ut to depart from the “ majority principle” and 
give to a minority the entire control in the Legislature. 
Generally speaking, it is not a correct principle to ar¬ 
gue from a statement of “ extreme cases,” but in the 
discussions upon provisions which are to make up the 
organic law of tlie State, we may refer to extreme 
cases in order to [)rovide against the recurrence of the 
same. Take the [)resent organi/ation of the Gcnieral 
Assembly, con.^isling of .30 Senators and 72 Represent¬ 
atives. In the House, 37 is a majority of all elected, 
but sir, according to the provision which we are urged 
to engraft upon tne new constitution, 37 members are 
absolutely necessary to pass every money bill or law 
making appropriations for any object whatever. Sup- 
po.'-e that one member of the House should be disabled 
by the act of God, from attending to his duties. Sup¬ 
pose the death of a member, pending the session, or on 
the passage of an important bill, and su{)poso 3G mem¬ 
bers are in favor of its passage and 35 against it—you 
cannot pass the bill, no matter how necessary to the 
welfare of the State—no matter though the failure to 
pass it should stop the wheels of government. There 
stands your constitutional provision and you are literal¬ 
ly tied “ hand and foot.” In a case like that, 35 mem¬ 
bers, a minority of the House, can suspend all legisla¬ 
tion defeat the passage of any bill, and that too, I wish 
gentlemen to notice, without the necessity of a “ se- 
session ;” they may .sit (piietly in their seats and by the 
simple o[)eration of the [)rovision we are now asked to 
adopt, hold tlie whole legislative department still and 
powerless,—not liy any aggressive or violent acts, but 
by simply refusing to act, whereby as much mischief 
may be done as by the most treasonable acts. 

The gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock,] 
hope.^', by this provision, to put an end to the disrepu¬ 
table practice of “ pairing off,” but he will find that 
his otiject will be as elfectually gained by the provision 
expressed in the line abovi;. The call for the “yeas 
and nays ” will, you may depend upon it, have the ef¬ 
fect of keeping members in their places—it is an awful 
thing to be absent during a call of the “yeas and nays.” 

I am told iliat, in the case of the death of a memlier, 
the (ioveriior has the jiower to order an election to till 
the vacancy. But will you so construct your Legi.sla- 
tive department that an important measure may be de¬ 
layed until the slow process of an election to fill a va- 
caiK y can be gone through with 1 

The amendment [Mr. R^.nnky’s] was disagreed to. 

Mr. OTIS moved to strike out the words “ efficient 
means” in the same section, as surplusage. Disagreed 
to. 

.Mr. S.MITH of Warren moved to strike out the 


word “correct” where it is used in reference to the 
“journal” of the two branches; it was to be presumed 
that if a journal was kept, it would be correctly kept. 
Disagreed to. 

On motion of Mr. STANBBRY, the word “question ’ 
was striken out and the word “vote ” substituted. 

Mr. BROWN of Athens moved to strike out the 
words “any two” and insert the words “one fifth of,” 
where it is provided that before the question is taken 
on the final passage of the bill, the “ yeas and nays 
shall be ordered u[>on the call of “ any two” members. 

Mr. MORRIS was opposed to the motion; it was fre¬ 
quently the case that members desired to record their 
votes at the preliminary stages in the passage oi a biil. 

The motion was disagreed to. 

The CHAIRMAN read section 0, providing that once 
in two years the public printing should be let out to 
the lowest responsible bidder. 

Mr. NASH moved to strike out “ two years ” anti in¬ 
sert “ three years,” remarking that it was necessary to 
fix the time long enough to induce printers who might 
wish to bid for the State work, to set up an independ¬ 
ent establishment at the capital. 

Mr. MANON ])roposed to amend the section so as to 
provide that a State Brinter shall be elected quadren¬ 
nially by the electors of the State, to do the public 
printing at prices previously fixed bylaw. He was 
opposed, entirely, to this “jobbing” system—to this 
plan of letting out the work to the lowest bidder. He 
had tried it in his private affairs and always found that 
it worked disastrously. There was no economy in it. 
He wished the people to elect their printer and have 
the privilege of jiaying him fair prices. 

Mr. GREGG did not see why the printer, of all 
others, should be singled out by the framers of the 
new constitution, and a mark set upon him. It was 
not pi’oposed to “ let out ” the writing in the offices of 
the Secretary, Auditor, and Treasurer of State, to the 
“ low'est bidder.” It was not proposed to let out the 
work of any office in the State to the “ lowest bidder,” 
save and excepting the work of the office of “ State 
Brinter.” Why should the printer be singled out to 
be laid under the ban of this Convention? He would 
move to strike out the whole section. 

Mr. LEECH moved to amend the amendment, [Mr.* 
Manon’s,] by making the ti-rm two years instead of 
four. He was in favor of short terms of office. Disa¬ 
greed to. 

Mr. LARSH moved to amend by adding “ and at the 
same time to elect a State paper maker. (A laugh.) 

Disagreed to. 

The question recurring on Mr. Manon’s motion to 
amend, a division of the question was called for, and 
the same turning first on striking out, the Convention 
refused to strike out. 

The CHAIRMAN then read section 10, providing 
that any member of the Legislature shall have the pri¬ 
vilege of entering his protest against the action of the 
majority, upon the journal. 

Air. HUMBHREVTLLE moved to amend by insert¬ 
ing after the word “shall,” the words “ without altera¬ 
tion, commitment or delay;” which w'as agreed to. 

After some further amendments and motions to 
amend, by xMessrs. Dorsey, King, Mitchell, Horton 
and Lidey, the section was passed, and on motion of 
Mr. Hitchcock of Geauga the committee rose and re¬ 
ported progress. 

The BRESIDBNT remarked tliat a communication 
had been sent to him for his action, which should, prop¬ 
erly, have been sent to him to be laid before the Con¬ 
vention. He would lay it before the body. 

To Col. Wm Medill, 

Fresidtru of the Convention. 

As the Reporter to the Convention has refused to furnish me 
with any of the proceedings of your Convention for this week, 
except from the columns of the Ohio State Journal, the day after 
they appear there—1 hereby request you to have them sent to me, 
so that I can lulfii, promptly, my contract with your bod-. My 
hand^ will in a few minute.s be out of copy. 

Very respectfully, 

S. MEDARY, Printer to the Conve'Hion. 









CONVENTION llEPORTS 


201 


On motion of Mr. RANNEY, said communication was 
referred to a select committee of live, Messrs. Rannev, 
Earu, King, IIart.an and Perkins. 

The PRESIDENT also laid defore the Convention a 
communication fi'om the chief Reporter, to the ed’ect 
that the publishers of the Republicanner of Cincinnati, 
and also meWestboleo^ this city, had declined the pub¬ 
lication of the debates and proceedings of the Conven¬ 
tion in the German language, for the price which the 
Reporter was authorized to propose. 

Mr. REEMELIN said that he desired to svdjmit a 
few remarks upon the subject broaclicd by the'eport 
just read, but he would defer them, until after re¬ 
cess, since he noticed a strong disposition to take a re¬ 
cess. 

[Criesover all parts of the House. Now, proceed.] 

1 will then, with the leave of the Convention, state 
briefly the facts as they exist in reference to the Ger¬ 
man printing. I do not do so to defend my own course 
or that of the Convention, for it needs none at my hands; 
but I desire to state facts, and to let them speak for 
themselves. 

When we arrived here, we found a law upon the 
statute book, providing for the publicatioji of our de¬ 
bates and proceedings in the Ohio Statesman and State 
Journal—the price to be paid for such publication to 
be 25 cents per 1000 ems jointly, or 12^ to each. 

No provision had been made for German printing, 
and that defect, for obvious reasons of State policy, ami 
as subsequent events showed, the Convention also was 
anxious to supply. The first question which arose in 
the minds of all and in my own too, was, whether we 
had the power under the law, and if we had, whether 
we should do it. Many doubted the power. I did not. 
Some doubted the expediency; but we all, with the ex¬ 
ception of but a few members, voted for the printing in 
German. 

The next question that arose, was, what terms we 
could under the circumstances offer to the publishers 
of German newspapers? Could we vote for more than 
what the English costs? The English [>rinting costs 
25 cents per 1000 ems, and it became obvious to all, 
that if the German printing would cost more than the 
English it would be defeated. I freely acknowledge, 
that I shared the common understanding, that if done, 
the German publication should not cost more tlian the 
English. It was low to be sure, but wo did not fix that 
price, nor had we any hand in the acceptance under it 
by the papers here. We found the terms in the law; 
we could not alter them. 

The next question was, whether at these terms we 
could get the German printing. 

To ascertain that, I conferred freely with the pub¬ 
lishers of the “ Westbote ” here, and with the two pa¬ 
pers in Cincinnati, the Republicanner (Whig) and the 
Volksblatt (Democrat.) I found, that while some 
doubt existed, whether the paper here would or 
could accept, the two papers in Cincinnati would and 
could accept. 

I therefore, to bring the matter to an issue, for it 
was high time to act, offered the folio win" resolutions : 

Resolved, That the Reporter for this Convention be, and he is 
hereby authorized and directed to enter into arrangements with 
one or more of the German newspapers of this State, for the dai¬ 
ly and weekly publication in their columns of the proceedings 
and debates of this Convention, as published in the Ohio States 
man and Ohio State Journal: provided, however, that the cost to 
the State of such publication shall not exceed that of the papers 
befo rementioned. 

Resolved, That the paper or papers entering into such arrange¬ 
ment with the Reporter of this Convention, be, and they are 
hereby authorized to publish the proceedings and debates of this 
Convention, as tirst published in the respective paper or papers, 
on their own private account, in pamphlet or book form, or both, 
as they deem proper. 

The resolutions spe.uk for themselves, one or more is 
the term there employed. It authorized the Reporter, 
and directed him to make the arrangements with cnc 
or more of the German newspapers in the 8tate. That 
ofiicer was the proper person; he was impartial, and 
the powers being full, he could have made the arrange¬ 


ments either with tlie paper here alone at 25 cents per 
1000 ems, or with the two papers in Cincinnati joint¬ 
ly, and I now state, with a full view of the whole 
transaction before me, reviewing it again and again in 
my own mind, and duly reflecting upon the wh )le 
gnmnd, that had my resolutions passed, the German 
printing would have been accomplished. 

1 say this distinctly, and I will prove it. I will read 
the letters I received upon the subject, so far as they 
relate to this subject. 

Extract of a letter dated— 

Cincinnati, May 13,1850. 

The official publication of the Convention proceedings in the 
German language wouid not only be a glorious example for the 
I’uture, but the Germans would thereby be placed, for once, upon 
equal footing with the English siieaking part of the population. 
Taking this view of the matter, I do not regard the said publica- 
tionas a mere pecuniary, business transaction; and I should be 
willing to undertake, at any price, the publication in the daily and 
weekly Volksblatt, as well as also in pamphlet form. For the 
translation, I should, under the circumstances, ask nothing, and 
I should personally attend to that part of the labor. 

12l^c then, per 1000 ems, for the publication in the daily and 
weekly Volksblatt,—3.5c per 1000 ems in the book and pamphlet 
form, and 35c per token, press work, for parnphlels, or less if you 
will have it so. STEPILIN MOLITOR. 

The following telegraphic dc8[)atch w'as sent by 
Reinhardt & Fieser to Mr. Molitor: 

“Will you go into an arrangement for publishing debate's of 
Convention ? You print three thousand copies weekly for us. 

REINHARDT & FIESER.*’ 

To this Mr. Molitor replied through me: 

“ Any official notice of the Convention will be promptly attend¬ 
ed to at any price. Give this as answer to Reinhardt & Fieser. 

STEPHAN MOLITOR.’’ 

This was received by me on the day on which the 
final vote was taken. 

Extract of a letter dated 

Cincinnati, May 13,1850. 

We have been asked what we would ask for the publication of 
the Convention proceedings in our daily and weekly edition, and 
we hereby inform you that we could publish the same as above 
designated, including cost of Jtranslation, for 22c per 1000 ems. 

It would be very agreeable to us it we could obtain this work. 

SCHMIDT & HARRH. 

The following is added as a postscript: 

1 will add, that 1 shall willingly accept any arrangement that 
you can make for us. CllAd. F. ScHMlDT. 

Who doubts, that if my resolutions had passed either 
the paper here, alone, or the two papers in Cincinnati 
would have accepted the terms proposed in my resolu¬ 
tions ? 

1 stated the contents of the lettcr.s in debate—I felt 
it my duty to do so. I had no right to conceal them, 
and if their contents have prevented higher prices be¬ 
ing allowed than 25c per 1000 ems, as has been stated 
in some papers, it is a legitimate result, which neither 
I nor the Convention could control. I believe how¬ 
ever, and my be'ief is lou'ided upon recorded votes, 
and free expressions of members, both privately and 
publicly, that under no circumstances could resolutions 
for German [uinting have passed, if its cost exceeded 
that of the English printing! 

What defeated my resolutions, and thereby the only 
real feasible plan to accomplish the object in view ? It 
was the misapprehension which had in some way got 
hold of the minds of some members, that my resolu¬ 
tions were intended to take the print ng from the paper 
here. How that misapprehension could have arisen— 
why I should do anything against the paper here—and 
why the plain meaning of my resolutions should have 
been so misconstrued, is a mystery to me. I have 
never said, done or thought anything which might by 
even the most forced construction be erected into such 
an idea. I have ever been on the most friendly terms 
with the publishers here. I showed them the resolu¬ 
tions before I oflercd them, and while they did not 
entirely agree to its provisions, they certainly did not 
seriously object to their contents. 

But that misapprehension did exist—it showed itseil 
as soon as I ofiered my resolutions, and the etiect was, 
that the resolutions were committed to a .select com¬ 
mittee of three, consisting of Judge Swan, Mr. Brick- 








202 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


KNSDERFER and myself. The committee met, exam¬ 
ined the resolutions, and I am certainly right when 1 
say that no one of that committee would have done 
anything to the disadvantage or injury of the paper 
. here. Judge Swan had previously made a direct mo¬ 
tion in favor of that paper. After full examination the 
committee unanimously agreed to report the resolu¬ 
tions back, with the slight amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Warren [Mr, Smith] “not exceeding 
two,” still leaving the Reporter free to contract with 
one or two. But the resolutions were again opposed, 
. and a motion made to lay them on the table, which was 
defeated. The misapprehension already referred to, 
still existed, and it became obvious that the resolutions 
might be defeated, unless the motion to recommit to a 
select committee of five was acceded to. My col¬ 
league, Mr. Holmes, therefore acceded to the commit¬ 
ment, and they were recommitted to a select commit¬ 
tee of five, Mr. Sawyer being chairman. That commit¬ 
tee did not report (or a few days, and during that time 
I was caffed home on account of sickness in my fami¬ 
ly. While in Cincinnati, I had a personal interview 
with the publishers of the two papers named in Cin- 

• cinnati, and I was confirmed in my previous im¬ 
pressions, that these two papers would and could do 
the work on the terms of the resolutions preposed by 
me. 

When the committee reported, they did not report 
back my resolution, but they reported resolutions of 
their own, for which I am not responsible. The resolu¬ 
tion they reported compelled the reporter to tender the 
. aiTangement to the paper here and to one in Cincinnati. 
I declared at the time, that the Convention having 
taken the matter out of my hands, I would have no 
lurther lot or part in arranging the matter. T was fear¬ 
ful that it would defeat the whole object, and lhatdi 
viding the papers as was contemplated would prevent 
the acceptance by either of them. Still I had some 
hope, that some arrangement might still be effected.— 
That hope is blasted by the report now made. I am 
. sorry for it, but I have no share or lot in the failure, 
and repeat now, what I said before, that the German 
p’ inting would have been accomplished, if my resolu¬ 
tion had passed, and it was the misapprehension (I pur¬ 
posely use that mild phrase, because I desire to give no 
offence,) I have referred to, that defeated the whol 

• of it. I did not draw the final resolutions—I did not 
like their tenor, and I only voted for them ultimately, 

' because the matter had been placed in such a position, 
that I could not do otherwise. The result is before us, 
and 1 extremely regret the failure. 

I voted for them because their passage was at least 
an admission of the justice of printing in German.— 
For this every fairminded German will thank the Con¬ 
vention, for only five voted against German printing. 
The abstract principle at least was saved. 

These are the facts! They speak for themselves. I 
have in my own mind reviewed fully and candidly my 
own conduct, and I do not regret a single step I have 
taken. I have endeavored to effect an object near to 
my heart, from convictions of justice. It has been 
defeated, not by any agency of mine, but through a 
jealously, which is not justified by anything that has 
taken place. I for one am here willing to let the met- 
ter rest. 

A few words in conclusion, in reference to the 
charge that this Convention has been trying to put 

• down the price of labor. The charge must either be 
made from an ignorance of all the circumstances of the 

> case and of the character of the men composing this 
Convention, or else it is the cry of an interested man, 
who seeks to make a false issue. No such intention 
exists in the breast of any member of this Convention, 
and only the imperative language of the law calling 
this Convention and the circumstances of the case, 
i^recluded the idea of paying more than 2.5 cents per 
t'lOOO ems. 

I cannot let this subject pass without paying a de¬ 


served tribute to the disinterested action of the two pa¬ 
pers in Cincinnati. They did not regard it as a mere 
pecuniary consideration. 

Mr. SAWYER said it appeared to him that the ob¬ 
ject had been to get the whole German publication 
done in Cincinnati, and at the same time it was evident 
that the German papers of that city had not a general 
circulation throughout the State. He could under¬ 
stand how the German jiapers of Cincinnati could {)ub- 
lish the debates for the low price offered—-by combin¬ 
ing together. He ihnught the intention of the gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton [Mr. Rkemelin] in discouraging 
the Convention from paying for the translation was to 
carry all the printing to Cincinnati, and to exclude the 
paper [the of this city. 

Mr. REBMELIN said; one word in explanation, with 
the leave of the Convention. [Several voices, “go on, 
go on.”] All I ask the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. 
Sawyer] to do is, to read calmly the resolutions I of¬ 
fered, and he will certainly see that he is in error. By 
the words “ one or more,” I could not and did not mean 
any paper but the paper here. My resolutions said 
nothing of translation, that would have to have been 
settled hereafter. They were fair in their character; 
they included nobody, they injured nobody ; and such 
is their plain tenor. I certainly did not think that any 
one paper had a prerogative or exclusive privilege to 
the German printing which this Convention might au¬ 
thorize. 

Mr. SAWYER. Then it is all right. 

On motion, the Convention took a recess. 

3 o’clock, P. M. 

Mr. BARBEE offered the following resolution, which 
was adopted: 

Resolved, That the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects in¬ 
quire into the expediency of inserting the following clause in the 
constitution, to wit: 

That no law shall be passed in this State, the observance of 
which would necessarily violate the Sabbath day. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER the Convention resolv¬ 
ed into a 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, 

Mr. HAWKINS in the chair. 

On the report of the committee on the Legislative 
Department. 

The CHAIRMAN announced that the committee had 
last under consideration section 10. 

There being no objections, the section was agreed to. 

Sec. 11. All vacancies which may happen in either House, 
shall as soon as possible be filled by an election, and the Govern¬ 
or sha 1 issue the necessary writs of election according to law. 

Mr. BARNETT of Preble moved to amend by stri¬ 
king out the 11th section and inserting “ when there is 
a vacancy in either House the Governor shall issue a 
writ of election to fill the same.” 

Mr. CODLINGS moved, as an amendment to the 
amendment: strike out the words “ as soon as possi¬ 
ble ;” which was agreed to. 

Mr. BARNETT then withdrew his amendment. 

Mr. BROWN of Athens moved to strike out the word 
“an,” ill the second line, so as to read, “ by election.” 
The motion w’as agreed to. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler moved to strike out the last 
three words of the section, and insert the words, “ pre¬ 
scribed by law.” 

A division of the question was called for, and the 
question then being on striking out, the House refused 
to strike out. 

Sec. 12. Senators and Representatives shall, in all cases ex¬ 
cept treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from 
arrest, during the session ot the General Assembly, and in go¬ 
ing to and returning from the same, and for any speech or de¬ 
bate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other 
place. 

No amendments being made, the committee passed 
to— 

Sec. 13. The proceedings of both Houses shall be public at all 
times, except in such cases as in the opinion of a majority of 
two-thirds of those present require secresy. 








CONVENTION REPOllTS. 


203 


Mr. STANTON moved strike out all after the word 
“ times,” in the first line. 

Mr. OTIS moved as an amendment to the amend¬ 
ment, to strike out the words “ majority of,” in the 
second line. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. STANTON objected to the terms of the section 
as it now stood by reason of its giving a number small¬ 
er than a quorum, the power to make the proceedings 
of the Legislature secret- Here they authoi'ized a 
number less than two-thirds to do what had not been 
done these fifty years. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga said the gentleman 
was a little mistaken. In 1812 it became necessary 
for the Legislature to sit in secret sesion in order to take 
steps for the prosecution of the war. He supposed the 
object of the committee in reporting this section was 
to make a provision for such an emergency, if it ever 
should arise. 

Mr. STANTON did not suppose that such an occa¬ 
sion would occur—he would withdraw his amend¬ 
ment, which was renewed by Mr. McCormick. 

Mr. ROBERTSON moved to amend by striking out 
the words “in such cases,” and inserting the words “du¬ 
ring war.” 

Mr. McCORMICK considered that there was no pro¬ 
priety in that portion of the section proposed to be strick¬ 
en out. He thought that such a contingecy as had 
been referred to, (the war 1812) would never in all hu¬ 
man probability recur. 

Mr. ROBERTSON wished to perfect his amendment 
by making it read, “except in times of war.” 

Mr. DORSEY thought it would be best to leave the 
section as it was, and let the good sense of the Legis¬ 
lature do as it thought best in regard to this matter. 

Mr. NASH moved to amend, by striking out the 
words, “at all times,” in the first line, and inserting 
the word “which,” in lieu of “as,” in the second line. 

A division of the question being called for, the ques¬ 
tion then turned on striking out, which was carried. 

The other amendments were withdrawn. 

Sec. 14. Neither house shall, without the consent of the oth¬ 
er, adjourn for more than two days, nor to any other place than 
that in which the two Houses shall be in session. 

Mr. BENNETT moved to insert, after the word 
“days,” the words, “Sundays excepted. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to amend the amendment, 
by substituting the words, “Sundays exclusively;” 
which was agreed to, and then the amendment was 
also agreed to. 

Sec. 15. Bills may originate in either House, but may be al¬ 
tered, amended or rejected in the other; provided, however, that 
all bills providing for the raising of revenue or for any appro 
priation of public money, shall originate in the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives. 

On motion of Mr. SMITH of Wyandot, all that por¬ 
tion of the section after the word “ other,” in the sec¬ 
ond line, was stricken out. ) 

Sec. 16. Every bill shall be fully and distinctly read on three 
different days, unless in case of urgency three-fourths of the 
House in which the question shall be pending shall deem it ex¬ 
pedient to dispense with this rule, and every bill shall contain but 
one act, embrace but one object, which shall be clearly expressed 
on its title, and no law shall be revised or amended by reference 
to its title, but in such case the act or part of an act revised or 
amended, shall be engratted into the the new act, and published 
at length. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga moved to strike out 
all after the word “ title,” in the fifth line. 

Mr. MASON moved to amend the amendment by 
striking out all after the word “ revised,” in the fifth 
line and inserting the following: “ amended, changed 
or repealed without a plain de.scriptive reference there¬ 
to in the act it revises, amends, changes or repeals.” 

The object of the amendment was to obviate the in¬ 
convenience arising from the incorporation of this sec¬ 
tion into the constitution. The section as it stood, re¬ 
quired the incorporation and publication of the laws 
repealed, into the repealing law. Thus they would 
have a vast amount of what was not law blended up 


with what was law. The practice at present was, at 
one general sweep to repeal all laws coming within the 
purview of the repealing act, without a specific refer¬ 
ence at all. The proposition which he submitted, 
merely required a plain descriptive reference to the 
laws repealed without embodying them in the new act. 

Mr. BENNETT of Tuscarawas concurred in the 
necessity of some means being adopted by, which the 
people might know what was law and what was not 
law. In fact no man could understand what the law 
was, unless he wa.s a professional man, in consequence 
of the constant change in the statutes. Of all things 
the people desired that there should be an explicit 
mode established, by which they could ascertain how 
the law stood. 

Mr. REEMELIN observed that the section proposed 
to be amended was copied from the California consti¬ 
tution with the exception of the word “ engraft,” in¬ 
stead of “ re-enact.” 

Mr. HUMPHREVILL considered the provision 
contained in the section s remedy for the uncer¬ 
tainty which now existed as to what laws were in 
force or what laws were repealed. He, as well as oth¬ 
ers, could refer to a multitude of laws containing revi¬ 
sory clauses, without one word of reference to the laws 
revised. 

Mr. STANBERY wished to learn from what consti¬ 
tution this section was copied ? 

Mr. SAWYER replied—from the constitution of Cal¬ 
ifornia. 

Mr. STANBERY considered that such provision 
might suit % new State that had not 48 volumes of laws. 
According a settled rule in the construction of stat¬ 
utes; it was the last law which speaks—took the place 
of all other laws on the same subject. 

But this provision changed that rule, and sets every 
thing like certainty afloat. According to this new rule 
the last law did not prevail over all former laws on the 
same subject, but only over those which may happen 
to be specially referred to. ^The consequence was that 
we would never know whether the last statute fixed 
the law, until we had looked over all prior statutes to 
see that none had been omitted in the repealing clause. 
If any prior law had been omitted, it remains unre¬ 
pealed, and we had a direct repugnancy and no rule 
of construction by which to settle it. 

Mr. SAWYER considei’ed it an extremely necessary 
provision. The object was, that when laws were re¬ 
pealed or amended, they should not be so repealed by 
a mere reference to the old laws, but that they should 
be spread on ♦he statute book so that all could see them. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot coincided with the honora¬ 
ble Chairman in regard to the necessity of the provis¬ 
ion. There was great difficulty at present in ascertain¬ 
ing what was the law. In effect they were obliged to 
refer from amendment to amendment, a process both 
tedious and expensive. 

By consent the section was passed over informally. 

Sec. 17. The style of the laws of this State shall be—“ Be it en¬ 
acted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio.” 

Which was agreed to. 

Sec. 18. The General Assembly shall by law fix the term of 
office of all officers not otherwise fixed in the constituUoiq and 
determine upon and regulate the compensation of all sucm officers; 
provided, that no change therein shall affect the incurnbent then 
in office for the term of office for which he shall have been elect¬ 
ed or appointed. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to strike out the whole sec' 
tioii. There were but two subjects embraced in the 
former part of it, and these he considered were clearly 
within the purview of every legislative body, lo pro¬ 
vide in the constution, that the Legislature shall fix 
the terms and regulate the compensation ol all ofliceis 
not fixed and regulated by the constitution was mere 
surplusage. But the last proposition he considered 
should not be entertained for a moment. He showed 
how it might restrict the power of the Legislature in 
the matter of changing Recorders’ and Sheriffs’ fees. 










204 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


besides other things which should be left open for the 
exercise of legislative discretion. 

Mr. SAWYER, after reading the section through, 
said: It occurred to him, that, without some such pro¬ 
vision as this, the members of the Legislature might 
change their own compensation, or the salary of the 
Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Sheriff, or any 
other officer of the State. They had done so hereto¬ 
fore ; and this was the very thing he wished to prevent. 
When a man takes office with his eyes open—under¬ 
standing the salary, he desired to take from the Legis¬ 
lature the power to increase or diminish it—to make 
the fortune or beggar the incumbeJit. 

Mr. RANNEY supposed the case of a Sheriff elected 
for two years in one county, and another for the same 
term next year in another county; and the Legisla¬ 
ture intervening, to change the fees allowed to Sheriffs 
—the consequence 'would be, that the Sheriff of one 
county would be receiving fees of one kind, the Sheriff 
of another county would be receiving fees of another 
kind. 

Mr. SAWYER. And that would be perfectly right. 

Mr. HU v'PHREVILLE. It seemed to him that the 
section was defective; and that it should go further and 
authorize the Legislature to regulate the manner of tlie 
appointment of all officers created by lavv, and not so 
provided for in the constitution. 

Mr. SAW YER. The gentleman would find that was 
done in section 32. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga, said: he intended 
to vole for the motion of the gentleman from Trumbull, 
but, according to a rule of the Convention, if that mo¬ 
tion fail, it would not be in order afterwards to move to 
strike out any part of the section. lie wculd there¬ 
fore move now to strike out all after the word “ offi¬ 
cers,” in the fourth line. He would have no objection 
to a clause here, which should provide so far as a com¬ 
pensation is made by way of salary, it shall not be in¬ 
creased or diminished, as was the provision in the old 
Constitution—though he could see no good reason why, 
if the Legislatui'e should see proper to raise the salary 
of any incumbent of office, it would be necessary to 
restrict their power to do so. He could see no good 
I'eason why an individual elected to the Bench of the 
Supreme Court in 1850, should receive for his whole 
term one salary, while another individual elected to 
the same office one year afterwards, should receive ten, 
fifteen, or twenty per cent. more. At the same time, 
he saw no impropriety in restricting the power of the 
Legislature with i-eference to the reduction of salaries. 
But the original section was applicable to all civil offi¬ 
cers—to making out fee bills and taxing costs in coiuT 
—the rule would have to be determined according to 
the age of the officers. It did seem to his mind, that 
its operation would be impracticable as well as unjust. 

Mr. MASON desired that the question should be 
again stated. 

The CHAIRMAN. The motion was to strike out 
all after the word ‘‘ officers,” in the 3d line; which 
was agreed to—affinnative 41, negative 36. 

Mr. RANNEY withdrew his motion. 

xMr. REEMELIN proposed further to amend, by in¬ 
serting in the second line after the word “ officers,” the 
words, “ and determine upon, and regulate their com¬ 
pensation,”—striking out all that portion of the section 
following. 

Mr. SAWYER would like that the honorable rncm- 
b( r from Cincinnati would state the difference between 
his proposition, and the section as it stands wilhout 
his modification. 

Mr. REEMELIN. As the section now stood, the 
Legislature would have the right to fix the term, Ac., 
of all officers not fixed in the Constitution; but they 
would have no power, to fix the term and determine 
the compensation of any other officer. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said he had drawn up an amend- 
mei.'t to the first part of the section—which he would 
read for information. Strike out all preceding the 


word ‘‘ provided,” and insert, “ the General Assembly 
shall fix by law the term of office and the compensa¬ 
tion of officers not fixed in the Constitution. 

Mr. SMIT H of Warren proposed to amend the amend¬ 
ment by striking out therefrom the words ‘‘ and deter¬ 
mine upon,” which was agreed to—and then the amend¬ 
ment as thus amended was agreed to. 

Mr. STANBERY moved to strike out the whole of 
section 18 as amended. 

The CHAIRMAN having slated the question, 

Mr. STANBERY said : This is a new propositicni, not 
only unnecessary, but likely to be pernicious. It is cei- 
tainly not necessary to provide that the General Asseni- 
bly shall fix the terms of oflicers and provide for their 
compensation, in cases where the terms and compensa¬ 
tion are not fixed by the Constitution. The Genei al As¬ 
sembly will of course have that power, without any 
specific grant. We might with as much propriety pio- 
vide that the General Assmnbly shall pass neces.sai’y 
laws for the punishment of crimes. 

And now I submit whether it would not be perni¬ 
cious to compel the General Assembly to fix the com¬ 
pensation of all officers. 1 will ask the gentleman from 
Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer] withwhom I sincerely sympa¬ 
thize for the sad work we are making of his report I 
will ask him whether the marshal of a town is an offi¬ 
cer within tlie meaning of this section? 

Mr. SAWYER. Yes. 

Mr. STANBERY. He is such an officer. Then no 
authority could fix the compensation of a town mar¬ 
shal but the Legislature. If this change in our con¬ 
stitution be adopted, I think that we are likely to have 
excessive legislation, if we have never had it hereto¬ 
fore. 

Mr. SAWYER said he thought the gentleman from 
Franklin was right now about striking out the whole 
of it. [A laugh.] There was one difficulty however, 
in the mind of that gentleman, which he did not appre¬ 
hend. He considered the fees of a town marshal, or 
mayor of any of the little villages of the country, should 
be fixed by law, as they were fixed at present: say a 
marshal shall receive the same fees with a constable', 
and a mayor the same fees with a justice of the peace. 
He thought that in the present mutilated form of the 
section, it had better be stricken out, but he gave no¬ 
tice to gentlemen, that before getting over it thus ea¬ 
sily, he was determined to have the yeas and nays up¬ 
on the original section. 

After some conv'ersation between Mr. McCormick 
and Mr. Stanbery, the question was taken upon the 
motion of the latter gentleman, and the section as 
amended was stricken out. 

Sec. 19. No Senator or Representative shall, during the term 
for which he shall have been elected, nor during the period of 
one year subsequent to the expiration of his term of office, be 
elected or appointed to any civil office under this State, which 
shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have 
been increased during the term for which he was elected, nor 
shall any such Senator or Representative during such period be 
appointed or elected by the General Assembly to any other office 
whatever. 

Mr. OTIS proposed to amend in the eighth line, by 
striking out the words, “ such period,” and inserting 
the words, “ his term of office,” and also by striking 
out, ill ihe eighth and ninth lines, the words, “by the 
General Assembly.” The first amendment was agreed 
to. 

Mr. BENNETT of Tuscarawas said : he apprehended 
that the gentleman from Summit could not have consid¬ 
ered the effect of his amendment. He would ask the 
gentleman, if being a member of the Genend Assembly 
should disqualify him from holding the office of school 
district director ? For if his amendments prevail, the 
section will read—“ He shall not be elected to any office 
whatever.” He apprehended there was no necessity 
for going to such a length as that. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross said: he had a more serious ob¬ 
jection to the amendment, and to the whole section. 
It seemed to his mind to conflict with the provisions of 










CONVENTION EEPOETS 


205 


the Constitution of the United Slates. The effect of 
this proposition was to exclude any gentleman elected to 
either branch of the General Assembly, from being 
elected to the Senate of the United States, during the 
term for which he may be elected. Heunderetood the 
power to make a Senator of the United States, to be 
derived from the Constitution of the United States. In 
that instrument, (which he had before him) in the 3d 
section of the 1st arti-le, it was provided, “that two 
United States Senators, from each State, shall be cho¬ 
sen by the Legislature thereof, for six years.” In the 
3d clause of the same section, it was provided that “no 
person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained 
to the age of 30 years, and been 9 years acitizen of the 
United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an 
inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.” 
In the first clause of the 4th section it was prescribed 
that “the times, places and manner of holding elections 
for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in 
each State, by the Legislature thereof; but the Con¬ 
gress may at any time by law, make, and alter such 
regulations, except as to the places of choosing Sena¬ 
tors.” Now, he understood that all the discretion left 
to the General Assembly was, that they may fix the 
time, place and manner of holding these elections, but 
that the balance was left tobe regulatedby act of Con¬ 
gress. It was not competent by your constitution to im¬ 
pose any additional restriction, or disqualify any gen¬ 
tleman from holding this office, because he may be a 
member of the General Assembly. You might disquali¬ 
fy a man for any other place, on acconnt of age or resi¬ 
dence ; but you could not add any additional qualifica¬ 
tion to those prescribed in the Constitution of the 
United States; or rather you could not impose any addi¬ 
tional disqualification. For if you could do so in one in¬ 
stance you might in every other. He gave an illustra¬ 
tion. The Constitution of the United States prescribed 
that an U.S. Senator should be 30 years of age; could 
you in your constitution prescribe that your Senator 
need be no more than twenty-five years of age? By 
no means: because it would conflict with the para¬ 
mount authority. But could you fix his age at 35 years. 
No: because that too would be inconsistent with the 
provision of the constitution of the United States.— 
Was not that the true rule of construction ? In con¬ 
st niing any statute, we understood it, as well by what 
the law has not said, as by what it has said. He un¬ 
derstood the rule of construing statutes to be, that 
where a matter is expressly included, it excludes every 
thing not provided for belonging to the same class. 
For *^Expressio unis exclusio allerius ;” so also this pro¬ 
vision would exclude any gentleman elected by the 
General Assembly from serving in the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives of the United States. It was very clear 
that we have no right to make any law, where the 
Constitution of the United States prescribed the rule. 
If your amendment were to be adopted, every mem¬ 
ber of the General Assembly of Ohio would be exclu¬ 
ded from holding any office under the government of 
the United States. He could not be elected to theof- 
fice of President of the United States, Vice President 
or United States Senator. The effect of it would be to 
withhold from the members of the General Assembly 
the enjoyment of every offic ■>, so far as the elective 
power ol the State was concerned.—And now he put 
it seriously to gentlemen, whether this subject was not 
worthy their consideration. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot considered that gentlemen 
were making a large matter out of a very small one, 
and that the difficulty might be obviated by merely 
striking out the word “ other,” in the last line, after the 
word “ any,” and inserting the words “ State or coun¬ 
ty*” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD did not think that the amendment 
of the gentleman from Summit [Mr. Otis] would pre¬ 
vail ; and if in order he would move to strike out all 
after the word “ elected,” in the seventh line. 

Mr. STILLWELL said he should vote for the amend¬ 


ment of the gentleman from Richland, [Mr. Kirkwood] 
but lest that amendment should not prevail, it was ne¬ 
cessary to consider whether the amendment of the 
gentleman from Summit should be adopted. He 
thought it imjiortaiit that it should not be adoted. If 
we understand the reason why no member of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly should be appointed to any office, it 
was important that such a provision should be con¬ 
tained in the constitution. But certainly there could 
be no reason why a man might not be elected to any 
other office by the people. There was certainly no 
more danger that, in that capacity, he would act in 
such a way as to preclude him from the right of hold¬ 
ing office, than in any other. Such a circumstance 
should not deprive him of the opporiunity of obtaining 
office, or the people from the right of commanding his 
services. But according to the provisions of the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Summit, the members of 
the General Assembly would be deprived of the right 
of accepting any office—it might be a judgeship—and 
the people would be deprived of their right to his ser¬ 
vices. This was a single instance; his illustrations 
might be extended to many others. There was no 
good to be attained by the amendment. 

Mr. MITCHELL. His object was to call the atten¬ 
tion of the committee to the effect of the amendment 
of the gentleman from Summit, in another point of 
view. He supposed if the words indicated were 
stricken out, no member of the General Assembly could 
be elected to any office unless he resigned ; and he be¬ 
lieved it was now understood that the member should 
hold his office till his successor should be elected and 
qualified—at all events till he should be elected. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler said he had prepared an 
amendment which would obviate the difficulty sugges¬ 
ted by several gentlemen. But there was one point of 
his amendment that would go further than might be 
acceptable to some. He should not propose it now, for 
the truth was, he did not know exactly how the ques¬ 
tion stood. His proposition would be, that no Sena¬ 
tor or Representative should, during the term ior 
which he was elected, and for one year thereafter, be 
appointed or elected to any civil office of honor, trust 
or profit in this State, or to any office which should be 
created during his term of service in the General As¬ 
sembly ; and to this he would add, except such officers 
as are elected by the people. With reference to the 
provision, excepting such officers as are elected by the 
people, he would say, there was a manifest propriety 
in prohibiting them by the terms of the constitution. 
Also, that no member of the Legislature should be 
appointed or elected to any office created by the Leg¬ 
islature while he was a member, or to any office whose 
emoluments have been increased during the period for 
which he was a member; there was a manifest propri¬ 
ety in a prohibition of this kind. For gentlemen all 
know, who had any experience whatever in legisla¬ 
tion, that the sympathies of members in favor of the 
candidate who might have belonged to their body, was 
generally so great as to cause such candidate to be 
successful, against almost any citizen of the State, who 
might offer at the same time, for the same office. But 
when, as it was now pi'oposed, the election of all those 
important offices were referred to the people tliem- 
selves, he could not see the same reason why these 
restrictions should be applied, so as to exclude a former 
member of the Legislature. For instance, the people 
of any county might select their very best man to rep¬ 
resent them in the Legislature, and they might at the 
same time instruct him to go for the creation of some 
office, demanded by their interests. In obedience to 
those instructions, their Representative might procure 
the passage ot a law creating such new office, and re¬ 
turn home and mingle again with his fellow citizens ; 
and being better qualified than any of his constituents, 
they might propose to take him up and invest him wi.h 
the office thus created. Bu.. oy the constitutional pro¬ 
vision now proposed to be adopted, thesepeople would 











206 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


be denied the exercise of this right; it would he say¬ 
ing to them, that they should not have the choice of 
candidates amongst the men of their county—that they 
should be deprived of the right of casting their voles 
for the man of their choice. He submitted whether 
this would be right. But now, if the member were 
guilty of anything wrong, in procuring the passage of 
the law creating such new office, the matter would be 
known to his constituents—they would at least have 
the best opportunity to discover it. He considered, 
therefore, that there should be nothing thrown in the 
way to prevent the people from electing to any office, 
any man they may see proper. The same necessity 
for restriction, it seemed to him, would not arise where 
the people elect, that would exist if the officer were 
tube elected by the Legislature, He presumed there 
would be no objection to the former part of his amend 
ment. It did not go cpiite so far as he intended it. It 
did not provide for the necessity of the case, embraced 
in the latter clause of the section as it now stood; 
but by a few words it could be brought into the sec¬ 
tion 

Mr. DORSEY. Comparing section 19, with the cor¬ 
responding section in the old constitution, (section 20) 
he considered that after the experience of 48 years, 
we had grown more wordy, if not more wise. (The 
gentleman here read the 20th section in the old consti¬ 
tution, commenting upon the phraseology, and com¬ 
paring the two sections throughout, giving his prefer¬ 
ence to the old section.) 

The question was now taken upon the adoption of 
the amendment of the gentleman from Summit [Mr. 
Otis,] and it was rejected. 

Mr, Kirkwood’s amendment, striking out the words 
“elected or,” in the 4th line, was now considered and 
adopted. 

After a few words by Mr. REEMELIN, in reply to 
Mr. Dorsey, the amendment of the latter gentleman 
was entertained by the Chair. 

Mr. CHAMBERS suggested that the amendment 
could be simplified by striking out certain words of the 
section under consideration, and so leaving it precisely 
in the words of the old constitution. 

Mr. DORSEY considered his proposition was much 
the most simple. He had full faith that the people 
would not elect any man. to any office, the emolu¬ 
ments of which had been increased for his own spe¬ 
cial benefit. 

Mr, HUMPHERVILLE said: If the Convention 
should refuse to strike out, it would preclude any furth¬ 
er amendment, proposing to strike out: therefore, be¬ 
fore the question was put, he desired to move to strike 
out from the fourth line, the words “elected or.” He 
made this motion, because he preferred to leave the 
people as free as possible, to elect any man to any office 
they may see fit. The word “appointed” remaining 
in the section, it would apply to every case of com¬ 
plaint which had heretofore in this argument, been re¬ 
ferred to. He had hitherto regulated his course of ac¬ 
tion in the matter of forming the new Constitution, 
(and he intended to continue to do so,) upon the hy¬ 
pothesis that the people should be left free to do what 
seemeth to them good, and to put no other restriction 
upon their action, than what may be absolutely neces¬ 
sary. 

The Convention refused to strike out the words. 

A division of the question being demanded on Mr. 
Dorsey’s motion, the committee refused to strike out: 
so the amendment was rejected. 

On motion by Mr, BENNETT, the committee now 
rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit 
again. 

The Convention then adjourned. 


THURSDAY, May 30, 1850. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Cheney. 

Mr. COOK. I have a memorial from William Caine 
and fifty three other citizens of Portage county, Ohio, 


asking that a provision be inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing the sale of ardent spirits. 

Upon the motion of the same gentleman, the memo¬ 
rial was referred to the committee on .Jurisprudence, 

Mr. COOK. I have a petition from Margaret C. Gar- 
rigues and forty other females and forty males, asking 
that the new constitution may secure to all its citizens 
equal rights and privileges, irrespective of complexion 
or race. 

I have also a petition from Esther Hayes and seven¬ 
ty-nine otlier females and eighty-eight males, residents 
of Stark county, asking that the new constitution may 
accord to all the members of our commonwealth equal 
rights political and social, without regard to sex or col¬ 
or. 

I have also a petition from R. G. Homers and thirty- 
eight other males and fifty females, residents of Stark 
county, Ohio, asking that the new constitution may ac¬ 
cord to all the members of our commonwealth equal 
rights, politi^^il and civil, without regard to sex or col¬ 
or. 

I have also a petition from Margarelta C. Garrigues 
and forty-two other females and thirty-five males, resi¬ 
dents of Stark county, Ohio, on the same subject. 

On motion of the same gentleman, these several pe¬ 
titions were referred to the commitee on Elective Fran¬ 
chise. 

Mr PECK. I have a petition from David E. How¬ 
ell and fifty-three other white male citizens of Belmont 
county, asking the Convention to prohibit any law au¬ 
thorizing the sale of or traffic in intoxicating drinks. 

Mr. KENNON. I have a petition from William Cum¬ 
mings and eighteen other citizens of Guernsey comity, 
Ohio, praying that a clause may be engrafted in tne 
new constitution prohibiting the Legislature from pass¬ 
ing any law legalizing the sale of intoxicating liquors. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the commit¬ 
tee on .Jurisprudence. 

Mr. KENNON. I have a petition from Harrison 
Massee and thirty other citizens of Belmont county 
praying, 

let. That all persons having any known African blood shall l)e 
prohibited from voting and holding any office, 

2nd. That they be prohibited from testifying in any cause 
where white persons are parties to the suit. 

3d. That no portion ot their property either real or personal 
shall be exempt from execution in cases where either the State of 
Ohio or white citizens are parties thereto. 

So much of the above petition as relates to suffrage 
was refeiTed to the committee on the Elective Fran¬ 
chise, the remainder to the committee on Jurispni- 
dence. 

Mr. STIDGER. I have here a petition from Abraham 
Bear and four other citizens of Ohio, praying that the 
new constitution may secure to every human being all 
the rights and privileges with which God invested them, 
irrespective of color, condition or sex. 

Upon motion of the same gentleman, the petition was 
referred to the committee on the Preamble and Bill of 
Rights. 

Mr. FIRESTONE. I have here a petition from 
James Patterson and ninety-nine other citizens of Ash¬ 
land county, Ohio, praying that no clause be admitted 
into the new constitntion, favoring either a bank of dis¬ 
count or deposit, but to abolish entirely that system of 
swindling, with which the people of this commonwealth 
have so long been cursed. 

Referred to the committee on Banks and the Curren¬ 
cy- 

Report number one of the committee on the Militia 
was then read a second time by its title and re-commit¬ 
ted to a committee of the whole Convention. 

Mr. PATTERSON. I move to take up resolution 
number 8. 

Agreed to. 

I move to amend the report by striking out the word 
“Judiciary,” in the first line of the resolution and in¬ 
sert the words “ Judicial Department.” 

Agreed to. 










CONVENTION REPORTS 


207 


The question then being taken on the adoption of the 
resolution, as amended, it was agreed to. 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

Upon motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention then 
resolved itself into committee of the whole, Mr. HAW¬ 
KINS in the Chair, upon the report of the committee 
on the Legislative Department. 

Sec. 20. “ No tax of any description whatever shall be levied 
or exacted, except in pursuance of law, and every law which im¬ 
poses, continues, increases or varies any tax, or which provides 
for the raising of revenue, shall state distinctly the object of the 
same, to which only it shall be applied.” 

Mr. CHAM BE RS. I move to amend that section by 
adding the following at the end of it: 

“Provided the Auditor of State shall be authorized by law, an 
nually, to levy a tax, sufficient to pay the interest on the public 
debt, so that the pledge to the public creditors and the faith of 
the State shall be preserved inviolate.” 

I have uttered this amendment in consequence of the 
objectioMB some gentlemen have made to this section, 
because it excludes the power of levy ng any tax ex¬ 
cept in pursuance of law. It is well known that at 
the time we commenced our public works, and we were 
under the necessity of borrowing money from foreign¬ 
ers, we gave a public pledge, by act of legislative au¬ 
thority, in relation to the payment of the interest upon 
these debts. I consider that pledge should be held sa¬ 
cred, and therefore I have ottei'ed this amendment. 

Mr. REEMELIN. If the gentleman will accept a 
slight modittcation, I will go with him. I have no idea 
of impairing the credit of the State in any manner. I 
am exceedingly anxious not to do this. I am anxious 
that the power which, under the old constitution, is ex¬ 
ercised by the General Assembly, as the power of tax¬ 
ation, shall still be exercised by the General Assembly, 
and not by the Auditor of State. If the gentleman will 
strike out the word “ law ” and insert “ by each General 
Assembly,” I have no objections to the clause, but on 
the contrary, should be decidedly in favor of it. There 
is no sentiment here that looks towards repudiation. I 
think that while we are content to live under this gov¬ 
ernment, no individual need be afraid that the people 
of Ohio will repudiate a dollar of their debt. The idea 
is preposterous, that such a people as ours will repudi¬ 
ate such a debt. Who has ever doubted that our Gen¬ 
eral Assembly would provide for its payment ? I hope 
the gentleman from Muskingum will so modify his 
amendment that all of us can unite with him in engraft¬ 
ing such a provision into our new constitution. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Objections have been made with 
regard to the stringency of this section. Now, in con¬ 
templation of the fact, that we are to have biennial ses¬ 
sions of the Legislature, we should agree in relation to 
provisions for the payment of our public debt. 1 have 
no doubt that every gentleman upon this floor, is desi¬ 
rous of having that debt punctually paid. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The amendment I offered makes 
it obligatory upon the General Assembly to provide for 
its payment. 

A suggestion being here made that this section, as 
well as the 21st, be passed over informally— 

Mr. SAWY ER. I would object to it for one reason, 
that if vve adopt the plan ol passing over certain sec¬ 
tions until some other committee may have reported, 
we shall pass no report before the close of the session. 
If gentlemen had been a little more industrious such a 
difficulty as this wouKI not have occurred—the reports 
of other committees might have been in by this time. 

Mr. LOUDON. 1 thought that when we came to 
this section I would move to strike it out altogether. 
It seems to me that this matter might be properly re¬ 
ferred to some other of tlie committees, the committee, 
for instance, on Taxation and Finance. In reply to the 
gentleman from Auglaize, let me say that when we who 
belongtoother coimnitteesshall have reported.our report 
will be so matured, and our business so well done, that, 
in two weeks time, we will be enabled to go over more 
than four sections. (Laughter.) 

The question being then taken upon passing over the 
two sections informally, it was agreed to. 


Sec. 22. “An accurate and detailed statement of tlie receipts 
and expenditures of the public money, and of the names of the 
ersons who shall have received the same; and the amount they 
ave received, shall annually be published.” 

Mr. NASH. I move to strike out in the second line 
all between the word “ money,” in the second Lne. 
down to the word ” shall” in the fourth line. 

If this section stands, and there shall be annually 
published a complete transcript of all the entries in the 
books of the Auditor and Treasurer, it would make a voi- 
umeof 500,or600,or 1,000 pages; for you would have to 
incorporate into such a volume the smallest sums that 
you pay, and no matter how trifling, they would have 
to be published, making a volume unnecessarily large. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I did not expect any opposition 
to this report from the gentleman from Gallia. I do- 
not believe thata book containing the statements that are 
required by this resolution would amount to anything 
like 1,000 pages. I look upon such a detailed state-- 
ment as is proposed here to be a most valuable thing. 
As here you would have an account of amounts receiv¬ 
ed by different individuals who had been employed by 
the State as well as the names of the individuals; so 
far as this plan has been carried out, it has worked 
well and I hope that the amendment will not prevail; 
but that we may know hereafter, in detail, the names 
of those receiving the public moneys, as well as the 
amount received. 

Mr. NASH. If these accounts are to be kept in de¬ 
tail, not only where every individual had received a 
dollar of money should he be charged with it, but he 
should be credited with the money he had paid—and 
these details should go to the full extent that gentle¬ 
men would have them go. I do not see but what these 
alone would make 400 or 500 pages with nothing else, 
and unless you go into a detailed statement of the 
money that every individual receives, you get no infor¬ 
mation. The gi’eat objection is, that it would be mak¬ 
ing a document of this character, of such magnitude 
as not to justify the expense that must be necessarily 
ncurrt d. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Ever since the report was made,. 
I have been anxious that we should take some action,, 
to control the expenditure of our public agents, espe¬ 
cially the Resident Engineers and superintendents.. 
We have engrafted various provisions to effect that ob¬ 
ject. As it now is, the Resident Engineer may get his- 
unrestricted check and draw out his money for the alleg¬ 
ed purpose of setling off' with those in his employ. 
When he comes finally to settle, we cannot really tell 
whether the money has been really paid, which in his 
account is made to appear that he has paid ; for we 
do not know whether the amount paid to each individ¬ 
ual is correct—some of the vouchers which he produ¬ 
ces, it may be, are signed by men who cannot read or 
write. By publishing the names of each person who 
receives money and the amount received, if there be 
any wrong or abuse committed, we can exjiose it: and 
I have no doubt that the provision in the report would 
have a great tendency to expose any and all corrup- • 
tions. The Finance Committee wei'e unanimously of 
the opinion, that there was no better way in which to 
eff'ect the careful disbursement of funds, than by pub¬ 
lishing the names of those who have received money. 

The question being upon the amendment offered by 
Mr. Nash, the Convention refused to strike out. 

Mr. EWART. 1 move to amend the section, by in¬ 
serting rtie word “respectively,” between the word 
“received” and “shall” in the 3d line. 

Agreed to. 

Mr. STANBERY. I move to amend the section, by 
striking out the word “persons” in the 2d line, and in¬ 
sert in room thereof “public officers.” 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the great complaint 
has been that our Legislative action has been hasty and 
crude. Now sir, we are about to adopt, without much 
reflection or discussion—and place in our Constitution, 
not to be altered, but as a thing always to be observed 
in the future, a novel and most singular provision. I 










208 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Msk gentlemen of the committee to pause, and impure 
what they are about to do. This is iiot to be a blue- 
book for men having salaries. The United States never 
required what tlie State of Ohio is about to require, a 
detailed statement of the amount and name ot every 
person who shall receive a dollar of the public money. 
Is this intended to prevent the defalcation of public 
oflicers ? I would ask the gentleman from Hamilton 
county, if there has been a single instance of such de¬ 
falcation, in five years ? 

Mr.REEMELIN. A good deal in contingent funds. 

Mr. STANBERY. I ought to know if any one, and 
I call upon the gentleman, as a legal officer ol the 
State, to state what that defalcation is. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Perhaps the word defalcation is 
a little too strong. 

Mr. STANBERY. I undertake to say, that in the 
last five years, there has been but a single instance of 
defalcation, of about $1,100, which has been sued for 
and collected. But to come to the point upon which 
we are engaged. Of the large amount of public money 
which we annually disburse, we must follovv every 
dollar, and no matter into how many infinitesimal 
fractions that money may be divided, the name of eve- 
r>- man that receives a cent is to be published. Con¬ 
sider this for a moment. Sixteen millions in State 
bonds is held by individuals, who live all over the world, 
and their name is legion. All their names and the divi¬ 
dends or interest paid to them are to be annually pub¬ 
lished—the precise amount. Now what good, I ask, 
is this, the publication of how much A B or C should 
receive, to a citizen of Ohio? What does a person liv¬ 
ing here want to receive all this precise information 
for? What is the benefit of all this herculean labor?— 
and recollect too, that when you make up this long 
list, you must print it and pay for it. Why such a list 
as this of names and amount of payments, would be 
the most unsatisfactory reading that could be offered 
to the people. I do not know what the size of such 
a publication would be; for there is no man here that 
could tell the length of it. Of what benefit will such 
publication be, except to indulge a curiosit) in the pri¬ 
vate affairs of men, that ought ought not to be provided 
for in a solemn constitution? We begin there but we 
cannot stop there, for under this provision, all the sums 
that are expended for our Public Works—every dollar 
is to appear in this annual book. The sums that 
go into the hands of the engineer—of every super¬ 
intendent—every agent—these must all be pub¬ 
lished. What next ? Why the stream begins to divide 
here, and the channel which was large at first now 
ramifies among the many smaller agents and superinten¬ 
dents. 

Now you must publish the names of the laborers 
who break up stones, with the amounts they receive; 
you must also publish the names of the farmers who 
bring and deposit their loads of stone by the perch. 
You mu^t also have the name of him who is employed 
for half a day upon some job—the exact amount paid 
to all the daily laborers on all our public works—the 
name of each—the amount paid to each. If you travel 
along the National Road, you will find it lined with 
men, breaking stone. The names of these men go 
upon paper, and the small amounts paid to these labor¬ 
ers must be exhibited. The vast amount of unneces¬ 
sary details that will be published in such a book, no 
member of this committee can estimate. I had hoped, 
before plunging into any such constitutional provi^- 
ion, that we should see the extent to which we are 
going 

Mr. SAWYER. T desire that all the expenditures, 
of whatever kind, whether from the Treasurer of the 
Slate, the Auditor, the Secretary—in short of any of 
the public officers, should be ])ublished, from the high¬ 
est to the lowest sums, and even the sums paid for sta¬ 
tionery, fuel, &c. I want the names of the persons 
who receive this money, published.—I want the names 
too, of those who manage the Board of Public Works 


in Ohio, for I believe there has been inore corrujition 
among those connected with the Public Works, than 
iji all the other branches of public service put to¬ 
gether. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I concur in many of the remarks 
made by the gentleman from Franklin. Yet if the sec¬ 
tion is to stand as part of the constitution, the amend¬ 
ment of that gentleman ought not to prevail. It makes 
the whole provision absolutely useless. If we want to 
know how much a public officer receives annually, vvo 
have ready means of information in the statute which 
fixes his salary. Is any man at a loss to know how 
much a Judge of the court receives annually? Cer¬ 
tainly not. A mere statement of the annual payments 
to known public officers in form of a catalogue would 
cozivey just no information at all. But a tabular state¬ 
ment of the annual receipts of''persons" from the 
public treasury might be of the last importance. The 
appropriations made by the General Assembly are 
small and trifling, compared with the appropriations 
made by other authoiaties. The Assembly appropri¬ 
ates a small sum annually for the benevolent asylums, 
the school fund and the expenses of government.— 
The State Auditor appropriates immense sums to those 
who come to him in the ^uise of public creditors. The 
same officer in conjunction with the Treasurer of State 
and one acting commissioner of the canal fund, appro¬ 
priates the immense sums which are annually expended 
on the repairs of the canals and other public works.— 
The General Assembly by its annual act levies on the 
citizen, a small sum for government purposes. The 
“Emperor of all the Chios," by his annual ukase sent 
round to the county Auditors, prescribes to every man 
“as a rule of civil conduct," that he shall provide and 
pay sums almost beyond his ability. All our most im¬ 
portant concerns, all our great affairs, whether of taxa¬ 
tion or expenditure, are transacted in the dark windings 
of a Sibyl’s cave, perfecly inscrutable to the popular 
gaze. Neither the people nor their representatives 
have any fair oportunity of criticism or animadversion. 
Such a provision would therefore have been highly use¬ 
ful in times past. While the great mass of our appro¬ 
priations are made in this secret and clandestine man¬ 
ner, it is highly important that the names of persons 
receiving grants of public money should be made 
known. It is the only mode of throwing the slightest 
responsibslity on the State Auditor and his board. The 
true remedy would be to give back the money power 
to the people to be exercised through the instrumen¬ 
tality of their representatives in the Assembly. But if 
tliis cannot be done, let us know the name of every 
assailant of the treasury. If the smoke cannot get out 
at the chimney, it must be let out at the door. (Laugh¬ 
ter.) This clandestine power of taxation and expendi¬ 
ture has hitherto been utterly unconstitutional. The 
Judiciaiy committee of the Senate has proclaimed to 
world that no Judge less corrupt than Jeffreys, the 
wicked instrument of James the Second, could possibly 
sustain the taxing and appropriating power of the 
Stale Auditor and his board. But gentlemen have al 
ready given distinct intimations of their intentions to 
continue this authority and to render it constitutional. 
The views of these gentlemen may by possibility pre¬ 
vail. This irregular authority may be rendered regu¬ 
lar, as far as a radical wrong can be regulated. Then 
this section must be retained. But if the gentleman 
from Franklin will combine with me to restore the 
money power to the jiopular representatives, to whom 
it rightfully belongs; then he shall have my vote to 
strike out this section. 

I must ask the patience of the committee while I in¬ 
dulge is a short digression. It is the frightful ghost of 
repudiation that stalks across the stage and frightens 
gentlemen from the idea of placing the money power 
where it rightfully belongs. Some gentlemen are in 
possession of a whole stock of chimeras. The good old 
fanciful knight, mentioned by Rabelais, swallowed a 
chimera, every morning for breakfast. These gentle- 










CONVENTION REPORTS, 


209 


men’s bill of fare seems much the same. (Laughter) If 
we were as false as Judas and as avaricious as Shylock, 
we could not be caught in the guiltrap of repudiation. 
The Slate cannotprotect itself from unjust claims—how 
shall it protect itself from just ones? We can not, suc- 
ceeslully, resist the importunity of unworthy specula¬ 
tors—how will we resist the importunity oI creditors? If 
a suspension of payments shall ever take place, it will 
only end in paying compound interest. Let the mon¬ 
ey power be restored to the General Assembly, and 
then gentlemen may strike out this section as soon as 
tiiey please, otherwise it must be retained. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. I believe the ques- 
licn is upon striking out the word “pei'sons,” and in¬ 
serting “ public oHicers.” It seems to me that it would 
be belter to let it go for the present. I voted for stri¬ 
king out the words proposed originally. I did it with 
this view, that this subject might be left to the consid 
eration of the Legislature. It it was thought proper 
to make such a publication, to let them do it. It seems 
to me that it would be wrong to establish this princi¬ 
ple in the constitution, which would admit of no 
change except by the people. However, if a majority 
of the committee are of a contrary opinion, I am wil¬ 
ling to let it pass. 

Mr. STAN B E RY. I have no objections to withdraw¬ 
ing my amendment for the present. 

So the amendment was withdrawn. 

Mr. STANTON. 1 move to strike out the whole of 
section 22. 

Not agreed to. 

Sec. 24. The Governor and all civil officers under this State 
shall be liable to impeachment for any misdemeanor in office, but 
judgement in such case, shall not extend further than remo¬ 
val from office and disqualification to hold any office of trust, 
honor or profit. The party, whether convicted or not, shall nev¬ 
ertheless be liable to indictment, trial and judgment according 
to law. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I am convinced that the first 
line of the section needs amendment, and what amend¬ 
ment exactly I cannot tell; but I would move to strike 
out the word “civil.’’ Consider what a numerous 
host of civil officers would be liable to impeach¬ 
ment under this section—township officers, county of¬ 
ficers, assessors, justices of the peace &c. If the mo¬ 
tion to strike out should succeed, perha])s we might fill 
the blank with the words “judicial officers and such 
other officers as the General Assembly shall deter¬ 
mine.’’ 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga remarked, that w. 
had lived under this Constitution 48 years and noiie of 
the evils have occurred which his friend from Monroe 
seemed to anticipate. There was one case, of im¬ 
peachment of a jnsiice before the court, of which he 
[Mr. Hitchcock] had the honor to be a member, if 
honorit might be called, but the case ended in the ac¬ 
quittal of the justice. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler. I would suggest to the gen¬ 
tleman from Monroe, whether it would not be enough 
to insert “ Judges” after “ Governor” and fill the blank 
now rmide with “ State.” 

Mr. NASH. I move to strike out the word “ State ” 
and insert “ all State oifices, civil and judicial, except 
justices of the peace.” 

Mr. COL LINGS. I have great misgivings as to the 
eflect of such a provision. Undoubtedly justices of 
the peace do sometimes commit errors, but there is 
no general complaint made of their decisions. There 
is pel haps another matter connected with this subject, 
not veiy properly under discussion here, yet it is still 
a matter of fact. I believe that a greater difficulty than 
mere inattention or wilfulness has given rise to these 
complaints, and that is from the prejiufice created 
against the justices very often by the attorneys employ¬ 
ed in the suits before them. The justices give correct 
judgments in nine cases out of ten, and the clamor 
against them is got up by those who appeal and de¬ 
mand a judicial investigation. I am of opinion that 
this amendment should not prevail. 

14 


Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. It seems to me 
that this amendment proposed would be considered a» 
designed to embrace county judges as well as jud'^es 
of the circuit I would not be prepared to vote to ^^ive 
impeachment to any other body than the Legislature. 

Mr. NASH. If this amendment is adopted, it will 
be necessary to add another amendment to this section 
and that is to provide how other officers—county offi¬ 
cers, may he impeached for misconduct in office. 1 
propose to add these words,—“justices of llie peace 
and county officers shall be impeached before the court 
of common pleas in such manner as provided for by 
law.” 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. I was about to suggest 
whether it would not be better to pass this section for 
the present informally. There was a resolution sub¬ 
mitted the other day by a gentleman before me, refer¬ 
ring all this matter of impeachment to the committee 
on the Judicial Department. That matter has been 
mentioned in that committee, although we have not 
yet digested any plan upon the subject. 1 do not ap¬ 
prove of the passing of these sections informally un¬ 
less there be some urgent necessity for it. As this is 
an important matter, I will move to pass this soclion 
informally. 

Mr. CURRY. I hope the motion will prevail I 
think I see some indication that after this question shall- 
have been farther examined and discussed, gentlemen 
will arrive at the conclusion at which I hud arrived 
when I offered, some days ago, the resoJution to which 
the gentleman from Warren has just alluded. That 
resolution contemplated a provision by whicli all offi¬ 
cers now impeacliable before the Senate shall be pre 
sentable before the courts of law, by information oi 
indictment, and shall be there triable, and, for good 
cause, removable. 

I think it has been made apparent from remarks 
which have now fallen from gentlemen around me, 
that the provision of impeachment, as it exists under 
the pre-icnt constitution, and as it sought to be estab¬ 
lished by the report now under consideration, is and in 
most cases must be, ;m absolutely useless and nugato¬ 
ry provision. This is a fact too plain to need any mwl- 
liplication of words by way of argument upon it. It 
is notoriously true that cases have often arisen in which 
not only justices of the peace, but county officers, and 
sometimes State officers of the smaller grades, iiave de¬ 
served to be removed from office, but nevertheless 
were notremoved. By thei)resent process of impeach 
meat such removals never will be made. To my mind, 
therefore, it is clear that, if ihe proposition which I 
have made shall find no favor, it would then be a sen¬ 
sible and proper thing to strike out entirely the decep¬ 
tive and useless provision for impeachment, and say 
directly and openly that the oflicers in question shall 
not be removable at all. 

Some gentlemen seem to be willing tlial Justices and 
other inferior officers shall be removable by the courts, 
but unwilling that such officers as the Judges of the 
Courts of Common Pleas shall be remijvable by any 
other mode than that of impeachment. I can think of 
no possible reason why the Judges of the court of last 
season might not bo safely entrusted with the power 
of removing Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, 
on good cause shown. How is it now, sir? Any 
Judge of the Common Pleas may be brought, by writ 
of quo warranto, before the Supreme Court, and requi¬ 
red to show wliy he assumes to act as such Jmlge; 
and if he shall fail to establish his right, the Supremo 
Court can oust him from his office. Now 1 submit 
that the Supreme Court might, with equid propriety 
and fitness, inquire and determine wliellier incumbents 
of the Common Pleas bench-yhaving regnlarlv be¬ 
come such at first—had been guilty of conduct calling 
for, and justifying removal. 

I cannot think it possible that any gentleman, after 
fall reflection, will be found unwilling to say that the 
Supreme Court would not be just as likely to carefully 















210 


CONVENTION JlEl'OirL'S 


iiivoslignte and rightly decide (juesliuiiH ol'tlu.s lvi)id,as 
il:o Senate. 

Connected with this subje-ct, ihe gr<;at idea oja iii- 
tmg uj)on iny mind, is this: exi)erlence has i)o(<itiv('ly 
proved that the [n’eseut [)roce88 ol‘ impeachment is, in 
general, a cuttihrous, iinmanageble, impracticable pro¬ 
cess ; while the process ol' tiial and removal l)elbre the 
< (sirts ot‘ law, would be tangible, ])racticable and sat- 
i'factory. The establishment of the latter would give 
to the ))eople some reasonable chance for holding mis- 
bcliaving and gidlty olFicers to a just responsibility. 

1 liope that the motion made liy llie gentleman Irom 
Warren, will be agreed to. 

Mr. lilTCHCOCK of (ieanga. 1 do not know but it 
may be advisabh;, but I am not satisfied myself that 
this section should be iiassed over, 'i'he present sys 
tern has l^een in existence over since the existence of 
our Government, and so I’ar no great inconvenience has 
resulted. There have been impeachiiuaits and there has 
been one conviction under that constitution. The ear¬ 
liest impeachment I recollect was one of the .Judges of 
•the Su[)reme Court and the other of the Court of Com¬ 
mon Fleas. The charge against them was, tliat they 
had decided the law to bo unconstitutional, and that 
was a h^igh (;rimo and misdemeanor for which they 
were impeached. Tln^ House of Keproseiitative.s pre¬ 
sented a^d the tSenute tried them, and they were ac- 
ipiitted barely for lack of one vote le.ss than two thirds. 
In the opinion of that day, the crime of which these 
.Judges stood impeached, was su])[)osed to be one of 
the highest crimes for which a man could be accused. 
The Senate of the State lacked but one vote of two 
thirds of convicting both of these men. 'I'liat I think 
was in the year 1808. 

There was another impeachment, 1 am not sure 
whether it was belbre or after this. Another judge 
connected with the Common Fleas, was impeached for 
neglect of iluty. He was convicted and removed from 
• dice. About 1812 there was uiiolher impeachment of 
the Fre.sident .judge of a court of common jileas. 
'J'he <diarge against him was neglect of duty. He was 
tried and acipiilted. Next came the farmer’s case, to 
which J have before referred—that wlieiv,' a justice of 
the peace was imjieuehed—which took jilaee ulChilli- 
colhe, while the Legislature was silling there. Tw'o 
/)!’ three <lays after they eommeiiced the trial, tliey 
came to the conclusion that the iiiiipiity, instead of be¬ 
ing with the justice, was most clearly upon the other 
«ide. 

I l>eliove these cases are the only ones that have oc- 
<-,iirred under the constitution. 'I’here may have been 
jicstices ol the peace and civil olliccrs, who have justly 
ib served impeachment, if then; had i)een such J think 
there is no lack of ])er8oiis who waadd be willing to 
make the fact known, and make complaint to the Leg¬ 
islature in order that there miglit bo iinpeachmeiit. In 
fact there have been com])laints—sundry com})laint8, to 
which 1 have refoi'red, where the House of iicpi-GS(;u- 
ta,tives liave felt thejuselves called upon to impeach, 
and where they liave lieard the accusali(ms hut rejec¬ 
ted them, for the same narson that the 8enate rc j(!ctcd 
the complaint against the justice of the j)eace to whom 
j roferi’ed, attributing the l)lamo to the accusers, raih- 
cr than the accused. We have lived under this eousli- 
tutirm for almost lifty years, and now it secans that a 
great many of tho justices of the jx-ace ought to be im¬ 
peached—a great iriiuiy ollicors of the county and a 
great many other peo{)le that ought to bo im[)each( tl. 
and unless wo can extend this privilege of impeach¬ 
ment to all these, great injustice will he done. 8o fir 
as respects justices of the poactj, there may he corru])- 
tioii among them, but 1 am not ready to believe it. 

1 will believe men to be honest, until tho cr)ntrary is 
proved. 'J'his I know that ifa .Justice of the J’eaceacls 
corruf>tly, he is liable in damages to the j)<;rson whom 
he has injured. My fiicnds, who are very numerous 
in this body, know this to ho tho fact. Is it advisable 
to cxLtcud this privilege so as to produce all over our 


8tate great trouble and confu.dmi, cJi account of iheso 
com|)lainlH, whiclj would Ixi hrnught moro against tlie 
.Justice of the Feace than ony otlii.i' olliceis. Why how 
will it opmute ? J'lvery inan who has a cause before a 
.lu.stice of tho ih;ace, and in which he has not restrained 
his case, will have injustice done him in his own opin¬ 
ion. 1 liav(! had not a lillh; exi)erioijce upon this sub¬ 
ject myself, and I have found it extreiiieiy diliicult in 
d(.‘ciding controversies l)etweou two [)artie8, to satisfy 
both parti(;8 that the verdict was right. One of tho 
parties would complain, while the other would be sat¬ 
isfied. The parlies who consider themselves aggrieved, 
will 1)0 likely in many cases, to complain the decis¬ 
ion of the .liisticesas atl'ording grounds lor impeach- 
meut, and this will he done at the expense of the pub¬ 
lic. It seems to me, that it would be better to let 
ibings remain as they are at present, for I do believe 
that it would create less dilHcully llian aprovisiori sueb 
as is here advocated. 1 think, in a word, so long as we 
luive advanced so far and have got along tolerably 
fair, tliat it would not be wise, to make an uinovatjon 
wbicli may work great injustice. 

Mr. bllOWN of Athens. 1 wovdd pro[)ose an amend¬ 
ment which Uiay meet the views of the committee. In 
lieu of tin; whole of the first clause substitute the fol¬ 
lowing : 

“Tlio (jovernor, supreme judges and other State officers, Lhall 
be moveable Iroin olfice fur rniscoTiduct therein, on impeach¬ 
ment, and all civil other officers shall be removable from office for 
niisctonduct therein, in such manner us shall be prescribed by 
Jaw; provided, that the judgment in such cases shall not extend 
furtlier than removal from office, and disqualification to hold any 
oilico (d trust honor or profit under this State.’’ 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. 1 care nothing about this. 
I uni not anxious that the matter should bo posfiioned 
inl<)rjnally, hut as the whole matter had been referred, 
to the comrnitUjc on lhe.)udicial Department, Ithotiiiht 
it Ixdter to make a suggestion to that eli'ect. If itdocs 
not meet with approbation, I would ask leave to with¬ 
draw my moliou. 

Mr. NASH. 1 move that we pas.s over this matter 
for the jtresent. 'J’his matter has been already refer- 
nxl to another committee—that committee will rc^jort 
u})ijn the subject, and 1 thiidc on account of the impor¬ 
tant matters liiat are involved, we will lose nothing in 
passing over it for tlio present. 

Mr. 8Mri'l I of Warren. 1 woidd merely add in ad¬ 
dition to tho suggestion of tho gentlcnian that there ap- 
[leai s to me to he a considerulile disposition on the part 
of the members of the committee to make seme change 
in the original constitution upon the subject of impeach¬ 
ment. \Vhelhcr it is proper or im[)roper to do it. is 
not necessary i'or me to say. Tliere may be some 
necessary and Sidutory ameudtjients made, but the 
Cofivetilion have directed the committee on the Ju¬ 
dicial de[)artnn ul to examine into and report upon this 
very subject. It i.s certainly evid( ut, that if there is tc 
be a change in tho piesent constitution, it is a very 
inapproix iate jilaco to do it here in the committee of the 
Whole. 1 do think then, without intending any disre¬ 
spect whatever to the committee on the Legislative De¬ 
partment (fur I entertain the kindest and most respect¬ 
ful feeling towards them. They have discharged their 
duty and done it well;) hut 1 think this matter should 
ho passed over for the present and think also that i; 
propta-ly an tippropriatc function of the .Judicial Dc- 
partnx'ut to examine this matter and report upon it. 1 
know that we have here a provision contained in llie 
report of tho committee on the Legislative Department, 
hut it does not necessarily follow that it is the appro- 
(xiate de[)artment ol that committee to report upon 
that subject. 'J'his is a judicial matter and proaerly 
belongs to the committee on the Judiciary. I wish to 
bo properly understood in relation to tliis matter. I 
do not wish the committee upon tho .Judiciary Depart¬ 
ment to trench upon the appropriate limetions of the 
committee on the Legislative Department. It is for 
these rejisons, tind fooling confident that we cannot ap¬ 
proach any thing like unanimity in tho coramittao of 






CONVENTION llEPOETS 


211 


the Whole, in regard to a matter of such vital imx)or- 
tance, that for iho present I think it would be hotter 
to pass this informally, until the other committee shall 
report or at least examine this question. 

Mr. SAWYR ll. I hope the committee will x)ardon 
me if I intrude too much upon their attention, when 
they reflect that this report came from the commitee 
of which I am a member, and I promise that when we 
are through witli this report, I will believe much bet¬ 
ter. (Laughter.) These things promised, T hope I 
will be pardoned for intruding so much, but it must be 
recollected that we have a pride in the work which 
comes from our hands. The gentleman from Warren 
has done ample and strict justice to the committee, and 
nothing more. The committee incorporated this sec¬ 
tion into their report, because they find it in the pre¬ 
sent constitution under this head. I regret that the 
word “call” has been stricken out. I will venture 
to say, that if we had lelt it out of the report and not 
copied the word from the old constitution, some mem¬ 
ber would have moved to conform the rej)ort to the 
clause in the constitution. 

In the course of the remarks here, something has 
been said in relation to .Tustices of the Peace, in dis¬ 
cussing the (piestion of impeachment. I will venture 
to say, that there is not a more important office than 
that of Justice of the Peace. They decide more 
cases than other officers—cases that are more interest¬ 
ing to the jieople, to their constituents and to all around 
them. I have heard among all my acquaintances rery 
few complaints against Justices of the Peace—oroj^in- 
ions expressed that they ought to be impeached. 

I will venture to say that but few complaints are 
made against justices of the peace, except they arise 
in the manner and for the reason suggested by my friend 
from Geauga. I will venture to say, also, that if you 
provide for irnxteachment of justices in the manner 
here indicated, you will find pettifoggers enough to im- 
I)each in any case that may come before a justice where 
they can raise a clamor. The word “ civil ” ought not 
to be stricken out at all, for thus far in our experience 
this provision in the old constitution in regard to im¬ 
peachments has worked well, and an ounce of expe¬ 
rience is worth a thousand pounds of theory. 

A division being demanded on the question allowing 
those sections to be passed over informally, resulted as 
follows: Affirmative 39, negative 47. So the com¬ 
mittee refused to pass the section. 

The question then recurring uiion Mr. Nash’s amend¬ 
ment to strike out “Governor and all civil officers un¬ 
der this State,” and insert “all State oflicers civil and 
judicial, except justices of the peace,” the Convention 
refused to strike out. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLB. I will move to reconsid¬ 
er the vote by which the word “ civil” was striken out 
in line 1, section 24. * 

The vole was reconsidered and the word “ civil ” was 
left in the resolution as originally placed. 

The question then I'ecurred upon the amendment of¬ 
fered by Mr. Brown of Athens, which was not agreed 
to. -.>4 

Sec. 25. All regular flossiona of the CJeneral Assembly shall 
commence on the first Monday in January. 

Mr. REEMBLIN. I move to strike out the whole 
section and insert “ The first regular session of the 
General Assembly under this Constitution, shall be on 
the first Monday of January, 1852, and all subsequent 
regular sessions shall commence at the same time bi¬ 
ennially thereafter.” I do not offer this because I be¬ 
lieve in biennial sessions, but because the committee 
have agreed to such sessions, and therefore it is neces¬ 
sary to conform our action to such decision. 

Mr. STILLWELL. I offer the following as a sub¬ 
stitute for the amendment otfered by the gentleman 
from Hamilton: ~ 

“ The General Aasomhly shall meet on the first Monday of Jan¬ 
uary in each year until the your 1851, inclusivo, after which time 
it shall meet on the first Monday of January biennially.’' 


The gentleman from Hamilton acoepling this in lieu 
of his proposition, 

Mr. STIL LWELL proceeded to say that it would be 
impossible to meet all the exigencies that will arise 
under the new constitution, unless we have annual ses¬ 
sions for a while. The Legislature would first meet 
in 1852, and the amendment 1 have presented provides 
that they shall meet in 1853. This will enable the 
Legislature of 1853 to supply the deficieuces and reme¬ 
dy the defects that may be committed previously. I 
think that it would be unnecessary to extend annual 
sessions beyound that. After 1855, this resolution 
provides that the Legislature shall meet bienially. 

Mr. STANBERY rose to address the committee, but 
after a few remarks, gave way lor a motion that the 
committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit 
again. 

The motion was agreed to, and the committee rose. 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention a sec¬ 
ond communication from S. Medaiy, similar to the one 
presented yesterday. 

On motion by Mr. LTDEY, the same was refeired to 
the committee to which was referred the j)rcvious com¬ 
munication. 

And then, on motion by Mr. HOLMES, the Conven¬ 
tion adjourned. 


FRIDAY, May 31, 1850. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Cheney. 

Mr. DORSEY presented the petition of sundry citi¬ 
zens of -county, requesting the Convention to take 

measures for reducing the constitutional limits of coun¬ 
ties: which, upon his motion, was referred to the com- 
mi’tce on Miscellaneous Subjects. 

Mr. LEADBETTER, from a majority of the commit¬ 
tee on the Executive Department, submitted a report, 
which was laid upon the table and ordered to be prin¬ 
ted. 

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the whole, [Mr. Hawkins 
in the Chair,] and resumed the consideration of the re¬ 
port of the committee on the Legislative Department, 
submitted on the 20th inst. 

The CHAIRMAN announced the consideration of 
the 2Gth section of the report—the question being, the 
adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Muskingum [Mr. Stillwell] to wit: 

' “ The General Assembly shall meet on the first Monday of Jan¬ 
uary in each year until the year 1853, inclusive, after which time 
it shall meet on the first Monday of January biennially.” 

Mr. STANBERY. The proper time has come for 
those who ojipose this great change in our Constitution, 
to make another stand. Sir, for one, I will resist this 
innovation to the last. I cannot but regard it as a dan¬ 
gerous experiment for a State like Ohio, It is an ex- 
Xjeriment without a precedent for such a State, 

The other day, sir, wheu this question of bienaial 
sessions was before the House, I took occasion to show 
that provision for our annual taxation, and tho» annual 
payment of interest upon our public debt, required an¬ 
nual sessions of the Legislature. I will now go fur¬ 
ther and attempt to show, that proper provision for the 
payment of the principal of our debt, can only be made 
by annual sessions. 

Constantly, sir, in every year, mostnecessary aid may 
be required from the Legislature in the matter of the 
payment of that debt I do not pretend to indicate 
for the future, what those recurring contingencies may 
be. Our public debt is rapidly coming to maturity, and 
I speak of the future, from the experience of the past, 
and the dictates of common prudence, when I say that 
the annual attention of the Legislature to this impor¬ 
tant branch of the public business, w'ill in all hnman 
probability, be necessary. Any one who will take the 
trouble to look over our statutes for some years back, 
will find very wholesome and necessary laws on this 
Object. My present purpose is to refer to only two, 









212 


CONVENTION KEPORTS 


pagsed at successive,annual sessions, the last of which 
has enabled tlie State to realize an immense profiit at 
the least $250,000, which but for that annual session 
w’ould have been lost. 

It happens, sir, that a large amount of our debt falls 
due in tlie current year—$400,000 of the 5 per cents 
and $3,985,058 76 of the 6 per cents. The Legislature 
at the annual session of 1848-9, anticipating the matii- 
inty of this debt, and the necessity of making timely 
provision to meet it, passed an act authorizing the Fund 
Commissioners to redeem the 5 and 0 per cents so 
payable, by exchanging with the holders of 5 per 
cents new bonds at 5 per cent, payable after 1860, and 
with the holders of Oper cents, new bonds at 0per cent, 
payable aftui’ the same date. 

It was supposed, no doubt, that this law was all that 
was needed. But, sir, wdien our Fund Commissioners 
went to New York in 1849, to make these exchanges, it 
was found that it required the consent of both sides to 
make such a bargain, and that bond hoMers would not 
make the exchange on fair terms. The holders of 5 per 
cents would not make the exchange without a premium to 
be paid to them by the State, and the holders of the 6 
per cents would not make the exchange at such rates of 
premium as the Fund Commissioners thought should 
be paid to the State. 

After attempting to execute the law, and in fact ex¬ 
changing $700,000 ofthe 6 percents at a premium in favor 
of the State, at a low rate of premium, the Fund Com¬ 
missioners, seeing that a regular annual session of the 
Legislature would intervene before the actual maturity 
of the bonds, ceased exchanges, and determined to ap¬ 
ply to that body for an amendment of the act of 1849. 

Accordingly at the session of 1849-50, upo i the ap¬ 
plication of the Fund Commissioners, the Legislature 
amended the act of 1849, by giving the Commissioners 
the additional authority to sell the new bonds. 

Now, sir, we have the benetit of a full competition, 
and the opportunity of realizing the highest market 
value. Sales and exchanges (for bond holders, now 
that competition is open, are willing to exchange on 
fair terms) have been had at 14 per cent, advance for 
the new sixes, and will reach perhaps 20 per cent, ad¬ 
vance. And as to the new 5 per cents, instead ol 
being exchanged at, or under par, they will realize to 
the State from 5 to 10 per cent, premium. 

It is very certain that but for the annual session of 
1849-50 the Stale would not have realized the great 
advance upon the price of our stocks during the pres¬ 
ent year. 

[Mr. STILLWELL here inquired of Mr. Stanbery 
whelher the bonds are absoluiely payable in 1850, or 
only at the pleasure of the Stale, after that year—and 
if so, whether our Fund Commissioners might not have 
wailed until the session of 1850-51. 

Mr. STANBERY. It is tjue, sir, the language of the 
bonds is, as suggested, payable at the pleasure of the 
State after 1850, but the universal construction in the 
money market is, that such a bond is at mainrity in 
1850, and must then be provided for. I will read from 
the last report of the Fund Commissioners to show this 
to be true: 

“ It mny be proper here to suggest that although all our State 
bonds are redeemable at the pleasure of the State, alter certain 
periods, yet they are universally considcrtul by the stockholders 
as absolutely rcdeemcable at the date named in the bonds; and 
the expectation of such redemption is consonant to the universal 
practice of other States, v/hose stocks have arrived at what, un 
dtr such expectation and practice, is justly termed their matu 
rity.” 

I repeat, sir, that our Fund Commissioners, under 
this universal practice, would have felt themselves 
bound to provitle for this debt in the year 1850—and to 
make timely provision fur it. They went to New 
York in 1849 for that very purpose, and the only thing 
which then induced delay, was, that the next regular 
aonnal session was so near at hand that they could get 
an amendatory act, enlarging their powers. If we had 
boeu under this system of biennial sefisions and the 


regular session had been more than a year distant, 
they could not have delayed. They would have ex¬ 
changed at the low premium. lu tliis instance, then, 
a regular annual session enabled our Fund Commis¬ 
sioners to come to the Legislature for aid, and realize 
this coiitiiigeucy—this great advance—which other¬ 
wise would have been lost. 

Wo gain in this transaction at least 5 per cent, on 
the $400,000 of fives—equal to $20,000, and at least 7 
per cent, (over the pi'emium ollered in 1849, for ex¬ 
changes,) on the remaining $3,285,658,76, of sixes—so 
that the total gain is over $250,000. 

That, sir, is one of the unexpected contingencies 
which a regular annual session enabled us to realize, 
upon the redemption of our debt. 

How little weight ought to be given to the ai'gument 
founded on the expense of annual sessions, when ap¬ 
plied to tlie great interests of such a State as Ohio! 
Why, sir, in this single, instance, there is a gain, at one 
session, equal, I dare say, to the expenses of five ses¬ 
sions—for at $70,000 per session, five sessions would 
cost but $350,000. 

But, Mr. Chairman, the argument in favor of annual 
tessious wouid be very lame, if it stopped here, or if 
is regarded only one transaction, or but one out of the 
many subjects for annual legislation. And now, I ask 
for a short time the attention of tlie committee, while 
I consider more at large, this grave question. 

What, sir, is this Ohio of ours, that she can for two 
years at a time, dispense with all legiplative aid? What 
is she now, and what is she to be in the lapse of a few 
years? Let us go back, that we may find some rule 
to judge of llie future. Let us go back and review a 
period within the recollection of all—let us go back 
thirty years, and look at the year 1820, and see what 
Ohio was then, in order that, if possible, we may fonn 
some adequate conception of what slie may be hereaf¬ 
ter. She was just as largo then as now, so far as terri¬ 
tory is concerned—but it is not territory alone that 
makes a State- What was Ohio in regard to popula¬ 
tion, revenue and property, in 1820? In the first place, 
her population was only 581,000, all told—just about 
one-fourth what are here now. As to taxation, the 
whole amount of taxable property in the State in 1820 
—(I looked at it yesterday)—yielded a revenue of but 
$205,000— 

A Voice. Land included? 

Yes, the land was all taxed as 1st, 2d and 3d i-ato. 
The revenue must have beezi less, for they did not col¬ 
lect much more than 75 per cent, on the lax list. Our 
reveiuio then was not so much as $205,000. Gentle¬ 
men are surprised at this, but to show that this was 
the fact I refer to the annual report of the Auditor of 
State for the year 1820. Here it is sir, showing the 
entire revenue from taxation, was only $205,346 95. 

Mr. STILLWELL. Does that include all the State 
tax ? 

Mr. STANBERY. Every cent upon the grand du- 
[)licate. The expenditures of the State for the same 
year were $112,406 65. Such was the state of things 
then. Then we had a population of 581,000,—now, 
we have a population of more than 2,000,000 Then, 
we liad $205,000 ol revenue—now we have $2,600,000, 
and $440,000,000 on the grand list. 

Mr. STANTON, (interrupting.) That is the aggre¬ 
gate value of taxable property. 

Mr. STANBERY. The aggregate of the levy in 1820 
was $205,000. 

Mr. STANTON. Surely the levy now is not $100,- 

000 000 . 

Mr. STANBERY. No sir. I am goin^ to explain 
that. I was speaking of the aggregate of the amount 
of property now listed for taxation. The aggregate 
levy for 1820 was $205;000. Now we have a grand 
list of $440,000,000. Six years ago it was not much 
more than one fourth of that amount, 

Mr. CHAMBERS, We have made a great change 
in our sirstem of revenue in that time. 










CONVENTION IlEPOllTS. 


213 


Mr. STANBERY. Certainly—and by means of an¬ 
nual session too; and we are making these changes 
every year. There is nut a year passes that we do not 
have some wholesome laws enacted with regard to 
taxation; and now with this immmense amount on the 
grand list, every year increasing at least $10,000,000 ; 
by new structures, new entries and additions to per¬ 
sonal property alone, we are every year increasing the 
subjects of taxation, and increasing the necessity for 
legislation thereon. What is more, in 1852 we shall 
have a new valuation of the land in the State, and 1 
venture to say that Ohio will then show $600,000,000 
on the grand list. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. That has nothing at all to do 
with annual sessions. 

Mr. STANBERY. It shows the greater necessity for 
annual sessions, that’s all. I shall bring my fneiid 
from Muskingum round after awhile. I am now en¬ 
deavoring to show what Ohio was 30 years ago—what 
she is now—and what she may become in 30 years 
hence ; and I can hardly trust myself with the picture 
My friend over he way [Mr. Reemelin] referred to 
the description given by Macauley, and the progress of 
improvement in England since 1788. 1 have admired 

that picture drawn by the hand of a master of the ad 
vance of wealth and population, and of all the elements 
■ot greatness in that island within the pei-iod of 160 
years; and I could wish that we had some Macauley to 
draw a similar ])icturo for us. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the gentleman allow me to 
make a single suggestion 1 

Mr. STANBERY. Certainly. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I desire to inquire whether 
Macauley does not draw a comparison between the 
English pauperism of 1688 and 1824. 

Mr. STANBERY. He does ; andso are our paupers 
increasing. Why, sir, “ the poor are always with us,” 
they are never to fail out of the land, and if we had 
only the poor, the insane, the blind and the deaf and 
dumb of the State to provide for, there would be a ne¬ 
cessity for annual legislation. 

Mr. CHAMBERS, (interrupting.) I do not think 
we need any Macauley for this work. I think our 
friend, the gentleman from Franklin can make the pic¬ 
ture as interesting as any man. 

Mr. STANBERY. I do not deserve the compliment, 
sir, it the gentleman intended it as a compliment. I 
should suppose myself that wedonot need a Macauley 
to describe what we may see for ourselves. The gen¬ 
tleman from Muskingum and myself have lived togeth¬ 
er for sometime in the same town, and he knows, that 
in 1820 Zane.sville wa3l)uta small place, and that now, 
in 1850, it is increased to a large town, lighted up with 
gas, full of manufactories; and the progress of the 
town of Zanesville, is only one of the thousand indi¬ 
cations of the progress of Ohio during that period, in 
all the elements of wealth and greatness. Why in 1820 
gold watches were scarce in this country, but now 
every young man has a good lever in his pocket. 1 
have known the country people about Zanesville, to 
come 20 miles to look at a piano; now you can hardly 
pass a single dwelling without hearing its music.— 
Thirty years ago there was scarcely such a thing as a 
pleasure carriage in Muskingum county; now almost 
every farmer in the State has one. In 1820, hardly a 
man in the State could raise $5000; now the annual in¬ 
come of hundreds is much greater. In 1820, a calico 
dress was a rare thing; now every country lass may 
sport her silk, and must have the fashions from Paris in 
60 days. Thus it is that we are advancing in the ac¬ 
cumulation of wealth—in the luxuries and comforts of 
life—as well as in every clement, that constitutes a 
"reat people. I don’t stop to speak, sir, of our en¬ 
larged system of education, and the thousand improve¬ 
ments which have marked our career. 

No one can fully realize the change which the past 
30 years have brought, with them.—No one can pre¬ 
dict the changes which the next 39 years will produce. 


All that I attempt is to show that this great and advanc¬ 
ing State, with her vast and rapidly increasing popula¬ 
tion and wealth—her tax revenues and expenditures_ 

her taxation and her debt—that this State, of all oth¬ 
ers, is the last upon which to try this experiment. 

Now, at this point I wish to say one word about the 
public debt, because, what is said here, takes an au* 
thentic form, and goes before the people for their in¬ 
formation. The evil consequences of this debt have 
been constantly exaggerated upon this floor; and they 
have been attributed altogether to annual legislation, 
and they are said to be annually increasing upon us, 
by means of annual legislation. But now, what is 
this public debt, that the people of Ohio should bo 
afraid of it ? Nominally, we owe about 19 millions. 
Let me say something about this. On the 15th day of 
November, 1849, the whole amount of the State debt 
was $19,026,000. On the 1st day of January 1830, 
(for this debt has been continuully going down, for the 
last five years,) it was $18,916,309 80. In the first 
place let me state that part of this debt is a re-imburs- 
able debt, and part of it is not re-imbursable. Of the 
former, amounting to $17,300,681,00, the principal 
must be paid; but the latter is made up of trust funds, 
belonging to our counties, &c., upon which a certain 
rate of interest is payble—but not the principal. ' 

Let us look now at our resources and means of pay¬ 
ment, aside from taxation and the revenues of our pub¬ 
lic works. We have of the surplus revenue fund 
$1,653,084 06, I do not speak of the whole surplus 
revenue fund, for that exceeds $2,000.000. I speak 
only of what remains of that fund. Besides this we 
have- 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Is that already cash in the trea¬ 
sury ? 

Mr. STANBERY. $501,642,83 has been paid into 
the treasury in cash, and is now under the control of 
our Fund Commissioners; the residue, $1,151,441,23, 
is due from the counties. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Your surplus revenue, loaned 
out, I consider in the hands of the people, and to come 
in just as though it were derived from taxation. 

Mr. STx\NBBRY. Why every body expects the 
counties to joay the State, and the people to pay the 
counties, but it does not come through taxation. It is 
the payment of a debt.—Money loaned at interest, by 
the State to the counties, and the counties to some of 
their citizens. 

We have, in the next place, a sinking fund now in 
the treasury, amounting to $106,000. The next ilem is 
the canal lands, valued last year, according to the Au¬ 
ditor’s statement, at $150,000. Then there is the rail¬ 
road stock of the State, amounting in total valuation to 
$593,333. This is no mere nominal stock, but stock 
which is constantly paying into the treasury annual 
dividends; such as the Little Miami, the Mad River 
and Lake Erie Railroad, the Mansfield and Sandusky 
Railroad. I speak of the stock the State owns in these 
great railroads. The next item I find is our canal and 
turnpike stocks. Now the actual value ol these stocks 
is $500,000, without speaking of the worthless stocks 
acquired by the State under the plunder bill. Some 
ol these stocks are actually paying ten percent, a year, 
and the estimate of value, the Auditor says, is a low 
estimate. The next item we fitid is the premiums on 
sales and exchanges of stocks now due, and this is put 
down at $320,000. 

Now, what do all these items amount to, derivable 
from sources independent of taxation ? The aggregate 
is $3,282,000, which being deducted from the re-imbur¬ 
sable debt of the State, leaves only $14,000,000 in round 
numbers. That is all the debt of Ohio for which pro¬ 
vision has to be made by taxation, with the exception 
of the trust funds, which are never to be paid. 

Mr. McCORMiCK (interrupting, and Mr. S. giving 
way) said: The Auditor sets down the income from 
these stocks at $9,390 in his report for 1849. It appears 
to me that the gentleman’s estimate of the value of 










214 


CONVENTION REPOIiTS. 


these stocks must bo very high ; for if they produce 
no greater amount of dividends than this, it (Iocs not 
come up to half per cent. 

Mr. vSTANBERY. resuming. I suppo.se we cannot 
have better authority in this case than the letter of the 
Auditor of State, which 1 hold in my hand, made out 
and dated two days ago, and addressed to myself, 
which I beg leave to read. 

[Mr. Stanbkky here read a letter from the Auditor 
of State, dated May 29, 1850, in reply to inquiries ad¬ 
dressed to him by Mr. S., which conlirmed the various 
estimates stated by Mr. S. as to the items of the sui - 
plus revenue fund, sinking fund, canal lands, railroad 
stocks, canal or turnpike stocks, and premiums, receiv¬ 
able, on tlio stock of 1850.] 

Mr. McCORMlOK. All that I say here, is, that the 
report to which 1 have rel'errcd shows this stock to be 

worth about-,a8 I will show from the reading (Mr. 

Me CouMicK here read from the special Report of ihe 
Auditor ot State, made on the 23d March. 1850, show¬ 
ing the total of lands and personal property and their 
valuation, on the grand list, and the total of taxe.s on thi.«i 
list, from which it appeared that the total of all the tax¬ 
es from turnj)ikes, bridges and joint stock compa¬ 
nies is 69,390,04,8.) 

Mr. STANBERY. I now see what the gentleman 
from Adams refers to. Thestatement whichhehas read 
shows the amount of taxes derived I'rom turnpikes, 
bridges &c. That is another 7natter. 

Mr. McCORMlCK. I understand thatis the income. 

Mr. STANBERY. Notatall. I was referring to the val¬ 
ue of the stock owned by the State—the special report 
refers to a totally ditferent thing, the mere amount of 
tax doiived by the State from stock not owned by the 
State, but by indiviilual corporators or companies. The 
stock owned by the State, of course ptiys no tax, but 
yields an income by dividends. 

Mr. COBLINGS, (interrupting,) said, I suggest to 
those gentlemen who do not concur in the views of the 
gentleman from Franklin, that it were better to with¬ 
hold their interruptions till he shall close. Here are 
arguments gravely advanced, and it seems to me they 
could be answered more deliberately at some other 
time, and that gentlemen would save time by waiting 
palienlly, reserving tlieir objections and stating them 
in full hereafter. I am disposed to come to some issue 
as we proceed; and I think issues could be formed more 
satisfactorily it gentlemen would withhold their inter¬ 
ruptions altogether. 

Mr. STANBERY (continuing.) .fust as the commit¬ 
tee please. I hold it no interruption to be questioned 
in a proper way; none at all. I shall be glad to hear any 
thing gentlemen may propose to throw light upon the 
subject. But how does the gentleman propose to an¬ 
swer my arguments .'—to overthrow what I fiave said ! 
What have I said ? I am standing up here for Ohio. 
Should we, or should we not appreciate these showings 
of mine 7 1 had hoped that every man would take°a 
pride in them; not that they would be regarded as any 
thing to be carped at, and rejected in this Convention. 
Let us rather all join in the effor to elevate the State; 
and not begin to carp at her prosperity and deprecate 
her greatness. 

I say, then, that the whole debt to be provided for 
by taxation, will not require a levy of more than three 
ceiits on the dollar. What is that, that the people of 
Ohio should be alarmed at it? Take our grand levy, 
which is $440,000,000, and one mill on a dollar will 
produce $440,000, and three or four cents pays the 
whole debt—that is, not more than half the Kite of en¬ 
tire taxation annually levied in some of tl^o counties 
would sweep the whole $19,000,000 out of existence.’ 
I recommend these figures to the consideration of my 
friend from Knox, [Mr. Mitcukll,] who has evinced 
80 much alarm on this subject. But now, where is the 
necessity that we should pay off this debt right away? 

Mr. SAWYER, (in his 8(^at.) I do not wat,t to nav 
it off. ^ ^ 


Mr. STANBERY. My friend from Auglaize says, he 
does not want to pay it of!: nor is there any sort of 
[iropriety of requiring such a thing of this generation. 
For whatpurpose hasthisdebtbeenincurred? For whose 
benefit? Certainly not for ourselves alone, but as well 
for those who are to come after us. Why should we 
pay all the cost of these improvements, and then hand 
them down to posterity unincumbered with a dollar? 
Should we not rather hand them down and expect pos¬ 
terity to raise some of the money ? Why not ? I, for 
one, am not in favor of swelling our taxation upon any 
Quixotic notion of j)aying off this debt, at once. For 
whenever it shall be paid off, the people will in some 
form have another. The people will have improvements 
of some kind which always create a debt: and I do 
not know but it is right they should have them. I think 
there is no cause of alarm—no reason to regret that this 
debt has been created. 1 attribute a vast deal of the 
improvements of tlie Slate, to the expenditure of the 
money which has made this debt. What would the 
State of Ohio have been at this day without her canals ? 
What would have been her Cleveland, her Akron, her 
IMassillon, her Zanesville, her Dayton, her Cincinnatti, 
besides every other town which has felt the influence 
of these works ? I ask gentlemen if it is proper, or just, 
or equitable, that the people of this generation should 
pay all the cost of these improvements ? Or whether 
they wall not have fulfilled their share by providing for 
a reasonable part and transferring the balance to pos¬ 
terity? We are cutting down this debt every year: 
but every year it requires the care and w'atching.of the 
Legislature. 

But again wuth regard to our present taxation ? 
What is the whole levy to the amount of the State debt? 

I have the figures here to show, and the levy for the 
State debt in the year 1847 was two 5-100 mills. And 
now it is true that there is hardly a town or county in 
the State that does not pay a total tax of as much as 8 
mills on the dollar, so it appeal's that the taxation for 
the State debt amounts only to about one fouith of the 
aggregate taxation of the people, and if we had no 
Slate debt the people would have to pay in the shape 
of taxes three-fourths of the sum which they now' pay. 
But 1 think the levy in the city of Cincinnati is high¬ 
er than this estimate, and I beg leave to ask one 
of the delegates from Hamilton county what ts the 
whole amount of the city levy—how many mills on the 
dollar ? 

Mr. RIDDLE in his seat. Thirteen and a half mills. 

Mr. STANBERY. Thirteen and a half mills : and I 
understand the gentleman from Auglaize to say, his 
county levy is fifteen mills, and here another gentleman 
near me says, his is 17. Only two and live hundredth 
mills are for the debt of the State, about one eighth of 
the whole amount of the taxation paid by the constitu¬ 
ents of the gentleman from Auglaze and the gentleman 
from Miami; yet it is assumed by some that all this 
taxation is induced and brought on by the State debt. 

I have been drawn into this view of the matter, Mr. 
Chairman, to correct the false im[)ression, that the State 
debt is a thing so much to be alarmed at. 

And now, Mr. Chairman, to come to the point; what 
necessity have we for annual legislation, so far as this 
subject of debt and taxation is concerned ? I say there 
is a constant necessity every year. I admit that there 
is no such neceesity in the Slates of Illinois, Kentucky, 
Alal>ama and low'a; but here there exists an annual ne¬ 
cessity for legislation. Let us look for one moment at 
Illinois. While the revenue of the State of Illinois is 
$400,000 for 1819—ours is $2,600,000. I’ut both Ken¬ 
tucky and Illinois together and the sum will not exceed 
one half, perhaps not one third the amount of our reve¬ 
nue. They are both small States by the side of Ohio. 
Both together they do not requi.e one half the legisla¬ 
tive supervision whicli is necessary in this State. 

But now wTiy are annual sessions necessary ? They 
are necessary to provide for the payment of the public 
debt and to regulate the annual taxation. 1 affirm that 












CONVENTION IlErORTS. 


215 


evciy year wc have taxes levied in Ohio, there is a 
d-ouble levy—one by llie Auditor ot‘ State, to provide 
for the public dei)t; and the other by the Legislatuie, 
to provide for the general ex})enses of the government. 
Kveiy year in which the Legislature has met in these 
halls, they have Ibund it necessary to look after the an¬ 
nual levy. I have an exhibit here showing the amounts 
of the annual levy by the Auditor and by the Legisla¬ 
ture for the last ten years. 

[Mr. STANBERY here rend the respective levies 
made in each year by the Auditor and Legislature since 
1840. The Auditor’s levy varied in the ten years from 
2 .5-800 mills to 0 mills on the dollar, and the legisla¬ 
tive levy 70-100 ot a mill to 2 50-100 mills on the dol¬ 
lar.] 

jVlr. STANBERY. It a[)pears, sir, that these levies, 
or rates of taxation, ai'e constantly changing. If there' 
were no other reason for the change—and there are 
many—the change of the basis of taxation, or the total 
value of taxable property, would be a suflicient reason. 
This basis, as I have shown, enlarges at the rate of 
about $10,000,000 annually. Since 1840 the basis has 
changed to the amount of hundreds of millions and we 
see a corresponding change in the levy or rate of tax¬ 
ation. We see that in 184G, just before the late tax 
law came into force, the levy was 7 mills, and in 1849 
it came down to 8 mills. 

Wlien the new land valuation shall come in, the 
grand list, or total of taxable property, which is now 
$440,000,000, the Auditor says will be increased to 
$(>00,000,000; and then the levy will get down to two 
mills; and as the gi-eat wealth of the State is develop¬ 
ed, I cannot see how we can dispense with the agency 
of legislation in the manngemont of such vast interests; 
nor how the State of Ohio, of all other States in the 
Union, can aft'ord to suspend all legislation for the space 
of two years. It is a monstrous proposition, which no 
experience can justify—neither the past nor the pres¬ 
ent, affords any such precedent as that of taking away 
the power of legislation from such a State for two 
years at a lim ;. I tell you, gentlemen, you dare not 
venture upon it—I care not what has been the popidar 
impulse—this thing of popular impulse is a thing very 
much to be dreaded at first, and very much to be re¬ 
lied upon at last: for there is such a thing with the 
people as a sober second thought. All that is to be 
gained before the people by this amendment, will be 
more than lost when the fact is known that the [public 
impulse upon this subject has Ijeen created by the dis 
graceful scenes in our legislative halls, aiid by the ex¬ 
aggerations which have been industriously circulated 
to the prejudice of our legislation generally, till the 
people have said, we had better have no Legislature at 
all. Now I warn gentlemen to take care of the recoil 
and the re-action of this popular opinion, for wherever 
that opinion has been rife, there has been or there will 
be a change. And while the people will change, they 
will never tolerate a change in a public servant. Gen¬ 
tlemen will find out whether the people will submit to 
be gagged for two years, while every other department 
of the government shall he going on. Gentlemen will 
find that the delibei’ate popular o[)inion will be here, 
as every where, in favor of frerjuent elections and an¬ 
nual legislation. This change is beginning to work. 
I perceive its effects in the opinions of the delegates 
from Hamilton county on tliis subject, four of whom 
are in favor of biennial sessions, and three of annual ses¬ 
sions ; and now, while they are talking about the mat¬ 
ter, here conies the Cincbinaii Gazette and the Cincinnati 
Enquirer, the one whig and the other democratic, but 
botli in favor of^mnual sessions. And then we have 
another democratic paper from the same cily, the name 
of which I will venture to prorrouuce the Volksplatf. 
corning out also in favor of annual sessions. Now if 
any paper has come to the seat of Government in favor 
of biennial sessions—if any one has seen such a pa¬ 
per— 

[A Voice : I have.] 


A veiy still small voice that. [A laugh.] Yes, sir, 
you will see that popular opinion has been brought to 
bear upon this topic, and that it has uttered audible 
notes, which are to result in popular action. Popular 
opinion generally decides for making as few radical 
changes as possible. I am for making no chang es of 
the sessions. I cannot discard the lessons of experi¬ 
ence. It is a very wise man who can say what Ohio 
is to come to, ten years hence, or venture to legislate 
for Ohio two years ahead. No, sir, Solon himself could 
not do it. No man could see the neces.sity for new 
laws, and the vast margin for legislation which would 
be spread out in that space of time. There have been 
few Soloiis here, lately, that could legislate wisely so 
far into the future. 

Bjit now with reference to this bad reputation which 
had been brought upon our legislation; these declama¬ 
tory statements about excessive, corrupt and infamous 
legislation. I deny them all. We may have had in¬ 
famous proceedings, but infamous legislation we have 
not had. It has been my duty as a lawyer to watch 
the progress of law-making for the last 25 years, and 
I do not concur in the declaration that we have had a 
large amount of bad legislation. I, as a lawyer, arn 
hai>py to declare here that our changes in legislati<.n 
generally have been wise and wholesome, and Very 
freipiently our general laws have been amended fa' 
(he better. Sir, you cannot j)ass a law so good but 
that it can be made better. I would like to lu'ar of 
some new made general law that could not be amend¬ 
ed. [A voice: take the plunder law then.] And would 
you have the plunder law continued for two years ? 
If you have a bad law, so much greater the necessity 
that it should be repealed soon; and if after the passage 
of such a law there should be a hiatus in your legisla¬ 
tion for two years, before you could have an opporluni- 
ty of repealing it there would he Jiothiug left to plun¬ 
der. I tell you, gentlemen do not argue this question ; 
vote, if you please, but do not come to the argument. 
But excessive legislation has been heard of ever since 
the first legislative body sat. A veiy wise man and 
the greatest of English lawyers who lived in the days of 
Elizabeth, Lord Coke, made use of this remark: “When 
I am called upon for an opinion upon any question of 
common law, I should be very sorry if I could not give 
one without referi'ing to my books; but when I arn 
called upon to give an opinion upon a .statute, I should 
lie equally sorry to attempt it without referring to ray 
books.” This was said in the times of Elizabeth, when 
the Parliament only met once in seven years, or per¬ 
haps once in ten years. This matter ot statute law has 
always been a source of complaint amongst the law¬ 
yers. They have always regai’ded any statutory change 
with repugnance. They prefer the stability of the 
common law, and generally oppose all changes by leg¬ 
islation. And certainly if we are to !•, ok upon the law 
merely as an abstract science and not as a living rule 
of action, it were better not to mar it by ch?nges 

This matter of change and exces.'s, is a common evil 
which applies to all legislat on. But it is not the oil- 
spring of de.spotism, it is not found in Russia. T here 
you Imd in its place, the ukase of authority. The Em¬ 
peror says, I will it, anil that is the law. It is the sim¬ 
ple, single declaration of one man, requiring very lit- 
de amendment—none at all by the people. The same 
charge of excessive legislation applies as well to the 
States of New York, Pcmi.sylvania, xMassachusetts, and 
all the great States having annual Legislatures as to the 
State ofOhio. Who can say that we were more liable 
to the charge, than other States? I affirm that the 
charge applies as well to all the States as to our own: 
and between our State and all othcis, I stand hoie^ to 
defend Ohio from the charge of excessive legislation. 
x\o man can take the statute book in his hand, and say 
that it docs not contain the usual amount of useful and 
wholesome laws which cannot be dispensed with;and 
even within the two last years we have haiTlaws en¬ 
acted as wholesome as any in the State of Ohio. I tell 








216 


CON VENTION REPOllTS. 


gentlemen, that, amongst the wholesoinh and necessa- 
ary of our statutes, is ihe law quieting land titles— 
and the law fixing the statute of limitations in favor of 
lilies acquired at judicial sales, at seven years. Here¬ 
tofore I have witnessed some of the hardest cases in 
practice, when, after twenty years’ possession, after a 
fair purchase at an aduunistrator’s sale, the heirs 
would come in, and turn such owners out of their 
houses: and with regard to the occujjying claimants’ 
law, before that was enacted, the heirs would turn off 
the larmer, and say to him, I will take your laud and 
pay you for your improvements: but now the case is 
reversed. 

Mr. STANTON (interrupting.) I would like to know 
the opinion of the gentleman from Franklin, whether 
the Legislature has the power to pass such a law as that 
quieting the title of occupants? 

Mr. STANBERY. Yes sir, full power. After an ex¬ 
perience of twenty-five years at the bar, I am free to 
say, that of all the cases of iniquity, those which have 
followed upon recoveries in Ejectment, have been the 
worst and most strongly demanding proper legislative 
correction, and statute of repose. But, the gentleman 
will see, that if such a law were, as he supposes, not 
constitutional, the sooner it could bo repealed after its 
enactment the better. 

But I detain the committee too long. I desire mere¬ 
ly now to ask my democratic friends upon this floor, do 
you believe in the right of instruction? [Several voi¬ 
ces —“yes, yes.” You do! Well, how then arc you to 
instruct your members of Congress, when you have no 
Legislature? [A voice —“we have no occasion to 
give instructions—our members don’t need instruc¬ 
tions.”] Yes, sir; but you affirm the doctrine of in¬ 
struction ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I would instruct them upon the 
same principle upon which the Secretaiy of the Inte¬ 
rior is wihing to receive instructions—from the peo¬ 
ple generally of the State. 

Mr. STANBERY. It is a difficult thing, sir, to gath¬ 
er the voice of two millions of people? But when the 
concentrated public opinion is annually collected in 
these halls, and Congress is at the same time in session, 
there can be had a most direct interchange of views be¬ 
tween the Representative in the National Legislature 
and his constituents. It is your own doctrine, gentle 
men. You believe it, and you practice upon the laght 
of your legislative bodies to instruct your members ol 
Congress; and you give up half of it by the adoption 
of biennial sessions. 

Mr. SAWYER. We never instruct our Representa¬ 
tives in Congress. We instruct our Senators and re¬ 
quest our Representatives. 

Mr. STANBERY. In either case, you throw away 
your opportunity to instruct or l equesl; you stop this 
great organ of democratic utterance for just one-half 
of the lime. But how will you elect your United 
States Senator under a biennial system ? By the ap¬ 
pointment of the Governor, you will only remove your 
Senator a little further from the peopie. Or will you 
call an extra session for this purpose ? 

But suppose your Governor shoiild not be of the 
same way of thinking with you? He refuses to call 
the Legislature together, and the consequence is your 
seat in the United States Senate remains vacant. Do 
you say you will impeach the Governor? But you 
can’t do it without a Legislature. Y'our remedy is 
therefore silent and powerless for two years, and the 
Governor perhaps goes out of office before your next 
Legislature comes together. I tellyouthe more we argue 
it, the worse it looks—the more we look at biennial ses¬ 
sions in Ohio, the aspect grows worse and worse. Here 
we should be for two whole years without a Legislature, 
while every executive and administrative function of 
the government will ■ e going on; and even your trea¬ 
sury might bo robbed—robbed openly, and yourofficei 
defies you, because he knows you cannot touch him 
except through the impeachment of the Legislative 


body; and if the Governor should connive at the fraud, 
you cannot even call an extra session; and so you seo 
that as tile necessity fur impeachment increases, the 
power of exercising it decreases. 

Mr. Chairman: I have detained the committee too 
long. [Cries of “ go on—go on !”] I vvill not—but I 
will close with suggesting an amendment, which I will 
hereafter propose in form, and which I hojie will meet 
the views of those who are not too much committed in 
favor of-biennial sessions. For I cannot but think if 
the question were left to the deliberate and unbiased 
judgment of members here—if gentlemen were not 
afraid of their constituents—there would be little or no 
difficulty about it. My proposition is, that this ques¬ 
tion be loft open for the people hereafter to say, from 
time to time, whether the Legislature shall meet annu¬ 
ally or biennially—that we shall not fix it either way, 
but say that the sessions shall be annual or biennial as 
may ba hereafter determined—that we are willing to 
allow those legislative bodies who are to come after us 
as the I'epresentatives of public opinion to decide this 
question. And now I call upon gentlemen not to fix 
this innovation in the constitution ; so that we may not 
be obliged again to call a Convention and to have the 
constitution overhauled, on account of this single pro¬ 
vision. Leave the question to be settled from time to 
time by the wisdom of the people; and, if it must be 
so, let it go to the test of experiment, and my word 
for it, we shall not have more than one biennial session 
of the General Assembly. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD next obtaining the floor, sad: he 
did not rise to make a general argument. He had of¬ 
ten expressed his views to the Convention, and was 
not disposed to x’eview any ground which had been 
already passed over. But there was one observation 
of the gentleman from Franklin, which deserved some 
notice. 

In accounting for tbs manner in which the public 
mind has settled down in favor of biennial sessions, the 
gentleman had said it had its beginning in the doings 
of the General Assembly in times past: although the 
gentlenniii himselt did not express any opinion whether 
any thing had been done by the Assembly, calculated to 
cast deserved odium on that body or not He left this 
point at large. His opinions might be inferred to be 
one way or the other, according to the fancy of his au¬ 
dience. What was the true ground and cause of this 
approbrium which has fallen upon former legislative 
bodies? I affirm that it is to be found in the force of 
party spirit. Sometimes the Senate, lor example, a 
snuiil body consisting of an even number of men, has 
bee I equally divided, and incapable of electing a 
Speaker. 

Suppose any one of those members of that body had 
violated his party li-oth and elected a Speaker, what 
curses would not have fallen upon him I'rom bar-room 
politicians and partizan demagogues? I say then, it is 
the veiy excess of despotism to come here and throw 
out this reproach against former Assemblies, for he ask¬ 
ed any gentleman to consider what volumes of sopho¬ 
more eloquence would have been poured upon that 
man who might have gone over to the other side, and 
how he would have been sunk into the grave of polit¬ 
ical infamy so deeply that no trumpet of political res¬ 
urrection could ever awaken him. The sophomores 
who now talk so eloquently about legislative corrup¬ 
tion. would have built their political fortunes upon his 
ruins. They would have crowded this hall at the next 
session. The Legislature was not answerable for those 
delays of business, however much to be regretted. 
With reference to the statutes giving greater security 
to land titles in this State, and amendii.g the occupy¬ 
ing claimant law, the gentleman’s euloglums were very 
kind and flatteiing. But he must be permitted to state 
that that act originated widi a very humble individual 
who was now a devoted friend of biennial sessions. 
The editor of the American Law .Tournal had publicly 
thrmked the Legislature of Ohio for passing that act. 









217 


CONVENTION IlEPOllTS. 


ami spoken ot it in as high terms of cominemlatiou as I 
the gemlemau from Franklin. The Legislature had 
very little to do with the matter. The law was on the 
statute book in consequence of the strenuous, deter¬ 
mined and persevering efforts of a single individual, 
after being repeatedly defeated in the separate brancli 
es. 

Mr. HANNEY wished to say a few words in relation 
to the amendment presented by the gentleman from 
Muskingum [Mr. Stilwkll.] The amendment seemed 
to be predicated on the idea that there would be a lar¬ 
ger amount of business to be transacted by the Legis¬ 
lature immediately after the adoption of this constitu¬ 
tion. It should be remembered that a session of the 
General Assembly would take place under the old con¬ 
stitution the coming winter, and one is proposed under 
the new constitution in January 1852. 

Now, it would be seen that two annual sessions were 
ensured, in which there would be ample time to com¬ 
plete all the legislation necessary to put the new’ con¬ 
stitution in complete operation ; therefore, there was no 
nece ssity of extending the annual sessions to 1853—be¬ 
sides that, under the new constitution the executive (he 
supposed) w’ould be invested with the power to call an 
extra session at any time—if any emergency should re¬ 
quire it. For these reasons he was opposed to the 
amendment being incorporated into our constitution. 
The gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Archbold] had said 
truly, that the reasons for and against biennial sessions 
had been fully presented: he was well satisfied by the 
vote had on a previous day, that the committee had 
quite settled the question. The gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin [Mr. Stanbery] seemed to have made a new dis¬ 
covery, and he now moved for a new trial upon the 
ground of newly discovered evidence. He had dis¬ 
covered that the sitting of the Legislature last winter 
made a saving to the State of some $250,000; and the 
presumption was, that having made that saving at an 
annual session, there would be great wisdom in contin¬ 
uing it. The gentleman’s argument reminded him of 
the two boys who traded their knives with each other 
until they each made two shillings. He did not know 
but that the argument might be fair. But what did the 
Legislature do in the premises last winter? They au- 
thoiized the redemption of a portion of our debt and 
the selling of bonds to a like amount. Well, this debt 
was not payable in 1850 ; it was only payable after the 
year 1850, at the will and discretion of the State. 
However, he would take the argument as it stood. 
The gentleman told us that a j)orlion of these bonds 
had been sold at a premium of 4 per cent., soon after 
the Legislature passed the act authorizing the sale; and, 
that before the next session of the Legislature these 
bonds would bring a premium of from 15 to 20 per 
cent. Well, suppose the Legislature had not taken any 
steps in the premises until the coming winter, what 
would have been the result? Why, by delaying the 
sale until the credit of the State would be .high, as was 
said, instead of getting four per cent, they would get 
twenty. 

Mr. STANBERY (interposing.) That could not have 
been done this year, but last year the bonds would 
have been exchanged under par if it were not that the 
fund commissioners knew that there was to be a ses¬ 
sion of the Legislature, at which to get authority. 

Mr. NASH, Was it not opposed? 

Mr. STANBERY. No; the law required them. 

Mr. KANNEY resumed. What was the obligation 
of the State written upon the face of those bonds? 
That they were to be paid after the year 1850; at the 
election of the State, Now after 1850 did not include 
1850 ; so that the payment of the principal could not 
be demanded until after that period. Therefore, there 
being no obligation compulsory on the State to pay 
these bonds in 1850, there consequently was no neces¬ 
sity for putting the new bonds in the market until next 
year, and if there had been some delay in throwing 
them on the market, as ho said before, the inci’easeti 


rate of ])remiums would have been secured to the 
State. The difference w.as theiefore lost to the State 
by the annual session of 1840-50. If such a single cir¬ 
cumstance w’as worth anything as an argument, it was 
against annual sessions. He would say that he was 
much gratified to hear the comparison drawn by the 
gentleman from Franklin [Mr 8tanbery,] with the 
power of a Macauley, between the present and past 
condition of our State; he was much pleased with the 
brilliant picture which the gentleman had presented, 
illustrative of the growing greatness of Ohio. [Mr. 
Stanbery, in his seat, bowed.] He himself could 
look back to those times and contrast the wild prime¬ 
val forests which covered the land, with the cultivated 
farms and the thriving towns and cities which now 
every where meet the eye—he could look back to those 
times when the State was in its inlancy, and when all 
its great resources were yet undeveloped—yes, he could 
look back to those times, and with some degree of 
pride contrast the position of Ohio then and now. But 
w’hat had brought about this vast change? What had 
induced this great development of resources ? It was 
supposed by the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stan¬ 
bery] that it was much of it attributable to the opera¬ 
tion of annual sessions of the General Assembly, that 
by reason of the Legislature sitting here every year 
forests were cleareft, railroads w’ere built and our vast 
system of canals were constructed. No, it was by a 
very different process ; it was by the hard industry of 
the people that it was effected, without any aid from 
the Legislature; it was their energy, their industry, 
and their stern enterprize that made the State what it 
was, without legislative aid. 

But to follow the gentleman’s argument in regard to 
the saving of $250,000 last winter. The gentleman 
urged that it grew out of the lact of there being an 
annual session of the Legislature. He argued that if 
there had been no Legislature there would have been 
no bonds, and if no bonds no speculation made upon 
them. But all that did not make the bonds at a pre¬ 
mium. What made them at a premium ? It was the 
vast wealth, the power, the integrity and the honor of 
this great State that raised those bonds to a premium, 
and that without conferring any of this power, wealth, 
honor or integrity upon the people by legislative en¬ 
actment. But then it was said “$250,000 would be 
made.” Well, no one knew how much would be m ide 
on these bonds; the bonds were all in the huifH of 
agents in New York and other places. It was entirely 
an anticipatory calculation ; it was all in the future, no 
one conld accurately ascertain it. But they all knew 
that there were many calculations made that had been 
suddenly blasted. He did not propose to pursue the 
inquiry to any length, as it had already been fully dis¬ 
cussed. But he begged leave to say that the new evi¬ 
dence which the gentleman had discovered since the 
last trial of the cause, was not sufficient to entitle him 
to a re-hearing. In the course of his argument, the 
gentleman [Mr. Stanbery] had taken a view of the 
question entirely favorable to the interests of his con¬ 
stituents, and entii’ely to the disadvantage ot his [Mi. 
Ranney’s.] After a verdict agaist him, the gentleman 
wished that this subject of annual sessions should not 
be settled by the constitution, but he desned that it 
should be left to the Legislature to provide for an annu¬ 
al session or otherwise, as they should see fit, and then^ 
they would have the anomaly of a Legislature sitting 
here to determine forthemselves how often they should 
meet at the expcn.«e of the State. He conceived that 
if the matter was left to the Legislature, the recollec¬ 
tion of the urbanity and kindness always extended by 
the citizens of this place to the Legislature might in¬ 
fluence them in their determination; he could imagine 
that the hospitalities of Columbus misht becoim^so 
enlarged and their disinterested regard for the comfort 
of mmnbers so warm as might induce them to say “we 
guess we’ll come back annually. He also ^begged 
Feave to .say that the financial arrangement which was 












218 


CONVENTION KEPOIITS 


presented by the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stan 
BEUY,] was not the only hnancial arrangement that 
could be pressed into service, and which was operating 
upon this question. He did not blame the inhabitants 
of this city for being tenacious on this subject. It was 
quite a comfortable thing to have a body of respecta¬ 
ble men coming up here from all parts of the State once 
a year and expending one hundred thousand dollars 
among the citizens. That was quite comfortable. He 
did not blame the gentleman for presenting the best 
face he could for his constituents here in this city, but 
when they talked of the public good requiring annual 
sessions he could not help thinking of the unknown 
cause of the inexpressible grief of the boy who had 
his load of hay turned over. 

But we are told that the credit of the State must be 
upheld; the bond holders were to be paid. The other 
day the great argument for annual sessions was, that 
we had an overwhelming public debt to be provided 
for, whilst to-day it had dwindled into a very small 
thing: the other day there seemed to be a stern necessi¬ 
ty for annual sessions to uphold the honor of the State, 
and in order to do so, it was requisite that the Repre¬ 
sentatives of the people should come up here to pro¬ 
vide for it—now, a single dash of the pen did away 
with it. It was a small affair, and easily got along with. 
Well now what was the best mode to sustain the credit 
of the State ? One would suppose that nothing could 
be better calculated to effect that, than to curtail unne¬ 
cessary expenditure—to save upward of $100,000 a 
year, and let it go toward the payment of the State debt, 
as could be done by doing away with annual sessions. 
That was the best manner of saving the money of the 
people and applying it properly. But, said they the 
debt is to be paid, eveiy cent of it. Why who ever 
expected any thing else. The last thing we eVer would 
do would be to shrink from the prompt fulfillment of 
our obligations. 

He belonged to a section of the country in which 
scarcely any portion of tlie public money had been ex¬ 
pended. 

Mr. VANCE of Champaign (was undei'stood to) in 
quire if the gentleman did not recollect that the State 
held some $40,000 of stock in the canals in that section 
of the country. 

Mr. RANNEY replied that he was aware of the 
State holding some stock in the Pennsylvania and Ohio 
canal. , 

Mr. VANCE of Champaign, (in his seat,) I thought 
so. / 

Mr. RANNEY resumed. He would say then that 
his section without having received scarcely any pub¬ 
lic appropriations, yet they were most willing to stand 
by the credit of tlie State. But, however, he would 
turn to another of the gentleman’s arguments. The 
gentleman made a comparison between the condition 
of Ohio now, and 1820 ; he looked to the future and 
saw her still rising in grandeur and glory ; the picture 
was a fair one, and no doubt would be realized n the 
future. He told us that twenry or thirty years ago 
there was no such thing us a piano in Zanesville, now 
nothing was more common ; that was owing to annual 
sessions! Again, how could watch makers sell watch¬ 
es, unless there were annual sessions? nor was the 
ameliorating influences of the annual plan confined to 
])ianos and watches, it also extended to buggies and 
barouches! What! would the soap-locked dandy ex¬ 
claim, recurring to the beauties of his patent lever, 
give up annual sessions? Never! Then when we 
come to pianos, could we siqipose that the ladies, (dear 
creatures) would give up their luxury of performing 
on their ‘•Chickerings,’’ by going against the “annuals?” 
Wei], for their consolation lie would say, if they could 
not get pianos, they could adopt a mode of making mu¬ 
sic which pleased their mothers long ago—’hey could 
make a little music with their spinning wheels, w-hich 
w-oald contribute cpiite as much to their health. He 
had had no idea that annual sessions were so very pro¬ 


lific. Would not the corn grow unless we had annual 
sessions? He admitted that a smaller portion of it 
might be consumed here every year, but would not the 
labors of the husbandman be blessed—would he not 
have as prosperous crops if the Legisldlure did not sit 
every year, as if it did ? In his opinion the times of 
sowing and harvesting would still be found even though 
the Legislature came here but once in two years.^ Then 
again, if in 1820 we had but a small amount of prop¬ 
erly that was the subject of legislative regulation, and 
ifinlSoO we had a hjrger amount of such property, 
still the same laws would apply to it ad. There was 
no occasion that law should increase as propei’ty did. 
The same rule would be efiectual to regulate much or 
little. 

The other day the gentleman in considering the ap¬ 
portionment plaji of the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 
Reejielin] ran back and found that if the rule had op¬ 
erated retrospectively, at the time we cc^mmcnced our 
existence as a State, we should have had but Iwm Rep¬ 
resentatives. The Legislature sat annually then. If 
we went on the same argument, in 1850 we ought to 
have a session every three months, in proportion with 
our increasing wants. Further, the same rule that reg¬ 
ulated property in small amounts, regulated it in large 
and he contended that there was less regulation re¬ 
quired now than in 1820, for as our property increas¬ 
ed, its condition became more stable; therefore, the 
argument of the gentleman seemed to him to have no 
sort of connection with the subject under considera¬ 
tion—how often sboidd the Legislature sit? The gen¬ 
tleman made one prediction which he [Mr. R.] hoped 
would turn out a false prophecy. He was not a pro¬ 
phet himself, but the gentleman said that “ when we 
were cleared from the debt which we were struggling 
to pay, we could incur another.” He took it entirely 
different—he took it that the sentiment of the people 
was against any indebtedness hereafter—and that it 
was not the province of the Legislature to run the 
country into debt. And he begged to suggest that it 
was not the province of the Legislature to turn f)roker 
—he took it that the Legislature of a great State was 
the last place in w’hich brokerage should be carried 
on. But, at all events, let us stand by the old debt we 
have incui’red, but let it be the fixed determination of 
the people to run into no more debt; and he hoped 
that this Convention would not break up until it had 
said, “ the Legislature of Ohio shall not hereafter incur 
a debt—they shall not be an indebted people.” He 
was aware that certain interests demanded the contin¬ 
uance of this debt, as bad been already suggested. 
But what did the law to which the gentleman referred, 
do? It did this: it gave bonds that could not be paid 
until 1870 nr 1875, in place of those that could be paid 
at the election of the people after 1850. What was 
the result? The State was mortgaged to the bondhold¬ 
ers for a quai’ter of a century longer—no matter how 
much they might desire to pay off the debt. The 
credit of the Stale was such that the holders would 
not receive payment on the bonds, for they were at 
such a premium that it would not be desirable. Well, 
the consequence was, that the Legislature last winter 
mortgaged this State so that the people could not pay 
off the bonds until 1875, even if they were prepared. 
So, if the speculation had been realized to the utmost 
extent, as stated by the gentleman, he thought that the 
people should not have been saddled with such a debt, 
it should rather have been left to the people them¬ 
selves to determine the matter. 

Mr. SAWYER interposing, begged to make a sug¬ 
gestion. He understood the gentleman to be opposed 
to the amendment as now offered, and be understood 
the araeiulment to be that the Legislature should have 
annual sessions until 1853. From the calculation he 
had made in regard to the sittting of our biennial Leg¬ 
islature, indicated in the amendment, it would catch 
the Lime when our United States Senators ■w'ei’e to be 














CONVENTION EEPOllTS. 


219 


elected; it would just come right, and there would be 
no difiiculty on the subject. 

Mr. STANBERY. Well, how can you make two 
years agree witli three ? 

Mr. SAWYER. The calculation 1 made will catch 
the election right, and I understand that- 

Mr. STILWELL interposing. If the Senatois lived, 
or had not resigned. He never knew them to resign 
or die. He thought that the amendment would bring 
it precisely right. 

Mr. RANNEY resumed. He had one word more to 
say and he was through ; and that word was in rela¬ 
tion to an objection before made, which was that by 
biennial sessions public otHcers would not be brought 
to an account every year. Now, they had already a- 
dopted a section of the report containing a provision re¬ 
quiring that the public ollicers should annually publish 
a statement of the expenditures of the public money. 
What was the diiliculty in securing such accountability 
without bringing the Legislature here to lix this mat¬ 
ter? A number of important State ollicers not intrust¬ 
ed with the public money will be elected by the peo¬ 
ple. What objection could there be of having them 
invested with the power of making those intrusted with 
the public moue}’-, accountable for their doings ? That 
would constituU^ a much more satisfactory board of re¬ 
vision than any that could be appointed by the legisla¬ 
tive body, and fully as safe to the people. But how 
stood the matter ? In the first place, no man was in¬ 
trusted with the care of the public funds until he had 
given bonds to a large amount, and had sworn solemn¬ 
ly to carefully w’atch them : then no man could touch 
them without committing downright larceny. He 
might be allowed to ask, without meaning anything of 
disrespect, was it not the tendency of the Legislature 
to appropriate too freely the public money to different 
objects? It was not casting any apprehension on them, 
when saying that they repropriated the public money 
to many purposes which the public did not require or 
permit. The difference between the legislative and 
executive officer was, the first had discretionary power 
over the treasury, the latter had none. This discretion 
to appropriate was more dangerous to the treasury than 
the contingency of the funds being stolen by the execu¬ 
tive officer. 

Now, the gentleman said “public indications had 
come up here tremendously in favor of annual ses¬ 
sions.” The people sent up members to this Conven¬ 
tion to transact certain business; they knew what they 
were to do, and therefore did not think it necessary to 
be constantly instructing them. He knew that in his 
part of the State there was a well grounded opinion in 
favor of biennial sessions—he knew it by his inter¬ 
course with the people. However, he did not know 
but there were parts of the State opposed to the bien 
nial system. All he could say was, that he had no 
doubt of what was the understanding and wishes of 
the people he represented; and perhaps he was even 
mistaken in that, but if he were he would vote for bi¬ 
ennial sessions, supposing that it was the opinion of 
his constituency. He would suggest to the gentleman 
from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] whether the roai'ings 
of public opinion after all were not confined within a 
narrow space, or in the language of the gentleman 
from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] whether after all this 
tempest of opinion was mA a tempest in in a tea pot?” 
[Laughter.] He believed that the sentiment against 
biennial sessions was for the most part confined to but 
small portions of the country, and perhaps principally 
to some of the cities. 

In conclusion, he would say that he did notconsid- 
er the facts stated by the gentleman here of a weight 
sufficent to warrant a new trial of the question. It 
seemed to him that the committe had already come to 
the correct conclusion. 

Mr. REE.MELIN. We must not diguise the fact that 
the friends of annual sessions labor under decided dis 
advantage in this d.'seussion and I trust therefore that 


the friends of biennial sessions will extend to us that 
lenity that a strong adversary should extend to a weak 
one. We are made to leel at every point ol the dis¬ 
cussion the triumphant assertion tliat public opinion is 
decidedly in favor of biennial sessions. I trust that 1 
iiave in tliis controversy acted with due deference to 
this assumed superiority of the biennial men. It is 
with me a cardinal principle in poliii<?8 to bow submis¬ 
sively to public opinion clearly expressed; and I repeat 
that were I instructed as other men here are, or did I 
think that the people whom I in part have the honor to 
represent were in favor of biennial sessions, I would 
vote fur it, however much it might be against my own 
convictions of its expediency. But, I do not believe 
that any such decided public opinion exists, while 1 do 
admit that some public opinion does exist. The annu¬ 
al meu have suffered this cpicsliou previous to the 
meeting of this Convention to go by default, and I 
cannot help believing that had the matter been discuss¬ 
ed before the people, had fair arguments and due exer¬ 
tion been used we should have here, instead of a nia- 
jority in favor of biennial sessions, a far more decided 
expression in favor ol I’etaining the practice under the 
old constitution. The biennial men begin to show a 
decided anxiety to close this discussion, because they 
begin to feel tfiat public opinion is rapidly changing 
on this question and had there been but a few inoiiths 
to go upon, a radical change would take place in tiie 
public mind. From all quarters of the State wc re¬ 
ceive not only the news of changes on this questi ai. 
but we find also the annual men commencing to be 
awake to the question. I cannot therefore regard as a 
final arbiter this repeated assertion that biennial si.s- 
sions are desired by a majority of the people of Ohio. 
The biejiuial men feel this as well as we do and their 
trepidation is becoming obvious to all; they are catch¬ 
ing, not arguments, but at make weights to sustain a 

failing cause. . . . , „ v. 

As such I must regard the insinuations that navt^ 
been thrown out as to the sincerity of the advocates of 
annual sessions. The peculiar position of the two gen¬ 
tlemen from Franklin, [Messrs. Stanbery and Swan] 
has been used frequently, and I may add improperly, for 
the purpose of getting clear of arguments that could, 
not be answered fairly; and sordid motives have ten 
attributed to men who, if I be not v^ei’y much mistaken, 

are not subject to the charge. . ^ i i • 

Mr. RANNEY (interposing) said _ that what lie in- 
tended to convey in the course of his remarks tins 
morning, was not at all that the gentlemen from I rauk- 
lin were influenced by any motive other than what 
was proper in their opposition to biennial sessions. ^ 
What he said was that for many reasons the people ol 
Franklin county desired annual sessions. 

Mr. REEMELIN resumed. I know that the imm- 
uation was very cautiously worded, but neyerthejess 
the idea sought to be conveyed vyas, that moUves ot in¬ 
terest and not motives for the public good actuated t e 
friends of annual sessions. . 

Mr. STANBERY (interposing ) la mi - 

tion of this importance, I would not be capa j ‘ 
ing down to such a low consideration as e 
of Franklin county. , , 

Mr. REEMELIN. I knew that such . 

and especially in such a charge levelled 
our venerable Irieud on my left (.Mi -’wa ,) 
convinced is actuated by no such mo ju 

treated it properly by F--“Srirk light XS to 
reply to such an msmuation. i a,. o 

trer 
ind 

e active perseveiciutv^ fin Pii 

Lise such mere make weights when you i Y o 

iiave used fair argument. Ura 

Mr. STANTON (interposing) said 
thought it proper to refer to the no uia - “j ^ 

ivhich human nature even unconsciously ® ^ 

md thus to show to how much weight the aigumculo 















220 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the gentlemman from Franklin [Mr. SxANnERv] was 
entitled. 

Mr. REEMELIN resuming. Exactly so, it was to 
get clear of the argument that this personal insinuation 
was made. It was I repeat a mere make weight and 
one improperly introduced and so far from having any 
effect against us, it shotild show to gentlemen how 
weak a cause must be that needs such insinuations to 
sustain it. But I am done with this part of the sub¬ 
ject. 

I will now reply to some of the arguments that have 
formed the staple of every gentleman’s speech that 
was delivered in favor of biennial sessions. Our op¬ 
ponents certainly have had the advantage of the Chi¬ 
nese mode of eating, for they have had their arguments 
chewed up for them over and over again, and they 
should by this time be ready for digestion. But such 
seems not to be the case ; for every a7mual ” speech 
we have had two “ biennials ” in reply ; still insisting 
upon their much vaunted public opinion, and upon the 
repeated and re-repeated arguments. Let us look at 
them. The main point upon which they rrdy is that 
biennial sessions would produce more stability in legis¬ 
lation. I do not believe that such will be the effect, 
for w’e are yet a pople not entirely “ hoino genous,” 
nor have we settled down into the stability of habits 
and customs which must be the precursor, and upon 
which alone stability of legislation can be based. 
Gtmilemen are mistaken if they regard the people of 
Ohio, as a population, settled in its pursuits; or a peo¬ 
ple for whom it will not require frequent changes in 
their laws. The law should follow custom—custom is 
made and chaiiged in accordance to the peculiar posi¬ 
tion of a people. It is not right to compel a people to 
square themselves to tlie laws, we should rather square 
the laws to the people. Every nation requires differ 
ent lavvs, not only in consequence of the peculiar geo¬ 
graphical position which each may occupy, but niucb 
more so in consequence of the particular composition 
of the inhabitants. No man can yet foretell whether 
the people of Ohio will be a commercial, a farming, or 
a manufacturing people. Its natural resources are, as 
yet, not fully developed—its lauded area is but half 
cultivated—its population has not yet become consoli¬ 
dated, nor their habits or customs fixed—and it is, 
therefore, while undergoing changes in all these par¬ 
ticulars. that I view the change to biennial sessions 
extremely hazardous. It is the instability inherent 
to a newly settled country, that is tiie cause of the 
instability of onr legislation. Our roads—our turnpikes 

our railroads and onr canals bad to be made froin 
t'.ie start—schools, universities, and colleges had to be 
established; tlie altars of our religion had to be rear¬ 
ed—onr finances had to he brought into regulai*ity 
from chaos—in fact th^ whole structure of society had 
to be made by a people as yet unsettled in its charac- 
aptcr, and ever changing in its pursuits. Under these 
circumstances it was natural that our legislators in fra¬ 
ming our laws, should copy largely from other States, 
but the laws thus copied, were found in many instan¬ 
ces inconvenient and unsuitable to onr condition. 
We copied at fi.-st principally from I’ennsylvania and 
Virginia, but latterly we have copied more from New 
York. The reason for this is that the geographical posi¬ 
tion of onr State, and the habits and feelings of a large 
portion of our people, in connection with their inter¬ 
ests here, move in consonance with those of New York, 
and it was therefore to be expected that New York leg¬ 
islation was becoming more suitable to our considera¬ 
tion. IVhole statu es have lately been copied without 
dotting an “ i,” or without crossing a “ t,” and so it 
was formerly from Pennsylvania and Virginia. But 
these copies were found to be not exactly suitable to 
us, and they had therefore to be adapted to onr pecn- 
iiar habits and customs. A gradual development has 
fiikcn and is taking place, and I ask gentlemen wheth¬ 
er they seriously contend that under these circumstan¬ 
ces w do , 1 - I require annual legislation. 


How it may be in 20 years from the present I cannot 
tell, but I should even tjieii view with suspicion, a 
change from annual to biennial sessions. Our roads, 
our turnpikes, and onr railroads as well as our schools, 
colleges and universities, not to mention our financial ■ 
and pecuniary condition as a people, are not yet in that 
state of forwardue.ss and permanency which will war¬ 
rant such an experiment. 

Mr. CUTLER (interposing) asked if it were not 
proposed to pass general laws on the subject of rail¬ 
roads, turnpikes and other matters. 

Mr. REE.MELIN bowed assent. 

Mr. CUTLER then said, I do not believe general 
laws can be made on this subject, 

Mr. REEMELIN continuing. So mTtch the worse 
for your position, for how came you to be a biennial | 
man, if such subjects require special legislation. With ^ 
biennial legislation, one part of the State, through rail- L 
road charters, might get a decided advantage over the | 
other without being able to counteract the policy un- | 
der two years. But ev'en in the general laws we shall 
require frequent clianges, so as to adapt our laws to ) 
our wants as a people. This cannot be denied, unless < 
it is insisted that our people have attained that perma- i 
nency which will warrant so hazardous an experiment. 

I desire that gradual development which has been go- i 
ing on forfifty years, so that our people may be enabled - 
to establish those laws which experience shall gradually i i 
and regularly, at short periods, point out to them. Our 
government has, in times past, and will even if biennial 
sessions were adopted, in all its departments except ^ 
the legislative, perform an annual cycle. Onr township 
officers make an annual settlement: our taxes are an¬ 
nually collected : all ourcounly matters are based upon , 
annual accounts, and our State officers, as well as those j; 
of our public institutions have their annual settlements, j 
Are you not destroying the symmetry and harmony ' 
of your government by thus making your legislation , 
biennial, while the whole remainder of your govern- f 
ment performs it in annual evolutiotis ? Will not your 
frequent extra sessions, the inevitable result of your , 
policy, bring about a disjointed action of your govern¬ 
ment, such as you do not now anticipate.^ I think it 
will, and that the structure of your government will 
want that resrular, easy and harmonious action which 
is so desirable to a republican people. 

I ask my brother democrats to ponder well upon the 
undeniable fact that biennial sessions and biennial elec¬ 
tions go hand ifi band I wi.sb them to remember that i 
the step they are about to take is a step from the people: 
that it is an extension of power, and that is a preven¬ 
tion of that annual action of the people on their gov¬ 
ernment, which we have had heretofore. I will re¬ 
mind them again and again of that true remark of old 
Thomas Jefferson, “that when animal elections end 
tyranny begins.” The people will have to extend the 
power of attorney to their legislative agents, and if they 
err in the selection, they have no chance to correct the 
error under two years. And, now let ns see in what 
an awkward predicament the “biennial” advocates 
stand. They have told us of tbe “instability of legis¬ 
lation”— of its multiplicity, of its crude and undigested 
form. They have held up to us the errors of many bad 
laws : they have exposed the propensity of legislators 
to be lavish in expenditures, in short they hold up to 
us a picture of pusillanimity, deformity and corruption, 
lliat should make every Ohioan blush at the past action 
of the Legi.slature. But while they thus hold up to us . 
the legislative jiower as the great tyrant of this peo¬ 
ple—the squanderer of its monies anil the panderer to ' 
corrupt and bad legislation, they ask us to extend the 
power of attorney of this miserable agent. Two years 
are we to indulge without being able to correct it, this 
mischievions agent. If this be a correct policy, then I 
do not understand remedies for public evils. If this be 
democracy, then I freely acknowledge that I have not , 
learned in that democratic school. 

We are apt both to overrate and underrate the im- 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 221 


portance of our government. I have no doubt grass 
will grow—corn will be planted, and the harvest will 
be brought into the barn yard—our commerce would 
still increase—the blacksmith’s anvil would still re¬ 
sound from the strokes ot the liammer, and as the gen¬ 
tleman from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney3 says, “the sun 
would still shine, our hills would still be there, and our 
valleys would still be pi’oductive ol food and pleaure.’ 
But does the gentleman mean to contend that no gov¬ 
ernment is necessary 1 Will he not admit that a regu¬ 
larly active government, such as we have had, with its 
annual executive, judicial and legislative departments 
has done much, and will continue to do much towards 
the security of life and property, and towards the 
rapid fullilment of that glorious destiny of which we 
as yet see but the beginning, but whose ultimate re¬ 
sults the gentleman from Ti-anklin [Mr. Stanbery] 
has so glowingly depicted to vision. We want, it is 
true, but little government; but that little we want 
under the continued control of the people. We want 
a government capable of an easy and gradual develop¬ 
ment, going step by step with the people, accommoda¬ 
ting itself to all our wants, our interests, our habits 
and our customs. 

Remember that while biennial sessions may occasion 
ally preserve good laws, they also tend to the preser¬ 
vation of bad laws. Good laws will, if we believe in 
the capability of the people for self-government, be 
generally preserved on the statute book, while under 
your plan the ability of the people to wipe out bad 
laws is protracted to a period of two years. A good 
law need to have no fear from the action of the people 
on it, and the bad law should not be suffered to remain 
on the statute book one day longer than the people 
may deem necessary to change it. it is this danger by 
^which the people will be compelled to endure the in¬ 
conveniences resulting from bad laws for too long a pe¬ 
riod that makes me so anxious to get you to I’ecousider 
your previous conclusion. 

One ounce of experience we are told is worth a ton 
of speculation. Let us examine the experience of our 
past history. Would the plunder law not have contin¬ 
ued an additional year on your statute books? Would 
not thereby your State debt have been increased to forty 
millions? Would not one additional year have enabled 
the speculators on the people’s money to perfect their 
arrangements, and then spread over the State of Ohio 
a net-work of unfinished j)ublic improvements—of a 
blasted credit or a ruined financial condition. 

Mr. LA.RSH. Was that plunder law repealed at the 
next session after it was passed ? 

Mr. RBBMELIN. That makes no difference, for it 
might and it might not happen to come up at regular 
biennial periods. 

Mr. LARSH wished to know if it were the law of 
the State for over two years. 

Mr. RBBMBLIN. No difference whether it was or 
was not. The point I make is that a bad law will un¬ 
der your plan necessarily have to exist two years and 
very likely might exist for four yeai's, enabling thereby 
the crafty speculator to perfect their arrangements and 
swamp our finances. 

Mr. MITCHELL interposing, desired to know how 
many acts of incorporation of railroads and turnpikes, 
were passed by the Legislature after the repeal of the 
plunder law. 

Mr. REEMELIN continued. Did not the gentleman 
know that we were going to take away the power of 
passing special charters on such subjects. I can see 
no point in your iu*pihy. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ARC HBOLD. Was not the plunder law passed 
at an annual session ? 

Mr. REEMELIN continued. So it was, but would 
it not have also been passed by a biennial session.— 
[Laughter.] 

A Voice —No. 

Mr. REEMELIN. But since gentlemen are so fas¬ 
tidious, I will give them a specimen of annual experi¬ 


ence. A few years ago a militia law was passed, by 
which two days labor were made equal to fifty cents and 
by which the supervisors on our roads were made the 
generals of our militia. That law would have been 
continued on our statute books for tw'o years, while by 
annual sessions and aimuai elcclious it was swept aw'ay 
the succeediug winter. 

Again, was it not the hope of an annual session which 
enabled one of the Governors of Ohio at the commence¬ 
ment of the Mexican war, to clothe, feed, and place our 
gallant volunteers in comfortable quarters? Again, 
would your Yontzes aud Murines have mu riot with 
your biennial sessions, for another year upou your pub¬ 
lic treasury? 

Forget not that your legislative power will bo mate¬ 
rially lessened in inllueiice and scope by the provisions 
which we have already adopted. The ayes aud noes 
on the passage of every bill—a majority of all the 
members, necessary to pass it; deprived of the appoint¬ 
ing and the apportioning power—confined to general 
laws only, will notour Legislature, purified and simpli¬ 
fied as it then will be, attend better to the few simple- 
objects left to its care: and, by being allowed to meet 
annually, and that on the first Monday of Jaiiuaiy, will 
it not, by short sessions, bear an entirely difierent char¬ 
acter from the past Legislatures? Are you not weaken¬ 
ing your patieut too much; we have physicked him al¬ 
ready, now you ask us to blister him to death. Are 
you not precisely in the condition of the servants in 
the well known anecdote which is said to have hap- 
pned ill France, and I ask the pardon of the gentleman 
from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] for again traveling out of 
the country. But, the anecdote happened in France, 
and I cannot, without a stretch of fancy, transfer it to 
this countiy. 

It is said, that once upon a time, an old lady in 
France, who had a very extended, but also a very regu¬ 
lar household, had a rooster, who, to the aunoyance of 
the servants, had a habit peculiar to that species of ani¬ 
mals, of crowing very lustily every morning at the 
break ol day. The daily crowing of the rooster was 
the signal for the old lady to rise and wake up the ser¬ 
vants; the latter were exceedingly annoyed at the regu¬ 
larity of the rooster. They would have rather slept 
a little longer and turned over on their pillows, but the 
rooster would crow, the old lady would rise and the 
servants he waked up at the bi’eak of day. The ser¬ 
vants held a cousultaticn in their dilemma, whether in 
Convention assembled or in the kitchen I am not in¬ 
formed, but they did unanimously decide that the roos¬ 
ter’s crowing sliould be stopped, aud the modus operan¬ 
ds hit upon was to take the head olf the wakeful ani- 
mal. The resolution was carried into eftect—the rooster 
fell a victim to the desire for repose, and the servants 
triumphed in the expectation of luxuriant sleep.—■ 
(Laughter.) The first, few days it worked pretty well, 
but soon the old lady, accustomed as she was to be 
waked up regularly by her old rooster, would wake up 
at irregular periods of the night, wake up the servants 
and ask “what hour of the night is it?” The result 
was, that instead of a regular sleep until the break of 
day, the old lady had become nervous, and she would 
wake the servants repeatedly during the night, until 
from very despair, they were compelled to get another 
rooster that would wake up at the regular hour, re-es¬ 
tablishing thereby the old regularity of the household. 
Aye, and so will it be here. Y’^ou will take the head 
olf your rooster, (laughter,) but the time will come 
when you will wish him back, and you will bring him 
back to re-iiistato the old regularity in your govern¬ 
ment. 

Do not misunderstand the tendency of ting matter. 
It is more executive, more judicial government and 
less legislative. Large margins in your taxing power 
to the Auditor—in fact the surrender ol that power to 
that officer is the inevitable consequence. He it will 
be that will say how much the people shall be taxed— 
ho will define the per centum to be levied—he will i»- 









222 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


sue his mandates, and the General Assembly may bid 
“ farewell, a long farewell” to all control over that sub¬ 
ject. No man can pre-calculate or define within proper 
limit?, the amount to be raised and the taxes to be lev¬ 
ied. Your Auditor will indeed be king! and so it will 
be w'ilh your appropriations; large sums will have to 
be given; large margins will have to be left, and all 
the control the Legislature will have will be to look at 
the bills when the account is rendered and scratch their 
'heads. Adopt the biennial system, and good bye to 
all attempts to restrain the power of the Auditor and to 
control the receipts and expenditures of our public 
works. No member of the Legislature will examine 
'the biennial accounts—none will attempt to regulate 
them for the two years before them. One of the cau.s- 
es that brought this Convention together will be lost 
forever. The board of I’ublic Works will continue 
without the revision of the Legislature to receive and 
pay out their revenues. That my friend from Monroe, 
[Mr. Archbold,] should participate in this fatal step, 
and should after along chase, when the subject is just 
within his grasp, suffer himself forever to be defeated 
in his object by voting lor biennial sessions, is to me a 
matter not only of astonishment, but of extreme regret. 
He forgets that this is not only a step from the people, 
but that in its train follows inevitably less responsibility 
of public agents, less control over our public finances. 

He has become fascinated with the idea that by the 
plan proposed we will have more respectability in the 
Legislature. That may be one of the results and it 
tmay not. If it be, why will it be so ? Why will the 
people send more respectable men to the Legislature? 
Because they will be more cai’eful in their selection. 
..Ynd why more careful? Because the term is longer 
for which they have to elect their public agent. That 
agent may betray them and they cannot recall him for 
two years. He may violate every trust confided to his 
-caie, but the people cannot reach him—his power ex¬ 
tends to two years. The danger of betrayal and the 
violation of a public trust is the reason that will make 
the people more careful. Is there any necessity for 
'incurring this danger ? Is not one year enough to trust 
any one man with sovereign j)ower ? Should we not 
rather lessen the danger, and trust to the people for 
“the repectability of their General Assembly?” 

But is thei'e not danger in this tendency? Will it 
.stop at biennial sessions? Will it not rather go to tri¬ 
ennial, and ultimately to septennial Legislatures? Dis¬ 
pensing with the law making power may become popu¬ 
lar—the people might find it easier to get clear of 
politics altogether by trusting too much to the execu¬ 
tive and judicial power. Are we not making a great 
change in our government? Are we not departing 
from the legitimate principles of a representative 
government? The gentleman from Logan [Mr. Stan¬ 
ton] has already told us “that his people favored tri¬ 
ennial sessions,” and the gentleman from Knox [Mr. 
Mitchell] has avowed himself in favor of the idea of 
meeting but once in five years. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say, that I am 
sure that the expectations of our opponents as to the 
stability of legislation will be disappointed. We will 
' have just as much legislation—no more stable and much 
of it passed in a great hurry, and under great excite¬ 
ment. The excitements of 1848 and 1849 with the 
hope of a speedy remedy through annual elections, 
would have been carried to the highest pitch if the fate 
of a biennial Legislature had hung upon the issue. 
Your “ lobbies ” will have a stronger excitement to 
seruie the pass'ige of the laws they desire; for they 
will feel secure that they have effected their object for 
a longer period. Your representatives will be more 
sorely tempted to pass bad law.s, and they will feel 
less their responsibility to the people. These are the 
views I desired to present. I did not expect this ques¬ 
tion to arise this morning, nor do I expect that it will 
change the result of the question about to be put. for 
it is clearly to be perceived that the biennial men are 


in a majority in this Convention. Wo must arouse 
public opinion to the question. The public press, 
which has come out almost unanimously in favor of an¬ 
nual sessions, must do their duty. Perhaps when the 
sober second thought of the people comes back to the 
capitol it may come back time enough to save annual 
sessions and annual elections. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I wish to make a few remarks 
before the vote is taken, and I shall make them as 
brief as possible. The gentleman from Hamilton has 
just told us that the friends of biennial sessions are un¬ 
easy and wavering—that they find it difficult to stem 
the torrent of public sentiment in favor of annual ses- 
sessions, and that if it were not for the instructious by 
which they feel themselves to be bound, they would 
abandon their position and vote in favor of annual ses¬ 
sions. I recognize the right of the gentleman to speak 
for himself, and to define his own position, but I think 
it rather a hazardous undertaking for him to attempt to 
speak for, and define the positions of others. Not at¬ 
tempting to do so, but speaking for myself, I must say 
the gentleman is entirely mistaken. I have not felt I 
any uneasiness or unwavering on this subject, nor have 
I for a moment been disposed to abandon the position | 
I have taken in favor of biennial sessions. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Why then are you up now ? , 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Because it may be that there is [ 
a studied attempt on the part of some gentlemen here, ; 
to create a public sentiment in this Hall on this ques- j 
tion—an attempt to do what my friend from Monroe, f 
the other day, in alluding to a different matter, very P 
aptly called “ manufacturing home-made thunder and I 
lightning.” Why, look at it sir! The gentleman from 
Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] very modestly told us this i 
morning that it might do for gentlemen who were in , 
favor of biennial sessions to vote upon the question, 
but he advised us for God’s sake not to attempt to ar- 
gue it. The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reeme- 
lin] has just told us that the friends of biennial ses- 
isons, overpowered by the urgements of tlie opposite 
side, and an alleged outbreak of popular sentiment in j 
favor of annual sessions, their opponents are convinced ■ i 
that their position is untenable, and would abandon it ,! 
did they not conceive themselves to be bound and 
shackled by instructions from their constituents. Now i 
I am unwilling that these remarks shall go out without i 
comment and contradiction. While I acknowledge j 
the ability and ingenuity with which gentlemen have ' 
argued the propriety and necessity of annual sessions, 

I must also say that their arguments liave entirely ' 
(ailed to convince me of either that propriety or neces- !| 
sity—that my convictions heretofore entertained and t 
expressed in favor of biennial sessions, remain wholly I* 
unchanged and unshaken. 

Let us now examine this ailedged tremendous out- i 
break of popular sentiment in favor of annual sessions, i 
Where does it exist? What is the evidence of it? 
Gentlemen tell us that the newspapers in Cincinnati j 
and some other places have since the previous discus¬ 
sion of this question here, come out in favmr of annual 
sessions. This may be so, sir. I have not examined. I 
But does this show a change of popular sentiment on ; 
this subject ? I do not know what position these pa- i 
pers have occupied before the spring election, on this i 
question, and I do not always recognize the opinions 
of editors as the opinions of the people, particularly in i 
cases where a sudden change is said to have taken ; 
place in the public mind. Editors may sometimes h 
think they can create a public sentiment and in this 
they may be mistaken; they may sometimes think they 
ex press public sentiment on a given question and again I 
they may be mistaken. There are published in the [ 
the county in which I reside three newspapers, for the J 
opinions of the editors of which I entertain all proper ,, 
respect, and to whose published opinions I will always 
give due consideration and weight; but should either 
or all ot them express themselves in favor of annual 
sessions I should require further proof before I could 













CONVENTION IIEPOIITS. 


223 


believe that my conslitiieats had changed their opiu- 
ioiis on this subject. 1 have conversed freely witlj 
them and from ])ersontil intercourse with them know 
well the opinions they entertained a short month ago, 
and they knew as well my opinion. If they have 
changed those opinions, a certain mode of indicating 
that change is by letters, memorials and lesolutions 
passed at public meetings. W hen 1 iim by these means 
convinced that a change has taken place I will give my 
vole accordingly, althoudi my own opinion would 1 
think remain unchanged. But, sir, I have neither 
setn or heard any evidence of such change—not a line 
—not a whisper, and I do not believe any such change 
has taken place. 

While I have the floor I will remark briefly on some 
other points. The gentleman from Hamilton has ar¬ 
gued this question as if it were a question of govern¬ 
ment or no government, of order or anarchy. Now', 
sir, this is not the question at issue. It is merely a 
question of how often it is necessary and proper that 
the people should gather together by their Represent¬ 
atives to enact new or amend or repeal old law's— 
w'hether it is better and safer that this should be done I 
annually or biennially. I apprehend that while our 
General Assembly is not in session, we have a govern¬ 
ment—the law making power is in the hands of the 
people, where it is safe, or rather perhaps is dormant, 
and cannut be used to their prejudice ; but the Execu¬ 
tive and Judicial departments are in full operation, ex¬ 
tending, by means of existing laws, protection to the 
rights and interests of the people. It strikes me that 
there is a misconception on the part of some gentlemen 
who have argued this question and who seem to be 
impressed with the idea that it is only owing to the 
sessions of our General Assembly that the people pos 
sess any power. I think this is incorrect; the sove¬ 
reignty—the law making power is in the people at all 
times, except during those sessions; at these times it 
is in the hands of agents and returns again to the peo¬ 
ple as soon as the agents cease to act. Strictly speak¬ 
ing, perhaps the pow'er may be said to remain with the 
agents, as they may be called together again to exer- 
cist! it; but if it be so, it is in a passive, not an active 
state. The agents are, for this time, mere depositories 
of power, without the means of exercising, unless call¬ 
ed on so to do by a separate and distinct department 
of the government. I think, Mr. Chairman, that gen¬ 
tlemen who favor annual sessions, in arguing this ques¬ 
tion, are in error in draw'ing comparisons between our 
form of government and monarchical governments, in 
aid of their view of the question. With us, the sove¬ 
reignty is in the people—in monarchies it is in a great¬ 
er or less degree in the monarch. Now, sir, what de¬ 
partment of governmentis it, which, w'herever it exists, 
is always stealing or w'resting to itself power from the 
sovereign ? I answer, the legislative or law making 
power. In governments where this department does 
not exist, and the sovereignty is in the monarch, that 
monarch is a despot, and the people are slaves. Under 
limited monarchies, where this department does exist, 
it is the channel through which power passes from the 
monarch, and the body between which and the mon¬ 
arch a struggle for power is continually going on ; and 
hence the Liberals under a monarchical government 
are always in favor of frequent sessions of their Legis¬ 
lature. But, sir, this is not the state of affairs with us. 
Here, the people are sovereign, and do we need a leg¬ 
islative body to carry on a continual war with our sove¬ 
reign, to draw power from his hands? It is no less 
true, sir, in popular than in monarchical governments, 
that the Legislature is the channel through which pow¬ 
er is drawn from the sovereign, as it is the channel 
through which power is drawn from the people, and 
I wish to make it as narrow, and open it as seldom as 
is consistent with safety. We are here to narrow that 
channel, and I hope, sir, to provide that it shall not be 
opened more frequently than once in two years. 

I have been somewhat amused at the ditferent views 


taken by the gentleman from Hamilton county, and 
some other gentlemen who agree with him on this 
question, touching its connection with the power now 
exercised by the Auditor of Slate to levy taxes. The 
gentleman from Hamilton is warmly in favor of an¬ 
nual sessions, and as warmly in favor of depriving the 
Auditor of this power; and he tells us that if we suc¬ 
ceed in abolishing annual sessions we may bid farewell 
to all hopes of taking this power from that officer. 
Other gentlemen who are in favor of annual sessions 
but who deem the retention of this power by the Au¬ 
ditor a matter of paramount importance, act cordially 
with him in attempting to retain annual sessions, not 
believing the declaration of the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton, that to establish biennial sessions would secure 
this power to the Auditor. Again, other gentlemen 
who favor biennial sessions desire to deprive the Au¬ 
ditor of this power; and others, yet, w'ho desire that it 
should be left with him, are in favor of biennial ses¬ 
sions. Now, who shall decide? 1 do not myself be¬ 
lieve that the questions are really in any way connect¬ 
ed. I endeavored a few days since to show that if our 
mode of taxation remains as it is, no inconvenience 
can arise from the abandonment of annual and the 
adoption of biennial sessions, and should we hereafter 
alter our mode of taxation in the particular referred to, 
1 shall endeavor to show that with such alteration no 
inconvenience will result from biennial sessions. 

It a 2 )pears to be conceded by all that we have had 
hasty and inconsiderate legislation, and that it is desir¬ 
able to find a remedy for this evil. We insist that bi¬ 
ennial sessions of the Legislature will tend to produce 
the desired result. How ? In this way:—The peojile, 
feeling that a greater responsibility rests with them, 
will make more careful and prudent selections of legis¬ 
lators ; the legislators, feeling that more depends on 
their action—that they too have an increased responsi¬ 
bility—will be more careful and circumsj)ect in acting. 
Why do we usually select better men for the Senate 
of the United States than for the House of Reju-esenta- 
tives ? Why do we usually select belter men for the 
Senate in our own State than for the lower House ? 
Is it not because in each of these cases we feel the ne¬ 
cessity fur so doing by reason of the increased respon¬ 
sibility of the station ? 

A Member. Why not elect them for life ? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. No; there is always a safe me¬ 
dium between extremes. If we elected legislators for 
life we would deprive ourselves of all power in ina- 
kiug laws. Might I not as well ask why not have semi¬ 
annual, quarteily, monthly sessions? Nay, why not 
have a per))elual session ? It is answered, it is not ne¬ 
cessary. Well, I say annual sessions are not necessary. 
It is a mere question of convenience and necesisity. 1 
do not believe that annual sessions are necessary, or 
that any serious inconvenience will result from dispen¬ 
sing with them. 

Another objection urged by the gentleman fi'om 
Hamilton is, that by disi>ensing with annual sessions 
we withdraw our watchlulness from the officers who 
have control of our revenue. This objection I endeav¬ 
ored to answer a few days since, when it was made by 
the gentleman of Franklin [Mr. Stanbery.] The 
whole theory amounts to this: at their annual meetings 
the Legislature has appointed committees on Fiiiauco 
W'ho were charged with the duty of passing under re¬ 
vision the accounts of our 2 )ublic officers. These com¬ 
mittee-men besides their duties as such, were charged 
with their other duties as members of the Legislature, 
and even those of us who are acquiring our first legis¬ 
lative experience by membershii) in this body, knowin 
what slight practical benefit the examiufiiion of the in¬ 
tricate and complicated accounts of our public officers 
by .such a committee must result. It has been and muct 
continue to be a matter of form merely, exce^jt incases 
in which the attention of the committee is directed to 
some particular matter, and in these cases it will bo 
generally found necessay to appoint a special commls- 
















224 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


sionor otherwise the committee to act after the adjourn¬ 
ment of the Legislature. How long was the somewhat 
celebrated committee on rascality (so called,) in ses¬ 
sion ? I mean what length of time was actually spent 
by that committee in the performance of their duties ? 
The member from Gallia was one of that committee 
and can tell us. 

Mr. NASH. About one year. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. We can judge, then, what a com¬ 
mittee, appointed by the Legislature, acting during its 
session, and performing their other duties as legisla¬ 
tors, could do in a mutter of this kind. In the remarks 
heretofore made by me on this subject, I said that if 
this was deemed a matter of such great importance, 
(and I confess that I am of opinion it is important) the 
business could be much better, and more efiiciently and 
more cheaply done by a special commission appointed 
by the Legislature or otherwise, for that sole purpose, 
than by the Legislature itself. This commission, few 
in nmnber, and having no other duty to perform, could 
meet here in the year during which no session of the 
Legis'ature was held, and would do their business more 
fully, expeditiously and cheaply than the Legislature 
could do it. 

The gentleman from Hamilton has instanced two 
laws, but for the repeal of which, at the times they 
were repealed, great injury would have resulted to the 
State. They are the plunder law, (so called) and the 
law compelling the banks to resume specie payments, 
and the gentleman informs us that had it not been ibr 
annual sessions, these laws would not have been re¬ 
pealed when they were. Is this so? If I am correctly 
informed, sir, the plunder law was repealed two years 
afier its passage, and the banks were compelled to re¬ 
sume specie payments four yeai’s after this suspension, 
at each of which times, a Legislature meeting biennially 
would have been in session. 

The gentleman from Franklin informed us this morn¬ 
ing that, by virtue of a law passed at the last session 
of the Legislature, amendatory of a law passed at the 
previous session, the State had made some two or three 
hundred thousand dollars in the exchange and sale of 
certificates of slock, which, but for an annual session 
would have been lost to us. I understood the gentle¬ 
man to say that the defect in the law of 1849, was that 
it only authorized the fund commissioners to exchange 
new certificafes or bonds with the holders of the old 
ones, and did not authorize tiiein to sell the new bonds 
to those who would pay tlie highest price for them— 
and the difficulty was that the holders of the old bonds 
finding they had the matter in iheir own hands, would 
not give as much for the new bonds, in exchange for 
the old ones, as they would command in the market. 
He also informed us that, for this reason, the law of 
last winter was passed authorizing the sale of the new 
bonds in the market; and the consequence was, that by 
the competition between the holders of the old bonds 
and others desiring to purchase, the gain before men- 
tionetl, was made by the .''tate. Now, I have exam¬ 
ined the report of the canal fund commissioners on this 
subject, made to the Legislature at the last session, and 
do not understand the facts to be as stated by the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin. 1 gather from that report, pa¬ 
ges band 6, that the commissioners had exchanged $700,- 
000 of new certificates at premiums varying from 5^ to 
8 per cent., and at an aggregate proportion of $41,000 
—that further exchanges would be made, but some of 
the holders of the old bonds did not wish to continue 
their investments in our stocks, and of course did not 
wish to make exchanges of old bonds for new ones, 
and that the exchanges that had been made were at the 
selling rates of our slocks; and I do not find in that 
report that the commissioners had been compelled to 
make exchanges at less than the selling rates of our 
stocks of the same dates of maturity. The subsequent 
increase in the value of our stocks, by which the gain 
of wliich the gentleman speaks accrued, arose from the 
state of the money market in London and New York, 


and not from any action of our Legislature, and 1 think 
should not be set down to the credit of annual sessions. 
How would the account have stood if the tendency of i 
our stocks had in the interval been downward inste.ad 
of upward ? W ould it have been fair to have charged 
the loss to annual legislation ? Is not the passage of 
such a law as that of 1849, restricting without a shad- J 
ow of reason the transfer of new stocks to the holders 1 
of old ones, instead of giving the commissioners the j 
opportunity of the stock market, but another evidence | 
of that hasty and unconsidered legislation which we (| 
wish to cure by the election of more careful and i>ru- ‘ j 
dent men to make our laws 7 jl 

The gentleman from Hamilton has illustrated the i 
necessity of annual legislation, by a fable contained in i 
some one of the spelling books in use when I was a 
school boy. An old lady who had a number of ser¬ 
vants in her imployment, had a cock by whose crow¬ 
ing she was awakened every morning at daylight, and 
was thus enabled to rouse up her servants and have 
them at their work at an early hour. The servants 
being a little sleepy headed, and thinking that if the 
rooster were killed the old lady would not wake up so 
early and they would consequently get to sleep longer, 
cut off the poor cock's head; but unfortunately for 
theni, the old lady, for fear she might over-sleep her- ; 

sell, and more perhaps by a piece of malice for the loss j 

of her rooster, took to setting up all night in order to 
be up early in the morning, and the consequence was, 
that the poor servants had a hardertimeof itthan ever. 

The gentleman has not made as close an application of 
the fable as I could have desired, but 1 suppose^ of ! 

course, the Legislature is the rooster whose head we i 

are about to cut off, and the people is the old lady whose 
nest is about to be forever broken up by one ntthless act. 

This must be so, for the gentleman tells us if we do j 
this thing, the people will be in a continual state of ' : 
turmoil, excitement and confusion. This may be io, i 
but how does the argument of the gentlemaTi to-day “ 
agree with his argument a few days since. Then he , | 
told us that il we abolished annual legislation, that the ■ 
I)eople, deprived of a proper and healthy excitement, \ It 
vyould go to sleep, and sleep tlie sleep of death to their ' 'j 

liberties. Now he tells us that if we do this thing they i : j 

won t get any sleef) at all, and will fret themselves to i ( 

death for want oi it. Then we were about to drug j ,' 
them withopiat.es, now we are about to put thistles in i i! 
their beds. When was the gentleman right? then or j 
now? Who can tell? I can’t, but I am very strongly ; 
of the opinion he was mistaken both times. 

One other remark, and I will relieve the committee. 

It has been urged upon us that under annual legislation 1 i 

our State has increased to an unpi’ecedented degree, in I 

wealth and population, and that on account of this in- ^ 

crease, the necessity fur legislation has increased—and , i 

some gentlemen have gone so far as to attribute this 
increase in wealth and population in a considerable i 
degree to annual legislation. We have indeed increased ! 
in wealth and power beyond example—almost beyond | 
belief, but I think with the gentleman from Tnimbull, 
it has been in despite of at least some of your legisla¬ 
tion. I attribute our ])rosperity, sir, to the fertility of , 
our soil the industry, the energy and tlie intelligence i 
ol our people, and to God’s blessing upon us all. Wo ' 
have a soil unsurpassed in fertility by any in the world. 

We have in the West, the best of the population of the 
old States, and of other countries, those and the de¬ 
scendants of those who possessed the energy and firm¬ 
ness (and it required much of both,) to leave the en- i I 
deaimeuts and associations of childhood and home, and 
seek a new home in a strange land, where men have 
labored industriously and intelligently upon that soil, 
and God had blessed their labor,*and hence our pros- i 
perity. How have they been benefited by legislation? 

It is true you have protected them in their persou.s, 
and to a greatdegree in their projierty—and protection 
for persons and property is all they need—is all they 
ask; that, and to be let alone. But this has not been 




















CONVENTION REPORTS. 225 


done. By means of legislation they have been involv¬ 
ed in a debt of nianj’" millions, lor works ol internal 
improvement, benefiting few at the expense of many; 
to pay the interest on this debt, and perhaps a small 
portion of the principal, millions of dollars have been 
legislated from them, and millions both of principal 
and interest are yet to pay; through improper legisla¬ 
tion they have been robbed of immense sums of mon¬ 
ey, by means of broken bank paper which they had 
received as the reward of their toil, and of this the 
end is not yet; and yet, sir, they have prospered—and 
though these things should continue, with God’s bles¬ 
sing they will still prosper. 

It is not true, 1 think, that an increase of wealth and 
population necessarily involves an increase of legisla¬ 
tion_as a people become older and a country becomes 

more settled, laws become more stable and settled also 
—they require less change to adapt them to the wants, 
feelings and customs of a settled population. The in¬ 
crease of numbers does not demand so much an in¬ 
crease of laws as of the machinery to carry the laws 
into etiect. The law that wnll collect a tax of $100,000 
will collect a tax of $1,000,000. You only require 
more officers to collect and disburse it. The laws that 
will protect the persons and property of 100,000 will 
protect the persons and property of 1,000,000. You 
but require more officers to carry them into effect. At 
the formation of our present constitution we had a pop¬ 
ulation small and poor compared to that of the present 
day, and we had annual legi.slation then; if the argu¬ 
ment of gentlemen were good, it would require semi¬ 
annual or perhaps monthly legislation now, but they 
do not propose that. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The sessions of our Legislature 
are longer now than they were then. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. True, but that arises from the 
fact that the Legislature have acted uj)on matters which 
the gentleman and I both think are improper subjects 
for legislative action, and which I will aid him in en¬ 
deavoring to remove and place beyond the control of 
future legislative bodies. Let u.s confine legislation 
within its proper sphere and biennial Legislatures will 
be sufficiently frequent. 

I have only to say in conclusion, sir, that notwith¬ 
standing the ability and ingenuity of the arguments 
offered by gentlemen in favor of annual sessions, which 
I freely admit, and notwithstanding the alleged out¬ 
break of popular sentiment in favor of annual sessions 
of which I have not even any evidence, I remain of 
the opinion that annual sessions of the Legislalure are 
unnecessary, and that biennial sessions are all that are 
required for the wants and the safety of the people. 

The Committee here rose, reported progress and 
asked leave to sit again. 

Upon motion of Mr. NASH, the Convention took a 
recess. 

3 o’clock, r. M. 

Mr. RANNEY, from the committee to whom was re¬ 
ferred the communications from the Printer [S. Meda- 
ry,] of this Convention, and from the Reporter, made 
the following report, which Mr. R. said had been unan¬ 
imously adopted by the committee: 

The committee to whom was referred communications from 
the Reporter and Printer to this Convention, begjeave to report, 
that they have had the same under cousicieration, and are satis¬ 
fied that theplHn which has been adopted by the Reporter, of fur¬ 
nishing to the Statesman and Journal, at the same time, an equal 
quantity of copy, and by personally superintending the delivery 
of slips to each, of the matter set up by the other, will, if carried 
out with promptness and good faith, be satisfactory to the Re¬ 
porter and to the Statesman and Journal offices. 

The committee ask to be discharged from the further consid¬ 
eration of the subject. 

R. P. RANNEY, 

A. HARLAN, 

JAS. M. FARR, 
JAMES B. KING, 
JACOB PERKINS. 

The question being on the adoption of the report, it 
was put and carried unanimously. 

15 


Mr. HUMPHREVILLE remarked that he had not 
been in the House during the reading of the first por¬ 
tion of the report, but as he understood it, the report 
approved entirely of the course pursued by the Repor¬ 
ter. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT of Tuscarawas, the 
Convention resolved itself into a 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, 

Mr. Smith of Warren in the chair. 

The question was announced to be upon the amend¬ 
ment offered by the gentleman from Muskingum [Mr. 
Stilwell] to the 25th sectionof the report of the com¬ 
mittee on 

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 

Mr. REEMELIN said he had ofiered an amendment 
to strike out and insert what he sent to the Chair, and 
then the gentleman from Muskingum moved to strike 
out and insert his amendment. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend by adding to the 25th 
section, the word “ biennially.” 

Mr. STANBERY wished further to amend, by adding 
the words ‘ unless otherwise; provided by law.” 

The question being on the amendment to the amend¬ 
ment, it was put and lost. 

The question then turned on the amendment of the 
gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney] which was 
agreed to. 

The question then occurring, was on the following 
amendment, presented by the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton [Mr. Reemelin]: “strike out the 25th section, and 
insert the words, ‘the first regular session of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly under this Constitution, shall commence 
on the first Monday of January, 1852, and all regular 
sessions shall commence on the same day, biennially 
hereafter.’ ” 

Mr. STANBERY asked if it would be in order to 
move to pass over this section informally. He thought 
it^not right to vote on such an important matter with 
half of the seats vacant. He wyuld make the motion. 

Mr. STILWELL would be unwilling to do that. 
This subject had already been discussed at a length 
disproportionate with its importance. If it were now 
passed over it would be again discussed in committee, 
but by taking a vote now the matter could be discussed 
in Convention hereafter, if necessary. 

The motion was not pressed. 

The question being on striking out the 25th section, 
the same was stricken out. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to add the words “from 
and after the year 1853.” 

Mr. LARSH moved to amend the amendment, by 
substituting the words “1854.” 

Mr. McCORMICK explained that the object of his 
amendment was, to fix the session of the Legislature so 
as to avoid any inconvenience or delay in regard to the 
election of U. S. Senators. 

On motion of Mr. TAYLOR, the committee recon¬ 
sidered the vote by which the 25th section was stricken 
out. 

The question then turned upon striking ont the 25th 
section, and the committee refuse to strike out. 

The question then recurred on the amenment pre¬ 
sented by the gentleman from Adams [Mr. McCor¬ 
mick.] 

Mr. STANBERY inquired if it were in order to pro¬ 
pose a longer time. 

The C HAIR. It is in order to amend by striking out 
“ 1853.” 

Mr. STANBERY. Then I will move to amend by 
hundreds. 

The amendment was then read as follows: “from 
and after the first Monday of January, 1953.’ [Laugh¬ 
ter.] 

Mr. NASH. I suppose the amendment means “bi¬ 
ennial ” after 1953. * 

The amendment substituting 1953 for 1853 was not 

sustained. 

Mr. HENDERSON moved to insert 1852 m place of 
1853, which was agreed to. 




















226 


CONVENTION KEPOllTS. 


Mr. McCORMlCK withdrew his anieiidinent. 
ir^EC. 26. No person holding any office und< r the authority ot 
the United States, or any office under the authority of this State, 
the emoluments or compensation of which exceed one hundred 
dollars, shall be elig ble as a candidate for, nor have a seat in 
either liouse of the General Assembly. 

Mr. NASH moved to amend, by striking out the 
words “ the emoluments or compeusatioii ot which ex¬ 
ceeds one hundred dollars.” 

Mr. HORTON moved to amend the amendment by 
adding the words “per annum,” after the words “dol¬ 
lars.” 

Mr. NASH in explanation of his amendment,.said 
tliut it v/ould be almost impossible to carry out the 
pi'uvisioii of the section which he pro])osed to strike 
out. He thought the amendment should be approved 
of, unless we wished to have the Legislature sitting 
heie, consuming time in determining the income of 
paities claiming eligibility to a seat in the Convention. 
H • thought the matter would be very difficult to ascer¬ 
tain. 

Mr. CHAMBERS did not see so much difficulty in 
carrying out this proposition, and he recollected some 
insiances in our own government which made this a 
uei essary provision. Under the old constitution we 
prohibited any man holding an office under the State— 
no matter what the salary—from sitting in the Legis¬ 
lature. There was an instance in this State, in the 
early periods of our government, when party questions 
did not come up in these halls at all, but when the 
Legislature was unanimously intent on working out 
the great questions of public policy—there was a man 
ejected from his seat for being an inspector of flour, 
&c. And, on the trial of the case it was proved that 
he only had received thirty-seven and a-half cents, yet 
the Legislature determined to send him home to the 
people to resign his office, and to be re-elected if they 
pleased. 

Mr. CASE of Licking contended that the provision 
would not work equally. A notary public, for instance, 
was eligible if be did not receive a compensation of 
mni'e than $100, while in another place a notary would 
be ineligible to a seat because he happened to receive 
a eompensatiou of more than a hundred dollars. 

Mr. SAWYER had heard of such things as “ mares 
wests,” but had never seen them; however, from the 
desc) iptiou which he had got of them he thought that 
this matter was one. [Laughter.] When this question 
was up the other day, as well as he recollected, the 
g, iitleman from Gallia [Mr. Nash] himself suggested 
that if we excluded, all officers from a seat, without 
naming the amount of salaries, we would exclude nota¬ 
ries public. 

Mr. NASH. I must have been asleep for I have no 
recollection of it. 

Mr. SAWYER. Perhaps I am mistaken: it came 
from the gentleman’s quarter. He considered the pro¬ 
position a necessary one; he took the ground that a 
man receiving a large amount of money for the dis¬ 
charge of his official duties, should remain at home and 
mind his business. 

Mr. BENNETT thought that difficulty might and 
would, probably, arise from the construction of that 
section. It struck him as somewhat strange that a 
mail holding an office was eligible in the one instance 
and ineligible in the oilier, by reason of compensation 
he received from that office. 

Mr. ARCH MOLD observed that the committee, per¬ 
haps were not aware of the extent of the amendment. 
It would except many township officers; in his opinion 
it had entirely too wide a range. 

Mr. STILWBLL remarked that he had heard of no 
objection to the jirovisiou af the present constitution 
on this subject. It was impossible to frame any sys¬ 
tem, that in application to certain cases, did not pro¬ 
duce cousequeiices wh ch were not anticipated by the 
framer. Tlie present 8y^tem had been in use for near¬ 
ly 50 years, with the happiest effects; and keeping in 
view the fact that we should amend that only which 


required to be amended, he thought it would be wise 
to adopt the provision of the old constitution on this 
subject. He moved to amend by striking out the en¬ 
tire section, and inserting these words: “No person 
liolding oflice under the authority ol the United States, 
or any lucrative office or appointment under the au¬ 
thority of this State, provided that appointments in 
the militia or justices of the peace shall not be consid¬ 
ered lucrative ollices, shall be eligible as a candidate 
for, or have a seat in the General Assembly.” 

A division of the question was called for. 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll suggested that the names of 
those officers who should be ineligible to a seat in the 
Legislature, be named seriatim in the provision. He 
thought that would obviate the difficulty. 

Mr. MANON moved to amend the section so as to 
provide that no office-holder whose salary amounted to 
300 dollars, should be eligible to a seat in the Legisla¬ 
ture. 

Mr. MASON said there had been a great deal of dif- | 
Acuity in the Legislature as to the just interpretation of ) 
the corresponding section in the old constitution. He | 
concurred in the suggestion of the gentleman from Car- 
roll, [Mr. Brown.] He preferred that the constitution 
should take upon itself to declare who were, and who 
were not, eligible to either branch of the Legislature. 

It was a prohibition, at ihe best, but it was properly 
applied to certain officers. He thought judicitil offi- j 
cers—State officers—as the Secretary of Slate, the An- ! 
ditor and Treasurer, ought to be excluded. He mere- ] 
ly alluded to these officers as explanatory of his mean- I 
ing. He did not say that there were not other officers | 
that ought to be excluded. When they were excluded i 
by a constitutional prohibition, the Legislature would 11 
be relieved from any difficulty in deciding on their eli- i i 
gibiiity or ineligibility; and more especially the pjo- I 
pie would be relieved from the difficulty attendant on 
sending a man to the Legislature whom they supposed 
to be eligible, and afterwards finding that there was a ■ 
provision prohibiting his election. On the whole, lie 
was in favor of naming the officers who should be pro- i 
hibiled from sitting in the General Assembly. 

Mr. MANON observed that there were many officers 
of the United States and of this State who had but 
very small salaries. Sometimes it might happen that 
some of them w’ould be elected to the Legislature, and 
necessarily would be excluded from sitting by the 
operation of this section, if they received more than i 
$100 per annum. He thought $300 per annum a proper 
limitation. 

Mr. DORSEY had an amendment he w’ould z-ead for 
information, as follows : ^ 

“ No person holding any office under the authority of the Uni¬ 
ted States, or any judicial, or state, or county office under the au¬ 
thority of this State, with the' exception of appointments in the 
militia, justices of the peace, masters iu chancery, and notaries j, 
public, shall be eligible to a seat in the General Assembly.” i 

The question then turned on inseiiing the amend-j 
ment of Mr. Manon, and the same was disagreed to. |' 

Mr. NASH moved to strike out the 2Gtii section and L 
insert the following: [N 

“No judge of any court, secretary of etat?, treasurer and au- , ■ 
ditor of state, fund commissioner, member of the board of public i ■ 
werks, attorney general, prosecuting attomej', auditor, recorder, :j| 
treasurer or commissioner of the county, clerk of the court of I I 
record, sheriff, collector, or the occupant of any office elected by ji 
this constitution or by law, with a salary of $100 and over ; nor : 
any person holding office under the authority of the United States, I 
shall be eligible as a candidate for, or have a seat in the General > 
Assembly.” 

After some discussion by Messrs. Scott of Ila'rison I 
and Dorsey, the question recurred on striking out, and | 
the same was disagreed to. 

Sfc. 27. No person shall be elected or appointed to any of¬ 
fice in this State, unless ho possesses tlio qualifications of an ' ' 
elector. i 

Which was agreed to. 

Skc. 28. No person who shall be convicted of a defalcation 1 
or embezzlement of the public funds shall be capable of hold¬ 
ing any office of trust, honor or profit; nor shall any person 
holding any public money for disbursement or otherwise, have 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 227 


a seat in either House of the Genei-ul Assembly, until such per¬ 
son shall have accounted for, and paid into the Treasury all 
money for which he may be accountiible or liable. 

Mr. GREGG moved to insert at the fifth line, before 
the words "‘shall have accounted,” the following, “ if 
60 required.” 

The motion was not agreed to. 

Mr. HORTON moved to strike out the word “be,” 
in the first line, and insert the words ‘-‘have been.” 

Mr. SAWYER hoped that the committee would not 
consent to strike out. He thought it proper that we 
should not act retrospectively on a man’s conduct, we 
should rather look prospectively. 

Mr. OTIS wished to inquire if this section was ap- 
pled to cases in which a person who has been tried in 
a civil suit was found to be a defaulter. The language 
was applicable to criminal cases. 

Mr. SAWYER thought it would apply to any per¬ 
son who was a defaulter with regard to the public 
funds. 

Mr. HORTON remarked that he had no retrospec¬ 
tive or retro-active intention in offering the amendment: 
it was only fur the sake of good grammar. 

Mr. FARR moved to amend, by insexTing the woi*d 
“hereaftei',” so that the section would I’ead “no person 
who shall hei’eafter be,” which was agreed to. 

Mr. STANBERY said he would ask the gentleman 
from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer] what we ax’e to under¬ 
stand by the phrase “convicted of a defalcation.” 

Mr. SAWYER said he did not know, in a legal point 
of view what you would undei'stand by it, but he could 
tell the gentlemen what the committee thought of it. 
It is a provision by which, if beinga public officei*, any 
one should be found guilty of being a defaultei', or as 
a collector in any place, had refused to pay over the 
I money which he had received, the defaulter should be 
I made amenable to justice. 

i Mr. STANBERY. Does the gentleman mean a 

1 criminal conviction. 

Mr. SAWYER. These things must be decided by 
I gentlemen accoi’ding to their understanding. Probably 
j tlie gentl eman is right as a lawyer. I am not certain 
j that the language is cori-ect. 

! Ml'. GREGG. Would not the latter clause of the 
section bar any man from a seat in the Genei’al Assem- 
j bly, who had ten dollars in his hands which he had not 
j paid over to the public treasui'y. 

' Mr. MANON said that he pei'ceived the lawyers dif- 
! fei ed upon this matter. As he would go for nothing 

' that he did not understand, he would, at the proper 
time, move to stiike out the whole section. (Laugh- 
ter.) 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga supposed the intention 
of the committee was to disqualify any person who 
had been guilty of criminally appropriating the public 
funds to his own use. A pei'son may be a defaulter 
' without being guilty of any criminal act. He may 
I have been unfortunate—he may have lost the public 
money—or the money might have been stolen from 
him—still in all of these cases he would be a defaulter, 
when he would be unable, satisfactorily, to account for 
it. He cannot embezzle tlxe public money without be¬ 
ing guilty of a ciirne. Now, it seemed to him, that if 
the word “defalcation’’ was striken cut and let the 
section I'ead “ convicted of an euibezzlement of the 
public funds,” saying nothing about defalcation, the 
whole object would bo attained. He would move, 
therefore, provided it be in ordei', to sti'ike out the 
word “defalcation.” 

The CHAIRMAN remaiked. There is a motion al¬ 
ready pending to strike out the words •* hereafter be” 
and insert “ have been.” 

Mr. HORTON said ho would withdraw his amend¬ 
ment. 

The question being then taken upoxi the amendment 
offered by Mr. Hitchcock, it was agreed to. 

Mr. LARSH inquired if the latter clause would not 
exclude school dii'ectors and treasurers of counties 
from having seats in the General Assembly, who have 


money in their hands which they may not have paid 
over. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga, inquired if they 
had ever beeix excluded; this pi'ovision was copied 
from the present constitution. 

Ml’. MANON said he did not yet understand it all. 
Therefoi'e he moved to sti'ike out all after the word 
“ profit,” as he understood all before. [Laughter.] , 

Not agi-eed to. 

Sec. 29. No bill of divorce shall ever be granted by the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, nor shall -ny other judicial power, except the 
power connected with impeachment, ever be exercised by the 
General Assembly.” 

Mr. VANCE of Butler said he thought it most advi¬ 
sable to re-construct this section, in order to avoid mis- 
undei'standing and difficulty. He moved, therefore, 
to sti'ike out the 29th section and insert the following: 

“ No divorce shall be granted by the General Assembly, nor 
shall any judicial power not herein expressly granted, ever be 
exercised by the General Assembly.” 

It will be seen by the 6th section of this report, that 
each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns 
and qualifications of its members. Here is one judi¬ 
cial power granted to the Legislature in the 29th sec¬ 
tion, which I propose to strike out. If this section 29th 
should be adopted, as it now reads, it will to this ex¬ 
tent conflict with section 6. In addition to this, it may 
be necessary to grant some other judicial power to the 
Legislature, before we finish the work that is devolved 
upon us here. If so, the section as 1 have restricted it 
will meet every contingency and every difficulty that 
may arise. I changed the section a little, but it is al¬ 
most the same. 

The amendmejit was agreed to. , 

Section 30 was agreed to. 

Sec. 31. No power of suspending laws shall be exercised, un¬ 
less by the General Assembly, nor shall any law be passed con¬ 
tingent upon the approval or disapproval of any other authority, 
except as provided in this constitution. 

Nr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga inquired what this 
clause meant: 

“ Nor shall any law be passed contingent upon the approval 
or disapproval of any other authority, except as provided in this 
constitution.” 

Mr. SAWYER said he would explain what he thought 
of it, although he preferred some other gentleman 
should do it. 

We have been in the habit of passing laws in the 
Legislature, and submitting them to the people. For 
instance, we authorize a subscription upon turnpike 
roads and railroads running into cities, and it becomes 
a law, provided the peojde vote for it, and a good 
many other things of this kind, and he would like to 
prevent all that. 

Mr. STIDGER would move to add to that section 
by adding the following words at the end thereof, 
“except officers- of their own body.” 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll said, he would like to know 
who is to have the appointment of Directors of your 
benevolent institutions, officers and wardeins of your 
State prison, &c. &c. He did not suppose that any 
body expected that the appointment of these various 
officers should be thrown into the arena of party strife 
and made a foot-ball for political parties. It he under¬ 
stood it correctly, it goes to keep the Legislature from 
appointing any body, and it seemed to him that one ex¬ 
treme would beget another. He thought he saw a dis¬ 
position to distrust the Representatives of the p ople 
and cut them off from exercising authority in this com¬ 
monwealth. He had no sympathy with any feeling of 
this disciiptioii, for he thought that the Representatives 
of the ])eople should bo trusted to some extent. He 
had looked to this section, and if he understood it 
I’ightly, it goes at once to forbid the Legislature ^trom 
choosing or exercising power to elect these officers. 
He mi*’'ht be wrong about this, but it would be better 
to hesimte a little before passing such a clause as this. 
We have been talking about the corruptions of the Leg¬ 
islature_their want of honesty and sagacity. Had 











228 


convention’ REPORTS. 


we not better take care, about what we may adopt 
here, so as not to be included in the same category. 
A Legislature might say hereafter, that we ourselves, 
sent here to redress grievances, had become a very 
great grievance ourselves. 

Mr. STIDGER said it occurred to him on examina¬ 
tion of the section under consideration, that there was 
a necessity of vesting tliis power somewhere, or there 
might arise a difficulty about the matter of the appoint¬ 
ment of officers for the General Assembly. In the sev¬ 
enth section of the report, it was provided, that each 
House should choose its own officers; but this section 
was prohibitory in its character, declaring that no ap¬ 
pointing power should be vested in the General Assem¬ 
bly. This was what he proposed to remedy by the 
amendment which he would send up. 

The amendment was read as follows; And at the 
end of the section, the words, “ except the appointment 
of the officers of their own body.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. The seventh section 
provided that each House Hiall choose its own officers, 
while the provision in this thirty-second sectiozi was, 
that the General Assembly should have no appointing 
power. Now one House alone did not constitute the 
General Assembly ; the General Assembly was the two 
Houses combinecl. 

Mr. MASON desired to proceed cautiously, and that 
every proposition should be well considered before any 
action should be taken; but he felt disposed to favor 
the motion to strike out the proviso, because it was in 
conflict with the sixth and seventh provisions of the 
same bill. 

The CHAIRMAN said the motion would be in order 
after the question was taken upon the pending amend¬ 
ment. 

Mr. STANTON thought one or two things ought to 
be considered before the question should be taken. He 
desired the committee to consider whether this provi¬ 
sion would not prohibit the General Assembly from 
appointing a Senator of the United States, and there 
was no other power by which an UziitedStates Senator 
could be appointed. Again, it seemed to his mind that 
the force of this proviso would preclude the Legislature 
from appointing committees of investigation into the 
aftairs of the Executive Department, and that is mani¬ 
festly altogether too much distrust of the Legislature. 

Mr. RE EMELIN hoped the motion would not pre¬ 
vail. If this prohibition were taken away, it would 
make the appointing power worse than before. The 
Legislature might take it into their heads to cre¬ 
ate an office, and appoint an officer who would be 
wholly irresponsible for his conduct, for fear of leaving 
the exercise of this power in the hands of the Gover¬ 
nor, the Secretary of State, the Board of Rublic Works, 
or some other officer to whom it may properly belong. 
He did not know but he would be willing to author¬ 
ize the Legislature to give this appointing power to the 
Governor, to be exercised by and with the advice and 
consent of the Senate or the General Assembly ; but 
he desired to take away from the General Assembly all 
power to create offices, for the sake of filling them 
with members of their own body. He was willing 
that the General Assembly should exercise all legiti¬ 
mate powers, but he desired to prevent them from 
grasping fiu’ther. As to the appointment of a Senator 
of the United States, he supposed the constitution of 
the United States, as the supreme law of the land, had 
made ample provision for that matter, and that we had 
nothing at all to do with it He hoped that no ap¬ 
pointing power—not the least vestige—would be left 
to the General Assembly. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said. He felt entirely disposed to 
sustain the motion made by the gentleman from Clark, 
[Mr. Mason,] because if adopted it would look as 
though we felt distrust and did not know how minute 
and searching this power might be in the hands of the 
Legislature. He supposed the General Assembly to 
be informed that some officer was embezzling the 


public monqy, this proviso might take away from them 
the power of apiiointing a commission to go and exam¬ 
ine into the case. He afiirmed that such a provision 
w'ould be too minute and meddling in its effects. He 
could not tell how far it would go. That was also a 
very pertinent objection intimated by the gentleman 
from Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] that it might exclude from 
the Legislature the authority to examine into the ex¬ 
ecutive offices. It was, at all events, a very improper 
limitation of the law making j)ower. As for the offi¬ 
cers to superintend the affairs of the Penitentiary and 
the asylums and public institutions near the Capital, he 
hoped that some method would be devised for the elec¬ 
tion of these oflicers without bringing the subject be¬ 
fore the people. As one of the electors he did not 
want to be troubled with the election of these small 
officers. He felt in this respect with one of the mem¬ 
bers of the French Convention of 1798, when he decla¬ 
red that “ he was glad to lay down his share of the 
despotism of the country, for the sake of getiing rid of 
the trouble of exercising it.” 

After some further conversation between Mr. Reeme- j 
I IN and Mr. Archbold, 

Mr. SAWYER proposed to amend the proviso by 
striking out in the third line, the words “ no appointing 
power,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words, “ no 
power to appoint any state or county officer,” so that ] 
it shall read, “ Provided, however, that no power to ap- i 
point any state or county officer, shall be vested in or , 
exercised by the General Assembly.” | 

On motion of Mr. FHTCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, the 
Committee now rose, reported no conclusion and asked | 
leave to sit again. |l 

And then, at ten minutes before 6 o’clock, P. M., the k 
Convention adjourned. • . \ 


SATURDAY, .June 1, 1850. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Essick. 

Mr. PERKINS. I present the petition of B. P. Jame¬ 
son and 38 citizens of Trumbull county, Ohio, praying 
that a jirovision may be engrafted upon the new con- 11 
stitution prohibiting the Legislature from the passage 
of any law legalizin" the traffic in ardent spirits. 

Upon motion of the same gentleman, the petition j 
was referred to the committee on Jurisprudence. ; 

Mr. MORRIS, from the standing committee on Cor- j 
porations, other than Corporations for Banking, submit- ,| 
ted the following report: ;| 

Report No. 1, of the .standing committee on “ Corporations, other 
than Corporations lor Banking.” 

Sec. 1. The Legislature shall jiass no special act conferring 
corporate powers. 

Sec. 2. Corporations may be lornied under general laws; but 
all general laws passed pursuant to this section may be altered 
from time to time, or repealed; Provided, on such repeal the prop¬ 
erty or credits legally acquired by any corporation, shall rest in 
the individual corporators, subject to the liability of the corpora- i ; 
tions. 

Sec. 3. Dues from corporations shall be secured by such indi- ' ; 
vidual liability ot the corporatars and other means as may be pre- i ' 
scribed by law; Provided the liability of each corporator or share- ij ’ 
holder, shall newer be less than the amount of stock in any corpo- |l 
ration by him or her subscribed. 

Sec. 4. The property of corporations shall forever be sub- 1 
ject to taxation, the same as the property of individuals. | ' 

Sec. 5. The right of way may be granted by general laws to | i 
corporations, provided the same shall not be appropriated to the ' ! 
use ot any incorporation until full compensation therefor be } 
made in money, irrespective of any benelit or advantage to the > 
owner from any improvement proposed by such corporation; i 
ant provided turther, the amount of compensation shall be as- i 
certained by a jury of twelve men in a Court of Record, as shall ! 
be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 6. It shall be the duty of the Legislature to provide for I 
the organization of cities, and incorporated villages, by general : 
laws, and to restrict their power ot taxation, assessment, bor- ■ 
rowing money, contracting debts and loaning their credit, so as 
to prevent abuses in assessment and to contracting debts by such i i 
municipal corporations. i 

Upon Mr. SAWYER’S motion, the report was laid 
on the table and ordered to be printed. 

The report on the Executive Department, submitted I 
yesterday by Mr. LEADBETTER, was then read a ] 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 229 


second time, and upon motion of Mr. Reemelin was 
reiei red to the committee of the whole Convention. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I offer for adoption the follow¬ 
ing : 

Resolved, That a provision should he inserted in the new con¬ 
stitution against the assumption, on the part of the State, of any 
county, township, town or city debt. 

Upon motion of the same gentleman, the resolution 
was referred to the committee on rublic Debts and 
Public Works. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I desire to offer some resolutions for 
the consideration of ihe Convention, upon the subject 
of Banking and Currency. I have preferred this form 
of presenting some viewsj which I beli.'.'ve to lie current 
in the section of the State from which I come. This 
form I prefer to taking any share in a discussion. 

The form of resolutions for the consideration of the 
Convention is designed as a substitute for the presenta¬ 
tion of memorials of my constituents in relation to this 
important question. I have no doubt the views I have 
endeavored to embody in the resolutions here offered 
are those entertained by a majority of my constituents. 
I do not ask the attention of the Convention to the con¬ 
sideration of these resolutions, so much because they 
are an expression of my own views, but because I be¬ 
lieve they embody that common sentiment which pre¬ 
vails in the counties of Huron and Erie. 

Resolved, That the business of banking, except so far as it re¬ 
lates to the emitting and circulation ot bills of credit, is not a 
proper subject for the consideration of the Cojivention. 

Resolved, That any future toleration of paper money in Ohio 
should be exclusively regulated by constitutional provisions and 
general laws. 

Resolved, That the constitution should provide that after the Ist 
of January, 1855, no bank notes, or any kind of paper credits so 
circulated as money, shall be permitted to be issued in this State, 
unless secured as follows; 

Ist. By a special deposit with the treasurer of State, of ample 
specie securities to the full amount of such circulation. 

2d. Individual liability. 

3d. The Legislature to have no power to authorize or legal¬ 
ize a suspension of specie payments. 

Resolved, That the constitution should provide, that after tliQ 
first day of January, 1852, no other mediun than gold and silver 
coins or notes secured as aforesaid, shall be received in payment 
for taxes due the treasury 

Resolved, That it is the duty of this Convention, by memorial 
or ordinance, to represent to the Congress of the United States 
that the people ofOhio have suffered and will suffer great loss 
and inconvenience by the circulation of bills of credit, in violation 
of the federal constitution ; and that this Convention is embar¬ 
rassed in its efforts to secure to the people of Ohio a fixed stand¬ 
ard of value, because the national government fails properly to 
“ regulate the value of money ” and guard against paper counter¬ 
feits of the current coins. 

Resolved, That our Senators be instructed, and our Represen¬ 
tatives requested to vote for an act of Congress which shall pro¬ 
hibit the emission and circu alion of bills of credit of the same 
denominations with the gold and silver coins of the United States. 

Mr. TAYLOR. The idea prevalent in the portion of 
the State where I I'eside, is, that the only power com¬ 
petent to meet the evil alluded to in the resolutions, is 
the power of the General Government, and that this 
Convention will have discharged its whole duty upon 
this subject, by the insertion of such comstitulional re¬ 
straints upon the restriction of bank paper, as will se¬ 
cure the people against the possibility of loss. 

I move that the resolution be laid upon the table 
and printed. Agreed to. 

Upon motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention resol¬ 
ved itself into a committee of the Whole, (Mr. Smith 
of Warren in the Chair,) and resumed the considera¬ 
tion of report number one, on 

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 

Section 32 being the section under consideration 
when the committee rose, the question being then up¬ 
on agreeing to the amendment, inseiting the following 
words at the end of the section; “ except the appoint¬ 
ment of officers of their own body it was agreed to. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved further to amend by add¬ 
ing after the word “ constitution,” in the 2d line, the 
words, “or the constitution of the United States;” 
which was agreed to, so that the section would read: 

“ The appointment of all civil officens not otherwise directed by 
this constitution, or the constitution of the United States, shall be 


made in such manner as maybe directed bylaw; provided, how¬ 
ever, that no appointing power shall ever be vested in, or exer¬ 
cised by the General Assembly, except the appointment of offi¬ 
cer.? of their own body.” 

Section 31 . “ No person who shall fight a duel or assist in the 
same as a second oi otherwise, shall be eligible to or capable of 
holding any office ol trust, honor or profit.” 

Mr. RANNEY moved to strike out the section, and 
insert the following: “That the Legi.slature shall have 
full power to exclude from the privileges of an elector 
or being elected, any person convicted of perjury, bri¬ 
bery, or any other infamous crime.” The section un¬ 
der consideration proposed only to exclude per.sons 
from holding offices ot trust for the crime of fighting a 
duel or assisting in the same, while there are other in¬ 
famous crimes for which it seemed to him necessary to 
provide. 

Mr. REEMELIN believed that under the laws, as 
they now exi.st, this whole subject is already provided 
for, for a man convicted of an infamous crime is dis¬ 
qualified from holding any office of trust or honor. A 
pardon would give to a man, convicted of crime, an op¬ 
portunity to be an elector, and he certainly thought 
that under the present system, no man would be elec¬ 
ted to any office without it was in some special case 
where a man had been accused and convicted of crime 
when he was an innocent man. He thought the sec¬ 
tion should stand as it is, in relation to dueling, be¬ 
cause it is a special crime, and fixing such a stigma up¬ 
on it, would be better than to leave it as it is. 

Mr. MANON said that there was another matter that 
he did not exactly understand. Now, there are some 
States in this Union where dueling is considei’ed quite 
honorable, although we did not consider it so in this 
State. He supposed that some men concerned in fight¬ 
ing duels were fair and honorable men, and might, per¬ 
haps, move into this State and become residents. Would 
you proscribe such men from office in this State, when 
they come here to settle, for participation in a duel in 
a section of the Union where it is sanctioned by public 
sentiment? 

Mr. FIUMPHREVILLE was opposed to striking out 
the section. If he recollected aright, there was a pro¬ 
vision in the Kentucky constitution requiring the Leg¬ 
islature to pass laws disabling duelists from holding 
office, &c. In the history of that State it has become 
necessary for the Legislature, at almost stated intervals, 
to remove the disqualifications from duelists by pas¬ 
sing new laws. He desired a prohibition in the con¬ 
stitution whereby any person who was engaged in a duel, 
either as principal or assistant, should be disqualified 
from liolding any office. In his opinion this matter 
should not be left to the control of the Legislstui'e. If 
circumstances should arise where an innocent man 
should be convicted and his innocence should be after¬ 
wards proven, then he would not come within the 
scope of the constitutional disqualification. 

xMr. MITCHELL offered an amendment by adding 
at the end of the section “ under the constitutional 
laws of this State.” 

After some discussion in which Messrs. Mitchell, 
Nash and Manor took part, the amendment was re- 
jGctcd. 

Mr. STANBERY moved farther to amend the section 
by adding after the woi’d “or” the words “ send or ac¬ 
cept a challenge.” 

Mr. SAWYER thought that was all expressed m the 
original section. As we go for economy in the use of 
time and language, it is well enough to let it stand as 

it is at present. . , p r 

Mr. STANBERY said he had no particular favor tor 
this section, and for these reasons: There was no 
such thing as dueling here, nor was there likely to be. 
Any one would suppose that we were, as a people, fal¬ 
ling into this evil practice, and therefore it was neces¬ 
sary to guard against it by a constitutional piovision. 
Such a constitutional prohibition might be a very good 
thing ill some of the States, but it is entiiely out of 
place here and seemed to be a libel upon our people 











230 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


He was opposed to adopting a provision of tins kind at 
all, but if we were to make sneli, let it be done effect¬ 
ually. Let it make a prohibition against sending, 
against carrying, against accepting a challenge. 

Mr. CASE of Licking moved that the whole section 
be stricken out as altogether unnecessary. He did not 
know whether we ought to be so fijstidious in Ohio, 
for there was scarcely a person in the State, who had 
not voted for a duelist for some oliice in the gift of the 
people. There are many persons here who may yet 
desire to vote for persons who have been guilty of duel¬ 
ing. He hoped that the section might be entirely 
stiicken out. 

Mr. MITCHELL said he was struck witli some of 
the remarks made here, and was more forcibly struck 
with them, when refen ing to the constitution of Lousi- 
ana. We remember very well when that constitution 
was adopted with the provi>ions which it has now^, and 
it w’as Said by every one, that here would be an end to 
the barbarous practice of dueling, but he would point 
gentlemen to the records of last year, to the many duels 
that had taken place there. A sanguinary duel was 
fought there but a few days since. Anyone at all con¬ 
versant with the laws in the southern States, is aware 
that they have had severe laws against this practice oi 
dueling, but unfortunately, they have not had what we 
have, which is infinitely more safe in preventing such 
an evil, a correct public sentiment. There is no occa¬ 
sion for this prohibition in Ohio. We have a more po¬ 
tent remedy for this kind of evils, a correct moral sen¬ 
timent, which would frown downi every thiiiR of th's 
kind. 

Mr. BARNETT of Preble said he was not in favor 
of striking out this section altogether, for reasons that 
have been already stated. He was also in favor oi 
adopting the amendment of the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin [Mr. Stanbkry,] if this section were retained, for 
he wanted to reach those who convey a challenge or 
in any w'ay become accessory to the duel. 

Mr. QUIGLEY thought, we had no occasion for such 
a section as this in the Constitution, because here, pub¬ 
lic opinion seems to be a suflicient safe-guard against 
tlie practice of dueling. However that might be, he 
was of the opinion, that in order to give a high tone to 
the character of our State, it becomes us to set an ex¬ 
ample by setting our foot upon this iniquitous practice 
and declare by our solemn act, that we are determined 
to do away with so wicked a practice. For himself he 
could see no evil resulting from such a course. He 
considered that a man guilty of fighting a duel, has 
been guilty of a moral delinquency which forever ought 
to be a bar to his holding an office. He was therefore 
in favor of retaining the whole section. 

Mr. FIRESTONE said, he was willing to admit, that 
moral sentiment stands pretty high in Ohio,but while he 
admitted that, he contended that it was necessary that 
this clause should be engrafted into the constitution. It 
has been said that moral sentiment frowned down any 
thing like this—that the healthy public sentiment of Ohio 
was amply sufficient—but he would ask it that same 
moral sentiment did not frowm upon the profane sw'ear- 
er, the thief—the criminal of every description, and yet 
we find it necessary to make laws to protect us agamsi 
them. If moral sentiment is against this evil w'hy not 
engraft a provision in the Constitution, which will in¬ 
dicate to the people of Ohio, that we, as a Convention, 
frown upon this crime and are willing to eueraft a 
clause against the evil in our constitution. It has been 
said that it is not necessary to adopt it, because we 
have voted for duelists. Have we not voted for men, 
who have coimnitied oilier offences ? Is that any rea¬ 
son why we should enact laws to punish individuals 
who would commit crime, simply because w'e have 
voted for men who have committed crime? He hoped 
that the section w'ould be stricken out. 

Mr. CURRY thought that the provision was out of 
place in the report of the committee on the Legislative 
Department, and that it would be advisable to refer 


this matter to some other committee, where it would I 
seem more appropriately to belong, and he thought, 
tlierefore, that it w'oidd he better to strike it out and 
insert it in its more appropriate place. ^ 

A Member. The committee on Revision will arrange 
it properly, and give it its appropriate place. 

Mr. LIDEY said lie should move to strike out the 
whole section. He could not vote for any such propo¬ 
sition in the constitution, for it would exclude two per¬ 
sons,^kiiovvu to him to be os higbminded and honora¬ 
ble as any persons in the Stale, having both been once 
engaged in dueling. The case of one ol them was 
this: he would not shoot at his antagonist at all, but 
only drew him out to show the [)ublic that he was a 
coward, and would not light. Sometimes these duel¬ 
ing affairs are carried on merely for the purpose ol 
diversion, to try the “ spunk” of the |)artie.s. It was 
most preposterous to say that a man, because he fought 
a duel thirty years ago, shall be now in his old age e.x- 
cluded from office and disfranchised ! Why, there 
were gentlimen in this body of both patties, who had 
tliemselves voted for duelists to fill places of the high¬ 
est public trust. He would tell gentlemen that many 
of the most honorable and high minded men in the na¬ 
tion had been engaged in fighting duels ; and he could 
never see that it tlisqiialified any man for any public 
station, and he thought that the men who were forward 
in proposing these restrictions mnst be atraid that some 
man will challenge them, and they will have to back 
out. { 

Mr. MASON (in his seat.) 1 think so, too. . 

Mr. LIDEY continued. lie hoped when the proper 
time should arrive that the Convention would strike out 
this whole section, and by so doing evince to the world i 
that we are not afraid that our people should fight du- ! 
els. Why, under such a provision an innocent man j 
might be made the bearer of a criminal message, and j 
so be excluded from office for life—even from the of- 1 
fice of a township trustee. _ 

Mr. LOUDON said: He considered this opposition Ji 
was coming from the right quarter—from the bloody, ||| 
in other words, the “ military portion ” of the Oonven- l|| 
tiou. [A laugh.] Fie had no doubt but the citizens |i if 
of Ohio would feel under great obligations to the hon- I 
orable Chairman of the Military committee, [Mr. Li- | f 
DEY, upon whom Mr. Loudon kept his eye,] i’or making ; 
this exhibition of “ spunk.” [Laughing reuewed.] He j 
was incliued to be a little on the side of the honorable j | 
Chairman, and a little on the side of the gentleman | ^ 
from Franklin, too. But before the honorable Chair- | 
man of the Military committee made his remarks, he f | 
supposed he should undoubtedly have voted for the j | 
section, jirovided the amendment of the gentleman I 
from Franklin was in it; but without that be would *| 
have considered it of very little force. Now his hon- j i 
orable friend who figures at the head of the Military ;' 
committee, was well aware of a certain occurrence in 
the lower branch of the Legislature, not many years ’ 
since; and perhaps if this section had been in full |i 
ibree, in the shape that it is now proposed by the gen- I! 
tleinan from Franklin it shall assume, the Convention ' 
would have now to be deprived cf the services of some- j 
body. [Roars of laughter.] j 

Mr. SAWYER (interrupting) said : He wished the E 
gentleman would name his man; he did not know | 
whether he meant himself, or .Tudge Hitchcock, or his \ 
friend over the way. Fie should like to know who ' 
was alluded to. [Continued laughter.] 

Mr. LOUDON. Should the gentleman be acquaint- i 
cd with the Chairman of tho committee on Mditaiy ■ > 
Affairs, he can pick him out. [Roars i^f laughter.] But } 
to be serious. Our southeni border lies contiguous to 
a State where the public entertain the notion that the 
practice of dueling is honorable ; and it bad occurred, ; 
and it might occur again, that some gentleman might i 
come irom this chivalrous Kentucky region into the j 
more peaceful and moral region of Ohio, where the j 
mass of the people are. opposed to dueling upon prin- i ■ I 


















CONVENTION IlEPORTS. 


231 


ciple, and provoke a quarrel against some gentleman— 
knowing that popular opinion, aside from religious and 
Conscientious scruples, would restrain him—and then, 
if his challenge was declined, take the earliest oppor¬ 
tunity to proclaim his antagonist a poltroon and a cow¬ 
ard. Now this amendment was applicable to Just such 
gentlemen as this. Such an olfender miglit hereafter 
become a citizen of the State, and if it should appear 
that he had been guilty of such an offence against the 
peace and dignity of ihe commonwealth, this would be 
just the thing to catch him up. And it might be, after 
all, that if some of these chivalrous gentlemen were 
brought to the test they would themselves be glad to 
“ back water,” but taking advantage ot the popular 
feeling, they would be willing to disgrace a man of 
good character, when if their “ card ” were presented 
to seme gentlemen he had in his eye [jiointing in the 
direction of the delegate from i’en-y] they would back 
out. 

Mr. LAWRENCE of Guernsey said he should vote 
for the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin, in 
order to perfect the proposition as far as possible ; but 
the section, as it stood, did not reach, as he conceived, 
the root of the evil—the drawing, sending and accept¬ 
ing a challenge. These points, he conceived, it became 
the duty of the Convention to strike at. The fighting 
was not so important; for there would be no dueling 
it we could strike down effectually the drawing, send¬ 
ing and accepting a challenge. Notwithstanding he 
held these views, in order to perfect the proposition he 
should vote for the amendment of the gentleman from 
Franklin, but he should then (if no other gentleman 
would) move to strike the whole section out, for it was 
a slander upon the intelligence of the people to have a 
section of this kind in the constitution. In reply to 
the gentleman fVom Wayne [Mr. Firestone] he would 
say, that we might as well have a section in the consti- 
tuiion prescribing that no man who should steal a horse 
in this State, or swear profanely, or sell obscene pic¬ 
tures, or lottery tickets, should be eligible to any office. 
Why what kind of a constitution would we have ? He 
believed we had some wholesou’e, moral sense in the 
community, and that it was wholly useless to attempt 
to strike at these outrages by a provision in the organic 
law. There was no necessity for it. There was a 
wholesome, moral sentiment against duelling in the 
State of Ohio, which would last as long as lime itself. 
It might be well enough in those States where dueling 
was practised, that the organic law should reach it; but 
even there he should vote against it, for the reason al¬ 
ready assigned. Fie believed that every Southern 
State had a provision of this kind in their constitution, 
and gentlemen could see how ineffectual it had proved. 
But he would vote for striking out, for reasons far dif¬ 
ferent from those suggested by the gentleman from 
Perry. He would not strike it out in order that the 
people might have an opportunity of exhibiting their 
“ spunk,” but because it was no honor to an Ohioan to 
avail himself of suchan occasion, andtoexhibit “spunk” 
in such a way ; and if there was not sufficient moral 
sentiment in the country to remove the evil, then it be¬ 
came the part of the Legislature to provide against it. 
The great danger in that Convention called to make a 
Constitution, was that it would make a book of statutes 
instead of arranging those principles which should 
constitute the organic law of the State. It was only 
most important that genlleineu did not run into any 
system ot legislation. He repeated that he would vote 
for the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin, in 
order^ to perfect the section, so that if it were to re¬ 
main in the constitution it should have the most accep¬ 
table form which could be given to it; but hereafter 
he should vote for striking out the whole, believing it 
to be a slander upon the people of Ohio to intimate, in 
this way, that there was even the slightest danger of 
the pievalence of dueling among them. 

Mr. SAWYER proposed to amend by imserting be- 
fore the words proposed to be inserted by the member 


from Franklin, the word “hereafter,” so that it will 
read, “no person shall hereafter,” &c.; which was 
agreed to by unanimous vote. 

Mr. CASFI of Licking, said: For the information of 
some gentlemen, who are solicitous that some provis¬ 
ion against dueling should be engrafted into the Con¬ 
stitution, he would read a section from our criminal 
statutes, which he thought was admirable. 

Mr C. read the statute relative to dueling. This 
provision was very ample, and there had been a con¬ 
viction under that statute of Ohio, which had come 
within his personal knowledge. 

Mr. Stancery’s amendment, as modified by Mr. 
Sawyer, was agreed to. 

Mr. LAWRENCE now moved to strike out the en¬ 
tire section. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said, he did not care much whetliei 
the section remained or not, but il gentlemen wished 
to be particular to stigmatise the practice of dueling, it 
struck him lliat some further provision was necessary. 
One of the qualifications of electors was, that he should 
be a citizen ; and his conclusion was, tliat it would be 
better to add authority to the IvCgislature, to exclude 
from office and the rights of citizenship, all persons 
convicted of enormous crimes. With this view, he 
proposed an amendment as follows. Add at the end of 
the section the words: 

And the Legislature shall have power to exclude from the 
privilege of the elective franchise, all persons convicted of per¬ 
jury, bribery, and other infamous crimes. 

Mr. HENDERSON said, that it struck him that the 
better course would be to strike out the entire section, 
and substitute something like this: 

That the Legislature shall have power to pass a law excluding 
from office, and the right of suffrage, those who shall hereafter 
be convicted of bribery, perjury, dueling, and other infamous 
crimes and misdemeanors. 

That, he conceived, covered the entire ground ; not 
by striking more directly at the matter of dueling, 
which had little or no existence amongst us, but be- 
cau.se it was more tangible. Besides, it was drawn 
up ill such shape as to make it prospective, and ap¬ 
plicable to the state of things hereafter to occur, in or¬ 
der that it might not meet with opposition from any 
quarter. He trusted that those other crimes which ho 
had grouped with dueling, would find no advocate up¬ 
on this floor, either from the “Military committee,” or 
any other quarter. 

The amendment was rejected ; and the question re¬ 
curred on the motion of Mr. Lawrence to strike out 
out the whole section as amended. 

Mr. NASH said he agreed with the gentleman from 
Guernsey, [Mi*. Lawrence.] He was in favor of stri 
king out the section as unnecessary matter'entirely. 
He would like, however, to ask the Chairman of the 
Committee making this report whether this section 
was intended to reach candidates for the General As¬ 
sembly, or was it designed merely to exclude civil of¬ 
ficers, sherifi’s, constables, township trustees and school 
directors, and leave the members of the General As¬ 
sembly— the source and fountain of all law as indi¬ 
viduals who are alone o[)eii and capable of committing 
the crime of dueling: that they alone are capable ot 
holding office while they are guilty ol this crime. He 
did not understand the term, office, as reaching the 
members of the Legislature ; a seat in the Legislature 
never had been considered an office by any construc¬ 
tion of the term, nor would it he so legitimately. 

Mr. SAWYER in reply, said, he would ask the gen¬ 
tleman another question, whetlier he considered the 
office of a legislator as a position of trust, honoi, or 
profit ? He (Mr. S.) believed it was so considered the 
world over. 

Mr. NASH. As to the honor, he could not say that 
he was evci* very proud of it. As to the pioHt, he had 
never found any of that. 

Mr. STANTON considered that the gcntleniau Irom 
Gallia was getting wise above what was written. He 
supposed the term office included members of the 














232 


CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


General Assembly,, of course. But he was opposed to 
striking out, for the simple reason which lie would 
state. His observation upon this subject was that these 
officers, of all others, were peculiarly fortunate in e.sca- 
ping legal penalties. The law for them was like the 
old maxim — the spiders’webs catch the Hies, while 
the hornets and wasps tear them up. A member 
ber of the General Assembly could generally get rid 
of lliese-penalties by a special statute. Now lie (Mr. 
S.) was willing to make this offence a constitutional 
prohibition ancl proscription. He w'ould place it be¬ 
yond the reach of pardon, lie did not care what 
was the standing of the individual, or what were the 
circumstances under which the crime was committed: 
he should be placed forever beyond the reach of par¬ 
don, so far as the power of the governer was concern¬ 
ed. That was his theory about it. 

Mr. Lawrence’s motion to strike out, was tiien re¬ 
jected. 

Mr. McCORMICK proposed further to amend the 
section, by striking out the word “no” and inserting 
the word “ any.” 

The CHAIRMAN decided that the amendment could 
not be entertained under the rule, for the reason that 
tlie committee had just refused to strike out the sec¬ 
tion ; the only amendment that could be now enter¬ 
tained must be by way of addition to the proposition. 

Mr. McCormick appealed from his decision: and 
after debate npou the point of order in which Messrs. 
CuRRV. Sawyer, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
McCormick, Green of Ross, Stanton and Cutler par¬ 
ticipated— 

The decision of the Chair was aifirmed. 

Mr, COLLINGS proposed further to amend by in¬ 
serting after the woi’d “ otherwise” the words “and 
be thereof convicted.” 

Mr. SAWYER slated his belief that the amendment 
could not be in order unless it were attached at the 
end of the fu’oposition. 

Mr. COLLINGS thereupon withdrew it. 

The CHAIRMAN announced the consideration of 
section 34, which was read and passed over. It is as 
follows: 

Sec. 34. Lotteries and the sale of Lottery tickets, shall forever 
be prohibited in this State. 

Sec. 35. The General Assembly shall have no power to pass 
retro-active laws, or laws impairing the obligation ot contracts or 
their remedies. 

Mr.' GREEN of Ross moved to strike out the whole 
section. 

The CHAIRMAN having .stated the question, 

■^Ir. GREEN ol Ross said he did not know that he 
fully comprehended what was meant by the commit¬ 
tee in this part of the report. He had several objec¬ 
tions to it. Me saw no necessity for acting here in aid 
of the constitution of the United States. He did not 
know that he comprehended exactly what was intended 
by the term “ retro-active.” The constitution of the 
United States provided that no State should pass any 
ex fost facto law, or law imiiairing ihe oldigation of 
contracts. He did not, perhaps, fully comprehend 
what was intended by the term “ retro-aclive; ” it 
seemed, however, in this place, not to have any con¬ 
flicting signification with the words “ ex post facto'" 
There has been some doubt as to the power of the 
Legislature to pass retrospective statutes. He believed 
that the constitution of the United States was sufficient 
to prohibit the General Assembly from passing any 
ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of 
contracts, without the necessity of any additional con¬ 
stitutional restriction here. But there was another ob¬ 
jection. The committee proposed to introduce a novel 
doctrine here. If he understood it, the section would 
prevent the Legislature from legislating upon a law of 
remedy. If he understood the law of remedy, it con¬ 
stituted no part of a contract, and the Legislature had 
aright to legislate upon remedies. He took it for gran¬ 
ted that the committee simply meant to re-enact here 
what the constitution of the United States had before 


provided for; with the exception of the three last 
words of the section, namely: “or their remedies.’ 

Mr. VANCE of Butler said: He had seconded the 
motion to strike out, and would have made the motion 
himself, if the gentleman from Ross had not gone be¬ 
fore him. Now, there was nothing in tlie section to 
which he had any serious objection, except that he be¬ 
lieved it was (juito unnecessary in the constitution of 
Ohio. It would be seen by reference to the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States, that it is there provided that 
the Legislatures of the re.spective States shall pass no 
bill of attainder, no expost facto law, or law impairing 
the obligation of contracts, nor grant any title of nobil¬ 
ity. Now it was true that the constitution of the Uni¬ 
ted States did not provide that the Legislature should 
not pass a retro-aclive law. There was a distinction 
between expost facto law and a retro-activm law. It had 
been repeatedly decided that the provision in the con¬ 
stitution of the United States to prevent the passage of 
expost facto laws by the State Legislatures was applica¬ 
ble only to criminal matters, and had no ap[»lication to 
any law which might be passed of a civil character. 
The word “ retro-active ” had reference to another 
class of laws, of a civil character, which may be en¬ 
acted by the Legislature for curative jnirposes. It might 
be argued by gentlemen that we ought to provide in 
the constitution against the passage of any law of a 
reti'ospective; but in his view of the case, it would be 
destructive of the best interests of the citizen thus to 
tie up the hands of the Ijegislature. 

For the sake of making himself better understood, he 
would refer to an example : but first, he would remark, 
that, however widely gentlemen might differ in their 
opinion upon the power of the Legislature to change 
what had been denominated “ a contract,” as embodied 
in a bank charter, still, he believed that the lawyers 
had never differed upon the question of the power of 
the Legislature to change the remedy at any time. It 
had been contended upon one side of the exception to 
this statement, that when certain powers had been 
granted and conferred in a banking charter, no subse- 
(pieut J^egislature could exercise the power of changing 
su di grant. But, on the other hand, it was contended 
that the Legislature had no authority to grant a char¬ 
tered power or privilege of such a character that it 
could not be changed. But, whilst there was a differ¬ 
ence between lawyers upon this point, they were all 
agreed that thcGeneral Assembly posse.ssed at all times 
the power to legislate upon all questions of remedy. 
But, in the case which he was about to present, after 
it had been discovered that our State bankers had vio¬ 
lated their charter in some of its prohibitions: and 
when reports were coming up from all quarters, that 
they were trampling upon the authority of law, and 
daily in the habit of violating the very prohibitions 
under which they sought to protect themselves—when 
all these things came up before the Legislature, it be¬ 
came necessary, and all concurred in the necessity, 
that some remedy should be provided; and the result 
was, that the warranto ' now ujion the statute 

hook was corrected. And, now, could any say, that 
in this the Legislature had violated any provision of 
the Constitution of the United States or of the State of 
Ohio? Certainly not: and he insisted that it was ex¬ 
pedient for the Legislature to retain the right and the 
jiower to change the remedy, whenever, and as often 
as occasion should maki^ it necessary. And this was 
another reason why he was willing to dispense with 
the section. 

What was the prohibition in the section? The Gen¬ 
eral Assembly should have no power to pass any retro¬ 
active law. But it was also expressly provided in the 
Constitution of the United States, “that no S^ate Leg¬ 
islature shall ])ass any ex post facto law, or law impair¬ 
ing the oljligation of contracts. Thus far the proscrip¬ 
tion in the section was precisely similar to that of the 
constitution of the United States, and therefore it was 
unnecessary that it should be adojitod in the constitii- 





















CONVENTION REPORTS 


233 


tion of Ohio. But the section went furtlier, by the 
words, “or their remedy.” Now, it certainly would 
not do for the Convention to tie up the hands of the 
representatives of the people, and say to them— 

“ Whatever evil may follow upon the enactment of any 
statute—however any law granting privileges may be 
violated, by those claiming privileges under it, still the 
Legislature should not go to the extent of providing a 
remedy, to protect the innocent and sulfering party, or 
prevent a further violation of law.” 

He affirmed that if any grant should be made by the 
Legislature hereafter, and those claiming rights under 
it should violate the terms of that grant, and the statu 
lory remedy should fall short of the power to protect' 
the injured i arty in their rights, the Legislature should 
by all means possess the power to enact any law which 
might provide the remedy. 

But again: what was to be understood by a retro-ac¬ 
tive law? It was true that some laws which might be 
enacted under this head, ought never to be passed by 
any Legislature, especi:dly such retro-active laws as 
might impair the validity of contracts. 

But in answer to those gentlemen who wish to urge 
upon us the adoption of this new constitutiouai provi¬ 
sion, he would not only I’epeat what he had before said, 
that the constitution of the United States had already 
provided against legislation of this class ; and hence it 
would be necessary that we should go farther upon that 
subject; but he would say that there was a class of 
retro-active laws, which it was important that the Le¬ 
gislature should sometimes enact. He referred to that 
class of legislation upon remedies, denominated Cura¬ 
tive Acts. He did not know that he had examined all 
the acts of this kind contained in our statutes ; but so 
far as he had examined them, he believed them to be 
founded in sound and wholesome legislative policy.— 
And here he might differ from some gentlemen—audit 
might be from those gentlemen who have recommended 
the adoption of this section, who seemed to entertain 
the opinion, that the Legislature never had the power 
to pass a retro-active law. By way of illustration, he 
would look at a law passed in the year 1825, if his 
memory served him correctly: the object of which 
was, to obviate the evil and inconvenience adsing from 
numerous applications for widows’dower in laud, that 
had been conveyed away, and sub-divided, in conse¬ 
quence, some 30 or 40 years prior to that time. He 
believed the Supreme Court of Ohio, had settled the 
question of the constitutionality of that act. But the 
first time, it was settled in such a way as to give great 
dissatisfaction throughout a large portion of the State, 
and it became necessary that the question should be 
reserved for the decision of the Court in Bank. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross interrupted here, and was un¬ 
derstood to say, that the last decision of this court re¬ 
versed the previous decision, and that it was obtained 
by a change in the construction of the court. 

Mr. VANCE continued. He was about to look at 
the principle involved in that question. He held it to 
be no violation of the constitution of the United States 
for the Legislature to enact such a law as that of which 
he had been speaking—the law passed in 1835 he held 
to be no violation of the constitution. And he desired 
to consider it for a moment, for the purpose of deter¬ 
mining the question which might arise, whether that 
law violated any contract relative to the previous con¬ 
veyances in question. He considered that it certainly 
did not. It could have no application whatever to the 
contract, in which the wife joined with her husband 
on one side, and the purchaser on the other, constituted 
the parties; for if the act did affect the contract, as a 
matter of course it would be a violation of the consti¬ 
tution of the United States, and therefore, as the law¬ 
yers say, it would be void. But he held that the ac¬ 
knowledgement of a deed was no part of the contract 
of the parties, it was merely the evidence—the means 
of preserving the evidence of the contract itself, and 
no part of tho contract whatever. This being the 


case, then the Legislature, from time to time, mi'^ht 
alter and change the manner in which that evidence 
should be preserved, as well as the manner and form 
in which it should be presented to the court. 

This was not a new question. It was known to the 
United States Court for the di.strict of Penns)dvania, 
and it was settled the second time in the Supreme 
Court of tho United States. In settling thi.s question 
it was decided that such a law had no reference to the 
contract, so far as to operate as an infringement upon 
the contract; but merely to prescribe tlie means by 
which the evidence of tho contract might be arrived at. 

This law was not only curative in its nature, but it 
was also retro-active. He had merely referred to this 
law because it was upon his mind. There were many 
other cases in point, which would suggest themselves 
to tlie minds of lawyers, in which it becomes absolute¬ 
ly necessary lor the Legi.slature to enact these curative 
laws; not only for the purpose of protecting the rights 
of innocent persons, but also for the i)urpo3e of hold¬ 
ing the contracting parties to the very terms of their 
contract; not for the purpose of violating, or affecting 
its terms, in any particular whatever, but for the pur¬ 
pose of holding the parties directly to their contract, 
and coinpellingthem to abide by its terms. Now, how 
would it do to introduce into the constitution of the 
State a provision taking away from the Legislature the 
power of enacting laws of this kind; the exercise of 
which frequently becomes so important? He did not 
intend to go any farther into this question. He had 
intended merely to call attention to the difficulty that 
might arise out of the adoption of this section; and 
which might go far to affect the rights of a citizen. 
He should regret to see the hands of the Legislature so 
tied up, as to take away from them the power of rem¬ 
edying such evils, by compelling both parties, in all 
cases, to abide by the terms of their contract. For 
these reasons he was in favor of striking out the latter 
clause of the section; and for the reasons which he had 
before stilted, he was in favor of striking out the whole 
section, inasmuch as it was rendered unnecessary, by 
reason of the provisions of the constitution of the Uni¬ 
ted States. 

Mr. MASON. This was a motion to strike out the 
entire section. 

The CHAIRMAN assented. 

Mr. MASON then proposed to amend the section by 
striking out all after the word “pass,” in first line, and 
inserting in lieu thereof, the words any ex-post facto law, 
or law impairing the obligation of contracts. 

The CHAIRMAN having stated the question— 

Mr. MASON said: In preparing this amendment he 
liad been simply guided by the jirovisions of the pres¬ 
ent constitution of the State of Ohio, contained in the 
16th section of the Bill of Rights, namely: 

“No cx-post facto law, nor any law impairing the validity of 
contracts, shall ever be made; and no conviction shall work cor¬ 
ruption of blood, or forfeiture of estate.” 

The remainder of this section might be inserted in 
some other clause of the constinution il necessary; tho 
word “validity,” was of the same signification, but he 
had taken the word “ oliligation,” ii’oin the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States. He would remark, in the 
first place, that he believed it would lie most wise and 
prudent to insert such a restriction upon the power of 
the General Assembly as to prevent them from invali¬ 
dating any existing, subsisting contract by their legisla¬ 
tion, independently of the provision in the constitution 
of the United States. The State of Ohio was a sover¬ 
eign State, and in a great many important respects as 
independent as if there were no such thing as a federal 
gov0riiiii6iit. Hg would ratliGr our system sliould be 
made complete in it.self, so that if there should be a 
disruption of the Union, (if he might make an allusion 
to a contingency of which there was no danger and 
maybe there was,) the State might have a government 
of its own, so that no matter what might happen to the 
general government, the State might tall back upon a 









234 


CONVENTION IIEPOIITS. 


well regulated, complete government of its own. He 
considered that the State should endeavor, by the assis¬ 
tance of rrovidence, to take care of itself, whatever 
might happen to the Union. He preferred that sim- 
liciiy and completeness should characterize our work 
ere. He had nothing lurther to urge; but thought 
this a sulRcient reason for retaining the section; tnat 
we should not depend on any provision of the consti¬ 
tution of the general government for the adjustment of 
the provisions of our constitution. 

He had adopted the language of the old constitution 
in the use of the terms “ cx post facto law,” which had 
relation to criminal proceedings—to the punishment of 
an act made criminal by virtue of a law passed after 
the act teas committed; so that when the act was com¬ 
mitted it was innocent: all such laws ought to be pro¬ 
hibited. There had been much of this sort of wmrk 
done in the mother country, by the people from wdiom 
we have descended. A few centuries ago, nothing was 
there more common than for the House cf Commons to 
make that a treasonable act w'hich, at the time it was 
committed, was entirely innocent by law; and they 
went further, they carried on prosecutions against per¬ 
sons so made criminal, even to the taking of their blood. 
This was, therefore, a very proper provision, and he 
would not be unw lling to adopt it because it was an 
old thing. Humanity never became stale. 

With regard to the word retro-active, it was not ne¬ 
cessary for him to say any thing after the Convention 
had heard the remarks of the gentleman from Butler, 
[Mr. Vance.] He knew there was some difference of 
opinion upon the question of the policy of permitting 
the Legislature to pass curative laws. He knew that 
some thought the Legislature ought not to pass such 
laws. He had himself once something to do as a mem¬ 
ber of the General Assembly, in passing a law of a re¬ 
tro-active character. He did that conscientiously ; and 
he would do it again under similar circumstances. It 
had been justly said by the gentleman from Butler, 
(and he never heard a man maintain an argument to 
the contrary,) that the act of a magistrate in taking the 
• acknowlegernent of the parties to a deed was no part 
of the contract between the parties. But, on the con¬ 
trary, when the contract was consummated—when the 
consideration was paid—(or it may have been paid or 
not,) and nothing remained to be agreed upon between 
the parties: then they went to the justice of the peace ; 
and what did they go there for? For the purpose of 
getting the contract solemnized ; that there might be 
no mistake about it; that they might have some public 
act of authentication, that such a contract as the one 
desciibed in the deed existed between the parties—in 
order that this act of authentication might be placed 
upon the records of the county, where it might anpear 
to all the world. 

Formerly the justice wasrequired to certify certain facts 
connected with this transaction, under his hand and 
seal; and where this was omitted, the deed became 
void, as a deed between the two parties. The deed 
could not convey the interest of the wife; for as a 
deed, it was void, by the omission, on the part of the 
officer taking the acknowledgment, to annex his seal. 
It was not Valid either for the man or his wife. See 
ing that the acknowledgment was all that the law re¬ 
quired, to complete ihe conveyance, it was unreasona¬ 
ble that so small a thing as the neglect of the seal should 
vitiate the instrument, and the Legislature very prop¬ 
erly interfered, and passed a law to cure that defect, 
by declaring that all such instruments should be valid 
in law, notwithstanding the omission of theseal. Now 
he was in favor of such legislation as this ; and he 
would not deprive the people of it for any considera¬ 
tion. It was a healing statute in the best sense of the 
term, and he could never be persuaded to have any 
hand in taking this power away from the Legislature 
—Ins great respect for the opinion of gentlemen to the 
contiary, notwithstanding. He had seen too much of 
llii.s practice—hunting among records and dockets to 


find a claim for dower; iu some cases where the wife 
had been content for years, till some griefless lawyer 
found her out, and told her that she might, by commit¬ 
ting a fraud, go into court and claim her dower, again,st 
a solemn contract in which she united with her husband, 
now long since in the grave. All he had to say about 
such conduct, was, that when his wife should become 
guilty in this manner, ho could wish to be alive again, 
just long enough to obtain a divorce from her. [A 
laugh.] Yet this was an every day practice. Again, 
there were other cases requiring another curative 
chiuse. Whej e the justice of the peace had not put iu 
all the language which the law required hitn to insert, 
such as, that the wife was examined apart upon such 
question as, whether she acted w’ithout the fear, con-' 
straint, or coercion of her husband—or, that the con¬ 
tents of the deed had been read, and made known to 
her. If any of these had been omitted—if the officer 
failed to write down any part of the acknowledgment, 
this curative law declares that the parties shall not 
lose the benefit of their contract on account of any 
mere unintjentional error of the officer. 

He believed that both the court and the General As¬ 
sembly had concurred in the principle that the party 
should not lose the benefit of his contract and his land, 
which he may have been in possession of for twenty 
years—(for the limitation was twenty-one years)—but 
that he might file a bill and show the intention of the 
parties. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, interrupting, said, that the stat¬ 
utes of limitations did not commence running till after 
the husband’s death. 

Mr. MASON. That was even true; but his mind 
w'as not so particularly directed toward the discussions 
of legal principles, as it was to facts. The word “ re¬ 
tro-active,” here, signified to look backward. The sec¬ 
tion also included the remedy. It would never do to 
engraft such a principle into the constitution. It had 
been the uniform interpretation in the courts of the 
United States and in this State, that there was a broad 
and sensible distinction between legislation upon the 
obligations of contracts, and legislation upon the reme¬ 
dy. They all held that the Legislature may deal with 
remedies, from an action of assumpsit to every other 
action known to the laws. This included the whole 
subject. 

The section provided that the Legislature should 
have no power to pass a law impairing the obligation 
of contracts or their remedie.<5. What was a I'emedy? 
It is an action at law, wherein one party demands a 
debt, or duty, of another. This was a new constitu¬ 
tional provision; and he thought it proper to call the 
attention of honorable gentlemen to it particularly. 
These were new words—“ no power to deal with rem¬ 
edies”—“ no power to pass retro-active laws.’ If the 
Legislature should pass a retro-active law affecting the 
validity of contracts, it would be unconstitutional and 
void; but they might pass, and ought to have power 
to pass, curative laws which do not affect the validity 
of contracts, as shown by the argument of the gentle¬ 
man from Butler; and if he [Mr. M.] were to pursue 
this subject, it would be but to re-state the argument 
of that gentleman. 

Mr. SAWYER rehearsed the language of the sec¬ 
tion and said : It was not the intention of the commit¬ 
tee on the Legislative Department to prevent the L*eg- 
islature from dealing in remedies; but there was a 
good deal of ditlerence between dealing with reme¬ 
dies and legislating upon the obligation of contracts. 

Mr. MASON said he admitted there was some differ¬ 
ence; but if a remedy was im[)aired by legislation, it 
jwas dealt with, and he would not .say, vice versa. He 
was not an advocate in his place then, and therefore 
obliged to carry his cause, right or wrong. If you im¬ 
pair the remedy you deal with it; but he admitted 
that you might deal with it without impairing it. But, 
after all, he thought the remedy had belter be left to 
tho discretion of the Legislature in all cases ; for we 



















CONVENTION HEPOllTS. 


235 


should have other remedies to providefor under the new 
constitution, which was likely to be considerably chang¬ 
ed. At any rate our judiciary procedure would un¬ 
doubtedly undergo a very great change. Rut he was 
afraid of the wording of the section, prohibiting legis¬ 
lation upon remedies. He did not know where that 
word would carry us. He could not see any thing to 
be attained by it that was desirable ; and if anything 
at all were to be attained he was afraid tliat the mis¬ 
chief which would arise from it would greatly over¬ 
balance the good. 

Mr. REEMELIN said he supposed by this time the 
members pretty generally saw that it would have been 
morally impossible for the committee on the Legisla¬ 
tive Department to have drawn up a report that would 
not have been submitted to the severest criticisms, but 
the committee did not attempt to draw up a report 
which would not be subject to criticism, they did not 
expect to present a report perfect in all its parts. They 
only presented it as a proposition which a majority of 
their number had agreed should pass. Such had been 
the coutse of the committee, as his friend, the Chair¬ 
man, had stated several times ; and so had he. 

Mr. MASON interposing (and Mr. R. giving way) 
said; if he had been a little more attentive, his amend¬ 
ment might have been made with less writing, by 
striking out the word “retro-active,” and inserting in 
its place the words ^^expostfacto,''’ and then, by striking 
out the words “or their remedies.” He begged 
that the gentleman from Hamilton would not suppose 
that he had attempted to criticise the work of the com¬ 
mittee on the Legislative Department. 

Mr. REEMELIN resuming, reiterated bis belief that 
no report could have been submitted which would not 
have been subjected to criticism, and invidious propo¬ 
sitions to amend. Such propositions had been offered 
iu many cases in committee of the Whole; and after 
debate, gentlemen have been compelled to fall back 
on the original proposition as reported : and several of 
the amendments which have been passed would yet 
be found to be incongruous with the principles upon 
which the report was based. He could say to his 
friend from Butler, [Mr. Vance,] who seemed to think 
this provision wholly unnecessary, and that the com¬ 
mittee should not have inserted such a provision, that 
such a provision was to be found iu the constitution of 
every State in the Union. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler interrupted, and^ said he had 
no objection to the principle of ihe provision as far as 
it was copied from the constitution of the United States, 
except that he considered it unnecessary. To accom¬ 
modate his views, therefore, with the views of others, 
he had drawn up an amendment embodying precisely 
the same principle offered by the gentleman from 
Clark; but he did not offer it, because he supposed it 
unnecessery to insert the principle at all. The gentle¬ 
man misunderstood him in supposing that he was op¬ 
posed to the principle involved in the section; he 
merely intended to point out the mischievous conse¬ 
quences to which its language might lead. 

Mr. REEMELIN resuming. He did not misunder¬ 
stand the gentleman. The gentleman certainly did say 
the section was unnecessary: and now, with deference 
to the judgment and experience of the judgment of that 
gentleman, he would beg leave to say that it was not 
unnecessary, for the plain reason that the constitution 
of ihe United States which contains the same principle 
embraced in the words proposed to be stricken out, 
might be repealed, and that was the intention mani¬ 
fested by those who framed the constitution of Ohio 
48 years ago. 

He desired further to say, that the committee had 
taken full time to pay suitable attention to the report 
in all its parts, 'fhey sat up late, sometimes till one 
o’clock in the night, and early at their work in order 
to get the report before the Convention at an early day; 
and he supposed for their industry, which enabled them 
to bring in the first important report, they were to be 


repaid by criticisms, which seemed to lio leveled at 
every part of it. It might be that the President of the 
Convention had made a mistake by neglecting to place 
upon the committee a number of astute legal gentle¬ 
men, and they might have taken more lime to consid¬ 
er. They might if they ever reported at all, have sub¬ 
mitted something more acceptable, and perhaps more 
profound, but he doubted it. No report could have 
been made which would not have created much de¬ 
bate, since there were so many different views. But 
now, when we poor common men come in here with 
our plain common sense report, the legal gentlemen 
begin immediately their criticisms. They wish tc 
draw us away into deep water, and to entangle us iu 
legal cobwebs, but he prefei'red not to go after them, 
he was determined to stand upon the brink of the river, 
and avoid getting drowned if possible. His friend, 
the gentleman from Butler, had endeavored to get us 
all into a greal legal dilliculty, but after all, he was 
still of the opinion, that the committee uudenstooii 
pretty well what they were about. 

He could see no objection to the section reported 
beyond mere tenaciousness about the use of words. 
Our word “ retro-active ” he believed w’as a mere lit¬ 
eral translation of the Latin ’'‘ex post facto; ’ ’’facto” 
meaning “the act” ’’post” meaning ” after,” and“ca;” 
signifying “ out.” He found this word iu the consti¬ 
tution of almost every Slate in the Union—the word 
“ retro-active ” was used in this connection in almost 
every one of them. But if gentlemen liked the Latin 
terms better, it was a mere matter of taste; but for 
himself he preferred the English. If the Latin were 
better than the Engish, and the English did not satisfy 
gentlemen, he would not object to putting iu the Latin 
on top of the English in oixler to make the signification 
as full and complete as possible. 

He desired now to say one word as to the remedy. 
He supposed that legal gentlemen might be able to 
puzzle us here. He would not dispute the statements 
about the decisions of the courts. He admitted that 
they were all true and correct. The words “ or their 
remedies ” were put in liy the committee to prevent 
the violation of rights, and to take away from the Leg¬ 
islature the power to impair contracts. The words 
were not inserted without deliberation and debate. 
The committee had seen the discussion of this question 
in one of the Reviews of the highest repute in the coun¬ 
try, and they came to the conclusion that as the law 
provided the remedy, the Legislature might be just 
as apt to impair the remedy as to impair the contract. 
It was his belief that the Legislature should not pass 
a retrospective law, impairing either the existing reme¬ 
dy or the existing contract: and he affirmed that the 
committee had no idea of prohibiting legislation upon 
the remedy to operate infiilure. The doctrine of this part 
of the section was derived from the Democratic Re ¬ 
view. The committee desired that in all cases where 
a contract shall be made, the remedy pi'ovided by law 
for the enforcement of the contract should stand as 
sacredly as the contract itself: and if he understood the 
decisions of the supreme court of the United States, it 
was, that inpairing the remedy was the same as im¬ 
pairing the contract. 

Mr. TAYLOR said, he desired to ask some gentle¬ 
man who was a member ot the committee on the Leg¬ 
islative department, whether the term “retro-active” 
was understood to be confined to criminal aftairs, and 
not to extend to civil remedies. He understood that 
ex post facto had relereuce only to criminal mat¬ 

ters ; and he would like to know wliether this was the 
sense in which it was used by the gentleman from 
Clark in his amendment, or whether he had intended 
to give any further meaning to the word. 

Mr. REEME LIN. The section certainly could speak 
for itself. Retro-active is a comprehensive term; it in¬ 
cludes all such laws. Being again on the fiocir, he de¬ 
sired to say one word with reference to curative laws. 
Such laws were always dangerous. They always in- 














236 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


volve the exercise of judicial power—they are always 
expart e. 

The General Assembly should pass laws ; the courts 
should adjudicate upon them. Curative laws were 
■based upon that monstrous English doctrine, “ that Par¬ 
liament could do every thing”—a doctrine revolting to 
every principle of our government. Such a power, so 
absolute in its character, so destructive of the rights ol 
person, of peoperty, and all proper division of power 
in the government, he was not willing to admit. 

Mr. MITCHELL said. He would not have troubled 
the committee at this time with re-marks, had it not 
been for the course of the argument in regard to the 
construction that is to be given to the present constitu¬ 
tion of the Uni ed States with reference to the ques¬ 
tion as to how far the acts of the Legislature may affect 
remedies. It has been argued here, that the constitu¬ 
tion has received this construction that ihe Legislature 
might pass such laws as they chose, affec ting the reme¬ 
dies of contracts, and those laws would be held valid 
and binding. He rose here to protest against the truth 
of this assertion. Such is not the decision of the tri¬ 
bunals of this country. If he was not mistaken, a dis¬ 
tinction on this subject has been made by our courts 
which ought never to be overlooked in discussing this 
■question. It was, that the Legislature might pass laws 
altering the form of remedies upon contracts, but hav¬ 
ing no power to oassa law taking that remedy entirely 
away, or materially affecting the substance of it, this 
is the correct limitation of this doctrine. He proposed, 
for the purpose of making the matter more clear, that 
an amendment something like this should be made; as 
before the word “ their remedies,” should be inserted, 
“substance of their remedies.” He did not conceive, 
however, that it was necessary to retain them. The 
words found in the constitution of the United States, 
have a certain construction—the sixbstance of which he 
had already stated. The last case arose in Illinois. 
That was the case of a mortgage. The law of Illinois 
rendered the real estate of the debtor subject to sale 
without appraisement. The State had passed a law re¬ 
quiring real estate should be sold at two-thirds of its 
appraised value. The Supreme Court of the United 
States held that this law affected the substance of the 
remedy so as to be within the provision of the consti¬ 
tution, and hence inoperative and void. A word or 
two in regal'd to the force of terms. The gentleman 
from Hamilton is a man of good scholarship, one who 
has studied the science of languages, and he ought 
certainly to know, that the great fountain and science 
of language is usage—that usage gives to language its 
correct and appropriate meaning. When we are talk¬ 
ing about terms and words, we must take them as they 
have received their force from usage. There is not a 
gentleman in this Assembly, who does not know that 
the term ex post facto has received from usage a partic¬ 
ular meaning, and that the word retroactive has received 
a different meaning. The reason why this language 
and phraseology was given to the constitution of the 
United States, is principally this. He believed that long 
previous to the adoption of our constitution, it was held 
by the courts of England that an ex post facto law was 
inoperative and void—that it was prohibited by Magna 
Charta. By some it was held that an ex post facto law 
related exclusively to criminal proceedings—that the 
word “ retroactive,” which was not found in that in¬ 
strument, referred to civil proceedings—hence there 
was no prohibition in the English constitution against 
making a law impairing the obligation of a contract. 
Others held that ex post facto applied as well to civil as 
criminal matters, and was a protection against laws im¬ 
pairing the obligation of contracts, called by some re¬ 
troactive laws. In drafting the constinution of tlie Uni¬ 
ted States, in order to settle this controversy, they in¬ 
serted the clause referred to, and instead of using “re¬ 
troactive,” they used the words, “ impairing the obli¬ 
gation of contracts;” which, as before stated,had been 
held to have a similar force with the words retroactive. 


It will be remembered by gentlernen, who are at all 
conversant with the history of judicial proceedings in 
England, that their great controversy was maintained 
there for a long time. Some of the judges held that 
the term ex post facto not reach civil actions as well 
as criminal proceedings, while others maintained the 
reverse. It was finally settled, and the prevalent cur¬ 
rent of opinion seemed to be, that it was limited to acts 
that amounted to crime. Our judicial tribunals have 
given to these terms their construction, and he believed 
that in constructing a new constitution, it would be 
better to follow the terms that have thus found their 
fixed and settled meaning, rather^ than take new ones 
that might lead to new constructions and new ditucul- 
ties. 

One word, and he would be done. ^ He would go loi 
retaining the clause in our constitution, although very 
similar to the one in the constitu ion of the United 
States. But he must say that he could not do it lor the 
reasons assigned by the gentleman from Clark, [Mr. 
Mason.] He had great respect for the opinions ol that 
gentleman, but it seemed to him that he could never 
look to the dissolution of this Union as an event proba¬ 
ble to happen within his lifetime, or that of any one 
who might hear his name. He would not vote lor it lor 
the reason assigned, that we might need such a provis¬ 
ion when we became a separate State, for he could not 
believe we should need, on that account, any such pro¬ 
vision for our protection, until a time too remote to cal¬ 
culate for now. His fond hope still was, that this Union 
would prove perpetual. 

iMr. NASH said—He must say that he agrqed with 
the commiitee in this case, as to the form in which this 
provision should stand, nor, as he understood the phra¬ 
seology of it, had any substantial objection been brought 
against it. The reason why he was in favor of it is, 
that it settles forever and conclusively one or two ques¬ 
tions of controversy, which exist in this State and leave 
the law in a most distressing uncertainty. It matters 
not whether it is right or wrong—it has left the law in 
uncertainty and the rights of individuals dependent 
upon the opinions of the Supremo Court. When he 
sits down to examine a transaction and ascertain what 
the law is, he does not know what his rights are. For 
the Legislature may intervene to legislate upon these 
rights; and then the validity of this legislation must be 
passed upon by the courts; and they may decide it 
valid or invalid, just according to their opinion ol its 
propriety or impropriety. There are, however, 
questions about which there is no controversy. i he 
meaning of the phrase “ is well settled, 

and there can be no occasion for controversy upon that 
point. It a]iplies exclusively to criminal, retro-active 
legislation. In the next place, the language “impairing 
the obligation of contracts,” embraces all laws which 
undertake to interfere witli the rights of a party uiidei 
a contract already made; and again, it has been deci¬ 
ded universally and everywhere, that, while the Leg¬ 
islature have a right to change the remedy, they have 
no right so to change it as to impair the vested right ol 
a party under his contract. But there are still cases in 
which there is an uncertainty. Your stay laws, im 
stance, and your appraisement laws, have been applied 
to contracts already made. There is no doubt ol the 
right of the Legislature to pass these laws in reference 
to future contracts—the Legislature having the right 
to pass any law which regulates the form of contracts 
thereafter made. It applies only to contracts already 
made, rights already vested. This, then, settles one 
single question. What is it? That a remedy given lor 
a right at the time that right accrued, shall be always 
as effective as the original remedy; and that the Legis¬ 
lature shall have no power so to change it as to lessen 
the effectiveness of this remedy. The Legislature 
have the power to change the form of actions, nay sub¬ 
stitute a bill in chancery for an action at law.^ There 
can be no controversy about the exercise of this power, 
so long as the new remedy is as effective as the old 



















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


o\ie—as well adapted to enable the party to enforce 
his right. The words, and their remedy, settle there¬ 
fore all the uncertainty wliich gentlemen know has 
hung over the constitutionality ot stay laws and ap¬ 
praisement laws, so lar as they etiect existing contracts. 
Some of the courts of Common Pleas decided these 
laws constitutional, while others decided them uncon¬ 
stitutional—some lawyers thought them valid, others 
thought them invalid—and there was, therefore, a most 
distressing uncertainty hanging over these ti[uestions, 
during the two years that the appraisement law was in 
force. 

The supreme court of the United States have deci¬ 
ded that the appraisement law of Illinois, passed sub¬ 
sequent to the execution of a mortgage, did impair the 
right under the mortgage, and was therefore invalid. 
Wliat with the diversity of opinion in Ohio and the 
decision of the supreme court of the United States, 
this whole subject of stay and appraisement laws is 
involved in most distressing uncertainty. Is it not best 
to have it settled in some way, and that it should be 
settled right ? Is there anything wrong in saying that 
man’s rights should be settled and adjudicated as they 
were at the time they accrued—that the party who 
makes the contract shall be bound by that contract as 
the parties themselves understood it at the time ? I say 
is there any thing wrong in this—in leaving all rights to 
be settled by the law in Ibrce at the time the right ac¬ 
crued ? If there is any injustice in this plain princi¬ 
ple, let the Convention say so; but at all events let 
the question be settled now and forever, in the one 
way or the other. There should be an end of this un¬ 
certainty. 

One word further in regard to the use of the word 
retroactive. This includes a class of cases also, about 
which there is some uncertainty. We have been re¬ 
ferred to the curative statutes as laws which the Leg¬ 
islature should have a right to pass. Before alluding 
to that, permit me- to say that the New Hampshire 
constitution contains a pi’ohibition against retrospective, 
or, as called here, retroactive laws. These two are 
equivalent terms. It leaves out the term ex post facto, 
because the word restrospective limits the etiect of 
legislation to the future, and precludes it from inter¬ 
fering with any right already vested; from making any 
law which, instead of looking to the future, interieres 
with the rights of persons and property which are al¬ 
ready vested. If gentlemen will look into the first 
volume of the New Hampshire reports, page 199, they 
will find an opinion of Mr. Justice Woodbury, in which 
he discusses this whole subject of retroactive legisla¬ 
tion, and the etiect of tnis term resti'ospective. The 
court held that it prohibits all legislation designed to 
efiect the character of past transactions, or to change 
the legal rights of parties as vested bylaw. Hence, 
it leaves the rights of parties to bo adjudicated accor¬ 
ding to the law in force at the time those rights ac¬ 
crued, and no subsequent legislation can vary or change 
these rights between party ad party. 

The Supreme C urt of Indiana have also held that it 
is inconsistent with t he very idea of legislation, that 
it should interfere with a right vested; and hence, that 
all retroactive laws are void; and this decission is made 
under a constitution like our present one. Some states 
have decided in one way,andsome the other. The Su¬ 
preme Court of United States have decided, as I be¬ 
fore stated. If the Legislature has power to pass cu- 
rati^^statures, what right has the Supreme Court to 
sayfRtether these curative statutes shall or shall not 
be Ifj^rative ? The power vested in the Legislature 
and ™^xercise is to be governed by its discretion; 
whepj^xercised, its exercise must be valid, and the 
court^ltoust give it its legitimate operation. And yet 
the ccJijaiits have always declared these curative statutes 
valid OTj,hivalid, according to their notions of their jus¬ 
tice or ii^stice. Now then, let us state a few cases. 
A few years ago, the Supreme Court decided that, if at 
a guardian sale, the appraiser ultimately became the 


23T 


purchaser of the land, the sale could be set aside by a 
bill in equity, filed by the heirs; because it was against 
policy that the person who was the appraiser of laud 
should be permitted to become the purchaser of it.~ 
Soon after that decision was made, a law was passed 
at the instance of a member of the Senate, declarino- 
what?—Why sir, (and if you have looked upon the 
statute book you must have seen it,) that all sales here¬ 
tofore made to the appraiser of property under these 
circumstances, should be valid ; and all sales hereafter 
made should be invalid, that is, that it was wrong that 
an appraiser should hereafter become the purchaser of 
property, under any possible circumstances, but that 
such purchases before made were right. What was 
the object of it? The object of it was to over-reach, 
the decission of your Supreme Court. 

The very first time, as he had been informed by one 
of the Judges of the iSupx’eme Court, that the court 
went around the circuit, this very question was pre¬ 
sented to them, and that too, by the person who had 
t 1 rafted the law. This statute was brought forward to- 
overrule the previous decision, and obtain, on the 
same state of the case, a directly contrary decision. 
What did the court say ? The court said it was an 
imperative law, an unconstitutional law, a void law ; 
and the gentleman took nothing by statute. Here was 
a curative statute ; but the court decided that it was 
not valid. What is tlie State law in regard to these 
curative statutes ?: that the court reserves to itself the 
right and power to say whether they are operative or 
inoperative. A few years ago a person by the name of 
Price recovered, in actions of ejectment, large tracts of 
land in Ohio. The court decided that, by law, the title 
was in the plaintitt’, and that the defendant had no title. 
A bill in chancery was filed, and the parties undertook 
to set up an equity ; but the Supreme Court decided 
that they had no equity—that the lands were the plain- 
tirt'’s legady and equitably. Why was that? The 
court decided that as the sale had been void, no title,, 
either in law or equity, could be transferred by it. 
The parties applied to the Legislature and obtained the 
passage of a law declaring that these parties whom 
your courts decided had no title in law or equity to- 
these lands, should yet hold the possession of the same 
against the legal and equitable owner. It is said no¬ 
decision was had in that case, but I have good reason 
to know what the court thought of its injustice and in¬ 
iquity—and of course its invalidity. 

The question being asked Mr. Nash, when such a 
decision was made, and the statement being made that 
in fact no such decission had been made, 

Mr. NASH resumed. There may have been no such 
decision; but the opinion of the court upon the law is 
pretty well known ; but it is claimed by gentlemen 
that the Legislature have power to do almost any thing. 
My friend from Clark says that he assisted in making 
this law. Does he say that the Legislature have a right 
to take properly from one and give it to another? Does 
the gentleman claim that legal proceedings for the sale 
of land, which are absolutely void, can be made valid 
by retrospective legislation ? That it can take land 
from A and transfer the title of it to B ? 

Mr. STANTON interrupting (and Mr. N. giving way) 
said he would say to the gentleman from Gallia, that 
where, by operation of law, parties have failed by ac¬ 
cident to efiect the object of the law, or the intention 
of the parties, the Legislature has power to cure such 
defect, and carry into efiect the intent of the parties. 
That is the case were the lands of the intestates are 
subject to the payment of their debts, and their debts 
are a lien upon their property. He held that the Leg¬ 
islature had power to change the form of proceed- 
ings. 

Mr. NASH would say in reply, that every court in 
the Union, from the supreme court of the United States 
down, had held that no such power existed; nothing 
could be done. There can be no contrariety of opinion 
in regard to a question of that character. If that is 











238 


CONVENTION KEFOKTS 


what gentlemen want they must not only leave it as 
it is in the old constitution, but must claim tlie right to 
alter the constitution of the United States. The power 
to pass such legislation must be expressly given, or it 
is not given at all. It is inconsistent with the very 
idea of law, a rule for future actions. Do I understand 
gentlemen to claim that the law-making power can 
constitutionally act upon my rights of property and my 
rights of action ? Can the Legislature enact that what 
the law of the land says is mine, shall not be mine, but 
another’s? Is sucii a powei a safe power? Does it 
not carry the worst features of despotism ? 

Who wishes to leave any such pow^er to the Legis¬ 
lature ?—To a Legislature, while his right should be de¬ 
pendent upon the ability of his opponent in log-rolling 
' a law through the Legislature?—a particular law to 
reach a particular case! One man’s rights would be 
protected in one w^ay and another man's rights would 
be protected in another w’ay. Every one’s rights would 
thus depend upon circumstances over which he had no 
control. He might be deprived of his property by ex 
parte legislation, without a day in court; still it is the 
opinion of the court which gives validity to such legis¬ 
lation. The courts refuse to sanctioti a curative law 
unless in their opinion it is equitable. It is left for the 
courts to say whether these acts are valid or not. The 
courts have always claimed and exercised this power. 
What sort of a constitutional power is that which is 
dependent for its exercise upon the opinions of others ? 
If the Legislature have the right to pass such curative 
statutes the coui’ts can rightly have no discretion to ex¬ 
ecute or not to execute them. Let us put a few cases 
illustrative of this retrospective legislation. Here you 
have upon your statute books a law declaring that all 
contracts for more than six per cent, interest are void. 
An individual is sued upon such a contract and sets up 
usuiy in defence. Will gentlemen contend that the 
Legislature have the right to declare that the contract 
is valid, and that the party shall recover the principal 
and six per cent interest ? 

Again: You had a law which declared all contracts 
based upon an issue of unauthorized bank paper void. 
Here is a body of men who assume widiout authority 
to issue bank paper, loan it to individuals, and take 
their promissory note for the repayment of the same. 
Your law upon principles of public po'icy, declares 
both bank paper and the promissory notes void ; and 
yet your Legislature has in times past undertaken to 
give validity to these contracts ; and what is more as¬ 
tonishing still, your courts have undertaken to give ef¬ 
fect to such legislation. Here by law^ there was no 
contract whatever, and yet, your Legislature assumes 
to create a contract out of a millity. It cannot impair 
the validity of a contract, and yet it is claimed it can 
make one for parties—an exercise of power unparal¬ 
leled in the history of any government in this country 
or Europe; an act possessing all the features of the 
most odious despotism. A contract concerning land, 
unless in writing, is void ; can or ought your Legisla¬ 
ture to possess the power to declare such contracts pre¬ 
viously made to be valid ? With such powers to inter¬ 
fere with vested rights, can it be called a government 
of law ? Can a man be said to hold his rights under 
the law of the .land ? Can any one know what his 
rights and liabilities are or may be? Is any one wil¬ 
ling to hold his rights of property and person upon any 
such uncertain tenure? For one, I am not. 1 believe 
in the principle that men’s rights aie to be settled by 
the law in force at the time they accrued ; nor do I be¬ 
lieve that either the Legislature or courts should pos¬ 
sess the power to vary these rights thus vested bylaw. 
He look at this matter of retroactive legislation simply 
as a constitutional question, uninfluenced by any feel¬ 
ing originating in the past; for in the section of the 
country where he resided, no case had arisen wherein 
this question was involved, and he came to the discus- 
cion of the question, then, free from i)eraonal consider¬ 
ations, or feelings originating in any griefs oi his own 


or clients’. He held to this doctrine as the true doc¬ 
trine, the only safe doctrine in a government of law ; 
and it was true of all law and all legislation, that men's 
rights should be settled by the law in force at the time 
they accrued, in order that men might know what their 
rights and liabilities are. He was umvilling to leave 
any such power to the Legislature, where personal con¬ 
siderations may be made to bear in over-reaching the 
decisions of your courts. 

Tliis question as to the validity of retroactive legis¬ 
lation should be settled in this constitution. The de¬ 
cisions of our supreme court have left it in uncertainty. 
We have decisions both ways—in favor of, and against 
their validity. There are two cases, deciding the law 
in relation to acknowledgments of deeds by married 
women, invalid, and one decision peradventure decid¬ 
ing it valid.—I say peradventure, because in the last 
case, the decision is first placed upon grounds which 
render the decision of this question unnecessary—im¬ 
proper. What then is the law in Ohio on this grave 
constitutianal question ? Here are two decisions one 
way, and one peradv'enture decision the other way. It 
is true the last decision is supposed to represent the 
law, as now understood; and were it a decision di¬ 
rectly upon the point, it might be considered as over- 
raling for the pi-esent previous decisions in conflict 
with it; but in the form in which that last decision 
is reported, it can hardly be regarded as finally set¬ 
tling this vexed question, even under the language of 
the present constitution. I hold then that this Con¬ 
vention should put an end to this painful uncertainty, 
by forever prohibiting all retroactive laws, or by ex¬ 
pressly granting the jjower to pass curative statutes. 
And as I believe all such statutes are impolitic—against 
the very nature of a government of law, and almost 
always unjust, I am for sustaining the report of the 
committee, and retaining the word retroactive, which 
limits legislation to its only legitimate sphere—the 
declaration of rules for future conduct—for future 
transactions. 

On motion, the committee rose, reported progress, 
and asked leave to sit again. 

Upon motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention then 
adjourned. 


MONDAY, .Tune 8, 1850. 

Prayer by Rev. Dr. Hoge. 

Mr. STILWELL presented the petition of Charles 
H. Hood and 69 other citizens of Perry county, Ohio, 
praying that a provision be engrafted in the constitu¬ 
tion, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing traffic in ardent spirits. 

Upon motion of the same gentleman, the petition 
was referred to the committee on Miscellaneous Sub¬ 
jects and Propositions. 

Mr. McCORMICK presented a memorial from R. A. 
Edgington and 41 other citizens of the county of Ad¬ 
ams, on the same subject. 

'1 he petition, upon motion of the same gentleman 
was accordingly referred to the standing committee on 
.Jurisprudence. 

. looked upon the subject as of suffi¬ 

cient importance to warrant the luising of a special 
committee who shall give the subject their attention. 

Mr. LAWRENCE presented a copy of the proceed¬ 
ings t'f the Washington Temperance Society, of Guern¬ 
sey county, asking the Convention that provision might 
be engrafted upon the Constitution forever exet^ing 
or }*rohibiting the jirivilege of manufacturing- or^^nd'- 
ing spiritous liquors in this State. 

T. he communication was referred to the committee 
on .Jurisprudence. 

Mr. LARWILL presented a petition from Mr. A. 
Goodfellow and 67 other citizens of Wayne county, 
praying that the Constitution be so amended as to pro¬ 
hibit baidring. 

Upon motion of the same gentleman, the petition 













CONVENTION. liEPOlTiS. 


239 


was referred to the committee on Banks and the Cur¬ 
rency. 

The same gentleman presented another petition from 
.John Grable and 49 other citizens of Wjiyno county, 

Ohio, on the same subject. Similarly referred. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga presented the peti¬ 
tion of R. M. Sanford and G4 other individuals residing 
at Chagrin Falls, Cuyahoga county, praying the Con- 
vention° to provide in the amended constitution for 
granting the right of suffrage to all females of the State 
above 18 years of age. 

Upon motion of the same gentleman the petition was 
referred to the committee on the Elective Franchise. 

Mr. BATES presented a petition from William Mc¬ 
Cullough and 22 other citizens of Jefferson county, 
praying that the new constitution prohibit traffic in 
spirituous liquors. 

Upon motion of the same gentleman, the petition 
was referred to the committee on Jurisprudence. 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention a com¬ 
munication from the Mayor of the city of Cleveland, 
enclosing the proceedings of the council of that city, 
which was read, and is as follows: 

Mayor’s Office, 

Cleveland, May 31,1850. 

Hon. Wm. Mf.dill, 

President of the Constitutional Convention ; 

8iR : Above you will please notice an invitation from our city 
autlioritie , to the Convention over which you preside, to make 
Cleveland their location, in case it is deemed advisable to adjourn 
from Columbus. 1 can only add that our citizens generally join 
with the utmost cordiality in the request that you may think lit to 
favor us with your presence. 

Yours, &c., WILLIAM CASE, Mayor. 

May 31, 1850. 

I hereby certify that at a special meeting of the city counc'l. 

May 30, 1850, the following preamble and resolutions were adopt¬ 
ed unanimously: 

J. B. BARTLETT, City Clerk, 

Whrereas, By an act of the Legislature of Ohio, providing for 
a Convention to revise the constitution, power was given to said 
Convention to adjourn from Columbus to any other place in the 
State; therefore, be it 

Ilesolved by the city council of the city of Cleveland, That if the 
members of said Convention deem it advisable to adjourn to any 
other place, we cordially invite the officers- and members of said 
Convention to adjourn to and hold the residue of their session in 
this city. .... 

Resolved, That if the Convention accept the above invitation, 
the city will provide halls, free of charge, for the use of said 
Convention. 

Resolved, That his honor, the Mayor, is hereby requested to 
forward a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions to the 
President ol the Convention. 

Mr. NASH moved that the papers be laid upon the 
table for the present. 

Mr. SAWYER. I have no objection to laying the 
communication upon the table for the present, but I 
would suggest the propriety of taking up the resolu- 
licn offered by the gentleman from Adams, a few days 
ago. I believe, if 1 understood that resolution rightly, 
it is that a committee be appointed to inquire into the 
propriety of an adjournment to Cleveland or some oth¬ 
er place, and to make the necessary arrangements for 
tlie same. For myself I should like to see itiloue, and 
I wish to be distinctly understood, that when the propo- s-jutative. 
sition comes up I shall be in favor of adjourning to 
Cleveland or some other place; and I hope that the 
gentleman who offered the resolution will in due time 
call it up. 

The communication was laid upon the table. 

Mr. OTIS. Mr. Fresident, I submit to the Conven¬ 
tion a scheme of apportionment, with an accompany¬ 
ing tabular statement , which, as it would not be under¬ 
stood by a single reading at the clerk’s desk, I ask 
may be laid upon the table and be ordered to be print¬ 
ed. 

The scheme is what may be called a s df-acting one, 
and will adjust itself to the varying population of the 
Slate, without legislative attention, revision or re-con¬ 
struction. It applies general principles to the popula¬ 
tion of each county, as such population shall actucdly 
be found to exist at the close of every enumeration, 
aud thereby secures the actual expression of the senti¬ 


ments of the people of each county, and consofiiieuily 
of the whole people of the State; and effectually takea 
away from every party the power to suppress this sen¬ 
timent, by any means whatever. 

In working out this scheme, I have adjusted its de¬ 
tails to biennial elections and biennial ses.sions of the 
General Assembly, in pursuance of what for the pres¬ 
ent at least, is the prevailing opinion of thi.s body; and 
I have also adjusted it to the decennial census of the 
Federal government. These details, however, consti¬ 
tute in one sense, no part of the scheme, as they do not 
affect the principles upon which it is based; for by tri¬ 
fling alterations in a few lines, it can be as w'ell adjust¬ 
ed to annual elections and annual sessions of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, and to a census taken by the State, 
or to a census taken by the Federal government, and a 
census taken by the State alternately, in periods of ten 
years. 

The scheme provides for single districts, presumes 
county lines, uses up, to a great extent, the fractions of 
population in the respective counties in which they ex¬ 
ist, gives to the smaller and least populous counties an 
additional representative, whenever the sum of their 
fractions, in the period of ten years, shall equal three- 
fourths of the ratio of representation, and 1* aves the 
counties not entitled to a representative biennially, to 
form such combinations or districts as their conveni¬ 
ence, business I’egulations, public interests, or political 
sympathies may dictate. The whole object of the 
scheme is to secure, as it will in fact secure,, if left to 
its own free action, the most perfect representation of 
the people, and the most perfect utterance of the popu¬ 
lar voice. 

I will only further adJ, that I present this scheme 
at this time principally because I must now leave, to 
be absent for a few days, and 1 wish to bring it to the 
notice of members of the Convention, and make such 
explanations of it as may be necessary prior to that 
time 

SCHEME OF APPORTIONMENT, 

[Offered by Mb. Otis ] 

Sec. 1. There shall be in the House of Repre-sentatives of this 
State, a permanent representation of the people, tounded up m the 
principles of equality, and adjusting itself, without Legislative ii:- 
terlerence, to the varying population of the State; and to that end 
the entire population of the State shall be the basis of represen¬ 
tation, and each decennial census of the Federal Government 
shall determine the appportionment of representatives lor each 
successive period of ten years. The ratio of representation shall 
be twenty thousand until after the decennial census of the year 
1860, and thereafter upon each decennial census of the Federal 
Government the ratio shall be determined by adding to the previ¬ 
ous ratio ten per cent, for each and every increase of ten per cent, 
in the entire population of the State. 

Sec. 2. Each county whose entire population shallequal the ra¬ 
tio of representation, shall be entitled to one representative to be 
elected biennially, and to one additional representative for every 
additional number of population equal to the ratio of representa¬ 
tion, also to be elected biennially : Provided, that in all cases in 
which a county shall be entitled to more than one rejiresentative, 
to be elected biennially, such county shall be divided by the Board 
of Commissioners of the county into as many separate districts 
as shall be equal to the number of representatives to which it 
shall be entitled, and each separate district shall elect one repre- 

3. Each of said counties whose entire populationshall be 
a fractional portion of said ratio of representation, beyond the 
number necessary to elect one or more representatives, shall oe 
represented as to that surplus number by multiplying such su;-- 
plus by five and dividing the product by the ratio of repre-enta- 
tion ; and such county shall be entitled to elect one aditional rep¬ 
resentative as many times during the ten ye.u's as the ratio of 
representation shall he contained in the product aforesaid. 

8kc. 4. Each county whose entire population shall be less Ihm 
the ratio of representation, shall be entitled to elect a representa¬ 
tive as many times within the ten years, as the ratio of repre¬ 
sentation shall be contamed in the product ot the entiie popula¬ 
tion multiplied by live : Provided, that it the product ol any su h 
county before division, or the remainder alter division, shall be 
less than the ratio of representation, but shall be equal to three- 
fourths of such ratio, such county shall be entitled to one addi-, 
tional representative lor such fractional portion of the ratio of 
representation. . „ . , 

Sec. 5. Any two or more counties not severally entitled to 
elect a representative biennially, may, by the consent of a ma¬ 
jority of the whole number of the Hoard of Commissioners of 
each of said counties, form themselves into a representative dis¬ 
tinct, till the next decennial census of the Federal Govermnont. 



















240 


CONVENTION IIEPORTS 


/ 


for the electipn of a representative or representatives; and such 
district shall have all the rights and privileges, and be subject to 
the same restrictions, in regard to representation, as would be¬ 
long to a county containing the same number of population: 
Pro-rided, that the counties so forming themselves into a repre¬ 
sentative district, shall unitedly contain a population less than 
twice the ratio of representation. And any county not entitled 
to elect a representative biennially, and w’hich shall be unable to 
unite with any other adjacent county, to form a representative 
district, may unite with any other adjacent county, to form such 
district, in the same manner, for the same period, and with the 
same rights, privileges and restrictions, as above specified. 

Sec. 6. Each county, or representative district composed of 
tw'o or more counties, which shall be entitled to elect only one 
representative during the ten years, or which shall be entitled to 
elect only one additional representative during the same period, 
shall elpct such representative at the lourth biennial election after 
each decennial cen sus of the Federal Government; each county 
or representative district as aforesaid, which shall be entitled to 
elect only two reprepresentatives during the ten years, or w'hich 
shall be entitled to elect only two additional representatives du¬ 
ring the same period, shall elect such representatives at the third 
and fifth biennial elections after such census aforesaid; each 
county, or representative district as aforesaid, which shall be en¬ 
titled to elect only three representatives during the ten years, or 
which shall be entitled to elect only three additional represen¬ 
tatives during the same period, shall elect such representatives at 
the first, second and fifth biennial elections after such census as 
aforesaid ; and such county, or representative distri^-t as afore¬ 
said, which shall be entitled to elect four representatives during 
the ten years, or which shall be entitled to elect four additional 
representatives during the same period, shall elect such represen¬ 
tatives at the first, second third and fourth biennial elections after 
each census as aforesaid. 

Sec. 7. The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Secretary of 
State, shall ascertain and determine, as soon as practicable after the 
official publication of each decennial census of the Federal Gov¬ 
ernment, the ratio of representation, upon the foregoing prin¬ 
ciples, for the representatives of the General Assembly, the 
number of representatives each county shall be entitled to elect 
biennially, the number of additional representatives each county 
shall be entitled to elect within the ten years then next ensuing; 
and the number of representatives each county not having a 
sufficient population to elect a representative biennially, shall be 
entitled to elect within the next ensuing ten years ; and the Gov¬ 
ernor shall forthwith cause the same to be published, by procla¬ 
mation for the information of the people; and that number shall 
remain fixed and unalterable for the period of ten years. 

Sec. 8. All representative districts formed by the division of 
counties, shall contain, as nearly as may be, an equal number of 
population, and shall consist of coiiveuient and contiguous terri¬ 
tory ; but no township, w'ard, or other election district shall be 
divided in the formation of such district all representative dis¬ 
tricts f ormed by the union of two or more counties, shall contain, 
as nearly as may be, the number of population acquired by the 
ratio of representation, and shall also consist of convenient and 
contiguous territory ; but no county .shall be divided in the for¬ 
mation of such district; and all representative districts shall be 
formed, and pertinent descriptions thereof made and filed in the 
offices of the Secretary of State and tne Clerks of the respect¬ 
ive counties, within sixty days after the aforesaid proclamation 
of the Governor, in pursuance of a general law. 

Sec. 9. In case the Federal Government shall omit to take any 
decennial census of the population of this State, a census there¬ 
of shall be taken, under the direction of the General Assembly, 
and such census shall determine the apportionment of rejiresen- 
tatives in lieu of the census of the Federal Government thus 
omitted. 


/ A TABULAR STATEMENT showing the counties, the estimated 
population by the Secretary of State, the number of biennial 
Representative s, the number of Representatives not biennial, 
to be elected in the ensuing ten years; the biennial elections 
at which such Representatives would be elected; the actual 
fraction above the ratio of representation at each biennial 
election, and the amount of such fractions in a period of ten 
years: 


Counties. 

nated pop- 

ilation. 

li 

o; 

Ph 

*S 

§ 

C 

At what 
biennial elec¬ 
tions 
elected. 

fl 

o « 

o 

rH 

C £5 


•;3 

at 

H 

a 

2 

w 

Ph 

a) 

Ph 

r-4 

Qt 

T5 

CO 


1 5th. 1 

rt O 

o a 

-2 fi 

a .2 


18,148 

16,247 


4 

1 

1 

1 

1 


2,148 

247 

10,740 

1,235 

3,205 

8,270 

12,495 

11,395 

9,950 

1,965 



4 

1 

1 

1 

1 



28^641 
29,654 
14,499 
10,279 
33,990 
28,393 
31,611 
19,113 
20,430 
19,756 

1 

2 



1 


1 

641 

1,654 

2,499 

2,279 

1,940 

393 


1 

0 



1 


1 



3 

1 

i 



] 

Auglaize. 


2 



1 


1 

Belmont. 

1 

3 

i 

i 



1 

Brown. 

1 

2 



i 


1 

Butler... 

1 

2 



1 


1 

3,711 

18,555 


1 








1 







420 

9! ipO 

Clark. 










Clermont. 
Clinton. 
Columbiana 
Coshocton. 
Crawford. 
Cuynlioffci 
Darke. 
Defiance. 
Delaware. 
Erie. 
Fairfield . 
Fayette.. 
Franklin . 
Fulton ... 
Gallia.... 
Geauga... 
Greene ... 
Guernsey. 
Hamilton. 
Hancock . 

Hardin_ 

Harrison. 
Henry .... 
Highland. 
Hocking.. 
Holmes ... 
Huron.... 
Jackson .. 
Jefferson . 

Knox. 

Lake. 

Lawrence. 
Licking... 

Logan_ 

Lorain ... 
Lucas .... 
Madison.. 
Mahoning. 
Marion ... 
Medina.... 
Meigs .... 
Mercer 
Miami. 
Monroe 


Morrow. 
Muskingum. 
Ottowa. 
Paulding 
Perry 
Pickaway 
Pike. 

Portage. 

Preble. 

Putnam .... 
Richland ... 

Ross. 

Sandusky .. 

Scioto. 

Seneca . 

Shelby. 

Stark. 

Summit.... 
Trumbull... 
Tuscarawas 

Union. 

Van Wert.. 

Vinton . 

Warren .... 
Washington 

Wayne. 

Williams_ 

Wood. 

Wyandot_ 


31,339 
19, (148, 
37,384 
26,987 
16,19] 
43,128 
15,313 
6,991 
24,41] 
17,632 
31,424 
13,730 
41,490 
5,977 


113,339;16,995 


1,384 6,920 


191 

955 

3,128 

15,640 

2,691 

13,455 

411 

2,055 


l,632i 8,160 
3,424 17,120 
1,730 8,650 


1,490| 

1,977 


7,450 

9,855 


16,29' 

.. 

_ 1 



1 


L... 

29' 

' 1,485 

. 24,54( 






: 


54C 

)! 2,700 


1 






] 

2,684 

1,13,420 

158;93e 

7 

4 

1 


.. 

1 



2,938 

14,690 

16,17.'3 


4 

1 

1 

1 

1 


171 

865 

7,748 


c* 



] 


1 



21,1.52 

i 







1,152 

5,760 

3,991 


J 




1 



27,851 

1 

1 




1 


3,450 

17,2.50 

13,682 


3 

1 

1 


.. 

1 

1,682 

8,410 

25,323 

1 

1 




1 


1,321 

6,615 

29,218 

1 

0 



1 


1 

1,218 

6,090 

11,357 


3 

1 

1 



1 



28,160 

1. 

2 



1 


1 

160 

800 

33,405 

1 

3 

i 

i 



1 

1,405 

7,025 

14,647 


3 

1 

1 



1 

2.647 

13,235 

13,159 


3 

1 

1 



1 

1,159 

5,795 

38,627 

i 

4 

1 

1 

i 

i 


2,627 

13,135 

18,527 


4 

1 

1 

1 

1 


2,527 

12,635 

25,7.5.5 

1 

1 




1 


1,755 

8,775 

16;842 


4 

1 

1 

1 

1 


842 

4,210 

12,752 


3 

1 

1 



i 

742 

3,960 

26,399 

1 

1 




1 


2,399 

11,995 

14448 


3 

1 

1 



1 

2,148 

10,740 

30,362 

i 

2 



i 


1 

2,362 

11,810 

17,043 


4 


i 

1 

1 


1,043 

5,215 

9,609 


2 



1 


i 

1,609 

8,045 

28,562 

i 

2 



1 


1 

562 

2,810 

27,781 

1 

1 




1 


3,781 

18,905 

j 46,'.542 

2 

1 

1 



1 


2,542 

12,710 

1 34,251 

1 

3 

.. 

i 

. . 


i 

2,251 

11,255 

19,276 

1 









42,799 

O 







1,119 

5,595 

3, .560 


1 




1 



3*534 


1 




1 




21,354 

1 







1,354 

6,770 

24,656 

1 

1 




1 


656 

3,280 

1 10,542 


2 



i 


i 

2.542 

12,710 

22,965 

i 







2,965 

14,825 

24,3.52 

1 

1 




1 


352 

1,760 

8,179 


2 

1 


1 


1 

179 

895 

33,305 

i 

3 

1 

i 



1 

1,305 

6,525 

33,812 

1 

3 

1 

1 


.. 

1 

1,812 

9,060 

16.246 


4 

1 

1 

i 

1 


264 

1,320 

18,068 


4 


1 

1 

1 


2,068 

10,340 

25,379 

i 

1 

i 



1 


1,379 

6,895 

14,114 


3 


i 



i 

2,114 

10,570 

40,340 

2 







340 

1,700 

30,072 

1 

o 

1 


1 


1 

2,072 

10,360 

32,152 

1 

3 

1 

i 



1 

152 

760 

33,854 

1 

3 

1 

1 



1 

1,384 

6,920 

11,633 


3| 

1 

1 



1 



4,452 


1 




1 


452 

2,260 

11*039 


3 

1 

1 



1 


26^691 

1 

1 




1 

< 

2,691 

13,455 

27;070 

1 

1 




1 


3,070 

15,350 

36,117 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 


117 

*585 

8,340 


o 

. 


1 


i 

340 

1,700 

10,035 


o 

. 


ii 

.. 

1 

2,035 

10,175 

10,261 


2 

-- 

-- 

ii 


1 

2,261 

11,305 


Mr. LOUDON. It seems to me that a more appro¬ 
priate disposition of this matter would be to let it go 
to the committee on Apportionment, that they may 
have the benefit of it. 

A division being demanded, and the question being 
first whether the resolutions should be laid upon the 
table, it was agreed to. 

The question then being upon the printing— 

Mr. LIDEY. I am opposed to having the docu¬ 
ments printed unless they come from the standing com- 
mittets, for it makes an unnecessary expense to the 
State. 

Mr. MANON. As the resolutions have been laid 
upon the table, I want to see them printed. 

Mr. SCOTT of Harrison. As one of the members 
of the committee, I am veiy anxious to get all the in¬ 
formation I can upon the subject—and I hope that 
this resolution will be printed, so that the members 




























































































































































































































CONVENTION REPORTS 


241 


of the committee can get all the intormation that is de¬ 
sired. 

The question then being upon the printing of the re¬ 
port, it was agreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER. The honorable gentleman from 
Erie [Mr. Taylor] on Saturday, presented a kind of 
text book, which he thought would suit the medium 
and the region of country which he represented in re¬ 
lation to certain subjects. I beg leave to present some 
resolutions which I believe express the sentiment of 
the district of the State which I represent, and I move 
that after being read, they be referred to the standing 
committee on the Banks and Currency. Which was 
agreed to. 

1st. That the standing committees on the Banks and Curren¬ 
cy, and the committee on Finance and Taxation, be requested to 
inquire into the expediency of engrafting a clause into the Con¬ 
stitution, to prohibit the charter (by any body, Legislative or 
otherwise,) of any banking institution in this State for the purpose 
of issuing bills of credit, or bills to circulate as money. 

2d. That a provision be also inserted, that the capital stock of 
all banks now in existence, and their loans and discounts be 
placed on the tax lists, and be taxed as the lands, property, 
capital stock, notes of hand, and money at interest, of private in¬ 
dividuals, are or shall hereafter be taxed. 

3d. That all moneys vested in United States, State, railroad, 
canal, turnpike, bridge, or other stocks, shall be taxed the same 
as property of other individuals [is now or shall hereafter be 
taxed. 

Mr. McCORMICK said that in accordance with the 
promise he had made to a friend, he asked leave to pre¬ 
sent the following resolution. The object of the reso¬ 
lution is to call the attention of the Finance committee 
to a subject relative to the taxation of church proper¬ 
ty, which operates very unequally, especially in our 
cities: 

Resolved, That the committee on Finance and Taxation inquire 
into the expediency of incorporating into the constitution a clause 
requiring the equal taxation of all real estate, whether holden by 
corporations or otherwise, except real estate held for school, 
tui-npike, county, city, and State purposes. 

Mr. DORSEY. I move to take up the resolution rel¬ 
ative to banks and the currency, (No. 4,) with the in¬ 
tention to move its reference to the committee on Banks 
and the Currency. 

Agreed to. 

Upon motion by Mr. SAWYER, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee of the Whole, (Mr. Haw¬ 
kins in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of 
the “ Report ” submitted by Mr. Sawyer from the 

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 

The question being on the adoption of Mr. Mason’s 
amendment to the 35th section, 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga said: The gentleman 
from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] has seemed rather in¬ 
clined to complain that the report has been marked in 
the manner in which it has been here. Well, I think 
that in many particulars it has been changed, not for 
the better, but for the woi'se. But I apprehend that it 
makes no difference whether the repoi’t is perfect or 
imperfect, so far as this matter is concerned, for I have 
ever found that it made no difference as to the form of 
the original, whether perfect or not, it must be amend¬ 
ed. I have heretofore been of opinion that it was 
better that a report should be imperfect, so that it 
might be made better, for if a report appeared in a 
very perfect form, there is danger it would be made 
worse. I do not know that this is the course at the 
present day. I thought the wisest course in former 
days, when I was a member of the General Assembly, 
and my advice was to this effect to the committees in 
those days—was to be cautious, or rather, not to be 
careful, about making reports very correct, for if they 
made them perfect they must be still amended. 

I do not know how it is at the present day, but I 
have understood, that the Legislature were in the habit 
of passing laws after three readings by the title, with¬ 
out looking into the body of the bill. Well, if this be 
so, it is necessary that bills as reported should be per¬ 
fect, as nobody ever looks into them to see whether 
they are or not. The gentleman from Hamilton seemed 
to think, that gi’eat cautiousness in this body was need¬ 

16 


ed, in consequence of the great multitude of lawyers, 
who have been returned here. Well, it is true, there 
are a great number of lawyers in this Convention 
those who profess to be such, at least, and who have 
the authority of the Supreme Court and a license to 
say that they are such. If the people of the several 
districts of Ohio are willing to trust^this body of men 
we ought not to complain that they have been returned 
here. It may be, Mr. Chairman, that most of those of 
this class, in our legislative body, are men who act 
from interested motives; but I must confess, I have 
seen nothing of the kind hitherto, in this body, and I 
hope I shall not in any future sessions. As it respects 
the particular question under consideration, I would 
say to the gentleman from Hamilton, that if the law¬ 
yers of this body voted in accordance with their own 
personal interests, they will all vote with him, in the 
change which he proposes to make in the constitution. 
For if this change be made, it will be a fruitful source 
of litigation at some future period, which the General 
Assembly cannot correct. The personal and individ¬ 
ual interests of the lawyer, are with the gentleman 
from Hamilton, who advocates this change in the con¬ 
stitution, for those interests would be advanced by the 
multiplicity of litigation which would arise; but I do 
not suppose that any considerations like those will ac¬ 
tuate any portion of the Convention. The change 
which is made in this section from the origmal one in 
the constitution, is by changing the words ex post facto 
to the word retroactive, in order that it may be rendered 
into the English language. Now, these words ex post 
facto in our Constitution, and in some of the con¬ 
stitutions of other States, have received a settled con¬ 
struction. 

The meaning and intention of these terms are well 
known, although taken from the Latin language; they 
have a settled meaning. It is well explained in the Con¬ 
stitution, that no ex post facto nor any law impairng the 
validity of contracts shall be made—no conviction shall 
work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate. The 
object of the section principally, was to provide against 
retroactive or retrospective Legislation, in respect to 
criminal matters, and those words ex post facto here, re¬ 
ceived that construction. The understanding of all 
courts and all persons is, that the clause merely pro¬ 
hibits the General Assembly from passing an act to 
punish an oftence which has been committed previously 
to the enactment of the law. The Convention that 
framed the Constitution, intended to say by the mode 
of expression which they adopted here, in such a case 
that you shall not pass a law which shall punish for an 
act w’hich lias been already committed, and which was 
not in violation of any law. So far we might go with 
propriety, and no further, and if this section is intended 
to prohibit the Legislatui'e from entering into any kind 
of retroactive legislation, I am opposed to it. The 
simple question is this. Shall the Legislature have 
power in any case to pass laws which shall have a re¬ 
troactive operation. They have the power under our 
present Constitution. The Congress of the United 
States has that power—the Legislatures of the other 
States have that power—and now shall we restrict our 
own Legislature in this respect. 

Mr. Chairman, it may be well to look at the class of 
cases, where our Legislatures have been in the habit of 
exercising this power. They have never exercised it 
in such a way as to interfere with any contracts, for 
they cannot impair an obligation of that character, but 
they have exercised it in the passage of what have been 
denominated curative laws, which is a bad name for a 
good thing. Instead of being curative laws, they are 
laws of peace, and affording security to the rights of 
the citizen. In the few cases in which the power has 
been exercised, I would inquire of the gentleman, 
whether it was not proper to exercise that power, and 
whether it would be proper to prohibit the General As¬ 
sembly from its exercise hereafter. Now, unfortunate¬ 
ly, there is no law upon our statute books which has 















242 


CONVENTION EEPOllTS 


been more frequently changed than tlie law in respect 
to the execution and acknowledgment of deeds. VVe 
had at a certain time a law which required the magis- 
tiate to affix his seal to liis certilicate of acknowledg¬ 
ment. Unless the seal was affixed the acknowledg¬ 
ment was defective. Well, this law was in force for 
quite a number of years, and at least three-fourths of 
the certfficates of acknowledgment were without the 
seal of the magistrate. At length, the General Assem¬ 
bly took up the subject, and they said that whether the 
seal was affixed or not, the acknowledgment should be 
held good. I suppose if they had not said this, bye 
and bye, some person, a hunter after defective titles, 
would have found cases where the inamstrate had not 
affixed the seal and acknowledged the deed, and would 
have gone to work to deprive him who had purchased 
the ju'operty from his right to it, merely because the 
magistrate had failed to perform his duty. What would 
have come next? Why, this, although a defect on the 
part of the magistrate, it would not have been a defect in 
execution of the deed itself. And altliough the party 
had signed, sealed and delivei’ed the instrument, and re¬ 
ceived a consideration for the property conveyed, still, 
but for the change of the law, the grantee would have 
been compelled to go into a court of chancei’y to have 
a long litigation, in order to correct a mistake not made 
by him or the grantor, but by an ollicer of the State. 
Beyond this, if the original grantor of the laud by a 
deed thus defectively acknowledged, had conveyed it 
to a third person knowing nothing of the conveyance 
beforemade, the last named purchasers would have 
taken the land both in law and equity from him, who 
had paid his money for it. 

This would have been the inevitable result, but the 
Legislature stepped in and declared that a deed execut¬ 
ed, acknowledged, and certilied in this way, was good. 
Well now, who is injured by this? It left the property 
where it was intended to be left by the contracting 
parties, and secured to the individual who liad ])aid for 
the land, his rights; and it prevented a multiplicity of 
litigation, bringing about the object which was inten¬ 
ded by tins quieting act of the General A.ssembly.— 
Here was one case in which a retrospective law has 
been passed to cure or quiet titles, under what might 
be called a defective acknowledgment, or ra her a de¬ 
fective certificate of acknowledgment. Observe there 
is no defect in the act of the parties—all right and fair 
there, but the officer who has taken the acknowledg¬ 
ment has made a mistake, and the question with the 
General Assembly was. whether that mistake should 
operate to defect the title,or whether they should quiet 
it in the situation in which it was. Mr. Chairman, 
there has been some defect in respect to title on other 
accounts, and these defects have been cured or quieted 
in the same manner. No one is injured except it be 
the speculator or the hunter after defective titles. There 
is another of these retrospective laws which I have in 
my mind. From 1807 real estate has been lield sub¬ 
ject to the sale of the administrator, under the order of 
the court for the payment of the debts of the intestate 
or testator. The law has required that before this 
property should be sold it should be apjiraised by three 
freeholders. The appraiser returns to the court this 
appraisement, and the court orders the sale, which 
should not be at less than two-thirds of the appraised 
value in the first instance. Well, property was sold 
under this law. The only provision was that it should 
be appraised and then sold. It was purchased in by 
those who had offered the greatest price. Things re¬ 
mained in this situation until 1837. 

A case came up in which a constniction upon this 
law was called for, not a construction upon the law, 
but an application of the principle of law to the law 
itself. In the county of Mercer, a person had died in- 
solv. nt. His administrators applied to the court for 
leave to sell land. The court ordered it, and the land 
was offered for sale, and after being ofiered a number 
of times was eventually sold, and the purchaser of apart 


of the land was one who had originally appraised it. 
The purchaser took possession of it, continued in pos¬ 
session quite a number of years, until eventually the 
heirs applied to the court, as a Court of Chancery, to 
declare this sale void, and for what reason ? Because 
it was sold for less than two-thirds of its apprai.sed 
value ? Why was not the sale good ? Was it because 
the purchaser had appraised that land ? Mr. Chaiii- 
MAiN, there was nothing in the law to prohibit an ap¬ 
praiser from purchasing. It had been the practice of 
the State for thirty years, for an appraiser to purchase, 
and no one hail doubted the propriety of said purchase 
—no one thought of its impropriety. However, this 
case came on for trial. The court held, after these 
thirty years of practice, that the appraiser had no right 
to purchase, and it struck at all sales in the State where 
the appraiser had purchased. This was the difficulty 
in the case. Persons who supposed they had good ti¬ 
tles, by this decision of the court were disturbed.— 
This decision was based upon the a 2 iplication of the 
principle, that a trustee could not jjurchase the land 
which he held in trust; a good principle, unquestion¬ 
ably, but the difficulty was to distinguish and ascertain 
by what possibility uii appraiser of iiroperty could be 
held to be a trustee. A sheriff cannot purchase pro])- 
erty which he offers for sale under our law as it now j 
stands, nor can the appraiser who has appraised prof)- 
erty at the request of the sheriff, i^urchase it; but such i 
was not the case in respect to sales by administrators. 

The Legislature in looking at this subject passed a law I 
with regard to the matter, declaring that sales which I 
had been thus made heretofore should be good, and ] 
that all sales thereafter made should not be good. \ 

If the General Assembly had not interfered with re- < 
gard to these titles, and enforced them, a policy which j 
had prevailed for thirty years, and titles acquired in i 
pursuance of that jiolicy must have been defeated.— < 

This was a case where the General Assembly has in- 
terfered, not to jiromote litigation, but to quiet titles Ij 
where there had been some defect in the proceedings i 
of the administrator or officer. Well, then, there has jj 
been something similar with respect to the acknowl- •: 
edgment of deeds. Here let me say, our law with re- ) 
sjiect to the acknowledgment of deeds, was originally ;" 
taken from the laws of Pennsylvania. When that law , i 
was carried into effect, it was by persons who had em¬ 
igrated from every State in the Union, to this State_ . 

and not only evei'y State in the Union, but from every * 
government in Europe. Settlements in this country * 
were sparse and fiir a2)art, and it was Jiot singular that | 
those whose duty it was to take the acknowledgment j 
of deeds, should follow the forms j^racticed in the 
States from which they had emigrated, and to which 
forms they had been accustomed. Such was the fact. 
These forms did not conform to the language of the i 
statute of our own State upon the subject. However, ' 
titles to lauds were passed, sold, and lands were trails- ‘ 
ferred and conveyed. In 1827 the question v/as made ! 
before the Supreme Court upon the sufficiency of the i 
acknowledgments. The court, in the case before them, 
held, that if the law was substantially comjilied with, ^ 
it was all that could be required. ' 

This state of things continued from 1827 to 1834, ' : 
when another case was presented to the same courr. t i 
It was the case of Cannel vs. Cannel. W^ell, in that case 
the court decided that, inasmuch as the magistrate did 
not certify that he had read the deed to the married 
woman, making the acknowledgment, that it was voi.d. 
Here was a decision of the supreme court—a decision 
which would have defeated three-fourths, nay, nine- 
tenths of the titles derived from married women. By 
this decision great strictness is required, and many 
acknowledgments defeated. So far as the woman is 
concerned, she is to be released from the obligations 
of the contract, into which she had entered. If she 
was disposed to be dishonest—to play the knave, she 
could defeat tha very titles which she herself had crea¬ 
ted ; and all this because the magistrate had not come 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


243 


Up to the letter of the law. At the time the decision 
was made, it so happened that having lieen left off the 
Bench, because I did not believe in the infallibility of 
some particular men, I was a member of the Senate of 
this State. I consulted with the court, in order to 
ascertain what was to be done. They well under¬ 
stood the decision would do mTich injury in the State. 

I consulted with those whom I had i)eeTi in the habit 
of so doing with. I consulted with members of the 
Legislature, what was best to be done. Well, by the 
advice of the court, I drew up the law of 1835, sub¬ 
mitted the question, and it was passed upon without 
difficulty. 

This law of 1835 was not a law impairing the validi¬ 
ty of a contract, but merely providing that when the 
wife acknowledged the deed she should be bound by 
it, although the magistrate had varied somewhat from 
the form of acknowledgment as set forth in the statute. 
Here was a case in which, it seemed to me, it was 
right for the Legislature to interfere. It was one of 
those cases to which the gentleman from Hamilton 
[Mr. Reemelin] referred the other day, at the time he 
sa’d it was necessai-y to have annual sessions, because, 
perchance, the supreme court might make a decision 
which would require the immediate action of the Gen 
eral Assembly. The law referred to had the effect in¬ 
tended. It was held to be void for at least seven years 
and it kept the peace of Ohio. I’or seven years it was 
enforced by the court, and here I would say that this 
law was like a law which was enacted in Pennsylva¬ 
nia for the same reason that this law was enacted here. 
In that State for a long })eriod of years, the acknowl¬ 
edgment of deeds had been very imperfect, the su- 
preine court in its progressing opinions got more light 
and decided that these acknowledgments were void. 
The effect of this was that titles there as here, were 
all set afloat. The General Assembly there passed a 
law like our law of 1835. The validity of that law 
was tested before the supreme court of Pennsylvania 
and sustained. A writ of error was taken from their 
decision and taken to the supreme court of the United 
States, and although that point was not expressly de¬ 
cided, because they held they had no jurisdiction over 
tlie matter, yet the court held this language: 

“ They saw no objections to that law, which was a 
law for peace and quietness, not impairing the obliga¬ 
tion of contracts but enforcing the obligation of con¬ 
tracts.” ,, 

Such was the language held by the supreme court of 
the United States. This lavv had its desired effect for 
seveu years, as before stated, when a change in the su¬ 
preme court to some extent was made—hence another 
case arose, known among lawyers as the noted case of 
Good vs. Zercher. In this latter case the court held 
that the law of 1835 was unconstitutional. What part 
of the constitution was violated the court did not speci¬ 
fy. Certainly it was not impairing the obligation of 
contracts. I cannot say what part of the constitution as 
it then stood was impugned by that law. To be sure, 
if we should adopt this provision in this report, such a 
law would be in contravention of that provision. It 
was not as I conceive in cont' avention of any provision 
in the constitution as it then stood. As to this case of 
“Good vs. Zercher ” it is as good a case as we have to 
show what an effect such a quieting act may produce. 
The facts relative to the case are these: Mrs. Zerch¬ 
er, living with her husband, was possessed of a tract of 
land. A man by the name of Good was possessed of 
another tract. They made an exchange and deeds of 
conveyance passt d both ways. As the deed to the 
woman was good, it passed the property, but under 
the decision of the court, which held the quieting act 
to be unconstitutional, her deed to him was void and 
she recovered back the land. She obtained not only 
the laud which sho had originally conveyed, but the 
land which had been conveyed to her, keeping the 
price of the projierty sold, and the property itself. 
Thus was Mr. Good entirely deprived of his property. 


and she by the decision oi the court received a double 
portion. I do not believe that any person will say 
that such a decision operated to do justice between the 
parties, although there was a woman in the case. What 
was the effect of the decision of the case of “ Good vs. 
Zercher.” There was not a Recorder’s office in the 
State, but what there was some person—some lawyer 
—who was searching for defective acknowledgments, 
and defective titles. 

Ill the county of Butler, if I am correctly informed, 
there was one woman, who filed 100 petitions for the re¬ 
covery ofdowerinterests in property which she had con¬ 
veyed, with her husband 40 or 50 years before—all this 
in one single town. The law stands thus so far as the de¬ 
cision of the court is concerned, to the present time, 
with the exception that the same question as to ac¬ 
knowledgments has been again presented to the court, 
and the court have decided, not directly, that this law 
was constitutional, because it was not necessary for 
them to do it. They have decided that these acknowl¬ 
edgments, although not specific in form, are sufficient 
in substance to sustain titles under them. The court 
unquestionably would have decided that the law itsell 
was unconstitutional, had it been necessary. It is not 
an ex post facto law, it is a law which has a retroactive 
operation. Such laws, although not very frequent, ave 
sometimes enacted with the view of settling the 
pimce of the community. They are quieting acts, acts 
to prevent litigation. This is their object. 

In 1848, there was a law passed that prospectively 
would have the effect to surpercede the necessity 
acts like that of 1835. That law very justly in my 
opinion, puts the married woman who executes the 
deed upon the same fooling with the husband who 
signs with her—and it is one of the most beneficial 
statutes, as I apprehend, which has been introduced 
into our statue books for years. But still the difficulty 
with it is this : It has merely a prospective, not a re¬ 
trospective operation. 

Now these are the reasons why, it seems to me, that 
we had better adopt the old constitution and not inno¬ 
vate, leaving the matter to the General Assembly as it 
has been left heretofore. I had hoped that the Con¬ 
vention will be induced to adopt the clause as it now 
stands instead of making an innovation upon it. So far 
as respects the clause proposed, with respect to the 
remedies upon contracts, I do not know it will be of 
much avail, to do anything. It may do mischief—it 
can surely do no good. I have troubled the Conven¬ 
tion long enough. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. Mr. Chairman : When I made 
the motion on Saturday to strike out the entire section, 
I slated, very imperfectly, my reasons. I desire now, 
with the leave of the committee, to say a few words 
further on the subjects embraced in the proposition. 1 
supposed that it was scarcely necessary that we should 
provide, in aid of the constitution of the United States, 
therefore I considered the prohibition against passing 
laws “impairing the obligation of contracts,” unneces¬ 
sary. I am opposed to that clause of the section which 
restricts the Legislature from acting on the ^ “ law^ 
of the remedy ;” and hence I desired that portion of 
the section should be stricken out. I think, sir, that 
there is a class of cases in which it might be well that 
the Legislature should have the power to operate retro¬ 
actively ; therefore I desire to strike out the prohibition 
contained in the section. It is to this last branch of 
the subject that I shall trouble the committee with a 
few remarks. The subject is one which has engaged 
much of the attention of the profession, and should 
command the serious consideration of this Convention. 
The power of legislation to reach questions arising on 
past transactions, should, in my opinion, be either ex¬ 
pressly given, or taken away. If it is given, it should 
be defined, if practical, clearly—so as to leave no room 
for difficulty. The right to pass curative, or retro¬ 
active laws, has led to much discussion, and is still a 
question which arises in every case where laws of that 



















■244 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


character are interposed. And in Ohio, it seems to 
me, especially, as I shall show, there is a nece.ssity that 
the question of power in the Legislature should be 
.settled. 

1 know, sir, that in England, laws of this description 
are of frequent occurrence; but let me say, that the 
practice of the Parliament of Great Britain lurnishes 
no rule for the government of the Legislature of Ohio. 
The Parliament of England is omnipotent. ^ In the lan¬ 
guage of the great commentator on the British consti¬ 
tution, it may do any thing not naturally impossible.” 
But even then, sir. the greatest caution is observed. 
Cases of this kind are referred to the judges, who give 
notice, call parties before them, take testimony, arrange 
the details and submit the whole to Parliament before 
an act is passed. In Ohio, the power of the Legisla¬ 
ture is a limited, delegated power, to be exercised 
within defined limits; and hence arise the necessity of 
defining, in every instance where power is not legiii- 
mately legislative, how far it may be exercised. 

I am aware, also, that there is high authority in favor 
of the validity of retrospective laws in this country. 
Chancellor Kent, in the 1st volume of his Commenta¬ 
ries, speaking of acts of this kind, says: ‘‘ Such stat¬ 
utes have been held valid when clearly just and reasona¬ 
ble, and conducive to the general welfare, though they 
might operate in a degree upon existing rights.”^ Nev¬ 
ertheless, sir, the validity of acts of this desci’iptioii be¬ 
ing daily the subject of discussion, and conflicting de¬ 
cision, the power of the Legislature stands in a state 
of most uncomfortable and perplexing uncertainty. 

The Hon. gentleman from Geauga [Judge Hitch¬ 
cock] has alluded to sevei'al instances where the Leg¬ 
islature have exercised the power of passing curative 
statutes, “ a bad name (as he says) for very good laws” 
—which should be more properly termed “ statutes of 
power.” I agree with him in the main, but in order to 
illustrate my idea of the necessity for fixing definitely 
the power of the Legislature over this subject, and to 
show the evils of leaving it as it now stands, let me re¬ 
fer to the history of the act of 1835, to which he has 
alluded, and the action of our courts under it— 

In the year 1835, the case of Connell vs. Connell, 
G. O. R., was decided. The court in that case held 
a conveyance insufficient to pass a wife’s interest in 
laud because of a defect in the magistrate’s certificate. 
It did not show that “ the contents of the deed had been 
made known to her." At the suggestion of some of the 
judges, the gentleman from Geauga drafted, and the 
Legislature immediately passed, an act declaring such 
conveyance sufficient^ notwithstanding such defect in 
the certificate of acknowledgement. 

In the year 1843, the case of Good vs. Zercher was 
reserved for the Court in Bank for the purpose of test¬ 
ing the validity/of the act of 1835, the question being 
the sufficiency of a deed, so defectively certified, to 
pass the wife’s interest—the deed and acknowledg¬ 
ment having been made befoi’e the passage of the cu¬ 
rative act. Three of the four judges held the act to 
be unconstitutional and void. At the same term of the 
court, the case of Meddock vs. Williams, presenting the 
game question, was decided in the same way.—12, 0. 
Reports. 

At the next term of the Court in Bank, (1834,) the 
case of Silliman vs. Cummins, involving the same ques¬ 
tion, and the court the same, three judges concurring, 
affirmed the decision in the two former cases. 

It might reasonably have been supposed that the 
question was re-adjudicated —three decisions of the 
same tribunal on the same question. But no, sir. There 
were interests dependent on the reversal of those opin¬ 
ions that were waiting their time. They looked for a 
change in the court, and were not disappointed; a va¬ 
cancy occurred on the bench, and a gentleman known 
to be right on this question was elected; the court 
were then divided. The case of Che6nut^’^. the Lessee 
of Shane was then taken to the Court in Bank fz’om the 
county of Ross, for the purpose of again trying the 


strength of the curative act of 1835; for two years it 
hung in that court by reason of division, the court 
standing two and two on the question. In the mean¬ 
time, another vacancy occurring on the bench, it was 
filled by a gentleman who concurred with the two 
who favored the validity of the law, and at tlie term of 
the court in 1847 the three former decisions were re¬ 
viewed, azid revez’sed, and the law declared to be cozz- 
stitutional and valid. 

Now, sir, it is no part of my purpose to ci’iticise 
these different opizziozis, but it is a subject of grave 
cozisideration how far the power of the Legislature ex¬ 
tends in relation to the transfer of the property of pez'- 
sozis who, by reasozi of disability, are incapable of cozz- 
tractizig. A married woznan can zizake zzo contz’act, uzz- 
less under the authority of, and izz cozzformity to, a iaw 
prescz’ibizzg the znode izz which it shall be evidenced. 
Azid with all deferezzce to the opizziozzs of gentlemezi 
who hold that izi these cases ihe contract complete, 
I znust be permitted to say, that izz this as well as every 
other case, where the law alone cozzfez’s a power to do 
aiz act, and defizzes specifically the znazzzzer in which 
the act shall be dozze, the act is incomplete whezz any 
thing required by the statute is zzot cozzzplied with. A 
izzaz’z’ied woman, as I have said, is, izz law, izzcapable of 
makizzga coiztract. To get I'id of the cumbz’ous azzd 
awkward znode of passizzg the izzterest of the wife in 
lands, by the old commozz law pz-oceedizzg, by fiize 
and recovery,” the statute of Azzzze was passed izz Eng¬ 
land, which has beezz adopted, with various znodifica- 
tions, izz every State of the Uzziozz. Izz Ohio, certain 
things wez’e rzecessary—among thezzz that the justice 
shall examizze the wife apart frozn her husbazzd—that 
he should znake kizowzz to her the cozzteuts of the deed, 
&c. Now these salutary provisions of the laws for the 
protectiozz of the wife, are part of azzd essential to the 
pez’fection of the contract; and if zzot coznplied with, 
the contz’act is zzot cozzzplete. Whether the court, izz 
the case of Good vs. Zercher, were right izz saying they 
had not beezz cozzzplied with, and therefore the act of 
1835 could zzot help the case, I shall zzot discuss. It 
happened, however, izzzfortuzzately, that on the stz-eizgth 
of the discussiozz izz Good vs. Zercher, a vez’y worthy 
znazz, who had izz good faith puz’chased azzd impi'oved 
paz’t of the lazzd claiizzed by Mrs. Shane, was induced 
to coznpz’oznise, azzd a large sum of mozzey was extorted 
fz’om hitzz to quiet his title. 

That the act of 1835 was izztended to prevent fz’aud, 
azzd did izz the case to which I have last alluded, pre- 
vezzt the success of a gross attempt to evade azz honest 
cozztz’act, I do not doubt; but the history of that case 
shows, that owizzg to the uncertaizzty wizich surrouizds 
this species of legislation, azz iizzzocezzt purchaser was 
coznpelled to pay for his lazzd twice—the very evil 
which it was designed by those who passed the law to 
prevezzt. 

Sir, these difficulties zzzust constantly occur, so long 
as the power of the Legislature to act efficiently re- 
znaizzs a znatter for the legal discretiozz of the courts. 

It has beezz said, izz the course of this debate, that 
the power of the Legislature to pass these curative 
statutes has been settled by the Suprezzze Court of the 
United States, azzd the case of Wilkins vs. Lelazzd re¬ 
ported in the 2d Peters, has beezz referz’ed to, by (I 
think) the gentleman frozzz Logan. Let us for a mo- 
znezzt look at the facts of that case. 

A mazzhad died izz New Haizzpshiz’e, owzzing iazztl izz 
Rhode Islazzd. His wife provided to admizzister, and 
having exhausted the personal assetts, applied to the 
Oz’phaus’ Court of New Hampshire, for authoz’ity to 
sell the lazzds izz Rhode Island. She obtained an order 
azzd sold the lazzds, afterwards a questiozz az'isizzg as to 
the validity of the sale—she obtained an act of the Le¬ 
gislature of Rhode Islazzd cozzfirmizzg the sale. The 
validity of the act was questiozzed by the Suprezne 
Court of the Uzzited States, bzzt it is worthy of z’eznark, 
that it is put upon the grouzzd, that as the State of Rhode 
Islazzd at the tzme of the passage of the curative statue 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 245 


was not governed by a wntten constitution, (the old 
colonial charter being still in force,) the court would 
not undertake to set a limit to the power of the Legis¬ 
lature. 

Mr. STANTON intemipting, said: Judge Stoiy, in 
delivering the opinion of the court in this case, express¬ 
ly puts it on the ground of the power of the Legisla¬ 
ture ; and he does not attribute the exercise of any 
extraordinary power; he does not say that the deci¬ 
sion of the court was made to depend upon the pecu¬ 
liar construction of that Legislature, but, that by that 
act, they exercised only the ordinary powers of legisla- 
tion. 

Mr. GREEN continuing. I am not mistaken, Mr. 
Chairman, the court certainly did say, that it was im¬ 
possible to decide what power might be rightfully ex¬ 
ercised by the Legislature of Rhode Island. And in 
tlie argument of counsel, it was contended in support 
of ihe validity of the law, that the Legislature of that 
State had exercised supreme legislative, executive and 
judicial power. Sir, it seems to me to be clear from 
what I have said, that this question of the power of the 
Legislature over these subjects, ought to be distinctly 
affirmed or denied. Take the action of our own courts 
in the cases to which 1 have referred. The power is 
denied by three solemn decisions—by a change in the 
structure of the court the power is affirmed. Gentle¬ 
men may conjecture what might be the effect of an¬ 
other change in the court on the stability of the titles 
derived under this curatic act. Is it safe then, to leave 
the rights of property to this kind of uncertainty? 
Should a solemn act of the Legislature be left to the 
accidents of change in the bench? 

I am of opinion then, sir, that power should be 
lodged in the Legislature to protect the rights of par¬ 
ties in cases w’here there is no other remedy, and where 
it is, in the language of Chancellor Kent, “ clearly just 
and reasonable, and conducive to the general welfare.'' But 
sir, 1 would have it clearly defined, and strictly guard¬ 
ed. This specialilegislation for “ hard cases” is a dan¬ 
gerous power.—Dangerous because liable to abuse. A 
hard case backed by an earnest, eloquent appeal, en¬ 
listing the sympathies, whilst blinding the judgment 
of the Legislature would be veiy apt to find favor— 
when after all, it might turn out that although a “ hard 
case ” on one side, it is a much harder case on the 
otlier. 

Permit me to refer for a moment to the case which 
has been referred to in this debate, by the gentleman 
from Logan [Mr. Stanton.] I mean the bill which 
passed the Legislature in 184.5 or 1846, cpiieting the 
titles of certain persons in lands in the county of Union 
—the “ Price case.” The facts were simply these : 
In 1808, Price died in Virginia, leaving a widow and 
several minor children. His father in-law, Duval, ad¬ 
ministered. The personal assetts being insufficient to 
pay debts, Duval obtained a decree of a Virginia court, 
authorizing the sale of certain lands in the county of 
Union, Ohio, which w’ere owned by Price at the lime 
of his death. Duval, the administrator, proceeded to 
advertise, and sold these lands at the front door of the 
Eagle Hotel, (’f I remember right,) in thecity of Rich¬ 
mond. and himself became the purchaser; and subse¬ 
quently he sold the lands to persons who settled upon 
and improved them. One of the minor heirs, on ar¬ 
riving of age, came to this county and commenced 
proceedings for the recover}^ of the lands. The pur¬ 
chasers applied to the General Assembly, and the act 
curing the defect in their titles, w’as passed. 

Mr. STANTON. Will the gentleman give me leave 
to correct him ? The sale was on a decree obtained 
by a creditor of the estate, it was not made by the 
administrator. 

Mr. GREEN. It is immaterial, sir, whether the 
gentleman or myself is right as to that hict—it is not 
the point. I maintain, sir, that every man, certainly 
of the legal profession, has always known full w’ell that 
no decree of a foreign estate is or ever has been held i 


sufficient to pass title to lands in Ohio. These purcha¬ 
sers under Duval had full notice. The record advised 
them of the want of title in Duval. They purchased 
' with their eyes open. “ Caveat emptor" applied fully 
to them. And the question then arises, should the 
Legislature have interferred? 

I am desirous to retain power in the Legislature to 
prevent fraud where parties have no other mode of re¬ 
dress—but I desire to guard against the abuse of the 
power—to cut off all that kind of special legislation 
for “ hard cases,” and that most dangerous class of laws 
for legalizing the acts of officers who have by neglect 
or design failed to do their duly and the like. In short, 
to confine the power, if it can be done, to the cases 
put by Chancellor Kent, where it is “ clearly right and 
just, and the public wellfare requires it.” 

I ask again of gentlemen, if this discussion is not 
sufficient to satisfy them that this is a vexed question ? 
Ought the rights of parties to be subjected to such un¬ 
certainties ? Ought a solemn act of the Legislature to 
be kicked back and forward like a foot ball, as chance 
may change the members of the bench ? Ought this 
kind of legislation—ought any legislation be left uncer¬ 
tain, on a question of power, to be decided as the pe¬ 
culiar opinions of the bench may determine ? I con¬ 
cur, as I have said, in the propriety of these laws, re¬ 
stricted and applied to legitimate objects,—but, when 
passed, I desire that they may be law, and not rest up¬ 
on the fiat of the court. I had intended, sir, if the 
section should be striken out, at the proper time to 
move a reference of the subject to the Judiciary com¬ 
mittee, that w’e may have the lights of the able gentle¬ 
men of that committee upon it. I shall do so it the 
motion to strike out shall succeed. 

Mr. RANNEY said he concurred with the gentleman 
who had just addressed the committee, in the opinion, 
that there was perhaps no more important section in 
the whole report than that now under consideration. 
The gentleman from Hamilton, who stood up in defence 
of this report on Saturday, seemed to think that there 
was a disposition to take imprudent, if not unpardona¬ 
ble liberties with the matter reported; but he would 
beg leave to say, that he had seen no spirit of unkind¬ 
ness manifested toward the committee on the legisla¬ 
tive department, nor any other desire, than to make 
them look as perfect as possible. Certainly, he could 
say for himself, that he entertained the greatest respect 
for that committee ; nevertheless, he might not be able 
to concur in every thing which they might see proper 
to report. He submitted the opinion, that this Con¬ 
vention should never suffer any thing to go into the 
Constitution which had not been first w^eli considered. 
They w’ere not about the wmrk of a day, but they were 
forming an instrument to endure lor many years to 
•^overn a great people for many years to come; there¬ 
fore they should consider eveiy question fully, freely, 
and fairly. Of all places in the world, this was the 
very last in which a gentleman should call for any 
erous confidence” in behalf of his views, to be extended 
by any body. He would submit also, if the gentleman 
objects so streneously to criterions upon his report, 
whether the gentleman ought not himself to exhibit 
more deference toward it, whether he has not himself 
been guilty of more censurable dereliction in this les- 
pect. For if he recollected aright, th6 gentleman had 
appeared in opposition to the report upon two impor¬ 
tant questions-that related to biennial sessions, and that 
reducing the Senatorial term. Upon both of these 
questions, the gentleman had appeared as a zealous 
advocate in opposition to the report, until the honorable 
chairman of the committee on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment [Mr. Sawyer,] had been constrained to invoke 
the Convention to save his report from its friends. But 
this was not the place to repress inquiry and investiga¬ 
tion and criticism ; and when the Judiciary commitee 
reports should come in, he now gave notice that he, for 
one, would be willing to sign a release from all claims 
for damage on account of criticism from the members 









246 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


of the Convention. Indeed he courted the severest in¬ 
vestigation of all its provisions, and he would pledge 
the gentleman from Hamilton, his humble aid to over¬ 
turn it, if it should not meet his approbation. 

He was in favor of the general policy indicated in 
the report, of confining the Legislature to narrower 
limits than heretofore. This policy met with his en¬ 
tire approbation ; and, in saying this, he did not mean 
to be guilty of any disrespect toward any preceding or 
any subsequent Legislature ; but he would speak plain¬ 
ly. He did not want so much tinkering in the legisla¬ 
tive department; and therefore he did not wish to in¬ 
vest the General Assembly with so much absolute pow¬ 
er as they had possessed heretofore. He desired this 
for the same reason that he would not take physic need¬ 
lessly; not that he would question the skill of the doc¬ 
tor preparing and prescribing it, but because he did 
not want it. He considered that as men became more 
enlightened they required less legislation, and that the 
legislative power should be restrained in proportion. 
In a rude and uncultivated state of society stringent 
laws would be required to protect the rights of indi¬ 
viduals, but civilization and a correct public opinion 
would render a great part of such legislation unneces¬ 
sary. 

The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] had 
stated, with reference to this provision of the report, 
that it was found in the constitutions of nearly all the 
other States of the Union. To what extent the gen¬ 
tleman intended his assertion should go, he did not pre¬ 
tend to know, but the gentleman was certainly mista¬ 
ken as to the fact. He had taken the trouble to look 
into the constitutions of the several States, and he had 
found that the constitutions of ten States of the Union 
were wholly devoid of any provision upon the subjects 
embraced in this section—and these embracing some 
of the largest and most populous and powerful. In all 
the other States of the Union, the provision of the con¬ 
stitution of the United States, substantially, has been 
re enacted, except four! These four were New Hamp¬ 
shire, Tennessee, Missouri and Texas. The constitu¬ 
tion of New Hampshire prescribed that no retrospective 
law should be passed. In the constitution of Tennes¬ 
see it was prescribed that no retrospective law or law 
impairing the obligation of contracts should be pass¬ 
ed. In the constitution of Missouri it was prescribed 
that no law impairing the obligation of contracts, or 
having any retrospective operation, should be passed. 
In the constitution of Texas it was prescribed that no 
law impairing the obligation of contracts, nor any' ret¬ 
roactive law should be passed. 

Now, why was it that this principle was omitted in 
the constitutions of ten States of this Union? It might 
be observed in reference to this question, that the con¬ 
stitution of the United States was superior to the au¬ 
thority of the State’s Legislatures, in fact, the very' terms 
of the constitution of the United States were prohibito¬ 
ry of the exercise of power by the State Legislatures: 
and this was the reason, undoubtedly, that the provis¬ 
ion had been omitted in these ten State constitutions. 
It was important, however, according to his apprehen¬ 
sion, that this provision should be engrafted into the 
constitutions of the States, if for no other reason than 
that intimated by the gentleman from Clark [Mr. a- 
SON,] namely : it was not impossible that the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States might be altered or amended 
so as to dispense with this provision, and in that event, 
except such a provision were in the State constitution, 
the Legislature would be without restraint with refer¬ 
ence to the power of interfering with contracts. 

There was contained in the section under considera¬ 
tion, three distinct and very important propositions.— 
The first was, that the Legislature should have no power 
to pass any retroactive law. The term “retroactive” 
in this connection, referring to criminal as well as civil 
cases, is a much more broad and comprehensive term 
than the phrase ex post facto. The next provision is, 
that the General Assembly shall pass no law impairing 


the obligation of contracts. This is substantially copied 
from the constitution of the United States and our own 
constitution. And the next provision is, that the Gene¬ 
ral Assembly shall pass no law impairing the remedy 
upon contracts. These were the three provisions of 
the section—all of which were very important—all 
having relation to legal proceedings, and they should 
be considered and construed with relerence to legal 
proceedings; and therefore, the objection to the views 
taken by legal gentlemen was obviously of no force at 
all. For who were to decide these questions but the 
courts ? and should we not here become familiar with 
the ordinary rules of construction, which are of course 
familiar to the minds of lawyers. He desired here 
to say', once for all, that he deprecated any distinction 
here on account of profession or occupation. The 
people had sent us up here, charged with the impor¬ 
tant trust of making anew constitution, some of us are 
farmers, some are lawyers, and others of other avoca¬ 
tions in lile, and he had discovered nothing but an 
earnest disposition hereto make their work as perfect 
as possible. He could not believe that any' gentleman 
had come up here as the Representative of any partic 
ular interest or class of men. He believed that all 
were disposed to do their duty in simjjlicity and faith¬ 
fulness. For his own part whenever he was found op¬ 
posing any proposition for simplification, whenever 
any man went farther than himself for simplifying our 
whole political system, he would accord to him the 
palm of excellence in the work of legal reform. 

He would look again, for a single moment, at the 
provisions of this section. He was in favor of all the 
section, as it stood, with the single exception of the 
three last words—“ or their remedies”—and here he 
found himself differing from his honorable colleague, 
[Mr. Hitchcock of Geauga.] He spoke of hisdissent 
from the opinions of that gentleman with great defer¬ 
ence and diffidence, because the enlarged experience 
of that gentleman entitled his opinions to a far higher 
consideration than could ever be claimed for his owu- 
But he would cut otF from the General Assembly the 
power to pass any retroactive law, although some gen¬ 
tlemen might give it a softer name, and call it a “ Bill 
of Peace.” He understood arotro'active law to be an 
act fixing a rule for the determination of man’s rights, 
after the act or conduct in question was past and gone, 
It reached backward, looked liackward and acted back¬ 
ward, upon past transactions. It was therefore called 
retroactive in its operations. He admitted that this 
was a new principle introduced into the constitutions 
of the several States ; it had found a place in but four 
(»f them; but he earnestly' hoped that Ohio would give 
it the fifth place in the fundamental laws of States of 
this Union. 

Gentlemen had argued that our State Legislature had 
heretofore exercised this power very' beneficially, in a 
large class of cases, and therefore it ought to be con¬ 
tinued. But he would beg gentlemen to look again, 
and see whether it did not involve the exercise of a 
dangerous power; and whether there was not some 
way of dispensing with it. He was sure there was, 
and he trusted gentlemen would be willing to refer its 
exercises to some tribunal where its exercise would not 
be attended with any dangerous consequences. It 
would be seen that if the power of the Legislature 
were allowed to reach back wa. d and affect men’s rights, 
it was liable to do mischief, and that it depended alto¬ 
gether upon the honesty of the Legislature and the 
corruptness of the information, whether a retroactive 
law should be beneficial or otherwise. Anybody could 
see that. He wanted no better illustration of the im¬ 
policy of such legislation, than the very instance ad¬ 
duced by the gentleman from Geauga. He referred to 
that legislation embracing the dower cases. He never 
had any thing to do with cases of this kind, and never 
expected to have. He could therefore look at them, 
he believed, impartially. He did not undertake to say 
which decision had been right, or whicli w'rong. H <5 


















247 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


was bound to respect all our judicial decisions, and he 
did respect them. But in the first place, what did the 
law do? A married woman could not alienate her 
propei'ty except in a particular mai.ne., the law wms 
placed as a safe-guard to prevent imposition and frauds 
being practiced upon her, and hence it provided that 
she should be examined separate from her husband 
with respect to any deed of conveyance which she 
might be called upon to sign; and the contents were to 
be made known to her. This was deemed a matter of 
sufficient importance by die Legislature to be incorpo¬ 
rated into the general law of the land. And the wis¬ 
dom of placing it there had been tested by a long ex¬ 
perience. He begged leave to add that there had been 
a great many cases wherein there, was great equity in 
the wife retaining her property, which would be taken 
from her under this law, and withdrawing it from the 
hand of some cunning speculator who had wrongfully 
obtained it from her husband, through his improvi¬ 
dence. 

There were two things connected with the law of 
conveyance by a married woman: First, the sub¬ 
stance, and secondly the form. If she freely and vol¬ 
untarily, without any restraint from her husband and 
for a valuable consideration, parted with her interest; 
that was the substance of the thing. The next was, 
that the justice of the peace should see that it was 
done in proper form and in order to show that it was 
so done he was required to certify to these facts. But 
if she had been compelled to assent to the contract by 
any undue constraint, or if she had been in any way 
deprived of her rights, or if a real valuable considera¬ 
tion had not been paid, or if she had been in any man¬ 
ner imposed upon in the case, she was not to be de¬ 
prived of her rights. Hence the reason of setting forth 
all these things in the acknowledgment. But now 
what did the curative law propose to do in all ca¬ 
ses where these acknowledgments were defective ? 
Why, it came in, and with one sweeping clause de¬ 
clared that they should all be good. That was the ob¬ 
jection to any retroactive provision of the kind; but now, 
what was the remedy ? He begged attention to this 
question for one moment. If a man had an equitable 
and just right to property should he not enjoy it ? Most 
assuredly he should. He agreed with the strong ex¬ 
pressions of gentlemen, that it was the duty of every 
government to provide for the security of these rights; 
but how was the case to be reached ? He affirmed 
that it was competent for the law-making power to en¬ 
large the power of the judiciary for the purpose of do¬ 
ing justice to all men, so that if a man finds his deed de¬ 
fective, he can go into a court of chancery and be in¬ 
vested with all these powers which are necessay to the 
protection of his rights. The fact was, this could be 
done against a man now; but in the case of a married 
woman the court had held that they had no jurisdic 
tion: and from this singular absence of jurisdiction 
arose all the difficulty If the chanceiy court had nev¬ 
er refused to clothe the honest intention of a married 
woman, joining in a conveyance with her husband, 
with proper forms, all this question about retrospective 
legislation would have been done away with. He 
did not know but that the courts had decided right, but 
he could not so understand it. If they had decided 
right all the Legislature had to do hereafter was to 
clothe the chancellor with more ample povrer to do 
right between all men, and women too. That was all. 
Then where was the necessity for the Legislature to 
come in, and by one sweeping retroactive law to push 
all these cases to the same destiny? For here wasA’s 
wife, understanding fully the terms of her conveyance, 
and there was B’s wife not knowing the terms of her 
conveyance, and being imposed upon. Now every¬ 
body knew the injustice of a law which would come 
in and decide both of these cases the same vvay—the 
one consistent with equality and the other a perfect 
outrage upon it. But suppose the power to bo vested 
in the courts, every case would be open for investiga¬ 


tion, and fraud and imposition would be detected and 
relief gi-anted and justice awarded. He desired no 
better instance than this to show the impropriety of 
vesting such power in the Legislature. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross (interrupting) said: The gen¬ 
tleman had not given the true construction of the act of 
March, 1835. If he understood the terms of this act, 
where the forms were complied with, the act applies, 
but whtTe the forms were not conformed with the act 
does not apply. Mr, G. here read from the old law 
and from the act of 1835, commenting and showing 
that the act of 1835 was applicable only to such cases 
where the forms wei’e complied with by making the 
contents of the deed known to the woman, and he only 
failed to certify the fact. The law only attempted to 
secure that class of cases wherein the full acknowl¬ 
edgement was actually made by the woman, but not 
certified by the officer. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Was it not lawful and right to be 
formal ? 

Mr. RANNEY resumed. The law of 1835 does not 
require the fact that the contents of the deed were made 
known to the woman to be shown. It declares the 
deed valid without any evidence upon its face, or re¬ 
quiring any evidence outside of it, that that tact existed. 
By a sw’eeping provision it declares all such deeds 
valid. It was deemed of sufficient importance by the 
Legislature to require of the magistrate to make known 
the contents of the deed. Declaring a deed 'valid 
without first ascertaining that this had in fact been 
done was equivalent to repealing the law. He ad¬ 
mitted that perhaps .most of the ladies of Ohio would 
well enough understand what they were about when 
they signed a deed, but the law was made to protect 
the ignorant and oppressed, and in point of fact many 
women were under that kind of influence on the part 
of their husbands which might be prejudicial to their 
interests: and therefore the law required a separate 
examination, and that the contents of the deed should 
be made known, &c.; and if thereupmi the officer fail¬ 
ed to certify these facts in due form, then came the 
statute of 1835, pi’escribing that the title should pass, 
regardless of the fact whether the rights of the woman 
had been regarded or not—whether in point of fact she 
was acquainted with or ignorant of the contents of the 
deed. 

Mr. GREEN. Might not fraud be present, as well 
in a case where the officer might make a valid certifi¬ 
cate, as where he might not? 

Mr. RANNEY. But fraud could not be supposed. 
Here was the remedy. Whenever the party interested 
found that the law had not been complied with, on ac¬ 
count of any omission or error of the officer, he should 
go and ask the married woman to come in and correct 
the error. And, if she refused, then the other party 
should go to the chancellor, and show, in point of fact, 
what was the real intention of the woman, and that 
the only deficiency was in the omission of the magis¬ 
trate to state the fact—giving opportunity for the wo¬ 
man also to come in and show before the chancellor, 
that, in point of fact, she had been cheated and im¬ 
posed upon; and thus there would be set up a defence 
upon an open issue before his honor, the chancellor, 
and a deci'ee would be had upon his determination in 
the case. This was what ought to be done. But in¬ 
stead of this, the law now came in, sweeping away all 
distinctions, and permitting no judicial inquiry into 
the right or wrong of the case. 

He did not pretend to say that this law had not done 
some good, but he asked w’hether to put into the hands 
of the Legislature the power to pass such a law, was 
not to give them the exercise of a very dangerous 
power ? And whether all the good which might result 
from the direct interference of the Legislature might 
not be found in the courts of Chancery, without any of 
the evils which wait upon such legislation ? There 
was not a man in the world that would go farther than 
himself to protect the equitable and just rights of all 













24S 


CONVENTION KEPORTS 


before the judicial tribunals, and he would provide 
that the judicial power should be armed with ample 
authority to protect every right, legal and equitable, 
under the established forms of judicial proceedings. 
He repeated again, that a legislative body was the 
most unsafe of all tribunals, to pass upon such an inves¬ 
tigation, for in the very nature of things there must be 
presented an ex parte case. 

There could be no opportunity for the application of 
legal rules, and so far as the applicants might be con¬ 
cerned, the whole might be one scene of corruption 
from beginning to end, and the Legislature remain per¬ 
fectly ignorant and innocent. But such could not be 
the case before a judicial tribunal; and he was earnest 
in his persuasion that the powers of the Court of Equi¬ 
ty should be extended so as to give jurisdiction over 
all cases affecting these rights of married women, so 
that in the issuing and acknowledgment of a deed, the 
married woman might stand upon the same civil plat¬ 
form with the man. Indeed, wherever an equitable 
right exists, protect it with a judicial remedy. Let 
rights and remedies be co-extensive in the courts, and 
you will then have no occasion to arm the Legislature 
with the dangerous prerogative of exercising judicial 
power through retro-active legislation. 

He had said he was opposed to the three last words 
of the section. He could not think that the commit¬ 
tee on the Legislative Department had fairly consider¬ 
ed the extent to which they might lead. This section 
provides that contracts should always be held inviolate 
—that the obligation of contracts shall never be im¬ 
paired. It went on further, and provided that the Le¬ 
gislature shall never touch the provisions for the rem¬ 
edies upon contracts. What were the remedies? Sup¬ 
pose he entered into a contract for certain specific pur¬ 
poses—he then had certain legal remedies existing 
which enabled him to enforce it. He could bring his 
action to enforce the obligations of the contract in such 
a court—under certain forms of procedure—and in a 
certain given space of time obtain judgment, and pro¬ 
ceed with the execution and collection of that judg¬ 
ment against certain lands and property. These were 
the remedies which the law provided for the enforce¬ 
ment of the obligations of contracts. And, against 
any change or alteration of them, the report certainly 
provided. If, for instance, it were ever so much to the 
benefit of the State that the foi’ms of procedure should 
be changed, the creditor would complain if they were 
made more tardy—if more speedy, the debtor would 
complain. 

He did not mean to say that if one remedy w’ere 
stricken out and another one of exactly equivalent im¬ 
port substituted that it would fall within this constitution¬ 
al prohibition. But there w'ould be no motive for alter¬ 
ing one remedy for the purpose of inserting a substi¬ 
tute exactly like it in legal effect. It would, for in¬ 
stance, prohibit the Legislature from abolishing impris¬ 
onment for debt, if that remedy had existed when the 
contract was made; it would prevent the Legislature 
from releasing the person of the debtor from the grasp 
of the creditor, or exempting the most necessary arti¬ 
cles of household furniture from execution. It had 
been said that imprisonment for debt was abolished in 
this State. He denied it. A non-resident could at 
present be arrested for debt on a capias, without any 
pretence of fraud or concealment of property; and in 
this respect we showed no better example than the 
ancients, with whom the words stranger and enemy 
Were synonymous terms. 

_ The gentlemanfrom Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] men¬ 
tioned that these stay laws were pernicious; agreed— 
but the gentleman did not require this clause against 
altering remedies to provide lor that. These stay laws 
had been held to be unconstitutional by the highest 
court in ths land. Then every thing that was essential 
to the full protection of the obligation, and enforce¬ 
ment of the contract itself, was provided for under this 
section without this last clause ; and the Supreme Court 


of the United States had already decided on the sub¬ 
ject in two cases, recently reported, which arose in In¬ 
diana and Illinois. 

The first of these cases is Bronson vs. Kinzie, 1 How¬ 
ard, Rep. 316. Chief Justice Taney says:—“If the 
laws of the State passed afterwards had done nothing 
more than change the remedy upon contracts of this 
description, they would be liable to no constitutional 
objection. For, undoubtedly, a state may regulate at 
pleasure the modes of proceeding in its courts in rela¬ 
tion to past contracts as well as future.” “ Whatever 
belongs merely to the remedy may be altered according 
to the will of the State; provided the alteration does 
not impair the obligation of the contz'act. But if that 
effect is produced it is immaterial whether it is done 
by acting on the remedy or directly on the contract it¬ 
self. In either case it is prohibited by the constitu¬ 
tion.” The other is the case of McCracken vs. Hay¬ 
ward, 2. How. R. 612. The court says :—“Any law 
which in its operation amounts to a denial or obstruc¬ 
tion of the rights accniing by a contract, though pro¬ 
fessing to act only on the remedy, is directly obnoxious 
to the prohibition of the constitution.” By these deci¬ 
sions everything necessary to the full vindication of the 
obligation of the contract, whether connected-with the 
remedy or not, was provided. Everything of sub¬ 
stance had the shield of the constitution thrown over 
It, while mere forms and modes of procedui'e were 
left as they should be to legislative discretion. 

In his opinion every thing that related to the course 
of judicial proceeding should be left open to such al¬ 
teration and improvement as the legislature might at a 
future period see fit to make. Every thing else should 
be protected in accordance with the spirit of the con¬ 
stitution which our fathers in their wisdom had framed, 
and w'hich had been productive of so many benefits to 
us. He would say, provide the most ample guaranties 
that in the judicial tribunals all rights shall be protect¬ 
ed both in equity and in law, and leave to the judiciary 
the applications of these remedies under established 
modes of proceeding to reach the justice and right of 
every case. He w’ould, therefore, be in favor of re¬ 
taining all the section except the three last words. 

Mr. STILWELL said he had determined not to take 
any part in this discussion, but he thought it proper to 
offer some vci*y brief remarks, and in doing so he would 
not forget that the committee must be wearied in the 
suljject already. It was said by the gentleman who 
last spoke, that the section contained three proposi¬ 
tions: first, it delared that the Legislature should not 
pass any retroactive law—next, it should not pass any 
law impairing the obligations of contracts, and that it 
should not impair their remedies. He felt unwilling to 
vote on all these propositions together. He might be 
in favor of one and opposed to the others: he might 
be willing to declare that the Legislature should not 
pass any retroactive law’ or impair the obligation of a 
contract, but unwilling to say that they should not have 
the right to change the remedy. He therefore wished 
to vote upon each of the propositions separately, wheth¬ 
er it could be done consistently with parliamentary 
forms, he did not know. It w’as just suggested to him 
that he could move to strike out the last three words 
of the section and he would do so if that were the fact 
—he would do so because there was very little diver¬ 
sity of opinion on the subject. Certainly it w’ould be 
desirable to prevent the Legislature from interfering in 
the remedies provided by law in some cases, but under 
the recent decisions in the Supreme Court, he was dis¬ 
posed to leave the matter as it formerly stood. 

Disposing of that he came to another branch of the 
section—that in w’hich it was stated the Legislature 
should not have the pow’er to pass retroactive laws. 
He w’ould vote, as at present advised, against that pro¬ 
hibition, but he would leave that matter as it now stood 
and declare that the Legislature should not pass expose 
facto laws. He was aw’are that the power to pass a 
retroactive law might be abused by the Legislature, 











CONVENTION REPORTS 


249 


but he was unwilling to set his opinion against all that 
had been said on the subject. The proposition that 
the Legislature should not have the power to pass ex 
post facto laws was not new: it was a principle of the 
common law ; and the courts and Parliament of Great 
Britain had recognized that principle as fully as any 
State in the Union. We had also the opinion of the 
framers of the constitution of the United States in fa¬ 
vor of a provision confining it to ex post facto laws and 
the example of most of the States. Although he might 
see some inconveniences arising from giving this pow¬ 
er to the Legislature to pass retroactive laws, yet he 
was not unwilling to set aside the lights of experience 
on the subject. He intended to vote for the amend¬ 
ment to strike out the word “ retroactive ” and insert 
the words “ ex post factor He would vote for it sim¬ 
ply because experience had found it to be a sound rule. 
And although he might believe that we could limit the 
power so as to produce great benefits, yet he feared 
that in that attempt we might produce great evils. He 
moved to strike out the three last words of the sec¬ 
tion. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE thought that the section un¬ 
der consideration, or the words proposed to be struck 
out did not seem to be properly understood. The sec¬ 
tion was, that the Legislature should have no power to 
pass retroactive laws, or laws imparing the obligations 
of contracts or their remedies. He wanted to ask if in 
voting on this amendment, gentlemen went to give the 
Legislature the power to impair remedies. 

Mr. STANTON (interrupting,) remarked—so far as 
they were cumulative remedies. He did not wish to 
leave all these ditiereut modes of remedy at the dispo¬ 
sal of the creditor. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE continued. He was not 
aware that a party had all these remedies progressing 
at the same time. If he has more than one remedy, 
let him have the privilege of selecting which he will 
pursue. This he has a right to do, and that right ought 
not to be taken away. If this provision stood in the 
section, prohibiting the Legislature from impairing the 
remedies on contracts, ho apprehended that the right 
to change the remedy, would still exist. That never 
had been doubted. They had the right now, and fre¬ 
quently exercised it; they had exercised the right of 
impairing the remedy—they had gone so far as to take 
away entirely the remedy for the enforcement of the 
contract, and thereby indirectly doing that which they 
were prohibited from doing directly—they had thus in 
efiect impaired the validity of the contract. 

Mr. RANNEY wished to ask a question, whether or 
not in all cases in which the remedy was diminished 
in efficacy, it would not fall within the provision of 
the United States Constitution ? 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE resumed. He noticed that 
it was extremely difficult to get a court to decide that 
a law of this State was unconstitutional. He hoped 
for better things hereafter, when the judges would not 
hold their offices from the Legislature—when they 
would be independent of it. and their decision would 
show it. But so far they had shown themselves de¬ 
pendent on the Legislature, and laws had been passed 
impairing the obligations of contracts, by taking away 
their remedies, or so far impairing the remedies, as to 
leave the contract of no real binding validity whatever. 
Now he hoped these words would be retained, and the 
Legislature prohibited fi'om passing any act impairing 
the validity of contracts, or impairing the remedies by 
which they were enforced. 

The question then being on the amendment to the 
amendment to the amendment, it was put; whereupon 
the committee divided—80: affirmative 40—negative 
not counted. 

The question was sustained. 

Mr. MASON asked and obtained leave to modify his 
amendment so as to limit it to striking out the words 
"retroactive” and inserting in lieu thereof the words 

ex post facto." After some further remarks from 


Messrs. Reemelin, Stanton and others, a division of 
the question was called for. 

The question then turned on striking out, which hav¬ 
ing been put, the committee divided as follows—af¬ 
firmative 30—negative 48. So the committee refused 
to strike out. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved that the committee rise and 
report, which was not agreed to. 

Mr. ROBERTSON presented the following amend¬ 
ment; " Provided that the General Assembly in session 
shall have the power to amend or revoke any charter of 
incorporation granted by any preceding General As¬ 
sembly.” 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I desire, Mr. Chairman, to make 
a few remarks on this amendment. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD (interposing) moved to amend the 
amendment as follows—" provided that all laws and 
amendments thereto conferring corporate powers or 
privileges, or special privileges on individuals, shall 
contain an express provision providing that the Legis¬ 
lature shall have power to repeal or amend the same; 
and no law shall have force unless such provision be 
contained therein.” 

Mr. NASH inquired if the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Fairfield [Mr. Robertson] was in order. It 
appeared to him not to be pertinent to the subject un¬ 
der consideration. 

Mr. ROBERTSON observed that the amendment 
was perfectly in order. 

The CHAIRMAN. The mover of the amendment to 
the amendment has not stated to what part of the sec¬ 
tion he wishes it to be attached. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I move it as a substitute for the 
amendment of the gentleman from Fairfield. I do not 
know whether it be in order or not. 

Several members addressed the Chairman. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I wish to inform gentlemen that 
I do not yield the floor. If the gentleman from Gallia, 
[Mr. Nash,] had reflected for a moment he would have 
seen that my amendment is proper and pertinent. 
That gentleman is too well acquainted with the judi¬ 
cial history of our State not to know that our Supreme 
Court has decided a charter of incorporation to be a 
contract. Therefore it is that I wi<h to have inserted 
in the new constitution, a proviso to the article forbid¬ 
ding all acts impairing tlie obligations ot contracts, a 
clause conferring express power upon the Legislature 
to repeal charters of incorporation; that our State 
courts shall not hereafter be able to say that charters of 
banks and other incorporations cannot be repealed by 
the State Legislature. 

The reading of the amendment was called for, and 
the Chairman read the amendment in couneciion with 
the section. 

Mr. ROBERTSON resumed. It has been given out, 
Mr. Chairman, in quarters that are entitled to great 
respect, that the constitution we are about to make will 
perpetuate special privileges and banks for the issue ol 
paper money. I hope this is not true; and I shall so 
hope with much faith, until the termination of the pro¬ 
ceedings of this Convention. And, sir, it is for fear 
that this prediction may be verified that I desire to see 
such a provision as the one I have submitted, engrafted 
upon the constitution of the State. 

I am sorry to hear it asserted with confidence, that 
after a conflict of half a century, we are about to sur¬ 
render in this Convention, to the organized money 
power, represented here by the advocates of banking 
incorporations ai.d other special privileges. 

I hope it is not so—sincerely do I trust that all such 
intimations are slanders upon this Convention. But if 
they are to be realized by our solemn and deliberati\e 

votes_if it be true that we are about to surrender to 

the Bank Power, I desire to have a saving clause in 
the constitution, by which the people can protect them¬ 
selves hereafter: and, unless such a provision be in¬ 
serted_if the predictions I have referred to be verified. 











250 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


you will find me, Mr. Chairman, opposing the adop¬ 
tion of your coustitution. 

In the early formation ol our goveiaiment—the best 
men of the republic—the Washingtons and Jelfersons 
—the truest and purest of those who periled iheir lives 
and pi’operty to achieve the triumph we enjoy, warn¬ 
ed the people against incorporated monopoly, and es¬ 
pecially against the jiaper money monopoly—I believe 
it was William I’itt, that great statesman of Epgland, 
who has been referred to with encomium on this floor, 
that so truthfully said, let the Ainerii^an people go into 
the banking system and their boasted liberties will be 
a delusion. 

Yes, sir, our banking systems have warred with 
deadly hostility against the rights, the liberties, and 
prosperity of the people. Incor{)orated niono{)oly has 
established an aristocracy in our midst. In every land 
aristocracy is essentially the same. Call it by what 
name you will, it is that organization which transfers 
the property of the many to the few. The aristocratic 
power, driven from one retreat to the other, has seized 
upon what was once the strong fortress of freedom— 
incorporations—charters—by their aid to perpetuate 
its ancient iniquities! For, sir, charters and corpora¬ 
tions were originally franchises to an oppressed people; 
210 w they are privileges to the few. 1 need not recall 
iiistorical illustrations, lor all acquainted with the his- 
i^ory of incorporations well know that the charters 
granted in the middle ages to cities and guilds, were 
grants of liberty to the people. And these grants of 
power to the people, originated the chartered grants of 
monopoly and privilege to the few, thus creating anew 
form of aristocracy. But this word is offensive here. 
We are told it is not fitly.applied here. And what is 
aristocracy ? I answer, it is any organization to wrest 
from the people the proceeds of their labor without 
compensation—this is the essence of aristocracy of all 
forms. All the systems of oppression and iniquity, 
established by the vilest governments that have existed, 
have no other office than to take from the people the 
produce of their industiy, without returning any equiv¬ 
alent. And, sir, it is true, that notwithstanding the 
warning of the best men of the revolution, and the 
best men of our country since that day, incorporated 
aristocracy has triumphed over the people of this coun¬ 
try ; and we are told that this same power is about to 
triumph over this Convention. Aye, over this Con¬ 
vention, to which the Democratic people of Ohio look 
with so much hope and so much expectation! There¬ 
fore does it becoine doubly important that a clause 
should be inserted in this Constitution, so that the peo¬ 
ple (when they can send a body of men to the Legis- 
i| lature not to be bribed, not to be intimidated, and not 
to be influenced by any power but a high sense of duty 
and patriotism,) shall then be able to wipeout this foul 
blot from the escutcheon of our State—this blot of 
special privileges—these charters, which make the 
many of this free land the “hewers of wood and the 
drawers of water*’ to the bank nobility. Yes, sir, we 
want to have the repealing proviso inserted in our Con¬ 
stitution, for popular defence in the future. 

I foresee that the proposed repealing power will e u 
counter the o[)po8ition of those who are here to guard 
certain interests: they will have no desire to put this 
safeguard of the people in the constitution. I have no 
hope of their support, for I have found that many of 
the most respectable jurists and the best lawyers have 
ever been ready to decide in favor of the claims of cor¬ 
porations. And, although the party to which I belong 
assert that the Legislature has at all times the right to 
repeal any act of incorporation, yet whenever the ques¬ 
tion has been presented to the courts, influences reach¬ 
ing these tribunals, have been strong enough to invoke 
a contrary decision. Therefore, while I insist that the 
Legislature has the right, and the power in that ex¬ 
press constitutional authority, to repeal any act of in¬ 
corporation, I wish to have a provision inserted in the 
•constitution proclaiming the possession of that power 


by the Legislature. I wish such a provision inserted 
as a prohibition, addressed to the judicial tribunals of 
the State, forbidding their invasion of the power of the 
people as declared by the Legislature; so that when 
charters of incorporations shall be hereafter repealed, 
they will be stopped from pronouncing all such legisla¬ 
tive acts as null and void. 

I will not at this time, enter into a discussion of the 
question of the right of re;;eal, though I have given 
some attention to it. I believe that to be unnecessary 
now. But, Mr. Chairman, I would address myself to 
the other side of this body—to those gentlemen who 
are expected to stand up here in solid phalanx against 
the insertion of the pi’oposed clause in the constitu¬ 
tion ; and I would say to them, that they (judging from 
past legislation,) have little to fear. For like the gam¬ 
bler in an anecdote, related by a member of Con¬ 
gress, about the time of the late contest for the Speak¬ 
ership of that body, you have, gentlemen, three aces 
in your boots and we have but one. [Laughter.] You 
have the corporate money power in your boots. All 
who know the history of legislation in this country, 
are aware, that although the people are mighty, and 
although he who denounces the demagogue and he who 
is a demagogue, bow meekly before the people, and 
humbly solicit their favor and approbation, yet in the 
legislative halls, when a charter is to be given or re- 
peuled, the power of the people is as nothing, com¬ 
pared to the organized power of money. This is no mere 
flourish, no vain assertion. Look at the history of 
banking incorporation, and of the granting of bank 
charters in every State in the Union. Begin with New 
Yoi'k, and you will find in the early bank history of 
that State, that bank after bank—the bank of America 
—the Merchants’—the State bank of Albany—the 
Farmers’ Loan Company—the Chemical bank—one af¬ 
ter another purchased their way through the Legisla¬ 
ture. Yes, sir, legislators are bribed, and their enmes 
exposed and proven in the courts of justice and in the 
legislative halls of that State. We find the same course 
pursued in Pennsylvania. We find that the United States 
bank long held its lofty state in Chestnut street, and 
its power throughout the Union, through the instru¬ 
mentality of its paid attornies and the subsidized agents 
in the national Legislature. So, gentlemen, you see 
that in opposing your mighty influence we have little 
chance of success. 

You can divide us, and boast after the manner of the 
organ of your party, that monojioly and chartered 
banks find supporters in the democratic ranks. I con¬ 
fess with shame, that too many—too many among us 
are willing to be seduced; too many are of easy po¬ 
litical virtue, as was the case in the old republican 
party of New York, when it basely surrendered to 
the bank power. 

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you are acquainted with the 
instructive history of thatabandonment of principle. At 
an early day the republican party of that State took a no¬ 
ble stand against banking institutions, and yielded not 
till the bribeiy to which I have alluded, had done its 
foul work. The federalist charter mongers had bought 
iheir way through the Legislature—the bankers had 
succeeded by the aid of bribed republican votes; and 
then the word among the prominent republicans, was, 
“ We must have bank charters for our party too—re- 
pjiWjcan charters. It is not right—(banking is wrong 
, in principle, to be sure)—but it is not right—it is not 
fair, that the fedei-ah'sts should have all the spoils. We 
must have a share—take care of ourselves; for when 
the game is spoils, don’t let us be beat.” Such oratory 
could not be resisted ! and then it was that the mag¬ 
nates of the democratic party of New York, with some 
glorious exceptions, went into the Legislature, and 
made it their business to secure the passage of bank 
charters; as foul and corrupt an office as ever was exe¬ 
cuted by the praitorian guards of Rome, or the vilest 
Emperor that ever bought the purple, or the meanest 
minions that serv'ed him. Yes, the leaders of the de- 











CONVENTION REPORTS 


j ulocracy of New York abandoned Iheir principles and 
^ made a business of the purchase and sale of bank 
' charters, thus furnisliing example and precedent for 
like corrujrtioii elsewhere. One of the results of their 
! profligacy was the creation of the Old Hunker party, 

I and then followed the division of the democracy—its 
demoralization and defeat, and your candidate, gentle- 
j men, in the Presidency—your General Taylor in the 
r White House at Washington! [Laughter.] 

And what has been the course of the deinocracy in 
Ohio? For years they had been dodging about the 
State, avoiding a manly and open attack, and fighting a 
1 sort of Indian skirmish from behind trees and bushes, 
vainly trying to capture the monopoly power, by what 
the French call a coup de main, by such contrivances as 
! individual liability, and pretended restrictions. But fail¬ 
ing in these weak and futile devices, the democratic 
lj party was compelled at last to abandon them, and 
j plant itself upon the broad and solid foundation of un- 

1 compromising hostility to the whole paper money sys¬ 
tem. 

In 1846, the Democracy of Oltio, in State Convention 
I assembled, proclaimed their unyielding hostility to 
1 your whole banking system ; and this in 1848 they in 
a like manner reiterated, which in 1850 they glorious- 
, iy, unanimously re-affirmed. And yet, even already, 

' we find that your seducing influences have reached the 
, hearts of a great many of our old friends. Yes, we 
must own the truth of your boasting, that some of those 
f whom we long regarded as the most reliable "hard mon¬ 
ey men,” have gone into your banking operations, 
there to increase your strength. They could not resist 
■| the mighty influence of dollars and cents. They have 
' gone. Your inducements were stronger than our prin¬ 
ciples. They have been seduced from our ranks. Oth¬ 
ers have been intimidated. And I confess that I fear, 
yet not without hope of a better fate, that the day is 
t against us. We have but " one ace,” while you, gen- 
I tlemen, have " three aces ” in your boots. And, al- 
I though you grant us the power of repealing your char¬ 
ters, you hold in your incorporated hands the power of 
seducing large numbers of our men into your service, 
and of intimidating others. But I shall not detain the 
committee longer. I have said, Mr. Chairman, all I 
desired to say at this time, for I did not wish to say 
more than sufficient to present the reasons for my 
amendment, and to submit my views upon the topics 
noticed, honestly and frankly, as T shall upon all occa¬ 
sions. when I may think it becomes my duty to speak; 
not, however, in what I have said, or may hereafter 
say, desiring to wound the feelings of any member of 
this body, or to excite political animosities. In the re¬ 
marks which have been submitted, I have only endea¬ 
vored to show the importance of inserting the propo¬ 
sed amendment in the constitution. I am aware that 
there are gentlemen on this side of this chamber who 
' will not vote on the bank question as I consider it my 

f duty to vote. I do not, by any means, intend, in any- 

I thing I have said, to charge that these gentlemen are 
I governed by corrupt motives. I accord to them none 
but honoi’able intentions, and I hope and expect that 
I they will aid by their votes to engraft the i*epealing 
I amendment upon the constitution. 

I On motion of Mr. LIDEY, the committee rose, re- 
I ported progress, and asked and obtained leave to sit 
again. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, the Convention took 
a recess. 


3 o'clock p. m. 

Upon motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee of the whole, and resumed 
the consideration of the report upon 

THK LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 

The question was upon the amendment offered by 
Mr. Robertson, to the 35th section. 

The question then being upon Mr. Robertson's 


251 


amendment, it was agreed to, and the section as amen¬ 
ded was passed. 

Sec. 36. “ The General Assembly shall provide for the creation 
and government of municipal corporations by general and uni- 
form laws.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga thought that this sub¬ 
ject was already embraced in the report of the commit¬ 
tee on Corporations other than Banking, and it seems 
to be the prominent subject of that report. He hoped, 
therefore, that the section might be passed informally 
until we reached that report, which has already been 
laid upon our tables. 

Mr. KING remarked, that the report of the commit¬ 
tee on Corporations other than Banking, did not pro¬ 
vide for all the cases which might arise in relation to 
corporations and is not intended to reach all the acts of 
corporations. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said that the gentleman had pro¬ 
bably overlooked the first line in the I’eport of that com¬ 
mittee, which reads, "That the Legislature shall pass 
no special act conferring corporate powers.” If there 
be no special act, nor any genei-al law, he did not know 
how they could get into existence. 

Mr. ROBERTSON offered the following amendment 
to the section by inserting after the word "contracts,” 
the following: 4 

“ Provided, that the General Assembly in session shall have 
power to amend or to revoke any charter ol incorporation gran¬ 
ted by any preceding General Assembly.” 

Mr. HUMPHRBVILLE offered an amendment to the 
amendment, by adding at the end, "Provided that no 
law granting corporate privileges shall be held to be a 
contract.” j 

The question being then taken upon the amendment 
to the amendment, it was not agreed to. 

The question then recurring upon the amendment of¬ 
fered by the gentleman from Fairfield, a division was 
called ior, which resulted yeas 38, nays 35. So the 
amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being upon striking out the whole 
section, and a division being called for, resulted, yeas 
33, nays 34. So the Convention refused to sU-ike out. 

Mr. LEECH. I move to amend the 36th section, by 
adding thereto, the following: "but no corporate body 
shall be created, renewed, or extended by special act 
of the General Assembly.” 

Mr. LEECH. Before the vote is taken on my amend¬ 
ment, I desire to submit a few remarks for the consid¬ 
eration of the committee. This section is, in my hum¬ 
ble judgment, entirely too limited in its provisions. 
What does it declare ? Why, simply that "the Gener¬ 
al Assembly shall provide for the creation and govern¬ 
ment of municipal corporations by general and uniform 
laws.” This, as will be perceived, is an affirmative 
proposition which does not imply a negative. It con¬ 
fers upon the Legislature the power to create "muni¬ 
cipal corporations by general and uniform laws,” but 
does not deny to that body the power to create corpo¬ 
rations, other than municipal, by laws which are not 
"general and uniform”—by special laws. Sir, I am in 
favor of a constitutional provision of this kind—a pro¬ 
provision whichshall leave nothing to implication or 
construction, but which shall prohibit, in clear and ex¬ 
press terms, the General Assembly from creating any 
corporations, for any purpose whatever, by special en¬ 
actments ; and if the amendment I have proposed is 
adopted, or if some similar provision is engrafted in 
the Constitution, it will so restrict the law making pow¬ 
er of this State. 

This amendment has brought the subject of corpora¬ 
tions fairly before the committee. I regaid this as an 
important subject—as one of the most important that 
will come before us for our consideiation and decision. 
It is one which has attracted the attention of the peo¬ 
ple of Ohio, and has occupied a very conspicuous po¬ 
sition in the public mind, for many years. I trust, 
therefore, that the subject will receive that considera¬ 
tion from the committee, which its momentuous impor¬ 
tance demands. 
















252 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Corporations, sir, are destructive to equality, and 
hostile to free institutions, and their existence should 
not be tolerated in a republican goveriiment. They 
confer privileges and benefits on the few, which are 
not enjoyed by the many. Every special act of incor¬ 
poration is a grant of monopoly—a charter of privile¬ 
ges to a few individuals, which are not conferred upon 
community at large. Such legislation is, consequent¬ 
ly, utterly repugnant to the great republican doctrine 
of equal rights—a doctrine that lies at the basis of the 
free institutions of this country. 

Sir, the people of Ohio have felt the blighting, with¬ 
ering and contaminating effects of these “ ulcers upon 
the body politic ”—corporations, through a long series 
of years; and I believe there is now a deliberately 
formed, and well settled public opinion amongst the 
masses in this State, which requires of us as the rep¬ 
resentatives of the people, to say to the General As¬ 
sembly, in the organic law of this commonwealth, “no 
more special acts of incorporation—no more special 
legislation! ” A distinguished American statesman has 
said, and experience has fully proven the truth of the 
declaration, that, “ in this country, corporations are 
like so many citadels, in which the enemies of repub¬ 
lican government entrench and protect themselves, and 
from which they carry on their warfare against the in¬ 
stitutions of freedom, and the liberties of the people.” 
Sir, I propose, by a prohibitory provision in the con- 
stitusion, to storm those “ citadels,” and to rout the 
occupants from their entrenchments and their strong 
holds, so that they may no longer be thus enabled to 
“ carry on their warfare against the interests of free¬ 
dom, and the liberties of the people.” And in this, I 
trust I shall have the co-operation of at least a majori¬ 
ty of this Committee. 

Mr. KING said that the committee on Corporations 
other than Corporations for Banking, had reported, and 
that the I'eport, if adopted, would effect the same ob¬ 
ject which the gentleman from Guernsey [Mr. Leech] 
proposed by his amendment. 

A Member suggested that section 36 had better be 
stricken out. 

Mr. LEECH. If it is proposed to strike out this 
section, I withdraw my amendment. 

Mr. CUTLER moved, to strike out section 36, which 
motion was agreed to. 

fc-EC. 37. The General Assembly shall never authorize the pay¬ 
ment of any extra compensation to any officer, public agent or 
contractor, after the service shall have been rendered or the con¬ 
tract entered into, nor grant, by appropriation or otherwise, any 
amount of money to any individual on any claim, real or preten¬ 
ded, when the same shall not have been provided for by pre-ex¬ 
isting law. 

Mr. NASH moved to strike out the whole section as 
it stands. 

Mr. REEMELIN observed that if they had had a 
similar provision to this in the old constitution of the 
vState, they would have saved millions of dollars to the 
State, for in years past we had been overbvtrdened with 
claims for extra compensation. 

Mr. NASH hoped that the latter clause of the section 
would be stricken out. He would make a motion to 
that effect. 

Mr. MORRIS was in hopes that the section would 
not be stricken out. If there had been such a provis¬ 
ion in the present constitution, we should have saved 
the State a great deal of money. He recollected, when 
a member of the Legislature, nothing was more fre¬ 
quent than these claims for extra compensation, and 
this is the way in which the State has been mulcted in 
so large a debt. 

Mr. STANTON inquired whether there was any pre¬ 
cedent for this in any of the constitutions of other 
Slates. 

Mr. REEMELIN replied that there was such a pro¬ 
vision in the constitution of Texas. 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll remarked that an apju’opria- 
tion of $40,000 had been granted by the State to de¬ 
fray the expenses of this Convention. Well now, 


when this is consumed where are we to get any more, 
if we may not run the State in debt ? [Laughter.] 

The question being then upon striking out, it was 
lost, and the section was passed informally. 

Sec. 38. The General Assembly shall by law provide for the 
organization of a board ol selectmen tor each county, to consist 
of a delegate from each township and ward, to be elected annu¬ 
ally by the people thereof, in which board the General Assembly 
shall vest such local legislative power over all matters which con¬ 
cern such county exclusively. 

Mr. RIDDLE moved to strike out the section. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the section bo passed 
informally. 

Mr. QUIGLEY moved to strike out all up to the 
words “ the General Assembly,” in the latter part of 
the section, and insert in the place of the remainder of 
the section the following: “ Shall by law vest m the 
board of county commissioners local legislative power 
over all matters wfoich concern such county exclusive¬ 
ly ;” so that the section would read— 

“ The General Assembly shall by law vest in the board ot coun¬ 
ty commissioners local legislative power over all matters which 
concern such county exclusively. \ 

Mr. TAYLOR. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that 
this section supplies an agency which will be found 
useful and expedient, if the action of the Convention 
conforms on other subjects to the public sentiment. 
It is not generally understood that the Convention will 
propose restrictions upon the unlimited power hitherto 
exercised by the General Assembly over local subjects? 
It has been frequently said that three-fourths of the 
laws of Ohio are special and local in their nature; and 
I believe that an effort will be made to confine the 
Legislature to general regulations exclusively. If so, 
the section before us becomes absolutely necessary to 
carry out the public will in regard to subjects essential 
to the public welfare. As I have before said, I do 
not believe that the mass of legislation in this State is 
disproportionate to the wants of the people. It has 
happened, indeed, that too much it of has been done at 
the central capital—that the organization of counties 
has been such, that private and local interests have 
been thrown into the canvass for Representatives and 
Senators in the General Assembly—that our political 
system has not possessed proportion and symmetry. 
The remedy is in a more judicious distribution of the 
legislative power, and that is the object in establishing 
tins hoard. We limit the State Legislature to its gen¬ 
eral duties, but it is not proposed thereby to suppress 
the public utterance of the people—the authentic ex¬ 
pression of their wants and wishes. By no means. 
You might as well cap Vesuvius, sir. To avoid that, 
this report has merely, in my opinion, supplied a local 
and responsible organ for the transaction of such legis¬ 
lation as relate immediately to the respective counties. 
It contemplates, for this purpose, a board of selectmen, 
elected by each township and ward, and which can be 
appropriately termed a County Assembly. 

My partiality for such a body may be owing to th€‘ 
fact that I formerly observed in New York that a simi¬ 
lar institution—the board of supervisors—was highly 
approved by the people. In Massachusetts, also, the 
selectmen of the townships are entrusted with legisla¬ 
tive duties, on the model of the present report. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I hope that our limitations will 
not be confined to restrictions upon the action of the 
General Assembly. The Judiciary committee will soon 
report, and is it likely that they will recommend such a 
motley court as the Common Pleas now is ? Why, sir, 
the Legislature has conferred on that tribunal an un¬ 
precedented variety of functions—not simply judicial, 
but legislative and administrative. That principle of 
political science which enjoins separate agencies to 
make, declare and execute laws, has been violated in 
the organization of our county courts. I beg leave to 
call the attention of the committee to an enumeration of 
the unusual and inappropriate functions with which 
this judicial tribunal has been burthened. The Com¬ 
mon Pleas, by various laws passed at different times. 












CONVENTION REPOllTS 


253 


takes cognizance of the vacating of streets, alleys, town 
plots and additions and parts thereof: upon appeal 
from the decision of the county commissioners, super¬ 
vises the public economy of counties generally; va¬ 
cates and alters State roads, and vacates, opens and 
establishes, and alters county roads, lixing damages ; 
determines all contested elections ol sheriffs, coroners, 
county auditors, county treasurers, county commission¬ 
ers and prosecuting attonieys: removes from office 
county surveyors for misconduct: grants licenses to 
auctioneers, tavern keepers, and peddlers,^ and fixes the 
rates to be paid by the same: licenses ferrymen and 
fixes the rates of ferriage, and grants licenses to cler¬ 
gymen: appoints commissioners oi insolvents, inspec¬ 
tors of meat. Hour, &c., examiners of school teachers, 
directors of new seats of justice and wreck-masters: 
supervises the terms and covenants of indentures of 
apprenticeship of minors who are too young to choose 
guardians, and finally changes the names of persons, 
towns, and villages, &c,—[1 Swan's Practice, p. 9-10.] 

Most of these powers are entirely alien to a judicial 
body—only a few have even a remote relation to the 
duties of a court. Here, then, we have a two-fold 
abuse in this State—local interference by the cezitral 
goveniment, and an omnibus of local legislation vested 
in the court of Common Tleas. I will not believe that 
either of them will escape the reformatory action of 
this body. In that contingency is it not obvious to 
gentlemen that the present provision for a county 
board furnishes an indispensable organ of the wants 
and wishes of the people ? 

If I understood the amendment offered by the gen¬ 
tleman from Columbiana, it proposes to vest these local 
legislative duties in the county commissioners. But 
they are only three in number, elected by the body of 
the county, and too often under the control of a county 
regency. The people, as grouped in townships, ought 
to elect their immediate representatives. The com¬ 
missioners are too much exposed to central influences, 
to be a safe depository of local legislation. 

It seems to me that if we were guided by the spirit 
of our republican system, we would cherish these 
county assemblies. We talk of State rights. The 
phrase has become a party shibboleth. The jealous 
limitation of the federal goveniment is the highest po¬ 
litical wisdom. But if Congress is to be restrained to 
national duties, why should we not, on the same prin¬ 
ciple, limit the State government to necessary and gen¬ 
eral powers, and cherish, with as rigid a zeal, the coun¬ 
ties and towTiships of Ohio. That is the design of this 
section. I hope that the time will come, when we shall 
hear in political discussion, such expressions as “ coun¬ 
ty rights”—a‘‘county party”—as distinguished from 
tte tate policy of centralism and consolidation which 
has pervaded the policy of our State government. 

I am aware, Mr. Chairman, that difficulties may be 
suggested in regard to the duties of the Board of Se¬ 
lectmen. Of course, the General Assembly will be 
supreme in case of conflict or repugnance with county 
authority. General laws will be passed, but their lo¬ 
cal administration and substantive legislation in aid ol 
their policy, can safely be entrusted with the County 
Assembly. The proposition is, that “in this Board of 
Selectmen, the Genei’al Assembly shall vest local legis¬ 
lation over all matters which concern such county ex¬ 
clusively.” I could wish, Mr. Chairman, that their 
duties were not so strictly expressed. The Selectmen 
ought also to have the power to confer with Boards ol 
a similar character in adjacent counties, so as to adjust 
those local matters which relate to both, to their mutu¬ 
al satisfaction. If adjacent counties, two or more, 
could thus act in concert, under general laws regula¬ 
ting the particular subject of their conference, we 
should have a good substitute for the present system. 
If counties fail to agree in this manner, then let a reso¬ 
lution, or certificate, setting forth the circumstances of 
disagreement, present the matter to the General As¬ 
sembly, sitting as a final umpire or arbiter. Take 


Irom the State Legislature original, and limit its ap¬ 
pellate control over all affairs which are exclusively 
local in their character. 

Mr. Chairman, 1 have now presented, imperfectly 
and briefly, those considerations which, it seems to me 
vindicate the propriety of retaining this section of die 
report. I perceive, with regret, that such is not the 
prevalent temper of the House, but until the questions 
are settled, what are to be the limitations on the pow¬ 
ers of the General Assembly—what the restrictions on 
the manifold jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas, 
and what the action of the Convention on the absorb¬ 
ing topic of apportionment—I shall regard a vote to 
strike out this section as premature, and one which 
may demand our reconsideration. I shall move, if in 
order, that this section be passed informally, to admit 
of a further comparison of views. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD complained that after the gentle¬ 
man from Erie [Mr. Taylor] had rendered his reasons 
at length, in support of these local Legislatures, a mo¬ 
tion should be made to cut off further debate. 

Mr. TAYLOR would ask the Chairman whether his 
motion was not debatable. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD supposed the motion was not 
debatable, and the gentleman must be aware of that. 

The CHAIRMAN decided that the motion was de¬ 
batable. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD called for the reading of the 
amendment proposed by the gentleman from Columbi¬ 
ana, [Mr. Quigley,] which was had. 

Mr. A. then said: he was rather of the belief that he 
should be opposed to the amendment, because he was 
opposed to the whole section; but if we were com¬ 
pelled to take any part of the principle of the section, he 
should prefer the amended form. He considered the 
amendment better than the original section. But he 
chose to reject both, because he confessed that he did 
not understand any thing much connected with tliis 
question, beyond what light he had received from ex¬ 
planations here. The Convention was not infoi’med 
whether these county assemblies were to have mere 
powers of police, or whether they were to be entrusted 
with law making powers, to govern the actions and 
decide the rights of property of the citizens. The gen¬ 
tleman from Erie [Mr. Taylor,] had told us that these 
local Legislatures constituted one of the institutions 
of his native State—the State of New York. That State 
might have other institutions suited to this one—we had 
none. He denied that the boards of supervisors of that 
State had legislative powers. He had never been so 
informed. The great State of New York was not bow¬ 
ed down, like Issachar, between two burdens of taxa¬ 
tion too intolerable to be borne, as we were here in the 
State of Ohio. He was not informed of the fitness of 
this principle for the institutions of New York but he 
was sure that it could not be made applicable or use¬ 
ful here. Besides, he doubted very much the wisdom 
and propriety of taking up and adopting here the patch- 
work of other States. If we could import all the in¬ 
stitutions of New York we might find them wise and 
useful. They were probably suited to the habits and 
feelings of her citizens. We cannot import her whole 
system. Then it is a dictate of prudence to frame our 
organic institutions in accordance witli the rnauners, 
habits and modes of thinking of our own citizens. 

It is said that we have too much local legisla¬ 
tion. Was this a proposition to decrease it? No, 
but it was a proposition to increase it. The people, (as 
he happened well to know,) considered that this whole 
matter of local legislation could be provided for^ by 
genei'al legislation, such as was adopted by the Legisla¬ 
ture some years ago, to provide for the incorporation 
of eleemosynary and charitable corporations, such as 
churches and the like, by simply making a record^ of 
their names and successions in the recorder s office, 
the remainder being provided for by general laws. 
This, he would tell the gentleman from Erie, was the 
kind of legislation which the people wanted. It was 



















254 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


periectly miobjectionuble iiv policy, but was unfortu¬ 
nately impracticable under the old constitution. But 
the gentleman jiroposed county legislation, and the 
gentleman from Hamilton had taken care to provide 
that there should be at least one representative from 
each township. Now in his county of Monroe, there 
were nineteen townships, and he knew of some coun¬ 
ties in the north-east, which contained as many as 
twenty-five. The range was from sixteen to twenty- 
five. Indeed, the average number eighteen or nine¬ 
teen. But the gentleman from Hamilton, seeing the 
absurdity of an equal representation of townships, 
without regard to population, and being opposed to any 
rotlon borough system, had provided that there might 
be more than one representative in a township ; in a 
large township there might be five or six representa¬ 
tives. It was plain, therefore, that this w'as proposing 
a very expensive system of legislation, and he would 
be opposed to it upon that ground, if it contained no 
other defect. As it was, our government was too cost¬ 
ly. Our institutions all run to that extreme. We had 
hosts of officers already. Taking it all in all, we had 
a very expensive government now, and here the gen¬ 
tleman was about to provide a system that would per¬ 
haps double that expense, and at all events increase 
the amount of taxation very much. The gentleman 
from Hamilton sometimes told anecdotes, and he was 
inclined now to tell one, which was present in his 
mind. Sometime ago he took a little excursion into a 
neighboring county in the State of Virginia, and being 
therein a stable with his brother-in-law, looking at his 
fine saddle horse, he asked him how much tax he paid 
upon that horse? His brother-in-law had forgotten ex¬ 
actly, but he believed it was somewhere about ten oi- 
twelve cents; while at the same time he [Mr. A.] was 
paying a tax of one dollar and ten cents upon his horse 
—borough tax of course included, amounting to twen¬ 
ty cents. 

This was the kind of system which the gentlemen 
were about to fix upon the State. Verily, gentlemen 
seemed to have what a Frenchman would call a pen¬ 
chant for enormous taxation for a sort of communism, 
to be introduced by sending the tax gatherer to take our 
whole property and put it in the public treasury. They 
proposed a system of legislation which the people 
never heard of—as a substitute for the boards of county 
commissioners, who got along well enough with their 
business, as far as the people had yet discovered. It 
was a sort of “ will-worship,” as his Calvinistic friends 
woidd say—or “a mere work of superrogation,” as 
hi.s Catholic friends would call it. The boards of coun¬ 
ty commissioners had given general satisfaction. They 
may have erred in particular instances, but he had 
never heard one word of discontent with the institution 
itself. 

The gentleman from Erie desired to go farther. He 
was not willing that the legislative power should be 
confined—not willing to take the section as it stood 
now, but desired that these boards of selectmen should 
legislate upon the interests of their respective coun¬ 
ties exclusively. What kind of legislative power was 
this ? It could not be mere ordinary police, such as 
the laying out of roads and the like, which could con¬ 
cern the people of but one county to the exclusion of 
all others, for these were matters of general concern. 
It seemed to him a strong doctrine, to create district 
legislative bodies, prescribing one system of laws for 
one county, and another system for another county— 
primogeniture for the county of Belmont, and the sys¬ 
tem of common inheritence to all the children in the 
county of Monroe; and one act of remedies in one 
county, and another in another. He considered this 
state of things to be the least desirable of all among 
the people generally,and that it was most desirable that 
the law should be uniform all over the State, so that a 
man residing in Logan county might know what would 
be his rights and remedies, if he had entercourse with 
another man residing in the county of Union. He, for 


one, was so much in love with that old common sense 
notion of liberty and equality, in thi.4 regard, that he 
would be very unwilling to give it up for any consid¬ 
eration. 

He was opposed to the whole thing on account of its 
expensivencss. Ho was unwilling to increase the taxes 
of the people for such an object. He believed they 
would say to us, in the language of the fox to the swal¬ 
low, which kindly oll’ered to drive away the flies that 
had filled themselves with his blood; “If you drive 
these away another more hungry swarm will come, 
and I shall be robbed of every dro[) of blood in my 
veins.” If it were not for the inconvenience of his 
friends, the reporters, whom he did not wish to over¬ 
burden with too much labor, he would say that gentle¬ 
men were fixing up a costly kind of tutelary duty for 
Ohio. Anciently they had their tutelary divinity for 
everything in politics as well as morals; for instance, 
Mars was the god of war; Neptune, of navigation and 
the sea; Apollo, of the arts; Venus was the patroness 
of beauty, and Bellona was the goddess of war; and 
all that Sort of thing : and then there was.Tupiter, who 
was the great king of all the gods, the god and father 
of all deities; and every one of these deities had his 
My thos, his peculiar glory, his divine attribute. Now, 
if this ancient mythology were revived, if Ohio had a 
tutelary divinity, it miglit well be said that his mythos, 
his divine attribute, was to tax the people. His pecu¬ 
liar glory to make tlxe people pay. This was the case 
already. We had indulged too long and too much in 
this costly species of idolatry. He did not wish Uj 
push the system further. In plain language our bur¬ 
thens of taxation were even at present enormous, al¬ 
most insupportable. This scheme would increase the 
evil—he hoped the Convention would have nothing to 
do with it. 

Mr. REEMELIN. During the time he was a mem¬ 
ber of the Legislature, he recollected a proposition to 
confer certain legislative powers upon the county com¬ 
missioners in certain parts of the State, in relation to 
the location of railroads. One thing be observed, that 
when the Legislature did not know how to act upon 
any local proposition, they would refer it to the county 
commissioners; and in many inshinces, the power was 
more properly exercised by the county commissioners 
than by the Legislature. He found, also, that our coun¬ 
ties were increasing in their disposition for improve¬ 
ment, not only in the matter of raih’oads, but in the con¬ 
struction of plank roads and turnpikes. He found also, 
that it was going to be proposed by the Judiciary com¬ 
mittee to fix the salary of all county olficers. 

Mr. STANBERY (interrupting) said : he was a mem¬ 
ber of the Judiciary committee, and he did not know of 
any such thing being proposed. 

Mr. REEMELIN. He had been informed so by a 
member. 

Mr. STANBERY. The committee had contempla¬ 
ted no such thing; that was a matter to be fixed by 
law. 

Mr. REEMELIN (continuing.) At any rate our 
counties were increasing in importance, in every quar¬ 
ter of the State ; and he hoped as his friend from Brie 
had suggested, that a great deal of the authority now 
improperly exercised by the Legislature, in the way 
of local legislation, would be taken away from that 
body, and confen’ed upon the local tribunals—such 
as granting tavern licenses—licenses for the sale of ar¬ 
dent spirits, &c. He ventured the prediction that 
some day or other in the State of Ohio, if not now, iust 
such boards of selectmen, as here proposed, would be 
established in every county in the State for the purpose 
of taking account of these local matters : and that the 
Legislature would find it necessary, from time to time, 
to confer such power more and more upon those boards. 
He would prescribe also, that every board should con¬ 
sist of more than three members; one at least from 
each township. He found that in the State of New 
York, they had these boards organized and in operation 







CONVENTION REPORTS 


255 


every where; and being in that State lately, he took it 
upon hiraselt’ to ask a gentleman, a member of their 
Legislature, how the people were pleased with the lo¬ 
cal institution of a county board of supervisors. 

Mr. STANTON (interrupting.) Was there any such 
thing in the New York constitution? 

Mr. TAYLOR (Mr. Rekmelin stillgiving way) said; 
These boards of supervisors were author’ised neither 
by the constitution of New York, nor in the statute. 
They were an institution dating almost as fur back as 
the organization of the government. They were re¬ 
cognized by the framers of the new constitution as a 
part of the common law of the State, and as such left 
untouched. 

Mr. REEMELIN resumed. He had inquired wheth¬ 
er this boaid of supervisors was asafe and useful body, 
and had been told that ihey were exceedingly safe and 
useful for many purposes of legislation, and that they 
were found very convenient for the transaction of all 
the business now done by our county commissioners. 
He found also that in Canada they had a similar board; 
butthe counties were larger there—which, perhaps was 
only a still greater recommendation of the principle. He 
found also in reading the letters of Thomas Jetfei’son, 
that he had in his mind a siihilar plan for the purposes of 
local legislation. He regarded the g-^neral government as 
having charge of our foreign relations, the State gov¬ 
ernments as having charge of our State relations, the 
county governments as having charge of our county 
relations, and the town.ship governments as having 
charge of our township relations. The committee 
should hear the sage, himself. 

[Mr. Reemelin here read an extract from Jefferson’s 
works.] 

The mind of Mr. Jefferson was, to have the w'hole 
government based upon township organizations; the 
counties resting upon the townships; the States upon 
the counties, and the General Government upon the 
States. Such was the symmetry of our government, 
and he had followed up the idea in the section under 
consideration. He considered also that they would find 
these bodies very safe and convenient depositories of 
power. He was not in favor of biennial sessions him¬ 
self; but if we were to have biennial sessions, he 
thought these boards would be rendered even more 
convenient thereby. He estimated that they would 
sit four times a year, and perhaps not longer than ten 
days at a time, which at $3 a day would be $120 a 
year for each member of the board. This was all the 
expense of providing a scheme of legislation which 
would be guided by the wishes and sentiments of every 
county of the State. 

He doubted not but that sometimes there would be 
local difficulties such as were hinted at by the gentle¬ 
man from Monroe. The people were frequently agi¬ 
tated by local difficulties. It was so in Hamilton 
county; until they were compelled to take away from 
the county commissioners their jurisdiction over the 
roads, because it was found—there being but three of 
them—they would make all the improvements in the 
localities where they themselves belonged respectively; 
some townships would be left out entirely, and many 
of the roads in the unsettled portions of the county 
were left unimproved. They had several turnpikes 
thus totally abandoned. The Legislature was at length 
compelled to take up the matter, and give back a pari 
of the control over the roads to the county commis¬ 
sioners—so far as to enable them to borrow money. 
But it was found that this board of commissioners were 
not competent to the entire supendsion and improve¬ 
ment of the roads, because they were required to at¬ 
tend to the matter in person—a thing which the board 
of selectmen proposed would never think of: for they 
would elect an engineer, or entrust the matter to a 
county surveyor, if they required correct information 
about the building of a bridge, or anything that would 
require the skill of an engineer. 

This proposition bad been opposed on the ground of 


ex[)en3e, but this opposition he pr. sinned only came 
from gentlemen who felt themselves specially called 
upon to oppose everything new. But if gentlemen 
would look ahead, they would find that under the pro¬ 
posed system they would have tbeir local iuter»‘sts 
much better taken care of, and that the time would 
come when such a thing as a mud road iu Ohio woald 
be a curiosity—that their roads would be better taken 
care of—that tbeir schools would have a better super¬ 
vision—and that their county interests generally would 
be better guard(?d against the corruption of office-hold¬ 
ers. But he had found, from experience, that the sub¬ 
mission of these rnaltei's to the county commissioners 
was of no use at all; at the same time he was of the 
unwavering belief that all these interests might bo 
much better looked after by such a board as that pro¬ 
posed iu the section. 

He could hardly expect however that the proposi¬ 
tion would be adopted, as presented in the report; but 
as far as he had heard the expression of opinion out¬ 
side of the Convention—amongst the people and in 
the newspapers, it was favorable. All he asked of gen¬ 
tlemen was a fair and full consideration of the subject 
—and that they would take into view liow the system 
worked in New York and Canada, and Connecticut he 
believed; and he did not think it would be greatly 
more expensive than the present system of doing coun¬ 
ty business through the agency of county commission¬ 
ers. It might be a little more extensive, but it would 
certainly be a much more sale depository of public 
trust; because it would bring together men of expe¬ 
rience from all parts of ihe county, who would fully 
represent every interest. 

Mr. MANON said: He believed he represented a 
few Yankees, who wei-e in favor of this proposition,, 
but it was his belief that it would lead to too much 
expense, and induce too much legislation. He was 
in favor of striking out. 

Mr. RIDDLE said: He had made the motion to 
strike out the whole section, and he regretted to see 
that a majority of the delegation from Hamilton county 
were to come in conflict with the. member from that 
county, who had last addi'essed the committee upon 
this subject of county business He bad lived under 
the present constitution of Ohio now 48 years, and 
from what knowledge he had been able to collect 
upon the business committed to the county commis¬ 
sioners under the present system, he was prepared to 
say that we had got along pretty well—much better 
than we could get along under such legislation as that 
contemplated by the amendment proposed, or the sec¬ 
tion now under consideration. Since this proposition 
had been under consideration, the gentleman, from 
Hamilton [Mr. Jones] and himself had made a calcu¬ 
lation, and in Hamilton county there were 11 wards in 
the city of Cincinnati, 15 townships, and two precincts, 
giving in all, at least 28 representative districts, for the; 
proposed board. But there was the township of Storrs, 
adjoining the city of Cincinnati, which polled about 150 
votes, while the 11th ward of the city gave 1800 votes. 
If we carry out the doctrine of legislation, in connec¬ 
tion with the amendment of his colleague [Mr. Reem- 
ELiN,] this ward would probably send 13 representa¬ 
tives, and the whole number for the county (carrying 
out the same ratio of representation,) would extend to 
110 members: making an annual ex/ euse, supposing 
said board to sit four times a year, at 10 days each 
session, including clerks &c., allowing to each select¬ 
man $2 per day, of about $10,000 per annum. It had 
been argued that the finances of the county would he 
better looked after, and that the acts of county officers 
would be investigated more thoroughly. But had we 
not lieard it argued here, that the Legislature which 
meets here from time to time, was not competent by 
their committees to make satisfactoiy investigations of 
‘he State offices 7 As far as his experience went, he 
was compelled to differ from his colleague upon this 
subject. He considered also, that about Cincinnati, 
















256 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


:iud throughout the comity of Hamilton, they had per¬ 
haps the best roads to be found in any part of the 
State, except that portion of the State represented 
!)y the gentleman from Trumbull, Portage, and Cuya¬ 
hoga. 

The people of Hamilton county, as far as he knew, 
were satisfied with the good old system. They usu¬ 
ally elected honest, faithful, and trustworthy men to be 
their county commissioners; and so far as he knew ail 
matters committed to the county comniissioners had 
been discharged faithfully and satisfactorily to the peo¬ 
ple; and if the old constitution should continue a little 
lon^^er, the power now entrusted to them would still 
be found sufficient for the protection of the county in¬ 
terests. It was true there were complaints against our 
present system, but every one knevy that we might get 
along as heretofore, and, as he considered, much better 
than under the system proposed in the section pending, 
or the amendment offered in lieu of the same. Just 
imagine 110 men sitting in the city of Cincinnati—it 
would be organizing a body which would give tone 
and direction to the county politics. Its legislation, in 
matters pertaining to the county would be expensive 
to the people, and unauthorized by any precedent to be 
found in any State constitution. Such a body would 
.mntrol public opinion in this county. Did any suppose 
that improvements, such as a bridge over the Little 
Miami river, and Mill Creek, and other necessary im¬ 
provements in the county, would receive proper atten¬ 
tion in such a body? In all probability there would 
be such a conflict of opinion between great men, rej3- 
resenting different interests, that they would all agree 
to go upon the spot and see what ought to be done: 
and they would probably lake a corps of engineers 
along with them, and meet there day after day. We 
have at some seasons of the year good fishing where 
such improvements or repairs would be required, and 
at some places it was very good; and taking this into 
consideration, no man could calculate how long such a 
body of representatives would remain in session. And 
what would be the expense of such a body, clothed 
with the power to legislate for the county of Hamil¬ 
ton, now containing a population of about 160,000? 
He acknowledged that the proposition appeared new 
to him; nevertheless when he made the motion to 
strike out, he expected to hear some good reasons why 
we should depart from the old landmarks. We had 
done well so far, and he was unwilling to be brought 
under the control of any new system until he should 
be clearly satisfied that it was better than the old. He 
hoped therefore the amendment would not prevail and 
that the section would be stricken out. 

There was a committee of the Convention yet to re 
port which he believed would bnng in something that 
in all probability would be more satisfactory than the 
proposition now under consideration; but if they did 
not, he, for one, would be in favor of continuing the old 
county boards. What I have said in reference to 
Hamilton county applies to the other counties of the 
State of Ohio. 

What did gentlemen propose to take from the court 
of common pleas ? Did they propose to take away 
from them the power of granting marriage licenses 
and give it to this board of selectmen, together with the 
power to grant tavern and ferry licenses ? What did 
they propose’to take away from the authorities which 
now discharge these duties ? As far as he had heard, 
the power which belonged to the county commission¬ 
ers had been judiciously exercised. If there had been 
any complaint he had not heard them. If there had 
been any complaints they were in reference to the 
mode of taxing real estate and personal property, and 
equalizing the same. But he had heard of none suffi¬ 
cient to authorize any change. He conceived it was 
much better to leave all matters requiring legislation 
for the counties in the hands of the General Assembly. 
Therefore, unless better reasons had been offered than 
he had yet heard, he could not vote for any constitu¬ 
tional change effecting this question. 


Mr. QUIGLEY would offer an amendment which, in 
his opinion, would, if adopted, leave the section as it 
should be. He moved to strike out the first three lines 
of section 38, and insert the word “vest” the words 
“ in the county commissioner.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga said the section under 
consideration proposed to invest in a local board ail lo¬ 
cal legislative power over matters that were connected 
with a county. The amendment proposed to invest 
the county commissioners with leffislative powers. 
The first section of the report provided that all legis¬ 
lative powers of the State should be in the Legislature, 
and this section provided for local legislative powers. 
Now the question was not whether this board would 
do this, that or the other thing for a county: it was not 
an administrative board to carry laws into execution, 
but strictly a local board, and no other power was 
vested in it but a local power. _ The gentleman from 
Erie [Mr. Taylor] advocated this board on the ground 
that it was to be strictly a local legislative board, and 
he seemed to suppose that all local legislation was to 
be taken from the General Assembly by the action of 
this Convention. He was. in part, of the gentleman’s 
opinion but he thought that the experiment proposed 
would produce some inconveniences. The General 
Assembly might pass general laws—the local boai’ds, 
local laws: and what were these local laws? They 
were laws to incorporate certain local bodies—to in¬ 
corporate partnerships—road and bridge companies. 
These were all local objects of legislation—local to the 
county, and being such, he supposed this local board 
w’as to possess the power of passing these charters of 
incorporation. We refused to give the Legislature the 
power to confer acts of incorporation; now we grant- ^ 
ed to a subordinate body what the Legislature did not 
itself possess. Between the amendment and the origi¬ 
nal section he would be in favor of the section. He 
would rather that the power should be exercised by 
he representatives of the entire county, but he was 
not willing to grant it at all. He was unwilling to 
grant to this inferior body the power to pass acts of in¬ 
corporation, or other acts as they deemed proper. It 
would destroy the uniformity of our laws^one system 
of legislation would prevail in one place—a different 
one in another place, and so on—wherever we might go 
throughout the State, we would find different Systems 
of laws prevailing. That he considered not at alj de¬ 
sirable, independent of the increased expense incurred. 

So far as respects New Y'ork, they had there a system 
of their own for years, and perhaps from the organiza¬ 
tion of the State. Their system consisted of a board of 
supervisors in which every part of the county was rep- 
I’esented, and that bo^rd attended to all the various 
matters connected with the county business. Well, 
they had progressed along on that system and would be 
unwilling to adopt any other. In the New England 
States all this business was transacted in towns, or as t 
we called them here, townships ; they had been brought 
up under that system and it worked well with them. 

In the southern States the county business was per¬ 
formed by a county board; they were accustomed 
to it and the system operated beneficially. But we, 
since our organization as a State, have had our busi¬ 
ness done through aboard of county commissioners and 
it worked well with us. Now, however, we were 
ai>out to try a new experiment, which we did not 
know would work well at all. It was best to let the 
section stand as it was. 

Mr. LBADBETTER would vote to strike out—if for 
no other reason, for the reason shown by the gentle¬ 
man from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock.] The cost to each 
county would be about $1200 a year, and there being 
eighty-seven counties in the State, the increase of taxes 
would be about $104,000 a year. He agreed with the 
gentleman that it appeared to be the determination of 
the Convention to withdraw from the Legislature the 
management of those local matters which had hereto- ^ 
fore occupied so much of its time. But, one of the most 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


effectual modes of so doing, would be by this Conven¬ 
tion laying its prohibitory hand on the Legislature, 
and prevent them from passing any laws of incorpora¬ 
tion, where the same individuals could come under the 
general act relating to partnerships. 

Mr. QUIGLEY asked leave to withdraw his amend¬ 
ment, which was granted 

Mr. SAWYER said it had been complained by mem¬ 
bers, in relation to this section, that no reasons had 
been given by the committee w'hy it should not be 
struck out. There was a pretty good reason, for it was 
because the members of tlie standing committee could 
not obtain the floor to explain the reasons for the adop¬ 
tion of a given section or provision until all others had 
spoken. [Laughter.] 

He thought that there were some undue interests at 
work. He knew very well that city influences and 
town influences had injured the best interests of the 
country in relation to the board of county commission¬ 
ers—and he would further say that the county commis¬ 
sioners have too often been perfect tools in the hands 
of a few about a court house, and in many instances 
fully in the power of the county auditor. He knew 
that there was more devolving on that board, connect¬ 
ed with the best interests of the people, than any other 
tribunal whatever, not excepting the county court,— 
they had the power of taxing and levying whenever 
and wherever they pleased. There was a question 
about expenses ; and the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. 
Hitchcock] spoke about the clashing between the 
boards. What clashing was there between the town 
councils of cities? Did their proceedings clash with 
those of the county in which he or other gentlemen 
lived? Not at all. This boai'd which was proposed 
to be established was to act under a general law. 
They were not to be an independent legislative body ; 
but the Legislature was to vest in this board such leg¬ 
islative power as it might direct. What legislative 
power did the Legislatui'e now vest in town councils? j 

Mr. HITCHCOCK (interposing) here read the sec-' 
tion under consideration. 

Mr. SAWYER resumed. The Legislature vested in 
the board of common councilmen the exclusive legis¬ 
lation for a city or town. Well, then, why not give the 
Legislature the power to say that this board shall have 
control over the interests of the county. At present 
there were three county commissioners, who met three 
times a year and legislated for the good of the county, 
as it was said. Wl^at was the result ? Sir, in the county 
in which he lived, with 10,000 inhabitants, thres com¬ 
missioners were unable to be got at by the people. 
One of the commissioners got into otfice by a swindling 
and stealing operation—yes, stealing, for they stole the 
poll books of a German township, in order that it might 
not be counted, and so elected their candidate. The 
result of their swindling was that they put the county to 
the expense of aboiit $30,000, for the building of a 
splendid court house, while most of the people there 
are living in their first additions to their rude log cab¬ 
ins. 

Give the people what they desired—give them a 
chance to elect their board, one from each township, 
and let them go up and represent the people fairly, in 
the conduct of their business, without regard to cities 
or towns, or court house cliques. We would then see 
a very difterent state of things. We would see every 
township fairly and honestly represented, and not, as 
they were at ])re8ent,by a clique about the court house. 
Give the people this privilege, and in a short time we 
made a man fit to come into the halls of legislation and 
occupy a place honorably. It would be a school—a 
nursery for legislators. It was the place also, to make 
men thoroughly acfiuainted with the business of their 
county, and by an interchange of views and opinions, 
ai’rive at sound, practical conclusions, as to what was 
best for the interests of the people. 

Mr. MANON moved to strike out the word “ shall,” 

17 


in the first line, and insert the word “ may,” which was 
not agreed to. 

The question then turned on striking out the entire 
section, and the question being put was sustained. 

Sec. 38. Private property shall ever be held inviolate, and no 
private property shall ever be taken for public use, unless the 
public good imperatively demands it, but in all cases full and ade¬ 
quate compensation in money shall first be made to the owner.” 

Mr. RBBMELIN offered the following amendment, 
which, however, on leave, he subsequently withdrew: 
“To insert after the word ‘owner,’ the words, ‘of its 
fair value, to be assessed by a jury, to be selected from 
the vicinage.’ ” 

Mr. RANNEY moved that the following be added to 
the.section: “To be assessed by a juiy and subject to 
no deduction for any benefits derived to any other pro¬ 
perty of the owner.” 

The amendment was adopted. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved the insertion of the follow¬ 
ing words, to come in after the word “ inviolate,” 
“ and shall never be taken for private use but with the 
consent of the owner.” 

Mr. MITCHELL was paiticularly desii’ous that the 
committee should give to this section, and to the amend¬ 
ments proposed, due and full consideration. There 
was no subject more deeply affecting the rights and 
personal interests of all the people, and none in rela¬ 
tion to which the people looked more earnestly for 
constitutional reform. So often have the rights of pri^ 
vate property been trampled upon, by virtue of char¬ 
ters and acts of incorporation, that the “ declaration of 
rights,” in the old constitution, was no longer a protec¬ 
tion. In a great many instances people in all portions 
of the State had been deprived of their property, or 
had it rendered woi’thless by incorporated companies, 
acting under and by virtue of an act of the Legislature, 
while a lew wealthy men, who composed the company, 
grew immensely rich. I will instance the case of the 
j“ Milan plank road company,” where the property of 
individuals, having first been taken for public use, was, 
by a legislative act, transferred to this company, and 
they allowed to erect toll-gates upon their road, and 
collect enormous tolls from poor men along the line. 
Yes, sir, the people there had built a good turnpike 
road, and then came this “ Milan plank road company,” 
with their charter, and appropriated the substructure 
of the road to themselves, laid their plank upon it, and 
reaped all the benefits of the previous outlay of the 
money and work of the poor farmers along the line; 
and then, as the acme of “ corporation iniquity,” col¬ 
lected large tolls of those very men for passing oxer 
the road! 

I hope that the section will remain in its original form, 
and that an end may be put to the facilities with 
which, heretofore, companies of wealthy men have ob¬ 
tained from the Legislature acts of incorporation al¬ 
lowing them to trample upon the rights of property 
with a comparative impunity. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga had no very serious 
objection to the amendment [Mr. Ranney’s.] I am not 
much in favor of an increase of the number of railroads 
and plank roads beyond those already projected, and 
if we can engraft this clause in the new constitution it 
may have the effect to discourage that increase. By 
the operation of such a clause, you could not cross a 
man’s land with a canal, railroad, or plank road with¬ 
out his consent. It matters not what may be the im¬ 
portance of the work—it matters not, though the own¬ 
ers of land for an hundred miles on each side have 
granted permission for the work, of whatever kind it 
may be, to pass through their grounds, if a man own¬ 
ing a strip of land a quarter of a mile in width refuses 
to have it passed over by a public work you cannot, 
under the working of a clause like this, carry on that 
work—you come to a dead stop. But, not being par- 
ticularlv favorable to the increase of railroads, &c., &c., 
I am disposed to favor this amendment. So far as the 
private corporations are concerned, this principle might 












258 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


work well. But suppose the nation and the State be¬ 
comes, unfortunately, involved in a war. It is j)laiu 
that it would, then, be extremely difficult, if not im¬ 
possible, always to make compensation for the public 
use of private property, before that private property 
was taken. 

One word further, as to corporations and the men 
who composed them. He would not place himself in 
a position to be designated as the defender or special 
advocate of corporations, but, so lar as his experience 
and observation extended, they were not composed, ex¬ 
clusively, of wealthy men, but of farmers ainl men of 
moderate means, as well as large capitalists. He had 
noticed that the word “corporation’' seemed to startle 
som.e men from their propriety—seemed to grate harsh¬ 
ly on their nerves. In the minds of some gentlemen, 
corporations were suggestive only of aristocracies and 
monopolies. AU tendency to aristocracy should be 
checked. If there be danger of any such tendency, 
perhaps the gentleman from Fairfield [Mr. Robkrtson] 
who is Chairman of the committee on the Elective 
Franchise, will take from the aristocrat, the moneyed 
aristocrat, the I’ight of suff rage and the evil will be 
remedied. 

Mr. MITCHELL said that the remarks of the gen¬ 
tleman from Geauga, couched as they were in his usual 
vein of ir()ny and sarcasm, seemed to demand a reply. 
He had said that the moment a corporation was men¬ 
tioned, the nerves of some gentleman seemed to be 
disturbed, and they could think of nothing but aristoc¬ 
racy and monopolies, and all this kind of obnoxious 
things. 

The gentleman from Geauga then went further, and 
said, that so far as his experience w'ent, he had found 
them to be very different things. He had not found 
them to be made for the benefit of the rich and aristo¬ 
cratic, but on the contrary, for the benefit of commu¬ 
nity—for the poor if you please. Now, sir, at that^ 
gentleman’s advanced age, with the good character he 
had always maintained tor candor, he for one, was as¬ 
tonished to hear such declarations—made as they were 
with apparent sincerity. Why, sir, does not that gen¬ 
tleman know that it was too late to deceive mankind 
with such a silly tale? Does not any man with his 
eyes half open, see and know the contrary ? Does he 
not see from one end of our State to the other—yes, 
and from one end of America to the other, that these 
corporations are created for the benefit of the wealthy? 
—And that it is for this class of our citizens, almost ex¬ 
clusively, they are created ? Yes, sir, and by them en¬ 
joyed. Nor is it even the men of mediocrity of wealth 
who are engaged in these schemes of rapacity and 
wrong. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga said: Will the gen¬ 
tleman allow me to interrupt him, to make an expla¬ 
nation ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. CeiTainly, with pleasui’e. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said, so for from his experience 
through the State, and it was pretty extensive, teach¬ 
ing him he truth of the gentleman’s expressions, it 
was, he must say, just the reverse. He had not found 
the wealthy engaged in these corporations. 

Mr. MITCHELL resumed, and said: Now,sir, lam 
astonished 1 That the venerable gentleman, at his ad¬ 
vanced age, and extensive experience, should stand in 
his place here, and make such a declaration, struck 
him with positive surprise. Why, sir, will the venera¬ 
ble gentleman go with me to places where our expe¬ 
rience concurs, and count these men ? 

W/11 the gentleman tell us how this is in places 
which I can easily name ? How is it, in Cleveland?— 
Tell us the names of the men there who are controlling 
your corporations ? Are they the poor men ? Turn 
the?), sir, to Cincinnati; to .Vlt. Vernon; to Mansfield; 
to Norwalk, and count the men there. Yes, sir, turn 
to this city, and who do you find here controlling these 
things? Why, sir, have you not one of the wealthi¬ 
est men in the State, President of the board of control? 


Yes, sir, the Hon. Gustavus Swan, one of your wealth¬ 
iest men is the very personification of a most perfect 
head, and centre to the most monstrous of them all.— 
That one which really controls all the rest. Sir, it is 
preposterous to say that it is not the wealthy for whoso 
benefits these exclusive privileges are gi'anted-—men 
who have loose capital to spare, who, desiring to invest 
it profitably, seek this mode in order to protect it from 
the ordinary hazards of trade or business. 

Mr. STANTON, rising said, will the gentleman al¬ 
low me to interrupt him? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly, sir. 

Mr. STANTON said he only desired to say, that so far 
as the Indiana and Bellefontaine Railroad Co, was con¬ 
cerned, he begged to assure the gentleman, that such 
wms not the case. The subscriptions were made by men 
of very little property.—In small sums. The shares 
are made small—fifty dollars each, in order to accom¬ 
modate ; and are taken by men of small lortunes—in¬ 
deed of no fortune, you may say—some five, some ten, 
some fifteen shares each. 

Mr. MITCHELL resumed and said: Yes, sir, in or¬ 
der to accommodate ! In order to draw unwary and 
unsuspecting men in. In order to repeat the scenes 
which have so often been witnessed in this country al¬ 
ready—men of mediocrity of wealth, and in some in¬ 
stances men really poor—needing all they had to sup¬ 
port their families—drawn into these delusive schemes . 
Their subscriptions forced from them and expended, 
and then the concern comes to a stand. Then comes 
in the wealthy men—the real capitalists, and to use a j 
common phrase, the big fish turn in and eat the little , 
ones up. These jioor men are compelled to sell their 
stock for a mere song—indeed sometimes literally give ; 
it away, in order to rid themselves of its annoyance 
and trouble. ) 

Then, sir, comes in your capitalists taking for mere 
nothing the money and labor expended by these men , 
of medium w’ealth. They complete the work with an 
outlay of a small amount more capital. Generally, in¬ 
deed, mere credit. And they have a profitable work— 
profitable to them at least to whom it cost so little. 

Do gentlemen forget the case of the Mansfield and 
Sandusky Railroad Company, and many others of a 
similar character which might be counted up. He in¬ 
stanced this as the most striking. Did gentlemen for¬ 
get that after the most honest and unsuspecting farmers . 
of good old Richland had expended some seventy or 
more thousand dollars in making this road, they were t 
compelled to sell out to a fewshylocks about Mansfield 
and to B. Higgins & Co., of Sandusky city, for a mis- ' 
erable pittance, a mere nominal amount. Aye, sir, and . 
this is not the worst of the picture,—for thereupon the ; 
road was completed upon the credit of the old Norwalk 
and Sandusky banks, both of w'hich blew up so soon | 
as the community had helped them make the road and i 
came in in for their pay. This, sir, is a beautiful spe¬ 
cimen of the way these things are done—of the man¬ 
ner in which the poor, to use the language of the ven- i 
erable gentleman from Geauga, are profited by these 
damning schemes of villany, yes sir, of robbery. 

I regret, sir, to hear the gentleman from Logan say 
that these are the auspices under which the road he al¬ 
ludes to is starting. It is a road w’hich the pe iple I 
represent have felt some interest in. But if this was 
the way it was starting he could expect but little good 
to come of it. 

Mr. MASON. I have no doubt, sir, that the impul¬ 
ses of gentlemen on the opposite side, are all honest 
and patriotic, and intended to be well directed. But, 
well meaning gentlemen may have been led astray by 
their extreme hostility to every thing in the shape of 
“corporations.” The action, growing out of this hos¬ 
tility to “corporations,” seems to have been anticipated 
by efforts to make amemlments entirely alien to the 
subject under consideration. I could wish, for the 
honor and dignity of this Convention, that we might 
pass by this section, containing, as it does, the Ian- 













259 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


guage of the old constitution, except so far as it re¬ 
quires the payment (for private property taken for pub¬ 
lic use,) to be made in advance, without the kind of 
discussion and the species of amendment that has pre¬ 
vailed. We arc encumbering this proposition with 
amendments entirely foreign to the subject. Geiitle- 
men would have you call in a .jury of the vicinage, 
having first sent out a “ venire,” to assess the damages 
to private property, while an invading army may be 
filing across your frontiers, or drawji up £\round your 
towns. You may not, in the event of the adoption of 
the amendment, destroy a building, throw open a field, 
or touch a piece of private property, until you have 
obtjiined a judicial decision allowing that conversion of 
private property to public use. Does not every gentle¬ 
man see that the State might suffer to an enormous ex¬ 
tent under the working of such a provision? 

I hope we shall all keep our senses and preserve our 
reason. I have confidence that we shall do so ; but 
there is an evident disposition to reach out after some¬ 
thing not now before this body—an eagerness for an 
attack upon an imaginary enemy, not yet in sight. I 
bespeak patience for the gentlemen. We shall be yon¬ 
der by and by, and then all the extremes of opinion in 
this Convention may come out and have full field for 
their expression. All the ultraism and red republican¬ 
ism in the Convention will then have vent, and you 
may deal all your blows upon the leviathan of “ incoi-- 
poration.” Until then I beg gentlemen to have patience 
—do allow this section, containing, as it does, a great 
safe-guard and muniment of freemen, to stand, for it is 
for the good of the State. When the discussion upon 
“corporations ” legitimately comes up, we will not be 
over gingerly on the subject, but will deal faithfully 
with it. The time has not yet arrived. 

Mr. MITCHELL asked and obtained leave to with¬ 
draw his amendment. He remarked that he was glad 
to have obsei ved that the Convention placed the same 
construction upon the first part of the section that he 
had done. 

Upon motion, the committee rose, repoi’ted progress 
and obtained leave to sit again. 

On motion by Mr. MITCHELL, the Convention ad- 
jomned. 


TUESDAY, Junk 4,1850. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Doolittle. 

REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES. 

Mr. HAWKINS, from the committee on the Public 
Debt and Public Works, presented the following report 
which he said had been unanimously concurred in by 
that committee. 

REPORT NO. 1, OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC DEBTS AND PUBLIC 
WORKS. 

Sec. 1. The State may, to meet casual deficits or failures in 
revenues, or for expenses not otherwise provided for, contract 
debts; but such debts, direct and contingent, singly or in the ag¬ 
gregate, shall not at any time, exceed seven hundred and fifty thou¬ 
sand dollars; and the moneys arising from the creation of such 
debt*, sh-tll be applied to the purpose for which they were ob¬ 
tained, or to repay the debts so contracted, and to no other pur¬ 
pose whatever. 

Sec. 2. In addition to the above limited power, the State may 
contract debts to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, defend the 
State in war, or to redeem the present outstanding indebtedness 
of the State; but the money ari?ing from the contracting of such 
debt, shall be applied to the purpose for which it was raised, to 
repay such debts, and to no other purpose, whatever. 

Sec. 3. Except the debts above specified in sections one and 
two ol this article, no debt whatever shall hereafter be contracted 
by, or on behalf of the State. 

Sec. 4. The credit of the State shall not in any manner be 
given, or loaned to, or in aid of any individual, association, or cor¬ 
poration whatever; nor shall the State ever hereafter become a 
joint owner or stockholder in any company or association in this 
State or elsewhere, formed for any purpose whatever. 

Sec. 5. The Legislature shall never, on behalf of the State, 
afsume the debts of any county, city, town or township within 
this State, or of any corporation whatever. 

Sec. G. The Legislature shall n< ver authorize any county, city, 
town or township in this State, by vote of its citizens or other¬ 
wise, to become a stockholder in any joint stock company, corpo¬ 
ration or as.sociation whatever, to raise money for, or loan its 
credit to, or in aid of any such company, corporation or associa- 
tloik 


Sec. 7, The faith of the State being pledged to the payment 
of all its existing indebtedness, in order to provide thereof, there 
shall be provided an annual sinking fund, which shall be consti¬ 
tuted of the nett annual income of the public works and stocks 
owned by the State, and such sum to be raised by taxation as 
shall in the aggregate' make the sum of one million one hun¬ 
dred and fifty thousand dollars annually. 

Sec. 8. The Auditor of State, Secretary of State and Attorney 
General, are hereby created a board of commissioners, to be 
styled “ the commissioners of the sinking fund.” 

Sec. 9. The commissioners of the sinking fund shall annual¬ 
ly, previous to the first day of June, make an estimate of the 
probable amount of the nett income of the public works and 
stocks aforesaid for the ensuing year, and determine the per 
centum of tax on the grand list ot property, liable to taxation, 
necessary therewith to produce the amount of the fund above 
mentioned, and certify the same to the Auditor of State, who 
shall thereupon assess upon said grand list, the per centum of 
taxes thus certified; which said tax shall be collected in the same 
manner with other State taxes, and paid over to the commission¬ 
ers aforesaid, for the purposes aforesaid. 

Sec. 10. It shall be the duty of the commissioners o' the 
sinking fund faithfully to apply said fund, together with all 
moneys that may be by the Legislature appropriated to that 
object, to the payment of the interest as it becomes due, and 
the redemption of the principal of the public debt of the State, 
excepting only the school and trust funds held by the State. 

Sec. 11. The commissioners of the sinking fund shall semi-an¬ 
nually make a full and detailed report of their proceedings to the 
Governor, who shall immedialely cause the same to be published, 
and shall also communicate the same to the Legislature, forth¬ 
with, if it be in session, and if not, then at its first session after 
such report shall be made. 

Sec. 12. Upon the payment of the entire amount of the princi¬ 
pal and interest of the debt above provided for, the duties of said 
board of commissioners, and all powers of taxation conferred by 
section nine of this Article, shall forever cease. 

Sec. 13, There shall be a Board of Public Works, to consist of 
three members, who shall be elected by the people at the first 
general election after the adoption of this constitution, one for 
the term of one year, one for the term of two years, and one for 
the term of three years; and there shall be elected, annuaUy 
thereafter, one member of said Board, who shall hold his office 
for three y ars. 

Sec. 14. The powers and duties of said Board of Public Works 
and its several members, together with their compensation, shall 
be such as now are, or hereafter may be, prescribed by law. 

WM HAWKINS, Chairman. 
REUBEN HITCHCOCK, 

A. V. STEBBINS, 

JACOB BLICKENSDERFER, 
JOHN JOHNSON, 

J. DAN JONES, 

THOS. J. LARSH, 

A. HARLAN, 

J. R. SWAN. 

The report was read a first time, and on motion was 
laid upon the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. SWAN said that the committee on the Judicial 
department, to whom was referred the memorial of 

-Curry, had directed him to make the following 

report in relation thereto. 

The committee on the Judicial department, to whom was re¬ 
ferred the petition of W. Curry, in relation to the removal of in¬ 
ferior officers, have had the same under consideration, and report, 

That it is expedient so to amend the clause providing for im¬ 
peachments, as reported by the commtttee on the Legislative 
department, as to add thereto the following clause—“ the Gene¬ 
ral Assembly shall provide by law for the removal of portions of 
Justices of the Peace, and other county and township officers, in 
such manner and for such cause as to them shall seem just and 
proper.” 

On motion, the report was referred to the committee 
of the Whole. 

The report of the committee on Coi'poratious other 
than Banking was read a second time, and on motion 
of Mr. STANTON, was referred to the committee of 
the Whole. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention resolv¬ 
ed itself into a committee of the Whole, (Mr. Haw¬ 
kins in the Chair,) on report No. 1, of the committee on 

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 

The question under consideration was the 39th sec¬ 
tion of the report. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, in offering the following amend¬ 
ment said, he was aware that there^ was a section in 
another report providing for the “ right of way,” and 
his object now was to confine this 39th section exclu¬ 
sively to the right of the State to take private property 
for its own use, and not to leave an opportunity for 
corporations requiring private property for improve- 














260 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


meats, to claim anything under this section. He de¬ 
sired to remove all ambiguity, and to make one section 
for a specific object, leaving the other subject to be 
provided for in a separate section, and therefore offered 
this amendment: 

Strike out the 39th section and insert, 

“ Private property shall ever be held inviolate, subject to the 
righto! the State to appropriate the same to her use when public 
necessity may require, but in all cases a full and adequate com¬ 
pensation in money shall be made to the owner.” 

Mr. MASON suggested, that when the committee on 
Revision would proceed to its labors, all those differ¬ 
ent provisions relating to the same subject could be 
classed under their proper heads, and form a part of 
one entire section. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend by striking out the 
word “ first,’' in the third line. 

Mr. DORSEY moved to insert after the word “ mon¬ 
ey,” in the third line, the words “ irrespective of ben¬ 
efits.” 

A conversational debate then sprung up, in which 
Messrs. Ranney, Archbold, Kirkwood, Stanbery and 
others participated. 

The amendment [Mr. Dorsey’s,] was disagreed to. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD withdrew his amendment. 

Mr. MASON. As I undei’stand the question now 
before the committee, it is upon striking out the word 
‘'first,” where it occurs in the last line, “ compensa¬ 
tion shall first be made,” &c. I shall vote for striking 
out. 

Mr. GILLET was in favor of the motion to strike 
out the word “ first.” Without taking up the time of 
the committee with a speech, he would cite a single 
instance which occurred to his mind, and went far to 
convince him that the section, as it stood, was too 
stringent—that it did not provide for those emergen¬ 
cies which might arise in the State. Along our w(!St- 
ern rivers the residents are, in many places, obliged to 
protect themselves against “ high water,” by “ levees,” 
thrown up on each side. Now it has several times oc¬ 
curred on the Scioto and Ohio river bottoms, that these 
rivers have risen so very high as to overflow the ordi¬ 
nary leevees, and inundate the country back of the 
river, which lies lower than the banks. 

When this occurred, it became of the utmost impor¬ 
tance that the crevasse, wherever it occurs, should be 
instantly stopped, aud it became necessary to go upon 
the land, to whomever it might belong, and throw up 
an embankment, without the loss of an hour’s time. 
By the operation of a provision like the one under 
consideration, it would be necessary to send out a sum¬ 
mons, and assemble a jury before the citizens would 
have the right to go upon another’s land, and use what¬ 
ever might be at hand to slop the crevasse, and, in the 
meantime, property to tho amount of millions might 
be destroyed. He should vote against the provision 
required that in all cases where private property was 
taken for public use, that compensation in monev should 
first be made in money. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE thought there was more of 
importance in this subject than gentlemen seemed dis¬ 
posed to admit. He thought that private property 
should be subject to public use without comi>ensation 
therefor first being made in money; but he would make 
a difference between private corporations desiring to 
invade and convert private property to their uses aud a 
public—a State or national necessity for the conversion 
of that property from a private to a public use. 

Mr. MITCHELL offered the following as an amend¬ 
ment : 

“ Private property shall ever be held inviolate, and no private 
property shall ever be taken for public use, unless the pub ic good 
may demand it; but in all cases, full and adequate compensation 
for the injury done thereby shall be made in money, but no re¬ 
sulting benefit to the owner shall be taken into consideration in 
determining the amount of compensaton. The power conferred 
by this section, shall not be applicable to any power conferred by 
law upon any corporation whatever.” 

The question being first upon the motion to strike 


out the word “ first,” in the original section, the same 
was agreed to. 

The question then turned upon the adoption of Mr» 
Mitchell’s amendment, which was disagreed to. 

Sec. 40 was agreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER offered the following as an additional 
section: 

Sec. 41. It shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each. 
House, to sign all bills and joint resolutions passed by the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly. 

Which was agreed to. 

Mr. CUTLER ottered the following as section 43: 

Sec. 43. Members of the General Assembly shall receive three 
dollars per day during the time they shall remain in session, and 
three dollai’s for every twenty-five miles travel in going to and 
returning from 1 1 > < ■ place of their meeting. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to amend by providing that 
members of the General Assembly should receive $4,00 
for the first forty days of each session, and 

Mr. GREGG was opposed to fixing in the constitu¬ 
tion, the compensation of any officer in the State. 

Mr. MANON moved to amend the additional section 
[Mr. Cutler’s] so as to provide that the Senators and 
Representatives shall each receive $3,00 per day for 
the first 60 days of the session, and $1,00 per day there¬ 
after. They shall also receive $3,00 for every 20 miles 
of travel to and from the seat of government, compu¬ 
ted by the nearest mail route, provided that this shall 
not apply to the sessions of 1851 aud 1852.” 

Mr. GILLET was opposed to this last amendment. 
If a member should be detained at home, for the first 
weeks of a session, by sickness, his “ per diem ” might 
not amount to enough to pay his necessary expenses. 
The amendment [Mr. Ma.von’s] to the amendment was 
disagreed to. 

Mr. BATES moved to strike out “forty days ” and 
insert “sixty days” in the amendment [Mr. Mitch¬ 
ell’s] inasmuch as the sessions were to be biennial aud 
on that account would be longer. 

Mr. WOODBURY proposed to insert “ 100 days ” 
instead of “ 60.” 

A division of the question being called for, and the 
same turning first on striking out the words “ forty 
days,” was lost. 

The question then recurring upon the amendment, 
[Mr. Mitchell’s] the same was disagreed to. 

The question then being upon the adoption of section 
43, (proposed to be added by Mr. Cutler,) 

Mr. STILWELL moved to amend by adding “ that 
no member of the General Assembly shall receive any 
other compensation or perquisite, except that all post¬ 
age paid by any member upon letters sent to tiim rela¬ 
ting solely to his duties as such, shall be relunded to 
him, the amount to be adjusted by the Auditor of 
State.” 

Pending which, upon motion by Mr. CUTLER, the 
committee rose, reported progress, and obtained leave 
to sit again. 

And on motion, the Convention took a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention tho 
followingcommunicationfrom Messrs. Reinhardt & Fei- 
ser, publishers of the Westbote, a German newspaper 
of Columbus: 

To the President of the Convention. 

Inasmuch as it has been a.sserted in the Convention that if the 
original resolution offered by Mr. Reemelin, relative to the publi¬ 
cation of the proceedings and debates of the Convention in the 
German newspapers had been adopted, said publication would 
have been made either in the German paper here, or by the two 
German newspapers in Cincinnati jointly, (German Republican- 
ner and Volksblatt) for 25 cents per thousand ems, including 
translation, we therefore desire to make known to the Conven¬ 
tion that w'e wish to throw no impediment between the union of 
the above named newspapers in Cincinnati; and hereby relin¬ 
quish and renounce any disposition to obtain the publication of 
the proceedings and debates at the price above specified. We be¬ 
lieve that the publication of the proceedings and debates of your 
deliberative body are of great importance to the^ German citizens 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


261 


of the State, and it is a matter of no consequence to us personal¬ 
ly, by whom the publication is made. 

Yours, respectfully, REINHARDT & FIESER, 

Publishers Westbote. 

Columbus, June 4th, 1850. 

The communication was read by the Secretary, and 
laid upon the table. 

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 

On motion by Mr. S A WYE R, the Convention now again 
resolved itself into committee of the Whole, (Mr. Haw¬ 
kins in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the 
orders of the day, viz., the report of the committee on 
the Legislative Department. 

The CHAIRMAN stated the question to be upon the 
adoption of Mr. Stilwell’s amendment to the addi¬ 
tional section [43] proposed by Mr. Cutler, to wit: 
adding to the 43d section the following words: 

“ That no member of the General Assembly shall receive any 
other compensation or perquisite except that all postage paid by 
any member upon letters sent to him on business relating solely 
to his duties as such, shall be refunded to him, the amount to be 
adjusted by the Auditor ot .State.” 

Mr. SAWYER said he would be glad if this subject 
-could be passed over, and left for a more appropriate 
place. He desired to get through with this report, and 
change the monotony of the proceedings. There were 
three or four sections of the report that had been pass¬ 
ed over informally, which would require some consid 
erable discussion. He desired to return to them, and 
hoped at all events that this matter would not be un¬ 
necessarily delayed. 

Mr. STILWELL said he had no desire to press the 
discussion of the question. He should himself only 
occupy a few minutes; for the subject did not ad¬ 
mit of extended discussion. The amendment provided 
that members of the General Assembly should not be 
entitled to any compensation orperquisite beyond their 
per diem and mileage, except such postage as they 
may pay relating solely to the business of their office. 
He was aware that this might be considered a very 
small matter, but before gentlemen decided ‘he ques¬ 
tion, he would ask them to listen to a few statements, 
which he derived from the office of the Auditor of 
State. 

The postage account of the last General Assembly 
was $10,185 85. He stated also that perhaps the lar¬ 
gest portion of the printing ordered at the last session 
of the General Assembly was not completed until after 
the adjouniment, and an aiTangemeut was made that 
the postage on this matter should be charged to the 
State. This measure was defeated by the Auditor. 
This item, if the printing had been done during the 
session, would have added $3000 dollars to the postage, 
which would have made $13,000. This was no small 
item, especially as it was a yearly sura—a growing 
evil, for if we look back no further than the year 1845, 
the postage of the General Assembly at that time was 
but $2,809, and it had been steadily increasing until it 
had reached the amount he had stated;, and for the 
same reason that this item had increased, they might 
expect that it would continue to increase. If this 
were only the legitimate postage of members, there 
would not be so much cause of complaint. The legiti¬ 
mate correspondence of members was probably usual¬ 
ly about the tame as it stood in 1845; but he under¬ 
stood members were frequently solicited for franks for 
their friends and acquaintances, which it was perhaps 
difficult for them to refuse ; although members might 
be conscious of the impropriety of according them, 
and some might regard it as an evil of great magnitude. 
But it was an evil for another reason—for this postage 
compensation was not equal; although taking the 
whole sum it amounted to about $100 to each member, 
yet it was distributed in very unequal proportions. The 
letter postage of members last winter amounted to 
$2,949 62 only, while the newspaper and pamphlet 
jiostage amounted to $7,623 33, from which statement 
it would be seen that the letter postage last winter was 
exceeded in amount by the newspaper and pamphlet 
postage by nearly four times. He had said that this 


charge of postage was entirely unequal. He had be¬ 
fore him a statement of the letter postage of several 
members of the last General Assembly. The account 
distinguished between letter postage and newspaper 
and pamphlet postage. He should call no names as he 
proceeded. He found one member charged with let¬ 
ter postage to the amount of $42; another charged 
with only $7,80. This was sufficient to show that the 
distribution was entirely unequal. But he did not 
stop here. The House clerk was charged with $86,10 
—the Senate clerk with $95,85. He also gave the 
amount charged against the doorkeepers and sergeants- 
at-arms of the House and Senate; the former was $52,- 
14 and the latter was $54,33. These charges were for 
letter postage only, and if the accounts were averaged 
and the newspaper and pamphlet postage added, it 
would be seen that the postage account of a single 
clerk amounted to nearly $300. This probably arose 
in part from the known fact that members are unwil¬ 
ling to refuse franks to their friends. It was his opin¬ 
ion that the members of the General Assembly would 
be willing, the most of them, to part with this privi¬ 
lege, if it might be called a privilege, for the sake of 
being relieved of the embarrassment which it impo¬ 
ses. No member, however, would be willing to sub¬ 
ject himself to the charge of demagoguism which a 
proposition to dispense with the privilege would de¬ 
volve upon him. At all events he considered that the 
practice should be prohibited and that members should 
not have the priviledge of franking. It might be said, 
however, that this would impose an additional charge 
upon the members. This he was unwilling to do; but 
he preferred that their compensation should be made 
directly, and if three dollars a day were not sufficient 
pay to enable them to bear the burden of their post¬ 
age, he would be willing to give them any specific 
amount which would be sufficient. 

The amendment to the amendment was now agreed 
to ; and the question recurred upon the adoption of the 
section as amended. 

Mr. GREGG said: He would like to put in a kind of 
a graduating scale. He was opposed to the whole pro¬ 
ceeding ; but if there was any way he could put in his 
amendment, he believed it would save the dimes 
to the State and have a tendency to prevent excessive 
legislation, of which there had been so much just com¬ 
plaint. He proposed to strike out the words “ three 
dollars a day,” and insert in lieu thereof the following: 

“The members of the General Assembly shall each receive 
three dollars per day for the first thirty days of the session, two 
dollars per day for the second thirty days, and one dollar per 
for the balance of the session.” 

Mr. REEMELIN said: The committee had already 
refused to strike out the whole; and therefore it would 
not be in order now to move to amend by striking out. 

The CHAIRMAN decided that the amendment was 
out of order. 

Mr. CURRY proposed further to amend the section 
by adding to the end thereof the words: “And no ses¬ 
sion of the General Assembly shall continue longer 
than sixty days.” He did not propose to debate the 
question now. It might deserve a remark at another 
time. He desired merely to offer it, and see what gen¬ 
tlemen might think of it. At the request of a gentle¬ 
man near him, he believed he would now ask leave to 
withdraw it, giving notice of his intention to offer it 
again at some future time. 

The proposition was accordingly withdrawn. 

Mr. STANTON. It seemed to him that there ought 
to be some discretion left to the General Assembly 
about this matter. In the mutations of things and 
the fluctuations of times, it occurred to him that, per¬ 
haps, sometimes less than three dollars a day would be 
a sufficient compensation. But this fixing an iron rule 
to stand for all time—three dollars a day, and even 
less_he would go against the whole concern. 

Mr. NASH said he would be willing to vote for set¬ 
ting a limit, below which the Legislature should not 
go.^ He was opposed to tying up the hands of the Gen- 










262 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


era! Assembly upon tliis subject, so that before the end 
of the next live years, the people would have to call 
another convention for the express purpose of making 
a change in this respect; for amidst the mutations of 
time and things which must take place, he was fearful 
that they would not be able to collect another body so 
talented and respectable as they had now., (Merri¬ 
ment.) 

Mr. WOODBURY [in his seat.] Some of themmight 
be dead ! [Continued ineriment.] 

Mr. NASH preferred to be governed by the dictates 
of common sense, in this thing. The danger was not 
that members of the General Assembly would fix their 
per diem too high, but rather that they would re-enact 
the scenes that have before disgraced these halls, by 
men adopting a system of “cutting in ” and “ cutting 
under,” not for the sake of reducing wages, not because 
the public interest required it—but because political 
capital might be made out of it, because it was re¬ 
quired by demagogues—that was the word which 
seemed to combine all that was base in party politics. 
Undoubtedly we ought to settle this matter so that they 
could not go under “ three dollars,” but it would be 
folly to tell them they should not go over it. For if 
any change of times should be developed, effecting the 
cost of living here in Columbus, three dollars would be 
no compensation at all. It would hardly pay expenses. 
He repeated that there was no danger that they would 
raise their pay beyond what the people would give, 
why then trammel and tie up their hands and say to 
them, you shall not be governed by the dictates of ex¬ 
perience and common sense. 

Mr. BROWN of CaiToll said he did not rise to con-1 
sume time. It appeared to him that it it was about as 
well to let this thing alone—this matter of the compen¬ 
sation of members of the General Assembly. At most, 
he would not advise further than to fix a minimum com¬ 
pensation ; he rather agreed with the view of the gen¬ 
tleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash,] and the gentleman 
from Logan [Mr. Stanton.] There was another view 
which had been taken of this subject by an honorable 
member on this floor, which he would rehearse, not as 
originating with himself, and see whether it struck oth- 
minds as it had struck his. There was a proposition 
upon the table, to an exclusive metallic currency in a 
few years to come. In a few years there might be a 
requirement to pay all taxes in gold and silver. Look¬ 
ing at this fact, should an exclusive metalic currency be 
establish-ed 1 And if by the action of this Convention, 
the “banking ’ system should be abolished—the paper 
of otherStates excluded—and the people having to pay 
their taxes in coin—looking to all this, three dollars a 
day might be too much. The currency was the yard¬ 
stick by which to measure labor, and all other commo¬ 
dities. If the amount of money in circulation be reduced 
thee onsequence would be a reduction in prices. In a 
contingency of thiskind-if members of the Legislature 
were to require three dollars a day, when, in point of 
fact the time -would come when one dollar and a half 
•was worth as much as three dollars now, it seemed to 
him that the compensation now named might be en¬ 
tirely too high. He might be mistaken, buUie threw 
out these suggestions to the members, and they mi^ht 
be taken for just what they were worth. There was 
another thought. He apprehended no very great dan¬ 
ger of members of the Legislature raising their wa^-es 
too high. But if it were put too low, then, nobody, 
but the wealthy portion of the people could come here 
and in that event we should be likely to be represen¬ 
ted here by those “aristocrats” of the country of which 
we had heard so much. A man who is a farmer if he 
were elected to serve in the Legislature, would be 
compelled to make some expenditure of money, in the 
way of out-fit in order to bring himself into this ma<^- 
nificent city, (laughter) and bear himself with credit af¬ 
terwards. He would ask then, if it were proper to re¬ 
quire such a man to abandon all his interests, pay his 
own out-fit, and come here to serve his fellow-citizens 


at the lowest possible sum. Any one could see the 
propriety of fixing only a minimum sum, and leavin" 
he details to be arranged between the employed and 
the employer hereafter. 

Mr. CUTLER said he did not feel that it was a mat¬ 
ter of the first magnitude to fix this point in the con¬ 
stitution, but he had supposed, il any line of policy 
had been indicated by this Convention, it was, that 
all those subjects of legislation which had been the 
cause of so much embarrassment and unpleasant dis¬ 
cussions heretofore, should be taken away from the 
legislative body. Now, upon a retrospect of the last 
ten years of our legislation, it would be lound that no 
one question, in jnoportion to its importance, iiad oc¬ 
cupied so much of the time of the General Assembly, 
as this. All sorts of sliding scales had been tried—from 
three dollars to two dollars, and then again three dol¬ 
lars, for sixty days ; and at last, in 1847, we returned 
again to three dollars. And if the gentleman from i 
Gallia, and others, were willing to rest the matter upon | 
the experience of the past, he thought the public 'senti¬ 
ment had pretty well settled down upon three dollars ' 
as the proper sum. , 

Mr. NASH. That, undoubtedly, was the sum for ' 
the present, but, if the constitution was to last for fifty i 
years, like the old one, who could not see that changes 
might occur in that time, which would induce the ne¬ 
cessity of a change in the per diem ? There must be j 
change; and he would add that, unless the constitution | 
left some room to raise this pay, there would be de¬ 
vised some other way of making it up, which, perhaps, 
would not be quite so honest. 

Mr. CUTLER, in continuation. After all the changes 
to which he had referred, the public mind had, at last, 
settled down upon the wisdom of the principle which 
was fixed half a century ago. Although there might be 
a possibility of such a change as that alluded to by the 
gentleman from Carroll, [Mr. Brown,] still he thought 
It best to take away from the General Assembly a ques¬ 
tion of so much embarrassment to that body as this had 
been—ibr certainly it was an embarrassing question for 
such a body to fix their own wages. In view of this 
fiict, he thought it better for the Convention to fix upon 
a definite sum—at least a minimum. He was not so 
strenuous about the amendment, as he was that it should 
be fixed, and the question taken, as far as possible, 
away from the General Assembly. He understood that 
it was, and considered that it should be, the policy of 
the Convention to take away from the General Assem- [ i 
bly the consideration of all such questions. They had 
already gone so far upon this jR’iiiciple as to seem to 
decide, that, because members of the Legislature, when 
they have met here, have sometimes had some unne¬ 
cessary discussion and delay about their organization, 
and to say virtually to future Legislatures, “ Gentlemen, 
you cannot organize yourselves, and therefore we will i 
send in the Secretary of SUite to help you.” The pro¬ 
position of the gentleman from Muskingum, [Mr. Stil- 
WELL,] in relation to the postage of members, w'as also 
looking to the same principle. But neither of these 
weighed much in comparison with the necessity which 
existed for the adjustment of this question. With re¬ 
gard to the “sliding scale,” he desired to ask gentlemen 
whether they regarded the labor of the last days ol the 
session as worth less than the labor of the first ot the ses- ' J 
sion ? If they did, he was compelled to differ with them. 1 ^ 
It was his belief, that, if the wages of the first week of 3 

the session -was worth three dollars a day, ten dollars a ‘ 

day would be no more than adequate pay for the last 
two weeks of the session. Every member knew that 
there was always a great amount of labor thrown into 
the latter days of the session. But here was a proposi¬ 
tion to strike down the per diem at the last of the ses¬ 
sion to a mere song that would not pay expenses. 

Mr. STAN BE RY proposed further to amend, by ad¬ 
ding to the end of the section, the words, “Provided, 
that the per diem compensation hereby fixed may be 
increased at anytime by the General Assembly; but 









CONVENTION REPORTS 


263 


no such increase shall take effect during the session 
which the same shall be passed.” 

Mr. STILLWELL suggested the words, “or until 
two years thereafter.” 

Mr. STAN BE RY. The amendment proceeded upon 
the idea that the General Assembly was to meet but 
once in two years. 

Mr. STILLWELL. It might not be necessarily so 
understood from the terms. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said he hoped the Convention 
would relieve itself from all such questions. It was 
true, it was an embarrassing question to us, and it 
would become so hereafter, even if it were fixed and 
settled here. It seemed to him, that it was performing 
a duty which belonged to the General Assembly. We 
might fix up a sceme of finance in our constitution— 
we might frame an instrument written all over with 
salaries, but this would be going into the most minute 
species of legislation—utterly uncalled for, and out 
of place here. He had no fears that the General 
Assembly would labor under too great a load of re¬ 
sponsibility. He was perfectly willing to leave them 
to fix their owm per diern, as it might be dictated be¬ 
tween the desire for popularity on the one hand, and 
the necessity of the case on the other. Between these 
two, he thought they wmuld go about right. If we 
fix up warm nests for ourselves, in hopes of filling them 
as members of the General Assembly, we must per¬ 
form some good office by a whole host of other offi¬ 
cers. 

The plan of a constitution which the Convention 
had to send forth to the people, would in itself, on ac¬ 
count of the nature of the subject, be necessarily ob¬ 
jectionable, nore or less; and fictitious objections would 
be raised against it, and a great diversity of feeling 
and interest would be arrayed against it; and his word 
for it, if it should be filled with a long list of salaries, 
it would be loaded down with a burden notits own, 
and would in all probability be rejected. This whole 
subject was clearly within the range of legislative 
provision. Had it escaped the reading of gentlemen, 
that the precious metals—sometimes called the standard 
of value—were themselves subject to great fluctuations 
of value. No man could tell that the precious metals 
would retain the same value which they now have, for 
a sing e score of years. He thought it veiy probable 
they would not. 

Mr. MITCHELL, (interposing,) inquired what per 
cent, the precious metals had wavered during the last 
hundred and fifty years; and which way that waver¬ 
ing had been. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. If his sources of information 
were correct, their value had been considerably de- 
crensing. That was the tendency. 

Mr. MITCHELL. All the time less? 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. Less and less. It was true that 
the depreciation had not been so great as it was during 
the first century after the discovery of the American 
mines, when the precious metals lost about three-fourths 
of tht^ ir former value. 

A Member (interposing) inquired for his authority. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. His information wasderived from 
Adam Smith and Jean Baptist Say. Those authors 
give it as their opinion, that after the value of the pre¬ 
cious metals had long ri mained nearly stationary, a 
new depreciation had become apparent about the close 
of the last century. He supposed the chief cause of 
depreciation in the value of the precious metals was 
connected with the discovery of new mines and of more 
skillful methods of working the old ones. There was 
every reason to believe that the depreciation would 
continue, and that there would be a rapid depreciation 
in future. A new El Dorado had been recently dis¬ 
covered; and the Russian mines had become much 
more productive. This, he considered, was a subject 
which, if the Convention undertook to settle, they 
would find themselves going quite beyond the requij e- 
ments of their constituents. The people did not de¬ 


sire it; and it was an embarrassitig duty, full of diffi¬ 
culties, and exactly such a subject as ought to be left 
to the discretion of the General Assembly, in order 
that it might be made to conform to changes in th-e 
mode of living, and in the financial condition of the 
times. So far as he was concerned, he gave notice for 
himself, and others who he was advised would act 
with him, that he would vote against any salary or [»er 
diem going into the proposed plan of the constitution; 
that he would vote against the whole pecuniary portion 
of the constitution. He would not subject himself to 
the sore mortification; he would not take upon himself 
any share of the ridicule, scorn, and contempt to which 
the Convention would be subject, if they assumed the 
duties of an ordinary Legislature, in regulating those 
financial details which, more than all others, require 
the care of the Legislature bestowed from time to time, 

Mr. STANTON desired to amend the amendment 
of the gentleman from Franklin, by inserting after tlie 
word “ increase ” the words, “or diminish.” 

Mr. STANBERY. The gentleman will obsez've from 
the terms of the amendment that the diminution could 
not take place so as to affect the body making the 
change; and for a Legislature to diminish the pay of 
their successors, would be the very worst species of 
demagogueism he ever heard of. 

Mr. STANTON did not care about the time: all he 
asked for was to leave it open—to reduce the salary as 
well as to increase it. 

After some further conversational debate on this sub¬ 
ject— 

Mr. Stanton’s amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. Stanbery's amendment was also disagreed to. 

The question was then taken upon the adoption of 
the original section offered by the gentleman from 
Washington, [Mr. Cutler,] and the same was disagreed 


to. 


Mr. SAWYER here proposed to take up section 1(1, 
one of those which had been passed informally. It 
had been in the hands of some gentlemen, who would, 
very likely, present an amendment which will meet 
the views of the Convention: 

Section 16. Every bill shall be fully and distinctly read on 
three diherent days, unless in case of urgency, three-fourths of 
the House, in which the question shall be pending, shall deem it 
expedient to dispense with this rule, and every bill shall contain 
but one act—embrace but one object—which shall be clearly ex¬ 
pressed on its title ; and no law shall be revised or amended by 
reference to its title, but in such case the act or part of an act re¬ 
vised or amended, shall be engrafted into the new act and pub¬ 
lished at length. 

Mr. MASON said he had consulted with some gen¬ 
tlemen concerning the amendment which he was about 
to propose, and which, he hoped, might prove accepta 
ble to the Convention. He moved to amend the sec¬ 


tion by striking out all after the word “ rule,” and in¬ 
serting the following: 

“ And every bill shall contain but one object, and that shall be 
expressed in the title ; and every bill to amend, alter, change or 
repeal a law, or any part thereof, shall contain a plain descriptive 
reference to such law or part thereof, as may be intended to be 
amended, altered, changed or repealed.” 

Mr. CHAMBERS remarked, that he had prepared 
an amendment to the section, which he thought would 
remedy the defect in the original section much better 
than the one offered by the gentleman from (31ark. - 
After the word “ revised,” strike out the remainder of 
the section, and insert the words— 

“or amended by reference to its title only, but the act revised, 
and section or sections of the act amended, shall be published at 
ength; and the act revised, and section or sections amended, 
shall be entirely repealed.” 

Hg would move this as a substitutG foi tliG amond- 
ment offered by the gentleman from Clark. 

The question then being taken upon Mr. Chambers 
amendment as a substitute for Mi. Mason s amend¬ 
ment, it was agreed to, and the resolution as thus 
amended, wuis passed. 

Sec 20 “No tax of any description whatever shall be levied 
or exacted, except in pursuance of law, and every law which im¬ 
poses, continues, increases or revives any tax, or which provides 











264 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


for the raising oi revenue, shall state distinctly the object of the 
same, to which only it shall be applied.” 

Sec. 21. “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, ex¬ 
cept in pursuance of a distinct and specific appropriation made 
by law, and no appropriation shall be made for a longer period 
than two years.” 

Mr. SAWYER thought it best, under the circum¬ 
stances, that both of these sections should be stricken 
out, as the matters contained in them were amply pro¬ 
vided for in other bills. 

A division of the question being demanded the sec¬ 
tions were taken up separately and both were stricken 
out. 

Mr. WOODBURY now moved to insert the follow¬ 
ing in the place of the section 20 stricken out. 

“ Where any claim or demand shall be presented to the Gener¬ 
al Assembly, and one-fourth of the members elected to either 
branch thereof, shall be opposed to the allowance of such claim 
or demand, the General Assembly shall then, and forever there¬ 
after be prohibited from allowing the same, but provision shall 
be made by law for the prosecution in the courts of law and equi¬ 
ty, of all claims or demands against the State.” 

He supposed the section might be amended so that 
it would be in a better shape than it is at present. He 
would be glad to see the principles of it inserted in this 
report. The great object of such a principle as has 
been stated by many gentlemen upon this door, is to 
keep the different departments of government sepa¬ 
rate, so that each shall have its appropriate functions, 
and no more. We are all aware that claims are sub¬ 
mitted to the Legislature, about which we have no 
means of ascertaining whether they are correct or not, 
because the evideiice we have is merely ex parte. The 
allowances depend generally more upon the men who 
advance the claims than the justice of the claims pre¬ 
sented to the Legislature. The iniiuence of the men 
who present the claims, their connection in society, 
their liberality to the members of the General Assem¬ 
bly, goes a great ways in getting their claims allowed 
by that body. Claims have been brought here which 
parties would never think of applying to a court to en¬ 
force, for they had no such demands as would entitle 
them to compensation in strict justice. But it would 
be merely through influence exerted among the mem¬ 
bers, in the absence of all evidence to support their 
claims, that they would be enabled to have their claims 
allowed. 

There is great impropriety in claims being allowed 
by officers, in which they themselves had an interest, 
but such things undoubtedly have been done, and will 
be done again, unless there is some tribunal establish¬ 
ed, which is to adjudicate upon these claims, different 
from any which is now established in this State. Of 
all bodies in the world the Legislature is the poorest to 
settle disputes about claims. It cannot be well sup¬ 
posed that one-fourth of the members elected to either 
branch of the Lemslature would be opposed to claims 
which were perfectly just, and these are the only 
claims which the Legislature should allow. Claimants 
should be prohibited from presenting their demands 
again after they are once passed upon. But we are 
told that there are strong objections to the State being 
liable to be “sued.” The gentleman from Franklin 
says it would ruin the State, and he refers to Michigan 
for example. As to that, he could not, for the life of 
him, see how this would ruin the State, but he thought 
that it would be no wmrse for the State to be sued than 
individuals composing that State. 

He did not suppose that the government was to be¬ 
come insolvent, and unable to pay its debts, and that 
it will refuse to do this, if individuals had a right to 
prosecute these claims. He thought that, such a state 
of things as alluded to by the gentleman, would never 
exist in this State. There is another argument which 
has been advanced here, why a law of this kind should 
not be passed, and it is, that the rights of a single in¬ 
dividual, when cozning in competition or contact with 
those of the community, are to be sacrificed for the 
benefit of the community. That has been the argu¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Franklin; but he coiz- 
tended that the government has no right to sacrifice 


the rights of the indvidual for the benefit of the com¬ 
munity, and if it does, it is bound to make full remu¬ 
neration. The gentleman says that when the interests 
of a single individual come in conflict with those of 
two millions, why then he has no hesitation in saying 
that individual rights must give way. But he [Mr. 
W.] would contend if this property is to be taken 
from an individual for the public benefit, and if he is 
not paid for such pi'operty, he must prosecute that gov- 
ei’iiment just as in any other case. 

Mr. SAWYER said, that for reasons he had already 
assigned for striking out sections 20 and 21, as inap¬ 
propriate in this place, he should now take the same 
objection to the amendment just been offered. He there¬ 
fore moved that the committee have leave to rise and 
report this bill. 

Mr. WOODBURY having withdi’awn his amendment, 
the Convention then proceeded to the consideration of 
the 23d section, which had been passed over infor¬ 
mally. 

Sec. 23. “ The House of Representatives shall have the sole 
power of impeachment, but a majority of all the Representatives 
must concur in the impeachment. All impeachments shall be 
tried by the Senate, and when sitting for that purpose, the Sena¬ 
tors shall be upon oath or affirmation to do justice according to 
law and evidence : no person shall be convicted without the con- 
curence of two-thirds of the Senators.” 

Mr. SWAN. I move to amend by adding at the end 
of the section the following: “The General Assembly 
shall provide by law for the removal of justices, in such 
manner and by such laws as shall seem to them just 
and proper.” 

The amendment pi-evailed. 

The committee then, upon motion by Mr. SAWYER, 
rose and reported, that they had now considered all 
the sections of the report, and reported the same back 
with sundiy amendments. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the I’eport be laid upon 
the table and pi’inted, with all the amendments. 

Mr. CHAMBERS dozibted the propriety or advan¬ 
tage of that course now, as we had disagi’eed to some 
of the sections, and they had been amended—and he 
did not know how they could be pi'inted in the proper 
shape, as the report had been amended so much. 

Mr. HAWKIN’^, in reply, said that the amendments 
had beem transcribed so as to make them legible, and 
thei’e could be no objections to printing, upon that 
ground. For himself, he was in favor of printing the 
amendments, for the purpose of supplying each mem¬ 
ber with a copy of the report, as amended, and as it 
is to be presented for the consideration of the Conven¬ 
tion. 

The question being then taken, it was ordered by 
the Convention that the report be laid upon the table, 
with the amendments, and printed. 

Upon motion of Mr. LARWILL, the Convention then 
adjoui’iied. 

WEDNESDAY, June 5, 1850. 

Pi-ayer by the Rev. Mr. Donahoo. 

Ml’. HARLAN presented the petition of James Mor¬ 
row and twenty-nine others, praying that a clause be 
inserted in the new constitution granting the right of 
suffrage to the colored people of Ohio, and that until 
such rights are confeiTed upon them their propei’ty 
shall be exempt from taxation. Upon motion of the 
same gentleman, it was referred to the committee on 
he Elective Franchise. 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens, presented a memorial from 
Mrs. Louisa I’enna Clemens and Sai'ah Smith, citizens 
of Faii'field county, praying that the rights of married 
women may be protected, and that they may have the 
control and disposal of their separate pi’operty, person¬ 
al as well as real, during the life time of their husbands. 

Upon motion of the same gentleman, it was referred 
to the committee on Jurisprudence. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD pi’esented a petition from Benja¬ 
min .Jackson and forty-six others, of Richland county, 
praying that the Convention may insert in the new 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


265 


constitution a pi’ovision, submitting to a vote of the 
people the question whether the Legislature shall have 
power to pass any law whereby the sale of intoxica¬ 
ting drinks or the traffic therein shall be legalized. 

Upon motion of the same gentleman, the petition 
was referred to the committee on Miscellaneous Sub¬ 
jects. 

Mr. WARREN pi’esented the following communica¬ 
tion from citizens of Delaware, Ohio, which was read 
and laid on the table: 

Delaware, Delaware Co., Ohio, May 24,1850. 
To the Honorable President and Delegates of the Constitutional 

Convention, in session met: 

Pursuant to a call, the citizens of the town of Delaware met at 
the Court House, on the evening of the 23d instant, for the pur¬ 
pose of taking into consideration the propriety of inviting the 
Constitutional Convention, now in session at Columbus to Dela- 
aware; provided said Convention should determine on a change 
of places—and further to consult on the subject of the ability and 
disposition of the citizens of said town to accommodate and 
board the members and officers of said Convention; which meet¬ 
ing was numerously attended, and organized by calUng the May¬ 
or of the town to the chair, and appointing G. F. Hayman secre¬ 
tary. 

Among other things, the following resolution was unanimously 
adopted: 

Resolved, That "the citizens of Delaware are able and willing to 
accomodate the members and officers of the Convention, now in 
session at Columbus, with all the necessary provisions, rooms and 
attention needful, provided said Convention should decide on re¬ 
moving from Columbus to this place. 

Said meeting also appointed a committee of seven, of which 
the Mayor of said town was appointed Chairman, for the pui’pose 
of making all the necessary personal inquiry, and arrangements 
with the citizens, relative to a place for said Convention to meet 
in, and committee rooms, and boarding, &c. &c,, and to commu¬ 
nicate with the Convention on this subject. 

Said committee, in compliance with their appointment, have as¬ 
certained that a suitable room of about 46 by 60 feet with suita¬ 
ble Speaker’s desk and Clerk’s platform—with two convenient 
rooms for committees or transcribing clerks, and an end gallery, 
and a large basement (being a newly finished church) can be ob¬ 
tained at a reasonable rent. 

And further, that a great sufficiency of convenient, comfortable 
and respectable places for boarding and lodging for the members 
of said Convention can be obtained. And for further particulars 
relative to the universal healthiness of our town, the excellent sul¬ 
phur springs, and the good society of this place, we refer you to 
our delegates, on whose statements you may fully rely. 

With due deference and respect, in behalf of the committee 
and town. JAMES EATON, Chairman. 

Report No. 1, of the standing committee on Public 
Debts aud Public Works was read a second time by its 
title, and on motion of Mr. Nash referred to a commit¬ 
tee of the whole Convention. 

Mr. THOMPSON of Shelby offered the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on Finance and Taxation be in¬ 
structed to inquire into the expediency of inserting a clause in 
the constitution equalizing taxation, and making it proportionate 
to the actual value of the whole estate of the individual taxed, re¬ 
gardless of all distinction between real and personal estate. 

Agreed to. 

Mr. LARWILL moved to take up the resolution 
offered by the gentleman from Adams [Mr. McCor¬ 
mick] aud laid upon the table a few days since, relative 
to an adjournment of the Convention to Cleveland, 
which being agreed to, the same gentleman moved the 
following as a substitute: 

Strike out all after the word “Resolved,” and insert 
“That when the Convention adjourns, on Thursday, 
the 11th day of June, it do adjourn to meet in Wat¬ 
son’s Hall, in the city of Cleveland, on the ensuing 
Tuesday, at ten o’clock.” 

Mr. MANON said he pro[)osed to offer an amend¬ 
ment to the lirst resolution as follows: 

^‘■Provided, That the members shall be allowed no per diem, 
from the time they adjourn in Columbus, or travelling fees 
from the State, until they organize in the city of Cleveland, and 
that the State be put to no additional expense for transporting 
or re-transporting the proceedings of the Convention, for publi¬ 
cation, to and from Cleveland, or re-electing another State Prin¬ 
ter : Provided f urther. That the members voting in favor of such 
removal shall pay all expenses above refered to.” 

Mr. MANON. Common sense would dictate to 
this Convention the impropriety of adjourning from 
this place to any other, and if the time should arrive, 
when there should come a prevailing sickness in this 
city, it would be better for prudent men to be at their 
homes with their families, for the sickness would ex¬ 


tend to other portions of the State, probably. There 
is no necessity at this time for this movement. If the 
Convention should deem it advisable to adjourn, it 
would be better to adjourn for a certain length of time, 
in order to go home, and then return and finish up our 
business. The people of this State do not want to see 
the members of this Convention form themselves, into 
what might properly be called a traveling menagerie, at 
the expense of the State. If we are to move from this 
place let us do it at our own expense and not at the ex¬ 
pense of the people of this State. Let us rather at¬ 
tend to the business we have come here to do and then 
let us go home. 

Mr. LARWILL remarked that he had offered the 
amendment to the original resolution in good faith, be¬ 
lieving that the time had arrived when this Conven¬ 
tion can no longer sit in this hall and do the business 
comfortably. His own health had been impaired veiy 
much, and he was not alone in this, for a number of 
gentlemen of the Convention had informed him that 
they could not remain here on account of their health. 
He was in favor of adjourning to some healthier place 
in the State, so that the business of the Convention may 
progress more satisfactorily than it would if we re¬ 
mained here. 

Mr. McCORMICK said that he would accept the 
resolution offered by the gentleman from Wayne in lieu 
of his. 

Mr. HAWKINS said he should support the amend¬ 
ment to these resolutions as a proposition entirely just 
in itself. We know of no. great necessity for this 
change in the location as proposed in the resolution. 
We know of nothing which should induce the Conven¬ 
tion at such great sacrifice and inconvenience to re¬ 
move from this place. But if there are reasons opera¬ 
ting upon the minds of a portion of the Convention for 
making a removal, reasons which apply personally to 
themselves, then it is but just and fair that they should 
pay the expense likely to be incurred.—Even then, al¬ 
though he should desire to gratify gentlemen in this 
particular, although a change might be made without 
any expense to the State, he did not believe there were 
sufficient reasons for making the change. He had 
heard as yet no good reasons for removing to Cleveland. 
There is no prevailing disease here which should in¬ 
duce us to take such a step. 

Mr. NASH wished to say this—that he could not 
vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Licking [Mr. M A non] for the ^simple reason that this 
Convention has no power to say whether we should 
charge mileage or not. The law settles that and it is 
idle to discuss the question involved in the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Licking. 

Mr. MORRIS said, that when this question was first 
mooted, he did not believe the members of the Con¬ 
vention were in earnest; he thought it was for mere 
pastime on their part; but it appears now to be a seri¬ 
ous question, whether we are to be removed from Co¬ 
lumbus to Cleveland. He did not conceive that there 
was any good reason for such removal. We have been 
very healthy so far; there was an abundance of good fare, 
and he did not see why gentlemen, getting their three 
dollars a day and sitting in the shade, should complain 
that a stay here is detrimental to their health. 
are our constituents about? Why, they were toiling 
away at the rate of 50 or 75 cents a day, in the sun, 
while we were sitting here in the shade at a per diem 
of three dollars. It appears that the city authorities 
of Cleveland have given us a very polite invitation, and 
not only that, but they have been assured that the la¬ 
dies would honor us with a welcome aud escoit us into 
the city. (Laughter.) But shall we run about through 
the country at this rate, increasing the expenses of the 
State for such reasons? He thought that members 
should pause and reflect before they proceed on an ex¬ 
pedition like this. For his part he should vote against 
the ori'^inal resolution and the amendment to the le- 
solution, for he believed it would disgrace us, and bring 










266 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


the new constitution which we might present to tin’ 
people, into disrepute. Let us shorten our speeches 
and go to work, so that we may complete the whole 
business of the Convention by the first day of next 
month, or at least by the middle of July. We had bet¬ 
ter do that than to travel off on a wild goose chase to 
Cleveland or some other place, and then, perhaps, go 
somewhere else. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to amend the resolution, by 
striking out “Watson’s Hall in the city of Cleveland,” 
and inserting the “ Associate Reform Church in Mt; 
Vernon.” 

^ The resolution might bo out of order—he read it for 
“information.” 

Mr. CUTLER moved to lay the resolution and pend¬ 
ing amendments upon the table, and he asked for the 
yeas and nays. 

The question then being taken upon Mr. Cutler’s 
motion to lay upon the table, and the yeas and nays 
being demanded, were ordered, and resulted yeas 4G, 
nays 44 , asfollows? 

Yeas —Messrs.Archbold, Barbee, Barnett of Montgomery, Blick- 
ensderler. Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Clay 
poole, Collings, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
,Groe8beck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Nor¬ 
ris, Reemelin, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, 
Stanbery, Stilwell, Swan, Vance of Champaign, Warrren, and 
Mr. President. 46. 

NAys---Mes8r8. Andrews, Bates, Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, 
Cook, Ewing, Farr, Firestone, Gray, Ilitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Humphreville, Hunter, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Law'rence, Lar- 
will, Leech, Loudon, McCormick, Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney, Riddle, Rob, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbens, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, 
Taylor. Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark. Townshend, 
Way, and Woodbury. 49 

Upon motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention then 
resolved itself into a committee of the whole, upon the 
orders of the day, (Mr. Cutler in the chair.) 

Mr. LEADBETTER moved that the Convention 
proceed to the consideration of report number one of 
the standing committee on 

THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 

Mr. LIDEY thought that the business had better be 
taken up in its order. 

Mr. RIDDLE thought it would be better to take up 
the Report of the Executive Depaitment for the reason 
that it was connected with the Report of the commit¬ 
tee on the Legislative Department, upon which the 
Convention had already acted. 

The motion to take up the report brought in by Mr. 
Leadbetter, from the committee on the Executive 
Department, was agreed to. 

report no. 1, OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE EXECU¬ 
TIVE DEPARTMENT. 

IVL. LEADBETTER, from the standing committee 
on the Executive Department, reported the following: 

Sec. 1. The Executive Department shall consist of one Gov¬ 
ernor, one Lieutenant Governor, one Secretary of State, one Au- 
dimr, one Ireasurer, and one Attorney General. 

* supreme Executive power of this State shall he 

vested in a Governor. 

Sec. 3 . No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor 
who has not the qualifications of an elector, and has not been a 
citizen of the United States twelve years, an inhabitant of this 
State hye years next preceding his election, and have attained the 
age of thirty years. 

Sec. 4. The Governor shall be elected by the qualified electors 
at the time and places of voting for members of the Legislature 
and shall hold his office for the term of two years from the time 
of his inauguration, and until his successor is qualififd. 

Sec. 5. The returns of every election for Governor shall be 
sealed up and transmitted to the seat of government by the re¬ 
turning officers, directed to the President of the Senate, who shall 
open and publish them in the presence of a majority of the mem¬ 
bers ol each house of the Legislature, during the first week of thi 
^SEion. The person having the highest number of votes shall be 
Governor; but il any two or more shall be equal,and the highest 
in votes, one of them shall be chosen Governor by the joint%otp 
01 both houses. 

Sec. 6. He may require information, in writing, from the offi- 
^rsof the Executive Department, upon any subject relating to 
the duties of their respective offices, and shall see that the laws 
we fait’.ifully executed. 

Sec. 7. He shall communicate by message to the Legislature 


at every session, the condition of the State, and recommend for 
their consideration such measures as he shall deem expedient. 

Sec. 8 . He may on extraorditiary occasions, convene the Leg¬ 
islature by proclamation ; and shall state to both houses when as¬ 
sembled, the j)urpose for whi h they shall have been convened. 

Sec. 9. In cases of disagret ment between the two houses in 
respect to the time of adjournment, the Governor shall have the 
power to adjourn the Legislature to such time as he may think 
proper, but not to a period beyond the regular meetings thereof. 

Sec. 10. He shall be commander-in-chief of the military and 
naval forces of this State, except when they shall be called into 
the service of the United States. 

Sec. 11. The Governor shall have the power to grant re¬ 
prieves, commutations and pardons, after conviction, for all of¬ 
fences except treason, and cases of impeachment, upon such 
conditions, and such restrictions and limitations as he may think 
proper, subject to such regulations as may be provided by law, 
relative lo the manner of applying for pardons. Upon conviction 
for treason, he shall have power to suspend the execution of the 
sentence, until the case shall be reported to the Legislature at its 
next meeting, when the Legislature shall either pardon, com¬ 
mute the sentence, direct the execution of the sentence, or grant 
a further reprieve. He shall annually communicate to the Legis¬ 
lature each case of reprieve, commuta’ion or pardon granted; 
stating the name of the convict, the crime for which he was con¬ 
victed, the sentence and its date, and the date of the commuta¬ 
tion, pardon or reprieve. 

Sec. 12. In case of the death, impeachment, resignation or 
disability of the Governor, the powers and duties of the office 
shall devolve upon the Lieutenant Governor for the residue of 
the term, or until he shall be acquitted, or the disability re¬ 
moved. 

Sec. 13. There shall be a seal of the State, which shall be 
kept by the Governor, and used by him officially, and shall Ixi 
called the great seal of the State ot Ohio. 

Sec. 14. No member of Congress, or person holding office 
under the United States, or this State, shall execute the office of 
the Governor. 

Sec. 15. All grants and commissions shall be in the name and 
by the authority of the State of Ohio, sealed with the seal, signed 
by the Governor, and countersigned by the Secretary of State. 

Sec. 16. Every bill or joint resolution which shall have passed 
both Houses o' the Legislature, shall, before it becomes a law, be 
presented to the Governor; if he approve, he shall sign it; but 
if not, he shall return it with his objections to that House in 
which it originated, who shall enter the objections at large on 
their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such re-con¬ 
sideration, a majority ol the whole number elected shall agree to 
pass the bill or resolution, it shall be sent, together with the ob¬ 
jections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be consid¬ 
ered ; and if approved by a majority of all the members elected, 
it shall become a law, notwithstanding the obj- ctions of the Gov¬ 
ernor. But in all such cases, the votes of both Houses shall l>e 
determined by yeas and nay, and the names of the members vo¬ 
ting for and against the bill or resolution, shall be entered on the 
journals of each House, respectively. If any bill or resolution 

shall not be returned by the Governor within-days, (Sun-' 

days excepted,) after it shall have been presented to him, the 
same shall be alaw, in like manner, as if he had signed it, unless 
the Legislature shall, by their adjournment, prevent its return, in 
which case it shall be a law. 

Sec. 17. A Lieutenant Governor shall be elected at the same 
time and places, and in the same manner as the Gov. rnor; and 
nis term of office, qualifications and eligibility shall also be the 
same. He shall be President of the Senate, but shall only have a 
vote therein when the Senate shall be equally divided. It, during 
the vacancy of the office of Governor, the Lieutenant Governor 
shall be impeached, disjilaced, resign, die, or in any way become 
incapable of performing the duties ol his office, the President of 
the Senate shall act as (Jovernor until the vacancy be filled or the 
disability removed: and if the President of the Si nate, for any of 
the above causes, shall be r. ndered incapable of performing the 
duties pertaining to the office of Governor, the same shall devolve 
upon the Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Sec. 18. The Governor shall receive for his compensation 
twenty five hundred dollars per annum. 

Sec. 19. The Lieuten uit Governor shall receive, while attend¬ 
ing upon the sitting of the Legislature as President ol the Senate, 
five uollars per d.ay. 

Sec. 20. The Secretary of State, the Auditor, Treasurer and 
Attorney General, shall be elected at the same time and places, 
and in the san'e manner as the Governor, for the term of two 
years, and until their successors in office shall be qualified. If the 
officers of either of the offices in this section named, shall become 
vacant by impeachment, resignation, death or removal, or become 
incapable ol performing the duties ol the office, the Governor 
sh-ill fill the vacancy lor the remainder of the term for which he 
was elected, or until the disability shall be removed. Their com¬ 
pensation toj e fixed by law. 

Sec 21. \yhen an officer, the right of whose appointment is, 
by this constitution vested in the Legislature, shall, during the re¬ 
cess, die, or his office by any means become vacant, the Governor 
shall have power to fill such vacancy, by granting a commission, 
which shall expire at the end of the next session of the Legisla¬ 
ture. D. P. LEADBETTER, 

A. N. RIDDLE, 

F. COOKE, 

JOHN H. BLAIR. 

















CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


267 


Mr. LGADBETTER moved to amend the first sec¬ 
tion by striking out the word “ one,” where it occurs, 
and insert before the word “Governor,” “Lieutenant 
Governor,” “Auditor,” “Treasurer.” the letter “a,” 
80 that the section would read, 

“The Executive Department shall consist of a Governor, a 
Lieutenant Governor, a Secretary of State, an Auditor, a Treasu¬ 
rer, and an Attorney General.” 

Agreed to. 

Mr. MORRIS moved further to amend the section by 
striking out the words “ Lieutenant Governor.” 

This was a new wheel which was about to be placed 
in the machinery of our government. He thought that 
there were already wheels enough to be kept in order. 
One of the objects for which we are sent here was, to 
retrench the expenses of the government; but if we 
go on and pay the salaries given in this report, we shall 
increase our expenses about 100 per cent, lie thought 
we could proceed with the business of the government 
without the assistance of any such officer as a Lieuten¬ 
ant Governor. 

Mr RIDDLE hoped he should be pardoned for ma¬ 
king any remarks in opposition to the amendment of 
fered by the honorable gentleman from Clinton, [Mr. 
Morris.] He thought that the time had arrived, in 
the history •of this State, when the office of Lieutenant 
Governor was called for by the people; and feeling 
that the time had arrived, he was desirous that an ex¬ 
pression of the opinion of the delegates to this body 
should be taken upon this subject. He did not pro¬ 
pose to make a speech, but would submit the proposi¬ 
tion without further discussion. 

Mr. CURRY said he must differ with his friend from 
Hamilton, when he expressed an opinion that the crea¬ 
tion of this new office was demanded by the interests 
of the people of this State. It was his opinion that no 
such officer was needed, nor had there been any de¬ 
mand for such officer on the part of the people. He 
had heard very little said about a proposition of this 
character. The only reason advanced in favor of the 
creation of this office, having in his opinion any sort of 
force, is simply this—that the Lieutenant Governor 
might be made an e.c officio presiding officer of the Sen¬ 
ate, thus securing a prompt and effective organization 
of that body. He would submit to gentlemen, wheth¬ 
er it was necessary that this additional office should 
be created, and whether the additional expense which 
would be necessary to sustain this officer, should be 
fastened upon the people of this State, for the single 
purpose of securing an organization of the Senate at 
each session 1 Gentlemen will remember that when 
the report of the coininiltee on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment was last under discussion, an amendment was 
made by which the Secretary of State, if I recollect 
aright, was made ex offixio presiding officer of the House 
of Representatives. All the difficulty touching organi¬ 
zation which had taken place in times past, and which 
gentlemen desire to obviate for time to come, it was 
very plain will be obviated by the provision which was 
made in the report on the Legislative Department, as 
far as the House was concerned. It seemed to him 
equally feasible and attainable to obviate any similar 
difficulty which may take place in the other branch, by 
providing that the Auditor of State, or some other offi¬ 
cer of State, should be made ex officio presiding officer 
of the Senate. He submitted that if an arrangement be 
so made, as that the Auditor of State shall be made or 
required to act in such capacity, so as to secure the or¬ 
ganization of the Senate, there then would be no ne¬ 
cessity for the creation of the office of Lieutenant Gov¬ 
ernor. It may be said that it is necessary that there 
should be a Lieutenant Governor in order that there 
might be somebody to act in case of the occurrence of 
H vacancy in the office of Governor, but it seemed to 
him that the arrangement under the old constitution is 
amply sufficient. He knew no reason why the Presi¬ 
dent of the Senate should not bo permitted to act in 
such a case, nor did he kuow any reason why that offi¬ 


cer might not act just as efficiently, so far as regarded 
the interests of the people, as a Lieutenont Governor. 
If he was correct in these views, all that was necessa¬ 
ry in order to render this part of our proposed muchiue- 
ry of government entirely unnecessary, was that pro¬ 
vision should be made by which the Auditor or some 
other officer shall act in regard to organization in the 
iSenate, in the same manner as the Convention yester¬ 
day determined that the Secrelaiy of State shall act in. 
regard to the organization of the House. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot supposed that this matter 
was entirely settled, and the question was determined, 
that the Government of the State of Ohio, shall be com¬ 
plete, after the sitting of this Convention, by the crea¬ 
tion of the office of Lieutenant Governor. Even looked 
at in the lightof economy, if they would cast their eyes 
back a few months ago, they would see the loss they 
have suffered in consequence of not having a presiding 
ofiicer. If they had had such an officer the winter 
when the Senate stood 18 to 18, the difficulty which 
took place at that lime would have been obviated. 
Give him such a salary as will amply compensate him 
for the duties which he may be called upon to perform, 
and then you will be enabled to command the services 
of a man of good talent, and also, in the case of a va¬ 
cancy, would be well calculated to fill the more hon¬ 
orable position of Governor. If you consider the ques¬ 
tion ill the point of usefulness and economy, you should 
settle upon this question as the people have settled 
upon it. He knew that in the district which he had 
the honor to represent the question was fully discussed, 
and the prevailing opinion appeared to be, that there 
should be such an officer. They have a Lieutenant 
Governor in nearly all the States, and matters work 
smoothly, because they have no trouble iu the organi¬ 
zation of their legislative bodies. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga thought there was too 
much talking iu this body about every question that 
came up. It seemed to him that this question, which 
was now submitted to the Convention, is one which can 
be easily settled. By this report, we were to have, in 
addition to the officers that we have had heretofore, a 
Lieutenant Governor. What are to be his duties 1 In 
the event of the absence, decease, or resignation of the 
Governor, the Lieutenant Governor is to discharge his 
duties, and in addition to that is to be presiding officer 
of the Senate, when in session. How is it under the 
present constitution ? In the case of a vacancy of the 
office of Governor, the Speaker of the Senate acts as 
Governor. Well, the Speaker of the Senate, is elected 
by the Senate, and in that event, the Senate will elect 
the Governor of the State. By the provisions of the re¬ 
port, it is provided, if there is a vacancy of the office of 
Governor, the Lieutenant Governor fills his place, who, 
it is proposed, shall be elected by the whole body of 
the people. The question then iu providing for such a 
case is, shall the Governor be elected by the people oi 
the State or by the Senate 1 That seerns to be the idea. 
He could not hesitate a moment in saying that the peo¬ 
ple of the State ought to elect a Lieutenant Governor, 
so that in case of a vacancy he shall succeed to the of¬ 
fice of Governor—and act as presiding ofiicer oi the 
Senate, and as such officer, receive a per-diem com¬ 
pensation like members of the Senate. 

Mr. CHAMBERS thought that we might as well 
strike out the words “Lieutenant Governor. Ihe 
people of Ohio had lived under a very plain and sim¬ 
ple government for 40 years, and we have b^id no 
Lieutenant Governor during that time. I or his part he 
desired to live under a sunple government; and he 
should be in favor of having as few ofiicers to do our 
public business as possible. He was not in favor of 
erecting offices which would be mere sinecures, and 
give men a position in society and obtain tor them 
honors. He thought, therefore, that the office propc- 
sed to be erected, was one which we did not need. 
Althou^^h it is said, that the people have called for such 
an ofiic^er, this is the first time that he had heard t? 











26S CONVENTION REPORTS. 


word on the subject, and so far as his own district was 
concerned, he had not heard the thing mentioned 
there. Our Speakers of the Senate have always filled 
the place of Governor, wherever a vacancy has hap¬ 
pened, and how many of these occasions have happen¬ 
ed within the last forty years? We have had three, 
and perhaps four. [A member suggested “five.”] 
One of these cases, it will be observed, was the 
appointment of a Governor for the time being—the 
former Governor being elected to the United States 
Senate. Another was the case of a Governor being 
appointed Foreign Ambassador—the case of Governor 
Shannon. Here you have two cases—the other three 
cases required-no Lieutenant Governor to fill the Exec¬ 
utive Chair. He thought that we had men generally 
elected to the Chair of the Senate who would have 
been quite as competent to fill that office as the person 
whom the people elected Governor. 

Mr. LEADBETTER thought it was properto express 
the opinion of the committee upon that subject. The 
committee, in coming to their decision, did it, consult¬ 
ing the matter of economy. Here was one sticking 
point—that if the Senate should be detained a day or 
two in their organization, that the detention alone 
would more than pay for all that is proposed to be vo¬ 
ted to the Lieutenant Governor. So much for the mat¬ 
ter of economy. But it is objected, perhaps, that he is 
entitled to a compensation of five dollars a day. In 
taking that matter into consideration, the committee 
came to the conclusion that he should receive more 
than the Senator, because, as presiding officer, he has 
more duties, ordinarily, to perform, than any member 
of the Legislature. It was for that reason that we fix¬ 
ed his salary at five dollars a day. Suppose the Legis¬ 
lature should meet and sit 100 days once in two years, 
would it be a very large ainount to give the Lieuten¬ 
ant Governor five hundred dollars for performing the 
duties of that office for two years? for be it remem¬ 
bered he is to be paid only when the Senate is in ses- 
•sion 

_Mr. HAWKINS. If he understood the duties of the 
Lieutenant Governor as provided for by this section, 
such officer was to act in the place of the Governor, in 
case of his disability or death, and he is also to act as 
presiding officer of the Senate. These included the 
entire duties intended to be devolved upon him. He 
had long thought that there should be some such pro¬ 
vision as that by which a vacancy in the office of Gov¬ 
ernor could^ be filled in a different manner from that 
prescribed in the old constitution. It is provided there 
that in case of the death or disability of the Govern¬ 
or, the Speaker of the Senate shall act in his place. 
They seemed to act under the presumption that an of¬ 
ficer of this kind existed in the State of Ohio the year 
round, while the fact was really otherwise. We fiavd^ 
been in the habit of electing a Speaker of the Senate 
to serve during the session, and he supposed that by 
the conditions of his election, his duties were to termi¬ 
nate with the session. As for himself, he desired that 
this officer should be elected by the people, rather than 
by the Senate. He would like to make an inquiry 
here, which he deemed to be pertinent. Suppose that 
the Speaker of the Senate is to act as Governor, in a 
case of disability or death, until the first day of the 
succeeding Legislature. Who has the ri^ht to act as 
Governor ? Has the Speaker who was elected a year 
ago, and elected to serve during that session alone, a 
right to act as Governor ? There has always been some 
uncertainty and confu.sion in regard to this mattter; for 
this and other reasons he should not vote for the sec¬ 
tion. 

The question then being upon the amendment, it 
was agreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend, by adding at the end 
•of the section these words: “one superintendent of 
public instruction.” 

The amendment was not agreed to. 

Mr. N ASH moved to amend, by inserting after the 


words “Lieutenant Governor,” the word “Comptrol- 

He made a remark the other day in reference to the 
management of our financial affairs, in which he indi 
cated the propriety of having some such officer. Un¬ 
der the organization which you now have, you^fficers 
are quite independent of each other. The officer in 
one department is not controlled by the officer of an¬ 
other department, and their accounts are kept entirely 
separate and distinct; and there is no correspondence 
between them. The books of one office ^ are not so 
kept as to correspond with the books kept in^ aimther, 
and each office has its own method of keeping its books. 
The Comptroller should have the general supervision 
of the accounts of all the public servants, in ^ch a 
way as to have them all connected and dovetailed into 
each other, so that they will be invariably a certain 
check upon each other. In this way you might secure 
uniformity and accountability, such as no system here¬ 
tofore adopted in this State has been able to effect. 

Mr. CHAMBERS seemed to think that the effect of 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Gallia, 
[Mr. Nash.] was nothing more than to change the 
name of the officers. 

He observed, that by the constitution of New York 
they have a Comptroller, Secretaiy of State, Treasurer, 
&c. The Comptroller, in the State of New York, per¬ 
forms the same duties that the Auditor does here. 

The question being then taken upon the amendment, 
it was lost. 

Sec. 2. The Supreme Executive power of this State shall be 
vested in a Governor. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to strike out the letter “a” 
and insert “ the,” which was not agreed to, and the ^ 
section was agreed to. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved to amend Sec. 3, by strik-^ 
ingout the words “has not,” and insert the words' 
“ who shall not have.” 

Mr. RANNEY moved to strike out all after the word 
“electors.” 

The question being first taken on striking out the 
words “ has iiot,” the same was disagreed to. 

The question then being upon striking out all after 
the word “ electors,” 

Mr. RANNEY said he had strong objections to fix¬ 
ing these qualifications and limiting the people in the 
selection of their agents. He would require no other 
qualification than that of being an elector. 

Mr. ROBERTSON said that he was in favor of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Trumbull, 
for he would vote with him, to strike out all after the 
word “ elector,” but if the section is to stand as it is, 
he would move that the word “ have,” in the fourth 
line, be stricken out, and the woi’ds “ has not ” be in¬ 
serted in their place. ^ 

The amendment, [Mr. Robertson’s,] was agreed 
to. 

The question then being upon the motion to strike 
out all after the word “ elector,” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD made a motion to strike out after 
the word “ electors,” these words, “ has not been a 
citizen of the United States for 12 years.” 

This provision has existed in our constitution for 48 
years, and no great inconvenience has resulted from it 
so far. It appears to me, that we have got a decided 
mania, for altering every thing that comes before us. 

Mr. CASE of Licking was in favor of the motion 
made by the gentleman from Trumbull. The rule 
that we have laid down here would exclude persons 
who are members of this Convention. He apprehend¬ 
ed that any mail, who thought himself qualified to hold 
a seat in this body, is qualified to fill the office of Gov¬ 
ernor. There were four persons in this Convention 
who had not yet arrived at the age of 30 years, and yet 
they would be excluded by this provision from eligibil¬ 
ity to the office of Governor. He would uot vote for 
any qualification other than that of being an elector. 
He looked upon all these qualifications as odious and 











CONVENTION REPOETS. 


269 


unnecessary. In North Carolina tliey required as the 
qualifications for a Representative, that he should have 
five hundred acres of land and ten negroes, which 
shows how far this system of “qualifications’’ may be 
carried out. We have already passed over the section 
which provides for an Attorney-General. What are 
his qualifications?—that he shall be an “elector;” are 
the qualifications for that office, really less than for the 
Governor of the State. The qualifications for the Au¬ 
ditor, Treasurer and Secretaiy of State are the same. 

Mr. MANON sad he was opposed to any other qual¬ 
ification than that of an elector. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said his object was to permit the 
naturalized citizen to stand upon the same footing as 
any other citizen. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. One remark upon 
the general question. He was not tenacious about the 
term twelve years, so far as the question of being a 
citizen of the United States is concerned ; but he must 
confess he could not agree with gentlemen who regard 
these general restrictions as to age and other qualifica¬ 
tions for office as being a restriction upon the people. 
We are here as representatives of the people, in their 
primary capacity, and it is our duty to ascertain what 
qualifications for office are demanded by them, and 
faithfully to express that opinion in prescribing the 
qualifications required to fill these stations. We are 
not here tying up their hands, for our acts have no 
validity until they received their approbation. The 
single question is not whether we shall limit them, but 
whether we shall speak their sentiments in saying that 
as a general rule, it is not best to elect men not having 
the requisite qualifications of age, residence, &c.— 
What is their sentiment and wish ? What are the dic¬ 
tates of wisdom in the matter ? The inquiry we should 
make here is, whether, as a general rule, other qualifi¬ 
cations should be demanded? Is it desirable that we 
should fix upon the qualifications that an officer should 
possess ? If so, then standing here to speak the voice 
of the people, we should so express ourselves, and 
they will, or will not approve of our acts as they shall 
see fit. It is their sentiment and not ours which is to 
go forth as the constitution ultimately, although we 
may put it forth as ours for them to act upon. There 
is another view of this matter. He would submit to 
the committee that a young man has a right to be pro¬ 
tected from all temptation to meddle with politics un¬ 
til he is 25 or 30 years of age. Especially is this due 
to young men who are in industrial pursuits. Those 
bom to affluence and leisure may not suffer equal in¬ 
jury. Their time is not to them a matter of so much 
importance. But young men who are born to indus¬ 
trial pursuits, in which either the mental or physical 
powers are employed, ought to be protected from all 
temptation to throw themselves into the whirlpool of 
political life until they have arrived at the age to have 
fully determined their pursuits in life, and given form 
and substance to their character. He might pi’obably 
refer to the experience of every gentleman here, young 
men are undoubtedly known frequently to ruin them¬ 
selves by entering too early into the all-absorbing school 
of politics. He believed they were called upon to pro¬ 
tect young men from this temptation, and he would be 
in favor of a proposition of this kind, and for that rea¬ 
son he should vote for striking out the last clause of 
the section. He was willing to have some modifica¬ 
tion made as to the time of residence in the United 
States. Perhaps it would be sufficient simply to re¬ 
quire citizenship, as in New York. 

Mr. MA.NON said he acknowledged that it was a 
piece of impudence in him to say a word in reply by 
way of opposition to the leai’ned gentleman of the Con¬ 
vention, but being blessed with a good share of impu¬ 
dence, he would say a few words. The gentleman 
says we ought to keep young men from the temptations 
of political life until they are thirty years of age, but ho 
would suggest to the gentleman, that it would be more 
appropriate to have men over 45 years of age removed 


from temptation by being excluded from holding any 
office, so that they might prepare to render their ac¬ 
counts in another world. [ Laughter, j He was oppo¬ 
sed to all restrictions. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE could not agree with the 
gentleman from Cuyahoga. He was opposed to all 
these restrictions as restrictions upon the people, and 
he desired to leave the people free. As has been al¬ 
ready said by gentlemen upon this floor, there is more 
safety in leaving the people free; in a country like this,, 
where there are always two parties, there would be 
more freedom and safety than there would be in tieing 
up their hands by qualifications. Is there any danger 
of incompetent men being elected Governor of Ohio ? 
The parties are constantly watching each other—if one 
party should so far forget their interests as to nominate 
an unpopular man, there are men enough in the oppo¬ 
site parties (some one suggests that we have three par¬ 
ties) to discover bis defects and proclaim them to the 
people. If one of the parties should nominate a man, 
who did not possess sufficient knowledge of our insti¬ 
tutions, or had any other defect in character or qualifi¬ 
cations, there are men iix either of the opposite parties 
astute enough to take advantage of it. There is no 
danger of a young, inexperienced man being elected 
Governor of the State of Ohio, and there will be no 
danger of electing a foreigner to such a post unless he 
is qualified for it. He disagreed with the gentleman 
from Cuyahoga in another respect. He would seek,, 
as he tells us, to remove from the young men any wisli 
to engage in politics. Why, Mr. Chairman, what is it 
that gives so much energy and efficiency to the Ameri¬ 
can character, taking them as a body? It is the edu¬ 
cation given them—the discipline of their minds—it is 
their intelligence that gives them this character. To 
his mind it made no diflerence whether the mind is 
disciplined in the study of problems of Euclid, or 
the study ol the laiiguagr s or of the higher mathemat¬ 
ics, divinity, law, medicine or politics. Any thing 
that gives action and activity to the mind, tending 
to discipline, and teaching it to reason accurately and 
readily. The study of politics is as good a school for 
the discipline of the mind as any of the departments 
above named, and the reason why is, that the people in 
the United States are generatly so well identified with 
and informed in matters pertaining not only to their 
own country, but to all other countries. From their 
earliest days they are constantly employed in the study 
of politics, and, in that way, their minds become dis¬ 
ciplined and they become prepared to act upon the 
great questions that may come up before them. .It is 
not by the mere study of books and newspapers, that 
we acquire it, but by the daily discussionsthat take place 
among the people. We should vote forstriking out ev¬ 
erything in this section that affixes a qualification for 
the office of Governor beyond that of being an elector 
and a citizen of the United States. 

Mr. MITCHELL said: If we would discharge our 
duty faithfully in this Convention, we should inquire, 
what have the people demanded of us—what questions 
have they agitated among themselves, and what reforms 
have they demanded in their organic law ? When these 
questions are answered satisfactorily, then we have 
some light to guide us in our action here. He w'ould 
ask any gentleman upon this floor, whether the ques¬ 
tion which is here mooted and the proposition here to 
be settled, by giving to the constitution of the State ol 
Ohio a new form, is a question which has been agita¬ 
ted among the people. Gentlemen talk here about re¬ 
stricting the people and placing barriers and restric¬ 
tions in the way of the representatives ol the people. 
But if you want the people entirely freed from these 
restrictions, why just adjourn and make no constitution 
at all, and then you will leave no restrictions upon that 
wide’ extended, unbounded liberty which they would 

then enjoy. , 

What do the various theories advocated here by gen¬ 
tlemen in the Convention propose ? They propose to 











270 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


(liepeiise with all the principles which have so long 
formed a part of our government. Young men at twen¬ 
ty-one are first I’ecognized as members ot cornmu 
nity, prepared to take part in the business ol com.mu 
nity, but are they regarded as sufficiently instructedto' 
('Uter themselves upon all the duties and l)usiness of 
life ? Do we regard them as qualified for any or all of 
the learned prefessions, or to engage in any mechanical 
biisiness? Would they be regarded abundantly qual¬ 
ified to engage in the practice of a profession or any 
])ursuit the moment he enters upon it—shall we say 
that men are to be held cjualified to engage in such em¬ 
ployment without any preparatory training ? We must 
have experience in these matters, and that is probably 
the reason which induced our forefathers to adopt this 
I)rovi8ion, now the subject of discussion, and under 
which the people of Ohio have acted for so long a pe¬ 
riod, whithout any efibrt to change it. Until there 
shall come up an expression from the people of Ohio 
contrary to what he thought to be the settled principle, 
he should vote against it. So long as the jieople are 
content, we had better make up our minds to be con¬ 
tent with the constitution as it is. This I understand 
to be a faithful discharge of our duty. 

Mr. NASH here renewed his motion to strike out 
twelve and insert six. 

Mr. MASON said he could not see why gentlemen 
could not be content to “ let well enough alone." He 
did not see why gentlemen could not be content with 
the provision as it stood. Every folly that any individ¬ 
ual may have a fancy to perpetrate, he supposes that 
he is justified in doing it in the name of the people, and 
therefore that it will be chargeable over to the people. 
We have already spent as much time in talking about 
nothing as would have been required for a wise and 
deliberative act upon the bill, and it might all have 
been easily and properly passed within the time that 
gentlemen have been engaged in discussing about the 
particles of grammar—verbs and tenses. They have 
been seriously discussing the adjustment of these words 
and tenses in this section, so that we may talk accord¬ 
ing to Cowper, Addison and the better writers in the 
“ Spectator.’^ He hoped the committee would be wil¬ 
ling to take the question. 

Mr. WOODBURY—after a few words in reply to the 
gentleman from Clark—said: He, for one, was opposed 
to this double dealing—this declaring that the people 
are competent to govern themselves, and yet pi’escri- 
bing that they shall do so only upon those conditions 
which this body shall see proper to appoint—respect¬ 
ing the age of an officer which they shall elect. Were 
we to do that, the people might, with reason, think we 
had some sinister object in view by excluding a large 
portion of our fellow citizens from a station, which, (by 
reason of the advanced age of many members,) we our¬ 
selves are competent to hold. Should this be done by 
members chosen without reference to any other quali¬ 
fication than that of being an elector? He considered 
gentlemen were convinced that the people were com¬ 
petent to make their own selection of officers, and if 
that were a well settled feeling, where was the neces¬ 
sity of this restriction: that a man less than thirty 
years of age—should not hold a certain office? Where 
was the necessity of such a restriction, either upon the 
people or upon the men? Or if this were a settled 
feeling amongst the people themselves in the masses 
—if they had determined the fact that no young man 
should be Governor, there could be no danger that 
they would transgress the rule: and certainly we need 
not prescribe a rule. He would say, that in his dis¬ 
trict there were men who had not yet attained 30years; 
but who were nevertheless competent to fill the office 
of Governor, or any other to which they might be cho¬ 
sen. De did not know but other gentlemen might rep¬ 
resent a constituency, that they dare not trust to make 
a selection of their candidates for office; if so, that 
might account for their anxiety about this limitation. 
His constituents were competent to act for themselves. 


They required no dictator to tell them, you shan’t elect 
a boy to office. If the people have the power of de¬ 
termining who shall be Governor, might not the whole 
matter be trusted to them of selecting a man compe¬ 
tent to discharge the duties of that office? He was op¬ 
posed to any restriction except that the Governor shall 
be a qualified elector; and those wno took the other 
ground would be obliged to maintain it upon the hy¬ 
pothesis that the people themselves are incompetent to 
make a proper selection: for there could be no other 
reason. We were sent here to perform specific duties 
for the people, and there could be no need of talking 
about their being competent for self government, and 
yet incompetent to select proper candidates. He pro¬ 
tested against this principle, and should oppose until it 
should be shown to him that the people were not com¬ 
petent to select their own officers. But then, the very 
existence of this Convention, and the conslitution we 
were framing demonstrates our conviction that the peo¬ 
ple are able to govern themselves. He hoped the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Rannkt] 
would prevail. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD acknowledged his sense of obliga¬ 
tion, as the subject of the notice of the honorable gen¬ 
tleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] but he confessed 
himself a little surprised. He could not have expected 
such an exhibition of excited feeling. Ho acknowl¬ 
edged himself guilty of an indiscretion; something 
like presenting a question of colors to the blind; but 
he begged the gentleman’s pardon, and promised that 
it should be the last time he would commit the offence 
of attempting to mend the language of the constitution. 
Gentlemen might employ the language of the nursery, 
the stable, or the fish market. He would no longer 
remonstrate. However he could but wonder how the 
gentleman from Clark could have so completely es¬ 
caped the influence of the “schoolmaster abroad." 
When he moved the amendment, he did not suppose it 
would cause a moment’s delay. He had taken no part 
in the debate. He did not think the subject deserved 
lengthy debate. He considered his position harmless, 
and was busy reading McCauley’s Miscellany, when 
his attention was arresed by the reproof of the gentle¬ 
man from Clark. He assured the committee that he 
was the last man to engage in mere verbal disputes. 
He had indulged an ambition to see the constitutional 
instrument correct, and creditable in its language, and 
to secure it from the contempt of every man possessed 
of the rudiments of grammatical knowledge, and from 
the ridicule of foreigners! But he resigned such feel¬ 
ings in despair. No offence against syntax, or even or¬ 
thography, should move him again. 

Mr. MANON addressed the chair, but gave way for 
Mr. MASON, to explain. He did not suppose he 
had employed any tei-ms against the gentleman from 
Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] or any other gentleman, 
which ought to give any sort of offence. He wished to 
say, he had great respect for the gentleman from Mon¬ 
roe; and, notwithstanding the remarks he had just 
made, this feeling was not changed in the slightest de¬ 
gree. He would tell that gentleman however, that 
should he ever have occasion to place himself in oppo¬ 
sition to him, (which he hoped would never be the 
case,) he would know it. He hoped the gentleman 
would not take offence where none was intended. 

Mr. MANON said there seemed to be a feeling of 
morbid sensitiveness with some gentlemen upon this 
subject; insomuch that when any proposition took 
hold of the old constitution, they seemed to think that 
we were getting hold of the people with “grab hooks" 
and “grappling irons," but were we not sent here for 
the very purpose of operating upon the old constitu¬ 
tion—to erase and eradicate and blot out some of its 
provisions? He was opposed to restrictions as to qual¬ 
ifications for office. lie had proclaimed this to the 
people of his county assembled in convention; he had 
told them that he was for “free trade and sailor’s 
rights "—for equal rights upon principle. That he was 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


271 


opposed to special legislation; and that he was willing 
to trust the people to the unrestricted exefcise of all 
pf)]itical power. Still he would not take ground and 
tight against the new constitution on account of one 
restrictive principle like this. He expected to yield 
.something, and he expected the same feeling to per¬ 
vade this whole body. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said, he believed ho had not yet 
said one word about the people. 

Mr. Don’t allude to “ posterity.” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. There was a reason for this propo¬ 
sition to strike out. The effect of his motion was to 
make a division of the motion of the gentleman from 
Trumbull. There were two ideas in the amendment 
of the gentleman from Trumbull, audit was his motion 
to strike out that part of it which made a distinction 
between native born and naturalized citizens. Some 
gentlemen of the committee he knew to be in favor of 
the restriction to five years residence and thirty years 
of age. He hoped gentlemen who were in favor of 
that proposition would not vote against striking out for 
the sake of weighing closer the whole pro[)Osition. He 
considered that every proposition should be voted for 
on account of its own intrinsic merits. 

Mr. RANNEY rose to return thanks to the gentle¬ 
man from Clark for the gentle admonition he had re¬ 
ceived, and promised hereafter that he would behave 
better. We had been told that we were discussing 
this subject too long. Now, there were two ways to 
enforce instruction—the one by precepts and the oth¬ 
er (thought to be most powerful) by example. Yet 
he found the gentleman who had given this admoni¬ 
tion was most frequently upon the floor giving us tlie 
benefit of his wisdom also, and experience in speeches. 
But he desired to say to that gentleman that we could 
not hold our peace—we could not stand still if we 
would—nothing was standing still in the whole uni¬ 
verse. If gentlemen desired to stand still upon the old 
constitution, he would tell them they could not do it. 
Even the gentleman from Clark was a monument of 
this fact. For before the election it was known that 
he told the public that he was opposed to the election 
of judicial officers by the people. But the irresistible 
torrent of public opinion upon this subject had brought 
the gentleman from Clark up to the point of declaring 
himself, upon this floor, in favor of making the judicial 
officers elective; and now he could say with another 
distinguished public man that “ he believes that a 
change has been going on in the public mind as well 
as in his own.” 

Mr. MITCHELL desired to make an inquiry of 
those gentlemen who make so much ado about the dear 
people and their rights. Fie wished to know how 
many of these gentlemen had heard this subject agita¬ 
ted before their constituents ? He would put this ques¬ 
tion to the gentleman from Trumbull. 

Mr. RANNEY replied that he had not heard of the 
subject amongst his constituents. He did not get his 
wit or his political philosophy from his constituents. 
He come here to exercise his own judgment upon this 
question and upon all otlier questions. He was satis¬ 
fied that this provision ought to be stncken out. That 
was his honest judgment, and he would not yield the 
honest dictates of his own judgment for any body else’ 

Mr. MITCHELL continued. Ho liked the candor 
and boldness of these declarations. The gentleman 
was a hero in this cause. He was not like that gentle¬ 
man in this respect. He wascompelled to say that he 
bad a little regard for his constituents. Fie felt that 
he came here to discharge a particular duty to them. 
He did not think himself much wiser than many others 
in the county i f Knox. If it were his place to teach 
the people, he should have commenced before he came 
here. It w'ould have been his duty to have made 
known his sentimenls to them and declared what new 
light he had discovered, and then to have endeavored 
here to urge them upon the consideration of the Con- 
veuliou. But such was not his place, nor had it been 


just his practice. He was not called to that duty. If 
the gentleman from Trumbull was, it was well enough; 
but if the gentleman was really in the dark as to what 
his constituents did desire in tliis matter, he thought he 
had better consider a little, lor he would find that it 
was a solemn and imperative duty to conform his will 
to the will of his constituents, in all cases where no 
principle was concerned. He would now inquire of 
any other gentleman, if the question of a change in 
the constitution in this respect had been agitated 
among the people he represented, as it was now agita¬ 
ted in this Convention? and whether the people had 
expressed themselves in favor of it? if not, gentlemen 
should not forget that the people constitute the great 
fountain of wisdom on these subjects, at whose feet all 
should be willing to sit and, learn something. And if 
they have not canvassed the matter nor given any ex¬ 
pression upon it, he thought it a little strange that it 
should be urged with such pertinacity here, by one 
man in thirty or forty thousand. The gentleman from 
Licking [Mr. Manon] had endeavored to take himself 
out of the range of these remarks, but as he conceived 
from his own showing, fie fiad [ilaced himself in the 
same category. He says ho had told his constituents 
that he was in favor of “free trade and sailors’ rights,” 
and he seems to be confident that he represents the 
minds of his constituents in his position against the 
qualification of age in the person seeking the office of 
Governor. Now, he could testify that that gentleman 
represented a very intelligent constituency. They 
would compare very well in this respect with any in 
the State; but if that was all the gentleman said to his 
constituents, he could not but doubt whether they un¬ 
derstood him or his position here. For they all very 
well knew that this was only the watchword in the 
war of 1812, and had nothing to do with the subject 
before us. 

Mr. RANNEY (internipting) desired to ask the gen¬ 
tleman from Knox whether this subject had been agi¬ 
tated among his people, and what were the results ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Not at all, as far as he knew: 
and that was the reason why he was opposed to it. 
He mingled as much as possible with the })eople in the 
canvass, which resulted in his election, and gathered as 
much as he could of the feelings and views of his con¬ 
stituents, and he had no recollection, but in a single in¬ 
stance, (and the gentleman was now in the hall,) of 
hearing this either suggested or urged. While he was 
up he desired to call the attention of the committee to 
the fact that the old constitution contains a clause sim¬ 
ilar to that now proposed to be stricken out. It was 
in these words ;—“ He [the Governor] shall be at least 
thirty years of age, and have been a citizen of the 
United States twelve years, and au inhabitant of this 
State four years next preceding his election.” 

He considered the word “ four ’’ ought to have been 
retained in the report instead of the word “five,” and 
then it would have been in exact conformity with the 
old provision. He was not disposed to conform to the 
theoretic notions of any man upon this subject or up¬ 
on any other where the people having the opportunity 
had failed to vindicate the change proposed. Ho would 
say to gentlemen who talk so much about trusting the 
people, and the discretion which tliey are willing to 
accord to them, that he could not but think that they 
little understood what was really ihocauseof the public 
sentiment upon this subject; he would venture to sug¬ 
gest to these gentlemen that they would find amongst 
the people a prevailing desire to be rid ot the contin¬ 
ued annoyance of office-seekers; to rid themselves of 
such examples as that ot fifteeu or twenty men seek¬ 
ing for the same place as a rein-esenlative, sheriff, sen¬ 
ator, &c., and if the Convention were to take away 
the restriction under consideration, this public annoy¬ 
ance would be increased the number of office seekers 
would perliaps be doubled. 1 Ids, he took it, was a 
good reason for resisting the chniige proposed ; and he 
thought if ^ever any popular decision should be obtain- 













272 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ed upon this question, it would be that a man ought to 
pass his political apprenticeship before he undertakes 
to legislate for old men. 

Mr. MANON said that he w'as unwilling to have his 

corn measured in another man’s half bushel.” The 
gentleman from Knox asks whether any one has heard 
or said a word amongst the people in regard to the 
present amendment. He would answer yes,; but he 
would ask that gentleman if he was instructed by his 
constituents to oiler the following, viz : ‘<We, the peo¬ 
ple of the State of Ohio, in order to secure to our¬ 
selves and posterity the blessings of a just and free gov¬ 
ernment, trusting to the favor and protection of Al¬ 
mighty God, do ordain and establish the following con¬ 
stitution?” 

Mr. MITCHELL replied in the affirmative. That 
very thing was spoken in the newspapers. 

Mr. MANON. That was all right. He did not ob¬ 
ject to the gentleman representing the will of his con¬ 
stituents. He assented heartily to all that the gentle¬ 
man had said about the intelligence and patriotism of 
the people of Licking. They were able to select such 
candidates as suited them, and he had declared his 
course before them to be that of a free-trade-and-sail- 
ors’ rights man. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The gentleman says he made this 
declaration to his constituents. He would ask the gen¬ 
tleman whether he explained his declaration. 

Mr. MANON. He had told them that he was in fa¬ 
vor of making all laws general in their nature; all 
men on equal footing so far as laws were eoncemed ; 
and that he might include the present proposition. If 
he had not done this, he did not know but he would be 
willing to exclude the counties of Knox and Licking from 
the effect of the present proposition. They might 
have young men who would be in their way, but as for 
the people of his county, he was willing they should 
choose whom they pleased to serve them—either young 
or old. 

The question was then taken upon Mr. Nash’s 
amendment, and it was rejected. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD’S amendment to the amendment of 
the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney,] was also 
rejected—affirmative 34, negative 40. 

And then Mr. RANNEY’S amendment, proposing to 
strike out from the section all after the word “elector” 
was rejected—affirmative 38, negative 39. 

On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the committee now 
rose, reported “ no conclusion,” and obtained leave to 
sit again. 

And then the Convention took a recess till 3 o’clock 

P. M. 


3 o’clock, r. M. 

Mr. EWART presented the following resolution for 
adoption: 

Resolved, That no member of this Convention be permitted to 
speak longer than fifteen minutes at any one time, either in Con¬ 
vention or committee of the whole, until the 15th oi the present 
month. 

^ Whereupon the Convention divided and stood—af¬ 
firmative 42, negative 26. 

On motion of Mr. RIDDLE, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the whole, (Mr. Cutler in 
the chair,) on report No. 1, of the committee on 

THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to amend the 4thsection, re¬ 
lating to the election and tenure of the office of the 
Governor, by inserting in the last line the words, “elec¬ 
ted and,” so that it would read, “ and until his succes¬ 
sor is elected and qualified.” 

The motion was disagreed to. 

Mr. MASON would suggest the propriety of increas¬ 
ing the term of office of the Governor from two to 
three years. In his opinion it would be a decided im¬ 
provement, and prove very beneficial; he would take 
the sense of the committee on striking out “ two ” and 
inserting “three.” 

Mr. STILWELL observed that there would be some 


difficulty uttendent on that section if the amendment of 
the gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] were adopted. 
The following section required that the returns of the 
election for Governer should be opened in the presence 
of the Legislature, and that Legislature has to be bienr 
nial, if the plan previously agreed upon was adopted 

A division of the (question being called for, the same 
turned upon striking out, and being put, was not sus¬ 
tained. 

Sec. 5. The returns of every election for Governor shall be 
sealed up and trmsmitted to the seat of government by the re¬ 
turning ofiicers, directed to the President of the Senate, who shall 
open and publish them in the presence of a majority of the mem¬ 
bers of each House of the Legislature, during the first week of 
the session. The person having the highest number of votes 
shall be Governor: but if any two or more shall be equal and 
highest in votes, one of them shall be chosen Governor by the 
joint vote of both Houses. 

Oil motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, the 
section was amended by inserting the words, “ and de¬ 
clare the result,” after “ them,” in the third line. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK moved further to amend by add¬ 
ing to the section the following: 

“ Contested elections for Governor shall be determined by 
both Houses of the General Assembly in a manner prescribed by 
law.” 

The amendment w^as agreed to. 

Section 11, (recited above,) giving to the Governor 
the reprieving power, &c.., was then read. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to amend by striking out all 
after the word “ treason,” in the second line. 

The motion was not agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. LIDEY, the word “ annually,” in 
the ninth line, was struck out. 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll moved to insert after the 
word “ all,” in the .second line, the words, “ crimes 
and ;” which was agreed to. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved to amend by inserting after 
the word “ shall,” in the ninth line, the words, “ at 
eveiy regular session of the General Assembly.” 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. STILWELL moved to strike out the word “,le- 
gislative,” wherever it occurred in the section, and in¬ 
sert the words “ General Assembly.” 

The motion, however, was withdrawn after some 
cursory observations from different members. 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, the 
word “under” was inserted after the word “and” in 
the 3d line.I 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to add the following 
at the end of the section: “ and his reason therefor.” 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to amend by striking out 
all after the word “reprieve,” in the 9th line. 

The question being on the motion of the gentleman 
from Medina [Mr. Humphreville,] it was put and 
carried. 

The question then recurring was on striking out all 
after the word “reprieve,” in the 9th line. 

Mr. RIDDLE desired to say a few words, and, it 
might be, give a reason why the section should stand as 
it was. The committee inserted that clause into the 
report for the purpose, that the Legislature at its an¬ 
nual or biennial sessions might know what the Govern¬ 
or had done during the vacation, in the exercise of the 
pardoning power. It was known that the exercise of 
that power was much complained of. They all knew 
in what manner petitions were got up—it was an easy 
matter to get them up, as every one knew—it was but 
too easy to excite the sympathies of men in behalf of 
the convicted criminal. Gentlemen of the committee 
were aware from their own experience that they had 
often put their names to papers soliciting reprieves and 
pardons on the representation of persons, in whom 
they had confidence. They knew also that persons in 
the same manner might influence the Governor; and 
they further knew that on the strength of that influence 
brought to bear onhim, by the names of persons stand¬ 
ing high in society, he often exercised that power in 
instances in which the public could not see any propri¬ 
ety. The power, no doubt, had been abused, but when 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


273 


they looked into the entire inatter they would find 
that no blame could be attached to the Governor, He 
knew that in the county he in part represented, many 
persons had been convicted, at a great expense, of coun¬ 
terfeiting and grand larceny ; well, a few weeks passed 
by, and then they found those counterfeiters and bur¬ 
glars walking about the steeets of tlio city. When 
they inquired into the matter it was found that they 
were pardoned, and probably they found that the jury 
who convicted them, through sympathy for their fam¬ 
ilies, respectable lawyers, and sometimes the judges of 
the bench, had put their names to petitions for their 
pardons. This section would prevent parties from put¬ 
ting their names to such documents indisciiminately. 
These were the reasons which induced the committee 
unanimously to report the section as it stood. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to amend the amendment,, by 
striking out the word “ he ” in the 11th line, and insert¬ 
ing the words “such pei’sons.” 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. McCORMICK thought that the committee had 
failed in accomplishing what they desired. The section 
required nothing to be communicated to the Legisla¬ 
ture except the names of the persons pardoned. If 
men had interfei’ed improperly in getting reprives for 
criminals, there was nothing in that section as it now 
stood which required the naming of the persons who 
interfered to obtain it, and even with the addenda of 
the gentleman from Medina [Mr. Humphreville] that 
requisition was not yet made upon the Governor for it, 
but required the communication of his reasons—the 
reasons that operated on his mind. The only object to 
be gained by this section, was the ascertainment of the 
number of prisoners pardoned, but the Warden of the 
Penitentiary had that information always in his poses- 
sion. 

Mr. HAWKINS proposed an amendment, as fol 
lows, to come in at the end of the section :—“ And the 
names of all persons who may have by petition or oth¬ 
erwise applied for such reprieve, pardon or commuta¬ 
tion.” 

Mr. STANTON expressed himself opposed to the 
amendment of the gentleman from Morgan. He sup¬ 
posed that the latter part of the section was intended 
for the purpose of making the Governor accountable 
to the people for the exercise of the pardoning power, 
and to inform them whom he had pardoned. He 
considered that the reasons which iiiHuenced the Gov¬ 
ernor were all that could be reasonably required. 

Mr. LARWILL would support the motion of the 
gentleman from Adams [Mr. McCormick.] He thought 
that the information communicated, would not be of 
any great amount ultimately. The Governor would no 
doubt have good reasons for exercising the pardoning 
power, and he supposed would at all times be willing 
to communicate to the Legislature his reasons for so 
doing, when it was desired. 

The motion of the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. 
Hawkins] was not sustained. 

The question then turned on the amendment pre¬ 
sented by Mr. CcOormick, which was disagreed to. 

Mr. STANBERY wished to learn from some member 
of the committee who made the report, what was the 
necessity of the provision in relation to “treason.” 

Mr. RIDDLE in reply, said he hoped such an offence 
as treason, would never occur in Ohio; but still it 
might occur, and in view of the contingency, this pro¬ 
vision had been reported. The committee, when insert¬ 
ing the word “treason” in the section, had not supposed 
that the definition of it would be left to the Legislature: 
they had expected that the term would be defined in 
the constitution we were about to frame. He was 
aware that a similar provision existed in some of the 
State constitutions. Treason against the State consis¬ 
ted in levying war against it, or adhering toils enemies 
or giving them aid or comfort. They never had been 
called upon, and he hoped we never would be while 
we existed as a member of this great confederacy, to 


tlie tstatc—or adhering to its enemies, &c. &c. Yet we 
know that a distinguished individual had been indict¬ 
ed and convicted of treason, and if the section did no 
harm, why strike it out ? The definition of the term he 
considered, properly belonged to, and would no doubt 
be defined by another committee, and if it were not 
defined, why then he would go with the gentlemen 
and have the definition given in this place. ’ 

Mr. ROBERTSON thought that the provision should 
be retained in the offence defined. The fact that the 
constitution of the United States provided a remedy 
for the crime of treason, was no reason why we should 
not have a remedy under our State government, for the 
same offence. Such was the case in many instances. 
Counterfeiting the coin of the United States was made 
punishable by the laws of the United States and also by 
tho laws of this State; there was a concurrent jurisdic¬ 
tion. In treason, above all things, he thought the State 
should retain the power of punishing those guilty of 
that crime, because the State was immediately inter¬ 
ested, and in the absence of such a provision might suf¬ 
fer materially. 

The question being on the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery.] it was put and 
lost. 

On inotionof Mr. OTIS, the word “thereto,” was 
substituted for the words “to the Legislature,” in the 
ninth line. 


Sec. 12. In case of death, impeachment, resignation, removal 
or disability of the Governor, the pow'ers and duties of the office 
shall devolve upon the Lieutenant Governor, for the residue of 
the term, or until he shall have been acquitted, or the disability 
removed. 

Ml’. COLLINGS moved to strike out the word “he,” 
in the third line, and insert in lieu the words “ the Gov¬ 
ernor.” 


The motion was not agreed to. 


Mr. MASON moved to insert the word “return,” af¬ 
ter the word “ acquitted,” in the third line, which was 


not agreed to. 


Sec. 13. There shall be a seal of the State, which shall be kept 
by the Governor, and used by him officially, and shall be called 
the great seal of the State of Ohio. 

Was agreed to w.thout any amendment. 

Sec. 14. No member of Congress, or person holding office un¬ 
der the United States, or this State, shall execute the office of the 
Governor. 

On motion, the word “ the,” in the second line, was 
stricken out. 

Mr. HAWKINS proposed to amend, by adding to 
the section the words “except as herein provided,” 


which was not agreed to. 


18 


Sec. 15. All grants and commissions shall be in the name and 
by the authority of the State of Ohio, sealed, with the seal,^ signed 
by the Govenior, and countersigned by the Secretary of State. 

The committee agreed to the section as it stood. 

Sec. 16. Providing that all bills and joint resolutions of the 
Legislature shall be sent to the Govenior for his approval and sig¬ 
nature, in the absence of which, the name of a majority of all 
the members elected, are required to be recorded for the bill, 
otherwise it cannot become a law. 

Mr. BATES moved to strike out the entire section. 
He expressed himself entirely opposed to the veto 
power. They had alx’eady adopted a provision requi¬ 
ring that a bill should be passed by a majority of all 
the members elected, and that on the call of the yeas 
and nays. Under this section, a bill was to be sent 
back by the Governor if he disapproved of it, and the 
effect would only be to have the same thing done over 
again and would give the Governor no power whatever. 

Mr. ROBERTSON presented the following amend¬ 
ment—to strike out all after the word “ large ” in the 
fourth line and insert the words. 

“ Upon their journals, and if it be not re-passed by a two-thirds 
vote of all the members elected to each branch of the Legislature, 
the further consideration of the bill or resolution shall be post¬ 
poned to the next ensuing session of the Legislature, when if ap- 


proved by a majority of the members of each branch thereof, it 
shall become a law.” 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll. How many days is he to 
keep it in his breeches pocket ? [Laughter.] 


i 

















274 CONVENTION REPOETS. 


Several members named “ five, three, two, one,” re- 
-spoetively, as the number to be inserted in the blank in 
the 13th line, viz : “ if any bill or resolution shall not 
be returned by the Governor within — days,” &c. 

Mr. HUMPHRBVILLE moved to insert “ six.” 

Mr. GREGG moved to insert “ ten” but subsequent- 
Iv substituted “ seven” instead. 

Mr. ROBERTSON moved the motion to insert “ten.” 

The questions having been severally put on insert- 
in-^ “■ ten, seven, and six,” the committee refused to in- 
sGrt. 

The question then turned on inserting “five”— 
whei’eupon the committee divided and stood : affirma¬ 
tive 46, negative 34. 

The question then turned upon the pending amend¬ 
ment, [Mr. Robertson’s.] 

Mr. HOLT presented the following as a substitute 
for the amendment, and the section (16.) 

“ Every bill which shall have passed both Houses of the Leg¬ 
islature, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the Gov¬ 
ernor, if he approve he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return 
it with his objections to that House in which it originated, who 
shell enter the objections at large on the Journal, and proceed 
to reconsider it. If that House be the Senate, and after such re¬ 
consideration, a majority of the whole number of Senators elect¬ 
ed shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the 
objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be re¬ 
considered ; and if approved by two-thirds of all the member.s 
present, it shall become a law, notwithstanding the objections of 
the Governor. If the bill originated in the House of Representa¬ 
tives, the same proceedings shall be had; and if the same ma¬ 
jority in each branch shall approve the bill, it shall become a 
a law, notwithstanding the objections of the Governor. If the 
bill should fail to become a la s' from want ot a two-thirds vote 
in the House of Representatives, and the same bill shall be pass¬ 
ed at the next subsequent session of the Legislature, it shall be 
come a law without the approval of the Governor. But in such 
ca.=es the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and 
nays, and the names of the members voting for or against the bill, 
shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. 

If any bill shall not be returned by the Governor within- 

days (Sundays excepted,) after it shall have been presented to 
him; the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed 
it, unless the Legislature shall, by their adjournment, prevent its 
return; in which case it shall not be a law.” 

Mr. HOLT said : Having been absent from bis place 
for a few days, he had enjoyed no oppartunity of par¬ 
ticipating in the consideration of this subject, nor h id 
he looked over the reports to search for the arguments 
which had been oftered; and therefore it might be that 
if he attempted an argument he would occupy the 
ground which other gentlemen had passed over. He 
would apprise the committee that he would not claim 
the floor for so much as the fifteen minutes whicli he 
believed were now allowed for explanation. He de¬ 
sired to make a brief explanation of his amendment, 
which had not been printed, in order that members 
might understand the ground he had taken. The Sen¬ 
ate which would be constructed under the new consti¬ 
tution would piobably be as it has formerly been con¬ 
sidered, a more staid and deliberative body than the 
House of Representatives ; he had therefore I'equired 
only a majority in that branch—a majority of the mem¬ 
bers elected—not a majority only of the members pres¬ 
ent—to re-conskler aud pass a bill, notwhthstanding the 
objections of the Governor, and a two-thirds vote in the 
House of Representatives. If the bill should pass by 
these majorities he had provided that it should become 
a law, notwithstanding the objections of the Govern¬ 
or. And then, the next proposition was, if the bill fail, 
for want of the two-thirds vote in the House and the 
majority vote in the Senate, it should stand over for the 
consideration of the General Assembly until the next 
session ; and then, if it pass both branches, it shall be 
a law, without the approval of the Governor. 

Undoubtedly men are inclined to favor and think 
well of their owm views and notions, and beine some¬ 
what practical in his views of this subject, he wmuld 
state that they had carried him safe through the can¬ 
vass in the county which he represented in that body 
—a county which, in politics, was generally supposed 
to be opposed to him. He knew that he obtained 
some of the votes of gentlemen on the oppo.site side 


who had heard his opinion upon this question, openly 
declared. This proposition was one which he had 
matured for himselt, and ujion a most careful re-con¬ 
sideration he still thought it a very safe one. He would 
not go into an argument upon the subject, for he sup¬ 
posed all the arguments had been used up, and he did 
not propose to repeat arguments unnecessarily. He 
presumed that if he attempted an argument, he would 
only be treading in the steps of others. He considered 
that the qualified negative in this proposition in the 
bill as reported, did not amount to much. After the 
House or the Senate had passed a bill, they would 
scarcely be persuaded to recede by the objections and 
arguments of the Governor. 

He would state one other objection to the original 
form of the section. He alluded to the terms by which 
every joint resolution, as well as every bill, is to be¬ 
come a law’ upon the approval of the Gover ior; now, 
the General Assembly might pass a joint resolution in 
a single day, and after a single reading; ancl by the ■ 
terms of this section, it was declared that a joint reso¬ 
lution, approved and signed by the Governor, should 
be a law. He supposed this provision was not intend¬ 
ed to conflict with that other constitutional provision * 
which prescribes that every bill shall be read three- j 
times, on three separate days, before it shall become a j 
law. But here, it was possible to make a law in less | 
time, with much less deliberation. He presumed there ■ 
was no such provision as this in any State constitu- 
tion. He had looked over several, without finding ( 
anything like it, aud supposed it, in this case, an over¬ 
sight. 

Mr. ROBERTSON next obtaining the floor, said: ) 
Like the gentleman who had just addressed the com- li 
niittee, he did not intend to occupy much time. He |j 
should not go into the argument of the veto, although 
he regarded it as one deserving the most serious alten- i' ; 
tion of the Convention, and as one that had been very i ; 
slightly investigated. We find that in all the new con- ' \ 
stitutions made vvitliin the last few years—the progress¬ 
ive constitutions as they were called—those made in 
the new States—those embodying the spirit of the age, 
and which reflected the progressive intelligence of the i 
present—contained the two-thirds veto. The States 
of Louisiana, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, and California, 
had each of them provided in their constitutions for 
the exercise of the veto power. Now', he regarded nei¬ 
ther of the propositions presented—neither that repor¬ 
ted by the committee, nor that oflered by the gentle¬ 
man over the way, [Mr. Holt,] as being in spiiit and 
in character, a veto, according to the understanding of 
this country, because neither of them could answer 
an appeal to the people.—The essence of a veto accor¬ 
ding to the American idea of that power. Now, the 
amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, [Mr. 
Holt] so far from being the slightest resemblance of 
this idea, was reallj' less a veto than that contained in 
the proposition reported by the committee. The com- 
mittee. in'he sixteenth section of their report,provided 
that if a majority of all the members elect of each 
branch, shall vote lor a law' which has been returned 
to them with the disapproval of the Governor, it should 
be a law, notwithstanding ; while by the terms of the 
amendment of the gentleman from Montgomery, less 
than a majority might do that. In that gentleman’s 
amendment, it is provided that a bill or resolution, re¬ 
turned with the disapproval of the Governor, may be-, 
come a law, if forty out of a hundred members oC.the ' [ 
House, for illustration, and a majority of the Seiiatoi's' i 
elected, be found to vote for it, as that gentlem.m’si 
amendment enables a bare majority of the members of 
the House present, vote for a bill after its return by the 
Governor. Therefore it was les.s a safeguard and less 
resembled a veto than the proposition of the commit¬ 
tee. A provision already passed makes a majority of 
the members elect to each branch a quorum. If the 
number of the members of the House be one hundred, 
fifty-one would be a quorum to do business, and a ma- 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


275 


jority of that number, only twenty-six members, will 
be sufficient to pass a law through the House, which 
has been disapproved by the Governor. The gentle¬ 
man certainly could not have considered this before he 
offered his amendment. It was a mere mockery of a 
veto. 

Mr. SAWYER. Will it be in order to offer another 
amendment. 

The CHAIRMAN. It would be in order to perfect 
either proposition. 

Mr. SAWYE R. I propose then to indicate an amend¬ 
ment, whether in order or not, which I intend to offer 
at the proper time. I propose to strike out all after the 
word “originated,” in the fourth line, down to the 
word “if,”dn the twelfth line, and insert these words : 
“ It shall then be submitted to the people, at their next 
general election; and if a majority of all the votes cast 
at said ejection be cast for said law, it shall become a 
law : and not otherwise.” I propose to strike out, and 
insert a proposition to give the veto to the people them¬ 
selves. 

Mr. LARSH, I have a few words to say in regard 
to this matter. I should not have felt it my duty to say 
anything but for the remark of the gentleman from 
Montgomery, [Mr. Holt,] who claims, if his remarks 
mean anything, that the people of the county who have 
, sent him here are in favor of the veto power. The 
1 people of the same county which he represents have 
i also elected another representative in this Convention, 

I who received more votes, I believe, by a few, than that 
I gentleman: and if that majority mean anything, I think 
1 it is wrong for the gentleman from Montgomery to set 
up the claim he has in regard to this veto business. 

I would like to say a word in answer to the gentle 
' man from Fairfield [Mr. Robertson.] His remarks 
in regard to the veto matter, indicated his belief that it 
was one of the evidences of the progress of the age— 
as if it were something new' under the sun—a principle 
whose effect and efficiency in government affairs were 
just beginning to be known. I believe that in some 
of the monarchies of the w'orld the veto is absolute; 
that the chief executive must sign a bill or it cannot be 
I a law. I think this is the case in England, and that it 
was the case in Poland, in the days of the greatness of 
their elective monarchs. The constitution of the United 
States was framed in 1787. That modifies the veto 
somewhat, providing that a majority of two-thirds in 
both branches of the Legislature shall be necessary in 
t Drder to pass a bill after the President has filed his ob- 
; ections: and now the progress in knowledge and civi- 
j lization, and improvement in government seems to re- 
; c^uire something at our hands. Has there been no' 
1 progress since the year 1787 ? Could not the gentle- 
' nan go any further? Had our fathei’s nearly a cen- 
,ury ago reached the superlative point ?—the maximum 
ff political knowledge, which could not be surpassed ? 
[t seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the framers of the 
jonstitution of Ohio, in 1802, had then progressed, and 
vere somewhat in advance of the framers of the Fed- 
‘ral constitution. But as for ourselves here, it seems 
o me w'e are about to progress backwards. 

Mr. COLLINGS (when his words became audible.) 
n my judgment, the adoption of this provision will be 
3ut bringing upon ourselves an absolute necessity for 
innual sessions of the Legislature. 

The question was now taken upon Mr. Holt’s 
iniendment to Mr. Robertson’s amendment, and it 
vas disagreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER. I now offer the amendment which 
. read a short time since. 

Mr. ROBERTSON, (in his seat.) Let the vote be 
irst taken upon the one which I offered. 

Mr. SAWYER. I am perfectly willing if I can get 
nine to apply afterwards. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Fairfield 
iroposes to strike out the same words which are pro- 
osed to be striken out by the gentleman from Aug- 
iize, and if the committee refuse to strike out, then 


the amendment of the gentleman from Auglaize can¬ 
not be put. « 

Whereupon Mr. Sawyer’s amendment was enter¬ 
tained ; and upon a division of the qixestion the com¬ 
mittee refused to strike out. So the amendment was 
lost, and the question recurred upon the adoption of 
the amendment of the gentleman from Fairfield, 

Several members here called for an explanation. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. My amendment provides that 
the Governor may veto any bill or joint resolution, and 
unless the Legislature in each branch shall re-pass the 
bill or resolution by a two-thirds vote, it shall go over 
as unfinished business to the next Legislature, and then 
if it pass each house by a majority of all the members 
elect, it shall be a law. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I have no objections to the gen¬ 
tleman’s amendment. I suppose he would have ex¬ 
plained it before, but for the terror of the fifteen min¬ 
utes rule over his head. 

Mr. LARSH. If the section is to be amended in 
this way, it will create an absolute necessity for annual 
sessions of the Legislature. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I am very indifferent about this 
amendment, if it is to be adopted with the understand¬ 
ing that the whole proposition is to be rejected here¬ 
after. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. I understand that 
the amendment is not to strike out the entire section, 
and with that understanding I shall call for a division 
of the question, and vote against striking out. I prefer 
the section as it now stands, to the amendment of the 
gentleman from Fairfield; but at last I shall vote to' 
strike out the whole of it. 

Mr. MANON. Very probably a majority will be 
found in favor of retaining the proposition in the fornt 
in which it was proposed by the committee. But if I 
was opposed to it, I would vote to insert the provision 
offered by the gentleman from Fairfield, in the expect¬ 
ation, if that were done, I might afterwards unite with 
a sufficient number of the body, who are unwilling to 
vote for the veto—who cannot vote for the proposition 
in any form it can receive, without, as they think, sur¬ 
rendering a principle—and so defeat the entire propo¬ 
sition. As a friend of the proposition as it now stands, 
I believe I shall vote against all propositions to strike 
out. Every gentleman will of com-se act for himself, 
and on his own responsibility. 

The question was now taken on the motion to strike 
out, and it was lost. 

So the amendment of Mr. Robertson was disagreed 
to. 

Mr. BATES moved to strike out the entire section. 

Mr. HAWKINS. This matter was fully discussed 
some time ago, upon the proposition of the gentleman 
from Clark, [Mr. Mason.] I shall therefore offer but 
a few remarks to the Convention at this time. I am 
opposed to this proposition entirely, in any shape it can 
assume. I am opposed to it, because upon any review 
of our system of State legislation, I am only the more 
confirmed in the opinion, that the power which the 
people have to elect their Representatives was wisely 
conferred for the purpose of enabling the people to direct 
and control all the subjects of legislation as they might 
desire. Where the two branches of the General As¬ 
sembly, acting honestly with reference to the will and 
wishes of their constituents, pass a law, in view of 
which they were elected, I ask for no additional safe¬ 
guards against legiffative corruption in such cases. 
Why, then, is it now proposed to introduce a further 
check upon legislation—as though the people could not 
properly exercise the right of suffrage, or the Repre¬ 
sentatives could not properly exercise their functions 
in view of their own and the public interests? I sup¬ 
pose, if this power of the veto were conferred upon 
the Goveimor, he might as easily suspend a law passed 
in obedience to the popular will, as he mi^ht suspend 
a law passed in opposition to the popular will. I would 
rather, sir, that the law should emanate from the Exec- 













276 


CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


utive, and be referred to the people for their sanction. 
I would rulher the people should check the will of the 
Governor, than that the Governor should check the will 
of the people. Under the old constitution, the people 
have exercised the right of suffrage properly and by 
the selection of good men, and no inconvenience had 
(oliowed. Where, then, I repeat, is tlio necessity to 
create a power that shall deleat the oljject of legisla¬ 
tion. I suppose the object of the veto is merely to re¬ 
fer the proposition back to the Legislature a second 
time, askin*’’ them to review the case and see whether 
they have nut acted the scoundrel—or at least, whether 
they have not acted veiy foolishly in the passage of such 
a law, to the utter disregard of the interests of their 
constituents. Amongst the evils which I apprehended 
will result from conferring this power upon the Gov¬ 
ernor, it will be found that the people will be less care¬ 
ful in the selection of their Represezitatives; and the 
Representatives will not watch for the public interests 
with the same vigilance and care—relying upon the 
Governor’s power to send back any hasty or inconsider¬ 
ate proposition which they may pass; and many will 
vote for measures under an arrangement with the Ex¬ 
ecutive that he would send them back. For my part, 
I think the conferring an exercise of this power is as 
unnecessary as it is unprecedented in this State: be¬ 
sides it is against the known wishes of my constituents, 
and I do but express their wish when I declare my de¬ 
termination to oppose it on all occasions. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I desire with the permission 
of the committee to address a few words to the honor¬ 
able gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason.] I am alto¬ 
gether in favor of the veto power, propei',—an appeal 
to the people;—but I am opposed to the proposition 
reported by the committee, because it is not of that 
character. I am opposed to any division of responsi¬ 
bility which does not increase accountability to the 
people. The section before us is no veto, in my esti¬ 
mation. It has not the characteristic of an American 
veto. For this reason the gentleman from Clark must 
not expect support and co-operation from those in fa¬ 
vor of an old lashioned democratic veto. I would say 
to him with great respect, that he must progress a little 
farther in the knowledge and practice of democi'atic 
principles, before he can get our support. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I am in favor of the old fash¬ 
ioned veto. I always have been. I believe that expe¬ 
rience has shown its utility, both in State and national 
’affairs; but I am satisfied that in this Convention we 
cannot get it; and I make it a rule if I cannot get the 
best, (which is always preferable,) to take the next 
best. This I find to be a very practicable and reasona¬ 
ble rule of action; I never wed myself so closely to my 
own opinions, as to feel if I cannot cany them I will go 
against every thing else. It was with this consideration 
that I had hoped that this proposition, coming from our 
friends on the other side, would have been accepted as 
a concession. I shall myself vote for it, because it cer¬ 
tainly does to some extent impose a restraint upon hasty 
legislation. I do not think with the gentleman from 
Morgan [ Mr. Hawkins ] that the exercise of the veto nec¬ 
essarily involves the charge of scoundrelism and foolish- 
ishuess, but only hasty legislation. I will instance a case 
in which I think this power could have been exercised 
with a good effect. The case referred to the other day 
by the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbeuy] of the 
law passed in 1849, authorizing the canal fund cominis 
sioners to exchange our new State stocks for older ones 
with the holders of the old ones. This law was jiassed 
withoutgiving authority to the commissioners to sell the 
State stocks. Now it strikes me, that if any Governor 
could have had this law under consideration, he would 
have referred it back with this difficulty, and that the 
effect would have been, the passage of a newlaw, such 
as wc had passed at the succeedingsessiou of the Legis¬ 
lature. The veto proposed in the section reported by 
the committee merely requires a reconsideration of the 
vote, and repassage of the law which the Governor may 


return. It requires only the same vote upon the se¬ 
cond passage as upon the first. This is the veto re¬ 
ported by the coinmitlee on the Executive Depart¬ 
ment. Fie could not see any evil which might result 
from it. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. Having reported this section 
to the Convention, in connection with the balance of 
the committee, it is proposed that I should make some 
explanation of the vote which I am now aljout to give. 
Individually I am in favor of the two-thirds veto; but 
being satisfied that such a proposition cannot carry, I 
did not object in committee. I am satisfied that there 
will be so many other propositions of reform incorpo¬ 
rated into the new constitution that the two-thirds ve¬ 
to, would go far to defeat the constitution altogether. 
This is the only objection to the two-thirds veto. 

If I could get what I desire in this resjiect I would es¬ 
tablish the two-thirds veto. I would be in favor of 
placing it in the new constitution. 

Mr. GILLETT. Perhaps, as I also am a member of 
the committee which reported this proposition, it would 
be well enough to define my position. I did not agree 
to report the section, for the reason that I am opposed i 
to it; and for the further reason, that it is entirely con- i 
trary to the wishes of a very large portion of my con- i 
stituents. I do not know of a single individual in fa¬ 
vor gf it, belonging to the party with which I act, and } 
with the opposite party it was a thing frequently nam- : 
ed, in the canvass, as a matter to which they were op- 
posed. I 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll. I also, with my friend on i{ 
the left, [Mr. Gillett,] am a member of the committee J 
on the Executive Department, and like him and the 1 
member from Champaign, [Mr. Vance,] I did not con- i 
cur with the majority in making this report, and so we 
withheld our names from it, mainly on account of the 
section now under consideration. I do not know that 
it is proper for me to take up the time of the commk-' 
tee, but it seems strange to me that men upon this 
door, who, day after day, talk about the dear people, 
and seem to love the people so that they could almost 
fall down and worship them—declaring that all power | 
should be with the people and no where else—it seems 
to me strange that these men should be afraid now to 
trust the people acting by their representatives, and ■ 

desire to set up a power to protect the people against ' 

themselves: that they should in effect, tell the people i 
in the several districts of Ohio, who are called uimn 
to elect representatives to go and pass laws for them | 
that they will not be able to do their work vrell with- i 

out the intervention of a man called the Governor ' 

penned up here at the capital, and surrounded by the 
wealth and fashion of this magnificent city, because L 
perchance, he knows better the will of the people than ! i 
the representatives who have come right out from i ' 
amongst them not ten days from the passage of the bill. J | 
This may be some sort of Democracy, but ! ima'^ine » 
it would not do to tell much of this two-thirds veto to 
the multitudes across the Atlantic who have been for 'i 
so long a time shedding their blood, for the sake of i 
wresting this prerogative from their oppressors and \ 
bringing it back to the people : but on this side of the ! 
Atlantic we find men talking about taking this power i 
away from the people and placing it in the hands of I 
the Go^crnol, and I suppose they would place him as 1! 
a kind of school master over the representatives of the I 
people, to tell them—“You have’nt got your lesson I 
right and you must go back.” And it might so happen ' 
that the Governor would receive a bill of approval 1 
within five days of the close of the session, and find- ' 
ing the representatives determined to adjourn, he mio-ht ! 
just put it in his pocket, and there would be an eiuf of I 
it. A gentleman over the way has taken occasion to ! 
say that the exercise of the veto power has done great i 
good to the cmintry. ^ This is not the proper place to I 
discuss that proposition. But there are other gentle- t 
men on this floor entertaining a different opinion, and i p 












CONVENTION REPOETS. 


m 


who have a right, at least, to think differently from that 
gentleman. 

There are very few important bills which can pass 
by a very large majority. I think we have got a suffi¬ 
cient safe-guard against hasty legislation iii the section 
adopted in the report of the committee on the Legis¬ 
lative Department, which requires the yeas and nays 
on the final passage of every bill, and the yeas of a ma¬ 
jority of all tlie votes to which each House is entitled, 
in Ol der to pass a bill. Now if gentlemen w^ant a great¬ 
er check than this upon hasty legislation, let them vote 
for a monarchy at once. 

The constitution would provide an Attorney Gener¬ 
al for the State, to be elected by the people. That of¬ 
ficer is the constitutional advisor of the Legislature, and 
they have, undoubtedly, the power to call on him for 
his opinion upon any question of difficulty, as they have 
done frequently heretofore, and this was another safe¬ 
guard against hasty legislation. So that at last it re¬ 
solves itself into a mere question of expediency wheth¬ 
er v* e should fix, in the organic law, a check upon the 
representatives of the people, against the enactment of 
such laws as the people themselves want. I have 
thought it was proper to say this much, because it is 
due to myself and other members of the committee 
who have stood wdth me. I hope the proposition will 
be defeated and the section stricken out. It will be a 
bad commentary upon our institutions if, after the ex¬ 
perience of forty eight years, it should appear that we 
have progressed so far that we cannot trust the people. 
This would be a kind of progression which I do not 
understand veiy well. A kind of Democracy is urged 
upon this floor, with such zeal, and such protestations 
of love for the dear people, wuth some gentlemen, that 
one would suppose their bowels were ready to gush 
out; and when anything is urged here which seems to 
them to be unfavorable to the intelligence or action of 
the people, some of the gentlemen over the way seem 
astounded, and shi'ink from such imputation like a 
mad dog would at the sight of a river. But now the 
same men would impose a check on the representa¬ 
tives chosen by this same people. Call you this popu¬ 
lar liberty? 

I have Dut one suggestion to present, and that is. if 
we desire to do anything really to amend the constitu¬ 
tion, we had better confine ourselves and our opera¬ 
tions within such limits and upon such propositions as 
will certainly be productive of public advantage, and 
not load down the constitution wdth matter which is 
sure to be objectionable to the people of Ohio, 

Mr. MITCHELL. I have seen, since this Conven¬ 
tion begun, that there was a due proportion of the old 
political leaven still left upon the other side of the 
Chamber; but I hhve not before seen it so plainly at 
work as upon this question and upon this occasion. I 
can very readily apprehend the cause why a man who 
has lived as long in the world as the gentleman from 
Carroll, and all those gentlemen upon the other side, 
should be so zealous in their opposition to the veto— 
why they should have so great an objection to any pro¬ 
vision which takes hold of, and proposes to reverse the 
doings of our revolutionary forefathers—which propo¬ 
ses to repudiate their well matured sentiments. I would 
commend to these gentlemen, the saying of a distin¬ 
guished man of the Pennsylvania delegation with ref¬ 
erence to the adoption ol this provision in the consti¬ 
tution of the United states. “We desire,” said he, “an 
efficient executive, for the simple purpose of preventing 
hasty legislation, illy matured and inconsiderate, so that 
the liberties of the people may not be taken from them 
without due consideration.” Unfortunately, the oppo¬ 
site doctrine has spread very rapidly in this State, so 
that now it is tnimpeted forth from every stump, in 
every political campaign from one end of the State to 
the other. I cannot see why men distinguished for 
their historical knowledge, who cannot but know the 
connection which this subject has always had with the 
existence of free governments, should dare risk their 


reputation in characterizing this subject as they have. 
These gentlemen cannot but know' that this power has 
ever been used as the simple means of preserving to 
the people the liberties which they enjoy. No seu- 
sible reason can be assigned for their course, except 
that President Jackson, th'e great hero and patriot of 
the Hermitage, arrested, by the interposition of his ve¬ 
to, that infamous internal improvement system, as it 
was called, I refer to his veto against the Maysville 
road bill, in 1831, Then it was that for the first time 
we heard the using of this infamous howl, and it has 
been echoed ever since, sometimes louder and some¬ 
times more faintly. But I confess that since I heard 
that howd for the first time, I have never heard it in so 
w'eak a voice as that in which it has been put forth in 
this Convention. However, the voice is not dead yet. 
But the indications are, that the wra'h which has now' 
been stirred wall not stop. It is not yet forgotten how 
that great man dared to step forth and arrest the pro* 
gress of an insidious system, designed to crush the 
prosperity of the country, and consolidate the govern¬ 
ment—how he stepped forth and arrested the act re- 
chartering the Bank of the United States, in 1832. 

These are the causes why gentlemen are opposed to 
the veto power—these are the reasons w'hy they make 
such long, loud, disgusting and demagogical speeches 
against it—speeches preposterous and disgraceful to 
their authors, which would come up in judgment 
against them in after times, and stamp them as dema¬ 
gogues. I know, sir, that some people have for a time 
labored under this delusion, supposing their liberty to 
consist in the powder to pass laws—that if you take 
away the law, you take away their liberty. Is it true 
that liberty resides with the government and proceeds 
from it, or is it true that in our government all liberty 
is possessed positively and absolutely by the masses, 
and can be obtained only, or taken away rightfully, by 
their free consent and will; that is the great question. 

I know of no man who dare stand up here and say the 
latter is not tme. The people indebted for their lib¬ 
erty to their agents in the Legislature ! No one is bold 
enough openly to avow this. Yet I cannot mistake the 
signs which I see here; there are men who have the 
shadowings of these views cast over their minds, and 
those are the men who talk against the veto as taking 
away the liberty of the people, thus giving the best 
evidence that this is the view of human rights control- 
in g the silent operations of their minds. The arrest¬ 
ing of a law by the Executive veto is simply leaving 
the people in possession of the liberty they had be¬ 
fore, till they can be consulted as to whether they will 
have a law passed by which that liberty shall be cur¬ 
tailed. Now, if gentlemen on the other side could 
but rid themselves of these debasing prejudices, ac¬ 
quired by some of their connection with the strange 
doctrine taught in the political compaigns of 1832 and 
1848, they could see no veiy terrific matter in a prop¬ 
osition to give the Governor a veto. It was simply a 
power securing the people against the effects of what 
the Governor might suppose to be hasty legislation a 
thing which some gentlemen seem to suppose can 
never take place, and that no unwise man can hold a 
seat in the Legislature hereafter. 

I fear that those who are opposed to the two-thirds 
veto, and have declared themselves willing to compio- 
mise upon a qualified veto, have had their minds too 
much warped by stump speeches. I am afraid then 
sympathies arc too much with the wrong family. I 
am .sure, sir, that these infineiices have not had the^ 
same effect upon the honest hearts and braNe minds ol 
the unterrified democracy of the country ; these influ¬ 
ences have not yet been sufficient to alarm them. 
They have too much sense, sir,*to be affected in this 
way. There is not a single man in the part of the 
country to which I belong, whose neives have evei 
been disturbed by their cry. It has always been the 
prominent niissioii cimltlio imcossingoftort of tiiociGnio- 
cratic party to preserve the Constitution as it is, and to 











278 


CONVENTION EEPOETS. 


resist every attack upon it, let it come in what guise it 
may ; and for doing so, they have been maligned by 
every term of infamy and reproach which could be 
drawn from the most copious vacabulary of their en¬ 
raged opponents. Every man of the party who has a 
heart worthy of its great cause has ever stood firm in 
favor of this veto. I know that those whom I repre¬ 
sent are in favor of it. They are not disturbed by this 
senseless and unreasonable howl which has been rais¬ 
ed against it. They have always understood the soiu’ce 
from which that howl proceeded, and the cause of it; 
and instead of disturbing their minds, it has only drawn 
their affections closer around this bulwark of their 
liberty. They find thatthe boldest denouncers of these 
important vetoes of the sage of the Hermitage, will 
not now stand up and repeat their denunciations. E ven 
the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] the 
boldest man on this floor, yes, sir, in Ohio, I am proud 
to say, to his credit I speak it, will not, I presume, 
now stand up and say that the Maysville Road Bill, a 
partof that internalimprovementsystem, was altogether 
a just and commendable measure for the encouragement 
and support of the American people. I have not heard 
for the last five years a single man amongst those early 
denouncers of that veto who would openly adhere to 
their old course. Will any gentleman in this Conven¬ 
tion stand up and say that the United States Bank 
should now be set up and sustained by the American 
people 1 Or that we should return to the old exploded 
internal improvement system. 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll, (interrupting.) Will the 
gentleman himself stand up and oppose the pet banks 
—the petty state bank system—proposed by Gen. Jack- 
son, instead of the United States Bank ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. The gentleman is mistaken- 
Gen. Jackson never proposed any State bank system. 
It is not in the record. The gentleman can’t show a 
line of it. But I can show that Gen. Jackson is sub¬ 
ject to no such charge from the beginning to the end of 
his career. I can show that the entire policy of Jack- 
son, and all his teachings, were in irreconcileable hos¬ 
tility to the infamous and unrighteous scheme of rob¬ 
bery and wrong, and that it met his most hearty and 
uncompromising hatred. So far as I know, his con¬ 
duct has been that of an honest-hearted, clear-headed 
and patriotic man, and I believe that the peoi)le of 
America have come to the same conclusion, that all the 
acts of Jackson met with their most hearty and gener¬ 
ous and cordial approval. If gentlemen deny this, let 
them take up and try their old issues—those issues 
which we have been trying to bring them too, for so 
many years and have not been able to succeed. Now 
the gentleman from Carroll is a young man; and I 
venture to predict that he will not live to see the time 
when his party will wake up again the issues of 1832 
and 1836. 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll. If the democracy have de¬ 
termined that we shall have no more of the United 
States Bank, the old democracy have also determined 
that we shall have no more vetoes. I do not make an 
issue against that. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The democracy have had dis¬ 
graceful traitors in their ranks, who have always been 
afraid of their true issues, but from the time that the 
government was formed, we have always had a noble 
band of democrats, who have stood forth in defence 
of the doctrines of Jefferson and the great Statesman 
of the Hermitage. Yes, sir, and in 1840, when our 
opponents combined thei; coon-skin and hard cider 
influences, they found that they could not elect a Pres¬ 
ident without taking up some old friend of Gen. Jack- 
son to go along with him on their ticket—John Tyler, 
of Virginia. 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER observed that, long ago, 
some one told him that it was very bad for the health 
to be out walking on a foggy morning with an “ emp¬ 
ty stomach, ” and he conceived that such speecht s as 
they had] just been listening to, were about as hard 


upon an empty stomach as a fog in the morning. 
[Laughter.] Fie would therefore move that^ the com¬ 
mittee rise. 

The motion was withdrawn at the request of 
Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, who said he desired 
to return his hearty thanks to the gentleman from Knox 
[Mr. Mitchell] for his interesting lecture. He hoped 
ail would unite with him in returning thanks to the 
gentleman for the able effort he had made; and he re¬ 
joiced that there was one man in this Convention who 
could speak of our quarrels, and our conduct, and i 
instruct us in what we ought to do. He rejoiced that j 
we had such a man as this among us, and he hoped the i 
gentleman would improve the opportunity, whenever j 
it recurred, to lecture this body on matters not exactly i 
connected wi» lithe subjects before it. (Laughter.) The 
gentleman referred to the “ leaven on this side of the 
house”:—in his opinion there was no necessity for any | 
“ leaven” in certain seats on the opposite side of the 
chamber, for the gentleman was high” enough al¬ 
ready:—he was a great man. (Renewed laughter.) 

Mr. MITCHELL thanked the gentleman for the high 
encomium he had passed on him, and hoped that he 
was sincere in making it. (A laugh.) ^ 

The question being on striking out the 16th section, , 
was put and the committee divided, and stood affirma¬ 
tive 46, negative 34. 

So the section was stricken out. | 

On motion the committee rose, reported progress, i 
and asked and obtained leave to sit again. j i 

On motion of Mr. LIDEY, the Convention ac^ourned. , j 

THURSDAY, June 6, 1850. i 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Woodrow. ] 

Mr^ FIRESTONE presented the petition of James J 
Paxton and eighty-two other citizens of Ashland coun- | 
ty, praying that the new constitution may be so amen- | 
ded as to give equal political privileges to all male in- j 
habitants of this State, without regard to color. 

Upon motion, the petition was referred to the com¬ 
mittee on the Elective Franchise. 

The same gentleman presented another petition from j 
William B. Young and fifty-seven other citizens of Ash¬ 
land county, praying that a clause be inserted in the 
new constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from 
passing charters for banking institutions. 

Upon motion, the same was referred to the commit¬ 
tee on Banks and Currency. j 

Mr. STILLWELL presented a petition from Thomas 1 
Maxfield and one hundred and three other citizens of | 
Muskingum county, asking that a provision be inserted j 
in the new constitution (to be submitted to the vote of | 
the people,) prohibiting the Legislature from the pas- i 
sage of any law legalizing the traffic in ardent spirits. 

Upon motion, the petition was referred to the coni- 
mit'ee on Jurisprudence. i 

The same gentleman presented another petition from I 
John S. Sharkle and twenty-nine others, upon the same | 
subject, which was referred to the same committee. ] 
Mr. GILLETT presented a memorial from Benjamin j 
Brush and sixteen other citizens of the county of Scioto, 
asking that a provision be inserted in the new coustitu- i 
tion, prohibiting the Legislature from the passage of ! 
any law legalizing the traffic in ardent spirits. , ; 

Upon motion, it was referred to the committee on i 
Jurisprudence. 

Mr. MASON gave notice that on the next day or some 
subsequent day he would ask leave to introduce a re- : 
solution to amend the first standing rule of the Conven¬ 
tion. 

Mr. McCORMICK offered the following which was ' 
agreed to: 

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed, to whom shall : ' 
be referred the subject of the retail of ardent spirits, and all mat- 
tei's connected therewith. 

The PRESIDENT announced Messrs. McCormick, • 
Hawkins, Andrews, Smith of Highland and Hender- ;' 
SON, the committee, agreeable to the above resolution. I 



















CONVENTION REPOETS 


279 


Upon motion of Mr. RIDDLE, the Conventiim then 
resolved itself into a committee of the whole, (Mr. Cut¬ 
ler in the Chair) and resumed the consideration of the 
report No. 1, on 

THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 

Section 17, providing for the election of Lieutenant 
Governor was passed over. 

Sec. 18 “The Governor shall receive lor his compensation 
twenty-five hundred dollars per annum.” 

Mr. CLARK moved to amend the section by erasing 
nil after the word “compensation” and insert the fol¬ 
lowing, “ a sum to be fixed by the Legislature not to ex¬ 
ceed $1500 per annum.” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved to amend the amendment, 
by striking out the words “not to exceed $1500 per 
annum.” 

Mr. GREGG. Mr. Chairman, I object to putting the 
salaries of public officers in the fundamental law of 
the land—because if put in, it will be for the purpose 
of raising the salaries of Governor, Judges, &c., where 
they may be placed beyond the reach of the people. 
Take, sir, the present proposition,—a proposition to al¬ 
most double the salary of the Governor—and a like 
principle will no doubt be adopted or reported in fa¬ 
vor of the judges ol' the supreme court and of the courts 
of common pleas. State officei’s, &c—and thus, sir, in 
one scale you will put the good sound principles of the 
<;on8titutioii, while in the other you will hang a dead 
drag in the shape of double salaries. I am, therefore, 
ill favor of striking out all salaries from the constitution 
and leave them as at present, to be regulated by law. 
I wish the constitution which may be formed by this 
Convention, to go to the people entirely upon its own 
merits and freed from the drag of salaries. Let the 
peo[)le judge of the principles of the constitution, and 
not be troubled about a question of dollars and cents 
in making a decision. And, sir, how does your rule 
operate. In section nine of the legislative report which 
has received the sanction of this Convention, you have 
put up the mechanic to the lowest bidder,—you let 
the printer and his work out on contract, in the unal¬ 
terable law of the land—and in the same constitution 
—in the same unalterable law—you wish to put a dou¬ 
ble salary for the Governor of the State! Yes, 
sir the mechanic is to be sold out to the lowest bidder 
—he is to be “chained down” in the constitution of 
your State, and your Governor and other high officials 
appointed to feed upon his vitals, and revel at his ex¬ 
pense upon double pay and high salaries ! Sir, I am 
opposed to this proposition, and wish the Governor and 
the mechanic to stand upon the same platform, and be 
subject to the regulation of the law, and the Legisla¬ 
ture of the State. I am aware that demagogues have 
kept our Legislature two or three days, in session, at 
an expense of seven or eight hundred dollars, debating 
a question whether they should expend $1,87^ cents in 
printing—but even this abuse does not demand a consti¬ 
tutional enactment. Leave it to the law, where it can 
be changed at pleasure—and let us trust, also, that 
that particular class of demagogues who have hereto¬ 
fore spent so much time in debating a question of print¬ 
ing, will soon die out, and close their eyes in political 
death! 

I Say again, sir, I am opposed to the increase of sal¬ 
aries, and opposed to chaining or attempting to chain 
the people down in this constitution—for let me warn 
the members, that an attempt of this kind will meet 
with a signal failure—for the people will hurl back 
your constitution, and refuse the shackles which you 
wish to place upon them. Yes, sir, they will refuse to 
be bound down in your fundamental law, and reject 
the chains which you offer them. I say again, I am 
opposed to this kind of work—1st. Because, we have 
never bad difficulty in securing competent persons to 
fill official stations—and until that takes place, I am 
unwilling to offer premiums in the fundamental law ot 
the land. The real difficulty has always been, that too 
many offer their claims to the public for official station. 


2d. Because all questions of salary should be left to 
the law—it is impossible to fix salaries in the constitu¬ 
tion, and it would be unjust to give the “ high official ” 
this great privilege, to the exclusion of all other offi¬ 
cers, who may be equally meritorious, although not so 
lax’ge in name. 3d. Because of the reasons assigned, 
that you wish to place it in the constitution to keep it 
out of the reach of the people. 4th. Because you wish 
to chain down the mechanic to the “lowest bid” for 
his work—and fasten him down, too, in the unchange¬ 
able law—while at the same time you cannot reacfi a 
point too high for the public officer. I therefore wish 
the section struck out of the report of the committee 
on the Executive Department, and leave the whole 
question of fixing salaries, to the General Assembly, 
where it can be regulated to suit the circumstances of 
the case. 

Mr. GREGG moved that the whole section be strick¬ 
en out. 

Mr. CLARK said it was urged that the Governor’s 
salary had better be left open to be fixed by the Legis¬ 
lature. He thought differently. He believed the sala¬ 
ry of all officers ought to be fixed by the constitution 
so far as was possible—it saved the expense of having 
it dene by the Legislature. 

It was urged by the gentleman from Columbiana 
[Mr. Gregg,] that all salaries and the price for the 
public printing should be left to be fixed by the Le¬ 
gislature. He did not agree with him. When the sub¬ 
ject of the public pi'inting shall again come up for final 
action, he should vote for and support the proposition 
in the report of the Legislative committee to give it 
out on contract to the lowest responsible bidder who 
would do the work well. That wks'the correct prin¬ 
ciple to be adopted. He would not discuss that ques¬ 
tion now—he could not see what the public printing 
had to do with the salary that should be paid to the 
Governor. 

^he office of Governor in this State is but nominal. 
IL^duties are few and well defined, and there was no 
difficulty and could be no objections to fixing upon 
the amount he should have for his services. It had got 
to be done some time and by some body, and he thought 
this was the time and place to do it. To show that the 
office of Governor was but nominal and but little to do, 
he would refer to the duties of the office. The law re¬ 
quires him to sign the commissions of ofiT^’s, such as 
the justices of the peace, prosecuting attornies, &c. 
This requires but little labor, and might be dispensed 
with, by changing the law, as such commissions are 
useless. He is to fill vacancies in certain offices until 
the Legislature meet. He is to call special electioiis to 
fill vacancies in certain other cases. He seldom had 
occasion to do either, as vacancies rarely occured, and 
never by resignation. Experience shows that an offi¬ 
cer will generally hang on to an office as long as he 
could. 

Another duty of the Governor was to issue his pro¬ 
clamation, giving notice of the Presidential election, 
and to attend here when the electors for President and 
Vice President cast their vote. These were but trifling 
duties, and occurred but once in four years. Another 
duty was to grant pardons. He was by law comman¬ 
der-in-chief of the militia and navy of this State. This 
was not an arduous duty. He spent no time with the 
militia, and as to the navy, he [Mr. C.] knew of none 
except the canal boats on the different ditches of this 
State, and he thought the Governor did not spend much 
time in attending to them. Another duty was to con¬ 
vene the Legislature in urgent cases, and adjouim it 
when the two houses could not agree on a time of ad¬ 
journment, neither of which often occur. He al^so is 
required to demand fugitives from justice, and to deliv¬ 
er up such as flee to this State. To draw this State s 
portion of the public arms. To approve of the bond 
given by the Auditor of State. To discharge mortga¬ 
ges given to the State. To notify once in four years the 
assessors to take the census. To give notice of the sal« 














280 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


of the canal lands, and appoint the appraisers. To ap¬ 
point two directors of the Ohio and Tennsylvania Ca¬ 
nal—to vote for directors on the State’s interest in turn¬ 
pike road and slackwater navigation companies, and 
appoint notaries jniblic. All told, this is the sum of the 
Governor’s duties, t Many of these duties could better 
be done by some"*one else. For these duties he now 
receives a salary of twelve hundred dollars, and the 
report of the committee is to raise it to twenty-five 
hundred dollars. Fie [Mr. C.] was willing and desi¬ 
rous the Governor should have a fair, reasonable salary, 
but there was no propriety in giving so large a salary 
for so little service, it was not in proportion with oth¬ 
er things. If it is reasonable to give the Governor a 
salary of twenty-five hundred dollars a year for such 
trifling services, it would be right and proper to pay to 
a judge of the Supreme Court or the judge of the Su¬ 
perior Court at Cleveland, twenty-five thousand dollars 
a year. There is that difference in the two cases be¬ 
tween the actual labor and service rendered. In truth 
the village constable does more labor in his office than 
does the Governor in his. The village justice of the 
peace, whose fees amount to one hundred dollars a 
year, performs double the official labor of the Govern¬ 
or, who now receives twelve hundred dollars a year; 
and it is proposed to raise it to twenty-five hundred 
dollars a year. For his part, while he had proposed 
fifteen hundred dollars as the highest point, he should 
prefer twelve hundred, the present salary, and believ¬ 
ed it was sufficient. 

Was it true that the present salary of twelve hun- 
di’ed dollars had not been sufficient to secure the best 
talent in the State ? He thought not. The present in¬ 
cumbent, Governor Ford, he believed had discharged 
the duties of the office ably and faithfully. He had 
never heard but one complaint against him; that was 
that he spent some of his time attending to his farm¬ 
ing business, and in making cheese! As for himself 
he was fond of cheese, and was very glad to hear 
jthat the Governor was not above attending to his 
Ifarming business while Govenior—^lie had done right 
—the duties of his office did not require he should be 
here much of the time—he could and did discharge 
his official duties well, and attended to his farm be¬ 
sides. 

There was now two candidates in nomination for 
that same office—both well qualified for the place. 
There was no difficulty in finding competent men at 
the present salary, willing to accept of the office. Was 
it a fact that the office of Governor went a begging for 
a candidate to fill it ? or was the converse true, that 
candidates went a begging for the office ? He would 
refer to the State conventions where these nomina¬ 
tions were made, and would inquire if every means 
was not frequently used to secure a nomination ? If 
intrigue, wriggling and twisting of every kind was 
not frequently practised to secure the desired object ? 
How was it with respect to the other offices in the 
State ? Do they beg for candidates, or do candidates 
beg for them ? Every body knows how this is. No 
body I’efuses to take office because the salary or fees is 
too low—on the contrary the country is oveiTun with 
office seekers. He would like to see the salaries of a 
few reduced so low as to put a check upon office seek- 
ing. 

_ The people, so far as he knew, expected that sala¬ 
ries should be fixed by the constitution. Such was the 
feeling expressed iu his part of the State. If left to 
the Legislature to fix from time to time, it would be at¬ 
tended with great expense. 

The high taxes that the people are now made to 
pay, requires that the expenses of the State govern¬ 
ment should bo as light as pos.sible. He would prefer 
fixing a point in all salaries, above which the Legisla¬ 
ture should not go. There was no danger of their fix¬ 
ing the salaries too low. The danger was the other 
way. Last winter it was proposed in the Legislature, 
and met with much favor, to raise the Governor’s salary 
to three thousand dollars. 


A few days since, in debate, the retrenchment law of 
1844 was spoken of. It was not now directly before 
the committee but he would give it a passing notice. 
One gentleman while then remarking upon it said that 
not a member who voted for it wanted it to pass. Very 
likely that is so, but the people wanted it to pass—they 
demanded a retrenchment in salaries and fees, and it 
was only because the Legislature knew that the peo- c 
pie demanded it that the law was passed—they dare 
not refuse it. The law however was intentionally so 
framed as to defeat the wishes of the j)eop]e. Instead 
of reducing salaries and fees in such cases and in such j 
manner as would effect the object, it reduced the sala¬ 
ries of the judges of the supreme court, a thing that no , ^ 
body had asked for or desired. This with other things ;i,> 
was done with the intention of making the law as odious : ■ 
and objectionable to the people as possible, with the ■ 
hope they would soon call for its repeal. 

He thought it advisable to fix salaries as far as possi¬ 
ble, and therefore hoped the amendment to the amend- ; ■ 
meiit would fail and his amendment to reduce the Go- |: 
venior’s salary to fifteen hundred dollars would pre- <; 
vail. 11 

Mr. LARWILL. I am in favor of the motion made i 
by the gentleman from Columbiana, from the fact, j| 
that the representatives of the people, when they 1 1 
come up here, are the proper persons to fix the salary. ^ 
If I were to vote upontiie question of establishing the j 
salary of Governor at this time, I should vote for a 
less salary than has been named. As a delegate to this 
Convention, I have received no instructions from my j 
constituents in regard to this matter, but I think the 
representatives of the people would receive such in- , 
structions, if it is to be left to the Legislature, as it ■ 
should be, to fix the salaries of all officers. We ought ' 
not to make such a provision permanently, and to last ^ ■ 
for a number of years, for circumstances may change, 
so as to require that the salary of the Govenior, which 
gentlemen may think amply sufficient at the present ‘ j 
time, should be increased, and therefore, I think it is | 
unwise for us to establish a peimanent, fixed rule in re- 11 
lation to this matter. i 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I rise chiefly for the pm-pose j | 
of making a few remarks, in referei'ce to some of the j 
observations made by the gentleman from Lorain [Mr. ,! 
Clark.] I will first remark, that I agree entirely ij 
with the gentleman from Columbiana [Mr. Gregg,] ' 
that the salaries of public officers ought not to be fixed 
by the constitution. I think it would be better to 
leave that matter for legislation, than to attempt to fix 
salaries permanently now. But I rose to say that I 
never could sympathize with the great zeal that has I 
been manifested by a certain class of politicians on the ! 
stump, to reduce the salaries of the representatives or j ■ 
other servants of the people, to the lowest price that | 
would command incumbents. I regard all such delu¬ 
sions as pernicious. It has been said, that the pay of , 
legislators has been to high. Now, sir, what is the 
fact ? Do your most valuable citizens desii*e to hold 
seats in the legislative halls ? If they do, it is only 
that they may there find ste]3ping stones to more de¬ 
sirable positions. This is a notorious fact. In every , 
county of Ohio, the best men, those who could render 
the greatest service to the State, frequently refuse to 
come to the Legislature, for they can do better by at¬ 
tending to their business at home. 

Mr CLARK. Who are they? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I do not choose to answer such 
questions, or trifle on quibbles. Perhaps, however, 
this may not be the case on the Western Reserve, for I 
have heard it remarked that persons living on the Re¬ 
serve, who are making their five dollars a day, would 
come here and work for two—men who, not being sat¬ 
isfied without a good compensation for their services 
on private account, are said to be found on the Reserve 
who will do the legislating of the State at a very low 
price. I am aware that many of our citizens have a 
great desire to labor for the public. Indeed, dis- 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


281 


tingiiished foreigners who have visited this country, 
are astonished to find that men not usually fond of hard 
work, will labor cheaper for the public, and that too 
like dray horses—than on their own private account. 
Sir, this, notwithstanding all that is said to the contrary, 
is characteristic of the American people. 

De Tocqueville, and other distinguished foreigners, 
have noticed with much interest this peculiar charac¬ 
teristic of our countrymen. I shall not go into the 
philosophy of it, but surely this desire, felt by so many, 
to work for the public, is no good reason for denying 
them a reasonable compensation. 

I think, sir, that the supposed popular crusade against 
giving the representatives and public servants of the 
people, a fair compensation for their services, is alien 
to the genius of our institutions, for it should always 
be characteiistic of a republic to pay a reasonable and 
fair compensation to its servants for their labor, and es¬ 
pecially to Z’epresentatives, who make the laws of the 
land, for which the best talent is needed. Why, sir, 
t'o to the oppressive governments of Europe—to Eng¬ 
land for example, that nation possessing an amount of 
genius learning, wealth and power scarcely equaled 
in this world. What do you find ? The very impor¬ 
tant fact that the representative servants of the peo¬ 
ple work for nothing. This fact is one of the greatest 
obstacles to popular reform. A man of the people— 
a poor man, cannot leave his business, to go to Parlia¬ 
ment and be ruined; and therefore, we find that Par¬ 
liament—the popular branch of the Legislature—is in 
the hands of the aristocracy. I doubt not that the ar¬ 
istocratic party of this country—the party of special 
privileges, would, if they reflected upon the power it 
would give them, gladly I’educe the pay of zuembers 
of the Legislature to one dollar a day, or to nothing. 
And the contest amozig them, even thezz, for seats izz 
the Legislatuz’e would be as warmly contested, I doubt 
not, as among aspirants at present. 

Mr. CLARK. I would inquire if there is an aristo¬ 
cratic party izz this country that would favor such an 
idea. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I am speaking of what would 
be for the manifest iizterest of that party. Sir, the gen¬ 
tleman mezitions the fact that an itching palm prevails 
for the honors of Representative office, as a proof that 
Repz’esentatives here would be well enough paid at two 
dollars per day. In governmezzts where you find these 
public fuzzctionaries paid the least, the exertiozi to get 
office is the greatest. Take England for exaznple. Lz 
the records of the political cozztests of that couzitry 
you will find a disregaz’d of moral principle and a sys¬ 
tem of bribezy disclosed which is unequaled in the 
histozy of govez’zzmezzts where z’epresentatives are paid. 
I remember very well whezz I was growing up to man¬ 
hood in the city of New York, that the aldermen azzd 
assistant aldermezz, cozzstituting a city legislature sizni- 
lar to the Legislature of Ohio, were paid nothizzg for 
their services, and in the greenishzzess of my boyhood 
I wondered how they could be so patriotic as to serve 
without pay. I recollect asking one who had beezz an 
alderman how they could aflbz'd it. '• Oh,” said he, 
“ they make mozzey out of it, for they control the laws 
of the city, and the contracts, by wlzich they make a 
gz’eat deal of money.” The Democratic parly ot New 
York, knowing the azzti-Democratic azzd corrizpting ten¬ 
dency of such false and delusive ecozzozny, caizsed the 
laws to be chazzged, and the alderizzezz were after¬ 
wards paid for their services, which pz'oved to be a val¬ 
uable and popular z’eforzzz. Our friezzds must learzz to 
disregard the unreasonable claznor aboizt official com- 
pensatiozz. They must study practically the policy of 
reducing the pay of our Represezztatives and officers 
of government to the pittance advocated by some. 
Why, sii’, there never was greater demagogueism orhuzn- 
buggery than the clamor of small politicians for redu- 
cizzg the pzzy of zneznbers of the Legislature to two 
dollars a dzzy. No man of ability, liberal sentiments 
and generosity, who is worth anythizzg at home to him¬ 


self, would desire to cozzze to the Legislatizi’e for two 
dollars a day, uziless influenced by some ulterior ambi¬ 
tion or design. If he is worth no znore than two dol¬ 
lars to the people of the State of Ohio in the legisla¬ 
tive halls, he is not worth fifty cezzts at borne. In con¬ 
clusion let me say, that I would unite with the gentle¬ 
man from Columbiana to strike out all provisions for 
salaries izz the constitution, azzd leave the znatter to the 
Legislatuz’e hereafter. I am satisfied that the sober 
z'eflecliozi of the people will cozzcur with me, deciding 
that public servazzts shall be reasonably paid for their 
labors. I azn not izz favor of paying high salaries, but 
I am in favor of payizig such salaries as shall secure 
the ability and talezzt z’equiz’ed izz public stations, 
whether tlzat of Represezztative, Judge, Governor, or 
any other public officer. 

Mr. ARUHBOLD. I agree in general with the re¬ 
marks znade by the gentlemazz fi’onz Fairfield. I am 
under the impressiozz that the niggardly policy is a 
foolish ozze. 1 have zzo doizbt, for izzstance, thzit the 
blouse of Commozzs in Gz'eat Britziizz is the most costly 
elective legislative body ozz earth beyozzd all compari¬ 
son. I take it for granted that the Hozzse of Commons 
costs much zzzore thazz ozzr Hoizse of Repz’esezztatives zit 
Washington. It is very evident that if we put men izz 
place, power and responsibility, we mzzst compezzsate 
them according to the trust we repose izz them. What! 
Pizzch a rnazz with hiznger and clothe hiizz with rags 
and then give him custody of your gold azzd jewels !!! 
Evez’y mazz sees the folly of that thizzg. These az'e 
cozzsiderations highly proper to be weighed by the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, bizt circumstances do zzot deznand that 
we should fix these salaz’ies izz the constitution. On 
the cozztrary, circuzzzstazzces forbid us to do it. 

Look at the tone of some of the little seven by nine 
zzewspapers in some of the counties of the State. H(jw 
they lectzzre us about the slowness of proceedings. 
They talk to this Cozzvention izz a manner zzzore arro¬ 
gant than a southern master would to a gang of slaves. 
Yestez’day we passed a z'esolution givizzg couzztezzance 
to these libels and confessing ozzr imbecility. [Mr. 
Archbold alluded to the fifteen mizzutes zrule.] I wozzld 
simply say that ouz’ friezzds upozz the right have beezz 
instrumental izz fixing this libel upozz us. By the by it 
was sti’azzge policy for zzzizzority membez’s. They gen¬ 
erally suffered zzzost by the gag. It was zzot foz’ them 
to call for it. I have some experience as a zninoi’ily 
znember. I zzever voted to apply the gag. If we want 
to get done with the labors of this Cozzvention it would 
be wise to close the door at ozzce on this bzzsizzess, and 
vote every salaz’y out of this cozzstitution, azzd vve^ could 
pz’obably shorteiz our sessions a zzzonth azzd z’elieve the 
instrument of a burthezz zzot its owzz. The whole busi- 
ness really belozzgs to the ordinary legislation. 

The cozzstitution will zneet with objections upon all 
hazzds, both fair azzd foul, whezz it comes lor ratification 
before the people. It we satisfy one party with z’e- 
gard to the curz’eucy, the other paz’ty will vote against 
it. When we cozzze to the subject of suffrage we aze 
suz’e to tzzrzz some votes agaizzst the instrument, for we 
canzzot zznd will zzot grant the z’ight of suffrage to the 

Afz’icazz race. _ u 

Suppose we vote for very low salaries: we shall tlzeiz 
be accused of acting zziggardly; but if, on the contra¬ 
ry, we declare izz favor of high ones, we shall be gzzzlty 
of extravagance. Our government, for about teiz or 
twelve years, has cost us only five per cent, of the 
total taxation. While we have an zznznense pizblic 
debt, the pay of officers zzzust be low, azzu zt womd be 
right to leave this matter of setting the salaries to t^e 
Legislature. I hope the time may coziie when the piib- 
lic debt will be paid; then the Legislature may with 
great propi’iety be moi’e libei’al. 

The gentleman from Loz’aiu seems to think that I am 
advocating gi’eat economy in salai’ies. I am ueithcz 
advocating economy zioi'iibez’ality. I insist that this 
is not the I’lght place. If we entez upon this znatter 
we take possession of a wide field of discussion not 








282 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


properly our own. We take upon ourselves authority 
and power not at all necessary to the right discharge of 
our duties. I insist that this whole matter be left to the 
General Assembly. 

Mr. LIDEY. I go for fixing the salary permanently, 
and making it a liberal one. For the last twenty years, 
at almost every session of the Legislature, there has 
been a bill introduced either to raise or lower the sala¬ 
ries of officers of this State. The people of the region 
of the country that I represent are in favor of having 
the salaries permanently fixed, and they are willing 
that the salaries allowed shall be fair and liberal. The 
gentleman from Monroe says, that we ought not to fix 
these salaries in the constitution, but leave them to be 
settled by the Legislature hereafter. The difficulty 
about this would be that there is so much change in 
circumstances, especially so far as legislative action is 
concerned—for one year they might make the salary 
$1200, and another year $1500. Would this be fair 
and just ? I think it would not, and therefore I con¬ 
tend, we should, by a provision in the new constitu¬ 
tion, fix the salaries of the various State officers perma¬ 
nently. 

Mr. BARBEE. I am opposed to making the salary 
in the case of any of the public officers a permanent 
one, for the obvious reason that time will produce im¬ 
portant and national changes. It would not be wise 
in my opinion, to fix such salary for State officers ten 
or fifteen years in advance. I am willing for one, to 
give our various State officers a just and liberal com¬ 
pensation. And I ask honorable gentlemen upon this 
floor, whether the salary of the Governor is not entire¬ 
ly too inadequate? At the proper time he wished to 
present an amendment. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. I will state that the commit¬ 
tee was unanimous upon the subject of compensation 
to the Governor, and unanimous in the opinion that the 
amount of such compensation should be embodied in 
the Constitution. It has been insisted upon that the 
question of compensation for officers should be left to 
the Legislature. It is argued that in some years the 
compensation would be too great and in others too 
small. The committee also took into consideration the 
argument that has been urged in favor of retrenchment 
and economy. If a principle of this kind be adopted, 
I would like some gentleman who is in favor of re¬ 
trenchment to inform me in what particular are the 
people to be benefitted by the Legislature fixing the 
salaries. With the representation that you will have 
•here under the new constitution, you cannot legislate 
for less than 600 dollars a day. Can you determine 
the question of the salary of your Governor in a day? 
No, sir, not in less time than one week. You will spend 
more money before you come to a final decision, than 
would pay the salary of your Governor for a whole 
year. I am not fearful of loadingthis constitution down 
with matters of this kind. Every part of oiu’ new 
constitution ought to stand as an abstract and inde¬ 
pendent proposition; if that proposition be right it 
should be sustained; if wi’ong, rejected. As for this 
proposition I am not afraid to go to the people with it, 
it is manifestly right and proper, and I believe that 
there is sense and intelligence enough in the people of 
Ohio to sustain it. Nor am I to be governed as to my 
course of action by the dictates of “ party.” I shall 
take such a course as will have reference to the inter¬ 
ests of the whole people, and what I believe would be 
for the benefit of the State at large. 

It was for the purpose of preventing an increased ex¬ 
penditure, that I was in favor of engrafting a provision 
into our constitution as to wliat salaries we shall pay 
our officers. Although at some sessions it should seem 
too high and at others too low, yet it would in the end, 
equalize itself. I was in favor of incorporating into 
the constitution a clause naming the sum of two thou¬ 
sand dollars. I am perfectly satisfied that, just so long 
as you will leave the Legislature to fix the salaries of 
its members, the judges and officers of the executive 


department, just so long will you keep the public mind 
in agitation; and just so soon as the Legislature shall 
fix the salaries, you will have demagogues ready to ride 
into power on the gi'ound of “ retrenchment and re¬ 
form,” while the people will have to fay the fiper — 
will be obliged to foot the bills for all the fiddling and 
dancing. They want none of this af^itation. They are 
perfectly satisfied to pay all your officers a fair and rea¬ 
sonable compensation, and they would not ask that the 
office should go a “ begging,” but wish this question of 
compensation to be fixed, beyond the necessity of an¬ 
nual change and revision at an expense exceeding the 
largest amount ever proposed to be paid to any one of 
those officers. I am in favor of giving to the Governor 
of Ohio a salary equal to the salary of any other officer 
in the State—I would make it equal to that of the Su¬ 
preme Judges. Sir, the growth and increase our State 
in wealth and political importance, and the consequent 
increase of business in all its official departments, de¬ 
mand that the State should allow its officers a greater 
salary than they are at present receiving. The vastly 
important duties of the Governor were discussed at 
great length by the gentleman from Lorain, [Mr. 
Clark,] but the pardonitig power, one of the most im¬ 
portant of them all, was passed lightly by. I venture 
to say, that we have never had an Executive in office, 
who would not rather perform one-half the duties re¬ 
quired of a Supreme .Judge, than to be burthened with 
the fearful responsibility of deciding upon the applica¬ 
tions and petitions for reprieve and pardon, sent up for 
almost every criminal in the State. It is an onertms 
duty upon the Governor, the pardoning power vested 
in him, for if you will go into your penitentiary, and 
examine every man there, he is an innocent man, and 
he has friends who are continually importuning the 
Governor for their discharge. I had hoped that, al¬ 
though the salary might be put down to two thousand 
dollars, yet it might not be made less than that. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I am opposed to fixing definite¬ 
ly salaries of officers in the constitution for the reasons 
already given, and for reasons submitted by other gen¬ 
tlemen ; yet I think it might be well to fix a minimum 
amount, and if we do so in one case it may become 
proper to fix a minimum for State officers generally; 
also for judicial and legislative officers. I however 
merely rose to suggest to those gentlemen who have in 
view the defeating of demagogueical operations to de¬ 
stroy the capital of small potatoe politicians, like those 
who flourished in the county of Licking a few years 
ago, who managed to make the people of that county 
believe that the man best fitted to command their votes 
was he who would prorriise to work for nothing in a 
legislative capacity; but there are not many counties in 
the State where such men have been able to succeed. 
During the last election—I think it was in the county 
of Wayne—one exceedingly ambitious and patriotic 
gentleman, desirous of obtaining the office of county 
Treasurer, pledged himself if elected, to pay one half 
of his fees into the treasury. I believe that the citizens 
of that county politely informed that gentleman that 
they did not want his services even at half price, and I 
think that would be the case generally in Ohio, for the 
people do not want to be troulsle with this kind of am¬ 
bitious patriotism. I would unite with the gentleman 
from Licking on fixing minimum salaries in the consti¬ 
tution; and I want them to be sufficiently reasonable, 
so that none would have good cause to complain. But 
I am opposed to fixing any positive salaries in the con¬ 
stitution for any public officer. The constitution we 
are framing may be in existence for half a century, and 
in this period there may be great changes in the value 
of money and services. For when we get the hard 
money system into operation the State will be more 
prosperous—men will be better paid, get higher com¬ 
pensations for their services and there will be less 
competition for public employment. You will not then 
find able and qualified men who will work for small 
salaries. And the hard money system ia certain to pre- 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


m 


vail in this Slate ; the radical democracy are resolved 
that it shall triumph, and I hope and trust that it will 
triumph in the constitution we are framing. I will add 
one further remark and that is, that I am willing to fix 
the minimum of salaries in the constitution and also pro¬ 
vide that the salary of public officers shall not be chang¬ 
ed during their term of office. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I am inclined to think that we 
should establish definitely the amount of salanes our 
public agents should receive. It may be that for hold¬ 
ing these views I may be denounced as a demagogue 
by those who dissent from me. Denunciations of this 
kind shall not deter me from speaking out my convic¬ 
tions upon the subject. In my own district I never 
heard any particular alarm expressed in regard to this 
particular point, but I have often heard it remarked, 
that it would be better, if it was practicable, to fix the 
salaries of our public officers, as it would prevent a 
great waste of time and money. 

The question being upon striking out the words, 
“not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars,” the committee 
refused to strike out. 

The question then being upon Mr. Clark’s amend¬ 
ment, 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I hope the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Lorain will not be agreed to. 

1 tell the gentleman there is rank aristocracy in this 
business. Here gentlemen are fixing up the salaries of 
Governor, Judges of the Supreme Court, and the other 
magnates of the land, but salaries of the Justices of 
the Peace, and the smaller offices in the country, are to 
be left to the tender mercies of the General Assembly. 
You fix up here for the magnates—the great men—the 
high and the mighty—those who will have the honors of 
the first places in the country, magnificent salaries. 
Gentlemen seem to be afraid to leave the matter to 
the General Assembly, for fear they will be too econo¬ 
mical; but I dare say, that if we hivite their attention 
to the fact that we might regulate the pay of township 
and county officers, of the little men as well as the 
great, we should be answered at once, it is impossible, 
“ it can’t be did,” as Jack Downing says. [Laughter.] 
I tell you the whole thing smells of rank aristocracy. 
Gentlemen will be convinced that Buncombe speeches 
can be made upon both sides of this question, and if 
we refrain from making such speeches, it is simply for 
want of inclination, and they may be obliged to listen 
to some such when they get home. Better listen now. 
The warning may come too late. The charge of aris¬ 
tocracy may stick to them like the poisoned shirt of 
Nessus. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, called for adivision of 
the question, and the question being first upon the mo¬ 
tion to strike out all after the word “compensation,” 

The same was agreed to. 

The question being now upon inserting the words 
“the sum to be fixed by the Legislature not to exceed 
$1,500 per annum. 

Mr. BARBEE. It strikes me that there is a mani¬ 
fest impropriety in this, and that we ought not to es¬ 
tablish this permanently in the constitution. Two 
thousand dollars a year would bea fair compensation to 
be paid to the Governor now, but it might be a very 
small compensation eighteen or twenty years hence. 
For this reason I think it would be wrong to fix an 
amount now which cannot be altered hereafter in our 
constitution. I would propose for the present, that it 
shall be no less than what would be a fair and liber¬ 
al compensation, that will sustain him comfortably 
here, and that the matter be left open for future Le¬ 
gislatures to adjust, when a necessity for change may 
arrive. 

Mr. EWART. I do not think it advisable to name 
and fix any of these salaries in the constitution at all. 
I would, therefore, move to strike out the whole sec¬ 
tion. If We desire that the constitution which we 
may adopt here should be accented by the people, we 
should omit this provision in regard to salaries, and 


leave it where it properly belongs, with the Legisla¬ 
ture. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I think it is useless and unnnec- 
essary for us to spend so much time upon .so small a 
matter. For myself, I am ready to vote for fixing the 
salary, for in doing it we shall save many thousand 
dollars of expense, consequent upon a ^reat deal of 
debate in the Legislature, upon the question as to how 
much the Governor’s salary shall be. I consider the 
(luestion now before the Couvention is the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Lorain. Those gentle¬ 
men who are in favor of transferring this question to 
the legislative department, will, of course, vote for the 
amendment. 

Mr. CLARK withdrew his amendment. 

The amendment being withdrawn, the question then 
occurred upon filling the blanks. The several sums 
of $2,000, $1,800, $1,600 and $1,500 were moved by 
different gentlemen. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. I propose when 
this blank shall be filled, to oiler an amendment which 
shall authorize the Legislature to alter the compensa¬ 
tion after the year 1860. I saw many objections to 
fixing it, but at the same time the argument of the 
Chairman has veiy nearly removed alltho.se objections 
from my mind, and I feel bound by my convictions of 
right, to go for fixing the matter for the present. 

The question being then taken upon filling up the 
blank with the highest sum named, it was agreed 
to by the following vote: Affirmative 49. Nega¬ 
tive 24. 

Mr. BARBEE. As I understand that the blank is 
now filled with the sum of $2,000, I would move an 
amendment, befoi’e the words “ two thousand,” to add 
the words “ not less than.” 

The question being then taken upon the amendment, 
it was lost. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to amend by inserting before 
the words “two thousand,” the words “not to ex¬ 
ceed.” 

Mr. RIDDLE, we are about to establish the high¬ 
est salary that will, probably, be given to any officer in 
the State of Ohio. What the salary of your Governor 
should be, I think, is a very important question. In 
the region of country which I represent, we are all in 
favor of paying a liberal and reasonable salary, not 
only to the Governor and the Judicial officers, but to 
alt the other officers who may be called upon to admin¬ 
ister this Government. The argument has been advan¬ 
ced, during the course of this discussion, that it would 
be better to leave the whole section out and let it re¬ 
main as a subject for the Legislature to act upon; here¬ 
after. But I am not willing, sir, to leave the question 
unsettled—to be made use of by demagogues who 
wish to make their way into the Halls of legislation, 
by promises to the people that they will go for redu¬ 
cing all the salaries to the very lowest point. I want 
nothing to do with this species of demagogueisrn. I 
think we ought to settle upon a lair and iibeial salary 
for all the officers of the Government—a salary of 
which we shall not be ashamed when we go home to 
our constituents. Do you expect that you can get your 
best men to serve in your highest offices, that ot the 
Judiciary, for instance, for a less sum than two thou¬ 
sand dollars ? It may be possible, but I do not believe 
that you can get the servdees of gentlemen, distinguish¬ 
ed for their learning and ability, for a less sum. Sir, 
you cannot expect to secure the services of individu¬ 
als in the profession of the law, who are receiving their 
five and ten thousand dollars a year m the practice of 
their profession, for your judicial stations. You caiiuo 
expect that such men will abandon the practice of their 
profession, for the honors of the bench, when they 
have families to bring up and educate, and v/heii they 
would be obliged to leave their homes and traverse 
your State in dicharging the onerous and responsible 
duties of that office. Can you get men of the best tal¬ 
ent that are willing to give up a lucrative profession, 










284 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


in the prime of life, and take their seats upon the 
bench, for a less sum than two or three thousand dollars 
a year? 

I make these remarks at this time because we are by 
this vote indicating the salaries which our various gov¬ 
ernment officers are to receive. We ought to be as 
fair and liberal in this matter as other States. What 
is the salary of the Governor of Missouri ? Two thou¬ 
sand dollars. The Governor of Texas, a new State, re¬ 
ceives not less than $2000. Look at the States east and 
you find that in Maryland—and she does not pretend 
to rank in importance and dignity and wealth with our 
own State—the Governor receives about four thousand 
dollars, if I am correctly informed, and in additon a 
Governor’s mansion luniished throughout, even down 
to the silver tea spoons. Are we prepared to say that 
the third State in the Union, occupying so conspicuous 
a position among her sister States as Ohio does, will 
not give to her Governor a salary at least equal to that 
given by other States holding not so high a position in 
the Union ? Shall we by our laws declare that we do 
not consider our executive officer of as much import¬ 
ance, and his services not worth as much as the Exec¬ 
utives of the other States I have mentioned? I call 
upon gentlemen of the committee to reflect before 
they give this vote. I want to see, before the re¬ 
sult of our action goes forth among the people, wheth¬ 
er we have that liberality which should characterize 
such a body as this, and I hope that gentlemen will 
speak out their sentiments fully upon this subject. I 
hope we will give such salaries as will secure the best 
talent in the State to the offices that may be created 
under this new constitution. I desire to see the me¬ 
chanic occupying the position to which he is entitled 
and I will go as far as the farthest to effect such de¬ 
sirable object. We have mechanics in Cincinnati who 
are receiving their $3000 a year. The superintendents 
of Railroads receive $2500 and over per annum. If 
ou fix the salary of your Governor at $1000 you de¬ 
ar mechanics and others who depend upon their earn¬ 
ings for their income, from the office. Your presidents 
and secretaries of Insurance offices often receive $2000 
per annum. I have glanced thus at the salaries given 
to men in different employments to show that men of 
Talent and enterprise command otherwise a liberal 
compensation, while here you propose to fix the salary 
of your Executive officer—the first office in the gift 
of a free people—at the sum of two thousand dollars. 
For one I am opposed to giving so small a salaiy, al¬ 
though I shall vote for the section with that sum. be¬ 
cause it is, as I suppose, the highest sum that will be 
agreed to by the Convention. 

Mr. STANBERY inquired what was the object of 
the amendment. When they fixed the salary at $2,000, 
as a matter of course it would never exceed or fall 
short of that amount. He considered it altogether a 
superfluous expression. 

Mr. HAWKINS remarked that he was not aware 
that the salary was as yet fixed. 

Mr. CURRY suggested that the effect of the amend¬ 
ment would be, that the salary should not exceed $2,- 
000 per annum, and would leave it so that it might be 
made less if required. 

Mr. STANBERY. That would certainly be the 
effect, but it was precisely what was not intended, the 
object being to fix an unchangeable sum. As to the 
salaiy of the Governor, he preferred the sum reported 
by the committee, to the sum now proposed. He could 
say, from personal observation, that no State olficer 
could live with his family, at Columbus, on his official 
salary. He must have some resources of his own.— 
The Governor cannot reside here upon his salary; and 
it has happened, very ranch to the detriment of the 
public interest, that our Governors have never taken 
up their residence at the seat of government. The 
Governor is here only about half the lime, but quite as 
often and as long as he can afford to be here. He 
should be here constantly. Hardly a day passes in 


which persons are not at the Executive office on busi¬ 
ness, and very frequently have to wait, at this expen¬ 
sive place, day after day, or follow the Governor to his 
place of residence. . , 

We have scarcely had (said Mr. S.) a Governor, since 
the time of Governor McArthur, who could afford to j 
hold the office. The post has for many years been filled j 
by gentlemen of the bar, who soon lost their practice, j 
and sustained severe pecuniary loss. This is not as it j 
should be. Whilst he would not consent to fix the sal- | 
ary at so high a rate as to make it a matter of profit, he 
was equally unwilling to bring it down to a matter of | 
loss to the incumbent. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD (interposing) remarked, that it 
should not be' supposed that he had argued in relation 
to high or low salaries—that had not been his intention. 

As he had said on a former occasion, he would not be 
found niggardly. But he did dispute the propriety ol 
turning this new Constitution into an Assembly appro¬ 
priation act. 

Mr. STANBERY. We have tried the Legislature 
long enough, and for one, he was not willing to try that 
body any longer upon this matter of a proper salary I 
for the Governor. With respect to this, and some 
oilier salaries, he was for fixing something like an ade- ; 
quate compensation, and for placing the subject beyond ' 
the reach of constant agitation. It is a reproach to the 
State that demagogues are all the time agitating this 
matter of salaries, until all our important offices are 
brought to so low a rate of compensation, that pi'oper 
men cannot be found to fill them. : 

It has been said here, that these offices do not go a 
begging. That notwithstanding the low salaries, there 
are plentv of applicants always ready to fill them.—- 
There is some truth in that—there is no lack ol appli¬ 
cants, and yet it is equally true, that as to some of our 
most important offices, they are not exactly of the right 
sort. I do not doubt, if we were to cut down our sal- 
anes one half lower than the present standard, we 
should still have applicants. What we require, is a 
rate of compensation which will command the services * i 
of men of ability. 

The people eveiy where complain of the inefficiency j I 
—the delays—the uncertainties—in the administration j 

of justice. These grave complaints are not without ^ 
foundation—but the cause of difficulty, is not so much 
in our judicial system, as in the judges wffio attempt to 
carry it on. The standard of judicial compensation is 
so very low, that few lawyers who are fit for the bench, 
can afford to leave their professions for the salary it | 
affords. 

It is a mistaken economy—it is no paradox to say, 
an expensive economy—which thus brings down the , 
rate of compensation for a public officer. Where tal- 1 1 
ents, ability, and capacity for business, are demanded, ' I 
the State is everywhere outbid. Why, sir, there is 
scarcely a bank in the State which does not pa)' its 
chief officer more than w^e pay our Governor or our Au¬ 
ditor. Many an insurance company pays its secretary ■ 
one-tl'.ird more than either of these officers receives. 
Indeed our principal officers, including our judges, are 
hardly above the level of clerks and subordinates, in . ■ 
the matter of compensation. 

A cheap government, it is said we have. Very cheap 
in the matter of salaries, but very expensive, I dare to 
say, just on that account. The business of the State 
suffers incredibly by this false economy. Everywhere 
else—in all the great Stales of the Union—wherever 
there are important offices to be filled—weighty public 
affairs to be managed—it has long ago been ascertain¬ 
ed, that the only sure way to command the services of 
proper men, is to give them an adequate compensation. 

Ohio is, and has been, behind her sister States in this 
matter, and yet no State has suffered more from this 
fataUrror. 

Mr. MANON dissented in part from the views ad¬ 
vanced by the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stan 
BERY.] He had said that the office of Governor was 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


285 


gciT rally filled by lawyers, and seemed to argue that 
no one else was fit to till that otiice. He (Mr. M.) was 
in f.ivor of giving the lawyers no more than their just 
pro})onioii in occupying the office of Governor, for there 
wa.s an abundance of other men in all parts of the State 
lierfectly as well able to fill the olfict^ us any attorney. 
He also would express his opinion that he considered 
$:2,0i)0 per annum an amply sulficient compensation, 
and he did not know but that $1,500 would be sulii- 
cient. 

Mr. LOUDON said that an estimate had been made 
by some gentlemen, in regard to the amount of space 
to be occupied by each member in the Report of the 
Debates, and it was found that each member would 
probably have about IG pages in the form of the sheets 
laid upon the tables. He believed he had not as yet 
occupied one page and he therefore hoped the commit¬ 
tee would not take umbrage at his obtruding on them 
for a few moments. He represented a constituency dif¬ 
ferent from the constituencies of some gentlemen, but 
he represented an agricultural constituency—one that 
prothiced the wealth of the State—that did the labor— 
the iron men that carried on our government. Now he 
would ask was that large mass of the people to be dis¬ 
regarded? The gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stax- 
uEi.Y,] had told us that the most diminutive banks in 
Ohio gave its officers salaries higher than that given 
the Governor—were they then to disregard the great 
mass who produced the wealth and contributed so much 
to the greatness of Ohio and legislate or prepare an or¬ 
ganic law for the benefit of the drones, those who pro¬ 
duced nothing ? Fie would pursue, not what was call¬ 
ed a “ niggardly course,^’ but a course calculated to 
work justly to ail classes of citizens. 

It was necessary in a great community, such as this 
was, or would be, that all its various parts should work 
harmoniously. We required the aid of judges, and the 
aid of the Governor, and the aid of the Auditor and 
Secretary of State. But he would be permitted to say 
tiiat. the State of Ohio went on from 1802 until 184G 
without the aid of an Attorney General; and, although 
the salary was low, yet there was a fascination about it 
which had obtained the services of the gentleman from 
Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] and in him the best talent in 
Ohio. 

But, the office might be dispensed with. Ohio pro¬ 
gressed along from 1802 to 1846 without it, and she 
■still grew up in greatness as had been remarked by the 
gentleman (Mr. Stanbery) himself, when he drew the 
picture of the condition of Ohio then and now, and 
when the gentleman drew that picture he (Mr. L.) felt 
his bosom swell with pride that he was a citizen of 
Ohio. But the State rose to that greatness without the 
services of an Attorney General; then strike it out: 
that was one reform. Representing such a constituency 
as he did, producing the wealth of our State, they ex¬ 
pected that their rights and interests would not be en¬ 
tirely disregarded, and they expected a reduction in the 
salaries and expenses of the State. 

lie was glad to see his 
(Mr. C Hambers) here. He was extremely well pleased 
when he noticed in the papers that he had been elected 
to the Convention, because in all his intercourse with 
him, as a member of past Legislatures, upon all those 
subjects which interested the mass of the people, he 
always found him up to the ‘‘scratch”—he always 
found him advocating the interests of the mass. 

The gentleman from Franklin was advocating a salary 
of $2,000 for Governor. He (Mr. L.) had made a little 
calculation, and found that that salary would give the 
Governor $6,50 a day—working days. Why should the 
mass, the producers be disregarded in the settlement of 
this question, for many of them had as brawny an arm 
and as much brains as any of the non-producing class, 
and were a,s competent to fill the Governor’s chair. He 
found those men in most cases receiving but $6,00 a 
mouth for their toilsome labor in the hot and burning 
sun; and if it happened on some occasions that the 


old friend from Muskingum 


providence of God struck the ci’ops with bfif^ht_^ 

did last year—they lost all, whilst the officers were us 
well provided for as though all were prosperous; they 
had a mortgage on the bones and sinews of the people 
of the whole State, and their salaries, great or small 
would always be paid. ’ 

Novy, he was for going back on the old principle of 
equality and having as simple a government and as few 
officers as we could, and just such salaries as would 
command the best talent to discharge the duties devolv¬ 
ing on the different branches of the government. He 
could not let the subject pass without presenting his 
views and giving notice that he would always be found 
acting here for the whole people, not as a partizan, not 
as a Democrat, for he despised to hear the thing named 
in this Convention, either Whig, Democrat, Free Soiler 
or any thing else of the kind. 

He would not take his seat without alluding to a cir¬ 
cumstance which had been already referred to. He 
believed that there were members of this Convention 
who sat in the Legislature when the “retrenchment 
law” was passed. He was proud to say that he was 
one of those “reckless wretches” who recorded their 
names in favor of that retrenchment bill, and he not 
only did that, but he regarded it as an act of which his 
posterity might not feel ashamed, and he had asked and 
obtained from the Speaker of the Senate the 'pen with 
which Governor Bartley signed that retrenchment act. 
[A voice.—What kind of a pen is it? j It was a gray 
goose quill. He would allude to a circumstance which 
occurred in getting that law passed: many gentlemen 
knew its history and some perhaps did not. The bill 
was originated in the House, by the gentlemen then 
representing Licking county, and he would say it here, 
and was prepared to prove it, that their constituents 
endorsed every thing they did. The people of Licking 
county came down here, and not only did the voters 
come, but the ladies came also; and not only them, but 
many of the savages, too. [Laughter.] We recollected 
having seen in the streets of Columbus a train a mile 
long, headed by a canoe and an Indian chief bearing a 
banner in front; (as he remembered, they called him 
“Kickapoo;” he was dressed in all the finery and tin¬ 
sel of the Indian.) In that manner the savages, as well 
as the voters and ladies came down here to “ head up ” 
their representatives. Well, it was just before a great 
election which was about to take place. The Demo¬ 
crats did not like to be “ cut under,” and with the ad¬ 
vice of a distinguished man, (now no more,) they en¬ 
tertained the proposition. When it first came fropi the 
House to the Senate they would hot entertain it, as they 
supposed it included all officers. But before it was 
sent back from the Senate the whole constituency of 
these gentlemen came down from Licking—men, wo¬ 
men and savages. And, sir, the Democrats, fearful of 
losing some votes at the Presidential election, then ap¬ 
proaching, “ cut down,” and allowed it to become a 
law. What was the effect of it? Did the people ever 
grumble about it ? No; if they ever heard a voice 
raised against it, it was from some office-holder—some 
man whose salary was cut down from $2,000 to $600 
per annum. It was such men, and such only, who 
came out against that law. 

As he was on the subject of salaries, he would say 
that he was in favor of leaving it to the people. If the 
people backed their Representatives, as the people of 
Licking did theirs in reducing salaries, he would say it 
was all right. And in regard to this thing of reducing 
salaries, he would be allowed to say that they had just 
as good and talented officers since that law was passed 
as we had belore. He would then give notice to all 
gentlemen, and to his old friend from Muskingum, [Mr. 
Chambers,] that he was willing, although they were on 
opposite political sides, if they went for the rights of the 
people, to go with him to the utmost extent. Such 
would be his course here; and he would be in favor of 
briu'^iag down the government to a simple form with 
moderate expenses and faithful officers. 













286 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. ARCHBOLD had listened with much attention 
to the observations of the gentleman from Holmes, 
[Mr. Leadbktter.] The gentleman argued that by 
fixing the sularies in the new constitution we could 
thereby cut under the demagogues. He would tell 
him that it could not be done if they went into tin* de¬ 
tails of an Assembly act in this matter. The remarks 
of the gentleman on that subject recalled to his mind 
the language of Chancellor Kent, in one of his works, 
in which he deprecated the impolicy and impropriety 
of encumbering a constitution with minute matters, 
unfit to form a portion of the organic law of a great 
people. Then he would say, that if we entered into 
these minute details, the people would be troubled 
more and more by demagogues. They would come 
here continually taking the initiative in getting up ex¬ 
citements to amend the constitution. He took it that 
they would be continually blowing, in the language of 
J. Q. Adams, a West Indian hurricane, in favor of con¬ 
stitutional reform. Did the great bird which roams the 
desert of Sahara save itself from its pursuers by hiding 
its head in the sand ? 

He was willing to resign all the glory of the re¬ 
trenchment act to the gentleman from Brown, [Mr. 
Loudon,] and he had no reverence for his goose quill. 
It was a piece of hypocritical demagogueism, and the 
people had instantly sent up him to the Assembly to re¬ 
peal it. How was it possible to make any considera¬ 
ble reduction in the expenses of government when the 
total expense only amounted to about five per cent, of 
our total public taxation. 

The question being on the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Morgan [Mr. Hawkins] to insert the words 
“not to exceed,” the same was put and lost. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga presented the fol¬ 
lowing amendment: 

“ Provided, that the Legislature may increase or diminish such 
compensation at any time after the year I860, but no such alter- 
ition shall affect the incumbent in office at the time it is made”— 
and said, he would not detain the committee but for a' 
moment. If there was no other inquiry or question 
than as to the salary of the Governor involved in this 
discussion, it would be comparatively of little import¬ 
ance. But, he had supposed from the indications this 
morning, that the vote on this question would be re¬ 
garded as a test whether any salaries at all were to be 
fixed by the Convention. Arguments had been offered 
m support of placing Ihe Governor’s salary at a mini¬ 
mum, and perhaps he would represent his constituents 
more correctly if he advocated that proposition, but 
that had been voted down, as well as the proposition 
to fix a maximum. The only remaining question is, 
shall w.e give the Legislature the control of it after a 
series of years. There seemed to be strong arguments 
in favor of this proposition, and one prominent reason 
was, that it was entirely out of our power to detei’mine 
what would be the value of money at a future period. 
He proposed as the remedy to fix the salary for ten 
years. Nor did we know what the people would re¬ 
quire ten years hence, and it was more than probable 
that they would find it necessary to make some chan 
ges in this respect. If this amendment was not adop¬ 
ted, the difficulties alluded to could only be overcome 
by amendments to the constitution, and it was for the 
purpose of obviating any such inconvenience which 
might intervene, that he had offered his amendment. 
He looked at the whole matter of our action here in a 
different light from that in which it was viewed by 
some gentlemen. As he said on the previous day, he 
supposed that they were here only as a mere com¬ 
mittee to recommend to the people what seemed 
best for them to adopt as their organic law. They 
were the representatives of the people, and as such, of 
their sentiments, and if thereby representing their sen¬ 
timents they said now what the salary was to be, the 
constitution would go forth as the will of the people 
and when they had ten years experience of it, their 
Legislature would not interfere unless the people 
should desire or expediency demand it. He thought, 


therefore, that it w'ould be proper to fix it until the 
time proposed in the amendment and then leave it an 
open question. 

Mr. TAYLOR inferred from the remarks of the last 
speaker, that he proposed his amendment with refer- 
rence to all the salaries to be enumerated in the con¬ 
stitution. That the object of the amendment was to 
fix the salaries until the time stated in it—with that 
understanding he would vote for the proposition. 

Mr. STANTON could not perceive the reason why, 
if it were desirable to take away the adjustment of this 
matter from the Legislature, in order to give stability to 
the salary, that reason would not operate as well after 
1860 as before it. 

Mr. LARSH moved to amend, by adding the follow¬ 
ing:—“after the year 1862; after which the General 
Assembly shall fix the sum, which shall not be changed 
for 12 years. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE was disposed to favor the 
amendment of the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. 
Hitchcock,] because he supposed it would be the best 
thing they could obtain. He for one was willing to 
trust the Legislature in this matter—much difficulty 
would perhaps arise if we tied up the hands of the 
General Assembly in the manner proposed; for, as 
was well remarked, money was likely to fluctuate in 
value and what was a competent salary now, might be 
insufficient, or a greatdeal too much some years hence. 
He was for leaving it to the people to say, through the 
General Assembly, and letting the question remain 
open for future adjustment. He was in favor of giving 
a liberal salary to the Governor, but he was opposed to 
fixing any amount for all time to come. He did not 
agree with some in regard to the amount of salary 
which should be paid the Governor. In his opinion 
we could get all the talent necessary to the proper dis¬ 
charge of the duties of the office, for a less sum than 
$2000. The duties were but slight, and he considered 
-hat any msn with ordinary common sense and a good 
iinderstanding, could perform the duties of the office. 
Gentlemen had advocated the measure as giving digni¬ 
ty to the office, but were opposed to giving to the of¬ 
fice any duties to perform which would give it dignity, 
as for instance, a check on the law making power. 
He would almost be willing that the office should be 
abolished, and allow the duties to devolve on the other 
officers of the government, who would be abundantly 
capable of performing them, if the duties were to re¬ 
main as at present. Did the office go a begging ? By 
no means : there were plenty of men seeking for the 
nomination every time the di.Terent parties held their 
State Conventions. There were plenty of men willing 
to lay down their talents and abandon their business 
from the time of the nomination to the election, in 
canvassing the State for votes. And even frequently 
we had seen officers of the State—men whose duties, 
gentlemen say, required their presence here day and 
night—leave their business and the performance of 
their public duties and travel about the State similarly 
employed. He did not know how the duties of their 
offices were performed in the meantime—perhaps the 
gentleman from Franklin, who seems to know so much 
.about their duties,, can tell us—but that had nothing to 
do with the amount of salary public officers ought to 
receive. He did not at all agree with the gentleman 
from Hamilton [Mr. Riddle,] who said “ that he wish¬ 
ed to see the Governor paid a larger salary than any 
other officer in the State.” The salary attached to an 
officer should be in the same proportion to the amount 
of talent required to perform the duties ol it, and the 
time required to perform those duties, itrequired aper- 
son possessed of much more talent and ability to per 
form the duties of a.Judge of the Supreme Court, than 
to discharge the duties of Governor. Ho did not know 
much in regard to the compensation paid to the Gov¬ 
ernor and .fudges in other States; but in the S'ate in 
which ho w'as born the Governor received $2,500—the 
Chief Judge of the Supreme Court $3,500 and the As- 


/ 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


sociate Judges $3,000. All those officers received a 
larger compensation than the Govei’nor; their duties 
were more onerous, required more tirne, and talent and 
more learning to enable them to perform them as they 
should be performed. As he said before, he would 
support this amendment because he believed it to be the 
best that they could get; but he was also in favor of 
leaving the matter entirely to the people. And if a 
motion were made to strike out the whole section he 
would support it, and he would further remark that if 
no gentleman did make that motion he would do so 
when the proper time came. 

Mr. LBADBETTER. I think, that if the proposed 
plan to cut loose the salaries after 1860, w^as adopted, 
we should likely see a cousiderabie amount of cutting 
under by candidates for seats in the Legislature. Ma¬ 
ny of us may have known something about this kind 
of business. As preparatory thereto, a certain kind of 
public opinion is to be manufactured—the public are 
to be made to believe that the salaries are too high, 
and the candidate sets himself up as a reformer. Again, 
sij-, if this salary is only to remain stationary for a few 
years, I am opposed to the proposition of the gentle¬ 
man from Preble [Mr. Larsh] directing the Legisla¬ 
ture to make it stationary for twelve years longer ; for 
if men are to come here under a pledge to reduce sala¬ 
ries, I desire that the question should be left open, 
granting to the Legislature the privilege of having a 
shake of the ague, either annually or biennially, that 
they might shake up occasionally as well as to shake 
down. 

He stated that there were two methods of having the 
public business done, which he would name, so far as 
public economy is concerned. 

The first is, to have as few officers as would be mere¬ 
ly necessaiy to perform the duties required in carrying 
on the government of the State, and select from the 
great body of the people such officers as would be the 
most efficient, and to give such salaiies as would com¬ 
mand the services of men of acknowledged probity, 
talent, skill and energy. Sir, if the members of the 
bar from many of our judicial circuits, would express 
their sentiments, they would bear me out when I state, 
that in many instances our courts of common pleas are 
but little better than a burlesque upon the administra¬ 
tion of justice, and that much depends upon the activ¬ 
ity or inactivity of the presiding officer. The most 
energetic and efficient members of the bar do not de¬ 
sire the office of President .Judge, unless they can at- 
ford to take it; consequently, it is only in the fewest 
number of instances, where a President Judge has 
been found with the talent to discharge his duty in such 
a manner tliat justice was speedily administered. I 
have one now under my eye, and one who could af¬ 
ford to accept of the honoi-. Much, sir, indeed, de¬ 
pends upou the talent and efficiency of the men whom 
the people may select to discharge the duties pertain¬ 
ing to the various offices, and to do it with honor to 
themselves and credit to the State. Now, sir, I hold 
that the cheapest and most economical method for the 
peoj'-le of this State to get their public business of all 
kinds done, and well done, would be to give that kind 
of a salary which would bring into their enq)]oyment 
the best talent of the State. Sir, the quicker and the 
better the business of the people is done, will, in the 
end, prove the most economical. 

My other method is, sir, that if the people require 
their business to be done, and the affairs of the State 
administered by men who would accept of the lowest 
salaries, why not put them up to the lowest bidder, in 
the same manner in which paupers are sold ? Your 
offices will be all filled, and the people saved the ex¬ 
penses of elections. I have no hesitation as to the 
course I shall pursue. I am mo.st unequivocally in fa¬ 
vor of a fair salary—a just and reasonable compensa¬ 
tion, such as will command the services of a talented 
and efficient officer, as being the best way to secure 
the cheapest and most faithful administration of the 


287 


government of the State. And sir, I intend these re¬ 
marks to apply to all public functionaries in any de¬ 
partment of the State, in all its subdivisions. Perhaps 
I have seemingly, manifested too much interest in fa¬ 
vor of this “bantling” of the committee; perchance 
it may be but a feeling common to committees, to save 
their woik from spoliation. The salary fixed in the 
report did not exactly meet with his concurrence, but 
as amended, he wa.s perfectly satisfied, and if there 
was any alteration to be made in regard to its stability, 
he would prefer that it should be so made, that after 
the year 1860, the Legislature might increse but not 
reduce. 

He did not think, however, that money was not go¬ 
ing to be so plenty, but what the amount would be 
sufficient for the purpose intended ; nor did he think, 
that the expenses of the Governor, at the seat of govern¬ 
ment, would ever become less than they now are, or 
that the duties of the Governor w'onld ever be less oner¬ 
ous or burdensome. He did not care whether it was 
a la wyer, a doctor, a farmer, or a mechanic, filled the 
office. He rejoiced that this w'as a country in which 
the door to offices and to honor was open and free to 
all, and he hoped that the time would never arrive 
when it w'ould be shut against the entrance of the most 
humble of our citizens. Those who favor this propo¬ 
sition, in the original, can have no particular individual 
in view, or interests to subserve. We know not who 
may be a future Governor—he may be a child of a far¬ 
mer or mechanic, who was bom in a cabin and rocked 
in a sugar trough. The only object of the committee 
was to determine upon something permanent in rela¬ 
tion to the salaries of those public functionaries, by 
which the time of the Legislature and the money of the 
people would be saved. 

On motion, the committee rose, reported progress, 
and asked leave to sit again. 

On motion, the Convention took a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

On motion of Mr. FIRESTONE, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into committee of the Whole, Mr. Cutler 
in the chair, and resumed the consideration of the re¬ 
port brought in by Mr. Leadbetter, from the commit¬ 
tee on 

THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 

The question being upon the motion to strike out the 
whole section relative to the compensation of Gover¬ 
nor. 

Mr. FIRESTONE was opposed to fixing the salary 
of the Governor at so high a sum. For his own part 
he did not wish to go back to the people and be obliged 
to show them, on the very first page of the new con¬ 
stitution, a large increase in the annual salaries of their 
officers. Such an instrument could not, in his humble 
opinion, rally the voters of his district to its support, 
for they considered the salaries now allowed to the 
Governor and other State officers sufficiently high.— 
The novel argument had been presented, that the State 
will have an insuperable difficulty in obtaining the ser¬ 
vices of able and talented men in the various depart¬ 
ments of our State Government, unless we “put up” 
the salaries. He must say that he had never witnessed 
any such scenes of difficulty arising li’om empty official 
places as had been alluded to, and yet the salaries of 
State officers had not averaged over $1,000 per annum. 
The present compensation had heretofore secured the 
ablest men and tlie first talent in Ohio. Such would 
ever be the case. Did not every one remember how 
lustily every Democratic paper in the^ State annually 
trumpeted the fame of the nominees of our 8th of Jan¬ 
uary couvention? And with justice too. And the 
nominees of the Whig convention, did not every Whig 
press in Ohio proclaim that they possessed the dignity 
and the ability to fill any office in the Union? He as¬ 
sured the gentlemen that there was not the slightest 
difficulty in obtaining the first men in the State to fill 
all the offices in it at the present salaries, and he was 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


288 


unwilling to increase those salaries for the benelit ol 
the very few, at the expense of the tax-ridden thou- 
saiids. He was in favor, first, of the amendment ef Mr. 
Hitchcock, but after the vote upoii that, he should 
vote for striking out the entire section. If the new 
constitution is filled with the arrangement of oTicial 
salaries, and those raised above the present standai’d, 
we should have a crushing, dead weight to caixy at the 
election at which it is submitted to the people for their 
action. The people had not asked for higher salaries; 
until they do, let them remain as they are. 

The question then being upon the amendment, [Mr. 
Hitchcock’s ] the same was agreed to. 

The question recurring on striking out the whole 
section relative to the Governoi s salaiy, 

Mr. LEAD BETTER proposed to amend by striking 
out the words ** twenty hundred, and inseiting the 
words “ two thousand which was agreed to. 

Mr. QUIGLEY proposed to amend by striking out 
the whole section and insert the following. 

Tlic Governor's cornpensHtion to be fixed, by law, at tbe first 
meeting of the General Assembly after ttie adoption of this con¬ 
stitution and not to be increased or diminished oftener than once 
in every’ten years, nor during the term for which he shall have 
been elected. 

Upon a division of the question, the committee re- 
' fused to strike out. 

The CHAIRMAN now announced the consideration 
of the 19th section, which was read as follows: 

Sec 19 The Lieutenant Governor shall receive, while attend¬ 
ing upon the sittings of the Legislature, as President of the Sen¬ 
ate, five dollars per day. 

Mr. EWART proposed to amend by striking out the 
words “five dollars per day,” and inserting “ such sum 
per day as shall be prescribed by law.” 

This amendment was disagreed to, 

Mr. LARSH proposed to amend by striking out “five 
dollars per day, and inserting, “ double the pay of the 
members thereof.” 

And a division being demanded on this cpiestion, the 
committee refused to strike out, and the section was 
passed over. 

Sec. 20. The Secretary of State, the Auditor, Treasurer and 
Attorney General, shall be elected at the same time and places, 
and in the same manner as the Governor, for the term of two 
years, and until their successors in office shall be qualified. If the 
office of either of the officers in this section named shall become 
vacant, by impeachment, resignation, death or i-emoval, or be¬ 
come incapable of performing the duties of the office, the Gov¬ 
ernor shall fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term for 
which he was elected, or until the disability shall be removed. 
Their compensation to be fixed by law. 

Mr. LARSH ])roposed to amend by inserting after 
the word “qualified,” in the 5th line, the words, “and 
they shall reside at the seat of government.” 

Mr. MASON said: I would suggest to the committee, 
and to the gentleman making this motion, that if the 
term be limited to two years for all these officers, and 
the amendment should i)revail, whether all these very 
important and high State officers would not be apt to 
fall into the hands of the citizens of this city ? It is 
certainly, I apprehend, impossible to suppose that those 
officers, being elected from among the citizens of Ohio 
at large, can afford to leave their residences and remove 
their families to this place, for the term of two yeais, 
for any compensation which the Legislature will ever 
•live them. They might be filled by permanent citizens 
residing here, without loss; and probably they might 
saxe a reasonable sum above all expenses: because, as 
citizens of the place, they would not have to incur the 
same expense of strangers who should temporarily take 
up their abode here. If these officers are to reside 
here, they must either disconnect themselves from their 
families permanently during that period, or bring their 
families heie; but bringing families here, and estab¬ 
lishing them here, for the term of two years, would be 
a very injurious proceeding on the part of persons that 
might be employed in the service of the State. The 
office of Attorney General, when it was created in 
1846, (the same year that I was a member of one of the 


houses of the General Assembly,) the term was fixed 
at five years: but I believe a law was passed subse¬ 
quently by which this term was reduced. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. No, it was not reduced. 

Mr. MASON. Then the term of office is still five 
years. I do not desire—and it can hardly be the de¬ 
sire of the committee—to place these offices, including 
the Attorney General, in such a situation that they 
could not be held without pecuniary sacrifice, except 
by citizens residing in the city of Columbus. The ol- 
fice of an Attorney General might always be well fill¬ 
ed by a lawyer residing here; because there are men 
eminent in the profession always residing here. But 
it is not the desire of this body so to make the consti¬ 
tution that the necessary effect of its operation will 
throw important offices into the hands of citizens and 
lawyers residing here. I hope, therefore, that the 
amendment of the gentleman will not be adopted for 
this reason. 

With reference to the Auditor, Treasurer and Secre 
tary of State, I believe the terms of these officers has 
been for three years—probably from the foundation of 
the government until now. And now, they are pro¬ 
posed to be reduced down to two years; which would 
be keeping the government a perpetual and everlast¬ 
ing fluctuation—putting the Governor and all the exec¬ 
utive officers out in one day, and not leaving a single 
man of them to give the slighest information to his suc¬ 
cessor—allowing them scarcely time to make a bow 
as their successors came in to receive their commissions. 
I would much rather that the terms of these offices 
were fixed at three years, and that the term of office 
of the Attorney General should be five years. 

Mr. LARSH. I introduced this amendment, think¬ 
ing that the principle involved would commend itself 
to every member. I cannot see, for my part, any ob¬ 
jection that can be urged against it, except that reterred 
to by the gentleman from Clark—that it may possibly 
involve the necessity of selecting for these offices, men 
living in the city of Columbus. But I think this ob¬ 
jection is not well founded. To be sure, the section 
now provides, that these officers shall be elected for two 
years; bu'. it is not at all certain that the resolution may 
not be amended, or that it will remain as it is in regard 
to this matter. I would be willing to go a little farth¬ 
er than the gentleman from Clark. I would be willing 
to say, that the term of these offices be extended to 
four years, and then elect one at a time. It seems to 
me, from the experience of the past forty-eight years,, 
that there is no probability even, that these officers will 
be confined to the citizens of Columbus, for they have 
generally been selected from other parts of the State. 
It seems to me also, that theseimportant officers should 
reside here, and that the State ought to be willing to 
give the men filling these high iDlaces of trust, such 
salaries as would secure them against pecuniary loss. 

I do not believe in the economy of small salaries. It 
is the most miserable economy that any State can 
adopt, in my opinion. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. The gentleman shall have my 
vote for his amendment. But I would like to inquire 
why the financial clause was left out. Here is a sec¬ 
tion making provision for the election of two or three 
important officers of the State, but contrary to the or¬ 
dinary rule, the committee has fixed no salary. It looks 
to me as though the subject has in it some intrinsic 
difficulty, and I can hardly suppress a disposition which 
I feel to inquire what it is. I am curious to know 
whether the committee had supposed that no dema¬ 
gogue had found his way into this body, who would 
be willing to relieve them of this difficulty and propose 
to fix these salaries by way of amendment? 

Mr. LEADBETTER. Perhaps I can satisfy the gen- 
man from Monroe upon this subject. I cannot be cer¬ 
tain but there are demagogues in this Convention. 
They are apt to creep into almost all bodies politic. I 
cannot tell how it happened that this question was not 
particularly acted upon by the committee. Probably 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


it escaped their attention, as well as the idea about till¬ 
ing the vacancies which may occur in these offices. I 
filled the blank in the section in relation to vacancies, 
not knowing the sense ot the committee. But not hav¬ 
ing been about the State offices as much as the member 
from Monroe, [Mr. Akchboeo,] I was incapable of de¬ 
termining what compensation these officers should re¬ 
ceive. Had I been aware of what would be a just 
compensation, I should have taken the responsibility 
of putting it in. This is the reason why the compensa¬ 
tion was not fixed. I believe in some populous coun¬ 
ties, the county Auditor receives a salary as large as 
the Auditor of State. I should judge so, from what 
this officer receives in the county of Holmes. 

After some further conversation between Mr. Hum- 
PHREViLLE, Mr. Larsh, Mr. Stilwell, and Mr. Haw¬ 
kins, the amendment was rejectee' .: 

Mr. STANBERY proposed taamend the phraseology 
of the section, by inserting the words “ the incumbent,” 
after the word “or,” in the 5th line ; which was con¬ 
curred in. 

Mr. PATTERSON proposed to amend by striking 
out the words, “ for the remainder of the term for 
which he was elected, or until the disability shall be 
removed,” and inserting the words, “until the next 
annual election,” so that it will read, “the Governor 
shall fill the vacancy until the next annual election.” 
His object in proposing this amendment, was to cut 
down the power of the Governor. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. When he drew up this part 
of the section, he did not suppose we were going to 
have any such thing as annual elections, except for 
township and county officers. From the fact that we 
were only to have biennial sessions of the Legislature, 
he supposed that our State elections would be also bi¬ 
ennial ; and that the very word “ annual,” as connected 
with our elections, would become obsolete. 

Mr. PATTERSON contended that .annual elections 
were perfectly consistent with biennial sessions of the 
Legislature. 

This amendment was agreed to, and tlien the section 
was passed over. 

Sec. 21. When an officer, the right of whose appointment is, 
by this constitution vested in the Eegislature, shall, during the 
recess, die, or his office by any means become vacant, the Gov¬ 
ernor shall have power to fill such vacancy, by granting a com¬ 
mission, which shall expire at the end of the next session of the 
Legislature. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. What office is going to be filled 
by the Legislature, according to our plan 7 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll. From the first to the last 
of the report, the committee will observe, that no pro¬ 
vision is made for filling any vacancy which may occur 
on account of the death , resignation or disability of any 
of the judges oft he courts. The committee on the 
Executive department, supposed that to be provided 
for by the committee on the Judiciary department. 
One of the members of that committee nods his head, 
and I presume it will be so. 

Mr. OTIS suggested that the rule in relation to aeon- 
tested election tor Governor, proposed by the gentle¬ 
man from Cuyahoga, and adopted into the 5th section, 
should be made to apply to these officers : and for this 
purpose, he would move that the provision be stricken 
out of the 5ih section, and that it be adopted as a sep- 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. The gentleman would 
find all this provided for in the report of the commit¬ 
tee on the Legislative department. 

Mr. OTIS withdrew the motion. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga proposed further to 
amend the whole report, by striking out the word “ Le¬ 
gislature,” wherever it occurs, and inserting the word, 
“ General Assembly.” This was agreed to. 

Mr. STICKNEY pi-oposed to amend the twelfth sec¬ 
tion of the report by inserting the word “ absent,” in 
the first line. 

The amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. BROWN of Athens proposed to amend the 

19 


29k 

• y 

twentieth section, by way of substitute, striking out 
and inserting the following: 

The Auditor, Treasurer and Secretary of State and Attorney 
General, shall be elected in the same manner as is provided for 
the election of Governor and Lieutenant Governor, and shall hold 
their offices respectively for three years, and until their success¬ 
ors shall be qualified ; and shall perform such duties and receive 
such compensation as shall be provided by law ; provided, that 
the Auditor first elected under this constitution, shall hold his of¬ 
fice for one year, and the Treasurer first elected shall hold his of¬ 
fice for two yeai-s ; so that thereafter the Auditor, Treasurer and 
Secretary of State, shall be elected triennially in successive years. 

A division of the question was demanded. 

Mr. MASON. Before this question was put he de¬ 
sired to propose an amendment which might be pre¬ 
cluded, if the committee should refuse to strike out. 
He desired to test the sense of the committee upon the 
term of these officers, and would move to amend the 
original section by striking out the word “ two,” in the 
third line, and inserting the word “ four,” so that it will 
read “for the term of four years.” 

The Chairman having stated tlie question, 

Mr. MASON said: If we should adopt the principle 
of biennial sessions of the Legislature, I think four 
years would be a i)roper term for these officers, and if 
we should not adopt biennial sessions; still four years 
will not be too long a term. It would still be condu¬ 
cive to the good order and good administration of the 
affairs of government. I don’t feel called upon to make 
any argument before the committee, but I would rath¬ 
er place all these officers on the same footing—making 
no distinction as to term: although there is another 
proposition making the term five years for one and 
three for another. They are all important executive 
offices, and I would rather the committee would adopt 
the four years for all; and I would rather have the pe¬ 
riod of three years than two. 

Mr. MANON. I apprehend that there is a disposi¬ 
tion in some quarters to pursue the biennial men so 
strong that they will be turned over the other way. I 
am in favor of annual elections and electing these offi¬ 
cers one at a time. 

Mr. STILWELL suggested a difficulty arising out of 
the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Highland [Mr. Patterson] to the twentieth section. If 
the Governor fill these vacancies “ till the next annual 
election ”—the term of these officers being for two 
years—it might be that for the second year these offi¬ 
ces would be left without their incumbents. 

And hereupon followed some irregular conversation 
in which Mr. Stilwell, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Larsh 
and Mr. Mason took part. 

Mj-. brown of Athens said he had proposed to fix 
the term for three years, because these officers had al¬ 
ways been elected for that terra. If his amendment 
should not prevail, however, he would be in favor of 
electing these officers at alternate periods. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga called for a division 
of the question upon Mr. Mason’s amendment; and 
the committee refused to strike out; 

So the amendment was lost. 

Mr. PATTERSON proposed further to amend the 
twentieth section, by adamg to his amendment which 
had lieen already adopted, the words “when such va¬ 
cancy shall be filled by an election; provided the death, 
resignation, or disability shall have occurred thirty 
days previously.” 

This was agreed to. 

Mr. MANON proposed further to amend the twen¬ 
tieth section, by striking out after the word “same’ in 
the second line the words “time and.” 

This was also agreed to. 

The question now recurred upon the amendment 
proposed by Mr. Brown of Athens, which was now 
again read through, together with the twentieth section 
proposed to be stricken out. 

A division of the question having been demanded 
and ordered, the first question was taken upon strik¬ 
ing out, and it was agreed to—affirmative 42, nega¬ 
tive 35. 








290 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


T^ie question now recurred upon inserting Mr. 
Prown’s proposition. 

Mr» NASH desired to have the substitute amended, 
by adding the proviso about filling vacancies which 
had been applied to another section of the report. 

Mr. BROWN of Athena, supposed that might be pro¬ 
vided for by statute. 

Mr. CURRY proposed to amend the substitute by 
adding the following: 

And’provided further, That all vacancies in either of the afore¬ 
said offices, shall be filled in such manner as may be provided by 

law, 

Mr. C. said he understood that the gentlemnu from 
Athens was willing to accept this proposition to 
amend. 

Mr. NASH said he could not vote for the proposition 
because it gave to the Legislature the power to elect 
these officers. 

Mr. EWART called for a division of the proposi¬ 
tions. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga said: If the gentle¬ 
man from Gallia, and the gentleman from Union, would 
look into the article reported by the committee on the 
Legislative Department, they would find there a pro¬ 
vision to the effect that no appointments to office shall 
be made by the Legislature. They could not even ap¬ 
point the officers of any of the State Institutions in the; 
neighborhood. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Athens 
accept the proposition of the gentleman from Union ? 

Mr. BROWN. If it is objected to, I do not. But I 
have written out a provision which I think will meet 
the views of the gentleman. I will send it up. 

The provision w'as read, and is as follows: 

Provided further. That any vacancies which may occur in 
either of said offices, shall be filled by the Governor, until the 
next annual election of said officers, to be prescribed by law. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Union 
accept the modification? 

Mr. CURRY. I think the language of my proposi¬ 
tion is best. 

The question was then taken upon Mr. Cdrrt’s 
amendment to the substitute, and it was lost. 

The question recurring upon the adoption of the 
substitute, 

Mr. HOLMES said: I am opposed to the lamend- 
ment, because it will create a necessity for anuual 
elections. Those who are in favor of biennial ses¬ 
sions of the Legislature will see that it was got uji, 
in part, ior the purpose of defeating that object. 

Mr. BROWN. I have no such object. 

Ml’. HOLMES. That will induce me to vote against 
it at all events. I am opposed to putting the people of 
Ohio to the unnecessary expense of electing their offi¬ 
cers every year. The same expense would be required 
for the election of one or two officers as would elect the 
whole of our State officei s. If gentlemen desire to ex¬ 
tend the term of their offices to four years, and will 
make the elections come “ship shape,” I shall be dis¬ 
posed to support it, 

Mr. GREGG. I cannot see the reason why we should 
make this change in the section from one to two years. 
If it be true, as gentlemen on the other side complain, 
that these offices are a burden to their incumbents, it 
were certainly better to diminish the evil by fixing the 
term at two years. If we fix the term of the Governor 
and Lieutenant Governor at two years, I can’t see any 
reason why we should extend the terms cf the Audi¬ 
tors, Secretary of State and Treasurer, beyond that 
length of time. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. I suppose it is un- 
necess to say anything now about the question as be¬ 
tween the two years' term and three years’ term: for 
the committee have determined they will not elect of- 
tener than once in two years. But what is the reason 
offered by the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr Holmks.] 
why these officers should not be elected tri-ennially ? 
Why, it is because it is a hardship to the electors of the 
State to attend at the elections. I don’t know butit 


may be so. I don’t know but the people have become 
tired—fatigued and worn out with the exercise of the 
election franchise. If they have, all I can say is, that 
I regret it very much. But I would be willing to go ; 
so far as to make it the duty of every elector to attend i 
to the elections. I don’t believe it is so great a burden i 
for a man to attend upon elections—to be on the ground i 
and cast his vote for all the officers of the State, And [ 
whenever the electors become tired and unwilling to j 
take this duty upon themselves, I think we may very j 
well tremble somewhat for the fate of our republican j 
institutions. | 

Mr. RANNEY. I think there is a difficulty here, ■ 

for by the terms of the provision sought to be inserted, | 
it will be required to hold an election every year for ' 
State officers; aud, as the votes are to be canvassed by j 
the two Houses of the General Assembly, which, I sup- j 
pose, it will be agreeff^npon, shall meet only once in 
two years, ; 

Mr. STILWELL. Is that the amendment? j 

Mr. RANNEY. The amendment says, “The Audi- ■ 
tor. Treasurer, Secretary of State, and Attorney Gen- j 
eral, shall be elected in the same manner as is provi- ' 
ded for the election of Governor and Lieutenant Gov- . 
ernor.” Then, I understand that the votes for these \ 
State officers, who are to be elected every year—one or ' 
another of them—that these votes are to be ascertained , 
and the elections determined upon at the biennial ses¬ 
sions ofthe Legislature. What the reasons are for ex- ! 
tending these terms, I have not yet heard. And as to j 
dividing and distributing the lime for making these ' 
elections every year—instead of this being calculated 
to bring out the voters, I cannot but think the effect, 
would all be on the other side, 1 am opposed to the 
proposition, because I think it involves a total surren- ] 
der of principle of biennial sessions, and also, because 
it extends the term of these oflices beyond what I con¬ 
ceive to be necessai’}’ and proper 

Mr. STANTON. I don’t intend to be cheated out 
of “biennial sessions” by any sort of “hocus pocus” 
that can be devised; and if I could believe there was 
any inconsistency between this pniposition and the j 
principle of biennial sessions, I should certainly go* 
against the proposilion. But I don’t comprehend a ne¬ 
cessity for the Legislature to meet and canvass the 
votes for these officers. If I thought there was any 
danger of this, I would move to strike out “three 
years,” aud insert “four years.” There are good rea-' 
sons, as I apprehend, why these officers should liold 
over for a lunger term than two years: for in so short 
a term they would hardly get “ the hang of the barn,’” 
as the Irishman says. And then by altering these- 
elections, the incomers would be able to obtain a great 
deal of necessary information from those who would' 
be holding over. 

Mr. GREGG, reiterating his preference for the two 
years term, said : I believe it would be no harder for a ! 
man to become familiar with the duties of Auditor of 
State, than it is to become familiar with the duties of 
of County Auditor. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga, What is the term 
of the office of County Auditor? 

Mr. GREGG. Two years. 

Mr. BROWN of Athens. I had but one object in of¬ 
fering this amendment. I had no purpose whatever to 
practice any “ hocus pocus,” or interfere with the pro¬ 
jects of any gentleman. My view is, that these three 
State officers are in some measure connected, as re¬ 
spects the duties pertaining to them, and that some 
length of time is requisite to become acquainted with 
the details of the business in them. An idea has been 
suggested, which was also prevalent in my own mind, 
that it was necessary to devise some means by which' 
one or two of these three officers should be in office 
at the time of the coming in of anew incumbent for 
any one of them, in order that they might have the ad¬ 
vantage of their experience in State affairs. With re- 
sjiect to the questiun of biennial sessions, I do not ap- 













CONVENTION REPORTS 


291 


pvehend that tliis proposition can have any bearing up¬ 
on that subject. I have no idea that it will be necessa¬ 
ry to convene the Legislature, to count the votes cast 
for these officers. It might be provided by law, that 
the Governor should open and count these votes. I ask 
gentlemen, if it is not contemplated that we are still to 
have annual elections? If so, that answers the objec¬ 
tion on tlie score of expense : for the expense of an 
election does not depend upon the number of officers 
elected. Besides there are, as I conceive, serious ob¬ 
jections to the election of our whole body of officers— 
including members of the Legislature, and members 
of Congress—at the same time. Such a plan, it seems 
to me, would be productive of unusual popular excite¬ 
ment and lieat. and the consequence would be, that the 
incoming officers would inevitably belong to the polit¬ 
ical party which might happen to be in the ascendant 
at the time, and thus would be lost the advantage of 
the check which each party holds upon the other. Be¬ 
sides, the Governor, ministerial officers, and members 
of the Legislature, would all come i.i at the same time 

_alike unacquainted with their duties, on account of 

any previous official experience. This, also, would be 
a serious objection, and it ought to be provided against. 
But it is my wish more especially to provide for the 
discharge of the duties of these officers in the best and 
most efficient manner. I believe that no one has ever, 
heretofore, complained of the term being too long to 
gain a proper knowledge of the duties of these offices. 

I consider these ministerial offices should be entirely 
separated from every question upon which political 
parties divide—that they ought to be separated as 
much as possible from all such influences; for the rea¬ 
son that all their duties are purely ministerial and of 
highest importance to the interests of the whole peo- 
ple. 

Mr. LTDEY. I voted against striking out, because 
I expected it would lead to this difficulty. I am in fa¬ 
vor of the two years term. If a man cannot learn the 
duties of his office in that time, he never will; and in 
that case, the shorter his term the better. If our pub¬ 
lic officers are to be sent here to watch one another, I 
think we had better have none at all. As for this 
watching, I believe they will all thrust their hands into 
thetreasuiy just as deep as they can, after their pay; 
and that is about all the damage I apprehend. I believe 
in electing men for short terms, and if the people find 
out that a man makes a good officer, he will, in allpro¬ 
bability, be re-elected. I hope, also, that all these offi¬ 
cers will be elected at the same time. 

Mr. LARSH. I oflered an amendment requiring 
these officers to reside at theseat of government, which 
was voted down upon the ground that it would have a 
tendency to confine their election to the citizens of 
Columbus. I would like to inquire now, what would 
be the eflect of these short terms of office? Can any 
man residing at a distance affi)i’d to relinquish his busi¬ 
ness, give up his private affairs, and come herewith 
the expectation of holding an office for the very inade¬ 
quate salary usually provided, and for the term of only 
two years? I apprehend that these short periods of 
service would more eflectually secure these offices for 
the citizens of Columbus, than any proposition requir¬ 
ing the officers of Slate to reside at the seat of govern¬ 
ment. I don’t know so well about these shoit terms. 
I am not certain that it will always secure the services 
of the best men. A great deal is said about holding 
men up to the proper mark of responsibility; but I 
think this responsibi ity should be reciprocal. I tliink 
the people, also, should be held to some responsibility 
with reference to their choice of suitable officers.— 
Suppose you have a term of office for four years, and 
a vacancy occur for one year, would the people be 
likely to exercise the same care in filling that vacancy 
which they would in the election of an officer for the 
whole term ? IVe should endeavor, so I think, to as¬ 
certain and fix upon some just medium here, which 
would insure the election of good men. While we 


should avoid short terms on the one hand, we should 
not make the tenure of office so long upon the other 
hand, as to induce men to make extraordiuarv ever- 
lions to secure their election. ^ 

Mr. McCORMICK. I propose to amend ffie amend¬ 
ment by striking out and inserting the proposition 
which I send up. 

This was read, and it is as follows: 

The Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer and Attorney Gen¬ 
eral, shall be elected in the same place and in the same manner 
as the Governor, for the term of tw o years, and until their suc¬ 
cessors are qualified: and in case of death, disability or removal 
of either of these officers, the Governor may fill the vacancy oc¬ 
casioned thereby until the next annual election, or until the disa¬ 
bility be removed. They shall receive such compensation as 
shall be provided by law. 

The proj.osition being entertained, 

Mr. McCORMICK said: I thought we had got 
through with the consideration of this section at one 
time. But now it appears to me, that the sultriness of 
the atmosphere has so affected our minds that if we 
are moving I doubt whether we are making any pro¬ 
gress in the report. Therefore, for the purpose of ha¬ 
ving time to deliberate and think about it, I shall now 
move, sir, that the committee rise and report. 

This motion was lost—affirmative 35, negative 35. 

Mr. BROWN of Athens. For the purpose of obvia¬ 
ting some objections to my amendment I now offer 
the following to be added to the end: 

Provided further. That any vacancies which may occur in either 
of said offices, shall be filled by the Governor until the next an¬ 
nual election. The manner of canvassing the votes and declar¬ 
ing the election of said officers to be prescribed by law. 

Mr. RANNEY suggested that there was no quorum 
voting upon a motion to rise. 

Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE suggested that the commit- 
tee rise and report that fact to the Convention. 

A Voice. What is a quorum? 

The CHATR.MAN replied that seventy-two constitu¬ 
ted a quorum to do business; and he read the rule. 

Mr. LEADBETTER said he did not vote, and count¬ 
ing the Chairman with himself it would be ascertain¬ 
ed that a quorum was present. 

Mr. McCORMICK asked which side of the question 
the Chair had voted upon ? 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair had not voted atall. 
Mr. McCORMICK then claimed that the Chair 
should be required to vote. 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll. Was there any rule which 
would compel a member to vote ? 

The CHAIRMAN responded in the negative. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. To test the question, he hoped 
the committee would agree to take the vote over again 
upon the motion to rise and report. 

The question upon Mr. McCormick’s motion was 
again taken, and the count was reported—affirmative 
41, negative 37. 

So the committee rose, and the CHAIRMAN reported 
back to the Convention the whole subject of the report 
of the committee on the Legislative Department, with 
sundry amendments thereto. 

And it appearing that some misunderstanding exist¬ 
ed between the Chairma.v and Mr. Robertson with 
others, respecliii" the purjiortof the motion to rise, 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLB moved that the report and 
amendments be again referred to the committee of the 
whole. 

But upon the suggestion of several members, that 
the report could be perfected just as well in the Con- 
veiition as in the committee, this motion was with¬ 
drawn, 

And the Convention adjourned. 

FRIDAY, June 7, 1850. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Willard. 

Mr. MOREHEAD olfered a petition from John West 
and fifty-three other citizens of Harrison county, pray¬ 
in'^ that a provision be inserted in the new constitu- 
tio°n, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing traffic in ardent spirits. 













CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


92 


Upon his motion, it was referred to the select com¬ 
mittee on the subject of retailing ardent spirits. 

Mr. WOODBURY presented a petition from Albert 
Curtis and one hundred other citizens of Ohio, praying 
that a clause may be engrafted in the new constitution, 
extending to males and females alike the right of suf¬ 
frage. 

He would say, that the persons signing the petition 
were among the most respectable and intelligent per¬ 
sons in the country. 

Upon his motion, it was refei'red to the committee 
on the Elective Franchise. 

Mr. MANON said: According to the notice he gave 
yesterday, he would offer for adoption the following: 

Resolved, That it shall require a majority of all the members 
elected to this Convention, voting in the affirmative, to adjourn 
the same to any other place than Columbus, or for a longer time 
tiian two days. 

Mr. RIDDLE moved that the resolution be laid upon 
the table. 

The yeas and nays having been demanded by Mr. 
Manon, resulted as follows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blick- 
ensderfer. Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of 
Licking, Clark, Collings, Cook, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, 
Farr, Firestone, Gray, Gregg, Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, Law 
rence, Larwill, Morehead, McCormick, Nash, Orton, Patterson, 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, Swan, 
Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Way, Woodbury, and Presi¬ 
dent—(iO. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Brown of Athens, Cham¬ 
bers, Claypoole, Flo'-ence, Gillett, Green of Ross, Hard, Harlan, 
Larsh, Lidey, Manon, Mason, Morris, McCloud, Norris, Robert¬ 
son, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Taylor, Vance 
of Champaign, and Warren—24. 

So the resolution was laid on the table. 

Mr. HOLT moved that the committee ou^,Juri8pru- 
dence, to whom were referred the various petitions 
upon the manufacturing and vending of ardent spirits, 
be discharged from the further consideration of these 
petitions, and that they be I’eferred to the standing 
committee on that subject, appointed yesterday; which 
w’as agreed to. 

IVIr. LARSH moved that report number one of the 
committee on the Executive Department be taken up; 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. STANBERY moved that the report be recommit- 
ed to a committee of the whole Convention; which 
was agreed to. 

Upon motion of Mr. LEADBETTER, the Convention 
resolved itself into a committee of the Whole, (Mr. 
Cutler in the Chair,) and resumed the consideration 
of the report on 

THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 

The question being upon the adojition of the amend¬ 
ment offered by the gentleman from Athens [Mr. 
Brown.] to his substitute for the 20th section of the 
report, adding the following words: 

“ Provided, further, that any vacancies which may occur in 
either of said offices, shall be filled by the Governor until the next 
annual election. The manner of canvassing the votes and de¬ 
claring the election of said officers, to be provided by law.” 

Mr. McCormick’s amendment was also pending. 

The question being upon the first proposition offered 
by Mr. Brown of Athens— 

"^Mr. McCORMICK. I do not wish to occupy the at¬ 
tention of the committee, at verw great length, in re¬ 
marks upon the propriety ot striking out this section. 
I thought, by the votes in the morning, and the various 
amendments that had been made to the proposition, we 
had agreed, that in case of the death, disability or re¬ 
moval of an officer, the Governor should have the pow 
er to fill the vacancy occasioned thereby, until the noxt 
annual election, and no further; whereupon an elec¬ 
tion would ensue by which the candidate elected would 
be placed in office for the whole term of two years— 
there being no uuexpired term to be filled. If the 
proposition of the gentleman from Athens carries, it 
places us in a different and somewhat difficult position. 


The term of office is changed and made for three years. 
The amendment requires that one of these officers 
should be elected yearly. In case of the death, disa¬ 
bility or removal of the officer, the appointment is 
made by the Governor until the next election. The 
party wdio is then elected is only elected for the unex¬ 
pired term, because we cannot depart from that requi¬ 
sition of the amendment, which requires that one of 
these officers shall be elected annually. For instance, 
the Auditor elected for three years dies during the first 
year of his term—an election ensues—the incumbent 
then elected fills the office for two years. In order to 
make the election annual, one of these officers is elec¬ 
ted each year. It appears to me that we place the 
choice of these officers, by an unnecessary election, 
more frequently before the people than the public good 
requires. It is creating a necessity for an additional 
election, when one of these officers dies, or through 
disability or some other cause the office is to be filled. 
I was in favor of tlie section as it stood amended this 
morning. I saw no necessity for striking it out, and I 
heard no reasons for doing so that are satisfactory to 
me; and, therefore, I oflered the amendment that I 
did, because it comes as near as may be to the original 
section which was stricken out. 

Mr. LEADBETTER said: he had paid some atten¬ 
tion to the section which was stricken out. He had 
come to the conclusion, in looking at the amendment, 
that this difficulty stood in the way—that where a va¬ 
cancy is to be filled at an annual election, the Legisla¬ 
ture could not be in session, to whom the votes could 
be returned, and there was no provision by which the 
votes would be counted. He saw another difficulty in 
that amendment. Although we should construe it that 
the Governor should only fill the vacancy until the next 
annual election, yet he would presume that he would 
hold his office until the election for members of the 
Legislature would be determined. It maybe construed, 
however, that the appointing power, only extended to 
the second Tuesday of October. The necessities of the 
case, however, would make it necessary that the in¬ 
cumbent should hold his office until a successor should 
have been elected and duly qualified. He had exam¬ 
ined somewhat into the section, and in relation to the 
necessity of having these offices “lap over” one ano¬ 
ther. 

He did not concede that the Treasurer, if he should 
continue his office' during two years, would have very 
much knowledge to impart to the Auditor in the dis¬ 
charge of his duties. He presumed that when every 
officer elected shall come into office of either the 
Treasurer or Auditor, they will have to get their infor¬ 
mation ill relation to the discharge of their duties, from 
the clerks of their offices, in the same manner as the 
Auditor is to get his information now from the heads 
of the several bureaux. He conceived that if the peo¬ 
ple elected business men to these offices, they could 
get all the information they want. If the persons elec¬ 
ted to either one of the State offices are,not business 
men, the incumbents of the other offices will not have 
the power to communicate anything which will be of 
advantage to him. When the proper time came he 
would move to insert the original proposition, with the 
amendment attached to it. The original proposition 
authori.'ied the Governor to fill the vacancy for the re- 
maiiider of the term for which the officer was elected. 
Ho intended to offer an amendment, to add the words— 
“ until his successor shall be qualified.” There might 
be a vacancy in the office between the election and 
qualification. 

Mr. STANBERY. 1 prefer the amendment of the 
geutleinau from Athens [Mr. Brown] to the 20th sec¬ 
tion of the report of the committee, and to the substi¬ 
tute offered by the gentleman from Adams [Mr. Me 
Cormick] wdiich is substantially the same as the re¬ 
port. 

Sir, the question is between two years and three 
years, as the term of office of the Auditor of State, and 




I 












CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


293 


the other Executive officers. I have iio hesitation in 
going for the longest of these terms. First, because it 
is according to the present constitution, and secondly, 
and especially, because it is in all respects the best. 

If there is any one thing which can be predicated 
upon the public opinion as to the business in which we 
are now engaged, it is, that the people are not wholly 
dissatisfied with the old constitution, and that they de¬ 
sire no change except where it can certainly be made 
for the better. I*ablic opinion has in fact indicated 
what those changes should be, but has given us no inti¬ 
mation of any change in the particular now under con¬ 
sideration. Our general rule in constructing the iifew 
constitution, should be to adhere to the old—change 
should be the exception, not the rule of proceeding. 

But, sir, there is a manifest propriety in a term of 
three years, especially for the Auditor of State. The 
duties of that officer seem not to be understood by gen¬ 
tlemen here. It is an office, the duties of which are 
complex and peculiar, and can only be well performed 
after study and experience. No man, whatever his 
general intelligence, can enter upon this office, and at 
once comprehend all its duties, and perform them in¬ 
telligently. 

Consider, sir, that this officer is at the head of our 
finances. He must learn to understand the various, 
funds and accounts, and the entire machineiy of our 
financial system. He not only must learn all the du¬ 
ties in his own office, but the duties of every subordi- 
nate officer in any way connected with our finances an^ 
revenue. Every county auditor and every county] 
treasurer, looks to him for advice and instructions. / 

He must not only make himself familiar with the 
manner of keeping the accounts in his office, but with 
all our statutes on the subject of revenue and taxation. 
He must follow out all the statutory provisions in rela¬ 
tion to the twenty different funds—the canal fund, the 
sinking fund, the surplus revenue fund, and all the oth¬ 
ers, into which our finances are divided. Then too, he 
must master, after long and careful study, our many 
statutes on the subject of taxation, a code by itself, for 
he is continually called upon to decide questions on 
our tax laws. 

I do not pi’etend to enumerate all the duties of the 
Auditor, but merely to give some general idea of their 
nature, so that it may be seen, that much time is re¬ 
quired to make any one familiar with them. 

As to the Treasurer of Stale, his duties are not near 
so onerous as those of the Auditor, but yet they are not 
so plain and so easily understood as gentlemen imag¬ 
ine.—Indeed, I may say with regard to all our chief 
officers, there seems to be a great misconception as to 
their duties. This has been especially manifested in the 
debate as to the office of Governor. 

With the indulgence of the committee, I will say a 
few words as to the Governor’s duties. Gentlemen 
have chosen to undervalue the importance of this of¬ 
fice—to speak of it as a mere nominal trust—a sort of 
sinecure. But how stands the matter? 

Look, for example, at the responsibility thrown upon 
the Governor, under the constitution and laws of the 
United States, in relation to fugitives from justice— 
one item of his duties, which has been entirely over¬ 
looked. Persons charged with crimes in other States, 
and who have escaped to Ohio, can only be surrender¬ 
ed by a requisition upon our Governor. I knew that 
this business occupied a great deal of time, but I was 
not aware until I made inquiiy this morning, that the 
number of such requisitions averaged about one hun¬ 
dred in each year. 

This matter of the reclamation and extradition of 
fugitives, has always been considered of the greatest 
moment. Between foreign and independent nations, 
it is usually settled by treaty stipulations—butbetweeu 
the States of our Union, it is provided for by the Con¬ 
stitution and laws of the United States. But however 
provided for, it is a high and delicate power—requir¬ 
ing the utmost caution and circumspection in its exefir- 


cise. It involves the power of seizing upon our citi¬ 
zens—upon persons claiming the protection of our laws, 
and delivering them up to be carried to a distant 
State—and all this without the interposition of any ju¬ 
dicial authority. ^Even the writ of habeas corpus 
cannot dischare the person so arrested. All the dis¬ 
cretion which can be exercised—all the inquiry which 
can be had before a citizen can be so delivered up and 
transported from the State, must be exercised and made 
by our Governor. 

I know very well, sir, that these requisitions often 
present cases of the utmost nicety, and that such a trust 
should only be committed to a man of intelligence and 
experience. 

So too in the reclamation of fugitives from our own 
State: it is known to all that they can only be brought 
back through the agency of our Governor. An atro¬ 
cious crime is commitied in Ohio, and the criminal 
escapes into another State. The ordinary process of 
the law cannot reach him, for our writs and warrants 
do not extend beyond the limits of the State. It is ne¬ 
cessary at once to procure a requisition from the Gov¬ 
ernor upon the Executive of the State to which the 
criminal has fled. Herh dispatch is of the utmost im¬ 
portance, and yet it often happens that the Governor is 
out of the seat of Government, for his low salary will 
not allow him to be here moi’e than half his time, and 
he must be followed to his residence wherever it may 
happen to be. 

Then, too, our Governor conducts the official corres¬ 
pondence of the State, with the executive authorities of 
the other States of the Union and of the United States. 
Official communications from such quai'ters, and from 
the legislative autho'.ities of other States, require 
prompt, respectful and intelligent attention. 

Nor have gentlemen well considered the weighty and 
responsible duties of the Governor in the matter of re¬ 
prieves and pardons Let those who talk of this of¬ 
fice as a sinecure, go into the executive department, 
and see the number of petitions for reprieves and par¬ 
dons, which are constantly before the Governor. 

Very lately, to take a solitary instance, a man was un¬ 
der sentence of death in the county of Green. The 
day of execution was near at hand. Petitions and me¬ 
morials for and against the execution of the sentence 
were laid before the Governor. A very nice question 
was raised as to the sanity of the man at the time of 
the murder. Many physicians—indeed almost the en¬ 
tire body of the medical faculty of the county, united 
in the opinion, that he was not of sound mind. After 
days of anxious deliberation—aftercareful examination 
of all the facts the Governor decided that the sentence 
should be executed. Now, sir, I very much question 
whether any gentleman here would go through the 
anxiety and meet the dread responsibility of such a 
case, for the entire salary of the Governor. 

I might also mention here, the further duties of the 
Governor in the examination of the title and the com 
veyance of every acre of the public land which is sold 
in Ohio—and finally, he is the agent to fill all vacan¬ 
cies in the principal executive and judicial offices. 

I hav'e gone to some length in this enumeration of 
the duties of our chief executive officer, not only to 
give an idea of their extent and importance, but also to 
disabuse a common error, that this office is a sinecure. 

I might make an equally strong case 
our other State officers. We do wrong, Mr. Ghaii- 
man, to depreciate the labors and^ responsibilitms or 
these officers. We do a great injustice to these^ omceis 
in constantly throwing out aspersions upon their integ¬ 
rity. It has been insinuated again and again, in this 
body, that they are all the time watchnig^ for opportu¬ 
nities to plunder the treasury. These insinuations are 
destitute of foundation. For years back we have had 
no instance of defalcation in our State officers. They 
have been men of integrity.—They have discharged 
their trust with' fidelity.—T. hey. are entitled to coin- 
mendation as faithful public servants. When public 










294 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


defauiters appear, they ought to be denounced, and 
held up to public infamy; but for one, I cannot sit here 
and allow the innocent—the honest and trustworthy 
oflicer to be assailed with impunity, and without con¬ 
tradiction. 

Mr. HOLMES said it must not be supposed that he 
would answer the arguments of the gentleman from 
Franklin. He believed himself, “ that short settlements 
made long friends ” and it is absolutely necessary for the 
purpose of ahealthy, wholesome government, that we 
shoud have the term of our public officers, in every in¬ 
stance confined to as short a period as possible, ft is pro¬ 
posed now to make the term of office of the Secretary, 
Taresurer and Auditor three yeai's instead of two. The 
gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbkry] went on to 
show in his speech that it is necessary that these offi¬ 
cers should be elected for a long period, because the 
duties of their office are of such a complicated and in¬ 
tricate character, that it required a great deal of expe¬ 
rience in order to become familiar with the nature of 
business, and therefore we must not restrict them to 
short terms. He mentioned among other things the dq- 
ties of the State Auditor as being so very difficult. But 
there are some county Auditors whose duties are eveq 
more intricate and complicated than those of the State 
Auditor. 

Mr. STANBERY inquired whether the Auditors in 
the counties were not in the habit of consulting the 
State Auditor upon the difficult cpiestions that might 
arise in the discharge of their duties ? 

Mr. HOLMES replied that they were in the habit of 
doing so to some extent, but he thought that the duties 
ol the county auditors were as complex as those of the 
State Auditor, because the Auditor of State depends 
greatly upon the ability of county auditors to sustain 
him. He was decidedly opposed to this thing of con¬ 
tinuing a person in office lor so long a period. You 
should hold public officers accountable to the people 
once in two years, and he was inclined to think that in 
that case they would be more caretul in the discharge 
of their duties. As to the argument that you must con¬ 
tinue these officers in power because they will have 
acquired the knowledge requisite to discharge the du¬ 
ties of their offices, where will you fix the time at 
which it is necessary for them to give place to others ? 
There is another consideration connected with thismat- 
ter, and it is this: that a long continuance in office cau¬ 
ses a man to neglect the interests of the State. He 
held that there wei’e just as good men out of office as 
in office, for if it were not so, these gentlemen would 
be perpetually in office. The argument is not worthy 
of attention. He thought that there were just as good 
men, with brains enough to understand the duties of Au¬ 
ditor as well as many gentlemen who have been in that 
office and served an apprenticeship of from three to six 
years. As he said before, he was for short setdements, 
and he wanted to bring these men who have the con¬ 
trol of the finances to short settlements, and therefore 
he was opposed to extending the term of these officers 
beyond two years, and he should vote for the amend¬ 
ment and the re-instating of the portion of the section 
stricken out. 

Mr. TAYLOR supposed that no proposition would be 
adopted simply because it implied a change. Ho was 
willing to admit that if an alteration or addition was 
proposed, that the burthen of the proof rested on its 
authors—that it properly devolved upon them to show 
such reasons therefor as should be satisfactory to the 
majority. He had listened attentively to the reasons 
adduced for changing the terms of Executive officers, 
but they did not appear to him conclusive. He had 
heard no previous complaint. On the contrary, the 
public were more desirous of being well served—of 
securing experience and skill in an office so intricate 
and important as that of Auditor of State, than they 
were of abbreviating it from three to two years. If 
one year sufficed to make a good offic er, a second would 
improve him, and during the remaining twelve months 


his services would be stiil more valuable. In that re¬ 
spect the present term lurnished three degrees of com¬ 
parison. 

In respect to the Auditor of State, this argument ha.d 
an intrinsic force, which the gentleman from Fnmklin 
impaired by his manner of presenting it'—by his inten¬ 
sified stress upon the consideration just mentioned. 
No man, elected as Auditor, would enter upon the du¬ 
ties of that office as a neophyte. The people will see 
to that, and their choice is not likely to fall upon a can¬ 
didate who has not ample qualifications for the prompt 
mastery of official detail. The necessity for official ex¬ 
perience is too obvious to require any exaggerated 
statement. 

Gentlemen who are in favor of biennial sessions are 
as sensitive as Macbeth, they constantly see a “dagger 
in the air.” The proposition of the gentleman from 
Athens, distributing the election of State officers, so 
that one shall be chosen every year, is now an object 
of jealousy. The idea is already advanced that our 
.elections, so far as State officers are concerned, must 
be biennial—that biennial sessions imply a biennial 
choice of all the important officers of State. He dis¬ 
liked such a policy. Far better would it be to divide 
these vacancies, so that an equal number would be fill¬ 
ed at each annual election. The returns could be pro¬ 
vided for, so as to dispense with the attendance of the 
Legislature, and a constant interest in the selection of 
these officers would thereby be substituted for a bien¬ 
nial excitement—followed, perhaps, by a correspond¬ 
ing apathy, on the return of the next day of sovereign¬ 
ty—the ensuing second Thursday in October. In every 
respect, therefore, the amendment of the gentleman 
from Athens seemed to him worthy of favorable con¬ 
sideration. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said he did not rise to make 
a speech. He was in favor of short terms for all offi¬ 
ces, for he believed in the progressive spirit which re¬ 
quires that frequent elections should be held for all 
elective officers. The argument that requires three 
years for the term of office, would be just as forcible 
for ten or twenty, and perhaps more so, for we should 
then have men of larger experience and of more ma¬ 
tured judgment. But he rose merely to correct an er¬ 
ror into which the gentleman from Franklin seems to 
have fallen. He presumed that the gentleman did not' 
desire to mislead the committee, and he presumed that 
he could not have been ignorant of a certain law, bear¬ 
ing upon the question he brought into the discussion. 
It is only from inadvertence, probably, that the gentle¬ 
man could have failed to notice the law to which he 
referred. The gentleman told us that a fugitive from 
justice could be surrendered up to the authorities of the 
State where the crime was committed, only through 
the agency of the Governor of the State to which the 
fugitive had fled. If the gentleman will turn to the 
546th page of the collated statutes, he will find, in the 
first section of the act concerning fugitives from jus¬ 
tice, this prov}sion: “ That when any person shall be 
brought before any justice of the peace within this 
State, charged with the commission of any criminal 
offence against the laws of any other State, or of any 
Territories of the United States, it is hereby made the 
diity of said justice of the peace to hear and examine 
such charge, and upon proof by him adjudged sufficient, 
to commit such person to the jail of the county in 
which such examination shall take place, or to cause 
such person to be delivered to some suitable person, to 
be removed to the proper place of jurisdiction.” 

Mr. STANBERY interrupting, said, he certainly 
had not been guilty of such a degree of ignorance 
as to the mode by which fugitives from justice are re¬ 
claimed. He would again reiterate that there is no 
law by which you can take a fugitive from justice in 
another State, out of the State of Ohio, to which he 
may have fled, to NewYork or any other State, except 
through the agency of our Governor. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE resumed, It may be that 












295 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


this Statute is nugatory and a dead letter. He had 
known instances of individuals in Ohio, being surren¬ 
dered and carried out of the State under the provisions 
of the law, without the intervention of the Governor. 

It is true, that this section does not point out the mode 
of a}>plication and gentlemen say it must be through 
the Executive. He doubled whe her this was the in¬ 
tention of the law. The language of the law which he 
had read here seemed to be plain to him, although the 
mode of application is not jiointed out. He was not 
willing that the committee should be misled in this 
matter and therefore he had called their attention to 
this section of the law. It shows that the argument 
that the Executive has avast duty to perform cannot 
be worthy of as much consideration as the gentleman 
claims for it. There is no doubt there are a great ma- 
uy applications made to the Governer where the exer¬ 
cise of a sound discretion is necessary, where he is re¬ 
quired to act deliberately and with great judgment; 
but as he did not consider that this was particularly un¬ 
der consideration, he would discuss it no faither. 

Mr. RANNEY said he was satisfied with the report 
of this committee, in fixing the terms which the State 
officers should hold at two years instead of three. He 
did not take it, that you are going to elect men to this 
office who are to pass through a regular training at the 
public expense, before they would be qualified to dis¬ 
charge the duties of their offices. We have never ex¬ 
perienced any great difficulties so far, growing out of 
want of experience on the part of officers newly elect¬ 
ed. Old Auditoi 6 have gone out and new ones come in. 
He had never heard that the first part of any of these 
terms has been attended with any great inconvenience, 
or has proved detrimental to the interests of the people. 
If there was ever any slipping back from honesty, it 
had been on the part of those wdio had served long in 
office. The term of two years is long enough. We 
want a consistency in our State system. You are pro¬ 
viding, by this constitution, for the election of every 
State officer, except one, biennially, and one you pro¬ 
pose to throw into the election every year. What is 
the consequence? If you elect, for instance, a Secre¬ 
tary of State here in the year before the election of 
Governor and Lieutenant Governor, you will have to 
go through the same routine and incur the snme ex¬ 
pense that you would at a general election of all the 
State officers. He did not wish to incorporate into the 
system of State elections such a policy, and he desired 
that these elections should not be held oftener than bi¬ 
ennially. 

There is no force in the argument that the people 
need to be stirred up annually to prevent their patriot¬ 
ism from flagging. Some gentlemen seem to think it 
necessary to stir up the people in order to keep them 
excited, just as you would two dogs when you would 
get them fighting, by rubbing their ears. No man 
would be likely to forget that he is an American citi¬ 
zen or the proud position he occupies, although he 
should not be annually reminded of it by that patriotic 
and disinterested class of our fellow citizens, the office 
seekers. He could be safely left with one year of re¬ 
pose and still be confident of his rights and duties. If 
ou elect all your officers once in two years, there will 
e nothing intervening except in the election of coun¬ 
ty officers. If annual rubbing of ears is necessary, in 
most counties where sheriffs and other county officers 
are elected, there will be rubbing of ears enough with¬ 
out iho intervention of the election of State officers, to 
give importance and dignity to each election. You 
should have biennial elections for your State officers, 
to make the systen of your government consistent 
throughout and conformable to biennial sessions of the 
Legislature. 

Tljey say here that an Auditor cannot get acquainted 
with the duties of his office in the term of two years, 
and therefore we had better hold on to the old terms of 
offices; that they are against all change in the old con¬ 
stitution. What under the heavens is this body assern- 


ble<l here for? Have the people gone through a farce 
in sending up to this capital 108 picked men, as they 
are <;alled in the history of the times, to hang on by 
the old ropes of the constitution? He had supposed 
that the whole people had determined that there should 
be reforms introduced into the present form of g(jvern- 
rnent. All change is not necessarily reform, but what¬ 
ever experience or principle have shown to be right the 
people demand introduced. He was oppo.;ed in prin¬ 
ciple to making the terms of office of long duration, 
and he wanted that these officers should bear in mind 
that they are mortal and amenable to the people from 
the time they are elected to the end of their terms. He 
did not want this office seeking and office holding to 
become a trade in this country. If you hang on and 
make long terms you will make a trade of it, and he 
would therefore make them short. He would not pay 
these officers extravagant prices on the one hand, nor 
starvation prices on the other, but he would give them 
fair and liberal salaries. He would do so, if for no 
other reason than from a sense of pride ; and he would 
sooner beg old clothes himself than not give them a 
just and liberal compensation for their services. The 
gentlemen tell us that to secure men of talent and char¬ 
acter to fill the executive offices, we must pay a large 
and liberal salary, but whether your salary be a very 
high or moderate one# looking into the future, he could 
plainly see that the executive office would be filled by 
men who will dignify the position in every particular, 
for it is a proud position for any citizen to occupy. He 
would not, therefore, go to the point of extravagance 
on the one hand, nor starvation on the other. There is 
a just medium in these matters, as in most others. 

In relation to defaulters—it is said that no defalca¬ 
tions have ever taken place among the State officers of 
Ohio ; but he could not help observing the inconsist¬ 
ency of gentlemen upon this question. A few days 
ago, when annual sessions of the Legislature were at¬ 
tempted to be secured, it was necessary for the Repre¬ 
sentatives of the people to be here with their eyes 
wide open, annually, or the cat would be in the cup¬ 
board, and now they say that no defalcations take 
place in our government. But he did not apprehend 
that men entrusted with the public funds, would be 
likely to steal them. He was proud to say they had 
not heretofore, and he presumed would not hereafter. 
He thought that we should make the election of State 
officers consistent with the idea of biennial sessions, 
and not provide for the election of an officer when 
there was no Legislature to canvass the votes. He did 
not desire that terms of office should be extended to 
an unreasonable length. He thought that a knov/l- 
edge of the duties of the State Auditor required no 
more preparation than the duties of a county Auditor. 
No reason can be given why the one officer should not 
hold as long a time as the other, and yet we do not 
propose to extend a county Auditor’s term beyond two 
years. In his opinion, two years was the be^t terra to 
be adopted in this State, lor which the State officers 
should hold their respective offices, and holding this 
view, he should not vote for the amendment. 

Mr. LARSH said—It seemed to be the prevailinff 
feeling that these terms should be extended beyond 
two years. Some gentlemen w’ere in favor of a uni¬ 
versal change, some for increasing the duration of the 
terms, and others for cutting them down. There 
ed to be nothing right in the old constitution, and the 
wonder was how we had been able to get along at all 
so long as 48 years under it. But for himself, he did 
did not know that this w’as exactly so. ^ So far as he 
had cnioyed opportunities of talking with the people, 
in different parts of the State, the universal opinion 
was, that it was best to make as little change as possi¬ 
ble in the old constitution. It was admitted, to be sure, 
that we had out-grown it, as a youth out-grows his 
clothes. The judiciary had become too small. Some¬ 
thing was necessary'to be done to enlarge it, so as to 
fit the present necessities of the State, but, for all 











296 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


that, we should make as few changes as possible in the 
old constilulioii. That opinion was everywhere ex¬ 
pressed to him. 

With regard to electing every year—could it be pos¬ 
sible that gentlemen would have a judiciary elected 
biennially?—all over the State having their judges on 
the bench only for the term of two years? 'J'he Judi¬ 
ciary committee had not yet reported ; but he did not 
apprehend that they intended any such innovation. 
He could not think that the committee would come to 
any such conclusion. We had county officers, some 
elected for two years, some for three, and some for 
seven years. The clerks of the court were appointed 
by the court now for the term of seven years. Perhaps 
we might prescribe that they shall be elected for that 
time. Was any gentleman prepared to say that this 
officer should serve only for two years? 

Mr. McCORMlCK (in his seat.) Yes. 

A r. LARSH. The gentleman Irom Adams had an¬ 
swered in the affirmative; but, for his part, he was not 
in favor of it at all. He was for the longest term for 
all such offices. 

He was somewhat pleased, and somewhat surprised, 
at the remark of the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Holmes.] He believed that gentleman was a citizen of 
Cincinnati; and that in that city there were some ex¬ 
tensive manufacturing establishments ; and he desired 
to ask that gentleman whether the proprietors of those 
manufacturing establishments would be likely to con¬ 
sider it profitable to tliem to turn out every man in 
their employment, and get a new set every year, from 
bottom to top—foreman and all—in every room of their 
establishment ? When this could be satisfactorily an¬ 
swered in the affirmative, he would be prepared to 
consider the wisdom of the proposition to make short 
terms for Judicial dhd State officers. 

Mr. HOLMES, in reply, stated that in Cincinnati the 
manulacturers turned off their employees as often as 
the interest of the employers required it. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga saidhewas very glad to 
leal 11 that gentlemen were coming to the conclusion 
that it was necessary to have frequent elections; but he 
did not like the idea so well that every part of the con¬ 
stitution should be changed, whether necessary or not, 
in order to have a new one. But there was another 
theory, which was to elect these officers so they might 
come in one after another; and in order to do this, 
they will elect one officer every year for a term of two 
years, as a set off against the period of three years 
heretofore obsen^ed. How much farther this was to be 
earned he did not know. But these were all merely 
administrative officers; and he did not know that it 
made a gieat deal ot difference whether they were 
elected for a period of two years or three years. But 
with respect to the Auditor of State, when we consider 
wlidt li6 has to do, it would sceiu to he for the interest 
of the State that he should be elected for the longer 
term. For the other officers he did not care so much 
about the length of term. But faithfulness on the part 
01 the Auditor of State involved a question in which 
we were all equally interested—every individual of the 
State. It was a question of policy—a mere question 
ot policy whether the duration of this office should be 
for two or for three years. His own opinion was that 
the nature of the duties of that office required at least 
a three years’ term. But if other gentlemen differed 
with him, let it be so, it did not matter. It was not 
needful to protract the discussion any longer. If a 
majority were for two years, he submitted to it, and, 
on the other hand, if a majority were for three years, 
the other side ought to submit. ’ 

There was one thing, with respect to the two years 
term, which he would notice. This officer must be 
elected biennially at the great election, which is to 
take place every two years, and not at the little elec¬ 
tion, which was also to take place at periods of two 
years. There was to be a great election and a little 
election ; and what was to be the consequence ? He 


supposed a man to be elected Treasurer of State, who 
might die or resign, and so a vacancy might occur within 
one month or six months from the date of his election. 
Well, we could not have another election ’till the great 
election at the end of two years should come around; 
because if we did it would destroy the harmony of the 
system. But the vacancy must be filled, and a provis¬ 
ion was made for the Governor to fill it for the balance 
of the term—for eighteen or nineteen months, as the 
case might be. He did not like this very well. He was 
willing that the Governor should fill the vacancies: but 
he wanted the question of the election of officers sub¬ 
mitted to the people in such a manner as to preclude 
such a long term for the appointees of the Governor. 

Mr. RANNEY [interrupting.] The committee had 
resolved that the Governor should fill the vacancies 
only until the next annual election. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. That provision had all been 
stricken out, and if it were not stricken out it would 
entirely destroy the harmony of the system prescribing 
the great biennial election on the 2d Tuesday in Octo¬ 
ber ; but he would not take up time. The gentlemen 
who think two years a sufficient term would vote, he 
supposed, for the projjosition of the gentleman from 
Adams; but he rather hoped that a sufficient number 
were persuaded to favor the three years’ term,‘and to 
vote against that proposition. 

Mr. McCORMlCK said he had not intended to trou¬ 
ble the committee, and he would not appear now but 
for a remark which fell from the gentleman from Erie. 
That gentleman remarked that he desired to make no 
innovation upon the old constitution, except for obvious 
reasons going to show that the change which was pro¬ 
posed was an actual improvement. He supposed that 
gentlemen would be willing to concede the principle 
“ that the power of appointment should recur to the ap¬ 
pointing power as often as practicable, without detri¬ 
ment to the public service.” Upon this principle he 
contended that the election of all officers should be an¬ 
nual, especially when the public interest could be 
thereby subserved as well as for a longer period. The 
great object was to secure the shortest period which 
would best subserve the public interest. Was two 
years the most practicable period ? or three years ? 
Would not the public interest be subserved as well by 
a two years’ term as if the period were for three 
years ? and should we not, by adopting the power, 
evince our adherence to the principle which we all re¬ 
cognize ? 

The gentleman from Franklin had argued this ques¬ 
tion rather unfairly, as it appeared to him. That gen¬ 
tleman was astute in all his arguments, and was under¬ 
stood to be about as well qualified as any gentleman 
on that floor, to make the worse appear the better ar¬ 
gument. No man understood this art better than that 
gentleman. But he woiild beg leave to set him right 
in one of his positions. He had affirmed that three 
years was a veiy short period for the Auditor of State 
to become acquainted with the duties of his office, and 
perform its functions with any degree of propriety and 
skill for the public interest. That he considered was 
begging the question too much. The argument of the 
gentleman was, that that officer must read all the laws 
relative to his official duies—must thoroughly under¬ 
stand every line of them—that he must understand 
the condition of the public stocks and all the pub¬ 
lic funds, and know all the resources of the State; 
he must be inducted into all the arts and mysteries of 
the finances of the State and of the world, antecedent 
to his election and induction into office. Why, Mr. 
Chairmar., if the proposition was that we should take a 
flat-head Indian, or any other being who would know 
nothing of our financial matters, and make him our Au¬ 
ditor, who could absolutely know nothing concerning 
his duties until the day of his installation into office, the 
argument might be a good one. But was any such 
proposition before us. Was it supposable that the peo¬ 
ple of Ohio would ever place any mere ignorant wood- 












CONYENTION REPORTS. 


eii-liead into the office of Auditor of State ? He hoped 
not. 

Make an application of the gentleman’s argument to 
the office ol Attorney General, and that officer should 
be elected for a term of five or ten years : because af¬ 
ter his electipn he would have to become acquainted 
with the common law, and statute law, and qualify 
himself in practice by examination, and admission by 
license to the office of an attorney. All this would re¬ 
quire three or four years to enable him properly to fill 
the*place. Does a proposition of this kind amount to 
anything? He supposed that any man elected to the 
oflice of Attorney General would be selected as a law¬ 
yer, qualified to psrfonn the duties of that office. And 
would it not be the same when a candidate for Auditor 
was selected ? Most assuredly he would be selected 
who had made himself familiar with the character 
and condition of public affairs, and especially with the 
financial condition of the State ; and in every case 
where such a selection would be made, he ventured 
to assert that within six months after his election—du¬ 
ring the space of time intervening between the second 
Tuesday in October and the first of March, at which 
time his.term of office would commence—any gentle¬ 
man who was fit for the place would well qualify him¬ 
self to perform all the functions of his office, and be 
fully prepared for the proper discharge of his duties, 
by a thorough acquaintance with the law in the case, and 
the finances of the State. He ventured to assert, that 
any man who could not become acquainted with the 
public funds and financial condition of the State, and 
all the duties pertainiim to his office, in the space of 
six months, would not become so in sixty months or 
sixty years. The argument could only be available in 
the event of electing a savage to fill the office. 

But let us take it on another ground. If a man 
comes into this office once in three years, and contin¬ 
ues to improve during that period, as a matter of course 
he will be better qualified in six years than in three. 
Was the gentleman in favor of a six years’ terra ? He 
understood the gentleman to say, he was not. Then 
three years was the precise time in which the public 
interests could be best subserved. The first year would 
be spent in learning the duties of office; at the expira¬ 
tion of the second year he would become a comparative¬ 
ly good Auditor; and at the end of three years he would 
become a superlatively good Auditor: but, following 
the gentleman’s argument, by the fourth or fifth year 
he would be entirely unfit for the office. He appre¬ 
hended that this question was now well enough under¬ 
stood. 

The gentleman from Preble [Mr. Larsh] had asked 
a question of the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Holmes,] which offerded a very good illustration of 
the subject. If one man hires another to perform cer¬ 
tain duties in a large manufactory, he does not hire him 
for any particular period of time, but only from day to 
day, so long as he is deserving. The tenure of office, 
in that case, is ever dependent upon an able dis¬ 
charge of its duties, and the application of that princi¬ 
ple always enabled the employer to obtain the servi¬ 
ces of the ablest men. Will not the same rule work 
well if applied to public functionaries. Let the gen¬ 
tleman, elected to the office of Auditor of State, perform 
his whole duty to the State, and show himself‘“calpable, 
and faithful,’’ and I apprehend he would find no diffi¬ 
culty, biennially if he desired, to obtain a re-election 
for any reasonable length of time. A competent and 
faithful public servant would always commend himself 
to the sympathies of the public. The people were al¬ 
ways ready to award their sympathies to real meiit. 
There was no danger that the people would abandon a 
competent man after a trial of two years. 

One word in reply to the gentleman from Geauga, 
and he would be done. He had not looked to any pe¬ 
culiar “harmony” in any system. He had said noth¬ 
ing about “continued biennial,” “great elections” and 
“little elections.” His amendment merely provuded 


297 


that the Secretary of State, the Auditor, Treasurer, and 
Attorney General, should be elected at the same place 
and in the same manner as the Governor and Lieut. 
Governor; it further provided, in case of death, disaS 
bility or removal, the Governor should have power to 
fill the vacancy until the next annual election—not 
saying whether that should be a “great election,” or a 
little election.” • ^ 

He had also spoken of the propriety of the person, 
thus elected to fill a vacancy, holding the office for the 
full period ol two years- The gentleman from Geauga 
dwelt upon the “harmony ” of our system— 

Mr. bllTCHCOCK of Geauga, interrupting, said: It 
was not in consequence of anything in the amend¬ 
ment, or of any declaration made by the gentleman 
from Adams, that he made the allusion referred to. 
He intended to apply his observations to the gentleman 
from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney.] 

Mr. McCORMlCK. He had supposed that the re¬ 
marks were made in reference to the amendment which 
he ©ftered on yesterday. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Not at all. 

Mr. McCORMlCK continued: After this explana¬ 
tion, as far as he understood the remarks of the gen¬ 
tleman from Geauga, he believed he had no further re¬ 
ply to make on his part. He would congratulate the 
committee, however, upon hearing that we had a gen¬ 
tleman upon this floor, the gentleman from Preble, 
[Mr. Larsh,] who was well acquainted with “ univer¬ 
sal public opinion” u]3on this and every other subject. 
He should always be happy, himself, to hear from the 
gentleman from Preble, what was the true “ universal 
public opinion” upon all the vaidous questions upon 
which this Convention shall be called to act; and the 
gentleman must expect him hereafter to be somewhat 
troublesome in his applications for information, in his 
anxiety to obtain a perfect knowledge of “ public opin¬ 
ion.” 

Mr. LARSH said: He had not intended to express 
himself as familiar with public opinion, beyond what 
had actually came to his knowledge. 

Mr. McCORMlCK. He had understood the gentle- 
iTian to declare that he was well infoi-med of what was 
the universal opinion with reference to the changes 
proposed in the constitution. 

Mr. LARSH denied any such intention. 

Mr. STANTON said he had always considered with 
the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery,] thatthe 
duties of the Auditor of State could not be dis¬ 
charged safely without some experience. He did not 
believe, that with the Secretary of State and Treasurer 
there was the same difficulty. He did not believe there 
was the same necessity for a long term in these offices. 
VVe might as well look at things as they are, as at any 
particular theory about securing faithfulness in the 
public service. Ifany thing were well settled by the peo¬ 
ple, it was that the duties of the office of county Audi¬ 
tor required experience, in order to secure efficiency; 
and the people were in the constant habit of continu¬ 
ing these officers for a longer period than any others. 
He knew this to be the case in many counties. In the 
county in which he lived, the Auditor had held his of¬ 
fice for sixteen years, consecutively. No other officer 
in the county had enjoyed this distinction; but it would 
never be so with the Auditor of State, as every gentle¬ 
man might know. The gentleman from Franklin 
would accord the fact that the predecessor [Mr. Brongh] 
of the present Auditor of State, was as good an Au¬ 
ditor as we ever had, or ever shall have, and yet, he 
[Mr. S.] declared that if that gentleman had been a 
candidate for re-election, he would not have received 
his vmte, and he supposed the same feeling would gov¬ 
ern gentleinen in all such cases upon the other side of 
the chamber. The question as to whether the Auditor 
would be re-elected, would depend entirely upon the 
predominance of the polical party with which he was 
connected; and the State would be liable to lose all 
the benefit of his experience, whenever a change took 











298 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


place in the preponderance of political power. The 
gentleman from Adams [Mr. McCormick,] was cer¬ 
tainly mistaken, in supposing that any gentleman in 
the State would be able to qualify himself for the du¬ 
ties of that office, between the time of his election and 
getting into it. Me apprehended that no man could, in 
BO sin rt a time become so perfectly familiar with all 
the duties of the Auditor of State, as to make a good 
officer in that department. It could not be done. 

There was a reason why the Treasurer should not 
hold over for so long a period. He had always be¬ 
lieved it was the best test of the solvency of a public 
officer to hand him over to his successor; for if he 
were continued in office ho would be able to cover up 
his “tracks The argument for a long term did not ap¬ 
ply to the Treasurer, and he would submit whether it 
would not be well to make a distinction between the 
terms of the Auditor and those other ministerial officers 
named in the section. He would submit one consider¬ 
ation further. He was in favor of biennial sessions, and 
lest it might be necessary to have the votes returned 
and the results declared by the General Assembly, for 
the sake of symmetry in the system, he would prefer 
that the elections for these officers should take jdace 
biennially and quadrennially—the treasurer, Secretaiy 
and Attorney General, biennially, and the Auditor every 
four years. 

Mr. HOLT next obtained the floor and was proceed¬ 
ing to address the committee, when 

Mr. MASON interrupted to say that they could not 
hear anything in that part of the hall in consequence 
of so much conversation amongst members. Gentle¬ 
men around him were desirous to hear debate, so that 
when called upon to vote they might do so intelli¬ 
gently. 

Mr. HOLT proceeded. He did not know that he 
had lungs sufficiently strong to be heard in every part 
of the chamber. However, he had but little of impor¬ 
tance to say, and if he were not heard precisely by 
gentlemen, little or nothing would be lost. 

He intimated that his locality in the chamber and 
the vote he was about to give might expose him to a 
charge of heterodoxy from the other side of the hall; 
and that gentlemen need not be alarmed if, upon ques¬ 
tions of this kind, he should be found to vote with his 
neighbors. His wish in regard to the time for which 
these officers should hold their places was that it should 
be limited to the lowest period which would secure 
efficiency and fidelity in the office, and to justify a man 
who might be elected from any quarter of the State, 
in resigning the charge of his individual interests and 
removing, for the time, to Columbus. He would not 
extend the term if he could beyond that period. In 
regard to the Auditor he hardly need remark that he 
knew of no officer in the State that required more 
thorough “schooling’’—(he believed that term had 
been used)—to be competent to discharge his duties. 
One gentleman, by way of illustrating the propriety of 
short terms, had spoken of the Attorney General and 
supposed it not necessary that he should come here 
and study laws. But that had been his study all his 
life, whether long or short. It might be supposed that 
any gentleman who had studied and practiced law for 
ten years, though not in office, would be about as well 
qualified as though he had been in office that length of 
time. Our pidges were all lawyers, taken from the 
legal profession, theyhad all studied and practiced law, 
and thereby had qualified themselves for the duties of 
the bench. It was not so with the Auditor. The best 
qualified lawyer might have no knowledge of the busi¬ 
ness of the Auditor. The best lawyer and the most 
accomplished business man would have to serve a con¬ 
siderable apprenticeship to qualify him for the duties 
of the Auditoi-'s office. He did not concur in the ar¬ 
gument of the gentleman from Preble for a long period. 
The illustration of that gentleman that it would not be 
to the advantage of a manufacturer to employ strangers 
every year, could not be made to apply to the argu¬ 


ment, But if we proposed to employ an Auditor for 
three years and we should find him honest and capable, 
we would emidoy him again. All experience proved 
that when a man was elected to an office, the duties of 
which were not connected with party politics, after he 
had filled his first term with the requisite efliciency and 
fidelity, the people were very much inclined to elect 
him again, and perhaps for a longer term than would 
he for the public advantage. It was his judgment that 
it would be difficult to find a man competent to dis¬ 
charge the duties of the Auditor’s office who could be 
induced to leave his business (especially if he had a 
family) and come here to fill the place of Auditor of 
State for a less term than three years. Such was the 
fact as he looked upon it. Three years had always 
been the term of the Auditor, and he did not see why 
it should not be continued ; but he did not place the 
argument upon that gi’ound, he would fix it at the low¬ 
est tei*m at which it would be possible to bring gentle¬ 
men from abroad into this office. He held that a suffi¬ 
cient salaiy should be fixed and length of term allow¬ 
ed to give an opportunity to men from all parts of the 
State to come in and fill the office. He would go no 
farther than this, for it seemed to him there was a suf¬ 
ficient “ central tendency” in the State already, and he 
had no doubt that there would continue to be central¬ 
ism enough in all conscience, without giving aid to 
that tendency by any provision in the fundamental 
law. 

He did not propose to go into any argument wdth ref¬ 
erence to the salaries either of the Auditor or Govern¬ 
or. In reply to the reasonable or unreasonable com¬ 
pensations proposed in this discussion, he hoped that no 
gentleman would commit himself in regard to any sal¬ 
ary, either of the Auditor, the Governor, or the-Tudges. 
In regard to all salaries, he hoped that gentlemen would 
reserve themselves for the proper occasion. Whenev¬ 
er that subject should come up, he gave notice that he 
would be found acting with all his heart and soul with 
the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold.] Since 
the question had been raised, he doubted the expedi¬ 
ency of fixing the pay of the Governor by the Conven¬ 
tion, and had examined the constitutions of all the 
States of the Union, and he had found but two States 
in which this question had been settled at all by the 
constitution ; and that in twenty-seven States this mat¬ 
ter was left wholly to the Legislature—;]ust where, in 
hisjudgment, it ought to be left. He made these re¬ 
marks in passing, for the purpose of dissuading the 
committee from too much legislation. It was the hope 
of every gentleman, he presumed, that the constitution 
about to be constructed should not only be a good one, 
but acceptable to the people. Now, if any gentleman 
of the Convention, looking at the wants and interests 
of his own particular county—if he should want to intro¬ 
duce into the constitution a little legislation, which, in 
its details, would be safe amongst his constituents, he 
should remember that it might be very unpopular else¬ 
where. He warned the committee that if we allowed 
ourselves to engage in the details of legislation, we 
would find that one portion of the details would be 
found unpopular here, and another there; and although 
we might get up a very good constitution in the main, 
we might rely upon getting it rejected, by reason of its 
interference with those things which belong to the leg¬ 
islative department. There were some details of this 
class, which had been mentioned by gentlemen, and 
brought forward and urged upon the committee. But 
he would not turn aside now to notice them. 

It seemed to have been made a sort of rule of the 
Convention, adopted and hilherto acquiesced in, that 
we should not discuss and dispose of but one question 
in half a day—whether it were an important or minor 
queslion, it made no difference; and as the time to be 
occupied with this subject under discussion has nearly 
expired, he concluded that he might as well put in a 
few words, just to fill up and space out the forenoon. 

Mr. SWAN. I concur in the views of the nentlemun 

O 









CONVENTION REPORTS 


299 


from Montgomery [Mr. Holt.] As to the duties of the 
Secretary of State, they can be performed by any iin 
telligeiit clerk, and it is of little consequence vvhether\ 
the term of office be fixed at two or three years. !So ? 
the c ffice of treasurer is much like the teller of a bank, 
requiring the greatest integrity, and but little ofiiciali 
experience. The Attorney General will be elected! 
with a view to his professional knowledge, and it may 
be presumed will bo at once prepared to enter upon the} 
performance of his duties. The ofiice of the Auditor? 
of State, however, is one that requires qualifications! 
which can be acquired by official experience only. He! 
must be acquainted not only with the routine of tliei 
business of his own office and the finances of the State./ 
but with the duties of the Auditors of tlie counties, and! 
indeed with the laws relating to every other revenue* 
officer of the State. He advises and supervises the 
whole. Probably no member of this Convention un¬ 
acquainted with the books and papers of the office, 
could, unassisted, acquire a knowledge of them so as 
to direct the subordinate officers in six months. The 
efficiency of the Auditor must dej)end in a great de¬ 
gree upon his official knowledge of detail. 

He must possess vigorous business habits, financial 
knowledge and experience. It is proposed to obtain 
these, and to require the incumbent to abandon his 
private business, and come to Columbus and devote his 
entire attention to the duties of this office, upon a ten¬ 
ure of two years. The time is too short. It may be 
doubted whether a man of active business habits, and 
possessing the talents and experience required for this 
department—the most important of any in the State, 
will sacrifice his private interests, and abandon his 
private avocations to enter upon such an office tor the 
terra of two years. Besides, with biennial sessions, 
the Auditor, after performing but one cycle in the 
round of his department, and after obtaining the 
knowledge and experience derived from a series of 
duties, will close his term. I apprehend the gentle¬ 
man from Montgomery [Mr. Holt,] is mistaken in 
supposing that the Auditor, if a faithful officer, will 
be re-elected. Nominations will be made by a caucus, 
and if the incumbent does not belong to the dominant’s 
party, it can hardly be supposed that the latter will 
concede that they cannot present a candidate who will 
be faithful and efficient. 

It is true, there have been but four Auditors of State 
elected within about thirty years. This is owing partly 
to the evil which would ensue from a change in the de¬ 
partment ; but principally from the personal relations 
of the members of the Legislature with the incumbent. 

The question as to the terms of the Executive offices 
might, perhaps, be compromised by fixing the term of 
the Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer and Attor¬ 
ney General, at two years, and the Auditor for three or 
four years. As the friends of biennial sessions think a 
term of three years would not conform to their views 
of uniformity, it may be proper to fix the term of the 
Auditor of State at four years. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said—he did not intend to add a 
single word to what had been said by the gentleman 
from Montgomery [Mr. Holt] and the gentleman from 
Franklin, [Mr. Swan.] He would only say that if 
gentlemen wished the term of office of the Auditor of 
State to be fixed for four years,” they should have 
his vote, 

Mr. NASH said he agreed with the gentleman from 
Monroe [Mr. Archbold] that as fafas the term of the 
Secretary of State, the I'reasurer and Attorney Gene¬ 
ral was concerned, it might as well be fixed for two 
years; and that the term of the Auditor were better 
for four yeai s than three. 

Mr. Hunter and Mr. Horton severally expressed 
their concurrence in the sentiment just expressed by 
the gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash.] 

Mr. BROWN of Athens would avail himself of the 
moment to say, that, in proposing his amendment, he 
had no particular theory in view. It was not offered j 


with reference to the Auditor particularly. He sup¬ 
posed it was necessary that this tei-m should be length¬ 
ened. He was not aware of the erection of any Pro¬ 
crustean bedstead, than which, all that was longer 
should be cut down, and all that was shorter should he 
stretched out. But he had found from the report of 
the committee on Public Debt and Public Works, that 
he had been mistaken as to some principles which he 
had ventured to suggest with respect to these offices ; 
although some of tliem had been recognized in all our 
institutions. Nevertheless, he had no objections to the 
change. 

As to the office of the Auditor of State there were 
peculiar reasons for requiring a longer term than that 
proposed in the report. He happened to have been 
somewhat familiar with the kind of duties required of 
this officer in early life. It was his happiness to be 
well acquainted with a gentleman who had been an in¬ 
cumbent of that office for many years ; and he recollect¬ 
ed often to have heard that gentleman remark that it 
required his most arduous attention for more than three 
years, to become at all acquainted with the duties of 
that office. However, we ipay have made such pro¬ 
gress since that time that men can know now by intu¬ 
ition, even more than what it required that gentleman 
several years to acquire. Still, he had some doubts. 
But this being a plain, simple question of expediency 
and propriety, he thought probabiy the change pro¬ 
posed would better conform to the matter really before 
us, than any imaginary theory which we may have 
formed in our minds. Some difficulty had been sug¬ 
gested with respect to the occurrence of elections at 
other than the biennial periods, and that in such cases 
the sheriffs would have to come up to the seat of gov¬ 
ernment and canvass the votes. But he had never 
thought of such a difficulty. There would have to be 
provided an election for the Board of Public Works an¬ 
nually, and certffinly returns might be made und votes 
might be canvassed without any constitutional provis¬ 
ion. Some way would be provided by which results 
would be ascertained. He supposed the ministerial of¬ 
ficers of State might form a very appropriate board for 
this purpose. In fact there were many ways in which 
this matter might be provided for by law, and made 
consistent with biennial sessions of the Legislature. 
But, to his mind it seemed to be going entirely out of 
the way to consider this matter here. 

Mr. DORSEY said he had somewhat changed his 
views, after hearing the remarks which had been made 
this morning. He came here to-day with the expecta¬ 
tion of voting for the section pretty much in the shape 
in which it came from the hands of the committee.— 
He had supposed that these several officers should be 
elected for two years. He was in favor of biennial ses¬ 
sions ; and that with him was a fixed fact, from which 
he did not intend to deviate. But he was not convinced 
from the remarks which he had heard in the course of 
this debate,that there was a propriety in electing the Au¬ 
ditor—this great financial officer of the State—for a 
longer period than two years. He arose simply to an¬ 
nounce his intention of voting to fix the period of this 
office at four years—two biennial terms. He should 
go for biennial sessions and biennial elections ; but he 
was willing that the Auditor—the gre^it financial officer 
of the State, as having ihe direction and control of all 
the monetary affairs of the State—he was willing that 
this officer should hold over for four years, for it was 
upon the efficiency and good conduct of the Auditor 
that the credit of the State itself very much depended; 
and he ought to be a man not only well acquainted with 
the finances of the State, but perfectly familiar with 
the money market, both at home and abroad. He held 
it to be a public duty to endeavor to elect the best man 
which the State of Ohio could afford, as the incumbent 
of this office. He would also secure to this officer a 
p 0 j*iod of service to enable him to lesideat 
the Capital, and make the business of his office his sole 
and entire business, by devoting himself wholly to the 









300 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


interests of the State. He made these remarks mere¬ 
ly to indicate his vole. This was one of the few 
offices with reference to which he would be willin" 
to vote for extending the term to four years. He had 
on a former occasion declared himself opposed to long 
terms. 

Mr. BROWN of Athens now asked and obtained 
'leave to withdraw his amendment. 

Mr. PERKINS. If the gentleman from Logan [Mr. 
Stanton] would now offer the amendment indicated 
in his remarks, he [Mr. P.] would vote against the 
pending section and support that proposition. 

Mr. STANTON said he certainly should offer such 
an amendment if no other gentleman would. He had 
not written it out yet—and he would like to have a lit¬ 
tle more leisure than could now be afforded by the com¬ 
mittee, in order to put it into acceptable shape. 

Mr. QUIGLEY withdrew his amendment. 

Mr. STANTON For the i)urpose of testing tin. 
views of the committee, with regard to the principle 
of the amendment which he had vindicated, he would 
move that the section be passed, for the purpose of giv¬ 
ing lime to draw up the amendment. He moved that 
the section be passed with this understanding—but he 
gave way for— 

Mr. GREEN of Ross, who said, he had prepared an 
amendment which he supposed would meet the views 
of gentlemen. He proposed to amend the original sec¬ 
tion, by striking out the words “ time and,” in the sec¬ 
ond line, and the words “ term of two years,” in the 
third line, and inserting in lieu of the latter the follow¬ 
ing : *• for the term of two years ” in the second line, 
and insert in the third line after the word “Governors” 
these words, “the Secretary of State, Treasurer and At¬ 
torney General, for the term of two years, and the Au¬ 
ditor for the term of four years.” 

Mr. STANTON. The original section had been 
stricken out. 

Mr. GREEN. If that was the case, he would like 
to move a re-consideration. 

The CHAIRMAN. Had the gentleman voted with 
the majority? 

Mr. GREEN. He did not vote at all. 

Mr. HOLT having voted with the majority, moved 
the re-consideration of the vote upon striking out the 
twentieth section of the report, and it being agreed to 
the question recurred again upon the original motion 
to strike out. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said: the words “time and” 
*had already been stricken out. 

The CHAIRMAN. It was now proposed to amend 
the twentieth section by striking out from the third 
line, after the word “Governor,” the words “for the 
term of two years,” and inserting the words “ Secre¬ 
tary of State, Ti’easurer and Attorney General for the 
term of two years, and the Auditor of State for the 
term of four years.” 

Mr. STANTON. There still came up a difficulty 
upon the question about filling vacancies, which would 
■require time to remove properly. He would still pre¬ 
fer that the gentleman from Ross would consent to 
take a recess, and take time to prepare a substitute 
ithat would suit. 

Mr. RANNEY inquired whether the original section 
did not require all these officers to be elected for the 
term of two years. 

The CHAIRMAN replied in the affirmative—read¬ 
ing the section through. 

Mr. COLLINGS inquired whether the re-consider- 
tion just taken, restored to the section the words “time 
and.” 

Mr. NASH said : The wording was not a material 
matter, the committee of revision would take charge 
of that. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE asked for a division of the 
question, and the first question being on striking out 
the words “ for the term of two years,” it was decided 
in the affirmative—the count being reported, affirma¬ 
tive 46, negative 34. 


So the words were stricken out. 

Mr. HORTON now proposed to amend the amend¬ 
ment by striking out the word “ four,” and inserting 
the word “ three.” 

Mr. GREEN of Ross demanded a division of the 
question upon this motion; which being had, the com¬ 
mittee refused to strike out—affirmative 34, negative 
47. 

The question then recurred upon inserting the words 
proposed in Mr. Green’s amendment, and a division 
being demanded, the committee stood—affirmative 49, 
negative 36. 

So Mr. Green’s amendment was adopted; and the 
question again recurred on striking out the whole sec¬ 
tion as amended— 

Mr. WOODBURY proposed further to amend the 
twentieth section by adding at the end thereof the 
words, “ In filling vacancies in office, either by appoint¬ 
ment by the Governor or election, or both; the vacancy 
shall be filled for the residue of the unexpired term 
only.” 

Mr. NASH suggested whether this amendment could 
be in order, it being directly opposed to the proposition 
which the committee had just agreed to. 

After some further conversation upon the point of 
order, by Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Woodbury, Mr. Larsh, 
Mr. Humphreville and others, the amendment was 
withdrawn. 

And the question being now taken upon the motion 
to strike out the oi’iginal section as amended, it was de¬ 
cided in the negative, without a division. 

Mr. LIDEY now moved that the committee rise and 
report the subject to the convention, but gave way for 

Mr. STANTON, who pi’oposed to amend the twen¬ 
ty-first section of the report, by striking, out from the 
second and third lines thereof the words “ by this Con¬ 
stitution.” 

Mr. CHAIRMAN having stated the question— 

Mr. STANTON said: he supposed the impropriety of 
these words would occur at once to every gentleman. 
He did not know of any officer whose appointment 
was “by the Constitution” vested in the Legislatui'e. 
The power to appoint a United States Senator was not 
derived from this constitution, but from the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States. 

Mr. RIDDLE said: the reason, on the part of the 
committee, for inserting these woi’ds, was this: the 
committee thought that it might be possible that offi¬ 
ces would hereafter be erected with the appointing 
power vested in the Legislature—for they supposed 
this constitution was to stand for some time—and they 
preferred that these appointments should be made by 
the Governor and the Genei*al Assembly, and not by 
and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 

Mr. TAYLOR said he had supposed the appointing 
power was to be taken altogether from the Legislature. 
He should prefer that the words be stricken out, for 
they could have no express reference to the election of 
any other officer than a Senator of the United States. 

Mr. COLLINGS said : it struck his mind, that ques¬ 
tions of difficulty might arise out of the terms of the 
original section which could not, perhaps, be clearly 
foreseen. Therefore upon the determination of the 
pending question, he should move to strike out the 
whole section, and insert the following words, which 
he would read for information:—“That the General As¬ 
sembly shall make provision not inconsistent with this 
constitution for filling occasional vacancies in office.” 

Mr. STANTON’S amendment was then agreed to. 

Mr. COLLINS now proposed the amendment which 
he had just vindicated ; and it was adopted without a 
division. 

Mr. THOMPSON of Shelby proposed to amend the 
eighth section, by inserting in the second line thereof, 
after the word “State,” the words “in his proclamation 
and,” so that it will read; “ and shall state in his proc¬ 
lamation, and to both Houses after assembled, the pur¬ 
pose for which they shall have been convened.” 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


301 


The CO AIRMAN having stated the question, Mr. 
THOMPSON said: he would merely state his object, 
which was that the Governor should make knowu in 
his proclamation to the Representatives the object I’or 
which the extra session proposed was to be convened. 
He supposed it would be requisite and necessary that 
the people, and especially the Representatives should 
have the earliest information of the necessity which 
was to call them together. They would then be the 
better prepared, upon coming up here for the discharge 
of the duties wliich would be required of them and 
they would also have a better opportunity of ascertain¬ 
ing the views of their constituents upon eveiy question 
thus submitted to them, and set forth. He was aware, 
if this amendment should prevail, that it would leave 
the section with a bad grammatical construction But 
that was a matter of small importance and would be 
rectified by the committe of revision. 

This amendment was agreed to. 

Mx’. HAWKINS pi’oposed further to amend the 
eighth section, by striking out fx’om the second line the 
words “ to both Houses when assembled.” 

^he proposition being entertained by the chair, Mr. 
HAWKINS said his object was not to require the Gov¬ 
ernor, when he had thus convened the Legislatux-e, to 
state the objects for which he had called them togeth¬ 
er. It was unnecessary to require him to do any thing 
which he would be certain to do without any I’equisi- 
tion. It would look like mere sui’plusage to require 
the Governor to perform a particular service which he 
was never known to have any disposition to omit. 

Mr. LARSH said that section?, of the I’epoit, pro¬ 
vides every thing necessary upon this subject. 

Mr. HAWKINS’ amendment was agi’eedto. 

Mr. LIDEY now renewed his motion “thatthe com¬ 
mittee do now arise and report,’’ which was agreed to. 

So the committee rose and the Chaiianan reported 
that they had had under consideration the I’eport of the 
committee on the Executive Department, and that he 
was directed to I’eport the same to the convention with 
sundry amendixrents. 

Mr. HOLMES moved that the I’eport be laid upon 
the table, and that the amendments be printed. 

Mr. STANTON, hoped the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton would modify his motion, so as to require the 
report to be pi’inted with the amendments in brackets. 

After some further investigation, Mr. HOLMES ac¬ 
quiesced in the modification proposed, and accoi'dingly 
the repoi’t and amendments were laid upon the table 
and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved thatthe Convention do now 
adjouni, explaining (hy leave,) that it was necessary 
to give time for the sittings of the various standing 
committees, and especially for the consideration of the 
very urgent business now before the very large com¬ 
mittee on Apportionment, and the committe on Jui’is- 
prudence. 

Befox’e the question was taken, the PRESIDENT 
laid before the Convention a communication from the 
Secretary of State, in reply to a resolution of the Con¬ 
vention, calling for certain infoi'mation relative to the 
judiciary. 

On motion of Mr. GREEN of Ross the communi¬ 
cation was laid upon the table and ordered to be prin¬ 
ted. 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays upon 
the motion to adjourn, which were ordered, and resul¬ 
ted—yeas 50, nays 30—as follows : 

Ykas — Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carol], Claypoole, Collings, Curry, 
Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, Jones, King, Larsh, Leadbetter, Manon, Mason, More- 
head, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Ranney, Riddle, 
Robertson, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of 
Highland, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stickney, Sw’an, Taylor, Town- 
shend, Vance of Champaign, Way and Woodbury—50. 

Navs —Messrs. Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case of 
Hocking, Chambers, Clark, Cook, Ewing, Firestone, Florence, 
Gillett, Hamilton, Hard, Flenderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, John- 


son, Lidey, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Sellers, Smith of Wyan- 
dot, Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Shelby, 
Warren, Williams and Mr. President.—30. 

So the Convention adjourned. 


SATURDAY, June 8, 1850. 

PETITIONS. 

Mr. HUNTER presented the proceedings and a se¬ 
ries of resolutions adopted by a late meeting of the 
Ashtabula county Educational Society, on the subject of 
common school education, and said : 

The people of Ashtabula county have for a few years 
past made unusual efi'orts for the promotion of the in- 
tepests of common school education. The county com¬ 
missioners have made the annual appropriation author¬ 
ized by law, for the permanent employment of a coun¬ 
ty superintendent of common schools, and the people 
have befell vti-y fortunate in the selection of individuals 
to fill that office, who have been unusually faithful,, 
diligent and untiring in the discharge of the duties of 
the office; and whoever will take the trouble to look 
into the report of the Secretary of State on the subject 
of common schools, will there find a veiy prominent 
place given to the report of the county superintendent 
of common schools for Ashtabula county. In addition 
to the labors of that officer, the friends of education in 
the county have organized an educational society, which 
holds regular quarterly meetings, in different parts of 
the county, where the subject of education and all the 
various incidental questions connected with it, are ful¬ 
ly and freely discussed. They ask me to present these 
proceedings and I’esolutions to the Convention, and ask 
that they be referred to the committee on Education,, 
and they express the hope, in which I do most cheei'ful- 
ly concur, that this Convention will not, in the multi¬ 
plicity of its duties, forget or overlook this important 
subject; but that some appropriate and beneficial ac¬ 
tion may be taken in reference to it. 

Referred to the committee on Education. 

Mr HUNTER also presented the petition of M. W. 
VVi’ight and 26 other legal voters of the township of 
Dorset, Ashtabula county, asking that no provision be 
insei'ted into the new constitution making distinctions 
among the people on account of color, and said: 

The Convention, I trust will indulge me in a few re¬ 
marks in answer to cpxestions which have heretofore 
been raised on the presentation of similar petitions. 
The inquiiy has several times been raised as to wheth¬ 
er these petitions were signed and sent here by white 
©r black persons. I caxi infoi'ux the Convention that 
from my personal acquaintance with the most of them, 
I am of the opinion that they are all of them white and 
not black persons; or if not equally white, as I suppose 
they are not, yet they are of European descent, and not 
Africans. But in giving this information I do not wish, 
by any means, to have it understood as a reason on 
my part, why I present the petition and ask the 
Convention to receive it and act upon it. If the peti¬ 
tion had been signed by black persons exclusively, I 
should have felt under equal obligation to present it ; 
and in my opinion the Convention would have been 
under equal obligation to receive it. But I gave the 
information simply because the question had Irequent- 
ly been i*aised, and to satisfy the sensitiveness ol some 
gentlemen on this subject. 

Another inquiry has also fi*equently been raised, viz; 
Whether the language of these petitions was I’espect- 
ful or not ? I can inform the Convention that the lan¬ 
guage of this petition is entii*ely respectful throughout. 
These petitioners do not wish any privilege to indulge 
in disrespectful language to this Convention or to any 
other body or class of men, either public or private. 
It is not in ac^cordance with their feeliims and disposi¬ 
tion, or general coui'se of conduct. And they suggest 
in their communication to me, (in which suggestion I 
entirely concur) whether it would not be well for this 
Convention to i-emember its obligation, also to use re¬ 
spectful language to the people, and not characterize 














302 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


these petitions as the “ ebullitions of folly and fanati¬ 
cism'’ and other equally exceptionable expressions 
which have several times been used. And perhaps 1 
may be indulged in the remark that, to mo, it seems 
quite singular that an Assembly or Convention of men 
should so frequently and freely speak of their emana¬ 
ting from the people, and of their being directly re¬ 
sponsible to the people, and call themselves the ser¬ 
vants of the people and the people their masters or sov- 
ercigns, and yet all the lime indulge freely in insinua¬ 
ting and disrespectful language to the people, and at 
the same time very sensitive to the least discovery of 
disrespectful language on the part of the people. Il 
would seem, if there was any difference, if either par¬ 
ty should have the right to speak disrespectfully of the 
other, (which, however, I do not by any means claim,) 
it would seem as if the right should exist on the side 
of the master or sovereign and not on the part of the 
servant. 

And I wish to say furthermore, that from an exten¬ 
sive acquaintance for near twenty years past with the 
people of Astabula county, during which time, from 
the nature of my business, I have mingled very freely 
and extensively with the people of every township in 
the county, from this acquaintance I can confidently 
say that those who sympathize with the sentiment of 
this petition, (and they constitute a very large majority 
of the people of the county,) are not an impulsive and 
excitable people, liable to “ebullitions of lolly and 
fanaticism,” and liable to be carried away by every 
breeze that blows of what may be supposd to be pop¬ 
ular sentiment or pretended reform ; but that they are 
as sober, industrious, well-behaved, intelligent, moral 
and religious a class of persons as can be found any 
where in the State of Ohio or any other State. And I 
doubt very much whether there can any where be 
found a community of people where there is so much 
genuine intelligence diffused among the whole people, 
through the medium of newspapers and books and pub¬ 
lic lectures, as in this county. They are most emphat¬ 
ically a reading people, and the opinions which they 
have held upon this subject are opinions which they 
have held for many years, and which they will proba¬ 
bly continue to hold as long as they shall live upon the 
earth, and which, T have no doubt, they will diligently 
teach to their children after them; believing them to 
be founded upon the principles of right and justice. 

I present their petition with a good deal of pleasure, 
and when the proper time arrives shall feel happy and 
proud to record my vote in favor of granting the pray¬ 
er of the petition. 

Mr. CAHILL inquired ifthepetition were exclusive¬ 
ly^ signed by white persons. 

Mr. HUNTER replied that he had already answered 
that question. 

The petition was then referred to the committee on 
Elective Franchise. 

Mr. S MITH of Warren presented the petition of Ro¬ 
bert May’ and 20 other citizens of Warren county, pray¬ 
ing that the new constitution be democratic in all its 
features—that bills shall be submitted to a vote of the 
people before final action is taken by the Legislature, 
and that the sessions of the General Assembly be cpiad- 
rennial. 

On motion of the same gentleman, the petition was 
laid on the table. 

Mr. CTiARK yu’esented the petition of Ira Tillotson 
.and 70 other citizens of Lorain county, praying that the 
preamble to the new constitution acknowledge the ex¬ 
istence of a Supreme Being-.—Tliat the scriptures and 
the book of Mormon are written by divine inspiration, 
and are binding on the consciences of men, and those 
who deny the same be declared ineligible to hold of¬ 
fice or testify in courts of justice. 

The petition was referred to the committee on the 
Bill of Ri'jhts. 

Mr. EWART handed in the petition of Benon Staats, 
praying that the State be divided into two portions, to 


be be known as “ Eastern ” and “ Western Ohio,” &e. 

Referred to the committee on the Preamble, &c. 

Mr. BROWN of Athens presented the petition of 
George .lohnson and 66 other citizens of Athens coun¬ 
ty, praying that under the new constitution, the sale of 
intoxicating liquors shall not be legalized. 

Referred to special committee already appointed on 
that subject. 

REPORTS FROM STANDING COMMITTEES. 

Mr. HOLT, from the committee on .Jurisprudence, 
made a report, which was read a first time by its title. 

On motion of Mr. MORRIS, the report was read, as 
follows: 


The General Assembly, at its first .‘session after the adoption of 
this Constitution, shall appoint three commissioners, whose duty 
it shall be to revise, reform, simplify and abridge, the rules and \ 
practice, pleadings, forms and proceedings, of the courts of re¬ 
cord of this State; and as far as practicable and expedient, they | 
shall provide for the abolition of the distinct forms of action at i 
law now in use, and that justice may be administered in an uni¬ 
form mode of pleading, without reference to any distinction be¬ 
tween law and equity. And the said commissioners shall, from i 
time to time, when thereunto required, report their proceedings 
to the General Assembly, subject to the .action of that body. 

Provision shall be made by law at the same session, for filling ( 
vacancies, regulating the tenure of office, and the compensation 
of said commissioners. 




GEO. B. HOLT, Chairman. 
S. J. ANDREWS, 

H. D. CLARK, 

GEORGE COLLINGS, 
JOHN L. GREEN, 
EDWARD ARCHBOLD, 

H. THOMPSON. 


On motion of Mr. BENNETT, the report was laid 
upon the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. HOLT said that the same committee had had. 
under consideration a petition referred to them, rela¬ 
tive to the abolition of Capital punishment, and direct¬ 
ed him to submit the following report; 


“ That in their opinion the subject should be left with the Rep¬ 
resentatives of the people, in General Assembly. They therefore 
ask to be discharged from the further consideration of the sub¬ 
ject.” 

The same committee, to whom was referred the petitions of 
sundry females from the county of Fairfield, praying that pro¬ 
vision may be made in the constitution to protect the rights of 
married women,—that they may have the control and disposal of 
all their property, real and personal, during marriage ; report: 

“ That the subject had recently received the consideration, and 
to some extent, the action of the General Assembly, and that the i 
separate property of the wife, and her power to dispose of it, ‘ 
will undoubtedly be recognized and secured by that body, as may 
be prudent to do so, without jeopardising the unity and mutality 
of feeling, affection and interest, which should always be cherish¬ 
ed in the relation of husband and wife.” 

The committee therefore ask leave to be discharged from the 
further consideration of the subject. 

[Signed as above.] 

The question being on discharging the committee 
from the further consideration of the petition, 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot moved that the first part 
of the report, relating to the abolition of capital pun¬ 
ishment be recommitted, with instructions to report in 
accordance with the prayer of the petition. ^ 

Mr. CAHILL remarked that for the purpose of test¬ 
ing the sense of the House, he would call for the yeas 
and nays on the motion. 

Mr. LAWRENCE hoped that the report would be 
recommitted, but not to the committee from w’hich it 


emanated. He hoped that the gentleman wmuld modi¬ 
fy his motion so as to have it referred to a committee 
of its friends; it evidently had been in the hands of 
its enemies. He was decidedly in favor of the aboli¬ 
tion of capital punishment, and it was a question on 
which he felt a deep and abiding interest. He hoped 
that the time was not far distant when this relic of the 


barbarous ages would be swept off' the statute books 
of Ohio. 


Mr. SMITH of Wyandot accepted of the suggestion 
made by the gentleman from Guernsey, to have the 
first portion of the report referred to a select commit¬ 
tee. 


Mr. BENNETT hoped it would not be committed to 
the committee which had reported it,or to a special com¬ 
mittee. In expressing that hope, it was not necessary 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


303 


tu say whether he wasiii favor of or opposed to the 
abolition of capital punishment. But it was known to 
this Convention that that was a subject on which ihere 
was an intense feeling amongst the people, on either 
side of the question. And, he thought it to be a sub- 
juect over which the Legislature had ample control.— 
He considered that it might well be a question whether 
it would be proper or judicious to insert a provision 
ot that kind into the fundamental law of our State, 
thereby running the risk of arraying against the in¬ 
strument which might be formed here, a large portion 
of the people, who might be in lavor of every other 
provision contained in that instrument, yet entertaining 
such intense feelings on the subject that they would 
vote against any constitution containing that provision. 
He would say, therefore, that as the Legislature had or 
would have control over this subject, it would be much 
better to leave it in its hands. 

Mr. CLARK said it had been suggested that the 
members of the standing committee which made the 
report were not disposed to recommend the abolition 
of capital punishment. He was one of the members 
of that committee, and would state that this matter 
came under their consideration, but no member ex¬ 
pressed an opinion on the subject of the propriety or 
impropriety of capital punishment. But the commit¬ 
tee concluded to make the report they have made, for 
the reason that in their opinion, it was better to leave 
the matter to be disposed of by the Legislature, be¬ 
cause if they sanction the abolition of capital punish¬ 
ment, many would vote against the new constitution 
on that ground. They were, in fact, unwilling to “tie 
up” this constitution in a manner in which it could not 
be altered. He had no objection to having it sent to 
some other committee, so that the standing committee 
could get rid of it. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot said that now was the peri¬ 
od, for the first time since the formation of our State, 
when an opportunity was afforded to shield ourselves 
from the charge of barbarism, on the score of capital 
punishment. He felt instructed by a respectable por¬ 
tion of his constituents to use such endeavors as would 
conduce to the abolition of the punishment by death. 
He did not intend to offer any remarks at this time, but 
he hoped the Convention would allow that part of the 
report to which he had previously alluded, to be re¬ 
ferred to a select committee of five, instead of the 
committee on Jurisprudence, as he originally moved. 
He would now make the motion to refer it to a select 
committee of five, with instructions, &c., &.c. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD suggested that it would be better 
tu refer without instructions, because if positive in¬ 
structions were to be given, the matter would have to 
be debated now, which was not desirable. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot modified his motion, at the 
suggestion of the gentleman from Monroe, so that it 
would be a mere motion to refer without instructions. 

Mr. COLLINGS observed, that in considering the 
question of abolishing capital punishment, attention 
should be given to the necessity of securing to society 
due protection against the murderer. His opinion was, 
that when society found itself in a condition in which 
it could dispense with capital punishment, then it would 
be our duty to abolish it, but not until then. Some 
years ago he was in favor of abolishing capital punish¬ 
ment, as he thought it inexpedient; but a very great 
change for the worse had been going on in society, and 
we now read almost daily of murders and every kind 
of atrocious crimes being committed in the communi¬ 
ty. He thought it was not only right, but that it was 
the duty of society to protect itself against the perpe¬ 
tration of murderous outrages. 

Mr. LAWRENCE agreed with the gentleman from 
Adams, that crime was too common—too frequent. But 
have we not already got severe statutory enactments 
for capitally punishing this crime of murder, and yet 
they proved entirely ineffective ? It was the certainty 
and not the sevority of punishment that deterred men 


from the commission of crime; and at the proper time 
he ho 2 )ed to be able to show that a much more effectu¬ 
al remedy could be devised for j)reventing crime than 
capital punishment. 

Mr. MANON expressed himself as being in favor of 
referring the subject to a committee, and he also favor¬ 
ed the meamre itself. He did not fear that if this pro¬ 
vision were inserted in the constitution, a great num¬ 
ber of men were going to vote against the instrument 
on that account, as had been said. 

Mr. HOLT hoped that gentlemen in favor of or op¬ 
posed to the abolition of capital punishment would 
consent to the reference of this subject to some other 
committee than the one which had reported in relation 
to it. It was a subject of such moment that he d.d not 
like to see it passed without full consideration. It was 
a measure asked for by a very large, respectable and 
moral 2 )ortion of our community, and particularly by 
that class amongst us, the Friends—they were unani¬ 
mously in favor of this measure. We should therefore 
give their petitions, as well as all other petitions from 
citizens, a fair and full consideration. He hoped it 
would be done in the present instance. 

In regard to the action of the standing committee on 
ihis subject, he would say that what had already been 
said by a member of that committee was the fact. He 
was not aware that any member had exjiressed an 
opinion on the subject, one way or the other. He con¬ 
sidered this question of capital punishment to be the 
only one about which he had a constant and steady 
opinion. When we heard of the most atrocious deeds, 
brought about by sordid motives—when a man soberly 
meditated the murder of his fellow man, he indeed 
thought it right and expedient to guard society against 
the jierpetration of such crimes. But, however, if we 
could believe that the abolition of capital punishment 
would ensure as much safety to the community as the 
inhiclion of it, then no man would be willing to inflict 
that punishment. He did no“ know but that the prev¬ 
alent feeling might be to inflict that kind of punish¬ 
ment; but, however that might be, he desired that a 
question of such moment, about which so many good 
and moral men felt so conscientiously, should be refer¬ 
red to another committee, in order that it might report 
to this Convention on the subject, and so Induce a full 
consideration of the matter. 

Mr. CAHILL observed that as the gentleman from 
Wyandot [Mr. Smith] had withdrawn his motion to 
instruct the committee, he would withdraw his call for 
the yeas and nays. As he was on his legs, he would 
say that he was ojiposed to the abolition of capital pun¬ 
ishment, and also to this Convention giving attention 
to the subject. In his opinion, the determination of 
this question should be left to the Legislature. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga said he had no great ob¬ 
jection to the motion now made. But it seemed to Inm 
that that was not sufficient. This committee proposed, 
to be raised should not only inquire as to the jiropriety of 
abolishing capital i>uni.shment, but it should also in¬ 
quire as to what punishment should be inflicted for 
every grade of crime. As they were going into this' 
subject of crime and its ])unishment, let us then know 
what crimes were to be punished, and by whal punish¬ 
ments. There was as much jiropriety, lie considered, 
m iiujuiring what mode of punishment should be sub¬ 
stituted, as there was to investigate the propriety of 
abolishing cajutal punishment. He would say, then, 
let there be .a system providing for the jiunishinent of 
all crime.s, and let the article be so framed that if some 
new crime sjnuug up, the Legislature would have 
power to provide for it. 

Mr. BA'I'ES said that with all deference to the gen¬ 
tleman from Geauga, he must difler with him. He did 
not think the investigation of the subject necessarily 
included a revision of our wh.ole criminal code. There 
was a numerous class of our fellow citizens who be¬ 
lieved the ri"ht to life inviolate, and it was due to them, 
and due to the subject, that it should receive the con- 












304 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


sideration of a committee miconnected with any other 
question. If it should he the judgment of the Conven¬ 
tion, that it was not a proper question for their action 
but more appropriately belonged to the legislative de¬ 
partment, he would submit, though he might entertain 
a dilferenl opinion. He hoped the motion for a select 
committee would prevail. 

Mr. HAWKINS remarked that it had always been 
the custom to refer petitions in the form of an inquiry, 
to a committee to report upon. Gentlemen seemed 
to think that this was a question on which they were 
going to commit themselves. The proposition was ne¬ 
cessary to refer to a committee to report on a certain 
subject, and when they had reported, it would be the 
time, in his opinion, the most proper for the discussion 
of the matter. 

The question being on discharging the committee, 
&c. &-C., and r* ferring the first portion of the report to 
a select committee, it was put and the same agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. NORRIS the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the whole, (Mr. TownshexND 
in^the Chair,) on the report of the committee on 

CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN CORPORATIONS FOR BANKING. 

Sec. 1. “ The Legislature shall pass no special act conferring cor¬ 
porate powers.” 

Mr. HORTON moved that the section be stricken 
out, and said that the view expressed by the gentleman 
from Erie, [Mr. Taylor,] on a previous day was the 
true one : “ that change should not be made in matters 
which had existed since the formation of our govern¬ 
ment.” He was unwilling to vote on this section until 
th6 reason was shown. 

Mr. SCOTT of Harrison observed that this was a 
matter which struck him as one of very much impor¬ 
tance, and one wdiich required cool investigation be¬ 
fore we struck at the well settled and time-tested in¬ 
stitutions, and constitutional provisions of the State.— 
He thought that if this first section were retained in 
the report, it would immediately bring up for the at¬ 
tention of this Convention, a measure that had hereto¬ 
fore divided the two great parties in this State. It 
would bring up other questions*of the propriety of in¬ 
corporating into the constitution a provision which cer¬ 
tainly, with a large portion of the State, would meet 
with disapprobation. In other words the case was 
this: it did not put in direct issue the question, of 
banks or no banks, but it put (in his opinion) the two 
extremes of no banking law at all. on the one side, or 
a general banking law, withoutany restrictions, on the 
other. As to the questions of banks, he for one—as it 
had been expressed by the gentleman from Miami [Mr. 
Dorsey] would go for the “juste mediem "—the middle 
course against the two extremes. He was not prepared 
to favor a hard money clause, as it was termed, and felt 
equally unprepared to say that he would vote for the 
measure of a general banking system, that would allow 
any one person to jmt it beyond the control of the Le¬ 
gislature, to determine what should be the aggregate 
amount of issue in the country. Too much money 
would be as bad for the State as too little. Then he 
would say, if we adopted this measure, we immedi¬ 
ately struck at the root and foundation of our pre¬ 
sent system of banking, and he would say that so far 
as that was concerned, the people of his district wei'e 
not in favor of the destruction of a paper cuiTency. 

Mr. CURRY (interrupting) said—it seemed to him 
that this report had nothing to do with banking matters 
whatever. It was understood that that subject was in 
the hands of another committee, which would report 
upon it in good time. 

Mr. SCOTT of Harrison resumed. He admitted that 
it did not directly purport to have anything to do with 
the subject of banking. But, he would see at once 
that they were placed in this situation—either to go in 
favor of a general banking law, or in favor of a hard 
money clause: that was the situation in which he be¬ 
lieved they were placed. He might be wrong, but it 
appeared to him that the effect of the section, as it 


stood, would be to compel them to go either for the 
Legislature prohibiting banking or for a general law, 
and to that he was opposed. And why was he oppo¬ 
sed to their being placed in that situation ? Because 
it would be placing them in the extreme on the one 
side or the other. He believed that it was the duty of 
the people to retain that power of determining in re¬ 
gard to banks or no banks in their own hands, and that 
it was not expedient to introduce this section into the 
organic law, no matter how much it might be desired 
hereafter. 

Mr. NASH (interposing) called the gentleman to 
order, as this was a report on a subject different from 
banking. 

Mr. LARSH wished to understand the purport of 
this section. 

Mr. NASH would not undertake to say anything 
about it. He supposed it would, if put in the constitu¬ 
tion, have relation to corporations other than banking. 

Mr. SCOTT continued. He had no desire to bring 
up the subject of banking now, or hereafter, for he 
hoped that that subject would not come before the i 
Conv-^ntion. He considered that it was not the duty i 
of the Convention to pass at all on that subject; but he 
could not be mistaken in the purport of the se^jtion and 
the situation in which we would be placed if it was j 

adopted. “ The Legislature shall pass no special act j 

conferring corporate powei’s ”—suppose they agreed , 
to that section, and this constitution were to become 
the organic law of the State, could the Legislature I 
hereafter grant any corporate powers ? Certainly not; ;; 

we were making an organic law and we would have 
no chance wdiatever to establish hereafter a hard mon- i 
ey or a general banking law. Perhaps he was wi’ong 
in his views ; they were, however, the suggestions of i 
his own mind and stnick him when he first read the i I 
section. It struck him that if they passed this report 
and this section, they were striking at the very system 
which was now in operation, in relation to our curren¬ 
cy—at its very foundation, and it would consequently 
be necessarry to adopt some other system in its place. 

Mr. NORRIS said that it had been supposed by the 
standing committee, that this subject had nothing what- j 
ever to do with the question of banking—they have j 
not examined that matter or come to any conclusion as 
to the propriety or expediency of prohibiting such cor¬ 
porate privileges. There might be changes necessaiy 
to be made in the report, in view of the amendments 
that might be made in the various provisions which i 
would be incorporated in the constitution. If the Con- ; 
vention should conclude to grant coi-porations for bank¬ 
ing purposes, then the report could be so changed as 
to be in unison with the determination of this body. 

He did not see any reason why the section should be 
stricken out, in view of the action of the committee in 
relation to banking privileges. He would here remark, 
that without any exception, this provision had been 
adopted by all the States in the Union, and one similar 
to it in the recently adopted State constitutions, al¬ 
though they had some restrictions which were not in¬ 
corporated in this report. Some of the State constitu¬ 
tions contained an exception, so far as municipal corpo- ' 
rations were concerned. There was no very definite j 
conclusion come to on the part of the committee, 
whether this exception should be named or not; but 
they concluded, however, unanimously to make this 
report, without a section of that nature. They believed 
that all the corporations of the State could be as well 
regulated by general as by special acts of incorpora¬ 
tion—by some classification in cities—by the number 
of inhabitants, or by some other manner which might 
be thought prudent by the Legislature. 

So far as he was concerned, individually, it was a 
matter of very little moment whether the power to f 
pass laws for the government of cities were given to 
the Legislature or not. But, aside from that, he thought 
that the power to confer special acts of incorporation, 
so far as his committee was concerned, was impractica- 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


305 


blo and inexpedient. He could see no reason wliy 
railroad, turnpike, &c. &c. charters, or the business of 
' such'corporations, could not be conducted with as great 
efficiency and ease under general laws as under special 
acts of incorporation. The question was not what 
power should be given to associations of men, but it 
was a question of method—in what manner should 
charters be obtained under which they would act— 
whether it should be by a special charter, or exercise 
their rights under some general law. That seemed to 
be the question—and why, he would ask, should the 
Legislature be harrassed year after year by these appli¬ 
cations for authority lor charters to associate compa¬ 
nies ? Three-fourths of the legislation for several 
years past, had been responsive to the petitions of men 
^coming up asking to be associated for certain specific 
* purposes, with certain powers guarantied to them. 
Why not do all this under a general, instead of a spe¬ 
cial law? We would then get rid of this han-assing of 
the Legislature—it would hasten the transaction of 
legislative business, and so much time would not be 
spent by the Legislature in determining these matters 
as heretofore—business that it would be a matter of 
economy and prudence to restrict the Legislature in 
granting those acts of incorporation. He would fur¬ 
ther say that this report was the unanimous report of 
the committee. They had had no compromise to make 
in arranging it, but unanimously agreed to it as it stood. 

Mr. HORTON had not8upposed,nordid he now, that 
the report had anything to do with banking. He made 
his motion merely to hear the reasons which operated 
upon the minds of the committee in inserting that 
clause ; and the gentleman who last spoke stated the 
reasons of the committee why we should make this 
change in the policy of the State. He would ask, 
were these reasons sufficient to justify the change ? He 
understood the gentleman to say that in most of the 
new constitutions this provision had been inserted. 
He would ask him in what constitution was there a 
provision such as this? What new constitution now in 
operation in this country had exhibited, or now exhib¬ 
ited, a similar section ? He thought that no member of 
that committee could satisfy us that experience in any 
of the States of the Union sanctioned the principle 
contained in that section. There were able men on 
that committee, and if they could not show the expe¬ 
rience of those States, they could show the reasons 
which operated in their minds. The gentleman said, 
also, that it would be economical—save time by not 
occupying the time of the Legislature so much. He 
could not see, with all respect, what made the gentle¬ 
men think so. Nor was he prepared to say tliat it 
would take less time to enact general laws with the 
continually occurring changes, repeals and modifica¬ 
tions, than it would be to make a special law for all 
cases? He would say, with all deference, that this 
doctrine of economy, so far as this question was con¬ 
cerned, was an untried doctrine. It may be the true 
doctnne ; but as wise men, we had no right as yet to 
say that it was not economical. The question is yet to 
be determined. 

The only experience we had upon the subject was 
the constitution of New York, and that constitution 
did not restrict the Legislature as here proposed. That 
constitution gave the Legislature the power to pass 
special acts when the public interests require it. That 
was the safe course,—it was placing the responsibility 
where it rightly belonged. He was in favor of such a 
provision, tie did not intend to go into the discussion 
fully, but desired to present one or two considerations 
upon the subject. He conceived he had tiie same right 
to say that we could not provide by general laws for 
the interests of the State, as had the gt-nilernan to say 
that general laws would effect nil that was to be de-dred. 
In this respect both sides were on an etjual footing, f )r 
there had been no past ex[)erience on that point. But 
in taking die ground that we could not provide by gen¬ 
eral laws for tlie wants and requirements of the iState, 


he vvould sustain it by one or two reasons; Suppose 
that in the northern part of the State our philanthropisie 
should wish to get up an asylum for the deaf and dumb 
or a retreat for the insane, or an asylum for the blind 
or a general hospital, was it to be supposed that a ‘yen- 
eral law of incorporation could enable them to con¬ 
duct such institutions of philanthropy by its general 
provisions ? Did they not rather know that such would 
not be the result? Did they suppose that it could be 
possible to insert into a general law all the provisions 
necessaiy for the management of a marine hospital in 
the southern part of the State, or any enlarged benevo¬ 
lent institutions ? No one looking at the matter for a 
moment would suppose that we could frame a general 
law containing all the particular provisions necessary 
to the management of such institutions. 

Further—could it be supposed that a general law 
incorporating railroads, could contain all the provisions 
that would be necessary under a state of circumstan¬ 
ces which would be peculiar and local? It seemed 
impracticable in his opinion. The same difficulties 
would occur in relation to bridges. 

There was another matter which suggested itself to 
his mind, and it was in relation to plank roads. It 
was but a few years since they had been first heard 
of; of course the system was not perfect, and there 
would be improvements made in it from time to time, 
in different portions of the State. Then when any 
change is desired, the companies must come here to 
the Legislature and have a general law passed, and 
that would have to undergo a renovation year after 
year, until at last we should have as many general 
laws as special. He apprehended that in this instance 
they had undertaken to do more than was intirely pru¬ 
dent ; and he would ask tnis committee to pause be¬ 
fore they went into the theory of generalization so ex¬ 
tensively. He thought it was imprudent and unwise. 
If gentlemen cannot bring experience to their aid, he 
trusted they would give us reasons—philosophically— 
something upon which action mightly be safely based. 
Until this was done by gentlemen, he must be excused 
from approving this extreme restriction in the funda¬ 
mental law. 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll said that it seemed to him 
that the first section, especially—if it meant what he 
thought it did—would receive but very little favor in 
his district, or in any other part of the State. It might 
be that in saying this he exposed himself to a murdei- 
ouB cross fire from both sides of the House. Taking 
the two sections together it would be seen that the first 
section deprived the Legislature of the power of grant¬ 
ing any charters to railroad, turnpike or plank road 
companies, which it might be desirable to organize in 
this State. The second section provided that by a sys¬ 
tem of general laws such corporations might be form¬ 
ed—in what way he did not know. And again, he 
would take the position of the gentleman from Erie, 
that those who took the affirmative of these new fan- 
gled notions should show the necessity for adopting 
them. He would vote on this portion of the rep u’t ac¬ 
cording to the light he would get from the committee 
and elsewhere in relation to the introduction of this 
new tangled doctrine into the new constitution of the 
State. For his life he could not see liow a railroad 
company desiring to throw a railroad across the State 
could do it under a general law. Then, suppose they 
had got an act of incorporation, and had their iron hor¬ 
ses dashing along their tracks—then came a constitu¬ 
tional instrument to hamper and vex them with all those 
agrarian principles lloati'ig about the country and 
there was no use in denying the fact that those prin¬ 
ciples were entertained among a large portion of the 
people, that corporations were an injui'y to the poor 
man, and should be abolished. Well then by hook or 
by crook they get up some sentiment against t’ue un- 
dertakin'^, and from whim or caprice they would make 
some alterations which were much worse than a repeal. 
The effect would be to prevent men with capital sufli- 













306 CONVENTION REPOETS. 


cient to build up a railroad or any other great work 
from investing their money in undertakings which 
would possess nothing of stability. 

It had been said that there was no disposition among 
the people of the State to embark in works of internal 
improvement, hence there was the necessity of such 
action by the Legislature as would invite capitalists to 
come here and invest their wealth among us. This 
was the age of progi'ess, it was said; well, to some ex¬ 
tent that was true. The practice of the early pioneers 
of this country was to invite capital into the State, by 
the establishment and encouragement of associations 
of wealthy individuals ; and, sir, the State improved 
under that healthy system—that wise and far sighted 
policy. He would say that he was unwilling to take 
away from the people the opportunity and privilege 
of having railroads, or turnpike roads, or any other 
improvements, if they found men willing to build them. 
If it were the purpose of this Convention to prevent 
the people from having those improvements made, they 
could not, in his judgment, adopt a more eflectual plan 
than to support the section now under consideration. 
He was for leaving it too the people and the Legisla¬ 
ture to settle these matters by themselves. Let the 
people, by their representatives, grant special charters, 
and put upon them such balances and checks as they 
might think proper. This Convention should not at¬ 
tempt to prevent the people from inviting into the 
State capitalists,for to discourage the investmentamongst 
us of Eastern capital was to strike directly at the poli¬ 
cy which had made the State what it was—the third 
in wealth and greatness in the Republic. 

Mr. STANTON said: As the objection came from 
the side of the house with which he usually acted, it 
would seem to be proper that he should give the rea¬ 
sons which induced him to agree to the report. The 
gentleman from Clermont [ Mr. Norris ] had sta¬ 
ted truly, that this was the unanimous report of the 
committee on corporations. That gentleman had also 
stated, with equal truth, that no one member of the 
committee would have made the same report, had he 
consulted his own views alone. Gentlemen, he appre¬ 
hended, would find it much easier to find fault with 
the report, and to raise objections, than it would be to 
make out a report which would be free from objection. 

Mr. STANBERY interrupted, to say that at the prop¬ 
er time, he intended to propose an amendment to the 
motion of the gentleman from Meigs, [Mr. Horton] 
by inserting in lieu of the section, these words: “ cor¬ 
porations other than corporations for banking, shall be 
framed under the provisions of general laws, except 
such as are for municipal purposes, and such other 
cases, as, in the opinion of the General Assembly, 
their object cannot be attained under a general law.” 

Mr. STANTON. As a member of the committee 
making this report, he supposed himself called upon to 
conform his action and the report to what he supjjosed 
would be the action of the Convention in regard to 
kindred subjects. The Convention, he had no doubt, 
would provide that no special corporations shall be 
granted for banking purposes : but as such corporations 
were not included amongst the subjects of considera¬ 
tion with the committee, of course the report would 
have nothing to say so far as they were concerned. 
He, himself, for one, was prepared to say that there 
should be no special act of incoi’poration lor this pur¬ 
pose ; but that the business of banking should be done 
under the provisions of a general law. This was his 
opinion. 

There was one thing to which gentlemen on all sides 
should agree, and that was that some remedy must be 
provided against the evd of the vast mass of special 
and local legislation which has been so long accunnda- 
ting upon us. If he understood the temper and deter¬ 
mination of this Convention, it was that some restric¬ 
tion should be imposed upon every species of local 
and special legislation; but what that should be and 
how far it should go, were questions of great difficul¬ 


ty. For himself he would say that he had not seen, nor 
heard, nor read any thing to convince his mind that all 
the objects ever acconq)lished by special acts of incor¬ 
poration could not be equally as well accomplished un¬ 
der the provisions of general laws—and if this could 
be done, he would prefer general laws for more rea¬ 
sons than one. First, because they would be less ex¬ 
pensive ; and in the next place, because it would leave 
all the enterprize and capital ot the State open to com¬ 
petition and free to' engage in any particular business 
without asking leave of the Legislature. 

It was said that railroad companies must have their 
charters, and that plank road companies and turnpike 
companies and all other companies, must liave their 
charters. But no matter what new modes of transpor¬ 
tation may be introduced by improvements in mechan¬ 
ics and locomotion, he was still unable to see why 
these interests might not ever continue to be just as 
well provided for by general as by special laws. Would 
any gentleman tell him the reason why this could not 
be, and point out the difficulties m the way of the ap¬ 
plication of laws of this description ? He had never 
yet heard the reason or seen the difficulty, and if they 
could be given and pointed out, he invited the effort. 
If there was really any difficulty—if any exception 
should be made, he apprehended that it would be in 
the case of municipal corporations; and yet, he could 
not see the reason why the General Assembly might not 
provide by general law for the incorporation of all ci¬ 
ties having a population above a given number—vary¬ 
ing the regulations and provisions for the incorporation 
of towns and villages below that number. 

There was an advantage in this description of legis¬ 
lation, which was rarely applicable to any species of 
legislation. The consideration of a general law always 
induced caution and care with respect to every provis¬ 
ion, because it was to operate all over the State. But 
now, when an application is made to the Legislature 
for an act of incorporation, for a town or city, it was 
a purely local matter—interesting, perhaps, to none 
but the corporators themselves, and the member for a 
single county, and nobody else caring anything about 
it—it passes without examination, because it does not 
operate over the whole State. Whereas, all the pro¬ 
visions of a general law, under which all the cities and 
towns of the State were to be incorporated and govern¬ 
ed, would be sure to receive a proper consideration. 
No member of the Legislature would allow such a bill 
to pass without looking into it, because he would un¬ 
derstand that it was to affect the government and good 
order of his town, as well as every other town and city- 
in the State. Such a bill would inevitably pass with 
more consideration on the part of the Legislature, than 
could ever be obtained for any case of special legisla¬ 
tion. He desired any gentleman to point out the ex¬ 
ception—any legitimate object of a corporation which 
could not be as well provided for, and secured, by a 
general as well as a special act—let him point it out, 
and he would "o with him for the exception. But if 
this thing could not be done in favor of municipal cor¬ 
porations, then he would go for retaining the section 
as it stands. 

It had been said by the gentleman from Harrison, 
[Mr. Scott,] and the gentleman from Meigs [Mr. Hor¬ 
ton,] that this was a new proposition—that there was 
no such thing in any of the constitutions of the other 
States. But he felt as well convinced as he could be 
of anything, that the necessities of restricting the ten¬ 
dency to local and special legislation was beginning to 
be felt very generally all over the land. These re¬ 
strictions were beginning to be every where imposed 
upon such legislation; in all the recent constitutions 
were restrictions more or less stringent upon the sub¬ 
ject ot making special laws, and granting special char¬ 
ters. The New York provision, however, amounted 
to nothing, because it left the Legislature to determine 
upon the emergency and necessity of every case re¬ 
quiring special legislation. He did not choose to in- 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Bert any such latitudinarian provision in the constitu¬ 
tion of Ohio. The constitution of Wisconsin had copied 
this provision precisely as it stands in the constitution 
of New York. Bat the constitution of Iowa was equal¬ 
ly as stringent as the provision now under considera¬ 
tion, with the exception of political and municipal cor¬ 
porations. The California constitution contained jire- 
cisely the same provision—borrowed perhaps from the 
constitution of Iowa. 

With regard to the power of repeal, contained in the 
second section of the report, he remarked that the con¬ 
stitutions of New York, Iowa, and Wisconsin, all con¬ 
tained a provision for the unconditional repeal, by the 
Legislature, of charters of every description, without 
any provision for the security of the individual corpo¬ 
rators. Now, he could not agree to such a provision. 
He wanted to insert some provision for the protection 
of stockholders. He desred to protect their property 
from the possibility of being struck dead in their hands 
or entirely taken from them. The proviso for the pur¬ 
pose, however, as reportetl by the committee was not 
exactly in the shape which he could desire to have it 
if his own views alone could have been consulted ; but 
still he thought it would answer the purpose sought by 
those who wished to protect the corporators. He 
would ask the attention of the committee to his con¬ 
struction of this proviso, for he would like to see if 
other gentlemen understood it as he did. He observed 
a mistake in the printed report: it should read, Pro¬ 
vided, on such repeal, the property and credits legally 
acquired by any corpoi’ation shall vest in the individu¬ 
al corporatorsit was '^property or credits,” in the 
report here. Now he desired to make the application 
of the section. In his ojunion the principal difficulty 
about repealing charters lay in cases of repeal of char¬ 
ters where capital was invested, as in a railroad com¬ 
pany, a plank road company, or a turnpike road com¬ 
pany. He understood that in such an event, the corpo¬ 
rations of a railroad had a perfect right to the ground, 
the timber, rails and cars which the repeal of their 
charter should not affect. We understand that corpo¬ 
rations, where they secured a right of way, thereby 
secured a right of property, which might be inherited, 
sold and conveyed, transfen*ed by operation of law, or 
otherwise: he understood this to be a legal right vested 
in the corporation. And now, if the corporation were 
stricken down, their charter repealed, their franchises 
all taken away, their perpetual succession gone, and 
every thing else which distinguish them from an indi¬ 
vidual partnership—still the corporators should retain 
their right of propei’ty to the ground and appurtenan¬ 
ces ; together with the right of preventing any person 
from passing over their ground, or to pass over it on 
payment of toll. Upon the repeal of the charter, the 
ground and appurtenances would become the property 
of the individual corporators and they certainly may, 
exercise the right of prohibiting or permitting any man 
from passing over it except upon terms which they may 
prescribe. This was the ground which he took. If he 
were wrong he desired to be enlightened. 

Mr. BENNETT interrupted, desiring to ask a ques¬ 
tion. 

Mr. STANTON. Certainly. 

Mr. BENNETT. He desired to ask upon what au¬ 
thority the individuals of such a company could collect 
tolls except by virlue of their corporate powers 1 

Mr. STANTON. He supposed that when a corpo¬ 
ration acquired property of any description, they ac¬ 
quired at the same time the right to use it in any man¬ 
ner not prohibited by law. The right of way granted 
to a corporation—as a railroad, turnpike or plank road 
company—being exclusive in its character—he under¬ 
stood to be a legal right—a right of propepty. It was 
a right to property vested in the corporation. They 
had a right to exercise the same power over the land 
i which the title to the pi'operty in fee simple would 
give them. By the proposed provision or article, it 
was provided that upon the repeal of the charter this 


307 , 

right to the property shall rest in the individual cotpP-' 
rators, and they shall hold it as partners. It was grant¬ 
ed that they had acquired this property in their corpo¬ 
rate capacity, but when they lose their charter their 
property should rest in the individual corporators, and 
they should be protected by the law of partnerships. 
He knew that it had been suggested that it were bet¬ 
ter not to get up a partnersmp constitution; but, if 
gentlemen were to hold out and refuse a partnership, 
in the sense of a compromise of views upon almost eve¬ 
ry subject, he was apprehensive that the constitution 
could not come to much. 

Mr. NASH said: he must confess that be was not 
satisfied with this first section of the report; but not 
wholly upon the grounds already put forth. He did 
not regard it .as a report against incorporations; but as 
a pi’oposition calculated to increase and multiply their 
number. Unlesshe was grossly mistaken, the operation 
of such a constitutional provision, instead of diminish¬ 
ing the number of corporations, would increase them 
indefinitely—and why ? This plan requires general 
laws, and by these laws persons will organize corpo¬ 
rations who would never have applied to the General 
Assembly for a charter. Your general law gives to all 
the power to organize corporations without the inter¬ 
vention of legislation. This will increase the facilities 
for the formation of corporations to an unlimited ex¬ 
tent. Take for instance, general laws for the constnic- 
tiou of plank roads. Such a law must empower all 
persons to organize companies for such purposes. Here 
there is upon your statute book a power unlimited, to' 
save by human folly and cupidity, to organiiJo' BufcW 
companies. And under such a law would not siWlti 
corporations multiply much faster than under the pres¬ 
ent system ? In this general grant of power is involv¬ 
ed the right in individuals to enter upon the land of 
others, condemn it—and the necessary materials requi¬ 
red for the road, and all this without any one having 
the power to stop them in their career of selfishness, 
it may be it would throw open to human cupidity the 
policy of creating corporations instead of leaving it to 
an enlightened regard for the public weal. It would 
give up to private caprice and private interests tbe 
whole subject of roads, one great department of pub¬ 
lic welfare. He must say that he could never vote for 
such a law thus to hand over to private cupidity the 
location and construction of our roads, and entirely 
sink all reference to the public welfare in so important 
a branch of a good government. 

He would rather never see such roads made, tfuTn 
put upon the statute book, a law so well calcvdated to 
shingle the State all over with them; roads too, made 
not for the public good, but for the advantage of indi¬ 
viduals. It would expose every man’s property to be 
taken by any set of men, who through cupidity, folly 
or wickedness, choose to get up a road corporation.— 
That it would multiply beyond any former precedent 
.such corporations there can be no doubt; but that most 
of them would prove failures and abortions would be 
equally certain. 

Were gentlemen prepared to pass general laws for 
the organization of railroads, whenever and wherever 
individuals might see fit? By such legislation, the 
State would divest itself of all authority over the loca¬ 
tions of these improvements; and railroad corporations 
would start up like mushroons all over the State, just 
as emulation between different routes, or the caprice 
and cupidity of individuals might suggest. Such a course 
would jeopardize the income of all our^ public works, 
works which have cost the people millions, and would 
thus recklessly be exposed to destruction at the crav¬ 
ing of private cupidity. Was it right thus to sur¬ 
render to individuals the power to thread your State 
with railroads, regardless of the public interests and 
wants? 

Were they prepared to authorize the construction of 
railroads, along the lines of the canals? He thought 
that it was time for gentlemen to stop and reflect a lit- 












308 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


tie upon this anti-corporation report, (as it seemed to 
be regarded) and ask themselves whether they were 
not going in the wrong direction. He affirmed that it 
was not an anti-corporation proposition, but a propo¬ 
sition to promote and multiply corporations to an un¬ 
limited extent. 

Again, the example which he had put by way of il¬ 
lustration, to show the effect of a provision of tliis char¬ 
acter, was not intended as an argument against the entire 
provsion. There could be no controversy upon the 
point that in all proper cases corporations should be or¬ 
ganized under general laws. What he intended to say 
was, that there were cases where general laws would 
be found impracticable or improper—cases where the 
Legislature ought to say whether the improvement 
should or should not be made, on a full examination of 
the public interests. The only difficulty upon this 
question, under the old constitution was, that it had 
been intimated by the Supreme Court, that all such au-i 
thority must be given by special law. He did not as¬ 
sert that this intimation of the court was ever made, 
for he did not know, but he did know that when he 
came into the General Assembly and insisted that 
churches, academies and lyceums, and kindred institu¬ 
tion, should, in order to economy of money and time, 
be incorporated by general law, he was met with the 
declaration that the Supreme Court had decided such 
a law unconstitutional; and he was compelled to ac¬ 
quiesce. He could not understand the doctrine, to be 
sine; but that was a sufficient answer to all his reason¬ 
ing, going to show the importance and necessity of 
such a law. There was no controversy as to what was 
the duty of the Legislature, with reference to this class 
of corporations. There was no doubt that they all 
ought to be organized under general laws; but he, for 
one, was unwilling to put upon the statute book, any 
law which, by any constr iction, would authorize indi¬ 
vidual companies to make their turnpikes, plank roads, 
and railroads, anywhere they might see fit. No such 
statute ought to be passed—because it was the interest 
of community, and not the interests of corjiorations, 
that ought to be consulted upon all such questions, be¬ 
fore the Legislature should allow these corporations to 
take the property of citizens, to run their roads through 
it. He had drawn up an amendment to the section, 
which he would beg leave to read for information. 

The General Assembly shall, where practicable, provide for 
the organization of corporations other than banking, by general 
laws : provided that the General Assembly may pass special acts 
of incorporation in cases where there is no general law, or where, 
in the opinion ot the General Assembly, it is inexpedient to pass 
a general law. 

He had put in the words “ whenever it appears ex¬ 
pedient,” for the reason that it might be necessary and 
proper at some time, to pass a law authorizing a spe¬ 
cial corporation. While he would provide by general 
law for all ordinary coiqiorations, he considered that 
there might arise a case in which it might be proper to 
pass a special act, and wholly inexpedient to pass a 
general law authorizing the creation of a like class of 
such corporations. Such cases could very seldom oc¬ 
cur; but it woidd be wisdom to provide fur such con¬ 
tingencies.—Their charters for public improvements 
sluAild also be special. Their grain should be predict- 
cated on public grounds; and a due regard in granting 
them should be bad to our State improvements. It 
was on this ground that he opposed the report. It 
would authorize the con.struction of works of internal 
improvement which might be injurious to the Slate, 
and the Legislature would have no jiower to prevent. 
If it stopped one road it must stop all. It took all dis¬ 
cretion from the law-making power to consult public 
welfare in our future improvements. A general law 
for the organization of universities and colleges would 
never answer. It would multiply the name until the 
thing had entirely disappeared. Jealousy ringht in¬ 
duce the erection of a new one alongside of another foi 
the mere purpose of rivalry. In the struggle both must 
go down. For example the inhabitants of this city 


were now making an effort for the erection of a great 
central State University, a veiy worthy object; but 
would it be good policy to authorize another set of in¬ 
dividuals who might not be pleased with the existing 
company, to get up au opposition which might break 
down both ?—Again, there was a college at Athens, un¬ 
der the patronage and control of the State; and would 
it be policy to pass a law authorizing another to be 
erected by its side and divide its patronage? 

A Voice. Well it would. 

The gentleman says it would. Well, he could assure 
the gentleman that if such a thing were permitted, it 
would not be long before there would not be left in the 
State a college worthy of the name. The public need 
good colleges, and the State should so shape its legis¬ 
lation as to promote this end, not to defeat it. Such 
would be the result eveiywhere if this needless mul¬ 
tiplication of corporations were allowed. The law, 
in the creation of corporations, should regard the pub¬ 
lic good—they should be created only for the protec¬ 
tion of the public interests. The public have an in¬ 
terest in education as well as in railroads and turnpikes, 
and the public interests are to be consulted as well as 
the interests of individuals. Doubtless every man in a 
corporation consulted his individual interest; and such 
a provision as this would make it the province of legis¬ 
lation to consult the public interests so that both might 
be protected. He would be unwilling to put into the 
constitution any provision compelling the Legislature 
to pass all these great interests over to the tender mer¬ 
cies of individual cupidity. He was just so much of 
an anti-corporation man that he would support no cor¬ 
poration law, unless he was convinced that the public 
interests were to be subserved by it. Private inter¬ 
ests ill this particular should be considered in legisla¬ 
tion only as they are combined with public interests. 
But this proposition proceeded in total disregard of 
the public interests, for the interests of individuals; 
and corporations would alone be constructed under 
such a law, having no other foundation than the cupid¬ 
ity of individuals—based upon no other foundation 
whatever. In all cases where the public interests 
could not be sufficiently guarded in a general corpora¬ 
tion law, he considered that a special act ought to be 
granted—wherever it can be placed upon the ground 
that the public interests require it, and where public 
and private interests combine to require it. By such 
a system we remove the evils of excessive special leg¬ 
islation, and at the same time allow a discretion in the 
General Assembly to pass special acts in cases that 
may arise in future unfitted lor general legislation. We 
.shall restrict the number of corporations and leave 
play enough to meet the unforeseen contingencies that 
may arise. This is the part of wisdom—the course 
recommended by a prudent forecast which would pro¬ 
vide against past evils without impairing the power of 
future good.. 

Mr. TAYLOR concurred in the opinion that the first 
section of the report was enlarged beyond the corres¬ 
ponding provision in the constitution of the State of 
New York, but he regarded that as its chief merit. 
One third of the New York provision was explicit and 
wholesome, viz ; “ Corporations may be formed under 
general laws ; but shall not be created by special act,” 
but then came the nugatory clause, thrown in by con¬ 
servative iiiiluence—“except for inunici[)al purposes, 
and ill cases whore, in the judgment of the Legisla¬ 
ture, the objects of the coiqxiraiion cannot be att dned 
under general laws.” He inferred from the remarks 
of the gentleman, that similar checks upon the first 
section, will be [irojiosed here. As that section stands, 
it is unqualified by language, which takes away its 
spirit and ])oint. 

At the late session of the New York Legislature, a 
leueral raihoad law was passed, illuslialiug tlie posi¬ 
tive portion of the cons’itulioiial provision. On that 
iUl je ;t, which has been cited as one that a general law 
could not reach, a statute was framed under the provi- 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


309 


sions of which all railroads must be regulated. At the 
same session, however, bills of incorporation, and for 
other special purposes, were carried through both 
houses, because, forsooth, the “ objects could not be at¬ 
tained under general laws ”—so at least the lobbies, 
under the latitudinarian clause which gentlemen now 
propose, veliemeutly insisted. They were violations 
of the constitutional provision—the first attempt to 
evade and defeat the reform intended. It should be 
remembered to the honor of Hamilton Fish, the pres¬ 
ent governor of New York, that he stood firmly by the 
first clause of the section, whicl. is identical with the 
report upon our table, and resisted the current of spe¬ 
cial legislation. He interposed the veto—a quick suc¬ 
cession, a running fire of vetoes—and did the State es¬ 
sential service, because, although a Whig, he disregar¬ 
ded party prejudice, and applied his qualified negative 
in vindication of the constitution more frequently than 
any of his predecesors. 

If this report was substantially adopted, the 'corpo¬ 
ration’ would become as harmless as any in the whole 
legal vocabulary. It was now in bad repute, owing to 
the misuse of legislative power over corporations.— 
If commercial partnerships had only existed in Ohio, 
by special charters and as exclusive privileges, they 
would have been equally odious. 

He would not enlarge upon the considerations urged 
in favor of general laws for the regulation of corpora¬ 
tions. Such is the character of other legislation—why 
should corporations be an exoeption ? What reason 
can be given—what proof beyond confident assertion, 
that even railroads and cities could not be provided for 
in the manner proposed 1 Every charter, under the 
present system, must be complete in itself. So far as 
separate charters were concerned in their provisions, 
thp result was general—demonstrating thatno necessity 
for special charters existed. So far as they were dis¬ 
similar or special, privileges to some not enjoyed by 
others under similar circumstances, would be the con¬ 
sequence—and what was such legislation, but public 
inequality and injustice. Just to the extent that these 
corporations, under special acts, were similar, the pre¬ 
sent proposition was vindicated, while every case of in¬ 
equality was a still stronger argument that the " Leg¬ 
islature should pass no special act, confemng corporate 
powers.” 

He had risen, however, chiefly to make a suggestion, 
which seemed to him of importance. Judicial con¬ 
struction was an essential portion of every law. But 
of what value was judicial construction, when the laws 
wanted uniformity ? Here was an act for the incor¬ 
poration of one city—a different act was passed for an¬ 
other—controversies under the former, when decided 
by the courts, furnished no rule for the latter. Our 
reports were of far less value to the people under a spe¬ 
cial system of legislation. If corporaiions, municipal 
and private, were framed and regulated by general 
laws, then a mooted point in any locality, instead of 
being a special and temporary case, would immediately 
become practical and useful matter of reference in all 
quarters of the State. He commended this subject to 
the consideration of those who desired to maintain the 
certainty and equality of judicial construction ; for that 
end could not be attained but by the adoption of a 
more general system of legislation than has hitherto 
prevailed in Ohio. 

hlr. EWART said : He did not know that he should 
be able to make himself undei’stood upon this subject 
of special legislation ; possibly he did not understand 
exactly all its bearings himself. He had appiehended 
that his friends on this side of the chamber would ex 
perience some sensation on this subject; still, when 
It came up, he expected to hear a fair and candid dis¬ 
cussion of the report. He hoped it would receive the 
special attention of our legal gentlemen, and that they 
would approach it in the spirit of candor, and not as a 
lawyer pleads a cause before the court. He hoped 
they would enter fully into the consideration of the 


whole report, and give us the benefit of a fair and un¬ 
biassed legal examination and opinion of the matter. 
He dill not think that, heretofore, the report had re¬ 
ceived this kind of treatment. He confessed that he 
had been somewhat astonished at the propositions 
made by gentlemen on tin's side of the house. His 
friend, the gentleman from Meigs [Mr. Horton,] had 
made a motion to strike out the first section, which he 
objected to, upon the ground that the Legislature could 
not pass a general law, covering all sorts of corpora¬ 
tions. He would inform that gentleman that the com¬ 
mittee themselves had no such idea. But they sup¬ 
posed that general laws could be passed, governing ail 
corporations of a certain class, and a general law for 
each class. 

The gentleman seemed to suppose that because no 
such law had been passed the principle could not be 
made to apply for the w'ant of uniformity in the case 
sought to be embraced under it. He gave as an in¬ 
stance requiring special act of incorporation, that cer¬ 
tain benevolent individuals might desire to get up a 
chaiitable institution in Cincinnati, but could not be 
incorporated under a general law. Could not such a 
case be provided for by a general law authorizing the 
same class of institutions in any other place in the 
State ? Where could be the injustice of such general 
law ? He had said that new enterprizes would be 
springing up to develop the resources of the State. 
Planlc Roads were mentioned,—what could be the ob¬ 
jection against regulating all these by general laws ? 
What was the objection to general laws? If special 
laws with similar provisions might be passed, embra¬ 
cing numerous individual corporations, what could be 
the objection to a general law of the same character, 
whose terms might embrace them all. 

The gentleman from Gallia [Mr. Nash] had insisted 
that the provision under consideration, instead of di¬ 
minishing the number of corporations, would vastly 
increase them: and he objected, also, because the cor¬ 
porations might take and condemn individual property; 
and because it might seem that this legislation was a 
mere device to protect special privileges, at the sacri¬ 
fice of the public interest. But he would ask that gen¬ 
tleman why all interests could not be protected as well 
by general as by special laws. 

He objected to special legislation, because all spe¬ 
cial acts were liable to pass with very little notice on 
the part of the General Assembly, and a very large 
number would be frequently passed on the same day, 
at the close of a session, as was the case in the last ses¬ 
sion of the Legislature. 

He objected to these special enactments also, because 
they frequently contained diverse and even contradic¬ 
tory provisions. He would ask again, where the same 
provisions would answer for different corporations, why 
could not a general bill be framed to embrace them all ? 
Why should not you in Lorain, and we in Washington, 
have the benefit of the same corporate powers, being 
the best that could be devised ? Why miglit not every 
similar case be engrafted into the same bill, and so have 
the whole subject presented and disposed of at once, 
and with proper deliberation? Why not'adopt a sys¬ 
tem devoid of exclusiveness—open and free to every 
citizen—a free and self-regulating system ? He sup- 
jiosed the true object of incorporations should be, the 
enjoyment of certain privileges which could not be 
obtained in any other way—privileges not exclusive, 
but general—open and availabe to every citizen. He 
would have the terms of the law sufficient to protect 
the interests oF the community and the interests of the 
companies. As to the danger of the interlerence of 
one railroad with another, he affirmed that the system 
would regulate itself upon the prineij'les of competi¬ 
tion. If a road company were doing a very profitable 
business, under tolls fixed in a general law, but too 
hi^^h on account of the great travel over it, he could 
not see the injustice of permitting an investment of 
capital by which it might be proposed to set up a rival 








310 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


medium for travel and transportation, if capitalists 
should think it would pay, and chose to risk it, and thus 
compel the first company to lower its rates. He could 
not see why companies should not have the privilege 
of coming in competition with companies, as well as 
men with men. If gentlemen could show him the er¬ 
ror of this principle, he would go with them. 

Something had been said, and a great deal more had 
been felt, in relation to the power of the Legislature to 
alter or repeal a law of incorporation. We are very 
sensitive on this point. But let us see how it would 
work on the system proposed. Suppose we had a 
general law in operation, providing for the construc¬ 
tion of I’ailroads, plank roads or turnpikes, and opera¬ 
ting equally over every part of the State of Ohio; in 
eveiy case where there existed any necessity for the 
exercise of such corporate powers, was there the 
slightest probability that any Legislature would ever 
repeal such a law ? If he could be convinced that a 
general law could be passed, so well guarded in all its 
provisions for the protection of the rights of the com¬ 
munity, and the rights of the corporators, that it would 
be absolutely perfect, and incapable of amendment, or 
that the power to alter or repeal was not sufficiently 
guarded in the report, then, he would be willing to 
vote against this power of alteration or repeal; but 
till then, he should vote in favor of it. If further 
guards could be thrown around this right of repeal, 
he hoped it would be done. He wished gentlemen 
to understand that this Convention would probably re¬ 
tain that clause in some shape, and, for one, he desired 
it in its best form. He hoped that he had been under¬ 
stood by the committee; but being entirely without 
the habit of public speaking, he doubted whether he 
had succeeded in making his position intelligible. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga said: With respect to 
corporate bodies, it was certainly very desirable that 
they should be regulated by general law, as far as pos¬ 
sible. He was inclined to think that there might be 
an exception to the general rule. He doubted very 
much whether there could be a genei’al law devised, 
which would apply to all the diversified requirements 
of our municipal corporations. It seemed to his mind 
that the same charter which would apply to the city of 
Cincinnati would not be a suitable measure for a village 
that did not contain more than 500, or perhaps not 
more than half that number of inhabitants. It would 
be more safe, he thought, to authorize the enactment 
of general laws creating corporations, other than mu¬ 
nicipal, and trust to the Legislature to provide charters 
for the latter, as the necessity of the case might re¬ 
quire. He proposed, before taking his seat, to ofier an 
amendment to this first section, inserting the words, 

except for municipal purposes.” If gentlemen would 
reflect upon the subject, they might be satisfied that it 
would be extremely difficult to frame a general law re¬ 
specting municipal corporations, cities, towns and vil¬ 
lages, which would operate equally: nor did he ap¬ 
prehend that there was a necessity for a general law 
on this subject. He believed that in all the later 
State constitutions containing this provision an excep¬ 
tion had been made in fiivorof municipal corporations; 
for the reason, as he supposed, that it was not possible 
to frame an acceptable and beneficial general law of 
this character. As to the other corporations, he was 
of opinion that they should be formed under the pro¬ 
visions of a general law ; and although there might be 
particular instances in which this general law would 
not apply, still he thought they would be rare, and 
perhaps the exception might prove the correctness of 
the rule. 

Now where corporations are created by general law, 
it places every member of the community upon the 
same footing. All who desired to become incoiporated 
could do so, under the provisions of this law; it gran¬ 
ted no privilege to one class of men which might not 
be enjoyed by. any other class. It wmnld dispense at 
once of all the clamor, coming up from dilferenl quar¬ 


ters and from all parts of the State, about granting ex¬ 
clusive privileges—and all the clamor whicn was made 
every where about monopolies. It would place the 
citizens of the State all upon the same footing, and en¬ 
able them, if they think proper, to become incorpora¬ 
ted for the accomplishment of any legitimate object. 
He was in favor of such a law as this. 

It had been objected, that these charters of in¬ 
corporations might be repealed, and that vast injuries 
might be inflicted upon individuals in consequence. 
He had no objections to this jiart of the report; on the 
contrary, he had ever entertained the opinion that it 
would be better in conferring the power to create cor¬ 
porations, at the same time to vest in the General As¬ 
sembly the power of altering, amending, or repealing. 

It had been stated, that such a provision would prevent 
business men from engaging in these enterprises ; he 
did not know but it might restrain the hands of men 
under peculiar circumstances: but if the object of the 
corporation were beneficial to the public, and especial¬ 
ly if it were beneficial to the individual, no business 
man would be deterred from investing, on account of 
any apprehensions about repeal. Besides, he did not 
apprehend any danger that the General Assembly 
would step in and repeal a general law of this charac¬ 
ter, without a very good and sufficient reason for it.— 
This idea of investing the Legislature with the power 
to repeal, was not new to him; for many years ago 
when he was in the Legislature, he had urged it upon 
that body. 

There seems to be an idea prevailing in the minds of 
some, that if the Legislature were invested with this 
power, they would abuse it; but we had no reason to 
fear—even where they had assumed the power there 
had never been a case in which they had abused it: no 
inconvenience had ever resulted fi*om the exercise of 
it; and he believe that it would conduce to the peace 
and quiet of the State. He repeated that he did be¬ 
lieve, as far as related to municipal corporations, we 
hixd better leave that to be disposed of by special le¬ 
gislation : he therefore moved the amendment which 
he had before referred to. 

Mr. HAWKINS said he rose for the purpose of ex¬ 
pressing his hearty concurrence in the sentiments of the 
gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock,] upon the 
subject of repealing acts of incorporation. He recol¬ 
lected that fifteen years ago, that venerable gentleman 
and himself, were agreed upon this subject. He re¬ 
collected well the arguments which were at that time 
advanced for and against the exercise of this power, on 
the part of the Legislature. He had always argued 
that the Legislature acted unwisely by refusing to ex¬ 
ercise this important power, when its exercise was re¬ 
quired by considerations of public good. He believed 
that if they could be trusted with the enactment of 
laws, they might also be trusted with the power of re¬ 
pealing them. He had supposed they would act with 
about the same amount of prudence in both cases. He 
hoped the gentleman from Geauga would continue to 
adhere to those wholesome opinions which he had so 
long sustained and expressed upon this subject. 

It was well known that acts of incorporation were 
frequently obtained here about which the public inter¬ 
est was never consulted: while at the same time the 
Legislature would confess itself to be debarred from 
the power of removing the evil either by way of amend¬ 
ment or repeal. 

With reference to the amendment of the gentleman 
from Geauga, he felt rather inclined to oppose it. He 
considered that there was no necessary difficulty a- 
bout legislating by general law upon the subject of 
municipal corporations : and that a law might be made 
applicable to all the purposes of a charter for cities and 
towns of every class. He referred, by way of illustra¬ 
tion, to the very large amount of special legislation du- , 
ring the session of 1838-39, stating that six hundred 
acts of a private and local character were passed during 
that session: and he referred to other causes of the well- 





CONVENTION REPORTS. 


311 


founded complaints which had so long been coming up 
against this species of legislation from every part of the 
State. 

Mr. STILLWELL said: He concurred in the gene¬ 
ral principles contained in this first section of the re¬ 
port. There |Was no doubt that great difficulty has 
grown out of the former system of special legislation. 
It involved great expense and loss of time, and many 
improvident grants had been made. But at the same 
time that he was in favor of the general principle, he 
was satisfied that like all other general principles, it 
was subject to exceptions. He did not esteem it a 
good argument, for the destruction of any power, to 
say that it had been abused, but held it to be a wiser 
course to correct the abuse and preserve the benefits of 
the principle. There was no doubt in his mind but 
that general laws might be provided which might meet 
the purpose and wants of most corporations of the 
class under consideration, (which it was unnecessary 
to enumerate;) but he was satisfied that all cases could 
not be met. The diversity of interests in different 
parts of the State, were so great that they could not 
all be comprehended under general provisions. He 
agreed with the gentleman from Geauga, that munici¬ 
pal corporations must be an exception to this case, but 
ue disagreed with that gentleman in supposing that 
this was the only exception. 

There were other wants, which could not be gen¬ 
eralized and met in this way, amongst which he in¬ 
cluded those pertaining to railroad, bridge and turn¬ 
pike and plank road companies. He referred, for in¬ 
stance, to the important franchise of tolls. Were gen¬ 
tlemen willing to grant an unlimited discretion to all 
such companies of charging such toll as they may think 
proper? Would they not prefer to limit the right to 
condemn private property ? It seemed to him that a 
wise legislation would, at the time of giving this pow¬ 
er to condemn private property and collect tolls, limit 
the exercise of that power. Such, at any rate, had 
been the universal practice. 

These things could not be reduced to any general 
rule, without interfering with rights : for terms which 
would be perfectly safe and acceptable in one part of 
the State, would not justify the expenditure of capital 
in another part of the State. The Legislature deter¬ 
mine with some accuracy the amount of profit, and the 
amount of tolls, which would apply to any particular 
railroad, or turnpike, or bridge company, for a particu¬ 
lar location; but it was manifest that the rule could not 
be made fit for general application. The same was 
true with respect to fixing the length of time which a 
charter of this kind should be allowed to run, in order 
to secure a sufficient remuneration to the stockholders 
for their expenditures for construction and repairs. At 
the time the charter is granted, (it may be to a bridge 
company,) it should be provided, that, at some future 
period, the right to take toll shall cease. This had 
heretofore been done in many cases. Gentlemen would 
be unwilling to grant a perpetuity ; and it could not be 
met by a general provision of law that would be equal 
in this respect in every part of the State. There would 
be particular exigencies, involving a necessity for par¬ 
ticular provisions, which could not be applied to any 
other corporation. It was impossible to reduce the 
multifarious affairs of life to any common standard. It 
would always be found an attempt to measure that 
which was in itself immeasurable. 

He regretted every attempt to make this a political 
question. Gentlemen had spoken of compromise upon 
this side and upon that side. It was agreed on all 
hands that corporations might be created by general 
law; and the only question was how far the principle 
ought to extend? He had yet to learn that politics had 
any connection with the I'ight to incorporate schools 
and churches, or railroad and turnpike companies. 
He hoped gentlemen would apply the common sense 
rule of determining this question. 

It had been said that experience was against the 


practice of local legislation; and that the later State 
constitutions had taken this power away from the Leg¬ 
islature. This was true in one or two instances. But 
he did not believe that all the wisdom of the United 
States had settled in California and Iowa, but wher¬ 
ever, in this country, they had the most experience, 
although provision was made by the constitution for 
the passage of general laws for corporations, a power 
was given to provide for certam cases. He trusted, 
therefore, that the State of Ohio would not run off in 
pursuit of wild theories and speculations upon this 
subject, and that no gentleman would be willing to 
dispense with all the beneficial results of a good sys¬ 
tem, in their zeal to wipe out its abuses. 

Mr. STANBERY. I am compelled to differ from the 
gentleman from Geauga as to the propriety of special 
legislation for municipal corporations alone, leaving all 
others to general laws. 

What is meant by a general law for corporations ? It 
is a law for all corporations of the same species—one 
rule for all of the same character. I see great objections 
to that sort of legislation. If the law be so general as 
to meet the infinite diversities of place, capital, busi¬ 
ness and all other particulars, it will be too general. 
It will necessarily omit wholesome limitations and de¬ 
tails, and leave such matters to be provided for by the 
by-laws and ordinances of each company. Then, sir, 
to avoid that difficulty, if the general law goes into de¬ 
tails and limitations, a greater difficulty arises, for the 
details which may be well adjusted for one corporation 
may be wholly unfit for all others. 

The gentleman from Geauga has a clear apprehen¬ 
sion of those objections to a general law for municipal 
corporations. He sees very distinctly that the same 
general law will not suit all the cities and towns of the 
State. I am surprised that he does not see the same 
objection to a general law for many other sorts of cor¬ 
porations. 

Take, as an example, a general law for all bridge 
corporations. Of course the rate of toll must be fixed 
in such a law for no one will agree to give each bridge 
corporation the power to fix its toll sheet by its by-laws. 
Well, sir, will one rate of toll suit all bridge companies ? 
Not at all. If the bridge is erected where the travel is 
great, the rate of toll should be brought down to the 
lowest point, but if the bridge cross some stream out 
of the line of frequent travel, the rate of toll must be 
proportionally higher. Any one can see that the rate 
of toll at such a stream as Mill Creek, in the vicinity of 
Cincinnati, daily passed over by thousands, is no stand¬ 
ard for a remote and unfrequented river. 

This is but one instance of the impracticability of 
one law for all corporations of a similar character—one 
rule to suit all, when the circumstances of no two are 
alike. Are we to have one law for all railroads—one 
for all plank roads—one for all turnpikes—one rate of 
toll for all—one uniform grade for roads in the cham¬ 
paign and hilly districts? Are we to establish one 
amount of capital for all—one standard for the amount 
of each share—one rule for the time and per centage 
of payment on shares—a uniform nile for the period ot 
construction? 1 cannot but think that such a system 
is impracticable, and will go veiy far to check whole¬ 
some improvements. Sir, it has been tried, by way 
of experiment, again and again in this State, and 
er would work well. We have had a general law for 
all turnpikes since 1817—a general law for raihoads—- 
a general law for plank roads—but constantly specia 
acts have been found necessary and have been granted. 

Another serious objection to this general system oi 
incorporation is this. You are to make one lav/, foi in- 
stance, for all plank roads. Kuch a general law luc^- 
porates no company—but allows individuals all over the 
State, without application for a special grant, to incor¬ 
porate themselves at pleasure, by conforming to the pro¬ 
visions of the general law. This provision recom¬ 
mends itself to the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitch¬ 
cock] as he supposes this universal license takes away 








312 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


from corporate bodies the odious feature of monopoly. 
Why, sir, at the best it is not every one who can be¬ 
come a corporator under this general system. Capital 
will still be necessary, and only the few who have it 
at command can enjoy what is erroneously said to be a 
monopoly, in the construction of these public improve¬ 
ments. This system does not dispense with capital, or 
allow the masses to become members of a corporation 
without paying the consideration necessary to enjoy the 
privilege, or, what is usually the case, to sustain the 
burden. 

Sir, let us speak the truth here. We are now talk¬ 
ing of other corporations than those for banking. We 
are talking about corporations formed to advance the 
great interests of the people and of the State—corpo¬ 
rations that build churches, colleges and academies— 
coi-porations that bridge impassable streams, that con¬ 
struct great highways for travel and ti'aiisportatioii. 
These are no monopolies. Usually they are most bur¬ 
densome to the men who engage in them. And what 
sort of men do engage in them? Not the men whose 
whole pursuit is the mere acquisition of money. Such 
men find a more certain mode of realizing their profits 
and will not touch these great enterprises of public 
good and public improvement. r- 

...1 IT T eEKSSiSff!!*-. 

Monopolies! I would be greatly obliged to some ol 
our friends here, who are so jealous of these exclusive 
privileges, to take otF my hands all the benefit which I 
enjoy in some of these monopolies. I find my^self con¬ 
stantly solicited to give my aid to these public improve¬ 
ments, and have not always turned a deaf ear to such 
solicitations. I would be greatly obliged to gentlemen 
who would take ray stock and subscriptions olF my 
hands. They shall have them at a discount. 

I will now recur to the objection I stated a few mo¬ 
ments since, to a general law containing this self-incor¬ 
porating principle. Such a system withdraws all super¬ 
vision, all considerations of expediency, from the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly. The great power of taking private 
property for these public uses, is surrendered without 
limitation. Every where over the State, individuals 
may incorporate themselves. In cultivated districts, 
where the timber is nearly all gone, where good roads 
are abundant, a few persons form a corporation to con¬ 
struct a plank road, where none is wanted. They pro¬ 
ceed at once to appropriate a track fifty or one hun¬ 
dred feet wide, and to cut down timber precious be- 
ond price. No remonstrance can avail. The power 
as been given by a general law. 

There may be evils in special legislation; there may 
be objections to a special grant for every road which is 
to be constructed; but there are ten fold greater evils 
in this general and indiscriminate system. 

I object further to this plan, that any general law will 
constantly need amendment. We find that nearly every 
special act of incorporation must be amended. But 
how will you amend the general law? One corpora¬ 
tion fonned under it will require an amendment; and 
the consequence is, that the amendment made to meet 
the peculiar exigencies of that company, is made for 
all, although it may happen to be the last thing they 
would ask for, and may turn out to be just as injurious 
to them as it is beneficial to the particular company. 

This prohibition of a special act for any corporation 
—this constitutional provision for a general law for all 
sorts of corporations, is a new idea. There is nothin" 
like it in any State of the Union. 

Mr. STANTON. Is there nothing like it in the con¬ 
stitution of Iowa ? 

^ Mr. STANBERY. I have looked into that constitu¬ 
tion and find the provision for general laws coupled 
with exceptions. One exception is as to corporations 
for ‘‘ municipal purposes,” a term which we under¬ 
stand ; another exception is as tocorporatiuns for “ po¬ 
litical purposes,” a term which I do not understand_ 

It 18 somethin" as indefinite as the general welfare 
clause in the federal constitution. The provision in 
the report goes far beyond the constitution of Iowa. 


It does not follow the example of New York or even 
of Wisconsin. It goes beyond the most experimenting 
State in the Union. 

Another objection to this general system appears in 
the second section of the report, which provides for the 
power of repeal. The provision is that all general 
laws for incorporation maybe repealed. I shall not 
stop to consider the policy of this power of repeal 
as a question at large. It may be a very wholesome 
power when properly applied. But as to the sort of 
repeal here contemplated—it is either wholly imprac¬ 
ticable, or, if at all practicable, it is wholly inexpedient. 
It confounds the innocent with the guilty. No right is 
secui'ed to repeal any particular corporation, however 
odious it may become. You must repeal the general 
law or not use the power at all. All corporations of 
one character depend on the general law under which 
they have been framed. They are to live or perish by 
the same law. If one of many of these corporations 
is to be repealed, all the others must go with it. The 
blow leveled at one strikes down all the rest. 

Mr. STANTON. The passage of a general law like 
this will not interfere with a quo warranto against a 
particular corporation. 

Mr. STANBERY. Certainly it will not. We have 
always had that remedy. But this report attempts to 
give a new remedy—a repeal—and my objection to 
this remedy, as given in the report, is that it makes 
no distinction between the guilty and the innocent— 
it ins’olves them all in the same ruin. 

Then look at the sort of compensation provided for 
a corporation in case of dissolution by repeal: ‘‘On 
such repeal the property or credits legally acquired by 
any corporation, shall vest in the individual corpora¬ 
tors, subject to the liability of the corporation.” No 
indemnity—no measure of compensation for the fran¬ 
chise. A bridge company, for instance, under the 
faith of this law encouraging corporations, builds its 
bridge, and just when it is ready to take toll, the char¬ 
ter is repealed. Well, sir, the compensation—the cor¬ 
porators are to have their bridge.—They can burn it, 
or take it to pieces—or it may stand, but they cannot 
take a cent in the way of toll. 

Mr. STANTON. Have they not the right to prevent 
any body from passing over it ?—and if they have 
this right, they would certainly have the right to per¬ 
mit any one to pass over it on their own terms ? 

Mr. STANBERY. This is quite a new doctrine to 
me—a right to take toll after the charter is taken away! 
Why, sir, a corporation would be a little better oft' af¬ 
ter the repeal than before, for it can still take toll on 
its brfdge or road; the repeal of the charter takes 
away only the restriction as to the rate. 

Finally, sir, I veiy much prefer such a modification 
of this report as shall provide that corporations shall 
be created by general laws, and many sorts of corpo¬ 
rations can be so provided for—with power to the 
Legislature to pass special acts where the objects can¬ 
not be attained under general laws. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD observed, that gentlemen need not 
be alarmed about speaking beyond the time allowed 
by the resolution. It was quite well understood, that 
the resolution was only adopted in a “Pickwickian 
sense.” [Laughter.] 

Mr. STANTON did not know whether it would be 
exactly prudent te enter into an agument with the At¬ 
torney General on a question of law. But he differed 
from the gentleman essentially, in regard to the con¬ 
struction of the proviso attached to this section, con¬ 
taining the right of repeal. It was said that the right 
to cut timber was a franchise granted to corporations 
that had the right to build a bridge, or any other cor¬ 
poration for the purpose of establishing a public high¬ 
way. He thought that a private individual could ex¬ 
ercise the same thing, without the franchise. He could 
understand that he himself, as the owner of land, might 
make a way across his grounds, and might charge what 
he pleased for the privilege of passing over it. Again, 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


313 


suppose he was the owner of land through wliich a 
stream ran, and it became necessary to bridge it, and 
over which there was no public way; but he built a 
bridge; well, ho fixed the tolls at a certain amount, 
aucPthe ri‘dit to fix it was his legal right—and he 
could exercise it—without any corporate powers, lor it 
was a ri^ht attaching to him individually, as the own¬ 
er of the property. He understood this to be the po¬ 
sition in which this repeal left corporations of this kind 

_a brido'e corporation was created, or a company 

to construct a toll-bridge; the bridge, then, was the 
property of the corporation, and the right to its tolls, 
its timbers and its iniiie structure, vested in it. Now, 
it seemed to him, that even though the act of incorpo¬ 
ration was repealed, yet this proviso prohibited any 
one from using it witliout the consent of the corpora¬ 
tors, and vested in them the legal right to appropriate 
It to such use as they might see proper. So m regard 
to a corporation wliich had a right of way over partic¬ 
ular premises, or the fee simple iii the land over which 
the road passed, he supposed that the legal right ex¬ 
isted, as well when the corporate charter existed, as 
when it ceased to exist—that the right, as it was held 
by the corporation, was, by this proviso, vested in the 
corporators. 

Well, it was said that when the right of way was gone, 
that then it ceased to be held for public use, and that 
the right was transferred to the former owners. He 
could not understand why the use was not just as pub¬ 
lic if the ownership was in a partnership of individu¬ 
als, as in a corporation He did not purpose to go at 
large into the questions that had been discussed by the 
gentleman. He would allude, however, to what had 
been said in relation to a general law being inapplica¬ 
ble to corporatioirs in all parts of the State. It was 
illustrated by the supposition that the Little Miami rail¬ 
road company wanted powers which were not required 
by the Mansfield railroad company. In answer to 
that, he would merely say that he could see no reason 
why we could not confer, by a general law, all the 
powers on railroads, &c., &c., necessary for the exer¬ 
cise of their franchises in ail parts of the State. It 
was not necessary that every corporation should exer¬ 
cise all the rights conferred upon them. 

If the Little Miami Railroad Company did not re¬ 
quire the use of the same powers as others, it was not 
bound to exercise them. He could not see why a 
general grant of powers, to be exercised in all parts of 
the Stale, should not be made, and such only as cir¬ 
cumstances required, be exercised in any portion of it. 
Well, then, take the tolls; we might put a limit to the 
profits, and that would settle the amount of tolls; pro¬ 
vide that no company should divide more than a given 
per centum named in a general law. That was a rule 
which would operate throughout the entire State ; but 
he was inclined to think that free trade would settle 
these things better than any thing else. Competition 
would regulate the tolls much better than the Legisla¬ 
ture could do it. 

It was was said further, that this right of “ eminent 
domain” to take timber and land should not be ex¬ 
ercised under a general law. He could not see why it 
should not bo exercised by one company as well as 
by another. He did not see why, if the power were 
granted to a company to construct a railroad from 
Xenia to Columbus, the same power could not be given 
to anothercompaiiy to constracta road between any two 
other given points. But in regard to obtaining stone 
and timber, &C., &c., he would be in favor of leaving 
it to contract. It seemed to him that if the powers 
granted under a right of “ eminent domain” were not 
extended to anything but the right of way, such a pow¬ 
er could not injuriously afiect private property. He 
did not perceive any reason why the right should not 
apply equally throughout the State. 

On motion of Mr, GREEN of Ross, the committee 
rose and reported progress, and asked and obtained 
leave to sit again. 


On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, the con¬ 
vention took a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE asked for a call of the Con¬ 
vention, which being ordered, 72 members answered 
to their names. 

Some conversational discussion ensuing, as to the 
course to be pursued relating to the absentees, 

Mr. JOHNSON remarked that most of the Delegates 
who had not answered to their names, were sick and 
unable to attend. 

On motion, the absentees were excused, and the 
Convention resolved itself into a committee of the 
whole, Mr. Townshend in the chair, and resumed 
the consideration of the report of the committee on 
“corporations other than banking.” 

The question being upon the amendment of Mr. 
Hitchcock, of Geauga, the same was disagreed to. 

The question then being upon the amendment of Mr. 
Stanbery, 

Mr. COLLINGS. Before the question on the motion 
to strike out is taken, I wish to offer an amendment 
to the etfect that the Legislature shall pass no law, ex¬ 
cept where “ right of way ” would be necessary for 
such purposes of the corporation. A dillerence of 
opinion prevails, as to whether the report, as it stands 
at present, provides for this. I am unwilling to grant the 
power to private corporations to take the private piop- 
erty of other men, on any account whatever, unless 

sanctioned by some public authority. 

Mr. NORRIS. It seems to me that Tie legal eliect 
of that, would be to confer on the Legislature the 
power to grant charters to all companies where the 
“ right of way ” would be necessary to the full enjoy¬ 
ment of the privileges and franchises of the corpora¬ 
tion. That would make the provisions here incorpora¬ 
ted a nullity. , • , i • 

There may be a hardship connected with this matter, 
but there is an extensive public opinion in the State, in 
favor of cutting ofi' corporations from all special privil¬ 
eges, and fkr as the “right of way” is concerned, frona 
using private property without the absolute consent of 
the proprietor. It may be better, that a provision like 
this should be incorporated in the constitution, “ that 
no association of men shall be permitted to appropriate 
any amount of the private property of others for the 
pose of furthering any individual enterprises of their 
own,” though it might be called for the “ public good. 

I confess that I am opposed to that amendment fMr. 
CoLLiNGS,] in toto. Its adoption, would be to permit 
a thing which it was the object of the committee, so 
far as I am concerned, at least, to cut off entirely. As 
to the practical effects of this provision, there is a great 
opposition in the the popular mind to conferring specia 
privileges by general laws. There has been an expres- 
iion of surprise, from gentlemen, that there ha een 
iny compromise in the committee in regard to t iis sec- 
ion. I will mention, that I drafted a provision like 
his: “ The Legislature shall pass no act conferring 

jxclusive corporate powers.” To this proposition, e 
committee did not feel disposed to assent. ,rivt„ 

A word in reply to the gentleman from Franklin L Mr- 
Stanbery.] He objects to the section on gromn^^s 
irst, because it is indefinite; second, by 
;oo much or loo little power. My 
muld be incorporated into the new 
je, forever to exclude the Legislature 
ipon any individuals, any rights and ^ , 

oyed by the whole people in common. But this ob- 
ect could not be effected m our committee, 
provision was agreed upon and repoi e . an 
lecond place, a general law could not provide for he 
mrious wants of corporations. What might be needed 
w one company, would not be required by anothe 

There seems to be a disagreement upon this question 
-one side says it confers too much power, and the oth- 
m that it confers too little; but both agree in one ma.- 












314 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ter, viz., that the section should be stricken out, al¬ 
though they desire that for very different reasons. The 
amendment [Mr. Collings’] has the same object in 
view as have the opposers to the section as it now 
stands. One gentleman has contended here that the 
charters of companies of some descriptions should be 
limited in point of time—duration, and circumscribed. 
Well, sir, I am in favor of that, and I will go as far as 
any gentleman dare go in fixing a period at which all 
these charters shall expire—beyond which none of them 
shall be operative. 

Again, I remarked that there hadbeen a comprom’se 
on this very ground. For one, I was in favor of saying 
that the right of way should be granted for a limited 
period of time, and when that period came round they 
should cease to exercise the powers conferred in their 
charters, therefore, so far as the “ right of way ” is con¬ 
cerned, I will go with the opposers of this section. I 
am willing to give a period of twenty, thirty or forty 
years, but let the time be definite and fixed in the char¬ 
ter. 

It is my deliberate opinion that the whole doctrine 
and principle of corporations, from beginning to end, 
is hostile and inimical to the lights and real interests of 
the body of the people, and the more you restrict those 
corporations, the better are the public interests con¬ 
served. There are no clear and distinct opinions as to 
the principle of “ corporate powers,’’ among all our 
•opponents. No political writer upon this subject, has 
given any definition that has been adopted or received 
by gentlemen of this committee in their opposition to 
the proposed amendmen^ One law writer upon this 
subject, has stated the design of corporations to be, to 
secure the assistance, contribution and union of seve¬ 
ral iiidividuals, in the furtherance of some enterprise 
of private or public utility. If this is the true defini¬ 
tion, I demand to be told where would be the harm of 
restricting corporations in the exercise of their special 
privileges?—and why could not men associate them 
selves together without the aid of an act of incorpora¬ 
tion? There would certainly be the same combina¬ 
tion of forces, unity of action, mutual assisistance and 
contribution to the common end, and the object of the 
association, if the definition I have alluded to be cor¬ 
rect, would be secured. But in another definition 
which has been given of corporations, there is another 
object to be gained, viz : that real estate may be trans¬ 
ferred without the intervention of the ordinary modes 
of conveyancing. But who proposes to confer real 
estate other than may be necessary for the enjoyment 
of these franchises upon corporations in Ohio? 

I am disposed to think that if we can arrive at a 
clear idea of wdiat a “ corporation ” is, there wdll be 
no difficulty in giving to it all reasonable legislative aid. 
But, sir, there are stronger reasons than these that I 
have mentioned, operating upon men who seek for acts 
of incorporation. They are, that men, by being incor¬ 
porated, may avoid the responsibilities of their conduct 
which they would have to bear as private citizens ; they 
are, that they may be irresponsible in regard to those 
obligations which are considered binding and conclu¬ 
sive among men. If this is not time, wdiy cannot asso¬ 
ciations of men effect their objects as well without, as 
with, the aid of an act of incorporation; except so far 
as the transfer of real estate is concerned, which does 
not apply in Ohio. It will be seen by the Convention 
that there were differences of opinion among the mem¬ 
bers of the committtee who made this report, and that 
a compromise was effected, but I hope that the section 
now under consideration will be preserved as it is ; not 
that I am particular about the phraseology, but I am 
most solicitous that that very principle should stand as 
it is. 

We have been told that our liberties are at stake! 
“ It is dangerous,” says the gentleman from Franklin, 
[Mr. Stanbery,] “to confer, by a general law, these 
corporative privileges upon the people at large.” It is 
not dangerous, I suppose, to confer a special privilege 


upon a few wealthy men here and there, upon A and 
B, but it is unsafe to confer the same upon the whole 
alphabet. If the argument is good—if it is dangerous 
to confer these privileges upon the whole people, it is, 
by a parity of reasoning, dangerous to confer them up¬ 
on any. 

Mr. STANBERY. .The gentleman misquotes me, 
for I have said nothing about incorporating the whole 
people of Ohio; that would be an absurdity. 

Mr. NORRIS. You certainly spoke of the dangerous 
tendency of conferring these corpoi’ate privileges by 
general law ; and that there would be, under such a 
system, a thousand petty, unimportant incorporations 
all over the State. 

Mr. STANBERY. I am opposed to a general law 
for incorporations, for the obvious reason that it would 
be too general, and would contain too few applications 
to details, and too few limitations; and therefore the 
incorporations would be apt to give themselves too 
much latitude. 

Mr. NORRIS. It has been said by others that such 
general provisions would not meet the various wants 
of different companies. Is it true ? Are the interests 
of the citizens of Ohio so different, so diversified that 
a corporate act applying to a business in Hamilton 
county would not be applicable to the same business 
in Cuyahoga? 

I contend that the conferring of corporate powers 
is not in the line of legitimate lerislation—corporate 
privileges are, more or less, special privileges. They 
are, inevitably, an enlargement of the natural powers 
and privileges belonging to individual members of so¬ 
ciety—something beyond that natural liberty enjoyed 
by all men. The natural efiect of legislation is, more 
or less, to restrict natural liberty, and all legitimate leg¬ 
islation has to a degree, this efiect; but, sir, the grant¬ 
ing by a legislature of “corporate privileges” is an 
enlargement and extension of a man’s natui'al rights, 
which, it is plain, is directly the reverseof what I have 
stated to be the legitimate objects of legislation. 

I believe that a “ general law ” will secure all prop¬ 
er advantages to corporations. If it is right to give a 
man in Hamilton a corporate privilege, would it be 
wrong to give the same to a man in Clermont? If you 
restricted the corporate privileges of a company in 
Clermont, would it be wrong to restrict another com¬ 
pany in Hamilton ? It has been remarked, that the 
Little Miami Railroad might need some provision in 
their act of incorporation, which would be useless to ■ 
the Mad River Railroad. Will the gentlemen particu¬ 
larize, and show us the reason of their position ? It 
might be that an act operating favorably in New Or¬ 
leans, might not act as favorably in Cleveland—this I 
can readily conceive; but within the bounds of this i 
State, we do not even approximate to such differences 
as exist between the extreme northern, and the ex¬ 
treme southern city of this great republic. I am una¬ 
ble to see the necessity for so great a difference in the 
acts of incorporation, required by a railroad, or a plank 
road company, in the eastern, and in the western part 
of this State. The incorporation of an academy, a 
college, a church, an eleemosynary corporation of any 
kind, should be the same all over Ohio. If it is very 
plain, that your special charters almost always have to 
be amended, or revised, cannot your general law be 
also amended and revised, if an emergency arises re¬ 
quiring it ? If necessary to restrict, can you not do so 
by a general law; and by a general law enlarge, if an 
enlargement of privileges is called for? 

In regard to municipal corporations, special enact¬ 
ments may be more beneficial, and it might be ini- 
practicable to dispense with them altogether—there is 
room fordoubt. There may be some diffei’ence between 
the requirements necessary for governing a town on the 
shore of Lake Erie, and on the banks of the Ohio; but 
I suppose that under a general law, providing for the 
municipal regulation of Cincinnati, the provisions pe¬ 
culiarly applicable to a river town, might not be appli- 













CONVENTION REPORTS 


cable in Columbus; but however that may be, I am 
not very particular as to whether the Legislature shall 
have power, by special acts, or general law's, to pro- 

i vide for such a dift’erence. 

It is well known that special charters are always 
'' got through ” our Legislatures at will, and it must be 
evident that it always will be so, in the absence of a 
constitutional prohibition. When was there ever an 
instance, within the recollection of the oldest legisla¬ 
tor on this floor, where a single special act of incorpo- 
retion was defeated—I mean an act applying to any 
subject matter embraced in this report. I speak not 
now of bank charters, because upon them the two par¬ 
ties divide. It is but too generally known, that these 
“special acts” are “got through ” by a log-rolling 
system as it is called, the frieiids of one “bill” voting 
for the bills of others, in consideration of their aid, 
when the final vote is taken upon his own. These acts 
will always })ass a legislative body—the “ dignity ” and 
“purity” of your General Assembly to the contrary 
notwithstanding. Any association of capitalists, who 
ask for a right of way, through any part of the coun¬ 
try, will always get it, and ten thousand remonstrances 
might be sent up in vain. A single member could car- 
rit it through the Legislature, if each other member 
had had a bill of his own for similar acts of “ incorpo¬ 
ration.” They all go through together, leaning upon 
each other for and receiving mutual aid. I have heard 
that last winter there was a special act passed, char¬ 
tering some company, and that a section was included 
‘ totally foreign to the objects intended by the charter, 
conferred upon some man the right to sellliquor without 
I license. 

That shows you with how much care and circumspec¬ 
tion these acts are regarded during their passage.— 
There are hardly two charters in Ohio alike, some have 
more, and some less power. I will say, in conclusion, 
that I earnestly hope that no amendment will be made 
to the section, which will make this provision a nullity. 
I hope that the principle will be left untouched, unless, 
indeed, we can go further and entmely prohibit the 
Legislature from ever granting any incorporate powers 
either by general or special enactments, whereby the 
mutual duties, obligations, rights, privileges and im¬ 
munities of citizens shall be changed by any contra¬ 
distinguished marks of difference. 

Mr. MASON. The question, as to whether corpor 
ations ought to be created under special acts or general 
laws, is not now before us, because both the report 
of the standing committee and the pending amend¬ 
ment contemplate a “general law” forincoi'poratioiis. 
The gentleman who has just taken his seat, has, in 
imitation of the example of others, declared his pre¬ 
ference for the one or the other of these modes of 
creating corporations. Those in favor of their creation 
by a general law will have their views carried out, 
if this amendment, Mr. Chairman ,should be agreed 
to. I do think we ought not to overlook this fact—it 
is not by our vote at this time that we make a choice 
between special acts and a general law as regards the 
creation of corporations, because no question between 
special and general laws is presented, for the reason 
that both the report and the proposed amendment con* 
template but one mode for ci’eating all corporations, 
and that mode is by general law. In that amendment 
is incorporated the identical principle that the people 
of New York have in their new constitution: they 
were unwilling, in that instrument to tie up the hands, 
and foreclose the action of their future legislators, by 
prescribing that all incorporations should be by a gen¬ 
eral law; but they made a provision enabling the Leg¬ 
islature to use a discretion, in the passage of specila 
acts, when it might be indispensably necessary, and 
when the general law had failed to provide for the par¬ 
ticular case. It is power to exercise this discretion that 
I desire to see left with our Legislatures—there is not 
a gentleman on this floor, who can foresee all the con¬ 
tingencies that will arise in the great future. There 


315 


may be an occasion, and doubtless will be, requiring 
a “ special act.” But when the occasion comes for 
such an act, lo and behold the law-making power of 
the State has been struck with a paralysis—it is dumb, 
and in that particular cannot speak. It is therefore, 
with me a question as to how far we will trust the wis¬ 
dom and patriotism of future General Assemblies. It 
is not inconsistent for me to say that I am willing to 
confide that question to the General Assembly. I dare 
not by a peremptory provision, make an iron bed for 
all future generations to lie on. Why will not the pro¬ 
vision contained in this amendment do for us as well 
as for other States that have greatly prospered ? Does 
the voice of experience ciy against it—has it been tried 
in New York and found wanting? Instead of that be¬ 
ing the case it has been tried there and so far has work¬ 
ed well. This is the provision in the New York con¬ 
stitution, viz: Art. 8. 

Sec. 1. “ Corporations may be formed under' genei'al laws; 
but shall not be created by special act, except for municipal pur¬ 
poses, and in cases wherein the judgment of the Legislature, the ob¬ 
jects of the corporation cannot be attained under general laws." 

The only ground therefore of any real controversy, 
is whether we shall allow the Legislature hereafter to 
have any discretion in granting corporate powers.— 
The New York constitution containing the clause 
which I have already quoted, and by which the legis¬ 
lative power, though restrained within very narrow 
limits, is nevertheless extended to a class of cases 
that might arise in the future progress of society, 
but which could not be foreseen and provided for in 
any way, so safely as to leave them to legislative dis¬ 
cretion. 

I confess I would like to have that power granted in 
our new constitution, for without it, some meritori¬ 
ous cases will not be reached by a general law. I sup¬ 
pose that the great mechanical and agricultural in¬ 
terests of Ohio, are well represented on this floor, and 
it appears somewhat I may say, that if those whose 
business it is to look after those,great interests can be 
satisfied, not only to deprive this generation, but pos¬ 
terity, of all the advantages from corporations for the 
building of rail-ways, turnpikes, plankroads, mills, fac¬ 
tories, &c., &c. Isay that if they are satisfied, I do 
not know but I ought to be satisfied also. 

I believe, for the purpose of getting rid of excessive 
legislation, I am willing to provide, as a general prin¬ 
ciple, for incorjjorations by a general law ; the propo¬ 
sition to amend now under consideration embraces that 
idea, and so also does the report of the committee— 
where then is the point of difference between the com¬ 
mittee and the gentlemen who have spoken in this de¬ 
bate, except this, viz., that the Legislature shall have, 
or not have, the power to pass a special act of incorpo¬ 
ration, in any instance whatever—if this is not the on- 
ly point of difference, then I mistake the whole mat¬ 
ter. I know that the honorable chairman of the com¬ 
mittee who made the report said he hoped that the 
principle in the section as originally reported would 
not be changed or modified—he desired that nothing 
should be stricken out. I reply that he gets every 
thing by the amendment that he would by his own I'e- 
port, except that the amendment would allow th 
islature to pass special acts, in cases where a general 
law might not applv. 

Mr. MORRIS The gentleman is mistaken in the 
import of the amendment, [Mr. Collings’.] My im¬ 
pression on hearing it read was that it was too restrict¬ 
ive—that it did not embrace the whole subject. 

Mr. MASON. The argument of the gentleman [ Mr. 
Morris] turned upon the question whether there should 
or should not be a general law upon this subject; but, 
sir, that is not the real question here, because the 
amendment provides for a general law relative to 
porations, as well as the repoit ot the committee , but 
the amendment contains the additional provision found 
in the New York constitution already relerred to. 

Mr. M. then proceeded to give the origin and design 















316 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


of this class of corporations throughout the State. He 
said they were composed mostly of farmers, mill ow¬ 
ners and mechanics—men in moderate circumstances, 
who hare associated their means and efforts for the fur¬ 
therance of their neighborhood interests without reali¬ 
zing or expecting large dividends, if, indeed, they ex¬ 
pected any return at all. These corporations were 
lormed with the simple design of promoting the im¬ 
provement of their social condition and without any 
idea of securing to themselves what are called “mon¬ 
opolies” and “ exclusive privileges.” 

I ask gentlemen if they are willing to deprive their 
constituents of the jirivilege of associating together to 
build a bridge, a road, a church, or to lay out and in¬ 
close a cemetery, where the object of the incorpora¬ 
tion is entirely for the improvement and advantage of 
the community who engage in it, and where all profit 
and pecuniary consul era tions are entirely out of view ? 
But it is objected, and the objection is not without great 
weight, that under general laws, larger powers would 
be conferred, than ought to be granted to corporations. 
I apprehend that if all corporations must be created 
under general laws, you will be obliged to allow them 
to supply a great part of their powers by bye-laws and 
regulations, I ask gentlemen just to reflect upon that 
idea—for it is impossible in a general law, for fifty or 
a hundred diflhrent companies that may be formed un¬ 
der it, in diflerent parts of the State, to conduct their 
aftairs without having vested in them a liberal discre¬ 
tion to legislate for themselves. For I presume you 
do not intend to create a corporation and then deny the 
power necessary to carry out the object of its creation. 
Therefore you have got to leave a great deal to corpo¬ 
rate legislation. The objection shows the necessity of 
I’eserN ing some power over the subject in the Legisla¬ 
ture. And if gentlemen had formed no peculiar opin¬ 
ions before they came here, and which they might feel 
bound to advocate in this place, would they not agree 
with me ? Would they not say that you cannot pro¬ 
vide, in a general law, for all cases that may arise in 
all time to come? Would it not be safe policy to leave 
a wide field of legislative discretion to corporations, to 
occupy with their by-laws and ordinances ? 

One word as to “exclusive privileges,” which phrase 
seems to be the principal ammunition of those who de¬ 
claim against all corporations of whatever kind. I 
think the term is a misnomer and wholly without signi¬ 
fication as applied to the corporations to which 1 have 
alluded; for I know that as a general principle they 
yield pecuniary profit or dividends. I contend, sir, 
that the term ought to be “ exctusive burthens”; but 
we have got the habit of calling them “ exclusive priv¬ 
ileges,” but the former term is the true English, and 
every fanner and industrious artizan knows it. Why 
then do you go about, getting up the prejudices of the 
people, with your abominably false misnomers ? I am 
not now talking about banks, or corporations where 18 
to 25 per cent, is made. I suppose that a veiy large 
proportion of the acts of incorporation are those from 
which there is no profitable return. Men have the 
“exclusive privilege” of conveying a lot of land worth 
$1000 to a church or seminary! What an enviable 
privilege it is to subscribe stock to make a turnpike 
road, and for a thousand other objects where you never 
expect to receive any return for your money! What 
a glorious privilege !! I tell gentlemen you do your 
constituents injustice when you apply these misnomers 
to all corporations. I will only add that I shall try to 
nniinlain the rights of my constituents to bear these 
“ exclusive burthens” as long as they may desire to do 
so for the purpose of improving their social condition. 
When we come to consider the subject of really •‘ex¬ 
clusive privileges,” I shall be as ready then as now to 
define my position. ^ 

Mr. NASH. If we are not to judge from the re¬ 
marks of the gentleman fi-om Clermont, [Mr. Norris] 
the question now presented would appear to be the 
question between creating corporations by general or 


special laws. Now this is not the question involved in 
the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. 
Stanbery,] nor in the amendment which I read for 
information, when I addressed the committee before. 
All are in favor of general acts where general acts are 
appropriate. The original proposition of the commit¬ 
tee requh’es all corporations to be created by general 
laws; the amendment I read, at least, goes upon the 
same ground, and requires it in all cases where prac¬ 
ticable or expedient. The difference is simply in 
this, the committee seemed to have supposed that no 
case could occur where general laws would not be 
practicable; the amendment assumes that contingen¬ 
cies may occur, to which general law's would not be 
adapted, or as to which it would be inexpedient to en¬ 
act a general law. Here is the whole difference be¬ 
tween the original report and the amendment. The 
committee are unwilling to allow the General Assem¬ 
bly any discretion to meet unforeseen contingencies; 
the amendments vest the General Assembly with this 
discretion, enjoining general law where practicable and 
expedient, and special acts in other cases, if such other 
cases should arise. What great objection can exist to 
vesting the representatives of the people with such a 
discretion? Cases maybe put, where such a discre¬ 
tion will operate most salutary—and, if it is withheld, 
the restriction will be avoided by converting special 
into general legislation. A few years since citizens of 
Cincinnati applied for the charter of a hotel company, 
and it obtained friends enough to carry it through. 
Now, for one, I would be unwilling to put on your stat¬ 
ute book a general law for the organization of hotel 
corporations all over the State. And yet, with no 
power to pass special acts in any case, the very appli¬ 
cation would have created the necessity for such a gen¬ 
eral law, and it would have been passed. Instead, there¬ 
fore, of one hotel corporation, you would have had 
them springing into existence in every village in the 
Slate, where ambitious citizens wished to raise the 
character of their town by improving its hotel accomo¬ 
dations. As it was, a special law was passed, and there 
the evil, if evil it was, in that case, stopped. I recol¬ 
lect, also, an act to charter a steam boat company 
passed some years since ; an act which ought never to 
have been passed; yet with only general legislation, 
we should have, had a general law for the building 
and running of steam boats. While I am for creating 
incorporations in suitable cases, I am unwilling to com¬ 
pel the General Assembly to a course which must in¬ 
evitably lead to shingling the State all over with im¬ 
proper incorporations. If a single application of a ho¬ 
tel or steamboat company acquires strength enough to 
carry it through the Legislature, I do not wish it to 
bring forth an army of such corporations; I wish its in¬ 
fluence not to extend beyond the special case. Hence, 
among other reasons, the necessity of leaving some¬ 
what of discretion in the Legislature. 

I agree with the gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] 
that this discretion should be left to legislation ; a dis¬ 
cretion liberal enough to meet the unforeseen contin¬ 
gencies that will arise in the progress of a great peo¬ 
ple. It is necessary to prevent the multiplication of 
improper corporations, as well as to facilitate those 
which, while they cannot be cramped within the pro¬ 
visions of a general law, are yet seen to be eminently 
useful and worthy of legislative encouragement. Shall 
this restrictive discretion be left to the Representatives, 
or shall they be bound dnwii in their action to the iron 
rule of gi neral laws ? This is the question now to be 
decided; and in my opinion a question which a wise 
foresight can settle but in one vvay ; in favor of leaving 
this discretion to the General Assembly. Such at least 
is my humble opinion. 

Mr. DORSEY. It appears to me that there is some 
misapprehension upon the subject now before the com¬ 
mittee, but I will state my position upon this question, 
as I understand it. I am in favor of retaining the first 
.section of the report as it stands, since the amendment 











J 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


317 


' of the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hichccck] for 
! which I voted has been rejected—any furiher amend- 
i ment I would not be willing to vote for. I believe that 
if we will allow the section to stand as it is, that by a 
slight alteration in other sections of the report, the ob¬ 
jections which have been made against it will fall to 
the ground. I have not that great fear of corporations 
which seems to oppress some gentlemen on this floor— 
I am not afraid of the name—I am only afraid of the 
evils which have attached to corporate bodies, evils so 
great that had they attached to any other name would 
have wei‘^hed it down as deeply and as fatally as they 
have “ corporations.” And yet corporations may be as 
useful as they have been hurtful—they may be useful 
where they are only used for the purpose of associa- 
tin<y capital and labor for the performance of certain 
works the accomplishment of certain great ends, not 
to be secured without that combination of capital and 
labor in a corporation, when they are used for the pur¬ 
pose of bringing to a focus the energies and means of 
different individuals, rendering them capable of acting 
as one man, and pushing forward any enterprise of pub¬ 
lic utility, then, and then alone, they are useful to the 
community; but the very moment you allow your Leg¬ 
islature to grant special charters and to attach special 
privileges to individuals, then all is wrong. I am in 
favor, therefore, of regulating these associations by gen¬ 
eral laws, without thereby diminishing the good result¬ 
ing from them to the community, but thereby dimin¬ 
ishing the great amount of local legislation, which has 
indeed grown to be a public nuisance. 

I am in favor of that course, also, because it is more 
truly republican, to establish a general law, by which 
every association of individuals may be governed ; for 
thereby you take away that corrupting influence al¬ 
ways attendant upon the granting of special privil¬ 
eges by a Legislature, through which these “special 
acts” are passed, as has been said, by a system oi 
“ log-rolling.” It is said that if you pass these general 
laws, you will thereby “ shingle the State over with 
corporations.” A very easy and simple change will 
obviate the difficulty of which the gentleman [Mr. 
Nash] has spoken. If we would insert in the second 
section of this report, the words “by application of the 
Legislature ” after the word may in the first line, so that 
it would read, “corporations may by application to the 
Legislature, be formed under general laws,” we would 
then do away with all danger of an excess of corpora¬ 
tions in the State. Nor let it be objected that you thus 
do away with the benefits to be derived from general 
laws ; not so ; you lake away that power of exercising 
a corrupting influence over legislative action, which is 
so largely possible in passing special acts of incorpora¬ 
tion, and which has been so disgraceful and injurious 
to our State—a power by which, in the union of many 
varied interests in the legislative halls, one engaging 
to support the other, it becomes possible to carry 
through any project—to obtain any grant or privilege 
whatever. 

If you fear then that a general law under which all 
associations may hold their charter, will too largely 
tnuliiply charters and make it necessary to apply to the 
I.egislature to grant the privilege of operating under 
this general law, and thus you remove corrupting in¬ 
fluences from the Legislature, you reduce the swollen 
and hiilated volume of your annually published local 
laws, and you do away with nine-tenths of the difficul¬ 
ty pertaining to the subject. It has been said by pass¬ 
ing general laws—giving general privileges, we could 
not make sufficient restrictions—I answer that ut the 
same time we grant privileges we can make all neces¬ 
sary restrictions. A general law could be framed 
which would end)race the whole catalogue of iiistitu- 
tions, roads, and works of all kinds that have been 
named. If a certain corporation clmoses not to avail 
itself of all the privileges granted ; or if the restric¬ 
tions named in that general law do not afVect or touch 
it, it need not avail itself of those privileges on the one 


hand, or have regard to those restrictions on the other. 
I am willing to say, for I believe it, that it is the legiti¬ 
mate work and province of government to do that 
which would foster and favor corporations in their 
proper shape and form. I believe they are of vast im¬ 
portance and have been of incalculable advantage to 
die people of Ohio ; but I do think gentlemen have in¬ 
dulged their fancy a little when they have supposed 
that we were, by a general law, going to cut ott' those 
advantages. I do hold that no power to found educa¬ 
tional or charitable institutions or construct public 
works would be taken away—the wealth and ener¬ 
gies of the people of Ohio would still be banded in 
corporations under a general law just the same as un¬ 
der a special law. Just exactly in degree as capital 
increases and wealth accumulates, it invaribly and in¬ 
evitably seeks investments in corporations. We all 
know that capital is increasing in Ohio, and more and 
more seeking investment in the stocks of the various 
incorporated companies. 

We have been told that investments of this kind are 
generally unprofitable, and that we should talk of “ex¬ 
clusive burthens,” instead of “ exclusive privileges; ” 
but here again I beg leave to ditfer with the gentle¬ 
man. We are all more or less selfish; and but very 
few of us ever embark in any enterprise, from which 
we do not expect direct or indirect advantages. It is 
very common for men desiring acts of incorporation, to 
profess those acts are demanded for the public good; 
but, sir, there is that amount of selfishness m human 
nature, that we are none of us very apt to engage in a 
work for the “ public good,” unless we ourselves are 
to derive a material portion of that “ good.” It is true 
that many bridges, and turnpikes, built by a few men 
in the country, do not pay a direct percentage on their 
cost; but, mark you, they are built by men who have 
property in the vicinity, in towns or in villages, to be 
benefitted thereby. 

Mr. STANBERY. But who would make those turn¬ 
pikes, if those men did not? 

Mr. DORSEY. Precisely, sir; they are the very 
men who make them, and herein lies the assurance 
that, under general laws, they will still continue to be 
made, without granting special charters. It was pre¬ 
cisely to this point I was coming, had the gentleman 
waited but a moment. I was going to say that there 
would always be s ifficient inducement to capitalists to 
invest in schools and colleges, and roads and bridges, 
even where there were no direct returns in dollars; 
because those improvements, made as they were, by 
men, upon or near their own property, enhanced the 
market value of that property; and thus, though indi 
rectly, they find “their account” in their outlay. So 
long, then, as turnpikes and bridges improve the coun¬ 
try, and schools and colleges are objects of ornament 
and utility in our towns, inducements of this kind will 
never fail to secure these improvements. 

Mr. BARBEE. What are the grievances—what are 
the evils, that have grown up from private incorpora¬ 
tions ? 

Mr. DORSEY. This, Mr. Chairman, is what may be 
called a very comprehensive question, it would take 
long sir, to enumerate all the grievances and all the 
evils which, have arisen from special legislation. 1 
have already said, that the reason why I am opjio.sed 
to these special charters is, that their passage in¬ 
evitably tends to introduce corruption into our halls 
of legislation—that wo do find special privileges, 
which could not have been obtained under a gen¬ 
eral law, granted by special charters ; and that by “ log 
rolliu"” any project whatever, has been, and alw'ays 
can be carried through the Legislature. A great evil 
of special charters is, that in them their originators will 
insert certain jihralses, and conceal certain projects, ns 
in the case of the Granville bank incorporated under a 
eharterVor a “library company ”—though I should not 
at this time have relerred to bank charters, but for the 
su'^‘'estion of a friend, though many cases might be ad- 















CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


318 


duccd in which they have concealed in carefully word¬ 
ed clauses, certain provisions of which they can take 
advantage, yet which will too often escape the vigi- 
lence of legislators. The sum of what I wish to show 
is, that all which we have been gaining of good, from 
special acts of incorporation—by “special law,” could 
be secured under “ general law,” and that very much 
of evil in special acts, would be provided against bya 
general law 

On motion by Mr. SMITH of Warren, the commit¬ 
tees rose, reported progress, and obtained leave to sit 
again, and on his further motion, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 

MONDAY, June 10, 1850. 

Mr. SWAN presented a memorial from F. W. Murray 
of Columbus, upon the inequality and injustice of the 
exemption law. Referred to the standing committee on 
Miscellaneous Subjects and Propositions. 

Mr. COOK presented amemoriol from T. C. Heigh¬ 
ten and forty seven others, citizens of Portage county, 
praying that the new constitution may accord to all 
the members of our commonw'ealth, equal rights, polit¬ 
ical or social, without regard to sex or color. 

Also, a memorial from Thomas C. Heighten and 49 
others, citizens of Portage county, praying that the new 
constitution may secure to all its citizens, the enjoyment 
of equal rights and privileges, irrespective of complex¬ 
ion or race. 

The petitions were severally referred to the standing 
committee on Elective Franchise. 

Mr. KENNON presented a petition from R. R. Ken¬ 
nedy and forty-five others, citizens of the county of 
Belmont, praying that a provision be inserted in the 
new constitution, to be submitted to a vote of the peo¬ 
ple, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law, 
whereby the right to sell intoxicating drinks shall be 
granted to any one, or the traffic therein in any man¬ 
ner be legalized. 

Also, by the same gentleman, a petition from W. M. 
Griffith and fourteen others, citizens of the county of 
Belmont, on the same subject. 

The petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of retailing ardent spirits. 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention a com¬ 
munication from the Auditor of State. 

Mr. BENNETT moved that the communication be 
laid upon the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. STILLWELL demanded a division. 

The question turning first on laying upon the table, 
it was agreed to. 

Mr. HAWKINS suggested that 1000 copies of the 
communication be printed 

Mr. ORTON suggested the number of 900. 

Mr. LARSH suggested 1100. 

The question then being on ordering 1100 copies of 
the communication to be printed, it was agr-eed to. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to reconsider the vote on 
laying on the table and ordering printed, the report of 
the Secretary of State, presented on the 7th instant, 
w hich w'as agreed to. 

The question being on laying the report upon the 
hd)le and ordering it to be printed, 

Mr. BENNETT demanded a division. 

The question then being first on laying it on the ta¬ 
ble, it was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, 1100 copies of the 
report w'ere ordered to be printed. 

The Convention then resolved itself into a commit¬ 
tee of the whole, [Mr. Townshend in the chair, j and 
resumed the consideration of the report of the com¬ 
mittee on 

CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN BANKING. 

The question being upon the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] which 
was the addition to the section of the following; “ Ex- 
ce{)t for municipal purposes, or where the objects can¬ 
not, in the opinion of the General Assembly, be attain¬ 
ed under general laws.” 


Mr. EWART. It is admitted by those who have 
argued this question, that if the ends for which corpo¬ 
rations are established, can be secured by general laws 
as well as special, that the general laws are to be pre¬ 
ferred, but it has been contended here, that we cannot 
attain in this respect the objects desired, so well by gen¬ 
eral as by special laws. The State of New York has 
had some experience in relation to this very subject, 
under the same clause now proposed to be added to the 
section, and to which some of the gentlemen have al¬ 
luded. Although they passed a general railroad law in 
that State, yet the Legislature proceeded to pass a num¬ 
ber of special railroad charters under this discretion¬ 
ary power which w'ere only arrested by the veto of the 
Governor. We do not propose here in this State to 
give the Governor the exercise of the veto power, 
hence, there will be no way in which to arrest such 
improper special legislation. The gentleman from Gal¬ 
lia [Mr. Nash] says that under this provision, the Leg¬ 
islature would have no right to pass laws except in ca¬ 
ses where the same object could not be attained under 
the general laws. That is granted ; but suppose they 
should pass acts, the objects of which could be attain¬ 
ed by general laws. Would the courts pronounce such 
acts unconstitutional ? I apprehend not, because by the 
provision of the amendment, the discretion in this 
matter is left to the Legislature. 

Whatever provisions are inserted in the constitution 
. should be definite and exact. I believe if we adopt 
the present amendment, we shall yield the whole ques¬ 
tion, and I am unwilling to do that. If these are insu¬ 
perable objections to the kind of legislation proposed 
in the report they must be to its detail. Now the gen¬ 
tleman from Frenklin in the discussion of this subject, 
has descended somewhat into minutive and pointeci out 
some difficulties in the creation of general laws which 
could not, he thinks, be guarded against. For instance, 
he names as one difficulty, in relation to plank roads 
particularly, that they ought not to have the same privi¬ 
leges and take the same tolls in different parts of the 
State. Thus the plank road from this place to Wor¬ 
thington, should not be allowed to charge the same tolls 
as a plank road in some more sparsely settled part of 
the State. I have examined the act incorporating this 
company, which was passed in the winter of 1848-9, 
and it provides that this company may charge such 
tolls as the directors may determine, provided howev¬ 
er, that they shall not exceed in any case the rates now 
charged on the Maumee and Western Reserve road. 
There are a number of charters in the volume of local 
laws of that session of the Legislature which I hold in 
my hand and they all refer to the Maumee and West¬ 
ern Reserve road, or to the Milan and Richland plank 
road company as the standard of tolls to be taken un¬ 
der them. The Milan and Richland plank road com¬ 
pany was incorporated in 1845, and the act of incorpo- 
radon referred in regard to the question of tolls to the 
Maumee and Western Reserve road, so that all com 
panics chartered at that session of the Legislature, I 
find are authorized to take tolls not to exceed those 
authorized to be taken on one particular road to which 
they are all referred. He says also that certain roads 
where they run through countries supplied abundantly 
with timber ought to be permitted to take timber for 
their use, whereas if they run through a country more 
thickly settled, and but little timber, they ought not to 
be permitted to do so. Well, sir, it is very unfortunate 
for the gentleman’s argument that in every single in¬ 
stance when a plank road company ora turnpike com¬ 
pany or a railroad company has been incorporated in 
Ohio, this power has been granted to them and the 
question whether the country was thickly or sparsely 
settled, seems to have had nothing to do with the grant 
of this power. It is proposed, in the present constitu¬ 
tion to guard against abuses from grants in a general 
law by securing more fully to men who have timber or 
other materials taken for the public use, a proper com¬ 
pensation therefor. The gentleman will see by reter- 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 319 


ence to those acts of incorporation, that they are per¬ 
mitted to take stones and timber and any property 
which may be necessaiy for the construction ot their 
roads, under )the law passed in 1817 in relation to turn¬ 
pikes. 

Mr. STANBERY interrupted. 1 should like to ask 
the gentleman to explain what he means by a general 
law incorporating companies, whether it is meant that 
the act of incorjioration can be brought about by iiidi- 
1 viduals or whether there must always be a special act 
1 by the Legislature simply to incorporate ? 
i EWART. I mean by a general law, one under 

which any number of individuals, who choose to asso¬ 
ciate to'^ether as a corpoi’ate body, can do so without 
any further act of the Legislature. 

' Another objection has been raised to a general enact¬ 
ment that it could not cover bi'idge companies, by rea¬ 
son of the variation of tolls, according to the size of the 
stream to be bridged. I must confess, when this was 
first mentioned, it seemed to be an insuperable objec¬ 
tion. I have examined the acts incorporating difterent 
bridge-companies, and I find that they have varied in 
their provisions as to tolls. I think, however, it will 
be found, on examination, that such companies are al¬ 
ways authorized to take tolls up to those authorized 
under the ferry regulations in the same plan. 

Thus, where a man is required to pay 2 cents, a man 
and horse 5 cents, a man with one horse and a carriage 
10 cents to a ferry, they shall pay the same to a bridge 
company. The tolls of bridge companies are governed 
by the ferry rates at the same place. I wish gentle¬ 
men to show me if they can, a single instance where 
a bridge company have been permitted to vary their 
rates from those authorized by the court of common 
pleas for ferries in the same district. I ask, then, if a 
general law cannot provide for the fixing of bridge 
tolls in the same manner, viz: by the court of common 
f pleas? 

! Can gentlemen mention a case where the Legislature 
1 in passing an act of incorporation have changed the 
i tolls proposed by the company. These companies in 
i fact established the tolls themselves in their acts of in- 
j corporation. If they cannot, of what advantage is it 
! to keep this matter in the power of the.Legislature ?— 
I The gentleman from Gallia says, there is great danger 
in this matter of general incorporation—you will have 
the whole State shingled over with corporations, in 
the shape of large Hotels, like the Burnet house in 
! Cincinnati, »&ic. Now sir if there were reasons suffi- 
: cient for an act incorporating the Burnet House in Cin- 
, cinuati, I would like to have them pointed out. If those 
' reasons are good for incorporating such a Hotel in Cin¬ 
cinnati, are they not equally good for incorporating a Ho¬ 
tel in Columbus or any other place in the State? Perhaps 
it may be said that for such a Hotel as that in Cincinna¬ 
ti requiring so much capital you could not induce per¬ 
sons or a company to associate, unless by the aid of an 
act of incorporation. If however you limit in your 
j general laws such companies to a certain amount of 
' capital, the whole country would be protected from any 
I great number of such establishments, 
i It has been said that these special acts incorporating 
bridge and plank road companies, Sic., have done no 
injury, and we are asked what are the objections to 
this special legislation ? I will suggest certain of these 
plank road companies on the Reserve are exempt for¬ 
ever from taxation, but we in the south-east part of the 
State, who did not wake up as soon as our brethren, 
the Yankees on the Reserve, are taxed to the full extent. 

! This is unjust and unequal, and I do not believe in 
submitting to it. If plank roads are so desirable as 
j public improvements on the Reserve that they should 
be exempt from taxation, are they not equally desira¬ 
ble in other parts of the State, and should they not 
receive equal power? Another objection which I 
would urge is one that should have great weight. It 
] has been admitted upon all occasions in our discussions, 
in respect to legislation, that this system of granting 


charters to special corporations has introduced a com¬ 
plete system of log-rolling, and he is a skillful legisla¬ 
tor who drives the best bargain for his particular con¬ 
stituents in getting such acts passed—this political 
merchandise and source of comjietition from the law¬ 
making power 1 desire to cut ofi'. 

I'he gentleman from Franklin, in the course of his 
argument, said that if general laws should be passed 
there would be either too much power given or too 
little—that you either give too much room for special 
legislation by the company, or you cramped them in 
such a manner that they could not carry out their pur¬ 
poses. Now, this act creating the Worthington and 
Columbus Blank Road Company, was drawn up with 
great care, perhaps by the gentleman from Franklin 
[Mr. Stanbery] himself. It may be that the essential 
provisions of this act could not be appbed to other com¬ 
panies in Ohio, but I think they could. If there are 
reasons why they could not, I would like to have him 
point them out. I do say there may not be some one 
provision absolutely necessary in an act of incorpora¬ 
tion, which, from its nature, cannot form part of a gen¬ 
eral law; but if there is, I hope it will be mentioned, 
by gentlemen here who are amply competent to make 
such specification. I think it will be found in exami¬ 
nation, that every power necessary for carrying out 
the purposes for any particular company may be gran¬ 
ted in a general law, or less with perfect safety to the 
special legislation of the company. I have no particu¬ 
lar objections to the amendment proposed by the gen¬ 
tleman from Geauga. I think there were none in the 
committee in relation to it, but I cannot see why the 
same object could not be attained by the classficatioc. 
of towns and cities, as in other matters. As to all oth¬ 
er companies, I think we can have general laws appli¬ 
cable to them in every instance. 

Another argument I will notice. The Gentleman 
Lorn Gallia [Mr. Nash") thought that a general law in 
respect to corporations would act Injuriously in the es¬ 
tablishment of literary institutions, for if some benevo¬ 
lent gentleman should choose to get up a University in 
this city or elsewhere, under such a law, others might 
be incorporated in the same place, thus producing com¬ 
petition and working great injury. In the town from 
which I came, we have a prosperous College, and re¬ 
cently several benevolent gentlemen have thought it 
proper to get up another institution. But I do not think 
that our citizens feel that it is any infringement upon 
the rights of the corporation first created. I do not ap¬ 
prehend that the cause of education will be injured 
thereby. It is said we have too many colleges. That 
is very true. But the Legislature has granted in every 
instance charters where they have been applied for. ll 
an instance can be mentioned where they have been 
refused, 1 would like to have it specified. I deny that 
the Legislature ought to have any right to refuse them. 
If the interests of any class of corporations should be 
granted against encroachments from similar corpora¬ 
tions, should not such interests be guarded by a gen¬ 
eral and uniform, rule rather than be left to the fickle 
discretion of special legislation in such case. I think, as 
I said on Saturday, that generally, tins matter may bo 
safely left where the interests of all trades and occupa¬ 
tions of individuals in the community are now left, to 
the laws of competition. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. I have no disposition, Mr. 
Chairman, to prolong the debate upon this question. 
While I am in favor of discussing every proposition of 
importance fully and freely, I think we are admonished 
of the propriety of occupying as little time as possible 
in the discussion of these questions. I am desirous, 
however, before the vote is taken upon the proposition 
now before us, to submit a few remarks explanatory of 
the vote I shall give. The question is whether it is 
expedient to strike out the first section in the report of 
the committee on Corporations other than banking, 
which is in these words; “ The Legislature shall pass 

no special act conferring corporate powers. 














320 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The second proposition provides that corporations 
■may be formed under general laws, and all general 
laws passed pertaining to this section may be altered, 
amended or repealed from time to time. The object 
of the committee who made this report, if I correctly 
comprehend it, is not «o annihilate or destroy corpora¬ 
tions entirely, or to prohibit the Legislature from hereaf¬ 
ter passing general laws under which corporations may 
be established and corporatefranchises conferred. The 
cpiestion now pending is, shall the General Assembly, 
in all time to come, be wholly prohibited from passing 
any special acts of incorporation? I apprehend, Mr. 
Chairman, that the object of every gentleman here in 
reference to this question, is one and the same. Al¬ 
though we are politically divided, still the rights and 
interests of the people of the great State of Ohio are 
one and indivisible. We all have the same rights, and 
it is the duty of this Convention, as far as possible, to 
preserve and protect those rights. And upon this I 
think there can be, I know there should be, but little 
difference of opinion among us. 

I .propose, therefore, to make one or two general re¬ 
marks upon the subject. I think that there are two 
objects which this Convention should have in view—to 
which our labors, our time, and our deliberations 
should be directed. In the first place it is to form such a 
constitution as will secure and protect the rights of the 
people of ihe whole State—an instrument in which the 
powers conferred upon the different departments of the 
government shall be clearly defined and prescribed— 
and all necessary and proper limitations imposed upon 
the legislative department of the government. In do¬ 
ing this, we should carefully observe the proper medi¬ 
um, and while atthe same time that we confer by this 
constitution, no unnecessary power upon the legisla¬ 
tive department, we should confer upon <hat depart¬ 
ment all proper and necessary powers. 1 am ap[)re- 
hensive, Mr. Chairman, that if the proposition stands 
as it has been reported by the committee on Coiq.’o- 
rations, great inconvenience will result from it hereaf¬ 
ter. I think that we should consult the lessons of past 
experience, as well as the promises of future progress 
in relation to these matters. By the bill of rights un¬ 
der the present constitution it is among other things 
provided, “ that the general great and essential prin¬ 
ciples of liberty and free government may be recog¬ 
nized and forever unalterably established, we declare 
that every association of persons, when regularly 
formed within this State, and having given themselves 
a name, may on application to the Legislature be en¬ 
titled to receive letters of incorporation to enable them 
to hold estates, real and personal, for the support of 
their Schools, Acadamies, Colleges, Universities and 
other purposes.” 

Now, I think it will be admitted upon all hands, that 
the Convention that formed our present constitution 
went too far in that declaration. It has always been 
considered I thiid<, by the legislative body, that that 
provision of the bill of rights was, in its nature, almost 
imperative upon the Legislature—that whenever a com¬ 
pany or association of individuals had been regularly 
foimed for any particular object, and had given them¬ 
selves a name, and applied to the Legislature for a char¬ 
ter, it was the duty of that body to confer upon such 
company or association corporate rights and privileges. 
This is one inconvenience, Mr. Chairman, under wl.ich 
we labor under the present constitution—a case in 
which too little discretion seemed to be confeired up 
on the Legislature, and the declaration of the constitu¬ 
tion in its character mandatory. There is anotber great 
inconvenience under wbich we bad labored, re.sulling 
from the o]>po8ite extreme, where the powers of the 
Legislature were unnecessarily restricted. It was pro¬ 
vided in the article relating to the judicia' department 
that the Legislature should never have the power to 
increase the judges of the Supreme Court beyond the 
number of four. Now it is admitted, and it must be 
evident to every geullemau acquainted with the judicial 


history of the country, that had the Legislature been 
vested with the power to increase the number of jud¬ 
ges of that court as the public exigencies required, jus¬ 
tice would have been much more speedily and correct¬ 
ly administered than it has been under our existing 
system. The system was not sulficiently susceptible 
of expansion; it was too much limited and restricted, 
in ordei to carry out the great object of all free govern- 
ments—the administration of justice “ without denial 
or delay,” Ought we not, then, when we are framing 
a new organic law, a constitution intended to be per¬ 
manent, to continue, not for a day only, but for the in- 
definite future, to avoid all these extremes ? And while 
we withhold from the Legislature all unnecessary pow¬ 
ers, let us guard that department from all improper and 
unnecessary restrictions upon the exercise of its legiti¬ 
mate authority. 

Something has been said in this debate upon the 
hacknied topics of “ monopolies” and “exclusive priv¬ 
ileges.” I do not view the subject in this light at all. 
I do not consider, Mr. Chairman, that there has been 
any great inconvenience sustained by the people of 
this State from corporations of the character referred 
to in this report, or the character of the powers which 
have been confeiTed upon them in their various acts of 
incorporation. At all events, I do not understand it to 
be the intention of the committee, or the design of this 
Convention to destroy or cut off by the roots all cor¬ 
porations of this description. It is then a question of 
expediency, whether we shall prohibit the Legislature 
in all cases, from passing special acts of incorporation, 
and provide for the creation and regulation of corpora¬ 
tions exclusively by general laws, or whether, while we 
provide by general laws for the great majority of cases, 
we should not reserve to the General Assembly the 
right, in particular and extraordinary emergencies, to 
pass special acts? 

In relation to this matter, Mr. Chainnan, I consider 
that the great inconvenience which has resulted to the 
people heretofore, has been not so much from the pow¬ 
ers conferred but that we have had too muck legislation 
upon the subject of corporations. If you look at the 
volumes of the local laws for many sessions pa?t, you 
will find that the great mass of legislation has been 
confined to the granting of special acts of incorporation. 

I do not therefore object so much to the powers con¬ 
ferred upon these corporations as to the unnecessary 
expense and consumption of time in the passage of 
these acts — about nine-tenths of which remain per¬ 
fect dead letters upon your statute books—never put 
into operation, and many of them at the time of their 
passage never expected to be carried into effect. While 
therelore I approve of the general principle embraced 
in the first section of this report, I am inclined to think 
that cei tain emergencies may arise, when it may be 
proper that the power of granting special acts of in¬ 
corporation may be properly exercised; and that there 
is danger in going to the opposite extreme. We should 
ol^serve in cases ofso much impotance as this, a pro[v 
per medium, eed avoid extremes on both sides of the 
question. It has been claimed, and in my opinion, very 
properly, that in regard to some specit snf corporations, 
and the creation of which may become emiiientlyef- 
ficient, that it would beexceedingly difficult for the Leg¬ 
islature to pass a general law, \vh ch would apply ti all 
such cases. In regard to railroads for example—a branch 
of public im])rovement which has l)ecomeof great im- 
poj tance in the Slate of Ohio, it may become necessa¬ 
ry and highly expedient, that the Legislature should re¬ 
tain in thc'ir own hands, the power of determining 
where a railroad shall commence, iipon what general 
route it shall run, or wlieie it shou’d terminate. This 
cannot be done if 'yaxw whole lrgislaticnin\ic>\\ the subject 
ot corporations be confined ta general laws. There may 
he cases simihir to that referred to by t he gentleman 
from Gallia, [Mr. Nash] where it might he proper to 
extend to the Legislature the power to grant a 8[>ecud 
act of incorporation for a particular purpose, where a 










CONVENTION REPORTS 


321 


eneral law, authorizing corporate franchises of that 
escription, might be highly inexpedient. Other ca¬ 
ses have been referred to by the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin [Mr. Stanbery] —the case for example, of building 
a toll bridge over a stream in the vicinity of the city of 
Cincinnati, and that of a toll bridge in some remote 
part of the State, where such a stnicture would be 
hi'^hly necessary, but where the same rates of toll 
would be exceedingly improper. These are some of 
the inconveniences which may result from withholding 
this power; emergencies will arise, when its exercise 
will be both proper and necessary : and I shall deem it 
highly inexpedient wholly to deny the power. 

It is impossible for any member of this Convention 
to say, that there may not be cases where it would be 
eminently proper that the Le^slatiire should still re¬ 
tain the power of passing certain special acts of incor¬ 
poration—a power which, I hope, will in future be 
cautiously and sparingly exercised. I have no doubt 
that the great majority of cases may be provided for by 
General laws. I cannot, therefore, Mr. Chairman, en¬ 
tertaining the opinions which I do,, vote in favor of the 
proposition as reported by the committee. I shall 
vote in favor of striking out the first section, and in¬ 
serting a proposition similar to the one which has been 
offered by the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stan¬ 
bery.] In doing this, I express my decided approba¬ 
tion in favor of the general principle contained in the 
first section; but the proposition is unlimited—it ex¬ 
tends too far. I will go as far as any member of this 
Convention, in suppressing in future, as far as it can 
with propriety be done, this continual, interminable, 
and in a vast majority of cases, most useless species of 
legislation. I believe it to be a great desideratum. 
But I still believe that notwithstanding all the care that 
might be bestowed by a prudent Legislature, in the 
passage of a general law regulating corporations of va¬ 
rious kinds, that certain exigencies may arise, in which 
it would be proper and necessary for the legislative 
body to pass special laws, where the objects could not 
be attained as well by general laws. As I remarked 
before, in the great majority of corporations, I have no 
doubt but that they might be organized and regulated 
under the provisions of a general law: such for exam¬ 
ple as churches, academies, high schools, lyceums, lit¬ 
erary institutions, manufacturing companies, and, pos¬ 
sibly, turnpike companies and plank road companies. 
But then, again, it may be very properly anticipated 
that there might be a certain class of cases even in 
reference to some of the associations enumerated, 
where power, which might be properly conferred upon 
one association or company, by special act, should not 
be conferred on similar associations by your general 
laws. I am therefore in favor of retaining the power 
to pass special acts of incorporation. It is impossible 
to say what will be the result of things in the future. 
Gentlemen have depicted in glowing colors the future 
prosperity of the State. It is true, that an increase in 
population, and in improvements of almost every kind, 
is almost unprecedented. Do not, then, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, restrict the Legislature in the appropriate exer¬ 
cise of those powers which ought to be conferred upon 
it. I admit, as suggested by the gentleman from 
Washington, [Mr. Ewart,] that if there be inserted in 
I the constitution a provision conferring the special pow¬ 
er, but not to be exercised except in cases where, in 
the judgment of the General Assembly, the objects ol 
the corporation cannot be attained under general laws, 
that there may possibly be some danger of the excep¬ 
tion becoming the rule, and that the Legislature may, in 
too many cases, resort to special acts of legislation, 
where they might be provided for by general laws. I 
would guard against such contemplated abuse of pow¬ 
er, by stringent provisions. 

The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Franklin, [Mr Stanbery,] in these words ; “ That cor¬ 
porations other than for banking purposes, may be 
formed under general laws, and shall not be created by 

21 


special act except in cases wherein the judgment of the 
General Assembly the objects of the corporations cam 
not be attained by general laws.” Suppose we have a 
declaration of this kind in the Constitution—what 
would be its practical effect? Why sir, we must at least 
place some confidence, some reliance in the honesty, 
integrity and intelligence of the legislative bodies that 
are to succeed this Cemvention; they will be sworn to 
support the Constitution which we are framing. What 
construction then, would honest and intelligent men give 
to the proposed amendment, if incorporated into the 
Constitution ? I suppose the only sensible construction 
would be, that in no case should a special act of incor¬ 
poration be passed, unless required by imperative ne¬ 
cessity ; and unless the objects of the corporation could 
not, in the opinion of intelligent men, upon mature de¬ 
liberation, acting under oath, be attained under gener¬ 
al laws. 

I am in favor therefore, of reserving to the legisla«^ 
tive department, in any exigency that may arise, and 
which we cannot foresee, the power of passing 
special acts of incorporation; while at the same time 
I again express my decided approbation in favor of the 
general principle which is aimed at in the first section 
of this report. I am in favor of prohibiting, as far as 
possible, and as far as the safety and the exigencies of 
the State will permit, the passage of special acts of in¬ 
corporation by the Legislature. But at the same time 
I am decidedly of opinion that a total denial of the pow¬ 
er would be highly inexpedient. Not one of the thirty 
States of this Union has gone so far in this experiment 
as the first section of this report. I prefer adhering to 
settled rules, until their inexpediency is made manifest 
—when I am convinced of their inexpediency, then I 
abandon them. 

Mr. REEMELIN said his only fear was, that the re¬ 
port gave too much power to the Legislatitre. He had 
no fear that corporations would not succeed in Ohio, 
nor that there would not be always enough of them.— 
The only trouble was that they increased too fast. The 
gentleman from Franklin had said that we had hither¬ 
to endeavored to get a general law for the incorpora¬ 
tions of churches and schools in this State, but that we 
had not been able to get such a law, on account of 
“inherent difficulties,” but that “ inherent difficulty ” 
consisted only of a thorough special provision in the 
old constitution. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD (interrupting) said, the difficulty 
as he understood it, was, that the court had decided 
such a general act to be unconstitutional. 

Mr. REEMELIN continued. He was obliged to th^ 
gentleman from Monroe for the statement. The gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] seemed to have 
the impression that it was impossible to frame a gene¬ 
ral law with reference to colleges. But might not the 
Legislature, for example, take colleges as a first class 
of institutions, and lyceums as a second class of insti¬ 
tutions, and a gymnasium as a third class of institu¬ 
tions, and perhaps others, all under the same head ?— 
Might not the Legislature form a law with these four 
or five different sections applicable to the four or 
five different classes of institutions to be created un¬ 
der it ? 

The gentleman from Franklin seemed to anticipate 
some difficulty with reference to this power of repeal. 
But it was not the intention of the committee to pre¬ 
vent the Legislature from exerci.sing the power of re¬ 
peal. Might not the Legislature pass a law, declaring 
that a particular turnpike company should no longer 
exist, without affecting any other corporation, under 
' the law ? Certainly this right was clearly secured to 
the Legislature; and also, the power to provide that 
the property and credits of such an institution, shall 
not be taken away from the individual corporators. 

With reference to taxation, he considered that the 
terms of the section were perfectly clear and unambig¬ 
uous, It was simply declared that the property of all 
corporations shall be liable to taxation, so that no stock- 














322 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


holder could say that lie was not subject to taxation, 
although his stock might be exempted for the time. It 
was a proposition which would take away the right of 
any man hereafter to say that he had a vested right 
which could not be taxed. 

With reference to a general law for municipal cor¬ 
porations, he had some experience, and he knew that 
there were no insurmountable difficulties in the way of 
framing a general law of this character, and it might 
require an additional section or two, which might suit 
one or not, but all the elfect of it would be that it would 
out be acted upon. A general law for the regulation of 
most cities, should have the power to distribute and 
regulate its government by wards; some cities might 
havew harves, some have none, but a provision for 
wharfage in a city where there are no wharves would 
not be acted upon. That’s all. The law might pre¬ 
scribe the manner by which authority should be grant¬ 
ed for making loans, contracting debts ; upon the re¬ 
quisition of two-thirds, or three-fourths, or all of the 
voters, or denying it entirely. There could be no dif¬ 
ficulty in prescribing how many councilmen should 
represent one ward. He considered that the chief dif¬ 
ficulty in the mind of the gentleman from Franklin 
was included in a disposition manifested so repeatedly 
to oppose every thing proposed to be added to the old 
constitution; and that at the bottom of his heart he 
was in favor of retaining the old constitution as it is, 
especially with reference to this subject of corporations. 
But the people of Ohio were naturally jealous upon 
this subject; they were a little jealous of the power of 
associated wealth, and were therefore desirous of cir¬ 
cumscribing it in some way. They felt that privileges 
would slip into special laws upon this subject, which 
could not find their way into a general law; and there¬ 
fore they were in favor of general laws. He himself 
concurred fully in the opinion every where expressed, 
that these corporations should be all circumscribed and 
limited by general laws. He hoped, therefore that the 
amendment of the gentleman from Highland [Mr. 
Smith] would not prevail. For the whole section 
might as well be stricken out as to leave it all o pen to 
the discretion of the General Assembly. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD said: he desired to notice least 
one remark by the gentleman from Hamilton, r-elative 
to the fourth section of the report, which was in the 
following language: '‘The property of corporations 
shall forever be subject to taxation, the same as the 
property of individuals.” The gentleman has told us 
what the intention of the committee was; but now he 
affirmed that, if the gentleman’s explanation was the 
intention of the committee, the language of the section 
did not eSect that intention, and it ought to be altered. 
Now, how should we go about to construe this lan¬ 
guage 1 For himself, as a member of the General As 
sembly, sworn to support this constitution, he must 
vote, to tax, churches, schools, hospitals, and all other 
charitable institutions, and even grave yards, wherever 
he voted to tax the property of individuals. Such was 
the meaning of the section, whether the committee in¬ 
tended it or not. If they intended to leave this matter 
of taxing churches and schools to the discretion of the 
General Assembly, why not employ language whith 
would be apt to disclose the intention. He, for one, 
was not willing to bind the General Assembly in this 
way. It looked too much like a work of supereroga¬ 
tion, as he had before said with reference to another 
subject. He told gentlemen who explained the inten¬ 
tion of the committee, that, at least, the first impres¬ 
sion was against them; and that after hearing thtir ex¬ 
planations, their language still contradicted the inten¬ 
tion. Did not gentlemen see that they were liable to 
be misunderstood? That there were two construc¬ 
tions w'hich could be placed upon their report?— 
We were even now warning them of the fact; and he 
would propose an amendment, to obviate this difficulty, 
if no other gentleman would. 

Mr. NORRIS. Should every company be exempted 
from taxation. 


Mr. ARCHBOLD. Everyone. But the plain mean¬ 
ing of the section is that the property ol corporations 
should be taxed the same, according to their value, just 
as property is taxed in the hands of individuals, and 
the taxing provisions would extend to the property of 
all our eleemosynary institutions. The General Assem¬ 
bly would have no more authority to exempt such ju-op- 
erty than to exempt the property of individuals. That 
was the meaning of the section in English. 

Mr. NASH said he supposed if corporations could 
come uuder the definition of persons having families, 
they might not be exempted. 

Mr. BENNETT. It seemed to him that when we 
were about making alaw, which, as far as legislative ac¬ 
tion is concerned, shall be like the laws of the Medes and 
Persians—unalterable—we should, at least, pause and 
reflect upon what we are about to do. There was no 
doubt in his mind, but a large class of corporations 
might be and should be provided for by general law. 
But it seemed to him that it need not require a mo¬ 
ment’s reflection to bring to mind numerous instances 
showing that it was not only difficult, but the next 
thing to an impossibility, to frame such a general law. 
The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Ewart] after 
having answered some objections, as applied to a cer¬ 
tain class of corporations, had asked if there were any 
others which could be referred to as difficulties in the 
way of the operations of this law. He would answer 
that question in the affirmrtive. It would be recollect¬ 
ed that some two years ago a very liberal donation was 
made by a gentleman of this city, (a Mr. Lyne Starling,) 
for the purpose of erecting a medical college in this 
city; and a deed of trust of the property donated was 
made to individuals who were to have successors. 
The deed contained certain specialities which wore 
not applicable to any other corporate institution. And 
it became necessary, to carry into execution the object, 
that an act <>f incorporation should be passed by the 
General Assembly. Now, it might be evident that 
because the passage of the act was necesssary it was 
also nece.ssaiy that the act should comply with the spe¬ 
cialities of the donor, provided they were not incon¬ 
sistent with the constitution of the country. Of course 
such an act was passed, and a charter granted. Now, 
would it be supposed that when such a case would 
arise it would be provided for by general law ? Per¬ 
haps there might yet another Lyne Starling arise in 
Ohio, whose heart, yearning over the misirits of man¬ 
kind, might move him to make a similar deed of trust, 
conveying property for the foundation of some charita¬ 
ble institutioi, but embracing such specialities in re¬ 
gard to its management and control that it would not 
be classed with any other institution: and should we 
then have the mortification of turning to the constitu¬ 
tion of the State and reading, in the language of the 
first section of this report “ the General Assembly shall 
pass no special act conferring corpoiate powers ?” It 
seemed to his mind that it was not necessary to argue 
the question. A simple suggestion would be sufficient 
to raise a question, at least as to the policy of compell¬ 
ing men to withhold their donations for such truly oe- 
nevolent and worthy objects. 

Mr. LARSH, (doubtfully heard.) He did not know 
that he comprehended the amendment fully. In the 
fifth section of the report it was provided that the right 
of way might be granted by general laws to incorpor¬ 
ations. As a matter of course, upon an applica.ion by 
a company incorporated under a general law, the Legis¬ 
lature could not make any ditrerei.t provision in rc' :rd 
to the right of way. But now he saw a difficulty here ; 
how wastheright of way to be determined? For insanco 
there was a company organized in this State under tho 
name of the Conirul Ohio Kailroad Company, tbey h>ul 
certain privileges granted, and amongst them the right 
of way; but under the gem ral law would it not ho 
competent for any set of ndividuals to organize and 
t.ake the right of w'ay from them, or to occupy a track 
withiu a few rods of them ? This grautiug the rtght 







CONVENTION REPORTS. 


of way by general law he apprehended would lead to 
difficu-lties which would be constantly recurring. As 
he had before said, he could not see the bearing of the 
amendment, taken in connection with other parts of the 
report, and therefore he felt disposed to vote against it. 

Mr. SMITH of Highland. The object of his amend¬ 
ment to the first sei.tion was to avoid a difficulty which 
mi«^ht occur. It could not be said now what would be 
the contents of this general law; we might anticipate 
and reason upon the question how the future legisla 
tive wisdom of the State would accomplish the end we 
have in view. He imagined, at least, that this gener¬ 
al law must be somewhat indefinite in its character. 
True, it should contain general provisions and restric¬ 
tions which would be wholesome ; but a great many 
details would have to be left so that the act might 
shape itself to the exigencies of particular companies. 
The object of the amendment was, while it would re¬ 
ceive all the advantages of a general law, to preclude 
frequent applications for special incorporations; yet 
whenever companies might come up and make their 
applications, the whole question of the propriety of 
granting it should be left to the wisdom and discretion 
of the Legislature to decide—being governed and con- 
troled in that decision by the provisions of the general 
law. 

Mr. MANON said he did not know how the section 
might work; but, it seemed to him, there was a little 
injustice in regard to the taxation of church property. 
But there was one point to which he would stand. He 
would vote according to the will and wishes of his con¬ 
stituents ; and they had instructed him to go against all 
special privileges. He would merely say, in connec¬ 
tion with this subject, that if he could not get a pro¬ 
vision exactly as he wanted it, he would not kick 
against the whole. 

The question was now taken upon the amendment 
offered by Mr. Smith of Highland, and it being disa¬ 
greed to, the question recurred upon the motion of Mr. 
Horton, to strike out the first section. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren demanded a division of the 
question. 

Mr. NORRIS. Inasmuch as he had not been trouble¬ 
some, he supposed the committee would indulge him 
with some additional expression of his views; particu¬ 
larly as the report was from the committee with which 
he w’as associated. He hoped the committee would ex¬ 
cuse him for trespassing upon their time, while he 
would proceed to review some of the arguments that 
had been urged against this provision. He was glad 
to see so great unanimity prevailing in the Hall with 
regard to the expediency of striking down the power 
of the General Assembly to grant special acts of incor¬ 
poration. There seemed to be very few dissenting 
voices upon this question. It was tx'ue, that occasion¬ 
ally a voice was raised against taking away this power, 
and pleading that all the powers and privileges which 
have existed hitherto in connection with special legis¬ 
lation shall continue under the new constitution. 

The gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] seem¬ 
ed to have stepped forward as the champion of those 
who oppose all amendments. He had thought it might 
be necessary to examine some of the arguments which 
that gentleman had introduced against the report under 
consideration, that we may see whether they are of 
sufficient importance to overthrow the provision under 
consideration. 

It was a very easy thing for a man to declare his po¬ 
sition correct and well taken; but it was sometimes 
exceedingly difficult'to establish the correctness of such 
a declaration by argument. It was almost always ea¬ 
sier to make the declaration, than to make the argu¬ 
ment. Looking at some of the reasoning which the 
gentleman had introduced here, in favor of striking out 
the first section and conferring upon the General As¬ 
sembly a discretion upon the subject of granting spe¬ 
cial corporations, he found that the gentleman had dis¬ 
cussed the matter rather by way of illustration. His 


323 


effort seemed to be to show how many individual cases 
of applications for corporations could be produced for 
which it would be impossible to provide by general 
law; and amongst the rest, he referred to the amount 
of capital that would be Recessary for the purpose of 
carrying on individual corporations. But now, could 
there be any great difficulty in providing a general law 
under the provisions of which individuals might asso¬ 
ciate for particular business purposes, in which a dis¬ 
cretion might be given to the company, so that they 
might have any amount of capital they might choose— 
whether the object might be for the construction of a 
railroad from Cincinnati to Cleveland, or the construc¬ 
tion of a road not more than a hundred rods in extent? 
Would there be any danger in leaving the amount of 
capital to be controlled by the company subject to the 
legimate object of such companies? Was there any 
danger that any company would act upon the unrea¬ 
sonable supposition of the gentleman, and require a 
hundred thousand dollars for the construction of a hun¬ 
dred rods of road ? There could be no difficulty arise 
out of the exercise of this discretion on the pait of the 
capitalists, properly restrained by general legislative 
enactments. 

The gentleman urged another objection, by asking 
how the amount of the shares, as well as the number 
of shares which an individual might hold, was to be 
determined ? But, now, what in the name of reason, 
has the public to do with the question, whether a share 
of the stock shall extend to one hundred dollars, or 
only to fifty or twenty-five dollars? Could any public 
danger or difficulty result from the determination of 
this question either way ? What matter whether the 
amount of money which shall constitute a share be 
more or less? This matter would of course be govern¬ 
ed only by the wants and interests of the company. If 
they have a rich company, they might divide their 
stock into shares of five hundred dollars if they chose: 
or if they desired to bring into their company the in¬ 
terests of men of lesser capital, they might divide into 
shares of twenty-five dollars, fifty dollars, or one hun- 
j dred dollars. Could there be any danger to the public 
interest in conferring this power upon the stocK hol¬ 
ders? Were these the arguments to be brought against 
an ill digested report, and by which it was to be over¬ 
thrown ? And these, as I understand them, are the rea¬ 
sons—the most potent ones relied upon. Other gen¬ 
tlemen had objected by saying, that the Legislature 
would not provide by general law for the amount of 
tolls to be taxed upon roads and bridges. But could 
not that matter be very properly controlled by the 
courts of justice in each county respectively ? Could 
there be any danger in conferring upon the courts of 
record in the State the power to regulate the rates of 
toll, by raising or reducing the amount which shall be 
collected, as the public interest, or the interests of the 
company might require? And could not all this be 
provided for by general law ? The gentleman urges, 
although we have general laws upon your statute books 
regulating corporations of certain classes, yet no com¬ 
panies have ever organized under them without special 
charters having been first granted. Had there been no 
provision in the constitution prohibiting such legisla¬ 
tion as this, we would have had such a statute b®" 
fore now. Could any gentleman suppose it would not 
have been done ? Now^, sir, if the report under con¬ 
sideration had not been digested at all, if we had but 
simply copied its provisions from one of the recent 
State constitutions, it might have been taken for gran¬ 
ted, from this circumstance, at least, that there might 
be some little good in them, and at least would indi¬ 
cate valor equal to the present emergency, that of 
standing the test of the gentleman’s argument. And if 
this first section should not be embodied as one of the 
principles in our constitution, he should be mistaken; 
for to his mind, that fact seemed to be indicated by a large 
majority of the members on this floor. It was certain¬ 
ly a prevailing sentiment here, that all the legitimate 












324 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


objects of corporations could be secured under the pro¬ 
visions of general laws with as strict a regard for the 
public safety and the public interest as under the su¬ 
pervision of special legislation. 

But the gentleman from Ffanklin had objected again 
—telling us that we had brought in a report here with 
such a provision as would set ofT from the Legislature 
the power of repeal. Now, he entertained great re¬ 
spect for that gentleman; still he would say, that radi¬ 
cal as he was upon some subjects, yet he was entirely 
willing, according to his judgment, to risk the section 
just as it stands. And if there should ever arise any 
necessity for the repeal of a general law, under which 
men shall have associated for corporate purposes, he 
doubted not but that such a repeal might take place, 
and that none other than proper and legitimate etfects 
would flow from it. He for one, was willing to risk 
this much. He did not know what right should be ac¬ 
quired by corporations, that should not also be ac¬ 
quired by individual associations of men. 

He had been led to believe, (although gentlemen 
seemed to think that very crude notions prevailed in 
some quarters,) that all the benefits could be attained 
by associated wealth, and mutual contributions, 
without legal corporate powers, which were realized 
by corporations. He might not have a very clear idea 
what a corporation is; but really he could not see how 
it was, that associations of men, by assuming a new 
name and a fictitious character acquired by law, could 
accomplish any legitimate, or desirable, or profitable 
object, which could not be accomplished just as well 
by associations of men without a fictitious name and 
character, and acting with honesty and fidelity to all 
around them. 

He admitted that there was a disposition to do not ex¬ 
actly what was according to the principles of right and 
equity; and thus, by associating together and assum¬ 
ing a fictitious character and name, they frequently 
allowed themselves to do that which individuals would 
blush to do. He did not say this was always the ob¬ 
ject of legal corporations: he was not assuming this 
as a position: he was even willing to confer these cor¬ 
porate powers—yielding to what he believed to be the 
opinion of a majority in the State. But he apprehen¬ 
ded that the distinction, as between associations of men 
with and without corporate powers, ought to be di¬ 
minished ; and that, both acting with the same honesty 
of purpose, the same results ought to be attained. He 
was not able to understand the reason why it was, that 
A and B, corporators, incorporated by law to construct 
a titrnpike or a railroad, should be permitted to go into 
the market and borrow money, and procure hands to 
perform their labor, and be held responsible only to 
the amount of their capital—whilst another set of men, 
associated without corporate privileges, making the 
same contracts, and assuming the same liabilities, 
should be responsible to the extent of all their prop¬ 
erty. Why was it, that in one case there should be 
more responsibility than in the other ? What was the 
principle, either in politics or morals, which should 
make this distinction ? There had been a great deal 
said about impairing the obligation of contracts, and 
about the necessity of re-affirming this prohibition in 
the constitution of the United States; but did not every 
Legislature, as often as they passed a law making the 
distinctions to which he had referred, pass a law where¬ 
by the necessary obligations of contracts would be 
impaired, and even rendered null? He was unwil¬ 
ling to confer upon the Legislature any power, which, 
through the intervention of charters, might provide 
for bad faith amongst corporators, by authorizing them 
in their corporate capacity to do that which, as indi¬ 
viduals, they would blush to think of performing. He 
did not wish to set up an institution in the State of 
Ohio, by which the obligation of contracts could be 
indirectly impaired in this way; but he desired, rather, 
that all men should be required to act upon their own 
responsibilities, fulfiling all their contracts and obliga¬ 


tions. And however strict and stringent this doctrine 
might be in its application, it is based upon political 
ethics, and he was not disposed to abandon it till he 
should hear stronger reasoning than had yet been ad¬ 
vanced against it. Nevertheless, as he said before, he 
desired to make a compromise upon this subject, inas¬ 
much as he believed in the power of the Legislature 
to repeal the general law ; for this was only clothing 
the Legislature with power to take from these corpo¬ 
rators the power to do harm. It was a provision by 
which to deprive them of the franchise—the liberty to 
do wrong—and place them on a level with other men. 
If the individuals composing a corporation secure legal 
privileges above common men, by repealing their 
charter you only make them citizens again, by taking 
from them the right to act the scoundrel in the com¬ 
munity. This doctrine of vested rights, he desired to 
cut up by the roots. If corporations were to be au¬ 
thorized to abuse powers based upon the public good, 
where that ceases to operate, remedial justice should 
step in, and repeal their charter, in order that the right 
may obtain, as between man and man, and between 
corporators and men. Is it not a principle acted upon 
duly to administer aid when the consideration fails in 
part or in whole? and why should not this wholesome 
provision apply to corporations, as well as to private 
citizens ? 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll interposing, and Mr. N. giv¬ 
ing way, said; It was proposed here that the Legisla¬ 
ture should have the power to repeal or amend any law 
which they might pass. He desired to ask the gentle¬ 
man from Clermont, [Mr. Norris,] whether it was pro¬ 
posed that, if one of the corporations, which might go 
into operation under the proposed general law, should 
transcend the limits of right, and justice, and law: the 
whole law was to be repealed in consequence ? He 
desired to ask whether this principle would not involve 
the guilty and the innocent in the same indiscriminate 
ruin ? If only one corporation be a transgressor, and the 
remainder continue to act correctly, and you repeal 
the whole law, would you not blacken the character of 
the whole, and blend them all in the same ruin, indis¬ 
criminately ? 

Mr. NORRIS continued. He had been wondering 
somewhat from the question, and after receiving the 
quiet rebuke of the gentleman from Clark, which he 
administered the other day, he should not have done 
so. And he should not have gone into their views if he 
had not been himself attacked. In reply to the gentle¬ 
man from Carroll, he would say, that he did not see 
any reason for repeal, in the case supposed; and he 
would ask that gentleman in his turn, if, under the pro¬ 
posed general law, an individual corporation should 
transcend the power, and right, and privileges of its 
charter, could not the Legislature, in its wisdom, pro¬ 
vide a sufficient remedy ? There never was a wrong 
without a remedy:” that was theory, at least; but it 
might be difficult to act it out. He felt assured him¬ 
self. and could assure the gentleman from Carroll, that 
some adequate remedy would be devised in the wis¬ 
dom of the Legislature—and without any resort to 
special legislation, as you can punish a man capitally 
who had been found guilty of murder—a remedy which 
would effect the corporator in the same manner that 
it would effect every other individual in the communi¬ 
ty. Whatever may be the character of law, if its pro¬ 
visions shall be violated, a suitable system of remedial 
justice can be framed to meet any popular contingency 
involving violation. 

With respect to the discretionary power, proposed 
by the gentleman from Highland, [Mr. Smith,] to be 
conferred upon the Legislature, he would remark that 
there would always be found a I'eason, or emergency, 
sufficient to justify a legislative body in doing wha^ 
ever they might wish to do; and if it would not be 
considered improper and inappropriate, he would re¬ 
late, as illustrative of this discretionary power, a little 
incident, which occurred a few days ago within the 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


325 


range of liis personal observation 
■ ■ ’ ’ ’ ’ arerument. 


might be better than his 


The illustration 
Several individu¬ 
als^ being together, agreed that they would not taste of 
intoxicating drinks for a given time, unless some great 
event should have transpired, or should transpire, which 
might deserve to be celebrated in a glass. After some 
two or three days had passed away, they were again 
together, and getting very dry, they sat down and com¬ 
menced ruminating in their minds and inquiring of 
each other what great event had taken place, within 
the recollection of any, that might afford an occasion 
for an annivei’sary celebration—allowing them to take 
a horn upon the terms of their pledge. But they were 
unable to lix upon an event of sufficient importance to 
justify a formal celebration; and in their perplexity 
they rung the bell, and sent the boy for an Almanac to 
enable them to search further for some event which 
they could celebrate together; but still finding nothing, 
it so happened that, in their perplexity, they heard the 
mumbling of distant thunder, portending the shower 
of rain, which was greatly needed to refresh the ground, 
aud they seized upon that indication as a sufficient 
event to justify them in the gratification of their wishes; 
80 they sent for the brandy and tumblers, and their 
pledge was violated. And thus it would always be 
with the Legislature. No pledge, nor principle, nor 
anything else, would restrain them from accomplishing 
what they desire. They never would be wanting for 
a reason to justify anything which they might have the 
power to do. The spirit and intention of the consti¬ 
tution would offer no embarrassment to them in such a 
case. It was for this reason that he should oppose 
the amendment of the gentleman from Highland, and 
also the motion to sti’ike out. He was in favor of re- 
taing the section as it is; and whether it was well or 
ill digested, that was a question for the committee to 
investigate and determine. 

Mr. STANTON here indicated an amendment out 
of deference to the opinions of others—not that he 
thought there was any particular necessity for it him¬ 
self—namely: adding at the end of the section the 
following words, “ except for such municipal and char¬ 
itable purposes as in the opinion of the General Assem¬ 
bly cannot be attained by a general law.” 

He desired to say one word upon this subject. He 
was not himself aware that there was any necessity 
for the exception—nor had he any intention to oppose 
it. The gentleman from Tuscarawas fMr. Bennett,] 
had suggested a case which would be met by this 
clause; and it might be well to provide for such cases. 
He had no great confidence in his own sagacity, but he 
was satisfied that the amendment could be productive 
of serious harm, because it was applicable only to 
municipal and charitable purposes. It would be re¬ 
collected that there was no precedent found for with¬ 
holding from the General Assembly the power to grant 
charters of a special nature for municipal purposes. 
He was opposed to leaving the subject open entirely to 
the discretion of the Legislature, as proposed by the 
gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery,] but if the 
committee should think proper to adopt his amend¬ 
ment, he would be satisfied, and prefer it to the section, 
as reported by the committee. Still, he would vote 
for the section, if his modification should not be adop¬ 
ted. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga advised the gentle¬ 
man from Logan [Mr. Stanton,] to withdraw his amend¬ 
ment,—thinking it would be as well to take the vote 
directly upon striking out the section as it now stands. 
He did not suppose the section would be stricken out. 
He should, himself, of course vote against striking out. 
He believed that the section would be retained, and 
not only so, but he hoped that those who seemed to be 
opposed to the whole system, would yet come forward 
and aid in perfecting it. If the section should be re¬ 
tained by the committee, the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Logan could be applied afterwards, and, as 
he thought, with a better chance of bping considered 


well, than if the vote were taken upon it now. He ap¬ 
prehended that, after reflection, members upon all side® 
would become satisfied with the system reported, and 
that it would receive amendments which would make 
it acceptable to the greater portion. But now, since, 
debate had intervened, bearing directly upon the most 
important issues, until the committee should decide the 
question upon striking out, it would be impossible to 
make any considerate amendment. He suggested this 
as a matter of policy, that those who were in favor of 
having all acts of incorporation of a general nature, 
should cease attempting to make any lurther amend¬ 
ments to it; he might be wrong in this; but he did 
believe that it would be beneficial to the State to have 
a change in our system substantially like that he had 
proposed. He apprehended that the system would be 
adopted with some modifications; and he hoped that its 
friends would be willing to make them. 

He was sorry to hear from the gentleman froni Cler¬ 
mont [Mr. Norris] that he is in favor of “cutting up 
all vested rights by the roots.’’ He had not supposed 
that any considerable portion of the people of the State 
were in favor of any such thmg, though he knew the 
declaration had been made by some. What did the 
gentleman mean by vested rights ? Was not the right 
to property in land a vested right ? Had not the Sftt* 
tleman himself any vested rights of this class, which 
he would not desire to have taken away from him by 
law or “ cut up by the roots ?” He supposed that hien 
had vested rights in all their business as well as vested 
rights in their franchises, but every vested right was 
not a franchise. If the gentleman were disposed to 
cut down all franchises and vested rights by the same 
blow, he apprehended but few could be found willing 
to go with him. 

Mr. NORRIS said: He did not wish to be under¬ 
stood in the light in which the gentleman had taken his 
remarks. He understood vested rights to refer to me 
legal and exclusive rights of corporations, and he be¬ 
lieved it was generally so understood. ' 

Mr. STANTON said he was willing to withdraw 
his amendment if it were thought advisable to do so, 
and it was withdrawn accordingly. 

Mr. HORTON said he also proposed, by leave ot the 
committee, to withdraw his motion to strike out. But 
before doing so he wished to say, very briefly, that he 
believed in the policy of having all charters enacted 
by general laws. That had been his feeling from the 
beginning. He had made the motion to strike out in 
order to induce discussion, and if aiiy supposed hiin to 
have had any hostile motive in making the motion they 
were mistaken. He believed, however, that it w^s 
the part of prudence to leave a little discretion in the 
hands of the Legislature, and he hoped the committee 
would take that course. He hoped the section would 
be modified in such a way that the Legislature might 
exercise some judgment and discretion in the matter o 
granting charters and acts of special incorporation tor 
all special cases and emergencies which 

Mr. H. now asked and obtained leave to withdraw 
his motion to strike out the first section. i ^ .at- 
Mr. STANBERY now proposed to amend the lusi 

section by adding the woi'ds: 

“Provided that the Legislature shall pass no speml act com 

ferring corporate privileges except for than 

where, in their judgment, the objects can be better attained man 

under a general law.” . 

This amendment was rejected—affirmative 30, nega- 

‘"'no other amendmeut being offered to the first aec- 

tion it was passed over. . _ 

The CHAIRMAN now announced the consideration 

of the second section which was read as follows: 

“ Cornorations may be formed under general Jfws, but^l gem 
,V P „oarHr.ttrfiiiant to this section, maybe altered from 
eral r^nealed: Provided, On such repeal, the prop- 

tune to j acquired by any corporation shall vest m 

'll^oraSs, subject il the^isbiUty of the cor- 

poration. 












326 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. RANNEY proposed to amend by inserting in 
the second line, after the word “section,” the words 
“ and the franchises of any corporation created under 
this law.” 

The CHAIRMAN having stated the question— 

Mr. RANNEY said it was apparent from what had 
been suggested in this debate, that there was a contro¬ 
versy as to whether or not the section as it now stood 
would enable the Legislature, in case 6f the abuse of 
corporate franchises under a general law, in their dis¬ 
cretion, either to I’epeal the whole law, or only to deprive 
the particular company otFending of their corporate 
franchises, without ali'ecting the general law. He 
could very well understand how cases might arise in 
which a general incorporation law might operate very 
well generally ; and still some particular corporations, 
in particular localities, might be exercising their fran¬ 
chises very much to the px-ejudice of the public inter¬ 
est ; and it was his wish to give the Legislature full 
power to deprive such companies of their coi'porate 
powers. He entertained no doubts, at all, of the pow¬ 
er of the Legislature to repeal any act of incoi-pora- 
tion, whether special or general; and he did not intro¬ 
duce this amendment as being legally necessary to 
confer that power; still the provisions wei*e well 
enough insei’ted, because of the known dilFerence of 
opinion upon this subject, and the fact that there was 
no little judicial authority in favor of the inviolability 
of these corporate acts. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said he would suggest to 
the gentleman oflei’ing this amendment, whether it 
might not be better to point out the true evil complain¬ 
ed of, and leave no ground for the abuse of the amend¬ 
ment on account of the ambiguity of its terms. If he 
understood the reading of the amendment it was this: 
That not only the general law, but the franchises graat- 
ed and exercised by any particular corporation under 
such a general law, might be altered, amended or re¬ 
pealed. Now here was the difficulty; all that any 
company would have to do, in oi*der to obtain any 
amendment of the general law in their behalf, would 
be to violate some provision of the general law; and 
then the Legislatui’e would have full power to alter or 
amend their franchises—so opening a door for the Leg- 
islatui’e to grant them any special privileges. It look¬ 
ed as though there was danger here. He thought 
howevei', the objection of the gentleman might be ef¬ 
fected by a slight modification. 

Mr. RANNEY said : as the gentleman from Medina 
was evidently driving at the same thing, he would ac¬ 
cept of any modification which would enable the com? 
mittee to arrive at the object which he aimed at. He 
certainly did not intend to confer any power to increase 
the privileges of any corporation. 

Mr. STANTON Siiid: it was the intention of the 
committee reporting, that all the corporations in the 
State should be subject to the same general regulations; 
but it was not intended by the committee that the Le¬ 
gislature should have the power to go into any judicial 
investigation of any particular corpoi-ation which might 
exist under the general law. It was intended that 
there should be but one general law authorizing cor¬ 
porations of a particular description, and that penalties 
for the violation of any charter under it, should be pre¬ 
scribed in that law; and then, that for all violations of 
their charter, the corporation, just as an individual, 
should be subject to a judicial investigation of its affaii's 
and to the penalty of the law. 

Mr. EWART said: he hoped the gentleman from 
Trumbull would withdraw his amendment; for if any 
company, acting under this general law, should trans¬ 
cend their powers or violate their charter in any man¬ 
ner, they would be fully amenable to the courts of jus¬ 
tice. 

Mr. RANNEY now pi’oposed to modify his amend¬ 
ment so as to insert in the second section, after the word 
“ repealed,” in the second line, the following words: 
“and the franchises of any corporation, acting under 


such general laws, may at any time be revoked or re¬ 
pealed.” 

Mr. PERKINS said: if he understood the amend¬ 
ment of his colleague, the gentleman from Ti’umbull, 
it was, that the Legislature shall at anytime have pow¬ 
er to I’evoke the franchise of any single corporation 
erected under genei’al law, without changing the law 
itself or altei'ing in any manner the franchises of other 
companies operating under the same law; and this too 
without charging that the corporation thus attacked 
shall have failed in any of its duties, or assumed any 
powers not granted to similar coi’porations and exerci¬ 
sed by them in other portions of the State. 

Mr. RANNEY. The gentleman was correct. That 
matter was left to the good faith of the Legislature. 

Mr. PERKINS. If that were the case then he 
begged leave to say he had hitherto voted with the 
committee and the friends of the I’eport, and as he in¬ 
tended still to vote with them if the principles of the 
report could be preserved—that ifthis amendment was 
to be adopted, his part and lot in the matter should 
cease. He had voted for the report and the view which 
had been taken by the committee, believing that the on¬ 
ly mode in which justice in this matter could be secu¬ 
red, would be the enactment, by the Legislature, of 
genei’al laws, operating upon all pei’sons and in all cases 
alike. If, however*, the Legislature was to have the 
power to single out a particular corporatioir under the 
influerrce of local jealousy or persorral partiality, with¬ 
out any charge or suspiciorr of iniquity orr the part of 
the corporation, if they could interfere with one body 
irnder a law of this nature, though exercising the same 
functions, moving in the same lirre, arrd etrjoying only 
the same privileges and powers as any other body of a 
similar nature, whatever enmity, however causeless, 
or the dictation of powerful rivals might suggest such 
interference, we should be still exposed to all the evils 
of special legislation which we were attemptiirgto es¬ 
cape, and exposed to them in their worst and most odi¬ 
ous form. He agreed with the gentleman from Logan 
[Mr. Stanton] that the power of investigating the af¬ 
fairs of corporations should be vested, not irr the Leg¬ 
islature, but in the courts; and that the power of the 
Legislature shorrld terminate with prescribing the law 
which shorrld govern their decisions. It was very plain 
that the powers and frarrchises which might be granted 
to a corporation, would be either beneficial or injurious. 
If beneficial, it was proper that all citizens should be 
permitted to exercise them alike—if injurious, they 
should be withdrawir from all alike. No rreighborhood 
tyranny, rro local jealousy or petty ostracism should 
be permitted. 

As to any encroachment on the part of a corpora¬ 
tion, arry departure from its prescribed limits, duties 
and powers, he supposed the courts would possess full 
jurisdiction of the case, and could declare the franchi¬ 
ses of any such offending corporatiorr void. If the 
courts did irot already possess all necessary power in 
the premises, they undoubtedly should be invested 
with it in the constitutiorr. 

Mr. NASH (irrterposing) said: If they violate their 
charter, the Legislature had already provided the right 
to interfere. The writ of was the proper 

remedy. 

Mr. PERKINS continulrrg. With reference to this 
question, he professed to have but little knowledge, 
comparatively, of the practice of the courts, and he 
felt that he reqirired inlormatioxr in order to etrable him 
to act judiciously. Birt he had always supposed ex¬ 
actly what the gentleman from Gallia had just sug¬ 
gested, that the corrrts could act whenever the irecessi- 
ty of the case required it. If rrot, they might easily be 
invested with it, so that they should have full author* 
ity in all cases to inquire into the mode in which cor¬ 
porations have transacted their brrsitress, and in the 
event of any dereliction on their part, to declare their 
franchises void. 

Mr. RANNEY said: He had not supposed that hia 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 327 


amendment would be liable to objection from any quar¬ 
ter. But he would suggest that the section, as it now 
stoud, really conferred upon the Legislature no practi¬ 
cable light of repeal; and the question was, sincerely, 
whether the committee were willing to give up the 
right of legislative repeal in the case. He was willing 
to stand upon the principle that the exercise of all cor¬ 
porate franchise, in this country, ought to rest upon the 
good faith of the legislative bodv; that they should at 
all limes determine for themselves whether the exer¬ 
cise of this power has been for the public advantage or 
otherwise. The original section also affirmed this doc¬ 
trine—but where w'as the remedy? Under the old 
special charter, there was the judicial remedy which 
had always existed; and for the violation of law by in¬ 
corporations in this State, we had a special law by 
which their acts may be inquired into, upon a writ of 
quo warranto. But these provisions were perfectly nu¬ 
gatory iu the great mass of cases. For this reason he 
contended that the Legislature ought to have the pow¬ 
er, and he had not expected to hear any now declare 
that he was unwilling to trust this power in the hands 
of the Legislature; and being there it might operate 
as a wholesome restraint, in some cases, to dissuade 
capitalists from embarking in enterprises which ought 
not to be encouraged, seeing that they would have no 
right to their corporate powers any longer than the 
sovereign power might allow them to enjoy it. This 
was the view which he took of the case. The original 
Section gave to the Legislature the power to repeal the 
general law, while the amendment gave them the 
power to repeal andrevoke the h-anchises of particular 
Corporations. 

Mr. STANTON. I hope the report, with the section 
as it now stands, will be adopted. 

It vested in the Legislature the power to take away 
the franchises gianted to corporations, when their ex- 
eicise may be detrimental to the public welfare. 

Bui the amendment proposes to give power to the 
General Assembly to inquire into the violation of the 
franchises that may be granted by a general law to any 
corporation that maybe organized under it, and declare 
it forfeited for such violation. But this is unnecessary. 
Your courts have that power now. The complaint is 
not so much that there is no remedy for the violation 
of corporate franchises, but that there is no power to 
take away franchises which have been improvidently 
granted, and the exercise of w'hich is inconsistent with 
the public welfare. A genera] law authorizing the 
creation of corporations should prescribe penaliies for 
the violation of the law. And whenever a violation 
shall occur, you shall treat them as you would natural 
persons—prosecute and punish them for such viola¬ 
tion according to law. 

But if this power is conferred upon the Legislature, 
it will be exceedingly liable to abuse, from motives of 
passion, prejudice and interest. 

If the powers granted are too large, they should not 
be exercised by any corporation organized under it, 
but the law should be amended or repealed, and the 
amendment or repeal should operate on all alike.— 
That power is now contained in the section as it 
stands. I cannot go beyond that, and grant a special 
power to destroy, when there is none to create.— 
If this amendment is adopted I shall hold myself ab¬ 
solved from all obligation to support any part of the 
report. 

Mr. PERKINS. I offer the following amendment: 
^‘And such alteration or repeal shall control the fran¬ 
chises of all corporations existing under such law pre¬ 
vious to such alteration or repeal.” 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I cannot help making a remark 
or two upon this subject. As we are here to make a 
Constitution for the people of the State of Ohio, an ef¬ 
fort should be made to place those who possess the ad¬ 
vantages of corporations upon the same footing as oth¬ 
er citizens. But it is proposed to shield corporations 
from legislative control. Shall it be said that the legis¬ 


lative control whichreaches my property and my rights 
as a citizen, should not be extended to the rights and 
property of those who are incorporated? Why, sir, 
the enunciation of that idea is revolting to the senti¬ 
ments of the people, and adverse to the theory of 
our Government, which presumes all citizens and 
their property to be equally under the control of legis¬ 
lation. 

Mr. NASH. I would like to ask the gentleman one 
question. What control would the Legislature have 
over your property ? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. The Legislature has control 
over my property in the matter of taxation—iu the 
change and application of remedial laws ; and in taking 
private property for public use. I would insist that 
corporations should iu all cases be placed upon the 
same footing as private individuals. A corporation 
comes to the Legislature and asks for some advantages 
—for special privileges—to which I am opposed, but if 
such privileges are to be granted at all, they should be 
enjoyed no longer than will be beneficial to the public. 
As soon as the exercise of such special privileges be¬ 
comes injurious to the State it is manifestly just that 
they ought to be revoked Suppose that the power of 
combination reaches your legislative halls, to secure an 
act of incorporation, may not monstrous and danger¬ 
ous powers be granted, and will you not reserve the 
right of repeal? We are about to provide in the con¬ 
stitution that incorporated companies shall hereafter 
be created under general laws. Do you suppose, sir, 
that under such a general law system of incorpora¬ 
tions, the special interests of the State will no longer 
reach your legislative halls? Let the chartered inter¬ 
ests of the State combine together to influence the pas¬ 
sage of a general law effecting all these associations, 
and you will witness a power more to be feared, moi e 
to be dreaded;- than has ever been enlisted, to influence 
the granting of a single charter. And will not such 
combinations be formed to influence legislation. Do 
we not then need greater safeguards to secure the peo¬ 
ple against the combined influence of corporations cre¬ 
ated by a general law, than under the old special char¬ 
ter system ? I think we do, and this should be looked 
to in time. 

Do you suppose that this immense power of special 
privileges, which has been fostered by our State Leg¬ 
islatures, will cease to act, or have less rigor and force 
under a general law ? We must not entertain that idea 
for a moment, for if we do, we will be greatly deceiv¬ 
ed. If you wish to preserve the rights of the people 
of Ohio, and save them from the aggressions of corpo¬ 
rate interests, you must provide in the constitution that 
the Legislature shall have power at any time to annul 
the franchises of any corporation. 

In making this constitution, we are not to regard 
special interests only, but the interests of the whole 
people. The gentleman who last addressed the com¬ 
mittee, [Mr. Stanton,] remarked, that it was the doc¬ 
trine of that side of the chamber, that although the 
public good may suffer by the acts of any incorporated 
body, the public has no remedy—its charter cannot be 
repealed. I am opposed to this doctrine; it is mon¬ 
strous. All classes of citizens should be placed upon 
the same footing, to be governed by the same princi¬ 
ples. There is no warrant for the course pursued, by 
some gentlemen here to shield incorporations from leg¬ 
islative control, unless they wish to build up corporate 
interests in the State, which are adverse to the liber¬ 
ties, and dangerous to the welfare of the people. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I desire to call the attention ot the 
committee to our previous action. While the report of 
the committee on the Legislative Depaitment was un¬ 
der consideration, the 35th section w'as amended so as 
to read, “the General Assembly shall have no power 
to pass retroactive laws or laws impairing the obliga¬ 
tions of contracts ; provided that the General Assembly 
in session shall have power to amend or revoke any 
charter of incorporation granted by any precedmg 














328 ' CONVENTION REPORTS. 


General Assembly.” If I understand the amendment 
of the gentleman from Trumbull, it repeals the latter 
provision. Even if a general law was passed, and cor¬ 
porations came into existence under its terms, they 
would be no less “ granted ”—indirectly, indeed, but 
equally the creation of the Legislature. I hope that 
the constitution will assert a full contro lover incorpo¬ 
rations, making the direct issue proposed, although I 
do not think the declaration essential to effect such a 
result. 

Mr. Chairman, I could wish that this Convention 
would adopt the principle that the General Assembly 
should have no power of legislation, except in pursu¬ 
ance of ap express warrant in the constitution—that 
unless enumerated there should be a limitation and 
denial of power. I can see no reason, as I have al¬ 
ready urged, why that familiar principle should not 
be applied in Columbus as well as in Washington. 
But I apprehend that the old tale of interpretation will 
be retained, that our State government has an uncon¬ 
trolled discretion, except when expressly restrained 
by the bill of rights or constitutional prohibition—just 
the reverse of my favorite theory. If so, how does that 
principle bear upon the present proposition. The first 
section of this report has been adopted, and is a re¬ 
striction—“ the Legislature shall pass no act conferring 
corporate powers.” But in my opinion thei’e is noth¬ 
ing to prevent the Legislature from passing a special 
act to restrain their exercise, if the public welfare re¬ 
quires it. On the current theory of legislative omnipo¬ 
tence, such an act can be passed, as can almost any 
other, unless expressly forbidden. I believe that no 
such prohibition can be shown—certainly this report 
does not contain it. 

It must be admitted that such an intervention by 
the Legislature is wholly aside from the question 
whether the corporation has pursued *the general law 
of its creation, or has kept on the line of the law. If 
otherwise, there would be a judicial remedy. The 
passage of a special law, revoking or restraining the 
existence of an individual corporation, is another and 
different proceeding. It rests on public policy—is for 
the public welfare, under a grave and controlling ne¬ 
cessity. It is of the same nature with the retrospective 
or curative laws, disturbing the rights of individuals, 
which have been advocated here. For one, I do not 
seek to soften or palliate its character. If a corpora¬ 
tion like Trinity Church, for instance, acting under the 
provision of a general law, should obtain such a dis¬ 
proportionate influence that the public interests de¬ 
manded its restraint, then a special law might be 
adopted to meet the grievance. As I deem tins posi¬ 
tion an irresistible sequel to our political theory, I 
have no objection to the provisions now proposed. 
Extraordinary cases would arise but seldem, calliu" 
upon the General Assembly to apply the restraining 
j)ower. It would only be exercised to remove a pub'^ 
Tic inconvenience—a case so extreme as to justify an 
extreme remedy. 

The committee then rose and reported that they had 
made no conclusion, and asked leave to sit again. 

Mr. VANCE of Champaign, from the standing com¬ 
mittee on Public Institutions of the State, submitted 
the following report: 


The committee ou Public institutions of the 8tate have had the 
subject under consideration, and submit the following report • 
First. The institutions for the benefit of those cfasees of the 
inhabitants of the State who are deprived of reason, or any of 
the senses, shall always be fostered and supported by the State 
and be regulated by law, so as to be open to all classes alike sub¬ 
ject only to reasonable restrictions. ’ 

Second. The directors of the penitentiary and the trustees of 
the benevolent institutions, now elected by the General Assembly 
of the State, with such others as may be hereafter created by 
subsequent legislative enactment, shall, under this constitution 
be appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and con' 
sent of the Senate. JOSEPH VANCE 

JAMES B. KING,’ 
THOMAS A. W'^AY 
JAMES STRUBLe’ 
JOHN GRAHAM 


Upon motion of the same gentleman, the report was 
laid on the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. MORRIS then moved that the Convention take 
a recess, which was agreed to. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee of the whole, (Mr. 
Townshend in the chair,) on report No. 1, of the 
committee on 

CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN CORPORATIONS FOR BANKING. 

The consideration of the second section was then 
resumed. 

Mr. MASON did not rise to offer any amendment, 
but merely for the purpose of calling the attention of 
the chairman of the standing committee to the language 
eniiiloyed in the third and fourth lines of this section. 
By the operation of this section, real estate conveyed 
to corporations on condition to be used, for example, 
for depot purposes, or for the erection of buildings, 
would go to the corporators instead of reverting to the 
donors, in case their charter should be repealed. Real 
estate, more or less valuable, had been conveyed to the 
Mad River & Lake Erie, and to the Little Miami Rail¬ 
road companies, not only in the town in which he re¬ 
sided, but at different points on the line of these roads. 
The provision to which he objected, read in these 
words: 

“ On such repeal, the property or credits legally acquired by 
any corporation shall vest in the individual corporators, subject 
to the liability of the corporation.” 

Now property conveyed to a corporation on certain 
conditions, expressed or implied, ought not, in case of 
the dissolution of the corporation, to go to the individ¬ 
ual corporators, but to the donors. This section how¬ 
ever declared that all property legally acquired, should 
vest absolutely in the individual corporators. It might 
be that such was not the intention of the committee. 
He supposed, however, that a running commentary 
was no part of the text, and that when we were con¬ 
structing a written instrument we were to be guided 
by the language employed in that instrument. The 
intentions of the law-maker were of no avail at all un¬ 
less expressed in language adapted to convey the mean¬ 
ing intended, and without the aid of cotemporaiieous_ 
verbal explanations of what was to be the sense of the 
instmment. It was no answer to an unanswerable ar¬ 
gument against this provision to stand up here and say 
that ‘rit was not the intention of the committee.” That 
was a reply that had been frequently made in this body 
already, and it seemed to be a sort of clencher when¬ 
ever it was made. But when we object to the sense 
of the instrument, interpreted according to its language, 
we were told—“ you are too critical—you should have 
been a member of the committee in order to assist us 
in giving a better wording to the report.” If gentle¬ 
men were satisfied with that reply, he was too. He 
could live under this constitution as long as any, so far 
as the constitution was concerned. It would not hurt 
him. He might be interested in the question as one 
who had been concerned in conveying some valuable 
real estate to certain corporations. 

He was unwilling to make any motion, for he thought 
he saw a geographical line running, to-day, through the 
centre of the chamber, when the vote was taken on 
another question, and he consequently did not desire to 
have another drawn. 

Mr. STANTON said he had no desire to be trouble¬ 
some to the committee, he only desired to say that 
whatever this provision meant, or whatever might be 
its effects, he alone was responsible. The gentlemen 
from Clai’k and Franklin [Messrs. Mason and Stan* 
BERY,] seemed to speak of the work of this commit¬ 
tee, and of the members, in somewhat of a magisterial 
tone, and supposed that they ought to be lectured oc¬ 
casionally. He did not know how far indulging in 
that sort of feeling was consistent with a proper sense 
of propriety and courtesy. It was a matter of taste 


i 


I 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


329 


‘ which gentlemen must decide for themselves. He 
would submit to this committee what he understood to 
be (not what was or had been the intention of the 
standing committee,) the meaning of the terms em¬ 
ployed. He had never supposed, himself, that this 
section could transfer to individual corporations any 
rights, legal or equitable, that were not vested in the 
coiq)oration. If the corporation had vested in them a 
defeasible estate, it never certainly entered his mind 
that by the terms here employed, that title, whatever 
it might be, could transfer to the individual corpora¬ 
tors an indefeasible estate. If the gentleman had 
transferred to a corporation, real estate that was to re¬ 
vert on the happening of a certain contingency, he ap¬ 
prehended that if the charter was repealed and the 
coi-porate rights transferred, they were transferred in 
the same condition that they were granted to them. 
And if they did not transact the business in the same 
manner that a corporation should, the pi’operty re¬ 
verted ; that was what he understood the language to 
mean. He did not understand at all (and this subject 
had been adverted to by others,) that it was the cor¬ 
porate charter of a railroad company or a turnpike and 
a plank road company, that gave them the right to use 
and occupy this road in the manner in which they were 
authorized by their charter. It was not because they 
were a corporation that they did it, or that they held 
it in the manner in which they did, but they held it 
in consequence of the public use to which the proper¬ 
ty was to be applied. You take the right of way and 
apply it to the use of a corporation. Why ? Because 
the use was public. Property was conveyd to corpo¬ 
rations—not because they were corporations, but be¬ 
cause the use would be public and beneficial to the 
grantor. It never seemed to him that depriving the 
corporation of their corporate character, should deprive 
the individual corporators from using the property in 
the same public manner in which it was used by the 
corporation. They still, as partners, applied it to pub¬ 
lic use. If the gentleman argued that they could still 
use it, but not for the purpose for which the corpora¬ 
tion used it, he [Mr. S.,] said no. If the property 
was not used for purposes other than those for which 
the corporation used it, the repeal did not take away 
the right of use; if it was used otherwise, the property 
would then certainly revert to the owners. 

Mr. MASON did not anticipate when he made the 
■ inquiry which he had made, to have here been met in 
the spirit which gentlemen had indulged towards him. 
The gentleman from Clermont said “he thought it bet¬ 
ter to put some provision into the constitution to pro¬ 
tect the rights of the gentleman from Clark.” We 
should be engaged here in a more solemn business than 
flouting and mocking at one another: that was his de¬ 
cided opinion, and when a member of this body believ¬ 
ed it to be his solemn public duty in view of all the re¬ 
sponsibility under which he acted in the Convention— 
not for his own interests or for his immediate constitu¬ 
ents, but for the peojde of Qhio and posterity, to sug¬ 
gest that there was a defect in the meaning of a pro¬ 
vision intended to become a part of the organic law, 
the committee had no right to interpret the objection 
taken, into an attack upon their motives, character or 
ability. It was said that the report was the result of a 
compromise among the members of the committee, 
and must not be altered, he supposed, for that reason ; 
and further, the chairman of the committee stated that 
the language of the report was well understood, and 
conveyed the sense and meaning of that committee. 
What he said in reply to that was, that the language of 
the reported provision under consideration did not car¬ 
ry the sense which the committee have ascribed to it. 
He said it was a common law principle, and would so 
remain, unless altered by legislative or constitutional 
law, that upon the dissolution of a corporation the cor¬ 
porate property, consisting of the realty which had been 
given to it, with or without conditions, went back to 
the donors. Now, the provision here was that all prop¬ 


erty legally acquired should vest in the corporators, 
subject to the liability of the corporation. He had re¬ 
marked when up before, that property granted to a 
corporation, in aid of the objects of its creation, was le¬ 
gally acquired, subject to the conditions specified in 
the grant. 

The gentleman from Logan [Mr. Stanton] then re¬ 
plied, tnat property, notwithstanding this provision 
would have the same distinction upon the dissolution 
of the corporators, that it would have if this provision 
were not engrafted into the constitution. Then he 
would say that he understood no such thing, nor could 
he agree that such was the law. What then was the 
sense and meaning of the language employed ? It most 
certainly declared in explicit terms, that all property 
legally acquired should vest in the individual corpora¬ 
tors. Now the gentleman from Logan said that it 
would not vest in the corporators. Why ? Because 
gentlemen living in Clark had made a donation, and 
perhaps it might be right that they should get the pro¬ 
perty back again, if the company should be broken up. 
That was the reply made to an objection, that was not 
only seriously taken, but unanswerable by any logical 
argument. If the constitution were to be made in 
that spirit, it would be (he was afraid,) an instrument 
unworthy of the acceptance of the intelligence of the 
State of Ohio. Their business was to guard the rights 
of all persons, no matter who they mignt be, or what 
their names. And when gentlemen told him that the 
property of corporations would receive the same des¬ 
tination under this provision, that it would receive 
without it, then it is because it would be repugnant to 
that provision in the constitution of the United States, 
which prohibits the States from passing any law im¬ 
pairing the obligation of contracts. Who ever heard 
before, that a solemn constitutional provision meant 
nothing ? 

He declined to make any amendment. Why ? Be¬ 
cause it was said to be the “ product of a compromise, 
and the provision carried out the intent and purpose of 
the committee.” Well, then, if itdid carry out the pur¬ 
pose of the committee, it must be so, for he would of¬ 
fer no amendment. He had indicated what he con¬ 
sidered to be a defect, and an injurious one in this re¬ 
port ; but if the committee are satisfied, they could not 
be more satisfied than he was. 

The question here was not one of personal feeling 
or courtesy; it was entirely too grave to be consider¬ 
ed in that light. He was not willing to put his hand 
to this novelty and innovation; and he should be excu¬ 
sed by gentlemen when he said he did not understand 
the meaning of the provision pi'oposed here. And when 
he was called upon to adopt a provision that was new, 
and when he indicated his apprehensions of it, the 
Chairman thought he had fulfilled his duty when he 
said, “ I will allay your anxieties and soothe your feel¬ 
ings—I will introduce a clause into the constitution that 
will protect your rights and interests.” He considered 
that no gentleman had a right to treat an objection 
which he could not answer with any such spirit of lev¬ 
ity. It had no influence on him, and should not on any 
man who had a proper conception of what was due to 
the interests of the people of Ohio. 

He considered that every report was open to amend¬ 
ment, and no gentleman should take offence at his re¬ 
port being questioned and closely examined. 

Mr. REEMELIN considered that there was some 
force in the remarks of the gentleman who last spoke. 
His remarks drew to his mind the charter of a corpo¬ 
ration in Cincinnati called the “ Benevolent Society,’ 
which provided that if the society should dissolve, its 
funds were to remain on deposit with the treasurer for 
ten years—if a similar society were organized in the 
mean time the funds were to be handed over to itj but 
in no case were they to go back to the original mem¬ 
bers to be divided between them. For the purpose of 
obviating the difficulty, suggested, he bad prepared, 
with great diffidence, the following, to come in after 












330 __ CON VENTION REPORTS. 


the word " corporation.” in the 4lh line: “And sub¬ 
ject to its disposal.” 

Mr. NASH said that as he understood the explanation 
of the gentleman from Logan of the rei)ealiiig section, 
it presented rather a novelty in the line of progress.— 
The meaning then seems to be this: that when the char¬ 
ter of a corporation was repealed, the title to all their 
property, real and personal, became vested in the stock¬ 
holders as partners. That, he understood to be the 
effect of this provision. For instance; if twenty men 
join in a manufacturing corporation, and hold the stock 
in certain proportion, on the repeal of their charter be¬ 
ing obtained from the Legislature, they could carry on 
their business, just as if they never had been incorpora¬ 
ted. Here, too, for instance, was a railroad that had 
been conducting its business in an improper manner; 
an application was made to the Legislature to stop its 
improper practices; the Legislature, indignant at what 
it supposed to be a violation of the rights of the com¬ 
munity, repeal that charter. Did they put an end to 
the business? Did they stop the road? Did they kill 
the snake ? Not at all; they only converted the stock¬ 
holders into a partnership, empowered to carry on the 
same business as was carried on under the corporation. 
Having by means of the charter acquired the right of 
way, the partners now could prosecute their business 
at pleasure. Hence this was truly a great matter to be 
disputing about—whether a railroad should be carried 
on under a charter or under a partnership. The rail¬ 
road would take good care to get its land condemned, 
its roads constructed, and its stock taken under its char¬ 
ter and then came in the repeal to say to them “now 
you have got all that you can get as a corporation, and 
you might henceforth go on as partners—appoint your 
own agents, and carry on your business just as you 
please; and then since the State had repealed your 
charter, the State would have no further right to inter¬ 
fere with your business you can go on, and fleece the 
community without let or hindrance.” That was the 
grave right of repeal, sought to be placed in our organ¬ 
ic law—to be debated here, and to be adhered to letter 
and line, to the crossing of a “ t,” and the dotting of an 
“ i.” Why all this ? Because, as the gentleman from 
Clermont [Mr. Norris,] said, “it was a compromise.” 
It was a matter, however, of very little moment, wheth¬ 
er it were introduced into the constitution or not. This 
provision, if carried into effect did not change the pow¬ 
ers of corporation. It would have lost only a legal fic¬ 
tion, whereby, in law, it became a person. It could 
no longer sue or be sued by its legal name, contract or 
be contracted with. But all the rights of property 
would remain and become vested in the stockholders, 
who as partners would succeed to all the powers of 
the coi-poration. To give an example—The Little Mi¬ 
ami Railroad Company would cease to have, in law, a 
legal existence; suits could not be brought in that name, 
they must be brought in the names of the stockholders. 
That-was truly an important change—a change, the 
power to waste which should at all hazards, with a 
great expenditure of eloquence, labor and intellect be 
incorporated into the constitution. He looked upon the 
whole matter with indifference—as of no value if insert¬ 
ed there, with whatever of flourishes its insertion might 
be attended. It was wholly immaterial whether the 
amendment prevailed or not. The difference between 
the section with or without it, was the vast diflerence 
in law between “ twiddledeedumandtwiddledumdee.” 
[Laughter.] 

He agreed with the gentleman from Fairfield, [Mr. 
Robertson,] that with these two sections in the con¬ 
stitution, and with a hundred corporations organized 
under a general law, there would be too many inter¬ 
ested for the Legislature even to sweep them all away 
“at one fell swoop.” Here, then, was the end of all the 
horrors of corporations: a constitutional provision re¬ 
quiring the General Assembly to create them by the 
batch, instead of creating one at a time, and then a re¬ 
pealing clause, which, J'rom the multiplied interests 


combined, and the mixing up of the guilty with the 
innocent, would ever remain a dead letter, wholly in¬ 
operative. A most important conclusion! He knew 
we were not now in a condition to argue this question 
of corporations dispassionately, and without excite¬ 
ment. He was aware that very strong prejudice ex¬ 
isted in relation to them—they were regarded by many 
to be demons of destruction. U{)on the minds of mem¬ 
bers indulging such feelings towards corporations, and 
especially when it was considered that this word had be¬ 
come the war-cry of a party, nothing coming from gen¬ 
tlemen who did not entertain such antipathie s against 
them would be received and considered as it deserved. 
These prejudices shut up the mind against the access 
of truth and sound argument. Suspicion was awaken¬ 
ed lest whatever was proposed by way of amendment 
should be covertly designed to favor corporations,^ to 
shield them from just and wholesome responsibilities. 
This was all wrong. Suggestions were entitled to be 
considered and weighed, come from where they may. 
As for himself, he acted openly and aboveboard; he 
declared his opinions and made his suggestions in good, 
leith, because he believed them to be well founded— 
deserving of consideration. Nor did members rightly 
discharge their duty who treat them with suspicion, and 
pass them by as coming frome one of diffeiout opinions 
on some points. 

He desired to avoid all the evils incident to corpo¬ 
rations—to provide for all the errors in past legislation, 
just as sincerely as any member on that floor. Such he 
supposed was the anxious desire ot all members. But 
at the same time he was unwilling to vibrate to the 
other extreme, and may be introduce evils as numer¬ 
ous, though of a different character. Let us consult 
experience and follow its teachings. Then we would 
avoid dangers upon the right hand and upon the left. 
Let gentlemen come up to this question and look at it 
practically—let them examine it in all its multifarioui 
bearings and diversified interests, and they would find 
it a question which no one mind could grasp. Was it 
reasonable to assume, that a single mind could grasp 
all the momentous consequences of a provision of this 
character? Could any man see in what manner it 
would connect itself with the great interests of this 
State—diversified and extended as they were over such 
an extent of territory ? affecting the relations of two 
millions of people? It was not in the power of any 
one mind to comprehend the relation of a single provis¬ 
ion introduced into this constitution, to the infinitely 
various interests of this great and growing State—and 
above all, this great subject of corporations which em¬ 
braced and had relation to every species of business in 
the State. He wished it to be understood, that when 
he made a suggestion in regard to this mattei’, he had 
no covert design—that he had no design to defeat any 
provision armed against admitted evils, evils which all 
recognised and professed themselves anxious to exter¬ 
minate. If gentlemen will bring their minds to this 
calm and dispassionate view of their duties, all these 
difficulties would disappear, and this Convention would 
successfully construct a constitution acceptable to the 
great mass of our population. Let every mind seek 
only for its rights, the true, the practicable, reckless of 
party trammels and party cries; and in so doing it could 
not err far from the path of duty—of correct action; and 
when the truth was seen, let us have the manly cour¬ 
age, the independence, the honesty to carry out these 
views, as we should answ’er to our great constit'ieucy 
and our God. Let us look our duty full in the face, 
and look not elsewhere. This w’as what the pei pie 
demanded at our hands; and woe to the man or men, 
who, in their petty ambition for a party triumph, dared 
to sacrifice their own views of right, and the teaching* 
of conscience, and the welfare of this great State; and 
the millions who \vould, in the providence of God¬ 
send up the long hum of life from all its wide extend, 
ed surface, and whose happiness and prosperity are to 
be affected by our labors. With outstretched anas 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


they invoked us to calm deliberation; not to ovei*look| 
and sacrifice their earthly and immortal welfare to per¬ 
sonal aspirations and party rivalries. And if we were 
true men, who knew our duty and dare to do it, should 
we not listen to their voice and regard their petition ? 

Mr. HOLT hoped that the committee would strike 
out the entire section except the first two lines, even 
though the amendment were adopted. If the remain¬ 
der of the section should not be stricken out, perhaps 
it would be well to incorporate the a.nendment of the 
gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] but he 
was for striking out the proviso altogether. He consid¬ 
ered that every gentleman of the profession looking at 
this section would agree with him that if we had not 
that salvo, or proviso, the property of corporations 
would then be left free of all embarrassment and dif¬ 
ficulty—subject to all liabilities, and when they had 
been discharged, could be divided among the corpora¬ 
tors. He thought that all would see that such would 
be the effect—that it woidd be within the jurisdiction 
of the court of chaucei-y to divide the property with¬ 
out embarrassment. In his opiniou, the two first lines 
contained all that might be thought desirable to be se- 
curtd. He did not think it advisable to make provis¬ 
ions which sometimes rendered a matter obscure, rath¬ 
er than make the sense more clear. He was satisfied 
te discharge his duty here as a member of the Conven¬ 
tion without arrogating the duties of the legislature, 
and especially without bringing within the scope of 
our action, judicial powers—matters legal and matters 
judicial were best left to the consideration of those 
bodies. By striking out this section, as he had said 
before, the courts would carry out the whole matter 
without difficulty or embarrassment. In regard to 
this matter he felt very clear in his mind, and whether 
the amendment were adopted or not, he would move 
to strike out. 

The question then being on the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] 
it was put and not sustained. 

Mr. HOLT then moved to strike out all after the 
word ‘^repealed ” in the second line. ^ 

Mr. STILWELL remarked that he wasuuwilling 
to differ from the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. 
Holt.] He thought that the gentleman, on examina¬ 
tion would fiijd, on the dissolution of a corporation 
that the property was gone. That was his recollection 
of the law; but he was unwilling to put his opiuion 
against the legal knowledge of the gentleman. 

Mr. HOLT replied, that the opinion he had expres¬ 
sed had not been formed from any recent examination 
of the question. He had stated only his present im¬ 
pression. He believed he was right, but he should be 
careful to review his opinion before adhenng to it as 
certainly correct, if it is in conflict with the well consid¬ 
ered opinion of the gentleman from Muskingum. 

^ Mr. NASH said, that in consequence of some contra¬ 
riety of opinion among certain members—as indi¬ 
cated in a private conversation, he had since recurred 
to the authorities; had examined the best edition of 
Angell and Ames on corporations, and found it law as 
stated by the gentleman from Muskingum; that on 
the dissolution of a corporation, its real estate reverted 
to the grantors, and, in England, its personal estate 
vested in the crown; and here it would vest in the 
State or elsewhere as might be provided by law. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, hoped that the motion 
would not prevail. The auunendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton was offered to meet the objection 
of the gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason.] The ob¬ 
jection of the gentleman was that when a corporation 
ceased to exist the right of way or any donation made 
to It, should go back to the original owners, and such 
would have been the effect of the amendmeut. Under 
that amendment no other property would vest in the 
corporators except that of which ihey had the right of 
disposal: and it was right that a donation made fora 
particular use or a right of way, should go back, where, 


331 


in law and good reason and conscience it ought to go. 
Here then it seemed that the committee preferred that 
this property should vest in the corporators and not go 
brck to the donors. He proposed, however, that be¬ 
fore he finished the subject that an endeavour would 
be made to introduce some provision which would 
meet the views of gentlemen. 

Mr. HAWKINS did not desire to meddle much in 
these grave matters, but he would suggest a slight 
amendmeut before the words were struck out. He 
proposed to amend by adding to the section the words 
“ and the reversionary rights of individuals.” 

Mr. SWAN inquired if the design of the gentleman 
was that in the case a railroad which had purchased 
its right of way and the act creating it were repealed, 
that the property should then go back to the individu¬ 
als who conveyed it ? 

Mr. HOLT said, that he had made the motion in or¬ 
der that when a corporation was dissolved [as he had 
said before] the court of chancery might arrange any 
difficulty that would arise. He was ia favor of leaving it 
to the Legislrture to exercise control over this and all 
other subjects of a purely legislative character. Now 
in repealing this charter their power as a corporation 
has gone; but it would be the easiest thing in the world 
for the Legislature to provide, and they surely would 
provide a saving clause, a clause which would give 
them the property and afford them the right to collect 
the debts due to the corporation. He admitted that af¬ 
ter the repeal the debts could not be collected without 
such a provision. But the Legislature would uever 
repeal the act without a saving clause for the protection 
of the corporators. In strictness if the Legislature did 
not do that, the property would be left without a legal 
owner. All that was done in a minute by a single line 
in addition to the repealing act, giving the corporators the 
power to collect their claims and to divide their property,, 
their debts being paid. Respecting the power to re¬ 
peal, he agreed that the Legislature without constitu¬ 
tional provision had the power of altering, modifying, 
changing or repealing acts of incorporation. But as a 
ditt'erent doctrine had been maintained, perhaps proba¬ 
bly, it were better that the power should be confined 
or l ather recognized in the constitution. 

Mr. STAiNTON said the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins] was based on the 
idea that after the repeal of the act of incorporation 
the business of the company should necessarily cease. 
If that were a correct construction of the section, then 
there was no objection to the amendment. His [Mr- 
S.’s] idea was this: A plank road or a railroad compa¬ 
ny was incorporated, for say 40 years—at the end of 
ten years it was deemed proper to repeal the charter. 
Then his object in this proviso was to protect the in- 
teresls of the corporators, when their corporate powers 
would be taken from them. It was for that reason, 
and also to protect the right of way, one of the rights 
of property granted for a limited period, that the pro¬ 
viso was engrafted into the section. He had supposed 
that the corporators might carry on their business for 
the unexpired term for which the charter would have 
to run, and at the time when it would have terminated 
by its own limitation, that then the property would go 
back to the original owners. He had felt a little un¬ 
comfortable at what he considered the unceremonious 
treatment received by the committee, at the hands of 
gentlemen on this side of the House. 1 he report, it 
was said, was “ absurd ;” and, in his opinion, ffie gen¬ 
tleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] assumed a rather (bg- 
nified position when he said he would disdain to oner 
any amendment. If the gentleman could cairy out his 
object, and at the same time save^ to the corporators- 
the I'apital invested in the corporation, without injuring 
any one, so far from taking any offence, he [Mr. S.], 
would certainly be very thankful to the gentleman for 
it. 

The question being upon the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] it was put and 
lost. 












332 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The question tunied upon the motion of the gentle¬ 
man from Montgomery [Mr. Holt,] to strike out all 
after the word “ repealed ” in the second line. The 
same was put and not agreed to. 

No further amendments being offered, the commitee 
proceeded to the consideration of the following sec¬ 
tion: 

Sec. 3. Dues from corporations shall be secured by such in¬ 
dividual liability of the corporators and other means as may be 
prescribed bylaw: Provided, The liability of each corporator 
or shareholder, shall never be less than the amount of stock in 
.my corporation by him or her subscribed. 

Mr. REBMELIN moved to strike out the word 
“ such *' in the first line, and insert instead, the word 
the.” 

Mr. RANNEY moved fto amend, by adding at the 
end of the section the following: 

“ Together with a further sum of equal amount; and provided 
further, that in all corporations intended to secure pecuniary prof¬ 
its to the stockholders, except corporations erected to construct 
public improvements, the stockholders shall be individually hable 
for all the debts and liabilities of any such corporation." 

Mr. DORSEY supposed that if the word “such” 
were struck out in the first line, that the same word 
would be inserted after the w'ord “and” in the se¬ 
cond. 

Mr. CHAMBERS hoped the word would not be 
struck out. The effect would be to change the liabili¬ 
ty into a positive one, instead of a liability to be 
determined by law. The change would be a very se¬ 
rious one. 

Mr. STANTON hoped the committee would under¬ 
stand what they would do if they made this change.— 
He would provide that every man putting down his 
name for stock, would be liable to the last cent for all 
the debts of the company. 

Mr. NASH supposed that they had as many railroads 
in Hamilton county as were desired—most if 

this amendment were adopted, they would never have 
another in it. (Laughter.) 

Mr. REEMELIN observed that it was an old, estab¬ 
lished principle with the democratic party, and a cor¬ 
rect one, that when a man went into business he should 
If ^ on his liability, and not to cloak 

himself under any privilege whatever. It was a good 

would correct—if incorpora¬ 
ted into the constution-a great many evils which had 
eie o ore existed; and R would make corporators 
more careful m the selection of their agents, and cor- 
pora ions themselves less objectionable to the peo- 

<■ KANNEY said he had not intended to have 
troubled the committee with any remarks upon any 
pai of this report, but the quiet and unceremonious 
111 which one of the great principles of the re- 
pubhcan faith—the right of repeal had been consign- 
> • Capulets, before the recess, led 

ina o fear that the one now under consideration, 
em r^e m the amendment he had offered, might 
be in danger, unless some effort was made to extri- 
ca e 1 icm the same fate. He had hitherto been un¬ 
sophisticated enough to suppose that the right to repeal 
corp^a e functions, when the public good demanded it, 
and the individual liability of the stockholders in all cor¬ 
porations intended for private gain, were familiar and 
undeniable words in the republican household, but he 
Old not Imow but he was destined to find himself mis¬ 
taken. He had contemplated this report with great 
concern. Whilst the first section denies to the Gener- 
a Assembly the power hereafter to create corporations 
by special acts the second section invites their multi- 
p ication to any and eveiy extent, under general laws. 
11 this unrestricted power to create them in batches 
was not accomp,allied with the most stringent and well 
consit^red provisions for their regulation and manage¬ 
ment he greatly feared, that they would usurp every 
blanch of trade and business, intrude themselves into 
every nook and corner of the State, ovei’ride all private 
enterprise, and become as troublesome as the lice of 


Egypt. With some misgivings he had reconciled him¬ 
self to these sections and had voted for them to get rid 
of the monopoly character of special acts to enable all 
who choose to form companies and enter into compe¬ 
tition, and not to confirm the benefit of corporate fran¬ 
chises to a few favored individuals. But when he gave 
so much power for good or evil to the General Assem¬ 
bly, he wanted some stronger guaranties against its 
abuse than are found in the balance of this report. 

We are told by the committee who made th^ report, 
that it is the result of a compromise—that it does not 
express the sentiments of my friend from Ulermont, 
[Mr. Norris] the Chairman, whose views are in all 
respects correct, nor yet of the gentleman frorn Logan 
[Mr. Stanton.] It does not contain the pnnciples of 
any body—it is without parents who are willing to own 
it,it was born of a compromise. An examination of this 
3d section, as it now stands, will satisfy any one that 
it is worthy of its origin. It means as near nothing a 
all as any collection of words in the English language 
could make it. It does not contain a single restriction 
or give a single right or remedy that did not exist be¬ 
fore and without it. The first clause of the section 
allows to the General Assembly the privilege of provi¬ 
ding by law, for individual liabilty, and other means 
to secure dues from corporations. But this right they 
have always heretofore, and will continue to enjoy 
without any such provision. It is one of the ordinary 
incidents of Legislative power, to be exercised oi not, 
at their discretion. The last clause provides that “ the 
liability of each corporator or stockholder shall ne\mr 
be less than the amount of stock in any corporation b)' 
him or her subscribed.” That is to say, if a man 
scribes a thousand dollars of stock, he shall be^ bound 
to pay it. Does not any man know that he is now 
bound to pay it? We have already said that no law 
shall be passed impairing the obligation of contracts. 
That is his contract—it cannot, of course, be impaired 
or altered. This clause, therefore, neither adds to, or 
takes from the liability of the stockholder it leaves 
him exactly where his contract left him. A constitu¬ 
tion is no place for surplusage or unmeaning plmases. 
It should contain nothing but clear, explicit and funda¬ 
mental truths. But this subject is a compromise, we 
are told, and therefore we are bound to support it. 

In all matters of mere expediency he would go as 
far as any man in compromising differences ; but as 
applied to matters of principle and right it was the 
most pernicious word in the language, ^yhat! give up 
half the truth for the privilege of retaining the other 
half? Call upon a man to surrender half his rights, 
before you will protect him in the other half ? No, nev¬ 
er ! In the nature of things there could be no commu¬ 
nion or compromise between truth and falsehood, be¬ 
tween right,and wrong. The amendment he had of¬ 
fered proposed to make the section mean something 
to enforce a great principle of justice and right—-a prin¬ 
ciple dear to the people of all parties—the principle 
of political equality, of conferring equal benefits and 
imposing equal burdens upon all, so far as the law is con¬ 
cerned. In deference to the opinion of others he had 
discriminated in favor of corporations to construct pub¬ 
lic improvements—making the stockholders individual¬ 
ly liable to an additional amount equal to the amount 
of stock they have subscribed. This he believed would 
be sufficient to secure those who labor and furnish ma¬ 
terials, and at the same time would not operate to de¬ 
ter men from subscribing stock in such companies. It 
was not insisting upon all that correct principle would 
entitle him to, and unless perfect security was obtain¬ 
ed by it, he would cheerfully vote for unlimited indi¬ 
vidual liability in those cases. In respect to all other 
corporations, designed for private benefit, the amend¬ 
ment fixed upon the shareholders individual liability 
to the full extent. If men chose to take the benefit of 
a corporate name and right of succession, the better to 
enable them to prosecute their owui private business, 
the General Assembly could not relieve them from the 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 333 


liabilities to which all other citizens were subject, ot 
paying their debts to the full extent. This was so 
clearly right that he should be astonished to find any 

one denying it. r 

So much petty asperity had existed lor years past up- 
Qjj the subject of corporations, thait it was difficult to 
find men prepared to form a deliberate and unpreju¬ 
diced iudt^ment in respect to them. It seemed to him 
tliat he could look a corporation in the face without any 
undue excitement. To their creation for proper purpo¬ 
ses he had no objection, but he would confess that he 
looked upon their introduction into all the departments 
of ordinary business, as calculated to depress private 
enterprise, and break down men of small capital who 
undertake to compete with them. Thus destroying the 
private independence of our mechanics and business 
men and compelling them to find employment under 
the overshadowing power and influence of associated 
wealth. The extent to which they had been created 
heretofore was astonishing, and he feared that they 
would be created with still greater facility hereafter.— 
Even taverns, he had just learned, in some of the cities 
were sailing under charters! He was aware that the 
doctor who assisted in bringing us into the world and 
the sexton who disposed of our remains at the end of 
life were incorporated, and that we were compelled to 
deal with corporations almost every day of our exis¬ 
tence, but he was not before aware that we drank in¬ 
corporated liquor without individual responsibility for 
its effects. This great and increasing tendency to en- 
gulph every branch of business in the vortex of corpo¬ 
rations must be met with the most prompt and energet¬ 
ic guaranties against their frauds, or they would becon- 
verted into the worst of all nuisances. Two of the 
most important of these guaranties were the right of 
1 ‘epeal and individual liability of the members. He 
would repeat he was not opposed to corporations for 
proper purposes. The legal entity which was thus 
conferred was almost if not quite indispensable to lar¬ 
ger companies constructing public improvements. But 
what had rendered them justly odious was the exclu¬ 
sive privileges conferred upon them. To make them 
useful and popular we must hereafter deprive them of 
the exercise of these odious incidents. The great stick¬ 
lers for the abuses of corporations, were in fact their 
worst enemies. It was now a question of annihilation 
or reform. The people of this country would no longer 
suffer theirstatute book to be be astanding libel upon the 
declaraton of equality contained in the charter of their 
liberties. Equal rights to all—exclusive privileges to 
none, should and would become an operative, living 
principle, manifesting itself in'all their laws and politi¬ 
cal institutions ; a principle, he would say, much more 
important to the happiness of the people, to preserve 
unimpaired than fostering prematurely the construction 
of great works of internal improvement. If either 
must languish, preserve the principle as the great bul¬ 
wark of the rights of the many. If that is surrender¬ 
ed, every thing that protects them against oppression 
is gone. The complaints of the people against corpo¬ 
rations did not exist without the best of reasons. First, 
they had been exclusively privileged to engross the most 
important and lucrative kinds of business. Even the 
prerogative of government to coin money, had in effect 
beensurrenderedtothem. The corporate power, and the 
money power had joined hands. The people had been 
handed over to their tender mercies, and in effect the 
proceeds of their industry held at the caprice of mon¬ 
ied corporations—money was made scarce or plenty, 
labor was well or ill rewarded, debtors were saved or 
ruined, as the interest or whim of these money kings 
dictated. 

Secondly—one of the most crying evils connected 
with corporate privileges, was the one sought to be 
remedied by this amendment. Exemption from indi¬ 
vidual liability for the payment of their debts. Every 
association of persons without a charter were held lia¬ 
ble, in their private estates, for the payment of the last 


cent of their indebtedness. No matter whether they 
had lost all they embarked in the business or not. If 
the ocean had swallowed up the goods of the merchant 
or the drouth or frost had blighted the hopes of the 
farmer, still no exemption was found for them. But 
once clothed with corporate power—once shielded with 
the panoply of corporate privilege, all was changed ? 
The stock subscribed, once gone, no matter if five times 
the amount had been withdrawn in the shape of pi-ofits 
or dividend, all liability was gone. The corporator 
could revel in wealth and luxury, while hunger and 
destitution were grinding in the dust those who had 
labored for his corporation. Such injustice could not 
be longer endured. 1^^^ 

Again, when the burdens of the government in the 
shape of taxation were laid, the corporation was favor¬ 
ed. Constantly feasting upon governmental partiality, 
he paid less for its support than those who asked and 
received no favors. ‘xi- -■ - 

But again, we bad relaxed in favor of corporations, 
the great principle of the inviolability of private pro¬ 
perty. No man was the master of what his industry 
had acquired. He held it subject to the use of numer¬ 
ous corporate bodies. If they wanted it they took it, 
whether the owner was willing or not. And what did 
he get in return? Nothing; absolutely nothing. The 
constitution said he should have its value in money. 
But the judiciary have allowed him to be paid in a mere 
fanciful abstraction—the supposed benefits of the worth 
to such property as he might have left. These, then, 
were some of the numerous attributes which had hith¬ 
erto rendered corporations justly odious. The only 
way to restore their credit was to subject them to the’ 
just and honest principle of equality of benefits and 
burdens. When this was done, all prejudice against 
them would cease, and he called upon all their real 
friends to place them in that condition at once. 

But, it is said, we should leave this principle to be ap¬ 
plied by the General Assembly. He would ask what 
they had done for it heretofore ? The answer would 
show what they would be likely to do for it hereafter* 
But did gentlemen reflect what a corrujiting element 
they were thus introducing into the legislative body ? 
Under your general law, numerous corporations will be 
formed in ail parts of the State, and the stockholders 
all anxious to escape liability. They will be in the 
ear of every member before he comes here, and in his 
bed after he comes here, if necessary to effect their 
ends. They will be able to form the most powerful 
combinations, and raise any amount of money required 
for corruption purposes. It will not be the feeble effort 
of a single corporation, but the combined power of a 
legion. In such a struggle what hope would there be 
left for legislative purity, or the success of an honest 
principle ? None for either. Then, if it is right, if 
it is just, if it is honest, let us say so now, and use it as 
one of the pillars in the political edifice we are rearing. 
Then those seeking corporate privileges will know the 
terms upon which they can have them; the Legislature 
will know the terms upon which they can grant them, 
and it will have no occasion to use corrupting influences 
to obtain them upon any other. 

Mr. DORSEY said he did not know how far this 
section might have been the result of compromise. He 
could not see in this section any compromise of prin¬ 
ciple, hence not seeing any, he would be unwilling to 
go against it; but he was not willing to compromise 
principle for anything whatever. If it were a demo¬ 
cratic principle to striKeat the root of every improve¬ 
ment that had been or would be made through¬ 
out the country, he was willing to say that he had not 
so learned democracy. There was a difference a vi¬ 
tal difference between these different kinds of corpo¬ 
rations. When they came to speak of corporations 
for banking purposes, and matters of that kind, he 
would be in favor of inserting this individual liability 
to the fullest extent—he would go farther, and say 
that if there was not a clause of that kind inserted in 


/ 












334 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


the general law governing such, institutions, he would 
be opposed to such law, and to all such corporations 
formed under it, and would be found amongst the 
< hardest of the hard money ” men in this Convention. 
But there was a ditference with regard to those corpo¬ 
rations—a difference in their business and the objects 
for which they were intended. For that reason he 
thought we should make a difference in the action of 
the law which was intended to operate upon them. 
Instead of measuring by one standard all these varied 
associations, municipal, charitable, educational, and of 
every other kind, he was in favor of a graduated lia¬ 
bility, measured by the relations which each sustain¬ 
ed to the public. He thought that this section did 
graduate it. It provided in the first place for all 
tkat liability which the gentleman had insisted upon, 
if the Legislature in its wisdom saw fit to exact it. 
It established a minimum liability, and correctly so, 
but the Legislature could extend this liability to as 
great a degree as it saw fit, even to the extent of 
making the entire property of the individual stock¬ 
holder liable for all the debts of the corporation; but 
what he desired was, that this discretionary power 
should be left with the Legislature, to use as they 
might deem proper, and not that we, by one sweep¬ 
ing constitutional clause, should at once, and forever, 
•cut off our future Legislatures from taking any action 
in this matter. He did not believe that there was so 
much more wisdom to be found in this body than 
could be brought together in any subsequent assem¬ 
blage of men in these halls, that we should take all 
control out of the hands of every succeeding Legisla¬ 
ture, and leave them no discretionary power—no abil¬ 
ity to do any act, however important they might deem 
it to be for the best interests of the State. He doubt¬ 
ed whether there existed in any body of men a saga¬ 
city which could look through a long period of years, 
and say what rights, or what powers, it might be ne¬ 
cessary to allow the Legislature to confer. We allow 
the Legislature to frame general laws—we must also 
allow it to fix the details for the application of these 
laws, for we cannot do it. There was a class of pub¬ 
lic improvements, railroads, turnpike roads, colleges, 
lyceums, institutes, &c., &c., to which, if you extend 
this unmeasured liability, you destroy them at once and 
forever; then, indeed, what we have heard anticipa¬ 
ted as the result of some other portions of this report, 
would truly come to pass, and we might bid a long 
adieu to every improvement of this kind. The gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton spoke of protecting the laborer; 
he was willing to go as far as the farthest in extending 
protection to the laboring class, and to protect the pub¬ 
lic against fraud and swindling. The laborer who 
earned his bread by toil, and by the sweat of his brow, 
should always receive consideration at the hands of 
the law-making power; and he was willing that the 
general law should provide lor securing the debts 
due from contractors to laborers on public works—for 
it was in this way, as a general rule, that the laborers 
suffered, and not by any want of a proper responsibil- 
iy in the company—but he was not willing to extend 
the liability proposed by the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton [Mr. Reemelin] to improvements of every kind, 
because, by so doing, he was well assured that the 
public would be the sufierer, and in the 8toj)page of 
public improvements, thousands of laborers must also 
suffer. He was unwilling to introduce any such clause 
into this constitution, but he would confide some dis¬ 
cretionary power to the future representatives of the 
people—to those who were to be the exponents of the 
opinions and sentiments of the people—and he felt 
well assured that the people could rest in security 
when the trust was committed to such keeping. 

Mr. HOLMES ojncuired with the gentleman from 
Trumbull [Mr. Rannky] in regard to the necessi y of 
protecting the public against the piinder which had 
been carried on upon them, and was just as unwilling 
to incorporate a tuiupiko company under a general or 


special law without having the corporators liable. He 
was unwilling that the man who labored on the public 
liigliwayLS—who furni.slied the materials lor and labored 
upon their railroads and turn])ikes—should sutl'er under 
this species of legislation. He was too well informed 
not to know in what manner this system operated in 
his own, and the adjoining county of Clermont, in which 
there had been some four or five turnpikes constructed, 
and he knew also that very many men had lost thou¬ 
sands by them—were broken up and became bankrupt*. 
So far as he was concerned, he would make these com¬ 
panies liable, just as much as if they were incorporated 
for banking purposes. He was unwilling that corpo¬ 
rations—no matter what might be their object—should 
exercise any corporate powers unless they were liable 
for the debts of the corporation. They all knew that 
lyceums, and musical societies, and libraries, had been 
incorporated from time out of mind in this State; but, 
forsooth! because they were established lor benevolent 
purposes, they were not to be made liable for their 
debts when they went into trade and traffic 1 That was 
no sufficient reason at all for their exemption, for the 
public might lose by them (though in but a limited 
way) as well as by other corporations. 

He would say that he was entirely in favor of pro¬ 
tecting those who labored for these corporators— 
for the me n who constructed their plank roads and turn¬ 
pike and railroads, were generally the sufferers by 
these corporations, and not the corporators themselves. 
So far as he was concerned, he was in favor of repeal¬ 
ing all these acts of incorf)oration, and let these corpo¬ 
rations be governed by the same laws that governed 
men in the ordinary relations of life. He was unwil¬ 
ling to see any provision incorporated into the constitu¬ 
tion in the way of an exemption from the legal require¬ 
ments, which parties seemed to get clear of by their 
corporate pnvileges. The people had suffered in all 
{)ai t8 of the State by corporate privileges, and he hoped 
that now, corporators would he made liable to the full¬ 
est extent of their indebtedness. 

Mr. REEMELIN said, that it was high time for this 
side of the house to adhere, inflexibly, to the old land 
marks of their party. Compromise may sometimes be 
proper on questions of expediency, but no man had a 
right to compromise away those principles of I'ight 
which the people have determined upon. If there is 
one j)rinciple more than all others, upon which the 
democratic party has unanimously insisted, it is the 
principle of individual liability, to be applied to all cor¬ 
porations the same as it is to individuals. 

The gentleman from Miami, [Mr. Dorset,] is cer¬ 
tainly looking behind the age, he is in the unfortunate 
condition of the man who intended to take a journey, 
and for that purpose had selected to go by stage. He 
arrived too late for the s.age; but there being no fast 
coaches then, he concluded to ^o it on foot, and if pos¬ 
sible overtake the coach. When he got to the first 
place for changing horses, he found himself an hour 
behind the lime; but he still continued on, hoping to 
overtake the stage, but at every place of stc»pping the 
distance became greater, so that at last he gave the 
chase up in hopeless despair. 

So my fiiend from Miami will find, that unless he 
hurries along more rapidly, he will get twenty years 
behind the age and his p irty. 

Wl«.it h?jrm is there in the individual liability clausef 
Will it injure an honest corporation ? Will it injure a 
single stockholder who will exercise that piudential 
supervision over the corjmration of which he is a mem¬ 
ber, whi( h he slmuld exercise ? It will compel corpo¬ 
rations to be careful in the selection of tlieir agents 
and their contractors. It will make them take good 
security for the performance of all pecuniary duties 
from their agents. Tlie principle will operate only as 
a safeguard against the fraudulent and careless transac¬ 
tions of corporations,—it will defend the laboring man 
against the frauds of agents andcontractors, and compel 
the individual corporutoze to see tlmt their laborers ar© 
paid. 












335 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The gentleman from Miami tells us, that no laboring 
man ever lost a dollar by the companies in his part of 
the State. Well, what harm then, in the clause under 
consideration ? We make no laws for honest men,—if 
tliere were no dishonest and violent men, we would 
need no laws. Experience has shown us, however, 
that corporations have defrauded their laborers, and 
kept them out of their dues, and is it not wise to insert 
a clause, which will compel corporations to be prudent 
and careful in the management of their affairs? Then 
the laborer, whose sweat has n oistened the ground over 
which the iron horse travels, or the canals flow, will be 
paid for his labor,—weekly payments will be made— 
correct accounts will be kept—proper agents and con¬ 
tractors will be selected—in short, corporators will, 
from the very necessity of the case, watch, superintend, 
and control by good by-laws, their officers and agents. 

This every individual of the State must do. The law 
holds him responsible for the acts of his agents, and 
the consequences resulting therefrom. I he farmer, the 
mechanic, the steamboat man, the merchant and the 
manufacturer, are each and all held responsible for their 
own contracts and tliose of their agents. Why make 
a difference in favor of corporations ? Are farmers 
less important than the rail-road that carries their pro¬ 
duce T Is the turnpike, to which the waggoner pays 
toll, to enjoy an exemption over the man who travels 
over it ? Are corporations and their members to stand 
on different ground than their other fellow citizens ?— 
Is a man to be responsible in this free State as long as 
he w^ears the honest garb which God has placed around 
him, for all his debts, and the action of his agents, but 
as scon as he becomes clothed with the gown of law, 
creating him and others as an artificial man, he is to be¬ 
come the favored child of legislation, and to be exempt 
from the operation of equal laws to all ? If so, it must 
be done by acting against the almost unanimous decis¬ 
ion of the j)eople. The people have become jealous of 
corporations, not because they hate the thing itself, but 
the exclusive powers enjoyed by them. This jealousy 
has increased in consequence of the multiplicity of 
these corporate bodies, and the monopolies enjoyed by 
them,—and the people have determined that corpora¬ 
tions shall be brought to the level with other citizens, 
all enjoying equal rights, and all subject to equal du- 
' ties 

This is right, it is just, it is even-handed justice; and 
therefore, the principle has been adopted as a cardinal 
doctrine of the democratic party, which must not be 
giv^n up. 1 will yield to none in parliamentary com¬ 
ity; to none in giving full consideration of the views of 
aU the members of this body; to none in treating pro¬ 
perly the minoiaty of this convention; but a principle 
so dear to my heart, so just in its application, so unan¬ 
imously advocated by the party to which I am proud 
to belong, I must advocate, and if possible, ensure its 
insertion in the new constitution. 

I shall, in addition to this amendment, move another 
amendment, intended to secure stiU further the labor¬ 
ing man against corporations. And if we succeed in 
making corporations what they should be, the servants 
of the people,—the useful and harmless agents for pub¬ 
lic good, with a fair security to their investments, then 
they may go and pursue their course in peace, so far as 
I am concerned. We need the principle of association 
to accomplish many things, and under salutary restric¬ 
tions, it will work well for all concerned. 

Mr. HUNTER asked, whether Mr. R. had not signed 
tlio report. 

Mr. REEMELIN- I did, but certainly not with the 
understanding that I should sustain each and every part 
of it. 1 do not understand, that signing a report such 
as this, is more than an agreement to make the report, 
and while I shall support, and have supported, the 
greater part of it, I shall feel at perfect liberty to dis¬ 
sent from a part of it, and such I understand to be the 
position of every man on the committee. 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll. I will not take the trouble 


to examine the amendments to the section under con¬ 
sideration, Ijecause if the section itself, or its amend¬ 
ments he incorporated into the new constitution, it 
w'ill virtually prevent any further public improvements 
being made by incorporated companies in this State. 

Where is there the man in the Stale who would go to 
eastern capitalists to solicit stock, and carry with him 
a constitutional provision of this kind? Every one 
knows, that no sensible man would take stock under 
it, if the right of repeal of the general law would be 
left to the Legislature, giving them the power to repeal 
the law upon which the corporation was formed. Is 
it likely that any capitalist would be willing to be lia¬ 
ble for more than the capital invested ? And after all 
individual liability is not individual responsibility, or 
individual payability, [laughter] if you please, which 
could be easily shown, if it were necessary to enter 
into an elaborate argument upon this subject. I have 
listened to the argument of the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton [Mr. Ref.melin] in his efi'ortsto fasten the indi¬ 
vidual liability clause upon the Constitution, and it 
has induced me to think that the men who make so 
many objections to corporations now are ready to do 
so, after they have reaped the benefit of the making 
of all these railroads, turnpikes, and bridges in their 
various neighborhoods. 

I am from the county of CarroU, and we have no 
corporations there, except it may be, a hook and ladder 
company. [Laughter.] If the “ honest ” democrats of 
Hamilton county want to repeal that, let tbem go to 
work. We shoidd still have the ladders if they did 
take the charters. [Laughter.] In our county not 
the first dollar of the public money has ever been ex¬ 
pended in public improvements. 

Mr. RANNEY here asked the gentleman if the 
Sandy and Beaver canal did not pass through his coun¬ 
ty, and how it paid its debts. 

Mr. BROWN. Some ten or twelve miles of that 
canal passes through Carroll county, it was chartered 
in 1828, through the inflence of a member from Co¬ 
lumbiana county, Elderkin Potter Esq., now deceased. 

The canal suffered serious damages from the freshet 
some two years since, by which the company lost $90 
or $100,000, and it is still somewhat emban'assed. 

Mr. RIDDLE interrupting, and Mr. Brown giving 
way, asked what act of incorporation had been passed 
for the especial benefit of Hamilton county ? 

Mr. BROWN. The statute books show that there 
have been as many for that county as for the whole 
State, perhaps, in one session. The people of Hamil¬ 
ton county have got the benefit of the thieving and 
now they want to prevent any body else from enjoying 
the right of making improvements upon their own capi¬ 
tal, or capital which does not belong to the State. 

These anti-corporation men hate corporations, without 
they have the benefit of them, and they propose to 
place every kind of restrictions on corporations which 
may benefit any other locality. In the county in which 
I live there never was the first dollar expended in pub¬ 
lic improvement. Now these gentlemen in Cincinnati, 
and all other points where they have got their railroads 
made, or where they have got their roads in full prog¬ 
ress, and all their avenues of trade are opened--lhey 
want to shut the gate and prevent the people living in 
other parts of the State, from making arms and branch¬ 
es to these great roads, and they throw barriers in their 
way. We have seen, in the report of the committee on t 
the legislative department, what is tantamount to say¬ 
ing, that the State will make no further improvements. 

VVe have determined that the iiij[>rovement of the State 
shall be left to personal enterprise and assosiated 
wealth. 1 thought that by leaving the people free to 
act and allowing capital to he introduced iiito^the coun¬ 
try, the State would be improved by associations of in¬ 
dividuals in their corporate capacity. 

A great deal has been said about the corruption of 
corporations. There is one thing which I would tell 
gentlemen, that if there has been so much iniquity in 

I 








336 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Cincinnati where corporations are, and have been most 
plentiful, as they talk about, I shall not go there. I had 
intended to go to Hamilton county before I returned 
home, but I shall keep away from there entirely. 

It is a very easy thing for them now to talk against 
corporations, and about their working injury to the 
public, but it is a very convenient thing for these gen¬ 
tlemen from Hamilton county having seats in this Con¬ 
vention, to leave here and go home to their city on a 
railroad (made by one of these dishonest companies) 
and attend to their private and domestic aflairs, and 
then be able to return within a few hours to their seats 
on this floor; while we who live in a diflerent portion 
of the State, if we desire to go home, to visit our 
friends, would require four days fulltime upon a smart 
horse, to efl'ect that purpose. While they run home 
upon these coi'porations, they would be willing to pass 
a law preventing any other corporations in the State 
of Ohio. The gentleman over the way (pointing to 
Mr. Reemelin) has blown his trumpet, (laughter,) and 
called upon his Democratic friends to come up and get 
into the Democratic coach and go along with him, and 
carry out the Democratic principle in the organic laws 
of the land. I warn the gentleman, that after he gets 
his outsiders in his Democratic coach, (and it is doubt¬ 
ful whether he can do that or not,) and they get into 
full speed, to beware of the ides of October, lest the 
horses before his great Democratic coach stumble or 
take fright, and an universal stampede follow. (Laugh¬ 
ter.) He says that this is Democracy, that he preaches 
in regard to the liability of corporations. It may be 
Ms Democracy, it may be Democracy in the county of 
Hamilton, but in the part of the country where I come 
from, a portion of them who call themselves good Dem¬ 
ocrats— simon pure Democrats—would tell a person 
upon the stump that he lied, if he told them that the 
doctiines of the Democratic party were opposed to the 
granting of charters, or corporate privileges of any kind 
whatever. 

Thus we see that democracy in Hamilton county 
means one thing—opposition to all chartered monopo¬ 
lies, or all special privileges, banks and every thing 
else, while in Carroll county it means an entirely dif¬ 
ferent thing, because the democrats there, before the 
election, are in favor of banking of some kind or other. 
So it seems that democracy means one thing at one 
place, and another thing at another, so that it is diffi¬ 
cult to tell which is the simon pure democracy. I do 
not know, nor could I tell with any degree of certain¬ 
ty, if I wanted to espouse the democratic faith and join 
that party. The democrats in our section, about elev¬ 
en months in the year are opposed to banks; but I 
have always noticed that they were decidedly in favor 
of them about the time of the election. [Laughter.] 
Yes, for about eleven months in the year we can never 
et them to shoulder the issue fairly. Democracy may 
e something like what the gentleman’s notion of de¬ 
mocracy are, in the Miami Valley, but it is something 
else in our region of countiy. By the time I espouse 
democracy, perhaps it will be better and more accur¬ 
ately defined than at present. The sachems of the par¬ 
ty congregated altogether in this wigwam of democracy, 
will, perhaps, one of these days give us a tangible de¬ 
finition. [Laughter.] 

Mr, DORSEY, I wish to make a single remark in 
reply to the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reeme¬ 
lin.] The gentleman supposed I was falling far be¬ 
hind in my democracy. How far I am falling behind, 
to use the expression of the gentleman, in the princi¬ 
ples of the tiaie democracy, I neither will allow that 
gentleman or any man to judge. I leave it for my con¬ 
stituents to say now far my democracy accords with 
the principles which I have advocated before them. 

1 do not know what democracy may be in the county 
of Hamilton, but I do profess to know what it is in the 
counties of Miami, Darke and Shelby, and I can vouch 
it is not that kind of democracy which suspects every 
man to be a rogue, until he is proved to be an honest 
man. 


I was willing to take corporations upon the broad 
foundation upon which they, as well as individuals, 
should always stand—that as long as they were doing 
well to let them alone. The gentleman is not willing 
to do this, but he is willing, and appears anxious, to 
suppose that every one of them is necessarily dishon¬ 
est; and, judging them in this way, he is for binding 
them so that they cannot act at all. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Does the gentleman mean to as¬ 
sert that I stated that a corporation is necessarily dis¬ 
honest before it can be proved so ? 

Mr. DORSEY. No, sir; but Isay it is a just and fair 
inference, from what the gentleman said. I am enti¬ 
tled to draw my own inferences from the language of 
the gentleman ; and I think it is a plain and indubita¬ 
ble inference—a veiy plain and clear inference, that 
he intended to make a law for rogues to apply to hon¬ 
est men. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I meant no such thing. 

Mr. DORSEY. I am not willing to impute any thing 
to the gentleman which he did not mean. I think I 
am safe in saying that the inferences which I have sta¬ 
ted, can be drawn and must be drawn from the posi¬ 
tion which he takes. I am veiy willing to suppose that 
he did not intend or expect that it should be drawn; but 
I say that these are legitimate consequences from the 
premises which he has laid down. I hold that all that 
is necessary to bind corporations, of the kind now un¬ 
der consideration, is included in the third section of the 
report. The gentleman chooses to insist on his anxiety 
to secui’e the laboring man. I have already said that I 
am willing to go as far as any body for the pi’otection 
of the laborer. I have said I was willing that a law 
should be passed for the purpose of securing him his 
rights, or withholding pay from the contractor on pub¬ 
lic works, where there is any doubt about his acting 
honestly. I know not how corporations for public im¬ 
provements may have acted in Hamilton county, but I 
do know that in my section of the State these improve¬ 
ments have been made without any cause for complaint. 

One single remark and I am done, and that is, I 
am unwilling, that this Convention, although there are 
many wise and able men here, should suppose that they 
are concentrating in this hall the wisdom of the State 
for years to come. What ever may be the discretion of 
anybody of men gathered here in the year 1850, it is 
totally impossible for them at this time to look into the 
various wants of the State in future, or in anywise ac¬ 
tually to provide for all these details in regard to pub¬ 
lic improvements. There is one thing which I greatly 
fear. It is this, sir, that in our anxiety to take away 
all power from future Legislatures, to provide for all 
the wants of the State, and to manifest our wisdom, in 
maturing plans for eveiy emergency and remedies for 
every evil, we will make our constitution so narrow, 
that the great State of Ohio, will find herself bound 
within it, as in manacles, and fettered to such a degree, 
that she will not be able to move. It will be worse 
than the armor that Saul bound upon David. It will 
weigh her down to the ground—laced within it as in a 
straight jacket, w’hich -will neither stretch nor yield, her 
powers and her energies will be useless, and she will 
present to us only the sad and humiliating spectacle of a 
giant in chains. 

Upon the motion of Mr. LARWILL, the committee 
then rose and reported progress. 

And upon motion of LIDEY the Convention then ad¬ 
journed. 


TUESDAY, June 11 , 1850. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Woodrow. 

Mr. STANTON presented a petition from Robert 
Humphrey and seventy other citizens of Logan county, 
praying that a provision may be inserted in the new 
constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from passing 
any law legalizing the traffic in spirituous liquor. 

Upon his motion it was referred to the select com¬ 
mittee on the subject of retailing ardent spirits. 












S37 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. GILLBT presented a petition from N. K. Ma.v- 
ley and 64 otlier citizens of Ohio, praying that a clause 
be inserted in the new constitution, prohibiting tlu 
black race from exercising the right of sutFrago. U[)on 
his motion it was referred to the standing committee 
on miscellaneous subjects and propositions. 

Mr. MANON presented a petition from James N. 
Brown and 15 other citizens of Licking county, pray¬ 
ing that a provision be inserted in the new constitiiiion, 
prohibiting the Legislature from legalizing the traffic 
in spirituous liquors. 

Upon his motion it was referred to the committee on 
the subject of retailing ardent spirits. , 

Mr. CLARK presented the petition of Marvin Coch¬ 
ran and 112 others of noi'thern Ohio, praying the veto 
power to be left with the people—that the people tle- 
termine at the April election annually, whether there 
shall be a session of the Legislature the following win¬ 
ter. That special pleading be abolished—that supreme, 
superior and criminal courts be established with one 
judge each—that grand juries be abolished, except in 
cases of murder and other high crimes—that justices of 
the peace, with a jury of six, may try minor offences 
without delay—that all officers shall be elected by the 
people, with salaries fixed by the constitution—that 
members of the Legislature shall not receive pay when 
absent from duty—that single districts be adopted— 
that the ordinance of 1787 be embraced in the consti¬ 
tution, and no religious tests be establi.shed in the new 
constitution—that dram shops be closed on the first day 
of the week—that trustees of townships assess those 
who manufacture, or vend ardent spirits in proi)oi tion 
to the mischief produced by such sale, and that butoife 
branch of the Legislature is required. 

On motion of the same gentleman, so much of the 
petition as refers to one branch of the Legislature, and 
single districts, was referred to the apportionment 
committee—so much of it as refers to a union of the 
church and State, and requiring persons to support the 
clergy or church without their consent, was referred 
to the committee on the preamble and bill t)f rights— 
so much as refer.i to courts and the abolition of grand 
juries, was referred to the committee on the judicial 
department, and the balance of the petition was refer¬ 
red to the committee on miscellaneous subjects and 
propositions. 

Mr. STILWELL pi'esented a petition from M. 
Handshry of Muskingum county, praying that certain 
reforms be incorporated in the new constitution. 

On motion of Mr. LARSH, the petition was laid on 
the table. 

Mr. SWAN presented a petition from George W. Al¬ 
len on the subject of land monopoly. 

Upon his own motion it was referred to the stan¬ 
ding committee on Miscellaneous subjects and proposi¬ 
tions. 

Report number one of the standing committee on 
Jurisprudence, and report number one of the stand¬ 
ing committee on Public Institutions of the State, were 
severally read the second time by their titles, and on 
motion of Mr. Hitchcock of Geauga, committed to a 
committee of the whole Convention. 

Upon motion of Mr. LINDEY, the Convention then 
resolved itself into a committee of the whole, (Mr. 
Townshend in the chair,) and resumed the considera¬ 
tion of the Report on 

CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN BANKI.NG. 

The question being upon the amenrlment of Mr. 
REEMELIN to the third section of the report. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. As I understand it, 
the question is upon the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin,] to strike 
out the word “such,” and insert the word “ the,” in * 
the first line and third section. I wish to offer a few 
remarks^ upon the question presented, and I ask the 
Convention to listen for a short time to my remark.-s 
and if they hear any thing worthy of note, I hope ii 
will have its effect. The question which is uovv pre¬ 


sented to the Copvenlion, is to be sure not a complica¬ 
ted one. but it was an important one, whether a discre- 
lioiiaty [lower shall be left to the General Assembly 
upon the subjeqt now under consideration, or whether 
we sliall bind them down to a certain rule, irrespective 
of any discretion. Well, what is the General Assem¬ 
bly of the State of Ohio? Is it not constituted of the 
re])resentatives of tlie peo[)]e? Are not the members 
of the General Assembly representatives of the peo¬ 
ple of the State of Ohio? Do not the membrs reflect 
the o[)inions and feelings of the people whom they 
represent? I may be mistaken, but I have always 
.supposed this was the case. I have always supposed 
that this Convention was constituted of the representa¬ 
tives of t!ie peo[)le, and that it was to reflect the opin¬ 
ions and feedings of the people, but it is possible, 
Mr. Chairman, that there may be as much wisdom in 
the men who shall be elected by the jieople to repre¬ 
sent them in the General Assembly, as thei e is in this 
body. That may be a question for posterity to de¬ 
cide. I do not believe however, that the whole wis¬ 
dom of the State is congregated in this body, and that 
when this body disolves, that wisdom will depart 
from the State. I think we may leave something to 
the discretion of the General Assembly of the State of 
Ohio. 

Mr. Chairman, when we undertake to bind and re¬ 
strict the General Assembly, we undertake to bind and 
restrict the people themselves. The bands are formed 
(or tliem, and although we may form bands strong as 
those of death, it yet remains to be seen whether they 
will put on the fetters we forge for them, whether they 
will consent to be restricted in their privileges, and 
ado[;t a constitution containing these restrictions. It 
may be that the people are distrustful of themselves, 
and that they will j estrict themselves in the maimer 
[)roposed, as before said. In my oi)iiiion something 
should be left to the discretiou of the General Assem- 
bly. 

What is proposed by the section, as it now 8tand.s, is 
that this discretion should extend so h\r as to permit 
the General As.^embly to regulate the security in every 
class of corporations, as that class of corporations 
shall seem to require for the public good. I apprehend 
this cannot be done in the constitution, for the reason 
that different rules ought to prevail with respect to dif¬ 
ferent classes of corporations. Now, Mr. Chairman, I 
know that on the particular subject which is now be¬ 
fore us, my opinions are different from those of my 
friends around me to a certain extent, but they do not 
vary so much as gentlemen would seem to 8up[)ose. 
My own ojiiniou is, and it is not an opinion recently 
formed, that this individual liability should attach to 
corporations to a certain extent, but they should vary 
according to the nature of the corporations. Some 
bold that there should be no individual responsibility, 
while others hold that this individual responsibility 
should be like the individual responsibility of partners. 
Now where a corporati<in is formed with a double ob¬ 
ject, with an object to improve and better the public 
condition—to make public improvements and at the 
.same lime with the expectation that from these public 
improvements remuneration will be received. lu .such 
cases it is proper iu mv estimation that the corporators 
should be bound individually to the extent, or in pro¬ 
portion to the stock which they may hold in such cor¬ 
poration. Take a railroad for instance; it is, to a 
certain extent, a public improvement, but still corpo¬ 
rators who make these roads have not in view this pub¬ 
lic improvement alone—but they ex|)cct to be remu¬ 
nerated for their expenditure by payments from pas- 
s'^'iigers and for freight, which they shall cany over 
their road. It is an improvement,_ which cannot bo 
made witboiif. an association, and it i.s an improvement 
which may be considered as beneficial to the whole 
country. If a corporation of this character i.s involved 
in del)’t, that debt should be paid. It should be paid 
by the property of the corporation, so far as that is 












338 


CONVENTION KEPOETS. 


sufficient. If, after the corporate property is exhaust¬ 
ed, debts still remain, those debts should be paid, and 
how ? Not by the corporators as partners, not by tak¬ 
ing the whole amount which is duo from an individual 
member of this corporation, but by compelling each 
corporatdt to pay his proportion of the debt, according 
to the stock which he holds. Now I ask gentlemen, 
is not this just, right and proper. I would not exempt 
these corporators from thepayment of the debts which 
they may have negligently and carelessly created. I 
would require that where the corporate pi-operty is 
not sufficient to pay the debts, that payment should be 
made by each corporator in proportion to the stock 
which they possess. It seems to me that this is right, 
and every gentleman, I hope, will see it in this light— 
that a principle of this kind might be adopted without 
any sacrifice of right, and that it may be adopted with¬ 
out appealing to party prejudices. 

For the life of me I cannot see what party has to do 
with the proceedings of this Convention. We are not 
framing a constitution for a party as it now exists or 
for a party as it may hereafter exist, but we are framing 
a constitution for the whole people—a constitution 
which shall control one party as much as another par¬ 
ty—one set of individuals as much as another set—for 
members of this body, as much as for other portions of 
the community. 

Well, in the same category with railroads and plank 
roads—your canals made by corporations—your brid¬ 
ges and all things of this class may be classed. If their 
property is not sufficient to pay their debts, let the bal¬ 
ance be paid by them in proportion to the stock which 
they hold in common. 

Mr. SAWYER (intermpting, and Mr. H. giving way) 
said : If my friend fx’om Geauga will permit me to in¬ 
terrupt him, I want to ask him a question, for I desire 
to understand him. I understood him to say that he 
goes for making corporations individually liable for the 
payment of their debts, in proportion to the amount of 
stock they may have subscribed. That is right, but 
here is the difficulty. I want to go a step further and 
I desire to see whether my friend will go with me. He 
wishes that the debtor of the company shall sue the 
corporation and collect from A his dollar, from B his 
dollar, and from C his dollar also, but I want to take 
this method, Mr. Chairman : that the creditor of the 
company may catch the first man and make him pay 
the amount as a member of the company, then collect 
it from the rest. I care not which one of the compa¬ 
ny you may catch, but I would have them all alike re¬ 
sponsible to pay the debt of the corporation. Will the 
gentleman go with me thus far ? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK resumed. Mr. Chairman —I do 
not suppose that we are to frame in this constitution a 
system which could be carried into effect without leg¬ 
islation. I would leave these things for the Legislature 
to act upon. I would not undertake here to legislate 
for I assure the gentleman that if we attempt to legislate 
upon this or any other subject, we will get ourselves 
into difficulty. 

Mr. SAWYER again interrupting, (and Mr. H. giv¬ 
ing way) said: I know my friend will pardon me.— 
This is not what I asked him. I wish him to answer 
me, whether in his opinion it would not be right to do 
so. I want your Legislature instructed by your speech 
now upon this subject. Do you not believe that it 
would be right to pursue the course I have designated, 
and collect the whole amount of a debt of the corpo¬ 
ration from its individual members? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK resumed: I was endeavoring to 
explain my views upon this subject. So far as the se¬ 
curing of the rights of the creditor is concenied, I 
would secure to him that right, according to the terms 
of the contract. If he gave credit to a corporation, 
and that company subsequently extended its corpo¬ 
rate stock, I would make\those members of such com¬ 
pany individually liable, in proportion to the stock 
which they held at the time the contract was entered 


into, and I would not change that contract from what 
it was when originally entered into. If the creditor 
makes a contract he should be bound by the law at¬ 
taching to that contract. Is not this right? They 
who trade with corporators should be bound by the 
law as well as he who trades with an individual. It 
cannot be necessary to extend the terms of his con¬ 
tract or the liability of the other contracting party, be¬ 
yond the credit which he himself has given. If know¬ 
ing the law, he gives a credit, let him be satisfied with 
the law. Then there is another class of corporations, 
which are embraced in this section. Municipal cor¬ 
porations are embraced, and in such corporations the 
citizens generally are corporators. Well, now if you 
make them liable individually, suppose a man has a 
claim against the city Cincinnati. The city of Cin¬ 
cinnati does not pay its debts: it may have corporate 
property, and it has a great deal of individual proper¬ 
ty. Would you permit a creditor of that city to pro¬ 
ceed against a citizen of the city—exhaust all his pro¬ 
perty ill order that the debt of the city may be paid, 
and have him to proceed agaist his fellow-citizens ?— 
It might be right to do it There is one State in the 
Union. (Connecticut,) where that course of policy 
is adopted—where, it a man has a claim against a 
township, he may sue the first individual of the town¬ 
ship he can catch, and enforce payment against 
that individual, and leave him to pioceed against his 
fellow-citizens. But this is not the policy adopted in 
Ohio, and I do not believe it would be good policy 
for us. 

The same principle of individual liabilities applies 
to county organizations. If you adopt such a princi¬ 
ple, each corporator would be bound to pay the entire 
debts of the corporation, and a citizen of the county 
may be compelled to pay county debts, and must look 
to his fellow citizens for a remuneration. This may be 
proper and right in the State of Connectitut, but I ra¬ 
ther think it would not suit our people in Ohio. The 
fetters would be too strong, and I very much doubt 
whether they would consent to put them on. Take 
another instance—that of any charitable institution, 
university or college. The corporation is made up of 
trustees, appointed perhaps by the Legislature, or they 
may have been appointed by the founder of the institu¬ 
tions. Now, is it right that these trustees should be 
charged with the debts of the corporations? Would 
it be right that a man who accepts this trust, shall be 
bound by the debts of the corporation of which he is a 
trustee? Still, under the provisions of this section, if 
amended according to the wishes of the gentleman 
from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] such would be the 
consequence. I say, Mr. Chairman, that it would not 
be right and proper. Here is a class of corporations, 
where your individual liability cannot with propriety 
be applied, and which should be exempt from the ef¬ 
fects of such a system. 

Then there is another class of corporations, the ob¬ 
ject of which is making money—pecuniary corpora¬ 
tions, banks, insurance companies, manufacturing com¬ 
panies and others of that description. Here it seems 
to me, that a difterent rule should be applied from what 
is applied to the class of corporations I first named. 
They do not look to promoting the public interests, as 
do railroad companies and plank road companies. They 
look alone to their own individual interests — to the 
money which they shall make in consequence of their 
act of incorporation. Well, here my theory would be, 
that il these corporations become insolvent after the 
corporate property is exhausted, the stock holders 
should be individually liable as partners. Now, there 
are these different classes of corporations, and if gen¬ 
tlemen will reflect upon it, they will see that different 
rules ought to be applied to them—one rule to one 
class and another rule to another class. If it is right 
and proper to do it, then why not leave it discretionary 
to the General Assembly, according to the report of_the 
committee—to apply the rule in appropriate caseB,'aitd 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


339 


not make it, as it will be if the amendment prevail, an 
even rule, to be applied in every case. I do not enter¬ 
tain the opinion, that the wisdom is all with us, but 
there may be some wisdom left with the people—left 
with those who may be elected to represent them here¬ 
after. 

The gentleman from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] is told 
that he is behind the times 20 years. This is said to 
be a fixed Democratic principle, which must be insert¬ 
ed in the Constitution, and if he does not come up to 
it, why he is no Democrat,and behind the times. What, 
Mr. Chairman, twenty years behind the time of the 
adoption of this individual liability principle by the 
Democratic party? Was this the principle of the 
Democratic party 20 years since ? The gentleman from 
Hamilton county is generally correct in historical 
statements, but I think, he will find upon examination 
that he has made a little mistake. It is not fifteen 
years since this individual liability principle was first 
engrafted in the creed of the Democratic party and be¬ 
came a part of the Democratic faith, and to show I am 
right, I will state some few facts. I was in the Senate 
in the sessions of 1833 and 1834, In that body we had 
15 Whigs and 21 Democrats. In the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives the Democratic majority was two to one— 
double the number of Whigs. Here was an opportunity, 
if it had been the democratic principles, to have en¬ 
grafted in every charter this principle. I mention this 
fact to show that it was in their power, and if it had 
been a principle with them, they would have enforced 
it. That session was somewhat noted as a session in 
which more Banks were incorporated than perhaps at 
any other session of the General Assembly. It was 
noted for another thing. I believe the first Hotel ever 
incorporated in the State of Ohio was incorporated at 
that session. Well, Mr. Chairman, so far as respected 
banking corporations, I did not myself insist upon this 
individual liability clause. The reason, as I stated the 
other day, was, that I wished to place banks then incor¬ 
porated upon the same footing with those which had 
been incorporated heretofore, but so far as respected 
every other company, every corporation where the act 
of incorporation was to benefit the pecuniary interests 
of the incorporators, I did insist upon the insertion of 
of this individual liability clause. The gentleman from 
Morgan [Mr. Hawkins] stood by my side and support¬ 
ed me in the effort. We were defeated, however, not¬ 
withstanding the immense majority there was on the 
democratic side of the General Assembly. Who were 
our opponents? I have now in my mind, the names of 
no less than three members of the Senate, who were 
our most bitter opponents, who have since that time 
been elected by the democratic party of their respect¬ 
ive districts to Congress. One of the gentlemen is at 
the present time a member of Congress from Hamilton 
county, (Mr. Disney,) and he most bitterly opposed the 
individual liability clause, more so than any other mem¬ 
ber of the Senate except Dr. A. Duncan, another Sena¬ 
tor from Hamilton county. The gentleman from Mor¬ 
gan will bear me witness, that I am not incorrect in 
this. Did those men lose their standing in the demo¬ 
cratic party ? Were they denounced for it? Oh no! 
They have received the votes of their party since.— 
Have stood in the foremost ranks. The principle was 
not at that time engrafted into the creed of the demo¬ 
cratic party. It was not engrafted into their creed, un¬ 
til the declaration of war against Banks was made 
somewhere about the year 1837, and since that we have 
heard a great deal about the individual liability prin¬ 
ciple. 

My political friends who have been in the Legisla¬ 
ture from time to time, have been, as I conceive, indis¬ 
creet in making an issue upon this subject. The gen¬ 
tleman from Miami [Mr. Dorsey] is not so far behind 
the tinaes as the gentleman from Hamilton would have 
us believe. If you will go back, search the records, 
and see the course pursued, you will be satisfied that 
I am not incorrect in this. I admit that it has been 


the policy since the commencement of the war upon 
the banks. It is right that it should be incorporated 
into every law regulating corporations, to a certain ex¬ 
tent, whether general or special, and if applied to the 
extent I have named, I would be in favor of it. Sup¬ 
pose we put it in now. Suppose we bind down, hand 
and foot, those who may come after us, is it sure that 
there will not be a change of opinioR? There has beeii 
progress from 1837 up to this time—there may be pro¬ 
gress of such a character, as will tend to defeat the ex¬ 
cellencies of such a clause in the constitution. Let us 
leave i t then where it ought to be. 

Mr. REE ME LIN. The remarks just made by the 
gentleman from Geauga are certainly a relief from the 
mere rigmarole stuff that we were compelled to listen 
to last evening from the other side of the house. That 
gentleman’s great legal experience, his character and 
his age, give him a reputation, and entitle his opinions 
to full respect; giving therefore, to all he said, that full 
and careful consideration which they do receive in con¬ 
sequence of being uttered by him, it is with extreme 
diflidence that I venture to expose what in my opinion 
is mere sophistry and plausibility in his arguments. 

The first position assumed by the gentleman from 
Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock] was that we were not ma¬ 
king laws, and that while provisions such as these 
were right in a legislative assembly they were wrong 
in a constitutional convention. Formerly, when this 
principle was argued by the democratic paTfy i<t the’ 
legislative assembly, they were met by the doctnmJ of 
vested rights and pre-existing contracts; they were 
then told that the only way to remedy the evil and se¬ 
cure the principle was to insert it in the new constitu¬ 
tion, making it the basis of all so-called legislative con¬ 
tracts with corporations, and thus making it a part of 
the fundamental law of the land. Now, sir, when the 
people of Ohio have sent up for the formation of the 
new constitution 64 men pledged, as they supposed, to 
this salutary principle, we are told that the majority in 
this Convention must not insert this principle in the 
new constitution, but leave it to future legislative enact¬ 
ments. When in the Legislature we are pointed to the 
new constitution; when making the constitution we 
are pointed to the Legislature. I, sir, cannot agree to 
this shifting of the principles of the people from one 
place to another, and I do think, sir, if there is any one 
object which the people of Ohio, as a whole and with¬ 
out reference to party, have intended to secure, it is to 
be protected against the superior privileges and the su¬ 
perior advantages which corporations enjoy over the 
rest of the citizens. They desire the laborer shall no 
longer be cheated under the garb of monopoly, and 
that the new constiution shall contain superior safe¬ 
guards and more proper limits to the powers of corpo¬ 
rations than have heretofore existed. 

Why, sir, what is the constitution ? I prefer to use 
the language of Victor Consideraut, one of the French 
Socialists, and one of the best men of France; he says, 
“ The constitution is the fundamental compact, the arch 
of principles; the inviolable guaranty of minorities; 
of the rights of all. The constitution in its spirit and 
principles is the key-stone of the arch; the law of 
laws; the condition on which citizens submit to sec¬ 
ondary laws; on which minorities accept the govern¬ 
ment of majorities.” 

We have come here to make this fundamental com¬ 
pact. We have met to define the rights of all, and 
not of a part. We are about to determine on what 
principles and conditions the people of Ohio are about 
to grant powers to their government, and to define and 
limit the powers under which the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment may act. To create corporations is an act of 
sovereignty: the power to do so must be granted by 
he people, or else it could not be exercised; and un¬ 
der the constructions of our courts, that such contracts 
between the people and the corporations are valid, it 
must be right, it cannot but be proper to define clearly 
and definitely the principles and the limits under whick 
the Legislature may grant incorporations. 











340 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Associations for all legal puri)oses, properly circum¬ 
scribed and confined to tlieir legitimate ob]8cta, have 
no enemy on this side of the chamber. We admit the 
rl^htof labor, of skill, and of capital, to associate to¬ 
gether for the purpose of accomplishing not only good 
to themselves, but to work out those great ends of so¬ 
ciety, which individuals singly cannot accomplish.— 
But sir, such associations the i)eople have demanded 
in thunder tones shall be stripped of the power of mis¬ 
chief and the spirit of monopoly. Equality before the 
law; equality of right and equality of duties is the 
principle upon which the people are willing to grant 
the power to incorporate ;and are we really, sir, to vio¬ 
late this determination of the people ? Are we, the 
true friends of public improvement, to be met by the 
specious cry, that because we wish to impose equality 
of condition and of rights upon corporations, that 
therefore we are the enemies of corporations ? This 
is Generally the course of men who defend injustice and 
wron°:. They charge upon the friends of justice, en¬ 
mity to the object of itself. We who have stood up 
here,for fairness and justice to all, have been misrep¬ 
resented as the enemies of public improvement and 
even of great charitable purposes. Sir, I fear not but 
what the people comprehend the sophistry of our op¬ 
ponents on this question. They begin to understand 
who are the true friends of corporations, and the ob¬ 
jects which are sought to be carried out by their crea¬ 
tion. The people, and I may say here, the members of 
this Convention, should by this lime understand, that 
those who give to corporations the spirit of monopoly 
and exclusiveness ; who wish to send them adrift with¬ 
out restriction, and who defend their frauds and their 
injustice, are truly the worst enemies of corporations, 
and it is they who have-made them odious to the peo¬ 
ple. 

Who was it, sir, that when the carelessness and the 
iniquities of corporations had made the very name of 
corporation a by-word and reproach, stepped in to re¬ 
lieve corporations of their difficulties, to bring them 
back to their legitimate condition? Who was it, when 
a misguided State policy, tried to put conditions upon 
railroads, odious and unjust in themselves, that defend¬ 
ed the railroads against the attempted injustice? Who 
was it, when the railroads were attempted to be tax¬ 
ed, so as to protect the canals and to monopolize to the 
State the carrying trade, that met the triumphant ma¬ 
jority in both branches of the Legislature, by argu¬ 
ment and by the most unwavering sustenance of tlie 
principle of right, and reduced the majority in the 
Senate, of 24 to 12, into a minority of 12 to 24? It 
was the men who are now denounced upon this floor 
as tlie enemies of i-ailroads. I repeat, I fear not this 
specious cry. The people, aye, and even the corpora¬ 
tors, are beginning to understand that those who seek 
to place all upon an equality—who oppose monopoly 
and unequal privileges—who wish to give all their due 
rights, and their proper legitimate condition—are the 
true friends of those great objects which are sought to 
be carried out by corporations. 

When a citizen builds, he is liable for the agent that 
he employs to build his house. When a merchant 
trades, he is responsible for the action of liis clerks. 
When a steamboat company sends abroad its beauti¬ 
ful machinery, it is responsible lor the captain and the 
officers it employs. We ask only to insert the same 
principle for corporations—and what lair man can op¬ 
pose its adoption? 

But we are told to beware of the ides of October. 
We are admonished nottoiiisert this principle, because 
thereby the new constitution n)ay be lost before the 
people. This is paying but a poor compliment to the 
people of Ohio. They have sent up what llio^y sup- 
})osed a majority, pledgeil to that principle. To say 
that the people will opprse the rigU, \^ an attack upon 
the correctness of their judgment which I am unwilling 
to endorse. I say, on the other hand, beware of ma 
king a constitution that will be unsatisfactory to the 


true friends of the new constitution. Bewai’e of ma¬ 
king it an instrument satisfactory to the men who have 
opposed the calling of this Convention. Beware of 
making it a mere cobweb concern, through which cor¬ 
porations may ride with a four-horse team, over the 
rights of the laboring man. Beware of pleasing too 
much the friends of monopoly, lest you displease the 
friends of equal laws. The latter are the portion of 
the people upon whom we must rely for the adoption 
of the constitution we are about to make. The great 
body of the whig party have opposed it so far, and they 
would no doubt be gfad to have the old constitution, 
but slightly changed, in all its parts. They will be 
found at the polls opposing the adoption of the new' 
constitution at all hazards, for they would sooner have 
the old. Will you not then, by making its character 
unsatisfac'ory to that part of the people who have so 
fiir sustained the work before us, endanger far more its 
adoption, than by making it satisfactory to those who 
have heretofore opposed it, and the larger part of whom 
will, under all circumstances any how, be found ar¬ 
rayed against it ? Do what is right, and trust to a free 
people to sustain your action. 

But we are told that we must not draw party lines 
here, and that the proceedings of this Convetion should 
be characterized by the obliteration of those party is¬ 
sues which have heretofore divided the two great par¬ 
ties of Ohio. In other words, we are asked to throw 
overboard the principles sustained by the people, and 
to give up the principles which we have advocated for 
fifteen years past. For fear of being called partizaiis, 
we are to become traitors to the cause of the people— 
we are to make an instrument pleasing to the right and 
the wrong side of the chamber—a thing betwixt and 
between, satisfactory to nobody; harmless for good 
or for evil—general in its character, with unlimited 
pow'ers—such as would suit men who desired to use 
the government for their private ends, instead of the 
public good. Such a suggestion is decidedly cool, and 
could we forget that but eight weeks ago the people of 
Ohio met at tlie ballot box, divided into two great par¬ 
ties, each party desiring to secure the adoption of their 
particular principles, we might, perhaps, be humbug¬ 
ged by such sophistry. But, sir, we do know that par¬ 
ty issues were made at the election—that parties still, 
exist, and will for all time exist, for the purpose of en¬ 
forcing the distinctive principles of each. The minor¬ 
ity on this floor are acting in concert on the principles 
of their party; they sustain their position by the most 
distinguished talent—using the most plausible argu¬ 
ments for the purpose of sustaining their party. Are 
we of the majority, then, to be caught in this trap ?— 
Are we to loose sight of the responsibility due to the 
constituents who elected ns ?—Are we on a mere spe¬ 
cious pretext like this to give up all those cherished 
notions of right, which our party has heretofore advo¬ 
cated ? I think not. The pretence is too flimsy to 
deceive anybody, and it is only by making a constitu¬ 
tion, precisely ill the terms asked for by the people, 
that we can secure its adoption, and save ourselves 
from the charge of betraying the peoide. 

The gentleman from Geauga has told us that to adopt 
the amendment before us, -will make the citizens of a 
town or county responsible for the debts of these pub¬ 
lic corporations. The gentleman said that with a smile 
upon his face, and I doubt not that he must have noti¬ 
ced that that part of his speech was met by the smiles 
of every person around him. Why, sir, he knows, and 
we know, that the adoption of the amendment will 
have no such effects. Another section of the report 
provides for the organization of corporations of that 
kind, and without replying to that part of the gentle¬ 
man’s speech, I will only say that 1 thought it hardly 
suitable to that gentleman’s intellect and to the deserved 
reputation he enjoys. 

•Just so it is with the argument about charitable in¬ 
stitutions. They too were dragged in and we were 
neld up as the enemies of charity, because we insisted 









CONVENTION REPORTS, 


341 


that even charitable corporations should [)ay their debts. 
The idea is decidedly rich;—a charitable institution to 
go in debt for the purpose of being charitable—to bor¬ 
row money to employ labor, and to purchase materials 
on credit, so as to give it away to the poor ! To refuse 
to meet that credit; and forsooth, because we insist 
that even charitable institutions should pay the debts 
inciuTed for objects of charity, we are held up as the 
most uncharitable fellows in the world! 'J'hat certain¬ 
ly was a most uncharitable argument. I tliink justice 
should come before charity, and that the man who is 
charitable out of other folks’ pockets, may perhaps 
steal a character for charity, but in my opinion, and in 
the opinion of all honest men, he will lose his charac¬ 
ter for justice. 

My friend from Geauga has also helped me up to the 
task, by saying my friend from Miami is twenty years 
behind the age. rerhaps I ought to be more particu¬ 
lar in giving the day, the month and the year, when 
the principle of individual liability was first adopted as 
a cardinal princi[)le of the Democratic party. To be 
more particular, then, this time I will doff five years 
and sa^ he is only fifteen years behind. Butido desire to 
admonish him, that unless he spurs up pretty soon, he 
vyill not only be twenty years behind, but he will lose 
sight of the track altogether. He is now mounted on 
the old spavined and broke down horse of Bank Re¬ 
form. He goes for that gradual reform, which takes 
one step forward and two backwards, and the speech 
of the gentleman who preceded me, should admonish 
him, that on Banking and similar subjects, he holds a 
position, in which he will be ever outstripped by the 
whig liarty. 

Mr. DORSEY (interrupting.) Will my friend from 
Hamilton reserve his fire on banking until that subject, 
comes up? 

Mr. RE EMELIN. I will, for there will be a fire, 
then, at which you may burn your fingers, unless you 
change the untenable position which you now occupy. 
The gentleman from Geauga has also, for the pur¬ 
pose of throwing cold water on the positions assumed 
by me, stated that the democracy of “ Old Hamilton ” 
has not been as mindful of this position as they should 
have been. We are told that the two Senators from 
that county, in the session of ’34-5, were not rebuked 
at home for voting against the individual liability 
clause, and for banks. The gentleman referred to 
Messrs. Duncan and Disney, and because these gen¬ 
tlemen had since been elected by the Democracy of 
that county to Congress, it is deemed to be an endorse¬ 
ment of their errors. The gentleman is decidedly 
mistaken in his position. Mr. Disney suffered for a 
long while because he cast the vote he did, and it was 
only after he had given up these notions, and after he 
had done faithful service in the ranks of the party, that 
he again enjoyed the confidence of the Democracy of 
“Old Hamilton.” Mr. Duncan publicly recanted his 
errors. He acknowledged that he had sinned, and he 
promised to sin no more. The Democracy act upon 
the principle that it is no shame to fall, but a shame to 
live on; and the Democracy has therefore always 
treated leniently those children of hers who erred 
from mistake, but who took the earliest opportunity 
to correct those errors. Such has been the case with 
Messrs. Duncan and Disney, and I know that these 
gentlemen will not thank the gentleman from Geauga, 
for again dragging to the light the eiTors of tlieir past 
life, which they had supposed an unswerving adhe¬ 
rence to correct principles since, had entirely oblit¬ 
erated from the minds of their constituents. These 
gentlemen were w’rong then, but they are right now. 
The gentleman from Geauga was right then, but wrong 
now. Which of the two deserves most confidence ? 

I will not stigmatise, as I perhaps should, the imsin- 
uation thrown out that the members from Hamilton 
county, having succeeded in getting all the improve¬ 
ments they desired, are now desirous of shutting down 
the hatches upon the rest of the State. Such insinua¬ 


tions come from men who measure other men’s minds 
by the littleness of iheirown. ■ Cincinnati has not acted 
upon the dog-in-the-manger policy. She has not, l:ke 
Rhiladelphia, blocked up the developtnem of the rest 
of the Stale, merely to gratify her own local interests. 
She has asked but fair play to herself, and she has al¬ 
ways granted it to others. She has insisted upon no 
condition for others, which she w'as not willing to ac¬ 
cept for herself. The Central Railroad, and all those 
other avenues which are directly intended to get ai ound 
Cincinnati, have never found any opposition from her. 
She docs not desire to fetter the industry and capital of 
Northern Ohio, and she never will, and never has used 
the government ot Ohio for seltish purposes, Let, then, 
all such iusinuatioiis pass tor what they are worth. We, 
the representatives of Hamilton county, point to the 
records, and we ask for the evidence that we have 
ever acted on other jirinciples than these of equal jus¬ 
tice to all. Willi these remarks 1 am willing to let the 
question take its course, and I will not, therefore, re¬ 
iterate the arguments which establish, uudeniably, that 
the individual liability clause wiil not prevent the mak¬ 
ing of public improvements—that it will not hurt care¬ 
ful and honest stockholders of a corporation, and that 
it will only tend to the more careful, faithful and 
profitable management of these corporations, to the 
advantage of all concerned. 

Mr. ROBERTSON said: At the risk of provoking 
the ire of the distinguished juridical geutleuiau from 
Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock,] 1 will venture to make a 
few remarks upon this subject. Instead of retorting 
upon that venerable gentleman any unkind remarks, 1 
will only say that if he were serious in his remarks on 
a late occasion, in which he advised me, as chairman 
of the committee on the Elective Franchise, to report 
a provision limiting the right of suti'iage to persons 
worth less than two thousand dollars, it is evident that 
he has been so long in the whig ranks,that he has forgot¬ 
ten entirely the democratic creed, which he professed 
in his youth. For such an idea as that conveyed by 
the suggestion of that geutiemaii, and often disiiige- 
iiiously insinuated by his party friends, for the purpose 
of deception, has never been entertained by the 
democracy. No, sir, the democratic party has everbeen 
the true friend of the development of the wealth of 
the country, and the prosperity of its citizens, and all 
the elements of grea ness and of power, which elevate 
and dignify a free people. I affirm, that the democra¬ 
cy has ever been the iriend of education and equal 
laws; ihe fostering guardian of industry and prosperi¬ 
ty, individual and national. 

Carry out democratic principles, and every industri¬ 
ous man by the time lie has arrived at the age of forty 
or forty-five—the prime of intellectual maturity—will 
be able to accumulate a sufficiency of wealth to retire 
from business or labor, and like a true patriot, devote 
the remainder of bis life to the welfare and happiness 
of society. The democracy never has been the 
enemy of private wealth. Individual wealth is on 
many accounts desirable. It atlords facilities for the 
eiicouragment of science, literature and art; the enjoy¬ 
ment of social life, and the cultivation of taste. It en¬ 
ables a citizen to render the greatest amount of good 
to the community ; and therefore is to be desired, and 
the pursuit of it within due bounds is an object to be 
encouraged. 

If, then, the gentleman from Geauga makes the re¬ 
commendation I have mentioned, as a demociatic sug¬ 
gestion, 1 repeat, he lias not only abandoned, but has 
forgotten the democratic faith. If las suggestion is in- 
tended as an argnnient in favor ot special pnvileges, it 
is no argument at all. It proves nothing; answers 
nothing, and is a sophism. 

I desire, Mr. Chairman, to enter upon every investi¬ 
gation dispassionatelV) ‘lod to meet e4eiy argument 
fairly; and is this nofthe duty of us all? I have said 
that the "ranting of exclusive privileges is Mien to the 
theory and genius of the institutions of this country, 
















342 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


and that it is the duty of every patrot to employ all his 
energies against such grants. That is what I said. 
Was 1 not right? That is the whole length and breadth 
of iny olfendiiig, which called forth the grave sugges¬ 
tion of the juridical and venerable gentleman from Ge¬ 
auga. If I understand that gentleman,he is in favor of re¬ 
taining in our political system, the excresence of special 
and exclusive pi’ivileges, which he defends not by argu¬ 
ments, but attempted ridicule. Let that gentleman 
defend his views by arguments, and not put up a man 
of straw and knock that down, or jesort to any of the 
tricks of sophomores and pettifoggers: tricks which the 
people despise; tricks which can receive no favor 
from any respectable source. Let us meet arguments 
fairly and manfully. If any gentleman takes a wrong 
position, it becomes the duty of those who better com¬ 
prehend the right, to rise and expose the error. This 
IS a duty which we all owe to the Slate and to each 
other. If any individual supposes that such trifling 
sophisims as the venerable gentleman from Geauga 
employed the other day, are to be taken for wit, he 
thereby only exposes his own weakness, for certainly 
there was not the first element of wit in the sugges¬ 
tion of that gentleman. It was not a sarcasm, because 
it was deficient in all that sharpens a sarcasm-point. 
Why then sink to the low level of such pettifogging, 
and thereby convict ourselves of unfairness, or the 
most stolid stupidity We are all here as equals, yet 
differing in politics, and I trust that we shall treat each 
other’s arguments with respect and consideration. This 
much we have a right to demand of each other, how¬ 
ever humble some of us may be, compared with oth¬ 
ers. 

Mr. Chairman, I, at present, intend to submit only 
a few remarks on a single point involved in this dis¬ 
cussion, and that is, the expediency of applying the in¬ 
dividual liability principle to corporators. We are told 
that this is inexpedient, for the reason’that it will defeat 
the purposes contemplated in gi’anting charters of in¬ 
corporation. It is admitted that individual liability is, 
in the abstract, right; that they who receive the un¬ 
limited gains of any enterprise should be responsible, 
without limitation, for its debts and obligations. This 
principle is regarded as just in its application to all our 
individual affairs. I believe in the doctrine that what¬ 
ever is right is expedient, and, also, that it is safer and 
better to make no exceptions in the application of a 
a manifestly correct principle. This is the best rule 
that can be adopted for our government in politics, in 
public or in private life. Desiring to make this the 
rule of my life, I have found that I have never violated 
it, in public or private conduct, whatever the reason or 
occasion, that I was not afterwards compelled to con¬ 
demn such a departure from the strict and unyielding 
application of that principle, as both wrong in theory 
and inexpedient in practice. Applying the rule of 
right, I would, therefore, make all corporators individ¬ 
ually liable for the debts of their incorporations. I 
confess that when the question of how far individual 
liability shall be applied to incorporations, was first 
presented to my mind, that I was somewhat disposed 
to abandon its application to associations for public im¬ 
provements. But my more mature reflections on the 
subject have resulted in the conviction that no such 
excptions ought to be made, either on the ground of 
expediency or right. 

We do not advocate the application of individual lia¬ 
bility to citizens for the debts of municipal corpora¬ 
tions, for they confer no special grant of power or priv¬ 
ilege, as in the case of other corporations. A munici¬ 
pal incorporation, whether of a town or city, is nothin" 
else than a governmental organization, open equally to 
the enjoyment of all. As justly might any portion of 
citizens be made liable for all the debts of a State as a 
member of a municipal corporation for its liabilities. 
Gentlemen on the other side must be aware, tha-t we 
make tliis exception in the application of the individu¬ 
al liability principle, and they waste their time in ex¬ 


posing the futility of applying individual liability to 
this class of corporations. But all other corporations, 
especially those created for pecuniary emolument, hold 
a difierent relation to this principle, and it ought to be 
applied to them without exception. The true theory 
of our government forbids all distinctions in rights 
among its citizens. No governmental contrivance to 
make such distinctions should be permitted. Corpora- i 
tions which create and foster such distinctions ought j 
not to be tolerated by a free people. i 

I am not opposed to corporations justly constituted, 
and for proper objects; but on the contrary, regard 
such associations as valuable agents for the construction 
of public improvements, and some other purposes, and 
believe that in the progress of reform, they may be¬ 
come highly useful in ameliorating the condition of the 
laboring classes. In corporations may be applied the 
true principles of associated industry. The Socialists ' 
of Paris, with all their vagarier, have successfully and 
profitably united their skill and industry in various pur¬ 
suits. By combining together in industrial associations 
they have greatly improved their condition and have com- , 
menced asuccessfulcareerintheaccumulation of wealth. ■ 

These associations of mechanics and laboring men who 
commence without capital, readily obtain credit, for 
their skill, industry and integrity is its basis. 

The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin,] who 
lately visited Europe, informed me in private conver¬ 
sation, that even the poor cooks in the city of Paris, 
have been able to make money by uniting on their 
own account in the establishment of restaurants—all 
equally sharing the proceeds. This principle of asso¬ 
ciation adopted by these French cooks, is destined to 
be of immeasurable advantage to the laboring masses 
of this and other countries, and they will profit by it, 
as soon as they become sufficiently enlightened to ap¬ 
preciate its power and advantages. I do not, in 
this remark, allude to the Fourier system, but to such 
a combination of the laboring class as will enable them 
to keep to themselves, and enjoy as they should, the 
profits of their industry, thereby enabling them, by 
the time they arrive at the age of forty or forty-five, to 
accumulate a sufficiency to provide the comforts and 
elegancies of life for the remainder of their days. 

While I am in favor of corporations for social or 
public improvements, I am opjiosed to granting them 
privileges and immunities which violate correct prin¬ 
ciple, and especially to dispense with that individual lia¬ 
bility, which the Almighty has attached to all human 
action. 

If a principle be right, practice it—apply it—defend 
it, and disregard it not on any pretence of expediency. 

It is always better to trust to the practicability and ex¬ 
pediency of right, than to employ wrong means, be¬ 
cause apparently convenient, for the purpose of accom¬ 
plishing a rightful end. Good can never be done by 
bad means, nor will a wrong cause ever produce a 
right effect, nor the violation of a correct principle, 
beneficial results. 

This is not a time for democrats to abandon the cher- \ 
ished principle of individual liability, on any pretence 
of expediency. Our ojiponents—some of them at 
heart—are becoming converts to this principle. The 
gentleman from Geauga—for whom personally I have 
the greatest respect, and whose presence in this Con¬ 
vention I regard on many accounts as fortunate-r-is in 
part with us. That venerable gentleman has passed 
many years of political conflict in the legislative halls 
of the State, and upon the bench; and I have looked 
upon him here as a good illustration of the dying Napo¬ 
leon, who, with his last audible breath, called out, 
^‘Te/e d' armce ^'—so I expected to hear that gentleman 
in the lust moments of his political existence, ci’ying 
out in this chamber, “ Man the banks!”—“ Guard the 
banks!” But I was surprised to find, that in his lat¬ 
ter days he was becoming a convert to the democratic 
doctrine of individual liability. The light reflected 
upon his mind by the recollection of the political sen¬ 
timents of his more youthful days— 












CONVENTION REPORTS 


343 


Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, interrupting, and Mr. 
R. giving way : In the journals of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives for the sessions ol 1810-11, it will be 
found that I proposed the individual liability clause 
for the charter of the Bank of Muskingum, which 1 
believe was a little earlier day than when the gentle¬ 
man from Fairfield first engaged in politics. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I will ask the gentleman if he 
did not belonof to the Jeflersoniaii party at that time? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. To be sure I did: and I have 
never deserted it yet. (Laughter.) 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, we will 
tiy that question at some other time. The .leflfersonian 
party has deserted that gentleman then—left him be¬ 
hind—rotated away from him, I suppose. The gen¬ 
tleman has learned the way certain politicians have of 
explaing their own inconsistencies. Yet I respect 
him for the democracy he once possessed, and I 
will be glad to see in the declining days of his j)o- 
litical existence those beautiful principles, which 
adorned his youth, reappear in all their freshness and 
bloom, as the crowning glory of his life. Already he 
has partially returned to the individual liability; but, I 
presume, that in former years, when we were in con¬ 
flict with the whig party, the gentleman was against us 
on that question. I have no doubt of it, for we heard 
not his voice then in favor of individual liability. But 
in 1811, in his early life, when the principles of Jeffer- 
sonianism warmed and animated his heart, he was in 
favor of individual liability. Where was he in 1838, 
in the struggle which succeeded all the wrongs which 
at that time had recently been inflicted upon the peo¬ 
ple of Ohio by the banks? He was silent as the tomb, 
and probably in favor of retaining the bank power, 
without the individual liability safeguard, which he 
voted for iu 1811. And, I presume, that when he was 
in the Legislature of 1833, he voted against engrafting 
individual liability upon bank charters. This is not 
denied. If it is, let the gentleman speak and correct 
my misapprehension. 

But, Mr. Chairman, if this principle should be ap¬ 
plied in one instance to a corporation, associated for the 
purpose of pecuniary gain, it ought to be applied to all, 
without exception; and now is the time, and this the 
place to provide for its application. The gentleman 
irom Geauga has reminded us, that we do not pos¬ 
ses all the wisdom in the State. Certainly not, and I 
am happy to think, that perhaps some wisdom may 
survive us. He reminded us also, that if we make a 
constitution embracing the provision, which many on 
this side advocate, that it will be rejected by the peo¬ 
ple. But what of that? What is our duty here ? Is 
it not to assert justice, and enunciate political truth ? 
What is the purpose of a constitution ? Is it not to 
protect the rights of the people? to guarantee justice 
to all—to the minority as well as the majority ? Is it 
not our duty here to apply the principle of justice to 
all the governmental relations of the people ? But, 
we are told that we cannot apply the rules ol right in 
all cases. We are told that we cannot apply the indi¬ 
vidual liability principle—that principle of liability 
which the Almighty has imposed upon eveiy man, and 
from which none can escape by any act of incorpora¬ 
tion; for it dwells with us here, and follows all of us 
to that dread tribunal hereafter. We are told that this 
principle cannot be applied universally—that public 
improvements cannot be made, and that banking can¬ 
not be carried on where it is in force. The party to 
which the gentleman from Geauga belongs, has unifor¬ 
mly denied that banking can be carried on by compa¬ 
nies made individually liable for their debts. Yet, the 
gentleman from Geauga is willing now to have that 
provision inserted in bank charters. Yes, in the mo¬ 
ment when their power is about to be stricken down 
by the command of the people, bankers say, “ We will 
take your individual liability, if you will only perpet¬ 
uate our existence.” 

But it is asserted that railroad and turnpike compa¬ 


nies cannot be successful under the individual liability 
pi-inciple. If railroads and turnpikes are profitable, 
will they not be made? Will the individual liability of 
stockholders prevent their construction ? If not profi¬ 
table they ought not to be made at all, because their 
construction would be a waste of capital. If individal 
liability will discourage doubtful and unprofitable en¬ 
terprises, the efiect will be salutary; if not, those who 
expect to profit by such undertakings ought to pay the 
expenses of the experiment, and be held fully responsi¬ 
ble for all liabilities. 

But I am satisfied that gentlemen are mistaken in 
supposing that individual liability will defeat public 
improvements by incoi jiorated companies. The bank- 
king, trading, commercial, and I believe, but am not 
certain, railroad associations of England, are joint stock 
companies, and, by the common law, the members 
of these companies are held individually liable for all 
their debts. Individual liability does not defeat the 
association there, of large numbers of persons for pecu¬ 
niary advantage; why should it here? The laws of 
Parliament, or Royal Grants, may sometimes modify 
the common law as applied to joint stock companies, 
but the principle of individual liability is almost al¬ 
ways imposed upon companies established for pecu¬ 
niary gain. We are told that lai’ge numbers of per¬ 
sons, because many of them are strangers to each other, 
will not associate together in a joint stock company, if 
each member may be held liable for its debts. The 
numerous joint stock companies of England do not ex¬ 
pel ience this difficulty. The only special advantage 
possessed by most of these companies, is the right of 
succession—the right of members to transfer stock— 
and a corporate individuality, to sue and be sued; and 
these grants Parliament may at any time revoke. Yet, 
we find there, numerous joint stock banks, consisting 
of companies varying from one hundred to three hun¬ 
dred members. In England there is, then, no impo¬ 
licy in the application of individual liability to pecuni- 
aiy associations, why is it inexpedient here ? Are not 
our people as enterprising, as well qualified, to manage 
their affairs; as able to meet their engagements, as hon¬ 
est, and, in proportion to population, as rich as the peo¬ 
ple of England ? We have borrowed many things 
from that country; some that do not benefit us; but 
here is a just principle which works well there, and 
why not apply it here ? 

It is a remarkable fact, yet true, that the British gov¬ 
ernment has been far more averse to granting exemp¬ 
tions and special privileges to pecuniary associations 
than the Legislatures of many ol our republican States. 

The American statesman may profitably study the 
history of monopolies, corporations and joint stock 
companies as they have existed in that country. We 
can learn from that source whether individual liability 
applied to associations containing numerous members 
is practicable or not; for there the experiment has been 
fully and succcessfully tried. Queen Elizabeth, in the 
early part of her reign, granted monopolies to her fa¬ 
vorites , but, notwithstanding her great popularity and 
power, the Court of King’s Bench declared such 
grants to be against the public interests, and, therefore, 
null and void. James the First, influenced by the pop¬ 
ular sentiments of his age, wrote essays iu the early 
part of his reign against monopolies, which were pub¬ 
lished. Charles the First followed the example of 
Queen Elizabeth, and granted monopolies to his favor¬ 
ites; which, perhaps, more than any other cause, exci¬ 
ted the people against him, and paved the way for the 
revolution that followed. Early in the 18th century a 
speculating epidemic prevailed among all classes in 
Eiwland. Numerous joint stock companies were form¬ 
ed °to en«-ase in almost every conceivable kind of en¬ 
terprise. ° The Earl of Oxford was the leader of this 
speculating mania, and chiefly by his influence, the 
South Sea Company was organized. Then followed a 
host of other bubble joint stock companies, many of 
which soon exploded, and engulphed thousands of the 








344 


CONV^lNTIOlSr EEPORTS. ■ 


Eng’.ish people in ruin. During the prevalence of this 
destructive mania, only one of the great statesmen of 
England, Mr. Walpoole, stood up in I’ai-iiament and 
resisted its baneful influence. At the same jieriod .John 
Law, the author of the modern system of banking, 
flonrished in France, and led on the peo[)le of that 
country in a similar course of speculating ruin. In both 
of these countries a reaction ensued, as soon as the de¬ 
lusion was made apparent by the devastate,n and ruin 
which followed in its train. The granting of privilege? 
to pecuniary corporations and joint stock companies 
have been, since tin t tiinregarded with great jeal¬ 
ousy and suspicion by both the government and people 
of England. 

In that country, as I have said already, nearly all 
large associations for gain are joint stock companies. 
I read the following from Bohn’s E.icyciopcdia, to 
show the enterprises these companies embrace: 

“ Bodies inoreporated lor the purpose of commerce, or the 
profitable investment of capital, such as railway companies, mi¬ 
ning companies and banking companies, belong to the class ot 
joint stock companies.” 

By the English common law the members of all 
these joint stock companies are liable to the fullest ex¬ 
tent for the debts of the company. Parliament may re¬ 
lax the severity of this rule, but I believe it is seldom 
done. Whether there is any modification in this par¬ 
ticular, iu late acts of pariiament, as far as regards 
railroad companies, 1 do not know. But in the joint 
stock companies of England, I again assert without fear 
of successful contradiction, the practicability and expe¬ 
diency of the individual liability principle has been test¬ 
ed with the most nuqucsliouable success—not only in 
email associations, but in these wielding the largest 
capital, and engaged iu the most important and exten¬ 
sive enterprises. 

Mr. Mills says, in his great work an political econo 
my, that the individual liability principle, as ajqdiedto 
the joint stock companies of England, proves to be in 
practice, a very minor inconvenience. 1 will read the 
following extract from the work of that distinguished 
author. He says: 

“In regard to joint stock companies without limitation of re¬ 
sponsibility, which in England exist in such numbers, and are 
formed with such facility as to reduce (in a merely eeonomieal 
point of view) the jealousy which the law entertains ol tin- prin¬ 
ciple of limitat'on to the rank of a very minor inconvenience.” 

With such evidence as this in favor of the individiuil 
liability principle, why will gentlemen insist that it is 
inexpedient? Why oall it impracticable ? The facts 
I have announced answer all their arguments. 

As I rose only to otter a few remarks in rejily to the 
expediency objections to individual liability, and liave 
already occupied the time allowed by the rule of the 
Conveiitioii, 1 will not further trespass upon the pa¬ 
tience of the committee at the present time. 

Mr. FIRESTONE. I am aware, Mr. Chairman, that 
the committee has been detained a considerable time 
in the discussion of this proposition, and that in all 
probability, they have become nearly out of patience 
with this report. It is true, that we have moved very 
slowly. But I think, if we consider the importance 
of this report, and of the principles introduced iu it, 
w'emay find in tliese a sufficient excuse for our lack 
of progress. I think if there is any report which may 
be presented to the Convent ion and referred to thi.- 
committee, on account of which the people will be 
willing to excuse us for delay and debate, it is the re¬ 
port now under discussion ; and although our progi'ess 
may not be rapid, I trust and hope that it may be prok 
itable. One consideration which assures me ofexcuse 
on the part of the people, is, that the debates upon this 
subject will be sure to interest ihem. This (pieslion 
of individual liability has not been sprung for po¬ 
litical ettect. It has not been raised by llie work¬ 
ings of demagogues, but it has come up from die jieo- 
ple themselves. The have seen the abuses and cor¬ 
ruptions of corporations—the)' have seen the injustici 
which has been meted out by them to individuals 


without capital—individuals whose labor they have 
employed, and then defrauded them of their hire.— 
Witnessing these scenes, and taking an interest iu the 
[irosperity and welfare of the laboring class, they iiavo 
apfiealed to us, and said there should be a reformation 
ot these clauses: and, having done so, 1 trust, that, see¬ 
ing what is embodied in our report, the people will 
be willing to excuse our delay. 

This (piestion, vvbicb we have now under considera¬ 
tion, and the amendment of the gentleman Irom Haui- 
il:oii [Mr. Ree.mi!;lin,] is a question not of mere expedi¬ 
ency, but involving a vital principle, a matter ofjustice 
between man and man ; and not only so,but it is impor¬ 
tant as affecting the final success and character of the 
constitution itself. For 1 must be very much deceived, 
if vve offer this constitution to the people without set¬ 
tling this question as they have indicated, notwithstand¬ 
ing we may make it perfect in other resimcts, they will 
reject it. 

What is the principle for which we were contend¬ 
ing? It is simply the doctrine of our patriotic fore- 
laihers—a proposition to make all men equal, with re¬ 
spect to the legal protection of their rights and inter¬ 
ests. We talk about our liberty and our rights—all 
parties boast of the advantages of the freedom and the 
political privileges of this country ; but siill, with re¬ 
spect to the injustice of coiqioratioiis, we have experi¬ 
enced more than almost any other country, ^ye have 
conferred corporate rights u{)on some meu which have 
not been enjoyed by olliei s, created just as free. WIdle 
vve have been boasting of our liberty, we have sutter- 
ered this Slate of things to creep into our midst. We 
feel proud of our American eagle as he soars aloft.— 
We look with pride upon our stars and sti ipes, as they 
float in the breeze. We have been lulled into security 
by the bugle-notes of liberty, and the song of 
“ Hail Columbia! happy land 1” 

whilst a thousand monopolies have been nestling in 
our midst, under the fostering care and protection of 
the government. 

We should not be inclined to look so much to the 
power of wealth. We should not protect the interests 
of those monopi'lies whicli have ground the face of the 
poor, and which, more than anything else, have con¬ 
tributed to produce inequality airrougst the citizens of 
ibis government. This evil should certainly be cor¬ 
rected. We should be careful lujt to up[)ress the poor. 
But men who boast of these great imprrjvemeiits, and 
who are surrounded with vested righ'.s, very frequent¬ 
ly bind tightly the chains of slavery-, oppre. s the poor 
man with burdens intolerable to be borne. Should 
you, therefore, grant them privileges v^bich do not be¬ 
long to others ? Should you put into their hands the 
power to oppress the toiling laborers who have con- 
sti ucted their great public works? What right have 
we to confer such a power tipon the Legislature ? Or 
what right has the Legislature to confer such powers 
upon chartered companies, whether lor the construc¬ 
tion of railroads, turnpikes or canals ? Should we con¬ 
tinue to tolerate the existence of special privileges 
whicli have protected corporators iu their refusal to 
pay iheliire of labor: which have enabled them to say 
to the laborers to whom they were indebted, “ we 
have a charter, we have the privilege to defraud you, 
and we will do it.” Sir, there is a (juesiion of right 
liere, leaving all else outof view, auel the individual lia¬ 
bility to the fullest extent should be thrown into the 
constitution to protect tlie laboring men. 

But it has been said, that if we inseit this individual 
liability principle iu the strong terms pro[)osed by the 
gentleman from Hamilton wo shall retard the progress 
of public improvements. Well, sir, if that question 
really came up with any show of plausibility, 1 should 
be willing to give it due consideration. For T trust 
there is not a man of this committee, no matter to what 
party he belongs, who would wish to stop the public 
inq)rovements of the State. I ti ust that no man desires 
to place burdens upon the people, which would result 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


345 


from an abandonment ot the public improvements ol 
this grovs’ing State. I trust that there is no man here 
holding these sentiments. But sir, I ask now, will the 
individual liability principle retard these improvements? 
Perhaps this may depend a little upon circumstances. 
•But if the State insists upon the right, can ic be that 
she will prefer to carry on her improvements through 
the agency of men who will disregard the individual 
liabilty ? I think not. I am for asserting the princi- 
le. I fear no consequences which may How from 
oing right, and from dealing with honest men. But 
we have need to take care of the rogues, and if rogues 
are the men to make these improvements and to have 
the privilege of charters, I desire to be protected from 
their swindling encroachments. 

Let us illustrate this principle of individual liability. 
Take a common business transaction. If you borrow 
a hundred dollars, are you afraid to mortgage property 
worth three hundred dollars to secure it? If a trea¬ 
surer of your county be elected to receive the reve¬ 
nue, does he hesitate to give bonds in double the 
amount which it is expected will be entrusted to him? 
JSo it will be with an honest capitalist, if he is honest 
he will come underyour charter—he will not be afraid 
of the penalty. Then it is not honest men we wish to 
affect—we are after the scoundrels. We want to pre¬ 
vent rogues from perpetrating their rascality according 
to law, by making them individually liable for every 
cent of debt they may contract: and, so far from re¬ 
tarding our improvements, and j)utting a stop to the 
whole by the adoption of this principle, in my opinion 
we shall give them a better character for progress and 
permanency ; and that we shall also take away from 
our corporations that which has made them so obnox¬ 
ious to the people; for it certainly is on account of the 
absence of the individual liability principle, that they 
have been made to stink in the nostrils of the people. 
Now I wish them to redeem their character. We have 
permitted them to go astray; and now I wish to bring 
them back again and place them upon a level with 
honest men, who do not belong to corporations ; and 1 
trust that such a principle will not retard the progress 
of the public impi’ovements of the State. 

But the gentleman from Miami [Mr. Dorsey] says 
this would be putting a straight jacket upon corpora¬ 
tions. Well, we have heretofore put the straight jack¬ 
et upon the laborer, and if we must have the straight 
jacket worn, I prefer to put it upon the man that is 
able to wear it. We have had the straight jacket up¬ 
on the wrong person. But I apprehend there is no 
need of its being worn by any body. I think our pub¬ 
lic improvements will go on all the better for this prin¬ 
ciple—that the people will have more confidence in 
their management; and that,instead of putting an,end 
to improvement, it will only be giving them a new 
impetus. 

But it has been contended thatwe should not consider 
these questions in the Convention—that they should be 
left entirely to the discretion ol the Legislature. But 
now, this discretion has long been left m the Legisla¬ 
ture—and what have they done? They have merely 
permitted the evil to go on. Then why cannot we set¬ 
tle the matter here just as well as to leave it any longer 
to the uncertainty of legislation? But, gentlemen say 
that the Legislature might introduce individual liability 
wherever it would be jiroper to do so. I’ossibly they 
might; but hitherto it has generally been a vain strug¬ 
gle. And it is this matter of uncertainty which we 
want to settle. 

It has been said that we have not all the wisdom in 
the State, and I admit it. I admit that we are not 
more perfect nor more wise than the same number ol 
men which might be found in the Legislature. But still 
I cannot see why we should not settle this cpiestion by 
engrafting it upon the organic law of the State. I 
think there are good reasons why we should do this. 
For it will prevent the Legislature from getting into 
quarrels about it hereafter, by which they might, as 
heretofore, make it a soucre of considerable expense. 


But now we can settle it here with few woi’ds aud 
in a short time. 

But it is said, that by the adoption of this principle we 
shall tie up tl;e hands of the Legislature and restrain 
them in the pm[^;r exercise of their functions. This 
objection, it seems to me, cannot amount to a great 
deal, for we arc here for the very purpose of tying up 
and restraining the functionaries of power in every re¬ 
spect. Are we not here for the purpose of telling the 
General Assembly upon what principle we want them 
to enact our laws ? 

But I am chiefly anxious that this question should 
be settled, because the people require it, and require 
it now. If any thing has been most particularly re¬ 
quired of this Convention, it is that we should consider 
and dispose of this all important question : that it should 
not be dodged; but that evci’y man should come up to 
his duty and settle it at once. I am opposed to leav¬ 
ing this matter any longer to the imcertainty of legis¬ 
lation. I hold, with the old saying, that “ a bird in the 
hand is worth two in the bush.” 

But it is said that this is a compromise report, and 
that we should be willing to compromise. Well, com¬ 
promises are line things upon many points. But this 
question, as far as I am concerned, cannot be compro¬ 
mised. For it is a cpiestion of right and justice between 
man and man—a vital principle, and I will compromise 
principle with no man. If it were a mere matter of 
expediency, I would be willing to compromise ; but 
upon this question I cannot, and, I say it freely, I shall 
not vote for this constitution, here or elsewhere, if the 
individual liability clause is not inserted. 

Gentlemen say Ihey are willing, and would be in fa¬ 
vor of the individual liability to lie against the stock¬ 
holders of banking institutions to the ftillest extent. 

But that is just where I am not willing to place it. I 
want no individual liability there, from the fact that I 
want no banks. It is said that Jove kicked Vulcan out 
of Heaven: aud I hope, in imitation of that exploit, 
that this Convention will kick every bank in the State 
out of existence: for they have always been a curse to 
the people; and the people themselves will kick them 
out if we do not, pi’ovided such a thing can be done. 

This is not the proper place, but I hope to be par¬ 
doned, while expressing my views upon tlie banks. I 
arn satisfied that the people of this Slate are anxious to 
get rid of the blighting influence of a bloated rag 
money currency. The banks have, in years past, and 
do now, wield an influence and power in Ohio that is 
I’.umiliating in the extreme to witness. In despotic 
countries power is to be found perched upon the bay¬ 
onets that surround the throne of a sovereign, but in 
this country we find a power th it is able to sway the 
mind and direct the public will in the shape of an 
aristocracy of wealth—a corrupt soulless banking in¬ 
stitution. We are now in what may be called the 
“sunshtneof banks,” fluttering like a feathered songster 
in the devouring jaws of a monster. If a banking in¬ 
stitution should, by intrigue aud treachery, be p:‘rmit- 
ted to exist in the State, why of course I am in favor of 
the individual liability to its fullest extent; but I do sin¬ 
cerely hope that the whole corrupt and vile system of 
banking will be ended under this constitution. But 
enough of this at this time. ... i • • 

I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that the individual liabil- 
ty clause will prevail, otherwise I shall consider th;it 
we will not be doing our duty to the people of this 
State. This should not be a question of dift'erence be¬ 
tween democrats and whigs, and, in lact, I am sur¬ 
prised to see many on the other side of the House op¬ 
pose the measure. It is an iinporlant question of prin¬ 
ciple, of justice, to the laboring man question 
amono'st people of all parties, ^iid, as I said before, I 
must be very mucli deceived il tney do not wish the 
individual liability principle to lay upon every stock¬ 
holder of every monied cor[)oration in the btate to the 
iiillest extent—making them liable for the payment of 
every dollar, according to the terms of their contracts. 

It is singular, Mr. Chairman, that the sympathies of 











CONVENTION REPORTS 


346 


the other side of the house has mostly been found on 
the side of corporations and combinations of wealth. 
If we consider the prosperity of our State within the 
last fifty years, we will inevitably come to the conclu¬ 
sion that it is the laboring man that should be protect¬ 
ed and not so much a soulless corporation. Fifty years 
ago stately ibrests reared their gloomy shade where 
now is heard the the busy hum of machinery; the lofty 
spire points to the clouds, exhibiting at once the pride 
and devotion, the ambition to excel. To subdue our 
gloomy forests and to make blossom as the rose the 
wilderness of Ohio, came an army of labor—without 
which the wheels of society cannot be kept in motion— 
without whose services bloated wealth would not have 
power to monopolize an undue share of the earth’s 
products, and without which the earth would remain 
a desert. It is this army of labor, armed with the 
woodman’s axe, with rude chariots suited to their noble 
warfare, drawn by the stately ox, to whom we are in¬ 
debted for the prosperity of the Buckeye State. Be¬ 
fore this mighty army the lofty oaks of centuries bow¬ 
ed their mighty heads, ere they were converted by this 
same army into vast floating palaces, to stem the mighty 
ocean to foreign climes. 

But, Mr. Chairman, in view of the many services of 
the laboring man, how is it proposed by many that he 
shall be rewarded ? The answer, I am sorry to say, is by 
creating a monied aristocracy, with chartered rights, 
without an individual liability clause, thus enabling 
them to cheat and defraud these laboring men, to 
whom we owe our present comfort and enjoyments. 
Yes, to cheat and defraud according to law, under the 
name of a corporation—a vested right. 

What privileges have heretofore been granted by the 
Legislature to many of these corporations ? Railroad 
companies have had the power to nin through our 
farms, dig ditches and grade our fields and meadows; 
yea, almost to traverse our cemeteries and country 
grave-yards, digging up the very bones of our wives 
and children, under the authority and guarded by a 
charter. In saying this, however, I disclaim that I am 
opposed, or that I would wish to check the onward 
progress of improvement. All I wish to say is, that I 
want these companies to be placed upon the level of an 
individual, and made legally responsible for their acts 
the same as individuals. Is it not right that they 
should be held responsible; and if right, is it not ex¬ 
pedient? But further—these corporations, after the 
laborer has moistened neai’ly every clod of these im¬ 
provements with the sweat of his brow, cheated him 
out of his wages and sent him away with a broken 
constitution and empty pockets. How oft, sir, upon 
Saturday eve, have a smiling wife and sweet little cher¬ 
ubs looked with anxious eye for the return of a weary 
husband and parent to bring them bread as the reward 
of his labor, been disappointed by the announcement 
that the company to whom he was employed under the 
protection of a charter, cheated him out of his pay. 
At the same time many of the men in these corj)ora- 
tions are residing in affluence and wealth, living in cost¬ 
ly palaces and lounging on sofas purchased by the 
sweat and toil of the laboring man, whose wife and 
children cry for bread. Is this right ?—is it just ? Ho¬ 
ping that the amendment may prevail, and that corpo¬ 
rators will be made individually liable for all their 
debts, I take my seat. 

Mr. MANON. I do not rise to make a speech. I be¬ 
lieve the question is, to strike out the word “ such,” 
and insert the word “the.” Now, after the explana¬ 
tion of the gentleman from Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] 
which was acknowledged by others, I think that every 
man in this Convention understood how to vote, and 
what his vote would be. Why, sir, the humble indi¬ 
vidual now addressing you did so: and if I could un¬ 
derstand it, I think every other gentleman ought; for 
I was born in the woods, as it were, in a bit of a log 
cabin 10 by 14, rocked ^(as they tell me) in a sugar 
trough, and never was inside of a college of any kind 


until after the age of 25, and then only to see it. Now, ; 
sir, we have been detained here 24 hours on the ques- | 
tion before ti e committee, and we have had brought 
into this debate all the governments of England, Ire- | 
land, France, Germany, and perhaps others, that have i 
authorized corporations, banks, bank charters, political 
creeds, &c., and so on. Now, if gentlemen wish to 
make speeches, I, for one, wish they would speak to 
the point—to the question, and not get all oyer crea¬ 
tion upon striking out the word “ such,” and inserting 
the word “ the.” Now, if gentlemen wish to make 
speeches for political effect, I, for one, wisli them to go 
home and make them, and not take up the time of the 
Convention at the expense of $700 per day to the State. 
We have had enough sir, as I think, of such work as 
this. ! 

TRIBUTE TO THE MEMORY OF JOHN RKIIY. , 

Mr. VANCE of Butler said: he desired to offer a set 
of resolutions to stand as a public testimonial to the me- ^ 
mory of a distinguished citizen of the county of Butler, i 
recently deceased, who was one of the framers of the j 
present constitution of Ohio: and to give him an oppor- ; 
tunity to do so, he would move that the committee rise j 
and report progress. 

The motion was agreed to: so the committee rose, ! 
reported, “no conclusion,” and asked leave to sit 
again. ! 

Mr. VANCE now rose and said: Mr. President, I | 
have been induced, sir, by a letter that has been placed (g 
in my hands by an honorable member of this Conven- . 
tion, to announce to this body the decease of Mr. John 
Reily, late of Butler county. It is known, perhaps, to 
every member upon this floor, that the deceased was ; 
one of the members of the Convention which framed 
the present constitution of Ohio, and that he had been, 
for many years, a citizen of the northwestern torritoiy, 
and of the State of Ohio. 

Mr. Reily was born in Chester county. Pa., in April ® 
1763. Shortly after his birth, his parents removea to 
the State of Virginia, where he received the rudiments , 
of an English education. ^ 1 

He served a term of 16 months in the revolutionary 
struggles of our fathers. He was in the battles of Eu- 
taw, Camden, Guilford Court House, and at the seige 
of ’96. At the expiration of his terra of service, he re- i 
ceived an honorable discharge, over the signature of 
Gen. Washington himself. 

When quite a young man, he emigrated to the wilds 
of Kentucky, where he labored for a season at the bu¬ 
siness of a house carpenter. 

About the year 1789, if I am not mistaken as to time, 
Mr. Reily removed from Kentucky to the town of 
Columbia, at the mouth of the little Miami river. Here 
he engaged in teaching an English school; and upon 
all suitable and necessary occasions, assisted in defend¬ 
ing the infant colony from the attack of their Indian . 
neighbors. Mr. Reily was one of the brave pioneers 
who volunteered to defend the station at Colrain, when 
surrounded and attacked by the Indians, in 179—. It 
was in this engagement that the brave Colonel Hunt, ; 
with many oi his intrepid companions in arms, fell 
victims to the tomahawk and faggots of the savage foe. 
Whilst at Columbia, Mr. Reily was associated with the 
late Judge Dunlevy in the teaching of a school—the 
first being the principal in the English department, the 
second in the Latin. 

After St. Clair’s defeat, Mr. Reily was one of the 
brave men who volunteered to march to the battle 
ground, for the purpose of burying the slain, andof col¬ 
lecting such of the government property as had not 
been carried oft' by the enemy. 

Mr. Reily was afterwards employed in the clerk’s 
office for Hamilton county, under General Gano, who 
was then clerk of said court. He was a member of 
the Convention which formed our present State consti¬ 
tution, and was at two different times the secretary of 
our Territorial Legislature. 

After the organization of Butler county, his early 









CONVENTION REPORTS 


347 


friend and associate, Judge Dunlcvy, having been ap¬ 
pointed to the common pleas bench, for the judicial cir¬ 
cuit then including the county of liutler, appointed Mr. 
Rilev the clerk of said court for Butler county. This 
office he continued to hold under successive appoint¬ 
ments until 1840, when he declined a re-appoinrment. 
He also held the appointrnent of clerk of the supreme 
court of the same county from its first organization to 
the year 1843, when he resigned the office and retired 
from all public employment. 

Mr. Reily was also appointed the first post master at 
Hamilton, Ohio, which otfice he continued to hold up to 
the year 1835, when he resigned the office. His suc¬ 
cessor was.theu appointed, who has ever since been 
and still is the occupant of the office. 

Mr. Reily was likewise the first recorder for Butler 
county, which office he continued to hold for many 
years, when he voluntarily declined to receive a further 
appointment. 

He was the first clerk to the commissioners appoint¬ 
ed in the county, which appointment he held for many 
years, and whicli he also voluntarily resigned. 

He was for many years one of the trustees of the Mi¬ 
ami University. This trust he held until a few years 
since, when age and imfirmities compelled him to re¬ 
linquish it. 

He was a man of many peculiarities, but of the most 
strict and uncompromising integrity. In every depart¬ 
ment of life he was faithful and unscrupulously honest. 

Mr. Reily was in his 88th year at the time of his de¬ 
mise. He had lived to see the labor of his head, his 
hands and his heart abundantly blessed, and it is an 
incident worthy of profound contemplation that at 
the very period of time in which our people are seek¬ 
ing to enlarge the sphere of constitutional liberty,— 
whilst they are about to bid farewell to the constitution 
under which they have lived and prospered for near 
fifty years, and to seek enlarged blessings under a new 
form, the mind and soul that so largely aided in dilFu- 
sing these blessings imder the guarantee afforded by 
organic law, has been remodeled, regenerated and pre¬ 
pared for usefulness in a wider and a better sphere of 
exlstenco. 

Mr. President; I now ofier for adoption the fol¬ 
lowing resolutions: 

The resolutions were read by the Secretary and they 
are as follows, to wit: 

Resolved, That this Convention has heard with deep sensibility 
the annunciation of the death of John Reily, Esq., late of the couii- 
ty of Butler, a soldier of the Revolution, one of the early pioneers 
of the west, one who tilled important trusts under the territorial 
government, and one of the framers of the present constitution of 
Ohio. 

Resolved, That this Convention deeply sympathise with the 
family of the deceased, on this melancholy occasion. 

Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions, signed by the Presi¬ 
dent and Secretary of this Convention, be forwarded to the fami¬ 
ly of the deceased. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren said: Mr. President, I hope 
I may be pardoned for rising to ofier a few remarks by 
way of seconding the resolutions ofiered by the honor¬ 
able member from Butler. I live in an adjoining coun¬ 
ty to that in which the deceased resided, and have been 
intimately acquainted with him for a period of some 
thirty years. I first became acquainted with Mr. Rei¬ 
ly about the year 1821, just after I had commenced 
the practice of tlie law, and was uniformly in the habit 
of attending the courts in Butler county, in the prac¬ 
tice of my profession, whilst he was Clerk of the Court 
of Common Pleas and of the Supreme Court, in that 
County. I know that I but speak the sentiment of 
every member of the profession who has had the good 
fortune and the pleasure of practicing in the Court of 
Common Pleas of Butler county, during the time he 
was Clerk of that Court, when I bear witness to the 
urbanity of his demeanor, and the politeness and cour¬ 
tesy which he always bestowed upon every member, 
and especially upon the younger members of the pro¬ 
fession. Towords the latter, his deportment was pecu¬ 
liarly kind and paternal. 


In some respects, Mr. Reily was a most extraordin¬ 
ary man *, and, as the gentleman from Butler has well 
remarked, in the qualities of punctuality and honesty, 
and the most strict and marked integrity, I do not think 
he had a superior any where. During the whole pe¬ 
riod of my service on the bench of tlie Common Pleas, 
he was the Clerk of that Court, which brought us into 
intmate official relations. 

During the period of more than thirty years that he 
served as Clerk of the Court, he discharged his duties 
with the strictest fidelity, and utmost punctuality. In¬ 
deed, as a Clerk, he was a model. As an instance of 
his rigid punctuality, he never, knowingly, permitted 
any large amount of fees to accumulate in his officej 
but would pay them over to those who were entitled 
to receive them. This was a rule with Mr. Reily, 
which, in my opinion, made him almost an exception 
to any other gentleman I have known who filled that 
office. He did not usually wait until the witness, or 
other person, having moneys collected in his office, 
would call for his money, but would seek opportunities 
of searching for the claimant and sending it to him, as 
soon as collected. I mention this as an instance of his 
scrupulous honesty. 

I have heard it remarked by some of the older citi¬ 
zens of Butler, who, from an early day, have been fa¬ 
miliar with the fiscal concerns of that county, that, to 
Mr. Reily, more than to any other man, was to be at¬ 
tributed the correct and prudent manner in which the 
fiscal concerns of that county were always managed, 
during the period in which Mr. Reily, to a very con¬ 
siderable extent, had their oversight and management. 
Such was the care and attention which he bestowed in 


the d’scharge of the duties of every office which he 
was called to fill, that no one ever complained of his 
neglecting or omitting his official duties. 

I had the pleasure of an interview with Mr. Reily 
in the month of March last, at his own residence. ^ I 
have been uniformly in the habit, since from the in¬ 
firmities of age he has been almost wholly confined to his 
house, of calling upon him upon all proper occasions, 
when visiting the town in which he resided. T he in¬ 
terview to which I refer, was after the passage of the 
law, of the last session of the General Assembly, which 
has called this Convention together. Mr. Reily was 
emphatically a gentleman of the old school. He had 
his principles and opinions, and he was firm in the 
maintenance of them; at the same time he said he paid 
due respect and regard to the opinions of othei s. On 
the occcasion refeiTed to, he spoke of his revolutionaiy 
services, and of the proceedings of the Convention of 
1802. He looked forward with deep interest to the 
proceedings of this Convention; and remarked to me, 
that, although he felt the inconveniences, and defects 
of the present constitution, still, he looked forward 
with some forebodings as to what might be the result 
of the deliberations of this Convention. At the same 
time that he acknowledged the defects in the existing 
constitution, he was apprehensive that, amidst the 
turmoil and excitement of contending parties, the pub¬ 
lic good might be sacrificed to party feeling,, and the 
organic law of the State, despoiled of some of its es¬ 
sential provisions. Mr. Reily, in the ordinary accep¬ 
tation of the term was not a partizaii. He never ol> 
traded his opinions upon any one. When he foimed 
opinions he maintained them on all proper occasions, 
with becoming firmness and commendable modes y. 
If I mistake not, he was originally attached to the fed¬ 
eral party. My impression is, (though m this I inay 
be in error,) that at one period he supported the 
claims of General Jackson for the 1 residency. It is 
proper, also, to remark, that in his latter years he was 
attached to the Whig party. But no one ever heard him 
condemn any manor set of men, for entertaining and 
expressing political opinions different from his own. 
He was perfectly tolerant and gentlemanly m his de¬ 
portment towards every person with whom ho came 
in contact—amiable and courteous in his manners and 















348 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Jill his social relations. Full of years—honored and 
rcsj)ected by all who knew him,—he is gone from a- 
mong us. But his memory will live alter him. High¬ 
ly esteemed as he was was while living, and revered 
when dead; respectable lor his intelligence and officia: 
qualiticaiions—[lermit me Mr. I’residknt, to say, that 
ill my estimation the crowning gloiy of his life, was 
his spotless puiity, his scrupulous honesty, and his un- 
Bullied integrity. He lived and died an humble, pious 
Chiistian. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, though an entire stranger to the 
deceasid, joined heartily in the honorable testimonials 
which had been ottered by the gentleman from Butler, 
and the gentleman from Warren. Ho had learned 
that there were but four or live members of the Con¬ 
vention which framed the present constitution of Ohio, 
now living; and he added, that trom the time he was 
returned as a delegate to this Convention, till he came 
up to this place, he had indulged the idea of obtaining 
the services of some one of these time-honored survi 
Yors, to preside during the preliminary organization, 
and perform those duties which were so ably dis¬ 
charged by his b iend, the senior member for the coun¬ 
ty of Wayne [Mr. Lauwill.] He had thought, that 
while suchathing would constitute aii appropriate ex¬ 
pression of respect for those honored and honorable 
representatives of the past, it miglit also reflect a very 
wholesome influence upon the Convention itself. 

Mr. LARWILL said: As afurther testimonial of re¬ 
spect for the memf)ry of the deceased, he felt that it 
w'ould be proper that the Convention would now ad¬ 
journ. He made that motion. 

And then the Convention adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY, .Iu.ve 12, 1850. 

Mr. KING presented the petition of James George 
and sixty-two other citizens of Butler county, ])rayijig 
this Convention to engraft into the new constitution ol 
the Slate an express ])rohibition against the issuing 
and circulation of all paper money in future, by any 
coiporation or individual. 

Upon his motion, it was referred to the standing 
committee on Banking and Currency. 

Rlr. HARLAN presented the petition of .Tames Mor¬ 
row, a citizen of Greene county, on the subject of cap¬ 
ital punishment, praying that there may be no pr<tvis- 
ion inserted in the new constitution prohibiting it, but 
that it be left as it now is, a subject of legislation. 

• Upon his motion it was referred to the selectcommit- 
tee on the subject of Capital Punishment. 

Mr. NORhiS presented the petition of Elizabeth 
Prescott, and thirty two other women of Clermont 
county, Ohio praying 

1st. That nianiagc shall not confer upon the husband any 
right to the wife’s property. 

2d. That the same law apply to the wife in settling the estate 
of a deceased husband as regulates the husbaud iii settling the 
estate of a deceased wife. 

3d. That as taxation and representation should go together, 
the property of women to be no longer taxed unless they are 
allov cd to vote. , 

Referred to the committee on the Elective Franchise. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD here rose to a question of j)rivi- 
lege and made the following remarks : 

Ml. ARCHBOId) said: That th(> statement which lu 
found in the Cincinnati Enquircrof the 5th of'Jnnc.coh- 
co ning himself, was iucorrect. It n presented him as 
volii g against Mr. Robertsox’s amendment, f)n the re¬ 
peal ot charters; the (juestion has received but sligh' 
consideration; Ite made no ])let'lge how he sliould vote 
when the matter came up in Convention, where the 
yeas and nay.s could be placed on the jonrmd. But in 
point of fact, be voted wi;b Mr. Robertsojj. The liitle 
pas.sage between the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. 
Sawyer,] had iu that paper been raised from a mole¬ 
hill io a niomitain. The gentleman [Mr. Sawykk] wa.s 
now in his presence, and states, as might he exjx cted 
bom the well known kindness and urbanity of that 
gentleman, that his remai ks had not the slightest allu¬ 
sion to him, [Mr. Archbold,] and he himself, owing 


to the rumbling of carriages in the street, had entirely ' 
mistaken and misnnderstood the gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize [Mr Sawyer.] The remarks which he sub¬ 
mitted on the occasion bore internal evidence of that 
mistake ; it was merely a piece of inadvertence on both 
sides. But the new'spajiers seemed determined to 
make enemies of those who otherwise would be cordi- i' 
al friends. They derive their information by the let¬ 
ter writers, but they ought to be more careful as to the i 
sources of their information. (Mr. Sawyer assented 
to Mr. Archbold’s statements. 

Upo]i motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the Convention 
then resolved itself into a committee of the Whole, ' 
(Mr. Townshenu iu the Chair,) and resumed the con- j 
sideratlon of the report on 

CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN BANKING. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. With the exception of the slight 
inaccuracy of language in one short clause ot this re- 
{)ort, I like it well. 1 like its spirit—I like its tenor— 
and really feel thankful to the committee for having 
matured it so well. J hope that its features will be 
substantially preserved, and that the amendment of the 
gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Rf.emelin] will not 
prevail. Is the individual liability of corporators desi¬ 
rable? the report contains it in a temperate form, and 
in as decided terms as can prudently go in a consti¬ 
tution. 

I am opposed to the individual liability principle but i. 
I wish it left as a fund of power in the hands of the ■ 

people, to be by their representatives moulded to suit 
ibe various exigencies of the times, and the necessities 
of posterity, and to be improved in its application by 
the lights of exi)erience. 

Many things might be highly proper and expedient 
in a statute, which would be utterly improper and in¬ 
expedient as a constitutional provision. An assembly 
act can be repealed without the difficulty which at¬ 
tend-' a I'epeal of the constitution. An Assembly act 
can be moulded and modilied indefinitely to suit a va¬ 
riety of circumstances and can descend into a minute¬ 
ness of detail, which would be intolerable in a consti¬ 
tution, The latter is a most unwieldy instrument for 
minute detail. 

The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] has 
insisted on absolute individual liability, for the safety ■ 
of contractors. Contractors are not interested in the i 
(]nestion at all. Uj)on the principle of absohite indi¬ 
vidual liability, we might have companies consisting of 
four or five partners; upon the principle of this repiort 
we might have companies consisting of that many hun¬ 
dred. Were contractors likely to be injured, by hav¬ 
ing a greater number of empiloyers ? Was their stream 
likely to be less, because it was fed by a vast number 
of fountains? Whether the principile was right or 
wrong, the apprehensions of men would keep them out 
of large conqianit s, formed on the principles of indi¬ 
vidual liability. Men want to know tlie extent of their 
liabilities. They want to know the amount of their 
engagements. They will not risk their whole sub¬ 
stance for the sake of a small investment. A man 
worth $3000, might be willing to subscribe $100, but 
he would not be willing to pul his whole property in 
jc()j:)ardy, for so small an investment. Aristocracy and 
democracy, bad in reality, nothing to do with the mat¬ 
ter. The p)rinciple that a man worth $2000, with a 
lamily of 7 or 8 children, who wishes to contribute 50 
or loo dollars towards the construction of a turnpike, 
or a plank road, shall thereby p)nt to hazard his whole 
pro[iert\-, is not democratic,-nor is the p)rinciple that he 
shall know the amount of his own engagements, and be 
liable to that extent only, aristocratic. The coiq)ora- 
tion is liable to the same extent ns an individual; it is 
liable to the amount of its whole j)roperty. A person 
asking subscriptions, who would tell every man, that 
by subscribing $50, be risked bis whole estate, would 
gel but few subscribers. A small uncertainty would 
prove a great clog; and thei'e were casiialities such as 
Hoods and storms, which might sweeji away tlieir 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


349 


works. The prejudice ugaiust utiiversul individual lia¬ 
bility, in such cases, may be unfounded. 1 do not de¬ 
fend it, but stiitesmeii must respect the prejudices of 
the people. We must take the people as they are. 

In the ordiuaTy course of human nature, a man will 
not engage to become individually liable with any 
great'number of partners ; such a principle would ren¬ 
der the improvement of the agricultural counties alto¬ 
gether impossible. In rich countries, such as England 
and Hamilton county, where large wealth is accumula¬ 
ted in few hands, the action of the people might be 
different. (Laughter.) If a company fails, some large 
capitalists will bear the loss ; surely no company will 
be so beggarly as to run in debt to its contractors and 
laborers, or if a fault should ever take place, the evil 
would cure itself. It could not be repealed a second 
time, in the same section of country. The sagacity of 
persons dealing with those companies might be relied 
on to protect them. Persons who propose to become 
contractors, are bound, in prudence, to inquire into the 
means of the company, and from the publicity of its 
concerns they have much more ample means for doing 
so than they would in the case of an individual. They 
are in danger of loss by dealing with individuals, and 
it is really a mere matter of expedience. The only 
question was, whether contractors would be safer in 
dealing with companies composed of as many mem¬ 
bers as might be expected to associate under the plan 
of the committee, as with a small individual liability 
partnership. But after all, there is no mathematical 
certainty in questions of policy. Arguments can also 
be brought on both sides; there is a mere balance of 
good and evil, and the sagacity of the statesman must 
be employed to determine on which side the balance 
lies. No perfect system will ever be attained—no con¬ 
stitutional or legislative provision will ever be so per 
feet as to admit of no plausible argument against it. 
Absolute perfection is out of the question; a man who 
will be contented with nothing short of that, may chase 
the rainbow, and will overtake it just as soon as he 
will obtain to absolute perfection, in matters of expe¬ 
diency. 

If we fix up difficulties, real or imaginary, in the 
way of associations for internal improvements, we 
strengthen the hands of the assailants of the treasury. 
The country cannot remain unimproved; roads, bridges 
and other improvements will be made. If we will not 
permit associations to make them for themselves, new 
'.issaults will be made upon the State treasury. If 
commerce is permitted, it will groove out its own 
channels of communication; agricultural and commer¬ 
cial men will make improvements for themselves, but 
individually they are not able to accompsish this, and 
if their association for such purposes is rendered im¬ 
practicable, they will apply for fresh grants from the 
State treasury; and it will become very difficult to 
resist them. The two systems of internal improve¬ 
ments are antagonistic ; if we discourage the one, we 
encourage the other. The man who cannot bear to 
see a company constructing a turnpike or a plank 
road, must be willing to see the same improvement 
made from the proceeds of the State treasury. The 
gentlemen from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] has an¬ 
nounced it as a cardinal principle, that ad stockholders, 
in companies organized for internal im[)rovement, must 
be individually liable to the whole amount of their es¬ 
tates, and that this principle must be engrafted in the 
constitution. He says that the people demand it: 
no man has demanded it in the section of country 
with which I am acquainted. The most ultra individ¬ 
ual has not gone that far. I never heard that such a 
principle was to be engrafted in the constitution until 
the gentleman himself announced it within these walls. 
The people of t|ie eastern counties are as much opposed 
to ajipropriations from the State treasury fur internal 
improvements as gentlemen here can possibly be to 
the construction of such improvements by associations 
of individuals. They think that the principle of tax¬ 


ation is not rightfully employed for such pnrposjs— 
they think that rightful taxation is the'i>rice of social 
order, and that it is not tube wantonly levied on the 
citizens, nor levied at all, except in return for bles.nng 3 
conferred. The only benefits which the government 
can rightfully confer, are the blessings ot good gov¬ 
ernment. They think that !ippro[)riations fioin ihe 
State treasury for mere local improvements, are mere 
legalized plunder and robbery. ^Vhy should the mon¬ 
ey of the people of Ashtabula, and Columbiana, and 
.Jefferson, and Harrison, be taken to dig an artificial 
lake in the extreme west? Why should their substmoo 
be taken to dig the Wabash and Erie canal ? Do they 
sleep more soundly at night, or walk more securely by 
day, iu consequence of such appropriations? Oeruiiii- 
ly not; the money taken from them for such purposes 
is a mere uurecompeiised, unrequited sacrifice. When 
men become wise they will confine llieir government 
to its appropriate sphere, as a mere efficient agency for 
keeping the peace. The doctrine that the tax payer is 
to be involved in the successor failure of commercial 
speculations will he regarded as the mere rude idea 
of a darke age, and an imperfect civilization. Gen¬ 
tlemen talk about creeds and platforms; let them read 
General .Jackson’s veto of the Lexington and Mays- 
ville turnpike road hill; that is a State paper as cred¬ 
itable to its author, as will ever emanate from any of 
them! 

The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] de¬ 
mands thorough individual liability, in ihe most abso¬ 
lute language. That gentleman has only lately breath¬ 
ed the air of liberty; he has taken the fever of the 
climate most outrageously ; the acclimated natives 
have the same disease more temperately. (Laughter.) 
But there is a method even iu his fevered dreams. He 
represents an immensely rich constituency. He re[)re- 
sents nabobs and milliouaries ; his county has already 
all the improvements of the kind which it needs: or, 
if it has not, it has wealthy inJiviiJuals, who are able 
to make them; they are alone, or in small partnerships. 
The system which will suit the uuim[)rovcd agric iltu- 
ral counties, will suit Hainiliou; that county will not 
be injured by permitting associations. The breaking 
up of that principle will render improvements, in the 
newer and less favored counties, iiiqiossible. If the 
system proposed by the gentleman from that co inty 
shall prevail, the di.stant counties may tind themselves 
in the sitatioii of the dwarf in the nursery tale. A 
giant and a dwarf made compact of war, and went 
forth to take spoils. The giant was a huge, tall, raw- 
boned fellow, but not inclined to take upon himself the 
tug of war. The little dwarf was a .strong, mu-jcular, 
energetic, irritable little fellow, and was the first in 
every conflict. He generally came off with the loss of 
a tooth, or an eye, or an ear, or a finger, or a thumb, 
and then the giant came up and decided the conflict in 
his favor; (laughter,) but by the time they came to 
divide tlie spoils, he haJ lost a number of limbs and 
members, was gashed with ghastly wounds, and acrip- 
[>le for life. Geutlemeii may I'est assurerf tliat if other 
counties enter into a similar compact with Hamilton 
county, that county will act the part of the giant in the 
tragedy, (continued laughter,) and their counties will 
act the part of tfie dwarf. A inernher ol the General 
Assembly has often stated, tliat Hamilton county has 
often humbugged the rest ol the State, but never got 
liumbuggcd herself. 

I repeat ihat I am not opposed to the principle of in¬ 
dividual liability. Tint pfiuci[)le appears iu the rejiort 
• tf the enminitttee iu a moderate shape and I am willing 
for the General Assembly to carry it further, if deemed 
.'xpedient; bar, sir, I want it left as a fund of powe>-, in 
the hands of the people, to bo exerc sed by the Gene¬ 
ra! Assembly, as the liimro exigencies of society may 
demand, unless geullemeii coaten I that lengih of days 
hriii'^s no increase of wisdom—.hat nothing can be 
learned from experience, they should not he anxious 
to deprive posterity of the uieaus of improvement. Un- 








350 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


less they are perfectly certain of their own infallibility, 
they should not desire to engraft their minute notions 
iuto an organic law which may be irrepealable, and 
which, according to the theory of our popular institu¬ 
tions, is very difficult to repeal. • 

We have heard extraordinary language in these halls, 
during the last few days—no man can mistake the signs 
of the times; these signs are portentous; a system oI 
terrorism is about to be gotten up—denunciations with 
in these walls, and calumnies without. Every man 
who is reluctant to give immediate effect to the crude 
and undigested dreams of men who know no modera¬ 
tion, is to be denounced as an outcast from the Demo¬ 
cratic party. Gentlemen bring forward new and ex¬ 
treme dogmas, never heard of before, and they swear 
that these are the platform—these are the catechism— 
these are the ancient creed of the fathers, and they pro¬ 
pose to deliver every reluctant heritic to the flames of 
a political Smithfield, without mercy or compunction. 
“ Thump and thunder ” is to be heard in the forest— 
“Eaw-head and bloody-bones ” is to stalk across the 
stage, and ‘‘ Hoosiei’-kill-’em-all ” is to roar under the 
canvass. The gentleman [Mr. Reemki.in] is too ex¬ 
treme in his denunciations, and is too ostentatious in 
displaying his whip, and clanking his chains. Unless 
we subscribe to his wildest notions we are to suffer a 
political excommunication, with all its attendant hor¬ 
rors. Such discipline has been practiced upon me ever 
ince my first entrance into legislative life. In the Ge¬ 
neral Assembly, if there is a man who is distinguished 
as the sworn enemy of all moderation, he delivers out 
his newest and his wildest dogma, as the ancient creed 
of the political fathers, and denounces all the teri'ors of 
political excommunication against every man who re¬ 
fuses to subscribe. 

It is not to be denied that the sovereign people have 
two classes of counsellors: and those two classes ex¬ 
ist in the bosom of the Democratic party. The one 
class, believing that the people are omnipotent—that 
nothing can add to their real power—that nothing in 
the State can oppose to their will, the least shadow of 
opposition—that they are in fact as influential as any of 
the smallest of the old Greek Democracies, advising 
them to moderation, and to a temperate use of their 
jDowers; the other class, although they well know that 
they cannot by any possibility increase Aie real power 
of the people, are always advising them to the violent 
and intemperate exercise of it. Not only so,but the 
same men advise the people to take the immediate ad¬ 
ministration of all the affairs into their own hands, not 
reflecting that the wisdom of the people, as well as of 
all other sovereigns, is best displayed by a wise choice 
of ministers. They urge the people to hasty and in¬ 
temperate counsels—in one word, they carry every 
principle and every doctrine to excess. If the throne 
of despotism shall ever again be ei’ected on this conti¬ 
nent, it will be owing to the exertions of this latter 
class of men. If the people use their power tem¬ 
perately, they will never lose it, nor will it ever be di¬ 
minished. If, deluded by flattering counsels, they use 
it intemperately, we shall run into anarchy, and anar¬ 
chy will pave the way to despotism. Who re¬ 
erected a despot’s throne in France? Was it not Marat, 
Couthon, and St. Just, and Robespierre, and Danton ? 
Yet these men were sworn enemies to all moderation. 
To be known as a moderate, in the French Assembly, 
was to be sent to the guillotine, and if some gentlemen 
can have their way, to be known as a moderate in this 
Assembly, will be to be sent to the political guillotine. 
Adam Smith, in his “Theory of the Moral Sentiments,’’ 
says that there is no crime which violent partisans will 
not forgive, except candor; that there is no vice which 
they punish so severely, as the virtue of moderation. 
Yet no virtue is so usei'ul as moderation. Moderation 
will insure the stability of the people’s power, and 
nothing else can. But there will be no moderation— 
that virtue will find no place in this constitution. I 
begin to despair of the constitution. I begin to de¬ 


spair of the fortunes of the Republic. I begin to be¬ 
lieve with the wag, in the «dd story book, that God Al- , 
mighty’s creation of this great race of men down here ' 
on this globe, will prove a magnificient failure. [Great 
laughter.] 

Can the gentleman from Hamilton [Mi*. Reemelin] 
expect us to lose in a moment all our Anglo-Saxon—all 
our American memories? Can he expect us to forget 
that Senates once sat on this continent, in which calm 
consideration, free discussion and manly investigation 
alone determined the rejection or adoption of meas¬ 
ures? Where men were expected to bring forth their 
strong arguments, and prevail according to their abili¬ 
ty to work conviction—where no motives of mere per¬ 
sonal terror were suffered to be presented for a moment . 
to the minds of members? Ought not the gentleman 
to reflect, that abject fear is a wretched instrument of 
government; that brave men will not be governed by 
such means, and that cowards are not worth govern¬ 
ing ? Do we w^ant the denunciations of that gentleman i 
to remind us of our duty ? Why, we were well versed 
in the principles of Jeffersonian Democracy before he 
ever saw our shores. [Laughter.] We sucked in these 
principles with our mother’s'milk. We were adepts 
in the Democratic Catechism, whilst he was still brea¬ 
thing the air of despotism. If these principles are 
ever corrupted, it will be by the doctrines of the Jaco¬ 
bins imported to our shoi’es. Then why does not the 
gentleman reflect that our proud hearts must swell, 
and our stubborn spirits must chafe, when ordered on 
the chain-gang, by the crack of the partizan whip ? I 
have stood by that gentleman shoulder to shoulder, in 
many a hard fought field. I like to be in company 
with the Hamilton delegation, when I can. He shall 
never excel me in sympathy with those who are unfa- * 
vorably positioned in society. All my feelings, all my 
sympathies, all my affections are that way. I am still 
ready to fight under his banners, and to follow his bu¬ 
gle blast. But I warn the gentleman to conceal his 
chains, and lay aside his whip, or my stubborn Anglo- 
Saxon nature will refuse. What conscience dictates to 
be done, that I will do; but if I hear the clanking 
chains, and see the flourish of his whip, I will be as¬ 
tute, I will be ingenious in finding out reasons for re¬ 
fusal. But the voice of good old Monroe shall always 
be heard, within these walls, while she honors me with 
her confidence. According to the oath of a privy coun¬ 
sellor, I will advise this great people honestly, accord¬ 
ing to the best of my cunning and discretion, without 
favor or affection, through fear, love, meed, duty, doubt 
or dread. 

Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE. It seems to me that if gen¬ 
tlemen would bring a little more calm discussion, to the 
consideration of this section, we should be more apt to 
come to a correct conclusion. It seems to me, Mr. 
Chairman, that many of the gentlemen who have dis¬ 
cussed the question upon this amendment, have taken 
too broad a range, and that they have not, as yet, dis¬ 
cussed its real merits. I propose, in a very few and 
brief remarks, to give you and the Committee my 
views as to the effect and operation of the amendments 
now under discussion. It is said, that this amendment, 
although containing but few words, is of great impor¬ 
tance in its eff'ect and operation, and with this view I 
concur, and I claim, sir, that an important change is 
demanded by the people in our organic law in relation 
to the liability of stock-holders in Corporations. Here¬ 
tofore the rule has been, that corporators were not lia¬ 
ble beyond the amount of stock actually subscribed and 
paid in. Public sentiment has demanded a change. If 
there is any one thing in the old Constitution that 
is dissatisfactory to the people, it is with regard 

to the liability of stockholders in Corporations_ 

and the people have demanded a change in that 
respect. Although the gentleman who last address¬ 
ed the Committee asks, with a great deal of force, 
whether the Legislature should be called upon, or 
whether we here should be called upon to protect men 












351 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


from the ettects of their folly, when they contract with 
corporations, yet I would ask him, in return, whether 
he wishes to protect corporations in their knavery 
when they contract with individuals? A man makes a 
contract with a corporation. If that corporation has 
been so managed by its officers, that they have exhaus¬ 
ted their corporate funds, let me ask, which is the most 
reasonable and just, that an innocent man giving credit 
to a corporation should lose what he has invested, and 
entrusted them with, or the corporation and individu¬ 
als composing that corporation, should be corporately 
and individually liable to repay every dollar to their 
creditors. If it is through their individual mismanage¬ 
ment that they are unable to payout of their corporate 
funds, then let them pay out of their individual funds. 

^ This 18 a measure which the interests of the people im- 
! periously demand of us. I believe the doctrine is a 
I Democratic doctrine and I know that in my part of 
' the State, it is also the Whig doctrine, that corpora¬ 
tors shall be liable for the debts of the corporation. 
The only difference, and it is not a party difference, is 
whether the individual liability principle shall be limit- 
i ed, or whether it shall attach in its fullest extent to all 
I kinds of corporations. 

I I suppose public sentiment to be something like this, 

, and I hold that, so far as I know that sentiment, I am 
( willing to be chained by it, and I am willing that all 
men shall hear the clanking of those chains. I think 
public sentiment has demanded a change, and I believe 
we should correctly reflect public sentiment. Suppose 
we provide or leave it open to the Legislature to pro- 
' vide something like this—that the stockholders in all 
corporations which have for their sole object the gain 
; of the corporators, may, and shall be liable to the ful- 
I lest extent personally. But in those corporations main- 
ly for public improvement, such as railroads, plank 
I roads and turnpikes, perhaps colleges, universities and 
acadeirfles, I would not require that individual liability 
be carried so far. What is the danger, Mr. Chairman, 
in making individual corporators liable. The gentle- 
. man says that we start up “chimeras dire,” calculated 
* to terrify our opponents. That is not the object. He 
has put an extreme case, one that ought never to enter 
into any deliberative discussion whatever, for it pi'oves 
' nothing. He supposes an extreme case,- where a man 
worth $3,000 invests fifty dollars in some corporation, 
and it should so happen that these three thousand dol¬ 
lars should be taken to pay the the debts of the corpo¬ 
ration. But, sir, if he is obliged to do this,* he can 
make the other corporators contribute to him their pro¬ 
portion, and he would only, in the end, have to pay 
his just proportion of the debts of that corporation. 
What injustice is there in this 1 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I wish to call the attention of 
the gentleman to the fact, that one class of corporators 
is perhaps one of the most profitable corporations in 
this country, I mean railroad corporations, and if I 
recollect aright the dividends of railroads of this coun¬ 
try have been larger than the dividends of any other 
country. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. As I was about remarking, 
I do not know as I made myself fully understood and 
thereby called up the suggestions of the gentleman 
I from Fairfield, I am not certain, but it might be policy 
to exempt those corporations which are established 
mainly for the public improvement. I do not wish to 
be understood that I would place railroads and plank 
roads in the one category or the other. I will try to 
explain my views in regard to this section as amended. 
As it is reported by the committee, I understand this 
section to mean nothing at all—that it leaves the ques¬ 
tion of individual liability just as it was before, al¬ 
though there is apparently in the section a provision 
that there shall be individual liability to the amount, 
after the stocks and funds of the corporation are ex¬ 
pended, equal on the part of each stockholder, to 
the amount subscribed by him. If I understand the 
construction of the section, it is this: that when a man 


has subscribed stock in a corporation and has paid up 
his subscription, ho is exempt from liability thereaf¬ 
ter. If it is so I am opposed to it. As I would under¬ 
stand the section, and as I believe it is understood, it is 
that in all these corporations each individual stockhold¬ 
er should be liable to the amount of his stock in the 
company, after the funds have been all exhausted, if 
this is not the construction, then I am in favor of the 
amendment. Now what is the eflect of this section 
without the proviso—if the amendment succeeds, it 
will fix individual liability upon the stockholder in 
all corporations—if not, it requires no individual lia¬ 
bility. If the proviso be retained, and the amendment 
be not agreed to, the General Assembly are left free to 
pi’ovide such liability or not, as they see fit. But if 
the amendment prevail, individual liability will attach, 
unless the General Assembly provide otherwise. 

The proviso is to the effect that the liability of each 
corporator or share-holder shall never be less than the 
amount of stock held in the corporation by him. Now, 
sir, although the first part of the section would require 
individual liability to the fullest extent, the proviso au¬ 
thorizes the Legislature, if they see fit, to put that lia 
bility as low as the amount of stock each corporator 
holds. The eflect of it is this—under our old constitu¬ 
tion, the Legislature might engraft into acts of corpora¬ 
tion the individual liability principle. If they did not 
do so, there was no individual liability. The eflect of 
this section will be, if the Legislature does not limit 
the liability, stockholders will be liable to the fullest 
extent. I wish the individual liability principle to at¬ 
tach, to the fullest extent, to all those corporations 
which the Legislature in its wisdom, shall not see fit to 
exempt affirmatively. This is the principle which I 
wish to see incorporated into the constitution. It chan¬ 
ges the process entirely from what it was before. There 
the Legislature must incorporate the individual liabili¬ 
ty principle or it did not exist; here they must take 
it out of the way or it does exist. Men will say, as it 
has been difficult to induce the Legislature to incorpo¬ 
rate the individual liability principle into an act of in¬ 
corporation, the Legislature will be hereafter as ready 
to take away that liability principle. I do not believe 
it. The Legislature will see and understand that they 
are acting upon their responsibilities, and it is a posi¬ 
tive act to take away this individual liability, and they 
will act under their responsibilities and accountabilities 
to their constituents, they will not dare to take away, 
except in cases where the people will justify them in 
doing so. For one, I am willing to trust the Legislature 
so far. The gentleman who preceded me in this dis¬ 
cussion, has found a great deal of fault because gentle¬ 
men are not willing to trust the Legislature, and now 
he changed ground upon this subject and finds fault 
because gentlemen are willing to leave the Legislature 
something to do. I want however that something 
should be left for the Legislatule to do in this matter. 
I am not as distrustful as the gentleman seems to be, of 
the Legislature. I am willing to leave them to their 
constituents, by whom each and every one will be held 
responsible. In that respect there is no danger. If 
there is no danger, I am willing that the constitution 
itself should point out the kinds of corporations that 
shall have the individual liability of the stockholders 
engrafted to the fullest extent, and those where such 
liability may be limited. 

Mr. McCORMICK.*”! h'ad not intended to say any 
thing now, and should not obtrude myself upon the 
committee, but for the remarks made this morning by 
the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] respect¬ 
ing a communication in the Enquirer. As his remarks 
may give to that communication some additional circu¬ 
lation and notoriety, it appears to me to demand some 
further explanation—and as this is the proper time and 
place for making them, I shall briefly do so. I voted, 
as represented in that communication, against the 
amendment of the gentleman from Fairfield, [Mr.RoB- 
KRTSOK.] I voted against it, because I thought that it 















352 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


did not come from the committee whose duty it was to 
report upon that subject. Because it came from a 
gentleman—one of the committee of twenty-one—who 
'‘cut and dried” the business of the Convention, and 
should have been tliQ last to bring in a proposition vio¬ 
lating the arrangement which he, himself, had made 
for the business of the Convention. I voted against it, 
because it was in the wrong place; and for these rea¬ 
sons I shall oppose it;in that connexion in the Conven¬ 
tion. With regard to letter-writers and newspapers, 
and newspapoiial fame, I beg leave to say, that I have 
lived long enough in the world to know that the repu¬ 
tation given to a man by these means, is not the most 
valuable thing in the world. My observation teaches 
me to believe, that amongst the public men in the Uni¬ 
ted States, those who are distinguished by the friend¬ 
ship and partiality of letter-writers and newspapers, 
are not always the most worthy. I therefore neither 
deprecate their wrath nor fear their anger. 

With I'eference to the subject before the committee, 
i will say that I am not satisfied with the report. Like 
many others, I see that the committee by their report 
have intended to make restrictive provisions, but I can¬ 
not discover such provisions in the instrument. 

The first section provides well enough as far as it 
goes, but it includes too much, if it is to stop short 
where it now does. It does not go far enough, if the 
principle is intended to be fully carried out. 

The second section is nothing more than a portion of 
the first, but in its terms it does not really signify that 
which it was intended by the committee it should sig¬ 
nify. I will read it: 

Sec. 2. “ Corporations may be formed under 'general laws ; 
but all genei-al laws passed pursuant to this section, maybe alter¬ 
ed from time to time, or repealed: Provided, On such repeal the 
property or credits legally acquired by any corporation, shall 
vest in the individual corporators, subject to the liability of the 
corporation. 

The committee intended here to provide for the re¬ 
peal of all charters of incorporation, other than bank 
charters, and also, for the destruction of all franchises 
of such incorporated bodies as might fail to perform 
the duties and fulfil the objects for which they were in¬ 
corporated. This the section fails to accomplish. For 
you may alter or amend the general law, and the alter¬ 
ation will afiect all incorporated bodies that may be or¬ 
ganized under the general law after the change, but 
any organization that has been effected prior to the 
change, will remain unaffected by the change of the 
law. ^ The original law would provide for organiza¬ 
tions in which certain franchises would rest. Franchi¬ 
ses are the effect of the law and the organization un¬ 
der it, and I hold, as a professional man, that the alter¬ 
ation of the law does not divest the corporations of the 
franchises vested in them by law prior to the alteration; 
that after the corporation shall be formed, though the 
general law may be modified, yet no modification takes 
place in the franchises exercised by the corporation. 
Either the section should have provided more, or it 
should have provided less; at all events it does not meet 
the expectations and intentions of the committee re¬ 
porting, or of the committee of the whole, or of the 
Convention. The second clause of the section pro¬ 
vides for the power of repeal and the vesting of the 
right of property in the individual stockholders. This 
portion of the section was ably discussed the other 
day by the gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash,] who, 
by the way, always investigates well; and after his 
remarks it is unnecessary for me to extend the discus¬ 
sion. 

The third section provides that— 

“ Dues from corporations shall be secured by such individual 
liability of the corporators and other means as maybe prescribed 
by law : Provided, the liability of each corporator or sharehold¬ 
er shall never be less than the amount of stock in any corporation 
by h'm or her subscribed.’’ 

This seems to provide that dues would be secured 
by “ such” individual liability; or as the amendment 
of the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemlin] would 
hkvo it, “ the ” individual liability of the corporators. 


But this, taken in connection with the residue of the ' 
section, is a nullity; for by the residue of the section 
that liability is limited by the amount of stock taken 
by the members of the corporation. This is all the 
modification which the General Assembly can make, 
and is equivalent to none. If we adopt the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Hamilton, the proposi- , 
tion would then stand thus: “ The individual incorpo¬ 
rated shall be liable for the debts of the corporation.” 

If the gentleman from Hamilton will meet me there, 
be will find in me a coadjutor; that is precisely the 
principle I wish to carry into this constitution—the en¬ 
tire, whole, undivided, individual responsibility of eve¬ 
ry member of the corporation—for all the debts which 
may have been incurred in their corporate capacity. 

I say, then, sir, if you will strike out from this provis¬ 
ion the words, “and other means as may be prescribed 
by law”—then, with the amendment of the gentleman 
from Hamilton, I am perfectly satisfied. 

I concur most heartily with the remarks of my 
friend from Clermont [Mr. Norris,] upon the subject 
of corporations, which he delivered a few days since. 
And with him, I hold them in this country generally— i 
all of them—to be an evil, “only” an “ evil,” and that i 
continually. 

But if we introduce this amendment which is now ■■ , 
proposed, and then permit the proviso to remain as it : j 
now stands, or with any modifications which are likely ; 
to be made, we make the first clause of the section a : i 
mere nullity. We declare that the principle of indi-l , 
vidual responsibility shall exist; and yet, before the ' ; 

declaration is cold upon our lips, we declare that it i ; 
shall not exist. 

Arguments are offered to show that no work of pub- ; 
lie improvement can be constructed if the individual | 
liability clause shall be retained and sanctioned to the | 
full extent. But gentlemen argue from wrong princi¬ 
ples. It is a well understood fact, that with the excep- | i 
tion of the public porks made by the State, there has 
been no system of profligacy of expenditure carried j . 
on to such an unreasonable extent, as has been cairied 
on by the incorporated bodies of this State. But they 
have acted upon a very fair system for them, “they are | j 
very wise in their generation.” They say to you, well, t 
subscribe here, you can be called on for nothing more 
than the amount of your stock—nothing else whatever, 
and we will find credit for the rest, and accomplish 
the work for which we are organized ; we know that 
the sympathies of the public are with us; and we can 
effect our purpose, but if we do not pay our debts it is ! 
no difference; we may be indebted, but we shall not be , ' 

liable for any debt. Easy virtue truly! but it has been : i 
their virtue! 

By action on this principle, all that profligacy of ex¬ 
penditure has been produced, which has sunk more j 
than one half all the funds which have been subscribed i 
to all the joint stock companies in the State; they have 1 
been a loss to the stockholders, a loss to the public, and | 
to the organization itself; they have been profitable ! i 
only to individuals—to the officers of these companies I 
and their favorites. But if the individual liability clause 
were introduced, we should thereby place all corpo- i I 
rate bodies upon such footing as will require the same i ! 
care and economy which is required by an individual I 
when he enters upon a similar enterprise, and nothing i 
more. We shall have destroyed these privileges which [ 
dispenses with energy and economy—and replace l 
them by a careful circumspection and wise frugality. 

This is a duty encumbent upon the Convention, and 
wisdom and justice require of us provisions which, 
striking hard at wrong, shall encourage fair dealing 
and right. The subscriber to incorporated stock has 
heretofore made his subscriptions reckles.dy—and reck¬ 
lessly have the affairs of incorporations been managed. 
Provision should bo made against this for the future, I 
and knavery deterred from action under the sanction of 
law. Houesty and circumspection suit not covert 
means of action. That which is begun, and carried on 




















CONVENTION REPORTS. 353 


in good faith, requires no shield against disaster—its 
purpose is its own best protection. 

Change, then, the law, and what is the consequence ? 
He who enters into a corporate association, does so in 
view of all the responsibilities. He is upon his guard 
_makes his calculations, examines his premises—esti¬ 
mates his means, and notes his products. If it promis¬ 
es compensation, he vests his funds—if not, he refu¬ 
ses so to do. He makes the same calculations of the 

capacity_business qualities, and means employed—as 

he would do if entering into an ordinary partnership, 
and he has the same care for the management of the 
affairs of his company. If, however, he should be de¬ 
ceived in his associates, he has the same remedy at the 
law to relieve himself from embarrassment and danger, 
which he possesses if deceived by an ordinary partner. 
He is ever protected from frauds, from profligacy, from 
crime in his associates ; no honest man requires more 
than this—no prudent man would require less. I infer, 
then, that the principle proposed by the amendment, 
will not prevent the construction of works of public 
utility, but it will modify the manner of constructing 
these woz’ks. 

Capital will ever seek investment, when gain is to 
j be obtained; and executive capacity will ever find 
employment, when it is worthy of confidence, 
j While, then, capable corporations are-provided for, 
why should the measure of morality be changed? Were 
an individual to undertake the performance of the same 
work entered upon by a corporation—his liability is 
I to the full extent of the law, any mismanagement is 
followed by ruin—is there any rule of ethics which 
I declares the same measure should not be united to as- 
' sociated enterprise ? Is not justice at all times equal, 

1 and does not the rule apply as well in the one case as 
; the other? I do not know—I cannot speak positively; 

1 but from my own observation, I have been led to be- 
I lieve that the change of the measure of justice has led 
' to the procurement of acts of incorporations, for no 
I good purpose, and with no honest intentions, I have 
been induced to believe that the great object of a large 
i portion of our coi-porations has been fraud—open, un¬ 
disguised fraud—I may, however, be mistaken; but in 
' this I do not err, that their end has been fraud and 
ruin ; and with these facts staring us in the face, it is 
surely time to stop and provide a wholesome bar 
against future abuse. 

The argument of the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. 
Hitchcock] was very astute, but still, it was very un¬ 
fair. The gentleman said if a man credit a company, 
he gives a credit to that company under the law of its 
charter, and he has no right to require any greater lia¬ 
bility than the law accords. True enough under the 
circumstances. So if the same individual chooses to 
1 extend a credit to his neighbor he does so under the 
law; but he has a capacity for examination in the one 
I case which he has not in the other. You cannot di- 
1 vulge to the public the true standing of a corporation; 

I you cannot make an expose of their finances, to know 
whether they are worthy of credit or not. As far as 
you can observe, they are in a flourishing condition, 
j and all is fair; and the individual supposing everything 
I is fair and right gives the credit; but at the same time 
the party to whom he gives the credit, knew that they 
never intended to pay, and at the time of contracting 
I the debt were entirely unable to pay a dollar of it. 

I The argument then is not fair, because the party in 
! one case could examine and know exactly what he was 
trusting, and in the other case he could not know. He 
would be merely giving credit to a shadow of which 
he knew nothing. 

Mr. Chairman, I have tried to draw up my opinion 
upon this subject, but I have not been able to do so 
very satisfactorily to myself, and like the gentleman 
from Clark, [Mr. Mason] I do not intend to offer it as 
an amendment. I feel some delicacy about this matter 
of amendment as well as he. It is, however, nearly 
my opinion and I will read it. 


Mr. McC. then read the following: 

Add to the first section ; 

“ Or granting to corporations created by general law?, other 
special privileges than the right of succession, the use of a cor¬ 
porate name and corporate seal in and by which they may ob¬ 
tain, hold and convey real estate, prosecute and defend suits at 
law, and such other rights and privileges as are necessary to 
carry into effect the legitimate objects for which such corpora¬ 
tions may have been created respectively; Provided, That no 
corporate organization shall be permitted to avail itself of the 
rights and privileges conferred by general laws, until such or¬ 
ganization shall be declared and approved by acts of the General 
Assembly.” 

I had intended to place before the word corpora¬ 
tions ” here, the words “joint stock partnerships”—for 
I know of no better phrase. It is a fundamental error 
which we have fallen into in this country, and which 
has been the cause of much injury and wrong, that 
joint stock companies, properly so called, should obtain 
acts of incorporation. I admit that all charitable com¬ 
panies stand in a different relation to the public, from 
companies which are organized for the purpose of gain; 
and that the law which applies to them should be dif¬ 
ferent. But • in this country we incorporate evei-y- 
thing. We incorporate a company for every purpose 
under the sun, and the individual sinks his responsi¬ 
bility and individuality in the irresponsibility and non¬ 
entity of association. This is a wrong—a very serious 
evil—and has been a source of great fraud and wrong 
to the public, and will so continue unless the principle 
of legislation in this respect be changed. 

I do not like to go to Europe for authority for any 
thing democratic ; but I am willing to go any where 
for truth and right. I will not be governed in my 
course by any act of the Assembly of the French peo¬ 
ple ; nor am I disposed to be governed by the opinions 
of French politicians. Far from it. Their errors seem 
to me to be too great and glaring to mislead even for a 
moment, however much I might be interested in them. 
But I am perfectly willing to go to England for the pur¬ 
pose of obtaining proper laws to govern associated bo¬ 
dies. I am perlectly willing to take the English com¬ 
mon law and declare and re-enact that for the govern¬ 
ment of associated wealth in this country. I am not 
willing to go to the extent which we have gone in this 
country by throwing aside the great, good features of 
the common law There is not, and there never was, 
a banking company or joint stock association created 
in the government of Great Britain that was created 
either more or less than a simple joint stock association 
mider the common law. I do not understand the mod¬ 
ifications which have been made by the statutes of 
Victoria as at all affecting the responsibility of corpo¬ 
rators or discharging each and eveiy member from ev¬ 
ery and all the debts of his company. This is the way 
I would have it. I would merely and only provide 
that all such associations in the State which we have 
called corporations should stand precisely upon the 
same footing with the joint stock associations of Great 
Britain. They have worked well there, and I cannot 
see why they would not work well here. It is true, 
that wealth is more abundant there, and that the re¬ 
sources of that country are greater. But the resources 
of our country are developing so fast that we cannot 
make any calculation from the abundance or deficien¬ 
cy of the wealth of to-day, what will be the wealth of 
to-morrow. We cannot make any safe calculations in 
regard to railroads, turnpike, bridge and plank road 
companies. 

I would, then, be perfectly willing to take the sec¬ 
tion embodying the principle which I have prepared 
as a law which should govern these associations in 
Ohio, because the section makes every man of the as¬ 
sociation liable for the debts of the association. But 
if that will not do—and supposing that^ there may be 
very grave reasons advanced for modifying this liability 
of corporations, and supposing the Convention to feel 
that the State can do nothing without a corporation- 
supposing it necessary that there should be a corpora¬ 
tion for everything under the sun; I have therefore 
added a second section. 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


354 


I would make tlie first section something like the 
following. [Mr. McC. here read the first section with 
liis modification appended.] I would require this act 
of the General Assembly recognizing the incorpora¬ 
tion so as to prevent capitalists from shingling the State 
over too thickly with corporations, as they might be 
sure to do under an unrestricted general law. I would 
leave with the General Assembly a disci-etion to say 
whether a corporation is necessary or not, and then 1 
would add something like this: 

Skc 2 Individual liability shall at all times be required of 
the niembers of corporate bodies; but such liability may be 
modified as the General Assembly may by law direct: provided, 
that the General Assembly shall have no power to reduce the lia¬ 
bility of the stockholders of all corporations created for gain, to 
a less amount than twice the nominal value of the stock by each 
stockholder holden in such corporation respectively: and provi¬ 
ded further, that the General Assembly shall at all times possess 
the power to chanse, alter, amend or repeal all laws creating cor¬ 
porations, and such change, alterations, amendment or repeal shall 
extend to all corporations created under such law, and shall work 
the change, alteration or repeal of the franchises, by virtue of law 
vested in such corporations. 

“ Bodies incorporated for the purpose of commerce, or the 
profitable investment of capital, such as railway companies, mi¬ 
ning companies and banking companies, belong to the class ol 
joint stock companies,” 

By the adoption of some such plan as this, we might 
be able to meet the views of the committee, the Con¬ 
vention and the people. But if we do not something 
more than express ourselves in the language of these 
two original sections, and any modifications of which 
they are susceptible, we shall fail in accomplishing the 
object proposed. 

I do not now propose my plan as an amendment, 
but merely as an expression of my opinion on the sub¬ 
ject, and shall hold myself in readiness to adopt any 
plan which may be suggested, which shall more per¬ 
fectly express my views, and at the same time meet 
the wishes of the Convention and the demands of the 
public. 

Mr. DORSEY said: Mr. Chairman, since I have had 
the opportunity of being heard before, I propose now 
to engage the attention of the Committee but a short 
time, while I shall endeavor briefly to lay before them 
the views I entertain upon this subject. There ap¬ 
pears to be some little difference of opinion as to the 
effect that will be produced upon this section by uio 
amendment of the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr, 
Reemelin.] I am inclined to think, that my friend 
from Medina, [Mr. Humphreville,] is not correct 
in the construction which he would put upon the sec¬ 
tion as proposed to be modified by this amendment; nor 
do I think the gentleman himself, upon reflection, would 
be willing to put upon the section that construction, be¬ 
cause I do believe that as the section now stands, it 
does provide a very ample and graduated responsi¬ 
bility. Perhaps I would be willing to go even farther, 
in some matters, than the gentleman from Medina has 
proposed, but I beg leave to say here, as I have had oc¬ 
casion to say before, that this principle of individual 
liability, is a mere abstract idea. I hold it to be right; 
but sir it is to the particular application of the princi¬ 
ple that I wish to come; and allow me to say, in ihis 
connection, that we are not to be governed by mere 
abstract truths in our action here, but by the effects 
which truths will produce in their application to pub¬ 
lic concerns. I would be willing then, as I said, to go 
a little farther than the gentleman from Medina; for if 
I understood him aright, he placed in the same cat¬ 
egory, all the railroad companies, turnpike companies 
and charitable institutions of the State, and subjected 
them to the same measure of liability; or, according to 
his construction, alio wed the Legislature to remove from 
them the same amount of the general liability which 
he proposed to introduce. I think that I should be 
willing to go even further than that—I think that in 
my scale of responsibility, I should place a stricter lia¬ 
bility upon railroads than upon plank roads or turn- 
ikes ; for the very plain and simple reason, which must 
e obvious to every mind, that in the one case the work 


consti'ucted by the company is for the mere convenience 
and use of the corporators, they alone having the di¬ 
rect benefit of its action, while the the benefit to the 
community is only indirect, as none could use it save 
the corporators, while in the other case thewoikis 
open to the use and direct benefit of the whole com¬ 
munity ; to every man who has a horse to ride or a team 
to drive on it; therefore I would make the liability of 
the railroad corpoiation greater than that of either the i 
turnpike or plank road company. 

Mr. CLARK, interposing- said: I would like to in- I 
quire of the gentleman whether he proposes to intro- i 
duce a graduated restriction into the constitution ? i 

Mr. DORSEY. I do not propose to introduce any j 
details of the kind. I wish to leave that wholly to the i 
Legislature, and I have said so before, time and again. I 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Have not the Legislature hereto¬ 
fore had full power to apply these restrictions ? 

Mr. DORSEY. Certainly. I know they have had 
full power over this question; and I hold that we have 
not received the very great amount of injury from cor¬ 
porations which gentlemen are disposed to complain of, 
if we make the single exception of banking corpora¬ 
tions—and I have said before that I did not wish these 
institutions to be understood as included iu any re¬ 
marks that I shall make here. Corporations for making 
public improvements, so far from having been an evil, 
have been a great and abiding benefit to the country; 
and we see and feel and know the benefits which have 
arisen from tliem in our daily experience. 

I listened with attention to the remarks of the gen- 1 
tleman from Adams, [Mr. McCormick.] and was pleas- 
sed to a certain extent with the tenor of his speech 
upon this subject; but when he attempted to build an 
argument on the law regulating joint stock companies 
in England to support the doctrine of individual liabil¬ 
ity in this country, it argued an evident lack of resour¬ 
ces to sustain his position. These joint stock companies 
iu England have been far more deleterious and injuri¬ 
ous than ever were the banks in this country. They 
have broken up by scores and by hundreds, and have 
ruined individuals without number. Now it is not to 
be supposed that by introducing any general law, or 
that by any system of legislation, we shall be able to 
mah-o nieu entirely nonest, if we attempt any thing of 
the kind we shall certainly fail, for no principle of law 
has yet been discovered which can render bad men 
true to the requirements of honesty. In framing laws 
for men, we are necessarily obliged to take them as 
they are, with their interests sometimes united, some¬ 
times conflicting, but with the assurance that the in¬ 
terest of every individual can always be made subser¬ 
vient to the good of the whole, if properly directed in 
its action, and we are to regulate that action as far as 
we may think proper and beneficial to interfere with it; 
but the moment we undertake to bind and fetter it be¬ 
yond the wholesome restraints of law, it is like drawing 
the rope loo tightly—we snap it in two, and lose all 
that we had gained or that we expected to gain. 

I was exceedingly pleased this morning by the re¬ 
marks of the gentleman from Monroe [ Mr. Archbold] 
who came out so nobly in the defence of that small, 
straggling portion of the democracy, as they have been 
termed in ibis Had, who have dared in some matters to 1 
stand a little apart from what gen tlemen have been pleas¬ 
ed to denominate true democratic doctrine, although I 
do not myself plead guilty to the charge of coming short 
iu any particular, for I hold that iu this matter as in 
; others, I have truly represented the democr?:cy of my 
section, and as I believe, the Democracy of Ohio. 

The postion of the true democrat—of him who is 
really the friend of the people, and ready in every 
emergency to sustain their rights and advance their 
true interests, differs from that of the mere self-consti¬ 
tuted leader of a party, in nothing more entirely than 
in this; that while the former, guided by a practical 
knowledge of the wants of the people, is ready and wil¬ 
ling at all times to carry that knowledge out in its practi- 














CONVENTION REPOETS 


.355 


cal workings, so as to produce tlie greatest good to the 
greatestiiiunber, tlio latter is too often but the follower of 
▼ain and shadowy illusions, without any practical value 
whatever, and calculated only to mislead from the way 
of right, and ends by the destruction of the cause 
whicdi it was profe.ssed to intend to benefit. 

But, sir, any man who assumes to make the applica¬ 
tion of great principles to the accomplishment of the 
greatest good, is liable often to find himself opposed 
to those who are striving for the incre accomplishment 
of an abstract idea, which we often find impracticable in 
its application to the common concerns of life. Why, 
then, should we persist in following these abstractions? 
They have caused the failure of the brightest hopes of 
the friends of reform in every quarter of the globe, 
Thi.s was the cause of the failure of the patriots of the 
French revolution: it was because men, and men of 
ability it is true, rose up there, without practical knowl¬ 
edge, ready to manufacture liberal opinions, and desi¬ 
rous of enforcing upon the people their theoretical dog¬ 
mas, which, perhaps, in philosophical discussions, they 
were able to prove to be true, but which proved them 
selves to be totally inapplicable to the daily wants of 
life. Now, this being the case, it will be found that a 
man who is an advocate of true and practicable demo¬ 
cratic principles, must find himse’f frequently opposed 
by the mere self-constituted leaders of a party; and he 
may, and most probably will, find himself opposed by 
the mere leaders of parties on both sides. He may be 
like an Ishmaeliie, “ with his hand against every man, 
and every man’s hand against him.” And I know not, 
air, but this may be something like my own position, as 
I have had the lienor, in this discussion, to find myself 
opposed by leading men of both sides upon this floor. 
However, if this is to be my position, let it be so. I 
choose to see and jud^e of the right for myself, and follow 
it, independently, if it must be so, even of all party as¬ 
sociations—although I confess that I have as strong 
party predilections as any man. 

Great indeed are the misfortunes which will be sure 
to attend us if we attempt to follow out extremes of 
this kind. No man can tell to what they will lead. 
No man who leaves what is practicable and well-groun¬ 
ded, and trusts himself to the waves of theoretical spe¬ 
culation, can tell whore they will lead him. Now, I 
choose to risk the constitution of Ohio, and the welfare 
of the people of Ohio, upon no uncertainty of this kind, 
lam willing at times to lookback, as well as to be con¬ 
tinually looking forward. I hold that as there is specu¬ 
lative wisdom in the future, so also, there is experirrien- 
tal wisdom in the past. And if Ohio has grown up trom 
a mere infant, and has become a giant, under a system 
of this kind; if her wildernesses have become cultivated 
gardens under the influence, to a considerable extent, 
of those corporations about which we have heard so 
much complaint, I, for one, am willing to trust some¬ 
thing of t' e same kind for the future. Something, I 
say, of the same kind, even if we change some of its 
phases, some of its powers, some of its modes of ac¬ 
tion. 

We have been told that an evil will grow up from 
these associations. Gentleman will have it,that these as¬ 
sociations are all aristocratic and monopolizing in their 
tendencies. Sir, I dislike to hear words of this kind 
used here, because they are always liable to bring 
home to our miiuls,‘cdl the injurious influences of improp¬ 
er partizan associations. This ridiculous havangning a- 
bout aristocracy and monopoly should be banished by, 
common consent from this Hall. But allow me to say 
Mr. Chairman, that in every country, and especially in 
every commercial country, there is a tendency to the ag¬ 
gregation of wealth; and you cannot prevent it, it is 
an evil inherout in the very nature of things in such a 
country, and no power can entirely eradicate it. Yet, 
I thank God there is one blessing that waits iip(»n this 
teinhuicy, and counteracts many of its evil effects. It 
is thi.': that whatever aggregation of wealth there may 
ho in particular hands tu-day, yet, la a fe w generatious, 


within less than a century, no man can, by any pre¬ 
science, foresee into whose bands this wealth will fall. 
And if by means of cor[)orate powers and privileges, or 
as more frequently happens, by theexercise of personal, 
individual energy,the man of to-day has accumulated his 
millions, the children of such a man may become the 
veriest “ hewers of wood and drawers of water” to the 
children of those, who to-day are his servants. There 
is one glorious prospect which opens to the people of 
this country, who, to use the phrase of my friend from 
Monroe, are so unfortunately “ posted,” as to occupy 
the humbler positions in society; and it is this, thit in 
the continued mutations of wealth which we witness 
continually around ns, although to-day finds them at 
the bottom of the ladder, yet they can look ahead with 
assurance that the time is coming, when, if not them¬ 
selves, at least their children shall be found at the top: 
and this ought to be consideration enough to make us 
do away with all this twaddle about the evil of asso¬ 
ciated wealth. It is an evil (if it be so) which you 
cannot dispense with, and you cannot resist its progress 
any more than you can resist the downward current of 
the Mississippi. Bind and restrain it, if you please; 
throw up your ditches and your barriers against its ir¬ 
ruptions if you will, so you allow it to do good; but 
do not attempt to chain it, for you might as well at¬ 
tempt to chain the current of the great Father of Wa¬ 
ters, which bears the commerce of an empire upon its 
bosom. _ 

Blit to carry out the principle a little farther. If as¬ 
sociated wealth is not allowed to band itself together 
and make the improvements of which we have spoken, 
I would ask gentlemen if they cannot perceive that 
they must substitute another and a greater evil for 
this associated wealth, of which they entertain such a 
holy horror, this banded wealth of three or four hun¬ 
dred men, who subscribe fifty or a hundred dollars 
each, to the stock of a turnpike or plank road company, 
destined to become a mighty engine of aristocracy and 
of monopoly, by lifting us out ot the mire and enabling 
us io travel unsoiled, where before we went knee deep 
in the mad? What do tiiey propose as a substitute for 
this dangerous banding of wealth, yielding two, three 
or four per cent, on the amount invested—this e/il of 
most unto ward influence—this mountain ofinvested cap¬ 
ital—what do gentlemen propose as a substitute? They 
propose, sir, to reduce the country to this extremity; that 
whenever a public improvement is needed—(and when¬ 
ever such a thing is needed, the people will have it even 
at a sacrifice)—a millionaire may step in and reap his 
harvest; these will be the harvest days of accumulated 
wealth. Yes, sir, he may step in, in the face of that 
Legislature which has refused to encourage the opera- 
ations ol associated w'ealth, with all the advantage in 
his hands of the wants and necessities of the people, 
knowing that the country needs the improvement and 
must have it even at a sacrifice; and the Legislature and 
the people, who will not allow men of small means to 
band themselves together for this purpose, \vill have 
to submit to some wealthy individual who will make 
the improvement, and they will be left to a certain extent 
to his tender mercies. This is no idle fancy—it is a le¬ 
gitimate consequence, which, in most cases, will follow 
from a course of action of this kind. If you wish to 
prevent the public improvements of this country, those 
impi’ov'emeuts which are tlie very life blood of the com¬ 
munity from falling into the hands of the rich and the 
powerful, and of those alone, then you must allow, yes, 
sir, you must encourage the association of wealth in 
corporate bodies, composed ofsmalI capitalists, banded 
togi^ther for the purpose of performing what they can¬ 
not do singly. You must oppose the power of asso¬ 
ciated wealth to the power of wealth in the hands of 
an individual. 

Why, sir, with what will the gentleman be satisfied f 
Have we not already sufficiently restrained and bound 
up our corporations? VVe have the right of repeal in 
our hands, that right which is sacred and invaluable to 








356 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


freemen. We, the people, through the Legislature 
have the right to take away any privilege which may 
have been granted to any corporation; and is not this 
sufficient ? But we have done more, we have, in the 
first section of this report, most wisely provided against 
any special charters, the most fruitful source of c6r- 
mption, and have determined that all such institutions 
should be bound by a general law, forever subject to 
the will of the people; and are not these two great 
and important safeguards sufficient to secure the j)ub- 
lic against danger and against harm. And cannot we 
now rest content and allow the people to exercise their 
own judgment through their legislative agents, upon 
what further concerns their interests upon this subject. 

The fact is, sir, that individual liability, to the extent 
to which the amendment of the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton proposes to carry it, has never been made a dis¬ 
tinct question before the j)eople of this State. As ap¬ 
plied to banking institutions,, every member of the 
democrtic family recognises it to its fullest extent,— 
but here the full recognition of the principle ends—ap¬ 
plied to other corporations, especially to those for pub¬ 
lic improvements, it has never been made a test ques¬ 
tion before the people. 

The past legislation of the country will show how 
nearly the people are divided upon this question. For 
you ^lave had the individual liability principle passed 
at one session of the Genei-al Assembly and repealed at 
another—showing a variable feeling upon the subject. 
Is not the Legislature to come up here as the exponent 
of the public mind ? Is not this one of the elements 
of our republican system ? Then if you restrain this 
expression of the popular feeling, by a constitutional 
provision, you introduce a tyranny of the worst kind 
into the constitution; and, although you may bind the 
people for a time, I can tell you they will not be bound 
forever. After a time they will throw off your shack¬ 
les by resorting to another change in the organic law. 

But gentlemen say they are not hostile to improve¬ 
ments; and that they will go on. Yes, sir, I apprehend 
they will go on, but greatly to the disadvantage of the 
people. They tell us, also, that they are willing to en¬ 
courage and extend the influence of corporations. But 
this is not, this cannot be strictly true; because we see 
that although there is one class of corporations which 
we know have operated continually for the good of the 
country, they are willing to include them in the same 
categoi’y with those which have been injurious ; they 
would bind them all with the same fetters, and include 
them all in a common destruction. 

Mr. Chairman, I am not willing to see, upon this 
question, a strict drawing of party lines, as if the mat¬ 
ter were settled in the minds of the people. I should 
be sorry to witness the success of any attempt of this 
kind; I should be sorry to see any attempts at a sys¬ 
tem of coercion, so that, in the language of the gentle¬ 
man from Monroe, when the whip is cracked, every 
man will understand that the signal is given to fall into 
line, to range himself under the banner, and come into 
the lead of those who have constituted themselves the 
exponents of Democratic principles, and stand ready 
to deal denunciation upon all those who do not bow to 
their assumption of power. 

The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] has 
reproached me with being the representative of a Whig 
district; if that can be called a reproach, I plead guil¬ 
ty, sir, to the accusation. I have the fortune, sir, or 
perhaps I should say the misfortune, to represent a 
Whig district. I do not know how far such a thing 
might be considered a reproach in this Convention. 
But, sir, I represent, too, as noble a band of Democrats 
as can be found within the limits of this common¬ 
wealth; and, allow me to say, that I at least come here 
with the endorsement of every Democratic vote in my 
district, and with the endorsement of a sufficient num¬ 
ber of Whig voters, who are sufficiently convinced of 
my honesty of purpose to entrust their interests to my 
care, to secure my election. And if I come here thus 


endorsed, I would ask, how do I, the rej^resenative of 
a Whig district, compare, with reference to my party 
relations, with that man who comes up here the repre¬ 
sentative of a Democratic county, one of the strongest 
in the State, and yet unendorsed by some two thou¬ 
sand of his own Democratic voters? 

And now sir, as I have said, I am unwilling to see 
any man or any set of men constituting themselves par¬ 
ty leaders, and declaring that every man who does not 
subscnbe to their dictation shall be denounced as a 
straggler behind the times, and deprived of his demo¬ 
cratic standing. No sir, I come here the representative 
of those measures and those principles which for sixteen 
years I have advocated, and under this advocacy I have 
seen a noble democracy grow up around me in the 
midst of an uncompromising opposition. I have waged 
the common warfare for those principles to which we 
all subscribe and which we have seen, at length, to have 
grown strong with the lapse of years, and now are daily 
strengthening the democratic party. Of course I should 
be recreant to every sentiment oi right and honor, if I 
sacrificed them now, and I shall not do it. Let us 
then be willing to occupy a safe and judicious, though 
it be a moderate and middle ground. Let us be con¬ 
tent with the power to prevent all the evils resulting 
from corporations, whilst by a prudent watchfulness 
we secure to ourselves all their advantages. And I 
hold that this third section of the report does all that 
can be asked: that it secures, as far as there is any ne¬ 
cessity, or advantage in security against those evils of 
which gentlemen complain, and under which some 
part of the community may have labored, and while 
it leaves these associations free to pursue their own 
way to wealth, if wealth be in their path, it secures 
the co-operation of the wealth of the people—and those 
influences combined, continue to lead, as they have 
heretofore led the State of Ohio, to affluence and honor. 

Mr. HAWKINS said: Mr. Chairman: I had hoped 
for some time, that this debate would end, and that we 
would get to the vote, and make progress. But I rather 
despair now, sir. We have fixed rules for our govern¬ 
ment here, which, I believe, a majority, at the time, 
determined to be proper. But in spite of these rules, 
we are now, for a second day, upon an amendment in¬ 
volving the mere change of a word,—about which, it 
appeal’s to me, of very little consequence whether we 
employ the one or the other; but, unless we do some¬ 
thing more, or something else than is here proposed, I, 
for one, feel as though we should fail in accomplishing 
what seems to be desired. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Will the gentleman from Mor¬ 
gan give way to allow me to make a modification of my 
amendment ? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Certainly, sir. 

Mr. REEMELIN. He found that his amendment 
was misunderstood by the gentleman from Medina, 
(Mr. Humphretville,) and by the gentleman ffom 
Erie, [Mr. Taylor,] and he would therefore ask leave 
to withdraw his amendment, and submit the following 
modification: 

Strike out the whole of section three, and insert: “Dues from 
corporations for labored performed and materials furnished, shall 
be secured by the individual liability of the corporators, and by 
such other mepis as may be provided by law : Provided, such 
dues shall, until paid, remain a lien upon the property of the cor¬ 
poration, and snail in all cases have precedence over all other 
dues.” 

Mr. REEMELIN, [Mr. H. still giving way,] said: 
his object had been from the first, to secure the labor¬ 
ing man, and yesterday upon leaving the Hall of the 
Convention, a man arrested him and bidhim God speed 
in his efforts to save hereafter, the laboring man from 
fraud. The man put into his hand the following note; 

‘I $36,21. At the next estimate made on the Columbus and Xenia 
Railroad, we promise to pay Martin Swartz or order, thirty.six 
dollars, twenty-one cents, in full for labor to this date. 

JAMES BROWNELL, & Co. 

^ , By W.D. GILMORE. 

November 27,1848." 

It was to secure such men from harm, and to secure 
them the payment for their labor, that he had labored, 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


and he believed the amendment now offered would ef¬ 
fect that object. 

He was also told on good authority, that some forty 
other men were in the same predicament, and tliat ten 
of them were so reduced in circumstances after a hard 
summer’s work, and failing to get their pay, that they 
bad to apply to be admitted into the county Poorhouse 
of Franklin. 

Had members no feelings for such cases ? Did such 
cases of extreme hardship not deserve a constitutional 
remedy ? 

Mr. HAWKINS continued. This is a very import- 
ait modification of the amendment to be made, now 
vhen the anendment has been discoursed some two or 
three days. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga, [interposingf.] I 
suppose, if the amendment of the gentleman from 
Hamilton be withdrawn, the question in order will be 
upon the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman 
from Trumbull, [Mr. Rannky.] 

Mr. HAWKINS. I suppose the gentleman cannot 
modify his amendment at pleasure. But it must be 
done, if at all, by a vote of the committee. 

I was about to remark, that there has been an im¬ 
portance given to one word in this section which does 
not really belong to it. It has been treated as a ques¬ 
tion upon which depended the liberty or the slavery of 
the countiy. It has been argued, on the one hand, that 
if we strike out this word, we shall put a stop to all the 
improvements in the State of Ohio ; and on the other 
hand, if we do not strike out and substitute another 
word, the laborers of the countrv will be robbed and 
plundered. But I was about to say, further, that un¬ 
less something else were done—something more bind¬ 
ing than what is here proposed—that the provision 
would amount to nothing, as far as any guarantee 
against fraud is concerned. For, it provides in the first 
place, that the individual liability of corporators shall 
be such as may be prescribed by law, and, in the pro¬ 
viso it is proposed that the liability of each corporator 
or stockholder, shall never be less than the amount of 
stock by him or her subscribed. Well, if any person 
should obtain stock by transfer, or as a gratuity, could 
such a person be considered a subscriber, in the sense of 
this word in the proviso ? I have voted for individual 
liability, as a member of the Legislature, but I have al¬ 
ways done so with a view to secure the principle to the 
fullest extent. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I hope the committee will find 
some means of relieving itself from this difficulty, and 
that they will get to voting, and dispose of this ques¬ 
tion in some reasonable time. I dislike, sir, very much, 
to insist upon the execution of our rules here, yet I ap¬ 
prehend there will be a time when it will become ne¬ 
cessary to enforce them. I think, sir, we have a right 
to complain when gentlemen get up here to address 
the committee, that, instead of making at least an oc¬ 
casional reference to the question under consideration, 
they enter at once into the history of parties, in order 
to determine who is in the lead and who is behind, in 
the political race—announcing their own opinions, and 
then denouncing as heretical every adverse opinion.— 
I think we have a right to complain, when any mem¬ 
ber, whose knowledge, perhaps, extends but little be¬ 
yond his own county, or his congressional district, gets 
up here and claims to speak for the people of the 
whole State. Isay, I don’t like this; for I don’t be¬ 
lieve there is any man here who understands the opin¬ 
ions of the people of Morgan county as well as my¬ 
self. 

There is also a little disposition on the part of some 
gentlemen to rise up here and determine what is, and 
what is not democracy, in this State. Now, there may 
be difierences of opinion upon this matter. Some seem 
to think that it is genuine democracy for a man to do 
about as he is told, or commanded, by some one who 
may assume to be his leader. But, now I have a very 
different idea of democracy; and so have the people of 


357 


Morgan county. I rather think that the definition giv¬ 
en of democracy by a very intelligent gentleman of 
this State, some years ago, is better. That gentleman 
declared, that “ Democracy only asks for itself what 
it is willing to concede to others; and, that it concedes 
nothing to others which it does not demand for itself.” 
This, I think, is a far better definition. 

Mr. ROBERTSON, [in his seat,] I hope the gentle¬ 
man will adhere to that definition in his voting here. 

Mr. HAWKINS. And I also can reciprocate the 
wish, that the gentleman from Fairfield will adhere to 
this definition in his speeches. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I believ’^e the remark quoted is 
the language of the Hon. Win. Allen, of Lancaster.— 
And since the gentlemen has applied the principle, I 
shall cheerfully unite with him m the determination to 
adhere to it. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I have said, Mr. Chairman, that I 
dislike to complain. I shall never rise up here to make 
a personal explanation on account of anything the 
newspapers may say of me, because I desire not only 
to retain some degree of respect for the committee, but 
that I shall deserve respect from it. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I will take this occasion to say, 
and to warn gentlemen upon this floor, that I must be 
permitted, in view of the responsibility which I owe 
to my constituents, to discharge my duties here in ac¬ 
cordance with my own convictions of right; and in 
doing this, I shall not be driven from my purpose by 
the dictation or threats of any one. No, sir, I will ac¬ 
count to my own master for my conduct in this Con¬ 
vention ; to my constituency, sir. To them alone will 
I stand or fall. A few gentlemen upon this floor seem 
to think that a democrat here must, like the subdued 
ox, submit to be driven to the right or left, as may be 
indicated by the goad of a driver. Now, sir, so far as 
I am concerned, I wish to say to all interested, that 
such an idea is a mere delusion, and may as well be 
abandoned. 

Again, Mr. Chainnan, some gentlemen on this side 
seem displeased that no greater degree of party rancor 
has arisen amongst us. For my own part, I deprecate 
unnecessary party strife upon this floor. Its evil influ¬ 
ence upon the interest of our country has been lament¬ 
ably manifest; and for myself I will not, without just 
occasion, aid in exciting it here. From what has trans¬ 
pired around me for a lew days past, I am led to sup¬ 
pose that nothing would be more alarming to some 
here, as well as many elsewhere, than that partizan 
strife should cease. In that event, sir, many an ‘‘Othel- 
lo’s” occupation would be gone. 

I desire, Mr. Chairman, to say, that I should regret 
that the constitution to be framed here, should be pre¬ 
sented to the people with the deforming impressionsof 
the mere party hand upon it. In that event, sir, its 
adoption or rejection by the people, would depend up¬ 
on party preponderance. The large expense incurred 
would most likely be incurred for worse than nothing 

Mr. REEMELIN now had leave to withdraw his 
amendment, and the question recurred upon the adop¬ 
tion of the amendment of the gentlemen from Trum¬ 
bull, [Mr. Ranney.] 

Mr. SAWYER. What remarks I shall make upon 
this question, will be with direct reference to the sec¬ 
tion as it reads with the amendment offered by the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Rbemelin.] I should 
have remained silent upon this question, were it not 
for the remarks which have been made by my worthy 
and venerable friend from Geauga-— a gentleman for 
whom I entertain a very high opinion. When I first 
entered this hall, I said, in the course of some remarks 
at that time submitted, that I had left my party animos¬ 
ities at home. I came here to accomplish a great and 
important object, in which neither the democratic nor 
the wilier party was to be regarded, nor party objects 
to influence me in any movement I might make here. 
So far as I am concerned, I have pursued that course, 
and shall continue to do so; but when an aged friend of 
















358 CONVENTION VEPOIITS. 


mine, a man of high reputation, gets up and makes an 
unjust attivck upon llio parly to vv jiich 1 belong, and 
does it premetlitatcdly, as I believe, lor the pui pose of 
sending such a false charge as he makes, abroad, I can¬ 
not sit cjnietly in rny jdace and sutlbr such an imputa¬ 
tion upon the jjarly of ■which I am a member, without 
repelling it, and successful y too. As for the principle 
of individual liability and incorporations of every 
kind, 1 hold this to be a doctrine which should be ful¬ 
ly and clearly recognized in the new constitution, viz: 
“ equal and exact justice to all, exclusive privileges to 
none.” We start out with that declaration. If we 
should always keep that in sight, there would be no 
danger of getting astray upon any of the subjects that 
might arise. In administering equal and exact justice 
to all men, it is not right to exempt iVom their just re¬ 
sponsibilities the members of corporations, or in any 
way to grant exclusive privileges to the property of tije 
banks, rail road, or turnpike companies, churches, if 
you please, or any other species of corporation. While 
w'e adhere to the fundamental doctrine, that equal and 
exact justice to all men is their right, we ought to ex¬ 
empt none from its application. 

It is said here, that it is hard to subject a man who 
has subscribed his five hundred dollaiv in the stock of 
Borne corporation, to the operation of this individual 
liabilitj^ principle, whereby, through the misnianage- 
meiit of corporators, not from his own fault, he might 
lose his whole estate. On the other hand, it is equally 
hard for the man who has funiished the timber, stone, 
provisions, &c., for the use of that corpoiation, every 
thing, it may be, that he possessed upon earth, to that 
corporation, to lose it all on account of the bad con¬ 
duct or bad management of its officers. In whatever 
business I should be engaged, whether in the black- 
Bmilhing or the milling business, or any other, I should 
claim to have equal control with the other partners, 
and an equal voice in the control of such business. 1 
should look well to the management of that busi¬ 
ness. It is our care to get good suitable men to trans¬ 
act our business. The community relying upon our 
good conduct, are free to trust us, and they do so in 
proportion to our capacity to serve them, and what is 
lor the interest of one in the circumstances I have 
named, would be for the interests of men engaged in 
these corporations; if they were responsible in their 
individual capacity, for the debts of the association 
they would select better and more skillful men — there 
would be fewer losses, and no such thing as defalca¬ 
tion would ever be heard of. I was “thrust at” to 
Bome considerable extent both by gentlemen upon this 
floor and in private conversation, because they thought 
that 1 had advocated, to a certain extent, repudiation — 
that I was repudiating the speedy payment of certain 
bonds. 

Mr. Chairman, I am not so much opposed to, and 
Beared at by that word, “ repudiation,” as some gen¬ 
tlemen might suppose. Why, a gentleman has been 
nj)on this floor advocating a course of conduct, that 
will repudiate certain other things, which 1 hold to be 
equally sacred with the bonds of the State — I must 
throw back the charge upon them. They refuse to in¬ 
corporate in the charters of all these banks and incor- 
poiations, the principle of individual liability to the 
fullest extent. In chartered bank companies, you have 
refused always to incorporate the individual liability. 
"You have winked at ihcir acts of “ repudiation,” and 
these have been without number. They have “repu¬ 
diated ” their paper to iheamount of millioi.s of dollars, 
and have thus inflicted incalculable injury upon the 
mass of the community in this country, and now you 
bear the voice of the very men, throughout the coun¬ 
try, who have been engaged in these worse than “re¬ 
pudiating,” these swindling banks, raised vociferously 
against “repudiation.” The very provision which 1 
intioduccd, and by which I attempted to prevent the 
repudiation of their paper on the part of companies 
and banks,— was opposed and 1 was denounced as be¬ 


ing an enemy of public improvements and ol our pub- ■ 
lie iiistilutioiis, and was set diiwn at once as an agrari¬ 
an. A great many things have been said of us who ad- ; 
vocate this doctrine of individual liabdity. 1 refei you ; 
to the original doctrine wiili which we started out, the j 
administering equal and exact justice to all men, and as 
far as that goes, 1 am an agianan. j 

My friend Irom Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] under- _ 
•akes to say that the principle of iudividual liability i.9 j 
not an original principle wiili the democratic paily. Sir, 

I am not pie[)ared to the I’ullest extent, to deba.e that I 
question. Theiemay have been a time in the dtno- 
cralic Jiarty, when they were not in favor ol the hdi- 
vidual liability princijile. There may have bteia ! f 
time when the question had not been agitated, and no i I 
such thing was absolutely necessary. We live in an j | 
age in which we are continually learning and iniprov- ; 
iiig, and the time may have been when certain mem- i 
hers of the democratic party were not in favor of the i 
individnal liability piinciide. Our votes of ton years j 
ago, brought up here to stare us in the face, in this . 
body, has nothing to do with this matter. “ Fools 
never cliaiige, but wi.se men always do, if they are 
wrong.” [Laughter.] No wise man sees a wrong 
which he has committed years ago, but what he le- 
traces his steps, and acknowledges the wrong. The 
fool, when he gets an idea into his head, never aban¬ 
dons it. It is no disparagement ncr discredit to a par¬ 
ty, that they may n<»w hold to a doctrine, which ffiey j 
el id not advocate ten years before. Tins is an age of It 
progress, and what may be a good sentiment and doc- \ 
trine now, would not have been so considered ten I 
years ago. I discover that some of our friends on the j 
other side of the House are following in the track of ' 
the democratic party at full rail road speed, and if •: 
some of our own party do not make belter progress ■ 
tnan they are now doing, they will be overtaken and , i 
passed by, and our enemies will, most likely, steal some \ ! 
of our thunder, ■ 

Sir, the charges which have been made against the ( 
democratic party, shall not go abroad uncouiradicted. 

It is charged by the Hon. gentleman from Geauga 
[Mr. Hitchcock,] that in 1833, when a large batch of 
banks were chartered, the democrats were responsible 
for their creation, that the democi ateo party had a ma¬ 
jority in both branches of the legislature, and that 
banks were chartered at that time, ergo, that tee are re¬ 
sponsible for them. As was remarked by the gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] that was too 
much of a stump speech to be made here, and — 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I certainly am very much mis¬ 
taken if I have charged anything of the kind upon the 
party. 1 merely said that the democrats had a majori¬ 
ty ill both brandies of the Legislature at that session, 
and that demcciats as well as others, voted against this 
individual liability principle. 1 slated the fact for the 
purpose of showing that at that time this individual li¬ 
ability principle was not incorpoiatf d in the faith of j 
the democratic party, whereas the genllenian from 
Hamilton had declared it had been one of the princi- i 
pies of that party for the last twenty years. j 

Mr. SAWYER, It is now believed by the people, 
that it is a principle of our })arty, and if you wid look , 
over the journals of 1832, up to 1836, you will find 
recorded, in every instance wdiere the qiustion came I 
up, my vote in favor of this principle ol individual lia-, j 
bility, whether in bank charters or any oilier charter. | 
Tlie charge is made that in 1833 and 34 the demo- 1 

cratic party was a bank party, and the gentleman re- J 

ft rred to ceiTain votes in relation to the incorporation • 
of these banks. We ought to correct such erroneous 
impressions, and relieve the democralic party from the 
cursed odium which has been fastened upon them in 
regard to this matter. The way in ■which banks were 
chftrtered in 1833 and 34, was this: Ji. eveiy instance 
save, one, and that was tlie Clinton Bank ol Columbus, 
the whig parly, though largely in the minority in both 
branches of the General Assembly, gave a larger vole- 



















CONVENTION REPORTS. 359 


in the passage of the bank biJls, than did the demo¬ 
crats. Let no man hereafter say at home or abroad, 
that this was not tl.e fact, for I have here the joiirnahs 
as proof, [producing the journals,] and 1 bring this 
proof here in order to vindicate the party with which 
I then voted, from the foul aspersions that have been 
cost upon it herein this deliberative body. The whigs 
voted for the charter ol these banks in every instance 
save one. There were some of the democrats who 
went for banks—and the great body of the whigs went 
for them, and with the aid of these few democrats, 
they were enabled to pass this batch of banks. When 
the vote was taken, a majority of the democrats voted 
against their charter, and a few of the w higs. I voted 
lor the Clinton Bank myrelf, (laughter and a general 
stir,) as strange as it may appear to some men. 

It will be lecollected that, at the time this batch of 
banks was created. General Jacksonhad put his “ paw' ” 
upon the Bank of the United States. The cry w^as, 
that the democratic party would be swallowed up in 
the vortex which would be created by the withdrawal 
of the circulation of the paper of the United States 
Bank ; and hence the necessity of creating local insti¬ 
tutions to supply the place of the circulation thus 
withdrawn. And this great clamor, like all other hum¬ 
bugs, drew after it some disciples. About this time 
the “ Franklin Bank,” and the “Clinton Bank,” of this 
city, got to “ sword’s point ” with each other. The 
Franklin Bank being in the hands of the aristocracy, 
and the Clinton being, as then conducted, a kind of a 
democratic machine. [Laughter.] It was then rep¬ 
resented to us that the agents of the Franklin Bank 
were all through the country getting signers to a re¬ 
monstrance 'against a re-charter of the Clinton Bank. 

I being a good democrat, and nothing loth to 
defeat the aristocracy, took hold of the matter and did 
the best I could to effect a change in the popular senti¬ 
ment. Well, by the time the Legislature next con¬ 
vened, they got up this thing, and we turned about and 
went, almost en masse, for assisting and chartering this 
democratic bank!! [Continued laughter.] The whigs 
upon the other side went against it. [Much merri¬ 
ment on all sides.] Well, sir, that is the history of the 
charter of the somewhat celebrated Clinton Bank. 
These whigs were democrats every day in the year 
but one, and that is on election day. These bank men 
are whigs every day in the year during their existence, 
except the day when they want a re-charter by the 
democrats. 

My friend from Geauga also wishes you to believe 
that he has always been an individual responsibility 
man. My friend’s memory may be a little treacherous, 
for 1 am prepared to show here by the journals, that 
when a member of the Senate in 1833-4, at the time 
these banks were chartered, he voted against the prop- 
ositk-n to engraft the individual liability clause upon 
the charters of those banks, in every shape and form 
in which it could be presented. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I distinctly stated that I voted 
against the liability clause where banks were con¬ 
cerned. 

Mr. SAWYER. I have nothing more to say, then, 
for I do not wish to do the honorable gentleman any 
injustice. Then I take it, from his remarks, he was 
opposed to the individual liability principle. But I 
at a loss to know how he w as opposed to individual 
liability in banks, and in favor of its being apjdied to 
other corporations. He is less of a democrat than 1 
really th(iught he was. Accoi ding to my friend from 
Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] it would be wrong to engraft 
this individual liability princijde upon the charters of 
railroads and turnpike companies, because they are 
for the public good. And I am rather in favor of ex¬ 
empting these and placing the restrictions upon bank 
charters. I do hojie that when the report from the 
committee • n Corporations comes up, that every dem¬ 
ocrat, and that every republican in this House, wheth¬ 
er belonging to the democratic or whig ranks, will 


come up to the “scratch,” and protect the people in 
this country from being longer swindled by banks. 

'J'hereis vl possibility the hQwV^beinghcTiest. (Laugh¬ 
ter.^ I desire that in the instrument framing our or¬ 
ganic law, we shall leave it to the people to decide, 
whether these banks shall or shall not be incorpomted 
with the individuili liability piinciple. The gentleman 
from Geauga compdains that we are not willing to leave 
to the Legislature the powder of regulating these char¬ 
ters. I differ, with the gcntlen;an in regard to thejus- 
tice of his complaint, for I do not want this matter to 
be determined by the Legislature, for certain influen¬ 
ces, operating at different times, may and will change 
the action of the Legislature. This individual liability 
clause may be engrafted at one time, and at another it 
may be repealed and annulled. If the individual lia¬ 
bility clause gets into operation and the citizen is suc¬ 
cessfully prosecuting his business under it, the next 
year the Legislature will be asked to repeal it. I am 
for placing all upon the same footing, and establishing 
ihe just principle of individual liability in the organic 
law of the land. Railroad companies and turnpike 
companies ought to be made liable individually for the 
payment of debts w hich they may incur. I want this 
to be done, so that when I go home and am asked 
‘ 'what kind of a constitution have you made ?” I can 
answer, “a republican and democratic constitution.” 
By such a standard should it be tried. When all men 
are placed upon a perfect equality, and equal footing, 
no man who takes stock can open his mouth against a 
provision of this sort. 

But if you establish the principle, that every man in 
his private and individual capacity will be bound for 
the payment of his individual contracts, and that as¬ 
sociated wealth, by means of incorporation is not thus 
liable, all at once will say that it is unjust and anti¬ 
republican, and that they will not have such an instrtt- 
ment as a guide and rule for them. 

Mr. MANON. It will be well for members of this 
Convention to adopt the principle of thinking twice be¬ 
fore speaking once. There has been an amendment 
pending two or three days, upon which gentlenaen 
have made their long speeches, and it is now wilh- 
drawm. It has been so on several previous occasions, 
and I hope the gentlemen will think of the maxim of 
“ thinking twice before speaking once,” when they 
offer an amendment again. 

Mr. HUMBHREVILLE here renewed the motion 
to strike out the word “such,”and insert the word 
“the.” 

On motion by Mr. KIRKWOOD, the committee rose, 
reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again. 

And on motion, the Convention took a recess. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

On the motion of Mr. STAUNTON, a call of the con¬ 
vention w'as ordered, there not beinga quorum present; 
however, before the call of the names of delegates had 
teiTninated, a sufficient number were in attendance to 
enable the convention to proceed wnth the transaction 
of business. 

A motion having been made by Mr. LOUDON to dis¬ 
pense with further proceedings under the rule, 

The BRESIDENT observed that he wished to make 
a statement in regard to this rule—the 19th. It was 
different from all other rules, and he did not suppose 
that the motion to excuse gentlemen, was at all an ap¬ 
propriate motion here,—for the reason, that the rule 
imposed no penaKy on any member, and therefore 
there was nothing to excuse him ftr. Under the rules 
of the House of Representatives, and of Congress, the 
proceeding under the call went on until members were 
excused, and members were rc(]uired to bo excused 
or they would be fined. This rule imposed only one 
thing, and that was, that the names of absentees should 
be noted uj)on the journal. 

Some cursory remarks were offered in relation to the 
force of this rule, after w Inch, 













360 CONVENTION llEPOETS. 


The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the 
following communication: 

At the Council Chamber of the City of Zanesville, 

June, 11th, 1850. 

To the Hon. Wm. Medill, President of the Constitu¬ 
tional Convention: 

Sir : At the meeting of the city council, held on the 
9th inst., the following proceedings were had, and we 
respectfully beg leave to submit the same through you, 
its presiding officer, to the Constitutional Convention. 

Resolved, by the city council of Zanesville, that a committee of 
three be appointed by the Mayor to draft resolutions inviting the 
constitutional convention, assembled at Columbus, to adjourn to 
Zanesville, in case they deem it advisable to leave Columbus be¬ 
fore concluding their labors. 

Pursuant to the terms of this resolution, the under¬ 
signed members of the convention, were appointed 
said committee, and in discharge of the duty imposed 
upon them, respectfully present to the convention, in 
behalf of their fellow-citizens, the following: 

Whereas, it has been understood by the citizens of 
Zanesville, that the members of the Constitutional 
Convention have had it in contemplation, for various 
reasons, to adjourn their sittings to some other conve¬ 
niently situated point; and whereas, the city of Zanes¬ 
ville, presents, in its size, its salubrity, and especially 
in its freedom now, and in time past, from epidemic 
diseases, in its ample accommodation for sojourners, 
its abounding markets, its well paved and gas lighted 
streets, its copious supply of the purest water, in its 
situation upon the main avenues of travel in all direc¬ 
tions through the State, and withal, its proximity to 
the capital; in these things, and others which might 
be named, inducements no where else to be surpassed, 
to invite the presence of that body. 

And Whereas, furthermore, the citizens have reason 
to believe that every needful facility for the continu¬ 
ance of their labors can be here presented to the mem¬ 
bers ot the Convention, therefore. 

Resolved, That in the name, not only of the city, but also of eas¬ 
tern Ohio, an invitation be respectfully extended to the constitu¬ 
tional convention, in removing from its present place of session, to 
renew, in the honor of its presence at Zanesville, this year, the 
distinction conferred on the valley of the Muskingum by the Leg¬ 
islature of 1809. 

Resolved, That the city pledge its hospitalities to the members 
of the convention, and engage that no effort, or expense shall be 
spared to promote their comfort, and to facilitate their labors. 

By laying these proceedings before the Convention, 
you will confer a favor upon the committee, who beg 
to remain 

With sentiments of the highest respect. 

Your very obedient servants, 

WM. SCHULTZ, Mayor. 

S. R. Hosmer, 'J 

Jas. Galigher, ^Councilmen. 

F. B. Abbott, j 

On motion of Mr. Hawkins the convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the whole, (Mr. Townsend 
in the chair.) 

The consideration of the Report of the ‘‘ Committee 

on 

Corporations other than Corporations for Bank¬ 
ing” was resumed. 

Some slight discussion here ensued, relative to the 
exact stage of the business before the committee, it 
was finally determined that the question last under dis¬ 
cussion, was the amendment px-esented by the genlle- 
man from Trumbull, (recited above, Mr. Ranney.) 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said, he should proceed with some 
remarks which he purposed making, with the under¬ 
standing that the motion of the gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull, [Mr. Ranney,] was the one under discussion.— 
He would not be, however, veiy particularin confining 
himself to the subject under discussion. He would 
take occasion to travel, contrary to his usual custom, 
somewhat out of the record, and make some remarks 
oil matters and things in general, as had been done by 
others. We had heard during yesterday, and part of 
this day, particularly this morning, much said on the 


subject of party feeling in this Convention; the subject 
had also been somewhat remarked upon in committee 
of the whole during previous discussions. The opin¬ 
ion of a great many members of this body appeared to 
be, that we did not come here at all as partizaus, and 
that all party feeling should be laid aside; indeed, to 
such an extent has this arrived, that some persons who 
had made use of the terms Whig” and “ Democrat” 
in debate, have felt almost called upon to apologize for 
so doing. He did not recognize the propriety of this 
course. For one, he would not hesitate to say, tliat if 
it had not been for his advocacy of democratic princi¬ 
ples, he would not have been honored with a seat on 
this floor, if he had not been deemed true to the polit¬ 
ical faith held by his party, he would not be here, and 
he apprehended that this remark would apply to most 
other gentlemen who occupied seats in this body; the 
same gentlemen occupying seats around him on both 
sides of the chamber, who were known in the region 
in which he resided, as decided partizaus: he spoke 
in the better sense of the term, when he used the term 
“partizan.” He apprehended, thatt if gentlemen had 
not been known as such, they would not have come 
here, and he had but little faith in the no-party profes¬ 
sions of men who, but for their known party predelic- 
tions,’would not have been members of this body. 
When questions arose in this body in which principles 
were involved upon which the three or four, or half a 
dozen political parties of the State, held different opin¬ 
ions, he would not be deteired from treating them as 
democratic or anti-democratic. When a measure was 
brought forward here, involving principles, and that 
measure was advocated by gentlemen on any, or all 
sides of this chamber, if it were not a proper measure 
he would oppose it,—if he believed it to be democi’at- 
ic he would characterize it as such; if whig, he would 
call it so, regardless of who were its advocates or op¬ 
ponents. 

He believed that there was, at the foundxtion of par¬ 
ties in this State—in our Union, and ‘‘ among the rest 
of mankind,” a radical diftereuce in principles; and 
that the names made use of to designate parties, were 
mere sounds, meaning nothing. He believed that the 
term democrat, as adopted by the democratic party, 
had a significancy as to principle, and did not merely 
mean a number of men combined together for the pur¬ 
pose of getting office. He so believed of the term 
“whig,” as applied to the whig party—that it was in¬ 
tended to signify principles, and did not merely signi¬ 
fy a body of men, banded together in order to obtain 
place. That, he believed;—if he did not believe it, 
parties would be, in his opinion, objects of scorn and 
detestation. No honest man would be a party man, if 
there was no higher bond of union than tliat of spoils. 
Now, he believed that these differences ai'ose from 
principle, and so believing, he never could consent to 
abandon the position which he held as a member of 
his party, or the advocacy of its principles. Parties 
were, in his opinion, fouxided on principles, and in his 
estimation, the no-party man, was a man without po¬ 
litical principles. It had been remarked here, that in¬ 
dividuals in speaking of the opinions of the people, 
should confine themselves to expressing what were the 
opinions of the people whom they particularly repre¬ 
sented, The gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins] 
told us that he did not wish any person other than him¬ 
self to speak for the people of Morgan county, that he 
was their representative, and knew their opinions best, 
and could best speak for them. 

Mr. HAWKINS, [interposing,] said he had remark¬ 
ed, that he thought he knew the opinions of the demo¬ 
cracy of Morgan county from having mixed much with 
them, and was thei efore better qualified to speak the 
views of the democrats of that county, than those who 
did not represent it. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD continued: He did not know 
much about the democracy of that county, but felt 
satisfied he could safely say, without intrenching upon 


f 

i 

I 

U 


3 


j 

1 

■1 


I 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


361 


the peculiar proniineuce of their representative, that 
they opposed a bank ot the United States. Why 
couldf he say this 1 Because they were members of 
the democratic party of the State and Union. He be¬ 
lieved he could also say that they were opposed to a 
high protective tarilf—Why? For the same reason. 
He thought that there were other measures of policy, 
both State and national, as to their opinions on which 
he felt authorized to speak: and why ? — Because they 
were members of the democratic party,—holding to 
the principles wliich that party adhered to and believ¬ 
ing them to be true and right. The gentleman from 
Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] when he placed himself up¬ 
on a democratic principle, was at entire liberty to ad¬ 
dress himself to the democracy of Richland, and they 
would doubtless respond to his appeal. 

He wished this to be understood; that in his opinion 
there were certain measures based upon the broad 
principles which had been, and were now advocated 
and held to by the democratic party not only through¬ 
out the State, but throughout the Union; and when 
these principles rose here in discussion, he would not 
have his mouth closed from speaking in their fa¬ 
vor, and characterizing them as democratic, or those 
who opposed them, as acting against the democratic 
party. It was an opinion which he had a right to en¬ 
tertain and express, and upon all proper occasions he 
would express it — and if his action should run counter 
I to those principles, any gentleman on this side, or the 
I other side of the hall could tell him that he was travel¬ 
ling from the democratic doctrine. He had the right 
to and would express his opinion as to the democracy 
? of measures brought forward here, whether measui’es 
advocated in this body were recognised by the demo¬ 
cratic party, and whether gentleman acting upon them 
were acting with that party or not. He was entirely 
in favor of calling things by their proper names, and 
having it understood, here and elsewhere, what we 
were doing and how we were doing it. If the people 
of this State had desired to send up men here to repre¬ 
sent them, who had no political feelings and preferences, 
they would have done so. (A voice: how could they 
have done it?) They would at least have sent men 
who were less known as political partizans than men 
whom he saw sitting on the other side of the chamber, 
and less so perhaps, than gentlemen on this side. He 
saw around him on all sides, gentlemen whom he did 
did not know personally until he met them here, but 
whom he had known for years by reputation, as active 
partizans upon both sides. It was well known, that 
with few exceptions, members were of the political 
pai'ty which had the preponderance in the counties in 
I which they were elected, and the contests at the elec- 
I tions had been on party grounds. It was sufficient to 
: ^o no farther than the instance afforded by the election 
I in Franklin county, where a member of his own party 
was defeated by a whig in a closely contested party 
I contest. 

1 Now he did not blame his friends on the other side 
! for their attempt to keep down party feeling — they 
I were in the minority here — the people of the State 
I had placed the control of this body in the hands of de- 
i mocrats, and if the representatives of that party here 
I were true to themselves, they had now the opportuni- 
I tr of securing the triumph of the principles for which 
I they had long contended. This, gentlemen on the oth¬ 
er side knew—they knew their only chance for success 
I was by divisions and dissensions among us, and he 
I ^ave them credit for the ingenuity they have displayed 
I in this particular. They left the discussion of all ques- 
j tions that involved party principles, to those who had 
! the majority here, whenever a difference of opinion 
I existed among that majority, contenting themselves 
j with encouraging by their smiles and praises and votes 
I those who volunteered to do their work for them. This 
I might be all right and proper for the whigs, but it 
I grieved him to see democrats thus playing into the 
1 hands of their political enemies, giving them “ aid and 
I comfort." 


As he had remarked before, he used the term parti- 
zanship in the better sense of the woi*d; in this sense: 
that it was an advocacy qf principle and not of a party 
organization for the sake ot office. 

He would now turn his attention to the matter under 
consideration. The proposition was to extend indivi¬ 
dual liability in some shape to corporate bodies. We 
were informed by the gentleman Ironi Miami, [Mr. 
Dorsey,] that the section as we had it reported by the 
committee, was amply sufficient for all purposes and 
met the views of the Democratic party of this State. 
He would take issue and say that it did not. He would 
say that the section as it now stood did nothing more 
than give to the Legislature what had been a constitu¬ 
tional right of the Legislature heretofore. It was in 
substance this; that the Legislature should have the 
right to impose upon corporations such individual lia¬ 
bility as it chose; and it provided that the liability 
should not be less than the amount of the stock held 
by the stockholders respectively. Had not that been 
always the constitutional law in this State?—had not 
the Legislature always had the right to impose such li¬ 
ability upon them? Have not stockholders always 
been liable to the amount of their stock ? That had 
been our constitutional law heretofore, and now we 
were about to re-establish it, though the people had 
ever been dissatisfied with it, because of its inefficiency 
to protect them from fraud and imposition. He could 
tell the gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] and 
others, that the people would not be satisfied with such 
a remedy for the evil of which they have complained. 
They want a practicable and efficient remedy. 

Mr. HAWKINS here made .some observations which 
were inaudible at the table. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD resumed: He had been saying that 
this provision amounted to nothing more or less than 
that which we had had since the formation of the con¬ 
stitution, and yet we had the State shingled all over 
with all kinds of corporations without individual re¬ 
sponsibility, and with the provision that was hero pro¬ 
posed by the committee the Legislature could continue 
to create corporations just as they have done heretofore 
and let them continue their depredations on the public. 
They were just giving the Legislature a power which 
did not differ a hair’s breadth from that which it al¬ 
ready possessed. In fact, what they were doin^ was 
this: they were merely trying to make the people be¬ 
lieve they were doing something, when in reality they 
were doing nothing at all. How was it in regard to 
the liability of corporations heretofore ? Did the^ Leg¬ 
islature extend the principle of individual liability to 
the various corporate bodies which had been establish¬ 
ed from time to time ? Not at all; although they had 
the power to do so as fully as they will have if we adopt 
the provision reported by our committee. But they had 
gone on year after year creating corporation after cor¬ 
poration, without inserting that principle in their char¬ 
ters. And if we adopt this section which gives to the 
Legislature no more power than it has had, and impos¬ 
ed no further restriction upon its action, what guaranty 
had we that they would do better in the future. 
desired to see a section that would mean and effect 
something. When he drove a stake in the ground he 
wished it to take a strong and firm hold that it might 
serve as a land mark hereafter; and when we did 
thing in relation to this “liability,” let us do what would 
amount to something practicable. 

But the amendment of the gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull [Mr. Ranney] was to be attached; and what did 
it amount to? [Here the gentleman read the amendment 
as before recited.] It struck him that the Supieme 
Court would have some difficulty in arriving at the ex¬ 
act meaning of it. He did not know himself that ^he 
understood it, and like the gentleman from Licking 
[Mr. Manon] he did not like to vote for any thing he 
did not understand. 

He liked some of the remarks made by the gentle¬ 
man from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock,] and if that gen- 










362 CO^TYENTIOlSr REPORTS. 


tlemaii had embodied his ideas in the shape of an 
amendment, he should have been pleased to have seen 
them on j)aper. Bui after giving us his ideas, after in¬ 
forming us tliat corporations for banking and certain 
other purposes should be held liable to the same ex¬ 
tent 88 partners, and other corporators to a less extent, 
instead of seeking to engraft these principles in our 
constitution and thus make them a guide for future leg¬ 
islatures, he was v^illing to throw the whole matter in¬ 
to the hands of the Legislature, and leave it just as it 
has been heretofore. He [Mr. R.] did not wish to leg¬ 
islate here—to make a constitution as large as a statute 
book, but he desired that this matter and all other mat¬ 
ters should be explicitly defined, and not left in mteer- 
tainiy, subject to construction by our Supreme Court 
hereafter. He wished this body to make the constitu¬ 
tion, and not to leave half the work to be done by the 
Supieme Court in the way of construction. 

As he before said, he was unable to say what would 
be the true construction of the article under considcu- 
ation, with the proposed amendment attached to it. If 
he was capable of understanding it, it amounted to this: 
that the stockholders in all corporations except those 
created for the carrying on of public works should be 
held individually liable to the fullest extent, and that 
in corpoiations for the construction of works of inter¬ 
nal improvement, the liability was to be double the 
amount of stock held by each stockholder. If this 
were the correct construction, it was an improvement 
on the original provision, but taken in connection with 
the original it was ambiguous and uncertain. He had 
himself endeavored to embody what he thought would 
be a definite idea concerning this same mailer. 

The following amendment he would propose as a 
^bstitute for the whole section, and would read it for 
information: 

“ Ehareliolders in companies formed for literary, charitable 
and religious pui’poses, and for the construction of works of in- 
tcrnal improveineiite, fhall be individually liable for all debts of 
such cempHnes ; w bich liability ehall be enforced in such man¬ 
ner 86 may be pointed out by law ; and shareholders in all other 
companies shall be individually liable for all debts of said com- 
penit 6, in tlie same manner as members of general partnerships 
arCjCr shall be, liable for the debts, thereof,’’ 

W hether that were right or wrong, it would, at all 
events, be nndersbKjd. The idea sought to he convey¬ 
ed was this: That members of companies incorporated 
for literary, charitable and religious purposes, and for 
the prosecution of public wmrks, should all be individ¬ 
ually responsible for the debts of the company, leaving 
to the Legislature the powmr to determine the mode ol 
enforcing that liability ; and the members of all other 
companies to be held individually liable in the same 
manner as members of a general partnership for the 
debts of their firms. It was objected l)y gentlemen 
(and the objection deserved consideiation) that i! we 
subjected members of the first class of cor})oiatioii8 to 
this liability, prudent men would not become members 
of such coij)oration—that no one would become a 
men.ber of a literaiy, or charitable, or religious corpo¬ 
ration ; and particularly tliatthey v/culdnot getany one 
to go into our w’orks of public, improvement. It was 
also said that those living out of the State would be un¬ 
willing to embark in these associations, and subject 
their fortunes to the risk of membership therein. 

Lei us see if it be an insuperable objection, and if so' 
what w'as best to be dene in the j)reniises. llow did 
the matter stand? He and half a dozen others 
were desirous of embarking in the building of 
a plank road or a railroad or turnpike; he cared 
not whether there wore ten, a hundred or a thousand 
persons, they cante to the Legislature asking authority 
to cc mpoiind their objects. Having obtained the au¬ 
thority from the Legislature they run tlu irroad through 
men’s farms—through their houses, stables, and grounds 
they made hem selllheir land without their conseLi,and 
by an at tide previously adopted v\ eh ad taken away the 
right of the land owner to be paid at the time his prop¬ 
erty was taken from him. Who then was to manage 


the affairs of these companies? The directors were elect- ' 
ed by the stockholders, and no other men had any- i 
thing to do with the control of the affairs of the corpo¬ 
ration. If the company were prosperous or insolvent, ' 
they were the men who made it so. It w’as their own 
doing from beginning to end. Yet we were going tOj 
say, “ go on as you like—he as imjirudent and dishon-! 
est as von may—and oversli}) theliniits of your means 
as you may—yet if you do all this you will not be held 
liable for your dishonesty or your mismanagement.” 
And who was to lose? The jieople, who had no con¬ 
trol over the action of those men in any shape or form 
w’ere the parlies who were to lose. Viewing this mat¬ 
ter ae a matter of right, aside from all considerations 
of expediency was it not monstrous that men should i 
advocate a system of this kind; that we should give aj 
class of men the privilege of acting imprudently or, 
dishonestly as they might see fit in managing the af-j 
fails of a company; yet, that the resulting loss should! 
not fall on them but upon those who have nothing to| 
do with It? In other words the matter stood in this; 
way : gentlemen came here and said they would give' 
the corpora’ors the right to take away the property of 
private individuals without their consent and without 
paying them for it, to pocket all profits if affairs went 
on prosperously, and in addition to all that they gave 
them theright, in case of loss by the mismanagement or 
dishonesty of their own agents, to throw that loss on 
the people. If a profit were made, the stockholders 
should pocket the profit—if a loss were made, the peo¬ 
ple should pocket the loss. And by v.'ay of reconci¬ 
ling us to this monstrous idea, gentlemen tell us that it 
was best for the interest of the people, and that with¬ 
out it we could not get works of public improvement 
made. 

Now, he liked to see those works of improvement 
going on—to see railroads, and plank roads, and turn¬ 
pikes constructed—and should be sorry to have such 
enterprises discontinued. But, he believed that all 
those works would go on, even though they required 
the companies to be responsible for all their acts, and 
to pay all their honest debts. Suppose, now, a rail¬ 
road was to be built from Columbus to Cleveland, how 
was it to be effected? In the first place, they would 
go to solicit the farmers and others along the proposed 
route to subscribe for stock in the company. A mil¬ 
lion of dollars, say, would be necessaiy to construct 
the road, and it was subscribed in sums of from $100 
to $1,000. What great risk, then, did any man run? 
Men, in subscribing for stock, would not subscribe 
for more than the one-tenth of what they were worth— 
on an average, not one-fiftieth, perhaps, but say one 
tenth. Theji multiply the amount of stock by ten, and 
we would have the total responsibility of those who 
held the stock—if the stock was worth $1,000,000, the 
stockholders would be worth $10,000,000—so that the 
proportion would run throughout. 

It was nottu be supposed that any man would invest 
his whole fortune in a matter of that kind, and such 
was not our experience. Where, then, was the risk of 
final loss? There was none, because the stockholders 
were worth at least ten times the amount of the whole 
stock ; and even if a loss should occui’, it would be 
small to eath stockholder. Theu the persons working 
for this company—taking into consideration the amount 
of stoc k, or the amount of what the stockholders were 
worth—knew that they had some security for the .sat¬ 
isfaction of their claims; and in no event could a seri¬ 
ous loss occur, either to the stockholder or the creditor 
of the compaciy. 

Mr. STILWELL (interposing,) remarked that he 
understcc'd the proposition of the gentleman to be, that 
each individnal corpoiator was to be liable for all 
debts—that the whole debt might be collected from 
an individual slocLholder, and he would have to look 
to the other stockholders to repay him. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD resumed. He was about coming 
to that point. He had heard it objected to the doc- 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 363 


tiiiui oi individual lijbility, lliat a single stockholder 
might be ruined by having his property swept away 
fioiii him and being compelled, by a long and tedious 
process, to compel contribution Iroin his associates.— 
He uid not propose this us to members ol‘corporations 
ior religious, literary or charitable purposes, or lor the 
consiruciion ol' works oi internal improvement; but 
Bujipose that were the case, which was the nearest 
i-jglii—which approximated the more closely to the 
imiiil, ol' doing as we would be done by ? That the 
man who embarked in the company to promote his 
own interest should look to his associates lor contribu¬ 
tion, or that those who did not embark in it, but to 
whom it was indebted fur labor or other things, should 
be obliged to hunt up stockholders all over the country 
and look to each one lor his share of the debt? 

But he had not gone to that extent in the proposition 
which he had submitted. It was true the individual 
Btockholders slioiiid be responsible, but he left the mode 
of enforcing the responsibility to the Legislature. His 
proposition declared that if a company contracted a 
debt, he careil not how, it should be paid, if all the 
property ol all the stockholders were sufficient to pay 
it. It started upon the broad principle that if he as¬ 
sociated with another and contracted a debt, and if 
they had sufficient means, they should pay it like men, 
and not shirk the loss and throw it on those who had 
nothing to do with it. But the proposition intended to 
leave the mode of enforcement to the Legislature. He 
believed it rarely happened that a company sunk dou¬ 
ble the amount of their capital; they could not do so 
without gross neglect or dishonesty, and if the Legisla¬ 
ture should (as they most probably would) compel the 
collection of the claims to be made from the solvent 
stockholders, in proportion to the amount of stock held 
by them respectively, no one stockholder could be “ru¬ 
ined ” or be made to sutler any serious loss. If the 
Legislature should offer a more stringent rule, persons 
were not compelled to accept, they could wait until 
the rule was relaxed. 

He had been considerably struck by the reniarks 
made by the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] 
touching the charge made against him by certain gen¬ 
tlemen, that he was a repudialor, and the position of 
the same gentleman on this cpiestiou. It struck him as 
exceedingly curious that those who had a holy hor¬ 
ror of repudiating the State debt, were so willing 
to repudiate debts where a corporation was concerned, 
and he would say, as was well said by the gentleman 
from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin] that those who claim-^ 
ed to be the peculiar I'riends of corporations had done 
mote to bring them into disrepute than all “the de¬ 
structives,” so called, in the country. He had already 
said that a company should have the right to push a 
railroad through a man’s farm—through his house, that 
they might plough up the very bones of his father 
which he had buried on his soil, against his consent. 
We would not even parley for the property before¬ 
hand, and if the company should break up before the 
man was paid, then he was not to get any pay at all, 
but we lett him to look to providence and the common 
courts. He could tell this committee that the people 
would not approve of such a system, because they 
knew it to be wrong. 

Mr. HTfCHCOCK of Geauga, interposing. What 
section ol there[)ort of the committee on the Legislative 
Department contained that principle ? 

Mr. KIRKW'uOD resumed. 'J he word “first” was 
stricken out ol the 39ih section of the report of the 
committee on the Legislative Department. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. You will find that the section 
does not apply to corporations, but to property taken 
by the State. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD here read the 39th section of the 
report alluded to. 

Mr. STANTON. See section 5 of this report. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD replied that he saw it, but it had 
not yet been acted on. The 39th section of the Legis¬ 
lative report read thus: 


“Private property shall ever be held inviolate, and shall never 
be taken lor puolic use, unless the public good imperatively do- 
mands it, but iu all cases l ull and adequate compensation in money 
shf.ll tirst be mode to the owner.” 

The word “first” was stricken out, and some other 
words were added to it. But what he bad read was 
all that had been as yet printed. 

Mr. NASH. The gentleman will recollect that the 
argument used on striking out the word “first” was, 
oil account of the section referring to property tak n 
by the State: and for that reason alone it was struck 
out. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD continued. Ho did not so under¬ 
stand it at all. There was a provision added to this 
section, making the compensation to be assessed by ju¬ 
rors in case of a railroad taking private property. 

Mr. STANTON (interposing, and Mr. Kirkwood giv¬ 
ing way,) remarked, that when the report of the com¬ 
mittee oil the Legislative Department was under con¬ 
sideration, his understanding was that the provision 
applied to property taken for public use, as described 
in that article, and not to property applied to the use 
of corporations. If that provision of the constitution 
remained, he apprehended no man could imagine that 
the right of way could be taken under any other sec¬ 
tion of it. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD resumed, after some cursoiy obser¬ 
vations had been made by ditferent gentlemen. He 
was about remarking that, as he understood this matter, 
we had already provided, in our examination of the 
report on the Legislative Department, for this right of 
way, all the authority that had heretofore existed on 
this subject. What might be done hereafter he could 
not tell, but he understood this, that under no greater 
authority—under no greater grant of power in our old 
constitution—this whole matter of the right of way 
had been governed 

But he had been saying that gentlemen who profes¬ 
sed to be the friends of corporations, had done more 
to injure them and bring them into disrepute, than those 
who were considered as most bitterly opposed to 
them. Now, this very thing of taking piivate proper¬ 
ty for public use. produced against corporations, in his 
section of the country, a great deal ol strong preju¬ 
dice, and gross injustice had been done the people of his 
county, by the operation of corporate bodies in this 
particular. In one instance, a company was organized 
in his neighborhood, and taking to themselves the right 
of way—had cut up men’s farms and injured them to a 
very great extent: before the wood was burnt, how¬ 
ever, the company broke up, and the owners, conse¬ 
quently, never received a cent and never would, for 
all the losses and inconveniences they had been subject 
to by that company. Now, all this was wrong; men 
might stand here and argue this question until next 
January, but they could not convince the people that 
it was right.—No, never could convince them that it 
was right to take away the property of the people for 
private use and not pay them lor it. He defied the 
most “ mature ” mind on that floo’: to deny that it was 
wrong—and wrong could not be made right. 

Mr. NASH (interrupting,) inquired who was wil¬ 
ling to advance such a doctrine iu this body. He put 
it to the gentleman if it were proper to attribute such 
an advocacy to members here. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD resumed. He would say that such 
had been the action of the Legislature heretofore, and 
such the course now pursued under acts passed by the 
Legislature—and this has created prejudice in the pub¬ 
lic mind. Again, it was well known that the refusal 
to adopt the principle ol individual liability had pro¬ 
duced much and deserved prejudice. Go up into the 
county of Richland, and a.sk the peoiile what they 
thought of the bank of Norwalk, or the banks of San¬ 
dusky, or Wooster, or of a thousand others which 
had broken up in this State, during the lust fifteen 
years. 

Mr. STANBERY (interposing, and Mr. Kirkwood 
giving way.) He wished to say, that the liability in 














364 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the instance of the banks of Wooster, Norwalk and 
Sandusky, was greater than the liability of any part¬ 
nership. He spoke as one now suing them individu¬ 
ally. What was the consequence of that liability ?— 
Their paper was not worth 30 cents on the dollar. In¬ 
dividual liability broke those banks, and they were 
now the very worst in the State. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD resumed. He could tell the gen¬ 
tleman that if he had notes on the Norwalk Bank, there 
were plenty of men holding stock able to pay them. 
It was the tedious and expensive mode of enforcing 
the liability that made it worthless to the great mass 
of note holders. But why could not this liability ex¬ 
ist in the same manner as if a man gave a note and at 
maturity it was not paid ? Why had not the holder of 
a five dollar note of one of these banks the right by a 
suit before a.justice of the peace to recover the amount 
of the debt from any stockholder. If he had the right 
to sue the stockholders in the Bank of Norwalk in his 
town, in this way he could get money from them very 
quickly. Now the people knew this very well, and 
they said that it was wrong for these men to stand inadif- 
ferent position from their fellow citizens. Look at the 
State Bank of Ohio, making from 15 to 25 per cent, on 
its capital. This thing had been going on, and perhaps 
would continue to go on for years, and the stockhold¬ 
ers, with these profits would purchase houses and lands 
and finally when their banks broke, turn round and 
laugh at us, and hold free from the payment of their 
just debts even the property that had been acquired 
by the profits of the speculation. He believed this 
was so, and the people believed it was so, and they 
said this thing was wrong, and should not be perpetu- 
ted. 

Mr. NASH (interrupting) remarked that he had no 
objection to the gentleman exceeding the time prescri¬ 
bed by the fifteen minutes rule, but he did object to 
going into a discussion relative to banks. 

The CHAIRMAN begged to be excused for not hav¬ 
ing put the rule into force before now, but it had been 
generally disregarded heretofore, and really before gen¬ 
tlemen had arrived at the merits of a question the time 
was exhausted. [Laughter.] 

Mr. KIRKWOOD proceeded, there being no objec¬ 
tion. He had been following in the footsteps of “illus¬ 
trious predecessors,” and would now come back to the 
proposition before the committee. He would say that 
this proposition, as it now stood, was analogous and 
difficult of being understood—it was not clear and dis¬ 
tinct. The proposition which he had read formed 
these two rules: In the first place that the members of 
all companies, whether charitable, religious, literary or 
for the construction of public works, should be indi¬ 
vidually liable for all the debts contracted. In other 
words, that the people of this State, through their Con¬ 
vention, shall not sanction the incurring of a debt and 
leave any hole out of which the person contracting it could 
escape payment. But in regard to that class of corpo¬ 
rations, we would leave the mode of enforcing the 
payment to the Legislature, so that the creditor should 
not take all from one stockholder; then as to all other 
companies, that the member should be held liable as 
partners were. This plan had the merit of coming up 
to the view expressed by the gentleman from Geauga, 
[Mr. Hitchcock,] and did not leave much for judicial 
construction. At a proper time he would offer his 
proposition as a substitute for the whole section. 

He wished to notice one remark of the gentleman 
from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold.] He told us that Ham¬ 
ilton county had got all she wanted in the way of in¬ 
ternal improvements under the late law, and he wanted 
an equal chance for Monroe county. It might be true 
that the Legislatui’e had heretofore chartered compa¬ 
nies on a wrong principle; and that companies exist¬ 
ing in the neighborhood of Cincinnati had the right of 
breaking up and swindling the community with impu¬ 
nity. Did the gentleman wish the same blessed privi¬ 
lege for Monroe ? 


He certainly did desire to have improvements made 
in Richland county, but not upon that principle. The 
argument amounted to nothing. If they had a corpo¬ 
ration in Hamilton county which was established upon 
a wrong basis, it was no argument that they should 
necessarily be so in other counties. If we had been 
going wrong heretofore in this particular let us make it 
right now. If it be right that we pay our debts in 
our individual capacity, why not equally right that we 
should pay our just debts in our corporate capacity ? 
If it were base and dishonest for him (as it would be) 
not to pay his debts as an individual, how could it be 
less dishonest, less base, for an associated company 
not to pay their debts? For his life, he could not see 
the moi’ality of it—whatever the expediency of it 
might be. He was not willing, either, that the mem¬ 
bers of a religious corporation, in defiance of right and 
the morality which they preached, should turn around 
and refuse to pay their debts. He was willing that 
gentlemen should do as much for education and charity 
by means of corporations as they chose, but he wished 
them to do so at their own expense. 

Again, it was said “we could not induce foreign 
capital to our State if we established the principle of 
individual liability.” Now, he understood that in most 
cases we got foreign capital, not by subscriptions of 
stock, but by loans. If so, it must be perfectly clear, 
that by adopting the principle of individual liability, 
much greater facilities—or rather inducements—would 
be extended to capitalists to invest their means in our 
various corporate bodies, by way of loan. Much great¬ 
er security would be given; as, in addition to the se¬ 
curities we have at present to offer, they would have 
the individual security of the stockholders for ten or 
twenty times more than the amount of the stock sub¬ 
scribed for. They would, therefore, be the more wil¬ 
ling to invest money, for there could be no possibility 
of a loss. It struck him, then, that if foreign capital ' 
desired to come in in the way of a loan, that this pro¬ 
vision could not prove an obstruction. He believed, 
then, that the proposition which he had read was just 
and right, and that it was sufficiently extensive in its 
scope, to afford a remedy for the various evils which 
had heretofore resulted from the establishment of spe¬ 
cial corporate privileges. The second section of the 
report under consideration was passed over during his 
absence, and did not meet his views: at the proper 
time, he would move an amendment to it. He would 
ask if it would be in order to offer an amendment, at 
this time, to the section now under consideration: to 
strike out the entire section ? 

The CHAIRMAN replied in the negative. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. When the proper time came, 
then, he would move the insertion of the proposition 
he had read. 

Mr. RANNEY. Differing widely with the gentle¬ 
man from Monroe [Mr. Archbold] upon the subject 
now under consideration, I still sympathise with him 
strongly in one portion of his remarks. He seems to 
suppose that measures are being taken here and else¬ 
where, to prevent members from the free expression 
of their opinions by placing them under the ban of par¬ 
ty. If such an attempt shall ever be made, (I have 
seen no evidence of any yet,) I pledge myself to resist 
it to the last. Let us have no gags—no reign of terror 
within these walls. “ Error,” said an illustrious pat¬ 
riot, “ may be safely tolerated while reason is left free 
to combat it.” The expression is as true now as when 
it was made. I acknowledge no other means as legit¬ 
imate, but fair argument—no master but unaided rea¬ 
son. 

Let us bring this matter to the test of reason. “ Prove 
all things, and hold fist that which is good.” If this 
doctrine of individual liability as regards corporations, 
cannot be sustained by reason and argument, let it fall 
to the ground. I have no desire nor interest in uphold¬ 
ing it for one single moment longer than I believe it to 
be predicated upon one of the leading principles of the 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 365 


republican faith. I shall not trace it back to its pater¬ 
nity, nor make a genealogical examination, into which 
gentlemen have gone to so great a length, as to who 
made the discovery of this principle. I do not care 
for that, so far as I am concerned. It is enough for me 
to know that the principle is just and true now. My 
friends upon my right seem to claim the paternity of 
it, and that they first discovered it. If they claim to 
bo its discoverers, and to be among the first to intro¬ 
duce it into the world, and have been its advocates 
ever since, I hope they will not fall back from grace 
while we are growing in grace on this side of the 
House. As they pretend to be our early school mas¬ 
ters, we have a right to expect them to be at least up 
with us. Hut I am not willing to enter into an exam¬ 
ination of this question. I will say to them, however, 
that we shall soon arrive at a point which will test the 
sincerity of their professions. We are taught in the 
Sacred Book —“ By their works shall ye know them.’’ 
“ Men do not gather grapes of thorns, or figs of this¬ 
tles.” 

If ray good friends npon tlie right will stand up to 
the rack and let us gather figs when they come to vote, 
then all will be right, but I am afraid that their zeal 
will consist chiefly in profession. I hope when the 
vote maybe taken, that they will come up to the scratch 
and vote right upon that question ; but I am afraid it 
will turn out pretty much to be matter of profession, 
but if they have really espoused the cause I am heartily 
glad of it, for it indicates that there is a steady pro¬ 
gress and that the principle is onward. It is a feature 
in their caps now to date back to a point anterior to 
the one when Democracy claimed this principle as 
original with them. “ By their works shall ye know 
them.” The people will examine their votes, to see 
whether they have been sincere in their professions. 

I do not care who discovered the principle, but I beg 
leave to suggest to gentlemen, that this principle, pred¬ 
icated upon truth as it is, is as old as the foundations of 
truth itself. It had its origin with the Almighty him¬ 
self, and it has its foundation in nature. Let me sug¬ 
gest, whether the discovery can be claimed this side 
of three quarters of a century ago, when your fathers laid 
down and declared the principle to be one of those 
self evident propositions that they proclaimed to the 
world as the basis of their political fabric. I guess no 
patent right could be got up for it this side of that time. 
(Laughter.) 

It is a self-evident proposition that all men are crea¬ 
ted free and equal, and as a matter of course, are enti¬ 
tled to stand before the law, and to claim equal privi¬ 
leges, and entitled to be exempt from unequal burthens. 
Those doctrines were proclaimed at that time. If it 
was then discovered first and made known to the 
world, no patent right could be got out this side of that 
time. Then it was taught, and it has become one of 
the fundamental principles of our government. The 
question whether you shall treat all men alike, or 
whether you shall exempt some from burdens that lie 
upon others, is a question of principle which cannot be 
made any thing else of in the world. The most invi¬ 
dious argument that is used here, and which is the most 
dangerous one too, is to postpone it for a little season. 
We had better not incorporate it, it is said, into the fun¬ 
damental law, but let the Legislature deal with it. My 
friend from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] has made a declara¬ 
tion which has taken me with astonishment coming 
from him. He said it was true as an abstraction, but 
it was not true as applied to the real transactions of 
life. 

Mr. DORSEY. I said it was true as an abstract prin¬ 
ciple, but that it was impossible to apply abstractions 
to the common every day transactions of life. 

Mr. RANNEY. Therefore the gentleman would not 
apply this to corporations. It was true as an abstrac¬ 
tion. Well, sir, a great many things are getting to be 
abstractions. Men labor day after day in Congress to 
prove that the immortal document which our fathers 


established,and the maintenance of which they pledged 
their lives and fortunes is an abstraction, and that the 
rights of men recognized in that instrument are mere 
abstractions. The gentleman from Miami comes up 
and says that another of these great troths is an abstrac¬ 
tion. We have thus proclaimed in high quarters that 
those great truths upon which our fathers founded the 
whole political and social fabric are mere abstract the¬ 
ories, nice things to be read and looked at and consid¬ 
ered as pretty siiecimens of composition, but when you 
come to apply them to the rights of men they are mere 
abstractions. Then it is that the great over-ruling con¬ 
siderations of State policy come in—then it is that the 
rights of corporations must be considered—then it is 
that the importance of improving your State by means 
of railroads, plank roads, turnpikes and the Lord knows 
what in the shape of corporations, must be considered 
and thrown into the scale, to weigh down with expedi¬ 
ency, profit and State policy this great principle. This 
thing is to be kept as" a play thing to be looked at, but 
never to be applied in practice. I do not so under¬ 
stand it at all. I believe that the principle of equal 
rights—the principle of equality lies at the foundation 
of our institutions; is a practical, living, breathing, ac¬ 
tive principle, and that unless it finds an enunciation in 
your laws, it is worth nothing. It is a living principle, 
and no man should ever lose sight of it who undertakes 
to frame laws, or political institutions in this country, 
and to determine what is consistent with the interests 
of the people and what he ought to go for. As well 
might you undertake to traverse the trackless ocean 
without helm or compass as to leave out this principle 
and steer the ship of State in safety, and with regard to 
the happiness and welfare of the people, or to be with¬ 
out political principle as your polar star in matters of 
legislation. I do not belong to such a school of poli¬ 
tics. I wish to the Lord there was more abstraction in 
the world, if by that we are to understand adherence 
to principle. I wish there was more confidence in it 
in practical legislation. Give me a man who shall base 
his conduct upon such principles and I can give you a 
good reason for what he does in preference to him who 
can sink all principle and talk about the exigencies of 
State, public improvements, and all that. It proposed 
here to sink this principle because it will fetter public 
improvements, and the making of these great works 
of which the State is to be proud. It will do no such 
thing. But suppose it would retard some work of 
doubtful expediency. Here are 20 or 100 men who 
are about to build a road. If the road ought to be built 
and is really needed, it will pay for itself, and if it will 
not, of course the men engaged in getting it up will 
lose. The men engaged in such business are comonly 
sharp enough to make correct calculations. Suppose, 
to stimulate these woiks, which might be called works 
of doubtful prosperity where a company might likely 
become insolvent, you should cut up by the roots the 
individual liability principle—are gentlemen willing to 
come up and betray one of the best principles that our 
Revolutionary fathers deemed of importance and laid at 
the foundation of our political system, because it may 
delay or entirely defeat such enterprises. 

Let me tell gentlemen, that if they barter away their 
principles with the view of pushing forward, prema¬ 
turely, works of public improvement, they are making 
a most miserable swap of it. I tell you it is of more 
importance in a republican countiy that the pure, equal, 
just principles that your fathers have sent down to 
you, should be maintained in every possible contingen¬ 
cy, than whether a railroad shall connect this town 
with that town. Some gentleman seem to suppose 
that the happiness of a country will be secured just in 
proportion to the gigantic institutions that are erected 
within its borders, but they do not remember the teach¬ 
ings of history. The most arbitrary governments on 
the face of the earth, have done most in the way of 
erecting stupendous works of improvement. England 
now is noted for them from one end of the country to 













366 _CONVENTION REPCmTS. 


the Other. Her gigantic structures in every part of the 
kingdom rear their heads over a plundered and beg¬ 
gared yeomanry. It will be so with you, lor the same 
causes will produce the same results, when you are 
willing to barter away the principles for which your 
fathers periled all—and when for the sake of encour¬ 
aging prematurely, these corporations, you are willing 
to swap away those principles, and start on the down¬ 
hill road by which divisions in society are made broad¬ 
er. If internal improvements ought to be built, they 
will be, whether we adopt this principle or not. Be¬ 
cause you make men pay the debts which they con¬ 
tract, does it prevent riien from engaging in the other 
"business transactions of life. Every branch of busi¬ 
ness is engaged in with a knowledge that whatever 
debts the individual contracts, he must individually 
pay. Men will enter into them just as quick, whereas 
if they promise the reverse, there is no danger that 
men will enter into them any sooner, although tliey 
should be relieved from the payment of their debts. 
The principle embodied in the amendment I have in¬ 
troduced here, is this, to hold the stockholders in pub¬ 
lic improvement corporations, individually liable for 
’twice the amount of their stock, if necessary, to pay 
their debts, and in other corporations intended for 
private profit, to hold them individually liable as part¬ 
ners. 

The gentleman says it does not read well. I do not 
.suppose, however, that this constitution is to go out of 
the hands of the Convention until it has had some re- 
visal. The object is to incorporate the principle, and 
we can put it iuto such shape afterwards as will make 
it read correct. The first principle that the amend¬ 
ment proposes is to add here, “ the liability of each 
corporator and shareholder shall never be less than 
twice the amount of stock subscribed.” 

Now, sir, this is applicable to all corporations—it 
.matters not of what kind. When stock is subscribed, 
the person subscribing the same, shall be holden for it, 
and as much more if necessary to pay the debts of the 
corporation. I made this distinction for the purpose 
of applying it to the case of public improvements, more 
from the suggestions of others, than the dictates of my 
-own understanding. It is caid th 
to deter men from taking stock in these works of pub¬ 
lic improvement, than il the liability is increased be¬ 
yond that. I believe double the amount would be am¬ 
ply sufficient to secure every laborer—every person 
furnishing materials with security which shall be suffi¬ 
cient. I do not care to add any thing that will embar¬ 
rass them or that may prevent over prudent men from 
subscribing. This is the view I take of it, so far as 
works of i iternal improvement are concerned. This 
I apprehend in all cases would be sufficient to meet the 
liabilities. If gentlemen are willing to go farther, if 
there is a majority on this floor, who are of the opin¬ 
ion that it is necessary to go farther to secure the la¬ 
borer, put my vote down among them. I do not want 
to skulk any principle here. When you tell A, B and 
C, if they undertake a work and shall contract a debt 
—that they shall be liable to the utmost farthing, I 
must confess it looks to me like a perfect abandonment 
of principle, when you say 1o other gentlemen under 
cover of a corporation, so soon as you shall have ex¬ 
hausted your corporate funds, you shall not be liable 
for any more than the amount of stock you have sub¬ 
scribed in the corporation. Is there reason and justice 
in that? I am willing to follow princijdes to their results. 
When I have heard gentlemen say here, that the peo¬ 
ple have a right to elect all their officers, and that all 
political power emanates from them, and see them at 
the same time hanging back and undertaking to throw 
ropes around the necks of the people, by fixing qualifi¬ 
cations and restrictions, it seems to me inconsistent, 
i say to you, that when you clothe men with corporate 
powers, you ought not to give them exclusive privil¬ 
eges which others do not enjoy also. I do not believe 
that tire piiuciples of truth ever hurt any body, or any 


correct principle ever did or could work injustice. 
The Great Creator has stamped upon all his works the 
assurance that where you find truth it will work out 
the most beneficial results. 

My friends tell us tliat they are in favor ofthe principle. 
Well then if you are, conform to the principle by carry¬ 
ing it out ill the constitution. If you mean to apply it 
to corporations hereafter by the Legislature, what ob¬ 
jection to establishing it here ? What reason can be 
given—to leave it to the Legislature where it h vs al¬ 
ways been left—to trade it away for this expediency of 
which the gentleman speaks; forever trade it away, for 
there is not an instance where the individual liability 
has been incorporated in a single charter effectually. 
It is proposed here to postpone the matter, but this is 
equivalent to a giving up of the whole principle. This 
is what is designed by those who are urging such post¬ 
ponement. What is the reason given for it? We 
ought to have confidence in the Legislature. I agree 
with the gentleman, that matters of bare expediency 
which may be expediency to-day, and which will be 
inexpediency to-morrow, are matters of policy. Poli¬ 
cy to-day which to-morrow may be impolitic ought 
not to go into the constitution. Is that the character 
of the principle which we are advocating. What is 
true to-day will be true to-morrow,—will be true to the 
end of lime. Is what is true going to be falsehood 
hereafter? No such thing. Mr. Chairman, if this 
principle is a true principle now, it will be just as true 
when the fertile soil of our great State is pressed by 
the feet of four millions of freemen. If it is true to¬ 
day in our discussion upon this floor, it will be just as 
true when every soul that hears me shall have passed 
from this existence and the clods of the valley shall be 
over them. Tmth rests upon the everlasting principles 
of right and justice, and these are the very principles 
which ought to be incorporated into the Constitution 
and to form the corner stones of the whole political 
fabric. Truth cannot alter. Why do you impose any 
limitations upon Legislative power? Because you are 
thoroughly satisfied in regard to pome principles that 
there ought to be no encroachments upon them by the 
Legislature. If it be true, that no corporation should 
i t.fi /’x’eeted hei-eafter •without having this individual li¬ 
ability clause contained in it, then why not say to the 
Legislature when you confer corporate power here¬ 
after, the stockholders shall not be relieved of the 
ordinary liabilities that other men are subject to ? Can 
any body give a reason why they should not ? It is one 
of the very principles that ought to go into the consti¬ 
tution, because it contains an important and fund imen- 
tal truth. If you should leave it an open question f jr the 
Legislature, it is of such a character and description— 
that attempts would be made to get rid of the principle. 
It is one of the besetting sins that surround a Legisla¬ 
tive body that the most corrupting influences are 
brought to bear and are placed within their reach. In 
the constitution which we may frame here let us so 
lay down the principles of truth and justice, so that 
persons applying for corporate powers shall know what 
they can get, the Legislature shall know their rights 
and the limits of their powers, and what is better than 
all, the most humble, obscure individual in the commu¬ 
nity may look upon the constitution as containing the 
great principle of safety—securing to him the benefits 
of his labors iu whatever employmevit ho should em¬ 
bark. I believe we should adoivt this principle iu the 
present constitution, declaring that itis the fii-m and 
setiled purpose of the people of the State of Ohio, to 
maintain the great doctrines of your Fathers—political 
equality—annihilation of exclusive privileges—a firm 
determination to protect these great truths iu all time 
to come. That will be a proud position for the p^onla 
of the State of Ohio to take—a proud position for thu 
body to take. I may be wrona: and the gentlemen 
who oppose me may be entirely right. I am for giving 
them full scope—“ let us come up and reason togeth¬ 
er.” I hope nothing will occur, however diversifioJ 










367 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


our opinions may bo, that will mar the harmony exist¬ 
ing between us. I desire only that every measure shall 
be placed upon the ground of sober reason and judg¬ 
ment. Gentlemen upon both sides of the question 
tell us that it is right—both democrats and whigs. My 
friend from Miami [Mr. Dorsey] tells us that as an ab¬ 
straction it is right. 1 know no better place under the 
heavens, to place a clear fundamental right, than in 
the fundamental laws of a people. I bebeve that 
it should be there placed, in order that there may 
be no change hereafter, giving a character of insta- 
bility.Ji 

Mr. REBMELTN. I desire to make a brief, a very 
brief reply to the remarks that fell from the lips of the 
gentlemen from Monroe, Morgan, Miami and Licking, 

1 have been held up here as attempting the leadership 
of the democrats, of applying the lash and clanking 
the chains; and the gentleman from Monroe tells us 
that he is willing to follow in my lead, but the lash and 
the choins must be concealed. Would to God he had 
always followed, and would follov/, not my lead, but 
tlie lead of the great democratic family, 

“ 'Twould have saved him many a pang,} 

And many a bitter hour.” 

No defrauded men would weep over his votes, no 
hungry children would cry to him for bread. Had he 
never voted for the Bank of Wooster—never for mak¬ 
ing eastern exchange equal to specie, then he would 
be able now to teach us democracy, and we would list¬ 
en to the voice of our Gamaliel. 

Sir, what is my crime? 1 have simply stated what 
I believe a cardinal doctrine in the democratic party— 
and that it is so, has not been, and cannot be denied. 
The records show it, our Conventions have spoken it, 
our press has said it, and we have fought for it on the 
stump. The admission was unwelcome, and therefore 

f )er8onal attacks on me, therefore the conjuring up of 
eadership, and of dictation. Principle leads here, not 
I; the people dictate, not I. 

I wish to say to all concerned, go on attacking me, 
''you are knawing a file.” You are only desfroving 
yourself, not me, nor the principles I advocate. “ Right 
is a fearful weapon, woe to the man who leaves it in 
the hands of his adversary,” says Lamartine. I have 
got that right on my side. I know it, and you know 
It; beware then where you are going. 

I only tried to save the democrats from the disgrace 
which attaches to ns from the errors of ’34-5, and the 
worse errors of ’43-4. I desired to warn them, that 
theirs is the responsibility, and that hereafter no man 
might get up, as the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. 
Hitchcock] did yesterday and say in the bitterest 
mockery, “ when you had the power where were your 

principles?” _ 

I only wanted to discharge an humble duty I owed lo 
my party, to warn them, that the democrats of Ohio 
expect them to discharge a solemn duty, and that a 
failure to do so, would destroy the only basis for our 
success. That basis is tho conviction of the people, 
that we are not demagogues, but act upon the doctrines 
we preach. We have the power now, and if we do not 
carry out otir principles, we deserve the scorn of eve¬ 
ry man, and we will get plenty of it. Our principles 
are right and we ought not to shrink from their appli¬ 
cation. 

Sir, the gentleman talks of proscription and intoler¬ 
ance, why! his very presence hcie, shows that the 
democrats are forgiving and lenient to the very last de¬ 
gree. 

Tho gentleman has also reminded me that I was not 
born here. Neither was he! He was bora and raised 
in a slave State, I in a free Hanseatic city. He talks 
of bis Anglo Saxon blood ! My blood is as pure as his! 
This little piece of n.itivisrn is a pretty bye-play in the 
whole subject,—it showvs a chafed sfurit—it shows a 
W-^•lk cause—it shows a in.in laboring under a feeling 
of diatruat in himself and his position. 1 say to tho 


gentleman, on this subject, “ Wo meet again at Thil- 
lippi.” 

The gentlemaiifrom Miami has also been kind enough 
to retnind me of running behind the ticket. Aye sir 
I did ! But I would sooner run behind ihetickeuhan 
run behind the age. I was absent during the canvass 
nominated and elected during my absence. The iuflal 
ences are well known which have always operated 
against me. I happen to have been born on a foreign 
soil—but that may be my misfortune, but it is not rny 
crime. 1 happened not to be consulted on the subject 
of my birth place. My father and mother settled that 
between them. Had I been consulted I might have 
chosen another place to be born in than Germany, but 
of this I am not sure, for I have no recollection of my 
cogitations at that time. I might have selected some 
one of the free States of America, but of this I am sure 
—much as I admire Virginia and her past greatness 
and her past great men, I would not [turning to Mr. 
Auchbold, who was silting by] have had myself born 
in Virginia. As I said before, 1 have ever lost votes 
for being a naturalized citizen. I do not complain of 
it, but it was not right in the gentleman from Miami 
to remind me of it. 

Mr. DORSEY (interrupting.) I desire to ask wheth¬ 
er the remarks I made were not provoked by previous 
attacks made upon me ? I will inform the gentleman 
that I am glad to see him here—was glad to hear of 
his election. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Well, let it pass. Another cause 
of the defection in the votes cast lor me, was the one 
that slanders the most foul were heaped upon me dur¬ 
ing my absence, which I had no chance to refute. All 
1 can say is, I have done nothing to deserve the course 
pursued against me, and I trust time, the curative for 
all wrongs, will set this matter right. It was not be¬ 
cause my democracy was doubted—no, not a whisper 
was said on that—it was prejudice, mean prejudice, 
that atfected me. Let me say then to that gentleman, 
I envy you not your election in a Whig district. I am 
too well known a Democrat—too unwavering in my 
cenrae to Ecco'rjvbsh such a feat of ''leiglit cf hand. I 
lost votes for being loo much of a Democrat—the gen¬ 
tleman got his Whig votes by not being enough of a 
Democrat to hurt any body. 

This talk of no partyism, of meeting on common 
ground, uttered also by the gentleman I'rom Morgan, is 
all mere moonshine. The gentlemen do not believe 
it themselves—they know, that a constitution made on 
such common grounds, would be a laughing stock to 
every body. Are we to become whigs, or the whigs 
democrats, are we to drive up hard money or they 
banking ? Try this marriage between whiggery and 
democracy—try to amalgamate on principle and you 
will find where you come to. I will make a predic¬ 
tion, that the whigs will go out next fall and laugh at 
us. They will point at our votes—chuckle over our 
democratic majority, and as their candidate for Gover¬ 
nor has done already, they will say that we never act, 
never origi.nate any thing, never carry out our piinci- 
ples. I acknowledge it look.s that way, and that the 
scenes of ’34-5 and ’43-4 will be re-enacted, and that 
hereafter the cheek of every democrat will kindle with 
sliame, when yon talk to him of the Convention of ’50, 
in which the democrats were said to have a majority. 
Talk, discuss, compromise on any and all subjects, but 
do adhere to the principles of equal justice, which is 
the ground work of our party. 

The gentleman from Licking, who sits north of me, 
has again made one of his peculiar speeches. He has 
reiterated again his old speech for short speeches. He 
has had extra copies p; inted on its first appearance for 
his constituents. Will he not be kind enough to print 
a few for us and lay them upon our tables, it will save 
him the repetition. Sir, to use a phrase ot his own, 
“I will not have my oats measured in his bushel,” I 
will discharge my duty fearlessly to all, and of this I 
am the judge and not he. 














368 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


I substituted for my first amendment, a distinct prop¬ 
osition, the same in character and the same in result, 
only more full—but if the first suits members better, 
I am contented, for I will vote for either,they being the 
same in character. 

Mr. SWAN remarked that he was in favor of intro¬ 
ducing into the constitution a provision making corpo¬ 
rators individually responsible. He had, however, en¬ 
tire confidence in the good sense of the Convention, 
and that it will adopt such a practical provision as will 
secure the public, and will at the same time not be so 
stringent and unmitigated as to prevent individuals of 
integrity and property becoming stockholders of cor¬ 
porations created for useful public improvements— 
Some propose, in these and in all cases, to make stock¬ 
holders liable for the debts of corporations, without 
any restriction whatever—that is, if one subscribes, 
for instance, to a turnpike company ten or one hundred 
dollars, he shall be liable at any time and under all 
circumstances, for all the debts of the company. The 
proposition is tantamount to requiring every one who 
becomes a stockholder in a corporation for public im¬ 
provements, to mortgage all his property as a security 
for its debts. In this connection it must be borne in 
mind that stockholders, unlike pai’tners, have no choice 
in the selection of their associates; the stock is a com¬ 
modity of trade, and a shareholder who knows the 
corporators of to-day, may be an entire stranger to all 
of them to-morrow. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Corporations require ^their stock 
to be assigned on their books. 

Mr. SWAN. True; and with a view to ascertain to 
whom the dividends are to be paid, and to provide for 
the security of the corporation against debts due it 
from stockholders. But stockholders do not control 
the stock as an article of trade, or prevent its assign¬ 
ment or its descent by the decease of stockholders. 
Can the stockholders, like partners, be called together 
and determine by an unanimous vote, or determine at 
all, whether the assignee of the stock shall hold it? In 
partnerships, however, a new associate cannot be in¬ 
troduced but by the express consent of all. 

These are some of the reasons why it may be doubt, 
ed whether a prudent man with property would be 
willing to take stock in these corporations, if he was at 
the same time, to make all he owned liable for all the 
debts of the corporation, whenever a creditor of the 
corporation chose to sue. I put it to each gentleman of 
this body, whether he would subscribe for, or take as a 
gift, stock to the amount of one or five hundred dollars 
in a railaoad, on its organization, and at the same time 
mortgage his property as a security for the payment 
of all the debts of the corporation, whenever a credi¬ 
tor chose to demand payment. 

I however, understood the gentleman from Auglaize 
[Mr. Sawyer] to say that he desired an unmitigated 
liability, by which creditors might at once sue any cor¬ 
porator. Would he take as a gift, one hundred dollars 
of stock in such a corporation ? 

Mr. SAWYER. My proposition is to make a stock¬ 
holder liable, after exhausting the property of the cor¬ 
poration. 

Mr. SWAN. Then we may agree in our views. I 
have mentioned some of the difficulties of unmitigated 
individual liability, unless, indeed, it is desired that we 
should have no corporations for public improvements. 
Stockholders, however, in these, and indeed, in all 
corporations under existing laws, knowing the precise 
amount which they have staked, are generally content 
to leave the affairs of the company in the hands of the 
directors, without security or control; and the direct¬ 
ors transfer the responsibility and control to some Hud¬ 
son or Biddle, whose will is made the law of its action. 

It is not, in general, the stockholders who are guilty of 
improvidence and fraud, but the directory or the ruling 
head—some one of stronger will than the others, who 
master them. I never yet became acquainted with 
the interior workings of a corporation, that was not 
ruled by one or two men.| 


It would not be so—at least more watchfulness of 
the fiscal concerns, and of the amount of indebted¬ 
ness would be induced if the officers and stockholders 
w^ere individually liable beyond the amount of their 
stock. 

It can hardly be imagined that any corporation for 
public improvements, after obtaining in good faith sub¬ 
scription? for stock to an amount sufficient to cover es¬ 
timates, could, without gross remissness of duty on the 
part of^ stockholders, run in debt beyond the amount of 
stock paid, and the value of its assets. Such a state 
of things is unnecessary and need never exist. But if 
it did, the stockholders should be bound to increase 
their stock to an amount sufficient to cover the indebt¬ 
edness. 

At this point then—after exhausting the assets of the 
corporation—the stockholders should be made indi¬ 
vidually liable for the debts, at least in the proportion 
which the stock owned might bear to the debts ; and I 
would apply no more lenient rale than this to any cor¬ 
poration. 

There is, however, a large class of corporations to 
which should be applied unmitigated individual liabili¬ 
ty. Enterprises in trade and business usually carried 
on, or which can be carried on by partners, should be 
put upon the same footing precisely as private partner¬ 
ships. Very great legislative abuse has in this respect 
existed, and should be corrected. 

These kind of charters have been sought partly on 
account of the benefit of perpetual succession; but 
principally to avoid the individual liability of a part¬ 
nership. It is indeed a convenient mode of throwing 
the principal loss of a hazardous enterprise upon the 
public, and gathering the fruits of the enterprise, if 
successful. 

Clothing private undertakings with the franchises 
and immunities of corporate rights, will become less 
and less popular in this countiy; and when capital 
shall have increased and its profits found to be much 
greater than' labor, its concentration will be regarded 
with much less favor than it now is. In this respect 
we are but following the career of England, where her 
masses are represented by one gentleman and six pau¬ 
pers. 

If I can read the signs of the times, there is to be a 
contest in this country—a legislative one—between 
capital and labor—between the capitalists and the 
working man. That contest has hardly begun, and this 
generation may not know which will have the maste¬ 
ry. The policy which dictated the repeal of the law 
of promogeniture, may iperhaps have its prototype in 
relation to capital. 

But I return to the subject under discussion. It is 
conceded on all hands that the Legislature shall incorpo¬ 
rate companies for public improvements. If gentle¬ 
men of prudence and property, and capitalists else¬ 
where would take stock, and consent that all debts 
contracted by the corporation should be deemed their 
individual debts, upon which they might be sued at any 
time and as if they personally contracted them, I should 
be in favor of this unconditional and unmitigated indi¬ 
vidual liability. I would not, however, hazard my lit¬ 
tle patrimony in such a corporation, unless I could 
individually control it, and no prudent man it seems to 
me wmuld. Under such an unmitigated constitutional 
provision, corporations for great public improvements, 
and in which foreign capital may be required, could 
not obtain subscribers for stock. But the principle of 
individual liability can be applied, and it is believed 
efficiently, so as to protect the public from the remiss- 
ness and carelessness of shareholders, and at the same 
time not prevent prudent men of property from becom¬ 
ing stockholders in such corporations. 

At the proper time, unless some other article be pre¬ 
sented which may be preferred by me, I shall propose 
the following: 

“ Every corporator or shareholder in any incorporation for gain 
or pecunia^ benefit to the corporators or shareholders, except 
insurance, in case such corporation shall become insolvent, shall 















CONVENTION REPORTS 


369 


be liable for the unsatisfied debts and liabilities of such corpora¬ 
tion, contracted while he was such corporator or share-owner, 
to an amount in the same proportion to the whole unsatisfied lia¬ 
bilities that his stock or share shall bear to the whole stock. But 
such personal liability shall not extend to any indebtedness or lia¬ 
bility the payment of which shall have been deferred more than 
one year, by contract with the creditor, or which shall not have 
been demanded by suit within one year after it became due.” 

The above is a part of the report of the committee of 
the Convention of the State of New York, upon corpo¬ 
rations other than banking, and was drawn up by Mr. 
Loomis, who is probably known by reputation to many 
members of this committee. It is not brought forward 
here as a proposition to which I should feel myself 
Committed; lor I am willing to adopt any clause pi’o- 
viding for individual liability, which will not prevent 
men of property taking stock in corporations which 
are conceded to be for the public interest. Stockhold¬ 
ers, in corporations doing a business that can be done 
by partners, shall be liable like partners. Insurance 
companies could not exist if the stockholdei’s were 
made individually liable for losses; for a stockholder 
in such a company might, by a casualty, be ruined in 
twenty-four hours. 

The abuse and fraud which have heretofore existed; 
the facility which the General Assembly have hereto¬ 
fore afforded for the incorporation of every species of 
private business; the improvident manner in which 
corporate powers have been granted; the influences 
which will be brought to bear upon the General As¬ 
sembly when general corporation laws shall be here¬ 
after passed, to govern these important public inter¬ 
ests,—all this demands a provision in the constitution, 
and an efficient one, upon this subject. It should be so 
stringent that the public may be protected, and it 
should be so mitigated that men of integrity, prudence, 
and capital will take stock. If any such practical pro¬ 
vision can be proposed, it will receive my cordial sup¬ 
port. 

On motion, the committe rose and reported, that it 
had come to no conclusion on the report they had had 
under consideration. 

On motion, by Mr. LARSH, the Convention adjourn¬ 
ed. 


THURSDAY, June 13, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Cheney. 

Mr. BENNETT gave notice, that on to-morrow or 
some subsequent day, he would introduce a resolution 
to amend the 19th standing rule of the constitutional 
Convention. 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the 
following communication, from the Mayor and Com¬ 
mon Council of the town of Mt. Vernon, which was 
laid Tipon the table: 

Mt. Vernon, June 11,1850. 

To THE Hon. Wm. Medill, 

President of the Constitutional Convention: 

I herewith enclose to you a copy of the proceedings of the 
Mayor and Common Council of the toAvn of Mt. Vernon, invit¬ 
ing the officers and members of the constitutional Convention, 
over which you preside, to our town, in case a removal from 
Columbus be detei-mined upon. 

Mt. Vernon is justly considered one of the most eligible and 
healthy situations in the State. 

Ample accommodations can be offered for the comfort and 
convenience of the members, and a suitable place be procured 
for the deliberations of the Convention. Our people would be 
highly gratified to have you with us. 

Yours respectfully, 

J. S. DAVIS, Mayor. 


Council Chamber, Mt. Vernon, \ 
June 11, 18-50. j 

At a meeting of the Mayor and Common Council of the town 
Mt. Vernon, held this day, the following preamble and resolu¬ 
tions were unanimously adopted: 

Whereas, the constitutional Convention of Ohio, now in ses¬ 
sion at Columbus, is agitating the question of removal, in ac¬ 
cordance vinth the act of the Legislature, providing for the hold¬ 
ing of said Convention, and authorizing the same to adjourn to 
any other place in the State. Therefore, be it 

Resolved, by the Mayor and Common]Council of the town of Mt. 

24 


Vepnon, That we cordially invite the officers and members of 
said Convention to adjourn to this town, and here continue their 
session, until their labors are completed. 

Resolved, That we hereby tender with this invitation convenient 
and suitable Halls, free of charge, for the use of said Conven¬ 
tion. 

Resolved, 'That a copy of these proceedings, duly attested, be 
forwarded by the Mayor to the President of the constitutionai 
Convention. 

Attest: A. BANNING NORTON, 

Recorder, pro. tenl. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga moved that the com¬ 
munication be laid on the table, which was agreed to. 

Upon motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention 
resolved itself into a committee ol the whole, (Mr. 
Town SHEND in the chair) and resumed the considera¬ 
tion the of report on 

CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN BANKING. 

The question upon the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney] being still 
undisposed of— 

Mr. HAWKINS. I do not rise to discuss the ques¬ 
tion pending, but it is for the purpose of taking some 
little notice of the remarks made here by gentlemen, 
which apply to myself. At the time I made the remarks 
referred to, it was upon the question relating to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Hamilton^ 
[Mr. Reemelin] which was to strike out in the first 
line of section three of the report, the word “such,” 
and inserting the word “ the.” I took occasion at that' 
time to remark and express my opinion, that either 
with or without the amendment, the section amount¬ 
ed to nothing. I remarked, that unless some farther 
detail, which would be efficient in its operations, it 
was of no use as a guarantee against fraud, on the part 
of these corporrtions. I did not intend, nor was it to 
be fairly inferred from my remarks, that I committed 
myself either for or against the principle of individual 
liability. When I design committing myself upon that 
or any other subject I shall do it in no ambiguous 
terms. I shall do it in a manner that gentlemen may 
know my sentiments without any forced inference. 
Again, in remarking upon that section I expressed 
my desire, as a member of the Convention, in relation 
to the two parties, that we should not unnecessarily 
differ. I also remarked upon that occasion, that I did 
not want to see, in the constitution, when it should be 
constructed and should go abroad among the people, 
any mark of a mere partisan character about it: not any 
impres.sion upon its face of any thing at all resembling 
that of a partisan hand. What I desired was that such 
constitution should go out with ihe impress of states¬ 
men upon its face. For making these remarks I have 
been rebuked by gentlemen upon this floor. Inferen¬ 
ces have been drawn from them which were en¬ 
tirely forced, and which were not warranted by the lan¬ 
guage I used. I was gently reprimanded for making 
use of the words which I had uttered. Another gen¬ 
tleman represented me as proposing to abandon all 
principle, disregarding it entirely and as ready to unite 
with any one for the purpose of accomplishing my ob¬ 
jects. ile seemed very desirous to force me into a 
most unenviable position. And there will be occa¬ 
sions, I apprehend, when called upon to vote, in which 
members will permit themselves to be distinctly under¬ 
stood, and it will be time for gentlemen to determine 
what the sentiments of members are, by their acts and 
declarations in reference to particular matters. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am desirous of repeating 
what 1 said before, that I desired to see no abandon¬ 
ment of principle—that I apprehend every one will ad¬ 
mit that the peculiar opinions of any individual upon 
this floor are not to be considered paramount—are not 
be carried into effect in despite of the opinions of oth¬ 
ers. Under these circumstai.ces, it is then unnecessa¬ 
ry that we should insist upon the adoption of our pe¬ 
culiar opinions. I asked the gentlemen upon that oc¬ 
casion to which I have alluded, when they spoke of 
the public sentiment, will and wish of the people, to con¬ 
fine themselves to those districts of which they had a 











370 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


perfect knowledge of wliat the public sentiment was. 
I merely remarked, so far I was concerned, I should 
determine from the best light within my power, what 
public sentiment demanded of me, in the county of 
Morgan. I have no doubt that the gentlemen have 
honestly came to carry into effect the opinions of their 
own constituents. In doing that, I held that in the 
character of delegates, representing the principles of 
their constituents, and acting as their agents, they are 
bound to obey instruction; and I for one, intend to do 
it, regardless of any difference that may arise between 
myself and other gentlemen upon this floor. Now I 
hope for the future, that gentlemen, before they under¬ 
take to criticise my pos lion, will have more distinct 
authority from which they can draw their declarations 
—where they can take from my own votes and declar¬ 
ations here, what I intend to carry out. I do not desire 
to renews this subject nor discuss it further. I desire 
no popularity which does not rise frum or fall on a 
conscientious discharge of what I believe to be my du¬ 
ty here. The gentlemen here who have undertaken t(/ 
admonish me remind me of the attornies (Dodson and 
Fogg,) in the Pickwick Tales, when having commenced 
a suit, they were determined to provoke the friends of 
the individual sued into some unguarded expression, 
upon which to found additional suits. They were 
anxious to have some pretext for persecution against me. 
If they will only delay their anxiety, I will funiish 
them with declarations, without ambiguity. I will 
furnish them with votes, declarations and acts upon 
w'hich they may found their indictments; but even 
then, I shall, upon trial demand a jury of my own 
vicinage. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. I do not design to detain the Con¬ 
vent on but a very few moments. I am not going into 
a reiteration of the argument upon the whole subject. 

I think the subject has been already exhausted, and 
that it is an unnecessary waste of time to detain you 
with a recapitulation of what you have heard over and 
over again; but I desire to draw the attention of the 
committee to two or three important propositi.ons which 
are involved in the investigation of this subject, em¬ 
bracing those principles upon which I design to base 
my action. 

I believe it is a generally received opinion, and a 
sound maxim, that confidence is necessary to insure 
success in individual, associated, or corporate enter¬ 
prise. When we can have confidence in associations, 
whether individual or corporate, then we can expect 
that success will follow all such enterprises. Confid- 
dence seems to me to be a necessary and vital principle 
in the success of any enterprise that may be undei'ta- 
ken, either by individuals, corporations or associations. 
Credit must be given to such institutions if they expect 
to have success at all. That confidence must be either 
the result of the honest character of those concerned, 
or it must be based upon certain securities which they 
hold forth to the public It must be based somewhere, 
in order to secure important and favorable results in 
the enterprise. I say it is necessary, that there must 
be confidence. 

In these corporfite associations, we cannot expect, 
from the changes that may take place among the stock¬ 
holders or among the directors, that degree of confi¬ 
dence to be reposed in them which should be, nor that 
those concerned should always maintain that character 
for honesty which they ought. It is then proper that 
we should have individual liability to its full extent, in 
order to secure full confidence to all interested. This 
I take to be a sound course of procedure. I am not 
able to say what is the reason why corporatf»rs must 
have exclusive liberties and privileges, and relieve 
themselves of responsibility in order that they may sne- 
cessfullv carry out their enterprises, while individual.s 
are held liable. I am notable to understand this, lean 
say that confidence is vital to the success of any enter¬ 
prise, and why should corporations wish to reject all 
or any part of this vitality ? 


I would call the attention of the committee to an- 
oiher proposition. My friend from Franklin, [Mr. 
Swan,] a gentleman in whose candor and judgment I 
place a great deal of confidence, said on yesterday eve¬ 
ning that it would be im|) 0 ssible to obtain corporations 
with the individual liability principle. 1 ])rofe8S to 
have no experience in these things, being very little 
acquainted with the rules and practices wfiich govern 
them ; but, sir, I have a difficulty in regard to this mat¬ 
ter, which, whether my impressions be right or wrong, 
1 consider to be an insuperable barrier, and that is in 
regard to the question of mitigated damages or gradu¬ 
ated responsibility. The members of this Convention 
are sent up here as the delegates of the people of the 
great State of Ohio. VVe are clothed with delegated 
^luthority. The people not claiming irresponsibility 
themselves, how can we as their delegates, release re¬ 
lease either individuals or corporations from their re¬ 
sponsibility ? In other words, what right have we to 
insert a clause in the constitution, recognizing in any 
case a mitigated responsibility ? Believing that I have 
no delegated authority to grant such, I cannot, under 
these impressions, vote for the doctrine. I am not go¬ 
ing to return to my constituency with the charge upon 
me that I usurped authority which was never granted 
me. Sir, I will leave that question to be decided by 
others better able to explain constitutional questions. 
My opinions then, in regard to this subject, must stand 
an insuperable barrier, so far as I am concerned, against 
the adoption of the principle contended for here by 
gentlemen, unless removed by arguments differing from 
any which I have yet heard. 

There is another principle involved in this proposi¬ 
tion to grant relief from individual responsibility.— 
There is no honest man in the world, that I know of, 
who desires, in at)y respect, to be relieved from his 
individual responsibility. There is no man of intelli¬ 
gence and candor, who will claim that this principle 
of individual liability in the business transactions of 
life, is not a fair and just pri)iciple, acting as a safe¬ 
guard to community. And what is the reason that we 
recognize personal liability to the fullest extent in our 
dealings with each other ? It is because it is founded 
on the m-eat, broad and eternal principles of truth, jus¬ 
tice ana right. And it is absolutely necessary that, in- 
all the business transactions of men, each should be in¬ 
dividually and fully responsible for all his acts. If, 
then, such individuals should be governed in all their 
[)rivate transactions by these great principles of truth, 
honesty and justice, why should corporations not bo 
bound accordingly? Let us not, then, as a grave body 
—charged with important duties as we are, without 
reflection or thorough examination—place a clause in 
this constitution which we a.e about to send forth for 
adoption, which vvdl involve, directly or indirectly, a 
principle in violation ot mutual obligation, or right. I 
dare not assume such responsibility. These, then, are 
die truths which 1 wished to suggest to the Convention 
for iheir consideration. My object has not been to ea¬ 
ter into any lengthy details. These aie the principles 
upon which I intend to base my conduct in voting up¬ 
on the subject of corporations. ° 

Mr. CLARK. I hope the committee will indulge me 
for a lew moments wdiile I express my convictions on 
the question before them. I will endeavor to not tres¬ 
pass upon your time beyond the fifteen minutes allow¬ 
ed by the rule, and hope to be able to finish what I 
have to say in much less time. 

The question before the committee is the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Trumbull, imposing a fur¬ 
ther personal liability ot stockholders in corporations 
than reported by the standing committee. 

The question whether corporations shall be individ¬ 
ually liable to pay their debts, stripped of all the mysti¬ 
fication that debate has flung around it, and viewed in 
its nakedness, is simply this, ‘‘shall corporations be re¬ 
quired to pay tlieir Imm-st debts, or shall they be pri¬ 
vileged to cheat their creditors out of them." This is 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


all there is is of the question, and whatever effort may 
be made by gentlemen to present it in a different light 
it would readily, on examination, come down to that. 

Gentlemen here were found advocating both sides ol 
the question. My ffiend from Licking, [Mr. Manon,] 
was quite out of patience with the committee for spend 
ing two days in discussing what seemed to him a tri¬ 
fling, unimportant question. It seems singular to him 
that a portion of the committee should spend two or 
three days pleading that the constitution should pro¬ 
vide that corporations should pay their honest debts. 
That gentleman is among the mnnber here who think 
corporations should be allowed to contract debts with 
the privilege ol cheating their creditors out of them. 

Mr. MANON. I have never expressed myself in fa¬ 
vor of such doctrine. 

Mr. CLARK. I beg pardon of the gentleman, I so 
understood him. He then, as I understand him, is in 
favor of the principle of requiring corporators to be in¬ 
dividually liable for the debts of the corporation? 

Mr. MANON. I did not say I was in favor of that 
principle. 

Mr. CLARK. Will the gentleman say whether he is 
in favor of that princi pie or not ? No, he will not. Very 
well then, I have nothing to take back. In placing him 
among those here who are in favor of allowing corpora¬ 
tions to contract debts and cheat their creditors out of 
them, I feel that I have done him no injustice. It is very 
easy to see how a person occupying that position should 
become anxious to act speedily upon the question and 
feel so uneasy while the discussion was going on. It 
could not be very agreeable to him to hear the wrongs 
of corporations described and an appeal for justice 
made in behalf of an injured people. 

I was saying, this is a question upon which there is a 
difterence of opinion with the committee—some taking 
■one side and some the other—that one party was in fa¬ 
vor of the individual liability principle, and another 
opposed to it. 

Mr. NASH. Does the gentleman mean to say the 
Whig party are opposed to it? 

Mr. CLARK. I make no charge against any party— 
gentlemen in the committee have spoken on both sides 
of the question, and in that sense he used the expres¬ 
sion “ party ” — that time and future action will show 
how political parties stand upon it. 

I have listened very attentively during the several 
days occupied in this debate, and watched very close¬ 
ly all the reasons that have been urged why corpora¬ 
tions should enjoy privileges that are denied to indi 
vidua’s—why an exemption from the payment of debts 
should be extended to them, which is denied to indi¬ 
viduals. Thus far, but one reason has been given ; it 
was “that no railroads or other public improvements 
would be made if the individual liability principle is 
adopted,” as no one would subscribe for stock if be 
was to be personally liable to pay the debts of the 
corporation. That has always been the cry whenever 
it has been attempted to engraft such responsibility on 
a charter. I regard the pretence as a scarecrow, got 
up to friyhten the triends of the measure out of the 
application of it. When it is found that charters can 
only be had but upon that principle, I doubt not capi¬ 
talists enough will be found who will take stock. The 
effect of private responsibility will be to secure a 
more vigilant oversight by the stockholders of a corpo¬ 
ration, and the appointment of faithful, honest agents 
and officers. This will be a great benefit to both tin 
stockholders and the public. In England the nume¬ 
rous railway com[)anies are individually liable. In 
Rhode Island all the banks are secured by individual 
liability. There has been no difficulty in either ol 
those cases in getting the stock taken- Companies in 
this State have been organized under that principle. 

But suppose the assumpticm true, the argument then 
amounts to this, capitalists say to us, “ we will not 
take stock unless you allow us the privilege of making* 
debts, and cheating our creditors out of them; ” and 


371 


the friends here answ'er, “rather than go without pub¬ 
lic improvements, we will allow you to do so ! ” For 
my y)artl am unwilling to pay so dearly for them—am 
unwilling to allow corporations the privilege of ma¬ 
king debts, and cheating the public out of them, as a 
condition upon which such improvements sha’l be 
made. If corporators are afraid to trust one another, 
the people ought not to trust them. Among all of the 
gentlemen who have spoken against individual liibili 
ty, the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Swan,] to my 
mind, has made the strong est argument, in that he 
distinctly stated that stockholders were not inclined to 
watch the business of the corporation; and further, 
that if they would do so, and exercise a vigilant over¬ 
sight, and not become remiss in looking into its opera¬ 
tions, the capital would in no case be sunk or wasted. 
I have used very nearly his wmrds. This concedes the 
whole question—it is just what the friends of private 
responsibility say. We claim that private responsibil¬ 
ity will insure a vigilant oversight by the stockholders, 
and with such oversight, corporations would not fail, 
nor as a consequence, could people lose by failures 
that never occur. 

Some gentlemen have expressed themselves in favor 
of the principle of private responsibility, but recom¬ 
mend that it be left with the Legislature. I am opposed 
to leaving it with the Legislature. It might as well 
be left with the corporations. When corporations are 
concerned 1 have no confidence in that body. The ex¬ 
periment has been tried in that body, and almost eve¬ 
ry effort to engraft private responsibility on corpora¬ 
tions has failed. The Slate is now strewed with the 
rotten, putrid carcasses of defunct corporations, and the 
effluvia rising from them is a stench in the nostrils of 
an outraged, swindled community. The people of the 
county I represent have been scourged too much by 
corporations, to be willing to trust the Legislature. 
Some years ago, the Legislature chartered the Lorain 
Iron Company, located at Elyria. It embarked exten¬ 
sively in business,had a store, issued a paper currency, 
as is usual for corporations, and after pursuing business 
some four years, and getting largely in debt “ fulfilled 
its destiny.” The assets, by assignment, passed into 
the hands of the principal stockholder—he wort h a 
half a million—leaving nothing but a corporate name to 
pay off the other creditors. Among them were many 
poor laboring men, some with families, who had large 
sums due for labor for which they never got a cent. 

Mr. STANBERY. If the corporation issued bills, 
were not the stockholders individually liable for the 
debts of the company? 

Mr. CLARK. They may have been for the hills, but 
few were outstanding; the losses I was speaking about, 
were for labor, dues to mechanics, &c., these the 
stockholders were not liable for and never paid. 

Another instance was the Ohio Railroad company. 
That was chartered without private liability. Labor¬ 
ers worked on the road, materials were provided—the 
corporation exploded leaving many unpaid. As is usu¬ 
ally the case with corporations, it had its banking de¬ 
partment. its bills were current, and some three hun¬ 
dred dollars of them were in the township treasury of 
Elyria, when it failed, and several hundred more in the 
county treasury. 

Mr. STANBERY. If the corporation issued bills 
without authority were not the stockholders individu¬ 
ally liable ’ 

Mr. CLARK. Not for labor and materials, but it 
may be they were for the bills. But they had never 
redeeemd any of them so far as he could learn. 

Mr. STANBERY. I have never heard of an in¬ 
stance where a debt was saved by individual liability; 

I do not con.sider it worth anything in any "ase. 

Mr. CLARK. The gentleman from Franklin tells us 
that iudividnal liability is not worth a rush—that ho 
could never hear of a case where anything has been 
collected—and in the next breath we are told nobody 
will subscribe for stock, for the fear of such liability. 










372 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Such is the incoiiBistency of those who oppose the 
measure. One moment it amounts to nothing, nobody 
can get a debt by it, the next, nobody will take stock, 
because it will bind them to pay. 

That company, under the plunder law, drew from 
the Slate Treasury two hundred and forty-nine thousand 
dollars, yet would not pay its creditors. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. 1 think it was four hundred and 
forty-nine thousand dollars. 

Mr. CLARK. Very likely, I only stated from recol¬ 
lection. I will instance another case to show the 
Legislature is not to be trusted where corporations are 
concerned. In 1836 the C. C. & Cincinnati Railroad 
Company was chartered. By the charter, where the 
parties could not agree upon the value of the property 
taken, the county commissioners appointed three ap¬ 
praisers, three days’ notice being first given to the op¬ 
posite party. In 1848 the charter, by a general law, 
was altered and the appointment given to an associate 
judge, who, on the ai)plicatiou of the corporation, with¬ 
out any notice to the opposite party, ean make the ap¬ 
pointment. This alteration has enabled railroad com¬ 
panies to secure the appointment of committees of its 
own selecting; and, so far as I know they have never 
failed to do it. That company has done so in Lorain. 
It had procured its appraisers and appraisements with¬ 
out notice in any case, thereby securing the land at a 
mere nominal price. I consider it land stealing—noth¬ 
ing else. 

I will notice but one case more to show the unsafety 
of trusting the Legislature where coi’porations are con¬ 
cerned, and that is the common practice of allowing 
plank road companies to seize the public highways and 
appropriate them without any payment whatever. 
The early settlers of the Northern part of the State 
have been taxed heavily and contributed largely to 
make roads, and after they have become pfissably good 
the Legislature has allowed plank road companies to 
seize them, erect toll gates upon them, and require 
those who have built the roads to pay toll for traveling 
over them. I do not believe the Legislature has any 
constitutional power to do it. 1 am in favor of jdank 
roads, but would not allow companies to steal the roads 
that belong to the public. With all these things, and 
many more, before me, I am unwilling to leave much 
to the Legislature where corporations are concerned. 

But we have been told by those who profess to be 
friendly to the private responsibility principle, that put¬ 
ting it in the constitution binds the Legislature, and 
binding the Legislature binds the people. That the 
people would never consent to j)ut such fetters upon 
their limbs. I cannot see, how preventing the Legis¬ 
lature from creating swindling corporations, binds”or 
puts fetters upon the people. The fetters are upon the 
corporations, not upon the people. 

Those who advocate the private responsibility prin¬ 
ciple, are charged with being opposed t(j internal im¬ 
provements. The charge is without foundation, and is 
only made to excite a prejudice against us, and for the 
want of a better argument. The gentleman irom Mon¬ 
roe [Mr. Akchbold] says if the principle is incorj)ora- 
ted into the constitution, it will prevent improvements 
by corporations, and necessarily drive the people 
again to the State treasury for aid. I do not believe 
if corporations are denied the privilege of plunderino^ 
the people, that necessarily the State treasury must Ije 
plundered. I deny any necessity for either. As for 
the State treasury, this constitution will bar its doors 
against future plunder. We have learned an expen¬ 
sive but valuable lesson on this subject. 

When the gentleman from Miami first spoke on this 
subject, he was careful to infonn us that he was a dem¬ 
ocrat. It is very w'ell that he did so, as no one here 
w'ould have suspected it of him. He said he had for 
fifteen years advocated the same principles among his 
constituents that he had here. I do not wonder that 
he could be elected in a district having six to twelve 
hundred whig majority; the only wonder is, that the 


whigs should have run any candidate against him. 
His course was somewhat singular. At one time he 
avowed himself willing to go as far as the farthest in 
putting private responsibility in the constitution, and 
then again he would seem to swallow all he had smd. 

Mr. DORSEY. I said I would go as far us the far¬ 
thest in attaching private responsibility in the constitu¬ 
tion to banks, not to other corporations. 

Mr. CLARK. I did not understand the gentleman 
as making the distinction, but supposed he applied it 
to all corporations. It seems, then, that while he will 
not allow bankers to cheat the community, he will al¬ 
low other corpbrations to do so as much as they please. 

Mr. DORSEY. Does the gentleman claim that I ex¬ 
pressed myself in favor of allowing corporations, other 
than banks, to cheat the community? 

Mr. CLARK. The gentleman advocates a doctrine 
that in its effect produces that result. I was observing 
that his course was somewhat singular. In his speech 
the 23d of May, he says: “It will always happen that 
“ when it is in the power of the Legislature to grant 
“ special privileges, that those desirous of obtaining 
“ them will bring into the legislative hall an undue in- 
“ fluence which niay enable them to obtain such priv- 
“ ileges and rights from the legislative body in opposi- 
“ tion to the general will. Not only should we expect 
“ this to be true, but past experience teaches us that it 
“ is true.” 

fSince then, and during this debate, he has declared 
that he had the fullest confidence in the Legislature. 
At other times he has spoken in the most flattering 
terms of private responsibility, declaring it correct in ' 
principle, and then again declaring it an abstraction. 
During those avowals and disavowals, the friends of 
private responsibility have alternately had their hopes 
.and fears as to what would be his action. It has been 
somewhat amusing to see the gentleman avow good 
doctrines, and then recall them. He could compare it 
to nothing better thcin to a hen that had swallowed a 
gut, and attempting to run oil', it would pull out; and 
then the same process would be repeated with the 
same results. [Laughter.] 

I desire to call the attention of the Democrats to the 
fact', that the old legislative records of 1834 have been 
held up to us in this debate, and because there was 
then a Democratic majority in that body, the sin of 
creating several bank charters was set down to the 
Democrats. The same charge has frequently been 
made ; while a majority of the Democrats in both 
branches voted against all those charters, except the 
Clinton Bank of Columbus, and a large majority of ihe 
Whigs voted for them. In 1843, though but a few 
Democrats voted for the re-charter of the VVooster 
bank, yet because the Democrats had a majority in the 
Legislature, they have to bear all the odium of char¬ 
tering that swindling institution. After its failure, 
that sin was paraded in the Whig papers, and set down 
to a Democratic Legislature. There is a majority in 
this Convention elected as Democrats, and if the prin¬ 
ciple of private responsibility in cor])oratioiis is struck 
down by the action of this body, the Democracy, by a 
single act, would be saddled with all the disgrace 
and odium of all the swindling corporations that may 
spring up under the new constitution. Democracy 
could not, and ought not, to carry such a load, and I 
hope that those professing to be Democrats, and elected 
as such, will prevent such a disaster. 

As the committee is about forming the organic law 
to govern corporations, it may be well to inquire, what 
is a corporation? It is a legislative monsUr. A more 
detailed definition is given in a work that I hold in my 
hand, and which I will read: “Acorporation is an ar¬ 
tificial person, dealing among men, without moral, and 
with a limited pecuniary responsibility. But with re¬ 
gard to the former, it may be said that a corporation 
has an aggregate moral existence—that being compo¬ 
sed of men, human sentiments enter into its constitu¬ 
tion. If this could be proved by argument, it would 







CONVENTION REPORTS. 


373 


be contradicted bj experience. Is not the contrary 
demonstrated by its action? Is it benevolent? Let 
its records bear witness that it feels for men’s pockets 
more than for themselves. Is it religious? Alas! it 
has no soul to sav’e! Is it just? As the law comj)els 
it. Is it honorable? None answer for it; and it has 
no back to scourge, nobody to pierce. Has it pa.ssion? 
Aye; one mean passion—avarice—whose bounden 
slaves are the agents of the corporation. This passion, 
and its demonstration through these agents, are all that 
is felt or known of this artificial person. It is an ac-} 
quisitive monster, with human intelligence, but with- i 
out moral emotion or aim.” ! 

Such is a true picture of a corporation. When we I 
complain of the mischief such legislative monsters, ifj 
untramelled, are likely to do, the opponents of private i 
responsibility tell us, “ the people are not obliged to • 
trust them”—“the people are notcompelled to deal with ' 
them.” As well might they let loose in the public 
highway a mad bull, and if the people complained, say ^ 
to them, jump fences—climb trees—and keep out of 
the way. If we are to have legislative monsters, I 
desire to pull out as many of their poison teeth as pos¬ 
sible. It was a work that should be attended to in the I 
constitution, and not be left to the Legislature, as! 
they would never do it. 

I have spoken much more than the fifteen minutes ' 
allowed, and wa.s unconscious of breaking the rule 
till this moment, and will stop. [Cries of go on, go 
on. from all parts of the house.] I prefer stopping 
where I am. 

Mr. MANON. Mr. Chairman: Sir, we have resolv- ■ 
ed ourselves into a commitee of the Whole upon the ' 
orders of the day. Now, sir, I ask, if any man in crea-1 
tion should come into this hall, (if he did not ask some I 
person and learn what was going on in that way,) what i 
would be the inevitable couclu.sion he would come to. I 
Sir, I think he would come to the conclusion that we 
had resolved ourselves into a committee of ruffians, 
blackguards or something of that kind. 

Now, sir, my constituents expect me, if we come to ' 
what they would call a rough and tumble fight, in that' 
ca.«e at least, that I will take my part, [laughter] and 1 1 
will say, that in that respect at least, they shall not 
be disappointed, for I will take a part in the pres-; 
ent range of discussion, believing that I am able to bear 
a hand, and a full hand. [Laughter.] ! 

The gentleman from Lorain [Mr. Clark] says that 
I sit very uneasy under the remarks on'the discussions 
of the question. I will admit, to some extent, the truth 
of the lemark. It is rather hard for me to sit still here 
and hear gentlemen discussing, as they say, an impor¬ 
tant question.. What, I ask, is the question on which I 
we have spent days ? Speeches have been made upon ‘ 
it, some oi them of more than two hours length. The • 
question is, whether we will incorporate in the third sec¬ 
tion of the report the word “ the ” or “ such ” and this 
we have been discussing for two or three days, at an 
expense of over seven hundred dollars a day. [Laugh¬ 
ter.] Sir, I made no expression here or elsewhere, 
that gave the gentleman room to draw such inferences, 
as he has done in relation to individual liability. I 
said that any man in this Convention knew how to 
vote on the proposition in less than five minutes. 

Now, sir, I will not do as the gentleman from Lo¬ 
rain. I will not draw back, or back out from any 
thing that I have said or that I now say. I will say 
nothing but what I believe, and believing I will main¬ 
tain what I do say. 

But, sir, that is not where the shoe pinches. The 
gentleman with others, has commenced here bullying 
some of the members of this Convention, into the sys¬ 
tem of hard money. It, sir, has been commenced by 
having the tuppenny papers through the country, to 
name and abuse a few members on this floor. And 
now, forsooth, is the proper time for them to make 
what is called strike. (Laughter.) Some members 
seem to think, (if we were to judge from their acts,) 


that they knew all, and are not willing that others 
shall in any way exercise their own judgments. Now 
I warn them that they have got into the wrong berth, 
and have waked up the wrong passenger, (laughter) 
when they mount me rough-shod for that purpose 
(Laughter.) 

One more word, Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman 
from Lorain. He seems to be a strong advocate tor 
individual liability. I will only say that I, at least on 
some wcasions, am an advocate of individual liability, 
and will here say, that if that gentleman or any other, 
makes personal or uncalled for attacks on me here or else¬ 
where, that I will hold them to not only individual re- 
sjmnsibility but to personal responsibility to the fullest 
extent. (Laughter.) 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I will pay my respects to the 
gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin,] in a few 
words, in reply to his attacks upon me on yesterday. 
(Laughter.) He says that I got some 500 copies of my 
speech and sent them home, (laughter)—it being the 
same old one repeated. He must have meant that it 
resembled my others, or was in accordance with my 
previous declarations ; that my speeches should be that. 
I have taken the trouble to look over what little I have 
heretofore said, and I find that I have not repeated on 
any one occasion the amount of even half a line.— 
(Laughter ) 

One thing more—the papers I sent, I bought on my 
own account—at my own expense, and expect to pay 
for them at my own expense, and I will here add that 
I voted against the motion for the State to pay the 
postage of this Convention. I would do so to-day, if a 
motion of that kind was made. I, sir, agreed to come 
here at the pay proposed and allowed by the State, 
and do not ask for any extra allowance. I ask for 
nothing but my own rights, and those I expect to main¬ 
tain. I will say one word more to that gentleman; 
that is, I have said nothing since I came here, from 
which I will back out, or of which I am ashamed. I 
am not ashamed to have all my constituents see or read 
what I have to say, for I have no secrets to keep from 
them, as their public sen’ant. But, sir, if 5000 copies 
of the gentleman’s speech, made as it was, as a terror 
to evil doers, was published and circulated in my coun¬ 
ty, and endorsed as democratic doctrine, and laying 
down democratic principles and creeds, the great body 
of them would say that they were ignorant of the 
principles, and would finally say that they would not 
endorse them. Such democrats would be scarcer than 
hen’s teeth. [Laughter.] Why, sir, our people think 
this is a free country.—They think that ever>' man may 
choose for himself, and act for himself, and they would 
a!)hor the idea of sending a member here that would 
not so act. They send a member hei-e, not to be driv¬ 
en, dragged, humbled or scared to duty. [Laughter.] 
No, sir. They wish to .send a man here who has opin¬ 
ions, and dare maintain them, if perchance they should 
happen to be somewhat different from the opinions of 
some of the would-be leaders of this body. I for one, 
expect to act for myself—independently, boldly and 
fearlessly, and if the gentleman will follow my exam¬ 
ple in one particular at least, that is. make short 
speeches, he will be relieved of a great deal of trouble 
by way of explanation, &c. 

Mr. SMITH' of Wyandot. I believe the question be¬ 
fore the committee is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Trumbull—it is that stockholders 
in incorporations other than for banking shall be liable 
to the amount of their stock, and a sum in addition 
thereto equal to the amount of stock so owned. This 
amendment meets with my approbation, and as I con¬ 
sider this question a practical one and an impoi'tant one 
I hope the committee will bear with me for a few m(> 
ments. There are many things, Mr. Chairman, in this 
constitution making, which we must take into consid- 
m^xiy questions may arise which in the ab¬ 
stract are correct, but are entirely impracticable and 
inexpedient. Such I consider to be the character of 














374 CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


the proposition of gentlemen on my lelt, that of unlim¬ 
ited individual liability in all acts of incorporation. Such 
I consider the docivine of repudiation, and many other 
of the same character might be named, which in the 
abstract are right, but under existing circumstances 
wholly impracttcable and inex{)edient. With this view 
of the subject, the present question in my mind re¬ 
solves itself into this,—shall we hereafter have works 
of public improvement constructed by corporate bod¬ 
ies or shall we not?—this is the question, the only ques¬ 
tion. For if no grant of corporate powers shall here¬ 
after be made unless the stockholders are individually 
responsible for all the debts of such corporation, why 
not as well express it in so many words, and say that 
hereafter there shall never be more corporations cre¬ 
ated. 

If the gentlemen are desirous of abolishing all cor¬ 
porations in the State of Ohio,—then Mr. Chairman 1 
will concede to them the honor of having hit upon a 
desirable plan to carry out their wishes—but 1 cannot 
believe that they are willing to assume the responsibil¬ 
ity of so doing. 

I wish, Mr. Chairman, to be distinctly understood in 
this matter, and for this reason lot us look at the ques¬ 
tion as it really presents itself. Any work of great 
public improvement must necessarily engross a large 
amount of capital. Can you find the amount in the 
hands of a few in the Slate of Ohio ? Can you find it 
it the hands of a few in that section of the State where 
such improvements are needed? No—on the contrary 
it is necessary that individuals should combine, and each 
place in the incorporation a proportion of his fortune, or 
in other words, take stock. A. B. and C. take perhaps, 
amounts of $50, $200, or a thousand dollars each, well 
knowing that they have families dependent upon them 
for support; well knowing, too, that they have estates 
sufficient, over and above the slock so subscribed, to 
provide against contingencies—but if this unmitigated 
individual liability is to be applied, and these individu¬ 
als were men of good sense and sound judgment, would 
they thus in eftect place an eternal mortgage upon their 
whole property, with the prospect (in many instances) 
of beggaring their families—thus put under the control 
of strangers the products of a life spent in toil? No, 
Mr. Chairman, there is not a man on this floor—there 
is not a man of good sense in the State of Ohio, that 
would do it. With unmitigated individual liability, 
there will be no combination of capital to prosecute 
works of great public improvement. 

Let us look at this matter, so far as relates to rail¬ 
roads—instance the Mad River and Lake Erie Rail¬ 
road, owned by five hundred or a thousand different 
persons, who direct the operations of that company— 
IS it any individual stockholder, is it A, B, or C ? No, 
the affairs of the company are controlled entirely by a 
Board of Directors—others have no voice in the man¬ 
agement of the affairs of the company from year to 
year, yet gentlemen desire to make the man of moder¬ 
ate means, w'ho happens to own a hundred dollars of 
stock in that company, responsible so far as his whole 
property was concerned, for the action of that directo¬ 
ry over whom he held no control. I frankly admit 
Mr. Chairman, that there has been many losses suffer¬ 
ed and many glaring frauds perpetrated through cor¬ 
porate bodies—but will gentlemen pretend to claim 
these chance delinquencies,as an assential element in the 
constitution of all corporate bodies ? are these chance 
delinquencies a reason why we should condemn all 
corporations ? No. And shall we say to the people of 
Ohio, that hereafter they shall have no acts of incorpo¬ 
ration passed to carry on works of public improve¬ 
ment, unless the same are fettered w’ith restrictions 
which render the act nugatory ; shall we put restric¬ 
tions in the way of that prosperity and greatness of 
Ohio, to which gentlemen have so frequently alluded, 
(and this advance in prosperity, in a great measure, is 
owingto associated capital.) Shall we say to people 
of this great State in their onward march in improve¬ 


ment, Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther,” or shall 
we by wise laws, foster domestic and invite foreign 
capital in our State, and by a judicious management of 
our corporations, secure an amount of capital sufficient 
to prosecute our public improvements with efficiency, 
and thus speed on the best interests of Ohio ? 

Gentlemen have asserted that foreign capital is now 
brought into the State by way of loans, and would con¬ 
tinue to be so brought in under the restrictions they 
propose. I ask gentlemen who make this assertion to 
look into the history and present condition of the pub¬ 
lic improvements of Ohio; you will find in a great ma¬ 
jority of cases that the stock has been subscribed by 
individuals in the middle walks ol life, and far the 
greater number of them have never realized a farthing 
from their investment further than with all others the 
enjoyment of a great public benefit. It is true that 
eastern capitalists have made loans to our railroad com¬ 
panies; and what is the result? Have the railroads 
repaid it? I think not. I do not believe there is a 
railroad company in Ohio that has discharged its east¬ 
ern loans in cash. The first loan is usually followed 
by a second, and a secoild by a third, and that follow¬ 
ed by a mortgage of all the corporate property, or a 
new issue of stock, to be engrossed by the eastern credi¬ 
tors of an amount sufficient to give ihemthe entire control 
and management of the company. If I am correctly in¬ 
formed, Boston capitalists control the Mad River and 
Lake Erie Railroad. Osw^ego capitalists control the 
Sandusky and Mansfield road. These are the only in¬ 
stances that now strike my mind. They fiist loaned 
to these companies; afterwards necessity compelled 
them to assume their present position to save the prin¬ 
cipal. The consequence is, that being prosecuted with 
vigor and backed by capital, the stock has risen in val¬ 
ue, and commands respect in market. 

In these remarks, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to be 
understood as screening any kind of corporations from 
merited censure, but I do wish to be understood as 
saying that if some individuals have been guilty of 
fraud under the cover of a charter, others, and many, 
too, have suffered in their laudable endeavors to con¬ 
struct works of great public benefit. The Vermilion 
and Ashland railroad is a case in point. These indi¬ 
viduals, for the purpose of benefitting themselves and 
that section of the State, obtained from the Legislature 
an act of incorporation; farmers along the line of the 
road invested large amounts; the State afforded aid 
under the Plunder Act;—but mark the lesult: They 
were unfortunate in selecting a directory—the unsus¬ 
pecting stockholders had no voice in the matter, and 
thought all things moved well until the fact stared them 
in the face, that their efforts to do a public benefit had 
resulted in their bankruptcy. 

1 hold that an individual, whether prompted by self¬ 
ishness or patriotism, who invests his money in a work 
of public improvement, is justly entitled to the profits 
made by such corporation, in proportion to the amount 
by him invested; and if losses ensue, that he should 
bear them in the same proportion; and I believe the 
amendment of the gentleman from Trumbujl secures 
this. For this, opinion, some gentlemen on my left are 
disposed to question my democracy. Very well—they 
may fulminate their maledictions in the house, and they 
may threaten out of doors—it makes no difference to 
me. I take it that democracy is an innate principle, 
having its seat in every good man’s heart, and manifes¬ 
ting itself in a desire to confer the greatest good on 
the greatest number.” My democracy comes to me 
like Jack Falstaff’s reading and writing —by natw'e. 

Gentlemen call loud and eloquent lor us to come up 
to their standard of democracy, but the people, Mr, 
Chairman, ask of ns at tins time to look to their in¬ 
terests and secure them in the enjoyment of their great¬ 
est good, and if in obedience to this call I shall full be¬ 
low their standard of democracy, be it even so. The 
banking question has unnecessarily been brought into 
this discussion. I have but a passing remark to make 













375 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


upon that subjpct. I am opposed to all banks of issue, 
consequently if there are no banks there will be no ne¬ 
cessity lor liability, either corporate or individual. I 
believe that sin h corporations are neither demanded 
or needed by the people. 1 will now leave the sub¬ 
ject, observing ln>wever, that I deem this a subject 
worthy of calm consideration and hope that gentlemen 
will cease wandering from it, into personalities, ami 
discussing matters perfectly irrevelant as has been the 
case too much during this clebate. 

Mr. CHAMBERS said: I have listened for several 
days with a great deal of patience, and some little im¬ 
patience, to the many speeches upon this subject; some 
of them an hour and a half long, but delivered under 
a rule limiting them to fifteen minutes. And now, it 
seems to be settled, at least to the satisfaction of the 
minds of some members here, that we, upon this side 
of the chamber, are not the true and fit exponents of 
the sentiments and jirinciples of a majority of the peo¬ 
ple of Ohio:—That we are unfriendly to the interests 
of the masses;—That we are unwilling to protect the 
laboring people from wrong and injustice, or from the 
power ol associated wealth, or avaricious and grasping 
corporations. How these conclusions have been ar¬ 
rived at, I cannot well see ; and I am, certainly, one of 
those that belong to the masses. I am one of those 
who plow and sow, reap and mow; and being of that 
calling my sell, I think I might be a true representative 
of the great mass of the agricultural population, and 
every order of common laborers in the State of Ohio. 
Now, why it should be argued here, that we upon this 
side, are the friends of exclusive privileges and associ¬ 
ated wealth, is very extraordinary to me: but this 
seems to be, with the majority of the gentlemen on my 
left, as a matter settled and concluded. These are 
grave charges, Mr. Chairman ; but I am not about to go 
into any defence of them at this time. We have pa¬ 
tiently sat here on this side, and scarcely resisted them; 
and 1 would not have addressed the committee now, 
[because I am in some degree out of order, and noi 
speaking to the point,] but I wish to say to gentlemen, 
that the time will come when this matter will be ably 
resisted and defended upon this floor, by others better 
qualified than myself. We are represented here, also, 
is being the representatives of the minority of the peo¬ 
ple ot Ohio. As to that matter, sir, I think there is 
room for some doubt. The past history of Ohio, I 
think, affords some reasonable doubts in the case. Bui 
taking gentlemen upon the presumption that we whigs 
do represent the minority, and that they represent the 
majority of the people of Ohio, I now call upon them 
in all good faith, to go forward in the great work which 
has been entrusted to them—to perfect the Constitution 
of the State without delay. The responsibility rests 
with them, and upon them. The gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton, [Mr. Reemklin,] has told us he rejoices in the 
fact that the people have sent up here, a majority ol 
delegates belonging to the democratic party, and he 
has sounded the tocsin, and has called upon all his 
faithful friends to come forward and carry out the be¬ 
hests and principles of the true democracy in framing 
the new Constitution: that they ought to do so, be¬ 
cause they are right, and everbody knows they are right. 
Well sir, itisagoodthing forstatesmen toheright; and 
right or wrong, the gentleman from Hamilton is well 
calculated, both physically and intellectually, to carry 
out his views, as is apparent in all his efforts. But I 
will not attempt to make a speech noyv, Mr. Chairman, 
but the time will come, I trust, before this Convention 
shall be dissolved, when all these matters will be fully 
met and well settled. I have risen merely to call upon 
the majority—those who claim to represent a majority 
of the people—to go on withoutunnecessary delay, and 
perfect their work ; but I will suggest a word of ad¬ 
vice to those gentlemen, my good friends on the left, 
that they ought to proceed with great caution, for il 
you make a constitution and engraft upon it any crudi¬ 
ties, or agrarian doctrines, inconsistent with the lights 


of the age, or which will not subserve the best inter¬ 
ests and meet the views of the whole people, you 
must recollect that they will all have the privilege to 
pass upon it; and if you make a constitution wholly 
exceptionable to the minority in this chamber, it is 
probable that there will be found people enough in the 
State of Ohio of sufficient intelligence, to reject, and 
spew out your constitution; for I assure you, that there 
were thousands,and tens of thousands, of good citizens, 
who remained at home at the time of the election of 
delegates to this convention—who never came to the 
polls, because they were satisfied w th the old consti¬ 
tution under which they had lived, prosperously, for 
more than forty years, and were unfavorable to the 
project of this convention : But whenever a new con¬ 
stitution shall be framed, and submitted to the people, 
and they conceive it to be a bad one, there is not a man 
of them but will come out from his abode among the 
hills, and in the valleys, and say “ yea" or “ nay;" and 
my word for it, if you do not frame it right, so that it 
shall guard and promote all the great and growing in- 
tei’ests of the State and people ol Ohio, in the best pos¬ 
sible manner, they will promptly reject it, and your 
labor will be lost. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, [asking and obtaining a state¬ 
ment of the condition of the question from the Chair,] 
said : He held in his hand a substitute for the whole, 
which embodied the result of his reflections upon this 
question, after having attended to the discussion it had 
received for a day or two past. The discussion had 
been quite lengthy, but upon the whole, interesting.— 
He was now prepared to act. He would read, for in¬ 
formation, the substitute which he had prepared, and 
if within the rules, he would move its adoption as a 
substitute for the original section, and the amendment 
pending: 

“ The stockholders and officers of all corporations, other than 
municipal or political, hereafter created, shall be jointly and sev¬ 
erally liable for the debts of such corporations, like individuals ; 
provided, however, that the General Assembly may, in the law 
authorizing such corporation, if in their opinion the public inter¬ 
est requires it, by a vote of two-thirds of the members elect to 
each branch, insert a provision modifying, or qualifying such liar 
bility.” 

Mr. CURRY. Would the gentleman define what ho 
means by the word “ political corporations ?” 

Mr. CASE. He would do so. By political corpora¬ 
tions, he understood such organizations as counties and 
townships, and by municipal corporations, he under¬ 
stood the civil organization of villages, towns and cit¬ 
ies. He found the same phraseology which he had 
adopted, in the (onstitutions of Texas and Louisiana. 
Corporations of this class he would exempt from indi¬ 
vidual liability: but all other corporations he would 
place upon the broad level of individuals in this re¬ 
spect. He would hold the officers, as well as the 
stockholders, liable, jointly and severally, so that any 
creditor of the corporation, might select any one man 
belonging to it, sue him, and recover judgment and 
exhaust him—and so through the whole number of of¬ 
ficers and stockholders. He desired this declaration of 
principle, to go into the constitution, which he consid¬ 
ered a declaration of the great principle of equality, 
but he was one of those who believed that there were 
many corporations that have been, and that hereafter 
ought to be, formed, with reference to which this un¬ 
qualified and unmitigated liability ought not to apply, 
for if it were, it woutd amount to a total prohibition of 
such corporations. He could not go with some gentle¬ 
men for applying this principle to all corporations, and 
he would not. Moreover, he considered that it would 
be found necessary to graduate the degree ol peisonal 
liability according to the nature of different corpora¬ 
tions. Take, for instance, corjiorations for banking, 
(a subject on which he reserved any expression of 
opinion for a future occasion,) all would be disposed 
to hold stockholders to the highest degree of personal 
individual liability, but if we take the instance put by 
the gentleman from Franklin, [Judge Swan,] corpora- 









3'.6 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


tioii8 for the purpose of insurance — ho was not sure 
that stockholders in these should be held to more lia¬ 
bility than the amount of stock subscribed. To rail 
road and plank road companies, perhaps a more strin¬ 
gent rule should be adopted. Hence the necessity of 
some gradual sliding scale upon the subject, but it has 
too much detail to go into a constitution. He would 
leave it open to be regulated, as among the legitimate 
objects of legislation. He would stamp upon every 
corporation to be formed in the State, this principle of 
individual liability, by a constitutional declaration in 
advance, but he would reserve to the legislature the 
power, under the two-thirds restrictions, to consider 
whether the case may, or may not, be worthy to be ex¬ 
empted and protected from the operation of this gene¬ 
ral principle, 

Hitherto the legislature have commenced with the 
enquiry, shall individual liability be adopted—if so, to 
what extent? Under the proposition which he pre¬ 
sented, the enquiry will be, shall the individual liabil¬ 
ity principle be mitigated—if so, to what extent? 
thus changing the omi$probandi, and driving those who 
ask for special privileges, to make out an affirmative 
case so strong as to overcome the general rule and con 
vince two-thirds of the legislature, that the public good 
requires such exemption. 

Some gentlemen may object to the two-thirds vote, 
but he had put it into his amendment after mature con¬ 
sideration of the case. He would give his reasons. 
We have already determined that special acts of incor¬ 
poration shall not be passed, but that corporations may 
be formed under general laws. Now he supposed we 
shall have one general law, under which all rail road 
companies may organize — one under \vhich manufac¬ 
turing companies may organize, and so on. Hence it 
must be apparent to every one, that companies and 
associations here and there all over the State, would 
have a common interest, and would unite their influ¬ 
ence, and come up hereto the capitol, fill your lobbies, 
and beseige the legislature, and if a mere majority 
vote were sufficient, I should fear that we should have 
repeated scenes bordering on corruption, which have 
been so much deprecated on all hands in this conven¬ 
tion. But he, for one had no fear of such improper 
influence, so long as a two-thirds vote is required, and 
the right of repeal reserved. 

Again, he had faith and confidence enough in the 
legislature, to be assured that whenever a really meri¬ 
torious case should be presented, and fairly made out 
before that body, not only two-thirds, but a unanimous 
vote would be obtained for a reasonable mitigation of 
the individual liability i*ule. 

These were briefly some of his views of the sulqect. 
He considered his amendment would set up a suf¬ 
ficient barrier against shingling the State all Over with 
corporations, and yet offering no unreasonable imped¬ 
iment to their formation for useful purposes. He would 
be glad to retain the two-thirds vote, but if that could 
not be done, he would be content with the majority. 
He would not say his proposition was perfect, or alto¬ 
gether free from objections, but he humbly conceived 
that it contained the elements of a useful provision in 
the new constitution, and that it steered clear on the 
one hand, of the extreme doctrine of unqtialified pei'- 
sonal liability, and on no other, of the constitutional 
declaration or restraint upon this subject. He believed 
the people demanded some action on this question, 
and at a proper time he should press his proposed 
amendment upon the committee. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I desire to sub¬ 
mit a few thoughts on the amendment now before the 
committee. 

I conceive there is an incongruity in the doctrine of 
limited responsibility; and in order to render the doc¬ 
trine congruous, the Legislature ought to have the pow¬ 
er to limit the profits upon associated wealth. If you 
limit the responsibility, as proposed in the amendment 
before us, to twice the amount of the capital stock in¬ 


vested, it strikes me that, in order to render the meas¬ 
ure perfect, the power of the Legislature should be ex¬ 
tended so that they may prescribe that the profits of 
eveiy company shall also be limited. It is a rule that 
has emanated from a high source, “ to whom much is 
given, of them shall much be requiredand if you 
propose to erect artificial bodies all over the State, and 
clothe them with greater powers than natural individu¬ 
al persons, you should also require from them, addi¬ 
tional responsibilities. If you limit their liability to 
double the amount of stock subscribed, should you not 
also reserve to the Legislature the power to prescribe 
that the amount of their profits shall not be more than 
double that of ordinary stock investments ? This is a 
difficulty which has not yet presented itself to the mind 
of any gentleman, I conceive ; at all events, it has not 
received utterance in this debate; and to my mind, it 
is a fatal objection to the doctrine of limited responsi¬ 
bility, as now proposed. 

I apprehend that the doctrine of the amendment, as 
well as the report, is absurd in morals; and as such, it 
should be repudiated by this committee. I conceive, 
sir, that it strikes at the very foundation of civil gov¬ 
ernment. Upon what does it stand, as one of its pil¬ 
lars, if it is not on morality ? Such is the doctrine of 
your Bill of Rights; and since, but a few days ago, we 
passed resolutions and adjourned over, in honor of the 
memory of one of the framers [Mr. Riley,] of the 
Constitution under which we live, and have lived so 
long and so prosperously, I did hope that this cardinal 
doctrine in the Bill of Rights was not to be, and could 
not be so soon, and so uncei*emoniously departed from. 
I will read you, sir, the sentiment from the Bill of 
Rights. It is this: “ Religion, morality and knowledge, 
are essentially necessary to good government, and the 
happiness of mankind.” Now, sir, this is a doctrine to 
which we all subscribe; and which will be retained, I 
hope, and incorporated in the new constitution which 
we may fraine. But the doctrine of the amendment 
proposes to give to individual corporators, (contrary to 
the doctrine of morals,) privileges greater than to men 
—persons in their individual capacity—privileges to 
the effect, that their liability shall not be commensu¬ 
rate with the debts which they may contract. Sir, I 
have yet to learn the reason why an artificial body,— 
the mere creature of the law—should be invested with 
higher prerogatives than a natural body, an individual. 

I hold, sir, in my hand, a veto message of Governor 
Shunk, of Pennsylvania, and I beg leave to read an 
extract from it, wbich bears on this subject. He veto¬ 
ed a cotton-mill charter, with $300,000 capital, which 
had passed the Legislature of that State without any 
provision for the individual liability of the stockhold¬ 
ers for the debts of the company. In returning the 
bill, with the reasons for declining to sign it, amongst 
other tilings the Governor says : 

“ Whenever an investment promises protit, the means in this 
fortunate country are not wanting. Large operations require 
large means. The man who embarks extensively in foreign or 
domestic trade, or in manufacturing or agricultural pursuits, ne¬ 
cessarily requires a large capital. And as by our law, he is made 
liable to pay all his debts, for which his whole estate is pledged, 
by what system of reasoning can the right of ten or twenty men 
be maintained, to associate for the same purpose which employs 
his capital, to enjoy the same chances of success and profit with 
him, and yet be permitted by legislative favor to expose to risk 
only a part of their estate ? 

My object is not, in the remotest degi’ee, to question the rights 
of those who have large means. Wealth, and its concomitant 
advantages, are theirs. They have a common right to the pro¬ 
tection of the laws; but they have no better right than the hum¬ 
blest citizen.” 

Now, sir, I apprehend that the effect of the amend¬ 
ment before us, would be, if adopted, to depress in¬ 
dividual labor and individual enterprise, by the undue 
protection it would give to associated wealth. And it 
is in this view ol it, that I conceive that it would not 
only legalize dishonesty, but legitimate wrong, and 
build up monopolies all over the State; and thus con¬ 
ceiving, I must be permitted so to characterize it be¬ 
fore this committee. 







CONVENTION REPORTS. 377 


Again, sir, by the amendment the profits of corpora¬ 
tions are permitted to be clutched and pocketed, but 
the losses may, in part, be thrown upon community. I 
can conceive of a number of individuals associated to¬ 
gether in a corporate capacity. I can conceive the af¬ 
fairs of the association to be skillfully managed, and of 
their annual dividends. But, I can conceive, on the 
other hand, that a reverse comes over the association, 
and they suffer a loss. Now, upon what principle of 
morals will you permit the stockholders of such an as¬ 
sociation to pocket all the profits, which may be very 
large, and in case of a reverse of fortune, to throw the 
losses, which may also be veiy great, upon the com¬ 
munity? Is this the justice which we propose to en¬ 
graft into our organic law ? 

Besides, sir, this is a practical question, and comes 
home to “ the business and the bosom” of every man, 
in almost every district of the State. I have observed 
something of it myself, in the construction of the Mans¬ 
field and Newark Railroad. A company is organized_ 

debts are contracted—the road is graded and bridf^ed 
and part of the timber delivered to be placed on the 
road. But before the work is completed, the funds of 
the company are exhausted, and the payment of their 
contracts suspended. How then, and under such cir¬ 
cumstances, are the contractors to pay their laborers, 
those who boarded them and their hands, and the farm¬ 
ers from whom they procured timber, provisions and 
horse feed? Why. sir, I can inform you how one poor 
fellow did. He felt himself unshielded by a charter, 
and that, with him, “ individual liability meant indivi¬ 
dual payability,” and he absconded and left his prop- 
ertjr to his creditors. They could not wait for the tar¬ 
dy justice of the company, and he was ruined. 

Bui, it is said, that certain objects are so sacred that 
share holders should not be subjected to absolute re¬ 
sponsibility—such as companies for the erection and 
management of churches, colleges, and grave-yards.— 
Now I ask, sir, is it at all material to the mechanic, or 
the laborer, who has devoted his time and his energies 
upon the construction of an edifice, as to what is the 
object on which his time and his energies have been 
expended ? Is not the laborer,” at all times, and un¬ 
der all circumstances, “worthy of his hire?” And 
should he not be compensated to the last dollar of his 
wages? Aye, sir, and should not those objects of 
wealth—colleges, churches, and cemetery associations 
—be subjected to taxation? I trust those gentlemen 
who have adopted the principle in their act of 1845-G, 
“ for levying taxes on all property in this State accord¬ 
ing to its true value,” will not be found to exempt any 
species of property from taxation; nor any corporation 
from the responsibility of paying all its debts. I trust 
those gentlemen will be found coming up to the work 
manfully ; and in action, be consistent with their prin¬ 
ciples and professions. 

So far as your public improvements are concerned, 
such as railroads, plankroads, and turnpikes,! must say 
for mysell, that if they cannot be carried forward in 
strict conformity with the principles of justice, let 
these works remain forever uncompleted; and those 
which have not been embarked in—mere projects—let 
them remain, forever, in the port-folio of their projec¬ 
tors; unattempted, and unconstructed. We have, sir, 
as 1 conceive, higher duties to perform than to provide 
for the mere construction of railroads, plankroads, and 
suchlike improvements ; and why should we hesitate 
about the performance of them ? Let me say, in all 
soberness and seriousness, that it is our first duty to be 
just; to provide, especially, that those “ who rule over 
men must be just.” 

Mr. ORTON now moved that the committee rise, but 
gave way for 

Mr. DORSEY. I will ask the attention of the com¬ 
mittee, for a short time, while I shall endeavor to lay 
before them those views which I entertain on this sub¬ 
ject, and which, in my humble judgment, are calcula¬ 
ted to Ijc most beneficial to the country. There ap¬ 


pears to be no little difference of opinion as to the effect 
which will be produced upon the section, by the 
amendment of the gentleman from Hamilton. lam 
inclined to think that my friend, the gentleman from 
Medina, [Mr. Humphrkville,] is not correct in the 
construction which he would put upon this section as 
it is proposed to be modified by the gentleman from 
Hamilton. Nor do I entertain the opinion that that 
gentleman himself, would be Willing to put upon the 
section that construction. But I do believe that as the 
section now stands, it does provide for an ample grad¬ 
uated responsibility. Perhaps I would go farther in 
some matters than the gentleman from Medina has pro¬ 
posed: and now I beg leave to say here, what I have 
declared here before, that in regard to this principle of 
individual liability, considering it as a mere abstract 
idea, I hold it to be right— essentially right. But it is 
to the peculiar application of the principle, that I now 
wish to come. Allow me to say, that, in this Conven¬ 
tion we are not to be governed by mere abstract truths 

— mere theoretic abstractions — but by the effects. 

Mr. DORSEY, who, [promising not to detain the 

committee loiig,j said: I will endeavor to explain, 
what I had thought was already sufficiently evident, 
with regard to the position which I occupy, in com¬ 
mon with many others, upon the question under con¬ 
sideration. I happened same days ago, toward the 
commencement of the session of this Convention, to in¬ 
troduce to the notice of the Convention a seriq^ of res¬ 
olutions upon the subject of baidiing, which, unfortun¬ 
ately, did not square with the views of some gentlemen 
on this floor, of my own party; and because of that, 
those gentlemen have taken leave to suppose that I 
was about to strike off’ and desert the great principles 
of the democratic party. 

Again, Sir: when the pending question upon corpo¬ 
rations, other than banking, came up for consideration 

— although upon the first section of the report, I occu¬ 
pied common ground with other democrats in this bo¬ 
dy ; yet, when we came to the third section, I chose to 
differ, to some extent, from those gentlemen who have 
taken it upon themselves to prescribe the course for 
others here, and laydown the rule, and say what is de¬ 
mocratic, and what is to be regarded par excellence, as 
the doctrine of the democratic party; but, if theirs be 
the ground occupied by the democratic party, then I 
say plainly, and speak what I know to be true, that it 
has not been avowed anywhere, as far as I know, with 
the exception of its avowal in this Convention. And 
the very gentleman, [Mr. Reemelin,] who moved the 
first alteration in the section, by which he has essayed 
to force the democratic members to accept his own pe¬ 
culiar creed, has himself since seen the necessity of 
withdrawing his amendment, leaving us, whom a few 
days since he denounced as stragglers, to occupy the 
common ground of the democratic party. 

A few days ago, sir, in speaking upon a cognate 
question, I took occasion to state, tliat this doctrine of 
unqualified individual liability, had not been recog¬ 
nized in any constitution of the Union, even in the 
most decidedly democratic States, and I now reiterate 
that statement. And first, sir, let us look at the consti¬ 
tution of the great democratic State of New York, 
adopted in 1846, and we find in the second section of 
article eighth, the following : “ Dues from corporations 
shall be secured by such individual liability of thecorpo- 
rators and other means, as may be prescribed by 
The very prov.sion which it is proposed to introduce 
here. Look again, sir, at the tenth article of the con¬ 
stitution of the democratic State of Illinois, and in the 
second section you will find precisely a similar provis¬ 
ion. Then turn, sir, to the second section of the eighth 
article of the constitution of Missouri, another sterling 
democratic State, and you find a graduated responsi¬ 
bility, such as we proposed in favor of “ corporations 
for the purpose of education and charity, ffhen again 
sir, in the second section of the ninth article of the 
constitution of Iowa, another democratic State, there 


I 











378 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


is this simple provision, “The stockholders shall be 
subject to such liabilities and restrictions as shall be 
provided by law.” 

I call the attention of gentlemen to these States par¬ 
ticularly, because these constitutions have been recent¬ 
ly framed, so that il this was really the democratic 
doctrine, we should liave bad some shadowing forth 
of it in some of them. But the truth is, no on- has in¬ 
tended this unqualified liability to be applied to other 
than bank charters, and such as are formed for exclusive 
individual gain, and of such I hope hereafter to see as 
few as possible in this State. 

No, sir, if this be not a manifest proof, that even the 
gentlemen who have pursued ine upon this floor, have 
themselves abandoned the party, at least it is sufllciem 
to show, tliat the general liabity doctrine is not the 
doctrine of the democratic party to the extent that 
would justify one man in denouncing anoiher, who 
might notchoose to subscribe to the doctrine as wanting 
in fidelity to democratic principles. 

But I have been charged here with inconsistency, 
because I was willing to leave the power of regulating 
the responsibility and liability of corpoi’alions with the 
Legislature; while I was not willing to leave to that 
body the power of giving a special charter to any cor¬ 
poration for any purpose whatever, for which aj)plica- 
tion might be made. Now, sir, I hold that it would 
be almost an insult to the intelligence and good sense 
of this Convention, for me to undertake to point out 
the difference between the capacity in which the Le¬ 
gislature would act upon one and the other of these 
questions. The distinction is so plain to the apprehen¬ 
sion of every man, that “ he that runs may read,” un¬ 
less he be most wilfully blind and stupid. 

But, sir, since the gentleman from Lorain has chosen 
to read me a lecture on the subject, I desire to re¬ 
ply to him in a very few remarks, and I do it with 
the most perfect good nature and good feeling for that 
gmith man, in the hope that the advice which I shall 
give him at this time will save him from committing 
errors of that kind in future. It has been doubted, and 
perhaps properly, both before and since the calling of 
this Convention was determined upon by the people of 
the great State of Ohio, whether it was possible to get 
together in this hall, a sufficient amount of wisdom and 
intelligence and enlightenment, to make the requisite 
amendments to the old constitution, or to form a new in¬ 
strument which would more fully subserve the wants 
and advance theinterestsof the good people of this com¬ 
monwealth. I myself, sir, have, as I confess at times I 
had , some doubts and s^ome se ions fears on this subject. 
But when I look around me and see the mass of intel¬ 
lect, combined with the age and experience of mem¬ 
bers here, I cannot doubt that there will be found in 
this assembly a class of sufficient knowledge and wis¬ 
dom and experience, to answer all the ends lor which 
the Convention has been called. But if the people have 
doubted with justice, whether, even in this first class 
of intellectual and wise and aged and experienced men, 
in this body, there was a sufficiency of intelligence and 
wisdom to answer this end—I say, then, if there was 
reason to doubt of the sufficiency of this first class, lor 
the work before us, I ask you what might reasonably 
be the character of the doubt which the people might 
entertain now, and heretofore, with regard to the capa¬ 
city for this work of those who belong to the second 
class; what of those who are included in the third, the 
fourth, the fifth, the sixth, the seventh, and last class, in 
respect to intellect and capacity, at the very last end ol 
which stands that man of one idea, the pettifogging gen¬ 
tleman from Lorain? 

But, sir, we have had enough of this; more than 
enough; and I trust that this practice of crimination 
and recrimination will be stopped, now, and forever; 
and I call gentlemen of this Convention to witness that 
I, sir, have been unwillingly brought into it at this time. 
I came here disposed, so far as I might be able, to set 
forth and sustain the doctrines which prevail in the De¬ 
mocratic party, which I believe to be conducive to the 


be.4 interests of the good people of the State of Ohio: 
and if I fail, to my constituents alone am 1 amenable 
—to them must I stand or fall. But, sir, if vve are to 
come here for the simple purpose of criminating each 
other, and bandying terms with regard to the position 
which we may choose to occu[)y respectively, we shall 
sacrifice our time and the interests of our constituents, 
and produce no beneficial results. I am done sir. 

On motion, by Mr. ORTON, the committee rose, re¬ 
ported “no conclusion,” and obtained leave to sit again. 

And then the Convention took a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

On motion of Mr. REEMELIN, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee of the Whole, (Mr. Town- 
SHEND in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of 
the report of the committee on 

CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN CORPORATIONS FOR BANKING. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman: I have an a- 
mendment to submit, and before offering it desire to 
make a few brief remarks, and to say, that I regard 
this discussion as exceedingly instructing, and produc¬ 
tive of good results. I regret, sir, that any gentleman 
has supposed that there was any necessity for a pas¬ 
sage at arms sucji as we have witnessed, for I hope that 
the battles waged by parties in this hall will always be 
fought on principles, and permit me to express the 
opinion that the remarks made by my friend from Ham¬ 
ilton [Mr. Reemelin] which have excited so much 
feeling, was not such a declaration of war as to require 
personal hostilities. Those of us. Mr. Chairman, who 
are attached to the strictest faith of the democratic par¬ 
ty, must be permitted to advocate with earnestness, 
those cherished pinciples, which we hold to be »acred, 
and regard as necessary to the prosperity of our com¬ 
mon country. And while we rej resent the unques¬ 
tionable will, the declared voice of the great majority 
of the democracy of Ohio, gentlemen who are here in 
the minority of that party, claiming to be of it, yet op¬ 
posed to the issues of the majority, have no reason 
whatever, to apply remarks like those which have ex¬ 
cited so much feeling—to themselves, as personal as¬ 
saults. If the declaration of our principles wound the 
feelings, or evoke the displeasure of any gentleman 
here, who claims to be of the democratic faith, it is an 
indication that he is neither satisfied that he is wrong, 
or that his course does not meet with public approba¬ 
tion. There is nothing which a man warmly attached 
to principles that are contested, more desires than to 
meet a manly foe, in open conflict, and fair argument. 
Those gentlemen who. with the member from Licking, 
[Mr. Manon.] are determined not to be “ driven'' into 
the ranks of the hard money Democracy, must not ex¬ 
pect the approbation of the hard money Democrats, for 
they do now, and will continue to insist, that their prin 
ciples are the true principles of our faith, which every 
man claiming to belong to the Democratic party should 
at all times be ready to support. It is expected of us 
that we should here vindicate our Democratic princi¬ 
ples by our votes, not from unworthy partizan feelings, 
but because we believe them to be the true principles 
of our government, and that all opposite doctrines are 
adverse to the prosperity of the people, and to the ge¬ 
nius of our institutions. We are sincere in this. I do 
honestly believe, that if the Democratic party had not 
exist' d in this country—if the .Teffersons and others 
who formed the party had not labored as they did— 
instead of enjoying freedom at this hour, we would be 
living under a despotism. I would not trust the oppo¬ 
site party with the liberties of the country, if they car¬ 
ried out fully the principles they have advocated. I 
know that the members of that party do not seek to 
destroy our institutions, yet if their principles were 
carried into effect, and submitted to, such would, in 
my judgement, be the inevitable consequence. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I did not rise to speak on this 
subject, and will not further occupy the time of the 
committee with it. I wish to present a few additional 
' remarks on the practicability and expediency of indi- 







CONVENTION EEPORTS. 379 


vidual liability, as applied to corp(»ratioiis ; for the de¬ 
bate appears to labor on this branch of the subject. 1 
do believe that vviiatever is right is practicable, and 
that the Almighty has so ordained that the right may 
be found by those who seek it. If we desire to know 
what we shall do as democrats, or as private individu¬ 
als, we have only to iiupiir:! what is right, and 
never to listen for a single moment to an argument in 
favor of violating correct principles, or to arguments 
against the expediency of abstract right—for I bold 
that whatever is abstractly right is practically right. 
In all the reformatory movements—in all goverii- 
ments, the mosi potent argument against a specific re¬ 
form, has ever been, that it was inexpedient—that it 
was impracticable. Three quarters of a century ol' 
practical demonstration has been necessary to convince 
the Statesmen—the men ol science—the clergy—the 
philosopher and the students in their closets of Europe, 
that our system of free government was practicable. 
It was but lately that the learned of Europe acknowl 
edged this fact. I read an able work a short time since, 
published not many years ago, by an English author, in 
which the writer speculates on the time when our in¬ 
stitutions will crumble in the dust. 

But while the later reviewers and authors of Eng¬ 
land have admitted that our system of government is 
successful here, they yet insist that it would not be 
practicable in the European States. I recollect reading 
an article on republicanism in one of the late quarterlies, 
which, after predicting the failure of French republi¬ 
canism, says that no man can conjecture a time, howev¬ 
er distant in the future, when our institutions will be 
subverted, so firmly and deeply have they become 
rooted in our soil. We required a long three-quarters 
of a century to convince the statesmen and philosophers 
of the old world, and many of the new, that our sys¬ 
tem of self government was practicable. It was call¬ 
ed a beautiful theory, but Utopian, inexpedient, not 
practicable. 

The same arguments are in like manner opposed to 
the great political reforms now advocated in this coun¬ 
try. But I have never met with any respectable work 
on political ethics, moral philosophy or any other de¬ 
partment of philosophy, containing a successful argu¬ 
ment against the position that it is always expedient 
and practical to do right, or obey ajust principle. We 
sometimes think that right is not expedient, because 
we have not discovered the mode of applying it in 
practice. Let us then find out the way, and apply it; 
for otherwise our conduct presumes that the Almighty 
has made a grand mistake. But will knot be impious 
to suppose that He has in His whole universe announ¬ 
ced a single principle that is impracticable ? Look at 
the absurdity as well as impiety of such a presumption 
as that the Almighty has announced a principle—im¬ 
pressed on the conscience and convinced the reason that 
it is right, yet provided no means by which it can be 
enforced. Now I believe that the doctrine of individ¬ 
ual liability is practicable, ieemwe I know it to be right, 
and we all admit it to be right as a general principle. 
The question, and the only question to be settled, is, 
how shall we apply it? Show us that it is wrong, and 
we abandon it; but so long as the opposite side in this 
chamber, and all sides, agree that the principle is right 
in itself, right in the abstract, we must adhere to it and 
seek some mode of enforcing it. 

In the State of New York as you are aware, Mr. 
Chairman, the people had tried vai’ious systems of 
banking,—their original chartered banks,—the safety 
fund,—and next a system based upon stock, and bonds, 
and mortgages. All these systems failed, and under 
the new constitution, the Legislature of that State, ap- : 
plied individual liability to stockholders, as the best | 
calculated to secure the interests of the people. Indi- i 
vidual liability not to the fullest extent, but to twice I 
the amount ot the capital held by every stockholder. 1 
That plan was fiercely opposed—as is within the ] 
knowledge of gentlemen informed—by the bankers of i 


■ the State of New York, on the ground that it wmuld 
[ defeat banks altogether. I wish they had discovered 
i some mode of destroying tlie whole system, for I am 
' a bank or a paper money destructive and glory in the 
' name. 

Mr. BENNETT (interposing.) Will the gentleman 
I permit me to ask him a (luestion ? Do I understand 
I the gentleman to say, that the liability in New York is 
i twice the amount ot the stock held ? 
i Mr. ROBERTSON. Equal to twice the amount. 

Mr. BENNET'P. The constitution says— 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I have examined the law 
• and know I am right. The liability is twice the amount 
: of the stock held by each stockholder. The law is 
exceedingly stringent in the application of this princi- 
! pie. As I was going to remark, the bankers took the 
i position, that individual liability would destroy the 
, banking system, and that it was tantamont to saying 
that they should have no more banks. 

In a number of Hunt’s Merchants’ Magazine, I think 
, it was, I recollect seeing an account of the proceedings 
of a meeting of bankers in the city of New York, at 
which they declared that they would not go into bank¬ 
ing under the individual liability system ; and yet they 
have gone into it, and we hear no more complaints in 
regard to this liability principle. I have before me 
the letter of Washington Hunt, the Comptroller of the 
State of New York, who being a whig for years, 
doubtless opposed even a modified individual liability. 

In this letter, under date of-, he speaks of the 

apjilicalion of this principle in that State, (notwith¬ 
standing all that has been said against it,) as produc¬ 
tive of the most salutary results. I shall read an ex¬ 
tract from it for information, and respectfully call the 
attention of gentlemen opposed to individual liability, 
to the testimony of Mr. Hunt. He says : 

“ It is hoped and believed that the provisions of this act will be 
satisfactory to those interested in our banking institutions, and 
the commiuiity at large. The interest of stockholders and ot the 
public, in respect to the soundness and safety of the capital em¬ 
ployed in the business of banking, may be regarded as identical, 
it is conceived that the limited liability now imposed, so far from 
exposing shareholdei’s to increased hazard, will tend to ensure 
the safety of their investments, by inducing vigilance and pru¬ 
dence in the administration of their ali'airs, and thus afford new 
safeguards for the protection of their own interests and the rights 
of the creditors. 

With this additional inducement to the exercise of reasonable 
care, and with the results of past experience to serve as a warn¬ 
ing against the danger of illegitimate expansive operations, it is 
hardly conceivable that a moneyed institution possessing a bona- 
tide capital and administered under the guidance of honest direc¬ 
tors, should suffer a loss of its entire capital, and expose its own¬ 
ers to further contributions.”— Pagt 117. 

If SO good a result follow, where the individual lia¬ 
bility is enforced but in part, will not a like result, in a 
greater degree follow, where it is enforced fully? The 
necessary consequences of making the stockeolders of 
all pecuniary companies individually liable, will be as 
Mr. Hunt shows, to insure prudence and vigilance in 
the management of their affairs. Enforce individual 
liability and it will not be long before defalcation in 
corporations (banks excepted) would be almost un¬ 
heard of. Stockholders would be more vigilant in all 
that pertains to their interests, and they would take 
care of themselves. The laws will afford them all 
necessary protection; they may make their own by¬ 
laws, and thus prevent their stock from being trans¬ 
ferred to irresponsible persons. 

As I have remarked, I am in favor of applying this 
principle in full, because I believe it to be right; but I 
want to apply it justly to all the stockholders. There¬ 
fore, I would not be in favor of a provision in the con¬ 
stitution which, in the first instance, will enable any 
person who has a debt against a road company, lor 
instance, to pick up a stockholder in the street bring 
him into court and obtain a judgment against him for 
the whole amount—bankrupt him, and then drive him 
to the necessity of looking to his associates—afer he 
has been ruined—for their contributions. I would op¬ 
pose any such provision as earnestly as I would advocate 
individual liability itself. To the remarks of the gen- 
















380 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


tleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] made in commit¬ 
tee yesterday, I listened with great interest: for that 
distinguished gentleman never speaks, when all are 
not interested and instructed. In these remarks he 
tells us that there must be the worst kind of manage¬ 
ment in any description of corporation now toleiated, 
to sink more than the whole stock of that corpoiatiou. 
Tliere is not, then, much hazard among prudent and 
honest stockholders. Why do we, at all, permit the 
fonnation of companies—corporations—to make public 
improvements, as railroads and the like ? For the rea¬ 
son, that individuals cannot in any other way accom¬ 
plish such enterprises. But this is no reason why such 
associations for gain should receive extraordinary fa¬ 
vors, or exemptions. They naturally possess great ad¬ 
vantages over individual enterprises. Every railroad 
in the United States that ought to have been com¬ 
menced and constructed, is making money, and pays 
to stockholders a large per centage. I know there may 
be some railroads that yield no compensation for the 
money invested, but they ought never to have been 
commenced. They were mere speculating concerns. 
What we have to fear in this State, and in the United 
States is, not that public improvements will be arrest¬ 
ed, but that the people will follow the example of En¬ 
gland during the times of the South Sea bubble, and 
latelyi during the railroad mania of ’45-46. 

There was a subject broached by the gentleman 
from Richland [Mr. Henderson] that deserves some 
consideration. As that gentleman says, if we I’esolve 
to enforce only a limited liability against stockholders 
in pecuniaiy corporations, we should also provide that 
their profits shall be limited; and I find in Mr. McCul¬ 
loch’s Dictionary, a passage, which I will read, on this 
subject. This is a chapter on companies, which every 
gentleman interested in this debate could read with 
profit: 

In the case of all joint stock companies established for the for¬ 
mation of Canals, Railroads, &c., it would be sound policy to lim¬ 
it the rates charged for their services, or on account of the water, 
ships, goods, &c., conveyed by their means, and also to limit the 
dividends, or to fix a maximum beyond which they should not be 
augmented. ***** 

There are few who at the time they engage in such enterprises, 
suppose that they will yield more than ten to twelve per cent., 
and vast numbers will always be disposed to engage in them if 
there be any reasonable prospect of them yielding that much. 
Now, when such is the case, is it not the duty of government to 
provide, in the event of the undertaking becoming in an vnerpec- 
ted and unusual degree unprofitable, that the public should deiive 
some advantage from it ? This is not a case in which competi¬ 
tion can reduce profits to the common level. The best, perhaps 
the only practicable line for a Canal or Railroad between any two 
places will be appropriated by those who are first in the field ; 
who thus, in fact, obtain a natural monopoly, of which they can¬ 
not be deprived ; and hence the advantage of limiting the charges 
and dividends; without discouraging enterprise, it afibrds a secu¬ 
rity that private individuals shall not reap an unusual and unlook- 
•ed for profit at the expense of the public. 

In all these cases in which companies are formed for the prose¬ 
cution of undertakings that may be carried on with equal advan¬ 
tage to the public, by individuals, or where there are no very 
considerable difficulties to overcome, or risks to encounter, they 
ought to enjoy no privilege whatever, but should be regarded, in 
every point of view, as if they were individuals. 

That is the British sentiment on the subject. I am 
not in favor of limiting the profits, but if you intend 
to limit the liability of those who receive the profits, 
you ought also to limit the profits. That would be 
manifestly just. It is said individual liability will often 
operate with great severity on individuals, Our laws, 
penal and civil, are supposed to be founded in justice, 
which is often severe; but because it is justice we are 
bound to adhere to it. We should, for the same rea¬ 
son, adhere to individual liability. 

I did not intend to occupy so much of the time of 
the committee, but rose merely to present an amendment 
which I thought mi^ht meet the views of some gentle¬ 
men on this side ot the House who are not satisfied 
with any that has been submitted. The gentlemen 
upon the other side of the chamber I expect to find 
opposed to individual liability, for whatever their pro¬ 
fessions of— 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I happen to be one of those who 


voted for the individual liability principle in the char- i 
ter of the Wooster Bank. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I recollect all about that. In 
the case of the Bank of Wooster, the democrats in the 
Senate, of which the honorable gentleman was a mem- - 
ber, endeavored to engraft upon that bank charter the 
democratic individual liability clause. The gentleman ; 
will recollect very well that they proposed one that would j 
be practicable inreachingthe8tockholder8,andthatgen- i 
tleniau’s political friends, and four of those who claim¬ 
ed to be of the democratic party, but who were attach¬ 
ed to that bank, opposed such democratic individual 
liability. These gentlemen engrafted upon that bank 
charter, and placed upon the statute book, a provision 
which they called an individual liability clau.se, whilst j 
thei-e was no effective individual liability about it. i 
During the debate on that charter all the democrats in i 
the Senate, but four, denounced it as a deceptive fraud, ; 
and so intended, and not for the protection of the cred- j j 
itors and note holders of the bank. ; i 

Mr. CHAMBERS (interposing.) I must beg leave i 
to contradict the gentleman: and now, without intend- 1 
ing to interrupt him— 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I shall be through m a few 
minutes. ‘ 

Mr. CHAMBERS. The individual liability principle r 
engi’afted on that charter was one of the most stringent 
character; it was made in accordance with democratic ^ 
principle. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Did not the democrats oppose j 

it? I 

Mr. CHAMBERS. The democrats opposed it be¬ 
cause they went against the re-charter of the bank. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I can produce the journals to 1 
prove what I state. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I know all about that, without i i 
the journals. 

JVir. ROBERTSON. Did not the democratic party 
oppose the clause you speak of as one not securing in- . 
dividual liability ? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Not at all, but for other rea¬ 
sons. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I can bring the proof Mr. 
Chairman. The gentleman from Muskingum believes i 
he is right; I also am well satisfied that 1 am right, 
and will so convince that gentleman. Defering this 
controversy for the present, I will now read the 
amendment that I rose to submit to the committee. In , 
this amendment I desire to accomplish two purposes. ' 
I wish to declare and enforce the individual liability 
principle in full, and at the same time to enforce it in 
such a manner that each solvent member of an incor¬ 
porated company, shall pay only his share of the lia¬ 
bility incurred, in the proportion his stock bears to the 
whole stock of the companv • 

“Each solvent stockholder of any corporation for pecuniary ben¬ 
efit, shall, in case of the insolvency of such corporation, be liable 
for all its unsatisfied debts and liabilities incurred while he was 
stockholder, in the proportion which his stock bears to the whole 
amount of the stock of such corporation ; and the Legislature 
shall enact laws to enforce promptly such liabilities, and to pro¬ 
tect the stockholders of such corporations from the commission 
of frauds by their officers.” * 

This may appear to be similar to the amendment 
suggested by my friend from Franklin [Mr. Swan,] 
but it differs in this : his amendment provides that eve¬ 
ry stockholder, whether solvent or insolvent, shall be 
liable in the proportion that his stock bears to the en¬ 
tire stock of the company. My amendment provides 
that all the solvent stockholders shall be liable for all 
the debts of the corporation, and in this way I place 
them, as regards each other, in the same proportion as 
co-partners in equity. 

A Voice In what proportion ? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. In proportion to the stock held 
by each one, compared with the whole stock. It is not 
determined in this amendment, how the creditor shall 
proceed for the enforcement of their liability. That 
is left for the Legislature which shall enact laws to 
provide for the successful and prompt enforcement of 














CONVENTION REPORTS, 


381 


such liabilities. I have shown this to some gentlemen 
who are opposed to a sweeping clause, such as I could 
cheerfully vote for, who are satisfied with this proposi¬ 
tion. When the proper time arrives I shall present 
this amendment. I read it now, only for “informa¬ 
tion.” I will make one single remark in conclusion. 

I have strong objections to the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Licking, [Mr. Case,] yet I will vote for it 
if I cannot get anything better. I know that gentle¬ 
man entertains the same views as myself on this sub¬ 
ject; but to provide that tvvo thirds of the Legislature 
may strike individual liability out of the constitution, 

I am opposed. I am unwilling that two thirds or three 
fourths or nine tenths of the Legislature should do so, 
and for this reason I oppose that amendment. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. If the committee will indulge 
me, I desire to set myself aright upon a question of 
facts, which has arisen between the gentleman from 
Muskingum [Mr. Ohambeks] and myself. 

The Hon. member from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery,] 
referred in his speech the other day, to the case of the 
Wooster bank, to prove that individual liability aftbrds 
no protection to the creditors of a corporation. In the 
course of my remarks this afternoon, I observed that 
the individual liability clause, in the charter of that 
bank, was opposed by the democratic pairty of the State, 
and by all the democratic Senators, except four, at the 
time of its re-charter; that they denounced its individu¬ 
al liability as a fraud, and therefore no just responsi¬ 
bility could attach to them for the result; nor could 
this example be fairly cited against us. To this remark, 
the gentleman from Muskingum [Mr. Chambers] took 
exceptions—he denied its truth. But I was right and 
he was mistaken in supposing that I had misrepresented 
the facts. I have the journal here to prove what I have 
stated. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD (interposing.) Does the gentle¬ 
man refer to the journal of the House of Representa¬ 
tives? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I have here the journal of the 
Senate, which settles the whole conti’oversy. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. I was not in the Senate at that 
time. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I do not make the application 
to the gentleman from Monroe. I do not desire to in¬ 
dulge, for a moment, in personalities towards any gen¬ 
tleman of this body; nor is it agreeable to my feelings, 
to bring either the private or public acts of any gen¬ 
tleman in this Hall, up in jiigment against him. I de¬ 
sire only to witness a fair investigation of principles, 
without reference to accidental circumstances, which 
might be employed against gentlemen who may parti¬ 
cipate in debate. I did not oi'iginate this controversy 
about the Wooster bank, but tlie facts must now be 
vindicated. The gentleman from Muskingum is only 
mistaken; I know he thinks himself correct, but his 
jnemory has been at fault. I made no random state¬ 
ment. I cotdd go into a very minute history of the 
Wooster bank re-charter, but I will not attempt to do 
that, because the narrative would be too long; but it 
is as fresh in my memory as the events of yesterday, 
for I was particularly interested in its progress, and 
all the facts involved made a deep impression upon my 
mind. T spoke before from memory, and I find by re¬ 
ference to the Senate Journal for 1843-4,1 was correct. 
What I have said, and wish to prove here, refers to the 
a'''tion of the Senate. The contest on this bank char¬ 
ter, which originated in the House, was fought mainl) 
in the Senate, after it had passed through the lower 
branch. Several good Democrats voted for it in the 
House, but they have had plenty of leisure since, for 
regrets and repentance. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Will the gentleman tell any of 
my sins at that time 1 

Mr. ROBERTSON. No, sir; I have nothing to do 
with your sins. I have a controversy to settle with the 
Hon. gentleman from Muskingum, and will proceed to 
read the proof of what I have stated from the Senate 


journal. I may, however, remark, that the ame.'id- 
ment of the member from Monroe passed by the House, 
and made part of the Wooster bank charter, making 
Eastern deposites equivalent to specie in the vaults of 
the bank, received the severe condemnation of the 
Democratic party of the State, 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr, Chairman, 1 must object to 
this course of proceedings, wliich must induce reply, 
and coiLsume time unnecessarily. I consider the whole 
of it out of order. 


Mr. ROBERTSON. I submit to the Chair, if 1 have 
not a right to prove facts that have been denied in de¬ 
bate. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Fairfield 
will proceed. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. If I am permitted to speak, I 
assure the committee that I shall speak to the question,. 
Why, this attempt to exclude the truth, is extraordina¬ 
ry. It has been argued as an objection to the individ¬ 
ual liability principle, that the creditors of the bunk of 
Wooster were not secured by it, and that that bank 
committed frauds. I will now prove from the record, 
that the gentleman from Muskingum, [Mr. Chambers] 
all the senators of his party, and four gentlemen claim¬ 
ing, at that time, to be of the democratic party, united 
in voting against sundry amendments to the charter of 
the bank of Wooster, designed and calculated to pro¬ 
tect the people from the frauds of its stockholders. The 
democratic Senators, (the four I have alluded to, ex¬ 
cepted,) united in supporting these amendments. They 
were voted down by the gentleman from Muskingum 
and his friends, and they are therefore responsible for 
the villainy practiced by that bank. 

The committee on Banks and Currency reported a- 
gainst the re-charter of that bank. In relation to its 
individual liability clause, the committee say in their 
report: 

“ The liability referred to is Contained in the second section of 
the bill, which provides that the stockholders of said bank of 
Wooster shall be severally liable, in their individual and private 
capacity, lor each and every valid claim against said bank, ex¬ 
cept in cases where depositors and said bank shall otherwise 
agree. 

“ The provision is so general, loose and undefined, that the ma¬ 
jority ot your committee believe that if not expressly intended 
for that purpose, its efiCct will be to betray the people into a false 
confidence, tmd fatal security, which in the end, will lead to 
swindling and villainy on the part of the bank, and disappoint¬ 
ment and loss on the part of the people. ****** The 
individual liability of stockholders can only be available, as a per¬ 
manent security to the public, when coupled with other sahitary 
restrictions which, your committee are sorry to say, are not found 
within the provisions of that bill.” 

The fears of the committee have been fully realized 
—their predictions have been prophetic. When the 
bill was before the Senate, the democratic senators, 
(with the four exceptions I have named,) united in vo¬ 
ting for amendments to protect the people from the 
frauds of this bank, against which amendments, all the 
other senators voted. 


I will read only a portion of these amendmenls, as 
I do not desire to occupy more time than necessary to 
vindicate my statements. I read from the Senate Jour¬ 
nal for 1843-4: 

“The question then recu'red on agreeing to the first amend¬ 
ment of the majority of the standing committee on the Currency, 
as follow 6: 

“ Add the following at the close of section 2d : ..... 

“ In relation to the liability tor their deposits,and the individu¬ 
al liability of the directors and stockholders sh all be to the same 
extent, and be enforced in the manner pointed out in the fifth, 
sixth, seventh and eighth sections ot the act to amend the act 
entitled ‘ an act to regulate banking in Ohio, passed February 
21, 1843, and the seventy sixth section ot the act eutited ‘an acM 
to regulate banking in Ohio,’ passed March 7, 184*-, upon which 

question, , ... 

“ Mr. Baldwin demanded the yeas and nays; which were or 
dcred, and resulted as follows—yei^ 15, naj s 19; 

“ Yeas— xMessrs. Aten, Baldwin, Disney, Franklin, Harris, Ha- 
zeltine, Johr son of Berry, Jones, Koch, Louden, McCutcheon, 
Parker, Walters, Walcott and Hpeaker—lo. All democrats ] 

“ Nays — Messrs. Armstrong, Barnett, Barrere, Chambers, 
Crouse Denny. Eckley, Fuller, Gabriel, Gregory, Jackson, John¬ 
son of Coshocton, Kelley, Lahm, Miller, Newton, Perkins, Ridg- 
wav and Van Vorhes—19. [All whigs but four bank democrats.] 

•‘So the amendment was lost."—Nenate Journal, p. 435. 



















382 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


So you nee, Mr. Chairman, that the democratic sen¬ 
ators did propose and vote ft»r an iudividnal liability 
clause, (which was taken from what was called Bart¬ 
ley’s bank law,) and the gentleman from Muskingum, 
and his friends voted against it. Is that gentleman 
satisfied now that! am right in my statement? 

The following amendments were then proposed, and 
voted for by the fifteen democrats already quoted as 
voting on the affirmative, and voted against by the 
senators quoted as voting in the negative on the indi¬ 
vidual liability amendment: 

Add the following to section 6 ; 

“Providea that the power of buying bona fide bills of exchange 
shall not be exercised, either dire :tly or indirectly, so as to ena¬ 
ble the bank to permit any of her Directors or officers to become 
indebted to sai 1 bank to a greater amount than one half of the 
stock ot said director or officer, paid up, or to permit any other 
one person or firm to become indebted io said bank in a greater 
amount than ten thousand dollars. Upon wliichquestion,” &.c.— 
Se7iate Journal P. 436. 

Lost by the same vote. 

Mr. HlTCHCOCKof Geauga, (interrupting.) What 
application has that to the question under considera¬ 
tion ? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I will tell you ; and I hope my 
friends over the way will not fret under this controver¬ 
sy, which they themselves incited. lam reading from 
this journal to show, that the inefficiency of the Woos¬ 
ter b^nk individual liability, is no argument against the 
individual liability which is advocated on this side of 
the chamber. An argument was made against such 
liability by the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stan- 
BEKY,] and, I believe by the gentleman from Geau¬ 
ga, to show that the bank of Wooster was — 

Mr. HlTCflCOCK. I would like to ask the gentle¬ 
man what I have said about the bank of Wooster? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. If I am mistaken I will take 
that back. I care nothing about it. I am showing 
what I have before asserted, that the Wooster bank case 
cannot be used legitimately as an argument against the 
individual liabilily, for which we contend. This fact 
has been denied by the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. 
Stanbery ;] I am going to prove by the record that he 
was in error. If my honorable friends from Muskin¬ 
gum and Gealtga do not like the evidence, I cannot help 
it. They themselves provoked the exposure I am ma¬ 
king. I will resume the reading of this interesting 
record, and hope they will give me their attention: 

“Sectiov — That said bank shall neither directly or indirectly 
sell any of its gold or silver coin, or export the same out of the 
State ; nor shall said bank engage in the brokerage business, or 
do any business, either directly or indirectly, through the inter 
rention of a broker.”— Senate Journal P. 436. 

Lost by the same vote. 

“Section — That all transfers in said bank of Wooster made 
with a view to defraud the creditors of said bank, or any other 
person, shall be void ; and if said bank shall become insolvent or 
be found to have been insolvent within six calender months 
after any transfer of stock shall have been made, such transfer 
shall be so far void, that the person making it shall he liable in his 
individuual capacity, as a stockholder tf such bank, in the same 
manner, and to the same e.xtent as if no such transfer had been 
made, as to all liabilities conti acted and incurred while such per¬ 
son was a stockholder in said bank.”— Senate Journal, P. 437. 

Lost by the same vote. 

“ Sec. — If the said bank shall make any loan or permit any 
of its officers or any other person or firm to become indebted to 
said bank in any manner to a iireater amount tuanis provided for 
in this act; or shall transport or sell any specie, contrary to the 
provisions of this act; or shall be connected with any brokerage, 
contrary to the provisions of this act, the officer or officers con¬ 
senting to a viola'ion of either ol the before mentioned provis¬ 
ions, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, uponconvic 
ticn thereof, shall be fined in any sum not more than $o,000, nor 
less than $500; or be imprisoned in the jail of the county, and 
fed on bread and water only, not more than six nor less than one 
month, or both, at }he discretion of the court."— Senate Journal 
p. 437-8. 

Lost, by the same vote. 

Strike out the House amendment, by way of ryder, 
which is as follows; 

“Provided that funds on deposit in Philadelphia, New York 
and Boston, subject to siiiht drafts by said bank.s, shall be deem 
ed equivalent to gold and silver coin in the vaults thereof, so far 
AS it regards the amount of circulation."— Senate Journal, p. 439. 


Lost by the same vote. 

“Sec. — That if the said bank of Wooster shall at any time 
hereafter refuse to redeem any ot its outstanding notes upon de¬ 
mand, in gold and silver coin, such demand being made at its 
banking house, during the usual banking hours, such retusal shall 
be deemed an act of insolv-ency, and the atlairs ot said liank may 
be closed in accordance with the provisions ot the laws now in 
force for closing the affairs of insolvent banks .”—Senate Journal, 
p. 440. 

Lost by the same vote. _ 

“ The question then recurred upon the passage of the bill, upon 
which question Mr. Newton demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted as follows : yeas 20, nays 16. 

Yeas—Messrs. Armstrong, Barnett. Barrere, Denny, Chambers, 
Crouse, Eckley, FuLer, Gabriel, Gregory, Johnson ot Coshocton, 
Jackson, Kelley, Lahm, Miller, Newton, Perkins, Ridgway, Upde- 
graff and Van Vorhes—20, [all whigs but four bank democrats.] 

Nays—Messrs. Aten, Baldwin, Disney, Franklin, Harris, Hazle- 
tine, Johnson of Perry', Jon s, Koch, Loudon, McAnelly, McCutch- 
en, Parker, Watters, Wolcottand Speaker—16, |all democrats.] 

So the bill was passed .”—Senate Journal, p. 447. 

This, Mr. Chairman, is the case which has been 
brought up in judgment against individual liability.— 
The gentleman from Muskingum acting with his poli¬ 
tical friends, exerted all their Senatorial power and in¬ 
fluence, to prevent engrafting upon the charter of the 
Wooster bank, any provision to save the people from 
fraud; and then, the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. i 
Stanbery] makes the case a text for an argument 
against such individual liability. 

The individual liability of the bank of Wooster, was a 
whig liability, and like all other whig liabilities engraft-, t 
edupon charters of incorporation, it did not result in de- ” 
fending the people from fraud. We therefore object 
to bringing up the frauds of the Wooster bank, in 
judgment against the democratic party, here or else- 
where. 

The whole controversy relating to the Wooster bank 
and its paternity, is now settled by the journals; and > 
I do not wish to refer to it again. I had not desired to 
bring these facts into this debate, they were provoked 31 
by the opposition, and if they dislike the result, they 
are themselves to blame for it. 

I remai k, in closing, that I listened with pleasure to 
the remarks made by the gentleman from Shelby [Mr. 
Thompson.] 1 was really refreshed and gladdened by 
the speech of that gentleman. But in his proposition, 
there appears to be this difficulty: The creditors of 
corporations might lose the proportion of the liability 
due from an insolvent stockholder. His amendment 
does not secure the entire liability, and payment of 
every claim, in the event of the insolvency of the in¬ 
corporation, aiid at the same time the insolvency of a 
portion of the corporators. Now, entire liability is ne¬ 
cessary to secure die public. It is also necessary to 
])revent stock gambling and the encouragement of a 
multiplicity of corporations, which may, unless re¬ 
strained, over-spread the Slate, and involve the people 
in revulsion and ruin. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. A word in reply to the gentle- i 
man from Fairfield [Mr. Robertson.] The bank of 
Wooster was an “ individual liability ” concern. No 
man in the House of Representatives gave us warning i 
that we were not providing for complete individual lia¬ 
bility. The demociatic party strength in the House at 
that time was 32; twenty of them voted for the en- ; 
grossment of the bill, and twelve against it. A “whip- ' 
ping in ” operation seems to have taken place, but it 
was done out of doors. Upon the final passage, 15 , 

democrats voted for the bill, and 16 against it, so that | ; 
1 was acting with my party friends all the time. The ' 
gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] imagines i 

that 1 put on the white sheet in 1844, and became a i 
penitent at the door of the political church. Nothing ' 
of the kind took place. I boldly justified my conduct, 
believing that I was right. If gentlemen would act I 
according to their convictions of right, and then boldly 
jusiify these convictions to their constituents, they 
would seldom be condemned. The gentleman [Mr. i 
Reemelin,] has in fact, pronounced one of the highest 
eulogiums upon me that I vainly could desire. In the 


I 












CONVENTION REPORTS, 


383 


present excited state of his feelings, he intends to be 
severe, and yet, ill reviewing a legislative life of four 
stormy sessions in the General Assembly, he can point 
to but one error. And nothing but the misconduct of 
others, and the manifested fallibility of his own present 
doctrines, have demonstrated that to be an error. As 
to this doctrine of individual liability, probably but 
one State in the Union has adopted it in her constitu¬ 
tion, even to as great an extent, as is found in the 
amendment of the gentleman from Trumbull, which 
we are now defending; in fact, no constitution con¬ 
tains it all. 

Gentlemen argue against exclusive privileges. I will 
never argue for them. Is there any exclusive privi¬ 
lege proposed to be bestowed on corporators, accor¬ 
ding to the report of the committee, and the amendment 
of the gentleman from Trumbull ?[ Mr. Rannky.] In 
1 the first [)lace, the corporation—the political person is 
to be liable in its whole property, to the last cent, and 
j there is no “ homestead exempt ionin the second place 
! the individual corporator is to be liable for every cent 
, that he ever engages to pay; in the third place, he is to 
be liable for double as much as he engages to pay. 
i Where then is the exclusive privilege ? If there is 
I any, it is enjoyed by the private debtor. If I give my 

f irivate note for one hundred dollars, I am only liable 
or $100. If I subscribe for a plank road share of $100 
I I am liable for $200. Gentlemen propose individual 
lability for the safety of contractors. Is individual lia¬ 
bility an infallible remedy? Do no private debts re¬ 
main unpaid ? Is there no individual insolvency ? Bad 
as cor])orations are, and take the rotten, broken, dis¬ 
horn St banksiuto the bargain, the loss which they have 
occasioned to the public, amount to a mere drop, com¬ 
pared to the ocean of individual insolvency and delin¬ 
quency. As to the contractor for public improvements, 
the only question is, whether he shall have employ¬ 
ment at all, for mere individual partnerships will be ut- 
texly unable to give him employment—tliey will not 
possess the means; and gentlemen who can believe 
that mere intlividual partnerships can in ordinary ca¬ 
ses, in most of our counties construct long lines of in¬ 
ternal improvements, can believe the story of Aladdin 
and his wonderful lump, or any other tale in the Ara¬ 
bian Night’s Entertainment ? Cannot the sagacity of 
the contractor be relied upon to protect him—will he 
not inquire as to the means and prospects of his em¬ 
ployers? If his contract amounts to $5000, he has fif¬ 
ty times as much reason to inquire into the means of 
the company, as a stockholder owning $100. He may 
experience loss in the employment of the associated 
company. Ships may sink, steamboats may blow up, 
horses may run away with the stage coaches. Does 
any man seriously propose to abandon the use of ships, 
steamboats, and stage coaches, on account of these ac¬ 
cidents ? Can we go to work in a constitution to re¬ 
lieve men from the necessity of exercising their skill, 
th eir sagacity and their jiriidence? 

The absolute, unmitigated individual liability, pro¬ 
posed by the gentleman [Mr. Rekmelin] would cut 
1 iq) associations for internal improvements by the roots, 
and will strengthen the arms of the assailants of the 
State treasury. The gentleman has alluded to my leg¬ 
islative career. Does he remember the “ old treasury 
guards;” that little party made up by industry what 
they lacked in numbers. They argued by day, and 
wrote by night? Does the gentleman remember the 
stormy debates on the proposition for extending the 
Walholding canal ? for cleaning out the Mercer Coun¬ 
ty Reservoir, for building the dam of the Wabash and 
Erie canal—the Columbus and Sandusky turnpike 
road, and on scores of other occasions? The gentle¬ 
man nods jissent. Then he remembers that we were 
determined to break up the policy of making public 
improvements out of the State treasury—that we ar¬ 
gued that these propositions were wrong and unjust in 
principle—that the tax payer was not rightfully called in 
to make them—that rightful taxation was the price ol 


ocial order—that to em[)loy it in commercial specula¬ 
tions was to trade wiih the trust fund—that govern¬ 
ment w'as always cheated in its dealings with individu- 
als-that its improvements cost five times as much as those 
made by companies—that the citizens of ditferent parts 
of the State were not interested in mere local improve¬ 
ments—that to take their substance and employ it in 
such a way, was mere legalised plunder and robbery— 
that the State was perfectly unable to do equal and 
exact justice to all its citizens, in the matter. Its trea¬ 
sure could not improve the whole of the State equally 
and alike. That the greatest injustice would be done 
to some sections, which would get no share in the gen¬ 
eral scramble; and yet that this injustice, gross as it 
was, was the only redeeming feature of the system. 
That the whole property of the citizen, taken in the 
way of taxation, would be insulficient to do equal and 
exact justice in the matter to all of the State. The 
gentleman has heard all these arguments, and many 
more which time forbids me toenuinerate here—he nods 
assent. Then does he not remember that our opponents 
demanded whether we would leave the State unim¬ 
proved—whether we would be contented with a low 
order of civilization—whether we would leave com¬ 
merce without its channels, and the people without 
their facilities—in one word, whether we would dis¬ 
continue the making of roads and other internal im¬ 
provements? We replied, no ; that commerce would 
groove out its own channel of communication—that 
associations of wealth might safely be relied on to 
make roads, canals, and other internal improvements. 
That it would do so in a much more economical man¬ 
ner than the State treasury could—that commercial sa¬ 
gacity might safely be relied on, to discover the natural 
channels of intercourse. That if the proposed line of 
internal improvement were likely to prove profitable, 
commercial and agricultural men would be ready 
to construct it; if it were likely to be a mere wind 
speculation, the tax payers ought not to be subject to 
the loss. Why did we not hear the iudignanteloquence 
of the gentleman then, when these heretical doctrines 
were propounded ? Why did he not tell us that we 
were building mere castles in the air—that men should 
never be permitted to associate together for such pur¬ 
poses, except iu the capacity of mere individual part¬ 
ners—that we were oftering a very insutficii^nt substi¬ 
tute for the agency of the State, inasmuch as mere 
[lartnerships would neither be rich enough nor numer¬ 
ous enough to accomplish any such objects. 

Mr. RE EMELIN interposed and stated that he did 
contend lor individual liability at that lime. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Then the gentleman must have 
been a careless and inefficient teacher, or I was a dull 
scholar, for every trace of his instructions has passed 
out of my mind. The gentleman had a place amongst 
the “old treasury guards; ” had his instructions been 
earnest and efficient, he must have taken rank in the 
lists of their opponents. I am bound upon the gentle¬ 
man’s statement, to suppose that he gave such lessons, 
but they must have been imperfect and perfunctory. 
The gentleman’s present doctrine will occasion new in¬ 
vasions of the State Treasury. Nothing could be more 
grievous, nothing more unwelcome to the old corporal 
of the “ Treasury Guards,” than to meet a quandum 
companion in arms in dire hostility. [Laughter.] The 
gentleman says he will meet me at I'liillippi—in saying 
so he proposes to act as the evil genius of Democracy ; 
I humbly hope not. Let the gentleman reflect that his 
Brutus is 

A lamb, which carrhs anger 

As a flint bears fire; which being much enforced, 

l.-^sues a hasty spark and straight is cold again. 

Let me ap[) 3 al to the generosity of his own temper 
and see whether we cannot meet on some middle 
ground, satisfactory alike to ourselves and to the peo- 
[de whom we represent. The immortal Jeffers;m in 
burning patriotism once exclaimed, “ We are all teder- 
alisLs, wo are all Republicans;” caunot we cx-laim. 














384 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


“we are all ultraists,—we are all moderates ? ” The 
gentleman from Fail-field is caving in—he is comiii" to¬ 
wards us—his name will soon be Found in the listoi the 
moderates—he has already made a proposition, essen¬ 
tially different from the absolute, unmitigated individ¬ 
ual liability of the stockholders in internal improve¬ 
ment companies. The Cincinnati Enquirer [laughter] 
and the Mount Vernon Banner will soon be down u])- 
on him. [Continued laughter.] 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Inasmuch as the gentleman’s 
speech will go abroad and circulate extensively over 
the State, and inasmuch as he is favored with a more 
vigorous eloquence than myself, and therefore his 
speeches being more likely to be read than mine, I 
would inquire what proposition the gentleman from 
Monroe alludes to ? 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I do not intend the slightest 
censure; the gentleman’s proposition is still not so lib¬ 
eral as the doctrines of the report as proposed to 
be amended by the gentleman ii-om Trumbull [Mr. 
Ranney.] But still, it is something different from 
mere unmitigated, individual liability, and that is all I 
intended to state. 

Mr. Chairman, there was one idea, which through in¬ 
advertence I omitted, in speaking of the Bank of 
Wooster; probably the committee will pardon me a 
short digression. I offered amendments to that bill, 
to prohibit the circulation of any notes of the same 
denomination as coins. I wish to place myself in the 
right position before the eyes of society, and I arn not 
aliogether destitute of some regard for the opinions of 
posterity, if posterity shall ever think fit to inquire 
what doctrines were maintained by the members of 
this Convention. My doctrine is, that the determined 
and inexorable prohibition of all notes of the same 
denomination of the coins, is the only available, prac¬ 
ticable bank restriction. Were we to abolish all 
banks in this State, the bank notes of other States 
would still circulate amongst us. But the general, 
the determined, the unflinching prohibition of a small 
note circulation, would effectually prevent expansions 
and conti’actionsof the currency, for it is only by means 
of a small note circulation that these expansions and 
contractions are rendered possible. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Does the gentleman mean by the 
action of the General Assembly ? 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I mean by the action of both 
the general and State governments, in their proper 
sphere, aiid as far as their means will allow. I have not 
time to defend or even explain my doctrines at large. 
I can only announce them. 

The question being upon the amendment offered by 
Mr. Ranney— 

Mr. HOLMES said: I am aware that it requires a 
great deal of attention to keep pace with the various 
propositions that have been submitted ; and I am aware 
that the latitude of discussion has been such, that so far 
as discussion was concerned, it would be difficult to de¬ 
termine what we were driving at. I know that the ob¬ 
ject of the amendments, generally, was in reference to 
the principle of individual liability, limited or absolute. 

I am desirous to vote on this principle of individual li¬ 
ability in its most unmitigated and absolute form. I 
desir-e to vote against every proposition that does not 
recognize that principle, and I will oppose every prin¬ 
ciple that goes to any extent, however remote it may 
be, to mitigate the liability of corporators in every act 
of incorporation. I care not what its object may be; 
whether it be public or private. The other evening 
when up, I submitted some few remarks which per¬ 
haps were not fully understood, I say now, I want 
this principle to be incorporated into the constitution; 

I want it embodied in the provisions of this clause of 
the c<mstitution, in order that subsequent Legislatures 
shall forever be prevented, either by a two-third or a 
three-fourth vote, to change the liability of corporators. 

I wish that in framing the constitution of this State, we 
should have the principles engrafted into that instni- 


ment, and that there should be no doubt as to its object, 
aim or intent. I want it so incorporated into this in¬ 
strument that it will keep within its orbit legitimately 
all legislation that may hereafter grow out of, or be 
formed under its provisions ; that no centiifugal or cen¬ 
tripetal force shall be brought to bear in diverting leg¬ 
islation from its legitimate object. 1 desire that this 
fundamental principle should be now settled forever, 
and I do this in view of a reference to past legislation. 

This principle, which to my mind is as clear and 
broad-cast as the light of Heaven, and so recognized 
and regarded in all private and public transactions, as 
well as in morals, has been a subject upon which a 
wide difference of opinion has hitherto existed. Leg¬ 
islators, as honest and astute in framing laws, and leg¬ 
islating to protect and guard the people’s rights as any 
that may be selected under the constitution we are 
about to frame, have doubted the propriety and policy 
of the individual liability of corporators; and in order 
that this question shall be put to rest, let us secure a 
provision in this instrument that will hereafter place, 
beyond all doubt, a principle so just and equitable in i 
itself, so broadly established in the transactions of life, 
and so necessary and proper in guarding the communi¬ 
ty from the villanous and swindling frauds of soulless , 
corporations, claiming the right to cheat under the au¬ 
thority of law—“equal and exact justice to all,” “ex¬ 
clusive privileges to none”—this, Mr. Chairman, shall® 
be the governing motto with me. 

I will not support any provision of this constitution s 
if it does not recognize this principle, as one founded 
on the principle of truth, of honesty and justice. 
What is the object of this individual liability? Why ^ 
gentlemen say that if you apply it to your public 
works, you will fail in constructing them ; works ne- 
cessai-y to the growth and prosperity of Ohio, and to 
advance the interests of this enterprising and indus- g 
trious people, by securing facilities to trade and com¬ 
merce. Sir, if our public works cannot be successful¬ 
ly carried on to completion without the violation of ' 
this principle of right, let them perish, let them fall 
still-born on the hands of their projectors, rather than 
public and private rights shall be outraged. Gentlemen 
who advocate the exemption of corporators from the 
individual liability in its absolute form, in effect say 
to the public: “You must repose a ‘ general confidence’ j 
in these honorable institutions; it is true, however, 
that they will not tnist each other, but yet our public 
works will cease unless this privileged order are legal¬ 
ly authorized to skin and plunder, under the pretext 
that public interests requires it.” Sir, my vote shall 
never be instrumental in consummating so gross an out¬ 
rage on public and private rights—never. Is that a 
correct principle, that when speculators and those in 
terested associate themselves together and procure an 
act of incorporation for the purpose of private gain, : 
under the captivating pretence of public good, and are 
unwilling to trust one another ? Will you then declare 
in the organic law of this commonwealth that these j I 
privileged orders, odious as they may be, shall have ^ ^ 
the right to demand of your Legislatures that the peo¬ 
ple, who can know nothing of their solvency, honesty | 
or will to pay their obligations, shall trust them, be- ' i 
cause the prosperity and success of your public works ' 
require it ? Admirable logic !! 

Now, I hold, it as a fair and correct principle, that the i 
men who are unwilling to trust their associates should ' 
not I'cquire the great body of the people to trust them, i 
who are utterly ignorant of the manner they transact i 
their business, and can know nothing whatever about i 
them, or if they do know any thing of them it is to the i 
disparagement of their honesty and ability to fulfill I 
their contracts, as the law requires of all others except i 
corporators. ^ I desire that this principle shall become j 
established in the fundamental law of our State, that 
where corporations involve themselves in debt, the 
Legislature shall be compelled to require the strictest 
individual responsibility of the corporators themselves. 














CONVENTION REPORTS, 


385 


Let me call the attention of the gentleman from Mi¬ 
ami, [Mr. Dorsky,] for a moment. I happen to have 
in my hand the laws of 1842. I refer to tliem in order 
to state some facts which shall sa'tsfy the minds of gen¬ 
tlemen who fear that our public works cannot be con¬ 
structed under the jn-inciple of individnal liability. 1 
notice an act incorporating the Montgomery Turnpike 
Road Com pany, the charter of which contains the clause, 
that the company shall be individually responsible. I 
am not very familiar with that ])ortion of the State, but 
[ presujne the work was prosecuted to comj)leti()n—the 
capital mithorized was one hundreil thousand dollars— 
the road was com[)leted, but whether it was done, un- 
the act referred to, I am not advised—the gentleman 
can inform me. 

I will call attention to another matter, to the charter 
of the Dayton and Piqua turnpike company. It was 
my good fortune to have been a member of the Ohio 
Senate that winter, and many of these bills passed 
through my hands. In all of them we sought to incor¬ 
porate this principle, for we held it to be clear and right. 
I do not introduce this principle because it is demo¬ 
cratic, or because it hns heretofore been opposed by my 
whig friends, but because I do know the principle iV 
predicated on right and justice, and has been .so sus¬ 
tained by the decisions of our highest and most impar¬ 
tial tribunals, on the principle of contracts. 

Mr. DORSEY here made a remark which was not 
very audible—he was understood to say that the Day- 
ton and Piqna road was never constructed. 

Mr. HOLMES. I suppose the company is in exist¬ 
ence yet. I suppose then, from the gentleman’s state¬ 
ment, that the road was not completed under the act 
referred to—that it was this bug-bear of individnal lia¬ 
bility that has driven those gentlemen from their pur¬ 
pose, or they would have commenced their work hon¬ 
estly and not backed out of their operations. This fact 
is wordjy of notice: these gentlemen corporators, who 
are always looking after the public good, were unwil¬ 
ling to shoulder an honest responsibility when the Le¬ 
gislature would in the most liberal manner authorize 
them to contract debts, and in the same act say they 
were not bound to pay them. I am not astoni.shed that 
the work was not completed under the act referred to. 
There are few who are willing to take the responsibil¬ 
ity. Well, sir, I am on this principle— 

Mr. DORSEY (in his seat.) I do not know any thing 
about the fear—I know the fact. 

Mr. BARNETT of Montgomery observed that the 
Xenia and Dayton road was never carried into opera¬ 
tion. It had the individual liability clause in its char¬ 
ter. . 

Mr. HOLMES resumed. So far as I am concerned, 
then, I wish that this principle, in its broadest form, 
shall now be established in this State, and that this 
fundamental principle shall not hereafter be frittered 
away, by stockholders, directors and presidents of in¬ 
corporated companies getting into the Legislature, and 
relieving themselves of obligations by legal exem])- 
tions. 

Among other acts of incorporation passed in the 
year to which I have referred, I find one to incorporate 
a hook and ladder company in the county of Carroll. 
[Lausihter.] I suppose that the same bug b( ar, indi¬ 
vidual liability, drove the worthy constituents of my 
friend from Carroll, to direct repudiation of all such 
doctrines, and tended no little to excite in the imagina¬ 
tion of the gentleman, a “rawhead and bloody bones,” 
and hence his unstinted anathemas against “old Hamil¬ 
ton” and lu'r incorporations, the other evening. But 
his views shall not deter me from doing what I believe 
to be right. No corporation shall ever obtain my sup¬ 
port, unloss this principle is clearly, unecjuivocally and 
fairly expressed in the constitution which will be fram¬ 
ed by thi.s Convention. Never, sir. This principle I 
hold to be as just and right as any principle that can 
exist in the shape of a contract. To authorize a com¬ 
pany to go on and contract debts, is nothing more than 


authorizing direct repudiation; and you afford them 
the opportunity of violating their contracts with the 
public. When yon say to a company of men, you sh dl 

not be held liable for the fulfilment of your couti-ucts_ 

you say in effect, that the right to enforce the contract 
and its faithfid fulfilment, is wrong in principle. Then 
there is no necessity for the in.serliou of lliis provisian. 
I wish that principle to be established in such a man- 
tier that there shall be no doubt about it when future 
legislation becomes necessary upon that question. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren, interposing. WouLl the 
gentleman be willing to take stock in a company in 
whose charter this individual clause existed? 

Mr. HOLMES. If I desired to take stock, I would 
wish to deal by my fellow man honestly. I would 
make no more diti'ereiice in going into a jiroject of that 
kind, than in any other branch of business or occupa¬ 
tion in life, the same principle governing the dealings 
of men, should be departed from under any pre¬ 
tence whatever. 

I have been for years engaged in the saw mill and 
lumber busiuess. When I gave my note fur the pay¬ 
ment of lumber, I did not at its maturity, say to the 
holder, my purchase was an unprofitable one, and 
therefore its payment should not be insisted upon. No 
gentleman would desire to sustain me in such a posi¬ 
tion. I should justly merit the scorn of all honest 
men. Yet, if I could procure an act of incorporation 
from the Legislature, and be clad in corporate author¬ 
ity, my declining to pay my honest debts would be de¬ 
fended by honorable gentlemen on all sitles of this 
hall—then it would be very proper and nice. But 
without this sacred robe of corporate aulhority, my 
creditors may pursue me with every remedy provided 
for the maintenance of their rights, to the lastiJollir, 
and even the grave would not shield me from the jack¬ 
al propensities of all legal remedies, when after a 
debtor, if he should be so unfortunate as to be with¬ 
out the pa/e of a corporation. Let the rule work both 
ways—let the same remedies be afforded to all, rich 
and poor—the same liabilities required of all. It is 
the enforcement of these distinctive privileges that I 
complain of. 

Those whose duty it is to look well to the principles 
about to be established in this constitution, sliould aid 
me in this one important })oint. Let justice be done 
though the heavens fall. The bankrupt law that was 
so universally denounced, and so justly, too, did allow 
the creditor to pursue the debtor as long as he had 
means, but when the means were exhausted, then he 
must stop. Not so with incorporations; their stock 
and corporate funds being eAhansted, the creditor must 
cease his intermeddling, notwithstanding tlie incorpora¬ 
tors may be as rich as Croesus. Is this right—is it 
just? 

In the same way, I say, apply individual liability to 
corporations as you would in all the ordinary transac¬ 
tions of life: the only difference is in the name. Where 
can there be any difference in point of fact or justice? 
If I sell my land, or work, or furnish materials for the 
construction of a public work, railroad oi’ turnpike, do 
yon presume to say that I shall not has'e my pay be¬ 
cause I sold to or did work for a corporation ? If I sold 
materials to an individual who was building a fine 
dwelling, I can bring a suit against him if he refuse to 
pay me, and follow him up to the last dollar. But when 
a corporation is in case, [ cannot recover at all. I take 
it that a contract between an individual and a corpora¬ 
tor is just as sacred as one between iudividinds. If it 
he required that this principle should be extended to 
the one, why not to the other? 'I'here is no difference 
whatever between them. Yet, gentlemen say, “ you 
will trample down your public works if yon adopt this 
priiM'.iple.” Well, then, if gentlemen determine that 
corporations shall not pay their debts, better, I say, re¬ 
pudiate your public works. I desire that you should 
make no distinction between individuals and corpora- 
tions. 1 desire that iu granting franchises to individiu 















386 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


alB for purpose of private gain, that you will require of 
them, when embarking in such business, that they shall 
be held liable to the last dollar. 

There are many men in the east who might come on 
here and go into our corporations if we had this certain 
protection established. It does not require any partic¬ 
ular number of persons to form a corporation. It is 
the mere association of persons, taking a name, that con¬ 
stitutes a corporation: one man can be a corporation. 
You attach to yourse:f a handle, and that minute you 
are free from your liabilities; but when you are a plain, 
unsophisticated man, then you are requii’ed to pay np 
to the last dollar. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD (interposing and Mr. Holmes giv¬ 
ing way,) I wish to ask the gentleman a question. H I 
give a person my note for $100 arn I not liable for it and 
no more? 

Mr. HOLMES. Not if you pay it up when it is due. 

Mr. AROHBOLD. Then according to this principle 
and the amendment of the gentleman from Trumbull, 
[Mr. Ranney] if I subscribe for stock in a turnpike com¬ 
pany for $100, am I not liable for twice that amount? 

Mr. HOLMES. I do not doubt that; it is a princi¬ 
ple that I have been disputing. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Then how am I better off as a 
corporator than a private individual ? 

Mr- HOLMES. I will show the gentleman from 
Monroe. Suppose he subscribes stock to the amount 
of $100, and the directors, who are his agents, go on 
and give out contracts to ten times the amount of stock 
subscribed, or say, only one in evi ry ten of the stock¬ 
holders are responsible men—the work is done accord¬ 
ing to contract, or materials furnished, as the case may 
be—the gentleman would be only bound, by this prin¬ 
ciple, to pay the sum of two hundred dollars—although 
work has been done to ten times the amount. Who is 
benefitted and who is injured ? Certainly the contrac¬ 
tor is not benefitted—he is injured—the stockholder is 
benefitted just in proportion to the difference in the 
amount of labor performed and the responsibility he 
has incurred as a stockholder, which is double the 
amount he subscribed, so that he pays only two hun¬ 
dred dollars, where in fact he should pay one thousand. 
This is a snug item, and accounts for the seeming anx¬ 
iety of gentlemen who expect to figure in railroad, 
turnpike and plank road stock. Now suppose I pur¬ 
chase a raft of lumber worth five hundred dollars. I 
give my note, payable at maturity ; in the mean time, 
depression in trade, accident, or some mishap befalls me 
—I loose my lumber; can I offer in plea the non-pay¬ 
ment of my note because I had been unfortunate in 
trade, or had met with an accident—no, sir, the holder 
of my note would not be inled out of court on any 
such grounds, but on the contrary, I would be required 
to pay up to the last dollar. Now I would like to know 
what principle in common honesty, common sense or 
justice, should interpose to create a difference in the 
rights of the parties in these two cases; yet, gentle¬ 
men say, the progress of our public works require this 
dift'erence. It was private speculation. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. But if it be a corporate specula¬ 
tion you lose a thousand dollars. 

Mr. HOLMES, You lose all your property in the 
case I alluded to. The man who is engaged in bank¬ 
ing, or in merchandise, if his store take fire without an 
insurance on it, he loses the whole of his property. 
Will he say then that that ought to be sufficient to sat¬ 
isfy his creditors : that he had lost all? But does it 
exempt him from the payment of notes given for goods 
received ? No, ceiiainly not. 

This principle to which I have referred, is, as 1 said 
before, one that I desired to extend to all corporators, 
knowing it to be based upon justice. It is a principle 
upon which the people of my county have no difi'er- 
ence of opinion, not even between the two parties, 
though I know there are certain gentlemen there who 
have slipped out of the payment of certain sums, and 
have saved thereby some pretty little fortunes there. 


and left the poor workman beggared. There is the 
Ohio Turnpike Road Company for instance. 

I shall not endeavor to convince the gentleman from 
Carroll [Mr. Brown] that there are honest men in 
Hamilton county, but I will say to that gentleman that 
should he visit Cincinnati, our city, her citizens will 
extend to him every countesy and hospitality. No, sir, 
those miserable plunderers have been for the most 
part outside of our own county. I am sorry to say 
that the gentleman from Clermont [Mr, Norris] has 
had some ground and lofty tumbling in his county. 1 
desire, then, to have this principle so established as to 
forever prevent any doubt on this subject of public 
works; and make those gentlemen who associate for 
gain, liable to the last dollar. I desire to present this 
question fairly and squarely. I desire that there should 
be no beating about the bush, so far as 1 am concerned. 
1 desire that all acts of incorporation shall be based 
upon the broad principle of equal rights, and I desire 
no more of them or no less. I will vote for it in that 
manner, so far as this question is concerned, notwith¬ 
standing, that it may be held up as it already has been 
—as a raw head and bloody bones, by those engaged in 
the public works of the State, and was to stop all the 
public improvements of Ohio. That is all gammon— 
sheer gammon. We must make men do honestly, and 
I am certainly correct, when I say that there is not a 
law on the statute book of Ohio, that bears heavily on 
any honest man—to a dishonest man all legal restraint 
is obnoxious. 

Mr. THOMPSON of Shelby said : I have not been 
much in the habit of troubling the committee, and I do 
not think that I should at this time have said anything, 
considering the length of time that has been occupied 
in this discussion. I hope, however, that the commit¬ 
tee will indulge me lor a few minutes, while I briefly 
and very simply endeavor to express my views on this 
important question. I say important, because I believe 
that when we view it in all its bearings, in all its con¬ 
sequences for good or for evil, to our great and grow¬ 
ing State-—if the prosecution of those works of im¬ 
provement which are now’ opening up all the various 
channels of trade, and the means of transportation and 
travel throughout the length and breadth of our State 
are to depend upon the settlement of this question—I 
do say it is one, second in importance to none that has 
risen, as yet, in the deliberations of this body. In brief¬ 
ly expressing my opinions I will not detain the com¬ 
mittee by telling them that I am a democrat. I will 
not trace ray political pedigree. 

But with regard to my principles, I am willing to be 
judged by that old—that infallible rule, “ by their fruits 
you will know them.” I profess myself to be in favor 
of the general principles ofjustice and equality. I pro- 
less to be in favor of the principle contained in the 
motto used by the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Saw¬ 
yer,] “equal rights to all, exclusive privileges to none,” 
nor do I suppose it would be necessary to say anything 
in the discussion of this subject about the bank ques¬ 
tion—that is not before us. VVe are now' endeavoring 
to provide in our organic law’ for other corporations 
than banking institutions. When that question comes 
up, I hope I shall be prepared to meet it and to advo¬ 
cate the views and wishes of those I have the honor to 
repi esent on this floor, and shall pass it by now, say¬ 
ing that “ sufficient for the day is the evil thereof.” 

Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of the principle of in¬ 
dividual responsibility. I am in favor of the applica¬ 
tion of the principle, because I believe it to be but a 
ramification of the principle before announced, of equal 
and exact justice to all. 1 believe that this principle 
should be applied to our corporations, because it is just, 
and, as was well remarked by the gentleman from 
Fairfield [Mr. Robertson,] “ w’hat is just—what is 
right, is always expedient.” 

I can see no good reason why the artificial man—the 
man of straw, who is created on a piece of paper, like 
the one I hold in my hand, shall be endowed'with pri-’ 










387 


CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


vileges and dressed with immiinities that are denied to 
an humble citizen of our State. I need not consume 
time in discussing that question, for unless I vastly mis- 
tfike the signs of the times, or greatly misunderstand 
the views of gentlemen around me, on both sides of 
this hall, the principle will meet witli none, or at least 
but few o|)posers. Much as the two great parties which 
now divide this State, may have differed on this ques¬ 
tion—much as they may have criminated and recrimi¬ 
nated on this subject, from the indications made since 
this discussion commenced, I am of opinion that our 
friends on the other side, whom we have been wont to 
charge with opposition to this doctrine,[as advocated by 
the Democratic party, are coming up to its adoption, if 
they have not before done so. 

I believe too, that the application of this principle to 
corporations of all kinds will have the most salutary ef¬ 
fect. While we are willing to admit that incorpora¬ 
tions for the purpose of public improvements have 
been of vast benefit to our State—while we are wil¬ 
ling to admit that they have done much towards open¬ 
ing up our resources—towards beautifying our coun¬ 
try, and affording facilities for trade and travel, and ad¬ 
ministering to all the wants and luxuries of life, then 
it must be admitted that they have been the author of 
much wrong—that they have been the author of suf¬ 
fering, and have been guilty of much mismanagement. 
I do not say that they all have been so, but I do say 
that the cases of mismanagement and fraud have been 
so many in number as to cease merely to form an ex¬ 
ception to the general rule. I believe that the engraft¬ 
ing of the principle of individual liabilty will l)e for 
the benefit of those associations. I believe it will con¬ 
duce to the prudential and careful management of their 
concerns. Then, Mr. Chairman, I said that I believed 
it to be justice ; and is there any injustice in it ?—And 
is there anything wrong in saying that those who as¬ 
sociated together for the prosecution of any work of im¬ 
provement—for the prosecution of any enterprise for 
profit or speculation, is there any injustice in saying 
that those men who have the control of these opera¬ 
tions, and the directors of these corporations, if there 
be any losses, they shall bear them ? Is it injustice to 
say that in prefez-ence to the laborer who works upon 
the turapike, and the man who furnishes the matei’ials, 
in pi’efei’ence to his losing, you throw the loss upon 
those who have occasioned it ? I think not. I think 
then, that it must be apparent to eveiy man, and I 
doubt if there be a gentleman, who, if the abstract 
question were presented to him, would not say that it 
was sheer justice and nothing more ? Then, entertain¬ 
ing these views, I shall vote against the proposed 
amendment, and I shall also vote against the section 
as it stands in the report, because it does not embody 
or declare this just principle. 

But Mr. Chairman, while I thus advocate my views, 
on the pi’inciple involved in this question, I shall also 
also remark, that there doubtless is a divei’sity of opin¬ 
ion in this hall, as to the mode of its application. Here 
is a diversity of opinion, I say as to the mode by w’hich 
this principle shall be applied. It is contended on the 
one hand, that if we engraft this principle broadly up¬ 
on our constitution declaring that all the dues from cor¬ 
porators shall be secured by the individual liablility of 
shareholders, or corporators, as partnei’s are liable, you 
strike a death blow at all the incorpoi’ations for the pub¬ 
lic improvement of your State. It was said by my es¬ 
teemed friend from Fi’anklin [Mr. Swan] that he doubt¬ 
ed if thei’e[were a gentleman upon this flooz', who would 
take a dollar’s worth of stock in a corporation, if this 
bi’oad and sweeping clause of individual liability were 
established. If the insertion of that clause in its full¬ 
est and most sweeping sense shall have the tendency 
to destroy your present corporations or to prevent the 
formation of these companies, it might be well to in¬ 
quire and consider whether there may not be a means 
of employing the jirinciple in a manner in which we 
shall reap its benefits, and avoid its evil. It appears 


to be conceded that the public improvements of your 
State must be made by this class of corporations—it ap¬ 
peal’s to be generally conceded that the gates of your 
State Ti-easury have been shut down, and shall no more 
be opened for these purposes. And it is conceded that 
these improvements are necessary—that they are use¬ 
ful—that they add much to the welfare and pros¬ 
perity of our State. Shall we then encourage them, 
or insert a clause in our constitution in a manner that 
will prevent their formation in all futui’e time ? This 
is a serious question, and one which deserves our most 
attentive consideration, and I regret not the length of 
time that has been occupied in this discussion—I regret 
not the expenditure which this discussion may hei’e 
cost the State, because it is important that it should be 
settled, and settled right. Not feeling satisfied entire-' 
ly. with any of the amendments proposed, I hastily 
drew up an article, which I propose to substitute for 
this thiz’d section, provided the committee do not a- 
gree to any of the propositions now before it. I will 
read it for intormation. I suppose it is not in order to 
oft’er it now. I propose at a proper time to offer it as a 
substitute for the section: 

“ All dues from corporations provided for in this article, other 
than corporations for political and municipal purposes, shall be 
secui'ed by the individual liability of the shareholders ; and the 
manner of enforcing such liability shall be prescribed by law: 
Provided, that in all incorporations for constructing works of 
public improvement, the Legislature may direct that the corpo¬ 
rate property shall first be exhausted, and that the shareholders 
shall be liable in proportion to the amount of their respective 
shares.” 

I believe, although I may be wrong—although I 
may bo partial to that proposition as my own, I can¬ 
not help thinking that it is a common ground upon 
which we can all meet. It sets forth and recognizes in 
the roundest terms, the principle which 1 have been 
contending foi', and it applies to all coi’porations except 
municipal, leaving to the Legislatui’e a discretion in 
the mode of applying the i-emedy. It does not make 
it necessary, or a cluty of the Legislature so to provide— 
it does not compel the Legislature, or say that they 
shall make such corporation, but it gives tlzenz the dis- 
erttion. If in the exercise of the sound judgment of 
those men coming up fresh from the jzeople, it shall be 
thought pz’oper to make this distinction in regard to 
corporations for constructing public impi’ovements, 
they shall do so ; and, it appeal’s to me, that the appli¬ 
cation there coutemplat-jd, would be a just one. It 
provides in the first place that the Legislatuz’e shall 
have the power to say that corpoi’ate property shall be 
exhausted before individual liability begins. Is thei’e 
anything wrong in that—aiiytliiiig contrary to sound 
morals? Is it not a pi’iiiciple of sound justice, that the 
man who contracts with a coi’poration, shall look to it 
for his payment? He is there dealing with an artifi¬ 
cial person, created by law, and it is leaving that ar¬ 
tificial person upon the same platform upon which a 
natural pei’son should stand, and provides that the re- 
soui’ces shall be exhausted before they come upon the 
security. 

One error into which gentlemen upon this floor ap- 
j)ear to have fallen, is, that incoi’poralions take or ap¬ 
propriate the propei’ty of individuals, and then leave 
them to seek their remedy at law. But it appears to 
me that they mistake the question. ^ The class of in¬ 
debtedness contemplated in this section, is the indebt¬ 
edness of contracts; for the fifth section of the same 
report, amply provides for the prompt and .speedy pay¬ 
ment of damages occasioned by the coi’poration, or dam¬ 
ages for right of way. 

I will merely add, that in the settlement of this im¬ 
portant question, I do hope that we shall without ex¬ 
ception, bring to the discharge of our duty, our best 
intentions, our best talents, and that we shall be ena¬ 
bled to meet on some common ground, that shall be 
sufficient in all respects, to preserve the rights of the 
people, and -at the same time be for the benefit of those 
corporations which may be hereafter formed. 















388 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


I’eruiit me to refer to one matter, however. This pow¬ 
er j)roposeJto be tlins given to the legislature, applies 
only to corporations hir public improvement; it does 
not apjily to those corportions that are to be created fur 
the gain of the corporations merely ; and here I shall 
say, that I think we have eifectnally, by adopting ‘he 
first section of this report, shot the door upon the class 
of minor corporations, which have heretofore Hooded 
our State. By providing that corporations shall be cre¬ 
ated by general law, I think we have placed an effectu¬ 
al barrier against the creation of these minor corpora¬ 
tions fur purposes that could he better attained by 
joint stock, or partnership associations. 

I will say, in conclusion, that I do not feel satisfied 
entirely with either proposition before the committee, 
and unless some alteration be made, I will vote against 
any of them, with a view of presenting the one which 
I have read and sent to the chair. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. I have been listen¬ 
ing for three days, to learn what is the true democratic 
doctrine in regard to the question under discussion, in 
hopes to gain the information from some one speech 
from some gentleman on the other side of the House. 
But I have recently learned from the gentleman from 
Fairfield, [Mr. Robertson,] that after all, the question 
is of no manner of consequence. What we have hith¬ 
erto had in the State is nothing but whig liability — a 
very different tiling from democratic liability, and that, 
after all, it is not worth a stiv'er. If possible, I desire 
to know the difference between whig liability and de¬ 
mocratic liability, that we may know how to act in the 
premises; for at present we are bound not to interfere, 
lest we meddle with that which does not belong to ns. 
Iliad intended to vote for individual liability. But we 
have been informed that by so doing, whigs can do no 
good. They can secure nothing but whig liability, and 
that does not answer the purpose. In this charter ol 
the bank of Wooster, when voted for by the whigs it 
became at once a dead letter. It lives only when sus¬ 
tained by democratic votes. If then we desire the 
triumph of the principle, must we not oppose the let¬ 
ter ? 

This is the third day of this discussion, and it seems 
to me, gentlemen are ungenerous to take up so much 
time ill making speeches for Buncombe. They do not 
give this side ol the chamber a chance. During the 
last three days scarcely a word has been said by any 
whig member. We had better stop speaking and go to 
voting. * 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I do not take up much of the 
time of the Convention, nor do I intend to. The gen¬ 
tleman from Fairfield, [Mr. Robertson,] by bringing 
in his documents and reading them here, seems to have 
found a mare’s nest, which I desire to stir a little. I 
do not know whether he intends to indict me for some 
political offence, or inconsistency, by the number of Ids 
counts. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Not at all, sir. Mr. C. resumed: 

But if I possess anyone characteristic which I value, 
it is my even and steadfast course, ever since I had the 
honor of a seat in these halls, which is as far back as 
when ihe first quill was drawn at that clerk’s desk. It 
is true I voted at the time stated, for the re-charter of 
the Wooster bank, with the individual liability princi¬ 
ple attached, and the history of thematter is about this, 
whicl) I may be allowed to state, though out of drder, 
as all the debate has been. 

The charter was about to exp're, and some of the 
democracy in the legislature were willing to extend the 
charter, while the residue had determined it should 
not have an extension. This, to use a phrase in a me¬ 
morial of one of my constituents, lately jiresented, be¬ 
gat a good deal of iogrolling and dog whipping among 
the whigs and democrats. The whigs inclining to fa¬ 
vor the re-charter of the bank — for the reason that the 
democracy in their crusade against banks, had suffered 
most of those institutions to expire, the currency and 
circulation was at a low ebb, the Wooster bank had a 


large circulation at the time, and we considered it 
better to favor the circulation of our own paper than to 
permit the rags of the other States around us, to flow 
in and fill up the vacuum. In this slate of things, be¬ 
ing solicited by many influential and wealthy demo¬ 
crats of Wayne county, whom we believed were hon¬ 
est, we determined tu aid in giving a re-charter. In 
this matter the character and standing of one of the 
principal stockholders and director, had been sulfijient- 
ly endorsed by the democratic party in the legislature. 
Believing him to be an able financier, they gave him 
the post of commissioner of the canal fund, which he 
held a considerable time. At the same tilne I received 
a letter from a re.spectable German, a large capitalist 
in the institution, requesting my aid in getting through 
the charter. In his dialect he wrote to me, “ My dear 
Col. I know you tink the indivviddel libility is all hom- 
bookry, but we is willing to take it,” &c. We believ¬ 
ed the directors were honest, and as they agreed to ac¬ 
cept and adopt that great and cardinal principle which 
was considered by the democracy as the only remedy 
against fraud, I and others voted for the bill in that form 
believing it to be as full and complete liability as could 
be drawn, and if it made the security no better, would 
not make it any worse. But, sir, in giving that vote I 
was sinning against conscience, as 1 was opposed to 
the principle of individual liability, either as to banks, 
or the unrestricted liability to be attached to individual 
stockholders, as contended for here by many, in other 
.lommon corporations. But in regard to banking cor- 
[lorationsl always considered it a principle calculated 
to promote the most stupendous frauds ever invented 
by the human mind. The bank was re-chartered and 
went on for a time in business, and I recollect well, the 
great exertions made by a principal director in sustain¬ 
ing its credit. Having a quantity of Ohio stocks in 
■security for a loan made to the State, on a general run 
made upon the bank, the stocks were forced into the 
market, to raise funds, and sold at fifty cents on the dol¬ 
lar. Another of the efl’ects of the various measures of 
the democratic party, which brought about the depre¬ 
ciation of our State stocks. But in the end the bank 
fiiled, and the individual liability did not save the bill 
holders from loss, which was to be regretted by all. 

I may have been mistaken as to the reasons of those 
opposed to the charier at the time, but think their prin- 
ci[)al object was to defeat the charter. The experi¬ 
ment of individual liability was, in my opinion, fully 
tried. 

Mr. MANON. T have a word to say upon the advice 
given to the Convention by the Hun. gentleman from 
Geauga. I hope the advice will be taken; and I prom¬ 
ise to use my exertions to have the fifteen minute rule 
extended five minutes longer, and then to abide by its 
provisions. I agree with the gentleman, that it is time 
to stop talking and goto work; finish the duties we 
were sent here to perform, and go home. 

The (juestion then being on the amendment of the 
gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] 

iMr. LARSH called for a division of the amendment 
into its constituent propositions. 

The question then turned upon the first branch of 
die amendment, to add the following to the section un¬ 
der consideration, “Together with a further sum of 
equal amount.” 

Which was adopted. Aff. 4.3, neg. 33. 

The question then being upon the second branch of 
the amendment, to wit, add at the end the following: 

“ And provided further, That in all corporations intended to 
secure pecuniary profits to the stockholder, except corporations 
erected to construct public improvements, the stockholders shall 
be individually liable for all the debts and liabilities of any such 
corporation.” 

Mr. STANTON. I desire to s.iy a word before this 
qnesiion is taken. The amendment now nnder con¬ 
sideration is the result of an attempt to classify the 
cases in which the principle of individual liability may 
be apjilicd. I do not believe that any such classifica¬ 
tion can be attained. The subject was taken into con- 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


389 


sideratioii in the committee, but we were not able to 
fix upon any princi[)le by which it may be done. This 
amendment, in its operation, includes Insurance Com¬ 
panies, whose liabilities stand upon entirely ditierent 
ground from those of other corporations, being the re¬ 
sult of accident. If we attempt to make these dis¬ 
tinctions we shall find ourselves involved in inextrica¬ 
ble difficulties. 

The question being on the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment, resulted, ayes 12, noes not counted. 

So the amendment was lost. 

Mr. HUMPlIllLVILLB renewed tho original mo¬ 
tion of Mr. Reemklin, to strike out the word “such ” 
in the first line ol the section, and insert the word 
“the” in its place, winch was lost; ayes 36, noes 38. 

Mr. HllCHCOCK, ot Cuyahoga, moved to strike 
out the word “corporators,” and insert the word 
“stockholders” in its place. 

Mr. STANTON hoped the amendment would not be 
adopted. The word “corporators” is taken Irom the 
constitution of the State of New York. It is employ- 
ed as more comprehensive. It applies to some descrip¬ 
tions of corporations in which there are no stockhold¬ 
ers. Now I have no objections to making persons in¬ 
terested in churches, colleges, and academies, liable 
for the debts owed by them collectively. 

Mr. LARWILL. I should like to inquire if a man 
may not be a corporator and still not a stockholder? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. The object of my motion is to 
limit the liability to those persons who are really in¬ 
terested in, connected with, or responsible for the acts 
of the corporation—to stockholders; and I have yet to 
learn that a man who becom''s the trustee of acolleo-e, 
literaiy institution, or charitable asylum, ought, for that 
reason, to be made liable for all its debts. I want 
those who are interested in the stock, and those alone, 
to be holden. ’ 

The question being on the amendment, the same was 
adopted ; ayes 50, noes not counted. 

Mr. HENDERSON moved to amend, by adding in 
the fourth line, after the word subscribed, the words 
“or held.” ’ 

Mr. HENDERSON. The language in the section 
does not apply, as it stands, to a i)uichaser of stock as 
it does to an original subscriber. I wish to make it in¬ 
clude both. 

Mr. LARWILL moved to amend the amendment, 
by adding, after the words “ or owned,” the words, 

“ with his or her consent.” 

Mr. LARWILL. There have been cases where 
stocks have been transferred to persons, and they have 
been made owners, and even officers, of corporate 
bodies, and made liable also for their debts. Now I 
desire to guard against such acts. 

Pending this question, the committee rose and re¬ 
ported. 

On motion of Mr. EWART, the Convention adjourn¬ 
ed. 


FRIDAY, June 14, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Hitchcock. 

Mr. CHAMBERS presented the following communi¬ 
cation, from the citizens of Zanesville. 

Upon his motion, the communication was laid on the 
table. 

At a meeting of the citizens of the city of Zanesville, held at 
the Senate Chamber, pursuant to notice, June 12, 1850, Hon. II. 
Cox was called to the chair, and Wm. H. Ball was appointed 
secretary ; and the following resolutions were presented, discus¬ 
sed and unanimously adopted : 

Wheeeas, it is probable that the constitutional Convention, 
now in tession at Columbus, will change its place of meeting; 
and whf reas, we believe that the city of Zanesville from its lo¬ 
cal and and relative position; its spacious halls; its unrivaled 
healthfulness ; its amiple supply of pure wah^r ; its abundant ano 
luxurioiis means of good living, and its very many other advan¬ 
tages, will insure the Convention ns a body, and the members 
thereof individually, greau-r comfort and accommodations than 
they can obtain elsewhere; therefore, 

Betolved, That our cit.zens do hereby most cordially unite 


with our city authorities in the invitation given by them to tho 
Convention, in case of removal from Columbus, to adjourn to, 
and hold the remainder of its sessions in the city of Zanesville! 

Resolved, That should this invitation be accepted, aud complied 
with, we will do all in our power to render that body, and its in¬ 
dividual members, ascomlortable as possible, in the discharge of 
their high and important official duties, and as fellow citizens of 
the great State of Ohio. 

Resolved, That the Chairman of the meeting, on being inform¬ 
ed ot the acceptance of thts invitation by the Convent on, appoint 
a committee of five citizens to co-operate with any committees 
that may be appointed by our city authorities and the Conven¬ 
tion, to make suitable arrangements lor the reception and accom¬ 
modation of that body and its members. 

Resolved, That the Secretary forward an official copy of the 
proceedings o' this meeting to our Representatives in the Con¬ 
vention, with a request that they be presented to that body, 

li. J. COX, Chairman. 

W. II. Ball, Secretary. 

Mr. BARBEE. As an individual member of this 
Convention, I feel myself under obligations to my fel¬ 
low citizens of Ohio, for the deep solicitude which is 
taken for my health, as well for that of the other liono- 
rable members ol this body. We have had four invi¬ 
tations to adjourn from Columbus to some other jioint, 
aud hold the remainder of our session dining the warm 
and unhealthy season. For all this hospitality aud 
kindness, I, for one, return my thanks: but it seems to 
me, sir, that if we adjourn from this place in order to 
preserve onr health during the warm wealher, it would 
be better to adjourn and return each to our homes. 

It seems to me that it would be more fit and appro¬ 
priate, if we are, any of us. to be sick, that a return to 
our homes would be more desirable on the part of eve¬ 
ry member here. I therefore take the present oppor¬ 
tunity of giving notice, that on to-morrow or some sub¬ 
sequent day, 1 will introduce a resolution, the import 
of which shall be, that we will adjourn to meet again 
on the first or 15th of Octobei’, at this place, and com¬ 
plete our labors. My object is to call the minds of 
honorable members to the importance of the resolution 
which I shall then introduce, and I mention it now that 
they may have time to reflect upon it. I shall offer it 
when I believe that we have received all the reports 
from the standing committees, and when we shall 
have had thrown before us all the crude and new ma¬ 
terial out of which to frame a consliiuliou. We can 
then adjourn for a time and go to our homes. When 
we return here, we can do up our work instantly, with 
honor to ourselves, for we shall have the advantage of 
an understanding of what our constituents want, and 
be enabled to perform our duties more substautially to 
them and ourselves. 

Mr. SAWYER. I wish it distinctly understood, that 
when this matter is presented, I shall oppose the pro¬ 
ject by every lawful means. Rather than do that, we 
had better go on with our business, even in this uncom¬ 
fortable place, as speedily as possible, rclui’ii to our 
constituents and receive their approbation. 

Mr. STIDGER presented a petitionfrom D. A. Stark¬ 
weather and 49 otlier citizens of Stark county, praying 
that the Convention prohibit, by constitutional provi¬ 
sion, the use of paper money and the incoiqDoration of 
any bank or banking company within the State of Ohio. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from Wil¬ 
liam Underwood and 47 other citizens of Stark county, 
on the same subject. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from Joseph 
Wicker and 15 other citizens of Stark county, on the 
same subject. 

The petitions were severally referred to the commit¬ 
tee on Banking and Currency. 

Mr. Johnson presented a petition from JohuSturman 
of Coshocton county, praying that all officers be elected 
by the people trieniiially. 

Referred to the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects 
aud propositions. ^ _ 

”~l^rrMlTCMELL presented a petition from John 
Kershaw, and forty other citizens of Kno.x: county, 
praying that a provision may be inserted in the new 
constitution, denying the Legislature the power to 










390 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


charter banks, with the privilege of issuing paper to 
circulate us money. 

Upon his motion it was referred to the committee on 
Banking and Currency. 

The same gentleman presented the petition of Lewis 
Dyer, and twenty-nine others, praying that the new 
constitution may contain a clause prohibiting future 
Legislatures from authorizing the sale of spirituous 
liquors. 

Referred to the select comiiiittee on the subject of 
retailing ardent spirits. 

Mr. KENNON, from the standing committee on the 
Judicial Department, submitted the following report, 
which was read the first time by its title. 

THE .lUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. 

Sec, 1. The judicial power ot the State, both as to matters of 
law and equity, shall be vested in a supreme court, district 
courts, in courts of common pleas, in county courts, in justices 
of the peace, and in such other courts, inferior to the 8 U 2 )reme 
court, as the General Assembly may from time to time estab¬ 
lish. 

Sec. 2. The supreme courtshall consist of a chief justice and 
three associate justices, and three of whom shall be a quorum. 
It shall have original jurisdiction in quo warranto, mandamus, 
habeas corpus and procedendo, and such apjiellate jurisdiction 
as may be provided by law. It sha 1 hold at least one term in 
each year at the seat of government, and such other terms at the 
seat of government or elsewhere as may be provided by law.— 
The chief justice of the supreme court shall be elected by the 
electors of the State at large, and for the election ot the associate 
justices of the supreme court, the common pleas, districts, 
herein after provided for, shall be combined into three districts 
of compact territory, in each of which one of said associate jus¬ 
tices shall be elected, by the electors therein, and every addition 
al justice ot the supreme court who may hereafter be created, 
shall be elected by the electors of the State at large. 

Sec. 3. The State shall be divided into nine common pleas 
di.'tricts of which the county of Hamilton shall constitue one—of 
compact territorj’, and bounded by county lines, in each of which 
three judges of the common pleas shall be elected by the quali¬ 
fied voters therein. Courts of common pleas shall be held by one 
or more of th se judges in every county, in the district, as often 
as may be provided by law, and more than one court may be 
held at the same time in each district. District courts shall be 
held in, and for each district, by the judges of the common 
pleas and one of the justices of the supreme court, any three of 
whom shall be a quorum, as often in each year, and at such pla¬ 
ces, in said district as may be jirescribed by law; provided, that 
nothing herein shall prevent the General Assembly from autnor- 
izing the judges of each distrfet to fix the times of holding the 
courts therein. 

The district courts of common i)leas shall have like original 
jurisdiction with the supreme court, and such appellate jurisdic¬ 
tion as may be provided by law 

The jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas and of the 
judges thereof, other than the district courts, shall be fixed by 
law. 

Sec. 4. There shall be established in each county of the State, 
a court of record, to be called the County Court; to be holden by 
one judge, elected by the qualified voters of the county, with ju¬ 
risdiction in habeas corpus of i)robate8 and administration. 'The 
issuing and revocation, of letters testamentary, letters of ad¬ 
ministration, and of guardianshij); the settlements of accounts of 
executors, administrators and guardians ; and such appellate ju- 
ri.«diction in civil cases, and such original and appellate jurisdic¬ 
tion in criminal cases, as may be provided by law. 

The General Assembly may confer on this court jurisdiction 
for the sale of lands, by executors, administi'ators and guardians. 

The term of office ot the county judge shall be three years, and 
he shall receive such compensation, payable out of the county 
treasury, and such fees in probate administration and guardian¬ 
ship, as shall be provided by law. 

Sec. 5. A competent number of justices of the peace shall be 
elected by the qualified electors in each township ,in the several 
counties, whose powers and duties shall from time to time be re¬ 
gulated by law. Their terra of office shall be three years. 

Sec. 6. All judges other than those provided for in this consti¬ 
tution shall be elected by the electors of the judicial district for 
which they may be created; but not for a longer term of office 
than seven years. 

Sec. 7. Justices of the supreme court shall be at least thirty 
years of age at the time of their election. Immediately after 
their first election under this constitution they shall be classified, 
by lot, so that one shall hold for the term of two years—one for 
four years—one for six years, and one for seven years. Judges 
of the courts of common pleas shall have the same qualifications 
as the justices of the supreme court, and, during their respective 
terms, shall reside in the district for which they are elected. Im¬ 
mediately after the first election of the judges of common pleas, 
they shidl be classified by lot, in each district, so that one shall 
hold for the term ot three years—one for five years, and one for 
seven years; and at all subsequent elections the term of each 
justice of the supreme court, and of each judge of the court of 
common pleas shall be for seven years. In case the office of any 


justice of the supreme court, or judge of the court of common 
pleas, or judge of any other court, shall become vacant before the 
expiration of the regular terra for which he was elected, the va¬ 
cancy may be filled by appointment, by the Governor, until it 
shall be supplied at the next regular election. 

Sec. 8. The justices of the supreme court, and the judges of 
the court of common pleas, shall, at stated times, receive tor their 
services an adequate compensation, n ot less than $2000 each, for the 
justmes of the supreme court, and $1800 each for the judges of 
the court of common pleas, which shall not be diminished during 
their term of office; but they shall receive no fees or perquisites, 
nor hold any other office of profit or trust trader the authority of 
this State or the United States, All votes tor either ot them, ©r 
any elective office, (except a judicial office under the authority of 
this State, given by the General Assembly or the people,) shall be 
void. 

Sec. 9. The General Assembly may increase the number of jus¬ 
tices of the Supreme Court: the number of the^ districts of the 
Court of Common Pleas ; the number of judges in any district— 
change the districts, or establish other courts, whenever two- 
thirds of each House shall concur therein ; but no such change 
or addition shall vacate the office of any justice of the Supreme 
Court, or other judge. 

Sec. 10. TTie clerks of the courts shall be elected, by the elec¬ 
tors, in such manner and for sticli tenn Jis may be fixed by law. 

Sec. ]1. Justices of the Supreme Court, and judges of the 
Court of Common Pleas, and of the county courts, and of such 
other courts as may be hereafter created, may be removed from 
office by concurrent resolution of both Houses of the General 
Assembly, if two-thirds of each House concur therein. 

Sec. 12. The several justices of the Supreme Court, and the 
several judges of the common pleas, and of such of the courts as 
may be created, shall resiiectively have and exercise such powers 
and jurisdiction at chambers or otherwise, as may be directed 
by law'. [Signed by Judiciary Committee.] 

A motion was made to lay the report on the table 
and oi'der it to be jirinted. 

The question being first taken upon laying on the 
table, it was agreed to. 

Mr. THOMPSON moved that 1,000 copies be print¬ 
ed. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga moved 1,100. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. Ibelievethe defectsinour 
.Tudicial system weie one of the many causes that led 
to the calling of this Convention. The organization of 
the Judicial system is a matter in which the people 
generally take a deep interest. I take this occasion to 
observe that as the committee were nut unanimous in 
this report, I, as one member of that committee, would 
be glad that the people should be thoroughly informed 
in regal’d to the matter which this report contains, so 
that they may, if they choose, give us instructions as 
to the course we should pursue. I should prefer that 
the usual numberof 1,00 ) copies be printed. It is true 
that the papers which publish these daily proceedings 
will contain this report, but they are not taken by the 
people in the country to so great an extent as in towns 
and villages among the professional men. 

Mr. MORRIS. I shall oppose the printing of an extra 
number in this case. This thing is calculated rather 
to deceive the people than otherwise. This report is 
only the opinion of the committee, and not unanimous 
at that. By the time the report got circulated through¬ 
out the State, in its present form, it will be changed. 
Further, this re])ort in extenso, will be published in the 
debates and proceedings in the daily papers of this 
city, and from these papers copied in the papers 
throughout the State. 

Mr. KENNON. I will submit a few remarks in re¬ 
lation to this report. The committee have had the re¬ 
port under consideration for a long time. It is not an 
unanimous rejiort, being signed but by ten of the com¬ 
mittee. As submitted, the report is, to some extent, a 
compromise. The system, in the first place, dispenses 
with all the associate judges of the State. As far as 
that proposition is concerned, 1 believe the committee 
are unanimous; although they re^ ard the plan of hav¬ 
ing these judges in many instances as an useful one, 
yet not so useful ns to authorize them to introduce it 
luiain. I have taken some little pains to ascertain some¬ 
thing in relation to the expense of this system, and be¬ 
lieve the cost to the State of Ohio annually, for associ¬ 
ate judges, is somewhere in the neighborhood of thirty 
thousand dollars. The system we propose is about 
this : A supreme court, composed of four judges only— 









CONVENTION REPORTS 


391 


to be elected by the people—one of whom is to be 
called the chief juslico. The chief justice is also to be 
elected by tho people at large. This cannot take the 
place of the present court in bank. The system pro¬ 
poses, then, for tho purpose of electing the judges of 
' the supreme court, that the State should be divided 
into three districts. Each of these districts shall elect 
one supreme court judge. The object and propriety 
of this division is this—and we have endeavored as far 
as possible to efl'ect this—to have the supreme court 
composed of men not exclusively partizans, or belong¬ 
ing to one political party. It is supposed that if our 
election should take place over the entire State at one 
time, that the whole complexion of the bench would 
be the same. For the purpose of avoiding any such 
inconvenience, this mode of electing the judges was 
adopted. 

Next we have the court of common pleas. The State 
is to be divided into nine judical common pleas dis¬ 
tricts, of which Hamilton county is to compose one. 
Three judges of the court of common pleas are to be 
elected in each district. One may hold the common 
pleas terms. There being eighty-seven counties in the 
State, and, taking out the county of Hamilton, there 
will then be left about eleven counties in each dis¬ 
trict. This system gives the judges power to inter 
change with one another, and sit together. By this 
arrangement, they can interchange fi'om one portion of 
the district to another. 11 wull so happen, in all prob¬ 
ability, that men will be selected as judges who are 
largely engaged in the practice of the law. To pro¬ 
vide against the inconvenience which might arise to 
suitors on this account, or, indeed, the consequences 
which might arise from the sickness of the judge, or 
other casualty, it seemed proper to place more than one 
judge in each circuit, or district, and permit an inter¬ 
change between the judges of districts. 

In this system we have instituted a county court, 
composed of a single judge, elected in each county in 
the State. This judge will perform in part the duties 
of a probate judge, granting letters of administration, 
and revoking these letters. The court is to be open at 
all times, having such jurisdiction in small appellate 
cases and criminal cases, as the Legislature may con¬ 
fer upon it. The judge of this court is also to have' 
jurisdiction under the writ of habeas corpus, as the judg¬ 
es of the court of common pleas would be absent fre¬ 
quently from the county, it seemed necessary that some 
power should exist there, by which the writ of habeas 
corpus might issue, and a pai'ty be liberated from im¬ 
prisonment, and for that I’eason the power was given 
to the county court. 

In place of the present Supreme county court, the 
report provides for. a district court, to be composed of 
one of the judges of the supreme court and the three 
judges of the common pleas districts, any three of 
whom shall constitute a quorum. Power is conferred 
upon the Legislature to establish these courts at such 
points in the district, or each county, as they may see 
fit to determine. The power of the court to be pre¬ 
scribed by the Legislature, intending that the court 
should have about the same power of our present su¬ 
preme court on the circuit. 

The report prescribes the terms of office of the judg¬ 
es at seven years. The terms of office are classified, 
by which one of them holds for two years, one five, 
one six, and another seven, so that there is a continual 
change of the bench of the supreme court. It is the 
same way in the court of common j)lea8 with their 
Judges in the district. The terms of office of the judg¬ 
es of the c«)urt of common pleas are fixed also at seven 
years. They are also classified. The first holds his 
office for four years, the next for three year’s, the next 
for five years, and the next for seven years, so that 
there are continual changes in these offices. 

The people being afraid of a less term, and of a 
change in this respect, the committee have reported 
the term at seven years, regarding that term a proper 


one, and one to which the people of this State are ac¬ 
customed. This is about the whole system. 

Tlie committee have also reported a minimum for 
the salai’y of these officers. We have concluded that 
the judges of the supreme court should receive the 
su!n of two thousand dollars annually, and the judges 
of the court of common pleas eighteen hundred dollars 
annually. The county judge to be paid by tho coun¬ 
ties, or by such fees in probate, granting letters of ad¬ 
ministration and other matters, as may be prescribed by 
the Legislature. 

As to the term of the supreme court, the report pro¬ 
vides that one term shall be held at least once a year 
at the seat of government, and at such other places as 
the Legislature may provide. The object of this is, 
that the judges may hold two courts in a year, one at 
ihe seat of government and another perhaps at Cleve¬ 
land, or Cincinnati, so that they may change their lo¬ 
cation ; but one is to be held at the seat of government 
each year. As I stated before, the committee had 
great difficulty in maturing a system, inasmuch as a mi¬ 
nority of the committee desired that there should be a 
supreme court held in each county, as formerly. An¬ 
other system proposed was, that the districts should be 
divided into circuits and that the supreme court should 
be held twice within the places chosen, so as to make it 
more convenient for the attendance of lawyers. 

Mr. GREGG inquired, what is the term of the county 
judge fixed in the report? 

Mr. KENNON replied, three years. 

In rejdy to the question asked him whether the sys¬ 
tem the cominittee proposed would not be more ex¬ 
pensive, 

Mr. KENNON answered: that if his calculations 
were correct, the system proposed would be less ex¬ 
pensive than the old one. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I have been written to repeat¬ 
edly to send to the part of the State from which I came, 
copies of this report as soon as it is printed, and as 
many as I can lay hands upon, so that those interested 
in the subject may send them back to us with their 
suggestions. 

I am one of the committee who have not signed the 
report. There are some things contained in it which 
I did not like, and one especially, in regard to the terms 
of the supreme court in the districts. I have been ex¬ 
ceedingly desirous that the coui t should be held in 
each county in the State. Other members of the com¬ 
mittee were of the same opinion with myself. I would 
have consented to have left the matter entirely with 
the Legislature; as it is, I could not concur in the re¬ 
port, and have not signed it. 

Mr. ORTON. Mr. President: I shall go for the lar¬ 
gest number proposed, and for reasons I have heretofore 
stated, when the printing of other reports from stand¬ 
ing committees have been under consideration. ^ I 
know, sir, that the people are anxious for the earliest 
information of our doings. I know that particular 
anxiety is felt in regard to the plans pi’oposed by this 
.Tudiciary committee. I have constituents, sir, mem¬ 
bers of the bar, of both political parties, who are anx¬ 
ious to receive the earliest indications of what is to be 
the action of this body on this most important subject. 

Again, sir, how am I, a layman, to vote understand- 
ingly upon this complicated matter, unless I can re» 
ceive the suggestions of those more competent than my¬ 
self in relation to it ?—and who so well authorized to 
advise me, as those who sent me here? I will add, 
that since the last expression of my views on this mat¬ 
ter of printing, I have been home and seen some of my 
constituents, and am satisfied that they sustain my 
views. They do not appreciate the penny-wise policy 
of certain gentlemen upon this floor. I hope there¬ 
fore, sir, that the largest number will prevail, and that 
a liberal number of all other reports of standing com¬ 
mittees will be ordered in future. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren desired that the largest num¬ 
ber be printed. 










392 


CONVENTION KEPOKTS, 


Mr. RANNBY eaid he had not deemed it his duty to 
sign the report, but he would say for the committee, 
thutthey had given the subject a very careful and im¬ 
partial consideration, and had endeavored as far as 
possible to conform their views to those of the gentle¬ 
men whoditi'ered from them. 

Mr. LOUDON moved that 2000 copies be printed, 
and if it was necessary, in advance of the other print¬ 
ing of the Couveutiou. 

Mr. MORRIS thought that 500 copies would be a suf¬ 
ficient number. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren asked the gentleman from 
Brown [Mr. Loudon,] to withdraw his motion, for he 
thought that 1000 copies would be enough. 

Mr. LOUDON saitl he was willing in this matter to 
be governed by the opinions ol the members of the 
bar. He know there was a deep feeling and interest in 
this matter in the section of the country where ho 
lived, and that they were exceedingly desirous to see 
this report. 

Mr. LARWILL said, in explanation of his desire to 
have a large number printed, that he had just received 
letters from some distinguished lawyers in the State, 
who took a deep interest in this matter of the judiciary 
system, and were anxious to see this report. For hini- 
Bclf, he would be pleased to see the largest number 
printed, so that we might send them generally through¬ 
out tl e State, and in return receive such suggestions 
in regard to changes as might be of some service to us. 
It is a report of which he might not be competent to 
judge, but he would remark that the printing of 2000 
copies, will not, in his opinion, be out of the way. He 
should vote for the largest number. 

Mr. COOK said, he had received a letter from an in¬ 
fluential citizen of the county of Portage, complaining 
of the parsimonious course pursued by the Convention, 
in the printing of so small a number of copies of its 
reports, and for himself he lully concurred in the jus¬ 
tice of that complaint. He should vote for the largest 
number. 

The question being taken upon printing 1500 copies 
of the report, and the yeas and nays having been de¬ 
manded by Mr. ROBERTSON, resulted—yeas 61, 
nays 27. 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomei’y> 
Bates, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Clark, Collings> 
Cook, Farr, Firestone, Florence, Forbes, Greene of Defiance) 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hootman, Humph- 
reville. Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Lar- 
will. Leech, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, Norris, 
Orton, Peck, Quigley, Riddle, Robertson, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Taylor, Thompson of Shel¬ 
by, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Woodbui and President—61, 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bennett, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Cai roll, Chambers, Claypoole, Cur¬ 
ry, Dorsey, Ewart. Gillett, Graham. Gray, Harlan, Henderson, 
Horton, Larsh, i, dey, Manon, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Pat¬ 
terson, Ranney, Keemelin, Stilwell, and Wiliams—27. 

So 1500 copies of the report were ordered to be 
printed. 

Mr. BENNETT, in pursuance of previous notice, 
moved to ameud the 19th standing rule, by adilin® 
thereto the words, “ unless otherwise ordered which 
was agreed to. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved further to amend by addin" 
the following: “and the time at which such call may 
have been oulered, shall also be noted upon the jour¬ 
nals which was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. STANTON the Convention resolv¬ 
ed itself into a committee of the whole [Mr. Towns¬ 
hend in the chair] and resumed the cousideratiim of 
the report of “ the committee oil 

CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN CORPORATIONS FOR BANKING.” 

The question being upon the amendment of Mr. 
Kirkw’OOd to strike out the word “subscribed” in the 
fourth line and substitute the words “or owned,” the 
same was agreed to. 


Mr. STANTON here interfered and insisted upon the 
enforcement of the 15 minutes rule. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler. Mr. Chairman— 

Mr. MASON. I desire to make a few remarks to 
the coinmittee, I desire to make them now, for the rea¬ 
son that I expect to obtain leave of absence from the 
the Coiiveulioii this afternoon, for the remainder of the 
week. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Butler has 
the floor. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler. I understand the question 
to be upon a motion to strike out the section, with a 
view to insert. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is the question. 

Mr. VANCE. 1 wish merely to say that I shall vote 
for striking out the proposition ; and I shall do so with 
a view of voting for the insertion of some one of the 
amendments which has been, or which may be propos¬ 
ed as a substitute ; and lor the purpose of getting the 
opportunity to propose an amendment myself, before 
any final vote shall be taken, I liave risen at this time. 
I wish to read my proposition by way of information 
merely, as it would uot be in order to propose it now. 
It is this: 

“ Sec. 3. Each and every stockholder in an incorporated 
company shall be held liable in his or her individual capacity, to 
the payment of the debts incurred by such corporation—the 
mode and manner of enforcing such payment shall be provided 
by law ; Provided, That the personal liabilities herein incurred 
shall not be taken as extending to political, municipal and insu¬ 
rance corporations, nor to corpomiions created for the construc¬ 
tion and management of permanent pubiic improvements; but in 
the last named class of corporations the General Assembly shall 
provide by law such additional securities to the creditor, other 
than the stock subscribed, as may be demanded by the principles 
ol equal justice and sound policy." 

Mr. MASON. I do not intend to trespass upon the 
time and patience of the committee, beyond the rule 
prescribed as the limit to our debate. Although it 
might be very questionable, whether it is proper to in¬ 
dulge the adv(»cate8 of a given proposition, four or five 
days, iu a ditcussiou of their views, and w'itliout any 
limitation, as to the time they may consume, in their 
delivery, when those who cannot agree to the sound¬ 
ness of the views advanced, should be limited to a pre¬ 
cise number of minutes, and those minutes not more 
than nece.'ssary to introduce the subject. I will con¬ 
tent myself, however, witli assigning briefly, some of 
the reasons why I am in favor of the proposition, as re¬ 
ported by the committee, except, indeeil, the proviso. 
In one word, I wish to assign some of the principal 
reasons, operating upon my mind, why I would be 
willing to unite with all gentlemen of like opinion, in a 
provision to be inserted in the constitution, recognizing 
the principles of individual liability in the case of cor¬ 
porators, and to leave to the General Assembly to regu¬ 
late by law, and to measure the extent of that liability 
iu eacli case as it may come up, whether acting under 
the general law or a special law. It is the true policy 
of the State of Ohio, to invite capital from abroad, into 
the State, to be here invested in works of internal im¬ 
provement, and for other objects iu which the commu¬ 
nity have an interest. 

The great principle involved in this question of indi¬ 
vidual liability, is founded upon what has been usually 
conceded to be sound principles of public policy, for 
the State of Ohio by its Legislature and otherwise, to 
encourage capitalists from abroad to make investraente 
ill the State of Ohio. It is by having heretofore pur¬ 
sued a liberal policy of this kind, that railroads have 
been constructed and institutions established that are 
conducive to the prosperity of the people. There nev¬ 
er has been or will be a railroad constructed iu Ohio 
without the aid of capital from New England, New 
York or Great Britain. We are too recently establish¬ 
ed iu the State of Ohio to have any amount of surplus 
capita! seeking investment. Unless our Legislature is 
liberal, unlcs.s it is just—unless it invites capitalists from 
abroad to come among us, or to send their money a- 
mong us for investment, our State must stand still and 







CONVENTION REPORTS 



1 no public improvements on an extensive scale can be 
j made. The question, therefore, involved in this debate 
I in the proposition of individual liability on the part of 
I of the corporators, is a question not of morals or reli- 
jj gious principle, put ot political expediency, just as 
i much a question ot political expediency as it is wheth- 
( er the General Assiunbly shall make provision by law, 

I for the creditor or money lender, in the State of Ohio, 

' to take a mortgage upon the estate of the borrower— 

' which mortgage shall be declared by law to be good 
. and valid as security for money lent. 

There is just as much moral or religious principle in 
the law concurring deeds and mortgages in the State 
< of Ohio, operating ujion iiulividuals here and upon the 
laws of the SUite, as there is in the question now under 
\ debate. It is merely a ipiestiou of public policy and 
political expediency. All that has therefore been said 
about the great fundamental, original princi[)les incor¬ 
porated into the Declaralion of Independence—the prin¬ 
ciples of human liberiy—have nothing more to do with 
the question, than it has with the enactment upon your 
1 statute books which regulates the matters of estrays. 

' It has been called in debate, a truth—eternal truth— 
truth that never changes—that men are born free and 
equal. Well, Mr. Chairman, wdiat has that got to do 
with political expediency in a given community? what 
has that got to do vviin the question requiring a partic¬ 
ular individual or corporation to give security, more or 
less, for the payment ot his debts ? Therefore, it being 
a question of that description, I feel v ntirely at liberty 
to vote upon this proposition according to my under¬ 
standing of vv bat sound political expediency—of what 
is safe and sound in public policy. 

Corporations are useful, as instruments in the hands 
of the people for the execution of valuable plans and 
schemes of improvement. It is an instrumentality, 
with which they have been acquainted, and which they 
have employed f. oni the foundation of the government. 
Hitherto we have got along very well, without any 
constitutional provision, and you have vested in the 
General Assembly power to grant acts of incorpora¬ 
tion. Hitherto we have got along very w'ell. We have 
arisen to be a very great and prosperous common wea' th, 
increasing in wealth, in intelligence, and in all the el¬ 
ements, moral and physical, ol true greatness. It is 
now proposed, in the midst of this career of prosperi¬ 
ty, to introduce a new rule—a new policy—which was 
forcibly described the other day in the few pertinent, 
endorsed remarks of the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. 
Swan.] 

Sir, gentlemen advocate a principle here which they 
themselves would not touch with their fingers, to re¬ 
lieve the people from its burthen and its weight. When 
the gentleman from Hamilton was yesterday inquired 

of by my friend on my left [Mr.-] whether 

he WMjuld take stock in a corporation which recogni¬ 
zed the principles of individual liability, what did be 
tell you ? He told you that he would, if he took stock 
at all. It was a very safe reply, indeed. Did he tell 
you that he never would take stock in a corporation, 
where that principle was introduced? No; and he 
never will tell you it. There is not a gentleman here 
who advocates the ultra doctrine, which we have heard 
advanced here, though he is willing to impose this bur¬ 
then upon the people, who would never touch that 
burthen with liis own lingers. The gentleman from 
' Franklin said—what every man of intelligence and un¬ 
derstanding the interests of his pocket, would say, and 
every man must agree that it was the truth—he said 
he w(.uld not take the certiticate of stock in any rail¬ 
road or other corporatif.n, to the amount of one or five 
hundred dollars as a gift, on the condition that it was 
to operate upon his pro[>erty, real and personal, for all 
time to come, as a mortgage or practical lien. There 
is not a man upon this Hoor who would do it. They 
may tell the people to do it—they have told the f eo- 
ple that it was good enough for them, but there is no 
man who preaches that doctrine that would carry it 


393 


out by his own example in one solitary instance. No; 
he would not only refuse to subscribe, but he would 
not receive as a gift, any amount of stock that might be 
tendered to him. 

Mr. SWAN. I desire to explain one moment. There 
is no doubt the gentlemen understood me as speakint^ 
of unrestricted and unlimited individual liability, one 
by which a corporator could be caught in the street, 
and instead of being sued in the corporatiou could be 
made liable in bis own individual capacity. 

Mr. MASON. I ought to have stated the whole pro¬ 
position, in the way the gentleman delivered it at the 
time, but through haste or inadvertam y, I omitted it, 
hut that, as now stated, was the comprehensive proposi¬ 
tion which was submitted. 

Practically it would be found, T apprehend, to be 
true, that stockholders in railroad and turnpike com¬ 
panies b( ing generally ditiused over a large surface of 
country, and frequently residing, especially in the case 
of railroad companies, out of the State, cannot, if 
they would, exert a great control over the action of 
the President and Directors of the company. I think 
that upon that particular point, the geiitlemau from 
Franklin made a concession, that the enemies of his 
proposition of mitigated liability, would seize hold of 
and wield it against liiin to some effect. I have seen 
somewhat of the operation of railroad companies and 
turnpike companies. Turnpike companies are formed 
by fanners and mechanics, mostly pains-taking men, 
who desire to obtain the facilities of markets, and who 
desire to open a good bard road. They come together, 
and by small sums make up the amount of capital,with 
which, by great industry, labor and toil, they can con¬ 
struct a few miles of turnpike. Many a man subscnbed 
stock unwilling, reluctantly, under the law as it stood, 
without individual liability, either mitigated or unmiti¬ 
gated, for the investment will bring them little or no 
return. Well my learned friends all know this is prac¬ 
tically true, that all persons who ai’e engaged in busi¬ 
ness, invest money with gx'eat reluctance in these 
roads, because, by buying promissory notes, and lend¬ 
ing money, they can make twelve to twenty per cent., 
when if their money was paid into the stock of a turn¬ 
pike company, it would not yield over two per cent. 
This, therefore, is the great difficulty, why money can¬ 
not be easily procured for undertakings of this kind. 
Such corporations are generally owned by peaceful 
men, and jiersoiisof small means in the rural districts, 
who will get along well enough if you will let them 
alone, and not preclude them by unwise legislation, 
from the exertions they may be disposed to make. 

I said, sir, that in ordinary cases I woukUreat this sub¬ 
ject ill a practical view, without any party transcen¬ 
dentalism,” without any effort to maintain [mrty or po¬ 
litical dogmas. Stockholders exert very little influ¬ 
ence, and have no control over the action of a compa¬ 
ny, for there are agents and directors a[)pniiiteJ to car¬ 
ry on this business. They cast their votes for directors, 
and what do they do ? They go home, perhaiis to their 
farms and remain there engaged in their usual duties, 
while great mischief perhaps may have been done W 
their agent. Some bad contract was made or some ad¬ 
verse Providence of fire or Hood has overtaken the 
company, and it has suttered a serious loss. T. hat loss 
may arise, perhaps, from the mismanagement of the 
agents of the company, or may have been produced by 
some additional outside interference. A loss, at ^tty 
rate, has come upon the company a loss which could 
have been averted. I do not wish to put into the con¬ 
stitution an iron rule, by which, although it is a pt'in- 
ciiile of benign law—common law—that “ the act of 
God shall iniure no man,” you here propose to make 
these unforeseen Providences fall with a fatal stroke 
upon innocent stockholders who, while thecorporatioa 
in which they may have a few dollars of stock may be 
crippled or ruined by a sudden misfortune, are at home 
attending to their business. A Hood came and swept 
away their entire work. Lightning came and struck 









894 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


it down. Fire consumed it; and yet, under these acts 
of Providence, you would make the innocent stockhold¬ 
er suffer. 

Mr. Chairman, there is another reason why I am op¬ 
posed not only to all this ultraism of individual liability 
in corporations, but why I wish to refer the measure 
and extent of liability to the General Assembly and not 
to establish this iron rule in the constitution, and it is 
this: a corporation is a creature of law; created by 
law, endowed with certain particular faculties, ena¬ 
bling him to receive property, to convey property, and 
to expend money in the improvement of the work or 
accomplishment of the object for which the corpora¬ 
tion was created. All the property of the corporation 
is liable for the payment of its debts and liabilities, all 
that any individual in the community is liable for, is to 
the extent of all his property. Here is a perfect equal¬ 
ity between a corporation in its liability and an indivi¬ 
dual in the measure and extent of his liability. The 
corporation is liable to the extent of its assets for the 
corporate contracts and liabilities and the individual is 
liable by the common law to the whole extent of his 
individual property. The two are equal thus far. No 
man is obliged to make a contract with corporations. 
Did you ever think of that, gentlemen? If you did. 
you were careful not to utter such a thing here. Well, 
that is too plain for the transcendent gentleman. It 
would overcome the loftiness of his flights. I am a 
plain, practical man, and prefer dealing with a subject 
as it exists, as I know it to be. No man is obliged to 
^nter into a contract with a corporation at all, and if he 
chooses to do it, he must see to what he gives credit. 
It is nothing of your consideration, Mr. Chairman, al¬ 
though it is very likely you and I don’t agree about 
this matter. What does this man give credit to when 
he enters into a contract with a corporation? Does he 
in this business as you would do if you were go¬ 
ing to make a contract involving a credit of 10 or 20 
thousand dollars? Do you suppose you would do it, 
without first inquiring into the individual responsibility 
of the parties? If you were going to make a contract 
and unite your fortunes with a corporation in the way 
of investing a thousand dollars in the stock of that cor¬ 
poration, would you not be very likely to inquire into 
the state of its affairs, with reference to the extent of 
its debts, means, and the prospect of that being a good 
investment in your hands? Would you not make all 
these inquiries before you placed your funds within the 
jaw of that terrific monster? [Laughter.] 

Mr. Chairman, I should hope that you would be wil¬ 
ling to allow your constituents to exercise the same 
liberty that I claim for you, as a good republican. Are 
you willing?—can you trust their intelligence—their 
knowledge?—Will youleave them to work outtheir own 
destiny in their own way ? or do you choose to put in 
the constitution an iron rule, directing them to go by 
a certain prescribed line ?—Will you mark out a groove 
for them, and compel them like the wheels of a car, to 
run in or on that groove ? Will you not accord to the 
people intelligence enough to be trusted with the lib¬ 
erty of choosing their own “terminus,” and the inter¬ 
mediate points between the beginning and end of all 
their “ life trips.” I deem your intentions are honor¬ 
able, kind and benevolent towards your constituents, 
but if I were one of them, I would not thank you for 
your trouble and care, so far as the fixing of this pro¬ 
vision in the constitution is concerned. 

Then having ascertained that the corporation promi¬ 
ses a reasonable return in the shape of dividends and 
interest, you finally embark, or nut, in the enterprise 
of taking stock. iMiey otter to the public certain por¬ 
tions of the railroad or turnpike, to construct u})on 
certain terms. You go then and propose to bid, at the 
public letting, for a portion of the same. Well, you 
examine into the matter very particularly—you in¬ 
quire into the ability of the corporation—the extent of 
the stocks—the amount subscribed—the ability of the 
subscribers—you satisfy yourself, on the whole, that 


you can trust the company, and you enter into the 
contract. And to secure this contract you have travel¬ 
ed from New York, or employed an agent hero to 
bid for this public letting—you come from Tuscara¬ 
was county, or perhaps from Ashtabula, into Franklin, 
to bid for this—you will leave your business and 
homes, so eager are you to get this “ contract,’’ and 
you inquire into this matter—make it your business. 
Very well. You enter into a contract with this com¬ 
pany. If it is a successful enterprise, you have noth¬ 
ing to complain of. If it proves a failure, what rea¬ 
son have you to complain ol this failure more than if 
you had made a contract with an individual for the 
sale of any other property, where the purchaser had 
ran away or become insolvent ? 

There is another reason. Corporators, as subscri¬ 
bers to stock in a corporation, cannot suj)erintend its 
management as individuals in partnership can do. In¬ 
dividuals who are interested in a partnership have all 
their business under their own eye. They consult no i 
will but their own—they take no counsel of any body 
but themselves. They are laboring for themselves and 
their families after them. In a partnership in trade, il| 
either in merchandise or other objects, no man can ] 
be held liable for the debts of the other partner with- ' * 
out his consent. The moment that a party dies, 
that moment, in the eyes of the law, the partnership 
ends. ... iw 

There is another limitation of partnei'ship liability. « 
Every thing is to be settled the moment a partner dies. Jl 
Partners are engaged in superintending their own b'u8-®| 
iness—one in one department, another in another—or Jb 
they are alike supervisingit—managing it in all its depart- ..M 
ments without any division of labor. All are laboring 
for themselves and families. How is it with corpora- | 
tions? I become a subscriber and take stock to the I 
amount of one hundred dollars. The business of the A 
company may be spread over a great extent of the £ 
country and be in the hands of several hundred men, I 
utterly precluding me from exercising the care and ^ 
personal supervision which I could have in a small i 
partnership. Yet there are gentlemen who would * 
crush me with the debts of that cornj any, although 
it iiiight utterly ruin me—although it might blast my 
hopes forever. While they are willing to do that, 
they talk about “eternal truth and eternal equity.” 

I apprehend these terms are used veiy carelessly. - | 
It might not suit any of us to have “eternal'truth” and j 
the rules of “righteousness” applied rigidly to us. 

Now, sir, the acts of the stockholder are entirely | 
different from those of partners. I am a subscriber of 
stock to the amount of one hundred dollars. I am at- 
tending to my business—giving my care and attention 
wholly to that—but owing to mismanagement on the 
part of the agents of the company, I am compelled to 
sutter beyond the loss of my entire investment. That ‘ 
is your humanity—your goodness of heart. You can- i 
not, if all the stockeolders should be destroyed and | 
crushed by your abominable principle of unmitigated 
liability—you do not care a straw about it, so that you | 
secui’e the ascendency of your vile political dogma. : 
Nothing at all. The stockholder is about his business, j 
at home. He is willing to assist in the enterprise of 
starting a company for making a road, building a dam . 
or factory, and lo assist in making everything ready 
for successfully getting under way, and then goes 
about his business. He entrusts his business to agents. < 
Who appoint those agents ? Would it be consistent to 
call three hundred persons away from their business, ‘ 
to call in the whole of the stockholders, to manage the | 
affairs of the company, or should they be submitted to j 
a select few, who can give their undivided attention to i 
it, and their individual efforts towards the interests of 1 
ihe company easier than the whole number? W ould they 
have any better knowledge of each other? Would it 
be best for them to leave their business and attend to 
the paltry interest of a few hundred dollars? 

Mr. Chairman : I hold a certificate of stock for $100 
















CONVENTION REPORTS 


395 


in a corporation wliose capital stock is either three or 
four millions of dollars, 1 forget which. Because those 
individuals enter into a partnership of this kind, is it 
necessary that each individual should bestow his care 
and attention upon the acts of copartnership ? Mr. 
Chairman, would these gentlemen bo willing to apply 
this principle of unmitigated personal liability to the 
State of Ohio, which is a great partnership corporation 
—the greatest in Ohio ? 

Would you, Mr. Chairman, be willing to be made 
liable* for twenty millions of the public debt ? If that 
whole burthen was to fall upon you some day, how 
much of your property would be left? Why not ap¬ 
ply this principle to the State of Ohio ? I wish, if it 
could be ap{)lied to the State of Ohio, it might fall up¬ 
on the advocates of this proposition—if it must fall, I 
would like to have it fall upon them, that they might 
be made to feel, with a sensitiveness that they would 
long remember, the effects of their own principles. 

Mr. Chairman, if we apply this principle to these 
corporations, and it is the i)rinciple of “ eternal truth,” 
we ought to opply it to the State of Ohio and to coun¬ 
ty townships- These are political corporations which 
you may not except from the operations of “eter¬ 
nal truth and eternal equality.” Sir, I would call it 
with reverence, “ eternal jargon.” I think it a far bet¬ 
ter designation of the proposition. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I desire the gentleman as a good 
lawyer, to answer me whether, according to the pi’ac- 
tice of the court ot equity at this time, you cannot 
have a mandamus against a township or county, to 
compel them to pay the debt they may have ci’eated by 
ta.x alien ? 

Mr. STANTON remarked that the court in Williams 
county had decided that it could not be done. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I think then the court decided 
wrong. 

Mr. MASON. I suppose it is not as the gentleman 
from Knox supposes—that the inhabitants of a county 
or township could be liable. But what has that to do 
with the question, while it is not intended to apply 
your principle to them ? I say that instead of this great 
rule of right, that all men are born free and equal, be¬ 
ing at the bottom of this proposition, it is simply a 
question of public political expediency—a question of 
what is sound public policy and nothing more. 

I was about to say, passing from the question of the 
application of this principle of existing debts, you can 
make it prospective, and make every individual liable 
for the payment of all the debts the Stale may contract 
hereafter, and if your principle were a true one, why 
would it fail to be true if applied to a million of men 
when it is so clearly established and unquestionably 
right and just in its application to three or four hun¬ 
dred men ? 

There is another reason that I will mention, why I 
am opposed to this iron rule being incorporated into 
the constitution. It is the reverse of the reason assign¬ 
ed by the gentleman who advocated unmitigated lia¬ 
bility. They say that they are not willing to trust the 
General Assembly with it. I say that it is anti-repub¬ 
lican. It is identical with saying that they are unwil¬ 
ling to trust to public opinion, as that opinion may be 
expressed from time to time through their Representa¬ 
tives. I wish to say to the people of Ohio, from my 
place here, that I am not willing to take my place with 
the advocates of this iron rule by which they would 
bind all men, within a prescribed limit, and declare 
that they are unwilling to trust the opinions and feel¬ 
ings and action of the people as expressed from time 
to time through their Representatives. 

Sir, I say that it is anti republican for any gentleman 
to say that he will not submit this proposition to the 
free suffrage of the peoj-le of Ohio from lime to time, 
to be acted upon in reference to their own condition at 
the time. Whenever the people may make application 
for an act of incorporation, let tlie Legislature of that 
day and time, in view of the objects of the corpora¬ 


tion, and in view of all the circumshnices, say whether 
they will grant it or not, and if they incorporate, then 
to what extent. The Legislature may prescribe differ¬ 
ent rules for different corporations. In one case they 
may prescribe that a contractor shall suffer any loss 
proceding from his own want of caution and a full 
knowledge of his business. They may enact that the 
losses of a corporation shall, in a given case, fall upon 
the president or other oflicer, who may have made a 
bad, a dishonest or fraudulent contract. 

Mr. SAWYER. I would ask the gentleman a ques¬ 
tion. He is unwilling to incorporate this principle in 
the constitution because he desires the people to ex¬ 
press themselves upon the principle from time to time. 
If we should not settle this matter in relation to the 
especial project before us, why do it in any other case? 
Why not leave every thing to the Legislature ? Carry 
the principle out, I say. 

Mr. MASON. The question of my honorable friend 
had not been well considered, befoi’e he propounded it, 
or he would not have asked it. The question is, why 
confer upon the Legislature any power at all, or whjr- 
undertake to take any from them ? Why have a writ¬ 
ten constitution at all? He pi-e-supposes that this 
question of individual liability, as applied to a corpora¬ 
tion, is more important than all the principles of legis¬ 
lation upon which the legislative power can act. Look 
at the unlimited and illimitable mass of legislative 
power that you confer upon that department ot the 
government by the first section in that report. Why 
not put it all in the constitution? Why not insert a 
provision, that no man shall lend money in Ohio to 
another, except he do it upon good and sufficient mort¬ 
gage upon his real estate ? Go on and fix the extent 
of the laud or the value of the mortgage interest ?— 
Why not put that in your constitution in oi’der to save 
money lenders—in order to save the rights of credi¬ 
tors. The gentleman Irom Auglaize will see that he 
asked the question prematurely. I could nin on un¬ 
til I had exhausted my fifteen minutes in asking ques¬ 
tions, why you should not have this thing or that thing 
upon your statute books, but these are abundantly 
necessary to answer all such inquiries as have been 
made. 

Mr. Chairman, this great question cannot be put to 
rest by any such inquiries as these. It is a proposi¬ 
tion to be sustained, or not, by argument—not by a 
party rally. Now, sir, I can confide in the intelligence 
of the people, to instruct their representatives from 
time to time, to carry out their wills concerning a pro¬ 
position of no greater magnitude than this—a question 
oi ^ more or less.' There is some amount of responsi¬ 
bility in every corporation, and there is a considerable 
amount of liability, at any rate—liable to the extent of 
all that you invest therein. The question whether you 
will be liable for more than that, is simply a question 
of ‘ more or less,' and that measures the enormous mag¬ 
nitude of the question now in debate. You may give 
it great factitious importance, by making it a party 
question, and by talking about “ the masses,” but you 
cannot increase its intrinsic importance thereby. An¬ 
alyze the idea, and you have a question of greater 
or less security—“ more or less ”—a mortgage, or per¬ 
sonal security for the payment of the debt, where^ a 
corporation or an individual contracts, lu my opin 
ion, it can be safely confided to the General Assembly 
—in other words, to the action of the people—from 
time to time, to regulate this whole question. I would 
rather confide it there, because the Legislature^ can 
mould itself to suit the exigencies, wants and condition 
of the people incorj)orated. It would be safer to trust 
the General Assembly to apply this piinciple, fi dfn 
time to lime, to the condition of the neighborhood and 
portion of the State where the corporations are desired 
—“to insert a provision to qualify and make it fall up¬ 
on a portion of the corporation, or upon a part or por 
tion of the securities, or credit. They may reijuire 
the assets to be first exhausted, and then proceed 









396 


CONVENTION REPOTITS 


against the board of Directors—failing there, then 
against the securities. They may regulate the matter 
in tlie form of a scale or per cent, contribution, which 
can be done, I am willing that it should be done in 
any law that the Legislature may choose to pass upon 
this suject, but I am unwilling to put it into the con- 
slituiion, for it would be unjust. 

It is advocated by my friend from Hamilton [Mr. 
Rkkmki.in] upon the ground, that he was afraid, that 
his political friends might forget their principles and 
get so mixed up with“ VVhiggery ” that they could not 
tell where they really belonged—that they might em¬ 
brace an anti-democratic faith. Therefore he felt it to 
be his duty to arouse his friends—to awaken them to 
a due sense of their party responsibility. But my ex¬ 
cellent friend over the way [Mr. Archiioi.d] said it 
•was no party question—it was a question of right and 
wrong—of truth or falsehood. But I think, as I have 
before said, that it is a question of sheer political expe¬ 
diency, not of sound public policy. Let your Legisla¬ 
ture fiorn time to time shape that policy—shape it ac¬ 
cording to existing circumstances. 

Thei-e are many other things that I would like to say 
but I will forbear. 1 consider this, as a very interest¬ 
ing question, but principally upon the ground, that 
gentlemen choose to make it so. I am willing to go 
with the gentlemen upon the other side, for putting in¬ 
to the constitution a clause empowering the General 
Assembly, to incorporate this principle whenever and 
wherever, in their wisdom, and in the circumstances 
of the case, they, in their judgment, think it proper to 
be used and apj>lied. But I am unwilling to vote for 
anything else. I have now stated my views—I do not 
know as they have proved satisfactory to any one of 
my friends U])on the other side of the House, though I 
should be glad if they might, for there are many among 
them whom I greatly esteem 

Mr. FIRESTONE. Is it not with the Legislature 
now under the existing constitution, to regulate corpo¬ 
rations—and if so I would ask if past legislative action 
hf^s ever protected the people from the abuse of corpo¬ 
rate powers? 

Mr. Mason. The question is a very proper one and 
the gentleman is perfectly justified in asking it. That 
power exists in the Legislature now and ever has. It 
is not in the constitution now, but under the power 
to grant acts of incorporation, the Legislature has pow¬ 
er to make just such a contract with corporators as it 
inay choose to make, because every act of incorpora¬ 
tion is a contract between the sovereign and corpora¬ 
tion. It being a contract, the sovereignty being one 
party to the contract has a right to propose terms. One 
ol the terms is the right of repeal—another is that of in¬ 
dividual liability of all who take stock in that compa¬ 
ny. You may impose forty other terms and you may 
put a provisiim in the contract rendering it so irnper- 
iect, that the other contracting parly will not take it. 
It takes two to make a contract in eveiy act of incor¬ 
poration—there are conditions to the act of accep- 
^ tance. It is not like any other act of legislation which 
binds the citizen hand and foot, and puis the halter a- 
round his neck without having consulted him. In re¬ 
gard to these acts of incorporation, they being con¬ 
tracts between the sovereign power and the corpo- 
ratoi-8, they may put into the contract those terms, that 
might be deemed of advantage to both. The State 
may speculate upon the interests of the corporators, or 
the).r*want8 or their urgency just as much as it will; it 
can be just as indulgent and lenient in proposing terms 
as it may. But the other contracting party, all the 
while, has not power to touch the investment, after it 
has been placed upon the statute book. 

The cases referred to by the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton [Mr. Rekmemn] were entirely inapplicable to his 
argument in favor of placing this iron rule in the consti¬ 
tution. It was not much belter than mockery on the 
part of that gentleman or his party, to say, we are 
liiendly to these acts of incorporation, and will insist 


upon the Legislature to put these conditions into the 
contract. And more than that, he would not accept 
such terms any sooner than we ; the very party offer¬ 
ing to put these terms into the contract, would himself I 
have nothing to do with the liability imposed. They J 
are willing that the responsibility which they invoke, i, 
should fall, not upon themselves, but upon the shoul- 
ders of any fool that might be induced to go into the fi 
operation. 

I would put it into the constitution, therefore, that 
it miglit stand, to be read by all our Legislatures here- i 
after; as if we would say to them, *‘ By this provision \ 
we concede to you this power, in ex{)ress terms. Al¬ 
though you mightdeduce it from the general ground and 1 
tenor of the cojistitution. yet we su()po8e it of sufficient ; 
value, to call your attention to it, aiul particularly com- ! 
mend it to your charge;” just as the ])re8ident judge 
is required to give in charge to the grand jury a partic¬ 
ular law, and a particular provision of that law—al- ■ 
though all men are bound to know the law. I would in- i 
scrtthisasanolice,that we desire to call attention to the 
subject, so that it would not be left for any gentleman , 
of the General Assembly, to be under the necessity of 
reminding himself of it, by refeience to the original 
principles of sovereignty. Tlieu it would stand out ■ 
prominently from under your own hands, that the Gen- i 
eral Assembly was directed to exercise this power,wise¬ 
ly moderately, and in a manner suited to the circum¬ 
stances of the times, and the objects of the corporation. 

I tell you, sir, that gentlemen whose minds are so deep- j 
ly imbued in what they please to term, “the principles 
of eternal equity,” know very well the value of the 
remark just made ; that, unless you put into the hands ( 
of the Legislatue, the power to adopt their legislation ' 
to the circumstances and wants of the times, and to i 
the objects of the law they may be invited to pass— | 
all this wise legislation will be lost to you. You pro 
pose to throw it away for the sake of your “new in- J 
vention ” of a “ general law,” to contain the principle 1 
of the unmitigated liability of all those who are wil- , 
ling to squander their means under its provisions. It | 
would be to remove the instrumentality of the people, 
by which they might improve their social condition, at 
one single stroke—by one wild stride Why, by so ' 
doing you would say to the dear people, that you dare 
not trust them—that you are afraiJ to trust them—that 
you do not believe in their wisdom. But gentlemen 
who know how, might vary this phraseology,by saying, 

“ We think a great deal of the peofde—they are very 
dear to us, but w’e are not willing to trust their 
agents. We want to prevent them from acting so fool- I 
ishly. We w’ant to say in the constitution, that, your 
agent, Mr. People, (the gentleman from Fairfield, [Mr- 
Rohkutson] will understand this, for he is everlasting, 
ly upon it) we want to bind your agents merely, Mr. 
People, not yourselves. We love you well enough, but 
we do not believe much in your wisdom and sagacity. i 
We have got more wisdom than you, and we prefer 
making an iron bed for you, and putting you into it. 

Mr. ROBERTSON (interposing and Mr. M. giving 
way) said: I want to ask the gentleman two ques- ; 
tioiis. First. If he so much respects these agents of the 
people, and believes in their infallibility, why is he 
in lavor of giving the Governor the veto power? And 
in the next place, why would he make any con.stitution 
at all, in order to protect popular rights from the iuva- 
ions of legislatives bodies ? 

Mr. MASON. Tiie gentleman perhaps, would like 
to have an opportunity to answer his questions him¬ 
self. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. No, no! I would like to have 
the views of the gentleman from Clark. 

Mr. MASON. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, if we had 
a veto, authorized by tlie constitution, that should ope¬ 
rate upon the Legislature as a check against hasty, and 
inconsiderate, and unwise, and unconstitutional legis¬ 
lation—(I would like, since the gentleman has asked 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


hi-s question, that he would be kind enough to hear the 
answer.) (Laughter.) 

Mr. ROBERTSON (breaking off his conversation 
with several geutleineii, and bowing to Mr. M.) Widi 
the greatest pleasure. 

Mr. MASON coiitiuuiug. I am asked, why I would 
desire a veto in the constitution, if the people can be 
trusted? I will tell you why, I would have a veto pow¬ 
er—(and I reckon there are many of my political 
friends who sympathise widi me in this)—I would have 
a veto power, in order that it might be so applied as 
to resist passionate, inconsiderate, incongruous, and 
more lhau all, unconstitutional legislation. Now, the 
gentleman thinks he has got me. (Laughter.) But I 
would have that same power to operate upon your acts 
of incorporation. I tell you that. And so it would ope¬ 
rate, sir. Now, as I understand this “ great principle 
of eternal justice and truth,” it is not a grave cpiestion 
why the General Assembly should put into an act in¬ 
corporating abridge company, a provision, authorizing 
them to sell liquor ad libitum. I understand this to in¬ 
volve, not so much a matter of principle, as the impro¬ 
priety of hasty and unconstitutional legislation. I 
would submit, therefore, all acts of incorporation to 
the review of the executive; and when, in his belief, 
they were purged of whatever might be w'rong, or lia¬ 
ble to objection, let them become laws, as the expres- 
* sion of the will of the whole people. 

The gentleman tlien asks why we would have a con- 
1 atitution at all. This is so grave a question that I don’t 
S know but I should decline it. Having no original 
! ideas myself, like the gentlemen from Fairfield, I su[)- 
j pose he could answer it better than I. I have never 
! gone much into the “transcendentalism” of political 
i philosi'phy; and I believe that all questions of this 
1 kind do not legitimately belong to this discussion. 

I Mr. STANTON. 1 hope the committee will indulge 
me for a single moment. I desire to consitler what is 
likely to be llie result of striking out this section. Upon 
this bide of the chandler, if gentlemen voted for stri¬ 
king out, it was pretty evident that they would do so 
w'ithont the expectation of getting anything in lieu of 
it. Tliey would rather have nothing. But I lake it 
for granted, that tliere'will be some provision retained 
upon the subject of individual liability, and this is also 
what I desire—sometliing nearly in the terms of the 
section as it stands. Therefore, I shall vote against 
striking out, because I do not expect to get anything 
I better. I desire, now, to ask gentlemen on the other 
I side of the chamber, should the section be stricken out, 

I do thase gentlemen expect to get anything more strin- 
’ gent? There are various propositions to in.sert—some¬ 
thing like a dozen in all—all of a different character, 
and no gentleman offering an amendment, will be like¬ 
ly to vote for inserting any proposition but his ow-n: 

I and this opposition, joined with the vote upon this side 
I of the chamber, gentlemen will perceive, will give but 
I a slim chance of success for either proposition. 1 sub- 
! niit, then, whether gentlemen can expect to get any- 
j thing belter, in the shape of a limitation, than the sec¬ 
tion as it now stands. 

I suspect the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swa.v] 
(without intendi.ig it, perhaps,) has misled the com¬ 
mittee, by saying that his substitute was boirowed 
from the New York Constitution. I think, perhaps it is 
I in the very terms of a proposition introduced into the 
I New York convention, but which was not adopted. 

I If I Jinderstand the proposition of the gentleman from 
Franklin, it is to hold the stockholders in railroads, 
tum]»ikes, &c., to a responsibility for all the debts of 
the company, in the ratio of the amount of stoc k sub¬ 
scribed, to the total amount of indebtedness; that is, if 
one man be the holder of a hundredth jiart of the stock, 
he shall be individually liable for a hundredth part of 
the debts. But now, in the New York constitution 
there is an exception made in favor of borrowed money, 
the debts incurred for railroad iron, besides other ex¬ 
ceptions, including almost all the heavy debts of the 
company. 


397 


I am willing to endorse, emphatically, what was said 
here yesterday by the gentleman ftom Licking, [Mr. 
Case,] that if we put in any thing like the amount of li¬ 
ability contemi)lated on the other side, either it will 
defeat the constitution before the people, or suspend all 
our works ot improvement, so long as the constitution 
shall remain obligatory upon the people—and no sensi¬ 
ble man, as I think, can doubt it. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I understniid there is a motion to 
strike out, and some half a dozen propositions to insert: 
and I desii e to ask you, Mr. Chairman, it there is any 
rule by which these propositions may be i)re8ented in 
order ? 

The CHAIRMAN. The first offered will be first pre¬ 
sented. 

Mr. TAYLOR. But I wish to know which proposi¬ 
tion is first in order. 

The CHAIRMAN. The first question will be taken 
on the proposition of the gentleman from Hainiltou, 
[Mr. Rp;emelin,] proposing a lien ujiou the road. 

Mr. REEMELfN. The proposition of the gentleman 
from Licking will have precedence over mine, because 
his is an ameiidmeiit to mine. 

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman from Licking 
insists upon his amendment, then it will be considered 
ill advance of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Hamilton. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I shall vote against striking out the 
section ; for if 1 understand the proposition of the gen¬ 
tleman from Licking, it will fail to unite a majority. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. Before the question is taken 
upon striking out, I will move to amend the section in 
the third line so as to conform to the amendment al¬ 
ready made. I move to strike out the words “ partners 
or share holders,” and insert the words “ stock hol¬ 
ders.” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I am opposed to striking out 
these sections. I much jirefer the plan of the gentle¬ 
man from Butler, [Mr. Vance,] if we could be sure of 
obtaining it by striking out; but if we strikeout, we 
oamiot assure ourselves that that gentleman’s plan will 
be adoted. Probably, as it now stands, it will unite 
more minds in its favor than any other proposition. I 
had not intended to add another word, but I beg the 
indulgence of the committee for a few moments. The 
matter is of vast importance, much of weal or woe may 
depend upon our present action. The gentleman from 
Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] contends for absolute, un¬ 
qualified, individual liability of all corjiorations fur in¬ 
ternal improvements, because he says the General As¬ 
sembly has hitherto refused to introduce such a leature 
into its enactments. If so, is it not unquestionably be¬ 
cause a majority of the people have been against it?— 
Can the gentleman even think of a body of men more 
obsequious to the popular will than the General A3- 
sembly ? But the gentlemen and his associates con¬ 
tend for the insertion of this principle in the constitu¬ 
tion, for the protection, as they say, of contractors. We 
have had experience of that class of men; they have 
swarmed upon us from New England and New York, 
and all along shore. They huve created sudden and 
enormous fortunes. Many of them now possess larger 
estates than any member of this Convention. I could 
ull of instances in which they have cleared more than 
$100,000, by bidding at an auction, in less time than I 
have been talking to the committee. They have Ire- 
quently cleared $100,000 in a lew weeks. Cannot the 
sagaci y of these sharp, cunning men be relied on to 
protect themselves? If any ot them has a contract 
amounting to $10,000 oidy, he has a linuJred times as^ 
much interest in watching and knowing the means of 
the company employing him as a stockholder owning 
but $100 of the stock. But I have presented th s idea 

to the committee before, and will not dwell upnii it. 

We have shown repeatedly that the stock holder is bound 
for ull his engagements, and, according to the plan of 
the committee, for double the amount of his engage¬ 
ments. Then if we are led ott* by the cry of “ exclu 



















398 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


eive privilege,” we are led off by a mere Jack-o-laiitern, 
a mere will-o-the-wisp, a meteor glare which will lead 
us through bogs and morasses to our owu destruction. 
Gentlemen themselves can see that the committee pro¬ 
pose no “ exclusive privileges” for the stockholders. 
Can they not give the people credit for equal sagacity ? 
Do they suppose that the people can be deluded by a 
mere begging the question, a mere play upon words ? 
If they do, they are mistaken; the people will not be 
so easily deceived; they will look behind the screen. 
Yet it is for this one idea, that every old, cherished 
principle of the “ Old Treasury Guards,” is to be set at 
nought. The weapon with which they cut to pieces 
the old, abominable system of State appropriations, is 
itself to be broken and shivered. A principle is to be 
introduced into our constitution, which will infallibly 
make the rich richer, and the poor poorer; which will 
destroy the interests of the honest yeomanry of the 
country, and build up the interests of nabobs and mill¬ 
ionaires ; and all this, forsooth, is to Ite done in the 
name of Democracy !! (Spreading his hands and bow¬ 
ing.) [Laughter.] 

The Scripture says, “Ye know not what manner of 
spirits ye are of.” So I say to my friends of the Ham¬ 
ilton delegation, “ Ye know not what manner of spirits 
ye are of.” You are introducing doctidues absolutely 
fa^al to the best interests of the yeomanry, and favora¬ 
ble only to the rich nabobs and millionaires whom you 
represent. For the Hamilton delegation, and individ¬ 
ually, I entertain no sentiments but those of warm 
friendship and respect—with them I could live, and 
with them I could die. I shall not rise on this floor to 
question their candor or their sincerity, but yet, u* con¬ 
sciously to themselves, they are here engaged in dead¬ 
ly striie for the interests of their rich constituents, and 
their exertions are telling banefully on the prospects of 
the hardy yeomanry, the bone and sinew of the coun¬ 
try. It is said in Scripture to be easier for a camel to 
pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to 
enter the kingdom of Heaven. I’erhaps the camel 
might perform that feat, but we must never expect the 
Hamilton delegation to forget for a moment to push 
the interests of their rich constituency. [Great laugh¬ 
ter.] The welfare of the yeomanry demands facilities 
for association and combination. Their individual 
strength, inappreciable in itself, only becomes availa¬ 
ble by means of combination. Yet the doctrine which 
I choose to denominate “ the Hamilton doctrine,” 
[laughter,] because that delegation are its most dis¬ 
tinguished champions, renders combinations amongst 
them utterly impossible. Wherever there is a poor 
and oppressed yeomanry, throughout the world, they 
are made and kept poor by isolating, by preventing the 
aggregation and association of their means and resour¬ 
ces. By union their strength would become sufficient 
to secure their own welfare. It is by rendering con¬ 
cert of action utterly impossible, that the slaves of the 
South are held in bondage. But if history and expe¬ 
rience were utterly silent on the subject, would not 
mere common sense convince us that the means of the 
poor man are utterly unavailable in competition with 
the means of the rich. But aggregation and association 
can enable the poor man to participate in those advan¬ 
tages which the immense pecuniary means of the rich 
man secures to him almost without an effort. By 
means of this principle of aggregation and association, 
the honest yeomanry of Guernsey and Harrison and 
Jefferson, can make a line of communication through 
the territory of those counties to the Ohio river. But 
render association impossible, and you continue these 
counties in their present disadvantageous and depressed 
condition. Unless, indeed, some two or three million¬ 
aires of Hamilton county will be kind enough to go up 
and make a line of ira])rovements for them, and take 
the profits. I would rather see the yeomanry of these 
counties constructing their improvements themselves. 

Mr. REEMBLIN rose and asked if he might inter¬ 
pose an observation. 


Mr. ARCHBOLD. Certainly, certainly, let the na¬ 
bobs and millionaires be heard—let their advocates be 
heard—the advocates of the yeomanry are determined^| 
to be heard. IHHB 

Mr. RE EMELIN. If the gentleman would comeW, 
to Cincinnati, the nabobs and millionaires, as the gen- 
tleman calls them, would thank him for this day’s ex¬ 
ertions. j 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. It is not probable. That class | 

of men have waged a relentless warfare upon me for | 

years. It is mT likely that peace or truce is to com- : 

rnence now. All my histoiy—all my associations—all '■ 

my sympathies—all my jmejudices, lead me to devise 
means for the elevation of the masses. | 

I have harbored a cherished feeling—it is dear to | 
my heart—that a distinguished representative of the 
honest yeomanry, who I see just before me, would ' 
take part in this discussion. [Mr. Arch bold was un¬ 
derstood to refer to Mr. Kennon of Belmont.] That | 

gentleman wields a powerful sword, with a stalwart 1 ' 

arm. His exertions would tell in this conflict. I have i 

been disappointed. Influenced by what I chose to 
call, in the most kind and brotherly manner, over pru¬ 
dence, that distinguished champion declines the com- 
bat. The sword which he might wield in behalf of jj 

the yeomanry, with so much greater ability, must be i) 

wielded by a more unpractised hand. Denied his as- ij 

sistance, I must championise the interest of the mass- |i 

es in the best manner I can; and if my srength were j 

equal to my zeal, it would be done effectually. 1 il 

will spare no toil—I will shun no labor, to advq,nce ' 

the interests of the yeomanry, whose I am, and whom I ! 

serve. j 

On motion, by Mr. KIRKWOOD, the committee rose 
and I eported progress in the report under consideration, | 
without having come to any conclusion. 

On motion, the Convention took a recess. 

- I 

3 o’clock p. m. j 

On motion of Mr. GLAYPOOLE, the Convention re- i 
solved itself into a committee of the whole, (Mr. Town- 
SHEND in the Chair,) and resumed the consideration of j 

the report of the committee on j 

CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN FOR BANKING. 

The question was announced as being on striking out 
the 3d section. 

Mr. KENNON said that before the committee took a 
vote he desired to submit a few remarks. He had in- ! 
tended to have given a silent vote on this subject, at 
least in committee of the whole; but the gentleman I 

from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] in his remarks in the I 

forenoon, had complained of him, [Mr. Kennon,] be- ! 

cause he had not participated in this debate, and had : 

attributed to him an over caution in such matters. The | 

gentleman was entirely mistaken as to the motives 
which influenced his mind in declining to make speech- i 

es in this body. He had concluded not to occupy the [l 

time and attention of the Convention with speeches : J 

he believed he would discharge his duty by voting and | 

leaving the argument to those who argued with much ii 

more ease to themselves than he could, and who seemed |j 

to take great pleasure in doing so. It had been the \ 

habit of his life, for the last twenty-five years, to ad- i; 

dress courts and juries, and to address them having an ( 

object in view, which was to convince them of the truth ' 

of the proposition which he was at the time supporting, 
and he was animated with the hope of effecting that ' 
object. He was satisfied that any argument made by | 
him or by any other member of this Convention would 
have but little ettect in changing the opinion of any | 
member of the committee. And again, it was a morti¬ 
fying idea to him, that if he undertook to address the 
committee, it might be supposed by gentlemen he had 
in view, not the Convention, not the committee, not the \ 

body addressed, but a constituency abroad. These | 

were some of the motives which had operated on his 
mind to induce him to remain silent. Still, he proposed j 
to take up the question now before the committee and 



















CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


399 


submit a few remarks on the subject. In doing so, he 
would take no notice of any man’s political opinions, 
j either for the purpose of praise or censure. To him it 
' was a matter of no concern whether by some that was 
considered a Whig or a Democratic measure. If gen¬ 
tlemen expected him to favor a measure they must first 
satisfy his judgment that it was right; it they failed in 
' that, they would not succeed in obtcdning his vote on 
any subject, no matter by what name it was called. 

The question which he proposed to discuss was, the 
policy of adopting a clause in the constitution imposing 
upon every share-holder, in every incorporated company, 
an unrestricted liability to pay all the debt.s of the com- 
1 pany. Ho matter how small his share may have been. 

; In doing this, he intended to direct the attention of the 
' committee principally to railroads and other great works 
of internal improvement, beneficial to the country. In 
the few remarks which he was about to submit, he 
would assume some things to be true without any at¬ 
tempt to prove them, because he considered them u - 
, disputed. Ist. That so far as the policy of the State 
t of Ohio was concerned, it would not again enter into 
any system of internal improvements. That the gov¬ 
ernment would not again apply the public monies for 
any such purpose; public opinion had settled that 
question against the use of the public funds in that way. 
2d. He would consider it as an equally well settled 
principle, that railroads running through the State, 
connecting the great commercial points, and affording 
facilities for the transportation of the produce of the 
farmer and the goods of the merchant, were beneficial 
to the public, and ought to be made by some means or 
other. He claimed two other facts to be true—first, 
that railroads of any length, and requiring a large 
amount of capital, could not be made without an act 
of incorporation of the stockholders of the company, 
to enable the company, as such, to contract and be con¬ 
tracted with, to sue and be sued, and to give it perpe¬ 
tuity. Second, that if all the members or stockholders 
of a company were to be held individually liable for all 
the debts of the company, stock never would be taken 
in such company, and such works would therefore not 
be done, unless indeed it is clearly seen that the stock 
will be profitable, and then only large capitalists would 
take stock. Let me (said Mr. K.) illustrate the truth 
of this last proposition. In my part of the State we 
have not had the benefit of railroads or canals, made 
by either the State or corporations, although we have 
paid our full share of taxes for impr’ovements made in 
other parts of the State, and which were of little or 
no advantage to us. Our people would like to see a 
railroad from Columbus to Zanesville or some other 
point, pass through the county of Guernsey, to meet 
the Cumberland railroad on the Ohio river. This might 
be done by passing down the valley of Indian Wheeling 
creek, McMahan’s creek, Captina creek, in Belmont 
county, or Sunfish creek in Monroe county, the latter 
of which would be the most eligible route. The stock 
is to be raised to elfect this great object, by subscrip¬ 
tion. Those near the road would feel a great interest 
in raising the stock to complete the work. Whether 
the road when finished would be profitable stock or 
not, could not be determined beforehand with absolute 
certainty, nor could the costs, accidents and failures be 
foreseen with any great degree of accuracy. That route 
would probably be adopted along which the largest 
subscription could be raised. The owners of small or 
large farms would be willing to take stock to the amount 
of $100, $300, $500, or $1,000. It might be nece.ssary 
that the whole capital should be raised in that way.— 
The construction of the road must be managed by 
j agents. All the shareholders couldnot attend to it, and 
perhaps few if any of the shareholders would be ac¬ 
quainted with each other. Some of them might be 
mere men of straw, hoping to make money by the sale 
of slocks. Say to persons near the route, yourrespon- 
sibility extends only to the payment of the amount of 
stock which you have subscribed, or to double that 


amount, and they may subscribe; but say to them if 
you subscribe $500, or any other amount, and now pay 
the whole of it down, you are still liable to be sued for 
any debt which may come against the corporation, and 
you must yourself pay the whole of that debt, no mat¬ 
ter what the amount may be. You are liable to have 
all your ijersonal property and your farm sold, and you 
must look for reimbursement to each of the other stock¬ 
holders, scarcely one of whom you know, and you can¬ 
not tell who may subscribe after this time. Many may 
subscribe who are wholly unable to pay. These per¬ 
sons you cannot know, because the stock is not yet 
made up, and they will sign their names after this, for 
the balance of stock. Say to them also, for you must 
tell them the whole truth, that whenever the Assembly 
chooses it may repeal this act ol incorporation under 
wliich 5 '^ou act. 

Say all these things to a man who is about to take 
stock, and you will not find perhaps one man on the 
road from Columbus or Zanesville to the Ohio river, 
who will take one cent of your stock. Nay, more, 
you will not find any man of sense who would accept 
of $500 of your stock as a gift, subject to these liabili¬ 
ties. You might as well say at once, and put it into 
your constitution, that no farmer should have any stock 
in any such railroad ; that large or foreign capitalists 
alone should make these improvements and receive 
the profits, if any arose from them. But say to those 
along the route who are desirous to have the benefit 
of the improvement, if you subscribe $300, and the 
project succeeds, and is profitable, you can sell your 
stock for all you paid for it; if it fails, all you loose is- 
the stock you have subscribed, and the road will be 
made. Adopt the principle which you propose, and 
there is an end to all railroad, canal and turnpike im- 
provementsin Ohio; and yet, this is considered so plain 
a proposition that it ought to be made a part of the fun¬ 
damental law of the land! 

The talented and distinguished members from Haiu- 
ilton and Trumbull [Messrs. Reemeli.v and Ranney] 
place the claim for unlimited liability on high grounds. 
They say with great force and strong emphasis upon 
the word ‘ right,’ “ It is right that corporations should 
pay their debts, and therefore we ought to say so in the 
Constitution.” 

With due respect for the opinions of those gentle¬ 
men I deny the truth of both these propositions, in the 
sense in which they claim them to be true. 1 agree 
that all men should pay their debts, and that it is right 
that all corporations should comply with their contracts 
and pay their debts to the last farthing. They should 
comply with their cmitracts in the same manner in 
which any other individual should. But let me state 
what the contract is, and to make my meaning plain I 
will again refer to the railroad operation. The stock 
is all subscribed to make the road from Zanesville to 
the Ohio river. The road is about to be let out on con¬ 
tract by sections to be built. It is to be let to the low¬ 
est bidder. Here stands a stockholder who has sub- 
scrived five hundred dollars and the bidders. Now 
gentlemen, says the stockholder, here are the names of 
ail the stockholders; I do not know one in five hundred 
of them; I do not know who will be the agents of this 
company ; I do not know whether this project will suc¬ 
ceed or not; if you bid for a section and get it, you, 
like all other bidders, will for the payment of your 
money have this security only : the whole property ol the 
corporation, as such, will be liable to be taken to pay 
all its debts, and I am individually bound to pay my 
five hundred dollars, the amount I have subscribed, and 
live hundred dollars more than I ever agreed to sub¬ 
scribe, and I am not willing to be bound further than 
that. You are of age—you bid for the purpose of ma¬ 
king money—you know precisely as much about this 
matter as I do. If you are willing to bid on^ these 
terms do so, but remember, I will not be bound in any 
event to pay more than double the amount I have sub¬ 
scribed. I run the hazard of losing all my stock, you. 










400 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


mil the hazard of losing your pay, or a [jortion of it. 
The contractor with the charter in his liand, and lully 
undcrs'anding the terms upon which hetake.s the con¬ 
tract, bids and obtains the section. The stockholder 
fully comi)lie8 with his contract and pays not only 
what he subscr bed, but double that amount. Wha 
more in honesty could you ask of him. ‘ The whole af¬ 
fair is a failure, and both aro losers. But, say the gen- 
tleiiun, it is right that corporations should pay all their 
debts. They should have said it was right that 
they should iiave complied with their contracts and 
pay as much as they contracted to pay. In the case 
which I have supposed it would not only not be right 
to compel the stockholder to pay more than he under¬ 
took to pay, but it would be morally wrong to do so. 
The truth or error of the proposition depends entirely 
upon the contract. If the act of incorporation requires 
that each stockholder should be liable fot the whole 
debts of the company, no matter how small his stock 
may be there, and any one trusts the company uj>on the 
faith of such liability, then indeed it would be right to 
hold the stoct^ holders to the contract, even if they 
should be ruined by so doing. The answer to this 
would be that if the charter made each shareholder in 
a corporation responsible for all the debts of the com¬ 
pany, then the contract would be that he should be in¬ 
dividually liable for the whole of its debts, and it 
would be right to enforce such a contract; of this there 
can be no doubt, but I think I have shown that no man 
of sense, no responsible man would take stuck in such 
a railroad company as I havi) described. That in effect 
it would be saying that no such improvement should 
hereafter be made in the State; and yet it is admitted 
that such woi'ks, which ‘annihilate time and space;’ 
would be of great, very great advantage to the people 
of the State. What object then have gentlemen in 
insetting such a clause in the constitution? None but 
to prevent men, full grown men from making contracts 
with corporations by which they might be losers. It 
was argued, however, that one great object was the 
protection of the poor laborer. And many cases of in- 
dividual suffering are cited, both north and south, by 
the breaking up of these corporations. Would the 
gentlemen allow him to say that he considered them a- 
lit le mistaken and that they themselves did not exact¬ 
ly iindtrstand the matter ? 

He did not so understand (continued Mr. K.) the op¬ 
eration of corporations. Take for instance a railroad, 
or a plank or turn [like road, and see who were the suf- 
feiers. So far as his observation extended, the work 
on such improvements was alwavs done by contract— 
the contractors took the contract for the obvious pur¬ 
pose of gain, competition existing necessarily, and [lei- 
haps the contract allotted to the low est bidder, who re¬ 
ceives bis compensation at the hands of the corpoia- 
tion. Then, it was not the corporation which was in¬ 
dividually responsible to the laborers on these railroads, 
it was the contractor—he was the party responsible to 
the laborer. He knew well that if the contractor had 
not the means to pay his liabilities, and if the corpora¬ 
tion was unable to satisfy his claim, the loss then fell 
directly on the laborer. But, the laborers contracted 
with a man who was directly responsible to them hu 
their money. 

But I have said that neither of the proportions urged 
by the members from Trumbull and H.iniilton, [Messrs. 
Ranney and Reemeh.v] were true in the sense in 
which ihey used them. The propositions were these. 
Ist, It is right that corporations should pay all their 
debts; and ‘2udly, because it were right it ought to be 
engrafted in the constitution. 

I have attempted to show to this committee that it 
were right that corporations should comply with their 
contracts, but it were also right that a Railroad Com¬ 
pany might be allowed to make a contract, by which 
the members should be individually liable to pay only 
double the amount whi.h each had subscribed; and I 
think I have proved it. Suppose, however, that I have 


filled; still I deny the truth of the other proposition, 
or rather the conclusion which these gentlemen derive 
from the first, that is, that a clause slumld be inserted 
111 the constitution, making Ihestockboldersindividual¬ 
ly liable for all the debts of the corporation, it is not 
because a thing is right that it ought to be in the con- , 
stitution. It is right that men should be punished for 
murder, and all otlier crimes: it is right that a man 
should have the moans of collecling tliedcbts justly due 
him—it is right thai he should have a particular .form of 
action in which to sue—that a mode of proof should j 
exist, by which he would he enabled to establish his J 
claim. The absolute and relative rights of man, are, | 
when carried out into detail, very numerous; but " 
would any man in his senses say, that because all these ' 
things were right, that therefoie they ought to be eii- . 
grafted into the constitution of a State? Surely not. It J 
was necessary, therefore, if the first jiroposition be 
true, that tliese gentlemen should prove it followed 
that it should go into the constitution. 

He understood that it was the intention of gentle¬ 
men, that all corporations should bo incorporated un¬ 
der a general law. Now, he could wi^h that some of 
ih'^se gentlemen, who are so very anxious about that 
subject, would sit down here, and draw up an act un¬ 
der which all corporations can be incorporated in this 
State, and all those excluded which ought not to be in¬ 
corporated/ He would say there was no man in that 
body who could cover by a law all tlie corjioratlons 
that might go into existence in this State. A law was 
to be made perfect, by experience only: we had not a 
single law upon all our statute books that had not been 
changed, and probably changed for the better. Ho 
bad a very high opinion of the talent and intellectuality 
of this body, but even the wisest men in the State 
could not make a general law of the nature proposed. 
What was a constitution? The recognition of somofl 
first principle ; it was not a matter of detail, for as soon -* 
as we went into detail, we could then change, if ne-» 
cessary—and it would always be necessary to make M 
changes—not so in a constitution. Now it unfortunate- 
ly, or perhaps fortunately happened, that they never3 
bad had any railroads, turnpikes, or canals m-ade in® 
his section of the country, and tlierefore, they had no w 
bankrupt corporations, or no sufferers, as there was in 
other parts of the Slate, fie had not, consequently,^ 
the experimental knowledge that other geutlemen3 
seemed to have on this subject. But was not a railroad;| 
beneficial to the State? For instauce, he desired that^ 
a railroad should connect Columbus widi some other ^ 
city—or the public desire a railroad to pass, say, i 
through Monroe county. What w'oiild we do, then? ' 
He could tell what we would do if this clause were 
adopted. It would just effectually say to the southern 
|)art of the State, lliat public improvemeu's shall uot',^ , 
be made among you. Shall not those railroads be I 
made, which, in the language of a very distinguished ii 
writer, “carried us from place to place, annihilating Ij 
time and space? ” ’ ! 

Bill here suppose was a railroad, connecting two ■ 
points, already finished, and let the corporators, for the 
purpose of his argument, have paid liieir debts—let 
them go into possession of their road and receive area- i 
sonable compensation for the capital invested: and I 
would any man ever object to that? Never. But it ■ 
was said corporations were dishonest. Now he would i 
put the case simply so,: If railroails be a public bene¬ 
fit, shoiiid they not be encouraged by every man in or¬ 
der to increase the facilities of travel to all ? Well, 
how was it to be made, if it ever were to be made ? ' 
It was to be constructed by subscriptions along the | 
line of the road: there mignt be three or five or ten . 
'housand shareholders in the company. Any man with- i 
out arguing the question, knew that the business of that 
amount of persons could not be eavried cm, unless uti- i 
der an act of incorporation. Perhaps gentlemen knew 
bow lie was going to act in relation to this section ? He 
was going to vote for retaining the proposition as it i 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


401 


stood ; what, he would do when it came into Conven¬ 
tion he would not say. Let us have this corporation 
with the liability that is now placed on it—with the 
section as it was, and how was the case? In the first 
place there was the first section hanging over it, and 
then there was double the amount of liability on the 
stockholder by the provision of this section. That was 
e.iough of liability for the corporation he had in his 
eye, There was no doubt whatever that the parties 
contracting with a corporation should be paid, but they 
should not be bound up in such a way that those indi¬ 
viduals through whose farms their railroad was propo¬ 
sed to be constructed would not subscribe for stock. 
They ought to be bound up to the highest point of in¬ 
dividual liability at which wise men will take stock, 
but no further, if we expected to effect the object. But 
w’here was that point—could any of the gentlemen in 
form him? If with their assistance it could be proved 
to him that tin responsibility should be double or tre¬ 
ble, he would vote for it. But he would not vote for 
a point of liability at which he knew no man in his 
senses would subscribe for stock. 

It did not do for gentlemen to get up here and say 

we know that with individual responsibility to the 
whole amount of the debts of the corporation you can 
get people to subscribe.” He wanted a clear under¬ 
standing of the highest point of liability at which stock 
would be taken, before he put it in the constitution. 
But it had been said here that there were corporations 
wdth such a liability clause in Ohio. He confessed he 
thought his friend from Hamilton [Mr. Holmes,] was 
going to make something out of it, and he would have 
ione so if the facts had not failed him. (Laughter.) 
It seemed that his friend was a member of the Senate, 
and he incorporated a great many of those small cor¬ 
porations, in the charters of wliich, the individual re¬ 
sponsibility was inserted. What was the consequence? 
It turned out that no man took stock in any of them. 
All that he had to say to that argument was, that it 
did not prove that stock would be taken. He knew 
very well that gentlemen might say in reply, that it 
was on account of a change in political parties being 
about to take place. For instance the corporators in 
whose charter the individual liability clause had been 
inserted, might say, '‘here, this charter makes us indi¬ 
vidually responsible for the whole ol the debts of the 
corporation, let us wait until there is another party in 
the majority and we can change it.” But at all events, 
no one such charter had ever been carried into effect 
for turnpikes or railroads. Although there were cor¬ 
porations other than for banking in every State in the 
Union, yet he would assert, that in no State was this 
individual responsibility carried to the same extent as 
was proposed here by gentlemen. 

Mr. REB.MELIN (in his seat) remarked that such a 
provision existed in the constitution of Missouri. 

Mr. KENNON resumed. He was opposed to it then 
for two reasons. In the first place because he regard¬ 
ed public improvements of great benefit to the public; 
and in the second place, because he knew that the dis¬ 
bursement of the public funds of this State for those 
purposes would never again be sanctioned. For these 
reasons and others that he might present, he would 
vote against striking out this proposition. It was pos¬ 
sible that he mignt be mistaken in his views in relation 
to this subject. He did not intend to be a pioneer in 
this matter; he would let other s be so if they saw fit. 
A great deal could be said about banking as gentlemen 
knew ; he himself could tell much in relation to them. 
But so far as railroads were concerned, he would ven¬ 
ture the opinion that if gentlemen succeeded in obtain¬ 
ing w'hat they claimed here, the peoole would never 
have the public improvements which they so much de¬ 
sired in his part of the State. He would not vote then 
for that stringent measure. He would say also that if 
wo adopted the section, without its containing any re¬ 
striction whatever, the effect would be to shingle this 
State all over with corporations. What was the mean- 

26 


ing of that section ? It meaned nothing more or less 
than amending the charter under a general law and 
they had the right to amend it. But they could make 
an amendment to a charter as well by a special law as 
by the mode proposed. 

He had some objection to the arguments made here, 
because the speeches of members went out to the 
world, and many had a strong tendency to take a hold 
on the minds of the people and prejudice them against 
corporations. What was it gentlemen said here?— 
Sim[)ly this: Thai; we had not made sufficient to pro¬ 
tect the community against railroad companies, and 
turnpike and plankroad companies. At all events, he 
supposed there was no very great danger of those rail¬ 
roads, (Src., &c., being made or permitted to run over 
the graves of our deceased fathers and relatives with¬ 
out our consent. Gentlemen wished to put their prop¬ 
osition into the constitution for the purpose of protect¬ 
ing the graves of our fathers. It would have no effect 
whatever to do so ; but it could be most effectually pre¬ 
vented if the proposition of the gentleman were carried 
into eff.ict, for we then would have no railroads at all. / 
He would not have taken any part in this discussion if 
it had not been for the remarks of the gentleman from 
Monroe, [Mr. Archbold.] He was entirely mistaken 
as to the motives which actuated him, [Mr. K.] He 
was not, as gentlemen would find out, much of a poli¬ 
tician. He had not been a participator in a public 
meeting for the last ten years; but he intended to vote 
his own sentiments on this subject, and he thought 
they would suit his constituents. There was nothing 
in the world more disagreeable to him, in the discus¬ 
sions in this body, than holding gentlemen’s polit¬ 
ical principles as a terror over their votes. All he 
had to say was, that he would voteforthis section, and 
in doing so he would be merely discharging what he 
considered to be his duty. The gentleman from Mon¬ 
roe, no doubt, had suffered a little, and he knew his 
[Mr. K’s] sentiments on this subject better than any 
other member of the committee, and had, therefore, 
forced him into this debate. He had measured arms 
with the gentleman from Monroe many times, and he 
would tell those engaged with him that they would 
find out that the longer he fought the harder he hit; 
he [Mr. K.] was a little in the way too. (Laughter.) 

Mr. MITCHELL desired, before the vote was taken, 
to correct a statement of the gentleman from Belmont, 

[Mr. Kennon.] in relation to there being no provision 
in any State constitution for extreme individual liability. 

Mr. M. then proceeded to read from the constitution of 
Missouri for the purpose of showing that such a provis¬ 
ion existed in that State. 

Mr. KENNON assented as to what the gentleman 
had said. 

Mr. STANTON remarked that in the course of his 
observations he had not argued that such a provision 
did not exist in the constitution of Missouri; what he 
said was, that they had no railroads in that State. 

Mr. MITCHELL. They are a happier people than 
yours. 

The question being upon striking out the third sec¬ 
tion, it was put and the committee divided in this wise; 
ill the affirmative 43, in the negative 45. 

So the committtee refused to strike out. 

The committee then took up the fourth section, 
which was read as follows, and agreed to; 

Sec. 4. The property of corporations shall forever be subject 
to taxation, the same as the property of individuals, &c. 

Sec. 5. The right of way may be granted by general laws to 
corporations; provided, the same shall not be appropriated to 
the use of any incorporation until full compensation therefor be 
made in money, irrespective of any benefit or advantage to^ the 
owner from any improvement proposed by such corporation j 
and provided further, the amount of compensation shall be as- ^ 
certained by a jury of twelve men, in a court of record, or shall ’ 
be prescribed by law. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE proposed to amend by 
striking out from the fifth and sixth lines, the words, 

“ of twelve men, in a court of record, or.” He made 











402 _CONVENTI ON REP ORTS. 


tliis motion because these words would repeal and 
nullily ihe remainder of the provision. 

Mr. NORRIS suggested the word “ as,” to be insert¬ 
ed in the place of the words proposed to be stricken 
out. 

Mr. HUMPlIREVILLE. I only object to pointing 
out ihe mode ; and I think the Legislature has authori¬ 
ty to do that already. I certainly acquiesce in the 
suggestion. What 1 want is, that the provision be al¬ 
tered so as to read : “ The amount of compensation 
shall be ascertained in such maimer as shall be pre¬ 
scribed by law.” 

This amendment was rejected. 

Mr. GREGG proposed to amend by striking out the 
wonts, “ajury of twelve men,” so that the [trovision 
will read : “ The amount of compensation shall be as¬ 
certained in a court of record,” &c. 

The vote was taken upon this amendment, but the 
Chairman did not announce the result. 

Mr. NORRIS said: These words, ‘‘by a jury of 
twelve mvn,” w’ere put in by the committee expressly 
for the purpose of avoiding those abuses which have 
been complained of, growing out of a misunderstand¬ 
ing of the meaning of the term “jury.” Men’s prop¬ 
erty had been taken from them upon the ap[)raisement 
of a jury constituted with a less number than twelve 
men. These words were inserted, therefore, in order 
to put it out of the power of any corporation to con¬ 
demn property for their use, through the intervention 
of two or three commissioners, called a jury. The 
committee considered that the verdict of twelve men 
could not be obtained with so much facility, and that it 
would be easier to convince three men of the propriety 
of a wrong, than twelve men. 

Mr. GREGG. In the matter of securing the hold¬ 
ers of property against abuses of this kind, I am wil¬ 
ling to go as far as he who goes farthest. But, at the 
game time, I think we might as well provide, that there 
shall be only so many judges in a court of record, as to 
insert a provision of this kind. If, at any time hereaf¬ 
ter, it should be desirable to change the number of 
men to constitute a jury, it would involve a change of 
the constitution. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I would ask the chairman of the 
committee making this report, whether it was intended 
by the provisions of this section, that complaints should 
be filed in court, and testimony received the same as 
in oiher cases? 

Mr. NORRIS. Whether the rights of the party are 
to be tried by the inspection of a jury sent upon the 
premises, or whether they were to be determined by 
evidence and statistics in open court, is a matter to be 
determined by law. That is the view which I have of 
the matter as an individual member of the committee. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. My object is, to secure to the 
party who shall ask for it, the right of a trial and ver¬ 
dict, before his property shall be taken away from him 
—the same right which he would have in any other 
case. I want the party to have the right to insist up¬ 
on going into court. I am unwilling to permit the Le¬ 
gislature to take away this right of the party ; and if 
this section does not secure this right, it is my object 
to provide something that will. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. I do not know that I 
understand the intention of the coimnittre exactly: 
whether airtheso questions shall be settled in a court 
of record, or whether the judgment of the jury of twelve 
men, going upon the premises and asceriaining what 
the property is worth, shall be final. It seems to me 
that belter justice would be done by sending the men 
round to asceria'n the value of the properly, and that 
it would not be necessary, in many cases, to re.sort to 
all the paraphernalia of a trial in court, inv hiug the 
attendance of witnesses and law’yer.s’ fees. If any ju¬ 
dicious man could have his choice, it seems to me that 
he would [ireier to settle the matter without so much 
formality and expense. If either party should be dis¬ 
satisfied with the award of the jury, they ought to 


have the right of apjieal to the court; but J think they 
should not be required to go into court in the first 
place. 

Mr. STANTON. I had supposed that the legislation 
which would be necessary under this provision of the 
constitution, would be something in the nature ol a pe¬ 
tition to sell land, and that the issue would direct that 
a jury should be called, and required, either upon evi¬ 
dence or inspection, to determine the value of the pro¬ 
perty which, as I understand, wmuld involve a I’egular 
proceeding in court. Ido not understand that a jury, 
picked up any where in the street, could make any linal 
condemnation of property. The idea ol the committee 
was, that where there is no controversy, no condemna¬ 
tion of property by a jury could be required : if the 
parties agree, of course all dilliculties would be re¬ 
moved ; but if there must, of necessity, be a jud.cial 
proceeding in the case, and property condemned agaijisi 
the will of the owner, it was deemed necessary by the 
committee, to give to the form of the award, enough of 
solemnity to secure the rights of properly. If we are 
going to have a general law, under which a large num¬ 
ber of corporations for the construction of public im¬ 
provements will probably spring up, it would seem to 
be necessary that some restraint of this kind should be 
imposed upon their power to condemn the property of 
the citizen. 

Mr. LARVVILL. We have now, at last, got some¬ 
thing of the understanding of this subject, from at least 
one member of the committee. I also have had some 
expeiience in procuring the right of way ; and I think 
the gentleman mistakes his object when he undertakes, 
in this manner, to guard the interests of land holders. 

I think the gentleman will find that but few farmers 
would be willing to go into a court of record when h ey 
could have the value of their property assessed by a 
jury, w’iihout the intervention of cost; nevertheless, if 
either party should be dissatisfied with the award of 
the jury, I would say. give them the right of appeal to 
the court. But, in many cases, I know it would be 
vastly more satisfactory to the land holders to have a 
jury; and I do not see why the award could not just 
as well be made by a jury of less than twelve men. 

Mr. HUMBHRE VILLB. It seems to me wholly in¬ 
expedient to require the parties to incur any unnec¬ 
essary expense in this matter. I want the section to 
remain very much as it now stands. I have not yet 
heard of any amendment which, in my judgment, could 
be beneficial. It is my opinion that there would be 
no difficulty about getting along with this matter, if the flj 
constitution does not point out the manner, or the time M 
when, this resort to a trial shall be had, and I presume m 
it will be left open for the parties to settle upon the B 
value of the property by arbitration, if they please. I 
suppose, that, under this provision the Legislature Bli 
would go on and provide something like this: That w! 
where a railroad, plank road, turnpike, or other corpo- m\ 
ration shall find it expedient to condemn private prop- 3|| 
erty they shall go to the individual owner of the prop- ^j| 
erty, open a negotiation, and try to settle the difficulty Jf 
without any trouble : that the company shall make M 
their proposiiion—how much they will give, and if the V 
owner will not agree to accept their offer, let them re- || 
sort to a trial, and if the ownei' shall recover no more* 
he shall pay his owm costs: but if he recover more than*| 
the company oiler, then the company shall pay the costs, 

A lavv like this, I think, would sidliciently prevent allBi 
these abuses on the part of corporations. [| 

Mr. GREGG. I propose now to modify my amend- > 
meat by striking out from the provision the words, “a ' 
jury ol twelve men in a com t of recoid, asshall be [ue- f 
scribed by 'aw,” and inserting these words: “ amica- 
l)le agreement, between the partie.'«, or by .such num¬ 
ber of commissioners as may be ju’escribed by law, 
either jiariy having a light '..o appeal to a decision of a 
jury in a court of record.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. If I understand this j 
matter, there is no way of avoiding the action of a jury, 









CONVENTION REPORTS 



except by a writ of certiorari, upon which the matter 
couh) be taken in’o court. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Would not the general railroad 
law comply with this provision ? 

Mr. Hi rCtlCOCK. Ido not know to what provision 
the gentleman rel’ers. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. The modification of the gentle¬ 
man from Columbiana. 

Mr. HITCHt)OCK. Yes, I suppose it would. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I too, have had some ex{)erience 
in these difficulties. I have seen men called eight or 
ten miles to ascertain the damages for right of way ; 
and I know some of the distinctions whi- h should ap¬ 
ply. For instance, a road passing through a man’s 
land would require the making of a large immljerof 
rails, which the owner of the laud would have to pur¬ 
chase, from fifty cents to two dollars a hundred—ac¬ 
cording to the value of timber, and the distance they 
would have to be hauled. In such a case, it would be 
difficult for the jury to assess proper damages without 
the intervention of witnesses; and the question is, 
would that be p('rmitted or authorized under this pro¬ 
viso? I have heard lawyers argue the impropriety 
of examining witnesses in such a case, and yet, it is 
not in the nature of the case, that a jury should know 
as well the amount of charge as a disinterested wit¬ 
ness. 

Now, I wish the party to have the power which I 
think would be secured to him, by the terms of the 
amendment of the gentleman from Columbiana [Mr. 
Grkgg] —that of throwing the case into court, and 
having it tried just as another case should be tried in 
court. I wish to secure to the parlies the right of a 
fair trial in court, if they requii*e it, upon the law. [ 
do not want the commissioners or the jury to lay down 
the law, and asc^^rtain the facts. I would rather the 
jury would lay down the law, and that the facts should 
be ascertained of the witnesses. 

Mr. HAWKINS. It occurs to me, that we are sub¬ 
jecting ourselves to ridicule here, and that we shall be 
justly laughed at, if we gravely put into the constitu¬ 
tion a provision, that parties in controversy may settle 
their own difficulties. 

Mr. SAWYER. I propose to amend this section, by 
striking out, in the fifth and sixth lines, the words, “of 
twelve men in a court of record,” and leave with the 
Legislature the power to pass the law under w'hich 
these things shall be regulated. I think it is sufficient 
for us to say, that damages shall be found by a jui y. 

Mr. STANTON. I am opposed to that proposition, 
seriously and decidedly, for a very jdain reason. Every 
mat! who knows anything of the facility with which 
legislation of this kind can be procui’ed, and who can 
look forward and contemplate the number of corpora¬ 
tions which will be likely to spring up under the gen¬ 
eral law, now likely to be authorized by the new con¬ 
stitution, must see that such a proposition would be 
opening a door for the most extraordinary abuses. The 
section, with these words stricken out, would afford no 
protection whatever to the land owners, which is not 
afforded under the present constitution. It would 
leave to the Legislature the power to authorize a de¬ 
termination of the case by a jury of three men; and 
these three men may be swerved in their finding, jusl 
as their principles, the presence or absence of honor 
and honesty, and the power of temptation, may chance 
to predominate; and they might ride twelve miles in 
half a day, and assess the damages upon ])roperty for 
the whole distance to be condemned fir corporate use. 
The Legislature have done such things as this ; under 
special provisions, they have sacrificed the rights of 
indiviiluals for the bi nefit of corporations. I am not 
disposed—like some Democrats here, who seem to be, 
upon this subject, as blind as a rattlesnake in harvest 
time—to have this ma’ter open any longer, for private 
rights to be sacrificed for the benefit of corporations. 

Mr. SAWYER. I admit that the amendment might 
deprive the gentleman of a good fat job, once in a 
while. 


403 


Mr. STANTON. But the committee does not con¬ 
template taking the case into court when the parties 
may agree. You do not go into court unie8.s there is 
an obstinate, unyielding resistance to the demands of 
the company; and when such a case arises, I want to 
|)rovide m the constitution that the properly shall not 
be taken without notice and proceedings in court. 

Mr. SAWYER. I do not see the use of referring 
here invidiously to the opinions of this side of tlie 
House or that side. It can avail very little ; and I am 
sure I shall not retort upon gentlemen in that style. 
But I desire to call upon my friend from Geauga, [Mr. 
Hitchcock.] and my friend from Trumbull, [M •. Ran- 
NEY, ] to come to my assistance upon this question, for 
it appears that we are partially changing sides. We 
cannot put every thing into the constitution, Mr. Chair 
man ; and besides, it seems to me it would be unwise 
to require that a jury of twelve men should be requi¬ 
red absolutely ; for there might arise cases so insignifi¬ 
cant that they would not pay the jury. I trust the 
Legislature will have sense enough to devise the ways 
and means in which these things could be come at. 

Mr. KIRKVVOOD. I desire to modify the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Columbiana so thatit will 
road : “ The amount of compensation shall, if required 
by either party, be ascertained by a jury, in the same 
manner as in cases of appeal.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. As it has been just 
now said by the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Saw¬ 
yer,] it seems to me, that there should be something 
left for the General Assembly to do, if we are to have 
a General Assembly. Or if we can strike out from 
the constitution the article which vests the legisla¬ 
tive power in a General Assembly, I am willing to go 
on and provide for all cases of difficulty about the 
adjustment of rights, which can possibly arise. But if 
it is our object to correct every evil which has origina¬ 
ted in the General Assembly, it seems to me we 
should have our hands full—we shall produce at least 
something more like a code of laws than a constitu¬ 
tion. In fact the gentleman from Logan [Mr. Stan¬ 
ton,] would have the General Assembly to do nothing 
in this case. He would leave other things to the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, but in this case they are not to be 
trusted. Now, Mr. Chairman, I cannot but suspect 
the gentleman has some peculiar case in his eye, in 
which he thinks the most exact justice has not been 
done, and he wants to provide in the constitution 
against any similar case, in which it may happen that 
injustice will be done. I am afraid that something of 
this kind of influence operates upon his mind. For 
if we can’t leave a discretion of this kind to the Legis¬ 
lature, we cannot trust them with anything whatever. 
I presume the General Assembly, in prescribing under 
this pi’ovision of the constitution, will adopt a system 
which will do justice, and which will not prevent par¬ 
ties from going into a court of justice, to obtain re¬ 
dress. For one, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that 
body to be as corrupt as generally represented. I still 
believe that they repre.sent the wishes of the people ; 
and I know if they do not, the people will send up 
such men as will represent them; and in truth if there 
is any failure, it commonly appears in their striving the 
whole time to learn how to cast their votes so as best 
to secure the good wishes of the people. There never 
was a more subservient body upon earth, than the 
Legislature of the State of Ohio.—There never was a 
body of representatives more earm stly disposed to 
carry out the will'of their constituents; it is true that 
many fail, but this is their object. 

Mr. STANTON. I desire merely to say to the gen¬ 
tleman Iron) Geauga that I have no particular case in 
view by which my action is regulated here. I want 
simply to [u-otect the rights and interests of private in¬ 
dividuals from the over-shadowing power of corpora- 
ions. 

.Mr. LARWILL. I am very glad to find the gentle¬ 
man from Logan by the side of me upon this question 























404 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


of securing the rights of the people of the State; and 
there are other matters to come up for consideration 
here, involving similar rights. 1 desire merely to express 
the hope that the gentleman will continue to act as he 
now does. I shall be very glad to have his company 
upon all these important occasions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Tlie question is upon the adop¬ 
tion of the amendment of the gentleman from Colum¬ 
biana. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. Is it not necessa- 
ly to put the question upon the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Auglaize first ? I believe the gentleman 
Irom Columbiana proposes to strike out that part of the 
section which the gentleman from Auglaize proposes to 
amend. 

The CHAIRMAN. Both of the amendments pro¬ 
pose to strike out about the same amount of matter. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. I hope the amendment of 
the gentleman from Auglaize will prevail. 

Mr. LARSH. I call for a division of the question. 

Mr. GREGG. Complaints have been frequently 
made in my section of the country because there is no 
power to appeal to the courts in these cases. The com¬ 
panies always manage to get such men as suit them, 
into the commission, and go over and value the ground 
all their own way, and the land owners have to give 
up to them. The people want the power of appeal to 
the courts. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. I find that the purpose of 
the committee now is, to cut up by the roots the ob¬ 
jects of the general law, which, it is supposed will be 
passed upon this subject; so that no prospect of bene¬ 
fits are to be allowed to them in the assessment of dam¬ 
ages, because the owner should receive the full value of 
his land. I, for one, am willing to leave this matter to 
the Legislature. I am not disposed to go into all these 
matters of detail here, and I presume that there is not 
to be found in the constitution of any State in the Uni¬ 
on, any provision merely givii g the right of appeal in 
matters of this kind. The framers of these constitu¬ 
tions saw that every provision for the ascertainment of 
the rights of parties should be referred to the General 
Assembly; and I hope that in this matter, as well as 
others of a similar character, it will be left to the judg¬ 
ment of the General Assembly to point out the mode 
of ascertaining damages, 

Mr. CLARK next addressed the committee, setting 
out by reading the original railroad law of 1836-7, and 
the amendments tiiereto, which were adopted by the 
Legislature three years ago, and commenting freely 
upon the ambiguous, unreasonable and oppressive char¬ 
acter of the amendments. Under the old law it was 
provided that the right of way should be paid for be¬ 
fore the land could be taken: but under the amended 
law, the right of way may be taken without a notice 
of intention to condemn. 

Mr. LARSH. Was there no notice required under 
the law as it now stands ? 

Mr. CLARK. None that he knew of. 

Mr. LARSH. Some two or threeyears ago he knew 
of a case thrown out of court because the party had 
not received notice from the company. 

Mr. CLARK was not willing to leave it to the Legis¬ 
lature to provide means for assessing damages in cases 
where corporations should take the property of indivi¬ 
duals for corporation purposes. To show that it was 
unsafe to trust that body, he referred to the charter of 
the Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati Railroad Co., 
passed in 1836, and read from it, by which it appeared 
when property was taken by the company, its value 
was to be assessed by three appraisers, to be appoint¬ 
ed by the county commissioners; three days notice to 
be given to the opposite party by the party applying, 
and tlie property taken not to belong to the company 
until payment was actually made. In 1848, that law 
was amended, giving the power to the court in session, 
or a judge in vacation, to appoint such appraisers, 
without providing for any notice whatever to be given; 


and the result had been, that since the amendment that 
corporation had appropriated land through the whole 
width of the county he represented, without giving 
notice in any instance to the owners of the lanj, and 
in most cases, the appraisers had made their appraise¬ 
ment before the owners of the land had any knowledge 
of what was going on, or the opportunity to be present 
when the appraisement was made. The work was 
done up in a very summary way. The corporation 
procured its friends appointed appraisers, and the ap 
praisers just passed along the line of the road and re¬ 
ported their appraisements to the clerk of the court.— 

^ They were but nominal appraisements. Many of the 
persons whose lands were so taken, excepted to the 
appraisements, and were fortunate enough to get them 
set aside upon some technical grounds. A new ap¬ 
praisement was ordered by the court, and it so hap¬ 
pened that he then had a memorandum showing the 
appraisement of ten of those cases in both the first and 
second instances. He read the appraisements sever¬ 
ally, showing the difference. The aggregate of the 
first appraisements was $620, and of the second $2005. 
The Railroad Co. had brought a writ of erior to the 
supreme court to reverse the judgment of the court, 
setting aside those appraisements, and the attorney of 
the company expressed entire certainty of reversing 
them. If he succeeded, the corporation had but little 
better than stolen the land, the owners would only get 
the $620 when they ought to have $2005. How did 
any body suppose the legislature came to make that 
change in the law ? Did any body suppose the people 
had applied to make that advantageous change for the 
corporation in the law ? It was done no doubt at the 
request of the corporation. He had but little confi¬ 
dence in the legislature where corporations were con¬ 
cerned, and was desirous that the constitution px’ovide 
for assessing the damages, by a jury in court. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, expressed his satis¬ 
faction with the law as it now stood. Taking the 
statement of the gentleman from Lorain, (Mr. Clark) 
it appeared that the land owners in his county were 
not at all injured, they had finally obtained an appraise¬ 
ment, giving them full compensation for the right of 
way. 

Mr. CLARK said, the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. 
Hitchcock,] had expressed his satisfaction with the 
law as it now was, and remarked that it appeared by 
the result of the cases mentioned by him, in Lorain, 
that the land owners were not injured, but had finally 
procured an appraisement giving them full compensa¬ 
tion for the land taken. He wished to remind that gen¬ 
tleman, that those cases were all pending in error in 
the supreme court, and the attorney for the corporation 
was quite sure they would be reversed. In that case, 
the owners would only get the first appraisement, 
which was less than one third of the amount assessed 
by the second committee, and no adequate price for 
the land. 

The question, being upon the amendment offered by 
Mr. Gregg, was put, and lost. 

The question then recurring upon the motion of Mr. 
Sawyer to strike out the words “in a court of rec¬ 
ord.” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD thought that any gentleman who 
had seen the working of the present Railroad law, 
could not be willing to continue its provisions relative 
to the “right of way.” He should move to insert the 
following provision in the section, “the amount of 
compensation shall, if required by either party, be as¬ 
certained by a jury in the same manner as in other 
cases at law.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, did not know but 
that the amendment just offered by the gentleman from 
Richland, might be proper «;nough in itself, but he ap¬ 
prehended great difficulties would arise with the at¬ 
tempt to carry it out in its practical details. The gen¬ 
tleman proposes to amend the section so as to give to 
either party the right to go into a court of justice in 















CONVENTION REPORTS 


405 


any case where the “ right of way” was brought in 
question. He wished the geiiileman to state what uis 
“form of action” would be. Would he “declare in 
trespass'?” No trespass has been committed. WouUl 
he declare for the value of the propeity? He could 
not, because no property has been taken. What then, 
would be his course of proceeding — what would he 
plead ? The design is to ascertain the value of the }>ro- 
pt rty before it is taken. It may be, however, that by 
the time this new constitution is finished, all these dif¬ 
ficulties will vanish, for the disposition seems to be, to 
establish something altogether new in all its depart¬ 
ments— to abolish, among other things, all distinction 
between law and equity. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD was not sure that his amendment 
would reach the point he aimed at, he trusted he should 
receive the aid of the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. 
Hitchcock,] in framing a proper amendment. He 
simply desired, that in all cases where the parties 
[whose land or property was demanded for the pur¬ 
poses of a corporation,] desired it, they should have 
“trial by jury,” in the ordinaiy acceptation of that 
term. 

Mr. LARWILL explained the mode of obtaining the 
“ right of way” for the railroad that was building thro’ 
his county. The greater number gave their land free¬ 
ly, asking nothing for the right of way. He was one 
of the directors of the Ohio and Pennsylvania Railroad, 
and acting in that capacity, he had found but two 
cases where he was unable to agree with the owners of 
land for the right of way. We proceeded legally un¬ 
der the general law. The engineer had made out his 
plat designating the ground needed for the road, and 
we filed application for the I’ight of way in the office of 
the clerk of the court of common pleas. An order was 
issued by the president judge designating the apprais¬ 
ers to assess damages, which was understood to be 
perfectly satisfactory to both parties. Before the as¬ 
sessment was made, notice was given to both of the 
landholders, and they appeared on the ground with 
their attorneys, an awai’d of damages was made to one 
of the claimants, and the amount of the award was im¬ 
mediately deposited by himself, [Mr. Larwill,] with 
tile clerk of the court, which, as yet, the claimant has 
refused to receive, and, as I understand, desires further 
litigation. The other claimant had, before the estim¬ 
ate of damages, declared that he would ask nothing for 
the “right of way.” The appraisers in his case, when 
they came to view the ground, awmrded him no com¬ 
pensation beyond the enhanced value of his property. 
These were the only cases where the directors of that 
road had any difficulty in Wayne county. 

Mr. LAR8H. The greatest objection to the present 
law seems to be in the application of it by the courts. 
If we could require the courts to put the law in force 
honestly, then the whole matter might be remedied. 

We have a railroad laid out through the county of 
Preble, and the course of proceeding for the “ right of 
way” has been something like this: The agents of 
the Railroad applied to the judge of the court of com¬ 
mon pleas during vacation, for the appointment of ap¬ 
praisers. The judge was so careful and so conscien¬ 
tious in the matter, that he refused to appoint any one 
as appraiser who had any intei-est whatever for or 
against the road. Three appraisers were to be appoint¬ 
ed, and the judge appointed a democrat, a whig, and a 
free soiler, none of them owning any stock in the road. 
The court required that the parties should be present 
at the appraisement, and in several instances the ap¬ 
praisement was set aside because the parties were not 
present. In another case the award was thrown out 
because an accurate description of the property taken 
was not given. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga. I see why they 
have proceeded so fairly in Preble county — they had 
a “ Freesoiler” among the appraisers! [A laugh.] 

The question being taken on Mr. Sawyer’s motion 
to strike out from the last line of section 5, the words 
‘ in a court of record,” the same was disagreed to. 


Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to amend by striking out all 
of sec. 5, after the words '^provided further'' and insert 
“ the amount of compensation shall, if required by 
either party, be ascertained by a jury, as in other cases 
at law. 

INIr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, moved to amend 
the original section in the last line, by striking oui the 
words, “ of twelve men.” He thought it unnecessaiy 
thus to fix the number. 

The motion, [Mr. Hitchcock’s,] was disagreed to. 

The question then recurring upon the amendment 
oftered by Mr. Kirkwood, the same w'as disagreed to. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, moved to amend by 
inserting the word “ first’’ after the word “ made,” so 
that it would read “ until full compensatiau therefor be 
made first in money,” &c. 

The motion was agreed to. 

Sec. 6. It ehall be the duty of the Legislature to provide for the 
organization of cities and incorporated villages by general laws, 
and to restrict their power of taxation, assessment, borrowing 
money, contracting debts, and loaning their credit, so as to pre¬ 
vent abuses in assessment and contracting debts by such munici¬ 
pal corporation. 

The section was agreed to. 

Mr. STANTON moved to amend the first section. 

On motion by Mr. LARWILL, the committee rose 
and reported that it had had under consideration Re¬ 
port No. 1, of the standing committee on corporations 
other than for corporatio..s for banking, that it had 
made sundry amendments thereto, and now reported 
the same back to the Convention. 

On motion the Convention adjourned. 


SATURDAY, June 15, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Essick. 

Mr. QUIGLEY presented a petition from Lewis T. 
Park and five other citizens of Salem, Columbiana 
county, praying that a clause may be engrafted into 
the new constitution, prohibiting the traffic in intoxi¬ 
cating liquors. 

Upon his motion, it was referred to the select com¬ 
mittee on the subject of the retailing ardent of spirits. 

Mr. FARR presented a petition from William Fore¬ 
man and 47 other citizens of Huron county, praying this 
Convention to prohibit the importation, making, vend¬ 
ing and using of spiritous liquors. 

Referred to the select committee on the subject of 


retailing ardent spirits. 

Mr. MITCHELL presented a petition from L. H. 
Boulton and 20 other citizens of Knox county, pray¬ 
ing that a provision may be engrafted upon the new 

constitution,prohibiting future Legislatures from author¬ 
izing the sale of intoxicating drinks. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from B. J. 
Lewis and 15 other citizens of Knox county, upon the 
same subject. ^ 

The same gentleman presented a petition from Caleb 
Strong and ten other citizens of Knox county upon the 
same subject. 

The petitions were severally referred, upon his mo- 
;ion, to the select committee upon the subject of the re¬ 
siling of ardent spirits. 

Mr. EWART presented a petition from J. M. Wood- 
cridge and three hundred and sixty-nine other citizens 
)f Washington county, praying that a clause may be em 
grafted in the new constitution prohibiting the traffic in 

spirituous liquors. _ , j- n • 

Mr. BARBEE offered for adoption the following; 

Resolved That the committee on Finance and 'raxation be di- 
•ected to inquire and report, wether this Convention has thepow- 
!r to direct the assets of existing corporations to be taxed in a 
nanner different from the stipulations in their charter—and 
vhether this Convention is authorized to repeal or direct to be re- 
lealed, acts of incorporations, when no such reservations are 
nade in the grunts. ^ 

I wish to say that it is a question which has been al- 
•eady made, especially so far as regards banks, as to 
he authority of a subsequent Legislature to repeal the 
lets of a former one. My object in ottering the resold- 









406 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


tiou is, that we may be furaished with all the light 
we call get upon the subject. I am desirous to have 
this iurormatiou, so that when the question comes u]) 
toucliing banks, I can vote understandingly. ll is an 
important question; and as it is undersmod by many 
Hon. gentlemen in this body, that one legislative body 
has power to repeal the acts of a former, I want to see 
that important question liiially settled, one way or the 
other. 1 have offered this resolution, that we may 
have a report before us embracing all the facts that 
may be adduced. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I am opposed to the resolution 
presented. It is a projiosition to refei a mere political 
question to a committee. 1 know that some gentlemen 
may deny this, but I regard it as nothing but a politi¬ 
cal question which ouglit not to be referred to a stand¬ 
ing committee, but to the Convention. The report on 
the Legislative Department has been amended in com¬ 
mittee of the Wliole, by a provision empowering the 
General Assembly to repeal all charters, which so far 
settles this very question ; but it is not finally disposed 
of, and is before the Convention at this time. Why 
refer it to a select committee, ora standing committee? 
I see no propriety in such a course. Does the gentle¬ 
man from Preble suppose that he will gel a favorable 
report? Will that decide the question? Suppose it is 
unfavorable, will he be satisfied? I am quite certain 
the views of that gentleman, or the views of any other 
gentleman, will not very likely be changed by the re¬ 
port of any committee. It is an act of superogation, 
and wholly unnecessary, to send such an iucpdry to a 
committee. 

I do not know the sentiments of the committee to 
which it is proposed to refer this c|uestion. I’erhaps 
the gentleman from Preble [Mr. Barbee] apprehends 
that he will get a report from the committee favorable 
to his views, which will be so much capital on his side 
of the question. It is unusual, unprecedented here, to 
refer a question under debate and before the commit¬ 
tee, a question of political principle and power—for 
this is nothing else, although it has been clothed with 
judicial dignity—to a committee. Why. sir, the Con¬ 
vention has already determined by resolution that the 
committees shall not make reports, other than the sim¬ 
ple provisions which they recommend to be made part 
of the constitution. Now the committee on Corpora¬ 
tions have already made a report—they have already 
presented their views. They have not incorporated 
into that report the power of the Legislature to repeal 
all charters. They have already^, as we i)resume by 
their silence, decided against the power of the Legis¬ 
lature to repeal existing charters, where the power of 
repeal has not been expressly reserved. 

But, sir, there is a foregone conclusion—a fore¬ 
gone determination, in all probability, in the minds of 
the members of the committee, or a majority of it. to 
which it is proposed to refer this question. I do not 
know this fact, but judge from the evidence that such 
is the case. Will thatgent'eman ask a committee to 
report for the simple jiurpose of getting a decision 
favorable to his own views? 

A Member suggested that these questions were 
proposed to be referred to the committee on Finance 
and Taxation. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Well, the obligation is the same. 
It seems a committee must be found favorable to the 
answer desired by the gentleman. The committee on 
;6anks and the Currency does not suit liim, nor the com¬ 
mittee on Corporations, and the question is put to the 
committee on Taxation and Finance. This mode ol' 
procet ding appears very singular. The question ask¬ 
ed by the gentleman is now before the Convention, and 
we have distinguished legal gentlemen here who are 
able to debate, and furnish all the accumulated informa¬ 
tion on the subject. We have the distinguished gen¬ 
tlemen from Geauga, Cuyahoga, Muskingum, the gen¬ 
tleman from Warren, and a number of others, well 
qualified to advocate the views of the gentleman from 
Preble. I move to lay the resolution on the table. 


Upon leave granted, Mr. BARBEE said: It might be 
|)ro{)er for me to say a word or two upon this suiqect. 
The gentleman fiom Fairfield has referred to political 
excitement, in connection with this matter. Now, I 
can say to my friend from Fairfield, that I am not, in 
one sense of the word, a party man. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Will the gentleman allow me 
to say, that I did not apply the remark particularly to 
him, but 1 regarded it as apolitical queslion. 

Mr. BARBEE. I was going to remark that I had 
no such object in view, in offering this resolution, as 
diat of creating political feeling here. Neither did I 
believe my inquiry to be a political one, for I under¬ 
stand that the standing committee on Finance and 
Taxation have not made a report. There seems to be 
an important inquiry involved in the very question I 
have raised, because if there is the power to tax cor¬ 
porations, that is claimed here, it seems to me, the 
committee on Finance and Taxation should have that 
fact before their eyes, before they are piepared to 
make a report. This is one object I had in view, in 
presenting the resolution. I have not wi^hed—and I 
am the last man upon this floor that would throw fire¬ 
brands that might kindle up party feeling and strife 
here. I will take no part in any such thing. I have 
merely submitted a plain, distinct proposiiiou of inqui¬ 
ry, and I think it proper that that inquiry should go 
before the committee on Finance and Taxation, be¬ 
cause it involves a very considerable item in the 
amount of taxation that is there pro[)erly or improper¬ 
ly withheld from the State of Ohio. It is for that pur¬ 
pose that I wished the matter investigated, and for the 
purpose of eliciting all the information I could, to set¬ 
tle the question. 

The question being then taken on laying upon the 
table, it was agreed to. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD said: I desire to call the attention 
of the Convention to a little inadvertence in the reports. 
The uniform politeness and urbanity of the reporters, 
sometimes under circumstances quite trying, has won 
for them golden opinions amongst the members of the 
Convention. Their great industry and strict attention 
to their business, has made a most favorable and lasting 
impression. Their politeness will no doubt instantly 
make the correction in the permanent volume. But 
the inaccuracy has gone abroad in the newspapers. I 
find the following in the Ohio State Journal reports of 
the 10th instant: 

“ Mr. NORRIS. Should every company be exemptedfrom tax¬ 
ation ?” 

“ Mr. ARCIIBOLD. Every one.” 

The inaccuracy of a single word in a hurried debate, 
might occasion a great mistake. I certainly never in¬ 
tended to say that all companies in the State ought to 
be exempt from taxation. Probably no man in the 
State would advocate that. I merely intended to ar¬ 
gue that the General Assembly ought to have a discre¬ 
tion to exempt churches, grave-yards, schools and hos¬ 
pitals, if judged expedient. And I further argued that 
the language of the report as it stood, forbid the exer¬ 
cise of such discretion. The inadvertence is probably 
in stating Mr. Norris’s question. I only mention the 
matter here as the shortest mode,—for the politeness 
of the reporters in making corrections, is exemjilary. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the committee of the 
whole was discharged from tlie further consideration 
of Report No. 1, of the committee on Corporations, 
other than Corporations for Banking. 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, the re- 
[)ort and pending amendments were laid on the table 
and ordered to be printed. 

Report number one of the standing committee on the 
.Judicial Department was read the second time by its 
title, and was committed to a committee of the whole 
Convention. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the Convention resolve 
itself into committee of the whole upon the orders of the 
day, which was agreed to; Mr. Hitchcock of Geauga 
in the chair. 










407 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. REEMELIN then moved that the report number 
one of the committee on 

THE Mir.ITIA 
be tal^en up, which was agreed to. 

Skc. 1. That all white male inhabitants shall be enrolled in 
the militia, residents of this State, beinsj eighteen years of aae, 
and under forty-tive years, and shall perform military duty, as 
may be directed by law. 

Sec. 2. Captains and .subalterns shall be elected by those per¬ 
sons suliject to military duty in their respective company districts. 

Sec 3. Colonels, Lieutenant Colonels and Majors, shall be 
elected by those persons subject to military duty, in their respec- 
tire regiments, battalions, or squadrons. 

Sec 4. Brigadiei’s Oeneral, and Brigade Majors and Inspector 
shall be elected by those persons subject to military duty in their 
respective brigades. 

Sec. 5. Majors General shall be elected by those persons sub¬ 
ject tonitlitary duty in their respective divisions. 

Sec. fi. One Adjutant General and one Quarter Master General 
shall be elected by the qualified electors of this State, at the gen¬ 
eral election alter the adoption of this Constitution, and shall 
hold their office for the term of four years from and after the first 
Monday of January subsequent to their election, and each of 
th em shall keep their respective office at the seat of government; 
they shall receive an annual salary of three hundred dollars 
each. 

Kec. 7, The Governor to appoint his Aid-de-camps, the Major 
Generals their Division Staff, the Brigadier Generals their Brigade 
Staff, Colonels or Commandants of Regiments, Battalions or 
Squadrons, their Staff, and Captains their non-commissioned of¬ 
ficers and musicians, that may be provided for by law. 

Sec. 8. The Legislature shall enact laws to organize and dis- 
eipline the militia, provide for volunteer corps or troops. 

Sec. 9. The Legislature shall provide by law for the protec¬ 
tion and shfe keeping of the public arms apportioned to this State 
kytheGeneril Government, and provide all other efficient pro- 
Tisions as may be deemed expedient. 

JOHN LIDEY, 

JOSEPH THOMPSON, 

H. N. GILLETT, 

SABIRT SCOTT, 

JAMES LOUDON, 

DAVID BARNETT. 

Mr. MITCHELL suggested a transposition of the 
language in the first section, which was agreed to, and 
the section as amended would rend thus: 

“ That all white male inhabitants, residents of this State, being 
eighteen yeai^s of age and under forty-five years, shall be enrolled 
in the militia, and shall perform military duty, as may be directed 
by law.” 

Mr. SAWYER moved to strike out the word 18 and 
insert 21, and said he would give his reasons for doing 
80 in a very few words. We have established the age 
of 21 as the age when men shall vote at elections, and 
it is the time when they arrive at majority, and when 
they are believed capable of transacting business for 
themselves. I do not want to see the young man at 
the age of 18 taken from the supervision of his parents 
and enrolled in the militia, and 1 do not think, in time 
of war, that they are capal)le of doing service at that 
age. I believe the militia training is a perfect piece of 
humbnggery, attended with bad consequences. It 
would be well enough to eni’oll the militia and keep 
up some so t of organization, but I am opposed to this 
enrollment of our young men at the age of 18. 

Mr. MORRIS. I hope the amendment will prevail. 
As has been remarked, these boys at the age of 18 
years, ought to bo under the control of their parents. 
These corn-stalk militia musters we have, might be very 
well dispensed with. At these musters you will see 
the captain go out with his sword by his side, com¬ 
manding boys of 18 years, up to men under 45 years. 
But what do lliey do? They are learned those things 
which they will have to unlearn. Gen. Harrison made 
a wise remark wlien he said, that he had rather have 
men for service, out of the corn-field, than from the 
militia muster. For myself, I would be willing to dis¬ 
pense with militia musters, except so far as volunteer 
companies are concerned. Let those who want to 
muster, have that privilege. By so doing, we would 
oxem])t a very worthy cla.ss in society, I mean the So¬ 
ciety of Friends. We have not a more worthy class 
among us, but they will not muster, neither will they 
contribute directly or indirectly, to the suf)port of war. 

Mr- LIDEY. I think that if the gentleman from 
Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] had examined the constitu¬ 
tion of this country, he never would have made this 


motion. I believe that we are regulated by the laws 
of the United States in respect to this matter, and wo 
are to be governed by the acts of Congress, inj-elation 
to the militia system. Examine them, and you will 
find there stated in positive terms, that all persons 
shall be enrolled between the ages of 18 and 45. We 
have taken an obligation here to support the constitu¬ 
tion ot the United States. The gentleman talks about 
))oy8 being taken from their partnts. Let me tell the 
gentleman, that the best warriors and the best soldiers, 
enacted some of their bravest deeds before the age of 
18. I can refer the gentleman to the olden times in 
the history of this country, when the boys were called 
out to do duty at the age hero named, and even at 16. 
I have seen young men in the service at the age of 15; 
and I believe they would perform more work in the 
service of their country, than either tlie gentleman 
from Auglaize or Clinton. [Laughter.] What they 
say about boys, is all stuff. This provision does not 
compel men to muster. That matter we leave to the 
Legislature, and we have provided for volunteer com- 
|)anie8. I am in favor of enrolling the militia accord¬ 
ing to the acts of Congress, and I shall vote for the sec¬ 
tion containitig that provision. 

There is a class of citizens in Ohio who are averse to 
carrying arms. The gentleman from Clinton says they 
will not support any war. I differ with him in regard 
to that. I saw these men in 1812 and 1813, furnishing 
provisions and horses, and other necessary materials of 
war, when we were waging a war with the North¬ 
western tribe of Indians. They sent their sons to fight 
in that war. 

Mr. LOUDON. We find something in the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States upon this subject of the mili¬ 
tia. I will read it: “To provide for organizing, arm¬ 
ing and disciplining the militia, and for governing such 
part of them as may be employed in the service of the 
U. S., reserving to the States respectively, the appoint¬ 
ment of the officei’s and the authority of training the 
militia, according to the discipline provided by Con¬ 
gress.” 

Congress, under this provision in the constitution, 
enacted a law for the organization and distribution of 
the militia in the manner which is there described. I 
have not the law before me, at present, but I have ex¬ 
amined the provisions of that law upon former occa¬ 
sions, and I find that it declares that every white male 
inhabitant, who is a citizen of the United States, and 
between the ages of 18 and 45, shall be enrolled in the 
militia. In accordance with that, the committee drew 
up this section. The constitution of the United States, 
and the law of Congress, upon this branch of the serv¬ 
ice, is obligatory upon us all. We took an oath to sup¬ 
port the constitution of the United States. It is unne¬ 
cessary for me to advocate the propriety of organizing 
the militia. It is bnt a few years since we had a pub¬ 
lic demonstration of the benefits of an organization in 
this State. Eveiy gentleman recollects well, when 
we had the first news that Mexico had declared war 
against the United States—when the President sound¬ 
ed the alarm all through tire conntry, calling upon the 
militia, in accordance with the law ot Congress au¬ 
thorizing him to procure volunteers to engage in a war 
with a nation which had so misused us we had no 
militia musters. i he old regimental musters had all 
passed away. We had our company districts, out reg¬ 
imental and brigade districts. But no sooner had the 
l ews reached here, than the ollicers'highest in com¬ 
mand distributed their orders down to the colonels of 
the regiments—the colonels to the captains- the cap¬ 
tains to the orderly sergeants, and in forty-eight hours 
after this news was circulated in this btale, we had 
the militia in Ohio en masse gathered together; and 
when the war trun)pe1 sounded, what was the most 
•Glorious feature about it was, that thousands and thou¬ 
sands who had offered their services could not be re¬ 
ceived under the call. Ohio stood first--not second 
in the defence of the Union. As the constitution of the 










408 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


United States has regulated this whole matter of the 
militiy, it is ah imperative duty upon us to regard the 
provisions of that instrument. 

The question being then taken upon the amendment 
to strike out 18 and insert 21, it was lost. 

So the Convention refused to strike out. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga moved to strike out 
the section, and insert: “The militia of the State ol 
Ohio shall be enroded, armed, equipped and trained as 
the General Assembly may direct.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. And what of that 
power? Reserving to the States respectively the ap¬ 
pointment of the officers and the authorizing of the 
training of the militia according to the discipline es- 
tablisljed by Congress. It seems to me that it is very 
plain that the persons who will constitute the militia, 
the age and character, are the subject matter of the le¬ 
gislation of Congress. They have taken away from the 
States the power to control or alter it in any respect, 
and the oath we have taken to support the constitution 
of the United States, it seems to me, divests us of any 
power of interfering with this matter of the enrolling, 
organization, or the qualifications or capacity of those 
who will be members of the militia. But we may, by 
constitutional provision, settle the appointment of offi¬ 
cers and for training the militia. 1 would leave the 
matter entirely to the Legislature under that power. 
Congress has the power this year, next year, at any 
time, to change the law referred to; and in what posi¬ 
tion then, will be the constitutional provision that hap¬ 
pens to be in conflict with that change ? I submit, 
then, that we should limit ourselves to the power that 
the constitution leaves us in the State of Ohio. I am 
not perfectly satisfied with the amendment I have sent 
up to the Chair, for the reason that it may comprise 
more than it is necessaiy to place in the constitution. 
But it seems to me that as that section undertakes to 
do that which is entirely within the control of Con¬ 
gress, that therefore, it should be stricken out and a sub¬ 
stitute adopted that is within the meaning of the con¬ 
stitution. And, I will say further, that our constitution 
should say as little on the subject of the militia as pos¬ 
sible. I believe that we have one of the best militia 
systems in this State that there is in the Union; and 
practically that is none at all. [ Laughter. ] For thes(; 
reasons I hope the section will be stricken out. 

Mr. LIDEY felt in no manner apprehensive as to the 
continuance of the law referred to; it would probably 
last longer than any of us. This clause was engrafted 
on the section for the purpose of preventing the Legis¬ 
lature hereafter from committing the error which thev 
committed some years ago. He knew that in 1825-6-7-8. 
few members of the Legislature suppo.sed there was 
such act iii existence; ultimately they ascertained that 
fact, and made a law in accordance. This provision 
was inserted, that it might pi'ove as a guide hereafter. 
He did not suppose that Congress would ever change 
that law, it was well known here that they had never 
changed it for the last 30 yenrs ; they had left it alone, 
and it would exist, he pi’esumed, as long as this govern¬ 
ment continued. 

Mr. CURRY. I propose, if in order, to amend the 
section, by inserting in the third line, after the word 
“duty,” these wmrds, “ in case of invasion or insur¬ 
rection, or in time of war.” I understand gentlemen 
to refer here to an act of Congress, on the subject of 
the organization of the militia. I have not that act be¬ 
fore me, and cannot say speak deflnitely as to its pro¬ 
visions. I understand, however, that there is nothing 
in that act, making it obligatory on the State to provide 
for the actual training of the militia. If I rightly ap¬ 
prehend the amendment proposed by the gentleman 
from Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitchcock,] it will, if adopted, 
leave this whole matter in the discretion of the Legis¬ 
lature. Tlie volunteer forces [said M)-. C.] were, em¬ 
phatically speaking, the right arm of the country, in 
cases of emergency, and always would be found so. 
But he did not believe that this process of militia 


training had ever produced so efficient a body of sol¬ 
diers, as the volunteer forces had. He thought it de¬ 
sirable to keep up the organization, by means ol which, 
in the ermu’gency of insurrection, or i'oreign war, or 
invasion, the volunteer force might be quickly and effi¬ 
ciently raised. As soon as they had provided for that, 
in liis opinion, they had done all that was necessary. 
He believed that if they provided lor such an organi¬ 
zation as would subserve to that purpose only, leav¬ 
ing the citizens of the State, in time ol peace, to a^ 
tend to their ordinary avocations, they had accomplish¬ 
ed a purpose far more desirable than any thing that 
would result in the shape ol the rout, riot and disorder, 
attending on militia trainings. Understanding then 
that the amendment of the gentleman from Cuyahoga 
[Mr. Hitchcock], if adopted, would leave it open to 
the Legislature, to continue this useless, expensive, 
and in some degree demoralizing assemblages, called 
“ militia trainings ;” he desired that the section should 
be amended in the manner he [Mr. Curry] had indi¬ 
cated. He was opposed to the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Cuyahoga. 

Mr. LIDEY observed that unless we secured an or¬ 
ganization we could not raise a cor’poi’aPs guard in case 
it were required. 

Mr. CURRY remarked: it did not seem to him that 
his amendment would interfere with the organization 
of voluntary forces. 

Mr. LIDEY thought it would deprive the Legislature 
of the power of raising light troops unless in case of in¬ 
surrection. How could we raise light troops in such 
an emergency if we had no organization ? 

Mr. CURRY understood the organization of uniform 
companies and their training, to be matters entirely 
voluntary. With this voluntary principle we always 
had a sufficient force whenever the necessity arose 
which required their aid. 

Mr. HITCFICOCK then asked and obtained leave to 
withdraw his substitute, and presented another taken 
from the constitution of Mississippi. 

The following amendment was then read : 

The General Assembly may provide by law for organizing and 
disciplining the militia of this State in such manner as they may 
deem expedient, not incompatible with the constitution and laws 
of the United States. 

Mr. CURRY inquired if that amendment were adopt¬ 
ed whether it would leave the power in the Legislature 
to compel militia training. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga replied that it would, 
leave the Legislature to do as they saw fit. 

Mr. CURRY would modify his amendment by adding 
to it the word “annual.” 

Mr. HAWKINS (very inaudibly heard) expressed 
himself in favor of the amendment offered by the gen¬ 
tleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitchcock.] 

Mr. LOUDON did not understand what the gentle¬ 
man was aiming at. There does not appear to be a 
very great difference between us. He will find, if he 
examines the section, no provision for disciplining, but 
only for enrolling the militia. 

Mr. CURRY. The expression is “ perform military 
duty.” 

Mr. LOUDON. What military duly? Why, such 
as the Legislature shall see fit to enact. The militia 
are to be enrolled in time of peace, and may be train¬ 
ed in time of invasion. In the gentleman’s county there 
is a large settlement of colored persons—a place of ref¬ 
uge for the runaways of the slave States—a sort of de¬ 
pot for the underground railroad. The lime may come, 
when, in order to preserve the peace of the State among 
them, it may be necessary to call on the light troops in 
the vicinity, and even upon the militia. 

The amendment introduced by me, provides for this 
very case. It is intended to provide especially for 
times of invasion. 

Mr. LOUDON. If this amendment prevails, there 
will be no muster, no preparation, nothing done, unless 
in time of actual war. The presumption, judging from 
the past is, that tlie Legislature will not be very stringent. 








CONVENTION REPORTS 


40!i 


There is a general feeling against trainings ; but there 
should be a general ellbrt to kee{) up an efficient or¬ 
ganization, that in case of insurrection and public dis¬ 
turbance we may have a safe resource, and know where 
to make application. 

Mr. BENNICTT said he should be in favor of giving 
legislative encouragement to volunteer companies of 
citizen soldiers, were it not that he had certain recol¬ 
lections of past histoiy, calculated to shake his opinion. 
He remembered the time when we came near having 
a war with our neighboring State of Michigan. On 
that occasion, it was si guided by Governor Lucas that 
the volunteer corps ot the State should hold themselves 
in readiness to march to the frontier upon the shortest 
possible notice. The effect of this notice was, to add 
largely to my practice as a physician. Great numbers 
of the troops fell sick, needfed professional attention, 
and never recovered until the danger was over. 

Mr. LOUDON inquired if the gentleman from Tus¬ 
carawas [Mr. Bennett] was able to inform the com¬ 
mittee whether the same was the case with the Ohio 
volunteer companies in Mexico—whether they regu¬ 
larly fell sick on the day of battle. 

Mr. BENNETT said the companies of Ohio troops 
were principally taken from the ranks of the militia, 
who never mustered a day in their lives. 

Mr. MANON inquired if the prescriptions of the 
gentleman from Tuscarawas operated favorably. 

Mr. LIDEY said the gentleman from Tuscarawas 
was mistaken. His acquaintance with those who vol¬ 
unteered to serve in the Mexican war, from the coun¬ 
ties of Fairfield, Licking, Berry, Franklin &c., was 
very extensive. They were men who had already 
cultivated an acquaintance with military affairs — 
members of volunteer companies, and many who were 
educated at West Point. Many of them were young, 
ardent and ambitious young men, and as such, they not 
only made the best soldiers that could be selected, but 
had a full understanding of the dangers and fatigues 
which they would be called on to undergo. Gentle¬ 
men speak of popular insurrections. In the county 
where I resided some ten or twelve years ago, the 
sheriff was obliged, in case of a public disturbance, 
to call out several companies of the militia. What 
would have been the result if there had been no or¬ 
ganization? We need an organization to aid in en¬ 
forcing respect to the law of the land. Such has been 
the case in many of the cities of the Union, and will 
continue to be so. 

The question being on the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman Irom Union, [Mr. Curry,] the same was lost. 

Mr. STANTON moved further to amend, by adding 
at the end of the section, the following words: 

“No person or persons conscientiously scrupulous of bea¬ 
ring arms, shall be compelled to do military duty, in time ol 
peace.” 

The question being on the adoption of the same, it 
prevailed—yeas 39, nays 29. 

Mr. COOK moved to strike out the word “white,” 
in the first line of the section. 

Mr. SAWYER wished to move an addition to the 
amendment of the gentleman from Portage [Mr. Cook.] 
He wished to strike out the word “ male.” 

Mr. COOK said he had no very great objection to 
the exercise of the exclusive privilege of doing milita¬ 
ry duty by the white men. He had no objection, il 
men pleased, that they should rig themselves up in 
pied and particolored coats and trousers, and strut 
around with a parcel of loose feathers in their hats, 
run after by all the boys, and laughed at by all the 
men in the vicinity. But he could not see any good 
reason why a large and inoffensive class of our fellow 
citizens, having an equal interest with ourselves in the 
supremacy of the law.s, and the safety of our institutions, 
nor did he exactly see the value oi’ this monopoly in 
making themselves ridiculous, so zealously claimed by 
the exclusive friends of the white men. 

Mr. SAWYER wished to call the attention of the 
chairman of the committee that made this report, 


his friend from Perry [Gen. Lidey] to his proposition 
to strike out the word ‘male.’ We have had a good 
many petitions coming in here, from the ladies (»f 
the State, claiming equal privileges with ourselves; 
and of late years we have had some rather curious 
exhibitions in the military line. He said he desired to 
moralize a little. The last time he had the pleasure to 
see any military demonstrations, a Iriend of his, by 
some misfortune or other, had been made a general of. 
In order to do honor to his office, and perform at the 
same time his duty to the State and to mankind, he 
rigged himself up in all the finery he could muster, en¬ 
listed some thirty or forty soldiers, and proceeded to 
organize his company in the most approved military 
style. He cut down some forked trees and affixed 
them to his heels in the form of spurs, with the main 
body projecting some three feet behind; procured him¬ 
self a sword some sixteen feet long, dipped in blood, 
and looked savagerous. Plis men were dressed and 
armed pretty much in the same style. Some had loaves 
of bread stuck on the bayonets of their hoop-poles, 
some wore whiskey barrels for knapsacks, and some 
bore roasted chickens for banners—in fact it was a pe¬ 
culiar and important demonstration. 

Now I have heard it said that the reason why men 
behave better in church is because there are women 
present. If such is the case and women are allowed 
to come to the polls and vote, we shall have no such 
disturbance as we have hitherto had. I wish to ask 
the chairman of the committee a question. Is not the 
Militia in a woful condition ? Since I quit it, has gone 
down wonderfully. If the ladies were allowed to 
muster w’e should have different times. The ladies 
would parade, form hollow squares, dress to the front, 
march, charge bayonet, and go through all the evolu¬ 
tions with the utmost propriety. I say, let all vote, all 
hold office, and all stand upon the same broad plat¬ 
form. 

Mr. WOODBURY said he was not much of a milita¬ 
ry man. The gentleman from Auglaize is. 

Mr. SAWYER. A colonel? 

Mr. WOODBURY. I suppose the gentleman is in 
earnest? 

Mr. SAWYER. Of course. 

Mr. WOODBURY said he hoped he would succeed 
in his benevolent intentions, and he ought to. The 
black population reside among us, and must continue to 
do so. They as well as we have an interest in the 
government, and he did not see why they should not 
be allowed to prepare perform its duties. He did not,, 
however see any need of discussing the question. 
When the proper time shall come he would vote for 
the abolition of all distinctions, and hoped it would 
prevail. 

Mr. MANON said he had in some places been called 
a Free Soiler, on account of the liberality of his views. 
If he had not started on the broad principle of general 
laws, he should be in favor of letting the women vote 
—especially those who are sending in these officious 
petitions. He wanted to preserve the consistency of 
his own system, and therefore could not vote fur stri¬ 
king out the word “ white.” 

Mr. HAWKINS did not like the tenor of the remarks 
of the gentleman, as applied to the militia nor to the 
ladies. Both are entitled to command res})ect. and he 
had hoped that delegates would have found r 
jects for witticism than either. In his district they are 
accustomed to pay very considerable respect to the la¬ 
dies. The militia was there also looked upon as com¬ 
posed of respectable materials, and entitled to consid¬ 
eration. He hoped that the sickness spoken of by the 
•Gentleman from Tuscarawas was confined to that sec¬ 
tion of the country. Within his knowledge hundreds 
of youth had risen at the public call to defend the peo¬ 
ple of the State from the tomahawk and scalping kmfe, 
and if we can do no more, it is our duly to treat their 
services with respect if they are living, and their mein- 
oi’v if they are dead. The time will come when the 












410 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


y 


question of the rights of females shall come up for ac¬ 
tion in this Convention. Tlieii it must be met, and 
fairly met. He had no doubt that then they would be 
treated with that respect wuich is due to them. 

Mr. —. .would not object to the performance 

of militai*y duty by the colored people of the State, 
nor that they should be mustered and drilled. He 
would suggest, however, that the musters be contrived 
to take place in cold weather. The reason was obvi¬ 
ous. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga hoped the matter 
would be treated with the seriousness it deserves. He 
should vote for the amendment of the gentleman from 
Tortage, [Mr. Cook,] because bethought the principle 
a correct one, and should then vote for striking out the 
whole provision, because he thought they were travel¬ 
ing out of the road and conflicting with the provisions 
of the constitution and lawsofthe United States. Black 
men are citizens, and ought to have the rights of citi- 
Kens; and those members who stand up here and 
talk of the rights of man, with so much eloquence—I 
should like to ask them how they, who insist that our 
liberties'are in danger, when too much power is grant¬ 
ed to a road corporation, will refuse to come up, when 
the rights of men—bone of their bone, and fledi of 
their flehs are involved—and their liberties as well as 
rights The negroes are universally allowed to make 
good solders ; many of them shining ones, and the day 
may come when, if the Hot-spurs of the South carry 
out their threats of dissolution and invasion, we shall 
very much need their services. 

The qustiou being on the amendment, was disagreed 
io—yeas 10, nays not counted. 

The question being then on the amendment of the 
gentleman from Cuyahoga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] turned 
first on striking out, which prevailed; yeas 42, nays 
24. 

The question being on inserting— 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to strike from the end of 
the amendment, the woi’ds “ in relation thereto,” which 
was agreed to. 

Mr. LARVVILL said he had voted agiinst the 
amendment of the gentleman from Lorain, [Mr. Cook,] 
because it placed negroes upon the same ground with 
whites. He did not look upon the amendment now un¬ 
der consideration as doing so, and he should vote for 
it. 

The amendment was theu’adopted—yeas 41, [nays 

The CHAIRMAN now announced the consideration 
of Mr. Morris’ amendment. 

Mr. HAWKINS said he had never known a law in 
Ohio which compelled any person to perform military 
duty; and he wished to understand, whether, by this 
proposition, it is intended to go any further; whether 
persons having conscientious scruples in regard to war, 
shall in time of war cmitribute nothing to the support 
of the war, either by service or money—whether they 
are thereby to be wholly excepted? 

Mr. STANTON. The words were, ‘‘in time of 
peace,” distinctly. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Very well, in time of peace. But 
who was compelled in time of peace to perform mili¬ 
tary duty? He did not know of any law which com¬ 
pelled ainan to perforin military duty in time of peace ; 
and such a law he thought would be wholly unneces¬ 
sary. But he supposed that we should adopt some 
system for the encouragement of unilormed light infan- 
tiy companies, which would involve some expense, 
and were those persons to be excused from contribu¬ 
tions of this kind? He had some Quakers among his 
constituents who were conscientiously scrupulous on 
the subject of war; who abhorred anything like blood, 
and were opposed to slavery; but he never knew a 

oand date for the Presidency of the United State.-!_ 

though he might be a slaveholder and a soldier_if he 

were selected by the political party with whom they 
sympathized—though he might be selected on account 


of his victories—he never knew such a candidate so 
brought out, but that they would all turn out and vote 
for him. 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll interposing. Did the gen¬ 
tleman ever know or hear of a Quaker voting for a 
slaveholder? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. B RO WN of Carroll. The gentleman was mista¬ 
ken. It could not be so. 

The CHAIRMAN. This was getting rather wide of 
the question. 

Mr. HAWKINS. There were Quakers in his town 
who went regularly to meeting every first <lay, and ev¬ 
ery fourth day. who went straight forward to the polls 
and voted for Gen. Taylor. 

Mr. BROWN. He would ask the gentleman wheth¬ 
er they did not vote for the electors? [Laughter.] 

Mr. HAWKINS. Aye, there he has me. [Contin¬ 
ued meriment.] 

Mr. BATES. He would inquire whether the Qua¬ 
ker creed was up here for discussion ? 

Mr. HAWKINS. If any gentleman were sensitive 
upon the subject, he would withhold all further re¬ 
marks. The gentleman had proposed an amendment, 
by which the consciences of the people might be saved. 
Well, could they not get at the support of the military 
arm of the gentleman by construction ? The proposi¬ 
tion w'as, that they should not be compelled to perform 
military duty in time of peace. Now, he would not 
require anything of them which it w'as not probable 
they would ever be called upon to perform. But he 
would propose a change of policy, by which it should 
be required that a tax should be levied for the support 
of the military. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. He was entirely in favor 
of the principle of the proviso, provided it were com¬ 
petent for us to make such a provision in the constitu¬ 
tion. He would inquire of the gentleman from Cuyaho¬ 
ga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] who, perhaps, had examined the 
law of Congress upon the subject of organizing and dis¬ 
ciplining the militia, and the judicial decision in regard 
to the extent of that power, whether it would not con¬ 
flict with the authority of the constitution and laws of 
the United States, to incorporate such a provision as this 
into the constitution of Ohio? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. He had not examined the sub¬ 
ject so as to be able to give any information. He had 
observed, however, that the constitution of Illinois 
contained this exemption, and required the payment of 
an equivalent—a commutation in money. He had not 
looked into any other constitution with reference to 
this subject. 

Mr, SMITH. In the constitution of the State of 
New York, there was a provision to the effect of that 
under consideration, which he would read: it was in 
these words: 

Sec. 1. The militia of this State shall, at all times hereafter, be 
armed and discii)lined, and in readiness for service; but all such 
inhabitants of this State, of any religious denomination whatever, 
as irom scruples of conscienc e may be averse to bearing arms, 
shall be excused therefrom, upon such conditions as may pres¬ 
cribed by law. 

Mr. LIDEY, He complained that gentlemen should 
offer amendments in contravention of the act of Con¬ 
gress, by which a man might excuse himself from the 
service which he owes the State, by coming forward 
and saying, “my rtdigiousopinions will notallow me 
to do military duty.” Men would even tell a lie in 
order to exemyit themselves from military duty, and 
there were even such beings as these in the State of 
Ohio ; they would even go so far as to swear they 
were forty-five years of age when they were not, in 
order to get clear of service. He had known such ca¬ 
ses himself, and he had known such men, when called 
into service, to make excuses that they w’ere lame— 
making it necessary to call a surgeon to examine them 
—and when they could not be excused, he had known 
them to run away to avoid the public service. He 
w'anted to compel such men to stand up to the sup- 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 411 


port of government on all occasions. On the contrary, 
he had found many a good citizen ready and vvdliitg 
to enlist themselves—leaving their families almost des¬ 
titute—in times of public danger. He desired equcdity 
in this re3[)ect, and was opposed to exem[)tion8 on ac¬ 
count of conscience, or by way of paying an equiva¬ 
lent. Was it possible that the members of this Con¬ 
vention were desirous themselves of getting clear of 
military duty? If that was the idea, they must be very 
dilFerent men from what he expected to find in this 
Convention. He had discharged his duty, not only for 
the time being, but with reference to liis relation to 
future times. He would be willing to support a law 
of the State, authorizing the enrolment of every man 
under sixty years ot age. He had seen good soldiers 
of that age, and good lighting men, at that; and we 
had even older men amongst tne oilicers of the regular 
army. In the war ot 1812-13—14, there were menover 
fifty years of age, who commanded in the severest en¬ 
gagements. Where was the man, who, on account of 
conscientious scruples, would refuse to defend the 
rights ot his country? He would like to see sucli a 
man, either here or in any other portion of the coun¬ 
try, that he might denounce them as they ought to be. 
For they would deserve the old name—they were lo¬ 
ries in the plain old ta.shioned sense of the word—such 
ipen as in 1812-13 would cry out for king George, and 
such men as, not very far from this place, were thrown 
imo a mill run with a rope around their neck, in those 
days, aud when it was pretty cold weather at that. 
He held, that organizing and enrolment of the militia 
was an essential matter; that the military was the right 
arm for the protection of the rights of the people. It 
was this that enabled the civil officers to execute the 
law. The military power was one of the highest 
sanctions of the law, insomuch that a heavy tax law 
could not be eutorced sometimes, were it not for the 
military power. 

Mr. UEBMELIN said: he could not but dissent from 
the opinion, that the fear of the military kept the gov¬ 
ernments of the world in order, and enabled the offi 
cers ot the revenue to collect the taxes. He held that 
taxes were paid in this country, not through tear, but 
through a feeling of respect for the laws. 

Mr. LIDEY. The gentleman was mistaken. He 
did not say that the people were afraid of the military 
power. He did not use such a word. 

Mr. REBMELIN. He did not himself believe in 
any such principle. And since the committee had 
adopted an amendment, that the Convention should 
not define ihespecific objects of law, but leave them 
to the care of luture legislation, he hoped gentlemen 
would abide by their own decisions. 

Mr. LOU DUN said: He thought it better not to be 
in a hurry for the question upon such an important 
matter. It was a grave principle which the commit¬ 
tee were about to settle, aud if they took a little time 
for consideration, it might result all the better. He 
was a military man, so far as the term was applicable 
to one who had never seen any actual service. He 
had always been willing to contend for the 8U])port of 
the militia, as one of the bulwarks of our liberty. 
The militia had been so denominated by Gen. \Vash- 
himself. He had something to do with the 
militia law, and he had always/ound it to be the policy 
oi the enemies of the militia system to array them¬ 
selves against it in such an insidious manner that its 
friends could not well understand their mode of at¬ 
tack. They had been at work against it now, for 
about a quarter of a century until fiiially they had 
nearly succeeded in prostrating the military spirit in 
Ohio. He had observed the spirit of opposition come 
from a certain class of citizens, and be found their 
representatives were there reflecting the same doc¬ 
trines, and die same spirit which he had witnessed on 
former occasions. And he would say for hiniselt, that 
it he represented a constituency who were unwilling 
to support the mditary of the country, he would re¬ 


sign and go hmne. He could designate a district of 
people who were of the profession here sought to be 
relieved by the amendment undercousideration, whose 
conscientious scruples were always in the way. He 
had, at one time to appear before a portion of the con¬ 
stituents of the gentleman from Oiinton [Mr. Mor¬ 
ris,] when he had been taken up as a candidate for 
the iSenite of Ohio—the county of Clinton forming a 
[)art of his district. He found the people there, then, 
entertaining the same opinions upon this subject, which 
that gentleman seems now to entertain and reflect; 
and being a military man, he was forthwith caricatured 
aber the manner represented by his friend from Aug¬ 
laize [Mr. Savvykr.] They prepared his effigy, be¬ 
stride a large horse—they armed his heels with large 
gaffs, protruding under the horse’s belly—they put 
into his hand a ten toot sword, and from his mou h 
they drew out in flaming capital letters, the words, 
“ push him on! ” And there was an old lady pulling 
back her son, aud the son was rather pulling back, 
whilst he [Mr. L.] was represented with his ten foot 
sword, ordering the man to go and join Van Buren’s 
standing army ! 

Mr. ROBERTSON interposing, called the gentleman 
to order, amidst considerable meriment, aud cries of 
“ go on, go on.” 

Mr. MORRIS. Did the gentleman say this cari¬ 
cature was got up in Clinton county? 

Mr. LOUDON. It was got up in Clinton county to 
affect his election as a military man; but when he had 
canvassed all round, he found the real source of oppo¬ 
sition was, that he was a democrat. Those men who 
were so tenacious about withholding support from a 
military man, did not belong to his side of the house— 
if he were permitted to make such a distinction. 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll interrujiting. He would 
ask the gentleman if all the heroes amongst the offi¬ 
cers and soldiers of the Mexican war were democrats 
par excellence —and if any of these went from this sec¬ 
tion of the country, what party were they of? 

Mr. LOUDON. They were of all parties, except 
ihe party which were opposed to military men—these 
peace men, as they call themselves. But he had found 
from experience these men to be always peace men in 
time of war, and war men in time of peace. 

Mr. STANTON interposing. Who were war men in 
time of peace? 

Mr. ^1ITCHELL, in his seat. They were opposed 
to the democrats. 

Mr. STANTON. I beg pardon, then. I thought the 
gentleman’s remark was a[)plied to the Quakers. 

Mr. LOUDON. His remark was applied to the Qua¬ 
kers. 

Mr. STANTON. It is not true, that the Quakers 
were ever war men at any time. 

Mr. LOUDON. They were opposed to Gen. .Jack- 
son always, either in war or peace; and now I say 
again, if I had such constituents, rather than serve 
such men here, who might desire to bo e.x.empted Irom 
liability to be called upon to defend the rights of their 
country from invasion on every side, I would resign 
and go home. I would not reflect such a feeling. I 
would rather vote for die proposition striking out the 
word “ white”—making no dist iiction between white 
men and black men—than to make such a distinction 
between while men. 

Mr. BATES. I presume that my position is known 
upon this question. I am opposed to the whole conr 
cern. But I have abstained trom saying anything with 
regard to this proviso, simply because I did not want 
to appear in the character ol asking anything t n 
self: nor should I say a word now, if the principles of 
the society to which I belong bad not been il i agged into 
this discussion. I will just say, that the Iiiends pro¬ 
fess to be a law abiding people. They contribute 
readily and cheerfully to the support of government, 
and it is their wish, on all occasions, to comply with 
the requisitions of the law of the laud. But ihia law, 















412 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


requiring them to appear upon the muster ground and 
perform military duty, is one which they cannot com¬ 
ply with. Nor are they singular or alone in this; there 
are many others who do not belong to the Society of 
Friends, who are also o[)pused to military trainings as 
formerly conducted, and will not there appear. And 
now, I ask the advocates of this system, what is to be 
gained by these musters? I ask any gentleman to 
point me to a single individual who has gained any 
knowledge of military science or tactics upon the mus¬ 
ter field of this country ; but on the contrary, are they 
not always productive of scenes of immorality, disor¬ 
der and confusion? Then upon what prijici{)le of 
right can the citizen be forced to turn out lor the per¬ 
formance of this kind of military duty, productive as it 
is of no productive good? I apprehend that no answer 
can be given, so long as it remains true that militia 
musters are altogether insufficient to secure the object 
for which they have been instituted. I, in this, ad¬ 
dress myself to the advocates of military training. 

But Friends are opposed to war on principle, and of 
course opposed to all military trainings which prepare 
for war. 

He repeated that neitheir he nor that portion of the 
society of Friends residing in the district which he rep¬ 
resented, have asked of this body any thing for them¬ 
selves. They have appeared before us by petition, but 
not on their own behalf—but in support of what they 
apprehended to be the rights of othei’s. 

Should the committee, however, see proper to pass 
this proviso, it will afford Friends and others, who view 
this system of militai-y musters as they do, much relief 
—not only from the trouble and pecuniary sacrifices to 
which they have been frequently subjected—(property 
being frequently taken to many times the amount of 
fines imposod, for non-compliance with the law) but it 
would afford them peculiar satisfaction, by placing them 
in a sitnation in which they would not be found in op¬ 
position to the laws—but could enjoy the “ rights of 
conscience ” unmolested. 

He appealed to the sense of justice of the committee, 
whether the laws aftbrd any security to the rights of 
the citizen, in this respect, as they now stand. 

He would meiely add, that he did not consider him¬ 
self as the representative of Friends any further than 
as they constitute a portion of his constituents, whose 
views might accord with his own, but he should on 
all occasions conform his action with the known wishes 
of a majority of the people, when it does not conflict 
with the dictates of conscience. In this case he felt 
no difficulty whatever, as he felt very sure that a ma¬ 
jority would be willing, to see the exemption which 
this proviso contemplates, adopted. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Is not the society of Friends op¬ 
posed to the simple contribution to support a military 
court? 

Mr. BATES. They are opposed to the contribution 
of any money whatever for mil'tary purposes in any 
shape or form. This is their position: they are opposed 
to war, and therefore opposed to levying taxes for tiie 
support of any w'ar policy. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Would they be conscientiously 
opposed to paying a certain amount to the State, for the 
privilege of exemption from military duty—which 
might go for the support of education ? 

Mr. BATES. Certainly they would. They cannot 
pay a fine for the non-performance of military duty, be¬ 
cause it would be acknowledging the justice of that 
fine. 

Mr. STANTON. I see no difficulty, in practice, 
about getting along with this matter. Appropriations 
for the support of the military establishment mi<^ht be 
made from the general revenue, and then no difficulty 
could arise on account of conscience amongst this class 
of our population. 

While I am up I will refer to an intimation which 
we have heard from various sources, from which I 
think we had a right to expect better things. It has 


been charged that this exemption has been asked for 
the encouiagemeiit of hypocracy, and the cliarge has 
been laid against as worthy a class of citizens as the I 
State holds. No person can say that these people I 
have not well founded objections to military musters. I 
Mr. LIDEY interrupting. I referred not merely to i 
the Society of Friends, my remarks were applied to < 
every man who refuses to defend his country, whether : 
he belongs to the church or not. I made no special' 
charge of hypocrisy. 

Mr. STANTON. I will say for the relief of the 
gentleman from Perry [Mr. Lidey] that I did not al-j 
hide to any remark of his. He is a gentleman from 
whom we could expect nothing else. Mr. S. proceed-. 
ed to urge the propriety of contributions to the reve- i 
nue for the support of the military establishment.— 

It would not be to provide a revenue contribution of a 
religious establishment, for that would be an interfer-: 
ence with the rights of citizens. But now there was 
no impropriety whatever, in making these exemptions' 
in time of peace. It was not proposed that even con¬ 
scientious scruples should avail anything if the neces¬ 
sities of the State demanded military service—nothing! 
of that sort. If he could get the proposition of the 
gentleman from Union, he would a thousand times pre-i 
fer it to the one now pending ; because no man in his 
senses, who was not wholly unacquainted with the 
subject, would believe that military training in time of 
peace were of any use whatever. ; j 

Mr. LIDEY^ Was there anything in the section byj 
which the Legislature was compelled to require mus-^ 
ter ? '"t 

Mr. STANTON. Not in the least. But I would ||| 
have a constitutional provision to prohibit any action S 
of the Legislature by which a man might be required 
to turn out with a corn-stalk and make a fool of him¬ 
self. I 

In reply to the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reem- % 
elin] he would say, that as far as the principle involved 
in this question was concerned, it had always been the 
subject of constitutional provision—clearly so. It was 
right and proper to provide in a constitution, that the 
rights of the minority should be protected from thelj 
oppressive laws which may be enacted by the majority. * 
It was most clearly right, that an intolerant majori¬ 
ty should be restrained from throwing burdens upon 
an unresisting and conscientious minority; and espe¬ 
cially should the minority be exempted, when the ser¬ 
vice required can be of no possible benefit to the State, 
but is a disgrace to humanity. Having himself been 
reared in the same church to which ffie gentleman from 
Jefferson belongs, (though somewhat mournful'y de¬ 
generated now,) he proposed to show something of the 
operation of the militia laws in their case. It was some¬ 
thing like this: A court-martial issues a militaiy war¬ 
rant, and sends it to an officer of the court, who pro¬ 
ceeds in pursuance of such authority to the residence 
of an unresisting citizen, and rifles his house from 
gaiTet to cellar, looking up clothing and everything 
else, until they sometimes take from him as much as 
fifty dollars worth of property, which he sells at auc- | 
tion; and after paying the fine assessed, they distribute 
the proceeds amongst the officers of the cou’rt, and j 
take a most glorious spree at the expense of their un- I 
resisting neighbor. He had known of such cases many ; 
a time. 

And now he desired to protect this meritorious class 
of citizens from such outrages. But he did not desire ' 
this exemption merely on account of the power of mil¬ 
itary officers to take away from these people a cow 
now and a saddle then ; because by industry and econo¬ 
my these could be supplied again; but he desired a- 
bove all that they should not be placed, unwillingly, 
in an attitude of hostility to the laws, upon any occasion, 
or under any circumstances; aud if they could be 
placed in a situation where they could bow to the law 
as other citizens, it would relieve them at once from 
the most unjust implications under which they now la¬ 
bor. 















CONVENTION' REPORTS 


413 


^Yith reference to the imputation, that they frequent¬ 
ly vote for a military general, he had known to the 
detriment and discomforture of the party to which he 
belonged, of at least one case, in which they utterly 
failed to do so; and that was, when 30,000 votes, (a 
large part of them made up from this class of citizens, 
who disregard every thing but honesty and conscien¬ 
tiousness,) were thrown away upon Martin Van Bu- 
reii: because they would not support a military chief¬ 
tain fur office. At the time the two political parties 
first began to tike their distinctions, the party of the 
gentleman from Brown, [M**. Loudon] was organized 
under a military leader; and that he had no doubt, was 
the reason why the great mass of this society were 
thrown into the party with which he acted. 

Now, it was a fact, that propositions of the kind 
were to be found in the constitutions of New York and 
Illinois. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. Texas and Mis¬ 
souri. 

Mr. STANTON. In the provision in the constitu¬ 
tion of New York, the exemption was confined to re¬ 
ligious societies; and he apprehended that there was 
no impracticability in arriving at the complete knowl¬ 
edge of the fact, that a man has conscientious scruples 
about bearing arms. 

Mr. MORRIS, in reply to the gentleman from 
Brown [Mr. Loudon.] He did not recollect of ever 
hearing what the gentleman had represented in his 
own case, but he had no hesitation in saying that the 
people in Clermont county were always opposed to 
Mr. Van Buren, and his conscriptive standing army 
system, as might appear from the strong demonstration 
which they gave in 1840, when there appeared a ma¬ 
jority of 800 votes against him. As for the militia 
system, he knew that there was no advantage in it 
whatever, and he believed that men taken out of the 
cornfield would make better soldiers for the must pai't 
than those taken from the muster field. He also had 
witnessed the suffering of the Society of Friends, under 
the operation of the militia system, in cases where 
twenty, thirty, and forty dollars worth of property had 
been sold for $3,00 for the militia fine—the surplus 
money going into the hands of the paymaster, and 
there remaining. He had no doubt that more than 
$1,000 had been sacrificed for this description of fines, 
in the single county of Clinton. He believed it was 
the opinion of General Washington that no man should 
be compelled to do military duty against his will, and 
he thought it were far better that the necessary milita¬ 
ry instructions should be obtained by way of volun¬ 
teer companies, and the drill of the officers. 

Mr HENDERSON. He would like to ask whether, 
in the campaign in 1840, the constituents of the gen¬ 
tleman from Clinton, voted for General Harrison, or 
not? 

Mr. MORRIS. He believed for the most part they 
voted for Harrison. 

Mr. LIDEY. He would like to state that the gen¬ 
tleman from Clinton was mistaken about military men 
collecting military fines, and squandering property. 
These collections were not made by military men, 
but by constables. 

Mr. MORRIS. Aye, but constables of their own 
party. 

Mr. LIDEY. The constables of Clinton county must 
have made these collections; what then did they do 
with the constables ? They could not hand it over to 
the paymaster; they hand over the fine to that officer 
and put the balance into their pockets. This had been 
certified to him by a very responsible man; and it was 
no very enviable commentary upon the band of officers 
which they had in Clinton county. But what if the 
civil officers did rob and steal in this way, it had noth¬ 
ing to do with the matter under consideration. All he 
wanted was to have the names of the militia enrolled. 
He wished this to be prescribed in the ccnstiiution, 
and the balance to remain for adjustment by the Leg¬ 


islature. The gentleman from Logan had been willing 
to leave other matters to the discretion of the Legisla¬ 
ture, why then could he not stick to his own rule upon 
this occasion ? Because, forsooth, it was a burlesque 
upon humanity, to appear on a muster field. But was 
it so consiuered in the w?ir of 1812 and 1814, when our 
great pioneers went forth to the defence of their couii- 
tiy? He knew that militia training was not consider¬ 
ed a burlesque in that day: and he recollected some 
of the events of those days, and referred to the rapidi¬ 
ty with which troops were raised and sent into service, 
and the illustrious names of the military leaders of 
those times. Mustering was no cornstalk matter then, 
and he supposed that even the gentleman himself 
might have been an actor in these events. He was 
probably old enough, and no doubt would have gone 
forth to the defence of his country, if necessity required 
it. He knew that the gentleman from Muskingum 
[Mr. Chambers] went forth into the lines upon one or 
two occasions. He admitted that he did not himself 
believe much in militia trainings, though some times 
men learned very well in small schools; but he intend¬ 
ed merely to require that the names of all the white 
men of the State of Ohio, should be enrolled as militia 
men according to law, for the purpose of enabling the 
State to draw their quota of the public arms from the 
general government. Whilst we were entitled to them 
let us have them, and put them upon our barracks, for, 
situated as we were upon the Canada line, there was 
no knowing, how soon we might have occassion to use 
them. He had no objections to exempting this class 
of men from musteiing in time of peace, but he consid¬ 
ered that they should not be entitled to exemption from 
emollment. But if these people object to paying mili¬ 
tary fines, he would so inquire how it was that they 
felt themselves at liberty to conti’ibute to the revenue 
of the genei’al government, which sustained a military 
Academy at West Point. 

Mr. BATES. He would ask how the tax was lev¬ 
ied for the support of the Academy at West Point. 

Mr. LIDEY. That Academy is supported by ap¬ 
propriation out of the treasury of the general govern¬ 
ment 

Mr. BATES. It is supported by the revenue then: 
and he would like to know how any Friend could a- 
void paying the revenue? 

Mr. LIDEY. But was not the supi^ort of the reve¬ 
nue a support of the military, directly or indirectly ? 

Mr. BATES. But would the gentleman tell me 
how a Friend could avoid it ? 

Mr. LIDEY. That would make no difference. If 
the revenue was paid, the Academy would be support¬ 
ed. 

Mr. TAYLOR did not propose to discuss the question 
before the committee. He had not supposed it possi¬ 
ble, that any thing said by the license to digression 
which prevailed in committee of the whole, could have 
induced him to intei’pose remarks aside fron the imme¬ 
diate question; but the gentleman from Logan, [Mr. 
Stantkn,] while defending the Quaker sect from cer¬ 
tain inputatians thrown upon their conduct in refusing 
to recognize a military establishment, had expresed 
himself in a manner which required notice. He claimed 
for the Friends high and conscientious motives, when 
hey discarded a petty militia system; and yet, in the 
same breath, the gentleman declared that these men 
hud thrown away their votes for President in 1848, 
when they preferred an eminent and patriotic civilian 
to a military chieftain and slaveholder. Sir, (continued 
Mr. T.,) I come under the same imputation. I recur 
with pride to my vote for Marlin Van Buren in 1848, 
and if my political life shall be pr()tracted until the 
snows of three score years and ten fall upon my tem¬ 
ples, that feeling of pride is not likely to be diminished; 
and therefore, I cannot suffer in silence the imputation 
of political dereliction. 

Mr. STANTON, (interposing.) The gentleman is 
mistaken. 












414 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


Mr. TAYLOR. Tliat was certainly the language of 
the gentleman—that these votes were “thrown away-” 

Mr. STANTON. I desire to exp’ain. It is undei- 
glood that the Friends in Ohio are generally Whigs, and 
I endeavored to dissuade them in 1848 from abandon¬ 
ing their principles, because the Whig candidate hap¬ 
pened to be a military man—that their votes were 
thrown away. 

Mr. TAY LOR. The gentleman now supplies a lim¬ 
itation upon a remark, which certainly included myself 
and every citizen who who voted for Mr. Van Buren. 
As to the “ Friends,” the present explanation is worse 
than the first ofience. Before they “ threw away their 
votes.” Now he intimates that by voting as as they 
did, they “ abandoned their ju-inciples.” Sir, I venture 
the assertion that they effectually vindicated their 
principles, and they might well retort upon the gentle¬ 
man that if they had followed his admonitions, their 
votes would have been worse than thrown away. But, 
of course, on such a subject, I propose the briefest pos¬ 
sible remark. B fore, I resume my seat, however, 1 
must be allowed to add that if gentlemen can show in 
the history of any community or State, a moral or po¬ 
litical effect proportionate to that produced by the de- 
posite of three hundred thousand votes by the protes- 
tants of freedom in 1848, I am at a loss to know U[on 
what page it is written. Thrown away! Sir, let the 
gentleman blot Thermopylae from the page of the 
world’s history, before he repeats the imputation. I 
prefer to take the testimony of Southern members of 
Congress in both Houses, who have reiterated at the 
current session, that the agitation and movement of 
1848 in favor of territorial freedom, prevented the 
slave power of the country from absorbing the soil of 
Califoinia- 

The CHAIRMAN. The question before the com¬ 
mittee is upon tlie adoption of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Clinton. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I am obliged to the honorable Chair¬ 
man for the intimafion, and I trust it will have a “ re¬ 
troactive,” a “ curative” efiect upon the course of the 
debate for two hours past, and especially upon the re¬ 
marks of the gentleman from Logan, which W’as suf¬ 
fered by the Chair, and to which I am making a di¬ 
rect response. I will only repeat in conclusion, that 
the Southern allegation, that three hundred thousand 
citizens of the republic deterred the slaveholders from 
seizing the fairest i-ealm of the Union, is the highest 
eulogy upon all who voted for Martin Van Buren—the 
proudest vindication of those who them assumed an 
unalterable position of hostility to the ai’ch adversary 
of the American democracy. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. Without intend¬ 
ing to discuss the subject at length, he proposed to an¬ 
swer the question propounded to him by the gentle¬ 
man from Warren [Mr. Smith,] as far as his present 
infermation would permit. Gentlemen, it seemed, 
were a little afraid of trenching upon the constitution 
of the United States, by the adoption of this amend¬ 
ment. The amendment proposed simply to yield to 
the conscientious scru[)les of some men about the dis¬ 
charge of military duty in time of i)eace. It did not 
prevent the organization or enrolment of the militia; 
and now the question is : does this provision conllict 
with the constitution of the United Stales ? Most 
clearly it does not. The government of the United 
States can exercise no authority over the militia of the 
State of Ohio, in time of peace. They cannot call her 
citizen 8t)ldiet6 beyond the limits of Ohio, nor require 
the peifm-mance ot any military service or duty within 
the State. But in the event of war, they had the pow¬ 
er to call upon the militia, through the executive. In 
time of peace they have power to provide for the or¬ 
ganization, discipline and government of the rnditia, 
but the constitution of the United States expressly re¬ 
serves to the Slates the authority to appoint the offi¬ 
cers, and provide for the trai dug of the militia. The 
State having the power to prescribe the training, might 


of course, exempt from military duty or training in |i 
time of peace; and that is all the amendment propo¬ 
ses. Almost a'l the recent constitutions con-.ain an 
exemption clause of this kind, although most of them 
prescribe a commutation in money. To incorporate a 
princii)le into the constitution, to secure the rights of 
conscience, was bad legislation—it was the declara¬ 
tion of a principle. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Did the gentleman apprehend ! 
that the right of conscience, would be interfered j 
with ? ; 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. He hoped not in this matter. But 
the question had been asked here, whether these people 
had voted for H arrison or Taylor ? Was it possible, that 
democratic lovers of the people, upon this floor, were 
going to consider the manner in which a class of citi¬ 
zens voted at a Presidential election, and make that a 
test of their rights 7 A test whether a man ought to 
enjoy the liberty of conscience, or not 7 Yet that was 
the argument. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD interposed, to explain, that as he 
understood it, no question had been raised against the 
liberty of conscience; but only, whether conscience 
was not one thing atone time, and another thing at an- ' 
other time. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK continuing. It seemed to him 
that it would be difficult for the gentleman who raised i 

this objection, to show that voting for a particular in- i 

dividual fur President of the United States, who, 28 • 
years before had been a military man, was and un¬ 
pardonable ofience, and should afiect the rights of con¬ 
science. He rather suspected that the appeal was 
made for the purpose of raising party animosity against 
a particular class of citizens. 

Mr. HENDERSON interrupted to explain. 

He had proposed this inquiry partly out of curiosi-j 
ty, for he had not much acquaintance with the sect of ^ 
Quaker. He desired merely to know to what extent's, 
their opposition to the military spirit extended; wheth¬ 
er they were merely opposed to the shedding of blood * 
in time of war, or whether, after the w’ar has closed 
the military man, whose ‘ garments are dyed in blood,' 
may be brought out and supported as a candidate for 
office—and whether they could go for endorsing his 
blood-guiltiness in this way 7 

Mr. BATES said: If they were consistent, they 
could not support a man of that character. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK resumed. He was willing to 
take the explanation of the gentleman from Richland, 
[Mr. Henderson.] He hoped that was all: but that 
gentleman had not originated the charge, and he con¬ 
fessed that he did fear that this thing was thrown out ^ 
for the purpose of prejudicing against this class of men. 
a portion of that party who do not agree with them in 
political sentiment. But he could not believe that any 
gentleman on this floor would persist in refusing to ' 
giant the rights of conscience to any man, because he V 
was opposed to him in politics. * 

The gentleman from Brown had complained bitterly i 
of an occurrence that happened to him when he was ' 
a candidate lor the Senate in Clinton county, in which ' 
these people were concerned. He would like to en¬ 
quire of that gentleman, whether he was elected?_ ■ 

And, as the gentleman said he would resign if he had ^ 
such constituents, he would like also to know, why it t 
was that he went there after their votes 7 

Mr. LOUDON, [in his seat.] He was elected, but 
not by their votes. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK concluded, by stating again, that 
nearly all the Slate constitutions recently formed, con¬ 
tained an exemption in favor of this class of citizens_ 

some requiring a commutation in money, and some 
init. It seemed to him that the provision tinder con¬ 
sideration was clearly wiihin the scope of constitution¬ 
al power, and hehofied that it would prevail. 

Mr. LARSH said : He desired that the amendment 
should be modified, by striking out the words “consci¬ 
entiously scrupulous of bearing arms,” so as to read: 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 415 


“ Tliat no person eliall be compelled to perform mili- 
tiiry duty in time ol peace.” 

Mr. Si'ANTUN. That was what he would prefer 
himsrlf, decidedly. 

Mr. LAKSII. Then he would offer that amendment. 
He was unwilling to make distinctions. This amend¬ 
ment did not go against the enrollment of the militia, 
nor discourage the formation of volunteer companies. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, moved that the committee 
rise and report progress, which w'as agreed to. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, taking the chair, in the tem¬ 
porary ab.sence of the president. 

The CHAIRMAN of the Committee of the Whole 
reported, that the committee had spent some time in 
consideration of the l eport of the standing committee 
on the militia, and coining to no conclusion thereon, he 
was instructed in behalf of the committee of the whole, 
to ask leave for them to sit again upon the considera¬ 
tion of the same subject. 

The leave was granted accordingly. 

CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN BANKING. 

Mr.COLLlNGSgave notice that, when thecommittee 
should again take up the consideration of the report ot 
the committee on corporations other than banking cor¬ 
porations, he should move a substitute for the first sec¬ 
tion of that repot t, in the language which he would 
now read for information: 

The powers, privileges, and liabilities of'bodies corporate, 
shall be pr- scribed by general laws, and no special act ot incor- 
porati( n shall be passed by the General A.^^sembly. Companies 
formed under general laws for purposes requiring a Right of 
Way, shall, before exercising corporate franchi-ses, procure an 
act of the General Assembly, admitting them to exercise such 
corpoi ate franchises as shall have been prescribed by general 
laws.| 

And whether that amendment should prevail or not, 
he intended to move to strike out the whole report, 
and insert this as a substitute: 

f The General Assembly shall pass no special acts conferring cor¬ 
porate powers, where the object to be accomplished is of a char¬ 
acter j rivate and local; but for such objects may pass general 
laws, and therein shall provide for the full and entire individual 
liability of the stockholders of any company formed under such 
general laws. 

On motion by Mr. SMITH, of Warren, [by unanimous 
consent,] these projiositions were received, laid upon 
the table, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. ROBERTSON now moved that the committee 
adjourn. 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays upon 
this question, and the same being ordered and taken, 
the vole was reported—yeas 39, nays 35, as follows : 

Ykas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hock- 
mg, Case of Licking, Collings, Dorsey, Florence, Greene of Deti- 
auce, Hamilton, Hard, Holmes, Hootman, Jones, Kirkwood, Lar- 
will, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, 
Quigley, Ranney, Robertson, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Warren, 
Stickney, Stidger, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, 
Warren, Williams.—39. 

Navs —Messrs. Baniet of Montgomery, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Chambers, Clark, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Firestone, Gil- 
let, Giaham, Gregg, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, 
Johnstn, Larsh, Morehead, Morris, Me loud, Patterson, Peck, 
Reemelin, Sawyer, Sellers, Stanton, Stilwell, Struble, Vance of 
Butler, Woodbury.—3.5. 

So the Couveiitioii adjourned until Monday, 9 A. M. 


MONDAY, June 17, 1850. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Douahoo. 

PETITIONS. 

Mr. BATES presenten liie petition of Jackson A 
Bell, and 36 otiier citizens of Wayne towiishi]), Jeffer¬ 
son county, asking for the removal of the black and 
mulatto population from this State, and to prevent their 
further emigration into if. 

Referred to the coimniltee on Miscellaneous Subjects. 

Mr. LtJUDON presented a memorial from Caleb 
Athei ton, Arthur Whitt hall, Wm. O’Connor, tittd 150 
other citizens of Brown county, asking that henceforth 
none of the African race bo permitted to settle in this 


State, and that provision be made in the constitution 
to prevent the right of suti’rage being extended to that 
race of men. The petitions also piayed tljat the tes¬ 
timony clause of the “ Black Laws” be engrafted into 
the new coiislitulion, and that the negroes at present 
among us be removed as soon as [(ossible. 

Tlie petition was referred to the committee on the 
Elective Franchise. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND presented the petition of Wn*. 
H. D:iy of Lorain county, praying that the elective 
franchise be extended to all persons, without distinc¬ 
tion as to color. 

The petition, a rather lengthy document, wasj read 
by consent. 

Mr. SAWYER desired to learn from the genilemaa 
who presented the petition, if it were a petition from 
colored people. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND replied that it was signed by one 
individual, who was a citizen of the State; as to the 
person's coloi-, he would say, that he was very nearly 
white, having less black blood in him than a mulatto. 

Mr. SAWYER did not desire to be captious on this 
subject; his views were perfectly well known in rela¬ 
tion to receiving pelilions of this nature. If in order, he 
wished the President to understand that all petitions of 
the kind were objected to in advance ; it would save 
him the trouble of formally objecting. 

The PRESIDENT intimated, in effect, that such a 
course could not be pursued. 

Mr. SAWYER remarked that he olijected to this pe¬ 
tition, more especially than any other. He would 
move that the petition be rejected. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. Mr. President, I did not anti¬ 
cipate that any objection would be made to the recep¬ 
tion and reference of this memorial. It is true that Mr. 
Day, the memorialist, has what is called African blood 
in his veins, and is therefore identified in feeling with 
the oppressed colored people of this State. But, sir, 
he is one of those who, by our present constitution, as 
constnied by the supreme court of the State, is entitled 
to the right of suffrage and all the rights and privile¬ 
ges of citizenship. The memorialist is one of my con¬ 
stituents, and one of those who aided in my election to 
this Convention, and, sir, he has the same right to be 
heard as the constituents of any gentleman on this Hoor. 

I will say further, that this memorialist, colored though 
he be, is as well educated, as much of a man, and quite 
as much of a gentleman as any one of those who are 
opposed to the appropriate reference of this mememo- 
rial. I venture to say, also, that if any one here wishes 
to discuss the propriety of granting the prayer of this 
memorial, the gentleman from whom it emanated 
will be ready to meet them any where, and I know he 
will be found abundantly able to sustain himself. We 
have had to-day and heretofore several petitions for tho 
expulsion of all colored persons from the State ; and, 
although su< h extradition is clearly impossible atid un¬ 
constitutional, I have never voted against their recep¬ 
tion or reference. Sir, I believe it to be our duty to 
receive all respectful petitions and memorials, and to 
give to them proper attention. I wish it then to he 
understood that I don’t ask the reference of this me¬ 
morial from one of my constituents as a matter of cour¬ 
tesy, but. sir I dcmantl it as a right. 

Mr. HOLMES. Is the petition signed by black per¬ 
sons? 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Lorain has 
informed us that it is signed by one individual, who is 
nearer white than black. k.- wl 

Mr. HAWKINS. At this point of time it would not 
be in order to object to its reception. No objection 
was made when it was handed in. It was received at 
ihe Clerk’s desk and read, and the motion then made 
was, thill it be referred. I understood the olijeciion of 
the gentleman from Auglaize was to the reference. 

Mr. SAWYER. The gentleman is mistaken. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Lorain 
[Mr. Townshend] did not state the object of the pe- 

















416 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


tilion when presenting it, and it was then read by the 
Clerk. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. The Chair perhaps may not 
have heard me. 1 did state the object of the petition 
at the time. 

The PRESIDENT. Then I am mistaken: the Chair 
did not so understand the gentleman. 

An unimportant conversational discussion here en¬ 
sued in relatio i to the motion of the gentleman from 
Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] being in order, after which 

Mr. ROBERTSON remarked that he had on a former 
occasion stated his willingness to vote for the recep¬ 
tion of all petitions from the citizens of this State, when 
•couched in respectable language. The supreme court 
had declared the present petitioner a citizen ; fie did 
not believe that they were right in so doing. How¬ 
ever, the party here petitioning, is a citizen of the State, 
and therefore comes within the rule that I have laid 
down for my government, in voting for the reception 
of petitions, while he would vote for receiving this pe¬ 
tition he hoped that there would be a clause in the 
constitution against allowing such persons to become 
citizens. 

Mr. LARWILL was in favor of receiving the petition, 
for the reason given by the gentleman from Fairfield ; 
but was, like him, opposed to extending the right of 
•suffrage to the colored race. 

Mr. KENNON. It is perhaps known to the mem¬ 
bers of the Convention that I represent a constituency 
who are decidedly opposed to the extension of the 
right of suffrage to colored persons, and I believe that 
some gentlemen, knowing this fact, have expressed 
some surprise at the vote given by me some time since 
for the reception of a petition from colored persons 
praying that this privilege should be granted to them. 
I shall vote for the reception of the present petition, 
and propose giving my reasons for that vote, and also 
for my previous vote on the same subject. I do this 
that my action may be understood here rather than for 
the purpose of explaining my action to my constituents. 

I think they understand fully, what my course will be 
when this matter of suffrage to colored persons shall be 
finally acted upon, and also the reasons that influence 
me to receive these petitions. I vote to receive these 
petitions because it is our duty to act upon their subject 
matter, and that our action, be it what it may, will ef¬ 
fect for good or for evil, the petitioners, and I cannot 
refuse to hear any man whose interest is to be effected 
by my action. Th's rule of action is, in my opinion, 
clearly just and right. A contrary rule would, in my 
oiunion, be clearly unjust and wrong—and I shall vote 
for the reception of all petitions from residents of our 
State, upon all subjects within the limits of our legiti¬ 
mate duties or powers. Every resident of our State 
will be effected by our action, and it is the right of eve¬ 
ry such person to indicate to us, by petition or other¬ 
wise, his or her opinion as to what our action should be. 

Mr. LOUDON hoped that the motion would be with¬ 
drawn inasmuch as this individual was recognized as a 
citizen by the supreme court. He thought we had no 
right then to vote against the reception of this argu¬ 
ment for the right of negro suffrage. He believed it 
was the opinion of his constituents that very few blacks 
in Ohio had the right to come here and ask any thing 
at our hands; they were trespassers, in other words, 
on the limits of this State. Every negro who came in¬ 
to this State since 1802, came here with due notice that 
he could not become a citizen; and he knew that an 
additional obligation would be imposed on him, which 
was, that he would be I’equired to give bonds for his 
not becoming a charge upon the township. For all 
these considerations, he believed they had no right to 
come here. But this was a different case. The gen¬ 
tleman from Fairfield, [Mr. Robertson,] told us that 
this party was a voter under the decision of the su¬ 
preme court, and being such, he was willing to receive 
his petition, or written argument, rather. 

Mr. SAWYER said, that in order to have done with 


nnprofiiable discussion, he would beg leave to with¬ 
draw his motion; but his mind was not changed on the 
subject. 

Leave was given the gentleman to withdraw his 
motion; and there being no further ol)jections, the pe¬ 
tition was leferred to the committee on the Elective' 


Franchise. 


Mr. REEMELIN presented the petition of David 
Quinn and 195 others, citizens of Hamilton county, 
praying that a pi’ovision be inserted Jnto the new con- 
.xtitution by which all persons of negro or part negro 
blood, may be removed from the State. 

Referred to the committee on the Elective Fran¬ 
chise. 

Mr. STIDGER presented the memorial of Jacob 
Pantiers and 21 others, citizens of Stark county, pray¬ 
ing that under the new constitution the circulation of 
paper money and the incorpoi’ation of banks and bank¬ 
ing companies shall be prohibited. Also the petition 
of Jacob Sleutz and 39 others, citizens of Stark county, 
and the petition of Wm. H. Burke and 45 others, of the 
same county, on the same subject. 

The petitions were severally referred to the commit¬ 
tee on Banking and the Currency. 

Mr. MITCHELL presented the petition of Robert B. 
Mitchell and 61 other citizens of Knox county, praying 
that the Convention insert a clause in the constitution 
which will forever prevent the issue or circulation of 
bills of credit, bank bills, or other paper as money.— 
Referred to the committee on Banking &c.. 

Mr. SMITH of Highland presented the petition J. C. 
Sanders, of Highland county, praying that the members 
of the Society of Friends be exempted by constitution¬ 
al provision from the performance of military duty in 
time of peace. On motion the petition was laid on the 
table. 

Mr. CUTLER presented the petition of Luther Ed- 
gerton and 36 others, citizens of Washington county, 
praying that by constitutional provision the crime of 
murder in the first degree shall be punished by death. 
Referred to the committee on Capital Punishment. 

Mr. LARSH presented the following communication, 
which was read and on motion laid upon the table: 

To the Honorable the Members of the Convention now in session to 

amend the Contitution of the State of Ohio ; 

Inasmuch as the law creating your body gives you the power 
to remove your sittings at pleasure, we the citizens of the city of 
Eaton, in the county of Preble, and State of Ohio, would beg leave 
to urge upon your favorable consideration the propriety of remo¬ 
ving your body to our city, here to remain so long as it may suit 
you so to do. Accommodations of all kinds we are prepared to 
extend to your honorable body. If you conclude to come, send 
us a few hours’ notice, in order that we may be prepared to re¬ 
ceive you. Moreover, the counsel and advice of several able- 
bodied men may be thereby obtained. 

Signed by A. Haines and 51 others. 


i 





Mr. BATES moved to reconsider the vote by which 
a petition, presented by him this morning, had been re¬ 
ferred to the committee on Miscellaneous subjects. 

The vote was reconsidered, and the perition then re¬ 
ferred to the committee on the Elective Franchise. 

Mr. COL LINGS presented a petition from Daniel f 
McIntyre and 121 other citizens of Scioto county pray¬ 
ing that means be taken to prevent the legalization of 
traffic in spirituous liquors, under the new constitution. 

Referred to the select committee on the subject of 
the retailing of ardent spirits. 

Mr. HOLMES brought up the following report from 
the committee on 


APPORTIONMENT, 

Which was read a first time by its title, and, on mo¬ 
tion was laid upon the table and ordered to be printed: 

1st. The apportionment of this State shall be made every ten 
years, alter the year 1851, in the following manner: The whole 
population of the State as ascertained every ten years, by the fed¬ 
eral census, or in such other mode as the Legislature may direct, 
shall fortiver be divided by the number “ one hundred,” and the 
quotient shall be the ratio of representation in the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives, for the ten years next ensuing from such apportion¬ 
ment. 


2d. Every county having a population equal to one half of 
said ratio, shall be entitled to one Representative; every county 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 417 


containing said ratio, and three fourths over, shall be entitled to 
two Representotives; every county containing three times said 
ratio, shall be entitled to three Representatives, and so on, requi¬ 
ring, after the first two, an entire ratio for each additional Repre¬ 
sentative. 

3d. When any county has a fraction above the entire ratio so 
large, that being multiplied by the number of sessions in the de 
cennial period, (viz:) five, it will produce an amount sufficient to 
entitle the county to one or ni'^re Representatives, as follows: re¬ 
quiring a whole ratio for the first additional Representative, a ra¬ 
tio and three fourths for two additional Representatives, three 
times the ratio for three, and four times the ratio for four addi¬ 
tional Representatives—such additional Representatives shall be 
apportioned among the several sessions of the decennial period 
as follows; if there be only one additional Representative, he shall 
be allotted to the fifth session oi the decennial period ; if there 
are two, they shall be allotted to the fourth and third sessions 
respectively ; if three, to the third, second and first sessions res¬ 
pectively ; if four, to the fourth, third, second, and first sessions, 
respectively. 

4 th. Every county which shall be joined to any county or coun¬ 
counties for a Representative district, during one decennial period, 
shall, it at the next decennial period it have acquired a sufficient 
population, to be entitled to a separate representation, become a 
separate representative district: Provided, there shall be left in 
the district from which it shall have been separated, a population 
sufficient for a representative, but no such change shall be made ex¬ 
cept at a regular decennial period of the apportionment of Rep¬ 
resentatives. 

5th. If it be found at the determination of any subsequent ra¬ 
tio, that a county heretotore entitled to a separate representation, 
according to the new ratio, then said county shall be attached to 
the county adjoining it, having the smallest number of inhabi¬ 
tants, and the representation of said district shall be determined 
as herein provided 

6th. Any county which has within its limits a city, or corpo¬ 
rate towm, with a number of inhabitants equal to the whole ratio, 
at any decennial period, and still leaving in the county a popula¬ 
tion equal to a whole ratio at such decennial period, such city, or 
corporate town, shall be entitled to a separate representation, to 
be determined as herein provided. 

7th. If by any contingency it should ever occur, that in any 
session the number of Representatives shall exceed “ one hun¬ 
dred and twenty,” then a deduction shall be elfected, by with¬ 
drawing the additional members which shall have been added, 
for the smallest fractions, successively, until the number of mem¬ 
bers shall be reduced to one hundred and twenty. 

8th. The ratio for Senators shall forever hereafter be ascer¬ 
tained by dividing the whole population of this State by the num¬ 
ber “ thirty.” 

9th. The same rule shall apply for apportioning the fractions 
of Senatorial districts, and for dividing cities and corporate 
towns from their respective counties, and for annexing districts 
which may hereafter fall below the Senatorial ratio, as in the 
House of Representatives. 

10th. The number of Senators shall never at any time exceed 
forty members, and it it become necessary to eftect a reduction 
of the number of Senators, it shall be done in the same manner 
as provided for in section “ seven ” for the House of Represen¬ 
tatives. 

11th. For the first ten years after 1851, the apportionment 
shall be as herein provided for, but no change shall be made in 
the principles of representation as herein estabhshed, or in the 
districts for Senatorial purposes. 

12th. The Governor, Auditor and Secretary of State, or any 
two of them, shall, after the year 1861, ascertain and determine, 
as soon as practicable after the official publication of each decen¬ 
nial census as herein provided, the ratio of representation, upon 
the principle herein contained for Senators and Representatives 
in the General Assembly, the number each county or district 
shall be entitled to elect to each branch, and for what years with¬ 
in the then next ensuing ten years—and the Governor shall cause 
the same to be published in such manner as shall be directed by 
law. 

! APPORTIONMENT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


Regular Members —95. 


COUNTIES. 

1 Adams.1 

COUNTIES. 

Erie.1 

Fairfield.1X2 

Ashland.1X2 

Fayette.1 

F 1 anklin.2 


Gallia.1 

Auglaize.1 

, Belmont.1X3 

Geauga.1 

Greene.1 X 1 

Guernsey..1 X 3 

Butler..1 X 2 

Carroll. 1 

Champaign. 1 

riork 1 

Hamilton.2X4 

Cincinnati.5 

Hancock.1 

Harrison.1 

Clermont. 1X2 

Clinton.1 

Columbiana.2 

Coshocton.1X1 

Crawford.1 

Cuyahoga.2 

Darke.1 

Delaware. 1X1 

Hihgland.1X2 

Hocking. 1 

Holmes.1 X 1 

Huron.1X2 

Jackson.1 

Jefferson.1 X 2 

Knox. 1X3 

Lake.1 


27 


Lawrence. 


Licking. 

o 

Logan. 

.1 

Lorain. 


Lucas. 

.1 

Madison. 

.1 

Mahoning. 

.1 X 1 

Marion. 


Medina. 

.1X2 

Meigs. 


Miami. 

.1X2 

Monroe. 

.1X2 

Montgomery. 

.2 X I 

Morgan. 


Morrow. 

.1 

Muskingum. 

.2 

Perry. 

.1 

Pickaway. 

.1 X 1 

Pike. 


Portage. 

.1X3 

Preble. 

.1 

Richland. 



T^oss. 1X3 

Sandusky. l 

Scioto.1 

Seneca.1 x 1 

Shelby. i 

Stark.2 

Summit.1X2 

Trumbull. 1X3 

Tuscarawas. 1X3 

Union. 1 

Warren.1 X 1 

Washington.1 X 2 

Wayne.2 

Wood and Ottowa.1 

Wyandot and Hardin.... 1 

Vinton. 1 

Mercer.1 

Van Wert, Paulding and. 

Defiance.1 

Putnam and Hanry.1 

Williams and Fulton_I 


SCHEME OF APPORTIONMEN FOR FRACTIONS. 


Additions. I. 

1 0 

2 0 

3 8 

4 1 


II. 

III. 

IV 

V. 

0 

0 

0 

11 

0 

14 

14 

0 

8 

8 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 


The Roman numerals at the top, mark the sessions at which' 
the additionals are introduced. The Arabic numerals on the left, 
mark the number of additiona l from each county. 

The same scheme to be adopted in the Senate, when fractions 
occur. 


Sec. 14. The Senatorial districts shall be composed of the fol¬ 
lowing counties, and forever remain as such, except when al¬ 
tered in pursuance of section nine of this article. 

SENATORIAL APPORTIONMENT. 


Districts. Counties. Population. Senators. 

1 Ashtabula and Trumbull. 62,806 1 

2 Lake, Geauga and Cuyahoga. 74,082 1 

3 Portage and Summit. 53,037 1 

4 Mahoning and Columbiana. 64,783 1 

5 Stark and Carroll. 59,453 1 

6 Tuscarawas and Harrison. 54,036 1 

7 Jefferson and Belmont. 62,150 1 

8 Guernsey and Monroe. 62 460 1 

9 Morgan and Washington.61,321 1 

10 Perry, Hocking, Athens and Vinton... 60,574 1 

11 M'dgs, Jackson, Gallia and Lawrence.. .56,771 1 

12 Muskingum and Coshocton.69,786 1 

13 Holmes and Wayne. 61,440 1 

14 Medina and Lorain...56,117 ] 

15 Ashland and Richland. 61,946 1 

16 Knox and Morrow. 52,681 1 

17 Licking and Fairfield. 70,051 1 

18 Ross and Pickaway. 58,468 I 

19 Pike Scioto, Adams and Highland. 74,609 ' P 

20 Clermont and Brown. 59,732 1 

21 Warren and Butler. 58,302 1 

22 Franklin and Delaware. 65,901 T 

23 Clinton, Greene, Fayette and Madison. 71,670 1 

24 Clark, Champain, Logan and Union... 70.346 1 

25 City of Cincinnati.100,000 1 

26 Hamilton. 58,938 1X2‘ 

27 Montgomery and Preble. 70,834 1 

28 Miami, Darke and Shelby. 60,049’ 1 

29 Huron and Erie. 47,264 1 

30 Crawford, Seneca and Sandusky. 57,834 ) 

31 Marion, Wyandot, Hancock and Hardin 48,580 1 

32 Mercer, Auglaize, Allen, Putnam, Van 

Wert and Paulding. 52,598 1 

33 Wood, Ottawa, Lucas, Fulton, Henryj 

Defiance and Williams.. 55,436 1 


G. W HOLMES, Chairman. 
JOHN E. HUNT, 

JOSIAH SCOTT, 

E. T. STICKNEY, 

WESLEY CLAYPOOLE, 
THOMAS PATTERSON,, 

G. VOLNEY DORSEY, 

JOHN J. HOOTMAN, 

H. S. MANON, 

JOS. M. FARR, 

f T? A QTJ' 

E*. B. WOODBURY. 

Mr. MANON' desired to draw the attention of iTie 
Convention to the language employed in a petition 
which was received this morning and referred. He 
know what course to take in relation to the 
matter; but for information he would read ilie lan¬ 
guage used—it referred to the course of members iu 
relation to the hard money question f 
“ There are certain members elected to this body v ho have 
proved recreant to their trust, and your petitioners would reraincJ 
them ef the fate of Judas and the deom ef Ameld.” 





























































































































418 CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


He moved therefore to take up the pelitioii and re¬ 
ject it. 

The PRESIDENT observed that such a course could 
not be pursued, as the petition was already in the pus 
session of a committee. 

Mr. MANON hoped that hereafter, when gentlemen 
presented petitions containing such language, they 
would read them. This petition was not a respectful 
one, and was of a nature that should not have been 
sent to this body. If it had been read it would not 
have been received. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD hoped the gentleman was mista¬ 
ken. He trusted that the terms employed did not ap¬ 
ply to any member on this floor. There was no mem¬ 
ber elected here, who wuuld betray the trust rejjosed 
in him by his constituents. 

Mr. MITCHEL observed, that the petition referred 
to was the one which he had presented. He toi k the 
same view of the matter as his friend from Richland. 
He trusted that his constituents, who were very wor¬ 
thy men, were mistaken in regard to the fact. As he 
had not supposed that the words used, were designed 
to point out any gentleman in this convention, he did 
not ask leave to read it. 

Mr. HAWKINS inquired, whether from the gentle* 
man’s knowledge of the members of this convention, 
the language used, referred to them or not. 

Mr. MITCHELL readied, that if he must answer that- 
question, he would say, that late indications led him to 
suppose that tho petitioners were not much mistaken. 
Some here, seem to insist that they are within the range 
of the remarks of this petition, and insist upon apply¬ 
ing it to themselves. The gentleman from Morgan, I 
must say, has shown his good sense in refusing so to do 

Mr. MANON. remarked, that the gentleman had been 
absent at home for the last eight or ten days, and could 
not, therefore, be entirely ignorant as to what was do¬ 
ing and transpiring there. It w’ould have been fitter 
for the gentleman to be here minding his business. He 
was very much mistaken if the gentleman had not 
some hand in getting up this petition whilst at home. 

Mr. MITCHELL (on leave, there being no question 
before the convention,) desired simply to say, that he 
knew nothing of the communication of his constituents 
in reference to the great and worthy gentlemen on this 
floor. He begged to assure them he did not think 
them worth the labor. Nor would he trouble himsell 
by having a hand in getting up anything that would 
annoy such worthy gentlemen. 

The convention then resolved itself into a committee 
of the whole, [Mr. Hitchcock of Geauga, in the chair,] 
and resumed the consideration of the report on 

THE MILITIA. 

The question being upon Mr. Larsh’s amendment, 
to wit, to strike out the words “conscientiously scru¬ 
pulous of bearing arms.” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, I will submit a very few remarks 
touching the propriety of excusing from military duty, 
those who were conscientiously scrupulous of bearing 
arms. The proposition is, to exclude fVorn doing mili¬ 
tary duty, a certain portion of our citizens — that if, 
hereafter, the legislature should deem it necessary to 
enact a law requiring that military trainings be had, a 
certain portion of our citizens should be exempt from 
the operations of the law. Now I would ask, why not 
make a general provision applicable to all laws, that 
they shall be obligatory only on those who conscien¬ 
tiously believe them to be right, and that those who 
conscientiously believe any law to be wrong, may dis¬ 
regard it. Why confine our action to one law and om 
class of people 1 I think my friend from Jefferson, 
will not endorse, on tiie part of the Quakers, this 
claim to be thus peculiarly favored. I believe there is 
a sect called the Covmmnters, who hold peculiar opin- 
ons in relation to civil government; tliey hold, I be¬ 
lieve, that all government that does not conform to the 
bible, is wrong. They are, therefore, conscientious!) 
opposed to paying taxes for the support of our govern¬ 


ment, as in their o[)inion it does not come up to the 
standard. Will genilemen make a law declaring that 
these persons shall be ex{‘m[)t from taxation? Why 
not? If it is right in this law to make a constitutional 
provision exce[)ting a certain class of men from bear¬ 
ing arms, because they are conscientiously oj>posed to 
so doing, is it not equally i ight to make a provision ex-^ 
em()ting the class alluded to from paying taxes, because 
they are conscientiously opposed to so doing? What 
is the ditt'ei'ence ? Again, the Catholics deem it to be 
wroi g, and think their rights are infringed u[)on w'hen 
they are compelled to {)ay taxes for the sup[)ort of com¬ 
mon schools, to wliich they cannot consistently send 
their children. They would desire the portion of the 
common school fund which they contribute, applied to 
schools where their children could be educated in the 
same religious faith as them.'-elves Will gentlemen go 
to that length, and make tlie distinction in these cases, 
as well as in the one under consideration ? If not— 
why not? 

Mr. BATES. As the gentleman has referred to me 
in a very respectful manner, I will simply say, it is 
a question in which I do not ask anything for myself, 
and I wuuild say further, that the portion of Friends 
whom I represent here, have not asked anything for 
themselves, nor do I believe they will. However, I 
took occasion to say, when the resolution was ofl'ered 
excepting those conscientiously opposed to military du¬ 
ty in the time of peace, that if the convention saw pro¬ 
per to pass these resolutions, it would be a relief, not 
only to the society of Friends, but to a large class of 
population of our country, who entertained similar 
views to those generally entertained by the Friends.— 
That was the ground I took, and I am not going to de¬ 
lay the convention with any i'urther remarks upon it, 
and they may Pdve such action as they see fit. I i-ep- 
resent the people of Jefferson county, and not the so¬ 
ciety of Friends. I only speak for them, as I would 
for any other class of people in that county, and no 
farther. 

The question being then taken upon Mr. Larsh’s 
amendment, it was not agreed to. The question then 
being upon the amendment offered by Mr. Stanton. 

Mr. LOUDON. 1 wish to call the attention of every 
member of this Convention, who is in favor of the 
proposition now before us, that we have a law of 
the United States which requires, at the hands of every 
State in the union, an enrollment of the militia between 
the ages of 18 and 45. The object of such a law is, 
that every Stale in the union may have a method of as¬ 
certaining the amount of military force in their resjiect- 
ive States, so that when the distribution of public arms 
is to be made among the States, they would be equally 
distributed fro raia, according to the number of militia 
men, between the ages of 18 and 45. That is about 
the sum and substance of the section. Now’ the amend- 
inent proposed seems to me to be to this effect: that 
it would create distinctions among our citizens—a class 
of our citizens who have conscientious scrujiles about 
performing military duty, would be stricken from our 
rolls, and the consequence would be that the aggregate 
amount of the militia would be much lessened, and to 
that extent we should lose that portion of the public 
arms to which we are entitled from the General Gov¬ 
ernment. There is no person her-s who expects that 
the old order of things would be revived—that the old 
fashioned w’ay of training in companiesand regimental 
musters would be revived again in this State. But we 
do expect that an organization would be kept up—that 
efficient limits would be fixed—that regimental dis¬ 
tricts would be maintained—that company districts 
vyould be assigned. And we expect also that some ac¬ 
tion of the Legislature will be had upon this subject, so 
that it may efficiently carry out and procure the whole 
amount of the military between the ages of 18 and 45, 
so that the State may get her just proportion of arms 
from the General Government. The latter part of this 
clause requires that all persons between the ages speci- 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 419 


tied, “ shall iierfDi’m military duty, as may be directed 
by law. Now the performance of that military duty 
! will be this : A {)rovisioti will be made that some per- 
j eons will be directed to take alist of all male inhabitants 
I between the ages of 18 and 45. I believe it is a law 
I now, that when the township assessors go around to 
1 assess chattel property, they are required to take down 
i alistof the militia between the ages of 18 and 45. They 
1 are required to report to the proper military authorities. 

1 and they report to the State anthorities, and upon that 
^ statement we draw our proportion of public arms. I 
think, therefore, that it would be better to leave the 
section as it now stands. 

Mr. LARSH. I had no intention obmaking any re¬ 
marks upon this subject, but I think that the commit¬ 
tee do not fully understand the question as it is now 
' presented. The proposition first was, to amend this 
section by adding at the close of it a provision to ex¬ 
empt persons conscientiously scrupulous about bearing 
arms in war. I cannot quite vote for that, for I do not 
believe it to be right to make distinctions between cit¬ 
izens of this State, and T cannot think of putting into 
the constitution a clause that will make such distinc¬ 
tion. If we will do anything, let us sa) that no person 
shall do niilitai-y duty in time of peace. Let the Leg- 
, islature encourage the formation of volunteer compa- 
rlies. Keep the militia enrolled, and that would be all 
that would be necessary. Cir umstances may change 

• hereafter, and the Legislature should have the power 
; to make such provisions as those circumstances may 

■ require. In my opinion, the whole matter had better 
be left to the Legislature, and require nothing further 

, than that the militia shall be regularly enrolled, and to 
make provision for calling out the militia into service 
in time of danger. I hope that the committee may 
view this matter as I do. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. As I understood the amend¬ 
ment oftered by tlie gentleman from Preble, I shall 
vote for it The proposition, as originally submitted, 
was to *• exempt those who had conscientious scruples 
1 from bearing arms.” The ameiidment, as ottered by 
the gentleman from Preble, [Mr. Larsh,] is to ex- 

• empt all persons, in time of peace, from bearing arms, 

! or that there should be nothing obligatory upon the 
j Legislature to require persons to perform military du- 
i ty in time of peace. 

I know there is a very well grounded objection, as 
a matter of j)rinciple, to legislate, especially upon mat- 

- ters of this kind, or make such provisions in favor of a 
' particular class of men. Hence, I believe it would be 

the proper policy to pursue—unless there was some 
real good to follow from the militia trainings—to insert 

■ a geiWal clause in the constitution, providing that no 

- person shall be compelled to perform military duty in 
time of peace. It would then not be obnoxious to the 
objection of some gentlemen, that it would confer spe- 

' cial privileges upon a particular class, or particular de- 
: .nomination of men. 

Now, sir, it is admitted upon all hands, and especially 
by my friend from Brown [Mr. Loudon] thatitisnotthe 
intention of the committee who made this report, to 
' enforce the ordinary system of training of the militia. 
I believe it is admitted by every gentleman, that these 
militia trainings are entirely useless—that it would be 
good policy as far as possible to reduce the old milita¬ 
ry government, and encourage the formation and or¬ 
ganization of volunteer light companies, dispensing en¬ 
tirely, during the time of peace, with the ordinary 
militia training, as useless, if not demoralizing in their 
character. Let us then provide, that in time of pea,pe 
no person shall be compelled to perform military du¬ 
ty. I can see no objection to the incorporation of such 
a provision, and I shall therefore, Mr. Chairman, sup¬ 
port this amendment, and hope it will prevail. 

The question being then taken upon the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Clinton [Mr. Morris.] 
it was not agreed to. 

The question then turned upon the proposition of 


Mr. Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, to strike out the first sec¬ 
tion as amended, and insert—“ the General As.sembly 
may provide by law for organizing and disciplining the 
militia of this State in such manner as they may deem 
expedient, not incompatible with the cjnstitution and 
laws of the United States.” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Suppose a mob should break 
out in one of our large cities, how could it be sup¬ 
pressed ? 

Mr. SMITH of Warren suggested, that we had a 
civil police who would act upon such occasions. 

Mr. LARSH. Let us give to the Legislature the 
power to encourage the formation of volunteer com¬ 
panies. and let the Legislature offer such inducements 
as will secure the formation of at least one or two 
volunteer companies in every town, who will be amply 
.sufficient to protect the officers of the law in the per¬ 
formance of their duties. Fora case of public danger, 
tlie Legislature must provide by the regular enrollment 
of the militia, so that they may be called out in an ex¬ 
treme case. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. I do not understand that 
this provision dispenses with the regular enrollment of 
the militia according to the provisions of the act of 
Congress, but merely that no one shall be compelled, in 
a time of peace, to perform militaiy duty. I under¬ 
stand it that in case of insurrection, that this organized 
militia could be called out. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I desire that we should actcau^- 
tiously in this matter and not rush to extremes. If 
there is such a provision as gentlemen suggest, under 
the law for the organization of the militia on great oc¬ 
casions, when they would be called out, I am con¬ 
tent. 

Mr. BARNETT of Preble. I would ask any gentle¬ 
man here if he knows a military corps in the State of 
Ohio, of the ordinary organized companies, that would 
be an efficient body in the time of insurrection? You 
would have to apply to your volunteer companies, for 
the militia are without arms and munitions of war, and 
would not be efficient in emergencies of this kind. At 
least that would be the case with the militia in the sec¬ 
tion of the State where I reside. I do not know how 
it would be in oth^r portions of the State. I make the 
inquiry merely to obtain information from other parts 
of the State in regard to this matter. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. In our part of the State, almost 
every house and cabin has a good rifle, bullet moulds 
and powder horn. In case the people were called up- 
in a matter of extreme urgency, they would be ready 
at a moment’s warning. I desire to ask one further 
question. Will the system require the officering and 
dividing the militia into regiments and companies? 
Will there be an organization by which the militia can 
be called out in case of emergency. 

Mr. LARSH. The Legislature would be clothed 
with complete power to arrange such matters. 

Mr. BARNETT. I do not believe thut any great 
deal of good has ever resulted from our system of mi 
litia musters as it has hitherto existed. Yet, sir, I do 
very much doubt the propriety of inserting any such 
provision as is now proposed to be inserted in the c n- 
stitution of the State. I think it would be proper to 
leave the matter with the General Assembly; so that in 
future, if it should be deemed best for the public in¬ 
terest, they could institute some military systeni, re¬ 
quiring military duty to be perlormed. said by 

gentlemen here, that the duties of the militia can be 
performed by volunteer companies, and that they can 
perform the military duty required. I would ask gen¬ 
tlemen by what authority you can compel the mem¬ 
bers of these volunteer companies to perfoim such 
duty, as the proposition is, that ‘no person shall be 
compelled to perform military duty in time of ])eace?’ 
No person would include a member of a volunteer 
company. It strikes me that instead of dwelling upon 
this question of details, into which we are ninning, we 













420 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


had better leave this whole matter to the General As¬ 
sembly. 

Mr. HENDERSON. It appears to me that the gen¬ 
tleman from Tuscarawas is pretty near correcf, that 
the amendment goes too far in dispensing with all mili¬ 
tary duty in time of peace, and that nothing so far as 
the organization of the militia should take place except 
in case of actual war or invasion. Now, I conceive 
the Legislature should be permitted to meet judicious¬ 
ly and successfully for every exigency that might arise. 
In such an exigency when our coixntrv might be threat¬ 
ened with war, or when we might be menaced upon 
our Northern or Southern borders with invasion, or in 
case of an insui*rection, the hands of our General As¬ 
sembly should not be tied up, but they should be left 
at liberty to make such provision for the safety of the 
country as they in their wisdom might see best to re- 
.solve upon. I am of opinion that this whole subject 
of the military might be left with great projjriety 
to your Legislature. This whole difficulty too, in rela¬ 
tion to the rights of conscience, I think, had better be 
left to that body, knowing, as the Legislature will, that 
they will bear hard upon the society of Fiiends and 
others who claim to be conscientiously opposed to 
bearing arms. 

Sir, I have no very great respect for these constitu¬ 
tional scruples. Individuals who can go to the polls and 
viite for Governor of your State, who is declared by 
your constitution, to be commander in-chief of its ar¬ 
my and navy—and vote too, for the President of the 
United States, who is declared, in express terms, to 
be such over the national militia. 

Mr. STANTON internipted, by saying that the gen 
tleman was speaking ujion a point altogether irreve- 
lent. 

iNlr. HENDERSON. I suppose it is rather a delicate 
(question to the gentleman from Logan. I think, 
sir, in a country so populous as this, embracing so much 
physical energy—so much military spirit, that the or¬ 
ganization of your Militia might be safely left to the 
Legislature of your State, and that there is no necessi¬ 
ty or propriety of inserting in your organic law, any 
extended details or provisions on the subject. 

Mr. CUTLER. It appears to me that the section as 
it now stands will meet the views of the gentleman from 
Hamilton. It does place a discretion with the Legis¬ 
lature, to organize the militia in such a manner as they 
may deem proper. 

Mr. REEMELTN suggested, that we should lose the 
enrollment as it now stands. 

Mr. CUTLER. I do not suppose we should lose the 
enrollment. If there was danger of that, I would be 
very willing that a provision should be inserted in re¬ 
gard to the enrollment. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I did not expect to make a sin¬ 
gle remai-k on the military report, but upon hearing the 
sentiments utterred by several honerable meubers, I 
desire to submit a remark or two. I regret that so lit¬ 
tle interest is manifested for the preservation of a cor¬ 
rect military spirit among ‘.he mass of our people, and 
that our military system has become the butt of ridicule 
and burlesque. This only shows that its organization 
is not adapted to our people. It becomes a free peo¬ 
ple to preserve and cherish a military spirit, for we 
find that in all governments that have been free, the 
decay of the military spirit among the masses, was 
soon followed by the decline of the liberties of the 
people. It was so in Greece, in Rome, in the Italian 
Republics, and Germanic States. The martial senti¬ 
ment impressed iuto the popular mind, by the crusades, 
greatly aided in reviving the popular discipline and 
energy, which resulted in the enfranchisement of the 
anslaved vassels of Europe, and finally in giving liberty 
ito this country. 

'Believing that an enlightened military spirit should 
&)e encouraged among our people by government, I am 
opposed to striking from the report, the section provi- 
t'iiiig far military duty. I am not in favor of going into 


detail in the coustiiution, but let us here declare that 
there shall be a military organization in tlie State. 

I would like to see the whole militia system remod¬ 
elled, and made suitable to the genius of our peoj)le. 

I would like to see it so changed that our young men 
only would be required and encouraged by law, to 
perform military duty in time of peace. I w(/uld 
like to see the young men educated in military knowl¬ 
edge, as are the young men of Switzerland. When 
older, they would always be ready and well qualified 
to serve their country in war. Our young men would 
delight in passing through a military apjtrenticeship. 
They otdy need tlie fostering regard and encourage¬ 
ment of government. Confitie military service, during 
peace, to young men, just rising into manhood, the 
age of excitement, enthusiasm, and youthful pride of 
honor, and your military system will no longer be a 
theme for burlesque. You will thus create an Esprit 
ed Corps among our young men, that will ensure suc¬ 
cess. The true military age—when men delight in the 
parade, the associations and discipline of the soldier, 
is generally from 18 to 23—from the time the boy be¬ 
gins to feel that he is a man, till he knows it by the 
evidence of children around him. 

A Member. Is that a personal allusion? [Laugh¬ 
ter.] 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Not intended as personal, sir. 
[Laugh.] Previous to that age young men can attain* 
no civil dignity—cannot rise in political life ; but after ® 
that period in life, his mind generally becomes more or® 
less absorbed in the cares and labors of business, and * 
domestic relations, and military parades begin to lose 
fur him their charms. This is generally, iho’ not al¬ 
ways the case. 

In the present unpopular military systen), men of all 
ages, from 18 to 45, are brought together in an incon¬ 
gruous gathering, not united by any bond of sympathy 
or pride of association, hut coming unwillingly from 
their farms and workshops, they have neither disci¬ 
pline nor a disposition to acquire military knowledge. 

I would therefore change the whole system—not abo¬ 
lish, but reform it. I am aware, however, that my 
views being perhaps new, will not receive favor, and I 
do not expect to see them engrafted upon ihe constitu¬ 
tion. But I desire to see some provision made in the 
constitution which will ensure a military organization, 
leaving the plan and details to the Legislature. 

The argument of the gentleman from Richland, [Mr. 
Kirkwood,] against exempting any class from military 
duty, ought to be conclusive. If we begin to make ex¬ 
ceptions there is no point to end. The very idea of ex¬ 
ceptions destroys that equality which should prevail 
among all the citizens of the State. 

Mr. MORRIS offered the following amendment as a 
substitute: 

“ But military training or musters in time of peace shall not be 
required, except as to volunteer companies and for the instruction 
of military officers.” 

I offer this amendment to suit the views of those 
gentlemen who object to the present form. By adopt¬ 
ing this amendment, officers can do military duty and 
qualify themselves in case they are called into service. 

As to volunteer companies, they are to be regulated by 
law and encouraged; and it will secure the further pur¬ 
pose of keeping up a regular enrollment by which 
they will dravy their regular quota of arms. This is my 
object in offering the amendment. 

The question then being taken upon Mr. Morris’ 
amendment it was lost. 

Mr. LOUDON. We are told here by gentlemen, that 
the constitution we are going to adopt will be so drawn 
up that it will last for all time to come. I hope that 
may be the case. But it is proposed in this amend¬ 
ment to tie up the hands of future Legislatures, and 
say that they shall not require, in the emergency of a 
war, persons between the age of 18 and 45 to go out 
and do military duty, when the country demands their 
services. I am opposed to any thing of that kind. I 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


421 


believe the best thing to be done is to leave it to the 
Legislature- T presume there will be men in this place 
who will understand their own interests and the great 
wish of the people well enough not to enact any law 
that will be detrimental to their best interests. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I would suggest an amendment 
—to insert the following; “ Among white male inhab¬ 
itants between the ages of 18 and 23 years.” 

Mr. COOK. I move to amend the amendment by 
striking out the word “ white.” 

The question being then taken upon Mr. Robertson’s 
amendment; it was not agreed to. 

The question was then taken upon the amendment 
offered by Mr. Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, which was 
adopted, and which was to supply the place of the first 
section. 

Sec. 2. Captains and subalterns shall be elected by tho'^e per 
sons subject to military duty in their respective company dis¬ 
tricts. 

Mr. CUTLER. I offer to amend the section by stri¬ 
king out and inserting the following : 

“ Officers ot the Militia shall be elected or appointed in such 
manner as the Geneial Assembly shall taom time to time direct— 
and shall be commissioned by the Governor. 

I would just remark, that if this amendment should 
prevail it would occupy the ground covered by the six 
succeeding sections, and it will leave the whole matter 
to be regulated by the General Assembly. 

Mr. LOUDON. The object the committee had in view 
was to have the matter as nearly in the language of the 
old constitution as might be. I believe the section is 
copied verbatim from the old constitution, especially 
in regard to the election of officers, and I think it is best 
to adhere to the old constitution as nearly as possible. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I would inquire if the Legisla¬ 
ture will not appoint quite a number of these military 
officers ? 

Mr. CUTLER. The gentleman will notice that the 
7th section provides for the appointment of the higher 
grade of officers. The constitution, as I understand it, 
will take from the General Assembly all power of ap¬ 
pointment. 

Mr. STANTON. I would inquire if there is any ne¬ 
cessity for any further sections than the one which we 
have already adopted. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. Something has 
been said about enrolling, and it was judged necessary 
to have an enrollment. I will simply inquire how 
they will organize the militia without enrolling. It 
seems to me that it would be better to refer this whole 
matter of organization, discipline and appointment or 
election of officers to the Legislature at once. 

The question being then upon Mr. Cutler’s propo¬ 
sition to strike out and insert, and a division being call¬ 
ed for, and the same turning first upon striking out, re¬ 
sulted, yeas 35, nays 34. 

The Chairman voting in the negative, the question 
was lost. So the section was retained as reported by 
the committee. 

Section 3. Colonels, Lieutenant Colonels, and Majors, shall 
be elected by those persons subject to military duty, in their re¬ 
spective regiments, battallions or squadrons. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I move to amend this section by 
striking out “ those persons subject to military duty,” 
and insert, “the subaltern commissioned officers.” 

For my part, I think this system of having elections 
of various officers, from the highest to the lowest grade 
in the State, would prove to be a very inconvenient 
piece of business. I hope we will follow the provis¬ 
ions of the old constitution in that respect. Let the 
subalterns elect those who are above them, and so on 
up to the Brigadier Generals. Let the Goveiaior nom¬ 
inate, with the consent of the Senate, the Major Gen¬ 
erals. The idea of the people of Ohio electing all their 
officers, and getting the whole State to elect their 
Quarter Master Generals, and their Adjutant Generals, 
appears to me to be “going it too strong.” 

Mr. BARNET of Preble. I agree vvith the gentle¬ 
man from Muskingum upon this subject. It is a prin¬ 


ciple that should be carried out, that each individual 
who serves in the militia, or in the army, should have 
the privilege of selecting those under whom he is to 
serve and to do duty. I think it would be improper 
and unnecessary to refer this whole matter to the peo¬ 
ple in general, but refer it to those who are to be affec¬ 
ted immediately by the action or by the selection of 
officers who are to govern them. I therefor concur 
fully in the remarks of the gentleman from Musking¬ 
um. 

Mr. LOUDON. The committee, when this section 
was drawn up, were of opinion that it would be best 
to leave the elections of these officers to the people. 

Now, if there has beenany complaint regarding elec- 
ions under the old constitution, it has come from the 
rank and file. They have complained that they had 
1.0 hand in ihe elections of their officers. The gentle¬ 
man from Muskingum [Mr. Chambers] will bear wit¬ 
ness to this fact, that if these elections had been placed 
in the hands of the rank and file heretofore, there would 
have been better officers. I contend that those who 
are to bear the “ heat and burthen ” of the day, should 
have a voice in the election of those under whom they 
are to serve, and this would be in accordance with the 
principle of our govei’iiment. 

The question being then taken upon Mr. Chambers’ 
amendment, it was agreed to. 

Sec. 24 was passed over. 

Mr. SAWYER. I am only a Colonel, and that by 
brevet, and may not be very well able to look into these 
matters. But I do not see the necessity of either of 
the offices, of Adjutant General or Quartermaster Gen¬ 
eral. 

In the ninth section of the report, it is provided that 

“ The Legislature shall provide by law for the protection and 
safe keeping of the public arms apportioned to this State by the 
General Government, and provide all other efficient provisions 
as may be deemed expedient.” 

Now if this is to be done, I am not aware of any real 
necessity for these two offices. They have to be paid, 
and I suppose, must reside at the seat of government. 
I am aware that these officers have heretofore been ap¬ 
pointed, under the old constitution; but the people 
generally know nothing about them, and I am inclined 
to think there is nothing of them but the salary : and 
unless I am better advised, I shall vote to strike out 
the secffon. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I differ with the gentleman 
about the necessity of these offices, but I am not going 
to argue the matter. The United States Government 
have these offices, and I do not see why the State of 
Ohio should not have them. But I wish to make one 
more eflfort in opposition to making all these officers 
elective. If my motion shall be in order, before the 
question on the amendment of the gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize, I would move to strike out from the sixth sec¬ 
tion, all after the word “ be,” in the first line, and in¬ 
sert the following: 

“Appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and con 
sent of the Senate; shall hold their offices for four years, keep 
their respective offices at the seat of government, and receive 
such annual salary as sh all be fixed by the General Assembly.” 

Mr. REEMBLIN. I would suggest to the gentle¬ 
man from Muskingum the propriety of striking out that 
part of his amendment which refers to the term of of¬ 
fice—four years. As these officers are to be appointed 
by the Governor, and as the Governor’s term is to bo 
for two years, I think these officers should serve only 
for a corresponding term. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. In order to meet the views of 
the gentlemen, I accept the suggestion. 

Mr. LOUDON. The committee on the militia, in 
recommending this section, had the same general idea 
in view which they supposed was entertained by the 
committee generally—that of allowing the people of 
Ohio 1o manage all these things in their own way, 
wherein elections are concerned. They supposed the 
committee entertained the idea that the people were 
capable of electing all officers, and that they would se- 














422 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


lect such men as suited them. The gentleman from 
Auglaize [Mr Sawyer] has discovered that there is no 
use for these officers, any further than the money goes. 
He says he is Colonel by brevet: but 1 should think if 
he were much of a military man, he would have dis¬ 
covered that the Adjutant General of Ohio is to the mi¬ 
litia system what the Governor is to the civil law. He 
is the executive of the system—g^'ing an impetus to 
the whole. All the military orders are distributed by 
him into all parts of the State: and all the returns are 
made to him. We could not get the public arms from 
the general government unless we had that officer. 

Mr. SAWYER (in his seat.) Could not the Legisla¬ 
ture authorize the Governor to do ail this. 

Mr. LCD DON. The Governor has as much as he 
can attend to, besides this. The Quarter Master Gen¬ 
eral is also an important military officer. He receives 
from the general government all the public arms, and 
distributes them according to law—and has the charge 
of those which are not distributed. 

Mr. SAWYER. We can overcome this difficulty, by 
just giving all into the hands of the Governor, and al¬ 
low him to have something to do: and it might also 
give him some notoriety. 

Mr. LOUDON. This might seem to be all well 
enough, the Governor could perform this service, or 
any other State officer; but without an Assistant Gen¬ 
eral, the State would be left without a head for the mil¬ 
itary establishment. There must be an officer, wheth¬ 
er he be called by one name or another. His existence 
is absolutely indispensable, in order to ascertain the 
condition and strength of the militia. 

The question was now taken upon Mr. Chambers’ 
amendment and it was agreed to. 

And then the section, as amended, was stricken out. 

Sec. 7. The Governor to appoint his Aid-de-camps, the Major 
Generals their Division Staff, the Brigadier Generals their Brig¬ 
ade Staff, Colonels or Commandants of Regiments, Battallions 
or Squadrons, their Staff, and Captains their non-commissioned 
officers and musicians, that may be provided for by law. 

Mr. SAWYER moved to strike out, after the word 
“ staff,” in the third line, the words ‘‘ and captains their 
non-commissioned officers and musicians.” He did not 
believe in that anti-democratic doctrine which would 
forbid men from selecting their own officers. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I do not think this to be a very 
interesting matter, and my opinion is, that we had bet¬ 
ter pass over the sections, severally, and then strike out 
everything. Butas we are subject here to the vilest and 
most slanderous insinuations, I beg leave to state that 
the question was not understood around me when the 
vote was taken upon the question relative to giving 
the privilege of voting for their officers to privates in 
the army. I understood the motion to be upon striking 
out the whole. This is all I have to say in order to 
relieve myself from misrepresentation; for I know we 
are under the eyes of a set of letter writers and spies, 
who are veiy far from having any dispositon to keep 
the truth on their side in any particular. 

Mr. LOUDON. I wish to ask the gentleman from 
Auglaize, why he desires to make an invidious distinc¬ 
tion in this matter of the appoi’tionraent of officers?— 
He passes over the provision that the Governor and 
Brigadier Generals and Colonels shall appoint their 
staff officers; but when he comes down to a Captain 
and his subalterns, he objects. 

Mr. SAWYER. The Governor and commandants of 
brigades appoint their aids, to attend them upon the 
field, as a sort of body guard, but exercising no author¬ 
ity over the troops. But amongst the non-commission¬ 
ed officers, is the orderly sergeant—the man who drills 
the soldiers; and for this reason alone, the militia should 
have the right themselves of choosing this officer; and 
if the gentleman from Brown would only carry out 
his principles of democracy^ upon this question, I have 
do doubt he would agree with me. (Laughter.) 

Mr. LOU DON. Although the gentleman has not told 
us, yet he must know, that the orderly sergeant bears 
the same relation to the company, which the adjutant 


does to the regiment, and the brigade major to the 
brigade. This, then, is the view which he lakes of the 
matter—the man who officiates for the l egiment upon 
horseback, he should be looked up to more than the 
poor orderly sergeant, who stands on foot in tlie muks. 

The question was then taken, by division, upon Mr. 
Sawyer’s motion to strike out. 

Mr. SAWYER (seeing but few democrats standing 
with him) said: It seems that my democratic friends 
are deserting me u[)on this occasion. (A laugh.) 

The CHAIRMAN reported—affirmative 21, negative 
30. So the amendment was lost. 

Mr. LEECH. I am not, Mr. Chairman, much of a 
military character, and had not, therefore, intended to 
interfere with this report from the committee on the 
Militia. Tliere is one word, however, in this section, 
in the first line, which I believe is incorrect. The wtn d 
to which I refer is Aid-de-camps.” I believe there is 
no such word in the “ military vocabulary.” 1 there¬ 
fore move to strike out the word “ Aid-de-camj)s,” and 
insert in lieu thereof the word ‘'Aids-de-camp.” 

Sec 8. The Legislature shall enact laws to organize and dis¬ 
cipline the militia, provide for volunteer corps or troops. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Has not that section been super- 
ceded by the amendment which was made to the first 
section of the report? 

The CHAIRMAN read the first section as amended. 

And then, on motion by Mr. BENNETT, the section 
(8) was stricken out. 

Sec. 9. The Legislature shall provide by law for the protec¬ 
tion and safe keeping of the public arms apportioned to the State 
by the General Government, and provide all otlier efficient pro¬ 
visions as may be deemed expedient. 

Mr. WILLIAMS moved to strike out the last line of 
the section, as tautological, ungrammatical and altogeth¬ 
er unnecessary matter. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Before the question is put, in be¬ 
half of the standing committee I propose to amend the 
line proposed to be stricken out, by striking out the 
word ‘‘all,” and inserting the word “such.” 

This amendment was agreed to—and the question 
recurring upon striking out the third line, it was also 
decided in the affirmative. 

Mr. CURRY. Mr. Chairman: It is really with some 
hesitation that I move to strike out from the second line, 
these words, “ the public arms apportioned to the State 
by,” so that the section will read : “ the legislature 
shall provide by law for the protection and safe keep¬ 
ing of the general government,” &c. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. That is not a proper amendment 
to the section, and in the opinion of the Chair, it is out 
of order, ^ 

Mr. LOUDON moved that the committee rise and 
report; but gave way for— 

Mr. MITCHELL, who indicated an amendment, 
which was read for information, as follows : 

Strike out the whole report, after the fii'st section, as 
amended, and insert: 

“ All military officers shall be elected by the soldiery subject to 
their command when elected. The terms of office, number to be 
elected, and modes of conducting the elections, to be prescribed 
by law: Provided, That staff'officers may be appointed by the of¬ 
ficer to whose staff'they may belong.” 

Mr. LOUDON refused to withdraw his motion: and 
thereupon— 

The committee rose and the CHAIRMAN reported 
the article to the House, with the ordinary amend, 
ments thereto. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to lay the report upon the 
table, and that the amendments be printed, but he with¬ 
drew for— 

Mr. LOUDON, upon whose motion the article was 
recommitted to the standing committee on the Militia. 

The Convention then took a recess till 3 o’clock. 

3 o’clock P. 31. 

On motion by Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee of the Wnole upon the 
order of the day, Mr. Sawyer in the chair. 












CONVENTION REPOETS. 


423 


On motion of Mr. CUTLER, Uio coinmittee tpok up 
the coiisiJeralioii of the report from the standing com¬ 
mittee on 

the public debt and public woks, 
submitted by Mr. Hawkins, on Tuesday, the 4th in¬ 
stant. 

Ij The report was read through by the Chairman. 

Mr. CUTLER proposed to amend by striking out 
from the 3d and 4di lines of thelirst section the words, 

“ seven hundred and fifty tlionsand dollars,” for the 
purpose of inserting a smaller sum ; as well as for the 
! purpose of liearing some of the reasons which had indu- 
' ced tlie committee to authorize so large a debt to be 
I annually contracted. 

Mr. HAWKINS said he was not very particular 
whether this sum were reduced or enlarged, he sup- 
1 posed it could not be understood as an annual sum. It 
i was certainly intended to bo no greater than that in ihe 
airt^regiie. It jiroposed to fix that for the m iximum, 
beyond whicli the State could never hereafter contract 
' any indebtedness. He had sujiposed that this idea 
was plainly expressed in the section. Whether that 
1 should be the precise sum, or whether it should be less 
' or greater, de[)ended upon the will of the Convention. 

He did not know, but that he would prefer a less sum 
; than that, but he was not particular. At all events it 
[ was thought by the committte, that that sum would be 
' sufficient, and that it would not be objectionable be¬ 
cause it was so large. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga said : He concurred 
with the chairman of the standing committee, in that 
he was not particularly tenacious about the sum. The 
, oidy question for the consideration of the committee 
i was, at how low a sum would it be safe to fix and limit 
the point argued, which the State shall contract in in- 
: clebtedness. For the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 

' Cutler] will see that this sum is to be the aggregate 
of all the indebtedness which can hereafter be contrac¬ 
ted by the State. He believed a majority would have 
j preferred $500,000 as the limit. But then it was thought 
I that wmuld be tying down the Legislature rather closer 
I than would be advisable: for any accident destroying 
the public works might render it necessary to contract 
a debt which would amount to something like a mill or 
a mill and a quarter upon the dollar of all the taxable 
property of the State. At one time the standing com¬ 
mittee had fixed upon a million as the limit, and at an¬ 
other time five hundred thousand. It was a mere ques¬ 
tion of convenience, and he desired to inquire of the 
committee it it were safe to declare, that for all time 
to come the total amount of indebtedness of the State 
should never at any one time exceed the sum of five 
hundred thousand dollars. He supposed a case, of sev¬ 
eral successive years of short crops in the State, and 
any contingency requiring extensive repairs to the pub¬ 
lic works of the State, it might be necessaiy in such an 
event to contract a larger debt in order to avoid exces¬ 
sive taxation. Still, if the committee felt that it were 
perfectly safe to fix the limit at half a million, he had 
' no doubt but that it would be very satisfactory to all 
i the members of the committee which had made the 
! report. 

! Mr. CUTLER being satisfied with the explanation 
' of the gentleman, withdrew his amendment. 

Mr. ROBERTSON said: He desired to call atten¬ 
tion to the propriety of striking out from the third line 
the words, “ at any time.” It seemed to him that these 
words were unnecessary and might lead to the misap¬ 
prehension of the section. The words had undoubt¬ 
edly led the gentleman from Washington astray, and 
if they were stricken out, it would make the sense 
complete and remove all ambiguity. 

Mr. HAWKINS did not think the amendment would 
add much to the precision of the language, but he 
would suggest a modification which struck his mind, 
namely: strike out the words, “ not at any time,” and 
insert in lieu thereof, the word ‘ nevt r.”^ 

Mr, ROBERTSON accepted the modification. 


Mr. MITCHELL was op[)Osed to the fimendment. 
He did not see a single word in the section that could 
be dispensed with, without seriously impairing that 
certainty of expression which it was important to re- 
gard. 

Mr. GREGG said: He was not satisfied of the ne¬ 
cessity of extending the limit to so large an amount. 
He perceived in the next section, that in addition to this 
limited power, “the State might contract debts to repel 
invasion, suppress insurrection, defend the State in war, 
and to reduce the present outstanding indebtedness of 
the State.” He could see no necessity for contracting 
debts in addition to these objects named in the second 
section, to the amount of seven hundred and fifty-four 
thousand dollars. He thought the limit of fifty ora 
uundred thousand might be sufficient. 

Mr. Robertson’s amendment was now rejected. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD proposed to amend by stri.cmg out 
the words “ or for expenses not otherwise provided 
for,” in the first and second lines. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said: He wished to be as precise 
and unatnbiguous as possible in conferring this power 
upon the Legislature, and .here might be more in these 
words than any gentleman could at present understand. 
It was perhaps right and proper to give the Legisla¬ 
ture power to contract a limited amount of indebted¬ 
ness to meet a possible failure in the collection of the 
revenue. But It struck his mind that these words “not 
otherwise provided lor” might give a very large mar¬ 
gin to their discretion. He also referred to the objects 
for which the State might contract debts as prescribed 
in the second section; and insisted that these terms 
would cover nearly every object for which he would 
be willing to authorize the Legislature to contract a 
debt. Whereas the words which he proposed to strike 
out embraced nearly every purpose for which the Leg¬ 
islature might choose to appropriate money. He was 
willing to give the Legislature a discretion, to borrow 
a limited amount of money, to meet the contingencies 
referred to by the gentleman from Cuyahoga,[Mr. 
Hitchcock,] but he wished to define clearly, and as 
nearly as possible, every object for which a public debt 
may be contracted. 

Mr. HAWKINS explained farther. He did not even 
desire the repoi’t to be sustained, unless it should meet 
the approbation of the committee. The standing com¬ 
mittee had deliberated upon every clause of the re¬ 
port, and studied every sentence; still they might have 
lacked something. He was willing, however, to 
a reason for the phraseology whenever he might be 
called upon. And first, in this section the Legislatme 
was authorized to contract debts to meet casual diffi¬ 
culty or failures in the revenues; and then they vvere 
authorized to contract debts for expenses not otlmr- 
wise provided for. It would be recollected that in fax¬ 
ing a maximum beyond which the State could not go, 
for this purpose it would be well to make it sufficient¬ 
ly large to meet every possible contingency which 
miRlit produce a deficiency in the revenue. ^ 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. What kind of deficiency is there 
which has not yet been mentioned? , . . i 

Mr. HAWKINS. Ordinary deficiencies in the or¬ 
dinary sources of the revenue, were one class, and 
then there was a class of extraordinary deficiencies 
such as a breach in the canal, or something of that 
kind. All these were intended to be met by the words 
which the gentleman had proposed to strike out. But 
it wo'-dd be recollected that this amount ot indebted¬ 
ness should not at any time exceed, in the aggregate, 
the sum of seven hundred and filty thousand dollars. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. The language of 
this section had been considered before under like cir¬ 
cumstances. It was copied Irom^ the constitution of 
New York, except that the limitation was there faxed 
it a million, which was here put down at seven hun- 
Ired and fifty thousand. He considered this pretty 

mod authority. , 

Mr. MITCHELL suggested, that it these words 













424 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


were stricken out, the section would be susceptible of 
a construction which would limit the power of the 
Legislature with reference to the public debt, so that 
the sum of all the debts of the State hereafter to be 
contracted for all time, shall not exceed $750,000. He 
considered that but few gentlemen desired to make such 
a declaration here. The words proposed to be strick¬ 
en out were of broad and distinct significance, and 
should be retained for the purpose of precluding the 
construction which he had named ; and they very much 
widened the extent of subjects, which it was intended 
to be reached by them. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said: he found himself anticipated 
by the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] as to 
the extent of the ground which would be covered by 
this expense. But as yet there had been made but one 
specification—that of the contingency of a break in the 
canal; and even that he apprehended, was provided 
for in the section, or in the provision of law, by 
which the income of the public works, after de¬ 
ducting the necessary expenses for repairs, were 
pledged to the payment of the interest on the State debt. 

Mr. BENNETT desired to know, of the gentleman 
from Richland, if these words were stricken out, 
from what resource would the Legislature derive the 
means for the construction and repair of the public 
buildings? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. From taxation he supposed; to 
be applied us one of the items of the general appropri¬ 
ation bill. And he proceeded to show the extent to 
which the Legislature might increase the taxes for 
works of internal improvement, under the proviso— 
which he desired to strike out. There was a good deal 
of ingenuity practised sometimes in financiering, par¬ 
ticularly in the matter of contracting public debts, and 
these words were of such broad ana ambiguous signi¬ 
fication that he was afraid of them. 

Mr. SWAN supposed the case of a breach in the ca¬ 
nal, to take place after the proceeds of the public 
works for the preceding year had been applied, re¬ 
quiring an expenditure of five hundred thousand dollars 
for repairs, and asked whether that would not con¬ 
stitute a case to be provided for under the authority 
proposed to be conferred upon the Legislature by these 
words. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. As he understood the matter, 
the whole of the income of the public works, was ap¬ 
plied. first to the necessary repairs, and secondly to 
the interest on the State debt. He believed it had been 
customary not to pay over the whole amount received, 
but to reserve a sufficient amount to meet the probable 
expense of repairs. It seemed to him, that a neglect 
of this kind, would be very reprehensible imprudence 
on the part of the disbursement officer. It w^is his 
understanding that they always retained money for 
these contingencies. However, if this were another 
object for which the State might contract a debt, he 
would have it defined and specified in the section, that 
would meet his views. He would rather occupy the 
report with specifications of this kind, than to leave the 
Legislature free to act under this broad and unrestrict¬ 
ed provision. 

Mr. RE EMELIN. The gentleman from Richland 
was certainly right. He was aware of the fact, that 
under the similar provision in the New York constitu¬ 
tion, the State debt had been increased for the purpose 
of internal improvement. He recollected, fi’om read¬ 
ing the report upon the subject by the comptroller of 
tne State of New York, the predecessor of the present 
comptroller, Mr. Hunt, that the Legislature derived 
their authority from these very words in the constitu¬ 
tion of that State—“not otherwise provided for.” He 
recollected also, that they so construed the section, as 
to authorize them to go to the extent of the limitation 
annually—at least they were very directly charged 
with making that construction. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD desired to modify his amendment, 
by inserting in lieu of the words proposed to be 


stricken out, the words, “ and. extraordinary repairs to 
the public works.” 

Mr. FIITCHCOCK. In relation to the particular 
construction given to this article to which reference 
had been made in the New York constitution, he had 
no very specific information. He did not suppose, 
however, that it was this article which had created 
the difficulty referred to by the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton [Mr. Reemelin.] He went into an examination of 
several articles and sections of th(3 New York constitu¬ 
tion, to show that there was room for mistake about 
the statement made by that gentleman. The plain 
question was: Is it best for the constitution to say to 
the Legislature, you shall have no power to laise money, 
except for cases of deficit or failure in the revenue,^ 
and for the purposes rehearsed in the second section of 
this report? And these were all legitimate but extra¬ 
ordinary subjects, which might render it necessary to 
increase the indebtedness of the State, except the re¬ 
demption of the present out-standing debts. If we 
could not trust the Legislature wdth the exercise of this 
discretion—whether we fix the limit at a million or 
half a million—for fifty years to come, let us say so; if, 
in our opinion, the people could not be trusted to send 
men here, to whom this discretion could be safely con¬ 
fided, let us say so. Let us declare that there shall be 
no chance left for the Legislature to appropriate on© 
cent, except as. the object for such expenditures shall 
be specified by ourselves, since we are bound to fore¬ 
know all things. Let us do all this upon the hypothe¬ 
sis (as some gentleman had said before,) that all wis¬ 
dom will die, when this Convention shall adjourn. He 
had supposed that the language of this section was 
intended to provide for just such cases as we could not 
anticipate and specify ; and he did think that it would 
be altogether safe to trust the representatives of the 
people to determine these matters, to‘•the extent of the 
prescribed limit; and for that reason, he should insist 
upon retaining the language. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said he would like to be informed 
whether this case would not come within the provis¬ 
ion:—suppose the State debt to be paid off: could not 
the Legislature go to work and build new improve¬ 
ments, and suppose the current tax levy for the purpose 
to amount to a million of dollars; and the appropria¬ 
tion to a million and a half—could they not go on and 
meet the payment of the half million jy incurring a 
debt, “ for expenses not otherwise provided for?” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga, supposed that they 
might do that, either with or without this clause, for 
such a case would amount to a deficiency in the reve¬ 
nue for which no provision has been made. But sup¬ 
pose the question to be answered in the affirmative 
without qualification; did we propose to say that there 
should be no case except such as we provide for, in 
which the Legislature shall have authority to contract 
a debt? that there shall be no object for which they 
shall exercise this discretion for fear they will abuse 
it? As though we were the depositories of all the 
wisdom for the State. 

But the gentleman had said that he was willing to 
insert such a limited provision for the repairs of any ex¬ 
traordinary injury to the public works. Well,would that 
be a necessary purpose ? It would be an expense not 
provided for, and the gentleman saw a necessity for 
that. But there was another case. It might become 
necessary at some future time, to make another consti¬ 
tution, and the Legislature might appropriate forty 
thousand dollars [much merriment] for the expenses of 
the Convention to be called for that purpose. The Con¬ 
vention might expend sixty thousand dollars and it 
might be necessary that this sum should be paid be¬ 
fore the resources game in. Ought it not to be in the 
power of the Legislature in all such cases to as¬ 
sume the payment of these extraordinary demands 
by borrowing the money for the purpose ? He thought 
that some of us here, might have need to apply this 
rule practically; [renewed laughter,] and very possi- 














CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


425 


bly such a case might occur again, sometimes, in the 
future. He still thought the Legislature ought to ex¬ 
ercise a discretion for borrowing money in all such ca¬ 
ses ; and it seemed to him the only question was, wheth¬ 
er the amount fixed was too large, or not large enough. 

IMr. LARSH. Though not very well acquainted 
with the history of legislation in New York, under the 
present constitution of that State, he would state his 
impression, that the difficulty referred to by the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton grew out of the latter clause of 
the fifth section of the seventh article of that constitu¬ 
tion. 

Mr. GREGG said; Mr. Chairman, the citizens of that 
part of the State in which 1 reside, are particularly te¬ 
nacious upon the subject of public debt and of taxa¬ 
tion. They have been taxed, and re-taxed, and over¬ 
taxed, year after year, for the benefit of other parts of 
the State, and have never received any thing in return. 
And sir, we ask now, that debt-contracting, loan-laws, 
and money-squandering may be forever put an end to 
—that the whole system may be dug up by the roots, 
and no single spx'out ever permitted to shoot up again. 
When I look at yon pile of stone and mortar, (pointing 
to the new State House, building in the public squtre, j 
I feel as if there 'was still a foundation left to build a 
debt upon. That building, sir, will cost the State a 
million of dollars, and will be so much abstracted from 
the taxes of the people. I say again, I wish to dig 
this up by the roots, and leave no foundation by which 
a public debt can ever be hung around the necks of the 
people of this State again. Leave no sprout to germi¬ 
nate into plunder laws” and taxation—secure the 
public treasury against all such drains, and wastes, and 
I burdens, and plundering systems, so that one can at 
least rest secure in the future, and feel as if there was 
“a good time coming,” when our taxes would be les- 
I sened, and we finally relieved of the intolerable debt 
and taxation which now hangs upon us. Give us this 
assurance in the new constitution, and we will feel as 
: if a new era had really commenced, and was abroad 
over the land. 

Mr. MITCHELL proposed to amend the words 
to be stricken out, by inserting before the word 
“ expenses,” the word “ necessary,” and after the word 
“ expenses,” the word “of government.” He desired by 
this amendment, to cover every thing for winch expen¬ 
ses could be legitimately incurred. And then it was 
provided in the section, that we should never have a 
debt beyond this limitation. He did not say that he 
would not go for a lower limitation than that fixed in 
the section, and if the gentleman from Columbiana 
[Mr. Gregg] should choose to propose a smaller 
amount, he would hear him with pleasure, and perhaps 
could vote with him. 

This amendment was lost, and the question recurred 
upon Mr. Kirkwood’s amendment, upon which a divis- 
ison of the question was demanded. 

Mr. HAWKINS still thought we might trust the 
Legislature within the proposed limitation, to do pret¬ 
ty much as they pleased. Upon consulting his lexicon, 
he found the words “ not at any time,” to signify “nev¬ 
er,” and the word never to be defined by the words not 
at any time, so that he could not have any concern 
about the fate of this suggestion by the gentleman from 
Fairfield. It would certainly be very foolish for the 
Legislature uselessly to exhaust, at once all their pow¬ 
er to contract a State debt; and he considered that the 
limitation of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars 
being always before them, would be a sufficient guard 
against borrowing to an unnecessaiy extent. He was 
not disposed to fix and pointoutevery object for which 
the State may contract a debt, such as to meet the fail- 
eres in the revenue, and extraordinary expenditures 
upon the public works. He would rather give a little 
more discretion than that. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD hoped this amendment would not 
prevail. To his mind, it seemed to be fraught with 
mischevious tendencies, but he cared nothing about 
debating it. 


The committee then refused to strike out; so Mr- 
Kirkwood’s amendment was lost. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The chairman of the committee 
has told us that “ not at any time ” means “ never,” 
but he preferred the word never. While he was u}) he 
desired to say that he could not get clear of the idea 
that this whole section will bear the construction that 
each General Assembly shall have power to contract 
debts for the purpose of casual expenses to the amount 
of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars—ihat this 
might be done by each General Assembly. But it it 
was not susceptible of this construction he desired the 
matter to be distinctly understood ; and he hoped tlie 
Reporters would ccrefully put down the explanations 
and admissions of members of the committee, lor he 
always looked at the explanations of the committee 
more than any thing else in making up his mind. He 
would ask his friend from Cuyahoga to tell him, as a 
lawyer, whether he was not right in the construction 
that any power conferred upon the General Assembly 
by the constitution is conferred iqion each General As¬ 
sembly? He moved to strike oat the words “not at 
any time,” and insert the word “ never.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga said the same mo¬ 
tion had been made by the gentleman from Fairfield, 
and it had been rejected. 

Mr. ROBERTSON explained and suggested the word 
“ altogether” in place of the words “ not at any time,” 
but— 

The CHAIRMAN, entertaining neither of these mo¬ 
tions, announced the question to be upon striking out 
the whole section. 

Mr. REEMELIN then repeated the question which 
he had propounded to the gentleman from Cuyahoga, 
explaining and going into a statement of figures. He 
was obliged to that gentleman for the position which 
he had taken in favor of trusting to the discretion and 
judgment of the Legislature, for he intended to hold 
him to that pledge when the committee should come to 
the consideration of the ninth section. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga could redeem all his 
pledges, in reply to the question propounded to him. 
He said he did not understand that when power to a 
limited extent was conferred upon the State by name, 
by the people of the State, as it was in the terms of 
this section, if it should be adopted into the constitu¬ 
tion, that the agents of the people, \vhen that pt.wer 
has been exhausted, would have any right to say that it 
was still conferred upon them, and not exclusively up¬ 
on the body which had preceded them and which had 
exhausted that power. The section did not say that 
the General Assembly might contract debts, but the- 
State. 

[Here Mr. H. went into a statement of figures to il¬ 
lustrate his reply to the gentleman from Hamilton.] 

Mr. REEMELIN then suggested this further amend¬ 
ment—striking out the words “ such debts,” in the sec¬ 
ond line of the section, and inserting these words: “ the 
whole debt for this puqiose.” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD did not think this clause of the sec¬ 
tion admitted of more than one construction. He could 
not suppose that any General Assembly could put any 
construction upon it other than that which had been 
given by the gentleman from Cuyahoga. He did not 
think it would admit of the construction of the gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton; but he could suggest a lew words 
which would prevent the possibility of such a construc¬ 
tion, which would be to insert after the word aggie- 
gate, in the third line, the words, “ with any previous 
debts or liabilities,” so that it will read: “but such 
debts, direct and contingent, singly or in the aggregate, 
with any previous debts or shall not at any 

time exceed seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. 

For the sake of meeting this feeling of extreme caution, 
he was willing to insert that phia^e. 

Mr HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. The reason the 
passage suggested by the gentleman from Monroe was 











426 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ouiiitetl by the st.uiding coiniiiillee wms, the coiisideru- 
tioii that liie Slate now t)wes a debt of tilteon miliions. 

Mr. AliCHI30bD. But it was evident that the oj’e- 
ration of the section was lor the future only. He 
would witlulra-w, however, his proposition, but with 
the distinct iii’iination that he did not think the section 
at all o tjectiouable U[)on the ground taken by the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton. 

Mr, CUliElY said that it seenled to him that there 
was some ground for the objection made by the geu- 
tleuiau from Hamilton [Mr. Rekmelin.] The gentle¬ 
man from Cuyahoga conieudi'd that it at the place 
whei-e the words “ at any time” stood in the rejxtrt, the 
word •‘one” were inserted, so that it would read “ at 
no one time,” then it would be subject to the objection 
raised by the geutlemau from Hamilton, [Mr. Reeme- 
nx.] In his opinion the very difficulty which the 
geii leman saw, and which seemed to him [Mr. C.] a 
difficulty, grew out of the fact that it might [xissibly 
be contended that the consiruction of the language, as 
it now stood, was that ‘he debt should not at any one 
time exceed the amount specified. Well, the gentle¬ 
man from Morgan [Mr. Hawkins] suggested that that 
was what it was iuiended to mean. It seemed to him 
that it was not right that the section should be left in 
that way. Tliere was no reason, as the gentleman from 
Morgan [Mr. Hawkins] seemed to contend, that as it 
stood the section should mean that the debt should not 
not exceed, at any one time, $7.30,000. At the same 
time the Legislature might apply for the amount of 
debts amounting to that sum. The occasion might pass 
away and another‘arise at which another debt might 
be added. The difficulty seemed to be this, that an ag¬ 
gregate debt of $750,000—(if the language were re¬ 
tained)—might be made at one time, and after it shall 
have been canceled and dis[)osed of, then some Legisla¬ 
ture might create a debt greater or less. He would 
suggest an amendment which it seemed would obviate 
the entire difficulty. The amendment would be to 
strike out in the 2d and 3d lines the words “ direct and 
contingent,” singly or in the aggregate, and the words 
” at any time,” in the same line, and insert instead 
thereof the woi'd ” altogether.” If that amendment 
prevailed that part of the section wmuld then read, 
‘but such debts shall not exceed, altogether, $750,000. 

Mr. ROBERTSON said that he had before him the 
constitution of Wisconsin, and it contained a provision 
in relation to this matter which, if we copied, would 
obviate all difficulty. It read thus : “ For the pur{)ose 
of defraying extraordinary expenses, not otherwise 
provided for, but they never shall exceed the sum of 
$100,000.” Then, if we adopted that provision, the 
section would read, “ the State may contract debts, 
&c , &c.. in the aggregate not to exceed $100,000.” 

Mr. CURRY observed that his proposition would 
amf)unt to precisely the same thing 

Mr. LEECH. I wish to ask the gentleman from 
Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitchcock] a cptesiion. It is this: 
How can the State contract a debt, except through 
the agency of the General Assembly? 

The gentleman from Cuyahoga seems to think that 
there is a great difference between conferring the pow¬ 
er upon the State to contract a debt, and giving that 
power to the Legislature. Sir, I am totally unable to 
discover any difference whatever; and I am apprehen¬ 
sive that it will puzzle the gentleman to show a dis¬ 
tinction, 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga replied that he 
knew of no authority to ci’eatea debt except that vest- 
e(i in the Legislature. He did not see how the lan¬ 
guage here could be construed to mean that no one 
Legislature shall create a debt to exceed $750,000. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD, believed, as he said before, that 
the section was not liable to the objection made by the 
gentleman from Hamilton [Mr, Reemelin.] He would 
therefore move to insert after the word ‘ aggregate’ in 
the third line these words: ‘with any previous debts 
or liabilities.’ 


The CHAIRMAN intimated that there wasanamend- i 
ment pending. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD observed that the gentleman had , 
suggested that the ‘ previous liabilities’ might be con- j 
strued to mean our present State debt. Now, the in¬ 
strument is to be construed altogether. Here in the I 
7th section we found the State pledgeiJ for the payment 
of public debt, and no one could m ike a mistake about 
it. This section it it be amended never could be liable 
to misconstruction. He did not believe u woui'- as i. e 
gentleman seemed to think; but we might as well 
make assurance doubly sure by adopting his [Mr. 
Auchbold’s] amendment. 

.Vlr, MITCHE LL suggested for the sake of accurate 
phraseology, to insert llie word ‘altogether,’ atiei’ the 
words ‘ at any time, ’ in the third line. He sup[)osed 
that such emendation would be broad enough in every 
respect. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD then moved to add to his amendment 
the words * for these purposes.’ 

Mr. GREGG said that he had endeavored to form a 
plan which would meet the difficulty suggested. He 
had drawn up an amendment which he thought would 
render the matter a little more delinite. He thought 
that there was something covered up under this leport 
like the cat in the meal tub. [Laughter.] What he 
desired was, thatthis matter should be determined in a 
dehnite manner, so that they might be able to see what 
they were at. He did not know that his amendment 
would be in order. 

.The CHAIRMAN ob.served that the amendment 
would not be in order at the present stage of business. 

Mr. GREGG continued. He would read it for “ in- ’ 
formation.” 

“ The State may, to meet casual deficits, failures of the revenue, 
or expenditures not otherwise p ovided for, contract debts .o the 
amount of $100,000 ; but such debts, direct or contingent, single 
or in the aggregate, shall not exceed thespecified ameunt.” d 

Such an amendment as that, he though., would ren¬ 
der the section clear and definite. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler suggested a proposition, to 
insert after the word “time,’ in tne 3d line, the words 
“ for the purposes aforesaid.’’ 

Mr. H.\WK1NS wished to make a suggestion to gen¬ 
tlemen who were honstly desirous to improve the sec¬ 
tion. Suppose the words were inserted, so that the 
section would read, “ that the State shall not at any 
one time for these purposes,” go beyond $700,000, 
might it not be construed to mean also that the State 
might contract debts for other purposes? 

Mr. GREGG was understood to act upon the sugges¬ 
tion, and to express a willingness to embody the words 
in his amendment. 

Some slight conversation then took place, as to the 
amendment next in order ; the question however turn¬ 
ed on the motion to insert the words “any previous 
debts ” 

Mr. ARCH BOLD asked and obtained leave to with¬ 
draw his amendment. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler wished to say a word in reply I 
to the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Hawkins.] He | 
understood him to object to the amendmentof the gen¬ 
tleman from Columbiana [Mr. Gregg] because it might 
seem to imply that the Legislature might contract oth¬ 
er debts than debts for the purposes expressed in the 
18th section of this report. In reply to that, he could 
say to him that it was provided in the 2d section, that 
the Legislature might contract debts where there was 
a necessity for it. The 18th section provided that 
“ the State, to meet the casual expenses, &c., &c., &.C., 
limit such debts, direct or contingent, single or in the 
aggregate, shall not at any time, for these purposes, 
exceed $750,000 : ” that was the manner in which it 
would read, provided the amendment of the gentleman 
from Columbiana [Mr. Gregg] were adopted. Well, 
the 2d section provided, in addition to that limited 
power, that the State might contract debts to defend 
itself—to suppress insurrections—to pay the present 
outstanding indebtedness of the State, &c., «Jkc., &.c. | 














CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


421 


When these two seciions ol the report were taken to- 
geiher. wilh the ammidinent of the gentleman from 
Colnml)ian;i, [Mr. Grkog.] it seemed to him there 
would he no diiliculty wh.itever in understanding or 
comprehending what was intended by the language 
therein employed to convey the idea thus designed. 
He considered this amendment the most praciica le 
that had been offered. He did not see any objection 
that could be urged against it: adding to tlie third line 
“for these purposes.” He piefcrred that the gentle¬ 
man’s [Mr. Gregg’s] amendment should prevail over 
ail otheiv proposed by the different members of the 
committee; it would make the section more definite, 
and much better understood; in fact, it could not be 
I mismid’-’rstood it tiie amendment were adopted. 

I Mr. LARbH thought that the section should be re- 
tiiined as it was until language could be found which 
could express more clearly the idi aintended to be con¬ 
veyed by the section. He had heard nothing as yet 
j that would make the language more clear than it was 
j at present. 

j Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga observed 'hat as to 
, the object which the committee had in tew in draw- 
1 ^1’ section, it was conceded on all hands that 

j it wots lor the purpose t)f givin ■: the Legislature the 
j power in certain cases to contract debts not exceeding 
j a ceriain amount. There was no ditFcrence about that 
I The committee had undertaken to give that authority, 
in the mode pointed out in this section ; they had, in 
other words given the Legislature authority to contract 
debts and to limit the S ate so that it could not go be- 
! yond the amount specified. He thought that the lan- 
I giiagn made use of conveyed that idea conclusively, 
j and the section would operate as a limitation to the ex- 
\ tent indicated. The language he considered to be as 
j good as any other that could be employed. Some gen- 
i tlemen had supposed that the Legislature might actual¬ 
ly think that they had a right to go beyond this amount 
' ot debt, if not contracted during one session. He did 
1 not entertain that opinion ; but thei’e should be some¬ 
thing in the section that would prevent them fi om com¬ 
ing to that conclu-sion. Of all the amendments propo¬ 
sed none met his view so w^ell as the one presented by 
I the gentleman IVom Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin ] It 
I seemed to him that that amendment would entirely 
prevent the construction of the section in the man¬ 
ner suggested. He hoped then that all other amend- 
I ments would be rejected, and this one finally adop- 

i • 

Mr. GREEN of Ross (inaudibly heard,) desired that 
we should at least have the credit of using good lan¬ 
guage in the constitution which we were framing.— 
What was proposed in this section? To grant a lim¬ 
ited power to the State, to contract debts. There were 
two limitations contained in this section ; one as to the 
objects for which the debts should be contracted, the 
other as to the amount of those debts. It seemed to 
him, and it must be evident to every gentleman, that 
the limitation was as clear as words could make it. 
Now, how did the provision stand ? The State may, 
to meet casual deficits, &c., &c., contract debts; but 
such debts direct or contingent, singly or in the aggre- 
gregate, shall not at any time”—What? “exceed 
$750,000.” Now it appeared to him utterly impossi¬ 
ble, for the English language, broad and comprehen¬ 
sive as it was, to furnish words more clear, definite and 
distinct than those. 

Mr. HOLMES had been giving much attention to 
to the subject under consideration, but he would con¬ 
fess that instead of being enlightened by the discus¬ 
sion, it seemed rather to mystilyhim. (Laughter.) It 
occurred to him that the language contained in this 
section was as plain as he desired. No proposition 
that had been offered would effect any real change in 
the language of the section, so he would vote for it as 
it stood. 

The question being on the amendment of the gen 
tleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] it was put, 


and the committee divided in this wise: In the affirma¬ 
tive,- 22. The negative vote was not counted. The 
amendment w’as lost. 

The motion to strike out the entire section was then, 
on leave, wi'hdrawn. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to strike out all between 
the word “but,” in the 2d line, and the word “seven,” 
in the 3d line. That, he thought, v/ould obviate all 
difficulty. 

The amendment was not sustained. 

Mr. CAHILL moved to strike out the entire section 
and insert the following: 

“The General Assembly shall have no power to increase the 
State indebtedness, (except in case of foi’eijiii invasion or domes¬ 
tic insurrection,) unless the object for wliich the expenditure 
asked, and the amount of the same, shall have been tirst submit¬ 
ted to the people at some general election ; and a majority ot all 
the votes cast at said election have been cast in tavor of the 
same.” 

A division of the question being called for, the same 
turned upon siriking out the Ist seciiun. 

Mr. CAHILL had merely to say, that the entire of 
his section of country had never received a dollar of 
the public money in the way of |)ijhl c improvements. 
His constituents were entirely op[)osed to the increase 
of ihe Slate del)t; they were willing that the Slate 
should have the power of taxation; they were willing 
to go so far and no further. 

TTie question being on striking out, the committee 
.lefused to strike out. 

Mr. REE.VI ELIN moved to insert, after the word 
“aggregate.” in the 3 I line, the words “though con¬ 
tracted by different General Assemblies.” 

The question having been put, the committee divided 
so—in the affirmative, 36 ; in the negative, 43. 

So the amendment was lost. 

The committee then took up the following sections, 
severally, and agreed to them without amendment: 

Skc. 2. Ill addition to the above limited power, the State may 
contract debts to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, defend 
the State in war, or to redeem the present outetanding indebted¬ 
ness of the State ; but the money arising from the contracting 
of such debt, shall be applied to the purpose for which it w is 
raised, or to repay such debts, and to no other purpose whatever. 

Sec. 3. Except the debts above specified, in sections one and 
two of this article, no debt whatever shall hereaiter_be contract¬ 
ed by, or on behalf of the State. 

Sec. 4. The credit of the State shall not in any manner be 
given, or loaned to, or in aid of, any individual, association, or 
corporation whatever : nor shall the State ever hereafter become 
a joint owner or stockholder in any company or as^ociation in 
this State or elsewhere, formed for any purpose whatever. 

The fifth section was then taken up. It reads as fol¬ 
lows: 

Sec. 5. The Legislature shall never, on behalf of the State, 
assume the debts i f any county, city, town or township within 
this State, or of any corporation whatever. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to add to the section the 
following: “unless such debt has been created for the 
purpose of repelling invasion or suppressing insurrec¬ 
tion, or to defend tlie State in time ot war.” 

It would be recollected (said Mr. R.) that during the 
Mexican war, debts of that kind had been contracted, 
and paid by the State. A similar occasion inight arise 
again, and if this section were to stand as it was, the 
State would not be able to boiTovv the money which 
might be required. . . 

The question was put, whereupon a division was 
had, which resulted as follows in the affirniati\ e, 48; 
those in the negative not counted. The amendment 
wasadopted. 

Mr. CUTLER moved to amend the report by striking 
out the sixili section, which motion was lost. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD moved to strike out all after the 
word “shall,” in the second line of the seventh section, 
and insert the following : “ not consist of a less sum 
than one hundred thousand dollars, increased yearly 
and every year by compound interest at the rate of six 

per cent per annum.” ■, , 

Mr. arch BOLD. Eleven hundred and filty thou¬ 
sand dollars as a sinking fund is an excessive sura; it 
will impose an intolerable burden of taxation upon our 













428 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


people. The committee should recollect that in addi¬ 
tion to this fund proposed a.s a sinking fund, we sliall 
have to make up the whole iuteres’ on our public debt. 
This will impose a burden of taxation upon our peo¬ 
ple of more than two millions of dollars per annum. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The gentleman will see by a sub¬ 
sequent part of the report that the committee only pro¬ 
posed tliat sum for principal and interest both. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Then they have not used exact 
language: by the term of sinkingfund, we understand 
a sum devoted to the reduction of the principal of a 
public debt. Such is the signification of the term ; the 
payment of the interest merely, does not pay the pub¬ 
lic debt—for my own part it is the first time I ever 
heard of a sinking fund, a great part of which is mere¬ 
ly intended to pay only interest. But be it so, I will 
not dispute about words; even as explained by gentle¬ 
men themselves, in their proposition; there is too great 
a burden of taxation on the people at present; their 
plan resembles an inverted cone—a pyramid turned on 
its little end. Our population doubles itself in about 
fifteen years, as any man will convince himself who 
will turn to the table of statistics. By the census of 
1830 our population was upwards of 900,000. In 1840 
it was 1.,521,000, and no one can doubt that five years 
afterwards it had reached to more than 1,800.000 
This shows a duplication in about fifteen years. When 
we consider the increase of property in the htinds of 
the old inhabitants as well as that brought in by the 
new comers, no man can rationally doubt that our pro¬ 
perty increases as fast as our population. It doubles, 
therefiu’e, in fifteen years. Yet, according to the plan 
of the tommittee, the people in 1850, with only half as 
much property, will have to pay as much taxation as 
the people in 1865. I can see no reason for imposing 
upon the people such enormous burthens of taxation at 
present. In fact there is the less reason for it, inasmuch 
as our burthens of taxation have been very great for 
the last fifteen or twenty years. The amendment which 
I have just now forwarded to the Chair, proposes to ob¬ 
tain the same object sought by the committee, but in a 
more moderate and gradual manner—^just in fact the 
same proposition which received the sanction of the 
General Assembly in 1848. My sinking fund is of the 
same amount, and increases in the same ratio, and is in 
fact, identical in principle. It is therefore endorsed by 
some experience. I was familiar with the debates in 
the Senate at the time when this sinking fund was es¬ 
tablished. The committee on Finance of that body, 
who had given the matter a very careful examination, 
contended that a sinking fund of this amount would dis¬ 
charge our public debt in a period of 35 or 40 years, 
and that without imposing any perceptible additional 
burthen upon the people. I have not entered minutely 
into this calculation myself, but neither on that occa¬ 
sion nor on this, have 1 seen any reason to doubt the 
correctness of the Senate’s estimates. 

There is still another reason why we should not be 
hasty in regard to this matter. There is an immense 
mass of capital in this State, belonging to its wealthiest 
citizen.s, which at present contributes nothing towards 
the payment of the public debt. I allude to the capi¬ 
tal locked up in the vaults of the banks. These insti¬ 
tutions pay a dividend on their profits only; they pay 
in a mode peculiar to themselves; increase the general 
taxation, as you may, for the purpose of paying the 
State debt, or building that marble palace out there, 
(pointing to the foundation of the new capitol,) you do 
not increaie their taxation a whit. If the plan of the 
committee, instead of giving us a breathing spell of 15 
or 20 years had proposed to pay off the whole debt in 
seven or eight years, the taxation of the banks would 
not be increased one cent. The amount of taxation paid 
by these institutions, depends upon their profits; these 
profits will not be increased or diminished by paying 
the State debt, therefore their taxesjwill not be increas¬ 
ed by such a measure. But upon the plan of the com¬ 
mittee, the whole burthen must inevitably fall upon 


the property of private individuals. I wish to wait un¬ 
til we can make these institutions pay their due share. 
My proposition only i)ropose3 a minimum. Weare con¬ 
tented to give a pledge to the public creditors that their 
dues shall be paid in good faith, we are willing to pro¬ 
vide a moderate sinking fund, sufficient to show that 
we are in good earnest; one hundred thousand dollars 
can hardly be felt as a great additional burden to the 
increasing wealth of this State at any time, yet as a 
sinking fund it will be very effectual in the reduction 
of the State debt. But in times of prosperity the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly will be at perfect liberty to add to the 
amount if they deem it expedient. And it is highly 
probable that it will be expedient to do so, after the 
property of the S ate shall have increased considera¬ 
bly. At all events we can scarcely err in leaving the 
matter to the discretion of the General Assembly, and 
there is where I wish to leave it. 

Mr. HAWKINS said the section was one of a good 
deal of importance, and he had not expected that it 
would at first meet with unanimous approval. The 
gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Arch bold] complains 
of the magnitude of the plan, without understanding 
what it is, or to what it applies. He complains that 
the operation of the sinking fund provides for the pay 
ment of principal and interest, and that he never 
heard of such an one. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. No statesman ever did. The thing 
was never heard of before. 

Mr. HAWKINS said he could tell the gentleman an 
instance, where the State created a sinking fund. It 
was at the commencement of what has been called 
our system of public improvements. Then the sink¬ 
ing fund was established, which, in a given time, was 
to pay both the principal and interest. It went into 
operation with the system of public works, but the 
latter got the start of it, and the result was, it sunk so 
low, that we have never been able to find it since. 

The calculation upon which this report is based, is 
made upon the assumption that the redeemable debt 
of the State is sixteen millions of dollars, paying an 
interest of nine hundred and sixty thousand dollars 
per year. Now, if we raise by taxation, and the annu¬ 
al income of the public works of the State, the sum of 
one million one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, we 
are able to pay the interest upon the debt, and on the 
first year, one hundred and ninety thousand dollars of 
the principal. On the second year we raise the same 
amount, we pay the interest reduced by the the inter¬ 
est on the sum redeemed the preceding year, which is 
added to, and increases the sum we pay upon the prin¬ 
cipal; and so on, reducing the amount of the debt 
without increasing the burthens of the people. How 
long will it take, by this process, to pay both principal 
and interest ? 

By this process, the existing debt of sixteen millions 
of dollars will be paid oft' in the space of thirty years, 
and at the total cost of thirty-four millions of dollars. 
And now I ask, if the gentleman from Monroe wants 
to delay the payment—to transfer this burthen over to 
the next generation, and even to entad its weight upon 
our grand children—increasing vastly the aggregate 
sum, and draining year after year the funds of the State 
from its Treasury ? 

Again: the great object of this plan is, without im¬ 
posing any additional burthen upon the people, to limit 
the time beyond which this debt shall not exist. The 
interest upon the debt of the State for thirty years— 
which is the time fixed for its continuance—will 
amount to the sum of twenty-eight millions eight hun¬ 
dred thousand dollars. Add together the interest and the 
principal, and it swells to forty-four millions eight hun¬ 
dred thousand dollars—an immense sun to be drained 
from the industry of the people. By this process we 
save the sum of ten millions three hundred thousand 
dollars. Is not this an object worth attending to? Pub¬ 
lic sentiment dictates that we shall fix a period when 
this debt shall be extinguished, and I want to bind the 
State against its perpetuation beyond a given period. 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 429 


I! 

15 

!i 


t. 


l’ 


I 


I 


j 


It was boasted of the other day iu this chamber that 
a certain portion of our debt becoming due, had been 
postponed for twenty-tive years, and lliat, so high was 
our credit, that we had actually received fiom the for¬ 
eign holders of our stocks a premium for its extension 
—a premium, in fact, for the privilege of being taxed 
tw’enty-tive years longer. Gentlemen wei’e pleased to 
call this a speculation. I do not understand it so. No 
solvent farmer in Morgan county would fail to consider 
himself insulted by a proposition of such a character. 
B'or the payment ot this debt we mortgage lour hun¬ 
dred and forty millions—no wonder they consider the 
security ample. I take it that if the farmers of the 
{State understood this subject, they would instruct us to 
reject propositions ot this kind. They do not want us 
to do it. 

Gentlemen say this proposition is not for a siuking 
fund. 1 take it that if by the jilan both .the interest 
ot the State debt shall be paid otf, it may very proper¬ 
ly bear that name. If it shall sink the debt of the 
State, principal and intei'est, and at the same time al¬ 
low the ratio of taxation to diminish, as it will do, the 
term will not, it seems to me, be improperly applied. 
He had no special preference for the sum mentioned, 
but desired that some one should be fixed. 

Mr. AftCHBOLD desired to add a few words by¬ 
way of explanation. He now understood what the 
gentlemen meant by their sinking fund. They mean 
that there is to be one million one hundred and filiy 
thousand dollars raised annually, by taxation or other¬ 
wise, to be appropriated to the payment of the princi¬ 
pal and interest of the debt. Now this plan is attend¬ 
ed with an inconvenience. The State is not now as 
wealthy as it will be one, two, three, five or ten years 
hence. Taking into consideration past progress, the 
property iu the State of Ohio doubles in every fifteen 
years, and yet, by this plan we are compelh d to pay 
more taxes now than when we are richer. The plan 
is an inverted cone—a pyramid, with this disadvan¬ 
tage, that it is placed upon its smallest end. This year 
we pay the heaviest tax imposed by the system. Next 
year we are richer, and the lax is lighter. 

In 1844 this subject was under consideration by the 
General Assembly, and the plan upon wh ch the cal¬ 
culation was based was the sum of one hundred and 
fifty thousand dollars. Upon a basis of one hundred 
thousand dollars, if gentlemen will make the calcula¬ 
tion, they will find that the debt will be paid off in 
thirty-five or thirty-six years. Besides, after the year 
185(j, the present bank charters will expire, and the 
capital invested in that business will be brought to pay 
taxes as oth^r property is taxed, thus bearing its pi’o- 
portion of whatever additional taxation is imposed— 
which it does not now'—and the State will have by that 
time largely inci’eased in population, wealth and abili¬ 
ty. I cannot see why gentlemen should object to set 
tne cone on the big end. By their plan, this year we 
ai'e to pay one million one hundred and fifty thousand 
dollars—all except two hundred and fifty thousand col¬ 
lected iu taxes, and I ask again, had we not better be¬ 
gin the other way? 

Some conversation in explanation of the provisions 
of the section under consideration took place between 
Messrs. Reemeliv, Archbold and Hawkins. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, the committee rose, 
reported progress, and asked and obtained leave to sit 
again. 

On motion, the Convention adjourned. 

TUESDAY, June 11, 18.50. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

Mr. CURRY presented the petition of James Ryan, 
and 334 inhabitants of the county of Union, 158 of 
whom are ladies, praying that a provision of the new 
constitution may be prepared and submitted to a sepa¬ 
rate vote of the people, prohibiting the Legislature 
from licensing the sale of intoxicating drinks, or in any 
way legalizing the traffic therein : also, that pi-ovision 


may be made whereby venders of spiritous liquors may 
be legally answerable in damages for any injuries, di¬ 
rect or consequential, that may result from the sale of 
such liquors by them. 

Mr. President: I take occasion to say, in present¬ 
ing this petition that, as I understand it, a select com¬ 
mittee was raised some time since, to which all peti¬ 
tions of that class have been referred. I do not re¬ 
member who the gentlemen are that compose that 
committee, but 1 wish to express in their hearing, a de¬ 
sire, that at as early a day as their convenience will 
permit, we may hear from them in the shajie of a n-- 
port upon this subject, let their opinions be of what 
kind they may. It seems to me, that it is very impor¬ 
tant that at an early day, this report should come from 
this committee, in order that the Convention may be 
prepared to take such action as may seem to them 
proper. For my part, I have to say that it is my opin¬ 
ion that among all the evils with which this Conven¬ 
tion will have to deal, there is none of more pressing 
weight and importance, than that to which these peti¬ 
tions refer. A great deal has been said in this Con¬ 
vention, with regard to the evils alfecling the people 
of this great State, and which members of this Conven¬ 
tion have been sent here to remedy. The evils of ex¬ 
cessive legislation, the evils growing out of abuse of 
corporations, &c. It is my ojniiion, that the evils 
sought to be remedied by the presentation of petitions 
of tliis class, are evils a thousand fold greater than any 
of those to which the attention of the honorable mem¬ 
bers of this body have been heretofore directed. 

I move that the petitions be referred to the select 
committee upon the subject of the trafiic in intoxica¬ 
ting liquors, which motion was agreed to. 

Mr. MANON moved to reconsider the vote by which 
the petition presented yesterday by Mr. Mitchell 
was referred to the standing committee on “ Banking 
and Currency.” 

Mr. SAWYER rose to a point of order. He said that 
the petition was in the hands of the committee, and 
was not, therefore in the possession or under the control 
of the Convention. Besides, it does not appear that the 
gentleman voted for the reference. 

ThePKESIDBNT stated, that petitions and m* mo- 
rials in the hands of the committee, must be consider¬ 
ed, and taken to be in the possession of the Conven¬ 
tion. If they had not been referred, they would be iu 
the hands of the secretary, and the committees as well 
as officers were parts of and subject to the control of 
the body. A motion to reconsider is always in order, 
when the gentleman making it has the floor and voted 
with the majority, and can be made by any one, if the 
question to be reconsidered passed silmtio. 

But the 8th rule rule requires that petitions and me¬ 
morials shall be referred as a matter of course, and 
without putting any question to the Convention on the 
subject, unless objection is made at the time. The 
petition in question was so referred by the chair, and 
no vote was taken either presumptively or in fact. 

There is nothing in fact, therefore, to reconsider, and 
the gentleman can only arrive at his object by a resolu¬ 
tion or some direct instrument on the subject. 

Mr. HOOTMAN presented a petition from George 
W. Bell and 70 other citizens of Hanover township, 
Ashland county, praying that a clause may be inserted 
in the new constitution, prohibiting the Legislature 
from chartering any bank for the circulation of paper 
money in this State. 

Upon his motion it was referred to the committee on 
Banking and Currency. 

Mr. STANBERY, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to pre¬ 
sent the petition of David Jenkins, and seventy-eight 
other citizens of Franklin county, praying that a pro- 
vision be made in the constituiion, so as to extend the 
elective franchise to every male citizen of the State, 
without distinction on account of color. 

The petitioners describe themselves as persons of 
color, and urge their claim in earnest and respectful 
















430 


CONVENTION KEPOllTS. 


language. 1 have advised them, through their agent, 
that I am opposed to the prayer of their petition—that 
they might have the op})ortunity of selecting some 
member for its presentation, more favorable to its ob¬ 
ject. They, however, prefer that it shonld be present¬ 
ed by one of the representatives from the county in 
which they reside. After this explanation, I did not 
feel at liberty to decline their request. 

Although every consideration of expediency—every 
consideration touching the safety and security of our 
colored population—according to my own judgment, 
forbids the granting of their petition, yet, for one, while 
I am against giving them the right to vote, I will never 
deny them the riglit to petition. 

Mr. SAWYER. 1 am o[)post’d to its reception. 

The question being taken as to the reception of the 
petition, the Convention agreed to receive it; and the 
petition, upon the motion of Mr. Stanbery, was refer¬ 
red to the committee on the Elective Franchise. 

Mr. LARSH moved to take u[) the memorial pre¬ 
sented on the 17th instant by Mr. Smith, of Highland, 
relative to exem[)iing intmbersof the society of Fiiends 
from performing militaiy duty in time of peace, which 
was agreed to. 

Upon motion of the same gentleman, the memorial 
was refVrred to the committee on the Militia. 

Mr. MANOx\ offered for adoption the following— 
“Resolved, that the standing committee on Banks and 
the Currency, be, and they are hereby instructed to 
report, forthwith, the petition presented by the gentle¬ 
man from Knox, [Mr, Mitchell,] and referred to that 
committee on yesterday, to this Convention, signed by 
Mr. Mitchell and others. 

My object in offering this resolution, is to get it back, 
and out of the hands of the committee. 

I think there can be but very liitle objection to the 
passage of this resolution, and I believe there is no 
committee appointed by this body would take the high 
handed ground, when they are instructed by a vote of 
this Convention, as to stick such petition in their pock¬ 
ets and refuse to give it up. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I recollect very well a case which 
happened in our Legislature, where a bill was pocketed 
and the body were unable to obtain it again. It was 
done to effect a certain object in the county of Morgan. 
The reason why it could not be ordered back again, 
was not that the individual had a right to control it 
against the whole Senate, but that he had not voted 
here to make the order. There was not a disposition 
on the part of the Senate to order it back again, and 
therefore we adopted the law regulating the times of 
holding courts and further to effect a party object. It 
has always been held that committees were under the 
command of the body itself. I have seen at one time 
ordered from committees twenty bank bills in succes¬ 
sion, with the knowledge, that unless they came into the 
jiossession of the Senate, they would be indefinitely 
postponed. I think it is a dangerous doctrine, that a 
petition cannot be controlled after it has been referred 
to a committee, and shall vote for the resolution. I 
care nothing for the opinions of those who are not mem 
bers of this body. They cannot insult me, and I will 
not take any thing as applicable to myself, which they 
may say. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I should not have troubled the 
Convention with a single remark upon this subject, 
were it not that my sdeiice might be misconstrued, 
here and elsewhere. The members of this Convention 
need give themselves no trouble upon the point as to 
whether the committee on Banks and the Currency 
will return this petition if requested; so far as I am 
concerned, I can assure them that their request shall 
be most cheerfully obeyed. If gentlemen want to con¬ 
sume the time of this Convention in vindicating them¬ 
selves from improfier animadversions, certainly I have 
no objections at all. The gentleman from Licking 
seems inclined to make a great noise upon this floor, 
about this and many other matters. I conceive that 


work is better than noise, here. For that reason, 
I think, it would be better for the Convention to go on 
with their business, and not trouble itself, or consume 
its time with such subjects. In order that the mem¬ 
bers may see the terrible bug-bear there is in this pe¬ 
tition, I will state that part objected to, as nearly as I 
can. I do it inasmuch as the gentleman from Licking 
insists upon applying it to himself. These are the 
words, I think: 

“ We are aware that certain members of your body, elected 
under the hard money issue, [referring, undoubtedly, to the issue 
made in this estate,1 are about to prove recreant to their constit- 
ui'iits or to their duty [I am not certain which are the words.] 
We beg leave respectfully to remind those members of the fate 
of Judas, and the doom of Arnold.” 

Now, these are the words in the petition. It is, to 
be sure, a solemn admonition to those, if any among 
us, coming within the range of the remarks. For the 
Lord deliver me, and all my friends, from deserving 
any such a fate or doom as that indicated by these 
words. I trust most sincerely that none of us may ever 
deserve them, other than those who here insist that 
they do. This is all there is in this petition, about 
which the gentleman from Licking has made so much 
ado, and which he seems determined to have applied 
to himself. I do not believe that the gentleman from 
Morgan, or any other gentleman upon this floor, has 
applied it to himself, orconsidered it as being personal. 
If I have refrained from maki g any remarks, in re¬ 
sponse to what has been said, it was for the reas.'n that 
I desired not to create an excitement out of a little 
matter of this kind. As to the signers of this petition, 
I have only a word to say. The gentlemen whose 
names are attached to this petition, are high-minded, 
honorable men—none stand higher in the community 
where they are known, nor, indeed, in any community 
within my knowledge and acquaintance. There is 
upon that petition the names of men who compose the 
very head and front of the indomitable Democracy of 
Knox county—strong, fearless and talented men. The 
gentleman from Licking may take such order as may 
suit his embittered feelings, but such action cannot 
change the character of these gen'lemen, nor their 
standing with the Democracy of the State. 

Mr. MANON. The gentleman talks about my making 
a great noise, and blustering, but I would advise him 
to look lo his own doors before he makes sucha charge 
upon others. The gentleman has got a little learning, 
for he has been brought up in a college, and that is the 
rea.son why he can use a few big and learned words, 
but as to the article of common sense, and reason, I 
don’t believe he possesses more than an ordinai-y man. 

Mr. SAWYER. I object to such language being 
used in this body. 

Mr. MANON. I want the matter brought before 
the Convention, and therefore, I ask that the resolution 
be referred back to the Convention, in order that we 
may know what it means. 

Mr. CASE of Licking. I did not intend to say any 
thing upon this subject, and I am sorry any thing has 
been said. I am sorry that the gentleman from Knox, 
when he presented his petition, had not stated, in view 
of its contents, whether it was respectful or not respect¬ 
ful in its terms. I have seen the petition, and in my 
humble opinion it i.s highly indecorous and insulting to 
some person or persons in this body, and much more 
insulting because it is not specific. For one, I shall 
vote for this resolution. I think this body owes it to 
itself to protect itself from insulting language, no mat¬ 
ter from what quarter it may come. I care not what 
takes place without this hall—-but when such kind of 
materials are manufactured and brought here, I must, 
for one, enter my protest against such things. I hope 
we may have some rule in regard to this matter. As I 
understand the rule to be, when a member presents a 
petition, he shall state that it is respectful in language, 
and il he does not so state, that the Convention are to 
understand that such is its character, and hence we 
make no inquiry. Now since my colleague, who feels 









CONVENTION EEPORTS. 431 


|! 


!: 

i 


a little sore about this matter, has been attacked in the 
wav he has, I think I owed it to myself and coustitu* 
cuts to say what 1 have said. I have read the petition, 
and I pronounce it liighly indecorous and unbecoming 
this body, and ihereture I hope the resolution otl'ered 
by my colleague will puss. 

Mr. LA.R,WIbL. As a member of the committee to 
which was refi-rred the petition I beg leave to say, I 
shall vote to have it referred back again, and if any 
gentleman of the Gouveution, upon the reading of it, 
shall state that it was designed for him, I shall vote for 
its rejection. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I hope the resolution may pass 
unanimously, and I shall give my vote for it. If neces¬ 
sary, I vviiuld vote willingly for a committee of Cen¬ 
sorship, who should take petitions in charge. Perhaps 
I have [)eculiar notions upon the subject of petitions. 
I desire that the language used in petitions presented 
to this body should be perlectly becoming and deco¬ 
rous. I shall therefore vote to have this petition refer¬ 
red back to the Convention, and I hope every member 
will do the same. 

Mr. LOUDON. I hope the Convention will stop all 
this business. Every gentleman must be sati&fied, by 
this time, that no good can grow out of bringing back 
this petition. We have already had a number of peti¬ 
tions presented here that were unbecoming this Con¬ 
vention. Now, sir, I think we have enough to do, in 
all conscience, if we will attend to our appropiiate 
business without looking into these matters, for the 
avowed purpose of raising a disturbance. I hope that 
the petition will not be brought back, and that the 
matter will stop where it is. 

The question lieing then taken upon the resolution 
offered by Mr. Manon, it was agreed to. 

Upon motion of Mr. MORRIS, the Convention then 
resolved itself into a committee of the Whole, (Mr. 
Sawyer in the chair.) and resumed the consideration 
of the report of the committee upon 

PUBLIC WORKS. 

The question pending when the committee rose be¬ 
ing upon the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Monroe, [.Vlr. Archbold,] which was to strike out all 
after the word “shall,” and insert “ not to consist of a 
less sum than a hundred thousand dollars, increased 
yearly or every year by compound interest, at the rate 
of six per cent, per annum.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. I ask the indul¬ 
gence of the committee, while I explain the basis of 
this report, and examine briefly the amendment of the 
gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Arch bold.] That a- 
mendmentis in principle, the same with the report. 
But the gentleman objects to the appropriateness of the 
term, sinking fund, and says that being designed in 
part to pay intercs’, it is unstatesman-like to give the 
fund that appellation. Now, sir, I am inexperienced 
in these matters, and make no claim to statesmanship, 
and must of course be expected to make mistakes. 
Section ten, however, expressly provides what is to be 
done with this fund. It is to be applied to pay the in¬ 
terest and reduce the principal annually. It is imma¬ 
terial by what name you call it. The object is obvious, 
and this is all that is necessary. But il the gentleman 
desire it, the name can be changed. We are not par¬ 
ticular about that. It did, however, seem to him, that 
if we provided the sum wliich should annually be 
raised—a portion of which is to be applied to the pay¬ 
ment of the interest, and the balance to the principal, 
we should have what might well enough be called a 
sinking fund. I believe there have been gentlemen 
who have preceded us, and who have had certainly 
some reputation for statesmanship, who have provided 
just such a fund, and who have acted so unstatesman- 
like as to call it a sinking fund. Such, I am informed, 
was the case with the law of Congress; at least the 
fund provided for the payment of interest and princi¬ 
pal, is called a sinking fund in Garden’s Digest. But 
this inquiry is immaterial. A name can be adopted to 
suite the taste of gentlemen. 


But what is the amendment of the gentleman from 
Monroe? What does itfiropose? Ii is to raise for 
this fund $100,000 the fli st year, and to increase the 
same annually by the compound interest thereon. This 
would give for the second year $106,000, for the third 
$112,360, and so on, increasing by the annual interest. 
He, ol course, designs to pay the accrueing interest on 
the debt. His j)lun, therefore, ditt'ers from that of the 
report only in the amount to be raised annually. He 
will attain the same result by moviiig to strike out 
$1.1.50,000, and to insert $1,000,000, which is precisely 
the eflbct of his present motion. He agreed, last even¬ 
ing, that he wished the taxes for this purpose, gradual¬ 
ly to increase, so that a larger amount should be raised 
20 years hence than at first. But his [iroposition does 
not secure this object—-just as as fast as his fund apfili- 
cable to the payment of the principal is increased, the 
interest on the debt is reduc<M by the reduction of the 
principal for the [irevious year. His plan will raise no 
no larger sum 20 years hence than at its commence¬ 
ment. 1 have made a little calculation to illustrate 
this: Suppose the debt to be $15,000.000—then for the 

Year. Principal. Interest. Principal paid. Total. 

1 $15,()U0,U00 $900,000 $100,000 $1.(00,000 

2 $14 90i,u00 $e94,(00 $106,000 $1,000,000 

3 $14,791,(00 $8c7,640 $112,360 $1,000,000 

4 $14,681,640 $880,898 40 $119,101 60 $1,000,000 

And so on until the whole debt is paid. Thus he rai.ses 
just the same sum each year, and if figures tell the truth 
his argument was based on a misapprehension of the 
effect of his proposition. 

It thus appearing that his object is the same with 
ours, and that we differ only in the amount to be raised, 
I proceed to examine that question, remarking, how¬ 
ever, that the committee are not particularly solicitous 
as to the amount, but are anxious to pi’eserve the prin¬ 
ciple, to show that the debt is to be paid, and that wiih- 
in some definite period of time. 

In order to show the effect of the plan proposed, and 
the basis upon which the committee acted, I have made 
certain estimates as to the debt, the means of payment, 
and the resources to meet interest. And although I 
am aware that to listen to the peading of a mass of 
figures is most uninteresting, I must beg the attention of 
gentlemen to the results of these estimates. The com¬ 
mittee have based their action upon the hypothesis that 
the people would prefer to pay oft’ the debt as soon as 
it could be done, without increasing the pi’esent rale of 
taxation, but if gentlemen think it better to prolong 
the time and reduce the taxes for canal purposes, they 
will so determine. 

The amount of interest on the debt i*aised and paid 
last year was $1,147,854 45, and of the Sinking Fund 
raised according to the law of 1848, $106,000 00. To¬ 
tal $1,253.8-34 45. For the current year the Auditor 
has already transferred to the Canal Fund $950,000, 
and in his last Annual Report estimates the nett in¬ 
crease of the canals alone at $350,000. Total $1,300,- 
000. Thus it is seen that under our present rale of 
taxation, the annual Canal Fund amounts to more than 
$1,250,000. 

By our report we propose to raise a sinking fund ol 
$1,150,000. But in addition to this, it is necessary to 
provide for the interest on the irreducible debt, consist¬ 
ing of school and trust funds, which it is not proposed 
to pay otF, because the annual interest thereof is main¬ 
ly appropriated to the support of our common schools. 
This sum is gradually increasing, and of course the 
amount of annual interest increases, as appears by the 
following statement: 

In 1847 , principal $1,519,371 78 Interest $91,162 30 

“ 1848, “ 1,566,937 88 “ 94,015 85 

1849, “ 1..615,625 59 “ 96,937 54 

From this statement, it appears that hereafter it will 
be necessary to raise annually, about $100,000 for the 
interest on this fund, which, with the sinking fund pro- 
j osed, will require to be raised the annual sum of 
i 1,250,000, being less than the amount now raised, as 
heretofore shown. 














432 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


We cannot expect the constitution to be adopted, 
and action under it, so far as our finances are concern¬ 
ed, before the 1st of Jnnuary, A. D. 1852. What, then, 
will be the amount of debt, exclusive of school and 
trust funds, at that date? 1 have made an estimate,up¬ 
on inforrnantion derived from the rej)orts of the Audi¬ 
tor of State and Fund Commissioners, and the state¬ 
ment of the Auditor, submitted by the gentleman from 
Franklin [Mr. Stanbkry] a few days since. 

That debt, by the Fund Commissioner’s report, say 

Januai'y 1, 1850, amounted to.$17,300,681 20 

The State has the following assetts, which 
may be regarded as equivalent to cash, 
between this and January 1852, which 
are applicable to the principal of said 
debt. 

Surplus revenue collected.$ 501,642 83 
do do uncollected 1,151,441 23 
Balance of sinking fund on 

baud. 106,465 65 

Sinking fund for the year 


1850. 106,000 00 

do do 1851 112,360 00 

Premium on $1,500,000 is¬ 
sued to redeem debt due 

after 1850..... 120,000 00 

Estimated premium in $2,- 
500,000 offered for sale 

June 19, 1850. 200,000 00 

Estimate of sales of canal 
lauds for 1850 and 1851 50,000 00 


2,347,902 71 


Balance due July 1. 1852. $14,952,674 49 

In the Auditor’s report the sales of canal lands for 
one year (1850) are estimated at $40,000, and I have 
added only $10,000 for 1851. The interest on the debt 
for 1850 and 1851 is provided for by law, without re¬ 
sorting to the above assets, and although it is not prob¬ 
able that the entire amount of the surplus revenue due 
will be collected by January 1, 1852, yet as it is per¬ 
fectly secure and must ultimately be paid, it is safe to 
treat it as providing for so much of the debt. I there¬ 
fore regard it as safe to treat the debt to be provided 
for after that date as amounting to the gross sum of 
$15,000,000. Now if there is anything incorrect in 
these estimates, it should he pointed out, and I invoke 
the attention of gentlemen to it, and that they make 
the necessary corrections. We ought not to deceive 
ourselves in this matter. Such estimates are always li¬ 
able to fail, as all are aware, but the committee have in¬ 
tended to make this so moderate that we should not 
be disappointed, especially on the wrong side. 

Assuming $15,000,000 asthedebt to be provided for, 
I have made a careful computation to ascertain how 
rapidly it will be reduced by the application of $1,- 
150,000 annually to the payment of principal and inter¬ 
est. I have estimated the interest at 6 per cent al¬ 
though in fact near $1,000,000 will leave only 5 per 
cent interest, and all the seven per cents will be paid 
or provided for during the year 1851. With the figures 
embraced in this computation, I will not trouble the 
committee, but the result shows, that January 1, 1878, 
26 years after the commencement of the system, the 
debt will be reduced to the sum of $210,901,62 ; or in 
other words, that it will be entirely paid off in the 
year 1878. 

To accomplish thisi bject, it is necessary to raise an¬ 
nually, on account of our public debt, $1,150,000 ap¬ 
plicable as above, and $100,000 to pay the interest on 
the irreducible debt; total. $1,250,000. The next inqui- 
ry is, what resources have we from which to raise this 
fund 1 The general revenue must take care of itself. 
I have made no estimate of that. It will undoubt¬ 
edly be raised as heretofore, by taxation; and I am 
aware that for tne cuiTentyear there will be a deficien¬ 
cy, on account of the large appropriations to the State 
House, and of the expenses of the Convention, and 


that to meet the next annual appropriation, the gener¬ 
al revenue must be increased. But this, it is I elieved 
can be done, and provide, as proposed for the public 
debt, wiihout increasing the aggregate of taxes. What 
then are the resources of the State, to provide for the 
public debt ? I answer— 

1. Her Canals. 

2. Her Railroad stocks. 

3. Turnpike and Canal stocks, 
j 4. Canal lands. 

I 5. Taxation. 

6. The Western Reserve and Maumee Road. 

The last item is not embraced in my computation, 
although I am assured by the Auditor, that it will pay 
about $10,000 per annum. The other sources of in¬ 
come I propose to examine in their order. 

1. The Canals. The annual net income from the 
canals owned by the State, over and above all expens¬ 
es for repairs, and of the board of public works and 
of canal fund commissioners, for the last five years, is 
as follows: 

For the year 1845. $161,622 92 

‘‘ “ 1846. 360,730 15 

“ “ 1847. 477,104 00 

“ “ 1848. 371,225 34 

1849. 272,408 96 


Total.$1,643,121 37 

shewing an average annual income of $328,624 27. I 
therefore consider it safe to estimate it for the future 
at $300,000. 

2. Railroad Stocks. These are as follows: 


Mad River and Lake Erie Railroad.$329,650 

Little Miami Railroad. 157,200 


Mansfield and Sandusky City Railroad_ 33,333 

These companies now pay dividendsonly in 
stock, being engaged in the repair of their 
roads; and the Auditor in his exhibit, re¬ 
ferred to before, estimates this dividend 


for the year 1850 at. 73,150 

I estimate the dividend for 1851 at. 56,667 


Total.$650,000 

This I regard as a liberal estimate for the dividends 
of 1850 and 1851; but the committee will see hereaf¬ 
ter that, for any over-estimate here, I have made ample 
allowance. It is expected that at least as early as 1852, 
these railroad companies will pay dividends in money, 
and it is highly probable that they will much exceed 
six per centum. 

3. Canal and Turnpike Stocks. These cost the 
State the sum of $2,491,675 71: a most miserable in¬ 
vestment, but not an entire loss. The dividends re¬ 
ceived by the State for the last five years are as follows: 


For the year 1845. 27.165 18 

“ 1846. 35.291 21 

“ “ 1847. 36,648 10 

“ “ 1848. 31,361 78 

“ 1849. 38,049 10 


Total.$168,515 37 

shewing an annual average dividend of $33,703 07. I 
therefore estimate the value of these stocks at $550,000, 
and the annual income at $33,000. 

4. Canal Lands. These are now estimated at $150.- 
000, but it is expected that $50,000 worth will be sold 
during the next two years. Thereafter they will sell 
gradually, and no certain calculation as to them can be 
made. 1 therefore place them in the list with the rail¬ 
road stocks, &c., as follows: 

Railroad stocks in 1852.$650,000 

Canal and turnpike . 550.000 

Canal lands - “. 100,000 


$1,300,000 

Deduct for contingencies. 200,000 

Balance, *..$1,100,000 













































CONVENTION REPOETS. 


433 


The annual income on this sum at 6 per cent., is $66,- 
000. J confidently anticipate a much larger income 
from this source, but in my estimate I have only count¬ 
ed it as above stated. 

From this it appears that we may safely rely UT)on 
the income of our public workSj stocks, &c., for the 
sum of $366,000, leaving the sum of $884,000 to be 
raised by taxation. This can easily be raised by a less 
tax for canal purposes than has been imposed for each 
of the three last years. The grand list has increased 
annually for the last three years at the rate of $10,000,- 
000, and, continuing to increase at the same rate, will, 
in 1852, amount to the sum of $460,000,000. A tax of 
2 mills on the dollar on this sum, amounts to $920,000 
From which deduct the expense and loss 

in collection-—3 per cent.. 27,600 

And we have the balance...$892,400 

Add income of public works, &c., as above, 366,000 


Total,...$1,258,400 

Annual sum to be raised, as stated before, 1,250,000 

The surplus is. $8,400 

And yet this amount may be secured by a rate of 
taxation materially less than it has been tor several 
years past. In 1847, the canal tax was 2^ mills on the 
dollar; in 1848 and 1849, each year 2 3-10 mills. 

The above estimate applies to 1852, but it is to be 
recolleeted that during that year, the law requires a 
re-valuation of all the property in the State, when the 
grand list will be veiy materially increased, and there¬ 
after the assessment will be upon that list. In the ex¬ 
hibit of the Auditor heretofore mentioned, he estimates 
that increase at about $175,000,000; but I am willing 
to place it at $100,000,000. Thereafter the list will in 
all probability increase, fi'om the increase of personal 
property as heretofore, and on that account alter 1852 
I add to the estimate $15,000,000. This will make the 
grand list after that date, $575,000,000. 

A tax of If mills on this sum will amount 

to.$958,333 33 

Deduct for loss and expense of collection, 

3 per cent.. 28,750 00 

$929,583 33 

Add the increase from public works, &c., 366,000 00 

Total.$1,295,583 33 

Deduct annual sum to be raised. 1,250,000 00 


The surplus is seen. $45,583 33 

Thus it is seen that after 1852, by an annual tax of 
If mills on the dollar, which is a reduction of nearly 
one-third from the per centum of canal tax levied in 
1849 and 1850, we can raise and apply towards the 
principal and interest of our debt, the full amount re¬ 
commended by this report. The only inquiry is, is it 
best for us to do so? 

This computation I have made for the purpose of 
showing the committee the practical results of the plan 
which we have adopted, by which it is proposed to pay 
off the public debt in twenty-six years after 1851. If 
the committee should prefer to take fifty years, and 
pay less, they can do so; or if they think it best to in¬ 
crease the fund and pay faster, it is equally in their 
power to mould the report accordingly. Perhaps I 
should be authorized to say that the standing commit¬ 
tee would prefer that course. 

Sir, I know not how willingly the people will pay 
the necessary tax, but I think I may say with confi¬ 
dence that they are anxious to pay off this debt. How 
rapidly they would unite to do it, and how freely they 
would pay taxes for that purpose, other gentlemen on 
this floor can determine much better than myself. I am 
not in a situation to know the feeling of the yeomaniy 
at large on this subject; but I have no doubt that it is 
well represented on this floor. 

28 


I have made these figures, and this statement merely 
to show upon what basis the standing committee have 
acted, and that the subject might be acted upon with a 
full knowledge of all the facts. Thus far no objection 
has been made to the principle of the report. The on¬ 
ly question is as to the amount. The gentleman from Mi¬ 
ami proposes to begin with a reduction of the princi¬ 
pal by the sum of $100,000,—the report proposes in 
effect $250,000. He thinks this would be getting along 
too rapidly; as far as he has heard and observed the 
feeling upon the subject, he thinks it will not answer 
the wishes of the people. I believe they are willing to 
submit to the present rates of tax for canal purposes, 
and p-ay off the debt as fast as that will do it. But the 
gentleman has said the General Assembly might, under 
his amendment, go and do as they please upon finding 
the State was able to pay faster. Very true, and so the 
gentleman will see that we have provided for the same 
thing in the tenth section of the report which reads as 
follows: “ It shall be the duty of the commissioners of 
the sinking fund, faithfully to apply said funds, togeth¬ 
er with all moneys that may be by the Legislature ap¬ 
propriated to that object,” &c. The intention was to 
leave it open, so that the Legislature might increase 
the amount to be paid if they should choose to do so. 

But there is another objection which the gentleman 
argues. He wishes to defer the payment of the gre i - 
er amount of this debt till after the year 1866 ; andtheu 
he says he can make the banks pay more than they do 
now. I had hoped we might get one report through 
the committee of the whole, without having the ghost 
of banks to rise up and annoy us, but it seems that it is 
always to haunt us. Let us then examine this matter. 
He proposes, as I suppose, to make the banks pay tax 
es, just like individuals, placing their property upon 
the ordinary tax list after the year 1866, if not before. 
What will be the effect of this measure upon the amount 
of taxes received from the Banks by the State ? I do 
not wish to be understood as advocating the present 
system of taxing banks, for I repeat what I have ofte i 
said before, that I would have banks and corporations 
placed upon the same footing, as to taxation, with indi¬ 
viduals, and so far as we have the power, I will go for 
placing them on that footing. But I am now upon the 
economical argument—the matter of profit and loss. I 
wish to see how much the gentleman is to gain by ihe 
system which he proposes. 

By the present system, banks pay their entire tax 
into the State treasury. An examination will show 
that they pay more State tax than any other property, 
and they will do so, on whatever basis you estimate 
their property. Even if you make them pay three 
times over, that is, three times their capital, there is 
margin enough. Perhaps, however, the amount of 
their capital, together with their individual profits, 
would be a fair basis. 

Mr. REEMELIN interposing. We do not pay our 
taxes upon that principle. A merchant does not pay 
a tax upon his capital, nor the fanner, nor any body 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Perhaps not. But I will not 
now be drawn into the discussion of this matter of 
bank taxation. I will give the gentleman the benefit 
of his rule. I will give gentlemen the benefit of any 
rule they please, and then show that the State will get 
more money upon the present system of taxing banks, 
than upon the one proposed. The counties would be 
benefited by the change, but the injustice of the pre¬ 
sent system is to the counties, cities and townships, 
because the banks do not pay a county, city or town¬ 
ship tax, but only a State tax. 

The Auditor’s report, now before me, shows that the 
free banks paid, in 1849, — mills on the dollar, of then- 
capital; the State bank and branches 9 43-100 mills, 
and the old banks 2 63-100 mills. The average paid 
by all the banks in the State is 8 36-100 mills on the 
dollar; while the tax on other property, for all State 
purposes, was only 3 mills on the dollar. Now it 






















434 


CONVENTION REPOliTS 


seems to me that this source of revenue to the State 
would have to be supplied from some other cpiarter, if 
banks were taxed only as other property. So, if we 
wish to get anything extra out of banks, it seems to 
me we had better take it while we can get it. But 
again; after the year 1852, we shall reduce the caual 
tax to 1| mills on the dollar, and then the banks will 
fare very hard; unless, indeed, they should voluntarily 
come in on the same basis as other property, under the 
law of last winter, as they will undoubtedly do after 
1852, unless prevented by law. For, if they continue 
to pay on their profits, after a revaluation, as now, they 
will pay much more than individuals on the same pro¬ 
perty, unless indeed their profits should be diminished. 
And tliis cannot be expected, especially if the hard 
money men succeed, and thus secure to the present 
banks, a monopoly of the entire business until after 
1866. Perhaps if the system of free banking, (of which 
I am an advocate,) should succeed, competition in the 
business would so reduce the rate of interest, as to 
limit their profits to a reasonable rate. Without this, 
howevei-, their taxes after 1852 will be quite large in 
proportion to other property, and the whole being paid 
into the State treasury, nothing will be gained by 
waiting until after 1866, in order to have the opportuni¬ 
ty of giving the banks particular jessed The State 
will receive more from them than she would upon any 
other principle of taxation ever yet suggested. 

Mr. Chairman, I will not detain the committee longer. 
My main object has been to show the operation of the 
system proposed, and to present the facts in the case. 
I invite the most careful investigation into the compu¬ 
tations and estimates made, aird the ccrrection of all 
errors. We shall then act advisedly, and if the prin¬ 
ciple of the report is adopted, even though the amount 
named may be reduced, I shall be satisfied. 

Mr, STANTON said : If I understand the proposi¬ 
tion of the standing committee, it is: that there shall 
be annually raised the sum of eleven hundred and fifty 
thousand dollars, to be applied to the interest and prin¬ 
cipal of the debt: to be derived from the proceeds of 
the public works and from taxation. The plan of the 
gentleman from Monroe, [Mr, Archbold,] as I under¬ 
stand it, is: that there shall be annually applied the 
sum of one hundred thousand dollars, toward the pay¬ 
ment of the debt,— to be annually reduced in propor¬ 
tion to the reduction of the principal of the debt— the 
whole to be raised by taxation. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga. The proposition 
of the gentleman from Monroe is: that the State shall 
raise one hundred thousand dollars the first year, one 
hundred and six thousand dollars the next year, and 
so on, for the reduction of the principal of the debt— 
increasing the amount of the appropriation to be made 
by compound interest. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. That would occasion no increase 
of taxation whatever. I only propose to increase the 
appropriation by the amount of interest on that sum 
every year 

Mr. STANTON. The report of the committee has 
this objection to my mind : A portion of the eleven 
hundred thousand dollars is to be raised from the pro¬ 
ceeds of the public works, which is a veiy fluctuating 
income — an income which will always be least when 
the production of the State is smallest. Whenever 
there are short crops and a small surplus for exporta¬ 
tion, there will follow, as a necessary consequence, a 
reduced amount of tolls; and the same cause which 
will require an increase of taxation, will reduce the 
capacity of the people to pay their taxes. For it is the 
production of the country, transported on our canals, 
which constitutes the capacity of the people to pay 
their taxes. The amount of production, then, the in¬ 
come of the public works being reduced, these two 
causes conspire at the same time to increase the bur¬ 
dens of the people. Now if by famine, pestilence, or 
any revulsion in trade, a scarcity of money should eii- 
eae, which wcKjld render it extremely burdensome to 


the people to pay the tax necessary to 8U])port this 
fund, such a policy might ()])erate oppressively if there 
were no power in the legislature to reduce the rate of 
taxation. But if I understand the pioposition of the 
L^entleman from Monroe, it relieves the people from 
this difficulty by reducing the amount of the sinking 
fund. 

Mr. FIITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga. The only differ¬ 
ence between the two propositions is: that the legisla¬ 
ture cannot reduce the sum to be raised under the pi o- 
positiou of the committee, below a million of dollars, 
'fhe proposition of the committee is to support a siidi- 
ing fund of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, 
while that of the gentleman from Monroe is, to support 
a sinking fund of one hundred thousand dollars. 

Mr. REEMELIN said: I desire to correct an error 
into which the gentleman from Cuyahoga has fallen in 
supposing that the State would lose by taxing banks as 
individuals. This would be true if the law levied the 
tax upon the capital stock, and to do so, would be a 
violation of the principles of our tax laws. The mer¬ 
chant is not taxed upon his capital, he is taxed upon 
the goods in his store, no matter whether he owes for 
them or not. And so it is with reference to the horse, 
the carriage, the cow, and the watch, a man’s farm, or 
any other property of the individual — he is taxed ae 
cording to the value of his visible property, without 
any deduction for debts. The citizen is not asked by 
the assessor whether he owes anything for it. Yet the 
gentleman seems to think that banks should only pay' 
a tax upon what they are worth after their debts are 
paid. The gentleman is mistaken if he supposes this 
rule to be applied to individuals. Individuals are not 
asked by the assessor: how much do you owe? The 
merchant is asked only, how much stock in trade he 
has got. By the same rule then, the banks should be 
taxed upon the amount of their loans and discounts.— 
I have no means of ascertaining exactly the amount of 
loans and discounts of the banks, but from the total 
amount of the capital stock of all the banks in Ohio, 
including the Ohio Life and Trust Company, it is pro¬ 
bable that their loans and discounts amount to some¬ 
thing like eighteen millions. The State tax on that 
amount is fifty-four thousand dollars. The banks now 
pay a tax, in the aggregate, of fifty-three thousand 
eight hundred and fifty-two dollars: so that the State 
would not lose, but gain, by taxing the loans and dis¬ 
counts. Besides, the present system of taxing the 
banks, excludes the counties and townships from any 
share. The people of those counties and townships 
who have made the roads and highways, created 
schools, and whose money pays for the courts and jails— 
they create the business that make up the profits of 
banking capital. The amount of banking capital be¬ 
ing taken away from the tax list, vexy much increases 
the taxes upon the pi’operty ot the citizens. 

Mr. BENNETT. I would ask the gentleman fi*om 
Hamilton, whether a bank which has ten millions in 
circulation,does not owe ten millions? 

Mr. REEMELIN. Certainly. But the citizen is 
taxed for that veiy money in his pocket, no matter how 
much he owes. 

Mi\ BENNETT. But the capital of the merchant 
has no I’eference to his credits. 

Ml*. REEMELIN. The gentleman is mistaken there. 
It is well known that the merchant is not taxed upon 
his capital, nor the fai’mer, nor the capitalist, but upon 
his visible property only. And there lies the great dif¬ 
ference between the Brough and the Kelly system of 
taxation. Mr. Kelly’s system [that which at present 
obtains in the State,] proceeds upon the amount of visi¬ 
ble property, while the system of Mr. Brough taxes 
the amount of wealth. The law now asks only : how 
much visible property have you ? The bank profits in 
the State have been nearly as much in a single year, as 
the whole of the State I’evenue. These pi’ofits are not 
to be atti’ibuted so much to their capital as to the 
privilege which they enjoy under their charters. I 








CONVENTION REPOETS. 


435 


have been astonished to find some gentlemen entrap¬ 
ped by the specious reasoning of our whig friends up¬ 
on this subject, and made to believe that it was right 
that only the capital stock of our banks should be tax¬ 
ed instead of their notes and discounts. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga. I am not disposed 
to bOy drawn into the discussion of this question now, 
but I desire to ask the gentleman whether, under his 
rule of taxation, the independent banks would not pay 
much less than the branches of the State bank? 

Mr. RBEMELIN. I suppose they would. For in¬ 
stance, the banks in the city of Dayton would have to 
pay less, whilst the gentlemaids banks in Cleveland 
would have to pay more. 

Mr. STILWELL. The report under consideration 
has been singularly unfortunate in producing discussion 
on collateral questions. We spent two hours on yester¬ 
day in determining the distinction between the phrase, 
‘•not at anytime,” and the word “never.” And we 
have now come to consider the proper mode of taxing 
banks. Both of these may be very important questions, 
but it seems to me it is not necessary that they should 
Ije discussed at this time. But there was one or two 
questions asked by the gentleman from Franklin, in a 
triumphant manner, which had not been noticed by the 
gentleman from Richland, to which he would attempt 
to give an answer. One of these questions was: “who 
required that the public accounts should be paid? —the 
creditors do not desire it.” I answer, the people of Ohio 
require it. They desire to pay their debts. There are 
two questions arising under the present proposition 
upon which all appear to be agreed. The first is, that 
it is expedient that the public debt should be paid; and 
the second; that it is necessary for this Convention to 
provide the means, and declare the manner of doing it. 
The gentleman from Cuyahoga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] re¬ 
presenting the standing committee on the public debt 
and public works, and the gentleman from Monroe, 
[Mr. Archbold,] have each advocated their proposi¬ 
tions for this object, agreeing upon these two princi¬ 
ples. They both agree that it is expedient the debt 
should be paid, and that the means of the payment 
should be prescribed by this Convention; but they dif¬ 
fer in regard to the time within which the debt should 
be extinguished. The committee have reported a pro¬ 
vision for producing a sinking fund of two hundred and 
fifty thousand dollars—providing for the extinguish¬ 
ment of the debt by annual installments above the pay¬ 
ment of the annual accruing interest. The gentleman 
from Monroe proposes an annual sinking fund of one 
hundred thousand dollars: and this is the precise dif¬ 
ference between the two propositions. It seems to me, 
from the course tho debate has taken, that there is some 
misapprehension in the minds of gentlemen as to what 
a constitution should be. I had supposed that it was 
the object of a constitution to declare great general 
principles, and that in general, the detail, and the man¬ 
ner of carrying out these principles, should be left to 
the Legislature. In cases where there is danger that 
the Legislature may depart from or neglect to execute 
an important principle, il is proper that the constitution 
should provide the manner of executing it. It appears 
to me that we have departed from this rule and gone 
largely into details ,and somewhat beyond the province 
of a Convention—for instance, by solemnly declaring 
on yesterday, that the liberties of the country required 
that we should prescribe, in the constitution, how the 
corporals and musicians of a company of militia should 
be appaiiited. In this, as well as many other matters, 
we have graatly departed from the true line which dis¬ 
tinguishes a constitution from a legislative enactment. 
Principles never change. There is no danger that any 
great cardinal truth will ever run into an absurdity, and 
may be safely stated in a constitution. But it is not so 
with mere questions of policy, which ought to be left 
wholly to legislative discretion. For what is good pol¬ 
icy to-day may not be so to-morrow, and should be left 
subject to alteration as circumstances may require. | 


It seems to me that these considerations should de- 
cide our minds between the proposition of the gentle¬ 
man from Monroe and this proposed by the committee. 
Both agree in the general principle that the debt ought 
to be paid, and upon the general principle that the pay- 
men' of the debt would advance the public interest. 
But one of these propositions proceeds upon the prin¬ 
ciple that this payment cannot be so well enforced 
without prescribing that the Legislature may provide 
the means of payment. If you create a sinking fund 
which shall discharge the debt at some fixed period of 
time, the Legislature cannot escape payment; and if 
the amendment of the gentleman from Monroe fixes 
that period, it would seem to me to be sufficient. It is 
not necessary to do more than to declare that the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly shall raise the means to pay this debt. 
Former experience has shown us, that not only are the 
people willing, but the Legisla ure also, has been wil¬ 
ling that the public debt should be paid; and we find 
thatthey have createdasinkingfundof $100,000 for that 
purpose, and an additional fund of fifty thousand dol¬ 
lars to be applied to the same object, so that we have at 
this time an annual sinking fund of one hundred and fifty 
thousand dollars solemnly set apart to be applied to the 
payment of this debt. I cannot, therefore, see any 
necessity why a large sinking fund should be provided 
by the constitution. 

From the statement of the gentleman from Cuyaho¬ 
ga, with regard to the situation of our finances, I have 
no doubt that the sinking fund proposed could be rais¬ 
ed at this time without inconvenience to the people. 
I have no doubt of the correctness of his statements in 
every particular. But is there any assurance that the 
present state of our affairs will continue for the whole 
period for which the provision is to operate ? Fie has 
told us that his scheme will require the State to raise 
the annual sum of $1,150,000. But he has not satisfied 
me that the present prosperous state of our affairs will 
continue, as they have remained as far back as his cal¬ 
culation goes. It is too much like calculating upon 
contingencies which may or may not happen. He has 
shown us by a computation of the past, that for the last 
five years the taxable property of the State has increas¬ 
ed ten millions annually; and, upon this he has based 
his calculation, that the same average increase will con¬ 
tinue. But, is thei’e no such thing as a descent in the 
value of property ? Certainly this is a proper question. 
I apprehend that the years from which the gentleman 
has drawn his statements, have been far beyond the 
usual average of the progress and prosperity of the 
State. He might, for instance, have taken the years 
from 1832 to 1838, whose indications of prosperity 
were not sustained by the succeding years of 1839, ’40, 
’41, ’42. These latter were years of depression, which 
will happen again: for what man is there, who has 
lived thirty years, who does not know that the affairs 
of trade and all the elements of prosperity are subject 
to continual fluctuations? But as to the time when 
these things will occur, it cannot be known. 

What then is our duty under these circumstances ? 
We can now raise, I admit, the sum of $1,150,000 an¬ 
nually, and perhaps without inconvenience. But, ac¬ 
cording to the plan of the committee, we must contin¬ 
ue to raise this sum annually until the debt shall be 
paid. If we could be certain that the present state of 
things would continue, I might be willing to pay this 
sum. But, knowing the instability of all human affairs, 
it seems to me that it would be unwise for us to bind 
ourselves by any arrangement by which we should bo 
compelled to raise that sum. I would much prefer ta¬ 
king a larger margin. I am willing to confine myself, 
so a's to show a willingness to pay; but I am unwilling 
under all the circumstances, to be compelled to pay 
so large a sum. 

I have not referred to those circumstances which 
may, and probably will operate so as to produce re¬ 
vulsions in the next twenty years, in order to show that 
the nature of the dependencies of the gentleman from 










436 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


Cuyahoga, upon $300,000 net revenue from the canals. 
That gentleman did not consider another question, now 
beginning to be intimately connected with this matter. 
The canals have heretofore enjoyed the whole of the 
carrying trade of the interior, but we have lately began 
to adopt another mode of carrying, which is by the 
railroads. Whether they will operate so as to re¬ 
duce the revenues derived from the canals, no man 
can say, but it is obvious that they will furnish 
facilities for transportation, which are more desirable 
than those offered by the canals, and they can operate 
at all seasons of the year. It does seem to me, there¬ 
fore, that they will necessarily participate very large¬ 
ly in the business of carrying our produce to market. 
It may be that after operating for some time together 
these two modes of transportation may raise up an in¬ 
ternal commerce, which in point of profit will more 
than supply the loss of revenue from the canals, to be 
anticipated as resulting from their rivalship. But this 
will not be done at once ; I do not say that there will 
be any diminution of the canal revenue, from this 
course, but is it possible; and ought to be taken into 
the account. 

Then there is the consideration referred to by the 
gentleman from Logan [Mr. Stanton.] We may have 
a period of short crops, which may reduce the revenue 
arising from the canals, and at the same time take 
away from the people the ability to pay their taxes. 

These, Mi*. Chairman, are some of the reasons in 
general terms, which will induce me to vote against 
the proposition which requires so large an amount of the 
public debt to be discharged within a certain period 
of time. I certainly agree to the principle, that the 
debts should be paid, and that the payment should be 
met as fast as possible; but I am not willing to tie my¬ 
self down, by prescribing that the General Assembly 
shall provide annually, for so large a sum as that jiro- 
posed by the standing committee. I am of the opin¬ 
ion, sir, that a $100,000 fund annually will be sufficient, 
and that, we are told, would pay off' the d^ts in forty 
years. I am willing to reduce the fun(?^»i* $50,000 ac¬ 
tually under all the circumstances, and tlrat sum will 
discharge the debt in fifty-five years. 

Some gentlemen seem not to understand the opera¬ 
tion of a sinking fniid. A sinking fund increased by 
the addition of the accruing interest, compounded an¬ 
nually, as proposed by the plan of the gentleman from 
Monroe, does not mean the amount to be applied annu¬ 
ally to the payment of the interest and principal of the 
public debt. The aggregate amount continues the 
same each year,until the debt is paid. The amount to 
be applied to the payment of the principal, it is true, in¬ 
creases each year, and as the period advances increases 
very rapidly, and might at first view seem to require 
increased taxation, but this is not the result, for the in¬ 
terest on the debt remaining unpaid, diminishes in the 
same amount as the sinking fund increases, and the two 
sums, (the interest on the debt, and the sinking fund 
added together,) are always the same until the debt is 
paid—and the amount to be yearly raised by taxation 
continues the same. I do not make this remark from 
any thing that has been said in this debate, but I have 
heard it suggested in other places, that the increase of 
the sinking fund by adding the interest annually would 
inci'ease the taxes yearly, and have thought it necessa¬ 
ry to correct this impression. 

It does look to me to be unwise to tie ourselves 
down, and say, that the people shall pay a large annu¬ 
al sum for the payment of the debt. 

In all our acts here, it seems to have been taken for 
granted that the Legislature possesses no wisdom; and 
that in every case where the descretion extended to 
them they would act unwisely. This is a principle 
which I am not willing to admit, especially with ref¬ 
erence to our legislation upon the subject of internal 
improvement. For heretofore, our public works, with 
few exceptions, have been managed with great skill 
and ability. 


Whatever may be the time fixed for the final pay" . 
ment of the debt by the constitution, I have no doubt 
that time will be anticipated by the people, and that 
the debt will be paid ofi'sooner than we shall prescribe, 
by the large appropriations which will be made by the 
Legislature, in fortunate and prosperous sessions. 

I wish in conclusion to suggest an amendment, to 
strike out the words “ $1,150,000,” and insert in place 
of the words stricken out, the words “ $950,000.” 

Mr. HAWKINS. The gentleman from MuskingTim 
complains that we are going into details. I regret, Mr. 
Chairman, the necessity we are under of entering into 
this matter of details more than heretofore. The Leg¬ 
islature of this State, so far as the State debt is con¬ 
cerned, have proven themselves not to be entitled to 
the utmost degree of confidence. Upon entering into 
a system of improvements in the State of Ohio, there 
was a law passed, and which exists at this time, and 
which, if it had been regarded, would not only have 
saved our State from the extent of debt in which we 
are involved, but would have pi'ovided by this time, a 
large fund for the extinguishment of it. That wdse 
law, for we believe it to be such, was disregarded. I 
apprehend it is our duty to pay attention to the impres¬ 
sive lessons of experience here. There was a decep¬ 
tion worked upon the people of this State, or they 
would not have tolerated the system, by which we are 
involved in debt. The fund provided for by the law 
of 1825 was used for a different purpose, and was used 
to serve the levying of taxes, and by the refusal of the 
Legislature to levy taxes to meet the interest upon our 
increased liabilities, a deception was worked upon the 
public mind. By means of that deception, they toler¬ 
ated this rapid expenditure in the public works in the 
State of Ohio, and by that means our debt accumulated 
to its present amount. Had they adherred to the pro¬ 
visions of that law, the burden of taxes would have 
been felt by the people as the debt increased, and they 
would have checked the expenditure at the proper 
time. They were deceived, I will repeat, or they 
would not have tolerated the expenditure. Now I 
would like to bind the Legislature to do their duty to 
the people of this State. It is manifest, in my opinion, 
that heretofore this matter has been neglected. The 
present fund required by this provision if adopted, is, 

I believe, no more than what the amount of interest 
which has been heretofore paid for interest alone upon 
the State debt. Need we be alarmed at it ? This was 
the amount of interest raised in 1844, with a very small 
taxable basis compared with the present. If in the 
year 1844, and every subsequent year up to this time, 
we have been compelled to raise this amount, need we 
be alarmed as to the future? Need we fear that a con¬ 
tingency will arise hereafter, in which we will not be 
able to raise it. I think the apprehension of the gen¬ 
tleman from Muskingum is without good foundation.— 
Again, the whole amount raised in thirty years neces¬ 
sary to pay both the principal and interest, exceeds by 
only five millions, seven hundred thousand dollars, the 
amount necessary to pay the interest alone for thirty 
years. The difference between the payment of prin¬ 
cipal and interest as proposed here, and at the end of 
thirty years, is ten millions three hundred thousand 
dollars. Is not this an amount worth attending to ?— 

I claim further, that the per cent, of tax necessary to 
meet the amount required, if this provision shall be 
adopted, may be annually reduced in proportion as the 
taxable basis is increased. In other words, that as the 
basis of taxation increases the per cent, will be less.— 
Three hundred thousand has been named as the relia¬ 
ble nett amount from the public works. This is too 
small from a gross sum of eight hundred thousand. It 
appears to me that there has been great extravagance 
in expenditure by way of repairs and superintendence 
in this State. They have amounted to about $450,000 
a year for several years. Do we concede that this is 
to be the necessary expenditure for that purpose, 
amounting to nearly half a million a year. I appre- 










CONVENTION EEPOETS. 437 


heiid it is not. I do not think that there can be a time 
arise, when the nett proceeds of the public works of 
Ohio, will not equal the amount of $300,000. I know 
the sentiment tljroughout this State on the part of a 
portion of her citizens is adverse to the payment of 
this debt. There is a desire among many individuals 
through the State to postpone this payment to the long¬ 
est possible period. It is a popular mode of fleecing 
the people, and for that reason they desire its continu¬ 
ance, There is a desire that the debt should be per¬ 
petuated to the last possible moment, and it is against 
this perpetuation of the debt that I wish to guard by a 
provision in the constitution of the State of Ohio. I 
have heard it expressed by a distinguished gentleman 
of the county of Muskingum, in the county of Morgan, 
in a public address, that he never desired to see the 
State Debt ol Ohio paid off. I believe that there is 
nothing which the people of this State desire more, 
than that there shall be a fixed period, and that not 
very far distant, when this debt shall be extinguished, 
—when this absorption of their revenues to so great 
an extent, will be at an end. There is a wish on the 
part ot members of the committee, to take some course 
by which to discharge it in less time and by more rap¬ 
id means than is here proposed. Thirty years is con¬ 
sidered as a period beyond a generation. It is a fixed 
rule by which our sons, and extending to our grand¬ 
sons, shall wind up this concern. I should regi'et, that 
a larger period should be assigned for the extinguish¬ 
ment of this debt. I hope that we shall make provis¬ 
ion for extinguishing it as early as possible, and that 
we will consider well before we will assent to propo¬ 
sitions which shall postpone the time to a longer peri¬ 
od. I can conceive ot no possible contingency likely 
to occur under which we should not be able to raise 
this amount. It is a very small portion of the aggre¬ 
gate revenue of the State. The aggregate revenue 
calculated for the last year, amounts to three millions 
two hundred and nineteen thousand dollars. I wish to 
enquire here, whether we cannot I’etrench a little in 
our expenditures. I believe that if you will give the 
people of the county of Morgan a right to discharge 
their just portion of the State debt within the period of 
ten years they will do it, although they are not wealthy, 
and many of them live upon eighty acre tracts of land. 
There are hundreds c f them in that county, that ov/e 
nothing, and have no incumbrances upon their lands, 
except the State debt. 

Mr. STAN BE RY. Is there no complaint in the 
county of Morgan at this time of excessive taxation ? 

Mr. HAWKINS. They do complain that their tax¬ 
es are heavy ; and although this is so, yet they would 
be willing to be taxed heavy for the purpose of paying 
otf the State debt, and relieving themselves for the fu¬ 
ture. The question is now fairly before this commit¬ 
tee, whether under view of the circumstances and ad¬ 
vantages of a prompt payment of this debt, and in 
view of the resources to be derived from the increase 
of the annual taxable basis, whether we should dimin¬ 
ish the sum proposed here, or leave it as it is. 

I have made a calculation upon a debt of sixteen 
millions. The interest would be $960,000, leaving but 
$190,000 applicable to the payment of the principal of 
the State debt. I hope gentlemen will reflect wheth¬ 
er they really desire to perpetuate this debt beyond 
thirty years, or whether they will prepare to meet the 
expenses that mUi.t be necessarily incurred for its ex¬ 
tinguishment. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I have heard much said about 
the impropriety of legislation in this body. I concur 
to some extent in the opinion that legislation, properly 
so called, is out of place here, but not to the extent 
that is claimed by some gentlemen. When I am sat¬ 
isfied that our General Assembly have, upon any par¬ 
ticular subject, been acting for a series of years, wrong¬ 
fully or improvidently, that that body has laid out for 
itself and been traveling in a wrong road, I feel dis¬ 
posed to check by the action of this body that wrong¬ 


ful and improvident course—to shut up that wrong road; 
and if the doing this be legislation, I to this extent fa¬ 
vor legislation in this body. But I do not wish to go 
further than this, except for the affirmance of general 
principles. 

Acting upon this rule, I cannot see the necessity for 
that portion of the section under consideration, which 
[)rovide8 for the payment of the interest on our State 
debt. So far as I am informed there has not been here¬ 
tofore, and I do not think there will be hereafter, any 
inconvenience from trusting this matter to the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly. But the creation of a sinking fund 
for the payment of the principal of our State debt 
is a diflerent matter. It is a matter upon which the 
General Assembly has just commenced legislating and 
that legislation has not yet assumed a fixed and perma- 
character. It was but commenced in 1848, and may be 
abandoned at the next session. I think the proposi¬ 
tion that we shall pay our debt within some definite 
time, and by some well defined rule, is of sufficient im¬ 
portance to find admission into our constitution. I am 
satisfied too that the people of our State demand this— 
that they desire to see the end of this taxation for our 
debt—that if they can see and know there is to be 
an end to it, they will continue to pay cheerfully the 
necessary taxes to rid themselves eventually of the 
whole burthen; and I, am also well satisfied that if they 
cannot see and know this, if they cannot be assured 
that at some time they are to get rid of this taxation on 
account of our debt, they will throw the whole thing 
off their shoulders. For these reasons I feel disposed 
at present to prefer the amendment of the gentleman 
from Monroe to the report of the committee in this 
particular. 

The amendment of the gentleman from Monroe is 
substantially the same as the law providing for the crea¬ 
tion of a sinking fund, passed Februaiy 1848, and un¬ 
der which our taxes for 1849 were paid. It does not 
increase our taxes over that of 1849, and does provide 
for the certain payment of the whole debt. The gen¬ 
tleman from Cuyahoga informs us that by the plan re¬ 
ported by the committee our debt will be paid in 1878. 
The Commissioners of the Canal Fund, in their last 
report, also furnish us with an estimate, by which itap- 
pears that that the sinking fund created by the vote of 
Februaiy 1848, and which the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Monroe adopts, will extinguish our debt- in 
1885. I shah therefore vote, as at present advised, for 
the amendment of the gentleman from Monroe. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. The remarks of the gentleman 
from Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitchcock] perhaps render an 
explanation necessary. If that gentleman is willing 
to place the banks under the same regimen of taxation 
as private individuals, he will not find me wanting in 
the good work. The justice of his intentions, highly 
approves itself to my understanding; he will find me 
a zealous co-operator in the good work of reform. Yet 
the argument wms a perfectly fair one when I made it, 
for it was impossible for me to know in advance that 
gentlemen were willing to change the mode of taxing 
hes e institutions. 

The gentleman seems to me entirely too sanguine in 
his calculations of the net revenue from our canals. 
In the most prosperous years, we realized about three 
hundred thousand dollars from our public works, alter 
providin'^ for the cost of repairs; but we have no assu¬ 
rance that they will continue to yield even that small 
sum. Commercial wealth either has constructed, oris 
about to construct railroads along both our great lines 
of canals. The iron horse will soon be heard snorting 
Both the Scioto and IVIiami vallie8'‘^“m fact, such 
is the case already along the Miami valley; there is a 
continuous line of railway now from Cincinnati to 
Cleveland, the greater part already in operation, and 
the balance almost completed. I therefore anticipate 
a threat reduction of tolls, for surely no man will adopt 
the tedious and costly mode of conveyance by the ca¬ 
nals, when he can send'his property by the cheaper 








438 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


and speedier rout of the railroad. The great saving of 
time and trouble will give the railroads an immense 
preference. 

Mr. RE EMELIN. The price of coals is so great in 
Ohio, that railroads can never transport heavy goods as 
cheaply as the canals, and he thought, take it upon the 
average, owing to the increase of wealth and increase 
of production by means of the railroads, the canals 
would still find as much employment as formerly, and 
that the gross amount of tolls would not be reduced. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. It has been found 
that railroads built along the lines of canals have not 
diminished the nett revenue of the canals. In England, 
where railways have been built right b'y the side of 
canals, it has, in many instances, increased the carry¬ 
ing trade and revenues of the canals, in part by carry¬ 
ing coals for the railroads, and railroad works. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Mr. Chairman, I may be mista¬ 
ken in this matter. I am not prepared to contradict the 
gentleman’s statements, though the idea was a very 
natural one, and I well remember that the representa¬ 
tives from the eastern counties voted against these char¬ 
ters for fear of a reduction of canal tolls. There is 
one matter in which I am not mistaken, and which 
makes it eminently improper to increase the bui'thens 
of the people’s taxation largely at this time ; the local 
debt of many counties, cities, townships, and even lit¬ 
tle boroughs, is becoming very large. I have not yet 
seen the Auditoi-’s report upon the subject, but a friend 
who has seen it informs me that this species of local 
debt now amounts to nearly ten millions of dollars. 
Now it is evident that the pressure of taxation on the 
peopJe in the districts owing this local debt must be 
very great. If the interests of the public creditor shall 
ever be endangered it will be in this manner. If re¬ 
pudiation shall ever take place it will be introduced in 
this way. The burthen of taxation is rendered heavier 
by being unequal. The danger to the public creditors 
becomes more imminent by the unequal distribution of 
the burthens. The public creditors would be much 
surer of receiving their dividends, if the State debt 
were increased to thirty millions of dollai'S, owing by 
the whole State, than they can be when the State at 
large owes them twenty millions, and the local munici¬ 
palities 10 millions moi’e, because there is danger that 
the burthen of taxation in the indebted counties will 
become intolerable, and it seems to me that the plan 
of the committee imposes too great an increase of these 
burthens. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. The gentleman 
from Morgan [Mr. Hawkins] prefers the amendment 
of the gentleman from Monroe. If there is any thing 
in the amendment offered by that gentleman, which 
has the elements of which that gentleman speaks, it 
seems to me that it is a reason why it should not be 
adopted. He supposes that it provides a given sum 
which shall apply to the principal at all, events, and 
leaves the interest as a matter entirely to be disposed 
of by the Legislature from time to time. Now it is 
just as necessary, if we shall act at all, and make it 
certain that this debt is to be paid, to provide for the 
payment of the interest as of the principal. The amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Muskingum leaves it in 
that shape. ■Why*'sir, one of the objects which Ihave in 
view is, to make this matter certain, and to place it be¬ 
yond all peradventure, that this debt shall be paid 
within a given period. If 50 years should be determin¬ 
ed upon, or 30, or 20, let it be so, but let us have some 
certain, definite, fixed period—and thus we shall put 
at rest forever the question whether this debt is to be 
repudiated or not—and thus we shall forever put at 
rest the question, whether we shall pay punctually and 
promptly the debt, or leave it in the power of a suc¬ 
ceeding Legislature, through the infiuence of individu¬ 
als or of banks, to say that the debt shall be perpetua¬ 
ted. 

We may also secure to ourselves a present benefit 
by this course, by securing the investment of the 


amount of $2,500,000, maturing this year, and now ad¬ 
vertised for sale, at a still larger premium. The as¬ 
sumption that the State will pay its debts, and the con¬ 
fidence that its stocks command, has increased the pre¬ 
mium ah'eady. Now, we propose to put it beyond 
peradventure. The proposition of the gentleman from 
Monroe provides for a hundred thousand dollars princi¬ 
pal, and leaves the interest to be provided lor. It does 
not make the payment of that interest as certain as we 
wish it, and therefore, we wish it constitutionally pro¬ 
vided for. The gentleman has referred to the law of 
1848. It is very true, that if that law were carried 
literally into effect—never repealed or varied from, it 
would secure the payment of the debt in the time con 
templated. But where is the security lor this? We 
have had legislative provisions on this subject before. 
We have had a sinking fund since, perhaps, 1830. I 
call the attention of the gentleman from Richland to 
this fact. This fund as required by law, should have 
been $25,000 annually, with the accumulated interest, 
and there should have been a large sinking lund, and 
yet from that source we have never applied $50,000 to 
the payment of the debt; and now have no sinking 
fund on hand, except under the law of 1848. The law 
under which our internal improvements were com¬ 
menced, passed 1825, provides for the levy of an an¬ 
nual tax to pay the interest, and from $10,000 to 
$40,000 per annum, from 1828 to 1832, and thereafter 
$25,000 per annum, as a sinking fund, until the debt 
should be paid. All our stocks have been issued in pur¬ 
suance of this law. 

Here was a provision for a sinking fund. W’hat has 
become of it? It was created by a legislative provis¬ 
ion. The law contained the pledge of the State, that it 
should never be repealed or altered—that the taxation 
should never be diminished. It was the duty of the 
officer of the State to levy such tax, and yet, in 1844 
or 1845, we found out that not only was there no sinking 
fund, but there was a large indebtedness floating hith¬ 
er and thither from one bank to another, and from one 
fund to another, as the books in the Auditor’s office will 
show. Then the inquiry was instituted and the question 
raised as to what had become of the amount unaccount¬ 
ed for ? The inquiry was made in 1845. It was found 
that in consequence of the severity of the times and the 
vacillation attendant upon the Legislature by the change 
of parties, (I use the word in no insidious sense,) one 
party sometimes having the ascendency and sometimes 
the other, the full tax had not been levied, and that for 
the purpose of paying the interest, the officers of State 
were resorting to temporary loans, and using the funds 
for one purpose, which had been appropriated to an¬ 
other, and thereby a large debt was created. I think 
I am not mistaken in saying that fifteen hundred thou¬ 
sand dollars has thus been added to the principal of our 
debt, while by law we should have had a constantly 
increasing sinking fund. 

We have thus got our debt undiminished and a large 
amount of interest accrued upon it, notwithstanding this 
legislative provision. I therefore urge upon the com¬ 
mittee that they fix upon the amount in the constitu¬ 
tion—^if our amount is too high reduce it—if too low, 
increase it; but fix upon an amount, and vote to raise it 
at all hazards, and not leave it to the uncertainties at¬ 
tendant upon legislation, as to the propriety of au¬ 
thorizing this taxation upon the order of the fund com¬ 
missioners, or whether it shall be done by the Legis¬ 
lature or how otherwise. I do not propose to say any 
thing now, but I have alluded to these facts ior the pur¬ 
pose of showing that it is necessary for us to have some 
certainty about the mattei’—that we shall have a cer¬ 
tainty which shall cover the principal and interest, and 
for that reason I am in favor of having a constitutional 
provision for a given amount. 

Upon motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the committee 
then rose and reported that they had under discussion 
section — and had come to no conclusion. 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


439 


Up(»n motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention then 
took a recess. 


Mr. LARWILLsaid, in obedience to the resolution 
of the Convention, the coinniittee on Banking and 
Currency, have unanimously instructed me to re¬ 
port back a petition referred to us, which was pre¬ 
sented here by the gentleman from Knox [Mr. Mitch¬ 
ell.] 

On motion of Mr. MITCHELL the petition, together 
with the names attached to it were read. 

Mr. MANON. Now, sir, this matter is a small one ; 
it seems to be to be a small potatoe. I beg leave to 
say, that no part of this j)etition ai)[)lie8 to me. It ap- 
plie.*!, in my mind, to those who were elected on the 
hard money issue. I was not elected on that issue, and 
theiefore, disclaim the charge made in lliis document. 
But what I protest against, is this: that men will take 
this kind ol a course—a cowardly course, for it says 
“certain members.” Now, why not name the parlies? 
They have a paper publishecl up in the gentleman 
from Knox [Mr. Mitchell’s] region of the country, 
containing some editorial which I will read. I find 
the tollowing in the Mt. Vernon Banner: “ Yet at the 
very moment when the constitutianal Convention is 
in session, and there is great danger that many of these 
important and salutary meas ires will be defeated 
through the ignorance, treachery, or corruption of del¬ 
egates, known to be advocates of these reforms.” And 
in another number of the same paper, the editor says, 
having been asked to name members who have been 
guilty of treachery: “Can it be possible, that Col. Me- 
aary is ignorant of the high anti-democratic doctrines 
proclaimed by Mr. Dorsey? He overlooked the anti¬ 
republican position of Mr. Archbold, upon the ques¬ 
tion of banking and speci d privilege.s ? Has he been 
slumbering at his post while Mr. Ha whins and the 
Messrs. Case, and that most insignificant of small-beer 
politicians, Manon, were insidiously closing in with 
the friends of banking and paper money.” I can say, 
sir, that I know nothing about the ediior of that paper, 
I never saw him that 1 know of, nor do I think he has 
ever seen me. I am “ told to give the devil his due,” 
and I am always willing to do so. Itappears that this ed¬ 
itor was asked to sign the petition, but it appears that 
he afterwards became ashamed of the act and er^ised 
his signature—he thought evidently that the petition 
was not one fit to come here—now, it appears that this 
very editor had a little respect for himself so as not to 
permit his name to go upon this petition. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I have a few words to offer in 
explanation. 

The PRESIDENT. There is no motion before the 
chair. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I move then that the petition be 
referred back to the committee on banking and cur¬ 
rency. Mr. Dunbar,theeditorof the Mount Vernon Ban¬ 
ner, signed a petition that was presented here on a pre¬ 
vious day; but when the petition was ])resented to him 
he signed it, forgetting that he had signed the other. 
The other petition w'as forwarded and presented here 
before this w'as drawn up, for that reason he took his 
name off. 

Mr. MANON. I know nothing about that, and I 
hope this will not be referred to that committee,'and, 
it in order, I move that the petition be rejected. 

The PRESIDENT. The petition having been re¬ 
ceived without objection, and being now in the pos¬ 
session of the Convention, I do not know that the gen¬ 
tleman can move to reject it. He can move that it be 
returned to the gentleman who presented it. 

Mr. MANON. Then I move that it be so returned, 
and I hope that no member will present petitions of 
this kind hereafter without letting us know something 
of their contents. 

Mr. SAWYER. I call for the yeas and nays on that 
motion, in order to see who will vote for the rejection 
of this petition. You have received petitions from ne¬ 
groes here frequently, and did not reject them. 


Mr. MITCHELL, on leave, withdrew his motion to 
refer. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I will vote against the motion to 
return the petition, and I will vote for its reference. 

I do not care how foolishly people may act, or in what 
terms they may draw up their petitions, or of what 
color the petition may be, I have before said, and shall 
continue to vote for their reception and relerence. I 
am willing to say this much, as the yeas and nays have 
been called on this occasion. Some persons’ petitions 
are here who have not sense enough to say anything, 
perhaps, that is sctuxely worth notice, and I hold that 
(hat is not a sufficient reason to reject their petition. 

I go for the gieat right of petition—it may say as it 
pleases of me, I would not make that an objection. I 
will vote in this case as in all others, for the reception 
and reference of the petition. There may be a good 
may hard things said about this Convention, and said 
truly: that certainly should not make us vote for reject¬ 
ing a petition. And if in guessing at what sort of men we 
are, they should mistake the truth, I would not make that 
a reason for rejecting it. Again, if they should willing¬ 
ly or unwillingly misrepresent us, still I would receive 
their petitions. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. If it be in order, I move 
that the petilion be laid on the table—(several voices, 
no ! no!) 

Mr. SAWYER. I call for the yeas and nays on that 
mol ion. 

Mr. LARWILL. I hope that this motion will not 
prevail—that we may have a direct vote on this petition 
and see how we stand. If 1 understand the purport of 
the petition, it is directed to such members of this 
Convention as myself. 

The r RESIDENT intimated that this was not a deba¬ 
table motion. 

Mr. LARWILL, on leave, continued: I say it is di¬ 
rected to such members as myseif, who were elected 
here expressly on the hard money issue, and I do not 
see anything in that paper that is at all offensive tomei 
nothing which can excite my feelings or incline me to 
have any disposition to reject it. Let it take the course 
such as other petitions have had. I presume the rejec¬ 
tion of it would have a bad tendency. We have re¬ 
ceived petitions from men asking for equal rights, and 
privileges for the negro race that we possess, and it 
seems to me that when we have a respectful petition, 
couched in respecttul language, and coming from re¬ 
spectable parties, we should not reject it. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. Of course I do not take 
any part of the censure myself, embraced in that peti¬ 
tion, but I do think that the language of it is highly 
disrespectful to this body—and, the motion that I have 
made was for the purpose of administering a rebuke to 
those petitioners for sending a document of this char¬ 
acter to this body, indirectly, at all events, charging 
certain gentlemen on this floor with acting treasonably 
to the principles of their party. As, however, I have 
been requested from several quarters to withdraw the 
motion, I will ask leave to do so. 

Leave was given, and the motion was withdrawn. 

Mr. DORSEY. One single word before the vote is 
taken. I would vote, sir, in favor of receiving that 
petition as I have voted for receiving every petition 
that has been offered to this body. I hold that the 
people of the State have the right to petition for what¬ 
ever they wished to ask. I think as under a genei al 
rule,^that we are bound to receive this petition. I do- 
not iike the language in which that petition is couched, 
or think it is respectful to this body. I say this, al¬ 
though I take no part of the condemnation that is ex¬ 
pressed in this document, to myself, because, so far 
from having been elected on any such issue as the one 
referred to, I stand on a very different platform; 
therefore I consider myself free from any aspersion in¬ 
tended to be cast by that petition. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I apprehend that the effect of 
the motion pending [Mr. Manon’s] if sustained, v\-onld 
be the rejection of the petition ? 












440 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The PRESIDENT replied in the affirmative. 

The question being on returning the petition to the 
gentleman [Mr. Mitchell] who presented it, the same 
was put, and the yeas and nays having been called, re¬ 
sulted yeas 23, nays 61, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnett ot Montgomery, Baiiiett ot 
Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Case ot Hocking Case ot Lick¬ 
ing, Collings, Graham, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hitchcock ot Cuya¬ 
hoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Larsh, Manon, INIorehead, McCloud, 
Peck, Scott of Harrison, Stanton, Stilwell, Vance of Champaign, 
Williams and Woodbury.—23. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Bennet, Cahill, Chambers, Clark, Cook, 
Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Firestone, Florence, Forbes, 
Gillett, Green of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Hunter, Ken- 
non. King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Loudon, Mitchell, Mor¬ 
ris, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reeme- 
lin. Riddle, Robertson, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Augldize, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stan- 
bery, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Taylor, Thompson 
of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren and Mr, 
President—61. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I mov^ that the petition be re¬ 
ferred to the committee on Banks and the Currency. 

Mr. MITCHELL called for the yeas and nays on 
the motion, which resulted, yeas 50, nays 37. 

Yeas —Messrs. Bai’bee, Bennett, Cahill, Clark, Cook, Cutler, 
Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Firestone, 'Forbes, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, 
Hunt, Hunter, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Loudon, 
Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Robertson, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Thompson ot Stai'k, Vance of Butler, Warren 
and Mr. President.—50. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar 
net ot Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Case of 
Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, 
Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Lai'sh, Manon, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor, 
Vance of Champaign, Warren, Williams and Woodbury—37, 

So the petition was referred. 

On motion of Mr. CUTLER, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the Whole, (Mr. Sawyer in 
the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the report 
of the committee on 

PUBLIC DEBTS AND PUBLIC WORKS. 

The question was announced as being upon striking 
out the wox'ds, ‘‘one million one hundred and fifty 
thousand,” in the 5th line, and inserting the words, 
“nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars.” 

Mr. HAWKINS called for a division of the question, 
and it then turned upon striking out. 

The motion was carried, on a division, which result¬ 
ed—affirmative 65—negative not counted. 

So the words, “one million one hundred fifty thou¬ 
sand dollars,” were struck out. The question then 
turned on inserting. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren suggested “one million.” 

Mr. HAWKINS suggested “one million and fifty 
thousand.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga suggested “ one mil¬ 
lion one hundred thousand dollars.” 

The question bein^ upon filling the blank with the 
largest sum suggested—$1,100,000, the same was put 
and lost. 

The question then recurring, being on inserting $1,. 
050,000, it was put and lost. 

The question then turned on inserting “ one million” 
of dollars. 

Mr. KING of Butler said: I desire to make a single 
.remark on this section—I wish to say that for one I 
am opposed to fixing any absolute sum in this constitu¬ 
tion which we are about to make—I look on this mat¬ 
ter as an object of legislation—and I believe that the 
Legislature, from time to time, can provide and act as 
advisedly on this subject as we can. We here fix abso¬ 
lutely a sum that must be raised under every emergen¬ 
cy. Now I am in favor of the Legislature providing 
for the liquidation of the State debt, but in this matter 
I am willing that they should exercise their discretion 
according to the amount of taxation which the people 
will be ^le to pay. 


Mr. HAWKINS. I will say to do away with un¬ 
necessary alarm in regard to this provision, that the 
sum proposed now is not equal by $22,000 to the pre¬ 
sent interest on the State debt. I suppose that there 
was an existing sentiment in the State, which demand¬ 
ed of this Convention a provision in the constitution 
that should ensure the payment of the public debt 
within a given lime, and that would take from the Le¬ 
gislature that discretion which they have egregiously 
abused heretofore. It will be recollected by every one, 
that so far as the sinking fund, provided for in the law 
of 1825, is concerned, it has been totally disregarded by 
the Legislature. It is for the purpose then of fixing 
the mode and manner of extinguishing this debt, that 
we have proposed this provision of the report. As to 
the exact period of time, or the precise amount that we 
shall commence with, I am not very tenacious; but i 
that there should be some mode determined, some time 
within which the debt shall be extinguished, I have 
no doubt, and I should regret very much—I should 
feel disposed to reflect something—I would not say 
like the reflections used in the petition which we had 
up a short time since, but I would express my opinion 
in milder terms, and say those gentlemen have neg¬ 
lected their duties in not attending to this matter.— 
For it appeal's to me that we cannot do a greater bene¬ 
fit to our constituents, than to fix a rule in the organic 
law, under the operation of which this debt shall be 
swept out. Now, the interest on $15,000,000, which 
the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitchcock] has 
assumed to be the amount of the debt which should be 
paid, would be $900,000, which would leave but 
$100,000 of this proposed sum applicable to the pay¬ 
ment of the debt. Is that too much ? Is there a risk 
in requiring the Legislature to do this, and to continue 
to do it? We paid in 1844 a greater sum of interest 
than this. We paid in that year—when other States 
were repudiating the interest and principal—and every 
year since, a larger sum than is here required. I do 
hope that this much will be inserted in the constitn- 
tion, that to this extent, and within the time here pro¬ 
vided, the State debt shall be extinguished. Some gen¬ 
tlemen seem to apprehend that we are about to fasten 
a burden on the people, and that we ai'e imposing or 
enjoining on the Legislature, a provision that may ope¬ 
rate oppressively on the people. That is not our ob- 
ject nor the effect of our plan. Our object is to ensure 
that within a certain period, the people shall be reliev¬ 
ed from their burdens; that this interest which yearly 
absorbs so much of their capital—of the profits of their 
toil should at some time cease. I hope that in the 
amount proposed, we have got at the minimum, and that 
this sum shall be retained. 

Mr. HUNT. I cannot agree with the gentleman from 
Morgan—[Mr. Hawkins] I do not think that there is 
any necessity for fixing a certain amount in this consti¬ 
tution. The gentleman from Butler [Mr. King] has 
expressed my views exactly. I will vote against all 
amendments, for the purpose of getting in the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stan¬ 
bery.] 

On a division which stood, affirmative 19, negative 
not counted, the committee refused to fill up the blank 
with “ $100,000.” 

The question then recurred on inserting “ $900,- 
000.” 

At the request of Mr. Thompson, of Shelby, the 
amendment of the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stan¬ 
bery] was again read. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler suggested the propriety of 
withdrawing the motion. I doubt [said Mr. V.] if the 
committee will agree to fill the blank with any sum. 

I like the amendment last read very much. It is in 
substance the amendment that I have proposed this 
forenoon, with a view to offer .t at the proper time. 
The amendment I have proposed I will read for infor¬ 
mation. It was to strike out all after the word “in¬ 
debtedness,” in the second line, and to insert so as to 
make the section read as follows: 











CONVENTION EEPORTS 


441 


“ The faith of the State being pledged, <fec., (fee., therefore 
provision for the jpayment ot the interest, and the gradual 
reduction of the principal of the public debt shall be made by 
law.” 

That is all that is necessary we should provide for in 
the constitution, leaving the Legislature to provide or 
adopt such means, the effect of which would be to re¬ 
duce the debt of the State. If the amendment last 
read be not adopted, I shall then offer the one which I 
have read. 

Mr. STANBERY. With regard to filling the blank 
with the sum now proposed, I think we have got be¬ 
low the lowest sum to meet our liabilities; as that will 
require, according to the estimate of the committee, at 
least $1,000,000 per annum. A sinking fund less than 
$1,000,000 is scarcely sufficient to meet the annual in¬ 
terest, much less to reduce the principal of our public 
debt. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. If the gentleman 
will allow me, I will correct him in that particular. The 
gentleman will notice that the tenth section provides 
that the sinking fund, to be constituted under this arti¬ 
cle, is to be applied to the interest on the reducible debt 
alone, as it becomes due. We make no provision for 
the reducible debt under this section at all. 

Mr. STANBERY. But are we certain that our re¬ 
ducible debt will not require more than $1,000,0 )0 to 
meet the interest when this system goes into opera¬ 
tion ? 

I will say now, that I am altogether opposed to this 
section, as a constitutional provision. Ido not know of 
any authority for it, except in the late constitution of 
Kentucky, and the proposition here made is wholly dif¬ 
ferent from the New York system, as will be seen by 
looking at the provision they have made for the pay¬ 
ment of their debt. 

[Mr. Stanbery here read an extract from the consti¬ 
tution of New York.] 

Now what do we find here? That the great State 
of New York, with a debt much larger than that of 
Ohio provides that $1,500,000 shall be annually paid 
towards the interest and principal of the canal debt, 
and that only out of the revenues arising from her ca¬ 
nals. That plan would do very well, it neither sus¬ 
pends the payment or bears oppressively upon the peo¬ 
ple. It all comes out of the canal revenues and not 
by taxation; yet they provide for very little more than 
we do, although their debts are much larger than ours. 
Our nett canal revenue is only about three hundred thou¬ 
sand dollars, and we are to make up three fourths of the 
amount propo.sed to be raised by direct taxation. Is it 
right to impose this great burden on the people, and go 
to work to exhaust the means of this generation, in or¬ 
der that this debt shall be wiped out—and for what? 
That the people living here twenty-eight years hence 
shall have all our public works, and our canals yielding 
three hundred thousand dollars a year without paying 
a dollar! 

Will any gentleman tell me that the present genera¬ 
tion made this debt and that we are bound to pay it? 
In the first place the present generation did not make 
the debt, it was commenced twenty-five years ago ; 
and I may add that not one half of the men are now 
alive who were living in Ohio when the debt was first 
begun, and our system of public improvements enter¬ 
ed upon. It is not this generation then who contract¬ 
ed this debt; they had for the most part received it 
from those who have gone before them, along with our 
public improvements. The debt must be paid un¬ 
doubtedly, but when, in what manner, and by whom, 
are the real questions at issue. Now we here under¬ 
take to say that it shall be paid by certain people who 
are to reside in this State from this date until twenty- 
eight years hence; that in little more than a quarter 
of a century the men who have not created this debt 
are to pay every dollar of it! Where is the policy of 
any such measure as that? Now I say it is much bet¬ 
ter to pay the interest punctually and to provide that 
no increase shall be made to the debt, and that we 


have already provided for. We have provided for the 
payment of the interest, let us then provide for the 
iiltimarte payment of the debt, as the people may desire, 
from time to time. I for one would not like to see it 
paid in twenty-eight years, unless there should happen 
to be years of prosperity, for the reason that I think it 
would burden the people too much to be obliged to pay 
it in that time. 

Now, suppose I were to make another proposition, 
and say that the payment of this debt shall not begin to 
be made until twenty-eight years from this time, and 
then that it should all be paid in a term of twenty-five 
years. Would thatlook equitable ?—would it be right, 
in order to get clear of this debt in one generation, to 
impose the entire burden on the people of the next 
generation? It would certainly not be right. Why, 
then, make us pay the entire of this debt in our gene¬ 
ration?—a debt that was created, not for our own ben¬ 
efit exclusively, but in the construction of great and 
useful public works, that are to endure for many gen¬ 
erations. Any one can see the injustice of it. We 
have no more right to say it shall be paid by the peo¬ 
ple who are to live here during the next twenty-eight 
years, than we have to say it sliall be paid by the peo¬ 
ple who will live during the succeeding twenty-eight 
years. What do the committee propose ? In their de¬ 
sire to pay this debt, they have imposed a heavy lax on 
the the yeople for the next twenty-eight years. Now, 
sir, in the year 1850, we undertake to say—no matter 
what are the circumstances of the State—no matter 
how disastrous the times may be—no matter how the 
people may be prostrated by war, by famine, or any 
other misfortune—we speak in advance, and say that 
this generation shall pay $1,250,000 in every year,until 
the debt is all ])aid. This matter of taxation should 
always be accommodated to present circumstances, 
and to the exigencies and necessities of the times; 
therefore to look along a period of twenty-eight years, 
and impose for each successive year a fixed, rigid, and 
unalterable tax, is what I can never consent to. Who 
wants this debt paid? Do our creditors ? If they did 
—if they were suffering for the money—I would say 
let us pay it at any sacrifice—not so much, however, 
for the sake of subsequent generations, as for that of 
our creditors. But our creditors desire that the least 
of all things. They do not want payment—on the con¬ 
trary, when you come to pay, they prefer to extend the 
time. And they now give us a premium of from fifteen 
to twenty per cent, for postponing the payment of a 
part of the debt from 1850 to 1875. There is no suf¬ 
fering among the creditors. Who else is suffering, 
that it must be paid ? They say the people are suf¬ 
fering from the taxation, occasioned by this debt.— 
From what ? A taxation only sufficient to pay the in¬ 
terest on our debt: that is the burden. And how is it 
to be remedied ? By increasing the burden—adding 
to the tax, so as to make us pay not the interest only, 
but all the principal in about a quarter of a century. 
That is a new mode of relieving us of excessive taxa¬ 
tion ! To be sure we have that prospect twenty-eight 
years hence. There is great consolation in such a pros¬ 
pect! especially to those who are sure they will live 
to realize it! There is great consolation to the present 
generation, no w taxed to extremity in meeting the in¬ 
terest, that they are to be taxed yet more severely to 
pay all the principal, in order that another generation 
may go scot free, and en joy all the benefit without any 
of the burden! Sir, the rule of equity-—the measure 
of right is, that we of this generation, having as it were 
but a life estate in these public works, should kep down 
the interest, and pay our rateable share of the principal. 

Now in regard to this scheme altogether, I have 
very great difficulty. It is most improvident, in a 
financial point of view, to raise a tax from year to 
year with no provision as to how it is to be applied— 
with no provision to save it from the reproach of being 
a wasteful system. The plan begins by raising $1,- 
150,000 annually, of which $900,000 goes to pay the in- 








442 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


terest of the debt, and leaving a fund of $250,000 to go 
annually towards the payment of the principal. In 
1852, according to the estimale of the committee, our 
reducible debt will be $15,000,000. The portion of 
this annual tax which is to pay interest, will always 
find a ready application, for the intei’est is payable 
semi-annually. That part will never lie idle—but how 
will it be as to so much as is to be applied to the prin¬ 
cipal of the debt? You can only pay your debt as it 
becomes due—and though you have the money you 
must wait for the day of payment. Let us see, then, 
when the debt falls due. About $3,685,000 falls due 
this year. That was not paid at all, it was postponed 
until 1875, by which operation we received as a pre¬ 
mium more than $300,000. That is even better than 
canal tolls—it is clear gain. 

Mr. RE EMELIN, in his seat. What is the amount 
of the debt? 

Mr. STANBERY. Nearly $4,000,000, which goes 
over to 1875. The next item is the 7 per cents, paya¬ 
ble in 1851; they amount to $1,400,000. We have 
sufficient of the surplus revenue fund to pay them 
without taxation Passing over that, the next debt 
that falls due is the debt of 1856, four years after the 
beginning of this plan. For four years your annual 
sinking fund must accumulate. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. There is enough 
to be paid every year, as the report now states. You 
have $400,000 of domestic bonds. 

Mr. STANBERY, Two years will pay them. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Not by the report. 

Mr. STANBERY, Is this accumulated revenue to 
lie idle ? The gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Haw¬ 
kins] says not. 

Mr. HAWKINS. About 4,000,000 dollars will be¬ 
come due, now according to the report we cannot post¬ 
pone these debts so that they will absorb all the reve¬ 
nue. 

Mr. STANBERY. Certainly you cannot postpone 
any part of the debt as it becomes due; and you can¬ 
not make a temporary investment of the sinking fund. 
This system admits of no such arrangement, however 
necessary or profitable they might be. The sinking 
fund is raised by taxation every year, and can only be 
applied to debts falling due at intervals—a part, as I 
have said, in 1856, and other items in 1860, 1870 and 
1875. There must be periods in which the fund will 
lie idle and accumulate, unless you go into Wall street 
and in anticipation of the day of payment, buy up our 
bonds at high premiums. This will not be submitted 
to by the people. 

No system of taxation can be worse than that which 
collects money, and keeps it in vaults, for years before 
it can be used. It is much better to leave it in the 
hands of the people until it can be used. This plan of 
accumulation is all usury, and worse still since we are 
to have no Legislature even, to look after the money, 
oftener than once in two years. 

For one, I very much prefer to leave the whole mat¬ 
ter to the Legislature. I am averse to such minute¬ 
ness of detail in the constitution. I can see difficul¬ 
ties, but do not pretend to anticipate them all. I can 
see that even as a question of profit and loss, the sys¬ 
tem is anything but profitable. But this is the least of 
the objections. 

What authority have we for such distrust in the Leg 
islature ? What right have we. especially, to impose a 
tax for such a series of years?—to take away for so 
long a period the most vital power of the legislative 
body—the power of taxation—the power to say. in each 
successive year, how much or how little the people 
shall pay in the way of taxes ? In point of fact this 
system divorces taxation and representation. No one 
is more desirous than myself of preserving the faith of 
the State. I am for paying the interest punctually; and 
from time to time, according to the circumstances and 
ability of the people, to pay our fair proportion of the 
principal. As a mere question of justice, it would be 


quite as just to take a hundred years for the payment 
of the principal, as twenty-eight. No doubt it will be 
paid of!'long before that time, and possibly before the 
shorter period fixed in the report. In some years, 
with abundant crops—with large revenues from the 
public works—we may spare a million to go towards 
the principal. In other years we might not be able to 
pi’ovide even for the interest by taxation, and be com¬ 
pelled to resort to a temporary loan. 

Look now at this fixed rule for the next twenty- 
eight years—the same amount to be raised in years of 
adversity as in years of prosperity-—nothing of gradua¬ 
tion—MO accommodation to changing circumstances 
but an iron rule, that in every year exac s the same 
sum. If, like New York, our canals yielded a revenue 
sufficient to produce a uniform sinking fund, I would 
follow the example of that Stae. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The sinking fund of New York 
does not amount to the interest on $25,060,000 the 
debt of that Slate. 

Mr. STANBERY. The gentleman from Morgan 
will see. by looking into the New York constitution, 
that the sinking fund I allude to, applies to the canal 
debt of that State, which is only about $15,000,000. 
New York lias a further debt, called the general fund 
debt. That State has with great providence pledged 
so much of her canal revenues to the payment of both 
principal and interest upon the canal debt. 1 see no 
objection to such a pledge in a constitution, and shall 
move for a similar pledge to be put in our constitution 
before we get through with this report. But any one 
can see the difference between such a pledge which 
in fact protects the people from taxation—and the plan 
now proposed, which is based almost wholly on taxa- 
tion. 

Sir, I think on the subject of the State debt, we shall 
have done enough in this Convention, when we have 
put a stop to the increase of the debt—when we have 
renewed, in this solemn instrument, the pledge that the 
faith of the State shall be kept inviolate—and when we 
tjave instructed the representatives of the people to 
provide for the punctual payment of the interest and 
the gradual and the ultimate payment of the principal. 
That is quite as far, as I for one, feel authorized to go. 
If I could look through this cycle of twenty-eight ye.jrs 
—if I could only see so far into the future as to know 
that in all that time the people would be able to raise 
this fixed sum, I would not hesitate. Tliose who are to 
come after us—those who in all these years will come 
Here as the immediate representatives of the people— 
will understand this matter much better than we can 
anticipate it—and with them I would leave it. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The gentleman seems to have as¬ 
sumed that the people of the State are not to be taxed 
unless we now place a tax upon them. They are at 
present required to pay $900,000 as interest. Now, to 
that extent the gentleman is perfectly satisfied the peo¬ 
ple should be oppressed and oppressed lor a century 
to come; but add $100,000 for the purpose of coin- 
mencing the payment of this public debt, and that is 
the point at which, in his opinion, oppression com¬ 
mences. 

Mr. STILWELL moved to reconsider the vote of 
this morning striking out from the seventh section the 
words, “ one million one hundred thousand.’’ 

Mr. RANNEY said, he would detain the committee 
but for a moment. Fie wished to make a brief state¬ 
ment of his view’s, being somewhat inclined to lavor 
the position of the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. 
Stanbery,] but not for the reasons stated by that gen¬ 
tleman. He was perfectly satisfied with the policy of 
the committee in providing for the early extinguish¬ 
ment of the State debt; but he had some doubts about 
fixing the manner of doing so, as an iron rule in the 
constitution. Who could say that for the next ihii ty 
years, the people were going to be able to meet the 
demand proposed every year. We know that there 
have been, and that there may occur again, a great 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


443 


many accidents and reverses, and no man could say 
what accident or reverse might overtake the people in 
the course of the next third part of a century, and pre¬ 
vent this sum from being raised annually, as proposed 
by the committee. Were it a fact about which he 
could be fully satisfied, that no such misfortune would 
occur, he would vote with pleasure for the scheme. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, interrupting. Did the gentleman 
contemplate any contingency which might prevent the 
payment of the interest of the debt? 

Mr. RANNBY. He did not contemplate any contin¬ 
gency which might prevent either the payment of the 
interest or the raising of a sinking fund—he hoped 
no such would arise—but who could say that such a 
contingency might not arise? He did not think this 
matter of the payment of the debt, was a thing about 
which the Legislature would be apt to be very remiss. 
They were themselves already looking to the raising 
of a sinking fund. The bare computation in figures 
made by the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitch¬ 
cock] and by the gentleman from Muskingum, [Mr. 
Stilwell,] might satisfy us as to the propriety and 
policy of sinking the debt in this way. The scheme 
of the committee was to run 28 years, in order to the 
extinguishment of the whole debt, and it would re¬ 
quire but the payment of a little more than five mil¬ 
lions above the annually accruing interest upon the 
debt as it now stands, to pay it all olF, interest and 
principal. The plan of the gentleman from Musking¬ 
um was to run 40 years, and pay a smaller sum annu- 
ally. 

From these estimates, it was plain, to his mind, that 
the people of Ohio were not going to be kept in debt. 
They were anxious to pay their debts—they knew that 
it was to be paid, and felt that their honor was pledg¬ 
ed lor it, and they were determined that it should be 
paid as rapidly as possible. This was a just and natu¬ 
ral feeling. No man could feel willing to rest, year 
alter year, under the burden of a debt, without strug¬ 
gling to avoid the necessity of paying an annual inter¬ 
est, or rent: so it was with the people of Ohio. They 
would certainly make this their policy, to be pursued 
with undeviating firmness. But no man could tell 
what circumstances might arise, which would ren¬ 
der it exceedingly improper to place the people in 
a situation where they would be compelled to supply a 
very large sinking fund every year; therefore, he 
thought that some discretion should be given to the 
Legislature, to suspend the requirements of taxation 
for this purpose, if necessity should require it: and 
therefore, he was at present induced to vote for some¬ 
thing like that which was proposed by the gentleman 
from Franklin. But as for thinking—as intimated by 
that gentleman—that we were to remain an indebted 
people, he utterly repudiated that idea. For, in the 
first place, the pecuniary policy of the State was against 
it; and in the next place, the very thoughts of being 
indebted was repugnant to the people; and further, 
such a policy would be to give ourselves up into the 
hands of the monied men of the State. It was his 
opinion that it would soon be found, that it would be 
a harder job for the State to get the liberty to pay this 
debt, than it would be to get the money to pay it; and 
why|? Every claim—as is well known—existing 
against this great State, was perfectly good, and this 
was a fact known to every monied man. Then, 
whenever a monied man gets hold of the stocks of 
the State, he will struggle to keep them outstanding, 
in order to make a plan for permanent and safe inve.st- 
ments. And there was another reason why he would 
do so. These stocks had so far been entirely exempt¬ 
ed from taxation, therefore, those who are so fortunate j 
as to hold State stocks to a considerable amount, would 
escape entirely from supporting their share of the bur¬ 
dens of the State. Did gentlemen think that the mon¬ 
ied men of Ohio, who could get their money into the 
State stocks—upon which they would be paying no 
tax—would be willing to have them paid off? Those 


who supposed they would do this willingly, were en¬ 
tirely mistaken ; therefore it was, that he said it would 
be a harder struggle to get the privilege of paying the 
State debt, than it would be to get the money to do it; 
of this, he had seen repeated indications, and particu¬ 
larly in the argument of the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin. 

Were it not for the consideration that he had men¬ 
tioned, he would be willing lo go for a proposition re¬ 
quiring a yearly reduction of the debt, to be irrevoca¬ 
bly fixed in the constitution. But he feared that, by 
such a proposition, we might require what, in the end, 
it might be impossible to comply with. Indeed, for 
himself, he hoped to see the debt paid, even in a short¬ 
er period than that indicated by the report, and the re¬ 
marks of the gentleman from Cuyahoga. It might not 
be done. It might be that the State could not do it in 
that time, but who could say what the great State of 
Ohio might be able to do in the next fifteen years ? If 
she should go on increasing 4n wealth, and in all the 
resources of greatness, the debt would be paid in less 
time than that; and such was his hope. Its extin¬ 
guishment, at the earliest day possible, was no less 
the policy, than the ardent wish of the people. 

But if, instead of putting the whole control of this 
matter in the hands of the people, if you are to keep 
the State stock out standing, either for the purpose of 
banking, or for the benefit of the stockholders; that 
would be a course of policy most revolting to his mind, 
ft would be making a miniature representation in this 
country of the monopolizing policy of the British gov¬ 
ernment, by which no stockholder can be required to 
bear the burdens of the State, and the Government 
turns constable for the stockholders to collect his inter¬ 
est money. Such a state of things was not to be long 
endured by a free people—one part of the population 
holding the stocks of the State and living exemptIrom 
taxation, and the government taxing the other portion 
of the population of the State to pay the interest ac¬ 
cruing and payable to the first class. With these views 
he vvas somewhat inclined to give some latitude, with 
reference to the adjustment of this matter, to the Legis¬ 
lative body; but, at the same time, he would favor the 
constant and steady accumulation of a sinking fund, in 
order to effect the payment of the debt at the earliest 
practicable period, consistent with the ability of the 
people to pay from year to year. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. I might concur in 
the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin [Mr. Stanbery] were it not that my early conceiv¬ 
ed opinions are against his proposition. If I under¬ 
stand him, he proceeds upon the hypothesis that a pub¬ 
lic debt is a public blessing, and seems to deem it im¬ 
material whether our debt shall be paid for one hun¬ 
dred years. 

Mr. STANBERY interrupting. I find myselfcompel- 
led, Mr. Chairman, very much against my will, to restate 
my position. I mentioned the term of onehundred years 
when speaking of the justice and equality in the mat¬ 
ter of distributing the payment of the debt. I did nOt 
say it was proper or expedient to defer the payment for 
one hundred years. If my arguments are to be an¬ 
swered, I wish them to be answered as I delivered 

them. . 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I may have been mistaken, Mr. 
Chairman, but I certainly did understand the gentle¬ 
man to intimate that such a continuance of the debt 
would be no disadvantage to the people. 

Mr. STANBERY. No injustice to the people. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK proceeded. Mr. Chairman, my 
political opinions were formed in times and under cii- 
cumstances which led me to the conclusion that a 
public debt was not a public blessing, but the contrary; 
and that it is as much for the interest of a State to pay 
off and satisfy its debts, as for individuals to pay and 
satisfy their private debts. As respects economy, I 
know of no difference in the cases, hence I apprehend 
the <Tentleman from Franklin, in the management of 









444 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


his own private concerns, would not, in ordinaiy cases, 
continue to pay interest on a debt, for the sake of pay* 
ing the interest, when he was abundantly able to pay 
the principal. 

I doubt very much whether we should be doing jus¬ 
tice to posterity, in leaving our present existing debt to 
be paid by that posterity, provided we were able to 
pay it ourselves. Posterity may be, and will be bene- 
titted by our public works; but this is no good reason 
why the burden of paying for those works should be 
transmitted with the works themselves to those who 
may come after us. Actuated by motives of this char¬ 
acter, it might be that future generations, as well as 
the present, would postpone the payment of the prin¬ 
cipal of the debt, leaving the interest to be paid annu¬ 
ally, or semi-annually, in all future time. Surely such 
would not be good policy, let the justice of the matter 
be as it may. Such perpetual payment of interest 
wold be bad policy in an individual. It is equally bad 
policy for the State. 

An individual may with propriety contract a debt for 
the purpose of effecting a particular object; but when 
the object is attained, prudence dictates 'hat the debt 
should be discharged as soon as possible, lest the T>ny- 
meiit of interest should overbalance all benefits deri 
ved from the attainment of the object. Our existing 
debt was contracted for the purpose of improving the 
condition of the State. It is useless to inquire as to 
the policy of the measure. My own opinion is that it 
was a wise policy. But the object has been attained. 
The improvements have been made, the debthasbeen 
conti acted, and, pursuing the course which would be 
politic for an individual, we should make efforts ade¬ 
quate to its repayment in a reasonable time. 

The original proposition of the committee was, to 
pay the interest annually, and tw(i hundred and fifty 
thousand dollars towards the principal of the debt.— 
This payment towards the principal to be increased 
just as fast as the interest was diminished. The present 
proposition is, to pay one hundred thousand dollars 
towards the principal, increasing the payment upon the 
principal as the payment of the interest is diminished. 
By adopting this system, it is supposed the entire debt, 
priuci[)al and interest, will be discharged in forty years. 
I am in favor of the proposit on because I am desirous 
tliedebt should be paid, and that we may look forward 
to the time wlien the State will be relieved from the 
burden cast upon her by our works of internal improve¬ 
ment. The debt may be paid within the period of 
forty years, if the General Assembly shall, from time to 
time, think proper to make additional appropriations. 

One objection urged to this measure is, that the peo¬ 
ple are now severely taxed—taxed to the utmost ex¬ 
tent of their ability to pay, and that the imposition of 
any further burden would break them down. To this 
it might be answered, that in point of fact the amount 
of taxation will be less than it now is, instead of be¬ 
ing increased. 

But aside from this, let it be admitted that the tax 
will be increased, what will be the amount of that in¬ 
crease ? It must be remembered that it is proposed to 
raise but one hundred thousand dollars over and above 
the interest, and all agree that the interest must be 
paid. To raise this one hundred thousand dollars, will 
require a tax less than one-fourth of a mill upon the 
doll ir in the grand list. Is it possible that this will be 
such a monstrous burden upon the public that they can 
not bear up under it? It seems to me not. 

1 know that our taxes are heavy, that they are severe 
upon us. I know they have been much increased, and 
ought not to be further increased except for sutlicient 
reasons. But we certainly must know that the ability 
to pay has increased with as much rapidity as has in¬ 
creased the amount of taxation. Those gentlemen up¬ 
on this floor, who were in active life, previous to year 
1825, when our improvements were commenced, will 
testify that the burden of taxation is.less felt now, than 
it was then—at that [)eriod the taxes were emphatical¬ 


ly trifling, but it was extremely difficult to collect 
them. Defalcations were not unfrequently equivalent 
to one-fourth of the duplicate. Now, notwithstanding 
the immense increase of taxation, those taxes aie paid 
with comparative ease. The amount of defalcations 
cannot exceed three per cent, upon the amount levied. 
Sir, I ca.inot—I do not believe that the people vvill con¬ 
sider the payment of this hundred thousand dollars to 
be a burden, if they are convinced that it is to be ap¬ 
plied to the extinguishment of the principal of the 
debt, and that the debt is to be eventually paid. In my 
opinion they would prefer that the amount should be 
doubled so that the debt might be sooner paid. 

Such, Mr. Chairman, are my views upon this sub- 
jent. I wish to see a clause inserted in the constitu¬ 
tion, which will preserve inviolate the plighted faith 
of the State, and at the same time secure the redemp¬ 
tion of our out standing debt within a reasonable tinm. 
With such a provision, I believe the people would be 
satisfied, and that it would be highly advantageous to 

us as a community. , 

The question was then taken upon Mr. Stilwell s 
motion to reconsider, and it was lost. Affirmative 40 
negative 41. . 

Mr, HAWKINS said that before the vote was taken 
to insert in the blank the sum of nine hundred and hfty 
thousand dollars, he wished to offer a few remarks. 
The gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] as¬ 
sumes that the people of Ohio are not willing to pay 
the taxes imposed upom them. He is perfectly willing 
to tax the people the sum of nine hmidred thousand 
dollars annually for the payment of interest, but add 
another hundred thousand for the payment of principal, 
and you pass at once, in his opinion, the point of en u- 

The debt of the State we set down in round num¬ 
bers at sixteen millions, and we propose to pay it off in 
the period of thirty years. In order to do so, we pro¬ 
pose to raise the amount of five millions seven himdied 
thousand dollars, in addition to what will be sufficient 
for the purpose of paying the interest merely, and that 
will, at the end of the period, extinguish the whole 
debt, principal and interest. The gentleman from 
Franklin is an excellent special pleader. A few days 
ago he gave us glowing accounts of the prosperity of 
the State, and the firm basis upon which its fortunes 
were founded. Now he is full of forebodings as to the 
future. Although in harder times than these, we have 
])aid a larger sum, still, it pleases him to represent the 
State as in a retrograde movement, and in dauger of 
not being able to pay a sum equal to what we paid seven 
years ago. I am afraid he is going to be successful. I 
am afraid the funding system is destined to prevail. If 
such is the case, I should like to know if the calcula¬ 
ting Jews have not made a good bargain ? No doubt 
they thought the trade a good one, when they exchanged 
their stocks falling due this year, for new ones payable 
in 1870. They look upon themselves as perfectly se¬ 
cure. We have for its payment, mortgaged property 
to the value of four hundred and forty millions. I ra¬ 
ther think, notwithstanding the boasted premium which 
has been paid by theui, they have got the best of the 

bargain. . . , • , t ^ 

The annual interest, when the principal is reduced to 
fifteen millions, will be nine hundred thousand dollars; 
and I beg leave to inquire if there is any danger if we 
add one hundred thousand dollars more to it for the re¬ 
duction of the principal. In the course of thirty years, 
the plan submitted by the committee, if adopted, will 
save the sum of ten million three hundred thousand 
dollars. Would not that be a speculation worth atten¬ 
ding to? At any rate, it is the kind of transaction that 
I like. I do not like this premium which has been 
paid to the State, nor the consideration for which it has 
been paid. It is too much like the hire of prostitution 
—paying for a privilege that should never be granted. 
A year or two ago we raised and paid the sum of one 
million one hundred and forty seven thousand dollars 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 445 


of interest. Now we are greater, richer, more numer¬ 
ous and more wealthy, and yet the gentleman fears 
we may retrograde, and that it will be unsafe to fix the 
rule at one million, or to require within one hundred 
and forty-seven thousand dollars of what we then paid 
without serious distress. Then we had a taxable pro¬ 
perty of only one hundred and forty millions; now of 
four hundred and forty. 

I know there is a certain class which desire that the 
debt should be perpetuated. That class looks upon it 
as a ready means of fleecing the people. Every thir¬ 
teen years, the interest we pay will equal the p'rinci- 
pal, and little do they care how often the process is re¬ 
peated. They are willing to postpone the debt. They 
are lenient creditors, only desiring the interest; neve*' 
the principal. Sir, the people have been seduced by 
such considerations before. They have been led into 
extravagant investments, merely because money was 
easily obtained. I hope to put an end to these pros¬ 
pects of the debt’s perpetuity by fixing some amount to 
be paid more than the mere interest, and I hope to fix 
it here. 

If the present motion prevails, one hundred thou¬ 
sand dollars will be applicable to reduce the principal. 
Will this be too much? Can we not venture so much? 

Another item has been brought in to swell the 
amount, and that is the irredeemable debt of the State. 
What is this irredeemable debt, thusat this time brought 
in as a disturbing element? It is the school funds of 
the State, entrusted to the treasury for keeping, and 
upon which we pay interest, as but another way of sup¬ 
porting our schools. If we do not do it in one way we 
do in another. The gentleman seems to be willing that 
the debt should continue an hundred years. I must 
say, I hope not. I confidently hope that a rule and 
means will be fixed by which it will end in the period 
of thirty years. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said he had been figuring a little, 
and desired to occupy a few moments only in laying the 
result before the committee. He was opposed to the 
amendment upon which the vote was now to be taken— 
the sum of nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars, be¬ 
cause it is too small for a sinking fund. Its operation 
will be too slow, and it will protract the payment of 
the debt too far. He wanted the sum of one hundred 
thousand dollars, and was in favor of the amendment 
proposed by the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Arch¬ 
bold.] The gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] 
thinks we had better go on, content to pay the inter¬ 
est, and let posterity take care of themselves and the 
principal. In forty years, with a sinking fund, com¬ 
mencing with one hundred thousand dollars, we pay 
the whole State debt. In the same period, calculating 
the interest at nine hundred thousand dollars, and pay¬ 
ing that alone, and nothing upon the principal, and we 
shall, at the end have paid the sum of thirty-six millions 
of dollars,and be then precisely where we are now,with 
the sixteen millions upon our shoulders, to begin again, 
or to throw it upon posterity. In the one case, we 
have paid the whole, principal and interest, in the oth¬ 
er we have paid thirty-six millions of interest and no 
principal. Is this good economy or not ? In general 
the rule holds good, that that which is good policy for 
individuUs is good policy for the State. The proposition 
of the gentleman from Franklin is to mortgage the 
public estate for one hundred years, to secure the in¬ 
terest with, after all no certain provision for the pay¬ 
ment of the pi’incipal. 

It is not necessary for me to go into an elaborate ex¬ 
planation of the working of this plan. By that of the 
gentleman from Franklin, in forty years we pay thirty 
millions and owe sixteeenat the end; by that proposed 
by the gentleman from Monroe, an addition of four 
millions to the sixteen which composes the debt will 
sink both principle and interest of the whole State 
debt. 

Now, if we enter into a calculation, will the burthen of 
this payment seem so very heavy ? Let us look at its pres¬ 


sure upon individuals. The State of Ohio has two mil- 
lions of people, of whom it is safe to say, one fifth are 
tax payers. The amount to be raised each year is one 
hundred thousand dollars, which divided among four 
hundred thousand tax payers, makes the sum of 
twenty-five cents to each man—equal perhaps to two 
sherry cobblers each year for forty years. And this 
will lelease us from the burthen of our State debt. 

But weare told that it is an enormous load, too great 
to be undertaken by a single generation, and that if we 
proceed in this manner, our children will rise up in 
judgment against us. Figures do not in general lie; 
and I believe my estimate to be correct. 

Again; it is alDSolutely necessary <hat we make some 
provision for the payment of this debt. If we do not, 
I do not say that the people will I’epudiale, but I do 
say that unless the peo[)le see some scheme by which 
an end to this taxation is to be reached, the people will 
not pay. 

Mr. STANBERY. Do I understand the gentleman 
to say, that but for the assembling of this Convention 
the [)eople of the State would have went for repudia¬ 
tion ? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. No. I do not say so. The Legis¬ 
lature of 1849 made a provision, which has prevented, 
and would have prevented such an event. 'J'hat pro¬ 
vision was similar to the plan proposed by the gentle¬ 
man from Monroe. By it, one hundred thousand dol¬ 
lars is each year, together with the interest on the sum 
previously paid, applied to the liquidation of the prin¬ 
cipal. That law is now in operation, and we are re¬ 
ceiving the benefit of it, and by this provision in the 
constitution we seek to make it perpetual. Butl do be¬ 
lieve that unless some policy ol this kind is adopted 
and made permanent by the constitution, the peo 2 )le 
will refuse to pay—will repudiate. 

Again, this debt was increased for the construction of 
works in particular sections of the State ; while there 
are other large districts, that have received no benefit 
whatever from these establishments. At the first, 
these portions, in virtue of the increased value of their 
property, occasioned by the public improvements, were 
taxed higher, and bore a larger proportion of the bur¬ 
then. Now the case is ditferent and the case is chang¬ 
ing. By means of railroads and other works construct¬ 
ed by the people themselves, the property in those sec¬ 
tions where there are no public works, is rising, and the 
result is, they are taxed higher, and every year increas¬ 
es the inequality. There should be a set time when 
this is to be got rid of, and if we do not do it, the peo¬ 
ple will. 

Another reason, and I have done. I do not want the 
public debt of the State to remain as a basis for bank¬ 
ing operations, of any kind, whether of the State, free, 
or independent varieties ; nor that it shall furnish the 
instruments for men to gamble with, at home or abroad. 
And I hold the duty of States as of individuals, to be 
out of debt, and to remember and abide by the injunc¬ 
tion, “ owe no one anything.” 

He hoped the amendment now under consideration 
would not be adopted, but that the next proposition to 
come up, being that of the gentleman from Monroe, 
would be adopted—that plan having been already vir¬ 
tually-approved by the people; being one that in forty 
years will release us entirely of the State debt, impo¬ 
sing for that purpose no heavier burthen than four mills 
upon a dollar of the taxable property of the State, ac¬ 
cording to its present valuation. 

Mr. STANBERY. I will answer. If I know the 
people of Ohio, and their opinions, they think they are 
taxed too much. It is true that they have for years 
borne a heavy taxation—as heavy as it was possible for 
men to endure. This proposes to increase it. 01 course, 
the endurance of the past does not furnish the rule. It 
is the last feather that breaks the camel’s back. Now, 
I do not propose to allow this debt to go unpaid for for¬ 
ty years—no such thing. It may be paid even more 
rap'idly than is provided by this plan. What I ask is, 








446 ' CONVENTION REPORTS. 


to leave it to the Legislature, to regulate in proportion 
to the ability of ihe people, and not to bind us down 
under the stern demands of an indexible iron rule. 

Mr. STILWELL. I know that the people pay wil¬ 
lingly even when they pay with difficulty. Still to re- 
leive themselves ultimately, they would gladly pay 
something in addition. But we do not make a large 
increase. The gentleman, in his argument, did not 
state the case fairly. It is not proposed to increase the 
taxation two hundred and fifty ihousand dollars. Could 
we only elect between that and nothing, I would take 
the former. The Convention has not determined to do 
either. The gentleman admits that the sum of nine 
hundred thousand dollars must be paid. Surely the ad¬ 
dition is not'so great as to be very formidable. 

The gentleman from Franklin complains because this 
is not a full system of finance. He admits that the in¬ 
terest is to be paid and the principal is to be paid, and 
this provides for both. But he complains that it is not 
pointed out in what particular manner the one and the 
other shall be done. Here he demands detail, while 
in other affairs he condenses it, and desires that a large 
discretion be reposed in the General Assembly. We 
shall have performed our duty when we have declared 
the leading features of the system. 

Again, he says, if we levy one hundred or one hun¬ 
dred and fifty thousand dollars per year, it cannot al¬ 
ways be appropriated to the immediate pay ment of any 
part of the public indebtedness. There is no part due 
between the years 1860 and 1870, and the money must 
lie in the hands of the commissioners, unpioductive 
and unappropi’iated. There is no difficulty here. The 
General Assembly can so apportion the payment as to 
meet each sum as it tails due, without inconvenience. 

Mr. STANBERY. Every year we are to have, ac¬ 
cording to this plan reported, one million one hundred 
and fifty thousand dollars; nine hundred thousand of 
which is to pay the accruing interest, the remainder to 
accumulate on hand until some part of the debt falls 
due. It goes into the hands of the cpmmissioner. The 
report provides that it “shall be paid over to the com¬ 
missioners;” “and it shall be the duty of the commis¬ 
sioners of the sinking fund faithfully to apply said fund, 
together with all moneys that may be by the Legisla¬ 
ture appropriated to that object, to the payment of the 
interest as it becomes due, and the redemption of the 
principal of the public debt of the State, excepting on¬ 
ly the school and trust funds held by the State.” 

Now I ask, what is to be done with the sinking fund 
prior to the time when the debt to be paid falls due ? 

Mr. STILWELL. It is no objection that the scheme 
proposed is imperfect, so long as there remains with us 
the power to render it perfect. A few verbal additions 
to the section quoted by the gentleman from Franklin 
will easily remedy all the defects he points out; and 
the details of the system can be easily arranged. 

It seems to me that the arguments of the gentleman 
from Franklin are now all answered, except that in re¬ 
lation to annual sessions of the General Assembly. This 
probably is not so important to us as to those who re¬ 
side in Columbus. That subject is not now under de¬ 
bate, and has really nothing to do with the present 
matter. It is still an important one, and when it comes 
up in its order shall receive due attention. 

Mr. Stillwell said he was willing to come up to the 
sum of one million of dollars as the total amount, and 
moved to reconsider the vote by which the amendment 
fixing that sum was rejected; which motion was sec¬ 
onded. 

The question being on filling the blank in the section 
with the words “ one million of,” Mr. Woodbury moved, 
to fill the blank with the sum of $999,000. 

Mr. SWAN. I suppose the principal question now 
before the committee is, whether it be good policy to 
take immediate steps to pay off* the public debt, or to 
postpone its payment to an indefinite period. I desire 
in this connection to show by figures how the account 
would stand with the people in case this debt remains 
unpaid lor the period of thirty years. 


The interest to be paid annually on $16,000,000 is 
$960,000. The expense annually of collecting these 
$960,000 is at least five per centum, making an addi¬ 
tional sum of $48,000. 

The people therefore pay annually on this debt at 
least $1,008,000. At the end of thirty years these an¬ 
nual payments will amount to $.30,240,000. But this is 
not all. It is fair to estimate the simple interest on the 
amount annually paid from the time of its payment to 
t'leend of thirty years. The simple interest, then on the 
amount annually paid on account of the debt amounts, 
at the end of thirty years, to $26,896,540. The account 
therefore, at the end of thirty years, will stand thus: 

Amount paid as interest and expense on the pub¬ 


lic debt. $30,240,000 

Simple interest on the amount so paid from the 
time paid to the end of thirty years. 26,896,540 


Making the sum of. $57,136,540 


Fifty seven millions one hundred and thirty-six thou* 
sand five hundred and forty dollars! and, after all, not 
a cent of the public debt paid. 

That it is the true policy of State to pay off the pub¬ 
lic debt I do not entertain a doubt. Not having been 
present at the discussion of this subject, I shall not 
trouble the committee with any general remarks upon it. 

Mr. CLARK. And is there not a large amount saved 
in “premiums” ? 

Mr. SWAN. I had not taken that into the account. 

Mr. COLLINGS. As I understood the gentleman 
from Franklin [Mr. Swan], he said, the question now 
before us is, “ is it politic immediately to pay off our 
State debt?” I do not understand that there is any 
such question before the committee. But, sir, the ques¬ 
tion is, sfiall we proceed to make a constitution or a tax 
law—an organic law or a legislative code? For cer¬ 
tainly every man here is in favor of the prompt pay¬ 
ment of the public debt. 

Mr. GREGG. I am not in the habit of making mo¬ 
tions for the committee to rise, or for adjournments, but 
as the present question is a most important one, and as 
it is now six o’clock, I shall move that the committee 
rise. Let us take full time to deliberate upon this sub¬ 
ject, so that our action may stand the test of time and 
criticism. 

The committee rose, reported progress and obtained 
leave to sit again. 

And on motion the Convention adjoui'ned. 


WEDNESDAY, June 19, 1850. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Donahoo. 

Report number one of the committee on Apportion¬ 
ment was read the second time by its title and com¬ 
mitted to a committee of the whole convention. 

Mr. STILWELL offered the following resolution: 

•‘That, hereafte^r, when this Convention adjourns, it shall ad- 
joui-n to meet at 8 o’clock A. M., until otherwise ordered.” 

I would not think of offering a resolution of this kind 
affecting the convenience of members, without having 
had general consultation beforehand as to its propriety. 
I have had a consultation of this kind, and all concur 
with me, not for the purpose of increasing the length 
of the sessions, but with a distinct understanding that 
we shall take our recess an hour earlier than we have 
been in the habit of doing, and for the purpose of ha v¬ 
ing a convenient and pleasant time of the day in which 
to do our business. 

The question then being taken upon the adoption of 
the resolution, it was agreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER. I have a subject matter which I 
wish to bring before the Convention, although I am 
loath to intrude any such matter upon the notice of 
this body. I wish to call the attention of members to 
the remarks as published in the paper of yesterday, 
emanating from one of our members. Ido trust, that 
the gentleman did not mean to assert what he is report¬ 
ed to have said. I do not think that he meant really 
what the full force of his language would convey. For 
the purpose of permitting that gentleman to withdraw 













CONVENTION KEPOETS. 


entirely, or to modify llie strong expressions there used, 

I bring the matter beiore the Convention. I think it 
is an unjust imputation upon us as a body, and I think 
such imputations ought not to go forth unrebuked. I 
refer to the reported remarks of the gentleman from 
Licking, [Mr. Manon,] as they appear in the ‘'Ohio 
Slate Journal” published last evening. That gentle¬ 
man is made to say this: “Now, sir, I ask if any man 
in creation should come into this hall, (if he did not 
ask some person and learn vvhat was going on in that 
way) what would be the inevitable conclusion he 
would come to 1 Sir, I think he could come to the con¬ 
clusion that we had resolved ourselves into a committee 
of ruftians, blackguards, or something of that kind.” 

I think the gentleman could not mean to assert that 
we were a set of rnlHans and blackguards, and that any 
one looking into this hall would have been led to that 
conclusion. I hope, therefore, that he will explain to 
us, and say to us that he did not mean in this particular 
what he is alleged to have said. 

Mr. MANON. As I said upon another occasion, I 
will never back out from any thing 1 have said. Is the 
gentleman satisfied with this explanation I I will say 
further, that time and time again, if a stranger had 
come into this hall and listened to the speeches, he 
would have supposed that members were making 
speeches for the purpose of scaring or bullying some 
other members into their duty. I presume no man will 
deny this. I believe what 1 said and I shall not back 
out of it. 

Mr. SAWYER. I desired that the gentleman should 
have a right and opportunity to explain, and not charge 
the whole body of this Convention as he has done. If 
he has a private pique against some of the members, 
and. entertains certain opinions about them, I have no 
objections that he should retain those opinions, but he 
should not make them apply to all. I have never yet 
heard the word ‘“blackguard” upon this floor, nor any 
“bullying” except from that gentleman himself, and I 
have read his own speech in confirmation of what I 
have said. I wish to call the attention of the House to 
other remarks made by the gentleman in the same 
speech. 

“ But, sir, that is not where the shoe pinches. The 
gentleman, with others, has commenced here bullying 
some of the members of this Convention into the sys¬ 
tem of hard money. It, sir, has been commenced by 
having the tuppeny papers through the country to name 
and abuse a few members upon this floor. And now 
forsooth is the proper time for them to make what is 
called a strike. Some members seem to think (if we 
were to judge from their acts) that they knew all, and 
are not willing that others shall in any way exercise 
their own judgments.” 

Now this is the language used in this august body. 
But here again: “ One word to the gentleman from Lo¬ 
rain,” &c. “I will only say that I, at least on some 
occasions, am an advocate of individual liability, and 
will here say, that if that gentleman, or any other, 
makes personal or uncalled for attacks on me, here or 
elsewhere, that I will hold them not only to individual 
responsibility, but to personal responsibility to the 
fullest extent.” 

That language sounds like “bullying” to me. This 
is repeated in language more of the “ blackguard” or¬ 
der and more “ bullying ” than any heretofore heard 
from the same gentleman. I am charged here, with 
the other members of this Convention, with being a 
blackguard. For making this imputation I gave the 
gentleman liberty to take it back, but he has refused to 
do it; aud what has he just asserted ? I will inform the 
gentleman, however, that I am not to be intimidated 
from my duty by his rising here and threatening to turn 
me out of doors. Whenever I hear such threats, I am 
reminded of the maxim, “the dog that barks does not 
bite.” Now, Mr. Chairman, I have discharged a duty, 
and I have regretted the necessity that compelled me 
to perform it. I appeal to this House, whether I have 


447 


in any respect whatever pursued any other than a 
courteous and gentlemanly course towards both my po¬ 
litical friends and my political opponents since I have 
been a member here. 1 have myself seen nothing like 
“ bullying and blackguardism” here on the part of the 
members generally; and I venture to say, that strangers 
who may come into this Hall look upon us with far 
difl’erent feelings from those manifested by the gentle¬ 
man from Licking. Our course so far has been com¬ 
mended generally, and the people are pleased because 
we do not bandy political epithets from one side of the 
House to the other, and it has been remaiked, that we 
have universal harmony here. This is no party Con- 
vention, and it is a matter of rejoicing that our party 
animosities have been all left at home. Now I would 
remark, Mr. President, to the members of this Conven¬ 
tion, that this is the last notice I shall take from that 
quarter of anything said upon this floor or elsewhere. 

Mr. MITCHELL. As the gentleman from Auglaize 
appealed to me, I feel in duty bound, out of great re¬ 
spect for him and lor the members of this Convention, 
to make an explanation in i-egard to what hand I may 
have had in getting up this matter at home. 

Mr. SAWYER. That is the reason why I namedthe 
gentleman from Knox [Mr. Mitchell], in order to give 
him an opportunity to make a personal explanation. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I laid it down as a principle of 
action at the outset, when I first took my seat upon 
this floor, not to communicate with any paper upon iacts 
and occurrences transpiring here, or allow anything, 
either undermy authority or my signature, touching the 
conduct aud actions of any other member of this body to 
go forth to the world, only as it might be done here or 
elsewhere in simple discharge of duty. The action of 
this body is before the public, and has become the 
properly of the world. The public must judge of it 
from the sources that are abundant enough and through 
which they may obtain the most full and ample inlijr- 
mation without any action of mine. It is therefore a 
resolution upon my part, that I will not become the ve¬ 
hicle through which anything of this kind shall be 
communicated from this body. Anything that has 
passed through the papers in the county where I reside, 
I have iiad no connection with, either by written or 
verbal communication or otherwise. But, sir, it is my 
duty to say, that the gentleman who conducts that pa¬ 
per is a gentleman who understands well his duties and 
his rights, and will exercise them as boldly and fearless¬ 
ly as any inan living. He has not his superior as an 
editor in the State. So much I felt myself bound to say 
in regard to Mr. Dunbar. But, sir, while upon the 
floor, I desire to add one more word, iii concurrence 
with the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer], as 
to the manner in which discussions have been conducted 
in this Convention. I have made the remark here be¬ 
fore, that I was satisfied with the absence of all party 
animosity and feelings here. We cannot expect, Mr. 
Chairman, that we can entirely divest ourselves of all 
political consideration and political feelings, nor can it 
be expected that we should come here without our po¬ 
litical sentiments, honestly entertained beyond doubt. 
Nor, sir, is it to be desii’etl we should. The time will 
come, when it will be our duty to discuss these sub¬ 
jects openly aud boldly, but I trust with due respect for 
each others feelings, and I trust that no gentleman will 
feel it to be his duty to reflect upon his political oppo¬ 
nent, or in any manner wound his feelings as a man or 
a gentleman, simply because he difters with him in 
judgment on these subjects. The time criterion by 
which to regulate our conduct in the deliberations of 
such a body as this undoubtedly is, while you press 
with earnestness your honestly entertained opinions, 
carefully to abstain from using language that may be in 
any degree personally oftensive. This I take to be a 
true rule, both here and elsewhere, and if it is properly 
carried out will never give occasion for personal oftence, 
at the same time it leaves the field of political contro¬ 
versy open as wide as any manin his senses would ask. 












448 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Party animosity and party feelings are widely different 
from party difference in sentiment and judgment as to 
principle and policy; they are both different from per¬ 
sonal animosity and feelings. Having said this much, 
I feel that I have discharged the duty devolved upon 
me on an unpleasant occasion. 

Mr. SAWYER. I did not call the attention of the 
Convention at all to any publication that may have ap¬ 
peared in any of the papers touching the conduct of 
individuals here but to the remarks made by a member 
in relation to us na fellow members. 

Mr. CLARK, as reference had been made to him, 
claimed to say a word in explanation. The gentleman 
from Licking [Mr. Manon], in the speech referred to 
by the gentleuiau from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer], had 
cliargecl iiim as one among a number who had procured 
ai tides to be written and published in newspapers, re¬ 
flecting on him as being one of a number who on this 
floor in debate have attempted to bully him into the 
support of hard money doctrines. He [Mr. C.] had 
not seen a word in any newspaper reflecting upon the 
gentleman from Licking, nor had he written a word or 
procured a word to be written or published in any pa¬ 
per, reflecting upon him. He was not aware that the 
question of hard money had been agitated in this Con¬ 
vention. It had not to his knowledge been before the 
Convention for discussion or action. When the gentle¬ 
man from Licking made the remarks referred to, he 
regarded it as very improper—as a mass of unmeaning 
words and unworthy of notice. He not at any time 
entertained any desire or made any eftbrt to bully any 
gentleman into the support of that orany other measure. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. I do not rise as the advocate of 
the gentleman from Licking. That gentleman is well 
able to defend himself, and seems entirely disposed to 
do so; yet it seems to me if my friend from Auglaize, 
[Mr. Sawyer,] will give the matter a fair considera¬ 
tion, he will see that the gentleman from Licking, [Mr. 
Manon,] has been more sinned against than sinning. 
It is not my intention to utter one word calculated to 
add to ihe present excitement, but it is well known 
that the gentleman from Licking, together with a num¬ 
ber ol his friends, has been denounced in various coun¬ 
try papers in unmeasured terms. These gentlemen re¬ 
gard a legislative assembly as a deliberative body, and 
conceive that it is possible by calm discussion and labo¬ 
rious investigation to communicate ideas and work con¬ 
viction ill some degree. They do not believe them¬ 
selves possessed of all political wisdom, and they think 
that even the stock which they do possess may be im¬ 
proved by communication with others. Hence, al¬ 
though they do not wish to wear the garments cut out 
for them by political tailors who are utterly unknown 
to them, they are advocates for calm deliberation in 
this body, and they continually advise with their con¬ 
stituents, believing that the wudest communication be¬ 
tween the representative and the constituent is the 
best, so that these newspapers in denouncing one mem¬ 
ber of this Convention are in reality denouncing at least 
thirty thousand people, who are as much entitled to 
have their views and feelings made known here as the 
constituents of any other member. This dictatorial 
tone has produced a very natural irritation in the mind 
of my friend from Licking. It is not my intention to 
enter into any controversy with the public press, or 
with any part of it. No wise man will willingly enter 
upon such a controversy; it is most unequal. An edi¬ 
tor has the press at his command ; neither the members 
of the Convention nor the citizens at large have that 
advantage. An editor of a newspaper making an at¬ 
tack upon private citizens or public men, is a. soldier in 
full araiour, running about amongst the crowd with a 
drawn sword, dealing his blows at randorh at the in¬ 
stigation of caprice. It is not cowardice to decline the 
combat with such men, and I have no disposition to 
join issue with them. I wish them all possible happi¬ 
ness and, as a matter of course, I wish many of them 
to be much wiser and much better than they are at 


present, well knowing that there can be no permanent 
increase of happiness without an increase of wisdom 
and virtue. The diatribes of these men have produced 
a very natural irritation in the mind of the gentleman 
from Licking, but I am confident if my friend from 
Auglaize. [Mr. Sawyer.] will take this view of the 
subject he will see that the conduct which he censures 
admits of very natural extenuation. The French As¬ 
sembly in one of their best and happiest moments sac¬ 
rificed all their resentment on the altar of brotherly 
kindness. I propose therefore, in imitation of a pretty 
good example, that the spirit of harmony and brotherly 
kindness be restored to this Convention. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I wish to make a single enqui¬ 
ry in relation to the complaint of the gentleman from 
Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] and that is, whether the 
time of this convention should be taken up by com¬ 
ments on newspaper attacks or not? Now, sir, I say 
for myself, that I care not how much I may be assailed 
by any press in Ohio or elsewhere, I would never 
dream, for one single moment, that it was necessary 
for me to rise in my place here, and make a defence 
from such an assault. I have seen my action in this 
body misrepresented in several newspapers, but I care 
nothing about it. The public man who has not a char¬ 
acter which, standing upon its own foundation, resists 
all such assaults, has not a character worth preserving. 
We should be willing to trust to the intelligence of the 
people for a just understanding of our actions here, and 
a just appreciation of what transpires in this conven¬ 
tion ; and not be so sensitive to mere newspaper as¬ 
saults. I hope that hereafter when gentlemen have 
griefs against newspaper assailants, they will not come 
into this Hall for redress, but wreak their vengeance 
upon the newspapers themselves, in such a manner as 
will not annoy us here. I really trust that hereafter 
no gentleman will, upon any occasion, take up the 
time of this convention with newspaper assaults, how 
much soever he may feel himself aggrieved. 

Mr. CASE, ^f Licking. Perhaps it might be expect¬ 
ed, at least by my constituents, under the circumstances 
that have transpired this morning, that I should say 
something, since one of the delegates from the county 
which I in part represent, has been assailed by a mem¬ 
ber of this body. Now, sir, I do not z’ise here to en¬ 
dorse every thing that my colleague may have said or 
done, nor to condemn it. He is able to take care of 
himself. But. sir, I will say this — if he has said some 
things that are reprehensible, I am free to say, that he 
is not the only one. in my humble judgment, who has 
done so upon this floor, and upon this side of the 
House too. I have had no controversy with any one 
here, and I will not have any if I can avoid it. I wish 
to respect every man here, and to deserve the respect 
of all. But I have heard some things said here, that 
comes wi'hin the range of what has been ungracefully 
denominated by some person sending a petition here, 

“ dog whipping.” I really hope that this will be the 
very last of it which we shall hear. So far as I have 
heard expressions from my political friends at home 
and elsewhere, it is that they were disgusted with 
much that has transpired here among democratic mem¬ 
bers in this Flail, whipping in and abusing one another, 
defining what democracy is and what it is not, and 
charging that members are about to prove traitors to 
their constituents. I, for one, will recognize the right 
of no man to stand between me and my constituents. 

I, like other gentlemen who have expressed themselves 
upon this point, care not for newspaper assaults made 
beyond our control. I really trust that we will here¬ 
after try to attend to the business for which we are 
assembled here, and abandon entirely this abuse of one 
another. The Whig party on the other side of the 
House enjoy this sparring, and have a real feast of it, 
as we aB see. I, for one, come not here to act as a 
mere partizan, although elected as such, and counted 
a radical at home, for when I gave my votes for the 
organization of this body, I shook the dust off my feet 








CONVENTION EEPORTS, 


449 


as a testimony against party spirit, and party shackles, f 
so long as I sit here at least. 

In the votes which I may give liere, I shall not rep¬ 
resent mere party principles, but I shall look to the 
public good. First looking at the opinions of my con¬ 
stituents, but not, however, losing sight of the interests 
of the whole State — no terrors, no threats will influ¬ 
ence me in my course here. I do hope that this bick¬ 
ering and quarreling among democratic members of 
this body will cease with this day. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I wish merely to make a single 
remark in reference to the matter now under discus¬ 
sion. A portion of the people of this State saw fit to 
send to us a petition or memorial concerning our ac¬ 
tion here, — they saw fit in that petition to express the 
opinion that some members of this Convention were 
about to abandon the principles advocated by the par¬ 
ty who elected them as their representatives. Now 
the gentlemen upon this floor took it, that it was a high 
insult to this convention, and twenty-three or twenty- 
four members of this body voted substantially that 
such a thing could not be received in this Hall, and 
should be returned to the member who presented it, 
because it was an insult to themselves. Thirty-seven 
voted against referring it to the appi’opriate committee. 
Now, they have a perfect right so to vote, but it strikes 
me as exceedingly singular, when remarks were made 
by the gentleman from Licking, in which the members 
of this Convention were denounced as blackguards 
and other equally choice epithets, that the gentlemen 
who on yesterday were so sensitive, should upon the 
occasion when these remarks were made by the gen¬ 
tleman from Licking, have applauded, as they did.— 
When the gentleman from Licking told us that he went 
in for not only individual responsibility, but for per¬ 
sonal responsibility, there was in one part of the cham¬ 
ber a clapping of hands. I have always thought that 
the best mode to protect our own dignity, was to be 
dignified ourselves. If persons choose to send peti¬ 
tions of undignified character, we should treat them in 
a dignified manner, if we would retain our own dignity. 

Mr. CURRY. I rise, for one, to disavow the remark 
made, that we are deriving on this side of the House 
any enjoyment from this little family jar. I would say 
to the gentleman, that it is not at all participated in by 
myself, and I think we have gone far enough in this 
matter. I would move, therefore, that we proceed 
with the orders of the day. 

The motion being agreed to, the Convention then re¬ 
solved itself into a Committee of the Whole, [Mr. 
Sawyer in the chair,] and resumed the consideration 
of the report of the committee on 

PUBLIC WORKS AND PUBLIC DEBTS. 

The amendment pending when the House adjourned 
being Mr. Woodbury’s. 

Mr. WOODBURY. I moved to fill the blank with 
$999,000. I made that motion because I felt very anx¬ 
ious to get the largest amount that the committee would 
agree to, that should be applicable to the payment of 
the principal of the public debt; it is somewhat singu¬ 
lar that this public debt every time that it makes its 
appearance here, makes its appearance under a differ¬ 
ent aspect — the first time any thing was said upon the 
subject, it was said to be a debt of such vast amount 
that it was necessary that the Legislature should meet 
annually in order to make provision in relation to it,— 
a few days afterwards, on its reappearance the amount 
had been so much reduced it was considered of very 
small importance. It was so small that it would take 
but three per cent, of the taxable property of the State 
to pay the entire redeemable debt. Now the proposi¬ 
tion being made to make provision in the third section 
to raise the three per cent, upon the taxable property 
we are told that it is impossible for the people of the 
State to pay this sum in twenty-six years, which I think 
is a mistake, for it only amounts to $150 on $5,000, 
and I do think our people have sufficient tact to pay 
the $150 out of $5,000 in twenty-six vears. My anxi- 

29 " 


ety to have this debt paid off’ and the fear that the 
Legislature would not make provision for its payment 
was the reason why 1 made the motion, and the rea¬ 
sons for such fear was founded, in part, upon the fact 
that the Legislature heretofore, exclusive of donations 
from the United States, have failed to make provision 
for the payment of the interest on our public debt, and 
the expenses of the government; and our public debt 
at this time is about $2,700,000 more than it would be 
if they had done so; and as I understand there will be 
a motion made if mine is withdrawn, .which if agreed 
to, will create as large a sinking fund, 1 therefore, with 
leave of the committee, will withdraw my amend¬ 
ment. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. I move to amend 
the portion proposed to be stricken out as follows; 
strike out all after the word ‘‘shall,” in the 4th line, 
and insert: 

“Be sufficient to pay the accruing interest on the public debt of 
the State annually, to reduce the principal by a sura not less than 
a hundred thousand dollars, increased yearly and each and every 
year by compound interest at the rate of six pei' cent, per an¬ 
num.” 

Mr. Chairman, the section, if this amendment shall 
be adopted, will, I suppose, express the opinion of 
the gentleman from Monroe, at the same time that 
it recognises the payment of the interest, and leaves 
the matter in accordance with the wishes that some 
other gentlemen expressed yesterday. The committee 
had this mode of expressing the object under consider¬ 
ation, and they thought it better to state the aggregate 
sum which was to be raised, so that every body might 
understand it. The argument in favor of it was what 
I have now suggested; that it would make apparent to 
every citizen in the State, the precise amount which 
was to be raised annually. It was, however, suggest¬ 
ed, that it would appear better, and this would acco¬ 
modate the gentleman from Richland, [Mr. Kirkwood,] 
that there should be a specific amount that should go 
to the reduction of the principal every year. It is with 
this view that I have offered this amendment. 

Now, sir, in addressing the committee on yesterday, 
I regarded it as very immaterial, whether the amount 
we had fixed upon should be adopted, or a larger or a 
less amount. I am satisfied that the disposition of the 
committee is to reduce the amount. In the remarks 
made then, I had no other view than to present before 
the committee the facts in the case. I had, however, 
felt extremely solicitous to secure a provision which 
shall provide for the interest and reduce the principal 
of this debt annually, and especially do I feel so, since 
the argument of the learned gentleman from Franklin, 
[Mr. Stanbery,] yesterday, developing a disposition 
that I had not supposed existed upon this floor or any 
where else. I had heard in early life, the theory that 
a “public debt was a public blessing;” but having en¬ 
tered upon my political life just before “ Old Hickory ” 
had determined that the public debt should be paid off, 
and having, with a large portion of oiir citizens, fallen 
in with his theory to pay that debt, I had rested under 
the impression that the idea that a public debt was a 
public blessing, had been exjiloded. But, sir, 1 find 
the idea coming from a gentleman who probably is 
better acquainted with the feelings and wishes ot those 
who deal in our stocks to make money out of them, 
and who use them for that purpose, than any other gen¬ 
tleman upon this floor. VVe have also seen a wish 
manifested to stave off this debt, with the hope that it 
might be blotted out by some legislation, or by repudi¬ 
ation, or something else. We have iu community per- 
petualists, who wish this fund to be perpetuated, be¬ 
cause it furnishes a convenient investment for money 
without the payment of taxes, and a convenient basis 
for the purpose of securing the circulation of our banks. 
Now, sir, although I avowed myself yesterday, as I ever 
will hi favor of the system of free banking, I am not 
disposed to perpetuate the State debt, oi to iui nish any 
facilities for it in this way. Why, sir, the argument of 
the gentleman was directed not to the question which 









450 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


is now before us, but to the report of the committee, to 
show its absurdity, and his whole argument was based 
upon the hypothesis, that we were to pay the debt in 
twenty-eight years : although the committee had then 
voted to reduce the amount so as to take lorty years for 
the payment. 

It was said, that it was extremely hard to tax this 
generation, and tax them to pay it, in 28 years, or even 
in 40 years, and, indeed the gentleman seemed hardly 
willing that it should be paid at all. What is right 
upon this subject? Who created this debt, and what 
have we got ior it? What is our duty to the genera¬ 
tion that shall come after us? Shall we send down 
this debt of nineteen millions to them, or shall we put 
our hands to the work, and reduce that debt as far as 
we have the means. Let us look at the history of this 
debt. We prophesied yesterday, that we might safely 
calculate that on the first of .January, 1852, there would 
be fifteen millions of debt to pay. There is, besides, 
sixteen hundred thousand dollars of irreducible debt, 
which we do not propose to pay. What has become 
of the money that created this debt ? It is in your pub¬ 
lic improvements. The two millions of dollars of sur¬ 
plus revenue must be used to I’educe the debt to the 
amount above named. 

In the first place, then, what have we got for this 
debt ? It is hard to transmit it to posterity, unless we 
have something to bequeath with it. We have got our 
public improvements and works, which, I may safely 
say, will pay $360,000 per annum, equal to the inter¬ 
est on six millions; but what is that to compensate for 
a debt of fifteen millions, and for the payment of inter¬ 
est on an irreducible debt of $1,600,000? 

Will we transmit to posterity the legacy of this en¬ 
tire debt? The gentleman says that this generation 
did not make this debt. The principal part of it has 
been incurred within the last fifteen years, as I be¬ 
lieve. Now, sir, if this entire debt to be paid is 
$15,000,000, and the investment pays the interest only 
on $6,000,000, then there are $9,000,000 for which we 
have nothing to give to posterity. There is another 
mode of aiming at nearly the same result. We have 
expended for the Walhonding canal, the Hocking ca¬ 
nal, and the Muskingum improvements, the sum of 
three millions two hundred and twelve thousand and 
two hundred and eighty-three dollars. We had ex¬ 
pended that in the year 1847. We have been at an 
expense of many thousand dollars a year ever since, to 
keep those works in repair. What more? We have 
expended for canal stocks, railroad stocks, and turn¬ 
pike stocks now ill hand, the moderate sum of $3,011,- 
858,77, their entire value being now estimated at 
$1,000;000, showing here a loss of over two millions 
of dollars. 

We heard considerable said a few days since about 
the Ohio railroad company. In that and other compa¬ 
nies that have become utterly bankrupt, the State had 
a large amount of stock, which is so utterly worthless 
that it is no longer computed. The amount I know not, 
but it is probably $500,000. 

Again, itwvas said here yesterday, that the debt had 
been accumulated by loans and the use of trust funds 
to pay the interest to the amount of $3,000,000, and I 
have been so informed by those supposed to understand 
the matter. Perhaps, however, the accumulated inter¬ 
est does not exceed $1,500,000. How then stands the 
account ? 

The Walhonding canal, the Hocking canal 


and Muskingum Improvement cost.$3,212,283 

Amount of stocks lost... 500,000 

Reduction on those reported. 2,011,858 

Trust Funds &c., used to pay interest. 1,500,000 


Total.$7,224,141 


This amount, we of this generation have expended, 
and what have we got for it ? Absolutely nothing. 

Mr. STANBERY. I ask if this present generation 
will not have paid five millions by the first of January 
A. D 1852 ? 


Mr. HITCHCOCK. I believe the debt has never 
stood upon the Auditor’s books as high as twenty mill¬ 
ions. But admit that it has. How will this genera¬ 
tion have paid the five millions. We have received 
from the general government in the surplus revenue 
two millions of dollars, which goes to effect the propos¬ 
ed reduction. Again, we have received from the same 
source one million of acres of canal lands, worth proba¬ 
bly $1,500,000. Again, we have appropriated to the 
same purpose $1,600,000 of trust funds, which has crea¬ 
ted a debt, (in addition to the $15,000,000,) which it is 
not proposed to pay. When all these things are taken 
into the calculation, it will be seen that we have not 
paid off, from our own resources, even the interest of 
the debt, into more than $1,000,000. 

The gentleman says that he will never consent that 
the present generation pay off' this debt, and transmit 
to posterity our rich works of internal improvements, 
which will endure, as long perhaps as the pyramids of 
Egypt. Sir, there may be some force in this remark 
as to our works which yield an income. But we have 
seen that a debt of from seven to nine millions of dol¬ 
lars has been incurred by us, for that which yields 
nothing, which is absolutely worthless, nay, which is 
actually a source of expense to us. Long before this 
debt can be paid off, on the plan proposed, the present 
generation will be off the stage, and it seems to me that 
it is but an act of mere justice to our posterity to adopt 
tliis plan, to pay off this debt as fast as we can. 

I have said, that the three canals mentioned, run us 
into debt every year. The Auditor’s report of last 
year shows the gross receipts from the Muskingum Im¬ 
provement to be $41,823 98, the expenses of repairs 
&c., $68,792 28. The gross receipts from the Hocking 
canal, which cost about $975,000 were $7,938 17, and 
we paid to keep it in repair $10,308 60. The gross a- 
mouut of receipts from the W’alhonding canal were 
$1,494 67, and the expenses of repairs $2,074 29. It 
is suggested by the gentleman from Muskingum, that 
we have another canal in this State that is paying noth¬ 
ing, the Warren canal. What that cost I know not. 

This, then, is our situation. A debt of $20,000,000 
has been created. The general government have given 
us in surplus revenue $2,000,000, and in lands worth 
$1,500,000 ; and yet, when all these are applied, we 
shall have a debt of $15,000,000, besides the irreduci¬ 
ble debt of $1,600,000; and for all this expenditure 
we have public works and stocks yielding an income of 
some $360,000. This is not such a legacy as we ought 
to transmit to our children. 

The people demand of us, at least I believe it is so 
in my section of the State, that we should make pro¬ 
vision for the payment of this debt as fast as we can; 
and, it seems to me, it is a solem duty imposed upon 
us in providing for our children—in looking forward to 
posterity, to make provision for relieving them from the 
debt which we have thus imprudently contracted. 

There is another view of this matter. It is this: It 
is good policy to pay our debts. The policy of the in¬ 
dividual and the policy of the State are the same in 
this respect. I know there are men who think if they 
can borrow money at five and six per cent, it is good 
policy to do so. I do not believe in the principle. I 
know there are many men who think they can make 
money by continuing in debt, and perhaps they can, 
but they conduct their own business. They engage in 
their own enterprises—they lay their own plans—they 
carry out those plans, and do not confide to salaried 
officers or agents the business of managing their con¬ 
cerns so as to make money by their credit. But the 
State acts only through agents, and the investments 
that are made by the State upon its credit are always 
attended with ruinous consequences. What has been 
our experience in this matter ? That many public im¬ 
provements by the State have cost almost as much 
again as those made by private enterprise. This rule 
will ap{)ly to the perpetuating of your State debt, for 
everything is to be managed by agents. Good policy. 




















CONVENTION REPORTS 


451 


therefore, requires that we should pay it otF as fast as 
we can. 

One word further, although it does not bear directly 
upon the question now before the committee. The 
gentleman says that the report is inconsistent. Now 
sir, I have no particular pride about this report, or 
about its success before this committee. I am anxious 
to secure at least one hundred thousand dollars a year 
for the reduction of this debt, and I do not care how it 
is. done. 

But wliat is the provision of the report to which ob¬ 
jection is made 1 It is that we should raise $250,000 
and interest a year; and the gentleman says we have 
no debts due, or becoming due, to which we can ap¬ 
ply the money. Now, .sir, we have something like a 
hundred thousand dollars of dome.stic bonds now due, 
and they will use up the amount proposed by the 
amendment for one year. I will refer to page 27 of 
the Auditor's Report. There is also due, after 1852, of 
the domestic bonds, over $80,000, and then there are 
$1,500,000 of the seven per cents that fall due in 1851. 
The committee understood perfectly well that the Sur¬ 
plus Revenue was pledged to the payment of this debt, 
but they believed it could not all be made available in 
1851. The Report of the Auditor will show you that 
there is more than $1,100,000 which, although secure, 
is yet outstanding in the counties. Many of these 
counties have not yet paid the first cent of the princi¬ 
pal. The committee believed that although we might 
safely calculate upon that fund for ultimate payment, 
yet it could not be collected at once, it would be neces¬ 
sary to anticipate it. We are borne out in this by the 
estimate of the Auditor of State, which shows that he 
estimates the receipts of 1850, from this source, at only 
$250,000. These seven per cent, stocks must be pro¬ 
vided for. The only difference between the gentle¬ 
man and the committee is this: He would provide 
funds by extending these bonds, or issuing new ones 
therefor, payable some 10 or 15 years hence, and get 
the premium upon them. We thought it best to pay 
them off as far as we could, and to issue the necessary 
bonds, redeemable at short dates, as the Sinking Fund 
provided for should become available. 

But suppose that we should accumulate at any time 
before 1856 some $200,000 to $500,000. There then 
becomes due between three and four millions of our 
debt, and I ask the gentleman, who understands this 
matter of stocks, how much premium it would be nec¬ 
essary to pay to redeem $300,000,00 or $400,000,00 
of this stock in advance 1 Having but a short time to 
run, the premium could be but trifling; perhaps two or 
three per cent. So that no serious loss could arise. 

But he did not suppose that this would be necessary, 
or that there would be any difficulty in raising the mo¬ 
ney to redeem our debt at par. Thus I have attemp¬ 
ted to show that there is no difficulty in appropriating 
the money to the proposed object as fast as it is raised. 
After 1856 the debt will mature faster than we can pay 
by any sinking fund. The gentleman says we can ex¬ 
tend the debt, and get large premiums. I am aware 
this can be done in prosperous times, but at other 
times it cannot. It is, however, but perpetuating the 
debt, and this, as it seems to me is both dangerous and 
impolitic. It is certainly unkind to transmit it to the 
generation that may come after us. It is a legacy 
which a kind and faithful parent would never bRqueath 
to his heirs. It seems to me that the people of this 
State ought not to bequeath this debt to the generation 
that may come aft^r them. I am aware, as I said in 
the commencement, that there are those in community, 
although perhaps not here, who are for perpetuating 
this debt. I do not know that there is a man in this 
Hall, who would repudiate the debt, but it is unques- 
ably time, as the the gentleman from Richland [Mr 
Kirkwood] said, that unle.ss you show the people 
some way by which it can be paid, you may expect 
that they will bye and bye do the very thing that the 
gentleman from Franklin dreads so much, throw it off. 


Common honesty, common propriety requires that we 
should prevent that by all the means in our power. 
Let us then do justice, and answer the demands of the 
people by providing something towards the payment 
of this debt. It is said that we can safely leave this 
matter to the Legislature. The Legislature in 1825 
exercised a power which had reference directly to this 
subject. And yet it proved an entire failure, so far as 
tlie principal is concerned. In 1848 there was a meas¬ 
ure of this kind passed; but whether it will prove ef¬ 
fectual or not, 1 do not know. There is one reason 
why I would not trust this matter to the Legislature, 
especially since I have heard the argument of the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin made yesterday. It is this: Who 
are the men who wish to perpetuate this debt ? They 
are men who deal in stocks—men who use such invest¬ 
ments, for the purpose of speculation, and as security 
for banking circulation. Are not these the very men, 
who, according to the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 
Reemelin] have deceived the Legislature heretofore— 
who led many Democrats to swerve from their propri¬ 
ety and duty, and got law's passed by the Democracy, 
which have worked so much mischief? I fear the same 
class of men would control our Legislatuie hereafter. 
A failure to make provision now may put us in a posi¬ 
tion where extraordinary influences will be brought to 
bear upon the Legislature, so as to provide for the con¬ 
tinuance of the debt and the payment of the interest 
only ; or what is still more it may result in ultimate re¬ 
pudiation, because the people will not endure the end¬ 
less payment of interest. What then do we propose ? 
We propose now, by the amendment which is offered, 
to pay off at least a hundred thousand dollars in 1852, 
and the same sum, with annual interest, annually there¬ 
after. 

Can we do that with safety ? Can we in advance of 
the futime, tax our people to that amount? Why, sir, 
it will make one million of dollars to start with. Last 
year and this year we raise for interest and principal, 
on the same debt $1,150,000. We have as a resource, 
the income on our public works, equal to about $360,- 
000, and for the residue we rely on taxation. So that 
you may, upon the estimate of last year, reduce the 
amount for canal purposes $150,000, and yet pay your 
million of dollars—pay the amount proposed by the 
gentleman from Monroe, and now incorporated in my 
amendment. To make up the balance over and above 
the income of the canals, and pay the interest on the 
irreducible debt, will require the sum of $750,000 to 
be raised by taxation. A tax of 1| mills on the dollar, 
on the estimated list of 1852, will pay much more than 
this—and yet last year and year before, we paid for this 
same purpose a tax of 2 and 3-10 mills on the dollar. 
In the list of 1853, as estimated by the Auditor a tax 
of 1^ mills is sufficient, being a reduction ot near one- 
half in the per centum of taxation. There need there¬ 
fore be no apprehension of an increase of taxation. 

As I have remarked before, I prefer the plan which 
is embraced in this amendment, to that of the gentle¬ 
man from Monroe, because it shows precisely upon the 
face of it what it means. Every body knows that we 
are liable for the interest and expect to pay it. My 
proposition provides that we should pay the interest 
and a hundred thousand dollars more. The amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Monroe, although it means 
the same thing, says nothing about the interest. It was 
said yesterday that it was impossible to provide for 
extraordinary occurrences. Sir, we have had some of 
these extraordinary occurrences in times past. We 
have had a law requiring a sinking fund of $25,000 a 
year since 1832, which ought to have been raised under 
the Auditor’s power of taxation ; but it has not been 
raised for many years, and was rarely it ever appro¬ 
priated to the object. We have had a law requiring 
interest to be paid, and we have accumulated at least 
$1,500,000 of additional interest. These are some of 
the extraordinary occurrences which have presented 
themselves heretofore. I would avoid them hereafter. 











452 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The gentleman from llichland i liered an exhibit 
the other day, showing that this additional $100,000 
would require only 25 cents to each free white male 
in the State. What emergency is going to arise in the 
State of Ohio that she cannot pay 25 cents for each 
white male above the age of 21 years ? What is to be 
the condition in the State of Ohio, when you cannot 
pay a tax of less than one-sixth of a mill to the dollar? 
What emergency of that kind is to arise ? Who can 
for a moment base action upon such an apprehension ? 
We propose by this amendment to add only and annu¬ 
ally $100,000 of the principal, increased by compound 
interest, that the interest is to be paid at any rate. For 
the purpose of jireserving the credit of the State—fur 
the puipose of preventing repudiation—for the purpose 
of avoiding the perpetuity of this debt, let us fix the 
matter here. Let us make it part of the fundamental 
law of the State, and then, if sanctioned by the vote of 
the people of the State of Ohio, the taxation requisite 
to secure it will have their approbation, and no repre¬ 
sentative body will ever be complained of for carrying 
out their edict. If the amendineut is adopted, the sec¬ 
tion will then read as follows ; 

The faith of the State being pledged to the payment of all ex¬ 
isting indebtedness, in order to provide therefor there shall be 
created an annual sinking fund, which shall be constituted of the 
nett annual income of the public works, and stocks owned by the 
State, and such sum to be raised by taxation as shall be sufficient 
to pay the accruing interest on the public debt of the iState, and 
annually to reduce tiie principal by a sum not less than one hun¬ 
dred thousand dollars, increased yearly and each and every year 
by compound interest, at the rate of six per cent, per annum. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. I desire, Mr. Chairman, with 
the indulgence of the committee, to say a few words in 
explanation of the course I shall take on this question. 
I shall vote against the proposition of the gentleman 
from Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitchcock,] and in favor of the 
substitute for the whole section, offered by the gentle¬ 
man from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery.] 

The gentleman from Richland [Mr. Kirkwood] has 
told us, that unless we adopt some provision, fixing in 
the constitution an annual amount to be raised by tax¬ 
ation, to be applied to the payment of the public debt, 
so that the people can see their way out, and know the 
precise time within which it can be liquidated, they 
will repudiate—and hence, he argues that those who 
oppose the plan do favor repudiation. The gentleman 
from Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitchcock] says, that unless this 
proposition of his or some one similar be adopted, fix¬ 
ing in the constitution the sum which shall annually be 
raised to pay off the debt, it will never be paid, and he in¬ 
timates that those who oppose his scheme, are in favor of 
a perpetual Ainding of the debt. 

Now', I do not know in which category these gentle¬ 
men may place me, nor do I care. I have great re- 
spect for the opinions of gentlemen on all questions of 
policy or expediency, but none when they undertake to 
assign any motive to me, other than that which I 
avow. 1 shall do my duty conscientiously on this im¬ 
portant question, and leave it with my constituents to 
determine my motives. They know’ that I desire to 
serve them, and shall fall short of doing so, only for 
lack of judgment. 

Sir, 1 undertake to say, that when gentlemen an¬ 
nounce on this floor or elsewhere, that the people of 
Ohio, will ever, under any circumstances, be betrayed 
inio the commission of a wilful violation of their plight¬ 
ed faith, they perpetrate an unmitigated libel upon their 
fair and unsullied character; and when they insinuate 
that I cr the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] 
favor the indefinite post[)onement of the payment of 
the public debt, for the benefit of bankers, and money 
dealers, to enable them to speculate upon the stocks of 
the State, (which has been more than intimated in this 
debate.) they either do not apprehend what we mean, 
or they are willing to misunderstand. 

Sir, what gentleman on tliis Hour has intimated a de¬ 
sire that this debt should be perjietuated ?—That it 
should be indefinitely postponed by any funding sys 


tem ? None, sir, none. The gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin, [Mr. Stanbery] to whom I listened with muc.h 
pleasure—although 1 do not concur with him in all his 
views on this question, advanced no such idea, although 
an attempt has been made to give his language such an 
interpretation. I have listened attentively to all that 
has been said. Gentlemen will, I think, give me cred¬ 
it for being more of a listener than talker, and I have 
heard no such wish or opinion intimated—why then is 
it insinuated? Do gentlemen suppose that this subject 
is not understood out of doors as well as it is in this 
Hall ? Do they expect to frighten us by holding us 
up as the aiders and abetters of stock jobbers ? Sir, 
they deceive only themselves. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. I said that there 
were men who wished to perpetuate this debt, that it 
might furnish a basis for speculation in the stocks of the 
State, andthat the tendency of the argument of the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] was, thatthe 
State debt might with propriety, be postponed for a 
long time at least. 

Mr. GREEN resumed. Mr. Chairman, the people I 
know desire that this debt should be paid. It is a griev¬ 
ous burthen, and presses heavily upon them. No man is 
more willing—anxious than lam, to bring about so de¬ 
sirable a consummation. The difference between the 
gentleman from Cuyahoga and myself is, that he desires 
to dictate ill this constitution, a stubborn, unbending rule 
to the people, declaring to them that they shall pay an¬ 
nually a given sum, however onex’ous and oppressive, 
however impossible it may be at any time hereafter to 
comply. I am for leaving it to them to decide in their 
own way, how they shall manage their own affairs.—To 
their agents, selected for the special purpose, sent up 
here annually, or bi-ennially, having all the lights which 
the circumstances and condition of the country can af¬ 
ford to guide them. 

I oppose the proposition of the committee as now 
sought to be modified by the amendment, for several 
reasons. I do not believe, sir, that the people require 
to be reminded by us of their duty. I believe they are 
as capable of understanding this subject, and of making 
all due and proper provision for meeting their engage¬ 
ments as we are. 1 do not believe they expected, nor 
that they desire that this Convention should wrest from 
them the power of regulating this matter in their own 
way, through the agency of that department of the gov¬ 
ernment to which the power of taxation rightfully be¬ 
longs. I do not believe that they sent us here to legii- 
late. They sent us here to announce and establish the 
principles of the organic law —to make a constitution 
—not a code of tax laws. I believe that the Legislature, 
the immediate representatives of the people, will, in 
time to come, as they have in times past, obeying the 
instructions of the people, make proper and suitable 
provisions, adapted to the capacity, circumstances and 
resources of their constituents, to preserve the public 
credit inviolate. I believe they will not thank us for 
usurping powers they did not intend to confide—that 
they will bitterly rebuke this attempt to fasten upon 
them an indexible iron rule, which, being a constitu¬ 
tional provision, cannot be modified by the law making 
power, as circumstances may require. 

Mr. Chairman, there is much of discrepancy in the 
course of some gentlemen upon this floor. The other 
day, when gentlemen were insisting upon the necessity 
of guarding against the corruption of legislators, by 
imposing all sorts of restriction on the powers of that 
department of the government, the gentleman from 
Geauga, [Judge P. Hitchcock,] said most forcibly, if 
we thought the time had arrived when either the peo- 
f'le were incapable of selecting honest men to serve 
them, or that honest men could not be found, then it 
were better that we abandon the rejuesentative princi¬ 
ple at once and have no legislative department. Now 
the gentleman tells us, that unless we make it a consti¬ 
tutional jirovision prescribing, not only that the public 
debt should be paid, but the precise time and the pre- 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 453 


cise amount of the installments—leaving to them noth¬ 
ing at all to do with it—it will never be paid. 

Now, sir, I believe that however in times past, (and 
perhaps in times to come,) party spirit may have 
brought discredit upon the General Assembly of Ohio, 
yet, in no instance, have they been willfully negligent 
of, or treacherous to the financial interests of the State. 

The gentleman trom Geauga [.ludge Hitchcock] has 
asserted that the foreign debt, amounting now to fif¬ 
teen and a half millions in round numbers, has been in¬ 
creased at least three millions by borrowing money to 
pay interest, and this, because of the failure of the Leg¬ 
islature to make provision for raising the means by tax¬ 
ation; and this idea has been again re-asserted by the 
gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. R. Hitchcock.] Now, 
sir, I undertake to say—and [ will show—that the gen¬ 
tlemen have no foundation for this assertion. What 
are the facts? By the act of February 182.5, it is made 
the duty of the Auditor of State to “ assess such tax on 
all the property in the State entered on the grand list 
and taxable for State purposes, as will produce—to¬ 
gether with the nett profits of the canal, actually col¬ 
lected and paid into the treasury for each year—an 
amount sufficient to meet the interest payable for each 
year on all loans, &c., exclusive of the sum collected 
for the sinking fund.” By the act of March 1839, ma¬ 
king appropriations for new works, this duty was again 
enjoined on the Auditor, and made irrevocable. It ap-1 
pears, sir, that notwithstanding these legislative pro¬ 
visions, the law was disregarded by the public officer 
who was charged with the execution of it. In the 
year 1844, as appears by the report of the committee 
on E'inance in the Senate, the deficiency in the interest 
fund had, in six years, run up to the sum of $1,550,- 
490. The deficits in the several years from 1839 to 
1844 ranging, in round numbers, from $150,000 to 
$300,000. ^ Prior to 1839, this fund had also been defi¬ 
cient—owing to the neglect of duty on the part of the 
Auditor to execute the law—but those deficiencies had 
been covered up, by the application of the proceeds of 
the sales of school lands, and the proceeds of the sales 
of land granted by Congress to aid in the constraction 
of the canals. The deficit in the interest fund on the 
7th of February, 1845, amounting, as before stated, to 
$1,550,490, was supplied in part by transfers, from 
time to time, from the general revenue, amounting in 
the six years, up to the above period, to $238,681—by 
the State’s portion of the sales of public lands, paid by 
the Treasurer of the United States under the act of 
Congress of September 1841, in the years 1842-3, 
amounting to $61,046,33 — by proceeds of sales of 
school, ministerial and salt lands, which were required 
by law to be invested in the canal fund, the interest 
appropriated to common schools, $262,582,77 — by 
moneys arising from the sale of lots mortgaged to the 
canal fund by the North American Trust Company, 
$36,845,04—by the application of a portion of the 
sinking fund, $84,822,18; and by the balance of the ca¬ 
nal fund in the treasury in November 1838, amounting 
to $145,654,53. The large balance remaining after 
the application of these general funds, has been ab¬ 
sorbed from time to time by temporary loans, which 
have been repaid, and by taxation. 

For some years back, we have had a chief financial 
oflBcer who knows his duty, and dares to do it; and 
although the revenues of your public works amount to 
but little over one-third of the sum necessary to pay the 
interest on the debt, the credit of the State stands as 
high as any in this Union, and we have the gratifying 
intelligence that there is a half million in the treasury, 
and another half million is confidently relied on from 
miscellaneous sources during the year, making one 
million of dollars applicable to the payment of the prin¬ 
cipal of the debt. Had the laws been complied with 
in spirit or letter, your financial account would have 
presented a different aspect. 

Thus, sir, has the Legislature of Ohio in 1825; in 
1839—and let me add again in 1848, enacted the guar¬ 


antees, and provided the ways and means for the pay¬ 
ment of the interest—and if at any time there has 
been a deficiency to meet these engagements, it has 
lieen the fault of your officer, the Auditor, who has not 
dared to do his duty—or who was incapable of dis¬ 
charging it; and as to the foreign debt of Ohio, so far 
from having been increased by borrowing to pay the 
interest, through the inefficiency in legislation, (as has 
been asserted by the gentleman referred to,) I have 
shown that not one dollar of that debt is chargeable to 
that cause. 

Mr. Chairman, up to the year 1838, your foreign 
debt amounted to $5,220,000,00. Your great Ohio 
canal and the Miami canal, had, prior to that time, 
been completed—you had then in operation 399 miles 
of navigable canals. Including a loan of $2,010,000,00. 
authorized in 1838, the whole foreign debt in 1843, 
amounted to $16,028,267,70, being an increase in five 
years, of $10,826,267,70. The Ohio canal. 334 miles 
in length, cost the State, $4,695,203,69. The Miami 
Extension, 130 miles in length, cost the State $3,167,- 
440,82—difference in distance 204 miles—difference in 
cost $1,527,762,87. The Wabash and Erie canal, 91 
miles in length, cost the State $3,009,928,29. The 
.Muskingum improvement, onginally estimated, to cost 
$450,000, has cost the State $1,628,028,29. 

Mr. STILWELL was here understood to say, the 
1 original estimate was $600,000,00. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, sir, a slight difference of one 
million of dollars anyhow. How was all this? A 
distinguished gentleman, now in Congress, from the 
Hamilton district, speaking on this subject, says it waB 
perhaps the ‘‘ cost of financiering.” Yes, sir, there 
has been great “financiering” in your public works, 
“financiering” past comparison—certainly past find- 
ingout. Now, had the gentleman said, that i his vast 
accession of the debt was owing to the skillful finan¬ 
ciering of public agents, instead of charging remisa- 
ness of duty in the Legislature, they might have hit the 
mark. I don’t mean to charge that any one in particu¬ 
lar has plundered the treasury. I presume it was 
nothing more than simple “ financiering.” 

Mr. Chairman, allusion has frequently been made 
upon this floor to the prosperity of Ohio. It was said 
die other day by some gentleman, that nothing short of 
the power of the master hand of a Macaulay was com¬ 
petent to the task of portraying her growth to greatness. 
Sir, I doubt if the great historian would not shrink 
from the task. When reading that very remarkable 
chapter in which he has drawn the contrast between 
England at the accession of Charles Stewnrt to the 
throne, and England as she is now, we almost forget 
that it is the stern reality of historic truth that rivets 
our attention, and fancy ourselves wandering in the re¬ 
gions of poetic fiction. But let a Macaulay go to your 
State records, and there learn that a pioneer popalation 
of some 40,000 souls with a revenue of some $25,000 
for the support of government, in the midst of an almost 
unbroken forest, some forty-seven years ago, laid tho 
foundation of this great commonwealth—teeming with 
a population of over 2,000,000, with a tax list estimated 
at $450,000,000, occupying the proud position of sec¬ 
ond in the confederacy—-let him cast his eye over this 
empire, rich and powerful in all the elements of politi¬ 
cal, moral and social greatness—let him behold the 
countless inches springing from the bosom of a well 
tilled soil—late a wilderness, now blossoming like the 
rose—your proud cities with their stately edifices—— 
and ever restless enterprise—let him from this spot 
contemplate these magnificent public edifices, which 
greet us at every point—reared in a spirit of universal 
philanthropy—throwing open the doors of those asy¬ 
lums to all who are afflicted or distressed, bidding them 
enter and be healed—let him sit down and learn from 
the lips of living witnesses, who saw the beginning of 
these thin^^s —aye, sir let him spend an hour with the 
venerable and distinguished gentleman fiom Obam- 
paign, [Gov. Vanck,] who sits before me now in the 










454 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


full vigor of a green old age, and hear from him, all 
that he has seen—much of which he was—and let 
him know that what it requii’ed two hundred years to 
accomplish in his England, has been more than achiev¬ 
ed in our Ohio in less, by one third, than the brief 
space allotted for the life of a man—then, sir, would 
the great narrator feel the greater weight of the task. 
His English picture, even in his own eyes, would dwin¬ 
dle into insignificance. His English narrative become 
tedious as a twice told tale—tame as a daily household 
story, beside the marvels of enchantment. 

I know, sir, that an inexhaustable soil, and the ever 
moving energies of an enterprising people have ac¬ 
complished these things. But sir, let me ask what has 
opened the field and given play to those energies? What 
has developed the vast resources which have built iij) 
the republic? I answer, emphatically, your internal 
improvements! The wise policy of the State, aided 
and backed up by those *' associations of wealth,” those 
despised “ corporations” so much talked of here, has 
furnished to labor the fruits of toil—canals and roads, 
bearing to distant marts the riches digged from your 
soil and your mines, and bringing back the golden re¬ 
ward to industry. All this has been accomplished by 
Ohio legislation. Let him who shall call this vain glo¬ 
rious boasting, point me to a parallel in the history of 
the civilized world, of progress like to this, no fancy 
picture, and I will confess the weakness. Till then, I 
shall continue to proclaim it as the result of the foster¬ 
ing care of wise legislation. 

The honorable gentleman from Geauga [Judge Hitch¬ 
cock] has, with a taunt, imputed to the gentleman 
from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] the avowal of the ex¬ 
ploded doctrine, that a “ national debt is a national 
blessing.” We all understand what was in the mind 
of the English statesman, Walpole, I believe, when he 
announced the doctrine. It can have no application 
here. If a government can only be sustained by the 
bond which binds the people as creditors to uphold it, 
it is the essential vice—a curse rather than a bLssing. 
This commonwealth rests in the attachment, the vene¬ 
ration of the people. They love it—it is themselves— 
they are “ the Stated They know their public debt, 
heavily as it has pressed upon them at times, has prov¬ 
ed a public blessing. But the end for which it was 
contracted having been attained, they desire nothing so 
much as to pay it off. 

The question then is, how shall it be done ? Do not 
gentlemen who insist upon the importance of adopting 
their scheme perceive that they are only putting into 
the constitution what the Legislature have, on three 
several occasions, by the acts of 1825, 1839 and 1848, 
as I have shown, solemnly provided for by law ? They 
ask then, why not insert it in the constitution ? The 
answer, to my mind, is obvious. 

The taxing power is the highest attribute of sove¬ 
reignty, and ought never to be parted with. It belongs 
to the people,—is only to be exercised when the 
power is delegated—and that power they have notcon- 
Terred on us. It is a power to be exercised cautiously, 
wisely—to be adapted from time to time to the wants 
of the government, always keeping in view the condi¬ 
tion and ability of the people—to be tempered to the 
times, to the condition of the taxed—always under the 
control of the people, that they may modify it to the 
exigencies of the occasion. But what do you propose 
ty the scheme under consideration? Nothing less 
than this—to bind down this power by an iron rule, in¬ 
flexible and unwavering, for forty years. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. The gentleman is 
mistaken; the interest is annually to be provided for; 
it will be so reduced by means of the reduction of the 

principal in the sum proposed to be annually raised_ 

the Legislature may increase the sum, if they please. 

Mr. GREEN. Then the Legislature—or rather the 
people—are to have some discretion left—the great 
privilege of taxing themselves more than the sum fixed 
by your amendment, if they please, but you say they 


shall never do less than that. Now, sir, that is what I 
complain of. It may be—I trust in Heaven that it will 
be—always in the power of the people to pay this 
tax. Nay, I believe if left to themselves on this sub¬ 
ject they will discharge the debt sooner than your 
scheme proposes. The property on the lax list is esti¬ 
mated at $450,000,000 in round numbers. The Fund 
Commissioners report that it is increasing, in the ratio 
of five per cent, annually. By this rule your tax list 
will have doubled itself in twenty years. By the oper¬ 
ation of the sinking fund, provided by the act of 1848, 
the application of $100,000, together with other items 
which may be relied on, amounting, as they say, to 
$50,000, with the compounding of the interest, will 
pay off the debt in the year 1885—thirty-five years. 
By your plan, the debt will not be extinguished till 
1890. Now which scheme think you the people will 
like best ? 

Gentlemen tell us that we are inconsistent in objec- 
jccting to a scheme which will not impose any greater 
burthens on the people than they bear now. They 
misapprehend the argument, it is not the amount they 
, propose, but that under all circumstances, no matter 
what casualities may arise, what misfortunes may 
come, war, pestilence, famine, any calamity which an 
All-wise Providence may bring upon us—be it what it 
may—this amount must be raised. 

There is no getting away from it. The paternal 
hand of legislation cannot step in to mitigate the blow 
—to ease the burthen—to lighten the load. The con¬ 
stitution, the high, sovereign, organic, fundamental, 
unalterable law, (at least for the purpose of present re¬ 
lief,) has tied down the taxing power, fixing it by iron 
bands to this Procrustean bed—a foreign foe may be 
threatening—a blight may waste your crops—a pesti¬ 
lence may be walking in darkness, and wasting at noon¬ 
day—no matter, this sum, as much more as you please, 
but no less, miist be I’aised by taxation—you shall not 
even borrow it, if you can. 

Now, sir, I ask again, does any gentleman seriously 
think, when his constituents confided to him the high 
trust of coming up here to assist in revising the consti¬ 
tution, they ever dreamed that he would think of 
usurping in this way their own high prerogative of tax¬ 
ing themselves ? If he does, I can only say that I do 
not believe the people w’ho sent me here anticipated 
any such thing. No, sir, I dare not do it. They did 
expect, I know they did, that we should, in this consti¬ 
tution, declare the inviolability of the public faith, that 
is declared by the proposition of the gentleman from 
Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery.] That I am willing to do. 
But, I repeat, I dare not usurp the power of thus fet¬ 
tering, for half a century, the hands of the people. 

The gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Sv/an] told us 
the question was “ shall the public debt be paid ?” and 
he then went on, with a most terrific array of figures, 
to show us the evils of not paying a debt; how it would 
accumulate, until it would reach frightful results I 
have great respect for that gentleman. Sir, a long ac¬ 
quaintance with him has attached me to him. I mean 
no disrespect when I ask him if he supposes he told us 
any thing new ? Did he think to frighten us with a 
raw head and bloody bones? If any body had talked— 
had thought of not paying the public debt, his figures 
might have been in place, but as no body has, why, sir, 
his argument may go for what it is worth. 

Let me repeat sir, once for all, I know that the peo¬ 
ple desire and intend to pay the debt, as speedily as 
they can, and they will encounter, as they have en¬ 
countered, great inconveniences to pay it. I will nev¬ 
er knowingly thwart them in that purpose. As a mem¬ 
ber of the Legislature, I would give my aid in the pas¬ 
sage of laws proper to this end. I would here avow the 
principle that the debt shall be paid, so that should the 
monster of repudiation[altempt to rear its head within 
this broad land, the ponderous weight of the constitu¬ 
tion of Ohio shall ciaish it to the earth. But I will not 
venture further than this in my capacity here. 










CONVENTION REPOSTS. 


455 


Let US not suppose sir, that although there is a vast 
amount of wisdom, and any quantity of patriotism in 
this body, that it will become so diffused when we 
separate, as to be lost forever in the general mass. I 
do not think wisdom and public virtue will expire 
with this Convention. I am really of the opinion, sir, 
that future General Assemblies will have capacity to 
frame a sufficient tax law, and virtue enough to pass 
it—especially as I am fii-m in the conviction that the 
people will instruct them to do so; and do not let it be 
supposed that I mean any disrespect to this body, 
when I venture the opinion that they, the people, tin¬ 
ders tan this subject quite as well as w'e do. 

Mr. Chairman, I have not been in the habit of tres- 
jiassing on the time of the Convention. I regret that 
a sense of duty to myself, to avoid misconstruction, 
has seemed to render it necessary that I should have 
done so now. I have only to say, sir, in conclusion, 
that I hope I am understood. If there is a word in 
the language which I abhor, in its application to the 
public faith, it^ is repudiation—and I am as little dis¬ 
posed as any friend of the people on this floor, to advo¬ 
cate a system of funding, thereby perpetuating this 
debt upon them. I sincerely desire that it should be 
paid; but I shall leave it to those whose peculiar con¬ 
stitutional province it will be, to settle the manner, and 
the time when it shall be paid. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. The remarks of the gentleman 
from Ross, ought to be received with some qualifica¬ 
tion. I am as much impressed with the importance of 
the public works as that gentleman can be ; they have 
evidently contributed to the prosperity of those sec¬ 
tions of the State in which they lie. But I cannot ad¬ 
mit with him, that we owe any gratitude to the General 
Assembly for their construction; on the contrary, I 
think the interposition of the State government, in the 
matter, a grave error. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. The government of Ohio, in 
constructing our public works, was only following the 
ordinary example of other States and countries. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. The example was first set by the 
State of New York, at the instigation of De Witt Clin¬ 
ton. That man has been overrated. His fame, as long 
as he continues to be remembered, will be constantly 
diminishing and growing beautifully less. If he had 
possessed the gigantic intellect which was once attri¬ 
buted to him, he would have constructed his big ditch, 
it is time, but he would have done it upon economical 
prihciples, by means of associated wealth, without set¬ 
ting an example pernicious to mankind. Have gentle¬ 
men read the Diatribes of Rev. Sydney Smith? Will 
they reflect upon the stain which has been cast upon 
tile American character by the pecuniary delinquencies 
of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, 
Florida, Arkansas and Mississippi ? What right-min¬ 
ded man, jealous of the honor of the American name, 
would have consented to see such dark stains cast up¬ 
on it, for any material results whatever? Butin truth, 
there was never any danger of losing these results. 
Commercial and associated wealth would always have 
stood ready to make all our valuable improvements, 
only for the officious intermeddling of the goveniment. 
There was the choice of two modes of improving the 
country, and De Witt Clinton chose the worst, and 
mankind are prone, in too many cases, to follow exam¬ 
ples without inquiry or investigation. And hence, in 
the spirit of blind imitation, our legislators have in¬ 
volved the tax-payer, where his exertions ought never 
to have been called into requisition. All our best 
works now, all that make a man proud of his position, 
as a citizen of Ohio, have been constructed by incorpo¬ 
rated companies—instance the magnificent railroad 
which is now ready to transmit passengers from this 
city to Cincinnati in five hours. The works construct¬ 
ed by the State are rapidly going out of date, and will 
soon be superseded by works constructed in the spirit 
of modern improvement. Companies have already 
been chartered to constmct other railroads along the 


lines of the canals. The true policy would have been 
to have suffered them to perform this operation a few 
years sooner. They would have substituted the exact 
economy of commercial men for the boundless wasteful¬ 
ness of State agency. Thomas B. Macaulay, the great 
historian, the man of colossal intellect, in his reviews 
of Southey’s colloqiiies on society, tells us that five hun¬ 
dred thousand pounds, subscribed by a company, will 
be nioi’e efficient in the construction of a railroad or a 
canal, than five million pounds granted by Parliament. 
That in periods of honesty and unity, the fate of the 
public is simply to have the dearest and worst of every 
thing for their money, in periods of corruption to be 
robbed outright. Macaulay was well acquainted with 
government works, both on the continent of Europe 
and in the British Islands. His opinions have infinite¬ 
ly more weight with me than those of De Witt Clinton, 
whom I regard as a very small man, who did not ob¬ 
tain “ noble ends by noble means.” 

The frauds on the treasury of Ohio may not be quite 
so glaring as those to which Macaulay alludes; but hu¬ 
man nature is every where essentially the sarne. Pro¬ 
bably I have not said enough to explain my views, but 
I have said much more than I should have said but for 
the interposition of the gentleman from Ross. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. I ask the indul¬ 
gence of the committee while I shall make an explana¬ 
tion with reference to this subject of interest. The 
gentleman from Ross [Mr. Green] says we are mista¬ 
ken in the statement that this debt has been increased 
three millions by the non-payment of interest by means 
of taxation. Upon this subject I did not speak from 
personal examination, and may be mistaken. It was 
made upon the information of gentlemen in whom I 
have the utmost confidence, and who I supposed to be 
perfectly familiar with the whole matter, but I do not 
know myself that they were absolutely correct. This 
is almost the only statement that I have made, except 
from a recent and careful examination of the docu¬ 
ments. The report of Mr. Kelley confirmed me in the 
truth of the statement; but I confess that I did not 
speak from the book. Perhaps the gentleman from 
Ross is correct, and the amount of accumulated inter¬ 
est is only $1,500,000. . t /> 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. Not one dollar of this defi¬ 
ciency was occasioned by the action of the Legisla¬ 
ture. , , 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I expressly stated that it arose 
on account of the failure of the Auditor to impose the 

One word further—I suppose the present generation 
has not paid the interest on the debt, aside from the do¬ 
nations received from the general government, 
whole debt, as we have seen, was $20,000,000. This 
is supposed to include $1,500,000 of interest. We es¬ 
timate the reducible debt as of January 1, 1852, at 
$15,000,000. But aside from this is the reducible debt 
of $1,600,000, making the whole amount due $16,600,- 
000. Now, we have received from the general govera- 

ment about $ 3 , 500 , 000 , which alone would reduce the 

debt below this amount. From our own resources, 
therefore, as I stated before, we have paid no part ol 
the principal—not even the interest. Is it not time to 
begin? And now, what do we propose? We Propose 
a sinking fund, which, in twenty years, will pay $3,678,- 
526 —and this is all—only about one-half the money w© 
have sunk by our bad operations. 

Mr. ROBERTSON said: I wish to present some 
practical considerations on the question under debate. 
I am convinced from my acquaintance with the views 
of the farmers of Fairfield county, and other portions 
of the State, that they desire to get rid of the annual 
taxation to pay interest on the State debt; and they 
understand perfectly well that this can only be done 
by paying off the debt itself. The question presented 
to my mind is, therefore, when shall that be done? 
How long shall the people be taxed to pay interest ? 
We all agree, upon this side of the chamber that a 







456 


CONVENTION EEPOETS. 


time should be fixed in some way, when the people 
shall be relieved from their heavy burthens of taxation 
for interest, for which they receive no equivalent. The 
gentleman from Ross [Mr Green] says that he has 
heard no intimation from any quarter that the debt 
ought to be perpetuated. But we have heard such in¬ 
timations here; at least such was the whole force of 
the remarks of the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. 
Stanbery.] As I understood him, he was in favor of 
postponing the payment of the debt for a long period 
of time; and such postponement is, in my judgment, 
perpetuation. And, sir, I am well convinced that the 
speech of that gentleman, which was so understood, 
successfully turned the current of opinion in the com¬ 
mittee against his proposition, and thereby insured its 
defeat. Before his argument was made, I was afraid 
that perhaps a majority might be found against engraft¬ 
ing the proposition of the gentleman from Cuyahoga 
upon the new constitution ; but since the argument of 
the gentleman from Franklin, I am satisfied that a ma¬ 
jority will be found to vote for it. The issue is now 
made up, and comprehended to be payment or post¬ 
ponement. 

I regard the postponement of a public debt as its per¬ 
petuation, and this view is sustained by the history of 
public debts. This monster of finance is quite a mod¬ 
ern invention, and already has become one of the great¬ 
est evils and sources of oppression among the civilized 
nations of the world, and is certainly the most oppress¬ 
ive yoke endured by a majority of the people who 
speak our language. Under the old Feudal system, the 
Barons paid the expenses of their wars out of their own 
pockets—sometimes paying their jewels and mort¬ 
gaging their lands to obtain the means necessary to 
prosecute their enterprises; and it was not until the 
close of the seventeenth century, that the continuance 
of a national debt was invented in England—a contri¬ 
vance to tax and oppress posterity. It originated with 
a national bank—the parent of a multitude of political 
evils—the parent of our own banking system. Pre¬ 
vious to the origin of a national bank, there was no such 
thing in England as a permanent debt. Government 
contracted debts for short periods, and paid them at 
maturity. At the time of which I speak, the bank of 
England loaned the British government the sum of 
twelve hundred thousand pounds, and thus com¬ 
menced the present enormous national debt of that 
country. 

Early in the eighteenth centuiy Mr. Walpole, the great¬ 
est statesman of his age, comprehending that the post¬ 
ponement of the national debt would tend to its per¬ 
petuation, devised the scheme of a sinking fund to ac¬ 
complish its payment, but the project failed and the 
payment of the debt was postponed. Near the close 
of the same century, Mr. Pitt made a similar experi¬ 
ment, and that also failed, not on account of any defect 
in the plan of a sinking fund, but because the annual 
sum appropriated for that purpose was constantly di¬ 
rected to other uses. The debt continued to accumu¬ 
late, and all hope of ever paying it off' was abandoned, 
the sinking fund, after costing millions, was finally abol¬ 
ished in 1824. 

Thus we see the postponment of the British national 
debt to posterity, not only perpetuated the debt, but 
increased it, and thereby augmented, without hoite 
of escape, the taxes levied upon the industry of the na¬ 
tion. Such is a brief history of the modern system of 
public debts, the legacy which some gentlemen would 
have us bequeath to posterity. 

But the people desire to pay off the debt as soon as 
they conveniently can—they want to escape the pay¬ 
ment of an interest tax as soon as possible. They 
know well enough, that a national debt is not a bless¬ 
ing, but a curse, a calamity, oppressive and impover¬ 
ishing. 

In the British government the postponement policy 
has prevailed, inflicting upon posterity the most oppres¬ 
sive burdens, from which now there is no visible pros¬ 


pect of relief. I need not refer to the innumerable 
evils which result from the national debt of England, 
for every gentleman here must be presumed to be fully 
informed on the subject. But I ask, shall we follow 
the British example ? Shall we not rather be admon¬ 
ished that the indefinite postponement of a public debt 
will lead to its perpetuation? Shall we not rather ap¬ 
preciate the fact, that the payment of one million ol 
dollars per annum, by the farmers of Ohio, to the bond¬ 
holders—one million of dollars sent every year to New 
York, for which there is no return, is an evil of great 
magnitude, which calls for a speedy remedy. 

But we are told that this is a subject which belongs 
exclusively and appropriately to the province of legis¬ 
lation. 

I entertain a different opinion, and am in favor of 
providing in the constitution for the payment of the 
State debt, for I regard such payment as of elemental 
importance—right in principle and beneficial in prac¬ 
tice, and therefore proper to be provided for in the con¬ 
stitution. A constitutional provision for the payment 
of the State debt has been called ^‘an iron rule;” and 
some call it legislation.” 

We are making a constitution which ought to pro¬ 
tect the rights and interests of the people, and I care 
not what you call this or any other provision—wheth¬ 
er “iron rule” or “legislation;” if its insertion in 
the constitution will promote the prosperity and hap¬ 
piness of the people of Ohio, I will vote for it. 

Those who desire to perpetuate the State debt, fear 
two things—its payment, and its repudiation—to both 
of which they appear equally opposed; for, in either 
case they would be no longer able to levy a tax for in¬ 
terest, of one million of dmlars per annum, upon the 
people. In either case they would no longer be able 
to keep sixty thousand people of Ohio at work, year 
after year, and paying all their earnings over expenses, 
to the bond holders. The people must be kept honest 
so they will not repudiate, and in debt, so that they can 
be taxed. 

A short time ago the bond holders feared only repudi¬ 
ation, now they fear only the payment of the debt. 
They don’t want the principal—all they ask, all they 
desire, is the prompt payment of the interest, and then 
the longer we postpone the payment of the debt, the 
more will they be gratified. But I tell these gentlemen, 
that the people of Ohio are tired of paying the inter¬ 
est tax, which they see is so much taken annually from 
the proceeds of their industry—a tax for which they 
receive no equivalent. 

This thing of interest, has become an immense trans¬ 
ferring and accumulating power in these modern days 
of commerce and finance, and bids fair to become the 
great impoverisher of iiidustiy. 

The taking of interest (then called usury) was for¬ 
bidden by the early Christians as a sinful practice—as 
the taking of value without consideration. 

The cumulative power of capital at interest is start¬ 
ling, as might be illustrated by numerous examples 
The Dutch bought the island of New York of the In¬ 
dians foraii insignificant trifle, and it is estimated, that 
if the original cost of the island had been invested at 
the time of its purchase, at compound interest, it 
would have increased by this time, to an amount equal 
in value to that of the whole city of New York, in¬ 
cluding all its public and private property. Thus the 
small amount originally paid for the island of New 
York, would have accumulated or earned more by in¬ 
terest in the time specified, than all its inhabitants had 
together by industry. ' 

According to the distinguished arithmetician, Dr. 
Price, the originator of Pitt’s sinking fund, one penny 
invested at compound interest at the time of the birth 
of Christ, would have accumulated by the year 1786, 
to an amount equal in value to several globes of gold, 
each as large as this earth. This seems hardly credible 
and may be exaggeration, but the cumulative power 
of money at compound interest, will scarcely be 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


4.57 


credited by any person not acquainted with the sub 
ject. 

Bond holders and stockholders perfectly understood 
this wonderful procreating power of money at interest, 
and therefore, as the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. 
Stanbery] says, “ they don’t want to have our State 
debt paid.” They desire that least of all things, and, 
as that gentleman also tells us, “ they would even go 
so far as to give a premium, a bonus to the State to post¬ 
pone the payment of the debt.” To be sure they 
would. These bond holders fully understand their in¬ 
interests. ^And the people, who begin to understand 
their interests also, would be willing to give a “bonus” 
to "et rid of paying taxes to the bond holders—but 
their taxes cannot be postponed till the debt has been 
paid. They will jiay the debt; and thus escape the 
tax for interest. They don’t want your bonus—they 
won’t consent to deliver themselves up to be taxed 
forever for the sake of any such piemium. This ques¬ 
tion of the State paying off its debt as is now propo¬ 
sed, is a plain, practical business matter, which every 
farmer in the State, qualified to manage his own busi¬ 
ness affairs, can fully understand; and as in his private 
affairs, he would say pay off the debt as soon as prac¬ 
ticable. 

But gentlemen say, that as our public improvements 
inure chiefly to the benefit of posterity, posterity ought 
to pay the debt incurred in their construction. They 
tell us that would be perfectly just—all right. Do we 
transmit the public works unencumbered? No sir. 
We postpone to posterity the payment of six hundred 
thousand dollars per annum, above the proceeds of the 
public works; which have been ascertained to be only 
three hundred thousand dollars per annum. Nine hun¬ 
dred thousand dollars is the interest upon the debt; 
therefore we pass over to posterity an incumbrance of 
six hundred thousand dollars, for which “posterity” 
will receive no adequate consideration. Now that 
don’t appear so just. 

As I understand the controversy befoi’e the commit¬ 
tee, it involves almost wholly the question of postpone¬ 
ment or payment of the State debt. As is my custom, 
I have taken notes of the debate, not, however, with a 
view of speaking on the subject—and I find that, ac¬ 
cording to my notes, the gentleman from Franklin, 
when speaking on this subject, said: “ It would be 
quite fair for us to take a hundred years to pay off this 
debt.” 

Mr. STANBERY. Perhaps the gentleman has my 
ery words, but what I think I said was (ha* “i) 
^ould be quite just; ” that, at any rate, was what I 
wtended. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I find the words written here 
as I have read them. 

Mr. STANBERY. The gentleman will use my 
words, and show the injustice of such an expedient. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. That is precisely what I am at. 
I am showing the injustice of the policy of postponing 
the payment of the debt for a hundred years. The 
people now have to pay an annual tax, for interest, of 
one million, which they want to get rid of, and disen¬ 
cumber their property. 

Mr. STANBERY. If the gentleman makes the injus¬ 
tice of paying the debt in a hundred years, how much 
more injustice would there be in the policy which com¬ 
pels the payment in twenty-eight years ? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. The advantage of the policy 
of paying the debt in thirty-eight years as is proposed 
(not in twenty-eight,)'consists in getting rid, not only 
of the debt, but of the annual taxation to pay interest, 
and also the cost of collection, and the transmission of 
the funds to New York, the place of payment. But, 
postpone payment one hundred years, and at the low¬ 
est computation, the debt will be paid six and a half 
times, in addition to the payment of the principal. Ac¬ 
cording to the plan proposed the debt can be paid off 
in thirty.eight years, without increasing the burthen of 
taxation. The per cent, of taxation would in fact an¬ 


nually decrease in proportion to the increase of the 
property of the State. The people of Ohio pay, in the 
shape of interest upon this debt, including the expen¬ 
ses of collection, more than a million of dollars per an¬ 
num, but we will call it a million. Our farmers on an 
average make a nett profit above all expenses, of not 
more than $100 per annum. This is in fact more 
than the actual average of what they make, over all ex¬ 
penses. Each farmer aided by the labor of his family, 
we suppose then, to make one hundred dollars per an¬ 
num, clear of all expenses, and the State debt tax will 
consume the aggregate surplus earnings of ten thousand 
farmers, working year after year, and decade after de¬ 
cade. And we are gravely told that the debt which 
requires this annual tax, should as a matter of justice, 
be postponed to posterity—to be paid generation after 
veneration, for a hundred years at least, by our chil¬ 
dren’s children, and their children’s posterity. 

Yes, these ten thousaizd farmers of Ohio, with their 
families and dependents, making sixty thousand, a 
force sufficient to re-conquer Mexico, will have to work 
year after year lor the bondholders, because the pay¬ 
ment of the debt ought to be postponed to posterity as 
a mere matter of justice. 

Yes, sir, it is proposed that for one hundred years, 
sixty thousand people shall continue to labor, to pay 
the interest on the State debt—and in that time pay a 
hundred millions—even more than that according to 
the computation of the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. 
Swan,] yes, one hundred and fifty millions of dollars 
is to be taken away from Ohio and deposited in the 
coffers of the bondholders. Truly, sir, such a system 
would impoverish any people. It would have been bet¬ 
ter for the people of Ohio, if they had never borrowed a 
dollar to construct their public works. 

Far better for the people, had the State like the 
Egyptians in building their pyramids, and the Chinese 
in constructing their canals and great public works, left 
no debts to be paid by posterity. Our public works 
would have been completed before this time on the cash 
system; and at a cost of perhaps not half as much as 
was paid; and the people would now have been out of 
debt, and almost without taxes. 

There is another view of this question which arises 
here. It has been remarked as an objection to a con¬ 
stitutional provision to pay the debt,that war, pestilence, 
famine, and short crops may come upon us—circumstan¬ 
ces, which would render us unable to meet the pay¬ 
ment of the taxation required by the proposed amend¬ 
ment. This is possible, Mr. Chairman, but it is also 
the best argument which could be offered, in favor of 
commencing the payment of the debt now when we 
are prosperous; nov? when we have no prospect of 
war; now when are in the full fruition of all the ele¬ 
ments of prosperity and success. Let us go to work, 
and make a beginning now, in the day of our prosperi¬ 
ty, for the payment of this debt, and not be dism^ed 
by financial calamities which may befall us hereafter. 
Let us pay while we can—reduce the debt, and our 
taxes to pay interest will annually decrease—we will 
then be better prepared for a season of calamity, a 
period of war, or pestilence that may befall us in the 
future. 

I have already too long detained the committee. I 
rose merely to present a few considerations which I 
thought pertinent to the subject, and to say that I am 
in favor of the propositioii of the gentleman from Cuy¬ 
ahoga [Mr. Hitchcock.] It embraces, I believe, pre¬ 
cisely my own views, and if the gentleman had not 
offered it, I had prepared and should have presented a 
similar amendment myself. I am perfectly convinced 
that the people, the producers of Ohio the men who 
by their industry create the wealth of the State, whose 
earnings pay all taxes and all profits desire to com¬ 
mence paying off the State debt. The proposition be¬ 
fore us to provide for its payment, will not alarm that 
portion of our people, but on the contrary, recommend 
the new constitution to their support. 








458 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Tli*>re is another argument, that has not been men¬ 
tioned, in favor of inserting such provision in the con¬ 
stitution. It will invite emigrants to settle in our State, 
the resources of which are in a great measure still 
undeveloped. Emigrants from Germany — a peo¬ 
ple opposed to running in debt, public or private— 
will be induced by that consideration to seek a home 
in our State. Many of my constituents are from the 
“Vaterland.” There is no more worthy class of citi¬ 
zens. Other foreign emigrants will settle in Ohio for 
the same reason. And emigrants from the east, when 
they see that we have commenced paying olF our debt, 
and that there is a prospect of reduced taxes, will be 
glad to stop here in a land of plenty and refinement, 
and pitch their tents among us; and more especially 
will this be the case, if the other western States pur¬ 
sue a different policy. At present, our State debt and 
high taxes prevent the settlement in Ohio of thousands 
of emigrants, who would make excellent citizens, and 
by pitching their tents upon our fields, increase the 
value of our property more than the whole amount of 
the State debt. Let us then purchase our freedom 
from this crushing incubus, which checks the prosper¬ 
ity and smothers the energies of the people—the hon¬ 
est, hard working yeomanry of Ohio. 

Mr. COLLINGS did not propose to enter into the 
discussion of the question of either plan before the 
committee at this time. He did not feel fully satisfied 
that we were acting within the line of our duty as mem¬ 
bers of a constitutional convention. He thought the 
Convention had discharged its duty, when it had 
pledged to the payment of the debt, the income arising 
ifom the public works and stocks of the State, and 
had made a requisition on the Legislature aunually to 
provide for the prompt payment of the interest, and 
for meeting the principal. He was not, however, wed¬ 
ded to his own view of the case, and felt great respect 
for the opinions of other gentlemen who entertained a 
different opinion, and intended to give full weight to 
their arguments. 

The question now presented assumes a different 
form from the one he had suggested and desired. The 
question is, “ shall we establish the details of a system 
for liquidating the public debt, in the form of a consti¬ 
tutional provision?” One objection to the proposition 
now under discussion is this: it is said we are about 
to bind down the Legislature under the stern operation 
of an inflexible—an iron rule. This is in a sense 
true. But are we not already bound by an iron rule, 
for the payment of all—both principal and interest? 
Are we not bound by every consideration of justice, of 
honor, and of State pride? And how inconsiderable is 
the addition made by this scheme to that furnished by 
the rule under which we have for several years lived? 
It is but the addition of three or four cents to the one 
hundred which we have paid all along. We have paid 
one hundred, and who shall say that in order to make 
the proper provision to relieve the State from debt, we 
cannot pay one hundred and three or four? He had 
prefeiTed that the section should not assume this shape, 
but should yield his opinion to that of others, and 
would support the proposition of the gentleman from 
Cuyahoga. 

On motion of Mr. STILWELL, the committee rose 
and reported, and the Convention took a recess. 

3 o’clock,, P. M. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, the Convention resolved 
itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. Sawyer in the 
chair) and resumed the consideration of the report of 
the committee on 

PUBLIC DEBTS AND PUBLIC WORKS. 

The question was announced as being on the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitch 

COCK.] 

Mr. STANBERY. What I said on yesteiday has 
been veiy much misunderstood, or very much misrep¬ 
resented. I have been put in a false position, and 


charged with inconsistency—with indiflercnce to the 
payment of the public debt, and to the preservation of 
the public faith—with teaching doctrines that tend to 
I'epudiation. I must beg the indulgence of the com¬ 
mittee whilst I reply to these arguments and reiterate 
my views as to the proposition now under consider¬ 
ation. 

The gentleman from Morgan [Mr. PIawkins] says 
that I have been betrayed into a palpable inconsisten¬ 
cy. And what is the inconsistency t It is this ; that a 
few days ago I stood here to exhibit the greatness and 
prosperity of the State, and contended that this pub¬ 
lic debt was a thing which the people need not be a- 
larmed at—that the people were able to grapple with 
the debt, and pay it—and then, that on yesterday, I 
stood here to depreciate the ability of the people to pay 
it, and opposed the payment of the debt itself, and 
that I prayed the Convention not to tax them to the 
death. 

I think, sir, the inconsistency will not be found in 
what I did say, but rather in what I am supposed to 
have said. I shall take nothing back of all that I said 
as to the greatness of our State, as to her career of pros¬ 
perity for the last thirty years. Yet with all that, our 
taxation has been most burdensome; but continued 
prosperity has enabled the State to bear it. If we are 
for the next thirty years to meet with no reverses, as I 
hope we shall not,—if the wealth and resources of the 
State are to increase in the future in any proportion 
equal to the past, as I hope they may, then indeed^ is 
this debt, and the taxation to pay the interest and prin¬ 
cipal, no matter to be dreaded. 

But, sir, I said distinctly that these hopes might be 
disappointed; that reverses might come upon us; that 
in the next thirty years there might be seasons in which 
a tax only equal to the interest would be intolerable, 
and that for one I was therefore unwilling to fix in this 
constitution a stated and unalterable tax, to endure for 
a long series of years. I said further, that however 
prosperous the people may be for the next 28 years, 
there is neither justice or equality in requiring them to 
pay the entire debt—that it was neither a debt incur¬ 
red altogether by this generation, nor altogether for 
the benefit of this generation, and that our duty to 
those who are to come after us is, to jiay our fair pro¬ 
portion, and to leave it to them who take the benefit, 
to take also some part of the burden. Pray, sir, where 
is the inconsistency ? 

The gentleman from Richland [Mr. Kirkwood] ar¬ 
gued to show that my amendment and my argument 
led to repudiation; that he was very much afraid, if my 
views prevailed and the amendment were adopted, 
instead of the propo.sition of the committee, they 
would eventuate in repudiation. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD (interposing.) My idea was this: 
that unless the people saw some fixed period when 
taxation for the payment of the interest on this debt 
would terminate, that it would end in repudiation. 

Mr. STANBERY. It was but a few minutes after, 
that the gentleman intimated that I stood up as the ad¬ 
vocate of stock gamblers, stock jobbers, brokers and 
bankers, the very men who would be totally destroyed 
by repudiation. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I did not mean any thing of the 
kind. I merely wished to say, that this should not be 
made the basis of banking in this State. 

Mr. STANBERY. You thought there was a covert 
purpose in this plan ? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Not entertained by the gentle¬ 
man, but that the result would have the tendency I in¬ 
dicated. 

Mr. STANBERY. My project, then, has two ten¬ 
dencies ; the first, to repudiate ; and the second to car¬ 
ry out the interests of the men who would be mined 
by repudiation ? The gentleman says, that the bond 
holders are against any fixed day of payment. Be¬ 
cause, why? Because they make these bonds the 
foundation of banking capital, and are therefore de- 






CONVENTION REPORTS. 


459 


sirous of holding them as long as possible. Who then 
is to be injured by this repudiation? The very men 
who are anxious that the bonds should not be paid. 
But strange to say, those who are to suffer all the con¬ 
sequences of repudiation, are not at all alarmed at the 
postponment. So then, in reason, the gentleman ought 
not to be fearful. We have no occasion then to be 
alanned at the postponement,—the stockholders are 
not, for we have had an instance this year, when these 
stock gamblers and stock jobbers were entirely will- 
ing to postpone the payment until 1875, giving us one- 
fifth of the debt by way of bonus. 

Mr. REEMBLIN here made a remark which was 
not audible at the table, but he was understood to say 
that the State had not made money by the operation 
alluded to. 

Mr. STANBERY continued. I amnotnow standing 
on the banks of the Rhine, but here where the legal 
rate of interest is ten per cent. 

Mr. RE EMELIN. Does not the gentleman know 
that if you pay six per cent, it is not in New York more 
than five per cent., and they consider it a good invest¬ 
ment for five ? 

Mr. STANBERY. That is true; and that is one way 
in which we would begin to lighten the debt. As the 
debt becomes due it may be postponed, and reduced 
by the postponement; and the rate of interest changed 
from a debt at 6 per cent, to a debt at five per cent., 
while all the time money here in Ohio is worth to the 
people more than 6 per cent. 

Mr. REEMELIN remarked that we had lost millions 
according to a calculation he had made, by negotiating 
the four millions this year. 

Mr. STANBERY. The gentleman is for immediate 
payment at any sacrifice. I am for gradual payment 
and postponement. Now, instead of postponing the 
$4,000,000, if we had taken the money from the people 
and paid it, what would we have made by that opera¬ 
tion ? 

Mr. REEMELIN. We would have saved the entire 
interest. 

Mr. STANBERY. By paying the entire principal? 

Mr. REEMELIN. Exactly so. 

Mr. STANBERY. But we have, by the postpone¬ 
ment, wiped out nearly one fifth of the principal, with¬ 
out paying a dollar. Is not that, in a financial point of 
view, a little better than payment of the whole? Let 
me make it appear. I give a note for $100, which 
bears interest at 6 per cent., and it is due. I go to my 
creditor and ask him for twenty years further credit, 
and in lieu of the $100 note I give him my note for $80, 
at the same rate of interest, or what is the same thing, 
I give him my note for $100 and he pays me $20 as a 
premium. Now, if the money is worth 6 per cent, to 
me, is it not better, as a question of profit, that I should 
retain the money ? 

Mr. REEMELIN. Therein lies the difference be¬ 
tween the gentleman and myself. 

Mr. STANBERY. A very wide difference. It is a 
gulf that I never can bridge with any financial views 
of mine; it is like the gulf that divides Lazai’us and 
Dives. I can never pass over to the gentleman, nor 
can he ever come to me. 

And now allow me to say a few words in reply to 
what was said by the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. 
Hitchcock.] That gentleman commenced his reply 
by saying that I stood up here to advocate a public 
debt as a public blessing. That was a vei’y comforta¬ 
ble premise for the gentleman’s argument. The gen¬ 
tleman is a little older than I am, but I am not altogeth¬ 
er a boy, and it the gentleman expected to get me into 
that position and keep me there, he will find himself 
very much deceived. That mode of argument is not 
altogether new. It consists in assuming that an adver¬ 
sary has taken a position which in reality he had not 
taken. I said no such thing—I argued no such thing. 
I admitted that it was a public calamity. I did not 
say that we ought to go into debt, but I did say that as 


we were here only for the purpose of making a consti¬ 
tution, we should not make a tax law. And I say by 
my amendment that we ought to pay the interest on 
the debt punctually and the principal from time to time 
until the last dollar is paid. Again, the gentleman from 
Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitchcock] went on to say that I 
spoke for the stock holder, and that I knew more about 
them than any other gentleman on this floor. That is 
news to me. I never bought or sold a dollar of our 
stocks, and never expect to do so. But I should be 
obliged to the gentleman if he would state where he 
received this information. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. I said that the 
gentleman was more familiar with stockholders in 
this State than other men: that is entirely matter of 
inference with myself. I understand there were many 
in this city, with whom he is acquainted. 

Mr. STANBERY. The gentleman has been quite 
misinformed when he supposes that my taste in regard 
to selecting particular friends lies in that way. My in¬ 
timate friends are members of the bar, and but very 
few of us hold anything in the way of stock. 

Again, the gentleman asks us, what is our duty to 
the generation that is to come after us, and then goes 
on to say that we have wasted this money. What is 
our duty? Why, sir, who incurred the debt,- and lor 
what purpose ? This debt was commenced a quarter 
of a century ago, and can scarcely be said to have been 
incurred by this generation. But what sort of a debt 
is it—for what purposes incuri'ed, that it can be said 
that the money has been wasted—that we have wasted 
it—that we ought to pay it? Now, il we were talking 
of a debt contracted by this generation, to carry on an 
expensive and aggressive war, or to pension favorites, or 
gratify expensive and luxurious tastes, there would be 
some ground to say that those wdio had so wasted the 
money, should discharge the debt to the last dollar. 
But sir, no such charge can bo sustained. Not a dollar 
of it has been spent in war—in pensions in luxuries, 
but every cent has been paid in the construction of 
great works of public improvement, which are to last 
l()r centuries. 

The gentleman is wrong in saying that we are bound, 
to pay the whole of this debt;—no such thing, we do 
justice to postei’ity and perform strictly our duty, by 
paying our part of it. That is justice to posteniy. 
And here, sir, I need only refer to one admission made 
by the gentleman from Cuyahoga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] to 
show that we are paying this debt quite as rapmly as 
can be required. He estimates that on the first ot 
January, 1852, the reducible debt will be brought 
down to $15,000,000. And who has so brought it 
down? It has been done by the people of this gener¬ 
ation. We have not only punctually paid the interest, 
but have, within a few years, greatly diminished the 
principal. But it has been said that this reduction of 
the principal is chiefly owing to the surplus revenue 
and the canal lands given to us by the I edera 
ment. That is true; but are we to have no credit for 
such a reduction ? I can hardly ^ ® 

lands as a gift to the people of Ohio, for e a 

this generation, expended in these canals, pe Y 

hanced the value and expedited the ° ® , 

lands of the General Government wdhm the State, and 

there was a full consideration for the 

ated to Ohio. But if these lands and ^unds were given 

to us we might have appropriated them o 

They were ours to dispose of as we saw fit. We misfit 

have applied these funds to the in eres le^ivinCT 

and have lightened so much of our taxation, leaving 

the principatundiminished. Instead of th-, jejaise 
the interest by taxation, and apply & 
duction of the principal. 

Whv sir, under our present system, without any 
such provision as is now proposed to be put m our con¬ 
stitution, we have done more than our share towards, 
the payment of this debt. Under tnis system, nearly 
one fourth of the debt will have been paid within, 
little more than one year from this date. 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


460 


I understood the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. 
Hitchcock] to say that when we shall have reduced 
the debt to $15,000,000, that sum will yet include not 
only the principal of our debt, but some part of the 
unpaid interest. 

[Mr. HITCHCOCK here made an explanation to 
show that he had been misunderstood.] 

Mr. STANBERY. The $15,000,000 will not include 
a cent of the interest, and is greatly below* the prime 
cost of our public works. Our canals alone, as I find 
by the report of the Board of Public Works of Janu¬ 
ary 1847, cost exactly $15,368,966. Now on the 1st 
January 1852, w*e shall have brought down the debt 
below the prime cost of the canals, and we shall have 
paid besides every dollar of the debt incurred for all 
our rail road and turnpike stocks. This is doing quite 
as much as could be asked. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, in view of what has been done 
—in view of the good hiith always exhibited by the 
State and its Legislature—seeing no necessity for such 
a constitutional provision as that now proposed—seeing 
great danger in its adoption, I have felt bound to oppose 
this report. I have had the temerity, as it seems, to 
doubt the policy of such a clause in our constitution. 
Sir, I still entertain these doubts, and have heard no 
argument which removes them. What are we sent here 
for? To make a constitution. What are we now 
about? Making a tax law—that is it. We turn this 
body into a Legislature, and we assume the highest 
functions of a Legislature. We make a tax law—we 
impose a tax, not for one year, but for 28 years, accor¬ 
ding to the report, and for 40 years, according to the 
amendment. 

I ask gentlemen were they sent here to tax the peo¬ 
ple—to usurp the power of the Legislature, and to say 
what amount of tax, to the last dime, the people shall 
pay for the next 28 or 40 years ?—and to tie up the 
hands of the Legislature, so that no matter what might 
be the emergency, the people shall always pay the 
same amount ? I say, in the first place, that this is en¬ 
tirely new doctrine to me. There is some legislation 
which can go into futurity, and be as true and just 50 
years hence as now, but the worst legislation that man 
can devise, is a fixed and unyielding system of taxa¬ 
tion. I know of no State constitution in which such a 
system exists. I have heretofore referred to tlie New 
York constitution—and what is provided for in that? 
There is a provision for the payment of their public 
debt, but it comes from the canal revenues—not from 
taxation. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga here intimated that 
the constitution of the State of Illinois rendered it ob¬ 
ligatory upon the Legislature of that State to make an¬ 
nual provision for tlie payment of the interest, and a 
portion of the principal of its public debt. 

Mr. STANBERY. Illinois has been a repudiating 
State. Some stringent provision may have been ne¬ 
cessary in her constitution as to the payment of her 
debt—but it furnishes no example for Ohio. I was 
speaking of New York. The constitution of that 
State, provides that out of more than $2,000,000 of reve¬ 
nue from her canals, $1,500,000 shall Ido annually ap¬ 
plied to the interest and principal of her canal debt. I 
am not only willing to follow the example of New 
York, but to say, that not only three-fourths, but the 
whole of our canal revenues shall go to our public debt. 
I would further provide, that our canals shall never be 
sold—that they shall always remain the property of 
the State—always under the control of the State, and 
never be under the control of ^ny individual, or any 
corporation, ” '"uCld' 

Mr. Chairman, I do hope, that impelled by a nerv¬ 
ous anxiety to extinguish this debt, we may not adopt 
this novel and dangerous experiment. Let us look at 
it for a moment. Let us examine this process of erect¬ 
ing ourselves into a tax tribunal, to tax the people for 
40 years, and say just how much they shall pay every 
succeeding year. What is taxation that we should stand 


here and impose taxes for so many years in advance ? 
Why, taxation is an annual thing. What does it arise 
out of? Profits, the surplus of earnings, after men 
have clothed and fed themselves—the result of their 
labor, after men have provided for their families. We 
must first provide for ourselves—for our families—for 
the necessaries of life—before we can pay our taxes. 

Taxation is an annual thing, depending—upon what? 
Upon annual production. That is the only basis upon 
which it can be raised. And what is this annual pro¬ 
duction? I undertake to say that, rich as Ohio is, at 
least three-fourths of its wealth is annually produced 
and annually consumed. The relative value of annual 
production in the richest countries in the world—even 
in such acountiy of accumulated wealth as England 
is in something like the proportion I have mentioned. 
This fact has been well ascertained by political econo¬ 
mists, and has solved a great enigma in political econo¬ 
my. We now have come to understand why it is that 
countries so soon recover from great calamities, which 
sweep away all their riches. We now know why it is 
that such a country as that which lies along the Rhine 
—a country that for ages has been the battle-field of 
Europe—how it is that, after having been devastated 
by war—its towns sacked and burnt—its productions 
all destroyed—ils industry all paralyzed—that with a 
year or two of peace its wealth is as great as ever. 
The secret is annual production. Right out of the 
earth comes every year all this abundance. Annual 
production and annual taxation must go together'—the 
one depends upon the other—and we can say with no 
more certainty as to the future how much tax the peo¬ 
ple shall pay than how much grain the earth shall pro¬ 
duce. 

Sir, we grow too confident of the future. We have 
had a long series of years of continued prosperity— 
hardly a season has passed without filling us with 
abundance. Never has any people been more highly 
favored. Now for nearly the half of a century the 
career of Ohio has been onward. She has moved for¬ 
ward with the pace of a giant. Vestigia nulla retror- 
sum. 

Looking to the past we grow too confident of the fu¬ 
ture—and we are ready to say that in every year, for 
the next 40 years, the people shall raise a fixed amount 
in the way of taxes. If, in that long tract of time, re¬ 
verses shall come upon us—if at last, as we wax fat, 
we are brought to understand that we are not exempt 
from the common lot—w'.iy even then, at our utmost 
need, we are to have no relief. This unchangeable 
tax must be paid. No Legislature, annual or biennial, 
can lighten it one dollar. 

With all our prosperity we have not been without 
some warnings. Even last year, when the great crop 
of the State was almost ready for the sickle, in a single 
night it was blighted, and the labor of the year nearly 
lost. Another such season, and the people of Ohio can¬ 
not pay a tax equal to the interest upon the debt. How 
do we know, sir, that we may not be visited by such a 
calamity as that which befel Ireland a short time since? 
A whole nation I'educed to starvation by the loss of a 
single crop. What if England had said to her sister 
Island, “ you shall always pay a fixed tax”? 

Sir, let me not be misunderstood. No one regrets 
more than myself that this debt is upon us—no one 
would be more happy to see it discharged—no one is 
more anxious that the faith of the State should be kept 
hereafter—as it has been kept heretofore—inviolate. 
I hope, sir, it may be discharged even before the time 
fixed in the report. The future must determine that. 
There will be years of great prosperity—of abundant 
crops—of large revenues from our public works—in 
which the interest may be paid without any hardship, 
and a million may go towards the reduction of the prin¬ 
cipal: and there may be years of such disaster, that 
even the interest should be pi-ovided for in some oth¬ 
er mode than by taxation. As we cannot see into this 
hidden future—as we cannot know what may be the 














CONVENTION REPORTS 


461 


ability of’ the people in each successive year of the 
long period fixed by the report to pay this fixed sum— 
as the people are always to have their representatives 
here—I do think it much the wisest policy to leave 
this matter of annual taxation to be adjusted by annual 
legislation. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I did not intend to say anything 
upon the question now before the committee,, nor should 
I, were it not that the doctrines advanced by the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] do appear to 
me so monstrous as to deserve a reply. They were 
clothed, it is true, in a great deal of plausibility, and I 
freely acknowledge that it is the best speech yet deliv¬ 
ered by that gentleman on this floor. 1 could not help 
thinking, however, that had the “ Rochester knockings ” 
been here at the time of making the speech, and they 
had called upon the ghost of Hamilton, he would have 
loudly cheered and applauded the sentiments uttered 
by the gentleman. That gentleman has now taken us 
into grave yards and blighted harvest fields, and he has 
drawn of the future prospects of Ohio a very gloomy 
picture. The picture fairly made me shudder, and if 
it had not been for the bright picture drawn by the 
same gentleman a few weeks ago, and which has been 
deeply engraven on my memory, despair might have 
seized my mind, and I might have been induced to give 
up my predilections in favor of paying off the State 
debt of Ohio as soon as possible. The other day the 
gentleman took us into the ladies’ parlors and repre¬ 
sented them playing upon pianos, and he pictured to us 
the people of Ohio as enjoying the fairest inheritance of 
man, and the hilltops and the vallies were represented 
in the most glowing colors. It shows that the gentle¬ 
man can draw a bright picture, fascinating in the ex¬ 
treme, but he can also destroy the fair prospects entered 
into our minds by the most gloomy forebodings of the 
future. The gentleman has also talked to us of increa¬ 
sing taxation, of the heavy burthens upon the people, 
the impossibility for them to meet the obligations 
resting upon them from past generations, so that I was 
induced really to ask myself what we really proposed ? 
Had we proposed to pay off the State debt in one year? 
Had we proposed to levy intolerable burthens upon the 
people, the picture would have been well enough; but 
unfortunately for the gentleman, the whole proposition 
is to keep taxing the people of Ohio $100,000 annually 
for the purpose of paying the principal of the pub¬ 
lic debt. $100,000 annually on a duplicate ot over 
$400,000,000, 25 cents per head for each male adult in 
the State of Ohio is the great bugbear that is to stagger 
the wise men of this Convention, and to prevent the 
adoption of the amendment under consideration. For 
let it be understood that no increase of taxation will be 
the consequence of the adoption of the amendment. It 
i is only taking out of the amount now levied, as already 
established by law, $100,000 annually towards the pay¬ 
ment of the principal of the State debt. Taxation 
therel’ore will not be increased, and the only result will 
be, that instead of squandering the money on other ob¬ 
jects, the General Assembly will be compelled to apply 
i It towards the payment of the debt. Let no member 
of this Convention lay “ the flattering unction to his 
soul,” that the taxes in the State of Ohio will ever be 
diminished. The General Assembly will always find 
some loop-holes and some means upon which to spend 
the money coming into their hands, and, whether you 
adopt this amendment or not, taxation in Ohio will al¬ 
ways be just as great as it now is, and the only differ¬ 
ence that can exist will be, that by the adoption of the 
amendment before us the State debt will be gradually 
reduced, while by the adoption of the amendment of 
the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] taxation 
will remain the same, but the State debt, and of neces¬ 
sity the interest thereon, will always remain stationary. 

I We must not blink this question, a full treasury is al¬ 
ways tempting to the Legislature, and unless you com¬ 
pel the application of a part of the taxation raised from 
1 the people towai’ds the payment of the State debt, the 


amount will be applied to other and far less useful j)ur- 
poscs. Public officers are forever clamoring for higher 
salaries, there are public institutions that are forever 
appealing to the sympathies of the Legislatui’e; another 
penitentiary and other public institutions in other parts 
of the State, with other new claims for generosity are 
ever arising to l^ad astray those who hold the purse 
strings of the people, and unless the Legislature is kept 
closely “hauled up” in funds, their generosity will be 
successfully appealed to, and they will expend the 
money in a way not so economical as they would in 
different circumstances- To compel then the Legisla¬ 
ture to apply $100,000 annually to the object specified 
is not only a saving of that precise amount in itself, but 
it is a saving annually of the amount of interest covered 
by that amount, and leads very soon to the rapid extin¬ 
guishment of the public debt. Every dollar thus ap¬ 
plied to the payment of a public debt, is to that extent 
a reduction, not only of the principal, but of the inter¬ 
est, and the labor of the people of Ohio saved to that 
extent annually. And in addition the exportation of 
their means to other climes is prevented. The policy 
is therefore dictated not only by principles of economy, 
but it is dictated by the highest considerations, viz: to 
relieve the laboring part of the community gradually 
of the odious burthens which the payment of the interest 
annually draws out of the State from their earnings. 
For be it remembered that every dollar paid for interest 
on our foreign debt carries out of the State that amount 
of the earnings of our people. As we reduce the debt, 
less is drawn for interest from the laboring part of the 
community, and every reduction therefore of the debt 
is substantially an increase of our means. For it is not 
to feed our people—it is not to give bread to our chil¬ 
dren, or to clothe our wives, that that money is applied, 
but it goes to feed men in Europe and New York, whom 
we know not, with whose names even we are unac¬ 
quainted. 

The gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] has 
presented to us, in very exciting terms, the expediency 
and profitableness of the debt going policy. No won¬ 
der that a man in whose mind the debt going policy has 
produced such “beautiful” results should be opposed 
to the debt paying policy. He has told us that we have 
15 millions of dollars in canals, but he has carefully 
omitted to state to us, that in accordance with the nett 
amount of revenue derived from them they are really 
worth but five millions. We have then sunk 10 millions 
in canals. The gentleman has told us of the great re¬ 
sults in the rise of property affected by the system, but 
he also omitted very carefully to tell us, that this bene¬ 
fit by the rise of property is enjoyed by only about 
two-thirds of the property of the State, while the bal¬ 
ance of the community who do not share in the bene¬ 
fits of the system, are annually compelled to contribute 
by taxation to make up the deficit that exists in the 
revenue of our public works. We have indeed been 
glorious financiers; we have financiered two-thirds of 
the people of Ohio into splendid fortunes, we have 
raised the value of the property of a part, and to do so 
we have taxed the remainder to make up these results. 
We have gone canal digging and engaged in the carry¬ 
ing trade on the money of our children. We have 
speculated, not on our own means, but on the means of 
those who come after us; this is a glorious way of 
growing inch!! If we had only been bold enough to 
draw a little harder upon the earnings oi posterity we 
mighthave been richerstill. Away, sir, with this whole 
policy of speculating on our children’s means. We 
have no right to anticipate the means of posterity—no 
right of speculating on their earnings and their labor. 
Each generation has the right to control its own means- 
each should be left to its own resources, uncontrolled 
by the past, and each should abstain from crowding 
their own expenses on to the future. There was a time 
when generations thought it their duty not only not to 
consume all the proceeds of their labor, but even to 
leave something to those who came after them. That 










462 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


was the age of honesty and economy. Next came gen¬ 
erations who consumed all that had been left them by 
their lathers, and also all_ they produced themselves. 
Now we live in an age which spends and consumes all 
it makes, and not satisfied with that, consumes the 
earnings of posterity. Where that kind of financial 
policy leads to, we have now before us. It has led^to 
stock gambling, stock mongering, and fettering human 
industry. Where it will end, we all can foresee. It 
will end in repudiation or a helpless bondage upon the 
people. Labor will be impoverished by capital, future 
generations crippled, and our finances deranged. No 
more fatal policy can exist, than this policy of specula¬ 
ting- on our children’s means, and thus attempt to grow 
rich by impoverishing succeeding generations. What 
are the results of such a policy in our State? We find 
ourselves, from the errors of the generations before us, 
crippled in our means to make the improvements which 
we would from experience deem most necessary. Our 
money has been spent, we are deprived of the oppor¬ 
tunity to make railroads because the State had before 
made canals. Our means have been financiered upon 
by the previous generation, and we are now asked not 
to discharge a duty which the previous generation 
should have discharged, and to keep up the injustice 
still longer, not only in continuing to pay interest our¬ 
selves, but in thi’owing the payment of principal and 
interest on those who come after us. It is called an 
act of generosity for the past to make canals out of our 
imoney, and it is claimed as an act of justice on our part 
that this foolish policy should be continued and handed 
over to posterity. Sir, I cannot agree to any such poli¬ 
cy. The State debt is a burthen upon our energies. It 
is a burden because it withdraws annually in the shape 
of interest a large amount of our means. The sooner 
we commence to pay the better for all concerned, and 
the same policy which would induce the citizen in his 
private capacity to pay all his debts as soon as possible 
should induce the State to adopt the same policy. A 
man in debt feeds not only himself but his creditor also, 
and the people of Ohio, by paying interest on their debt, 
sustain not only themselves, but persons outside of the 
limits of the State. 

I remember well that a few years ago I was invited 
to dine with a merchant in Cincinnati, who had been 
deeply in debt, but who had through a fortunate spec¬ 
ulation been enabled to pay off' his indebtedness. As 
We sat down to table he exclaimed : “ this is the first 
time that I sit down to my own table with a free 
heart.” I asked him why ? He said that formerly he 
had not only found upon his table plates for himself, his 
wife and his children, but he was always reminded 
that there were plates there, though not visible, for 
other guests and other men. I asked him how that 
was ? He told me that he had that morning paid off' 
his debts—he no longer paid interest, and he felt there¬ 
fore that all his earnings hereafter, all the proceeds of 
his labor, would go to himself and to his family, and he 
said he rejoiced at it, and he would hereafter eat with 
a better appetite and far more satisfaction. 

So will it be with the people of Ohio; they now pay 
taxes, heavy taxes, they know that a part goes abroad 
to pay bondholders, and they feel therefore that they 
are not working for themselves alone, but also for men 
abroad. They find their energies crippled by the er¬ 
rors of past generations, and it would always be a mat¬ 
ter of extreme satisfaction to know that their State 
debt shall be gradually reduced, the interest lessened, 
more of their earnings thereby to remain at home, and 
with this consciousness they would cheerfully pay their 
taxes to the State. Do we not all know with what sat¬ 
isfaction the people received the news, fallacious as 
they proved to be, that the Auditor of State had com¬ 
menced to pay a part of the principal of the public 
debt. The announcement was a gratification to all, 
and it was no small capital in favor of our opponents 
that they hads ucceeded in thus effecting an object long 
desired by every voter in Ohio. Why, sir, is this debt- 


paying jiolicy really so foolish ? Were Washington and 
.JelFerson really so much at fault when they insisted 
upon the early payment of the debt of the Revolution? 
Were the men of the Revolution really so dull of com¬ 
prehension as not to see that throwing the debt upon 
posterity was far easier than to pay it themselves? 
Was it really unjust in them to pocket the loss of the 
continental money, instead of making a splendid fund¬ 
ed debt, at all time for stockjobbers to speculate upon, 
and for the people to pay interest upon ? Are the men 
and women of America who blessed the memory of 
.Jackson for paying off the old debt of the nation, really 
so foolish as the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stan- 
BEUY,] would fain, by his arguments, make them to 
be ? Or were they I’ight in blessing the hour that saw 
them out of debt? 

The gentleman from Franklin has told us that the 
holders of some of the stocks of the State of Ohio have 
lately given us a premium of $300,000 lor extending 
the time of payment 25 years longer. I think, sir, our 
Auditor of State has made a bad speculation. Ohio 
state stocks having 25 years to run and bearing 6 per 
cent, interest, are really worth 20 per cent, above par, 
for I have no doubt that he could easily negotiate a 
loan at 5 per cent. The difference of the interest be¬ 
tween 5 and 6 per cent, upon four millions of dollars 
for 25 years amounts to $1,200,000, and instead of ma¬ 
king $300,000 we have lost $900,000 by going into the 
arrangement. The bondholders in New York under¬ 
stand this matter better than the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin, they know that the rate of interest is going down, 
they look at the mines of California and the continual 
increasing wealth of the United States, and they are 
therefore quite willing to give, for the privilege of draw¬ 
ing from the people of Ohio in 25 years six millions of 
dollars, a bonus of $300,000. Farljetter would it have 
been for the State if the loan had been negotiated at 
par, bearing 5 per cent, interest, redeemable at the 
pleasure of the State. It is well known, that taking 
interest alone into account, we pay our debt entire ev¬ 
ery eighteen years. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Aye, every fourteen years. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Yes, and I may add, if we take 
expenses of disbursement and collection into consider¬ 
ation, and exchanges on New York, we pay it every 
ten years. The sooner then we pay the debt, consis¬ 
tent with that gradual method I’equired by considera¬ 
tions to our business relations, the less we have to pay, 
and it is therefore economical, even to the present gen¬ 
eration, to adopt the amendment before us. 

The extension of time is one of the items that enters 
into the value of stocks. United States 6 per cents,” 
payable at an early period, are 7 per cent, above par, 
eras quoted, at “107,” while United States “6 per 
cents,” payable in 1870, are 15 to 16 per cent, above 
par, quoted at “115” and “116.” The extension of 
the time therefore to 25 years, was a premium to the 
bondholders, and an injury to the State. I have no 
doubt that had we extended the privilege of fleecing 
the people of Ohio for one hundred years to come, we 
might have obtained a still larger premium, saving at 
the present moment apparently, but really injuring the 
people to come after us. Some members of the Con¬ 
vention seem to labor under the impression, that to fix 
into the Constitution, by what they please to call an 
“iron rule,” a definite period for the payment of our 
debt, would be hailed with rejoicing by the stockmon 
gers in Wall street. I do not think so, on the contraiy, 

I believe that every step taken by any State in this 
Union towards a diminution of its debt, is bewailed by 
the men referred to. The larger the amount of the 
public debt, the larger the field for speculation. The 
more debt, the more men to live upon it. As you re¬ 
duce, then, the public debt of the Union and the States^ 
you reduce to the same extent stock-gambling and the 
profits of stockjobbers, and I have no doubt there would 
be wailing and gnashing of teeth in Wall street, if ev¬ 
ery Constitution in the United States would contain a 











CONVENTION REPORTS 


463 


provision by which in forty years, public debts were to 
cease. This would indeed be taking the bread out of 
their mouths. Surely, then, Othello’s occupation would 
be gone. Why, sir, to refuse to make provision for the 
payment of our public debt, is the best sign for men of 
that kidney. They want no public debt paid. They 
are willing that it should remain for ever—lor public 
debts are the basis of their operations, and it is these 
men and their friends who beset the halls of legisla¬ 
tion, telling us in honied words; “why you are foolish 
to pay and hand over to your children unencumbered 
these* great works of public improvement.” Jackson 
had no friends among such men—they hated his debt 
paying policy—they did not like the announcement 
that “the Union was out of debt.” 

But the gentleman tells us that such pi policy as is 
proposed to be adopted by the amendment, might be 
well for the Legislature to adopt, but it would not do 
to put it into the constitution, because it was legisla¬ 
tion. We have passed through forty-eight years of a 
State government — we have now come to a settlement. 
One hundred and eight men, representing the different 
portions'of the people of Ohio, have come up here to 
look over the past, and to provide new safeguards for 
the future. We find that the generation that went be¬ 
fore us, has left upon our hands a debt of nineteen mil¬ 
lions — a debt, it is admitted on all hands, which was 
unconstitutionally contracted. The money expended 
not as it should have been, but expended on improve¬ 
ments, which the experience of the age has shown to 
be not adapted to our present circumstances. This 
debt, contracted too in violation of all pi’inciples of 
equity, benefitting a part only but taxing the whole, 
and we are very coolly asked, after the people of Ohio 
have demanded with almost entire unanimity the re¬ 
duction of the principal of this debt, to leave the sub¬ 
ject undefined in the Constitution, and it is slightly 
hinted at, to throw the burthen upon posterity. This 
we are asked to do at a time when ideas of repudiation 
are quivering in the balance—when the neglected por¬ 
tions of the State are asking themselves the question: 
“ Do we really owe this debt ? Should we pay it ?” and 
when these neglected portions of the State come up 
here, through their representatives, and bring us the 
unanimous announcement, that while they do not con¬ 
sider themselves legally bound to pay this debt, still 
they are willing to admit its moral obligation. When 
they come up here insisting upon the reduction of the 
principal of this debt, is it right, is it generous, is it 
politic on the part of those who have been benefitted 
largely by the system of public improvement, for 
which the debt has been contracted, to defer the work 
before us, and to leave it for subsequent legislators to 
adjust? I think, sir, that good policy dictates the in¬ 
sertion of the provision now under consideration, into 
the new Constitution. I think it will operate as a qui¬ 
etus to the public mind, that while it does not increase 
taxation, that taxation will be more cheei’fully borne, 
for we shall then know that the matter is fixed, that 
reduction will commence, will go on, and that we will 
have the proud satisfaction to say to our children: 
“ Here was the error of the past government of Ohio, 
which on the day of settlement we found in the old 
books, and which we rectified at heavy sacrifices to 
ourselves. We have not only made improvements with 
our means, but we paid the old debt which we found 
on our hands.” If there is any one guarantee which 
will bring pleasure to every log cabin in the State of 
Ohio, which will make every voter within its limits re¬ 
joice, it will be the provision that we have recognized 
the State debt and made definite provision for its final 
payment. Why, sir, what should we think of a man 
starting on a long journey, who should forget to make 
provision for the payment of his outstanding debts? 
What would we think of a man who on his death-bed 
would make his will and dispose of his property, with¬ 
out making provision for the payment of his liabilities? 

It is but a few days ago, that on the announceraeat of 


the death of one of the framers of the Constitution of 
Ohio, (Mr. Reily,) he was eulogized for the fact, that 
a few moments before he breathed his last, he remem¬ 
bered that he owed a few dollars to a mechanic wliom 
he had employed, and that he would not close his eyes 
to final rest, before he had satisfied this last claim upon 
his means. The honesty of that man, his fair dealing 
and his punctuality in the transactions of business, were 
held up to us for imitation, and is it now, when the re¬ 
mains of the old revolutionary soldier are hardly cold, 
that we are to forget the lessons of his life and to leave 
undefined the payment of our own debts ? 

I think, sir, if there is any one provision of the new 
Constitution that will meet the approval of the people, 
it will be the one now under consideration. It is not 
legislating—it is providing for the payment of a debt, 
now for the first time fully recognized. With the re¬ 
cognition should go a provision looking to its payment. 
When I came here, I thought that we were unanimous 
upon this subject, but I find that the objects which we 
thought most secure can be made to appear by specious 
arguments, not fit to be placed in the new Constitution. 
With due deference to the opinions of others, I must 
repeat that such a provision as is projiosed by the gen¬ 
tleman from Cuyahoga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] should be in¬ 
serted in the new Constitution. I would have liked 
still better the provision of the original report, but as it 
seems impossible to pass that, I am willing to vote for 
the amendment now made. 

In conclusion, then, let me say that it is not only 
economy on our own part, and generous to those who 
have gone before us, but it is demanded by all princi¬ 
ples of sound policy and of justice, that we should make 
a definite arrangement by which the present debt of 
the State of Ohio may be liquidated. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler said he did not rise to discuss 
the merits of this question, as he understood but veiy 
little of the subject of finance, and he did not propose 
to advocate one policy or another policy in regard to 
the payment of the debt of the State. It did seem 
to him, if he was able to understand the positions which 
gentlemen had taken, that the plans which they pro¬ 
pose and the arguments which they employ in support 
of those plans are very ditlerent; in fact that the argu¬ 
ments of the gentlemen in favor of the scheme now 
under discussion are not directed to the amendment 
which they propose to support. The gentleman who 
last occupied the floor, and he who preceded him, argued 
as if the opposition to the proposition ot the gentleman 
from Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitchcock] was an opposition to 
the payment of the public debt and against any and 
every plan intended for that purpose. Now I ask those 
gentlemen, who it is that has argued that the govern¬ 
ment ought not to provide the means for meeting the 
; interest on the public debt and for the prompt liquida¬ 
tion of the principal, and that as speedily as the circum¬ 
stances of the people and the condition ot the State 
will permit? If any such arguments have been made 
I have not heard them; but if they have been, and such 
as the gentlemen appear to be resisting, I admit that 
they have taken the true ground. If nonsuch argument 
has been made, then they have been engaged in arguing, 
not the question before this body, but some ideal crea¬ 
tion of their own minds. 

Mr. REEMELIN said he understood the gentleman 
from Franklin to oppose any proposition that should fix 
a certain time for the ultimate paynient of the public 
debt. He looked upon this as a desire to procrastinate 
the payment el the debt as long as possible, and that 
he thought equivalent to wishing to ensure its perpe¬ 
tuity. 

Mr. VANCE said he did not understand, even from 
the statement of the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 
Reemelin], that the gentleman from Franklin had ar¬ 
gued in favor of rendering the debt perpetual, or any¬ 
thing like it. . . „ 

But let us look at the proposition of tlie gentleman 
from Cuyahoga, and see if the argument of the gentle- 













464 


CONVENTION EEPORTS, 


man from Hamilton is appropriate to it. He desires, 
he says, that the deht shall be paid promptly and 
speedily, and that for that purpose one hundred thou¬ 
sand dollars be raised annually and paid over to the 
Fund Commissioners I'or that purpose. 

I would inquire, by what process this one hundred 
thousand dollars is to be annually applied to the liqui¬ 
dation of so much of the debt? Do you say that the 
outstanding bonds that are not due may be purchased 
in on the part of the State ? Let me say, in answer, 
that if such a provision as this is inserted in the consti¬ 
tution of the State of Ohio, and if this constitution is 
ratified by the people, that moment will put into the 
pockets of the holders of these bonds, under the guar¬ 
antee of the provision, at least one million of dollars. 
I think much more, but at least one million of dollars. 
Is this the manner in which the plan is to operate ? Is 
this the means by which the outstanding bonds are to 
be purchased in before due? If so, they must neces¬ 
sarily be purchased up at an alarming sacrifice of the 
people’s money. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said that there would be no prac¬ 
tical difficulty of this kind. The debt will mature in 
such a manner as to absorb the money as fast as it shall 
accumulate. Fifteen hundred thousand dollars will fall 
due next year, and some domestic bonds and a still 
larger amount in 1852. 

Mr. VANCE. But is not a large portion of the money 
to meet the bonds falling due already borrowed, and 
is not the Fund Commissioner now engaged in the very 
act of borrowing the remainder? So that in two 
weeks time every dollar will be provided, and there 
will be no necessity to raise funds to pay the bonds 
becoming due this year. 

Now in relation to 1851. The surplus revenue to be 
called in will be ample to discharge every dollar. 
Why then should we provide the one hundred thousand 
dollars for the year 1851? I would ask if it is to be 
laid aside to pay the sum that falls due in 1856? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said that would not be necessary. 
The amount to be paid is two millions of dollars; one 
million one hundred thousand of the surplus revenue is 
still outstanding, and cannot be collected in time, the 
counties not being able to pay it. 

Mr. VANCE thought the gentleman from Cuyahoga 
mistaken. In respect to this fund, sjieaking generally, 
he believed the amount called in would be paid promptly. 
There had been, he was aware, bad management in 
some counties. In his own county of Butler there had 
been difficulties, growing out of an improper manage¬ 
ment of this fund; but the debt of Butler county would 
be discharged. A portion of that which was outstand¬ 
ing was collected since March last; more will be real¬ 
ized by December next, and all would be available be¬ 
fore 1852. It is not possible that two years will be re¬ 
quired for this collection, and I doubt not there will be 
enough and more than enough to supply the demands 
of 1852. Then there is no more of the public debt 
which will fall due until 1856, and I would ask the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton county, what do you propose to 
do with the moyey that shall accumulate between 1852 
and 1856 ? 

Let us take the proposition before us. One hundred 
thousand dollars is to be collected above the accruing 
interest; and for what purpose? To put at interest, 
and when interest is due and collected, to put that at 
interest, that is to say: it is to be allowed to accumu¬ 
late at compoiind interest until such time as it can be 
employed in extinguishing a portion of the principal 
that shall fall due. Is not that the proposition we are 
called upon to vote for or against ? If it is not so, why 
talk of an hundred thousand dollars for this year, and 
an hundred thousand for next, when it cannot be paid 
over? Is it to be loaned? Is that the proposition? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said that such a process was not 
contemplated by the coran)ittee as a paitof the plan. 
The subject had there be' n very fully discussed, and 
the opinion had been unanimous agamst permitting a 
practice of that kind. 


Mr. STANBERY. Will the gentleman from Cuya¬ 
hoga say that the money is to accumulate anel lie idle ? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. No; it is to be applied imme¬ 
diately by the Fund Commissioners. There will always 
be some j)ortion of the debts due to receive the fund 
as fast as it becomes available. 

Mr. VANCE said he might have been mistaken in 
understanding the effect of the amendment. He desired 
that is might be read. 

(The amendment was read.) 

Mr. VANCE said the amendment was precisely as he 
had stated it. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said if the gentleman from Butler 
would read the tenth section he would see that that 
w'ould prevent the raising of a fund to accumulate. 

Mr. VANCE said he fully understood the purport 
and legal effect of the instrument. He had listened 
with great attention to the discussion, and with great 
pleasure to the many able speeches that had been de¬ 
livered, and to none with more pleasure than to that of 
the gentleman from Franklin, and although he was un¬ 
acquainted with the principles of finance, and did not 
intend to discuss that part of subject, yet he desired to 
direct the attention of the committee to a few of the 
leading principles of the report and the pending amend¬ 
ment. The gentleman from Cuyahoga has told us that 
the amendment is the same in substance with that pro- , 
posed by the gentleman from Monroe, except that it ; 
provides for the payment of the accruing interest, as 
well as the hundred thousand dollars of principal. It 
has been argued in the same manner, and the same facts ^ 
applicable to that have been taken for granted as applied 
to this. What was the plan of the gentleman from 
Monroe? Was it not to raise by taxation a sum of 
money, to accumulate by compounding the interest until 
it could be applied to the liquidation of the principal? , 

Let us examine the section of the report to which we 
are referred, and the amendment before us, and from 
these judge as to whether I am mistaken in the posi- * 
tion I have here assumed. 

“It shall be the duty of the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund i 
faithfully to apply said fund.” 

What then ? You go on raising one hundred thou¬ 
sand dollars per year until 1856, accumulating the same i 
by adding interest to interest. The Fund Commission- i 
ers are by the provisions of the section to which we 1 
are referred, required to faithfully apply this fund to ■ 
the sinking of the principal debt. Now, what do gen¬ 
tlemen mean by a “ faithful application of the fund to >■ 
the payment of the debt?” Would these officers not i 
act faithfully, if they applied the fund to the payment j 
of the debt as it fell due ? I answer, that in my opin- I 
ion such would be a faithful application, and fully in 1 
accordance with the provisions of the lOlh section of i 
the report. Could the commissioners make any earlier i 
application of the fund, especially as the amendment i 
proposed requires the accumulation of this fund upon j 
the priciples of compound interest ? If it is to be paid 
on bonds that are under due, let some means be provi¬ 
ded to compel them to do it. Under this construction 
the bonds must be purchased when the funds are on 
hand, whatever may be the sacrifice and loss of money. 

But if this fund is to take the direction that I have | 
suggested, that is, to be loaned for the purpose of ac-’ ■ 
cumulation, I would inquire to whom these loans are " 
to be made? To A, B and C, in various parts of the 
Slate, secured by bond and mortgage ? No ! No gen¬ 
tleman would be willing thus to place out the funds of 
the State in this manner, and endanger their loss.— 
Where then shall it be placed ? Shall the commission¬ 
ers of the fund lock it up in their iron chest; or ap¬ 
ply the same to such matters of private speculation as 
their own interests might suggest? Would these pro¬ 
positions be advocated by any gentleman on this floor? 
What then ? It must be placed some where, to realize 
a profit to the State. But I add, it would be let out to 
the banks to draw interest. And what will be the 
consequences? The banks having this increased 










CONVENTION REPORTS 


465 


amount of basis for operations, will swell their is¬ 
sues. The One hundred thousand of this year, will be 
increased by another hundred thousand next, and so on 
from year to year. The banks will throw out two 
or three times the amount they receive; there will be 
inflation, over issue and overtrading; business men 
will extend their operations beyond the bounds of 
prudence, deceived by an unsubstantial appearance of 
prosperity. The result will be, that a revulsion will 
ensue; business and business men will be prostrated, 
and even the banks and their stockholders, deceived 
by their own apparent prosperity, Will have destroyed 
themselves. Such are the consequences that will in¬ 
evitably flow from this plan. Of this we are abun¬ 
dantly admonished by the past. I do not wish to dis¬ 
cuss such a proposition in detail, being, as I said unac¬ 
quainted with finance. But I desire to call the atten¬ 
tion of the committee to the plan, that it may be dis¬ 
cussed upon its real merits. 

It is argued with great strenuousness that we should 
pay the public debt as speedily as we can. That is my 
doctrine ; I do not believe that a public debt is a pub¬ 
lic blessing. I have heard no person on this floor ad¬ 
vocate the perpetuation of our State indebtedness. 
There are none here who desire to do it. The debt 
should be paid, and speedily. That we all agree. But 
is it necessary to make this a constitutional provision ? 
Is it necessary that we shall provide, in all its detail, a 
system for giving an additional security to the holders 
of our State bonds ? May we not leave this to the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly ? The gentleman from Franklin, in his 
very able speech, has shown the impolicy of establish¬ 
ing an iron rule, to fasten upon our citizens the neces¬ 
sity to raise one hundred thousand dollars per year, to 
be applied to liquidating the public debt, whatever 
may be the temporary or providential embarrassments 
which we may be unfortunately subjected to in the fu¬ 
ture. Why not leave this discretion to the General As¬ 
sembly? Can it be believed that if the people desire 
the speedy liquidation of the debt, the legislature will 
refuse to carry out their desires ? In what respect are 
they less trustworthy than this Convention ? It has 
been hinted that unless we here take measures to pre¬ 
vent it, the people will repudiate. It has also been 
thought by some that the legislature may, at some fu¬ 
ture lime, see fit to repudiate. I believe no soch thing. 
It is, in my opinion, a slander against the people of the 
State, and against their legislative assemblies entirely 
unjustified by any thing in our past history. But if 
such should be the case are there not ample pi'ovisions 
against such a tendency in the amendment proposed by 
the gentleman from Franklin, as well as in the amend¬ 
ment prepared by myself, which makes the section to 
reads follows: 

“ The faith of the State being pledged to the payment of all ex 
isting indebtedness, therefore means for the payment of interest 
and for the gradual reduction of the principal shall be provided 
by law.” 

The section prodies at its commencement as follows: 
“■ The faith of the State being pledged to the payment 
of all its existing indebtedness.” That which I pro¬ 
pose to add is—“ Wherefore means for the payment of 
interest, and for the gradual reduction of the principal, 
shall be provided by law.” 

Under such a constitutional provision, how can there 
be repudiateon ? It can only take place by trampling 
on and violating the constitution, such a violation of 
constitutional law is scarcely presumable. 

I rose, Mr. Chairman, simply to call attention to the 
dangers which seem to me to grow out of the principles 
embodies in the report; and to say that, in my opinion, 
gentlemen in advocating the report, have not confined 
themselves to the true propositions involved, but have 
argued that those opposed to their parti?.Tdar scheme 
are opposed to the payment of the public debt. I have 
seen fit to state my objections to the plan. I do not de¬ 
sire that the means shall be raised any faster than it can 
be applied to the sinking of the debt. I don’t wish to 

.30 


see the policy adopted here, that the people shall bo 
taxed from year to year, in order that a fund may be 
raised to be loaned out in any form. Such, I believe, 
would be the result of the policy uuder consideration. 
I will therefore oppose the measure. 

On motion of Mr. LIDEY, the committee rose and 
reported “no conclusion.” 

And on motion of Mr. CUTLER, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


THURSDAY, June 20, 1850. 

Mr. BATES presented a petition from John A. Bay- 
liss, and 84 other citizens of Jefferson county, asking 
that a bill of reserved rights may be inserted in the 
new constitution ; and, also, that there may be a cheap, 
plain and speedy provision by which the constitution¬ 
ality of any law may be tried and settled, so that the 
rights and liabilities of the people may be secured. 

Upon his motion it was referred to the committee on 
Preamble and Bill of Rights. ’ 

Mr. EWART presented the petition of George Put¬ 
nam, and 257 other citizens of Washington county, 
praying that a provision may be inserted in the new 
constitution prohibiting the Legislature from legalizing 
the sale of intoxicating liquors. 

RefeiTed to the select committee on the retailing of 
ardent spirits. 

Mr. EWART also offered the following: 

Resolved, That the Assistant Reporters employed by the Re¬ 
porter to the Convention, be paid the amounts to them severally 
awarded and certified to by the Reporter; Provided, The same 
shall not exceed the compensation per column named in the com¬ 
munication made to the Convention by the Reporter on the 7th 
of May. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren moved that the resolution be 
laid upon the table, which was agreed to. 

Mr. HOLMES offered the following: 

Resolved, That 1500 additional copies of the Report of the 
committee on Apportionment be printed for the use of the mem¬ 
bers of this Convention. 

Mr. MANON said that it was unnecessary to print 
these extra copies of the report, and therefore, he would 
call for the yeas and nays. 

Mr, HOLMES. I will say to my friend from Lick¬ 
ing, that I will go as far as he will in the matter of 
economy, where there is an evident necessity for it. 
But there is a question embraced in this report which 
interests every citizen of Ohio, and they all more or 
less feel a deep interest In it, and I desire that infor¬ 
mation as important as this seems to be, should be cir¬ 
culated among the people. As to the question of ex¬ 
pense involved in the printing of 1500 copies of the re¬ 
port, it is all a matter of moonshine, and such a thing 
will never enter my mind, whenever the information 
sought is to be useful to the people. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I always feel great reluctance 
in opposing the printing of these reports. It appears 
to me that the printing in this case is unnecessary, and 
will answer no good purpose, because this report will 
appear in both of the papers of this city. It is now 
nothing but a scheme of apportionment, and may be 
overthrown in the Convention. To throw out before 
the people this scheme as the first mere platform, and 
as matter for information, when it appears in both of 
the daily papers of this city, appears to me to be a 
work of supererogation. 

The question being then taken and the yeas and 
nays having been demanded by Mr. MANON, resulted 
as follows—yeas 45—nays 39: 

Yeas.— Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bennett, 
Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Clark, Ewing, Farr, Firestone, 
Forbes, Gillet, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Hunt, Hunter, King, Larwill, 
Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCormick, Orton, Quigley, 
Ranney, Riddle, Robertson, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Williams, and Pres- 

^^^Nay^—M essrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Preble, Bates, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, 
Collings, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Graham, Green 













466 


CONVEN'IION REPORTS. 


of Rosb, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga Hitchcoc k of 
Geau"a Holt, Larsh, Manon, Morehead, Moi ns, McCloud, Peck, 
Roemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith ot Highland, Sa ith 
of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor, Vance of Ch m- 
paign, Warren, and Woodbury.—;19. 

So the report was ordered to be printed. 

Mr. LOUDON, from the majority of the standing 
committee on Finance and Taxation, submitted tlie 
following Report, which was read the first time: 

«:ec 1 That the levying of taxes by the poll is grievous and 
oppressive • therefore, the Legislature shall never levy a poll tax 

tor county or State purposes , 

Sec 2 The Legislature shall provide by law a uniform rule ol 
assessment and taxation, and shall prescribe such regulations as 
will secure a just valuation of all property, both real and person¬ 
al- Provided, school houses, burying grounds, and grounds upon 
w4ich religious edifices are erected, not exceeding in value the 
sum of “ dollars, shall not be subject to pay a tax. 

Sec 3 The Legislature shall make a provision for taxing 
money invested in State and United States Bonds, as money at in¬ 
terest is taxed. 

Sec 4 The Legislature shall provide tor taxing bank capi¬ 
tal and the issues^of banks, railroad stock, turnpike company 
stock and canal company stock, the same as personal property is 

^Sec 5. The Legislature shall provide for a tax sufficient to de¬ 
fray the expenses of the State for each year, and also a sufficient 

sum to pay the interest on the State debt. 

Sec 6. No tax of any description whatever shall be levied or 
exacted except in pursuance of law ; and every law which impo¬ 
ses such tax, shall state distinctly the object of the same; to 
which only it shall be applied. 

Sec 7 No money shall drawn from the treasury, except m 
pursuance of a distinct and special appropriation made by law. 

^ Sec 8. The State shall never contract any debt for purposes of 
internal improvement uni -ss the object be particularly specified, 
and the proposition shall have first been submitted to the people, 
and the majority of all the voters voting at the next annual elec¬ 
tion be found in favor of the creation of such debt. 

LOUDON, 

L. FIRESTONE, 
JOHN EWING. 


Mr. MITCHELL moved that the report be laid upon 
the table and printed, which was agreed to. 

Mr. BARBEE. As one of the committee on Finance 
and Taxation I desire to submit a few remarks. I can¬ 
not respond to all the sentiments embraced in the re¬ 
port, and therefore I have drawn up a counter report, 
or a minority report, presenting my views, embracing 
the subjects and manner of taxation. I regard the sub¬ 
ject as one of the most important which can be presen¬ 
ted here for our deliberation. It is with a great deal 
of delicacy that I dare to oppose any views, that have 
been advanced in the majority report, but it is a right 
which will be accorded me. I present the following 
as a minority report: 

Sec. 1. The Legislature shall provide by law, a uniform and 
equitable rule of taxation, so that every person shall pay a tax on 
the value of his or her property, real and personal, including all 
moneys on hand, and moneys at interest, deducting liabilities. 
The words moneys at interest shall include all moneys invested 
in bank stock, and all other stocks or corporations; provided, that 
in taxing moneys invested in stocks, the faith of the State shall be 
preserved inviolate. 

Sec. 2. The property of the State and counties, real and per¬ 
sonal, shall be exempt from taxation, and the Legislature shall 
have power to exempt such property of townships, churches, 
schools, literary and scientific societies, and institutions purely 
eleemosynary, as they may deem right, but such exemptions, ex¬ 
cept as to the property of State and counties, shall always be sub¬ 
ject to modification and repeal. 

Sec. 3. The Legislature shall have power by law so as to in¬ 
clude other subjects and objects of taxation as may, from time to 
time, seem just and proper. 

Sec. 4. The Legislature shall not levy a poll tax for State or 
county purposes. 

Sec. 5. No tax of any description shall bo levied or exacted, 
except in pursuance cf law ; and every law imjiosing such tax 
shall state the object of the same ; to which only it shall be ap¬ 
plied. 

Sec. 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury except in 
pursuance of a distinct and special appropriation made by law. 

WILLIAM BARBEE. 


Mr. LOUDON. It will be proper for me to state that 
one of the members of this committee [Mr. Hortox] 
is not now in his seat. 

In the main ])rinciple8 of the report I think there is 
very little dilference between the gentleman from Mi¬ 
ami [Mr. Barbee] and myself, and that we differ in 
some unimportant particulars. 


Mr. SAWYER. There is one thing to which I would [| 
ask the attention of the Convention. I will ask the I 
honorable gentleman from Miami if he has not m-ade a I 
written argument in favor of his plan ? , 

Mr. BARBEE. I will answer the honorable gentle¬ 
man that I had in support of my argument written out 
my views, and that I have examined the several acts »j 
relating to the suljject, and in doing so, have gone 
through the acts of every year since 1825, to ascertain j 
all the laws passed in reference to the issuing of State j | 
stocks. It has been a work of greater labor than I an- i 
ticipated, when I first entered upon it. I presented to j 
the committee the views which 1 entertained, not with | 
a view that they should be reported here, but for my j 
own benefit, and to present to that committee those I j 
facts which had a bearing on my own mind.' 

Mr. SAWYER. I have no objections to the gentle- j 
man presenting his views, if they are not in the shape [ 
of a written argument. | 

Mr. BARBEE. It is a mere plan. There is not a j 
single argument in what I offer now. I 

Upon motion, the report was laid on the table. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to reconsider the vote taken ! 
on ordering to be printed the report of the committee j 
on Finance and Taxation, which wms agreed to. j 

Mr. MITCHELL offered the following, which was , 
agreed to: , 

Resolved, That 1,500 copies of the report of the committee on | 
Finance and Taxation, and the amendments or substitute of the j 
member from Miami (Mr. Brown] be printed for the use of the 
Convention. j 

The question being then taken upon printing the i 
1,500 copies of the report, together with the amend- j 
ments moved by the gentleman from Miami, it was ! 
agreed to. j 

Mr. ROBERTSON, ofi’ered the following resolu- ] 
tion: I 

Resolved, That the resolution, prohibiting standing committees i| 
from accompanying the reports with a written statement be re- 1 
considered. ’ | 

The question being on the adoption of the resolu- ; 
tion, ( 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, and be- | 1 
ing ordered, resulted, yeas 27—nays 62, as follows : ; i 

Yeas —Messrs. Bates, Cahill, Clark, Firestone, Gregg, Hender- i i 
son. Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, ) I 
Leech, Mitchell, Orton, Peck, Quigley, Riddle, Robertson, Roll, i I 
Scott of Auglaize, Stillwell, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Mr. ; i 
President—27. i 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee. Barnet of Montgomery, Bar- I i 
nett of Preble, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, I i 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Codings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, F'arr, PTo- I 
rence, P'orbes, Gillet, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Groes- ; i 
beck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitch, ■ j 
cock of Geauga, Hunter, Kennon, Larsh, Lidey, Loudon, Manon - ] I 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Ranney, Reeme- : j 
lin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith j f 
of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stick- 1 ] 
ney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Butler, i 
Vance of Champaign, Warren, Williams, Woodbury—62. i 

Upon motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention then i 
resolved itself into a committee of the whole, [Mr. j 
Sawyer in the chair,] and resumed the consideration ^ 
of the report of the committee on 
PUBLIC works. 

The question upon the amendment of Mr. Hitch- I ' 
COCK, remaining still indisposed of — 

Mr. HAWKTNS. Mr. Chairman, the question as I j ' 
understand it, is upon striking out the last two lines, 
and accepting the amendment offered by the gentle- ! 
man Irom Cuyahoga. I would not be disposed to de- ' 
bate this question further, did I not feel called upon to 
make still another eti’ort for the (lurpose of sustain- ' 
j ing the principles recommended in that report. We 
were met on yesterday, with arguments somewhat in¬ 
sidious in their character, and well calculated to have 
an effect. While all have expressed a willingness, and 
desire to see this debt extinguished, some of them op¬ 
pose the present plan on one ground—some on another. 
About as effective an argument as has been adduced 
here against this plan, is, that there is no debt, to 




















CONVENTION REPORTS. 467 


■which youl’ sinking fund can ai)ply. The question 
asked here, is, what will you do with it until 1856 ? 
How will you invest it ? It is well calculated to have 
its effect. It has been treated as though there were no 
debt, for the payment of which we could apply the 
sinking fund as proposed by this section. If there is 
no part of our debt redeemable prior to the year 1856, 
why is it so, I ask? By what means has it been 
placed beyond our reach ? It will be seen that over 
four millions of our State debt falls duein the year 1850. 

Ill 1848 a law was passed, providing for a sinking 
fund. That law provides for a sinking fund, such as 
has been alluded to by the gentleman from Monroe, 
and such as is expressed in his amendment to the sec¬ 
tion under consideration. That same law has this pro¬ 
vision in it, that the fund commissioners shall woi renew 
the time of payment in any manner, so as to prevent 
the State from applying the funds contemplated to be 
raised by its provisions. Here is an express law for¬ 
bidding such a disposition of these bonds as to prevent 
the Legislature from applying the funds to be raised, to 
their payment. I ask, Mr. Chairman, if this law is in 
force ? Is it obligatory upon the officers of your State ? 
If the law is still in force, and has not been violated, 
there must remain a part of these debts, to the payment 
of which you may apply the sums proposed to be 
raised. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler. I have been informed that 
a part of the sum which will be required to pay olf the 
public debt which falls due the present year, has been 
already negotiated. I am also apprised of the fact, that 
the fund commissioners are now in New York, for the 
urpose of borrowing the balance, and I do not know 
ut that an arrangement has been made before this time 
to borrow the money, to pay oft' the debt which falls 
due the present year. If that is the case, the debt will 
be prolonged for 20 years. If such is the fact, I would 
ask the gentleman how he can apply any money that 
can be raised for the payment of the debt which falls 
due the present year ? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahop. Allow me to call 
the attention of the gentleman from Morgan to the pre¬ 
cise state of facts. The amount fallingdue the current 
year is $4,385,650. The amount already negotiated is 
$1,500,000, as reported by the Auditor since the com¬ 
mencement of this session of the Convention. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I was about to remark that if the 
Auditor of State had sold those bonds and taken up the 
old ones, that it would have been done in viola¬ 
tion of law and therefore not obligatory upon the peo¬ 
ple of this State. I had conceived that it is quite pos 
sible it might be done, although expressly forbidden by 
law. For statutes are mere cobwebs when they stand 
in the way of certain objects in this State, for that same 
law to which I have alluded expressly commands the 
Auditor of State to levy taxes sufficient to raise a hun¬ 
dred thousand dollars for a sinking fund, which shall be 
applied to the purposes of the payment of the State 
debt. Has it been done? Has the law been regarded 
and carried into eff'ect in this respect ? I deny that it has. 
The report of the officer whose duty it was to make 
that levy and provide the means, shows that he has 
neglected his duty in that respect. The law required 
a hundred thousand dollars; seventy-four thousand 
dollars have been raised. It is for these and other rea¬ 
sons, diat 1 am forced to withdraw to some extent the 
confidence which has been extended heretofore. 

Mr. STAN BE RY. When a charge is made against 
a public officer, I feel it my duly to vindicate him as 
far as I may, when I consider the charge to be unjust. 
Will the gentleman allow me to say that the Auditor 
was obliged to make his levy in advance, upon an es¬ 
timate of probabilities? The Auditor could not see so 
far into the future as to anticipate that our canal reve¬ 
nue would fall from $50 to $100,000 below former 
years. Now will you hold that man acccouutable for 
a contingency that no man could foresee? 

Mr. HAWKINS. I may not be able to answer the 


gentleman when he asks how I can hold a man ac¬ 
countable under such circumstances. I have seen 
many means resorted to for holding officers strictly ac¬ 
countable, and I have often known those means to fail 
in their purpose. The difficulty is, that they are so 
hard to hold and so difficult to bind down; and it is 
for that reason that I wish to bind them down by what 
is here called an iron rule. If, sir, the seven new cords, 
or the seven green withes, are insufficient to bind these 
Samsons, I wish to forge an iron—a constitutional 
chain, that shall hold them. There is a difficulty in 
giving eff'ect to your laws. And these are not the only 
instances where the bauds have been broken as a 
scorched thread would be broken. The law command¬ 
ed that there should be raised $100,000 by taxation. 
The Report shows that it amounts to near $74,000. 
Thei'e has been, for three years, a law providing for 
the transfer of these bonds at New York. It first passed 
in the year 1848, February 24, dated the same day 
with your act, having this most splendid title: “ To 
provide for the extinguishment of the public debt.” 

Mr. STAN BE RY. Did I understand the gentleman 
to say that our officers are proceeding in New York 
contrary to law in making a sale of these bonds ? 

Mr. HAWKINS. In answer to the gentleman from 
Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery] I assert that any sale of 
bonds, so as to take up those due and redeemable in 
1850, and thereby prevent the application of t..e amount 
of the sinking fund to their payment, is a violation of 
the act of February 24, 1848; and if the Auditor has 
thus disposed of the whole of these bonds, he has acted 
without the authority of law. If he has not so disposed 
of them, then they are subject to redemption, and one 
objection to the sinking fund is removed. 

It was the design of the Legislature, when these 
bonds were sold, to distribute them, through a period 
of time, with a view, that as the means accumulated in 
the State, they should be redeemable. They made a con¬ 
tract, not ihat we should pay them at the end of a par¬ 
ticular time, but the contract was the other way, that 
we should not redeem them before that time. We 
were permitted at our pleasure to redeem them after 
those periods. It has been generally supposed, and I 
have never heai'd it doubted, that we might use a little 
discretion after the period arrived when we were per¬ 
mitted to take up those bonds. I suppose the phraseolo¬ 
gy was used for the purpose of allowing us discretion, 
but it seems that there is an interpretation dift'ereut— 
that the right to redeem at pleasure, after a given peri¬ 
od, means financially and comjnercially, that we are 
bound to redeem them at that particular time. That is 
the interpretation given to the phraseology used in 
these bonds. Mr. Chairman, why such a change since 
money shaving commenced. Shy lock of old, only de¬ 
manded pay “ according to the tenor of the bond.” 
But those Shylocks of modern times will not be bound 
“ according the tenor of the bond.” 

I make these remarks, that this argument, which 
has been so often used and repeated heretofore, with, I 
fear too much effect: namely, that there are no bonds 
to which the sinking fund could apply—that it was to 
bo loaned or scattered in some way, might not mislead 
gentlemen upon this subject. I repeat what I started 
out with, that unless the law has been violated, the ar¬ 
gument of the gentleman falls to the ground, and it is 
worth nothing. If it has been violated—if these bonds 
have been sold and put beyond your reach, then I would 
disregard the contract. I have desired to make some 
remarks upon this specious argument, lest gentlemen 
might be induced to suppose that it was unwise to 
make provision for the payment of the debt at present. 
As to the time at which this debt shall be extinguish¬ 
ed. no one has the hardihood to express a desire that it 
should be perpetuated, yet in my humble opinion, its 
perpetuation will be secured, if opposition here, to this 
part of the report shall be successful. 

Mr Chairman, I hope that we shall not be troubled 
with the argument hereafter that there are no bonds to 















468 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


which we can apply this sinking fund. ^ 1 hope they 
will not stand up and insist that the public officers have 
disregarded the provisions of that law. If in violation 
of this law they have sold the bonds and put them be¬ 
yond our reach, then I repeat that I would disregard 
their contracts. The purchaser would not stand in the 
light of an innocent purchaser without notice, because 
he is bound to take such notice as the law furnishes. 

Mr. STAN13ERY. What law does the gentleman re¬ 
fer to ? 

Mr. HAWKINS. I refer to a law creating a sinking 
fund, passed February, 1848. I will ask the gentle¬ 
man in return to say whether that law has been re¬ 
pealed ? 

Mr. STANBERY. As I understand it, it has been 
repealed by the law of March, 18.50. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I will read the act, and if it has 
been repealed we ought to know it. The gentleman 
should point us to the law by which it has been re¬ 
pealed. 

Thus you will see that this does not repeal the pro¬ 
visions of the act of 1848. If the genlleuian will in¬ 
sist that the Legislature has acted so foolishly, I shall 
make it as a charge against annual sessions, at the pro¬ 
per time. I would present it as a strong reason why 
we should not annually trust such a body with those 
great interests of Ohio. We wull want two sessions to 
cure and correct the evils and blunders of a single ses¬ 
sion. Now I suppose the fair interpretation of the 
law giving this authority to the Fund Commissioners, 
was that it should be exercised in accordance with the 
provisions of that law which created the sinking fund, 
and which provided I’or raising the money. I do not 
want to charge, dii’ectly or indirectly against any pub¬ 
lic officer of the State of Ohio, without being pretty 
confident as to the truth of what I say. I have made 
declarations upon this floor and expressions of opinion, 
here and elsewhere, which, if the facts did not exist, 
did reflect upon certain officers of this State. I made 
them with a design of giving these officers a pretext 
for explanation. I have not received any. I know 
enough about the transactions of finance, as well as 
other matters in this State, to diminish to some extent 
my entire confidence in the fidelity of those who have 
charge of our State affairs. 

Mr. Chairman, I have made these I’emarks for the 
purpose of answering the argument made on the sup¬ 
position that there were no stocks to which our sink¬ 
ing fund could be applied, and I think the explanations 
I have given will answer the arguments made. If 
there are not any bonds, they have been transferred 
beyond our reach, and in violation of the law. If the 
law has not been violated, then there are such bonds, 
to which our fund can be applied. Some gentlemen 
here seem alarmed at the idea of an ii’on rule. They 
seem to prefer the cobweb rule, which may be disa¬ 
greed or complied with at pleasure. It is that which I 
wish to avoid in future. I wish a rule expressly laid 
down—such as cannot be evaded, either by a wilful 
omision of duty or by violation of law. I wish to pre¬ 
serve the principle in the report. I am sensible of my 
own inability to present this subject in the light in 
which it should be, and I have made these remarks, 
not with the desire to make any display, hut for the 
purpose of preserving and defending, in my humble 
way, that principle in the report, and for the purpose of 
securing the great end contemplated in this report. 

I will not at this time further detain the committee. 

Mr. HITHCOCK, of Cuyahoga. Mr. Chairman, af¬ 
ter what was said by several gentlemen yesterday, I 
feel called upon to submit to the committee a few ad¬ 
ditional remarks. I do so with great reluctance, for I 
have occupied the time of the committee upon this 
subject more than I have wished, and I tender to them 
my acknowledgments for their patience with me, as 
well as for the attention which they have given to the 
remarks I have made I desire, sir, to place before the 
committee, the real purpose of this amendment, to¬ 


gether with the real facts in the case, that we may act 
intelligently, each individual judging for himself. Al¬ 
lusion was made yesterday, by the gentleman from 
Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] to some remarks, which I 
made in the early part of the day, which he regarded 
as unwarranted. I did not intend to misrepresent the 
gentleman in the slightest degree; nor did the idea oc¬ 
cur to me of makiii" a personal attack upon him. I 
intended to deal withhis arguments, and with them only, 
nor was I aware that I exceeded this intention. When 
1 referred to him, as acquainted with those men, who i 
deal in stocks, and advised of their feelings and wishes, 

I acted merely from my impression as to the fact, nor | 

did I for one moment suppose, that he would regard it I 
as an imputation upon him, nor do I now regard it as a | 
reproach to any gentleman upon this floor, to be per- ■ 
fectly familiar with this department of business. I j 
was gratified at the general tenor of the argument of ! 
the gentleman yesterday. It did him much credit. So I 
far as the argument of the main proposition was con¬ 
cerned, it surpassed any of his previous able efforts up¬ 
on this floor. He did not, as in the remarks made the | 
preceding day, call the position taken by those opposed , 
to him absurd and ridiculous, nor did he charge the re¬ 
port as being improvident and unreasonable. The re¬ 
marks to which he alluded, as coming from other gen- I 
tlemen the evening preceding, which seem to have ex¬ 
cited him, I did not hear, nor had I heard of the ex¬ 
planation of the gentleman called out by these remarks. 
Thus much for the personal matters. Now with due 
deference to the gentleman, with the highest respect f 
for his ability, with the highest commendation of the ' 
manner in which he presented his argumentyesterday, I 
propose again to deal with his argument, and examine its 
foundations. If it rests upon a firm foundation, let it 
stand. If, however, his premises are not cori’ect—if 
they are false, no ability can build upon them a sound 
argument. Do I misrepresent the gentleman when I say j 
that he did maintain in substance the proposition, that 
the present generation was under no obligations to pos- | 
terity to pay off this debt, or any considerable proper- 1 
tion of it? He recognized fully the obligation of the 
State to her creditors, but the bond-holders do not de¬ 
sire payment, and he denies the obligation to pos¬ 
terity . I 

Again : the gentleman maintained that there was no 
pressing necessity for the payment of this debt. I 
think I am not mistaken in saying that he maintained 
these propositions. jSow, sir, I fiver that the legitimate • 
effect of these proj-ositions is that the debt will never 
be paid. I will give the gentleman full credit wffien 
he says he wishes it paid, but when he says that there | ! 
is no moral obligation resting upon us, as to posterity, i 
to pay it, and that there is no pressing necessity for its 
payment, the necessaiy effect is to postpone it to an il 
limitable period. Did you ever know a man who paid i ( 
his debts when there w^as no moral obligation resting 
upon him, and no pressing necessity for their payment? i 
Such is not the testimony of experience, nor is it to be : 
expected with corporations or with the State. Isay ; 
then, while it is not the purpose or the wish of the 
gentleman, the eflect of his argument is to postpone ■ 

the debt. But, sir, I take issue with him in the very ! 

starting point in his premises. He says we are under 
no obligation morally, so far as posterity is concerned, 
to pay this debt. Here I differ with him. What is 
his first proposition? _ Why he tells us that the fund 
which we have received from the Government, of i 
three millions and five hundred thousand dollars, was 
a douation for the present generation, and we had the 
right to use it as we pleased. Here we are at issue. 

The decision of the issue is with the committee. I 
ayer that this donation of three millions and a half was 
made to the State for all time, and that this generation > 
is but a Trustee of it, and bound to transmit it unim¬ 
paired, its princifial unreduced, to posterity. What 
say the committee as to that question ? Had we tlie 1 
right to use that money as we pleased ? Are we not ^ 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


469 


simply Trustees of it? We have received, in addition 
to that, sixteen hundred thousand dollars of trust 
funds, from the sale of school lands, &c. These were 
sacred trusts invested in us, not to waste or expend for 
ourselves, but so to invest that posterity should have 
the full benefit of them. We have, then, had five mil¬ 
lions of funds desposited in our hands as Trustees. 
As faithful, honest, upright Trustees, we should see 
that those funds go unimpaired to posterity. Have we 
invested them in canals, railroads and other internal 
improvements, wdiich yield an annual increase, and 
thus secured the fund to posterity ? We have done 
our duty, and no more than our duty. Then, for the 
sake of the argument, I will admit that there has been 
invested, for public improvements, by the present gen¬ 
eration, twenty millions of dollars. 

It is suggested that it will fall short of that amount, 
by the amount of accumulated interest. My own opin¬ 
ion is, that I was mistaken yesterday as to the amount 
of that interest. Probably it is only $1,500,000, as sta¬ 
ted by the gentleman from Ross. But assuming, we 
have invested $20,000,000, we say that with all these 
trust funds, we cannot reduce that debt below fifteen 
millions. These trust funds we may treat as invested 
in the Ohio canal, the Miami canal, Miami extension, 
&c., for the benefit of posterity. We have only done 
our duty. We have not paid one cent towards the re¬ 
maining fifteen millions of expenditure that has been 
invested in these and other works. Here, then stands 
the matter as to the present generation. We have ca¬ 
nals that yield us a revenue of say $300,000. These 
cost about $11,000,000. We have received $5,000,000, 
leaving the actual cost of these works at say $6,000,000. 
Then we have railroad, turnpike, and canal stocks, 
worth say $100,000. These two amounts we might 
send down to posterity, without the violation of any 
moral obligation. But what is done wdth the other 
eight or nine millions ? I see my friend from Monroe 
[Mr. Archbold] ready to say these canals will pay 
nothing 20 years hence. He may be right, but let 
that drop. Though we might postpone the value of 
the canals that pay for 20 or 30 years, so as to hit the 
next generation, we have nine millions of debt for 
which we have nothing. Have we any right to send 
down to posterity these trust funds, reduced in value 
a third of the amount expended, and this additional 
nine millions of debt? It is simply a question of moral 
obligation and right. I say that upon the principles of 
equity and good conscience, this generation should pay 
the nine millions of that debt. What, then, does this 
amendment propose? Will the gentleman remember 
what this amendment proposes—all it proposes ? It 
proposes in the next twenty years to pay only $3,600,- 
000 of it, and to leave to those living after that period, 
the payment of the balance. Do we propose to do 
more than we ought? I think not. But the gentle¬ 
man says that we ought to pay the debt as fast as we 
can, but ought not now to fix any pai’ticular sum to be 
paid annually. He has given us a description of other 
countries, when visited with war, famine, pestilence, 
devastation and ruin, and fears that we shall tie up 
this State so that, in some future day of misfortune, 
there will be danger that the taxes cannot be raised, j 
I admired the eloquence of the learned gentleman, in 
which he described these things. 

But let us look for a moment, and see what the great 
fear has been conjured up for. What is the occasion of 
all this eloquence? What are we doing? There is a 
substantial answer to this argument that the gentleman 
will yield to—that every gentleman maintaining his 
political sentiments will yield to, not only as a moral 
obligation, but as a matter of legal right. Every gen¬ 
tleman upon the other side of the house, though they 
may not acknowledge the basis upon wliich the argu¬ 
ment rests, will acknowledge the moral obligation. Eve¬ 
ry democrat, although he will not admit the right of 
one Legislature to bind another, will at once say tlult 
the pledged faith of the State should be observed. 


They say that when others have acted upon that faith 
that it should be observed. You have heard from the 
gentleman from Morgan this morning, that the law 
which was passed last winter refers back to the law of 
1835. Ev^ery dollar of our State funds has been issued 
upon the faith of the State under that law. But the 
gentleman from Franklin says he would not raise a dol¬ 
lar of interest, while in prosperous years he would 
raise a larger sum. Let us say to him, that the faith 
of the State is irrevocably pledged, to raise by taxation, 
interest upon this debt annually, and $25,000 towards 
the principal. The law of 1825 provides, 

“ That for the payment of interest, and the final redemption of 
the principal of the sums of money to be loaned under the provi¬ 
sions of this act, there shall be, and are hereby irrevocably 
pledged and appropriated all the nett proceeds [of the canals, wa¬ 
ter rents, &c., connected with them, and also certain sums from 
the general revenue to be raised by taxation until 1832, and their 
proceeds] and for each succeeding year thereafter, such sura as 
will produce, together with the nett profits of the canals, actually 
collected and paid into the treasury for each year, an amount suf¬ 
ficient to meet the interest payable for such year; and also the 
sum of twenty-five thousand dollars for each year in addition, 
until the said several surplus sums, over and above the amount 
required to pay the interest on loans, will form a fund sufficient 
for the redemption of the principal sums to be borrowed under 
the provisions of this act, when said several sums shall become 
redeemable; and the faith of the State is hereby pledged, that the 
tax hereby levied shall not be altered o'* reduced, so as to impair 
the security hereby pledged for the payment of the interest, and 
the final redemption of the principal of the sums to be borrowed 
by virtue of this act.” 

There is the pledge, under which the whole of your 
State bonds have issued. For, as admitted by the gen¬ 
tleman from Ross, [Mr. Green,] if there has ever been 
a dollar used to pay the interest, it has been borrowed 
in violation of the law. In addition to that, if interest 
should be borrowed hereaiter, it would be done in vio¬ 
lation of the law. 

This interest is to be raised annually, by the law by 
which this debt was created, and $25,000 towards the 
principal. We now projiose to raise a hundred thou¬ 
sand dollars from the first, and as fast as we reduce the 
interest to increase the amount of payment towards the 
principal.” 

Mr. STANBERY. I am in favor of the Legislature 
having some right to legislate in this matter. Because, 
when a contingency arises where it cannot be perfor¬ 
med without breaking the constitution, we have only 
to alter the law to meet the necessity. If a necessity 
does take place in Ohio sufficiently cogent to authorize 
the Legislature to suspend the taxes for a year, they 
may do so, without violating any plighted pledge. I 
will give an instance. I promise to pay interest upon 
a debt I owe, and I intend to keep my faith, but in an 
unfortunate hour my house burns up, and my prospects 
are all cut down. Does any body suppose that I will 
violate my faith because I cannot pay ? WTll the gen¬ 
tleman tell me that since 1825 there has been any law 
changing this ? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I am not aware that there has 
been. And yet during the last 25 years we have pass¬ 
ed through times of much difficulty—as severe as we 
may anticipate for many years to come, and although 
sometimes the full amount of tax required has not been 
assessed, a large portion of it has been annually assess¬ 
ed and collected, and that too when the people were 
much less able to pay it than they now are to pay the 
amount proposed to be raised. As to the gentleman’s 
fears about the efiect of cholera, famine, &c., I will 
show him presently that the Legislature cannot help 
him. 

But to return to the statute referred to. That shows 
that the law as it now stands, regards the faith of the 
State as plighted for the annual payment of the inter¬ 
est, and the reduction of the principal. The amend¬ 
ment increases the amount to begin with, only $75,000, 
and this small sum has raised all this argument about 
war, pestilence, famine, &c. What emergency will— 
what emergency can arise in Ohio, which will render 
us unable to pay this small sum ? What contingency 
can arise such as that the people cannot pay a tax of 







470 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


one-ninth of a mill to the dollar? But the gentleman 
says, that we should leave the whole matter to the Le¬ 
gislature, that she may so provide as to meet the con¬ 
tingencies arising from cholera, famine, or other mis¬ 
fortune. But how can the Legislature aid you in this 
particular ? Pray what is the system of taxation ?— 
When are you taxes assessed? The taxes to pay the 
interest on our debt this very year were assessed in the 
spring of 1849,—after that we had the cholera. It 
might have devastated the State, and taken the laborers 
from the fields, as the gentleman says, and left the 
country in poverty; and yet, the taxes were levied be¬ 
fore it made its appearance. The Legislature rr.ust 
have had prescience to have provided for that. I call 
the attention of the gentleman to this fact, that even 
with annual sessions, taxes must be levied one. year 
or more before the money is actually used. It is col¬ 
lected in the fall and winter after it is levied, and 
paid over to the State treasury generally in February ol 
the ensuing year. Then take your biennial ses.sions, 
and you must give to your Legislature, in order to pro¬ 
vide for these contingencies, two or three years in ad¬ 
vance, and adapt themselves to the circumstances of 
those years, a prescience as impossible as that the 
gentleman charges us with proposing to exercise. How 
can you remedy the difficulty by the action of a pre¬ 
ceding Legislature ? After the horse is stolen, you 
might lock the door, but not before. It there should 
be great distress one year, the Legislature might pz’o- 
vide not for that, but for the next. But if this should 
prove a prosperous year, the remedy would not be 
what the people would demand; for, as the gentleman 
well says, they will recover in one year; will dig out 
of the earth, and by their industry earn near three- 
fourths the amount of our grand list. 

Thus we see how much foundation there is for all 
this argument about war, famine and pestilence. It 
regards only the moderate sum of $7,5,000 a year and 
annual interest, and looks for relief to a source not avail¬ 
able because man is not gifted with fore-knowledge. 

It is said our people are taxed almost to death now. 

1 admit the amount of taxation has been large, but I 
do not propose to increase it. The very first year, if 
our estimate is correct, we reduce the tax for canal 
purposes .$1.50,000. It is but a step forward to 1853, 
and then upon the exhibit of the Auditor, presented 
by the gentleman some days since, our list will be 
$650,000,000. A tax of one mill on the dollar on this 
list, will give us $650,000—an amount sufficient, with 
the income of tlie canals, to raise the entire amount 
proposed. Last year we paid for this purpose a tax of 

2 and 3-10 mills. We propose then to raise this sink¬ 
ing fund, and yet to strike out near § of the rate of ca¬ 
nal tax. Will this opjiress the people ? I apprehend 
not. 

But suppose you d(^ not pay the debt, will you reduce 
the amount of taxes ? I presume not. 

With the gentleman from Hamilton, I fear there will 
be some other out-go for this money ; or that the agents 
of the State will make up fo);’ the reduction of the ca¬ 
nal fund in some other way. Unless we fix this matter 
here, the time may come, when, rather than reduce the 
taxes, the Legislature will resort to some other improve¬ 
ments to consume the surplus. 

But the committee on Finance and Taxation propose 
to stop that, and I hope they will succeed; however I 
don’t think I would leave as much license even as they 
propose. I should be willing to leave the question of 
a new system of internal improvements to be settled 
by a single vote of the people. I have, perhaps, as 
much confidence in the people as any one else. Nev¬ 
ertheless it is veiy possible that you might carry a vote 
in one year, upon an exciting question, which you 
might not be able to do after the operation of the so¬ 
ber second thought—after the people have taken time 
for sober reflection—and before any new system of State 
improvements is entered upon, I desire the full benefit 
of this reflection. 


But to return to the question belore us, it would 
avoid extravagance in the annual expenditures of the 
government, or the expenses which might result from 
future schemes of improvement. I would advise to ap¬ 
ply the energies of the people of the State to the pay¬ 
ment of the debts of the State, as a matter of policy, 
whether there were any moral obligation involved in 
the case or not. But 1 do not intend to dwell upon 
this view of the matter further. 

It has been said that there has been no case analo¬ 
gous to what w’e propose, except in Illinois, and the 
gentlemen met fairly, and admitted the exception 
when it was stated to them. But let me ask, what 
State, largely indebted, haslately modifiedits constitu¬ 
tion without a provision for the payment of its public 
debt? The constitution of Pennsylvania does not con¬ 
tain this provision, but that was modified in 1838, when 
the spirit of speculation and extravagance in internal 
improvements was at its highest pitch. Kentucky has 
recently modified her constitution; but that State, hav¬ 
ing only a small public debt, perhaps has said nothing 
on that point,—I do not know; but probably her at¬ 
tention would not be called to the subject. But both in 
New York and Illinois, which States have modified 
their constitutions since the time of speculation and of 
commercial excitement, to which I refer, has passed 
away; when they had, like us, large debts, have inser¬ 
ted the sinking fund in their constitutions. What 
did Illinois do? She levied an annual tax, to be ap- 
jdied to the principal of her debt, of two mills on the 
dollar, and nothing was said about its absurdity, or the 
ii regularity, or inconsistency of inserting it in the con¬ 
stitution. What would such a tax do in Ohio ? It 
would raise $900,000 under the present valuation, and 
$200,000 after the re-valuation of 1852. The argument, 
therefore, from example, is in favor of thfe course here 
proposed. 

But, it has been said by the gentleman, we would 
increase the taxes by the course proposed. This I 
have answered before, and have shown that it would 
not have that effect, but the rale of taxation would be 
less than is now required for the sinking fund. 

Thus, Mr. Chairman, have I reviewed the gentle¬ 
man’s argument; and, it seems to me, that it is predi¬ 
cated upon views of the case not justified by the facts, 
and, therefore, not entitled to control the action of this 
Convention. Indeed, I do not suppose that any man s 
argument should control this Convention; but I do 
suppose that the real facts, however imperfectly pre¬ 
sented, if understood, will always have their influence. 

A grave objection has been raised here by the gen- 
man from Butler [Mr. VANCEjasto the construction of 
the amendment. If that gentleman had put a correct 
construction upon the amendment, he and I would un- 
uiujuestionably agree. I would, in no sense ol the 
term, be willing to raise a fund for accumulation. The 
gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Swan] has told us that 
no such thing .should be done, or was intended, and 
all who, like him, remember how the matter has been 
canvassed, will undoubtedly agree with him. But, 
passing by this objection for the present, the gentleman 
from Butler fears that there will be no plan to apply 
this money to advantage, and that unless our bonds 
were due the State might be subjected to the pay¬ 
ment of large premiums on their purchase. We sup¬ 
pose the contingency cannot happen. We propose to 
raise in 1852 $100,000, in 1853 $106,000, in 1854 $112,- 
360, in 1855 $119,101, in 1856 $127,247. Total $564, 
718. After 1856 there can be no difficulty, as between 
3 and 4 millions of our bonds mature during that year. 
But what have we to use up the linking Fund before? 
I answer, there are of domestic bonds, now due, the 
sum of $67,000, and in 1852 $86,000 more will become 
due. Besides, $1,500,000 of the 7 per cent, stocks be¬ 
come due in 1851, and although the Surplus Revenue 
is apf)ropriated to that object, and will ultimately be 
collected, it will not all be collected in season to meet 
these bonds. No one expects it. The Auditor of State 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


411 


estimates only $250,000 to be collected during tbe cur¬ 
rent year. Collections have already been made for 
this object. But more will be requisite, and, after re¬ 
deeming the domestic bonds due, there will be ample 
use for your Sinking Fund until 1856, to provide for the 
7 per cent, stocks due next year. By the way, 1 
would here remark, that some half million of the Sur¬ 
plus Revenue has been collected and is reserved to 
meet these stocks. The officers of the State do not 
propose to invest one dollar of this money, thus col¬ 
lected, for the payment of this specific debt. Both 
the law and good policy are against this. I was sorry 
j to see ray friend from Morgan [Mr. Hawkins"] taking 
! the opposite ground, and making an attack upon the 
1 officers of the State, because there was now’ an unap- 
' propriated balance on hand. But what is that unap- 

I propriated balance ? There was an unappropriated 

balance of $501,000, but it was this collection from the 
Surplus Revenue, which the law has applied to the 
' payment of the seven per cent, stock, which cannot be 
redeemed till next year. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I refer to an unexpended balance 
I of aiipropriations heretofore made for^particular pur- 
! poses. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. These are all carried in and in¬ 
cluded in last year’s account ? Am I not correct ? 

Mr. HAWKINS. I think not. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. That is my impression. But, 
sir, I take occasion here to say that I have not, in any 
of the examinations I have made, observed any want 
of good faith or of fidelity, in the public officers be¬ 
longing to either party. Our present Auditor deserves 
the compliment bestow’ed upon him by the gentleman 
from Franklin—and one of the best State officers we 
ever had, or perhaps ever shall have, came from the 
Democratic party. I refer to Mr. John Brough, who 
was for years at the head of the Auditor’s office. And 
as for the charge that the Auditor has not observed the 
law in the matter of levying taxes for the payment of 
interest, I have no doubt that they have acted (as 
they might very probably do,) under the advice of their 
friends at different times: and for my part, I cannot 
but consider that the Legislature is just as much re¬ 
sponsible for this as the Auditor. ' 

But let that pass. The reference that I have made to 
the domestic bonds and the seven per cents maturing 
next year, and the anticipated deficiency in the collec¬ 
tions of the surplus revenue, show clearly that we 
shal Ifind use for our sinking fund without difficulty. 

But sir, I now say to the gentleman that aside from 
these domestic bonds and the 7 per cents there may 
be still use for this sinking fund. The law now in 
force requires a sinking fund annually, larger than that 
now proposed. On the 24th of February, 1848, the 
Legislature passed a law which, if it were engrafted 
into the constitution, would be all that I would ask. 
That act provides for raising by taxation, tow’ards the 
principal of said debt, $100,000 in 1849, $106,000 in 
1850, $112,360 in 1857, and so on, increasing annually 
by the compound interest, until the whole is paid. The 
3d section of that act declares, 

“ That the fund commissioners shall not renew these bonds or 
' extend the time of payment of the funded debt of the State, in 
any manner that will prevent the State from applying the sums 
contemplated to be raised by the provisions of this act.” 

This law is still in force. It is not, as suggested, re¬ 
pealed by the law of 1850. That is merely amendato¬ 
ry of the act of 1849, and contains no clause repealing 
the first named law and no provisions inconsistent with 
that portion of it above cited. 

This law being in force provides for raising a larger 
amount than we propose, and it also prohibits the fund 
commissioners from exceeding the bonds here set. 
Now sir, are we to presume that the fund commission¬ 
ers are violating the law ? Not only have they not 
done so heretofore, but they have stood up to it nobly. 

I have here before me the Auditor’s report, showing 
the amount being due this year to be $4,385,650. From 
the statement he sent in the other day, in answer to a 


note from the gentleman from Franklin, I learn that 
the fund commissioners have already exchanged $1,- 
500,000, and they have advertised for sale, on the 19th 
inst. $2,500,000. This shows $385,450 less than be¬ 
comes due this year, sufficient, with the domestic bonds 
now and soon to mature, to use up your sinking fund 
until 1856. 

Mr. STANBERY, interrupting, (and Mr. H. giving 
way,) said: I want to know how this will work. I ad¬ 
mit the gentleman is right in his statements, and that 
there will be use for this fund in 1856, 1860, and 1870, 
for during these years large amounts become due. You 
raise a sinking fund every year, yet you provide only 
for payment at these three terms. Now I want to 
know how it is proposed to apply the sinking fund ac¬ 
cruing during the intermediate years? 1 know that it 
is only necesary to get the consent of the bond-holders; 
but will they make the bargain with you? Are you 
not at their mercy ? 

Mr. FllTCHCOCK. No sir, we are not. As to that, 
Mr. Auditor Woods, and the fund commissioners, will 
act under the law. They are not going to violate it. 
The Legislature have determined these matters till 
1856. And, I will ask gentlemen if they suppose when 
our three and a half millions shall fall due in 1856, that 
we shall then be at the mercy of these stock-jobbers, 
to say whether we shall extend the whole for twenty 
years, or whether we can sell in lots of Irom $100,000 
to $150,000 maturing during the intermediate years ? 
Why, sir there can be no difficulty about it. But by 
these terms their bonds are redeemable at the pleas¬ 
ure of the State, after 1856. Now if the holders of 
them endeavor to take the advantage, we may give 
them the legal effect of the contract—redeeming the 
bonds after 1856. This would be strict legal right, and 
if they ask strict law let them have it. They are in our 
power, not we in theirs. 

Mr. STIDGER interupting, was understood to in¬ 
quire, whether premiums would not be paid upon the 
bonds re-issued, and if the Auditor’s report did not 
show over $500,000 on hand at its date, applicable to 
the principal of this debt. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I am obliged to the gentlman 
for the inquiry. I should have answered it before, but 
had forgotten it. I must now return to the fund com¬ 
missioner’s report. The five hundred thousand dollars 
referred to, is the proceeds of the surplus revenue, ap¬ 
propriated to redeem the 7 per cents, which mature 
next year. The commisioners have not been permit¬ 
ted to use this fund; the law does not allow it. 1 hey 
have not even deposited it in banks, but it was deposit¬ 
ed in New York, and was used last Janumy, in part 
payment of the Januaiy interest, in anticipation of 
the taxes to be raised in February. The difficulty is, 
that they cannot appropriate one single dollar this 
fund, except lor redemption of the 7 per cents, bonds 
as they shall fall due. 

Mr. Chairman, from what I have said, it appears that 
for the sinking fund to accumulate before 1856, (after 
which there can beno difficulty) there are now $150,000 
of domestic bonds maturing soon, a sui’phis of $285,650 
of foreign debt maturing this year, the appreiiended 
deficiency in the collections of the surplus revenue of 
at least $500,000, and in addition to all this, the guar¬ 
anty that the fund commissioners will not trample up¬ 
on or violate the law of 1848. 1 * 

Thus, as it seems to me, it is satisfactorily shown ha 
there is a place for this money, and in another portion 
of the report there is a provision to ensure us that this 
money shall be used in its place. The 10th section 
secures its faithful application to the payment of the 
interest, and the reduction of the ^ 

The gentleman from Butler has said that this amend¬ 
ment might be construed as authorizing the investment 
of this money in banks or elsewhere, to accumulate 
the interest. But it is certainly, as I think, not suscep¬ 
tible of such construction. , u • 

Mr. VANCE of Butler (interrupting and Mr. H. giv- 











472 • CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ing way.) I cousidered the section which the gentle¬ 
man has referred to, in connection with the amend¬ 
ment, and I think no gentleman can read the two 
together without coming to the conclusion that the 
amendment, taken in connection with the tenth section, 
not only authorizes, but requires the luiid commission¬ 
ers to accumulate the fund upon the principle of com¬ 
pound interest, till it can be applied to the deot. That 
is the sense which, it strikes me, must be given to it by 
every gentleman looking at both together. And if it 
were intended that the report should have any other 
sense, would it not be advisable so to shape it as to 
avoid this ambiguity? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. That is just the remark I was 
about to make, although I do not think the report sus¬ 
ceptible of the construction which the gentleman puts 
upon it; but my wish is to avoid this construction and 
make it a matter of certainty; and therefore, when we 
come to the tenth section, I hope an amendment may 
be introduced, to the effect that this fund shall be ap¬ 
plied to the reduction of the principal of the debt, and 
shall be subject to no temporary investment whatever. 

But let us see how the amendment now stands. I 
adopted the language of the gentleman from Monroe, 
because I desired to accomodate him, and I still do not 
think it susceptible of misconstruction. It provides 
for the raising of a fund sufficient to pay the interest, 
and annually to reduce the principal by a sum not less 
than$100,000, increased “ annually and each and every 
year by compound interest at the rate of six per centum 
per annum.” The 10th section requires the commis- 
siners “ faithfully to apply said fund to the payment of 
the interest as it becomes due, and the redemption of 
the principal of the public debt.” How can this au¬ 
thorize an investment in banks or elsewhere ? Could 
such investment be regarded as a faithful application of 
this fund? I have now shown that we have a place for 
this fund; and that this report requires that it should 
be used in its place; and that if the fund commission¬ 
ers shall not find that place for it they will violate their 
oath of office. I have proposed such explanation of 
this matter as would be sufficient to express my own 
views. I fear the policy of the law, as it now stands, 
will not be pursued. I think the fund, if raised, will 
be applied faithfully; and I stand here to advocate the 
proposition which I have bz'ought forward, upon the 
ground that the people demand it. I know that my 
own constituents do. To be sure, I did not pledge 
myself to this course, because I did not think it neces¬ 
sary to make pledges. But the question was put to 
me in the canvass, and I advocated prompt payment, and 
provision for it in the constitution, if necessary to se¬ 
cure the object. 

I have now reviewed the ai guments which have been 
brought against this proposition. The remarks are 
before the committee; as to the facts which 1 have re¬ 
ferred to, they are sustained by the Democrats. As to 
the argument, that is not material, for every gentleman 
will for himself, give it such consideration as it may de¬ 
serve, and make to it just such answer? or give to it 
just such weight as he chooses. 

There is another argument which I desire to look at 
for a moment. It is said this is legislation, but, sir, it 
is the establishment of a principle, together with the 
means to secure its being carried out. We take a 
moderate sinking fund, and propose to sustain the prin¬ 
ciple by carrying it out pi'actically. Now, the differ¬ 
ence between some other gentlemen and myself is, 
that they wish to leave this matter entirely to the Leg¬ 
islature, and not incorporate anything on this subject 
in the constitution. But my object is this: I have 
seen the solemn law, and contract, and plighted faith 
of the State, violated by the officers of State— I have 
seen uncertainty attendant upon the enactment, as 
well as the execution of the laws. When parties are 
nearly balanced, the taxing power dare not come up 
to the work and impose the taxes, lest there should 
be a political advantage made out of it. Now, I wish | 
to give the Legislature the sanction of two nnllions of 


people, telling them—Gentlemen, put on the taxes, we 
voted for this, and we will abide by it: you, Mr. Dern- 
crat, and you, Mr. Whig, shall not lose anything by 
so doing: it is our voice that speaks, and you may do 
your duty fearlessly. I would avoid the possibility of 
repudiation, by putting it out of the power of the Leg¬ 
islature ; I would leave the Legislature free from ex¬ 
traneous influences; I would avoid the asking, by way 
of petition, for any law postponing the payment of the 
debt, which might be desired by those who want to 
invest in State stocks, to use them for banking or oth¬ 
erwise ; I would do so for the plain reason, that when 
men go into debt they should get out of it as soon as 
possible; I would make assurance doubly sure; I 
would convert a very remote probability into a cer¬ 
tainty that this principle shall be carried out. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I like the proposition of the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] very well, for it 
preserves us from the danger so much talked of—repu¬ 
diation. I like the proposition of the gentleman from 
Cnyahoga still better, because it contains a further tes¬ 
timony against the practice of running in debt. 

Mr. CUTLER. I move to amend the amendment of¬ 
fered by the gentlemen from Cuyahoga, by striking out 
all after the word “ dollars,” the effect of which will be 
to fix a minimum annual amount, to be raised by taxa¬ 
tion, as a sinking fund, with discretion on the part of 
the General Assembly to increase it at their pleasure. 
This, sir, I understand to be in accordance with the 
principle laid down in the law of 1825, varying the 
amount of the fund to be raised from $25,000 to $100,- 
000 .| 

I have listened with much attention to the argument 
thus far, and the difference between the position taken 
by the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitchcock] in 
his amendment, and that taken by the gentleman from 
Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] is this: one proposes to fix a 
definite sum annually, to be raised by taxation, appli¬ 
cable to the payment of principal; the other proposes 
to leave the whole matter to legislative discretion. 
There is no controversy about the payment of interest, 
all are agreed that that shall be secured by the most 
solemn guarantees. Let us look a moment at the prac¬ 
tical operation of the two plans. 

The amendment of the gentleman from Cuyahoga, 
which is substantially the law of February 24, 1848, 
“ to provide for the extinguishment of the public debt 
of Ohio,” would require the following sums annually, 
to be raised by taxation to pay the principal of the pub¬ 
lic debt. 

I give the statement in round numbers for a few 


years; 

For the year 1850.$106,000 

“ “ 1851. 112,360 

‘‘ “ 1852. 119,000 

“ “ 1853 126,000 

“ 1854 133,000 

“ “ 1855. 141,000 

“ “ 1856. 150,000 


Increasing thus, by compound interest added, it would 
require in 1862 the sum of $200,000, and in 1874 the 
sum of .$400,000, to be raised by taxation for a purpose 
which, to say the least, is not absolutely necessary. 
The gentleman from Franklin would leave a discretion 
with the General Assembly to raise the amount for any 
one of these years, or not as the circumstances of the 
people might determine. 1 think a middle ground 
may be taken between these two propositions, which 
would as eftectually secure the payment of the debt, 
and at the same time give to the people the benefit of 
an annual diminution of their taxes. This would be 
secured by the amendment I propose. 

Suppose the General Assembly should not increase 
the amount above the constitutional provision of $100,- 
000. The account would stand thus : You must raise 


for principal and interest for 1850.$1,000,000 

“ ‘‘ 1851. 994,000 

‘ “ 1852. 988,000 

‘ “ 18.53. 976,000 



















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


473 


Thus annually diminishing your taxes to the amount 
of $G,()00, until in 1862 the people are relieved to the 
extent of $72,000, and in 1874, $144,000. 

But, sir, why may we not calculate that the General 
Assembly will use their discretion, and in times of pros 
perity increase the amount, so that instead of the sum 
I have named for the year 1862, $150,000, $200,000 
may then be stricken from the total of your taxes. In¬ 
stead of the benelit of this gradual abatement of the 
burthen, we are compelled^by the gentleman’s amend¬ 
ment, tor 40 long years, to raise the annual sum of $1,- 
000,000, without regard to the circumstances or ability 
of the people—one-half of which, on the average, will 
go to pay the principal on a debt, the holders of which, 
don’t thank you for the money. 

I can tell you, sir, that much as the people want this 
debt paid off, they also desire, and have a right to de¬ 
mand the benefit to themselves and the present gener¬ 
ation, of its gradual reduction. Tlie plan proposed, 
denies them all such benefits. I expect when Iretmn 
home, that my constituents will inquire, “ what pro¬ 
vision is made to pay od the public debt?” But will 
they not also inquire, “ when shall we experience 
some relief from this grievous burthen of taxation ?” 
I shall be compelled to point them to a jubilee, to be 
held at the end of 40 years, when all at once this bur¬ 
then is to fall off—up to that time they must wade 
through the Slough of Despond. 

But, sir, why is this distrust of legislative discre¬ 
tion ? It certainly comes with an ill grace, from those 
who have borrowed the very proposition they urge upon 
our attention, from an act of the General Assembly. As 
a legislative act, I have no objection to it, but, as an 
iron rule in your constitution, I object to it as unwise. 

I have said, sir, that with tliis annual incubus of a 
million, your taxes will remain the same as at present, 
for 40 years. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The per cent, of taxes will be di¬ 
minished in proportion as the basis is enlarged, as will 
be the case by a new valuation in 1852. 

Mr. CUTLER. I ask gthe gentleman if the same 
property does not pay the taxes, after the valuation, as 
did before ? I admit there is an annual addition of 
new property to the aggragate, which has been fre¬ 
quently stated on this floor, to be about 5 per cent.— 
two and a half per cent., however, is much nearer the 
fact. But, sir, I have been somewhat surprised, to hear 
gentlemen referiug to an increased basis of, they say 
$600,000,000, in 1852, as relieving the people—their 
annual payment of this fixed, unalterable, irreducible 
sum of one million. A new valuation of real estate 
is important and valuable in equalizing the burthens 
of taxation, but it does not bring on new property to 
any great amount—that is the province of a tax law. 
If I have paid more than my proportion of taxesin 1851, 
I shall hope to pay a less sum in 1853. 

What relief is it to a man who has paid 9 mills upon 
real estate, valued at $1,006, if anew valuation places 
it at $1,500, and 6 mills is assessed. In both cases, he 
pays his nine dollars per annum. The only relief from 
this source to the tax payer, will be in gradual accu¬ 
mulations of property, which will find their way, from 
year to year, on the tax list. 

But sir, there is another matter worthy of some con¬ 
sideration while gentlemen are exercising their inge¬ 
nuity to devise plans to relieve the people, wliile they 
continue the amount of taxes the same. 

I understand it is determined to place bank capital 
upon yourtax list thesameasotherproperty. When this 
is done, some 15,000 or 20,000 dollars will be lost to 
the State. The Branch and Independent Banks now 
pay more than other property. 

Mr. REE ME LIN. The gentleman is mistaken. 

Mr. CUTLER. Let us see about that. Here is the 
Report of the Auditor of State. On page 46 the gen¬ 
tleman will find that the Branches and Independent 
Banks pay a little less than nine mills and a half on the 
dollar, on page 36 he will find that other property 


pays a trifle less than eight and a half. It is true that 
the old Banks, who are taxed on their dividends, do 
not pay as much as others. Now how will this work 
under a new valuation when the basis is increased to 
$600,000,000. They now pay what is about equivalent 
to 9 mills upon $6,000,000, bank'capital, making about 
$54,000. The per cent, to be assessed on the increas¬ 
ed basis to give the amount now raised will be about 6 
mills—which, upon $6,000,000 bank capital, would 
yield $36,000—a loss of $18,000 to the State. But it 
is intimated that they are to be taxed upon capital, 
discount, circulation and, I believe, deposits. I can 
only say that when such a law as that is placed upon 
the statute book gentlemen will have to look for bank 
capital in the pockets of its owners—not a little of it 
out of the State, beyond the reach of tax laws—and 
this, I have no doubt, is the consummation so devoutly 
wished for by many. 

Mr. REE.MELIN (interrupting.) The banking cap¬ 
ital of the State is $7,000,000; if their loans and dis¬ 
counts, without any restriction, were taxed in the same 
manner and to the same extent that other species of 
property is taxed, it would still leave a net profit to 
the banks of 10 per cent, on their capital. Will a re¬ 
sult like this drive banking capital East, where money 
is abundant at 4^ per cent., or to England where the 
demand for money was supplied at 3 per cent., and 
even 2^ ? The whole amount of the tax collected from 
the banks last year was $53,000—a tax of $54,000 
would indicate a nett profit of $900,000, their profits 
amount, as it is, to $880,000. If taxed as indicated, 
the whole tax woidd amount to $161,000, leaving to 
the banks a nett profit of $720,000, which, on a capi¬ 
tal of $7,000,000, leaves a nett profit of 10 per cent. 
I ask again, sir, if this profit will drive banking capital 
beyond our borders? 

Mr. STANTON thought that speeches ought to be 
made without bringing in the bank question. 

The CHAIRMAN [Mr. Srwver] remarked that 
there was too much cross firing in the Hall. 

Mr. CUTLER. I have no intention, sir, to go into a 
discussion of the bank question, and have only alluded 
to it as connected with this question of taxing the peo¬ 
ple to pay the principal of our debt, and will therefore, 
only say to the gentleman from Hamilton that a little 
experience in the application of his principles to the 
taxation of banks will furnish the most—perhaps the 
only satisfactory answer to his question. Let him try 
it. When the people have no further use for a paper 
cucrrenhey may succeed. 

But, sir, to proceed: Much has been said in this 
discussion, about the danger and difficulty of mana¬ 
ging this rapidly accumulating sinking fund. It may 
go into the banks, say some, and become the basis of 
an over issue of currency, or it may be locked up for a 
series of years—the people losing its interest, and its 
keepers losing their senses in wild projects for its ille¬ 
gitimate application. 

Now, sir, I submit whether this very difficulty the 
reality of which to some extent no one denies,—is not 
a sound reason for leaving some discretion to the Legis¬ 
lature, as to the amount, and not undertake to hedge in 
a great financial question like this with metes and 
bounds more strict thanjyouare willing to throw around 
a Governor’s salary or the compensation of your State 
Officers* 

The gentleman from Cuyahoga, if I understood 
insists that when your state bonds become due, the 
commercial rule, as stated by the Fund Commissioners, 
in llicir report of 1850, is to be disregaided. unci iiuder 
a leo-al construction of the terms of the bonds, they are 
to remain, to be paid at the pleasure of the State. In 
this way he will undoubtedly have an opportunity of 
g^pplyjjjg ]jig immense sinking fund, which will a- 
mount, befoi-e his scheme is carried out, to three—four 

_five—and even six hundred thousand dollars to be 

raised in one year, by taxation. But the question is 
do you not lose by this policy the benefit of a reinvest- 











474 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


uient of the debt by issuing new bonds, at, say twenty 
years, and which will command a premium of 15 to 2U 
percent. 

For instance, in 18G0, $6,812,481 of six per cents are 
due, redeemable at the pleasure of the State. Accor¬ 
ding to the gentleman’s i)olicy, you allow the old bonds 
to remain in the hands of the holders, that you may 
apply to their redemption the sinking fund, which by 
that time will be a large amount annually. But if new 
bonds were issued at apremium of 20 per cent, (which 
is about the advance our Fund Commissioners are an¬ 
ticipating on the new issue authorized last winter,) you 
have only $5,449,985 to pay in twenty years, instead of 
$6,812,481 to be redeemed at par by the annual appli¬ 
cation ol the sinking fund. In other words, you have 
paid $1,362,496 of your public debt, simjily by the use 
of the good credit of Ohio. By the plan proposed this 
immense advantage (and it would be still more impor¬ 
tant if applied to the whole principal) is disregarded, 
and the last dime of this enormous principal must be 
wrung out of the people by taxation. 

We have heard, sir, in this discussion a great deal 
about repudiation—a funded national debt—the claims 
of posterity. These topics have formed the staple of 
some very line speeches, while 1 think ttie main point 
at issue has been but little cared for. It is not wheth¬ 
er the interest shall be promptly pa d or not—no one, 
I presume, wishes to abate an iota from the most rigor¬ 
ous obligation wdiich may be imposed upon all concer¬ 
ned to meet that punctually, whatever burden it may 
impose upon the people in the way of taxation. It is 
not whether the debt itself shall be perpetuated—eve¬ 
ry one is willing and desirous that it shall be paid. As 
for the claims ol posterity, I think a mle of conduct 
which will be just, equitable, right, for ourselve.s, will 
not be a matter of complaint by them. 

The question is whether we shall leave a discretion 
to the General Assembly—the people themselves—in 
the management and control of this most important 
matter—whether, as is proposed in the amendment I 
have just ofiered, we shall secure to them—or permit 
them to secure for themselves—the benefit of an annu¬ 
al abatement of the burthens of taxation, just in pro¬ 
portion to the diminution of the principal of the debt 
or whether the amount of interest canceled in previous 
years is to be added to the sinking fund of the next, 
and thus continue, the same amount to be raised until 
the whole is paid. 

Ml" IAYIjOR desired to state a single consideration 
which constrained him to vote for the proposition of 
the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] while, 
under other ciicumstances, he w'ould vote for the prop¬ 
osition of the gentleman from Monroe. He believed 
that at this moment there was in Ohio an amount ol 
property exempt from taxation, the legitimate taxes 
upon which would, in the course of thirty years, be 
sufficient to create a complete sinking fund for the^ re¬ 
demption of the principal of the public debt. The 
enormous sum of seven millions of dollars, constitu¬ 
ting the basis of banking operations, pays taxes only 
ujiou nett profits. He w'as decidedly of opinion, that 
this species of property should be made to contribute 
its full share, and its equal proj.ortion, to the revenues 
of the State. If all unjust and special privileges were 
abolished, and all the banking capital in the State pla¬ 
ced, as it should be, upon the grand duplicate, in the 
same manner as is every other species of property, he 
would favor the more immediate payment of the pub¬ 
lic debt. But if—for the next twenty years, or until 
the present bank charters” expired—the present un¬ 
just aud unequal system of taxation is to continue, he 
should feel himself compelled to oppose the levy of a 
single dollar for any other purpose than for the pay¬ 
ment of the annual interest on the public debt, and to 
defray the actual expenses of the civil list of the State. 
He asked this morning for the reading of the report of 
the committee on “Finance and Taxation,” and he 
wished that the consideration of that report had pre¬ 


ceded this, because when the Convention came to the 
consideration of that report, it would settle the system 
of taxtion hereafter to aj)ply to all species of property 
in Ohio, and the settlement of that question was cer¬ 
tainly precedent to the questions involved in the report 
now before the committee, 

So far as he was concerned, his action on this report, 
and upon the near or remote payment of the State 
debt, would be shaped by the action of the Conven¬ 
tion, upon the rej)ort of the committee on Finance and 
Taxation. Was the present system of exclusive pri¬ 
vileges and unequal taxation to be continued—were 
we sfill to be deluded in this regard, by an empty 
clamor about “the sacred obligation of contracts, and 
the inviolability of vested rights?” If we are to tax 
all property alike—if the banker was hereafter to con¬ 
tribute his equal share to the State revenues, then he 
[Mr. T.] would lend his support to a proposition im¬ 
mediately to establish a sinking fund for the liquida¬ 
tion of the principal of the public debt. He had indi¬ 
cated the proper and legitimate succession of subjects, 
which, in his opinion, should occuj^y the attention of 
the Convention. If this Convention will bring “ capi¬ 
tal ” and the “credits” of banks, and not merely their 
“ nett profits ” on the tax list—if nine-tenths of the 
present “ exemptions ” are to be struck down—if only 
the “school houses and grave yards ” are to be exempt¬ 
ed from taxation—if all this was to be adopted in the 
new' constitution then he would vote for a provision for 
the proposed sinking fund, but not before. 

Mr. STANTON remarked that he had prepared a 
proposition very similar to that ofiered by the gentle¬ 
man from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold.] The plan indi¬ 
cated by the gentleman fi'om Washington [Mr. Cutler] 
would require a period of one hundred and fifty years 
to pay off the principal of the public debt. It had oc¬ 
curred to him that the difficulty might be reached, and 
the object of gentlemen secured, by applying the 
“compound interest” fora given series of years. I 
should prefer that plan to any other. 

Mr. BARNETT of Preble. I differ widely from the 
views expressed this morning, by the gentleman from 
Washington, [Mr. Cutler.] That gentleman certain¬ 
ly begins at the wrong end to reduce. He (Mr. C.) 
proposes that we shall tax the people more tzuw and less 
hereafter. Sir, I am in favor of just the reverse of this 
proposition. I hold, and if necessary will demonstrate 
it, that the people of Ohio are increasing in wealth and 
pow'er, and all the means necessaiy to enable them to 
pay off a great debt, such as now hangs over them.— 
This being true, it follows clearly that we shall have 
more ability to pay the principal on this debt hereafter 
than now. I am therefore in favor of beginning in this 
case, with a smaller sum than has been named, where¬ 
with to commence the liquidation of our public debt, 
and to increase that sum gradually as the means and 
ability of the people will allow, until the whole debt 
sliall be sunk. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Cutler] assumes that the same property will always 
have to bear the tax—that an increase of the wealth of 
the State will not decrease the burthens of the tax¬ 
payer—the only difference in his [Mr. Cutler's] opin¬ 
ion being, that the same property is simply rated at 
a higher valuation. But I contend that there is a I’eal 
increase of property in this State, and wall be for years 
to come. I look to the opening up of the new lands 
of the State—the developement of their untold agricul¬ 
tural and mineral w'ealth, for the sources from whence 
shall come the increased revenues that shall, in time^^ 
enable Ohio to wipe out her great public debt. 

But at this very time, when every facility should be 
afforded to the improving of the newer portions of the 
State, you are stripping the Legislature of all power to 
aid the people in their wmrks of internal improvement, 
and throwing the entire burthen of the construction of 
these w'orks upon individual exertion and enterprise, 
which it is further proposed to cramp and fetter, by en¬ 
grafting in your constitution a provision denying to the 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


475 


several counties and townships of the State, the power 
to aid them in tne construction of those works' 1 shall 
therefore oppose miy proposition that will make the 
burthens of taxation greater now than hereafter. I am 
in favor of beginning with the sum fixed by the pres¬ 
ent law at twenty five thousand dollars, for a safety- 
fund with compound interest added at such rate as will 
enable the State to pay her debt in a reasonable time. 
I felt myself called upon to say this much. If I have 
stated any facts that are worth any thing, members 
can, and I have no doubt will apply them to the sub¬ 
ject under consideration. 

The question being upon the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Cuyahoga, [xMr. Hitchcock,] 

On motion by Mr. STlLVVELL the committee rose, 
reported no conclusion and, obtained leave to sit a- 
gain. 

And on motion, the Convention took a recess. 

3 OCLOCK P. M. 

Mr. SAWYER offered in substance the foliowino-: 

^'Resolved, That hereafter, while the Convention shall be in 
committee of the whole, no member shall be allowed to occupy 
more than hfieen minutes at any one time in discussion.” 

Mr. BENNET was opposed to the adoption of the 
resolution; the Convention had previously adopted a 

similar rule of action, but it, had not been observed_ 

it was of no practical benefit whatever. 

Mr. KING hoped the resolution would be agreed to; 
if adopted, he believed it would now be adhered to. 

Mr. COLLINGS said it would be admitted by all that 
he had occupied but very little of the time of the Con¬ 
vention heretofore. But there was one subject, which 
would hereafter come up for discussion, upon which he 
might be desirous of speaking, and perhaps of occupy¬ 
ing in the discussion more than fifteen minutes, j 

Mr. MITCHELL thought the resolution offered by 
i| the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] did not 
reach the difficulty aimed at. It was not the time con¬ 
sumed by a speaker upon any one subject that produced 
the great delay in business, it was the number of times 
that each speaker addressed the committee on the same 
subject. He thought the adoption of the resolution un¬ 
der consideration would be futile. 

A Member moved to lay the resolution on the table. 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays upon 
this motion, which being ordered, resulted ayes 53, 
nays 32. as follows:i[ 

Those who voted in the affiz'mative were 
Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Clay- 
poole, Collings, Cook, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Green of 
Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoo’a, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hunt, Kirkwood, Larsh. Larwill’ 
Leech, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick Norris’ 
Orton, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Robertson, Roll, Scott’of Har¬ 
rison, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Struble, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, 
Vance of Champaign, Warren and Mr. President_53. 

Those who voted in the negative were 

Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Blair, Case of Licking, Clark, 
Ewing, Farr, Firestone, Gillett, Graham, Green of Detiance, Gregg 
Hawkins, Henderson, Holt, Hunter, King, Lidey, Loudon, Morns’ 
Peck, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stebbens, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, Williams and 
W oodbury—32. 

On motion by Mr. MANON, the Convention resolved 
itsell into a committee of the whole, Mr. SAWYER in 
the chair, and resumed the consideration of the report 
of the committee on Public Works and Public Debts. 

The CHAIRMAN stated the question to be on Mr. 
CuTLKR’samendment to the following substitute, offered 
by Mr. Hitchcock of Cuyahoga and accepted by Mr. 
Archbold, to wit: 

Strike out all after the word “ shall,” in the second 
line of the section, and insert the following: 

“ Be sufficient to pay the accniinginterest on the pubhc debt oi 
the State, Bud annually to reduce the principal by rt sum not less 
than one hundred thousand dollars, increased yearly and each and 
every year by compound interest at the rate of six per cent, per 
annum.”! 


Mr. CUTLER’S amendment, proposing to strike from 
the substitute all after the word “dollars.” 

Mr. BARNETT of Preble indicated n amendment, 
which he read for information, and which he thought 
might be offered by way of substitute to the amend¬ 
ment ot the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Cutler], 
to wit: striking out from Mr. Hitchcock’s amendment 
the words “one hundred thousand dollars,” and insert¬ 
ing in lieu thereof these words: “twenty-five thousand 
dollars, inclusive yearly and in each and every year by 
compound interest, at such rate as will pay the whole 

debt of the State in-years.” 

Mr. CUTLER’S amendment was rejected. 

Mr. BARNETT of Preble now proposed his amend¬ 
ment, as above, and it was rejected. 

The question recurring upon Mr. Hitchcock’s amend¬ 
ment, it was adopted. 

Mr. STANBERY now proposed to amend the origi¬ 
nal section, by striking out from the fourth line the 
words “ stocks owned by the State,” and inserting, 
“ whatever other funds or resources are or may be pro¬ 
vided therefor by law.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga thought the commit¬ 
tee would not object to the modification. 

The amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. GREGG proposed to amend the original section 
of the report by inserting after the word “stocks,” in 
the fourth line, the word “ while.” 

The CHAIRMAN having stated the question, 

Mr. GREGG said: By section 4 of the reportundercon- 
sideration we have fully provided against all connexion 
hereafter between the State and any joint stock asso¬ 
ciation whatever, either as stockholder or by loan of 
credit, and my motive in offering this amendment, is to 
cut off all present connexion, to secure a sundering of 
the band—yes, sir, to saw it off as short as the end of 
a saw-log! As the section stands at present, the pro¬ 
ceeds of those railroad, turnpike and canal stocks are 
permanently pledged, and as I understand it, prevents 
the State from parting with them until the payment of 
the public debt. If this amendment should be made, 
we are then at liberty to dispose of those stocks at any 
time, and for my part I wish the partnership dissolved 
—I wish to see our State government brought back to 
its simple and appropriate functions—to protect the 
rights of the citizen, without “governing too much,” 
and leave railroad, canal, turnpike and other corporate 
associations, to get along upon their own credit, with¬ 
out any connexion or partnernership with the State 
whatever. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga, Mr. MITCHELL 
and Mr. LARSH followed, by way of explanation, 
each with a few remarks. 

And then the amendment was rejected. 

The question occurring now upon striking out the 
whole of the seventh section, as amended, and insert¬ 
ing Mr. Stanbery’s substitute offered, 

Mr. VANCE of Butler proposed further to amend the 
original section by striking out all after the word “in¬ 
debtedness,” in the second line, and inserting these 
words: “therefore means for the payment of the inter¬ 
est and for the gradual reduction of the principal shall 
be provided by law.” 

The amendment was lost; and the question again re¬ 
curring upon striking out and inserting Mr. Stanbery'’s 
subititute, 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga demanded a division 
of the question: and the committee refusing to strike 
out, the substitute was rejected. 

Mr. CLARK proposed further to amend the seventh 
section by adding at the end thereof these words: pro¬ 
vided that no law creating such sinking fund to pay ei¬ 
ther principal or interest on said debt, shall go into op¬ 
eration until the banks of the State are taxed the same 
as individuals. 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays upon 
the adoption of this amendment. 

Mr. CLARK said the amendment offered by 













476 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


was just and he hoped it would prevail. He had rea¬ 
son to expect that it would receive the unanimous vote 
of the committee. Gentlemen on one side of the cham¬ 
ber had stated that the tax paid by the banks was great¬ 
er than the taxes paid by individuals. On the other 
side they had stated the taxes paid by the banks was 
less. With this state of things it was reasonable to ex¬ 
pect, and he flattered himself with the hope, that the 
amendment would be adopted. 

The county that he represented paid last year over 
nine thousand dollars for its portion of tax to pay the 
interest on the State debt. It had paid similar amounts 
for a number of years. His constituents had never re¬ 
ceived a cent of benefit from the public works, for 
which the debt was created. It is now proposed to 
increase the tax so as to gradually pay off the principal. 
It that was to be done, it was no more than right that 
the banks should be required to contribute their share 
towards paying it. He concurred with the views ex¬ 
pressed by the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. Taylor,] 
that it was unjust to tax the people to pay that debt 
until a greater amount of property that is now exempt 
Irom taxation was brought on to the duplicate, and the 
banks be taxed as individuals. 

Many of his constituents as well as himself regarded 
the debt as unconstitutional—the legislature having no 
constitutional authority to make it. No one here has 
claimed, and he believed no one would, that the debt 
was constitutional. The payment of it was placed 
solely on moral grounds. Indeed, it had been said in 
debate that all that was wanted in the constitution was 
to acknowledge the obligation of the State to pay with 
assurances that it should be ultimately paid. Provided 
a just system of taxation could be adopted, his constit¬ 
uents would not much care how quick the debt was 
paid; but if banks were to escape an increase of taxes— 
if they were to be taxed merely upon their profits, and 
if other property now exempt, which ought to be tax¬ 
ed, was to continue exempt, he hoped the people would 
repudiate the debt. It was hard enoagh for those who 
had received no benefit to pay their proportion with all 
property taxed equally, and if equal taxation could not 
be had he hoped the people would repudiate the debt. 
With a view of having the State debt paid, he would 
that the stock held by the State in turnpike 
companies be sold and the proceeds applied. The State 
owned one million eight hundred and fifty three thou¬ 
sand dollars of such stock, which paid a dividend the 
last year of only twenty seven thousand and a few hun¬ 
dred dollars, about one and a half per cent. In his 
opinion, the quicker this stock was sold the better for 
the State. He thought it advisable also for the State to 
sell the canals and apply the proceeds the same way. 
They were growing yearly less productive. The last 
year the nett proceeds was but about two hundred and 
eighty six thousand dollars, and in a short time when 
the railroads now building shall be finished, in his 
opinion, the toll on the canals would not more than keep 
them in ropair. If disposed of now, they would briiT^ 
something to aid in paying that debt. 

Mr. ROBERTSON said he should vote for the amend- 
meni, but he thought it might be better applied else¬ 
where. He asked the gentleman from Lorain to with¬ 
draw his amendment, for the reason that he thouf^ht it 
could not get a full vote at this time. 

Mr. CLARK refused to withdraw the amendment. 

The question being then taken upon the amendment 
it was rejected—affirmative 30, negative 41. 

No further amendment being offered to the seventh 
section, it was passed over, and theCnAiRMAx announ¬ 
ced the consideration of the eighth section, and it was 
read as follows: 

Sec. 8. The Auditor of State, Secretary of State, and Attorne 
lieneral, are hereby created a Board of Commissioners, to b 
styled ‘\the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund.” 

No amendment being offered to the eighth section, it 
was also passed, and the Chairman announced the con¬ 
sideration of the ninth section, which was read, and is 
as follows: 


Sec. 9. The commissioners of the sinking fund shall annually, 
previous to the first day ot June, make an estimate of the proba¬ 
ble amount of the nett income of the public works and stocks 
aforesaid for the ensuing year, and determine the per centum of 
tax on the gi'and list of property liable to taxation, necessary 
therewith to produce the amount of the fund above mentioned, 
and certify the same to the Auditor of State, who shall thereupon 
assess upon said grand list, the per centum of tax thus certified; 
which said tax shall be collected in the same manner with other 
State taxes, and paid over to the commissioners aforesaid, for the 
purposes aforesaid, ^ 

Mr. ARCHBOLD proposed to amend by striking out 
the whole section. 

Mr. LOUDON proposed to amend the ninth section 
by striking out from the 5th and 6th lines, the words, 
“and certify the same to the Auditor of State, who shall 
thereupon assess upon the grand list,” and inserting in 
lieu thereof these words: “and the Auditor shall re¬ 
port the same to the Legislature, that the General As¬ 
sembly may assess.” 

On motion of Mr. ROBERTSON, the committee rose, 
reported, no conclusion, and obtained leave to sit again. 

And then the Convention adjourned. 

FRIDAY, June 21, 1850. 

Mr. STANTON presented a petition from R. D. Wil¬ 
liams, and eighty-three other citizens of Champaign 
county, praying that a provision be inserted in the 
new constitution prohibiting the Legislature from 
passing any law legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. HAWKINS pi’esented a petition from H. S. Rob¬ 
ertson and 240 other citizens of Moz’gaii county, pray¬ 
ing that a clause be engrafted in the new Constitution, 
making it imperative upon the Legislature to give to all 
persons injured by the traffic in spirituous liquors a rem¬ 
edy against the vender thereof. 

The same gentleman presented a memorial from 
James Parker, praying that a provision be engrafted in 
the new constitution prohibiting the Legislature from 
passing any law legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors. 

The petitions and memorial were severally referred 
to the select committee on the subject of retailing ar¬ 
dent spirits. 

Report unmber one of the committee 011 Finance 
and Taxation was read a second time by its title, and 
committed to a committee of the whole Convention. 

Upon motion of Mr. LIDEY, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the whole, (Mr. Sawyer in 
the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the re¬ 
port of the committee on 

PUBLIC DEBTS AND PUBLIC WORKS. 

The question being upon the amendment offered by 
Mr. Loudon, and which was still undisposed of when 
the Convention adjourne.d 

Mr. LOUDON. The amendment is to strike out the 
portion of the section which takes away the taxing 
power from the Auditor and confers it upon the Legis¬ 
lature. 

Mr. SWAN. I hope this motion will not prevail. 
These commissioners, of course, will make their an¬ 
nual assesments each year, and then the Legislature 
will have to act upon them. Now it will be a mere 
arithmetical calculation upon the part of these officers, 
and it does not invest in these commissioners the pow¬ 
er to make this taxation. If made by the Legislature 
it would be made by a committee. These public offi¬ 
cers would have the power of making this arithmeti¬ 
cal calculation. I hope the motion to strike out will 
not prevail. 

Mr. HAWKINS. If the amendment prevail, it will 
then require that this board should make this estimate, 
and it then refers the matter to the Legislature, and for j 
what purpose ? In order that the Legislature may de- ^ 
termine how much property is to be assessed. I sup¬ 
pose it must be for that. Well, sir, if the board in ma¬ 
king an estimate of the necessary per cent, to raise 
this constitutional sum, should not discharge their duty 
faithfully, I would have a law by which they could be 
impeached, and punished if necessary. If they should, 
in disregard of duty, estimate a per cent, double the 














CONVENTION REPOKTS. 


amount necessary, I would require them to be punish¬ 
ed. If on the other hand they omitted to estimate the 
necessary sum, I should be willing that it should be as¬ 
certained by some person, according to the best infor¬ 
mation which they can avail themselves of, as to what 
this necessary per cent, will be. I should be glad to 
yield to the desires of the gentleman from Monroe. If 
these officers have become odious to any gentleman on 
• this floor, I would desire to relieve him as far as possi¬ 
ble, by the substitution of some other power. If the 
scheme is to be adopted, it will require a certain sum 
to be levied. The question is, who shall estimate the 
per cent, of tax in order to raise the sum necessary? 
I should not have objections that the estimate should 
be made by a committee of the Legislature, and sub¬ 
mitted to that body for its approval. There would be 
a requisition to meet the same. If the amendment pre¬ 
vails, it will amount to this. For they will certify to 
the Legislature and the Legislature shall determine the 
per centum. *■ They make an estimate and submit their 
opinions to the Legislature, and the Legislature will 
determine whether it is too much or too little. I do 
not want to create a body of men who will not be a- 
menable to any power here. They will be in the dis¬ 
charge of a constitutional duty, and be liable to punish¬ 
ment if they neglect that duty—if they abuse tlie trust 
conferred iq)on tliem. I doubt very much whether the 
section can be improved. It may be altered so as to 
meet the views of gentlemen upon this floor. I know 
the gentleman from Monroe has for years past felt rather 
belligerent towards the Auditor of State. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD Never. 1 deny that there have 
beenany other but the kindest feelings between the Au¬ 
ditors and myself. The gentleman is making too free. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I derived the impression from 
reading the gentleman’s legislative speeches, that be¬ 
tween himse'land the “linsey woolsey king ” there was 
an incurable hostility. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. There may be a feeling of hos¬ 
tility between myself and the throne, but never be¬ 
tween the person who fills that throne and myself. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I have been led to such a conclu¬ 
sion from reading some of the gentleman’s speeches. 
If there has been a I’econciliation, and if amicable feel¬ 
ings now exist between the two, I have no doubt we 
shall get along here well enough. 

Mr. LOUDON. It seems to me, these two sections, 
the 8th and 9th, give greater power than this Conven¬ 
tion is prepared to grant. The 9th section authorizes 
them to determine the amount of taxation necessary to 
keep up this sinking fund, and imposes upon one board 
the power to assess and collect, without regard to the 
Legislature, or asking consent of the Legislature or any 
person in the State of Ohio. It is annually confined 
to the board thus created, to assess, determine, collect 
and apply the people’s money in the State of Ohio, 
without any controlling power whatever—without any 
body to oversee them, and discover whether they have 
made a just and correct amount of assessment, or 
whether they have applied this money when collected. 
I am unprepared to go to the length to create any 
body with such unlimited powers to z’aise such enor¬ 
mous taxes—to collect and apply them. I trust that 
the amendment will not prevail, and the whole sec¬ 
tion stricken out. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. The gentleman from Brown, 
[Mr. Loudon] sees the absurdity of giving up the mon¬ 
ey power ol this great people to a single autocrat, or even 
to a small junta of three men—his honest heart—his 
republican feelings revolt at such a proposition. Hence, 
the proposition to send in the Auditor’s assessment to 
the General Assembly for the inspection of that body. 
Let the gentleman reflect whether his arrangement 
would not produce strife and rivalry between two rival 
powers, The autocrat would contend that the Assem¬ 
bly could exercise no discretion except to register his 
edict. That body would sink into the situation of a 
Parliament of Paris, and we might see Louis holding 


477 


a bed of justice, and compelling them to comply with 
his wishes. Nay, it is not certain that even a Parlia¬ 
ment of Paris will be able to retain this small privile"e. 
Some gentleman may propose that the ukase of the 
Emperor may be sent to be registered in some provin¬ 
cial Parliament, which my Northern friends propose to 
set up in the various counties. [Laughter among the 
Iriends of county Legislatures.] 1 promise myself a 
sure ally in the gentleman from Brown—his sterling 
honesty—his orthodox democracy—his republican sen¬ 
timents will not endure this enormous power in the 
hands of a single man, or a small and secret conclave. 
He has already discovered his aversion to such a prop¬ 
osition—he will unquestionably combine with us, and 
restore the people’s Representatives to their rightful 
functions. The gentleman from Morgan jiroposes to 
vest in the General Assembly, a power of impeaching 
the State Auditor and his Divan, if they make an im¬ 
proper use of their high powers. What! Vest sovereign, 
uncontrullable legislative power in a little junta, and 
then impeach them for a mistakenuseof their sovereign 
discretion? The taxing power is the most importaiij 
and transcendent legislative power which can be exer¬ 
cised in the State. The power to levy and collect tax¬ 
es, imposts and excises, is one of the powers expressly 
granted to the Legislature of the Union in the consti¬ 
tution of the United States, with the qualification that 
all bills for raising revenue, must originate in the House 
of Representative. Alexander Hamilton, in the thirty- 
third number of the Federalist, speaks of this as the 
most important authority bestowed on the Union ; and 
he contends that it would have vested in Congress by 
a mere general grant of legislative power, without ex¬ 
press words. This position, he considers, too clear for 
doubt or hesitation, and he brings forward an array of 
argument perfectly irresistible. 

Alexander Hamilton had a pretty strong political; 
stomach, and he could digest pretty strong proposi¬ 
tions in the way of bestowing power on individuals. 
But some of our legislators of the present day seem to* 
have gone far beyond him. They propose to bestow 
what he considers the most important and transcend¬ 
ent legislative power, on a small conclave, to be exer¬ 
ted in the dark windings of a labyrinth, perfectly in¬ 
scrutable to the popular gaze. The gentleman from) 
Morgan dreads the abuse of their discretion. And 
well he may; but does he propose an adeejuate reme¬ 
dy? Is impeachment an adequate remedy for the 
abuse of legislative discretion? Old Solomon, the king 
of the Jews, noted for his wisdom, said there was noth¬ 
ing new under the sun. He never sat in this Conven¬ 
tion, or he would have admitted that this idea of im¬ 
peaching the sovereign power for the abuse of legisla¬ 
tive discretion, is a novelty; for how will the proof of 
their corruption be ascertained? Their corruption 
must be enormous, if the broad shield of legislative dis¬ 
cretion will not cover it! Ordinary corruption like 
that of Clive, or Hastings, would pass through such 
an ordeal unscathed. The gentleman talks of sending 
a committee to examine into the transactions of the 
State Auditor and his board. Send a committee of 
school boys to examine into the misdeeds of the school¬ 
master ! He and his board will possess all actual avail¬ 
able knowledge upon the subject, rendered efiective ^ 
by continual practice—they will feel all the helplessness 
of ignorance. Few legislative committees will be 
willing to exhibit their own imbecility, by entering into 
such a contest. The authority of the money king and 
his two counsellors, has hitherto been merely legisla- 
lative, it is now proposed to engraft it into the consti¬ 
tution. Does it deserve such a fate? The old consti¬ 
tution "ives no countenance to his usurped authority. 

In that instrument the legislative power is granted by 
the people to their two houses of General Assembly. 
Then all we have to do is to inquire whether the pow¬ 
er of taxation can be exercised by the General Assem¬ 
bly? If it can be so exercised, we may rest assured it 
can be constitutionally exercised by no body else. 







418 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Cannot the General Assembly levy taxes—cannot 
that body perform the functions which are annually 
performed by our money king—cannot the General 
Assembly levy the tax of three mills or five mills on 
the dollar, or any other ratio, to pay the intm’est on our 
public debt—cannot that body add to the Auditor’s 
levies, or subtract from them as may be deemed expe¬ 
dient? No man is hardy enough to answer these ques¬ 
tions in the negative. Then, if the General Assembly 
can exercise the same powers which are in fact exer¬ 
cised by the State Auditor, it must be, because these 
powers are of a legislative character. Can the Gene¬ 
ral Assembly perform any functions not essentially le¬ 
gislative—can that body send its committees to sit on 
the bench of justice, and charge juries, and perlbrm 
the functions of judges—can it give judgment between 
party and in party questions, of personal right? It will 
not be pretended. Every man is shocked at the pro¬ 
position, because these functions are essentially of a 
judicial nature, and judicial powers are not vested in 
the General Assembly, Then, we may rest assured 
that the powers delegated in the constitution to the 
General Assembly are of a legislative character, and 
cannot be delegated over by that body to any other 
person. The members of that body cannot say, “ we 
are about to plunge into a system of enormous public 
debt and taxation—the exercise of the money power 
is irksome and disagreeable. We do not wish to be 
engaged in the opprobrious task of laying on public 
burthens, we will bestow that authority on a single 
individual, who can exercise it with less publicity, and 
without inconvenient debate, discussion, or investiga¬ 
tion. Thus we shall avoid a disagreeable responsi¬ 
bility.” 

The other branch of the Autocrat’s powers, is equal¬ 
ly unwarranted by the present constitution. That in¬ 
strument provides that no money shall be drawn from 
the treasury except in consequence of appropriations 
made by law. Yet in spite of this plain declaration, 
the money-king has long been in the habit of appro¬ 
priating the public money to all who go to him in the 
guise of public creditors—that is, he determines the 
cjuestion of debt or no debt, creditor or no creditor; he 
determines who shall have the public monies, and in 
what amount. He settles the question as to the valid¬ 
ity of all claims of this nature against the State treas¬ 
ury. The General Assembly has not passed an act 
appropriating one cent to pay the interest on the pub¬ 
lic debt since 1830. Having lost all real authority on 
the subject, their spirits could no longer endure the 
humiliation of keeping up a mere pageant—an idle 
mummery. F'or purposes such as these, the State Au¬ 
ditor makes these immense appropriations which annu¬ 
ally empty our treasuiy. Another large branch of his 
money power, is to be exercised in conjunction with 
two councillors only, to wit: the Treasurer of State 
and one acting commissioner of the canal fund. These 
three worthies generally appropriate nearly five hun¬ 
dred thousand dollars annually, for the repaii’s of the 
canals. The gross receipts average nearly $800,000. 
The mill brings in $800 in tolls, and it costs five hun¬ 
dred dollars for annual repairs, and the surplus is 
about one percent, on the capital invested!! 

Such is the system; but the Assembly act which erects 
it, is a plain repeal of the constitution! In two pa a- 
graphs it grants the appropriating power, three times 
over, to this little conclave—this little, miserable, Ve- 
iiitian council of ten—or rather, three! But the con¬ 
stitution itself says that no money shall be drawn 
from the treasuiy, except in consequence of appropri¬ 
ation made by law. Are the edicts of this secret board 
laws? If so, they can exercise the power of appropri¬ 
ating the public money constitutionally—otherwise, 
not. Gentlemen perceiving the force of this reasoning, 
contend that ihe General Assembly of 1825, and the 
succeeding Assemblies, who matured thissystem, make 
these appropriations. But how does the General Assem¬ 
bly of 1825 make these appropriations? What is an ap¬ 


propriation but the application of a specific sum of 
money to a specific object, and for a specific purpose ? 
How could the General Assembly of 1825 make the 
appropriations for 1849 ? What did that body know 
about the person of the recipient, the amount of the 
sum, or the object of the grant? .lust nothing at all. 
Then what kind of an appropriation is it thus made ? 

Again, if appropriations may be made a quarter of a 
century before hand, they may be made half a century 
or a whole century beforehand ; or for the whole life¬ 
time of the commonwealth. They may be made in 
the most general and sweeping manner, which amounts 
just exactly to making no appropropriations at all. 
The General Assembly of 1825, and succeeding Assem¬ 
blies, who perfected this system, did not make the ap¬ 
propriations; they only fixed up the machinery, by 
which these appropriations are made. The Constitu¬ 
tional convention of 1802, when they framed the pre¬ 
sent constitution, did not make all the Assembly acts 
which have been passed under its provisions—they on¬ 
ly fixed up the machinery by which these Assembly 
acts might be made. I do not stand alone in pronoun¬ 
cing these enactments clearly and unquestionably un¬ 
constitutional. The judiciary committee of the Senate 
so pronounced them several years ago. That commit¬ 
tee declared that no Judge, less corrupt than Jelfries, 
the w'icked instrument of James the Second, could, by 
any remote possibility, give judgment against any man 
for setting at naught the edicts of the State Auditor and 
his board. That no man was bound to pay the least 
regard to them; in a word, that they had not the force 
of law. A bill was introduced to repeal the whole 
system of laws, bestowing these extraordinary powers 
upon the State Auditor and his junta. The preamble re¬ 
cites that “ it is manifest to this General Assembly that 
the delegation of the taxing power to the Auditor of 
State is clearly and unquestionably unconstitutional; 
yet the magnitude of the interests involved, demands a 
formal repeal; therefore, be it enacted, &c. &c.” 

Now, every man who voted for this bill, must be un¬ 
derstood as asserting that the enactments in question 
were clearly unconstitutional and their numbers amoun¬ 
ted to just one-half the Senate, for the bill was lost by 
a tie vote. 

And now it is gravely proposed by a committee of 
this Convention, to render this irregular authority con¬ 
stitutional—does it deserve such good foiTune ? It is 
said that the abuses of yesterday become the prece¬ 
dents of to-day: but are not some abuses loo outrage¬ 
ous to be turned into precedents? What is the leading 
idea of this delegation of the taxing power to a small 
secret conclave, except darkness—night—concealment ? 

Is it not to favor and afford facilities to the assailanls 
of the treasury—to smooth their path and remove ob¬ 
structions ? No stormy debates of a popular Assembly 
—no Senatorial oppsilion, investigation, inquiry, or dis¬ 
cussion—no light, no publicity, but the people’s most 
important interests are to be decided upon, and their 
treasures granted away by men who form their resolu¬ 
tion in the recesses of their own breasts, and render no 
reason for those resolutions. By men who must be 
subjected to all manner of extraneous influences, to 
secret solicitations by night and by noon; in the field, 
and in the forest; in the city, and in the country, but 
at all times in private. 

It is said that these three despots will be elected by 
the people. Was an elective despotism the kind of 
government that our ancestors fought for? Did they 
propose thus to resign all the benefits of discussion and 
debate, inquiry, investigation and consideration in 
their legislative assemblies ? Is the power of the 
purse, infinitely the most important in the common¬ 
wealth, given up to a secret cabal of three men, in any 
other civilized community that makes the slightest 
pretension to a popular government? On the contra¬ 
ry, is not the power of the purse the very power 
which the friends of the people are resolute not give 
up. The old battles between liberty and tyranny have 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


479 


always been fought upon appropriation bills. The 
people are in no danger now of forcible tyranny—no 
niilitai'y leader will go forth at the head of his conquer¬ 
ing cohorts to injure or enslave them, but their repre¬ 
sentatives are called to as much vigilance now as ever; 
for be it remembered that as tyrants of old prevailed 
by force, so modern speculators prevail by fraud. The 
jealousy of the guardians of popular rights must now 
be directed against secret anil sinister practices, and I 
suspect everything in the nature of such practices if 
the proposition of the committee shall prevail. I do 
not assert that the State Auditor and his small cabal 
have done anything wrong, for I do not know—I do not 
assert that they have done anything right, for I do not 
know, [laughter j—and it is not my fault that I do not 
know, for 1 never had the means of knowledge. It is 


one of the curses of this abominable system that it 
turns the keys of knowledge against the people and 
their representatives. It sends all the most important 
affairs of the people to be transacted in secret conclave, 
where the people’s representatives are not admitted. 

It is said that the Legislature of Ohio has had few skill¬ 
ful financiers. It is not to be wondered at; practice 
makes perfect; men cannot become skillful without 
practice; and all real, effectual, actual power over the 
Treasury of this great State has long resided with the 
State Auditor and his small board ; these persons, as a 
matter of course, must possess, and do possess, all the 
little practical skill that exists on the subject. It is said 
by gentlemen that we might send committees of the 
General Assembly to examine the books of the money 
king and his board; this would be like sending a com¬ 
mittee of farmers and lawyers to examine the doings 
of a maker of mathematical or astronomical instru¬ 
ments. These gentlemen might be very skillful in 
their respective professions, but they would find them¬ 
selves at a loss in entering upon a new line of business, 
with which they have had no previous acquaintance. 
No man is a good farmer the first time he ever strikes 
a furrow. No man is a good blacksmith the first time 
he lifts the hammer 

If we wish the members of the General Assembly 
to guard skillfully the people’s treasury, to have any ef 
ficient control over the matter, we must clothe them 
with actual power on the subject. For wdioever has 
the actual power and control over the people’s'treasury, 
will possess the financial skill, and it is our unques¬ 
tionable interest to give that power to an Assembly, so 
numerous that open debate, discussion and investiga¬ 
tion will render all sinister practices, all concealment 
or frauds impossible. I suspect every thing from con¬ 
cealment. Gentlemen ask us to point out the crimes 
committed by the small secret cabal which has hitherto 
managed our treasury and granted away our millions. 
This is not treating us fairly. 

Were a missionary in Thibet to see a promiscusus 
crowd of males and females, of dervises and dancing 
girls, entering the temple of the great Lama, and bar¬ 
ring the doors and extinguishing the lamps, he would 
suspect that lewdness reigned within. He would 
make the warmest protestations against such practices 
Suj)po8e an Asiatic to remonstrate wdth him—to say 
sir, what right have you to complain, what right have 
you to contend that any lechery or debauchery is 
practised within the darkness of these walls ? If you 
contend that any thing wrong is done, name the guilty 
pair—tell us when, or in what apartment they have in 
dulged in the gratification of their lusts? Would thii 
Asiatic logic convince anybody, would it make the 
slightest impression? Would notthe missionary reply 

My friend, Ido not know that anything wrong is 
done in these dark retreats, but the less I know the 
more I suspect. Innocence loves the day, guilt loves 
concealment. If the purposes of the worshippers in 
that temple of leweness were such as could be avow 
ed, such as could bear the light of day, they would 
have no need of so much concealment. It is the ge 
nius of the institution—its adaptation to aid and give 
facilities to vice to which I object. 


The gentlemen of the committee themselves have 
borne testimony to this effect. A subsequent section of 
their report provides that when the present debt shall 
have been paid off, the power of the State Auditor and 
his secret cabal over the people’s treasury shall forever 
cease. That is like the resolution of the drunken man, 
to drain the wine cup once more, to have one more 
frolic, and then return to sober and temperate habits. 
Like the resolution of the debauchee of another char¬ 
acter, to go once more to the arms and embrace of a 
courtezan, and then to lead a life of exemplary chasti¬ 
ty. Poor deluded wretches! If they understood their 
own true interests they w’ould abandon their evil prac¬ 
tices—they would shake off the chains of their ignoble 
lusts, not soon, but instantly. They would not con¬ 
sent to live a single day under the dominion of degra¬ 
ding vices. But we are told that this system must 
continue till the present public debt shall be paid. 
When will that desirable consummation be realized? 

The gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] 
makes strenuous objection to the scheme which pro¬ 
poses to accomplish that object in about forty years. 
The proposition of the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Cutler] would discharge our public debt in one 
nundred and fifty years. We have paid millions upon 
millions for many years past; atone time we had a 
public debt the capital of which was $20,000,000, yet 
the gentlemen of the committee mention it as a matter 
of boast—as a matter of pride, of honest exultation, 
that our public works are now worth $6,000,000—that 
we can consign to posterity a cajiital of that amount, 
vested in these works, and this after the payment of so 
many millions. The task of payment under the direc¬ 
tion of this secret conclave seems to be forever renew- 
and forever renewed. The labors of the Buckeye 


tax-payer remind us continually of the labors of Sysi- 
phus— 

“ With many a weary step, and many a groan, 

Up a high hill he heaves a huge round stone. 

The huge round stone, resulting with a bound, 

Thunders impetuous down, and smokes along the ground.'' 
[Great and continued laughter.] 

Then it was his duty to commence the monotonous 
operation over again, and so on ad infinitum. His la¬ 
bors bear a strong resemblance to those of our Buck¬ 
eye tax-payers, under the dominion and direction of 
our money king. This interesting personage was con¬ 
demned to these everlasting and unremitting toils by 
Rhadamanthus the inexorable Judge of Hell, for sins 
done in the body. If the Buckeye tax-payers consent 
to fix up such a financial machinery as this,—if they 
place themselves under the dominion of this money 
king, they will well deserve a similar fate. They may 
pay and pay, but they shall have none of my sympa¬ 
thies. None but a nation of slaves in soul would ever 
tix up such a machinery, and unless this Convention is 
tilled with polished and eloquent slaves, not only from 
the “ Eastern,” but from the Western and middle pro- 
rinces, they will never make such a proposition to the 
people, and whether it is filled with “ polished and 
eloquent,” or mute and trembling slaves, I shall disdain 
to be one of the ignoble crovvd. 

If this abominable proposition shall get into the con¬ 
stitution, my friends and myself will liave no relation 
to that instrument, except that of unmitigated and im¬ 
mitigable hostility. The whole riches and strength of 
the lan<^uage, every admissible collocation of words 
shall be used, to show forth its odiousness to the peo- 
})le, and then we will not be able to do it half jus¬ 
tice. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga. Mr. Chairman, I 
do not understand the argument by which the gentle¬ 
man, who last addressed the committee, arrives at the 
conclusion, that if the people shall themselves fix the 
amount of taxation which they will pay for a given 
number of years, and refer it to competent men to esti¬ 
mate the taxes,there will be tyranny in it. It so, it is 
the tyranny of the people over themselves. But, sir, 
this proposition is not one in which I feel so much inter- 












480 CONVENTION REPOETS. 


est by any means, as I did in relation to the main prin¬ 
ciple. I 1‘eel less solicitude about the result of the vote 
upon this section, than I did in relation to the estab¬ 
lishment of the principle that the debt was to be paid. 
That was done yesterday by a very decided vote.— 
Now. sir, when the committee agreed upon this inode, 
there were several reasons operating upon their minds, 
which led them to recommend the principle under con¬ 
sideration. One was, that if the sources from which 
the revenue was to be derived, should be fixed, it 
would be a mere matter of computation to ascertain 
what was the amount of taxation. It might be done by a 
committee of the Legislature—it might be done by any 
of the officers who could be named, if they were com¬ 
petent to 'estimate the public income of the canals, 
stocks, &c.; the taxation is a mere matter of arithmetical 
computation. If that duty were devolved upon a board 
to make the computation—to make the estimate in the 
lirst instance, they have nothing more to do, than to 
compute mathematically the amount required to be 
raised by taxes. 

Now sir, if that were imposed upon the officers wlio 
were bound to perform the obligations imposed upon 
them, under the penalty of impeachment, they might 
be placed beyond all temptation to depart from their 
duty. They certainly could not be iniluenced by any 
extraneous considerations. It would be a matter which 
would be beyond the vacillation of parties or any in¬ 
fluence which might control in the legislative depart¬ 
ment. So far as additional expense is concerned, it is 
perhaps trifling, though it might take several days in 
the dicussion, more or less. 

It is said that the law of 182.5 in this regard was an 
unconstitutional law. It might have been so, but it 
has remained the law uninterruptedly from that time 
to the present. I had heard that once the Legislature 
had interl'ered, and directed the Auditor to levy the tax¬ 
es, but I have found no such law, although I have made 
an examination through the laws often or twelve years, 
to find it. 

The report of the committee has given the power to 
the board of fund commissioners, to estimate the amount 
of taxation. But it is made the duty of the Auditor to 
levy it, so as to comply with the original proposition, un¬ 
der which, as I yesterday stated, our debt was created. 
I do not know that the change which is now proposed 
—to place this matter in the power of the Legislatui’e, 
would diminish, in the least, the security which we 
have pledged for the redemption of these stocks, but 
it changes the form of it at least. It is not in accord¬ 
ance with that, and for that reason some of us thought 
it was best to preserve the policy. As I said, however, 
I wish to secure the main object. 

I make this explanation of our views without any dis¬ 
position to urge or argue them, but to throw them out for 
the consideration of the committee. If the commit¬ 
tee shall think it best to transfer this power to the Leg¬ 
islature, it is certainly competent for them to do so, 
and it is their duty to do so. I have drawn up an 
amendment, which, if the motion to strike out shall 
prevail, I will ofler 

1 will explain it, with permission, and I think the 
proposition, if gentlemen think it best to strike out the 
section, will be satisfactory to all concerned; but be¬ 
fore doing that, I wish to make a single remark rela¬ 
tive to the appropriation. The gentleman has said 
that this report transfers to these commissioners of the 
sinking fund, the power of appropriation. I do not so 
understand it. The appropriation is made by the con¬ 
stitution itself. It is beyond the power of these fund 
commissioners, and beyond the power of the Legisla¬ 
ture. If it is necessary, however, that the Legislature 
should make an appropriation biennially, I have no 
objections to that. 

The 12th section provides, that when the debt shall 
be paid, the board ceases. Why, sir, what could the 
board act upon—what power is there left? 

It has been suggested that there was a difficulty in 


the amendment offered by the gentleman from Brown, 
because the Legislature can meet only biennially.— 
I will here read the amendment. Strike out (of sec. 
7.) the 5th and 6th lines, and insert: 

“ Be sufficient to pay the accruing interest on the public debt 
of the State, and annually to reduce the principal by a sum not 
less than $100,000, increased yearly, and each and every year by 
compound interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum.” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. The gentlemen have argued that 
the duties of the potentate consist of nothing except 
mere detail—that they amount to a mere arithmetical 
calculation—that he may as well grant the claims of 
the public creditors as the General Assembly itself. 
Let us suppose ourselves in the British House of Com¬ 
mons after the battle of Waterloo. We have a British 
national debt to provide foi’, of 1,000,000,000 ; three 
hundred millions of three per cents, four hundred mil¬ 
lions of consuls at 4 per cent., and the remainder at 5 
and 6 per cent. And further, suppose some minion of 
power to bring in a bill to vest in the Chancellor of the 
Exchequer the authority to levy the taxes necessary 
for the discharge of the public engagements, and ap¬ 
propriate the proceeds to the public creditors. How 
would the blood of the Hampdens, the Sydneys, the 
Russells, the Foxes and the Pitts, boil at such a propo¬ 
sition! What an outburst of feeling should we wit¬ 
ness, and what strains of indignant eloquence should 
we not hear ! How soon should we be told that the 
ministers were willing, for paltry pelf, to barter away 
the last vestige of British liberty? And the luckless 
mover might think himself happy if he had nothing 
worse than the storm of indignant eloquence to en¬ 
dure. The House of Commons would soon become 
too hot for him. Suppose a similar proposition made 
in the House of Repi'esentatives at Washington.— 
Suppose it gravely proposed that the Secretary of 
the Treasury should lay on duties, should increase or 
decrease the tarifiT at his pleasure, and with the pro¬ 
ceeds satisfy the public creditors, would such a propo¬ 
sition be listened to for a moment, or rather, could 
any man be found bold enough to make it? And if 
made, w’hat a shout of indignation would go up from 
Maine to Florida—from the Atlantic to the Pacific! 
How impossible would it be for newspaper editors to 
find'language strong enough to express their wrath !! 
Yet is there no real difference—is there no actual dis¬ 
tinction between the supposed cases and the proposi¬ 
tion of the committee, gravely made to this Convention, 
except that the one is merely a proposition for a stat¬ 
ute, the other for a constitutional lU’ovision. I defy 
the gentlemen, with all their ingenuity, to make any 
other distinction—to point out any other difference. If 
they can, they can sjilit a hair between north and 
north-west side. Is the one a mere matter of compu- 
tution and detail, and is not the other equally a mat¬ 
ter of computation and detail ? Is it not as easy lor a 
school-boy to compute the annual interest of a thou¬ 
sand millions of pounds, or a hundred and twenty 
millions of dollars, as on seventeen or eighteen millions 
of dollars? The larger sum may require more figures, 
but is not the principle precisely the same ? Will not 
the arithmetical skill which will solve the one, solve 
the other ? Yet it is gravely proposed that we shall 
be the only people, making the slightest pretensions to 
popular institutions, who submit the delicate and im¬ 
portant questions of debtor or no debtor—creditor or 
no creditor—of the sums to be granted, and the sums 
to be refused—to a mere executive, ministerial officer. 
Yet the three learned gentlemen declare this power of 
appropriation a mere matter of computation and de¬ 
tail—a simple ministerial act. The Rev. John Fletch¬ 
er, in his controversy with the Rev. Richard and 
Rowland Hill, once exclaimed to them is this a con¬ 
clusion worthy of two Masters of Arts? ” so I exclaim, 
is this a conclusion worthy of three eminent lawyers 
[alluding to Messrs. Swan, Holt and Stanbert.] 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I desire to read for information, 
a substitute for the section under consideration, which 
I shall offer when in order. 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 481 


The commissioners of the sinking fund, shall, on the first 
week of each regular session of the Gemeriil Assembly, report to 
that body, estimates of the probable amount of the nett income 
of the public works, of the stocks aforesaid and from other sour¬ 
ces as aforesaid, for the next ensuing two years, And also esti¬ 
mates of the amount to be raised by taxation, in addition to said 
several amounts necessary to produce for each of said years, the 
fund aforesaid ; and the General Assembly shall thereupon deter¬ 
mine the amount to be raised by taxation during each of said 
years necessary to produce, together with the amount applicable 
to that purpos e, the amount of the fund aforesaid; and in case 
it shall occur that the amonnt so produced shall be insufficient to 
produce the amount of said fund for any year, during which the 
General Assembly shall not be in session, the commissioners of 
the sinking fund shall report to the Auditor the amount ot such 
deficiency, and it shall thereupon be the duty of the Auditor to 
assess such a per centum in addition to all other assessments re¬ 
quired by law, as will, during the the succeeding year, make up 
the deficiency of the preceding year. 

I do not intend remarking upon the proposed substi¬ 
tute further than to explain its intention and operation. 
It will take from the Auditor of State, the discretionary 
power he now possesses over the amount of taxation, 
and vests that power in the Legislature where it should^ 
be vested. But the Legislature may mistake in their 
estimates, as the Auditor has mistaken in his estimates; 
and, as the Legislature is to meet biennially under our 
new' constitution, I consider it desirable to have the 
means of correcting these mistakes, if any should be 
made, at the end of each year—it would be very un¬ 
desirable to leave a deficiency in the interest on our 
j public debt, or in the amount of our sinking fund un- 
I provided for, for two years. To meet this difficulty, 
j the substitute provides that if a deficiency occur for 
' the year in which the Legislature cannot meet, the de- 
! ficiency shall be certified by the Canal Fund Commis- 
! sinners to the Auditor, and collected in the next year’s 
i taxes. 

Mr. SWAN. I would make one remark in regard to 
^ this section. The gentleman from Monroe treats this 
j subject as though these commissioners of the sinking 
I fund exercised the ordinary sovereign pow'er of taxa- 
I tion. Now, when a question, whether there shall be a 
ij taxation or not, is to be determined by the Legislature, 
\\ or any other body, it does exercise that sovereign pow- 
i er; and it seems to me that the exercise of discretion- 
' ary power, by which the Legislature or any other body 
I shall determine whether there shall be a taxation or 
not, is very different from the exercise of power con¬ 
ferred upon the commissioners of the sinking fund.— 
We determine, in the first place, that there shall be a 
certain amount raised, and that is the exercise of the 
sovereign power of taxation. Now, all that is necessa¬ 
ry to be done by the commissioners of the sinking fund 
is, simply to determine the per centum by an arithmet¬ 
ical calculation, to carry it out and to raise the fund 
which is before determined by the constitution and by 
the provisions of the previous section. Now, there 
have been a great many epithets used in regard to the 
exercise of this power, but I look upon it as similar to 
the power exercised by the county auditors. What is 
the object of taxation? The question whether an in¬ 
dividual shall pay a certain amount of taxes upon his 
property, is the great question between the citizen and 
the government. Now', the auditor of the county de¬ 
termines how much we shall pay, by an arithmetical 
calculation. The Legislature does not say how much 
A and B shall pay, as it is a simple calculation which 
is left entirely to the auditor of the county. How 
much more power is exercised by the commissioners 
of the sinking fund? In the first place, the constitu¬ 
tion provides for the amount of taxation. In the next 
place, they have before them the amount raised from 
the public works, and they have the basis of the grand 
list. It seems to me that the power exercised by these 
commissioners of the sinking fund is analogous to that 
of the auditor of the county. The only discretion 
which these commissioners have, is to estimate the nett 
income f»om the public works and stocks. That is all 
the discretion they have. It seems to me therefore, 
this is not the exercise of that sovereign power by 
which it is determined whether there shall be taxation 

31 


or not. ' These commissioners of the sinking fund are 
only carnying out what is before determined upon by 
the properly constituted authority. 

Mr. RANNEY.. I shall support the motion of the 
gentleman from Mom oe to strike out the whole section. 

I have uniformly maintained in my votes here the very 
important distinctions between the difterent branches 
of government—the legislative; the executive and the 
judicial; and this, in my humble judgment, is a great 
consideration to be constantly kept in view. Hence 
when we had the question whether the Governor 
should be charged with, or responsible for, any portion 
of the legislative power, by giving him a veto, I voted 
against it; and when we had the question whether the 
Legislature should be charged substantially with the 
power of the judiciary, by the enactment of retroac¬ 
tive laws, I voted against that; and now, when we 
have the question about taking away this legislative 
power of taxation—a most unquestionable right and 
duty of the Legislature—and conferring it upon execu¬ 
tive officers, I shall certainly vote against this, even 
for stronger reasons than those which induced my vote 
against the former propositions. What is this taxing 
power that we should* barter it away ? It was watch¬ 
ed with too much care by our ancestors, and guarded 
with too much vigilance for me to stand here and con¬ 
sent to give it, in any shape or form, into any other 
hands than the legislative body. I do not go so far as 
the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbert,] against 
a constitutional rule of taxation, for I suppose the peo¬ 
ple might be allowed to tax themselves with as mudb* 
propriety, at least, as to delegate the power to the Leg¬ 
islature.' 

I see no reason against fixing a rule of taxation iuThe 
constitution. That is the direct act of the people 
themselves. I did so far agree with that gentleman, 
however, upon the subject, as to believe it best to leave 
some discretion with the legislative body in imposing 
taxes every year, for the payment of the State debt. I 
believed then as I do now, that this power of prescrib¬ 
ing the means of taxation for that purpose, should be 
used with reference to the annual ability of the peo¬ 
ple to pay ; and I think the people will not be satified 
without some discretionary power to relieve them 
from this taxation, in the event that any misfortune, 
impairing their ability to pay, should overtake them. 
But I believe, also, that it is the policy of the State, to 
press forward every means which can be made availa¬ 
ble for the immediate reduction of the State debt. I 
hope, however, that there may be yet inserted in the 
seventh section, such a modification as will allow 
two-thirds of the General Assembly, for certain rea¬ 
sons, to dispense with the taxation which may be 
necessary to raise the annual fund to be set apart for 
that purpose. For, if this seventh section takes 
away a part of the legislative power by its direct ex¬ 
ercise by the people, it does not therefore follow, that 
we should take away all, and confine it upon execu¬ 
tive officers. But the provision now under considera¬ 
tion, is substantially setting up a legislative power in 
these three persons, transferring the most essential le¬ 
gislative powers to three executive officers. As I said 
before, I would not surrender this power, if it were 
for nothing else but the name. Under any govern¬ 
ment that ever processed to be in any way populai’, 
this sovereign power—this power of taxation, has 
never yet been bartered away with impunity. For 
undertaking to interfere with the rightiul exercise of 
this power, in the slightest manner, one king of Eng¬ 
land lost his head, and another fied his country.— 
What was it that cost Charles the First, his life?—and 
what caused the revolution of ICSS, but the attempt 
of those monarchs to assume by indirect means the 
taxing power? I would devolve this duty upon the 
legislative body, as the first and highest legislative 
function, by which private property is in effect, take^ 
without compensation, and in its exercise the proceeds 
of the industry of the citizens is at the mercy of the 
State. 













482 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


I have heretofore introduced a proposition, to take 
away from the mere majority, the authority to exer¬ 
cise the taxing power for private and local purposes, 
and to confer It oidy upon two-thirds of all the mem¬ 
bers of the General Assembly. It is a dangerous pow¬ 
er, even in the hands ol the legislative body, and it 
becomes ten times more dangerous where it is exer¬ 
cised by any other functionary of power. 

But it is contended that the levying of this tax is a 
mere matter of computation. This is not correct. The 
Commissioners, previous to the first day of June, in 
each year are to make an estimate of the probable in¬ 
come of the public woi'ks, leaving the balance neces¬ 
sary for the expenses of the government and the sup¬ 
port of the sinking fund to be made up by taxation ; 
this necessarily involves a computation upon proba])il- 
ities. You are to base your calculation, not upon any 
certain and definite rule to which mathematics can be 
applied—it is only the probable amount. Then it is 
not a mere mathematical process to be gone through 
with, as some gentlemen suppose; for if this constitu¬ 
tion is to continue for half a century, who can tell what 
will be the annual proceeds of the public works at any 
time remotely in the future? It will probably be 
much more than at present. And now, suppose the of¬ 
ficers who are to make these estimates proceed with 
good intention, but make a gross mistake; or suppose, 
without making any mistake they should proceed cor¬ 
ruptly and were to levy a much lai'ger amount than 
might be necessary in the shape of taxation; and if 
you say to them, Gentlemen, this was nothing but a 
pure matter of mathematics, why did you not go right? 
they can answer you by pointing you to this clause in 
the constitution, which says, ‘‘ the probable amount,'’ 
and then tell you. We made a mistake, and that is all. 

I introduce this for the purpose of showing what 
gross inaccuracies may arise under such a provision. 
And I say it is enough to call for my opposition, for me 
to know that the section pi’ovides no certain and unde¬ 
niable data to which these officers can be confined. If 
they oppress the ])eople with taxation, the discretion 
allowed them will always furnish a ready excuse. Dis¬ 
cretion and judgment must be exercised. Now, this 
being the case, where can you vest this discretion with 
most propriety? Where can it be trusted with more 
safety than with the representatives of the people, 
coming up from various parts of the State, and being 
well acquainted with the condition of our public works 
and every other public resource. 

But then it is not a mere matter of mathematics with 
the Legislature, their calculations also would have to be 
based upon probable estimates. They too can make 
no resort to any certain data. But again, it is one of 
the surest safeguards of the people against the squan¬ 
dering of the public money by public agents, to place 
it exclusively in charge of the representatives of the 
people, to examine into the management of the public 
funds, and make them responsible therefor, and sub¬ 
ject to direct and frequent responsibility to their coii- 
stituents. Now, the amount to be levied this year will 
depend greatly upon the manner in which the revenue 
was applied last year : and suppose through corrup¬ 
tion or rascality, a part of the revenue of last year to 
have been withdrawn, squandered or a bstracted, and 
new appropriations rendered necessary to make up 
these deficiencies. The gentleman from Monroe says 
the commissioners will do it in secret conclave aiid be¬ 
hind the backs of the people, so that there can be no 
adequate resj)onsibility. I do not mean to say that the 
representatives of the people will not possess the pow¬ 
er, or that they should not make their inquiries into 
these cases; but with the gentleman from Monroe, I 
will ask what good will it do when you come to those 
inquiries, in perfect darkness and ignorance of the 
whole subject? If the Legislature is compelled, in or¬ 
der to act in levying the taxes and appropriating the 
money, to become acquainted with the state of the 
fund, they will at all times be informed before the 


act. But if the duty of taxing and ai)propriating is up¬ 
on others, and they are only to overhaul it afterwards, 
it makes a very diiferent case. 

The point which I want to elicit is, that you should, 
at all times, make the representatives responsible for 
the application of every dollar drawn from the people 
in the shape of taxation. But, if you entrust this power 
to any other functionary of the government, and rely 
upon the Legislature—not in the exercise of their ordi¬ 
nary functions, but, as, by the exercise of an extraor¬ 
dinary inquisitorial power—to inquire into and ascer¬ 
tain the manner in which the duties of this trust are 
discharged, I tell you, sir, that such a requisition of the 
Legislature would be a perfect dead letter. And this 
board of commissioners may pocket thousands and 
thousands of dollars of the public money, in each and 
every year; and you may send up the most prudent 
and honest men in the country into both branches of 
the Legislature, and they will go home just as ignorant 
of the wrong as they came hei’e. Whereas, if you 
charge the representatives with this responsibility, they 
will be sure to know what has become of the public 
funds. Then, they will at all times be acquainted with 
the manner in which taxation, and the appropriation of 
the public money, have proceeded. But, to ihro.w this 
trust into the hands of three executive officers, and rely 
upon the legislative body to inquire into their acts, and 
their responsibility will amount to nothing. 

These are the reasons why I shall vote for striking 
out the whole section: first, I would not strip the Le¬ 
gislature ot that highest and most ancient of the pre¬ 
rogatives of sovereignty—the right of going to the peo¬ 
ple for money to be raised by taxation, coupled with 
direct responsibility to them for the manner in which 
they have exercised the power of taxation and the dis¬ 
posal of the money. In the next place, I would re¬ 
quire estimates and calculation, for the basis of taxa¬ 
tion, to be made out by the legislative body. And in 
the last place, and that which is most material, I would 
devolve upon the Legislature the responsibility of levy¬ 
ing the taxes, and the responsibility of the application 
of every dollar of the revenue. But to commit all this 
to the hands of three men in a closet, who does not see 
that the people’s funds will be in danger, and that the 
responsibility will be nothing, besides involving a per¬ 
fect surrender of some of tlie dearest and most im¬ 
portant principles of a representative democracy ? 

These are the reasons which will induce me, when 
the opportunity shall present itself, to vote for striking 
out the whole section. 

Mr. RBBMELIN. Ido not know the exact state of 
the question, but I understand that the gentlman from 
Brown, [Mr. Loudon,] and the gentleman from Cuya- 
[Mr. Hitchcock,] each have amendments. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK ol Cuyahoga. I have no amend¬ 
ment. My proposition is, to insert matter after the 
section shall be stricken out. 

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Brown. 

Mr. RBBMBLIN. There is also a motion to strike 
out the entire section. 

The CHAIRMAN assented. 

Mr. RBBMBLIN. When it shall be in order, then I 
will move to insert what I propose to read for informa¬ 
tion. But before I do so, I will say, that as the section 
now stands, there will be a difficulty about making the 
estimates on the first day of June. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga was understood to 
suggest that the Legislature might direct that the esti¬ 
mates be made out on the first of January. 

Mr. RBBMBLIN. This was a difficulty which he 
had experienced as a member of the Legislature. It 
was this : instead of receiving the full reports from the 
Board ot Public Works, and giving an account of their 
condition at the commencement of the sessitin; it was 
generally delayed until the close of the session, throw- 
ing the body entirely upon the report of the Auditor 
for this information; and even that report was often 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


483 


delayed until a month after the session commenced. 
He desired, therefore, that these matters should be sub¬ 
mitted to the General Assembly at the proper time. 
My amendment reads as follows—and it is, I think, 
just what the gentleman from Monroe desires; 

“ All State officers charged with any duties in reference to the 
collection or disbursement of public moneys, shall, immediately 
preceding each regular session of the General Assembly, report 
hilly upon all matters connected with their official duties, to the 
Governor who shall transmit such reports to the General Assem¬ 
bly with "his regular message, and the General Assembly shall, 
from time to time, make provision for raising and disbursing the 
necessary revenue for all the purposes connected with the State 
Government, or with any department thereof, m accordance to 
the provisions of law, or of this constitution.” 

Mr. HOLT said: I, too, will show my opinion, and 
I shall endeavor to give it briefly. I desire to state 
the question upon which we are now about to vote. If 
I understand it, (and I believe I do,) it is simply this: 
having passed the seventh section, shall we leave it to 
the General Assembly, biennially to estimate the pro¬ 
ceeds of the public works, or shall we leave this to the 
board of commissioners for the sinking fund? This is 
all the question now involved in this matter. I need 
not repeat what has been said by the gentleman from 
Franklin [Mr. Swan] over the way, that this work 
consists of but little more than a mere calculation in 
figures. It is so, and the discretion which we give to 
this board, is to require of them to estimate the proba¬ 
ble amount of the proceeds which will come into the 
treasury annually from the public works. Is there 
anything dangerous in this ? 

Now, we create this board for the purpose of man¬ 
aging and applying this fund, as we desire, toward the 
payment of the public debt. We have already deci¬ 
ded that we will raise a given amount for this purpose, 
and we have also settled that the amount necessary, 
after applying the proceeds of the public works, and 
stocks, shall be raised by taxation. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, interrupting. I beg the gentle¬ 
man’s pardon; we have settled nothing. The gentle¬ 
man is mistaken. As to this ninth section, we sustain 
but one relation, and that is war—war to the knife. 

Mr. HOLT. The gentleman is very bloody in his ar¬ 
guments; but I suppose we shall still maintain our 
opinion without much alarm. So far, I supposed we 
had decided this question. I know that it may be re¬ 
considered and decided difterently; but, from the vote 
taken, I had supposed the question was probably set¬ 
tled. Now if this were to be left to the General As¬ 
sembly, how would they ascertain the probable amount 
of the proceeds of the public works ? I ask this as a 
practical man, and put it to practical men. I ask how 
the hundred, or hundred and fifty men, who shall come 
in hereafter, and compose the Legislature of the State, 
shall make these estimates? I suppose they would ap¬ 
point a committee, and that committe would go direct¬ 
ly to the board of commissioners of the sinking fund, 
j who, no doubt, would have the best knowledge of its 
I condition, and inquire of them, what would be the 
' probable amount which the public works would yield, 
and they would report this information to the General 
' Assmbly. The General Assembly would spend two or 
j three days, at the expense of several hundred dollars a 
! day, in debate upon the merits of this rej)ort, and, at 
I last, they would have precisely the information wiiich 
the board had furnished, and no more; and would be 
I constrained to adopt it, and in doing so would do right. 

This, in my judgment, would be the result of an esti 
1 mate by the Legislature. 

‘ With reference to this question about trusting the 
Legislature, why, sir, I have no reluctance in trusting 
' that body, and I hope we shall go home without at- 
! tempting in any article of this constitution to say to 
the Legislature, you shall do all things precisely in this 
or that way. We tell them what we want done, and 
I leave them to choose their own way. I am as much 
opposed to going into the details of legislation here as 
i any gentleman. But there are some things which the 
j people expect us to provide for. If I have any knowl¬ 


edge of the people, and especially of my own constit¬ 
uents, it is, that they want the debt paid. They ex¬ 
pect of us that some provision will be put into the con¬ 
stitution by which this debt shall one day be dischar¬ 
ged. They don’t believe in this compounding and ac¬ 
cumulation of interest. Now, by our vote on the sev¬ 
enth section, we have settled that the State shall pay 
the interest and $100,000 toward the principal, annual¬ 
ly, increasing the sum from year to year by the amount 
of the accruing interest, and so eventually to discharge 
the debt. 

Gentlemen talk about the great danger of oppres¬ 
sive taxation. How can the Convention, or the Legis¬ 
lature, or the people relieve themselves from heavy 
taxes ? What we do we suppose to be done by the 
people. We mean to represent their will. They ex¬ 
pect us to go on and do something which will at some 
period discharge the debt and relieve them from their 
oppressive taxation. In committee of the whole we 
have passed the seventh section, and the people are 
yet to say whether they will or will not accept. Sup¬ 
pose they ratify what w^e have done ; will not that be 
sufficient for the gentleman from Fi’anklin, [Mr. Stan- 
BERY,] who has given us another thrust for passing that 
section, and who has charged the Convention with 
usurping the powers of the Legislature ? The people 
will do this if it shall be done. We, the people, usurp 
the power of the Legislature ! 

Mr. STANBERY (interposing.) I desire to ask the 
gentleman whether, according to his view, the people 
have a right to tax the next generation ? The people 
of 1850 have the right to tax themselves ; but my ques¬ 
tion is, have they the right to tax the people who are 
to live fifty years hence ? 

Mr. HOLT. We have a debt to pay. We, the peo¬ 
ple of Ohio, as a political body, owe the debt, and 1 
suppose we have a right to get rid of it the best way 
we can. We shall be the same political body fifty 
years hence as we are now. While the debt remains, 
we shall remain the same debtor, whether at the end 
of five or fifty years. As such debtor we may take up¬ 
on ourselves the burden of paying it in one or one hun¬ 
dred years. It is not only a right, but a duty, on the 
part of this Convention representing the people, to 
make provision for its payment from such sources as 
they can command, which must be chiefly from taxa¬ 
tion. I wonder if the gentleman ever objected to the 
justice of the law of 1825—authorizing taxation to pay 
the interest of the debt then contracted, for more than 
a quarter of a century then in the futui-e, and, after a 
given time, a sufficient amount to pay oft' the principal 
also. Such objections have been made from other 
quarters, but probably not from the gentleman from 
Franklin. 

I will not talk about repudiation. I never used the 
word before in this Convention, and I think I never 
shall again. It strikes me like the threat of dissolving 
the union of these States. Neither of these alarm-crys 
have any terrors for me ; the people of the Union and 
of Ohio will see that neither of these calamities befall 
us. 

A gentleman [Mr. Collings] has laid before me a 
memorandum which is worthy ol consideration, and 
which I might have alluded to. The question upon 
the paper is, whether the estimates proposed to be 
made for the General Assembly should not be made 
out after the great spring floods—and whether they 
would not be more reliable made at that time than du- 
rin*^ the session of the Legislature ? When we look at 
the^ast—and we need not go back more_ than two 
years—we can see the propriety of a question of this 

kind* . • 1 . 1 

With reference to the doctrine of allowing this board 
of commissioners for the Sinking Fund to make these 
estimates, I would remark that they are to report these 
estimates semi-annually to the Governor, and they are 
to be published. If the Legislature be in session their 
report is to be made directly to the Legislature—at 















484 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


any rate every report is to be communicated to the 
Legislature every session. All this caution is to be ob¬ 
served in order that the people shall know what kind 
of judgment and discretion the board have exercised 
in making out their estimates. Now, sir, ought we not 
to take it for granted that this board of sworn officers, 
elected by the people themselves, with a view of this 
particular purpose, to see that this Sinking Fund be 
properly raised and paid over, will discharge their du¬ 
ty faithfully and make a semi-annual report to the Gov¬ 
ernor ; I cannot see any danger to apprehend. Gen¬ 
tlemen seem to think that we can never know anything 
about this board, but we have seen that these reports 
are to go before the Governor and published semi-an¬ 
nually, before the Legislature, and there their commit 
tees can examine them, and make all their proceedings 
public. I cannot see that the people are to be kept in 
darkness about this matter—if there is any darkness 
about it, it must be in the recesses of the gentleman’s 
fancy, for the people are to know all about it through 
the action of the Governor and the General Assembly. 
It has been said and repeated that the General Assem¬ 
bly will never learn how this estimate shall have been 
made and the fund applied. I would ask if the Legis¬ 
lature be so incompetent that they cannot ascertain 
what the commissioners have done, and whether right 
or wrong, where would be their competency to make 
out these estimates for themselves ? 

I know very well that sometimes heretofore such 
estimates have not been as complete and satisfac¬ 
tory as they ought to have been, nor have all the 
expenditur-es been made and accounted for satisfacto¬ 
rily. But I believe there can be no danger under the 
restrictions which are provided in these sections. It 
seems to me that the mode proposed in this report, is 
economical, and at the same time holds the officers to 
such responsibility and accountability, as will perfect¬ 
ly secure the interests of the State. It might seem 
that this is to be made a party question. I have no 
objections against questions involving party principles, 
being so regarded. Indeed, they should be so regard¬ 
ed. I acknowledge myself here as a party man; but 
we ought not to carry our party feeling so far as to in¬ 
fluence our actions upon questions which do not in¬ 
volve party principles. We ought not to oppose or 
support a measure, simply because it was originated 
and supported on this or that side of the chamber. 
But when any question comes up, afiecting settled, 
well known party principles—we are all partizans, we 
can’t be otherwise and be honest—such questions 
should be supported or opposed upon party grounds. 
I do not object to the term “ party,” at all. Questions 
will probably arise in which, as partizans, we must 
differ—differ widely—differ honestly. I only dislike 
to hear the party bugle blown for the purpose of ral¬ 
lying to the 6U[)port of any question which does not 
involve such a principle. Whenever a party question 
of interest shall arise, involving the principles which 
I hold as a party man, I shall not be found far in the 
rear in taking my position. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. In reply to the gentleman’s ar¬ 
guments, I observe, that the power of the State Audit¬ 
or and his Board is simply superfluous and useless, or 
it is pernicious. Either, he must perform the same ac¬ 
tions as the General Assembly, and in the same man¬ 
ner, or he must perform different actions, in adift’erent 
manner. He must grant the same sums of money as 
the General Assembly, or he must grant greater, or he 
must grant less. To fix up such a machinery of ap¬ 
propriation in order to grant the same sums, and per¬ 
form the same actions as the General Assembly, would 
be clearly useless and nugatory. To say that this po¬ 
tentate would make smaller grants from the public 
treasury than the General Assembly, would contradict 
the gentleman’s ideas and previous statements—w'ould 
contradict the very design of his creation. Moreover, 
it cannot be supposed that the people’s representatives 
would ever be deafto the voice of justice. Wemusttake 


it for granted, that every just claim would receive sat¬ 
isfaction at the hands of the General Assembly. There¬ 
fore, to be more economical—to be more saving than 
the General Assembly, would be flat repudiation: that 
body will never be deaf to the voice of justice; there¬ 
fore, if the potentate grants less than the General As¬ 
sembly, he must be guilty of flat injustice. The inten¬ 
tion, tlien, unquestionably is, that he should be more 
lavish, more prodigal, more profuse of the people’s 
money than their representatives w’ould be. Turn it, 
twist it as you will, this is the real design of creating 
the money monarch; the throne is to be erected be¬ 
cause it will afford a smoother, an easier, and a pleas¬ 
anter road to the people’s treasury, than the General 
Assembly would. But is this a sound element of pub¬ 
lic credit, which subjects the public treasury to a sys¬ 
tem of boundless profusion and wastefulness ? Is not 
public, like private credit, best supported by the home¬ 
ly but useful virtues of economy and frugality ? 

Gentlemen sometimes argue that the acts provided 
for loans of money, and fixed up this machieniy to ex¬ 
tinguish the interest, and finally to pay the principal; 
and therefore they say that this engagement with the 
public creditors, partakes of the sacreduess of private 
contracts, and therefore, is not to be touched. But 1 
reply, that these acts are either constitutional or un¬ 
constitutional ; and we must look to the constitution 
itself to see whether they comport well with that in¬ 
strument. If the constitution authorizes the General 
Assembly to delegate over their most important func¬ 
tions, to give up all care of the people’s treasury’' and of 
their most important rights and interests, the thing is 
done, and there is an end of the ciuestion. But if the 
constitution does not authorise such a delegation of 
power,the Assembly could not acquire the right to make 
that delegation by contract—it could not^barter away the 
people’s charter of liberties, by deed of bargau and 
sale. The public creditors have an interest in the ful¬ 
fillment of the contract—they have no interest in the 
machinery by which it is to be fulfilled—they have a 
right to justice, and no man wishes to refuse them that; 
on the contrary, we are willing to give them any 
pledge for the substantial fulfillment of the contract— 
we are willing to give them the most ample guarantee 
of their rights. But in framing a new coi^stitution, we 
are not willing to create the most pernicious institutions, 
simply because we have a public debt to provide tor. 
The public creditors themselves, if guided by enlight¬ 
ened reason, cannot desire to be a source of perpetual 
annoyance and mischief to this great people. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga thought that the course 
suggested by the gentleman from Monroe was 7iot a 
prudent one. It amounts to this, that if any one should 
happen to be dissatisfied wi h one part of the constitu¬ 
tion, he should oppose the whole. His expressions 
are entirely too strong. I apprehend that we shall not 
frame a constitution which will not be objectionable in 
some of its parts to each one of us. I do not suppose 
that any one of us will be entirely satified with the 
whole matter. There is no one of us but what will 
find himself obliged to yield something, in order that 
we may come together and frame an instrument which 
shall be beneficial to the pepple, and which they will 
adopt. There may be something, perhaps, introduced 
into the constitution which would induce me to oppose 
it; but, certainly, it must be something more objec¬ 
tionable than the principle which the gentleman oppo¬ 
ses. 

As far as the subject of this article is concerned, my 
great anxiety has been for the adoption of the seventh 
section. My great anxiety still is, that we shall place 
in the coi stitution something which shall show a dt'- 
termination that the public debt shall be paid without 
unreasonable delay. In this desire, the vote of yester¬ 
day shows that a large majority of the committee con¬ 
cur. That vote shows that a large majority of this 
body wish to see the principles of the seventh section 
carried out—a section which provides a mode for the 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


485 


payment of the public debt, and gives assurance thatj laborin 
it sliall be done without unnecessary delay. Well sir, 
this, to my mind, shows a concurrence uj)ou an impor¬ 
tant principle, which should not be sacrificed on ac¬ 
count of disagreement upon mere matters of detail. 

For myself, I cannot see so great a difference, as 
seems to be apparent to some gentlemen, between 
the ninth section as it now stands, and the provision 
which it is now proposed to incorporate. If the sec¬ 
tion be stricken out, as the section now stands, the 
amount of tax necessary to be raised is to be deter¬ 
mined by the commissioners of the canal fund. There 
are some reasons, and as I think, good reasons, why 
this section should I'emain as it is. The commission¬ 
ers can determine with greater accuracy, the 


accuracy, tlie amount 
which is necessary to be raised by taxation, than the 
General Assembly. They will be better acquainted 
with the subject, and having ascertained and informed 
themselves thoroughly of the subject, there remains 
nothing but a matter of calculation in fixing the per 
centum of tax. But as a majority whould prefer that 
this power should be vested in the General Assembly, I 
shall be perfectly satisfied. I can yield my opinions in 
this particular without difficulty, and it seems to me 
that we need have no serious dissention, especially when 
such injustice may occasion the loss of the main object, 
which has been gained by the adoption of the seventh 
section. There are reasons why this power should 
vest in the Legislature, and be exercised by that body. 
But, after all, this is a mere matter of discretion— 
of calculation—which might be, perhaps, safely exer¬ 
cised by the fund commissioners. I am perfectly wil¬ 
ling that it should be left to them, or that it should be 
left with the General Assembly; but I do really hope 
that there will be no division, leading to the failure of 
the main feature of the report, which is to secure the 
payment of the public debt. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I shoffid not rise at this time, Mr. 
Chairman, had not the indulgence of the floor been 
twice extended to the gentleman from Monroe [Mr. 
Archbold,] and if he had not taken advantage of that 
indulgence twice, to repeat his charges against the 
stand.ng committee, by implication, at least, he has 
charged the committee with some very serious delin¬ 
quencies—I might use even a stronger term—he has 
charged them with disregarding the principles of our 
government—with a want of sense and discretion, as 
well as with a want of patriotism. The gentleman has 
repeated these charges so often, that I apprehend he 
would be willing to charge me with treating him dis¬ 
respectfully, if I did not take some notice of his re¬ 
marks. It is certainly due to his effort, that we should 
extend to him a little notice at least to those repeated 
efforts, not only to impeach the motives and good sense 
of the committee- 

Mr. ARCHBOLD (interrupting.) Permit me to say 
that I have not impeached the motives of that gentle¬ 
man, nor have I charged the committee with improper 
motives. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Chairman, is it not to be 
charged with an improper motive, when the gentleman 
alledges that a desire is evinced by our report to estab¬ 
lish one of the worst of despotisms ?—to set up and es¬ 
tablish a money-king,” or an oligarchy, who shall 
tax and tyrannize over the people at pleasure, and with¬ 
out accountability ; and whose conduct shall be whol¬ 
ly secret and uuscrutable to those whose interests are 
to be effected. Now, the gentleman has not only as¬ 
sumed that we are guility of “ these deeds done in the 
body,” but he demands that we shall be sentenced to 
suffer the penalty inflicted upon Sysiphus for his sins: 
and further, he has in advance declared that even when 
we shall be thus doomed, we shall not have his sympa¬ 
thies. Now, Mr. Chairman, this looks something like 
a disposition to cruelty on the part of the gentleman 
from Monroe. Has suffering destroyed his natural 
tenderness of heart?—has the payment of penalties 
rendered him callous?—has he not been inefectually 


g like Sysiphus for past years, for the purpose 
of expiating some unknown sin? 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few inquiries 
of the honorable delegate from Monroe. I would like 
to know for what particular sin it is that he has been 
condemned to the fate of Sysiphus ? Why has he been 
compelled to roll up this mountain such a ponderous 
stone, which, notwithstanding the utmost of his strength 
to support it, seems to be about to recoil upon him and 
crush him? I would like to know whether he has 
been doomed to this fate, for any particular sins com¬ 
mitted prior to 1840; or whether it is for that legisla¬ 
tive sin committed about the year 1842. 

Why, sir, we are represented upon this floor, as stan- 
diim in the character of usurpers, about to take away 
the liberties of the people. Is this true, sir? By what 
authority was this Convention called? Was it not in 
obedience to the voice of the people ? How came we 
here ? was it not by their suffrage ? For what pur¬ 
pose has this Convention been assembled ? I will an¬ 
swer according to my own view. It was called for 
the purpose of reforming legislative abuses. It was 
called for the purpose of fixing metes and bounds to the 
legislative authority, and prohibiting them from exer¬ 
cising certain authority, and commanding them to do 
certain other things. For these purposes, as much as 
for any other, was this Convention called. It was in 
view of these objects that we have been sent here: and 
I consider myself in the strict line of my duty, while I 
make it my first object, to see that these purposes are 
accomplished here. And now, what have we done to 
subject ourselves to the charges implied, as well as ex¬ 
pressed, in the remarks of the gentleman from Mon¬ 
roe ? Who are about to steal away the liberties of the 
people, or tuim round and bind the people of the State 
as slaves ? Yet, all this has been charged upon us, if 
not directly, by implication. If these charges have 
been deserved, I want to know it. 

Why, sir, we simply propose, so far as this subject 
is concerned, that for the first year, one hundred thou¬ 
sand dollars shall be applied to the reduction of the 
principal of the State debt: and we have prescribed 
the mode by which it shall annually be levied and col¬ 
lected. Our whole offence consists in this. 

But there is one thing which I observe, that, whilst 
the gentleman has denounced us and our plan, with 
great freedom, he has pi’oposed no alternative for the 
accomplishment of the object which we all have in view. 
None at all. The standing committee considered well 
this very matter of the 9th section. They were well ap¬ 
prised of what they were doing. They were aware 
that this opposition would be made by the gentleman 
from Monroe. They expected him to attack this pro¬ 
position with all the vigor and ferocity of his eloquence. 
They expected him to oppose the report throughout; 
so that that his effort now is but a matter of consisten¬ 
cy. But we did not expect that this proposition would 
be met with the opposition which it has received from 
other quarters. We did not expect that those who had 
submitted for twenty-five years to a law, embracing 
much the same principle as this, would now be seri¬ 
ously alarmed because it was about to be established 
in the constitution. It has always and every where 
been referred to, as a wise provision of law,_ and ev¬ 
ery deviation from it has wrought injury and injustice 
to the people; and, for the reason that the require¬ 
ments of this law have been sometimes disregarded by 
the Legislature, I, for one, have felt called upon here 
to bind the legislative authority of the State, as with an 
“ iron rule ” in order that we inay have the most per¬ 
fect assurance that this principle shall be cairied into 
effect, and that thereby the suffering people of Ohio 
may be relieved from the burden of taxation imposed 
by the public debt. ^ | 

Mr. REEMELIN, interposing. I desire to ask the 
t^entleman if this is not compelling an unnecessary per¬ 
formance of this duty ? The General Assembly will be 
compelled to make out an estimate of taxes for school 











486 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


purposes, &c.,—to ascertain what amount of revenue 
will do tliat. And now why may they not as well look 
after these other estimates, to pay the interest on the 
debt, and, support the sinking fund ? I cannot see why 
the whole matter would not be better in the hands of 
the General Assembly. 

Mr. HAWKINS, resuming. If we could be certain 
that the General Assembly would meet annually, (a 
matter which is now very doubtful,) it might be that 
this business would be well enough in their hands. 
But how would it be done there? The subject would 
be referred to a committee, and the whole matter, be¬ 
ing performed by figures, would, perhaps, be the work 
of a single individual, (the thing against which the 
gentleman from Monroe has so strenuously objected.) 
I am not so particular who does it, as I am that it shall 
be well done, and certainly done. I had supposed, Mr. 
Chairman, that this board of commissioners, constituted 
for the express purpose of attending to the matter, 
would not only be well qualified for the discharge of 
this duty, but, acting under the restrictions thrown a- 
round them, they would discharge this duty faithfully. 
They will be required to report semi-annually to the 
Governor, and, if the Legislature be in session, the 
Governor is requu’ed to communicate the report imme¬ 
diately to that body; and, if the Legislature He not in 
session, he is required to cause the report to be printed 
and circulated throughout the State. And now 1 ask, 
whether, under these circumstances, there is any cause 
at all for alarm ? 

I desire to look for a moment at the amount of this 
fund, to see what proportion it bears to the whole rev¬ 
enue of the State. One hundred thousand dollars is the 
sum for the first year, proposed to be increased, annu¬ 
ally, by compounding the interest thereon. One hun¬ 
dred thousand dollars is about the thirtieth part of the 
aggregate of the revenue of the State of Ohio, which 
came into the treasuiy last year. Yet it has been rep¬ 
resented that we are binding a heavy burden upon the 
whole countiy, and throwing the whole power of rais¬ 
ing the revenue into the hands of three individuals! It 
occurs to me that gentlemen must be scarce of mate¬ 
rials for argument, when they resort to means like this 
to sustain their doctrine. The people have a right to 
throw this discretion into other hands than the Legisla¬ 
ture ; and we here say to the Legislature, that if, in the 
discharge of their duty, they can save anything in pros¬ 
perous years, by proper attention to the public finances, 
they may make the whole amount of the surplus ap¬ 
plicable to the payment of the State debt. Since the 
people have become convinced that the Legislature 
have not discharged their whole duty with reference to 
this matter, they have demanded this at our hands. 

Mr. Chairman, I dislike to repeat the arguments 
which occur to me in answering these objections, and 
I will not do so, unless other gentlemen are indulged 
in a disregard of the rules. If gentlemen are permit¬ 
ted to renew their attacks upon us as often as they 
please, in utter disregard of our rules, which are cal¬ 
culated to bring us to the vote occasionally, I shall be 
constrained to ask a similar indulgence of the commit¬ 
tee, in order to take suitable notice of them. 

There was one question propounded by the gentle¬ 
man from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] which certainly 
deserves an answer. He inquired whether you would 
take away the taxing power from the people and con¬ 
fer it upon the three individuals who are to compose 
this board? Now my answer is, that the taxing pow¬ 
er is by our plan to be exercised by us, and the board 
is to be our agent. 

I will propound a question in return. He is a gen¬ 
tleman of eminent legal attainments, an can answer 
the question if he chooses. My question is : Whether 
the Legislature can, with respect to any portion of the 
property of the State, barter away the right of taxa¬ 
tion, that is, can they conti’act away this right and bind 
succeeding legislatures to the observance of their con¬ 
tracts, and to regard the exemptions they may have 


made ? I desire to know whether the right to tax, is 
not inseparable from the right to govern ? Whether 
it is not a right inherent and complete in every succes¬ 
sive Legislature? These are important questions, and 
must be met and answered before this committee rises; 
therefore I beg leave to suggest them now to the mind 
of the distinguished legal gentleman from Franklin, 
[Mr. Stanbery,] in order that he may be prepared to 
give us the law of the case. Having said all that I 
intended to say, I shall take my seat with this addi¬ 
tional remark, that I regret the causes which seemed 
to require this much at my hands. 

Mr. TAYLOR should vote for the proposition to 
strike out the 9th section, but not because he desired 
to take any part in the issue made by the gentleman 
from Monroe. If to the 8th section, appointing the 
commissioners of the sinking fund, these words had 
been added, ‘‘ and their powers and duties shall be 
hereafter prescribed by law.” It seemed to him that 
the ensuing sections, from the 9th to the 12th, could 
well be dispensed with. Already the article provides 
specifically for a sinking fund, and designates the per¬ 
sons to administer it—why not leave the subsequent 
details to the Legislature ? He opposed the proposi- 
\on of the gentleman from Monroe, and believed that 
jthe Legislature would carry out his views, but thought 
the best disposition of the next four sections would be 
found in relieving the proposed article from them. 

The question was then taken upon the adoption of 
Mr. Loudon’s proposition to amend the original sec¬ 
tion, and it was rejected. 

On motion, by Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, sundry 
verbal and clerical amendments were applied to the 
section, by unanimous coi.sent. 

And then, the question recurring upon Mr. Arch- 
bold’s motion to sti-ike out the whole section, as 
amended, it was agreed to—affirmative 45—negative 
34. 

So the section was stricken out. 

Mr. RE EMELIN moved to insert, in lieu of the 9 th 
section, the proposition which he had before indicated 
by way of information, and it was read. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD proposed to amend the amend¬ 
ment, by adding the following: 

“ And no money shall be drawn from the treasury, except in 
consequence of appropriations made by law : and no appropria¬ 
tions shall be made for a longer period than two years. 

And on the engrossment and passage, in each House of the 
General Assembly, of every act which imposes, continues, in¬ 
creases or revives a tax—or creates a debt or charge, or makes, 
continues or revives—or any appropi’iation of public, or trust 
money, or property—or releases, discharges or commutes any 
claim or demand of the State—the question shall be taken by the 
yeas and nays, which shall be duly entered on the journal. ’ 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga, and Mr. MITCH¬ 
ELL, suggested that a similar provision, with respect 
to the passage of acts for the appropriation of money, 
was contained in the report of the committee on the 
Legislative Department. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. That provision was stricken out, 
upon the assurance that it would be inserted in this re¬ 
port. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Not in this report, but in the re¬ 
port of the committee on Taxation. 

Upon the motion of Mr. MITCHELL, the commit¬ 
tee now rose and reported no conclusion— 

And then, the Convention took a recess till 3 o’clock 
P. M. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren moved to take up the resolu¬ 
tion of Mr. Ewart, relative to the compensation of as¬ 
sistant Reporters, which was agreed to. 

The same gentleman moved to recommit the resolu¬ 
tion to the committee on Accounts, which was agreed 
to. 

Upon motion of Mr. BENNETT, the Convention then 
resolved itself into a committee of the Whole, Mr. Saw¬ 
yer in the chair, and resumed the consideration of the 
report of the committee on ^ 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 487 


PUBLIC PEBTS AND PUBLIC WORKS. 

The question then being taken upon the amendment 
to the amendment which was under discussion, when 
the committee took a recess, it was not agreed to. 

The question then turned ujion the amendment of¬ 
fered by the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reeme- 

LIN.] 

Mr. REEME LIN did not favor the proposition which 
had been offered by the gentleman from Richland, and 
suggested that it was the result of a desire on the part 
of the gentleman to avoid the inconveniences and evils 
of the system of biennial sessions of the General As¬ 
sembly to which he [Mr. Kirkwood] had prematurely 
committed himself, and was now deterred, it might be, 
by a pride of opinion and position, from coming over 
to the support of what was so clearly wise, politic and 
indispensable—annual sessions. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD was opposed to the amendment of 
the gentleman from Richland [Mr. Kirkwood.] It 
had been suggested by the gentleman from Hamilton 
[Mr. Reemelin] that this amendment had, in jiart, its 
origin in a desire to remedy an inconvenience antici¬ 
pate as likely to grow out of a constitutional provis¬ 
ion for biennial sessions, but rather than see this amend¬ 
ment adopted he would exert himself in favor of annu¬ 
al sessions of the General Assembly. Any thing in 
preference to an abandonment of the public treasury to 
Us assailants. 

Mr. LOUDON did not suppose the subject of annual 
or biennial sessions had any thing to do with the pres- 
eut question. He was opposed to any proposition to 
define the duties of certain officers—it would be too 
much like enacting a statute. He was decidedly of 
the opinion that the language of the organic law should 
be brief and explicit. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga was in favor of the 
general principles of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin] but he 
thought it embraced objects not in the least connected 
with this report. He proposed as a substitute to the 
amendment [Mr. Reemelin’s] the following, which if 
adiyted would, in his opinion, supercede the necessi¬ 
ty for the 11th section of the report. 

“ The commissioners of the sinking fund shall, immediately 
preceding each regular session of the General Assembly, make 
an estimate of the probable amount of the fund provided for in 
section seven, from all sources except from taxation, and report 
the s^e, together with all their proceedings relative to said fund 
public debt, to the Governor, who shall transmit the same 
with his regular message to the General Assembly; and the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly shall make all necessary provision for raising and 
disbursing said sinkin,! fund in pursuance of the provisions of 
this article.” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I am thankful to the gentleman 
from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] for two things—first¬ 
ly, that he has afforded me an opportunity of giving 
my opinion of the “ whipping in” process, as it is call¬ 
ed, concerning which so much has been said lately; 
and, secondly, that he has reminded me of the necessi¬ 
ty of explaining the difference between the proposition 
read by me a few minutes since, and the existing law 
conferring on the Auditor certain powers of taxation. 

The gentleman from Hamilton has said that the prop¬ 
osition read by me is wrong in principle, is anti-demo¬ 
cratic and contains a recognition of the one man power 
of taxation; he expresses his surprise that I, as a mem¬ 
ber ol the democratic party, should offer or support 
such a proposition, and warns me that in so doing I am 
wandering from the path of political rectitude. Some 
gentlemen here, when placed in the same position in 
which I find myself placed by these remarks, have 
seen fit to entertain feelings and express views very 
different from those I entertain and shall express.— 
Those gentlemen have talked to us of “ dictation,” of 
“ the clanking of chains and the cracking of whips,” 
and have let us know that they will expound for them¬ 
selves the democratic faith, and will not permit any 
person to instruct them therein. Such are not my feel¬ 
ings. I am willing to receive instruction in democracy 
as in any thing else I believe to be true and right; nay. 


I am willing and ha[){)y to do more—to receive warning 
and reproof if from misapprehension or any other 
cause 1 am found to be wandering in the ways of er* 
ror, and to express my thankfulness to those who may 
lead me back to the ways of right. I am always will¬ 
ing to receive with candor and examine with care all 
suggestions made to me that I am in error, and if upon 
such examination I shall find myself in the wrong, I 
shall promptly change my course. I listened to the 
remarks of the gentleman with attention, and received 
his warnings with thankfulness, and shall hereafter re¬ 
ceive with attention and kindness the admonitions of 
that gentleman, or any other gentleman who may be 
of opinion that “my works” do not conform to the po¬ 
litical faith I profess. Thanking then the gentleman 
for his kindness, I shall proceed to examine if there be 
in truth, in the proposition I have read, a grave politi¬ 
cal error, a radical departure from the principles of 
that political faith which we both profess. 

The gentleman from Hamilton has told us that, in 
principle, the proposition I have read is identical with 
the existing law giving the Auditor the power to levy 
taxes for the payment of the interest on the public 
debt, and that my preposition is liable to all the objec¬ 
tions which have been, and can be urged against that 
law. Is this so, sir ? If it be, then I certainly shall 
abandon my proposition and oppose it, if offered by 
any other gentleman, with as much zeal as the gentle¬ 
man himself. But, in my opinion, this is not the fact. 
There is a wide and marked difference between the 
two measures, and that difierence, in my opinion, con¬ 
tains all that is objectionable in the existing law.— 
What is the present law ? In substance this: That the 
Auditor of State shall annually estimate the nett a- 
mount of the income of our public works, and that he 
shall levy such an amount of tax in addition thereto as 
will make up the sum of the interest on our State debt. 
What are the objections to that law? That it leaves 
with the Auditor a discretionary of taxation which 
should be vested in the General Assembly. If the in¬ 
terest on our public debt be a million of dollai’s the 
Auditor may raise, by taxation, $900,000 or $500,000, 
or any other sum he may deem expedient. He may 
estimate the nett income of our public works at $100,- 
000 or $500,000, and as his estimate happens to be high 
or low, so do our taxes increase or diminish. If he 
should estimate at $100,000 our taxes would be $900,- 
000. If he should estimate at $500,000 then our taxes 
would be $500,000, a difference of $400,000 in our 
taxes, which, under the present law, may be made at 
the uncontrolled discretion of one man. Now this is 
what I have always understood to be the objection to 
the present law—this discretionary power of a single 
person to increase or diminish our taxes at pleasure. 
Does the proposition I have read continue this power 
in the Auditor or transfer it to any person, or persons, 
other than the General Assembly? Clearly not. 

Should I have an opportunity in committee to offer 
my proposition as an amendment and should it prevail, 
neither the Auditor of State, nor the Canal Commis¬ 
sioners, nor any other person or body except the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, would have any discretionary power 
whatever over this matter. What is ray proposition ? 
We have just agreed to a section of the report under 
consideration which provides that we shall raise annu¬ 
ally from the nett income of our public works and tax¬ 
ation a sum of money sufficient to pay the interest on 
our debt and $100,000 with compound interest on the 
principal, and the proposition read by me is intended 
as a substitute for the one contained in the report poin- 
ting out the mod.6 in whicli tho money shall be raised* 
The necessity for some provision arises from the fact 
that the nett'income of our public works varies almost 
every year, by reason of the amount of repairs needed 
for different years, and the amount of business done in 
different years, as our crops may be heavy or light— 
that the amount of this nett income must be estimated 
in advance, that the amount of our taxes for these pur- 












488 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


poses depends on the amounts of these estimates, (as 
we must raise enough in addition to pay the interest 
on our debt and keep up our sinking fund) and the fact 
that our sessions of the Legislature are under our new 
constitution to be biennial. The proposition read by 
me provides that the General Assembly at each regu¬ 
lar session shall make from the best information that 
can be had careful estimates of the nett income of our 
public works for each of the ensuing two years, and 
provide in addition for each year by taxation a suffi¬ 
cient amount to pay up our interest and keep up our 
sinking fund. So far all is right—the discretionary 
power, of which complaint has been made is taken 
from the Auditor and given to the General Assembly. 

But experience has shown that this thing of making 
estimates is uncertain to a greater or less extent. I un¬ 
derstand that by reason of the Auditor having estimated 
the income of our public works too high for the last 
year, we have only $74,000 to apply to the payment of 
the principal of our State debt, instead of $100,000, as 
contemplated by law. Now, the General Assembly 
may be mistaken in the amounts of these estimates, 
and I wish to provide for the correction of such mis¬ 
takes, if any should occur at the end of each year, in¬ 
stead of waiting for two years to make the correction. 
How is this provided for? Is any discretionary power 
left with the auditor or canal commissioners'? None 
whatever. In case a defficiency should occur, during 
the year in which the General Assembly adjourns, of 
course that deficiency becomes known at the end of 
the year to the canal commissioners, and also the ex¬ 
act amount of the deficiency. They have had certain 
amounts to pay ; they have received certain sums 
wherewith to make payment, and the difference be¬ 
tween the amounts shows to a mill the deficiency, if 
any. What then? Is it but to permit the deficiency, 
should one be found, to remain tmprovided for, 
for a whole year and be thrown with the deficiency of 
the second year, should one then occur, into the taxes 
of the third year? I think not, and therefore pro¬ 
pose that the canal commissioners, having ascertained 
that a deficiency does exist, shall certify to the auditor 
the amount of the deficiency, and that the auditor shall 
add that amount to the next year’s taxes, and collect 
it with them. There is no discretionary power in any 
person—there is no room for estimates or uncertain¬ 
ties—all is certain, clear and plain. 

The canal commissioners have nothing in their dis¬ 
cretion. They were to have paid, say $1,000,000— 
they have been furnished with only $975,000 ; a school 
boy can tell them the deficiency is $25,000. They 
have no discretionary power in the premises—they 
can’t increase or decrease the amount one mill, but 
must certify it to the Auditor. He has no discretion¬ 
ary power to add to or diminish the sum thus certified. 
He makes no estimate, but proceeds to fix his per cen¬ 
tum to raise this amount precisely as other amounts 
fixed by law. The whole discretionary power is left 
where it ever should be, in the General Assembly. 
Now, sir, this is the whole of the proposition which 
I have read, and I submit whether it be obnoxious to 
the censures of the gentleman from Hamilton. It cer¬ 
tainly does take away from the Auditor his present 
power to increase or diminish our taxes at his discre¬ 
tion—it places that power in the hands of the General 
Assembly. It provides yearly for any deficiencies that 
may occur in the sinking fund, and throughout confines 
each officer within his proper sphere of action. The 
Auditor will have no power but that of fixing the per 
centum to raise a certain amount of money, that a- 
mount having been previously ascertained with abso¬ 
lute certainty. 

I think, sir, the gentleman from Hamilton has been 
unnecessarily alarmed, and has sounded the tocsin 
when there was not any danger. I thank him for his 
kindness and zeal, and almost wish there was not more 
occasion for its display. When in order I shall offer 
my proposition as an amendment. 


Mr. MITCHELL was opposed to the amendment, 
[Mr. Kirkwood’s.] The deficiencies which have been 
alluded to, are supplied by a contingent fund. In all 
the departments of revenue there are contingent assess¬ 
ments. 4 

He [Mr. M.] did not believe that any difficulty, in re- J 
gard to the revenues of the State, would grow out of a '| 
constitutional provision for biennial legislative sessions. 3 
It was easier to calculate the deficits in the revenue for 
two years together than for one, because the casualties, 
the floods, drouths, pestilence, and blights, of one year, 
might be ‘‘offset” by the abundant crops and general 
prosperity of the next; and so a much more accurate 
estimate could be made, by averaging the revenues of 
two or more years, one with another. The deficit in 
the revenues of the State for five years, could be more 
exactly calculated for five years than for any one year. 

The question being taken upon the adoption of the 
substitute offered by the member from Cuyahoga,'[Mr. 
Hitchcock,] to the amendment, [Mr. Reemelin’s,] the 
same was agreed to by a vote ot 42 to 18. 

Sec. 10. It shall be the duty of the commissioners of the sink¬ 
ing lund faithfully to apply said fund, together w^ith all moneys 
that may be by the Legislature appropriated to that object, to the 
payment of the interest as it becomes due, and the redemption 
of the principal of the public debt of the State, excepting only 
the school and trust funds held by the State. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to amend by striking out of 
the second line the following words: “ said fund, to- ^ 
gether with.” 

Mr. HAWKINS thought the words had better not be ^ 
stricken out. Their absence might give the section a 
construction not now foreseen. ^ 

Mr. LARSH said they had better not be stricken out. ^ 
They were in nobody’s way. ;| 

Mr. STANTON said the amendment would leave the ] 
whole fund, subject to the payment of the public debt, 
at the discretion of the Legislature. 

Mr. REEMELIN withdrew the amendment. 

Sec. 11. The commissioners of the sinking fund shall, semi* 
annually, make a full and detailed report of their proceedings to 
the Governor, who shall immediately cause the same to be pub¬ 
lished, and shall also communicate the same to the Legislature, 
forthwith, if it be in session, and if not, then at its first session 
after such report shall be made. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga moved that the sec-* 
tion be stricken out. 

Mr. HAWKINS would prefer to have it remain. The 
payments were to be made semi-annually, and he would 
like to have the reports made in the same manner. 

Ml’. HITCHCOCK withdrew his motion. 

Sec. 12. Upon the payment of the entire amount of the prin¬ 
cipal and interest of the public debt, above provided for, the du¬ 
ties of said board of commissioners, and all powers of taxation 
conferred by section nine of this article, shall forever cease. 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga, the 
foregoing section was stricken out. 

Sec. 13. There shall be a Board of Public Works, to consist of 
three members, who shall be elected by the people, at the first 
general election, after the adoption of this constitution; one lor 
the term of one year, one for me term of two years, and one for 
the term of three 5 ’ears; and there shall be elected annually 
thereafter one member of said Board who shall hold his ofiice for 
three years. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved to strike out the whole sec 
tion. He said he did so with the intention to move to 
fill the blank with an amendment providing for the 
election of a Board of Public Works by districts, into 
which the State should be divided for that purpose. 

He thought every part of the State should be represen¬ 
ted in the board. There were some parts which had 
lost by the gambling operations into which the State 
had been led, as deeply as any other, and which had 
no compensating benefit, He thought that both justice 
and generosity dictated the arrangement. He should 
move to divide the State into five districts, in each of 
which a member should be elected. 

Mr. LARSH said he had no objection to the district 
system, but did object to the number of the board, as 
proposed by the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. ^RCh- 
BOLD.] 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


489 


Mr. LARVVILL hoped the comoiittee would not! 
vote to strike out. He was opposed to making it a 
sectional matter. He thought the members ot‘ the 
board should be, in every respect, officers of the State. 

Mr. STANTON agreed with the gentleman from 
Monroe. He thought every thing should be done to 
resist the tendency of the officers of the State to squan¬ 
der and misapply the public money. He desired not 
only to elect men from ditferent parts of the State, but 
of all political parties. Men desire to cover up the 
peccadilloes and derelictions of their political friends. 
He thought that by h iving the board composed of men 
of different parties, the members might hold each other 
in check. 

Mr. TAYLOR said we should hesitate before we in¬ 
corporate into our constitution a provision for the es¬ 
tablishment of a board of public works, to endure per¬ 
petually. He should vote for striking out the section, 
but not for inserting the substitute proposed. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga said that experience 
had taught that some such body as the one proposed, 
is necessary for the management of the concerns of 
the State, so long as it continues the owner of public 
works. There are some who are in favor of selling- 
this property; others who are opposed to it. He did 
not believe that the time would ever come when it 
would be politic to sell them; but he was willing to 
leave that to the Legislature. There is little prospect 
at present of the arrival ol the time when such a board 
will not be required. The time is destined to arrive 
when these works will, by their annual income, pay 
the entire expenses of the government. 

He desired that provision for the creation and con¬ 
tinuance of this body should be made in the constitu¬ 
tion. There should be no power to change its mem¬ 
bers, in the Legislature, by a repeal of the law of its 
creation. Such a thing had several times been done, 
to the disgrace of the State. It is true, there would 
be less danger of this than when the appointing power 
was in the hands of the Legislature, but still it may be 
done. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD presented his amendment, which 
was as follows: 

He desired briefly to explain its features and opera¬ 
tion. He believed that the committee would agree 
that it would be an advantage to the deliberations of 
the Board, to bring men from various parts of the State. 
He was not strenuous as to the number. There might 
be five or three, as the General Assembly should de¬ 
cide. This amendment obviates the difficulty spoken 
of by the gentleman from Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitchcock] 
about changes in the Board by a repeal of the law. 
He said, there is no danger if a member should be 
elected in the eastern part of the State, that they 
would go for filling up the canals, or of their abandon¬ 
ing them to dilapidation. The eastern members of the 
General Assembly had never manifested any such dis¬ 
position. They had been as strenuous supporters of 
the intere.sts of the State as any within it. 

Mr. CHAMBERS was in favor of the proposition. 
He would prefer, however, to have the number fixed 
positively at five. The number of three is too small. 
He desired also to have them elected by districts, and 
thought it would have a tendency to bring the sense of 
the people into the Board, and to keep the party spir¬ 
it out. 

Mr. LARWILL was still in favor of the section as 
reported. The gentleman from Logan seems to fear 
the Board will be made a party machine. The elec¬ 
tion of its members one in each year will it would seem 
obviate that difficulty ; at least to furnish as much of 
a guaranty as the district system. 

Mr. GREGG thought we might as well district the 
State for the other State officers as for these; and with 
equal propriety elect a Secretary of Slate in one dis¬ 
trict, an Auditor in another, and a Treasurer in a third. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to amend by preceding the 
section as reported by the following words : *‘ So long 


as this State shall possess public works which may re¬ 
quire superintendence.” 

Mr. TAYLOR was willing to leave the question of 
the necessity of a Board of Public Works, to the wis¬ 
dom of future Legislatures. 

Mr. LARSH would not vote to put anything into 
the constitution that could be construed, even into an 
admission of a right in the General Assembly to dis¬ 
pose of the works of the State. 

The question being on the amendment of Mr. Haw¬ 
kins, the same was adopted; yeas 44—nays 34. 

The question then being on striking out— 

Mr. ROBERTSON said: he should vote for striking 
out the section, since the amendment was adopted. He 
would do so, because he was opposed to putting any¬ 
thing into the constitution which might encourage an 
attempt to sell the canals of the State. He wanted to 
keep them, and to have them transmitted as a legacy to 
our children. He would go for the proposition of the 
gentleman from Monroe, if the State could, for the pur¬ 
pose, be districted bj a constitutional provision. Dis- 
triction by the Legislature, so fruitful in coiruption, 
ought to be avoided. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said he was willing his ainend- 
nient should be amended in that respect. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga said he could not vote 
to strike out. He was opposed to the amendment for 
reasons that had already been assigned. If the mem¬ 
bers of the Board are district officers, they should be 
elected by districts ; but they are not. They are offi¬ 
cers of the State; their duty is not fixed by law to any 
particular district, and tiiey should be elected by the 
electors of the State. If we adopt this plan, we shall 
get into difficulty, instead of getting out of it. 

Mr. STANTON would inquire if they were any 
more State officers than the Judges of the Supreme 
Court, and if the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitch¬ 
cock] was not in favor of electing Judges by districts. 

Mr. MITCHELL said the members of the board 
were State officers, and should so be elected. He did 
not vote for the amendment of the gentleman from 
Morgan [Mr. Hawkins] because he would not aid in 
an admission that the public works can be sold. 

Mr. HAWKINS was not aware that any danger had 
or would accrue to the public property by his amend¬ 
ment. He certainly meant no such thing. There was 
a bare possibility that, in the lapse of time, it may be 
necessary and proper to abandon or sell them. His 
amendment merely provided for that contingency. 
There is a possibility that the canals may be superseded 
by other works constructed by private enterprise. 

Mr. ROBERTSON said that the experience of past 
times and other countries did not teach that the con¬ 
struction of other facilities would supersede existing 
ones. He believed that the canals of the State would 
endure through all time, constantly increasing in value 
and usefulness. 

Mr. HAWKINS said that made no odds. If the ca¬ 
nals last, the section provides for the continuance of the 
agency. 

Mr. MITCHELL was opposed to the sale of the ca¬ 
nals, or of anything looking that way. He should vote 
to strike out on account of the amendment, and should 
vote against the amendment of the gentleman from 
Monroe, and leave the committee to till up the section 
as they can. 

The motion to strike out was lost; yeas 29, nays not 
counted. 

Sec. 14. The powers and duties of the said board of public 
works and its several members, together with their compensa¬ 
tion, shall be such as now are, or hereafter may be prescribed by 
law. 

Mr. STANBERY moved to amend the section, by 
adding the following: 

The General Assembly shall never sell, lease, or otherwise dis¬ 
pose ot any of the canals of the State, but they shall remain the 
property of the Stale, and under its management forever. 

The question being on its adoption, the same was dis¬ 
agreed to Ayes 38—noes 44. 









490 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. HOLT moved to strike out the words Legisla¬ 
ture,” wherever it occurs in the report, and substitute 
the words, “ General Assembly, ” which was agreed 
to. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga, desired to correct a 
statement which he had previously made, in the course 
of this debate. He had stated that the fund commis¬ 
sioners of the State, had under the law of last winter, 
exchanged only one million of the bonds issued, in re¬ 
demption of those falling due. He had since learned 
that the amount was one million and a half. 

On motion of Mr. CUTLER, the committee rose, 
and 

The CHAIRMAN reported the bill back to the Con¬ 
vention. 

On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the ^-eport and 
amendment were laid on the table, and ordered to be 
printed. 

On motion of Mr. CUTLER, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 

SATURDAY, June 22, 1850. 

Mr. VANCE of Champaign, presented five petitions 
from Thomas Cane and sixty other citizens of Cham¬ 
paign county, praying that a provision be inserted in 
the new constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from 
passing any law legalizing the traffic in spiritoiisliquors; 
and also, that an excise be laid on every gallon of 
liquor manufactured, sufficient to prevent distilla¬ 
tion. 

The petitions were referred to the select committee 
on the subject of retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. BATES presented a petition from James Galla¬ 
gher and 2G8 other citizens of Steubenville, praying 
that capital punishment be abolished, and confinement 
in the State prision, or some other punishment be sub¬ 
stituted therefor. 

Upon his motion, it was referred to the select com¬ 
mittee on the subject of Capital Punishment. 

Mr. HOOTMAN presented the petition of .1. S. 
Weatherbee and 28 other citizens of Ashland county, ( 
praying that the new constitution prohibit any future 
Legislature from chartering banks. 

The same gentleman, presented a petition from Her¬ 
man Alleman and 42 other citizens of Ashland county, 
on the same subject. 

The petitions were refeiTed to the committee on 
Banks and Cun ency. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga moved that the com¬ 
mittee of the whole be discharged from further con¬ 
sideration of the special report of the committee on the 
Judicial Depm’tment, relative to the impeachment of 
certain Judicial officers, which was agreed to. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the report be laid upon 
the table, which was agreed to. 

Mr. CAHILL moved that the committee of the whole 
be discharged from the further consideration of the reso¬ 
lutions, relative to incorporating certain provisions in 

the Preamble and Bill of Rights, which was agreed 

to. Co 

The resolutions were referred, upon his motion, 
to the committee on the Preamble and the Bill of 
Rights. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the committee of the 
whole be discharged from the further consideration of the 
resolution offered by Mr. Larsh, on the 14th of May, 
which provides, that the Secretary of State, or some 
othei State officer, shall preside over the House of 
Representatives until a speaker is elected, which was 
agreed to. 

1 he resolution, upon motion of the samefgentleman, 
was laid upon the table. 

Mr. BENNETT moved that the committee of the 
whole be discharged from the further consideration of 
the resolution offered by him on the 14th of May, re- 
comrnendingthat under the new constitution, a majori¬ 
ty of either branch of the General Assembly, shall 
constitute a quorum, which was agreed to. 


The resolution, upon motion of the same gentleman, 
was laid upon the table. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the committee of the j 
whole be discharged from the further consideration of ! 
the resolution offered by Mr. Hootman, relative to banks j 
and banking, which was agreed to. 

The resolutions, upon motion of the same gentle¬ 
man, were referred to the committee on Banking and j 
Currency. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the committee of the 
whole be discharged from the further consideration of [ 
the resolution of Mr. Perkins, on the subject of capital ' 
punishment, wdiich was agreed to. 

The resolution, upon motion of Mr. ROBERTSON, | 
was laid on the table. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the committee of the 
Whole be discharged from the further consideration of 
resolution number seven, which was agreed to. 

The resolution, upon motion of the same gentleman, 
was laid upon the table. 

Mr. STANBERY offered the following resolution, 
which was agreed to. 

“ Resolved, That the use of this chamber be and is hereby grant¬ 
ed to Capt. George L. Colburn, for the purpose of delivering an 
address upon the subject of temperance, this evening at 8 o’clock.” 

Upon motion of Mr. VANCE of Champaign, the Con¬ 
vention resolved itself into a committee of the Whole, 
and Mr. Green of Ross being called^to the chair, 

Mr. KENNON moved to take up the report number 
one of the standing committee on 

THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. 

Mr. RANNEY. I wish to make a suggestion upon 
that subject. I would state that one of the members 
of the committee who did not sign the report is now 
absent. I would suggest to the committee whether it 
would not be right to delay the matter until Monday. 

I do not suppose that it will delay the action of the 
Convention to any extent, as there are reports upon 
which we can act. 

Mr. LARSH. I hope the motion to take up the re¬ 
port will not prevail, as it is only a few days since the 
committee reported. We want time enough for the 
report to be circulated, so that we may receive instruc¬ 
tion upon the subject from our constituents. 

Mr. KENNON withdrew his motion, and then the re¬ 
port on 

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS 

was taken up, on motion of Mr. Vance of Champaign, 
and is as follows: 

Sec. 1. The Institutions for the benefit of those classes of the 
inhabitants of the State who are deprived of reason, or any of the 
senses, shall always be fostered and supported by the State, and 
be regulated by law so as to be open to all classes alike, subject 
only to reasonable restrictions. 

Sec. 2. The Directors of the Penitentiary, and the Trustees of 
the Benevolent Institutions, now elected by the General Assem¬ 
bly of the State, with such others as may be hereafter created by 
subsequent Legislative enactment, shall, under this constitution, 
be WJBOiJlted by the Govcri\sr, by and with the advice and con- 
sentofthe Senate. JOSEPH VANCE, 

JAS. B. KING, 

THOMAS A. WAY, 
JAMES STRUBLE, 
JOHN GRAHAM. 

The same gentleman remarked that as there were no 
objections to the second section, he would move that 
the committee rise and report. 

Mr. RIDDLE. I do not know as I have any objec¬ 
tions to the second section, but for the purpose of hear¬ 
ing the committee upon this subject I propose to strike 
out the second section. [Laughter.] 

Mr. VANCE of Champaign. For the purpose of 
hearing from the gentleman, I should like to hear what 
he has in opposition to it. (Laughter.) 

Ml. RIDDLE. Mr. Chairman, there is a new mode 
of electing tnistees of benevolent institutions, which 
we so much glory in, and which we have heal’d so 
much spoken of not only in the city of Columbus but 
elsewhere. I see, sir, that by this report the ti ustees 
of these humane institutions are to be appointed in a 
way altogether different from what we have been ac 















CONVENTION REPOKTS. 


491 


custorned to in Ohio: to be appointed by the Governor, 
with the advice and consent of tlie Senate. For the 
purpose of giving some reasons why this new mode 
should be adopted, the gentleman ought not to be as¬ 
tonished that a motion to amend this section should be 
made. I have no doubt the intelligence of the com¬ 
mittee will be able to give good reasons; and although 
I dislike to enter upon the old hobby, which has been 
so much discussed—the subject of annual or biennial 
sessions,—yet the Senate might not be in session when 
these appointments are to be made. The Senate, I 
presume, will not be in session oltener than once in 
two years, in the event of the Convention adopting the 
biennial system. For the purpose of hearing some 
reasons why this mode would be preferable to the old 
one, I thought it proper to make the motion. 

Mr. SMITH of Wyandot moved to amend by strik 
ing out the words “under this constitution,” in the 
third line; which was agreed to. 

Mr. VANCE ot Champaign. I had not supposed 
that there would be any objections to this mode of ap¬ 
pointment. Perhaps there might be some appointing 
power much more acceptable. But the plan here pro¬ 
posed, has been considered a very safe method for the 
appointment of similar officers throughout the United 
States. I believe that the committee were unanimous¬ 
ly agreed that these officers should be appointed by 
the Governor, with the advice of the Senate. 

Mr. RANNBY. I hope the motion to strike out will 
j)revail. The first section provides for the fostering of 
these institutions by law, and I think that the mode by 
which these officers are to be elected can be safely left 
to the General Assembly. I am clear in the opinion, 
that it would be better to have the directors of the 
Penitentiary elected directly by the people, as is done 
m the State of New York, and 1 believe in Pennsylva¬ 
nia. The penitentiary has become a very important 
institution in this State, and will become still more so 
as the State increases its population. If we should fi¬ 
nally adopt the system as it is in New York, I believe 
it would be a much safer method. I do not know as 
it would be policy to adopt this plan in the constitution, 
and therefore, I am willing to leave it with the Legisla¬ 
ture. I am perfectly willing that the selection of these 
officers shall be regulated by law. My opinion is, that 
we shall finally resort to the method of electing one of 
the officers every year, by the people. You should 
recollect that we are fixing a rule in this constitu¬ 
tion which shall endure as long as the constitution en¬ 
dures. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I am in favor of electing Dp 
rectors of the Penitentiary by the people. "WithiA 
twenty years we shall have, undoubtedly, two or three 
penitentiaries in this State. The interests connected 
with the Penitentiary, and the patronage at the dispo¬ 
sal of its officers are very great, and for these reasons 
the direciors ought to be elected by the people. 1 
therefore move to amend the report by strikimg out in 
the first line of the section under consideration, these 
words, “ The directors of the Penitentiary,” and insert, 

“ Three Directors of the Penitentiary shall be elected by the 
people at the first general election after the adoption of this con¬ 
stitution, one for the term of one year, one for the term of two 
years, and one for the term of three years, and there shall be e- 
lected annually thereafter, one director, who shallhold his office 
for three years. ’ 

Mr. RIDDLE oflered an amendment, after the 
word “benevolent,” in the first line of the section, in¬ 
sert “ and other State,” so that it would read, “ the 
trustees of the benevolent and other State institu¬ 
tions,” &c. 

Mr. SAWYER. It will be observed, that in the 32( 
section of the report of the committee on the Legisla-' 
five Department, the appointment of all civil officers 
shall be made in such manner as may be provided for 
by law. And it appears to me, that this covers the 
whole ground, and that it is not necessary to have this 
section placed in the constitution. 

The question being taken upon Mr. Riddle’s amend¬ 
ment, the same was agi’eed to by a vole of 41 to 3.5. 


Mr. SAWYER. 1 move to strike out the whole sec¬ 
tion as amended. My objection to it is that the pro¬ 
vision in the Legislative Report, to which I have be¬ 
fore referred, covers the whole ground. I admit that 
the Legislature has become unpopular with the people 
and iTecbllect of hearing in olden times, that the repub¬ 
lican party was in favor of leaving agreat deal of power 
with the Legislature, and the argument used was, that 
they came directly from the people. The other party 
that was opposed to them, argued in favor of re¬ 
straining a great many powers of the Legislature, 
or the people’s Reprvjsentatives, from the fact th at 
at that time the Governor of this State, while she was 
yet under territorial government, was very unpopular 
with the people—that the Legislature at that time was 
the popular branch, and the republican party of this 
country were very much in favor of curtailing the 
power ot the Governor, and to refer all power that 
they could consistently to the Legislature. 

It appears, however, that we are governed by the cir¬ 
cumstances which surround us at this day, from the 
fact that the Legislature for the last four or five years, 
has become quite unpopular with the people. Thus 
some persons are endeavoring to curtail the power of 
the Legislature to a very great extent, and are for trusts 
ing some power with the Governor. But as we have 
passed upon this same subject in the 23d section of the 
Legislative report, I think it useless and unnecessary to 
pass such a provision as is here proposed. I do be¬ 
lieve it is wrong to burthen the people with the elec¬ 
tion of the.?e small officers. This may be considered 
heterodox Democracy, but I believe it, and therefore 
I dare xirge it. The section that I refer to, in the report 
on the Legislative Department, is section 23. 

Thei’e may be a question whether the words “civil 
officers,” will include the officers now under considera¬ 
tion. Without any very great pretensions to under¬ 
stand what is meant by the words “civil officers,” in a 
political sense, I contend that the phrase will include 
the offices under consideration. I am willing that the 
Legislature should say, in accordance with this section, 
that the Governor shall appoint these officers. One 
thing is a fixed fact: In this section of the constitu¬ 
tion it is fixed, that the officers shall not be elected by 
the Legislature. The Legislature, however, may de¬ 
termine. if it appears good policy after trying experi¬ 
ments under this constitution, of electing numerous of¬ 
ficers we have now placed before them. If they shall 
hereafter determine to send to the people themselves, 
the election of Directors of the Penitentiaiy, let them 
do it. After the experiment is made, they find that 
they are already burthened with an immense number 
of officers, let them refer the same to the Governor, to 
be appointed by him and confirmed by the Senate I 
believe that the section in the report on the Legislative 
Department covers the whole ground, and I think it 
will prove more satisfactory to the people. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I hoped that this section would 
be no further mutilated. I was satisfied with it as it 
came from the hands of the committee. Coming, hs it 
did, from the Hamilton and Butler delegations, assisted 
by my worthy colleague from Monroe, [Mr. Way,] I 
thought it might be relied on as sufficiently popular. 
We shall be compelled to vest in our goveniment some 
power of nomination for the smaller and less important 

offices. We cannot call upon the entire population of this 
great State, to elect our subordinate clerk, or lock tend¬ 
er, or collector of tolls, or receiver of public monies a-, 
long the canals, and in our land offices. The labor of : 
the elections would be immense, the book of the peo¬ 
ple’s duties would be like that vast volume which so 
fully exercised the patience ot the reader, that when 
he came to page 55,156 in the history he concluded he 
would skip a parcel and get down to the “flood.’ 
[Great laughter.] To fix up such extensive machineiy 
for so small an object would be the same mistake in 
politics, as to fix a spit as large as a ten acre field to 
roast a shoulder of mutton on. The people at large 











492 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


could never perform the labor of examination and in¬ 
vestigation necessary to an intelligent choice of all these 
subordinates. In the rage for popular notions the peo¬ 
ple are likely to fare like the girl who betrayed her na- 
live town to the Roman armies—she showed them tke 
gates and demanded her reward; she requested the 
shining metal which they wore upon their left arms, 
(alluding to the brass of their shields;) the soldiers 
threw their shields upon her, she was overwhelmed 
and covered beneath the weight of their gifts. I repeat 
we shall be compelled to vest the power of nomination 
to some of the subordinate places, in the governor, 
and, if so, we must vest the power of confirmation in 
the Senate, for the [>eople will never consent to grant 
an individual the power to fill so many places without 
their agency, and if their agency is to be exerted at 
all, it can be best exerted through their representation 
in the Senate, which will be a small and compact body 
and well adapted to the performance of such duties. 

The gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] asserts 
that the General Assembly has become very unpopular 
among the people during the last four years. It seems 
to me that my friend does most gross injustice in ma¬ 
king such a declaration. I cannot but regard it as a 
piece of inadvertence. What evidence has the gentle¬ 
man given that the General Assembly^has become un¬ 
popular ? No such sentiment exists among the substan¬ 
tial yeomanry of the country, nor anywhere else, 
except among bar-room politicians and newspaper ed¬ 
itors. (Laughter.) These last will always employ the 
foulest language to abuse their political opponents.— 
They set no bounds to the license of the press; the best 
and purest men of the opposite party are always paint¬ 
ed in the colors of fools and fiends. But does anybody 
believe their inflated paragraphs ? Does not everybody 
know that it is a struggle between the ins and the orits ? 
—a mere attempt to degrade political opponents? Yet 
these things are taken as “ sources of public opinion!” 
if public opinion had no healthier sources, the com¬ 
monwealth Would soon die of a plague. (Much merri¬ 
ment.) 

Surely if my worthy friend from Auglaize, for whom 
I entertain high and sincere respect, will give his judg¬ 
ment play for a little while—will give the matter a 
dttle cool reflection, he will be very cautious about 
repeating such sentiments. The only possible mode of 
expressing the popular will is, by representation in a 
General Assembly. That Assembly is a mere abridge¬ 
ment—a miniature people, consisting of such numbers 
as to make it convenient for popular discussion, delib¬ 
eration, investigation and debate. It will not consist 
of knaves and tools, unless the people themselves aro 
too ignorant and too stupid to choose good men. Tr 
throw wholesale aspersions therefore on the populae 
representation, is to impeach the intelligence and virtue 
of the people themselves. That representative will 
inlallibly give back as true a likeness of the people as 
the looking-glass does of a man standing before it. 

There are only two schemes of government—the 
one -arbitrary and void of any eft’ective agency of the 
people, the other consisting essentially of that agency— 
which can never be exerted except by means of popu¬ 
lar representation. The friends of monarchy will 
therefore exult to hear that the people are not capable 
of selecting respectable delegates. The system of 
monarchy and the system of popular representation are 
antagonistical, and the humiliation of the one is the 
triumph of the other. 

I rt-peat, I should have been willing to vote for the 
section as it originally stood. The scheme of nomina¬ 
tion and confirmation, by the Governor and Senate, of 
all the officers about our prisons, is, surely, as demo- 
cratical as the plan of electing three directors by the 
people at large, and then giving the appointment of all 
the subordinates into their arbitrary control. But the 
authority of New York is brought to bear upon me. It 
appears that the scheme of electing these three dii’ect- 
ors, and giving into their hands an immense list of pa¬ 


tronage, has found its way into the constitution of New i 
York, and it is not for an Ohio man to resist a proposi¬ 
tion backed by such authority! When that great State, j 
with its lordly manors and twelve years’ leases—its 1 
anti-rentism—its mobs and its murders of sheriffs and | 
constables (laughter)—is brought to bear upon me, I i 
surrender at discretion!! (Renewed laughter.) 

Mr. RANNBY. I had hoped that at least we would 
consider something here, without having up the eter- j 
nal subject in relation to the purity of past Legisla- j 
tures—whether it is democratic or anti-democratic. I j 
have lived long enough in the world to have opinions j 
of my own, which I shall conform to regardless of die- j 
tation from any quarter. j 

The gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Archbold] under- ! 
rates the importance of these Directors of the Beaiten- 
tiary, and makes a great complaint about the election i 
of these officers by the people. I did not hear the 
gentleman make any complaints when we proposed to i 
elect a Secretary of State and other officers in this j 
mode—and is not the selection of Directors of the 
Penitentiary as important as that of Secretary of State, j 
a mere ministerial officer? If the gentleman’s logic i 
will apply to one case, why will it not to the other? j 
Why should he object to the election by the people, of 
officers having in their hands, in some measure, the 
destiny, the happiness and safety of 500 human beings, 
soon to be increased to the number of a thousand, 
when the State shall have increased its population? 
These Directors, too, have the appointment of a large i 
number of individuals, to responsible and ardous trusts 
connected with such an extensive establishment.— 
How much power the Directors shall have hereafter, 
is matter for legislation. There are committed to them 
now, some of the most important trusts in this State. 
The most important of them all, is, to so deal with the 
unfortunate beings committed to their charge, as will 
best subserve the object of all punishment, the pre¬ 
vention of crime hereafter, and the reformation of the 
offenders. On account of the importance of these of¬ 
ficers, and especially considering the large patronage 
that is committed to them, and controlling so large pe¬ 
cuniary interests extending all over the State, it is de¬ 
sirable that their selection should be placed in the 
hands of the people. I believe that there are no more 
important offices to be filled in the State, than those ; 
connected with the Penitentiary, when we consider 
that the exercise of their official functions extends all 
over the State, affecting all its inhabitants, more or less, 
directly or indirectly, and especially those engaged in 
mechanical labor—when we consider, too, the vast , 
amount of patronage which they have to bestow, and 
the large pecuniary interests which they have under 
thcr control, without saying aiiything upon the ques¬ 
tion of democracy or anti-democracy, which have 
been very inappropriately dragged into the debate— I 
I regard the appointment of these officers, as one of 
the most important in the State. In respect to the 
great institution—the Penitentiary—by which the pen- i 
al law is made effectual, and where the reformation * 
and improvement of its inmates is so dependent upon 
the character of its officers, I do really hope, that the 
tocsin of party legislation and tyranny will not be 
blown over us any more. The important duties which 
are committed to them, affecting as they do all the peo¬ 
ple of the State, in my humble ju^dment, render the 
people best qualified for the selection of these officers. 
Let me say here, that if you commit this duty of the 
•selection of those officers to the General Assembly, or 
the Governor, you leave it more than ordinarily open to 
those influences that ever attend the appointing power. 
Around the Warden, there are a large number of men 
occupying place—a numerous army, who are capable 
of exerting a great influence. The appointing power, is 
therefore, with the very best intentions, liable to be 
misled, through the appliances which may be brought 
to bear through the influence of such an army of men; 
and for these reasons I am for ])lacing the selection of 













CONVENTION llEPOKTS. 


493 


,hese officers in the hands of the people and beyond 
the reach of these influences, and shall vote against 
jtrikiiig out as now amended. I was at the outset wil¬ 
ing to leave it to the Legislature, but as the section has 
been so amended as to meet my views, I am in favor of 
retaining it, as a part of the constitution. 

Mr. KOBERTSON. I regret exceedingly that the 
o;entleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] has said any¬ 
thing about the Legislature, for I fear that his remarks 
on that subject have had the eflect of depriving the 
friends of the section, as amended, of the support of 
the gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Archbold,] who, I 
believe, was in favor of my amendment. It is now 
moved to strike out the whole section, as amended. I 
hope the motion will not prevail, for I consider the elec¬ 
tion of directors of the Penitentiary by the people as 
very important. The citizens—especially the mechan¬ 
ics—of the State feel a great interest in all matters con¬ 
nected with the government and affairs of the Peniten¬ 
tiary. The gentleman from Auglaize feels reluctant 
to impose upon the people the burthen of electing so 
many State officers. Let me tell the gentlemen that 
the people are always ready to receive such burthens ; 
and it will require no increased labor to elect these 
three directors, in addition to the other officers to be 
elected. 

The people would like to be entrusted with the elec¬ 
tion of more public officers than at present. They 
would like to elect theirPostMasters, whom they now 
I often nominate by a popular vote of that portion of the 
administration party interested. The patronage of th\ 
Penitentiary is controlled entirely by the directors, ancN 
this patronage is very great. That is one reason why 
the people ought to elect these officers. I am not wil¬ 
ling to confide the control of all this patronage in thef 
hands of the executive of the State. It is better to lef 
the people elect officers directly, and exclusively charg¬ 
ed in the administering the affairs of this institution. 
Every year the importance of committing this power 
to the people will increase, because every year the 
population will increase—the business of the Peniten¬ 
tiary will increase, and consequently the political im¬ 
portance of its patronage. Why, sir, we have lately 
had quite an excitement occasioned by the removal of 
the physician of the Penitentiary by the directors, 
for political reasons only. These directors were ap¬ 
pointed by the Legislature, and it is proposed by this 
report to give that power to the Governor. It may 
not be right that there should be any party influence in 
the administration of the affairs of the Penitentiary, 
but whether the physicians and other officers of that 
institution are to be influenced by party considerations 
nor not, let the citizens of the State determine by a di- 
j rect vote. 

Mr. HUNT moved to amend m the third line, section 
second, by striking out the|words “legislative enact¬ 
ment” and insert the word-“ law,” which was agreed 
to. -vV 

Mr. MITCHELL. I have a word to say about en- 
i trusting the people with the election of these officers. 

I have not that fear about this matter which some gen- 
^ tlemen seem to have. I regard it as one of the great¬ 
est objects to be accomplished in all governments, and 
’ especially to be adopted in a republican government, 
to fit the people for the duties they have to discharge. 
The most important duty to be discharged in any re¬ 
publican government is the selection of appropriate 
• and well qualified officers. Now, sir, in order to enable 
j the people faithfully and intelligently to discharge that 
( duty is a most important requisite—that they should 
be extensively acquainted with their fellow-men, and 
the diversities of their character and disposition. The 
choice and selection of numerous officers are only ad¬ 
ditional inducements for them to pursue the study of 
human character, and tomake themselves adepts in the 
knowledge of their fellow-men. Now as to the ap¬ 
pointment of the these officers by the Legislature and 
by the Governor, I am opposed to both. I am not in 


favor of allowing to these officers, or to the Governor, 
any such patronage. My doctrine is this: That the 
people shall select all the important officers. My plan 
would be to give to the people of any particular local¬ 
ity, or district, who are to be benefited or injured by 
the faithful or unfaithful discharge of duty, the selec¬ 
tion of all their officers. This would give to the State 
at large the selection of all general officers and all 
heads of departments. Making the latter responsible 
for the faithful discharge of all the duties committed to 
them. They should, therefore, be invested with the 
power of selecting their assistants, all the the subordi 
nates should be chosen by the heads of the depart¬ 
ments. But, by no means would I give to the Gover 
nor or Legislature either patronage or suffrage other 
than as above indicated. 

Mr. KING of Butler said that he could not see that 
there is any public interest to subserve by filling the 
offices in question by popular election. Part of the 
responsibility of the management of these institutions 
falls upon the General Assembly, and he did not see 
why that body should not have an agency of some kind 
in selecting their managers. Our public institutions 
are well said to be the glory of the State, and require 
in those who are to fill the duties of conducting them, 
peculiar qualifications, of which the people are not al¬ 
ways the best judges. He desired to give to one 
branch of the General Assembly an instrumentality in 
the matter. He preferred that the Senate should par¬ 
ticipate in the appointment, as he thought the people 
would have more confidence in such appointment than 
if it were made by the Governor alone. He believed 
that, in regard to the election of Directors of the Peni¬ 
tentiary, it would be well enough to have them elected 
by the people. 

Mr. HOLT moved to amend the amendment by stri¬ 
king out the words, “ by the General Assembly on joint 
ballotwhich was lost. 

The question then being on the amendment, the same 
was disagreed to. 

The question then turned upon the motion to strike 
out the section; which was lost. 

Mr. BENNETT moved to amend the first section, 
by striking out its commencement, to the w’ord “sen¬ 
ses,” inclusive, and insert the following—“institutions 
for the benefit of the insane, the deaf and dumb, and 
the blind.” He did not suppose that the committee 
intended to convey the idea that asylums might be 
provided for persons who had lost the sense of smel¬ 
ling, taste, &c.; though the terms employed w'ould seem 
to convey the idea. He thought the amendment made 
that definite which otherwise was not so, and stif 
leaves the section to include all the committee designed 
to imply. 

Mr. HAWKINS was disposed to preserve the section 
as it is. Pie did not see the necessity for the amend¬ 
ment. 

Mr. KING moved to insert the word “white ” in the 
first section. 

Mr. STRUBLE inquired if the gentleman intended 
to exclude negroes and mulattoes from the benefit ol 
the penitentiary. 

A Voice. That would be too bad. 

Mr. LARSH. It seemed to him that the section was 
already sufficiently definite. These institutions were 
to be regulated by law; open to all classes, but subject 
to legal restrictions. If it should be thought advisable 
to erect separate institutions for the black people, he 
had no objection, and supposed that would be the 
course pursued. 

Mr. TAVLOR said: The last line of the section was 
not very satisfactory to his mind. He saw no proprie¬ 
ty in the words “ so as to be open to all classes alike, 
subject only to reasonable restrictions.” Was it possi¬ 
ble that ‘’entlemen were unwilling to trust this matte J 
to the Legislature ? It seemed to him that these words 
were unnecessary. 

Mr. KING. If the gentleman would look at the 

















494 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


terms of llie first line of tlie section, lie would find that 
colored people were included; that these institutions 
were for the benefit of the inhabitants of the State, and 
as such, of course the negroes must be included; they 
could not be excluded, therefore he had moved to ex¬ 
clude them. AT Tr , 1 

The question was now taken upon Mr. King s amend¬ 
ment and it was rejected—affirmative 25, negative 42. 

Ml'. MANON proposed to amend by striking out the 
w'ord “ inhabitants” from the first line, and inserting 
the word “citizen,” which he subsequently withdrew. 

Mr. HOLT. In order to reach more definitely the 
idea suggested by the gentleman from Preble, [Mr. 
Larsh,] he proposed to amend the section by striking 
out from the fourth line the word “reasonable,” and 
inserting in lieu thereof the word “ such,” and adding 
at the end of the section the’following words: “as shall 
be imposed by the General Assembly.]’ 

The CHAIRM-^N said: The question must first be 
taken upon the amendment of the gentleman from 
Tuscarawas. 

Mr. Bennett’s amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. HOLT now offered his amendment, as above, 
and said; With the gentleman from Preble [Mr. 
Larsh,] he would exercise the offices of humanity, to¬ 
wards all classes of people; and if the time should 
come when it should be proper that separate depart¬ 
ments in these institutions should be erected for the 
accommodation ot’ the unfortuu'ate of our colored popu¬ 
lation, he would not deny the Legislature the power 
to provide for them. There was a clear distinction 
between the exercise of those offices whicli we owe 
to humanity, universally, and the conferment of equal 
political and social privileges upon all classes. To the 
latter idea, he felt totally opposed; but the offices of 
■humanity, he was willing to exercise toward all. 

Mr. LOUDON. Since the action of the Kentucky 
Convention, which had just finished their labors upon 
the subject of slavery, it might, perhaps, be the part 
of prudence, for us to take the necessary precautions, 
■either to shield ourselves from the effects of their ac¬ 
tion, or to provide for the reception of some hundred 
thousand blacks, who ai'e soon to be distributed over 
this northwestern territory, by the operation of the 
aiew constitution in Kentucky—requiring all the eman¬ 
cipated blacks to leave that State in a given time. It 
might be well for us, now to have the forecast to make 
3 ome provision for their reception upon our shores—for 
we shall be sure tohave our full share of this population— 
being generally such slaves as may have been worn down 
by their masters, and emancipated in order to get them 
■out of the way. We should, perhaps, make timely 
preparation for the reception of these unfortunates, es¬ 
pecially if it be desirable to invite them to our care 
and pi’otection. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. Gentlemen ought to 
look at the amendment and consider the very appro¬ 
priate remarks of the gentleman from Montgomery 
[Mr. Holt.] As the section now stands these institu¬ 
tions are t-^ be opened to all classes alike, subject only 
to reasonable I'estrictions of la w. If amended it will 
read, “ subject only to such restrictions as may be im¬ 
posed by the General Assembly ”—leaving the Gener¬ 
al Assembly to impose such restrictions as they may 
think pi’oper, instead of restricting them to what may 
be considered reasonable. Now what objection was 
there to the amendment? Did not gentlemen suppose 
that the Legislature would be sure to make the restric¬ 
tions which had been referred to ? Or, w^ere they 
afraid that so much power and discretion should be ex¬ 
pressly delegated to the General A^ssembly? Certainly 
the committee had nothing to do with “white” or 
“black,” or the Kentucky constitution. 

Mr, V ANC E of Champaign [doubtfully heard. ] The 
Legislature could certainly put in this provision with¬ 
out a constitutional provision. He would like to un¬ 
derstand the necessity of putting all this in the consti¬ 
tution. The great difficulty was that we were putting j 


too much into the constitution. We shall have a book as 
large as a Scotch family bible if we go on at this rate. i 
He was willing to be restricted to some reasonable j 
boundaries in tliis respect, and so it was with the com-1 
mittee of which he was a member. | 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. He could assure the | 
gentleman from Champaign that he was perfectly sat- 1 , 
isfied with the report as it was originally presented. !* 
But since it had been amended it seemed to him now , 
that it was better to adopt the change proposed. He | 
had not been so well satisfied with some of the chang- i 
es which had been made ; but let that pass. It would j 
seem from the manner in which the amendment of the I 
gentleman from Montgomery had been received, that ( 
it had something to do with “niggers;” but for his 
part he could not smell out anything of the sort, in the 
proposition. His olfactory nerves were not so sensi¬ 
tive as those of some gentlemen who seemed to find 
the smell of a nigger in every proposition. 

Mr. ROBERTSON said he hoped the gentleman from 
Brown [Mr. Loudon] would consent to go for the 
amendment. He knew that the principle of the amend¬ 
ment was in accordance with the views of that gentle¬ 
man, and for himself he would go for it very cheerful- 

ly- 

Mr. Holt’s amendment was now adopted. ‘ 

Mr. KIRKWOOD desired to inquire of the chairman 
of the committee, what was the object of this phrase 
in the third and fourth lines of the section—“ so as to 
be open to all classes.” 

Mr. VANCE of Champaign. So as to be open to the 
rich and poor. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. He did not know that our laws 
recognized any such clasificatiou of citizens. But was 
it not intended to be an express provision to open the 
doors of these institutions to the blacks ? 

Mr. VANCE. No, sir; there was no such intention. 
Mr. KIRKWOOD. Very well. He was just inform¬ 
ed that there was an existing law, in which a distinc¬ 
tion is made between the rich and poor, who may be 
admitted into these institutions. 

Mr. LARSH explained, and said; the present form 
of the section had not ofiended his olfactoi-ies. 

Mr. REEMELIN now moved the following as an 
additional section, which, he considered, might as well 
come in here as in any other place; 

“ Each convict hereafter confined in the Penitentiary, shall be 
entitled to the benefit of the nett proceeds of his or her labor, 
while 30 confined, and the General Assembly shall, by law, pro¬ 
vide tor the payment of the same in money, to each convict, or 
to his lamily, in such manner as may be deemed proper in the 
premis es.” 

Mr. R. said; these nett proceeds of labor would be i 
ascertained, of course, after deducting the expenses of 
keeping, and the cost of conviction. Every Legislature 
would of course construe this in such manner as they 
might think proper. He had observed that our con¬ 
victs in the Penitentiary, after the expiration of their 
term, were turned out with perhaps five, or at most, 
ten dollars in their pockets; and, as a consequence, 
they were compelled to go back to their original home 
with all the disgrace of a convict upon them ; and the 
result was, that they were generally I'eturned again 
to the Penitentiary. His object was, not only to pro¬ 
vide an incentive to labor, but to establish a rule of 
action for the State, founded upon the principle of 
justice. Would gentlemen think for a moment of the 
feeling which takes hold of the criminal in our Pen¬ 
itentiary—(he had been familiar with the experience 
of criminals)—to be required to labor day after day, 
and year after year, and have all the proceeds of his 
labors taken away from him! He says; “the State 
has no more right to take away the proceeds of my la¬ 
bor, than 1 have to steal the money or the horse of an¬ 
other man.” He considered that such a provision of 
law as he had indicated, would have a very salutary 
effect upon the convict; and that the Penitentiary would 
not be as great a draw-back upon the hopes and expec¬ 
tations of the poor fellow, if he were made to feel 


I 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


495 


that ho might be all the time making something lor 
himself; and all the objections to convict labor, and its 
degrading effects upon the honest mechanics of the 
country, would be thereby removed. 

He mentioned the case of a particular convict known 
to him, who was now confined in the penitentiary 
for four years; he believed him to be a man of good 
intentions; and if the proceeds of his labor were given 
to him, it might enable him to go back to the country 
of his birth, and commence his life anew, where the crime 
and his disgrace in this country might not be known. 
Whereas, if he were compelled to go abroad in this 
State, it would be impossible for him to rise again to 
the standing which he had before he was confined in 
the penitentiary. 

Mr. WOODBURY said he hoped the amendment 
would prevail, for one reason which struck him with 
much force, and which had not yet been mentioned; 
there was many a man of small means confined in the 
penitentiary, whose family were left destitute, and if 
he were entitled to the proceeds of his labor, as the 
amendment proposed, many families might be saved 
from the sufferings of penury and want. 

Mr. HA.\VKINS said his present impressions rather 
inclined him to favor the amendment. But while he 
contemplated this punishment of crime in the Peniten¬ 
tiary, he could not but refer to that class of men in the 
community who are licensed by the authority of the 
Slate to furnish to those unfortunates in our [)risons the 
exciting causes of crime, but who still go 
“ Unwhipt of justice.” 

He would prefer that this punishment should be divi¬ 
ded between the guilty and those who furnish the ex¬ 
citements to criminality. If we could reach this class, 
and inflict upon them a portion of the punishment in¬ 
flicted upon the criminal, he should be glad to do so. 
It was an appropriate remark by some writer whose 
name he had forgotten, that society had erected a prison 
at the end of the road of the unfortunate beings, with¬ 
out raising a sign-board to warn the traveler of his dan¬ 
ger before he reaches the goal. The law licensed men 
to engage in a certain business in this community, to 
which may be attributed a very large portion of the 
crime committed in the State of Ohio. 

Mr. SAWYER, (in his seat.) Did the gentleman 
want to get at the root of the evil? 
i Mr. HAWKINS. He was only alluding to the just 
tice of legal penalties against rum-sellings. Ho hoped 
the gentleman from Auglaize did not take his remarks 
as personal. 

; Mr. SAWYER, (rising amidst considerable merri- 
|i meut.) Certainly not. He understood the gentleman 
(; to refer to the sale of grog, or the making of it, as the 
!' root, or the commencement of the evil—(and he be- 
j lieved it was a very great evil)—of intemperance. He 
I did not want to see the gentleman begin only half-way 
I back ; he wanted to see him go about to convert the 
j devil himself. 

I Mr. HAWKINS. If it was proposed to punish the 
! old fellow according to law, he hoped the gentleman 

i would introduce his own amendment. He was in 
earnest about what he said when he declared himself 
in favor of this amendment. He would not, if he could 
avoid It, allow the innocent to suffer any portion of the 
penalty of the guilty. He would devise some means, 
if he could, for the benefit of the convict’s wife and 
! children, from the penalty consequent upon his crime. 

' He would desire, also, to look a little into the causes of 
i crime, or, at least, to place a guide-board by the way, 
which might warn the traveler as he approached the 
danger. He would pay some attention to that class of 
the community who stand as the direct prompters to 
the commission of crime. But this amendment would 
lighten the punishment of the criminal, according to 
the amount of the wages which he might receive.— 
For whose benefit should this wages of the convict be 
applied? Was it not due to his unfortunate family? 
Or should the innocent undergo a share of the punish¬ 


ment for the crime of the guilty? He hoped before 
the business of this Convention close, to find even his 
friend from Auglaize willing to put into the constitution 
a provisson which shall authorize the Legislature to 
relieve the community, now suffering from the effects 
of the licensed sale of ardent spirits, by inflicting a 
penalty upon the business. 

Mr. SAWYER (in his seat.) He had no objec¬ 
tion. 

Mr. HAWKINS. He was glad to hear it. He be¬ 
lieved it was the duty of every just government, to 
provide some means of redress against the evils result¬ 
ing from the sale of ardent spirits; and at the proper 
time, if no other gentleman would, he intended himself 
to introduce a proposition which should go back to 
this cause of crime—which should show the connec¬ 
tion and relation subsisting between crime and the 
cause of crime, and demonstrate to this Convention the 
justice of a constitutional provision, which should ex¬ 
tinguish, thus far, the means by which such terri¬ 
ble devastations have been committed in the State of 
Ohio. 

Mr. LARSH desired to propose an amendment to the 
amendment, by adding these words, “ provided the 
cost of conviction shall be first deducted from the pro¬ 
ceeds of the labor of such convicts.” 

Mr. MITCHELL suggested that to complete the 
thing, it would be necessary to include the costs for 
transportation. 

Mr. LARSH accepted the modification. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I am in favor of the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Rekme- 
LiN,] but I am afraid that it will not receive a fair con¬ 
sideration at this time. The temper and character of 
this Convention is such, that no such proposition,however 
salutaiy or reasonable, can receive either its attention 
or support. But I shall not, on that account, shrink 
from the support of the proposed amendment, which 
embodies the Christian declaration, that criminals are 
not cast beyond the pale of humanity; but, that as 
they are human beings, we owe them sympathy, not¬ 
withstanding their crimes. 

I like the proposed amendment, because it recogni¬ 
zes the principle that confinement in the penitentiary 
is designed for the reformation of the convict, as well 
as for the protection of society; and it forbids the ab¬ 
horrent assumption that such imprisonment is designed 
to satisfy the vengeance of the law. The spirit of the 
age repudiates the presumption that the purpose of 
penal laws is to inflict revenge upon the poor wretches 
incarcerated within the walls of the penitentiary. Pe¬ 
nal la .vs should never be vengeful, but reformatory 
of the criminal, as well as vindicatory of the rights of 
the community 

The treatment of criminals with humanily, is one of 
the sublimest triumphs of Christianity. It is not long 
since this wretched class of beings were treated with 
the most unyielding severity. But that distinguished 
and indefatigable philanthropist, Howard, devoted his 
valuable life-time to the amelioration of their condition, 
and by his exertions accomplished great reforms in the 
discipline of prisons throughout Europe. This benev¬ 
olent reformer won fame and immortality by devoting 
all his energies and fortune, ti-aveling over Europe, 
visiting filthy prison houses, to improve the condition of 
convicts and outcasts. Many benevolent citizens have 
labored in the same field ot humanity in this country, 
especially in New England, and their labors receive 
general approbatiou. In the South and West, Miss 
Dix, who lately visited our State, has done much to¬ 
wards creating a correct public opinion on thissubiect. 

I believe Mr. Chairman, that great reforms are de¬ 
manded in the discipline of prisons, and the treatment 
of convicts—reforms which will, at the same time, pio- 
tect the community and tend to the reformation of crim¬ 
inals. My late official duties enabled me to become 
intimately acquainted with the character and moral 
defec ts of this unfortunate class. I could not help feel 
























496 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


iii^ for them a deep sympathy, or avoid treating them 
■with kindness, wretches and outcasts as they are. They 
violate the law and ought to be held accountable. Yet 
is it not true that they are often more sinned against by 
society than sinning? They arc generally either bad¬ 
ly educated or not educated at all; and when cast upon 
the community without morals, without good habits, 
without instruction, without friends, are not qualified 
to become useful or industrious citizens. Thus they 
are easily tempted, and by circumstances often driven 
to the commission of crimes for which they atone with¬ 
in the walls of a penitentiary ; and, perhaps, after serv¬ 
ing a term of years, they are again cast upon the com¬ 
munity unreformed, to resume their career of iniquity. 
Would it not be better for society if these unfortunate 
beings were made to comprehend, upon their first en¬ 
trance in the penitentiary, the causes which brough., 
them there, the necessity of reform, and that even in 
the prison-house they could enjoy the means cf refor¬ 
mation—that even there they could, by industry accu¬ 
mulate a sufficiency to commence, on their release, a 
better course of life. Prison discipline like this would 
reform all that could be reformed, and no doubt cor¬ 
rect many, who would otherwise be lost men, into use¬ 
ful members of society. At present there are very 
few instances of reibrmation among those who have 
served a term in the Penitentiary. Our prison sys¬ 
tem has a contrary tendency, and it is this defect 
which calls for immediate reform. Young men com¬ 
mitted to the Penitentiary become, under the pres¬ 
ent system of discipline hopeless and desperate.— 

I recollect very well the case of a young man of 
twenty years of age, whom I arrested for mail robbe¬ 
ry, while marshal. After he was convicted, I endeav¬ 
ored to impress upon his mind, a resolution to reform, 
and said to him, that after his term of imprison.ment, 
(he was committed for seven years,) he would still be 
a young man, and might re-commence life anew, re¬ 
solved to be honest, and thereby re-establish himself 
in society. But the young convict, replied that this 
was impossible—that there was no chance for his re 
formation—that he would leave the prison without mo¬ 
ney—without character—and without Iru-mls; and 
wherever he might go, shame and dishonor would fol¬ 
low him ; that he would be hunted down; and, being 
without hope, friendless and desperate, he would be 
compelled in self defence, to continue during the re¬ 
mainder of his life, in a career of crime and wretched¬ 
ness. It is our duty to take such young mien by the 
hand, and lead them on, even within the walls of the 
penitentiary, in the path of hope and reformation.— 
W'ith old criminals, there is but little prospect of im¬ 
provement; but even that class should be treated with 
humanity 

Mr. MANON. He should vote lor the proposition of 
the gentleman from Hamilton, and against the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Preble. He was in favor 
of leaving the matter of appropriating the proceeds of 
convict labor entirely with the Legislature. 

Mr. RANNEY. He wished to say that his colleague, 
[Mr. Pkrkins,] wffio was now absent, had introduced 
a proposition embracing the principle of this amend¬ 
ment; and he regretted that his colleague was not 
present, inasmuch as it was known that he took a deep 
interest in this question ; and in behalf of his colleague, 
he expressed his views. 

While he was up, he desired to say, that he also, 
most heartily concurred in the amendment. If you 
want to compel the people to be just; and if you mean 
that the men of the State shall regard the right of prop¬ 
erty in others, you must begin by setting that noble ex¬ 
ample on the part of the State itself, by giving to 
these men in your prisons the just proceeds of their la- 
b(.r. 

The gentleman from Fairfield [Mr. Robertson] had 
expressed his fea’s that the amendment would not pre¬ 
vail; but he did not see why it should not. He sup¬ 
posed that the gentleman calculated on the opposi¬ 


tion of the prejudices which still held the public mind 
upon this subject. Punishment was iormerly predica¬ 
ted on the idea of revenge—an idea which still clings 
to us—although we pretend not to go upon that princi¬ 
ple, still in point of tact we do. And now it was noth¬ 
ing but the sheerest justice that we should adopt this 
principle of the amendment into the constitution. The 
convict should i>ay the cost of his keeping, and all the 
expenses attendant upon his conviction, and when he 
had paid that, what right had the Stale to go fur¬ 
ther and take from him the proceeds of his labor? 
What would the State give him in return? Nothing! 

He placed this arrangement upon the principle of jus¬ 
tice : but how much stronger would it be, if placed upon 
liberal and charitable principles? Those who had any 
experience in the court.s—especially the lawyers in the 
committee—knew that we did not look upon every of¬ 
fender against the law, as a “sinner above all others:” 
for example, a man, by inadvertauce, might pass a 
counterfeit note; and so be thrown into prison upon a j 
mere technicality ; and so also, a man might be put in- i 
to prison on account of his evil associations with be¬ 
ings regarding neither truth nor character: yet, such i 
an individual might retain within him, a disposition as 
generous, and a heart as noble, as beats in the bosom ; 
of any man on earth. Still, however, to such an indi- | 
vidual, the same disgrace attaches as you mete out to 
the most abandoned of the race of men. But when- j 
ever the great end of punishment was considered—the 
reformation of the ofi'ender—how did it not become a 
great state to look to that, instead of striking out all 
hopeof reformation. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, interrupting. Did the gentleman 
pronounce reformation in a criminal to be the great end ; 
of punishment in human tribunals? 

Mr. RANNEY. He did. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. He would ask the gentleman ! 
again, was not the prevention of crime another great j 
end of punishment? 

Mr. RANNEY. He had not said that reformation 
was the only end of punishment. He had said that it a 
was one of the great ends of punishment. He had re¬ 
ferred to the spirit of the law as it stood more than 
tliree hundred years ago. The prevention of crime 
was certainly another great object of punishment; and 
so, also, was the prevention of the community from 
farther depredations. What he objected to in this mat¬ 
ter, was, that the law extinguished hope in the con- , 
vict, and consigned him to irretrievable ignominy— 
for while hope of reformation remained, did it become 
the authority of a great State to blot out that hope? 
Therefore, he had always thought there should be a 
discrimination made in punishment. He was perfect¬ 
ly safe in affirming that the result of our penitentiary 
system was to turn out upon society a more irreclaim¬ 
able set of men than it takes in. Now it was said that 
“ charity covereth a multitude of sins,” but here, in 
this Convention, it hardly covered a man born outside ■ 
of the State, for it was but this morning that an amend¬ 
ment was offered, to the effect that a man from beyond 
the great waters, should not be entitled to the benefits 
of our benevolent institutions. As though a man “ had ^ 
no business to be born anywhere else but in Connec¬ 
ticut.” He considered that our chaiity ought to be ' 
broad enough to cover all climates and all classes of ; 
men. 

But to return, it frequently happened that the head 
of a family was consigned to the Penitentiary. Perhaps 
in a fit of intoxication, from yielding suddenly to the 
impulses of a noble heart, such a man might be led to 
the commission of a crime, which he would not have 
done, had it not been that he was under such influen¬ 
ces. But now you take the man from his family—he 
might have been a bad father, or a bad husband, but 
still he was a husband and a father, and there were 
those who looked up to him for daily bread—you 
consign him to the Penitentiary for such a technical 
offence, and you take from him all the proceeds of hie 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


497 


Ijegg 


ared, 

again, 


and 

did 


labor, while his wife and children are 
pining and starving from want. He asked 
this become a great State? You might erect buildings 
by this labor—you may rear your State house, and 
make it the admiration of every beholder, far outstrip- 
piut^ everything around it in the magnificence of its 
architecture; but, still, no man will ever look upon it 
without rellecting and saying, that this building was 
erected out of the proceeds of the labor of men with¬ 
held from their wives and families. No, sir, (he con¬ 
tinued,) that stupendous capitol will be a standing 
monument of infamy, until this wrong shall be correct¬ 
ed. I do not know that this proposition will receive a 
ein't^le vote, except the votes of those who have decla¬ 
red^ themselves in favor of it; but no matter, if no 
vote but mine were cast for it, I would record it, 
and tmst to posterity to decide whether I am right or 
wrono-. I know what it may be said of the supporters 
of this proposition, that they are the friends of rascals; 
but I remember—and I may be permitted to say—that 
it was spoken as a reproach against the greatest of all 
philanthropists, that he was “a friend of publicans and 
sinners.” What man would refuse to vote such a trib¬ 
ute of justice, that it should go into the constitutition 
ttself, that however poor, degraded, and down-trodden 
the citizen may be, there shall remain this one gieat 
rule of justice, that, to the laborer belongs the proceeds 
of his labor; and this great State shall secure it to him. 

Mr. MITC HELL rose here to a point of order, which, 
he subsequently waived, and— 

Mr. RANNNEY proceeded. He knew a man ot good 
character who stood as high as any man in the commu- 
who was compelled to serve two years in the 


nity. 


innocent of the crime for 


penitentiary, and was just as 

which he was confined as any man m the county. He 
was convicted for having in his possession, as was sup¬ 
posed, the tools and implements for making counter¬ 
feit money; it turned out that these tools, which preju¬ 
dice and faction had supposed were for counterleiting, 
were nothing but tools for constructing a lock, lor the 
invention of which he was endeavoring to get a patent 
right. At the end of the two years the Governor turn¬ 
ed him out, and possibly the laws of the penitentiary 
allowed him two dollars in his pocKet for his expenses 
home, inducing perhaps the moral necessity ot stealing, 
the very first night after he had got rid of the grappling 
irons of the law. 

Mr. MANON said: The gentleman from Trumbull 
was mistaken in the allusion made to his remarks. It 
was a general rule that a Dutchman might be a lowed 
to speak twice, and that an Irishman might be allowed 
to speak till he could be understood. He [Mr. M.J 
did not mean to be understood to say that because a 
man was born in a particular place, he should, there¬ 
fore, be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the 
rights and privileges ot a freeman. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga said: He did not 
know* that a single individual would agree with him 
upon this subject; for, as far as we had heard every 
crentleman seemed to be perfectly satished with this 
proposition. But he was not satisfied with it. He was 
not convinced, even by the eloquence of his friend froni 
Trumbull [Mr. Ranney,) that the perpetrators of 
crime are the most noble souled class of men in com¬ 
munity. It seemed to his mind, that this was an im¬ 
portant subject; and one about which we ought to 
hesitate a little at least, before we adopt this amend¬ 
ment ; for it was a proposition to turn your penitentiary 
into one of your benevolent institutions, where the in¬ 
mates are to be employed and paid for their labor at 
the public expense. The community, (he conUnued,) 
are to be taxed for the purpose of paying these inmates 
of the penitentiary for their labor while there. It may 
be right and proper, that those persons who are con¬ 
fined in the penitentiary, should receive a reward for 
their labor in this way; but it seems to me, it would 
be better to leave them alone, and let them go abroad 

32 


and perform labor for whoever may choose to employ 
them. 

And again: if we turn over those penitentiary con¬ 
victs to our benevolent institutions, we ought, by all 
means, to see to it, that a certain portion of the race 
shall receive more of the offices of humanity there. 
The “ white ” should certainly be put in. 

But now there are two modes of punishment by the 
penitentiary: by confinement, and by employment: 
by solitary confinement, and by confinement and labor: 
and there has been some controversy as to which is the 
best mode. In Pennsylvania they have adopted the 
method of solitary confinement—whicli I believe is 
best, only it is the most expensive. It is found to be 
bad economy. In this State we have confinement and 
labor—believing that is more beneficial for the prison¬ 
ers—a punishment less severe than solitary confine¬ 
ment. It will be observed, however, that it is made 
the duty of the courts before whom an individual is 
convicted, to determine whether he shall sufier solitary 
confinement or not. And now suppose we adopt this 
amendment, and make it a constitutional point; and 
then the courts should propose solitary confinement, 
(which I think ought to be done in many cases,) what 
would go with the labor of such convicts? If you car¬ 
ry out the principle, you must have no solitary confine¬ 
ment ; but every person confined in the penitentiary 
must be put to labor, and his labor must be paid for by 
the State. But this does not seem right to me. 

I had thought that when a person is committed to 
prison, it should be for punishment; and that it was 
not in the nature of a bounty for crime, bid up to the 
individual, in order that he might be induced to labor 
for us for compensation. The amendment did propose, 
in fact, to bid up a reward for crime; for if the indi¬ 
vidual be committed to the penitentiary, the penalty 
is, that he shall receive compensation from the State 
for labor performed. If gentlemen are prepared for 
this, it might be better, I think, just for the State to 
employ and pay regularly, five or six hundred sub¬ 
stantial laborers, and let the vagabond take cax’e of 
themselves. 

Mr. ROBERTSON (interrupting) said : The amend¬ 
ment did not propose the thing upon which the whole 
argument of the gentleman from Geauga was based. It 
proposed, that, when all the expe ises shall have been 
paid, the nett profits shall go to the credit of the con¬ 
vict—the charges for boarding and every thing else. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK resuming. That may be the ef¬ 
fect of the amendment; and I do not know but it is 
right and proper, that whenever a man is confined in 
the Penitentiaiy, an account should be opened with 
him by some officer of the State—and that he should 
be charged with boarding, and every rag of clothes 
he wears; and, if they allow him any spending money, 
to charge him with that, and when his time was up, to 
strike a balance, and whatever may be due to him, on 
account of labor, allow and pay it. 

Why, Mr. Chairman, we do not want the labor of 
these men. It is for the benefit of the prisoners them¬ 
selves that this is imposed upon them. I do think 
it would be imposing a very great burden upon the 
State, to compel us to employ men of this class, in or¬ 
der to carry out the principle, that the laborer shall 
have his hire. 

I may be alone in this, for no other person has yet 
raised his voice against it. And my judgment, in the 
case, may be owing to mv preconceived opinions, for 
I had supposed that the law of punishment was pen¬ 
alty for the offense. This has been my opinion—but, 
if in punishment, you can effect a reformation, it is 
certainly desirable to do so. I know that those are 
here, who, having been confined in the Penitentiary, 
have afterwards become industrious and reputable. 

But, one thing is certain; if this amendment is to be 
adopted, our criminal laws will all have to be revised 
as soon as possible; and the less the number of con¬ 
victs we have, the better it will be for the State.. In- 














498 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


deed, I think you had better not confine your criminals 
at all, but let them go at large. 

Mr. CASE of Licking said he could not say he was 
in favor of the amendment of the gentleman fiom 
Hamilton. It seems to be based upon the presumption 
that the State is making a profit—a speculation out of 
the services of the convicts •, and that in the place of 
putting these amounts into the treasury, they are to be 
paid over to the convict. He had yet to learn that 
there is a profit accruing to the State. Taking into 
consideration the cost of the penitentiary, the expen¬ 
ses incident to the prosecution, transportation, keeping, 
guarding, feeding and clothing the convict, he be- 
leived that if an account were stated between the State 
of Ohio and the convict, the State wmold be found the 
loser by the transaction. On the contrary, there is no 
evidence that there is or ever was either profit or pros¬ 
pect of profit, and even if there should be, he is op¬ 
posed to the amendment. Punishment of criminals 
consists in the necessary confinment, loss of time and 
the process of labor to the criminal, and the inevitable 
disgrace. These all attach to single men. To the mar¬ 
ried, there is the additional feature of loss of service to 
the family of the convict. By the amendment, it is 
asked to take these away. He could not subscribe to 
it. He was in favor, instead of mitigating the penalties 
of punishment, of increasing them. The strongest mo¬ 
tive to deter the head of a family from the commission 
of a crime would be theinjury entailed upon that family 
by his confinement and punishment, involving, as it 
does, the loss of his ability to provide for them. 

The cases put by the gentleman from Trumbull are 
extreme cases. They were undoubtedly meritorious 
ones, and deserved such reparation as the General As¬ 
sembly could make. But they furnish no reason for a 
constitutional provision, such as zs proposed. He 
hoped that a proposition so novel, so quixotic, so tran¬ 
scendental, would find no place in the constitution we 
are about to construct; but that if any such thing be- 
cauze necessary, it would be left to the wisdom of the 
Legislatui'e. 

Mr. MITCHELL desired to say a few words in re¬ 
ply to the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] 
in addition to what had already been offered. The 
proposition is, in_ fact, that the reformation of men ad¬ 
dicted to crime is not to be consummated by punish¬ 
ment, and by the employment of those moral means 
that are calculated to i-each their consciences, but by 
keeping them a limited period in the employ of the 
State, and handing out to them, when they are dis¬ 
charged, a purse of money, to furnish means with 
which to gratify their lusts and untamed passions. Re¬ 
form is not to be accomplished by means such as these. 
It is to be eftected, if at all, by working a change in 
the individual, through the assistance of moral and in¬ 
dustrial means—by bringing him under the influence 
of moral motives, and enforcing and forming habits of 
industry. It is thus the moral man is built up and qual¬ 
ified to take a place as a member of society. Such 
considerations seem to be enough to justify me in op¬ 
posing this amendment. 

When this amendment was first proposed, he had 
thought of offering an amendment, which should, in 
case of convicts with families, make some provision in 
this manner for their relief, in case they wei-e destitute; 
but the argument of the gentleman from Licking [Mr. 
Case] had satisfied him that it was not admissible; and 
as for the amendment as it is, he would not consent to 
hand over to a newly-discharged convict a large amount 
of money, which, in a large majoiity of cases, would 
be employed solely for the gratification of his passions, 
and thus act as an incentive to ci'ime. He had been 
struck with the incident related by the gentleman from 
Trumbull, [Mr. Rannet,] and would suggest to the 
gentleman to devise a provision, to be inserted in the 
constitution, which shall forever hereafter pi’event in¬ 
nocent men from being convicted. This suggestion 
comes to me from a venerable gentleman sitting at my 


right here—thegentlemanfrom Belmont,[Mr.KENNON.] 
If such a thing could be done, he would go for it.— 
But, in the mean time, we shall be forced to sit down 
with the conviction that there ever will be some erroz’s 
in human affairs, and that to remedy all would be even 
beyond the reach of this assembly. 

The gentlemen advocating this proposition have spo¬ 
ken of another cause of the commission of crime—the 
vice of inteznperazice—azzd have takezi occasion to 
speak strongly against those ezzgaged iiz the sale of in¬ 
toxicating drinks, as if they were solely answerable for 
the crimes committed by intemperate men, or by per¬ 
sons in a state ol intoxicatiozz. Intemperance is un¬ 
doubtedly the cause of much evil azzd suffering; but is 
it not as much the evidence as the cause of depravity? 
Is not the habitual izzdulgence in ardent spirits a proof 
of vicious and uncontrolled desires existiizg previous 
to such indulgence ? He thought the orators azzd apos¬ 
tles of the tempei’ance refoz’znation had committed a 
wrong, calculated to do great injury to their cause, by 
making the dealer in spirituous liquors alone the sinner, 
while the druzzkard is held up as the poor and innocent 
victim of his criznes. If he commit fiz’st the crime of 
getting intoxicated, and thezi under the influence of the 
first, commits a second crime of another chaz’actei*, the 
fiz’st offence is by these men claimed to wipe out the 
second, azzd the felon who has sinned twice against so¬ 
ciety is holdenup azz object of pity, aiz izzzzocent victim 
to the wrong doings of othez’s. This, in my judgment, 
is an egi'egious azzd dangerous error. Drunkenness is 
itself azz oflence against the good order of society, and 
should ever be so considered. 

This course of these misguided men is having a tre¬ 
mendous effect in the incz-ease of crime, by wiping out 
the impressioiz made by its abhorrent features, and les¬ 
sening its disgracefulness in the eyes of the public. 

It has become a custom wi h some modern philan¬ 
thropists to take sides with the criminal. No sooner, 
has a man violated the law, and become obnoxious to 
its punishments, than he becomes an object of their 
i warmest sympathy. This feeling defends him in his 
trial for the crime, and follows him through his punish¬ 
ment, striving at every turn to release him from that 
suffering which is but a just reward for his misdeeds. 
These men are guided by a mistaken sentiment, not 
calculated to promote morality and uprightness, but 
immorality and crime. I beg members to think seri¬ 
ously of this matter and its ultimate tendencies. They 
commit a wrong by imitating a virtue. There have 
been men, who, impelled by a noble desire to do good, 
have visi ed prisons, and urged reforms in their disci¬ 
pline, for the purpose of divesting punishment of its 
brutality; and they have succeeded. Their imitators 
are endeavoinng to take from Crime its punishment.— 
He hoped they would not be allowed to prevail. 

Mr. LIDEY was astonished at the course which the 
debate had takezi, and especially astonished at the 
opinions of the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reehe- 
LiN.] He did not rise to make a speech, but, at a 
proper time, intended to offer an amendment to the 
pending one, providing for the donation to each con¬ 
vict, on taking up his residence in the Penitentiaiy, of 
a tract ot forty acres of land, for which, on the day of 
his discharge, in consideration of hissei'vice, he should 
receive a deed in fee simple. (Laughter.) 

Mr. LARWILL spoke of the case cited by the gen¬ 
tleman from Trumbull, and thought it deserved consid¬ 
eration, and that there should be a constitutional pro¬ 
vision for such. 

Mr. REEMELIN said the gentleman from Monroe 
[Mr. Akchbold] had characterized the speeches that 
had been delivered in lavor of the proposition as a touch 
above the sublime. If such is the case, he thought the 
speeches of the gentleman from Monroe, and of the 
gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock] as well cal¬ 
culated to prove the truth of the saying that there is 
but one step^ from the sublime to the ridiculous. He 
inquired if it was not beneath the sound, practical 










CONVENTION REPOETS. 


499 


sense of the gentleman from Geauga to tell us that the 
people are taxed to pay the expenses Of the convicts 
in the Penitentiary. The effect of this proposition is 
to pay only what remains after all the expenses of cap¬ 
ture, trial, confinement and support are fully paid and 
satisfied. The gentleman from Geauga seems to think 
it will be difficult to open and keep an account with 
each convict. Does he not know that that is done already, 
and that a statement of the cost and the earnings of 
each always stands upon the books of the institution. 
We all know that the estimate of this matter shows 
that the cost of the sustenance of the convicts amounts 
to about one-third, on an average, of their nett earn- 
ings. 

If we are to believe the gentleman from Licking, 
there is a wrong state of feeling in Ohio, upon these 
questions. Now there are many cases in which men 
in the penitentiary are really better than those who are 
out. We know that the means of ascertaining crimi¬ 
nality and the laws for its punishment are inadequate 
to fulfil the end for which they are designed. They of¬ 
ten strike the innocent, and let the guilty escape. Is 
it wrong under the constant operation of such risks, to 
give men the proceeds of their labor. What reason 
have we to suppose that our system is so perfect as to 
do no injustice in any case, and leave nothing to be im¬ 
proved? The world is divided in opinion between 
two systems of prison discipline—that of solitary con¬ 
finement, and that of social labor. We have adopted 
about half of each. We force the convict to labor and 
deprive him of the benefit of the proceeds. Will not 
the poor man feel better under the operations of a just 
government, and will not public justice aid in his refor¬ 
mation ? If you deprive him of the proceeds of his la¬ 
bor, do you not place an obstacle in the way of his re¬ 
formation ? There was a man who had been seven 
years laboring in the penitentiary for the benefit of the 
State. When he came out, he said that if he had the 
money which he had earned, during his time of ser¬ 
vice, he could start in life; but he was deprived of it, 
and the result is, he is a town pauper and a public 
charge. He was determined to take in one way from 
the public what the public had taken from him in an¬ 
other. A young man whom I saw yesterday, who is 
in for life, complained of the hardness of this rule, and 
said it gave him the bitterest feeling connected with 
his imprisonment. ought, he said, to be earning 
money to pay his debts, but all the proceeds of his la¬ 
bor was seized by the State. It was this, undoubtedly, 
which had induced him to attempt to starve, and on 
one occasion to hang himse'f, and that made him, when 
attacked with the cholera, refuse to take any medi¬ 
cine, and determined to die of the disease. 

And now, said Mr. R., I ask seriously, will not a 
man sentenced to labor, do better when he is told that 
over and above his support, the proceeds of his labor 
are his own? Will there not be less necessity for a re¬ 
sort to the shower bath and discipline, and a greater 
chance for reformation? 

And now, it will not answer the purpose for gentle¬ 
men to attempt to sneer this matter down. Men are 
liable to be prejudiced against novelties, but if gentle¬ 
men will follow this question to its result, they will 
come to the same conclusion to which I have. Jus¬ 
tice to all, is one of the first principles of government, 
and it is due to the criminal as well as to the innocent. 
This practice has been adopted in other countries with 
a salutary efiect, and I am told that it is the case in 
Pennsylvania, and I hope the time will come, when, 
with the full consent of the people, we shall try the 
experiment in Ohio. 

Mr. HOLT. The amenoment and remarks of the 
gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] involve all 
the questions that have been agitated with regard to 
prison reform—the object, kind and degree of punish¬ 
ment, all are brought up. With this vast field of dis¬ 
cussion before us, a man can make a speech of two or 
three hours. Were I sitting in the General Assembly, 


in the place of this Convention, I should concur with 
the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. IIeemklin] in the 
propriety, and perhaps the policy, of his amendment. 
The defects of the prison system may be a part of the 
causes of crime in the State, but 1 would ask my friends 
who are inclined to favor this proposi ion, how would 
the people regard the insertion of a clause like this, in 
the organic law of the State? Will not the Legislature 
adopt such a provision as soon as the people are con- 
vinced of its necessity and practical utility? If I should 
otter to incorporate the golden rule which we find in 
the Book of Books, “ Whatsoever ye would that men 
should do unto you, do ye even so unto them,” no 
one could rise and object to the perfect wisdom of 
such a rule of action, but every one would oppose its 
incorporation as a provision in the constitution. But 
I wish to be understood as a fast friend of all real 
progress, and I have no sympathy with the spirit 
which would sneer at a proposition like that of the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton. Benevolence is the soul of 
the progress of the age, and without the feature of 
benevolence, 1 would prefer standing still, to that 
equivocal progress in which a desire for the ameliora¬ 
tion of the condition of man had no part. All these 
noble efforts for human improvement must be regard¬ 
ed as they deserve. In the proper time and place, I 
trust I should be found advocating them. But I shall 
be compelled to vote against the proposition [Mr. 
Reemelin’s] here. I hope that it may be left to the 
action of the Legislature. 

Mr. MANON said he should vote for the proposition 
of the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemehn.] He 
could see no difference between legalized robbery and 
that which is not legalized. He was clearly of the 
opinion that the State had no right to the money earn¬ 
ed by the convict; it belonged to the man who earn¬ 
ed it by the sweat of his brow—to the unfortunate 
convict. Treat him with as much kindness as possible 
—keep an exact account of his earnings, and when his 
term of service has expired, give him what belongs to 
him, and say “ go, and sin no more.” 

Mr. BENNETT moved that the committee rise and 
report, which motion was disagreed to. 

Mr. HENDERSON. If this proposition should fail, 

I shall otter a substitute. 

Mr. ROBERTSON read the following, which he would 
offer as an amendment: 

Provided that the benefits of the above provision, shall not be 
enjoyed by any convict who has been sentenced more than once 
to the penitentiary. 

Mr. ROBERTSON remarked, that he was in favor cf 
giving to young convicts every inducement to reform, 
consistent with their safe keeping, and without expense 
to the State. Incurable, constitutional criminals, he 
would confine in the penitentiary for life, as moral lu¬ 
natics. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Who shall be the judge of a crim¬ 
inal’s incurability ? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I would reform our prison dis¬ 
cipline, and then declare all criminals sent a third time 
to the penitentiary, as incurable, and confine them for 
life. 

Mr. Robertson’s amendment was disagreed to. 

The question recurring upon the amendment offered 
by Mr. Reemelin. the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren offered the following, which 
was agreed to: Add at the close of section 2 the words 
” And the question upon all nominations made by the 
Governor shall be taken by yeas and nays and entered 
upon the journal of the Senate.” 

Mr. LEAD BETTER offered the following as an ad¬ 
ditional section, which was unanimously agreed to: 

Sec. 3. The Governor shall have power to fill all vacancies 
that may occur in the offices created by this article of the Consti¬ 
tution, until their successors in office shall be elected and quali¬ 
fied or until the meeting of the ensuing Legislature, and the suc¬ 
cessor confirmed and qualified. 

On motion, the committee rose and reported the Re¬ 
port [No. 1 of the standing committee on the Public 
Institutions] back to the Convention. 















500 ' CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


On motion, the report as amended was laid on the 
table and ordered to be printed with the amendments 
in italics, and the words stricken out by the committee 
in brackets. 

Mr. LIDEY moved that the Convention adjourn. 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays, and 
the same being ordered, resulted yeas 39, nays 35, as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Bates, Bennett, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Collings, Dorsey, Florence, Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Hard, 
Holmes, Hootman, Jones, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, 
Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Quigley, Ranney, Rob¬ 
ertson, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Warren, Stickney, Stidger, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Warren and Wil¬ 
liams—.39. 

Nays— Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Chambers, Clarke, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Firestone, 
Gillet, Graham, Gregg, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, 
Johnson, Larsh, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Patterson, Peck, 
Heemelin, Sawyer, Sellers, Stanton, Stilwell, Struble, Vance of 
Butler and Woodbury—35. 

So the Convention adjourned. 


MONDAY, June 24, 1850. 

8 o’clock, a. m. 

Mr. MITCHELL presented a petition from Lafayette 
Emmet and 54 other citizens of Knox county, praying 
that a clause be engrafted in the new constitution, for¬ 
ever prohibiting the law-making power, from creat¬ 
ing, authorizing or continuing corporations of any de¬ 
scription. 

Upon his motion, it was referred to the committee 
on Banking and Currency. 

Mr. SWAN presented a memorial from T. Rainey, on 
the subject of education and normal schools, as fol¬ 
lows : 

To THE Honorable, 

The Constitutional Convention of Ohio : 

Your memorialist, who speaks in behalf of the Teachers of 
Ohio, and a large number of the friends of Common School ed¬ 
ucation, respectfully presents. That the highest interest of a free 
p ople is the education of every citizen in the general principles 
of sound knowledge ; and that to secure this end it is the ])nvi- 
lege of the government to afford all useful and judicious facilities 
tending to the same. And as experience has demonstrated that 
the general education of the masses depends on governmental as¬ 
sistance, your memorialist respectfully and urgently recom¬ 
mends a provision in the organic law of the State for 

1. A larger School Fund; 

2. A State Board of Public Insti'uction; and 

3. One or more Normal Institutes for the preparation of 
Teachers for the practical duties of the school-room. 

Believing your honorable body disposed to increase the School 
Fund to the greatest extent in your power, your memorialist 
will give a brief sketch of 

1. The uses, objects and benefits of a State Board of Public 
Instruction, to be detailed by the “ bill” creating the same in the 
Legislature. 

This Board should consist of five or more members, one of whom 
should be Secretai-y of the Board, Superintendent of Public In¬ 
struction and Principal of the Normal School; and who should 
make a report of the condition of schools to the Legislature at 
each of its sessior s. He should exercise a general supervision of 
education throughout the State; direct and assist the district 
superintendents, and perform aU other duties incumbenton such 
officers generally. 

It should be the duty of the other members of the Board to 
exercise a similar supervision of education in the respective dis¬ 
tricts assigned to them ; collect and forward to the General Su¬ 
perintendent all statistics connected with schools; visit each 
school district in his district once every year ; examine schools, 
and assist in the examination of teachers and the issue of teach¬ 
ers’ certificates; hold Teachers’ Institutes at least once a year in 
every county in his district, for the temporary instruction of 
teachers in the best methods of teaching and governing schools ; 
to promote the general interests of Common School literature, 
by arousing the population to its duty to schools, and to the at¬ 
tendance of District, County and State Common School Conven¬ 
tions. 

The benefits arising from such a supervision consists in : 

1. A higher standard of Common School literature; 

2. A renewed impetus to public and private exertion and con¬ 
fidence ; 

3. A moi'e thorough acquaintance with the educational wants 
of the State; 

4. A better indication of some organised means of supply; 

5. A thorough examination of the schools, and the teachers 
instructing in them; 

6. The detection of incompeteney in the teacher, and dismis¬ 
sal of him from the school; 


7. The increased opportunity of comparing systems, gather¬ 
ing experience and securing uniformity of instruction and text¬ 
books ; 

8. And, finally, the avoidance of that system of supervision by 
which the Superintendent is enabled to gather statistics and as- 
cei’tain wants without being able to apply the former, or supply 
the latter. 

2. The nature, necessity and results of Normal Institutes. 

The Normal Institute is a school having two or more teachers; 
philosophical, chemical, geographical and mathematical appara¬ 
tus, &c., in which the teachers of common schools, or those who 
wish to become such, are taught the best methods of imparting 
instruction, governing schools, eliciting intereest and atttention, 
and effectuating the tuition of youth. They are supposed to be 
qualified to teach a common school before entering the normal 
school, and are reviewed, examined and reinstrucled in all o^ 
the branches of common school education. 

A model primary common school is connected with the Nor¬ 
mal Institute, and is taught by the students in the normal school 
in regular rotation; thus affording practical illustrations of all in¬ 
struction, by actual daily or weekly contact with youth, and ex¬ 
periment in the art of teaching. I’his model school, in addition 
to the facilities of illustration and experiment offered to the stu¬ 
dents in the Normal Institute, contributes extensively to its sup¬ 
port, and is a blessing to the town where the school is located. 

Students may be permitted to remain in the school six months 
or less time, and after teaching the same length of time, spend 
three months more in the school; thus judiciously alternating 
studying and teaching, until the teacher has formed a lasting 
identity with the profession of teaching. 

The State should g’-ant one dollar per week to the students 
while in the school, to defray, perhaps, the necessary expense of 
board, and to prevent any contingency depriving him of the bene¬ 
fits of the institution. 

Only such persons as are of good moral character, possess a 
good natural mind, and give satisfactory reference, of the deter¬ 
mination to teach one year, should be admitted to the institution. 

From five to eight hundred teachers can be thus prepared for 
their duties every year, and at an expense varying from two to 
four thousand dollars. Ten thousand dollars would be a sufficient 
appropriation for four years. 

The Institute would be governed by a board of trustees, one 
chosen from every congressional district in the State, or otherwise. 
The reasons for such a school are, 

1. The great want of the age—education. 

2. It is desirable that this be secured by a system of public 
schools, free to all the inhabitants of the State. 

3. The remuneration of teachers being small, it is difficult, to 
secure good teachers without some assistance from the State: 
Hence. 

4. The State must prepare teachers for her common schools be¬ 
fore all of her districts can be supplied. 

5. Because this can be done by normal spools only. 

6. Because the standard of the teacher’s quahfications is too 
low. 

7. Because districts are compelled to employ teachers unquali¬ 
fied for their duties. 

8. Because instruction by such tends to lower the apprecia¬ 
tion of education among the parents ol those insti'ucted. 

9 Because the elementary schools of the country need the 
best class of insti'uctors. 

10. Because districts have no place to look to for teachers. 

11. Because of the want of a uniform system of instruction 
throughout the State. 

12. Because however well a teacher may be educated he needs 
instruction as to the best methods of imparting what he knows. 

13. Because any renewed impulse to education in our country 
has been cotemporary with a demand for better teachers, and for 
seminaries for their preparation. 

14. Because the experience of the normal schools of New York, 
Massaceusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Ohio, New York City, Phil¬ 
adelphia and Boston, and all the normal schools of Germany, 
France, Switzerland, the Sclavonic nations, and Scotland, recom¬ 
mend their adoption without a dissenting voice, after an experi¬ 
ence of fourteen to forty yeai's of their beneficent results. 

15. Because teachers universally show their need of, and anxie¬ 
ty for them. 

16. Because any Educational Convention of teachers and the 
friends of schools held during the last several years in Ohio, has 
recommended them with unflinching confidence. 

17. Because experience proves that the colleges and universi¬ 
ties furnish a very small number of common school teachers; 
their course being too long, and altogether unadapted to the prep 
aration of teachers for the school room. 

18. Because providing teachers for the State who are qualified 
to teach, is economy of public means: 

19. Because no valid objection can be urged to Normal schools, 
except that, as any good thing, they cost something ; when, with 
out them, sums infinitely greater are squandered in attempts to 
produce results which nothing but Normal schools can produce, 
and 

20. Because, vvhen a people are educated, they have in their 
knowledge and virtue, a constitution that will last when written 
constitutions have mouldered into dust; and this is the constitu¬ 
tion that is the bulwark of a free people. 

The Results of Normal Schools. 

1. They give a specific qualification to the teacher for his sped 
fic professional duties: 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


2. They dve to him the results of the experience of the best 
educators of the age: 

3. They show to him the difficulties that he must meet, and 
I ow to overcome them: 

4. ITiey give correct and uniform literary and scientific knowl- 
adge in the branches hiught: 

5. They produce unRormity of instruction throughout the 
State: 

Uniformity of text books: 

Uniformity of system in managing schools and reporting- 
statistics : 

6. They teach the best methods of governing schools: 

7. They teach the best methods of imparting instruction: 

a They will promote in the best way all of the best interests 
of education, as they have done in every State and country where 
used. 

9. They will assist poor young men of good talent, who would 
be other'wise unable to attempt teaching; and thus rescue from 
inaction and neglect, some of the best minds of the State: 

10. They will accomplish the greatest amount of good with 
the most inconsiderable sum of expenditure: and 

11. They will identify common school education with sound 

morals, and be nn everlasting harbinger of the hopes of the 
masses. « 

Your memorialist does not urge the measures here brought to 
your notice with a view to their detail in the constitution, but 
that these necessary auxiliaries to education may be placed be¬ 
yond the periodical attack of the legislature, which very great¬ 
ly tends to paralyze the efi'orts and conti-avene the benefits of any 
system, whatever its excellence; and because it is believed that 
the people of this State suicerely desire such provisions. 

Respectfully, 

T. RAINEY. 

Columbus, O., June 22d, 1850. 

Relei'red to the committee on Education. 

Mr. McCORMlCK presented the petition of D. W. 
Schaefter and 33 other citizens of Montgomery county, 
praying that a clause be inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any act 
authorizing the retail of spirituous li(Xuors. 

Referred to the select committee on the subject of re¬ 
tailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. CASE of Licking, presented the petition of Mur¬ 
ry Briggs and 42 other citizens of Licking county, pray¬ 
ing that a provision be inserted in the new constitution, 
prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law, 
whereby the traffic in spirituous liquors shall be le¬ 
galized. 

Upon his motion, it was refeiTed to the select com¬ 
mittee on the subject of retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. RANNEY. I have drawn up apian here, pre¬ 
senting my views upon the judiciary question, and I 
will give notice that when the report of the majority 
is submitted, I will present them by way of amend¬ 
ment to that report. I would make a motion that they 
be laid upon the table and printed. 

The question being then taken, it was ordered, upon 
the motion of Mr. SAWYER, that the report be printed 
and laid upon the table. 

Sec. 1. The Judicial power of the State, both as to matters of 
law and equity, shall he vested in a Supreme Court, in County 
Courts, in Justices of the Peace, and in such other Courts infe¬ 
rior to the Supreme Court, as the General Assembly may from 
time to time establish. 

Sec. 2. The State shall be divided into ten judicial districts ol 
compact territory and bounded by county lines, in each of which 
two Judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the quali¬ 
fied voters therein. Supreme Courts shall be held by one or 
more of these Judges, in every county in tlie district at least 
twice in each year. 

Sec. 3. The Supreme Court and the Judges thereof, shall 
have such original and appellate jurisdiction as shall be provided 
by law. 

Sec. 4. The Judges of the Supreme Court shall be so classified 
at the first election to be held under this article, that one Judge 
in each district shall be elected for the term of three years, and 
one for the term of six years ; and thereafter every third year, 
one Judge shall be elected lor the term of six years, and in each 
case, to hold the office until a successor is elected and qualified. 
The General Assembly shall by law, prescribe the time for hold¬ 
ing the first election, and all subsequent elections shall be held at 
the sam • times and places with the regular annual election for 
State and County officers. 

Sec. 5. The Judges ol the Supreme Court shall, at stated times, 
receive for their seiwices an adequate compensation, to be provi¬ 
ded by law, which shall not be diminished d 'ring their term of 
office. They shall receive no fees or perquisites, nor hold any 
other office of profit or trust under the authority of this State or 
the United States. A 1 votes for either of them, for any office, 
except a judicial office, shall be void—and during their respective 
terms they shall reside in the district for which they are elected. 

Sec. 6. TTie General Assembly shall by law, prescribe the man¬ 


501 


ner in which one Judge, from each one of at least five of the 
districts, having the shortest time to serve, shall be designated 
for the purpose of holding annually, Supreme Courts in Bank. 
The Judges so designated shallibe taken from alternate districts, 
and equally from the severrl districts in succession, as nearly as 
can be none. Provision shall be made bylaw for designating one 
of the number as Chief Judge. 

Ssa 7. The State shall be divided into at least three convenient 
districts, in each of which a term of the Supreme Court in Bsink 
shall be holden as often as once in each year. 

Sec. 8. The Supreme Court in Bank shall exercise appellate ju¬ 
risdiction only, and in such cases as may be provided by law ; a 
majority of all the Judges constituting the court, shall be neces¬ 
sary to form a quorum or to pronounce a judgment. If a major¬ 
ity do not concur, the cause shall be re-heard. 

Sec. 9. The General Assembly may increase the number of 
the Judges of the Supreme Court, or the number of the districts, 
whenever two-thirds of each House shall concur therein. They 
may also by a like vote, change the districts, bytno such change 
or addition shall vacate the office of any Judge, during the period 
or which he was elected. 

Sec. 10. There shall be established in each county of the State, 
a court of record, to be called the county court, to be holden by 
one Judge, elected by the qualified voters of the county, with 
jurisdiction in habeas corpus, of probate and administration, the 
issuing and revocation of letters testamentary, letters of adminis- 
ti’ationand guardianship, the settlement of accounts of executors, 
administrators and guardians, and such appellate and original ju¬ 
risdiction in civil, criminal and special cases, where the amount 
in controversy does not exceed three hundred dollars, as may be 
provided by law. 

Sec. 11. The term of office of the county Judge shall be three 
years, and he shall receive an adequate compensation for his ser¬ 
vices, payable out of the county treasury, in such manner as may 
be provided by law, and which compensation shall not be dimin¬ 
ished during his continuance in office. 

Sec. 12. In counties having a population exceeding forty thou¬ 
sand, the General Assembly may provide for the election of a 
separate officer to perform the duties of the office of Probate 
Judge. 

Sec. 13. A competent number of Justices of the Peace shall be 
elected by the qualified electors in each township in the several 
counties, for the term of three years, whose powers and duties 
shall from time to time be regulated by law. 

Sec. 14. All Judges other than those provided for in this Con¬ 
stitution, shall be elected by the electors of the judicial district 
for which they may be created, but not for a longer term of of¬ 
fice than six years, and subject to the same rule, as to compensa¬ 
tion, as herein provided for Judges of the Supreme Court. 

Sec. 15. In case the office of any Judge of any court in this 
State shall become vacant before the expiration of the regular 
term for which he was elected, the vacancy may be filled by ap¬ 
pointment by the Governor, until it shall be supplied at the next 
regular election. 

Sec. 16. There shall be elected in each of the counties of this 
State, by the electors thereof, one county Clerk, who shall hold 
his office for the term of three years, and until his successor is 
elected and qualified, and who shall be the Clerk of the Supreme 
and county Courts of such county. Provided, that the Legislature 
may provide for the election in any county of a Clerk for each 
of said courts. R. P- RANNEY. 

Upon motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the Convention 
then resolved itself into a committee of the whole, 
[Mr. Loudon in the Chaii',] and proceeded upon mo¬ 
tion of the same gentleman, to take up the report, 
number one, of the standing committee on Jurispru¬ 
dence. 


The General Assembly, at its first session after the adoption of 
this constitution, shall [appoint] provide for the appointment of 
three commissioners, whose duty it shall be to revise, reforn^ 
simplify and abridge the rules and practice, pleadings, forms and 
proceedings of the courts of record of this State ; and as far as 
practicable and expedient, they shall provide for the abolition of 
the distinct forms of action at law now in use, and that justice 
may be administered in an uniform mode of pleading, without 
reference to any distinction between law and equity. And the 
commissioners shall, from 'ime, when thereunto required, report 
their proceedings to the General Assembly, subject to the action 

of that body. . j, „ 

Provision shall be made by law at the same session, toi h ling 
vacancies, regulating the tenure of office, and the compensation 

of said commissioners. _ m /-.v. • 

GEO. B. HOLT, Chairman. 

S. J. ANDREWS, 

H. D. CLARK, 

GEORGE COLL1NG3, 

JOHN L. GREEN, 

EDWARD ARCHBOLD, 

H. THOMPSON. 


Mr. REEMELIN moved to strike out, in the second 
line, the word*^ cipjioiniiiig, snd insert in lieu theieof 
“ provide for the appoinment ot.” , , 

Mr. HOLT. I would move to add, alter the word 
“ aprioint,” the words, “ or provide for the appointment 
of.” and i hope it will prevail. I do not know what 











502 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


body of men the Legislature might appoint, but I 
would rather leave it in the discretion of the Legisla¬ 
ture. If this is carried, the other provision will cer¬ 
tainly be so modihed as to negative any inconsistency 
in the constitution. I do not know what kind of men 
the Legislature would appoint. They must in fact ex¬ 
ercise the proper discretion. 

Mr. Reemelin having accepted the amendment of¬ 
fered by the gentleman from Montgomery, the amend¬ 
ment, thus moditied; was agreed to. 

Mr. TAYLOR offered an amendment, to strike out 
the words, “ provide for the appointment of,” and in¬ 
sert in place thereof the words, “ provide for the elec¬ 
tion by the people.” 

It will be seen, Mr. Chairman, that the measure 
proposed in this section is very important in its char¬ 
acter, and that it concerns materially the interests ol a 
large and iuiluential class of our citizens. It may be 
well, with all due respect to the gentleman from Mon 
roe, to call the attention of the committee to the expe¬ 
rience of the State of New York. There the a[)poiut- 
ment of these officers was vested in the Legislatui’e, 
and extrjiordinary trouble and delay has ensued from 
the fact, that the appointment was vested in a body of 
men who were particularly under the influence of the 
legal profession. Strong efforts have been made to se¬ 
cure the appointment of such commissioners as would 
not carry out the reform proposed—the simplification 
of actions at law. The result has been, that there was 
a contest between the Legislature and the popular will 
upon this subject. A great deal of delay, uncertainty 
and confusion has lesulted in that State, which has 
suggested to me, that it would be more proper to refer 
the election of these commissioners to the people. I 
believe that men would be placed in nomination for the 
popular sufl'rage, who would be men of the highest at¬ 
tainments and qualifications, fully as much so as if they 
were appointed by the Legislature. Since the Con¬ 
vention is about to adopt the principle, that the election 
of the highest judicial officers may be safely left to the 
people, ought we not to act consistently with that 
principle, and provide for the election of these com¬ 
missioners, whose duties will be of the most important 
and delicate character? I repeat the conviction, that 
no men will be placed in nomination for this import¬ 
ant trust, unless they are men of high qualifications, 
extended experience, and liberal views. 

Mr. HOLT. I would rather that the section should 
stand as at present. It gives sufficient scope to the 
Legislature, who will make these appointments in the 
most judicious way in which they can be made. As to 
the precedent cited from New York, I think the gen 
tleman from Erie is entirely mistaken. I am aware 
that one set of the commissioners appointed under the 
constitution of New York were composed of men who, 
or a part of whom, did not believe in the practicability 
of the object of their appointment—that of reducing 
the whole body of the law to a written code. In re¬ 
gard to the commissioners appointed to simplify and a- 
bridge the proceedings and provide a code of j)roce- 
dure, there was no such difficulty in that committee; 
they acted in unison, and were friendly to reform ; and 
although some delay occurred in bringing about this 
code of procedure, yet it did not result from the fact, 
that they were unfriendly to the reform. There has 
never been but a partial report made to reduce the law 
to a written and systematic code. I am not sure that 
even a partial report has been made. The delay which 
occurred in New York in regard to this report, was 
chiefly from the want ol legislation. The whole change 
of the goveniment came under the consideration of the 
Legislature at once—at the next session after the con¬ 
stitution was adopted. Their courts of law and equi¬ 
ty had before been separate; and not only the whole 
question of the judicial department, and the transfer of 
business from the old to the new courts, but the ques¬ 
tions relating to the other departments of the govern¬ 
ment, came at once under the action of the General 


Assembly. There were defects in the legislation which 
operated unfavorably to the speedy and successiul ac¬ 
tion of the commissioners. But it was not as the gen¬ 
tleman has said, because it fell into the hands ol the en¬ 
emies of the reform. 

I know that these commissioners will be among the 
most important officers in the State, and I am aware 
that the plan propo.sed will produce a most radical 
change in legal proceedings, including pleading and 
practice. A subject of such importance should cer¬ 
tainly be approached and treated with great caution 
and delicacy, and the office in question should 
mand the very best men in the State. I am inclined 
to think that in this matter of popular elections we may 
throw too much upon the people at once. They wdl 
have a burden of elections upon them suddenly with¬ 
out this, and it will probably be judicious to leave the 
appointment of these officers to the Legislature, who 
will be more likely to obtain commisiioners, whose 
ability and qualifications will be such, that success will 
be more likely to follow their labors, than fioin an at¬ 
tempt now to make the commissioners elective by the 
people. 

Mr. TAYLOR. If I understand the term appoint¬ 
ment, it has a peculiar significance, and, p it has been 
hitherto observed, it is a ditierent term from the word 
election.” An appointment either proceeds from the 
Legislature or from some delegated body. ^ If the lan¬ 
guage is I’elaiued in the section as it now is, I am ap¬ 
prehensive that the Legislature will either make these 
appointments themselves, or will provide for the 
pointment of these commissioners, perhaps by the 
judges of the State. The term election, implies action 
of the people. The term appointment, has been 
strued to refer to the Legislature or to some othei bo¬ 
dy except the people. The difference between the 
proposition as it now stands, and my amendment is 
that the one contemplates that these commissioner* 
shall receive their appointment from the Legislature, 
while the other refers the subject to popular election. 

I trust that the selection of these officers, important 
as gentlemen all deem them to be, and whose duties 
will bear so prominently upon the welfare of the State, 
will be referred to the people at a general election. 

Mr. BATES moved to amend the amendnient so that 
it would read, ‘‘shall provide lor the appointment or 
election of three commissioners ” 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I am opposed to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Jefferson, [Mr. Bates,] 
and I am also opposed to the amendment of the 
tleman from Erie. Of course I shall vote against both. 

I have no idea at all that these are a kind of officers 
that the people will want to vote for. I hold to the 
doctrine, thao die people may be overburdened by the 
election of too many officers, that might be belter in¬ 
trusted to other hands, and the selection of these com¬ 
missioners, I apprehend would fall under this head. I 
am certain, that if you impose upon the people, the du¬ 
ty of electing all these various officers, to be appointed 
or elected in this great and growing State, that they 
will be broken down and over-worked in this matter 
of elections. It appears to me, that the legislative 
body are fully competent and able to make a selection 
of men to revise our laws—much better than the peo¬ 
ple themselves. The Legislature will be better prepa¬ 
red to make the selection of these men, acquainted as 
they will be, with the capacities of gentlemen fitted to 
discharge such duties throughout difi’erent parts of the 
State, and they will have before their eyes all the prin¬ 
cipal law characters of Ohio, so that they can provide 
for the selection of those officers. I would prefer that 
the Governor should take the lead in these selections, 
and let the Senate concur in his nomination. I believe 
that this would be the best way in which the talent of 
the Stale can be got out, for the reason in the first place, 
the Executive of the State has the sole responsibility 
upon his shoulders, of doing that which would be best 
for the whole people. Being acquainted with the lead- 





















503 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


ing men in the State, he will have a pride in making a 
proper selection, and he would make such selections, 
undoubtedly, as would be most acceptable to the.Sen- 
ate. Ho would be very sorry to have his nomination 
negatived and sent back to him to make a new appoint¬ 
ment. But the probability is, that the Governor would 
generally make such nominations as will be acceptable 
to that body. 

This idea of giving the election of these officers to 
the peojde, I conceive to be one of the most prepos¬ 
terous ideas in the world, and I will not consent to ar¬ 
gue what appears to me to be so plain, I would ask, 
what do the great mass of the farmers in their retire¬ 
ment know about these men who may be called to re¬ 
vise your laws? Perhaps they may have never heard 
the names of these men before they are put in nomina¬ 
tion. They are known at the se t of government, and 
they are known to us who happen to be brought up to 
the seat of government; but the j)eople at large can¬ 
not know them, or even know whether they have good 
moral characters. I hope that we will adopt the bet¬ 
ter mode in all cases of this kind, and give the appoint¬ 
ment, generally speaking, to the Governor, with the 
advice and consent of the Senate. lam willing also 
to submit the matter to the discretion of the Legisla¬ 
ture ; but as to leaving these commissioners to be elect¬ 
ed by the people, I must vote against the proposition. 

Mr. HIICHCOCK of Geauga. We have provided, 
BO far, that all the important officers should be elected 
by the people; but in this case they are to be preclu¬ 
ded from making the appointment, and are not to be 
trusted. Now, it is said that the office in question is 
an important office ; and unquestionably it is. It will 
be a great task for commissioners to change and reform 
the entire practice and proceedings of our courts. It 
seems to^ me we shall be acting inconsistently to take 
the appointment of these officers from the people mere¬ 
ly because the office is important. Now, to my mind, 
if we would be consistent in our action, it seems clear 
that the elections of these commissioners, if they are to 
be chosen, should be by the people. You have already 
piovided that the directors of the Penitentiary should 
be elected by the people. But here you come to a set 
of officers who are not to be elected by the people, be¬ 
cause the office is so important. 1 must confess, how¬ 
ever, that I do not see the necessity of a constitutional 
provision of the kind now under consideration. The 
Legislature have had the power, and will still have, 
and if the people desire the reform which is specified, 
it can be provided for by the General Assembly. When 
that body conclude to have the designated reform made, 
they can prescribe the manner in which these officei's 
shall be appointed—save and except they cannot make 
the appointment themselves. We have already said 
their power shall be limited to the appointment of of¬ 
ficers of their own bodies. A provision of this kind 
may be finally inserted in the constitution. 

A provision for a similar commissioner has been in¬ 
serted in the constitution of New York, but they are 
not so republican as we are. They do not take the ap¬ 
pointing power entirely from the Legislature, but per¬ 
mit that body to appoint these commissioners, as well 
as some other officers, whom we deem it necessary 
should be elected by the people. I had hoped, Mr. 
Chairman, that we would have waited a little to see 
the operation of this system of reform in that State, be¬ 
fore we jumped into it ourselves. It is said here that 
this thing is required by the people. The whole peo¬ 
ple, I believe, so far as this matter is concerned, care 
but little about it. There is, in regard to the old mode 
of procedure, one particular action about which there 
has been a great clamor raised ; and that is the action 
of ejectment. My friend from Clinton, [Mr. Morris,] 
in the early part of the session, inti’oduced a provision 
that that action should be done away with or reform¬ 
ed. He has a strong antipathy to John Doe and Rich¬ 
ard Roe. 

I would say to that gentleman, and to every mem¬ 


ber of the committee, that there is no form of action 
wnich has ever been used in the State of Ohio, in which 
the courts have been able to do more complete jus¬ 
tice, than this very action of ejectment. The object 
of the action is, to ascertain which of two contendiu^^ 
parties have the better right to the property in contro¬ 
versy, and the action has been so moulded, notwith¬ 
standing all its fictions, as to present this naked 
question of right and title to the court and jury. This 
is the only question presented—the only question de¬ 
termined. 

However, this does not concern particularly the 
matter under discussion. The question now is, wheth¬ 
er these commissioners should be elected by the peo¬ 
ple, or whether they shall be appointed in some other 
way. There should be a provision to limit the term of 
service. We have done that in all other cases. If we 
are to judge from the experience of others, I should 
think that we certainly ought to limit the time of serv¬ 
ice in this case. In New York the commissioners have 
not got through yet. The present question is, how¬ 
ever, whether these officers shall be elected by the 
people, or whether they shall be appointed by the Leg¬ 
islature. I have heard no argument against their elec¬ 
tion by the people, except that the office is a very im¬ 
portant one, and the people will not be likely to select 
the right kind of men ; and it seems to me, that this ob¬ 
jection would apply as well in any other case as in 
this. 

Mr. NASH. I want to know' if we are creating an 
office, and if so, I should like to know how many years 
it is to continue. Is it for three, five, ten years or more, 
or is it to be perpetual? I think the gentleman had 
better stop and inquire a little about this matter. Are 
you going to elect them for life? Are we to have a 
perpetual reform machine? 

Mr. REEMELIN. Will the gentleman please read 
the second section, regulating the tenns of office ? 

Mr. NASH. “ Provision should be made by law, 
regidating the tenure of office, and the compensation 
of these commissioners.” If the office is created, I 
take it that they will be elected. When they are elec¬ 
ted, the Legislature may then fix the tenure of their 
office. I agree with the gentleman from Geauga, that 
this is a matter which has no business in the Conven¬ 
tion. I do not believe we should undertake to insert 
a positive injunction, providing for such a board as that 
ill New York, which has been in session ever since 
1847, and which may be in session for ten years to 
come. 

Mr. MORRIS. I hope the amendment proposed by 
the gentleman from .lefferson will prevail. I hope that 
a provision for the election of these commissioners will 
be engrafted into the constitution. I think it is a very 
salutary reform that might be brought about by such 
commissioners, and one which will do away with a 
great number of fictions, and among others, with my 
old friends “John Doe and Richard Roe.” [Laughter.] 

Mr. NASH. The gentleman seems to have great 
antipathy to “ John Doe and Richard Roe.” I would 
like to inquire whether these aged dignitaries have ever 
disturbed the gentleman—whether his hostility against 
these shadows of realities, is personal? 

Mr. MORRIS. They never disturbed me. I have 
no doubt they have answered the gentleman from 
Gallia a good purpose. [Laughter.] I would inquire 
of my worthy and learned friend from Geauga, wheth¬ 
er the plan under discussion has not worked well in 
Pennsylvania and New York, where they have dispens¬ 
ed with these fictions? I was informed by one of the 
Judges of Pennsylvania, that the new system had 
worked better than the old one of John Doe and Rich¬ 
ard Roe. I think we can dispense veiy well with these 
c^entlemen of such a fictitious character. Let us come 
down to plain, simple forms—so plain and simple that 
every man in the State of Ohio will know what they 
mean. I think it was the county of Knox, where the 
sherifl' searched the whole county over for “ Richard 
















504 CONVENTION EEPOETS. 


Roe,” and returned he could not find him, but he had 
found one “ Thomas Rowe,” [Laughter.] 

Mr. MITCHELL. It was the sheriti' of Licking 
county. 

Mr. MORRIS, Such a provision, for the election of 
these commissioners, would, in my opinion, be a most 
salutary one in the constitution, and I think that the 
people of Ohio will approve of it—vote lor it. 

Mr. NASH. The gentleman seems to suppose, that 
I am opposed to any change in our practice. I have 
no doubt there can be many salutary changes made in 
our present practice. But what I suggested was, what 
use there was in putting into the constitution this pro¬ 
vision, which the Legisluture might act upon as well? 
The thing that strikes my mind most forcibly, is, that 
the people should require the Legislature to appoint 
such commissioners to make such reform as shall be 
useful and necessary. 

Mr, GREGG read from the constitution of Kentucky, 
to show that that State as well as New York, had en¬ 
tered upon the subject of a reform in the rules, prac¬ 
tice, pleadings and forms of their courts. He said the 
people of our State, too, required this same reform at 
our hands. The mles and proceedings of courts are 
seldom understood by the great body of the people, 
even by those who are most deeply interested in them, 
and who have great interests at stake before them— 
and too often, instead of reaching justice, as they proba¬ 
bly have a right to expect, come off with a large bill 
of costs, and disgusted with the Hummery and forms of 
law that are recited before them. You select for in¬ 
stance, a jury of 12 plain common-sense men, to try a 
man for murder, or other crime, and instead of putting 
your indictment in plain common-sense language as it 
should be, you fill up two or three sheets of paper in 
rendering the case as unintelligible as possible—and 
the jury must actually wait for the pleadings of the 
lawyers, or the charge of the judge, before they really 
ascertain what they are called upon to decide. And 
again, take a writ of ejectment with the fictions of 
John Doe and Richard Roe, and one man out of fifty 
would not know what was meant by the sheriti’s ser¬ 
vice, unless he was aware that such a suit had been en¬ 
tered—and even then, he would open his eyes, when 
called on for 20 acres of woodland—20 acres of mead¬ 
ow—20 acres of pasture land, and so many houses, 
barns, &.. &c.. covering probably ten times the amount 
in question. Sir, the people demand this reform at out 
hands ; they expect something to be done, which shall 
throw oft' the mist and fog that now covers the great 
fountain of justice, —and let us secure this just de¬ 
mand, by inserting such an article in the constitution. 

The question being then taken upon the amendment 
offered by Mr. Bates, to the amendment of Mr. Tay 
LOR, it was not agreed to. 

The question then recurred on Mr. Taylor’s amend¬ 
ment. 

Mr. WOODBURY. I was in hopes that the amend¬ 
ment offered by the gentleman from Erie would pre¬ 
vail. My reasons for it are, that there is great desire 
among the people, that we should do something to¬ 
wards effecting a reform of legal proceedings and prac¬ 
tice. There is a great deal of technicality about our 
laws, so that it is extremely difficult for parties to de¬ 
termine what the subject matter in dispute is, and it is 
a fact very well known, that parties frequently go to 
trial without ever reading the papers or referring to 
them at all. They are put on file, and it is imposible 
for any body to tell from the pleadings, what the plain¬ 
tiff has brought the suit for, or what the defendant has 
to offer in defence; and thus the proceedings or plead¬ 
ings afford no clue to the real grievance unless a bill 
of particulars shall be called for to which your evidence 
must be confined. When you come forward into court, 
you produce this bill of particulars, but you never re¬ 
fer to these papers that have been already filed. 

Your jurors may be called upon perhaps to try twen¬ 
ty cases during the term of that court; and is it a mat¬ 


ter of surprise that they should not be able to recollect 
what the particular questions in issue were, in a parti¬ 
cular suit, however honest they may be, their evidence 
is all that the parties can rely upon, when either of the 
parties to a former suit wishes to set up the former ad¬ 
judication as a bar. There are different ideas in the 
community, in relation to the present law practice, but 
a large proportion of them are opposed to it. There 
seems to be a difference of opinion here in relation to 
the matter of selecting this board of commissioners. 
For myself, I would prefer to leave it to the people 
themselv^es, lor the reason that whoevei makes the se¬ 
lection, will make one with the intention of carrying 
out their own views, and if the Governor is to make 
the appointment, it will depend upon his views of the 
matter whether any reform shall be made or not. 

question being then taken upon the amendment 
of the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. Taylor,] and a di¬ 
vision having been demanded, resulted as follows: 
affirmative 34, negative 40. 

So the amendment was lost. i ^ * 

Mr RIDDLE I would offer an amendment to 
strike out in the Gth and 7th lines the following words, 
“ without reference to any distinction between courts 

of law and equity.” • „ 

I believe I am about as well prepared to go in lor 
reform as any gentleman upon this floor, and yet l am 
not prepared to say that the distinctions between law 
and equity shall be entirely done away with. I am 
prepared to go so far as to do away with all distinc¬ 
tions in cases of tort, so far as a contract is concerned. 
I do not think we are prepared to go so far m the State 
of Ohio, as to do away with all the distinctions be¬ 
tween the courts of law and equity, which are so well 
known among all classes of the community iii the State 
of Ohio. I have no doubt gentlemen learned m the 
profession of law will be able to give some good reason, 
such as may be satisfactory to the committee, not only 
to the mass of the profession of law, but to others rep¬ 
resenting various classes of the people upon this floor* 
For tliese reasons I am honestly and in good faith to 
sustain the amendment I have made. 

Mr. NASH. I agree with the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton, that these words had better be stricken out. 
Whv sir if we decide—if this Convention which 
claims to be the embodiment of the people-decides 
that this radical change shall be made, our declaration 
would be the people’s declaration, and will come with 
as great a power as if it came from the people them¬ 
selves. There will be no room for discretion , at least 
that will be the ground assumed in I’egard to that mat¬ 
ter. The gentleman from Greene [Mr. Harlan] 
(side-bar whispers, “that is nght,”)-Iani happy to 
find that my friend from Greene, though hitherto silent, 
has not lost his voice. I have great respect for his 
opinion, and I have no doubt it will have its due effect. 

One word in regard to the proposition itself. It is 
true that this repoit merely recommends an incpiry ; 
but it does it in language that may be construed into a 
command. I. for one, am not prepared to make any 
such changes as tliat, and I am not prepaied, for this 
plain reason—that law and chancery proceedings are 
utterly incompatible with each other. The c laucery 
system cannot be engrafted upon the system of trial by 
iury. Now, our chancery proceedings are not adapted 
to a trial by jury. The civil lavv code of procedure 
has grown up under influences which did not f^lci^e 
a iury trial, and are therefore inconsisteiit vYith the 
common law mode of procedure with its trial by jury. 
The very system under which the chancery system 
grew up, discourages the very idea of a trial by jury. 
Under the civil law mode of procedure, the issue to 
be submitted to a jury must be framed by the court, 
and not as now, by the parties. This is an insupeia le 
objection against adopting the civil law mode of pro¬ 
cedure. The parties should make their own issues, and 
not be left to the declaration of the court as to his right 
to have a fact tried by a jury. 











CONVENTION REPORTS. ' 505 


There is another fact about this matter, and it is this: 
our chancery proceedings are the cheapest litigation we 
have. We litigate an ordinary chancery suit for one 
half or one quarter of the expense incident to a case at 
law with its witnesses, jury and continuances. Evei'y 
lawyer is aware of tliis fact. In chancery the evi¬ 
dence is all on paper; and hence the attendance of wit¬ 
nesses is dispensed with. In case of a continuance, 
therefore, the costs of witnesses is saved to the parties. 
Now, is it expedient to convert our chancery jurisdic¬ 
tion into a law jurisdiction, with the increase of costs in¬ 
cident to such a change? This change, in my opinion, 
involves an abolition of jury trials, if the Convention 
are prepared to take this leap into the dark, into the 
uncertainties ol an untried change, let this change be 
made ; let all distinction between law and chancery be 
abolished, by converting law into equity proceedings. 
I doubt whether such a sweeping change would be 
tolerated. Let this whole matter then, be left to the 
discretion of the commissioners and the Legislature. 
This surely is to go far enough. 

He [Mr. Nash] said he desired to say a word in re¬ 
gard to the John Doe and Richard Roe who seem to 
have made so much trouble to his old friend from Clin¬ 
ton. If instead of the practice at present we were re¬ 
quired in all cases of ejectment to make the demandant 
plaintifi' and the occupant defendant, setting forth the 
plaintiff’s title and giving a pertinent description of 
the land, the declaration, instead of the simple thing it 
is at present, would cover two or three sheets of paper, 
and would be subject to constant exceptions for vari¬ 
ance, mis-description or error. 

Mr. MORRIS. Could not the description be for one 
hundred acres of meadow, one hundred acres of pas¬ 
ture, and so forth ? 

Mr. NASH. But that would not be a pertinent de¬ 
scription of the land. You must go to your title deeds, 
set out your land by metes and bounds, and if you 
make a mistake, out of court you go, are in tor a bill 
of cost, and are obliged to begin again. But if you go 
on in the simple old plan of John Doe and Richard 
Roe, you avoid all these dangerous technicalities, place 
your suit in the simplest possible form before the court, 
go to trial upon the rights of the parties divested of all 
exti'aneous matter. Would not the result of such a re¬ 
form be simply to multiply litigation, and that litigation 
of the most expensive kind? 

I know that it is a favorite scheme with many to 
combine the forms of proceeding of the courts under 
the civil law with those of the common law, but they 
do not seem to take into consideration the diflerence 
in the systems which they attempt to reconcile. In the 
civil law there is no such a thing as a jury trial. The 
party defendent is put upon trial; his conscience is sif¬ 
ted ; he is made a witness against himsell, and is forced 
to answer under oath, and upon this answer the plain¬ 
tiff predicates his right to recover. On the contrary, 
it is the glory of the common law system that it pla¬ 
ces no man under such dangerous inducements to com¬ 
mit the crime of peijury. The distinctive feature of 
its practice is its trial by jury. Whenever there arises 
a question of fact between the parties, a jury comes 
in, an issue is made up, the point to be proved is de¬ 
finitely ascertained, testimony is adduced, a trial and 
verdict is had, and judgment follows. In the mongrel 
system adopted in Louisiana, the plaintiff presents 
what is termed his libel; the defendant answers ; up¬ 
on these an issue is made by the court, upon which trial 
isjhad. Now I grant that much may be done in the busi¬ 
ness of legal reform, but not in the direction in which 
it is here sought. Those reforms which consist in di¬ 
vesting legal proceedings of their technicality have 
gone forward and have pi’oduced considerable benefit, 
undoubtedly; but there have been instances where it 
has traveled quite as fast as has been beneficial. In 
England, it is said, that in the action of assumpsit they 
have gone back to the old practice of special declara¬ 
tions ;and it is said with a saving of nearly one-half 


of the litigation, under that form of action, by compel¬ 
ling parties to put their cause of action on record. 

He said he had no objection to a section in the con¬ 
stitution, suggesting to the General Assembly this mat¬ 
ter of relorm, and leaving it to their discretion ; but 
was opposed to making the provision peremptory, and 
forcing upon the Legislature to do what they may deem 
it important to avoid. 

Mr. GREGG inquired if the gentleman might be un¬ 
derstood to say, that by requiring a writ of ejectment 
to contain a pertinent description, the danger of error 
would be increased ? 

Mr. NASH said, that if a pertinent description is re¬ 
quired, it would involve great particularity, and in¬ 
crease the danger of variance between the allegation 
and the proof. 

Mr. GREGG inquired if it is not true, that at present, 
in all declarations in ejectment, the description is 
nearly identical? 

Mr. NASH. Certainly, and it is that which secures 
against variance—technicality is diminished, and par¬ 
ties are the most readily brought down to the real point 
in dispute. 

Mr. WOODBURY said: Gentlemen of the legal 
profession need not be alarmed—and he thought if 
they paid attention to the report, they would not be— 
at the abolition of technicalities in the practice of the 
courts. There was no cause of alarm. Certainly it 
must be known by every gentleman, that the same rules 
would continue which are now applied. In all cases, 
ex contractu, the court could not go beyond the rules. 
If, under what was here proposed, a suit were brought 
upon a promissory note—a bill of exchange—or a mer¬ 
chant’s account—the substance of the action and the 
pleadings would remain precisely as heretofore. The 
object was to destroy legal fictions—to prevent actions 
from being brought against fictitious persons, and for 
anything and nothing—no body can tell what; and to 
substitute a complaint”—a bill of particulars. How 
could gentlemen claim, that any necessity exists for 
the continuance of mere technical declarations ? Every¬ 
body knew and could comprehend the nature of a 
claim under a promissory note, or a merchant’s ac¬ 
count, just as well without, as with the most refined 
technicalities which could be invented. 

Mr. COLLINGS. As the gentleman from Monroe had 
already remarked, this report was submitted by a com¬ 
mittee of lawyers. It was submitted in full view of 
the opposition which they knew it would receive from 
their professional brethren : and he might say, for one, 
that he respected and appreciated that opposition in 
the highest degree. 

With relerence to that portion of the report which 
relates to the appointment of these three coramissioi - 
ers, and with reference to the exceptions to the phrase¬ 
ology he would say, he was not wedded to the precise 
language of the report, nor did he think it very impor¬ 
tant, whether these commissioners should be appoint¬ 
ed by the Legislature or elected by the people ; but it 
should be borne in mind by those who favor their elec¬ 
tion by the people, that these commissioners were ta 
take no final action. If their action were to be final, 
there would be some strength in the argument for their 
election by the people. But since they were merely to 
report the result of their labors to the agents ol the peo¬ 
ple, it certainly could not be very material whether they 
were appointed or elected. , , 

He had said before, that this was an opposition 
which he could appreciate and respect. It was the 
fruit of opinions which were natural to the piofession,. 
which all the books and reading of a lawyer beget and 
streno'then. Yet, it this motion to stiike out the dis¬ 
tinctions between law and equity w’ere to prevail, the 
friends of the principle mighias well give up the whole 
report. This matter was debated in committee, and it 
found favor with only one member—the majority of 
the committee, w’itli whom he concuried, being in fa¬ 
vor of abolishing all distinctions in the form of proceed¬ 
ing, between the courts at law and in equity. 















506 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


He had not made very extensive examinations into 
this subject, for the reason that in the last volume of 
our reports he found a case which furnished the most 
conclusive argument upon this question. He presum¬ 
ed that there was not a single volume of the Ohio Re¬ 
ports, in which there could not be found decisions upon 
such questions, as: Is this the ])roper form of action ? 
or, is this a matter properly triable at law, or in equity ? 
We had been taught that the common law embraced 
a compilation of “the perfection of reason”—the com¬ 
bination of the wisdom of the sages of the law in all 
ages past. We had been taught almost to reverence the 
common law, and fall down and worship at its feet. 

In the last volume of the Ohio Reports, he found a 
case which was exceedingly pertinent to this argu¬ 
ment: It was the case of Moore and others against 
Adie’s administrator—it was an action of debt, brought 
on a decree rendered by the court of chanceiy, in the 
city of Louisville, Kentucky. And then came up this ve¬ 
ry important question, whether an action could be main¬ 
tained, or whether the complainant should have resort- 
5,? to enforce the decree of the Lou¬ 

isville court. This case was prosecuted by writ of 
erior to the Supreme Court of this State, upon the 
giound that an action of debt could not be sustained 
on a decree of a court of chancery. The counsel for 
the plaintiff in error was backed by abundance of re¬ 
ported cases. Amongst others, he cited the case Car¬ 
penter vs 1 hompsom, 3. B. and Aid. 52. I will read 
the opinion of Abbott, Ch. J. delivered in that case. 

‘•It has been suggested that there is, in this case, an impli'^d 
contract, on the part of the defendant, to pay this money to the 
^ oue:ht to entertain this 

V special circumstances of this case, I am at a 

1 ^ f anything like an implied contract. If this were mere- 

w f ^ account, and, upon the balance, a precise sum 

migbt originally have formed the 
ioT?ri at law, a court of law might, perhaps, in that 

tiio TOt, 1 ^ ® ^force such a decree. It appears to me that 

«T-iooa ° f demand for the balance of interest and costs 

^ decree of the court of equity, and that it had 
decree. Now I cannot say that a man, 
^ a court of equity, against his will, to pay a sum of 
. i^^P^sdly agrees to pay the money. There is certainly 
aot any express contract.” 


, tbis been a judgment at law, it would have been 
binding upon the parties; the rendering of the judg¬ 
ment would have stood in the nature of the contract; 
the parties would have impliedly agreed to abide by 
the judgrnent, as by the terms of the contract, whether 
tor or against. But there was no such implied contract 
connected with a suit in equity; because, in all equity 
cases there was no matter of legal liability existing.— 
only an equitable matter, for which an original action 
at law could not be sustained. Such was the reason- 
^'his reason it was that an action of debt 
could not be supported on a decree in equity ; and the 
himself at last tureed round and com¬ 
pelled to file his bill in equity, to enforce the original 
decree. The common law “perfection of reason” 
vvas, that a party filing a bill to rescind a contract, and 
obteimng a decree that the purchase money should be 
refunded, could not, on such decree, sustain an action 
at law; but if he sued at law for breaJiof the con¬ 
tract, and obtained judgment for damages, such judg¬ 
ment would support an action at law. 

Our court, it is true, did not sustain the party, but 
overruled former decisions. But it should be borne in 
mind that such overrulings are ever at the expense of 
a suitor, and to the disappointment and mortification of 
his counsel. And he would now ask if the committee 
were disposed to continue such distinctions, which re¬ 
sulted in such conflict and uncertainty between the de 
cisions in courts of law and courts of equity? 

Mr. NASH, (interrupting.) A decree in chancery 
has the same effect as a judgment at law. 

_ Mr. COLLINGS. This matter was looked at, and 
it was presumed that such was the law in Kentucky. 
He adverted to it only to show the absurdity of the old 
distinctions; but in the State of Ohio, they had ruled 
down that absurdity. The court admitted that this 


case had come up here abundantly supported by adju¬ 
dications, and by precedent. But, (say the court,) we 
think it is contrary to reason, and therefore, we will 
overrule it. But, now, was it not far better to strip the 
courts of their forms and technicalities, and allow the 
parties in attendance to know their rights? 

In the State of New York, they have been for sever¬ 
al years endeavoring to bring about something like 
uniformity in this matter; but they have not yet suc¬ 
ceeded, as we are told. He admitted, as before inti¬ 
mated, that he had not examined far into this question. 
We are pressed with the supposed failure of New York. 
In New York, they had a great variety of notices and 
rules, so that it was difficult to get at the bottom. Then 
they had undertaken to -odify and bring down all the 
laws to one uniform code. But that was not what the 
committee on Jurisprudence had undertaken. What 
the committee proposed was, that any man having a 
cause of complaint, may present his case to the court, 
briefly and p< rtinently, and call for redress. 

The chairman of the committee and himself had not 
agreed, precisely, as to what should be the language of 
the report, in the portion proposed to be modified, and 
if this motion prevailed, he should move to strike out, 
from the sixth line, the words, “ in a uniform mode of 
pleading,” and insert in lieu thereof these words, “and 
the proper judgment or decree rendered in a mode of 
proceeding as nearly uniform as the facts of the case 
will admit.” 

But the gentleman [Mr. Nash] had said, there could 
be no general issue. What was an issue made in an 
action of assumpsit ? Did the defendant in an action 
for money received know before-hand what was to be 
given in evidence ? Could he know that it would be 
a note given to a third person, and assigned to the 
plaintiff? 

But if you require the party complaining, to present 
to the court plainly and briefly the state of facts up¬ 
on which he claims to recover, the court might deter¬ 
mine whether the matter were properly triable by jury 
or by the court How was it, also, with respect to the 
issue in case of libel or divorce ? Tlie court could, at 
once, and without difficulty, as it seemed to him, see 
the issue, upon inspection of the facts in all such cases. 
And petitions for divorce were not unfrequently dis¬ 
missed for want of correspondence between the alle¬ 
gations and proof. The Judge could at least deter¬ 
mine whether it was an action at law, or a case Im 
equity. 

He considered that it was most expedient for the ad¬ 
vancement of the administration of justice, that these 
distinctions should be abolished. But this reform was 
not expected to be carried out at once. It was to be 
preceded by a report of coftimissioners to the Leg 
islature; and then the Legislature would proceed 
to act in the premises, from time to time, as they might 
deem practicable or expedient. It was true, as the 
gentleman [Mr. Nash] had said, the Legislature 
might proceed without this authority; but here it was 
proposed that the Convention make it incumbent upon 
the Legislature to appoint these Commissioners; and he 
1 did not much fear that the commissioners or Legisla¬ 
ture would act with too great precipitation. 

He hoped the amendment would not prevail. 

Mr. RANNEY said ; He was not willing to think the 
profession opposed to this legal reform. He could say 
tha amongst that portion of the legal profession which 
he had been accustomed to associate with, he knew off 
but very few who were notin favor of this most impor¬ 
tant reform contemplated in the section under consid¬ 
eration. 

He was opposed to the motion of the gentleman 
from Hamilton, [Mr.RiuDLE,] proposing to strike out 
that portion of the report which looked to the aboli¬ 
tion of all distinctions between the course of proceed¬ 
ing at law and in chancery. He preferred that the 
section should remain as reported, except, that he was 
willing to strike out that portion which leaves a discre- 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


507 


tiou with the Legislature, whether to require the con¬ 
stitution to provide lor the abolition ot the distinct 
forms of action at law, and the distinction between 
law and equity proceedings. He would go for the 
balance of the section as it was. He would make the 
terms of the section mandatory, without any discre¬ 
tion in the premises. 

Why should the legal profession cherish any oppo¬ 
sition to this reform ? He desired to know the reason 
why any lawyer should oppose it ? Every man who 
knew any thing about the law and its practice, must 
be satisfied, that every legal princqde ought to be 
made consistent with common sense and common rea- 

gou_to what good sound common sense would require. 

Consequently, a system of procedure ought not to be 
continued, which every one must admit contained 
much of useless verbiage, fiction and mystery, and 
which compelled a party to seek his remedy in a par¬ 
ticular mode, or by a particular form of action, where 
the right form of action cannot be easily distinguished 
from the wrong. It would seem that common sense 
would indicate a system by which the complainant 
might set forth the facts which constitute his cause of 


action, explaining the nature of his grievance with as 
little verbosity as possible, and praying such relief as 
the laws of the land atlbrded; there could be no difficul¬ 
ty in this. It could be done in nearly the same lorms 
which are now recognized in the proceedings of the 
courts of chancery, when stripped of the surplusage 
with which they are now filled. 

The answer, also, would be made to the complaint 
in such terms as to distinctly and truly set forth the 
facts upon which the party relied for a defence; and 
then the reply would be of the same character. The 
object of all pleading being to inform the court 
and the opposite party, of the facts relied upon as a 
cause of action or defence, it should be made to con¬ 
form to the object in view’. Each must, to succeed, pre¬ 
sent a cause of action or defence in substance, but ev¬ 
erything not necessary for the reasonable information 
of the court and the opposite party, may well be dis¬ 
pensed with. No one ought to lose any right for the 
want of conformity to mere forms. 

We had been referred to what had been done in 
this way in the State of New York. The gentleman 
from Gallia, [Mr. Nash,] he ventured to say, would 
not continue to hold the opinions which he avowed. In 
regard to the New York practice, if he wei'e to con- 
fult thoroughly the reports of the commissioners. Ev¬ 
ery lawyer knew that they had abolished all these un¬ 
intelligible forms, and they had introduced veiy grefe 
simplicity in their practice; such as he would suppose 
it were desirable to see introduced everywhere. Ev¬ 
ery lawyer should feel a strong interest in whatever 
might tend to a thorough, radical reform in the prac- 


forms and technicalities. He desired the profession to 
be relieved from these, that it might be left, as it ought 
to be, to pursue and cultivate the noble study of the 
rights of man, the rights of property, and all the varied 
relations of life, subject to legal regulation. Wlien it 
was so purged and purified, to understand and apply 
the law would be reall) a just and honorable distinc¬ 
tion; whereas, the multitude who now undertook to 
practice through the jargon of unmeaning techincidities 
Ld forms, very frequently brought discredit both up¬ 
on the profession and themselves. He vvould muc ra¬ 
ther the profession were relieved from these technical¬ 
ities and forms, in order that it might be contemplated, 
as it was, a noble, a scientific profession, worthy ot ex¬ 
ercising the highest faculties of man. And this was 
the very thing to cut down all quackery in the profes¬ 
sion. When you cut away the matter of foims and 
technicalities under which quackery has usually flour¬ 
ished, quackery itself will leave the profession, and the 
law, as a natural and just system ot legal ethics, will 
remain, a blessing to the whole community, anjl an 
honor to its professors. The idea ot entiappmj, ju > 
tice in unmeaning and barbarous 

forms, was the most abhorrent thought which he could 
entertain. The highest obligation of a communitv was 
to do justice and enforce it: and this should be done 
without the danger of eix angling and perverting it m 
forms, upon the^oundest and clearest principles of 

''He had said thus much, because the gentleman from 
Ashtabula [Mr. Woodbury] had 3.^® 

that the legal profession was opposed 
and because the gentleman from Gallia, CM - Nash ] in 
his remarks, had given some foundation foi the suppo- 
siior He was in favor of the appointment of these 
commissioners by the Legislature; for they ^ 

as a ioint committee of the General Assembly: and for 
this reason alone, they should be appointed by that 

MrmoDLnlwVred andohtained leave to with- 

‘"■'S tWr iXoseT^^arend the report by strh 
king out from the fourth line, the following woids. a* 
far as practicable and expedient. 

The CHAIRMAN having stated the question 

Mr TAYLOR said: his design m proposing this 
amendlnt was to make it incumbent i^on the 
miissioners to perform the duty enjoined upon jnem T 
this section. If his amendment were adopted, it would 

‘“tratAssemWy. .titsfirst ^ 
of this constitution, shall ” P yo revise, reform, 

of three commissioners, whose ^leadings, forms and 

simplify and abridge the rules and practice^ plead g ^ 
proceedings of the courts cord ot this ^ 

provide for the abohtion of the administered in a uniform 


. for the abohtion ol tne qisuul t ^ ^ uniform 

LuigLit. i-t.iv,. vw u, ......... .. .. c ^ iA now in use, and that jusPee may anv distinction between 

tice of the courts, and in the elevation and perfection pleading, without reference to ,y-„fi from time to 

P .V 1 -:-..,.rl...v. fPo equity. And the said commissioners 


HlvC A.. ..XV. ....... .o, ....... ... ............ * , , 

of the law as a science; for the day was near when the 
legal profession, to secure the respect and confidence 
of mankind, must make the legal system and its prac¬ 
tice consistent with good common sense; but it did not 
therefore follow, that the profession must deteriorate. 
Far from it. You could not put the profession oi the 
law into a nut shell. If any gentleman would look at 
the ground covered by its regulations—extending from 
the government of nations, down to the minutest con¬ 
cerns of civilized life, regulating and controlling all the 
varied relations growing out of these diversified inter¬ 
ests, he could not apprehend such a result. 

It was not expected to codify, and abridge, and brmg 
down the law book to the size of a primer, or anything 
of the kind. That was impossible. It was never to 
be expected, or feared, that a man would go into the 
legal profession, and take a respectable position, with¬ 
out first having made some proficiency m knoiyledge 
of the science; indeed, not without the most arduous 
labor and application. But there was a vast difference 
between the great body of the law, and its varied stores 
of learning, and the miserable jargon and mysteiy ot 


law and equity. And the sam ° proceedings to the 

time, when thereunto required, report S 

General Assembly, subject to the action o* ^ .mend- 

committee, it by .^tinnnrips of less importance 

commissioners were fin anftbeState whose elec- 
than the four SuFema Judge^ 

r.^d'r/re Simpore/upon thent^by Ihi. 
He believedthdt m importance to 

section, embraced a ^ proposed in the or- 

solicLtfe that the com- 
ahniild not be devolved upon those who deem- 
ed U or inexpedien't to secure the propo- 

“'oS'reform” was far from being a cant phrase. 
The seFion, if amended, would embody an expression 

















508 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


of strong popular feeling—a feeling which ought not to 
be defeated. As the section stands, the phraseology 
might be construed to “ keep the word of ])romi8e to 
the ear and break it to the hope.” To prevent such a 
result, he had proposed, ineffectually, to give the election 
of the commissioners to the people, and any other mode 
of selection seemed to him as inappropriate, as it would 
have been if the Legislature had appointed a commis¬ 
sion to revise the constitution itself. No measure can 
bear more vitally and directly upon the general wel¬ 
fare, than a radical reform in the method of legal pro¬ 
cedure. It was proper, also, that its discussion should 
precede the debate upon the Judiciary department. 
Our courts are only a vehicle of our legal system. 
Simplify the latter—make it direct and rational, and 
you can more readily determine the best form of judi¬ 
cial administration. 

Gentlemen will not fail to observe that the report of 
the commissioners would not be final—that it would 
be subject to the action of the General Assembly.” 
All that he proposed by the amendment, was that these 
places should be given to men who were known to be 
in favor of the reform. Why not remove from the sec¬ 
tion an expression which might be tortured into a 
license to pronounce the whole design “ impracticable 
and inexpedient?” Was not this Convention compe¬ 
tent to decide the question whether such a change in 
our existing system was “ practicable and expedient ” 
—at least so far as to instruct a commission of three 
men to make an unqualified effort to abolish those dis¬ 
tinct forms of action, and substitute a single mode of 
proceeding without reference to any distinction be¬ 
tween law and equity? Surely, when their report was 
made, “ subject to the action ” of the Legislature, a suf¬ 
ficient safeguard against hasty action was provided. 
Here was a much better place to deposit a discretion 
whether the reform should be pursued, than in the 
breast of the commissioners themselves. 

On this subject he was not disposed to give undue 
importance to the common law of England or the civil 
law of Rome. We were at liberty to appropriate from 
all systems and codes. The jurisprudence of Ohio 
should be eclectic; but above all, rational and republi¬ 
can. He would recognise no authority—no pre-eminent 
merit in any particular system. From the early Saxon 
sources of the common law, we had derived some val¬ 
uable suggestions—particularly the trial by jury, and 
the immunity of personal rights, but if he was compell¬ 
ed to choose between British law, as overlaid by feu¬ 
dalism and tyrranny and as it existed fifty years ago, 
before the advent of Romilly and Brougham, and the 
stern but simple code of Moses, he confessed that he 
should hesitate long before he gave the preference to 
the so-salled “ common law.” As a commercial system, 
the common law owes every thing to the civil law. 
Neither, however, is exclusively worthy of our imitation. 

The present section only related, however, to a code 
of procedure. He hoped that, upon this subject the 
language of the Convention would be such as to admit 
of no misconstruction : that the committee would be 
instructed peremptorily to abolish all these distinctions 
as to forms and practice, and establish one uniform 
mode of procedure in the courts, and report their 
work to the Legislature, and if they should succeed, as 
he believed they could, let the Legislature take such 
action in the premises, as to them might seem to be ap¬ 
propriate and expedient. 

Mr. HOLT said: He did not deem this amendment 
very material. There had been some discussion before 
the standing committee with reference to the same snb- 
ject; but the majority preferred the terms in which the 
report had been made. For himself he should be per¬ 
fectly willing, after seeing the result of a simiJar com¬ 
mission in the State of New York, to strike out the dis¬ 
cretionary clause and make it imperative. He thought 
such a course might be prudent enough ; for he suppos¬ 
ed that when these commissioners should be appointed 
they would be taken from amongst those who are fa¬ 


vorable to the proposed reform. For himself he felt 
indifiereiit in regard to it, and would deler to the opin¬ 
ion of other gentlemen of the standing committee or 
the committee of the Whole. But he had something 
to say, and a single authority to cite, with reference to 
the motion of the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Rid¬ 
dle] now withdrawn ; lor although withdrawn, other 
gentlemen might perhaps prefer it. He would say 
that there was a time when he would have made pre- 
ciselv the same motion; but, like that gentleman, upon 
reflection and examination of the question, he had come 
to the conclusion, that these distinctions ought to be 
abolished. This idea—this requirement was, in fact, 
the very gist of the whole matter, as had been observ¬ 
ed by the gentleman from Adams [Mr. Collings.] 
Without this provision he would be willing to abandon 
the whole. It was upon this point that he proposed 
to make a few remarks, and to cite an English authori¬ 
ty to sustain it. 

It had been claimed that these distinctions had been 
long recognized, both in England and this countiy; 
that they had been found useful, and that, therefore, 
they should be continued. Why was it, that we now 
require that law and equity should be diflerent things? 
and why do we now ask that the distinction should be 
abolished? The reason was, that we ought to have no 
law, and we desire to have no law but what is equita¬ 
ble and right—we make law and equity identical. It 
was for this reason that we desired to present a system 
by which any person applying for redress of a grivance, 
or asking his rights to be protected, might, without 
embarrassment or mischance, obtain that protection 
or redress; and this, upon a plain and pertinent state¬ 
ment of the facts of the case, without I'egard to what 
we now call due form of law. That upon such a pre¬ 
sentation of his case, the Judge should hear and deter¬ 
mine it, disregarding form and fiction. If the case be 
one in which there should be no necessity of a jury to 
determine the facts, he should make such decree as the 
nature and equity of the case should require. If the 
case involved a matter of fact or of damages, the judge 
should put it to a jury to find the facts or assess the 
damages. The gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash,] 
had said that a judge pi'esidiug in chancery might be 
totally incompetent to decide whether a case should go 
to trial by a jury or not; but he was of the opinion 
that the distinction between law and equity being abol¬ 
ished, a judge who could not decide whether a case 
shoiild go to a jury to determine the facts, or whether 
he could give equitable relief without a jury, was not 
oo well qualified for the bench. 

Mr. NASH (interposing) desired to correct the gen¬ 
tleman. What he said was, that under the civil mode 
of proceeding by jury trial, the party could not make 
up his issue, he would be wholly dependent upon the 
court to say whether he should have a jury or not. 

Mr. HOLT. Did not the gentleman say this would 
be so under the new mode of proceeding which We 
propose ? 

Mr. NASH. He did not. He had reference to civil 
cases in common law proceedings. 

Mr. HOLT. The court now decides whether it will 
retain the case and give equitable relief without a jury, 
or send it to a court of law to be tried by a jury. If 
the suit be commenced in a court of law, and the judge 
rules that it is a subject matter of equity not within 
his cognizance, he refuses a juiy trial and leaves the 
plaintiff to file his bill in equity. Was not that the 
practice ? 

Mr. NASH. Certainly; if a man were to bring his 
cause into the wrong court, he could not get along. 
But he must say, that, after fifteen years practice, he 
never yet saw a case of that kind, in which a man was 
turned out of court because he was ignorant of the pro¬ 
per form of action. 

Mr. HOLT. He did not know how extensive the 
gentleman’s jiractice had been, of course, but he him¬ 
self had witnessed such cases—a plaintifl' turned out 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 509 


of court by reason of mistaking his remedy—and had 
been himself constrained, very much against his will, 
to do the same thing, frequently. If the gentle¬ 
man would look into the books of reports, he would 
see whether these cases had not come uj) for argument 
and decision before the supreme court of this and other 
States; and he might find cases where the same ques¬ 
tion—whether it were a case properly cognizable by 
i a court of law, or equity—had been argued and deci¬ 
ded before the court in bank. 

The gentleman [Mr. Nash] had said, that the New 
York commissioners had arrived at a point where they 
could go no further. But, the fact was, that the com¬ 
missioners had made their final report. Their first report 
had been made to the Legisla*^ure,and amended; and they 
had since brought their labors to a close, completed 
the entire report, and submitted it; and instead of the 
numerous volumes of matter which some had anticipa¬ 
ted, the report was only a book of this size, (holding 
u]) a copy of the complete report,) and containing, in 
addition to what we usually term “ pleadings and prac¬ 
tice,” the organization and jurisdiction of all the courts 
of the State—the duties of clerks, sheriffs, and all the 
officers connected with the administration of justice— 
a treatise on evidence—besides notes and comments 
explanatory of the code. But the simple question is, 
whether the same court shall now, upon the same state 
of facts, apply the law, and give the proper remedy, 
without regard to technical forms; and the objection 
raised against it was, that it was a dangerous innova¬ 
tion upon ancient, established usages. Some author 
had said of the common law, that it was the ‘‘ perfec¬ 
tion of reason; ” and therefore, we could not safely de¬ 
part fz'om it. The law of remedies, as well as rights— 
of forms, as well as substance—it seems, must all be 
held inviolate. 

Ml. NASH (interposing.) He did not know that he 
had made any such allusions to the common law. 

Mr. HOLT. The gentleman from Gallia would be 
able to know positively, when he was made the sub¬ 
ject of reference. The gentleman need not be so sen¬ 
sitive as to deny, on his own part, when the reference 
was to others. 

He would now, in support of this proposition, read 
a paragraph from an English law journal of acknowl¬ 
edged high authority— The Law Magazine. In a late 
number of this work, and in the article upon the En¬ 
glish and Scotch .Judicature is the following paragraph: 

“The system [Uiat is, the administration of law and equity sep 
arately] is not one that can, in any absolute and conclusive sense, 
try, hear and determine the merits of any cause. It does not be¬ 
gin at the beginning and go on to the end. It moves here and it 
moves there, with ever and anon some by-battle on extrinsic ques¬ 
tions, by such edifying enlightners of the merits of a cause (!) as 
demurrers on the ground of duplicity, demurrers for want of 
equity, demurrers to the juristiction, and the like, for which of 
course the litigants have to pay—but it does not by direct or im- 
. mediate operation ascertain the truth of the controversy. It does 

I not profess to do so. The several courts minister to, but do not 
administer justice. They may exhaust all their judicial powers, 
but something will be left behind. The law courts will not deal 
with ‘equities,’ the courts of equity will not interfere where law 
has jurisdiction, and thus the suitor is tossed about from court to 
court—^it is a sort of battledore and shuttle-cock litigation—and 
the unfortunate litigant has to incur the cost of both courts, and 
that, be it observed” for one single remedy, demandable with re¬ 
ference to one particular state of facts. * * * * 

“ In this country equity decides equity, and law decides law. 
But is there, we ask, for it comes to this—Is there in all England 
a single tribunal which admixisters justice ? Would it be pre¬ 
sumptuous in us, would it be untrue to say, there is not ? ” 

This was the opinion of a distinguished English ju¬ 
rist with reference to the distinction which has obtain¬ 
ed and still obtains between proceedings at law an I in 
equity; and having begun this work, or rather advised 
it in the old country, whence we derive most of our 
recedents, why should we hesitate ? Why should we 
eep on these old-fashioned, ragged garments, neither 
comely nor comfortable, and disgusting to the taste 
even of English jurists? 

He had a word to say with reference to the remarks 
of the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] to 
the effect that the people care nothing about this mat¬ 


ter; that it was a matter wholly gotten up by the law¬ 
yers, and that they were divided u])on it. He did not 
know how it might be in that section of the country 
which the gentleman represents, but he did know that 
many, and among them the most intelligent of the peo¬ 
ple, in his region, did require this change. They re¬ 
quired that our proceedings in the courts of justice 
should be more intelligible ; that they should be more 
certain, more speedy, and less expensive. These were 
the considerations which induced the committee to ri'- 
port this section. The proceedings were now as He¬ 
brew or barbarian to those uneducated in the profes¬ 
sion. The difficulty and failure in selecting remedies 
often produced delay—needless delay, attended with 
ruinous and oppressive expense. 

The gentleman from Geauga whose learning and ex¬ 
perience he venei’ated as much as any man upon this 
floor, seemed to have gone past the age of improve¬ 
ment, so that nothing more nor nothing better could be 
done than what had been done. He himself was not 
greatly behind that gentleman in age, yet he did not 
tremble at the idea of improvement. In regard to law, 
he was disposed to make it a plain matter of common- 
sense and common understanding. It was the plain 
dictate of reason, and intelligent men should require 
and did require that our legal proceedings should be 
conducted and recorded in plain English language; and 
that the truth and not a fiction should be recorded. If 
there were no other reason stronger than this, he 
should feel himself called upon to make the proposed 
change: if there were no other inducement than that, 
the people should know what the court were doing, 
when trying a cause, and what they had done, and how 
they had done it when it was determined, it would be 
sufficient reason with him to make the change. The 
law must necessarily be a powerful agent in moulding 
the morals of the people. The law of remedies, as 
well as of rights, should have but one aim. Justice 
should be its object, and truth the means of attaining 
it. It should be simple, known, and as familiar to the 
masses, as it can by possibility be made. When the 
law makes provision for such an administration of jus¬ 
tice, its influence upon the morals of the people will be 
highly salutary, and will command that respect and 
reverence which will secure, by a moral power, more 
efficient than the power of the sheriff’, obedience, 
tranquility and order. 

He could hardly have thought that the gentleman 
from Geauga, however wedded he might be to ancient 
forms, would have taken up the action of ejectment as 
a specimen of the excellence of common law pi ^ading. 
Notwithstanding, lawyers might understand, and make 
use of it, yet he should have expected that any lawyer 
would have consented that a fiction so ridiculous—he 
could think of no other word which would so well ex¬ 
press his meaning—might well be dispensed with. 

He was almost tempted to give a histoiy of the pro¬ 
ceedings in that action, just to show gentlemen who 
were unacquainted with the law practice, what kind 
of a story we have to tell to the court to get a hear¬ 
ing and decision, on a question of a disputed land 
title. 

Mr. SAWYER, (in his seat,) well, let us hear. 

Mr. HOLT here proceeded to rehearse at length the 
prescribed form in an action of ejectment, in which 
Jo..n Doe and Richard Roe were the chief actors, who 
seemed to have been large traders in land of every de¬ 
scription, and seldom traded without a law suit. They 
dealt freely in such terms as lease, entry, ouster, casual 
ejector, and other terras not noted. Before bringing the 
history of the proceeding to a close, 

. Mr. SAWYER interrupted, to ask a question. He 
desired to ask the question of Mr. Holt, as a lawyer, 
whether in this action, he could not dispense with all 
the formality and unmeaning fictions of the law, and 
arrive at the end of justice with the same certainty, 
by coming into court with the real names of the par¬ 
ties? 












510 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


Mr. HOLT replied: If the gentleman desired him 
to answer, whether this could be done under the pre¬ 
sent law of remedies, he knew of no remedy other 
than the form of action of which he was now speak¬ 
ing. He had never known the old writ of right used in 
Ohio. 

Mr. SAWYER. He asked the question with refer¬ 
ence to the law which might be enacted under the 
proposed change in the organic law. 

Mr. HOLT. He would arrive at the answer to the 
question in a veiy few minutes; that was the very 
thing he was after. 

Mr. MITCHELL (interruptingfurther.) If the gen¬ 
tleman would allow him, he desired to ask a question 
which might be answered in connection with the 
question of the gentleman from Auglaize. The ques¬ 
tion was: whether, under the proposed system, he 
could accomplished all that could be accomplished by 
the present form of action without introducing, upon 
the records three or four parties, and giving to the 
case the component parts of three or four suits ? 

Mr. HOLT. He would answer this after he had 
got through with the form of proceedings in the action 
of ejectment. 

After concluding the description of the action, Mr. 
Holt put a case by way of illustration. 

A B meaning to convey 100 acres of land to C D, by 
mistake in the deed, as A B claimed, described the 
boundaries so as to contain 110 acres, and gave C D 
possession of the 100 acres. C D claimed to have pur¬ 
chased the 110 acres embraced in the deed, and this 
was the point in dispute. C D, by virtue of the deed 
had obtained the legal title, but had not got possession 
of the 10 acres. A B has possession, but, by giving 
the deed, has parted with the legal title. Now, for 
their respective remedies. 0 D must put up John Doe 
to sue and tell over this long story of lease, entry, and 
ouster, and thus inform A B that he intends to get pos¬ 
session of the 10 acres. Well, what is A B’s remedy ? 
May he come into court, and set up his true defence— 
the mistake in the deed? It might seem so, as this is 
the very point, and all the point, in dispute. But not 
so. He must commence a separate suit, in chancery, 
setting up this mistake, praying that the contract may 
be reformed, the mistake corrected, and C D enjoined 
from employing John Doe to harass and disturb him in 
his possession. 

Now, he would propound a question to the gentle¬ 
man from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] which would furn¬ 
ish his answer to that gentleman’s question. Was it 
not competent for a man to state the truth in plain En¬ 
glish? Would not even professional men understand 
it much better, and would not ^he court apply the law, 
and furnish the remedy, just as well, as when the case 
is stated by way of fiction ? 

Now, sir, a little attention to this New York code of 
procedure, which, with the commissioners, the gen¬ 
tleman from Gallia pursued into some swamp in New 
York, where the code, if not the commissioners, had 
perished. He would read a section abolishing the dis¬ 
tinction between law and equity, and several section s 
showing the plain and concise character of the pleading 
which they had adopted. 

Now one word as to this mode of proceeding: The 
code contains the following directions in respect to the 
complaint: It must contain “a statement of ihe facts 
constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and con¬ 
cise language, without repetition, and in such a man¬ 
ner as to enable a person of common understanding to 
know what was intended.” The same direction is giv¬ 
en in regard to the answer of the defendant, and the 
reply of the plaintiff. If this language be objected to, 
it must be, because it is plain, simple, ordinary lan¬ 
guage. Mr. Holt here read the sections. 

These are the sections in the code of New York, 
which declare what shall be the complaint of the plain¬ 
tiff, what the answer of the defendant, and what the 
reply—directions which apply to the one form of civil 


I action ; for they have but one in New York. And this 
was all there was of “ the swamp,” in which the gen¬ 
tleman from Gallia left the code and commissioners of 
New York. 

He begged the indulgence of the committee while 
he should detain them but a few moments longer. He 
did not expect to intrude himself upon their patience 
again upon this question. It was always with reluc¬ 
tance, and even painful for him to do so. He had said 
that the object, on the part of the committee was to 
make the legal proceedings more intelligible—so that 
any intelligent man during the progress of a trial, might 
know what was going on, that when the record is 
made up a man of common understanding might learn 
from it what had been done. 

He would not repeat the conclusive argument of the 
gentleman from Adams [Mr. Collings] which was 
urged with much clearness and force, going to show 
the advantage of certainty in judicial remedies. The 
object was to obtain certainty where there was now 
uncertainty. Gentlemen of the bar need not tell him 
that the remedies were now plain, and that there were 
no difficulties in the way. It was not the mere novice 
that might go wrong. A skillful lawyer was liable to 
mistake the remedy. 

The honorable Chief Justice of Ohio, who sat beside 
him, [Mr. Hitchcock,] would, after his vigenti anno- 
rum lucuhrationes at the bar, and more than that, re¬ 
peated on the bench,— 

Mr. HITCHCOCK (in his seat.) I don’t understand 
that. 

Mr. HOLT resuming. I intended it for those who 
don’t understand English, when talking about legal 
proceedings. I was about to say that the Chief Justice 
of Ohio, after his twenty years study and practice at 
the bar, and more than that experience on the bench, 
and the learned and dexterous and able Attorney Gene¬ 
ral, not now in his seat, will divide in opinion upon 
these questions, and each maintain his side with 
zeal and real sincerity—one contending that it was a 
case for the chancellor, the other that there was a plain 
remedy at law: and even the learned Judge himself 
diffenng from his learned brethren on the supreme 
bench, whether the action was rightly brought. There 
was no necessity for this—it should not be so. If this 
were sport for the bar, it was something else to the 
suitor. He repeated, that the experience of the courts 
from term to term, proved more than all he had affirmed 
upon this subject. 

Upon looking over the retunis of the clerks, reported 
to the office of the Secretary of State, he found that 
the cases in chancery had multiplied to such an extent 
that they were almost equal in number to the suits at 
law. This fact was sufficient to show that questions of 
jurisdiction must constantly arise, and be settled atgreat 
expense to suitors. 

The committee had made this report as a prelimina- 
ry step toward putting at an end uncertainty, delay 
and expense—to reduce the practice to an uniform sys¬ 
tem. Now these forms and fictions are of no value to 
the truly scientific lawyer. They sustained a class of 
men who, without them, might find themselves under 
the necessity of following some livelihood better adapt¬ 
ed to their measure, and more useful to the community. 
Was it supposed that the science of the law consisted 
of the scholastic subtleties of former ages—in forms 
and fictions and technical, arbitrary rules’ These are 
rather rubbish which obstruct the way to the science 
of the law. They may be used by, but are by no means 
needed by scientific men. The science of the law was 
a knowledge of the law of rights. It was this knowl¬ 
edge as it had accumulated for centuries; and for its 
future development, must be sought after and ascer¬ 
tained in fitness and justness and truth, as these exist 
in the diversified relations of life—in the ten thousand 
times ten thousand and ever multiplying ramifications 
of business and commerce, varied also in their applica¬ 
tion by an almost infinitude of circumstances. Truth 









CONVENTION EEPORTS. 511 


and fitness and justness, when discovered and known, 
make manifest the right and the wrong, and indicate 
the rule and its application, by which right is main¬ 
tained and wron^redressed. This, substantially, is my 
understanding ot the science of law—a noble science, 
demanding in its attainment, a life of study, reflection 
and application, by the best intellects. 

An acquaintance with technical forms, legal fictions, 
and scholastic subtleties,—useless in themselves, and 
susceptible of being employed, in dexterous hands, to 
obtain a victoiy over truth, and defeat the ends of jus¬ 
tice,—may have been an acquisition of the schoolmen, 
commanding admiration in an age gone by, but wholly 
unsuited to, and unworthy of, the philosophy and intel¬ 
ligence of the present day. He had witnessed, not un- 
frequently, among the bar a spirit of triumph by rea¬ 
son of a victory over an adversary, gained not by the 
successful advocacy of right and justice, but by means 
of some dexterous special pleading, without reaching 
the merits. Possibly he himself might have felt it at 
times, and at other times he may have been the victim. 
But it was wrong—the influence was unfavorable to 
the morals of the profession. Triumphing over the 
right is like glorying in ones shame. It was no longer 
ago than Saturday last that he was informed of a case, 
said to have been tried in this county, in which the 
pleader, in setting out the consideration of an import¬ 
ant contract, by mistake omitted the article of a pow¬ 
der-horn, worth seventy-five cents or a dollar, which 
composed part of the consideration; and before advan¬ 
tage had been sought to be taken of it, the litigation 
had progressed until the taxable cost amounted to a- 
bout three hundred dollars, which the plaintiff had to 
pay to obtain the privilege of amending his pleading— 
and this was not called robbery, but the administra¬ 
tion of justice! 

Mr. HOLT concluded by a further reference to the 
code of procedure of New York, the complete report 
of which he had recently received; and after a hasty 
and partial glance at some portions of it, he was satis¬ 
fied that it was a decided improvement in pleading 
and practice. He believed that the opposition which 
the new practice had to surmount in New York was 
from the old conservative, and perhaps lazy, members 
of the bar, who disliked everything new, and who still 
balance their grain by a stone in one end of the bag ; 
and by another class, who found their fees somewhat 
minus, by the operation of the code. ' He hoped Ohio 
would not fall behind her sisters in the march of sale 
progress. 

Mr. NASH desired to ask the gentleman from Mont¬ 
gomery whether the report to which he had referred 
was made at the last session of the New York General 
Assembly ? 

Mr. HOLT. It was. 

Mr. LEADBETTER hoped that the Convention 
would get such information on the subject now occu¬ 
pying the attention of the committee, as would lead 
it to act intelligently on the subject. I have heard 
much of the new system, and of the reformed prac¬ 
tice in New York, but I have lately been informed 
that the ends of justice were not so well attained there 
now, as under the old system. I am told, and I have it 
from a firm of most respectable lawyers in Buffalo, N. 
Y., that under the present system, an unscrupulous man 
may, with the assistance ol “shrewd” lawyers, keep 
a considerable amount of property, from the hands of 
his creditors. I should like to see the man so dishonest, 
and the lawyer so shrewd, as to be able to keep^ a 
large amount of property from the creditor in Ohio! 
Now if this new “ code,” so much desired by the gentle¬ 
man, is to contain, even by construction, any such lax 
ative principle as this, I am opposed to it. 

From all that he could learn, he must also oppose the 
proposition to strike down all distinctions betw’een 
chaucery and common law jurisdiction. If gentlemen 
simplify the forms of action and practice of the pro¬ 
fession and the ends of justice still be subverted, his 


judgment must be thoroughly convinced before he 
could be induced to leave the old and well beaten 
paths. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. It seems to be nec¬ 
essary, in order to carry a measure through this Con¬ 
vention, to mime it “ a reform.” This is a prerequisite 
to the success of any proposition broached upon this 
floor. I did suppose that I had gone for the only re¬ 
form proposed in this section of the report. The prop¬ 
osition was made that the commissioners to revise the 
laws and prepare a new code should be elected by the 
people. But gentlemen opposed this, they thought it a 
matter of too much consequence to entrust to the peo¬ 
ple. My friend from Montgomery [Mr. Holt] says I 
am “ too old for reform,” and yet I have gone for the 
only real reform proposed in relation to this section of 
the report. And I say that it is entirely unnecessary to 
introduce a clause of this kind into the organic law. 
Does the gentleman from Montgomery deny the cor¬ 
rectness of this position ? Not at all. Bathe goes into 
an argument to show that it is our “ duty” to do it. My 
position was to leave the matter to the discretion of the 
Legislature; if the “ reform” system works well, let 
them coutinue it and improve upon it. If otherwise, let 
them reject it 

On motion by Mr. BENNETT, the committee rose and 
reported “ no conclusion.” 

And on motion by Mr. GREEN of Ross, the Conven¬ 
tion took a recess. 


3 o’clock, P. M. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention resol¬ 
ved itself into a committee of the Whole, (Mr. Lou¬ 
don in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the 
report of the committee on 

JURISPRUDENCE. 

The question was announced as being on the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. Vance,] 
amendatory of the amendment presented by the gen¬ 
tleman from Erie, [Mr. Taylor.] 

Mr. VANCE of Butler thought that if there were to 
be anytliing at all introduced into the constitution on 
this subject, the section would be amply broad after 
making the amendments which were here proposed 
by the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Taylor] and him¬ 
self. In his opinion, it would be better to leave the 
people at liberty to exercise their own discretion as to 
the expediency or inexpediency of the proposed re¬ 
form. This section not only proposed to simplify the 
proceedings in our courts of justice, but it would fur¬ 
thermore compel us to abolish all distinction between 
the different kinds of actions, and bind parties so that 
they would be obliged to bring their suits, whether 
they were in chancery or at common law, in the same 
court, and according to the same mode of proceeding. 
In his mind, such a change as that would be destructive 
to the rights of our people—so far as these rights de¬ 
pended upon a correct administration of justice. He 
saw no necessity for going any further in carrying out 
a legal reform, so much desired by gentlemen on the 
other side of the question ; but he objected to the in¬ 
troduction of a provision of this kind into the constitu¬ 
tion we were about to adopt. 

The people were the source of all power, and with 
the people should be left all power, except so far as 
it became necessary to take a part of it away in order 
to protect them in their rights and liberties under the 
form of a government. It became necessai-y that the 
people should delegate a part of the powers lodged 
with them, in order the more effectually to guard and 
protect them in that which they retained in their own 
hands. But. in the formation of a constitution, we 
should go no farther than was necessary for the protec¬ 
tion of the people in this respect. The people, then, 
bein*^ the source of all power, why not leave this ques¬ 
tion ^exclusively to them ? Had they not the power, 
through their representatives, to make such legal re¬ 
forms as are here proposed? Undoubtedly, for there 












512 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


was nothing in the constitution that prevented them 
from exercising such a right; they might go to any 
length by their Legislature. Hence it was not neces¬ 
sary to introduce anything into the constitution in rela¬ 
tion to this subject. On the other hand, much mischief 
might be produced by the adoption of this unbending 
rule of law reform. 

What did the section under consideration provide ? 
—what did it require of the people—to exercise their 
own judgment and good sense in a matter of this kind? 
Not at all. By this provision we were not to leave 
them at liberty, so to do or act; but they would be ab¬ 
solutely required to abolish the present form of plead¬ 
ing and practice, and introduce another form for good 
or for evil. Now, were gentlemen prepared to go that 
length; to take out of the hands of the people that 
which rightfully belonged to them ? It appeared to 
him that that was a privilege which they had a right to 
claim, and which this Convention should not interfere 
with. 

But we come to that which was proposed to be 
stricken out by the 2d amendment presented by him¬ 
self. The amendment proposed to strike out these 
words: “and as far as practicable and expedient, they 
shall provide for the abolition of the distinct forms of 
action at law now in use, and that justice may be ad¬ 
ministered in an uniform mode of pleading, without re¬ 
ference to any distinction between law and equity,” 
This provision requires the commissioners to abolish, 
not only the distinction between actions at law, but all 
distinction between cases at law and actions in equity, 
and to resort to one simple, single rule, or mode of ac¬ 
tion, in every case, no matter what kind of a case it 
might be, whether at law, or in equity. He was not 
prepared to go so far with this “one-idea system,” or 

policy,” as was proposed by gentlemen on the other 
side. If there were any so unfortunate as to possess 
but one idea, he would go as far as any gentleman in 
providing for its fullest enjoyment; but should others 
be so fortunate as to possess two, he should feel equal¬ 
ly bound, so far as he could, to perpetuate their enjoy¬ 
ment. He would bar neither, by constitutional provis¬ 
ion. 

The plan proposed was, to reduce all our litigants— 
■all our lawyers—to one mode of proceeding. It places 
a suit in chancery along side with a suit in bastardy; 
and, as he understood it, the section justifies the ex¬ 
pectation that evidence that might be applicable to one 
case, might, under the same rule, be offered in another. 
He wanted to know, if a party were to bring an action 
which properly involved the subject matter of cove¬ 
nant—but under the proposed policy of reform, the 
plaintiff would be compelled to sue in assumpsit, and 
to file his bill in chancery, or resort to such other sin¬ 
gle and simple form of remedy as may be adopted, as 
of universal application, under the sanction of the pro¬ 
vision before us—under what department of evidence 
the facts were to be received ? Were our courts to be 
left at liberty to resort to the law of evidence applica¬ 
ble to matters of covenant? or must they resort to the 
law of evidence in matters of assumpsit, or to that 
which is appropriate in matters of chancery jurisdic¬ 
tion? Were courts to be requii’ed to receive the evi¬ 
dence without regard to law, or to a wholesome dis¬ 
crimination ? W ere parties to be subjected to the 
mere iron will of a judge ? 

Gentlemen should look at the diflSculties which 
must arise out of a policy of this nature, proposed by 
the report ? He did not wish to urge his objections in 
this particular any further. He alluded to the propo¬ 
sition merely to show the confusion into which our ju¬ 
dicial practice would run if we fostered the policy here 
proposed by this constitutional piovision. He was not 
opposed to law reform ; he was aware that some parts 
of our present system of practice might be profitably 
amended; but the abuses which were so frequently 
complained of, as growing out of our present system of 
practice did not result from the system itself; but that 


they did most generally result from inattention, or the : 
want of skill upon the part of the pleader. He would 
venture to say that we might labor for many years and 
not make a better system than our present; for it was ; 
a system built up by the most experienced and able 
and the wisest lawyers and judges that have lived du¬ 
ring the last thousand years, ileformation had been ! 
going on during the entire time and alterations had 
constantly, from time to time, been made until at last 
they had got a system as good and as perfect as it was 
possible for any set of men—for any people to obtain, 
with a few exceptions, that he need not call attention 
to. 

Gentleman objected to this section, because there 
was no limit fixed in which these commissioners should 
discharge the duties imposed upon them. We should 
certainly not fix the period—we should only suggest— 

(if this provision was to be adopted at all)—that pro¬ 
vision be made for the appointment of successors to ( 
these commissioners, for this labor might require many j 
years for its completion. But we were told by some, i 
that this was a reformation suggested by the common i 
sense of the people, and that was the reason why we f 
should provide the means of carrying it out here. ^ 

It was proposed by the gentleman from Trum- j 

bull, [Mr. Ranney,] as he understood him, to abolish { 

all forms of action, and rules of pleading, and modes 
of proceeding in our courts of justice; and that all 
this shall be done, without providing any other or bet- i 
ter system, save that which may be the ordinary result 
of common sense, leaving every man in every court to ’ 
establish his system, according to his own standard of ; 
common sense. Under our present system, we not on¬ 
ly had our forms of action, but our forms of pleading. 

The ends of justice required that all these forms should 
be observed. 

Each party can know the points to which the evi- ' 

deuce will be directed. But it was proposed to abol- i 

ish all that, and to leave the respective parties in igno- i 

ranee as to the nature of the matters in litigation.— i 

There is to be but one action—but one mode of pro¬ 
ceeding. That, and nothing else, was proposed by the i 
provision sought to be introduced into the constitution. 
Now, it would seem just as reasonable to him if we 
should here undertake to provide “one single, simple, 
and uniform I'ule,” by which all and every problem in 
mathemathics should be solved. What would be the 
opinion and feeling and sentiment of gentlemen here, 
if a proposition should be made upon the part of some 
member to reform the science of mathematics, and to 
reduce the solution of every proposition to one single 
and simple rule? Now, the profession of law is no 
less a science than is the mathematics. Both these 
sciences require an almost innumerable variety of rules, 
which must be necessarily looked to as aids of the hu¬ 
man mind, in arriving at correct and sensible conclu¬ 
sions. 

He held that it would be just as advisable to require 
that every problem in science should be solved by one 
single rule, as to decide every case by one rule of ac¬ 
tion or method of pleading. But we were referred to 
New York and the plan they had adopted, or were a- 
bout to adopt there, as a guide for us, in our progress - 
in modern reform. He was not acquainted with, nor 

did he know much about it—the system referred to._ 

The truth was, he had had so little faith in the various 
propositions put forth to the world, from time to lime, 
upon the subject of law reform, that he had not thought 
it worth while to examine the half of them, nor to note 
the extent to which reformers proposed to go, in their 
proposed reforms. He did not hear the argument of 
the gentleman from Montgomery, [Mr. Holt,] but he 
saw a book upon the gentleman’s table large eiiou^^h 
to contain all the writings of Swedenborg, which he 
understood to be a portion only of the system proposed 
by the New York commissioners. Now, suppose the 
fact to be that the Legislature of New York will adopt 
that report, would it result in the simplification of the 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


practice, and the rules by which courts of justice have 
been, in that State, guided heretofore. In his opinion 
this report went further than any State had yet gone, 
to mystify and make more imcertaiii the forms of pro¬ 
ceedings in your judicial courts. If it did not, he 
would confess that he had but little idea of the reforms 
therein proposed. 

Now, looking to the forms of pleading in our own 
State, he asked how could they be farther simplified? 
Take the action of assumpsit for instance ; could there 
be a form of proceeding made shorter than a simple 
declaration in assumpsit. If any gentleman pro¬ 
posed to do it, let him say or suggest the improvements 
which he proposes. I invite him to say to us, what 
part of the declaration he would leave out—what 
changes introduce for the purpose of abreviation?— 
Was it possible to do it and retain the points necessary 
to be looked to, and to direct the evidence to, in order 
to a trial on the merits ? Let us then go the defence— 
to the form under which the offsets and the other proois 
in the defence were made. Could that form be simpli¬ 
fied? If it could, let gentlemen say how—in what 
manner. 

Now, the same thing may be said with respect to 
every other action known to the books of the profe.s- 
gion. It is true that some alterations and reforms are 
necessary—he had already admitted that fact. But 
generally speaking, the forms of pleading have been so 
modified from year to year, as to leave now little or noth¬ 
ing, save that which is essentially proper, being a short 
and comprehensive outline of the case. Objection has 
been made to the form of a declaration in ejectment. 
He said he would be pleased if gentlemen would sug¬ 
gest a more compi’ehensive—more convenient, and if 
possible, a shorter or less expensive form—one that 
will lead more directly to the ends of justice. Can 
this be done ? 

But he admitted that inexperience in pleading had 
led to many errors, and to some injustice; that, how¬ 
ever, would be the case under any form that might be 
adopted. It was not the principles embodied in these 
forms that led to mischief, but it was the want of skill 
in the pleader to conform himself to the law. If we 
could get rid of the evils to which he had alluded, he 
would go as far as the farthest. He asked if these 
evils could be avoided in the way proposed ? He 
would answer that, in his opinion, they could not. 

There was one other remark he would make. He 
really did not know what the effect of this section up¬ 
on the Legislature would be. By this provision, the 
commissioners to be elected, would be recpiired to re¬ 
port their labors to the General Assembly. Now, what 
the Legislature was to do under the provision was not 
left clear to his mind—he supposed it would be to adopt 
or reject it—he did not know whether they would have 
the power or not to alter or change the report after it 
had even been accepted. The Legislature now had 
every power to prosecute all these legal refoians pro¬ 
posed, without this constitutional provision. All that 
would be necessary was, to request the Legislature to 
undertake this r.'formulion, and the Legislature would 
have the ])Ower, and doub'.less would act, as justice 
and expediency might suggest as ri^^ht and proper in 
the premises. But it was a question not to be lost 
sight of, as to how far the Legislature would have the 
right to go in view of this provision. 

If the Legislature found that the plan of the com¬ 
missioners did not answer the [uirpose for which it 
was intended, would the General Assembly have the 
power to form a nevv one, or must our people be bound 
down by the provisions of a report thus made? It was 
his opinion that we were throwing shackles, not only 
about the people themselves, if, indeed, they desire a 
reform in this particular, but about the Legislature, so 
as to prevent them from exercising their discretion in 
the matter—for tliat reason he thought wo should not 
adopt such a provision. He hoped, then, that the pro¬ 
vision would 1)6 struck out. He had not any great ob- 

33 


jection to the balance of the section, except tlie ob¬ 
jection first made,which was as to the introduction of 
this clause at all into the organic law, nevertheless if 
this amendment was made, he would not make any 
objection to the balance of the section. That would 
Iccive the commissioners at liberty to make whatever 
reforms were necessary and called for, and that was as 
tar as we ought at any time, or under any form to <^0 

Mr. ARCH BOLD observed that whatever amend¬ 
ment might prevail, he. hoped the amendment of the 
gentleman from Erie [Mr. Taylor] would not be 
adopted. 1 0 compel the legislative commissioners to 
go into a work which they themselves might deem in¬ 
expedient and im[)racticable, would seem to him to 
be extremely inexpedient. He wished the gentleman 
from Butler [Mr. Vance] would withdraw his motion; 
he wished to vote against the other amendment, for he 
was somewhat apprehensive that with both these 
amendments before the committee, they might become 
entangled. 

[After some further debate, (abouo three columns,] 
in which Messrs. Case of Licking, Archbold, Mitch¬ 


ell and others participated, the committee rose and 
the Convention adjourned.] 

Mr. VANCE remarked that the question would ne¬ 
cessarily arise upon his amendment first. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD thought it would be desirable if 
such a course could be pursued. He was not one who 
wished to leave the future Legislatures with no dis¬ 
cretion upon any subject whatever; he would rather 
leave them the widest discretion than none at all. 

IVIr. BENNE TT said that, with some degree of refer¬ 
ence to the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. Vance,] it 
struck him as somewhat questionable, whether his 
amendment in the form pro])osed, could be considei’ed 
as an amendment to the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. 
Taylor.] If the words j)roposed to be struck out, 
were struck out, and the other amendment should fail, 
how would the section then read? “And as far as 
practicable and expedient.” It struck him as entirely 
d life rent in its nature. 

Mr. CASE, (of Licking,) had not designed to have 
said any thing upon this question, although he belong¬ 
ed to the Committee that presented this Report, which 
he approved so far as it went; yet on the whole he re- 
greted that the Committee had 1 ot felt disposed to go 
further than they had gone. He was for going into a 
codification of the whole law of the St it(*, in aldiiion 
to what they here proposed; but he believed he was 
the oidy one on the committee prepared to go that far, 
and perhaps in this House; [many voices, “no, no,”] 
he understood, however, just this moment that there 
were others. He hoped the day was not far distant, 
when, in the great State of Ohio, all the laws would 
be codified and brought into one volume. He would 
not detain tne Committee upon that question, as it hud 
not a direct bearing on this Report, yet, he would say 
that we were not without examples on the subject.— 
We had an instance of the kind in the Code Na[)oleon; 
in the .Justinian Code, and the Louisiana Code. And, 
who could say that a codification might not prove use- 
fid to the State of Ohio. He ho{»ed the tune would 
come when such would be the condition of the law of 
the State, so that we would not have to wade through 
hundreds of volumes, ns we now do, to find out what 
the law is—and as is often the case, ultimately find our¬ 
selves more in doubt than when we set out. He was 
satisfied that the people demanded some action on this 
question of law reform. So lar as he knew the voice 
of the people it was almost unajiirnous on this subject. 
They expected, and certauily would be disappointed 
unless they got something in the shafie ot legal reform. 
The people were disgusted and sickened whilst list u- 
ingin courts to the nonsense of our common law sys¬ 
tem of procedure. He would ask, what lawyer was 
there that did not know that his clients were often 
amazed when he read over to them the pleadings 


I 












514 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


which the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. Vance,] said 
were intended to inform the opposite party of the sub¬ 
ject matter of the suit. Suppose now, an action on an 
ordinary book account. What did the pleadings first 
commence with ? It recited that the defendant was 
indebted to the plaintiff “ for goods sold and deliver¬ 
ed,"—why the client perhaps would say he never 
bought a dollar’s worth of goods — the lawyer would 
reply, “ Oh! that means nothing, that is all mere form.” 
Then again, “for money lent.” Again, “for money 
had and received,” when the client probably never 
had a dollar of the plaintiff’s money. 

Mr. VANCE [of Butler,] interposing, enquired if it 
w’ere necessary to introduce these matters into the 
pleadings? 

Mr. CASE admitted that it was not necessary under 
all cii ciunstances, but it was frequently necessary to 
do so for the sake of caution; such was the practice, 
and no lawyer would ordinarily forgo the setting forth 
of the entire counts in the proceeding. 

Mr. MITCHELL desired to know how many cases, 
and how many actions on a book account, in which it 
w’as not more or less necessary to set forth the common 
counts, and in which there was not more or less of 
money paid or received. 

Mr. CASE resumed and said : that was undoubtedly 
the case in many instances, but not always; he had 
seen his clients stand in amazement, at hearing the 
nonsense read over to them in the form of pleadings, 
which had no meaning in common sense or law. Did 
these common counts give the defendant notice of what 
was required c f him ? Not at all, you might as well 
read to him half a dozen sections from the Koran of 
Mahomet, as to read the common counts to him, so far 
as giving notice was concerned. Under these common 
accounts a common note of hand may be introduced 
and recovered on, yet what notice had the defendant 
that this note woidd have been introduced. Then he 
w’ould say, that these common couiits did not come up 
to the idea of the law, which was, to give notice of the 
subject matter of action. The instance of common 
counts Was only one of many that might be adduced 
to show the nonsense and absurdity of much of our 
common law proceedings. The fictions in trover and 
ejectment are still more ridiculous. It was a proceed¬ 
ing full of hoary, venerable nonsense, and he was sur¬ 
prised to find in this body, composed as it was, of a 
large proportion of lawyers, so little of the spirit of 
the age. On that question he had supposed that there 
was a spirit abroad in Ohio, ready to come up and de¬ 
molish this absurd system of common law pleading.— 
Had not New York led off? Had not Kentucky, Mis¬ 
souri and Tennessee followed, and were not nearly all 
the other States following up in this cause of reform? 
And shall Ohio hold back? No, I trust not. What' 
other nation in the world, except England, and a part 
of this, had a system of legal procedure so full of fic¬ 
tions and riddles ? 

He was willing to let this report pass, even with the 
discretionary words “ if practicable and expedient” in 
it, until he had heai’d the opposition made here to this 
Report. But, since he found opposition here in high 
quarters, and a disposition, he might say to ridicule 
this project, he wished to express to these Commission¬ 
ers to be appointed under this provision, a positive 
injunction to do this thing. He would say, let us pass 
upon this matter. Let us declare that it is practicable 
and expedient, and let it go out as a mandate, for he 
did fear that this commission would fall into the hands 
of some old hunker lawyers, and that the people would 
be at last cheated out of what they demanded of us 
here in this respect. What had we heard here? We 
had heard men of the highest standing in the profes¬ 
sion, eulogising in the most exalted terms, the fiction 
in the law of ejectment of John Doe and Richard Roe. 
He conceived that fiction to be the sublimation of non¬ 
sense, and men had actually argued here, that there 
was no way under heaven for a man to recover his title 


to real property except by that absurdity. How do i 
they recover their lands in New York, Pennsylvania, |* 
and Louisiana ? in France, Germany, and all over the ; 
globe, except in England and a part of this counti’y?— i 
Did they by this fiction ? Most assuredly not. He for j 
one, had no reverence for any thing but what was ab- | 
solutely good in this common law system. He had no 
respect for the adsurdities that grew up among the f 
Druids and Sophists of Feudal times, who could neith- j 
er read nor write. What was good he would retain, | 
—what was bad he would reject. What was the pro -1 
position made in this section of the Report, for he ap-1 
prehended that it had been misconceived or misrepre¬ 
sented ? It w’asthis, and this only, to abolish all forms 
of action at law as unnecessary, and adopt one uniform 
method of procedure, both in law and chancery. This ' 
thing was practicable, and had been deemed so in ma-: 
ny other States of this Union, and that it was so, wasj 
evidenced by the practice of all other countries except | 
in England and a part of this country. Let them go to j 
Louisiana,—did they see there any nonsensical fictions! 
in law practice there ? No, far otherwise— they found j 
there substantially the civil law procedure, simple and | 
comprehensible by any man of common sense and 
common enlightenment, and highly useful in the ad¬ 
ministration of justice. 

But taking another view of the case, he submitted 
that there was no necessity for this classification of act! 
tions. Nowin pleadings in chanceiy,there were as ma-( 
ny rights involved as on the law side of the court, ye-« 
on the chancery side of our courts we heard nothing of; 

“ trespass, or of’ assumpsit, or of trover,” &c., &c. Iti 
was practicable, then, to bringdown the whole classi-.' 
fication of action to one form. Let us then, at one 
stroke, do away with this ab-urdity, and have nothing^ 
but one action at law, or as they had it in New York, 
nothing but a civil action. In his opinion, they should 
adopt, substantially, the same system which now ex-! 
isted in chancery, for both chancery and law pleading.' 
He hoped that this report would be adopted, and these ; 
words “practicable and expedient” struck out; he, 
would vote for the proposition of the gentleman from; 
Erie, [Mr. Taylor.] 

Mr. VANCE of Butler was in fav<,r of a judiciousi 
and proper reform in the judiciary system of the State. 
He would be found heartily advocating such a re¬ 
form at all times, but he could not, with his present 
views, go so far as the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. Tay-! 
LOR,] nor could he yield his assent to any proposition' 
to abolish all distinction between law and equity, and 
to abolish all distinctions between forms of action. Af-i 
ter all that has been said by the gentleman from Lick-i 
ing, [Mr. Case,] as to the intricacy, the mysticism and ■ 
the prolixity of legal forms in present use, he believed 
they were, in many cases, the simplest and best thatl 
could be invented. In most cases, where lawyers; 
complain of the prolixity and mysticism of pleadings,; 
the fault is witli the lawyer, not the system. He de-' 
sired that those who were desirous of abrogating the! 
forms of the common law should first propose better* 
and briefer forms. How will you shorten the form ofj 
an action for assumf)sit? How will you proceed to 
make more brief and simple, the form of a bill in chan-1 
eery ? The greatest part of the mischief that has been j 
complained of, has grown out of the inexperience of| 
the pleader. He objected to going the full length ofi 
the amendment before the committee. He objected to j 
a breaking down of all the distinctions necessarily ex¬ 
isting between the forms of different actions. He was 
well satisfied, from his own experience, that such pro¬ 
cedure would never result in equal justice between 
man and man. There must be such distinctions in eve¬ 
ry department of life. Suppose you provide in your 
new constitution that the farmer shall sow always the 
same kind of grain—that he shall put in all his differ¬ 
ent crops at one and the same season. Suppose you 
provide in your organic law, that the blacksmiths should 
all use one kind of anvil and hammers, and sledges of! 















CONVENTION EEPORTS. 515 


the same size and weight? Suppose you prescribe 
that the mariner shall always be guided by the same 
rules, that he shall follow the same rule in spherical as 

in --- sailing. You mightthereby “simplify” black- 

smithing and the agricultural and nautical systems ; but 
lapprehend you would defeat the purposes of all. 

He could not 8up[)ort the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Erie, [Mr. Taylor,] and he would prefer 
that nothig of the kind should be inserted in the con¬ 
stitution. All legitimate reforms could be reached and 
effected without this. 

Mr. TAYLOR suggested to Mr. Vance, the propriety 
of temporarily withdrawing his (Mr. V.'s) amendment, 
until the vote should be taken on his, (Mr. Taylor’s.) 

Mr. VANCE saw a difficulty in effecting the object 
he had in view were he to do so. 

Mr. MITCHELL remarked that he rose to address a 
few observations to the committee, and in part to put 
an end to the confusion that seemed to prevail. He 
trusted that the committee would give him its atten¬ 
tion for a few minutes. The gentleman from Licking 
[Mr. Case] very fortunately made use of the term “ old 
hunker,” and that set his mind in a very curious train of 
thought. He desired all the free soilers—especially the 
gentleman from Erie, would give him their attention. 

Mr. TOVVNSHEND (interposing) would like to know 
if they were to understand the gentleman as alluding 
to the free soilers as old hunkers. 

, Mr. MITCHELL replied that he hoped not. What 
he was about to say was, that “hunkerism” was to be 
found in this body. The moment the gentleman men- 

[ tioned “ hunkers,” the idea which followed in his mind 
was “barnburners,” and then he recollected that he 
was among the earliest “ barnburners” in America. lie 
believed that the lamented McNulty gave origin to it, 
in the lower house of our General Assembly, by a bold 
declaration he once there made, in relation to the burn¬ 
ing of bank edifices. I was one of his constituents, 
and among the first to respond to his sentiment and 
come within this appellation. Soon after this, in an¬ 
other part of the world, this name was taken as the 
party name by a fraction of the democratic party. Its 
antagonist name was old hunker. In close connection 
with the name barnburner, must now come the name 
free soil, and in close connection with this name, what 
inevitably arises ? Why, sir, it is no less grave a mat¬ 
ter than tht! great Ordinance of 1787. This great Or¬ 
dinance which, according to free soil teaching, is to be 
irrepealable forever, before and above all other laws 
human or divine. Who was the man who was attack 
ing that great Ordinance? It was the man who was 
conducting the leading free soil paper on the Western 
Reserve. Perhaps I should say the leading paper of 
the country. And where was it this gentleman and 
others were attacking this great and solemn Ordinance ? 
Why, sh’, it is in those very articles which, if we are 
to believe these free soilers, are to remain immutable 
forever. Yes sir, like the laws of the Medes and Pei*- 
sians, are to change not. 

Mr. REE ME LIN inquired ifthe gentleman believed 
that Congress, under the present constitution, had the 
right to pass that part of the ordinance of ’87, which 
fixed for a State, a certain institution, in a certain man¬ 
ner? 

Mr. MITCHELL resumed. That was not the ques¬ 
tion. He trusted that the gentleman and all other free 
soilers on that floor, would give him their attention for 
a short time. He was showing no inconsistency here. 
He was about to show where “old hunker” tracks 
could be found, in attempts here to disregard this free 
soil dogma. The second article of that article, read in 
the following terms: “The inhabitants of said terri¬ 
tory shall always be entitled to the benefit of the writ 
of habeas corpus, and of the trial by jury; of a propor¬ 
tionate representation of the people in the Legislature, 
and of judicial proceedings according to the course of 
;he common law.” 

' That was amongst the great and prominent provi¬ 


sions of that ordinance. He for one, would not hesitate 
to say, so far as his judgment was concerned, that ordi¬ 
nance in relation to this matter, should be forever ob¬ 
served, not for the reason given by the party who had 
made such ado about its solemn intangibility, but be¬ 
cause the interest of the people require it. He had 
good reason for holding this opinion, and so had any 
intelligent lawyer—any intelligent advocate of Iree- 
dom. In the old common law which had become the 
heritage of Americans, on which our liberties were 
founded, and from which we drew the great principles 
which were our protection from oppression and wrong, 
every intelligent man finds that Hercules which had 
successfully contended against the worst of tyranny 
for the last thousand years, and more. It was that old 
common law, which the gentleman from Hamilton 
[Mr. Reemelin] was so fond of attacking and traduc¬ 
ing, which had secured to us our liberties. What was 
it that retained to the English people what little per¬ 
sonal liberty they enjoy ? Every one would admit, that 
even there, when they might, and most probably 
would have had the most abject of governments, they 
enjoyed a large amount of personal liberty, and more 
protection to life and property, than in most any other 
portion of Europe, excepting perhaps Switzerland, the 
little republic of Santa Marino, and the duchy of Lucca. 
Why was it so ? It was because they had that com¬ 
mon law, which declared that no man should be de¬ 
prived of his life or liberty, except by the judgment of 
Ids peers in open court, and before the face of the 
world. It was because this common law had always 
been held, to be a secured heritage, that could not be 
trodden down by the crown, that the people of Eng¬ 
land enjoy the freedom that they do. 

Mr. RANNEY inquired if the “ trial by battle ” were 
not a part of the common law, and if so did, it not exist 
in Ohio? 

A Voice— no, that was a portion of the feudal law. 

Mr. MITCHELL resumed. The gentleman should 
not misunderstand him. He had not intimated that 
this was a system that was always j)erfect; but, he 
would say, that the gentleman could not stand up before 
his all-seeing Creator, and say that the provisions of the 
common law were n ^t as sufficieutto guard private inter¬ 
ests, as any ever before known; or that where the 
common law existed, greater security to life and prop¬ 
erty was not given than in those portions of the world 
in which it did not exist. If not, why should the gen¬ 
tleman in his place here be found giving currency to 
those old hackneyed, worn out aspersions, which have 
at times, by unworthy and unlearned men, been 
thrown out against this lime honored system. I do not 
pretend to claim that this is a positively perfect system. 
I never have. I have ever acknowledged that it was 
merely a human system and necessarily imperfect. 
But, sir, what are these men proposing to do ? What 
are they driving after ? They are proposing what ma¬ 
ny centuries ago, men were found striving for very 
anxiously—that was the establishment of the civil law, 
as a system ol jurisprudence in preference to the com¬ 
mon law. That was the object which gentlemen had 
in view, and they cannot conceal it. Their object was 
to make us follow the example of Louisiana. Suppose 
we should, would we thereby entirely lay aside this sys¬ 
tem of hoary errors, as it has been contemptuously 
called? Was it not a well known fact, that the common 
law also prevails in Louisiana? Was it not true that 
the New Y'^ork, and Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts 
law reports were to be found in the libraries of law¬ 
yers in New Orleans, and throughout all Louisiana? 
The principle of administering right according to the 
course of the common law, is observed in that State 
as well as here, though not so strictly it must be admit¬ 
ted; nevertheless, he acknowledged that they had 
framed a code, and introduced into it and into their 
practice the civil law. 

Mr. HOLT inquired if these reports were ever read 
in the courts, in reference to the mode of proceeding? 










516 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. MITCHELL said there was a case tried in New 
Orleans, iti which common law decisions were brought 
in to aid the court in their decision. He was in formed 
by a friend who had resided there for years, that such 
was their common practice, and that these reports of 
common law decisions formed a necessary part of eve¬ 
ry well selected library. To the question as to wheth¬ 
er they are read, in reference to the practice, if tlie 
gentlemen would look into the case of Gaines and wife 
vs. Chew and others, they would find the same s[)ecics 
of allegation, contained in the i)leadings, as were to be 
found in like petitions at common law, and in the deci¬ 
sion of that case, they will find cited as authority, just 
such old common law and chancery reports as old At¬ 
kins, and Stronge, and Cowper, &c. 

Mr. CASE of Licking would state, for the informa¬ 
tion of the gentleman, that he had been present in Lou¬ 
isiana, in a criminal case, in which the common law 
precedents were ruled out of court. 

Mr. MITCHELL. No doubt in some particular 
cases they were not heard, but the gentleman need not 
inform him that such would be the case. Every man 
of discernment must readily see that such would neces¬ 
sarily be the case in numerous instances. He was not 
speaking at random in regard to this subject, for if any 
gentleman would look into the reports of the Louisiana 
decisions, he would find frequent reference in them, to 
the common law decisions of other courts, in the Uni¬ 
ted States and elsewhere. But he would be allowed 
to ask the gentleman, if they were to adopt this [)ropo- 
sition, which it was said was to enable the people to 
go into a court of justice, and do their own business, 
how much better off they would be? Do men go into 
court and do their own business, in Louisiana, any 
more than in Ohio heretoh)re? Let those gentlemen 
tell the people wliat civil law tribunal or course of 
proceeding was to be foi med in any country affording 
the people more facilities for conducting ])roper]y their 
own business than a common law court and a common 
law practice. He did not believe that gentleman, or 
any one else, could point out one, or that such could be 
found. 

Let any reasonable man think on the difference be¬ 
tween a system of law drawn up in a rigid and un¬ 
yielding code, which must be construed by the strict 
letter, so far as that will go, and a system which had 
grown up from the experiences of ages, and adaj)ted 
to the common occurrences of life, according to llie 
suggestions of common sense.^ Then, let gentlemen re¬ 
flect upon what would be the great and marked diff er¬ 
ence between them. The one was the ])roduct, often, 
of a single man, or of a few men,—digested and per¬ 
fected in a few days—sometimes in a few liours—or, at 
most, of a single life: in many instances, owing to the 
frailty of hiiman language actually failing rightly to 
convey the judgment and conclusion to which they inay 
have really come in regard to a rule of right in a given 
case. If in this they should I’ail, then to that extent 
they will utterly fail of attaining their end, Tlie con¬ 
struction must follow the terms of the statute. Thro’ 
this source you must mainly seek the lawgiver’s mean¬ 
ing. Take the rules settled by common law usages. 
They underwent thorough examination from genera¬ 
tion to generation, in the courts of justice ; and then in 
the decisions of these courts they found these rules, the 
words of which were not binding, but simply the j)rin 
ciples contained. For instance, in the common law 
decisions, although the words did not exactly coincide 
with the case at bar, we were but to take the great 
common sense principles involved—that was sufficient. 
It was that which made it the law of the people, and 
a law which any man of ordinary sense and judgment 
might understand. He once heard it observed by a 
sensible man, that if lie could ascertain what was com¬ 
mon sense, he could tell what was common law. It 
was a truism. He had often said that he would prefer 
a man of good common sense to decide whatwascom- 
mon law, than a half-iead lawyer; he would be more 


likely to arrive at what wms common law, than a man 
who had lialf read his profession, but was destitute of 
common sense to guide him. 

Mr. KEEMELIN here made some remark which 
was inaudible at the table. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The gentleman from Hamilton 
[Mr. Rkemelin] said, in his seat, that we lost our com¬ 
mon sense by the study of common law. Such was 
not the experience of the country; on the contrary, 
we had many instances of men losing their common 
sense by trying to knock down this system We had 
an instance in New York, where Sampson destroyed 
himself and his fame by his labors in that cause. He 
would advise his German friend to take warning by the 
fate of ids jiredecessor from the Emerald Island. 

If he wished to teach either man or child, to argue 
or reason with correctness, he would make him apply 
his mind to the study of this system. It would aid him 
in all the business of life, and strengthen what little 
summon sense he might have. He trusted that his 
friends of the Free Soil party would lake up this ordi¬ 
nance. He had not been much in the custom of defend¬ 
ing it, but it seemed to him to be somewhat strange to 
find those men who had been making great exfu'diums 
and perorations in praise of its transcendent excellence 
and unchangableness, engaged here in this “ old Hun¬ 
ker” business; calling those men names who wished to 
preserve that ordinance in all its vital parts. A friend 
had just handed him a matter, to which he wished to 
call the attention of the committee and of the country. 

It was this: that one of the charges contained in the 
Declaration of Independence against the king of Eng¬ 
land, was that of abolishing the common law. It was 
contained in tlie following words: “For abolishing the 
free system of English laws in a neighboring province, 
establishing therein an arbitrary government, and en¬ 
larging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an ex¬ 
ample and fit instrument for introducing the same ab¬ 
solute rule into these colonies.” It was a fact, that ev¬ 
ery intelligent reader of history, must know and have 
seen, that the crown of England had forever abhorred 
the common law of the Realm—it had been the great 
antagonist over whose barriers the crown could never 
force its way. He could not believe, that there was 
any people in America, who would knowingly attempt 
to abolish this great system, and bring about the same 
state of things which despots and tyrants have often 
tried, and .sometimes succeeded in, for longer or shorter 
periods. But he believed there might be men in this 
body so short sighted as to incorporate into this con¬ 
stitution, a system of jurisprudence, that had never 
been known as favorable to the support of republican 
institutions—and that was the civil law system, under 
whose fostering care the strongest and most imposing 
of the ancient republics literally withered, died—van¬ 
ished. Under that system, the power was iodgedin the 
breast of the judge, without any restriction whatever, 
and he dealt out law, in a great degree regardless of 
what might have been decided by those who had gone 
before him. It was perfectly futile to suppose, that 
we could ado[)t a code of laws, which could meet all 
the multifarious cases, growing out of the diversity of 
purs lits in which a people like ours, were engaged. 
And, it struck him this morning, as strange to see the 
proposition for leaving a judge to determine whether 
a man should be tried by jury, or not, strenuously advo¬ 
cated and urged upon this committee. That was a 
great and valuable right, than which few greater was 
to be found in any constitution—it was the right to tri¬ 
al by a set of men that were the man’s equals, and 
whom, from iheir association in life,, might be sup¬ 
posed to sympathize with him, when he went into a 
court of justice, seeking redress of his wrong. He 
earnestly trusted, that that day would never come, 
when that sacred right would be taken away (com the 
individual citizens ot Ohio, and deposited in any body 
of men. 

His colleague from Flolmes [Mr. Leadbetter] had 


j 

I 

i 

1 


i 

3 


! ( 


1 ' 

' i 


1 













CONVENTION EEPOETS. 


very properly referred to the distinction which obtain¬ 
ed between courts of law and courts of equity. He 
consitlered this fever which had lately grown up in the 
United States in regard to law reform attributed in a 
great measure to fundamental error in religion, straiwe 
as such an assertion might sound to some laws, he 
conceived it had some show of truth. The notion was 
Rowing up that human nature was transcendently per 
lect; there was no such thing, it was supposed as frail¬ 
ty or depravity or falliabilily about the human mind 
at all. The mind was capable of grasping all the knot¬ 
ty points that might be presented to it, be they never 
so numerous or complex. That was the theory: this an¬ 
cient system about to be overthrown was based on a 
different hypothesis, it was that one proposition was 
as much as the human mind could well digest at one 
time. This he maintained was manifestly the true one. 
The one which consists with every sensible maids ex¬ 
perience. Why then reriuire that a court of justice 
or a jury should decide more than one issue at a time. 
There was no man who looked back to the history of 
English jurisprudence who would not come to the con¬ 
clusion that that system was the most adapted to the 
wants of a republican people and best adapted to the 
attainment of a right administration of justice. It was 
a systern which would admit of no inquisition as a court 
I of practice; an inquisition in legal proceedings was 
most profoundly to be abhorred. Then he hoped that 
the people would never lose sight of those great princi¬ 
ples of the common law, and that they would cling to 
them with a tenacity equal to that with which they 
' would cling to their lives. 

He desired to call attention to the plan proposed 
here. He would allude to the objections offered by 
the gentleman from Licking [Mr. Case] toourpresent 
systein of practice. He supposed the gentleman’s first 
objection was, that the common law practice was too 
intricate. It was however, as appeared, just the con¬ 
trary—it was too general, too absurd and indefinite.— 
And what does he show to prove this charge ? He takes 
the very same objection that any clerk in the county 
court would take. He objects to the use of the com¬ 
mon count. His reason was, “ that it was indefinite.” 
But of course his design was to “ simplify” it, so “ that 
the people could more readily understand the system.” 
The gentleman was certainly desirous of pleasing the 
people with some such reform, some such benefit and 
gratuity as this; if not, what did they desire to accom¬ 
plish ? 

The prominent claim on the part of these reformers 
had always been, “to simplify this matter, and make it 
so that any man could go into a court of justice and 
plead his own case.” And, now that the very dignita¬ 
ries, bishops and prelates, so to speak, of this reforma¬ 
tion had had the subject under consideration and had 
brought forth their results, what did we find ? We 
found that the great and unexampledly wise and pro¬ 
found Solons of the State of New York, after almost 
years of labor, had brought forth a book on this subject, 
one which seemed to be but the precursor of a hun¬ 
dred like it. Here is the book. A small and unirnpo- 
sing looking one, to be sure, containing only 791 pages 
of very closely printed matter, and it was triumphant¬ 
ly exhibited to our gaze here, read in our presence as 
containing a few simple rules, which the farmer could 
take up at his leisure and perfectly understand. This 
was the great plan which the State of New York had 
brought forth before the world ! And now, how many 
little rules had we got in this simple compilation ? The 
small number of 1885 ! His friend from Richland ask¬ 
ed him how many constructions they would have. He 
could answer him by saying, “ the Lord only knows.” 

There is really nothing complex or enigmatical in 
the systems of pleading of which so much complaint 
is made. By a reasonable amount of study, the sim¬ 
plest minded man in the State can very readily under¬ 
stand the principles laid down by Steven, Chitty and 
Gould—much better I maintain by far than even a 


5n 


reasonably good lawyer can the system proposed in 
New York. And what is proposed to be substituted 
for the system they teach ? There must be something 
to inform the court what is the cause of action—some- 
thin® to stand in the place of the declaration and plea 
that is to be abolished: and what is it ? The report of 
the New York codifiers say they are to consist: First 
of the complaint; second of the answer; and third of 
the reply. The complaint is to.contain, the title of the 
cause, the name of the court, the county in which the 
suit is brought, and the names of the parties. It is 
also to contain : “ A statement of the facts constituting 
the cause of action.” Here is a positive requisition, 
which when carried out will involve you in a greater 
multiplicity of words, greater technical nicety, minute¬ 
ness and prolixity than were ever I’equired under the 
common law. You are to state the facts—in fact draw 
out and place before the court, in your declaration, the 
evidence upon which you rely. 

Mr. HOLT. Does the report say that the plaintiff 
must state the evidence 1 

Mr. MITCHELL. It says the facts must be stated, 
and of what do these consist but the evidence 1 If it 
had said the substance, there would have been some 
sense in it—some room would have been left for rea¬ 
sonable discretion. But, they have required the facts 
to be stated, and the facts must go down at their peril, 
however numerous and minute they may be. The reS 
port goes on: “A statement of the facts constituting 
the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language, 
and in such a manner as to enable a person of ordinary 
understanding to comprehend it.” Now, it was prob¬ 
ably supposed by the framers of that code of proced¬ 
ure, that this provision would let in any and everybody 
to practise law in the courts of the State: that, whether 
educated for the purpose, or for any other purpose, or 
not, any man—farmer, mechanic, or of whatever busi¬ 
ness and profession—could come in and enter upon the 
practice of the law, and compete with the members cf 
the bar, who, it is supposed, will be deprived of their 
means of living by this abolition of technicalities. They 
will find themselves egregiously mistaken. It will 
take men of education to unravel the intricacies that 
will grow up with this system—difficulties, novel in 
every point of view, and as perplexing to the judges as 
to the legal practitioner. It requires, sir, the very 
height of erudite learning to comply with this requisi¬ 
tion. It is one of the very highest and best evidences 
of scholarship to be able to write in this clear and per¬ 
spicuous style; and I appeal to the gentlemen from 
Trumbull and Montgomery, to say if I am not right in 
this matter. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD desired to know whether the New 
York code prescribed the amount of learning necessary 
for a practitioner under it. ? 

Mr. MITCHELL said it did not. He thought that 
ought to be ascertained, and supposed it might, on ap¬ 
plication to the gentleman from Montgomery [.Vlr. 
Holt.] He said, the gentleman upon the other side, 
and especially the gentleman from Licking, had said a 
great deal about the technical terms employed under 
the common law forms of procedure. He supposed 
we were to infer that this new fangled system has 
no technicalities. Let us read chapter 3, page 640: 

“ the defendant may demur.” Now I ask how many 
of the common or even educated people, out of the pro¬ 
fession of law, throughout this or any country under¬ 
stand this word “demur.” There is scarely in all the 
technology of the legal profession a word less general¬ 
ly understood. And the business of demurring is not 
as simple a business neither, especially to the uuin- 
structed, to whom the term conveys no meaning what¬ 
soever. This plain, simple code of proceeding also 
points out what shall be the causes of demurrer, and a 
good many of them there are. The fifth cause given is 
incongruity, by joining difi’erent causes of action in the 
same suit. So it seems that after all there is an ac¬ 
knowledged distinction in the causes for which an ac- 


I 












518 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


lion may be brought. It won’t do to jumble every¬ 
thing together even in this plain and simple system. 
Another cause is, that the complainant has not made a 
complete showing of his cause of action. So he must 
be sent out of court, as under our system, for a flaw in 
his declaration. And this may consist of slight and 
simple omission of some little fact, or for failing to no¬ 
tify his adversary of some little item in his case which 
the most careful and experienced practitioner will be 
found at times to omit. And let us look at the magni¬ 
tude of the new plan. The report—and it is a mere 
report of the commissioners of practice, gives us under 
this simplifiedjplan, a collection of eighteen hundred and 
eighty six rules, filling a veiy large volume ot mere 
rules for making up the issue in civil actions, and this 
monstrous collection, or something like it, gentle¬ 
men propose to substitute for that simple code of rules 
which we get printed on a sheet of foolscap and stick 
up on a post or at the clerk’s desk in the court room 
of the county. 

If this system were brought in as one that was per¬ 
fect—if it had received the sanction of the Legislatui'e 
of the State where it was constructed—if it had been 
tried and found to answer the purpose—if it had even 
the recommendation of a learned judge in Missouri, 
some claim for consideration might be setup for it; 
but when it appears a mere collection of crudities, un¬ 
digested and irrational, untried entirely by the experi¬ 
ence of years of practice. Heaven, I say, protect me 
from such a system—untried, unsanctioned by expe¬ 
rience, as it confessedly is. 

There can scarcely be a system more direct, simple 
and concise, than our forms of declaration, in civil pro¬ 
ceedings. They state the case of action in the fewest 
and most pertinent words. To illustrate this idea, Mr. 
M. read the form of a declaration in assumpsit. Now, 
sir, said he, it is the ignorance of the members of the 
profession, as well as others, that induces most, if not 
all this clamor of reform. They load their plead¬ 
ings with verbiage, because they know no better, and 
then cry out against it, as a fault of the system. They 
cry out for simplicity, and at the same time ask us to 
substitute one of their choosing, which cai’ries com¬ 
plexity, minuteness and intricacy to its extremest boun¬ 
daries, a plan which they insist, indirectly it is true, re¬ 
quires neither learning nor common-sense to practice un¬ 
der it. Take any of the approved precedents of de¬ 
clarations, and they are simple enough, and will be 
found in practice, to be less troublesome and far shorter 
than they could be under this boasted New York sys¬ 
tem. 

These rules of practice are devised in aid of the de 
fects of the human judgment—to give uniformity to that 
which would otherwise be multiforjn and ever varia¬ 
ble and changing by the furnishing of rules of easy ap¬ 
plication and comprehensive to aid and expedite the 
eflbrts of frail, feeble-minded man, in attaining the ends 
of justice. Such is the case even with the much des¬ 
pised fictions in the action of ejectment. They never 
trouble a lawyer. Every profession has its technicali¬ 
ty, by which complex ideas are condensed into siimle 
terms. They are found most numerously in the medi¬ 
cal profession. They abound in the theological, and 
exist more or less in every profession and calling, and 
of course to some degree in the legal. The very far¬ 
mer has them. He talks about listing his fields for his 
corn, and of shocking or stooking his grain. What 
Iran, I ask, entirely unacquainted with his calling and 
business, would understand what ideas were conveyed 
by these words. And, sir, these words are no more 
simple, nor any better understood, by the farmer than 
are the technicalities of the other arts and professions 
of life, by those who have become in like manner con¬ 
versant and familiar with the things to wdiich they re¬ 
fer. These technicalities stand at the very threshold 
of all the sciences, a seeming and only a seeming im¬ 
pediment to their acquisition; and he who would take 
the trouble to attack them, or who would overturn the 


1 system to which they belong, on account of their exis¬ 
tence, would, in the same spirit, declare the mathe¬ 
matics a humbug and algebra and geometry a nuisance, 
because, on listening for the first time to the lectures 
of a leai’iied professor, he could not understand fully, 
or even reasonably, the use and value of the terms aud 
symbols which were employed. He regretted that 
tliis venerable system had become the object of attack 
in this manner, but hoped that a better state of feeling 
and sentiment would prevail, aud that until we get a 
view of a better, we shall not hastily or rudely over¬ 
throw a system hitherto productive of so much benefit 
to civilized man; especially to the Republics of North 
America. 

On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the committee rose, 
and the Convention adjourned. 

TUESDAY, June 25, 1850. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Woodrow. 

Mr. STILWELL presented a petition from Cornelius 
Springer and nineteen other citizens of Muskingum 
county, praying that a clause be inserted in the new 
constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from passing 
any law legalizing the traffic in spirituous liquors. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from A. B. 
Wells and fifty-three other citizens of Muskingum 
county, on the same subject. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from Chan¬ 
dler Robbins and twenty-two others, on the same sub¬ 
ject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

On motion, by Mr. SAWYER, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into committee of the whole, Mr. Loudon 
in the Chair, aud resumed the consideration of the re¬ 
port of the committee on 

JURISPRUDENCE. 

The question being on the amendment offered by 
Mr. Vance of Butler to the amendment of Mr. Taylor, 

Mr. BENNETT remarked that if the committee a- 
greed to the last amendment, it wmuld follow that the 
other should be agreed to, and then all that was worth 
anything in the section would be stricken out. 

The question being taken upon the amendment offer¬ 
ed by Mr. Vance, the same was disagreed to. 

The question then recuri'ed upon the amendment of 
Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. COLLTNGS had some confidence that the provi¬ 
sion sought to be inserted in the constitution might be 
of value, but it should be considered rather in the light 
of an experiment. We could not say, in supporting it, 
that beyond all peradventure we are right. We are 
opposed here by a gentlemen of great judgment, [Mr. 
Hitchcock of Geauga.] and is it not proper that we 
should pay a deference to those who differ from us ? 

I hope that the amendment now pending may not pre¬ 
vail. 

Mr. RANNEY was in favor of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. Taylor.] He had 
addressed the committee yesterday in reply to an im¬ 
putation that lawyers were opposed to law reform, but 
to his surprise and mortification he had since seen sev¬ 
eral gentlemen, distinguished in that noble profession, 
oppose what he considered a salutary reform. He be¬ 
lieved that the reform embodied in the pending reso¬ 
lution is demanded by the people ; and to prevent any 
contingency which might defeat its accomplishment, 
he as in favor of its being settled in the constitution. 

Mr. CASE of Licking. I ask of the committee at 
this time, in listening to me again upon this subject,— 
and I ask it because I do not oiten occupy the attention 
of this body, and because I deem it necessary to reply 
to the gentleman from Knox, who addressed the com¬ 
mittee last evening in reply to something that I had 
said on yesterday,— 

Mr. MITCHELL. Allow me first to give you a little 
more to reply to. I ask the gentleman to turn to Swan’s 
Practice, at page 182, and read there, it he pleases 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 519 


what is the decision as to what is requisite as to a ve t 
nue. It is there said that the statement of the venue 
in the margin is sufficient, and that it need not be re¬ 
peated in the body of the declaration. 

Mr. CASE. That is one point. I hadiutended to say 
something about that, for the reason that the Hon. gen¬ 
tleman had informed me and the committee, that his 
declaration has been drawn up on yesterday for my es¬ 
pecial benefit, and that I might understand it was for 
my especial benefit he had located the marginal venue 
in the county of Licking. For my part, I have no ob¬ 
jections to his locating the venue there. I am not sure 
but my collegue would have some objections to it. I 
have this objection, however, if the gentleman intro¬ 
duce his venue into my county, I shall protest against 
his bringing along with it all the forms of procedure 
known to the common law which the gentleman in¬ 
sists, are guaranteed by the ordinance of 1787, which 
provides that the modes of procedure in judicial mat¬ 
ters known to the common law, shall be forever guar¬ 
anteed to the people of the North West Territory. I 
have no doubt that in the comity of Knox they fully 
enjoy all these rights. In other counties I believe they 
have been deprived of those rights to some extent, not¬ 
withstanding that ordinance of ’87. Thei’o are sundry 
modes of trial known to the common law, besides that of 
trial by jury. There is the trial by wager of battle, trial 
by wager of law and trial by ordeal. In looking over 
the Secretary of States Report, laid upon our tables, I 
find that in the county of Knox they held their Court of 
Common Pleas 112 days in the year. In the county I 
represent, which is adjoining, where there is a great 
deal more business, we held the same court 39 days in 
the year. I know nothing which can make this dif¬ 
ference unles it be that in the Republic of Knox, they 
have in fruition all the methods of trial allowed by the 
common law and guaranteed to us by the ordinance of 
’87, as the gentleman insists. It cannot be possible 
that the gentleman would consent to forego in his own 
county, the fullest enjoyment of the common law 
which he has so much eulogized as being the perfec- 
of human reason. 

For the benefit, not of the legal members of this 
body, but the lay members, if I may be allowed the 
term. I will read to them some of the beauties of the 
common law, which the gentleman extolled so highly 
upon yesterday! I read from Blackstone, whom the 
gentleman pronounced one of the most graceful and 
perspicuous writers of the law. I read from 4th vol¬ 
ume Blackstone’s Commentaries, pj^e 342, where, 
speaking of trials and convictions at common law he 
says: 

“ The most ancient species of trial was that by ordeal. This 
was of two sorts—either jP/re-ordeal or IFoier-crdeal. Fire ordeal 
was performed either by taking up in the hand, unhurt, a piece 
of red hot iron, of one, two or three pounds weight; or else by 
walking barefoot and blindfolded, over nine red hot ploughshares 
laid lengthwise at unequal distances, and if the party escaped be¬ 
ing hui% he was adjudged innocent, otherwise guilty. 

“ Water-ordeal was performed either by plunging the bare arm 
up to the elbow in boiling water and escaping unhurt, or by cast¬ 
ing the person suspected into a river or pond, and if he floated 
without any action of swimming, it was deemed an evidence of 
his guilt, but if he sunk he was acquitted.” [Laughter.] 

Again, Blackstone, in volume 3, page 337, gives the 
following account of the trial by wager of battle'. 

“ The next species of trial is of great antiquity, but much dis 
used, thouge still in force if the parties ehoose to abide by it ? I 
mean the trial by wager of battle. When the tenant in a writ of 
right pleads the general issue, and ofl'ers to prove it by the body 
of his companion, which tender is accepted by the demandant, 
the tenant must produce his companion, who, by throwing dov^n 
his glove, stipulates battle with the champion of the demandant, 
who takes up the glove. A piece of ground is then set out, of 
sixty feet square, enclosed with lists, and on one side a court is 
erected for the judges, who attend in their scarlet robes ; also a 
bar is prepared for the learned sergeants of the law. When the 
court sits, which ought to be by sun-rising, proclamation is made 
for the parties and their champions, who are introduced by two 
Knights, and are dressed in a coat of armor, with red sandals, 
bare-legged from the knee downward, bareheaded, and with bare 
arms to the elbow. When the champions, armed with batons, ar¬ 
rive within the lists, they take one another by the hand and make 
oath that the matter in controversy pertains to each respectively. 


Next an oath against sorcery and enchantment is to be taken by 
both the champions, in this form: 

‘Hear this, ye justices, that I have this day neither sat, drank, 
nor have upon me neither stone, bone, negrass, nor any enchant¬ 
ment, sorcery or witchcraft, whereby the law of God may bo 
abased, or theflaw of the Devil may be exalted. So help me God 
and his saints.’ 

The battle is then begun, and the combattants are bound to 
fight till the stars appear in the evening, and if the defendant’s 
combattant shall maintain his ground till that time, it shall be a 
drawn battle and he holds his land; but if before that time, either 
is killed, or pronounces that horrible word, craven, judgment shall 
be given accordingly,” &c. [Laughter.] 

I might read as many more quite as ludicrous, but 
let this suffice. 

I will read a case which occurred under this beauti¬ 
ful system, and it is a very interesting case. It is the 
case of an old lady bewitching a horse, and it is to be 
found in any common law book, and I have no doubt 
the gentleman will at once recognize it, being so fa¬ 
miliar with the beauties of the common law as he is. 
I read from Balton’s Justice, 170. The marginal refer¬ 
ence is “ FOR BEWITCHING A HORSE WHEREBY HE WASTED 

AND became worse.” Here follows the form of the 
•ndictment—first in Latin and then in English. I will 
ive you the English : 

“Thejurors, &c., upon their oaths present, that A, B, or C., in 

the county of E, widow, on the—day of-, in the year-, 

at said C, in the com ty of E. aforesaid, certain most wicked act, 
(called in English enchantments and charms.) at C. aforesaid, in 
the county of E. aforesaid, maliciously and diabolically, upon 
and against a certain white horse of the value of £4, of the goods 
and chatties of a certain J. S., gentleman of C. aforesaid, on the 
day aforesaid, and in the county aforesaid, there being, did exer¬ 
cise and practice by means of which the said horse of the said 
J. S., on the day aforesaid, at C. aforesaid, greatly worstened and 
wasted away against the peace of our said lord, the king, and 
against the statute in such case made and provided. [Laughter.] 

Yes, this poor horse being practiced upon by the 
poor widow, worsted and languished, and languishing, 
undoubtedly did die! (Laughter ) However, the re¬ 
cord is silent as to that,yet it is not silent as to the con¬ 
viction and sentence; the widow was found guilty—I 
know not whether by trial of battel or ordeal, or jury— 
and here is her sentence: 

“ Judgment—a year’s imprisonment, and every quarter to stand 
six hours in the pillory.” [Laughter.] 

Whether they have the pillory in Knox county, or 
not, I do not know, (laughter;) but my colleague will 
not consent that the Clonvention should adjourn to Knox 
county, provided capital punishment exists there, as he 
has been proclaimed a traitor up there. (Laughter.) 
I read these extracts, not for the purpose of throwing 
any ridicule upon the law, for there are very many 
things in the system worthy of our adoption in this 
country; but I read to moderate the transports and 
raptures of some gentlemen here, who have passed an 
unqualified eulogium upon the common law. Now, 
the gentleman, after alluding to the action of ejectment 
yesterday, complained very much that no one proposed 
a better system. Now, sir, I am fortunate in falling 
in with a book of forms, which has been already pub¬ 
lished in Ne v York. I refer to “ Morrell’s Practice, 
adapted to the Code.” In this we have a form for the 
action of ejectment. I will, with leave of the commit¬ 
tee, read it. 

[ Here Mr. Case read the form of a declaration in the 
action of ejectment.] 

Now, I submit to any man of common sense—to any 
lawyer—if that form is not a sensible, perspicuous, and 
satisfactory one. Any party in court will know what 
is in controversy. How is it with the present forms! 
I challenge any man, unless he be a lawyer—no not 
even a lawyer—to tell me, if he has any idea of the 
matter in dispute, from reading the declaration in this 
action. If one wishes to know any thing in relation to 
the title of his farm, which has been litigated in an ac¬ 
tion of ejectment, let him go to the records of the courts 
and examine them, and how much wiser will he be! 
He cannot tell whether his farm has been in controver¬ 
sy or not. And why ? Because, in the declaration, 
there is no description of the land by metes and bounds, 
and if there are not over ten acres in controversy, the 









520 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


declaration may state the number at a thousaud. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Does the gentleman mean to say 
that there is no description of the land given. 

Mr. CASE. It is of the very bi’oadest description ; 
virtually, no description at all. You are bound to spe¬ 
cify the metes and bounds. There is another feature 
of the action of ejectment, which has not been spoken 
of, and that is, that there may be fifty suits about the 
same piece of land, between the same parties, unless 
one party go into chancery, and tie up the olher parlies 
from proceeding at law. I say, that when such a suit 
has been tried at common law, you cannot tell what 
laud has been in controversy. You commence, if you 
have but an acre of land in controversy, by describing 
“fifty acres of arable land, fifty acres of meadow land, 
fifty acres of wood laud, fifty acres of land covered with 
water—ten cabins, ten houses, ten barns, ten stables, 
&c., &c., until a person becomes perfectly confounded 
and bewildered in a jargon of nonsense. There are in 
this book (Morrell’s Forms) numbers of valuable siin 
pie drecedents and forms, which recommends this code, 
in ray opinion. Now, sir, the gentleman from Knox 
made a violent attack upon the New York code—he 
delivered a terrible philippic against it, and indulged 
himself in a very remarkable criticism upon it. He 
commenced by criticising the definition of pleading. 
What was that criticism ? He defined pleading to be 
“mutual altercations” between the parties. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Oh! no, sir. I said mutual alle¬ 
gations. 

Mr. CASE. Well let that pass—it w^as a very learned 
criticism. 

Now, sir, when the New York commissioners get 
hold of the gentleman’s speech, I have no doubt their 
labor, if not closed, will be closed at once. They will 
surrender and abandon the whole undertaking. 

The whole people of New York will be struck with 
dismay when they read this terrific attack upon the 
subject of law reform. I should not be surprised that 
at the next session of the Legislature, some member, 
after reading the speech of the gentleman from Knox, 
should rise up and move a rejection of all that has been 
done upon the subject and that a unanimous vote will 
be obtained. But let me inform the gentleman, and 
let me say upon this floor, that the code there is popu¬ 
lar with the people and with the enlightened members 
of the bar. There may be some who do not like it, 
and who cry out, “ Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” 
There are such here. As far as my information goes, 
and I have taken some pains to be informed, I have eve 
ry reason to believe that the intelligent and enlightened 
lawyers of New York are in favor of the new code. 
That information I obtain from the public journals of 
that State. That there are defects in the system I have 
no doubt—they will be remedied in time. 

Mr. NASH. 1 would like to know of the gentleman 
from Licking, if the practice in New York, at the time 
the code was adopted, was not wholly unlike that of 
Ohio at the present time—that it was like the practice 
we had 20 or 30 years ago? 

Mr. CASE. It was—they had the most cumbrous 
and expensive system in the Union—much improve¬ 
ment has been made in Ohio already, but much remains 
yet to be done. 

Now the gentleman from Knox, as I before remark¬ 
ed, drew up for my especial benefit, on yesterday, a 
declaration. I shall not say with the same emphasis 
that the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Kanney] did, 
that the declaration was positively bad in the particular 
which he specified, to wit: there being no name in the 
body of it. I will say this, that in any court governed 
by rules of common law as known in England, as laid 
down in the books which lawyers generally read, the 
declaration would be held to be a bad one, except pei - 
haps in places where they decide law questions by 
wager of battle. The question it appears has been de¬ 
cided—I know not whether by wager of battle or by 
ordeal, in the county of Knox. (Laughter.) It would 


have been a beautiful sight to have seen the trial by 
wager of battle proceeding in the settlement of a grand , 
question of revenue in the county of Knox. The ven- | 
erable gentleman from Geauga, who rivals the gentle¬ 
man from Knox in admiration of the common law, in 
his long flowing robes enters the arena and seats him¬ 
self on the throne of justice, and the learned sergeants j 
of Knox assembled in the bar, the trumpet sounds and i 
{iroclamation is made, the combattants enter, the glove 
is thrown down and taken up, the oath against sorcery 
and witchcraft is administered, the combat deepens— 
the fearful word “ craven” is uttered, and the question 
of revenue was settled. (Laughter.) 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. 1 would like to give 
the gentleman one piece of information. He has been 
ttdking about witchcraft, ordeal, and everything else— 
trial by battle—trial by ordeal in the law. Why, he 
ought to know that this question was settled long ago 
in his county. The court solemnly decided that wager | 
by law did not exist in that county. This must have 
have been long before his birth. 

Mr. CASE. I am aware that this practice has not 
been indulged in of late in our county under forms of 
law. But I would like to know of the gentleman if it 
does not exist in Knox county. (Laughter.) ■ 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I suppose that the same prac- j 
tice in the law would apply to both Knox and Licking j 
county, or any other county in the State. 

Mr. CASE. That is the rule I admit, but I have j 
known that rule departed from in my county, and by 
the ^S'wprme CcuirMoo, sometimes. (Laughter.). j 

As to this question of venue, I did not come here to | 
discuss these technical questions, nor is this the place . 
to argue them. The gentleman has seen fit to turn [ 
schoolmaster, and in th« law for my particular benefit. 

And not content with being admitted by general con- i 
sent, the most eminent statesman in this body, he wish- ‘ 
es to indicate his claim to the title of being the most J 
eminent lawyer. I warn the gentleman, that there is | 
great danger in setting up a title to pre-eminent dis¬ 
tinction in the two departments. j 

I would now advise the gentleman, that he should ; 

be content to rest his fame upon the fact of his being i 

a pre-eminent statesman, deeply versed in the doctrine 1 

of vetoes and hard money, and although he may think 1 

me very ignorant, I can assure him that I have care- | 

fully read Swan’s Treatise, and made some advance in i 

Walter Thrall’s treatise on Tax Titles. [Laughter.} j 

The committee to which I belong, has been virtually | 

characterized as a set of ignoramuses, that were trying j 

to reform the law because they did not know how to i 

practice under the old system—they must get some j 

system which will suit them better. I 

Now, sir, I tell the gentleman, that under such a sys- > 

tern as we propose, no man, unless he had brains and | 

common sense, would find a foot-1 old in-our courts. ! 

It will be death on pettifoggers, without benefit of cler- ‘ 

gy. Now, sir, I have generally found that men of lit- | 

tie brains and sense, are generally most tenacious of i 

these mere forms. I have now in my mind’s eye, a | 

very distinguished practicioner of the Knox bar, who 
used occasionally to practice in my county—he was 
deeply versed in the common law and its forms, and , j 
having been educated in not only the mysteries but the ' j 
chivalry of the common law, always laid the premises 'i 
in his declarations in this wise, “ that the defendent 
mosl respectfully promised to pay,” &.c. &c. [Laughter.] 
And I have no doubt but that if the most ancient forms 
were searched, it would be found that that gentleman 
stood upon well established precedents. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Who is he? 

Mr CASE. Joe Taylor, late of Knox, now of Cali¬ 
fornia. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I beg your pardon: he came 
from Utica. Licking county. [Laughter."] 

Mr. CASE True, he once lived in my county, but 
he went to Knox county, and got all his law wit 
there. [Laughter.] I am not a going to say whether 


















CONVENTION REPORTS 


521 


this venue is essential to every case. I will say this, i 
that if tlie question has been decided one way, in 
Knox county, it has been settled right the other way 
elsewhere, in full argument before a learned and 
eminent judge, which shows the utter fody and non¬ 
sense of this very system which is so much recommend¬ 
ed here. 

The gentleman refers to Chitty and Coke so confi¬ 
dently, that I will read what Chitty says upon the sub¬ 
ject of venues. 

[Here Mr. Case lead from Chitty’s Pleadings upon 
the subject of venues.] 

That is the law laid down in the book which the 
gentleman recommended yesterday, whether it be 
sound law or not. Now, sir, I have occupied the at¬ 
tention of the House longer than I had intended. I 
came not here to be a speaking member. I came here 
more to act than to speak. But I did think that the 
gentleman’s course towards me and the committee, 
and his attack upon them and their resort, required of 
me the exercise of what little humble talent I possess¬ 
ed, in vindicating the report, the committee, and my¬ 
self. I regret having occupied the attention of the 
Convention so long but the project of law reform is one 
near to my heart, and it is a reform which I desire to 
to see carried out. It is one which the people demand 
and will have. It must come to that. It has already 
come to that. I, sir, for one, could never have been 
elected in the county which I represent, if I had not 
pledged myselt in ablic and in private before my con¬ 
stituents, that I would aid to the best of my ability, 
in procuring a reform such as is here proposed. The 
people generally, so far as I know, are disgusted and 
sick of being in our courts and listening to a trial at 
common law, so far as the forms of procedure are con¬ 
cerned. I have known most egregious blunders to 
have occurred, among men of good sense, too, from 
misunderstand ing the drift of pleadings. I would have 
the pleadings hereafter so simple that any man of 
common sense may understand them. So that a man 
when he has a suit in court may know what is in 
controversy. Such proceedings do exist elsewhere, 
nearly all over the civilized world, and they exist in 
some States of the Union. They do exist in Ohio in 
Chancery cases. I am confident to say that our sys¬ 
tem of Chancery practice approaches nearly to per¬ 
fection. Any man of common sense—any man of or¬ 
dinary attainment—any man of common information, 
who has a suit in Chancery, may take up the record 
and know what the controversy was about, what the 
wrongs complained of and the remedy sought and ob¬ 
tained. Now, this is what we want in our practice 
in civil cases, and what we must and will have. With 
these remarks, Mr. Chairman, I submit the question. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. As I was one of the committee 
who concurred in this report, perhaps the committee 
will indulge me in a few words of explanation. The 
committee believed that they were acting the part of 
very thorough and radical refoi’mers ; but the spirit of 
progression is liable to receive discouragement from 
the consideration that unless we run so rapidly as to 
become dizzy—unless we abandon all care of our steps 
and all direction of our course, we shall be outrun by 
some gentlemen. To keep up with them, and at the 
same time to pay any attention to our course, is utterly 
impossible. The state of things seems to justify the 
opinion of the little boy at the show, who told his fa¬ 
ther, when he saw the giant, that there was no person 
so large but that there was some person larger. [Laugh¬ 
ter.] The committee has been willing, and has recom¬ 
mended to the Convention, to provide for a thorough 
and radical reformation in the practice of our judicial 
courts, but it is unwilling to deprive the General As¬ 
sembly, or the legislative commission appointed on the 
subject, of all discretion in the matter. If the General 
Assembly, or its legislative commission, shall be com¬ 
pelled to do that wliich they deem impracticable and 
inexpedient, the task will not be well done. The hu¬ 


man understanding is not happy in devising ways and 
means of doing that which it deems impracticable and 
inexpedient The system will not be perfected at a 
single attempt. The General Assembly, in commenc¬ 
ing a new system, must have an opportunity to correct 
its own errors and improve by its mistakes. It must 
have the benefits to be derived from the light of ex¬ 
perience. It is thus that everything human is improv¬ 
ed and brought to perfection. An ingenious author 
has well observed, that the sparrow’s nest, built in the 
ribs of Noah’s ark, was as perfectand complete a struc¬ 
ture as the sparrow’s nest of the present day, while the 
rude wigwam, the mountain cave, or the savage habi¬ 
tation of those early times, is now replaced by the 
stately temple, the convenient mansion, and the com¬ 
modious dwelling of the present age. No human sci¬ 
ence whatever needs the light of experience so much 
as the science of government. David Hume, the great 
historian, has said, that to devise a wise scheme of laws 
for agreat people the first attempt, is an exploit that 
surpasses the strength of the human understanding. 
Those who have reflected most on this subject, will be 
most fully convinced of the truth of this remark. 

The scheme of the committee, proposes that the 
General Assembly shall devise one form of action for 
all civil cases, if deemed practicable and expedient.— 
The amendment of the gentleman from Erie [Mt. 
Taylor] leaves that body no discretion, but directs the 
General Assembly to perform that task, whether it 
deems it practical and expedient or not. There is an 
essential difference in the nature of actions. All law, 
and reason and common-sense dictate that there should 
be a corresponding difference in the forms by which 
they ai’e carried on. For instance, a direct injury to 
the person by beating may be described in a few words, 
stating the injury accurately and stating nothing more. 
But the declaration on a contract must state something 
more ; if A. contracts with B. to erect a bridge, or 
build ahouse, or dig a well, the pleader, in order to be 
understood, must describe the contract accurately.— 
Then he must go further and set out the breach which 
itself may be various, lor the defendant may have re¬ 
fused to perform his contract at all, or he may have 
performed it in a slovenly and imperfect manner, or 
he may have used sufficient materials. If he is to be 
treated fairly, he must have warning of what his ad- 
vei’sary complains. The court and jury should always 
have notice of what facts they are to try. This is all 
th.it the committee proposes, by leaving some discre¬ 
tion in the Legislature to mould the form of proceeding 
to the facts of the case. This very difficulty was men¬ 
tioned in the committee I'oom—some members object¬ 
ed that it would be impossible to continue an apt de¬ 
scription of all possible injuries, whether arising from 
force or breach of contract in the same form. Others 
pointed to the very wmrds which the gentleman from 
Erie [Mr. Taylor] proposed to strike out, as removing 
the difficulty, and leaving a discretion to the General 
Assembly on the subject. Had the report conformed 
to the ideas of the gentleman from Erie, it could not 
possibly have been unanimous. Beihaps it would have 
received no countenance from the committee. Yet the 
committee wishes to bring about as much simplicity, 
and as much uniformity in our legal forms, as the nature 
of times will permit. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I should not have troubled the 
committee at this time with remarks were it not that I 
have been directly attacked for the position I took in 
regard to the system of jurisprudence now reported to 
the Convention, and which I am represented as having 
characterized as the result of either folly or ignorance. 
Sir, 1 said no such thing. I too highly esteem the ven¬ 
erable chairman of that committee [Mr. Holt] even to 
use such an expression in connection with him oi his 
productions. It was the amendment proposed we are 
discussing’-. But I deny that I have even so character¬ 
ized this.° These gentlemen do not, in all their zeal, 
dare attack directly, this great charter of American 










622 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


freedom. They do not boldly come out, but they insid¬ 
iously attack it, and attempt to undermine and sup 
plant it. We are told by the gentleman from Trumbull 
that he would not entirely destroy this common law sys¬ 
tem, and before he had got through with his abuse he 
passed a high encomium upon the civil law system. 
Let me tell that gentleman, that if he will take up the 
civil law system and examine it and distinguish all the 
odious features of that system as carefully as he has the 
system of common law, he will find ten things to con¬ 
demn in that where he will find one in the common 
law system. I here repeat what I said yesterday, that 
I did not stand up here to advocate the system of com¬ 
mon law as being a perfect system. I know there is 
no human system that is perfect. All human systems 
have their defects and this among the rest. The gen¬ 
tleman from Licking has treated this subject with disin- 
geneousness. He has not had the candor to tell us that 
what the ignorance and superstition of men had engraft¬ 
ed upon this system at an early period in a dark age 
the common sense of men has long since dispensed 
with. 

The gentleman did not tell us, when he referred to 
Mr. Blackstone, when he was discussing what had been 
the ancient usage of the common law at a particular 
period, that Mr. Blackstone, in almost the next para¬ 
graph, tells us that these usages are all obsolete, now 
unknown to the common law as it has for a long time 
existed. Sir, suppose I take up this bloody system ex¬ 
tolled by the gentleman, and trace its history a little 
during the dark ages, and suppose that I should present 
to the world a fair and only true picture of the frequent 
enormities, the countless instances of cruel barbarism, 
and the unexampled wrongs aTid gross oppressions 
commonly practiced when their judicial system, the in¬ 
quisition, was in full force. Yes, sir, this chief of abo¬ 
minations, the inquisition, at the mere mention of whose 
name the sensibilities of humanity instinctively recoils 
with a shudder, is but the natural oftspring of the civil 
law jurisdiction, what man in' his senses, in a civilized 
country, would come forward in defence of it, or pro¬ 
pose it with seriousness to a people who would be free. 
Let those who can reconcile it to their judgment and 
conscience do so, I cannot. I must, sir, cling to its an¬ 
tagonist, the long tried love of these republics. And, 
sir, ill doing so, how are we met? Are we met with 
calm reason—with sober argument? No, sir, but with 
ribaldry—with sneers and sarcasm, and with gross per¬ 
sonalities. Is this, sir, the only way in which their fa¬ 
vorite system can be vindicated and defended? If it 
be, sir, it should be its most satisfactory condemnation. 
But I will not consume the time which it would require 
to point out all the egregious and enormous outrages 
upon humanity, that has resulted from the operjition of 
the civil law, jiirisdiction and jurisprudence, as found in 
the'authentic histories of France, of Portugal, of Italy 
Spain. The Bastile of France, and the ancient in¬ 
quisition of Spain, stand as everlasting memorials of 
the cursed imfamy that attached to the civil law juris¬ 
diction for a long poriod of its history. 

Such things as secret conclaves and inquisitions, 
and secret examinations which were so common in 
countries where the civil law prevails, are entirely un 
known in the common law countries. The very terms 
used to designate them, are unknown to common law 
proceedings and would there be regarded as misnomers. 
Another thing: by the common law system, a man 
must have his case tried before the community, by a 
jury of his fellow men—men of like condition in life 
as himself, who are compelled to come into your courts, 
hear your judges expound your laws; lecture if you 
please upon what their laws are, and see for themselves 
the practical operation of their system, — literally 
schooling themselves for the intelligent discharge of 
the more important duties of life. These are the great 
guarantees which should render the common law dear 
to every freeman. Now, sir, examine fora moment the 
singular inconsistency of these gentlemen, if you 


please. Here they are complaining of the common ' 
law system because of its intricacy and yet they do 
not point out a single form which they can pretend 
to call more simple. They attack the system by in¬ 
vidious disparagement, by indulging in vague and am- 
biguons charges against it. for a long time common with 
men uninformed upon the subject, often actuated by 
reprehensible motives. They do not come up at once 
and attack the system as a system, specifically point¬ 
ing out its defects as a system, by specifying them.— 
But when we undertake to furnish them with a sample 
of common law simplicity, they at once object, and 
say it is not technical enough. And yet their constant 
cry is that it is too complicated. Sir, this looks to me 
like trifling with us. It does look too inconsistent to 
be urged and repeated here with the pertinacity and 
frequency it is. They have attacked the plain and 
simple form I offered yesterday, as a sample of com¬ 
mon law simplicity, with their usual rancor. I am glad 
to be able, to fully vindicate the simplicity which is pe¬ 
culiar to the common law form, by the authority of 
some of the best writers upon the subject. The only 
objection these gentlemen have pointed out in their fa¬ 
vor, is the want of proper venue. In this objection I 
am able to show they are at fault and not the form. I 
find in a note to the very valuable and well written 
work, to which the gentleman from Trumbull has refer- ^ 
red, this clear and unmistakable authority in relation to 
the sufficiency of this plain and simple court now so at¬ 
tacked by these simplicity loving gentlemen. 

In lieu of this simple, yet sufficiently comprehensive 
court, the people of Ohio are asked to adopt a compen¬ 
dium of forms proposed in New York, exhibited by the 
genleman from Licking. Compare their count upon 
a promissory note with those which have been used 
heretofore. They are about twice as long, and about 
twice as particular, and more technical. [He here read 
the New York form at length.] I appeal to every gen¬ 
tlemen, if this is not more particular, more technical, 
more minute in its requisition, than any form which 
prevailed in the common law for the last fifty years, 
(perhaps I should say in the last two hundred years)— 
yes sir, more so than what prevailed in the days of 
Lord Coke. The mention of this name sir, reminds 
me of the gentlemen from Trumbull. Now, let me ask 
him to say, upon the honor of a man, whether, since 
the days of that eminent jurist, there have been better 
difinitions given to common law subjects than are to be 
found in his writings ? You have no where better def¬ 
initions of the interest which disqualifies a witness, 
sheriff, judge or jury—of deeds, contracts, wills and 
other instruments of writing—of the duties of trustees, 
guardians and wards. You may turn to any leading 
author since his day, and you will find that the defini¬ 
tions and expositions given by him on these, and other 
branches of the great science of which he treats, are 
unsurpassed by any author since. In point of brevity, 
and certainty of meaning, I do not think there is one 
his equal. And these ai*e the very things for which 
gentlemen are contending here. Now, let me ask the 
gentleman from Trumbull, if he ever drew up a deed 
in full, as simple, as comprehensive, and yet as brief, as 
the form of a deed given by Lord Coke ? 

The gentleman from Licking has read a form for the 
action of ejectment from the New York practice, which 
he commends very briefly, and speaks of as so simple 
in its structure that any plain and unlettered man can 
understand it. But let me enquire whether this form 
is sufficiently comprehensive and certain, to be a safe 
guide. Let us suppose some plain, honest minded man, 
confiding in the entire sufficiency of this inimitable 
form, comes into court with his declaration thus drawn 
up, following this form implicitly, stating that he is en¬ 
titled to the premises in fee simple, not exactly com¬ 
prehending what the term fee simple, means. He calls 
his witnesses and offers his deed or other evidence, 
when to his surprise he finds his title, is not exactly a 
fee simple title, but for life, or for years, or some other 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


523 


period, the true character of which he had never be- 
j fore found any necessity for inquiring into. To his 
L, surprise he finds he has not stated his case right, and 
t is obliged to submit to defeat and its consequent cost, 
^ just for following too implicitly this delusive form, and 
the no less delusive advice of these learned gentlemen 
who would have men believe that they can have all 
i things and all professions without much previous prac¬ 
tical study. For my part I say, away with such delu- 
■ sive and airy theories. Out upon them as systems to be 
' addressed to a sensible and thinking people for their 
adoption. Sensible republicans cannot and will not 
be caught, or captivated, or deluded by them, when in 
. their sober senses. , 

Mr. MORRIS. According to the rule in ejectment 
' cases, after a decision has been made, may not the same 
title be tried by the same parties ? And can they not 
go on ad infinitum 1 Is there no end to it ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly you may, and will the 
gentleman please to tell me how often he can com¬ 
mence any suit again, after being non-suited. There 
: is a mode however ol putting an end to all such con- 
' troversies. For this very reason we should maintain 
Chancery jurisdiction. You can have a degree in 
Chancery, which will put an end to all this. The 
; gentleman may say, that these propositions, before the 
Committee, are but simple and reasonable reforms.— 
If they were such I should not have the least (tbjection 
to them. I do not pretend that the system for which 
I contend here is a perlect system, but sir, I do contend 
that the Reform proposed and urged here, is far from 
a mere slight I’eform. It is sir most clearly proposed 
here to obliterate this system. Gentlemen who ad¬ 
vocate it here, do not conceal their purpose, for they 
tell you distinctly that they are for getting rid of this 
common law rubbish. This system of hoary errors. 
The system we are advocating has the power of secur¬ 
ing to the poor man as well as the rich, the blessed 
privilege of coming into a court of justice and there 
maintaining his rights, fearlessly and with confidence. 
To the gentleman from Licking I will say nothing cal¬ 
culated to wound his feelings, or that will cast disre¬ 
spect upon him among his constituents. I cannot so 
far forget myself as to imitate his example. But I will 
say, that if in the county of Licking they now get 
along more expeditiously than they did, it is owing to 
the met that they have upon their bench a learned and 
able advocate of this much maligned, much abused 
system of Common Law. Sir, it is this fact which re¬ 
flects honor on this repudiated system, as the gentleman 
would have it, which enables the good people of Lick¬ 
ing county to get along without their six and seven 
weeks of Court as they used to have at each term. I 
know sir that a complete reformation has been pro¬ 
claimed there. And to this learned judge and able de¬ 
fender of the Common Law System is the gentleman 
and the people of his county indebted for this exempla¬ 
ry reform. I admit that the practice in the Courts of 
this countiy generally has been careless and loose, dis¬ 
regarding that promptitude and dispatch which the com- 
, mon law requires. 

I am greatly obliged to my venerable friend from 
Geauga, for relieving me of the necessity of reminding 
the gentleman from Licking, of the county in which 
the only attempt has ever been made to revive these 
ancient and obsolete usages. 

It was in his county—the county of Licking. I will 
not say his people are still barbarous or unintelligent, 
fori know better. But I must say that, from the read- 
i ings and arguments of the gentleman this morning, 
there seems to be some pei’sons there yet, who think 
this wager of battle is a part of the common law sys- 
i tem, as it now exists. Such was certainly his position 
a few moments since. It is undoubtedly true, that in 
the county of Licking, a man has been known to claim 
I the right of trial by battle, and the supreme court de- 
I cided then that it was an usage which had grown up 
during the dark ages, but had long since become obso_ 


lete. When the gentleman speaks of men of little 
sense and little capacity being able to obtain a perfect 
knowledge of this system of pleading and law, he must 
know he is doing great injustice, both to the system 
and its practitioners. No man in his senses, with com¬ 
mon experience and observations, can seriously and be- 
lievingly assert this. There can scarcely be a clearer 
system of reasoning, than the common law system at 
present in force. It is emphatically a series of simple 
but clear deductions from analogies. This gentleman 
must, at every scene he witnesses on a trial in court, be 
struck with the truth of this declaration. He must 
know that the profession of law has ever stood high, 
both for learning and mental ability. History ot this 
State is filled up with illustrations of this truth. The 
personal remarks of the gentleman from Licking, I 
cannot notice. I can most safely leave the matter of 
my course and conduct in this chamber, with this com¬ 
mittee. They know it full as well as the gentleman, 
and I have no doubt will judge of it with much more 
commendable feelings. With these remarks I shall 
dismiss the subject forever. 

I would not, sir, have intruded myself upon this com¬ 
mittee as I have, had it not been that the reports ot the 
committee, with the amendment proposed, contem¬ 
plates striking down a system which I regard as being 
so valuable—one which has stood the test of scrutiny 
from generation to generation, and still commends it¬ 
self to the admiration of enlightened men. It is not 
proposed by that report to make slight alterations, but 
literally to annihilate it. This, too, regardless of the 
fact, that in most of the States ot this Union, it is 
thought of sufficient importance to be secured in their 
bill of rights. For these reasons, it is, I have opposed 
it with so much earnestness. 

Mr. TAYLOR would state, in response to the request 
of the gentlemen from Adams, [Mr. Collings,] and 
from Monroe [ Mr. Archbolo, j to withdraw the amend¬ 
ment, that the course of debate had satisfied him that 
it would be unsafe to leave the proposed discretion 
with the commissioners. If they were elected by the 
people, a sufficient safeguard against evasion would be 
secured; but as they were to be appointed, he was un¬ 
willing to make ^he section defining their duty any 
thing but a direct and unconditional mandate. 

The gentleman from Monroe asks significantly, wheth¬ 
er it is desired that these commissioners shall be en¬ 
joined to do what they deem to be impracticable and 
iiiexpediBiit. By no ni6tiiis. What is desired is, that 
no person shall be appointed on that commission, who 
doubts the practicability or expediency of substituting a 
single mode of proceeding for the present multifoimity. 
I would declare in the constitution, that it is piactica 
and expedient that the reform in question shall be made, 
and the most obvious means to that end, is to leave no 
discretion with these officers^ but vest the entne is- 
cretion in the Legislature, to whose subsequent action 
the report of the commissioners is referred. ^ 
ns or the commissioners distinguished and libeia 
jurists, who are the friends of the measure, who 
will devote themselves, body and soul, to its consumma¬ 
tion. That is all which is sought, and the necessi y o 
the amendment is apparent, when the 
opposition here excited is taken into cousi eia . 
The gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock] 
ready intimated an opinion that the scheme is imp 
ticable. So it will be, if the ® 

hands of those who are opposed to i • ( a 
be prevented ? Will not this Convention rise Jhe les- 
ponsibility of declaring it practical and expedient to 
“abolish the d'stinct forms of action at law now 
use, and provide that justice may be administered in an 
uniform mode of pleading, withoutjeference to any dis¬ 
tinction between law and • , . 

The gentleman from Butler [Mr. Vance] says that it 
will b? impossible to devise a form ot proceeding 
which will be applicable to all cases. I his is not pro¬ 
posed. I admit that the attempt to substitute one loim 










524 CONVENTION EEFO RTS. 


for the many now in use, would be inetiectnab “-A. 
mode of pleading ” irrespective of form, implies only, 
tliat every legal proceeding sliall be conducted lO"issue 
and tiial upon statements of facts—not in pursuance of 
forms, which are technical and indelinite. We would 
restore the logic and symmetry of the science of plead- 
inty. Will any one assert that this is, impracticable ? 

Let us consider for a moment its practical working. 

By our constitution and laws, the citizen is entitled to 
the interposition of the courts in certain contingencies. 

He comes before a judge to invoke it. What is he re¬ 
quired by common sense, without regard to precedent, 
or usage, to do ? Manifestly to make a narration of the 
facts,upon which he founds alegalclaim againstanother, 
or seeks redress for some injury—a declaration of what 
he expects to prove, and on which he asks judgment. 
These circumstances vary in every case, and therefore 
no form is suitable. This is a method or mode, not a 
form of pleading. What then becomes the duty of the 
judge? He may say to the plautitf: “Even if your 
statements of fact are admitted, you have no legal reme¬ 
dy,”—a non-suit. Or the judge may decide: “ If these 
things are so, you are entitled to relief,—what says the 
defendant?” At this juncture, a similar statement of 
facts is due from the defendant. If the parties do not 
dissent in their respective allegations, a question of law 
will be raised for the decision of the judge—if the par¬ 
ties make an issue of fact, then the court should sum¬ 
mon a jru'y, (uidess waived by the parties) whose prov¬ 
ince will be to hear testimony and advise the judge of 
the facts in the case. For my life, Mr. Chairman, I 
cannot imagine any controversy, the merits of which 
cannot be reached and settled by such an“nniform 
mode of pleading.” Suppose this question was entirely 
new—the laws of your State given—how are they to 
be administered between man and man ? Would rea¬ 
son furnish any other system than the system now 
proposed ? 

Sir, I deny that this reform is aimed at the existence 
or influence of the legal profession. What was Lord 
Mansfield’s test of the skilfull lawyer?—one who can 
“ state a case”—not a man of precedent or form, but 
one who can evolve and presentthat succinct statement, 
which constitutes the real merits of every issue, whe¬ 
ther of law orlact. We only propose to elevate the 
intellectual rank of legal procedure. This reform con¬ 
templates that a lawyer shall be competent to “ state 
a case,” not merely to “ copy a form.” 

Much is said about the danger and difficulty of abol¬ 
ishing what is termed the necessary distinction that ex¬ 
ists between proceedings at law and in equity. I should 
• like, if possible, to be informed, whether there is any 
consistency or stability in that distinction. Formerly, 
these jurisdictions were vested in separate tribunt Is. 
We have departed from that English precedent, and our 
courts are alternately exercising law and equity juris¬ 
diction. Hardly a session of the Legislature intervenes 
but we see this distinction abolished in detail—produ¬ 
cing deformity and confusion. Formerly, if a party 
wished to procure some evidence exclusively known to 
his antagonist, a bill of discovery, which is a proceed¬ 
ing in chancery, was his only course — now, by a law 
of last winter, this extensive title of equity practice is 
struck down, and the same object is attainable by a 
rule of court during a trial at law, Mr. Chairman, I 
might cite many other instances to show that this dis¬ 
tinction of law and equity is as shifting and variable as 
the sands of a desert—why then cling to it ? Why pc-i-- 
petuate what is obsolete, outgrown, only calculated to 
confuse and embarrass, and thereby defeat the admin¬ 
istration of justice ? The time has arrived when the 
courts of Ohio should recognize no system, but what 
flows simply, obviously, and intelligibly from the Con¬ 
stitution, and Laws of Ohio. We want courts of jus¬ 
tice, not of Law and Chaiicery—a system which will 
be emancipated from the forms and technicalities of the 
English system—a simple and single administration of 
the rights secured by a republican government. 


Sir, I am rejoiced at the occurrence of this debate— 
that, in Ohio, the ground is at length broken in favor 
of a radical reformation of legal procedure. 1 have 
no apprehensions that anything worthy of preservation 
will be sacrificed. On the contrary, whatever is wise 
and rational will be extricated from the confused mass, 
by the distinguished citizens who are soon to be named 
on that commission. But a great object can now be 
attained—an object dear to the heart of Jeflerson—to 
consummate our independence of the century-grown 
system of English jurisprudence, and establish a plain, 
direct, and republican system—eclectic of good wher¬ 
ever derived, but destructive of unnecessary and inju¬ 
rious technicality. 

Mr. VAMCE said he had prepared an amendment, 
which he intended, at a proper time, to offer, when the 
present question should be disposed of. He wanted to 
take the sense of the Convention upon it, when it 
should be full, and to find out what that opinion ought 
to be. He denied that he was, as had been represent¬ 
ed, an enemy to legal reform, rlthough it has been so 
stated: on the contrary, he would go readily with all 
who desire reaP and genuine reform. He was, how¬ 
ever, opposed to breaking down the disiinction novv 
existing between law and chancery ; and he expressed 
his regret that no one of the gentlemen in favor of this 
—so called—reform had undertaken to show the ad¬ 
vantages of the system sought to be introduced. 

The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney] had 
made a very pretty speech. He had extolled the ex¬ 
tensive reforms that had taken place in Great Britain. 

He would inquire if the same improvements had not 
been introduced here in Ohio ! and it they had not, in 
practice, already conformed to the new system now 
prevailing in Great Britain? Is he not at liberty to 
follow them ? 

It is said that the people desire that this reform shall 
be made. He had never heard that the forms and 
practice of the law had ever been made a subject of 
popular complaint. It is true that mischiefs arise from 
the want of skill, inattention, or haste, upon the part 
of some members of the legal profession. But this is 
an evil that a proper application to business may very 
readily cure. Such evils will equally attach to all sys- ^ 
terns, whether simple or complex. You should adopt 
no system of legal practice that does not fully apprise 
all parties interested of the matters involved in the 
suit. Pleadings should be short, comprehensive, and 
consistent; and if you will take the books of forms and 
precedents and examine them, you will find that in 
nine cases out of ten they do no more than to se t forth 
the principles and points upon which the plaintiff and 
defendant rely. What more can be done, or what cruld 
be trained, by breaking down all these distinctions be¬ 
tween forms of action? If gentlemen would furnish 
an assurance that no injury would or could arise, they 
will have gone but half way. It will then be incum¬ 
bent upon them to show its benefits. If they can con¬ 
vince us that the change will be salutary, we might, 
we ought, to adopt it; otherwise, they should not urge 
us into an expedient so dangei’ous to a systematic and 
sound administration of justice. 

I rose, said Mr. V., as I stated before, to propose an 
amendment, which, at the proper lime, 1 intend to offer. 
It is as follows: Strike out the entire section, and 
insert— 

“ The Gereral Assembly, at its first session after the adoption 
of this constitution, shall provide for the appointment or election 
of three commissioners, skilled in the law, whose duty shall be 
to reform, simplil'y and abridge, the rules of practice, pleadings, 
forms and proceedings, in the courts of record of this State. And 
said commissioners shad, from time to time, report their proceed¬ 
ings to the General Assembly, which proceedings shall thereafter 
be the subject matter of legislation, and whicli may from time to 
time be altered or amended, as expediency may suggest” 

He regretted to see in this Convention so great a dis¬ 
position to follow so suddenly in the footsteps of our 
brethren of New York. Their new system was yet 
untried. No one yet knew what the consequences of 


















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


525 


it wouid be. He had rather see gentlemen stand upon 
princi[)le, and carry out their own velbnas, aided by 
their own sense ot propriety or expediency. But, if 
we are to tollow New York as Tar as she goes, should 
we not stop when she stops? Why go farther? If 
any other State had swept away all distinctions between 
actions, and between courts of law and chancery, and 
we had had an opportunity to see the workings of ih ■ 
system, we might dngage in a similar work with a I'ar 
better understanding of the results of our labors. But 
when we have no example of the kind, we should 
pause before we leap. Wise men should hesitate and 
retlect, be)fore they go so far, and make so vast an alter¬ 
ation. 

Mr. LB.YDBETTER hoped the amendment of the 
gentleman from Erie, [Mr. Tayi.oii] would not prevail. 
If a reform is practicable, it can be had under the aus¬ 
pices of the Legislature. This, however, does not ap¬ 
pear to be a matter of law I’eform. It appears to be 
an elfort to do away with our present veles and forms 
of legal practice and the borrowing of another. Gen¬ 
tlemen who understand their profession do not need a 
new system. Those who are ambitious for reform, can 
make it without new rules. They are not bound by 
the precedents in ihe books, unless they choose to em¬ 
ploy them. They need not use Wilcox and Chitty un¬ 
less they please. The common law only requires that 
the plaintitf shall state upon paper his cause of action, 
in a clear and lucid manner, so that the defendant may 
know what the plaintiff demands of him; and that the 
defendant should set forth his defence in like manner. 
Then what is the object of this reference, unless it is 
to abolish all distinction between law and chancery? 
It is a war merely against forms, which are so marvel- 
ousl / mysterious, and nothing more. 

What advice does a young attoi ney receive when he 
leaves the othce where he studied his profession? Is 
he advised to enter upon a crusade against the safe and 
well established forms of pleading? I was advised to 
adhere strictly to the piecedents and forms in practice 
for safety; but others are not obliged to do so. If we 
have any precocious youths issuing from the laborato¬ 
ries where lawyers are manufactured, or any unusual¬ 
ly astute members of the legal profession are dissatisfied 
with the present forms, they are not bound to follow 
them. 

Sir, I once heard an anecdote of an effort made to 
collect a note which had been in fact paid. Suit was 
brought in assumpsit, declaration tiled containing the 
common counts. Defendant inquired of the clerk of 
the court as to what he should do, who informed him 
that he would have to employ a lawyer and file his de¬ 
fence. , After inquiring into the nature of the plea, the 
defendant files the following : “The plaintifi' lies like 
the d—1. I do not owe him one cent.” If brevity is de¬ 
sired by the reformers, I would recommend to their 
consideration the above precedent, instead of the cum¬ 
brous and mysterious forms of the old musty common 
law. 

I have no objections to the raising of a commission, 
if it shall be thought that by so doing, the interest of 
suitors in court will be benefitted thereby. 

Mr. HOL'P ho[)ed that the gentleman from Erie would 
not press his amendment. The section secures all that 
is necessary, as it is. He did not wish to argue the 
question. 

Mr. TAYLOR said the gentleman overlooked the fact 
that it left it in the [)ower of the commissioners to de¬ 
feat the whole I’eform. 

Mr. HAWKINS did not desire to have the mandate 
too imperative. Now, the commmittee is bound to re- 
[ort to the General Assembly, and bethought that was 
enough. 

Mr. MANON desired to ha-ve the commissioners bound 
to perlbrm their duty, at all events; and if there was to 
be any discretion in the mat'er, he wanted it in the 
Legislature. 

Mr. MASON said that with regard to the amend¬ 


ment before the Convention, [Mr. Taylor’s] he was 
not so well prepared as some gentlemen seemed to be, 
to take this leap into the great darkness before us. The 
catch phrase of to-day is “ legal relorm ”—that is the 
bewitching sound to which gentlemen arc [irone to lis¬ 
ten ; the [dirase is a popular one—po[)ular just in pro¬ 
portion as it is not understood. The legal ref nn pro¬ 
posed in the first paragi’aph of this i-eport has been 
slowly but surely going on for years in England and 
in the United States—it is progressing with as much 
speed as the convenience and interests of the people 
demand. 1 call attention to the fact that the friends ot 
this amendment [Mr. Taylor’s,] have notinformhd us 
of the fact—they have endeavored to frighten us, by 
holding up to our view the erroneous evils of the pres¬ 
ent system—forgetting to allude to the trilling fact that 
those evils have long since been remedied. 

The common law, which with its time honored and 
illustrious champions, has been so much 'Scoffed at on 
this tloor, contains the expression uf some of the subli- 
rnest ti uths ever uttered by man. We are too apt to 
think lightly of the wisdom of other days and other 
men—especially if that wisdom chances to come into 
conllict with our own Oj)inion.3. But it is fit and prop¬ 
er that we—especially we that are sent up here to frame 
a new constitution—should have regard for the old 
land marks. 

The question now before us, is simply whether we 
shall make greater or slower speed in the work of 
cliange and innovation, for I am not opposed to the rai¬ 
sing of this commission to look into the subject of law 
reform. There may be forms of action, doubtless there 
are, that can be made simpler and briefer, consistent 
with the attainment of all the ends of justice; on the 
other hand, it would be difficult to improve some of 
those forms. You can draw a declaration on a note of 
hand in about ten words, and it may be plain to every 
mind. As to the form in an action of ejectment, it may 
be possible that you can better it—do so if you can, but 
woe beti<le the poor client who must seek redress 
through such a form of ejectment as some of you would 
invent. 

Mr. Chairman, [said Mr. M.,] although I speak thus 
and feel thus, witlj regard to some ot the ill considered 
and crude propositions, to abolish at one fell swoop, all 
those forms which are the “ accumulated wisdom of 
ages,” I am no enemy of a careful, well considered and 
deliberate law reform. And why should I be ? Why 
should there be any great difference between your po¬ 
sition and mine ? You should desire the reforms that I 
do, and I should be anxious fijr the same changes that 
you are. We are members of the same great famdy, liv¬ 
ing in the same beautiful State of Ohio, and thereby our 
interests are inseparably interwoven. Itis conceded on 
all hands, that the Legislature has the power to do the 
very ll.ing proposed in this report, and yet I am willing 
to support the first part of it But I cannot vote for it as 
a whole. I do not wish t i c mmission, when appointed 
to feel compelled to abolisn a i i of the old forms. I do not 
wish to see all distinction between law and chancery 
broken down. By such a course, you would have ail 
things legal, so mixed and commingled, that no lawyer 
could tell where he was. The youngest mend)er of the 
bar would have enough to do to learn all ot your 
forms. The old land marks are obliterated the mile 
stones removed—the “ signs ” have been knocked 
down in a riot, (laughter)—all is coniusion, and every 
thing is confused. Ciill upon the oldest and ablest law¬ 
yer and he cannot help you. Three-fourths of the law 
libraries may as well be thrown out upon the common 
The books upon evidence are useless, because those 
books are mostly taken up with the loiins of action. 
Every thing is changed. The costly lamp of experi¬ 
ence no longer lights up on r path way. _ We are out 
upon an unknown sea of experiment, without charter 
compass. 

Much has been said about New York and her prece¬ 
dence in the cause of law Reform. I am a native of 













526 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


New York, and all that is great and good in her exam¬ 
ple I would copy, but I am weary of this evident pro¬ 
pensity to become the servile imitator of that State. I 
do not forget that Joanna Southcote and Jemima Wilkin¬ 
son and Mormouisra tlourished there, and that the spir¬ 
it of abolition nourished and run mad there. The glare 
to her prosperity does not obscure the view of the de¬ 
formities and errors and follies that abound in her his¬ 
tory, and are as much to be shunned by the statesman 
as her wiser and safer precedents are to be followed. 
I know that she has had and has her illustrious men ; 
her Emmets, and Clintons and Spencers, and that so 
long as the name of her Kent survives she will have re¬ 
nown among the States and with all posterity. New 
York is distinguished for her lawyers. And when did 
that State appear among her sisterhood as the leading 
one—as the most brilliant star in the bright galaxy. 
When did she culminate the highest? It was when 
the legal system which her descendants have scoffed at 
and would trample under foot, was the system in which 
all their proceedings were carried on. Aye, the legal 
reputation of New York reached its zenith under a sys¬ 
tem which you, in the maturity of your wisdom—in 
the perfection of your prescience, pronounce jargon. 

As I have before stated I will vote for the first part 
of this report. I cannot .support it as a whole. 

The question then being taken on Mr. Taylor’s 
amendment, the same was disagreed to by a vote of 37 
to 44. 

On motion of Mr. STILLWELL, the committee 
rose, reported no conclusion, and obtained leave to sit 
again: and 

On motion ,the Convention took a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. SAWYER offered the following: 

Resolved, That this Convention will adjourn its sititng in Co¬ 
lumbus on Friday the 5th day ot July, at 12 o’clock noon, to meet 
again in “Watson’s Hall” Cleveland on the 15th day of tlie same 
month, at 10 A. M. 

Mr. SAWYER had but a few words to say in regard 
to the resolution just read. It was evident to every 
member that this Convention could not continue its ses¬ 
sion in this city during the months of July and August. 
If this Convention did not adjourn to some healthier 
point, an adjournment over until fall was, in his opin¬ 
ion, inevitable. To this latter he was strongly and de¬ 
cidedly opposed, and to avoid such a result he offer¬ 
ed this proposition to adjourn to the city of Cleveland 
and there finish the labors of the session. By this 
course he believed the Convention could frame a con¬ 
stitution in time to be submitted to the people at the 
ensuing October election, and that was a result most 
devoutly to be wished for by all. The weather was 
already so hot and opp -essive that it was almost impos¬ 
sible to keep a quorum in the house. It might be, if 
the Convention adjourned to Cleveland that the large 
number of members from the centre and southern por¬ 
tion of the State who were now so often absent frcm 
their places—it being so convenient to run home—that 
these members would find it so inconvenient to visit 
home from the northern side of the State would be in¬ 
duced to remain at their posts. At all events, every 
member would be better able and more willing to 
work cheerfully and vigorously through the session 
on the lake shore, than in the low and unhealthy valley 
of the nearly stagnant Scioto 

Mr. HAWKINS would oppose any proposition either 
to adjourn to Cleveland or to adjourn over until fall, 
unless there was an absolute and pressing necessity. It 
is true that the weather is warm and uncomfortable, and 
it may also be true that our private business at home is 
Bufleringi’or our attention. But Sir, when we were elec¬ 
ted we pledged ourselves, tacitly it might have been, to 
serve the State to the neglect, if need be, of our private 
interests. And as to the heat, I confess for one 1 should 
be ashamed to go home to my constituents sweating in 
their harvest fields under the burning rays of a July 


sun and tell them 1 could not sit here in the shade and 
deliberate upon the formation of a new constitution, 

I would say to my friends on this side to beware 
of any false steps—the Democratic party was in a large 
majority in the Convention and would be held respon¬ 
sible for this adjournment if carried. 

As to being frightened away by the cholera—he did 
not stand in such fear as some might. 

Mr. BARBEE offered the following amendment to 
the resolution offered by Mi-. Sawyer: 

Resolved, That when this Convention adjourn on Friday, the 
5th of July, it adjourn to meet again on the — day of-. 

Mr. BARBEE. My own preference is that we should 
meet here on the first of October, though I have le*ft a 
blank as to time in the amendment. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Say the 1,5th day of October, as 
that would be after the election. 

Mr. BARBEE. I desire that the time should be so 
fixed as to meet the views of all. When I accepted 
the nomination to the seat I now occupy, I supposed, 
as did my constituents, that we should be able to fin¬ 
ish this work in about sixty days, and it was with that 
view that I pledged myself to the people, too, as a del¬ 
egate here. But, sir, that time has nearly elapsed, and 
we are not half through with our labors. This being 
the case, I am in favor of an adjournment over till fall. 

I made all my arrangements, upon leaving home, to 
be gone for about two months; that time having near¬ 
ly expired, it becomes necessary for me to return. I 
observe that we have ordered to be printed some 1500 
copies of reports of different standing committees. 
The object of this was to have these reports read by 
our constituents, in order to get an expression of their 
opinions thereon. Now some weeks will elapse before 
it will be time to get their answer, as it were, to these 
reports. Had we not, in view of this, better adjourn 
over, if only for a few weeks ? I move that the blank 
in the amendment which I offered be filled with the 
words “ 15th of October next.” 

Mr. MANON moved that the resolution and accom¬ 
panying amendment be laid upon the table. 

Mr. LARWILL. I have no hesitation in acting, 
where I believe it to be my duty. It has been sugges¬ 
ted that the responsibility of an adjournment at this 
time will rest upon the Democratic party. I am a 
Democrat, and claim to have the interests of that par¬ 
ty at heart, and I assert that, in my opinion, no harm to 
the Democratic cause will result from an adjournment 
to Cleveland. Many of us are now suffering from ill 
health ; I have suffered from ill health myself, and it is 
my sincere conviction that this Convention cannot and 
will not sit here through the months of July and Au¬ 
gust. In my opinion the best interests of the people 
would be subserved by a removal to Cleveland, for 
there we could go on with comfort and with vigor and 
finish the work for which we have assembled. It is a 
fact well known that the residents of this city who are 
able to leave do not remain here through the hot and 
sickly season. I am informed that the citizens of Co¬ 
lumbus are even now preparing to leave for Cleveland 
and other northern points. 

When I first came here I supposed that we should 
not need to remain here more than sixty or seventy 
days, but I now find that it is probable we remain as 
long again as we have already been here. There has 
been a great deal of speaking, but I shall not join in , 
the denunciation of the discussions on this floor—they 
have been pertinent to the business for which we were 
sent here—they have been instructive and highly pro¬ 
fitable. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to postpone the resolution 
and pending amendment until the Ist day of July next. 

He [Mr. C.] theught the resolution premature. We 
should have some better and more urgent reason for 
an adjournment than we now have. We came here 
to discharge a solemn duty to the State, and we should 
remain and perform it. The time may come when we 
shall be obliged to remove from this place—possibly to 
















CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


527 


adjourn over until fall. But we should wait at least a 
week longer before we act in the matter, and then if 
we are to remove, there are at least two locations in 
the State healthier and more eligible than Cleveland— 
Zanesville and Delaware. 

Mr. LARWILL. Is not the gentleman aware that 
the citizens of Columbus are in the habit of visiting 
Cleveland and the northern part of the State every 
summer lor their health ? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, they did not go by the 
way of Sandusky City last season. [ Laughter.] 

On motion by Mr. SAWYER, a call of the House 

was ordered, and-members answered to their 

names. 

On motion, all further proceedings under the call 
were dispensed with, and the absentees excused. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga was glad to see so ma¬ 
ny members present on this occasion. [Laughter.] 
He hoped that hereafter we should have fewer vacant 
seats, and that the Convention should proceed uninter- 
iTiptedly with its business. He thought the motion to 
adjourn was premature. If the cholera should hereaf 
ter prevail here to such an extent as to make it imper¬ 
ative to adjourn, the adjournment had better be for 
a few weeks or a few months to meet here again, for 
Cleveland is no more secure from the plague than Co¬ 
lumbus. 

Mr. LARWILL wished to inepnre of the gentleman 
from Cuyahoga [Mr. Andrews] if Cleveland was as 
much afflicted by the cholera last season as Columbus? 

Mr. ANDREWS. My impression is that the mortal¬ 
ity was greater in Columbus than in Cleveland—this, 
however, may be. owing to the great mortality among 
the convicts of the Benitentiary ; aside from tins there 
may not have been a greater mortality here than in 
Cleveland. I will remark that the disease was treated 
with great success in Cleveland—among all my ac¬ 
quaintances in that city there were but two persons 
who died of the cholera there last summer. 

Mr. KENNON. There is but one question with me 
in regard to this proposition to adjourn over until fall. 
Can we finish our work here and submit the constitu¬ 
tion to the people at the ensuing October election ? I 
do not believe that we can. T do not think there ax’e 
ten members here who believe we can finish our la¬ 
bors here by the first of September. I shall vote against 
the motion to remove to Cleveland—if we adjourn at 
all we should adjourn over till fall. Some gentlemen 
profess great bravery in regard to the epidemic that is 
abroad in the land. I have just bravery enough my¬ 
self to admit that I am afraid of this cholera. Anoth¬ 
er gentleman and myself have taken pains to be accu¬ 
rately informed as to the state of the cholera in Cin¬ 
cinnati, and w'e know that it now exists in Cincinnati 
as an epidemic. Believing as I do that we cannot fin¬ 
ish our labors here by the first of September, I shall 
vote for the proposition to adjourn until October. 

Mr. BENNETT proceeded to show, by comparing 
the amount of business already performed by the Con¬ 
vention, with that which was yet to be done, that it 
would be impossible to reach a sine die adjournment in 
time to submit the new constitution to the people in 
October. We had pai-tially acted upon eight i-eports 
only—there were ten yet untouched. He thought that 
eveiy gentleman who had resided long in Ohio, knew 
that the months of July and August were always sick¬ 
ly months in most parts of the State. His own im¬ 
pression was, that it was the part of wisdom to ad¬ 
journ untill fall, not because the cholera was here, but 
because we shall be needed at our homes during the 
coming sickly season. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren must confess that he had not 
heard any good reason, from any quarter, which would 
operate upon his mind, so as to induce him to favor the 
proposition of the gentleman from Auglai .e, [Mr. Saw¬ 
yer.] He agreed entirely with the remarks of the 
gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. Kennon,] that there 
Was no probability, in his [ Mr. S’s. ] estimation, 


at least, that this Convention will be abl ; t» c mplete 
their labors earlier than the month of September, even 
if they sh uld continue here, engaged in the discharge 
of their duties every working day from this time to that. 
He was perfec ly convinced, also, that it would be ut¬ 
terly impossible—when he said impossible he meant 
impracticable—to keep the members of this Conven¬ 
tion here during the months of July, August, and per¬ 
haps September. Would it not be well then, to deter¬ 
mine at as early a day as possibl j what it would be ex¬ 
pedient for us to do ? 

Gentlemen talke about “responsibility,” about 
“ throwing the responsibility of an adjournment upon 
the Democratic party, or upon the Whig party.” He 
had no sympathy with any feeling of that kind. If it 
were right and proper for the Convention to ad¬ 
journ over, he did not care where the responsibility fell; 
lie w IS prepared to say, “ let it fall on him, or on his 
party.” He would go in favor ( f an adjournment of this 
body, not to meet at Cleveland, not to meet at Zanes¬ 
ville, not to meet at any other place, immediately, but 
that it should adjourn until a particular day, then 
meet and close its labors; and then we would know 
what to depend upon. If prudence, and the public 
exigency required it, he was not fearful of responsibil¬ 
ity from any quarter. 

Mr. HAWKINS was here understood to say (his re¬ 
marks not being very audible) that the responsibility 
of which he had spoken, was that which would be in¬ 
curred from an adjournment under circumstancee 
which did not warrant it. 

Mr. SMITH continued: He knew the remarks of 
the gentleman were not to be understood in the sense 
ill which they appeared to be understood by some. 
He knew the gentleman was ready to meet any proper 
responsibility on this, or on any other proper occasion. 
But, the remarks of the gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. 
Kennon] were, in his [Mr. S’s.] o[)inion, conclu¬ 
sive. There was not a gentleman on this floor, judg¬ 
ing from what had already been done—the progress 
which had already been made in their business—the- 
business that was yet to be done up—who could come 
to the conclusion, on any reasonable supposition, that 
we would be able to close the labors of this Conven¬ 
tion ill the manner that it should be done, if we sat 
here every day, before the month of September.— 
Was it right or proper, judging from all the appearan¬ 
ces about us, that we should be kept here during the 
months of July and August, sitting as members of this 
body and transacting its business, when the pestilence 
was already abroad in the land ; and this city, and the 
members of this Convention daily threatened with its 
presence ? He did not possess any temerity in a mat¬ 
ter of this kind, neither was he an alarmist. He was 
not influenced in his opinion, by any circumstance that 
had taken j)lace here to-day. He had beenlong under 
the belief that it would be right and proper for this 
Convention to leave Columbus about the 1st of July, 
and adjourn over until some time during the autumn. 
He still entertained that opinion, and he had not been 
constrained to come that conclusion by the fact of a 
death from cholera having occurred in this city this 
morning, but from other reasons. 

There was another reason which should induce them 
to vote against postponing the question on this resolu¬ 
tion, and the pending amendment; and if he should 
vote in favor of laying it on the table, it would bo 
merely with the view that it would be but temporarily. 
It was at least important to a number of the members 
that this question should be speedily settled. There 
were many of the farming class in this body: any 
gentleman conversant with the opinions of a large and 
respectable portion of the Convention, would easily 
discover that a very prevalent sentiment, that many 
would be compelled, as a matter of necessity, to leave 
the Convention for some time, at an early period. 

These were his views in regard to the yiropriety and 
expediency of the measure. He would therefore vote 
















528 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


against the proposition of the gentleman from Auglaize, 
[Mr. Sawykk.] He thought that whatever reasons 
had been submitted by that gentleman, tii favor of an 
adjourument to Cleveland, had been fully answered by 
the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock.] It 
was perfectly futile in his, [Mr. S.’s,] opinion, when 
this terrific scourge was prevailing in the country, to 
attempt to escape it by adjourning to another place. 
The most appropriate place for memliers, under such 
circumstances, would be at home, with their families. 

Believing therefore, as he did, that it would be al¬ 
most utterly impossible to preserve a cpiorum during 
the months of .July and August—that those who did re¬ 
main, would, for the reasons mentioned, be ill qualified 
to give to the important subjects yet to come before us, 
that calm, intelligent and deliberate consideration, 
which their importance demanded, he was in favor of 
an early adjournment. Such was his deliberate con¬ 
viction ; though it was with regret that he had come to 
that conclusion. Such a course would not, in his opin¬ 
ion, materially enhance the expenses of the Convention. 
It would give members the opportunity of reflecdng 
upon the various reports already made, and shortly to 
be submitted ; and of learning the opinions of their re¬ 
spective constituents, as to the propriety and expedien¬ 
cy of the various measures before us. Elected in a 
hurry, as we were; hastily assembling here alter our 
election; novices,as we all are, in the business of fra¬ 
ming a new Constitution, such an interview with the 
people, in his opinion, would be highly salutary—espe¬ 
cially so, as many of the propositions submitted for the 
action and adoption of this Convention never had, in 
his opinion, been canvassed or thoroughly considered 
by the people. 

Mr. McCORMICK (indistinctly heard,) observed 
that he was in favor of postponing; the reasons which 
induced him so to think, lie would submit to the Con¬ 
vention. It was suggested that disease was amongst 
them. It w'as also suggested, that the disease was 
cholera, which, however, was problematical. The 
death which had occurred in this city this morning, if 
he was correctly informed, did not result from cholera. 
Disease was not far fr.im here, however, and it might 
be here at any hour; the winds might waft it here in 
a very short space of time. But to say now that they 
would adjourn over for some short or long period of 
time, when there wms no cause for so doing, was to 
him somewhat of haste, and entirely premature. One, 
two. three or four days would determine if this disease 
would be here or not, or whedier it we e likely to be 
here at all. With a continuance of the present weath¬ 
er for a few days longer, if the disease should notap- 
pear, there was no likehhoodof its a[)[>earing this sum¬ 
mer. With the atmosphere that they breathed here 
and in the streets of this city, and the festering rotten¬ 
ness engendered in them, in tliis hot vveatlier, if sick¬ 
ness were not jiroduced in one weak, they might care 
nothing about the epidemic. Therefore, he was in fa¬ 
vor of [lostponhig for a few days. On the other liand, 
he was opposed to adj jurning to autumn, unless some 
absolute necessity demanded it. 

The reasons operating on his mind, in forming 
that opinion, were weighty. Tiie first reason was 
this: if they adjourned until September or October, 
they could not, with the greatest expedit on and haste 
that they could make, submit the instrument they were 
about to frame to the vote of the peojile, duiing this 
autumn. The consequence tliat would follow from 
such a course would be,—if their labors proved ac¬ 
ceptable to ihe people,—that those labors must lie use¬ 
less until another twelve months slionld have elapsed, 
and another session should have passed, without the 
Legislature being enabled to ])ut the constitution into 
operation. It was deferring the object which the peo¬ 
ple had in view in forming this Convention for fifteen 
months longer than they liad intended, 'i'he shoitest 
possible period within winch the constitution could be 
put into lull operation would be two years; and if they 


adjourned over until autumn, and then returned and | 
finished their labors in two months, the session of the I 
Legislature would have so far advanced by the time j 
the people would have voted on the instrument, that , 
tliey could not make provision for putting it into oper ! 
ation—and, as he said before, it would cause the mat- i 
ter to remain over for twelvemonths longer: to that 
he was decidedly opposed. It might be very desirable > 
to adjourn over, for those gentlemen who were opposed I 
to this Convention entirely—who were opposed to the i 
calling of it, and opposed to the whole operatiin, and iij 
in favor of the old conservative princijiles. That might ,1 
be well enough for them, but to those who were in ear- \ 
nest in the matter, it did not do at all. |l 

There was another reason—it was this: there were fs 
many members of this Convention who had no serious 
expectation of being detained here more than sixty or < 
ninety days at the farthest, and they could not afford r 
to lose the whole summer. Most of the members 
would lose the summer term of their courts; they had i 
lost their business since they left home, and they were ; 
entirely mqirepared for this summer term of court, e- 
ven if they returned home. Were they, tlien, to lose 
their autumn term also ? The greater part of the mem¬ 
bers of this body, he presumeil, were here at a great t 
sacrifice of money. There were remarkably few men 
occupying seats here whose business at home was not 
worth more; and, taking the comforts of home into 
consideration, his presence there more desirable—the * 

honor and dignity apart—than a seat in this hall. But 
that was demanding too great a sacrifice—to lose all 
their summer and autumn was too great a price for that 
which they received in this Conveutinn. For that 
reason, if for no other, he would seriously oppose this 
[(reposition which was made, of adjourning for .some 
two or three months. 

One word with regard to a late proposition. He be¬ 
lieved he was responsible fur the first proposition made 
here, which was to adjourn to Cleveland. Perhaps, 
having made that proposition, a brief explanation might 
be expected from him. He was as much a coward 
with regard to disease as the gentleman from Belmont 
[Mr. Kennon] —particularly choL ra. He had suffer¬ 
ed from it last year as much as any other man who es¬ 
caped with life: he had not recovered from it yet, and 
were the disease now to break out, there was not one 
man in the whole assembly, nor in the population of 
this place, more liable than himself to be stricken by 
it. He suffered from disease when he came here : he 
was prostrated by disease, and the wind and the cold 
blasts and the rains which were continually occurring 
in all their phases every 24 hours, were prostrating 
him to the dust—to the grave with ill health. But » 
the skill of the physicians of Columbus, and sir, they 
are eminent in their profession, and the care and atten¬ 
tion of the proprietor of my hotel, (the American,) 
who has done everything for my comfort and health, 
has improved me, and the reasons then inducing me to 
vote for tlic proposition have been measurably removed. 

The city of (Cleveland had been represented to him as a 
healthy place and for tiiat reason he desired to go there. 

He had nothing to bind him to this place more than 
any other; lie had only desired to adjourn to a place 
which might prove more conducive to the health and 
comfort of the mendicrs of this Convention, and his 
own. He had no [lariicular love for Clevtland: he 
was never there in his life, and did not know half a 
dozen of her citizens. He never had had any inter¬ 
course with more than one or two of them since he came 
to this city. He had no connection whatever there: 
he was only seeking for health and comfort when he 
made tliat pi'oposition. He certainly did not desire to 
do any act which would lessen, or tend to lesson the 
character, standing and digniiy of the Convention, and 
as it was thought an adjournment to Cleveland would 
so do, he had abandoned the project, and for the same 
cause he would opjiose this or any other pro[)osition 
which showed a dispositiuu to vascillate, change, or do 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


aught but perform, and that most speedily, the object 
for which we are assembled together. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. There were several proposi¬ 
tions before the body, but it seemed to him that there 
was no sufficient cause for either. When the anticipa- 
thed difficulty should arise, it would be time enough to 
discuss the expediency of adjourning over—the time 
when, and the place where. All the arguments of gen¬ 
tlemen looked only to a contingency which might pos¬ 
sibly arise; and in view of the fact that there was no 
immediate, pressing necessity for action upon any of 
these propositions, he moved to lay the wdiole subject 
on the table; but withdrew the motion for 

Mr. HOLT, (who promised to renew it.) His object 
was, to invite gentlemen who were willing to stay, to 
vote with him. And as soon as there should be any 
cause for adjournment, he would vote with others for 
taking that course. He thought very likely that we 
should be obliged to adjourn, but would not act pre¬ 
cipitately or prematurely upon the question. If the 
cholera was in Cincinnati, it might as probably be in 
Dayton also, and he should certainly leave, upon the 
approach of this danger. But he hoped there would 
be no adjourning over, so long as a majority—a quo¬ 
rum, could be kept here to do business. The business 
of several members would be ruined by adjourning 
over till October; it would be a very hai'dcase for one 
member at least. He considered there was no more 
danger of the epidemic in the city of Columbus than 
in other places, and that on account of the health of 
the city. He now renewed the motion to lay on the 
table. 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays upon 
this motion, and they were ordered. 

Mr. BARBEE desired to state again the modification 
of his proposition—which was to adjourn over from the 
5th of July to the 15th of October, to meet again in 
Columbus. 

The yeas and nays being taken, the result was, yeas 
44, nays 50, as follows: 

Yeas. —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Case of Hocking, Case of Lick¬ 
ing, Chambers, Claypoole, Collings, Farr, Florence, Graham, 
Greene of Defianc^ Green of Ross, Greeg, Gr >esbeck, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hunt, King, 
Kirkwood, Lidey, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morris, McCloud, Mc¬ 
Cormick, Nash, Reemelin, Riddle, Robertson, Roll, Smith of 
Highland, Stanbery, Stilwell, Swan, Vance of Butler, Williams, 
Mr. President.—44. 

Nays — Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bennet, 
Blair, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Clark,Cook. Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, 
Ewart, Ewing, Firestone, Forbt^s, Gillet, Hamilton, Harlan, Hoot- 
man, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Lawrence, 
Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Morehead, Orton, Peck, 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stidger, Swift, 
Tayl r, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, 
Warren, and Woodbury.—50. 

So the Convention refused to lay upon the table; 
and then the question recurred upon Mr. Barbee’s pro¬ 
position. 

Mr. SAWYER. He considered that there had been 
debate enough upon this subject. It made little differ¬ 
ence to him whether his resolution carried or not. He 
was entirely opposed to adjourning till October. Let 
those gentlemen who were in favor of adjourning over 
until October, not complain if there should not be time 
for the submission and acceptance of the constitution 
at the October election. He did not complain of the 
disposition to make speeches. Speeches were well 
enough; he liked to hear gentlemen make speeches 
frequently. It showed that they were attending to 
their business. It was the length and not the number 
of the speeches to which he objected. Those intermi¬ 
nable speeches—speeches without end—were the prin¬ 
ciple cause of delay in business. His object in rising 
was to move the previous question. 

The Convention refused to sustain the demand. 

Mr. MASON said he desired to make a suggestion 
or two He admitted that a state of things might ex¬ 
ist, which would render it eminently proper that the 

34 


529 

Convention should adjourn over. His own impression 
was, that it were better for us to remain here at our 
business till that occasion should arise. And then he 
added, that he would himself, be entirely disposed to 
vote for the resolution; and when we did adjourn, he 
should prefer to adjourn and go to our homes; and he 
admitted that within twenty-four hours from this time 
there might arise an occasion which would justify this 
movement. 

He was as much concerned (he would not say more) 
as any member of this body, that we should be careful 
to maintain the high estimation in which this body 
should be held. He was in favor of calling this Con¬ 
vention, and had voted for it; and he was exceedingly 
desirous that the labors of the Convention should re¬ 
sult in the greatest good to the people of Ohio; and he 
could not but think that result depended, in some de¬ 
gree, upon the course which was to be taken upon this 
resolution. He concurred most entirely in the remark 
of the gentleman from Adams, [Mr. McCormick,] that 
we had better remain here, without excitement or em¬ 
barrassment, and cherish a reasonable amount of trust 
and confidence, that we shall be cared for and taken 
care of, at our present post of duty. Better wait till 
the public might know and appreciate the cause which 
might make an adjournment necessary. If the pesti¬ 
lence should make its appearance in the State, the peo¬ 
ple could not expect us to remain h^re; and even in 
such an event, he did not think they would expect us 
to adjourn to meet at any other place, but to return to 
our homes. 

He was anxious that the Convention should fulfill its 
mission, and that our labors might be submitted to the 
people, and that the constitution might go into opera¬ 
tion at the earliest practicable day. He was anxious 
that we might be so successful as to produce a constitu¬ 
tion which the people wdl, and which they ought to 
accept, and the sooner that could be done the better. 

The Legislature were to meet in December, and if 
we should adjourn over till fall, we might be brought 
into connection with the session of that body; and he 
did not know how two such bodies could be well ac¬ 
commodated in this city, nor did he know whether the 
influence of each upon the other would be beneficial. 
He would much rather the body would proceed in the 
performance of their duties, unaffected by any influ¬ 
ence which would be extraneous, or alien. He desired, 
therefore, that we should continue our sessions from 
day to day. All men might say, that we could not do 
otherwise than to adjourn. And, then, we could lose 
nothing of the public confidence by this fact going be¬ 
fore the people of Ohio. 

Mr. M. proceeded to say, that he appeared before the 
committee, principally, to bear his testimony against 
the adjournment to another place, and to object to ad- 
jou’’ning over at all, without the plainest necessity for 
doing so. When the pestilence should come upon us, 
he should vote in favor of going at once to our families; 
there would be our places, in such an event, till the 
scourge should pass over. 

Mr. DORSEY. He should vote against the resolu¬ 
tion of his colleague, [Mr. Barbee,] and in favor of 
postponing the time for re-assembling the Convention 
for a longer period, for reasons similar to those which 
operated upon the mind of the gentleman from Tusca¬ 
rawas [Mr. Bennett.] He would say, in the first place, 
that if there was any reasonable prospect of complet¬ 
ing our work, and submitting the vote to the accept¬ 
ance of the people at the October election, he should 
be in favor of continuing the sessions of the Convention 
under almost any circumstances. But from the view 
which had been taken by the gentleman from Tusca¬ 
rawas, with regard to the amount of labor we have 
performed, and the amount of labor which yet remains 
to be performed, it was perfectly evident that we could 
not get through in time. Looking at the Pennsylvania 
Constitutional Convention, he found that they were in 
session six months. 












530 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


He observed also that the New York Constitutional 
Convention which assembled in 1846, consumed one 
hundred and ten working days, exclusive of Sundays. 
We commenced the sessions of this Convention on the 
6th of May, and should we continue an equal length 
of time, it would carry us beyond the middle of Sep¬ 
tember, which would render it impossible to submit 
the constitution in lime lor approval at the October 
election. This being the case, he was in favor of ad¬ 
journing over until some more convenient time. From 
what he had observed, in the practice of medicine, of 
the health of the State of Ohio, during the months of 
July, August and September, he considered that it 
would be found almost impossible to keep anything 
like a quorum of one hundred and eight members of 
this Convention together in the city of Columbus du¬ 
ring that time. He cared not what the health of the 
city might be, members would have continual calls 
from their families to go home on account of sickness. 
Add to the absentees for this cause, those who are call¬ 
ed aw-ay from other causes, (and that number com¬ 
monly ranged from between fifteen to twenty,) and he 
apprehended there would not be left a quorum for busi¬ 
ness throughout the months of July and August, and 
probably the month of September. 

His object in this rntitter of adjourning over, was to 
accommodate as many members ol the Convention as 
possible. The legal profession would not like to be 
cut off in their fall practice, nor the farmers to be kept 
from their business in seed time and harvest. They 
could all be accommodated in this manner. If we ad¬ 
journ at all, w’e may as well adjourn till the first Mon¬ 
day in December; and then, as he believed, we could 
come together and go through with our work in a much 
shorter time than we shoulcl occupy were the sessions 
to be continued after the first Monday in July. He 
should vote against postponing the consideration of the 
resolution until the first of July. And if he were suc¬ 
cessful in his opposition to the motion, he should then 
move to amend the resolution by inserting the first 
Monday in December. 

The question was now taken upon Mr. Chambers' 
motion to postpone the consideration of the resolution 
until the first of July; and the yeas and nays having 
been demanded, resulted—yeas 44, nays 50— as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Montgomery, Blickens- 
derfer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case ot Licking, Chambers, Clay- 
poole, Collings, Farr, Florence, Gillet, Graham, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hunt, King, Lidey, Manon, 
Mason, Mitchell, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Reemelin, 
Robertson, Roll, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stilwell, Swan| 
Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, kir. President_44. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Clark, Cook, Curry. 
Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Firestone, Forbes, Harlan, Hootman. 
Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Morehead, Orton, 
Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Aug¬ 
laize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins 
Stidger, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, Will¬ 
iams, and Woodbury.—50.J 

So the motion was lost. 

Mr. NASH said he considered the vote which had 
just been taken, was sufiicient to show plainly that a 
majority of the Convention could not agree upon any 
proposition for this purpose. 

A Voice —“Let us try it.” 

Mr. NASH. But it^ was impossible, for the reason 
that one party were in favor of adjourning for a short 
time, another for continuing until we should adjourn 
permanently, or upon the contingency of the appear 
ance of the epidemic. But that contingency had not 
come to pass, and they would not vote for an adjourn¬ 
ment upon any other account; and then they were 
opposed to re-asSembling until December. And there 
was yet another party who was desirous to adjourn to 
Cleveland. There might be others who were not pre- 

ared to adjourn over upon any account whatever, and 

e did not know but he might say he was one of those. 


He would be unwilling, at least, to adjourn over with' 
out a justifiable cause. He considered that the reasons 
against adjourning over, or to any other place, were 
just as strong now, as they were when we came here, 
on the first Monday in May. He would therefore re¬ 
new the motion to lay the subject on the table. 

The PRESIDENT said: the gentleman’s motion 
could not be in order, inasmuch as the Convention had 
just refused to lay upon the table precisely the same 
matter. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved to postpone the considera¬ 
tion of the resolution and amendments until the 5th 
day of July. 

Mr. HOLMES desired to make amotion to postpone 
indefinitely. 

The PRESIDENT. The motion to postpone to a 
day certain, has precedence over the motion to post¬ 
pone indefinitely. 

The question was then taken upon Mr. Archbold’s 
motion, and the yeas and nays being demanded, result¬ 
ed yeas 38, nays 55, as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Montgomery, Blickensder- 
fer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clay- 
poole, Ewing, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, 
Holt, Hunt, King, Lidey, Manon, Mason, Morris, McCormick, 
Nash, Reemelin, Robertson, Roll, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, 
Stilwell, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Mr. President—38. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrew’s, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Clark, Collings, 
Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Firestone, Florence, Forbes, 
Gillett, Hamilton, Harlan, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunter, John¬ 
son, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lead- 
better, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, Orton, Peck, Per¬ 
kins, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stidger, Swift, 
Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, Williams, and Wood¬ 
bury.—55. 

So the motion was lost, aud the question recurred 
upon the amendment of Mr. Barbee. 

Mr. ROBERTSON said: It was probable now, that 
we should be compelled to vote upon the resolution 
and pending amendments. He had been anxious that 
the whole matter might be put off': for he did not be¬ 
lieve that the time had arrived wdien the question 
should be acted upon. He did not believe (with de¬ 
ference to the judgment of others,) that there was any 
cause which could be presented before the people, 
which would justify such a course to be taken by the 
fathers of the State—(he was ozdy one of the boys.) - 

They had not yet finished their deliberations upon a 
single proposition, upon which the judgment of the peo¬ 
ple could be fully consulted. His worthy friend from 
Wayne [Mr. Larwill] had been in ill-health ever 
since he bad been here, and was very anxious to leave ; 
and he himself should prefer to leave, if there existed 
any good reason for adjourning over; aud whenever 
that time should come, when the health of our families 
might require our attendance, he w'ould cheerfully go 
for the proposition. But he was opposed to any prop¬ 
osition for an adjournment to any other place. He, for 
one, did not wish to be caricatured all over the State 
as a traveling menagerie Convention to frame a consti¬ 
tution. He knew that the people of Cleveland had 
proposed a great many seducing blandishments to in¬ 
duce us to go there—wane, women and music—to in¬ 
duce us to break up and plant ourselves there. But all 
these considerations weighed not a straw with him, for 
here we had elected our printer, aud here were the State 
officers, and the State library with all the archives of 
the State, which would be necessaiy for our information 
as we proceed. It it should be necessary for us to leave 
the city, he desired to leave for home, and when the 
boon of health should revive us again, to return and 
finish our work. 

He was not prepared to vote either for the amend¬ 
ment or the original resolution. Here was the great 
difficulty about adjourning over. He considered that 
by adjourning over we should lose some eighteen 
months in getting the constitution before the people 
We should not lose a single day, if we should have the 











CONVENTION REPORTS 


531 


constitution ready for adoption by the time of the Oc¬ 
tober election, for there was to be no election thereaf¬ 
ter till the succeeding April, and if the submission to 
the people were po 8 t{)oned until that time the constitu¬ 
tion could not go thoroughly into operation, especially 
as far as the election of the judicial officers were con¬ 
cerned, till the succeeding year. 

But now suppose that, in consequence of the ejn- 
demic we should be compelled to leave here, we might 
return about the first of December, and have a consti¬ 
tution ready to be submitted to the people in April. 
And the Legislature might go on and legislate in the 
meantime, just as though the constitution had been 
adopted. Of course, their legislation will be made con¬ 
ditional, to go into effect upon the adoption of the new 
constitution, so that there would be no intrinsic diffi¬ 
culty on that account. They could pass every law in 
this way, just as they would, if the constitution were 
adopted at the October election. There could be no 
difficulty, then, on this account, in the way of adjourn- 
ning over until December. We might get into opera¬ 
tion just as soon, by this means, as by taking a recess 
for a shorter period. 

There were some reasons (though^ he considered 
them not very important) for adjourning over, in order 
that we might go home and confer with our constitu¬ 
ents. He hoped the Convention would not adjourn, 
unless the epidemic should come. But, as the matter 
now stood, he should vote first for the amendment of the 
gentleman from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] and lastly, for 
an amendment to the resolution requiring the Conven¬ 
tion to re-assemble here. 

Mr. CASE of Licking now moved that the Conven¬ 
tion adjourn; which motion was rejected by yeas 23— 
nays 72, as follows rj ______ 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett ot Montgomery, Bates, Blick- 
ensderfer. Brown of Athens, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Claypoole, Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, Holmes, Hunt, John¬ 
son, Larsh, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Nash, Reemelin, Robert¬ 
son, Roll, Stilwell, and Swan.—23. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bennett, 
Blair, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Clark, Ceilings, Cook, 
Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Fireston, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Har¬ 
lan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, 
Humphreville, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, Leech, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, 
McCloud, McCormick, Orton, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, 
Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellei s. Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stidg- 
er. Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance ot But¬ 
ler, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Williams, Woodbury, Mr. 
President.—72. 

The question recurring upon Mr. Barbee’s mo¬ 
tion—* 

The PRESIDENT said: The question being now 
upon filling the blank, he hoped gentlemen would con¬ 
fine themselves, under the rule, a little more particu¬ 
larly to the point. 

Mr. DORSRY now proposed to fill the blank with 
the “first Monday,” it being the 2d day of “ December 
next.” 

Mr. KING. If in order, he desired to make a motion 
to lay the resolution on the table. 

The PRESIDENT said: It would not be in order 
while an amendment was pending. 

Mr. HOLT. He hoped that gentlemen who wished 
to adjourn over would vote for the longest time, so that 
if we are to be driven home we may have some choice 
as to the time we shall return. He knew that the 
minds of gentlemen were made up, and that they were 
not now to be influenced by argument. He therefore 
made his appeal to their generosity. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler mo ed that the further con- 
sideration’of the resolution and pending amendments 
be postponed till Saturday next. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. He was not ready to 
vote upon either of these propositions, and he did not 
know when he should be. Therefore, he would move 
that the whole subject be laid upon the table. 

The yeas and nays being demanded, resulted—yeas 
47, nays 49, as follows: 


Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Montgomery, Bates, Blick- 
ensderfer. Brown ot Athens, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Claypoole, Farr, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Green 
of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morris, McCloud] 
McCormick, Nash, Quigley, Reemelin, Robertson, Roll, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stilwell, Swan, T hompson of Stark, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Mr. President.—47. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bennett, 
Blair, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, 
Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Firestone, Florence, Forbes, Gil¬ 
lett, Hamilton, Harlan, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, 
Kennon, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Loudon, Morehead, Orton, 
Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith 
of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbens, Stidger, Swift, Taylor, 
Townshend, Vance of Champaign, Williams, and Woodbury.—49. 

So the committee refused to lay upon the table; and 
the question recurred upon the proposition of Mr. 
Dorsey. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler. He did not believe it possi¬ 
ble for the Convention to come to any decision at this 
time. He would like to postpone th - consideration till 
Saturday, and press his motion to that effect: but he 
was averse to troubling the Convention with another 
call for the yeas and nays, and he would therefore with¬ 
draw it, and move that the Convention do now ad¬ 
journ. 

The yeas and nays being demanded upon this ques¬ 
tion— 

Mr. VANCE withdrew his motion, but— 

Mr. SMITH ot Warren renewing it, and the yeas 
and nays being ordered and taken thereon, the vote 
stood—yeas 35, nays 60, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Claypoole, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holmes, Hunt, King, Larsh, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, 
Mason, Mitchell, McCloud, McCormick Nash, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Robertson, Roll, Smith of Highland, Smith of VVarren, Stil¬ 
well, Swan, Thompson ot Stark, Vance of Butler, Mr. President. 
—35. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Chambers, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, 
Ewing, Farr, Firestone, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Ilenderson, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunter, 
Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Loudon, Morehead, Morris, Orton, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Riddle, 
Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, 
Stebbins, Stidger, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Cham¬ 
paign, Warren, Williams, and Woodbury—60. 

So the Convention again refused to adjourn, and the 
question recurred upon filling the blank with the “ first 
Monday in December.” 

Mr. LARWILL withdrew the demand for the yeas 
and nays. 

Mr. MANON renewed it. 

Mr. MASON. It was perhaps now a proper time for 
him to say that, in voting for the first Monday in De¬ 
cember, as he should, (and he doubted not that many 
others would,) it would not be done in any spirit of re¬ 
sentment or bitterness. Far from it. But it would be 
done in order to accommodate a large number of raem- 
bei’s of the Convention—whether a majority or not, he 
did not know, but a very large number would very 
much prefer the first Monday in December, to any day 
that was considerably distant. 

And it was for the purpose of asking the Conven¬ 
tion to consent that we may adjourn over till that lime 
that he had ventured again to rise before them upon 
that subject. He would prefer greatly to go on with 
our labors; but it seemed to be now clearly demonstra¬ 
ted, that there was a majority, (and he blamed them 
not for it,) in favor of an adjournment to some future 
day. He would ask, then, that gentlemen would con- 
sent to adjourn till the first Monday of December next. 
If they would do that, they could have his vote, and 
along with it, the votes of many other friends to the la¬ 
bors of this Convention. He would state, (although 
1^0 was a very humble membei,)that he did notbelieN© 
it would be possible for him to re-appear in this body, 
if the adjournment was to any other day this side of 
the first Monday in December. He hoped, therefore, 
that t^entleraeu would well consider these things, for 










532 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


llie moment that remained for working up their minds. 

Mr. CHAMBERS said he would vole against the 
first Monday in December, as well as any and every 
proposition to adjourn over. With regard to the argu¬ 
ment of the gentleman about waiting their own conve¬ 
nience in this matter, or the Convention would lose 
their services, he had only to say, that whenever they 
were tired of this job, there were other men in Ohio, 
who would be veiy willing to take their places. 

Mr. MANON said: he should vote for the first Mon¬ 
day in December, with the express understanding that 
he expected to have an opportunity, hereafter, to vote 
against the resolution as amended. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. He was somewhat 
like the gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Manon,] upon 
this subject. He should vote for the first Monday of 
December, because, if we adjourn over at all, that 
would be a time as suitable as any other upon which to 
re-assemble. But in the end, he should cast his vote 
against adjourning over till December or any other 
period. 

Mr. LIDEY. If gentlemen were desirous of ad¬ 
journing over till December, he thought they had bet¬ 
ter make the recess a little longer. The Legislature 
would be here in December, and he would like to 
know what provision there could be lor the accomoda¬ 
tion of the Convention at such a time. He would sug¬ 
gest the first Monday in February as a more suitable 
time to re-assemble; but at the same time he doubted 
whether we were acting like men in proposing to ad¬ 
journ over at all. 

The question was now taken upon the proposition of 
Mr. Dousey —to fill the blank with the first Monday in 
December, and the vote was reported—yeas 48, nays 
46, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blair, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Clark, Collings, 
Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Green of 
Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, 
Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Ma¬ 
non, Mason, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Pi'ck, Riddle, Scott of 
Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith oi Wyan¬ 
dot, Stanbery, Stilwell, Stidger, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Vance of 
Champaign, and Woodbury.—4A 

Nays. —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Blickensderfer, Cahill, 
Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Claypoole, Cook, 
Farr, Firestone, Forbes, Gillet, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, flumphreville. Hunt, 
Hunter, King, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
M(;rehead, Moi ris, Orton, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Robertson, Roll, Sawyer, Sellers, Stebbins, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams, and President.— 
46. 

Mr. Dorsey’s amendment was adopted. 

Mr. LARWILL moved an adjournment, which was 
rejected by yeas 39, nays 56, as follows: 

Yeas. —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Blickensderfer, Case of^ 
Hocking, Case of Licking, Clark, Farr, Firestone, Forbes, Greene 
of Defiance, Green ot Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Larsh Lar¬ 
will, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mason, McCloud, Orton, Quigley, 
Ranney, Robertson, Sn ith of Warren, Stilwell, Swan, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, and Presi¬ 
dent—39. 

Nays —Messrs Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, 
Bates, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
chambers, Claypoole, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ew¬ 
art, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Harlan, Hitchcoc k of Geau¬ 
ga, Holmes, Holt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Law¬ 
rence, Leech, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCormick, 
Nash, Peck, Perkins, Retmelin, Riddle. Roll, Sawyer, Scott of 
Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stan¬ 
bery, Stebbens, Stidger, Swift, Taylor, Vance of Champaign, 
Williams, and Woodbury.—56. 

The question now recurred upon the adoption of the 
amendment as amended. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD said he should vote against the 
amendment as amended, because he was afraid he 
should not have the privilege of voting against going to 
Cleveland. 

The amendment as amended was now rejected by 
yeas 32, nays 63, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Brown of Carroll, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, 
Graham, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, 


Lawrence, Leech, Mason, McCloud, Nash, Peck, Perkins, Smith 
of Highland, Smith, of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stilwell, 
Swift, Vance of Champaign, and Woodbury.—32. , 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Blair, Blick¬ 
ensderfer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of 
Licking, Chambers, Clark, Claypoole, Collings, Cook, Ewing, 
Farr, Firestone, Forbes, Gillet, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, 
Grfegg, Groesbeck, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larwill,lLeadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, More- 
ehead, Morris, McCormick, Orton, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Robertson, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stan¬ 
bery, Stebbins, Stidger, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Town¬ 
shend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams, Mr. President—63. 

The question then recurring upon Mr. SAWYER’S 
resolution— 

Mr. HAWKINS moved that the resolution be indefi¬ 
nitely postponed ; pending which motion— 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved that the Convention 
do now adjourn ; and the yeas and nays being demand¬ 
ed and taken thereon, the vote was reported, yeas 51, 
nays 41, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Blair, Brown of 
Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Clark, Clay¬ 
poole, Cook, Ewing, Farr, Firestone, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Larwill, Leadbetter. Lidey, Manon, Mason, McCloud, McCormick, 
Orton, Quigley, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stebbins, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Woodbury, Mr. President— 
51. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, 
Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart Florence, Gillett, Graham, Groes¬ 
beck, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hunter, Ken¬ 
non, Lawrence, Leech, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead Morris, Nash, 
Peck, Reemelin, Robertson, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stilwell, Stidger, Swan, Swift, and Williams. 
—41.' 

And then the Convention adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY, June 26, 1850. 

8 o’clock, a. m. 

Mr. HAWKINS presented a petition from Thomas 
Wilson and 77 others, praying that a clause may be en¬ 
grafted in the new constitution, prohibiting the sale of 
spirituous liquors. 

Mr. QUIGLEY presented a petition from S. Jackman 
and 43 other citizens of Columbiana county, on the 
same subject. 

Mr. ROBERTSON presented a petition from Jacob 
G. Wiseman and 9 other citizens of Fairfield county, 
upon the same subject. 

Mr. LAWRENCE presented a petition from W. B. 
Stoler and 29 other citizens of Guernsey county, on the 
same subject. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from C. H. 

I Price and 62 other citizens of Guernsey county, on the 
same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of retailing of ardent spirits. 

Mr. HOIjMES presented a memorial from Israel 
Brown and 74 other citizens of Hamilton county, ask¬ 
ing that a provision be incorporated in the new consti¬ 
tution authorizing the people of any county in this 
State, when the population shall exceed 120,000 to de¬ 
cide whether the county shall be divided. Referred 
to the committee on miscellaneous subjects and propo¬ 
sitions. 

Mr. EWART, from the standing committee on Ac¬ 
counts, submitted the following resolutions : 

Resolved, That J. V. Smith, Reporter to this Convention be al - 
lowed the sum of eight dollars per day for his services during the 
session of this Convention. 

Resolved, That the Assistant Reporters employed be paid the 
amounts to them severally awarded and certified to by the Re¬ 
porter, provided the same shall not exceed the compensation na¬ 
med in the communication made to the Convention by the Re¬ 
porter, on the 7th ot May. 

On motion by Mr. SAWYER, a call of the Conven¬ 
tion was ordered, and eighty-one members answered 
to their nalnes. 

On motion by Mr. NASH, all further proceedings 
were dispensed with, and the absentees excused. 















CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


533 


Mr. EWART. I will remark to the Convention that 
the committee of five who have had the subject under 
consideration, took pains to ascertain the compensation 
made to professional Reporters and find that the usual 
price is four dollars per column of solid reports—in a 
newspaper of the size of the Statesman and State Jour¬ 
nal of this city. This is the price paid in Washington. 
In Kentucky the chief Reporter was paid $175 per 
week, out of which he paid for his assistance. 

Mr. LARWILL. What will be the whole cost of 
our reports ? 

Mr. EWART. We have made a careful calculation 
by which we are satisfied that the entire cost for a ses¬ 
sion of four months or one hundred working days will 
not exceed $2,800, includ.ng the compensation of the 
chief Reporter. This will not be as much as the ave¬ 
rage cost of the mere journal of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives of this State. A full and perfect journal of 
the Convention is kept with the debates. 

After a careful examination of the matter, four out 
of the committee of five, were anxious to allow Mr. 
Smith ten dollars per day ; but, for the sake of an unan¬ 
imous report, have yielded, and reported a compensa¬ 
tion of eight dollars. The labor performed by the chief 
reporter is excessive, and, as all are aware, of the most 
difficult and arduous kind. The compensation of the 
assistant reporters is left to the chief reporter to fix, 
ns he is the best and most appropriate judge. 

Mr. RIDDLE. Are not the prices allowed by the 
committee to the reporter and his assistants consider¬ 
ably less than the prices paid for the same service at 
Wavshington? 

Mr. EWART. They are. 

Mi\ HAWKINS. I shall vote for these resolutions 
most cheerfully, with the understanding, however, that 
the compensation of the chief reporter is to include the 
compensation for the reports which he may have time 
to take and write out himself, in addition to his labor 
of superintendence, revision, and the general duties of 
a chief reporter. 

Mr. LOUDON was willing that the chief reporter 
should be allowed a higher compensation for his servi¬ 
ces than the assistants, but he was also willing that the 
latter should be allowed a fair compensation. 

The resolutions, as reported, were then unanimously 
adopted. 

On motion by Mr. RIDDLE, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Grken of Ross 
in the Chair, and took up the report of the standing 
committee on the 

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. 

Sec. 1, The judicial power of the State, both as to matters of 
law and equity, shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, 
in courts of common pleas, in county courts, in justices of the 
peace, and in such other courts, inferior to the supreme court, as 
the General Assembly may from time to time establish. 

Sec. 2. The supreme court shall consist of a chief justice and 
three associate justices, any three of whom shall be a quorum. 

It shall have original jurisdiction in quo warranto, mandamus, 
habeas corpus, and procidenda; and such appellate jurisdiction 
as may be provided by law. It shall hold at least one term in each 
year at the seat of government, and such other terms at the seat 
of government, or elsewhere, as may be provided. The chief 
justice of the supreme court shall be elected by the electors of the 
State at large; and for the election of the associate justices of the 
supreme court, the common pleas districts, hereinafter provided 
for, shall be combined into three districts of compact territory, 
in each of which one of said associate judges shall be elected by 
the electors therein ; and every additional justice of the supreme 
court, who may be hereafter created, shall be elected by the elec¬ 
tors of the State at large. 

Mr. STANBERY. I move to strike out the word 
procidenda'^ and insert procidendo. 

Mr. SAWYER inquired if there was no English word 
which would be significant of the same thing ? 

A Voice suggested that the word “go-ahead” might 
supply the place. [Laughter.] 

The clerical error was rectified, according to the sug¬ 
gestion of Mr. Stanbery. 

Mr. LIDEY moved to strike out in the second sec¬ 
tion, the word “three” and insert “two,” which was 
not agreed to. 


Mr. McCORMiCK moved to strike out, in the second 
section, all after the word “and,” in the ninth line, 
down to the twelfth line, and insert the following in 
place thereof: “The Judges of the Supreme Court be 
elected by the qualified electors of the State.” 

The question being then taken, and a division having 
been demanded, resulted as^follows: Affirmative 34, 
negative 33. 

The Chairman voting in the negative, the amend¬ 
ment was lost. 

Mr. SAWYER. I believe there was not a quorum 
voting. I therefore move that we take the vote over 
again, or that the vote be reconsidered. 

The question then being taken as to whether this 
vote should be reconsidered, it was agreed to. 

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chairman: My object ip 
offering the amendment must be very obvious. The 
committee had reported here for an arbitrary division 
of the State into three districts, for the simple purpose 
of electing three Justices of the Supreme Court. These 
districts are created for no other purpose under the 
heavens. The only object of their creation is to elect 
a Judge of the Supreme Court within each District— 
a plan merely arbitrary, and not consistent even in 
tl;iat. The committee have provided, that in case, here¬ 
after, the number of Judges of the Supreme Court shall 
be increased, they shall be elected by the people at 
laige; and still three of these Judges of the Supreme 
Court shall be elected by these three Districts. Three 
of them are required to be ele<.ted by districts, created 
for no other purpose, affoi'ding no security, granting no 
protection, but made arbitrarily, and yet the Judges in 
their Supreme Court shall be elected by the people at 
large ! Sir, this is unnecessary. I know it may be 
said, that many of our Justices of the Supreme Court 
may be taken from a particular portion of the State. 
So be it. If one portion of our State affords better ju¬ 
dicial capacity, let us take them all from that quarter, 
for aught I care. I wish, in this matter of reform of 
the judiciary, to have a right to select the very best 
men the State affords, be their residence or location 
wherever it may be, without reference to or distinction 
of latitude or longitude. We are to select men to ad¬ 
minister the great principles of law. They are not to 
determine simply local matters or local causes, which 
belong to a section or to small classes of the commu¬ 
nity, but they are to determine the great principles of 
jurisprudence which may arise throughout the whole 
State—which are to affect the people of the whole 
State. Therefore, inasmuch as all they do will affect 
the people at large, they should be elected by the whole 
people, as your Governor, Secretary of State, or any 
other public officer is elected. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I perfectly con¬ 
cur in the remarks made by the gentleman from Ad¬ 
ams. [Mr. McCormick.] I am satisfied that if the dis¬ 
tinguished and honorable gentlemen of the Judiciary 
committee will reflect upon its propriety, they will 
agree to this amendment. What is the proposition now 
proposed to be amended ? It is that the judicial rep¬ 
resentatives of the whole people, the Judges of the Su¬ 
preme Court of the State shall be elected by a part of 
the people. Such a proposition is obnoxious to the 
theory of our government, as much so as to provide 
that the legislative representatives of a county shall be 
elected by a portion of its citizens. It would not be 
more objectionable to elect a Secretary of State by one 
part of the citizens of Ohio, the Auditor of State by 
another portion, the Governor by still another part and 
perhaps the Treasurer by the whole people. I tell you 
that this peculiar feature in the report of the^ Judiciary 
committee will not receive public approbation, and^ I 
hope that the distinguished gentlemen of that commit¬ 
tee will consent to the proposed amendment. But 
there is another very considerable objection to this fea¬ 
ture in the judiciary report. If the Supreme Judges 
be elected by districts, it will be necessa^ to appor¬ 
tion the State for that purpose, which will of course 


/ 











534 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


lead to political conflict, and perhaps corruption. There 
is another objection, and I will refer to it briefly, and 
that is that you localize or sectionalize the judges of 
the Supreme Court by their mode of election. Judi¬ 
cial authority extends over the whole State, their ac¬ 
countability will then extend only to a part. I am op¬ 
posed to a Supreme Court, made up of localized judg 
es, and representing sectional influences. 

If there happens to be a peculiar sentiment prevail¬ 
ing in any part of Ohio, upon any political question, or 
judicial question, I do not want that to be represented 
on the Supreme Bench by a Judge, elected perhaps, 
for that purpose. The Judiciary is not a Legislative 
body, but one of its greatest evils has been its disposi- 
sition to legislate Judicially. 

The Judges of the Supreme Court should not be 
elected to represent in the north or the south, the east 
or the west, or to represent any local prejudice, legal 
or popular. Every Judge elected to administer the 
law to the whole people, should be elected by the whole 
people, and not by apart to represent sectional feelings 
upon the Supreme Bench. The puiity and dignity of 
the Supreme Bench is not to be prescribed in this man¬ 
ner. I know the reason adduced by the committee, in 
favor of the election of the Supreme Judges by dis¬ 
tricts. It is that difterent political sentiments may be 
represented on the Supreme bench. I want no jjoliti- 
cal sentiments represented there. I want no conflict 
in political opinions on the Supreme Court Bench. I 
want the voice of the people of Ohio to decide who 
shall administer the law of the State and Judges to be 
elected who will administer the law. 

Mr. RANNEY. I rise to inquire whether it would 
be in order to move a substitute for the article. I will 
at this time, if in order, move notice that I will offer 
the report which I presented a few days ago as a sub¬ 
stitute. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. The question which 
is now before the committee, is simply this: Whether 
the Judges of the Supreme Court, which are provided 
for in this report, shall be elected by the entire body 
of the people, or whether they shall be elected by dis¬ 
tricts, and it is a question which any gentleman can 
determine for himself without any trouble or difficulty. 
I may as well state here, and it is well understood, 
that I agreed in the views of the gentleman from Ad¬ 
ams, but I yielded to the wishes of a majority of the 
committee. 

Mr. KING. The minority report, which is to be pre¬ 
sented for the consideration of the Convention, is not 
yet prepared, and, therefore, I move that the present 
order be passed over, and the next preceding in order 
be discussed, until that report shall be printed. 

Mr. KENNON. I believe the motion is, to pass by 
this report, and take up some other report. I under¬ 
stand that the gentlemen are desirous to see the minor¬ 
ity report, in order that they may adapt that report to 
this, if they should find some things in that which are 
better than in this. The minority report, which was 
laid upon the table some days ago, was ordered to be 
printed. I consulted with members of the minority, 
relative to this report, and they thought it was not ne¬ 
cessary to wait until that report was printed. I do not 
think that we ought to pass by this report. The en¬ 
tire system presented upon the other side, gives us 20 
supreme court judges—one judge in each county, who 
holds a county court, and five of these judges are to 
hold a court in bank. 

Mr. RANNEY. Perhaps it will be proper for me 
to state some outlines of the system proposed in the 
Minority Report. I do not concur in the report of the 
majority, because I regard it as complicated and too 
expensive to suit the wishes of the people. These are 
my objections to the repurt. I object to this feature 
more than to any mere outlines, and I shall vote for 
some alterations in that report. The object I had in 
view was, to make as few courts as I thought would be 
competent to do the business of the State, and to do it 


with as much expedition and bring it as near the peo¬ 
ple as ]) 0 S 8 ible. The minority report abolishes the 
Court of Common Pleas, and erects a county court, 
with a jurisdiction however much more extended than 
is now given to that court. The majority report con¬ 
fines the jurisdiction of county courts to appellate ju¬ 
risdiction in civil cases, while the minority report gives 
them original jurisdiction. That will take more than 
one-third, if not one half of the business done in the 
court of common pleas, cutting off the appellate juris¬ 
diction from inferior courts, and conferring upon this 
court a more important civil jusisdiction to a limited 
extent. Then the next court, which I provide for du* 
ring the important business of each county, is the Su¬ 
preme court, which is to have such appellate and origi¬ 
nal jurisdsction as shall not be conferred on the courts 
below. It is contemplated, to confer on that court by 
law, original jurisdiction in all cases above the jurisdic¬ 
tion conferred upon the county courts as the Legislature 
shall confer. The court is to sit twice in each year, and 
to sit in each county, so as to bring the court as near the 
people as possible. These constitute the courts provi¬ 
ded for in the minority report—the county court and 
the supreme court. The number of .fudges in the 
county court is the same in the system which I propose 
as in theirs. The number of Supreme court Judges 
provided for in the minority report is twenty, while 
the number in the other system is thirty-one. In the 
system proposed by myself, the Judges are not elected 
by the people at large, and as there are ten districts, of 
course two are to be elected in each district. Inasmuch 
as taking one from each district would make the court 
in bank unnecessarily large, I have provided for taking 
a Judge from each alternate district, making five to 
constitute the court in bank. I believe that the sys¬ 
tem proposed by your humble speaker has at least the 
merit of simplicity and economy, if nothing else. 

Mr. RANNEY proceeded at still further length to 
point out the difference between the two systems as 
embodied in the different reports presented to the Con¬ 
vention. 

The question then being taken upon passing by the 
order for the present, resulted affir. 32, neg. 41. 

So the Convention agreed to consider the report of 
the standing committee on the Judiciary, and the ques¬ 
tion being taken upon the amendment offered by Mr. 
McCormick, resulted affirmative 47, negative 33. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to strike out the residue 
of the section from the word “and” in the 12lh line. 
Agreed to. 

Mr, RIDDLE moved to amend the section in the first 
line by striking out three and insert four. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to amend the amend 
ment by inserting seven. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD named the number six. 

Mr. RIDDLE. The motion was made by me, for 
the p irpose of hearing from the gentleman of the com¬ 
mittee, whether we should have the present number, 
or a larger one. I think most of us are by this time 
satisfied that we have not got members enough. In 
other words, they cannot attend to the business of the 
people. That part of the section has been stricken off 
by great unanimity, which provides for the election of 
additional judges. Now, sir, for one, I feel disposed to 
have this matter settled. There must be some reason 
for this number. We have heard no reason. Does the 
gentlemen expect to get along with this report, with¬ 
out giving some reasons for overturning the whole sys¬ 
tem? I hope the members of this committee will be 
heard patiently. I think that upon this report we can 
form a good system. My own opinion, Mr. Chairman, 
is that we should have at least four or six, for we know 
that many questions have failed and gtine to the Court 
in Bank, because the court were equally divided. We 
ought to have three or five judges as a court of last re¬ 
sort, so that we may have a majority of the court. This 
is a prominent reason why we ought to strike out the 
word three and insert four or six. 









535 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. STANBERY. I will state in as few words as 
possible, the reasons which induced the committee to 
fix the number at four. I \vill say, that the number four 
depends very much upon the whole system, and I will 
endeavor to show it is the number best adaj)ted to this 
system. Now, according to the plan here proposed, 
gentlemen will see that the Suprejiie Court is to be an 
appellate tribunal, It is not intended that it should do 
circuit duty, any farther than the judges may, separate- 
ly, attend to such duties in the district courts, which 
are also appellate tribunals. The Supreme Court is to 
be a court sitting together on the Bench as we lawyers 
say, simply attending to appelate business, and no 
original business except in special cases. Why should 
we prefer the number four for such a court? There 
are many reasons which I can give. In the first place 
it is the best possible number that the wit of man ever 
devised, to constitute a court, the decision of which 
shall carry weight and authority. A few words will 
make that matter evident to men who are not lawyers ? 
What is the object to be attained by the decision of a 
question ? The decision in a court of last resort, not 
only decides the pending case, but decides (hat which 
is still more important—it settles the question of law 
involved for all similar cases. What is the great desid¬ 
eratum ? That the opinion which so settles the law, 
shall be carried by the utmost weight of authority which 
you can bring upon the bench and the number of four 
judges is a number the most likely to produce such a 
result. If we have that number upon the bench what 
proportion of the judges must concur in a decision? 
Three out of the lour. If there is any dissent, it can 
be only a dissent of one in four. The case which 
stands upon the opinion of three to one does not carry 
with it the weight due to perfect unanimity. If the 
dissent is greater in proportion than one in four, it 
makes the matter still worse. Let iis look at any 
gi’eater number—for no one proposes a less. If you 
take the number five, and four agree, it will be very 
well. But the division may stand as three to two.— 
Suppose we take six, the dissent may still be made by 
one—one to five—but it may be also two to lour, one 
third of the judges one way and two thirds the other 
way. Suppose you take seven—the dissent may stand 
three to four. A decision may thus be carried by the 
casting opinion of one man. 

The only objection that has been raised to the num¬ 
ber four, is that offered by the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton, who says that it will lead to an equal division, a 
thing that should be avoided. The objection applies to 
any even number, and it is a most serious one when 
applied to a court in which the original trial and first 
decision of cases is to be had—but the objection does 
not lie to an appellate or revising tribunal. If the 
court for the original trial is equally divided, the case 
goes undecided—but that result does not follow from 
an equal division in the appellate tribunal. 

Take a case that has been decided in a court below. 
It is taken upon appeal or by writ of error to the court 
of last resort. The decision is not disturbed when two 
are in favor of the decision below and two against it, 
and it is right and proper that the decision should be 
sustained. That settles the particular case, although 
it does not settle the law. But when you come to set¬ 
tle a principle of law, you will find that four is a better 
number than any other, inasmuch as three-fourths 
must concur. The difficulty does not occur then, 
when you come to constitute appellate tribunals. A 
division of the court settles no general principles of 
law, and leaves the case as it has been settled in the 
court below. 

Another reason in favor of four is, that such a num¬ 
ber would be most economical. It costs less than any 
other number, and there is no proposition to go below. 
The propositions are all to go above that number. 

In conclusion, I will say that in England, until very 
recently, the number of judges in appellate tribunals 
has been always four. They have not learned by the 


experience of centuries, that there is any number which 
gives greater weight to the decisions. 

. Recently in that country, to give greater working 
force to their courts for nisi prius duties, they have ad¬ 
ded a fifth judge to the bench. But, as I am informed, 
they still adhere to their old number for the sessions in 
bank, and j>refer a bench of four judges for authoritive 
decisions. I do hope that this feature in the report 
may not be changed. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD was disposed to accord in opinion 
with the gentleman, that in the construction of a court 
of final resort, the number four would be better than 
either five or seven, for the reason, that in case of a 
division of sentiment among the members, the opin¬ 
ion of three out of four would carry with greater 
weight and authority than that of three out of five 
or four out of seven, as the court might be divided in 
case of its being composed of those numbers respec¬ 
tively. 

In order to fix upon the number of judges necessary 
to perform the judicial duty of the State, it becomes 
necessary to ascertain that duty. By the report of the 
committee it is provided that the judges of the su¬ 
preme court are required to perform other services 
than those incident to sitting as a court of final resort. 
They are to go upon the circuit; and during the vaca¬ 
tion of the Court in Bank, to perform circuit duties in 
the various counties and districts in the State. The 
question then arises, whether they are to hold a session 
of their court annually in each county, or whether 
they are only to sit at one, two, or three points in each 
district, and at those sessions transact the business of 
the counties in the vicinity. The settlement of this 
question will, in a great measure, determine the num¬ 
ber of judges necessary to give efiect to the system. 
If there are to be only four, the smallness of the num¬ 
ber will, perhaps, present an obstacle against holding a 
session in each county. They may not be able to per¬ 
form the necessary labor. If, however, courts are on¬ 
ly to sit at certain points in the district, the number of 
judges is sufficiently large, as they will be able to do 
all that is required. He was in favor of a term in each 
county, and would ask the gentleman from Adams, 
[Mr. McCormick] whether it was the intention of the 
committee that made the report, that each county in 
the State should be annually visited by the supreme 
court, on the circuit ? 

Mr. MoCORMICK said that the answer to that ques¬ 
tion depended upon the settlement of another. If 
it were desired to have an appellate court that would 
be an efficient one, he supposed it would not be car¬ 
ried into the counties; if it were desired to continue 
the present useless and worn out system, then we 
would have a county system, such as the gentleman 
desired. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. The substance of this is: We 
are not to have a session in each county. Such is the 
understanding. Such was the meaning of the commit¬ 
tee. Now I entertain a different opinion, and desire a 
different arrangement. I therefore propose seven as 
the number of judges; and in so doing desire if possi¬ 
ble, also, to attain the object sought for by the gentle¬ 
man from Franklin, of having a court of final resort, 
with only four judges. 

I would make four out of the seven judges compose 
this court. Each of the seven should do his tour of 
duty upon the circuit, but only four should sit for the 
final disposition of causes. The election of these from 
the whole number of seven could easily be made. It 
is not necessary that the entire bench of judges should 
be elected at that time. Let them be elected at differ¬ 
ent periods, and let the service, as a court in bank, be 
performed by those whose term of office has the most 
nearly expired. Ey this means the object of the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin will be secured, and at the same 
time each county in the State will be equally accommo¬ 


dated. 


Mr. KENNON said the gentleman from Richland did 












536 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


not calculate the amount ol business force acquired by 
thisplanof organizing the court. The ability to perform 
service would, to say the least, be four times as great as 
the court under its present arrangement. Heretofore, 
at most, the State could be divided into only two cir¬ 
cuits, in each of which a court composed of two judg¬ 
es might be in session. That is the most of which the 
system is capable. But even that is not practicable, 
with certainty, and in fact the four judges at present, 
give us but one circuit court. Instead of there being 
too much business for the court, he was afraid there 
would be too little. It would be seen that each of the 
district judges, aided by three judges of the court ol 
common pleas, would constitute a district court, and 
that three of these courts could be in session at the 
same time. Under this arrangement, there will be am- 

} )le time to do all the business of the State, and not on- 
y so, but perhaps too much. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said this was not the proper time 
for discussing the question whether this plan should not 
provide for a session of the supreme court in each coun¬ 
ty. When that time shall come, he intended to offer 
his views upon that subject. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga said that if he believed 
the number of four judges not large enough, he would 
readily go for a larger one. It was his present opinion 
that there is sufficient force provided, and that the judg¬ 
es will not be overtaxed with business. In regard to 
a session of the court in each county, he had no objec¬ 
tions to that either. At present, that matter is left to 
be fixed by the Legislature in accordance with the 
wishes of the people. If they desire a session in each 
county, they can have it. By this construction of the 
court there will be four times the available force there 
is at present. The court does not even fail if a judge 
is taken sick, for the court may still be holden by a ma¬ 
jority of the judges composing it. If he believed the 
system likely to overtax the strength of the judges, he 
would go for increasing the number, but at present 
was in favor of the section as it stands. 

Mr. HOLT had not yet heard a distinct answer to 
the question of the gentleman from Richland: wheth¬ 
er ^it is contemplated that there shall be a term of the 
supreme court annually in each of the counties of the 
State. 

Mr. STAN BE RY said the system was so construc¬ 
ted as to suit either plan, and in that respect, to be ar¬ 
ranged as the people may require. 

Mr. HOLT said he should vote to increase the num¬ 
ber. He was in favor of a system that should give 
each county its court, and have a district court holden 
at some one place in the district provided by the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly. He was opposed to the hurried man¬ 
ner of deciding cases hitherto necessarily practiced un¬ 
der our present system—the stirrup court system as 
it has been called, and should vote for the amendment 
as the surest manner of putting an end to it. 

The question being on the amendment, was decided 
in the negative 

Mr. SAWYER moved to amend the section, by stri¬ 
king out of the third and fourth lines, the words " quo 
warranto, mandamus, habeas corpus, and procedendo.” 

He desired to have inserted in their places the equiv¬ 
alent English words. He thought they might, with 
equal propriety, insert in the constitution the same 
number of German words. Certainly they would be 
understood by more persons. He said he understood 
that quo warranto meant, “ By what authority ?” 
Mandamus was a sort of compulsatory process, an En- 
lish name to which he thought might easily be found 
y the gentleman from Franklin. “ Quo warranto ” is 
a sort of forcible writ, bringing a fellow out of jail, 
or— 

Several Noices. No; that’s a habeas corpus!— 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. SAWYER. Now, Mr. Chairman, you can see 
in my ignorance a strong reason for putting this in 
English. 


The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is out of order. 
The question before the committee has not been stated. 

Mr. SAWYER. That I take to be the fault of the 
Chairman—not mine. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SAWYER proceeded: That last name— 

Mr. NASH. Procedendo! 

Mr. SAWYER. I don’t know what it means. 

Mr. STANBERY. It means “ go ahead.” 

Mr. SAWYER. Then why did’nt you put it so in 
the report? (Laughter.) 

Suppose I, on my return, were called upon by some 
captious constituent, who could find no other objection 
to the new constitution, to inquire the meaning of 
these words in a foreign language. I should beobliged 
with a blushing face, to acknowledge that I did not 
know. Then why, says he, did you put in words that 
you don’t understand ? Now, what could I answer? 
If these words were put in German, some of us could 
understand; perhaps I could explain it. Now, I am 
serious about this. If these words were put in a mere 
law of the Legislature, it might be less objectionable; 
but this law goes to the people, to be read, understood, 
judged of, and voted on by them, and it seems not in 
good taste to put words in it that the people cannot 
comprehend. 

Mr. REEMELIN. 1 suppose my friend from Au¬ 
glaize [Mr. Sawyer] will find it rather difficult to 
carry his proposition into effect. An attempt to strike 
out of use all Latin words, or even to carry it further 
yet to reduce the English down to the original terms of 
that dialect, would render that language, laconic as it 
is in its words, so poor that we could not express the 
commonest ideas. For no other language now spoken 
has more completely drawn upon other languages for 
its support, than that which is now spoken m this 
country. It is a mixture of Latin, Norman, French, 
Danish, German, Anglo and Welsh, with a slight mix¬ 
ture of the Celtic, so that a man who would really go 
to work to speak nothing but the pure English lan¬ 
guage, would be compelled to be as brief in his elo¬ 
quence as the Indians in our forest. I have counted 
the section proposed to be amended, by striking out 
a few Latin terms, and I find that out of fifty-four 
words, twenty-eight are of Latin derivation. The at¬ 
tempt to translate the Latin terms proposed to be strick¬ 
en out, or the other words of Latin derivation into pure 
English, would make it a most ridiculous compound of 
terms, which hardly a human being at the present day 
could understand. I doubt even if it could be done. I 
know that it is a common sentiment with many people 
to get clear of Latin terms, and such an idea strikes 
every one at first as correct. But on sober reflection 
every reasonably person will come to the conclusion, 
that as the English language has done for ages past, so 
we will do well to keep using those terms which most 
briefly express our ideas, and which are short and 
comprehensive in their meaning. 

An attempt has been made in Germany to translate 
into pure German all the terms which have lately been 
incorporated into that language which have a foreign 
derivation. But it was found exceedingly difficult. 
For instance, the word coffee has been translated “ ex¬ 
hilarating bean.” A book was published to give eve¬ 
ry word now used in pure German. The idea attract¬ 
ed many at first blush, but its ridiculousness was ulti¬ 
mately perceived by every body, and the idea I believe 
has been abandoned. So my friend from Auglaize 
would find in attempting to translate the obnoxious 
Latin terms; he would rather perplex the public than 
render the English more intelligible to the common 
reader. Very few, without paying close attention, are 
aware of the large number of Latin terms which they 
continually employ. Most of our words, in politics 
especially, and in discussions of political questions, are 
derived from that language, and I think that the En¬ 
glish language, by adopting continually words from 
other languages, is rendered far more perfect than it 
would be without it. To bring it back to its original 










CONVENTION REPORTS. . 537 


purity would make it poor indeed. Even as it is, it is 
a language very meagre in the number of its words. 
We are compelled frequently to use the same word for 
different meanings, and while that may be a great as¬ 
sistance in popular speaking, it is a decided disadvan¬ 
tage in literary compositions. No language now inex¬ 
istence is better adapted to popular speaking—none so 
deficient in copiousness for literary efforts. To adopt 
words therefore from other languages, concise and brief 
in their meaning and fully adequate to the expression 
of the ideas which we desire to convey, has become an 
object with many literary writers. Words are contin¬ 
ually created either by compounding several languages 
together, or by the direct application of foreign words 
to our own language. This process is still going on. 
The English language is expanding not only over the 
surface of the globe, but its volume of words is expan¬ 
ding continually. I hope this process will be contin¬ 
ued, that we shall adopt from others and others from 
us, and we may thereby approach that great desidera¬ 
tum of many minds, that the abrupt differences which 
now exist between the different languages of the world 
may be gradually modified, and perhaps ultimately ob¬ 
literated. To show my friend how we would be “ put 
to " occasionally to express our meaning, I will remind 
him that instead of calling ourselves a Convention, we 
should have to call ourselves a Wittegamotte, [laugh¬ 
ter,] so that instead ol calling ourselves members of 
the Convention, we should speak of being in attend¬ 
ance on the “ Wittegamotte.” And it would be the 
same way in describing the words “judiciary system,” 
or any other terms which have been already adopted 
into our language, we would find ourselves rather hard 
“ put to ” to describe our meaning. All attempts there¬ 
fore, to give the pure English in cases of this kind are 
the mere eflervescence of first thought; sober reflec¬ 
tion will obviate these first impressions, and we will 
find, as those have found who have preceded us, that 
adopting Latin terms in such cases as these, is not only 
no impediment, but it is a direct aid in expressing our¬ 
selves correctly. 

The Latin language being without the article “ the” 
and using in declining its verbs no pronouns, is for 
this, and for other reasons well adapted to legal, med¬ 
ical and theological definitions. It is a very laconic 
language, and that is an additional reason, why it 
has been used. On the whole, then, I think we have 
lost nothing by borrowing from other nations — our 
language is but a compound of other languages, an 
attempt to bring it back to its original purity is now 
futile, and we might as well continue to use terms 
which have received an accepted meaning and of 
whose import but few are ignorant. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. I intend to occupy but very 
little of the time of the committee during the discus¬ 
sion of this report—I intend to leave the defence to the 
Judiciary committee, but as this is a question which 
has arisen before and may often rise, it is perhaps not 
amiss to express a single thought. There is one con¬ 
sideration which will I’elieve my friend from Auglaize, 
[Mr. Sawyer] of his difficulty—it is not the obscurity 
of the language, but the rarity of the thing which per¬ 
plexes him. He would be as much at a loss to under¬ 
stand the nature of a writ of “ start on” or a writ of 
“ go ahead,” as he is of a writ of procedendo,'' and the 
former expressions are too uncouth to be endured. 
There is no mystery about the names of a great many 
familiar articles found about a ship, yet the gentleman 
would be at a loss on hearing them first named. A 
good lawyer may practice more than half a life time 
without having occasion to issue a writ of procedendo. 

I It is therefore a thing of very rare occurrence ; and 
people having very little experience of the thing must 
of course be unacquainted with the name—if the same 
name were applied to a familiar object of every day 
use, there would be no mystery about it. If my friend 
will recollect the meaning of the word “ proceed,” he 
will easily see that the word “ procedendo” is of near 


kin to it. As to its being of Latin derivation, that is 
the case with almost half of the language. We cannot 
ordinarily open our mouths to speak a single sentence 
without using several words of Latin derivation. The 
gentleman himself has used any number of such words 
in stating his objections. As a mere matter of literary 
curiosity I have analyzed the Lord’s prayer. It is per¬ 
haps the purest English of any composition of equal 
length which I have ever examined, and yet it contains 
a very considerable proportion of Latin words, as any 
gentleman may convince himself who will make the 
examination. 

Mr. TAYLOR was in favor of the amendment, but 
for a different reason from that assigned by the gentle¬ 
man from Auglaize. The present constitution left the 
distribution of jurisdiction between the difi'erent courts 
to the Legislature, except so far as the common pleas 
was exclusively vested with probate matters. The 
present bill, in most instances, did not attempt to pre¬ 
scribe these respective jurisdictions. Why make an 
exception to the rule ? Inconvenience and even ob¬ 
struction might thereby ensue. 

As to these Latin terms, most of them were adopted 
into our language, and were not readily translateable. 
He disliked the term, which was most familiar —habeas 
corpus —more than any other. “ Let us have his body,” 
was phraseology which implied a low estimate of man¬ 
hood—a slavish estimate of the right which it was in¬ 
tended to secure. He believed, that at least in this 
instance, our language could furnish a better term. 

Mr. KENNON asked what the gentleman would pre¬ 
fer as a substitute. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Instead of the “ writ of habeas cor¬ 
pus,” it seems to me that the “writ of freedom,” would 
be a better and more descriptive term. 

Mr. McCORMICK. I am much edified and pleased 
by the remarks of the gentlemen from Auglaize and 
Erie, [Messrs. Sawyer and Taylor.] In furthering 
the amendment, I shall try and speak pure English if 
I can. The gentleman from Erie has gone off “ half 
cocked”—that is English, I believe. (Much laughter.) 
The writs of quo warranto, habeas corpus and procedendo 
are writs issued by a supei’ior to an inferior; and, for a 
justice of the peace to issue a writ of procedendo to 
the supreme court, would be absurd and ridiculous. 
For an inferior tribunal to issue a writ requiring a su¬ 
perior tribunal to appear before it, and justify its pro¬ 
ceedings, would be something anomalous, but perhaps 
not more so than the gentlemen’s ideas of propriety in 
many matters. The whole of this report, from begin¬ 
ning to end, defines distinctly the superior jurisdiction 
of every court; but it leaves the jurisdiction which is 
immediately inferior to it, to be defined by law. If 
the gentleman had read on a little futher he would 
have found that the jurisdiction of the supreme court 
is to be defined by law, except in one or two particular 
instances—therefore I say, the gentleman from Erie 
has gone off at half cock. I am in favor of this motion 
of ihe gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] buti 
am afraid we cannot carry it out in full. I do not like 
this idea of engrafting anything foreign here. I am in 
favor of the pure Anglo Saxon—that which we boast 
about so much in our courts, talk about in our stump 
speeches, and at all our suppers and jollifications. 

“ The greatest people in the vvorld, who have govern¬ 
ed the world from time out of mind since the world 
began, every opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, 
and who will govern it forever !!” 

From my information, I am now under the impres¬ 
sion that there is not a single compound word in the 
English language, that is formed of simple Saxon words. 
The language is not an original one—but a derivative 
from all languages—and this fact presents a great diffi- 
culty in carrying out the views of the gentleman from 
Auglaize, and also my own, in the proposed amend¬ 
ment; for, proceeding in our intended reform, we 
should go ’on a little fiirther than the gentleman’s mo¬ 
tion has gone, and strike out all the words in the report 














538 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


which are derived from, or compounded of, other than 
the Saxon. I dislike all these interpolations on our na¬ 
tive greatness and simplicity. The gentleman from 
Auglaize has given us no substitute for the blanks his 
amendment will create ; but he shall not lack here for 
support, for I have all things ready, and upon the most 
approved progressive principles. For a writ of quo 
warranto, I would substitute a writ of “ why do you 
do it,” [laughter] ; and then, when the supreme judge 
granted his writ of inquiry to an inferior tribunal, in¬ 
stead of a quo warranto, we should have the plain writ 
of “ why do you do it”—[renewed laughter.] Then 
we could comprehend what the writ meant, without 
being obliged to consult a dictionary on the subject. 
Ill the next writ we could get better English than in 
the other: mandamuses'' —“do it, damn you”—that 
is pure English [renewed merriment]—no circumlo¬ 
cution about that. It is entirely Anglicised now, and 
there is no need of a dictionary to discover the mean¬ 
ing of such a word as that. Then we have “ habeas 
corpus;" it is rather difficult to get at a fitting English 
substitute. But there is a familiar term which we can 
use—it is one used about the streets by the boys— 
“have his carcass;” remarkably expressive, and di¬ 
rectly to the point. For procedendo" substitute “ go 
ahead” [laughter] ; or, as is just suggested to me, we 
can entirely Americanize this writ by giving it the name 
of “Davy Crockett”—[loud laughter.] It would 
sound very well, and would be a compliment to a gen¬ 
tleman who once stood very high in the Western 
country. 

If the gentleman would modify his amendment, or 
accept iny substitute for the blanks, so that it might 
embody these few suggestions, I should feel very hap¬ 
py to vote for it; but, until he does so, I fear we shall 
leave our labor imperfect; that it will be unsatisfac¬ 
tory to the bench, bar, and also to our constituency. 

Mr. MANON remarked that perhaps it would be 
better to put it all in Latin, seeing that there was some 
forty lawyers members of the Convention. (A laugh.) 

The question being taken upon the motion [Mr. 
Sawyer’s] to strike out the Latin terms in section 3, 
was disagreed to. 

The committee then proceeded to the consideration 
of the following section: 

Sec, 3, The State shall be divided into nine common pleas 
distri !t8, of which the county of Hamilton shall constitute one, of 
compact territory and bounded by county lines, in each of 
which, three Judges of the common pleas shall be elected by the 
qualified voters therein. Courts of common pleas shall be held 
by one or more of these Judges, in every county in the district, 
as often as may be provided'by law, and more than one court 
may be held at the same tim i in each district. 

District courts shall be held in and for each district by the 
Judges of the common pleas and one of the Justices of the Su¬ 
preme Court, and any three of whom shall be a quorum, as often 
in each year, and at such places in said district, as may be pre¬ 
scribed by law : Provided, That nothing herein shall prevent the 
General Assembly from authorizing the Judge of each district to 
fix the times of holding the courts therein, as may be provided 
by law. 

The district courts of common pleas shall have like orio-inal 
jurisdiction with the Supreme Court, and such appellate jurisdic¬ 
tion as may be provided by law. 

The jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas, and of the 
Judges thereof, other than the district courts, shall be fixed bv 
law. ^ 

Mr. RANNEY moved to strike out tlie words “ and 
for ” in the first line sec. 3, and insert after the word 
“ each ” in the same line, the words “ of the counties of 
the ;” so that the section would read “ district courts 
shall be held in each of the counties of the district by 
the judges of the common pleas and one of the justices 
of the supreme court,” &c. 

► He remarked that some members of the committee 
had intended this clause to have the effect of establish¬ 
ing the terms in each county once a year. He desired, 
however, to make it more distinct and expressive so 
that it would effect the desired object. 

Mr. SWAN remarked that he had been, when in the 
committee, and was still in favor of providing that 
the district courts should be held at least twice in each 


year, in two or more places in the district, as might be 
})rovided by the General Assembly, He preferred 
this to terms in each county, because the court would 
have more time to hear cases, and examine and delfb 
erate upon them, and would be also less occupied in 
traveling from county to county. Under the old sys¬ 
tem of county supreme courts, little or no time was 
left between the sessions of the courts in the several 
counties, so that a single important case happening 
to be on a docket for hearing, compelled suitoi’s eith¬ 
er to submit to a decision without argument or to 
a delay that amounted to almost a denial of justice. 

To secure a full and deliberate hearing of cases in a 
county supreme court, and to insure sufficient time to 
do all the business of each county, annually, notwith¬ 
standing a few impor^-ant cases are unexpectedly add¬ 
ed to the usual number on the docket, there must ne¬ 
cessarily be left a considerable margin—at least three 
or four extra days—between the terms in each county; 
so that these three or four days may be devoted to the 
extra judicial labor. Without this, the sessions in one 
county will be always crowding upon the heels of an¬ 
other, But with this necessary extra time the judges 
will incur increased expenses, and lose much time in 
waiting in one county for the time of holding a term in 
another. No situation is more uncomfortable to a per¬ 
son of industrious habits and active mind, than to be 
compelled to wait at a public house for a stage or a 
court. Our judges of the supreme court never intend¬ 
ed to do it, and I venture to say never would have vol¬ 
untarily done it. In a State like ours composed of 
eighty-seven counties, if the judges of the supreme 
court must go from county to county, and if between 
the intervals of the terms, they cannot return to their 
families, there never will be, with their consent, any 
intervals or extra time allowed between the terms of 
courts. The tendency always has been and always 
will be to leave no margin. On the other hand, if the 
district courts are held, say twice a year, in two or 
more places in a circuit or district, these intervals of 
time necessary to a county court will became actu¬ 
al judicial time, and may be consumed in judicial 
work. 

The district court is a substitute for the supreme 
court. It will be a mere paper court, in which neither 
witnesses, jurors nor suitors will be required to attend. 
It will be a lawyers’ court, in which the judges decide 
questions of law stated in the papers. Requiring it to 
go into each county, if done at all, will be done for the 
CONVENIENCE of the lawyei’S. Their convenience ought 
certainly to be consulted; but, if by so doing you ren¬ 
der the court itself less efficient, and delay the admin¬ 
istration of justice, the lawyers, as a class, ought not, 
and would not, desire the interest of suitors to be so 
sacrificed. As a simple question of convenience, how¬ 
ever, and without any regard to the delay of justice, or 
the efficiency of the court, the bar would prefer that 
the court should come to them, and not they to the 
court; and if there were but a simple question of con¬ 
venience, I should myself greatly prefer a county su¬ 
preme court. But it is not a mere question of conve¬ 
nience. 

The bar are, indeed, as much interested as the suit¬ 
ors of courts, in your adoption of such a system as will 
prevent delay in the administration of justice. No 
county supreme court system can probably be devised, 
by which a supreme court, composed of an array of 
judges sufficient to command confidence, can go in¬ 
to each county of the State twice a year. Terms, 
however in the districts, under the proposed system, 
could be held twice a year, and in three or four places 
in the district, making three or four terms annually in 
each district, or once a year in each county of the dis¬ 
trict. The diflerence to the people between cases in 
errror, chancery, appeals, &c., being decided semi-an¬ 
nually or once in a year, is too serious and important 
to be overlooked. This delay of a year, is one of the 
inherent defects of the old system. It can be effectu- 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ally remedied by district terms, held for, say, three 
counties ill each district, twice a year. When the bar 
understand that, by dispensing with a county supreme 
court, greater efficiency is given to the court, that 
there will be rnore time for argument and deliberation, 
and less delay in the hearing of cases, they will, it is 
believed, acquiesce in the propriety and public policy 
of district terms. But there is another reason which 
operates upon my mind in preferring terras in two or 
more places, instead of in each county. 

A court seldom rises above the bar in learning and 
legal attainment. Like bar, like court, is almost al¬ 
ways true. When a court is surrounded by a learned 
and intelligent bar, the judges cannot obtain a judicial 
reputation even for mediocrity, if they fall behind the 
bar in judicial attainments. The highest incentives to 
careful inquiry and deliberate judgment, the highest re¬ 
straint against the substitution of wilful caprice and des¬ 
potic will for the law, is the conscientiousness on the 
part of judges, that they are surrounded by a bar, who 
have also listened to the arguments, and who are equal¬ 
ly capable of forming a just judgment upon the law of a 
case. An intelligent and learned bar always accurate¬ 
ly measure the wisdom, learning and impartiality, the 
ignorance, prejudice and carelessness which enter into 
and form the grounds of the decision of the court. The 
scrutiny is ever wakeful, keen, jealous. Judges are 
fully conscious of this, and that the bar are the survey¬ 
ors of public opinion and their reHective influence upon 
the court, is the best safeguard against the indolence, 
carelessness, ignorance and caprice of judges. 

If there be district terras instead of county terms, a 
larger number of the bar will attend the court, and 
this reflective influence upon the bench will be increas¬ 
ed: 

The meeting of the bar in large masses, (instead, of 
being insulated, as now, to each county,) and their at¬ 
tendance upon the district courts, would in many re¬ 
spects be beneficial to them. 

With the indulgence of the committee I will submit 
a few remarks in relation to the system reported by the 
committee; and I do so mainly to endeavor to show 
the working of the proposed system to the members of 
the committee who are not lawyers. 

First as to county courts. A judge of probate is de¬ 
manded, generally, that wills may be proved, letters 
of administration issued, and estates settled without de¬ 
lay. The plan proposed provides for this. 

Transient persons commit petty larcenies and other 
minor offences, and being miable to give security for 
their appearance, are supported in jail by the county. 
These persons are sometimes confined in jail for months 
before their trial, and when convicted are, perhaps, as a 
punishment, sent back to the same jail for a few days. 
The trial of such persons is unjustly delayed, and the 
county pays a large amount for jail fees. 

It seems necessary to provide against these delays 
and expense. The system proposed, allows the Legis¬ 
lature to require minor officers to be tried by the coun¬ 
ty judge. Appeals and certioraris from justices may 
also be tried before the county judge, if the Legislature 
think proper. 

I confess I have no great predilection for this court— 
a court in which petit larcenies, assaults and batteries 
only may be tried—in which those who attend before 
the justices will be employed on the appeals and certi¬ 
oraris, who seem to be a kind of judicial nuisance; 
but there seems also to be a judicial necessity for it, to 
save counties from the expense of supporting persons 
accused of petty crimes, and to avoid the injustice of 
the delay arising from the sessions of courts being but 
three times a year. 

If any member of the Convention can devise any 
other mode but by this, by which minor offences can 
be promptly tried, and the rights of the citizen’s prop- 
erty guarded, I should be glad to adopt it, and dispense 
with this part of the proposed system. It received my 
assent as a judicial necessity. No original jurisdiction 


539 


in civil suits is conferred upon the county court. If 
the Legislatiu’e were authorized to enlarge the juri.s- 
diction ol this court, there would be hereafter, amon" 
those members of the bar whose practice would be in 
that court, a strong desire to induce the Legislature to 
enlarge the jurisdiction beyond the true interests of the 
people. Young men, ambitious to be in the higher 
walks ol the profession, would, even in cases where 
the civil jurisdiction of the county court was concur¬ 
rent with the common pleas, prefer bringing their suits 
in the latter court; they would do so, it for no higher 
object, simply to appear as practitioners in the higher 
courts. The extension, therefore, of the original civil 
jurisdiction of the county court would add little or 
nothing to its character. 

Second. The Common Pleas. —This is the working 
court. The associate judges are dispensed with. 

If the State were divided into circuits, with a single 
common pleas judge in each circuit, all the profession¬ 
al business of the judge, undetermined at the time of 
his election, would necessarily be transferred to anoth¬ 
er circuit. If sick, the administration of justice would 
probably cease for the time being. If so connected 
with any local or political controversy, as to render 
him liable to false imputations of partiality, neither his 
personal nor his judicial character ought to be impaired 
by compelling him to sit in the case. For these and 
other reasons, districts or circuits are proposed large 
enough for three judges to hold each three terms of 
the common pleas, and to also hold terms of the dis¬ 
trict court. Although one forms the court, yet they 
may sit together or interchange circuits. 

Thirdly. The District and Supreme Court. —The 
real difficulty in providing for the judicial wants of the 
State, is to form such a system as will not at this time 
be overloaded with too many judges, and can be en¬ 
larged to meet the increased litigation which will arise 
from increased wealth and commerce. The judicial 
work of this State will probably increase four fold 
within the next twenty years. The part of a judicial 
system which is generally overworked, and consequent¬ 
ly, overwhelmed with business, is the highest court. 
Every important case throughout the State^ after being 
heard and decided in the eighty-seven counties of the 
State by the court of common pleas, may be, and the 
law must provide a mode by which every case may 
be heard on error. Now, no proper judgment can be 
formed of the time and labor necessary for a single 
court to revise all this vast amount of litigation, by any 
calculation of the time heretofore occupied by the su¬ 
preme court. 

On the circuit the present Supreme Court have not 
time to hear arguments or to deliberate. It is emphat¬ 
ically a stirrup court, chasing from county to county, 
and compelled to deny justice by delay, or to decide 
promptly and without careful deliberation. They chose 
the latter as the least of two evils, and rightly. Besides 
these laborious duties of the circuit, the court compos¬ 
ed volumes with more rapidity than Sir Walter Scott. 
In the course of sixty or seventy days they examine 
the facts in eighty or a hundred of the most difficult 
and complicated cases which occur in the State during 
the preceding year—read the arguments of counsel- 
deliberate upon them—examine the law of the cases— 
decide them—write out their opinions, and publish a 
volume of about seven hundred pages. It is not for 
want of time that the Court in Bank perlorm so much 
judicial work in so short a period. The judges are 
overworked in the circuit, and the labor in Bank is felt 
to be subordinate to Circuit duties. It should be ex¬ 
actly the reverse. A court that is settling precedents 
and determining not merely the rights of the suitorsj 
but the law in all future cases of the like kind, should 
cot be overtasked by circuit labor. The hearing, ex- 
amininf^ and deciding reported cases, should be made 
paramount to all other judicial duties. 

No single court can wisely or satisfactorily settle 
the conflicting decisions of inferior tribunals through- 














540 


CONVENTION REPOllTS. 


out the State, revise the decisions of all the courts of 
common pleas of the State at law and in chancery, re¬ 
port its decisions in all important cases, and permit 
parties to be heard by themselves in their counsel. 
The State of New York for more than twenty years 
struggled to retain a Supreme Court, the judges of 
which were required to do circuit duty. The court, 
although it had no chancery jurisdiction, was over¬ 
whelmed with business when the population of the 
State was about the same as Ohio. 

Now, if an inefficient court in which the people and 
the profession have not entire confidence, is placed 
between the Court in Bank and the Common Pleas, 
the tendency will be to throw the business into the 
Court in Bank : for business will seek finally the adju¬ 
dication of the court in which there is the greatestcon- 
fidence. 

If, however, an efficient court can be established be¬ 
tween the Common Pleas and the Court in Bank, which 
will have time to hear cases, and satisfactorily decide 
them ; and its term can be so frequent as not to pre¬ 
vent delay, no serious difficulty can aiise in the work¬ 
ings of the whole system. 

The Judiciary committee propose as a substitute 
for the Supreme Court on the circuit, that one of the 
judges of the Supreme Court shall go into each dis¬ 
trict of the court of Common Pleas, and there uniting 
with him on the bench three judges of the circuit, hold 
a court in such places in the district, (in each county 
or otherwise,) as the General Assembly may direct. 
This court, efficient in numbers, qualifications and 
character will be a breakwater to prevent the How of 
business into the Supreme Court. Whilst it will relieve 
the judges of the Supreme Court, from much of their 
labor under the old system, it will give to the dis¬ 
tricts a court entitled probably to more confidence 
than a court composed of two judges of the Supreme 
Court; and it may be quite equal to the Supreme Court 
itself. The mutual benefit which the judges of the 
Common Pleas and Supreme Court, will both derive 
from their sittings and consultations together, is too ob¬ 
vious to need a remark. ^ 

The Supreme Court in Bank is retained in the sys¬ 
tem, because there must be a court to settle the con¬ 
flicting decisions in the several circuits, and to give 
uniformity to the law throughout the State. But for 
this, the district courts would be sufficient to revise 
the decisions of the Common Pleas. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD thought that if the pending motion 
[Mr. Ranney’s] wasagreed to,he could support the re¬ 
port as a whole. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the committee rose, 
reported '' no conclusion,” and obtained leave to sit 
again. 

And on motion, the Convention took a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

On motion of Mr. CUTLER, the Convention resolved 
itself into committee of the whole, (Mr. Green of Ross 
in the Chair,) and resumed the report of the commit¬ 
tee on the Judiciary, submitted by Mr. Kennon, on the 
4th in St. 

The CHAIRMAN stated the question to be upon 
Mr. Swan’s amendment to the amendment of Mr. 
Ranney. 

Mr. SWAN withdrew his amendment. 

The question then recurred upon Mr. Ranney’s pro¬ 
position, to strike out from the 8th line of the third sec¬ 
tion, the words and for,” so that it will read, “ district 
courts shall be held in each district,” &c. 

Mr. McCORMICK addressed the Chair, but— 

Mr. KIRKWOOD being entitled to the floor, when 
the Convention last rose, said: He desired to bring to 
the notice of the committee, the precise condition of 
things as they stand—and have the matter fully and 
fairly understood. At the risk of being a little tedious, 
he would state what he understood to be the correct 
position of the matter in controversy. As a member 


of the committee, he had differed in opinion with the 
majority upon one point, and that was, whether the 
district court should be held in each county in the dis¬ 
trict, or whether it should be held at one or two points 
in the district. Some gentlemen of the committee pre¬ 
ferred that these courts should be held in each county; 
others preferred that two or three points should be 
named in each district, at which all the business should 
be done. Those favoring the district system, as it was 
called, were in the majority in the standing committee: 
they stood seven for the district, and six for the county 
system. But there was a strong disposition upon the 
part of all the members of the committee to yield their 
own extreme views when it was found that they were 
so nearly divided. And the committee, as he under¬ 
stood, did settle down with this understanding; that 
they should so arrange the report as to leave the mat¬ 
ter of difference between them, entirely to the discre¬ 
tion of the General Assembly, so that they might pro¬ 
vide by law, that the district court should be held jn 
each county, or only at one or two points in each dis¬ 
trict; or they might provide in one district, the county 
system; and in another district, the district system, ac¬ 
cording to the desire of the inhabitants, so that each 
part of the State could make its own selection, and try 
its own plan. He was willing to leave the matter so. 
He desired that in his district the people might have 
their choice between the county and district systems; 
that the Legislature should have the power to carry 
out the wishes of the people in this respet. The ques¬ 
tion with him, then, was: does the report, as it stands, 
leave this matter fairly balanced before the Legislature 
—giving to either plan the preference? He did not 
think this was the case. He objected to the words, 

‘ and for,” in the eighth line. If he understood these 
terms, wherever the court might be held in the district, 
it would be held for the whole district, just as the coun¬ 
ty court, for a county, was held for the whole county, 
whether it might be held in the district, its jurisdic¬ 
tion could extend over the whole territory of the dis¬ 
trict. Now, he would ask, in all fairness, whether such 
a provision would place the friends of the county sys¬ 
tem upon the same footing with the friends of the dis¬ 
trict system ? 

He thought not. After your new constitution goes 
into operation, should this provision not be changed by 
striking out these words, in what position would a 
member of the General Assembly be placed, who 
would desire county terms of this district court? 
Would he not be met with the declaration that the con¬ 
stitution did not contemplate any such thing? that the 
court contemplated was a court having jurisdiction 
over, and doing business for the whole district as a 
whole ? Even should the General Assembly provide a 
a term of that court in each county, the court being for 
the whole 'district, could do all the business for the 
whole district in one county. He desired to leave 
with the General Assembly the power to say where 
this court should be held, and to define the territorial 
extent of its jurisdiction when in session. 

This was the position in which the friends of the 
county system would find themselves. These courts 
were to be held in, “ and for,” the district. He was un¬ 
willing to give to those gentlemen who were in favor 
of the district system this advantage. He desired to 
stand upon an equality with them. He desired nothing 
more than this. And if the words which he had indi¬ 
cated were stricken out, he considered that the friends 
of both systems would be placed upon exact equality. 
The clause would then read: ‘‘District courts shall be 
held in each district by the judges of the common pleas 
and one of the justices of the supreme court, any three 
of whom shall be a quorum, as often in each year, and 
at such places in said district, as may be presci'ibed by 
law.” Then the district which wished the court held 
in each county therein, may ask and obtain such a reg¬ 
ulation from the Legislature, and have the business 
of each county done within its limits if they so de¬ 
sired. 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


541 


Mr. NASH, [in his seat.] Still it would be a “dis¬ 
trict’' court. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. It would be so named. 

Mr. NASH. And its jurisdiction would, therefore, 
be for the district. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. He thought the name would not 
procure that result; but if so, we must alter the name. 

Now he did not know which of these plans, if they 
were put to the test, would carry in this committee; 
but he believed that the county system would carry. 
But in such an event, he knew of several members of 
the Judiciary committee, who would be aggrieved ; and 
the same would be true of the friends of the county 
system, if the district system should prevail. But the 
striking out of the words proposed, would leave ground 
upon which both parties could stand, whilst each would 
be left to the enjoyment of their preferences. To this 
he could see no objection, unless it might be that gen¬ 
tlemen were so strongly impressed with the correct¬ 
ness of their own conclusions, as to think that nobody 
could be right but themselves; and he would venture 
to say to the friends of the district system, that they 
would strengthen their own cause by not attempting 
to force the adoption of their peculiar views upon 
othel’s. 

His view of the matter was, to place it upon the 
ground of compromise—leaving it open to the opera¬ 
tions of both systems, and to the adoption of such plan 
by the people of each district in the State, as they may 
choose. After this statement, he thought it unnecessa¬ 
ry to argue the advantages of a county system. He 
did not propose to provide for either plan in the con¬ 
stitution, but to leave the whole matter to the General 
Assembly; and arguments as to the relative merits of 
the two systems, would, if the matter were so left, be 
out of place here. 

Mr. STANBERY. It is difficult to keep within the 
precise rules of order in discussing these separate pro¬ 
positions. The report presents an entire plan. Its va¬ 
rious parts or sections depend so closely upon each of 
ther, that they cannot be intelligently considered out 
of their connexion. I would be most happy, with the 
indulgence of the committee, to look at the plan as a 
whole—to present, by a rapid sketch, its various fea¬ 
tures, in order that we may see, at one view, the fitness 
of its parts, and their relation to the entire system.— 
So, sir, shall we be better prepared to decide between 
the particular provision now proposed to be stricken 
out, and the matter offered by way of amendment.— 
With the leave of the committee, I will proceed ac¬ 
cording to the course I have indicated. [Leave, leave.] 

I will, then, sir, look at the plan as presented in the 
report, and I will reverse the order adopted in the re¬ 
port. Instead of beginning with the highest court, I 
will begin with the lowest. That is the natural order. 
It is the course of litigation; for a case begins in the 
lower courts, and gradually finds its way up through 
the system. I will, therefore, in order to the clearest 
view of the system, begin at the foundation, and fol¬ 
low the courts, and the course of procedure, through 
the ascending series. 

Allow me one preliminary remark. This plan is the 
result of compromise. It is not the plan of any one 
member of the committee. It embraces many partic¬ 
ulars common to several plans ; but, as a whole, it is a 
compromise—the result of long and arduous labor—ol 
much discussion—of examination and comparison of a 
multitude of plans ; and, at last, it has united the opin¬ 
ions of more than three-fourths of all the members of 
the committee, composed of gentlemen who have been 
for a long time in the practice of the law, at the bar 
and upon the bench of this State. I trust, sir, these 
considerations will recommend the plan to the favor¬ 
able view of the committee. 

Now for the plan—commencing with the court of 
justices of the peace. The section providing for these 
courts is precisely in the language of our existing con¬ 
stitution. I need not stop upon that. I am not aware 


that any change or amendment is desired or expected 
in this particular. 

Next in order, as we ascend, is the county court._ 

This is a new and very important feature in our judi¬ 
cial system. There is provided, f )r every couniy in 
this State, a county court, to be holden by a single 
judge, elected by the people of the county, with juris¬ 
diction confined to the county; the tenure of the judge 
to be three years, and his compensation to be, in part, 
a fixed sum, payable out of the county treasury, and in 
part by fees in probate and administration business.— 
So far as jurisdiction is concerned, the plan goes more 
into detail, as to this court, than any other in the sys¬ 
tem—and for obvious reasons. It is provided that this 
court shall have jurisdiction in probates and adminis¬ 
tration, in the settlement of estates and matters of guar¬ 
dianship. We specify this—we go into this detail, to 
meet the public expectation—to provide, beyond all 
peradventure, for a public necessity. In every term of 
twenty-five years nearly all the property of the State 
goes, in some form, through a course of administration. 
Heretofore, this business has been sadly neglected and 
mismanaged; and it has come to be a general remark, 
that a small estate is all wasted, in the costs and delays 
of our present system. Here is a court which shall al¬ 
ways be open—always accessible to the executor, the 
administrator, and the guardian,—presided over by a 
judge whose special business it is to settle their ac¬ 
counts. In addition to this wholesome jurisdiction, the 
plan leaves it to the Legislature to confer on this court 
a further limited jurisdiction: original and appellate in 
criminal cases, and appellate only in civil cases. There 
may be serious doubt as to this further jurisdiction, but 
gentlemen will see that it is not imperative—it is 
merely potential. The Legislature may confer it or 
not; and in that condition—and that, too, in the way 
of compromise—the committee put the provision into 
the plan. A word as to the manner of compensation: 
It is to be a county court exclusively, in which is to be 
transacted the local business,—small matters, it may 
be, of criminal and civil character,—to be paid for by 
a fixed compensation, adjusted in each county to the 
business of the county, and paid for out of the county 
treasury; and fees to be paid in the settlement of es¬ 
tates—a sort of business which ought to pay for itself, 
and not be made a charge on the public. 

We come next to the court of common pleas.— 
This is a court with which we have long been familiar 
It is provided that the State shall be divided into nine 
districts—ofwhich the county of Hamilton shall be one: 
three judges are to be elected by the people in each— 
making twenty-seven for the entire State, or twenty- 
three exclusive of Hamilton county. The present 
number is twenty-two. The districts differ from the 
present system, under which the districts are single. 
The change is a useful one. It prevents failures of 
terms in consequence of the temporary disability of a 
judge. It allows of constituting a court of more than 
one judge, for the trial of capital, or very important 
civil cases, and the holding of two courts at the same 
time, in difi'erent parts of the district. But the chief 
advantage of this combination of three judges in a dis¬ 
trict, will be manifest, when we come to consider the 
district court. The entire jurisdiction of this common 
pleas, original and appellate, is left with the Legisla¬ 
ture. Besides this change in the composition of the 
common pleas districts, it will be seen that we have 
entirely dispensed with the associate judges. 

The dikrict court comes next. For each of the nine 
districts there is to be a district court which is to sit 
as often and at such places in each district, as may be 
provided for by law. Its jurisdiction is appellate only. 
This is a new court in our systen, but it requires no ad¬ 
ditional judges, for it is composed of the three common 
pleas judges of the district, and one of the justices of 
the supreme court. What sort of a court is this ? We 
have seen the order in which it is proposed to ascend— 
first, the justices court—next the county court—then 













542 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


the court of common pleas ; and now we come to a 
court which we have never had before—an appellate 
court intervening between the common pleas and the 
supreme court. Why, it may be asked, do you provide 
for this new court? Why do you provide for two ap¬ 
pellate courts beyond the common pleas. Why do you 
add this new obstacle between the first trial, and the 
ultimate decision 

Sir. we have provided this court, after a deliberate 
consideration of all these objections. It is no easy 
matter to frame a judicial system for such a State ‘ as 
Ohio—with such an extent of territory—and especial¬ 
ly divided, as Ohio is, into eighty-seven counties. It 
was an easy thing to provide for the first trial—the tri¬ 
al of the fact and the law, in each county—just wh«’e 
such a trial must always be had. But how to provide 
for the appellate tribunals—for the courts of greater 
weight and authority, which are to revise the proceed¬ 
ings of the local courts—there was the difficulty. 
Should we send once a year into each of these eighty- 
seven counties such an appellate tribunal ? Suppose 
we were to say there shall be a suprerne court, to_ be 
held once a year in each county, to revise 'he decisions 
of the common pleas. But what sort of a supreme 
court? Constituted of one judge? Why, sir, what 
sort of an appellate tribunal would that be, which 
camesthe case from the decision of one judge, called 
a judge of the common pleas, to be revised by one 
judge called a supreme judge? Well then, to add 
weight to the superior tribunal, should we send two 
supreme judges once a year into each county? That 
would require too great a number of supreme judges— 
and at last when w^e have such a system, does any one 
suppose lhat a supreme court of two judges—a vei 7 
awkward number bye the bye—would finally decide 
all cases in the respective counties? Not at all sir— 
important cases will still go, as they have gone under 
our present system, from the two supreme judges on 
the circuit, to all the supreme judges sitting in bank. 
There would still be two appellate tribunals beyond 
the common pleas—^just as we have always had them 
since the formation of our court in bank. 

This new court, this district coui't does not then, in 
point of fact, add to the number of appellate tribunals. It 
is asubstitue for our present supreme court on the cir¬ 
cuit, and in all respects a better court. It is to be 
composed of four judges, instead of two—and one of 
these is to be a justice of the supreme court, the oth¬ 
ers being the common pleas judges of the district. 
It does not add one dollar to the expense of the system. 
I can see that this court must necessarily win the con¬ 
fidence of the people and the bar. It is the first appel¬ 
late tribunal after the trial in the common pleas, and 
so constituted as to give weight and authority to its de¬ 
cisions, vastly more than the supreme court under the 
old system—hurrying from county to county, with no 
time for argument or deliberation. 

According to the report of the committee, this dis- 
trictcourt-is to sit as often, and at such places in each dis¬ 
trict, as may be provided by law. That will allow of 
its being required to hold one session in each year in 
every county of the district. This provision was the re¬ 
result of a compromise-some members of the committee 
preferring that this court should hold only two or three 
sessions a year, in and for the district—and others that 
it should hold a term in every county. The matter 
was therefore left to the Legislature, to accommodate 
the sessions of the court to the wishes of the people in 
each district. Now to those who are so much in favor 
of bringing the appellate court into every county—of 
having not only the first trial of facts, but the appel¬ 
late bearing also in the same county,—I will say that 
this court may be so arranged as to meet their wishes. 

I will say further, that 1 have seen no plan which 
brings an appellate court of so much respectability, so 
near to the litigants and their counsel. 

This court, as I have said, is to be composed of four 
judges-as large a number as we have ever had, or now 


propose to have, for the ultimate decision of cases. To 
add to its dignity and efficiency, we require one of the 
justices of the supreme court to preside at its sessions. 
Consider for one moment what a happy effect it will 
have upon the judges of each district—v/ho are fre¬ 
quently to be brought together, not merely to hear ca¬ 
ses, but to consult together—to interchange opinions. 
All this will be of singular benefit to the judges, and 
will lead to uniformity of decision. Then, too, any 
one can see the benefit to the profession. Many of 
your lawyers never come to our court in bank—never 
have had the opportunity of arguing a case before a full 
bench. This court wdll be accessible to all of them. 

Finally, sir, we come the ultimate tribunal, which 
we call the supreme court, retaining here, as elsewhere 
in the plan, old and familiar names, with which our 
people have been so long acquainted. This court is to 
be composed of four judges—our present number, and 
quite sufficient for the duties imposed upon them. I 
have heretofore given my reasons in favor of that num¬ 
ber as the very best to ensure weight and authority in de¬ 
cisions—as the very number which in case of dissent, 
confines the dissenting opinion to the smallest possible 
proportion of the bench. The justices of this court 
are to be elected, according to the amendment just 
made, by general ticket, and not by districts. The in¬ 
dividual judges are to perform circuit duties as mem¬ 
bers of the nine district courts—and are to hold terms 
together, at the seat of government, and at such other 
places as may be fixed by law—for the decision of such 
cases as may be brought from the district courts. The 
time of these judges will not be so wholly taken up as 
heretofore wdth circuit duties. Their great business 
will be to hold the sessions in bank—to hear cases as 
well as to decide them—and with time for both. 

This, sir, is the system proposed by the Judiciary 
committee. I have given the outlines only, for I can¬ 
not so far trespass upon the indulgent attention of the 
house, as to go into the details. It is not altogether a 
new system. It preserves, as far as possible, what is 
valuable in our present system, and attempts to provide 
for its defects. It will be found, too, that this system 
is substantially like the late judicial system adopted in 
New York—a similarity not intended, nor discovered, 
until this system was nearly perfected. 

The New York constitution provides, first, for a court 
of appeals, for the final decision of cases—consisting of 
eight judges, and answering to our supreme court, 
which consists of four. The next court in the New 
York system, is the supreme court, which answers to 
our common pleas. For their supreme court, they di¬ 
vide their State into eight districts, and elect four judges 
in each—and we divide our State into nine districts, 
and elect three judges in each. Their supreme judges 
in each district hold special courts, consisting of one 
or more judges, and general terms, consisting of three 
or more judges. Our common pleas judges hold special 
terms in each county, consisting of one or more judges, 
and district terms or district courts, of three or more 
judges. One of the judges of the court appeals may 
sit in the district courts in New York, as in this system— 
one of the supreme judges must sit in our district courts. 
The New York constitution leaves it to the Legislature 
.o fix the number of the special and general terms of 
the supreme court in each district—just as by the plan 
of the committee, that matter is left to our legislature. 

I see by the present arrangement, made by law, under 
the New York constitution, two special terms and two 
circuit courts are held by one or more of the supreme 
judges in each county every year, and one general term, 
held by three or more of the supreme judges, is provi¬ 
ded once a year in counties having a population of 40,- 
000. Now any one will see that by a mere change of 
names—by substituting a supreme court for a court of 
appeals — and a court of common pleas and district 
court for a supreme court, with special and general 
terms, we have substantially the New York system. 

One word as to the pending amendment. Its object 










CONVENTION REPORTS 


543 


and effect will be to provide that in every district, this 
district court of four judges, shall hold at least one term 
every year in every county of the State. It leaves no 
discretion to the Legislature—no power of accomoda¬ 
ting the sessions of this court to the wishes of the peo¬ 
ple in each district. 1 am decidedly against such an 
amendment. It is the precise provision which, being 
unfortunately adnpted in our present constitution^ has 
led to the most disastrous results. 

Sir, it is my deliberate judgment, that this plan, as a 
whole, is the plan which will suit Ohio. I have seen 
no other plan, (and I have seen many,) to which so 
few real objections can be made. And finally, I will 
say, that it makes necessary provision for the futui’e. 
We are too apt to look at things as they are—at the 
State as it is—to consult our experience of the past—to 
be governed by our knowledge of the present, rather 
than look to the future. But in such a State as Ohio, 
no system, however well adjusted to the present state 
of things, can be expected to answer as well for the 
indefinite future. It is therefore provided, in this re¬ 
port. that the Legislature may add to the number of the 
judges, as well in the supreme court, as the common 
pleas, and may change or add to the number of com¬ 
mon pleas districts, whenever the necessity arises—a 
matter which is to be determined by the votes of at 
least two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature. 

Mr. NASH said that whatever gentlemen might say as 
to the eminent services of the gentlemen composing the 
supreme court of Ohio, as at present constituted, he be¬ 
lieved there was but one opinion among the people 
upon the merits of the system under which it is consti¬ 
tuted by the constitution, and that is, that it is a mag¬ 
nificent failure. He looked upon the defects of tins 
system, and the serious inconveniencies which they 
had produced, as one great reason—perhaps, with the 
people, the principal one, for calling this Convention, 
He alluded to this fact, as one within the cognizance of 
all. In saying this, he had no intention nor desire to cast 
any imputations whateverupon the gentlemen who had 
composed the court. They had done the best that could 
be done under a faulty system. But the faults are in¬ 
herent in the system, and it is to the system, that the 
reformation is to be applied. Under the old plan, the 
court went, or pretended to go into each county in the 
State. They might go to a county in which there 
were sixteen or seventeen cases upon the docket, with 
only one day for their trial, argument and decision.— 
There was no time to hear arguments, of course, for 
any case almost of magnitude or intricacy enough to 
justify being carried to the supreme court, would 
need at least half a day for its disposition. The case 
must, in short, be decided without argument, or not at 
all. If a single one of them were argued as cases are 
argued in New York, Massachusetts or Pennsylvania, 
it would occupy all the time, and it would be necessa¬ 
ry to continue the remainder. As it is, the court has 
to go and take the papers, examine them, and decide 
the case, and if the counsel insist upon making an ar¬ 
gument, they cannot expect that they will be disposed 
of. He was stating facts for which the court were not 
to blame. The judges on the circuit were often re¬ 
duced to the unpleasant necessity of saying that the 
docket must be disposed of. This necessity has been 
equally understood by counsel, who have in general 
acquiesced, and nothing has been complained of but 
the narrow views of the founders of the old constitu¬ 
tion. If we suppose that the people are satisfied with 
that plan, and instead of making a reform that shall 
meet the necessities of the case and the public want, 
shall attempt to patch it up here and there into a plan 
that we think will answer, we shall make a system ob¬ 
noxious to all the charges now standing against it; and 
perpetuate against this the principal allegation made 
against the old constitution—the want of an adequate 
judiciary system. 

It seems, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment of the 
gentleman from Trumbull will drive us back to the 


old plan, with all its unsoundness and absurdity. We 
have placed before us by the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney] thisalteniative_ 

to make this a district, or ^ mere county court. If i), 
is organized as a district court it can do all that is re- 
(juired of it, and come up to the expectations of thosei 
who desire by this reform to secure the best possible 
substitute for our present defective arrangement. If it 
is made a county court—if the judges are compelled to 
go to each county—if it is so fixed that tlie business of the 
county can only be done within its territory, we shall 
have constructed and fastened upon the State a system, 
the legitimate successor of the old—the heir to all its 
defects and absurdities. If we impose upon the judges 
of the supreme court the duly of going into each coun¬ 
ty, and performing nisi prius service, we shall cerlain- 
ly overload our judiciary system, and break it down, 
with the load we throw upon it. There is to be three 
sessions of the court of common pleas, in each county 
annually, and in addition by this amendment you re¬ 
quire, in each district of nine or ten counties, supplied 
with three judges of the common pleas, a session of the 
district court, composed of one judge of the supreme 
court and two of the common pleas. This is too much. 
If we must adopt the old system, we had better begin 
at one end and take it regularly and in order, the best 
way you can secure the benefit of its good, as well 
as incur the injury of its bad qualities. 

But how can this be put in practice ? Will not the 
judges of the two courts be •constantly interfering and 
clashing with each other, in regard to the limes of their 
several terms? If there was no other reason, this dif¬ 
ficulty would seem to be conclusive against it. The 
supreme judge may want to begin at one end of the 
district, and go through all the counties regularly. This 
may not suit the judges of the common pleas, and the 
time of the other will be consumed in unnecessary trav¬ 
el and tiresome delay. 8o that the whole arrangement 
of the judicial terms of the State will depend upon the 
convenience of the judges of the courts of common 
pleas. It seems to me that the whole virtue of the sys¬ 
tem hangs upon the question presented by the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Trumbull. If it is to be 
adopted, we had better at once go back to the old sys¬ 
tem. 

It seems to me, said Mr. N., that the objection of the 
gentleman from Richland has nothing in it. As the 
section stands at present, there is nothing to prevent 
the District Court from silting in one county or an¬ 
other, as the General Assembly, acting on the sugges¬ 
tion of those the most interested, shall require. Adopt 
the amendment and the alternative will not remain; 
and the character of a county court will be indelibly 
fixed upon the tribunal. There is another objection. 
If the courts are organized and distributed upon the 
county plan, you cannot have a court of errors sitting 
twice in a year. It can sit but once. This in the ex¬ 
pedition of justice is a very important consideration^ 
and will make pi’actically a vast difference in the af¬ 
fairs of the people, for if there is any thing of nearly 
the same importance with equal and exact justice, it 
is speedy justice. In fact, the latter is to the party fre¬ 
quently of far more importance than the other. 

There is another view of the case. If the circuit 
court is obliged to visit every county in the State, it 
will be reduced in the transaction of its business to 
the same necessity which made our present Supreme 
Court a mere tribunal for the trial of law questions—a 
paper court. The time necessarily spent in traveling 
from place to place and otherwise lost, will prevent its 
doing Nisi Prius duties, and thus deprive the judges of 
one of the most important means of self-improvement, 
for it is well understood that a judge accustomed to 
that species of business is far belter as a practical man 
than he who is merely trained in the decision of paper 
causes. What has preserved the credit and standing of 
the decisions of the highest court in Massachusetts? It 
is that the judges have gone upon the circuit, and tried 













544 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


(juestions of fact as well as law, orally, as well as upon 
paper. Such was the case in New York until within a 
few years, when the Supreme Court was changed, its 
Nisi Prius jurisdiction taken away, and it was reduced 
to a mere paper court. And what has been the result? 
The credit of the reports has sunk with the change un¬ 
til the eminent lawyers of the State say that the time 
of legal certainty closed with .Johnson; and if you find 
a legal principle laid down in Wendell and Cowen, the 
presumption is, it is wrong. 

Gentlemen do not seem to recollect that the district 
court is to be the great court of the system. It is true 
that this is not the court of the last resort; but with 
an appellate jurisdiction, it will be the place where 
nine-tenths ot the whole business that goes above the 
4 ;ommon pleas will be disposed of. The supreme court 
at present has from seven to eight hundred cases upon 
its calendars annually, while not more than seventy- 
five, on an average, come to the court in bank, and 
these not the most important ones. They come up, in 
cases where the court is divided in opinion, where 
some important and recent statute requires a construc¬ 
tion, or where the court is divided. Therefore, it 
seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we should preserve 
as fully as possible this court, which shall enable 
it the more fully to perform its important and necessa¬ 
ry functions. The power to do this, is in my opinion, 
taken away by the amendment proposed; and if it is 
to find favor here, I would propose, in its place, to 
make one great, magnificent, supreme court of twenty 
judges, and send it through the State, to do nisi prius 
duty. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD was surprised at the opposition 
made to the amendment. Certainly to strike out the 
words “ and for,” as was proposed, would not render it 
necessary that the district court should visit each coun¬ 
ty, any more than leaving them in wou’d, according to 
the gentleman’s opinion, confine it to districts. He 
had no objection to the court performing its duties in 
one, two or three places within its circuit, where the 
people desire it, but he desired there should be noth¬ 
ing upon which to found a claim that the Legislature 
oould not provide for a session in each county, where 
it was deemed expedient. He did not want to repose 
with the court a power, express or implied, to take 
his case and carry it to Cleveland, or any other remote 
point in his district, without his consent, and the con- 
.sent of all other of the parties interested. 

Mr. NASH. Such a practice is not contemplated.— 
My object is to do away with its necessity. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I do not want to leave them the 
power. If the words are stricken out, it is still in the 
power of the General Assembly to enact that the courts 
shall be holden in one, two or three places in the dis¬ 
trict, as shall be deemed expedient; while if thev are 
not, the court may take up my business, and carry it 
where they please, and I must follow, whether I con¬ 
cur or not in the desire of the court to take a pleasure 
trip to the lake shore. The gentlemen have every¬ 
thing they require without these words, and have no 
reason for retaining them, and with them, we have 
reason to fear that we do not get what we want. 

A good deal has been said about the merits of the old 
system. It would seem as if the gentlemen from Ad 
ams and Gallia had had, at some time, their toes trod¬ 
den on by the court. Now, I have had cases decided 
by the Supreme Court, and have frequently had rea¬ 
son to suppose the decision to be correct. Sometimes, 

I have thought the decision wrong, and have been, as 
well as my client, dissatisfied with the decision. In 
fact, it almost always happens to be the case, that only 
one party to the suit is satisfied with the decision. 

It is true that, heretofore, there has been a great 
want of time for the full trial and examination of the 
causes before the court; but this is obviated by this 
system. If the power is, as appears, increased four 
fold, certainly we need be under no apprehensions on 
that score. 


Gentlemen argue, that there will be a want of time 
for the discharge of these duties, in the counties, by 
Judges of the Courts of Common Pleas. What are the 
facts ? This is a matter that can be calculated by fig¬ 
ures. An average circuit will contain, say, ten coun¬ 
ties; in each of those counties three terms, will make 
thirty terms in each circuit; allowing two weeks and 
a half, as an average, to each term, which is high 
enough, we make seventy-five weeks, in ten counties, 
in a year; divide this sum by three—the number of 
Judges in each district—gives twenty-five weeks of 
circuit duty to each Judge; allow two weeks to each 
Judge to travel in, and you occupy twenty-seven weeks 
of his time in each year, leaving twenty-five weeks to 
be otherwise occupied. Giv'e the county of Richland 
a session of the Su{)reme Court of one week, and we 
will be satisfied; we have at present two days. Rich¬ 
land county is an average county. Let us have a week, 
and we can talk on our cases until we are tired. Ten 
weeks, then, in each circuit, will suffice to perform thd 
circuit duties of the Supreme Court, and two weeks 
are sufficient for the travel; which, added to the twen¬ 
ty-seven, makes thirty-nine; leaving thirteen weeks 
annually for holiday—more than is necessary. Added 
to this, one of the Judges of the Common Pleas may 
hold that Court, while the Supreme Court is in sess¬ 
ion. By the erection of the County Court also, probate, 
and other business—which occupies a large amount of 
time—will be taken from the Courtcf Common Pleas; 
so that the system—both by the increase of the number 
of its judges, and the reduction of the amount of its bu¬ 
siness—will have an abundance of time. 

It is said upon the other side, as an argument in favor 
of the district plan, that parties to suits do not care to 
attend the trial of their rights, where merely legal ques¬ 
tions, upon paper,are submitted for adjudication. Such 
is not my experience. I have ever found persons en¬ 
gaged in suits, as much alive to their own interests, and 
as anxious to see how they fare and how they are sus¬ 
tained, in the court of last, as in the court of first re¬ 
sort. When a man’s reputation or property is at stake, 
the acts, sayings—even the looks of the court that is to 
decide his fate, and make him, by its opinion, a rich or 
a poor man, respectable or infamous, is to him an inter¬ 
esting subject; and if the tribunal is within his reach, 
he is usually on hand, to hear what his counsel and the 
court say of his rights. Nor, for a trivial cause, should 
he be deprived of this privilege, and the effect of every 
deprivation that is unnecessary, is a species of oppres- - 
sion, which neither governments nor judiciaries have a 
right to impose. Now, without this amendment—per¬ 
haps with it—great abuses may come from an arbitrary 
and wanton exercise of the power of fixing the terms 
of the courts. It may be that the county of Richland, 
which I represent, may be included in the same district 
with the county of Cuyahoga. Suppose I have, in the 
common pleas, a chancery case involving some three 
or four hundred dellars. It is appealed to the supreme 
court. That court has fixed the seat of its operations 
for my district, at Cleveland. Can I afford to follow 
my case to Cleveland? Can my client afford to pay 
the extra expense incident to a journey of one hundred 
miles or more—the loss of time, the cost of a residence 
away from home? Is it not a tax upon him that is not 
imposed upon a citizen of Cleveland—a tariff that al¬ 
most amounts to a prohibition ? I may be a young law¬ 
yer. It may be my only case; yet my client may not 
be willing to dispense with the services of counsel that 
has attentively investigated the matter. He may not 
deem it proper to do so. In such a case, the whole 
expense of the transferment falls on him; or he must, 
contrary to his wishes and opinions, and under the hard 
dictation of necessity, transmit his papers to some 
learned lawyer of the city of Cleveland, whose facul¬ 
ties have been sharpened by these excellent opportuni¬ 
ties for improvement presented by this district system, 
who, with his mere glance, perhaps, at the papers, on 
the day of trial, cannot be supposed to have that inti- 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 545 


male knowledge of its merits possessed by the youu 
ger counsel who Imd prepai’ed it, and given every point 
a thorough investigation. 

That this plan would be a burthensome discourage¬ 
ment to young members of the bar, there can be no 
doubt, and they will feel it so, and be opposed to it. 
Conscious, not of the want of talent or learning, but of 
standing and reputation, they will complain, and just¬ 
ly, of centralization, so inimical to their interests, and 
so operative in giving a monopoly of the more lucrative 
business of the in'ofession, in the hands of its older and 
wealthier brethren. 

I repeat, that the district men get all they can ask, if 
this amendment shall be adopted, and the words are 
stricken out; while we cannot get what vve want with 
the words in. 

Mr. NASH. The gentleman will acknowledge that 
the adoption of the amendment will absolutely and 
certainly convert the district court into a mere county 
tribunal. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said he did not deem such to be 
the case, unless the people should desh-e it. If they 
desire it. there is an end of all opposition to it. 

Mr. CLAYPOOLE moved tha the committee rise, 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga moved that the Con¬ 
vention adjourn, whichwas agreed to. 

And the Convention adjourned. 


THURSDAY June 25, 1850. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Cheney. 

Mr. GILLETT presented the petition from Stephen 
Porter and 27 other citizens of Lawrence county, pray¬ 
ing that a provision be inserted in the new constitution, 
preventing Colored persons hereafter from becoming 
citizens of this State or acquiring real estate by trans¬ 
fer therein. Referred to the standing committee on 
miscellaneous subjects and propositions. 

Mr. HOLT presented a petition from J. M. Van Gor¬ 
don and IG other citizens of Montgomery county, pray¬ 
ing that a provision be inserted in the new constitution, 
prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law, 
whereby the sale of spirituous liquors may be granted 
to any one, or the traffic therein in any manner legal¬ 
ized. Referred to the committee on the subject of're¬ 
tailing ardent spirits. 

Upon motion of Mr. MORRIS, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee of the Whole (Mr. Green 
of Ross in the Chair) and the resumed the considera¬ 
tion of the Report on 

THE JUDICIARY. 

The question being still undisposed of, which was 
under discussion when the Convention adjourned. 

Mr. CLARK rose and said: Mr Chaii’man, I am 
strongly inclined to the opinion from what I have seen 
here that this plan reported by the judiciary commit¬ 
tee will be adopted by this body. It is perhaps due 
to that committee, if it is to be adopted, that it should 
be taken substantially as it is, without much amend¬ 
ment or alteration. Any effort that may be made to 
tinker it will hardly be likely to improve it. If I was 
friendly to it, I should view it as a whole—as an entire 
plan, and should be likely to oppose many changes in 
it for fear of disturbing its harmony. But I confess, 
Mr. Chairman, that I disapprove of the whole scheme, 
and hope it will be rejected and some better one adopt¬ 
ed—some one that will be more satisfactory to the peo¬ 
ple. I much prefer the plan embraced in the resolution 
offered some weeks ago by the gentleman from Mont¬ 
gomery, [Mr. Holt.] So also should I prefer the 
plan presented by the Honorable gentleman now in 
the Chair. 

The plan presented by the minority of the commit¬ 
tee, I consider infinitely preferable to the project of the 
majority. Indeed I can hardly conceive a plan more 
objectionable. It lias been urged as a reason why this 
report should be adopted, that it has cost a great deal 
of time and labor for this committee to perfect it. To 

35 


my mind that furnishes no good reason why it should 
be adopted—it should stand or fall wholly upon its 
merits. I consider it a reason against it rather than for 
it, believing that a good system could hardly have 
caused so much labor. 

It has been said too, that it is a cheap system, and 
commended to the support of this committee on that 
account. I do not view itinthat light, especially when 
compared with the old system or the system proposed 
by others. What would be the expense of this sys¬ 
tem ? This plan proposes that there shall be 27 judges 
ot the court of common pleas, and they shall lie paid 
a salary of $1,800 each, which will make $48,600. It 
proposes a county court judge in each county. I be¬ 
lieve there are 87 counties in the State. The commit¬ 
tee have not reported the amount of salary or fees to be 
paid the county judges, nor do I know what amount 
they propose. He is to do the proba'e business, and 
have a limited jurisdistion in some other matters. If 
it was but the mere probate business, no person quali¬ 
fied to do it, no person qualified to look after the rights 
and interests of the widow and orphan could be found 
to take the office short of a salary or pay of $300 a 
year. This will make $26,100, which added to the 
other makes $74,700. 

Under the present system, there are nineteen presi¬ 
dent judges of the common pleas, which, at a salary of 
$1,200 each, is $22,800. By the report of the Secreta- 
ty of State, it appears courts of common pleas were 
held in all the courts in 1848 including special courts 
3491 days, which, at $2 per day, is $6,982. This added 
to the amount paid to the president judges, is $29,785, 
making a heavy difference in favor of the existing sys¬ 
tem over the new one proposed. 

Mr. KENNON interrupted and stated that the gen¬ 
tleman had fallen into an error in the calculation for 
the number of days for which associated judges were 
paid. 

Mr. CLARK resumed. It is true I am in error as to 
the amount paid associate judges. I only cast for one 
;judge while I should for three, making an increase of 
$13,963—making the entire sum, corrected, $43,746 a- 
gainst the sum of $74,700 under the new project re- 
])orted by the committee. In this calculation, Mr. 
Chairman, I leave out of view the four judges of the 
supreme court, the number being the same in both sys¬ 
tems; also, I leave out of view the pay of the judges 
of the superior court and commercial court of Cincin¬ 
nati, and the superior court of Cleveland, supposing 
they will remain as at present. 

I have also made a calculation of the expense of a 
plan differing from either the old one or the project of 
the committee. It is to have a much better county 
court than the one proposed in the scheme of the com¬ 
mittee. It is well known that there are many in tliis 
committee desirous of having a good and efficient coun¬ 
ty court, with more jurisdiction than is proposed in the 
report under consideration—a court that should be au¬ 
thorized to do much of the business now performed by 
thecourtof common pleas,—indeed, a court that would 
to a great extent take the place of it. For such a court 
as that, I have estimated the salary of the judge at $600 
a year—making, in 87 counties, $52,200. That amount 
of salary would secure the services of a judge well 
qualified to do more than one-half of the business per¬ 
formed by the court of common pleas, which would 
enable the nineteen existing circuits of the common 
pleas to be reduced to ten, with one judge each, at 
$1,800 a year. The amount proposed in the plan of 
the committee to be paid to the judges of the common 
pleas, would be $18,000—making for common pleas and 
county court judges $70,200, being less than the plan 
proposed by the committee. I should prefer giving 
still greater jurisdiction and salary to the county judg¬ 
es, and reduce the number of common pleas judges 
and circuits. 

A ‘^ood county court would be the most useful court 
in the world. It would be the court—the people's 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


546 


court—the great business court of the county. It is 
what the people want—what they need, and wliat they 
ought to have. Such a court could administer justice 
speedily and cheaply; it would measurably remedy the 
expense and delay that attends the present system, and 
would attend the system proposed by the committee. 
A county court should be open at all times for doing 
probate business, and might be for all other business, as 
well as to have a justice’s court always open. If, how¬ 
ever jthis is objectionable, it might be required to have 
a regular tern every sixty days, making six regular 
terms in a year. Both criminal and civil business 
should be disposed of as soon as possible and not be 
delayed as under the present system. 

No circuit court system can be a cheap system for 
suitors, it is unavoidably expensive. Any gentleman 
in this committee, at all conversant with a circuit court 
system, knows that it is not an uncommon thing at a 
term of the common pleas, to see a number of cases 
ready for trial, and the witnesses in attendance, day af¬ 
ter day—in some of them, twenty, thirty, to fifty wit¬ 
nesses—and after being kept for a whole week or 
more, the cases are continued for want of time, the 
president judge having only a certain number of days 
allotted for the term. This ruinous expense to parties 
litigant should be obviated, and good county courts 
would do it. 

When the resolution was before the Convention, re¬ 
questing the Secretary of State to correspond with the 
clerks oi the common pleas, to obtain and report to the 
Convention certain information respecting the business 
of the courts, I proposed an amendment calling for the 
amount of judgments and costs in all litigated cases for 
the year 1848, but it failed. I regret that it failed—it 
would have furnished much valuable information. In 
my opinion it would have shown that the aggregate 
costs in such cases, in every county in the State, far ex¬ 
ceeds the aggregate of judgments. Under an efficient 
county court system a large proportion of these costs 
would be saved. 

Thecounly court proposed in the report of the com¬ 
mittee, is so limited in its jurisdiction that it will be of 
but little value. No person qualified to do the probate 
business, will be willing to take the judgeship, as the 
pay will necessarily correspond with the jurisdiction. 
Spch a court might as well not be established. The 
gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Swan] allows it will be 
a court of very inlerior character—that good lawyers 
will not do business in it—that business in it will be 
done by pettifoggers. It may, and very likely will be 
so, under the plan proposed by the committee; but it 
will not necessarily be so with any county court. II 
a county court w’as established, with extensive juris¬ 
diction and liberal pay to the judge, it would be a re¬ 
spectable court—it would have a good judge, and good 
attorneys would be found attending it. 

But I will examine further the scheme of the com¬ 
mittee. Leaving out Hamilton county, it provides that 
the State shall be divided into eight districts for district 
courts, to do the same business that has heretofore been 
done by the supreme court, on the circuit, in each of 
which districts the business is to be done at one point. 
This my friend from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] thinks 
is a great imjirovement on the old plan. FJe suggests 
that the bar of the district will congregate at that point, 
and its reflective talent w'ill exercise a very salutarv 
and controlling influence over the court. Well, it may 
be so: if it is, I do not regard the scheme with any 
more favor for that. We ought to have men on the 
bench of such high legal attainments and good judg¬ 
ment that they will give their own opinions, and not 
those of the bar. They ought to be independent mind¬ 
ed men, who give their owu opinions, and not those 
fished up among the members of the bar. I know ol 
many such cases where lawyers fr(»m prejudice or in¬ 
terested motives have given opinions to judges—opin¬ 
ions that they would not express if responsible for 
them; and such opinions have been adopted by judges 


and pronounced as the opinions of the court. And I 
have seen many of these opinions reversed on error. 

It is a great objection to the scheme, that the busi» 
ness is to be done away from home. Let me illustrate. 
A.side from Hamilton county, the Western Reserve is 
about one eighth part of the State, and very likely 
will make one of the eight districts. The business in 
that district will be done at some prominent, favored 
point, probably Cleveland, instead of eleven different 
counties, as heretofore. The result will be, that the 
attorneys, in ten of the eleven counties, instead of at¬ 
tending to the business at home, will be compelled to 
go to Cleveland, and attend to the business there, or 
hand it over to other attorneys, who live on the spot. 

Mr. SWAN. Will the gentleman allow me to make 
an explanation? Now, so far as regards myself, and 
others of the committee, as to the number of those 
courts, it was not the idea of the committee that they 
should be held in any one place, but that it should be 
held in two or more. But those who desired a county 
supreme court, desired to strike that all out. The 
matter was finally compromised, by making no provis¬ 
ion in regard to the number of the sessions of this 
court, and the place where it should be held. I believe 
there was not a single member of the committee, who 
desired that this court should be held in a single place, 
but they all supposed that this one might be held in 
two or three places. 

Mr. CLARK. I did not design to misrepresent any 
one, and I may have fallen into an error. I wish to 
look candidly at the matter, and examine it as it is. 
But, let us look at this a little farther. The gentleman 
says it was not the design of the committee to confine 
this court to a single place, but that it should be held 
in two or more places in the district. But is there any 
certainty that even the design of the committee, to have 
it held in two or three places, wdll be carried out? 
There is no provision of the kind expressed on the face 
of the report, and there is great danger that, unless it is 
expressly provided for, the design would never be car¬ 
ried into effect. 

If I understand the arguments of the several gentle¬ 
men who have spoken in favor of this report, the 
beaut}, the excellence, the superiority of the scheme 
is, that this court is not to be held in only one place in 
each district. This being the fact, w'e may well be ap¬ 
prehensive that it will be held in but one place. This 
wdll make it very inconvenient not only for the attor¬ 
neys but for the parties litigant—it will much increase 
the expense of litigation. Attorneys cannot attend to 
business abroad wdthout charging increased fees. 
Many suitors will be obliged to forego the privilege of 
being present when the suits are tried and decided. 
Although a case may be a paper case, still I have found 
my clients as anxious to be present at the trial as of a 
jury case. They desire to see how their cases are tried 
and listen to the opinion of the court. When present, 
if the decision of the court is against them, they are 
always better satisfied with it, and with the manage¬ 
ment and eflbrts of their counsel. 

But suppose w'hat we are told was the design of the 
committee should be carried out and this court sat in 
two places instead of one—say at Cleveland and Ak¬ 
ron. Would it be any improvement so far as parties 
and attornies are concerned ? It would be a little bet¬ 
ter for Summit county but no better for the other nine 
counties in the district. 

Mr. STANBERY. We do not contemplate by this 
plan, that even if it is held only twice in a year, in a 
District that it should be held at only one point or tw'^o, 
but to use a legal phrase—that it shall be an itinerant 
Court. This year to be at Cleveland the next year in 
Lorain county, perhaps, and wherever the Court goes, 
the Clerk goes with it. It will never become fixed un¬ 
less the Legislature shall fix it at some point every 
year. 

Mr. CLARK. I would not knowingly misrepresent 
this plan. I desire to speak of it candidly and impar- 









CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


541 


tially. My desire is to have a good system—one that 
■will prove useful, beneticial and satisfactory to the 
people. I have an interest in common with my fellow 
citizens on this subject, and whatever proves beneficial 
to them will also to me. My friend from Franklin on 
my right, [Mr. Stanbeuy] says that it is not contempla¬ 
ted by this project that this court shall be held at one 
point merely, but that it is to be held in every county 
in the district, each in its turn. If this shall be done, 
it will be better than to have it stationary at a single 
county. But how much better? 

Though before 1 examine that, let me inquire is there 
any certainty that this court will be held in every 
county, each in its turn ? Does the scheme itself re¬ 
quire this to be done ? No! and why not ? If it was 
the design of the committee that it should be so, why 
does not the report provide for it? Why leave this a 
subject matter for difficulty and contention in your Le¬ 
gislature hereafter ? 

But suppose it shall be held in each county in its 
time, as the gentleman from Franklin thinks it may. 
There is to be two terms of it in a year. That would 
bring it into each county once in five and one-balf 
years—one court out of eleven, suitors and attorneys 
could attend at home, while under the existing plan, 
the Courtis held annually at their homes. The project 
or scheme, is one that never will be satisfactory to the 
people—they were not looking for or expecting any 
such scheme as these district courts— they want to do 
their business at home, and not be dragged off to a dis¬ 
tant county to do it. 

The scheme will, however, be beneficial to a certain 
class of practitioners located at the highly favored point 
where this court shall be held. It will build up an ar- 
ristocracy at the bar, by which experienced and dis¬ 
tinguished members of the profession will monopolize 
all the profitable and valuable business. The attorneys 
in other counties in the district, will be required to do 
the drudgery of preparing cases for trial, and when 
prepared, to hand to prominent practitioners for to try, 
and take the most of the fees—they will take the cream 
and leave the skimmed milk for the country lawyers, 
in other words, the countiy lawyers will shake the 
bush and the city attorneys catch the bird. 

My colleague was at home last week and conversed 
with nearly every member of the bar, in the county, 
as he informs me, and says they one and all disapproved 
of the plan. I know the people of northern Ohio will 
never approve of the project of the committee. I know 
it will be very objectionable to them and I fear if it is 
adopted, it will be a drag, a dead weight upon thenew 
constitution. Many other objections might be made to 
the sceme, but I will not trouble the committee widi 
them. 

Mr. KENNON understood the debate at present to 
have originated upon the question of striking out from 
the third section, the words and for,” so that it shall 
read : District Courts shall be held in each district.— 
The discussion however had taken a wide range in the 
examination of this system and as others that are pro¬ 
posed as substitutes , and he desired to call the atten¬ 
tion of the committee to a few fi ures, by the assistance 
of which he proposed to institute a comparison between 
the plan presented by the committee, and the one advo¬ 
cated by the gentleman from Lorain [Mr. Clark.] 
whose calculations in its favor were based upon a mis¬ 
apprehension of its elements. To that system he 
could not subscribe. It wall not do in this country.— 
It wdl do in no country in the world. 

Under the plan proposed by the committee in their 
report, the State is divided into nine circuits, in each 
of which there are to be three judges of the Court of 
Common Pleas, making in all twenty seven judges, 
who, at the compensation of eighteen hundred dollars, 
would rec ive forty eight thousand six hundreddollars. 
Four judges of the Supreme Court at a salary of two 
thousand dollars each would make eight thousand dol¬ 
lars ; making the entire cost of the whole system to 


the State, the sum of fifty six thousand, six hundred 
dollars. 

In order to institute a comparison of this plan with 
the one now in use, we must in the first place assume 
the salaries of the judges to be the same in both cases, 
otherwise there will be no fairness in the parallel. 
We have then twenty-two circuit judges, who, at eight¬ 
een hundred dollars, would receive thirty-nine thou¬ 
sand six hundred dollars; four justices of the supreme 
court, eight thousand dollars; making a total sum of 
forty-seven thousand six hundred dollars. Added to 
this, the court of common pleas in 1848 sat in the whole 
State, four thousand days. Three associate judges sat, 
and are to receive compensation for each of those days, 
making twelve thousand days of service. These asso¬ 
ciate judges were paid two dollars, or two and a half, 
for each day; say two dollars, or twenty-four thousand 
dollars for the whole number, the whole time. Add 
this to the other sum of forty-seven thousand six hun¬ 
dred, and you have seventy-one thousand six hundred 
dollars, as the entire annual cost of the present system 
at the present time. To that, if we were to pay the 
judges of our supreme and circuit courts the salaries 
proposed, the difference would be the sum of fifteen 
thousand dollars per annum in favor of the plan pre* 
seated by the committee. 

Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE inquired how the gentle¬ 
man from Belmont got the four thousand days of servi¬ 
ces performed by the associate judges of the courts of 
common pleas? The report of the Secretary of State 
upon the subject, gives only three thousand six hundred 
and twenty-nine. 

Mr. KENNON. The gentleman will remember that 
the report also gives six hundred and fifty-seven days 
of special and called courts, which should be added to 
the numbermentioned. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said that it was a mistake. 
The number given was for the previous year. 

Mr. KENNON said that the statement he had made 
was correct. 

Mr. CLARK inquired if the gentleman from Belmont 
had made any deduction for the number of days in 
which only two associate judges were in attendance 
upon the court of common pleas. 

Mr. KENNON said he had not. 

Mr. CLARK said that the gentleman must be aware 
that only two associates were necessaiy, with the pres- 
idejit judge, to form a quorum, and that in general 
there were only that number in attendance. 

Mr. KENNON said he was aware of no such a 
thing. The associates ought, and he believed gener¬ 
ally did all attend the sessions. It was for that they 
were elected, and was a part of the system. 

Let us now institute a comparison between the two 
systems, giving to judges of equal grade, in both 
cases, the salaries now paid. In the whole system, 
there are twenty-two circuit judges, including the 
.Judges ill Cincinnati and Cleveland — twenty-two 
thousand ; four judges of the Supreme Court, five thou¬ 
sand two hundred ; associates, twenty four thousand ; 
amounting to fifty one thousand two hundred dollars. 
In the system proposed, twenty seven circuit judges, 
twenty seven thousand; four judges of the Supreme 
Court, five thousand two hundred ; making thirty-tvvo 
thousand two hundred dollars, or nineteen thousand 
less than by the other. 

The gentleman from Lorain, having no confidence 
in the plan proposed by the committee, has proposed 
one of his own, which he beleives will head all the de¬ 
fects both of the old and new. Let us look at it, for 
a few moments. 

The State is proposed to be divided into ten districts, 
in each of which, as I understand it, there are to be 
electen two judges. 

Mr. CLARK. Only one. 

Mr .KENNON. Then there is to be but one judge 
in each district. Out of regard to the plan, I was in 
hopes there had been more. How, then, stands the 















548 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


case ? Let us try figures, aud put it to the test of a 
calculation. We will suppose that the times of the 
courts are to be the same length as in 1848; take this 
element, and the number of counties in the State, and 
it will show that courts are holden, in the aggregate, 
three thousand three hundred and fifty-seven days; 
divide this product by ten—the number of judges—and 
it will be seen that each judge will be required to hold 
courts, upon the circuit, three hundred and thirty-three 
days in every year. Now, there are but three hundred 
and thirteen working days in any one year, and the gen¬ 
tleman, in order to bring about Ids judicial system, will 
find it necessary to borrow some four weeks of the 
next year, to bring his year around in. But this is not 
all. He proposes to constitute his supreme court of 
the same judges. That court must hold at least an an¬ 
nual session, aud it is not a large estimate to allovv 
three months for that. Here is provision for a for¬ 
midable sinking fund, upon time to come, leaving open 
a larger gap each year. This must appear conclu¬ 
sive against the system, aud so it would be, if it were 
not obviated. And how is it to be obviated? The 
constructor of the plan has seen the difficulty, and has 
provided against it. It is a part of his project to do it; 
aud how ? 

They propose an efficient county court as the reme¬ 
dy. To this they give an efficient jurisdiction. It is 
to be a great court, this county court. It is to be a court 
of extensive and multifarious jurisdiction. In short, it 
is to be the people’s court—that is the expression—the 
people’s court! And how is this to be done? There 
are eighty-seven counties in the State, in each of which 
there is to be a judge elected, of abilities and jurisdic¬ 
tion sufficient to take off the pressure of the business 
upon the circuit court, so that that tribu lal will not be 
forced to borrow from the next year, in order to com¬ 
plete the labors of the present. But how will this 
work ? If you give this large jurisdiction and impose 
this weight of business, can you find a competent man 
—a lawyer, who is willing to perform this service for 
six hundred dollars j)er year ? You may find a lawyer, 
or a person who thinks and calls himself alawyer; but 
if you expect to get a man fit for the service, a thous¬ 
and dollars is as little as you can think to get him for. 
This in one item adds the sum of eighty-seven thous¬ 
and dollars to the grand total of the gentleman propo¬ 
sing this plan. Add to this ten judges at three hun¬ 
dred dollars, and it makes one hundred thousand dol¬ 
lars—about double our plan—and the business cannot 
be dune by the ten judges. 

The committee never contemplated the construction 
of a court like this. We intended to erect a tribunal 
having cognizance of probate and testamentary mat¬ 
ters, and a few others of minor consequence, and which 
have heretofore taken up the time of the courts of com¬ 
mon pleas, and which could not be done in the absence 
of the proposed court of common pleas. The judge 
was not to be paid by the State nor by the county. He 
need not even be a lawyer. His court was not to be 
holden at terms, but to be always open. He would be 
his own clerk, and secure his own compensation of the 
fees that would accrue to him in the discharge of his 
duty. As there would be no increase of fees, there 
would be no additional cost over the present system, 
either to suitors or the public. Any man of good com¬ 
mon sense and a good accountant can perform the du¬ 
ties of the judgesliip, and that without interfering with 
his own concerns, and hundreds of men amply quali¬ 
fied may be found who would willingly undertake it. 

At present, the clerkships of the court of common 
pleas are the best offices in the State. There are many 
men, who, if they had it, would willingly step from 
the supreme bench of the State, in consideration of the 
fees of the cleik, in some of the larger counties. The 
judges of the county courts will come in for a part of 
the fees of these clerks. Out of these they will be 
paid, and there will be no additional burden on their 
account imposed upon the people. Thus while the 


ystem we propose, will, when carried into effect, cost 
less than the present; that one advocated by the gen¬ 
tleman from Lorain must, if adopted, be carried into 
effect at an additional expense of eighty-seven thousand 
dollars. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. If the General Assembly should 
confer a criminal jurisdiction upon the county courts, 
would it not involve an addition to the cost of those tri¬ 
bunals ? 

Mr. KENNON. If it should, doubtless it would add 
to the cost of the tribunal and change its nature. 

But let us return to the question before the commit¬ 
tee. The motion is to strike out the words “ aud for,’’ 
so as to read, “ in each county,’’ and this is the bone of 
contention. Now, I am for the plan as reported, and I 
want to call the attention of the committee to a few of 
the consequences that will result from the prevalence 
of the motion. 

And first the striking out of these words will fix in¬ 
delibly upon the Supreme Court the character of a 
county tribunal. It will be made to go into each coun¬ 
ty in the State, without an exception, and must neces¬ 
sarily be holden in the circuits during the sessions of 
the courts of Common Pleas, thus interfering with the 
duties of that court, and with the time of its judges. 
There will not under such an arrangement be a suf¬ 
ficiency of force to perform the service, and you must 
increase the number of the Judges of the Court of 
Common Pleas. ^ 

The reported plan provided for the division of the 
State into nine districts, in each of which three judges 
are to be elected. This manner of dividing the State 
and electing judges, was chosen to prevent difficulties 
that might arise from taking as judges, men from the 
bar, who have been interested as counsel in a large 
number of suits pending in the courts of their own or 
tlje neighboring counties. By means of an interchange, 
practical under this system, the difficulty will be avoid¬ 
ed. This was done that men of business might be ta¬ 
ken from the ranks of the profession for this service; 
for a man of no business—that is, if he proposes to do 
business and gets none—is not fit for a judge. 

We did not contemplate that the three courts would 
be in session at the same time, though undoubtedly 
two courts might do so conveniently. The third might 
be at liberty, so that if a judge on duty should be un¬ 
well, his place would be supplied, and the business of 
the court go on without interruption. Besides there 

would be occasions of importance or of difficulty_ 

murder cases—cases involving local agitation, and so 
forth—-during the trial of which a judge in addition, to 
give greater weight aud dignity to the court would be 
extremely valuable. 

Let us see how the time of the judges of the courts 
of common pleas will be occupied. There are three 
hundred and thirteen working days in each year. Ac¬ 
cording to calculations previously made, such court, 
sitting as a circuit court, will require one hundred and 
ninety-eight to perform its duties. There are eleven 
comities to be travelled over three times, which as it 
is done, will require thirty days—leaving eighty-five 
days of the year yet to be appropriated. What then ? 
A session of the supreme^court, if this amendment is 
adopted, is to be holden in each county, of say three 
days, including travel. Thirty-three from eighty-five 
leaves fitly days in the whole year that, if nothing ex¬ 
traordinary happens, the judges of the common pleas 
will not be employed. So, I say again, we shall want 
more judicial force—not in the supreme court, but in 
the common pleas. We shall have to increase the num¬ 
ber of common pleas districts, and thus add to the 
complexity and expense of our judiciaiy system, with¬ 
out adding to its efficiency. 

As I 8ivd before, if these words are stricken out, it 
will in effect lorce a session of the supremo court in 
each county of the State. This will not be, because 
the people at large desire it: nor that the suitors in 
the courts, their counsel, or parties engaged in the 









549 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


courts, will care anything upon the subject. They 
will care very little, and the complaint will not come 
from them. It will come from the tavern keepers of 
the county seats where the court does not sit. They 
will make the loudest complaint of the injustice prac¬ 
ticed against them, and they will be the most likely to 
succeed. 

I wish to say a word to gentlemen who are not law¬ 
yers, as to what they are to understand by the appel¬ 
late court now under consideration. It is a court 
merely for the decision oflegal questions. In general, 
parties do not come before it—^juries never: there is no 
trial of questions of fact—no examination of witnesses. 
It is to be, in short, a court of errors. 

Mr. RANNEY. May not the power to try issues of 
fact be given by the Legislature ? 

Mr. KENNON They may do so undoubtetlly, if 
they choose; but if they should, the symmetry of the 
systetn would be at an end. It w’ould be no Jonger 
what It is, and would need a re-organization before it 
could possess any efficiency. It is not done anywhere 
else in the whole world, except perhaps, to a limited 
extent in Massachsetts. In no other country, after the 
case has been acted upon by a jury, and the facts of 
the case found on testimony, do they ever, in an appel¬ 
late court, try that cause over again. It is not by this 
plan, but a mere paper court. 

I must say a few words in reply to the gentleman 
from Richland, [Mr. Kirkwood.] If I might be per¬ 
mitted to judge, I should say he was a good and suc¬ 
cessful lawyer. At least, he must be capable of pre¬ 
senting a strongly colored case to a jury. He has got 
a. poor man, who has a chancery cause which he has 
appealed at once to the supreme court, and to Cleve¬ 
land, where the court is in session, one hundred and 
sixty miles distant. There he must go to have his 
cause tried, accompanied by his counsel, whatever 
may be the inconvenience to which he is to be sub¬ 
jected. 

This is a case to put to a jury; but, like most other 
jury cases, it has its other side. Let us look at that. 
Ever since the organization of the State, whether 
sanctioned by an act of the General Assembly or not 
I cannot say, it has been the practice of the supreme 
court, if they had not time to hear and decide causes in 
the county where they originated, to take them with 
them upon the circuit to such place as they had leasure 
to enter upon its trial. There they heard the argument, 
made the decision, and transmitted it back to the clerk 
of the court where it originated, to have the decision 
entered up as of the term in the county. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Was this done without the con¬ 
sent of counsel ? 

Mr. KENNON. The court used to doit, and do still. 
They perhaps do not require it. If it is not given, there 
is but one alternative—to continue the case, for the 
event of time, and that prospect is a pretty strong in¬ 
ducement to give a consent. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, desired to say a few 
words in explanation of the practice of the supreme 
court, which neither gentlemen seemed precisely to 
understand. It has been the pratice of the court, where 
time was not sufficient for the disposition of all the bu¬ 
siness, to take cases upon the circuit with them under 
advertisement. The practice has been to do this by 
consent of counsel—never against it. There was nev¬ 
er any difficulty on that score ; because, after the cause 
had been heard, and the court proposed to take it with 
them, if the counsel objected, the sause continued of 
course. Under these circumstances, counsel have cho¬ 
sen to withdraw their objection, and allow the court to 
take it; or at least say nothing, and silence, in such 
cases, was understood to mean consent. It was al¬ 
ways, however, a free matter. There was no compul¬ 
sion ab out it. (Laughter.) 

Mr. KENNON. In short, the supreme court took a 
very convenient plan to secure a voluntary consent. 
But let us look at the case of the poor man of the coun¬ 


ty of Richland, who with his poor young lawyer, is 
placed in the power of a coui’t “in and for,” a large 
district of territory, to be carried to another county, 
one hundred and sixty miles off, lo be decided in pri¬ 
vate, without the presence of the i>arty, and to the 
great inconvenience of the counsel. And who carries 
it? Why, the very judges whom you elect and con¬ 
trol, whom it is in your power to punish if they do not 
do their duty. If they adopt such a practice, will you 
ever elect them again ? 

It is said that the system of holding the supreme court 
in only one, two or three places in a district of ten or 
eleven counties, will be a very great piece of injustice 
to poor young lawyers, and to tlie parties to the suits. 
It is said that clients want to hear what is said in their 
causes, by their attorneys and the court.—That may 
be the case within his experience, but I have never ob¬ 
served it in mine. My clients are usually satisfied that 
I have done my best, whatever may be the result, 
nor do I look upon the plan as working either injury or 
imposition to the younger members of the bar. It is 
these veiy young members who will like to come to¬ 
gether at some central point; to meet their profession¬ 
al brethren from other counties, comparing themselves 
with each other, and gaining improvement by trials of 
mutual strength. It is the old, and not the young law¬ 
yers who will have cause of complaint—those who 
have nothing of improvement or of increase of reputa¬ 
tion to expect. 

Nor is there any more soimndess in the objection as 
to the distance. Put any eleven counties in the State 
together; select two or three points at which the court 
is to be holden, and you cannot get forty miles irom 
that point, at any county seat in the district. 

Now, a few words in regard fb the integrity ol the 
plan presented by the committee. It is an entire new 
system, and if adopted at all, should be adopted with¬ 
out mutilation. It is a chain which is destroyed if one 
link is broken. I take no great intererest in the re¬ 
sult of this discussion; but believe that if we abandon 
this system we shall get a worse. There are probably 
ten or twelve systems now in the Convention. Suppose 
we come to the point, and the cpiestion to strike out 
this for the purpose of inserting another shall come be¬ 
fore the Convention. Members in favor of the ditlerent 
plans may combine, for the purpose of striking out. 
That being done, the important cpiestion arises: What 
system is to go in ? This is a question of great difficul¬ 
ty. Let the projects be tried one by one, and they will 
fall. How then will the blank be fillecl ? Some gen¬ 
tleman who is not, as they say, lawyer enough to hurt, 
will present apian of his own construction. The Con¬ 
vention will be fatigued and disgusted with the contro¬ 
versy. Something must be done, and this last plan 
will be just as likely lo be adoptee! as any other. He 
hoped tire committee would pause and reflect, before 
it took a step so important and difficult, when taken, to 
be retraced. 

Mr. RANNEY obtained the floor, but gave way to 
the request of 

Mr. CLARK, who said he did not ask the floor, he only 
wished to correct one of the prominent errors of the 
gentleman from Belmont [Mr. Kennon.] 
tleman said under the plan proposed by him, [ Mr. 0.,J 
there could not be sufficient working days for the judg¬ 
es of the Common Pleas to do the business, and t a 
they would be compelled to borrow from the next 
year. In this he was mistaken. The report of the 
Secretary of State embraced all the counties in the State 
but six, and shows that the aggregate number of c ays 
which Courts of Common Pleas together with the Supe¬ 
rior Court of Cleveland, and the Superior and Com¬ 
mercial Courts of Cincinnati, which were held in 1848, 
was 3242 ; deducting 408 for the number of days the 
three latter Courts were held, left 2834 to which he ad¬ 
ded 78 for the number of days for the Courts in the six 
counties from which no returns had been received, ma¬ 
king a result of 2912 days. The county Courts would 











560 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


relieve the Common Pleas of at least over half its jn'es- 
ent business which would i-educe the number of days 
necessary to hold such courts to 1456; being only 145 
days to each of the ten judges. It would not therefore 
be necessary to borrow time from another year. 

Mr. RANNEY. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended 
to otfer any remarks upon the immediate question now 
pending, but was waiting to make my objections until 
the substitute for the report, which Iliad presented, 
should come up for consideration. Inasmuch, howev¬ 
er, as gentlemen have taken the liberty of considering 
the system under consideration, and the substitute, I 
hope I will be indulged by the committee in saying 
once for all what I have to say by way of objection to 
the Report of the Committee, and by way of recom¬ 
mendation of the substitute. I am perfectly awai’e, 
Mr. Chairman, that standing in the attitude of opposi¬ 
tion to the report is no enviable position, and of the 
great disadvantage we labor under, who undertake to 
oppose the system presented in the report now under 
discussion. The Honorable Chairman of the Commit¬ 
tee, has alluded to some things which renders it ex¬ 
tremely difficult to do so. It is that this report embod¬ 
ies the opinions of a large majority of the judiciary 
committee, embracing I am happy to say, some of the 
most eminent men in the State—distinguished for their 
legal attainments—for the success which they have 
met with at the bar and for their long experience, and 
some of them for the eminent ability with which they 
have filled judicial stations. I regret the necessity that 
compels me to differ from them in regard to this mater, 
but my own judgment as well as the wishes and in¬ 
terests of my constituents compel me to do so. These 
gentlemen do not represent my constituents. I have 
been sent here to do this duty myself, and I am to rep¬ 
resent their opinions as well as my own, and exercise 
to the best of my judgment, my privilege of approba¬ 
tion or dissent to the various measures that may come 
up here for consideration. So much they have a right 
to command and so much I shall perform, without fear, 
favor or affection. This may by some be deemed un¬ 
warrantable presumption. I may be dubbed a small 
lawyer—a county Court lawyer—having just a sprink¬ 
ling of legal knowledge, “ not enough to hurt.” lam 
not sensitive upon that subject. Those who know me 
know whether I am a good or a poor lawyer, and what 
consideration I am entitled to as a legal character. 
Those who do not know me have no interest in the 
question. I am willing to defer to age, ability and ex¬ 
perience as much as any man. but I am not willing to 
admit, that because this report has emanated from these 
distinguished legal gentlemen, that therefore it is to be 
taken and adopted, without adding a word or letter, 
and I am not vyilling that the rest of us upon this floor 
should be considered as mere cyphers. We must vote 
according to the convictions of our own understandings 
after all. To get our votes they must convince our un¬ 
derstandings. 

It has been truly said, Mr. Chairman, that one of the 
principle objects for which this Convention was called, 
was that of a reformation of the judiciary. Eve. y man 
here knows that it was one of the principle causes 
which led to the calling of this Convention. Let me 
say, from my own experience, derived from the people 
with whom I have mingled, that the people demand a 
thorough reform in the law and in the tribunals for its 
administration. If any gentleman has come here under 
the supposition, that such a thorough reform in the laws 
and tribunals is not demanded, when he goes back to 
his constituents again. I apprehend, if he has never 
found it before, he will for once find that he has been 
sadly mistaken. I do not propose here to enter into an 
examination of the first part of the assertion, to wit: 
that they demand a reformation in the law. I have al¬ 
ready stated my own opinions upon that subject, and 
I am happy to say that the first step towards a refor¬ 
mation has been already taken. I do not see any hos¬ 
tility to the Bar or the Bench, manifested on the part 


of those who advocate legal reform. Whatever impu¬ 
tations may be cast upon those who stand tip for legal 
reform, and reform in the judiciary establishment, let 
me say they are the true friends of the Bar and Bench. 
1 would be very far from casting any odium upon either, 
or in any way impairing their credit or usefulness. It 
would be grossly unnatural for me to do so. I have as 
many and as strong I’easons to be true and faithful to 
the bar as any member present, for to my^ practice 
there must I depend for the means of my livelihood 
hereafter, as I have done heretofore. I do not design 
to lay any axe at the root of the tree, which discretion 
and propriety shall not warrant, and which shall un¬ 
justly or infamously, in any manner, effect the bar and 
consequently the Ijench. The influence and the re¬ 
spectability of the bar and bench will be measured 
hereafter just in proportion to the elevated ground you 
place them upon. Sir, if they shall stand upon the 
same foundation of reasonable and rational law—sir, 
if they shall stand upon the same scientific principles 
of their noble profession, they will be a blessing to 
community, and need fear no harm. They will th^n 
be as they ought to be, invincible. But if gentlemen 
will stand here to enshroud them in mysterious forms, 
to curse them with a complicated system productive of 
nothing but delay, vexation and expense, they cannot 
fail to bring the profession into disrepute. Sir, the ad¬ 
ministration of the law, in its purity, is the first duty 
of every government, and is, of all considerations, the 
most important, and the first which should be looked 
to in a civilized community. And why ? It is in vain 
that your legislative body enacts good laws, unless 
they are enforced and executed by the judiciary in 
their purity. The executive branch of government 
turns itself into nothing but an engine of f)ppression, 
when it enforces unrighteous and unjust decrees. I 
say, therefore, that the practical operation of the law 
through the judiciary is the most important of all the 
operations of our government, and without which the 
Legislature and Executive branches of the government 
can do nothing towards canying justice home to the 
people. 

If you have good laws they must be administei’ed in 
their purity, or they are inoperative and worthless.— 
The judiciary is indisjiensable to give application to 
those laws. If it is enlightened and honest, justice 
will be done. It is important, as all will concede at 
once, that justice should be administered as speedily 
as possible. This is certainly one of the most indis¬ 
pensable requisites of any system—one without which 
no system can secure respect or the approbation of the 
people. Delay in the administration of justice to those 
who are seeking to recover their rights, is calculated to 
destroy their peace of mind, diminish their regard for, 
and confidence in, the judicial tribunals, and to keep 
convulsed whole neighborhoods, embittering the foun¬ 
tains of social life. If justice is done with as little de¬ 
lay as possible, they will feel that the government has 
dealt fairly by them—has been regardful of their rights 
and interests; and their determination to stand by its 
laws and institutions will be increased and strengthen¬ 
ed. Important as these considerations are to the par¬ 
ties, the administration of the law, in its incidental in¬ 
fluence upon the community, is, perhaps, more import¬ 
ant still, because it affects more persons. What gives 
security to your acquisitions? What gives heart and 
vigor to industry and enterprise, and nerves every man 
to carry on, with sleepless vigilance, his business ? It 
is the security which the law affords, that whatever he 
produces he shall enjoy, and the consciousness that the 
watchful care of the State is exercised over it all—that 
if it is invaded, he can find speedy redress in an honest 
and upright judiciary. Strike that down, and let men 
feel that their property is u certain or imperfectly pro¬ 
tected, and one of the principal causes for all enterprise, 
all acquisition, is gone. 

These are the views I entertain upon this subject. I 
cannot, therefore, feel less anxiously than the honorable 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 551 


Chairman of the committee—less solicitude than the 
committee—that we should have a judiciary, in this 
State, that will be worthy of the State. If I know my 
own heart upon this subject, I would not utter a word 
that should have the effect to lessen its influence, to 
derogate from its importance, or impair its credit; on 
the contrary, the best of my feeble efforts shall be used 
to place it upon the elevated ground which it should 
occupy in every civilized country. I do not like the 
course of argument which has heen pursued here. I 
do not like to hear the idea insinuated, that every man 
who undertakes to oppose this repoit, and to insist up¬ 
on a respectable county court, is therefore to be con¬ 
sidered a pettifogger or something of that description 
I repel all such intimations. I do not stand here to be 
intimidated by any insinuations of this kind. I think 
I see plainly the course which my duty points out, and 
I shall pursue it, regardless of any personal considera¬ 
tions. 

Mr. KENNON. Does the gentleman allude tome? 
I can assure him that I consider him a first rate law¬ 
yer. 

Mr. RANNEY. The gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. 
Swan,] yesterday, had a good deal to say about the 
extreme temerity which he expected from those gen¬ 
tlemen who advocated views contrary to his own, and 
\yho were desirous of pi'actising in the county courts to 
give them original jurisdiction. It is certain that the 
honorable gentleman described this class of men, who 
would practise in these courts, in no very flattering 
terms. But let that pass by. 

Mr. SWAN. I had no allusion to any member of 
this Convention. I cannot conceive how the gentle¬ 
man should think, when I made the remarks referred 
to, that I had any reference to him or any other mem¬ 
ber of this body. If the gentleman has reference to 
me, I did not intend to apply my remarks to him; but 
perhaps he may have allusion to the gentleman upon 
the other side of the House [Mr. Stanbery.] ' 

Mr. RANNEY. I referred to the remarks made bv 
the gentleman himself. He may not have intended 
them as applying individually to me ; but what differ¬ 
ence does it make, when you make remarks that will 
^Pply to any one who insists upon the establishment 
of such a county coui’t. I do not desire to separate 
myself from those who honestly advocate the establish¬ 
ment of county courts, with respectable jurisdiction; 
nor do I intend to. There are certain principles with 
which we will, I think, all agree, in the establishment 
of a judiciary. In the first place, I believe we all a- 
gree with the requirements of the old constitution, that 
justice ought to be done without denial or delay. I 
believe that we will agree, also, that it ought to be ad¬ 
ministered with as little expense and as near the par¬ 
ties as possible. Let us start off' with these well settled 
principles as to what we desire, and then when ques¬ 
tions come up as to the merits of these two systems, 
we can examine them iii the light of these principles, 
and we will see which comes nearest to them. In th(' 
third place, when I have asserted that justice ought to 
be administered with as little delay as possible, and as 
little expense, of course, I have asserted another prop¬ 
osition, and that is this; that justice should be admin¬ 
istered with as few appeals as possible, in order to ob¬ 
tain such justice. This is my idea of tlie matter. If I 
felt uncharitably inclined to retort upon the gentlemen, 
I might say that their interests inclined them to the side 
which they have taken. But I make no such charge. 
You cannot separate the interests of the profession 
from the interests of the community in which they re¬ 
side. I claim for the lawyer, in the discharge of his 
duties,—what I would claim for anyone eiigaged in an 
honorable calling,—that it is right that he should ob¬ 
tain by his labor the means of livelihood. But, in re¬ 
turn to that community which upholds him, he ought 
to be honest and just in all the relations he sustains to 
them ; and he ought not to require at their hands any 
expenses or trouble that is not necessary to the efficient 
administration of justice. 


Stating these propositions to begin with, I will ask 
the attention of the c )mmittee to my objections to the 
majority system. 1 will state them with the utmost 
candor and perfect respect for the members composing 
that committee. 1 will say again, that there is not a 
single member of that committee for whom I do not 
entertain the highest respect, and to whom I would 
not defer any private opinion that I might entertain. 

I do not know whether my ideas will meet with ap* 
proval from the members of this body. I have only to 
say, that if the plan adopted by the majority of the 
committee is sustained, we will try and live after it is 
done. Now, this system which has been presented by 
the majority of the committee has been very lucidly 
described by the two gentlemen from Franklin and the 
gentlemanfiom Belmont [Mr. Kennon.] It has been 
described in the ascending scale by the gentleman from 
Franklin on my right, [Mr. Stanbery] and in the de 
scending scale by the gentleman on my left [Mr 
Swan.] The one has begun according to the natural 
course of litigation, as he says, bringing it up, while 
the gentleman on the other side has begun at the top 
and brought it down. The usual natural course of liti¬ 
gation we are told begins at the justices court. But 
lh«y do not expect to get at the right there. The coun¬ 
ty court comes next in order, but of course they would 
not leave the suitor in such a poor miserable court as 
that is described to be. The common pleas comes 
next—that is some better. Take the district court, 
that is a little better yet, but still imperfect, and finally 
we come to the great supreme power, elected through¬ 
out the whole State—the original source and fountain 
of all justice. This court, of course, being the last is 
perfect—it must be right—“ it can do no wrong.” You 
must filtrate justice and strain it every time, from the 
justice of the peace up to the court of last resort, in or¬ 
der that unadulterated justice may be attained. It will 
then be pure. It may be pure, I will admit. It ought 
to be, to correspond with the suitor after going through 
with such a process, unless his purse and his patience 
were inexhaustible, I think he, at least, would have 
become transparent. But we will look at it. Accord¬ 
ing to the plan of the committee then, it consists in the 
first place of a supreme court. Second, district courts: 
third, common pleas courts: fourth, county courts; 
which have been so graphically and tersely decribed 
by my honorable fiiend from Franklin, [Mr. Swan] a 
member of the committee, and a fast friend of the sys¬ 
tem, as a “legal necessity and judicial nuisance.” It 
is a necessity—we rr.ust therefore have it; at the same 
time it is a nuisance, but is a necessary constitutional 
nuisance, and cannot, therefore, be abated. A defini¬ 
tion ! short, graphic and to the point. 

Next, we have justices courts. These several courts 
are embraced in that plan. According to my honora¬ 
ble friend from Franklin, [Mr Stanbery,] the natural 
course of litigation, is to b^gin atthe justice and end at 
the supreme court, going through this “legal necessity 
—this judicial nuisance.” I will state very brielly, my 
objections to the first court here created—to the su¬ 
preme court, which is the head of all, the foundation 
of justice. My first objection to it is, that it is unnec¬ 
essary. I hope that we will not undertake to create 
unnecessary courts. I do not stand here to relieve the 
State from any court that is necessary. I look upon a 
full Judiciary establishment as due to the people, and 
I am willing to incur all the expense that is necessary 
to secure it. I will not sacrifice or impair the efficien¬ 
cy of a good judicial system, lor a few dollars in mon¬ 
ey, for i am perfectly satisfied that the revenues of ^th© 
State cannot be better employed, than in carrying jus¬ 
tice home to the people. But this couit Ideementiie- 
ly unnecessary. It cannot have enough to do to 6*ti- 
))loy it any considerable portion of the time, and it ig 
invested with no jurisdiction but what can be better 
pidges brought fiom the distiicts. II thig 
plan is to stand, this court can be stricken out with ad«i 
vantage. Instead of sending supreme judges down 















652 CONVENTION REjPORTS. 


to the districts, bring up one judge from each of tln ni 
to hold your court of last resort. It you lost in digni¬ 
ty, you would make it up in utility. 

You elect onegreat head of the judiciary of the State, 
by the State at large, the chief justice. You elect his 
brethren in three dili’erent districts of the State, divi¬ 
ding the State for that purpose and electing one in 
each. What is the consequence? When they come 
together in court and sit together, they are not placed 
upon an equality. Who would be willing to go into a 
court, occupying such a position, and feeling that he 
had come up from the provinces, while the great head 
of the court was a State officer and chief justice. No 
man under heaven, could take a seat in that court, 
coming up from the districts, and not feel that he was 
utterly degraded in the public estimation. If this 
feature of the report is to be stricken out, it would 
meet with my approbation, and remove one objection 
to the system. There is an even number of judges. 
We are told by the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. 
Stanbery,] that this is decidedly in its favor. And 
why ? Because, if they are just balanced, they can 
make no decision to have the force of a precedent, 
they can only make a draw game of it. I desire no 
such court as this. I desire that litigation should be 
ended by a decision. Litigation is for the benefit of the 
parties, and not for the purpose of enabling a court to 
write orations or treatises upon jurisprudence. All the 
expense and vexation attending it, is endured to pro¬ 
duce a result; and I do not wish a court of last resort so 
constitutued, that it cannot decide in favor of either of 
the parties. The very last term of the supreme court 
in bank, there were sixteen cases in eighty, in which 
there was an equal decision of the court. 1 tell you 
there cannot be a worse state of things scarcely in the 
world, than a tribunal of last resort, that just one half 
of the judicial force of the country should believe a 
man in the right, and the other half hold an opinion the 
other W’ay; and yet his p)roperty is stripped from him, 
or his neck is stretched, orhe is put in the penitentiary, 
while the highest court in the land is equally divided 
in opinion, whether he has been guilty of an infraction 
of the law or not. That is the attitude in which the 
law places us now. Acquiescence in such results can 
only be effected by force, and the administration of the 
land loses all its moral powers. 

Mr. STANBERY. 1 take the gentleman’s strongest 
case—that of a criminal case, in which a writ of error 
is asked. Is it not the law, that if the judges are ecpial- 
ly divided, the man is not hung, and judgment is 
reversed in that case. I would ask the gentleman if, in 
that case, it would be better to hang a man, if thei*e 
are three for hanging and two against him. Is it not 
at last decided by one man. 

Mr. RANNEY. That is better than no manat all. 
The great objection is, that it compels you to confess 
to the parties, that the court is powerless to decide be¬ 
tween them—that the law is struck with a paralysis— 
and that whatever ensues is the result of mere acci¬ 
dent and chance—depending upon wdiich got the ad¬ 
vantage below. But I will proceed to another branch 
of the subject, first how'ever, offering a word of ex¬ 
planation upon the amendment now pending. And 
here permit me to say, that I was perfectly astonished 
at the idea insinuated at the commencement of this dis¬ 
cussion, that this district court was expected to be held 
in each of the counties. I thought I saw^ a little hang¬ 
ing back upon that subject, on the part of the gentle¬ 
men who discussed the matter, and a seeming wjlling- 
nees to let it pass with that understanding, without 
giving any explanation upon the subject. I know a 
majority of the committee never entertained such an 
idea. I knew that the venerable gentlman from Geau¬ 
ga was very strong for it, and that the gentleman Irom 
Richland was also for it. Seeing this difierence of 
opinion amongst the friends of the report, when the 
discussion first began, and to reduce the matter to a 
certainty, I thought I would test it by an amendment, 


ju'oviding that the court should be held In each county. 
The honorable gentlemen upon the other side, then 
confessed what w'as true in regard to it, that the system 
would not permit these courts to go into the counties. 

I thought I would try the sincerity of the intimations 
that it was intended they should. The amendrnent 
has had the efiect of calling out the open opposition 
of these gentleman to such an arrangement. 

But to return. For what is the supreme court elec¬ 
ted? To decide causes in error alone,—notl.ing else. 
It is, to use the language of other gentlemen, a mere 
paper court. By the lime you have the judges on hand 
four years, they wdll become little belter than mere 
papers themselves, and might as w'ell be filed away in 
some secure place in the capitol you are building. But, 
they say, you will have a court surrounded wfth a 
splended bar at the seat of government. But let us 
tell you, if you shut them out from participation in 
the every day business of judicial duty, they will only 
shine by borrowed light, however luminous the bar 
that surrounds them, while common sense, independ¬ 
ence, and enlighteneci legal profession, will be entirely 
unknown and unappreciated by them. Instead ol sen¬ 
ding down one of these judges, to enlighten the coun¬ 
try districts with his countenance, I would have the 
judges go up from the districts; and you will bring up 
here, judges who come from the people, inspired with 
the true philosophy of legal rules, from constantly 
witnessing their application and having performed duty 
enough to be familiar with them ; and this brings me 
to my next and insuimountable objection to this court, 
that no circuit duty is recjuired of its judges. No judge 
of this court ever faces a jury, sees the parties, or hears 
the witnesses in a case. No judge ol this court is ever 
to participate in a trial, to study human nature as there 
exhibited, or is ever to mingle with the people. But 
he is to be commissioned for seven years, to remain at 
one place, and be surrounded by a splendid bar. None 
of your county court fellows—^nobody that may sully 
the ermine, by coming in contact with them, from 
the glow’ing description, I should suppose that only 
gentlemen with green bags in their hands, and pow^- 
dered wigs upon their heads, were ever to come into 
the august presence of this court that is to sit in Co¬ 
lumbus. Its dazzling appearance is to be such, that no 
county court lawyer could ever look upon it and live. 
But I have got antiquity and precedent this time in 
my favor, That is certainly a fortunate circumstance, 
for which I cannot help ctmgra tula ting myself. 

My honorable friend from Franklin, [Mr. Swan] 
seems to have a holy horror for what he calls stirrup 
judges,” traveling from county to county. He thinks 
that it wmuld be-little the court. He stated to us, that 
under the old system of the supreme court, the stirrup 
judges went from one county to another, and that their 
duties in bank wei'e only incidental to their other du¬ 
ties on the circuit, and that they would sit and write 
out a book of 600 pages in the course ol a month or six 
weeks. Now, so iar as the book is concerned, I would 
say to the honorable gentleman, that if these Judges 
should not find time hereafter to write out treatises and 
orations to be put into the book, I do not think the pro¬ 
fession or the public wmuld seriously suffer. No of¬ 
fence to those that are already in the book. It is get¬ 
ting to be the fashion every year to get out a Book of 
reports. Reporting is undoubtedly useful and necessa¬ 
ry ; but reporting is one thing and book-making anoth¬ 
er. The model of contingency in that particular can 
be very safely copied—our judges can very safely copy 
after Mansfield and Hardwick, and although they could 
not make a book as quick, 1 think it would be more 
valuable. I apprehend that it will be no loss to the 
profession if their “ svi eetnesslong drawn out” should 
be abridged and the book shortened in its dimensions. 
This feature of the circuit system I would never sur¬ 
render. I look upon it as the very crowning point in 
our efficient Judiciary system—the sine qua non. I 
never would elect a judge unless he was obliged to do 









CONVENTION REPORTS 


553 


circuit duty, and obliged to become perfectly familiur 
with the operations of the circuit system. It should 
be au indispensable part of the duty of a judge of 
the supi’eme court, that he should perform such duty. 

I can look back, and draw very much instruction 
from the examples and models of the distinguished 
courts and judges in other States and countries. If 
you go back to England, what do you find there? If 
you go back to the day of Kenyon and Mansfield what 
do you find these men doing ? Why, sir, they were 
mere stirrup judges, according to the definition of my 
friend from Franklin. They wei’e nisi prius judges, go¬ 
ing from county to county, and that teature to tliis day 
forms a part of the English system. The judges 
go upon the circuit and perform nisi pHus duties. They 
also ^it in bank and decide such important questions 
of law as may arise. Their decisions and opinions, al¬ 
though generation after generation has passed away, 
have grown more strong and enduring with time, and 
to this day exert a wider intluence, and command more 
of the respect and confidence of mankind, than those of 
any other courts in the civilized world. The decisions 
were made by stirrup judges. If the gentleman 
will come to this country and examine our judicial 
history, he will find that our most eminent judges have 
been stirrup judges. Who does not look with pride 
and pleasure upon the judicial history of old Massa¬ 
chusetts. Who does not recur with pleasure to her 
masterly reports, filled up with no surplusage, but with 
the lucid opinions of such men as Parsons. He was a 
circuit judge. They do not there rely upon asplendid 
bar with a closeted court, to work out the purposes 
of justice and the perfection of the law ; and yet the de¬ 
cision of their courts will be read and admired as long 
as judicial discusssions are known and studied amongst 
men. 

I next refer to the State of New York. To what 
portion of her judicial history does the enlighten¬ 
ed lawyer refer for sound precedents ? Does he not 
go to the old reports of that State, filled with the wis¬ 
dom and learning of such judges as Kent or Spencer, 
and Thompson —all stirrup judges. How advantage¬ 
ously do their terse and lucid opinions contrast with 
the verbose treatises written by the splendid judges of 
later times. 

But if the examples of England, Massachusetts, and 
New York, are not sufficient, let us look at the courts 
of our own glorious confederacy. We shall there find 
such men as Marshall, and Story, and Taney, charged 
with, and passing upon, the rights and interests of in¬ 
dependent States, as well as individuals; and dispos¬ 
ing of them in such a manner as to command the most 
absolute acquiescence and obedience, by the force of 
reason alone. And yet these judges constantly per¬ 
formed duty upon the circuits—were mere “ stirrup 
judges.” Shall we disregard ail these teachings of ex¬ 
perience, for the mere purpose of making a splendid 
court, to be surrounded by a bar of the same descrip¬ 
tion? I hope not. Legal rules are not abstractions,— 
they are made to be applied to human action. The 
judge should constantly study human nature—should 
become acquainted with jurors, witnesses, the bar, and 
the people, and carefully note tlie springs of human ac¬ 
tion. In this way he will catch something of that pop¬ 
ular and independent spirit which alone can render the 
administration of the law prompt, impartial, and prac¬ 
tical. Shut out your judges from sympathy with the 
world, and they will give you the letter of the law, 
which kills, but seldom its healing, invigorating spirit. 

But again, I object to the centralization of the judi¬ 
cial business of the State in that court, in this city ; and 
here again I may be accused of hostility to its inter¬ 
ests. it is not so. I am proud of its growth and pros¬ 
perity. But I cannot consent to forget the rights and 
interests of other parts of the State, for its benefit.— 
No large State attempts any such centralization. Mas¬ 
sachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania, all hold their 
court of last resort at different points: not less than 


four in any of them. It is more reasonable that one 
man sliould go to one hundred, than that the hundred 
should come to him. This court can be held at differ¬ 
ent points without any additional expense, with very 
little inconvenience to the judges, and with great bene¬ 
fit to the bar and the people in the remote counties of 
the State. I know it may be said that the Legislature 
may, under this report, require the court to be held at 
other places than Columbus. I understand too well 
the views and intention of the committee vq)on that 
point, to be caught with such chuff. I will consent to 
nothing short of a constitutional requisition that it shall 
be held at other places—placing the matter beyond 
contingency. The gentleman from Franklin [Mr. 
Swan] says that very few members of the local bar 
ever attend the court in bank. This is true—it is too 
far oil' to enable them to do so. But bring it within a 
reasonable distance, and all whose business gets in 
there will attend, and can do so without great expense 
to themselves or their clients. 

The district court is the next point to which I will 
refer. I hope that we may be relieved entirely of any 
controversy with those gentlemen of the committee in 
regard to the facts in the case. The honorable gentle¬ 
man, the chairman of the committee, has told us, that 
it is impossible to send this couiT into the counties un¬ 
der the system, if adopted. I hope that I need not now 
be compelled to prove that the system does not admit 
of any such application as sending it into the counties. 
It is contemplated by the chairman of the committee 
that it shall sit in two points ot the district. How ma¬ 
ny counties does a district include? Why there are 
nine of them. Hamilton county forms one, which 
would leave eight for the rest ol the State—leaving 86 
counties. It will take about 11 counties in a district, 
and it will take about two of the present judicial cir¬ 
cuits to put in one of these districts. I can figure up 
in my own mind to a certainty how much territory 
might be included in the district in my part of the 
country. It commences with the Lake including the 
township and county w’here my friend [Mr. Woodbu¬ 
ry] lives. Well, it then runs down far enough to in¬ 
clude the county of Carroll, Tuscarawas and Stai’k. 
My friend from Ashtabula can see about how he will 
be situated when he has to go down to 1 uscarawas to 
attend to a bill in chancery or to foreclose a mortgage 
which the defendant has appealed into that court. It 
can sit at two points in the district, as the chairman in¬ 
forms us. An amendment was offered by the gentleman 
fi’om Franklin [Mr. Swan] to the effect that it shall 
sit twice in a district, and confiningit to that, 
case I put is a case of point. If the court is sitting in 
Tuscarawas having jurisdiction tln’oughout the dis¬ 
trict, in order to attend to the bill in chancery appeal¬ 
ed there, you would have to go down from Ashtabula 
—and recollect you might have to wait a whole yearm 
order to secure a hearing—and then you would have 
to make another journey if the case should be contin¬ 
ued as very often happens. 

Mr. ChaiiTiian, I don’t know as this would be any 
great obstacle to you down here but among us Yankees 
on the Reserve—the county court lawyers, it would be 
considered a great grievance. 

Mr. STANBERY. Will the gentleman allow me to 
interrupt him a moment. Now, the gentleman objects 
to the plan of the committee, that where a case is 
tried in a county, it may go by appeal to a remote part 
of the district, and he says that it is too lai tor go* 
Now, according to the gentleman’s plan, it is tried by 
what is called a supreme judge in the county, or per¬ 
haps two, as suits may be tried in our common pleas. 
Now, in the gentleman’s own case, will not a case go 
out of his county, upon appeal, or where is it to go . 

Mr RANNEY. I will answer, that it does not go at 
all. It is to be decided on the spot, in the same county 
where the suit first commenced, by the two judges ot 
the supreme court—the same number that now decide 
finally—all the difference is, they now decide on appeal, 
they will then decide in the first instance. 














554 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


Mr. STANBBRY. The gentleman provides for an 
appeal court to be held at only three places in the S'ate. 
We provide for such a court to be held at nine places. 
Can he get three places nearer than we can one of our 
nine. The gentleman is certainly mistaken. This sys¬ 
tem does certainly provide that it shall go up on appeal. 

Mr. RANNEY. I must be a very dull man. I have 
explained my views in the committee, and I have ex¬ 
plained them hei’e, and I am still not understood by the 
intelligent gentleman from Franklin. To relieve the 
gentleman’s mind in regard to this very point, I will 
inform him that my court in bank does the business of 
the old court in bank. Appeals are not to be taken of 
course to it any more than at present. He will see by 
and bye, that the supreme court in the county, in my 
plan, takes original and jurisdiction of the impor¬ 
tant litigation that arises in the county, and appellate 
jurisdiction from the county court of all other. It con¬ 
templates that whenever a case in law or chancery is 
tried before these two judges, that is the end of it, un¬ 
less for special reasons it is taken to the court in bank. 
Oil the contrary his system contemplates appeals as 
liberally as at present, and provides a court to try them. 
My objection to this appellate court is, that it may 
draw the vvhole appellate business out of the counties 
where it originated, and take it to a remote part of the 
district for determination. No one, it seems tome,can 
fail to percGive this, iior fail to see its effect upon suit- 
ors, and the younger portion of the bar. Now there 
are in every county of this State young men who are 
honorably struggling for distinction in the profession, 
and to support themselves and their families. They 
are not like the gentleman from Franklin. They have 
not bad the experience of years and the light which 
this honorable gentleman has had, aided by a well- 
earned, overshadowing reputation. We must walk 
before we run, any of us. We must begin and make 
slow progress at first. I never knew such an anomaly 
as that of a man rushing into a successful practice of 
his profession at once. It is one of the most arduous 
and difficult of all professions, to obtain a foothold and 
secure any eminence in. If you are willing to bi’eak 
down the profession by excluding the younger mem¬ 
bers of the bar from the district commas you must 
iiecessarily do by telling them that they must follow 
their suits to remote parts of the district, let me warn 
you that the constitution has yet to pass the ordeal of 
the people. They have an interest and pride in up¬ 
holding and sustaining these young men in their midrt, 
and qualifying them for the highest places in the pro¬ 
fession. They will look into this matter. They do not 
want to break down one class of lawyers, and turn 
them into county pettifoggers, in order to build up a 
^lendid bar in the centres of your magnificent system. 
Gentlemen may get up on their stilts and proclaim the 
benehts of such a system, just as long as they please; 
but young lawyers will imt go to remote parts of the 
district to attend to appeal cases. They cannot afford 
to do it. 

What may be done here I cannot say, but I know a 
little something about the part of the State where I 
live. I have been in the habit of gohig into several 
counties there, and I can stand it better than younger 
men if your system is adopted, for I can travel as loim 
as I have my old horse and buggy left. ° 

Every chancery case is the subject of appeal. I do 
not understand there is to be any limitation. 

My honorable friend from Franklin supposes that ap¬ 
peals will take place as liberal as before. When a 
cause is appealed from the court of common pleas, 
now it is seldom prepared for hearing above until fur^ 
ther testimony is taken, and frequently new papers are 
to be filed. Your appeal case from the county of Ash¬ 
tabula is carried down 100 miles to the county of Tus¬ 
carawas. For filing and examining your papers you 
must go down there. Your witnesses ai*e all off in 
Ashtabula, and their depositions will have to be taken 
and sent to Tuscarawas. You want to look at the pa¬ 


pers and depositions signed by your adversaries in 
court. You have got to send down to Tuscarawas and 
get copies of them in order to prepare the chancery 
case which comes off in the appellate court. Who 
does not see that in all this you will experience great 
delay, to say nothing of the increased expense in bring¬ 
ing the cause to hearing. By the system proposed you 
have got a system in which the appellate court is held 
twice a year, but to get the benefits of it without wait¬ 
ing a whole year, you may have to go to a remote part 
of the district, and you will of course have greater de¬ 
lay, than if the cause was settled in the county in 
which it originated. We are asked why we want 
judges of the highest court to go into the counties.— 
It is no great privilege, say they, to look at a judge. 

This may be so—although I should suppose that one 
of those splendid judges—one of those bright, particu¬ 
lar stars, provided for in this report, for supreme judges, 
would be worth going some distance to see, provided 
he was not too dazzling to look upon when you found 
him. But seriously, let me tell gentlemen that they 
gready underrate the importance of holding a good 
court in each county, as a means of carrying home to 
the mass of the people a knowledge of their legal 
rights, and inducing respect for the administration of 
the law. Every one has experienced this in attending 
upon the sessions of the old supreme court. The haste 
with which that court, in later times, has been obliged 
to dispatch its business, has made it more unpopular 
with the people than all other courts combined. Give 
it time enough to do the business before it, and it will 
again become popular. The people of the counties in 
which it sits will attend upon it to observe the mode of 
trying cases, and learn something of their legal rights, 
and thus a legal school will be carried into every coun¬ 
ty of the State, upon which every citizen can gratui¬ 
tously attend. Your young lawyers—your county court 
lawyers, will be, by the presence and influence and dig¬ 
nity of that high court, inspired with a feeling that the 
honors of the profession are well worth struggling for. 
But take from the bar of the county these means of im¬ 
provement, aiad this incentive to arduous and honora¬ 
ble effort, and the county court will indeed become, 
what it has been called, a nuisance. The people ol the 
county will not give it attention, nor yield it respect 
The bar of the county having no models of judicial 
excellence before them, and no incentives for honora¬ 
ble exertion, will indeed become pettifoggers. I do 
affirm that there is nothing better calculated to inspire 
respect for the laws, than the presence of an honora¬ 
ble, upright, and talented bar, and 1 do further affirm, 
that the bar of this State, as a body, come up to that 
standard ; and I ask that the best and highest court in 
the State may be brought home to them in the counties. 

I want the people to see and bear witness, that right, 
whenever it is invaded, is redressed and vindicated— 
that vice is punished and virtue rewarded, and that the 
administration of the law is really worth what it costs 
them to maintain it. Then, for the benefit of the bar 
and the people, I want the judges to go to the counties, 
and I also want it for their own benefit. I want them 
to come down from their seclusion and mingle with the 
people, that they may breathe the air of independence 
and honesty, so indispensable to the judicial office. 
Such a system would have some soul in it, but your 
system of splendid paper courts will be as far removed 
from the people—as musty and cold as though they had 
been dug from the tomb of the Capulets. 

Mucdihas been said of the comparative merits of the 
county and district systems. The laws of King Alfred 
.have been referred to and greatly admired by several 
gentlemen, and what was his system ? Its great mer¬ 
it was that it brought justice and its ministers home to 
the people, it associated them in its administration by 
the institution of juries and familiarized them with its 
practical operations. He carried the administration of 
justice not only into the counties but into the hundreds 
and the tens. He led them to consider the law as their 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


555 


bulwark and birthright, and inspired them with a de¬ 
termination to uphold and sustain it, and to yield only 
to its mandates. Their sturdy resistance to oppression 
fit several periods of their history since, can be fairly 
attributed to that influence. Its benefits have been in¬ 
calculable to the English people, but its influence has 
not been confined to the British Isles—you can trace 
its effects to the banks of James’ river, to the rock of 
Plymouth, and into every town and village of this ex¬ 
tended country. A system fraught with such immense 
advantages 1 humbly hope is not about to be abandon¬ 
ed by us 

The courts of common pleas come next—of these I 
have nothing in particular to say. If the system is re¬ 
tained they are indisputable to it, and are the only 
courts provided for in it, that I think the people will 
be satisfied with. 

Next w'e come to the county courts. My objection 
to the court as proposed in the report, is. that it is just 
such a court as it was described to be by a leading 
member of the committee—the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin [Mr. Swan.] 

Mr. KENNON. The gentleman from Franklin was 
not speaking of our court. 

Mr. RANNEY. Yes, he was talking of your court. 
The county court proposed in my report is a difterent 
thing altogether. He called it a legal necessity and a 
judicial nuisance. Now, sir, I do not come here to 
to erect constitutional nui.sance8. I should speak of it 
in different terms I grant, but I suppose I may be per¬ 
mitted to use the language of one of the panegyrists of 
the system. ^ 

Around this court, the gentleman from Franklin 
gives us to understand is to cluster foul birds and law¬ 
yers more foul than they. 

Mr. SWAN. The gentleman certainly misunder¬ 
stood me. I said nothing about foul birds. 

Mr. RANNEY. No you did not use that term—you 
said that around this court would gather a class of 
lawyers and pettifoggers who would not have much 
intercourse with those who practiced in the higher 
courts. 

Mr. SWAN. I said that young men who were am¬ 
bitious would prefer appearing in the court of common 
pleas, as they would be more apt to rise in the profess¬ 
ion. 

Mr. RANNEY. I understood the gentleman to say 
that the county courts would gather around them a 
very indifferent and inferior class of men to those who 
would attend on the other courts. That they would 
monopolize the practice and contaminate it by their 
presence. That their minds would never be liberalized 
by association with the higher grade of attorneys, nor 
would one of the better class even descend to the “ju¬ 
dicial nuisance ” to compete with them. 

Mr. KENNON. Do you think that the county court 
is a nuisance ? 

Mr. RANiNEY. Such an one as your report propo¬ 
ses to erect would not come veiy near it—I should not 
differ very widely with the gentleman from Franklin, 
in his description of such a court; and I will give my 
reasons. In the first place you have not invested it 
with suflicient jurisdiction to ensure the services of a 
competent man, or to give it any importance or respec¬ 
tability in the public estimation. You do not permit 
the Ef“gi8lalure even to invest it, with any original civil 
jurisdiction. In the next place pou have provided no 
guarantees for the independence of the judge, but on 
tbeconti ary, have placed him in a position where it is for 
his interest to be corrupt. The report carefully guards 
the independence of the other judges by providing that 
they shall, annually, receive an adequate compensation 
for their services, not less than a fixed sum to be paid 
f.om the treasury, and not to be diminished during their 
continuance in office. None of them are interposed in 
behalf of the county judge, and we are told that he is 
to receive no salary, but is to be compensated by 
fees received from the parties. Thus presenting a di¬ 


rect inducement to him to encourage litigation. The 
more litigation there is the greater will be his compen¬ 
sation, I should greatly fear that instead of studying 
how he could best do justice between the parties, he 
would be calculating which would most certainly pay 
the fees. 

If it is desirable to levy a tax upon litigation, do so, 
and pay it into the county treasury, but don’t make it 
for the interest of your judges to embroil the commu¬ 
nity in litigation, or require them to mouse over your 
clerk’s books for fees. The county court which I pro¬ 
pose to erect, I humbly conceive, would be inferior to 
no court in the State in point of usefulness and I’espec- 
tability—suflicient jurisdiction is given to make the 
judge an important officer, and his independence, and 
integrity are secured by all the safeguards applicable 
to the other judges. I believe it would be a most 
popular court, and well entitled to the confidence of 
the people and the respect of the bar. 

But my honorable friend, if he believes this county 
court as proposed in the report of the committee is 
to be a judicial nuisance, should take from it much, if 
not all of the important business they have conferred 
upon it. The idea is revolting, that the rights and in¬ 
terests of the citizen should be committed to a corrupt 
or incompetent court. It begets distrust in, and con¬ 
tempt for the administration of the law and its minis¬ 
ters, and its moral force is overthrown. They have 
committed to this court the whole probate business of 
the State, and that is the most important feature of its 
jurisdiction. As has been said, all the property of the 
State passes through this court of probate once in 
twenty-five years. There is no court in the land with 
stronger claims for able and upright judges than this. 
To the judges of this court is committed the keeping 
of the interests of the widow and the orphan—those 
who are most liable to be defrauded, and least able to 
resist, because they cannotattend to their own business 
like others, and provide for the protection of their 
own interests, and yet you would commit these in¬ 
terests to a court in whose honesty you have no con¬ 
fidence, and of which ability need be no attribute.— 
We are told that it is to be surrounded by pettifog¬ 
gers, vicious men, in a word, that around it every¬ 
thing is below mediocrity, and everything vile will 
cluster. Can integrity and purity be found in such a 
crowd ? 

Again, what further have you confided to this court? 
It is expected to take cognizance of appeals, certioraris, 
&c., from justices of the peace. These cases are fre¬ 
quently as difficult to decide, and as important to the 
parties, as any other. At all events, they should be 
justly and legally disposed of. And yet these cases are 
to be tried by a judge, who, according to the gentle¬ 
man from Belmont, will not necessarily have any 
knowledge of law, and who, according to the gentle¬ 
man froni Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] will be surrounded 
by many penurious influences. The rich—I really beg 
the pardon of the gentleman from Belmont—those 
who have large cases, (laughter,) will go into the high¬ 
er, and I suppose, the better courts, and the poor, 
(laughter,) I mean those who have smaller cases, are 
obliged to seek I’edress in a court which has beeii pro¬ 
nounced a judicial nuisance. Is this equality? Is this 
impartiality ? Is this dealing out the same measure of 
justice to all ? No, very far from it. There are two 
ideas to be constantly kept in view, in the administra¬ 
tion of the law—first, to do justice, and second, to do 
it in such a manner as to inspire the parties and the 
public with confidence that it is done. When justice 
is done, the party has his right the first object is ob¬ 
tained—but to secure acquiescence, the public must 
believe that it is dune; without this, the law has^ lost 
its moral power. I would, therefore, toleiate no judi¬ 
cial tribunal that was not surrounded with every safe¬ 
guard of honesty and impartiality, that was necessary 
to secure the public confidence and tiust. 

I have already detained the committee much beyond 


















556 


CONVENTION EEPOETS. 


vvhat I had iiitendod, Tjut I desired to state at once the 

objections to the report. A few words of explanation 
oi the substitute I have oftered, and I will relieve 
them. 

1 he first remark I have to make in respect to it is, 
that It is simple and plain and easily understood. This 
IS a great recommendation, provided it is at the same 
time efficient. The great leading difference betwe 
It and the plan of the committee is this—I attempt to 
provide a g( od court in the first instance for the deter¬ 
mination of causes, and end them—they provide for 
good appellate courts to cori-ect the errors which it is 
presumed will occur in the first instance. I may be 
singular in my views upon this subject; we have become 
so accustomed to appealing from court to court, that we 
can Hardly realize that justice can be done until two 
or three appeals have taken place. But we should re- 
co lect t lat the law is the same in each court, and that 
It IS but the judgment of fallible men that we get in 
t le end. I bring two judges into the courts to decide 
the cause in the first instance, as many as we have 
evei la . Before they decided an appeal—now for a 
arge part they will exercise original jurisdiction; but 
not for that reason under less favorable circumstances 
to warrant a correct decision—indeed much more fa¬ 
vorable. I hazard nothing in saying that the judges 
ho Bit upon the trial of a cause and hear it all, are bet- 
tei qualified upon the spot to decide the questions of 
law that arise in it, than any other court can ever be. 
it IS veiy difficult in many cases to get the case upon 
papei so that it will appear to the appellate court as it 
XVr'i?^ below. Many circumstances which might 
rightfully influence the decision will be lost, thro.mh 
accident or negligence, and the imperfection of lan¬ 
guage. ^ 

But if errors should occur in this court —and un 
doubtedly they will but I should hope but’raiely.-a 

wbb.hT 'I! provided to correct them, iu 

h ch the whole btate is equally represented. I be¬ 
have suubstitute avoids all the objections that I 
have taken to the plan of the committee. It elects no 
unnecessary judges. It takes judges for the court o'f 

practfce w I’ril ''' ^andliar by constant 

practice with the application of the principles of law, 

ed wiih tw association with the people, acquaint- 

and mime r "-fi^ n action 

and imbued with that enlightened spirit of le-al pro- 

laud .I tbest courts in tjie 
land near to the parties and the bar; and, finally it 

saves the necessity of dilatory and expensive appe^als, 

causeT^^d^^n court to the determination of the 
cause 111 the first instance. 

Several objections have been taken to this substitute 

S'"'”'""?'' support the plan of the 
committee. The first is, that the supreme court will 

notZ n “ ^flirient force i, 

not pioMdec to do the business. This will depend en- 

tirely upon how much you make of the county court 

that T the jurisdiction 

provide lor it, and which, in my opinion is re 

«rftu-cel’n”?l''° Populur romt’, then 

tlm foice in he siqn-eme court is abundant to do all the 
baknce of the business of the State. 

The court of conimon pleas now sits about six weeks 
on an average, in the several counties of the State—’ 
will be safe to say, that from one-third to one-half of i 
business will be transferred to the county court 
we suppose the supreme court to do the balance of tl 

countv " W "V ayerage, four weeks in 

county. VVe have, then, but about thirty-two weel 
occupied upon circuit, leaving abundance of time fi 
holding the court in bank. 

It IS again objected that the supreme court does iv 
sit often enough. Twice in each year is as often t 
the important litigation in each county has heretofoi 
been brought to trial. The third term of cornmc 
pleas has been used more for the entering of judj 


ments in cases where there was no defence, and some K 
matters of course, than for any other purpose. The ! 
rules of practice can be so changed as to bring the I 
cause to issue at the first term, and if it can then be i 
disposed of, it will be doing much speedier justice 
than has ever yet been done in this State. j 

1 he next objection is, that it is too exjiensive. The ''' 
plan of the committee provides for thirty-one judges of i 
the higher courts—nine for twenty. I'hey make the i 
same number of the county courts that I do. I make a ' 
saving of over $20,000 in paying the first class of judg- i 
es. If my system is the most expensive, it must be ! 
because I pay the county judges more than they do, j 
But the several counties will fix the amount to be paid ! 
to these judges; and there is very little danger that i 
they will be paid more than their services are worth. ! 
There is now paid to the associate judges in each coun- j 
ty, an average of about $375. This will be saved, and j 
if you adopt that sum, the amount saved to the coun¬ 
ties, byrthe more speedy disposal of small criminal ca¬ 
ses, I have no doubt that it will make a sum large ^ ; 
enough to pay liberally the county judge iu any county j 
of this State. 

In conclusion, permit me to say that I am not wed- j 
ded^ to the plan I have introduced, I claim for it no J I 
perfection in its details—I was not willing to be obnox- i 
ions to the iinjiiitation, that I was attempting to destroy j 
the system of the committee, without ofl'ering any thing ' 
in its plan. The committee had a right to expect and 
demand that I should provide something of my own, if f 
I could not agree to theirs. I acknowledge the obli- * 
gation of the old legal maxim, that if you would ques¬ 
tion the writ, you must give a better one. I have at-, i 
tempted to do so—if it shall serve the purpose of elici- ^ • 
ting inquiry, and thus result in improvement, it will j ■ 
have done all that I expected of it. I will support any 
plan that avoids the great leading objections which I ^ i 
have indicated in the remarks I have made, and will ; l 
use the utmost of my feeble abilities to make it as per- i 
feet and as acceptable to the people as possible. My 
feelings, my habhs, my attachments and my interests ; 
are all with the judiciary—I am identified, and expect + ( 
to be, as long as I live, with its honor and its character. ‘ I ■ 
If I do not render it as efficient aid here, as some other 
gentlemen may, it is for the want of ability—for an ar¬ 
dent desire to make it what it should be, I will yield to ! 
no gentleman on this floor. I thank the committee for , 
the great patience with which they have heard me, and t 
will now relieve them. 

Mr. SAWYER. I do not intend to interfere in a de- ' 
bate, the chief part of which I freely accord to gen- j | 
tlemen of the legal profession, but when we see “Doc- { ‘ 
tors disagree,” we are always disposed to look a little i i 
into the matter ourselves. The gentleman fromTrum- j j' 
bull [Mr. Eanney] has stated that his system was a i ■ 
more economical one than that proposed by the com- \ ; 
iniltee—on the other hand, the distinguished Chairman ■ ) 
of the Judicial committee, [Mr. Ken non,] asserts that ' ? 
his plan is the cheapest. The conflicting statements ■ | 
are made under the solemnity of an oath, and we know 1 
must be the deliberate conviction of the parties. We i i 
should like to hear a statement of the basis upon which i | 
these estimates are founded—let us have the facts and { 
figures, j; 

Mr. KENNON. A word as to the expense of the ' I 
system. His [Mr. Ranney’s] report contemplates 20 ^ 

common pleas judges—which at $1,800 per annum |[ 
each, would make $3G,000 })er annum. He proposes f 
to make 87 other judgi s, and confer upon them a very I 
large jurisdiction ; and in this he is right, because he ■: 
gets time for the common pleas courts to do the busi- { 

ness conferred upon them, by taking away one half I 

of their business. You cannot secure the services of t 
these 87 judges, for they must be men of ability and 
experience, for less than $1000 each pear annum. This 
will he $87,000, to which add $36,000 and you have 
the sum of $123,000 per annum, representing the cost 1 
of his [Mr. Ranney’s] system. 











CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


Now what is the cost of the system reported by the’ 
jommittee ? We [)ropose 31 judges, at $1,800 each [icr 
iimum, the cost would be $55,800. As to llie couuly 
judges, they cau be paid l^y the fees which now go to 
the clerks; and therefore the whole expense is only 
$55,800, which would show a balance of $67,200 in 
favor of the plan reported by the majority of the com¬ 
mittee. 

Mr. RANNEY remarked that the fees with which 
the honorable chairman of the judicial committee 
[Mr. Kennox] intends to pay his county judges, now 
go to the clerks, the people will have to be taxed for 
these fees, and therefore, the amount should be added 
to the expenses of the gentleman’s system. 

On motion ot Mr. LARSH, the committee rose and 
reported “ no conclusion.” 

And on motion by Mr. LAWRENCE, the Conven¬ 
tion took a recess. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 
a'call of the convention. 

Mr. MANON moved a call of the Convention, upon 
which a division was demanded, and the motioii^los:— 
affirmative 37, negative 32. 

Mr. RENNET f moved, that the Convention do now 
adjourn; which motion was also lost, by yeas 11— 
nays 57—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Ewart, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Moorehead, and Woodbury— 

' Nays— Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Athens, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Clark, Claypoole, 
Collings, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Green ot Ross, Gregg, Hard, Hai-lan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitch¬ 
cock ot Gepga Holmes, Horton, Hurapbreville, Hunt, Hunter. 
Johnson, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Mason, Mitchell, Morris, McCormick, Patterson, Peck, Quieley, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stilvvell, Stidger, Swan, 
3wiit, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Butler, War¬ 
ren, and Mr. President—57. 

No quorum having yet appeared— 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved a call of the Coiiventioii, 
which motion prevailing, the call proceeded, until it 
1 was ascertained that a quorum — (two-thirds of the 
members—were within the bar, and then— 

' On motion, by Mr. GREEN of Ross, all further pro¬ 
ceedings under this call, were dispensed with. 
quorum. 

Mr. MANON gave notice, that, on to-morrow, or 
some subsequent day of the session, he intended to pro¬ 
pose an amendment to the first rule, so that a majority 
cf ail the members elected, shall be sufficient to consti¬ 
tute a quorum for the transaction of business. 

THE JUDICIARY. 

On motion, by Mr. RIDDLE, the Convention now 
resolved itself into a committee of the Whole, (Mr. 
aREEN of Ross in the Chair,) and resumed the consider¬ 
ation of the report of the committee on the .Judicial 
Department, presented by Mr. Kennon on the 11th in- 
jtaut. 

The CHAIRMAN stated the question to be, upon the 
adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Trumbull, namely striking out the words “ and for,’’ 
ill the eighth line of the third section of the report, and 
insert in lieu thereof, the words the counties of,” so 
that it will read: “ District courts shall be held in the 
counties of each district,” &c. 

Mr. McCORMICK insisted that the defects in the 
pre.sent judicial system was the leading cause for call¬ 
ing the Convention. That the defects in the system 
are not in the common pleas, but in the organization 
of the supreme court. These defects exist in the sys¬ 
tem itself, and may be, are increased by incompetent 
judges. 

The greatest consisted in requiring the judges to 
employ some nine or ten months of their time in express 
riding into every county in the State, and deciding 
causes without argument, advisement or consideration, 


iind thereby bring them into bank, exhausted and fa¬ 
tigued. 

d'be mere appearance of a judge of the supreme 
court, did not diffuse the suu-ligiit of justice; that he 
would have no intuitive prescience of the points to 
be brought before him, and does not instinctively 
know the law; but careful advisement and enlight¬ 
ened consideration were as necessary to him as to 
another. 

To the remedy of these evils the committee directed 
their attention, and not wishing to make violent charges 
when nut absolutely demanded by circumstances, they 
adhered to old names and forms as closely as possible, 
and the result has been, the report under considera¬ 
tion, presenting a system which may be restricted to 
the smallest coimmuiity, is adequate to the present 
wants of the State, and may easily and readily be ex¬ 
tended to fiilhll all the judicial requisition of a popu¬ 
lation of ten miilions. 

The great key of the system is the district court, 
whose wholesome existence is now so violently strick¬ 
en at by the proposed amendment. The objects effect¬ 
ed by this court, consist in 

1. A competent tribimal, iu the number and character of its 
judges. 

2. In increasing fourfold the power and capacity for action of 
the supreme court. 

3. In providing for the adjudication of all causes in the county 
in which they originated, if amended, as the Legislature can by 
law send the court into every county. 

4. Should the increase of business render it impossible to sub¬ 

serve the judicial wants of the people, by sending the court into 
every county, those wants can be served by centralizing the court 
to one or two points in the district, and thereby retaining the ad¬ 
judication oi causes nearer to the suitor than it necessarily will 
be it causes are removed directly to the capital of the State, as 
they must be if the court be rendered inefficient. ’ 

5. It will conduce to.justice, by creating thus a centralization 
ot the b.u' to the point at which the court wi 1 be held, thereby 
eliciting a greater interchange of opinion and discussion, which 
always operate beneficially iu legal investigation. 

6. It will be in fact the court of the suitor, bar and people, con¬ 

nected witli all their interests, sympathies and feelings, by the 
presence of the judges of their own selection, who daily and 
yearly try the causes of the district in the common pleas courts, 
assisted by the deliberative wisdom of the supreme justice, whose 
aejudicatious in bank for the settlement of great principles are 
or should be, based upon an enlightened philosophy. ’ 

The system is cheap LUid efficient, as the committee 
believe—costing less than the present system. 

Had the committee been furnished with one hun¬ 
dred and fifty or two hundred thousand dollars, they 
could have furnished a system which would bring the 
justice and judgment pnqtosed by the amendment, to 
every cabin and corn-crib in this State; but not feeling 
at liberty to increase the burdens now resting upon the 
treasury, they have furnished, as they believe, the best 
article the present state of the purse will buy. Should 
gentlemen discover a better, lie [Mr. McCormick] 
will be highly gratified ; but he begged gentlemen to 
remember that it is much easer to destroy than create; 
and although they may lie able at the one, they may 
prove deficient in the other. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler said : I desire to be indulged 
for a few moments, Mr. Chairman, while I shall un¬ 
dertake a brief comparison of the report made by the 
standing committee upon this subject, with the project 
which has been introduced, by way of amendment, by 
the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney.] It 
seems to me, sir, that when wo look carefully at these 
two papers, the report of the committee and tlieamend- 
ment offered by the gentleman from Trumbull, there 
will not be found in any of their provisions, and espe¬ 
cially in the provision under consideration, that differ¬ 
ence which many gentlemen seem to imagine. 

Let us look, for instance, at the county court system, 
so called. It is seen by reference to the report of the 
committee, that to the county judge is given jurisdic¬ 
tion in all cases of probate and testameutaiy matters, 
and in the settlement of the estates of deceased per¬ 
sons. The Legislature is authorized to givo to the 
county jude a jurisdiction in minor criminal offen¬ 
ces. And in civil cases this judge isgiveu jurisdic- 

















558 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


tion in matters of appeal from the courts of justices 
of the peace; and the Legislature is also authorized, 
to some extent, to enlarge this jurisdiction. With 
respect to the amendment of the gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull, does he not propose precisely and identically the 
same powers as are provided in the report of the com¬ 
mittee—and are not these reports precisely alike, 
with only one exception, and that is, that the gentle¬ 
man from Trumbull has proposed to give to this coun¬ 
ty judge, original jurisdiction in civil cases in any sum 
not over three hudred dollars? This is all the differ¬ 
ence that I can discover between the report and the 
gentleman’s substitute; and I believe it is essentially 
all the difference that exists between them, and the 
report under consideration. And so far as relates to 
this additional power, I do not know, myself, that I 
have any objection to it. 

I have had the misfortune to differ with many members 
of the standing committee upon this question of jurisdic¬ 
tion of the county judge. I should have been pleased 
to see the jurisdiction of the county judge somewhat 
enlarged in the report submitted—but it was thought 
advisable by the majority—a very large majority — to 
limit the jurisdiction of this court; as the committee 
however, have settled this question of jurisdiction, after 
mature deliberation, I feel disposed to acquiesce, and 
leave this question as it was reported, although it did 
not, at first, accord with my own views. 

I had thought that an enlarged jurisdiction woidd 
contribute to make this court more useful, more con¬ 
venient and more respectable, yet the expense of this 
court would have thereby been necessarily augmented, 
and perhaps this consideration would overweigh the 
benefits of the enlarged jurisdiction. 

I repeat, that as far as I’elates to the county court, 
there is no difference between the' report of the com¬ 
mittee and the amendment of the gentleman from 
Trunjbull, except in the mere matter that the gentle¬ 
man has proposed to enlarge the jurisdiction of the i 
court, so as to embrace all civil cases, under the sum of 
three hundred dollars. And now is this difference such 
a great matter as to justify the extraordinary exertions 
which have been made by the gentleman, to lay aside ; 
the report of the committee, and adopt his own ? ( 

We will next turn our attention to the report of the ^ 
committee upon the subject of the district court, or i 
court of appeals. If I have rightly understood the i 
gentleman from Trumbull, his objection is, that the j 
report does not provide that this court shall be held in i 
each and every county. The report provides no place ' 
at which this court shall be held. The General As- ” 
sembly is authoi’ized to fix by law the times when, and ] 
the places in the district where this court shall be held, j 
Therefore it may, and I believe it will be taken to eve- J 
ry county in the State. Let us examine, first, the pro- ] 
visions of the report upon this subject, and then com- ( 
pare its provisions with the provisions which the gen- ( 
tleman asks should be introduced in its place. 1 

By the provisions of the report the State is divided ( 
into nine districts—eight besides the county of Ham- ^ 
ilton, which, it is proposed shall constitute a district by 1 
itself. Each of these district courts are to be held by ( 
three common pleas judges, and these three common f 
pleas judges are to be elected by the people within j 
their respective districts. These district judges arc re- t 
quired to hold tfieir court of common pleas in every J 
county of the State. The districts will be subdivided c 
into two or three circuits—not beyond three, for the 
reason that there are but three judges, (and I suppose t 
that it will be most advisable to divide a district into t 
two circuits only, in each of which a common pleas i 
court shall be held at the same time. Now, it is im- f 
possible tor a judge to do labor upon the bench every { 
day in the year. He must be permitted to have some i 
re.st—he should, at stated intervals have a season of rest 
from active labor upon his circuit. During this period t 
however, he need not be altogether idle. He may per- j 
form chamber duty—that is, he may examine and de~ s 


s cide such cases as may be reserved upon the circuit 
, for a more careful examination than the hurry of cir- 
1 cuit duty would permit. At stated periods, and in 

- case of sickness or other casualities he in his turn will 
? be required to take the bench. This is simply an out- 

- line of our plan. 

, But what is the gentleman’s proposition ? Does he 

- propose to bring these courts any nearer to the homes 

■ of the people ? He proposes to divide the State into 
1 ten districts ; each district to elect two judges, and that 

- a court shall be held semi-annually in each county of 
5 the State, by one of these judges. This is the same 

' kind of a court as that of the common pleas, which is 
! provided by the re{)ort of the committee—I speak of 
> the common pleas court now exclusively. But from 
’ these twenty judges (there are to be but twenty for all 
the districts)—he proposes to take five for the purpose 
I of constituting a supreme court in bank, to be held at 

■ three points in the State only—I suppose at Cleveland, 
Columbus and Cincinnati—no matter where these points 
may be fixed—the amendment provides that these judg- 

; es shall hold, at least once a year, a supreme court at 
three different points in the State. Let us examine a 
little into the consequences which will naturally grow 
out of the gentleman’s proposition, when reduced to 
practice. 

The report of the committee provides that there shall 
be an intermediate appellate court, between the com¬ 
mon pleas and the Supreme Court in Bank, but the 
proposition of the gentleman from Trumbull contains 
no provision of the kind. Now, if I am correct in my 
estimate, as many as nine out of ten of the cases origi¬ 
nating in the common pleas, and taken up to the appel¬ 
late courts, will be stopped in these intermediate or 
district courts proposed by a majority of the commit¬ 
tee, and there will be no necessity of ever cariying 
them to the Court in Bank at all. But by the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Trumbull, there being no 
such intermediate courts provided for, all the business 
removed from the common pleas must go directly to 
the Supreme Court in Bank, for there will be no other 
place to take it; and the consequence will be that the 
gentleman’s Supreme Court in Bank will be overload¬ 
ed with business from the common pleas, and it would 
necessarily follow that they would have to continue in 
session pretty much the whole year round ; at least, if 
I am right in this estimate, w’e may look for these five 
judges to hold a court for two-thirds of the year, which 
is to be called a Supreme Court, and the consequence 
would be that the people would be deprived of the ser¬ 
vices of five of his twenty judges, on the circuit. 

It follows, therefore, that but fifteen of these twenty 
judges would be left for the duties of the circuits. Now 
let me ask the gentleman whether, in his opinion, it is 
possible that these fifteen judges will be able to dispose 
of all the business w hich they may be called upon to 
do, in the several counties of the State ? Certainly 
they cannot. There is no gentleman having any ac¬ 
quaintance with the amount of our judicial business 
who will not say that it would be utterly impossible 
for fifteen judges to discharge all the business of the 
common pleas throughout the State. What then will 
follow? Why it will become necessary that other 
judges should be provided, and consequently the gen¬ 
tleman’s plan would be much more expensive, as well 
as much less coimnient than the one proposed by the 
committee. 

I merely allude to this part of the subject in order 
to shovv, that if the gentleman succeeds in providing 
an efficient judiciary upon the plan he pi opuses, he 
must necessarily add at least one-third to the expenses 
over and above that which is necessary to support the 
plan proposed by the report of the standing committee 
upon this subject. 

But I wish to make another suggestion in relation to 
these appellate courts. It has been argued, as an ob¬ 
jection to the report, that it did not bring these courts 
sufficiently near to the people. 1 have shown, that so 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


559 


far as relates to the court of common pleas, these sys¬ 
tems are precisely similar, so far as the question of ju¬ 
risdiction is involved, and that the gentleman has 
left out of view, entirely, the intermediate district or 
appellate court [irovided for by the comniittee: to this 
court he objects, because it was not expressly provided 
that they should be held in each county in the State. 
The gentleman has objected to the report of the com¬ 
mittee upon this ground, and to remedy the evil he 
complains of, he has introduced an amendment here, 
which provides that the appellate court should be held 
ta three places only, in the State of Ohio. Now, sir, un¬ 
der the report of the committee, the appellate court must 
at least go into every district in the State, and there are 
nine districts provided. But the gentleman fixes his 
appellate court but at three places in the State. This 
is the more convenient substitute which he olfers. 

As one of the committee, sir, I was disposed to think 
that it would be more satisfactory to the people, and to 
the bar, if we could introduce into the report, a provi¬ 
sion making it obligatory that these district courts 
should be held in each county, and not provide, as we 
have done, that they may be held in one or more pla¬ 
ces of the district, as may be provided by law. Upon 
this subject the majority thought otherwise, hence the 
provision upon this subject found in the report. But I 
would remark, that as tar as relates to these courts, the 
Legislature has the power, at all times, to require them 
to be held in every county. Whether they will do so 
or not, it is not for me to determine. But I think I may 
say that we do know, that if the thing be practicable, 
and the interest of the people demand that these courts 
should be held in every county, instead of one, two or 
more places in the district, it will certainly be so di¬ 
rected by the Legislature. So that upon this subject 
♦ we need not be alarmed. We need not refuse to adopt 
this report because it does not specifically provide that 
these appellate courts shall be held in every county. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, the district court which the 
committee proposes to organize, will be a court which 
will be charged with the same duties, and with the 
same jurisdiction which the supreme court—which the 
gentleman from Trumbull proposes—will be charged 
with. Both are intended to be appellate courts, mere¬ 
ly. The difierence in name, merely, will make no dif¬ 
ference as to the powers and jurisdiction of these courts. 
In this, they are identical. Now, sir, if this be so, of 
what force is the gentleman’s objection to the report ol 
the committee? I care not whether you call this court 
a district court, or a supreme court—one name is just 
as acceptable to me as the other. The court should 
have an appropriate name. Certainly, then, the gen¬ 
tleman will not object to the report of the committee 
upon this ground. 

But it is objected that it is no tprovided ^that these 
district or appellate courts shall beheld in eveiy coun¬ 
ty. That is true; but what advantage would be gain¬ 
ed by the gentleman from the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment which he here proposes to the report? By his a- 
mendinert, every case removed or taken up from the 
common jdeas, must go to the supreme court in bank ; 
and the gentleman projioses to locate that court at 
three points only, within the State. At these three 
points the court must beheld; and the consequence 
will be, that all and every case removed from the com¬ 
mon jikas of the State, would have to be taken much 
further, under the amendment proposed by the gentle¬ 
man, than under the report proposed by the committee, 
—the proposition of the committee, requiring that the 
business removed from the common pleas in the re- 
spec’ivedistricts, shall be token, not out of the district 
to which it belongs, but to the appellate court sitting 
within the same district. The genllemaii’s amendment 
won d require ajipeals to be taken to Clevelaiul. Co¬ 
lumbus, or Cincinnati. Now, is not this the fact?— 
Would not the gentleman’s proposition give rise to 
erealer inconvenience on the part of those interested 
in cases thus appealed, than that which would likely 


be experienced under the provisions of the committee, 
which provides for the removal of cases to the appel¬ 
late court sitting within the district, and nearer to their 
homes? In view of all these facts, then, what right 
has the gentleman to object to the rejiort ? Certainly 
he has none, if I have rightly understood the ground 
of his objection. But I did not intend to discuss these 
questions, Mr. Chairman, but only to call the attention 
of the committee to the provisions, separately, of the 
two propositions. I wish to say a word, Mr. Chairman, 
touching the costs of the two propositions now under 
consideration. I have not undertaken to go into any 
very nice calculations of the expense under either sys¬ 
tem ; but I will say, that, under the report of the com¬ 
mittee, there is a provision for twenty-seven judges of 
the district court, and four judges of the supreme court; 
under the system proposed by the gentleman from 
Trumbull, there are to be but twenty judges. I have 
undertaken to show, that, after detailing five of these 
judges for the purpose of constituting a supreme court 
in bank,—in which service they would be required for 
the greater part of the year,—the remaining fifteen 
judges would have to perform all the business of the 
circuits. And I have attempted to show that this 
would be impossible, and that the number of judges 
proposed by the gentleman would, necessarily, have to 
be increased. I am myself of the opinion that we 
could not provide for the wants of our people with a 
less number than from twenty-two to twenty-seven 
common pleas judges, and it might be necessary even 
to increase this number. 

If the number ol these judges would have to be in¬ 
creased, the expenses of the system would necessarily 
have to be increased. The gentleman proposes to en¬ 
large the jurisdiction of the county courts ; and this too 
would induce an increase of expenditure. I would ap¬ 
peal to any legal gentleman to say whether he would 
consent to sit upon the county court bench short of a 
salary of one thousand dollars—(for the enlarged juris¬ 
diction would require that a lawyer should sit upon that 
bench)— or whether a gentleman reasonably qualified 
to discharge the duties of that bench could be obtained 
short of the sum I have named. Now there are eighty 
seven counties in the State, and the aggregate amount 
of the salaries of these judges would be eighty seven 
thousand dollars in the first place; then if you increase 
t. e number of common pleas judges from fifteen to 
twenty five, and give to them the same salary, which 
is proposed by the report of the standing committee 
this item will amount to some forty thousand dollars 
more ; these two items together, making a hundred and 
twenty seven thousand dollars, to be drawn annually 
fi'om the pockets of the people, to sustain the judicia 
ry upon the plan proposed by the amendment of the 
gentleman from Trumbull. To this must also be added 
the expenses of the supreme court proposed by him. 
Does any gentleman suppose that the people would be 
satisfied with any system which would cost so much 
money. 

It maybe claimed thatl have over-rated this expense, 
but I think 1 liave not done so; and I do not believe 
that any gentleman, of sufficient legal ability to dis- 
cliargethe dutiesof a county judge, with the proposed 
enlarged jurisdiction of that court, can be obtained to 
preside in this court for less than a thousand dollars a 

Although the report of the committee is not in every 
part and particular, exactly what I could have de¬ 
sired as to a few of its features, or such as I should 
have made it, had 1 been entrusted with the responsi¬ 
bility of the matter, still taking it as a whole, I am sat¬ 
isfied with it. As to the essential portion of it, no im¬ 
provement can be made. It is the result of delibera¬ 
tion and compromise on the part of the whole commit¬ 
tee with the exception of two or three who refused to 
sign it; ai d inasmuch as it was discussed from week 
to week, and the committee was under the necessity 
of proceeding inch by inch, scanning every propositon 


















5G0 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


that it contains—after a full interchange of views up¬ 
on the subject—I most willingly subscribed my name 
to it. And now, since it has been introduced here, for 
the action of the committee of the whole, and of the 
'Convention, I feel it to be my duty to support it, in all 
its parts, unless a better and cheaper system can be 
])ioposcd for our consideration. The proposition of the 
gentleman from Trumbull I cannot support. I am not 
so closely wedded to the report as to prevent me from 
the support of a better system, if a better can be of¬ 
fered. 

Mr. V. continued his remarks, by way of illustration 
and enforcement of his conclusions, and when he had 
concluded 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, (heard very doubtful¬ 
ly.) He supposed this section might receive a con¬ 
struction which would meet the views of both the 
gentlemen last addressing the committee. If it could 
not, he certainly should be in favor of the amendment; 
at least he should prefer it. He was of opinion this 
whole matter should be left to the General Assembly, 
and that that body should be untrammelled in deter¬ 
mining whether the district court should be held at but 
one place in the district, or whether it should be held 
in every county. He did not know how it might be in 
all parts of the State, but he had had some little expe- 
irience upon this subject, and, so far as respects this 
question, if he could judge correctly from what he had 
observed, it would be the wish of the people that there 
should be a court of this character—a court answering 
to the old supreme court—held once a year in each 
county of the State. 

Now, the question with me is, (he continued,) when 
we are establishing a court of this kind, whether are 
we establishing it for the people, or for the convenience 
of the bar—for the convenience of lawyers? If for 
-the people, then the desire of the people should be 
gratified; but if for the lawyers of the State, then let 
us be governed by their choice. But he always sup¬ 
posed that the great object in establishing courts of 
justice was, to subserve the interests of the cominuiiity 
at large, and that the feelings of community should be 
consulted, rather than the feelings of members of the 
;>ar. 

It has been said by the gentleman from Franklin, 
[Mr. Stanbery,] that we must have these district 
courts, or run into the danger of creating a great cen¬ 
tral court in the centre of the State, to which all ap¬ 
peals will be taken from the court of common pleas; 
and the gentleman with propriety deprecates any such 
result. But instead of this great central court, about 
which is to be collected a learned bar, the gentleman 
prefers a central court in each one of the nine districts. 
Now, it may be well for the State of Ohio to have these 
nine districts, and a central court in each district; but 
let it be remembered that each one of these districts 
will contain more territory and a larger population than 
can be found in many of the States of this Union. To 
be sure, the district constituted of the county of Ham¬ 
ilton, the territory will be less, but the other districts 
will contain more territory than several of the old 
States, and the population will eventually be in propor¬ 
tion, to the extent of territory. Is it to be believed 
that the people of Vermont, of New Hampshire, of 
Connecticut or New Jersey would be satisfied that all 
the appellate judicial business of their respective 
States should be taken to a central point in each S ate, 
there to be determined? I think not. Nor do I be¬ 
lieve the people of the several districts contemplated to 
be formed under this article will be satisfied with such 
a central court, although that court might be surround¬ 
ed by a learned bar. They wish to have justice brought 
home to themselves, in their own counties, so that 
their own lawyers, those with whom they are acquaint¬ 
ed and in whom they have confidence, may do their 
business for them. 

But, it is said that this is impossible—that the dis¬ 
trict courts cannot be held in each county. Again, It 


has also been said that this system has, substantially, 
been adopted in the State of New York. Now, the 
territory of New York is far greater than that of Ohio; 
as to population, they exceed us by one million; and 
as to business, New York is the great commercial cen¬ 
tre of the continent. And the litigation of a country 
will, in a great measure, be in proj)oriion to its com¬ 
merce. The litigation of New York greatly exceeds i 
that of Ohio. But they do not find it impossible, in 
that State, to hold this court, or one simlar to it in each | 
county of the State. Under their new constitution they | 
have provided by law that a supreme court—a court like j 

this contemplated district court—shall be held annually | 

in each county of the State, save and except in one par- i 

ticular county, which I believe has been lately organ- | 

ized. And if, in that State, the same number of judges 
can go into each county, and do the legal business of ' 
the State, the same can be done in this State. It 
seems to me, that men can labor here as well as men i 
in the State of New York; and if we can consent to 
enjoy and adopt the provisions of their constitution and 
laws, in other respects, why may we not do it in this? 

I do not wish, however, to see this provision placed in | 

the new constitution, but I wish it to be so arranged I 

that the Legislature shall have authority to provide in ^ 
this respect, as the people may direct, and the intei'ests 
of the State may require. ^ 

The gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery,] 
seems to think, that the old constitution must have been 
framed by New England men, who were very much 
attached to the county system. Flo wever this may be. 
it is certain that it was not framed by a majority of the 
eastern and northern people. The members of the 
Convention were men from Pennsylvania and the south. 

The judiciary article, was adopted from the system of 
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania policy prevailed in the 
Convention of 1802, in the formation of our present ju¬ 
diciary system; the old judiciary system was boiTowed , 
from Pennsylvania, just as we propose now to borrow 
from New York. 

Now, there may be a great benefit in having these 
nine centers to which the members of the bar shall re¬ 
sort for their social and professional inter-communica¬ 
tions. It may possibly, furnish a good school of in¬ 
struction, and I am willing to do any thing reasonable 
to effect the improvement of the profession, but he 
was not willing to do it at the sacrifice of the interests 
the people. 

Although the gentleman from Franklin has stated 
that when the case is on paper, the client need not be 
required to attend the court in pei’son—this is true, i 
but still parties feel some little anxiety, nay, an intense 
anxiety, as to the result of their business in the hands 
of any court. That anxiety is so strong, so intense, i 
that they will desire to attend upon the court until a 
decision is made. And I think they should be gratifi¬ 
ed. In my opinion, either of the gentlemen from 
FTanklin, [Mr. Stanbery and Mr. Swan,] if suitors in 
court, would be disposed to stand by and see whether 
their fortunes are to be built up or destroyed by the j 
decision of their case. 

But it has been said that this plan of a court in each ' 
county, will require too much labor of the judges. In 
this respect it will be better than our present system. 
There will not be as much labor as the courts have 
been compelled heretofore to perforin. But it is said 
that the judges will have to travel too much, and the 
court will acquire the character of a stirrup court.— 

Let us see what will be the extent of this travel. The 
four judges of the Supreme Court will have to visit 
twenty counties. Heretofore the judges of the same 
court have been compelled to attend in more than forty 
counties. Will it be such a hardship, then, or will it 
be a (Usgrace to the judges, that they shall visit twenty 
counties, or will so much time be taken up in travel- 
ing, that they cannot attend to what business is com- 
ing before them? Let it be remembered, these are 
adjoining counties. In my opinion, there will be but 














CONVENTION REPORTS 


561 


little business for this court, and as far as respects oth¬ 
er mattei’S, that the benefits of a court in each county 
would overbalance the disadvantages and the disgrace 
of being called stirrup men.” 

But I apprehend that this is not a matter which need 
be canned into the constitution. This was a matter of 
conference in the committee, and there was a majority 
in favor of these central courts; other members were 
in favor of having these courts opened in each county, 
and at last it was compromised by an agreement to 
leave the whole matter to the General Assembly ; and 
to this, I believe, the gentleman from Richland assent¬ 
ed. But subsequently at another meeting of the com¬ 
mittee, when that gentleman was not present, the words 
“ in and for ” were inserted; and these are the only 
words which give an indication of choice, one way or 
the other. Notwithstanding these words, 1 was willing 
to sign the report, believing that the General Assembly 
would have the power of ordering these courts to be 
held in every county, and I still think so. I would 
rather the words had never been put there, and I dis¬ 
liked it when it was done ; still, it seemed to me that 
they were not so very objectionable as to require me 
to go against the whole report upon that ground ; nor 
am I now prepared to say that I would go for striking 
out these words. 

As to the proposition made by the gentleman from 
Trumbull, I think that goes to another extreme. One 
extreme is, that these courts shall be holdeu in every 
county: and the other is, that they shall be held only at 
one or two places in each district. His proposition 
goes to declare that they shall be held in each county, 
leaving no discretion to the General Assembly. We 
wish to leave this discretion with the General Assem¬ 
bly. I have no doubt that these courts can be held in 
every county with less than one half the labor which is 
now performed by the judges of the supreme court— 
giving to the members of the bar as much time to argue 
as we have hei’e, and a great deal more —allowing them 
to argue to their hearts’ content. I have no doubt of it. 
But seeing that the time may come when the business 
of the State will increase so much that this business 
could not be done, the Legislature should have the dis¬ 
cretion to restrict this court to districts instead of re¬ 
quiring the court to be held in each county. The evil 
can be corrected by ordinary legislation. 

One of the evils under the old constitution, was, that 
constitution provided, positively, that the supreme 
court should be held in each county of the State, once 
a year. That requirement has been complied with, and 
the consequence has been, that the judges have had— 
to go into each county—sometimes to ride thirty to fif¬ 
ty miles, to attend a court where there was but a sin¬ 
gle case, and that a writ of error, for delay. I would 
therefore leave this discretion with the General Assem¬ 
bly ; and if that body should occasionally think proper 
to have but one court in each district, so be it; and if 
they should think proper to require the court to be held 
in each county, in other cases, so be it. If business 
sufler in consequence of the action of the General As- 
i sembly, a case which we would not naturally think, 

! could not require much argument. But this evil could 
not be corrected. Under the old constitution, provision 
could not be made for holding these courts at some one 
or more points in a cii’cuit, but the court, of necessity, 
must go into each county. Another difficulty, arose 
from the limitation of the number of judges of the su¬ 
preme court. The court had original, as well as appel¬ 
late jui’isdiction, and while this jurisdiction was con¬ 
tinued, as the business increased, it was found that the 
number of judges was not sufficient to transact the bu- 
ness. To relieve the court, this appellate jurisdiction, 
as to matters of fact, was taken away; and since this 
change was made, the business of the court has been 
transacted, and but veiy few cases have been postpon¬ 
ed. I do not say that the business has been transacted 
to the entire satisfaction of parties and lawyers. I have 
found it extremely difficult to decide a case in such a 

86 


manner, as, that both parties will be satisfied. Such a 
thing might happen, occasionally, but it was not com¬ 
mon. Here is one of the reasons why I would let the 
section stand as it is. It is true, I would rather the 
words, “and for,” were not in, but I do not think they 
change the sense of the section so much, but what 
there is still left a discretion to the General Assembly, 
to regulate this business as circumstances may seem to 
require. And this is just the situation in wliich the 
gentleman from Richland wishes to leave it; but he at¬ 
taches more importance to these words than I do: and 
I believe this is the only difference between us. I 
would not make it imperative upon the Legislature to 
say, that these courts should be held only in one or two 
places ill each district, nor that they should be held in 
each county. 

Mr. RANNEY. Does not the plan of your commit¬ 
tee provide for the same number of county judges that 
mine does ? 

Mr. VANCE of Butler. Yes sir, but I have stated 
that if you increase the jui'isdiction of a court you must 
increse the pay of the judge in order to secure the ser¬ 
vices of your best men. 

The question being upon Mr. Ranney’s motion to 
strike out the words “ and for,” and to insert after the 
word “ each ” the words “ of the counties of the,” a 
division of the question was called for and the same turn¬ 
ing upon striking out— 

Mr. MASON said, there were in the committee which 
reported this bill, two opinions touching the question 
of judicial power. A part thought it desirable that 
the the new constitution should provide for a county 
term to be held in every county of the state by this ap¬ 
pellate court. Another portion of the committee did 
not wish peremptorily to command the General As¬ 
sembly to direct by law that this court should hold a 
term in every county of the State as an appellate court. 
There was an ascertained majority in that committee 
in favor of creating District terms as contra-distinguish¬ 
ed from county terms. There was a majority of at 
least one in favor of making it peremptoiy on the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly to establish district terms. That major¬ 
ity was strongly remonstrated with by a respectable 
and a talented minority, who demanded that a provis¬ 
ion should be put into the constitution to establish the 
county term system. The committee therefore, by a 
majority of only one, is divided against a large and 
respectable minority upon a question of mere policy. 
Well, sir, that majority in a spirit of concession and 
compromise agreed to give way and unite with the mi¬ 
nority in inserting in this report a provision by which 
it should be referred to the General Assembly to estab¬ 
lish the one or the other system. And then the minor 
ity, in the same spirit, gave up their will, which was 
to insert in the report a clause making it peremptory 
upon the General Assembly to establish county terms 
in every county, with an appellate jurisdiction. Then 
both sections of the committee with the exception of 
the gentleman from Tnimbull [Mr. Ranney] agreed 
upon the common ground—upon the report presented 
to the Convention. 

The gentleman from Richland [Mr. Kirkwood] re¬ 
presents that opinion which demands a county term 
annually, or oftener, of this appellate court. He says 
nothing, let me be understood, but what is fair and 
honorable—but he says he is afraid of the words now 
proposed to be stricken out,—“and for”—he fears 
they may defeat the object of the compromise, the 
common agreemen of the committee, which was that 
we should leave the whole question to the General 
Assembly. All the gentleman is afraid of is, that the 
Legislature, should our report be adopted, will not 
feel themselves authorized to give a county term 
of this district court. The other members of the 
coujjjriittee believe that such an interpretation as this 
would never be given by the General Assembly.— 
They do not intend or desire that such an inter¬ 
pretation as would prevent the Legislature from giv- 















562 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


iug a county terra of tbe district court, should ever 
be given. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Suppose the matter for the first 
time brought before the Legislature, would not the 
friends of the county terms be met with the declaration 
that the constitution did not contemplate such terms— 
that the court was a court for the district as a whole 
and could not be made a court for a part of it ? 

Mr. MASON. My own individual opinion is, that if 
there were a district term of this district court in every 
county of the district that it would be competent, and 
might be so directed by law—that every county term 
should be a court for the transaction of all district busi¬ 
ness. 

Mr. KIRKW’OOD. If the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Trumbull (to strike out the words and 
for ”) prevails, would it not then be entirely competent 
for the Legislature to do the work you desire? 

Mr. MASON. I suppose that under this clause it 
would be competent for the General Assembly to es¬ 
tablish a system by which district terms, two at least, 
should be held at two or more points in each district, 
the court having appellate jurisdiction. 

Instead of that, the Legislature might direct that the 
county term be held in every county in the State, which 
was the express intention of the committee that they 
should be—they wished and expected that it would be 
so. It was desired by the committee that no iron rule 
should be fixed in the constitution. More than that, I 
suppose it to be constitutionally competent, under a 
clause like the one here reported, to give our northern 
friends who prefer the county term system, their prefer¬ 
ence in as many districts as they will ask for, and also 
to give us, in another portion of the State the district 
term. 

On motion by Mr. SMITH of Warren, the committee 
rose and reported no conclusion; and on motion, the 
Convention adjourned. 


FRIDAY, June 28, 1850. 

8 o’clock, a. m. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Hitchcock. 

Mr. HAWKINS presented two memorials, signed by 
one hundred and twenty ladies of the county of Mor¬ 
gan, praying that “the word male be left out of the 
constitution, and that such provisions shall be therein 
inserted, as shall restore to woman her rights, without 
impairing or in any way abridging those which belong 
to man.” 

Mr. HAWKINS. Before sending tbe memorials to 
the chair, I may be permitted to say, that although I 
may not at this time concur in all the sentiments ex¬ 
pressed in the memorials, I wish to speak on their be¬ 
half, the most respectful consideration on the part of 
this Convention. 

Mr. President, I will say further, that so far as I am 
acquainted with the signers of these memorials, they 
are highly respectable in point of character, and that 
with respect to many of them, they possess moral and 
mental attainments of a very superior order. 

Should this Convention deem it inexpedient to grant 
the prayer of these fair petitioners, I trust they will be 
able to render reasons for their refusal, such as may 
satisfy them that the novelty of the propositions was 
not the cause of their rejection. 

In any event, Mr. President, I tnist that honorable 
gentlemen upon this floor, will treat both the memo¬ 
rials and those wdio have subscribed them, with due 
respect, candor and courtesy; and that if the reasoning 
and arguments of the petitioners are to be overthrown, 
it may be done by other means than a resort to scorn 
and ridicule. 

The petitions were, on his motion, committed to 
the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects. 

Mr. WOODBURY presented the petition of Edward 
V. Fenton and 81 other citizens of the county of Ash¬ 
land, praying that a provision be inserted in the new 
constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from passing 


any law whereby the right to sell intoxicating drinks 
shall be granted to any one, or the traffic therein be in 
any manner legalized. 

Referred to the select committee on the subject of 
retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. CHAMBERS presented the petition of John 
Oldham and 105 other citizens of the county of Lick¬ 
ing upon the same subject. 

Referred to the select committee on the subject of 
retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Upon motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into the committee of the whole (Mr. 
Gfeen of Ross in chair) and resumed the considera¬ 
tion of the report on 

THE JUDICIART. 

The question which was under discussion when the 
Convention adjourned being still undisposed of, 

Mr. SWAN. I desire to call the attention of the 
committee for a few moments, to the judiciaiy plan, 
proposed by^ the gentleman from Trumbull, as a sub¬ 
stitute for the report of the committee, and to the re¬ 
marks of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ran- 
NEY.] The gentleman says that the people demand 
a reform in the judicial sy-stem. That is true. The 
gentleman also states as an axiom, and which is also 
tme, that it is important that justice should be adminis¬ 
tered expeditiously, and he debated the jmiuciple very 
full and with much force. Now, the reform which he 
proposes in his plan of a working court—a real work¬ 
ing court, where the amount in controversy is over 
$300—is that it shall sit twice a year instead of three 
times, as in the old plan. I submit whether there is 
consistency between the gentleman’s plan and his prin¬ 
ciples. Every gentleman of the bar knew a case is 
not in general continued until after an issue is made 
up, and under the gentleman’s plan, if the case is con¬ 
tinued, it is continued for six months. 

The gentleman from Trumbull objects to the system 
proposed by the committee, because writs of error and 
appeals in chancery are not directed by the report, to 
be heard in each county. The gentleman objects to 
the proposed sy^stem, and oilers an amendment by 
which all causes appealed should be heard in the coun¬ 
ty in which the case is brought. The plan summitted 
by the gentleman, proposes that writs of error and ap¬ 
peal, if they’- are to be allowed at all under his system, 
shall be tried in three places in the State. In this, too, 
the gentleman’s amendment and his plan are inconsist¬ 
ent. 

The gentleman takes up a strong expression of mine, 
perhaps too strong, in regard to the county court, when 
I spoke of that court becoming, in practice, a judicial 
nuisance, but called for to supply pressing judicial ne¬ 
cessity. The gentleman, however, adopts my lan¬ 
guage—is of the opinion that the county court would 
be a judicial nuisance, but proposes in his plan a coun¬ 
ty court with the same jurisdiction, except that he pu¬ 
rifies it by pouring into the turbid fountain a little pure 
water. In other words, he gives it a jurisdiction of 
three hundred dollars, but retains all the jurisdiction 
proposed by the standing committee in their plan.— 
This is his panacea, and by giving it a jurisdiction 
somewhat greater than a justice of the peace, he ex¬ 
pects to elevate it. 

The plan of the gentleman from Trambull, as I un¬ 
derstand it, is to dispense with associate judges, and 
elect president judges—called in his plan, judges of 
the Supreme Court. He dispenses with the present 
Supreme Court entirely, but he has a Court iji Bank 
sitting in three different places in the State. Although 
he dispenses entirely with the present Supreme Court, 
as now constituted, he still keeps up the Court in Bank, 
having five judges; but he does not give them any ju¬ 
risdiction as a revisory court on the circuit. Now, Mr. 
Chairman, I deem it important that there should be a 
court in which the hurried decisions, which must ne¬ 
cessarily be made during the trial of jury cases, may 
be subject to revision. I have never heard before—I 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


563 


have not heard any member of the committee, except 
the gentleman from Trumbull, claim that such a court 
ought not to exist. 

What kind of a court for the correction of errors will 
you establish—shall it be an eflicieut court—must it be 
one that will have the confidence of the bar and the 
people? Undoubtedly. 

There is perhaps no difficulty whatever in adopting 
apian for the working judges in the trial of jury cases, 
because it can all be done by single judges. But the 
difficulty, I api>rehend, and as my friend from Trum¬ 
bull probably knows, is, to establish such a system 
that a supervision may be had over cases by an efficient 
revisory court, so that the judicial work will be w^eil 
done, and without any unreasonable delay. Now there 
are 87 counties in this State, very diflerent from Eng¬ 
land where there are only 52 shires, or from New York 
where there are only 5!) counties. Having 87 counties, 
and a large number of most important cases arising in 
each of them, wdiich must be revised, how shall it be 
done correctly and expeditiously? If gentlemen can 
devise a more efficient court than this district court, 
proposed in this plan, which may be held twice a year, 
I should be glad to hear from them, and I should be 
glad to adopt their system. 

But before sitting down, I wish to call attention to 
the precise question now before the committee. The 
gentleman from Richland [Mr. Kirkwood] says, that 
under this plan of a district court, a writ of eiTor may 
be issued from the county of Ashtabula to some distant 
county in the same district. If that were the case, 
and the Legislature could not interfere, it would be a 
w'ell founded objection to the district system. What is 
the fact? This court is to sit in and for the district. 
The Legislature unquestionably will have authority to 
say that writs of error issued in the county of Ashtabu¬ 
la, shall be returnable to the same county, or to the 
nearest county in which the court sits if it does not sit 
in each county. This, it seems to me, obviates all this 
difficulty which has been suggested by the gentleman 
from Richland. If that body shall provide that this 
court shall be held in two or more places in each dis¬ 
trict, they can also provide that a writ of error shall be 
returned to the nearest place where the district court 
gits. 

No gentleman upon this floor has stated to this com¬ 
mittee, that this court would be more efficient as a de¬ 
liberative body—more efficient in determining cases 
by going to each county, than by being held in two or 
three counties of the district. The gentleman from 
Trumbull seems to suppose that if the court is held in 
two places only, it will be held at one place in the 
spring, and at another place in the fall. My belief is, 
that this court would be held in two or more places 
semi-annually. I can hardly believe that the gentle¬ 
man from Trumbull is really serious in insisting that 
the Legislature should have no control over this court 
as to the number and places of its sittings, for by the 
gentleman’s plan, the same court is only held in three 
places once in a year. This matter, it seems to me, 
should be left as the article leaves it, with the Legis¬ 
lature. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. Before the vote is taken, 
Mr, Chairman, upon the proposed amendment, I desire 
to submit to the committee a very few remarks upon 
the proposition before us. I have labored under the 
disadvantage of having heard but a very small portion 
of the discussion which has been had touching the 
amendment now pending, and no part of the argument 
of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] and 
the gentleman from Richland, [Mr. Kirkwood,] both 
of whom, as I learn, have advocated it. I understand 
the course of the discussion to have been something 
like this; that although the immediate amendment now 
pending was offered by the gentleman from Trumbull, 

I still, in the discussion of that question, the principal 
argument of the gentleman was in support of the jiro- 
position submitted by him as a substitute for the report 


of the committee on the Judicial Department. The ar¬ 
gument of the gentleman from Richland, as I under¬ 
stand, was confined more particularly to the immediate 
question under consideration. 

I was fully aware, Mr. Chairman, of the hostility, or 
to use a milder expression, of the inconceivable opposi¬ 
tion of my friend from Trumbull, to the report of the 
committee, but with its general arrangement and provi¬ 
sions, I thought the gentleman from Richland was sat¬ 
isfied. I understood him distinctly to admit, the other 
day, when the report was made, and some remarks 
were submitted by the Chairman, explanatory of its 
general character and its distinctive features, that if it 
w'^as within the competence of the Legislature, with 
whom this subject is left, to provide that the district 
court might be lield in each county of the district, that 
then he could cheerfully sustain the report, and that 
what he deemed the doubtful character of that part of 
the section was the only feature of the report to which 
he [Mr. Kirkwood] had any material objection. 

Mr. RANNEY. I said not one word in favor of the 
substitute I moved. I did not intend to offer any re¬ 
marks for the present, and not until it was freely ex¬ 
amined by the chairman of the committee by way of 
contrast, that I deemed it would be in order to move 
the amendment. 

Mr. SMITH. I stand corrected. As I said, I was 
not present during any part of the argument of the 
gentleman from Trumbull, and judged of its purport 
merely from incidental remarks since made by that gen¬ 
tleman, and from what I have heard in reply from the 
gentleman who has just taken his seat, [Mr. Swan,] the 
gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] and the gentle¬ 
man from Butler, [Mr. Vance,] who addressed the 
committee last evening. I had been informed, and I 
supposed correctly informed, that the gentleman from 
Richland had sustained this amendment, which was to 
strike out certain words, and provide that the district 
court should be held in each county in the dtstrict.— 
The gentleman from Richland,! had supposed, favored 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull. I have a very high regard for the gentleman’s 
candor, intelligi'^ce, and his straight-forward honesty, 
because I have had evidence of those qualities of his 
head and heart, in the deliberations of the committee 
who prepared this report. I did hope, that if, upon a 
fair and correct interpretation of that part of the sec¬ 
tion now under consideration, the Legislature had the 
power, and should in its wisdom deem it expedient— 
if an emergency should hereafter arise which would 
demand it—if the administration of justice should de¬ 
mand it—to provide that the district court should be 
held in each county of the district,—that we should 
have had the gentleman from Richland with us in favor 
of this report. I think I am not mistaken in my gen¬ 
eral recollection of the substance of his declaration to 
which I have already I’eferred: it was in relation to 
the doubt existing in his mind as to the proper con¬ 
struction of that part of the section which constituted 
his principal objection to the report. I concurred, Mr. 
Chairman, with the majority of the committee in agree¬ 
ing to and submiting this report for the action of the 
Convention. There are things in it which I could wish 
were otherwise. From the time the committee on the 
judicial department entered upon the discharge of their 
duties until the very day that this report was made, a- 
mongst the various propositions that were submitted 
for our consideration—among all the discussions had in 
committee in relation to this very important subject, 
the construction of the judicial department,—the great¬ 
est difficulty we had to encounter was in regard to the 
holding of this district court: whether it should be 
held in one, two, or three places in the district; or 
whether we should provide imperatively that it should 
be held in every county of the district ? 

Now Mr. Chairman, I am free to confess, that so faiv 
as my judgment was concenied, I should, as a matter 
of expediency, have been in favor of confining the ses- 










564 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


sions of the district court to two or three places in the 
district I believe by such an arrangement, causes 
would be better argued, and more intelligently, delib¬ 
erately and satisfactorily decided. Upon that subject 
the committee were very nearly equally divided. 
Some were in favor of the proposition last named, oth¬ 
ers were against it. Seven members, 1 think, sustain¬ 
ed the proposition of two or three district terms ; six 
were in favor of holding this court in every county. 
It was then proposed as a matter of compromise, 1 
I think by my worthy friend from Geauga [Judge 
Hitchcock,! that the phraseology of the section 
should be such as to leave this matter to the sound 
discretion of the General Assembly. To that propo¬ 
sition the committee agreed, and so it now stands in 

the report. . r , i i 

It was thought that it might safely be lelt to the wis¬ 
dom and intelligence of future legislatures—with full 
knowledge of the public exigencies, the amount of ju¬ 
dicial duties to be discharged by that court, the situa- 
ation of the country, and the interests of the people, 
the comparative amount of business in the several dis¬ 
tricts—to determine, how often that court should sit, 
and "in how many places in each district. I agreed to 
that as a matter of compromise. I was willing so far 
as my action was concerned, to leave it where perhaps 
it properly belongs, to legislative discretion. As a mat¬ 
ter of opinion—as a dictate of my own judgment, I 
believe that if the sessions of this court were conlined 
to some two or three places in the district, although it 
mi^ht, in some instances, be attended with some little 
inconvenience to members of the bar, in following their 
cases into the county where the court was held, yet, as 
a court, it would be more respectable, of higher author¬ 
ity, more competent to discharge its high and important 
trusts, and that its duties would not only be performed 
with more legal ability, but far more satisfactorily to 
ad concerned in the administration oi justice, if its 
sessions M^ere limited to two or three places in each 
district, more time would be afforded—it could be held 
oftener—more time would be had for argument, for ex¬ 
amination of authorities, alid calm deliberation,—with¬ 
out which important causes, involving great principles, 
cannot be properly or satisfactorily determined. In a 
court like this, sitting as an appellate tribunal, the in¬ 
terests of the people require full argument, ample con¬ 
sideration, and consultation—more than a court travel¬ 
ing from county to county, or performing “ equestrian 

exercises.” ^ • 

But on that point there was adiflerence of opinion— 
we were almost equally divided; and after laboriously 
and candidly discussing the matter, and laboring assid¬ 
uously in committee for some five or six weeks, endeav¬ 
ouring to arrive at a uniformity of opinion, and to pre¬ 
sent as perfect a report as possible, the report now un¬ 
der consideration was agreed to by ten of the thirteen 
members as a compromise. The majority could have 
incorporated into it, that feature which I have been 
discussing. We declined doing so. A very high res¬ 
pect for the opinion of the minority dictated a milder, 
and I trust a wiser course. We determined to leave it 
to the General Assembly to determine how often, and 
in how many places in each district this court shall be 
held. We establish in the constitution no absolute, 
unbending, unalterable rule. I feel disposed to adhere 
to that compromise according to its letter and spirit. 
For the object of this committee and of this Conven¬ 
tion is one and the same. 

It is to furnish to the people of the State a fair, sound, 
correct and practicable judicial system—one through 
the instrumentality of which, justice can be properly 
and judicially administrated. The difficulty is, how 
are we to attain the end? We have the same great ob¬ 
ject in view, we only differ in the means of attaining it. 
Gentlemen of the committee, and in this Convention 
whose opinions are entitled to great respect, think, it 
would be a great improvement upon the system, if 
we should require by an express provision in the con¬ 


stitution that this appellate court should sit twice a 
year in every county in the district. 1 think, and many 
others think that such a provision should not be incor¬ 
porated into the constitution. I believe that if it were 
confined to two or three places in the distiict it would 
be better—that the cases brought before the court for 
adjudication, would be more fully argued, and correct¬ 
ly determined—and the the decisions of the court more 
satisfactory to community, and to the parties concern¬ 
ed. Where different opinions exist—where it is impos¬ 
sible to reconcile these conflicting opinions—where 
gentlemen come forward, some in favor of one propo¬ 
sition and some in favor of another, what is to be 
done? Some of us must yield up our extreme opin¬ 
ions—there must be a point where these extreme opin¬ 
ions must meet, or nothing can be done. Is it not ad¬ 
visable then to compromise, when you can do so with¬ 
out any sacrifice of principle ? And as a general rule 
are not such compromises correct ? I believe it is so 
in the present case. 

Whatever may be my individual opinion or judgment 
in relation to the propriety of confining the sessions of 
this court to two or more places in the district, I am in 
favor of sustaining this report and leaving it to the wis¬ 
dom and intelligence of the Legislature hereafter, to 
determine whether it shall be held in two or more pla¬ 
ces, or whether it shall be held in every county in the i 
district. The immediate question now pending, is to I 
strike out, in the third section, 8th line, the words, , 

“and for,” and substitute, “every county in the dis- ' 

trict.” The section, as reported, provides: 

“ District courts shall be held in and for each district by the 
judges of the common pleas and one of the justices of the su¬ 
preme court, any three of whom shall be a quorum, as often in 
each year, and at such places in said district, as may be provided 
by law.” ' 

Now, it will be seen from the first section of this re¬ 
port. that the district court, although it is to be held i 
by three judges of the common pleas, and by one of the 
justices of the supreme court, is to all intents and pur¬ 
poses, a separate and distinct court. In the first sec- ' 
tion, it is provided that thejudicial power of the State, ' 
both as to law and equity, shall be vested in the supreme i 
court, the district court, court of common pleas, and ! 
the county court. In the third section, where provi¬ 
sion is made for constituting and holding the district 
courts, it is provided that district courts shall be held 
“in and for each district” by the judges of the com- j 
mon pleas and one of the justices of the supreme court, 1 
&c. It is therefore a district court, although held by ! 
the judges of the other courts—it is a court “ in and j 
for the districtit was so intended by the committee: | 

as to that, there is no doubt. I do not see, therefore, ' 
Mr. Chairman, any propriety in striking out the words I 
“ in and for.” If those words are not absolutely ne- j 
cessaiy, striking them out, would, in some degree, in j 
my opinion, mar the symmetry of the report. These ! 
words, in order to preserve the symmetiy and correct¬ 
ness of language of this report, it seems to me, should 
be retained. Should it be held in every county, it is ' 
still a court “ in and for the district;” and it is right 
and proper in the discussion of this proposition, to do 
it understandingly—to arrive at no improper conclu¬ 
sions, and to carry no measure by indiscretion, a mis¬ 
understanding of terms, an erroneous interpretation, 
or exposition of language, or by giving a construction 
to the sentence which its words will not warrant. 

Taking into consideration, therefore, the first section 
of this report in connection with this part of the third 
section, my construction is that this is a separate and 
distinct court—that from a fair interpretation of the 
language, as it now stands, w^hether it is to be held in 
one or more places in thei^district or in every county 
therein, it is still a court for the district, and as such 
would have jurisdiction throughout the district. It 
would, in my opinion, be competent for this court, sit¬ 
ting in any one county, to dispose of causes brought 
into it from another county of the same district; and a 
writ of error might be issued, I presume, directed to 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 565 


the common pleas court of any county within the tli.s- 
trict; or, in other words, this article would authorise 
the Legislature to confer upon this court such power, 
if deemed advisable—and such case might be deter¬ 
mined in another county, I suppose this to be the 
correct construction of this section ; and we might as 
well meet it upon its fair and legal interpretation ; and 
I have no disposition to give it a dilferent consti-iiction 
than the one fairly to be drawn from the language of 
the section. As has been well remarked by my friend 
from Franklin, is it to be supposed that, when this 
w’hole matter is left to legislative discretion, that the 
representatives of the people will not work out the 
system, and adopt such measures in putting it into op- 
. eration as will afford the greatest convenience to those 
who have business to transact in this court? Why, 
then, should we, in a matter of this kind, involving le¬ 
gislative discretion, adopt a fixed and absolute consti¬ 
tutional rule, and direct that the district court shall be 
held once or thrice a year in every county, when it 
may hereafter be ascertained that it would^e undesi¬ 
rable, unnecessary, and wholly impracticable, without 
Tiestroying the ellicacy of the system ? Why is it ne- 
cessaiy for us, as a Convention, by a provision in the 
constitution, to [)rovide imperatively that this court 
shall be held in every county ? Let us trust that to 
legislative wisdom and discretion. Let us leave some 
power with those who are to come after us, upon a 
matter of convenience and mere expediency. Let us 
deposit this power where I conceive, with due defer¬ 
ence to gentlemen who advocate this amendment, it 
properly belongs. Let us act in a liberal spirit of com¬ 
promise, and leave the Legislature to determine here¬ 
after, as the wants and interests of the public may de¬ 
mand, the times at which, and the places in which, this 
court shall be held, instead of determining, by an un¬ 
bending rule in advance, that it shall go into every 
county, or be confined to one or more particular places 
in each district. 1 fully believe that the adoption of a 
wise and practicable judiciary system for the State of 
Ohio is one of the most important objects for which 
this Convention has assembled. 

I know, Mr. Chairman, that within a few years past, 
other questions have arisen calling, perhaps imperative¬ 
ly, upon the Legislature of the State to authorize the 
call of a convenlion for the revision of the constitution. 
But, sir, what has been the great leading design—the 
all important subject that has been spoken of and dis¬ 
cussed for years past in relation to the propriety and 
necessity of a convention ? Sir, it was to reform — to 
amend—rather sirto present to the people of this State, 
a complete judicial system. We have all suffered un¬ 
der the inconveniences of the present system. It has 
been found wholly inadequate. It does not possess suf¬ 
ficient expansion. On this subjeet there can be no dif¬ 
ference of opinion. Notwithstanding the defects and 
total inadequacy of the present system, I admit, and I 
speak of it with pride and pleasure, that the judges of 
the supreme court have discharged duties and perform¬ 
ed labors, almost beyond the power of man to per¬ 
form. Still Mr. Chairman, we all know it is a matter 
of general remark—a fact as notorious as any other, 
that the people of the country, members of the bar, 
and litigant parties have been dissatisfied—irrecon- 
cileably dissatisfied, with the organization of that court 
and particular with that part of the system requiring 
the judges of the court to travel into and hold a court 
once a year in every county in the State and then pro¬ 
perly to dispose of the business when such a task was 
impracticable. I submit to every member of the pro¬ 
fession in this Convention—I submit to every man w'ho 
has a suit in court—I submit to every one at all conver¬ 
sant with judicial proceedings and who knows any 
thing in regard to the manner in which the judicial bu¬ 
siness of the country has been conducted, whether our 
judicial tribunals have been able to carry out that in¬ 
junction of our constitution which requires that justice 
should be administered without denial or delay ? Ido 


not mean that the judges of the supreme court have 
not been talented, competent, and laborious in the dis¬ 
charge of their duties; but I do say that from the very 
nature of the system, it has been utterly impossible for 
that court to discharge its duties satisfactorily, either to 
the people, to suitors, to the bar, or to themselves. 

Whatever may be the character or amount of busi¬ 
ness, the judges of the supreme court are required once 
every year to go into every county in the State, and 
w’hatever may be the number of causes on the docket, 
there is a specific time, exceedingly limited it is true, 
within which to dispose of them, and in that time it 
must be done. As a general rule, causes cannot be ar¬ 
gued for want of time. The bar are compelled as a 
matter of necessity, to submit their cases to the court 
without argument. The court have no time carefully 
to examine authorities and deliberate upon the case. 
Every member of the profession who has business and 
every member of the profession knows how much en¬ 
lightened arguments, time for examination and delib¬ 
eration conduce to the correct administration of justice. 
What is the object of a judiciary and a judicial system? 
What great objects are sought to be attained ? The 
first is, that justice shall be duly administered, the law 
properly expounded; and the second is, that those in¬ 
terested should be satisfied that their causes have been 
determined according to law. It is a very important 
matter in my estimation, that the public, suitors, and 
those representing them, should be intelligently satis¬ 
fied that the law has been properly administered, and 
their cases correctly decided. Without a feeling of this 
kind, the moral force of the court is gone, aud that sat¬ 
isfaction never will be given, when the judicial tribu¬ 
nal has not time properly to hear aud consider a case. 
Well, Mr. Chairman, the supreme court comes into 
your county. You have an important case before the 
court, a case in chancery, involving intricate questions 
of fact—important legal principles, and a large amount 
of property—a case which, if properly argued, would 
occupy a whole day. There may be ten, fifteen or 
twenty cases of a similar kind, and a day and a half 
within which to dispose of them. What is to be done ? 
These cases must be submitted without any oral argu¬ 
ment. When submitted, they must, of necessity, be 
hastily determined, and in this mode a veiy large pro¬ 
portion of the litigated causes in your supreme court— 
causes of the last importance to the parties, are annual¬ 
ly disposed of. You are compelled, as a matter of ne¬ 
cessity, when the court comes into your county with 
twenty or thirty cases on the docket, to submit your 
cases to the court without the benefit of an argument. 

Is your client satisfied ? Are you satisfied ? If the 
case should perchance be determined in your favor, 
why then you are satisfied, but the other party is not. 
But suppose that you have, upon full examination, full 
confidence in your cause, and in your ability to main¬ 
tain it by sound reason and solid argument, sustained 
by authority—there is no time to hear the argument, 
there is no time to consider it if made, your case ]S 
submitted and decided against you, you will never be 
satisfied; and unless this Convention can remedy this 
most glaring defect—unless some other system be 
adopted more conducive to the great ends of justice, 
our assembling here will be a splendid failure. _ I de¬ 
sire this Convention to make the proper correction. 

This court which we now propose to create, stands 
in the place of our present supreme court. I wish it 
so constituted, that when cases are taken there from 
the court of common pleas, by writ of error, by appeal, 
or certiorari, that eveiy member of the profession re¬ 
presenting his client, will not only have a right to ar¬ 
gue his case calmly and thoroughly, upon the law and 
upon the facts as they appear ol record, but the neces¬ 
sary time in which to argue it; and when argued, I 
desire that the court should not decide it on horseback 
or in the hurry of leaving for another county. I wish 
them to have ample time to weigh and consider of the 
arguments on both sides—carefully to examine the au* 














566 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


tliorilies referred to—to determine their application to 
the case, and deliberately and in an enlightened man¬ 
ner decide the case. Such decisions—decisions which 
command the i-espect of an enlightened community, 
and of an intelligent bar, cannot be made hastily. A 
hurried glance at the papers—a bare reference to the 
points made in argument, a slight examination of the 
authorities referred to, will not suffice, there must be 
time an opportunity to read, examine, compare and 
determine the application of the authorities which have 
been read, to the case in argument, before the court. 
That is the kind of court which wo should have, and 
which the public interests demand. 

Sir, I again repeat, that I do not, in these remarks, 
derogate from the merits of the judges of the supreme 
court. I know that they have done every thing that 
could reasonable be required, and much more than 
could have been expected under such a system. But, 
sir, it is owing to the defects of the miserable system, 
and you can never get along with it. It is the system 
I Oppose—not the occupants of the bench. I agree 
entirely in the remarks which have been submitted by 
my honorable friends from Franklin and Butler, in re¬ 
gard to the importance of this district court. When 
properly constituted, and its terms judicially arranged 
by the Legislature, it will constitute a most impor¬ 
tant element in this system. If it be practicable, in 
view of the correct and enlightened administration of 
justice, that this court should be held in every county. 
It will be so held; and I would desire that it might be— 
I doubt its practicability, however. By leaving this to 
legislative discretion, the sessions of this court will be 
entirely under the control of that body. In some dis¬ 
tricts where the population is dense, it might be the 
desire, and comport with the convenience of members 
of the profession and the parties concerned, that the 
Legislature should provide that the court should 
only be held in two or three pla('.es in the district. 
The Legislature could provide that these sessions might 
be held alternately in different places in the district, 
so as to afford the greatest accommodation to the bar 
and the people. When I speak of the accommodation 
of the bar, I also mean the accommodation of suitors 
who have business in that court. I think that if the 
district court should be properly arranged—if the 
judges be the right kind of men—honest and intelligent, 
and the terms oi that court be so regulated by law, as 
to afford ample time to the court to hear and decide 
the causes brought into it, that it will be one of the 
most important courts in the system. A great amount 
of business which would otherwise go into the court 
in bank, will stop there. If counsel are permitted to 
argue their cases—if the court have time to deliberate 
upon them—time to examine authorities—time to 
consult and duly deliberate, the decisions of that court 
will be of a high order, and entitled to profound res¬ 
pect: in very many instances the additional expense 
and inconvenience of the removal of the cause to the 
court in bank, will be rendered unnecessary. Instead 
of counsel being compelled to follow their cases to 
bank, I believe that a very large proportion of the bu¬ 
siness, that now finds its way to the court in bank, 
would be determined by your district court, and in a 
manner satisfactory to all concerned, and creditably 
to the court. Is not a reformation of this kind a great 
disideratum ? I repeat my settled conviction, that upon 
a full and fair examination of the subject, this intermedi¬ 
ate court will form an exceedingly important feature of 
this system. 

In some of the districts that may be formed, there 
may be no necessity for the court to be held in every 
county. There may be counties where there is but 
one case to be determined—in others there may be 
more. Why then will not the committee accede to the 
compromise made in the committee on the .Judiciary? 
Cannot the matter be safely left with the Legislature? 
Circumstances, which might not suit the convenience 
of the people of one part of the State, might exist in- 


another part, rendering precise uniformity in the terms ^ 
of the court highly inexpedient. There may be coun¬ 
ties where there will be no case for that court. I do 
not believe that public interest, or sound policy de- | 
mands this amendment. _ 

I think that matter should be left to the future exi- w 
gencies of the country, the state of business in each i! 
district, and the amount of judicial labor to be per- i 
formed. I think that this ought to be left to the Legis- I 
lature, who will better understand the various interests 
of the State for twenty or thirty years to come, than , 
we possibly can. Let that body accommodate its leg- I 
islation to the emergencies of the time, and the amount : 
of judicial duties to be performed at the time it is call- i 
ed upon to act. It is now left to legislative control; 
let us not, by an unwise amendment, hazard the use¬ 
fulness and efficiency of the system. j 

It may be found, upon examination hereafter, that 
this court, without impairing its efficiency, can be held 
in every county—let the General Assembly judge of 
that. If practicable and expedient, it will go there; 
until it is both expedient and practicable, it should not 
go there. 

Sir, I am therefore unwilling to engraft into the con- , 
stitution a provision of this kind, involving a mere ' 
question of legislative expediency, and making it an 
unalterable principle, whatever may be the future exi¬ 
gencies of the country. j 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. I do not propose, 
Mr. Chairman, to say a great deal upon this subject, i 
in addition to what I have already said. The case re¬ 
solves itself into a very simple question. The effect of I 
the amendment, if adopted, will be, in reality, to leave 
the section just as those who oppose the amendment, 
say it is now—it will leave the matter of the loca- , 
tion of these courts, entirely with the General Assem¬ 
bly. I go upon the hypothesis, that the only question 
now really before the Convention, is upon striking out 
these words. One gentleman contends, that the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly will be untrammelled in this respect, if 
these words should not be stricken out ; and another 
gentleman thinks, that if these words remain in the 
section, they will give a kind of indication to the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, that they shall pursue a particular i 
course; and therelore, he wishes to have them strick- I 
en out, in order that the General Assembly may be I 
wholly untrammelled. Well, if it be true, as insisted ' 
upon by the gentleman who last addressed the com- ] 
mittee, that the General Assembly would be untram- ' 
melled, as the section now stands, why should he in¬ 
sist so strongly upon retaiuing these words? Why 1 
not accommodate gentlemen by striking them out? If 
gentlemen say that the General Assembly would be 1 
untrammelled by these words, and are sincere in their 
declarations, that they would not be prevented there¬ 
by from doing as they may think proper; do they fear I 
that they would fail to act with propriety, if these ' 
words were stricken out—if it were left entirely with 
the legislative body to form such courts as they may 
think proper under the constitution ? It is for this 
reason, that I have heretofore remarked, that I would 
rather these words were not here; but having signed 
the report I shall vote against striking them out.— 
But if they should be stricken out, I hope the commit¬ 
tee will go against inserting the words proposed by 
the gentleman from Trumbull, for that would be going 
to the other extreme. 

Now, here is all the question; yet we have been two 
days—and this is the third—engaged in debating it; 
and the whole argument has been, whether the district 
or the county system would make the most acceptable 
court. These arguments would have been well enough 
if addressed to the General Assembly, upon the con¬ 
sideration of a law to be enacted under this provision 
of the constitution, for the purpose of establishing either 
of these courts; but (I say it with deference) they have 
nothing to do with the subject now under considera¬ 
tion, if we do not take into view the amendment offered 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


567 


by the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swan] which 
did open this field of argument; but that has been re¬ 
moved. . 

A great deal of time has been taken up with the 
proposition of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. 
Ranney,] which is entirely out of place at this time. I 
do not say that the time may not come when it will be 
proper to consider that proposition, but that is not now. 
I had hoped that we might be able to go on and per¬ 
fect the report in the ordinary way; and then, if a mo¬ 
tion were made to substitute any thing else, which 
might be prefei’red by any gentleman, it might be left 
to the argument and to the committee, or the Conven¬ 
tion, to decide whether this or that proposition would 
secure the better system. I may be mistaken, but it 
does seem to me that time has been consumed upon 
questions which had nothing to do with the subject. 
The simple question is: “ Shall these words be strick¬ 
en out ?” ^ It we decide this question in the affirmative 
we leave it with the General Assembly to do as they 
think proper. But if we insist upon retaining the 
words, then are we opposed to giving to the Legisla¬ 
ture this discretion ? The tenacity with which gentle¬ 
men adhere to these words, leads me to think there are 
more virtue in them than I had at first supposed. But 
let the question be decided either way, if we are to 
take the argument of the gentleman from Warren, [Mr. 
Smith,] it makes no kind of difference. I repeat, that 
it seems to me, that we might dispose of this subject 
without further argument upon this question: that we 
go on and perfect the report, and then it would 
be time enough to consider any better system which 
might be presented. 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll. I do not wish to inflict a 
speech upon the committee, but to make a few sugges¬ 
tions. The question is upon striking out the words “ in 
and for,” in the eighth line of the third section. Large 
latitude has been taken in this discussion, and it is, per¬ 
haps, very proper that it should be so. Still, I do not 
know but it I had consulted my own feelings, I should 
have myself sat still, and remained without saying one 
word. It has been claimed by at least one gentleman 
upon this floor, that to leave these words in, or strike 
them out would amount to the same thing; and that it 
would still leave to the General Assembly, the power 
to control and regulate the times and places for holding 
the district courts. Now, if a respectable portion of 
this body should prefer having these words stricken 
out, and if, upon striking them out, the report would 
be left in the same condition without them, I appeal to 
those gentlemen who are opposed to striking out, 
whether it would be asking too much of them, to leave 
the words out ? 

I hold this doctrine, Mr. Chairman, that the State 
government owes it to the people of Ohio, to carry 
justice home to their own doors—that it is the duty of 
the State to create courts of justice, and furnish judges 
to visit the different counties of the State, and hold 
their courts as near as may be, to those who are enga¬ 
ged in litigation in difterent portions of the State. It 
is much easier for the State to furnish an adequate 
number of judges to go into the different counties and 
hold their courts, than it would be for the parties enga¬ 
ged in litigation and their witnesses and counsel, to 
travel over the State to find a court. I am. for myself, 
somewhat attached to the old system, and would like 
to see it continued, with suitable amendments. And, 
sir, ns other gentlemen have wandered upon this sub¬ 
ject, I hope I may be pardoned for doing so only for a 
few minutes. I would say that, if we were to double 
the present number of supreme judges, and assign to 
each his particular district, so that they might hold 
their courts at the same time in the different counties, 
create a county judge, and give to him the probate bu¬ 
siness of the county, and the power to issue some of 
those writs which the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. 
Sawyer] does not like to hear the name of, I think 
that with the court of common pleas, (dispensing with 


associate judges,) might answer all the purposes and 
ends of justice sought to be attained by the systems 
under consideration. 

But, however this may be, I am willing to leave 
this matter to be settled by the General Assembly. It 
has been said, that the main cause which has brought 
this body together, was the necessity of a reform in 
the judicial system of the State. But what has been 
the cause which induced this necessity? If the const!- 
tuition of 1802 , instead of placing any portion of the 
judicial organizations of the State beyond the control 
of the General Assembly, they had merely prescribed, 
that the judiciary of the State shall consist of a su¬ 
preme court, a court of common pleas, and such other 
courts as the General Assembly may create and organ¬ 
ize from time to time, we should have had no necessity 
now for a convention to reform the judiciary. 

And now, I ask, will gentlemen tie up the hands of 
the General Assembly, so that they shall not be able 
to provide, in future, for the increasing wants of litiga¬ 
tion which are sure to be induced by the growing in¬ 
terests and commerce of the State ? Surely they will 
not. 

Now, it seems to me that if we leave this an open 
question, so that the General Assembly may either in¬ 
crease the number of districts, or add to the number of 
judges ; and that they may, if they deem it necessary, 
send the district court into eveiy county ; it seems to 
me there could be no objection to this course. If this 
be the purpose of the friends of the motion to strike 
out, I shall certainly go for it; but I shall not go for in¬ 
serting the words proposed in their place. As for those 
gentlemen who have made this report, if we take this 
course with reference to it, it seems to me that it can¬ 
not be said that we are treating them cavalierly, or even 
with the least disrespect; because they, themselves, 
have insisted, that, leaving the section as it is, or stri¬ 
king out the words proposed, the construction of the 
section would be the same. However, if there is a 
difference of opinion about the construction of these 
words, and both parties are in favor of the same doc¬ 
trine, it does seem to me, that, in all conscience, the 
friends of retaining them ought not to stand upon the 
mere techuie-alities of the report; but that they ought 
to fix it, so that those who are to come after us, in the 
General Assembly, may have no doubt about the true 
and proper construction of the section under consider¬ 
ation. 

Mr WOODBURY. We have been told that this re¬ 
port is the result of a protracted investigation by the 
judiciary committee, which comprehends and combines 
all the legal talent of the Convention. All this I am 
willing to admit. I know that these gentlemen are 
placed upon an eminence from which they can look 
down upon a large portion of those who belong to the 
legal profession, in this Convention; but I am sorry 
that they have found it necessaiy to refer to other 
members of the profession as half-lawyers and petti¬ 
foggers, with a view of stopping all opposition to their 
report; nevertheless, I am prepared to say, here, in 
my place, that any opposition of this kind is not going 
to prevent me from the performance of my duty— 

Mr. SWAN, (interrupting.) I do not know of any 
gentleman of the standing committee who has made 
use of such language as this. At least, I^ desire to re¬ 
pel it, as far as regards myself. I disclaim the use ot 
such language, or any insinuation of the kind. I could 
wish that the gentleman would give names. 

Mr. WOODBURY. I am not mistaken in the posi¬ 
tion which I have taken. 

Mr. SWAN. I desire the names of the members to 
whom the gentleman refers. 

Mr. WOODBURY. I may say, then, that I have re¬ 
ferred to the gentleman from Belmont, and the gentle¬ 
man from Franklin. 

Mr. SWAN. Does the gentleman allude to me ? 

Mr. WOODBURY. I do sir, as one of the gentlemen. 

Mr. SWAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am astonished 








568 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


that any gentleman upon this floor would imagine any 
such thing to have been said by me. It is certainly an 
imputation upon the character of any member to make 
such an accusation. And if the accusation were true 
it would deserve the indignity of expulsion from the 
body. If I have made use of any language that con¬ 
veyed any such imputation, I am wholly unconscious 
of it. 

Mr. WOODBURY. I stand corrected. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren (interposing). As an inivid- 
ual not implicated in this matter, I am willing to state 
that I was present, and heard the remarks of the gen¬ 
tleman from Belmont and the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin, and, according to my recoirection, these gentlemen 
made no such expressions, and I do not believe they 
thought any such thing. 

Mr. WOODBURY. I suppose sir, I am mistaken 
in my position. I so understood the remark; and when 
it was referred to by the gentleman from Trumbull, I 
understood the gentleman from Belmont to state, again, 
that he expected to meet with opposition from half-way 
lawyers, and pettifoggers, but said he did not intend to 
include the gentleman from Trumbull which led me to 
conclude that part of this committee were intended. 

Mr. KENNON. That is not my language, Mr. Chair¬ 
man. I deny it, right square out. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WOODBURY. I am glad to hear it; but I am 
also happy to find that I have not been entirely alone 
in my understanding of the term and the allusion. But 
I take the gentleman’s explanation. 

Mr. KENNON. I have no recollection of using those 
terms at all. 

Mr. WOODBURY. They were used in reference to 
those members who are desirous of extending the ju¬ 
risdiction of the county courts. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE (interposing,) The gentle¬ 
man from Belmont also qualified, by saying, that he 
did not mean to apply those terms to any member of 
the convention. 

Mr. WOODBURY. I did not hear that, neither do 
I wish to be excluded or separated from that class of 
of half lawyers and low pettifoggers to which the gen¬ 
tleman refers. I am quite sure that most of my con¬ 
stituents will be found to be of that class so far as op¬ 
position to the report of the judiciary committee is con¬ 
cerned. 

Mr. KENNON [in his seat; to Mr. Humphreville.] 
Did I say that much, sir ? [Merriment.] 

Mr. WOODBURY. If it was so said, I did not under¬ 
stand it. When the gentleman from Trumbull accused 
the gentleman from Belmont, the gentleman replied 
that he did not refer to him. What, then, remained, 
but for the rest ol us to conclude that we were certain¬ 
ly referred to ? As some of the committee were told 
that they were not meant, it left the inference clear, to 
me, that others were. ’ 

Mr. KIRKWOOD (interposing.) I find myself some- 
thing in the same category with the gentleman from 
Ashtabula. [Mr. Woodbury,] that is, I am one of the 
members of the bar, who have not favored this report; 
but the gentleman certainly did not place the lawyers 
in the Convention in the same position with those out 
of doors ? He certainly excused those in the Conven¬ 
tion, from being amongst the lawyers whom he esteem¬ 
ed as a disgrace to the profession. 

Mr. KENNON (in his seat, laughingly.) I deny it 
all—square out. ^ 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I wish to say, further, that I do 
not think these gentleman have the power to assio-n 
me my place. That has been done by the peoMe 
amongst whom I live—in my own neighborhood; and 
I am willing any gentleman should inquire of them, if 
he would know my standing. 

Mr. WOODBURY. lam glad to learn that I have 
been mistaken. 

I propose, now, if I may be permitted to go on, to 
review some of the features of this report—and first, 
with regard to the supreme court proposed to be estab¬ 


lished by this article. It is admitted—indirectly, to 
be sure—by the friends of the report, that this court 
will not be of any great benefit to the people. They 
assert that it will not do much business, because of the 
district courts, which have the same appellate juris¬ 
diction, and will stop nearly all that business. The 
veiy reason why the business will not leave these dis¬ 
trict courts, is, because causes will be decided better 
there than before the supreme court; and the only 
reason which has been advanced for the existence of 
the supreme court, at all, is, that it may give a sort of 
universality to the decisions: and so the people are to 
pay the salary of these four judges, for this purpose 
alone. 

This would give a state of things precisely similar to 
that we uow have. The lawyers now do not take their 
business here, to the court in bank at Columbus, for 
the reasons not only that the expenses would be great¬ 
er, but that they have a better court nearer home. 

Why not then abolish the supreme court entirely ? 
Or, are you going to have a mere paper court? The 
people do not want to pay the expense of this court so 
long as they know their chances for getting justice are 
better before the district courts. Why should a man 
be compelled to take his cause beyond a court which 
is abundantly sufficient for all the ends of justice, to a 
court where the chances of getting justice will be di¬ 
minished as is admitted by its friends? We have one 
good reason, then, why the report in this respect should 
not be adopted. 

But again, we are told that these district courts are 
the courts for the people; and I admit that they would 
be more beneficial than the proposed supreme court. 
But let us look at the principle. Here is a court to be 
established for a particular district, and we have been 
told of a set of learned lawyers which would surround 
this court, as the advisors of the bench—that is, to gov- 
'ern the court. I had supposed, however, that the du¬ 
ties of the judge were, not to take advice of the law¬ 
yers, but to investigate the law and apply it to the facts. 
This, however, we are told, is a court to be advised, 
influenced and controlled by the bar. But who are 
the men to exercise this influence, and what kind of 
influence is it ? This will be found to be an influence 
which will be understood by any young lawyer who 
may happen to appear there, but who also shall happen 
not to be connected with some one of those lawyers 
who are to ho^d this controlling position, and he will 
soon find that he must either give up his business to 
them, or go out of court, right or wrong. Men must 
not suppose there is no competition amongst lawyers. 
Whenever a young lawyer shall appear alone in one of 
these courts, his case must come under the advice of 
these learned lawyers, although he may know more 
of the law, and necessarily be must know more of the 
case, than those who have never investigated the case; 
still, upon their advice he must rely for a decision. 

Mr. NASH, (interposing.) Who has made this ar¬ 
gument about submitting a case to the lawyers ? 

Mr. WOODBURY. I have said no such thing; but I 
have been told by the friends of the report, that they 
were to have a bar which should exercise an influence 
upon the court; at least it was the object to have a 
splendid bar, that would hold in check the court, and 
have a great influence upon its decisions; and if these 
lawyers are to hold this influence, the gentleman or 
any person can judge whether they will use it to oper¬ 
ate in favor of or against themselves. I sj^eak of their 
interlerence only with those having cases in charge. 

But we have been told that if the district courts 
were required to go into every county, it would not 
only increase expenses, but the thing itself would be 
impossible. In reply to this, the gentleman from Cfe- 
auga [Mr. Hitchcock] has told us that they could go 
into eve^ county, and the judges would have abun¬ 
dance ot time. I had, myself, supposed they would 
not, and therefore I voted for increasing the number 
judges. However, I care nothing about the ex- 



















569 


CONVENTION REPOUTS. 


pewse of a judiciary, provided we have au efRcieiit ju¬ 
diciary,—such a judiciary as may render justice, and, 
at the same time, be brought near to every man’s house, 
and no more expense than necessary. 

The courts held at one or two places in the district, 
would iuci'ease the expenses of litigation greatly be¬ 
yond what they would be if they were held in evei7 
county, because of the expense of traveling and atten¬ 
dance. * It is evident that liiere would be fewer cases 
to be heard in which the attending attonieys had no 
interest, if the court were held in every county, and 
litigants would not have to wait so long. The only 
trouble about holding these courts in every county 
would be the traveling expenses of the judges; raid I 
apprehent the judges would be satisfied about that if 
we^gWe them the salary we now contemplate. Why 
then should any gentleman object to the county system 
on the score of expense? If gentlemen went in en¬ 
tirely for a cheap system, they might set up a mere 
court of arbitration, and the expenses to be paid by 
the parties. But we want no such thing. We want 
an efficient judiciary system, such as will command 
the best talent in the State. 

But there is another argument which gentlemen have 
used in favor of this report, as they have told us that 
the lawyers in their districts were in favor of it. In 
reply io these gentlemen I would say, that we are es¬ 
tablishing a court for the people, and not for the law¬ 
yers. It is the business of the people which we have 
to do, and not our own. It is from them that we ex¬ 
pect to get business, and not from each other. It is not 
often that we see an attorney involved in any litigation 

of his own. • i i i 

He was proceeding to advert again to the undue and 
overbearing influence of the senior members of the bar, 
and also to the application of the term “ pettifogger,” 
to the opposers of the judiciary committee report, when 

Mr. NASH called the gentleman to order, and said : 
if this course of remarks were persisted in, he should 
call upon the gentleman to specify, and say to whom his 
allusions were made. 

Mr. KENNON said: Perhaps something more spe¬ 
cific was due from him ; he had never made any such 
reference to any gentleman of the committee, as had 
been referred to in the remarks of the gentleman from 
Ashtabula. He denied that he had ever uttered a sin¬ 
gle sentence here, with reference to what was the 
practice in the courts, or that he had said a word about 

pettifoggers,” or anything else implied in the charge. 

Mr. WOODBURY. Any man who had paid atten¬ 
tion to the workings of this kind ot influence upon the 
minds of others, could not be insensible of the great 
evils and mischiefs which it could accomplish by con¬ 
trolling the decisions in court. 

It made those decisions to depend upon a mere mat¬ 
ter of chance. If you are on the side of that influence, 
you can get justice; but woe to you, if you trust your 
case to the hands of a young lawyer, who happens to 
be without the pale of that influence. This was one 
of his objections to the system reported by the standing 
committee. 

But he had still another and a stronger objectoin to 
this report. It had been referred to by the gentleman 
from Trumbull. But it was equally applicable, both 
to the system reported by the committee and that re¬ 
ported by the gentleman from Trumbull himsell. This 
was the difficulty to which he had before referred—the 
unreasonableness of authorizing a court of appeals, to 
which all cases shall be removed from the coiinty in 
which they are first tried. We had been told by the 
aentleman from Franklin, that four judges would lead 
to greater certainty in their decisions, than any other 
number; but it was his opinion, that a single judge 
would ensure the greater certainty about a decision; 
and that, as you increased the number you would in¬ 
crease the uncertainty, that is of uniformity. 

With reference to the county courts of this system, it 
they wmre to be of the kind described by one of the 


members of the committee, [Mr. Ranney] he thought 
they ought not to be established; he thought the com¬ 
mittee ought not to authorize the estal^lishment ot any 
court which they might be willing, in advance, to stig¬ 
matize as a “ legal necessity or judicial nuisance.” But 
the fact was, that a large portion ot the property of the 
State would have to go through the handset tliis coun¬ 
ty court in a short time ; and the judge ot this court, if 
it were not necessary that he should belong to the le¬ 
gal profession, it would at least be requisite that he 
should be a thorough business man ^at any rate, no 
man could be induced to take office, without a salary 
or perquisites amounting to the lull sum proposed by 
the gentleman from Trumbull. It would make no 
manner of diflerence whether the compensation were 
to come in fees or by way ol a fixed salary, except that 
the diflerence might be felt on the part ol the individu¬ 
al required to pay the fees, instead of community. I or 
one, he would have even-handed justice meted out to 
all the judges and citizens of this State. He would 
have judges paid altogether by way of fees, or they 
should receive no fees at all, and depend upon a fixed 


^"^Mr. LEADBETTER. The situation in which I find 
myself placed, will not permit me to pass this subject 
by without a few remarks. I have paid considerable 
attention to this report, and there is much in it of 
which I approve. I have listened with a great deal ol 
pleasure and attention to all that has been said upon it, 
and have heard much of which I also approve. I his 
report has, by its friends, been analyzed by the ascend¬ 
ing and descending scale, and after all sir, I have seri¬ 
ous doubts as to the manner in which the supreme 
court is proposed to be organized by this report. It 
does not appear to me, that they will have enough to do 
to keep them bright in matters of law. I should have 
been better satisfied with its organization, had it been 
so constituted, that the judges of the supreme court 
should be compelled to try cases at nisi prtus» , ,,, 

It is said, sir, that if the district court system shall b© 
adopted, nearly all the cases appealed from the court 
of common pleas would be decided there and go no 
further. The supreme court as now constituted, have 
but eighty cases in bank, and il those cases are nearly 
all to be decided in the district court, would it bo 
worth while to pay $8000 for the determination of what 
few cases may be carried into this C( urt ? 

Sir—the human mind is so constituted, that, upon 
any subject with which a man may be well acquainted, 
ifiiedoes not continue to be interested in it, and to 
have his mind necessarily occupied with it, he is more 
apt to go backward than forward. If this be true, the 
necessaiy consequence will be, that these judges woula 
go out of officj at the end of seven years, poorer law¬ 
yers than when they came in. When men have but 
little to do, they are apt to be careless about doing la 
little; and if your judges, being aware that they wii 
have but little to do, will they not be likely o pa^s 
upon those cases submitted to them, without tlia rig¬ 
id examination which constant action is calculated to 
give? These, sir,are my objections to the proposed 
organization of the supreme court. 

it is my impression that the people of le ^ . 
Ohio, weie never better satisfied with their uidiciaiy 
than when the right of appeal of matters of fact, as 
well as of law, fully obtained, and your 

traversed the entire State, and I am satisfied hat at 

this day the people will be better satisfied with some¬ 
thing of the sLe kind, than with the system Pfoposed 

by the committee. Sir, the very appearance of the su¬ 
preme judges among the people, was of itseU a gratifi¬ 
cation. I have one of those 

my eye, whose veiy appeainnce as he alighted from 
hil horse at the door of the hotel at the county seat, 
not only illuminated the countenances of the membei s 
of the bar and the visitors in court, but our iimting 
shirt boys, with their rifles on their shoulders, also took 
delight in looking upon one of the highest judicial func¬ 
tionaries of the State. 










570 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


In relation to the proposed organization of the court 
of common pleas, I will here state, that it meets with 
my most cordial approbation: But while it meets 
with my hearty approval, I cannot remain silent, know¬ 
ing the feelings of (the bar and of the people with 
whom I am most immediately associated, while it is 
seriously proposed to remove the entire appellate mat¬ 
ter of the counties, composing the district into one or 
two counties in that district, by the proposed organiza¬ 
tion of a district court. 

Sir, in relation to the proposed organization of a dis¬ 
trict court, emanating from the courts of common pleas, 
of original juris iction, aided by one the judges of the 
supreme court, I freely confess, that it strikes me fa¬ 
vorably ; but the people in my section of the country 
will require that this court of appellate jurisdiction 
shall sit for the hearing of cases in the counties where 
they originate, and in this view of the case, I shall be 
found in favor of the district court, and that it shall be 
a district court, and carried into every county, espe¬ 
cially where it may be desired. If it is the intention 
of the committee who made this report, or of the con¬ 
vention, that the General Assembly shall not require 
this appellate court to sit in every county. I would ask, 
if it is seriously contemplated that cases in chancery 
which may be appealed into this court, involving large 
interests, and to alFect large estates, shall be tried out 
of the county where they originated in some remote 
corner of the district. 

Sir, the testimony, the reason, and the parties inter¬ 
ested, every thing pertaining to the case, is all a mat¬ 
ter of interest, and should never be taken out of the 
county for trial where it originated : yet, I would be 
careful not to give to this court the character of a county 
court; and therefore I am opposed to striking out the 
words “and for,” because I do not desire the General 
Assembly so to regard it. 

Mr. NASH, (interrupting.) I understand that if the 
court shall be held as proposed, and the decision given 
in the district, the record would be made up in the 
county where the case originated. 

Mr. LEADBETTER, (resuming.) I admit sir, that 
that that would be the necessary result; yet sir, if the 
General Assembly shall confer upon this proposed dis¬ 
trict court, the same appellate jurisdiction now exer¬ 
cised by the supreme court, to which cases in chance¬ 
ry may be appealed, I ask, if it is seriously contended 
tiiat an individual in a remote part of the district, hav 
ing a large amount of property involved, shall be com¬ 
pelled to have his case tried in any other county than 
where the case originated ? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, (interrupting.) Mr. Chairman, I 
would inquire of the gentleman from Holmes, that, if 
the words were stricken out, would it not leave with 
the Legislature the power to give this jurisdiction and 
to authorize the sitting of this proposed court in every 
county? 

Mr. LEADBETTER, (resuming.) That may be 
doubtful; the words are now in, and you propose to 
strike them out. I am most decidedly opposed to ma¬ 
king a county court out of this proposed district court, 
nevertheless, I desire that all cases shall be tried in the 
county where they originated, unless the parties may 
agree to their hearing in another county. 

I have, for several years past, pretty much ceased 
the practice of the law, except what little may still 
cling to me of old, unsettled business, nor do I ever ex¬ 
pect to engage again in its practice, therefore I presume 
that I shall come within that category of lawyers who do 
not “know law enough to hurt them,” which have been 
“referred to” in debate. Having pretty much abandon¬ 
ed the practice either in the inferior or superior courts, 
I have placed my name upon the catalogue of members, 
as a farmer. 

^ Sir: I wish to preserve the identity of the proposed 
district court with respect to the allowance of writs 
of error, and the final decision of causes; and not¬ 
withstanding that I shall insist, that causes shall be 


hearS. in the county where they originated, unless oth¬ 
erwise agreed upon by the parties, still there should 
nothing appear in the constitution, or by legislative en¬ 
actment, which would prevent the judges from taking 
the cause under advisement, and to be determined in 
any other county in the district, and to return that de¬ 
cision to the county where the cause originated. Any 
plan that will carry out this idea of mine, will meet 
with my approbation. If gentlemen can satisfy me, 
that by striking out the words “ and for ” will not tend 
to exclude this idea from the minds of your legislators, 
lean have no particular objection to their being strick¬ 
en out. But I am fearful, if these words are stricken 
out, that the Legislature, from the fact of those word* 
being once in and afterwards stricken out, might put a 
different construction upon this clause, than the gen¬ 
tleman from Richland (Mr. Kirkwood) suggests, which 
I wish to avoid. 

Under the system proposed by this report, it requires 
that one of the judges of the supreme court, together 
with the judges of the court of common pleas, or any 
three of them, shall constitute this district court. This 
being essentially a paper court, it does seem to me, to 
be unnecessarily expensive to create another paper 
court of the last resort. But I am free to admit, that I 
do not know how it can be avoided. There is a legal 
necessity for an uniformity of decisions. I will also ad¬ 
mit, that it is easier to tear down a system than to build 
one up. 

Mr. Chairman. We have heard a good deal said in re¬ 
lation to a splendid judiciary and a splendid bar. Well, 
sir, I can have no objection to favor a reasonable sysr 
tem, by means of which the bar of the State might be 
improved or elevated. 

Mr. WOODBURY, (interrupting.) I would inquire 
of the gentleman from Holmes, if he would do this at 
the expense of the people ? 

Mr. LEADBETTER, (resuming.) I think that I 
can answer the gentleman, by stating that all improve¬ 
ments are generally made at the expense of the people, 
either directly or indirectly, but would not adopt any 
system or plan for that purpose. 

I, sir, entertain a veiy high opinion of the intelli¬ 
gence of the people of Ohio ; and from my earliest read¬ 
ings, I have entertained a very high and exalted opin¬ 
ion of members of the legal pi’ofession. Sir, with them 
have originated the most important legal reforms, affect¬ 
ing the rights of man and of his I'ights to property, that 
has ever been effected, and which still adorns and will 
continue to adorn judicial history for all time to come. 
From them have gone forth the sentiments which have 
given that impetus to public opinion, which has re¬ 
sulted in the most important revolutions which have 
ever benefitted mankind. Kingdoms have been dis¬ 
membered and republics established. Not because they 
are greater or better men by nature—not in conse¬ 
quence of any inherent quilification differing from others 
but from the fact, that in obtaining knowledge sufficient 
for the discharge of the duties pertaining to their pro¬ 
fession, they have been compelled to examine the rights 
of man in every aspect of life, as well as the rights 
of property that has fitted them for the occasion. Un¬ 
derstanding the rights of man, inherently, civilly, and 
politically, they have promulgated those great, leading 
ideas and self evident truths, forcing themselves upon 
the mind with irresistible power, which has been re¬ 
ceived and adopted by the sovereign people. It is in 
this way, that almost all of the revolutions which have 
benefitted mankind have originated. Nor did the le¬ 
gal profession stop here—they not only gave the im¬ 
petus, but afterwards sustained it by their efforts in the 
field, in the cabinet and in forensic debate; their elo¬ 
quence has nerved the arm of the orpressed “ with 
more than mortal energy.” In proportion to which 
you raise the moral dignity of the court and bar, you 
I’aise the dignity and standing of your people. Flence, 
we should not object to any judicial system which 
would have a tendency to elevate in the scale of moral 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


511 


beings, the members of the legal profession, provided 
you do not increase the expenses of the people, 

Mr. Chairman—I have a word to say in relation to 
the proposed organization of a county court, and I re¬ 
gret exceedingly that the committee on the judiciary, 

Sr a part of them, have thought it proper to condemn 
this court, which is conceded on all hands, will be 
adopted by this Convention, being a creature of their 
ov/n creation. If I have understood the committee on 
the judiciary, (I will not say all of the committee, al- 
thou'^h I have not as yet heard of any one of them dis¬ 
senting,) this county court is stigmatized as a kind of 
‘‘necessary evil, a judicial nuisance.” I am sorry to 
hear it sir. I would inquire, however, if it is proposed 
to commence the elevation of the bar in this proposed 
county court ? I do not pretend to judge of this mat¬ 
ter ; but am at liberty to suppose, that the younger 
members of this bar must be passed through this alem¬ 
bic of judicial putrescence, for the purpose of afford¬ 
ing them a practical illustration of the difference be¬ 
tween a “ judicial nuisance ” and a judiciary, par ex¬ 
cellence. Is this the mtention, or is it even desirable ? 

This court is objected to as a nuisance, because none 
but pettifoggers will practice therein—that none but 
those who have not the capacity to practice elsewhere 
will cluster round this court, “ and that no lawyer of 
good standing will seldom practice therein.” Sir, do 
you not propose to constitution this court, a court of rec¬ 
ord 1 By your laws iiow in existence, none but an ad¬ 
mitted attorney will be permitted to practice in this 
court; thence the seeming necessity of filtering your 
young lawyers through this proposed filtering machine, 
before they can move in the higher walks ot the pro¬ 
fession. To this kind of a process I have an objection 
founded upon the truth of an old adage, “ that evil 
communications corrupt good manners.” I vvouldteach 
our young men to rise high above all judicial putres¬ 
cences or “judicial nuisances” which may attach to 
any judicial system. 

Sir, I had not expected that members standing so 
high in the profession, would, in the very commence¬ 
ment of the judicial system which they propose for the 
people of this great State, undertake to establish a 
branch thereof, which they would be willing to denom¬ 
inate, a “judicial nuisance.” I had not supposed that 
they would be willing to hold out to the people an idea 
so preposterous, that, in the establishment ot a judicial 
system, it would be necessary to make one part there¬ 
of a dirty machine. If you are to give this cmirt any 
dignity of character, it does seem to me that the com¬ 
mittee should have sustained it. What! establish a ju¬ 
dicial system for this people, and tell us and them that 
it is a judicial nuisance, and ask a man to preside over 
it! Why, sir, it seems to me that we should use our 
endeavors to abate nuisances, rather than to create 
them, especially in the judiciary. But, sir, if 
be insisted upon, however, I would recommend that 
we confer upon it jurisdiction to abate nuisances, 
whereby all nuisances may escape through their appio- 
priate avenues into the common sewer of nuisances. ^ 

Mr. KEN NON, (interrupting.) I want to explain 
this part of the report to the honorable member. Tnere 
were two opinions in relation to it. Some gentlemen 
were desirous of making this court a court of consider¬ 
able importance, giving to it criminal jurisdiction, &c.: 
others wanted to make it a probate court alone-—only 
one gentleman objected to the probate feature; he de¬ 
siring to leave it open to grant letters of administration. 
The committee therefore left it open to probate busi¬ 
ness, and to the privilege of habeas corpus. No man, i 
presume, has ever regarded these as nuisances. 

Mr. LEADBETTER, (resuming.) The Chairman 
of the committee on the Judiciary has not, as yet, in¬ 
formed me, sir, what part of this county court jurisdic¬ 
tion is to constitute the nuisance part. I agree with 
him, that a court of probate, with power to issue and 
hear writs of habeas corpus, should be one of as much 
dignity as any other court in the land. It was well 


observed on yesterday, by the honorable member from 
Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] that nearly all the property 
in the State of Ohio, if this court is established, will 
pass through the hands of these judges once in every 
twenty-five years. Sir, I am opposed to forestalling 
public opinion in regard to the propriety and dignity of 
this court. I am opposed to affording the people a 
cause of complaint against this court in advance. On 
the contrary, sir, I would hold out to the people, the 
importance of this branch of the proposed system, as 
one in which every family of this State, sooner or later, 
will have to do business therein, and not to rnake them 
believe that it is to be a poor and contemptible place, 
where they shall be compelled to have their business 
tod 

Again, sir—it is said that a man ot ordinary, common 
understanding, (I believe that is the phraseology of 
law reformers,) is every way capable of presiding over 
this court. Sir, there is no man who has practised 
law, but what is fully aware, that in probate matters, 
there will arise as abstruse questions of luw as in any 
other department of law. But, sir, in addition to mat¬ 
ters of probate and habeas corpus jurisdiction, it is pro¬ 
posed that the Legislatute may constitute it a court ot 
appeals from the judgment of justices ot the peace, 
which I presume would be establishing the rig o 
appeal from the judgment of one man of “ordina^, 
common understanding,” to the judgment of ^another 
man of “ordinary, common understanding. 
much surprised that the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. 
Ran NET,] who had so graphically described this pro¬ 
posed county court, and accorded to it all that had 
been said concerning its being a court of “judicial nui¬ 
sances,” since he has openly declared himselt a retorm- 
er, and of bringing down our law proceedings to the 
comprehension of a man of “ ordinary, common uti ^- 
standing.” When our judicial proceedings shall all be 
brought down to this standard, I am not aware that we 
shall need a man of much importance upon any ot the 
benches of our courts; all we shall be under the ne¬ 
cessity of doing, will be to select a man of or luary, 
common understanding ” to preside. 

Mr. RANNEY (interposing.) Does the gentleman 
look upon the science of law and law reform, in the 
light of technicalities and forms alone 

Mr. LEADBETTER (resuming.) Mr. Chairman, 1 
will answer the gentleman. I do not consider law as 
consisting merely in technicalities or in technical forms; 
nor do I fully comprehend the idea, or term—“ science 
of law.” But I have discovered that the especial 
friends of law reform, have mainly directed their bat¬ 
teries against that redoubtable fort, of mysterious forms 
and technical pleadings. And the gentleman has d^ 
nounced the only court proposed by the Judiciary com¬ 
mittee, expressly on the ground, that the 
therein comes within the range of men of 
common understanding,” or thatthe judge of said court 
comes within the range of his ideas of reforin. I p , 
sir, that I am in favor of attaching both di^ity i - 
portance to this proposed county court. ^ 
of the proposed plan for a court 
of the district court-but I would 
tion, the right of appeal in matters of ^^ct, by s 
nlnn of wlnch I am not as yet advised. In ielation to 
?or™p7ema of havmg 

h t^Wo^LT, r committee rose, re- 

po?"ed’o uo’c'oL” aud obtained leave to sit 

McCORMlOK offered a resolution, that when 
the Convention take a recess it be to four o clock. He 
that it was not offered for the purpose of short¬ 
ening the afternoon session; but he believed 
coild work better and to more purpose, by allowing 
a loiwer time to intervene between the dining hour 
and the assembling of the Convention in the after- 

“X motion by Mr. REEMELIN, the Convention took 
a recess. 















572 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


3 o’clock p. m. 

On inotion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention resolved 
iteelfinlo a 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, 

Mr. Greene in the chair, and resumed the considera¬ 
tion of the report of the committee on 

THE JUDICIARY DEPARTMENT. 

The Cjueetion was announced as being on the amend¬ 
ment to the 3d section presented by the gentleman 
from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney] which being put the 
committee divided as follows: In the affirmative 35, 
in the negative 42. 

Mr. Robertson moved to amend by striking out the 
words “ in each of which ” in the third line and insert¬ 
ing the follow'ing: 

“And theee again^except the district of Hamilton county, into 
three subdivisions ol compact territory, as nearly equal in popu¬ 
lation as practicable, and bounded as aforesaid, in each of which 
one judge.” 

He wished to say a word or two by way of explana¬ 
tion, so that all could understand the intent of the 
amendment which he proposed. It was this: to di¬ 
vide the State (should the amendment prevail) into 24 
common picas districts, in addition to the district of 
Hamilton county, instead of making only nine districts, 
as the report now provides, with three common pleas 
judges elected in each district, by the same voters. He 
proposed by his amendment to divide the districts into 
three parts, for election purposes, so that each judge 
will be elected by different constituency. It did not 
interfere with the plan of the report in other resjiects. 
He might submit many good reasons why this amend¬ 
ment should be agreed to, but he would net offer them 
nowy as he hoped that the manifest propriety of the 
amendment would ensure its success, and it an argu¬ 
ment were necessary he preferred making it when the 
report came up in Convention. But he would say that 
bis course in relation to this report would be in a 
peat measure governed by the disposition w'hich might 
be made of the amendment he had offered. He belie\ 
ed that several other gentlemen entertained similar 
Tiews. 

Mr. KENNON rose merely to speak for himself on 
this matter, and not for the members of the committee 
who bad made the report. He w^as aw are that this a- 
mendment w^ould be presented, and Ins objection to 
It rested upon these grounds: In the first place, it w^as 
to be supposed thp a judge in this court would be a 
man in good practice at the bar, and occasions might 
arise where cases in which he was interested would be 
brought before him for adjudication: it then became 
necessary that the judges should interchange. The re¬ 
port provided for that. But then the question (if the 
amendment prevailed) came up in this wise: We here 
have a judge going over to another court to sit there,: 
vvhile the judge of that court w'ent over to the other to 
dispose of the suit in which the former was interested 
What had we, then? We had judges presiding in 
courts for whom w^e had never voted, and with whose 
elections \ve had had nothing whatever to do. Then 
when the judge, who was an interested, party as re 
garded the suit, got back to his court, we would be 
obliged to re-elect him. If they elected another man, 
the same thing would occur again, in some suit in 
which he was interested. He only suggested these 
difficffities, as being necessarily attendant on this sys¬ 
tem, if the amendment were adopted. 

The amendment was not sustained upon a division 
which resulted as follows: in the affirmative 23 nega¬ 
tive 39. ’ ® 

Mr. MASON observed that there was not a quorum 
voting— ^ * I 

So the question was put again, and the division 
stood: affinnative 33, negative 46. 

Mr. EWART moved to amend by striking out the 
W'ord “ one,” in the fifth line, and inserting in lieu the 
■word '‘two.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga hoped this amendment 
would not prevail. The operation of the system re¬ 


ported would be to insure tw'o courts being held at the 
same time. But if the amendment prevailed, it would 
be impossible to hold more than one court in the dis¬ 
trict. 

Mr. KENNON said that, if permitted, he would show- 
in w hat condition this plan would stand, if the amend 
meut prevailed. He had, some time since, a little dif¬ 
ficulty, in relation to the number of days during which 
the several courts should be held. Returns had been 
received from all the courts but .seven, showing the 
number of days occupied by the sittings of the courts 
last year. The number of days occupied by the terms 
of the common pleas courts, was 3,342; there were, 
besides that, “ call courts,” amounting to 667 ; so that, 
including the regular terms, and the “ call courts,” the 
total was 4,019. He would leave out, however, these 
call terms, altogether, for the reason, that the business 
administered in those courls would be given to other 
tribunals, under the system proposed. He might say, 
too, that in the counties not heartl from, (which were 
small counties,) the call terms would continue, on an 
average, say, 43 days ; then, divide the other number 
by niiie, in order to see how many days on which it 
would be necessary to hold courts in each of the nine 
judicial districts, and we would find that it would be 
365 days, exactly. Now, if we put together two of 
these judges, they could hold but one court. His ob¬ 
ject in stating this, was to show, that if two or more of 
these judges were put together, it would take exactly 
365 working days; then, of course, there would be no 
time spared them for attending the supreme court. 
This difficulty was proposed to be obviated, in this 
way : to confer on this county court a very large juris¬ 
diction—more than one half what it had at present. 
Then, we would find that the judges holding those 
terms, wculd have to hold court at least 8 months in the 
year; or, including the time that would be spent in 
traveling from one place to another, it w-ould amount 
to 9 months. Could they do all that at the same time 
that they were associated with the district supreme 
court? He thought not. 

The question was then put and not sustained. 

Mr. SMITH of warren moved to amend the 4th line 
by striking out the words “of common pleas.” He 
thought gentlemen would, without doubt, see the pro¬ 
priety of this amendment. The district court was made 
a separate and distinct court from that of the common 
pleas court. 

Mr. KENNON thought that the w-ords ought not to 
be stricken out for this reason : the jurisdiction of the 
district courts had been already provided for by anoth¬ 
er section; but these lines referred to the court of 
common pleas, a very different court, and left the de¬ 
fining of its jurisdiction to the Legislature. 

After some other observations had been made, the 
amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. LEADBETTER proposed to amend by striking 
out all betw-een the w-ords “district courts,” in the 8th 
line, and the word “provided,” in the lltli line, and 
insert the following: 

“ Shall be held in each district by the judges of the common 
pleas, and one of the justices of the supreme court, any three of 
whom shall constitute a quorum. The General Assembly shall 
determine loi each district how often in each year, and at what 
places therein, said court shall be held.” 

He would state in what particular it changed the 
section. It gave the Legislature the power to estab¬ 
lish one system in one district, and a different one in 
another, according as the people of those districts 
might desire it. 

The question was then put, and lost. 

Mr. ROBERTSON moved to amend by striking out 
“ten,” and inserting “sixteen,” and by striking out 
“ three judges,” and inserting “ one judge.” 

I declare war, (said Mr. R.,) against this system 
as it now stands, and I will wage upon it uncom¬ 
promising hostility. And I will labor iiidefatigably to 
destroy this plan, not by talk here, but by efforts to 
concentrate an effective opposition against it. This 










CONVENTION EEPORTS. 573 


aaieiidineut which I propose, together with the corres- i 
ponding amendments which may be made, will make I 
an entire change in the system. I tiddress myself par¬ 
ticularly to my friends from Trumbull and Licking, 
[Messrs. Ranney and Case,] and to all other gentle- : 
men opposed to the judiciary [)lan before us, and call 
upon them to persevere in their opposition to it. I 
now propose to divide the State into sixteen common 
pleas districts, with one judge to be elected in each 
district. I will go with those gentlemen to give char¬ 
acter and importance to the county courts. The other 
sixteen courts will form a circuit system of higher 
courts, and vvill be no doubt an improvement on the 
plan of the amendment. 

I have reasons to give, in opposition to some pro¬ 
visions in the Judiciary report, which I shall not pre¬ 
sent at this time. I shall defer doing so until we get 
into Convention, hoping that this system will not be 
adopted as reported. But I trust that the report will 
be properly amended, and I tell the committee, if they 
expect that this child of theirs will Uveas they brought 
it forth, with all its deformities, they are deceived. 
By the time they shall have got through with its nurs¬ 
ing, it will be so odious that they will be glad to cast 
it into the nearest gutter, as something they are asham- 
eci of. 

Mr. KBNNON (interrupting.) I should be glad if 
the gentleman would giv^e some of the reasons that op¬ 
erate on his mind; they may change mine. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. No sir, you are too experienced, 
too wise, too able, too learned to be changed in opin¬ 
ions by anything I might say. I have not so much pre¬ 
sumption as to attempt such an experiment. I will 
never venture on anything of the kind. I assure you, 
sir, my only hope is, that the necessary changes will 
be made in this report, by this committee, before I may 
be called upon to record my vote on it in Convention. 
We have had warning enough—we, the inexperienced 
—we, who are not distinguished gentlemen of the le¬ 
gal profession, enjoying large practices—we have had 
fearful warning, sir, not to venture to attempt improve¬ 
ments or amendments on this report, unless we wish to 
proclaim ourselves as of that number who know a very 
little laM, but not enough to hurt them. I have no 
more to say at this time. 

Mr. HAWKINS. As a lay member of this Conven¬ 
tion, I should feel obliged to the gentleman for some 
reasons for this proposition. I am not bound by any 
interest, except the common intei'ests of all, in deter¬ 
mining this matter. If there exist reasons to induce 
gentlemen to modify this report, I should like to know 
them, as they might operate on my mind too. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I have reasons, to my mind im¬ 
portant reasons, why this report should be amended; 
and some of them, as I am called upon to do so, I vvill 
give. As I have said before, I do not intend to go into 
a discussion of this question now, but when we get 
into Convention I shall, if necessary, present my views 
in full. By that time, liowever, the system may be so 
modified as to be acceptable to all. I am opposed to 
it because it divides the State into only nine j'udicial 
districts, each containing perhaps from 8 to 13 or 14 
counties, for the purpose of electing common pleas 
judges, by batches of them in each district, and thereby 
defeating in effect, the immediate responsibility and ac¬ 
countability, desired to be secured by the election of 
j udges by the people. 

I say here that one of the great objects that some 
gentlemen on the committee have had in view, by put¬ 
ting three common pleas judges together to be elected 
in the same district, is to check what is supposed to be 
dangerous popular influence in the election of judges. 
If the districts be made small, the judge to be elected, 
is brought directly under popular control, and that con¬ 
trol is supposed, by some gentlemen in this committee, 
to be dangerous. But I want judges, like other pub¬ 
lic officers, to be brought as near to the popular voice as 
possible. I do not suppose that this fear of the people 


influenced the minds of all the members of the Judi¬ 
ciary committee ; ])ut that some gentlemen here are in¬ 
fluenced by this consideration, I know. I object, then, 
to this feature of the report, and desire that it be so 
amended, that each judge of common pleas shall be 
elected in a separate district. 

Mr. VANOE of Butler. I understand the object of 
the committee, in introducing this system to have been, 
to avoid electing mere particular judges, and to pro¬ 
vide for the election of the bench of the district court. 
These were the two great reasons that influenced me to 
go for it. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I am glad the gentleman has 
made this explanation. I am in favor of electing the 
supreme court bench, by the whole people; because 
they are the judges of the whole people. 

Mr. VANOE (m his seat.) Will not these district 
judges be the judges of the whole people? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. They will be elected as is pro¬ 
vided in the report. But the object that the gentlemen 
had in view was to defeat political influence in the 
election of judges. I know it. Take the map of Ohio 
and make an apportionment into nine judicial dis¬ 
tricts ; of “ compact territory,” as is provided, and you 
will find that the Whig party will have largely the 
advantage even though the Democrats were greatly in 
the majority. The gentlemen of the Whig party in 
this Oonv'eution, could not have devised a better plan 
than this, to control the judicial system of Ohio. For this 
reason also, I am opposed to it. I speak frankly, open¬ 
ly, above-board. But the gentleman from Franklin 
[Mr. StAxVbery] says “ there are no parties here.” I 
know that gentleman too well for him to say that to me. 

I have seen him in many a party conflict, in which he 
was always a zealous partizan, yet I am glad to say al¬ 
ways a gentleman. Now as was intimated by the gen¬ 
tleman from Butler, [Mr. Vance] one of the objects in 
bringing altogether the election of these judges, instead 
of electing them by single districts, is to discourage 
political influence. Well now vvill not the gentlemen 
of the Whig party in power in any district, employ 
every political feeling in order to ensure the election 
of their judges? Of course they will. You cannot 
defeat political organization, or party combinations; 
it is impossible. It never can be done as long as politi¬ 
cal principles exist. I have stated on a former occa¬ 
sion, that in the making of this constitution the dem¬ 
ocrats must have a fair chance, and that weinustnotbe, 
and will not be blind-folded and sold out to the par¬ 
ty represented on the other side of this hall. 

Mr. MORRIS (interposing) inquired to what party 
the majoiity of the committee who made the report 
belonged ? 

A Voice. The Whig. 

Mr. BOBERTSON. I do not know, as I have not 
seen or counted their votes yet. Now, it is right that 
the judges, like the representatives in the Legislature, 
should be brought as near as possible to the people. 
If a county were divided into municipalities or organi¬ 
zations different from one another, I would be in favor 
of so dividing a county, for representative elections, so 
as to establish the single district system, because the 
election would be brought more directly under the 
control of the people. The people in each district 
would select the representative whom they desired, 
and would have nothing whatever to do with the elec¬ 
tion of representatives in other districts. I would ap¬ 
ply this principle to the election of judges. But, this 
system makes it necessary to apportion a very large 
territory for the election of the judges of the courts of 
common pleas, and three judges must be elected in the 
same territory; consequently, a large portion of the 
people must be wholly unacquainted with the judges 
of their district. They will not have any connection 
with them, and the presumption of some of the com¬ 
mittee therefore, is, that they will be under less popu¬ 
lar control than if elected in a small district. I am 
opposed to all this. I don’t like some other features 










574 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


in the report. I hope il will he amended or broken 
down, and a better system erected upon its niins. I 
have stated, frankly and openly, some of my reasons 
for going against this report; and they are reasons 
which will influence the action of some other gentle¬ 
men in this chamber. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. As this article was 
originally reported, a provision was made for the elec¬ 
tion of the chief justices, of the supreme court by the 
whole body of the people, the associate justices to be 
elected in districts, as specified in the second section. 
A motion was made by some gentlemen to change that 
plan so that these four judges should be elected by the 
entire body of electors in the State. The reason as¬ 
signed w’as that they were judges of the entire people 
and consequently should be elected by the whole body 
of the people. I concurred in that opinion and the 
gentleman from Fairfield [Mr. Robertson] voted for 
mat proposition for the same reason. Then we come 
to the district courts and we elect three judges for that 
district. Well, of course these three judges are as 
much judges of the district as are the judges cf the su 
preme court the judges of tlie \vhole people. The 
principle is the same, so that if the gentleman from 
Fairfield [Mr. Robertson] be consistent with himself 
he will vote for the report as it now stands. They are 
the judges of the district, and on that ground it strikes 
me they ought to be elected by the entire people of 
the district. The gentleman presented an amendment 
which was in effect this, that he was willing to vote 
for the election of the supreme court judges by the 
whole people, yet he was not in favor of electing the 
district judges in the same manner, for the whole dis¬ 
trict. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I saw that inconsistency or dif¬ 
ficulty, and I supposed that the report would be in 
some way remodeled. I proposed to elect the judge 
in his own district. I was not in favor of a judge ser¬ 
ving a people who did not elect him. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK resumed. That is the position 
in which the gentleman now stands. The gentleman 
proposes to divide these districts into three parts, and 
each part to have one judge. I was willing to go with 
him in that, although I would not justify myself on the 
ground that one-thii’d was imposing on two-thirds of 
the people a man whom they did not elect. 

Then it was said that this was a political design. I 
suppose that it did not enter into the mind of any man 
who reported this article. I suppose that no man on 
that committee said, or perhaps thought of what would 
be the eflect of this system in a political point of view. 
I imagine that the gentleman has looked at it in that 
aspect, and thinks that it would not work so well for 
his party, as if it were cut up a little more. Now if 
the gentleman is opposed to the whole system, I beg 
of him to let us go on with it at present, and if he ob¬ 
ject to it when completed, Welland good; but if he 
murders it in this way, and tries to take the life out of 
it, he ought to do so in some more open w’ay. 

Mr. SMITH of Wan’en. I desire to say one w’ord 
in connection wdth what has just been said by the gen¬ 
tleman from Fairfield, [Mr. Robertson.] If I under¬ 
stood the gentleman correctly, he made the charge that 
the plan reported by the committee, for the election of 
three judges in the district, was so framed for the pur¬ 
pose of suppressing the popular will, because the 
members of that committee, as it was intimated—not di¬ 
rectly charged —were opposed to the election of judges 
by the people. Now I wish to say, that I attended the 
meetings of that committee from its first organization— 

Mr. ROBERTSON. My impression and belief is, 
that there are gentlemen on that committee who re¬ 
luctantly yielded to the election of judges by the peo¬ 
ple, and would rather have large districts than small 
ones, as a sort of safeguard. I have conversed with 
gentlemen of this committee, who entertained the 
opinion, that it is better to have large districts, as there 
would be less political influence brought to bear upon 
the election for judges than in the smaller districts. ' 


Mr. SMITH resumed. I was going on to say, that I 
attended every meeting of the committee from its first 
organization until this report was made, and was pre¬ 
sent during every movement of its sessions from the 
first meeting of the committee to the close of its delibe¬ 
rations, and I express it as my decided opinion, that 
from the beginning to the end of the deliberations of 
that committee, there was not a sentence—not a word 
or a syllable expressed, in opposition to what is now 
universally admitted to be the over-ruling public sen¬ 
timent of the people of Ohio—that is, the election of 
judicial officers by the people—not a proposition—not 
a suggestion was made by any member in favor of any 
other mode of appointment during the entire sittings of 
the committee. 

I understood the gentleman again to say that by a 
reference to the map it will appear that the State can¬ 
not be divided into nine districts without, in his opin¬ 
ion, giving to the minority on this floor, an advantage 
in the election of these Judges. Well, sir, I wish to 
say for myself, that 1 have never looked at the map of 
Ohio in reference to thatquestion. I have never thought 
of the subject. I would endeavor to avoid it as much 
as possible, knowing that this matter, so far as that 
part of the report is concerned, was not to be deter¬ 
mined by the Convention, but was to be left to the 
General Assembly. I profess then, upon that subject, 
to be wholly in the dark, for we have no knowledge 
here—and can have no information in relation to what 
may be the political complexion of these districts, when 
formed by the Legislature, should this system go into 
operation; neither do I wish to know. 1 do sincerely 
hope, that in the formation of a judicial system for the 
State, and also the formation of judicial districts, that 
popular opinion and public interest may be duly con¬ 
sulted and respected, and that we shall avoid, as far as 
possible, all partisan feeling in the election of these of¬ 
ficers. 

Mr. ROBERTSON (interposing.) Is it not proper 
and right that political parties should have an equal 
chance in these matters as in any others ? 

Mr. SMITH. It is right, and I hope that such will 
be the operation of the system reported. I trust that 
the judges will be selected from both political parties ; 
and, that was the reason, which operated on my mind 
to induce me to favor the election of three of the judges 
of the supreme court in districts instead of the people 
at large, otherwise, I should have been in favor of the 
latter mode of selection. I was not here at the time 
that came matter up for discussion ; butthe subject was 
fully canvassed when the proposition was under consid¬ 
eration in the committee. I desire then—that the judges 
shall not be taken from one party to the exclusion of 
the other, but rather, that all parties shall have equal 
chance in these elections. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Can the gentleman instance a 
case of his own party electing a democratic judge 1 

Mr. NASH referred to the election of the gentleman 
from Franklin [Mr. Swan] to the bench in 1840. 

Mr. KING. Can you give us another instance ? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I am glad that the gentleman 
can adduce one instance. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. I know it is useless to 
deny the fact, that as a general rule, the party in the as¬ 
cendency in the Legislature usually elect officers who 
agree with them in political opinion. 

A Voice. That is right. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. It will always be the rule. 

Mr. SMITH continued. I know that when a mem¬ 
ber of the Legislature, I have voted for Democrats, and 
I would at one time have voted for a member of that 
party forjudge of the supreme court, had he been a 
candidate, and I a member of the Legislature. But I 
merely rose to make these general remarks in order to 
vindicate the committee, of which I have the honor of 
being an humble member, from the insinuations that 
have been made in relation to the matter of the elec¬ 
tion of judges. I will here remark to the gentleman 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


575 


from Fairfield, [Mr. Rohertson,] that thia question 
was the only one on which my constituents inquired of 
me as to what were my opinions; and the only one 
on which I made anything like a declaration of princi¬ 
ple or a pledge. I am in favor of giving that power to 
the people, because I believe that the public sentiment, 
and the deliberate conviction of the people requires it. 

Mr. McCORMlOK. I am sorry that this amendment 
was oft’ered by the gentleman from Fairfield, and was 
in hopes that a former amendment would have pre¬ 
vailed. I opposed the districting for supreme court 
judges, tor the reason that you cannot district the State 
into three districts, of which two will not be Whig. 
The difficulty that will arise here, in making these nine 
districts and electing judges in them, will be that in six 
of these nine districts there will be eighteen Whig 
judges, and in the remaining three nine Democratic 
judges. You cannot, by any fair division Of the State, 
without resorting to that which is termed gerryman¬ 
dering”—you cannot, I say, divide the State into nine 
districts in which this will not be the case. Now, it 
appears to me that a decent respect to a large minority 
—that the Democrats ai'e in a minority in the State I 
do not believe—would entitle them to more might and 
more force in the appointment of judicial officers, than 
three districts would entitle them to. And more, sir: 
[indistinctly heard] these men should be distributed 
more through the State, and the Whig party, if in the 
minority, ought to be fairly represented. Now, if we 
divide these nine districts into three circuits, two judg¬ 
es of one court and one of another will be of a differ¬ 
ent political party. I agree that the supreme court 
judges may be ot one political caste, but the fluctua¬ 
tions of party politics always prevent the existence of 
a majority or a minority, on the one side or the other, 
for any considerable length of time. I expressed my¬ 
self in committee, and do here now, that I think the 
best mode of distributing the supreme court bench 
will be by an election at large. I hope the gentleman 
will withdiaw his amendment, and for this reason : I 
do not like to see this system struck down—one that 
has been produced after much care and deliberation in 
its preparation ; and one, I care not what may be said 
to the contrary, that will subserve the interests of the 
State. And I hope that some amendment, other than 
the one now presented, will be adopted—such as will 

. make a fair and equal distribution of power, in regard 
to this matter, throughout the entire State. I trust that 
the minority will have a fair representation, no matter 

, of what party it may be. Take, for instance, the vote 
of 1848, and it will be very hard to say which party 
has the majority, at the present time, in this State. I 

{ believe, however, that the Democrats have the majori- 

I ty, and have it largely; and I believe that we may, 

I possibly, be in the minority at the next election. In 

■ conclusion, then, I will say, that no matter what sys- 

■ tern may be adopted, I hope that the party in the mi¬ 
nority, whichever it may be, shall have a fair repre- 

i sentation in the distribution of power in this State. 

; Mr. KIRKWOOD. I must confess, that at the time 
I heard my name announced as a member of the judi¬ 
ciary committee, I felt great diffidence at its being con¬ 
nected with the names of the distinguished gentlemen 
on that committee. I went into that committee room, 
to act with that committee, for the sole purpose of en¬ 
deavoring to aid them, if I could possibly do so, in per¬ 
fecting a judicial system for our State, that would 
prove a good and serviceable one. I labored to some 
extent to eflect the object of getting a good judiciary, 
and I state frankly, that I think the one proposed is a 
good one—though it does not contain some features 
which I should like to see in it. But, so far as my own 
action is concerned in this matter, and so far as I have 
the opportunity of judging of the action of others, the 
question, as to what would be the political aspect of 
these districts, did not enter into the contemplation of 
any gentlemen on that committee; as to whatever may 
have been their private views and feelings. I cannot 


speak. But I repeat, in the words of my friend from 
Warren, [Mr. Smith,] that I have not looked at the 
map of Ohio to see what would be the eflect, politically, 
of such a districting; nor have I any reason to suppose 
that any other gentleman did. 

Most certainly I do not desire, myself, to remove 
the election of judges from the people. I am willing 
that the judges should be elected by a subdivision of 
the present system. I am thus frank in stating my own 
views. But 1 desire to state, that if upon an examin¬ 
ation of the map of the State, I shall find the result of 
the division of the State to be, to give one party six, 
seven, eight, or nine districts, that will be to me a great 
objection. Gentlemen on all sides should be willing 
to establish a fair division. I do not suppose that gen¬ 
tlemen on this side want more, but whether it be right 
or not, we will ask that much. Without doubt it is not 
desirable that political questions should enter into the 
election of a judge, but they will do so from time to 
time, for to a considerable extent party predilections 
will obtain in these matters. Therefore I conceive that 
it would be wrong and unjust to give any party in this 
State a preponderance in the districts which we are 
about to make. I say this much, as I desire that 1 
should be distinctly understood. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler said : The subject now before 
the Conventicii had given rise to some feeling, which 
he believed would be allayed, when it should be fully 
understood. Having been a member of the commit¬ 
tee by which the report had been made, he desired to 
state, in a few words, the considerations which had 
induced him to sustain its several propositions; and he 
thought that the part now under consideration and 
sought to be amended, was of such a character, that 
so far from producing disaffection to members of the 
bench, or tiie bar, or of any political party, if rightly 
understood, it would be calculated to give high satis¬ 
faction to all. 

He said he looked upon the district court, as the 
great feature of the system as reported by the cornmitj 
tee. If it shall be organized as is provided in the re¬ 
port, it will, in its usefulness, be far superior to the su- 
[)reme court as at present constructed. He said this, 
not designing to reflect on the tribunal, or the judges 
of which it had been composed. On the contrary, he 
had even felt called upon to defend the faithfulness and 
general correctness with which they had discharged 
their duties. They had been selected from the most 
talented and learned members of the bar of the State, 
and had performed services valuable, and in a great 
measure unrequited. But under the plan fixed by the 
constitution, it was impossible for them to give satis¬ 
faction, for reasons not necessary at present to be giv¬ 
en. 

There were several reasons for the support which he 
now gave, and which he gave in committee to this fea¬ 
ture of the system. First, it will not be exclusively a 
political court. Gentlemen can very readily under¬ 
stand, that if the judges of the courts are to be elected 
in the counties, or in any other locality of limited di¬ 
mensions, if the majority is whig, democratic or free 
soil, the judge, without regard to any other qualifica¬ 
tions will be of the same complexion, and all consid¬ 
erations of talents, legal learning or fitness for the 
office, will be subordinate to the great one of his polit¬ 
ical faith; and we know that if this is to be the way 
that judges are to be chosen, there is very great danger 
that not the best material will be selected. But in this 
case, there will be no such danger. The mere politi¬ 
cal preference of one county will be less operative in 
another. There will be a greater probability of bring- 
in^^ men of different political opinions upon the bencn 
_a policy that all will agree is desirable, more desira¬ 
ble than to have all of them of one political party. 
Least of all should we desire to put violent political 
partizans upon the bench. When we enlarge the elec¬ 
tion districts, we weaken the influence which exists in 
the more contracted ones, and are far more likely to 














576 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


brine moderate men into the service and give to the 
bdnch a variety of’ political caste. 

Again, elections by narrow districts or by counties 
will bring local interests into consideration, and mere 
personal preferences, irrespective of real merit, thus 
preventing the election of men of high standing and 
solid attainments, bringing mere sectional favoritism to 
disturb the sober judgment of a people. In larger dis¬ 
tricts their influences will be less operative 

He stated that the district court was the best court of 
of the system. He intended to be understood as mean¬ 
ing, if its members are to be elected as is provided in 
the report of the committee. If the duties herein im¬ 
posed upon it, should remain unchanged we have this 
liigh appellate court, without any additional ex¬ 
pense to the people. It is composed of the judges of 
the court in bank—the highest jurisdiction in the State 
—and of those of the courts of common pleas. It forms 
an appellate court of the highest respectability, and 
one that will command the confidence of the bar and 
the people. It is necessary, and not only so, but a val¬ 
uable feature in the system, the judges of the common 
pleas form a part of the court. What justice or pro- 
I)riety then, is there in insisting on this subdivision of 
districts for election jiurposes merely. How would 
you provide for their election? By counties? And 
then send an officer elected in a county, through a 
large district, to administer justice among a people that 
did not participate in his election? Suppose the peo¬ 
ple are not satisfied ? They would certainly have a 
right to complain of this departure from a principle 
so universally conceded to be correct—of the election 
of officers by all those who are afi'ected by their ad¬ 
ministration. Their duties consist, not only of holding 
courts of common pleas three times a year in each 
county of their respective districts, but of sitting with 
the judges of the supreme court, in as many places in 
every county in the district—should the Legislature so 
provide, as I believe it vrill—as a district court. Now 
what does this render plain? That the people of the 
district should have a voice in the election. Is there 
anything wrong in this? Is there any trespass against 
the I’ights of the people—of the legal profession—of 
any one? On the contrary will the people of one 
county be satisfied to receive a judge elected by anoth¬ 
er? A popular election implies the assent of those 
who are affected by it. This alone gives the officer 
his authority. Does not this amendment involve a ty¬ 
rannical departure from that most plain and undeniable 
principle. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. If I understand the delegate 
from Butler [Mr. Vance] he desires large election dis¬ 
tricts, for the reason that it will prevent the election of 
judges from being within the reach of sectional and po¬ 
litical influences ? \ 

Mr. VANCE. Such will be the effect, at least to a 
certain extent. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. The same desire was the very 
reason for my amendment—a desire to dispense with 
local influences. 

Mr. VANCE. I wush to exclude all local and for¬ 
eign considerations, from the election of our judges. I 
would prefer that they should be elected upon the 
ground of qualification only. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. It is my opinion that the in¬ 
fluence which the gentleman apprehends, will not pre¬ 
vail; and that the people in the discharge of a duty so 
important will endeavor to select the best men. 

Mr. VANCE. Admit that they would do so, and I 
believe and hope that they will, even then it would 
not do away with my main reason for objecting to the 
amendment. We all admit that the people should 
elect those who administer justice to them. If the 
people of one county elect those who exercise jurisdic¬ 
tion in another, tins principle is abandoned. How do 
you remedy this difficulty ? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Change the plan. 

Mr. VANCE. If you change the plan you destroy 


it. This system is the result of the anxious delibera¬ 
tions of the committee, composed of gentlemen (I ex¬ 
clude myself) of experience and high legal attainments, 
who have thought long and anxiously upon the subject. 

Its various parts harmonize with, and are dependent 
upon each other for their congmity and their useful- uf 
ness. It is believed to be in accordance with the sen¬ 
timents and feelings of the people of the State and of 
the legal profession. As it is, it is calculated to give 
satisfaction, and produce harmony all over the land. 
Are you assured that you can supply its place with a 
better ? I am sure you cannot. 

I do not wish to see a political court. I do not de¬ 
sire that all the members of the judiciary should be of 
any one political caste or party. I want reasonable 
and moderate men to compose the courts of the State; 
and the great object of my labors and my wishes as a 
member of the committee and of the Convention, has 
been to construct such a system as is the best calcula-_ 
ted to lead, in the cheapest foi-m, to the ends of justice, 
and secure the election of such men to the bench as are ; 
distinguished for their legal attainments. Above all, I 
desire an able court—a part of one party and a part of 
another, I should not object to. These are the objects 
for which I have contended. 

But let me say to gentlemen upon the opposite side 
of this question, that their opinions and conduct in this 
behalf does not square well with their action in regard 
to the election of judges of the supreme court. The 
gentleman from Fairfield, [Mr. Robertson,] in that 
case w'ent for the election of those judges by the peo¬ 
ple at large, w'hile for the reason that I do not desire 
all the judges elected to be of the same political party, 

I voted for sustaining the plan as it was reported. How 
does he reconcile his conduct in one case with his pro¬ 
fession in another? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. It is the gentleman from But¬ 
ler that is inconsistent, as I will show. He was in fa¬ 
vor of electing each judge of the supreme court in a 
separate district, although in the performance of his 
duties he is an officer of the whole State—and this is 
to give, as he says, a mixed political complexion to the 
bench; while at the same time he is in favor of elect¬ 
ing the three judges that constitute another court, all 
in the same district, thus necessarily making them all 
of the same political complexion. 

Mr. VANCE. It may be so, but I do not see it in 
that light. I had no great objection, and in truth 
made no objection to the amendment which changed 
the election of the supreme judges from the district 
system, to an election by the people of the whole 
State. I had some preference, however, for the plan 
proposed by the committee. That plan had one mer¬ 
it, it was not favorable to the creation of a supreme 
bench of mere party politicians—and all of the same 
party at that. True, this would suit the gentleman 
very well, if the members of the bench should per¬ 
chance be all democrats. But suppose they should all 
be whigs, w'ould his theory then suit him? If we are 
to have a mere political court, I would desire to know 
of the gentleman, whether he would not prefer to 
have some of the members of the bench of his political 
faith, than to have all, every one of them, upon the op¬ 
posite side of the question? 

What I would desire to avoid is this : that whatever 
our plan for a judiciary may be, that it shall not be 
based uj^on the consideration of giving to the one or to 
the other political party, an ascendency with the view 
to the election of political or partizan judges—but that 
the system should be made as pei’fect as it is possible 
for us to do, by the harmonizing of the various senti¬ 
ment which prevails. Base the system upon an hon¬ 
est and a practical foundation, and then leave the elec¬ 
tion of the judges to follow. Let us trust something 
to the honesty and good intention of the people, in the 
selection of their judges. We should not so far forget 
our duty here, as to condescend to cut up the system ! 
in this way or that, for the mere purpose—and mr the 












CONVENTION EEPORTS. 577 


purpose alone—of selecting partizan judges. Let us 
not destroy the plan, or impair its value, by amend¬ 
ments founded in any such consideration. 

Now, as to the system itself, I will say that it is, in 
i part, the result of a compromise. We all could not 
J agree upon all and every proposition involved in the 
^ report. As to the proposition just now under consid- 
I eration, I will say, that some of us were warmly in fa- 
( vor of requiring the district court to be^ held in each 
i county; others were no less warmly opposed to it. 
i There are arguments, and arguments entitled to some 
j consideration, both for, and against each side of the 
proposition ; there are benefits to arise, and injuries to 
I result, from either policy suggested in the committee, 

' and again before the comznittee of the Whole. How, 
then, was the question to be settled? How were con- 
j flicting opinions to be reconciled? The committee 
provided that the General Assembly should settle the 
question, by law. Thus leaving the power with the 
: General Assembly, to place the district court in each 
county, or at two or raoi’e places in the district, as cir¬ 
cumstances may justify. Now, in this particular, I 
have no doubt that the people’s will, will be carried 
' out through their General Assembly. Let us, then, not 
undertake to break down and destroy the system, be¬ 
cause it does not, in everything, square with our own 
■ peculiar views upon the subject. I am disposed to say, 

: here, that the plan proposed for an appellate court, is 
one of the very best plans that has ever been suggested 
in our State. If the court should be organized upon the 
plan we will have one of the strongest and most con¬ 
venient courts in the west. The strength of this court, 
too, must necessarily contribute, under the features of 
its organization, to the strengthening and elevation of 
the common pleas courts, which, in truth, are its differ¬ 
ent branches. Here lies the beauty, the strength, and 
: the power of the system. Here we have a strong and 
; efficient intermediate court, without any additional ex¬ 
pense upon the people. You have a court in the midst 
of the people, composed of active and practical judges. 
A court which must necessarily, under its peculiar or- 
: ganization, reflect back upon the common pleas, order, 

' strength and system ; and, I might add, the wisdom of 
I an enlarged experience. 

, Now, sir, any amendment that will impair or destroy 
i this court, will destroy the beauty, the harmony and 
! efficiency of the whole system. Destroy this court, 
j and you will destroy all that will be worth the value 
1 of a fig. If we destroy this project, and throw our- 
! selves Isack upon the ordinary plan of a common pleas 
I court, together with a supreme court flying over the 
1 State, it would require no great effort of the mind to 
predict the failure, the miserable failure of our labors 
1 here. 

Mr. KENNON desired to occupy a few moments in 
the explanation of some of his views upon the subject 
now before the committee ; but he wished first to in- 
i quire of the gentleman from Fairfield [Mr. Robertson] 
in regard to his system: How he carries it out. He 
> desired the exhibition of the features of the scheme as 
i a whole, and would give way for the purpose of hear- 
i ing him, before he proceeded further in his remarks, 
j Mr. ROBERTSON had no scheme of his own, and 
! was not strenuous for any. He wanted to batter down 
j the system reported by the committee. Of those which 
1 had been reported, he preferred, in the main, that of 
1 the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. RjiNNEY,j though 
I he would move to substitute sixteen for the twenty 
udges of that plan. 

I Mr. KENNON wanted to inquire further into the 
system proposed by the gentleman, to take the place 
I of that reported by the committee. What jurisdiction 
would he confer upon the county courts ? Did he in¬ 
tend to make the judges mere judges of probate, or to 
extend their authority to other subjects of higher im¬ 
portance. 

Mr. ROBERTSON said he did not know. He had 
not thought of systems. He had declared war against 

37 


the report of the committee, with its nine districts. 
That war he intended to carry on with every weapon 
within his reach—even if it should turn out to be a 
small beer war To that warfare there should be no 
cessation until the nine districts of the committee were 
got rid of. 

Mr. KENNON was glad to understand so clearly the 
gentleman’s position and intentions. And now, he had 
but a few words to say, not as much in answer, as in 
regard to thepusition of the gentleman from Fairfield, 
and those with whom he is confedei’ated. 

He had had conferred upon him, by the honorable 
president of this Convention, the high and unexpected, 
as well as unsought honor of being made the chairman 
of this committee. He was, and had been sorry that 
it had occurred. He was sorry that some other gentle¬ 
man of the committee had not been selected to fill 
the perilous post of its presiding officer. Why ? Be¬ 
cause, as at present organized, it seems from the state¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Rannet] 
the whigs have over-reached us—the democrats of the 
committee have been over-reached by their whig asso¬ 
ciates. We—that is—a part of us have had our sagac¬ 
ity discredited. He did not know that his friend 
from Richland, [Mr. Kirkwood] was included in the 
charge. 

[Mr. Kirkwood was understood not to claim any ex¬ 
emption. ] 

But who knows that we liave been overreached ? If 
it was our object to so an'ange the system which we 
reported, as to prevent a fair expression of the popular 
will, as the gentleman from Faiiffield says he knows, and 
twice repeats it; but which I deny!—it should be a 
source of great pleasure to all good men, that there 
have been those who have looked over us and watched 
those interests which we are accused of abandoning. 
The people are happy, I say, that there are ever watch¬ 
ful sentinels, to take their stand upon the walls of the 
Democratic party, and take care of its rights. No ; we 
have not been overreached. He charges us with a de¬ 
liberate intention to betray the party. • 

Mr. ROBERTSON said he did not intend to charge 
that such was the object. He said it would be the ef¬ 
fect of the arrangement, and that, he was prepared to 
show would be its effect. 

Mr. KENNON. The gentleman from Fairfield re¬ 
peated the charge twice. I am not mistaken. He said 
he knew it. His charge went to the intentions of the 
committee and of its several members. 

He now says such would be the efie^t, and he can 
show it. 

I deny that, too. And now, I wish to inquire, what 
have we endeavored to do, in this report, to the gentle¬ 
man from Faiiffield, or to any interest it is his duty to 
become the champion of that he should thus publicly 
declare this ferocious and relentless warfare—this war 
to the knife, and knife to the hilt, against us—this im¬ 
placable and endless opposition, to be carried on by 
every sort of weapon—to be fought in the house and 
out of the house—without regard to other interests— 
with a blind disregard of all consequences—I say, why 
is it ? It is because, in our examination of this matter, 
given especially to our charge—entrusted to our parti¬ 
cular supervision, we, with the full intensity of our con¬ 
centrated vision, have not been able to see with the 
clearness and distinctness of the gentleman from lair- 
field. Not only so, but he has pointed out to us the 
defects that he has discovered. What then? He 
charges us with adhering to our errors, and for that, he 
has made his declaration of war, to be waged forever, 
and in all times and places. 

He has proposed an amendment of the obnoxious 
feature. That amendment proposes to divide each of 
the districts into three parts, and elect a judge in each. 
This was proposed and discussed in the committee. It 
is no new proposition. Some members of the commit¬ 
tee were in favor of it. I had no very strong objection 
to the thing. I have stated my reasons, both in com- 














578 


CONVENTION KEPOllTS. 


mittee and in Convention. They are briefly as follows: 
In a court as important as that of’ the court of’ common 
pleas, under this system, it will in general be impossi¬ 
ble to procure a gentleman competent to perform the 
duties required, unless it be some one engaged in tlie 
practice of the law; for I say, as I have remaiked on 
another occasion, that no person who is not capable of 
acquiring and keeping an extensive practice, can have 
the necessary qualifications. It is true that a compe¬ 
tent man may occasionally be found who has declined 
practice ; but this will seldom be the case ; and we may 
in general set it down as a rule, that a lawyer who of¬ 
fers to practice, and does not obtain business, is not fit 
for the place ; and if he has business, and is elected, he 
must leave the district until all his cases are decided. 
How is this difficulty to be obviated ? By combining 
the territory within the jurisdiction of the three judges 
in one, and electing them in common ? By this course 
the judge may be taken away from the circle of his 
own practice, and at the same time, out of the influence 
of his own local associations. Not only so, but the 
piinciple is a just one, while the other is not. Why? 
Because every voter in the district has an interest in 
the judge. The jurisdiction of the judge extends over 
every voter in the district. Would not a man who is 
brought into the court of a judge, in whose election he 
had no voice, have a just right to complain ? Carry out 
the plan, and each succeeding election will present the 
same difficulty, and repeat the same injustice. Another 
man who is interested in a large amount of business at 
home, must be sent off, and put over men that he had 
no choice in electing. How are you to get along with 
this? The gentleman from Fairfield thinks it can be 
done—that there will be no difficulty in finding men 
who have no legal practice, and yet are worthy to sit 
as judges. I will tell you how it will be done : you 
* may find one. Who? Some gentleman who, as is said, 
knows some law, but not enough to hurt; and of him 
you will make a judge. 

Mr. SAWYER. I suppose I may come in under 
that definition. (Laughter.) 

Mr. KENNON. These are the reasons that actuated 
me, in the performance of my duty, as a member of 
the committee. The results of that performance are 
now before the Convention. The question is upon the 
adoption of the system. It is a question addressed to 
the reason and discretion of the members of the Con¬ 
vention. The gentleman from Fairfield has declared 
war agal t«t, ii—to be carried on here and elsewhere. 
Now what is to come of this? And now, to save all feel¬ 
ings of delicacy upon the subject, and to explain my 
own position in regard to this report, I desire to say, I 
that i have no greac fear of attacK, nor any sensitive- ' 
ness of it. If it does not succeed in obtainii g the sup¬ 
port of the Convention, it will not disturb me in the i 
least. We have endeavoi’ed to present the sa stem best ^ 
calculated to suit the circumstances, and if tl eConven- ' 
tion does not agree with us, it can vote it down. The 
warfare of the gentleman from Fairfield we must eii- ( 
deavor to bear. 

There is another thing to be looked at. The gentle- i 
man from Fairfield has seen fit to impart to us the ] 
knowledge of one feature of his system. He asks the i 
committee to strike out twenty-seven, as the number of * 
the judges, and insert sixteen. Now I desire to call on < 
the gentleman to render a reason for this very coiisid- 1 
erable change. And what sort of a reason ? Not a i 
political one. He must ofler no such reason for the 1 
overthrow of a good system. 1 

What is the true cause of this warfare? Why, sir, i 
he ofl'ei-ed an amendment, and not being able to give i 
any good reason for it, this committee voted it down. 1 
They were not willing to take his word for the nec^ssi- 
ty of his amendment, and thereupon he declared in J 
wrath this war. £ 

The gentleman from Trumbull [,Mr. Ranney] has i 
presented a system of his own, which he proposes to t 
substitute for that of the committee. He has come out t 


boldly in the convention, and attacked our plan, for 
reasons which he deems substantial. I honor hiin for 
it. He does not desire to overthrow, without furnish¬ 
ing, a substitute lor that which is destroyed. His op¬ 
position is based upon his view of the workings of the 
system, and he has done no more than his duty to him¬ 
self and his constituents demand. But what does the 
gentleman from Fairfield say? Fie does not know how 
the system is to be afl'ected by his amendment. What 
then? Why, he is going, at all hazards, to break down 
the cursed thing the rascally whigs have imposed upon 
us democrats. That is his object. 

Again ; a word iq)on the political reason of the gen¬ 
tleman from Fairfield. I must say, whether to my 
shame or not, that I ha e never looked into a map of 
the State of Ohio, whether political or not, to see how 
the State can be divided into districts with a [)roper di¬ 
vision of the political power in the judiciary, under this 
system, and 1 do not know as 1 ever shall. The gen 
tleman from Fairfield has had the wisdom and foresight 
to do it, and that is enough; but I would respectfidly 
ask any gentleman, disposed to sustain his views, pre¬ 
vious to doing so, to put his own eye on the map, and 
not exactly to trust imj)licitly to his word. He may 
not have had that perfect and unvariable prescience 
which he flatters himself he possesses. He may not 
have had the foresight to see how the General Assem¬ 
bly. whose duty it shall be to divide the State into dis¬ 
tricts, may be constituted; nor how in the wisdom of 
that body, those districts may be made. I therefore 
ask that this shall be ascertained, before we are requir¬ 
ed to act in so important a matter lor a mere political 
reason. 

A word more, Mr. Chairman: It is in human nature 
to support one’s political friends. It will not do for a 
democrat to say that he will go for a whig; nor for a 
whig to go for a democrat. But there are considera¬ 
tions higher even than the interests of any party. The 
judiciary is the right arm of our institutions. The 
highest of human trusts are the subjects of its care. 
Who, then, should be a judge? The man of the high¬ 
est integrity—the man who, by his ability, his learn¬ 
ing and his habits, is best qualified to discharge its du¬ 
ties. This is he who should be elected—not because 
he believes this or that political creed, but because'he 
is qualified to discharge its duties. 

I have seen more of political life than the gentleman 
from Farfield. I am older than he is—commenced my 
political career sooner. I have had some opportuni¬ 
ties for observation, and for reflection, and 1 will tell 
him what I want. I want the judicial officers of the 
State, above ail others, not to be under the influence 
of political men or political considei’ations. What is 
the duty of a judge ? Fie is sworn to decide the law 
as it is. Would you interrogate the candidate as to 
his political sentiments ? Would you claim thathe was 
elected to carry out this or that political principle, and 
that when he comes to the bench he must decide in 
conformity with the opinions of his party ? 

Another word. I have seen the operation of polit¬ 
ical parties upon the public interests, and upon the com¬ 
munity, and I will tell the gentleman from F^airfield fur¬ 
ther what I have seen. I have seen the supreme ex¬ 
ecutive officer of the United States elected, and every 
officer whose incumbency was within his gift, filled by 
his appointment. And how were these offices filled? 
How were the incumbents selected ? By recommenda¬ 
tion, and only by recommendation. The president 
knows no one; it is impossible that he should. And 
now: who is the applicant ? Is he a modest, unassum¬ 
ing, estimable, capable man ? Those are qualifications 
that scarcely ever obtain it. Who then ? The man 
with the most impudence, and the least brains, almost 
always gets the office. So if a high political caste is 
given to the judiciary, who will go to a political meet¬ 
ing to nominate a judge ? Who will control it? Not 
the men of the most sense. Such men will not gener¬ 
ally get the nomination. What I say this for, is for the 










CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


579 


purpose of appending to it a declaration that at no lime 
—neither in the committee nor in the Convention, the 
consideration of which party would have a majority of 
the judges ot the courts of common pleas, ever enter¬ 
ed into my calculation, and I do not now think it ever 
will. As a member of the committee I have taken 
time to look at the general operation of the system, 
and at that alone. 

The gentleman from Fairfield has said, that I have 
not been in political life for some years. That is true. 
He thinks, that in consequence, I have not progressed 
with the advance of the party. 'I'hat he does not know. 
He thinks that my associations may have alfected my 
political opinions. That he does not know neither. He 
does not know—perhaps he cannot understand—that 
in the study that I have given to this subject, and the 
labors which I have performed, as pure motives as ever 
operated upon man, have operated upon me. 

When I arose, Mr. Chamnan, there was something 
more that I intended to say ; but I doubt whether I 
ought to say it—and I will not. Sufficient until the day 
is the evil thereof. 

Mr. HUMFHREVILLE was not I’eady, even after 
the able speech of the distinguished gentleman from 
Belmont, [Mr. Kennon,] to subscribe to the entire re¬ 
port of the committee. He would not, at this late hour 
[6 B. M.] take up the time of the committee with any 
extended remarks. He would simply say that the re¬ 
port of the committee (on the Judiciary,) did not re¬ 
flect the will of the people. There was but little real 
democracy in some of its provisions. Although he 
could not support the report as a whole he accorded to 
the committee entire freedom from all sinister and im¬ 
proper motives. 

On motion by Mr. TAYLOR, the committee rose, re¬ 
ported “ no conclusion,” and obtained leave to sit 
again. 

And the Convention adjourned. 


SATURDAY June 29, 1850. 

8 o’clock, a. M. 

Trayer by the Rev. Mr. Essick. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren presented the petition of 
John W. Keys and 19 other citizens of the county of 
Warren, praying that a provision be inserted in the 
new constitution (to be submitted to a vote of the peo¬ 
ple) prohibiting the passage of any law, whereby the 
right to sell intoxicating drinks shall be granted to any 
one or the traffic therein in any manner legalized. 

Mr HOLT presented the petition of John Miller and 
fifty-four other citizens of Darke county, on the same 
subject. 

The PRESIDENT presented the petition of John A. 
Conway and 15 other citizens of the county of Frank¬ 
lin, on the same subject. 

The petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of retailing ardent spirits. 

Mr. MANON, agreeable to previous notice, moved to 
amend the first standing rule of the Convention, by 
striking out the words “ two thirds,” and inserting the 
w’ords '‘a majority,” so that it would read— 

‘‘And a quorum, consisting of a majority of the whole number 
of delegates constituting the Convention, shall have power to 
transact business.” 

Mr. LARSH demanded a division of the question. 

Mr. MASON moved that the Convention resolve itself 
into a committee of the whole on the orders of the day. 

Mr. CHAMBERS demaud?d theyeas andnays, which 
being ordered, resulted as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bennett, Blair, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Clark, Claypoole, Collings, 
Ewing Farr, Forbes, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, 
Gregg Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, 
King Kirkwood, Larwill, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, McCormick, 
Nash Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, Robertson, Roll, Saw- 
yer Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Stidger, Tay. 
lor,’Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Mr. 

^^Nays—M^ srs. Andrews, Archbold, Bates, Blickensderfer, Case 
of Licking, Chambers, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Gray, 


Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, 
Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Ma¬ 
rion, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Perkins, Smith of Warren, 
Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swift, Vance of Butler, Williams, 
and Woodbury.—37. 

The motion prevailing, the Convention then resolved 
itself into a committee of the whole, (Mr. Green of 
Ross in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of 
report No. 1 on 

THE JUDICIARY. 

The amendment offered by Mr. Robertson, which was 
pending when the Convention adjourned, still remain¬ 
ing undisposed of^— 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman : I desire to of¬ 
fer some remarks in favor of my amendment, submitted 
last evening, and I do so with exceeding deference to 
those gentlemen of the Convention who are so much 
better qualified than myself to suggest amendments to 
the report of the Judiciary committee. I am well con¬ 
vinced, sir, that I do not possess the legal qualifications, 
knowledge and experience which should be possessed 
by any gentleman venturing to offer an amendment to 
this report. I hoped there would be no necessity on 
my part for offering any amendments. I waited until 
I thought thatthe section under consideration was about 
to pass, before I offered the amendment which was vo¬ 
ted down. I thought it important, sir, that the Judici¬ 
ary system provided for in this report, should be fully 
considered in committee of the whole, for I apprehend 
that the committee will shape and model the constitu¬ 
tion we are engaged in making. I saw, as I imagined, 
a great defect in the report of the committee. I knew 
well enough that an individual, without legal position, 
could not very well succeed in any amendment to this 
report, however proper. 

I could well foresee that my temerity would invoke 
the ire and indignation of gentlemen high in the digni 
ty and fame of the legal profession, who felt themselves 
better qualified than any others, here or elsewhere, to 
provide a judicial organization for the State. In ad¬ 
vance we were forewarned by the distinguished, the 
erudite and recondite chairman of the committee [Mr. 
Kennon] that the system which had been provided for 
us, by himself and associates, and which was laid be¬ 
fore the Conveniion merely to be sanctioned, could not 
be improved. Yes sir, this system came into the Con¬ 
vention with the full endorsement and approbation of 
the learned chairman of that committee ; and, sir, the 
bolder spirits of the Convention were kindly forewarn¬ 
ed by him, that if they dared to meddle with this his 
darling bantling, they would thereby write themselves 
down as not possessing knowledge enough of law to 
hurt them. Well, sir, there have been men who pos¬ 
sessed too much legal learning of a certain quality to 
benefit them, and at the same time not enough democ¬ 
racy to hurt them. 

But, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding this system is 
the work of some distinguished legal gentleman, I be¬ 
lieve it is radically wrong. I agree with the distin¬ 
guished Bacon in his pithy but true remark, that the best 
lawyers are not always the best law-makers; and that 
those who are the best qualified for the bar, or to pre¬ 
side upon the bench, are not the best qualified to make 
laws. It is a fact that the great legal reformers of the 
world, in every age and country, have not been prac¬ 
ticing lawyers. They have not been men who have 
devoted themselves to the practice of the legal [iro- 
fession, but to its study as a science; they have In ea 
those who have entered upon its practice and become 
sufficiently acquainted with its routine to understand 
it, and afterwards devoted their lives to the study ot ju¬ 
risprudence and improvements in legal science. 

Jeremy Bentham, a great man, who had his errors, 
as all great men have, was a legal recluse and devoted 
his life to the study of jurisprudence. He is justly 
esteemed the father of legal reform. It was Jeremy 
Bentham who' started legal reform in England. He 
labored for the world. He made codes for half the na¬ 
tions of Europe. There has not been, in this or any 











580 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


other countiy, a man who devoted a life-time to the 
practice of the law, and who was at the same time a 
radical reformer. Such a concurrence of character so 
opposite seems impossible. The illusti’ious Jefferson, 
the great political law-giver of this nation, abandoned 
a lucrative legal practice while quite a young man, and 
devoted himself to the study of jurisprudence and poli¬ 
tics, and hence his greatness. I will admit, that there 
are great statesmen upon the other side still practicing 
at the bar, but they are just as great in their opposition 
to all reform. It is a fact that a close adherence to the 
practice of the law shuts the individual heart out from 
all sympathy with the big throbbing heart of society. 
I do not mean to say that as a class mere lawyers are 
less benevolent or less just than other men ; but Ido 
assert, that they are apt to lose sympathy for the peo¬ 
ple, whom they often look down upon from their legal 
elevation with contempt. As a class they manfest but 
little feeling or interest in behalf of the mighty political 
improvements that keep society in motion. Such are 
the characteristics of eminent practicing lawyers, es¬ 
pecially in this country, where all branches of the pro¬ 
fession are united. Whoever desires to become emi¬ 
nent as a lawyer must devote his days and nights to his 
profession. There are few of our most distinguished 
lawyers who possess that quickness of mind and ver¬ 
satility of genius that will enable them to attend to all 
the demands of a large practice, and enjoy at the same 
time either leasure or inclination to enrich their minds 
with various learning, so that as a general rule our law¬ 
yers are mere lawyers and nothing else. 

There is no danger, Mr. Chairman, that the legal 
gentlemen who stand highest in the profession, and 
form the bulwarks of conservatism, will ever be con¬ 
verted to any of the doctrines of that “ transcendental 
political philosophy ” which so much annoys my dis¬ 
tinguished friend from Clark [Mr. Mason.] No dan¬ 
ger of that; and I say this without disrespect to that 
gentleman, as I accord to him the possession of the 
most graceful virtues, and I feel for him the highest 
personal respect. But the most learned, the most hon¬ 
est, sincere and patriotic man, like the most insignifi¬ 
cant insect, or the minutest worm that crawls upon the 
earth, is governed by his oi’ganization. Education and 
habit govern the development of mind and the forma¬ 
tion of opinion, and often make a man, in old age, a 
very different being, intellectually and morally, from 
what he was in his youth. We are all what our organ¬ 
ization, education and circumstances, make us. I know 
remarks like these excite in the breasts of some gen¬ 
tlemen feelings by no means kindly to those who utter 
them. I regret this, but there are influences which 
must be analyzed, truths which must be spoken, when 
the time comes. I am opposed, Mr. Chairman, to the 
judiciary system contained in the report now under 
discussion, and for the reasons given by its friends in 
its favor. We are told that it is designed to build up a 
splendid judiciary and a splendid bar. The people 
want not a splendid, but an honest, law-abiding, work¬ 
ing judiciary, that will do the legal business of the 
people n the best possible manner. I have here, sir, 
some resolutions on this subject, that came from the 
people—from one of those political meetings which, 
according to the declared views of the gentleman from 
Belmont, [Mr. Kennon,] are not governed by the best 
men. Notwithstanding the views of that gentleman, I 
apprehend, Mr. Chairman, that political meetings are 
an average representation of the people. I am always 
glad to listen to the voice of the people; and it has al¬ 
ways been my good fortune to have served in their 
ranks. I never want to leave them—my heart is there 
—my sympathies are there—and my head is there. A 
meeting lately has been held in the county of Ashland, 
by the hard money democrats; and a glorious set of 
men they are, too, for whom my heart is ever warm. 
They are bold spirits, who know the light and dare do 
it. They passed in this meeting, among others, the 
following resolutions: 


Resolved, That in the opinion ot this meeting, the Constitution 
should provide that all the different courts, (except perhaps a 
court in bank,) should be held in each of the several counties of 
the State, and as often at least as once a year. 

Resolved, That our delegates in the Constitutional Convention 
are requested and instructed to use all honorable and proper 
means, to so far alter and change the report of the Judiciary 
committee, so as to provide for holding the supreme court, (or 
district court, as it is termed in the report,) in every county in 
the State, and that we regard the ehbrt of the majority of said 
committee, as an attempt to establish an aristocracy of lawyers 
at the expense and to the great detriment of the main body of 
the people. 

There is this objection to these resolutions : they were 
drawn up, probably, by some county lawyer who had 
not yet attained any eminence at the bar, and who 
knew but little of the mysteries of the profession.— 
But these resolutions were passed by the people — peo¬ 
ple, Mr. Chairman—that word which, the venerable 
and learned gentleman from Clark told the committee 
the other day, is “ evei’lastingly on the tongue ot the 
member from Fairfield.” 

Mr. MASON. What was that the gentleman from 
Fairfield said? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I say, sir, that the resolutions I 
have just read were passed by the “ people;” that word 
which the venerable and learned gentleman from Clark 
[Mr. Mason] says is “everlastingly on the tongue of 
the member from Fairfield.” 

Mr. MASON. There was so much noise in the hall 
that I did not hear the “ oratorical cadence ” of the 
gentleman. [Laughter.] 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I have been in the h ibit of lis¬ 
tening so much to the “ cadence ” of the distinguished 
gentleman from Clark that he will mff certainly repu¬ 
diate his pupil’s first essay at imitation. [Laughter.] 

As I have remarked, T have very great respect for 
the gentleman from Clark, and wish to make no offen¬ 
sive allusion. I know he is honest and patriotic, and, 
like the rest of us, is just what his nature and educa¬ 
tion have made him. 

Now, sir, I do not feel permitted to say whether the 
charge contained in these resolutions is true or not. I 
shall make no charge of the kind, for that will be met 
at once as a direct offence against the distinguished 
gentlemen of the legal profession, who made this re¬ 
port, and produce a dreadful commotion among the 
great planets of the legal system of Ohio. These great 
planets of the legal profession, have fixed up a system 
by which they will become the great and shining lights 
of the State—a system of nine planets and nine centres; 
each planet with its own satellites to give light by 
night, and the whole to revolve around the great cen¬ 
tre here at Columbus—a compromise of legal forces, 
like that which we have in our solar system. One 
gentleman fixes a district in this part of the map ; an¬ 
other has a district fixed up there—another district is 
to be here, another there, so that each of these distin¬ 
guished legal planets will be the great light of his dis¬ 
trict. He has perhaps been a judge and knows all 
about the law from the beginning of the horn-book to 
the end of the last statute: therefore a district should 
be made up for him, regardless of the interests of the 
people and young members of the bar. 

To win favor for this plan, a great deal has been said 
here in opposition to the system of riding the circuit, or 
the ‘‘ stirruping ” system, as it has been called—that is, 
to the supreme judges going from one county to anoth¬ 
er. In the early days of this State, the Burnets, the 
Beechers, and their associates, “stirruped” it all over 
the State; even as far as the north-west corner of the 
State, often up into Michigan. And great men they 
became by that sort of “ stirruping.” They went 
among the people, and in that way, acquired much of 
that practical knowledge which made them so distin¬ 
guished. They stirruped it^ about among the people 
until they learned to be great men, and their names live 
after their bones have crumbled into dust. They were 
not learned and distinguished pettifoggersof a day, who, 
left no memories behind them. There are men, who, 
because they have grown gray in the legal profession. 











CONVENTION REPOETS. 581 


claim all the wisdom of the State, and arrogate to 
themselves the exclusive right to frame our judiciary 
Byslem, and they must have a sysleiii made for their 
especial benefit. It is, perhaps, impi’udent to say this, 
for such a declaration will bring these gentlemen down 
upon me like the glaciers of the Alps—to overwhelm 
me with an avalanche of denunciation, scorn and con¬ 
tempt. 

I am perfectly aware, Mr, Chairman, of the temerity 
and imminent danger of entering into a conflict with 
these powerful giants, but remember it was the Lillu- 
puts that contended with the mighty Gidliver, and 
bound him down by slender cords to the earth. I have 
proposed an amendment, which I confess I had not the 
time fully to consider, but I thought the battle was 
nearly lost, and as I am not made of that sort of stuff 
to knock under at the first reverse, I thought I would 
offer something to detain the objectionable section un¬ 
der consideration, so as to allow other gentlemen, who 
like myself, are opposed to it, to bring their batteries 
to bear upon it. 

Should my amendment prevail, a judicial system in 
harmony with it might be easily constructed which 
would be more satisfactory to the people than the plan 
of the committee. T propose that there should be six¬ 
teen common pleas circuits, and that one judge shall 
be elected in each; and that there shall be a county 
judge in each county, who shall be an associate judge 
on the common pleas bench, and he shall be clothed 
with probate and other powers. All necessary juris¬ 
diction may be conferred on the county court by the 
Legislature. Then provide for the election of six 
judges of the supreme court. Let the supi*eme court, 
presided over by two judges, be held in every county 
in the State. You may thus provide for a simple and 
economical judicial system—a system which, I believe, 
would answer all the ends of justice and meet public 
expectation. But these are only crude suggestions. 
I have been requested to withdraw my amendment. 
If any other gentleman will suggest amendments to 
attain the object desired by those opposed to the report 
of the Judiciary committee, I will withdraw it. I am 
only a volunteer—a private in the ranks of those op¬ 
posed to the plan of the committee, giving precedence 
to all others in the fight, and acting on my own hook 
only when I feel myself absolutely compelled. 

Now, sir, I come to another subject. I committed a 
grievous offence yesterday. In the first place, I took 
the position that these compound districts will in part 
destroy the accountability of the judges to the people. 
I expressed the opinion that there would be more ac¬ 
countability of judges to the electors in the single dis¬ 
trict system, than in the tiio judge system. This has 
been denied by the gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. 
Kennon,] but his whole argument strengthened and 
sustained my position. In the second place, I took the 
very offensive and unfortunate position that this sys¬ 
tem did not give the democracy of Ohio an equal 
chance with the whig party in the election of judges. 
That was not denied, but the inference of this fact, is, 
in the estimation of the gentleman from Belmont, an 
unpardonable iniquity. But the greatest offence was, 
that I said I would wage war upon the system—that I 
would fight it on both flanks, and assail it in the centre. 
I did not make an attack upon any member of the 
committee. What I said, applied to the report, and to 
what I believed to be the effect of the report. Be¬ 
cause I ventured to do that, I excited the hostility and 
condemnation of gentlemen whose respect I would be 
glad to enjoy. 

The Hon. gentleman from Warren [Mr. Smith] took 
me to task in a most gentlemanly manner, and endeav¬ 
ored to show me that I was wrong. That was fair, le¬ 
gitimate, and high ground, and I may say here, that 
since I have been in this Convention, I have never 
known that gentleman to employ any other than kind 
and gentlemanly language towards his opponents, and 
I cannot help respecting him, as an honorable and wor¬ 


thy antagonist. But I am constrained to say that we 
must remain in opposition. This judiciary system is 
the stronghold, the great political engine of his party, 
and I am not willing that his party shall be unduly 
strengthened especially by the action of this Conven- 
tioM in its control over this political engine. But the 
distinguished gentleman from Belmont [Mr. Kknonn] 
was so incensed by my remarks yesterday, that he 
could not resist an attempt to inflict upon me, a severe 
castigation. He seemed to think that my remarks were 
a personal attack upon himself. He is exceedingly sen¬ 
sitive. Has it come to this, that we cannot speak of the 
practical, political effect of reports of committees or the 
propositions of members presented in this body for its 
consideration without being charged with personal as¬ 
saults ? I hope not. The fact asserted by me, that 
this report would give an undue advantage in the 
election of judges to the Whig party ; and defeat the 
will of the people in the election of judges, has not 
been controverted, yet it was an unpardonable offence, 
and in the estimation of the distinguished gentleman 
from Belmont warranted him in making upon me a 
very uncalled for and personal attack, for although his 
speech was muffled like the oars of a pirate in a dark 
night, it was directed at the humble individual now 
addressing you. I was sorry for it, I regretted it, 
lor there lives not a man on the face of God’s earth, 
however earnest I may seem to be, who is more de¬ 
sirous to avoid conflict than I am, unless it be a pure 
legitimate conflict for principle, from which my na¬ 
ture forbids me to shrink. Sir, that gentleman has 
great experience and talents and powers of scath¬ 
ing rebuke. The timid may well fear him. His bit¬ 
ing sarcasm has been visited upon me, and not satisfied 
with that, he came down upon me with his flying bat¬ 
teries of scorn and contempt, to annihillate me so that, 
I should never dare to raise my diminished head again 
in this august assembly. He wasmistaken—he missed 
his mark. In the homely saying of the Irishman, I tell 
that gentleman “ that a man is not always dead when 
he’s kilt.” 

In his terrible assault upon me, to give point and 
cutting sharpness to his sarcasm, equal almost to flay¬ 
ing the skin off a poor fellow, he comes down upon the 
politicians—the miserable, contemptible politicians.— 
Let me remind that gentleman that there is a class of 
politicians who have disgraced the profession of politics. 
I tell him there is a class of politicians who have 
brought shame and obloquy upon the profession of pol¬ 
itics. They are the men who you do not know where 
to find when you want them. [Laughter.] 

The gentleman tells us there are some men who have 
impudence enough to make great professions of what 
they have done, and then go to the party dnd ask for 
an office. These are the fellows that are knocking a- 
bout political meetings, and fighting for hard money, 
and endeavoring to cany their points by peaceable 
means; if they cannot then by storm. These are the 
fellows the gentleman from Belmont is after. These 
are the very men—the impudent politicians that control 
political meetings, get up all sorts of ultra resolutions, 
and play the very deuce with those very, very moder¬ 
ate men, who like the gentleman from Belmont are too 
patriotic to attend such meetings. These are the ras¬ 
cals that compel such modest gentlemen as that mem¬ 
ber to stand back while they appropriate to themselves 
all the spoils of victory. How cruel! It is too bad ! 
It may be very wrong, yet it is tnie, that the zealous, 
the eaiTisst spirits of the Democratic party have very 
little confidence in these moderate, no party democrats, 
notwithstanding their modestj^. They do very well for 
the Whig party, or the no-party party of my distin- 
ed friend from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] yho, when 
General Taylor was a candidate for the Presidency was 
perfectly sick of party, and when the General was 
elected was sicker of no-party. That gentleman will 
not venture to say a word about no party here. Oth¬ 
ers, claiming to be of the party on this side of the cham¬ 
ber, perform that service for him and his friends. 









582 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


That gentleman was quite sick of party until his par¬ 
ty got into power, and then there was a great revolu¬ 
tion in his feelings, changing him from a no party man, 
to a strong partizan—so strong that he could unite 
with others to remove Dr. Trevittfrom his post of phy¬ 
sician of the Penitentiary. Yes, Mr. Chairman, he 
could lend his mighty influence to remove from his post 
this brave and accomplished physician, who, when the 
cholera was cutting down the unfortunate inmates of 
the penitentiary by the hundred, offered up voluntari¬ 
ly his life for their preservation; giving his days and his 
nights to their service, while others, whose duty it was 
to breast the danger, fled in dismay—while courage¬ 
ous physicians were falling in the discharge of their du¬ 
ty ! But Dr. Trevitt was a democrat, and therefore 
these gentlemen of the no-party, demanded his re¬ 
moval notwithstanding his merits, and his services in 
the noble cause of humanity. And such are the men 
who deplore party action here, in the very theatre of 
party conflict. Such are the men, who denounce the 
advocates of sound democratic principles, as radicals, 
agrarians, destructives, and ultras. Such are the men, 
who sympathise with the views and feelings of such 
‘‘moderate” democi’ats, as the gentleman from Bel¬ 
mont. 

There is a class of men claiming to be democrats, 
who have one foot in our ranks, and the other in the 
ranks of the opposite party—they are never known to 
attend political meetings, never known to express a de¬ 
cided political opinion. They have too much respect 
for the gentlemen upon the other side, to differ from 
them violently. They have too much kind feeling to 
offend them by attending political meetings. Kind, ur¬ 
bane, good men, and very, very, very modest, and ve¬ 
ry moderate Democrats, like the gentleman from Bel¬ 
mont. [Mr. Kennon,] and like the poor, miserable, 
pettifogging lawyers, that gentleman spoke of, who 
have not enough knowledge of law, to hurt them, these 
very moderate democrats have not sufficient democracy 
to hurt [Laugh.] These gentlemen receive the 

approbation, the sympathy, kindness, and love of their 
political opponents, for they are most amiable, and ve¬ 
ry kind and good men. It is very comfortable to be 
so much beloved by opponents, but I should not like to 
pay so high a price for the boon. I would as far as 
possible secure the good opinion of every man; as far 
as I could consistently with my sense of duty. But I 
would not like to pay that price for it. 

The gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. Kennon,] thank¬ 
ed me, in his peculiar way—for, you know he is an 
ironical man, and possesses that talent in a wonderful 
degree—he thanked me, and was under great obliga¬ 
tions to “the gentleman from Fairfield,” for giving 
warning to his political friends, when they were about 
to sell out to the enemy. Let me tell that gentleman, 
that I warned not him. His mind is too big, not to 
comprehend what he was about. He is too deliberate, 
astute, shrewd, and wary an exemplar of moderate 
democracy, to need such warning, or profit by it. But if 
that gentleman sets himself up as a model democrat, I 
beg to be excused from following his example. I much 
prefer such an exemplar as Andrew Jackson, the man 
who never feared to do right. He is my chosen exam¬ 
ple, for veneration and study, for I have imagined him 
to be the greatest man that ever lived. No, no; I will 
not warn the gentleman from Belmont; my warning 
would not leach him. I did not warn, I wished if 
possible to avoid the vengeance and indignation of 
that gentleman, for I know he cuts with a keen sabre, 
and that, if I came in conflict with him, I could hardly 
expect to fai'e as well as little David with the giant 
Goliah. However, when I pause and reflect upon the 
subject, I find that there is not so much danger, after 
all, in the little Davids of democracy fighting Goliahs ; 
especially, Mr. Chairman, when the Davids are right, 
and the Goliahs are wrong. I am often reminded of 
the old adage, “ the race is not always to the swift, nor 
the battle to the strong,” which encourages me, when 


I am conscious of weakness of intellectual power, and 
personal influence ; and thus I venture a conflict even 
with the gentleman from Belmont. That gentleman, 
presuming that I was impudent and impertinent in ven¬ 
turing to be a politician, tells me, that he was a politi¬ 
cian before I knew anything about politics. I am well 
aware of that fact. I know he was a politician before 
I knew any thing about politics; and, Mi’. Chairman, 
he travelled up the political ladder to the height upon 
which he now stands, but as soon as he reached that 
eminence, he folded his arms, kicked the ladder oyer, 
with contempt, [laugh.] Like A Inashcar, in Arabian 
Nights’ Entertainment, he had kicked over his basket 
of glass! Alnashcar had purchased a basket of glass¬ 
ware, and while sitting in his stall, with his basket of 
glass before him, waiting for customers, he amused 
himself with dreams of good fortune; with this small 
beginning, he was soon to make an immense fortune. 
He would then surround himself with all the enjoy¬ 
ments of life, and when his spouse came to him with 
something to drink, he would be wearied with her en¬ 
treaties, and (suiting action to word) kick her over 
thus—and with a push of his foot, away went the bas¬ 
ket of glass, which, with his vision'of fortune, was bro¬ 
ken to pieces. It was thus the gentleman from Bel¬ 
mont kicked over liis basket of glass. He might have 
read, with profit, this story of Alnaschar. [Laugh.] 

Yes, that gentleman was once a very distinguished 
politician. His politics made him a judge. He went 
into a democratic caucus—he was balloted for and 
nominated as a democrat—his recommendations were, 
his party political ties and sympathies. He asked the 
nomination because he was a party man. He run 
down and run over another party man. He ran him 
out of the caucus. The gentleman now says he has not 
been a politician for ten years. But it was thus he got 
the handle to his name. His title to fame and dignity 
was won in political meetings. His reputation for par¬ 
ty zeal and devotion elected him judge, and sent him 
to Congress. But a change has come over him, and 
now he avoids party meetings and despises politicians. 
Yes he is now a moderate, a reasonable democi’at; but 
in this place, he repudiates all party considerations. 

But it strikes my mind that the whole tenor and 
force of the gentleman’s remarks on yesterday would 
have sounded better from the lips of some gentleman 
on the other side of the chamber. His speech might 
have come very well from the gentleman from Clark, 
[Mr. Mason,] or any of his no-party friends on the oth¬ 
er side. (A laugh.) Gentlemen may think that I intend 
to be sarcastic m this remark, but I do not. I am sin¬ 
cere in what I say. The real no-party men are on the 
other side. They do not desire party conflict. They 
look with contempt upon a man who will take an ac¬ 
tive part in political meetings, unless it be to oppose 
the democrats, who are the men tliat excite the party 
contests of the day and keep the country in commotion. 
But if you analyze this no-party cry, by the rules of 
logic, you will find that at last it resolves itself into 
contempt for the people. If the people can long be 
ruled and insulted by designing political managers, the 
people themselves become the fountain whence these 
muddy waters flow. 

No sir, however the gentleman from Belmont may 
cover up his sentiments by verbiage and personal as¬ 
sault, the plain good sense of the people will extract 
the meaning and give to him his true place upon the 
public platform. The sneers and scoffs of that gentle¬ 
man cannot influence my course here. I came to this 
Convention, Mr. Chairman, a partizan. Yes, I am 
proud to say it: a democratic partizan. I came here 
with a purpose as religious as ever devotee entered 
church or closet, earnestly praying to the Omnipitent 
that He would enable me to devote with success the 
small share of influence and talent which I may possess, 
to the formation of a democratic constitution ; for I ear¬ 
nestly believe that to be the only kind of a constitution 
which can fully promote the welfare and happiness of 











583 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the people of the State of Ohio. 1 iiave stated this open¬ 
ly and Irankly before, not becan.se I desired to excite 
any personal cr partizan animosity, but merely in or¬ 
der that we might understand each other. And I know, 
if all experience is a fact, that notwithstanding the 
present impressions or professions of gentlemen on the 
other side of the chamber, that if they had a majority 
iu this Convention their constitution would be wiiig in 
every particular that they could make it so, consistent 
with any probability of its success before the people. 
They would be compelled of course, to yield somewhat 
to public sentiment, but my conviction is, that they 
would yield as little as possible to the influence of pro¬ 
gressive measures. 

I know that gentlemen on the other side, wh-^never 
in the minority, profess to be opposed to partisan con¬ 
flicts and considerations. They were so before the late 
presidential election, when their great argument was, 
that the election of Zachary Taylor would give birth 
to an era of good feeling, and put an end to party stri¬ 
vings. For, said they, Gen. Taylor, above all others, 
woidd not be influenced by party policy, inasmuch as 
he had never voted in his life; he had been serving his 
,country in the barracks and on the battle-field ; he was 
no political theorist; he was without party views, and 
would refuse to be governed by party counsels. All 
this was believed by many of the people ; and it was 
indeed a grave question, debated amongst even the 
doubting, half-believing democracy, whether he would 
be thus governed or not. But, sir, when the battle was 
over, how soon was this principle of no party aban¬ 
doned! and party “to the bitter end” was the cry.— 
The party knife entered the heart of every man sup¬ 
posed to contain democratic blood. The democratic 
men, who achieved for Taylor all his honors, and fought 
with him in the war of 1812, in Florida, and in Mexi¬ 
co, were pursued by him as were pursued the Seminole 
Indians by his blood-hounds. Yes, sir. worse than that; 
even the poor democratic women—widows—for having 
slept with democratic husbands and borne democratic 
children, were pursued and driven out of the little post 
offices where they held appointments,—driven out 
with their children and bandboxes, and whistled down 
the wind of no-party, to seek a living as best they 
could. All for no-party ! Aye, gentlemen, you are 
very consistent. Whenever you are in the minority, 
you are for no-party; but whenever you are in the ma¬ 
jority, you are all-party. Why, gentlemen, you labor¬ 
ed with all your might to bring a party majority into 
this Convention. Every man of you upon the other 
side placed the issue before the people upon party 
grounds, and exerted himself to the utmost of his pow¬ 
er to secure a whig no-party majority. You told the 
people that, if the democrats had the majority, the con¬ 
stitution would be “ locofoco;” and the people were 
implored to send whig delegates hei’e, to prevent such 
a result. The defeat of democracy would have been 
the triumph of whiggery. It is the chief concern of 
the whig party to arrest the advance of the progress 
party. All they hope to accomplish is to seize upon 
the car of progress, and hold it back; and you. gentle¬ 
men, implored the people to send you here in order 
that you might do that. You have come here, and your 
presence here is for that, and for nothing else; and you 
know it. You came here, leaving more lucrative pur¬ 
suits, to arrest the progress of the hard money destruc¬ 
tives—the rampant democracy of the State. Many of 
you would never have left a lucrative practice, to sit 
here in dog-days, but for this. 

I assail not your motives, but grant that you are all 
honest men—acting upon your convictions of right and 
duty. And what is more, and the worst of all, I am 
not yet certain but you will succeed ; but for one, I 
say to you, that all my exertions, whether well or ill 
directed, shall be designed to block your game and de¬ 
feat your purpose. We have in this chamber the lead¬ 
ing whig politicians of the State. I do not say they 
are dishonorable—although they are inconsistent often 


—I do not mean to charge them with any lack of hon¬ 
esty or patriotic devotion to their country—but I say to 
these gentlemen, you are here as politicians, and why 
do you deny it? I like an open fight. Say not a word 
more, then, about your no-partyism. Wo understand 
you—it is useless. 

I, sir, do not in any manner sympathise with this cry 
against party; and I affirm that it never will come from 
any friend of rel'orm, or of the progressive principles of 
the democratic party. I make the assertion boldly, 
that no-party is whiggery, and party is democracy. 
Our national government was started upon no-party, 
and so continued until its tendency became despotic— 
until it was running a rapid career toward monai’chy— 
until our whole system was about to be shipwrecked. 
The men who formed our national constitution, organ¬ 
ized a republican government, but the no-party party 
which first ruled the country, was rapidly sapping the 
foundations of the liberties of the people. Then it was 
that the great .Tefferson—that political sage to whom 
the gentleman from Geauga was attached in his youth 
—entered the political arena and founded the demo¬ 
cratic party. That was the origin of party in this coun¬ 
try. In Philadelphia and other cities, meetings were 
called and democratic associations were foi*med. The 
good, the great, the wise and patriotic father of his 
country was led away by the federalist cry of no¬ 
party, and in one of his messages, I think, or perhaps 
in one of his letters, he lamented the_formation of these 
associations, and condemned them as dangerous to the 
peace and prosperity of the country. And you will 
find, in Jetlerson’s works, (with which the gentleman 
from Geauga is familiar, no doubt,) a defence of these 
associations. Such was the formation of the democra¬ 
tic party, and the origin of the party conflicts which 
have agitated the country. And I assert here, that, if 
it had not been for the formation of the democratic 
party, the liberties of the people would have soon faded 
away in the blighting shade of federalism. 

The framers of our national constitution made a good 
Democratic system of government: but the no party 
men, and especially the judicial gentlemen who follow 
ed them, and held the most cbntroling influence in the 
country, united to destroy the Democratic character 
thus stamped upon the government; the federalist jud¬ 
ges of the supreme court of the United States, clothed 
m imposing ermine, and secure in their judicial seats, 
labored to change the character of the government, and 
to some extent they succeeded- 

It is for this reason that I am watchful and jealous of 
the power of the judiciary, ,1am not willing that this 
power should pass into the hands of no-party whigs or 
no-party democrats: for they all belong to the same 
party. Why sir, there is more power in the judiciary 
of this country, than in any other combination of in¬ 
fluences. These judicial gentlemen have more control 
over the government of this country, aided by their sat- 
telites, the lawyers ; than any other class in the com¬ 
munity. It is uftexi a marvel and a wonder that men 
who have done good service in the cause of democracy, 
for which, being qualified, they have received judicial 
office, so often lose their democracy on the bench, and 
forget their attachment to the party which conferred 
the dignities they enjoy. 

These judges are seduced from us by the influences 
of our opponents. It is delightful to be sought after— 
cheering to receive the encomiums, the smiles, the ca¬ 
resses of the luminaries of the bar: and they happen to 
be, generally, of the federalist or whig party, so that 
our democratic judges often become whigs or no par¬ 
ty men, by dint of magnetic attraction. By judicial 
legislation charters have been converted into vested 
rights, thus making corporations sovereign over the peo¬ 
ple ; and sovereign over legislative bodies.^ These cor¬ 
porations and chartered associations give rise to a wide 
range of litigation; they take up a large portion of 
the time of the courts, and must have in their employ¬ 
ment a great many lawyers. Thus it is that chartered 










584 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


companies come into the courts, and give dignity and 
power to those who stand by them—and thereby build 
up a great lawyer influence, headed by such politicians 
as the Ewings, the Vintons, the Websters, the Clays, 
the Choates, in fact all the most distinguished luminaries 
of the bar, who, because of the recompense which they 
have received from corporations, very naturally become 
their allies and zealous advocates, and by their influ¬ 
ence control the legal politics of the bench. 

Those federalist lawyers are the champions and pro¬ 
curers of all the special legislation of this country. And 
the same influence is brought to bear upon many dis¬ 
tinguished moderate democrats, and converts them 
into no-party men. These gentlemen change, as I have 
remarked, by a sort of magnetic absorption. They are 
absorbed into other political bodies, or they themselves 
absorb the political humors of their political opponents. 

I find, Mr. Chairman, that I have already occupied 
too much time, but I felt it due to myself and my prin¬ 
ciples to say something in reply to the gentleman from 
Belmont, [Mr. Kennon.] I regret the necessity of say¬ 
ing anything in this chamber, for I know that I do not 
possess the ability to say anything well. But, sir, what 
I have said has been uttered in defence of what I be¬ 
lieve to be the right. My remarks on this occasion may 
evoke or provoke the wrath of others who are acknowl¬ 
edged to be mightier than myself. I shall not, on that 
account, hesitate, while I have breath and power and 
life, to defend what I believe to be right, or to speak 
out whatever I may think ought to be spoken. I assail 
no man, but for defence. I desire to combat only false 
principles, and at all times to avoid personal conflict. 
But it is manifest that my course has excited against 
me personal hostility and personal attack, which I have 
now repelled by defending anew those principles which 
I am here to maintain, to the extent of my feeble pow¬ 
ers, against open or covert foes. 

I have but one word more. The gentleman from Bel¬ 
mont closed his speech with a threat which I sup¬ 
pose he intended for me. I had made no personal at¬ 
tack upon him. But there was something which he 
was going to say which was so strong, so severe, that 
he hardly felt justified in saying it—something that 
he had in reserve for another occasion ; for, as he said, 
‘‘sufficient to the day is the evil thereof.” Since he 
has made the threat, and thrown down the glove—I take 
it up and say to him now is the time—if he has any 
thing to say, let him say it. 

Mr KENNON said: Mr. Chairman, the committee 
on the Judiciary occupied a good deal of time in at- 
tecnpting to fix up a plan for the organization of the ju¬ 
dicial establishment, and they thought they had fixed 
it tolerably well; I had thought so myself. But from 
the weight, strength and force of the arguments that 
have just been submitted against the system itself (?) I 
may, perhaps, be induced to yield all further support 
to the plan of the committee! 

Mr. Chairman, a great attempt has just been made to 
make a sort of attack upon myself. I like the gentle¬ 
man from Fairfield [Mr. Robertson] personally, very 
well, and I have a great regard for his soul. Having 
that great regard for the gentleman, all I have to say, 
and that is out of pure regard and friendship, is that I 
advise him to read the twelfth verse of the twenty-sixth 
chapter of Proverbs, and I wish him to read it prayer¬ 
fully. 

Mr. SAWYER regretted very much the course which 
the debate had taken. 

Much has been said here this morning about the po¬ 
litical bearings of this question. For my own part I 
announced, in the first week of the session of this Con¬ 
vention, that I entered it not as a partizan. I came 
here, it is true, a decided, uncompromising and radical 
democrat, so far as general principles were concerned. 
But, sir, I left all my political animosities at home. I 
do not question the zeal of the honorable gentleman 
who has made us so long a speech this morning; but I 
cannot, I must not approve of the consumption of the 


time of this Convention for such purposes. The dem¬ 
ocratic i)arty is in a mnjority—a large majority, if you 
please—on this floor, and that party is responsible for 
this protracted session. Let me not be misunderstood. 
I do not profess to be a “ no-party” man. I have as 
strong attachment to my principles as any man on this 
floor. But I tell this Convention that our failure to fin¬ 
ish this work, to present a new or an amended constitu¬ 
tion, in time to submit the same for the action of the 
people this fall, will hang like a mill-stone around our 
necks. 

If my friends would listen, I would, in my earnest¬ 
ness on this subject, undertake to advise. We have 
yet two months before us, prior to the time fixed for 
the Legislature at which our labors were to end, if the 
same are to be submitted for the adoption or rejection 
of the people at the ensuing October election. If we 
will but pursue the course I indicate, we may yet get 
through, perfect the formation of a glorious constitu¬ 
tion, and have it adopted by an overwhelming majority. 
We must have shorter speeches; we must limit speak¬ 
ers to fifteen minutes, and we must not think of ad¬ 
journing for any time until we have finished our work. 
It is true I have advocated an adjournment to Cleveland, 
and I did so because I believed, and still believe, that 
it would facilitate, not retard, business. But what I 
mean is, that we must not adjourn over until fall, or 
until next winter, before this new constitution is ready 
for the action of the people. Let us then spend no 
more time in discussing which is the better or more 
zealous democrat, but attend strictly and unremittingly 
to the great work for which we are assembled. 

Mr. McCORMICK said: I have but a few words to 
offer before this question is put, and, according to the 
advice of the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr.SAWYER,] 

I shall try to make them brief and well ordered. I am 
fearful, however, to put myself under pledges and lim¬ 
itations, lest my remarks should should prove as irrel¬ 
evant to the question as those of the gentleman from 
Fairfield, [Mi. Robertson,] and lest, becoming exci¬ 
ted by the remarks which have fallen from him, I 
should be overcome by a disposition to retort upon him 
in his own style. With the exception of only one or 
two persons in this hall, I am entirely unconscious of 
any improper conduct in reference to this subject. I 
cannot charge the whig party with any impropriety, so 
far as they are connected with the report of the stand* 
ing committee. I bear testimony, also, to what has 
been affirmed by other gentlemen, that it was a lead¬ 
ing object with the committee to meet all the views, 
requirements and expectations of the people in this 
effort to remodel the judiciary of the State. I do not 
believe that there is one member of the committee be¬ 
longing to the whig party, who is not entirely willing 
that both parties should be fully and fairly represented 
in the judicial organization. I believe that is the feel¬ 
ing of every one, that it should be so. The charge of 
reluctant obedience to the public will is uncalled for 
and unsustained by circumstances. Yesterday I called 
on the gentleman from Faii*field and entreated him to 
withdraw his amendment. I told him— 

Mr. ROBERTSON, (interposing.) The gentleman 
knows well enough that I told him I had no pride at 
all about the matter; and that if he had anything else 
to offer as a substitute I would be glad for him to do it. 

Mr. McCORMICK. I know what the gentleman 
said, precisely; and it is as much, as for any thing else, 
to set the gentleman right upon this subject, that I rise 
in my place at this time. When this report was first 
made to the Convention, I knew, by examination, as I 
said to the gentleman on yesterday, that it was utterly 
impossible to make a fair and equal political distribu¬ 
tion of the judicial power of the State, if the proposi¬ 
tion to divide the State into nine districts were left in 
the report of the committee. I called the attention of 
some gentlemen of the committee to this fact, and was 
requested by them to make a careful examination of 
the subject and see what would be the precise result. 










CONVENTION EEPOETS. 585 


And more than this; in conversation with the gentle¬ 
man from Fairfield, I first brought this fact to his no¬ 
tice, and told hirn then, what I was requested to do, 
and that I was doing it, and that I 8up[)osed it would 
be left to the Democrafic members of the Judiciary 
committee, to perfect their own plan, in their own way, 
without interference. But in this I have been mista¬ 
ken. Thei*e are some men, Mr. Chairman, who are so 
superior, and who feel that the whole future well or 
evil being of the Democratic party, reposes so much 
u{)on their shoulders, that they cannot rest quietly; and 
let another man propose anything in the Convention, 
but they must step in and show that they ought to be 
first, and nothing is well done which they have not 
proposed and superintended. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Will the gentleman permit me 
to explain ? 

Mr. McCormick. You may explain as much as 
you please. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. In the conversation to which he 
alludes, I remember that the gentleman asked me 
what I thought of the report, and I gave him to un¬ 
derstand what I thought would be its effect. I under¬ 
stood that the gentleman was about to biung in an 
amendment, and I waited for him, until I thought, 
perhaps, he had determined to defer it altogether. If 
the gentleman thinks that my proposition robs him of 
any honor, I can only say, that I regret the gentleman 
did not see proper to come in before me. I certainly 
withheld my amendment until I thought none would 
be offered. 

Mr. McCormick resuming. Sir, I have not expec¬ 
ted any peculiar honor, I claim no honor, for the per¬ 
formance of my duties here as a member of this Con¬ 
vention, or as a citizen of this great State. To her 
and her citizens, I owe all the devotion which the most 
faithful and eminent services can render. I claim no 
honor, sir, for I well know that when I have done all— 
the best which I can do—I ought to be accounted as 
but an unprofitable servant. For doing my duty, I 
claim no credit—I seek no “ bloviations ”—I ask for no 
sacrifices—I desire no orations—I solicit no letter- 
writers to proclaim throughout the State the greatness 
of my achievements, or the quickness of my percep¬ 
tions ; or the faithfulness with which I stand on the 
democratic watch-tower, and cry, 

“ What of the night I ” 

whether there be an alarm, or no alarm. Sir, I at 
least, shall not attempt to offer any amendment, or make 
any proposition which can only serve as matter of 
text for some letter-writer to diliate upon, but which 
in its operation would be fanciful or destructive. 

Mr. ROBERTSON interrupting, and Mr. McO. giv¬ 
ing way, said: It seems that some person has thought 
proper to write letters for a newspaper in which, per¬ 
haps, my name is mentioned. But I wish to say to 
the Convention, (although I know of no such thing,) 
that if any man has ascribed any such letters to me, or 
my procurement, I deny the charge, and defy him to 
show it. 

Mr. McCormick. I have not attempted to say 
that the gentleman is the author of these letters; I have 
merely spoken of his course, as affording a pretext 
for them. But, sir, I will say, that I have seen in 
some of these language which would sound veiy much 
like some of the speeches which we have heard on 
this floor. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I do not like the insinuation. 
It is so unmanly, and so unbecoming a Democrat. If 
he [Mr. McCormick] has a charge to make, let him 
make it boldly and I will meet him. 

Mr. McCORMICK. I insinuate nothing, but state 
an opinion. I will now proceed to consider a few 
matters legitimately before the committee. I stated 
on yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that the public eye was 
looking with intense anxiety to the result of the la¬ 
bors of the judiciary committee; and I will now say, 
in addition, that, since the report has been presented 


to the commiltee, and disseminated throughout the 
State. I have looked into the papers which have 
come under my notice, for the purpose of collecting 
what information I could of the public interest upon 
the subject, and as far as my observation has extended, 
I find but two or three instances in which the report 
has not been abundantly commended by the people 
and the press of the State. The Judiciary committee 
is composed of aged men—men of experience, princi¬ 
pally—five of us only being younger men, and of less 
experience. The committee is composed principally 
of men who have been familiar with our jurisprudence 
and engaged in the pi’actice of the courts more years 
than some of us have lived. Some of them have had 
the experience of a practice of forty years. And here 
let me observe that the gentleman from Fairfield, has 
been much mistaken in the application of his argument. 
He seems not to distinguish properly between our ju¬ 
risprudence and our judiciary; for the one is very dif¬ 
ferent from the other. Jurisprudence is theory, and 
the judiciary is but the machinery to array the theory 
into action. Our judiciary is nothing more nor less 
than a machine, containing and combining not any par¬ 
ticular class of principles, but it is merely a piece of 
of machinery—an expediency, and that alone; and 
when the gentleman from Fairfield talRs about princi¬ 
ples in the construction of our judiciary system, he 
talks about that which does not belong to it. 

The gentlemen composing this commiltee, I have 
said, were well acquainted with our judiciary, and well 
qualified to mature a suitable judiciary system for the 
State. They were acquainted with the virtues and 
they understood the defects of the old system, and to 
supply those defects and retain those virtues, was the 
matter to which they turned their attention. The re¬ 
sult, sir, has been—the report. A report which has 
been denounced as aristocratic (save the mark !) by a 
meeting of the people of Ashland county, and the 
charge re-iterated by the gentleman from Fairfield. 
These people say it is an aristocratic report! It pro¬ 
vides that the judges are to be elected by the people—> 
but still it is an aristocratic report! It provides that 
the court shall be holden amidst the people, and be 
held directly responsible to the people—but still it is 
an aristocratic report! The judges and officers of the 
court are to resign their places to the people every two 
or three yeai’s—but still it is an aristocratic report! 
They are subject to be influenced, and they will be in¬ 
fluenced, by the people, and they will be subservient 
to the people—yet, forsooth, all these featux’es are but 
so many prominent marks of aristocracy, if full cre¬ 
dence is given to the judgment of the gentleman from 
Fairfield. I, sir, am unable to discover this horrid fea¬ 
ture in the report, and I am not willing to acknowl¬ 
edge that I may have been deceived. 

The committee did however make that provision 
which the gentleman from Fairfield finds so much fault 
with—and his opposition to that is the quintessence of 
his effort, when you reduce the speech down to its con¬ 
stituent elements. The committee propose to make 
that which the gentleman complains about. They have 
proposed, as we conceive, a “ splendid judiciary sys¬ 
tem,” which will make a “ splendid bar” in the State 
of Ohio; and that is what the gentleman is opposed to. 
Well, but what do we mean when we talk about a 
splendid judiciary ? We do not mean that our judges 
shall be clothed with the ermine, and sit upon a wool¬ 
sack, and tnat the maces of office shall be borne before 
them. The gentlemen of the committee did not expect 
any of that: they did not expect to make any court 
which would have any more splendor in its paraphei- 
nalia than what is possessed by the gentleman from 
Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] when he gets into his buggy 
and rides over the circuit ol the counties. But the 
committee did expect to create a judiciary which should 
make some show of intellectual splendor: and that 
may be what the gentleman from Fairlield is afraid of. 
They might come into competition with him in that 










586 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


line. He is afraid of that. That is the aristocracy to 
which he looks with dread. The committee did expect 
to constitute a judiciary which would superinduce a 
comhination of splendid legal attainments: and if that 
would be aristocratic, we have a reason why the gen¬ 
tleman from Fairfield should be very much opposed to 
it; and a reason why no other gentleman should oppose 
it, unless he be constructed uoon the same system as 
the gentleman from Fairfield. We expect to surround 
these courts with a splendid array of intellect; to es¬ 
tablish efficient tribunals, which shall meet the wants 
and subserve the interests of the suitor, and which shall 
maintain and vindicate the character of the legal pro¬ 
fession, and make it an honor to this great State. That 
is what we mean*, and when we speak about a splen¬ 
did court and splendid bar, that alone is what we mean. 
And I maintain that he who is opposed to a court of 
this character, is not only an enemy of justice and of 
the courts, but an enemy of the people also; and de¬ 
sires that the legal profession shall be degraded into a 
mere source of livelihood, or a machine for money¬ 
making. 

But now, this splendid bar is the counterpart of the 
court, for the bar makes the court; and this bar would 
be made by practising in this court. Every member 
of'the bar knows full well, that if he confines himself 
to the practice before a justice of the peace, he will in- 
evihibly be a pettifogger, and nothing else; or if he 
confines himself to cases before the county court, he 
will inevitably descend to the level of the cases and 
the practice of that court, and will never rise above 
them in legal acquirement. So, if he rides the circuit, 
he will be a better lawyer than if he remains and con¬ 
fines himself to the practice in a single court; because 
he comes in contact with more minds. A larger range 
of legal juestions are brought to his view, and he is 
bound to consider them—a common, decent self-re¬ 
spect, will compel him to keep himself read up, even 
with his brethren of the bar—emulation begets enlight¬ 
ened knowledge of jurisprudence. And now permit 
me to say, that in these courts, there will grow up men 
of splendid legal attainments—the result of the con¬ 
tact of mind with mind, the inter communication of 
thought and opinions, which will always take place 
amongst the members of the bar. It is thus that these 
men will attain to a high degree of eminence, and be¬ 
come an honor and an ornament to the State, an en¬ 
lightened advocate to the suitor, and a benefit even to 
those people toward whom, it seems, they will be com¬ 
pelled to bear the relation of an aristocracy—I mean 
people who judge as does the gentleman from Fair- 
field. 

Now sir, this being our opinion, with regard to what 
a splendid court and bar should be, we have provided 
a system which will make them, and which has oeen 
the subject of opposition for three or four days—ever 
since the report has been under consideration in com¬ 
mittee of the whole. I ask if the members of this com¬ 
mittee on the -judiciary were not the proper men to 
take this thing into consideration and provide this judi¬ 
ciary system—this piece of machinery? For T have 
before shown it to be a mere practical machine, as 
much so as a clock or a watch. If your watch is out of 
order, do you take it to the blacksmith to be repaired ? 
Or, if your horse wants shoeing, will you take him to 
a silversmith ? Or, if your axe wants upsetting, will 
you take it to a carpenter ? Surely you will not. You 
would send them all to the appropriate mechanic. You 
will take your horse and axe to the blacksmith, be¬ 
cause you know that these jobs belong to his legitimate 
occupation. Well, it appears to me, that, when a man 
has occupied himself with the legal iDrofession for forty 
years, he will be likely to know a good deal more about 
the construction of a court than a man who never had 
anything to do with a court. Taking this birds’ eye 
view of the case, I assume that these men of experi- 
ience, upon the .Judiciary committee, are the very men 
who know be.st what kind of a court would best meet 


the wants of the people. But the gentleman from 
Fairfield says their plan will not do—they know noth¬ 
ing about it; in short, that you must take your horse to 
the watch maker, ami your watch to the blacksmith. 
The committee have made an awful blunder, and the 
gentleman from Fairfield steps in to correct it. These 
older members of the committee have been standing at 
their oars; they are behind the times; and we youn¬ 
ger members of the committee have not yet read up; 
and the gentleman from Fairfield very patronizingly 
steps in to supply the deficiency with his amendment— 
an amendment which he had a right to know, and 
which he did know full well, would have been propos¬ 
ed at the proper time. 

Mr. ROBERTSON [in his seat.] I knew nothing 
about it, sir. 

Mr. McCormick. But this amendment has been 
voted down, because it was not undestood. The mem- 
beis of the committee could not understand what was 
its object, coming from the source it did, and there¬ 
fore il was voted down. And thereupon the gentle¬ 
man from Fairfield vises in his wrath, and like the hap- 
peled and defeated arch-rebel at the first rebellion in 
heaven, he cries to the gentleman from Trumbull, and 
to the gentleman from Richland, and to the gentleman 
from Medina, as his inferior leaders of the infernal host 
and says: 

“ What though the first field is lost, all is not lost! ” 

And then he marshals them, under his present 
amendment, again to the onslaught. If we had ac¬ 
cepted his first amendment, he was willing to have ta¬ 
ken the report—just as Lucifer was willing to acqui¬ 
esce, in heaven, if God had granted him his request. 
But now, as he has fallen, he starts and clouds his brows 
and shakes his mane, and declares “ eternal hostility ” 
to the report. Because he cannot govern in all things 
he is willing to destroy the pure and the good. How¬ 
ever, I,will not do the devil so much dishonor as to 
pursue the analogy: nor will I desecrate Milton’s beau¬ 
tiful allegory so much as to bring it down to the vulgar 
letter which it would require to make the application: 
nor will I do the gentleman so much honor as to com¬ 
pare him to the magnanimous and noble hearted hero 
of “ Paradise Lost.” I might compare him to another— 
but I will not assist in elevating him to that “ bad emi¬ 
nence ” to which he aspires, without he asks it. He as¬ 
sumes to himself the right to denounce men whose 
opinions do not happen to be in accordance with his 
own, and to proclaim that he will marshal the disaf¬ 
fected hosts of the State against us, and our report. 
Let him do it. I trust there is enough of good sense ; 
I know there is enough of good sense and high mind- 
edness, and honesty, and integrity, amongst the mem¬ 
bers of this body, to show to that gentleman that they 
are not to be intimidated by his dogmatism, nor will 
they tremble at his threats. 

Mr. MITCHELL had hitherto forborne to take any 
part in the discussion of this subject. He had done 
so with a view not to retard its progress through the 
committee. He should still have done so but for the 
course pursued by some of those who had assumed to 
advocate the principles ot the report of the committee. 
He had concluded to submit whatever remarks he de¬ 
sired to offer upon the subject, at the time when it 
should be before the Convention, and he would have 
adhered to the resolution, but for the gross unfairness 
with which his friend from Fairfield had just been treat¬ 
ed—but for the gross ribaldry and vituperation that had 
been poured out hero. Bitterpersonalities, sinking in¬ 
to very blackguardism, which mightbe tolerated in the 
purlieus of a brothel or a fish market, but utterly out of 
place and intolerable here. My friend from Fairfield 
need give himself no uneasiness, so far as he is attack¬ 
ed, concerning the effect of such foul and gross asper¬ 
sions upon him. He ought to, and I hope will have 
more self-respect than to stoop to notice such miserable 
blackguardism. His standing before the people of 
Ohio, especially that glorious Democracy, to whom he 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


587 


has always been so favorably known, and in whose ser¬ 
vice he has all his life long so faithfully and unremit¬ 
tingly labored, is too firmly founded, too well establish¬ 
ed to be disturbed by the strutting and blustering of a 
mere jackdaw in peacock’s feathers. The gentleman 
from Adams may unlock the vials of wrath and the 
sewers of filth which flow so readily from him upon 
the devoted head of my friend from Fairfield and up¬ 
on the brave and intelligent democracy of Ashland 
county, just as may best suit his taste; but he may be 
assured that it will all fall harmless upon their heads, 
while its filthy spray will rjse in clouds to settle upon 
the head of its author. The people of that county un¬ 
derstand too well their rights—they know too well by 
whom their interests are represented in this Conven¬ 
tion to be disturbed by men who imitate the chatter¬ 
ing and vanity of a jackdaw clothed in the feathers of 
peacock. But the exhibition is not worthy of any fur¬ 
ther notice; and I hope that in future, when the bil¬ 
lingsgate of the gentleman is poured out, it will be re¬ 
ceived as it has hitherto been; and that when the blo- 
viators attempt to disturb the proceedings of this Con¬ 
vention, they will by allowed to proceed without any 
further or more particular notice. 

A word upon the question before the committee. I 
have stated once before, that 1 had adopted this rule 
of action: To endeavor, as far as possible, to discover 
what evils existed in the body politic ; to seai'ch after 
the most appropriate remedy for those evils; and then, 
to apply that remedy in a way that shall be most di¬ 
rect and efficacious. But, when gentlemen bring for¬ 
ward, in this Convention, schemes of their own inven¬ 
tion, constructed upon plans totally new and untried— 
nut sanctioned by the experience, either of this coun¬ 
try or any part of the world—they will pardon me, if I 
go into an examination of its merits, and ask to be con¬ 
vinced of its value, before I give it my support. 

For my part, I have never seen this great cause of 
complaint, which is said to exist, against the court of 
common pleas, under the present system. The asso¬ 
ciate judges of that court are of no great consequence, 
and, perhaps a benefit will accrue from dispensing with 
them. But the committee has brought forth a new 
system ; and for what purpose ? To obviate evils that 
were never heard of. One of the strong reasons which 
they give for their plan for that court is, that one of 
the judges may be sick, and by this, another would be 
provided to take his place. Now, the danger of sick¬ 
ness to the judges is not, I believe, new; I hope it is 
not peculiar to this system, any more than to the old 
one. Perhaps there has been as much of it in the past, 
as there will be in the future. It has been borne, 
hitherto, without very great inconvenience. The pre¬ 
sident judge, in general, attended to the litigated busi¬ 
ness of the court. It is true, that if he were absent, the 
associates were frequently embarrassed. This, how¬ 
ever, did not often occur, and it was borne without 
complaint, in consideration of the other benefits of the 
system. There is none that is free from objections ; 
and there is reason to fear that, while we are avoiding 
minor difficulties, we shall run upon greater evils. 

They say, that the court of common pleas has been 
very inefficient. For one, I do not concur in the 
charge. I admit that an improvement might be made, 
by taking from it some of its business, which might as 
well be transacted by a lower court. But, I ask if it 
is not true that, in general, there has been no complaint 
against the court, as to its capacity to attend to the 
litigated business. 

Mr. KENNON. I do not know that there has. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the honorable Chairman 
of the committee for his candid reply to ray question. 
Now, I admit that in some circuits, from the indisposi¬ 
tion of judges, or from other causes, there has been de¬ 
lay of business to a gi eat extent; but this is not a gen¬ 
eral thing, nor is it a just argument against the system, 
but a casualty to which all systems are subject. Then 
why do gentlemen desire so extreme a change ? You 


take away the business of the court and increase the 
number of judges. Will some of the gentlemen tell 
us, if they are able, why they add eight to the judges, 
and at the same time, take from the jurisdiction of the 
court, so as to lessen the labor ? 

Mr. McCORMICK. Does the gentleman want his 
question answered ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir: when I want it answer¬ 
ed I will make a direct inquiry of the honorable Chair¬ 
man of the committee. I cannot think that the peo¬ 
ple require this violent change in the administration of 
justice, and I cannot go for it. I am in favor of the 
amendment of the gentleman from Fairfield. I cannot 
concur in the propriety of making, in a republican gov¬ 
ernment, the supreme court of civil jurisdiction, a mere 
paper court, as it is called, to sit at a distance from 
suitors Old those who are interested in its decisions. 
Before I can go for such a change, I must be satisfied 
that it is necessary. I am unwilling to take from the 
bosom of that society, for whose benefit its services are 
rendered, the presence of the judges. My reason is, 
that it is important that suitors should be satisfied with 
fairness and impartiality with which justice is adminis¬ 
tered—satisfied with the impartiality of that tribunal 
which is entrusted with their important interests. The 
people want to see justice done ; to hear the adjudica¬ 
tion and termination of their suits; to feel that every¬ 
thing has been done that sliould be, by both judge and 
counsel. This may look to some like a small matter. 
Be it so ; but small as it is, such considerations have 
their effect, and go to create a popular sentiment in fa¬ 
vor of the purity and uprightness of your courts of ju¬ 
dicature. A sentiment, sir, which constitutes the chief 
and only reliable support of our judicial tribunals, 
which enables them, by their simple decisions, to give 
peace, happiness and security, to civil society. 

There should be also a court for probate and admin¬ 
istrative purposes, which shall be as cheap and accessi¬ 
ble as possible. This will be an improvement ; but if 
you remove the important court of the system, which 
now sits in each county to some one place, in a district 
of eleven, you necessarily deprive ten elevenths of the 
people of opportunities which they now enjoy of beinij 
present when justice is administered with the least pos¬ 
sible expense. The farther the removal the greater the 
expense ; it is unreasonable to say that a man can at¬ 
tend a court forty miles off as cheaply as in his own 
county. 

There was another reason which operated on his 
mind to raise opposition to the plan. This was its ef¬ 
fect upon the bar. He was not one of those who would 
be ever found attacking this profession, on the contrary 
he had a high opinion of it. It is necessary and useful 
in the present construction of society. Itwashisovyn 
profession, and no honorable n an will be found dis¬ 
paraging his own calling. If he finds it inconsistent 
with his sense of duty he will aband m it and seek 
some other. What will be the opei-ation of this system 
on the bar ? Gentlemen have said that it will make a 
splendid bar. This he denied. This was out of the 
power of any court. It takes a higher power to con¬ 
struct the material out of which a splendid bar is made; 
the court can but aid in its developement. bir, is it 
not the fact that the distribution of native talent among 
members of the bar is far more nearly equal than is 
generally supposed? And Doesliot the present judici- 
aiy system furnish about an equal opportunity to each 
memoer of the profession in the state to make a good 
lawyer? This is the effect of the supreme court, going 
through the state, and holding a session in each county. 
The young lawyer who may have no business to take 
him to your district court is here presenl.^ Heie he 
is able to see business done with the regularity and dis¬ 
patch for which the supreme court has ever been dis- 
tincruished. He thus enjoys all the benefits of that 
sclmol which has made the chairman of this commit¬ 
tee what he is, and its members what they are—orna¬ 
ments to their profession, and eminent among their fel- 









588 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


low-men. In behalf of the younger men of the bar. 
1 appeal to them in great earnestness, and say : Do 
not throw obstacles in the way of us, your younger 
brethren, do not seek to deprive us of that school which 
may, in like manner, aid us in reaching that eminence 
which you have already attained. 

Look at Ohio, and compare its bar with the bar of 
other states that have a different system, and see what 
a marked distinction obtains. In Ohio we find the most 
eminent at the bar scattered from one side of the state 
to the other—not congregated in our villages, here and 
there; not one put in Columbus, another in Zanesville, 
or in Dayton, or in Cleveland, but all throughout the 
state. And, you will find that distinguished members 
of the bar are not found alone in particular localities, 
but in almost every county in the state. So far then 
as the influence of this profession operates on society, 
this is a matter not to be overlooked. If you have any 
interest whatever in this subject it is to preserve what¬ 
ever good influence the members of that profession 
may have on community, should be created upon the 
great body of the community, as generally as possible. 

One word more in justification of the course pursued 
by my friend from Fairfield, [Mr. Robertson] and sim¬ 
ply for the purpose of relieving him from the imputa¬ 
tion that some seemed inclined to cast upon him, for 
throwing into this debate that political asperity which 
it has assumed this morning. Now, I call the attention 
of the gentleman from Belmont [Mr. Kennon] while I 
charge him with having in a great degree provoked the 
contest that has ensued between the gentleman from 
Fairfield and myself. A conflict which has so nearly 
knocked us off our hinges, and almost induced an ad¬ 
journment. I beg the committee to remember that 
that gentleman, [Mr. Kennon] with his peculiar irony 
and sarcasm—very ingeniously couched in mildness of 
speech and manner—did make an attack upon my 
young friend from Fairfield, and a very severe one, 
which he felt called ujjon to repel. 

Mr. KENNON, (interposing,) remarked that he was 
not mistaken as to what the gentleman from Fairfield 
had said. As he understood it, the gentleman said that 
the motives of the committee in reporting this section 
was to deprive the people of a fair representation. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I supplied the remark in rela¬ 
tion to the idea that these three judges should be kept 
together, in order to the influence of popular sentiment 
upon their election. In other words, the sentiment 
entertained by several on that committee was the one 
expressed by the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. Vance,] 
on yesterday. When I understand— 

Mr. KENNON, (interrupting, and indistinctly heard.) 

I am not mistaken as to what has been said. 

Ml'. MITCHELL resumed: I was about to make a 
feeble effort to cool the asperity which exists between 
the gentlemen; I am not sure but I can do it better 
than they can themselves. They have hitherto been 
friends, and I do trust they still will so continue. Be¬ 
tween them there is really no good cause for serious 
difference. I take pleasure in saying that I count them 
both my friends, and of course unwilling to take any 
further part in this little difference, which I doubt not 
their good sense will soon heal. I am simply calling 
attention to the fact that an attack was made as it has 
been. I do not doubt that the gentleman from Bel¬ 
mont [Mr. Kennon] felt called upon to make that at¬ 
tack, and he undoubtedly did misunderstand the re¬ 
marks of the gentleman from Fairfield. When my 
friend made use of the expression, I remember he said, 
in effect, “ that some of the members on the commit¬ 
tee had that object in their eye.” That was the fact 
—I do not blame the gentleman from Belmont for de¬ 
fending himself from an imputation on his motives, if 
it had been made, because I do not believe that there 
are any gentlemen in this body more entitled to excul¬ 
pation from the charge of obliquity of motion in what 
they might do here as delegates of* the people, than the 
gentlemen from Fairfield and Belmont, [Messrs. Rob¬ 
ertson and Kennon.] 


But one word as to this matter of politics in connec¬ 
tion with the judiciary. I would beg of gentlemen to i 
remember that we cannot separate the principles of [ 
politics from any thing connected with the making of I 
law or its construction in most cases. I do not say of 
justice. By that, I mean the application of the rules jj 
of law to individual men’s cases. But the law is the It 
great fountain from which politics flow. It is in tho ' 
making of laws where those conflicts and controver- v 
sies grow up from which men derive those notions and 
opinions, which they call politics, and, wherever in ma- t, 
king rules for the government of mankind, there may 
be a tendency to lessen the power a d freedom of the ; 
common mass of men, or give exclusive power to a small i 
body; there is the place^ where politics should prop- ■ 
erly enter. I am very far from holding, that our courts I 
of justice should ever be entirely uninfluenced by po¬ 
litical considerations. What I desire is that they should 
be open and candid and conscientious in the applica¬ 
tion of their political principles to the administration of 
justice. Therefore when the supreme judiciary, that , 
court which to a great degree exei’cises the power of raa- i 
king laws which will be binding on posterity, is , | 
brought to our notice, we have then no place where po- j 
litical considerations would find their entrance. We I 
ca uiot blame any gentleman for having in mind the ; 
political bearings of this question, but we should cen¬ 
sure him if he attempts to conceal a fact or a princi- , 
pie in relation to that matter or any thing else. I do 11 
not see, however, that we are called upon at this time i 
to enter upon the discussion of any political considera- i 
tions which may have an apparent bearing on this re- : i 
port. I see nothing to exculpate the gentleman from i 
Belmont, (Mr. Kennon) and all other members of that I 
committee from entertaining any such design as he ; 
supposed was imputed to him on yesterday. I had not 
thought of the matter until after the report was made, 
and I have no reason to believe others did. It is more 
reasonable to suppose that I should have examined 
this matter than that the committee should, because 
their minds were occupied the entire time in their en¬ 
deavors to devise a judicial system that would ensure a 
fair administration of the laws in our courts of justice. 
Therefore having said this much, I shall conclude by 
saying, that I do hope we will yet come to a satisfac¬ 
tory and harmonious conclusion upon a system that 
will more comport with the the characteristics of 
what I conceive to be a proper judicial system. I am 
satisfied that there is a diversity of opinion on both 
sides of this committee in regard to the matter, yet I , 
expect there will be a plan agreed upon quite differ- , 
ent from that arrived at by the judiciary committee. 

I hope that this subject will be carefully examined and 
with a constant attention to the points under discus¬ 
sion, and that at last we may come to such a conclu¬ 
sion as will furnish to the people of Ohio the besl 
possible judiciary system. 

Mr. HOOTMAN. I wish to submit a few remarks 
to the committee. I did not intend to have said any 
thing on this question at all if it were not that I have 
been called out in justification of my constituents by , 
the assertions of the gentleman from Adams (Mr. Mc¬ 
Cormick.) He has taken offense at some resolutions 
passed at a meeting lately held by some of my con¬ 
stituents. I see nothing in them that is not in every 
respect proper. I will read the last portion of them, 
being the part to which the gentleman takes excep¬ 
tion. 

Resolved, That in the opinion of this meeting, the wants of the 
people as well as their interests, require that the laws of the land 
be speedily administered—that the administration of those laws 
should be equally, fairly and impartially extended to all, and 
placed within the reach of every citizen of the State, whether rich 
or poor. 

Resolved, That in the opinion of this meeting, the constitution 
should provide that all the different courts, (except perhaps a 
Court in Bank,) should be held in each of the several counties of 
the State, and as often at least as once a year. 

Resolved, That our delegates in the constitutional Convention, 
are requested and instructed to use all honorable and proper 
means, to so far alter and change the report of the Judiciary com- 












CONVENTION. REPORTS. 


589 


mittee, so as to provide tor holding the supreme court, (or district 
court as it is termed in the report,) in every county in the State, 
and that we regard the etfort of the majority of said committee, 
as an attempt to establish an aristocracy of lawyers, at the ex¬ 
pense and to the great detriment of the main body of the people. 

From this he makes a base, low aiul contemptible 
insinuation in regard to what my people have done. 

I hurl it back with scorn and indignation. That meet¬ 
ing, I can tell the gentleman, was as competent as he 
is, to form an opinion on this subject and was composed 
of as good lawyers as he is—gentlemen whose intellect 
will compare with that of the gentleman from Adams 
at any time. 

It was with great feelings of regret, sir, that I listen- 
ed^to the remarks of the gentleman. I took the trouble 
to send a copy of this report to every lawyer in the 
county of Ashland, that I might get the opinion of the 
bar there as to the merit of the system proposed. I 
am glad that my constituents have instructed me how 
to vote on this measure. I am not a lawyer but I 
have the common sense to know what is right, and I 
tell the gentleman that the people of the district that I 
in part represent are competent to determine for them¬ 
selves what their interests demand, and thatl knowing 
their wishes dare to carry them out. 

Mr. LARWILL. I conceive it to be my duty also 
to say a word repelling the charges that have been 
made by the gentleman from Adams. I agree with my 
colleague (Mr. FIootman) that the gentlemen of the 
bar who attended that meeting are not only able to 
meet the gentleman (Mr. McCormick) as a lawyer at 
any place and at any time, but are also as competent to 
iustmet us as to what we ought to do in regard to voting 
in this committee as the gentleman from Adams. And, 
I have as much confidence in their ability as lawyers, 
and as gentlemen also, as in his or in any other man’s. 

I have great deference, I must say, toward the gentle¬ 
men composing the judiciary committee, and when it 
was appointed, I did suppose that the report which they 
might make would in all probability be acquiesced in 
by this committee, and I trusted that it would be such a 
one as would meet my approbation. But it is unfortu¬ 
nate, if it may be so called, for me to be placed amongst 
that class who cannot support it. I have given my rea¬ 
sons before now ; but I will say that I believe that I 
know the sentiments of the people in the northern part 
of the State, as well as the gentleman (Mr. McCor¬ 
mick) does of the people in the south. I know their 
sentiments to be against the establishment of this dis¬ 
trict court, unless it meets in eveiy county in the State 
at least once a year. And, as a citizen, my own per¬ 
sonal feelings are against this proposed system. 1 have 
had occasion to mingle with lawyers, having business 
to transact in courts of justice, and I should be very 
Sony to be obliged to carry that business away from 
my own county to have it transacted in a distant county. 
I was sorry to hear the gentleman make the charge 
which he did make against those who opposed him in 
opinion on this question. We all honestly differ in re¬ 
gard to any measui'e unquestionably, and I have no 
doubt that the committee believed their report to be 
the one best adapted to carry out the interests and wel¬ 
fare of the community. I differ from them, and I have 
the right to differ, and I have the right to express the 
feelings and opinions of the people I represent, and, I 
will do so fearlessly, without the dictation of any gen- 
teman on this floor. 

Mr. McCormick. I certainly had no intention of 
attacking the character of the gentlemen who com 
posed the meeting in Ashland county, which has al¬ 
ready been referred to. The main feature of these 
resolutions was, that we had by our report constituted 
an aristocratic coui't. Now I think it was perfectly 
right, the resolutions being brought under the notice of 
this committee, that I should comment on the aristo¬ 
cratic features of the court alluded to. I think such a 
charge as that is entirely open to all fair ridicule and 
sarcasm. I for the life of me cannot see in what par¬ 
ticular it is an “ aristocratic court,” and I consequently 
animadverted on the reflection. 


Mr. LARWILLE. Did not the gentleman say that 
he expected to establish a splendid bar ? 

Mr. McCORMICK. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. LARWILL. And one that pettifogging law¬ 
yers could not attend ? 

Mr. McCORMICK. No sir, I d'd not say that. I 
said that we could make a splendid bar. 

Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman, my object in rising is 
to make a few remarks for the purpose of reaching, if 
I may be so happy, a better understanding than seems 
now to exist among some gentlemen in regard to this 
matter. I think there has been a great deal of misun¬ 
derstanding in regard to the question before us. What 
I had the honor of remarking on a previous occasion 
seems to have had no effect on the minds of the gentle¬ 
men. Namely; that the judiciary committee compro¬ 
mised this very conllict of opinion tliat troubles us here. 
How did they compromise it ? Not by each one in¬ 
sisting upon having his own opinion inserted in the 
constitution; no sir. They compromised the difference 
of opinion by adjourning the question to the General 
Assembly. And now I desire to propose most respect¬ 
fully an inquiry to the honorable gentleman who has 
just taken his seat, whether it is his opinion individual¬ 
ly or as a representative that it ought to be inserted in¬ 
to the constitution that these courts shall go into every 
county of the district, thereby excluding the opposite 
opinion held by a large portion- of the State, that they 
ought not to go into every county, but that district 
terms ought to be established. And I will ask him to 
go a step further in his answer and say whether he 
would be willing to go with the committee in adjourn¬ 
ing this question to the General Assembly, to be set¬ 
tled by that body. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I beg to ask a question 
about this compromise— 

Mr. Mason was unwilling to give way to other than 

Mr. LARWILL, who said: In the first place, I will 
say, that my own individual opinion is, that it ought to 
be inserted into the constitution positively, that the 
court shall be held in every county. Secondly: that I 
believe it to be the opinion of my constituents that 
such ought to be the fact; and in the third place, that 
it is my honest conv^tion that it is for the interest of 
the State that such should be the case. 

Mr. MASON. I wish to inquire, whether it is the 
gentleman’s opinion that his people would not, on the 
whole, be satisfied if they were informed that these 
conflicting opinions and views had been so far respect¬ 
ed as to induce the committtee to agree to refer the 
whole subject of difference to legislation? 

Mr. LARWILL. I think that the people, so far as I 
know them, have never supposed that a court of this 
kind would be organized in the State; consequently, 
it would be a matter which I think they would be un¬ 
willing to leave open. 

Mr. MASON. I am much obliged to the gentleman 
for the candor of his reply. I expected nothing else 
from him. It involves now this question—an impor¬ 
tant one which I had supposed this body would be 
willing to postpone and leave to the Legislature for 
adjustment. 

A majority of the committee was in favor of estab¬ 
lishing two terms of the court of errors and appeals,, to 
be held annually in each district. But in delerence to 
the opinion of a large and respectable minority who 
desired to have county instead ot district terms of the 
appellate court, the majority were willing to compro¬ 
mise by a provision granting power to the General As¬ 
sembly to establish by law either county or district 
terms, or both as might be desired by the people. They 
preferred unanimity as far as was attainable, and were 
therefore willing to yield their own decided preference 
in order to secure it. 

The committee believed that the increase of business 
and population, with the steady progress and growth of 
the State, might make it desirable and even necessary 
hereafter, that the Legislature should have power to 







690 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


establish both, or either of these systems. To accommo¬ 
date the wisher and transact the business of the differ¬ 
ent sections of the State—we have provided lor the 
same courts of common pleas that we have been ac¬ 
customed to from the beginning of our existence as a 
Slate. These courts are composed of one or more 
judges, not exceeding three, instead of one president 
and three associate judges. As to these particular fea¬ 
tures in the proposed system, there is no great differ¬ 
ence of opinion, as far as I have understood. Courts 
of common pleas, according to this report, will be 
held in every county of the State, as often as the Leg¬ 
islature may direct; and they will be courts of equal 
respe. tability with those which are now established, 
and possessing a like jurisdiction except in probate 
cases. 

The committee propose to establish an intermediate 
appellate court, composed of the three, justices of the 
court of common pleas, and one justice of the supreme 
court; and the question is, whether that court shall be 
sent into every county of the State, and shall so pro¬ 
vide in the constitution—or whether we shall leave the 
question an open one for the action of the General As¬ 
sembly. Those who are in favor of having an appel¬ 
late coui’t held in every county of the State, are un¬ 
willing to trust the Legislature with their interests and 
views in regard to the wisdom of ihis policy. My own 
opinion is, that the Legislature would establish county 
terms of the appellate court in every county in which 
it might be desired. But I hope that the Legislature 
would find it practicable and wise to give both the sys¬ 
tems a .air trial; and they might be put into operation 
successively or contemporaneously in different sections 
of the Stale. This would afford an opportunity for 
testing the comparative merits of the two |)lans, and 
lead, it may be, to the adoption of one or the other for 
the whole State, as the one or the other might be foiind 
from experience to be the best. 

I prefer the district court, with not less than two 
terms p-'r annum. Others prefer having the court held 
in every county once a year. This difference of opin¬ 
ion was compromised by the committee. There are 
members of this body who say th^y are not willing to 
ratify the compromise, but insist that their own opin¬ 
ion is so infallibly correct and sound that it must be 
made apart of the constitution. I tell the gentlemen 
they have no more right to demand concessions from 
me than I have to demand concessions from them. Our 
rights m this respect are equal and reciprocal. What 
do gentlemen mean when they say they are unwilling 
to compromise their opinions? Are they willing to dis¬ 
regard the feelings and wishes of a large portion of the 
people of the State and the members who constituted 
the majority of the Judiciary committee ? 

Mr. LARWILL here made some few remarks in a 
low tone of voice which were not heard at the table. 
They were understood to be explanatory of his reply 
to the gentleman’s inquiries previously made. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE inquired if it were not the 
expressed opinion of some of the leading members on 
the committee, that this system was incapable of carry¬ 
ing the district courts into each county without break¬ 
ing it up? 

Mr. MASON continued: It is true that a good cause 
is sometimes injured by the indiscretion of its own 
friends and advocates. It is true that a good cause 
may be injured by an imprudent remark. I think the 
cause which the friends of district terms advocate 
here, has been injured by the use of some particular 
forms of expression, or which, at least, have been at¬ 
tributed to them—such as “ a splendid bar and a splen¬ 
did court.” Now the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. 
Ranney] took me to task early in the session of this 
body, for making use of the term “ dignity,” in con¬ 
nection with the office of Governor. 

The gentleman gave me such a lecture for using the 
word, that I have not forgotten it, and I have been 
afraid to use the word since. I would not have 


used the word “ splendid,” for there is not much splen¬ 
dor in our courts of justice in Ohio. I never saw it at 
the bar, or on the bench; and I never desire to see 
any other than that referred to by the gentleman from 
Adams [Mr. McCormick.] You, sir, and every other 
man, is willing to see the exhibition of “ splendid” ge¬ 
nius—the triumph of mind over matter. If one judi¬ 
ciary system is better adapted than another to develop 
legal talents, and improve the character of the bar and | 
bench, it ought, of course, to be preferred to one of a ; 
contrary tendency. In this, all men ought to be agreed, i 
But, without denying that the system we propose i 
would have a tendency to elevate the profession from [ t 
which your judges are to be taken, some gentlemen, ; 
having no argument to use against it, are willing to op- 
pose it by resorting to the use of mere catch words, r 
They hope to destroy, by the force of catch words, i 
what they cannot overthrow by argument. 

At the suggestion of Mr. SMITH of Warren, Mr. Ma- [ 
SON here gave way lor a motion that the committee rise. * 
The committee then rose, reported progress, and asked I 
and obtained leave to sit again. ; 

Mr. SMITH of Warren moved that the Convention | 
take a recess. 

Mr. ROBERTSON moved that the Convention ad- j 
journ until Monday morning; upon which question, 
the yeas and nays wei-e demanded by Mr. MANON; 
and being ordered, resulted—yeas 43—nays 40—as lol- 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnett of Montgomery, Blickensder- ii 
fer, Brown of Carrol, Case of Licking, Claypoole, Cutler, Farr, • 
Florence, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Green ot Ross, Gregg, |' 
Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, Kennon, Lawrence, Leech, 
Lidey, Alason, Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, Quigley, Ranney, | 
Reemelin, Robertson, Roll, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stanbery, Swift, Taylor, and Mr. President—43. 

Nays —Messrs. Bates, Bennet, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Cham- ' 
bers, Clark, Ceilings, Ewart, Ewing, Forbes, Graham, Gray, . 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hunter, Johnson, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, 
Leadbetter, Loudon, Manon, Morehead, Morris, AIcCloud, Patter- . i 
son, Peck, Perkins, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, j 
Stilwell, Stidger, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Williams, and Woodbury—40. 

So the motion prevailed, and the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 

MONDAY, July 1, 1850. 

8 o’clock A. M. 

Prayer by Rev. Dr. Hoge. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren presented the petition of Jo- 
siah B. Greeley. Lucius A. Cottle and eighty-thr.ee 
other citizens, males and females, of the county of 
Warren, praying that a proviso be inserted in the new 
constitution, to be submitted to the people, prohibiting 
the Legislature from the passage of any law, whereby ■ 
the right to sell intoxicating drinks, shall be granted to 
any one, or the traffic therein in any manner legal¬ 
ized. 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll presented a memorial from 
Anderson R. Dempster, Israel Archbold and eighty- i 
nine other citizens of Leesville, Carroll county, on the 
same subject. j- 

Mr. STANTON presented a petition from Joseph B. 
Roberts and forty-four other citizens of the county of 
Allen, on the same subject. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler presented a petition from 
Christian Sanders and forty-seven other citizens of the 
county of Butler, on the same subject. 

Mr. STILWELL presented a petition from John 
Hazlett and twenty other citizens of the county of Mus¬ 
kingum, on the same subject. 

The said petitions and memorial were severally re¬ 
ferred to the select committee on the subject of retail¬ 
ing ardent spirits. 

Mr. HAWKINS offered the following; 

“ Resolved, That there be a committee appointed, to consist of 
fi%'e members, whose duty it shall be to proceed to the town of 
Delaware and ascertain whether a suitable building can be pro¬ 
cured for the transaction of the business of this Convention, and 
whether suitable accomodations can be had for its members; and 
that they report at as early a day as practicable.” 













CONVENTION EEPOETS 


591 


The question being upon the adoption of the resolu¬ 
tion— 

Mr. LARWILL moved to amend the resolution by 
inserting “ Wooster.” 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to amend the amendment 
by adding Mt. Vernon.” 

Mr. ROBERTSON named Lancaster. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren moved that the resolution 
and pending amendments be laid upon the table, which 
was agreed to. 

Mr. LIDEY offered for adoption the following: 

•‘Resolved, That no member of this Convention shall discuss 
any one question for a longer time than fifteen minutes.” 

The question being on the adoption of the resolution, 

Mr. LEADBETTER. Mr. Chairman; I do really 
hope that the resolution will not prevail. We had a 
lecture given to us the other day by the gentleman 
from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] who told us then what 
oar duty was to our constituents. We were cited to 
the action of Congress, in the passage of their “ re¬ 
straining” resolutions, intended to have the effect of 
making that body do up their business more expedi¬ 
tiously. I, lor one, could not, if I would, make a long 
speech, but for one I am opposed in a convention of 
this character, called together for so grave and impor¬ 
tant a purpose, to imposing a restraint upon the influ¬ 
ence and action of any man, by passing such a rule as 
this, limiting the time in which he shall speak his sen¬ 
timents. We have been told that the people sent us 
here to make a constitution, but it seems by the effort 
made here, that it was anticipated that one should be 
drafted, perhaps by intuition, or that one should fall 
from above, and all that would be required would be 
our sanction. The people anticipated no such thing. 
They expected when we came here, that mind would 
come in conflict with mind. They expected and de¬ 
sired that every member should express his opinion 
freely and fully upon every subject. I am opposed to 
these gags and restraints upon the mind of man, and 
no rational man will bear them without restraint.— 
You may put a fetter upon the heels, and manacles up¬ 
on the hands of a man, but give his mind free scope, 
and let it act, for it is mind that is to act upon the peo¬ 
ple. I profess to know my duty to the democratic par¬ 
ty as well as any other member, and I know my duty 
to the people of this State. I am aware that the lec¬ 
tures which have been read to us, have originated from 
the kindest of motives, and from the laudable desire of 
expediting our business here, and for the express pur¬ 
pose of bringing our labors to a termination. Why 
does the gentleman cite the action of Congress? The 
honorable gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] 
with myself, has set for many a tedious hour at a time 
when there was a greater number in the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives than there has ever been before or since— 
and there was no gagging then, and there was more 
business done when there was no contemptible fetter 
upon the expression of opinion, than there has been 
since, when the gag rule has been enforced. The pre¬ 
cedents which have been cited, prove that if you limit 
the time for speeches, you will only make the matter 
worse. If you gag them by making a rule of “ fifteen 
minutes,” you will have them popping up like so many 
frogs in the spring time, just to hear themselves make 
a noise. [Laughter.] I hope, therefore, the resolu¬ 
tion will not prevail. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I hope that the resolution will 
prevail, and if adopted, that it shall be adhered to. I 
shall support it, for the reason that I wish to afford a 
greater number an opportunity of being heard; because 
I do not wish to have any member practically gagged. 
Gentlemen must be aware, that two or three speeches 
effectually silence all others who may desire to speak. 
The Hon. gentleman from Holmes, as well as other 
members, must have observed, that speeches have been 
made which were wholly irrelevant to the question 
speeches that consumed the time of this Convention, 
and that have held in silence other members who might 


desire to make remarks. It is to afford that class of 
rnembei’s an opportunity to speak, that I shall support 
the resolution. I have no desire to circumscribe de¬ 
liberation, but it is for the purpose of furthering it that 
I wish the resolution to pass. Does the proposition de¬ 
serve the title of the gag ? It is a perfect gag for mem¬ 
bers to rise here and make speeches of an hour long, 
which are calculated to defeat the objects for which 
we are assembled. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. I do not feel very much dis¬ 
posed to make a speech upon this important subject, 
and I will therefore move that the Convetition resolve 
itself into a committee of the Whole. 

Upon which motion, Mr. HA\VKINS demanded the 
yeas and nays ; which resulted—yeas 55—nays 20—as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, Blick- 
ensderfer, Brown ot Athens, Brown of Carrol, Cahill, Claypoole, 
Collings, Ew'art, Forbes, Gillet, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green 
of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geau¬ 
ga, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, 
Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill Leech, 
Leadbetter, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, 
Peck, Quigley, Robertson, Roll, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift, Thompson of Stark, 
Vance of Butler, Williams, Woodbury, and Mr. President—55. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Case of Licking, Clark, Ewdng, Farr, Holt, 
King, Lidey, Loudon, Morris, Orton, Patterson, Sawyer, Steb- 
bins, Stidger, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, and Townshend—20. 

So the motion was agreed to. 

The Convention then r(?solved itself into a commit¬ 
tee of the Whole, [Mr. Green of Ross in the chair,] 
and resumed the consideration of the report, number 
one on 

THE JUDICIARY. 

The question was under discussion when the Con¬ 
vention adjourned, still remaining undisposed of. 

Mr. MASON. When I gave way on Saturday for the 
committee to rise and report progress, I was address¬ 
ing myself to the committee in reference to the cjues- 
tiou proposed by the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. 
Ranney.] The question I had not answered, but was 
submitting a general remark or two in regard to what 
appeared to me, to be the misunderstanding of gentle¬ 
man, and their opinions concerning the practicability 
of this report before us. If I recollect, the question 
proposed to me by that gentleman [Mr. Ranney] was 
whether the opinion had not been expressed here by 
the advocates of district terms, that the opposite sys¬ 
tem, or county terms were impracticable. Sir, I under¬ 
stand that it is the impression of some members here, 
that opinions to that effect have been delivered in this 
body during the debate—it is that the county term sys¬ 
tem will prove to be an impracticable one, for the want 
of a sufficient judicial force, or for some other reasons. 
It does not matter for what reasons, if the facts should 
prove that it is impracticable. 

Mr. Chairman, I can hardly bring my mind to the 
conclusion that there is a member here who is opposed 
to the report of the committee — to the system which 
the committee has reported. They cannot oppose the 
proposition to leave this matter to be carried out by the 
General Assembly, if gentlemen were to allow them¬ 
selves to examine the question without any particular 
prejudice. Now what is the fact in regard to the prac- 
licabilty of the county term system ? I distingush it 
by that name for the sake ot convenience, without us¬ 
ing any more circumlocution, and as contradistinguish¬ 
ed from the district system. Under the old system and 
tor forty-eight years the judges of the supreme court 
have been able to visit every county in the Stale. There 
are now eighty-seven counties. They perform judicial 
labor in every county. Let it be observed by gentle¬ 
men, in this connection, that theie is but one term of 
the supreme court held at the same tune in the broad 
State of Ohio. These terms are held by two judges of 
tne supreme court. There is no more than one term of 
the supreme court held at the same time in any part of 
the State. Under the system we propose—and I am 
treating of the practicability of the system embraced 












592 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


in the report, under the proposed plan—there will be 
four terms of the appellate court held at the same time, 
hi the State for every one term that is held now. All 
the judges of the supreme court are to go down to the 
districts at once. By this system there will be four 
courts held at the same time in as many different and 
distinct counties. Supposing the duration of a term to 
be equal under the old and new systems, then it results 
that four times as much business can be done under the 
latter as could have been done under the former, and I 
believe four times better. This proves the practicabil¬ 
ity of the new system. Let every man judge for him¬ 
self, and he will see at once that four times the amount 
of business may, by a better disposition of judicial la¬ 
bor, be done under the new system than could have 
been performed in the same time under the old, so that 
what required four months under the old system will 
be performed in one under the new. If the gentleman 
from Wayne would not be dissatisfied, I would propose 
an inquiry to him, with a view to see if we may not ar¬ 
rive at some understanding about this report in a friend¬ 
ly way. I would ask him if it is his opinion that this 
report is impracticable in regard to the holding of coun¬ 
ty terms ? 

Mr. LARWILL. I will answer the gentleman by say¬ 
ing that it is my opinion, after examining the report, 
that courts can be held in separate counties. 

Mr. MASON. No doubt but they maybe held in ev- 


not before it. I desire very much that we shall be able 
to make some progress, and reach some other point in 
the report, and get up a new theme for discussion. I 
will only say one thing at this time. I do not know 
whether gentlemen from the northern part of this State 
are better satisfied with the working of the present 
system than we are, or not. The supreme court comes 
into the counties and finds, say five, ten, or twenty ca¬ 
ses on the docket. They have a day or two for hold¬ 
ing the court. In that time they have to dispatch all 
this appellate business—make their final decisions, and 
clean out the docket. Then they have to ride, it may 
be, twenty-five miles to another county—to open a 
court on the following morning. If this is the way the 
business is transacted on the Reserve it is the way it 
is transacted in my section of the State. I do not know 


but that gentlemen are wedded to this mode of doing 


ery county, and for a length of time much greater than 


is now allowed. 


The gentleman from Franklin has been misunderstod. 


I would ask him if he has expressed an opinion against 
the practicability of holding a county term in every 
county—that is, an appellate district court in each 
county ? 

Mr. STANBERY. As to that, I will say that it is my 
deliberate opinion that this system will allow the hold¬ 
ing of an appellate court better than any system I have 
yet seen. I am against putting such a provision into the 
constitution that in Ohio, with its eighty-seven counties, 
it shall be fixed that an appellate tribunal shall sit in 
every county. I believe it to be perfectly practicable 
now under this system, but I do not believe that it will 
be so under any system a very great time, and in such 
a state as Ohio is getting to be. I now advise my friend 
from Wayne of that difficulty. When we come to look 
at another system, that is so framed as to have a su¬ 
preme court in every county in the State, j tell the gen¬ 
tleman, before it can be done, that he must strike out 
of our system the court of common pleas. 

Mr. LARWILL. I would ask the gentleman if he 
has not changed his opinion on the subject. 

Mr. STANBERY. What I have stated has always 
been my opinion. I have become satisfied that you 
would be obliged to dispense with the common pleas, 
in order to make the system practicable. That court 
we must retain. 

Mr. MASON. Sir, I am opposed, when there is no 
such question before us, to entering into a discussion 
upon the relative merits of these two systems. The 
question was presented on an amendment proposed, I 
believe by the gentleman from Trumbull, and the com¬ 
mittee have overruled it. Unless the committee should 
change its purpose and determination that system will 
not be put into the constitution. I hope that the gen¬ 
tleman from Wayne will, after these explanations, be 
satisfied that the systen is practicable. If he insists 
upon putting into the constitution his views it will cause, 
in the minds of a great proportion of this body, some 
degree of astonishment. It is a matter about which 
the committee could not agree. The majority of the 
committee could have put in the opposite system, but 
they forbore to do so. This forbearance on the part of 
the majority of the committee, we expected would have 
been reciprocated in this body. I will not go into the 
merits of the respective systems now—it has been al¬ 
ready done, and I am unwilling, as it is out of order, to 
take up the time of the committee in debating a question 


business—they may be willing to have the chaAcery 
and law cases upon which they have spent great labor 
in their offices, treated and disposed of in the hasty 
manner which has been so long practiced in our courts, 
and that they may be delighted with the operation of 
a system which has been denominated the stiiTup court; 
for they still demand that these courts shall go into all 
the counties. 

I want to know from gentlemen who advocate the 
county term system, if they are satisfied with the pre¬ 
sent mode of doing busmess in that court. Gentlemen 
seem determined to put into the constitution their plan 
and ride over us rough shod, booted and spurred. I am 
astonished at it—I am astonished tljat they are unwil¬ 
ling to compromise—I am astonished that they are not 
willing to take their chance with the General Assem¬ 
bly. An objection is made that the plan of the com¬ 
mittee is aristocratic. I believe that the gentleman 


from Fairfield had the honor of giving us that informa¬ 


tion. Now let us look at the aristocracy of this report. 
I do not know that the old system of the judiciary was 
ever regarded as aristocratical. We propose a system 
which is in part identical with the former one. Un¬ 
der that system the judges were appointed by the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly. It is proposed in this report, that they 
should be elected directly by the people. That is the 
aristocratic feature, is it ? Is there more power con¬ 
ferred upon this new court than was delegated to the 
former one? The power is the same. And the tribu¬ 
nals we propose^to create are in every sense more strict¬ 
ly popular than have before been established in this 
State. Why then are terms of reproach employed un¬ 
less it be for the purpose of exciting prejudice. Why 
do not the men who prefer this charge, indicate the 
features of the Report in which that charge can be sus¬ 
tained. Where is the lurking mischief concealed in 
this scheme. You have popularized the court, by ma¬ 
king the judges elective and responsible directly to the 
people. Sir, the men of Lorain county, whose pro¬ 
ceedings at a late meeting held there, have been read 
to us, are totally mistaken in regard to the system we 
propose to establish, in supposing that it is aristocratic 
in its structure or tendency It is on the contrary, em¬ 
inently and distinctively popular. 

Why make the charge of aristocracy against this 
court, elected as it is to be by the people, when the 
same court under the old constitution was appointed 
by the General Assembly. Whence comes this preten¬ 
ded fear of aristocrocy? Now the gentleman who 
makes this charge, that it is an aiistocratic court, and 
who intends as he says to prosecute against it a war of 
extermination, proposes to do what ? Why he propo¬ 
ses in the amendment now under consideration, to in¬ 
crease the number of districts, and he recommends the 
reduction of judges from twenty-seven, the number na¬ 
med in the report, down to sixteen. The gentleman 
from Fairfield, I apprehend, supposes that the less the 
number, the less there is of aristocracy in it. The priv¬ 
ileged office-holdinghave all at once become high¬ 
ly democratic, and the many exceedingly aristocratic. 
He makes the charge of aristocracy and proposes to re- 

















CONVENTION EEPORTS 


593 


duce the number of judges, to make the system more dem¬ 
ocratic. 

Mr. Chairman, I will make a remark or two upon 
the etforts tliat have been made to excite party feeling, 
and to apply party discipline to the members of this 
body. I do not approve of the elforts of the gentleman 
from Fairheld, to get up a party debate and to make a 
party constitution. And why ? Because, in my opin¬ 
ion, the making of a conslitution has nothing to do with 
party politics. All we want is a good constitution, are- 
publican constitution, a democratic constitution—a whig 
constitution. A good constitution is all we want, That 
is what the people do want. In my opinion the large 
majority ol the pepole of Ohio do not want the ultra- 
ism of either party put into th^ constitution. Why are 
these eftbrts made to excite party feeling in any case? 
They are made because the party dogma proposed to 
be made a part of the constitution could not be carried 
by the power of reason and argument, and therefore, if 
not carried by the I'orce of party discipline, they would 
fall to the ground from their own insignificance or in¬ 
herent viciousness. They are made because proposi¬ 
tions are submitted which cannot be sustained by ar¬ 
gumentation, and therefore, they must fall unless sus¬ 
tained by party appeal. Well, I hope there are sober- 
minded men enough here, to rebuke all such attempts. 
These party topics have been dragged into this debate 
for the second and third time, and they have all come 
from the same quarter. The subject of pledges and 
violation of pledges—the old federal party, and the old 
bank questions and controversies, and every other for¬ 
gotten party theme has been resorted to, for the pur¬ 
pose of provoking reply. Yet no reply has been made, 
and none will be made. 

They may be assured, Mr. Speaker, that I shall not 
be so juvenile myself, as to make any. I will leave 
General Taylor, his war measures and peace measures, 
pledges and imputed violation of pledges—I will leave 
all this business to be canvassed by the people on the 
stump—at their gatherings during the present season, or 
any future season. I have nothing to do with it. It is 
out of time and place, and it falls upon my ears like 
something unhallowed. And yet I am not alai’med, 
when any man talks about whiggery, democracy or lo- 
cofocoism. 

The gentleman was in hopes, undoubtedly, that 
somebody would reply to his political speeches. The 
gentleman will not be replied to, although party policy 
might seem to require it. I would not reply to the 
gentleman, either from principle or policy. I do not 
wish to provoke a majority here to do any thing which 
:s wrong. I will not, from principle or policy, do any 
thing to provoke this majority to do wrong. The gen¬ 
tleman may make out of this remark all the political 
capital he can. He cannot make much out of it. I 
know there are members here who wish to provoke 
party action. I know that many desire it. I do not 
desire it. I would rather, Mr. Chairman, make a con¬ 
stitution and submit it to the people, and do the work 
so well that they would say, ^‘Well done good and 
faithful servants—you have behaved like gentlemen.” 
Do you want them to live under a party constitution, 
and to be unhappy and discontented under such an 
one, or do you want a constitution made which shall do 
equal justice to both parties? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. A democratic constitution will 
do justice to all persons and parties. 

Mr. MASON. I do not expect that it will be either 
whig or democratic. But I hope it will be republican 
in all its pax'ts. If it be both whig and democratic, it 
will be republican. Such a constitution would em¬ 
brace the best rules for the government and action of 
the people, and yield the greatest amount of public 
satisfaction. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that there will be no excessive 
party action here. The gentleman from Fairfield says 
he knows if we had a majority here, we would do the 
same. I would simply say, that the gentleman knows 

88 


no such thing. Are we not equal? Well, my opinion 
is, that if the whig party had the majority here, they 
would not seek to put any ultraism into the constitu¬ 
tion, I am opposed to these attempts which tend to 
excite discord, and which are so alien to the business 
which brought us here. Gentlemen ought to be satis¬ 
fied with making the great change which has been 
agreed to, namely, giving the election of all judicial 
and other officers to the people. How much further 
do you wish to go? Having obtained that great prin¬ 
ciple, is it not enough? We have made some valua¬ 
ble reforms already. We can make a good constitu¬ 
tion, but it cannot be made under the influence of par¬ 
ty excitement or party excess, without doing a great 
wrong to the country. I am afraid of your “ unterri¬ 
fied democracy I would not live under a constitu¬ 
tion which the gentleman from Fairfield would give 
me, if I could escape to California or some other dis¬ 
tant region. I have spoken upon this subject longer 
than I intended to have done. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. At the risk of wearying the com¬ 
mittee, I intend to submit some observations concenx- 
ingthe report under consideration, and concerning some 
remarks made by gentlemen in the discussion of it. 

I regret the course of debate which has been in¬ 
dulged in. A person not knowing the real position of 
the question before us would suppose that this report, 
in and of itself, determined the c^uestion whether the 
district court should be held in each county of each dis¬ 
trict, or whether that court should be held at one or 
two points in each district. Gentlemen favoring each 
of these views have gone on arguing the relative mer¬ 
its of each, as if they believed this to be a controversy 
between their opposing opinions, and it is not to be won¬ 
dered at if those who have listened to the discussion 
should come to the same conclusion. But such is not 
the fact. The report under consideration does not at¬ 
tempt to determine the controversy, but leaves it en¬ 
tirely to the decision of the General Assembly, and 
leaves with the General Assembly the power to give 
to each district that system which it may desire. Yet 
the discussion has carried a different impression, and 
has had the effect, to some extent, to array the friends 
of the two systems in opposition to each other, and to 
place the friends of county terms of the district court 
in opposition to the report. In aiding in giving to this 
discussion this character, I think the Iriends of the re¬ 
port have made a mistake, and have done much to jeop¬ 
ardise their whole system. 

Again, sir, the friends of this report, in their discus¬ 
sion, have indulged in remarks which I think are not 
calculated to strengthen their cause. They have in¬ 
dulged in remarks tending to throw ridicule upon the 
friends of the county system, as it is called. VVehave 
been told by one gentleman that in those parts of the 
State where the county system is desired they may 
have, for what he cares, the court brought down to ev¬ 
ery hog pen in the county. We have been told by an- * 
other gentleman that he thought that no intelligent man, 
much less any intelligent lawyer, would desire a con¬ 
tinuance of this worn out and miserable system of coun¬ 
ty terms of the district court. Another gentleman in 
this discussion, but whether in this connection I cannot 
now say, has said something about lawyers, who w'ere 
not law^yers enough to hurt them, and various other re¬ 
marks have been made, calculated as I have belore 
said, to ridicule those who favor the county terms of 
this court, and to put them down, not by argiunent, but 
in a less legitimate mode. It is true, sir, that gentle- ' 
men have expressly disclaimed applying any of these 
remarks to gentlemen on this floor—of course, sir, that 
is fully understood—these remarks are only intended 
to apply to persons outside of this Convention who occu¬ 
pied a position precisely similar to that occupied by 
gentlemen on the inside. 

Well sir, what do these outsiders say in reply? We 
have heard from Ashland county that they denounco 
these district terms of this court, this taking away the 












594 


CONVENTION REPOIITS 


terms of the district court from the counties, as an aris¬ 
tocratic system; for this is what I understand by their 
resolntionsreadhere on Saturday, wliich caused so mucli 
remark. They (the outsiders) say in substance that 
the attempt to take from the counties the sessions of 
the district court is an attempt by llie more distingnisli- 
ed members of the bar to erect themselves into a pro 
fessional aristocracy, at the expense of their younger 
and less distinguished brethren, that they do not v,,lue 
very highly the privilege of attending at quite a sacra- 
fice of time and money the schools to be afforded them 
by this splendid court surrounded by this splendid bar, 
in session at one or two places in each district, and 
that they think they can be more profitably employed 
than undoing what some gentlemen seem to desire they 
should do, attending the sessions of this splendid court, 
gathering wisdom as it drops from the lips of these dis¬ 
tinguished gentlemen, staring with open eyes and 
mouths at these magiiales of the profession, and won- 
» ering in the intensity of their admiration from what 
oiu’ce Deity received assistance in the stupendous 
wox’k of their creation. This sir, is what I suppose 
these outsiders may say. God forbid that any man here 
should say it, or if he did, should apply it to any mem¬ 
ber of this Convention. If it should be thought, or said 
by any one, I sincerely hojxe it will not be applied to 
any one here but that it will be strictly and particular¬ 
ly restrained in its application to those outsiders of the 
Convention occupying the same position occupied by 
some gentlemen on the inside. 

Gentlemen have taken occasion, dunng this discus¬ 
sion, to denounce partisanship and party feeling in this 
body. 1 had occasion, a few days since, to define my 
position on that subject, I then said that I was elect¬ 
ed as a partisan of the democracy, and that had it not 
been for my well known party feelings I could not have 
occupied a seat on this floor. I now say further, sir, 
that looking upon party organizations as intended for 
the advocacy of what we deemed correct political 
principles, I consider this pecidiarly the proper place 
for partisanship, or a strict adherence to party obliga¬ 
tions. This is the place in which political principles 
are fixed and made operative, and if party organization 
be an organization for the sake of princij^le, we should 
here adhere with peculiar tenacity to that organization. 
If, on the other hand, party organization be merely an 
organization for the sake of giving place to its mem¬ 
bers, I care not how little I see of its manifestations 
here. It is said that the judiciary should be kept free 
from political excitements and influences. To a great 
degree this is correct, and yet there are cjuestions upon 
which the judiciary differ according to their political 
aflinilies as well as the people, and this is so almost 
necessarily. I therefore am opposed to that portion of 
this report which divides the State into nine judicial 
districts, of the result will be, as it is said it will, to give 
to the party represented by the minority on this floor, 
6 or 7 out of the nine districts. I do not know that this 
will be the result, but if upon examination, I shall find 
it to be so, I shall consider it a great objection to the 
report, and shall seek to remove that objection. 

Mr. MASON. Will you go so far as to break down 
the system on account of this objection ? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. It will be sufficient for me to say 
now that I will earnestly endeavor to remove the ob¬ 
jection. If the result will be as has been indicated, it 
will give to the whig party an advantage, which, as the 
minority on the floor, they should not ask. one indeed 
which I think they should not take if offered to them, 
and one which I do not intend they shall have, if I can 
fairly avoid it. 

I now come to the last subject upon which I shall 
offer any remarks at this time, and that is the county 
sessions of the district court. The amendment of the 
gentleman from Fairfield strikes at the whole report, 
and it will, perhaps, be in order to discuss this ques¬ 
tion in part. I do not intend to examine the relative 
merits of the county system and district systems, as 


they are called, because such a discussion wxmld be j( 
out of pl ace, but will confine myselt to the coaisidera- ■. 
lion of the questions, wlaethi'r, as the report stands, 
e ach dista ict c;an liaive the system it desires. 

Will the General Assembly give to each district the | 
system it desires? It seems to aiie that hea’e cannot be j 
a reasonable doubt as to the correct answer to this | 
question. I cannot coaaceive aany coaisideiation ihiit | 
woaald induce the Gcneaal Assembly to give to each 
particiihir district that system which it did not want. 
Can aaay gentleman inaagine how, or why this should l 
be (lone? I confess I cannot, and 1 Ibel peifeclly sure i 
tluit each district will get jaast the system it wuiaits. 1 
am satisfied that iaa the north part of tin' State the peo- ; 
pie and the bar are almost, if not quite umuaimonsly in 
favor of the county systean, and I am eaptally well saat- j 
isfied the General Assembly will give it to them. We 
have been told here repeatedly that in the cential and 
southern portions of the iStaite, they desire the district 
system, if so they ought to have it, and the General 
Assembly will give it to them. 

Mr. KING. How would it be in a district where a 
part of the counties desired the county and a part the 
district system ? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I understand this as a sectional 
difference—a difference between the northern and 
southern portions of the Stale. Does the geailleman 
from Butler [ Mr. King j say that in the southern portions 
of the State the district is not desired ? 

Mr. KING. I think the people of Butler county de¬ 
sire the cou! ty system. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Well, if I am mistaken in the 
facts, of course my argument fails, but it has been re¬ 
peatedly said on this floor (and the statement has not 
lieen contradicted) that in the south part of the Slate 
the county system is not desired. If this be incorrect 
—if this be not true that this diflerence of opinion exists 
between these portions of the State—if the desire to 
have the county system prevails in all j)arts of the 
Slate I am willing to insert it in the constitution, as the 
only reason for my willingness to leave it out was the 
information which I deemed correct, that it was not 
desired in certain portions of the State. 

There is another question : Is it practicable to have a 
session of the district court in each county ? Does the re¬ 
port provide sufficient judicial force? I voted to in¬ 
crease the number of the judges of the supreme court, 
but the number provided by the report was deemed 
sufficient, and those who think the district courts can¬ 
not be carried into the counties, say the difficulty 
lies in the judges of the common pleas courts—that 
they wull not have time to do their duty as judges of the 
common pleas courts and judges of the district courts. 

I have examined the report of the secretary of State, 
transmitting to us information from the clerks of the 
diflerent courts, and from that report have arrived at ! 
the following results: 

The report of the Secretary of State, communicating 
to us information derived from the clerks of the courts • 
of the diflerent counties shows that the whole number 
of days of the diflerent terms of the courts of com¬ 
mon pleas in 1848, were, so far as returned, 3242—of 
which 596 days were consumed by the courts held in 
Hamilton county—leaving for the balance of the Slate 
2646 days. Certain counties are omitted in the report, 
lor which, from the best information I can procure, I 
have estimated at 126—making in all, for the whole 
State except Hamilton county, 2772 days. By divi¬ 
ding the number of days by the number of districts 
(save Hamilton, county) 8, we find the average num¬ 
ber of 346^ days to each district—say 360 days as the 
time required to do the common pleas business. The 
gentleman from Belmont [Mr. Kennon] informs us 
that but two courts will be held at the same time in 
each district. Going upon this ])asis, it would require 
175 days for each of the two judges engaged in hold¬ 
ing these courts, admitting that the third judge would 
be idle or aiding one of the other judges in his duty. 

















CONVENTION EEPORTS. 595 


Taking 175 clays Ibr common pleas business, from 365 
days, would leave 190 days for the business of the dis¬ 
trict court, and for recreation. Counting the average 
number of counties in each district at 10, (and this, con¬ 
sidering the amount of business, is over the average) we 
can give to each county two terms of the dis’t. court each 
year, each term consisting of one week, which would 
require for the district 20 weeks or 140 days. This 
added to the 175 days for common pleas business, would 
give 315 days including Sundays, and would leave 50 
days of idle time lor study and recreation. I think, 
however, the thin! judge could do one half duty; he 
could hold a court of common pleas during the session 
ot the district court. Let ns then estimate on this ba¬ 
sis': to each of the two working judges it will give 140 
days, to both 280 days, and to the lioatiiig judge 70 days, 
making the whole number of 350 as before stated,— 
this would leave for district court business 225 days. 
From this take the 20 weeks, or 140 days for district 
court business, as above, would leave lor study and re¬ 
creation 85 days. I think this shows that the judges 
ot the court of common pleas will have ample time to 
do their duties and carry this court into each county 
even twice a year. I have not inade any deduction 
for the time now consumed in our courts of corUmon 
pleas in the transaction of business to be clone in our 
new county court, and I have estimated too largely in 
giving two weeks to each county £or district court bus¬ 
iness—one week to each county would be sufficient— 
and the whole calculation shows, that so far as the 
judges of the court of common pleas are concerned, 
there will not be any difficulty in carrying this court in¬ 
to each county. If there is not a sufficient number of 
supreme judges let us increase them. 

Mr. KING. I want to ask a single question. How 
does the gentleman propose to settle the district or the 
county term for the district—by the will of the majori¬ 
ty ? or is it supposed that the district must be unani¬ 
mous ? In the county where I reside, 1 believe the 
people are unanimous in their prefei'ence of the county 
terms : I desire to know how the rights of the people 
are to be determined in any such county, in a case 
where the balance of the district prefer and are enti¬ 
tled to the district terms? How is this to be compro¬ 
mised? Must thei'e not be a sacrifice of the rights and 
views of some of the counties? or can the gentleman 
settle it upon any other principle? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I confess that I cannot. But I 
understand from statements of gentlemen, that the peo¬ 
ple in diflerent parts of the State prefer different sys¬ 
tems. I am told that in the south and central parts of 
the State they want the district system: and I know 
that in the northern part they want the county system. 
This being the case, I should think that both divisions 
of the State could be accomodated under this report. 
If I am wrong as to the fact that they prefer the coun¬ 
ty terras in the north, then, of course, my position 
is incorrect. But the statement has been made and it 
has not yet been contradicted. 

Mr. LIDE.Y, (interrupting.) I would like to ask the 
gentleman where, amongst the southern counties of the 
State, they have asked for the district terms? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I have spoken of this as a fact 
which has been proclaimed upon this floor. 

Mr. LIDEY. I do not know of any in the southern 
part of the State who want the district system. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Well, I do not know myself. If 
it be the fact that the people all over the State vyant 
the county system, let us put it into the constitution ; 
but if there be a difference as to their preference in 
the two divisions of the State, let all be accomodated. 
But it has been declared, over and again, by gentlemen 
upon this floor, that the South and central part of the 
State were favorable to the district terms, and I have 
not heard it contradicted until this moment. ^ 

But I have proposed to consider the practicability of 
carrying these terms into every county in the State. In 
the way of doing this, there are two difficulties which 


presented themselves to my mind. In the first place, 
whether the Legislature would do what the people 
want; and in the next place, whether they could do 
it if they were to try. I have figured a little with re¬ 
ference to the latter difficulty, and produce the follow¬ 
ing results: If any gentleman will take the report of 
the Secretary of State, in reply to a resolution of this 
Convention calling upon him for certain judicial infor¬ 
mation, he will find that, in the year 1848, the total 
number of court days held in the State of Ohio were 
3,242. 

You get, then, according to this estimate, in each dis¬ 
trict one hundred and forty court days. Eight times 
this sum makes eleven hundred and twenty days ses¬ 
sion of the supreme court, besides the time which it is 
held in Hamilton county : whereas, now, the supreme 
court is only able to sit about two-thirds of the year ; 
and there is not one of the supreme judges, or of the 
judges of the common pleas, but what would be fully 
able to do his part of the business, if there is any cor¬ 
rectness in the estimate sent us by the Secretary of 
State. I have made no deduction here, on account of 
probate business. I have supposed all that to be taken 
away from these courts. If I am wrong, I wish some 
gentleman to show me wherein. If I am right, and 
this thing is practicable, I wish to see it carried into 
effect. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I believe it was remarked by the 
gentleman from Clark, at some earlier stage of this de¬ 
bate—when he alluded to gentlemen of less experience 
injudicial matters, in this Convention—that they were 
sitting here as a jnry, to whom the consideratioxi of 
this report of the committee on the .Judiciary was to 
be presented. That gentleman is well aware, that in 
the trial of all jury cases, it frequently becomes the 
privilege of a juror to interpose with a suggestion, fur 
the purpose of calling the attention of others, to the 
particular point pressing upon the mind of the individ¬ 
ual. Acting upon this principle, I shall venture now 
to interpose a few suggestions. 

Here is the Judiciary committee, composed of the best 
legal materials of ihe body—gentlemen to whose opin¬ 
ions upon this subject we all defer. They have hither¬ 
to occupied the attention of the committee with their 
views; but, they have passed over, slightly, that part 
of the report upon which this discussion naturally 
hangs; and this debate has turned, almost exclusively, 
upon a verbal amendment, on which members of the 
standing committee were disagreed. It seems to me, 
this discussion ought to have taken place upon the sec¬ 
tions providing for the organization of the supreme 
court. I think, myself, it is exceedingly doubtful 
whether it is competent for four men to hold a district 
court every year in each county of the State. I admit 
that the gentleman from Franklin might very well ex- 
press a strong doubt upon this subject. It does seem 
to me that there, and then, was the time when this dis 
cussion should have taken place. Before we fixed up¬ 
on the number of judges, we should have ascertained 
what duties were to be devolved upon them. 

Since the consideration of this I’eport has been taken 
up, every gentleman of the standing committee has 
presented his views upon the subject, with one excep¬ 
tion, [Mr. Groesbeck,] and I hope that gentleman also 
will favor us with his opinions; and not only so, but 
that he will disclose the reasons which have induced 
the committee to introduce this radical change in the 
organization of the Supreme Court. Hitherto it has 
been thought the best and wisest course in the organi¬ 
zation of our Supreme Court, to preserve and keep up 
their intercourse with the people by means of jury tri¬ 
als. This rule, I believe, is observed in all the lead¬ 
ing courts ol the United States. Why was this rule 
departed from by the committee? Why establish a 
court of four judges who are never to face a jury?— 
Gentlemen upon the other side of the chamber have 
frequently reminded us that no change should be made 
in the old constitution, unless some good reason could 










596 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


be given for it. Here, then, is a departure from iLat 
rule, for which, it seems to me, no good reason can be 
given. It is proposed that tlie chief justice, and by a n 
amendment it seems now to be agreed, that all the 
judges of the Supreme Court, shall be elected by gen¬ 
eral ticket. Now, sir, in my oi)iuion, the evil referred 
to by those who are opposed to this proposition, will 
be sure to ensue, namely, that these judges will be par- 
ty judges. It was well remarked by the gentleman 
from Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] upon another subject, 
that a county auditor was always chosen by the peo¬ 
ple, with relerence to his peculiar fitness and qualifi¬ 
cations for the place, but whenever the people should 
come to the election of a State auditor, they would 
strike the party lines. So it would be with the elec¬ 
tion of your supreme judges by general ticket. But if 
they were to be elected, each for his own district, 1 
venture the predictiction that we would rarely see the 
party lines drawn at their election. In small districts the 
people could never be brought up to party lines. In 
the election of their judges, they would vote for men 
who were best qualified to discharge the duties of 
their station with integrity and fairness. But if yon 
provide that these judges of the Supreme Court sliall 
be elected by general ticket, they will be noniinatt'd, 
either by some January convention, or some May con¬ 
vention—some body of men coming up here and re¬ 
maining in session but a few hours. These judges of 
our court of the last resort, are to be chosen u[)ou this 
sort of dictation. It seems to me, sir, that this propo¬ 
sition leaves them peculiarly liable to the most perni 
cioLis party infiuences. I should prefer to strike out 
from the report, the word “eight,” and insert a larger 
number. And I could wish that we might have thiriy- 
.six districts in the State composed ot the Senatorial 
districts. I have no fears about fairness and honesty, 
in respect to the political distribution of judgeships, in 
these districts. With these divisions, and the election 
of the supreme judges by the people of their respec¬ 
tive districts, I believe you could secure a far better 
class of men to fill these piaces, than those which 
might be selected by party influences at a central cap¬ 
ital. 

After you have prescribed the number of judges and 
the business of the supreme court, then these gentle¬ 
men of the judiciary might bring in their scheme to 
divide the State into nine or ten judicial districts, with 
the accompanying details. Then you could have three 
or more judges for each district, to be elected by the 
people ; and the number of judges will be sufficient to 
hold your district courts, whether it be settled that they 
shall have original or only appellate jurisdiction. 

You will then have judges of experience—men who 
have proved themselves capable of active service, and 
who have been accustomed to face juries. J'hus, it 
seems to me, you would establi h a system which 
would be sure to inspire confidence. And with it you 
might retain the county system ; and then it would not 
be a very great departure from the present system. 

For one, sir, I cannot but distrust every effort to take 
away the respectability of our local legal tribunals. I 
speak now with reference to certain remarks in which 
gentlemen have indulged, wiih reference to our coun¬ 
ty courts. In my opinion the bench of our county 
courts should be occupied by men of the first talent iu 
the country. Why sir, this is to be court of appeals 
from the judgments of our justices of the peace; and 
who does not believe that in the course of a few years 
the jurisdiction of our justices of the peace will be en¬ 
larged ? Leaving this then as it stands, I say give us 
a supreme court of the character which I have intima¬ 
ted, and the people will have confidence in all their 
decisions. But if you elect these judges by general 
ticket, and give them no intercourse with juries, I ap¬ 
prehend that they will be [)laced so far from the ordi- 
naiy administration of justice that in a very short time 
they will suffer under the same surfeit of business 
which has been already exhibited in the supreme court 
of the State. 


Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. I desire to say a few 
words more upon this subj- ct. If I understand the 
question, it is, whether we shall take the preposition 
of the committee for the cunimon pleas judges, or 
whether we shall have sixteen districts and sixteen 
judges iu the Stat('. Now if the gentleman from Fair- 
field had })resented us with a project which he liitnself 
had seriously prepare d as suitable to be engrafted u{)on 
the bill, it w'ould have been well. Wecould thenhave 
ascertained the object of the gentleman, and if in the-, 
opinion of the committee his proposition were an im¬ 
provement, we might venture to adopt it. But instead 
of this, t:ie gentleman has not oidy 2 )re 8 ented us with 
no feasible project, but he has told us candidly that 
he has none to present. But he wmiits to stiike out 
the whole section from tlie constitution, to get rid of 
our twenty-live judges; and when that is done, we are 
not informed what further is to be dune. 

Mr. ROBERTSON interposing and Mr. H. giving 
way, said : I think I stated on Saturday that if my 
amendment was adopted, it would increase tlie num- ! 
her of supreme judges to six. 'I'hat this would enable 
them to carry the court into e\ eiy county. That it 
would obviate the objection against a single judge pre¬ 
siding. At the same time, I said I had no confidence 
in aiiy^ |)lau which I could present; my chief desire j 
being to break down the projiosed system, which 1 re- ' 
gard as very obnoxious. I did, therefore, suggest a ; 
comjilete system—but that it is a good system, I do j 
not claim. ^ 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I do not know that I yet un- | 
derstand the system of the gentleman; but if I do, I 
think he would find some dilficulty were he to under- i 
tak(‘to reduce itto firactice. 

Mr. ROBERTSON, in his seat. It is the old system, ^ 
reformed, that I prefer. , 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. If we are to have the old sys¬ 
tem, let us have it And when it is presented, let it be 1 
presented as an entire system; and not undertake to 1 
engraft it upon another. 

The gentleman from Fairfield offered an amendment 
to the bill, and if it had been adopted, 1 understood j 
the gentleman as being willing to support ihe system. 

We all recollect what that amendment was. 1 voted 
for it, and am willing again to do ,so, although it would 
be stmiewhat incongruous with the usual course of 
elections. But what, in fact, was the objection of the 
gentleman from Fairfield to the whole system? What 
ground of objection has he laid before the committee? ' 
It is nothing more or less than this: that if this sys 
tern were adopted, there could not beadue proportion" 
of democratic judges elected. This was the founda¬ 
tion of his objection—this was the force of his argu- ^ 
menl; and it seemed to me, from his treatment of the 
subject, that all the judicial reform which he really de¬ 
sired to propose, would not be in the system itself, but ‘ 
in so forming the system as to secure to his own polit- 1 

ical party a preponderance in the number of judges. ; 

But I do not intend to go into this question. 

"We commenced this discussion, Mr. Chairman, on 
Tuesday afternoon, and have been engaged in it almost i 
six entire days. Amendment after amendment was ; 
offered, and the report has been amended in some re- ' 

spects. At length we made an amendment to the sec- j| 

tion under consideration by striking out two words, af- i 
ter a debate of two or three days. This debate turned, 
not upon the amendment, but upon the whole suiiject 
matter of the bill. The gentleman fi om Trumbull [Mr. ' 
Ranney,] has given us an intimation of his intention to 
offer a substitute for the bill, but the gentleman was 
kind enough to say that he would not offer it until the 
bill should be perfected by its friends. 

Three days having been thus consumed, without 
making any progress, at length the gentleman from 
Fairfield offered his amendment, which was not concur¬ 
red in. Next, the present amendment was pi’oposed ; 
and still the discussion turns, not upon the proposed 
amendment, but upon the whole subject matter of the 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


bili. Tlie whole judicial system has to be examined 
in every speech: and some speeclies are made which 
have no more application to the (piestion under consid¬ 
eration tl)an they could have to the truth of Mahomet’s 
Koran. Now I Jo not like this course of proceeding; 
and I believe my friend from Auglaize does not like it 
any better than myself. I am constrained, therefore, 
to request gentlemen to stop this course. 

Mr. SAWYER, (iu his seat.) Agreed. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Let us go on and perfect the 
system ; and then, it it i.s lound not to be a good one, 
let us attack it, and destroy it. But it we continue to 
attack it in this way, and every time an attack is made, 
proceed to discuss the entire subject of the report— 
tor, it we are to proceed in this way, instead of per¬ 
fecting a constitution by the first day of September, we 
shall not get through by the first day of July next. We 
cannot do it in twelve months. Unless wo confine our¬ 
selves, in our discussions, to the point before the com¬ 
mittee, it is im[)ossible for us to make progress. All I 
ask is, that, in these discussions, we shall look to the 
matter under c nsideration. 

But hero, Mr. Chairman, I feel constrained to depart 
from my own rule. An assertion was made by the 
gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason, j which requires 
some notice. The gentlomaii is mistaken, sir, when he 
tells you that cnses are decided in the supreme court, 
upon the examination of a single judge. I can assure 
the gentleman, that so far as 1 am concerned, I never 
consented to the decision of any question until 1 
tlio^ui^ht I understood it as far as my limited faculties 
would permit. I ilo not take anything upon trust froni 
any man. I intend to examine every que'^tion for my¬ 
self, and 1 believe that is the general practice of those 
who are associated with me. And when any gentle¬ 
man undertakes to impress the idea upon the commit¬ 
tee that the court has been negligent of its duty, I can¬ 
not allow such a thing to pass without notice. I am 
willing that he should say our decisions have been bad: 
I might not be offended if he were to say that we were 
incompetent, but 1 am not willing that negligence 
should be imputed to the judges where it does not ex¬ 
ist, and never has existed. 

Mr. MASON interposed to explain, and whe i Mr. H. 
had yielded the floor, he said : The difficulty in speak¬ 
ing of the defects of our [iresent judicial system arises 
out of another difficulty—that of separating the sys¬ 
tem from the persons employed to direct it. Mv re¬ 
marks were directed against the system and itselfi-cts, 
not the judges. Now I cherish a feeling of entire re¬ 
spect, and a great deal more than respect, for the 
judges of the supreme court, many of whom I have 
known intimately for a long time; and what I said, it 
seems to me, ought not to have been thought offensive. 

I did not charge the judges with any want of capacity 
or conscientiousness in the [lerformance of their duties. 

I stated that I was with those judges the other day, 
where there were seven cases on the docket. And one 
of the judges said—what was entirely true—We have 
but a half day here to hold court, and we must be in 
the adjoining county in the nn.ruing; we shall have 
to leave this afternoon. This is the practice to which 
we are obliged to submit, under our present defective 
system. All these cases are to be decided between 
the judges holding the court; and to effect this, one of 
the judges is charged with the especial duty of exam¬ 
ining thoroughly and minutely into one case, and anoth¬ 
er judge is charged more particularly with the exami¬ 
nation of -another case ; and then by an interchange of 
opinions—by communicating to each, other the discov¬ 
eries which they have made, each in the particular case 
assigned to him, they come to a decision upon them 
all. This was the case at the court to which 1 alluded 
as being my last experience of the evil effects of this 
system, which is not different from my former expeii- 
ence. It would have been physically impossible for 
any set of judges to have examined the case that was 
entrusted to me in half a day. It is a case that has 


59-; 


occupied my attenlion about a year, but I am a slow 
man. Ii was at first confided to me and to one of the 
judges, who decided after this examination. 

The fact is, we can have no chance for argument. 
Ca.ses that have been carefully examined by those hav¬ 
ing them in charge, when they are prepared with their 
authorities and yorne into court with their arguments, 
it is physically impossible that they can be disposed of 
in halt an hour. There is not time to do it. It is not 
for the want of conscientiousness in the judges, but on 
the contrary, I have always found them disposed to do 
justice. 

After reiterating his profound and uninterrupted re- 
s[)ectfor the judges personally and for a great nuin er 
of their decisions, and disclaiming any intention to be 
[)ersonal in his remax’ks, he concluded by saying that 
we coidd not speak here, of this old and odious judicial 
system as we want to on account of the presence of the 
gentleman from Geauga. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I cannot but regret extremely 
that my presence should deter any individual from any 
attack iq)on the supreme court. 

Mr. MASON. Not the court. It is the system. 

xMr. HITCHCOCK. I do not know how it is, that any 
abuse of the system should be withheld, because one 
man who is engaged in carrying it into effect, happens 
to be present. The man doe.s not constitute the system. 
But the gentleman is altogether mistaken with respect 
to the course ixursued in determining causes before the 
court, miles he is better acquainted with the matter 
than I am. But T can again say, that whenever I have 
attended the sittings of the supreme court I have never 
consented to the decision of a case till I thought I un¬ 
derstood it, by my own examination. I cannot say 
iiow it may be with others: I can only say what has 
been their conduct and course of practice when they 
have been sitting with me. I know the members of 
the court to whom the gentleman refers—that they are 
as careful as I am myself. The practice is, in all cases, 
first to decide the question by the court upon careful 
examination, and then the judges, severally, deliver 
their opiiuons, assigning their reasons for the decision, 
before the public. 

The gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Swan] told us 
the other day that the four judges of the court would 
wr te a book of decisions of four or five hundred pages 
in forty days ; but I think if he would examine the book 
particularly, he will find that it is made by the lawyers 
much more than by the judges. The opinions of jud¬ 
ges are generally concise and brief, the arguments of 
counsel are not always so. And these arguments con¬ 
stitute a great share of the book. 

One word as to the case refeiTcd to by the gentleman 
from Clark. He says that at the court which he was 
called to attend, in the county of Darke, during the 
time that he was absent from this body—something 
more than a week, there were seven cases on the dock¬ 
et. But 1 can assure the gentleman that that is a larger 
number of cases than I ever found on the docket in 
that county. The average number there is not above 
three cases. 

We labor under disadvantages here. We have sent 
out through the Secretary of State to get the list of the 
number of cases in the courts of common pleas, — the 
number disposed of by them. But we have been very 
careful not to ask for the number of cases which have 
been before the Supreme Court. The veiy thing that 
we want most to know is kept out of view. We are 
not informed of the amount of business in the Supreme 
Court. I have said that so far as the Supreme Court 
is concerned, there is not half the bnsiness there which 
gentleman woidd seem to represent. There are a few 
counties which furnish considerable business, but it is 
not so generally. I recollect going once into the county 
of Stark—a single instance—and finding there some 
forty or filty cases on the Supreme Court docket. This 
looked like a very heavy list; but when we called over 
the docket we found only some two or three cases 








598 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


■which were not writs of error, requiring only that the 
decisions of the court below should be affirmed, there 
being no errors assigned. The writs having been sworn 
out merely for delay. 

As far as arguments are concerned, in this court, I 
can assure gentlemen that there is more arguments of 
counsel heard, in proportion to the amount ot business, 
than in former times. However, this is all foreign to 
the subject. 

All that I ask of gentlemen is, that we may be per¬ 
mitted to go on and perfect the system before us, with¬ 
out taking up so much time in the discussion of mat¬ 
ters not relative to the point immediately under dis¬ 
cussion. 

When Mr. H. had concluded— 

Mr. HOLT said: I believe that, with the exception 
of a few minutes occupied by the gentleman from Ash¬ 
tabula, [Mr. Woodbury,] the gentleman from Erie, 
[Mr. Taylor,] and the gentleman from Fairfield, [Mr. 
Robertson,] who occupied about an hour on Saturday 
—besides these, I believe that the members of the com¬ 
mittee who made the report, have occupied the whole 
time of this debate. 

Mr. ROBERTSON (in his seat.) My remarks were 
made in reply to the chairman of the committee. 

Mr. HOLT. I have some objections to this report, 
which I will endeavor briefly to state. I am no de- 
claimer, and if I were, I would not here engage in that 
mode of debate. I fear that injury has already been 
done by it. 

It has been said by some gentleman, “ If you oppose 
this system, give us your plan for a better one. It is 
easier to destroy than to build up.” There is much truth 
in the remai’k ; and acting upon it, I propose, briefly, 
and in a plain manner, to call attention to a simple plan 
which I had proposed to present at a proper time, and 
perhaps that time has arrived. He, [Mr. Holt J should 
submit it, without attempting to enforce it by any pro¬ 
tracted argument. It was simple, easily understood, 
and he believed deserving of some consideration. A 
word to the wise. It was a kind of self-sustaining ma¬ 
chine, a kind of perpetual motion, when once started. 
I will say nothing about the jurisdiction of the courts. 
I dispose of that chiefly by giving it to the General As¬ 
sembly. I would provide for the courts here, and 
leave the jurisdiction to be provided for there. As for 
this domestic county court, it may, I think, be made a 
useful court; and, I admit, it may be made what it has 
been called, or rather, what it might become, a nuis¬ 
ance ; for any courc which breeds mere pettifoggers, 
and through them, litigation, would truly be a nuisance. 
Litigation is a great evil, and the less we have of it the 
better. It is not the expense of litigation, nor the time 
lost in calling men—jurors, grand jurors and witnesses 
—from their homes and their work, which I regard as 
the chief evil. The engendering of strife and ill will, 
where peace and good will should prevail, are its fruits ; 
and this not limited to suitors, but extending to their 
friends, to witnesses, and to whole neighborhoods. 
These are as often, and perhaps more frequently its re¬ 
sults in small cases, carried from court to court, than in 
cases of more importance. This evil should not be lost 
sight of, in the construction of the courts. I would give 
to the county court probate jurisdiction, and jurisdic¬ 
tion of petty ofiences, and leave it to the Legislature 
to confer such other powers as they might find it expe¬ 
dient for the administration of justice. And here, it 
seems to me, we may compromise the opinions of those 
who would make this a court of respectable common law 
jurisdiction, and those who would limit it entirely, or 
nearly so, to administration and probate jurisdiction. 
The latter have their choice to begin with; and if it 
should be found necessary or expedient to increase the 
jurisdiction, it might be done, and both be satisfied. If 
it would suit gentlemen better, a period in future might 
be fixed upon—say, in five years, the Legislature should 
have this power of enlarging the jurisdiction, when all 
would be accommodated without risk or danger. 


Now, sir, I do not like the report in its provision for 
organizing the courts. There are too many of them, 
too many grades, and too much mixed up. Your com¬ 
mon pleas are mixed with a portion ol the Supieme 
court, to make a kind ol court in bank for the districts, 
and this is not the end of litigation, you have another 
supreme court in bank to sit at the capital, to review 
the decisions of the former: Four judges each, one of 
them always strongly committed lor or against the de¬ 
cision of the supreme district court. 

Now all the steps furnish facilities for climbing the 
ladder of litigation, or rather perhaps to whet the spir¬ 
it of litigation, as it climbs from step to step until it 
reaches the top. 

Now, sir, I think we need have but one court—sub¬ 
stantially one, besides the domestic county court; and 
this brings me to my own plan. I offered a resolution 
early in the session, which was printed but which I 
never called up, and seems to have been forgotten or 
overlooked, as the question has been put to me sev¬ 
eral times since the debate on this report commenced, 
whether I had any plan to offer. I concluded as the 
resolution was ottered early, and as we have been de¬ 
bating other matters for two months, that it has been 
laid by among the things that were. As the report 
now under discussion encounters a good deal ol oppo¬ 
sition, I will refer to the plan which I then submitted, 
and which with, or perhaps without some inodifica- 
tions, I think a good one, and which I will briefly ex 
hibit: 

I divide the State into five districts. Five judges to 
be elected in each district. They may be elected by 
the electors of the State at large or in districts as may 
be preferred. These judges constitute the courts of 
common pleas for the State. 

The term of office is to be five years, but subject to 
a classification by the Legislature, so that the official 
term of one judge in each district shall expire each 
year and his place be filled by election. 

Five of these judges, one from each district, during 
the last year ol their term, shall compose the supremo 
coui't, any three of whom to be a quorum. 

Provision to be made bylaw for holding a sufficient 
number of terms of the common pleas, which may be 
held by — or more ol the judges in any county in the 
State, and also for holding at least one term of the 
supreme court in each of the judicial districts. 

A county court to consist of one judge to be elected 
by the electors in each county, having jurisdiction in 
probaie matters, and such civil and criminal jurisdic¬ 
tion as may be provided by law Term of office to be 
four years, and compensation to be provided for by the 
Legislature. 

Justices of the peace, whose powers and duties shall 
be regulated by law. 

All the change which I propose in this plan, if any, 
is, that the Legislature may constitute the supreme 
court of the same five judges, for one year immediate¬ 
ly after the expiration of their term of five years, in¬ 
stead of the last year of their term. This change, if it 
should become necessary, would add five judges to 
the force of the common pleas. 

My main object is to bring the supreme court among 
the people and their business. I believe that presiding 
at trials of issues of fact—jury trials is the best school 
for a man, old or young to make himself a good and 
useful lawyer, or a good pi-actical judge, that can be 
devised. By trying jury cases the judge is brought 
down if you please, to converse with men in their busi¬ 
ness,—to become acquainted with the ways, the wants, 
the habits, the manners, the interests, the business of 
the people; and, moreover, the ruling spirit of the peo¬ 
ple. He should be acquainted with these in order to 
know the law and how to apply it. Where is the un¬ 
written and yet unsettled law to be found ? It must 
be sought after in the relations, the employments, the 
business, and transactions of men. That rule which 
is fit, and just, and right to regulate and govern these 














CONVENTION EEPOETS. 599 


relatidiis, employments and this business, must be here 
sought out and applied. And the judge, though he 
may have well read his books, must also read men and 
business tor this purpose. » 

Without this practice your judges become abstrac¬ 
tionists. The failure of such judges will consist chie y 
in the application of the law. But the duty of a judge 
consists as much in applying principles properly as m 
settling them. Let me illustrate the idea which I 
would inculcate: 

A physician is called upon to prescribe for a patient. 
Can he do it as skillfully, safely and satisfactorily from 
the best written description of the symptoms which 
could be drawn up by a skilful hand, as he could from 
feeling the pulse and carefully observing the symp¬ 
toms in person ? Let two physicians of c-qual skill at 
the commencement, practice medicine for seven years; 
one always trom a written description of symptoms, 
and the other from personal attendance and observa¬ 
tion, which at the end or even middle of the term would 
be the most scientific, safe and successful practitioner ? 
Unquestionably the one who unites practice with theo¬ 
ry. It is more or less so in all professions, so with your 
paper and practical judges. 

Mr. MASON, interrupting, and Mr. H. yielding, said: 
Allow me to make a suggestion of which the gentle¬ 
man may take notice, after he shall get through. It is, 
whether or not the objection against mere paper judg¬ 
es does not apply with more force to judges who hold 
their places during good behaviour or for life than those 
who are elected by' the people once in seven years : 
and secondly whether he would not candidly admit that 
the same objection is partly mitigated by the supreme 
judges coming into contact with the circuits, and 
mingling with the judges of common pleas, who come 
fresh from the trials of jury cases and intercourse with 
business men—whether these would not be beneficial 
to them in their practice and relieve, in some degree, 
the weight of the gentleman’s objections? 

Mr. HOLT. Most unquestionably, the objections 
would be far greater in the case of the life term than 
the term of seven years; but in the latter case it is a 
diminution only in degree, the objection remains where- 
ever you plac-; a judge at a distance from the people 
and their business. 

In regard to the other suggestion, whether my ob- 
jeciion would not be greatly mitigated by the consid¬ 
eration that these judges are to mingle with the judges 
of the common pleas fresh from trials, I answer : the 
objection may' perhaps be somewhat mitigated, not 
much ; he is then only a paper judge, the objection still 
remains a very strong one with me. No man can un¬ 
derstand and appreciate fully the wants and interests 
of the peojde by communications from them verbal or 
written. In order that this may be learned thorough¬ 
ly, he must have the advantage of personal observa¬ 
tion. I should have the most confidence in your com¬ 
mon pleas judges. 

It has been told of Peter the Great, and the incident 
was related in one of the pul[>its in this city yesterday, 
and is not wholly irnperiinent here, that lor the pttr- 
pose of examining thoroughly into the condition of his 
navy, and the construction of hisshi[)S, especially' that 
he might know pi’actically the best means (jf advancing 
ship building, he went into the ship-yaid. conversed 
with the workmen, examined the work, made himsell 
familiar with the use of tools, and often labored with 
the working men. He knew some things. This kind 
of practical knowledge is useful in all professions, al¬ 
most indispensible in a judge. 

The arts atid the sciences to make sure and rapid 
"progress must flourish together. If I would educate a 
son to the law', he should not be kept always at b oks. 
He should go into thec(;urts, observe the practice, re¬ 
port every case, and then resort to his books. Such a 
Bourse of instruction would make a scientific, jtractical 
and useful man. A lawyer of fifty may well do the 
came. He must always be learning. 


Allusion has been made to the aristocratic features 
of this report. I do not know much about aristocracy. 
I am not sure that I understand the term very well. I 
believe, in this country it belongs to a style of speaking 
that we call declamation, and as I have no talent at 
that I will not say much about it. 

But I will repeat what I liave before said substantial¬ 
ly, and with that conclude ; that to administer the laws 
of any people properly, the interests of that people, 
the wants, employments, habits, manners, their current 
of thought and feeling, the motives which govern hem, 
even their prejudices should all be known and ap¬ 
preciated. These are not learned by' reading books, 
but chiefly by obst'rvation. 

Remove your judges at a distance from the people, 
and you do so by removing them from jury trials, and 
they will not acquire this practical knowledge, nor re¬ 
tain what they' may have acquired; and their sympa¬ 
thies, instead of being with the masses, will take anoth¬ 
er direction altogether. 

On motion the committee rose, reported progresss 
and obtained leave to sit again, 

And on motion the convention took a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

On motion of Mr. NASfl, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the whole, (Mr. Green in the 
chair,) and resumed the consideration of the report of 
the committee on 

THE JUDICIARY. 

The question pending was announced to be upon the 
amendment of the gentleman from Ashtabula [Mr. 
Woodbury] which was to the effect that this court 
should be held in every county' in the State unless 
otherwise desired by the counties and it w'as then put 
—whereupon the committee divided in this wise: af¬ 
firmative 36—negative 27. There being no quorum 
voting, the amendment still remained pending. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved that the committee rise. 

The motion was not sustained. 

Mr. NASH. This proposition I suppose has been 
specifically offered for the purpose of destroying this 
report. There could not have been any other object 
in it. Surely the gentleman cannot be serious in ma¬ 
king a proposition of a character which in itself is un¬ 
meaning. As I read it, it is in this form : “ a court 
shall be held in every county unless the votes polled be 
against ii.” Rolled—how? 

A Voice— a majority. 

I would like to know what the gentleman means by 
language of that character. It certainly, according to 
the ordinary construction of language, has no meaning 
whatever. If the gentleman proposes to submit the 
question to the people, whether they shall have a term 
or not, that is a proposition which I understand. But 
to say that it shall be held in a county unless a major- 
iiy of the votes polled be against it, is an expression 
that I do not understand. 

Mr. Chairman, it is very easy to overturn and des¬ 
troy this report of the committee ; much easier than to 
reconstruct a new one. This report I venture to say, 
does not embody the first wishes of a majority of mem¬ 
bers of this Committee—it does not mine, 1 may say, 
many do say, that it is not the project, which presenUd 
itself to tlieir mind. But now, the question is present 
under another aspect, and it should be met fairly and 
manfully. This committee after weeks upon weeks ol in¬ 
tense application, the most constant diligence, and the 
closest examination, have presented this report as the 
results ol their joint thinking; a report which they be¬ 
lieve to be the bes’ they could devise. ^ It is piesented 
as a. coiiiproniise ot iliG coiiHicting opinions oi intinbeis 
and contains the best, the most judicious plan of a ju- 
diciai’y system, which the joint laboisot thatcommittee 
could devise. I say in all sinceiity, that it the majoii- 
ty of this committee by insidious votes of this charac¬ 
ter, should destroy, break down this system, thus 
proposed, after so much and so long consideration, then 











600 


CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


we are just where we were when we first came togeth¬ 
er. Having cast aside the labors of the committee, hav¬ 
ing repudiated tlieir compromise, we must again re¬ 
sort to individual opinions ; we must again pass through 
the labor of new compromises, under circumstances 
most unfavorable to an intelligent compromise of these 
confiicling opinions. The majority must compromise ; 
since no one plan or opinion can command the vote of 
a majority of this Convention. I understand the object 
of such a committee was for the purpose of ascer¬ 
taining what (he difi'erent opinions in the vaiaous parts 
of the State, are and so to aiTange a plan as to meet the 
views and opinions of all, as near as it can be; at least 
to propose a plan meeting the views of a mnjority—and 
above all to provide an efficient organization for the ad¬ 
ministration of justice throughout the State. I am un¬ 
willing, I must say, to remain here two months longer, 
for the purpose of working out a new plan that might 
be a little more consonant to my first views than the 
present. We cannot all be gratified by the establishment 
of our own plans, that is a settled fact. If we be not 
willing to compromise our plans on some common 
grounds of policy, (the majority not being in favor of 
any one plan,) we will work on hero from day to day— 
from week to week, and from month to month, with- 
f)ut coming to any decisive conclusion. And when we 
are worn down, and the voice of public opinion shall 
be coming up here with the reverberation of thunder, 
from every quarter of the State, indignantly inquiring, 
why this delay ? we shall perhaps, be constrained to 
do as was done in the old Convention—hastily and in¬ 
considerately ingraft into this constitution a system that 
will not answer the great and growing necessities of the 
State; will noi, be what the public welfare requu’es at 
our hands. It may not be known to members here, in 
what manner the old judicial plan was established. It 
was in this way : The convention had inserted a plan 
for a judiciary, one which would have been adequate 
to meet the growth of the State; yet it had been done 
not without bitter opposition. On the last and final 
reading of the constitution, the present system was en¬ 
grafted as the result of a secret caucus*^a plan concoct¬ 
ed in secret without discussion, without deliberation, 
and the result was what all systems thus wroughtmust 
be, a system wholly unfitted to the necessities of the 
State, in its prospective growth. The old Convention 
had a rule which permitted of amendments at that 
stage of their labors. This well meant error, has cost 
this State this Convention, and given us for years a ju¬ 
dicial system, wholly inadequate to meet the necessi¬ 
ties of this great State. 

I am unwilling to break down the work of the com¬ 
mittee by these side tires, so as to make it practically 
worthless. It appears to me that the report does com¬ 
promise the opinions of the various members of this 
body, and of the various portions of the State, just as 
far as it is possible any report can. Sir, there is an¬ 
other remark which while I am up I will make, and I 
make it with all respect and with the single wish to 
conciliate opinion in regal’d to this matter of the judi¬ 
ciary. It has been intimated, and the feeling may ex¬ 
ercise more or less infiuence here as it does elsewhere, 
that this report is the work of the lawyers—that it is 
a judicial system for the lawyers, and therefore gentle¬ 
men on this floor who are not lawyers, if they wish to 
regal’d and protect the interests of the people, must, as 
a matter of course, go against it. Sir, I have said be¬ 
fore that this plan is not my first choice. I say again,' 
as a matter of fact, that I have had nothing to do with 
the formation or presentation of this plan. But I will 
say, the more I have thought about it, and the more I 
have examined and looked into it, the better satisfied 
am I that it will accomplish what a judicial system 
ought to accomplish—the cheap and speedy adminis¬ 
tration of justice. Is there any injustice in this remark? 
The idea was thrown out by the gentleman from 
Ashtabula [Mr* Woodbury] and others, that this re¬ 
port has been got up by the big lawyers in order to es¬ 


tablish a particular kind of court for their exclusive 
practice. I wish to make this single remark; that 
whatever judicial system meets the interests and satis¬ 
fies the wishes of the lawyers, must meet the interests 
of their clients also, and if it meets the interests of liti¬ 
gants, it must protect and provide for those of the peo¬ 
ple. And why, sir, should it require argument to de¬ 
monstrate a proposition so plain ? What does the cli¬ 
ent want? He wants a court in which his case may 
be fairly presented, fully heard, and rightly decided. 
Wh’dt does the lawyer want ? He wants that the case 
of his client, after he has arranged the facts and j>re- 
pared his authorities, should be brought before a court 
so organized that it can, that it sh.dl, hear his case and 
authorities with attention, and pass upon it and them 
with deliberation—and without unnecessary dehiy.^ 
Any judicial system which does not meet the views of 
the lawyers of the State never can, never will, satisfy 
their clients; for the client only knows the court 
through the lawyer, and he knows it in no other way. 
When he has lost his case, and his lawyer tells him that 
it has been wrongfully decided, because the court had 
not time to hear it fully, or capacity to understand it, 
then the lawyer and his client are equally dissatisfied; 
and the community whom these lawyers and clients in¬ 
fluence, and from whom the community obtain their 
knowledge of the *^action of your courts, will be also 
dissatisfied with a system from which the suitor comes 
forth complaining of rights sacrificed through want of 
time or consideration. I say, then, whatever system 
meets the views of the lawyers must prove accep¬ 
table to suitors, to their clients; for their interests are 
identical and never can be' otherwise. And now, 
what system will best meet the wants of the State— 
best work out the administration of justice? I ask, 
who are the men who know what sort of a judicial or¬ 
ganization will work out this great end which we all 
have in view? Is it the man whose business has made 
him conversant with the proceedings of our courts, by 
constant and daily, and yearly practice therein ? Or is 
it the individual who has little or nothing to do with 
courts of justice, and who have not watched for years 
the administration of justice in her temples, the courts, 
thus witnessing defects, if such there are, and studying 
how those defects maybe remedied ?—who has no op¬ 
portunity of knowing or seeing in what manner cases 
are disposed of, through the want of time or capacity in 
the courts ? 

If you want to know what form of machinery wi][ 
work out a certain result, you will certainly go to those 
who ai’e the most familiar with the construction and 
woi kings of that kind of mechanism. It is the opinion 
of such experts, that prudent men would consult. It 
is their opinion he would follow—their experience by 
which he would be guided—n deciding upon the adap¬ 
tation of one mechanism to the end he had in view. 
This would be the course of a man of prudence and 
forecast, in his own business and undertakings. Why 
not, then, consult the experience of lawyers and judg¬ 
es as to the adaptation of your judiciary system ? Is 
not this the course of prudence—is it not the dictate 
of wisdom ? 

I say, therefore—having had nothing to do with the 
preparation of this system, and having therefore no 
pride of opinion to gratify—that this plan, which satisfies 
the bar, must and will satisfy the people. Their inter¬ 
ests being identical, their aims the same, a system 
which meets the wishes of the one. will not be unsat¬ 
isfactory to the other. You have, in favor of this sys¬ 
tem, the judgment of the committee—composed of em¬ 
inent lawyers and judges. They declared it will work 
well and give us a noble judicial system. And is their 
opinion of no value—of no weight ? Whom else can 
you consult, if not this committee, upon this all impor 
tant matter? It will be by such men that your work 
must be tried and judged. Through them, the people 
gather their opinions of your system, and approve or 
condemn, as their experience shall be favorable or un- 











CONVENTION REPOETS. 


601 


favorable. And, if gentlemen will recur to the history 
ot every judicial system in these United States, or eUe- 
where, they will hnd that a system which was unpop¬ 
ular with the lawyers who practiced under it, has al¬ 
ways been unpopular with the litigants, and the peo¬ 
ple. On the other hand, if you find a system under 
which the public business is dispatched with speed, 
and after due deliberation, to the satisfaction of the bar, 
you have there a system that must prove satisfactory to 
the people. 

I have no peculiar attachment to this plan, though I 
believe it the best yet proposed; and when perfected, 
let it be tested by a comparison with other plans to be 
proposed, and if a better oue can be found, let the Con¬ 
vention adopt it. But I do ask members to retain their 
hold upon this until such better plan shall be presented. 
What I protest against is, that by indirection this system 
is sought to be broken (low i, while no other plan is 
presented which we can adopt—no otlmr system with 
which we can compare this, and say that this is, or is 
not to be prelerred to the other. I shall stand by the 
re[)ort as a whole, after making all the amendments 
necessary to perfect it, as ^ long as no other system is 
presented vyhich meets my approbation in preference 
to this. It is the duty, in my humble opinion, of every 
member of this committee, if we would ever work 
out anything (in this subject, to make this system as 
perfect as its friends wish it to be made, or can make 
it. If we break down this report without having first 
matured a better, we destroy all that has been done in 
this matter, and leave ourselves just as we were the 
first day the Convention was organized. We shall then 
be truly at sea, without rudder or compass to guide us 
in regard to this matter. We shall then be thrown 
back on our own first wishes and predilections, and the 
whole work of harmony and organization will have to 
be gone over again. Well, if it has taken the commit¬ 
tee, two months to compromise and harmonize on this 
report, I should like to know how much time it will 
take, alter this report has been broken down, to har¬ 
monize the wishes ’and views of a majority of this 
committee f We will find ourselves in the condition 
of the framers of the present constitution: dissatisfied 
with all that has been done, looking around for some 
ground of comf)romi8e without adequate time to find it, 
under a compulsion to vote for something—anything 
that may be presented rather than to sit here day after 
day in a fruitless endeavor to educe harmony from the 
various minds of this Convention—from the numerous 
plans already, or to be presented. 

It can only be done by a committee, and it is pro¬ 
posed recklessly to destroy, as'worthless, the results 
of the labors of the Judiciary committee, arrived at 
after seven weeks of consultation. 

The amendment now under consideration, as I have 
before said, can have no'other object in view than to 
break down the repoiT of the committee. Because in 
all soberness and in all sincerity, the gentleman can¬ 
not claim that this question, whether the court shall or 
shall not sit in each county, should not be be left to 
the Legislature, but be submitted to the people for de¬ 
termination, as I understood his language, although it 
is very doubtful what it does mean. It must mean 
that, however, if anything. It is a thing unheard of. 
Suppose a majority of the people in a county did not 
wish fora court at all,—I presume the gentleman [Mr. 
Woodbury] would say, “ that there should not be any 
court.” then Ashtabula or any other county, could 
decide that the administration of justice was a nuisance 
within its territory ! a thing unparallelled in this or any 
other country. I had supposed the majority of this 
committee had already settled this whole matter and 
decided that it should be left to the discretion of the 
General Assembly. That body will be best adapted 
to decide whether the district court should or should 
not be held in each county, or whether it should only 
be held in some two or three places in each district. 
Left to their discretion, it will be arranged to suit the 


wishes of the bar, the bench, litigants and the people. 
And now let me take a plain, common sense view of 
this matter: it is a controverted [)oint whether or 
not this court can go into every county in the State, 
and transact all the business which will be thrown up¬ 
on it. This being so, is it not wise to leave this di cre- 
tion to the General Assembly? The wishes of both, 
and all parts of the State can be consulted, and if a 
portion prefer the court to be held in only a few places, 
the other portion of the State will be better able to se¬ 
cure its being held in their respective counties. This 
view must certainly commend itself to those gentle¬ 
men who are favorable to its being held in each coun¬ 
ty. It may be the only means of enabling the court to 
do what they wish. Let gentlemen think of this. 

In the southern part of the State, I believe the people 
are satisfied with the report of the committee. When 
I was at home lately, this report came to us during the 
session of our court and as far as 1 know the bar and 
court and people were satisfied with it. They thought 
it would be a better one for the purpose of obtaining 
the proper administration of justice than the old one 
modified, and the best that could be adopted by this 
Convention. The feeling may be differeni on the W'es- 
tern Reserve and in other p-nTs of the State, but I be¬ 
lieve it best to leave it to the Legislature to establish the 
< ounty or district plan as in its wisdom it should deem 
best to meet public expectations and for the due ad¬ 
ministration of justice. All opinions can then be con¬ 
sulted and gratified as a sound discretion shall dictate. 
Surely this is the part of prudence, of the large forecast 
of a statesman. Surely we ought to rise above the pet¬ 
ty question of to-day and form a system looking to the 
future as well as providing for the present. Not other¬ 
wise can we merit the commendation of our own 
judgments and the approbation of the present and com¬ 
ing generations. 

Mr. WOODBURY. Ididnotcffer this amendment 
with a view to break down this system. I otfertd it 
for the purpose of amending tliis report. And when 
we are told here that gentlemen should have the liber¬ 
ty of perfecting the report, and then that he might pre¬ 
sent another system, I do not understand what the 
gentleman means. I had supposed that the committee 
had agreed on this report in the first instance, and then 
submitted it to the committee of the Whole, to ascer¬ 
tain if that body would adopt it, and to see if any man 
would make amendments to it, so that it miijht take 
such a shape as would suit his constituents, and prove 
desirable to them. That I suppose is the object of pre¬ 
senting a report to this committee. If there be any 
gentleman here who claims the right to make amend¬ 
ments before any one else offers one, that should have 
been understood. I suppose I have as good a right to 
offer an amendment to this report as any other man, 
and until I ascertain to the contrary I will proceed to 
offer amendments whether in the committee of the 
Whole or elsewhere. 

The amendment which I have presented, may not 
perhaps at first sight be entirely plain, but I think it is 
specific enough ; however, there can be an amendment 
offered to it. It was claimed on this floor by some du¬ 
ring the discussion on this section, when it was propo¬ 
sed to strike out the words, and for,” that whether 
they were struck out or not, the Legislature would es¬ 
tablish a court in every county in which the people 
may be in favor of having the court held, lhat wjis 
proclaimed by several on this floor. And it was said 
that it was possible, notwithstanding the opinion given 
by the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] 
who understands this matter better, perhaps, than any 
one else, that the court could be held in every county. 
But gentlemen say the system is going to be broken 
down, because we ask that the distiict couit shall go 
into every county in ihe district, instead of but one or 
two. 1 ask gentlemen to consider how many are wil¬ 
lin'^ to stand up here and say, your constituents shall 
be taxed year after year for the support of courts from 











602 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


which they derive no benefit. Then unless you say 
your constituents shall be taxed and transported from 
home for the transaction of their business, you “ break 
down this system!” 

I am living in a county in which a court would not 
be held, for in a district of ten or twelve counties the 
court will be held in the centre, so that the outside 
counties will have no court at all. 

We seej then, the pertinacity with which gentlemen 
adhere to this report, and many presume that they 
never expect these courts to be held in each county. 
I will ask, if we do not establish it now, who will es¬ 
tablish it hereafter? Again, we are told that it is no 
additional expense to a man to transport his case from 
home to some distant county in which the district court 
may be held. 

1 ask gentlemen if it be no objection to go 100 miles 
from home, is it any objection to go 500? Oh! not at 
all—according to their reasoning. If you establish a 
court in China it would be just as well. How many 
cases would you have brought there? Most certainly 
so soon as you removed a court from within the easy 
reach of the people you do them a grievous injustice. 
But we are told that if the lawyers are satisfied the 
“outsiders ” have not much to do with it. 

Mr. NASH. I made use of no such argument as that. 
I said that the system which meets the wishes and in¬ 
terests of the lawyers must necessarily meet the best 
interests of the people. 

Mr. WOODBURY. He wished gentlemen in the 
profession to consider it in that light. 

Mr. NASH. No, 1 wished those not members of the 
profession to consider that a lawyer could have no sin¬ 
ister motive in getting any thing that did not hurt the 
wishes of the people. 

Mr. WOODBURY. I attribute all honesty to the gen¬ 
tleman. Bat I fear that gentlemen not lawyers may 
suppose from his remarks that they and their constitu¬ 
ents must be satisfied with his system for other reasons 
than because the lawyers are pleased with it. Now it 
may be to the interest of your or my client, yet there 
may be a thousand men in the district injured by it. 
Our clients might hold a better position in that court 
perhaps than in any other court, and if we are to have 
that splendid bar about which so much has been said, 
it certainly would be to our interests. But who now 
is to be consulted in relation to this matter ? Why not 
leave it to the people to say whether they shall have it 
or not? You have told us before that whenever the 
people want to have a court they can have it. Then 
all we ask is that when the peopie desire to have it in 
a county, they shall have the lil)erly to say so. 1 want 
to hav'e that put into the constitution, for I understand 
that it was not the intention of many here that this 
court should go into every county—no doubt they hon¬ 
estly believed that it ought rather to be held in one or 
two places in a district than in every county. 1 ask of 
you to leave to the people what you propose to leave 
to the Legislature. That is the only question. I ask 
gentlemen to consider whose business are they to do— 
whose interests does he represent, and whether we as 
lawyers are lo determine this thing—that our constitu¬ 
ents are to he taxed year in and year oxit to support 
“ splendid bars ” and “ splendid courts ” in other coun¬ 
ties in order to get jus ice, not as speedily or perhaps 
as properly as in their own counties, and at much great¬ 
er expense. If there be any influence from this bar or 
court it is from the application of legal principles alone. 
What is the necessity of having a splendid bar with a 
view that a court might apply the rules of law to the 
facts when found ? Every lawyer who is able to car¬ 
ry on a case hunts up the law as applicable to the case 
and makes his arrangement of facts. Now, I ask, 
what influence from a “ splendid bar” does the judge 
require in determining this matter ? And how much 
do you suppose your constituents are willing to pay to 
the “ splendid bar ” for assisting him in applying the 
law to the facts which have been already settled? 


Mine are not willing to pay any thing, and I hope yours 
are equally unwilling. 

Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE. I shall detain the commit¬ 
tee but for a short time in the remarks which I shall 
submit—so far as I understand the arguments of the 
gentleman advocating this report they are founded 
mainly on this position ; that the report is the result of 
some great compromise. 'Gentleman tell as frankly, 
and 1 have no doubt truly, that the report itself did not 
originally meet the approbation of one single meniber 
of the judiciary committee. lam inclined to believe 
that that is true. I may say without vjolating confi¬ 
dence, that I have heard several members of the com¬ 
mittee say that it was not their plan—that it did not 
suit them—that it was not what they would propose 
or desired or anything of the kind. But still as a mat¬ 
ter of compromise they would go for it. Well now, if 
that is a recommendation because it pleases iicbody, 
therefore it must be right, it is an argument applied to 
this report which 1 have never heard applied to any 
thing of this kind before. I do not believe that argu¬ 
ment is entitled to any wmight. How is it with .-egard 
to this compromise? I w'ant to know what was com¬ 
promised. And in speaking of this as a compromise 
they have implicitly, if not directly said that it was a 
com[)roniise as to these district courts—lor 1 admit 
cheerfullv that this is ihe most objectionable feature 
of the report in my mind. I object to the constitution 
of the court itself, and still more seriously to its being 
confined to one—two, or three counties in the district. 
What then was compromised? 

The inference, so far as one could gather it from 
hearing the arguments is, that the only thing compro¬ 
mised is between the question, whether this court .shall 
be held at some central point, or go iitto all th ' coun¬ 
ties of the district. 'Now I do not understand it to have 
been so compromised. I understand that several mem¬ 
bers of the committee were opposed to the organization 
of these district courts at all: their opinions were not 
com[)romi8ed iit this system. But this question was 
forced through, that this olqectionable court should be 
formed. Then the question came up, “ liuw ol'ten can 
these courts be held ?” Those who were obliged to 
swallow the court wished that if they must have it. at 
least it should go into every county in the State, as that 
was less objectionable to tliem than to have it confined 
to a central point. Others wi.vhed to have it confined 
to one or two points in the district. That question may 
have been compromised perhaps by this report, but 
whether it was or not I am not going to say. 

We hear from res[)ectable authority—from members 
of this committee—gentlemen who have given this 
question due consideration, as we are bound to believe 
—that if you drive this court into every county in the 
State, you l)reak down the system. \Vell, now the 
gentleman from Franklin [Mi’Stanbery] is honest and 
frank enough to avow that opinion. I admire his frank¬ 
ness and candor—I agree with him that you break 
dowm this system if you oblige the cohrt to be held in 
every county. It is contended by some, very much in 
favor of the court going into all the counties, that there 
is force enough in the judiciary to so establish it. I am 
not going to controvert that opinion—1 have not made 
many calculations on that question. I followed my 
friend from Richland [Mr. Kirkwood] through his ar¬ 
gument in making out that there was sufficient'force 
so far as the supreme court judges were concerned. 
The estimate amounted to 316 days of actual service 
to perform all the duty of which the gentleman spoke. 
I agree with him that the court would not be obliged to 
sit. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, (in his seat.) I confined my re¬ 
marks to the common pleas. 

Mr. HUMPH REVILLE. I know he did, but I want 
to go a litile further. 

Mr. STANBERY, (interpo.sing.) I thought I had 
explained myself with regard to the carrying of these 
courts into every county. My objection was not that 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 603 


I it would break down this particular system, but it was 
to any such plan for a State containing 87 counties. 
I think that to carry an appellate court of any weight 
I or authority into every county of the State, is a thing 
! which cannot be accotnplished. Wliat I said was, tha't 
I this system would go farther to accomplish that pur- 
j pose than any other, 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I did not wish to misrep 
resent the gentleman, by any means. Now, he did say 
that this was better for carrying a court into every 
county, than any other system. In that, I do not agree 
with him. But he also said, that if we insist on car¬ 
rying it into every county, we would break down this 
system. 

* Mr. STANBERY (in his seat.) And every other. 
Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I wjll make that addition. 
The gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock] demon 
strated, that under our present system, with an increase 
in the number of supreme court judges, you can carry 
a court into every county of the State, and do all the 
business of that court to the satisfaction of parties, so 
far as time is conceiTied. I will not endeavor to prove 
i what the gentleman has said, for his mere “ say ” will 
j go farther than anything I could present. 

I Gentlemen complain that while we attack this re¬ 
port, we ofter nothing as a substitute. Now it happens 
that there are many substitutes, and many of them far 
j preferable to tiiis plan. The gentleman from Mont¬ 
gomery [Mr. Holt] has offered two, which are prefer- 
ble to this. The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. 
RanneyJ has offered a substitute more desirable in its 
features than this; and the honorable chairman of this 
committee [Mr. Green] has offered another, much bet¬ 
ter than this report. I have arranged apian based on this 
system, and the old one, but alters the old one the least of 
any proposed—which I think will be perfectly prac- 
I ticable, and will meet the wishes of the people. It is 
to abolish this district court entirely, leaving the com¬ 
mon pleas judges in the district, as it is in the I'eport; 
then add three to the number of supreme judges, ma¬ 
king the whole number seven, whicli will be sufficient 
to serve a court in every county once a year. I would 
also add a clause to the report enif^owering the Legis¬ 
lature to increase the number of judges, and that is 
the only difficulty in our present system. Although the 
gentleman from Gallia [Mr. Nash] says that it-^was 
made without any of the members of the old conven¬ 
tion knowing anything about it, yet it was a very good 
system, and if that convention had but given the Leg¬ 
islature the power to increase the number ofjudges, we 
would never have had any difficulty in regard to the 
matter. It is true that under it, probate and testamen- 
taiy matters were lodged in the court of common pleas. 
There ought to have been a probate court. If they 
had d me so, it would have been a good system, and 
would have worked well. The old system was a pop¬ 
ular one, and the people, so far as I understand their 
wishes, only desire that that system should be amend¬ 
ed, so as to give it efficiency. 

The gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash,] and other 
gentlemen, have referred, not perhaps with a sneer, 
but with something approximating to one, to the wish¬ 
es of the people of the Western Reserve. Now I do 
not say that it is done with a view to create a prejudice 
against the opponents of the measure, some of whom 
happen to be from that section of country. 

Mr. NASH., I did not make use of a sneei\ 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. But it was something so 
near it that it appeared so to me. 

Mr. NASH (in his seat.) lam a Yankee. 

Mr, HUMPHREVILLE, Yes, but you are not a 
Western Reserve Yankee. The gentleman is from 
Massachusetts, and when Yankees get into the soudi- 
ern part of this State, and become mixed up with the 
notions that prevail there, they make the worst sort of 
Yankees, hardly worthy of the name. You would 
scarcely be recognized (to Mr. Nash) as a Yankee in 
Hampshire county, Massachusetts. And were it not 


for the facility with which he uses his tongue, he would 
hardly be recognized as one at all. (Much laughter.) 

I say that there is an intention, apjiarently, to bring 
the opponents of this measure into discredit, because 
they are from the Western Reserve. F ,r it is well 
known that the people there hold opinions that are not 
generally disseminated throughout the State, and in¬ 
deed I regret that they are not. But I beg to say there 
are other parts of the State in which opinions are held 
as ultra on the other side—that oppose this report. It 
is true that my experience of public opinion is. confined 
more to the Western Reserve than to any other portion 
ot the State. Since this report was made I have been 
at home, and our court was in session during the time 
I was there. We had attending at that court, all the 
bar of our county, and attorneys from all the surround¬ 
ing counties. VVe had attorneys from Summit, and 
Wayne, and Lorain counties, and two from Stark. I 
conversed with them all freely—with the members of 
the court and bar, with the witnesses and with the ju¬ 
rors, and I did not find one, man, woman or child, that 
was in favor of this report, upon the Western Reserve. 

The person who came nearest to approvingthe meas¬ 
ure was an attorney—who, by the bye, gave me a 
pretty hard run for my seat here in this Convention. 
He said that he was opposed to the report, but if we 
could have this court in every county he might per¬ 
haps get along with it. The people in that section of 
the country are a thinking people; they know well 
what they want and what we are about. Some of 
them said that they woidd go against the constitution 
if such a feature were contained in it. It was odious 
to them. They got up a remonstrance to this report, 
but I am not aware if it have been presented here as 
yet. But I know that they are opposed to this report, 
and that is a sufficientinducement to me to vote against 
this measure. 

I hope that such measures will be taken as will abol¬ 
ish these district courts entirely, and if that cannot be 
done, or they cannot be carried into every county, I 
hope that the whole system will be swept away, and 
another substituted in its place. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I was imformed tl.at the discus¬ 
sion of matters in committee for the purpose of coming 
to a conclusion, was termed by some, deliberation. If 
it be deliberation I want to participate in it, for I have 
said nothingin regard to this article since it was reported. 
But it is manifest here, that as regards this district 
court, it is not at all satisfactory to this committee. It 
must be apparent to gentlemen, that unless terms shall 
be held in every county, the report will be voted 
against—that it will be wasting the lime of the com¬ 
mittee who introduced it here. It is said it was intro¬ 
duced here for the purpose of being perfected Now, 

I suppose that so far as the committee themselves, on 
this particular subject, were concerned, they had pei’- 
fected it as well as they could. Then for what uur- 
pose was it introduced into committee of the whole, if 
it were not for the purpose of receiving suggestions 
and amendments, generally, upon this floor. I am sat¬ 
isfied that unless members be convinced that under this 
system there will be a court held in every county, so 
far as it may be desired, the system cannot receive the 
sanction of this committee. I am disposed to appreci¬ 
ate the motive of the gentleman from Ashtabula in of¬ 
fering his amendment. He wants to make plain that 
about which there has been a great difference ot opin¬ 
ion. It is absolutely necessary, in my opinion, that it 
should be made plain—that we should have assurance;- 
not only that the Legislature will direct it to be held in 
every county, but that it should be practicable, and 
would not destroy the system. We should have assu¬ 
rance of that before it should receive the sanction of 
the committee. For that purpose I voted for the amend¬ 
ment: it may not have expressed what was desirable, 
it certainly remov'ed doubt with regard to this part of 
the section. I concur with the gentleman from Medi¬ 
na, that if there had been sufficient force in the supreme 


















604 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


court to have held sessions for a sufficient length of 
time ill every county, there would have been but little 
complaint against the judicial system of this State. I 
apprehend if there was a [iroposition introduced here, 
to increase the number of judges, so as tu enable the 
court to hold a term in each county, of sufficient dura¬ 
tion, and establish probate judges, that system would 
be more popular than the one presented here. It 
would accord better with the sentiment of the people 
throughout the State—they would understand it, and 
there would be less machinery about it. 

1 was disposed, from the lirst, to adhere to this re¬ 
port. I ho[)ed, when objections were made against it, 
that the friends of this system would hive endeavored 
to have perfected it by amendment—that they would 
have had so much deference to the opinions of mem¬ 
bers. But when it is attempted by other than those be¬ 
longing to the committee they are gently reprimanded 
— “they are about to destroy the system.” I am not 
willing to waste time about this—sufficient has been 
said in that way. I wish to notify gentlemen distinct¬ 
ly, so far as I am at present advised, no system will re¬ 
ceive my sanction unless it shall insure to the county of 
Morgan, at least one term in every year. It would be 
a very great objection to the instrument itself, unless it 
contained a provision of that nature. I should be dis¬ 
posed to egg on its friends, if it have any friends here, 
to perfect the system, in removing and obviating objec¬ 
tions—in [ireserving the general featui'es of the sytem 
until it shall be perfected. And then, I will only ob¬ 
ject, and vote against it reluctantly—for when reports 
are made here by members of a committee, I am in¬ 
clined to adhere by thiinas long as possible, if my 
views on this subject are not met; for I will not sup¬ 
port any system that will not insure a term of the court, 
if the counties desire it. Such a.system will not meet 
mine, or the sanction of this Convention. 

The CIIAIRMAN, at therequest ofseveral gentlemen 
here read the pending amendment, [Mr. Woodbury’s.] 

Mr. STANTON. I find gentlemen in the habit of 
retailing the information which they derive from inter¬ 
course with their constituents, in regard to the propo¬ 
sition now before the committee. Having recently re¬ 
turned from the sittings of the supreme court in three 
counties, and having liad very considerable intercourse 
with the people and the bar, perhaps it would be prop¬ 
er to state that I have found but one opinion with re¬ 
gard to the system as it is. It meets the general appro¬ 
bation of the people of that part of the State. 

Mr. WOODBURY, (interposing.) I want to know 
if you ai’e not willing to submit it to the people to de¬ 
cide in relation to this district court plan. 

Mr. STANTON. Why, it occurs to me, that we 
ought as soon to submit a jury trial to the people, as to 
submit the question of the {ilace of holding the court. 
One word in regard to the district courts. It would be 
borne in mind—and I hope the gentlemen who have 
engaged in this discussion will also bear in mind—that 
this district court is a paper court alone. It is no court 
for the trial of issues of tact. It is no court in which 
witnesses, suitors, and jurors are to appear for the pur¬ 
pose of trying causes. I confess I cannot appreciate 
the intense anxiety that is manifested by gentlemen, 
to have a paper court in every county of the Slate. 
But, if it is deemed advisable, and within the capacity 
of the court, let it go into all the counties. In my judg¬ 
ment, this court is entirely able to manage the business 
of the State, and hold its sittings in every county, for 
the next twenty years. The time may come, anil that 
during the life-time of this constitution, when the busi¬ 
ness cannot be done by holding courts in every county ; 
and if your Legislature be hampered as to its action by 
constitutional provision, you break down this system, 
as you have done the present, by shackling the Legis¬ 
lature. 

It is said that in various parts of the State, the peo¬ 
ple are determined that there mu.st be a session of the 
court in each county. If so, I apprehend that there 


can be no difficulty in having it. Where is the objec¬ 
tion to come Irom? '^Phe truth is, the danger lies on 
the other side. There is local feeling enough amongst 
the members of the Legislature—an anxiety for the 
interests of every jiarticular county, to set them to 
work in older to carry it into every county. So long 
as it is practical, so long as the court is cajiable of hold¬ 
ing a term in every county, so long will the Legislature 
desire to carry it there, until the necessities of the times 
require them to abandon the plan. My apiirehension 
is, .that much of the time which ought to be spent in 
the deliberation of grave matters of law, will be con¬ 
sumed in traveling from county to county. It appears 
to me that those gentlemen who evince so much anx¬ 
iety in regard to this matter, may rest contented' and 
feel assured that with the local feeling which always 
prevails in the Legislature, the people can command 
this court to be sent into every portion of the State, 
whenever they desire it, through the instrumentality of 
the General Assembly. 1 say, then, that it is breaking 
down a cardinal [irinciple of the system—it is impair¬ 
ing its adaptation to the future wants of the people of 
the State, to insert this provision. 

I have a word to say about this district court. This 
State now contains two millions of inhabitants. Its 
judicial business must be thrown into a paper court of 
some kind or other. There is no controversy about 
that. There is a vast mult tude of quest! ns which 
cannot be satisfactorily decided during the hurry and 
bustle of a jury trial. Now if you have not an inter¬ 
mediate paper court between the jury court and the 
supreme court in bank, then your court in bank is bro¬ 
ken down by weight of business. It will have an 
amount of business that will keep it in session six 
months in the year, to discharge properly the brnsiness 
before it. 

Now that is what I desire to avoid—I desire to inter¬ 
pose a pa[)er couit for the various districts, which will 
ntercejitnot less than nine out of ten, or perhajis nine¬ 
teen out of twenty of the cases that would otherwise 
go to the court in bank. Then if I take a writ of error 
to the central district, during its term, I am certain to 
get it disposed of. If we have no such court, what 
then? I must take my writ of eiror to tire court in 
liank; but that court cannot dispose of its business even 
if it decided four cases a day for two months. Expe¬ 
rience has demonstrated in New York that we must 
have an intermediate paper court, between the jury 
court and the court of final resor% or the latter is utter¬ 
ly broken down and incapacitated from transacting the 
business. In my judgment, under'the system propos¬ 
ed, this court in bank will, after all, be more of an or¬ 
nament than anything else; for I do not believe that it 
is to have any very great amount of business—my o'fiin- 
ion is that the court of error will be the strongest court 
in the State. I would rather trust three gentlemen 
vvho are engaged daily in trying jury cases, with one 
paper lawyer, than four lawyers who are always en¬ 
gaged in paper cases alone. But it is right to have a 
court in bank in order to ])reserve uniformity in the 
construction of the laws, therefore, it is necessary to 
have a court of final resort for the whole State. 

There is another mode of transacting tliis business 
suggested. It is this : You can get a sufficient number 
of judges of the supreme court, or court of final resort, 
to go over the State and try jury cases, and meet here 
once a year to try all the writs of error. That is one 
proposition—a counter-proposition to that of the com¬ 
mittee. Now, I would prefer the jiroposition made by 
the committee, for this reason: If you have force 
enough to go all over the State to try jury cases, then 
your court in bank is a miserable aft'uir. It is alto¬ 
gether too large. Again, the amount of business, writs 
of error, &c,, &;c., &c., that will be brought up to that 
court, utterly destroy and break down the whole sys¬ 
tem. ' 

Mr. MITCHELL. I shall ask the honorable gentle¬ 
man to state whether, from his experience as a lawyer, 


1 


I 


1 


i , 


1 

i 

i 


















CONVENTION EEPORTS 


605 


more dissatisfiction has been tbund iu the decisions oi’ 
courts, because of errors coniinitted appearing dii the 
face ol the record, or never appearing on the record ? 

Mr. STANTON. Well, it is very difficult to tell. 
Under our present system, very numerous complaints 
are made ot errors on the recoi d. 

But from my experience, no matter who the judges 
are—no matter how the cnurt may be constituted—if 
they undertake to tr.avel in every county, they cannot 
give the ap|)ellate business that attention and care¬ 
ful deliberation which ought to be given to it. 

Mr. HOL'r. If the gentlemen have more confidence 
in district court by reason of its constjintly doing jury 
business than in the court in bank. Will he go with 
us to abolish this court in bank ? 

Mr. STANTON. Well, I understand the gentleman 
now. He desires that these 27 district judges should 
come up here and con.slilute a court in bank. 

Mr. STANBEliY, [in his seat.] No, no, there is to 
be no court in bank. 

Mr. STANTON. Then he wants the law to be one 
thing 111 Montgomery and another in Logan. 

Mr. HOLT here made a I’emark not audible at the 
table. 

i\lr. STANTON. If that is the case these judges can¬ 
not go on circuit and do circuit duty, for there is too 
much jury business to be done. But grant that these 
suprerne court judges ought to have gone circuit, and 
done circuit duty, still Ido not believe, from the mingling 
that they wid have with the common pleasjudges, that 
any serious difficulty will arise from this court, as con¬ 
stituted by the report under consideration. 

I have now sjient a good deal more time in the dis¬ 
cussion ot this plan than I had intended. I have mere¬ 
ly to say, that 1 shall give it my support from begin- 
I ning to end; not because I could not make a change 
^ which I should like better, but because I have no idea 
that we could get anything which would meet my 
' views and those of a majority here, better than the one 
1 now before us. 

Mr. STILWELL said that a large latitude of discus¬ 
sion had been indulged iu and permitted, and very 
properly. He did not propose however to go into a 
general examination, either of the system contained in 
the report, or of any other that may at some future 
I time be presented as a substitute. He intended only 
to say a few words upon the precise question befoi e 
the committee. It was not his intention to comjiare 
I the present ])lan with another. He considered this to 
! be a good one, that may or may not be improved by 
I the action of this committee. After it shall be perfec- 
j ted it will be time to try the question between it and 
■ that which it is proposed to substitute in its place. 

I The question whether the district court should be, 

I by the constitution, confined in its sessions to two, 

I three or more counties in the district, was carefully con- 
s'dered in the committee, and there were members 
whose opinions were expressed upon both sides. The 
committee was in fact so nearly equally divided, that 
there was no hope, either upon one side or the other, 
; that the extremes of opinion could be adopted in the 
report. Under these circumstances, it was thought 
best to leave the question to the decision of the General 
Assembly. It was the only way in which a compro¬ 
mise of opinion could be effected ; and in that way a 
compromise could be effected that seemed equitable, 
and promised to be satisfactory. For his own part, he 
believed that the district court would better perform 
the duties with which it would be entrusted, and give 
better satisfaction to the peope by being holden in but 
two or three counties in a district. Still, he had ac¬ 
quiesced in this submission of the question to the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, satisfied that they would endeaver to 
carry out the will of the people in such manner as 
would best subserve their interests. But as the case 
now stands, under the amendment proposed by the 
gentleman from Ashtabula, the question is: Shall it be 
left to the General Assembly to decide this question, or 
to a vote of the people? 


The gentlemen who are in favor of the county plan, 
speak as if they entertained doubts whether, under the 
present system, the court would have time to conqdete 
its circuit of all the counties in the several districts.— 
An examination of the report made to this body by the 
Secretary of State, and a computation based upon its 
statements, will convince every one that thci e is am¬ 
ple time todo all the busiuess of the court. The num¬ 
ber of days of session of the court of conin on pleas, 
according to that report, is three thousand two hun¬ 
dred and forty-two. From five of the smaller counties 
no returns were received. Add fifty days i'or the ses¬ 
sions in those counties, and the total number is three 
thou>and tv/o hundred and ninety-two. Take from 
this'tho number of days occupied iu Hamilton county, 
which does not enter into this calculation, and it leaves 
twenty-seven hundred and ninety days. We have di¬ 
vested the court of common pleas of its probate and ad¬ 
ministrative jurisdiction, which will reduce the time 
necessary to be occupied in its sessions, at least five 
days in each year in each of the counties—making in 
the eighty-six counties, four hundred and thirty days: 
leaving two thousand three hundred and sixty days, 
which, divided by eight, the number of districts, ex¬ 
cluding Hamilton county, gives two hundred and nine¬ 
ty-five days to each. Divide this sum by two, the 
number of courts that may sit in the same district at 
the same time, and the result is one hundred and forty- 
seven, or a little less than one half the year that the 
courts of common pleas will be in session. Is theie 
not, then, time for the sessions of the district court in 
each county of each district? For that purpose, there 
is, as is shown by the calculation, at least half a year. 
Brobably there will be more. He was satisfied that 
there was plenty, and more, of time to admit of a ses¬ 
sion of the district court in each county of the State, 
Give to each county a session of say ten days, which 
will be ample time for the dis[)Osal of all the business 
that will come befoi’e the district court, and still there 
will be to the judges of the common pleas, eighty or 
ninety days unappropriated to service; so that although 
in his opinion it is preferable for the district court to sit 
in two or three places in each district, believing that 
by that plan justice will be administered more speedi¬ 
ly and satisfactorily, still, the cpmstion now being 
whether there is sufficient time, he was satisfied there 
would be no difficulty on that score. He thought up¬ 
on that, in view of the calculation, the committee must 
agree. 

The next question is: shall the power to determine 
where the courts shall be holden be left to the General 
Assembly, or be referred to a vote of the people of the 
several counties. He believed that the people are 
the safest depositoi’ies of their own power, and that, 
where it is practicable is most properly left to them. 
But in few cases is it practicable. The people can¬ 
not act in the construction of laws, nor in the or¬ 
ganization of judiciary or o*her systems. They are 
forced, from the naturejof the case, to impose high trusts 
to the General Assembly. VVe are in the habit of del¬ 
egating those trusts to the General Assembly, and of 
placing the most imjilieit I eliance upon its discretion. 
We impose higher trusts than those of the ntere selec¬ 
tion of the place where the courts of justice shall be 
holden; and are we prejiared to say that this question 
is so much the more nearly connected with our liber¬ 
ties, that it cannot be salely trusted to that body, in 
whose discretion everything is reposed ? 

What is the r« asou for this distrust? Will not the 
General Assembly as truly reflect the opinions of the 
people in this as in other matters that seem far more 
important. Will they, who are faithful in all other 
matters,be recreant in this? The danger to our re¬ 
publican institutions does not consist in the unfaithful¬ 
ness of the General Assembly. It never did. The 
dant^er is not of unfaithfulness; rights may be misap¬ 
prehended, not abandoned. But here is a cause, in 
which there is no danger ever of a misapprehension— 











.606 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


winc h ii is not possible to misunderstand. Collective¬ 
ly the General Assembly represents tlie whole people— 
llie reinesentatives of districts represent districts, the 
re[)resenlatives of counties will represent counties. 
Every inlerest, general and local will be represented ; 
and liie representatives can readily determine, what is 
jiustfor the whole, and what is proper for a part. 

rrudent men should be careful of departures from 
w;ell established rules, for slight reasons; and in cases 
like those presented by this amendment, he did not be¬ 
lieve that the people desired thetrouble of being called 
U[)on to settle acpieslion by their votes. In fact, to do this 
business isj the very object for which the General As¬ 
sembly is constituted; and in representative govern¬ 
ment, to throw upon the people the labor and trouble 
of legislation, is a wrong, an injustice and an absurdi¬ 
ty. If the people of Ohio were called upon to-mor¬ 
row, to vote upon this very c|uestion, he did not be¬ 
lieve that one tenth of them woidd care enough about 
it to take the trouble to form or express an opinion. 

How was it in the matter ol calling this Convention ? 
Here was a cpiestion involving the most important in¬ 
terests. Yet you could not get the people to come out. 
They did not nor they would not examine into the 
defects of a system of government, for the pur})ose of 
action, and the returns ot the-elections of the members 
of this body show, that in spite of party interests and 
party agitation, the peo})le would take little inlerest in 
the matter. 1 pray then ihat the committee will not 
wrong the peo[)le by the commission of this absurdity, 
by saying, that while the lives and the I'ortunes of the 
jieople are implicitly entrusted to the General Assem¬ 
bly, they cannot rely upon it in a matter whose practi¬ 
cal importance is so slight and insignificant. If it is 
done, it wilt be hereafter the cause of bitter regret. 

Some of the gentlemen who have taken a difi'eront 
view of this subject from that committee, appear to 
suppose that there is some covert mischief concealed 
under this report—something concealed, which the 
members are unwilling to disclose. They suspect that 
there is some interest, adverse to tliat of the public to 
be subserved, and that the members of the committee 
have been desirous to build up a class—an aristocracy 
—something splendid, which they are unwilling to 
have mkde public. One gentleman has gone so far as 
to say that he knew this. It is evident that such a 
feeling exists, and that it has controlled the action ot 
members of this Convention. It is, of course, of no 
avad for one to disclaim any such design. If any gen¬ 
tleman suspects it, he ought to have very full and con¬ 
clusive evidence, before he presumes to act upon it. 

It is true that in the advocacy of the provisions of 
this report, certain unfortunate expressions have been 
employed, which have furnished the foundation ol 
much remark. The terms sjilendid court and splendid 
bar have been employed. But if gentlemen suppose 
that these words have been employed for any other 
purpose than to express those qualities which shall 
Confer upon that court and that bar the highest ability 
for public usefulness, they are mistaken. It is said 
that by having the court in only two or three counties 
in the district, it will have a tendency to collect around 
the court a bar, whose practice shall monopolize its 
business, to the exclusion of its younger members of the 
profession from other parts of the district; which bar 
bar shall have a joint interest with the court—the two 
interests, supporting, sustaining and aiding each other. 
There is no such thing anticipated, nor any such tend¬ 
ency believed to exist. It is true, that the di.strict 
sessions of the court would furnish a fine opportunity 
for legal acquisition to all who attend its sessions, young 
or old, business men, or men seeking for business; and 
by these mean.s, men would be prepared for a higher 
order of etfort—for greater usefulness to themselves 
and thd public. Is there any objection to this ? Is 
there any reason why members of the legal profession 
should not become as eminent and useful as opportuni¬ 
ty can make them? Surely gentlemen admit the 


weakness of the cause they advocate, when they throw 
in their clap-traps, and endeavor to excite prejudice in¬ 
stead of producing conviction. 

Mr. LARVVILL supposed that, in view of the ques¬ 
tion now before the committee, the people of his dis¬ 
trict were unfortunate .in not sending a lawyer to rep¬ 
resent ihem in this Convention. They should ha e had ' 
one capable to understand the cpiestion, and to advo 
cate their interests; especially that it seems from the 
remarks of the gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash] that 
the matter should be left to lawyers, and that the mere 
lay members have nothing to do it; and that the peo¬ 
ple are not interested in its settlement. 

Mr. NASH said he had said nothing of the kind. He 
had only said that the lawyers h-id an interest in it ad¬ 
verse or difiei-eiit from the people. That system which 
is best for the lawyer, is best for the client. There is 
no chance for a sinister motive anywhere. 

Mr. LARVVILL did not mistake the gentleman. It 
is contended that if this report meet the wishes of the 
bar, it should meet those of the people ; therefore theie 
is nothing to do but the bar to take care of itself, jf 
this conclusion is cori'ect, we may infer that if it meets 
the wishes of the members of the committee, he could 
not sub.scribe to the conclusions thus indicated. He had I 
listened attentively to the debate, and had examined 
the provisions of the report, as attentively as his abili¬ 
ties and knowledge would permit. He was willing to t 
aid in perfecting it, as far as possible ; but his services | 
in that behalf did not seem to be required. The com- i 
mittee had made the report. They had presented it to 
the Convention, and it had been referred to the com¬ 
mittee of the Whole. For what purpose ? To be per- ;j 
fected. Who by ? By this committee ? No. By the | 
committee that reported it itself! Nobody else. We » 
areto have nothing to do with it. We are warned not ^ j 
to interfere. It is a matter for lawyers and judges. j 
They ascertain what is due to the people, by knowing ^ j 
what is best for themselves. They say ; let us take care j 
of our own att'airs, and yours are provided for. Now I ' f 
say, let the gentlemen of that committee perfect their i j 
report, and then when a inotion is made to substitute I , 
another in its place, he would go for it. 

He had supposed, when the report was brought m, i ; 
that the committee had made it as perfect as was in i 
their powei’i Yet he learned that not one of the com- i 
mittee was satisfied with its provisions. What have i 
they then brought it here for ? ' To be discussed, amen- I 
ded, perfected. He had a very high opinion of the 
committee which made the report, but unless they can i 
either change the report or inform his mind, in regard { 
to its provisions he was not prepared to go for it. He ; 
had constituents to be aftected by the system to be adopt¬ 
ed, and however high was his opinion of the sagacity ' 
of its authors, to his constituents he must respond. ; 

.He did not believe that it was intended to practice 
fraud upon this Convention or the people, The plan is ' 
simply objectionable, not from a sinister motive, but ' 

perhaps from a want of harmony. He saw the objec- ' 

tion the moment he cast his eye upon it. He should ! 

vote for the amendment, not that that would make the ^ 

report perfect, but that it may be made better, while i 

in the end, he intended to vote for some other plan— ! 

pei’haps that of the gentleman from Medina. * j 

Again; it was said that the District court would be .l! 
a paper court. He was not in favor of a paper court. li 
He wanted avCourt, with a jury jurisdiction, so that if I 
he had a case in the court of common pleas, and was ^ 

satisfied that the verdict of the jury is erroneous, he j 

could bring it before another court, and have it tried j 

over again. Gentlemen say that there is not time for i 

this business to be done by the judges. Then increase j 

the number of judges. j 

On motion by Mr. VANCE of Butler, the committee 
rose, reported progress and asked and obtained leave 
to sit again, and then on motion, the Convention ad- ' 
journed. j 























607 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


TUESDAY, July 2, 1850. 

8 o’clock, a. m. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Doolittle. 

Mr. STILWELL presented the petition of Samuel 
Morris and twenty-live other citizens el’ Muskingum 
county, praying that a provision be inserted in tlienew 
constitution, providing (or a perpetual prohibition 
against the sale of intoxicating licpiors, (except for ar¬ 
tistic and medicinal purposes.) and that an excise be 
laid on every gallon mamifaciured, if it be deemed 
right and expedient, sulFicient to stop its distillation.' 

Upon his motion, it was leferred to the select com¬ 
mittee on the subject of retailing ardent spirits. 

Mr. SAWYER moved to take up the resolution of 
Mr. Lidey, relative to limiting members to tifleen min 
ute8,ia discussing c^uestionsin committee. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler. Mr. Chairman: I desire to 
submit a few remarks this morning, in addition to what 
I have already said, upon this subject; and in discus¬ 
sing the question, I will endeavor not to be tedious. 1 
feel a very deep interest in this subject. In truth, 1 
feel a deeper interest in this question than upon any 
other question upon which we may be called to act; 
and I otfer this and this only, as an a[)ology for again 
trespassing upon the indulgence of the committee.— 
The am'^ndinent now before the committee, it is true, 
is a dilierent one from that which was pending at the 
time I submitted my la.st remarks, and I do not design 
to make my remarks applicable to that, but to the gen¬ 
eral subject matter involved, and to note the ert'ect 
which the pro[)(jsed amendment will have upon the 
plan proposed by the committee. Before I commence, 
It will be pri'per for me to define my position. For it 
is not true, as it has been supposed by some gentle¬ 
men upon this Hour, that all the memliers of this com¬ 
mittee were o[)posed from the beginning, to the intro¬ 
duction of this appellate court or district court, into 
each county. Now, sir, I w'as among the five or six 
wdio advocated, in the committee, the policy of send¬ 
ing this court into each county. I am not yet fully 
satisfied with the [iroposition as reported, though I have 
listened with attention to the arguments addressed to 
the committee. It is true, there , was one argument 
used in the committee, and the same argument has 
been urged here in the discussion, that went very far 
to raise a doubt in my mind as to whether a difficulty 
might not arise out of the policy of taking this court 
into each county. The arguments of the gentleman, 
however, do not convince me of the necessity of limi¬ 
ting this court to but a few points in the district. In 
looking at this subject, I have been all along persua¬ 
ded that it would be better policy to establish provis¬ 
ionally this court in each county. There may be rea¬ 
sons which, if we should wait to see the practical 
operations of this court, would arise, and which serve 
to convince us at once that such a provision as is pro¬ 
posed by the amendment, would be an unfortunate 
one. And although I am in favor of taking this court 
into each county of the State, I do hold it advisable to 
leave this question open to the Legislature to settle 
from time to time as facts and circumstances may justify 
or demand. For one, I do believe, that it would be 
better for the Legislature to regulate this matter, and 
let the court go into each county, if the people require 
it, and the convenience of the system would admit of 
it. Why, sir, we all know that the representative is 
bound by the will and wishes of his immediate constit¬ 
uents, and we furthermore know that he dare not dis¬ 
regard that will, provided he knows what it is. Upon 
a subject which interests the people as much as this 
will, of course they will express themselves fully, 
from time to time. If it is found better and more con¬ 
venient to introduce this court into each county in the 

State_they will so instruct their representatives. And 

I say again, that a representative under such circum¬ 
stances, where the will of his constituents is so made 
known, dare not o[)pose their wishes. I am well per¬ 
suaded, that we have gone far enough in providing 


that ihe Legislature shall settle this question, believing 
as I do, by the settlement of it on the part of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, the court will be introduced into each 
county, and when that is done, if expeiience should 
show that the system would not work well under this 
policy, why, it will be in the power of the Legislature 
to provide the remedy. 

Mr. Chairman, there is another consideration w'hich 
I have before alluded to, and which influences me to 
su[)port this plan as reported by the committee, and 
that is, that in the committee there were six or seven 
upon one side of the question, and five or six upon the 
other. It w'as a question that gave us more difficulty 
in the committee, than any other that we were called 
to deliberate upon. Why, sii', we were discussing and 
reflecting upon this subject week after w'eek, and it 
ap[)eared, despite all our efforts, as if we were further 
apart than we were when we commenced, and many 
of us Were discouraged in our efi’orts to efiect unanim¬ 
ity on this point. 

We labored day after day, week after week, for the 
very purpose of settling this question, and liovv did we 
settle it at last. We settled it in the end, in a way 
which we supposed would be satisfactory to both par¬ 
ties, and whicii we thought would prove satisfactory to 
those holding conflicting opinions upon this floor, it 
was under sentiments and views like these, that we 
introduced this provision into the report, and which 
is now sought to be stricken out by those who 
seem to be unwilling that the Legislature should 
control ihis subject. As I before remarked the court 
here provided for, is a good court, the very best for the 
purposes intended. But how shall it be made the most 
convenient without impairing its usefulness. By the 
holding district courts in each county there may be 
difficulties arising from time to time which we cannot 
as yet, very well foresee, and which we cannot [jrovide 
against until we know the jiraclical workings of the sjs- 
t^m. For this reason it is not advisable to make a per¬ 
manent provision in the organic law of the Slate, fix¬ 
ing the points at which it is to held. But it would be 
more wise to leave it to the Legislature, so that they 
can shape it accoiding to the circumstances of the case, 
and in conformity to the wishes of the people upon this 
subject. There should be some discretion left with the 
General Assembly. What is die reason of our being as¬ 
sembled here this day, for the purpose of altering the 
constitution of the State of Ohio. It is, sir, for the rea¬ 
son that our present constitution so disposes of our ju¬ 
diciary system as to deny to the Legislature that power 
which is and was necessary so to extend it, in order to 
make it answer the wants of our people, and to enable 
them to transact the business belonging to that depart¬ 
ment of government. I do firndy believe that we 
should not have been assembled In re this day, had it 
not been for the difficulties we have experienced from 
time to time through many years, upon this very ques¬ 
tion. It is true that there are other questions v\ hich 
interest the people very much. Our citizens desire an 
alteration of the constitution in other respects, as well 
as to the policy now under consideration. I admit this 
to be true, still I assert again, that I believe the peo[)le 
would not now have authorized the assembling of this 
Convention, if it had not been for the difficulties they 
have from time to time experienced, by reason of the 
limited policy of the Judiciary. It is that very cpies- 
tion which has assembled us here. \Ve have expe¬ 
rienced these evils for many years. We have had no 
power to remedy them, other than by a change of the 
constitution, for there was no discretion left to the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly; had there been, we might have avoid¬ 
ed much of the difficulty. 

And now it is proposed here in the formation of a 
new constititution to tie up the hands of the Legisla¬ 
ture, so that whatever might be the necessities of the 
future, it matters not; the Legislature shall not have 
the power to change or alter the system, or give it that 
energy and scope which will be necessary from time 










608 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


to time, to meet the growing demands of the State.— 
Now. sir, is it wise to do this? Does not our past his¬ 
tory show that it would be very unwise in us, to make 
such a provision. Although I am in favor of holding 
these courts in each county, where they can possibly 
beheld, and at the same time be made to answer the 
wants of our people, yet I am disposed to leave to the 
Legislature, to alter, amend and change the system, so 
as to meet all the exigencies that might arise. 1 
will add one other remark upon this subject. I con¬ 
sider myself under an obligation, to support this com¬ 
promise, after agreeing to it in the committee, at least 
as long as there is a prosfiect of carrying out these pro- 
jiositious. 1 hold myself under an honorable obliga¬ 
tion to carry out the policy recommended in the report 
of the committee in this particular. If we cannot carry 
out the provisions ol the report, why then we shall be at 
liberty to suggest any plan that our judgments may 
dictate as right and proper. There are other consider¬ 
ations, to which I wish, to call the attentionpf the com¬ 
mittee for a few moments, when I will endeavor to 
bring my remarks to a close. 

Now, great efforts, I am perfectly aware, have been 
made upon the part of some of our brethren here to 
create an unfounded prejudice against this court. 
Why, some gentlemen have taken exceptions to a has¬ 
ty remark that was made upon the part of some of the 
members friendly to this project, when they said that it 
would be a “ splendid court.” It is argued on the 
part of some gentlemen, that judges are to be robed, 
and they are to wear wigs, powdered all over and to 
have iron heel s upon their boots and spurs upon their 
feet—and all this for the purpose of being set under 
consideration. The gentleman from Trumbull gave 
to his fancy the most uncircumscribed bounds in this 
particular. Now, sir, what is the fact ? The' people 
elect their own judges under the authority of this re¬ 
port. And I have been informed that the friends of 
that gentleman are already looking forward to the time 
when they will have the privilege of making manifest 
the high and exalted opinion they entertain of his 
worth, by placing him upon the bench of some one of 
these courts, which we propose to organize. Now, sir, 
can any one believe that that gentleman would clothe 
himself in ermine and powder his head, and with iron 
heeled boots and terrihc spurs—and thus mount the 
bench to distribute justice to an alarmed and terrified 
people. No sir, you would see him approaching the 
court house in Elyria in a hot summer day, clothed in 
his linen sack, and upon his sack a coat of dust, and 
on his feet a pair of half worn shoes; and at the ring¬ 
ing of the bell, thus plainly habited, he would, in amod- 
est and most unassuming manner, approach the bench 
of justice, and with his characteristic good sense em¬ 
bark in the administration of justice loan admiring 
crowd. Sir, there is nothing in this picture that need 
alarm the most timid aud suspecting. Now sir, it is 
the pilain, honest, unassuming man, like unto the gen¬ 
tleman from Trumbull, possessing legal talent, industry 
and skill, who will make this court “ a splendid court,” 
although he may be covered with the dustol the street 
when adlninistering justice. Such a court might well 
be called a “ splendid court.” I can conceive of no 
other meaning to the term, as it was used, than to con¬ 
vey merely the idea of an able, experienced and en¬ 
lightened court, such as this court would be, with so 
many opportunities derived from varied practical expe¬ 
rience, in the administration of justice upon the plan 
here proposed. 

The gentleman need not be alarmed at this, espe¬ 
cially if he should be placed upon the bench. He 
should not start at his own shadow. 

Again, here is the gentleman from Fairfield in oppo¬ 
sition to this report. He is a clear-headed man and 
very well versed in doctrines that I know nothing about. 
This policy does not suit him: it is an abominable, a 
wicked policy—it is building up an aristocratic court, 
and not intended at all for the benefit of the people. 


He says it will have the effect of building up a splen¬ 
did bar and titled court. That is the opinion he has of 
the system, at least we shoidd judge so from his argu¬ 
ment. Now, sir, let us look at this argument for a mo¬ 
ment. The committee have provided, if the system is 
carried out, that the State shall be laid off into compact 
districts. I'lie State shall be divided into nine districts, 
eight aside from the county of Hamilton. County lines, 
in the formation of these districts, are not to be regar¬ 
ded. The district must be made in a convenient, com¬ 
pact form. In each of these districts the report pro¬ 
vides that three judges of the court of common pleas 
shall be elected. These judges are elected by the peo¬ 
ple within the district—by the people in tne districts, 
and none other, in which these judges are to administer 
justice. The objection is, that you cannot lay off these 
districts in a compact form without giving to the Whig 
party a majority of the judges. This is the objection 
urged by the gentleman 'from Fairfield. Now, sir, I 
would ask in a word, if we should provide in this con¬ 
stitution for the formation of judicial districts, for the 
purpose, and witli the view oidy, of giving to this or to 
that party the political ascendency—especially when 
in doing so, we must either destroy the plan upon 
which the court is to be organized, which nearly all 
admit to be the very best, or we must provide for the 
election of judges by only a portion of the people—a 
small portion of the people, whose rights they are to 
judge. Such a policy would be dishonest^ It is to me 
but little difference whether it is a Whig or Democrat 
that sits upon thd bench, either of the common pleas, 
afipellate court, or supreme court, if he is capable, hon¬ 
est aud faithful. The bench is no place for party poli¬ 
tics. These judges will not have the power of appoint¬ 
ing to office ; not as nuch as the power of appointing 
their own clerks. They will perhaps have the power 
to appoint a master in chancery. If this power is left, 
they will have a little patronage. If the court have 
not the appointment of their own clerks ; if they have 
no patronage left worth speaking of, what interest will 
the people have in electing political partizans. It mat¬ 
ters not to me of what politics the court will be, if they' 
are only sound lawyers and industrious men. If they 
will decide a case according to the law and the rule of 
honesty'-, it is all that I would require at their hands. 
If they are mere partizans, the people ought not, and I 
trust will not, place them upon the bench. All parties 
would deprecate a partizan judge. I do not think that 
the committee endeavored to shape a system for the 
purpose of cutting off districts here or there, that might 
possibly' result in Whig or Democratic districts. We 
should regulate our action in this, as upon all other sub- 
jectl here, upon the broad platform of honest princi¬ 
ple, and endeavor to carry it out upon a like principle. 
Let me say to the gentleman, in order to allay any 
alarm which he may have upon this subject, that noth¬ 
ing of this kind was contemplated by the committee. 
Let me say furthermore, that I confidently look to see 
the day, and that speedily too, when we modern pro¬ 
gressives will come back again to the plain, honest rule 
of common sense—we will come back again to the 
sound and salutary doctrine of Jefferson aud .Jackson. 
We will abandon the new-fangled doctrines of an hour 
—doctrines that have their origin in a disordered imag¬ 
ination. If we should be so fortunate as to do so, let 
me say to the gentleman, that there will be but very 
little of the Whig left— not enough of them left, sir, to 
supply the bench with judges—no, sir, not enough to 
fill the bench j so that the gentleman may take off his 
bhnd bridle, lor there will be no ghosts to frighten him 
from an honest discharge of duty. But enough upon 
this subject. 

I have one reply to the argument that was offered 
on yesterday, by the gentleman from Columbiana [Mr. 
Gregg.] He objects to this system, because he calls 
it a complicated system. He cannot support it upon 
that ground. He wants some system which is plain 
aud comprehensive; this system, he thinks, is com- 
















CONVENTION REPORTS 


609 


plex. Novy, is it so? Can it be made plainer to the 
understanding of even an ordinary mind, than it is now? 
Why, it is nothing more nor less than the election of’ 
judges of the court of' common pleas, by the people, 
instead of the Legislature. The duties of the court of 
common pleas will be precisely the same as hereto¬ 
fore, except as to some little business which may be 
properly taken away, and lodged in the county court. 
With these exceptions, the common pleas court will be 
precisely the same, and must necessarily be understood 
as the same as the common pleas we now have un¬ 
der the present constitution. I should have said that 
the associate judges will be dispensed with. 

The next court, is nothing more nor less than an ap¬ 
pellate court—a court into which you may take a case 
from the common pleas. Of whom is the appellate 
bench con posed ? It is composed of three common 
pleas judges—the common pleas judges elected in the 
district, together with one of the judges of the su¬ 
preme court—making tour judges in all, who are char¬ 
ged with the duties of this appellate court. Now, this 
is all of it, except the present court in bank, which is 
retained. As a plan, it is as simple as language can 
make it, and nothing of complexity about it which 
ought to alarm any gentleman. 

I have said that the court in bank was retained. 
But I presume under the system reported here, not 
one case in five hundred that is decided in the common 
pleas or district court will ever go to the court in bank. 
I do believe that the appellate district court will put 
an end to ninety-nine cases out of every hundred that 
are taken from the common pleas. Mr. Chairman, I 
believe that this district court will have more of the 
confidence of the people than the supreme court ever 
had, or ever will have under the plan upon which it 
was, under the present constitution, organized. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. My colleague, I presume, well un¬ 
derstands the progress and nature of this system, but 
considers it complex by the introduction of so many 
courts into the system. You recollect that he illustra¬ 
ted it, by comparing it to a machine, which by the ad¬ 
dition of every additional wheel, becomes more com¬ 
plicated. I ask if it is your opinion, that the adminis¬ 
tration of justice by this system, is secured with that 
simplicity, facility and economy demanded by the 
people ? t 

Mr. VANCE. I will answer the gentleman before I 
close; but first I desire to notice for a moment the ar¬ 
gument of the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell.] 
Now that gentleman seems to be in favor of a system 
that will admit an appeal in matters of fact, from the 
common pleas to this appellate court, or to the court of 
last resort. If I understand him, he will not be satis 
fied with any other system than the one which gives 
this appeal in matters of fact. Now I will remark, 
that it was not designed by the committee, who framed 
this report, to authorize the appellate to re-try facts 
by a jury. Such was not the intention of the commit¬ 
tee. I suppose that good policy will never again re¬ 
quire that such appeals should be provided for. I 
believe that such a system would cost at least a third 
more than the courts now provided for. Such a sys¬ 
tem would swell very much the expense of our judi¬ 
ciary. The advantages would by no means equal the 
cost of the court suggested. This district court has 
been repeatedly denominated as a paper court. If I 
understand the extent of jurisdiction which will be giv¬ 
en, it will have jurisdiction in all questions of error 
from the common pleas. This appellate court is to sit 
as a court of error, and to determine upon the question 
-of error so presented. If the court below had com¬ 
mitted error, then it is remanded back and a new trial 
will be had. If the court below Bad committed no er¬ 
ror, then the decision would be affirmed. This, then, 
is one of the powers, w’hich by the provisions of this 
report, will be lodged in the hands of the appellate 
court. If I understand the policy, parties will have a 
right to appeal all chancery cases. We know that 

39 


under our system as it now exists in this State, that the 
testimony in all cases in chancery is taken before a 
master, or other ofiicer having the power to take dep¬ 
ositions. The testimony is all taken upon paper, before 
the hearing of the cause. All the facts arc spread upon 
paper. The judge is never required to hear testimony 
at bar. When he undertakes to ascertain what the ev¬ 
idence is, all he has to do is, to look at the paper files 
containing the depositions in the cause, and from the.-e 
he derives all his information of the facts. In chance¬ 
ry cases thei’efore, there will also be appeals to the 
district court. Now there will be many other ques¬ 
tions arising, under the writs which this court may ori¬ 
ginally issue, with respect to which the court will take 
cognizance. I need not undertake to notice them in 
detail. 

One word further in relation to the argument of the 
gentleman from Knox, with respect to the right of ap¬ 
peal, with the view to a re-trial, in matters of fact. I 
believe that the people do not desire a restoration of 
the old policy, in this particular. We have had this 
kind of policy ever since the organization of our State 
government, up to within a few years past. We all 
know the practical result of it. We know that the ap¬ 
pellate court had not the time nor the force to discharge 
the duties that devolved upon it by reason of the ap¬ 
peals that were taken from the court of common pleas 
in matters of fact. The Legislature was called upon 
to take away from the court its jurisdiction in this be¬ 
half. Now when this law was first passed we were 
all alarmed—we did not know what might be the ope¬ 
ration of it. But we have found by experience that it 
has worked well. I am intimately acquainted with 
many of the leading citizens of four or five counties in 
the south western part of the State. I have not in the 
last three or four years found one solitary man who has 
ever raised an objection to the policy as it is now car¬ 
ried out in our practice under the law. I have not 
found one solitary lawyer who objects to that law. Nor 
have I found one solitary person in the district with 
which I am connected,‘who has ever complained of it. 
I do not believe that the people will ever want us to go 
back again to the old policy. But, sir, if they do—if 
they must have it, they must necessarily pay for it. In 
framing the report this committee had an eye to the ex¬ 
penses of our judicial system, and it was perfectly pro¬ 
per to do so. If you get an expensive system the peo¬ 
ple will object to it upon that ground. They want a 
system which will be efficient and convenient, and 
which will not be objectionable on the score of ex¬ 
pense. They will be willing to contribute to the sup- 
j)ort of any judicial system which may be thought ne¬ 
cessary, or which might be demanded by sound poli¬ 
cy. But, sir, the people will not be satisfied with an 
unnecessary, an inconvenient and of course an unnec¬ 
essarily expensive system. 

Now, sir, if the gentleman will take the pains to cal¬ 
culate the expense of the court he proposes he will find 
that I was something like coiTectin the suggestions I 
made on this subject on yesterday. A court upon the 
plan suggested by the gentleman will add much—very 
much—to the cost of our judiciary system. Now, in all 
cases where any injustice has been done by the jury— 
where they have misapprehended the facts, or from any 
other causes have rendered an improper verdict, where¬ 
by injustice is done to either of the parties, the court 
will always be able to see this, and they will grant a 
new trial, and the ca.se will be submitted to a new jury 
for further trial in the same court. Before I close I 
will notice the inquiries that have been presented to 
me by my friend from Columbiana, [Mr. Quigley.] 

Now, sir, who are the judges of this appellate court? 
How is it to be arranged, and what are its purposes ? 

I have said on a former occasion that this court, if car¬ 
ried out according to the system reported here, will be 
one of .the strongest courts in the west. ^ And why will 
it be so? I will undertake to show in a few wmrds 
why it will be so. In the first place, three of these 











610 


CONVEN'IION IlEPOUTS, 


judges are taken from the common pleas Bench. One 
of the judges vvill be taken from the supreme court 
b'mch. These four will constitute the appellate court. 
Why will it be a strong court ? The judges will be 
chosen from among the people, and elected by them. 
They will be elected for their legal learning, probity 
and industry. They are, at least three of the four, are 
required to do and perforn circuit duty upon the com¬ 
mon pleas bench; and consequently their minds will 
be familiarized with the almost endless variety of bus 
iness which js transacted in our common pleas courts 
These judges cannot forset how a case is tried. 

In matters of law in all its variety their minds will 
be constantly exercised. No department of lawappli- 
cal)le to the diversified business relations of our people, 
can be lost sight of or neglected by them. As these 
judges must be constantly fimiliarizing the mind with 
the law and the facts pertaining to all the business re¬ 
lations of'-ur people, as a matter of course they will 
become expert in the business: and familiar with it in 
all its diversified channels. From the common pleas 
bench then, there will be three of the four judges ta¬ 
ken, whose duty it will be to hold the District or ap¬ 
pellate court provided for in the report. 

They will go up from the common |)leas bench to the 
bench of the district court, with all the experience and 
business habits thus acquired upon the circuit. They 
arc here met by a judge of the supreme court, whose 
mind has been familiarized and exercised with the 
more abstruse, knotty questions of the law. The ex 
perience and legal learning of the common pleas and 
supreme court in bank will be combined upon the 
bench of the district court; and from such varied ex- 
)>erience and learning, thus combined, we cannot fail to 
have a strong and an enlightened court. And, sir, the 
experience and learning of the district bench will in 
its turn be refiected l)ack to the common pleas court— 
not only so. but vvill be refiected upwards to the su¬ 
preme court in bank. The decisions throughout the 
State will be more uniform and better settled dhan they 
now are or can be. The.se courts are so interwoven 
and blended as to reflect light and vitality upon each. 
Such a svstPin will bo the t)ride of the State. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. I do not wish to be understood as 
doubting the intelligence and qualificationsofthis court; 
but I ask, is it your opinion that this system will be the 
cheape.st to the people? 

Mr. VANCE I was just coming to the inquiry of 
tlip gentleman from Columbiana I aii'wer thatit will 
be the cheapest—cheaper than any other of the same 
force and efficiency which can be devised. Now, sir, 
what is the fact? We havm provided for the creation 
(»f an appellate court, and in truth an additional inter¬ 
mediate court, without adding a dollqr to the expense 
of the system. Why, sir, we must have our common 
ideas judges—we want, or ought to have, our court in 
bank. We have provided for the election of twenty- 
seven common pleas judges for the whole State; and 
for four judges of the supreme court in bank. This is 
all. sir. 

Now, under our present organizadon, we have nine¬ 
teen common pleas judges, two judges of the superioi- 
conrt-^one at Cincinnati, and the other at Cleveland— 
ano'her judge for the commercial court at Cincinnati; 
making in all twenty-two judges. In addition to these, 
we have the four judges of the supreme court. Now, 
sir, will) this, our present number of judg s, we have 
not had judicial foi-ce enough Ibr the constantly gi-ow- 
ing wants of the State. Upon this subject, I have had 
some experience. For the last seven years, I vvas un¬ 
der the necessity of opening court in my late circuit, 
at ’he hour of 8 o’clock iu t e morning, and of sitting 
until a late hour in the evening. From the supper ta¬ 
ble I was under the necessity of repairing to my loom, 
for the fmrpose of examining and disposingof thechan- 
cery business.. Thns, almost every night, I was under 
the necessity of laboring until the hour of eleven o’clock 
at night—very frequently longer—iu order to keep up 


the business of my (dreuit. Now, sir, such labor is en- I 
tirely too severe; yet it had to he done, in order to 
keep up with the business of tlie docket. Under our 
old system, then, we would have, necessarily, to in¬ 
crease the number of the common pleas judges of the ! 
State. Now, Mr. Chairman, the cornmiitee have only ■jj 
ucl’eased the present number of judges, five; that is, ! 
we provide for the election of twenty-seven, instead of S 
twenty-two. With this force, we h .ve provided a new j 
and an additional court—an intermediate appellate i 
court—which may be held, iu addition to the common f 
pleas, in every county iu the Slate. I have previousdy < 
undertaken to show, that this court will be a valuable f 
court to our people. Their wants and their interests ; 
demand its creation.’ If vve can have it, without any | 
additional cost upon our citizens, why should we re- I. 
fuse 'it ? ,' 

One word in relation to the amendment offered by !f 
the gentleman from Ashtabula [Mr. Woodburt.] Ifjj 
such a proviso is to be engrafted into this rep art, llj 
should prefer to have it more explicit, plain and com- ^ | 
[irehensive than tlie one he lias presented. I was much | 
more favorably disposed to the amendment offered by 
the honorable gentleman from Geauga [Mr Hitchcock] 
than this one. I shall not vote for the amendment of 
the gentleman from Ashtabula. As this part of the re¬ 
port is the result of compromise, I feel myself honor¬ 
ably bound, to carry out the provisions of this report, 
until wo see that we cannot sii ‘ceed—and if we find ■ 
we cannot, we shall then be at liberty to bring fo; ward ! 
our individual propositions. 

I am opposed to the amendment because I do not j 
regard it as sufficiently comprehensive to be properly ' 
understood. I should have no very great objections 
to the amendment proposed by the gentleman from] 
Geauga, if I vvas at liberty to depart from the terms of, 
conifiromise. I would very willingly support the a-j 
mendmentoffered by the gentleman from Geauga. I 
With these rema'^ks, Mr. Chairman, I submit th '|j 
question. |; 

Mr. LOUDON. Being called upon, as a southern , 
man, to express the feeling of my constituents, I con- I 
fessthat I a|)proach the subject with a good deal of dif- ! 
fidence ; still, representing, as I do here, the hundred ( 
and eighth part of the population of Ohio, it may not i 
be improper that I should be indulged in the expression 1 
of my views. The ouh’’ objection which I have heard; j 
to the present judicial system, is, that the hands of the j 
supreme court are so lied up that they caniiotdischarge , 
iheir duties. 1 know that in niy region of the coun- j 
tiy, this question of re-modeling the judiciary was sup¬ 
posed to be the greal leading occasion for calling this 
Conveiilious' The expre.ssion which I have heard a- 
rnon^'st my constituents has been this: that we required 
a separate probate court, so that we could have our 
probate business done in each county, and allow ihj j 
supreme court more lime. That would be about what 
my const.tuents suppose to be necessary ; and they look ' I 
for this much at our hands. j 

Well, now, it seems to me Mr. Chairman, that some-! I 
thing of this kind coidd be done in a very simple vvay,'t 
and not varying much from the old plan. But I con- 1 1 
fess, I do not like to express my opinion here— | 
humble and unpretending as I am—with reference b 
to the report of so learned a committee, and which ! 
has occupied them for a long time in its prepara-! 
lion. P>ut our people, sir, are accustomed to the ^ 
old I'nles and regulations. They know the advantage ' 
of having a court, iu their own county, and any propV i 
silion to do away with the old fashioned commingling i 
of lawyers and conris with citizens and hu-iiness men, 
it seems to me, would not he well received. For, 
what is a court? Is it not a kind of macliinery got up 
for the purpose of henefitting the ma'asesof the pe >ple? 
And are not oiir legal gentlemen the mere agents of 
he people fur keeping this machinery in motion, in or, 
der, and carrying outits design ? Itseeins to me, tlien- 
that these geutlemeu should nut have much feeling in 



















CONVENTION REPOETS 


611 


the case, except so far as to cany oat the wishes of the 
people, and to benefit them. Well, sir, if we can get 
up a system upon the plan to which the people have 
been accustomed—that of carrying the court into eve¬ 
ry county—with the addition of a probate court, which 
must interest every individual, 1 brieve we shall give 
more satisfaction than can possibly be accorded to any 
newly modified plan which yon can get up. As for 
rny own immediate constituents, I do not believe that 
they would receive any plan proposing to take away 
trom them the courts to which they have been accus¬ 
tomed. 

At the earliest opportunity, upon the presentation of 
tins report, I moveil that a large dumber of copies be 
printed for distribution amongst the people, and I pro¬ 
ceeded myself to distribute a number of them amongst 
my constituents. 1 have obtained responses from a 
number of legal gentlmen among them; and candor 
compels me to say, that in most cases they seem to a- 
gree. and to be willing to acquiesce in the main features 
of the report. Some have made objections, and others 
have required some little amendment, but not amount¬ 
ing to anything that would change the principle of the 
report. Still, with the knowledge whic h I have of 
those people, I feel warranted in saying that they would 
be unprepared to receive any system that would take 
away from them the court to which they have been 
accustomed. 

My friend from Fairfield, [Mr. Robertson, 1 has al¬ 
luded to the political complexion of this report; and 
when he did so, there was exhibited, what I consider 
an unjustifiable feeling hereamongst the legal members. 
[ know that the gentleman from Fairfield, has had ex 
perience of the matters to which he has alluded, that 
he has set in the chamber and seen the two political 
parties of this State meet and agree to a certain report, 
and as members of each party to stand up to the specifi¬ 
cations of that report. He was present when the gen 
tleman from Muskingum, who is not now in his seat, a 
man whom I have always respected, and always shall 
respect, rose in his place and moved that the report of 
that joint select committee, be amended by inserting 
the word “ unanimously ;” and it was so amended; and 
the effect was like electricity—morally binding every 
man to its observance. But my friend from f airfield, 
was here againthe nexty^ear, though not perhaps as a 
member of the body, but as a looker on. I know that he 
was a witness ot that scene when this [dedge was vio¬ 
lated by one of the parties. He savv when that party 
laid violent hands upon the bill of apportionment. He 
saw them strike a tier of townshi[)3 from one county, 
and add them to another, wherever they might gain a 
political advantage thereby—a course of proceedings 
which has been more mischevious in its results th in 
any other course of political disturbance in the history 
of the State. My friend from Fairfield having seen this, 
snd knowing all the circumstane'es, it is not strange 
that he should raise his warning voice againstanything 
looking to the recurrence of those scenes. Sir, the 
members of our judiciary are but men, at last. They 
have their political feelings, the present company al¬ 
ways exeepP'd. [-\ 1 lugh.] Our legislative cliain- 
bers will be filled hereafter with politicians, as they 
have been heretofore, and when my friend frnin Fair- 
field sees this hydra-headed monster of party sticking 
out from any proposition here, I will thank him for 
bringing my attention to it. For, if there is anything up¬ 
on God Almighty’s earth, which most of all things I 
dislike, it is iho commingling of politics with judicial 
proceedings—whether it be ultralocofocoism, or whig- 
gerv or liherty partisat). 

When Mr. L. had concluded, 

Mr. SMITH of Warren said: I will ask the gentle¬ 
man from Brown one qnes’ion, if he will answer one. 
The gentleman has reinaiked truly, that it was upon 
his motion a large number of the report of the Judicia¬ 
ry committee was printed for the laudable purpose of 
circulating them tliroughout the State, iii the hope of 


obtaining some response from the people with refer¬ 
ence to the plan proposed. I desire now'^ to ask Ih.it 
Ljeiitleman whether, in all the answers he has received, 
there is nut a general concurrence in favor of the gen¬ 
eral principles of the report—and whether any gentle¬ 
man, whig or democrat, has presented an objection to 
the report upon the ground of any political feature 
which it contains, or may be supposed to contain? 

Mr. LOUDON. I have received only five or six let¬ 
ters from Georgetown, and they are every one from 
legal gentlemen belonging to the whig party. I have 
received no information from any portion of the demo¬ 
cratic party. Those that I have received, as I havebe- 
loi'e observed, are pretty generally favorable to the re¬ 
port, with one excef)tion, a Mr. King, son-in-law of our 
old friend John S. Wills, whom many gentlemen on 
this fioor once knesy—and I consider him at the head 
ot the bar there. He does not like the report. He 
does not like that portion of it which gives the elec- 
titin of the judges to the people, but is in favor of hav¬ 
ing them appointed by the Governor and his council, 
consisting of the Lieutenant Governor, Attorney Gen¬ 
eral, Secretary of State, Auditor and Treasurer. 

Mr. SMITH. I allude, more particularly, to the 
general arrangement of the system. 

Mr. LOUDON. The general arrangement they ac¬ 
quiesced m. j 

Mr. COLLINGS. My position upon this question, 
as upon every other, save one, which may come before 
this committee, or the Convention, is, perhaps, singu¬ 
lar in this: that lam not particularly advised of the 
views aud wishes of my immediate constituents. 1 
liave received no instructions on tliis subject, and can 
only collect their views from what has heretofore trans¬ 
pired in my intercourse with them. 

I suppose that upon this, as upon other questions, we 
would most naturally be led to favor existing institu¬ 
tions. It was the first impression that struck my mind, 
that we should so enlarge our existing judiciary as to 
answer the present ends and purposes of justice. I 
had .not looked to a remodeling, but merely to an en¬ 
largement. And I confess that at first the report of 
the committee did not very fiivorably impress my mind, 
but I trust that I have preserved throughout a proper 
spirit of deliberation—and certainly this debate has 
made a more favorable impression on my mind, with 
l eference to the report, than did the report itself upon 
the first reading. 

It is insisted by gentlemen, and no doubt honestly, 
that in important cases involving questions of fact, 
merely, the right of appeal should be allowed, if not 
secnrecl, as under the former practice of our courts. 
But I think that those who have paid attention to the 
old practice, will bear me out in the remark, that when 
ap[)eal8 are allowed, the trial in the lower court is a 
mere feint, an eflbrt to draw out and get sight of the 
adversary’s hand—the strength of the case being reser¬ 
ved for trial in the snoreme court. 

I can bear testimony to the remark made by the gen¬ 
tleman fron) Butler,[Mr. V.\nck] that under onr piesent 
law compelling the court to try issues of fact, if the par¬ 
ties choose to Waive a trial by jury, a large majority of 
cases are tried by the court without the intervention of 
a jury. The jiarties are allowed ample time to try 
ilieir cas s, and the court take time to delihei at'^. All 
he opportunities which a judicial Irihnnal can afllord, 
for a full and fair trial, are extended to parlies, and they 
are generally pretty well satisfied. 

It is objected against the coinl of final resort—the 
district court, which in a largo majority of cas s will 
he the court of final resort—that it is a mere paper 
court—not a court lor the trial of cases hy jury; a id 
that such a court should he comp »sed of judges accus¬ 
tomed to m ngle in what may he cal led the hurly-burly 
of hu iiiess. But w not this ohject essentially secured? 
A majority of the court must be of the judges accus¬ 
tomed to tryiu'j cases by jury, aud familiar with the 
rules aud details of such trials. 







612 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


I confess that, but for a single object, I do not very 
clearly see the necessity for a court iti bank ; and that 
is, to secure uniformity of decisions. There might be 
danger of a variety of decisions, contradictory decisions, 
in such a multitude of courts, held in different parts of 
the Slate—a result certainly undesirable. For that 
reason only it might be, and it is, important to have a 
court of tinal resort—a court in bank, to wdiich we may 
all recur, as to authoiity. 

Now I submit whether this question of bringing the 
district courts into every county should not be left to 
the wishes of the people and the discretion of the Leg¬ 
islature. If the people should desire this court in the 
different counties of any district, undoubtedly the Leg¬ 
islature would comply, as long as the system itself 
would permit. But may we not out-grow this system, 
as we have out-grown the existing one ? But for the 
unfortunate restriction in the old system, rendering it 
unsusceptible of expansion, this Convention would nev¬ 
er have been called. In the little discussion which I 
heard before the election, two questions only seemed 
to elicit much remark or consideration. One was, to 
deprive the Legislature of the appointing power, the 
other, that the Convention might improve the judicirry 
system. 

Mr. WOODBURY interrupting. Will the gentleman 
allow me to ask him a question ? 

Mr. COLLINGS assented. 

Mr., WOODBURY. Does not my amendment leave 
the question open ? 

Mr. COLLINGS. It does. But how? Leaves it to 
be settled by a vote of the people of the several coun¬ 
ties. I prefer the more practicable mode—of leaving 
it to the Legislalere. 

I have a word to say, or to repeat, as I made a simi¬ 
lar remark some days since, on the habit into which 
we have fallen, of propounding interrogations. Anti 
I assure the gentleman from Ashtabula that I mean 
nothing offensive or disrespectful to him or to the com¬ 
mittee. I fear that these interrogations are not gener¬ 
ally propounded for the sake of the information which 
the answers may impart. They are, I fear thrown in 
as posers, out of a polemic spirit. 

It has been objected that the district system of courts 
will operate to the disadvantage of young lawyers. 
The experience of different men may be different on 
this subject. My experience is that amongst no class 
of men, more than amongst the old memliers of the 
bar, do the young lawyers find friends—men solicitous 
for their success, and ready to advise and assist them. 
I state it with feelings of gratitude, that when I was a 
young man, I never found any difficulty in obtaining 
the advipe and counsel of the older members of the 
bar: I might add, their paternal directions and instruc¬ 
tion. Now, if certain portions of the State should pre¬ 
fer to have the courts held in districts only, could not 
the younger members of the bar avail themselves more 
extensively of this advantage? They would find great 
advantage in the more extensive and free intercourse 
with the older members, unless the profession has 
greatly changed, I might say deteriorated, since I was 
a young man. Now, if we prefer to have a district 
court, two or three times a year, rather than wait until 
the court shall come into the county, why not allow us 
that privilege in a practical way ? 

In view of these considerations, it appears to me that 
the report of the committee is reasonable, and that the 
system recommended may be accomodated and moul¬ 
ded to suit and subserve the interest and wishes of the 
people for half a century, or an indefinite period of 
time. But if we again adopt the county system, busi¬ 
ness will be delayed, and we may soon be compelled 
to call another Convention to remodel the system. At 
the time our present system was constructed it answer¬ 
ed very well; but we have outgrown it. Let us be ad¬ 
monished, and make the present system, as I think the 
report makes it, suited to our present wants, and with 
power of expansion, under the authority of the Legis¬ 


lature, to suit the growing business and wants of the 
people for the future. 

Mr.'ARCHBOLD. 1 feel most profound respect for 
the committee which reported this plan. Deference 
for them has hitherto made me distrust my own judg; 
ment so much that I have remained silent. But I now 
think it due to the occasion to explain my views in a 
few words. The plan of the committee is open to the 
objection of complexity; first, the justices of the peace, 
then the county court, then the common pleas, then the 
district court of errors, and then the supreme court in 
bank. Suppose a judgment of the justice of the peace, 
taken to a couty court and reversed; that judgment 
may be again reversed in the common pleas, the com¬ 
mon pleas judgment in the district court of errors, and 
then the action of all these courts may be reviewed in 
supreme court in bank, a long and tedious process. If 
gentlemen say that in order to get rid of a part of the 
difficulty, they will not clothe the county court with 
any superintending power over the justice^ of the peace, 
they disclose, in my opinion, a material defect in their 
system. It would be highly convenient to have a cheap 
and ready means of reviewing the decisions of the jus¬ 
tices without the tedium and expense of an application 
to the iiigher courts. 

Tne system is complex in another respect; the peo¬ 
ple must elect three judges in one district, which of 
course, will render the district so large that the voters 
can have but little acquaintance with some of the can¬ 
didates, yet each judge sits alone without advice and 
without assistance, for it cannot be supposed that the 
supernumerary judge will volunteer to assist in holding 
courts at his own expense. Then if a writ of error is 
taken to review the decision of the court of common 
pleas the same judge who rendered the judgment com¬ 
plained of, is to compose part of the court of errors. I 
am not in the habit of suspecting corruption. It is an 
unhappy turn of mind which leads a man to such sus¬ 
picions, but upon the common principles of human na¬ 
ture, this judge will be interested in maintaining his 
own decisions, and will be a kind of chamber advo¬ 
cate, infusing his own opinions into the breasts of his 
fellows in private. If the object is to get the judgment 
of the court below confirmed, whether right or wrong, 
this is an admirable contrivance to effect that object. 
The same principle will operate upon the decisions of 
the court in bank, for the plan of the committee sends 
one judge of this court to be a component part of the 
district court of errors, and he will be equally prepared 
to infuse his own prejudices and prepossessions into the 
tribunal of last resort. 

Mr. NASH. And is not the same principle to be 
found in the structure of the supreme court of the Uni¬ 
te,; States ? 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. It is ti’ue that the circuit judges 
of the United States court do compose the supreme 
court of the United States, but each judge only forms 
one ninth part of that court, and this is to be regarded 
as a defect in the system. Moreover the business of 
reviewing the decisions of the circuit court are only a 
part of the functions assigned to the supreme court— 
that court sends its writs of error to the supreme courts 
of the States, and to the district courts of the United 
States. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD observed that this answer, very 
hastily given, might contain a slight inaccuracy—per¬ 
haps there were few cases in which the supreme court 
of the United States sent a writ of error to the district 
couiTs—the judgment of the district courts, are gene¬ 
rally reviewed in the circuit courts. 

The question was taken upon the amendment of Mr. 
Woodbury, and it was rejected, affirmative 30, negative 
37. 

No further amendment being offered to the third sec¬ 
tion, it was passed over. 

The CHAIRMAN now announced the consideration 
of the fourth section of the report and it was read as 
follows; 























CONVENTION REPORTS 


613 


Sec. 4. There shall be established in each county ot the State 
a court of record, to be called the county court, to be holden bv 
by one judge elected by the qualified voters of the county, w ith 
jurisdiction in habeas corpus, of probate and administration, the 
issuing and revocation of letters testamentary, letters of admin¬ 
istration and guardainship, the settlement of accounts of execu¬ 
tors, administrators and guardians, and such appellate jurisdiction 
in civil cases, and such original and appellate jurisdiction in crim¬ 
inal cases, as may be provided by law. The general Assembly 
may confer on this court jurisdiction for the sale of lands by ex¬ 
ecutors, administrators and guardians. ^ 

the'county judge shall be three years 
Md he shall leceive such compensation, payable out of the coun 
ty treasury, and such fees in probate administration and guardian 
ship, as shall be provided by law. ° 

All. HU.VIPHREVJLLE proposed to amend ihissec- 
M all the words after the word “ guar¬ 

dian, m the 7 th line, to the end of the 10th line, tc 
wit: by striking out the words “and such appellate 
jurisdiction in civil case.s, and .such original and appel¬ 
late junsdiction in criminal cases as may be provided 
by avy. The General Assembly may confer on this 
court junsdiction for the sale of lands by executors, 
administrators and guardians,” and inserting, in lieu 
thereot these vyords: “ such original and appellate: ju- 
risdictioii 111 civil and criminal cases as may be provided 


The chairman having stated the question— 

Ml. humphREVJLLE, after rehearsing the section 
as originally reported, said: By the report of the com¬ 
mittee this court can have no jurisdiction in civil mat 
ters other than that connected with the settlement of the 
estates or decedents and business properly belonmii" 
to the court of probate, except that which is taken by 
an appeal from the courts of the justices of the peace; 
but It mpy have any amount of appellate and original 
jurisdiction in criminal matters which the Legislature 
may determine. Now I want to change this so as to 
leave it open for the Legislature to add to the civil ju- 
iisdiction of this court any amount which they may 
see ht; especially ill small matters of collection, say a 
junsdiction over all sums less than from three hundred 
aollars to five hundred dollars, which ought not to be 
delayed by the unfrequency of the’terms of the higher 
court cases in which no intricate questions of the law 
aie involved, and which may be all readily determined. 
It there is any reason tW giving to this court jurisdic¬ 
tion ol cases appealed from the justices’courts, 1 would 
suggest th it there is just as much reason for giving a 
small jurisdiction in other civil matters. The ques¬ 
tions of law involved in cases appealed from the courts 
of cf.mmoii pleas are always intricate, and the only 
reason why the cases appealed from magistrates’ courts 
may be determined by a tribunal of less legal acquire¬ 
ments is, because the amount involved i.s always small. 
Now, to my mind, this is a very insufficient reason, if 
It lie any rea.son at all, because the suitors have just as 
great an interest: that is, they will /cc/just as great an 
iiiierestin the adjudication of a case involving ninety 
dollars, as in the adjudication of a case involving an 
hnrdred and ten dollars; if there is any difference, it 
is so slight that I can hardly perceive it. If a court of 
this kind is to be established in each county, having 
jurisdiction in minor criminal offences and appeals, I 
can see no good reason why it should not have original 
jurisdiction in minor civil ca.ses. I do not undertake 
to say that the people wish the jurisdiction of the 
county court extended to civil and criminal cases. Still 
it may be so. This far I do know, that in the jiart of 
the State where I reside, the people demand a separate 
probate court; and then it becomes a mere question o 
policy or convenience whether the Legislature shall 
give this coui’t any additional jurisdiction or not. If 
the amendment which I have offered jirevails, it will 
be left entirely discretionary with the General Assem¬ 
bly, either to make this court exlnsively a court of pro¬ 
bate, or give it any other civil and criminal jurisdiction 
they may see fit. I am willing to trust the Legislature 
in ihi.s matter. 

I will state here, that I have offered, substantially, 
this same amendment in the committee, and for what 


they supposed to be good reasons, the majority of 
the committee rejected it; But I hope it will not be 
voted down here. For I know there are men upon 
this floor, who are anxious that this court shall be made 
something more than a mere court of probate. 

Now, although I have declared that 1 disliked many 
leatures of this report; although it contains some fea¬ 
tures to which I have insuperable objections; yet what¬ 
ever I projioae, by way of amendment, will be propo¬ 
sed in order to make the report as perfect as it can be 
made, in my opinion. I shall vote for no amendment 
for the purpose of making the report objectionable. 
For if we are bound to take the report in some shape, 
I prefer that it should be as unexceptionable as possi¬ 
ble. But, after all the amendments shall be made to 
the report which are likely to be made, it will still 
contain some features which may induce me to vote 
against the whole. 

I have strong objections to the “district court” fea¬ 
ture of the system, and hope it will be stricken out en¬ 
tirely. If it is not, I may vote against the whole re¬ 
port. 

Mr. MASON briefly animadverted upon the argument 
of the gentleman from Medina, [Mr. Humphreville,] 
and remarked that the inconsistency of his course—and 
he meant no offence—must be apparent to every one. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I do not rise for the pur¬ 
pose of replying to any arj£ument, but merely to notice 
the gentleman’s charge of inconsistency. The section, 
as it now stands, leaves the question of giving to this 
court jurisdiction in criminal cases, open to be settled 
by the Legislature. Ido nota.sk to change this fea¬ 
ture; all I ask is, to open the legislative discretion a 
little further, and say that the Legislature may extend 
their jurisdiction in civil matters. Now, is this course 
liable to the charge of inconsistency ? If it is right to 
give this discretion in one case, it is in the other. I 
have uniformly, in this Convention, held myself willing 
to trust the Legislature in these matters; and the only 
reason why T objected in the former session to leaving 
so much to the Legislature, was because we were told, 
by the friends of lliis report, that it would be impossi¬ 
ble for the Legis’ature to confer the jurisdiction pro¬ 
posed, and that it would break down the system. 
With regard to the aristocracy of the matter, that is all 
in the iientleman’s imagination; if an appeal from the 
justice’.s court in criminal matters is not aristocratic, I 
cannot see why an appeal in civil matters would be ar¬ 
istocratic; it IS all make-weight with the gentleman. 
But, I would be glad for the gentleman to tell us, how 
long since he became a convert to this report? For I 
could a tale unfold, in this matter, which, I think, would 
show up the consistency of the gentleman from Adams 
in no very favorable light; but I will not. 

Mr. McCORMICK (in his seat.) Say it out. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I will not do it. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga said that so far as the 
questions now before the committee is concerned, it 
makes no difference whether it form a part of this or 
of any other bill. It is by no means peculiar to this 
system, and he believed there was a general impression 
among the ipembets of the Convention, and an equally 
general wish among the people, that there should be, 
under the new constitution a court for the transaction 
of fu’obate and testamentary, and other business con¬ 
nected with the settlement of estates. This court, it is 

understood, in order to meet the wants ol the people, 

should be a separate trilninal. The extent of its juris¬ 
diction may as well be fixed here, as that ot the other 
courts of the system, and the (piestion presented by the 
amendment ot the gentleman from Richland, demands 
of U.S to consider calmly whether we shall have a court 
merely of probate, or whether another, more extensive 
and costly jurisdiction shall be created. 

The section as reported calls it a county court. Its 
object i.s to confer a probate jurisdiction, and that alone. 
If gentlemen want a greater or less, they can express 
it by their votes upon the several propositions now be- 











614 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


fore the committee. If the former, they can fuppoi t 
that ol the gentleman from Richland, [Mr. Kirkwood] 
if the latter, that of tlie gentleman from Medina [Mr. 
Humphreville.] My own opinions have not hecii 
very decided in the matter. 1 have, however, been 
led to conclude that, all things considered, we should 
establish no other new tribunal than this court, and 
that this should be a probate court. If it is merely a 
probate court, it cannot have of course, and ought not 
to exercise a jurisdiction either at common law or in 
chancery. Heretofore I have be- n entirely of the opin¬ 
ion that we had better confine its jurisdiction to the 
subject of probate atlairs; but as at present advised, 
shall go for the amendment of the gentleman from Rich¬ 
land, to confer a limited criminal jurisdiction ujjon the 
court, unless convinced to the contraiy, by future re¬ 
flection. ' 

A court merely for the purpose of transacting pro¬ 
bate business, would not require a gentleman learned 
in the law as ,its judge. Any gentleman of ordinary 
intelligence and common sense, w’ho is a good accouni- 
ant, would fill the place as well as a lawyer; perhaps 
better. There are no intricate questions of law to be 
settled and decided, and if occasionally such should 
arise, the Legislature would undoubtedly make provi?- 
ion for their reference to a higher tribunal fcr adjudi¬ 
cation. Such is the practice in other States, and it has 
met with very general approval. In general the en¬ 
tire business of settling estates is committed to its hands, 
and it is only when occasionally intricate questions 
arise, that reference is had to any other. 

1 wish for myself to have this duty executed by’ per¬ 
sons who are not members of the legal profession. Of 
course I do not object to lawyers, if the people desire 
it; but it can be done by others, if too large a jurisdic¬ 
tion be not created; and I, for one, desire that the 
place shall not be such as that it shall require to be fil¬ 
led by a professional man, and no other. 

The objection of the gentleman from Adams [Mr. 
McCormick] to this limitation of the duties of the 
county court, is, that there is a class of cases with 
which the court of common pleas should not be troub¬ 
led, such as appeals from the courts of the justices of 
the peace. Now the legal questions that come before 
justices of the peace for adjudication, are perhaps as 
intricate as any other. Gentlemen of the legal profes¬ 
sion very well know that it is not the amount in con¬ 
troversy that is the cause of the intricacy of the ques¬ 
tion, it s the nature of the matter in dispute. But 
where the matter is very trifling, it is, in many cases, 
far better that there should be a slight departure fiom 
the strictest rules of justice, rather than the parties liti¬ 
gant be forced in pursuit or defence of their right to an 
expense far exceeding the amount in controversy.— 
Considerations of policy and prudence would dictate 
that it is better to sacrifice a few dollars to the wrong, 
rather than hundreds and thousands in pursuit of a 
right, of very small consequence; and that it is bettei 
to have causes of minor importance determined cheap¬ 
ly and quickly, even if they are not decided in strict 
accordance with law. It strikes me that such causes 
had better be decided by a justice of the peace, than 
go to any other tribunal. But this does not affect the 
question now before the committee. Heretofore ap¬ 
peals have been permitted, in some form or other, from 
the lowest court known to the law, to the very high¬ 
est; and my friend from Adams thinks that the court 
of common pleas will be unable to transact the busi¬ 
ness cast into its hands, unless there is an intermediate 
court to take charge of appeals from courts of justices 
of the peace. How is this? This bill creates a court 
of common pleas, consisting of twenty.seven judges of 
origiiinl jurisdiction. Now, including the two extra 
courts at Cincinnati and one in Cleveland, there are, 
under the present system, twenty-two judges. Wt 
have added five to that number. We have so provided 
that each one of these judges may hold a court; so that 
there may be three in session in each district at the 


same time, if the General Assembly shall so require? 
so that there are five more courts of common pleas 
than at present. It seems to me that the court of com¬ 
mon pleas might determine all the causes likely to come 
before it; so that no intermediate court, for the trial ol 
appeals, will be necessary for its relief in civil matters. 

How is it in criminal? This court may be entrusted 
with the trial and punishment of minor oflences; but 
this business might just as well be placed in the hands 
of the justices of the peace. Why has it not heretofore 
been done in that way? Because there is a clause in 
the constitution, requiring that no man shall be holden 
to answer a criminal charge, except on presentation of 
a grand jury. That clause in the constitution preven¬ 
ted many reforms in the jurisprudence of the State. It 
stood in the way of many changes that might have 
been made, of great jiublic benefit. It is true that 
this clause, ora similar provision, may be continned in 
the new constitution. I hope not. I think the minor 
offences may as well be prosecuted on inlormation of 
the prosecuting attorney, as on presentation by a grand 
jury. Ofiences of a difi’erent grade, and greater enor¬ 
mity—those punished capitally or by imprisonment in 
the penitentiary, should in all cases come into court by 
the finding of a grand jury. If this provision is contin¬ 
ued in the constitution, it will render necessary the 
empannelment of a grand jury by the county court, 
and will impose upon it all thecomplicati d machinery 
of a high court of criminal jurisdiction. But I believe 
that the court of common pleas, as constructed by this 
bill, will supercede the necessity for the transfer of 
any business to the county court, except that relating 
to probate affairs and the settlement of estates. 

The question as it now stands, then is—do you de¬ 
sire that the county court should have a jurisdiction 
more extensive than that of a probate court? If so, 
you will go for the amendment of the gentleman from j 
Medina. Being desirous to restrict this jurisdiction as i 
far as possible, and to confine it as nearly as practicable 
to probate matters, I shall, as at present advised, sup- ^ 
port that of the gentleman from Richland. j 

Mr. MITCHELL desired to inquire of the gentle- i 
man from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock] if he would have 
any serious objection to an amendment which should 
confer upon the county court jurisdiction in cases of 
partition and dower. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said that that subject had been 
before the committee and was discussed, though he 
could not state definitely how the committee stood up¬ 
on it. His own opinion was, that the cases in ques- | 
tion frequently involved difficult and intricate questons, j 
and that as they were not properly included in probate ■ 
business, they had better be left to the court of com¬ 
mon pleas. 

On motion by Mr. RIDDLE, the committee rose, 
reported no conclusion,” and obtained leave to sit 
again. 

And then, on motion by Mr. NASH, the Convention 
took a rece.ss. 

3 o’clock p. m. 

Mr. EWART said that it seemed to him that the 
committee who rejiorted this bill, to be consistent with 
themselves, would have to vote for it. They reported 
a provision in relation to district courts—which had 
been discussed here for a week—in which they asked I 
the privilege to have it left to the Legislature to decide 
whether this court should be held in one or two places 
in a district, and when demanded by the people, to es¬ 
tablish other termsof the court. [Indistinctly heard.] 

It might be that they contemplated conferring cei tain 
jurisdiction on the j)robate judge; but he knew that 
the [mobiite business did not occupy more than one 
day in the term of the court in his county. So that ; 
the probate judge would be but little relief. Thepeo- i 
pie complained as much, however, in regard to the 
adjudication of minor ofiences, and of the expense to I 
which the county was put by delay in disposing of ! 














CONVENTION REPORTS 


615 


hem, as they did of probate matters. They deemed 
jt proper that a court should be established for the 
transaction of those cases as well as for the disposal of 
other cases. He did not see why it could no. be left 
to the General Assembly to fix the jurisdiction of the 
o:her courts created. There might be such a state of 
things here in tweuty years hence as would induce 
the people to desire to increase the jurisdiction of this 
court. Then he desired to leave this part of the judi¬ 
ciary system in such a manner that it could be increas¬ 
ed and suited to the circumstances of the })eo})le as 
they might be a quarter of a century hence. He be¬ 
lieved that if they did not, the people would again call 
for an amendment of the constitution in this particular. 
Let us not fall into the same error in regard to this 
constitution that was fallen into by the old convention, 
in not leaving enough to the discretion of the General 
Assembly. 

The question being then about to be put, Mr. STAN- 
BERY demanded a division and the question then 
turned upon striking out. 

Mr. TAYLOR moved to amend by inserting aber the 
word “ guardians,” in the 7th line, the following words, 
“the sale of lands by executcu-s, administrators and 
guai'dians,” and strike out the ninth and tenth lines. 
The object of this amendment, (said Mr. T.,) was to 
establish this power in the probate court, and not to 
leave so much to the discretion of the Legislature. It 
was not intended that this court w'as to be final in its 
decisions, or that appeals might not be taken from it to 
a superior court. It was to be an administrative court 
alone : then why not give it the right to sell lands for 
probate pur]) 08 es ? 

Mr SWAN. To obtain a well qualified county judge, 
a salary would be required of about one thousand dol¬ 
lars a year. This would create an expense of eighty- 
seven thousand dollars, wh ch must be incurred if you 
give the court original jurisdiction in civil cases. This 
would be paying too much for the benefits whichmight 
accrue from such a court. With the same expenditure 
you could have a circuit court of three judges which 
could sit in each county every ninety days. The true 
rule, it seems to me, is to make no more judges than 
is necessary to do the judicial business—in other words, 
compel the judges to work h:ird, and pay them well. 

That we .shall have better judges than we have here¬ 
tofore had, by giving their appointment to the people, 

I have no doubt. There are less evils to be apprehen¬ 
ded from this mode of appointment than any other. 
But a judge, elected for a single county, and residing 
in it, must necessarily mingle with and be ojierated up¬ 
on more or less by the local excitements and political 
incidents of the county. There is a very general com¬ 
plaint that the county officers at county seats form a 
peculiar party combination among themselves; and, if 
this be so, he would very naturally form a constituent 
portion of such a clique. A judge with a constituency 
so limited, and mixed up wall) the politics of his coun¬ 
ty, might be so weak as to have one eye to the cause 
before him, and another to the state of public opinion, 
if the cause were one that aroused public discussion. 
So, when the time for his re-election was approaching, 
there might be questions pending, the,decision'of which 
might echo from the ballot-box. I would, as far as is 
expedient, protect the minds of judges from any such 
deleteiious inlluences. A county judge would be more 
liable to these inlluences, which no one would desire 
should 0 ])erate upon any court in the administration of 
justice. Judges therefore elected by a larger constitu¬ 
ency than a single county are to be preferred, if the 
court is to have a general civil jurisdiction. 

Mr. HAWKINS observed that it ap[)eared to him 
to be the desire here to provide too many coui ts for the 
discharge of the necessary judicial duties. It seemed 
as though it were antiei[>at('d by niembers here, that 
litigaiioii was going to be the principal hnsiness'of the 
State, and at every point we turned we should have a 
court He hoped that this was not the case. . He had 


supposed that the object here was to make a proper 
division of the business, and to provide couits of infe¬ 
rior and superior giades, so that each might be within 
its own proper sphere, and mind its own business. It 
was his opinion that this probate court should he strict¬ 
ly such a court as its title indicated. He would not 
object to its having jurisdiction over small criminal ca¬ 
ses, also, but beyond that he would not go. He would 
go so far, because he imagined that this court might 
discharge some important duties in the disposal of 
criminal cases, and by so doing save the county consid¬ 
erable expense. He should be oj)posed to giving it 
any civil jurisdiction; and he should be specially op¬ 
posed to requiring by a constitutional provision that 
such a jhrisdictiou should be conferred upon it. He 
knew, however, that it was generally desired to have 
some such court, in order that they should not be at 
the expense of these call courts, as they had been 
heretofore. 

Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE observed that, in regard to 
the objection as to the cost of these courrs, the objec¬ 
tion applied as much to the report itself as to the 
amendment. If the Legislature determined to give 
these courts a criminal and civil jurisdiction, it would 
require a better lawyer for judge than if they gave it 
but a limited civil jurisdiction. 

The gentleman [Mr. Swan] .seemed to suppose that 
we were creating a great over-grown system, if this 
amendment prevailed. It was not so: it was only leav¬ 
ing it open to the Legislature, ifthey should see lit and 
the circumstances of the country required it, to give 
these courts a limited jurisdiction. He conceived that 
objection would also apply to the election of judges by 
the people. Dared he not trust the election of our 
judges to the people ? Would the judges be so cor¬ 
rupt as to knock upon the ballot box to see what would 
be the efl’ect of his decision there ? If so take it from 
the people to elect their judges at all. Do not give 
them that power. But he did not believe that there 
was so little virtue left among men as would induce 
them to act so corriqdly. But then it was argued that 
this county judge was going to form one of this county 
“clique ” in order to secure his seat upon the bench. 
He thought that argument unworthy of the gentleman 
'Mr. Swan] who had advanced it. He [Mr. H.] did 
not know how that matter might stand in the gentle¬ 
man’s portion ol the State, but he knew that in his 
own section of the country such was not the case. Per¬ 
haps the subject was only brought in as a bug-bear to 
frighten gentlemen; but it was immaterial to him wheth¬ 
er the amendment w’ere adopted or not. 

Mr. STILWELL said that the amendment proposed 
by the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. Taylor,] was, on 
lirstvievv, very plausible, but a further examination of 
the case would satisfy all that it would be very imwite 
to adopt it. The leading idea of the committee was to 
constitute this court in such a maimer as not to require 
I he services of a lawyer, but to have some man conver¬ 
sant with business, to transact the business ol the office. 
But when we came to laud titles, it was an entirely 
different thing. We then required legal skill to ad¬ 
judicate upon them, so as to avoid litigation hereafter. 
All knew that an enormous amount ot litigation had 
taken place throughout the State for the last thirty 
years, arising out of imperfect titles, bought under ad¬ 
ministrator’s sales. Now, might not such litigation 
rise out of the decisiorisol acoui tsuch as was pro[)()8ed 
to be constituted? Common sense alone \vas not suffi¬ 
cient to decide on these nice abstract princi[)le8 ol ti¬ 
tle. The committee therefore thought it would not be 
wise to vest this power directly in the judge ot pro¬ 
bate, but raiher to leave it to the Legislature to grant 
it herealter. They thought that those anilicial rules 
relating to to titles and liens on land, might hereafter be 
so changed as to admit of this power being conleiTed 
with safety. 11 there should be any necessity, on ti e 
settlement of accimnts before this probate judge, for 
the sale of lands for probate purpose, the same could 














616 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


be certified to the court of common pleas, who could 
determine as to the necessity for the sale. 

The question being on the amendment offered by the 
genilemaii from Erie, [Mr. Tayloh,] the same was put, 
and the committee divided as follows—affirmative 20, 
negative 41. 

The amendment still remained pending, no quorum 
voting. 

Mr. TAYLOR remarked that the gentleman from 
Muskingum, [Mr. Stilwell,] took exception to his 
amendment, yet the very section before us provided 
that the Legislature might confer jurisdiction in the 
way proposed by him. The simple question was- 
whelher the sale of lands by administrators, executors 
and guardians, should not be made a portion of the ju¬ 
risdiction of the probate courts. Was not that a func¬ 
tion with which he ought to be clotlied as much as with 
any other lunction contemplated by this section ? The 
gentleman spoke of “ the nicety of land titles.” Was 
the adjustment of land titles nicer than the ascertain 
ment, by the probate judge, of a dying man’s wishes 
and sentiments in regard to the disposition of his ])rop- 
erty ? Here, then, was an important function withheld 
from the court of probate and left as a subject for fu¬ 
ture legislation. Did gentlemen want to brand this 
court from the first, as being incapable to discharge 
probate duties? Certainly not. If we established a 
piobale court there, we most assuredly should give the 
judge all 2 >roper jurisdiction, for this court would have 
the review of as nice questions as any other in the 
country, and it was to confer such necessary j^owers, 
that the amendment was proposed. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga said he had always 
suj)posed that as a matter of course, a jtrobate court 
and probate judge had nothing to do with a man dy¬ 
ing intestate. The probate duties of a probate court 
were to take charge and dispose of a man’s jiersonal 
property, jiay, and collect in his debts. There was a 
lime when, under our law', the probate court could not 
direct the sale of lands for the 2 )urpose of paying the 
decedents debts. But the Legislature interfered and 
said that where the personal estate was to pay the 
debts, the court of common pleas should be empowered 
to authorize the administrator to sell the lands, and the 
efi’ects to become assetts to pay the debts of the dece¬ 
dent. Such had been our practice since 180G. The 
gentleman was mistaken in su 2 )posing that probate 
courts exercised this power of sale. In Indiana, he 
would find there that the probate courts did not author¬ 
ize the sale of lands: if it were necetsary to sell real 
es'ate, the administrator applied for the power to do so, 
not to the i>robate, but to tlje circuit court. 

This was entirely a question of i)olicy. Here, real 
estate, and the title to real estate, w’^as very much in¬ 
volved. He knew that in different parts of the State, 
the sources of title were different, and the rules of law, 
as applicable to real estate, were also very difiereiit. 
On the Connecticut Western Reserve, we derived our 
title from the State of Connecticut, and the rule of 
law was j)ecnliar to that state of case. Again, in Sou¬ 
thern j)arts of the State, the title is derived from the 
United States; along the Ohio river, up to Marietta, 
there was another title, derived from the Ohio Compa¬ 
ny ; and, then, from the Scioto to the Little Miami riv¬ 
er, there were the Virginia Military Lands, and in that 
part ol the State, the title was most uncertain. Besides 
we had the United States lands, and other districts. In 
all of these sections of the country, there was a very 
great variety of title. The (piestion then was, to per¬ 
mit the administrator to sell his decedent’s land Ihr .ngh 
the intervention of the court of common pleas, or to al¬ 
low the probate judge to sell, or authorize the sale of 
the property. Now, as was well remarked by the gen¬ 
tleman from Muskingum, [Mr. Stilwell.] there was 
no subject which had caused more litigation, than the 
sale ot lands by administrators, and guardians, &c. It 
had always been a fruitful source of litigation, since he 
[Mr. H.] came into the State. It seemed to him, tube 


best to leave this matter as it now was, and not to give 
this power to the probate court. 

After some further cursory remarks, from Messrs. 
IIuMPHREviLLE, Taylor, Hitchcock, and otliers— 

The question, on the adoption of the amendment, 

[Mr. Tavlor’s,] wasput. 

The committee then divided as follows—affirmative 
23—negative 49. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then turned on the amendment of the 
gentleman from Medina, [Mr. Humphreville.] 

Mr. STANBERY called for a division of the question, 
which then recurred on striking out; the same was put, 
and the committee divided in this wise: affirmative34 
—negative 35. 

There being no quorum voting, the question was put 
again; and a division being had, resulted, affirmative 
38—negative 44. 

The question then being upon inserting the amend¬ 
ment, (Mr. Humphreville’s,) it was put, and carried: 
affirmative 44—negative 32. 

Mr. GREGG moved to amend by adding the follow- 
lowing to come in at the end of the section. 

“ The said county judge shall also be an associate judge of the 
common pleas, and in case of division, the opinion of the judge 
of the court of common pleas shall rule the court.” 

A Voice. Rule the roast, (laughter.) 

Mr. GREGG remarked that the county judge to be 
elected under this section would be something in the 
nature of a puisance. In order then to give that coun¬ 
ty judge a proper training, he jnoposed to put him on 
the bench with the judge of the cammon jdeas, and du¬ 
ring the absence of the other judge to let him stay in 
court and attend to business. 

The question was then put and it was found there 
was no quorum voting. 

Mr. ROBERTSON thought the amendment a very 
sensible one, and suggested the proiniety of adopting 
it. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD would favor the amendment. We 
had got now, as he understood it, two courts with iden¬ 
tically the same jurisdiction. By the amendment just 
now adopted, he had provided that the Legislature 
should have the power to give the same jurisdiction, 

“ original and ajipellate,” in all class of cases, to this 
county court, as was proposed to be given to the court 
of common pleas. We had better, then, put these two 
judges together. If the county judge were to do the 
same kind of business as the common pleas judge would, 
he would necessarily have to be an attorney, for it was 
understood that the common pleas judge was; at least 
no tine had denied it. 

Mr. GREGG observed that his amendment was based 
on the idea tha t there was to be something of difference 
in the jurisdiction of the two courts. His idea was. 
that the judges, in some cases, might be like the judge 
alluded toby the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] 
and therefore he desired to place these judges on the 
bench, in order to have them jnoperly trained. 

A debate of some linsth here sjirung up, in refer¬ 
ence to the amendment [Mr. Humphreville’s] which 
had just previously been adopted. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, in the course of his remarks, re¬ 
ferred to that amendment as an indirect attack upon 
the report. He considered the effect of it would be to 
break down the whole plan. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE denied having any sinister 
motive, in having offered the amendment; he had given 
notice in committee of his intention to propose it. 

The discussion was terminated at the suggestion of 
Mr. LOUDON, who considered a debate ujion that 
question, at the {iresent stage of proceedings, entirely 
out of order. 

The question pending being on the amendment offer¬ 
ed by the gentleman from Columbiana, [Mr. Gregg,] 
the same was put, and, a division being had, it resulted: 
affirmative 13; negative vote not counted. 

The question was lost 













CONVENTION REPORTS 


617 


Mr. THOMPSON of Shelby moved lo reconsider the 
vote last had on the motion of the gentleman from Me¬ 
dina, [Mr. HuMPHnEvir.T.E.J He had voted for strilv- 
ing out, but against inserting. If in order, he would 
make this motion. 

Mr. HUMPHllEVILLB remarked, that of course 
the gentleman would move to i’i*considcr the votes in 
the order in which they were originally taken. 

Mr. VANCE ot Butler having \u)ted in the majority 
moved that the vote be re-considered, by which the 
words moved to be inserted by the gentleman from 
Medina were inserted. 

1 he vote was re-considered—affirmative 40, nega¬ 
tive 27. ° 

Mr. SAWYER wished to know if there were any 
good reasons tor ad-.pting this course. Unless there 
was some very important object to be gained there was 
no use in re-considering. 

Mr. THOMPSON ot Shelby said that the motion 
which he had made to re consider, was made not of his 
otvn accord, but at the suggestion of a tricijd. He was 
in favor, however, of re-considering. He had not ta¬ 
ken any part in the discussion which had arisen on 
this report. He had wished rather to sit as a listener 
and allow the friends ot the report to make it as per 
feet as they could ; nor had he taken much part in the 
various propositions which had been made to alter or 
iimend it. He was not satisfied himself with several 
features of the report. He thought that perhaps it 
would be the better j^lan that we should endeavor to 
remove the objectionable features of the article in or¬ 
der to render it as perfect as possible, so that if any 
other better system be proposed we could choos.j be¬ 
tween them. He was anxious for this re-consideration 
because it occurred to him that the friends of the re¬ 
port had not properly considered the matter when vo¬ 
ting on the proposition. It appeared to him that the 
creation of this court as provided for in the report, or as 
provided for by the amendment of the gentleman from 
Medi ua, [Mr. Humphreville j would prove an almost 
insuperable objection to the adoption of the entire re¬ 
port, What did we do ? We created a court having, 
he might say, a concurrent jurisdiction with the court 
of common pleas. Though we did not absolutely give 
it, yet we allowed the Legislature to confer that juris¬ 
diction. 

This creation of two courts with the same powers, 
he conceived to be entirely unnecessary, tf we gave 
to this probate court, (as it had been termed,) such an 
extent of jurisdiction, we consequently elevated its 
character—not that we made it any more respectable, 
fur respectability did not always depend on place oi- 
power—but we increased its importance. We would 
then have to provide for a judge with a large salary. 
It had been said here that we could not get persons to 
discharge the duties of that judgeship for less than a 
thousand dollars a year. What woulil that amount to 
in the year for the whole State? To the moderate sum 
of $87,000!! To do what? To do that which the 
courts of common pleas ought to do, and which prop¬ 
erly belonged to that court. He would make it the 
court which we were led to expect it to be—a probate 
court merely. The power of issuing writs of habeas 
corpvs might be given to this court; or it might act as 
an examining court; but lie would give it a very limit 
ed jurisdiction—just sufficient to meet the nece,ssities 
case. 

One word in regard to the argument that we were leav¬ 
ing to the Legislature, that for which we provided in 
some cases ourselves. We must necessarily leave a 
large margin to that respectable body ; but he was op¬ 
posed to leaving so much as had been proposed. What 
did we meet here for? Was it not to establish in our 
organic law, a law that could not be violated with im¬ 
punity, and to establish in that law safeguards for the 
rights of the people ? He apprehended that if we 
gave this power to that court, it would go on increas¬ 
ing until at last it would become a rival of your com¬ 


mon pleas courts. He would leave to the Legislature 
then, as small a margin as possible in this matter, and 
only such powers as the necessities of the times might 
require. He desired, therefore, that these words 
struck out be left out and better substituted in their 
stead, granting but a small jurisdiction. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. The gentleman from Shelby wish¬ 
es to leave a very inconsiderable mat gin of discretion 
to the General Assembly, this is the very principle that 
will make conventions to revise the constitution fre¬ 
quent. We are sitting here now in consequence of 
sucha. principle operating upon the Convention of 1802. 
That body was unfortunately disposed to leave to the 
General Assembly a very narrow margin of discretion in 
the matter of the judicial courts. The difference ofasin- 
gle line might have saved the people the trouble and ex¬ 
pense ofcalling this convention. Had the old constitution 
provided that the supreme court should consist of such 
number of judges as should be from time to time pro¬ 
vided by law, they might now have been sitting under 
their own vine and lig tree, with none to molest 
or make them afraid. It was the defects in the con¬ 
stitution of the supreme court that occasioned the 
struggle for an amended constitution. 

Mr, HUMPHREVILLE observed in reference to 
what had been said as to the propriety of permit¬ 
ting the friends of this report to {)erfect it, that he con¬ 
sidered it of no matter from what quarter an amend¬ 
ment came. If it were not by amendment, how were 
the objectionable features of this I'eport to be remedied? 
He considered the argument advanced by the gentle¬ 
man from Richland, as got up for mere effect—viz: that 
the two courts under the operation of the amendment 
would be identical. Could not the legislature, if it gave 
this court any civil jurisdiction, that it would be only 
to the amouut of $300, and an appellate jurisdiction 
from the justice of the peace ? Or if they did give this 
court a concurrent jurisdiclidn, it would not be an an¬ 
omaly, because under the })resent system, the supreme 
court had a concurrent, jurisdiction with the court of 
common pleas, in cases involving over $1,000. 

Mr. THOMPSON of Shelby, tliought it rather unfor¬ 
tunate for the gentleman to quote the concurrent juris¬ 
diction ot the supremo and the common pleas courts. 
How many suits of $800 would be brought in the court 
of common pleas, if we gave this county court the ju¬ 
risdiction proposed to be given it? Although the su¬ 
preme court has a concurrent jurisdiction with the com¬ 
mon pleas in all sums over $1000, yet who knevy of 
suits being commenced in that court? They might 
have occurred, but they were exceedingly rare. 

After some further conversational debate, in which 
Messrs. Nash, Humphreville, Hitchcock and Hor¬ 
ton participated, the pending question, which was on 
the reconsideration of the vote inserting the amendment 
of the gentleman from Medina, was then put, and the 
committee divided so: affirmative 44, negative not 
counted, and the question was declared carried. 

The question then turned upon the insertion of the 
proposed amendment. (Mr. Humphreville’s ) 

Mr. LARSH moved to amend the amendment by ad¬ 
ding the following words ; “ that appeals shall not be 
allowed from the court of common pleas to the county 
court.” 

Mr. LARWILL moved that the committee rise. 

The committee refused to rise. 

The question being upon the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment presented by the gentleman from 1 leble [Mr. 
Larsh] the same was put; whereupon the committee 
divided—80: affirmative, 19—negative not counted. 

The amendment was lost. 

The question then recurring being on the insertion of 
the amendment [Mr. Humphrkvili.e’s] was then put 
and lost—affirmative 38—negative 44. 

Mr. REEMBLIN then moved to reconsider the vote 
by which the original words were stricken from the 
section. 

On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, the committee rose. 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


618 


reporti'd progress, and asked and obtained leave to sit 
again. 

On motion of Mr. LIDEY, the Convention adjourned. 

WEDNESDAY, July 3, 1850. 

8 o’clock, a. m. 

I’rayer by Rev. Mr. Donahoo. 

Mr. HAWKINS presented the memorial ol Lucinda 
Love and fourteen other females of Morgan county, 
praying that such provisions may be inserted in the 
new constitution, as shall restore to woman her rights, 
without impairing or in any way abridging those be¬ 
longing to man. 

Upon his motion it was referred to the committee on 
Miscellaneous Subjects and Ih’opositions. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler presented the petition of Wil¬ 
liam H. Crane and thirty other citizens ol Butler coun¬ 
ty. praying that a provision be inserted in the new con¬ 
stitution, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any 
law legalizing the traffic in spiritous liquors. 

Referred to the select committee on the subject ol 
Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. LARSll offered the followi jg resolution : 

Resolved, That when the Convention adjourns to-day,'it will 
adjourn until Friday rnorumg, the 5th instant, at 8 o’clock, A. M. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross moved to amend the resolution 
by striking out the word “ eight,’’ and insert the word 
‘‘nine.’’ 

Mr. HOLT moved to amend the amendment by stri¬ 
kin': out the words “ Friday morning, the 5th instant, 
at 8 o’clock, A. M.,” and insert the words “ Monday 
morning next at 9 o’clock, A. M.” 

Mr. WOODBURY having demanded a division, the 
question first being on striking out the word “eight,” 
and inserting the word “ nine,” it was not agreed to. 

The question then being on amending the resolution 
by stiiking out the words “ Friday morning, the 5th 
instant, at 8 o’clock. A, M.,” and inserting the words 
“Monday morning next, at 9 o’clock, A. M.,” it was 
not agreed to. 

The resolution w’as then adopted. 

Mr. PERKINS offered the following resolution: 

Resolved, That such of the standing committees and select com¬ 
mittees as have not yet reported, be required to report as soon as 
Monday next, or as early thereafter as possible. 

Which was agreed to. 

Upon motion ol Mr. RIDDLE, the Convention then 
resolved itself into a committee of the Whole, (Mr. 
Bennett in the Chair,) and resumed the consideration 
ol report number on<‘, of the committee on 

THE JUDICIARY. 

The question when the Convention adjourned, which 
was to reconsider the first division of the amendment 
of the gentleman from Medina, [Mr. Humphreville] 
being undisposed of, was taken, and the same was dis¬ 
agreed to. 

Mr. EWART i ffered to amend by inserting in the 
place of the words stricken out: “ The General Assem¬ 
bly may confer upon this court such additional jurisdic¬ 
tion as may from time to time be deemed expedient.” 

Mr. HAWKINS suggested that there was an identity 
betwt en the amendment now offered and the one which 
had been offered by the gentleman from Medina. Al¬ 
though the phraseology might be a little different, yet 
in effect they were the same propositions. 

Mr. HORTON thought that the two propositions 
were identical. If he understood the amendment offer¬ 
ed by the gentleman from Washington, it gives full 
discretion to the court in the matter, and so did the 
amendment which was stricken out. He could not see 
any d (Terence between them, for they cover precisely 
the same ground. They both autnorized the Legisl.i- 
tureto give the courts any power which they in their 
discretion may see fit to grant them. 

Mr. EWART was satisfied that they were not iden¬ 
tical propositions. One confers jurisdiction upon this 
court by a constitutional provision; the other provides 


that such jurisdiction shall be conferred by the Legisla¬ 
ture. 

The CHAIR decided that the propositions were sub- 
stanlially the same, although the phraseology might be 
a little different. 

Mr, EWART appealed from the decision of the Chair, 
and the question being taken, the decision wuis s is- 
tained. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD offered an amendment, to insert in 
lieu of the words stricken out, the following: 

“ The General Assembly may confer on such court such juris¬ 
diction of oflences, not punishable by imprisonment in the p«;ni- • 
tentiary or by death, as may be deemed advisable.” 

I made amotion yesterday to strike out the civil ju¬ 
risdiction, leaving criminal jurisdiction, original and 
appellate, to be determined by the Legislature. The 
amendment I now offer is difierent from that. It does 
not permit the Legislature to extend to that court ori¬ 
ginal jurisdiction of all classes of crime. It confines 
diem within certain limits. It excludes jurisdiction of 
offences not punishable by imprisonment in the peni¬ 
tentiary or by death, and it gives the Legislature dis- 
ci’eUonary power in offences less than those. The in¬ 
tention is, to give the Legislature power to confer 
jurisdiclion over such minor oliences as they shall see 
lit. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to amend the amendment, 
by inserting before it these words: “to giant provis¬ 
ional injunctions and such criminal.” 

The question being then taken upon the amendment 
offei’ed by Mr. Mitchell, it was not agreed to. 

Mr. STANTrtN moved to amend the amendment by 
ailding after the word “death,” “and such appellate 
jurisdiction from justices ol the peace in civil cases.’ 

Mr. NASH sugg. sted that this amendment to the 
amendment would make the proposition identical with 
the one which has been stricken out. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. 1 am disposed to have this crim¬ 
inal jurisdiclion given to ibis court. I shall withdraw 
my motion, but I intend to mess it when we come into 
Convention. 

Mr. RE EMELIN moved o amend the section by 
striking out in lines 12 and 13 hese words: “and such 
tees in probate, administration and guardianship.” 

It seems to me that probate aim courts that regulate 
administration, are matters of abso ute necessity; that 
they should not control the paym ut of fees. The 
compensation for such services as get.ing out these let¬ 
ters of probate, administration and guardianship, 
should be paid out of the county treasuiy. Perhaps 
in civil cases, and in all other cases, it may be proper 
to provide for the fees named in this section, as it might 
tend to prevent litigation. 

Mr. NASH. As I understand this matter, the court 
is to be his own clerk. He w’ill make recorils—he 
will record the appraisement bill and the sale bid, and 
make all the entries that the clerk makes. Is it not 
right that the administration should pay for this clerk 
hire^ This provides that the judge is to be paid the 
fees that are usually allowed to the clerk for the same 
kind of aervice. In the county of Hamilton you would 
undoubtedly have to furnish this judge with a clerk. 
He will be compelled to hire a clerk, in order to do all 
that is absolutely necessary. If you strikeout the pro¬ 
vision, as a matter of course, it will be claimed by the 
Legislature that they have the power to tax fees in ev¬ 
ery case. The fees are charged in ail of the Stales just 
as they are in the common pleas here. Judges, as well 
as the clerk, are paid in the State of Massachusetts.— 
The compensation of the clerk consists in the fees that 
are paid for the record and entries that are made in 
each [laiiicular case. In the small counties, it is cer¬ 
tain that the judge of probate can do both the business 
of a clerk and a judge. 

Mr. Hl'TOHCOCkof Geauga. The^-e is nothing in 
this report which jirovides that this judge should act 
as his own clerk. But it seems to be the desire of this 
Convention that this duty shall belong to his office. If 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


he jierfonns these duties of a clerk, he will receive a 
coinpeiisutioii precisely as the clerk of the conimoti 
pleas is oornpeiisafed in probate cases. It adds nutli]ii« 
to the expenses of the State, anil will furnish to the 
State a sufficient compensation. The court of common 
pleas now receives for probate business all that the 
judge of probate would receive for the discharge of the 
duties of his office. 

The question then being taken Tipon the amendment 
ofiered by Mr. REBMBLIN, it was not agreed to. 

Section 5 was passed over. 

Shction 6. All judges, other than those provided for in tliis 
constitution, shall be elected by the electors of the judicial dis¬ 
trict for which they may be created, but pot lor a longer term of 
office than seven years. 

Mr. CLARK moved to amend by striking out the 
word “ seven,” in the third line, and insert “four.” 

Mr. ROBERTbON. I only intend to make a single 
remark. The term of four years is long enough for 
any judicial officer in the Stale of Ohio. It is the term 
for which we elect the cliief magistrate—the hicrhest 
officer in the country. After four years, let the judg“ 
be returned to the people for re-election, and, if he de¬ 
serves it, he will be sent back to the bench. 

A division ot the question being demanded, the ques¬ 
tion first, was upon striking out, which resulted, affirm¬ 
ative 42, negative 39. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga moved to fill the blank 
with six. 

Mr. Green of Ross named eight. 

Mr. LARWILL. I shall gomr the shortest term. I 
shall go for it, because 1 believe it is called for by the 
people. If the judges are elected for the term of four 
years—if they are good judges and meet with the ap¬ 
proval of the people, I have no doubt that they would 
be re-elected. But if we should make along term, say 
seven or eight years, and a judge should be appointed 
who was corrupt, it would be creating a bad state ol 
things, tor which we should have no remedy. I trust 
that the committee will fix upon the shortest term pas¬ 
sible. I would not have the term exceed three years. 

Mr. STILWELL otfeied as an amendment, to in¬ 
sert the following: “Shall hold their offices for such 
period as may be provided for by law. 

Mr. NASH. I do not wish to detain this committee 
with any remarks upon this subject. I would have 
been glad if the gentleman from Lorain had not ofiered 
his amendment to the section. This section merely 
provides that other courts may be established inferior 
to the supreme court of the State, and if there should 
be any such court established, that the judicial term of 
office shall never exceed the term of seven years, leav¬ 
ing it with the General Assembly, should they create 
another court, to fix the term of ».>ffice. and they can 
make it one year if they choose. It is an unknown 
court—it may, or may never, be created by the Legis¬ 
lature. It is provided for as a measure of precaution. 

I do not think that any difference ought to arise upon 
such a proposition as this—a question as to the term of 
office that should be fixed in the cousiitution for the 
courts or judges created by the constitution. It is 
reaching it in a mere indirect way, to take a vote upon 
this and fix the term at four years, and then argue from 
that, when we come to the question of fixing it at 
seven years, neither a maximum or minimum, but 
say that to tliis shall be added also the term of four 
years. Because we have provided for a judicial term 
for a court which may never be created under the con¬ 
stitution, I can see no necessity for the creation of any 
such term, yet I would put this into the constitution in 
order that the constitution may be comprehensive 
enough to supply all the wants of the State of Ohio in 
future years. I wish gentlemen would feel satisfied 
to allow a provision that may be inoperative, or that 
may be operative, and whenever it is, we can trust the 
General Assembly of that time to assign to these offi¬ 
cers, that niay be created, a term of office that shall ac¬ 
cord with the public sentiment and opinion of that day. 


m 


I would not wish, at this time, to forestall the debate 
that may arise upon fixing the term of office. In ihe 
State of New York, they have fixed the term of office 
at eight years, and in some other S ates at four. In the 
State of Ohio, we have been accustomed to the term 
of seven years, and therefore the committee repo; ted 
that term. If there is any princijde that has been re¬ 
cognized as true, it is that the iudicial department 
should be independent—that guards should be thrown 
around it for the protection of this independence. 

If we should have a term for the election of judg« s 
biennially or triennially, instead of the term to wljich 
we have been so long accustomed, the danger arises 
that we may make these courts depend too much u[)On 
the fluctuations of popular opinion and feeling, and 
thereby destroy their influence. 1 do not see any necessi¬ 
ty, just at this stage, to assert any principle in reference 
to llie duration of this office. The time for doing so 
will come. 

Mr. KENNON. I am not very much wedded, Mr. 
Chairman, and I have not been so, since the beginning 
of this debate, either to the term of office or to the com¬ 
pensation, or to the age of the judges. I have end av 
ored to avoid any participation iii this debate, atul 1 
am still disinclined to take any share in it. 

It is proposed that the term of office of the common 
pleas judges shall be .seven years, but I am told sir, 
that this i.s not democratic. The gentleman has said that 
any man who supports this term is not a democrat. If 
the gentleman referred to me, and I supposed he did, 
though I believe I have not said a word upon this sub¬ 
ject, and therefore I have to complain a little—a very 
little—because I conceive it entirely unnecessary and 
unprovoked. I intend, however, to test the democracy 
of some gentlemen here, before our labors close, and 
see if they are prepared to go as far as I am. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I desire to interrupt the gentle¬ 
man for a moment. The gentleman happened to stand 
up just at the moment when I made the expression to 
which he has referred, in which, I assure the commit¬ 
tee that I intended no personal reference. Such a 
thing was not in my mind, in any sense, nor was the 
gentleman from Belmont in my mind at the time that I 
spoke. 

Mr. KENNON. Mr. Chairman: I have some object¬ 
ions to the opinions of the gentleman, as well as to his 
allusion. 1 understand him right. He said : any man 
who wasojtposed to the shoiter term, and to the op¬ 
eration of public opinion upon the courts, was not a 
democrat. I deny that proposition sir. If the gentle¬ 
man means that public opinion should control the de¬ 
cisions of a sworn officer of the court, in opposition to 
law, I say that is not democratic; for if that be democ¬ 
racy, I yield the palm to the gentleman. If that be 
democracy it is a kind of democracy which I never 
knew, and which I hope never to know. 

1 have said that I w^as not wedded either to a term 
of seven years or to the salary prescribed. But why 
do we propose the term of seven years ? In the iirst 
place we have taken some pains to see what has been 
done by the people of other States—what other men 
have done in this department, who have gone before us, 
and who may be regarded as democratic. Where is 
the democracy in any portion of this Union wdiich has 
fixed the term for their judges lower than seven years. 

Mr. K, proceeded to enumerate the States which had 
fixed a higher term than five years fur supreme judges. 

Tlius we have in all. twenty two States ot this Union, 
not one of which have fixed a less term for their judg¬ 
es than that which we propose here. 

Ag.ain, Mr. Chairman, how stand the other Stato.s ol 
the Union? I think, sir, that wo may set it down as 
certain that, following the example of some of these 
States, there is a little democracy in some of lhem--I 
think there is. I do not think any gentleman can rise 
in his place on this floor, and say that these States do 
not furnish a democratic precedent. Out of these 
twenty-two States, ten have the same term which we 










620 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


propose, or longer. I do not think, therefore, that any 
gentleman can be justifiable in declaring our piDposi- 
tion to be an innovation. 

Mr. ROBERTSON interrupting. I vvoidd ask tlie 
gentleman whether there has not been some new or¬ 
ganizations of these constitutions wliich he has consult¬ 
ed, and whether it is not the tendency in the remodel¬ 
ing of our State constitutions, gradually to prescribe 
shorter terms ? 

Mr. KENNON. No sir. So far from this being the 
fact, in one of the States—Connecitcut, 1 believe, the 
judges were formerly elected every year, until they 
fixed thirteen in the new constitution, during good be¬ 
haviour. 

Mr. STANBERY, interrupting. In Florida the term 
is during good behaviour. 

Mr. KENNON. No matter; I will put it down for 
one year, or any way gentlemen may desire to have it. 
These are all the States in the Union, I believe which 
provide a lower term than ourre])ort. 

I do not intend to occupy the attention of the com¬ 
mittee but a very short time. We have seen that 
twenty-two States of the Union have fixed the longer 
terms of office for their judges, and only six have })re- 
cribed terms under seven years. In this State, from its 
organization to the present time, seven years has been 
the period of the judges’office; and never, to this hour, 
have I heard any complaint on this account. It may 
be that there have been some complaints against it in 
parts of the State where their democracy has been 
more progressive than mine, but I have not heard of it. 

I have said before that I was not very well versed 
in political matter, and I may be behind some gentle¬ 
men who are around me here. But I have determined 
that before the close of this Convention I will over¬ 
take them, and perhaps I may get a little ahead of them, 
for I intend to bring some of these gentlemen uj) to 
some of the most rigid tests, who talk here so much 
about what is democracy and what is not. 

There is another reason why this term should not be 
shortened. If the length of the term be a test of de¬ 
democracy, who shall decide what is the proper mean ? 
Let us trace it down. Would it not be better and 
more democratic to fix the term at three years instead 
of four; or would not two years, or ime year, or six 
months, or a single term be better? Would it not be 
likely that public opinion would be thus brought to 
operate more directly upon the mind and the decis¬ 
ions of the judge? Where is the point at which we 
ought to stop? Suppose I should declare myself to be 
in favor of four years, as the proper term, and the gen¬ 
tleman should be in favor of three years; has he there¬ 
fore any right to claim that he is more democratic than I ? 
But if I should fall to two years, and he should de¬ 
scend to one year, should he therefore continue to be 
the better democrat ? 

This may be the true principle; but, Mr. Chairman, 
I have had a little experience with reference to our 
judiciary system—a little, I consider myself still a 
lawyer; and T tell you that you may elect and put up¬ 
on the bench any of the best lawyers you have, and 
they will have to remain in that position some one or 
two years before they can shake off the trepidation 
which will result from being thus elevated to a responsi¬ 
ble position, and surrounded by the best lawyers of 
the State. It takes some time before the judge can 
come to the discharge of his duties with ease to himself 
and satisfaction to the public. 

This, also, is one of the reasons why I desire this 
term to be longer than four years; and this, added to 
the argument drawn from our own experience of a 
longer term, and the example of a large majority of 
other States of the Union, have induced the committee 
to fix upon the term of seven years. I think the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton had better still to take this 
term and lake back his insinuations. 

Mr, CLARK. Having offered the amendment under 
consideration the committee will indulge me in saying 


a word or two in its favor. The proposition is to re¬ 
duce the term of office of judges from seven to four 
years, I think a term of four years is long enough for 
any office, judge as well as any other officer. Four 
years is certainly Umg enough for the peo})le to endure 
a bad judge, and a good judge can, and no doubt would 
be re-elected by the people. A 71 effort had been made 
by the honorable gentleman from Belmont [Mr. Ken- 
NO.v] in his opposition to short terms, to run them into 
the ground, claiming that if the principle was correct 
the shorter the term the better, and that a judge, upon ^ 
that principle, should be elected for a single session of 
the court. Those in favor of long terms are exposed to 
the opposite extreme of the argument, if long terms 
are correct then the longer the better. I believe the 
true doctrine to be, that a judge or any other officer 
who serves the public should be elected as often as is 
convenient and practicable. I see no particular objec¬ 
tion to a judge being elected every year, but it would 
be inconvenient to elect a judge every six months. 
There certainly is no inconvenience in electing a judge 
once in four years ; then if he has proved a good judge 
the people can re-elect liim, while on the other hand 
if he has proved himself to be unworthy of his ])lac ', 
or a disgrace to the bench, he can be hurled from it and 
his |/lace be supjilied with a better man. The gentle¬ 
man has prepared himself with a tabular statement 
showing the length of the terms of the office of judge 
in other States, to sustain his position in favor of long 
terms. The fact that he has pi’epared himself with it 
shows that he was conscious the report was obnoxious 
on that account. Is it not rather anti-democratic to go 
for precedents to old State constitutions formed half a 
century ago ? 

A Voice. “The Wisconsin and California constitu¬ 
tions are not old.” 

Mr. CLARK. I did not mean to say that all the con¬ 
stitutions contained in the statement were so old, but 
that most of them had been made a long time, which is 
the fact. Some of those States are now moving in the 
matter of new constitutions, Michigan has a Conven¬ 
tion now in session, framing a new ore. In Connecti¬ 
cut, the subject of a Convention to frame a new consti¬ 
tution for that State was before the Legislature at the 
session just closed; but what is the result I am not 
informed. New Hampshire is also moving in the same 
direction. Long terms of office for judges were almost 
universal, fiffy years ago ; but, as new constitutions 
have been framed, the process of sliortening their terms 
of office has been going on. In 1821, when the State 
of New York amended her constitution, an effort was 
made to reduce the term of office of judges; but it fail¬ 
ed, leaving judges to continue in office till sixty years 
of age. But. in 1840, when she again amended her 
constitution, the delegates—stimulated by the spirit 
and progress of the age, and in obedience witli the will 
of the people—reduced the term to eight years. But 
in this State, it seems no progress is to be allowed: old 
notions are to be adhered to, and we are to settle down 
again upon the old term of seven years. The gentle¬ 
man from Belmont has assured us, that he has heard no 
expression of popular desire that the term should be 
shorter. 1 can only say, I liave heard no other expres¬ 
sion on the subject. In the north part of the State— 
take the county that I represent—I have heard very 
many express themselves upon the subject, and uni¬ 
versally in favor of reducing the term much below sev¬ 
en years. This is not confined to any one party, but, I 
believe, is a very common feeling with the people. As 
an evidence that it is not confined to any one party, I 
will observe that, not long since, 1 received a letter 
from a prominent attorney of that county, attached to 
the opposite poli ical party, in which he suggested the 
term of office as low as two years. The gentleman 
from Hamilton [Mr. Reemklin] expressed himself in 
favor of a term of three years rather than four. I much 
prefer a shorter teian than four years, but put the term 
|n the amendment for that length of time as a compro- 














CONVENTION RErORTS. 621 


mise, knowing thei’e were some in the committee who 
preferred a longer term tliaii four years. 

When the gentleman from Belmont was reading from 
his tabular statement the length of the terms of office 
of judges in ditferent States, and came to Vermont, ■ 
which is but for a single year, the gentleman fi om 
Franklin, [Mr. Stanbeky,] in his seat, in an audible 
voice, will much apparent exultation, said, “Vermont 
was a Whig State, and the only State in the Union 
where judges were elected but foi one year.*’ Well, 1 
hope those so ready to claim credit for short terms in 
Vermont, will stand up to that doctrine, and vote for 
short terms here. 

Mr. KENNON (interposing,) desired to ask a ques¬ 
tion. 

Mr. CLARK. I cannot consent to yield the floor to 
the gentleman, for the reason, that having extended to 
him a like favor while speaking four or five days ago 
and having been refused by him the same favor, whde 
he was replying to my remarks, I cannot now grant 
his request, but shall be compelled to adopt that other 
rule of doing unto others as they have done unto me. 

1 certainly should not decline this favor under any other 
circumstances, to him, or any other gentleman on this 
floor. I am always happy to have questions propoun¬ 
ded or give way for any explanations to be made that 
shall tend to place tilings in their true and proper light. 

The gentleman from Belmont informed us that^before 
the Convention closed he should introduce into this 
body a democratic test. He did not tell us what it 
would be, but from some prudent cause, no doubt, 
withheld it from our knowledge. I can not conceive 
what that test can be. Can it be the question of indi¬ 
vidual liability in corporations ? It can hardly be the 
proposed term of seven years for office. The long term 
of seven years would hardly be claimed as a Demo¬ 
cratic test. Perhaps it may be on the currency question. 

I am ready at all times for the application of any dem¬ 
ocratic tests that he or any other gentleman may offer. 

I will go as far as that or any gentleman in maintaining 
and supporting democratic principles. But as a reason 
long terms he told us that it would require a judge to 
act a year or two before he would get used to the plan 
—before he would get “ the hang of the barn.” If this 
is so the people will soon find it out, and will see the 
propriety of re-electing those who have learned how to 
do the business. Some gentlemen seemed to take it 
for granted<that if the term is for only four years that 
a judge would not be allowed to occupy the plan be¬ 
yond that time. This assumes that the people have not 
gumption or sense enough to re-elect a good man to of¬ 
fice but will reject him and put in his place some un¬ 
worthy person. There never was a greater mistake. 
The people are able to discriminate. I have no doubt 
they will make wise and judicious selections forjudges. 

I have no fear of short terms, and hope the amendment 
will prevail. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga said: I do not myself 
feel particularly solicitous whether this amendment 
shall prevail or not. I do not think its adoption will ei¬ 
ther extend or diminish the number of the days of my 
natural life. Since the time of the organization of our 
State government, the term office for judges has been 
seven years ; and I had supposed that this was perfect¬ 
ly satisfactory to the great body of the people. But to 
my astonishment, the gentleman from Lorain [Mr. 
Clark] informed us, that the people of the northern 
part of the State were opposed to it in a body, and es¬ 
pecially the people of the county of Lorain. Now, I 
live in the northern part of the State, though not in the 
county of Lorain; and I must confess that I have never 
yet heard the least complaint against this term of of¬ 
fice. 

Mr. CLARK, (in his seat.) I did not speak of the 
entire northern port.on of the State. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I was amused with the evi¬ 
dence which die gentleman introduced. The princi¬ 
pal—in fact the only—item of his evidence was the 


letter of a whig lawyer of Lorain county, as though 
the opinion of one whig lawyer was proof of the entire 
popular (^pinion, and would commit the whole people 
in favor of short terms. I confess that, coming, as this 
does, from a whig, it was pretty good authority, and 
that 1 was glad to see the gentleman willing to take- 
this kind of authority for the support of his democ¬ 
racy. 

The gentleman tells us, in reply to the request of the 
gentleman I'rom Belmont, that he will not adopt the 
golden rule of doing unto others as he would have oth¬ 
ers do unto him ; but he prefers that other rule, of do¬ 
ing unto others as they have done unto him. That 
may be well enough in such a body as this; but still it 
remains a matter of doubt, whether, as a rule of mor¬ 
als and moral action, it is right or not. But really the 
greatest thing in the gentleman’s argument was, that 
his whig lawyer in Lorain county should be supposed 
to express the opinion of the whole democratic party 
of the State. 

Let us inquire a little into what really is the true de¬ 
mocratic doctrine upon this subject, and see if we can 
find out what is the genuine democratic principle. I 
find, in one of the democratic States of this Union— 
Virginia—the judges of the supreme court are elected,, 
or appointed, to serve during good behavior. If this 
be good democratic authority, then we should elect or 
appoint our judges to serve during life: this is democ- 
I’acy in Virginia. Well, there are some twelve or fif¬ 
teen other States where this same principle prevails; 
even in that very democratic State of New Hampshire, 
as far as relates to the appointment of their judges, 
they follow in the wake of Virginia. The same is de¬ 
mocracy in Mississippi. Their judges, too, are elected 
or appointed during good behavior. But in Alabama, 
another democratic State, the democracy of this ques¬ 
tion consists in appointing judges for a term of six 
years. In Kentucky—(I believe the Convention which 
framed the late constitution of that State was demo¬ 
cratic)— their democracy leaves them to appoint 
judges for the term of eight years. In Texas it is 
democratic to appoint judges for a term of six years. 
In Illinois—(the democracy of this State will never be 
doubted)—the appointment of their judges is for nine 
years. In Wisconsin it is democratic to appoint for six 
years; and in Missouri during good behavior. Now, 
this is democracy in each one of these several demo¬ 
cratic States. 1 will ask gentlemen whether democ¬ 
racy is not, or whether it ought not to be, the same 
thing wherever it is found? If we find the democratic 
party abiding by a particular principle in one State, as 
a democratic principle, is not the same principle dem¬ 
ocratic in every other State? Oris there a peculiar 
kind of democracy for each State in the Union? Is 
democracy one thing in Ohio, and another in Illinois or 
Michigan? Is it one thing to-day and another to-mor¬ 
row ? Does it change with localities and with seasons? 

I want gentlemen to determine whether there really 
is a great democratic party in the United States, hold¬ 
ing every where the same principles and supporting 
the same measures. If there is not such a party, then 
I must confess that I have not so good an opinion of de¬ 
mocracy as I once had. I am led to the conclusion that 
it is the mere sound of the word which controls, not 
the principles which that word was once supposed to 
represent. 

Mr. REEMELIN (interrupting, and Mr. H. giving 
way,) said : Will not the gentleman freely admit that 
in Kentucky, where the people have a peculiar kind of 
property to protect, the people would be desirous of a 
longer official term for their judges on this account, 
while the same reason would not operate in Ohio? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I confess it excites my astonish- 
ment a little, that thegentleman from Hamilton, should 
suppose that the people of Kentucky cannot as well 
control their courts as the people in Ohio. I have not 
much sympathy for the peculiar institution to which, 
the eentlemau refers. 









(522 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. HE EMELIN. I ask the gentleman whether he 
'voulJ not admit that the people there wo'dd iiamral- 
[y desire to keep their judicial decisions affecting this 
instilution, as clear as possible of the iidhience of pop¬ 
ular ojdnioii? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Well, admit it, then, and let 
Kentucky go How is it in the adjoining State of In¬ 
diana? They have thei/judges there appointed l()r 
•seven years; and in Illinois, as I have before said, the 
.(‘i m is nine years These States have not the “ pecu¬ 
liar institutionand so it is wiih the States of Maine 
and Nt‘W Hampshire; these States are neither troubled 
or blest with that institution—if any man, in any part 
of thecoun’ry, can persuade himself to believe it a 
blessing—and the same remark applies to the State of 
New York. There is but one State in the Union where 
judges of this class are appointed for a h'ss term than 
six years, and that is the State of Vermont. In that 
State, ever since its organization, judges have been elec¬ 
ted annually ; and in the State of Connecticut they elec¬ 
ted anmially until the adoption of their constitution in 
the year 1818, which was brought about by the parly 
considered at the time to be democratic—the friends of 
.Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe—and they inserted the 
iile term. 

Mr. REE ME LIN here was understood to ask the gen¬ 
tleman whether the people of Connecticut were not 
now making arrangements for anew constitution, with 
particular reference to this matter? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I suppose they are going to have 
a new constitution, and I hope they will reduce these 
life terms which apply now only to the higher judges. 
Inferior judges are still elected annually. Now here 
are two States which have annual elections for their 
judges, and I really think myself, however they may 
be considered by gentlemen over the way, tiiat they 
are the most tridy democratic States in this Union; they 
are called whig States, howe%’er. 

But I was about to remark that there was this diffi¬ 
culty under which _v/e labor—whenever we undertake 
to ascertain what is really the Democratic doctrine up¬ 
on any particular measure, we find the principle is dif¬ 
ferent in different States. Under these circumstances, 
what conclusion can we form ? How can we, in the 
midst of this uncertainty, ascertain what is really dem¬ 
ocratic, in order that we may fall in with it. 

Now as to this particular cjuestion, as I before re¬ 
marked. I have heard no complaint against the appoint¬ 
ment of judges for seven years. But if gentlemen 
shoul.l be disposed to cut down the term to four year.^ 
or three years it is all the same to me, although I be¬ 
lieve we might as well continue as heretofore. But 1 
do not believe that there is any thing of either Democ¬ 
racy or Wh'ggery <;onnected with this siddect. It is 
merely a cjuestion of policy as to what will be the best 
for the State. 

But the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Rermemn] 
think.s there is a great deal of aristocracy in this coun¬ 
try ; that our people are oppressed and borne down by 
it and by the money power, and by the tyranny o! 
privileged orders. Well, those of us who have been 
born and bred up in this country have not yet '.discov¬ 
ered—have not fell this. And 1 cannot bnt think tha* 
it is really unfortunate for the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton, that leaving another country, as he did, his lot 
'should have fallen in a country where so many and so 
great evils of this character—so much of despotism— 
pr vails. 

Mr. REEMELIN (interrnpMng.) Does the gentle¬ 
man really mean to say that I said what he now seems 
to quote ? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. 1 really so understood the gen¬ 
tleman. 

Mr. RBBMELIN. I s.aid nothing about privileged 
order.'!; I said nothing about the money j>nwer; I made 
no such remark as he has referred to. Bnt I am wil¬ 
ling that the gentleman should nnderstand me now as 
saying, that there is not a people in the world so com¬ 


pletely under the control of these influences, as the pe-o- 
[)le of Ohio. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I can only repeat what I have 
just said, that it is most unfortunate fijr the gentleman, 
that departing as he did from a free country, where all 
ire pi iced on an equal footing, and enjoy eipial privi¬ 
leges, his lot should he cast in a country where there is 
so much of this kind of despotism—so much oppression 
exei'cised by privileged or(ier.s, and the money power. 
He really seems to think lliat there is a despotism in 
lliiSyC'HUitry to be dreaded ; a de.spolisrn which is con¬ 
tinually preying upon the people, and will, unle.ss he 
and his friends in'erpose to prevent it, eventually des¬ 
troy our institutions. But there is, in truth, a despot¬ 
ism in this country which is as ettectual as is the au¬ 
thority of the autocrat of Russia. It binds the minds 
and wills of men; it prevents freedom of action. It is 
tlio despotism of party spirit; a dfespotisni which is 
more cruel, more uni eleiiting than the despotism of any 
single man. It is exercised, not by the great body of 
any party, but by the self-constituted leaders of a par¬ 
ty, and in its ap[)liances, it is brought to bear upon the 
individuals of the party. It does not allow freedom of 
thought, freedom of speech, or freedom of action. Its 
behests must be obeyed; and does auy one question 
the propriety of its mandates, or dogmas, he is denoun¬ 
ced as a deserter, and political a|)03tate. A party in¬ 
fluenced by this spirit may be called Whig, or it may 
be called Democratic, but it cannot, with propriety, be 
called republican. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I desire to ask the gentleman 
from Geauga whether he did not vote for Zachary Tay¬ 
lor, against the convictions of his own mind, with refer¬ 
ence to his fitness for the office to which he has been 
elevated ? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I voted for Zachary Taylor, 
freely and with pleasure, believing him to be an hon¬ 
est and competent man ; and the longer I live—the 
more I witness of his course of [)olicy—the more satis¬ 
fied I am with the vote which I then cash 

Mr. MITCHELL. I am one of those who believe 
in a true and sound democracy. I believe there is a 
meaning in the term. I believe it has a received sig¬ 
nification—that it is a well settled principle; and I 
cannot but believe that the geuilemau from Geauga, if 
he will attend to the considerations vvliich ojierate upon 
my mind, w-ill come to the same conclusion. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK (interposing.) I can inform the 
gentleman that I concur witli him fully. There is a 
true democracy, by which I have emJeavored to be 
guided from my youth ni), and by which I intend lobe 
guided hereafter. But when the gentleman talks 
about the application of democracy, I find a difficulty. 

Mr. MITCH ELL. I trust I m ly be able to assist the 
gentleman a very little in getting upon the right trac : 
—in making a proper application of the real [iriucipies. 
There are some tests of democracy which have passed 
the ordeal of a thorough exanduatioii and the jndement 
of a calm, unexcited posterity. There are certain men 
who liave written in Amei'ica, and whose vvritings have 
received the character of text books, contaiuiug and 
couveyini' certain doctrines pecnlinr to the demo, ratio 
party. To some of these 1 will therefore call the at¬ 
tention of the gentleman from Geauga, and the gentle- 
mali from Clark- They are wi h great (iropriety called 
tiie tests of democracy, and are to be found in ttio wri¬ 
tings of those vvho have been sometimes deiiomliiated 
the apostles ol democracy. Tliese priiicifdes of de¬ 
mocracy have received the sanction of many mtm of 
the most philosophic minds in America; and amongst 
these 1 have always recognized as occupying a promi- 
iieut place, the names of Samuel Adams, of Beiijauiiu 
Franklin, and of Thomas .leflerson. And now, I com¬ 
mend to the geuilemau from Geauga and the gentleman 
trom Clark the teachings of these men. 

He spoke the other day of ap.ostles of Democracy 
Bnt I greatly feared to ask him for the nanie-s of the 
men he considered as such. I fear he would have ci 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


62:5 


■'•.ed urf to Fi.sher Ames, to Govor lor Morris and Alex- 
inder Ilauiilloii. In early life tlie.se geiUlenieu itiay 
have and very probably did follow Mr. Jttfersou aiul 
bis compeers ; but they have been latterly followcri oi 
.tpo.sllesof another system, amongst whom stands very 
high the name of Fisher Aines; who. though he died 
early in life, was a man of mostdistingiiished attainments 
and ability, and made his impress deeply noon his 
times; nor is his iiiHuence yet at an end. Hamilton 
like Ames had a short career, but it was no les.s full of 
evil and errors in doctrine. Governor Morris lived 
mncli longer, and wasecpially bold in the [iroclama'ion 
if his doctrines; but he published them forth with less 
varnish, cnivered less adroitly with tlie gloss of sopli- 
islry. If we compare the opinions of these men, with 
the opinions of those who .style themselves whigs of 
tlie present day. we shall find these whigs to be but the 
most abject and .subservient followers of these Federal 
ir-adens. The teachings of Mr. .Jelierson are very dif- 
f.nent from tlie teachings of these men. If I can read 
him aright, \^and his works are all published—thank 
God,) he teaches a very diderent doctrine from that 
which the gentleinen over the way are arguing upon 
us at this time—I do not say particularly in reg ird to 
this subject, but in regard to many other suljjects. 
The gentleman from Geauga has been acquainted with 
the doctrines of Mr. .Tefferson from his youth, and he 
ought to know what he lias taught on the subject now 
under discussion. If he is familiar with tliem as he 
would have us think he is, he certainly knows that Mr. 
Jelfersonhastaughtus very distinctly a very different doc¬ 
trine from that ju.st now urged before us by that gentle¬ 
man, especially as to the propriety of having judges, at 
short interval.s responsible to the people. 

Mr. HORTON (inieiposing) I desire to follow the 
line of democracy; and now I desire of the gentleman 
/n)m Knox to point out to me, the volume and page in 
the works of Thomas Jefferson, where I may find this 
doctrine, so that I may examine it for myself. i 

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes sir, I will. At the proper 
time I will point out the page. I can tell him at once 
in what volume Mr. .lefferson teaches that ihe judi¬ 
ciary should be brought as near to the people as po.ssi- 
hle. He will find this in the fourth volume of Mr. 
Jefferson’s published correspondence. 

Mr. HORTO.N, (in his seat.) I shall be obliged to 
the gentleman if he will tedl me where I may be in¬ 
structed in the same sort by the writings of Franklin 
and Adams ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. In the debates of the convention 
which framed the constitution of the United States II 
the gentleman has not read the debates in that con¬ 
vention, it would do his heart good to see with what 
confidence this great man reposed in the masses ol 
mankind. I refer to Franklin, of course. The immor¬ 
tal Adams bad then gone to his rest. 

Mr. SWAN, (interposing.) I wish to ask the genlle- 
mau whether he intends to declare that Mr. Jefier.son 
teaches that popular infiuence should enter into the le¬ 
gal decision of tlie jmlges? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Notatall. Neither does Mr. Jef¬ 
ferson teach any such thing. But Jefferson, and Frank¬ 
lin, and Adam-’, in tirder to form a just democratic gov¬ 
ernment, siw cleai’ly tliat they must be very careful to 
keep out of view, all di tinctions between different 
classes of men ; and to make the laws operate as equa'- 
ly as possible upon all men, and hence to rest iqion 
the masses of society for their ^auction and support, 
without regard to wealth, influence or station. They 
al.so discarded, very emphatically, the doctrine of spe¬ 
cial privileges—a doctrine which my frit ml from Ge- 
auo^ahas not al ways found liimself po.ssessed with nerve 
enonuli to resist, deiioiiaco and destroy. I greatly re¬ 
gret he Ins not. _ 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, (interposing.) The 
gentleman refers to me as his friend, and I suppose he 
says what he means. I vvoiihl like to inquire of Iiiin 
whcUier, in the life and writings of Mr. Jefferson, in 


his {lossession, there is not somewhere to be found, the 
doctrine, that the construction of the constitutionali¬ 
ty of a law, the authority of tlie Legislature almio is 
supreme, and whether the gentleman from Knox sup¬ 
ports that doctrine ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Well Mr. Chairman, if Mr. .Jef¬ 
ferson and myself should differ about some things, it 
only places me, in this respect, upon an equal footiti" 
with the gentleman from Geauga. Suppose Mr. Jef¬ 
ferson does hold that doctrine, and I grant that he may. 
Was the gentleman from Geauga the real friend of Mr. 
Jefferson, as he claims to be, he would not i-efer to the 
fact here, in order to cast imputations upon his fViend. 
He would, as a sincere and right-minded friend, rath r 
cover up his faults. For like all other men, he must 
have hud his faults : he must have run into some erroi s, 
no man ever wrote and thought a.s much as he did with¬ 
out doing so. But sir, the great difierence between 
the gentleman and myself consist in this; I take plea.s- 
nre in concealing the little errors and faults of Mr. Juf- 
ferson—he, in exposing them. Let the world judge 
between us, who is Mr. Jefierson’s friend and who his 
ei emy. I freely admit that there are some things 
which Mr. Jefferson has advocated whi(h I could not 
exactly subscribe to. But then sir, every friend of 
Mr. Jetfersoii will take a delight in covering up, and 
looking over his errors, while his enemies will take 
delight in nothing more than in exposing and pushing 
them out: and I say again, by this rule, let the gentle¬ 
man from Geauga and myself be judged as to which of 
us is the best friend of Jefferson. I still contend that 
he has settled qnestiofis which posterity has since a{)- 
proved; and, that more than any other man, Mr. Jeffer¬ 
son has disseminated, in this country, the true doctrine 
of democracy. 

But I do not maintain that his doctrine was wholly 
unmixed with error. I hold that the democratic party, 
in this, and every other country, is a philosophic party. 
It loves justice, and demands of all men that they 
should, according to their several abilities, follow the 
dictates and submit to the demands of justice. There¬ 
fore, in order to arrive at just democratic conclusions, 
a man has to look at both sides of the picture—to all 
the bearings of any given qnestio’u or proposition. Tak¬ 
ing a trutnfnl and just view of every great political or 
morcil question, we always find that every proposition 
has its extremes, and that the rule of right lies lietweeu 
them; and this is applicable to the question now before 
the committee. And in its proper apjilieation alone 
consists the democracy of this question. I do not claim 
tjiat there is any more democracy in four years than in 
six, only as reason or justice, having due regard to the 
true character of our institutions, e.s[)ecially their ac- 
knowledgedly popular cast, may demand the one or 
the o!her. I would not favor a one year term—not 
because it would not he democratic, hut beeiiise it 
does not take into view those considerations of conve¬ 
nience which a clear, sound, democratic appreciation 
of all things connected with the siiliject sinm d de¬ 
mand. Nor would I go for the longest term, because 
I do not think the circumstances ol the case dem iiid it. 
We have to look to the circumstances which surround 
his (ju ’stion. 

You have to take a lawyer to fill the ofiice of a judge: 
this is, however, to ho left a ni.itter discretionary wi h 
the people; but it is fairly presumable that they would 
he cureful to select a man who would be compe cut to 
fully discharge the duty incumbent upon him in siu h a 
[ilace. It wijiild be inevitable, then, ihat they would 
have to take'a man away from the active practice of 
his calling; and would it be right to ask him to aban¬ 
don his {)ractic (3 (ora judgeship of one year’s term?-— 
If you would deal justly, you must give him a c.>mpen- 
sation which will, in some sense, remunerate h nr for 
the relinquishment of h s practice. You shoiil 1 take 
care not to make the office yon confer upon him an in¬ 
jury. Ill going upon the bench a man of course loses a 
practice, which it will take him some time to regain. 









624 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Unless, then, you give him an unreasonable salary, you 
cannot for one year’s term, remunerate him for this 
sacrihce. This we do not wish or design to do. We 
must, then, make this right by conferring the office for 
sufficient length of time to enable our best lawyers to 
forego the other inconveniences attending it. 1 his 
tinuf should, as I think, be at least four years. Three 
years would not be fairly remunerative, unless the sal 
ary were higher than you ought to make it. You ought 
to allow him to remain long enough upon the bench, in 
order that, by his salary, he may be compensated for 
the loss of his practice. You should also consider the 
ri'^hts of the man you select—as to the character he is 
to'^sustain, and the means you afford him for sustaining 
that character. It is true, as the gentleman [Mr. Ken- 
non] has told us, you cannot put a man upon the bench 
who* will not require a short time at first—say a year, 

least_before he becomes at ease, and familiar with 

his new position. It is mei'e theorizing to say that a 
man may be expert in the discharge of these duties 
from the hrst. Such a thing is not consistent with the 
constitution of the mind and character of marr. He 
must have experience, to adapt himself to any condi¬ 
tion or calling whatever. This is an inevitable and u- 
niversal characteristic of beings fallible and frail as we 
all are. For this reason, if you place a man upon the 
bench, where, as a judge, in the discharge of his duty, 
he will be required to pursue some men with rigor, he 
should have a term sufficiently long to aftord him an 
opportunity to make a fair test of his capacities for the 
office, and of his irrclination with fairness and honesty 
to disdrarge its duties,—long enough to give him a little 
farniharity with his calling, and aflbrd him a fair chance 
for representing himself fully in his new relation to¬ 
ward his fellow-man. A single decision which he 
mi^ht feel called upon to make might give rise to an 
excitement against him which would outlast one or two 
years, but which four years would enable him entirely 
to live down. Errors, too, he would undoubtedly 
commit. He ought to have time sufficient, then, to 
show by his administration that they were mere errors 
of the head, not of the heart. 1 am of the opinion 
that for all these purposes the time proposed by the a- 
mendment of the gentleman from Lorain would be suf¬ 
ficient; but I would not stand much about the change 
of a year more or less. If I have any preference, it 
would be for a year more. Five years is the period 1 
had fixed upon in my own mind. This is, in part, how¬ 
ever, owing to my having fixed upon the number five 

for our supreme judges. 

As to how far 1 would have the popular sentiment, 
or impulse, as some have expressed it, to operate upon 
the court, I beg leave to say, that I have such confidence 
in the great mass of mankind, as to believe that they 
will come to right conclusions at last; and that the set¬ 
tled opinions of the popular mind may be always safe¬ 
ly trusted. But I also know that the masses of man¬ 
kind like the waves of the ocean, are subject to fluc¬ 
tuations; and if you could find the true criterion by 
which to judge of what really is the popular sentiment, 
you must take more than a mere period—you must 
take a reasonable, perhaps I might say a considerable 
period together, so as to get their settled opinion. To 
extend the examination, and make a more careful, a 
reliable deduction, you should take several periods to¬ 
gether. Taking the mean of these periods, you have 
always a perfectly safe basis on which to rest. Pursu¬ 
ing this method of ascertaining public sentiment, you 
will seldom find it much wrong. At all events, it will 
thus be found a safe foundation on which to rest our 
calculations. It was thus Mr. Jefferson estimated. It 
was thus he came to have so profound a confidence in 
the opinions of the masses. 

This is the proper process of reasoning to follow, 
when inquiring as to what is really the character and 
feeling of the community at large. And this is what 
the judge should have always in his mind. Acting up¬ 
on this rule, he would over be preserved from the in¬ 


fluence of the sudden emotions and impulses and ex¬ 
citements of a day, or any short period of time. He 
would always take a survey of the popular feeling for 
ail extended period of time. And so, by carefully 
avoiding the extremes, and striking for the due mean, 
he will come to a practical and safe conclusion of what 
is the average judgment of mapkind. In this manner 
he will find out not only what is beneficial, but what 
is right, not only in law but in morals, and not only so, 
but he will find this rule servicable to him even in the 
abstract sciences, as well as in the deductions of sound 
political philosophy. Neither should a judge forget 
that it is his great duty to discharge with fidelity every 
trust which is committed to him by the community. 
So, then, he should hold himself accountable, not that 
he should obey the impulses of their excited minds, or 
the ebullitions of their passions, but that he should al¬ 
ways be obedient to their sober judgment, and with a 
studied reference to that he should always act. It is in 
this manner that the impulses and sentiments of man¬ 
kind should always act upon a judicial tribunal. It 
was thus the common law received its great character¬ 
istics, which make it emphatically the heritage of free¬ 
men. I could point to instances, but time forbids.— 
The judge should always remember that the day is 
fixed, and the time will come, when he will have to 
stand before his fellow men and be judged by them, 
for the purity, fidelity and uprightness with which he 
discharges his duties. This I maintain is the safest 
and most efficient test to which to bring our public 
functionaries, the highest as well as the lowest. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I find that the I’emarks I have 
just submitted, have been either misunderstood or pur¬ 
posely misrepresented. I stated disticnlly that I was in 
favor of impartial courts, at the same time that I said I 
was opposed to independent courts. Impartial be¬ 
tween man and man, and not independent of public 
opinion, popular feeling, and even, if you please, pop¬ 
ular impulses. I want no balance wheel in our govern¬ 
ment, but the balance wheel of public opinion. I have 
confidence in that public opinion ; I want it to have its 
due, frequent, and unbiassed influence on every part of 
our government. I do not want a judge to go out in 
the streets, and ask himself whether the man whose 
case he is adjudicating upon is a Whig or a Democrat, 
but I want a judge to act under the feeling that there 
s a higher judge above him, to whom he must soon ren¬ 
der an account, and that judge is the people of Ohio. 

I must now, injustice to myself and the constituen¬ 
cy that I represent, reply to another part of the speech 
of the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock.] That 
gentleman has reminded me that I was not born here, 
and he has insinuated that it did not become me, thus 
situated, to express myself upon the relative extent of 
our Democracy. I regretted to hear such words fall 
from the gentleman’s lips, for it was but the other day, 
when a paper in Cincinnati attributed to him similar 
remarks—which had really fallen from the lips of my 
friend from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold.] At his [Mr. 
Hitchcock’s] request I corrected the error, but I find I 
shall have to retract, and permit the two gentlemen, 
hereafter, to occupy the same trundle-bed. I desire 
now', once for all, to say to the members of this Con¬ 
vention, collectively and individually, that I look upon 
all such insinuations, and upon all such intimations, a« 
mere make shifts and sophistries; my birth place has 
nothing to do with the question. The arguments I ad¬ 
vanced derive not one iota of weight thereby, nor 
should they lose one particle of the weight they may 
be entitled to, in consequence of the place where I was 
born. I look upon the whole thing as a piece of spite¬ 
ful nativism, and as an attempt to weaken by misera¬ 
ble inuendoes, while no real argument can be found in 
opposition. What was the object of the gentleman 
from Geauga in thus reminding me of my birth place? 
Was it not clearly this ? He stated it with the view 
to remind the Convention of the lact that I was born 
abroad—that I could not therefore be a proper judge of 









CONVENTION REPORTS 


625 


pure Democracy—that my oral imperfections were not 
in consonance with republican institutions—and that, 
therefore, he—having always lived in a republic-r-was 
a better judge of what Democracy was, and what now 
constituted it. Sir, such conclusions are not legitimate in 
a debate ; no honorable opponent will use them; for I 
suppose that truth is as much a truth out of the mouth 
of a person born abroad, as it possibly can be out of 
the mouth of a person born here. 

But let us look at the position we two relatively oc¬ 
cupy. I was born under a despotic government—he 
was born in a I’epublic ; my heart is now alive to free¬ 
dom and to popular rights—his mind is stored with 
conservatism and distrust of the people. I have advan¬ 
ced and progressed in my ideas of popular government, 
while he, like a crab, has receded into the filthy slime 
of old federal notions. I have become fit to live in a 
republican government and unfit to live under a king, 
while his notions are repugnant to the advanced ideas 
of our age, and 1 think he would make a most excel¬ 
lent subject under a royal government. In fict, Mr. 
Chairman, I am ready now to give our venerable friend 
[Mr. Hitchcock] a certificate under my hand and seal, 
addressed to any king in Europe, that he would, if he 
emigrated there, make a peaceable, orderly and respect¬ 
able citizen. (Great laughter.) The object of the gen¬ 
tleman could have been no other but to lessen my posi¬ 
tion as a delegate to this Convention—it was an appeal 
to prejudice, a prejudice that was improperly brought 
in at the moment to weaken what otherwise the gen¬ 
tleman himself must admit was a correct position. I 
am here as a delegate from Hamilton county, with as 
much right to ,express my opinions as any other member 
of this Convention, no matter where he may be born. 
And I now give full and fair notice to all concerned, 
once and for all, hoping never again to be compelled to 
speak upon this subject, that I shall claim upon this 
floor, to their fullest extent, every right and every priv¬ 
ilege, to which any other member of this Convention 
is entitled. I will not abate one jot or tittle of the 
lights and duties which belong to me as a delegate 
from Hamilton county. This my constituents expect 
of me, and they have a right to exjiect it, and every at¬ 
tempt to weaken my position by such innuendoes as 
were thrown out by the gentleman from Geauga, no 
matter from what quarter they may come, will meet 
on my part that stern resistance and rebuke, which 
their narrow-mindedness and unfairness deserve. We 
stand not here as the representatives of the people 
among whom we were born; a majority of this Con¬ 
vention are not natives of Ohio, and I suppose any at¬ 
tempt on the part of the natives of this State to control 
the action of the Convention, would meet with the 
strongest resistance from all sides of this body. We 
represent here distinct constituencies, and these con¬ 
stituencies have the right to ask that, since they have 
decided to send certain men, other delegates from oth¬ 
er parts of the State should not attempt to weaken 
their position by the mere make-shifts which we have 
just heard. I mistake greatly the sentiments of the 
people of Ohio, if they are not decidedly against all at¬ 
tempts of the kind. Nativeism, whether it shows it¬ 
self on a big scale, or, as in the present instance, on a 
small scale, meets with no countenance from the great 
body of the people; and to attempt lo revive in the 
State of Ohio doctrines of this kind, you would not 
only have to do as Robert Dale Owen asked to have 
done in Congress—turn round a mere picture—-but you 
would have to turn round the great public sentiment of 
our ])eople. 

When Mr. Levin, of rhiladelphia, delivered his phi¬ 
lippic in Congress, against foreigners, Mr. Owen asked 
that the picture of Lafayette be turned to the wall, du¬ 
ring the gentleman’s speech, so that that great patriot 
might not have to blush at the degeneracy of one of the 
sons of America. Sir, you must turn here the history 
of our State, our constitution, our laws, and with it the 
public opinion of Ohio—yea, you must turn round your 

40 


very faces when the attempt is made, in a constitution¬ 
al convention of Ohio to weaken any of the delegates’ 
arguments by reminding him that his birth place was 
under other suns and in other climes. I have thought 
it necessary to say this much, once for all upon this 
subject, and I trust I have said sufficient not to be com¬ 
pelled to speak again. I might have forgiven a mere 
schoolboy in politics, for remarks like those which fell 
from the gentleman from Geauga, but that gentleman’s 
high and distinguished position, his long and uninter¬ 
rupted participation in public affairs, and the influence 
that gentleman enjoys as a distinguished member of the 
Whig party, called from me the reply that I have made. 
I do not wish to disguise that I feel deeply upon this 
subject. I look upon attacks of that kind as unfair and 
unmanly: they are improper and in bad taste to a large 
portion of the people of Ohio, when a man with a tow¬ 
ering position, that that gentleman deservedly occupies, 
descends to sophistries like these, the cause he advo¬ 
cates must indeed be a weak one. The gentlenian [ Mr. 
Hitchcock] no doubt feels upon this subject, how un¬ 
safe his position would have been frequently, if popu¬ 
lar opinion could have controlled the supreme judges 
of Ohio—we would have had less subservient tools to 
the money power of this State; and the doctrine of ves¬ 
ted rights in suspended banks, who set at nought the 
miseries and sufterings of a patient people, would long 
ago have exploded, and the men who advocated it 
would surely have found their cpiietus at the hands of the 
public. That gentleman pretends to be indoctrinated 
with Democracy, but in this instance he has surely 
shown that he has no confidence in the great mass of 
his fellow citizens, whose servant he has been for so 
long a period. 

Mr. SAWYER had a word to say upon the question 
now before the committee, and to that question he de¬ 
sired to confine his remarks. He wished to say, that 
if gentlemen on the other side want this bill to be pass¬ 
ed and this system adopted they had better suffer the 
terms of the judges to be reduced, as is provided for 
in this amendment, or some other similar one. He 
gave them notice that it would be done. He looked 
upon the period of seven years as too lung. He believ¬ 
ed that the people wanted the term reduced, at least 
they did in his part of the State. He had intended 
himself to move, if no one else did, to select the judges 
of the supreme court, one for two, one'for three, one 
for four, and one for five years, making five years the 
constitutional term thereafter; but if other gentlemen 
are disposed to go for one, two three and four years re¬ 
spectively, they should not knock under him ; he would 
go as low as the lowest. 

Therefore, I say to gentlemen, if you w'ant tliis bill 
to be passed you must suffer these amendments to go 
in. If tlie seven years term is adopted, he gave them 
notice he would go against it, in every way, form and 
manner, both here and elsewffiere, both now and in fu¬ 
ture. He liked the bill otherwise, so far as he was 
able to understand it, but could not support it while it 
contained this provision. 

He had had no experience in legal affairs—was not a 
lawyer by profession, and scarcely ever had a case in 
comt—had never sued a man for a cent in his life, and 
had ever kept away from having anything to do with 
the law as far as possibl e. He had, however,^ inquired 
of several gentlemen of the legal pntfession in whose 
opinions he had great confidence, and in every instance 
the general features of the bill had met their approba¬ 
tion. He wmuld mention .Judge Whitman, whose opin¬ 
ion he had asked. He said he liked it well, in general, 
thoimh there were some of the details that he desired 
to have amended ; among which he mentioned the fea¬ 
ture now under consideration. He had also made the 
same inqihrj- of.Iudge Spaulding, who had spoken ap¬ 
provingly of the system in general. 

Mr. R(.)BERTSON desired to say, for the information 
of the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer] that 
on a more careful perusal of the features of the plan he 











626 


CONVENTION REPOKTS. 


tad had occasion to change his mind in regard to it. 
He could not say that he disapproved of the general 
form of the bill, but of several of its parts. 

Mr. SAWYER was obliged to the gentleman from 
Fairfield for the information. If Judge Whitman had 
changed his mind, he had doubtless done so for good 
reasons ; and that he had been willing to avow it had 
increased his respect for that gentleman. He looked 
upon it as a mark of much wisdom that a man is able 
to calmly review and change an established and de¬ 
ck red opinion; for they are only fools who never 
change. 

He wished to say further, that he had sent home sev¬ 
eral copies of the report—one to each lawyer in his 
district—and that, so far as he had heard upon the subject, 
the system met the approval of all parties. There are 
two papers in his district—each of whic h are edited 
by Democratic lawyers—both of whom had spoken in 
terms of approval of the report. He believed the sys¬ 
tem to be a good one, and divested of this and a few 
other slight object'onable features, should, as at present 
advised, give it his suppcjrt. 

Mr. ARCHbOLD. 1 did not intend to take any fur 
ther part in this debate, but the remarks of the gentle¬ 
man Irom Hamilton [Mr. Reemki.in] perhaps demand 
some attention. As that gentleman is strong I recom¬ 
mend him to be merciful. I have taken some pretty 
hard knocks from him, with a good deal of patience, 
because I was afraid that on the occasion alluded to. I 
had been a little too severe. This committee cannot 
fail to remember how the controversy arose. It was 
in the debates Concerning the report of the committee 
on corporations other than banking—it was the gen 
tlemau’s own rejiort—it proceedc'd from himself and 
the gentleman from Clermont [Mr. Norris] and the 
gentltman from Knox [Mr. ISelt.ers] and my colleague 
[Mr. Way.] If the gentleman had not concurred in 
that report all that he had to do in order to .signify his 
dissent, according to our rules, was to withhold his 
name. But he did not withhold his name, he stood 
sponsor for the child and we w'ere willing to assist at 
the baptism—but strairge to tell, he visited his owm 
city ol millionaries, came back in possession of new- 
light, seized his own child by the throat and it took u.s 
upwards of a week to pi event him from strangling it. 
We could not perceive how it deserved such unwor¬ 
thy treatment from its own parent, for in addition to 
some other veiy strong features, it had the gentleman’s 
favorite feature of individual liability [Laughter.] 

In the first place, the whole of the p.roperly of the 
corporation was to be liable in its whole extent; in 
the second place each stockholder was liable for the 
whole amount by him subscribed; in the third place, 
he was to be liable to an additional sum equal to that 
subscribed; or if this was at all doubtful upon the face 
of fhe original report, the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney] which we willing¬ 
ly accepted, put it beyond all doubt. Now we did think 
that the gentleman was a little stretching his autliori- 
ty over us when he commanded us to rally on pain of 
excommunication ; when he reminded us that (14 ol 
us had been elected to carry out his new dogma, which 
he himself had totally neglected in the committee 
room. We did think that it would have been more 
kind and considerate of the gentleman, in the bei;;lii 
of his plenary power, to have remembered our election 
and its consequent incumbent duties in the committee 
room, and not have voluntarily betrayed us into an er¬ 
ror from which it required the whole force of his au¬ 
thority to deliver us. 

Mr. REEMBLIN. I have only contended fora mere 
verbal alteration in a very slight matter, and which ns 
I supposed, did not change the entire cousiitulion ol 
the report. 

Mr. ARGHBOLD. The gentleman cannot put that 
guise on the matter. It was asiruggleforlifcanddealh. 
We had to interpose between him and his child, and it 
required the utmost force of our exertions to prevent 


him from being guilty of a horrid parricide. [Laugh- 
ter. ] 

The gentleman is pleased to attribute very high and 
arbitrary doctrines of government to the gentleman 
from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock.] He says the remark 
which that gentleman has reiterated to-day, although 
it originated with me, was attributed by the German 
paper iii Cincinnati to the gentleman from Geauga. 
He was compelled to write down to that city and cor¬ 
rect the error; but now he will be compelled to write 
that the gentleman is preaching from the same text, 
and he scarcely knows which is tne original author of 
the sermon. Tlie desigfi no doubt is to represent us as 
ill some way standing uear the same platform, or pos¬ 
sessing a Kemarkable sympathy of feeling. 

Understood, as the fact truly is, and understood as re¬ 
lating only to that general sympathy of feeling which 
must take ])lace and does take place between enlight¬ 
ened American citizens of every shade and stripe of 
political opinon, I have no objections. But the gentle¬ 
man’s pointed remarks, his determined efforts to place 
ns in the same category are liable to misconstruction. 
There is no sympathy of feeling between the gentle¬ 
man from Geauga and myself, other than that which 
always takes place between candid and upright jioliti- 
ical opponents. I have personal reasons for not wish¬ 
ing to be misconstrued or misunderstood ; for persons 
far away from this Hall who are utter staiigers to me, 
for reasons best known to themselves, seem much in¬ 
clined to misunderstand and misrepresent me. They 
iiie utterly unacquainted with the feel'ngs that are 
reigning ill my lireast. But lam full ofrelentiugs, and 
as 1 have been afraid sometimes that a little soreness 
of spirit had induced me to treat the gentleman with 
too much severity, on that occasion. I have on several 
occ sions borne bis rebukes with most exemplary, and 
and even lamb like patience. Probably now there is 
no further cause of bickering between us—if the gen¬ 
tleman should be in the same pacific disposition, 1 am 
willing not only to conclude a truce, but a firm, lasting 
and perpetual pefice. 

Mr. REEMELIN said that ho had given notice in 
the committee of his intention to move the amendment 
in question. 

Mr. STANTON desired to state, in a few words, the 
manner in which the business of the committee wa.s 
transacted. It was a small committee, and its business 
was done with very little formality, and its deliberji- 
tions carried on in a conversational form. He had nev¬ 
er, by anything that transpired, been le ’ to suppose 
that the gentleman from Hamilton was opposed to the 
report. He had inferred from what had dropped from 
him in familiar conversation, that he looked upon this 
bnsine.ss of individual liability, as applied to such cor¬ 
porations, as pretty much of a humbug, and it never oc¬ 
curred to him that any opposition would be made to 
the report by any member of the committee, until the 
motion was made by the gentleman from Hamilton. 

On n)otion ol Mr. LAWRENCE, the committee rose. 

Mr. ROBERTSON, from the standing committee on 
;he Elective Franchise, presented report number one 
of .said committee, wliich was read the first time, laid 
on the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. STIDGER, from the standing committee on Ed¬ 
ucation, ])resented report number one of said commit- 
tt e, which was read the first time, laid on the table and 
or(lere<l to be jirinted. 

On motion of Mr. MORRIS, the Convention took a 
recess. 

3 o’CT.OCK, P. M. 

upon motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention re¬ 
solved Itself into a committee of the Whole, Mr. Ein- 
ni.E in the chair, and resumed the consideration of re¬ 
port number oue of the committee on 
THE judiciary. 

The question before the committee when the com¬ 
mittee took a recess, being atiil undisposed of. 












CONVENTION KEPORTS 


627 


Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. Mr. Chairman: A 
ijreat deal has been said ai one time and anotlier about 
the necessity of having a c mrt under the inlluence of, o ■ 
amenable to the people. We had some facis present¬ 
ed to us just before we to k a recess. But I supposed 
all intended by them was that the people should elect 
their judges, instead of having them appointed by the 
Legislature. I did not sn'ppose there was any design 
in them, other than this, 1'ut we have been informed 
by the gentleman from H milton as to what the object 
is. It is to make a politic il court, to decide causes ac¬ 
cording to the political doi,'mas of the day. The gen¬ 
tleman say.s, to be sure, we would not have this prin¬ 
ciple prevail where indivi iuals are before the court as 
suitors, but where the public is concerned, or where a 
corporation is concerned, this court is to carry cut not 
the law but the political ojiinions of those who appoint¬ 
ed them. That I understand to be the object of the 
gentleman, and now I ask, is it the desire of this body 
to have the couit so constituted, that it shall not in all 
oases be controlled by the law of the laud, but shall be 
controlled by the political dogmas of any political par¬ 
ty. What does that gentleman desire ? A political 
court, not to be^controlled by law—not to decide cases 
according to the constitution and the law, but to de¬ 
cide cases as shall be dictated to them by those who 
appointed them. Is that the object? I understand 
that to be the object of the gentleman from Hamilton, 
and he tells me that my sins have been so great, that if 
the people had had it in their power, they would have 
displaced me i’rom office, because I have not decided 
in accordance with that side. 

When I took my seat upon the bench, Mr, Chairman, 

I took an oath to support the constitution of the United 
States and of the State of Ohio. I further took an oath 
-that I would administer justice without respect to per¬ 
sons, and do equal justice to poor and rich; that I 
would faithfully and impartially discharge and perform 
all the duties incumbent upon me as a judge of the su¬ 
preme court, to the best of my ability, understanding, 
and agreeable to the constitution and Imo of this State .— 
That is the oath upon me. And shall I sacrifice that 
oath, in order to meet the wishes of a political cabal or 
a political party ? Is that the desire ? I can assure 
gentlemen that so long as I retain my senses, so long 
will I decide every case presented before me, whether 
between individuals or the public, or individuals with 
individuals or corporations,—I will decide them accor¬ 
ding to my understanding of the constitution and the 
law of the State, independent and regardless of those 
opinions. I say to gentlemen, that whenever a differ¬ 
ent principle is permitted to prevail in this country, we 
may bid farewell to our courts of justice and all our o- 
ther institutions. What! a judge to decide according 
to the wishes of those who appointed him ! There 
was a judge once who decided in this way. He was 
t^an English judge, and his name was Jeffries, He de- 
cided according to the wishes of the appointing power. 

But my friend from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] re¬ 
minds me that there was another case, and which youi 
doubtless will all recollect. We read o( another judge, 
who, against his own impressions of right, decided ac¬ 
cording to the popular impulse of those about him, and 
his name was Pontius Pilate. He condemned a man 
because the popu’ace wished to condemn him, although 
he “ found no fault in him.” Is-it the desire to have a 
court operated upon by this kind of popular impulse ? 
The gentleman says, that, not having conformed to this 
popular impulse, I would have been hurled from the 
bench, if there had been an opportunity to do so. I 
can inform the gentleman that as often as his party 
have been in power, they have hurled me from the 
t bench. [Laughter.] If I had consulted my own pri¬ 
vate interests, I should have wished them kept in pow¬ 
er, so as to have kept me from occupying the bench 
The first time they did this, was before there was any 
strife upon the subject of corporations—before any ol 
these questions, which are now said to be cardinal 


questions in the democratic creed, were brought for¬ 
ward by any man, I can inform the gentleman from 
Hamilton that I have recollections of but one case 
which was ever decided in such a -manner as to give 
offence to the democracy ; and that was the case of the 
State of Ohio against the Commercial Bank of Cincin¬ 
nati. 

Wffien this bank was chartered, the bill for the char¬ 
ter of that bank was brought forward by a good dem¬ 
ocrat. I think Alexander Duncan was its father. In 
this I may be mistaken. A clause was inserted in it, 
that the institution should be taxed four per cent, upon 
its dividends. Subsequently, a law was passed taxing 
the banks generally five percent, upon their dividends; 
and this tax was demanded of the Commercial Bank 
of Cincinnati. The first I heard of the difficulty, it 
was disclosed to me by the auditor of your State, who 
was then John A. Bryan. This was at a time when I 
had been burled from the bench lor my political sins, 
by the party of the gentleman from Hamilton, and had 
been returned to the Senate by the people. Mr. Bry¬ 
an came to me and stated that the bank was willing to 
pay four per cent., but they claimed that they were 
excused by their charter from paying anything further 
tax. Mr. Bryan was of opinion that no further tax 
could be assessed upon the institution. In accordance 
with his request a bill was reported, authorizing him 
to receive from the bank the four per cent.; and it was 
passed through the Senate without objection. It was 
the same Senate to which I have heretofore referred, 
in which there were twenty-one democrats to fifteen 
whigs. 

The bill went to the House of Representatives. It 
did not pass that body. I think my friend from Butler 
county [Judge Vance] must have the credit of defeat¬ 
ing its passage. The next I heard of the case was af¬ 
ter I had been returned to the bench, when it was 
brought before the . ourt and the question raised was 
whether the Legislature had the power to tax the 
bank, beyond the sum named in its charter. Thecoui’t 
were divided in opinion. Three of the members of the 
court being of the opinion, that under the decisions 
which had been made by the Supreme court of the U- 
nited States—the Legislature did not possess the pow¬ 
er. One member claimed that it had the power. The 
members of the court at that lime were Ebenezer Lane 
Reuben Wood, Joshua Collett, and myself. Joshua 
Collett was the dissenting Judge. The three other 
judges concuried in the opinion, that the Legislature 
did not possess that power. Were they all whigs ? 

Now, this is the only case in my recollection, in 
which a question of this kind has been raised and deci¬ 
ded by the court since I have been a member, which 
in any manner or shape interfered with what is said to 
be Democratic doctrine. I believe that the law and 
constitution which I had sworn to support, required of 
me to make the decision I did. I might be wrong in 
this, but such was my opinion and understanding of 
the law, and it is not yet changed. What was my du¬ 
ty in that case ? Should I keep in view the oath I had 
taken, or should I go abroad into the streets and ascer¬ 
tain what was the popular opinion, in order that I might 
be governed by it. I ask gentlemen whether I should 
have regarded the oath I had taken, and which the con¬ 
stitution and law required me to take, or should I have 
gone abroad and hunted up popular opinion. The prop¬ 
osition here is, that the court is not to be bound by 
the law, but is to be bound by public opinion. That 
is the independent court, which we are to have here 
in Ohio. 

I trust, Mr. Chairman, that after the election of a 
judge by the people, he will not have that opinion of 
his duties w'hich the gentleman from Hamilton seems 
to suppose he will have. I trust, Mr. Chairman, that 
when these judges are elected they will act indepeu- 
dently—that they will regard their oaths—that they 
will decide cases that come before them, as they under¬ 
stand the law to be, and that they will not go out of the 













628 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


court house to ascertain what is public opinion, before 
they make their decision, Now, I submit to gentle¬ 
men, whether there is any good reason for reducing the 
term of office provided for in this report. 

I ask gentlemen, whetlier they are prepared now to 
adopt the principle advanced'by the gentleman trom 
Hamilton, whether they wish the j)olitical dogmas of 
popular political prejudice to influence a court, which 
18 sworn to decide according to the constitution and 
law. It may be that gentlemen desire it in these days of 
progress. But it is a kind of progress which will lead 
you first to anarchy, for let the people be persuaded 
that there is no court to do them justice according to 
law and ecpiity, and it is all to be done by political 
prejudice, and my word for it, they will run from their 
present happy state, into a state of anarchy and confu¬ 
sion. To escape from anarchy and confusion, they will 
submit to a despotism. Such appears to me to be the 
inevitable result. I want to know whether there is a 
majority of this body who act upon the principle, that 
courts of justice hereafter are to decide cases not accor¬ 
ding to law, but according to popular political preju¬ 
dice. 

Why, Mr. Chairman, if such is to be the case, it may 
operate upon us all. This popular prejudice at one 
time may be running in one direction, at another time 
it may be running a different direction; and thus those 
who to-day gain their rights, or succeed in that which 
they pretend to be right, through popular prejudice may 
to-morrow, by a change of parties, be placed in a sit¬ 
uation to lose as much or still more than they have 
gained. Now it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, this is 
worthy of the utmost considei-ation. We should reflect 
upon this subject before we act. 

I do not suppose, Mr. Chairman, that the term of four 
years is to have the effect which the gentleman from 
Hamilton seems to have in view. I believe these judg¬ 
es will be equally independent whether you elect them 
for four years or seven. I suppose now that they are 
not to be elected for seven years. In fact, that is well 
determined. I should be opposed to electing them for 
eight years, because that goes beyond the present con¬ 
stitutional term. I should be- willing to have the term 
reduced to six, or even five years. I hope a majority 
of this committee will be found to fix this term at five 
years, if no m^re. 

Sir, an attack was made upon this side of the house, 
by the gentleman from Hamilton, and we were told 
lhat we were opposed to reform, and that we were op¬ 
posed to the eleclion of judges by the people until we 
were driven into it by public opinion, and that we were 
opposed to the formation of a new constitution, while 
it is claimed on the other side that they started this 
I)roject for the formation of a new constitution. I can 
safely assert that you may look over the journals of the 
Senate and House of Representatives for the last twen¬ 
ty years and you cannot find that this proposition for a 
new constitution was ever brought forward by the 
democratic party, while that party was in power. But 
when out of power they have urged such a measure, 
but never when in power. I think, in this matter, there 
is no merit to be claimed on either side. There has been 
a hanging back upon both sides in regard to this matter. 
It has been pushed forward by either party when it was 
in the minority. As to this electing of judges by the 
people, I have heard bu*t little of it until within a few 
years past. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Will the gentleman from Geau¬ 
ga permit me to make a suggestion, which will be of 
service to him ? I brought forward the Convention bill 
in December,1843, and I must absolutely disclaim be¬ 
ing governed in my conduct by the circumstance of be¬ 
ing either in the minority or majority. I will say, that 
in the course of a legislative experience of some three 
or four years, I never voted differently in the minority 
from what I would in the majority. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman,^ 
that the gentleman would have done so. I believe he , 


has for years been of the opinion, that there was a ne¬ 
cessity for amendment or change in the constitution. 1 
do not believe that he w'ould be influenced in his vote 
by the inquiry whether his party was in the minority 
or majority. All that I say is, that I believe in no case, 
has the measure for a change in the constitution been 
proposed by the party which was at the time in the 
majority. We have ben accused of conservatism, and I 
must confess I am not ashamed of the name. I am 


conservative in all my feelings, as 1 understand the term. 
What is it, and what is its meaning ? It is this: that 
where a law is passed, it shall bo enforced so long as 
it remains a law. So long as the law remains, ai d 
there is no change made, so long my conservatism 
leads me to support it. 

I believe in this respect we are all conservatives, so 
far as there is any conservatism in this country. There 
is no man nor any body of men in this country, that 
are willing that the law should be violated—while the 
law' exists, they demand that it shall be obeyed. That 
is wfliat I understand by the term conservatism. 

I have been told, Mr. Chairman, that this must be a 
democratic constitution. I am willing, for I am sure 
that the people of this State will never approve any 
eonstitulioit which takes away from them the power of 
managing their own business in their own way. They 
wull never approve of any constitution which holds up 
any privileged orders, and which introduces distinc¬ 
tions among the people. The people are equal—they 
are the sovereigns of the State, and they must control 
the State. Any constitution which does not carry out 
these principles will b rejected by the people. If it 
is intended that certain political dogmas shall be in¬ 
troduced into the constitution which may be the dog¬ 
mas ofthe party to-day and notof to-morrow, I have some 
doubts whether the people will ratify a constitution of 
such a description. 

I really hope, that gentlemen upon this floor, wheth¬ 
er Whigs, Free Soilers, or Democrats, will unite togeth¬ 
er and make a constitution lor the whole people, and 
not a party constitution, intended for a part of the peo¬ 
ple. I presume that gentlemen do not desire any 
thing of this kind. I presume that we all desire to 
have a constitution which is republican in its character, 
and which shall operate equally upon the whole body 
of the people. 

While w'e are framing this constitution, it seems to 
me that there need not be so much said as there is 
about Whigs and Democrats. However, I have no ob¬ 
jections if gentlemen desire it. I have no objections 
that we should hear about Democracy or about Whi?- 
gery, but I do hope, that when gentlemen take us to 
task upon our peculiar political opinions, if we have 
any, that we may be permitted to reply to them as we 
shall deem lit. 

Mr. MASON inquired if it was in order for gentie- 
men on the oth^r side of the chamber to discuss politi¬ 
cal questions while those on this side are excluded ? 
He thought it unfair, after political disquisitions, cou¬ 
pled witli charges, had been freely indulged in over 
there, that a reply should not be permitted. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD mo red that the gentleman from 
Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock] be allowed to proceed. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said he had not sought the con¬ 
troversy-, but had got into it only in reply to interroga¬ 
tories from gentlemen on the otiier side. 

Mr. SAWYER objected to its continuance. 

Mr. STANBERY". I regret that the discussion has 
been permitted to fall away from the question before 
the committee. I desire to bring it back, and to speak 
to the question and to nothing else. ' It is simply 
whether we are to discard seven years as the tenure 
of our judges, and take a term of four years in its stead. 

Is such a change proper? Is it expedient? Is it 
called for—or so much as expected by the people ? 
Why, sir, the experience of all time is against it. The 
example of our sister States is against it. Even in the 
most modern of the constitutions—the very latest ex- 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 629 


periinents in what is called proj^ressive democracy, 
there is no example or precedent lor such a term in the 
highest judicial offices. 

But what can be offered, in the way of argument, for 
this change? What good reason can be given for it? 
Not one. Yet, gentlemen here have arrayed them¬ 
selves in its support, and undertake to say that it will 
be popular. Do gentlemen suppose that when they go 
to such extremes, the people will go with them ? They 
are wise men who can speak beforehand, for the peo¬ 
ple of Ohio, upon such a proposition as this—and they 
are very bold tnen, \yho, running in advance of, or con¬ 
trary to public opinion, launch upon such an experi¬ 
ment. II I understand anything of public opinion, it 
is that we make just as few changes as may be, in our 
old constitution—that we avoid all extremes—all expe¬ 
riments. It is the people, not this Convention, who 
have determined upon a change of the constitution. It 
!s their will, their wishes, not our own, which should 
be carried out. What the changes are, which the pop¬ 
ular will has indicated, we are not altogether left to 
conjecture. We know very well what they are— 
though as to some of them, we may dispute as to the 
will of the majority. But as to this change, we have 
heard nothing of it among the people. It does not come 
from them. 

The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemehn] urges 
this change upon us. He will understand me, that I 
ti;ke no exce[»tion to his birth place—a matter about 
which he is so sensitive. I am glad to see him here, 
but he will excuse me from following his lead. In¬ 
deed I hardly can understand how it is, that the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton is here at all—how it happened, 
that when he left liis native land, with the world before 
him where to choose, he could have settled himself in 
Ohio. Why, sir, t.aere is nothing in our constitution 
that suits his views. The constitution is all wrong, 
and our people all oppressed by the tyranny of banks 
and a moneyed aristocracy ! Very strange, sir, that he 
should voliintarily have come under such a constitu¬ 
tion; that he should, of his own choice, have subjected 
iiimself to such intolerable oppression! The gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton has said that we, on this side of the 
chamber, do not understand the people, and that we 
are afraid of the people. Will he allow' me to put a 
case? Suppose I were to leave Ohio and settle myself 
in his native city; and that being there, I should 
straightw’ay fall out with its constitution, with its frame 
of government; that I should say to the })eopie of that 
‘'you do not know your owm interests, nor your 
own rights. You are Suffering under a tyranny with¬ 
out being aware of it. You have a very bad constitu¬ 
tion—I will teach you how to make a better one.” 

Mr. REEMELIN. Will the gentleman inform me if 
this has ever been done ? 

Mr. STANBERY. Yes; once or twice too often. I 
have certainly no objection that the gentleman from 
Hamilton should give us his views upon our constilu- 
constitution; but I cannot quite agree that he under¬ 
stands that constitution better than we do ourselves, or 
that he has any authority for saying that we do not un¬ 
derstand the wishes of the people, or that we are afraid 
of the people. 

But what is the reason given for tliis particular 
change? Is it not that the judges shall be made to 
feel more directly, the force of popular impulse? Is 
not that the very thing the gentleman from Hamilton 
desires? 

Mr. REEMELIN. It is to increase their accounta¬ 
bility to the people. 

Mr. STANBERY. Their accountability to the peo¬ 
ple ?—and for what? 

Mr. REEMELIN. For the discharge of their duty. 

Mr. STANBERY. What duty?—in the decision of 
cases? 

Mr. REEMELIN. Yes. 

Mr. STANBERY. That is it. Hold onto that. You 
desire, that in the decision of cases, the judges shall be 


made more accountable to public opinion than they 
now are, and therefore you shorten their term. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I did not understand that a judge 
was to be accountable to the popular opinion at any 
given time, or for any particular period, but merely to 
respond to the conclusions of the calm sense and judg¬ 
ment of the community who have a right to judge the 
fidelity with which he discharges his duties. 

Mr. STANBERY. That is a very different matter. 
What sort of idea do gentlemen have of the judicial 
office ? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I am satisfied that gentlemen 
on the other side could not comprehend the view that 
was taken on this side, of the duties of a judge, or of 
the effect we desire to secure by the frequent elections 
of judicial officers. What makes the judge in a repub¬ 
lican government an.xious to perform his duty ? What 
makes the difference between a republic and a despo¬ 
tism in that respect? Is it not accountability to the 
people ? Is it not that which secures to us a better 
performance of those duties than there is in any other 
part of the world ? 

Mr. STANBERY. I was not aware of that fact. I 
did not know that our judges performed their duties 
more faithfully than in other countries. The judges of 
England, though appointed by the Crown, have been 
faithful and impartial in discharging the duties of their 
high station. None more so. The judges, in many of 
the States of the Union, appointed by the Executive, 
and holding by a life tenure, are equally faithful and 
honest. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Then the gentleman is in favor 
of the appointment of judges by the Executive, is he 
not ? 

Mr. STANBERY. Not at all. I am in favor of their 
election by the people. But that is not the point. I 
was answering the assertion that fi-eqent elections of 
the judges, and a short terms of office, would insure 
more capable and impartial officers. That is what I 
very much doubt. I may say, it is what I do not ex¬ 
pect. I fear the contraiy. 

But I ask again, what is the judicial office—what is 
judicial power, that gentlemen on the other side are so 
desirous to bring it more immediately under the influ¬ 
ence of jjopular opinion ? Is it that the people may 
be protected against the encroachments of the judici¬ 
ary ? Why, sir, there is no such thing as power be¬ 
longing to this department. I mean in the sense in 
which that word is usually applied. It has been said, 
with great truth, that neither power nor will belongs 
to the judiciary^. Its sole function is the exercise of 
judgment. It ha.s not so much as the. power to cany 
its own decrees into effect, but must depend even for 
that, on the executive department. In the history of 
the world, not an instance can be found, in which the 
liberties of the people have been taken away by the ju¬ 
diciary. It holds neither the sword nor the purse. It 
wields no patronage. We must protect it, rather than 
guard against it. It is our safeguard, when properly 
constituted, against political power, wherever that pow¬ 
er may be lodged. We must make it independent, to 
secure impartiality and honesty. From the earliest 
times—from the times when man first conceived a right 
idea of the judicial character, independence and im¬ 
partiality have been deemed its essential attributes. In 
the early ages, when the virtues were deified, justice 
was well personified, a bandage was drawn over her 
eyes, and even balances put into her hands, to indicate 
perfect impartiality—complete independence of all ex¬ 
traneous influences. 

I never want to see a judge upon the bench, who 
must look to the people before he can decide the case—- 
who must constantly consult and be governed by pop¬ 
ular impulses—who shall be always under a fear of ac- 
countabilitv to those who make and unmake him. How 
can such a judge take the solemn oath to discharge his 
high office without fear, favor or affection ; he who is 
constantly in dread—who is trembling at every step, 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


f 


630 


lest his decisions may not be acceptable to a j)opular 
majority. 

Mr. ROBERTSON (interposing.) The gentleman is 
either mi.staken, or wilfully misrepresents. There was 
nothing of the kind said. The idea is, that when chan¬ 
ges have taken place in popular sentiment, if the jud^e 
cannot carry out the desires of the people, a speedy 
election may put another in his place. 

Mr. STAN BE RY. It comes to the same thing. Tlie 
judge is to understand that he must conform to these 
popular changes, or he loses his office. There is to be 
no security for him unless he changes as the majority 
changes. He must carry out—that is it—he must car¬ 
ry out what the gentleman calls “the desires of the 
people,” or he will be weighed in the balance and 
found wanting Why the whole theory of the law and 
of its administration is to withdraw, as far as possible, 
every case from just such influences. In that consists 
the safety of the innocent—the punishment of the guil¬ 
ty—the security of the weak from the strong—the 
stability and certainty of the law. If a person be charg¬ 
ed with a crime, and the public opinion runs strongly 
against him, the place of trial is changed just to avoid 
the influence of that opinion. When the jury is made 
up, no one is allowed to go into the box who has form¬ 
ed an opinion, or has been influenced by^ the popular 
excitement. After the evidence has been heard, and 
the case is to be decided, what do you do with the ju¬ 
ry ? Do you send them to a town meeting to be in¬ 
structed as to their verdict ? No, sir; you shut them 
up ; you do not allow a word to be said to them ; you 
carefully guard them against all extraneous influences 
and solicitations. 

Mr. Chairman, I never can be persuaded to make this 
change in the term of our judges, without a sufficient 
reason. I cannot consent to shorten the term upon the 
reasons wldch have been urged. None have been giv¬ 
en, other than a more direct accountability to jiopular 
opinion. That is precisely what I would wish to avoid. 
If it is to have any effect, it will take from the 
judge all sense of independence. I would avoid that, 
not so much for the sake of the judge, as for the sake of 
the people. A firm and honest judge will, under any 
system—under any term of office—decide every case 
according to the law; but I fear the temptation—the 
dread of a speedy removal from office—will be too 
much for many weak men. who would otherwise be 
disposed to do their duty with impartiality. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. The speech of the gentleman 
from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] I regard as most ex 
traordinary in its character. It was a speech directed 
against an argument which has never been made here, 
and which it is certain, no intelligent man ever will 
make. It was a reply to no position that has been ta¬ 
ken in this body : and therefore, I suppose it must be 
intended for some out-side purpose—to create wrong 
impressions. What man here has taken the position, 
that a judge should go out and address the people, ask¬ 
ing them how he should decide a particular case 1 Yet 
that is the monster vvhich the gentleman has been com¬ 
batting for the last ten or fifteen minutes; yes fighting 
this man of straw, with all his eloquence ! 

I confess I cannot comprehend what^ could have been 
the object of the gentleman in making such an argu¬ 
ment. Upon this side of the house are to found law- 
abiding men, as well as upon that side. We belong to 
the party which has always stood by the law and the 
right; and we have stood by the judge when he has 
condemned the guilty, or protected the innocent. 

After some irrelevant conversation which now took 
place between Mr. Smith of Warren and others — 

Mr. R. proceeded. I might digress further, to show 
that this charge or insinuation of a desire to invade the 
legal rights of the people, cannot be levelled with jus¬ 
tice against us upon this side of the chamber. Perhaps 
the greatest invasion of private rights which this coun¬ 
try has ever witnessed, was the passage of the bank¬ 
rupt law by a Whig majority in Congress; and greatest 


invasion of the rights of the people of Ohio that has 
yet happened was exhibited in what was called the 
last apportionment law, passed by the gentleman’s par¬ 
ty, and' his counsel too, in total disregard of every legal 
obligation. ^ 

But, what is the question ? It is, whether the judges’ 
term of office shall be seven years, six, five, or four 
years. This is the naked question, and to keep it out 
of view, the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] 
has kicked up a dust to blind the eyes of the members 
of the committee, by a false issue; he has resorted to 
one of those tricks of sophistry, in which the gentle¬ 
man knows very well how to succeed. But whatob- 
jeptiou has he urged against the election ot judges for 
four years? or what argument has he advanced in fa¬ 
vor of seven years? None at ail. Why, then, should 
we not have a judge elected lor four years ? Is it not 
proper to make him frequently accountable to the peo¬ 
ple, who place him upon the bench; and will they not 
decide justly whether he has perlormed his duty or 
not ? If he performs his duties faithfully the people 
will re-elect him; if not, they will allow him to retire 
to private life. This is the accountability for which 
we contend. Is there danger in returning public trusts 
frequently to the people, who are the source of all 
power, in their court to settle the account of fidelity? 

Mr. LOUDON addressed the committee in favor of 
the amendment, reading several extracts and sentiments 
in opposition to the long term, contained in a letter up¬ 
on the subject, which he had received from Preston W. 
Sellars, a whig lawyer of his county, Ho also read 
the following extract from the inaugural address of Mr. 

J. Q. Adams, which Mr. Sellars had furnished in a note, ^ 
to wit: “ The will of the people is the source, and the 
opi)iion of the people, the end ot all legitimate govern- , 
ment on earth. The best security for the maintenance 
anddhe best guarantee against the abuse of power,^ | 
consists i'l the freedom, and purity, and frequency of I 
popular elections. ’ Now sir, [continued Mr. L.] I ! 
think that is about as good a speech as I can make in i 
this committee, [a laugh] and, as I have always sup¬ 
posed ifiat the most common eii’or of public speakers is 
to go beyond the place where they ought to stop. I 
will now take,my seat. 

Mr. STANTON. With regard to the quotation, lam 
perfectly satisfied that the gentleman’s correspondent 
must be mistaken. John Quincy Adams never wrote 
such language as that. 

Mr. LOUDON. It is credited—pages 278,279 Phil¬ 
lips’ Messages : and I will venture to say the gentle¬ 
man will find it there verbatim—a copy to the letter 
and point. 1 

Mr. STANTON. I wish to discuss this question fair- j 
ly. For, although it may not be a matter of veiy great ! 
imporJance, whether judges shall be elected for five or j 
seven years ; yet the reasons which have been assigned j 
for shortening the term, make it, in my judgment, the 1 
most important question that has yet come before this ' 
body. The doctrines advocated by'gentlemen over the | 
way are, in my judgment, utterly destructive of this J 
department of the government. 

It is said that the judges should be elected for a short 
time, that they may be more immediately accountable , 
to the people. But I have not yet heard any answer I 
to the inquiry of the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. 1 
Stanbery] when asked what they have to be accounta- i 
ble for. Is it for their integrity m the discharge of ’ 
their duties? Or is it for the honest exercise of their 
judgments in the trial of causes and the decision of 
questions that may be brought before them ? Is there 
to be an appeal from the court to the ballot box, upon 
questions of law ? The position of the gentleman from 
Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] is somewhat extraordinary. 
He would not have the judge decide causes in confor¬ 
mity with public sentiment, against his convictions of 
right; but he would remove him and have his place 
filled by another who would, if he would not so decide. ‘ 
He would have the judge perfectly free to decide ac- 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


cording to his convictions of duty, but if he did so he 
would hurl him from office. And if he should disre¬ 
gard his official oath, and commit mo; al perjury, by de¬ 
ciding against his convictions of riglit, and make his de- 
cisons conform to [mblic opinion, he would retain him 
in office. He would have the term of office of the 
judge to depend upon the conformity of his decisions to 
public opinion ; and I suppose he would require him 
to keep up with the changes and modifications (d’ pub 
lie opinion which characterize this age of progress. 

Mr. REBMELIN. Do we owe any body an office ? 
Mr. STANTON. Certainly not. But the position in 
which you place the judge is this: you say to him, Sir, 
your bread and butter depends upon the manner you 
decide this question. It you decide one way you shall 
be re-elected ; if you decide the other you shall be re¬ 
moved. A direct temptation is held out to him to vio¬ 
late his oath ot office; and it would frequently happen 
that by disregarding his duty and the dictates of his 
conscience, he would securediis re-election, but if, in 
defiance of temptation, he should obey the dictates of 
conscience and of duty he would be defeated and dis¬ 
graced, so far as disgrace is a consequence of defeat. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Would not the gentleman him¬ 
self be governed by that very principle ? To be more 
definite, would he vote for a judge of the supreme court 
who would declare with General Jackson that bank 
notes were bills of credit, and therefore prohibited by 
the constitution of the United States from being issued 
as money ? 

Mr. STANTON. In voting for a judge I shall always 
be governed by my opinion of the qualifications of the 
candidates—of their integrity and capacity, without 
regard to their opinions upon constitutional or (>thei- 
questions. 

I will trust to the influence of I’eason and authority 
upon an upright and intelligent judge. If I ditler with 
him upon a constitutional question; if he holds that 
the constitution means one thing and f hold that it 
means or ought to mean another, I will .seek to change 
it by amendment, and not by judicial construction. 
When a constitution or law has received a settled ju¬ 
dicial construction I will abide by it untd it is change d 
by the proper authority, and not seek to woi’k a revo¬ 
lution by an appeal from the court to the ballot box up¬ 
on the construction of a law. 

, I will never consent that the independence of 
the judiciary shall be destroyed, and die constitu¬ 
tion changed by construction on an appeal to the 
people ill the election of judges— never, never ! What 
is to be the restilt of electing judges for a short time 
and making them “accountable to the people?” A mur¬ 
der cause is for trial in which the community are high¬ 
ly excited and deeply incensed against the defendant. 
The judge is an upright man, charges the jury accord¬ 
ing to his honest convictions of what the law is, and 
the prisoner is acquitted. His term of office expires, 
and he is called upon to account for the honest exer¬ 
cise of judgment in the decision of that cause, and be¬ 
cause he has dared to obey the dictates of an honest 
conscience he is hurled from office. I submit to any 
man upon this floor whether we can hope for an honest 
and independent judiciary under such a system as this. 
It is too much to expect from poor, fickle humanity. 
Power over a man’s bread, his means of subsistence, 
is power over his will. Every honest man’s prayer is, 

“ lead me not into temptation.” 

But I understand the principle and the motive which 
lies at the bottom of all this philosophy. It is an un¬ 
hallowed thirst for power—the lust for extended do¬ 
minion. Gentlemen are determined that no obstacle 
shall prevent them from reaching, and if need be from 
sacrificing, the most sacred rights of individuals. 

Mr. SAWYER (in his seat.) Elect for life, then. 

Mr. STANTON. The gentleman from Auglaize says 
we ought to elect for life. Well, sir, I say for one, 
square up, withotit any hesitation, that if I had the ma¬ 
king of the constitution, I would elect the judges of the 


631 


court of last resort for a long term, and make them in- 
eligil'le for a re-election. 

It seems to be imagined by some gentlemen that the 
majority, which is the governing power, should be at 
all times absolutely ornuipotent. That there should bo 
no ob.stacles or restraints to prevent them from sacrifi¬ 
cing the most sacred rights of individuals at pleasure. 
That the life, liberty, reputation and property of every 
individual in community should at all times be at the 
mercy of the governing power. 

An upright and indefiendent judiciary would be an 
effectual protection to the inalienable rights of individ¬ 
uals, and hence it must be got rid of. There must be 
an appeal from the court to the ballot box. Everything 
must be saciificed to a domineering partisan majority. 
Sir, I demur most earnestly to any such doctrine. I 
ought not to hold my life, liberty, and prosperity at the 
mercy of the majority. And 1 submit to you, sir, if we 
are to have a dependent and venal court, whose decis¬ 
ions are liable to be influenced by poptdar prejudice, 
and passion, and impulse; where is there any safety 
for tile most sacred rights of individuals ? How can any 
man sliield himself from a torrent of popular prejudice 
and delusion, such as sometimes sweeps over the land, 
and may seek to destroy him. 

Mr, MITCHELL. Was the gentleman a member of 
the Legidaturo when that body repealed the emtraot 
with Mr. Me<Iary lor the public priiilinT. 

Mr. STANTON. I was not. But if I had been a 

ember I should have had no hesitation about repeal¬ 
ing the law creating the office of State printer. 

I believe the Stale printer, at that time, had some 
rather conservative notions about repealing contracts 
which he was never troubled with either beforeor since. 
But I am not saying that there would be any more safe¬ 
ty for individual rights if the party to which I belong 
were in the majority, than if any other party were in 
power. What I say is, that with a subservient judicia¬ 
ry there is no safety to individual rights, no matter what 
party may be in power. Suppose the gentleman from 
Kiiox [Mr. Mitchell] and I were candidates for a 
judgeship in the judicial district of which Knox county 
is a part. I y>resume he would be elected. 

In the course of the canvass, the oi'gau of the party 
to which he belonged, and which advocated his elec¬ 
tion, may have gni^sly libelled me, charged me with 
larceny, or some other infamous crime. I do not choose 
to submit to it in silence, but bring an action for libel 
in the court over which he presided. The case at once 
assumes a partisan aspect, and rouses party prejudice 
throughout the county. 

Upon the trial of tlie case the gentleman acts impar¬ 
tially, and I get a verdict, and judgment against the or¬ 
gan of his party for swinging damages. What then? 
Why the paper turns its batteifies against him, and de¬ 
nounces him for giving a judgment against the editor. 
The consequence is that he is himself hurled from of¬ 
fice for ail honest and upright discharge of his duties. 

But if on the other hand, he yields to the outside press¬ 
ure, and renders a partial and unjust judgment against 
me, I go out of court, with my character blasted, and 
remuneration denied me, by apartialaiid corrupt court. 

Is this the kind of a Judiciaiy which you are seeking 
to establish? Are you ready to sanction any^ species 
of tyranny which a heated partizaii majority may 
choose to practice upon individuals? 

I had supposed if there was any one safeguard of 
liberty more highly valued than another, in a govern¬ 
ment of laws, it was the protection to individual rights, 
which can only be secured by an independent Judi¬ 
ciary. 

Will any gentleman have the goodness to show me 
the difference between making the judge dependent ' 
upon the people in a republic, and making him depend¬ 
ent upon the crown in a monarchy ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. The reason why the judge should 
be answerable to the mass of mankind, at fixed periods 
of time, rather than to the crown, is to be found in this 













632 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


fact: That the mass of mankind are always in favor ol 
the right and proper discharge of the duties of function¬ 
aries of office; whereas, the crown requires subservi¬ 
ency. 

Mr. STANTON. King Numbers is not always infal¬ 
lible, any more than king anybody else. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I am glad of that answer. 

Mr. STANTON (continuing.) Yet, there is no doubt 
but the people are the safest, as well as the only just 
and proper depositories of st»vereignty, because they 
can have no motive to do wrong. Their errors are er¬ 
rors of judgment only. And they rarely err in judg¬ 
ment, except through the influence of passion or preju¬ 
dice. 

But that they sometimes may and do err, is a propo¬ 
sition that cannot be denied. And the man who pro¬ 
fesses to deny it, I hold to be an arrant demagogue. 

And I hold that the dependence of the judge upon the 
appointing power is as corrupting in its tendency, iit a 
republic, as in a monarchy. He will beaid to every 
popular delusion, and whim, and caprice : for it is true, 
in all countries and in all ages, that there are men who 
will “ crook the pregnant hinges of the knee where 
thrift may follow fawning,” whether the government 
under which they live be republican or monarchical. 
And this will be the inevitable consequence of the “ac¬ 
countability ” contended for. 

1 agree that a judge should look forward to the ap¬ 
probation of an enlightened and upright public opin¬ 
ion, to be pronounced upon through calm and unbias¬ 
sed reflection, when he has passed beyond the reach of 
the noise and clamor, and malice of interested or pre¬ 
judiced partizans. But this cannot always be had 
amidst the din, and bustle, and strife of an electioneer¬ 
ing canvass, where he is a candidate for re-election. 

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 
Reemelin] complains that he is somewhat unkindly 
treated by those who speak of his being, by birth, a 
foreigner. I have not done so myself; but I hope 
I may be permitted to remark, that no one will ever al¬ 
lude to it, if the gentleman will merely urge his rea¬ 
sons for the measures he advocates, and not set himself 
up here as an authoritative exponent of the principles 
of republicanism. 

But, sir, when the gentleman stands up here and de¬ 
nounces me, and those with whcmi I act, as aristocrats, 
having no confidence in the people, and sets himself up 
as a standard by which the democracy of every gentle¬ 
man on this floor is to be measured, he certainly ought 
not to^ think it strange that we are disposed to inquire 
into his pretensions, and see if they are well founded. 

Mr. RE EMELIN. I ask the gentleman whether he 
affirms that I said I was the only Democrat here ? 

Mr. STANTON. Certainly not, in direct terms; but 
the couse of argument and denunciation which he uses 
here, expresses his meaning much more significantly, 
than direct and unambiguous language. And I say 
when the gentleman places himself in that position, and 
assumes to be a better republican than those who have 
been born and educated here, and who have passed 
their whole lives in the service of the public, what 
can he expect but retort ? Does he suppose that we 
will sit quietly in our seats, and submit in silence to 
such imputations ? 

We know we have as much confidence in the people 
as he has ; and if we do not deem it necessary to inter¬ 
lard our speeches with repeated professions of confi¬ 
dence in them, it is because we know they have intel¬ 
ligence enough to distinguish between the real friends 
of the people, and those who fawn upon and flatter 
them for their “sweet voices.” 

We breathed nothing but a republican atmosphere 
from our infancy to the present hour; republicanism 
has been a part of our education; and we will not a- 
gree that a gentleman who has grown up to manhood 
and been educated under a despotism, is a better re¬ 
publican than we are. And as the gentleman from 
Franklin has justly remarked, any attempt by us to 


dictate to German legislators, would be resented by 
them as the mo.st unwarrantable presumption. 

Mr. REEMELIN. That is now done daily and hour¬ 
ly by American letter-writers, in Germany ; and there 
is net a single German citizen who regards it as done 
in the spirit of dictation, or in any spirit of unfriendli¬ 
ness. 

Mr. STANTON. We may well instruct them, and 
they may properly consent to receive from us instruc¬ 
tions in the principles of republicanism, because we 
have been educated in those principles and they have 
not. 

But what I say is, that if we should go there and 
mingle in their politics, and undertake to instruct them 
in the principles of their government, under which they 
had been educated, and about which we could know 
nothing, except the little smattering we might acquire 
from a short I’esidence, it would be set down as a di¬ 
rect insult. 

I claim, then, sir, when the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton comes here, and pretends to understand our insti¬ 
tutions better than we do, and imputes to us aristo¬ 
cratic principles and want of confidence in the people, 
he is as justly chargeable with presumption as a young 
gentleman in the junior class who would undertake to 
teach his professor. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Which was the better American, 
Arnold or Lafayette ? 

Mr. STANTON I do not understand that Lafayette 
ever claimed to be an American at all, though there 
certainly was never any belter patriot or friend to the 
American people. But I suppose the gentleman, by 
his inquiry, means to insinuate that he is a Lafayette, 
and that we, on this side at least, are all Arnolds. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I merely wish to show what I 
mean by a good American, without being born in this 
country, and that a man may be a traitor at heart, even 
though he may be born here. 

Mr. STANTON. That is undoubtedly true. But I 
have never understood that Lafayette evidenced his 
republicanism by attempting to dictate to Washington 
and his revolutionary compeers. And I now say again 
to the gentleman, that he may urge and enforce his re¬ 
publicanism, by reason and fair argument, as much as 
he pleases, and, whether we agree with him or not, 
we will not make it matter of complaint or reproach. 
But I also say to him, that whenever he assumes an air 
of superiority over me in the knowledge of the theoiy 
or practice of republicanism, and charges me with ar¬ 
istocracy and a want of confidence in the people, that 
I will promptly and sternly rebuke his arrogance. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I call the gentleman from 
Logan to order. 

Mr. STANTON. The gentleman from Medina is too 
late; I have not another woid to say. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I desire now merely to prove it 
upon the gentleman from Logan that he really has no 
confidence in the people, while his admissions are fresh 
in our minds. The gentleman says the object of long 
terms in England is to avoid the subserviency of the 
judges to the corrupting influence of the appointing 
power; and for the same reason, namely, that the in¬ 
fluence of the people is corrupting, he argues that our 
judges should not be made frequently responsible and 
answerable to then>, Any man that will take that po¬ 
sition, 1 say, has no confidence in the people. 

Mr. McCORMICK said: As the fourth day of July 
is nearing, our patriotism appears to be getting up a 
little—a feeling which may not be incompatible with 
the displays with which we expect to be treated, 
though I cannot myself fully participate in this feeling 
of exultation, for I expect to be absent from the city 
for some days to come. 1 desire, ho a' ever, to say a 
few words upon the question under discussion. 

And first,vsii’, I beg leave to say, that I do not admit 
of the application of the argument proposed by the 
two gentlemen who last addressed the Convention from 
the opposite side of the chamber, the gentleman from 











633 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] and the gentleman from 
Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] giving out what is their opinion 
of the democracy of this State. They may bo very 
applicable to the opinons expressed by the gentleman 
gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] and the 
gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell.] Rerhaps I 
should not say whether they are or are not. My own 
opinion is, however, that they were very applicable to 
the position of the gentleman from Hamilton; but I 
assure him that the gentleman from Hamilton is not 
authorized to express the full voice of the democracy, 
either for the members upon this floor, or the people of 
the State at large. And I beg leave to say, respectful¬ 
ly, that he has no right to express and define hei*e what 
is the democracy of the people whom I represent. 

Mr. REEMELIN heie rose and declared that his 
words would not bear the construction put upon them. 
He meant nothing more than to declare that the people 
ought to rule. 

Mr. McGORMICK. The gentleman from Hamilton 
went so far as to intimate that a certain judge [Hon. P, 
Hitchcock] would have been turned out of his place 
if the people had exercised the right of the election of 
judges, because he had decided questions, not contrary 
to law, but contrary to the will of the people. 

I hold, sir, that clemocracy looks to a pure and disin¬ 
terested judiciary; that democracy seeks for the sacri¬ 
fice of no right; that it seeks for the jiromotion of law 
and order, and for a proper and consistent state of 
things; that it asks not for the government of lynch 
law; that it asks not to make the-judiciary subservient 
to the wishes and caprices of individuals or cliques— 
all these things I opeidy disclaim as constituting any 
f)art of my democracy; yet I am in favor of the elec¬ 
tion of judges by the people, and not only so, but I am 
in favor of a short term of office. 

The judges are now elected by party, they ever have 
been elected by party, and they ever will be so elected, 
whether by the Legislature or by the people ; and I do 
not say that it is not right and proper that it should be so. 
I speak for myself; but I would stand up for this senti¬ 
ment if I were sure that eveiy one of the judges were 
to be elected from among the whigs on account of it; 
and I could justify myself for so doing. For if the 
people elect their judges will they be any more parti- 
zan than though elected by the Legislature ? or, if they 
are elected for a short period oi time will they be any 
more subservient on account of that? Surely they will 
not. Whether the term be four years or seven years, 
the time when they shall surrender their office will as 
certainly arrive in the one case as in the other; and 
whether that time be nearer or move remote, it will 
not, cannot influence the mind of any one who is an 
upright judge. This influence, I apprehend, will not 
be such as to make the judge subservient to any party 
or individual, so far as to effect a judicial decision. It 
will have this effect—and this is the principle upon 
which we base the argument in favor of the frequency 
of judicial elections—it will have the effect to ensure 
the strict performance of their duties as judges; it might 
have the effect of making them more expert, and at¬ 
tend more promptly to their business; labor harder, and 
with more diligence and efficiency if they have to sur¬ 
render their office within a few years, than they would 
if they had the right to hold on for many years. This 
is the accountability to which we would subject tnese 
judges—and the only accountability. If the judges are 
good men, they will be re-elected, and if they are bud 
men, or bad judges, they will have served too long if 
their term be but four years. No injury to the public 
service, that I can see, can be effected by this change. 
But the public service may be, and I believe it will 
be, improved by it. At all events, it will have this ef- 
lect: it will place the appointing power where it prop¬ 
erly belongs, and if an incompetent or improper person' 
should happen to get a judgeship, he will not be able to 
hold it long. These are the reasons which have deter¬ 
mined my mind in favor of the a change from the long¬ 


er to a shorter term. I hold that the judges should be 
made responsible directly and immediately to the ap- 
pointiong power. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman; before the ques¬ 
tion is taken I desire to add a few words in reply to 
the remarks of the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stan- 
bery] and to comply with the request of my friend 
from Meigs [Mr. Horton] made this forenoon. The 
gentleman from Franklin has just remarked, “that it 
had been well said that a judge has no will; that he 
has alone intelligence and judgment.” Now, sir, the 
reading of that gentleman is so extensive and careful 
upon all subjects, that it may seem like presumption in 
me to question the accuracy of his question- For such 
I understood the above remark to be. Yet I cannot, 
but doubt the question as coming from any respectable 
standard author, in the words used by the gentleman. 
I doubt not but the gentleman has seen something like 
what he has quoted. But I question very much wheth¬ 
er, on careful examination it will not be found some¬ 
thing more like this : “a judge should have no will, 
he should have nothing but intelligence and judgment.” 
To such a sentiment I most heartily subscribe. But to 
say that he really has no will—that he has nothing but 
intelligence and judgment, betrays an oversight of 
m ill’s palpable frailty, of which the gentleman from. 
Franklin can never, in the moments of sober thought, 
be guilty. 

I know that gentleman too well, and it gives me 
pleasure at all times to bear witness to his candor, in¬ 
telligence and ability. He must know and feel that 
we are here endeavoring to arrange a system which, 
whether we are willing or not, has to be submitted to 
use and application, by this frail, erring mortal man, 
tilled with prejudice and passion, surrounded through 
his whole course with errors and aberrations. 

The gentleman has said he wants an independent 
judiciary. Independent of wdiom, I ask ? Does he 
want one to be entirely pure from all accountability ? 
I trust not. Why has God delivered us his law but to 
impress us in the most powerful manner possible, 
with our undoubted, our most certain accountability 
to him at last. He there teaches us, one and all, the 
judge upon his bench as well as the man of meanest 
station, that at every turn in life', each step we take, 
each act we do, each thought we conceive, we are ac¬ 
countable to Him. This accountability is designed sir, 
chiefly to aid poor, frail nature in attaining reasonable 
uprightness of life and conduct. 

But .such is our proneness to error and transgression, 
that these teachings, though solemn and impressive in¬ 
deed, are found inadequate to restrain man in all the 
relations of life. Hence we are obliged, in framing 
human governments, to adopt some plan for bringing 
home to the senses of men a feeling of responsibility 
in this lile. In no place is this provision more neces¬ 
sary than in official stations, wffiere men are exposed 
to become giddy with power. 

The only question about which it is wise for u.s to 
spend our time in debating, is, who shall be the repos¬ 
itories of this power to hold responsible our judicial 
officers ? To this question 1 desire to say but a word. 
It is in the discussion of this question that we may dis¬ 
cover the tendencies of men’s minds to democratic 
principles or to their antagonist; and in the legitimate 
pursuit of this discussion we have here, as was natural 
to expect, some demonstrations of party distinctions 
—some ebullitions of party spirit and feelings. As on© 
is inclined to rely upon the masses of mankind as the 
safest and fittest depositories of this power, we mani¬ 
fest a confidence in their virtue, uprightness and intel¬ 
ligence, and a consequent tendency to democratic sen¬ 
timents. As he fears the people, and distrusts their 
capacity for this important deposit of power, he shews 
his tendency to other principles of government antago¬ 
nistic to democracy. Now, sir, I, for one, do not hesi¬ 
tate to say, that, in my calmest moments, upon most 
careful reflection, I am satisfied that the great body of 









634 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


mankind are, aa a general thing, much the safest repos- 
itoiy of this or any other governmental power. 

As I have said this morning, I do not pretend to hold 
that the masses of mankind arc never led astray by 
passion or prejudice, or that their decisions are in every 
instance, without exception, right. What I maintain 
is, that they are far less liable to these errors and aber¬ 
rations than the aristocratic portion of our race, and 
that hence, if you would have the best and safest tri¬ 
bunal to which to point your jmliciary as the one to 
whom they most account, you ought to select the great 
body of the people. They are less blinded by pride 
than the aristocracy, and hence less corrupt at heart — 
less incorrigible in their adherence to their own pre¬ 
conceived notions and prejudices. 

If you would have a judge or any other official func¬ 
tionary act justly and uprightly, when acting with an 
eye to the accountability he has to render, you must 
impress his mind with the idea that the tribunal before 
whom he must account will act uprightly ; will judge 
him with pure intentions, mingled with reasonable 
charity and reasonable forgiveness, without pariiality 
or serious bias. Such a tribunal you ever stand a bet¬ 
ter chance to obtain, made up of the body of cominu- 
aity rather than any excerpted few, whose stronger 
pride, prejudice and partiality, excited, perhaps, by a 
sense of rivalry, you must ever encounter. Nor, sir, is 
the history of the world silent on this subject, but I 
cannot slop to cite it. I can only entreat ray fellow- 
citizens to consult its teachings more carefully. Then, 
sir, let your judges be elected—let them stand before 
the people once in four or five or six years, as you may 
agree upon, to be judged for the manner in which they 
may discharge their official duties, and you have, in my 
judgment, the safest and most appropriate responsibili¬ 
ty to be devised. You fix their accountability before 
a tribunal where they have little to fear but from their 
own corruption in office, or from obliquity of motive, 
or want of capacity in the discharge of its duties.— 
Then, sir, away with ymur independent judiciary, in 
the sense it has been here used. On the contrary, I 
say let us have a judiciary, like each other department 
of government, with its trustees and functionaries reg¬ 
ularly accountable for their conduct. Also, let this ac¬ 
countability occur at stated periods, as a matter of 
course, without the excitement and commotion incident 
to impeachments. 

But, sir, all this talk about an independent judiciary 
sounds strangely to me, in the discussion of the true 
question before us. What is this question, sir? Why, 
simply whether we will have a judge elected for four 
or six years ; not whether we will have an accountable 
judiciaiy at all or not, but whether we will have one 
accountable at a shorter or longer period, making a dif¬ 
ference of two years. But this expression, “indepen¬ 
dent judiciary,” is not new to me. I have heard it 
since ever I was connected with the profession. And 
it has, I maintain, ever been synonimous with a judici¬ 
ary for life. Such is the sense in which all jurists, of 
whose writings I have any knowledge, have ever used 
that term; and I appeal to the venerable gentlemen 
from Geauga and from Belmont, and to the learned 
gentleman from Franklin, to say whether this is not so. 
Then why urge these considerations here, unless you 
mean to attack at once the policy of electing these of¬ 
ficers at all, and to maintain the contrary, or appoint¬ 
ment for life. —^*5, 

But I must turn to my worthy friend from Meigs [ Mr. 
Horton.] I owe to him an apology for neglecting him 
so long. When that gentleman this morning asked of 
me the book and page of Mr. Jefferson’s works where 
the doctrines I was claiming he taught would be found, 
I thought he was taunting me—ironically implicating 
that I was talking about what I knew imthing of. But 
it is due to that gentleman to say, that he has in the 
most kind and sincere manner assured me, in a person¬ 
al interview we have had, that no such thing was de¬ 
signed. I am. persuaded his motives were nothing but 


upright and gentlemanly ; and it now affords me great 
[)leasure to be able to furnish him with jiisUthe infor¬ 
mation he desired. I gave him the volume correctly 
this morning. It is volume 4, of Mr. .Jefferson’s works, 
at page &c., containing his letter to Samuel Ker- 

chival, dated July 12, 1816. I read first from page 286, 
for the benefit of my venerable friend from Geauga. I 
want to show him a true picture of conservatism, as 
drawn Ijy this master hand, whose pupil in youth he 
claims to have been. Very probably he was, but I fear 
I hut, like most of us school-boys, he has forgotten his 
grammar. 

Mr. Jefferson is answering interrogatories as to the 
changes proper in the constitution of Virginia. He 
says: 

“ The question you propose on equal representation, has be¬ 
come a party one, in which I wish to take no PUBiic share; yet 
if it be asked for your own satisfaction only, and not to be quo¬ 
ted before the public, I have no motive to withold it, and the less 
from you, as it coincides with your own. At the birth of our re¬ 
public I committed that opinion to the world, in the draft ot a 
constitution annexed to the ‘ Notes on Virginia,’ in which a pro¬ 
vision was in.serted for a representation permanently equal. The 
infancy of the subject at that moment, and our inexperience of 
self-government, occasioned gross departures in that draft from 
genuine I’epublican canons.’’ 

Now I come, sir, to what I call a true picture of a 
genuine conservative, or rather the true delineation of 
a conservnitive sentiment. Mr. Jefferson continues: 

“ In truth the abuses of monarchy had so filled all the spaces 
of political contemplation, that we imagined eoerything repnblican 
which was not monarchy." 

These last words, sir, depict to this day the true con¬ 
servatives. Any thing which is not positive monarchy, 
is republican with them. 

Now, sir. I turn to page 287, and read a few lines for 
die benefit of mv friend from Franklin, who has said 
so much of an independent judiciary. He is speaking 
of what the constitution of Virginia then was, not what 
it ought to be,—we will come to that directly. He 
says— 

“In the judiciary, the judges of the highest courts are depend,- 
ent on none but themselves. In England, when the judges were 
named and removable at the will of an hereditary e.xecutive, 
from which branch most of misrule was feared and has flowed, 
it was a great point gained by fixing them for life, to make them 
independent of that executive.” “But,” says Mr. Jefferson, “in 
a government founded on the public will, this principle operates 
in an opposite direction, and against tliat will.” 

This, sir, shows Mr. JelFi'rson’s views of the propri¬ 
ety of an independent judiciary in a republican govern¬ 
ment. 

Now, sir, I turn to page 288, to show the gentleman 
from Meigs [Mr. Horto.v,] that Mr. Jefferson conten¬ 
ded for short periods in office, .even short intervals be¬ 
tween the periods of accountability, and a most perfect 
subjection of all things to the public will, as the only 
safe criterion by which to test republican theories of 
government. He here says : 

“ Try by this, as a tally, every provision of the constitution and 
.see if it hangs directly on the will of the people. Reduce your 
legislature to a convenient number for full but orderly discus¬ 
sion.” 

I want my worthy friend from Auglaize to note that 
—Jefferson was in favor of full and free discussion. 

“ Let every man who fights or pays exercise his just and equal 
rights in their election. Submit them to approbation or rejection 
at short intervals." 

Mr. STANTON, (interrupting.) Is Jefferson talking 
about a judiciary there? Is it not about the Legisla¬ 
ture ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. If thegentleinan would but be a lit¬ 
tle particular he would find whether anything was said 
about ihe judiciary. I have hunted up too many old 
dry chancery cases not to know when I have case in 
point. Mr. Jefferson continues:— 

“Let the Executive be chosen in the same way and for the 
same term, by those whose agent he is to be, and leave no screen 
of a council be.hind which to skulk from responsibility.” 

I now ask the awakened attention of the gentleman 
from Logan. 

“ It has been thought that the people are not competent elec¬ 
tors for judges learned In the law. But I do not know that this is 







CONVENTION REPORTS. 635 


trnc, and if doubtful we should follow principle. In this, ns in 
many other elections they would guided by reputation, which 
would not err oltener, perhaps, than the present mode of sp- 
poinment. In one State in the Union at least it has been long 
tried, and with the most satisi'actory success. Th * judges pf Con 
necticut have been chosen by the people every six months for 
nearly two centuries,” &c. 

Now sir, it is said by some that Mr. .JetFersoii is mis¬ 
taken as to the term for which the judges of Connecti¬ 
cut were chosen under the old constitution. Be it so; 
it doe? not in the least destroy the force of the point 
upon which I am here pressing it. 

The question is, was Mr. .letferson favorable to short 
terms lor judges. He says that in the choice of the 
judiciary “he would follow principle.” What principle? 
Elect for short intervals as he had before distinctly sta¬ 
ted, and as he here quotes the example of Connecticut 
as he understood it, showing conclusively that he had 
no particular objections to the very shortest term. 

Now Sir, these are not all the things Mr. .letferson 
has said upon this subject, but they are all I feel at lib 
erty to detain you and the committee with at present. 
The balance 1 would most earnestly commend to the 
carelul perusal of my venerable friend the gentleman 
trom Geauga, that he may see to it that he has not 
widely strayed from the old paths. It is true, sir, I 
believe that the name of Peter Hitchcock was in early 
life associated with the Jetfersonian Democracy. It 
was from this association it acquired its high celebrity. 
I only pray God that it may please him to bring that 
venerable man back again to the paths of rectitude and 
truth before he go down to the grave leaving a murky 
cloud of political errorto settle upon it, dimming a fame 
which would otherwise be unsullied. 

One word now, sir, and I will have done. A very 
uncalled for and rather severe attack was made u[)on 
my friend from Hamilton on account of the place of his 
nativity. Sir, I thought this attack illiberal when it 
was made. I think so still. What has that to do with 
his argument. He rose in his place as it is his right— 
yes, sir, his duty to do, and with great ability and zeal 
such as he usually brings to bear upoit his subject, ad¬ 
vocated the same side of this question with the gentle¬ 
man from Lorain, the gentleman from Fairfield and 
myself. And what reply is made to him? Way, sir, 
in the first place, a clear misconstruction of his whole 
ai’gumeut, and next a highly unbecoming attack, insti¬ 
gated by pure nativeism. Such treatment of an adv('r- 
sary is unbecoming our deliberations, and I trust we 
shall not see them repeated. I am not called upon to 
enter into any defence of the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton. He is able at all times to do that himself, come 
the attacks from what quarter or upon what groinid 
they may. 

I have no other reasons now to urge for preferring 
four or five years’ term to six than those I urged this 
forenoon. My chief design now was to satisfy this 
committee that Democratic principles favored account¬ 
ability to the people in the judiciary, and that the teach 
ing of one of Democracy’s ablest champions favors 
short periods for that accountability. How I may have 
succeeded I leave the committee to judge. 

On motion, the committee rose and reported “ no 
conclusion,” and obtained leave to sit again. 

Mr. LARWILL ottered a resolution giving the use 
of the Convention Hall to the Democratic State Con¬ 
vention, to assemble in this city to-morrow. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

On motion, the Convention adjourned to meet again 
on Friday morning, at 8 o’clock. 

FRIDAY, July 5, 1850. 

8 o’clock a. m. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Willard. 

Mr. Stilwell presented the petition of Frances R. 
Petts and twenty-f)ur other citizens of Muskingum 
county, praying that a provision be engrafted in the 
new constitution prohibiting the sale of spirituous li¬ 
quors. 


Upon his motion it was referred to the committee on 
the subject of retailing ardent spirits. 

Mr. REBMBLIN presented the petition of N. Car¬ 
michael and forty-five otlier citizens of Hamilton coun¬ 
ty, praying that a provision be inserted in the new 
constitution so that counties having cities of more than 
forty thousand inhabitants may be divided, irrespective 
of teriitorial limits, if desired by the people therein. 

Upon his moti<)u it was referred to the committee 
on tlie Apportionment. 

Mr. ROBERTSON presented the following report of 
the standing committee on 

THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. 

Sec. I. Every white male citizen of the United State?, of the 
age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of the 
State one year preceding the election, and of the county, to wnship 
or ward in widt h he resides, such time as may be provided by law, 
shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now, or may 
hereafter be authorized by law. 

Sec. 2. All elections shall be by ballot. 

Sec. 3. Electors shall in all cases, except treason, felony or 
breach of the peace be privileged from arrest during their atten¬ 
dance at elections, and in going to, and returning therefrom. 

hEC. 4. The Legislature shall have full power to exclude Irom 
the privilege of electing or being elected, any person convicted of 
bribery, perjury, or any other infamous crime. 

Sec. 5. No person in the Military, Naval or Marine service of 
the United States, shall be considert'd a resident of this State, by 
being stationed in any garrison, or military, or Naval station with¬ 
in the State. 

Sec. 6. No idiot or insane person shall be entitled to the privi¬ 
leges of an elector. D. A. ROBERTSON, 

JOHN L. GREKN, 
SABIRT SCOTT. 

Mr. STIDGER, from the standing committee on 


EDUCATION, 

submitted the following report which was read: 

Sec. 1. The General Assembly shall provide for the election 
by the people, of a superintendent of common schools, whose 
term of ollice, duties and compen-^ation, shall be prescribed by 
law ; and shall provide lor the election or appointment ol such 
assistants, or other officers as may be found necessary, prescribe 
their duty, term of cilice, and compensation. 

Sec. 2. Tht' General Assembly shall encourage, by ,-uitaNle 
means, the promotion of moral, intellectual, scientific aud agri¬ 
cultural ’mprovemeiit. 

The proceeds of the sales of all lands, that have been, or may 
hereafter be granted by the United t>tates, for educational purpo¬ 
ses, and all lands or other property given by individuals, for like 
purpoises, together with the surplus rev. line, deposited with this 
titatc by the United States, (until reclaimed.) shall be, and forev¬ 
er remain a permanent irreducible fund: tlie interest aud income 
therefrom, shall be faitlifuily applied to the specific objects of the 
original grant, gift or appropriation. 

Sec. 3. The General Assembly shall make such provision by 
taxation, and other means (in addition to the income arising from 
the irreducible fund,) as will secure a thorough and etlicient sys¬ 
tem of common schools, tree to all the children in the ritate. 

f'EC. 4. No religious sect, or party, shall ever have exclusive 
right to, or control of, any part of the common school funds of 
this ritate. ^ 

HARMON STIDGER, 
SAM’L QUIGLEY. 
JAMES VV. TAYLOR, 

' JACOB J. GREENE, 

A. G. BROWN. 

Mr. CURRY, from the minority of the stuudiiig com¬ 
mittee on Education, submitted the following report, 
which was read: 

Sec. 1. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being essentially 
necessary to good governtnent and the happiness of mankind, 
schools and the means of instruction shall forever be encouraged 
by legislative provision not inconsistent with the rights of con- 
science 

Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pro¬ 
vide, by law, that the principal of all funds arising, from the sale 
of lands heretotore or hereafter granted or donated, from any 
quarter, for educational purposes, together with the priiicipM 
which may be realized from donations of personal pi opeity, and 
money for like purposes, and the surplus revenue deposited with 
this State by the United States (until reclaimed,) shall he preserv¬ 
ed inviolate and undiminished; and that the interest and income 
arising from such funds shall be faUhfully app^^ied to the object 
of the original gift or grant: Provided, I he General Assembly 
may at their discretion, appropriate all or only a part of the pro- 
ceeds of the surplus revenue to educational purposes. 

Sec 3 The General Assembly shall provide for the election of 
a suDerintendent of schools and seminaries of Uarniiig under the 
care or patronage of the State. They may also provide lor the 
election or appointment of such assistant superintendents or oth¬ 
er officers as may be necessary to carry into effect a thorough and 
uniform system of common school education; and they shall 












636 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


prescribe by law the terms of office, compensation, powers and 
duties, of all officers elected or appointed under the authority of 
this section. 

Sec. 4. The General Assembly shall provide by law a system 
of common schools, and permanent means for the support there¬ 
of, by whicli a school shall be kept up in each school district in 
this State not less than six months in each year, and which shall 
be op^n to youth of all classes, under such regulations as may be 
prescribed by law: Provided, That black and mulatto youth shall 
not attend the schools for white youth, unless by common con¬ 
sent. 

Sec. 5. Provision shall be made by law for the establishment 
and support of as many normal institutes as the General Assem¬ 
bly may find to be necessary tor the thorough instruction of pro¬ 
fessional teachers of the common schools of this State; and all 
persons applying to any of said institutes for admission and in¬ 
struction, shall be required, before admission, to give such assu¬ 
rance as may be Specified by law of their intention to devote 
themselves to teaching, as a profession. 

bEc. 6. No religious sect or party shall ever have exclusive 
rmht to, or control of, any part of the common school fund, or 
of any of the schools, seminaries, or institutions of learning, un¬ 
der the care or patronage of this State. 

OTWAY CURRY. 

Upon motion of Mr. NASH, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the whole (Mr. Riddle in 
the chair,) and resumed the consideration of Report 
number one on 

THE JUDICIARY. 

The question which w’as under discussion when the 
Convention adjourned (relative to the length of the 
term of office of judges) being undisposed of 

Mr. GREEN of Rossasked leave to withdrew the 
motion he made to fill the blank with the word right, 
which w’as agfeed to. 

The question then recurring upon filling the blank 
with the next highest number named, 

Mr. STILLWELL said—Before the vote is taken, I 
wish to call attention for a few moments, to the charac¬ 
ter of the argument which was used on Wednesday, 
and to the very extraordinary arguments that were 
made on that day by gentlemen on the opposite side ol 
the House, and which have not been sufficiently noted 
and exposed. But arguments, in fact, they were not. 
They were mere declamations, calling upon one of the 
parties in this House, to assert a dogma of a part, as * 
the rule of the majority and to be carried out by them. 

I do not object to that dogma, if gentlemen are willing 
to respond to a call of this kind. I was glad to find 
that gentlemen w'ere mistaken in regard to tfiis, for 
several gentlemen rose upon this floor and disowned 
any principle of this kind. I was glad to see the gentle¬ 
man from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] occupy the ground 
he did, being the true ground in my opinion. What is 
the interest of the people on this question ? Upon that 
I desire to add a very few words. 

Uiidoubteilly the desire of the people is. to obtain 
the best men for their officers—and especially those 
best qualified to discharge the important duties that 
belong to the judges of our courts. In determining 
the means by whicli those officer.s can be obtained, it 
is important that we should look to considerations that 
influence not only the appointing power to present the 
best men for those offices. In order to obtain good of¬ 
ficers it is necessary not only to have a proper apjioint- 
ing])ower, but it i.s necessary al.so to arrange the duties 
of the various offices so as to have a wide circle from 
which appointments can be made. 

Now it is conceded on both sides, that the policy as 
to inferior judicial officers is, that the selection must be 
made from those who have devoted their time and life 
to tile study of the lav.u No person, I presume, will 
be simple enough to think that a person can discharge 
the duties of a judge without ])revious preparation. In 
a good many of the offices under our system of gov¬ 
ernment, almost any man of general information is able 
to discharge the duties that appertain to the various of¬ 
fices in a satisfactory manner. But in a case of this 
kind, the selection of officers for so important an office 
as that of judge, the circle of choice would be very 
limited. In order, then, to choose proper persons for 
such a station, you must hold o it inducements sufficient 
to counterbalance the change of circumstances which 


they would necessarily be subjected to. I presume 
that no man fit for this office would look to it as a 
source of profit; but it would be a legitimate consid¬ 
eration fur him to require that it should furnish him 
with adequate means of support. This office differs 
from all others, in being limited to a small number; and 
it differs in this respect—that a person may take almost 
any other office, and can return to his former business 
if he is not continued in office. But if a man gives up 
the practice of the law, to take a seat upon the bench, 
it in a great measure breaks up his business and proves 
a great inconvenience to him. 

If you limit the term of office to the shortest period, 
you deprive all tho.se who are best qualified, from be¬ 
coming candidates for that office; and you limit the 
choice to two classes: either to a class that is not fit for 
the office, or to a much smaller class of men, who are 
willing to relire from thr practice of the law. It is clear 
then, that we lose a large number of those who are best 
qualified. I am satisfied that the period of seven years, 
which was fixed by the comniittee, would be sufficient¬ 
ly short to give us a wide choice to select from. The 
committee have rejected that, and the question now is, 
upon filling the blank with “ six.” I trust that before 
gentlemen will reject that number, they will sufficient¬ 
ly consider all the circumstances that enter into so im¬ 
portant a matter as this, and I hope that they may de¬ 
termine upon the highest period. 

But it is unnecessary for me to proceed at farther 
length. My purpose has been, not so much to persuade 
others to adopt the views I have taken, as to express 
my own opinions upon the subject. I must consent to 
a less period if gentlemen will not take six years. I 
trust that gentlemen, before they take the strong ground 
which has been laid down here already, will look to 
all the conseijueiices that must result from determining 
upon the shortest period in which the judges are to 
hold the important and responsible duties that devolve 
upn them. 

Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman, lam opposed to.any 
change in the Report upon the subject of the duration 
of the the term of judicial office. I do not know that I 
can change the mind of any member of this body, but 
I consider the motion, to reduce the term of judicial of¬ 
fice established by the old constitution, one of vital im¬ 
portance. I consider, that the value of the system pro¬ 
posed to be established, depends essentially and main¬ 
ly iqion the decision of this motion. It is understood in 
the committee, I believe, that a vote upon this question 
is to be regarded as an inde.xto the opinion of members, 
in regard to the judicial term, and what opinion they 
will carry out when we come to act more directly up¬ 
on the subject itself. I had desired, that the question 
might be postponed until we came to the term of the 
judges of the supreme court and common pleas, and to 
that section of the report where the term is fixed. 

Mr. SAWYER. I would inquire of the gentleman, 
what judges the committee contemplated in the section 
we have now under consideration—whether they are 
judges of the sujireme court or common pleas ? 

Mr. MASON. They are to be inferior to the judges 
of the sufu'cme court. I wish to reply only to one or 
two remarks that have been made by gentlemen upon 
the other side. One thing])re6se.s itself upon my mind, 
and it is this: why it should be that the Democratic 
party of Ohio should be less conservative than the same 
parly are known to be in other States of this Union ? 
Why is it that the party has always been less conserva¬ 
tive in its action hero than it has been in other States 
of the Union ? Now, in the State of New York, that 
same party fixed the judicial term at eight years. In 
Illinois they fixed the term at nine years. And this 
same difference forces itself upon the mind of every 
person who will look into the history of the movements 
of the same party in the different States of the Union. 
'I'here is in Ohio a degree of radicalism and reckless¬ 
ness which does not characterize the political move¬ 
ments of the same party in any other States. Ohio seems 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


637 


to have beee selected as tlie chosen ground for all the 
new experiments that can be made in politics. These 
extremes are all downward in their tendencies, and 
greatly prejudicial to the interests ot the people, while 
the people ot other Commonwealths have nothing to 
do but look on and wait lor the results of our unhappy 
experience. ' Why, I have alw'ays observed that in ev¬ 
ery party the violent always triumph over the more 
moderate, and at last achieve the victory. I suppose 
that we are destined to witness that misfortune here. 
Our people have been accustomed to the judicial term 
of seven years—a very moderate term for such an of¬ 
fice, at any time. But following out the idea of pro¬ 
gress, and not content with the term of seven years 
with which we have been accustomed for so long a 
while, it is deemed necessary to make some change in 
this, a long cherished policy, as in every thing else, and 
we are calfed upon to make this demonstration for no 
higher or better reason than to aft'ord proof of progress, 
no matter whether that progress loads into the ground 
or leads you onward and upward—it makes no ditfer- 
ence with many political men what may be their sys¬ 
tem of policy, so that they can dub the operation pro¬ 
gression. 

There is another idea which has been thrown out 
here, that four years is a term long enough for a bad 
judge, and if he be a good one, he will be re-elected. 
Now, Mr. Chairman, you are interested in this (juestion 
as much as I am, and you have as great a desire to 
make a good court as I have. But you will bear me 
witness that there is another political principle patron¬ 
ized by your friends to a great extern, and by my friends 
who are out of office, that will prevent the re-election 
of these judges. The principle to which I refer seems 
to have escaped the notice of gentlemen, for they have 
made no allusion to it. It did not suit the purpose of 
their argument I'or them to bring into view their doc¬ 
trine of rotation in office, which would nullify the 
principle of re-election. It is the Jetfersonian rule, 
iiighly cherished and always patronized by the outs of 
all partitas. 

The principle of rotation in oiHce will always pre¬ 
vent the re-election of even a good judge. The astute 
and sagacious gentleman before me, from Hamilton, 
knows it, and he had it in his piind, l)ut it did not suit 
him to avow it. The only difference between the hon¬ 
orable gentlemen and some of his friends on ibis floor 
is, that he is a bolder man in the avowal of the princi¬ 
ples by which he is governed. He dares to state the 
tendencies and final results of his pariy principles, 
when other men conceal them or start back even at 
their announcement. Now, then, we are to have a 
term of four years for the judges, as the gentleman says. 
He w'ishes the term to be short in order to bring the 
courts more effectually under the influence and control 
of public opinion. Vety well. What is likely to be 
the conduct of the judge during the term of his ser¬ 
vice. It will take the Hrst year to adjust himself in 
his seat, and to acquire that degree of ease and readi¬ 
ness in the dispatch of business which is undoubtedly 
requisite to the wise and proper performance ot the 
duties of his office. No man can jump as it were out 
v)f one orbit into another and move cither comfortably 
lo himself or harmoniously to the general system until 
he has acquired the habits and peculiar manipulations 
wdiich belong to a new and untried position. He must 
consume the fii st year in adjusting himself to his new 
duties and new relations. The last year is employed 
in looking over his shoulder—looking forward and 
around to see if lie can make a y political capital to 
secure his re-election. There may come before the 
judge some influential man in the neighborhood as a 
suitor, either as a defendant or plaintiff. He has votes 
to give—he has power by the exercise of which he 
can obtain votes and direct them either for one man or 
against another. The judge knows this ; and itbelongs 
to poor human nature to be influenced by such consid¬ 
erations. The gentleman from Hamilton county wants 


the judge to bo influenced by popular opinions, 'i'hose 
who are watching for the approaching vacancy and can 
hardly wait for the expiration of the [)eriod the judge 
has yet to serve—the little demagogues that cluster 
around his court, will raise a clamor in the community 
against the judge, and if need be, in order to ratify the 
principle of rotation you have only to call a township 
or county meeting or a State Convention to incorporate 
the principle into your parly code, and promulgate it 
as such. 

The gentleman proposes four years, to bring the in¬ 
fluence of the appointing power to bear directly upon 
the interpretation of the law—ui)on tlie expounding of 
a statute—upon the exposition of what the law is. But 
you will have one of the most corrupt courts that any 
people have ever been cursed with. The method adop¬ 
ted in early times by royal ingenuity for subjecting ibe 
judge to dependence upon the appointing power, was 
to appoint him during the pleasure of the appointing 
power. Under that rule, of appointing a judge during 
the pleasure of the appointing power, all the judicial 
murders that have ever been perpetrated in England, 
and all the outrage and wrong done to the people of 
that country in the administration of criminal justice, 
was inflicted by the hands of judicial tyrants and blood 
hounds, holding their commissions during the pleasure 
of the appointing pov/er. That was changed when lib¬ 
erty obtained such a foothold that she could raise her 
voice, and be heard in the Commons of England. The 
tenure of the judicial office was changed, so as no lon¬ 
ger to depend upon the pleasure of the crown, but du¬ 
ring good behavior—during life. Under this system, 
which has continued to the present hour, England has 
enjoyed the best judiciary probably that the world has 
ever seen. The fame of her learned and incorruptible 
judges has filled the wide world. And why is it? 
They have feared no earthly power, but have been 1 ft 
to poise the scales of justice with a firm afnd stea ly 
hand. “Let justice be done though the heavens should 
fall,” has been the motto of her judges. They have 
been able to dispense justice uiuler the influence ot' a 
conscious security against popular excitement, and roy¬ 
al displeasure. 

You propose to reduce the term of office down to the 
little, contemptible Kgure of four. You may piopose 
afterwards, that every judge shall go out of ofliceat the 
end of his term, unless he will consent to degrade his 
office by accommodating his decisions to the state of 
public opinion in the neighborhood. Suppose an in¬ 
dictment fur a riot or other outrage perpetrated, and a 
strong public sentiment in the neighborhood where t'ne 
riot took place, either for or against the accused. The 
iientleman from Hamilton would make the court yield 
to this popular feeling, and pronounce the law in con¬ 
formity with it. The judge never makes the law. The 
law-making power is confided exclusively to another 
department of the government. The judge is nothing 
but an instrument tor the exposition of the law. He 
cannot carry into execution his own seutenc!', but 
through another person, who is elected by the people 
for this purpose—a mere ministerial officer. The judge 
neither executes nor makes the law. What does he ? 
He simply tells the jury what the law in the given case 
is. I would not be surprised if, in the progress of your 
new system, you should afterwards find men upfin the 
bench that would turn around and say, “ we have no 
respect for the decisions of foreign courts. Away with 
your Chittys—your Blackstoncs—your Hawkins—and 
your Hales ; away with them.” 

Personally I feel a very little interest in the tenure 
by which your judges are to hold office. I wisli to see 
the independence of the judiciary established on a 
stable foundation in Ohio. I want to see the judicia¬ 
ry independent of popular whims, caprice and fluctu¬ 
ations as it is in England, independent of royal d'.s- 
pleasu’re, craft, prejudice and oppression. there is 
many a man upon this floor, who has l)een made to 
feel the tyranny of the minority—and many an one who 











638 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


has writhed under the scourge of a tyrannical and over¬ 
powering majority. It makes no difl’erence to me 
whether 1 am the victim of the many or the few. It 
is tyranny still—a tyranny in its most intolerable form, 
when the victim is deprived of the sympathy of his 
peers—of his equals—who have comb'ned to put him 
down. I believe that the people of this State of all 
partiesdesire anindependent judiciary,and that they re¬ 
gard such a system as immeasurably more important than 
that the will of a popular assembly in a particular lo¬ 
cality or neighborhood, expressed on a given day, un¬ 
der excitement, should be earned into the jury box or 
be delivered from the bench in the form of a solemn ju¬ 
dicial determination. 

Mr. Chairman, I once knew a man who had been in-, 
dieted for murder in the first degree, and after a long and 
careful examination, acquiled by the verdict of his peers. 
Thecitizensof the place were dissatisfied with his acquit¬ 
tal and they called a meeting at the market house to 
express their dissatisfaction, which was done in the 
form of resolutions, in one of which the accused was 
branded as a murderer—notwithstrnding the jury had 
found him not guilty of that crime. 

If gentlemen would be admonished by experience, 
and not turn to scorn the experience of mankind, they 
might see the dangerous ground upon which they tread. 

I know that a red republican can take adilferent view 
of the social state. But I tell you again that you can¬ 
not change the truth. If you make a court for the 
avowed purpose of bringing it under the influence of 
the passions, prejudices and temporary feelings of the 
hour, you will have made a court, not to dispense jus¬ 
tice, but one that may become the mere instrument of 
doing wrong. 

Genilcraen are not satisfied with having adopted the 
priuci{de that the people shull elect the judges—a great 
and vital change, hitherto untried in the State of Ohio 

_but they wish to progress further and further still. 

Theie are men upon both sides of this hall who would 
make a conservative constitution, that would satisfy 
an immense majority of the people of Ohio. The radi¬ 
cals of botn parties might not be satisfied, but the great 
tax Jiaying community—the responsible men of both 
parties, would be satisfied, and thank you, and bless 
your names, and tell their children to bless you. To 
be exti erne is no great merit. It only wants a little 
less of principle to be extreme. There is no great 
merit in being extreme, or in being ultra. A little less 
of princiide, and it is all accomjilished. With a little 
more mischievous profiensity and tendency in your na¬ 
ture, a little more party fire and heat, a little more 
wrath and denunciation, and any man can be ultra— 
can be excessively extreme. But after all, it is with¬ 
out praise or merit. 

I did sujipose, that in the committee which reported 
this plan, there was great unanimity of opinion in re¬ 
gard to the judicial term of office. It was said to be 
sanctioned by usage. It was said by different gentle¬ 
men, that the people being accustomed to it, would de¬ 
sire to have the same term undtT the new, that is fixed 
in the old constitution. The people have never deman¬ 
ded a less term than that to which we have been ac¬ 
customed, as far as 1 know. My constituents have not, 
I know, and no such demand has been made, as I be¬ 
lieve, by the peo])le represented by other gentlemen. 

I would prt fer a longer term than seven years, with a 
clause in the con.stitution prohibiting a re-election. 
Perhaps the most eft'ectual w ay to secure the inde|)eu- 
dence of the judges, wdiatever may be the length of 
tin ir term of office, would be to render them ineligi¬ 
ble to a second election. There are i any here who 
wiil agree to it. I would rather have four years with 
a prohibition of re-election, than to have the four years 
with the right of re-election. Let there be stability— 
let not ytmr judges be continually going in and out. 
Small 'hings become important wdien they affect the 
administraiion of criminal and civil justice—-distribu¬ 
tive justice, between man and man. The faithful and 


enlightened administration of justice is of the greatest 
importance to the whole people, and it may not be 
sacrificed to party whims and temporary opinions that 
are taken up one day and laid down the next. It is 
not such a small matter that every body may trifle with 
it. Three years would be preferred by the honorable 
gentleman who offered this amendment. Doubtless he 
would be satisfled with a term of six months. 

The gentleman says, let the judge decide according 
to the po()ular will. But suppose he cannot do it with¬ 
out committing perjury, for he is obliged to declare 
the law; and the law and constitution, which embody 
the wTitten will of the whole people expressed in a 
permanent form, are both in opposition, it may be, to 
j the will of a particular community as that will may be 
hastily declared under the excitement of temporary 
cases, 

Mr. BROWN of Carroll. Did you say that the judge 
would commit perjury ? I would ask the gentleman, if, 
under this new code, we should not require a different 
form of oath to be taken by the judge, than under the 
present constitution ? 

Mr. MASON. I have no doubt a different oath will 
required, in order to meet ihe views that have been ex- 
be required, in order to meet the views that have been 
expressed upon this floor—an oath which shall enable 
the judge, withou*^ official perjury, to conform his judg¬ 
ments to the latest opinions of the people in the vicini¬ 
ty. With the aid of a contrivance of this kind, the 
opinions of gentlemen, and their principles, might be 
carried out, and the resolves of cliques and parties, if 
mistaken for the will of the people, might become/rules 
for the decision of causes, and especially in the case of 
corporation^. 

Mr. Chairman, the principle of rotation in office, will, 
if adopted, prevent, as I have said, the re-election of a 
good judge; but if not adopted, then we may expect 
that bad judges will, in some instances, be re-elected, 
notwithstanding the gentleman from Hamilton says 
that the people can do no wi*ong. I suppose that they 
may be misled by the arts of the demagogues, as a king 
by the sycophants that infest his court—for the people 
will have flatterers as well as kings. These men, with 
their caucus machinery, will put in norninatjon, men 
unworthy of the confidence of the people, and the peo¬ 
ple not know it. 

Now I believe myself that the appointing power may 
be more safely lodged with the people than with the. 
General Assembly or than with any king that ever liv¬ 
ed ; and if they could be let alone, to make their own 
nominations and to do their own voting, I would trust 
them always. But to throw all the ])ower8 of govern¬ 
ment into the hands of extreme politicians, who make 
politics a trade, I am decidedly opposed to it. If you 
will make wise nominations and leave the people to 
the exercise of calm deliberation and judgment, the 
public service will be supplied with good officers. It 
is the duty of wise statesmen to look at things as they 
are, and not as they ought to be. We must look at 
what is likely to be the practical workings of our pro- 
pos( d system and guard it against the dangers that 
threaten it. Let us remember that it is to be put in 
operation by leaders of political parties, who will have 
their own selfish ends and personal interests to provide 
for. Let gentlemen deliberate well before giving 
countenance to any measures which are characterized 
by a degree ot ultraism and excessive action, that will 
destroy our republican institutions, and with them all 
that we hold dear and cher sh as valuable. Let us not 
deliver up the altars of justice to tho ministi*y of men 
who scorn the lessons of experience, and despise the 
counsels of moderation. For no government could be 
loiifr maintained under the management of such pilots. 

What I ask is, that our discussions may be conducted 
without the application of party discipline and threats 
to throttle with the bow-string of party those who may 
not agree with you. I am not afraid of you myself. 
But there are men who may be^afraid of your discipline. 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


639 


You ought to niuke no appeal, but to the sober judg¬ 
ment and reason of your friends, in the great woi k of 
making a constitution. We are not making a law, which 
may be repealed the next year. We are to make a rule, 
by which we must abide for a long time, and until chan¬ 
ged by another Convention, or by some other mode, 
which we may indicate in this constitution. Let noth¬ 
ing go into the constitution which is extreme or ultra in 
party tendency. 

You and I, Mr. Chairnuin, and the great body of con¬ 
stituents whom we represent, are all alike interested 
in having an independent, a conservative judiciary. 
That is the great want, and that the country ought to 
have. Give us the term to which we have been so 
long accustomed—or increase it, as the democratic par¬ 
ty in New York has recently done, to the term of eight 
years—or increase it to the term of nine years as the 
same party have done in Illinois, and if you choose 
make the judge ineligible to a second election, and you 
will then have judges who will have independence e- 
nough to deliver their opinions, and declare what the 
law is, regardless of any extraneous influence that might 
be brought to bear ou them. 

You may construct a court on such principles that it 
will not only prove a failure, but a scourge. With these 
remarks 1 will take my seat. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I had not intended to say an ad¬ 
ditional word on the cpiestion before us, and I was wil¬ 
ling that the question should be taken this morning 
without one word of reply to the remarks made by 
several gentlemen on the opposite side on Saturday. 
True, they have perverted my remarks, and tortured 
them into meanings which their import does not justify; 
they had made speeches upon speeches, changing my 
language and misconstruing its obvious iuttut; but 1 
was willing not to say a word in reply, if the question 
could have been taken, and thus to let my remaiks be 
reported and speak for themselves, and permit those 
who read my remarks and the remarks of those that 
followed me, to judge whether I had been treated pro¬ 
perly or improperly. But the gentleman from Clark 
[Mr. Mason J must, on this morning, come to the assi.s- 
tance of his friends from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbkky,] 
Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] and Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] 
and he, too, must follow in the same track of miscon- 
struedon and perversion. 

In fact, Mr. Chairman, my opponents upon this ques¬ 
tion are most valiant men in fighting men of straw, set 
up by themselves. Who, on this side, has asked for a 
political court? Who, on this side, has asked for a 
partisan judge? Who has asked any judge to violate 
his oath? Who has asked him to become corrupt?— 
Who has even admitted, ou our side of the question, 
that to elect judges by the people, at short periods, 
would bring a bout any such results ? All such remarks 
are the mere fanciful imaginings raised up for the pur¬ 
pose of making fine speeches ou the independence of 
the judiciary—upon its impartiality—and upon the safe¬ 
guards of the constitution, and claptrap terms of that 
kind. Let me recapitulate, very briefly, what I did 
say ; the points I made, and the arguments I used to 
sustain them. 

When I rose on Wednesday morning, a vote had 
been taken on the proposition of my friend from Lo¬ 
rain, [Mr. Clark,] that exhibited the fact that most of 
the democrats voted for it, whilst the whigs, in a body, 
with a few solitary exceptions, voted against it. 1 
ccmmenced by remarking how strange it was, that 
while we, on our side, were called partisans for voting 
together on certain questions, those ou the opposite 
side, who had exhibited, upon almost every question 
that has been taken since the Convention has assem¬ 
bled, an united, hardy front, claimed to be guided, by 
no party feelings. I also said that it was strange that 
the advocacy of the democratic principle by us, tub- 
jfccted us to the opprobrious epithets of ultraists, vio¬ 
lent partisans, destructives, and terms of that sort; 
whilst those of the opposite side, however strenuously 


they might advocate and sustain their owm conserva¬ 
tive notions, claimed for themselves the attributes of 
impartiality and disinterestedness in discusson. It will 
be recollected that the gentleman Ifom Clark [Mr. 
Mason] had made a speech upon the subject, telling 
us, in a very smooth way, some very hard things, and 
it was in reply to him, especially, that 1 was endeavor¬ 
ing to expose the sophistry of our 0 })ponen's, who were 
lighting for their most cherished dogmas in the dis¬ 
guised form of speeches on “high legal attainments,” 
“splendid bars,” “independent judiciary,” “impartial 
judges,” and matters ol that kind. 1 then said that 
men who had so lately become converts to the doctrine 
of electing judges by the people, could not feel very 
at home in their new position, and that, in spile of 
themselves, some of their old doctrines and feelings 
would break through their thin covering, and expose 
them into errors w hich they otherwise w ould not com¬ 
mit. I said it was much to ask our opponents even to 
vote for the election of judges by the people, but it 
was too much to expect them to go the entire figure 
upon the subject. 1 said that the election of judges by 
iho people was asked for by the people, for ihe pur¬ 
pose of bringing within their control more fully that 
department of our goveinrhent which alone, of all o- 
iher departments of American governments, had not 
felt the chastening and reforming hand of American 
public opinion. [Hear, hear.] 

I said that the longer the term of office for the judge, 
the more effectually would the people be balked in 
their endeavors thus to bring the judiciary within the 
control of j)ublic opinion. 1 said that it was a ques¬ 
tion of mathematics, that those who desired the peo¬ 
ple to rule, who were democratic, using the term as I 
then distinctly stated, in its legitirnaie sense, and not 
as a partisan ternj, should go for as short terms as could 
be obtained under the circumstances. 1 also said that 
the great difference between a democrat and an aris¬ 
tocrat, and I certainly used these terms with a general 
meaning, rather than with any special one to persons 
then aboutme, existed upon the point whether aman had 
confidence in the people. A democrat desired the peo¬ 
ple to rule, not only because he believed that the peo¬ 
ple wanted the right, but that also as a general ques¬ 
tion, the peo})le would do what was right. An aristo¬ 
crat, on the other side, would naturally seek for a good 
government, not with the people, for he had no confi¬ 
dence in them, but he would seek it in age, experience, 
in the rectitude of a few men, in their independence 
of character, in their superior legal attainments, and in 
some conservative provisions to be put into the gov¬ 
ernment machinery here and there, for the purpose of 
balancing what they call the whims and prejudices and 
the passions of the people. Really, sir, I hnd I have 
hit those on the opposite side of the house harder than 
I really intended, and it was with some degree of as¬ 
tonishment that 1 listened to the outpourings of abuse 
that has been heaped upon me in this discussion. I 
have now plainly seen why our opponents feel so sore 
upon this subject—whenever they are in a minority, 
they like to wear the popular garb, and I suppose they 
would a little rather not be exposed in their attempt to 
humbug the majority with their “no party’’ preach¬ 
ings. Our opponenls just now desire to exhibit them¬ 
selves before the people as being ready to give in to 
the reforms asked for by the great body of the people 
—they would rather just now have us to forget all their 
past errors and misdeeds, and to take them with a kind 
of generous confidence as democrats of the latest pat¬ 
tern. Sir, the votes that have been taken in this Con¬ 
vention, show that the whig party occupy by their 
votes, a different position from that which they occupy 
by their speeches. Public opinion forced from them 
unwillingly the support of the principle that judges 
hhould be elected by the people—and it is not because 
they have become indoctrinated with a single true 
democratic sentiment, or that they have a particle more 
confidence in the rectitude and intelligence of the peo- 









640 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


pie than they had before. It is not this; on the con¬ 
trary it is party policy that makes them wear in Ohio 
just now the popular garb. 

Sir, I stated, as an unwelcome truth. I stated a hict 
that had become obvious to the most blind' and I en¬ 
deavored to expose the hypocrisy that was fast leading 
us into a hilse position, and that would give to our op- 
])onent8 all that they wanted in the constitution, whilst 
the Democrats might go a begging for the great princi¬ 
ples which they desire to be placed there. I then said 
that our opponents had no confidence in the people, as 
a general thing with no special application, but now, 
sir, I will prove it, for out of their own mouths will I 
convict them. I will not do as my opponents have 
done, misconstrue and misinterpret their meaning. I 
will read the words expressed by them as I took them 
down at the time. The gentleman from Franklin [Mr. 
Stanbery] asserted it as his position, that for the same 
reason for which in England the judiciary was inde¬ 
pendent of the King, he desired here the judiciary to be 
independent of the people; and a similar remark was 
made by almost every gentleman w’ho spoke on the 
subject, and was opposed to the proposition now before 
us. The people then occupy in their minds the posi¬ 
tion of the king—kings are corrupt, they are cruel, they 
want judges to violate their oaths; kings have their 
whims, their prejudices, and their passions. Sir, all 
These words have been applied to the people in this 
discussion, and as the celebrated German writer,' 
Zcliokke has correctly remarked,- “as you piclure to 
me the world I will tell you the picture of your own 
heart,” so I say to the gentleman from Franklin, and 
to the other gentlemen w'ho followed him, you have 
exhibited to us the true picture of the people, which is 
to be found in the deep recesses of your heart, howev¬ 
er you may try to cover it up. Why, sir, look at the 
picture that must be in these men’s hearts, of the peo- 
ple. 

The gentleman from Franklin talks of the populace 
rising up and wanting somebody hanged. The gen¬ 
tleman from Clark [Mr.( Mason] talks of the people 
pulling down houses, lynching negroes and destroying 
mill dams, while the gentleman from Logan [Mr. Stan¬ 
ton] asked for God’s sake to be protected against the 
domineering majority that is likely to lay violent hands 
upon his “ rights of property.” Why sir, is this the 
picture of our people ? Do they go about hanging 
men ? Do they go about stealing anybody’s property ? 
Do they pull down houses, lynch negroes, and tear 
away mill dams ? Is that the action of our peojile 
when they coolly and calmly walk up to the ballot 
boxes? Do our people really exhibit anything of whim, 
prejudice and passion, do they desire to see our judges, 
as the gentleman from Logan has said judges would 
become, if frequently elected by the people, “ corrupt 
tools for corVupt purposes?” Gentlemen seem to talk 
as if the best recommendation to popularity among the 
people of Ohio, was, for the judge to violate his oath, 
to be partial in his decisions, and to be trying to catch 
the popular whim of the hour, instead of deciding ac¬ 
cording to law and justice. This, gentlemen, is your 
picture of the people ; with you the people are corrupt, 
full of whims, prejudices and passions; vyith you the peo¬ 
ple are full of craelty; youtidk glibly of popular impul¬ 
ses, and these impulses with you are always wrong. 
That opinion of the people is a reflection of your own, 
hearts. In our hearts is a different picture, we have 
the utmost confidence in that quiet, cool and determin¬ 
ed action of the people, at the ballot boxes, which is al¬ 
ways right. 

Mr. STANBERY. Does the*gentleman mean to as¬ 
sert that the people are always right? 

Mr. REEMELIN. Always at the ballot boxes, and 
if they, get wrong they have a right to be wrong, for I 
want no judges above thorn. 

Mr. MORRIS. Were the people right when they 
elected General Harrison in 1840 ? 

Mr. REEMELIN. Aye, they were, and they were 


right in electing “Tyler too,” [laughter] and let me 
add that God was right when he took General Harrison 
to himself! I felt bad when General Haraison was 
elected, but I bowed to the majority of the people—I 
felt sorry when General Harrison died, but I bowed to 
the majestic decision of God! I voted for Martin Van 
Buren then, but I have often been sorry for it since, 
and subsequent events have shown me that I w'as 
wrong, and that God and the peojde were right. 

Mr. MORRIS. Were the people right when they 
elected General Taylor ? 

Mr REEMELIN. Aye sir, they w'ere, and subse¬ 
quent events will yet show that the people were right, 
not perhaps in the sense in which the gentleman would 
like to take it, but in a sense of which we receive just 
now but slight indications Sir, you cannot disconcert 
me by questions of that kind, for I will go to the utter¬ 
most verge in claiming for that cool and determined 
action of the American people at the ballot boxes, the 
right, in all cases, whether it coincides with my opin¬ 
ions or not. To be sure I take the liberty to exercise 
my right as a private citizen, to act and vote as I please, 
and I am not absurd enough to claim that the advoca¬ 
cy of individual opinions and principles is a breach of 
that right. On the contrary I think that the advocacy 
of different principles and measures by different men, 
constitutes and helps to makeup, ultimately and finally, 
the public opinion at the ballot boxes. 

. Mr. CHAMBERS. Does the gentleman justify the 
,mobs in the city of Cincinnati. 

Mr. REEMELIN. That, sir, is a different question; 
but this much I will say, that the mob in the city of 
Cincinnati that pulled down the Miami Exporting Com- 
panj^’s Bank, regulated the currency for years to come 
far more effectually than all the trifling remedies that 
the Legislature has provided for the people. The ac¬ 
tion of the mob restored us the constitutional currency, 
and it was only when the Legislature again commenced 
to regulate the currency into disorder, that we were 
deprived of its uses. 

Sir, the main point between us, disguise it as they 
may, is that we on our side desire the people to gov¬ 
ern, while on the other side, the idea of the people ru¬ 
ling is associated with hob-goblins of every description 
that frightens them out of their senses ; and we have 
therefore presented to us, the raw-head and bloody- 
bones of mobs and popular outbreaks; of a little stormy 
meeting in this village, and in that town; of a little 
difficulty here, and a little difficulty there ; as if these 
constituted the people at the ballot-boxes, arid as if the 
errors of a part were to be charged upon the whole. It 
is want of confidence in the people, I repeat it again, 
that will make them vote for long terms for judges in 
office, and it was thatdifficulty that prevented them from 
coming out early in favor of electingjudges by the peo¬ 
ple. Why, sir, they call it the “ downward tendency.” 
Downward! where, and to whom ? Downward to the 
people ? Why, sir, I call that going upward ; and this 
little word, insignificant as it may appear in the speech¬ 
es of the gentleman, shows conclusively how adverse 
his mind and the minds of his friends are, to granting 
to the people more power, and more frequent chances 
to act upon their government. They talk of experience 
in official duties; all I have to say upon this subject is, 
that “ experience ” shows that, while we may gain a 
little something by the experience of officers, we gain 
far more by the new zeal, and fresh activity, and fresh 
honesty of the new officers. I am glad to find that my 
friend from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] is even willing to go 
for the principle of rotation in office ; it certainly was 
a strange by-play in his argument, but a man so lately 
converted to the election of judges by the people, and, 
as it seems now, converted to the doctrine of rotation 
in office, at least so far as the election of judges is con¬ 
cerned, cannot be expected to move with that certain¬ 
ty and firmness of step with which the old soldier in 
the ranks could act upon political doctrines. I am glad, 
therefore, to welcome my friend from Clark in his ap- 











CONVENTION REPORTS 


641 


proaclies towards the Democratic doctrines; and if he 
will only hurry along a little faster, he may perhaps 
yet get into the Democratic coach ; but I advise my 
friends to keep a sharp eye upon him, for unless I am 
very much mistaken, there will be a good many “back- 
slidings” in his political career; and we will find in 
his jioiitical course a large amount of old, unadulterated 
ciinservatism, mixed witli a small modicum of Democ¬ 
racy. 

I will not again reply to the unmitigated nativism 
that tell from the lips of the gentleman from Logan, 
[Mr. Stanton, 1 I have done so before and if a residence 
of eighteen years, just half of my life, in the United 
States will not protect me and my constituents from 
such attacks as this, I may hereafter take occasion to en¬ 
ter more fully into the siibject. I hold such mere make 
shifts in an argument with sovereign contempt. The 
gentleman from Franklin is more cautious in showing 
unadulterated nativism—he has had some experienceof 
the advantage of keeping “dark” upon that subject. 
In electioneering for public station I am told he occa¬ 
sionally talks German to some of his coustituents. 1 
have no doubt it has materially aided him in obtaining 
his present elevation. The gentleman says that seeing, 
me opposed to most of the provisions of the form of 
government in. Ohio, he is astonished to find me here 
at all, and he asks me why I did notigo to a place more 
more congenial to my principles and opinions. 

In reply let me say to him that during my absence 
the people of Ohio decided in favor of a new constitu¬ 
tion, and a large vote was c.ist in the county which I 
in part have the honor of representing. My constituents 
are dissatisfied with a great partof the old constitution 
of Ohio. I desire to represent their feelings and opin¬ 
ions correctly. I believe I have not misrepresented 
them on a single question before this Convention, and 
especially upon this question I know I represent cor¬ 
rectly their feelings and opinions. I can, however, tell 
the gentleman from Franklin a secret which may ex¬ 
plain to him more fully, not only my past conduct, but 
which may give him a clue to my actions hereafter. 
I have never had, nor have I now, any confidence in 
governments. Nine-tenths of all goveniment contains 
a good deal of humbug, and the other tenth is mixed 
somew'hat with rascality. I have no confidence at all 
in governments not based upon the people, but I might 
have some confidence in people without the govern¬ 
ment. The mere machine of goveiTiment, unless aid¬ 
ed and acted upon freely by public opinion, and an en¬ 
lightened people I as always done a great deal of harm 
to the liberties of the people, and but seldom accom¬ 
plished for them any good. As little government as 
possible is my motto, and that little continually under 
the control of the people. 

I look to the people, and to their action on the gov¬ 
ernment only for the preservation of my rights and 
those of my family. I have but little confidence in that 
ever vaunted “legal talent,” “experienced age,” “ in¬ 
dependent courts,” &c., unless backed and kept alive 
by republican habits, and a perfect equality among all 
classes of the people. It was, therefore, not the out¬ 
side machinery of government which brought me here, 
and which keeps me here, but it is an ever abiding trust 
ill ihe rectitude and fore-sighted correctness of our 
people. 

Much as the gentleman from Franklin is astonished 
at seeing me here, I am still more astonished to see him 
here, for it is a mystery to me, how the people can have 
confidence in a man, who has no confidence in them. 
But my astonishment ceases, when on inquiry I learn, 
that on the stump he preached different sentiments. 
A man sometimes changes his attitude after being elec¬ 
ted. 

We have had too much government, and I believe, 
sir, that the people would have been happier and freer, 
if they had had less of it. 

It is well known that I go for annual sessions, but I 
would go lor biennial, and even for sessions once in ten 

41 


years, were it not for the fact that the other partof the 
government keeps in active operation, and that I desire 
through the representatives of the people that watch¬ 
fulness exercised which is necessary to keep the other 
part from corruption. 

It is unfortunate, however, for all those who have 
brought ill my birth place as a make way to their ar¬ 
guments, that I am not now acting upon those early 
habits and feelings which they suppose were indoc¬ 
trinated into me in consequence of the place where I 
was raised. I am attacking the opinions of royalty 
and conservatism—I am acting upon republican opin¬ 
ions and sentiments, and were I acting upon those ear¬ 
ly habits which are continually before the members’ 
minds, I would be found side by side with the Hitch¬ 
cocks and the Stanberys upon this subject. Why, sir, 
what are these men defining here but British opinions 
and royalist ideas? They have studied English law, 
and English authors. From these come their ideas; 
and this is precisely the difficulty why they cannot 
comprehend the democratic notions that are rapidly 
seizing hold of the American mind. So far, then, from 
being controlled by any European notions of the ten¬ 
ure of office, 1 am attacked here for notions imbibed 
during my residence in America—notions which sound 
judgment approves, and which will guide, hereafter, 
American policy. This much I have thought necessa¬ 
ry in reply to the unfounded perversions of the lan¬ 
guage I employed in my first remarks, and I think I 
have a right to complain when my language has been 
thus studiously tortured into a different meaniug from 
that which I intended. I have told a truth which is 
bitter to my opponents. They would no doubt rather 
have concealed a little longer their true position, but 
their speeches have “ let the cat out of the bag,” and 
unadulterated federalism stalks before us. The fable 
of a certain animal putting on the lion’s skin, and be¬ 
traying itself by its braying, is well known, and in this 
case 1 have performed the simple duty of tearing from 
our opponents the lion’s skin with which they had 
covered themselves, and to exhibit to the public tlieir 
true position. This is the cause of the bitterness that 
has been evinced in this discussion. But I am not 
sorry at the progress of the discussion. It has led to 
the promulgation of sentiments which might otherwise 
haveremained concealed for a longer period, and I ad¬ 
vise my friends, for perhaps I may still call them so, 
that if they desire to preserve the character of men 
who favor jirogress and reform, their only way is to 
keep silent, or else, in spite of themselves, the picture 
which they really have iu the recesses of their hearts, 
will, in spite of themselves, strike through the thin 
covering and expose their true position to the public 
gaze. 

Mr. NASH. Mr. Chairman: I want to pay my 
compliments to the gentleman from Hamilton for a few 
moments, and I doit as a matter of duty. The gentle¬ 
man complains that great injustice has been done to 
him—that his words have been distorted, and that the 
remarks he made the ot’ner day, have been misrepre¬ 
sented, in order to render him odious in public estima¬ 
tion. However, he claims that he is a man whose opin¬ 
ions are the only and sole standard of democracy; and 
he claims the pre-eminence of having taken the lion’s 
skin from a certain animal, that shall remain nameless. 
He hopes now, that his friends, as he claims them pre- 
einiuendy to be, will see that the effort upon the part 
of certain individuals to vindicate the independence 
of the judiciary, prompted by no other impulse than 
the conviction of duty, was an effort directed against 
the people and the democratic party, and he hopes 
tliey will be treated as they ought to be treated. 

But, sir, the gentleman adds ihatitis against men 
like him—and he is but repeating the declaration of the 
gentleman from Fairfield—that it is against democracy 
like his, that the whigs have an antipathy. I deny it. 
His democracy is just the democracy we want to go to 
the people, naked and unadulterable. If he will go to 











642 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


the people of Ohio—the law loving and conservative 
loving people of Ohio, with such a constitution as he 
will make, it will be voted down by at least fifty thou¬ 
sand majoi'ity. If he does not know it there are other 
men in his party who do know it. Sir, I should sup¬ 
pose that the gentleman’s own vote at the last election 
would show him that he was just the democrat we 
wanted—just the man to go out and proclaim that these 
notions and principles are those which the party advo¬ 
cated. Let this be done, and, sir, the people of Ohio 
will hand him and them over as the judge hands over 
the culprit to the executioner. 

Now, sir, I commend the gentleman’s courage—but 
I cannot commend his discretion, and if he knew the 
notions and opinions of the people of Ohio, without any 
regard to party, as well as 1 do, he-would know that 
what I say is true. Let him consult the men who first 
drew in the air of America—who have drawn in with 
their earliest breath, its thoughts, its principles, and its 
feelings, and who have been here nurtured in the art 
of self-government, and sir, he will discover that the red 
republicanism of Germany and France finds no response 
there. 

Sir, it comes surely with a very good grace from the 
gentleman, to charge me and one half of the people of 
Ohio with a want of confidence in themselves—to 
charge me and them with being aristocrats, which in 
the gentleman’s vocabulary means lovers and worship¬ 
pers of monai’chy. The gentleman shakes his head as 
if I was wrong in thus interpreting his language, but 
what, in God’s name, does it mean ? Does he mean 
an oligarchy, a government infinitely worse ? or does 
he mean a government in the hands of the best men, 
who could wield it only for the best and highest inter¬ 
ests of the State ? I wish to know what he means by-it. 

Mr. RE EMELIN. Ordinarily speaking, it means a 
government in the hands of the better classes. 

Mr. NASH. The gentleman not having been born 
in this country, where there are no separate classes 
among the people, cannot get it out of his head that 
there is an aristocracy and a people besides. I would 
like to know what the aristocracy of this country is? 

Mr. REEMELIN. If the gentleman will walk down 
to the office of the board of control, he would find it. 

Mr. NASH. I understand the gentleman to mean, 
by the aristocracy, men owning bank stock. A man 
who owns a hundred thousand dollars in bank stock, 
is an aristocrat, while the individual owning the same 
amount in real stock, is no such thing. It seems, then, 
the question is not so much how much a man is worth, 
but the manner in which his property is invested, 
which determines whether he is an aristocrat or not. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Cannot the gentleman understand 
my meaning? Here is a government witliin the gov¬ 
ernment of Ohio that controls particular branches of 
government—that is, in the making of money—which 
are not under the control of the people of Ohio. It is 
a government beside it—the government of the better 
classes. 

Mr. NASH. Every man iii this State of Ohio has a 
right to create and issue paper money, and pass it to 
any man who would take it, were it not for our re¬ 
straining laws. But your law has deprived men i f 
that natural right, and has undertaken for great public 
considerations to regulate it in a particular way. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I would like the gentleman to 
ausw’er the question, whether any individual has a right 
to establish a standard of value. 

Mr. NASH. Who has said any thing of the kind? 
That question the gentleman asks, and in asking it he 
finds an answer. 

Mr. MITCHELL. What has money been used for? 

Mr. NASH. There seems to be an evident desire to 
draw me off from what I had in view. This question 
will come up in due time, ajid gentlemen can then exam¬ 
ine and discuss it. I say then, that the gentleman from 
Hamilton may attribute what he chooses to the whigs, 
and call them by what epithets he pleases. According 


to his notion, 1 am an aristocrat, having no confidence 
in the people. Sir. it is a very singular declaration, 
coming from that gentleman. I will undertake to ex¬ 
amine the gentleman’s notions and arguments when he 
presents them; but when he undertakes to lay down 
his bed and put me upon it, and amputate me if I do 
not fit its length. I’ll even submit to that too; but when 
he hurls odious epithets at me, I will hurl them back 
upon him with utter scorn and contempt. He has no 
right to do it. No man has a right to hurl aspersions of 
that character, implying odium and contempt, upon the 
people of this State, either here or elsewhere, nor shall 
he do it without my protest. How does the gentleman 
know I have no confidence in the people—no political 
honesty—no regard for my oath, and for my character 
for integrity ?—because, sir, if the gentleman’s charge 
is true, then we upon this side of the house are all dis¬ 
honest, and deserving of places in the penitentiary, 
much more so than any one now suffering there. 

The man who was born in this free country of ours 
—who derives his parentage from revolutionary fath¬ 
ers—who has been nursed by mothers who went thro’ 
those conflicts and sutfered its trials—and who in the 
nursery were taught the literature and the patriotism 
of that day, and the glorious ideas that were worked 
out ill that struggle,—if he turns upon that government 
which was thus formed, and betrays the principles 
which were then promulgated, he is as much more 
criminal than a traitor, as the traitor is more criminal 
than the pettiest thief. What! prove traitor to the 
growing principles of self-government! A man, too, 
who was born here and nurtured here, and under this 
sky imbibed these great principles! And, sir, all these 
opprobrious charges are made upon the ground that 
we do not see things just as the gentleman does, upon 
a mere question of policy—in deciding whether the 
term of a judge shall be seven or four years. 

Sir, if we think that the public interests require— 
the institutions of this people, among whom we were 
born, nurtured, and educated—whose ideas we drew 
ill with our mother’s milk,—if we think that a judici¬ 
ary can be better created for the public interests by 
having a term of seven years instead of four, are we 
to be characterized, in the classic language of the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton county, as having no confidence 
ill the people—as being aristocrats ? not in its true 
sense, but, as the gentleman says, in an ironical sense. 
Sir, the gentleman may have all .he can make out of 
such opprobrious charges. He had better go back to 
his vote in Hamilton county, if he would learn the ef¬ 
fect of his opinions upon the people: I commend him 
to such a study ; and if he can there find consolation 
and food lor his aspirations, why, sir, I admire the 
strength of his self-confidence and his self-satisfaction. 

I have no objection to interpose; no, sir, not I. The 
gcmtleman, however, insists that injustice has been done 
him. He insists that he does not wish a judge to cor¬ 
rupt himself, but he wishes the judge should decide ac¬ 
cording to his own convictions of the law. Ob, no 
he does not wish a judge to do that; that would be too 
barefaced. 

But, as the gentleman from Logan remarked the 
other day, wdiile he declares that the judge must decide 
according to his convictions, ye> he says to him “ mind 
you one thing: if you do not decide as I and my ma¬ 
jority ot the people have decided, we will turn you 
out.” This, sir, is the position in which he places the 
judge. He says to him, “ I do not wusli to influence your 
decision; I do not wish you to decide this question 
contrary to the convictions of your own judgment; 
but mind you one thing: unless you decide as I tell 
you, and in accordance with what I know public opin¬ 
ion to be, I shall be against you at the next election; 
and the people will be against you.” Sir, is not that an 
attempt to influence the judge ?—is that what gentle¬ 
men call deciding impartially ?—deciding free of all 
improper influence ? Sir, there has been a declaration 
made, as coming from truth itself: “ Lead us not into 









CONVENTION REPORTS 


643 


temptation.” Will the gentleman lead the judge into 
temptation ? Will the gentleman come and whisper in 
the ear of Justice, “ mind you, decide this right—de¬ 
cide it according to the convictions of your own judg¬ 
ment;—mind yon, discharge your duty conscientious¬ 
ly; but mind you another thing—that if you do not 
decide as I and the majority tell you, that you never 
can be re-elected ” ? 

Sir, is it not a matter of some moment that the judge 
should be placed beyond the temptation to do wrong ? 
And yet, according to the gentleman’s own opinion, it 
should not be so. The gentlemen tells us that he has 
no confidence in government. When he says this,— 
that he has no such confidence,—he must mean that he 
has no confidence in the integrity of humanity—in the 
men chosen to administer govei’iiment. Government 
is machinery managed by men, and as long as the men 
are honest, and love truth and justice, just so long will 
your government be managed for the highest interest 
of every being within its jurisdiction. But the gentle¬ 
men says he has no confidence in it,—he believes all 
governments to be corrupt and infected with rascality. 
Well, sir, is it the people who organize this machinery 
of goveniment, which the gentleman asserts contains 
within it the very elements ol corruption ? 

Can the gentleman stand up here and assert that the 
people ought to organize a government which cannot 
be kept pure ? which in its very nature is corrupt and 
corrupting? Sir, is that the philosophy which the 
gentleman intends to preach to the people of Ohio?— 
that they cannot form a government, and cannot find 
honest men enough to manage it fur the public welfare? 
—that from its very nature it must go to corruption ? 
This reminds me of an address made some years since 
.by the Hon. Alexander H. Everett, in which he endea¬ 
vored to prove from history “that all governments, of 
whatever name or nature, had their youth, manhood, 
and decline; that such must inevitably be the destiny 
of every people that works out its destiny upon this 
footstool of ours.” 

The gentleman seems to agree with him, that a gov¬ 
ernment must necessai’ily become corrupt; and in be¬ 
coming corrupt, it must inevitably work the corruption 
of the people over which its jurisdiction extends ; and 
in working their corruption, must work their destruc¬ 
tion ; and that there is no escaping from this perdition. 
I do not believe any such thing. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Certainly the gentleman could 
not intend to misrepresent me I have no confidence 
in a government of the minority, but I have all confi¬ 
dence in the people. I would ask him, if he has any 
confidence in a government which is controlled by the 
people ? 

Mr. NASH. The gentleman comes back to this; 
That government being itself of a corrupting tendency, 
the people will elect men who must inevitably become 
corrupt. Because, if the people elect the right sort of 
men—men who fear God, and love their neighbors and 
country as themselves—why, sir, there is nothing to 
fear. The only reason why governments become cor¬ 
rupt is, that corrupt men get control of them. And 
corrupt men must manage the machinery of govern¬ 
ment, so as to work, out only corruption and iniquity. 
I do not believe any such thing. I do not admit any 
such doctrine as applicable to a country like this. The 
gentleman embraced in these denunciations every form 
of government whatever. He did not except any ; he 
included a government by the people, as well as any 
other form. 

Is it true that the government of this country has 
been corrupt for seventy-five years; that the whole ju¬ 
dicial system of these United States has been corrupt; 
and that we have never had justice administered speed¬ 
ily and impartially ? Is it true, sir, that my native 
State of Massachusetts, having a judicial term for life, 
has a corrupt judicial system; that there have been no 
honest men to administer justice there ? And is it true 
that other States, which have adopted a similar term 


of office, have had none but corrupt men to administer 
justice? Has the intelligence of the people of this 
country sunk so low that they have lived, without 
knowing it, for seventy-five years under a corrupt gov¬ 
ernment ? There is no truth in it. 

The gentleman may have read the history of Europe 
correctly, but he has not read aright the history of the 
people of this country. Look at the history of this na¬ 
tion—three millions of people in 1776 and twenty mill¬ 
ions now,—then scattered along the shores of the At¬ 
lantic, while the vast valley of the west was unbroken 
wilderness, where the red man only held supreme 
sway. Now we are twenty millions of people, advanc¬ 
ing rapidly in all those arts of civilization which make 
a peoj)le great, intelligent and virtuous ; more so than 
any other people upon the face of the earth, and yet, 
according to the gentleman’s reading of the history of 
this country, we have been an oppressed people, and 
have had a corrupt government and corrupt judges. I 
believe no such thing. I utterly deny the truth of any 
such charge. I have an abiding faith and confidence 
in the people. But sir, my confidence is based on the 
fact that influences are operating here upon the hearts 
and intellect of this great people, which will make 
them fear God, love their neighbors, and do justice be¬ 
yond all else. And sir, a people w'hose education has 
been such, and who have worked out such results are 
perfectly safe, whoever may govern them. None but 
honest rulers can long govern such a people. 

Sir, this whole argument has grown out of a miscon¬ 
ception. Gentlemen have not defined what they mean 
by a judicial system. They seem to have a notion 
about a judge as though he was to be governed by 
somebody. The gentleman says he wants the judge 
to feel as though he had got a master. I too want the 
judge to feel as if he had a master, but that master 
should be the God who made him. I want that truth 
and justice should govern him in the administration of 
the law, and nothing else. Sir, the gentleman wants 
the judge to feel that he has got a master who can reach 
him. He wants him to go upon the bench and sit there 
and try causes and administer justice, man’s justice 
and God’s justice, and feel that he has got a master. 
Why sir, a judge can have no master on earth but the 
convictions of his own conscience, of his own judgment 
in view of that reward which is prepared for a future 
life. 

Under the judicial system which exists in this coun¬ 
try or in other countries under every and any form of 
government, a judge, as the gentleman from Franklin 
said the other day, should not be blind, should listen 
only to the facts and the law, without being influ¬ 
enced by the parties or by any one else, as to his 
duty, and should follow where his convictons led 
him. No, sir, the gentleman would not have a judge 
follow at the convictions of his own judgement and 
discharge his duty to his creator,—he would not elect 
such a man as that. His judge must decide as he 
wishes. Sir, the gentleman’s wish is, that the judge 
should decide as he will approve, and if he does not, 
whatever may be his convictions of duly, whatever 
may be the solemn responsibilities that he feels resting 
upon him, why sir, he is not a man to be trusted; to 
be trusted by him he must follow the dictation of oth- 
ers. 

The argument of the gentleman from Hamilton is, 
that he must consult public opinion, as to the manner 
in which he is to discharge his duties. If he honestly 
and conscientiously feels bound to disagree with what 
may be the opinions of others, he is to be expelled at 
once from the bench. 

I think I should have nothing to say m reply to the 
interrogatory of the gentleman, for the plain reason that 
it has nothing to do with the matter. The gentleman 
sees the whole point, and he is certainly entitled to hie 
opinion. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. Will the gentleman accomo¬ 
date me by anaweiing either in the affirmative or ne- 









644 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


native, whether he is really willing that a majoiity of 
the peo])le of Ohio shall rule in an election of judges ? 

Mr. NASH. Whenever it happens, if the judge's 
office becomes elective, of course the majority will 
constitute the appointing power. The gentleman ought 
to know that. The interrogatory answers itself. 

But what I was upon is this: the argument is, if the 
judRe consult ])opular opinion, or it public opinion is 
to be consulted, it is to be consulted in regard to the 
manner in which the judge does his duty; and in this 
way, a conscientious discharge of his duties may be ta¬ 
ken as the ground upon which he should be displaced. 
But the gentleman says there is no danger in appeal¬ 
ing fia quently to the appointing power. Let us look 
aMhis for a moment, keeping constantly in mind the 
character which the judge should sustam. The gen¬ 
tleman from Geauga has told us, that it is almost im¬ 
possible but that one party or the other will be dissat¬ 
isfied with any decision which can be made; and if the 
gentleman has never heard lawyers complain of a de¬ 
cision, it is not because they do mR complain in lan¬ 
guage as bitter as he himself can use. Well, what is 
the course of these dissatisfied parties ? Will they not 
go to the appointing power and use whatever infiueace 
they may have, against the re-election of the judge? 
Thev have done so when the Legislature made these 
appointments; and think you that these same dissatis¬ 
fied lawyers and parties will not appeal to the people 
against the re-election of the judge? Would not that 
be the inevitable tendency ? 

Mr. ROBERTSON interposing, and Mr. Nash giv¬ 
ing way, said: I wish to ascertain this point before the 
creutleman passes from it. I wish to know if he is 
afraid, in the elections of an appeal from the bench to 
the people? I wish that distin.ot question to be an¬ 
swered by the gentleman. He has said that the law¬ 
yers would appeal to the people as an inevitable conse¬ 
quence; and I wish him now to state frankly, whether 
he is afraid of such an aj)peal. 

Mr. NASH. Whenever the constitutional question 
shall come before us, it will be time enough to answer 
that. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. But is the appeal what the gen¬ 
tleman is afraid of? 

Mr. NASH. I have said that disappointed lawyers 
and liti'.’ants would go to the people and complain 
against the jndge. 

Mr. STANBERY, (interposing.) I will answer if 
the gentleman will permit me. I am afraid of any ap¬ 
peal upon a question of constitutional construction 
which shall be caiaied from the court to the people. 

Mr. ROBERTSON, (interrupting.) The honorable 
gentleman from Franklin certainly does not understand 
me, or he would not make such an answer. 

Mr. STANBERYh What then was the question? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. My distinct question is, are you 
afraid of an appeal to the people, in the re-election of 
a judge ? 

Mr. STANBERY’. Did you put this in ? I find the 
gentleman mends his hold. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. The gentleman from Franklin 
is very disingenuous, if he says so. I appeal to the re¬ 
collection of every gentleman, whether I did not ask 
the gentleman if he was afraid of the lawyers appeal¬ 
ing to the people when the re-election of a judge was 
coming on? I used the word “election” distinctly; 
and I ask the question now of the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin. 

Mr. STANBERY. No, sir. am not afraid of any 
such appeals as you now refer to, when the judge’s 
term is ended. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I ask the gentleman whether 
he is afraid of such a thing while the judge may be a 
candidate ? 

Mr. STANBERY’. No, sir. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. You are learning how to be a 
pretty good politician, sir Your position is certainly 
changed. 


Mr. NASH resuming. I wish to go into a court where 
the judge who is to decide upon my rights is to be im¬ 
partial; a court that will hear the testimony patiently, 
and see that the law is expounded correctly. I desire 
to be tried by no partisan functionary, whether elected 
by the people or appointed by the General Assembly. 
I want to be tried by the law and the constitution, aiul 
I not by any irresponsible court which maybe organized 
I under the auspices of party. 

j Sir, if the people are the proper depositories of judi¬ 
cial power, why not go up to the source at once? If 
jbere is no otljer power except the appeal to the ballot 
box, for heaven’s sake let us go at once to the foun¬ 
tain head and try our causes there, and not first (ry 
them in a court, and then appeal. 

The gentleman from Hamilton says there is a cer¬ 
tain class of questions—all constitutional questions— 
wherein he wishes to appeal from the courts to the 
people. Let us look to that. The gentleman’s no- 
I tions whicl) he brought with him from Germany, still 
cling to him like the shirt of Nessus, and for ought 1 
know, may have the same deleterious effects. He suji- 
poses that tlje will of somebody must be the law. He 
has been taught that the will of the king, or the aris¬ 
tocracy in Europe, governs and overrides every thing; 
and he claims that in this country iheydll of the peo¬ 
ple should be the ultimate law of the land. I am not 
.speaking now about making a constitution, but of 
rights vested under the constitution and the law be¬ 
tween man and man. For constitutional questions can 
arise in no other way. They must come up in a case 
between individuals or between individuals and the 
State. The rights of persons are thus involved—the 
rights to property. These are the matters whicli are 
to be adjudicated upon. Now I want to know wheth¬ 
er mere human will, can make or change God’s justice, 
or the law of the land? No, sir, we make a constitu¬ 
tion to be the rule of justice as infallible as the law 
of the Medes and Persians. 

No mere will in this country is law—neither the will 
of the majority nor of the minority. We live under a 
government of law.'«, and the administi'ation of justice 
in this countiy is the administration of lows, and not 
the administration of any man’s will. Does not the 
judge know how to determine between law and mere 
human will? — the diti'erence between the constitution 
which the people have made and under which my 
rights are vested, and the mere transient will of the 
people who made the constitution ? But the gentleman 
says, this constitution can be altered and construed all 
away by going vvith it to the people and receiving the 
construction which they may put upon it; and that 
these constructions are to be the constitution and the 
law. But, sir, could that be a government of law ? Sir, 
no man in this country has a master, save his Maker, 
and the law of the land. No man, sir, holds his rights 
here by mere human will—whether that be the will of 
one man or of many. Our declaration of independence 
declares that I have certain inalienable rights as a crea¬ 
ture of God’s moral government, and that neither the 
will of the gentleman from Hamilton nor of any other 
man can disturb me in the possession of those rights 
without becoming a de.spot. Sir, that is American 
doctrine: that a man has certain inalienable rights, of 
which no power can divest him, and of which he can¬ 
not even divest himself; and whatever power it may 
be which seeks to disturb and unsettle these rights in 
this country, it is a despotism worse than the despot¬ 
ism of all the Russias. 

Mr. REEiMELlN, (interposing.) I agree with the 
gentleman there. But does the gentleman pretend to 
say that the judge is always right? or that the people 
would take away any of those inalienable rights. 

Nr. NASH. Why^ sir, the gentleman is coming back 
again to his notion of red republicanism which he 
brought with him from Europe, that is that somebody 
will, must be supreme. ^ 

Mr. REEMELIN. The gentleman has not any cor- 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


645 


rect idea of what red republicauisin is. There is a 
good deal iu it which he would like, aivl, perhaps, 
some things in it which he would not like. But sure¬ 
ly it does not become the gentleman as an American, to 
stigmatise us by the application of a name which is 
given as a reproach to those who are struofglin" for 
freedom in Europe. ° 

Mr. NASH. There is not any escape from the con¬ 
clusions which I put. 

We come back, now, to the judiciary. Under our 
system ol written constitutions, it is appointed to set¬ 
tle and determine what the law is. Sir, the people 
organize the judiciary to settle this very question, and 
tor that reason the judiciaiy power is made independ¬ 
ent of all human power except in order that it may not 
be left under any sinister influence to depart from the 
of rule ol rectitude. In Heaven’s name if there is 
any one rule for the people to be governed by, let it 
be this, t or it they cannot reverence the judge who 
follows the convictions ot his conscience, against their 
own temporary impulses; I say if any people should 
withhold their respect for such a judge, they are unfit 
to gov'ern themselves. Honesty and integrity in the 
human character are the great safeguards of our rights, 
and ever must be under our form of government, and 
courts are organized for this very purpose, to adjudi¬ 
cate and settle these conflicts of opinion which must 
grow up under such a form of government as ours. 

But the gentleman from Hamilton says we must not 
stop in the courts; we most appeal to the people. The 
gentleman’s doctrine may be true and applicable, per¬ 
haps, to the condition ot the people of France or to the 
people of Germany, where they have no written con¬ 
stitutions ; where the law-making power is the supreme 
power, with power to legislate and adjudicate upon 
rights and over persons. In our country we are under 
the protection ot written constitutions, which must go¬ 
vern a judge just as much as it governs the citizen.— 
The judge is to construe the constitution; and if the 
construction ot the judiciary should be unsatisfactory 
to the people, they have reserved to themselves the 
right of amending the constitution and the law. Here 
18 the remedy known to our system of government. 
But the rights ot the citizens vested under the law must 
be respected—must over-ride all mere human will; 
which must be limited within the law, and cannot go 
laeyond it without passing beyond the boundaries of 
justice. The people say to the judges: Do whatever 
you think right, as you will answer to your oaths and 
and your God, and if your adjudication does not cor¬ 
respond with our opinion, we reserve to ourselves the 
right of alteration or amendment, whereby we can ef¬ 
fect a change without violating the principles of eternal 
justice. 

Sir, the people are not without their remedy. Our 
ancestors have left the way open for us, and I ask whe¬ 
ther the way our fathers have left for ns is not better 
than an appeal to the ballot-box for the settlement of 
questions, whether legal or constitutional ? Then, too, 
the law may be settled one way in one district; an¬ 
other way in another ; and in the Shite it may be set¬ 
tled now this way, now that, just as one political party 
or another might triumph. Is this an administration 
of justice?—justice as recognized by all?—of God’s 
impartial justice?—Or is it not rather an administra¬ 
tion of mere human will, as influenced by human pas¬ 
sion, and prejudice, and hatred ? 

Sir, is the great mass of the people the jury before 
which we are to plead for our rights to personal liberty 
and property ? Sir, whenever we come to that—when¬ 
ever the children of the men who laid the foundations 
of this government shall so far degenerate from thein- 
tegrity of their forefathers as to submit a question of 
law to such an arbitrament, they will indeed become 
the degenerate sons of noble fathers. Sir, I believe 
that no such thing will happen to us. I confide in the 
good sense of the people. They know what justice is, 
and how, to be justice, it must be administered. They 


know that the appeal should be to an impartial judge, 
governed by law, and not to excited masses moved by 
demagogues and disappointed litigants. Justice can¬ 
not be obtained by any such system, and they know it. 
The people will rather confide in the tribunal erected 
by them.selve8 to administer justice, to decide upon dis¬ 
puted rights and controverted law. Here passion and 
prejudice and partiality can be excluded; the judge be 
held up to an honest discharge of his duty, under the 
sanction of his oath and his responsibility to his coun¬ 
try and his God. 

But how do gentlemen now propose to popularize, 
to influence that tribunal? Why, sir, every four years, 
under their proposition, we are to have anew construc¬ 
tion of the constitution. Parties change, and mens’ 
opinions change. How often have we marked this 
versatility of the political history of Ohio ? One year 
we have one party in the ascendant, and the very next 
year, the other, and in this way we might be subject 
to a new construction of the constitution every year. 
Are our laws to remain as unstable as the waves of the 
ocean, to be thrown hither and thither by the heavings 
of every popular impulse? Sir, I do not hold to any 
such ideas of government, nor to any such administra¬ 
tion of law. I hold fast to that feature of our govern¬ 
ment which makes the constitution paramount; and 
whatever may be the will of the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton, or his party, we may appeal through the judiciary 
to the constitution and laws for the vindication of our 
rights. Here is the great conservative power of a free 
government, in all governments. An independent ju¬ 
diciary is our only safeguard. Let the judges become 
corrupt and servile, and feel they have masters, and 
our rights and liberties will no longer rest upon the 
bulwark of the constitution and the law, but upon the 
varying breath of the popular will. And your law will 
be one thing for me; another for you—one thing this 
year; a diflerent the next. Who could feel secure? 
May God in his mercy save us from such a calamity; a 
calamity which must end in the destruction of all law, 
all security. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Whether the fifteen minute rule 
is in operation or not, I wish to conform to its provi¬ 
sions myself. Every thing which concerns the judici¬ 
ary comes home to our business and our bosoms. Gen¬ 
tlemen are evidently becoming excited—they exhibit 
an intensity of feeling unusual on this floor. I hope 
that moderate counsels may yet prevail, and I invite a 
patient hearing from those who generally exhibit them¬ 
selves of that class of mind. I have been the uniform 
advocate of moderate counsels since I first a})peared iu 
these halls seven or eight years ago, and should exhibit 
strange inconsistency of character were I to abandon , 
them now. But the state of things is exactly reversed 
since the consideration of the legislative report. I 
then felt great alarm when abandoned by my moderate 
friends, on the subject of the Senate: they seemed wil¬ 
ling to acquiesce in a Senate of one session. I thought 
it a dangerous innovation, inasmuch as it would almost 
unavoidably lead to the abolition of that branch of the 
law-making power, thus bringing about a “one horse” 
General Assembly, as the flash phrase is. This, if not 
the immediate, is almost sure to be the ultimate conse¬ 
quence ; .and I was extremely reluctant to see this 
great and mighty State commence such ,a course of 
reckless and portentous innovation. I am sanguine 
that a line of conduct can be struck out iu both these 
matters, in which all moderate men, on both sides of 
the house, can come together. Let gentlemen reflect— 
it is not the duty of the electors to inspect or criticise 
the doings of the judges, further than to convince them¬ 
selves of the entire impartiality of those officers. It 
is their duty to make themselves intimately acquainted 
with the doings and opinions of the legislative body, 
and it is most clear to me that a period of two sessions 
is not too long for this purpose; that such a period 
is necessary, in order to give the people the benefit 
of a sober second thought. Such minute examination 









646 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


is utterly impossible concerning the actions of the ju- 
diciaryj relating, as that action does, entirely to contro¬ 
versies between private citizens. Moreover, the judg¬ 
es must be men of science—they must do justice ac¬ 
cording to rule, and that rule must be uniform, in order 
that every man may know what consequences to ex¬ 
pect from his own conduct;—in order that every man 
may know what rights he may demand, and what rem¬ 
edies he may hope to obtain. There is no happy union 
between ignorance and justice,—at least in my short 
experience I have' never seen any union of the kind. 
I have seen ignorance and imbecility commit injustice, 
which knowing corruption would scarcely have bold¬ 
ness to commit. The degree of injustice is nearly in 
exact proportion to the degree of igm.’rance and dark¬ 
ness of the tribunal which decided. Witness the ac¬ 
counts which travelers and missionaries give of Afri¬ 
can tribunals ; witness the history of the tribunals of 
our own race, during the dark ages. It is true, the 
judge must havp mental discipline—judicial training; 
but it is equally true that that judicial training must be 
mostly acquired before he ascends the bench. My 
beau ideal of a judiciary would consist of a set of learn¬ 
ed and enlightened men, required at short intervals to 
get certificates of their industry and impartiality, in 
the way of re-election. My heart expands, it exults, 
it overflows with happy anticipations, in the prospect 
which chills the heart of the gentleman from Clark 
with horror,—the prospect of what? Of a corrupt, 
intriguing, venal judiciary? Nothing of the kind;— 
such a prospect would fill my mind with as much dis¬ 
may and horror as it would the mind of the gentleman 
from Clark, [Mr. Mason.] But I tell the gentleman 
that the prospect is not of a corrupt and intriguing ju¬ 
diciary, but of an improved people. The people will 
soon learn to make a discreet use of the functions with 
whicn they are entrusted. The fears of the gentleman 
on this head are entirely imaginary. The people love 
order—they love peace—they love safety; and not¬ 
withstanding some occasional outbreaks and outrages, 
they are opposed to disorder—they are opposed to 
mobs—they are opposed to violence, to bloodshed, and 
to murder. Moreover, light is subtle—it is re idy to 
break in through every chink. And there are, in ev¬ 
ery community, endghtened, calm, reflecting, judicious 
men. These men will s imetimes hear opinions de¬ 
structive of social order—adverse to the well-beinc^ 
and existence of the community. They will be coim 
pelled to diffuse their opinions abroad—they wih be 
compelled to exert their influence in behalf of good 
government and social order;—in one word, they will 
be compelled to diffuse light. Thus we shall see a 
whole community advancing, with giant strides, in the 
career of mental and moral improvement. Give the 
people the managera nt of their affairs, and they will 
soon be found capable of managing them well. My 
word for it, if this system shall prevail we shall soon 
have an improved people,—we shall have men follow¬ 
ing the plough, lifting the hammer, or swinging the axe, 
more capable of taking a wise part in the public coun¬ 
sels than the aristocrats of Europe, who are born to 
hereditary dominion and power, and therefore ever 
feel the necessity of mental preparation. I speak of 
the aristocrats of Europe, because their kings are mere 
ciphers—mere tools in the hands of the aristocracy, 
who direct every thing. Jefferson said that Louis XVT 
was a fool, to his own certain knowledge, notwith¬ 
standing the answers that were made for him at his 
trial; and very few of the crowned heads of Europe 
are any better. But this is a digression. I ask pardon 
Tor having been led into it. 

As to the fears expressed by gentlemen, of corrupt 
practices—of partiality and intrigues—employed by 
.the judges elected for the short term, in order to secure 
a re-election. They will be compelled to be impartial 
at their peril: it is the only clue which will guide them 
out of a labyrinth of difficulties—their only possible 
method of preserving their consistency. Corrupt par¬ 


tiality would almost infallibly meet with instant detec¬ 
tion; and the imputation, if well-founded, would be 
infallibly fatal. 

Some gentlemen may feel diffident of listening to 
moderate counsels for fear of the censures of ultraists 
and extremists. Does not every syllable of recorded 
history testify to the fact that moderate counsels are 
safest in practice ? has it not passed into a proverb, that 
the middle course is the best, and if undeserved censure 
should light upon a man’s name will it not soon be 
cleared away? Need any man be alarmed at the de¬ 
nunciations of political or religious bigots, and will not 
a generous public ultimately do him justice? My 
friends and myself wish, in this matter, to practice up¬ 
on the scripture maxim, “letyour moderation be known 
to all men.” We will therefore consent to the judicial 
term of five years, but be it remembered that we do 
so with reluctance, because we honestly think a terra of 
four years is long enough, and that is the term to which 
we are attached, and we earnestly hope that gentlemen 
will meet us in a similar spirit when we come finally 
to decide upon the constitution of the Senate. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. I desire, Mr. Chairman, to say 
a few words to the question. Yes sir, strange as it 
may seem, I mean to speak to the question. 

A Voice. That’s not in order. 

Mr. GREEN. Some gentlemen say it is out of order 
—if so, sir, I will sit down. To be serious, sir, I desire 
to address a few words to the sober-minded, reflecting 
portion of this body, on the question under considera¬ 
tion. It is one of great importance, and demands their 
most serious consideration. But first, sir, let me say 
to some gentlemen on the other side of the hall, that at 
a proper time and place I shall be most thankful to 
them for an opportunity to enter the field of party poli¬ 
tics they have thrown open and occupied for a week 
past. They could not accommodate me in a more ac¬ 
ceptable manner. And I say to them that if they will, 
on the adjournment of this body this evening, or at any 
other time that may suit their convenience, meet us in 
the State house yard—we will organize a “wood pile 
convention ” and go at it. They have the advantage 
of me here. An impervious sense of duty, of respect 
for the occasion—for my constituents, for myself, re¬ 
strains me here. My constituents know that I can do 
a little at the game gentlemen have been playing, but 
they sent me here for a very diflerent purpose, and I 
will not suffer myself to be guilty of a violation of their 
confidence, however gentlemen may provoke it. Per¬ 
haps, sir, they may deem me fastidious in taste, per¬ 
haps dull of apprehension—it may be the latter—if the 
gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] is right, it 
is probably the latter. I belong to that party on this 
floor whom he, in his usually classic good taste, charac- 
ises as of the family of animals known by their bray¬ 
ing. And he tells us that he has performed the won¬ 
derful feat of stripping us of the lion’s skin in which 
we have been disguising ourselves, to cheat the people. 
Well sir, the gentleman is authority on this point. He 
has given us good reason for supposing that he is of 
the long eared family himself. He is familiar with the 
family characteristics, and has detected us by our bray¬ 
ing. Natural enough, for who, better than a brother, 
should know a brother’s voice. 

I have a few words, I repeat, to address to the sober 
minded, reflecting portion of this body—those who 
have come up here impressed with the importance of 
providing a good frame of government for the people 
of Ohio. Therefore, sir, I do not address myself to the 
gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin.] He has 
told us that he has no confidence in any government on 
earth. He believes that “ all governments are, for the 
most part, humbugs, and the remainder rascality.” 
Which of these characteristics he would have predom¬ 
inate in the government we are engaged in framing, 
he must decide. Judging from the character of his 
speeches on this floor, I should judge him in favor, de¬ 
cidedly, of humbug. But the gentleman tells us, at 











CONVENTION REPOETS. 647 


the same time, he has unbounded confidence in the peo¬ 
ple. Yes, sir, the government created by the people, 
which bears their impress in its every lineament, which 
represents their sovereign majesty, which speaks their 
will this is humbug and rascality—but he has unlimi¬ 
ted confidence in the people themselves. What does 
he love the people so dearly for ? Certainly not for the 
wisdom and virtue manifested in a careful provision 
for the protection of individual rights and privileges. 
No, sir, he eschews all government, very likely. He 
looks on government, doubtless, as a restriction—an 
embarrassment on the glorious privilege of doing just 
as he pleases—of enjoying the “largest liberty.” Sir, 
that gentleman, as he evidently does not comprehend 
the objects, is incapable of appreciating the value of 
our government. Who made it—and what is it ? I 
put it to him, sir. I will tell him the people them¬ 
selves created, established it. It is the work of their 
own hands. They have declared it the supreme law 
for the protection of right, reserving to themselves 
power, when it should fail fully to accomplish this 
end, to alter or abolish it. Its mission is to protect him, 
and^ I, and all, in the assertion of civil, religious and 
political freedom, in the enjoyment of life, liberty and 
the pursuit of happiness. 

But the gentleman, although loud in his praises of 
the honesty and virtue of the people, has no confidence 
in the work of their hands. I should be pleased to 
know what his notions of government and its objects, 
are. I will give him mine. It is designed to protect 
him, and I, and all, in the assertion of equal, civil, reli¬ 
gious and political freedom—in the enjoyment of life, 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness—like the atmos¬ 
phere we breathe, to attend us at all times and in all 
places—in the still hour of midnight when locked in 
slumber—at the hour of mid-day when we walk forth: 
To be the panofdy and shield which is to defend our 
rights from invasion—let it come from the arm of the 
strong, or the chicanery of the cunning—from the as¬ 
saults of a despotic, unprincipled majority, as well as 
from the craft of the foe ; To secure to us the fruits of 
toil, and defend those domestic relations which form 
the basis of social happiness. Believing that owing to 
some defects in the structure of the existing goveiai- 
ment, it fails to some extent to accomplish all that was 
intended in its creation, the people have sent us here 
to remedy them. It is to do this great work, that the 
gentleman and I are here. But, sir, he and I can never 
co-operate. Thei’e is, I fear, an impassible gulph be¬ 
tween us. He has no confidence in government. It is 
because I have, that I am here—that I am, in ray own 
humble way, endeavoring to aid in improving it. As 
tlierefore what I have to say will fail to arrest his sym¬ 
pathies, I shall not address ray I'emarks to him. It is 
to those who have confidence in government, who have 
come up here disposed calmly to discuss what is best 
adapted to the interests of the people of Ohio, that I 
speak. I would ask them, then, in the formation of 
our government, what department of it most seriously 
demands care and wisdom in its adjustment? I an¬ 
swer emphatically, the judiciary. You may have a ve¬ 
nal Executive, a cornipt Legislature, but if your Judi¬ 
ciary is wise and honest, there is the ark of your safe¬ 
ty. To that refuge you may fly for security—to that 
power you may appeal for redress of any grievance 
which the power of corrupt rulers or the madness of 
numbers may attempt. An upright, capable judiciary, 
then, it should be our first duty to secure; and the 
great question now to be decided, is, how best is this 
end to be accomplished? 

The question now under consideration, is the tenure 
of office of the judges—that is, the length of time they 
shall hold their offices. Much—nay, 1 might say eve¬ 
ry thing depends upon the right settlement of this point. 

A great deal has been said here, Mr. Chairman, about 
tlie importance of keeping the court within the reach 
of the popular arm—of holding it responsible and sub¬ 
ject to the popular will. Other gentlemen have met 


this question and treated it with much ability. I shall 
not pursue that topic ; but permit me to say that I can¬ 
not discover the vast political advantage to be gained 
in the adoption of the four years term, in preference to 
that of six years, which is now proposed to insert in the 
blank created by striking out seven — whilst I can 
readily perceive its influence in giving character to the 
bench—and that, Mr. Chairman, is the great point.— 
It is to the character of the bench that you must look to 
determine the efficacy of its administration—it is the 
character of the judges for learning and integrity, that 
gives that great moral influence, so essential to the su¬ 
premacy of the law. And all will agree that if this be 
so, every other consideration is of minor importance to 
this. 

_ It is, in truth, Mr. Chairman, a question of policy 
simply. Let us so consider it. And in doing so, let 
us determine upon the best lights to guide us in the in¬ 
vestigation. I put the question, then, in the first place, 
whether it be not wiser to consult our own experience 
derived from the trial of half a century, and the exam¬ 
ple of our sister States, than run off after the novel and 
extreme opinions of gentlemen whose highest claim to 
our attention is, that they profess to know all about the 
wishes of the people? Now, sir, I am at a loss to know 
how these gentlemen have acquired their information 
on this topic. The fact is, the people have expressed 
no wish on the subject. They have said nothing about 
it through newspapers, at public meetings, by resolu¬ 
tions, or in any other manner. So that unless these 
gentlemen know by intuition, what the people want, 
they have no better lights than we have on this ques¬ 
tion. 

I say then, what are the lights which should guide 
us ? The Hon. gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. Kennow] 
chairman of the committee on the judicial department, 
the other day presented us, in a clear and forcible man¬ 
ner, the action of the other States of the Union on this 
subject—and I had hoped that his remarks would have 
been duly considered and appreciated by this commit¬ 
tee. In this I was mistaken. Twenty-seven out of the 
thirty States have adopted a longer term of office for 
the judges than that proposed by the amendment of 
the gentleman from Lorain, [Mr. Clark] four years. 
Two of the three, Vermont and Georgia, who have not, 
have fixed no term in their constitutions, leaving it to 
be adjusted by their legislatures as might be found best. 

Now is it possible sir, that there is neither wisdom 
nor democracy tobefound in these twenty-sevenstates— 
that they have failed in the first and lost sight of the 
latter? Is it so that they do not understand the proper 
method of securing a sufficient accountability to the pop¬ 
ular power, and that they have departed from the an¬ 
cient land marks of democracy I Or is it true tlpt all 
wisdom and genuine democracy is concentrated in this 
august body ? Gentlemen would seem, from the orac¬ 
ular manner in which they deliver themselves, to have 
it so. It is thought, Mr. Chairman, by some, that if gen¬ 
tlemen’s minds were directed a little more to the results 
of experience elsewhere, and a little less to making 
flourishing speeches, this discussion would have occu¬ 
pied considerably less of the time of this body. But 
sir, I desire to think well of, to confide in the sincerity 
of gentlemen, I desire to think them wise and honest.^ If 
they will let me, I will think so. 1 listen to them with 
attention and will follow them in their road as far as I 
am satisfied it is right. But they must not be surprised 
if I falter in my faith in their sincerity, when I find 
them disregarding all land marks—assigning no reasoiM 
for the departure, but glorifying themselves for their 
attachment to the people—and glorifying the immacu¬ 
late, infallible wisdom of the people. Sir, the great 
Mirabeau said truly—“ The people have their flatterers 
as well as kings.” 

What reasons are we to suppose have actuated the 
other States to whose examples I have referred ? We 
may readily supjjose them, sir. First, the importance on 
the one hand of limiting to a proper term the tenure of 











648 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


the office of jiulge, so that the people may reach an un¬ 
faithful or incompetent officer, and on the other hand 
of fixing the term long enough to invite the services of 
honest and capable men—again, to give something of 
stability to the law. True, the judges have nothing to 
do with making the law, but they administer it It is 
by the expositions of the law from the bench that the 
law is known. The folly of frequent changes in the 
court, involving as it must of necessity, frequent changes 
in judicial decisions, we must suppose has had its due 
weight with thenf. Again, it is most important to se¬ 
lect the judges from amongst the lawyers occupying the 
highest standing in the profession—they are always the 
men who have the largest share of the practice. To se¬ 
cure the services of such, you must hold out the induce¬ 
ments of a reasonable and a sufficient compensation. 
A short time and a low salary, may induce some to ac¬ 
cept the station, but they will be of two classes—the 
wealthy who desire the place for the honorit confers— 
or the unworthy who cannot make as good a living in any 
other way. The true principle is so to adjust your sys¬ 
tem that it will present a field for the competition of 
the best talents, learning, and integrity of the country. 
Take a man from the bar and place him on the bench, 
and what is the consequence ? If the term be only four 
years, it is just long enough to injure him, without much 
benefiting the public — long enough, to lose him all 
his prospects of re-gaining practice, and to change his 
habits—long enough, in short, to unfit him for returning 
to his profession—but not long enough to give him that 
experience in the administration of the law which will 
make him useful. These are the reasons which a care¬ 
ful examination of the question must suggest to every 
sensible mind—and have led the constitution makers of 
the other States to adopt the policy they have. 

Mr. Chairman, I will not elaborate all the arguments 
which might be adduced; they will doubtless suggest 
themselves to the minds of gentlemen, when the murky 
atmosphere of party politics which now surrounds this 
question shall have passed away, with sufficient force, 
I trust, as will produce conviction I therefore say to 
gentlemen upon the right and the left—not designa¬ 
ting them by parties, when I address them as the ma¬ 
jority and the minority—I say with most respectlul 
earnestness to gentlemen, weigh this matter well be¬ 
fore you decide. 

You have decided that you will not take seven years. 
Very well, I will not fight against the majority; but 
can you not agree to a compromise ? Can you not 
agree to come up to six years ? I am willing to take 
this, if I can do no better. 

I invite the gentlemen who are for the short term to 
meet us here. To the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 
Reemelin] let me say that, if he will take my assurance 
for it, his character for democracy will not suffer 
in the least if he will agree to this. His democracy, as 
he understands the term, is established. Every gen¬ 
tleman on this floor will certify to it; and let me say to 
him, that magnanimity is one of the virtues of true de¬ 
mocracy. 

He has said that those of us who favor the seven years 
term, incline at heart to monarchical principles—whilst 
he, as a true republican, goes for four years. There is. 
then, just the difference of 4 and 7 between us. He 
has not told us where republicanism ends, and monar¬ 
chy begins; it lies somewhere between 4 and 7, how¬ 
ever. Now, I am willing to drop one peg, and ask him 
t® come up two. The difference I claim, because I 
have. I think, good reasons on my side, and I have 
heard none from him, except the democracy of the 
thing. 

That gentleman has charged upon us that w'e are ar¬ 
istocrats in feeling. A word on that subject. I confess 
that there is an aristocracy that I do not simply respect; 
I reverence it. It is not the aristocracy of mere money 
—that I despise—nor is it the aristocracy of mere birth, 
that I abhor. But to the aristocracy of mind—of intel¬ 
lect and integrity, I bow with admiration. It is to this 


class of aristocracy, Mr. Chairman, that I desire to en¬ 
trust the administration of justice, that I desire to place 
on the bench of Ohio. Give us this. I ask it of gentle¬ 
men as a boon—as a blessing which they can confer, 
not on my constituents only, but the whole people of 
the State, I appeal to the gentleman from Hamilton as 
one having much influence with a certain portion of 
this body—not on my own behalf, but in behalf of the 
people of Ohio. Give us this—and, so far as I am con¬ 
cerned, they shall call me what they please, not per¬ 
sonally disreputable, and I will take it. If he will aid 
us in this I will say to him—I rejoice that you left your 
fatherland—1 rejoice that you have come amongst us, 
to assist in this great work. I greet you as an Ameri¬ 
can citizen, worthy of that proud title. Let me say to 
that gentleman that I am not of those who distrust a 
man because he may not have first seen the light on 
American soil. I am the last man on this floor to cavil 
with him because of his foreign birth. There is not a 
drop of my ancestral blood flowing in the veins of any 
being on this side of the Atlantic. I greet every for¬ 
eigner, of whatever nation, who seeks a home among 
us, and desires tosustain our institutions, as a fellow-cit¬ 
izen of the United States. So long as that gentleman 
will labor calmly and sincerely with us in this great 
work, I am most happy to go with him. The fact that 
Germany is his native country, is no reason with me for 
di.sregarding his counsels, when they are given in the 
right spirit. 

Mr. Chairman, I have said this is a great work we 
are called on to do. It is so—and great is the confi¬ 
dence reposed by the people in those they have called 
here to take part in it. To what higher vocation could 
they be called? Let us reflect then upon that responsi¬ 
bility—that every vote we give, may affect for good 
or evil not alone the millions here—but the unborn 
millions that are to come after us. Let us then drop, 
during the consideration of this question of the judicia¬ 
ry system, all party topics, as tending to divert our 
minds from a just conception of its magnitude. Hav¬ 
ing but one interest we should look to but one end, the 
advancement of the welfare and interests of our com¬ 
mon constituents. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren, now obtained the floor; and 
upon his motion the coinrnitte ro.se, reported progress, 
and obtained leave to sit again. 

BANKS AND CURRENCY. 

Mr. LARWILL, from the majority of the committee 
on banks and currency, now asked and obtained leave 
to report. 

The report was read by the secretary, and is as fol¬ 
lows : 

The committee onBaiiksand the Currency,havinginaturely con¬ 
sidered the subject submitted to them, in all the varied forms 
they have been presented, nowf report by a majority. 

For the last twelve years the subject of the constitutionality, 
as well as the policy of a system of paper money banks, has been 
agitated and discussed by the people of this State, and presented 
in almost every aspect. The majority oi the committee therefore 
deem it unnecessary to enter into any detailed dis ussion of the 
subject at this time, and content themselves with submitting to 
the Convention a proposition for its adoption, with a few brief 
statements of the main grounds on which it is supported. 

The constitutionality ot the paper money banking system as it 
now exists in Ohio may well be controverted Gold and silver 
coin, the constitutional currency, has been thrown out of circu¬ 
lation by the paper medium, and to a great extent become an ar¬ 
ticle of merchandise, so that the currency of this State, as a stan¬ 
dard of the exchangeable value of property, i? now regulated 
and controlled by the banking institutions of the State. 

The Constitution of the United States vests in Congress the ex¬ 
clusive power, “ to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of 
foreign coin, and to fix the standard of weights and measures.” 
It is clear that this clause was intended to place in the hands of 
the National Legislature, the exclusive power to regulate the cur¬ 
rency of the country, as the standard of the exchangeable value 
of property. Yet this power has been, in efifect wrested from the 
hands of Congress by the creation of paper money banks by the 
State legislatures. Further, the paper money system wouldseem to 
be in derogation of the true intent and meaning of an express pro¬ 
hibitory clause of the constitution, which provides that “ No State 
shall coin money, emit bills of credit, or make anything but gold 
and silver a tender in payment oi debts.” It was the evident in¬ 
tent of the framers of the constitution to inhibit the exercise ot 








CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


649 


any control over the standard of value by the States. Bank notes 
are in fact, nothing more nor less than bills of credit; and it 
would seem a gross absurdity to say that States could delegate to 
corporations or individuals, power or authority, the exercise of 
which had been by express prohibition, taken from themselves. 
In other words, how can a state delegate to others, powers which 
it does not possess itself. Moreover, how can it be said with 
truth that nothing other than gold and silver coin has been made 
a tender in payment of debts, when gold and silver coin is chiefly 
drained out of circulation, and in ninety-nine cases out of a hun¬ 
dred, in the ordinary business of the country, the creditor is com¬ 
pelled to take bank paper in satisfaction of his debt, or suffer it 
to go unpaid. We are not, however, barely left to the language 
of the constitution for its correct interpretation. The debates of 
the convention furnishes us with the understanding and intent of 
the framers of the constitution The Madison papers, which fur¬ 
nish the most authenti c publication of the debates of the conven¬ 
tion, in vol. 3, page 1442, contains the following, which is conclu¬ 
sive as to the construction of the constitution: 

Article 12 being then taken up, 

Mr. Wilson and Mr. Sherman moved to insert after the words, 
“coin money,” the words, “noremit bills of credit, normake any 
thing but gold and silver coins a tender in the payment of debts,” 
making those prohibitions absolute instead of making the meas¬ 
ure allowable, as in the thirteenth article, with the consent of the 
legislature of the United States. 

Mr. Gorham thought the purpose would be as well secured by 
the provision »f article thirteen, which makes the consent of the 
General Legislature necessary, and that in that mode no opposi¬ 
tion would be excited; whereas, an absolute prohibition of pa¬ 
per money would rouse the most desperate opposition from its 
partisans. 

Mr. Sherman though this a favorable crisis for crushing paper 
money. If the consent of the legislature could authorize the 
emission of it, the friends of paper money would make every ex¬ 
ertion to get into the legi slature in order to license it. 

The question being divided on the first part, “ nor emit bills of 
credit,” 

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, 
Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Aye — 8. 
Virginia, No—1. Maryland, divided. The remaining part of 
Messrs. Wilson and Sherman’s motion was agreed to, ntm. con. 

The policy of a system of paper money is condemned alike 
by sound principles of political t conomy, and by the history of 
paper money banking in every country in which it has been in 
use ; the currency or circulating medium of a country is its 
measure or standard of exchangable value of property, and 
therefore should be composed of an article not too abundant in 
quantity, and within itself possessing stability, uniformity and in¬ 
trinsic value. 

Bank paper is nothing more than the evidence of indebtedness, 
and di pendent upon the solvency and good fortune of the ma¬ 
kers for its safety—possessing no stability or uniformity, and con¬ 
tracted or expanded in proportion to the ability of the interested 
persons who issue it to force it into circulation. 

The most plausible pretences which have been put forward to 
sustain the paper money system, are that it is convenient; that it 
aide and stimulates the productive energies of the country, and 
that there is not gold and siiver in the world sufficient for the pur¬ 
poses of the circulating medium. These are fallacies exploded 
by the standard authors on political economy, and as often ex¬ 
posed by the operations of the system, thatit would seem that but 
few could be misled by them, except those who are blinded by 
interest or prejudice, or by those superficial observers who look 
only upon the surface of things, and never examine into the phil¬ 
osophical principles by which they are governed. 

It is an undeniable fact, that in France, Holland, and other 
countries, where no bank paper currency exists, and in England, 
and some of the States ol the Union, where paper enters but lit¬ 
tle into the circulation for ordinary business, no inconvenience 
whatever is felt; times are easier and money more abundant, in 
proportion to the population and business, than in those other 
countries, and States of the Union which are the most ph ntifully 
supplied with bank paper. Gold coin, and commercial paper and 
certificates of deposite, supply all the donveniences for portabili¬ 
ty and for large business transactions, which bank paper can fur¬ 
nish, and without any of its difficulties and losses by means of 
depreciation and bank failures. And in truth and in fact, what 
is commonly called a scarcity of money and hard times in cur 
country, is produced chiefly by the operation of the paper money 
system—its fluctuations, the depreciation of paper, and bank fail¬ 
ures. 

Bank paper does not aid, but oppresses the industry and labor 
of the country. It is not the circulating medium, but the pro¬ 
ductive energies of the people and the fruitful resources of the 
country, which stimulates and advances its prosperity. 

The currency of hard money countries sufficiently attests the 
fact, that there is gold and silver sufficient for the purposes of the 
circulating medium. But when the -people of a country adopt 
the medium of a paper currency, and are content with the shad¬ 
ow, instead of the substance, gold and silver will, to a great ex¬ 
tent, be hoarded—used for plate, jewelry and mechanical purpos¬ 
es, and much of it sent to other countries, where it is in great 
demand. 

If the people of Ohio are disposed at this time to discard and 
abandon their paper currency, by a gradual, and even rapid pro¬ 
cess, gold and silver will almost imperceptibly, and without diffi¬ 
culty or loss, be brought into circulation by the business opera¬ 
tions of the country. 


ITie greatest objection to the policy of the paper money bank * 
ing system, consists in its corrupting and dangerous political 
tendency, and the stupendous frauds, and the occasional extensive 
disasters to the business of the country, which are incident to it, 
and which invariably, sooner or later, result from it. A banking 
system may be prosperous, and apparently have a beneficial influ¬ 
ence for a time, but sooner or later it will fail, and show its disas¬ 
trous results. In France, it has been tried upon almostevery fea¬ 
sible plan; not only the property of individuals, and the public 
securities of the government, but the publ c domain has be‘ n 
pledged for the safety of its paper, and yet it sooner or later went 
down with ruinous consequences to that country, and was entire¬ 
ly abandoned. 

The present banking system in Ohio, has proved a signal fail¬ 
ure. It was brought into existence by its advocates, as the meiuis 
of relieving the people of the State from hard times and scarcity 
of money ; and when have our people been more afflicted by em¬ 
barrassment and hard times, than during the last two years ? In 
1842 and ’43, when the banking system was nearly at an end in 
Ohio, times were easier, pecuniary difficulties far less, and money 
apparently more abundant, than during the past year, under the 
operation of this banking system, with a paper circulation rang¬ 
ing from seven to nine millions of dollars. 

No unprejudiced man can closely observe the operations of the 
paper money banking system, and doubt the existence of evil and 
corrupting political influences. It is a political engine of great 
potency. It bands together by the strong tie of pecuniary inter¬ 
est. an extensive and influential class of men from all parts of the 
State, and operates secretly and unseen, with a systematic and 
concentrative influence, which penetrates every county and neigh¬ 
borhood. It is an undeniable fact, that the existing banking sys¬ 
tem in Ohio, wields an extensive political influence, and is grasp¬ 
ing for parmanent ascendancy in the State, and if not arrested in 
its career, will become an overshadowing and corrupting source 
of political power, which the people will be unable to resisE 

If the people of this State are disposed to guard well their lib- 
erli'-s and their rights, they will not allow a paper oligarchy to 
grow' up in their midst, and with its blighting influences overshad¬ 
ow their free institutions. 

Deeply impressed with the belief, that one great object which a 
large and respec’able portion of the people of this State had m 
view, in the call of this Convention, was to check the inroad of 
this dangerous and corrupting polical engine upon their liberties 
and their interests, the majority of the committee submit the fol¬ 
lowing proposition, to be inserted in the new constitution : 

Sec. I. The General Assembly shall have no power to create 
or incorporate bank or banking institutions whatever, or to au¬ 
thorize the making, enussion, or putting in circulation of any bill 
of credit, bond, check, ticket, certificate, promissory note, or oth¬ 
er paper medium intended or calculated to circulate as money or 
currency. 

Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall prohibit by law, any per¬ 
son or persons, association, company or corporation now in exis¬ 
tence, from exercising the privileges of banking, or creating, 
emitting, or putting in circlation any bank notes or paper ol any 
description whatever, to circulate as money or currency. ^ 

Sec. 3. The business of loaning and dealinL in money shall be 
left free to all, subject to such restrictions as may be provided by 
law; but no special privileges or exemptions shall ever be granted 
to those engaged in, or who may hereafter engage in siich busi¬ 
ness ; nor shall any person or persons, either natural or artificial, 
ever be allowed to deal in or issue paper money, so called. 

.JOHN LAR.W1EL, Chairman. 
EDWARD C. ROLL, 
MAT'l'HEW H. MITCHELL, 
ROBERT LEECH. 

Mr. LAtiWILL moved that the report and the ac¬ 
companying article be laid upon the table; and that 
two thousand copies thereof be printed lor the use v)f 
members, and for distribution. 

But after some conversation in which Mr. Sawyek, 
Mr. Hitchcock of Geauga, and others took part, th:s 
motion was withdrawn for the present. 


the minority report. 

Mr. PECK, in behalf of the minority of the commit- 
3 e on the Banks and Currency, presented a report up- 
n the same subject which was read by the becretaiy, 
s follows: 

We, of the committee, who have not been able to concur wuh 
le majority in their report, deem it proper to state to this body 
ome of the reasons which induced us to withhold our naioes 
■om the report, and to recommend a resolution on the same. 

Banking and the currency are now so intimately connected atnl 
ctually blended with almost everything else, that it would seem 
3 be unphilosophical to consider the subject of banking entire y 
lone, but that the proper way to do this subject justice, will be 
3 consider it with reference to iill those other subjects to be 
fleeted by its change or modification. 

We are called upon to act under a state of circumstances, over 
^hich we as a Convention have no control, and for which we are 
ot responsible; a state of things, wdiich has griulually grown up, 
diether right or wrong, from the necescities ol the people. 

AVhat are some of these circumstances to be considered ? 

This State is surrounded by States which have a large paper 
urrency—Indiana, Iventucky, Virginia and New York, 











CONVENTION REPORTS 


«5() 


lliis State has about ten millions of dollars of paper circulation, 
while Pennsylvania has over fourteen millions, mid New York 
has over thirty millions of dollars of the jiaper issues of their own 
banks. 

When we look to the ability of the banks of these States to re¬ 
deem their issues with specie, we find that the banks of Ohio 
have over three and one-half of paper issued, to one of specie on 
iiand; Pennsylvania almost four and one-half to one, mid New 
York probably a much higher ratio of paper to specie, though it is 
hardly possible to ascertain the amount of specie in the country 
banks in that State. It would seem that they are founded princi¬ 
pally. upon stocks. 

Can we prevent the circulation of the paper of the banks of oth¬ 
er States from supplying the place of our own, if we should abol¬ 
ish banking in this State ? 

That experiment has failed elsewhere, and we have no reason 
to expect a different result here. 

It is said that specie would How into this State in exchange for 
our products. This might happen to some extent, but experience 
pi'oves, that in the United States at least, specie will flow to that 
point where it can be used to the greatest advantage; and we have 
reason to fear, that it would go to New York, or some other State, 
and be returned to us four fold in foreign bank paper; a currency 
over which we have no control; not so good as our own ; the 
profit all to the foreign bankers, and to the certain and great loss 
of this State. 

It would seem to be impossible at this time, to adopt an exclu¬ 
sive metalic currency. Let us suppose that all the States would 
concur in such a movement—and without such a concurrence, it 
would be worse than useless to attempt it—would it be just and 
eijuitable to carry into efl'ect such resolutions ? 

What would be the effect of such an act ? 

It may be conceded that the paper issues in this and the neigh¬ 
boring States, have increased the currency at least three fold, if 
not more. In consequence of this, property has now twice the 
(estimated value that it would have, upon a pure metalic curren¬ 
cy. All of our debts, both public and private, were contracted 
on a paper basis, and our taxes are based uj)on the same basis. 
The State debt alone is in amount nearly twice the amount of our 
whole circulation It must bo apparent, that this enormous debt 
can never be paid in specie. The interest of this public debt, held 
mostly by non-residents, is over one million of dollars per annum. 
It this was to be paid in specie, it would take but five or six years 
to drain the State of the precious metals. 

What will be the eti'ect of the adoption of the resolution report¬ 
ed by the majority of the committee 't 

It would suddenly bring on the commercial and debtor class, 
such distress and ruin as never before fell upon this people. Per- i 
haps the most objectionable feature to this course would be this 
—it would make the rich man more wealthy, the poor man poor¬ 
er, and the debtor class would be entirely mined. Let it be re¬ 
membered, that the debtor class is a very large one, embracing 
many of our most respectable and enterprising citizens. It may 
well be doubted, if the people would submit to the results natural¬ 
ly flowing from the adoption of such resolutions. We may well 
ask, if we are bound to bring present ruin on ourselves, in order 
to ti-ansmit an uncertain benefit to posterity 1 

The subject of banking cannot be considered as a local question ; 
it is a subject pertaining to the whole country. It is a subject re¬ 
quiring legislative interference oftener than any other. The action 
of other States on this subject, must necessarily in a great 2 neasure 
govern the Legislature of this State 

It is not necessary now, to examine the justice or propriety of 
the principle of banking, as it has been established in this coun¬ 
try. \Ve consider it now a mere question of policy. From the 
fluctnating character of public opinion on this suljject, and from 
its vital importance, it would seem to be a subject eminently prop¬ 
er to be left free to legislative action. 

It the people are opposed to further banking in this State, they 
are not without remedy. The General Assembly will represent 
them much more ti uly than we of this Convention are expected 
to do, and through that body they can be heard. If the people 
are in favor of bimking, in some form, they ought not to be de¬ 
prived of that power, and the General Assembly can mould the 
subject to suit the necessities and wishes of the people. 

We recommend the following as a substitute lor the resolutions 
of the majority of the committee: 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to confine the people of this 
.State to a metalic currency. 

DANIEL PECK, 

J. MILTON WILLIAMS, 

' ELIAS FLORENCE. 

' J. MILTON williams’ REPORT. 

Mr. WILLIAMS said: I am at the tail end of the 
committee, but I also wish to report. I do not agree, 
ill opinion, exactly, with those belonging to either 
branch of the committee reporting. I coilcur, how¬ 
ever, in the reasoning of the minority; but I wish to 
present upon this subject, a direct issue to the people of 
Ohio. 

Mr. WILLIAMS’ report was now read by the Secre¬ 
tary, and it is as follows : 

Sec. 1. Special charters for banking purposes shall never be 
passed by the General Assembly, but general laws may be enacted 
uader which banking companies may be formed. 


The capital stock of any such company shall never exceed- 

dollars, nor shall its charter continue for a longer period than 
-years. 

Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall have power to alter, amend, 
or repeal any general law for banking purposes, or the franchises 
of any company formed under the same; but the Jaw repealing 
the franchises of any banking company shall provide for the wind¬ 
ing up of its affairs, and the equitable protection of its rights and 
distribution of its property. 

Sec. 3. No law shall ever be passed authorizing the emission or 
circulation of paper credit of any description, intended to circu¬ 
late as money, under the denomination of-dollars. 

Sec. 4. Provision shall be made for countersigning and the 
registration, by an officer of the State, of all paper credit issued 
or put in circulation to pass as money; and each denomination 
shall be of like similitude in the engraving; and ample security 
for the redemption of the same, in specie, on demand, shall be re¬ 
quired by law. 

Sec. 5. The suspension of specie payments by any person or 
banking company in redemption of paper credit issued and circu¬ 
lated as money by such person or company, shall never be sanc¬ 
tioned by law. 

Sec. 6. The liabilities of banking companies shall be secured by 
the capital stock of such company, and by such other and further 
security as shall be provided by law, not less than the liability of 
each stockholder to contribute an additional sum equal to tlie 
amount of stock by him or her owned in the institution; Provided, 
that, if the franchises of any banking company shall be forfeited, 
and the institution declared insolvent, under judicial proceedings, 
on the ground of fraud or gross neglect in the management of its 
aft'airs, the directors and officers under whose administration such 
fraud or neglect occurred, shall, in the first instance—and the 
stockholders, in proportion to the amount of stock by each owned, 
shall, in the next place—be personally and individually liable for 
all dues owing by such insolvent banks—and the holders of paper 
credit issued and circulated as money, by such banking company, 
shall have precedence in payment over all other claims. 

J. MILTON WILLIAMS. 

Mr. LARWILL now renewed bis motion to lay these 
reports and accompanying propositions upon the table, 
and that two thousand copies thereof be printed. 

This motion was agreed to, and the printing was or¬ 
dered accordingly. 

The PRESIDENT suggested that the action which 
had just been taken upon these reports would neces¬ 
sarily place them upon the journal, and read the re¬ 
port and resolution which the Convention have adopted 
upon this subject. 

Mr. NASH moved that the secretary be directed not 
to enter these reports upon the journal. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said: He would like to have these 
reports upon the journal, for they might serve as re¬ 
corded guides and land-marks for ihe time to come. 

A Voice. “ They will go into the debates, and that 
will answer all purposes.” 

Pending the question upon this motion— 

The Convention took a recess until 3 o’clock P. M. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the Convention proceed 
to the orders of the day. 

The PRESIDENT remarked that when the Conven¬ 
tion took a recess the pending question was whether 
the written reasons accompanying the reports of the 
committee on Banks, should go on the journal. 

The question was then briefly debated by Messrs. Lou¬ 
don, Stanton, Hitchcock, Hawkins, Mitchell, Ma- 
NON, Green, and others. 

Mr. MORRIS moved that the Convention resolve it 
self into a committee of the whole. 

The question was put, and a division had, which re¬ 
sulted so : affirmative 2G—negative not counted. 

The Convention refused to go into committee. 

The question then turning upon excluding the writ¬ 
ten reasons of the committee on Banks from the jour¬ 
nal, Mr. Reemelin demanded the yeas and nays, which 
having been had, resulted ; yeas 20—nays 59— as fol¬ 
lows. 

Yeas.— Messrs. Hawkins, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, Larsh, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Loudon, Orton, Pattersou, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott 
of Auglaize, Stanton, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of 
Shelby, Townshend, and Warren—20. 

Nays — Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben- 
net, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Ca¬ 
hill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, Claypoole, Collings, Cur¬ 
ry, Ewai’t, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillet, Graham, Gray, Greene 
of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Gr resbeck, Hamilton, Hard, 
Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Humphreville, John- 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


son, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead* 
Morris, McCloud, Nash, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, Robertson, 
Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan- 
bery, Stilwell, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Way 
Williams, Woodbury, and Mr. President.—59. ’ 

Ou motion of Mr. MORRIS, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the Whole, (Mr. Riddle in 
the Chair,) and resumed the consideration of the report 
of the committee on 

THE JUDICIARY. 

The question was announced as being upon filling 
up the blank relative to the length of the term of the 
office of judge. 

Mr. COLLINGS. I cannot regard very favorably 
the proposition to reduce the terms of judges, but for 
reasons different from those urged by the gentleman 
from Clark. I am inclined to the opinion, as I enter¬ 
tain the hope, that the people will, generally, make the 
best selections from the candidates presented. Nor do 
I g»*eatly fear that judges will depart from the paths of 
rectitude. A judge would rather breast a popular cla¬ 
mor than subject himself to any well-grounded suspi¬ 
cion of the bar. The influence of the bar will go far 
to save judges from improper popular influence. He 
must stand erect before the bar, or he must fall. A 
judge, suspected by the bar of partiality, would be re¬ 
garded not with scorn and contempt,—he would sink 
below contempt — an object of loathing and disgust. 
I should not fear that decisions would be made favorable 
to the rich and influential. Such is not the teaching of 
Scripture: “ Thou shaft not know a poor man in his 
cause,—that is, not know a poor man to show him 
undue favor. If a question is doubtful, it cannot be 
said, with propriety, that the judge has pronounced a 
wrong judgment, much less that he has acted corrupt¬ 
ly. If I feared that judges elected by the people would 
act less uprightly than if appointed by the Legislature, 
I would not consent to the change. 

Rut I desire to give the people fair play. Present 
good men as candidates, and they will make good se¬ 
lections. To avail ourselves of the services of the best 
men, we must hold out adequate inducements. Law¬ 
yers in good practice will not relinquish that practice 
for a short term and low salary. 

It is supposed that the honor of office will induce, if 
not the best, at least good men, to ofler their services. 
To a large extent, such has undoubtedly been the case 
up to this time. But will not the face of things be 
changed? There is a large, though most unjust, pre¬ 
judice against lawyers. Judges will be selected from 
that profession. Of course candidates will be especi¬ 
ally liable to the attacks of prejudice, and to all man¬ 
ner of misrepresentation. Lawyers of standing will 
not be very likely to enter the arena, for the honoi- of 
being posted as a pack of dishonest scamps. To secure 
a good bench, you must hold out adequate induce¬ 
ments—a reasonable term ai’d adequate compensation. 

I have made these remarks the more freely, as I shall 
have no desire to hold office, judicial or other, under 
the constitution which we are endeavoring to frame; 
and as the practice will no longer be desirable to me, 
no longer an object, I take the occasion to bear my 
humble testimony to the general integrity and exten¬ 
sive usefulness of the gentlemen of the legal profes¬ 
sion. 

We are accustomed to the seven years term,—and I 
have heard no general complaint in regard to the in¬ 
tegrity and capacity of our judges. (“I beg every 
body’s pardon” for this remark.) Does not the pro¬ 
posed restriction look with distrust at the people ? It 
seeks to secure the people against the effects of their 
want of judgment or disregard of their interests. I am 
not afraid to trust the people,—but I desire to give 
them fair play. Present them the best materials, 
and they will make choice of good men It will be 
as safe to trust the people to elect for seven years, as it 
has been found safe to trust the Legislature. But a 
poor choice must be made from poor candidates : and 


651 


certainly first rate men will not be presented as candi¬ 
dates, if the term be short and the salary low. 

[Mr. SMITH of Warren followed Mr. Collings, but 
his remarks having been mislaid, must be omitted.] 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I move that the committee now 
rise. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. If my friend from Fairfield 
be desirous to take the floor and reply, and be not quite 
prepared to do so now, I will vote in favor of rising. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I do desire to sunmit a few re¬ 
marks, but I can do so now as well as at any other 
time, unless the patience of the committee is exhaus¬ 
ted. [Cries of “go on.”] 

Mr. ROBERTSON said: Mr. Chairman, I have no 
doubt that the committee have become cjuite impatient 
with the length of this debate. But sentiments have 
been uttered by several honorable members of ac¬ 
knowledged character and abilities, which in my judg¬ 
ment ought to be reviewed and exposed to the gaze of 
the people who sent us here. It is for this reason that 
I rise to address the committee at this late hour, when 
we are all exhausted by a long debate. 

I have this day, and in this chamber, heard the avow¬ 
al of opinionsexpressing a degree of distrust in the ca¬ 
pacity of the people which I have never before heard 
in any public body. I did not know that there was to be 
found a citizen of intelligence and public character, in 
or out of this Convention, deluded or bold enough to 
proclaim as political truth the long since exploded doc¬ 
trines of federalism which have been iterated and re¬ 
iterated in this debate. Let these sentiments, as pro¬ 
nounced here, go forth upon the wings of the press, 
without change or emasculation, so that when the gen¬ 
tleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] takes the stump 
against the new constitution, which he fears will be too 
radical, and therefore he threatens to oppose it, the 
people will comprehend his principles, and understand 
what kind of a constitution he wants. I doubt not 
that such sentiments as he has uttered in this and other 
debates, will receive little favor, and secure less influ¬ 
ence in the great forum of the people. 

But what is the real question before the committee? 
It is, shall judges be elected for seven or a less number 
of years? That is the whole question. Yet the chief 
argument made in favor of the longest term, has been 
that it is dangerous and unwise to trust the people with 
the election of judges for short terms. And the same 
argument is equally strong against the election of judg¬ 
es at all by the people. 

The debate has been thus made to turn on the ques¬ 
tion of capacity in the people to make a suitable selec¬ 
tion of judicial officers. All that has been said against 
reducing the judicial term below seven years, by the 
gentlemen from Clark, Gallia, and Logan, [Messrs. Ma¬ 
son, Nash and Stanton,] amounts only to this : thepeo- 
ple cannot he safely entrusted with the election of judges .— 
The people are incapable of enlightened self-government. 
This unmitigated federalism is advocated openly in this 
body—federalism which I supposed passed into oblivi¬ 
on—at least concealment—when the cognomen of fed¬ 
eralist was abandoned by the party now called whig. 
But I am mistaken. Do I misrepresent gentlemen? If 
so, let them correct me. I have taken notes of their re¬ 
marks, and will refer to some of them, to which I call 
the attention of the committee. 

The gentleman from Logan [Mr. Stanton] said, that 
“ it is dangerous to tnist the rights of citizens to parti¬ 
san majorities, in the election of ajudge.” Am I not 
right, sir, (addressing Mr. Stanton,) in quoting your 
remark ? 

Mr. STANTON. I will state the principle precisely. 
When the genllemaii questions me as to the accuracy 
of his notes, so far as I am concerned, I wish to reply. 
I said “ that every man has certain inalienable rights 
that ought to be protected from all governments, and 
from majorities or from anything else.” That was 
what I said. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. The gentleman did say, also. 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


652 


that it is dangerous to trust the rights of citizens to 
partisan majorities electing judges.” He also said, “he 
was in favor of electing judges fora long period of time, 
and for only one term, so that they cannot be influenced 
by popular will. 

Mr. STANTON. I said that. I said with the last 
proposition that I would prohibit his re-election. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. That he would prohibit his re- 
election ? 

Mr. STANTON. Yes, .sir. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. The gentleman also said : “ If 
the election becomes frequent the judges will, for their 
bread and butter, become the servile tools of the peo- 
ple.” 

Mr. STANTON. I did not say it in that form. I 
said they would do so if they pui’sued the interests of a 
temporary partisan majority. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. It amounts to the same thing. 
The gentleman also said : “The only safety of public 
rights is an independent judiciary.” And the gentle¬ 
man then proceeded to argue, that a judiciary could not 
be independent, and would be sure to become corrupt, 
if subjected to the control of the popular will. I call 
the attention of that gentleman, and those entertaining 
the views by him expressed, to the writings of Fisher 
Ames, the most brilliant politician of the old federalist 
school. But I suppose that they are perfectly familiar 
with his writings, as they seem to have uttered pre¬ 
cisely his sentiments in relation to the people. In the 
following extract from that author, tlie gentlemen re¬ 
ferred to will recognize the pith and substance of all 
their speeches on this subject. Mr. Ames says: 

“ The danger obviously was, that a species of government, in 
which the people choose all the rulers, and then, by themselves, 
or ambitious demagogues, pretending to be the people, claim and 
exercise an effective control over what is called the government, 
would be found no better than a turbulent, licentious democracy. 
The danger was, that their best interests would be neglected, their 
dearest rights violated, their sober reason silenced, and the worst 
passions of the worst men not only freed from legal restraint, but 
invested with public power. The known propensity of a demo¬ 
cracy is to licentiousness, which the ambitious and the ignorant 
believe to be liberty. 

“The great object, then, of political wisdom, in framing our 
constitution, was to guard against licentiousness, that inbred ma¬ 
lady of democracies, that deforms their infancy with grey hairs 
and decrepitude. 

“The lederalists relied much on the efficiency of an indepen¬ 
dent judiciary, as a check on the hasty turbulence of popular 
passions.” 

You perceive, gentlemen, how well you agree in 
sentiment with that distinguished old federalist, who 
lead on the forces against Thoma.s Jefterson. The 
learned gentleman from Clark, will find in the wri¬ 
tings of Ames, the original of all his political philoso- 
sophy. 

Mr. STANTON (interposing.) I hope the Reporter 
will notice the ccrrections I have made. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. And I hope the gentleman will 
allow his speeche.? to be published without emascula¬ 
tion. 

Mr. STANTON. Certainly. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I hope that all the views advo¬ 
cated in this debate will go forth to the world to be 
judged of according to their merits or demerits. We 
ask only a fair conflict of principles. 

The gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] appears to 
think that I am a sort of fire eating Democrat—for he 
often looks this way with an expression of suppressed 
horror, and appears to suppose that I delight in a chance 
to pursue him. Yet, I feel for him the highest regard. 
But I cannot help noticing some of the extraordina¬ 
ry opinions by him avowed in this debate. He says 
that he is very much alarmed by the doctrines advoca¬ 
ted at this time. If we keep on as we have began, 
over here, I am almost afraid that we will be the death 
of our venerable friend. [Laughter’.] He seems to 
be serious in the belief that the liberties of the State 
are about to depart; all order is to be destroyed: Red 
Republicans (the ghosts of the gerrtleman’s day-dreams) 
are to riot and rule in this unfortunate country—the vi¬ 
olent and rampant are about to triumph over the mode¬ 


rate ! All will be confusion and dseolation! Our lib¬ 
erties will depart, should our judges be elected every 
four years by the “ turbulent ” and “ changing ” peo¬ 
ple. Alexander Hamilton expressed similar opinions. 
He said: 

“ All communities divide themselves into the few and the • 

The first are the rich and the well born, the other the mass of the 
people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of 
God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and 
believed, it is not true in fact. The people ate turbulent and 
changing, they seldom judge or determine right.” 

The gentleman from Clark, and Mr. Hamilton, agree 
very well. He [Mr. Mason,] said in his speech this 
morning: •'The people will not re-elect judges who 
have faithfully performed their duties.” 

Mr. MASON interposing. The reason assigned was, 
that it was a democratic principle, and to some ex^nt 
a whig principle that there must be a rotation in office 
—and establish a doctrine of rotation and let the people 
apply it to those judges, sometinies it would happen 
that they wou'd not be re-elected no matter how good 
they were. 

Mr ROBERTSON. The gentleman told us also that 
judges will become corrupt, and that the last year of 
a judge’s term, will be spent in looking over his shoul¬ 
der in oi’der lo conciliate the powerful suitors of his 
court, and to protect himself against the demagogues 
who will assail him outside of the court. 

“ The last year of the term,” the gentleman says, “is 
to be spent in courting suitors so that the judge may 
co[)e with the demagogues.” The gentleman said also, 
(and Mr. Reporter, let us have that in the book,): “car- 
out your plan—have the judges elected every four years, 
and we will have one of the most corrupt judiciaries 
that ever existed among a free people.” These are his 
very words—and then he tolls us, “ It we have a judge 
who refuses to degrade the law, when a body of rioters 
tear down a house, or lynch a colored person—he must 
go out of office.” And he further tells us, “ that if we 
carry out this system, we must have anew oath admin 
istered to the judge,” an oath, “ that he will obey in 
his decisions, the latest opinion of the vicinige.” Such 
are the views of the distinguished gentleman from 
Clark, [Mr. Mason.] That gentleman concurs in the 
views of Fisher Arnes, who says in the work already 
quoted, that: 

“All Democracies are governments by popular passions. These 
cannot exist and be at rest; they cannot be indulged and yet kept 
within the limits of moderation or principle. They sweep like 
whirlwinds ; they are not stopped by desolation, but as they de¬ 
stroy they level obstaclos and are quickened in their progress. 
They pour like torrents from the mountains, and if they reach 
the plain in their fullness, they are inundations uncontined by 
banks ; the violence of each soon scoops for itself a narrow chan¬ 
nel, and that is a dry one." 

j The next advocate hi this debate of these old fash- 
I ioned federalist notions is our Yankee friend,—if he 
i will allow me to use that phrase—the honorable gen- 
I lleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash.] He says that “the 
' judge must often decide wrong, lor otherwise he cau- 
1 not be re-elected.” That is the orthodox federalist doc- 
I trine in relation to the election of all public officers; 
j the federalist idea being that the people will not re- 
j elect faithful public servants. ,Tohn Adams well ex¬ 
pressed this want of confidence in the people in the 
following extract, which I make from his work on the 
American Constitution : 

“ It should always be remembered, that this is not the tirst ex¬ 
periment that was ever made in the world of elections to great 
offices of the State; bow they have operated in every great 
nation, and what has been their end is very well known. Man¬ 
kind have universally discovered that chance was preferable to 
a correct choice, and have trusted Providence rather than them¬ 
selves. First magistrates and senators had better be made hered¬ 
itary at once, than that the people should be universally debauch¬ 
ed and bribed, go to loggerheads, and fly to arms regularly every 
year.” 

ic ic -k * * ie ie it 

“Neither philosophy nor policy has yet discovered any other 
cure than by prolonging the duration of the first magistrate and 
senators. The evil may be lessened and postponed by elections 
for longer periods of years till they come for life ; and if this is 
not found an adequate remedy, there will remain no other but to 
make them hereditary. The delicacy or the dread of unpoptilar- 

















CONVENTION REPOllTS. 


653 


ity, that ehoulii induce any man to conceal this important truth 
from the full view and contemplation of the people, would be a 
weakness if not a vice.” 

Allow me to say, sir, that a great waste of time and 
argument is chargeable against gentlemen on the other 
side, who have made such long speeches in support of 
the old tashioneil doctr nes of federalism, which I had 
supposed were long since abandoned. But these gen¬ 
tlemen appear to dread progressive whiggery as much 
as “ red republicanism,” and they labor to bring their 
party back to its ancient creed. I put the (|uestion dis¬ 
tinctly to the gentleman from Gallia, [Mr, Nash,] are 
you willing that the people shall rule in the election of 
judges, the same as in the election of all other otiicers?” 
He declined answering the question, because he was 
shrewd enough to foresee where the answer would 
lead him. Yet he cannot deny that he and other mem¬ 
bers on the opposite side of this chamber, are afraid to 
trust the people in the election of judges. You cover 
up your real sentiments in assaults upon demagogues; 
you talk about the danger of electing corrupt judges, 
and have much to say about an independent judiciaiy, 
and the sovereignty of the law. But let me tell you, 
gentlemen, you dare not, for you fear the influence of 
that very people you contemn, utter your sentiments 
on this subject in plain, terse and unmitigated English. 
The gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] says, “that 
when a judge is about to be re-elected, the lawyers 
who have been disap{)ointed in his decisions, will ap¬ 
peal from the judge to the people, and then he is sure 
to be defeated.” 

Mr. MASON (interposing.) I have no recollection 
of making a declaration of that kind. I said that what 
would occur then, would always occur on the election 
of a man to office. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. The gentleman used that argu¬ 
ment against reducing the term of office. I want to 
bring these gentlemen up to the “ sticking point” of 
their own principles. I want to shew to them their 
political countenances, in the mirror which they have 
made for themselves. Let the people see and know 
them, and we will have no cause to tear their assaults 
on democratic principles. I hold up their self-mirror¬ 
ed countenances. 

Mr. MASON in his seat. I like my part so far as I 
have seen my own countenance. [A laugh.] 

Mr. ROBERTSON. No doubt Napoleon said with 
truth, that no class of men was so dangerous in their 
opposition to correct principles, as intelligent, wrong 
headed, honest men. [Laughter.] 

In the course of his remarks in this debate, the gen¬ 
tleman from Gallia [Mr. Nash] expressed views unfa¬ 
vorable to the propriety of making an appeal to the peo¬ 
ple. I asked him this question : “are you afraid of an 
appeal at the time of a judicial election from the bench 
or the bar, to the people?” He refused to answer 
this question. Why? Was he ashamed to reply ? I 
tell you gentlemen, who agree in sentiment with that 
member—T tell you with deference and respect, that 
you are afraid, notwithstanding all your apparent can¬ 
dor, and boasting of your confidence in the people, you 
are afraid to answer that question distinctly and une¬ 
quivocally, in accordance with your sentiments. 

Mr. NASH. The gentleman is probably mistaken 
about that fact. I said at the time, in reply to him, 
that the subject did not come within the range of my 
argument. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. It came distinctly within the 
range of the gentleman’s argument. It was the true 
point of issue between us. For that gentleman was 
speaking of the danger of an appeal from the bench or 
the bar, to the people. 

Mr. NASH. In reply to a suggestion the other day, 
I said that the lawyers would go to the people on a le¬ 
gal question. That was my argument. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. The gentleman was referring 
at the time— 

Mr. NASH. To any question decided in the courts. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. No sir, the gentleman was re. 


ferring to the re-election of a judge, and the danger ot 
an appeal to the peojile. 

Mr. NASH. Certainly I was; in regard to great cr.i.- 
stitutional questions. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. That is the same thing, but 
your remarks went further. 

Mr. NASH. When the Convention puts into the 
constitution that we have the right to appeal from tlie 
court to the people, and to try a case over again, then 
we can carry out that doctrine. But what I protest 
against is, that when the constitution does not provide 
for such ati appeal, the gentleman claims the right to 
take it. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. The reply is a mere subtei fuge. 
The gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbkry] rose to 
make a remark in regard to the question addressed by 
me to the gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash ;] wheal 
asked him, [Mr. Stanbkry] “would you be afraid of an 
appeal from the bar to the people, pending the re-elec¬ 
tion (d' ajudge ?” The gentleman replied that he would 
no'. He is learning to be a pretty good politician, for 
he saw the effect of a different answer. Yet his argu¬ 
ment previously made upon the same subject, was en¬ 
tirely inconsistent wilh such a response. What, gentle¬ 
men, have you been arguing about for the last two or 
three days? Has it not been to show that we cannot 
safely intrust the people with the election of judges ■ 
And to prove that the people are in danger of being 
ruled and ruined by demagogues and corru])t politi¬ 
cians? Such was the intent of all your speeches, oth¬ 
erwise you have been wasting the time of the commit¬ 
tee in saying that which you did not mean. The gen¬ 
tleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] declared with mm h 
emphasis that “under the modern phases of red repub¬ 
licanism every department of the government is fulling 
into the bands of trading politicians; and he expects 
that by the time we shall get the judiciary into their 
hands we shall have ship-wrecked the State on the 
rocks and breakers of radicalism.” That calamity, he 
thinks, will terminate our liberties. These predictions, 
when analyzed, will be found to, contain the essence of 
federalism._ The gentleman’s conclusions are tersely 
e.^rrossed in the following extract from the writings of 
hi.s model statesman, Fisher Ames. Mr. Ames says: 

“To iise quaint language, in order to be the more intelligible, 
it maybe said, that, when there is no end to the power of a mul¬ 
titude, there can be no beginning to their liberty.” 

My chief purpose, Mr. Chairman, in addressing the 
committee now, is to show, that the most obnoxious 
federalist doctrines find zealous advocates in this cham¬ 
ber, and that gentlemen here, of high character, influ¬ 
ence and position, are laboring to make a constitution 
on principles which are odious to the people, and op¬ 
posed to the true theory of our government. I wish, 
also, to show that the sentiments of the prominent 
Whig members of this Convention, are the same as the 
false and condemned doctrines of the old federalists. T 
regard this, as a legitimate line of argument—demand¬ 
ed by the occasion. My friend from Auglaize regrets 
what he calls these political debates. I regret no argu¬ 
ment, from whatever source, which exposes the true 
sentiments of our opponents upon the great questions 
involved in the making of a new constitution. Expo¬ 
sure is the surest way to defeat them. 

It is true, Mr. Chairman, that there are excellent 
and respectable members of this Convention who have 
little confidence in the capacily of ihe people for self- 
government, because they unfortunately believe in the 
Ijopeless doctrines of Hamilton, that mankind are in 
general vicious, and that their passions may be easily 
operated tipon by bad men. The arguments of the 
gentlemen from Clark, Gallia, Logan and Franklin, 
[Messrs. Mason, Nash, Stanton and Stanbkry,] are, 
when examined, resolvable into this conclusion. My 
respected friend from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] appears 
here, in his arguments, as the vei*y beau ideal of a fine 
old federalist gentleman, “all of the olden times.” 
[Laughter.] 

A VoicK. He is honest. 










CONVENTION KEPORTS 


654 


Mr. ROBERTSON. As honest a man as God ever 
made, but he is no politician of the Whig school, for he 
speaks out his sentiments too frankly, too openly, for 
the interests of his party. The only accomplished pol¬ 
itician on the other side of the chamber is the venera¬ 
ble gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] who 
pretends to know and to care nothing about politics. 
[Laughter.] 

I distinctly charge, and wish the accusation to go be¬ 
fore the people, that gentlemen on the other side of 
the chamber have, in this debate, proclaimed and reit¬ 
erated the old federalist doctrines, which the Whig par¬ 
ty pretended to repudiate long ago. Aye, more than 
that—we are forewarned that, if we do not incorpo¬ 
rate these doctrines in the constitution we are making, 
these gentlemen will go before the people and exert 
their talents and influence to defeat its adoption. It is 
very natural for some of you to regard the people with 
distrust and contempt. 

Mr. MASON. Is it the opinion of the gentleman 
from Fairfield [Mr. Robertson] that the Whig party re¬ 
gard the people with contempt ? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I do not believe that of the 
Whig party ; but I do believe that the leaders of that 
party have in general an utter contempt, for the people. 
I do believe that the gentleman from Clark [Mr. Ma¬ 
son] has no confidence in the capacity of the people— 
[laughter]—to govern themselves well. I believe that, 
because his speeches made in this committee admit of 
no other inference. It may be that the campaign of 
1840 destroyed his confidence in the intelligence and 
virtue of the people. 

Mr. MASON (interposing, and Mr. R. giving way.) 
As a matter of inference the gentleman may draw that 
conclusion. My speeches will be pardoned, no doubt, 
when the gentleman knows, in reference to this change, 
as far as I am concerned, that Thomas Jefferson went 
out of the Tresidency when I was fifteen years old. I 
learned his character better afterwnrds, though I knew 
something of it then. My family, a very extensive 
one, were the friends, I might almost add the follow¬ 
ers, of Jefferson. They belonged to what was called 
the Republican or Democratic party, as in contradiistinc- 
tion to what was then termed the “Federalists,” be¬ 
tween which party and myself, and those from whom 
I am descended, there never was any sympathy—never 
any communion. That party was as much resisted by 
myself, when I attained the years of understanding, 
and I held it in abhorrence as much as any party that 
has ever existed in this country. I have brought these 
prejudices down from that day to this. 

In the war of 1812 I had the honor of holding a very 
humble position on the frontier of the State of New 
York, in the ranks of the army of my country, when 
at the same time the federalists were ridiculing that 
war and bringing the whole government into contempt, 
so far as it was possible for that talented party to do. 

I was then of the Jeffersonian, the Madisonian, and 
the Monroe school of politics. I have evereutertaiued 
democratic or republican principles, and if there be 
any man in this chamber under obligations to the peo¬ 
ple, and who ought to confide in them, and who ought 
to have a continual regard for them, that individual is 
myself. For I have even frequently received from 
them evidences of their confidence. I have never be- 
tiayed them, and I hope I never shall. I have as great 
a respect for popular rights as any man. I am a bred 
and born American. 1 was brought up and bred in the 
doctrines of the Jeffersonian school. I have brought 
those opinions along with me through life down to the 
present time. I am a republican in all my thoughts 
and feelings. I do trust, then, that the gentleman does 
not wish to make any false imputation concerning my 
political principles, for he is now speaking for “ the 
book,” which is to be a record of our sayings and do¬ 
ings, for the present and for generations to come. It is 
very unjustifiable in the gentleman to make these char¬ 
ges—charges which he himself does not believe, con¬ 


cerning the men against whom they are made. I am 
much obliged to the gentleman for his courtesy in al¬ 
lowing me an opportunity of making this explanation. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. 1 know, Mr. Chairman, that I 
have not designed to misrepresent the views of any 
gentleman in this committee. In the remarks I have 
just submitted, my whole object has been to review 
and justly characterize erroneous and obnoxious senti¬ 
ments which have been uttered in this debate. I en¬ 
tertain the highestrespectfor the character, attainments 
and patriotism of the honorable member from Clark, 
[Mr. Mason.] I could not wilfully do him an injus¬ 
tice. His speeches here authorize me to say that he 
fears that corrupt men will triumph in this country— 
that the people will be carried away by passion and 
violence, that they will not sustain an honest judge, 
who will vindicate the constitution and the laws he has 
sworn to support. I am fully justiffed in charging that 
the old Federalist doctrine that “ the people cannot be 
safely trusted with power ” is the theoiy of the gen¬ 
tleman from Clark. 1 hope that he and others in this 
chamber who entertain the same opinions will re-con- 
sider and abandon them as false and odious political 
heresies. A little unprejudiced reflection ought to con¬ 
vince them that the people can always be safely trust¬ 
ed in the exercise of power. Seventy-five years of 
experiment in this country satisfactorily establish and 
vindicate their capacity for self-government. Let us 
hear no more of the old Federalist idea that the people 
cannot be safely entrusted with the election of a Pres¬ 
ident, a Senator, a judge, or any other public officers. 
Let us hear no more of that same argument against the 
election of judges for short terms, which was employ¬ 
ed by the old Federalists against the election of a Pres¬ 
ident and of Senators. 

I hope that gentlemen in favor of long terms of office 
will no longer insist that judges who desire to be re-e¬ 
lected, must violate their oaths, and the constitution of 
their country, to ensure their success in an appeal to 
the people. If such an opinion of the people be just— 
if they are so degraded—so besotted, the liberties of 
this country are about to depart. Nay, Mr. Chairman, 
our liberties are already gone. 

I have said all I desired to say on the question under 
consideration. Having the most implicit confidence in 
the virtue and intelligence of the people, I am prepared 
to vote for the shortest term proposed for judicial offi¬ 
cers—1 will vote to strike out seven years, as the judi¬ 
cial term, and to insert four, because I believe that 
frequent accountability to the people, is the best secu¬ 
rity we can have from a public officer, for a faithful 
discharge of his duties. 

On motion ol Mr. PECK, the committee rose, repor¬ 
ted progress, and asked and obtained leave to sit again. 
On motion of Mr. LIDEY, the Convention adjourned. 

SATURDAY, July 6 , 1850. 

8 o’clock, a. M. 

Mr. SAWYER moved a call of the Convention, which 
being ordered, the following members were found ab¬ 
sent, to-wit: Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Brown of Athens, Case of Hocking, 
Case ol Licking, Cook, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, 
Firestone, Graham, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock 
of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, 
Hunt, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Mitchell, 
Morehead, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Otis, Ranney, 
Roll, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Swan, Vance 
of Champaign, and Williams. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the Sergeant-at-Arms be 
dispatched after the absent members, which was 
agreed to. 

Mr. MANON moved that all fuither proceedings un¬ 
der the call be dispensed with, on which motion 
Mr. BLICKENSDERFER demanded the yeas and 
nays, and being ordered, resulted, yeas 31, nays 43, as 
follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Bates, Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Clay- 









CONVENTION REPORTS 


655 


poole, Florence, Forbes, Groesbeck, Hunter, Jones, Lawrence, 
Lcadbetter, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morris, McCloud, Orton, 
Patterson, Peck, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stickney, Swan, Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Townshend, Way.—31. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bennett, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Clark, Codings, Curry, Farr, Gillett, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hard, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, 
Horton, Humphreville, Johnson, King, Larsh, Lidey, Perkins, 
Quigley, Reemelin, Robertson, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Stil- 
well, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Vance 
of Butler, Warren, Woodbury, Mr. President.—43. 

Mr. LOUDON moved that the absentees be excused, 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. HAWKINS presented a petition from Robert 
Rolstanaiid thirty-nine other citizens of Perry county, 
praying that a provision be inserted in the new consti¬ 
tution prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing traffic m spirituous liquors. 

Mr. LEADBETTER presented a petition fi’om G. W. 
Everett and sixty-hve other citizens of Holmes county, 
on the same suject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of retailing ardent spirits. 

Mr. HUNTER from the select committee on capital 
punishment submitted the following report: 

The select committee to which were referred sundry petitions 
and momorials and resolutions on the subject of capital punish¬ 
ment, hereby report the following clause, which they recom¬ 
mend to be inserted in the bill of rights of the New Constitu¬ 
tion, viz: 

Human life shall ever be held inviolate. The true object of 

{ mnishment being, in addition to the security of society, to re- 
brm and not to exterminate mankind; human life shall never be 
taken as a punishment for crime; but the highest punishment 
indicted for crime shall be imprisonment during life in the State 
Penitentiary 

B. B. HUNTER, 

WM. LAWRENCE. 
WM. 3. BATES. 

On motion of the same gentleman the report was 
laid on the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. SAWYER ottered the following resolution: 
Resolved, That no member be allowed to speak longer than fif¬ 
teen minutes on any question before the committee or Conven¬ 
tion. 

Mr. President: I wish to say a few words in relation 
to this resolution. I have made an elfort several times 
before, to get this matter before the Convention, but in 
an indirect way. The-direct vote upon the question 
had been always avoided. I shall not trouble the Con¬ 
vention again with any thing upon this subject, for I 
think I shall now have done my duty. I think it must 
be apparent to every member of the Convention, for 1 
feel that there is sound good sense in it, that we shall 
not be able to get through our labors in time to submit 
the constitution to the people this fall, at the rate we 
are now progressing. I am aware that gentlemen think 
it is hard to be restricted in their debates to a limited 
time, as thei'e are a large number of talented men here, 
and the adoption of such a resolution as this will cut 
them off from debate and deprive them of the opportu¬ 
nity of making their speeches. 

There is another subject to which I wish to call the 
attention of the Convention, and which whighs heavily 
upon my mind, and it is in regard to the publication of 
our debates. I do not know whether it is the fault of 
the reporters, or the fault of the printers, but the lust 
reports which appeared in the papers, were more than 
a week behind our proceedings. If it is the fault of 
the Convention by our making long speeches, the reso¬ 
lution should certainly pass. If it is the fault of the 
reporters, in not getting out their matter in time, then 
the reporters should do their duty, for we ought to have 
a report of our pi’oceedings the next day after they 
take place. We have employed two printers, and we 
have agreed to pay them f(U’ their work, and if the re¬ 
porters have not furnished them with work enough, 
then they should increase their strength. I merely al¬ 
lude to these things, so that if the fault lies with the 
Convention, by reason of its members making so long 
speeches, the responsibility may be brought home to 


us. I will say this, that if we are to sit day after day 
and listen to long speeches, entirely irrelevant, and 
discuss who are the better democrats, or whigs, or Jef¬ 
fersonian republicans, or who are old federalists, it u 
none of my business ; but we should remember that 
our constituents have asked of us to proceed with the 
business entrusted to our care, and we must be found 
faithful servants upon the watch-tower. If you are in 
favor of pursuing such a course as you have done, I 
shall vote for an adjournment, because it must be evi¬ 
dent to every gentleman, that we cannot accomplish 
the work in time to .submit it to the people. I have 
deeply at heart the success of the constitution we are 
about to frame, for I believe from the progress we have 
made so far, that it will be heartily responded to by all 
parties. But if you allow this matter to calm down, by 
putting oil' the time to submit it to the people, as yon 
would in the case of an adjournment, you will find a 
dift’erent state of things next fall. For this reason, and 
with an honest desire to perfect this instrument, and 
send it to the people for their I’atification at the earliest 
period possible, I shall urge the passage of this reso¬ 
lution. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. If members are restricted 
to fifteen minutes in debate, there will be enough to 
fill up the time, so that the reports will be just as long 
as they are at present. It is said we shall get along 
faster, but I cannot see how this will be done. To my 
mind it makes no ditterence, whether some gentleman 
should make a speech of half an hour, as at present, or 
he should be confined to fifteen minutes; and my friend 
from Auglaize should go on in addition for fifteen min¬ 
utes and make the same argument. The various ques¬ 
tions which come up, will be discussed as a matter of 
course, and if you apply the gag, as proposed by various 
gentlemen, it will not help the ma ter any. V'ariou.s 
methods will be resorted to by which gentlemen will 
be enabled to discuss the various questions freely and 
fully. If any fault is to be found in regard to the pub¬ 
lication of these debates, I believe it lies with the mem¬ 
bers of the Convention. We have a protracted session 
of seven hours—a session unprecedented in any delib¬ 
erative assembls. We sit here too long; and we come 
in here with our minds unprepared to reflect coolly and 
calmly upon the various matters which come before us, 
and we have no time given us out of the Convention, 
to prepare ourselves for a proper understanding of the 
questions upon which we are to deliberate. The heat 
and turmoil of this room are illy calculated for delib¬ 
eration, and to enable us to come to any satisfactory 
conclusion. In the publication of the debates, the 
printers are not to blame, for they cannot keep up with 
our proceedings as long as we continue to have these 
protracted sessions of seven hours in length. There 
porters are not to blame, for they furnish the printers 
with as much matter as they want. The Convention 
alone is to blame. I believe that we should make 
haste more speedily, if we had shorter sessions, and 
give members more time for deliberadou. 1 shall go 
against applying such a gag law as this would be. I 
want ev'ery member to be left free to discuss the ques¬ 
tions that are presented here, as long as he sees fit, an- 
sw^erable to his own conscience only. 

Mr. REEMELIN. There are one or two subjects up¬ 
on which I wish to express my opinions. suppose 
probably that I am one of those hinted at, in the re¬ 
marks that have been made, as in the habit of making 
long speeches. 

Mr. SAWYER said he had no reference in any re¬ 
marks he had made to any gentleman upon the floor. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I have spoken upon some sub¬ 
jects very long because I thought it proper to do so, 
and I cannot make very short speeches upon some sub¬ 
jects that present themselves for our consideration. 
The particular remark I desire to make is this. I have 
noticed in some of the newspapers, the remarks blaming 
us for sitting longer than the Convention that framed 
the original constitution. The members who framed 
















656 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


that constitution made it to suit the condition of the 
State at that time. We have now two millions of peo¬ 
ple, with diversified interests and opinions formed, 
with parties organized strongly and distinctly, and with 
all this, we must take care not only to look at the past, 
})resent, but also the future. We have to correct the 
abuses of the old constitution, and therefore our labors 
will be longer than those who framed the original con¬ 
stitution; any person who will look at the subject for 
a moment, with a view to do justice to all concerned, 
will at once see the difficulty under which we labor, 
in comparison with those who formed the present con¬ 
stitution of Ohio. Who, that has been a member of the 
General Assembly of Ohio, has not regretted that the 
discussions in regard to the present constitution of Ohio, 
have not been recorded. We are left entirely in the 
dark as to the particular construction to be given to 
various acts passed at that time. If we adopt the rule 
oftered for limiting the debate to fifteen minutes, let us 
insist upon it iu all cases. 

Mr. STANBEEIY thought that the disposition to 
•change every single provision of the old constitution, 
was the chief cause of the protracted session of the 
Convention. 

Mr. MANON was opposed to the resolution at this 
time as he thought it would work injustice to some 
members. But after this Report was finished, he would 
favor a stringent fifteen minutes rule. 

Mr. MORRIS was in favor of the resolution, for as 
it was at present, if fifteen or twenty members took up 
all the time, it amounted virtually to a gag, and he 
agreed with Mr. Stanbery, as to the importance of free 
and full discussion. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. That gentleman might not at¬ 
tribute any fault to the Reporters iu this delay in the 
publication of the Reports. He would say that their la¬ 
bors were of the most excessive kind, in consequence 
•of die great length of time occupied in debate. They 
had to labor day and night, and the papers are filled up 
with Reports to the great oppression of the printers. 
We should have sessions of not more than five hours a 
day, and we would >hen find time to investigate more 
thoroughly the various subjects which come up for our 
consideration. We have the proclamation of the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin, that the cause of prolonged de¬ 
bates, is the desire of the democratic members to en¬ 
graft reforms in the constitution which provokes oppo¬ 
sition. Let that be remembered. 

Mr. HAWKINS inquired, what is this great discuss¬ 
ion which had taken place so recently ? It was simply 
the question whether we should have four or six years, 
as the term forjudges, to be created by this constitu¬ 
tion. We want to fix a maximum beyond which the 
Legislature should not go. On the one side there was 
hoary-headed federalism, and on the other unadultera¬ 
ted democracy, and all this talk about party distinct¬ 
ions has come up in discussing whether the term of of¬ 
fice for these judges, shall be five or six years. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. I would correct the remark of 
the gentleman, by saying, that the debate turned on the 
question whether the people should be trusted with the 
election of judges, or not. This was the real point in 
issue. 

Mr. HAWKINS. It was a controversy about the 
term of office. The arguments of gentlemen may look 
one way, but strike another. 1 believe the question 
could have been discussed yesterday, without reading 
the writings of Fi.dier Ames Gentlemen here are 
speaking not only for the State but the world. 

[A Voice suggested “ and the rest of mankind.”] 

I acknowledge it is a mode by which much can be ac¬ 
complished, with a very little capital by appealing to 
]>arty prejudices, and the most effectual gag that can be 
applied here, is the talking on the part of some of the 
members to the exclusion of all others. I shall vote 
for the resolution for the very purpose of restraining so 
much talk about mere party matters and to give others 
a fair chance, who at present are so situated that they 


cannot give expression to their sentiments. I have no 
desire to suppress discussion or to prevent examination, 
and reflection. 

Mr. BENNETT would vote against the resolution, 
because we had adopted such a rule once before, and 
it was not at all obeyed. 

Mr. QUIGLEY expressed himself favorable to full 
and ample discussion. He wanted a full discu8.sion o! 
every thing that is presented here. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren moved to insert, after the 
word that,” in the first line, these words : “ after tin- 
close of the debate Cn the judicial department.” 

Mr. HORTON. I agree with some of the gentlemen 
who have spoken, that this restricting debate will be 
an unsuccessful mode of economizing time. We have 
tried it once before and failed, aiid the only successful 
mode to effect this object will be to confine ourselves 
to the subject matter under discussion. We arb here 
entering into an examination of the great questions 
that are to affect us, our children, and the whole world. 
We stand here in a very peculiar attitude—occupying 
a stand-point from which is to be dated the progress of 
the world iu great political questions, which may be 
considered as a sort of buoy in the great current of 
time. I think we ought to get all the light we can. 
The gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] is no 
doubt perfectly sincere in his desire to expedite our 
business here, and in endeavoring to effect it by the 
introduction of such a rule, but I must say that 1 can¬ 
not see that it will have the effect intended by him. 

Mr. THOMPSON of Stark moved that the resolution 
and pending amendrnentsbe laid upon the table; u[>on 
which the yeas and nays being demanded, resulted— 
yeas 36, nays 40 : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Clay, 
poole, Farr, Florence, F'orbes, Greene of Defijmee, Gregg, Hard- 
Ilarlan, Henderson, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, 
Larsh, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Mitchell, McCloud, Peck, Perkins, 
Quigley, Robertson, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan¬ 
ton, Stilwell, Thompson of Stark, Mr. President—36. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Caseot Licking, Chambers, Clark, 
Collings, Curry, Ewart, Gillet, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hum- 
phreville. King, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Morris, Orton, Patterson, 
lleemelin. Riddle, Sawyer, Scott ot Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of 
Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Woodbury—40. 

Mr. STANTON moved that the Convention resolve 
itself into a committee of the whole upon the orders 
of the day ; on which motion the yeas and nays were 
demanded, which resulted—yeas 42, nays 35: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Montgomery, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Clay- 
poole, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, 
Gregg, Hamilton, Henderson, Hard, Horton, Humphreville, Hun¬ 
ter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Mason, 
Mitchell, McCloud. Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Riddle, Robertson, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift, 
Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Way—42, 

Nays —Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark. Col- 
lings, Curry, Ewart, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Groesbeck, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, King, Larsh, Lidey, Loudon, 
Morris, Orton, Patterson, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Woodbury, Mr. President—35. 

The Convention then resolved itself into a committee 
of the whole, (Mr. Riddle i-i the chair,) and resumed 
the consideration of report number one of the com¬ 
mittee on the Judic ary. 

The question which was under discussion when the 
Convention adjourned being still uudi8[)Osed of, 

Mr. ROBERTSON, upon leave granted,proceeded to 
read some report.s from Fisher Ames, in support of the 
views advanced by him in the previous discussion. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, what is the queston to 
be determined at the present time ? It is not the ques¬ 
tion of what is Democracy or Federalism, that is to be 
settled here, but it is simply this: How long shall this 
Convention fix for the term for which thejndges whom 
we may elect shall serve. The term seven years has 
been reported by by the committee, and it was reject¬ 
ed. The term of six, five, and four years has been men¬ 
tioned. 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 657 


Now it seems to me, that the lirst thing we should 
look to would be tliis : What term would suit the peo¬ 
ple of this state the best, should be the consideration 
openitiii" upon our minds, and not about wiiat would 
suit this lawyer or that lawyer—this bar or that bar for 
the sake of jury offices. For whom are those offices 
created ? Notsurely for individuals to fill them, but for 
the people. If we can arrive at what is best for them 
we have the question settled what is best for us. 
We want it, and undoubtedly it is expected, that ihi.s 
Convention will so arrange the judiciary, that the jud¬ 
ges will be elected from the Bar. That will not be ob¬ 
jected to. 

Now what kind of lawyers ought to go upon the 
bench, and what kind of men do we want there ? Sure¬ 
ly we want the best men there, and we want the very 
best judges we can get. We do not want second rate 
lawyers—those lawyers who can never get any business, 
nor do we want rich men there; but we want such 
men as know how to administer justice between man 
and man. I will venture to say that the sense of this 
assembly would be, to prefer as judges to sit in our 
courts those persons who had struggled from poverty 
upwards, until they had reached to a high standing at 
the bar; those who had worked their way up amid 
hardships and troubles. The man to fill the bench is 
not the man who was born rich and who has never 
been able to attain to any kind of eminence at the bar. 
The next question is, how can we get men of this de¬ 
scription to sit upon the bench ? It must be conceded 
that this is the kind of men we want. It is not a ques¬ 
tion of party politics, but it is a question of mere expe^ 
diency and policy. How shall we get such men upon 
the bench, is the question before us. The bar com¬ 
prises something like three classes who are lawyers. 
We find those who have struggled from poverty and 
have been industrious from necessity, who have suc¬ 
ceeded well and secured a great share of the business 
in their respective districts. We see others who are 
born rich, or have become rich by some means or oth¬ 
er, and are independent of the bar and are not obliged 
to labor for a livelihood. We find another class, who 
have not been able to succeed at the bar to any great 
extent; and it must be the class who do the largest 
business from which we ought to take the bench. 

I would appeal to the members of the bar, if they 
have ever known a lawyer to succeed in business who 
was bom rich, or arrive at any eminence in his profes¬ 
sion. There are exceptions no doubt. 1 know what 
the answer must be. More than that, if you select a 
person who is born rich, who has never experienced 
any hardships and been forced to work or starve, you 
have a class who have no sympathies with the great 
mass ol the people. They cannot possibly know the 
feelings, wishes and desires and peculiar notions that 
the great portion of the people have. They have been 
brought u[) in wealth and ease. They see people work¬ 
ing in the fields, and they work a little sometimes, as 
matter of novelty or recreation ; but after all, have no 
real heart-felt sympathy with those who labor. Do you 
think that this class of individuals are calculated to 
look into the feelings of the human heart and to decide 
questions between man and man, and to sift the evi¬ 
dence carefully, which will grow out of the matters 
that may arise ? 

There is another class of those, who, from great po¬ 
verty, are never able to get into business to any extent. 
They have no perseverance and no industry. Would you 
select them for your judges? From which of those 
classes of lawyers ought our judges to be selected? 
No one can doubt from which class they should come. 
Well, then, let me direct your attention for a moment, 
to tho progress at the bar of the young lawyer. In 
doing this, let me 8})eak from experience; from what I 
have seen and known, more than from what 1 have 
heard or read. You will, then, generally speaking, 
find this poor young man working his way at an early 
period oi his life, and laboring hard, perhaps one hali| 


of the year, to get the means whereby he may go to 
school the other half. Or perhaps he may work at 
some mechanical business, being constantly employed 
during the period of his studies. He mixes with all 
kinds of people—ho experiences a great deal of hard¬ 
ship in trying to get along iu the world. After a while, 
this young man, having studied three times as long as 
he otherwise would have been compelb'd to do, on ac¬ 
count of his poverty, and having had to work a great 
share of his time, in order to prepare himself for his 
studies, is at last admitted to the bar, without friends, 
property, or anything but his own energy and his de¬ 
termination to succeed. How long does it take a 
young man, under these circumstances, to succeed and 
get into a respectable business. In large cities where 
there is a strong bar, it takes a much longer time than 
in smaller places where the bar is small. You put him 
into a town where there is a strong bar—and that is 
the ph.ee to qualify him for the office of judge—and 
how long will it take him to get into a living business? 
It will take ten years, at least. There are exceptions 
in the case of those persons yvho have been educated 
and brought up in the cities, for they can get business 
sooner. By the time he has got into respectable busi¬ 
ness, his business is worth fifteen hundred dollars a 
year, and when he has built up a name for himself, and 
is doing a good business, he begins to feel a little more 
comfortable. Fie has practised successfully at the bar 
for fifteen years, and has acquired the experience which 
is I'equisite for a judge. He has got his business into a 
good condition, and has perhaps a young family grow¬ 
ing up around him, with every thing to make him com¬ 
fortable. FJe is asked by his friends to become a can¬ 
didate for the office of judge. What is the first con¬ 
sideration with him? Can I afford to leave my busi¬ 
ness and accept this office? His friends think he is 
qualified, and has been educated in the right kind of 
school that every man should go through, who fills the 
important post of judge. He has gone through this 
kind of education, although pprhaps he has not gradu¬ 
ated in a college, which his friends think has peculiarly 
fitted him to fill this office. His sympathies are with 
the common people, from whom he came, and with 
whom he lived. By his industry he has raised himself 
to eminence at the bar, and he is in a situation now, 
wdiere he is obtaining a good living. The first con¬ 
sideration with him is, can I afford to take this office 
on account of the salary. It has taken me a long time, 
he would argue, to make myself comfortable in busi¬ 
ness, and to (pialify me to take charge of cases as coun¬ 
sel. Will it be prudent in me nov^, to leave this busi¬ 
ness, which I have worked so hard to attain, and enter 
upon a new career. Let me tell gentlemen here, that 
when a man concents to go upon the bench, he must 
give up his law practice. He is cut right off 8(]uare 
from exercising his profession. It is inconsistent to 
practice law when he is upon the bench. He must 
therefore give up that business. 

Let me tell gentlemen another thing; and it is this. 
When a man sits a considerable length of time as judge, 
he becomes disqualified to practice at the bar, unless 
he can have greater command over himself than I have 
been in the habit of seeing in the great majority of 
those whom I have seen upon the bench. He who 
sits upon the bench, acquires a dictatorial habit of talk¬ 
ing in delivering the opinion of the court. He gets into 
this habit and cannot bear contradiction like tiie mere 
lawyer. He cannot manage the business of the law¬ 
yer quite as well as ho could if he had not been in the 
habit of considering cases as a judge. 

The next question that comes up, after considering 
the question of saiaiy is, how long shall I hold this of¬ 
fice? W'ell, then you put down a period of four or five 
years, and the question then presents itself to him, 
whether he can afford to give up his business and run 
the risk of getting it again after his term as judge should 
expire. Again—he is iiominattd as a party candiJate. 
It may be that be will be nominated by all parlies, but 










658 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


we will suppose that he is a party candidate. He says, 

I hold this office at the will of the other party. Let me 
perform the duties of this office the best I can, still it 
is a question with the other party, whether I shall be 
a candidate again or not. We will consider this for a 
moment. How long will it take the judge to recover 
his practice, when he shall return to the bar ? Perhaps 
he may never be able to do this—at least it will take 
about one year to bring a new case to a trial, and often 
much longer. True, he may be employed before that 
length of time, to assist other lawyers, but this is not 
to be relied on to any great extent. I will venture to 
say, that ordinarily speaking, that it will take a good 
judge—one who had a good business, from two to four 
years to get his old business back again. Well, then, 
professional gentlemen are not generally rich, for be it 
spoken to the credit of the bar, that its members do 
not ordinarily acquire great fortunes. If they do so, it 
is by other means than their practice at the bar. They 
may make, by the exercise of their profession, quite a 
handsome support. Well, then, the judge asks himself, 
can 1 afford to give up my business, and run the risk of 
losing it for along time, for the consideration of serving 
a term of four or hve years. Now, I have an opinion of 
my own, that he would not give up his business for any 
such prospect. I am not wedded to any particular 
term for which the judge should serve. Convince me 
that the bench would be well filled by having the term 
three or five years, and it makes no difference to me. 
All we want, is that kind of men upon the bench of i 
whom I have spoken, who have risen by their industry 
to a successful practice in their profession. But if you 
limit the teim, as here proposed, you cannot expect 
that they will serve such a term and for such a com¬ 
pensation as you Vt^ill give them. I am desirous that 
we should secure for the bench the best material we 
have, for the benefit of the people. I will trust the 
people in the election of these judges. I will trust 
them implicitly in every thing of this sort. 

It seems to me that gentlemen are in the habit of talk¬ 
ing as though we could give to the people, and as if we 
had nothing to restore to them. The quest'on is not 
what shall we give them, but what shall we consent 
to take away from them. Therefore, what is best for 
the people, we ought to do. I cannot be satisfied that 
we can secure the best talent for the bench, if we fix 
the term of four years. I am satisfied that if you fix 
apon that terra, the poor man, or man who is perhaps 
able to live respectably, could now afford to go upon 
the bench. If he cannot, whom have you left? We 
have those inefficient or improvident men, who have 
not been able to succeed at the bar. A great portion 
of the bar do not desire such kind of men. Generally 
speaking, those men who have the greatest amount of 
business are the men of the greatest talent. And in the 
case of such a man, you will find perhaps twenty young 
lawyers, looking for this man’s business, and anxious 
that he should fill such a place. It does not always 
happen that they will always make the best judges. 
It will be the desire of the lawyers to have that class 
go upon the bench, if for no other i-eason than that of 
dividing his business. If you do not select from this 
class of men, you will be compelled to take from the 
rich portion of the bar. Now it is well known to this 
committee that the rich man will not labor at the bar, 
although there are exceptions. A man who feels easy 
in his circumstances and accepts the place from mere 
honor, will not labor like he who has practiced law 
under disadvantage, for he has not arrived at Eminence 
through a long and painful process of toil and hardship. 

Now, a man who is rich, will not labor unless he has 
laid the foundation of it in poverty. If you put a rich 
man upon the bench—one who occupies the place for 
the mere honor of it—he will not feel bound to listen 
to the suggestions of the bar, especially from the youn 
ger portion of it, and will not feel himself bound tolls 
ten to long arguments; and he would not treat that 
portion of the bar as though he had been once poor. 


and had struggled many years to attain the position he 
occupies. Now, gentlemen may seem disposed to 
think that, for a four years term, one might afford to 
take the office of judge for any compensation, if he is a 
rich man; but, I apprehend that, generally speaking, 
members of the bar are not rich, but on the contrary, 
are poor. I desire that the committee should look 
upon the question as one of mere expediency. Can 
we secure the talent we want for the bench, by put¬ 
ting down the term at four years ? If we can, I am sat¬ 
isfied. There is no principle at stake in the matter. 
There can be nothing, as a matter of principle, between 
four and six years. It is a mere question of policy. 
Can we command the talent we desire for the bench 
by fixing upon this term ? I fear we cannot, and there¬ 
fore, will vote for the term of six years. With these 
remarks, I submit the question. 

Mr. CLARK. It was suggested by the gentleman 
who last addressed the committee, that the individual 
who moved the original amendment (fixing the term 
at four years) would be willing to acce}it a judgeship 
almost without pay; and the reason why he made this 
statement was, because he w’as informed that that indi¬ 
vidual was a w-ealtby man. I have to say in this case, 
sir, that I have to regret that the gentleman is not cor¬ 
rect in his premises. I do not doubt but that the gen¬ 
tleman made his statement in all sincerity, nor do I 
know who it is that has been endeavoring to play off a 
hoax upon him; but the gentleman is mistaken, and I 
take the opportunity now to correct that mistake. I 
will say further upon this subject, that, so far I am con¬ 
cerned, individually, I would be willing to have a 
clause in the constitution prohibiting me from ever 
holding any office under it; for I think I shall never do 
so, whether such a clause be inserted or not. So the 
gentleman may be relieved as to his apprehensions up¬ 
on that subject. 

Following the example of other gentlemen who have 
addressed the committee, I have committed a very few 
thoughts to a piece of paper, which I will read, as the 
most condensed form in which I can present my views 
of the subject under consideration. 

Gentlemen who are in favor of long terms of office 
forjudges, claim that it lies with the opponents of long 
terms to show some good reason why long terms should 
not be adopted. This is a wrong view of the object, it 
lies with the advocate of long terms to show some good 
reason why long terms should be established. I say it 
lies with them, because long terms of office are anti-re¬ 
publicanism in principle, and those who want the prin¬ 
ciple to givea way must show some good reason for it. 

Thus far the friends of long terms have offered but 
two reasons for them. First, that the people love plun¬ 
der and violence, and if allowed to frequently resort to 
the ballot boxes, will elect judges imbued with the 
same felings; and having such feelings will allow those 
who commit plunder and violence to go unwhipped 
of justice ”—thus taking away all security to persons 
an J property. 

Mr. STANTON (interrupting, and Mr. C. yielding) 
said : If it were an extemporaneous speech, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, I would stand it, but I object to the gentleman’s 
deliberately attributing to any member who has oppo¬ 
sed his motion the saying that “ the people love plun¬ 
der.” I object to any such thing in writing. 

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I have not ascribed 
these words to any individual, but what I say here I 
oiler as legitimate deductions from the course oi de¬ 
bate by gentlemen generally who are opposed to shor¬ 
ter terms. I do not claim that they have used these 
precise words. I read on. 

I reply that this assumption is a gross libel upon the 
honesty and virtue of the people, and (in this country) 
is contradicted by all experience. The masses in this 
country are honest and virtuous ; they love justice and 
order, and it is only because they will tolerate n.iiher 
disorder or injustice that or- er and justice prevail. 
Such is the love of the masses for order and justice that 










CONVENTION REPORTS; 


659 


in California, in the absence of all government, we 
have seen order and justice prevail, and a more scru¬ 
pulous regard for individual rights observed than in 
any State in this Union. Ask those who ascribe to the 
mas es a natural and ungovernable inclination to vio 
lence and plunder, if they have the inclinations they 
ascribe to the masses, they will answ. r no. How comes 
it they are so much better in their natures than the 
masses ? 

The second reason urged in favor of long terms is, 
that competent lawyers will not leave their practice 
for so shorf a time as four years f r the salary of $1800 
a year. This is the most plausible argument in favor 
of long terms, and might have some weight in it, it we 
did not daily seethe most eminent lawyers in the State 
giving up their practice lor^a term of but two years in 
Congress, every thing considered, with not as good 
pay. 

The arguments urged here in favor of long terms are 
not new, they are as old as conservatism itself. They 
may be urged with equal force in favor of offices for 
life. Conservatism is now, ever has been and ever will 
be a clog tied to the •-•eels of reform, and every step 
she advances she has to drag that ponderous weight. 

I will notice a remark or two that have fallen from 
gentlemen. 

Several gentlemen have expressed their dread of par¬ 
ty judges. They always have and probably always 
will vote for such. Even some of them have been 
elected as such, passing regularly through the tin pan. 

One gentleman who is in favor of long terms and 
afraid of the people’s will, remarked that .Jeffries obey¬ 
ed the power that created him. It is sufficient to say 
that the king and not the people created him. The 
eople would never have made such a selection, if they 
ad they would have at once dismissed him if his term 
of office had been short. There is not an instance on 
record where the people have selected a bad man to of¬ 
fice. 

The same gentleman told us that a judge had neith¬ 
er power nor will. This is time in theory, but is not 
the only instance in the history of human affairs, when 
theory is at variance with practice. 

Another gentleman has said no petitions have been 
sent up here for short terms. It is sufficient to say, 
none have been for raising the salary of judges, from 
one thousand dollars to eighteen hundred dollars a year, 
nor for making a tenth part of the alterations in the 
constitution here being made. The same gentleman 
tells us what a good judge should be. I agree with 
him in it. If he would have such judges he had bet¬ 
ter favor elections by the people, for short terms of of¬ 
fice. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a word to say in reference to 
the feeling in favor of short terms, in the county of Lo¬ 
rain, which I represent. When I last addressed the 
committee upon this subject, I referred to a letter which 
I had received, which one gentleman caught up, and 
seemed to treat it as though that was the only evidence 
which I had received, giving any indication of the pub¬ 
lic sentiment in that county. But sir, upon that occa¬ 
sion I went on to say that I had received this evidence 
from the mouths of individuals upon numerous occa¬ 
sions ; and I might have said that the same sentiment 
had been passed upon in public meetings of that coun¬ 
ty. I referred to the letter of the individual of whom 
I speak, to show that this feeling was not confined to 
any particular party in the county, that this feeling was 
almost universal—at least very common, and. there is, 
in my opinion, a decided majority in favor of reducing 
the terra of the judge’s office. 

The question was then taken up on the proposition 
to fill the blank with the word “ six,” and upon a di¬ 
vision, the Chairman reported the count; affirmative 
36, negative 36; the Chair voting in the negative. So 
the proposition was lost. 

The question recurring upon Mr.-propo¬ 

sition to fill the blank with the word “ five.” 


Mr. ARCIIBOLD said he should vote for the term of 
five years, with the distinct understanding that he did 
so in the sjiirit of conciliation and compromise. 

This proposition was then agreed to: affirmative 49, 
negative not counted. 

No other amendment being offered to the sixth sec¬ 
tion, it was passed over. 

The CHAIRMAN now announced the consideration 
of the seventh section, which was read, and is as fol¬ 
lows: 

Sec. 7. Justices of the supreme court shall be at least thirty 
years of age at the time of their election. Immediately alter their 
first election under this constitution, they shall be classified by lot, 
so that one shall hold for the term of two years, one for four years, 
one for six years, and one for seven years- 

Judges of the courts of common pleas shall have the same 
qualifications as the justices of the supreme court, and during their 
respective terms shall reside in the district for which they are 
elected. Immediately after the first election of the judges of the 
common pleas, they shall be classified by lot in each district so 
that one sliall hold for the term of three years, one for five years, 
and one for seven years; and at all subsequent elections, the 
term of each justice of the supreme court and of each judge of 
the court of common pleas shall be for seven years. 

In case the office of any justice of the supreme court, or judge 
of the court of common pleas, or judge of any other court shall 
become vacant before the expiration of the regular term for which 
he was elected, the vacancy may be filled by appointment by the 
( 1 over nor, until it shall be supplied at the next regular election. 

Mr. CLARK proposed to amend by striking out from 
the fourth line of the section the words “ two years, 
one for four years, one for six years, and one for seven 
years,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ two 
years, one for three years, one for four years, and one 
for five years.” 

Mr. REEMELIN. I understand there is no provis¬ 
ion in the report for a chief justice. 

A Voice. No. '■ 

Mr. REEMELIN. There is to be four judges of the 
supreme court. Then I would suggest to the gentle¬ 
man from Lorain, that, instead of striking out the fourth 
line, it might be better simply to change the numbers, 
so as to conform to the terms of his amendment. 

Mr. CLARK. I accept the modification. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. I propose to amend the amend¬ 
ment, by inserting in the third line the word “ two,” 
so that it will read two judges for two years,” &c., 
so as to make the tribunal to consist of five judges. 

The CHAIRMAN having stated the question, 

Mr. ARCHBOLD offered an amendment, to elect all 
judges of the supreme court for two years, the effect of 
which would be to increase the number of supreme 
judges to five, the individuals first elected going out at 
stated periods, so as to bring about the contemplated rota¬ 
tion in office. Mr. A. expressed himself decidedly in fa¬ 
vor of an uneqal number of judges on the supreme bench, 
either three or five; and argued that the number four 
was an inconvenient number, only recommended to us 
by ancient prejudice, because it had been adhered to 
a thousand years in Anglo Saxon or Norman times. 
That no two parties about to choose a board of arbitra¬ 
tors, would make that consist of two or four without 
the power to elect an umpire, and gentlemen did not 
propose to allow the supreme judges to elect an umpire 
if equally divided. The gentleman had argued that a 
decision of a tribunal consisting of four, which must 
be either unanimous or only divided three to one, would 
carry more weight as a judicial precedent, than the de¬ 
cisions of a tribunal containing a majority and a minor¬ 
ity. This would be settling the law at the expense, 
perhaps at the ruin, of luckless suitors whose cases 
must go undecided. Judicial precedents have weight 
according to their sound reasoning, and the law ought 
to be settleci at the expense of the community only. 
The supreme court of the United States formerly con¬ 
sisted of seven, now of nine judges. 

Mr. MANON said he had an amendment which, at 
the proper time, he desired to apply to this section, and 
which was read for information, as follows: 

Strike out all after the words '‘supremecourt,” in the first line, 
to the end of the fourth line, and insert in lieu thereof the fol¬ 
lowing worde: “ Immediately after their first election under tbs 









660 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


coriStitution, shall be classified by lot, one shall hold for the 
tei-m of two years, one for three years, one for four years, and 
one for five years.” 

The CHAIRMAN said the question was upon the 
aineiidment proposed by the geiitleinau from Monroe. 

Mr. REE ME LIN He would be glad if the gentle¬ 
man from Monroe were willing to modify his amend¬ 
ment, so as to require one judge to be elected every 
year. Would the gentleman bo willing? 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. Certainly. 

Mr. SWIFT suggested the fourteenth day of October 
mext. 

Mf. SAWYER. He was now clearly of the opinion 
that I he Convention could not succeed m getting up the 
constitution in time for submission to the people before 
the second Tuesday in October. If we wei'e to sit 
heie continually, we could not get the constitution 
ready betw’een this and the inclement weather of the 
winter. From the indications averse to restraining de¬ 
bate which had been manifested this morning, he was 
led to believe that it would be the better course to ad¬ 
journ and meet again in the fall. He had said and done 
all that he could to forward the business of the Con¬ 
vention by way of discountenancing long speeches. 
He had refrained from running into political controver¬ 
sies, and in every instance, when he had felt called up¬ 
on to deliver his views, he had confined himself to the 
very letter of the question. He had exhausted all his 
patience in fruitless endeavors to ijiduce genth.men to 
come to the point. He was compelled to acknowledge 
that in all these efforts he had signally failed. And 
now he was wholly at a loss to know what to do. He 
despaired wholly of getting the constitution before the 
people this fall; and he had very much at heart the 
success of this very important undertaking. He now 
found gentlemen on both sides of the chamber afraid 
to vote for this resolution. But at the same time he 
believed that a majority were in favor of it. He was 
free to say, that he would go for it if the last hope of 
getting the constitntionready this fall was gone. There 
was no use in staying here day after day to do nothing; 
and the case presented to his mind but this alternative, 
cither to get rid of these interminable debates, or ad¬ 
journ over till winter. He had but one other suggest¬ 
ion to make by which we could get rid of irrelevant 
speaking, and thought it would be a rude and vulgar 
way of proceeding—he would recommend, that xinder 
the infliction of a long irrelevant speech, every mem¬ 
ber should get up and walk out of the hall. 

A Voice. We might be walking out all the time. 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER. He would like to ask 
the geutlernan whether that would do any good, so 
long as the speech would be going into the book. [A 
laugh.] 

Mr. SAWYER. That was another consideration. 
Members themselves, at all events, might obtain a lit¬ 
tle relief from going out. 

He would like to hear from the honorable gentle¬ 
man from Geauga,.about what he thinks with reference 
to the time when we may get the constitution fiamed ; 
whether, in his judgment, we can complete the work 
in time to submit in October ? 

Mr. KING said he thought this a question of too 
great importance to be made a matter of mere sport. 
He was astonished to find that his friend from Au¬ 
glaize had so soon got tired of the work of reform. 
He believed that on all occasions since the time when 
the subject of the Convention was first broached in 
Oliio, that gentleman had ever been a zealous advocate 
for reform; but now since he had been actively engaged 
in work for only about two months, he had become en¬ 
tirely disgusted with it, aufi he had told us in effect, 
that because he could not lix it all in bis own way, be 
was in favor of an adjournment. The compiaint was 
that gentlemen made too long speeches and did 
SM)t make them to the point. He supposed that the 
mt mbirs of this Convention did not look to any man 
to dictate to them what course they should adopt in 


this respect. He supposed they considered it was 
their duty to express their opinions fi eely in this cham¬ 
ber, and that they had a right to do so without asking 
permission. He would ask the gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize to consider what would be the consequence of 
adjourning over and coining back here for another ses¬ 
sion; was that gentleman prepared to listen a^aiii to 
long speeches of the same kind of which he had been 
complaining ? Or did he suppose that when we should 
come up here again (by the way it was his opinion that 
but few would return again) members would be any 
belter prepared lo submit t(j the gentleman’s dictation 
than they were now? Would there not then exist the 
same necessity for another postponement? 

Why was it that this subject of reform, which but 
this morning was so near to the gentleman’s heart, and 
the 8ucce.ss of which he so earestly desired above ev¬ 
ery thing earthly, he was now willing to pass over so 
lightly? What were his reasons for this? Why, we 
liad been told that we could not conclude our labors 
by the first of September. Well what if we could 
not? Was that to be regarded as a good reason why 
the great question of constitutional reform should be 
deserted and suffered to go down ? Could we not set 
another time for the submission of the constitution to 
the people beyond the second Tuesday in October ? 
Was thebu iness of this Convention of so little impor¬ 
tance that if we should not be able to conclude our 
labors by the first day of September we need not con¬ 
clude them at all ? For the whole argument amounts 
to that. Suppose it ^ were true that the Convention 
would not be able to conclude thfeir labors by the first 
of September, does it follow that the constitution 
could not be submitted to the people at any other 
lime than that specified in the act of the General As¬ 
sembly ? He thought not. 

But we Were told that it would be impossible to stay 
here 'in the midst of the summer heat. But where 
would gentlemen go to find relief from the heat ? Would 
they not find the same inconvenience at their own 
homes ? 'If we were to adjourn and meet again in the 
winter, we might complain of the cold, with as good 
reason as we could now complain of the heat. He ad¬ 
mitted that there might be a good reason for this pro¬ 
posed adjournment. The pestilence might come which 
would certainly constitute a justifiable cause for this 
resolution. But he did h ipe that gentlemen would not 
anticipate such an event by taking such a resolution at 
this time. 

Mr. SAWYER, in his seat. He would like to know 
how the gentleman voted this morning upon the prop¬ 
osition to cut oil’ debate. 

Mr. KING. He voted for the proposition ; not that 
he understood it to be what it had been denominated— 
“ a gag, ” for he believed we had no occasion in this 
Convention for a longer sjieech than fifteen minutes. 
He did not believe that since the assembling of this 
Convention, there had been many sensible speeches 
made which would have required a much longer time. 
Yet this is made another argument in favor ol the ad¬ 
journment. 

Mr. SAWYER, interposing, (and Mr. K. yielding,) 
said: He had certainly not intended to say that he 
would vote for the adjournment. He had intended to 
take both sides of this question: [Laughter,] and ho 
believed that he did. He had staled what would be 
the result of the rejection of the resolution, which he 
had oftered on two or three occasions, to cut off de¬ 
bate, and bad told the Convention if they did not choose 
to adopt the-principle they had better adjourn : but he 
had not yet said that he would go for the adjourn¬ 
ment, 

Mr. KING. He must have misunderstood the gentle¬ 
man; and it was therefore that he had expressed his 
astonishment. The gentleman had said he had taken 
both sides ol the question. That was not at all an un¬ 
common thing. Other honorable gentlemen had also 
I taken both sides of the question for all that he could 













661 


CONVENTION REPOllTS. 


understand; and on some occasions they had wound up 
very gravely without being able to convince them¬ 
selves. 

He, also, was desirous of having the question settled. 
He desired to see it voted down, for no good could 
jpossibly grow out of an adjournment at any period of 
tiu.e before the constitution could be completed. Were 
we to adjourn over, just all we have done would be ut¬ 
terly lost ; and he would ask if the people belore the 
election had any right to (*xpect this kind of service at 
the hands of the members of this Convention. Could 
they suppose that we would come up here and trifle 
with principles as important as those which are con¬ 
nected with altering and amending the fundamental 
law of the State. 

Mr. MASON. There were some specific reasons, of 
weight with him, which could be found in favor of ad¬ 
journing over till the day which had been named by 
tlie gentleman from Logan. But probably it would be 
better now to treat the resolution as a naeasure, and 
consider first whether it was politic or not. He had 
been opposed to adjourning over while there remained 
any hope that our labors would be concluded and ready 
^ submit to the people at our next annual election. 
He thought it was now the prevailing sentiment of the 
body that we could not complete our labors in this 
time. Sixty days of the session had already elapsed, 
and there still remained before us the consideration of 
some of the most difficult propositions in the business 
of amending the constitution; therefore, as we had be¬ 
fore us a solsticial summer, and as we were physically 
and morally incapable of performing our duty here 
with eflflciency, he was in favor of an adjournment un¬ 
til the first Monday in September. 

He went on, at length, to rehearse the circumstances 
which led him to think that the Convention might thus 
adjourn over without giving occasion lor any just pub¬ 
lic complaint, and without injury to the work in which 
the Convention were engaged. 

Mr. LARSH now moved that the committee rise; but 
withdrew the motion for— 

Mr. STANTON. He did not propose to express any 
opinion with reference to the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Monroe, but he desired to make a single 
remark with reference to the short term now proposed 
for the judges of the supreme court. Gentlemen seem¬ 
ed to be willing to compromise upon five years. He 
would go as far as any man could ask, in the way of 
compromise, so long as by so doing he could think that 
his action would not be destructive of the public inter¬ 
est. He was willing to ^o for a. five years’ term for all 
the judges of the courts inferior to the supreme court; 
but, as for the supreme court, he had to say that if the 
proposition which had just been agreed to in committee 
should be adopted in the Convention, and fixed in the 
constitution, it should never receive his vote. He 
would never sanction by his vote, any constitution 
which would bring down the term of the judges to a 
period short of seven years. He hoped that gentlemen 
would understand that there was no compromise of this 
subject upon his side of the house. This was a point 
which could not be yielded. 

Mr. WOODBURY said he was veiy sorry that the 
gentleman from Logan had taken such a desperate res¬ 
olution, and that too, without giving any reason for it. 
For it seemed to his mind that there were very good 
reasons why the term of the judges of this court should 
be shorter than the term of the judges of any other 
court known to the constitution. Almost every gentle¬ 
man had admitted that the duties of this court would 
be such, that the longer it was continued the poorer 
aud less respectable it would become, because the dis¬ 
trict courts would do all the nisi prius business. For 
this reason it had been contended that the judges of 
this court would be less qualified to discharge their 
duties. 

Some gentlemen, (he said,) seemed to shrink with 
horror from every touch of the rude hand of reform, as, 


it was laid upon the old constitution ; and then he went 
on to remark upoii the changes which even the stand¬ 
ing comniiltee upon the judiciary hadUhought proper 
to propose in the old constitution ; and he enumerated 
twenty-three points of difference, while there wereonly 
Ih ree important particulars in which they seemed to 
concur in the provisions of the old constitution. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geaugacalled the gentleman to 
order for speaking to matter irrelevent to the point be¬ 
fore the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN said the debate was evidently 
taking too wide a range. 

After some further conversation upon the point o f 
order, 

On motion by Mr. SMITH of Warren, the commit¬ 
tee rose, reported no conclusion, and obtained leave to 
sit again. 

And then the Convention took a recess till 3 o’clock, 
P. M. f 

r_ 

k 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

KDUCATION. 

On motion of Mr. HOLT, the Convention took up 
from the table the consideration of the report from the 
committee on Education, submitted on yesterday, and 
he moved that one thousand copies thereof be printed. 

Mr. CURRY said: He was a member of the commit¬ 
tee on Education, and was prepared with a minority 
report, which he desired to introduce, if he could have 
leave. [Leave, leave.] 

Mr. MANON was opposed to the printing of so large 
a number, but he was desirous that the minorityreport 
should be printed. 

Mr. CURRY. He understood the motion of the gen¬ 
tleman from Montgomery to include the printing of the 
minority report. 

Mr. HOLT assented. 

Mr. GREENE of Defiance. The difference between 
the report of the majority of the committee, and the 
report of the minority, was with reference to the pro¬ 
priety of ii.sorting a provision in the constitution ma¬ 
king it the duty of the Legislature to establish normal 
schools—the majority of the committee reporting that 
they do not think this a proper subject to go into the 
constitution. As this was an important subject, he 
would like to see an equal number of both reports go 
out together for the consideration of the people atlarge; 
and then, if the Convention should adjourn over till 
fall, there would be time enough to get an intelligent 
response upon this subject from the people. 

Mr. CURRY. There was yet another point of differ¬ 
ence between the majority and minority reports The 
minority report provided that common schools should 
be kept up in every portion of the State for a specified 
time; making it obligatory upon the General Assembly 
to enact such a law. 

Mr. KING. He had no objections to printing, but 
he regretted that there could not be a question consid¬ 
ered hei e, without the subject of the probable adjourn¬ 
ment of the Convention being brought up. This ques¬ 
tion of adjourning over had been prevailing in this 
body for weeks past, and he was convinced that, so 
long as it remained unsettled, nothing could be done in 
the way of business. He was desii’ous, therefore, that 
this question should be settled definitely this afternoon. 
If the Convention were determined to adjourn^ over, 
the sooner it was known the better, for he considered 
it a matter of but little importance whether the Con¬ 
vention were to adjourn now, or a month hence. In 
either case, all our labor would be lost. He was in fa¬ 
vor of printing, though not with any view to an ad¬ 
journment to give time for a response from the people. 

The question was then taken upon the motion to 
print a thousand copies of these reports, and it was 
agreed to; so the printing was ordered. 

banks and currency. 

The consideration of the report from the standing 
committee on Banks and Currency, was now taken up; 










662 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


and, the same being read the second time, it was re¬ 
ferred to the committee of the whole Convention. 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD desired to make an explanation. 
He held in his hand the “Steubenville Union,*’ of the 
3d of July, containing some pretty severe strictures 
upon his remarks in reply to Mr. Sawyer, relative to 
the General Assembly and the editbrial corps, which 
will be found accurately reported in Mr. Smith’s vol¬ 
ume of the debates of this Convention. He said he 
had been inadvertent—that nothing was further from 
his intentions than to cast an indiscriminate censure 
upon the whole editorial corps in Ohio—that indiscrim¬ 
inate censures of whole classes of men were always 
unjust, and he was the last man who was wflling to in¬ 
dulge in them. The editorial corps of Ohio contained 
many men eminent for civic and manly virtues—many 
of them w^ere amongst his cherished and valued friends, 
and he could not consent for a moment to occupy the 
position of an indiscriminate, wholesale slanderer.— 
Such conduct would argue very little discretion— 
would be utterly inconsistent with sound policy; for 
there was a portion of the Ohio press who deserved 
the severst censure—whose corruption was appalling, 
and whose license threatened our free institutions with 
real danger; and every good man must wish for allies 
amongst the sound, the worthy, and the intelligent por¬ 
tion of the corps editorial, in order to counteract the poi¬ 
son difiused amongst the community by this vicious class. 
It would be bad policy in another respect: he was un¬ 
able to stand against the united efforts of the Ohio press; 
their enmity would overwhelm him, especially if ani¬ 
mated by a sense of justice, and irritatL^d by conduct 
which, unexplaim d, might seem to amount to a real 
outrage. The “ Steubenville Union” alluded to a num¬ 
ber of editois who are members of this Convention, and 
seemed to wonder that they should suffer such a whole¬ 
sale slander to go unrebuked. These gentlemen well 
knew that no wholesale slander, no indiscriminate cen¬ 
sure, was intended; they knew that very large excep¬ 
tions and qualifications were implied, if not expressed; 
they were acquainted with his [Mr. Archbold’s] man¬ 
ners, habits, and modes of thinking and speaking, and 
therefore well knew that he did not intend to be guilty 
of making a blind and insensate attack upon a large 
and respectable body of men. They knew that he was 
only condemning and censuring what they themselves 
must cordially disapprove. The art of reporting, he said, 
was a noble and indispensable art, but it was impos¬ 
sible always to transfer to paper the exact manners 
and impression of the speaker, so as to make him as 
well understood at a distance as he was by his auditors. 
He was understood absolutely to disclaim all inten¬ 
tions of making an indiscriminate attack upon the Ohio 
editors. He well knew that there were many men 
amongst them exhibiting all those virtues that adorn 
human nature; but to the unworthy class alluded to in 
the reply to the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Saw¬ 
yer] he had no apologies to make. Their conduct was 
indefensible. Some of them had singled out by name 
and denounced members of this Convention, in lan- 
guage the most brutal, without the slightest pretence 
that these gentlemen were misrepresenting their con¬ 
stituents. In alluding to such conduct, he felt sure of 
not giving offence to the generous and worthy part of 
the Ohio press. 

THE ADJOURNMENT QUESTION. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga now offered for con¬ 
sideration the following resolution : 

Resolved, That when this Convention shall adjourn on Monday 

next, it shall adjourn to meet again at this place, on the_day 

of-next. 

Mr. SAWYER said he would like to have the gen¬ 
tleman name his time. 

Mr. STANTON proposed to amend the resolution by 
filling the blanks so that it would read: “ on the first 
Monday in December next.” 

Mr. FARR proposed to fill the blanks with “Tues¬ 
day, the ninth instant.” 


Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. When this question 
was before the committee on a lormer occasion he had 
given it as his opinion that the time would come when 
we should be under the necessity of adjourning over, 
but that the time had not then come, and therefore he 
had voted against the proposition. He should not now 
have offered the resolution but forone thing. We know 
that it is a matter of fact that we have been here some 
three or four weeks with but barely a quorum of mem¬ 
bers—less than eighty members have been present. 
From the declarations which he had heard lately from 
several members, he had become satisfied in his own 
mind that if this subject were delayed till Monday this 
body would be without a quorum. He had no idea 
that there would be a quorum here any day next week. 
Finding ourselves in that situation what would be the 
consequence. A minority would have to stay here and 
adjourn over from day to day till those who were absent 
should return. Was that a desirable state of things ? 
Finding that there was no quorum here at one time to¬ 
day, and knowing of the determination of quite a num¬ 
ber to leave between this and Monday, he had felt it 
to be his duty to offer this resolution. 

There were other reasons in his mind why it would 
be proper that this resolution should be adopted, in ad¬ 
dition to those which had been already urged. There 
seemed to be an unwillingness on the part of members 
to attend here, and a disposition prevailing to leave the 
body and each go about his own business. It was not 
to be concealed that there existed some state of alarm 
with respect to the health of the country. It was in 
vain to attempt to conceal the fact that there was some 
slight cause for alarm ♦iven in this place; it is known 
that there is a disease abroad of a malignant character, 
which travels wi‘h great rapidity, and it was evidently 
extending itself, and there were none of us who dia 
not feel that there was danger that this place might not 
escape its ravages. Under these circumstances he 
would a.sk whether it were prudent for members to 
persevere in the determination to go on with business? 
Suppose only a few cases more of Cholera wei’e to oc¬ 
cur here in the course of the next twenty-four hours, 
how many members of the body would be willing to 
remain? There had been cholera in almost every quar¬ 
ter of the State, and there had been cholera here, but 
not to such an extent as to cause any public alarm. 
The individual from whom he obtained the information 
did not suppose there existed any cause for alarm, and 
he was one of the most eminent physicians in Colum¬ 
bus. In addition to this, as he was coming to this 
place this afternoon, he stepped into a store and saw^ a 
funeral notice for a lady who was to be buried about 
this hour, and he inquired of the merchant what was 
her complaint. The immediate answer was, that she 
died of cholera. He did not think that the merchant 
wished to excite any feeling of alarm, but as he was a 
man of truth, he merely determined to tell the truth. 
This disfase might not extend itself here, and he hoped 
to God it would not, whether we remain or not. But 
he would ask gentlemen whether they supposed that, 
under the.se circumstances, we could calmly and con¬ 
siderately proceed with the business now before us ? 
He thought we c uld not. 

Further, with his friend from Auglaize, [Mr. Saw¬ 
yer,] he had no doubt but what there was a decided 
majority of this body who were at this moment desirous 
of adjourning over. He had no earthly question upon 
that subject. But there existed some apprehension with 
many, that this might not be a popular movement; and 
therefore we were to stay here and waste our time and 
strength, and, perchance, sacrifice our lives, for no pro¬ 
fit. 

His friend from Auglaize, and other gentlemen from 
the other side of the chamber, had stated that, if the 
body adjourned over, the responsibility would rest up¬ 
on the democratic party; and that it would have a ten¬ 
dency to render the party unpopular. Perhaps this 
might be so; but if there was sufficient cause for this 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 663 


body to adjourn over, he did hope that there was vir¬ 
tue and integrity enoug hin the parly with which he act¬ 
ed, not to throw any undue responsibility upon the op¬ 
posite party, merely in order to make political capital. 
He could not believe that, under the circumstances in 
which we were placed, there was any thing of this 
kind to be apprehended. Certainly he trusted that 
those upon this side of the chamber, who were willincr 
to adjourn, were willing also to take their share of tlie 
responsibility. Upon this subject therefore, as well as 
upon every other, he could not but hope that the Con¬ 
vention would act harmoniously. 

His friend from Auglaize had appealed to him to say 
whether he thought it possible to frame this constitu¬ 
tion and submit it to the people before the second 
Tuesday of October. He would say in reply, that he 
had no more idea of any such thing than that he would 
be in France on that day. We were not yet half throucrh 
with our labors in committee of the whole. We. may 
have passed over more than half the subjects of consid¬ 
eration ; but there are subjects still before us which 
will consume more time in committtee than any subject 
which had been yet considered—subjects which must 
be discussed, and upon which discussion could not be 
restrained by any rule. 

He proceeded to state that he saw nothing in the fu-' 
tare which would probably transpire, to disturb what 
seemed to be the pz’esent friendly feeling amongst the 
members of the body; and the prevailing disposition 
to do all that could be done for the public advantage— 
acknowledging that the interests and wishes of mem 
bers, as he believed, would be best subserved by fixing 
the day for re-assembling on the first Monday in De¬ 
cember ; and sustaining his apprehensions in regard to 
the epidemic, by staring that several families of this 
city were making their arrangements to leave. 

Mr. ROBERTSON said he had reflected upon the 
subject, and come to the conclusion that we ought not 
to adjourn at this time; that there was indeed no suffi¬ 
cient reason for an adjournment. It has been said that 
we can not complete the constitution in time to be 
submitted on the second Tuesday in October. Well, 
what of that ? Can we not submit it on the first or last 
Monday in November? The law passed upon this sub¬ 
ject he regarded as merely a suggestion to the Conven¬ 
tion, that if the constitution were completed by the 
first of September it should be submitted at the Octo¬ 
ber election. But now, if we complete our labors even 
so late as the last of October, might we not submit it 
to the people upon the last Monday in November? That 
would allow us yet more than three months to complete 
the constitution. 

Mr. SWIFT, (interposing, and Mr. R. yielding.) 
Did the gentleman suppose that there would be a quo¬ 
rum here throughout the months of July, August, and 
September? 

Mr. ROBERTSON. He did not know, of course; 
but he had spent the most part of every July and Au¬ 
gust in this city, for the last five years, and he could 
say that he never had seen a more healthy body of 
men than those usually attending here upon the ses¬ 
sions of the United States court, in that season of the 
year. He spoke now from his personal knowledge 
and observation. Notwithstanding its location, he be¬ 
lieved the city of Columbus to enjoy more than the av¬ 
erage health of the towns and cities of Southern Ohio. 
There is better health amongst the members of the Con¬ 
vention at this time than he ever witnessed in any leg¬ 
islative body assembled at this place in the winter sea¬ 
son. 

A Voice. That is true. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. He had attended here frequent¬ 
ly during the sessions of the Legislature and been of¬ 
ten compelled to sit up with his sick friends at the ho¬ 
tels, a duty which had not been required of him since 
this Convention had assembled. 

He knew very well that there were some families 
residing here who were preparing to leave the city du¬ 


ring the warm weather, in order that they might spend 
their time more pleasantly at various watering places. 
But he believed that this city was quite healthy, and 
that no cause of alarm existed. He did not believe, 
notwithstandiug the remarks of the gentleman from 
Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] that there was any cause 
for alarm on account (^f the cholera. He would assure 
gentlemen tint if they came back here in the winter, 
they would find more ill health than now, or at any 
time during the summer season. 

He had said before to-day, that whenever the chole¬ 
ra became an epidemic in Columbus, he would be wil¬ 
ling to leave; but not before—that contingency had 
certainly not arrived. There was no cause for alarm. 
He was aware that their labors were very confining 
and not the most healthy. He knew it was very hot 
here in the summer time, and he believed it would be 
the better course for the Convention to meet early in 
the morning. By pursuing this course, wo might be 
able to enjoy good health through the months of July 
and August. He had seen Judge McLean sitting in 
yonder old court house, a room not so well ventilated 
as this, and holding court day after day in the hot month 
of August. He had seen this repeated year after year, 
without any evil effects upon the health of that distin¬ 
guished gentleman. 

Suppose we adjourn and go home, and while on our 
way, were to be asked by some farmer—“ why did you 
adjourn?” We would answer, “ 0, it was so hot up 
there,” “ well” the farmer would reply, “ we are work¬ 
ing every day in the harvest field, and could not you 
stand it there at Columbus in the shade?” He confess¬ 
ed that he would not know how to to get around that 
question. He was both afraid and ashamed to place 
himselfin such a position. 

The public feeling, as far as he had heard, upon this 
subject was: that we ought not to adjourn, if it were 
possible to avoid it, until our work shall have been fin¬ 
ished, and that it was not so important as to the time 
when we should finish the work committed to us, as 
that we should do the work well. The people desired 
that the constitution should be submitted to them some¬ 
time in the fall—in time for the action of the next Gen¬ 
eral Assembly. 

The gentleman from Geauga, has told us that if we 
do not adjourn, there will not be a quorum here. He 
admitted that we could not do any business without a 
quorum; but we could publish the names of the absen¬ 
tees ; and he would be in favor of doing so daily—and 
that would bring them into the Convention. * * ♦ 

He did not believe that the cholera had prevailed in 
this city, at all. He did not believe that there had yet 
been one solitary case of Asiatic cholera in this city, 
this summer. He had obtained his information from 
sources entitled to the highest respect, and believed 
that there existed no cause of alarm. He was therefor© 
opposed to an adjournment. 

Mr. FARR next addressed the President; but gave 
way for 

Mr. CHAMBERS. This was a very plain question, 
and one upon which we could come to a just conclusion 
in a verv short time. In the first place, it was evident 
that we'had made about as little progress in businesu 
here as we very well could. We had wasted our time, 
or employed it all to very little purpose. All tnat we 
had done, was yet mere incipient matter. We had not 
yet perfected a single paragraph of the constitution. 
All that we have done remained like writing in the 
sand, which may be all wiped out with the waive of 
the hand. We had not met the expectations of the peo¬ 
ple_he was sensible of that fact as well from his pri¬ 

vate correspondence, as the remarks of the newspaper 

press. . 

Objection being made here against taking so wide a 
rant^e in the argument for the purpose of enabling him 
to fully into the consideration of the subject, 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to postpone the furthercon- 
sideration of the resolution until next Monday we©k; 














664 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


under which motion he proceeded to state that the ses¬ 
sions of the Convention had been attended by but bare¬ 
ly a quorum of members for many days past, and liom 
this fact it was reasonable to suppose that we should 
not be able to keep a larger number of members togeth¬ 
er during the hot weather, than we had now. He might 
consent to go on and do business with a bare quorum, 
and so far as he was concerned, individually, he would 
be willing to do so; but be was positively unwilling to 
have a constitution framed for the people of Ohio, by 
the hand of only two-thirds of the delegates elected for 
that purpose. 

He considered that if we could not proceed to the con¬ 
clusion of our labors now, it were better to adjourn over; 
and if we were to adjourn, at all, the sooner we did it 
the better. 

He was one of those who did not desire this Conven¬ 
tion from the first. He was afraid, that, if we under¬ 
took to amend the constitution, instead of amending it 
(as had been remarked to him by a venerable gentleman 
in the county of Butler,) we would “ worse it ” very 
much. He was proceeding to speak of the probabili¬ 
ty of such a result from the prospects ahead, when— 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga,. interrupted to say, 
that he hoped the gentleman would not stop to discuss 
prospects. ^ 

The PRESIDENT said the gentleman’s motion to 
postpone to a day certain could not enlarge the range 
of debate to the same degree as a motion for indefi¬ 
nite postponement. 

Mr. CHAMBERS said : he did not want to postpone, 
bat he should vote very reluctantly for the resolution 
to adjourn over. He withdrew the motion to postpone. 

Mr. FARR. He had intended to make some remarks 
upon this question, but he would now waive the privi¬ 
lege, and move that the Convention resolve itself into 
a committee of the Whole upon the consideration of 
the orders of the day. 

The yeas and nays being demanded, ordered, and ta¬ 
ken upon this question, the vote was reported—yeas 
18, nays 63—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Brown of Athens, Farr, Greene of 
Defiance, Henderson, Hcotman, Larsh, Leadbetter, Manon, Mitch¬ 
ell, Reemelin, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance 
of Butler, Warren, Way, and Mr. President.—18. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, Blair, 
jBlickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Cham¬ 
bers, Clark, Claypoole, Collings, Curry, Ewart, Florence, Forbes, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamil¬ 
ton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Lawrence, 
Loudon, Mason, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Orton, Patterson, Peck, 
Perkins, Quigley, Riddle, Robertson, Sawyer, Scott ol Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan¬ 
ton, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson 
of Shelby, Williams, and Woodbury—63. 

Mr. LOUDON proposed to amend the resolution, by 
filling the blank with the 29th day of July, inst. He 
was satisfied that if we did not allow all the members 
of the Convention to pay a visit to their families, that 
there would be a strong disposition to remove to some 
other place. There was another reason why he was 
in faVor of a short recess: when he left home and ceme 
up here, on the 6th day of May, he did not expect to 
be detained certainly beyond the 4th day of July. He 
felt sure that on the 4th of July we would have the new 
constitution drawn up, and ready for our signatures. 
Such, he believed to have been the impression of most, 
of the farmers at least, of this body; and the arrange¬ 
ments upon their farms required attention, now, in or¬ 
der to enable them to remain here during the two 
months which it would now certainly require to com¬ 
plete the constitution. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. He had been, from the 
first, in favor of adjourning over. When he consented 
to be a candidate for a seat here, he also supposed that 
the labors of the Convention would have been com¬ 
pleted in two months, otherwise it would have been 
very hard for him to have persuaded himself to be wil¬ 
ling to come. From a review of his private business, 
he should be in favor of the longest term for the recess; 


he should vote for filling the blank with the first Mon¬ 
day in December. He scouted the idea of throwing 
the entire responsibility ( f adjourning over upoxi any 
[)articular political party. He could not see what the 
people would find to complain ot in such a course. He 
did not think that, by such a postponement of the ses¬ 
sion, we would take up any more time in consumma¬ 
ting the business upon our hands, than if we were to 
go on now without a recess. We were all novices, 
when we met here, in the que tions which we have 
been considering. None of us had ever been called to 
any business of this kind. It was new to all of us. 
We had not reflected very profoundly upon most of the 
important constitutional questions affecting the inter¬ 
ests of the people of the whole State. And it had been 
suggested that the amendments and alterations which 
have been proposed here, embraced a great deal of 
new matter upon which the people had not very deep¬ 
ly reflected; and he could not but think, that, after the 
recess proposed, we could come back here better pre¬ 
pared, by our own reflections, and better furnished 
with a knowledge of what the public sentiment is, and 
what the interests of the State at large require, than 
we are now, to proceed with our work. For these 
reasons, and others which he would not stop to rehearse, 
he sustained the resolution most heartily. 

Mr. RIDDLE. He feared that there were too many 
gentlemen upon this floor having private business to 
attend to, of more importance than public business. 
But he considered that by coming here we had agreed 
to give up our private affairs, for the time, for the con¬ 
sideration of those of more importance. He had con¬ 
sented to waive his private business for the business 
of the State, and he doubted not that by so doing he 
had sacrificed as much as any man. 

Mr. SWIFT, (interposing.) He would like to know 
how much time the gentleman from Hamilton has 
spent at home since this Convention assembled. 

Mr. RIDDLE. He would tell the gentleman, that if 
the State at large had lost anylhing by his absence 
from his place here, he was prepared to repay it. The 
gentleman himself had been absent some two weeks, 
for some cause or other, he knew not what, while he 
[Mr. R.] had been absent only three or four days; and 
during that time he had left some three or four other 
gentlemen—his colleagues—here, from the good old 
county of Hamilto/i, to look after her interests; so he 
thought the gentleman need not complain. But, sir, 
would you inquire about these halls, you would find a 
great deal of engrossing private business calling mem¬ 
bers away—such as the coming hai*vest, and the sum¬ 
mer terms of the courts in the northern part of the 
State. But, sir, were these any reasons why the busi¬ 
ness of the State of Ohio should be neglected, or that 
this Convention should now adjourn over till fall ?— 
Should this be done to accommodate farmers, lawyers, 
or medical men ? These considerations, he supposed, 
should never enter into competition with the obliga¬ 
tions of a public servant. 

He proceeded to show, from various considerations, 
that there was no cause of alarm from the presence of 
the pestilence, either in this city or in Cincinnati. Bu- 
sesins of all kinds was going on as usual. 

He had heard the tocsin sounded this morning. When 
the term ol the supreme judges was fixed at five years, 
the gentleman from Logan [Mr. Stanton] told us plain¬ 
ly that he, for one, was prepared now to vote against 
the constitution. Whatever other provisions it might 
contain he would vote against it for this ; and he seem¬ 
ed to speak for the gentleman from Geauga, and others 
upon his side of the house. It was unfortunate for the 
success of this resolution that it was oft'ered so soon 
after a declaration coming from a leader upon that side 
of the house. 

The cholera did not exist in Columbus, if we could 
take the testimony of such men as Doctor Howard, 
Doctor Trevitt, and Doctor Thompson. If the cholera 







CONVENTION REPORTS. 665 


were here it would furuUh a justiliablo reason lor ad¬ 
journing over, but nothin" less than this. 

When he had concluded 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga asked leave to with- 
(baw his resolution. 

Mr. NASH objected to the withdrawal, for the rea¬ 
son that he knew several members of the Convention 
who had been decidedly opposed to adjourning over 
until to-day. He was now satislied that the adjourn¬ 
ment would take place, and he did not believe there 
was a member in the chamber who had not come to 
the same conclusion. 

Several Voices, (on the right.) “ I have not.” “ No 
man of us here has come to that conclusion.” 

Mr. NASH. He stated his own convictions; but he 
had no private business to call him home. So far as 
his personal interests were concerned he could stay 
here now with less sacrifice than he could ever come 
back again. He did not blame the gentleman from 
Hamilton for not wanting to adjourn; for there was a 
good reason why he might not like to go back to Cin¬ 
cinnati at this time-- 

Mr. RIDDLE, (interrupting.) The insinuation was 
unbecoming and unworthy the gentleman who made it 
—to say that he was afraid to go to Cincinnati, whilst 
his family was there, and every thing near and dear to 
him. Such a thing, to be said in a sneer, he could not 
let pass without a response. 

Mr. NASH. It was not said with a sneer, but only 
laughingly ; but still, after the charge which the gentle¬ 
man had preferred against the delegate from Logan, 
and the mover of the resolution, and others upon this 
side of the chamber, he thought the gentleman could 
not well complain. He reiterated his conviction that 
the Convention would adjourn over, and thought this 
question might just as well be settled now as at any 
other time. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren. Upon the question of leave 
to withdraw he asked for the yeas and nays. 

Mr. LARSH preferred that tlie resolution should not 
be withdrawn but voted down, because he believed it 
had very seriously interfered with the business of the 
Convention. 

Mr. MITHELL. He would be very much obliged 
to the gentleman to point out what particular delays 
had been occasioned by the agitation of this subject. 

Mr. LARSH. He was opposed to speaking disres- 
peclfully of the proceedings of this Convention. 

Mr. HORTON called the gentleman to order, upon 
the point that he was speaking to matter irrelevent to 
the subject. 

Mr. LARSH repeated his hope that the leave w'ould 
not be granted. He wanted to have it decided wheth¬ 
er we will adjourn or not, at once, because as long 
as this question should be held in abeyance its ef¬ 
fect coukl not be any other than to delay the proceed- 
ings.| 

Mr. GREEN of Ross. The vote upon this question 
of leave might be made a test question as well as any 
other. 

Mr. LARSH. But it would not prevent the intro¬ 
duction of a similar resolution again on Monday. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross moved that the Convention ad¬ 
journ; upon which question the yeas and nays were 
demanded and resulted, yeas 34, nays 47, as follows : 

Yeas. —Messrs. Archbold, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Carroll, Case of Licking, Claypoole, Gillett, Graham, Greene of 
Defiance, Green oi Rosa, Hamilton, Henderson, Holt, Hootman, 
Horton, Kennon, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Mason, M'tchell, Me 
Cloud, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, Robertson, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Highland, Stilwell, Stickney, Swan, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Vtmee of Butler and Warren—34. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, Brown of 
Athens, Cahill, Chambers, Clark, Collings, Curry, Ewart, Farr, 
Florence, Forbes, Gray, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, 
King, Larsh, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Morris, Nash, Orton, Pat¬ 
terson, Perkins, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of 
Warren, Stanton, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thon pson of 
Shelby, Way, Williams, Woodbury and Mr. President—47. 

Mr. ROBERTSON moved to lay the resolution and 


amendment on the table,.with the understanding that 
it shall lie there. Mr. R *bert8on said ne desiml to 
make this a test question. 

Mr. TAYLOR was opposed to the adoption of tiie 
resolution, because it was premature. There was a 
proposition to raise a committee to choose an eligible 
spot for the session of the Convention somewhere else. 
He thought that matter should take precedence of the 
present. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK desired to state his reasons for the 
withdrawal of the resolution. He had offered it in 
obedience of suggestions from the other side. Geutlp- 
men now had concluded that it was best to remain 
here. Gentlemen say that on the other side there is 
no desire for an adjournment, and he hoped that on this 
time there would be no objection to its withdrawal. 

Mr. COLLINGS stated that it would be necessary 
for him to leave for home, and he thought there was 
great danger that there would be no quorum next 
week. 

Mr. LARSH thought there was no danger of the loss 
of a quorum. If there should be, we might adopt a 
more stringent rule. 

Mr. HAMILTON said he was not much scared; but 
he had conversed with one of the best physicians in the 
city, who said he had no doubt there was cholera in 
town, though not of the epidemic form. There was a 
tendency to complaints of that sort, but certainly no 
immediate danger. 

The question being on the withdrawal of the resolu¬ 
tion, the same was permitted to be withdrawn. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren offered for adoption the fal¬ 
lowing resolution : 

Resolved, That hereafter this Convention hold but one seesitin 
per day, to commence at 8 o’clock A. M. 

Pending which, on motion the Convention adjourned. 

MONDAY, July 8 , 1850. 

8 o’clock, a. M. 

Mr. HAWKINS presented a memorial from James 
Rogers and sixty-nine other citizens of Morgan county, 
praying that a clause be engrafted in the new constitu¬ 
tion prohibiting traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. SMITH of Highland presented a petition from 
David Bennar and twenty other citizens of Ohio, on 
the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committ 'e on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. COOK jiresented a petition from Anan Clark 
and sixty other citizens of Portage county, praying 
that a clause be inserted in the new constitution secur¬ 
ing to all citizens of Ohio equal rights and privileges, 
irrespective of complexion or race. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from Anan 
Clark and sixty other citizens of Portage county, pi’a)- 
ing that the new constitution accord to all members ol 
our commonwealth equal rights, political and social, 
without regard to sex or color. 

Said pe’itions were severally laid on the table. 

Mr. LOUDON ottered the following: 

Whereas, it is now certain that Asiatic cholera is again scourg¬ 
ing the citizens in various parts of this State, and that cases ol 
that dread pestilence have recently occurred in this city : and 
whereas, it is both natural and inevitable that members of this 
Convention will, in view of these facts, be concerned lor the salc- 
ty and health of their distant families, and, to some extent, oit-- 
qualified for that calm and deliberate consideration of the impor¬ 
tant questions which they are called upon to decide : and where¬ 
as, in view of what has been done, and what yet remains to be 
done, it is the deliberate judgment ol this Convention ^at, under 
the most favorable circumstances, no constitution can be perlect- 
ed by the first day of next September; therefore. 

Resolved, That when this Convention adjourns to-morrow,, it 
shall be to meet again, in the city of Cincinnati, on the first Mon¬ 
day of December next. . , . 

Resolved, That a committee ol seven members be appointed by 
the President of this Convention, to make the necessary arrange¬ 
ments for the accommodation of the Convention, when they shall 
thus meet in the said city ol Cincinnati. 

Mr. STANTON moved to amend by striking out the 
word Cincinnati, and insert in lieu thereof “Colum¬ 
bus.” 











G66 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. LOUDON- The reason why I inserted Cincin¬ 
nati was, that I believe, if we are to have a winter 
st^siou, there is no place where members can be better 
accommodated than in that city; for there is no other 
place in the State which delegates can reach with as 
much facility as they can that city. I have another ob¬ 
jection to meeting in the city of Columbus; and it is 
this : The first Monday of December your Legislature 
will be in session, and they will necessarily occupy 
this hall; and if this Convention adjourns to meet here, 
it will necessarily put the authorities of the State to 
considerable trouble—of fitting up some other house 
in this city, either for the accommodation of the Legis¬ 
lature or this Convention. I believe, sir, that it will 
be inexpedient for this Convention to hold its sessions 
in the immediate vicinity of the Legislature; and 1 
think that the two bodies should hold their sessions far 
apart from the other, so that one body should not exer¬ 
cise an undue influence upon the other. That is the 
s.rong reason why I am opposed to meeting h'^re in 
Columbus. 

The question being then taken upon striking out 
Cincinnati and inserting Columbus, resulted—affirma¬ 
tive 31, negative 42. 

Mr. HARLAN called for the reading of the resolu¬ 
tion. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to amend by striking out 
(fincinnati and inserting “ Zanesville.” i 

Mr. Pres dent: I concur entirely in the remarks of 
the gentleman from Brown. I think we ought not to 
meet at this place in the winter, because we would 
come in conjunction with the legislative body. I am 
entirely of the opinion that there would be great im- 
pro[)riety in our being mixed up with a legislative 
body. We can be as well accommodated at Cincin¬ 
nati or Zanesville as we can here. I wish to avoid all 
connection with a legislative body, and to be clear 
away from all foreign influence whatever; for there will 
be too many politicians who will come together here at 
Columbus in the winter season. Zanesville can afford 
good accommodations for the Convention, for they have 
a spacious hall, which will be furnished gratuitously 
for the use of the Convention; and the place is much 
more central than Cincinnati. My colleague and my¬ 
self felt it our duty to present the name of that place 
for your consideration. I am not tenacious myself 
aV)Out where we shall meet, aside from Columbus ; but 
I shall continually vote against meeting at Columbus. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren called for a division of the 
question, and it being first upon striking out the word 
“Cincinnati.” 

Mr. ROBERTSON demanded the yeas and nays which 
resulted yeas 28, nays 51 ; as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Bates, Chambers, Cook, Firestone, Graham, 
Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hootman, Humphreville, Hun¬ 
ter, Kennon, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Orton, Peck, Perkins, Robert 
son, Scott of Auglaize, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, 
Taylor, Townshend, Warren, Williams, Mr. President—28. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Ben¬ 
nett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Case of Licking, Clark, Claypoole, Curry, Ewart, Farr, 
Florence, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Groes 
beck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Henderson, Holt, Horton, Johnson, 
Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Loudon, Mason, Mor¬ 
ris, Nash, Patterson, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of Har¬ 
rison, Smith of Highland, Smith, of Warren, Stanton, Struble, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Way 
and Woodbury.—51. 

The question being now upon the adoption of the 
T'solution— 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to strike out the “first Mon- 
(iay in December,” and insert in lieu thereof, “ the first 
Monday of September.” 

A division of the question having been called for, the 
question turning first upon striking out— 

Mr. HAWKINS said—I should be glad, if we adjourn 
that we may meet at as early a day as possible, in or 
der to accomplish our work in good season; so that we 
may present it to the people a sufficient length of time 
previous to the spring election. We should meet at as 
early a day as possible, that we may accomplish our 


the 


business and have the constitution submitted to 
people before the first Monday in April. 

Mr. LOUDON. I hope this motion will not prevail. 
It will make no difference, whether we meet the first 
of September or December. I presume that the Con¬ 
vention will got through in either case with the consti¬ 
tution in order that it may be voted upon in April, and 
it makes very little difference whether they should vote 
upon it then, or the October following. We shall have 
three months in maturing this business, before we meet 
again, and it may be expected that we shall go on, with 
*^reater facility than we have heretofore done. We have 
now become acquainted with each other, and interchan- 
,<^ed sentiments and have become fiimiliar with each 
other, so that when we meet again, we shall go 
ri"ht to work. It is well known, that we have been 
sitting here too long. The legal members of the Con¬ 
vention, have now lost their summer s work as well as 
the farmers, as the season is so far advanced. The far¬ 
mers have lo:'t their summer labors, and if the amend¬ 
ment prevails, they will lose their lull work. The peo¬ 
ple of Ohio will gain nothing in consequence. In ad¬ 
dition to all this, September in this climate is one of 
the most unhealthy months we have in the whole year, 
and it is doubtlul whether the cholera will have left by 
that time. By the first of December we can calculate 
that good health will prevail all over the State. 

Mr. GREENE. I am willing to consult the wishes 
and feelings of other gentlemen, as lar as I can do so 
consistently with my own intesests. II this proposition 
is agreed to, I shall be under the necessity of voting a- 
gainst the resolution. I know that there are many gen¬ 
tlemen in the same situation. It would be impossible 
for me, and attended with great inconvenience, to at¬ 
tend here at the time indicated by the amendment, and 
it will involve the necessity of a resignation on my part. 
What is to be be gained by such a movement? I am as 
anxious as any gentleman that this instrument shall be 
submitted to the people at as early a period as practica¬ 
ble. It is perfectly manifest, that the constitution can¬ 
not be placed before the people in time for the fall elec- 
My own opinion is that it will be better for the 
tpeople to deliberate upon the matters presented, as 
they would have time to do so. I simply rose to say, 
that I am opposed to the period indicated by the amend¬ 
ment. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I desire to state, frankly, that I 
am opposed to an adjournment, under any circumstan¬ 
ces ; but, at the same time, I am willing to meet those 
who desire to remove from this place in a fair spirit of 
compromise. I cannot get clear of the idea, that if we 
adjourn until December it will defeat the constitution, 
if we cannot get it ready before spring. 

A Member. Does it necessarily follow, that if the 
constitution is not prepared for the vote of the people 
in April, that it cannot be submitted to the people in 
October ? 

Mr. REEMELIN. I shall be very reluctant to ad¬ 
journ over for so long a period; but I should have no 
very great objections to adjourn to Lancaster, Delaware 
or Zanesville, where a majority of the members might 
indicate, and to have a recess of three, four, or eight 
weeks. I would even go to the extent of October. 
But, I desire that we should meet before the first of 
.fanuary, 1851, and I know we can accomplish it in 
some way or other. I would have it accomplished and 
submitted to the people at as early a day as possible. 
I hope the friends of the new constitution will agree 
upon some proposition that will secure a majority, so 
as to meet in September or October. I wish the mat¬ 
ter referred to a select committee, so as to examine the 
subject and report to us this afternoon, so that we may 
get the matter in shape and secure a majority. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. The gentleman from Hamilton 
seems willing to defer it to October. I submit to him, 
as there would so little difference between October 
and November, wdiether it would not be best to fix up¬ 
on November ? 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


667 


Mr. ROBiili i SON. I hop© that the Couveutioii will 
agree to strike out, so that we may insert the earliest 
time. I am perfectly couviuced that the people want 
to vote upon the new constitution this fall. It ought to 
be submitted to them this fall, and I believe may be, 
if we perform our duty. Our dispersion, at this time^ 
will cause great disappointment among the people, and 
great dissatislactiou. Although there is an evident dis¬ 
position on the part of the majority to adjourn, yet 
there is a very respectable minority, who do not want 
to adjourn. It we cannot finish our work here, let us 
go to some other place. Will the majority in favor of 
the resolutioii pending—for there is evidently such a 
majcrity—refuse all compromise, both of time and 
place, for our re-assembling? If they insist on an ad¬ 
journment, will they not compromise with the minori¬ 
ty upon an earlier day than that designated in the reso¬ 
lution ? What say you, gentlemen, do vou insist upon 
an adjournment to the first Monday in December? 

Mr. HENDERSON. I ask the gentleman [Mr. Rob- 
ertsonJ if he cannot be satisfied, as a compromise, 
with the first Monday of November next? We should 
not, I conceive, adjourn short of that day, fur we can¬ 
not anticipate a general time of health throughout the 
State, short of that time. It we do adjourn to a period 
short of that, I apprehend it vvill be followed by disap¬ 
pointment. When we meet again, I trust it will be 
under circumstances that will be auspicious, and that 
we will then be able to complete our labors, and sub¬ 
mit the constitution we shall have framed, to the peo¬ 
ple. To do so now, here or elsewhere, seems to me 
out of the question. Any gentleman who knows any 
thing about sickness, or has been in the habit of prac¬ 
ticing medicine, knows that from this time till the mid¬ 
dle of October, sickness must be anticipated throughout 
the whole State; and as that disease which we most 
apprehend “ walks in darkness,” we know not where, 
or when, or whom it may strike. To secure a quorum 
in this Convention, till that period is reached and pass¬ 
ed—a period rising of three months—is, to my mind, 
at least, extremely problematical. For that length of 
time, to continue in session seven hours, day after day, 
till they amount to a perfect drag, with the thermome¬ 
ter ranging now as high as 92° in the shade, and we 
known not then how much higher; when gentlemen 
feel themselves more or less indisposed, and when dis¬ 
patches will be received from home announcing that 
their families are sick; and when the time for which 
most gentlemen had supposed they had left home had 
expired, and the calls of business there become imper- 
tive, how a quorum will be kept here, I repeat, is a 
matter which to me appears extremely doubtful. For 
these reasons, I, for 0116 , am opposed to an adjournment 
for a shorter period than the 1 st Monday of November. 
I now propose that time, as “ an olive branch,” to gen¬ 
tlemen who wish a shorter period ; and if not accepted 
by them. I will vote for the 1st Monday of December. 

In justice to myself I must say, that I have steadily 
counselled and and voted against adjourning over, till 
this morning. But, in spite of ourselves, the whole mat¬ 
ter has been graduolly maturing, till it has reached a cri¬ 
sis, and my conviction s, that the sooner we adjourn, the 
better for the interests ol ♦he State, as well as for our¬ 
selves. Here, in the midst of panic, excitement and 
apprehension, we can no longer have deliberation; we 
can make no progress. Here, too, unacclimated as we 
generally are, we are liable to be the first victims of 
the cholera, and to be prostrated without the pale of 
the oriental benediction, “may you die among your 
friends.” 

Again, I repeat, ray counsel is, to pass the resolution 
and return home; and, if the “olive branch which I 
have tendered be not accepted, not to convene again 
before the first Monday of December next. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I hope the motion to strike out 
will not prevail. I am also opposed to a reference of 
this subject to a select committee, in order, as the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemklin] says, that some 


compromise may be agreed upon, which will produce 
unanimity amongst membei's. Why, if the gentleman 
from Hamilton had left this matter alone, this (question 
would now have been settled with the greatest una¬ 
nimity by the Convention. 1 believe, myself, that it 
would be greatly to our advantage, and inspire us with 
a greater confidence that we had done right, to settle 
the matter ourselves in our own way. and not trust at 
all to a committee appointed by the Convention. I urn 
also strongly opposed to the motion to strike out the 
first Monday of December. I might be induced to 
agree to the proposition of the gentleman from Rich¬ 
land, and settle upon the first Monday of November as 
an “ olive branch.” But upon this question, at this 
particular time, I have not much desire to hold out the 
“ olive branch.” Only a few days ago, when a very 
respectable minority thought it was due to themselves 
and the public interests of the State, and due to their 
families and friends that the Convention should adjourn, 
the gentlemen from Fairfield and Hamilton, and their 
friends, had no spirit of compromise then—then they 
offered not the “olive branch.” They had not the 
milk of human kindness in their breasts upon that oc¬ 
casion, that they would seem to have this morning. I 
believe, sir, that the month of December would be the 
best time for us to adjourn, to, under all the circumstan¬ 
ces. It is the season of the year for the assembling of 
our Legislature, as provided in the present constitution. 

There are scarcely any legislative assemblies or de¬ 
liberative bodies that meet during the summer season 
of the year. The winter seems the best adapted for 
us, when we are comparatively disengaged and have 
completed the labors of the season; then we can de¬ 
vote our whole time, our whole energies in the public 
service; audit is a time, too, more favorable for thought 
and calm and deliberate action. Many of us here have 
been already broken down and prostrated, to a consid¬ 
erable extent, and rendered unfit for the performance 
of duties—the high and noble duties for which we were 
sent here. I will permit no gentleman to go further 
than I will in the support of a new constitution. I was 
one of its early advocates, and I done all I could for 
the calling of this Convention. I know I shall vote 
for the constitution that shall be made by the Conven¬ 
tion, because I know we are going to make a good, 
radical, democratic constitution. Sir, I am not willing 
to be intimidated by gentlemen here, into the belief 
that we can only get such a constitution by remaining 
in Convention here for a continuous period, oradjourn- 
ing over for a few weeks only. I believe we can get 
as good, as democratic, and as radical a constitution 
next winter as we can to-day. Gentlemen cannot ter¬ 
rify me in any such way as that we shall not be able 
to secure such a constitution as the people demand. 

With these remarks, I submit the question. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The question before usisone of 
considerable importance, and one which probably like 
all others must be fully discussed. Feeling such an 
interest as I do in the success of this new constitution, 
I feel bound to urge the reasons operatiiig on my mind 
against the proposition now submitted. We should 
never forget that we are acting in the face of commu¬ 
nity—that the community is to judge of us and of our 
proceedings here, that at present theie is some degree 
of dissatisfaction in the minds of the people of the State, 
as to the manner in which we have been discharging 
our duties. I tell gentlemen of this Convention, that 
there is a feeling of distrust getting abroad in the State, 
and a want of that firm confidence in the wise results 
that are to follow our deliberations, begun as they 
were, under auspices so favorable. If we now adjourn 
until the first Monday of December next, we shall en- 
coura<^e and increase that distrust. Sir, we will weak¬ 
en thtU confidence that the people desire to have, in the 
order consistency, and steadiness of our deliberations. 
I do not speak my own sentiments merely. I have 
this morning received a letter from a highly respecta¬ 
ble gentleman of our congressional and judicial district 










668 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


—tlie presiding judge of that circuit, in which he inci¬ 
dentally mentions the circumstance of our adjournment. 
He says: “I cannot but think, if the Convention ad¬ 
journs before completing the constitution, a very unfa¬ 
vorable public op nion will be the consequence.” It is 
my honest conviction, that the radical reforms, which the 
gentleman from Guernsey, and numerous other gentle¬ 
men, are desirous of perfecting, will be materially af¬ 
fected, and the prospects of their success materially en¬ 
dangered by an adjournment. Why do I think so ? 
Why, is it reasonable to conclude that these radical re¬ 
forms are to be effected, or that (here is some design of 
affecting their success by this adjournment ? I think 
we have here the best possible evidence of such design, 
if gentlemen will only calmly turn their eyes to it. 
Better cannot well be offered to any reasonable mind. 

Have we been here so long with a political adversa¬ 
ry and do we understand him no better than now to 
fall in with and support the very scheme which he has 
for weeks pressed here under every plausable pretext? 
Who are they in this Convention, who are distinctly, 
uniformly, and in a body in favor of the proposition to 
meet the first Monday in December, and who will be 
content with no other day ? The great body consists 
of those, who are opposed to all radical and important 
reforms, and who are purposely endeavoring to defeat 
those which the people so much demand. Does the gen¬ 
tleman from Guernsey doubt that these men for some 
reason are preferring this time, when they unite with 
such cordiality upon the project to adjourn until Decem¬ 
ber next, and will not hear for one moment a propo¬ 
sition to adjourn until any other day short of that time. 
I do not contend that we should not adjourn at all, if it 
be true as it probably is, that that great scourge of our 
race is here amongst us, but what I contend is, that no 
good reason can be assigned for adjourning so long ? 
A few weeks would enable us to meet with perfect safe¬ 
ty here again, or if this is not thought best why not ad¬ 
journ, as the General Assembly, who passed the law 
contemplated we should, on the happening on this sad 
contingency? Has there been any attempt to assign 
reasons showing the impropriety or impracticability of 
of these propositions ? None sir, none whatever. No 
sir a proposition to adjourn to Mt. Vernon, to Delaware, 
to Lancaster or Zanesville, will not be heard or consid¬ 
ered for one moment 

Nothing but an adjournment until the first Monday of 
December next will suit the demands of the opposite 
side of this House. Now, sir,Nl say it in kindness, but 
I say it fearlessly, that the Democrat must be blind 
who does not see in this combined and uniform deter¬ 
mination of the opposite side in this chamber to ad¬ 
journ until the first Monday in December next and to 
no other day the clearest manifestations of political con¬ 
trivance. 

This design has manifested itself not simply on this 
occasion, or on ihe occasion when excitement as to 
sickness prevailed, but on every occasion for the last 
three or four weeks which afforded the slightest pre¬ 
text. Even the want of a quorum present for four or 
five minutes on our first assembling in themorningand 
afternoon has been seized upon and is still the standing 
argument on each return of this (juestion. You hear it 
now in the mouth of the fir.st herald who proclaims the 
onset, and it is in the blast of the last trumpet which 
sounds the final charge. 

Now, gentlemen of the opposite side, I ask you in sin¬ 
cerity, candour and kindness, why is this so? Isittrue 
that we have been delayed here for want of a quorum 
for even one quarter hour during our regular sessions. 
I might appeal to you before God and your country to 
say ; and you must answer no. Then why this ado 
about the want of a quorum ? Is it, gentlemen—and I 
say it with no design to offend you or wmund your feel 
ings—to cover up some purpose not now so proper to 
reveal. 

I venture the prediction now that should this motion 
cari-y, as there is great cause to fear it will, we shall 


lieiiceforth hear but little of the cholera as the cause of 
nur jidjm iiment. The cause which will be assigned first 
l)Y VVhig politicians-yes, a.d by someof your gentlemen 
before me—will be that the Democrats were doing no¬ 
thing. That they were wasting their time, here doing 
nothing. They had accomplished nothing. This, sir, 
will be the political cry, mark my word for it, unless, 
forsooth, a sense of very shame should deter gentlemen 
here who know how unfair such a course would be. 

Sir, I hate to hear it asserted, as it often is, some¬ 
times too by men who have consumed most of the 
time on this floor, that we are doing nothing here. I 
am no little surprised to hear this remark fall from the 
lips ot my friend from Guernsey, who, it is true, has 
occupied no time here as a speaker, but who is a very 
just minded man and a warm hearted Democrat, and 
whom I know would not willingly aid in giving cur¬ 
rency or force to a charge which is to be used against 
the Democracy. 

Sir, is it true that we are doing nothing here ? I say 
it is not. Few if any bodies of men, assembled in 
America for a like purpose, when so many important 
changes were proposed upon already established insti¬ 
tutions, have advanced faster. Nay, sir, may I not say 
few have advanced so fast? Look, sir, at the conven¬ 
tions which formed the constitutions of the United 
States, the State of Pennsylvania, N. York or Kentucky. 

But, sir, if it be true that we are advancing slowly-— 
in the words of some gentlemen,doing nothing—why is 
it so? Do we not meet at the hour appointed and s't 
to the latest possible ? May I not call you to witness, 
Mr. President that such is the case. 

What morning, sir, since you have occupied that 
chair—which you have filled with so much honor to 
yourself, and so much to the satisfaction of this assem¬ 
bly—has found you absent on the ringing of the sec¬ 
ond bell ? Or at what coming in after a recess has a 
like absence been noted? None, sir, all must admit. 

Then, sir, where is this course of delay ? Sir, it is no 
where, unless it be in the discussions which take place 
here. And are these useless and uncalled for ? Some 
of them, I will admit, especially i i the preliminary sta¬ 
ges of our progress, may have been. And who, sir, are 
responsible for them ? Why, sir. the very men who now 
complain. Look to your book of proceedings and judge 
by that. 

But. sir, let me ask my friends on the other side of 
this chamber if the Democrats are peculiarly responsi¬ 
ble for this delay, if such it is proper to term it ? Are 
you not more responsible? Have you not consumed 
more time in truth? But, gentlemen, I am finding no 
fault with you ; I only say, deal fairly with your oppo¬ 
nents in case you shall carry this adjourument. The 
truth is, sir, that this complaining here aboutlong speech¬ 
es and much consumption of time comes chiefly from 
certain gentlemen who, when subjects are up in which 
they take an interest, and feel like discussing, are very 
ready to occupy this floor their full share of time. But 
when others are under discussion, in which they feel 
little or no inclination to take a part, they become res¬ 
tive and acrimonious toward those who happen to dif¬ 
fer with them in taste and inclination. 

Before I sit down, sir, I desire to call, once more, 
the attention of this side of the chamber to the true 
bearing of the question before us. 

Mr. LOUDON (interrupting ) I introduced the res¬ 
olution. Does the gentleman question my democracy ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I am raising a question of no 
man’s democracy. I am not one of those who see de¬ 
mocracy or anti-democracy in everything which comes 
up he»-e. But, sir, I tell that gentleman, that he is ac¬ 
countable to the democracy for the exercise of a sound 
judgment upon every subject that presents itself, here 
or elsewhere, affecting their great interests. And the 
democracy of Ohio will hold him accountable for the 
fair and faithful exercise of that judgment, on the pres¬ 
ent occasion. And, sir, if this democracy is to sustain 
an injury, any disadvantage, from the act now about to 










CONVENTION REPOllTS. 


669 


be pt rpctrated, I tell that geatleinaii, wiih others, that 
at their doors will be found a heavy portion of the sin 
and responsibility. 

Sir, we are told that in the winter season we will be 
more calm, less excitable. Who in his senses can say 
so, having this Convention, and the stormy assemblies 
wliich have met here in the winter for yeai’s past, be¬ 
fore his eyes for comparison ? Sir, a man must be cra¬ 
zy to think so. Just the reverse is true. 

Sir. I have not only the opinion of that worthy man, 
the Hon. James Stewart, of the county of Richland, in 
opposition to this proposition to adjourn, but I have 
the same sentiment expressed in letters which I have 
received from my own county. I am satisfied that if 
this Convention drag out its session to a great and un¬ 
necessary length, or adjourn over until December, they 
will increase that want of confidence, and that distrust, 
which is already existing in the minds of the people. 
You will greatly prejudice the interests which we all 
have at stake; we will excite a prejudice in the mind 
of community which must necessarily operate unfavor¬ 
ably upon the result of your labors, and essentially ef¬ 
fect the great reforms which we have now presented 
before us, and which, I am happy to say, we have such 
reasonable hopes of triumphantly carrying. 1 call the 
especial attention of the gentleman from Brown to the 
fact, that a manifestation has been made upon the other 
side of the house in decided opposition to the great and 
radical reforms we propose ; and just as indications of 
our success appears, just in that degree could easily be 
seen a desire to adjourn on the other side. Now, sir, 
if t..e gentleman from Brown, and others whom I find 
ready to go for this adjournment, can, at this morneuT, 
close their eyes to this fact, they are fonder of sleep 
than 1 had ever supposed them. I call upon them, sir, 
to wake up, and look, and think, before they aid in do¬ 
ing the act now so insisted upon from their opponents. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I hope the gentleman from Knox 
does not mean to insinuate, in any shape or form, that 
because I agree in this matter with the great body of 
my political opponents, that my democracy is not radi¬ 
cal. Farther, 1 would say this; that I should think less 
of human nature than I do, if I supposed that my poli¬ 
tical opponents upon this floor, were not honorable 
men, if they, or the party to which they belonged,could 
be induced to seek political capital out of the health 
and lives cf members of this Convention. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I do not suppose 'that these gen¬ 
tlemen desire any such thing, but they have seized 
hold of this plausible reason for an adjournment, and 
have endeavored, by every legitimate means, to carry 
their points. I call the attention of members to the 
fact, that they will be held answerable, if they adjourn 
over until next December. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. U)]til this morning, I have op¬ 
posed all attempts at adjournment, but I now feel dis¬ 
posed to favor it. I regret, however, that it should in 
any manner be made a party question, and I cannot 
believe that those on the other side of the chamber, 
who may vote for an adjournment, are actuated in so 
doing by party motives. I cannot for my life, see how 
they can obtain any party advantage by it. If the gen¬ 
tleman from Knox [Mr. Mitchell] can show me how 
those reforms he and I both desire, will be jeoparded 
by adjournment, I will go against it, but I must have 
some other reason than that some of the Whig mem¬ 
bers are in favor of adjourning. 

Mr. MITCH ELL. Will the gentleman recur to what 
I did say, and it was the great reason I urged against 
an adjournmentto the first Monday of December, which 
was, that it will increase the distrust of the people, as 
to the results of our deliberations. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I do not see how that can affect 
our future deliberations. When we meet again, we 
can certainly act as carefully and as rightly as we now 
Can, and when we shall have finished our labors the 
people can pass upon them as carefully and intelligent¬ 
ly as they could should we now continue our session. 


It is a mere question of time. Now I want to ask one 
or two questions. Does any gentleman in this hall be¬ 
lieve that we can, by continuing in session, finish our 
labors so as to submit the new constitution to the peo¬ 
ple at the election in October? If any gentlemau so 

thinks I wish him to answer me.-Well that matter 

is settled. Again: does any gentleman believe that in 
case we do not adjourn, we will have a quorum here 
to-morrow? I want gentlemen to answer. 

A Voice, We may have. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I grant it is possible; but is it at 
all probable? I have been told of enough of mem¬ 
bers who intend leaving, adjournment or no adjourn¬ 
ment, to leave us without a quorum, and should that 
be the result, we will then be left here without the 
power to do business, and without the power even of 
adjourning. Other gentlemen know these things as 
well as I do; and although I regret that these things 
are so, I cannot help it, and cannot see any use of r< - 
maining longer. We cannot submit the new constitu¬ 
tion to a vote of the people this fall, and that being 
considered, there is not a necessity, or any good reason, 
why gentlemen should remain here, certainly at the 
risk of health, perhaps at die risk of lil'e, to finish the 
work now, wlren by adjourning until fall, we can meet 
again in a healthy season and lay our work before the 
people at the spring election. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Mr. Chairman- 

Mr. PATTERSON. I cannot yield the call for a pre¬ 
vious question unless you [Mr. Archbold] will prom¬ 
ise to renew it. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. 1 will do so. Personally, I have 
very little anxiety on the subject of the adjournment. 

I should not myself have moved it, but other gentlemen 
have represented that the high probability is, that by 
staying here we shall lose some of our members—this 
is a responsibility too great for me to incur. I do not 
wish to compel, by my vote, gentlemen to stay here, 
and thereby take their blood into my skirts. 1 do not 
rise to argue the question, but to reply to one idea that 
has been advanced in argument—it has been said that 
persons least anxious for radical and thorough reforms, 
which it is supposed are called for by public opinion, 
are about to vote for this adjournment. Certainly gen¬ 
tlemen in the very vanguard of the progressing and re¬ 
forming army, are arguing for this adjoiuTiment. Such 
was the tact on a former occasion, when similar argu¬ 
ments were used, and I avail myself of this opportunity 
to make an explanation, because I see that an adjourn¬ 
ment is inevitable—men will not stay here, and as 1 
believe that my friends and myself have been unfairly 
dealt with by some of the distant newspapers, I do not 
choose to suffer the adjournment to take place and leave 
my character under a cloud. I feel perfectly indiffer¬ 
ent as to the estimate which village newspapers may 
place on my talents, or my attainments—no man ought 
to be concerned on such a subject as that; but an attack 
upon a man’s integrity is a matter which requires quite 
a different consideration. There is, in reality, but lit¬ 
tle difference in the opinions of the democratic delega¬ 
tion in this hall on the great and leading questions of 
public policy. 

On the subject of the currency, I have myself, for 
years, been in the vanguard of the party, as to matters 
of opinion; lam from principle opposed to banks of 
circulation, believing that a circulating medium cf 
gold and silver is the only one favonible to the suc¬ 
cess of the party and the welfare of the people. My 
friends and myself are orthodox on this subject, we are 
radical. In opinion we go as far as he that goes farth¬ 
est, and we wish for an opportunity to prove the sin¬ 
cerity of our opinions by our actions. On this curren¬ 
cy question we are enlisted for “ during the war,” and 
as “King of Butler” says, and “longer if it lasts.” 
[Laughter.] We did not think it sound policy to cross 
ihe channel and burn our ships behind us—to rush to 
the battle on disadvantageous ground, and under cir¬ 
cumstances where a single engagement must be deci- 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


670 


give—to fire away our last ball; lo stake all on the 
cast of a single die, with the chances eminently against 
us. We had great confidence in the truth of our princi¬ 
ples, great confidence in the intelligence of the people, 
and ol course great confidence that right would ulti¬ 
mately prevail. Yet, for these mere shades of difi’er- 
ence of opinion in a matter of expediency—in a mere 
question of time, we have been denounced by the coun¬ 
try newspapers in terms of the most unmeasured abuse. 
No allowance made lor error of judgment, none for in¬ 
nocent mistakes, but we are denounced as willful de¬ 
linquents, as coolly plotting to betray a good cause to 
the enemy. It is true, they represent our understand¬ 
ings as a mere abstract circumstance, as Jack Downing 
says, entirely unwmrthy of notice. [Laughter.] Yet 
this does not satisfy them, but they call us “ all to 
nought” as bad men, wicked, designing and unscrupu¬ 
lous. This is neither the time nor the place to debate 
the question, but I make this public declaration for my¬ 
self, that no man in Ohio would be more cheerful, none 
more joyful, if a good orthodox constitution were safe¬ 
ly ratified by the people; then why might not these 
newspapers bring forward their strong arguments to 
convince us that we can obtain the popular ratification 
for such a measure—it would cost them no more time 
or trouble, than it costs them to fulminate denuncia¬ 
tions—if indeed they are able to make sound argument. 
[Much merriment.] 

My own case seems to be in in some respects pecu- 
culiar. I have probably suffered more denunciation, 
more censure from the Whig press than any other man 
in the State. Yet no bygone toils, no length of services, 
no long manifestation of honest zeal can obtain the least 
mitigation of censure from these men. The veteran, 
seamed with honorable scars, obtained in many a hard- 
fought field, is treated with as little ceremony as the 
neophyte of yesterday. A little consideration might 
convince these men, if they would reflect at all, that I 
must be anxious for the success of the new constitu¬ 
tion, I am the oldest advocate of that measure in Ohio, 
and for two whole sessions of the General Assembly, I 
was the only advocate. Upon the ordinary principles 
of human nature, a man must feel intense anxiety for 
the success of a measure with which he has been so 
long identified. But some little error of judgment as 
to a mere matter of detail, might under such circum¬ 
stances be tolerated—especially when there is not the 
slightest pretence that any member on this floor is in 
the slightest degree misrepresenting his constituents. 
But nothing will be tolerated by one of these infallible 
popes which happens to cross the path of his newest and 
latest dogma. We are fallen upon evil days. When 
Sir Walter Scott has introduced his aged minstrel into 
Branksome Hall, and has made the old man’s music 
thrill upon every heart, he adds 

“ The bigots of that iron time, 

Had deemed his harmless art a crime.” 

So the bigots of this iron time deem all free thought, 
free debate, free discussion in these Halls, acrime, which 
they are determined to prevent if they possibly can. It 
they do not use engines of greater power to produce terror, 
we are indebted to their ii potency and not to their 
moderation. 1 speak not of the respectable part of the 
newspaper press. With them I have no controversy, 
for them I feel great respect; but I am determined that 
persons of the opposite class shall not be permitted to 
see their misrepresentations go uncontradicted. 

Once for all 1 reiterate that if the people can be in¬ 
duced to ratify a good, orthodox, hard money constitu¬ 
tion, no man will rejoice more cordially than myself, 
and il such a constitution should be resolved on by a 
majority here, no man will labor harder to obtain 
a ratification. But, sir, I have made my declaration, 
and as to the immediate question under discussion, I 
have just inclination enough to enable me to vote, and 
no more. I have a mere preponderance of will on the 
subject, but is now evident that the continuation of the 
session is at this time impossible. 


Mr. KING. The gentleman from Richland insists 
that we should act with unanimity in this matter; but 
how can we do so, when we are not agreed? It is 
fair to presume, that every delegate had his opinions 
made up in regard to the propriety of adjourning.— 
The gentleman from Richland says he is not disposed 
to make this a party question. Neither am I; but I 
regard this question in the light of duty, and, therefor , 
] am opposed to an adjournment. I am not disposed 
to manufacture any party capital out of it, if there can 
be any made out of it. But we are told that if we do 
not adjourn, we will not have a quorum. How do we 
know this? If delegates to this Convention are deter¬ 
mined to break up this body, let them take the respon 
sibility of doing so. If get tleman are disposed to ad¬ 
journ, let them say so by their votes. We want no 
committee to dictate in this matter. I shall vote against 
an adjournment, because I believe it would be a viola¬ 
tion of my duty. What reasons exist for an adjourn¬ 
ment until December? One reason is urged here, that 
we are anticipating an epidemic. We had better wait 
until it comes. I know that many gentlemen have 
become restless and uneasy, and want to go home. I 
am N.illingto take a recess fora reasonable period, 
and again meet, at some other point. In doing this, 
we may be enabled to finish up our business. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. The question is upon 
striking out the first Monday of December. It is strong¬ 
ly urged by the gentleman from Knox, that, unless we 
strike out the first Monday of December, and insert 
some other time, that it will prevent the adoption of 
the radical reforms contemplated to be made in this 
constitution ; and if we cannot get together before the 
first Monday in Noveo ber, we shall not be able to ef¬ 
fect these reforms. Really, I cannot see the force of 
his argument, for the delay of four weeks, from Novem¬ 
ber to December, could not defeat these reforms, if 
they have such a hold upon the hearts and minds of 
gentlemen. I believe that if we should adjourn now, 
we will come together with the same view we have 
upon these subjects now. It seems to me that there is 
not so much force in the gentleman’s argument as he 
seems to suppose. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I am astonished at the gentle¬ 
men’s urging that as my argument. It may be that 
the noise in the hall has prevented him from distinctly 
hearii.g the remarks I made. I distinctly stated that I 
was opposed to an adjournment for any length of time. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Then I have labored under an 
error as to the gentleman’s position. But I would ask 
these gentlemen, who claim to be radical reformers, if 
they are afraid to trust theii friends, if we should ad¬ 
journ over until December ? In truth, after all that is 
said about radical reformers, I believe there are very 
few points of difference between the different mem¬ 
bers of (his house. As a general thing, we are agreed 
as to the reforms to be made; but there are some 
points of diflference between us. Whether, by an ad¬ 
journment, we shall be brought together, or not, I do 
not know. The gentleman from Knox says, that the 
people abroad have a distrust of the members of the 
Convention. It may be so, for aught I know. I have 
no doubt that the people abroad think that we have 
made very little progress. Who ever knew of a Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, where the people at home did not com¬ 
plain of the want of progress? It is an easy matter 
for the people at home to complain and find fault with 
the doings of legislative bodies. 

The gentleman from Hamilton urges, that if this ad¬ 
journment takes place until December, that it will be 
utterly impossible to get this constitution under way, 
so as to submit it to the people in April, and it will 
have to go over until October. If we could have fram¬ 
ed a constitution which could have been submitted to 
the people in Octm er, I would have been glad of it; 
but it we cannot, this Convention will fix the time to 
submit it to the people, and it will not be necessary to 
go over to October. Admitting that we should sit three 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 671 


mombs, aud that we should continue a session through 
Mai'ch, it could be submitted in May, Juno or July. 1 
apprehend, Mr. Chairman, that it will be better, when 
this instrument is submitted to tiie people, that it shall 
be submitted to them at a time when they have no¬ 
thing else to draw off their attention. 11 the constitu¬ 
tion is framed by the first of March or April, it can be 
submitted to the people, and, if approved, we can have 
the first election under it the first of October. 

Now, it is represented upon this floor, and urged by 
the gentleman from Knox, that the whig members are 
all in favor of a- jourument. How is this ? Some two 
weeks since, a proposition was submitted for adjourn¬ 
ment. I thought then it was too early. When the 
question was taken, I voted against it. I cannot con¬ 
ceive how this can be made a party question—a politi¬ 
cal question ; but the astute gentleman makes it out 
that this is going to be the case. I voted against the 
adjournment at that time, because I thought there was 
no reason for it; but I became satisfied, the latter part 
of last week, that we could not submit the constitution 
in time to the people, aud that we were not in a situa¬ 
tion to deliberate at this time. We have found some 
difficulty already in getting a quorum. Two-thirds of 
the members elected to this Convention is the number 
that has met here; and seventy-two, out of one hun¬ 
dred and eight members, are the number that meet 
here to frame a constituiion. I was satisfied, the latter 
part of last week, that the feeling was such, and the 
excitement so strong, that we could not do anything— 
that it was best to adjourn. Sir, from the information 
I received, thei'e was as great anxiety upon this ques¬ 
tion on the other side of the house as upon this. I be¬ 
lieve it still, and I have not an earthly doubt of it. An 
opposition was raised to the resolution I offered.— 
Those whom I had supposed would sustain it, came 
out in opposition to it, and therefore I withdrew it. 
This is the last resolution, I apprehend, which I shall 
be induced to offer, so long as 1 remain in Convention. 
I say we are not in such a situation to do business as 
our constituents would have us do it, in accordance 
with what is right. They are at home, about their bu¬ 
siness upon theii farms, in their shops, and in their of¬ 
fices, and they know nothing of the state of things 
here, and they know nothing of the excitement that 
prevails here. They know nothing of the danger—if 
danger there be—by which we are surrounded. We 
must judge for ourselves upon this subject. Let us 
have firmness and independence enough to judge for 
ourselves, and take into consideration the attending 
circumstances by which we are surrounded. My 
friend from Richland seems to think w6 should have 
unanimity upon this subject. It is certainly desirable 
that we should have this great unanimity. If we do 
adjourn, I think that more members of this Convention 
will be accommodated by meeting again upon the first 
Monday of December, than at any other period. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The remarks I now submit will 
be the very last which I shall make during our present 
sitting. It is well known, Mr. President, that I have op¬ 
posed all ptopositions to adjourn to another place, until 
there was a necessity and such strong reasons for an ad¬ 
journment as would in my mind justify me in voting 
for it. 1 believe, Mr. President, these reasons are now 
manifest to all so much so, that I feel confident that 
we cannot I’eniain here and deliberate as we should in 
regard to the great questions presented to us. Under 
these circumstances I am ready to adjourn, and what¬ 
ever may be the responsibility indoingso I am ready to 
assume it. It would be doing injustice to my constitu¬ 
ents to suppose, that they would be pleased with any at¬ 
tempt of mine to deceive them—to throw dust in any 
way in their eyes. I shall go home to that constituency, 
and give my reasons for my action here. If they are dis¬ 
satisfied with my conduct, they are at liberty to select 
some other individual to represent them here. It is man¬ 
ifest to my mind, that the “ pestilence which walkelh in 
darkness,” is around us and among us, and we all feelcon- 


ncerued, not only for our own health and that of other, 
but for that of our absent families and friends, it 
among us and no man can say “ whence it corueth, or 
whither it goeth.’' No one can say, that the door of his 
domicil has been sprinkled so as to prevent it from enter¬ 
ing there. We are utterly disqualified lor deliberate ac¬ 
tion here. Shall we not confide in our constituents, that 
they will justify our action here ? I have no lears but 
what they will. I made the motion 1 did in order to 
test the question, whether a majority of this Conven¬ 
tion would be in favor of striking out the day named 
in the resolution. If they are not—if the majority shall 
refuse to strike out the day, then I apprehend the time 
is fixed and the place is fixed, to which we shall ad¬ 
journ. It only remains for us to say, when we shall 
adjourn. The remarks I now make, are the last I de¬ 
sire to make upon this subject. My determination is 
fixed. I am satisfied from the expressions I have heard 
here upon this floor, that we cannot remain here. I look 
upon it as a mere matter of choice, whether we shall 
adjourn formally or should go off without any formal 
declaration of our purpose. I would not desire that 
we should be left without a quorum, to render ourselves 
somewhat ridiculous, by remaining here, without the 
the power of adjourning formally. lean boast of as 
much courage as any gentleman here, in remaining 
here, but of what advantage is it, will my consiii- 
uents esteem me the more for it. I am prepared to vote 
for an adjournment to Cincinnati, or any other place 
upon which the Convention may determine. 

Mr. KENNON. I do not intend to argue this ques¬ 
tion. I wish to make a single statement. I shall vote 
against striking out the first Monday in December, and 
in favor of an adjournment till that period. I shall de 
so for this reason: It is a fixed fact, in my mind, that 
we shall have no quorum here very soon. I do not be¬ 
lieve there is a single member upon this floor, who be¬ 
lieves that the constitution can be completed and sub¬ 
mitted to the people by the second Tuesday in Octo¬ 
ber. That opportunity having now passed by, I shall 
go for the first Monday in December, because I believe 
it will be as early as will be safe for us to reassemble,, 
in view of the prevailing pestilence. I believe that 
there is no man upon this floor who does not believe 
that the cholera i.^, at this moment, raging with fright¬ 
ful ravages in the city of Cincinnati; and I believe that- 
all know and accord the fact, that this disease travels 
first along the great thoroughfares; and, therefore, it 
may be expected to prevail in this city. We know, in¬ 
deed, that some cases have already occurred here, and 
that there is a strong probability, if it is not already 
here as an epidemic, it will be. I hold it, therefore, 
as the part of wisdom and prudence in this Convention, 
not to wait till it breaks out here and affects our own 
systems; and by this means, perhaps, it might be car¬ 
ried to the different parts of the State. 

For these reasons I shall vote for the “ first Monday in 
December.” As to any fear of the people, on account 
of this action, I beg leave to say, that I am nv.>t troubled 
with any apprehensions of that nature. I know my 
constituents. If I have good reason for what I do, my 
constituents will justify me. If they would not justi¬ 
fy me in such a case, I have to say, merely, that I do 
not want such constituents. 

Mr. LOUDON. Having introduced this resolution, 
it is due from me to relieve my friends across the way 
from the odium which has been attempted to be thrown 
upon them by my friend from Knox. It is proper to 
say that, in the preparation of this resolution, I have 
not consulted at all with my friends on the other side 
of the Chamber, nor with but a few on this side, and 
with them only casually. I now say freely, that no 
gentleman on the Whig side, or any one else, has ap¬ 
proached me in the way of argument or persuasion, to 
induce me to introduce this proposition. I have done 
it wholly on my own responsibility. After having ob¬ 
served, for several days together, that the Convention 
was in confusion about this matter of adjournment, »• 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


612 


W .shed to have the thing definitely disposed of to day. 
I? the Secretary will turn to the resolution, he will find 
that it is not all in my own hand writing. It has been 
produced by comliining with iny own the conclusions 
of otlurs—but all on this side of the Chamber, The 
resolutions are mine : the whereases come from the pen 
of others. I have offered these resolutions because 1 
Ixdieve that no profitable business can be done here'for 
some time to come. We are here now with barely a 
quorum, and with the declaration of honorable gentle¬ 
men that they are about to leave; so that to-morrow 
morning will inevitably find the Convention without a 
unorum. And I state freely that I am unwilling to re¬ 
main here, from day to day, for months together, mere¬ 
ly to keep up a quorum. But I will say here, iu my 
place, what I have before intimated, that I am ashamed 
of the conduct of this Couveutioii. We have been 
here sixty days, and we have not yet settled the first 
principle for the new constitution. It is true, we have 
made a book which may be read—and perhaps never 
will be read—of some thousand pages, when the in¬ 
dexes and titles shall be attached. 

Mr. President, when the cholera is known to be in 
our midst, iu this very city, and when letters are coin¬ 
in'^ in from all quarters—the gentleman f rom Hamilton, 
btd'ore me, [Mr. Jones,] now holds a letter from an 
honorable menber of this Convention, [Col. Holmes,] 
filled with the details of the plague iu Cincinuati—in¬ 
forming us of the presence of the plague iu various 
parts, should we be compelled, sir, to sit here, from 
day to day, for no practical advantage whatever, mere- 
Iv ‘to satisfy any gentleman who may claim to be a 
leader of the Democracy of Ohio? Sir, I am an origi¬ 
nal Democrat, and I was so recognized when my friend 
wore his bibs and tucker : and 1 pledge myself now to 
meet that gentleman in Cincinnati, on the first Monday 
iu December, and there I will be ready to dispute the 
palm with him upon every principle that is really De¬ 
mocratic—I will dispute the palm with him in order 
that we may show to the world who is the best Demo¬ 
crat. 

I thought it due to the Convention that I should make 
these observations; because, if I know myself, I do not 
want to cast any odium upon either my political triends 
or enemies to which they are not entitled. It there be 
any sin iu my own act, let it fall upon my own shoul¬ 
ders. I am responsible to my constituents for what I 
do here, rather tliaii to the hard-money Democracy of 
Knox county—although lam with them iu that faith. 

Mr. LEADBETTER, I hope the present proposi¬ 
tion will obtain. I shall vote for striking out. I shall 
do so, in the hope that the Convention will meet again 
at an early day. I am willing to make an efibrt to re¬ 
assemble at Zanesville, or any other place, some time 
within the next two weeks. I do not think we ought 
to adjourn for so long a time as proposed, but I believe 
the Convention is now about to adjourn to some future 
day and some other place. 1 do not agree, in opinion, 
with those who thought we ought to stay here until 
the cholera should become an ef)idemic in this place. 
But, with tile gentleman fit m Belmont, [Mr. Kennon,] 

I think we ought to leave before our systems become 
impregnated with the disease, in order to prevent the 
possibility, by our dispersion, of its being carried into 
almost every part of the State. I do not think this 
case admits of boasting and braggadocio. I do not be¬ 
lieve there is a man in existence who is not afraid of 
this scourge of mankind. He may talk and strut his 
hour upon the stage, against the destroyer; but I have 
wrestled with the chap once, and I do not desire to 
contend with him again. 

1 would like to say a word in relation to what the 
Convention has done. I am unwilling that it should 
go out from the mouth of as good a democrat as the 
gentleman from Brown [Mr. Loudon] that lljis Con¬ 
vention has been in session sixty days and done noth¬ 
ing. There has never come under my observation any 
deliberative body which evinced a better working spir¬ 


it than this Convention, and if we have not accomplish¬ 
ed as much as we might have done, it has been be¬ 
cause of the conliict of opinion: for we have been in 
session hours enough to have done a greatdeal of work. 
We have ])a8sed a large number of reports in commit¬ 
tee of tlie Whole, and considered them all very much 
iu detail, and if we had [inrsued the plan of re-exam¬ 
ining in the body of the Convention, every proposition 
as it was passed out of the hands of the committee of 
the Whole, the amount of our work would have been 
more manifest to the people at large. If we had pur¬ 
sued this course it would be apparent that we had done 
considerable business, but because we have not taken 
this course, what we have really done does not yet ap¬ 
pear. And besides this, the people and the press of 
the country are not fully aware of what is really the 
stage of business before the Convention : for our print¬ 
ers are more than a week behind hand, and the press 
of the country of course remains about a week behind 
the city press: therefore, they are not at all aware of 
the exact state of forwardness in our business. 

Mr. LOUDON interposing, and Mr. L. yielding, said; 
In the declaration that the Convention had done noth¬ 
ing I meant only to say that we had settled no princi¬ 
ple. I admit frankly that we have done a great deal— 
we have made a book of a thousand pages, and settled, 
as far as we could in committee of the Whole, very 
many important mattters ; but we have settled nothing 
definitely. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. I admit it. I am just now 
informed by the Reporter that the reports, embodying 
indexes and everything that has been done, will make 
a book of about six hundred pages. He thinks that is 
the extent to which it will go. Accordingly we have 
about six hundred pages yet to fill up. 

I desire to say again, and to call upon the Conven¬ 
tion for a single moment, to consider and reflect upou 
the absolute necessity of fixing some eai’lier day than 
tha’ proposed for the re-assembling of the Convention, 
and some other point better calculated for the purposes 
of our meeting than the city of Cincinuati. I do not 
desire to go with the Convention into that city. I 
think it would be better for the health, if not for the 
morals of members, if they would select a place not 
quite so large and populous as Cincinuati. I should 
yrefer Zanesville or Delaware, myself, which would 
be more central—nearer to our printing office and near¬ 
er to the seat of government. 

For these reasons I shall vote for striking out “ the 
first Monday in December,” and if that proposition 
does not prevail, I shall vote against the resolution. 

Mr. PATTERSON now renewed his demand for the 
previous question upon the resolution, and there was a 
second. 

The yeas and nays being demanded and taken upon 
the question , “ Does the Convention assent to the de¬ 
mand for the previous question?” the vote wasreport- 
ed ye as 40, nays 37, as follows: 

1 hose who voted in the affirmative, were 

Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Chambers, Claypoole, 
Cook, Curry, P’arr, Florence, Forbes, Gray, Hamilton, Hard, Har¬ 
lan, Henderson, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Kennon, 
Lawrence, Loudon, Mason, Nash, Otis, PntUrson, Perkins, Scott 
of Harrison, Smith of Hishland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stil- 
well, Stidger, Swift, Warren, Way, Woodbury—40. 

I Those,who voted in the negative, were 

Messrs. Bennett, Brown of Carrol!, Case of Licking, Clark, Ew¬ 
art, Firestone, Graham, Greene ot Defiance, Green of Ross, Qregg, 
Groeshock, Hawkins, Holt, Hootman, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larsh, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Orton, Peck, Quigley, Reera- 
elin. Riddle, Robertson, Scott of Auglaize, Stickney, Struble, 
Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townehend, Vance of Butler, 
Williams, Mr. President—37. 

So the previous question was ordered. 

The main question being upon Mr, Hawkins’s mo¬ 
tion to strike outworn the first resolution the words 
“first Monday in December,” and the yeas and nays 
being demanded and taken thereon, the vote reported 
thereon was, yeas 33, nays 46, as follows: 

Yeas—M essrs. Cahill, Caseof Licking, Clark,Cook,Farr, Fire¬ 
stone, Forbes, Graham, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hawkins, Hootman, 













CONVENTION REPORTS 


673 


Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Orton, 
Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Robertson, Scott of Auglaize, Stick- 
ney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Tliompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Williams, and President.—33 

Nays. — Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Chambers, Claypoole, Curry, Ewart, Florence, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt 
er, Kennon, Larsh, Lawrence, Loudon, Mason, Nash, Patterson, 
Peck, Perkins, Scott of Plarrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Warren, Way, Woodbury.—46. 

So the Convention refused to strike out the words, 
and the question recurred upon the adoption of the pre¬ 
amble and resolutions. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved tolaythe preambleand res¬ 
olutions on the table. 

The question being taken by yeas and nays, the vote 
reported was—yeas 29, nays 51, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Cahill, Clark, Farr, Firestone, Graham, Greene 
of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hootman, Johnson, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Orton, Quigley, Reemelin, Robert¬ 
son, Scott of Auglaize, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Williams, Mr. President—29. 

Nays — Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Claypoole, Cook, Curry, 
Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, Larsh, Lawrence, Lou¬ 
don, 5la6on, Morris, Nash, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Riddlt, Scott 
of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stil¬ 
well, Swift, Taylor, Warren, Way, Woodbury—51. 

So the Convention refused to lay on the table. 

Mr. SWAN. Would it be in order, Mr. President, to 
make a motion to refer this matter to a committee ? 

The PRESIDENT. It would not be in order. There 
are but four motions that can be made after a demand 
for the previous question has been sustained—a motion to 
adjourn, a motijii for recess, a motion for the orders of 
the day, and a motion to lay on the table. 

Mr. ORTON moved that the Convention do now take 
a recess till 3 o’clock P. M. ^ 

And this question being taken by yeas and nays, the 
vote was reported—yeas 20, nays 60, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Clark, Firestone, Graham, Greene of Defiance, 
Hootman, King, Leadbetter,Mitchell, Orton, Reemelin, Robertson, 
Scott of Auglaize, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Vance ot Butler, Williams, Mr President.—20. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
j Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 

' Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Claypoole, Cook, Curry, Ew- 
j art, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groes¬ 
beck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock 
' of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, 

I Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Loudon, Mason, Morris, 
Nash, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Riddle, Scott of Harri- 
I son, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, 
Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Warren, Way, 
Woodbury.—60. 

So the Convention refused to take a recess, and the 
question again recurred upon the adoption of the origi- 
: nal preamble and resolutions. 

Mr. LARSH called for a division of the question— 
demanding that the vote should be taken separately 
upon each resolution—and there was a second. 

Mr. SCOTT of Auglaize called for the reading of the 
preamble and resolutions; and they were again read 
through by the secretary. 

Mr. LARSH said his understanding of the order was, 
upon a division, the first question was upon the adop¬ 
tion of the first resolution. His object was to obtain a 
separate vote upon the first resolution, which would, 
of course, govern the vote upon the rest; but he would 
withdraw the call. 

Mr. MITCHELL. He would renew it. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga called for the reading 
of the first resolution. 

: The resolution was read through accordingly. 

Mr. H. said, he would inquire if the resolution should 
I go into effect, and we should meet to-morrow morning 
; without a quorum, can we adjourn in pursuance of this 
i resolution ? 

Several Voices. “Yes.” “Certainly.” 


The yeas and nays having been demanded and taken 
upon the adoption of the lirst resolution, the vote re¬ 
ported was—yeas 51, nays 29—as follows : 

Yeas. —Messrs. Archbolcl, Barbee, Burnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car¬ 
roll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Claypoole, Cook, Curry, 
Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson. Hitchcoc k of Geauga, Holt, Horton, 
Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Loudon, 
Mason, Morris, Nash, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift, 
Taylor, Warren, Way, and Woodbury.—51. 

Nays —Messrs. Clark, Fai-r, Firestone, Graham, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hootman, Humphreville, Jones, King, 
Leadbetter, Mitchell, Orton, Quigley, Rei melin, Riddle. Robert¬ 
son, Scott of Auglaize, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Williams, and Mr. President—29. 

So the first resolution was adopted. 

The 8e(U)nd resolution and the preamble were then 
successively adopted, without a division. 

The PRESIDENT then declared the preamble and 
resolutions to be adopted. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. 

The PRESIDENT now announced the consideration 
of the report of the select committee on Capital Pun¬ 
ishment; and the same was read a second time, and 
referred to the committee of the whole Convention. 

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES IN THE GERMAN LANGUAGE. 

Mr. REEMELIN offered for consideration the follow¬ 
ing resolution : 

Resolved, That the Reporter of this Convention be, and he is 
hereby authorized, to enter into arrangements with two daily 
German newspapers in the city of Cincinnati, of general circula¬ 
tion throughout the State, for the publication of the debates and 
proceedings of this Convention in their respective journals, pro¬ 
vided the cost of such publication for both shall not exceed 25 
cents per thousand ems; and provided further, that the debates 
and proceedings, so far had, shall be published before the reassem¬ 
bling of this Convention. 

Mr. CLAYPOOLE moved that the resolution be laid 
upon the table. 

Mr. LARSH uow made an ineffectual motion lor a 
recess. 

Mr. REEMELIN desired the gentleman from Ross 
[Mr. Claypoole^ to withdraw his motion for a single 
moment, to give him an opportunity to explain. 

Mr. CLAYPOOLE adhered to his motion, and the 
yeas and nays being demanded and taken upon this 
motion, the vole was reported, yeas 45. nays 36, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Those who voted in the affirmative, were 

Messrs. Barbee, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Chambers, Claypoole, 
Cook, Curry, Farr, Florence, Foi’bes, Graham, Gray, Green of 
Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Henderson, Hunter, Johnson, Ken¬ 
non, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Mason, Mor 
ris, McCloud, Nash, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Highland, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, 
Swift, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Way, Williams, 
Woodbury—45. 

Those who voted in the negative, were 

Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, Blair, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Clark, Ew¬ 
art, Firestone, Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Jones, Lead- 
better, Loudon, Mitchell, Orton, Reemelin, Riddle, Robertson, 
Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Struble, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Warren, Mr. President—36. 

On motion by Mr FLORENCE, it was ordered that 
when the Convention adjourns, it shall adjourn till to¬ 
morrow morning, at 5 o’clock. 

And then, upon his further motion, the Convention 
adjourned. 

TUESDAY, July 9, 1850. 

Pursuant to adjournment, the Convention met at 5 
o’clock, A. M. 

Messrs. Johnson and Hootman had leave given 
them to change their votes on a motion made on a pre¬ 
vious day, to lay the resolution of the gentleman Irom 
Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] on the table. The resolu¬ 
tion had reference to the publication of the debates, 
&c., in German newspapers. 

The votes of the above named gentlemen were ac¬ 
cordingly recorded in the affirmative. 













674 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. SAWYER said that he was not present on a pre¬ 
vious occasion when the vote was taken upon the ad¬ 
journment until December, of this body. He would 
ask leave to record his vote. 

Leave was given, and the honorable gentleman re¬ 
corded his vote in the affirmative. 

The PRESIDENT said that pursuant to a resolution 
passed on a former day, in relation to the appoint¬ 
ment of a commtttee to make arrangements for the 
meeting of the Convention at Cincinnati, the Chair 
would appoint Messrs. Riddle, Ghoesbeck, Chambers, 
Swift, Smith of Warren, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, and 
Robertson, to act upon said committee. 

Mr. MITCHELL offered the following, which was 
unanimously adopted: 

Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be tendered to the 
clergy of this city for their services, kindly rendered in opening 
the sessions of this Convention with prayer. 

Mr. HOLT presented the following resolution: 

Resolved, That the President of this Convention be requested 
to cause copies of the preamble and lesolutions setting forth the 
adjournment of this body until the first Monday in December next, 
and the reasons therefor, to be communicated to the General As¬ 
sembly on the first day of their next session. 

The resolution was adopted. 

Mr. FARR offered a resolution which was in effect, 
that the printer to the Convention be directed to bind 
the debates, &c., up to the 9th of July, 1850. 

An unimportant cursoiy debate then sprung up, in 
which Messrs. Hitchcock, Mitchell, Chambers, Nash, 
Robertson, Farr, and others took part. 


Mr. HARLAN remarked that there was no proprie¬ 
ty in debating this question whatever. It was obvious 
that the resolution could not be adopted if there were 
objections to it. 

Mr. FARR, on leave, withdrew the resolution, which 
was renewed by 

Mr. SWAN, who expressed himself in favor of hav¬ 
ing the debates so far published, bound in a single vol¬ 
ume. 

After some further discussion, however, the resolu¬ 
tion was withdrawn. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross offered the following resolution, 
which was agreed to. 

Resolved, That the State Printer be instructed to forward, with 
as little delay as practicable, to the members of this Convention, 
the number of copies to which they may be entitled, of all re¬ 
ports, and other documents ordered to be printed, and not yet 
distributed, and that the postage thereon be charged to the State 
of Ohio. 

Mr. LAWRENCE offered the following: 

Resolved, That the four messenger boys be allowed fifty cents 
per day in addition to what they have been previously paid. 

At the suggestion of several members the resolution 
was withdrawn. 

Mr. LAWRENCE then moved that the Convention 
adjourn, which was agreed to. 

And the Convention, pursuant to an order to that ef¬ 
fect, adjourned until the first Monday of December 
next, to re-assemble at the city of Cincinnati. 



(» 


/ 


r 


t 


' 


♦ 

f 















OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS IN THE CONVENTION TO FORM A NEW 
CONSTITUTION FOR THE STATE OF OHIO. BY J. V. SMITH, REPORTER. 


OHIO STATE JOURNAL EDITION. 

Columbus, Ohio, December 1850: Scott & Bascom, Publishers. 


MONDAY, December 2, 1850. 

The Convention assembled in College Hall, in the 
city of Cincinnati, pursuant to adjonnirnent, at 10 
o’clock, A M., and was called to order by the Presi¬ 
dent. 

Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Hoge. 

The PRESIDENT then briefly stated the positii nof 
the business of the Convention at the time of its ad¬ 
journment, as follows: 

The following reports of standing committees had 
been acted upon in committee of the Whole, and 
amendments made to the same, which had been order¬ 
ed to be printed; to-wit; on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment: on the Executive Department: on Corporations: 
on Jurisprudence, and on the Public Institutions of 
the State. 

The report of the committee on Militia had been ac¬ 
ted upon in committee of the Whole, and recommitted, 
with the amendments, to the committee from which it 
originated. 

Repoi-ts had been made by the following committees, 
which yet remain to be acted upon; to-wit: on Fi¬ 
nance and Taxation: on the Klective Franchise: on 
Education: on Banking and t‘ie Currency. 

The report of the committee on Judiciary was under 
consideration in committee of the Whole, at the time 
of the adjournment. The question jiending was, on 
the motion of Mr. Archbold, of Monroe, to amend the 
amendment ofl'ered by Mr. Clark, to the 7th section 
ol said report, so that it would read as follows: “ that 
two of the judges shall be elected for two years.” 

Mr. LARWILL jiresented the credentials of the 
Hon. Elzy Wilson, delegate elect from the counties 
of Wayneand Ashland, in place of LeanderFirestone, 
re.-^igned. 

Mr. HUNT presented the credentials of the Hon. 
John Chaney, delegate elect from the county of Fair- 
field, in the jilace of Daniel A. Robertson, resigned. 

Mr. GREEN, ot Ross, presented the credentials of 
Hon. James T. Worthington, delegate elect from the 
county of Ross, in the place of Hon. Wesley Clay- 
pool, resigned. 

Mr. LARWILL moved that the credentials of the 
members elect be referred to the standing committee 
on Privileges and Elections, which was agreed to. 

The oath of office was administered by the Hon. 
Richard Stilwell. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, moved a call of the Conven¬ 
tion, which was ordered, and the following gentlemen 
responded to the call: 

Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, 
Bates, Blair, Blickenederfer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of 
Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Curry, Dorsey, 
Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Greene ofDeliance, Green 
of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, John- 
son, Jones, Kennon. Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, 
Ranney, Keemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Aug¬ 
laize, Sellers, Smith of Highltnd, Smith of Warren, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stebbins. Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Taylor, Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Vance of Cham¬ 
paign, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington, and Mr. Presi¬ 
dent. 


Absent.—Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Bennett, Brown of Car- 
roll, Clark, Collings, Cook, Cutler, Ewart, Gillett, Gray, Harlan, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, King, Lead- 
better, Man on. Mason, Otis, Sawyer, Stanbery, Stanton, Struble, 
Swan, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Way and VVilliams. 

The PRESIDENT laid before tlie Coiiventioii, the fol¬ 
lowing communication from the Young Men’s Mercan¬ 
tile Association of Cincinnati: 

“ Rooms of the Young Men’s ) 
“Mebcantile Library Association. \ 

“ Cincinnati, December 3, 1850. ) 

“ Compliments of the Board of Directors, who take great plea¬ 
sure in tendering the hospitalities of the Young Men’s Mer¬ 
cantile Library Association, to the Ohio Constitutional 
Convention, during its session in this city. 

“At the last stated meeting of the Board, it was likewise or¬ 
dered, that additionally to the free tender of the Reading and 
News Rooms, to members of the Constitutional Convention, the 
books of reference, statistics, public documents, etc., be especial¬ 
ly placed at the service of any member, for consultation at the 
Library Rooms, or that the same be withdrawn, for the like pur¬ 
pose, on the written order ot the President or Secretary of the 
Convention. 

“Library and News E-oom of the Association, adjoining the 
floor of the College Ediflce; open daily, from 9 o’clock, A. M, 
until 10 o’clock, P. M., Sundays excepted. 

“By order and in behalf of the Board. 

“JOSEPH C. BUTLER, President. 

“ Hon. Wm. Medill, President of the Ohio Constitutional Con- 

vention. 

Mr. STIDGER moved that the foregoing communica¬ 
tion be entered upon the journal of the Convention; 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. MORRIS presented the petition of 706 citizens 
of Clinton comity, praying lor a provision to be inserted 
in the constitution prohibiting the sale of intoxicating 
drinks, which was referred to the standing committee 
upon that subject. 

Mr. LOUDON inquired if, in the opinion of the 
President the i-esolution of the General Assembly, pro¬ 
viding for the payment of the postage of members of 
the Convention w'as still in force. 

The PRESIDENT decided the resolution to be in 
force. 

Mr. NASH ofl'ered the following resolution which 
was agreed to: 

Resolved, That the Convention accept the polite offer of the 
Young Men’s Merchantile Library Association, and tender to that 
body their thanks for the same. 

Mr. GREEN, of Defiance, offered the following reso¬ 
lution which was agreed to: 

Resolved, That the morning session of this Convention be 
opened with prayer, and that the President make the necessary 
arrangements, with the clergy of Cincinnati, to secure their ser¬ 
vices tor that purpose. 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER offered the following reso¬ 
lution, which was agreed to : 

Resolved, That the President of this Convention is hereby re¬ 
quested to open a correspondence with the Secretary ot the Inte¬ 
rior, to obtain an early copy of the census returns of Ohio, for 
the use of the Convention. 

Mr. CHAMBERS offered the following resolution: 

Resolved, That this Convention do meet at 10 o'clock, A. M., and 
3 o’clock, P. M., until otherwise ordered. 

Mr. FLORENCE moved to amend the resolution, so 
as to fix the hours of meeting at 9 A. M. and 2 P. M. 

Mr. REEMELIN demanded a division of the ques¬ 
tion. 

Mr. STILWELL called for the ayes and noes. 

Mr. REEMELIN withdrew his demand. 






















676 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


Mr. McCORMICK moved further to amend the reso¬ 
lution, by striking out all after the word Resolved, and 
substituting the following : 

“ That when the Convention takes a recess, it will be until half 
past six o’clock, P. M., and when it adjourns, it be until nine 
o’clock, A. M. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved that the resolution and 
pending amendment be referred to a select com nittee 
of three, which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the last amendment, the 
same was lost. 

The question then being on the amendment offered 
by Mr. Florence : 

Mr. CURRY demanded a division of the question. 

The question then being on striking out the words 
“ ten ” and “ three,” 

Mr. REEMELIN demanded a further division of the 
question. 

The question then turning on striking out the word 
“ ten, ” Mr. STILWELL demanded the yeas and 
nays, which being ordered, resulted yeas 52, nays 24, 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Licking, 
Ewing, Farr, Elorence, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Hor¬ 
ton, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Lidey, Loudon, 
Mitchell, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Otis, Patterson, Peck, 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stilwell, Stickney, 
Stidger, Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson. 
Woodbury, Mr. President—52. 

Nays —Messrs. Bates, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, 
Curry, Forbes, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Humphreville, John¬ 
son, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Nash, Norris, Orton, Roll, 
Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Stebbins, Thompson of 
Shelby, Vance of Champaign, Worthington—24. 

So the motion prevailed. 

The question then being on striking out the word 
■“ three,” Mr. STILWELL demanded the yeas and 
nays, which being ordered, resulted, yeas 31, nays 44, 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Blickensderfer, Cahilh 
Farr, Florence, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, Hen" 
derson, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Kennon, Kirk 
wood, Loudon, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Patterson. Peck, 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Sellers, Stilwell, Stickney, Wilson, 
Woodbury, Mr. President—31. 

Navs —Messrs. Bates, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Cham¬ 
bers, Chaney, Curry, Dorsey, Ewing, Forbes, Green, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Larsh, Lawrence, Lar¬ 
will, Leech, Lidey, Mitchell, Morris, Nash, Norris, Orton, Reeme- 
iin. Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stid¬ 
ger, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Vance of Champaign, Warren, Worthington—41. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

Mr. LARSH moved to fill the blank with the words 

nine and a half,” which was disagreed to. 

On motion the word “nine” was then inserted. 

Mr. LARSH ofiered the following as a substitute for 
the resolution as amended ; which was agreed to: 

Resolved, That hereafter when the Convention adjourn, it shall 
be until 9 o’clock, A. M., and when it takes a recess it shall be 
until 2 o’clock, P. M., until otherwise ordered. 

Mr. GREGG moved that the Convention reconsider 
the vote on agreeing to the resolution of Mr. Blickens¬ 
derfer. 

Mr. GREGG said that the effect of the resolution 
would be to retard the proceedings of the committee 
on Apportionment, of which he was a member; as it 
would take much time to get from the Secretary of the 
Interior the requisite information. His object in ask¬ 
ing the reconsideration, was to move an amendmeiu 
calling upon the Marshal of Ohio, in whose hands the 
returns of the census w’ere placed, foi the contemplated 
statement. He thought at least two months might be 
saved by so doing. 

The motion to reconsider was agreed to. 

Mr. GREGG then moved to amend the resolution by 
striking out the words “ Secretary of the Interior,” 
and substituting “ Marshal of Ohio.” 

Mr. LARSH was opposed to striking out. He pro¬ 
posed to add the words “ Marshal of Ohio,” to the res- 
-olution as it stood. 


The PRESIDENT stated that the Constitutional Con¬ 
vention of Virginia had adjourned, to meet on this day, 
in the expectation of being able to procure from the Home 
Department information of the nature contemplated in 
this resolution. 

Mr. CHAMBERS thought that we had no power 
over the Marshal, and that perhaps the Marshal had 
no power to make such a report, even if he had the 
means. He supposed the documents would pass out 
of his hands as soon as they were received. 

.Mr. HENDERSON was in favor of the amendment. 
He thought the Marshal would respond to the call of 
the Convention. ^ As the documents pass through his 
hands, he can readily give us all that we want. 

A division of the question was demanded, and the 
motion to strike out prevailed. 

Mr. NASH said that he understood that a copy cf 
the census returns was deposited, as fast as received 
by the Marshal, with the Secretary of State. He 
thought that that might be the proper place to apply. 
He therefore moved that the resolution be committed 
to a select committee of three; which was agreed to; 
and Messrs. Gregg, Nash and Henderson were ap¬ 
pointed said committee. 

Mr. HAWKINS ofiered for adoption the following 
resolution: 

Resolved, That there be a committee appointed, to consist of 
five members, whose duty it shall be to report arrangements for 
transmitting the printing that may be required, to the office of 
the printer of the Convention, and such other arrangements in 
relation to that subject as may be deemed necessary and proper. 

Mr. HAWKINS said that a contract had been enter¬ 
ed into for the performance of the printing of the Con¬ 
vention, and that was necessary in order for the per¬ 
formance of its duty, that it should perform its own 
part and transmit to the (jffice of the printer the matter 
of the reports. He desired that there should be no 
failure on the part of the Convention. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE asked if the contract with 
the p-inter included the daily publication of the pro¬ 
ceedings of the Convention. 

The resolution was then agreed to. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, presented the petition of 
Samuel Jones and 123 others, citizens of Mercer coun- 
ty, praying the Convention to so construct the Consti¬ 
tution as that there shall be no distinction, on account 
of color, among the citizens of the State. 

On motion of Mr. ORTON, the Convention adjourn¬ 
ed. 


TUESDAY, December 3, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. HUNT presented the petition of John U. Pease 
and 42 others, citizens of Lucas county, praying for the 
insertion of a clause in the constitution, prohibiting the 
passage of any law legalizing the sale of intoxicating 
liquors. 

Referred to the select committee on that subject. 

Mr. McCLOUD presented a petition from Allen 
Jones and 36 others, citizens of Madison county, pray¬ 
ing for a prohibition of the sale of ardent spirits, ex¬ 
cept for medicinal purposes. \ 

Referred to the same committee. 

Mr. HARD presented a petition from Martin Ray¬ 
mond and 164 others, citizens of Jackson county, for 
a provision, to prohibit black and mulatto persons from 
emigrating to Ohio; which was laid on the table. 

Mr. DORSEY ofiered for adoption the follow resolu¬ 
tion : 

Resolved, That it shall be the privilege of those committees 
whose reports have not yet been acted on in committee of the 
whole, to withdraw their reports and make in them such changes 
as they may deem proper, before submitting them to the action 
ot the Convention. 

Mr. DORSEY thought that time might be saved to 
the Convention by allowing any of the standing com¬ 
mittees, whose reports had not been acted upon, to 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


withdraw them and perfect them still further by what¬ 
ever light they may since have acquired. 

The I’esolution was then disagreed to. 

On motion of Mr. BLICKENSDERFER, the Con¬ 
vention resolved itself into a committee of the Whole, 
Mr. Green, of Ross, in the chair. 

The business in oi’der, being the report of tho com¬ 
mittee on the .Judiciary. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, moved that the order be 
passed, on account of the illness of Judge Kennon, the 
chairman of the committee that made the report, and 
the absence of other members of said committee. He 
hoped that under the circumstances it would be deem¬ 
ed consistent for the Convention to allow the report to 
go back to the standing committee, as there were cer¬ 
tain modifications which might be made, which would 
remove certain of the objectionable features of the 
report. 

Mr. REEMELIN hoped that this course would not 
be permitted. Most of the principles of the report up¬ 
on which disagreements have occurred have already 
been passed over, and he hoped that the Convention 
would proceed to go through with the report in com¬ 
mittee of the WTiole, when it could be referred back to 
the standing committee. If gentlemen do not desire 
to discuss the provisions of the report, at present, they 
can pass it through in silence, and let it go the standing 
committee, in the usual manner. 

Mr. RANNEY did not seriously object to the propo¬ 
sition of the gentleman from Warren, [Mr. Smith,] but 
thought the one advocated, by the gentleman from 
Harnilton [Mr. Reemelin,] to be preferable. He did 
not like the idea of proceeding irregularly in the.busi¬ 
ness of the Convention, on account of the absence of 
members. It is their duty to be present. He hoped 
the practice would be different nowf, from what it was 
during the summer session, and he hoped that in future 
calls of the Convention, no member would move or 
vote for dispensing with the rule requiring their names 
to be entered on the journal, and that stringent meas¬ 
ures would be taken to compel the attendance of de¬ 
linquents. He moved that the committee rise and re¬ 
port. Lost. 

The question being on passing the order, a division 
was called for, and the vote stood, yeas 54, nays not 
counted. So the order was passed. 

The committee then proceeded to the consideration 
of the report of the committee on Apportionment, 
which was read. 

Sec. 1. The apportionment of this State shall be made every 
ten years, after the year 1851, in the following manner: The 
whole population of the State as ascertained every ten years, by 
the federal census, or in such other mode as the Legislature may 
direct, shall forever be divided by the number one hundred, and 
the quotient shall be the ratio in the House of Representatives, for 
the ten years next ensuing from such apportionment. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to amend the foregoing sec¬ 
tion by striking out, in the first line, the word “ ten,” 
and inserting the word ” five,” in the place thereof. 

Mr. REEMELIN said that he made this motion for 
the purpose of testing the sense of the Committee upon 
this and the other questions which were necessarily 
connected with it. If it should be agreed to, it would 
be necessary, in another part, so to amend the report 
as to provide for the taking of a census under the au¬ 
thority of the State, in the times intermediate between 
the periods of the federal enumeration. He believed 
such a census would be useful in more respects than 
one, as it might be employed in such a manner as to 
collect other intelligence than that supplied by the na¬ 
tional one. He believed that the apportionment of the 
State, upon the basis of an enumeration made only once 
in ten years, would be productive of serious injustice 
to certain portions of the State, for many years to come. 
In some sections, the population is increasing with 
great rapidity; others are nearly stationary. In the ra¬ 
pidly growing parts, the population would, even in five 
years, be far in advance of the representation. Take, 
for example, the census of 1840, and apply it to 1845, 


677 


even, and great injustice would accrue. A section of 
the State to which under the census seven representa¬ 
tives would be given, would in five years, if justice 
should be done, be entitled to ten. He thought five 
years as long as it would be practicable to district the 
State, upon the same enumeration. He therefore hoped 
that the amendment would be agreed to. 

Mr. DORSEY hoped the amendment would not pre¬ 
vail. He thought it would strike at the root of the 
principle upon which the system was founded. He was 
aware of the changeful relative character of the popu¬ 
lation of the State—some parts gaining, while others 
lose. But if the gentleman will attentively examine 
the report, he will see that it was framed with a view 
to such a state of things. The system was also con¬ 
structed with reference to biennial sessions of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, with which the gentleman’s proposition 
would materially interfere. 

The question then being upon the amendment, the 
same was disagreed to. 

The second section was then read and passed over 
without amendment. 

Sec. 3. When any county has a fraction above the entire ratio 
so large, that by being multiplied by the number of sessions in 
the decennial period (viz :) five, it will produce an amount suffi¬ 
cient to entitle the county to one or more Representative, as fol¬ 
lows : requiring a whole ratio for the first additional representa¬ 
tive, a ratio of three-fourths for two additional representatives, 
three times the ratio for three, and four times the ratio for 
four additional representatives. Such additional representatives 
shall be apportioned among several sessions of the decennial pe¬ 
riod, as follows: if there be only one additional representative, 
he shall be allotted to the fifth session of the decennial period; if 
there are two, they shall be allotted to the fourth and third ses¬ 
sions, respectively; if three, to the third, second, and first ses¬ 
sions, respectively; if four, to the fourth, third, second, and first 
sessions, respectively. 

Mr. MANON moved so to amend the section as to 
strike out of the fifth line the words, ” a ratio of three- 
fourths,” and insert “ twice the ratio.” 

Mr. MANON said that he was one of the committee 
that made the report. He signed it, and concurred in 
its general principles and provisions. But,this section, 
as it is now fixed, he did not understand. As it is, 
there was nothing that would operate in favor of the 
small counties, for a large county would be as likely to 
be benefitted by its provisions as the small. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD desired to hear from some member 
of the committee, in favor of the provision as it stands, 
on what principle it was so fixed. 

Mr. DORSEY said, if the gentleman from Richland 
[Mr. Kirkwood,] would examine the second section 
of the report, he would see the reason for the provis¬ 
ions of the third, which it was now proposed to strike 
out. It was made for the benefit of the sparsely set¬ 
tled counties of the State. The intention was to make 
provision for fractions of population not otherwise pro¬ 
vided for. 

Mr. MANON insisted that the section as it stands, 
does not benefit the weaker counties. The amend¬ 
ment as offered, effects no principle involved in the re 
port, and merely provides that a full number, instead 
of a fraction, shall be required for the second represen¬ 
tative. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE would like to hear from a 
member of the committee, why a fraction shall in one 
case entitle a constituency to a representation, and in 
anothei’, not. He could see why, for the purpose of 
representation in small counties, a fraction should be 
taken for the first representation, and why, in other 
cases, one full ratio should secure one, and three ratios 
three members; but why one ratio and three-fourths 
should elect two representatives, he could not under¬ 
stand. 

Mr. DORSEY said that if gentlemen would look at 
the report, they would find that every county having 
one-half the ratio, is to have one representative. Sup¬ 
pose the ratio to be twenty thousand, each com ty of 
ten thousand is to have one, each of thirty-five thou¬ 
sand, to have two. If a county have twenty-four thou¬ 
sand, the fraction is to be multiplied by four, the uum- 










678 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


ber of pesaions in the decennial period; it will be seen 
that it is entitled to one representativjp for one session, 
during the period; but if the fracdon is seven thou¬ 
sand, which multiplied by five, make thirty-five thou¬ 
sand, we give the county a fractional representative, in 
consideration of its three-fourths. It makes the rules 
of the two sections, in relation to the full and the frac¬ 
tional members, consistent. The change will defeat 
that object. 

Mr. RANNEY inquired if it was intended to repre¬ 
sent fractions after the first representative had been se¬ 
cured to the county ? 

Mr. DORSEY. Assuredly, upon the genei-al princi¬ 
ples of the report. 

Mr. RANNEY could see no reason why a less num¬ 
ber should be represented, after the first representa¬ 
tive had been secured. 

Mr. HAWKINS desired to pass over this report, and 
take up that on the Legislative Department. The sen¬ 
timents of members in relation to annual and biennial 
sessions, may have changed since the adjournment. If 
we are to have biennial sessions of the General Assem¬ 
bly, this report conforms with that plan. It contem¬ 
plates, to some extent, territorial representation. It is 
doubtless desirable to give to each county one repre¬ 
sentative; afterwards, in order that representatives 
shall not multiply too rapidly, the third one requires 
the full ratio, and the second three-fourths. This ap¬ 
pears to me to be wise and prudent. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD desired an explanation of the gen¬ 
tleman from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins] but the reporter 
was not able to catch his remarks. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, said the provisions were 
wrong and inconsistent with each other. There is no 
good reason why a representative should be given to 
one and three-fourths of a ratio. There may be a rea¬ 
son why a small county should have one representative, 
but beyond this he was not prepared to go. 

The question being on agreeing to the amendments, 
the same was lost, on division; ayes 38, noes 38, a tie 
vote. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to strike out the third sec¬ 
tion of the report. 

Mr. McCORMICK said he did not pretend to under¬ 
stand the third section. The second provides for the 
regulation of representation, and the apportionment of 
the State for that purpose. The third section appears 
to be for some other purpose, and to render the plan 
similar to the old system of floats. One half the ratio 
entitles the county to one representative, one and three 
fourths to two, and three to three; but the third section 
seems not to apply to counties having one-half or two- 
thirds the ratio. By this section, if a county has a pop¬ 
ulation of thirty thousand, she has one constant rejire- 
sentative, and in two out of five sessions, she has one 
additional. He did not understand why, once m two 
or three years, five thousand people should have a rep¬ 
resentative, entitled as such, to all the privileges of a 
member of the General Assembly. In order to increase 
the size of the House, you take all the fractions during 
several years, add them up, and base a representative 
upon them. Such a provision will be productive of 
discord and disturbance in the future as in the past. 

Mr. DORSEY did not think the plan had any analo¬ 
gy to the system of floats. In order not to disfranciiise 
even the smaller fractions, representatives are given, 
to take seats at a fixed time. The excellence of the svs- 
tem is, that more completely than any other, it uses up 
all the fractions. 

Mr. McCORMICK. The only difference between 
this and the old system, is, that in this the floats are 
fixed by the constitution, and in the other by the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly. 

Mr. McCormick asked and obtained leave to with¬ 
draw his motion. 

The fourth, fifth, and sixth sections were read, and 
passed over without amendment. 

Mr. HORTON moved to strike out the 7th section. 


Mr. HORTON desired particularly to call the atten¬ 
tion of the Convention to this section. Its evident in¬ 
tention is to provide a remedy for excessive represen¬ 
tation, but it is not sufficient for that purpose. For 
that reason alone he would have made the motion ; but 
there is another. If you restrict the number of repre¬ 
sentatives representing fractions to twelve, you inter¬ 
fere with every provision of the report, and strike at 
the root of the doctrine that representation should be 
based upon population If this State has ten millions 
of inhabitants, as it doubtless will have in ten years, 
you will be forced to cut down the whole law For 
iiis part he saw no evil in a large legislative body. If 
we have three millions of people, a House of Repre¬ 
sentatives of one hundred and fifty will not be too large; 
if four millions, two hundred. He saw no objection 
to striking out, nor any injury to the other sections of 
the report. 

Mr. DORSEY thought the section would apply a 
remedy to the evil that was apprehended. There can 
be but one hundred regular members, according to the 
system, no matter what the population, for in order to 
ascertain the ratio of representation, you divide the 
whole population of the State by one hundred, the 
number of members. Of course that number cannot 
be exceeded of members representing full ratios — 
The remainder is to be made up of those who repre¬ 
sent fractious, and this rule being operative to reduce 
the number of fractional representatives. The small¬ 
er fractions are stricken off until the proper number 
is arrived at. He did not wish now to debate the 
question of large or small assemblies, but he remem¬ 
bered that in the committee great objections were 
made to a large body. 

The question being on striking out, the same was 
lost, on division: yeas 23,nays 46. 

The eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh sections were 
then passed without amendment. 

Mr. HOLMES moved to transpose the words Rep¬ 
resentatives and Senators,” in the twelfth section, which 
was agreed to. 

The thirteenth and fourteenth sections were passed 
informally. 

On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the committee rose 
and reported. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, the report was re¬ 
committed to the standing committee on Apportion¬ 
ment. 

Mr. CHAMBERS offered for adoption the following 
resolution, which was agreed to : 

Resolved, That a committee of five members be appointed to 
consult and inquire as to the practicability and cost ol improving 
this hall for the purposes e of debate, and to enable members to 
transact business with more facility, and that they report to the 
Convention as early as practicable. 

Mr. CHAMBERS obtained leave to be excused from 
serving on the committee. 

The PRESIDENT announced Messrs. Holmes, Ben¬ 
nett, Dorsey and Worthington. 

Mr. SAWYER asked and obtained leave of absence. 

The PRESIDENT announced to the Convention the 
resignation of John Carrolton, the Sergeant-at-Arins 
of the Convention. 

On motion of Mr. HOLMES, the said resignation was 
accepted by the Convention. 

Mr. MANON offered for adoption the following res¬ 
olution, which was agreed to: 

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed with power to 
inquire whether there are any officers of the Convention which 
may be dispensed with, and that a retrenchment in the expenses 
of tfie Convention may be ellected. 

The PRESIDENT announced the appointment of 
the following gentlemen as members of the standing 
committees, in the place of members who have resign¬ 
ed their seats in this Convention, viz: 

Hon. James G. Worthington, to the committee on 
Apportionment, in the place of Hon. Wesley Ci ay- 
pool,^ resigned ; Hon. Elsy Wilson, to the committee 
on Finance and Taxation, in the place of Leandkr 













CONVENTION REPOETS, 


679 


Firestone, Esq., resigned; Hon. Rouert Chaney, to 
the committee on the Elective Fi'anchise, in the place 
of D. A. Robertson, Esq., resigned. 

The Coiiveutiou then look a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. HAWKINS, from the committee on Printing, 
submitted the following report; 

The committee appointed on the subject of trans¬ 
mitting to the office of the printer of the Convention 
the matter required to be printed, respectfully report: 

That the law relating to the duty of the reporter and 
the authority conferred upon that officer by this Con¬ 
vention would seem to authorize him to do all that may 
be necessary in order to ensure a prompt and safe 
transmission to the office of the printer of all matter 
to be printed. In order, however, that the reporter 
may have no doubts respecting his authority to incur 
the necessary expense, the committee submit the fol¬ 
lowing : 


liesolved, That the Reporter to this Convention be and he is 
hereby authorized to contract for the daily transmission of all 
matter necessary to be printed to the office of the printer, and to 
pay thereof a sum not exceeding twenty-five cents daily for ta¬ 
king to, and a like sum for bringing from Columbus. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. ROLL moved that the Convention adjourn, and 
stated that it was desirable to have some additional car¬ 
penters’ woik done in the Hall. He also stated that it 
was necesrary for this evening that the tables should 
be removed in time for the lecture of Cassius M. Clay, 
to be delivered in the Convention Hall. 


Mr. BARNET, of Montgomery, remarked that if the 
business hours of the Convention were hereafter to 


be broken in upon, he should most certainly move to 
procure another hall. 

Mr. RIDDLE explained, that hereafter no incon¬ 
venience would be felt, and that there would be no de¬ 
lay in the public business, on account of the Hall be¬ 
ing needed for other purposes. 

The yeas and nays being demanded, the same were 
ordered and resulted, yeas 43, nays 33, as follows: i 


Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Bennett, Case of Hocking, 
Chaney, Dorsey, Farr, Florence, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Hamilton, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Jonson, Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Or¬ 
ton, Kiddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith, of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Stidger, Struble, Townshend, Vance ot 
Butler, Vance of Champaign, Mr. President—43. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Blair, 
Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case of Licking, Ewing, Forbes, Gregff, 
Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hunter, Loudon, Manon, Morris, 
Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Scott of 
Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stilwell, Stickney, Taylor, 
Thompson of Stark, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington 
—33. 


So the motion prevailed and the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


WEDNESDAY, December 4, 1850. 

The Convention met, pursuant to adjournment, Mr. 
Vance, of Butler, in the chair. 

Mr. VANCE staled that the President, in conse¬ 
quence of illness, would not be present this day. 

Player by the Rev. Dr. Brooke. 

Mr. STIDGER presented a petition from .Joseph 
Stewart, Isaac Greer, and fifty others, citizens of Stark 
county, against authorizing the sale of intoxicating 
drinks. 

Mr. MANON, a petition from Mary Smith, and one 
hundred and seventy-two other female citizens of Lick¬ 
ing county, on the same subject. 

Said petitions were referred. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, from the standing committee on 
Privileges and Electi( ns, to which w'as referred the 
certificates of John Chaney and Elzy Wilson, repor¬ 
ted that the committee found the said gentlemen duly 
elected. 

Mr. LEADBETTER offered the following resolu¬ 
tion; 


Resolved, That Mr. Henry Okeybe appointed Sergeant-at-Arms 
for this Convention, and that the vacancy occasioned by his ad¬ 
vancement lo that post be unfilled for the present. 

Mr. MANON moved that the resolution be referred 
to the committee appointed yesterday on the subject 
of Retrenchment. 

Mr. MORRIS moved that the same be laid on the ta¬ 
ble ; which was disagreed to. 

The motion to refer was then disagreed to. 

The resolution was then agreed co. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention then 
resolved itself into a committee of the Whole, Mr. 
Archbold in the Chair. 

Mr. LOUDON moved that the report of the commit¬ 
tee on Finance and Taxation, which was the first in 
order, be laid over informally, in consequence of the 
absence of certain members of the standing commit¬ 
tee that reported the same, which was agreed to. 

Mr. BARBEE hoped the report would be passed for 
the present. One member of the committee was ab¬ 
sent at the lime it was compiled ; another has been ap¬ 
pointed since it was brought in. 

The question on passing the report was agreed to— 
yeas 42, nays not counted. 

The committee then took up the first report of the 
standing committee on the Elective Franchise. 

Mr. CHANEY said that he stood in a situation some¬ 
what peculiar in relation to this bill. He had been ap¬ 
pointed upon the committee that reported it, since the 
report was made. He did not view himself as chair¬ 
man of that committee, as was his predecessor. He 
thought it the duty of the committee, under the cir¬ 
cumstances, to appoint its chairman. He had had no 
communication with Mr. Robertson upon the subject 
of the report, and had never read it, nor seen any of 
the documents upon which it was based. He felt, 
therefore, under the necessity of asking the committee 
to pass this order, unless some other member of the 
Standing Committee would content to take charge of 
it. 

Mr. HAWKINS said it was necessary for the Con¬ 
vention to proceed to the performance of some of its 
duties. The report had been satisfactory to a majority 
of the commi'tee, and probably was so to a majority of 
the Convention. He thought there would be but little 
discussion upon it. However, if the gentleman from 
Faiifitild had any especial object in passing the report, 
he would go for it, as he was disposed to accommodate 
him. / 

Mr. CHANEY had no particular object. He was on¬ 
ly anxious to act understandingly. If the Convention 
was pleased to proceed, he would not object. 

Sec. 1. Every white male citizen ot the United States, of the 
age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of the 
State, for one year preceding the Election, and of the county, 
township, or ward in which he resides, such time as may be pro¬ 
vided by law, shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are 
now, or may be hereafter authorized by law. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to strike out in the first 
line, the word “white.” 

Mr. WOODBURY did not propose now to make any 
remarks upon the subject; but at some future time, 
when there should be an opportunity to call the yeas 
and nays upon the question, he should take occasion 
to deliver his sentiments upon the principle involved 
in the amendment he now proposed. He thought it 
would be better for all parties and for every citizen, 
that the word “ white ” should be stricken out The 
exclusion of the ccilored population from all participa¬ 
tion in that government which they are forced to aid 
in supporting, and to which they are responsible, has a 
tendency to render them dissatisfied. So long as they 
are obliged to submit to the laws, it would seem that 
they had a right to participate in the government, and 
that they would become better citizens for being per¬ 
mitted to do so. . 

Mr. HAWKINS thought that if the amendment had 
been as extensive as he desired he would vote for it. 
He moved as an amendment to the amendment,that the 
word “ male” be stricken out. 














680 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. NASH desired to inquire of tlie gentleman from 
Morgan [Mr. Hawkins] what is to be the legal con¬ 
struction of the amendment when it shall be adopted. 
Who will be entitled to vote ? 

Mr. HAWKINS thought this a very remarkable in¬ 
quiry, coming from a legal gentleman. The section 
as amended will mean what it declares: all citizens 
will be entitled to vote. It cannot mean any thing 
else. 

The question being on the amendment to the amend¬ 
ment, the same was agreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment as 
amended, the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. SMITH,cf Warren, moved to amend the second 
line, by adding the word “next” between the words 
“ year ” and “preceding,” which was agreed to 

Mr. MANON moved to amend the second line, by 
striking out the words “ one year,” and inserting the 
words “six months;” which was disagreed to: yeas 20, 
nays not counted. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, presented an amendment, 
to come in after the word “ law,” in the fourth line, as 
follows: “who have paid a State, county, township, or 
ward tax, or who shall have been charged with the 
same.” 

Mr. BARNETT said that, in his opinion,the j)rovision8 
to the effect of the proposed amendment, contained in 
the old Constitution, had been found by experience to 
be a good and wholesome measure. He thought that 
no person who contributed nothing in support of the 
government, should be allowed to partake in its pow¬ 
ers. It will be found that the section in the present 
Constitution does not exclude from the elective fran¬ 
chise those who perform labor upon the public roads. 
Now, it is evident that if a man is not charged with a 
tax, it must be because he has no property; but any 
and every man can labor on the highway. If he refu¬ 
ses, it is evidence that he is not willing to contribute 
to the cost of government, and not worthy to partici¬ 
pate in its powers. The principle has been found to 
work well, and he wms not willing to make an inno¬ 
vation. 

Mr. MANON hoped the amendment would not pre¬ 
vail. He could cite instances where it would be pro¬ 
ductive of great abuse. In the case of old men and 
many of whom had performed important services to 
their counts y, but who have no property^ on which to 
pay taxes, and are past the age of labor on the high¬ 
ways, such men, anxious still to take a part in public 
affairs, ought not to be disfranchised. 

Mr. BARNETT denied that such a construction had 
not been given to the present Constitution as to deprive 
such men of their franchises. 

Mr. SAWYER was opposed to property qualifications 
of any kind. He thought it was the man, and not the 
property, that gives the right—the man and not the 
ass. 

Mr. MANON thought we might not always have the 
gentleman from Preble present to expound the law 
upon this doubtful point. 

Mr. CHANEY said there was a class of old men, 
coming late in life to reside, with their children, per¬ 
haps, in the State, who would be excluded by this pol¬ 
icy, and upon which its operation would be very severe 
and unjust. Many of them have no taxable property, 
and they are released from labor on the roads by their 
age; yet they are vvorthy citizens, and many of them 
have performed services for their country. 

Mr. BARNETT, on leave, withdrew his inotion. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Stark, moved to strike out from 
the first line the words “ United States,” and insert the 
words “ this State.” 

Mr. RE EMELIN said that this motion brings up a 
question which he had, at some time, intended to pre¬ 
sent to this Convention. He had had his doubts all 
along, whether we are not permitting ourselves to be 
trapped, by surrendering to the United States an attri¬ 
bute of sovereignty which the Constitution of the Uni¬ 


ted States had left to be enjoyed by the individual 
members of the Union. He desired that we should 
endeavor to define the difference between a citizen of 
the United States, and a citizen of this State. We 
should preserve the power to settle who is a citizen 
and elector of our own State. He did not suppose 
that at this moment the minds of memioers are ready 
to take hold and discuss this subject at present; but at 
a proper time he should desire to be heard upon it. 

The question being on the amendment, the same was 
disagreed to. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to amend, in the fourth 
line, by adding, after the word “ law,” the words “ or 
any person of twenty-one years, who shall be charged 
with a State or county tax.*’ 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to amend the amendment, 
by adding, before the word “person,” the word “such;” 
which was agreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment as amen¬ 
ded, the same was lost. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend by stinking from the 
third and fourth lines the words from the word “ elec¬ 
tion,” to the word “ laws,” and inserting “ and who is 
a bona fide resident of the township or ward in which 
he offers to vote at the time of the election.” 

Mr. RANNEY said that the words proposed to be 
stricken out are different from those in the present 
constitution of the State; and he could see no reason 
why the elective franchise should be so placed as to be 
varied to suit the caprices and changes of opinion of 
the General Assembly. A man. through poverty or 
otherwise may be so circumstanced as to be obliged to 
remove from one township to another in the same 
county, every year; and it is, under this section, in the 
power of the General Assembly so to fix the law as to 
deprive him of his vote for a long series of years, and 
one may entirely lose a previously acquired franchise. 
He was content that persons removing from other States 
into our own, should undergo a probation of one year, 
to acquire a knowledge of our laws and institutions; 
but he did not believe that on a mere removal from one 
county to anotlier, any such probation is necessary or 
advisable. He wanted to leave it where the old con¬ 
stitution leaves it. 

Mr. HAWKINS did not know but that it would be 
well enough to leave something to the discretion of the 
General Assembly. If it be necessary occasionally to 
have its aid in suppressing abuses—perhaps new ones. 
There have been some already. There has been such 
a thing as pipe-laying in some counties, and that to a 
very considerable extent. Politicians know how to 
distribute the f)olitical force of a section of the State, 
in such a manner as to produce the desired effect. A 
farmer in one county may have a large crop of broom 
corn. By means of importing a large number of la¬ 
borers from another county, he may so contrive as to 
control the election of both. Such men may, with a 
loose rule, be considered citizens of the county in which 
they vote. Different constructions have been given to 
the law, in diff'erenl precincts. In one, the place of a 
man’s residence has been decided to be, the place 
where his washing was done ; in another, where he 
takes his food ; in a third, the place where his wfife re¬ 
sides. So many different interpretations have - been 
given, that, in his opinion, a little discretion should be 
left to the General Assembly, to supply any defect that 
may be discovered in our legislation. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, was opposed to the amend¬ 
ment. He was content with the provision as it stands. 
He would give his reason for his opposition, by stating 
a case that came under his own observation. He was 
a resident of a town through which the Ohio Canal 
passes. Every year, the mere transient, homeless, 
hands of canal boats were allowed by the trustees to 
come to the polls and vote on the day of election; and 
it had become the practice to accumulate a large num¬ 
ber of boats to come in for the purpose of allowing the 
hands to control the election. He hoped the section 







CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


681 


would be allowed to stand, and that at least some time 
of actual residence will be required. It is only in this 
way that the corruption and fraud for years practiced 
can be suppressed. It must be evident that the crew 
of a canal boat, who have no home', and who are per¬ 
fectly transient, ought not to have the right to go from 
place to place and decide who shall be the local officers 
of the State. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND moved to amend the amend¬ 
ment, by substituting “ actually ” in the place of hona 
fide; which was agreed to. 

Ail'. TOWNSHEND moved further to amend the 
amendment, by striking out the word “ is,” and insert¬ 
ing in the place thereof, the words, “ shall have been.” 

Mr. RANNEY was not tenacious about the form, 
though he liked his own the best. He was only anx¬ 
ious to guard the elective franchise. It was profjosed 
here, to leave every thing to the General Assembly. It 
may be that that body will require, at one period, a 
longer time, and at another a shorter; and we shall be 
in a constant state of incertitude and fluctuation. To 
this he was opposed. He had seen no difficulty under 
the present constitution. The gentleman from Licking 
[Mr. Case,] may have done so. 

The question being on the amendment to the amend¬ 
ment, was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the 
amendment; 

Mr, TAYLOR demanded a division of the question. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend the amendment by 
inserting a requirement of twenty days residence in 
the county, &c., previous to the election, which was 
agreed to. 

Mr. NASH wished to inquire of the gentleman from 
Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] the object of the insertion 
of such a provision in the constitution. The present 
constitution leaves the question when and where to 
vote, to the General Assembly. If we were providing 
only for members of the Legislature we might settle 
the question, but the city and ward elections would 
seem to require another rule. This amendment will 
act on persons moving from one township or ward to 
another, and will, in this city, effect the interests of a 
large number of persons every year. The report, in 
his opinion, was right, and that it ought to be left to 
the Legislature to adapt measures to suit the various 
classes of citizens in the State. The same rule cannot 
well apply in all cases, and it ought to be left where it 
was, and where it has produced no inconvenience. 

Mr. RANNEY desired only to narrow down the rule 
of the constitution by making it applicable to residents 
of townships. The committee had seen fit to adopt 
an amendment requiring a residence of twenty days. 
He did not see the force of the gentleman from Gallia’s 
[Mr. Nash] reasons in regard to residents in cities. It 
was there especially, that he desired to guard against 
frauds. 

Mr. LARSH hoped that the motion to strike out 
would prevail; but he could not consent to vote for the 
amendment as it now stands. A man may find it ne¬ 
cessary to move every year. If he removes on the 
first of April, as is usually the case in cities, he might 
reside fifteen or twenty years in the same city,'and yet 
never be allowed to vote at any spring election. He 
could not see why the existence of an occasional’fraud 
should be made the pretext for the perpetration of a 
constant fraud upon a large number of‘citizensr’ 

Mr. MANON said that as the amendment had been 
amended so that he could not vote for it he should op¬ 
pose the striking out. 

Mr. MASON begged to suggest to the mover of the 
amendment, [Mr. Ranney,] the propriety of so amen¬ 
ding his amendment as to make a distinction between 
county elections, and those of townships and wards 
merely. The county elections are the important po¬ 
litical events of the State. At them are elected the 
Governor, members of Congress and of the General 
Assembly. Reasons applicable to them may not be so 


to others, or in a less degree. As to the question of 
residence in order to vote in townshi[)S or wards he 
was not particular, and would only, perhaps, require 
an actual residence on the day of election; but the 
county is a unit, and whether a man vote in one town¬ 
ship or another is no material matter. The constitution 
should define what is a residence in a county. The 
Legislature ought to know thatithasnothingto do with 
it. In regard to the smaller divisions, he was willing 
to leave it to the General Assembly; and when called 
upon to vote upon the proposition, as a whole, he de¬ 
sired to do it unembarrassed. 

Mr. MASON moved to strike from the amendment, 
the word county. 

Mr. RANNEY was not tenacious. He only desired 
that the constitution should define the elective fran¬ 
chise, and hoped that the Convention was not about to 
leave rights so important to be sought for in the acts 
of the General Assembly. 

Mr. CHANEY. If I understand the proposition of 
the gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason] he would re¬ 
quire a residence of one year previous to voting at any 
county election. I cannot vote for such a proposition. 

Mr. LARWILL was in favor of striking out the word 
” county,” in the hope that the matter might be fixed 
in the constitution. By that instrument, a citizen 
ought to be able to ascertain what are his rights. The 
people expect that we shall determine that question in 
the constitution He did not feel tenacious as to the 
length of residence required, but hoped that some time 
would be fixed, and that it would not be left to the 
General Assembly. 

Mr. DORSEY was opposed to the suggestion of the 
gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] in regard to a 
residence of a year in the county. He was also oppos¬ 
ed to limiting any particular time for a residence in 
townships or wards. He was willing to provide that 
no man should vole who was not a resident in the town¬ 
ship or ward in which he offers to vote, but would fix 
no time for the length of such residence. It would be 
productive of great inconvenience. We have a large 
population on the canals of our State, who reside only 
upon boats: and which would be the greater wrong— 
to allow them to vote where they are, or to disfran¬ 
chise them altogether? 

Mr. RANNEY. In what county would you allow 
such a citizen to vote ? 

Mr. DORSEY. In the. county where he is on the 
day of election. 

Mr. RANNEY. This would not do in a close town¬ 
ship or county. Would the gentleman permit him, un¬ 
der such circumstances, to vote where he might choose 
to be ? 

Mr. DORSEY. I am aware of the abuse ; but to de¬ 
prive men of their rights is a greater abuse. 

Mr. RANNEY. What propriety is there in such a 
man voting for town or county officers ? 

Mr. DORSEY. He must "have a residence some¬ 
where ; and where it is, he should have the right to 
vote. But 1 would not bind him to reside anywhere 
as a matter of necessity for that purpose. It is equal 
to saying that he shall not vote at all. 

■ The 'question being on striking out,- was lost on divis¬ 
ion; yeas 22, noys 50. 

Sections second and third were passed without 
amendment. ' ' 

Mr. MANON moved to strike out the fourth section; 
which was disagreed to. 

Secrions fourth, fifth, and sixth were passed without 
amendment. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the committeerose and 
reported. 

And the Convention took a recess. 

3 o’clock, p. m. * 

The PRESIDENT pro tern, [Mr. Vance of Butler] 
remarked that when the Convention took a recess it 
had under consideration the report of the committee on 


/ 









682 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the Elective Franchise, the pending question being up¬ 
on the motion to lay the same on the table, which was 
agreed to. 

On motion, a call of the Convention was ordered, and 
eighty-one members answered to their names. 

The absentees were e.xcnsed, and all further proceed¬ 
ings under the call were dispensed with. 

On motion of Mr. REE ME LIN, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Hor¬ 
ton in the chair, and proceeded to the consideration 
of the report of the standing committee on Education. 

The first section is as follows: 

The General Assembly shall provide for the election by the 
people, of a superintendent of common schools, v»^hose term of 
office, duties and compensation, shall be prescribed by law ; and 
shall provide for the election or appointment of such assistants, 
or other officers, as may be found necessary; prescribe their du¬ 
ty. term of office, and compensation. 

This section was adopted unanimously, and without 
amendment. 

The second section was then read: 

The General Assembly shall encourage, by suitable means, the 
promotion of moral, intellectual, scientific, and agidcultural im¬ 
provement. 

The proceeds of the sales of all lands that have been, or may 
hereafb r be granted by the United States for educational purposes, 
and all lands or other property given by individuals for educa¬ 
tional pui-poses, and all lands or other property given by individ¬ 
uals for like purposes, together with the surplus revenue deposi¬ 
ted with t-.iis State by the United States (until reclaimed) shall 
be, and forever remain, a permanent and irreducible fund ; the 
interest and income therefrom, shall be faith lully applied to the 
specific objects of the original grant, gift or appropriation, 

Mr. STIDGER. I will remark that it was intended 
to provide proceeds of the several funds named 

in the report just read, should be applied for educa¬ 
tional purposes—not the funds themselves. 

Mr. SAWYER. I move to strike out the first para¬ 
graph of this section. It is this “ The General Assem¬ 
bly shall encourage, by suitable means, the promotion 
of moral, intellectual, scientific and agricultural im¬ 
provement.” I do this sir, in order to elicit from the 
chairman [Mr. Stidgek] of the committee on Educa¬ 
tion, an explanation of the intention of the committee 
in embodying this exceedingly broad and comprehen¬ 
sive sentence in their report. There may be more in 
those words than strikes the eye at first sight. The 
expression seems to me vague and too general in its 
character. We had better leave “ the encouragement 
of science and agriculture” to the Legislature. I can¬ 
not quite conceive what connection the subject of ag¬ 
riculture has with that of popular Education. 

Mr. STIDGER. If we should leave every thing to 
the Legislature, why not adjourn this Convention sine 
die, at once ? But the gentleman from Auglaize can¬ 
not see what connection the subject of Agriculture has 
with that of Education. I would remark, in the words 
of the distinguished lecturer of last evening [Cassius 
M. Clay] that this is an age of progress, and that it is 
a feature of the century in which we live that science 
has come to the aid of the agriculturlist and that it 
has become almost as necessary to the farmer to un¬ 
derstand the principles of chemistry as fo possess mus¬ 
cular strength to sow and reap. I would also remark 
to the gentleman from Auglaize that in other parts of 
the State, Agriculture means something more than the 
raising hoop poles. [Laughter.] 

Mr. QUIGLEY. It was the earnest purpose of the 
committee to report an article full in all its parts, and 
commensurate with the advanced position of society. 
Agricultural progress and good morals are intimately 
connected with the subject of Education. A knowl 
edge of Chemistry and Geology, for instance, are ne¬ 
cessary to the agriculturist. 

Mr REE ME LIN. I should myself have risen and 
moved to strike out the senter ce now in debate, but I 
had almost come to the conclusion that this Conven¬ 
tion would never close its labors, and, therefore, that 
all efforts to amend the Constitution would be wasted. 

But, sir, the first sentence of this section is entirely 
too comprehensive ill its character; it needs definite¬ 


ness and restriction. If we adopt it as a part of the 

new constitution, the Legislature will, under its gen¬ 
eral terms, have all power to do every thing within 
the range of Government. There is entirely too much 
power granted in the words, “ The General Assembly 
shall encourage, by suitable means, the promotion of 
moral, intellectual, scientific and agricultural improve 
ment,” and I shall vote to strike them from the section. 

The question being upon the motion to shake out 
the first sentence of the section, the same was disa- 

^^TTmffiird section was then taken up, and is as fol- 

3 The General Assembly shall make such provision, by 
taxation and Sr means, (in addition to the income arising: trom 
the irreducible fund,) as will secure a thorough and efficient sys- 
lem orSmmon Sehiols, free to all the children m the S ate 

Mr. SAWYER. I move to insert the woid white 
between the word “all” and the word “the an that 
the section will provide for the education of all the 
white children in the State. That is the 
children in the State of Ohio for whose education lam 
willing to make provision in this coiistitulion. - 

Mr. TAYLOR. I confess, sir, that 1 am suipiised. I 
did not expect that a motion of this kind 
made by any gentleman on this floor. I did not, on the 
other hmid,‘suppo.se that any Proposition to exte^ the 
political rights of the colored citizens of Ohio would 
be adopted; but I had supposed that a knowled e of 
the law of self-preservation would have suggested to 
the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] and to 
every gentleman upon the floor, that it would be go 
policy to give to all within the reach of our laws a 
good^moral and intellectual training. I knew that this 
Convention was not prepared to increase the political 
rights of the black man ; but I had hoped that all were 

willing to provide against his becoming the pes o so¬ 
ciety, bv hems deprived of all opportunities tor educa¬ 
tion. Shall we not secure protection to ourselves and 
our children, by relieving the colored popu ation o 
.Ohio from the absolute necessity of growing up m vme 
and ignorance? Shall we, by the adoption o e 
amendment of the gentleman from Auglaize, constitute 
a class who will become the inmates of out poor- ous- 
es, and the tenants of our jails? I think it must be 
clear to every reflecting mind, that the true po icy o 
the statesman is to provide the means of education, and 
consequent moral improvement, to every child in the 
State, the offspring of the black man equally with tha 
of the white man—the children of the poor equally 
with the rich. But I am told that the Negro belongs 
to a degraded and inferior race. So much the more 
reason, sir, for their education and improvement. Leave 
them to grow up without moral and intellectual train¬ 
ing, and they become a positive curse as well as a bur¬ 
then upon society. Educate them, and they become 
useful members of the community that has caied tor 
them. 

I repeat, that I had not heard that we were positive¬ 
ly to retrograde in this matter, by commencing a sys¬ 
tem of persecution upon the colored population of the 
State, already, one would think, sufficiently unfoiti> 
nate. I beg gentlemen to be consistent in^ this regard 
—let them proclaim their real designs;—il the black 
man is to be driven across our borders at the point of 

the bayonet, let them say so. r v,- n 

I believe that a majority of the members of this Uon- 
vention are not prepared to deny to our colored popu¬ 
lation all opportunities for moral and intellectual train¬ 
ing for the duties of life, although they may not be wil¬ 
ling to extend to that class the right to exercise the 
elective iranchise. Education will tend to make men 
moral and useful members of society, therefore^ let us 
provide for the education of every.child in the State. 

Mr. SAWYER. I have but a few words to say, sir, 
upon this subject. I am sure that I would go quite as 
far as the gentleman from Erie [Mr. Taylor] to do 
pistice to the negro race. When he hears my views 
upon the subject, he may find that we do not differ very 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 683 


widely. Under our present laws, the negro is not tax¬ 
ed for the support of schools to which his children are 
denied admittance. True, the negro is taxed for school 
purposes, but it is exclusively for the benefit of his own 
children, when he desires it should be thus apj)lied. 
There is, therefore, no injustice, no inhumanity, if gen¬ 
tlemen choose to place the matter upon that ground. 
And, sir, I am willing to extend to the negro the same 
exemption from taxation for the support of white 
schools, for all lime to come. But, sir, while I will 
oppose any measure for the oppression of the blacks 
now in the State, I will as strenuously oppose every 
proposition which, in its practical efi'ect, will tend to 
encourage the emigration of blacks into the State. 
And, sir, while I would desire to injure the feelings of 
no gentleman who holds sentiments opposite to my 
own, I must say that I rejoice in the passage of the 
fugitive slave bill: for I believe it will have the effect 
to rid the free States of the curse of a negro popula 
tion, intermixed with the whites. Nor shall I be de¬ 
terred from frankly expressing this opinion of the me¬ 
rits and policy of that measure, because it originated 
with a whig administration, and has received the em¬ 
phatic sanction of a whig President. I rejoice at the 
passage of this bill, because, in the main, it is just,— 
there may be some wrong features that need repealing 
—but the general scope and tendency of the law is 
salutary and politic—it met the exigencies of the times. 
It has already had the effect to drive thousands of ne¬ 
groes and mulattos into Canada. And I must also re¬ 
joice in the fact that the people of those provinces are 
becoming alarmed at the influx of blacks, which, to 
quote an expression of one of their newspapers, “ is 
gathering over them like a dark cloud.” And why do 
I exult at what they are beginning to consider as their 
misfortune? Because, sir, for years they have been 
inviting this emigration—because they have been en¬ 
couraging the slaves of the South to desert their mas¬ 
ters, not, as I believe, from any love to the blacks, but 
from a desire to create agitation and disturbance in this 
republic. This they have effected too well. The na¬ 
tion is now shaken from centre to circumference by 
the violent agitation of the question of slavery. 

The people of Canada are now reaping the bitter 
fruits of the seed sown by themselves. They are now 
overrun with an impoverished, if not a vicious, negro 
population. And because the fugitive slave bill has 
had the effect, in so great a measure, to rid us of the 
negroes which were every where a pest in society, and 
has accumulated them upon the soil of Canada, I re¬ 
joice in its passage. 

Mr. President, while I sit here, to assist in framing a 
constitution for the people of Ohio, I must look first, to 
the interests of the white race. With this view, I will 
not encourage the emigration of blacks into this State, 
nor will I make it so much to the interest of that class 
to remain here, that there will be no disposition for 
them to emigrate to Liberia. And, in this I am actua¬ 
ted by no hatred of the negro race—no desire to op¬ 
press them. I have declared before, and I repeat it 
now, that I am willing that the negro shall have every 
privilege and every right that I myself enjoy. I am 
willing that he shall vote ; I am willing that he shall 
be a justice of the peace, or governor, a judge, or a mem¬ 
ber of Congress. Aye, sir, I am willing that he shall 
be President of a Republic. I am willing that the 
language of our sublime Declaration of Independence, 
shall apply to the negro as well and as fully as to my¬ 
self. But, sir, I am unwilling that he shall enjoy these 
privileges in this country, pre-occupied as it is, by a dif¬ 
ferent and a higher race, lam willing that he shall 
enjoy all these rights and privileges in his native coun¬ 
try. Is there anything either unjust or inhumane in 
this? 

To illustrate mj meaning, let me give a homely but 
an appropriate anecdote. 

Two travelers journeying through a western State, 
stopped at a country tavern for dinner. Amongst the 


dishes served up on the occasion, was a plate of butter 
rather in the “melting mood,” and half composed of 
drowned flies. One of the travelers called the hostess 
and politely requested her to serve the flies on one plate 
and the butler on a separate dish, leaving him to mix 
them in proportions to suit himself. [Laughter.] So, 
with the negroes, I want them separate from the whites 
—for my own part, white society is good enoush for 
me—those who prefer companionship with Alricans 
might go where they are. 

I shall insist upon protecting the negro in the enjoy¬ 
ment of all the rights now guarantied to him by the 
laws of Ohio, fn this I will go as fur as the gentle¬ 
man from Erie, [Mr. Taylor,] but, at the same time, I 
declare my unalterable resolution to hold out no in¬ 
ducements to their farther emigration into the State, 
Virginia and Kentucky have passed stringent laws, ma¬ 
king it a criminal offence for free negroes to remain in 
those States. The effect of this is to drive aU the old, 
worn out, broken down slaves into the free States for 
support, after they have ceased to be productive prop¬ 
erty. This they shall not do with impunity, if I can 
help it. If slavery is a blessing, let them have the 
whole of it. If they will eat the meat let them pick 
the bones. 

One other remark, and I will take my seat. If you 
will look at the statistics furnished by the recent cen¬ 
sus, you will find that in those counties of this State 
where abolitionism or free soil ism predominates, there 
are the fewest negroes. It is in the southern counties, 
bordering on Kentucky, where there is the largest pro¬ 
portion of negroes and mulattoes; and th'*se counties 
are the least friendly to provisions for the encourage¬ 
ment of their emigration or remaining in the State. 
Either the negroes do not know their friends, or else 
they will not go to them. ^ _ 

I hope that the word “ white ” will be inserted m 
this section, so that it will provide for the education of 
“all white children.” . 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. I did not rise, Mr. Chairman, 
to reply to the remarks of the gentleman from Auglaize, 
on the Fugitive Slave Bill. I don’t see what that bill 
has to do with Common Schools in Ohio; but, sir, as 
that gentleman has kindly given us his opinion,^ I \yill 
just take the opportunity to give mine, which is, that 
the Fugitive Law, in all its distinctive features, is ut¬ 
terly and teetntally damnable. 

But I rose, Mr. Chairman, to correct one or two mis¬ 
takes into which that gentleman has unfortunatedy 
fallen The first relates to the feelings with which the 
people of Canada regard the fugitives who escape from 
ahis country. I do not believe that the people there 
ere alarmed at the “black cloud of fugitives that 
tomes up from the States. On the contrary, I know 
that they treat them with great humanity, furnishing 
them with food, clothing and employment. But, sir, 
Canadians feel,and have a right to feel 

contempt for the government and people that, in spite 

of the loudest pretensions to freedom and justite, nev¬ 
ertheless drives a portion of the humaii J. . 
refuge under the protection of monarchical mstitut ons. 
The gentleman alluded to the temper 
pers.^ I think, sir, I have seen the paper to 'vhich allu¬ 
sion was made; and, if I am correctly informecl, the 
articles ore not written by any 

Great Britain, but by a negro hunter fioin the United 

^ Another mistake which I "''ob to correct, is the as¬ 
sertion that the property of negro m“'atto per ons 
is not taxed for school purposes. There was a time, 
sir when in this State colored persons were taxed for 
school purposes and excluded from ‘>'e benefi s of our 
common school system. Subsequently to that, the 
property of colored persons was exempted from such 
taxation. But two years ago, all the existing laws, 
conferring special privileges or imposing 
bilities on such persons, were repealed. The school 
law passed at the same time, taxes all persons aliR©, 








684 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


but provided that in certain cases, colored schools may 
be established separately, and the money raised from 
colored persons in such localities, may all be appropri¬ 
ated to the support of such schools. I know, sir, that 
in the village where I live, the children of colored 
persons are included in the general enumeration, and 
the tax raised from colored persons goes into the same 
fund, and there is not prejudice against color enough to 
make the establishment of colored schools necessai’y. 

The other mistake 1 wish to notice is the assertion of 
the gentleman, that there are, comparatively, no color¬ 
ed persons in the free soil counties, and that therefore, 
all the sympathy felt in those counties, is for a class of 
persons which we, in such counties, don’t have among 
us; and of the evils of whose presence we know noth¬ 
ing. Now, sir, I think it will be conceded that we 
have some free soil men in Lorain, and there, sir, we 
have cjuite a sprinkling of colored persons. I don’t 
pretend to know the exact number, but I should think 
but little, if any, less than one hundred in the village 
where I live, and a still larger number in another vil¬ 
lage but a few miles off. The census of 1840 is in error 
on that subject, possibly because with us we don’t call 
a man black, unless he is absolutely and unequivocally 
80 ; nor a man a mulatto, unless we know enough of 
his pedigree to satisfy us that he is exactly half and half. 
But, sir, we have less prejudice against colored persons, 
not because we don’t know them, but because we do. 
In Lorain county there is a collegiate institution, which 
has, in its several departments, about six hundred stu¬ 
dents, and to all the privileges of that institution, color¬ 
ed youth are admitted as freely as white. And, sir, I 
have attended the commencement exercises of the col¬ 
lege for several years, and I know that the young color¬ 
ed men who have graduated, have stood as high, and 
acqu'tted themselves as well as the other students in 
the same class. This year one colored young lady 
graduated from the ladies’ department, who was se¬ 
cond to none of the ladies that graduated at the same 
time, and the address delivered by her on that occasion, 
would, I think, have done good even to the gentleman 
from Auglaize, could he have heard it. Our sympathy, 
sir, for colored persons does not spring from our igno¬ 
rance of them, but from the conviction that they are 
human beings, and therefore entitled to all the rights, 
and privileges, and sympathies due to humanity, and 
from the conviction that they, equally with other men, 
are susceptible of intellectual and moral elevation. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I wish to call the attention of the 
gentleman Irom Auglaize, to the language of the sec¬ 
tion of the report of the committee on Finance and Tax¬ 
ation. It is as follows: “The Legislature shall pro¬ 
vide by law, a uniform rule of assessment, and taxa¬ 
tion, and shall prescribe such regulations as will secure 
ajust valuation of all property,both real and personal.” 

Another word as to the encomium pronounced on the 
fugitive slave law, by the gentleman. As a State’s 
rights man, he is bound to hold the provisions of that 
bill unconstitutional. In support of this opinion allow 
me to quote a sentence, for the especial benefit of the 
gentleman, [Mr. Sawyer,] from the Cincinnati Enqui¬ 
rer, the organ of the Democratic party in this county, 
if not of southern Ohio. The editor of that paper, 
himself an ex-member of Congress, says that the con¬ 
stitution grants to Congiess no power to legislate upon 
the subject of the reclamation of fugitive slaves; that 
the act of 1793, as well as of 1850 is unauthorized, con¬ 
sequently void and nullity upon the statute book. 

Mr. NASH moved to strike out all after the word 
“ schools,” in the third section, which would cut off 
the words, “free to all children in the State.” He re¬ 
marked that he made this motion in order to leave the 
question free from all extraneous matters. 

Mr. BATES. I am not in the habit of making speech¬ 
es, but 1 am desirous of expressing my views upon the 
subject now before the Convention. I must express 
my regret and astonishment at the vote given a few 
minutes since, by which the word “ white ” was in¬ 


serted in the third section, I shall vote for the motion 
of the gentleman from Gallia, to strike out all after the 
word “schools,”so that the action would provide a 
thorough and efficient system of common schools, pro¬ 
scribing no class, and leaving the details of the system 
to be fixed by the Legislature. The second section of 
this report declares that the Legislature shall encour¬ 
age moral, intellectual, and scientific improvements, 
and, by the insertion of the word “ wliite ” you have 
declared that a certain class shall not receive any of 
the benefits arising from the common school fund. 

View this question as you will—as a matter of mo¬ 
rality or of political economy, a question of right or 
expediency, the State would materially suffer if a pro¬ 
vision to exclude any class of children from the bene¬ 
fits of common schools, should be engrafted in the new 
constitution. The experience of the past has shown 
that morality and virtue keeps pace with education, 
and that degradation and vice are the inevitable results 
of ignorance. Good policy, humanity, and, above all, 
the spirit of the Christian religion demands that we 
should provide for the education of every child in the 
State. 

I shall therefore vote for the pending motion, which 
would secure the benefits of common schools to all, 
leaving the details of the system to be fixed by future 
Legislatures, who can adopt the system to the ever-va¬ 
rying circumstances of society. 

Mr. DORSEY. While I believe that the benefits of 
a system of common schools should be extended to all, 

I desire to avoid doing any thing to encourage the em¬ 
igration of negroes into the State. I trust that before 
the close of this session, a provision will be adopted 
authorizing the Legislature to appropriate a sum of 
money annually, for the purpose of assisting negroes 
and mulattoes to leave the State. 

I would move to amend the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash] by adding the follow¬ 
ing after the word “schools,” “and such schools shall 
be open for the reception of scholars, students, and 
teachers, of every grade, without any distinction or 
preference whatever, contrary to the intent of such 
provision.” 

Mr. ARCFIBOLD. Though I feel reluctant to min 
gle in this debate, I must express my dissent from the 
views, as well as the amendment of the gentleman from 
Miami, and my hope that the original amendment, [ Mr. 
Nash’s] will prevail. I am opposed to all minute leg¬ 
islation by this Convention. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, called for a division of the 
question, and the same turning first on the motion to 
strike out all after the word “ school,” 

The Convention agreed to strike out. 

The question then being upon Mr. Dorsey’s amend 
ment, 

Mr. MASON moved, as a substitute, the following: 
“ Provision shall be made by law for the separate estab¬ 
lishment and support of schools for the instruction of 
the children of black and mulatto persons.” 

Mr. MANON remarked that he should vote against 
the substitute, the amendment, and the whole system, 
if it were not made plainer and more intelligible than 
at present. 

He desired a simple system of public instruction, 
and that schools should be kept for at least eight months 
in the year. 

Mr. MASON’S amendment was disagreed to. 

The question then being upon the adoption of Mr. 
Dorsey’s amendment, the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to amend by striking out 
the two first lines of the pending section, and amend 
so that the whole section would read as follows; 

Sec. 3. The permanent common school fund shall be augmented 
by taxation and otherwise, to such p\im as shall, in addition to the 

funds heretofore provided, produce an annual revenue of- 

dollars, which shall be annually applied to secure a thorough and 
efficient system of common schools, free to all the children in the 
State. 

Mr. NASH moved to fill the blank in Mr. McCor- 








CONVENTION REPOllTS 


686 


mxck’s amendment with the words “ five hundred thou¬ 
sand.” 

On motion, the committee rose and reported progress. 
And, on motion, the Convention adjourned. 

^ THURSDAY, Dkcember 5, 1850. 

The Convention met, pursuant to adjournment, Mr. 
Vance, of Butler, in the Chair. 

Trayer by Rev. Dr. Hoge. 

On motion of Mr. McCORMICK, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee of the Whole on the or¬ 
ders of the day. 

The question being on the amendment of Mr. Mc¬ 
Cormick, 

Mr. MANON|inoved to amend the amendment, by ad¬ 
ding the words “ not less,” before the words ” a mill¬ 
ion and a half,” which was agreed to. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. 1 am o[)j) 08 ed to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman Irom Adams, to strike out the 
two first lines ot the 3d section ot the report. Referring 
to the reports of the Secretary of State for the year 
ending November 15, 1849, that the total amount of 
special school and trust funds paid out for school pur¬ 
poses in that year, amounted to $-295,224,47.1. The Se¬ 
cretary of Stale in his report of February 15, 1849, 
states that from returns of 57 counties, many of thi.se 
being incomplete and but few approximating to the 
requisite fullness and accuracy, the number of scholars 
enrolled were, males 50,211—females 44,219. Total 
944,30. From the above data it appears that each 
scholar received about $3,12 from the public funds. 

The report of the Auditor of Slate for the year 1849, 
pages 12 and 13, states that a large balance, for several 
years, has remained in the treasury after the distribu¬ 
tion of $200,000, and there has been no interest charg¬ 
ed on the irreducible fund for common schools, or on 
the surplus revenue re-paid by counties under the act 
of March 13, 1843. Tne Secretary of State in the re¬ 
port referred to, is of opinion that' good policy and the 
interests of the State, require the school fiind to bo 
increased, and that, 1-5 of a mill on tlie dollar would, in 
addition to other funds existing, make it equal to $300,- 
000 per annum. Thus, Mr. President, by a gradual in¬ 
crease by tax, as circumstances may require, schools 
can be maintained. 

The committee were, from the foregoing data, and 
other data, not now at hand, led to the conclusion that 
all that was necessary in the fundamental law, was 
provision for the safe keeping of the irreducible funds, 
and grant power to the Legislature to raise by taxation, 
as the growing population and other circumstances 
may from time to time require, and cany out in detail 
such measures as will secure a good and efficient sys¬ 
tem of Common School Education. I ask what i.s re¬ 
quired in a fundamental law on this subject? I an¬ 
swer, to provide for the safe keeping of the present 
School Funds and such irredeemable funds as by do- 
^nation or otherwise may inure to the State for School 
purposes, and inculcating upon the Legislature the 
necessity of raising by tax or otherwise, funds, from 
time to time, sufficient to secure a thorough and effi¬ 
cient system of Common School Education. I would 
also ask permi.ssion to I’emark on the whole report, a 
privilege which has been gi'anted to others oa former 
occasions. So far as I was concerned in the report, I 
might here state, that I was impressed with the neces¬ 
sity of reporting in favor of a Superintendent, and giv¬ 
ing latitude to the Legislature to furnish assistants to 
constitute an efficient board of Superintendents, from 
the fact that some, and especially school laws making 
no pi’ovision for Superintendents, are liable to be neg¬ 
lected, and fall into disuse. The great and important 
business of securing a general educition, and of con¬ 
ducting a well regulated system of common schools, 
requires perseverance, energy and vigilance, and will 
languish into neglect without a suitable supervision 
and we may jnstly fear that without the fostering care 
of an active, zealous and faithful Superintendent, laws 


for the promotion of education will be passed in vain. 
We were also impres.sed with the importance of giv¬ 
ing the Legislature am[ile I'oom to encourage educa¬ 
tion without any violation of the constitution, and in 
the first clause of the Report, have left to the wisdom 
ot futui'e Legislatures to encourage, by suitable means, 
the promotion of moral, intellectual, scientific and ag¬ 
ricultural improvement—language sufficiently liberal to 
meet the views of the most zealous and sanguine on 
the great cause of education. 

I thank the gentleman from Hamilton for the com¬ 
pliment passed upon the talents of the committee, in 
having comprehended a whole constitution with plen¬ 
ary power in the above declaration, while at the same 
time we disavow exclusive originality in the declara¬ 
tion. I will, for the gentleman’s satisfaction, show what 
company we are found in upon this subject. In the 
constitution of the good old ” i^ay State,” and also in 
the constitution of the Granite State, are found the 
following declarations, more minute by far than that 
contained in this report: 

“ Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, difiused generally 
among the body of the people, being necessary for the preserva¬ 
tion of their rights and liberties, and as these depend on spi-ead- 
ing the opportunities and advantages of education in the various 
parts of the country, and among the different orders of the peo¬ 
ple, it shall be the duty of the Legislature and magistrates, in all 
future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of 
literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially 
the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools 
in the towns ; to encourage,private societies and public institutions 
for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, 
manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to counte¬ 
nance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general be¬ 
nevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, 
honesty and punctuality in their dealings, sincerity, good humor, 
and all social affections and generous sentiments among the 
people.” 

The clause in the New Hampshire constitution is as 
follows; ^ 

“ Knowledge and learning, generally diffused through a com¬ 
munity, being essential to the preservation of afree government; 
and spreading the opportunities and advantages of education 
through the various parts of the country, bring highly conducive 
to promote this end; it shall be the duty of the legislators and 
magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish 
the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries an d 
public schools ; to encourage private and public instituiions ; re¬ 
wards and immunities for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sci¬ 
ences, commerce, trades, manutactures, and natural history of 
the country ; to countenance and inculcate the principles of hu¬ 
manity and general benevolence, public and private charity, in¬ 
dustry and economy, honesty and punctuality, sincerity, sobri¬ 
ety, and all social affections and generous sentiments among the 
people.” 

Thus it will be perceived that we have no just claims 
to originality in this matter, a fact which materially de¬ 
tracts from the merit ascribed '.o us by the gentleman 
—otherwise I, for one, would have been proud of the 
eulogiuni. 

The report next provides fur the security and safe 
keeping of the school funds now existing, or that may 
hereafter exist. | 

The third section ot the report directs the Legisla¬ 
ture to make full and ample provision for securing a 
thorough and efficient system of common school edu¬ 
cation, free to all the children in the Stale. The lan¬ 
guage of this section is expressive of the liberality 
worthy a great State, and a great people. There is 
no stopping place here short of a common school edu¬ 
cation to all the children in the State. That this is an 
age of improvement and progress is admitted by all who 
are acquainted with the great and important transac¬ 
tions of the present century. That a spirit of education 
is increasing in our beloved country is known irom 
common observation, and should not only be hailed, 
but cherished with delight. 

Science has dispelled the darkness from our land 
which for ages benighted the inhabitants of the old 
world, and gave the tyrants power to sway the iron 
sceptre over their subjects, and by discouraging in¬ 
struction and keeping them in ignorance, perpetuated 
their servitude—continued them in degradation—shack¬ 
led with despotic chains, not knowing that they were 










686 


CONNENTION REPORTS. 


men cap jble of becoming free and governing them¬ 
selves; this condition of things has become changed— 
intelligence, the truth of divine revelation—liberty of 
conscience—seli-governmenl—freedom of the press— 
free and fair discussion, together with freedom of 
thought, have brought our free citizens from under the 
dominion and tyranny, declaring and demonstrating to 
the world that great truth, that men are born I’ree and 
equal and capable of governing themselves. Had not 
knowledge been shed upon the human understanding, 
all would have remained in the darkness of heathen 
ism, and governed by superstition and fanaticism, our 
country would have still borne testimony to savage 
cruelly ; the banks of our majestic Ohio would have 
been the theatre of the war-dance and deeds of savage 
cruelty. 

The fair portion of our inhabitants would have been 
kept in servile degradation as the aboriginal females of 
our former wilderness. But how great—how glorious 
the change—instead of toiling under heavy loads heap¬ 
ed upon them by those task-masters under ihe name of 
fathers, brothers, husbands—doomed to linger out a 
miserable existence in privation, hardship and drudgery 
—what ease—what elegance—what happiness—what 
accomplishment, is every where visible—what intelli¬ 
gence, what engaging loveliness beams from their eyes, 
now become the ornaments of society, charitable to a 
fault, (if charily is susceptible of a fault)—Ibiemost in 
the encouragement of all that is moral—religious— 
viituous and good—calculated in a very eminent de¬ 
gree to solace and sustain their friends under every 
difficulty, to pour into their desponding souls the balm 
of consolation, to cheer them through life—administer 
comfort in sickness and death, and to spread happiness 
and joy all around. Thus by civilization, religion and 
intelligence, are they prepared to carry out their high 
destiny as distinguished ornaments in the social system. 

Nor does education lavish all its ennobling qualities 
upon the fair sex. The male sex are also elevated to 
a place among the intelligent throng—and though all 
may not arrive at the full course of classical education, 
yet inour land of liberty, all may be competitors on the 
great theatre of talent and advancement, knowledge 
and aggrandizemente—ach in his turn may be a philos¬ 
opher, an orator, a sage, or a statesman. 

Intelligence is the toundation stone upon which this 
mighty Republic rests—its future destiny depends upon 
the impulse—the action of the present generation in 
the promotion of literature. Will we not, are we not, 
as patriotic—bound in solemn duty to use our energies, 
our influence, to forward ihis greatest of interests to 
present and future generations, and especially will the 
great State of Ohio fall short in so mighty an enter¬ 
prise—so essential and indispensable a duly ? Shall 
Ohio be remiss in an endeavor to compete with her sis¬ 
ter States? Massachusetts and New York are ahead 
now, and several other States are rapidly gaining upon 
us, if not already in advance. Arouse, then, citizens 
of Ohio, to your best interests, and show that you are 
not only able to compete in agriculture, in public im¬ 
provement, in commerce—yes, and in the battle field, 
with other States, but also in intelligence. 

Will it be necessary to appeal to the generosity of 
her citizens to pay taxes for such purposes ? Certainly 
not. Her noble sons would blush to hesitate—and her 
yet more philanthropic daughters will become tributa¬ 
ry to the great cause which leads to the development 
of the rich resouices of nature—prepares the mind for 
the investigation of philosophy, morals, religion and 
virtue, and enables it to study nature in all its beauty 
and grandeur, and realize the important work that has 
been done, and still going on, in making the wilderness 
and solitary places glad, and the desert to bud and 
blossom as the rose, and not only so, but to elevate the 
thoughts above the home of the sunbeam, and contem¬ 
plate the Creator, and meditate on things Heavenly and 
divine. Brompted by such exalted motives and pleas¬ 
ing anticipations, taxation will not be considered one¬ 
rous. 


Massachusetts raises annually, for school purposes, 
between seven and eight hundred thousand dollars; 
New York some eight hundred thousand ; Connecticut 
about ten thousand dollars for common and normal 
schools. Pennsylvania appropriates above seven hun¬ 
dred thousand, more than five hundred thousand dol¬ 
lars of which is raised by taxation. Mississipfii and 
Louisiana are proportionally liberal. Other States are 
fast on the advance; and I ask again, can it be that 
Ohio will remain an exceptioiy and not assist in so 
great an enterprise? The answer, I doubt not, will be 
returned —she will not. 

The fourth section provides for the safety of school 
funds against sectarian innovation, and forever bars ac¬ 
cess to exclusive control by sectarianism, and needs no 
comment. Thus having briefly given the views which 
governed me in this report, and hoping that it will be 
found to contain all that is necessary in a constitutional 
provision to secure the best interests of education 
among us, it is submitted to the consideration of the 
committee. 

Mr. McCORMICK wished to be heard upon the 
amendment, not upon his own account, but for the sake 
of those in the future who might desire to be benefit- 
ted by the laws of the State for the promotion pf edu¬ 
cation. The day in which he himself was to be bene- 
fitted by such laws was long pa.st. He spoke for those 
who in all future time are to constitute the people—the 
law-makers—the members of the government of Ohio. 
We may construct the laws of the Stale as we please, 
unless the minds of the people are educated the legis¬ 
lation is in vain. As we improve in general intelli¬ 
gence, we shall approximate to that point where legis¬ 
lation may be dispensed with. Educate the mind of 
man, and the heart, and little legal restraint upon his 
conduct will be required. 

The amendment under consideration was offered 
with this view. The object sought to be attained is 
the establishment of a permanent and efficient system 
of education in the State, which shall constantly fur¬ 
nish a supply to the ever-increasing demand for educa¬ 
tion in the State. The sum i)i O[)Osed in it looks, per¬ 
haps, large to some. It is, in fact, too small to answer 
the purpose. II the statistics of the report of the Sec¬ 
retary of State can be relied on, there are, insteart of 
fifty-four thousand, as has been stated, over three hun¬ 
dred and sixty-seven thousand children in Ohio. To 
educate this immense number, there is provided, under 
our present law, the astonishing sum of two hundred 
and ninety-five thousand dollars—almost the enormous 
amount of three-quarters of a dollar a-piece, annually, 
for the purposes of education. And under this state of 
circumstances, gentlemen of this Convention sit down, 
with conscience satisfied at having provided efficiently 
for so important an interest. 

Mr. QUIGLEY interposed some remarks not under¬ 
stood by the reporter. 

Mr. McCORMICK continued. Gentlemen of the 
Convention appear to be unwilling to fix any feature of 
a system of public education in the constitution. They 
desire to leave everything to be fixed by the General 
Assembly. But let us look at past legislation done 
upon this subject. The present constitution imposes 
upon the Legislature the duty of establishing a system 
of public education ; and in forty-eight years it has 
succeeded in building up a plan of benevolence, which 
gives the amount of seventy-five cents per annum, for 
school purposes, to each child in the State. How long 
will it take for active legislation of this character, to 
raise a sum sufficient to educate all the children in the 
State, who, in fact, instead of three hundred and sixty- 
seven thousand, number over five hundred thousand. 
He did insist that we should act upon this measui'e, and 
act upon it advisedly. We have been deceived by a 
rapid series of legislative systems, each less efficient 
and valuable than its predecessor; and the last system 
brought into existence is far inferior, in the length of 
time which it furnishes schools, and in efficiency, to its 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


687 


predecessor, or any prior law. He did not propose by 
this amendment to limit the amount to be appropriated 
by the Legislature for educational purposes. He de¬ 
sired only to establish a minimum. One and a halt’ 
millions would, at the present time, be about three dol¬ 
lars for each scholar in the State—as small an amount 
as could by any possibility secure the necessary result. 
Looking at the sum itself, it seems large; but when we 
look at the magnitude of the cause, and its importance, 
it is not large. Massachusetts gives a larger sum in 
proportion to tho number; Connecticut also a larger; 
and what is the result ? It is a recommendation—a 
letter of credit to a man, to have been born and educa¬ 
ted upon the soil of Massachusetts. It is well known, 
that with a higher grade of intelligence, they have far 
less crime to punish—less public and private follies to 
repent and be ashamed of. He would make the State 
ol Ohio superior even to Massachusetts. He would 
devote for that purpose all the funds that can be raised. 
He would cut down, as far as possible, all the other 
expenses ot the government, until we can accumulate 
a fund of thirty, lorty, or even fifty millions, within 
the coming hall century—a sum which, however enor¬ 
mous it may seem, is not, in comparison with the im¬ 
portance ot the cause, too large. In behalf, therefore, 
of ourselves, posterity, and future history, let us make 
adequate provisions to supply this important, this pri¬ 
mary necessity, 

Mr. McCOKMICK, in order to suit the views of some 
other of the friends of the principle involved in his 
amendment, moved to strike out the words, “ one 
and a half millions,” from the amendment, leavinsr a 
blank. 

Mr. MANON did not suppose that the acts of the 
Convention in this behalf would do much good; but 
he would do all in his power to educate the children 
of Ohio. He had heard of a gentleman who, traveling 
among the barren hills of Vermont, inquired of a boy , 
by the road-side, what they raised. He answered— 
“ men.” He wished to do the same in Ohio. 

Mr. NASH said that after a while all these things 
will practically be controlled by public opinion. If 
legislation is against public opinion, it is powerless, and 
in such a case you array public opinion against you, 
and against this Constitution, and will sink it and the 
system together. Leave such questions to the General 
Assembly, and that body will act under tho influence 
of that general sentiment, which after all, is the great 
sanction of the law of the land. If we descend to le¬ 
gislation upon mere questions of policy, we shall ine¬ 
vitably defeat the very object which we seek to pro¬ 
mote. If enough has not been hitherto done for edu¬ 
cation, it is because public sentiment has not demanded 
it; and if we attempt to go in advance of that senti¬ 
ment, we shall not be followed, and shall be forced to 
retreat. 

Mr. HAWKINS liked the section, in the main, as it 
is. He thought with a little modification, it would 
suit the opinions of nearly every member. Enjoin up¬ 
on the Legislature the duty of establishing an efficient 
system, and we shall have done our duty. He agreed 
in the main with the remarks of the gentleman from 
Adams, [Mr. McCormick,] upon the importance of ed¬ 
ucation ; but he had not been in the habit of esteeming 
the morals of New England, so far as it results from 
mere learning, so very high. He admitted their learn¬ 
ing, but doubted whether, after all, in so high a sense, 
they could be considered an educated people. He 
was opposed to the great minuteness in the detail of 
our constitution; but at the same time we are warran¬ 
ted by public sentiment in requiring at the hands of 
the General Assembly a full, complete and efficient 
system of public education. 

Mr. RANNEY thought the subject a very important 
one, and worthy of all the consideration that has been 
given it. He concurred heartily in the plan of the 
gentleman from Adams, [Mr. McCormick.] He did 
not profess to say what the minimum sum should be; but 


that a sum should be enjoined to be raised, sufficient 
for the purpose, he had no doubt. The gentleman 
from Gallia, [Mr. Nash] was opposed to too great par¬ 
ticularity in the provisions of this constitution. That 
was the reason why he objected to portions of this re¬ 
port. There is too great generality in it. It recom¬ 
mends something, suggests much, and provides nothing 
at all. What are we here for? Merely to declare in a 
few words the general topics upon which a Legislature 
shall act, or to fix a form of government. If the for¬ 
mer is only our duty, we may as well go home again. 
iL is unnecessary for us to declare that the Legislature 
shall establish a Judiciary system. They know that 
already. We are to do more. We are to mark out the 
boundaries of a Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary 
system, and to define and limit the powers of a govern¬ 
ment. Now I came here to aid in establishing a leg¬ 
islative department of this government, in the same 
manner as any other branch of the government. I de¬ 
sire to lay a plan, such as within certain limits the Leg¬ 
islature shall be bound to carry out. It is clearly and 
unquestionably right that government has a right to 
establish a system of education that shall reach every 
poor, every ragged, every destitute child in the State, 
and if we believe that the people are desirous to estab¬ 
lish such a system, let us go forward and do it, and 
have no fears the peoj)le will not respond to it with 
enthusiasm. I go for an efficient provision, not for any 
extravagance. 

Mr. TAYLOR said, his objection to the amendment 
was, that if we placed any sum in the constitution, it 
might be looked upon as limiting the legislature who 
might be disposed to give more liberally. It seemed 
to him, that there was a prospect that the people would 
progress faster than we anticipate, and wouUl make a 
far more ample provision than any constitutional sura 
that we are able to fix. He hoped therefore that no 
sum would be fixed, but that it would be left to tho 
progressive spirit of the age and of the people. Let 
there be a guaranty that the school be kept open a 
specific time, and the objects sought would be gained 
as far as we are able to secure them. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to fill the blank in his 
amendment with the sum of one million dollars. 

Mr. REEMELIN said that he had not desired to 
take part in this debate, but he desired to correct the 
ideas of some gentlemen, upon the subject of what 
Ohio has done in the cause of education. He ventured 
to assert, that in no community in the world, has there 
been so much done, in proportion to the means, as in 
the State of Ohio. He had ever taken a great interest 
in education, and had ever been a laborer in the cause, 
and he was desirous to state what has been the great 
impediment to a more rapid advance of the cause 
among us. 

One great reason is the rivalry of schools, estab¬ 
lished by diff’erent sects. 'Andther reason is the want 
of efficient teachers. These difficulties are to be over¬ 
come by time; and we are not prepared to esiablish 
that comprehensive and complete system of education, 
which we shall eventually come to. He desired to say 
to those gentlemen who speak so poorly ol our progress 
in education, and too highly of that of Massachusetts, 
that they do injustice to our State. Let them institute 
a comparison between Massachusetts at fifty years of 
age, and Ohio ; and his word for it, our system would 
be found as good as theirs. 

He thought the lime had not come for tho elabora¬ 
tion of a perfect system of education in Ohio, and that 
by fixing provisions in the constitution, that it may be 
necessary to alter in future, we shall involve ourselves 
in a dilemma very unfortunate, and from which it will 
be difficult to escape. There are also many reasons 
why a general system, established by general rules, 
without exceptions, might be injurious to the interests 
of some portions of the State. For instance, in this 
city, it would be better to leave it all to the local au¬ 
thorities. He wanted to see such a system that should 









688 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


reseut the means of education to every child in Ohio; 
ut let U8 not go too fast. 

Mr. K. continued, by saying that he hoped all the 
amendinenls would fail, and that he hoped all attempts 
to create a system would be left to the General As¬ 
sembly. 

Mr. CURRY gave notice that as a member of the 
Committee on Education, he had presented a minority 
report. He proposed, at the proper time, after gentle¬ 
men had, as far as they chose, perfected the report un 
der consideration, to move to strike it all out, and to 
substitute his own in the place of it. 

Mr. McCORMiCK addressed the committee on the 
subject of the funds to be appropriated for the purpose 
of keeping up the schools ot the State. He proposed a 
consolidation of all the genei’al and local funds of the 
State, and distribution of the amount equally among 
the children of the State. 

The question being on filling the blank with the sum 
of one million, the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. LARSH moved to fill the blank with the sum of 
seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. He thought 
the whole distributable iuud of the State was about 
that sum already; and that if we inserted a smaller sum 
we would be below the present ability of the State. 

Mr. LEADBETTER was opposed to fixing any sum. 
He thought that if the Convention proceeded to estab¬ 
lish an exjiensive system in the constitution, they would 
so load that instrument as to prevent its acceptance 
with the people. He believed that any attempt to 
equalize by consolidation the local funds of the State, 
would enlist numbeis against the constitution who 
would drag it down in spite of the efforts of its friends. 
He held that we were, as a primary obligation, bound 
to discharge the obligations of the State, and that it is 
neither right nor expedient to load the people with too 
heavy a burden of taxes even for educational purposes. 

Mr. LEADBETTER gave notice that after this and 
the minority I'eport had been discussed, he should pre¬ 
sent a substitute lor both. 

The question being on filling the blank with seven 
hundred and fifty thousand, was disagreed to. 

The question being on filling the blank with five 
hundred thousand dollars, was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out the words 
proposed in the amendment, the same was disagreed to. 

Ml’. REEMELIN moved to strike out of the fourth 
section, in the first line, the word “exclusive,” and to 
substitute the word “any” in its place, which was 
agreed to. 

Mr. LARSH moved the following amendment, to 
come in at the end of the same section: Or of any of the 
schools, seminaries, or institutions of learning, under 
the patronage of the State. 

Mr. MASON hoped that, before this amendment was 
adopted, the committee would examine and see what it 
was doing. This amendment proposes to extend the 
provisions of the section which provides that all reli¬ 
gious denominations, the whole religious community 
in fact, shall be forever excluded from any participation 
in the school fund of the State; and that because they 
are religious. You take care of the convicts in your 
penitentiary, and provide for their religious and moral 
instruction, but the religious of the countiy are as a 
class proscribed. You may say that you do not intend 
any such thing ; but if you do it, it is of little conse¬ 
quence what was intended. 

Mr. NASH did not understand the section as it was 
interpreted by the gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason.] 
Every citizen has, and will have a right to participate 
in the means of education; but the intention of the 
provision merely is, that no organized body of Chris¬ 
tians, as such, shall bo entitled to lay its hand upon the 
school funds of the State, and appropriate it to the fur¬ 
therance of its own peculiar views. He did not un¬ 
derstand that it goes any further than the old constitu¬ 
tion. The amendment of the gentleman from Preble 
[Mr. Larsh] merely adds a few superfluous words to 


I what? There is in the section no exclusion of any in¬ 
dividual. It means merely, that neither the Presbyte¬ 
rian, the Episcopalian, or the Catholic church, shall 
have the power to seize upon the public funds and 
appropriate them to suit itself. 

Mr. DORSEY agreed with the gentleman from Clark 
[Mr. xMason] in his construction of the section. The 
presidents of our universities cannot, under this provi¬ 
sion, be members of any church. It goes further. It 
uses the word “ party,” and it would seem that no 
member of any party, no Whig, Democrat or Free 
Soiler, can participate in the benefits of the fund. The 
gentleman would seem to exclude all sects and parties, 
and have no use for the money. 

The amendment was then agreed to. 

Mr. HUNT moved a reconsideration of the vote agree¬ 
ing to the amendment of Mr. Reemelin, to strike out 
of the fourth section, the word “ exclusive,” and sub¬ 
stitute the word “ any.” 

Mr. REEMELIN thought, in the interprelation which 
gentlemen had given to the amendment proposed by 
him, they had discovered a mare’s nest. It would 
bear no such construction. No boy who went to 
school would ever be inquired of as to his religion. 
No one would say to a I’resbyterian schoolmaster go 
away, you ha\e no business here. No sect or party 
have, or can have any exclusive right. Any boy who 
had been one hour at a common school, would know 
better than to believe any such story as this. 

Mr. DORSEY inquired if the words “ any right,” 
does not exclude all persons of whatever religion? 

Mr. REEMELIN did not believe that his amend¬ 
ment excluded any child in Ohio. 

Mr. MORRIS mov d that the committee rise and 
report—lost on division; yeas 40, nays 18. 

Mr. REEMELIN offered the following resolution: 

Resolved, That the (Jeneral Assembly of this State be respect¬ 
fully requested to make the necessary provisions for printing 
and transmitting to this body, for the use of the individual mem¬ 
bers thereof, a proper number of copies of the reports of the dif- 
terent State officers, and of such other matters as may be deemed 
proper lor the information of this body. 

On motion of Mr. REEMELIN, said resolution was 
committed to the select committee on Printing. 

On motion, the committee rose and reported. 

On motion, the Convention look a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

On motion by Mr. BARNET, of Montgomery, the 
Convention resolved itself into a committee of the 
whole, and resumed the consideration of the report of 
the standing committee on Education. 

The pending ciuestion being upon the motion of Mr. 
Hunt to reconsider the vote by which the word “ ex¬ 
clusive” was sti-icken out of the fourth section, and the 
word “any” substituted. The section, as amended, 
reads: “ No religious sect or party shall ever have any 
right to, or control of any part of the common school 
funds of this State.” 

The motion prevailed, and the vote was reconsidered. 

Mr. DORSEY moved to amend by striking out the 
words “or party,” and insert the words “orsects,” 
and remarked that this would obviate the objections of / 
the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Ree.melin,] and of 
the gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash,] who have sug¬ 
gested that, while no one sect would be allowed to 
control coDJmon schools, a combination of sects might. 

A division of the question being demanded, and the 
same turning first upon the motion to strike out the 
words “ or party,” the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. Dor.sey’s motion to insert the words “or sects” 
was then agreed to. 

Mr. CURRY. I will now propose a substitute for the 
report under consideration. I move to strike out the 
whole of the original report, and substitute the foliow- 
ing: 

Sec. 1. Religion, morality and knowledge being essentially 
necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind 
schools and the means of instruction shall forever be encour- 


/ 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


689 


aged by legislative provision not inconsistent with the rights of 
conscienc e. 

8ec. 2. It shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pro¬ 
vide by law that the principal ofalllunds arising from the sale 
ol lands heretofore or hereaiter grunted or donated, from any 
quarter for educational purposes, together with the principal 
which may be realized from donations of personal property 
and money for like purposes, and the Surplus Revenue depos¬ 
ited with this State by the United States (until reclaimed,) shall 
be preserved inviolate and undiminished, and that the interest 
and income arising Irom such funds shall be faithfully applied 
to object or original gift, or grant; Provided, the General As¬ 
sembly may at their discretion, appropriate all or only a part 
of I he proceeds of the Surplus Revenue to educational pur¬ 
poses. 

Sec. 3. The General Assembly shall provide for the election 
of a Superintendent of Schools and Seminaries of learning, un¬ 
der the care or patronage of the State. They many also provide 
for the election or appointmet of such assistant superintendents 
or other officers as may be necessary to carry into effect a thor¬ 
ough and uniform system of Common School Education, and 
they shall prescribe by law the terms ol office, compensation, 
powers and duties of all officers elected or appointed under the 
authority of this section. 

Sec. 4. The General Assembly shall provide by law a system 
of Common Schools, and permanent means for the support 
thereof, by which a school shall be kept up in each school dis¬ 
trict in this State not less than six months in each year, and 
which shall be open to youth of all classes under such regula¬ 
tions as may be prescribed by law ; Provided, that black and mu¬ 
latto youth shall not attend the schools for white youth, unless 
by common consent. 

Sec. 5. Provision shall be made by law for th»' establishment 
and support of as many Normal Institutes as the General Assem¬ 
bly may find to be necessary for the thorough instruction of pro¬ 
fessional teachers of the Common Schocls of this State ; and all 
persons applying to any of said Institutions tor admission and 
instruction, shall be required before admission to give such as¬ 
surance as may be specified by law of their intention to devote 
themselves to teaching, as a profession. 

Sec. 6. No religious sect or party shall ever have exclusive 
ri?ht to, or control of any part of Common School fund, or of 
any of the Schools, Seminaries, or Institutions of learning under 
the care or patronage of thia State. 

The question being first on the inoiion to strike out 
the original report, the same was disagreed to. 

On motion, the committee ruse and reported. 

Mr. NASH moved that the report be re-c anmitted to 
the same committee which originally reported it. 

Mr. STIDGER remarked, that so f, r ns he was con¬ 
cerned, as chairman of tliat connnittee, he hoped that 
the motion of the gentleman from Gallia would not 
prevail- 

Upon amotion to re-commit, Mr. MANON demanded 
the yeas and nays, which being ordered, resulted—yeas 
47, nays 40, as follows; 

Yeas — Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Baraett of 
Preble, Bates, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hock- 
in", Curry, Ewart, Farr, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green 
ot°R 08 s, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Horton, 
Hunter, Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, 
Mo.ehead, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Patterson, Reeme- 
lin, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stilwell, Struble, Thompson of Shelby, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson—47. 

Nays— Messrs. Blickensderfer, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Cook, 
Dorsey, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, HolmesHolt, Hoot- 
man, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Kennon, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Leadbetter, Manon, Mitchell, Morris, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Rid¬ 
dle, Roll, Sawyer, Sellers, Smith of AVyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Stidger, Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, Williams, 
Woodbury, Worthington—40. 

So the motion prevailed. 

Mr- STIDGER. Inasmuch as the Convention has 
seen fit to re-commit this report, I trust that it will ac¬ 
company it with instructions. 

Mr. HOLT. The request of the Chairman of the 
committee on Education is a very reasonable one, and 
I will move that the committee be instructed to incor¬ 
porate into the original report the 4th section of the mi¬ 
nority report. ... 

I will add no argument in support of this motion in 
addition to the able ones of the gentlemen from Adams 
and Trumbull, [Messrs. McCormick and Ranney.] The 
section has just been read at the Clerk’s desk. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I move to strike out the 
proviso iu the section which the gentleman frorn Mont¬ 
gomery moves to have incorporated in the original re¬ 
port. The words to be stricken out are, “ provided 

44 


lliat black and mulatto youth shall not attend die schudls 
for white youth, unless by common con8eiit.” 

Mr. CHANEY objected to this manner of instruc¬ 
ting the eoaimiiU'e. I’ending the motion to recommit 
the rep'u t it v,-.)uld have been more proper to move 
those instructions. 

Mr HOLMES. I move to amend the instructions 
by striking out of the section propo.sed to be incoipo- 
laU'd the words “ unless by common consent.” Much 
(lilficnl y might arise in dhtricts having a mixed pop¬ 
ulation. 

Mr. CURRY. The words now* proposed to he strick- ' 
en out v\ ere nut adopted without much deliberation. 

1 w;.,-- ot the o[)inion, and am still, that such a proviso 
could work no harm, and might be the means of secu¬ 
ring the eduiation of many black children in districts 
where no repugnance would be felt to their entering 
the common schools. Without detaining the Conven¬ 
tion at this time wdth a.i argument, I will state a sin¬ 
gle fact which occurred not long since under my own 
observation. A school district, m which the housoliol- 
ders are as resjiectable and intelligent as any within 
the liroad limits of this State, contains some five or six 
fainilii s ol colored persons, but not enough to justify 
the est:il>!i>hment of a separate school for the instruc¬ 
tion of their children. As the law now' stands, it was 
left to the option of the inhabitants of die distnet to 
admit the colored children into the common scln ols or 
exclude them. In the language of the fourth section 
of the minoi ity report on education, it was left to the 
‘ ciimmon consent ” of the jieople, and, sir, by common 
consent the colored children were admitted, and allow¬ 
ed to [)aruci[)aie iu the advantages of the schools. And 
it seems to me that this matter should thus be lelt to 
the decision of the people of the several districts. On 
the one hand, I would not compel the admission into 
coinmiui schools, ot the children ol colored persons, 
nor would I shut them out in all cases. In this case I 
think it would be well that theie should be some re¬ 
laxation from the usual jiolicy adopted toward the 
black po[)ulation of the State—a relaxation in so far 
lha-t thoir children might, by common consent, be ad¬ 
mitted to common schools. 

The question being upon the motion of Mr. Holmes, 
(which was that the 4ili section should provide that 
black and mulatto youth should not attend the schools 
for while youth,) and the yea.s and nays being demand¬ 
ed upon the same, were ordered and resulted, yeas 34, 
nays 53, as follow's: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Case of Hocking, Chaney, Dorsey, 
Florence, Gillett, Green of Rose, Groesbeck, Harlan, Henderson, 
Holmes, Hootinan, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Lawrence, 
Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Pattersc n. 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sdllers, Stebbins, Stid¬ 
ger, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, and Wilson—34. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Rates, Blickensderler, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Chambers, Cook, Curry, Ewart, Farr, Graham, Gray, 
Green of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Holt, Hor¬ 
ton, Humphreville, Hunter, Kirkwood, Larsh, Manon, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Peck, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Smitli of Wyandot, Stanton, Stilwell, 
Stickney, Struble Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Vance of 
Champaign. WTlliams, Woodbury and Worthington—53. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

The question ti'en being upon the motion of Mr. 
Humphreville to stike out the proviso, of the fourth 
section of the minority' report, which section it was 
now proposed to incorporate in the report of the com¬ 
mittee. 

Mr. FLORENCE. As I understand the proviso, it 
is that black and mulatto youth shall not attend the 
schools for white youth, unless by common consent. 

The PRESIDENT. That is thehu.giiage of the pro¬ 
viso. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. As a member of the General As¬ 
sembly at the present time, I should vote for a law 
providing that the children of white parents should be 
kept separate, in common schools, from the children of 
black people. I should do this because I am convinc- 











690 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


eel that piihlic sentiment demands it. As a member of 
the Constituticnal Conventiem, I think that puldic sen¬ 
timent demands the separation of the two classes of 
children; but sir, that public sentiment may change, 
and when that change comes I am willing to submit to 
it. I’eisonally, as Mr. Clay said of tin- admission of 
Texas, I might have no objection to the adniissiou of 
colored children to common schools, but as a repre¬ 
sentative of the people, I am bound to defer to their 
wishes. I am opposed to this minute legislation in the 
constitution, for the reason that we cannot make such 
l(;gi.slation apply to the ever varying circumstances of 
life. This question of the participation of negroes and 
mulattoes in the benefits of the common school system 
should be left to the Legislature. 

Mr MANON. It seems to me that the objections of 
the gentleman last uji are not well taken. VVhy, sir, 
the object of the proviso to the Iburth section of the 
minority report, which is now moved as an amend¬ 
ment to the majority report, is to leave this whole mat¬ 
ter to the decision of the people of each school distric-t 
of the Stale. 1 am in favor of that proviso. 

Mr. TOVVNSHEND. I shall vote for the motion 
[Mr. Humphuevillk’s] to strike out the entire provi¬ 
so now under consideration. I regret to see this sub¬ 
ject connected with the proposition to instruct the com¬ 
mittee on Education. Our present constitution makes 
no distinction, in this regard, between whites and 
blacks, and I trust that a Convention called to reform 
the organic law, will not go backw’ard. In the coun¬ 
ty of Lorain there were but two votes cast against 
tile calling of this Convention—if it provides for the 
exclusion of the children of one class of the citizens 
of Ohio, from the benefits of Common Schools, the 
vote against the adoption of the new constitution will, 
in all probability, be as unanimous for the rejection of 
the new constitution as it was for the calling of this 
Convention. 

The yeas and nays being demanded and ordered no 
Mr. Humphreville’s motion, to strike out the proviso 
from the fourth section of the minority report, resulted 
yeas 27, nays 61, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Bates, Brown of Athens, Cook, 
Ewart, Farr, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, 
Harlan, Horton, Hurnphrcville, Hunter, Lawrence. Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidcy, Jlorehead, Nash, Quigley, Banney, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Stickney, Taylor, Townshend and Woodbury—27. 

Nays — Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, 
Chambers, Chaney, Curry, Dorsey, Florence, Gillet, Graham, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Haid, Hawkins, Henderson, Hclmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lar- 
will, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morris, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Norris, Patterson, Peck, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith ot Warren, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stidger, Stru- 
ble, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson ol Stark, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Williams, Wilson and Wor¬ 
thington—61. 

So the motion was lost. 

The question next recurred on the motion of Mr. 
Holt to instruct the committee on Education to in¬ 
corporate the fourth section of the minority report in 
the report submitted by the majority. 

Mr. SAWYER moved lo lay the motion to instruct 
on the table. 

Upon which motion the yeas and nays were demand¬ 
ed, and being ordered, resulted—yeas 67, nays 21, as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Cham¬ 
bers, Clmney, Cook, Dorsey, Farr, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hard, Harlan, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Lawrence*, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Pat¬ 
terson, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of 
Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stebbins, 
Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Taylor, Thompson of .Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Vance of 
Champaign, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, and Worthington— 
67. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Curry, 
Ewart, Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, Holt, Larsh, Lidey, Ma¬ 


non, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, McCormick, Ranney, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Warren—21, 

So the motion prevailed, and the proposition to in¬ 
struct was laid on the table, 

Mr. MASON moved to instruct the committee to in¬ 
corporate in their report the fifth section of the minor¬ 
ity report, which is as follows: 

Sec. .5. Provision shall be made by law for the establishment 
and support of as many Normal Institutes as the General Assem¬ 
bly may find to be necessary for the thorough instruction of pro¬ 
fessional teachers of the Common Schools of this State; and all 
persons applying to any of said Institutes for admission and in¬ 
struction, shall be required before admission to give such assu¬ 
rance as may be specified by law of their intention to devote 
themselves to teaching as a profession. 

[Mr. MASON supported his motion in an argument 
of some length, but was too imperfectly heard to be 
correctly reported.] 

The yeas and nays being demanded upon Mr. Ma¬ 
son’s motion, resulted, yeas 20, nays 57—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Carroll, Curry, Dorsey, Farr, Gillett, Gray, Hamilton, 
Holt, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Mason, Norris, Scott of Harrison, 
Stanton, Taylor and Townshend—20. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Cahill, Case 
of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Cook, Ewart, Florence, Graham, 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Holmes, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, 
Kennon, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Morehead, Morris, Nash, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Ree¬ 
melin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, 
Struble, Thompson of Shelby. Thompson ol Stark, Vance of 
Butler, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury and 
Worthington—57. 

So the motion was lost. 

Ou motion, the Convention adjourned. 


FRIDAY, December 6, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment; Mr. 
Vance, of Butler, in the chair. 

Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Rice. 

Mr. GREGG, from the select committee upon the 
suiiject ol ascertaining the best means of procuring an 
abstract of the census of the State, made the following 
rej)ort: 

Tile select committee to ascertain the best mode of 
procuring an abstract of the census returns of the 
State of Ohio for the year 1850, have ascertained the 
fact ihat said returns are deposited in the office of the 
Secretary of State, as fast as received by the Marshal, 
and therefore recommend the passage of the followino- 
resolution: 

Resolved, That the Secretary of State be requested to furnish 
an abstract of the population of the State of Ohio, for the year 
1850. by townships, wards, counties and cities, as returned under 
the act of Congress for taking the seventh census and deposited 
in his office by the United States Marshal, giving, in separate col¬ 
umns, the white and colored population. 

The resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. GROESBECK offered for adoption the following 
resolution, which was agreed to : 

Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Anns be directed to furnish suit 
able accommodations to such newspaper reporters as attend to 
report our proceedings. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, asked that his colleague, Mr. 
King, who is absent from his seat in the Convention,in 
consequence of illness in his family, be excused from 
attendance; which was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention resolv¬ 
ed itself into committee of the Whole, Mr. Stanton in 
the chair. 

The order of the day, being report number one of 
the standing committee on Banking and Currency, was 
taken up and considered, by sections; and there being 
no amendments offered thereto, ° 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the committee rose 
and reported the same back to the Convention; where¬ 
upon. 

On motion of Mr. McCORMICK, the said report was 
laid on the table. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention again 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


691 


resolved itsell into a committee of the Whole on the 
orders of the day, Mr. Hu.mphrevillk in the chair. 

The business in order being report number one of 
the select committee on the subject of Capital Punish¬ 
ment, 

Mr. RIDDLE moved to strike out the section. 

Mr. RIDDLE said he did this vvdih a view to test 
the sense of the Convention upon the principle which 
it declares. 

.-'EC. 1. “ Human life shall ever be held inviolate. The true ob 
ject ot punishment being, in addition to the security of society, 
to reform, and not to CKterminate mankind; human life shall 
never be taken as a punishment for crime; but the highest pun¬ 
ishment indicted for crime shall be imprisonment during lile in 
the State Penitentiary.’’ 

Mr. LAW RENCE hoped that the motion to strike 
out would not prevail. He was not di8[)osed to treat 
so important a question in so summary a manner. 
There are many people in the State who feel an in¬ 
tense interest in the principle it involves. He, there- 
lore, on the part ot such, felt it his duty to nsk, at the 
hands of this body a fair and candid discussion—such 
an one as its importance demands at the hainis of a dig¬ 
nified and intelligent deliberative assembly. Are not 
hnnian lives sacred ? Is it not the duty of government 
to preserve them, where their preservation is consis¬ 
tent with the common safety f He believed that the 
people of the State were willing to come up to the 
principles of the report; and he desired, most earnest¬ 
ly, that this Convention should not be behind the peo¬ 
ple at large, in progress, in a cause appealing so large 
ly to the best feelings of humanity. 

Mr. HAWKINS supposed the object of the motion of 
the gentleman lixun Hamilton [Mr. Ridule] was to 
elicit remarks from members of the Convention. For 
himself, he concurred in the views of the gentleman 
from Guernsey [Mr. Lawrence.] He believed that 
the question whether capital punishment should be in¬ 
flicted for any crime k lown to our laws, if submitted 
to the people by a direct vote, would be negatived. I 
This is said to be au age of progress; and public opin¬ 
ion is unquestionably progressive upon this subject. It 
has come up during several sessions of the General As¬ 
sembly, and the sentiment in its favor has evidently 
been on the advance. The proposition has gained 
friends. The anlhoriiy to inflict punishment by death, 
is, by a large portion of the community considered 
doubtful. Thousands have been led to reflect upon 
the subject by the disgraceful exhibitions of vice at 
times of public executions. Tliey have frequently 
been most terrible and revolting. 

The object of punishment is to reform and not to ex¬ 
terminate mankind. Modern humanity refuses to look 
with malignity upon the ollender, and turns uway in 
disgust from the mere pursuit of revenge. In this re¬ 
spect, mankind has pn^gressed. The bloody codes of 
< barbarous ages are looked upon with hi-rror and devas¬ 
tation ; and men seek to discover excuses for the crim¬ 
inal, whose punishment, on account of its barbarism, 
is revolting to their feelings of humanity. 

The magnitude of the punishment operates against 
the chances of conviction. .Jurors become the invent¬ 
ors of excuses, instead of the impartial tryers of an 
issue of fact. Fleas of insanity intervene to defeat the 
ends of justice; and if the criminal has only a plenty 
of money, the eloquence of a well-paid advocate, and 
the technicalities of an artificial system of jurispru¬ 
dence, conspire to insure his immunity, in too many 
cases of actual guilt. 

It is said, by those who have investigated the sub¬ 
ject, that in countries where the experiment of the aban¬ 
donment of the death penalty has been tried, the effects 
have been extremely happy. Crime has not increased, 
nor have criminals multiplied. In fact, it would seem 
that nothing was better calculated to produce that bar¬ 
barism of sentiment, which renders easy the perpetra¬ 
tion of crime, than the exhibition to the public gaze of 
those scenes of punishment incident to the extreme 
penalty of the law ; and we are not unjustified by past 


history in supposing that in this case the vengeance of 
the law has a tendency to produce a repetition of the 
offence. 

Mr. McCloud was in some doubt whether the pro¬ 
gress spoken of by the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. 
H swKiNs] Was, after all, anything more than a move¬ 
ment. He had his doubts whether every movement in 
the popular opinion is, in fact, a progress. He did not 
intend to take part in this discussion at this time, nor 
in this hall. If he should speak so as to be heard to 
all those in the hall, he might as well go and bespeak 
his cufiiin at once. He designed, however, at the pro¬ 
per lime, to move the adoption, in the constitution, ot a 
[ii’uvision similar to that in the present one. He hoped 
that, at present, there would be no attempt to discuss 
the merits of the cjuestioii. 

Mr. SAWYER was in favor of the motion. He was 
glad it had been made. He was iu favor of graduating 
punishment according to the enormity of the crime. 
If we abolish the death penalty, w^e shall be obliged 
to begin and make an entire new graduation. We 
must begin lower. If you imprison him who has com¬ 
mitted a murder in the first degree, for life, he who has 
committed a less atrocious homicide must be impris¬ 
oned for a term of years, and so we must classify down 
wards. For his part, he did not believe in the hum¬ 
bug cry about the barbari.sm of the death penalty. He 
was not in fa^or of the mock sympathies of the pres¬ 
ent age. Men may commit such a crime as demands 
most imperatively that their life should be taken from 
them—a crime so enormous, as to leave tnem no claim 
upon God or man, for the prolongation of their exis¬ 
tence. Even in the Old Bay State, so highly spoken of 
yesterday, for the purity of its morals and the law abi- 
ning character of its people, they are forced to hang. 
For his part, he had no great love for that State, nor 
ever had, since the time when they hanged Quakers, 
and cut the throats of Baptists. The idea of capital pun¬ 
ishment was not so revolting to him, as that of the as¬ 
sassin, entering the chamber of his unoffending victim, 
and taking advantage of his slumbers, burying a knife 
in his bosom. Now-a-days, the sympathy of the good 
people is all with the assassin. Men are more wise 
than in the olden lime—more wise than the teachings 
of the word of God. 

Mr. BATES inquired in what manner the Scriptures 
had justified capital punishment. 

Mr. SAWYER was no great adept in the knowledge 
of the Sacred Scriptures; but he recollected having read 
in his Bible, that “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by 
man shall his blood be shed.” Will that answer the 
gentleman? He could cite passages both in the Old 
and the New Testaments, where this doctrine is recog¬ 
nized and inculcated. He had heard this subject agita¬ 
ted before. It had been brought before the public, and 
before the General Assembly time and again; but its 
agitators have never been able to procure a repeal of 
the law, and he hoped they never would. 

Mr. BATES desired to say a few words upon the sub¬ 
ject. He did not intend to reply to the Scripture argu¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Auglaize. ^ He thought, 
however, that it would not much avail him.^ He ques¬ 
tioned if there was anything in the Holy Scriptures that 
could be construed into an imperative command to de¬ 
stroy human life under any circumstances. He thought 
the phrase “ shall be shed,” might he looked upon as a 
declaration predictive of the consequences of violence, 
to its perpetrator, rather than an injunction upon others 
to visit vengeance upon his head. There are other pas¬ 
sages in Holy writ where a similar form of expression 
is employed, to construe which into a command would 
be an absurdity. For instance, “ Whosoever diggelh a 
pit shall fall therein,” “Whosoever taketh the sword 
shall perish by the sword,” &c. 

He entertained great respect for those who differed 
with him in this respect, and from deference to them, 
he intended to place his argument against the death 
penalty upon other giound. The report declares that 









CONVENTION REPORTS, 


692 


the right of every man to his own life should be in¬ 
violable; and we conclude that if life is taken, it is in¬ 
cumbent upon those who take it, to show the necessi¬ 
ty for so doing. 

The object of all human law.s, is to secure and pro¬ 
mote the general good. The criminal forms a ['art of 
the general society—of the partners in the Stale, and 
before you take his life, you must show a conclusive 
reason for the act. It is not enough to say that he is a 
bad member of society. No good surgeon will am[)U- 
tate a diseased limb, until he is satisfied, not only that 
nil his efforts to cure it will be of no avail, but that the 
liealth of the remainder of the system imperiously de¬ 
mands its removal. 

What then is the end of punishment? Is it not the 
good of society and the reformation of the wicked ? In 
what manner does the death penalty secure the good of 
society ? It removes the delinquent, it is true, but are 
you sure that no ill consequences follow from his vio¬ 
lent and shocking death ? Who dares answer that no 
debasing—no hardening consequences accrue to socie¬ 
ty, even when the culj'rit is cut off in silence and 
alone? But how does the death penalty lends to se¬ 
cure the other great end of punishment—the reforma¬ 
tion of the criminal ? 

If, under the scripture law we are bound to inflict 
indiscriminate death upon all who lake life, what ex¬ 
emption is there of the idiot or the insane—what ot the 
accidental slayer? You [)lace the insane in conflne- 
ment; why not him who, under the influence of moral 
disease, has slain his fellow? Can you go down into 
the soul and measure the moral guilt of this or that 
wrong done ? 

In all countries where the death penalty has been 
abolished, crime has diminished. Such will ever be 
the case. But I go further and say, that there can l»e 
no necessity for it. The reluctance to take the life of 
him who may possibly be innocent, operates to screen 
the guilty, by preventing conviction ; for it is the cer¬ 
tainly and not the severity of the punishment that 
tends to prevent crime. 

There is another reason. There is a possibility that 
that most terrible of all events may happen—an inno¬ 
cent man may lose his lile by an infamous [mnishment. 
It was a just remark of Gen. Lafayette, that so long as 
human judgment is fallible, we ai-e bound to resist the 
infliction of capital [lunishment. 

He believed that the public sentiment demanded the 
remission of the death penalty. Gentlemen say that 
this i.s not a proper subject for a consiitulional provi¬ 
sion, and that it should be left to the action of the 
General Assembly. In regard to many subjects agita¬ 
ted in this O' nvention, he was disposed to ihink so, but 
not in this. We have thought it necessaiy to declare 
private property to be inviolate : Is human life any less 
so? You have declared the sale of lottery tickets to 
be wrong : Is judicial murder right, or of less conse¬ 
quence than the sale of a ticket in a lottery ? 

Mr. SAWYER was a member of the committee that 
introduced the sale of lottery tickets. Such sale is 
wrong. It can under no circumstances be right. On 
the contrary, we do believe that a man may forfeit his 
life, and that, once forfeited, there is a power in the 
State, with the right to carry that forfeit into effect. 
He would suggest to his friend that, after all, he was 
conferring upon humanity a benefit of a doubtful char¬ 
acter. He would not take his life, but he would take 
his liberty, which many a man would value far more 
than his life. But the o[)po8ition to capital punishment 
is inconsistent in another resj'ect. If it follows its own 
doctrine, it must repudiate and condemn all corporal 
punishment—the stocks, the whipping post, even im¬ 
prisonments are equally abhorrent to the gentleman’s 
doctrine, when pursued to its legitimate consequences. 

Mr. BATES said that if imprisonment was a higher 
penalty than death, th'e gentleman, according to his 
own showing, ought to be in favor of it. He believed, 
at any rate, the experiment ought to be tried; and that 


men, but Ibr their reluctance to change, even in the 
case of abuse, woidd generally go for it. He believed 
the operation would be very beneficial. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. Will the gentleman permit a sug¬ 
gestion ? If he would, I would suggest, that if he is 
desirous to try the ex[)eriment, he had better apply to 
the General Assembly, who ought to have full power 
over such subjects. 

Mr. BATES. The General Assembly has hitherto 
proved a bad place for such experiments. I prefer to 
apply to the [teople through this Convention. 

Mr. HORTON moved to strike out the first two lines 
of the section. He thought the principle essentially 
declared without them. 

Mr. LAWRENCE was not tenacious for the reten¬ 
tion of the matter proposed to be stricken out. He' 
was desir'ous, however, that there should be a distinct 
aflirmance of the proposition contained in the section. 
If it is inq'ortant to declare in the constitution of the 
State the inviolability of private property, how much 
moreis it inq'orlant to recognize the great principle 
of the inviolability of human life. The first object to 
be secured by punishment, is the safety of society. 
But there is another. He had no sympathy with of¬ 
fenders. It is with no such sen'iment that he was in 
favor of the doctrine; but for the very reason declared 
in the first and second lines, now proposed to be strick¬ 
en out. 

There is a very conclusive reason in favor of dispen¬ 
sing with the death penalty. It is, that it defeats its 
o . n object. The number of convictions in proportion 
to the crimes, is very small. We hear of great crimes 
every day, yet how seldom we hear of the infliction of 
the penalty. Why is it so? Because such punishment 
is opjtosed to the sympathies of the human heart. The 
enormity of the punishment prevents the conviction. 
In min Jr crimes the punishment is much more certain, 
and the advocates of capital punishment have thrown 
upon them the burden of ['roving its necessity, before 
they have made the first step toward convincing men 
of its propriety. 

Mr. LEAD BETTER was opposed to the abolition of 
capital punishment, and equally opposed to that sym¬ 
pathy for the crimi al which seized every opportunity 
to make a saint of him who had foricited his lite by 
w’antonly sending an unoffending victim into the pres¬ 
ence of his God. He knew that it had become a sort 
of stereotype [)hrase with many, that it is the certainty 
and not the severity lof punishment that tends to pre¬ 
vent the commission of crime. Like most stereotype 
phrases of that species of philanthropists, it is not true, 
or so only in a limited degree. As it is used and un¬ 
derstood, it is absurd. 

No rational man, upon a jury, would convict a man 
of horse stealing upon testimony any less conclusive 
than he would require in a case of murder. The evi¬ 
dence is laid before the jury, and if they are convinced, 
beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of the charge, 
they are to say so, and this is a conviction. And this 
is as true in the one case as in the other. The phrase 
about the certainty of punishments, amounts to noth¬ 
ing. With my friend from Morgan, I think it would 
be well if society would hang up a few more scoun¬ 
drels. He believed that the matter should be left to 
Legislative discretion. Then public opinion will dic¬ 
tate what it desires, and the representatives of the peo¬ 
ple will carry it out. He should vote to strike out. 

Mr. HAWKINS. In proportion as punishment is ex¬ 
cessive and cruel, the chances ol escape are multiplied; 
but when public sentiment sanctions the measure of 
punishment, neither prejudice nor sympathy stand iu 
the way of the ends of justice. In countries where the 
ex periment of abolishing capital punishment has been 
tried, the effect has been happy. Some men seem to 
value very highly the mere gratification of hanging 
scoundrels, but the question is, what benefit does it 
confer upon society ? 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, was in favor of the principle 











* 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


693 


of the report, but not in favor of the incorporation of 
that principle in the constitution, for this reason: He 
believed that we had in Ohio a large share of certain 
moral, political and religious bigotry, which would de¬ 
feat the success of the principle contained in this sec¬ 
tion. even at the expense of the constitution itself. 
They would defeat the constitution when it was pre¬ 
sented to the people for adoption, and thus we should 
lose what we seek to attain, together with the result 
of the remainder of our labors. For himself, he was 
in favor of the abolition of capital punishments, and 
hoped that the day was not far distant when Ohio would 
take the lead in this great and philanthropic measure, and 
exhibit to the world the fact that she was willing even 
to try an experiment for the purpose of securing an 
advance in the cause of humanity. 

Capital punishments are a relic of ages dark and bar¬ 
barous, and are a reproach to the enlightenment and 
civilization to w'hich we pretend. It is a disgrace to 
us, that our statutes are darkened with the relics of 
the bloody codes of ages of violence and oppression. 
He believed, with Jefferson, that itis only right to take 
human life in cases of the utmost necessity. Among 
savages, who have neither prisons, means of restraint, 
nor means of moral suasion, such a necessity may ex¬ 
ist; but here it does not exist, and on that ground, if 
on no other, capital punishment should be repudiated. 

The gentleman from Auglaize has referred to the 
Mosaic law for authority. Now that law does not sus¬ 
tain his position. Now, that law does not say that. 
Whoso taketh a man’s life, his life shall be taken, or 
his blood shall be shed, but. Whoso sheddeth a man’s 
blood. For example: A man has given another a 
bloody nose; he shall receive a bloody nose in return: 
A man stabs me with a dirk ; I give him a dig under the 
short ribs in return, and the dignity of the Alosaic law 
is vindicated. Now, 1 abhor that position and thatlaw. 
If you are to take one provision of the Mo.saic code, 
why not take all 1 That law says, “ an eye for an eye, 
and a tooth for a tooth.” If we adopt this as the stan¬ 
dard of legislation and jurisprudence, we shall sink be¬ 
neath the standard of savages. 

1 agree with what has been said by the gentleman 
from Guei’nsey, [Mr. Lawrence,] and in principle con¬ 
cede the truth of the remarks of the gentleman from 
Jefferson, [Mr. Bates,] but I do not believe that the 
people are ready to adopt this gi'eat measure of reform. 
I believe that if incorporated in this constitution, it 
will sink it; but I would ask of the committee that re¬ 
ported this section, to introduce a resolution upon 
which we may declare and I’ecord our names in favor 
of the aband-onment of this relic of barbarism, other¬ 
wise almost extinct. 

Mr. RANNEY was in favor of the motion to strike 
out the whole section. He admitted that his sympa¬ 
thies were with those who were opposed to capital 
punishment. He was convinced that no necessity ex¬ 
isted for the infliction of the death penalty, and that 
no such necessity was likely to exist for the jmnisli- 
ment of any crime likely to be committed in the 
State. He felt that society was armed with all the 
ower necessary for its own preservation; if the ta- 
ing of life were necessary, he did not dottbt the ex¬ 
istence of the power to do so. It was a mere ques¬ 
tion of State necessity; but the necessity to take hu¬ 
man life, should be overwhelming, in order to justify 
this act. 

What were the objects of all punishment? They 
were two. The first was the protection of society: 
and the second was the reformation ol the offender. 

In the first place then, it was not necessary to resort 
to the death-penalty for the protection of society. 
Was it supposable that the influence ■ f mnrderers and 
others, in the present enlightened age, would ever be 
able to overthrow the institutions of civilized society ? 
Who did not know that there would always be found 
an abundant force* on the side of law and order to sup¬ 
press this influence in every shape it could assume. 


With reference to the second object of punishment, 
he remarked, that the infliction of the death penalty left 
nothing to be reformed—gave no chance for reforma¬ 
tion to the wicked man. It might be said, that a man 
possessing so much moral corruption as to commit mur¬ 
der, will never be reformed. But to deny that his re¬ 
formation is practicable, would be to deny the power 
of the divine arrangement to reform the heart of man. 
Certainly, it were better that a man should be reform¬ 
ed, than that he should be exterminated: and so long 
as it remains possible to extoiid the power of reforma¬ 
tion, it were certainly better to do so, than to consign 
a man, at once, to hopeless perdition. 

He saw another reason against capital punishment. 
It was, that, on account of the sympathies of men for 
the criminal, there was continual danger, that he would 
escape, and so prevent the execution of the law’. 

With respect to the principle of vengeance, as con¬ 
nected with punishment, that did not belong to man. 
He would refer to the same authority which had been 
before quoted—“Vengeance is mine, I will repay, 
saith the Lord.” Vengeance belongs alone to him 
whose judgement is unerring. 

Mr. LEADBETTER (interrupting,) desired to ask 
the gentleman whether one of the effects oi punishment 
would not be to deter others from the commission of 
crime. 

Mr. RANNEY. He would answer the gentleman. 
He should have included this in what he had said about 
the power of society to protect itself. He was glad 
the gentleman had called his attention to it. But, does 
the gentleman believe that, hanging men u[) by the 
neck, and choking them to death, will deter other.- 
from the commission of crime? 

Mr. LEADBETTER. Was not the rising generation 
governed as much by example, as by precept ? 

Mr. RANNEY. That might be true; but he went 
farther. He held human life more sacred. When a 
man took away the life of his fellow, he would not 
follow his bad example so far as to take him up and 
choke him to death, and that before his own children. 
He never saw but one man choked in this way. He 
earnestly hoped that he might never see another : and 
as for the case he did witness, of all the spectacles 
upon God’s footstool, from which to learn a lesson of 
morality, he believed that was the worst. If we would 
look at the criminal history of Old England, we might 
learn something from their example. If we were to 
look back to those times when it was the law of Eng¬ 
land to punLh stealth with death—when their entire 
criminal code was written in blood—we would find 
that, under that system of laws, crimes of thi.s class, 
instead of being repressed, were greatly augmented : 
for thefts Wi re committed right under the body of the 
victim which had been just stretched up for a similar 
crime. No, it was when we were able to carry home 
to the minds of men a refined sense of humanity to 
his fellow-creatures, that we could have the best guar¬ 
anties against the commission of crime. It was not 
the shedding of blood that would make the peojde 
more virtuous, more considerate and careful of the in¬ 
terests of others. 

If it were necessary that the death penalty should 
he inflicted in other countries, that necessity did not 
exist in our country, or in any other country where 
the government was erected upon the will of the peo¬ 
ple. Such a thing might be necessary in arbitrary and 
despotic governments: it might be necessary lor a ty¬ 
rant to write his law.' in blood, for a terror to those 
who might stand adverse to his administration , but 
never in a governmenilikeours, w’here the noblest atl'ec- 
qJ the citizen were all made to clustei aiound that 
which afiords protection to property and lil'e. It was 
ridiculous to think that a few miserable inurderers 
would be able to overturn the foundations of society in 
this country. 

Allusion had been made to Dr. Webster, in connec 
tion with the Massachusetts law. This case was evi- 







694 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


dence to his mind, that the people of that State were 
a law-abiding people, that they were disposed and de¬ 
termined to execute the laws without respect to the 
rank and inflnence of the oflender. The execution of 
the legal penalty in this case, met his hearty concur¬ 
rence ; but if the offender had been a poor, obscure 
man, it might materially change the case, and the rig¬ 
id execution of the law might not have been so neces¬ 
sary. When Mr. R. had concluded— 

ARRANGEMENT OF THE HALL. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, said : Mr. Chairman : It ap¬ 
pears to me, that, so far as our deliberations here are 
concerned, we cannot obtain any benefit from whatev¬ 
er may be said. In order, therefore, to afford the se¬ 
lect committee, appointed to inquire into the ways and 
means by which we may be better heard here, an op¬ 
portunity to make further rejjort, I propose that the 
committee rise and report progress. 

This motion was agreed to; and accordingly, the 
committee rose, and the Chairman reported progress. 

On motion, by Mr. SMITH, of Warren, the Conven¬ 
tion took up the following resolution: 

Resolved, That the committee heretofore appointed to inquire 
as to the improvement of the Hall now occupied by the Conven¬ 
tion for deliberative purposes, be authorized to contract for the 
erection of a ceiling of canvass, or muslin, upon the most ap¬ 
proved plan, to reduce the capacity of the Hall, and cut off the 
galleries. 

Mr. NASH proposed the following amendment, to 
come in at the end of the resolution, to-wit: 

“ Or that the conjmittee, at their discretion, engage a new 
Hall, and have the railing, seats and furniture removed to the 
same.” 

Mr. WORTHINGTON stated the reasons in favor of 
remaining in the Hall now occupied, and gave it as the 
recommendation of the committee to stretch, at a pro¬ 
per distance above the gas-burners, an awning of can¬ 
vass, which will have the effect of lowering the ceiling 
and cutting off the galleries, and it would not cost 
more than the expense of a half day’s session. 

Mr. LAWRENCE proposed to amend the amend¬ 
ment, by inserting after the word “ Hall,” the words 
“ in this city or elsewhere.” ' 

Mr. McCORMICK proposed to amend the amend¬ 
ment, by adding wagons and cages for the accommoda¬ 
tion of the traveling menagerie which he supposed this 
body was about to become; and to give eclat to the ex¬ 
pedition, he suggested that the committee should be 
instructed to engage the conduct of the celebrated Bar- 
num. But, in seriousness, he had no doubt but there 
were halls enough in this city wh’ch would accoii mo- 
date the Convention as well as they could be accommo¬ 
dated any where. From what had been said by the 
gentleman last on the floor, he doubled not but that the 
Convention would be able so to arrange the Hall in 
which they were now sitting diat they could hear wc'll 
enough, and speak with ease and satisfaction. The 
difficulty was that the voice, striking upon a hard sur¬ 
face, at various distances from the speaker, produced a 
succession of echoes which made confusion. Now, if 
the walls were covered with canvass, and the recesses 
hung with tapestry, so that the voice would strike upon 
a soft instead of a hard surface, the whole difficulty 
would be removed. He was opposed to removing. He 
was opposed to coming here in the first place ; and be¬ 
ing here, now, he was equally opposed to removing 
again to any other place. 

Mr. LARWILL was in favor of removing to Colum¬ 
bus, for several reasons which he rehearsed. 

Messrs. Dorsey, Loudon, Stanton, AnennoLD, Ma¬ 
nor, Morris and Case of Licking, were each heard in 
a brief explanation, and statement of their opposition 
to any removal. 

Mr. LAWRENCE said he was unwilling to do any 
thing that might endanger the adoption of the Consti¬ 
tution by the people. But he did not believe that such 
would be the result of our returning to Columbus. He 
believed by this act the Convention w'ould elevate its 
reputation, and regain much#charncter which it lost 


with the people by removing to this city, although he 
would frankly admit that Cincinnati is not only an 
honor to Ohio, but she is an ornament to the great and 
growing West. It was from no feelings of unkindness 
to her citizens that he advocated this resolution, with 
many of whom he enjoyed the pleasure of a personal 
acquaintance, and bore willing testimony to their kind¬ 
ness and urbanity. Higher motives impelled him to 
action in this matter. 

Day after day we are complaining that this Hall is 
not suited to the purposes of discussion and delibera¬ 
tion. Efforts have been made by a committee of this 
body, either to secure another Hall, or to improve, by 
the erection of an artificial ceiling and the cutting off 
the galleries, the one we now occupy. He was opposed 
to all such experijnenling at the expense of the people. 
If we cannot be suitably accommodated here let us 
return to the Capital of the State, where were all the 
archives of the State—the State Library, and other 
conveniences necessary to the deliberations of this 
body. 

At the time the adjournment took place last .summer, 
he foresaw the ern’i* of coming to this city. If an 
error was then committed in the selection of a place 
for the reassembling of this Convention, as all were 
now willing to admit, he for one was ready to retrace 
his steps. 

A few words, be said, with regard to that adjourn¬ 
ment. He then believed it right—believed it called 
for by every dictate of humanity; and so believing, 
had voted for it. He yet considered he had, by that 
vote, done only simple justice to himself and the peo¬ 
ple of the State. He called God to witness that he 
never gave a vote from purer motives. Circumstances 
then existed at Columbus which convinced a majority 
of us that it would be unsafe and unwise to remain 
longer there. Future developments, in the progress of 
the ‘‘pestilence that w^alketh in darkness,” have amply 
confirmed the w'isdom of our course. Scarcely had 
members reached their homes, until the notes of lam¬ 
entation and distress from the capital were borne upon 
every breeze. Dismay, fear, and consternation, per¬ 
vaded every brea.st. Thousands of her citizens sought 
refuge in flight, some of whom were overtaken by the 
pe.slilence and cut down in a moment. 

Such a .state of things, every sensible man supposed, 
would have disarmed : 11 opposition to the propriety of 
our adjournment. Not so. A few editors of the coun¬ 
try press thought it their duty to attack the members 
who had favored the adjournment, in abusive and slan¬ 
derous ai tides. He was sorry to say that such attacks, 
so far as he was apprised, oi'iginated with democrats. 
But all know how eagerly the Ohio Statesman, the 
central organ of the democratic party, republished those 
attacks upon the purity a.id honesty of the motives 
which actuated the majority; thus encouraging and 
giving currency to them. Yea, indeed, at the very time 
when the editor of that paper was admitting that five 
thousand of their citizens were absent, its columns 
were teeming with abuse upon the majority of this 
body. “ The whigs and a few' home-sick democrats,” 
it w’as said, effected the adjournment. Shame should 
mantle the cheeks of a man so lost to every feeling of 
truth and humanity. 

He impugned the motives of no member who voted 
against the adjournment; he was ever ready to defend 
the purity of their motives. But while he was thus 
ready himself to do justice to others, he would not rest 
in silence under the imputation of dishonest motives, 
which the central organ had fulminated against the 
members of this body for adjourning over from July to 
December. He would, upon all prosier occasions, ex¬ 
press the indignaticn and contempt he felt, and he well 
knew that many others participated in his feelings, in 
this regard, for all those who sought to make political 
capital out of the health and lives of the members of 
this body. 

Mr. LARWILL was of the opinion that a removal 








CONVEN'IION REPORTS. • 695 


to Columbus would expedite the business of the ses¬ 
sion, and give satisfaction to the people. Last sum¬ 
mer, he was amongst the advocates of the proposi¬ 
tion to remove to Cleveland, having oft’ered one of the 
resolutions to that effect. He offered that resolution, 
because he saw, as the event proved, that a proper 
regard for the health of the body would not allow 
them to sit in Columbus but a few days longer. But 
what would have been the result if his proposition to 
remove to Cleveland had been adopted ? It was now 
pretty clear, that, if the Convention had gone to Cleve¬ 
land, they would have proc^eded to complete their 
work. And that it would have been submitted to the 
people before this time. But that propositi )n was op¬ 
posed by those gentlemen who preferred coming to 
Cincinnati. 

Mr. LAWRENCE then asked and obtained leave to 
withdraw his amendment to the amendment, and then 
he offered the following as a substitute for the resolu¬ 
tion and amendment: 

Resolved, That when this Convention shall adjourn this day, 
it will adjourn to meet in Columbus on Monday next, at 10 
o’clock, A. M. t 

Upon the motion of Mr. LARSH, the Convention 
took a recess till 3 o’clock, R. M. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

The PRESIDENT resumed, and announced the 
question to be upon the amendment of the gentleman 
from Gallia, [^lr. Nash,] to the report of the se'ect 
committee—ruling the amendment of the gentleman 
from Guernsey, [Mr. Lawrence.] to be out of order. 

Mr. Nash’s amendment was rejected; and the ques¬ 
tion recurred upon the adoption of the resolution. 

Mr. LAWRENCE now moved the adoption of the 
substitute which he had before proposed. 

Mr. HORTON demanded a division of the question, 
and the yeas and nays upon the question of striking 
out. 

Mr. SAWYER said it was intimated before dinner, 
that information was expected from Columbus, in re¬ 
gard to the subject under consideration, and he sup¬ 
posed this would be a proper time to present it. 

Mr. GRAHAM then sent up a communication from 
Mr. Wm. Neil, of Columbus, offering a Hall for the use 
of the Convention, for $100 per month. 

Mr. SAWYER said, the Convention had arrrived at a 
point in the consideration of this subject, where he felt 
it necessary for him to s})eak out. He intended to be 
very brief. The necessity for the adjournment last 
summer was apparent to all. He was obliged to ac¬ 
knowledge it, although he felt opposed to it at the 
time. He would have been glad to have staid ; or 
rather, with his friend from Wayne, [Mr. Larwill.] 
he would have preferred an adjournment, to the city 
of Cleveland. But, for lack of strength to carry that 
proposition, the body was compelled to adjourn to this 
place. The cholera was in our midst; members w'ould 
not have been retained: but it was most reluctantly 
that he yielded bis assent to the proposition to come 
here. 

But now, he continued, we are here. A committee 
appointed by the President of the Convention, (in 
whose appointment we all acquiesced,) have ^elected 
this Hall for the accommodation of the body. Some 
objections have been made to the room. I confess that 
it IS objectionable in some re.^^pects; but I suppo.se all 
that might be obviated at a trifling expense. I believe 
it might be obviated by each member speaking from 
the Clerk’s desk, or from a tribune which might be 
erected in front of it; or the proposition to canvass the 
ceiling might be carried with effect for about a hun¬ 
dred uollars. 

We are here at a rent of $150 a month for this Hall, 
including fires and lights. Mr. Neil proposes to give 
us his Hall for $100 a mouth—nothing said about lights 
and fuel. But, now, I undertake to say, that, by dis¬ 
pensing with the salary of the Sergeant-at-Arms, as we 


have done, and by what is saved on account of gas 
light, we get the use of this Hall for absolutely no ex¬ 
pense at all to the State. 

Some gentlemen complain that we have not access 
to such books here, as are necessary to our delibera¬ 
tions. The gentleman from Monroe, [ Mr. Archbold,] 
makes this complaint. And this gentleman is a read¬ 
ing man. No one can read his speeches witlnmt being 
convinced of that fact. However, there are but very 
few of us, comparatively, who really have any need 
to resort to books, to assist us in the performance of 
our duties here. For myself, sir, I feel that I am suffi¬ 
ciently informed with reference to every principle up¬ 
on which I shall be called to vote in this body ; and 
that I need not be under the necessity of looking again 
into one single book, in order to qualify myself for the 
discharge of my duties here. 1 had been preparing 
my mind with book knowledge before I came here. I 
have come as a workman, prepared. I have no need 
now to resort to history upon this subject of establish¬ 
ing the organic law. If we want to spend our time in 
the library, for our own advantage, that is quite another 
matter. 

Again, our committee reports are all before us. We 
have all the facts before ns also, which we have deman¬ 
ded, in order to prosecute our labors. Why then go 
back to Columbus? Ido not covet the reputation 
which would attach justly to this body by such a re¬ 
moval ; and in such an event, I have determined that 
my course will be to resign and go home. Though that 
circumstance, perhaps, would not affect the minds of 
others very seriously. 

To my mind there is now a peculiar appropriateness 
in closing the labors of this Convention, in the city of 
Cincinnati. Because, I apprehend that the constitution 
which we shall frame will be such a constitution as 
the eyes of freemen never yet have looked upon, it 
will be so radically Democratic. I think there is a pe¬ 
culiar appropriateness in this, that such a constitution 
should be framed in Hamilton county, where the dem¬ 
ocratic party have so recently given a majority of four 
thousand votes for Reuben Wood. It is on this account 
that I desire to appeal especially to those who sit upon 
this side of the Ilonse, to consider that the voice of the 
people, throughout the length and breadth of theland, 
has just been heard in favor of a radically republican, 
harcl money. Democratic constitution, such as might at 
this time most appropriately emanate from the gallant 
old democratic county of Hamilton. 

Mr. President: It is not necessary to dwell longer 
upon this subject. I may have said too much already, 
jiarticularly with reference to party feeling in the case. 
But I wish, by all rneans, to dissuade from all idea of 
removal. It might be well enough for those gentle¬ 
men who work the political wires, to go to Columbus 
about this time—pending the election of a United 
States Senator, and several president judges; and it 
may be that these considerations will have something 
to do in the decision of this question, but I should hope 
not. I desire to go to work ; and, in order to begin 
fairly, I would be willing to adjourn from this even¬ 
ing till Monday, when all the requisite arrangements 
of the Hall niight be completed. By pursuing this 
ctmrse, in all probability, by the middle ol February 
next, we shall be ready to walk up to that desk and 
subscribe our names to the new constitution. And, in 
order to accomplish this (»bjoct, I am willing, on my 
own part, to surrender some of my extreme view.s, to 
accommodate the views of my old friends. But if we 
once get upon the cars again, our ultimate destination 
will have to be regarded as very uncertain; it may bo 
Columbus, or Zanesville, or Cleveland, vrSt. Marys, 
[laughter.] 

Mr. LARWILL moved that the pending resolution 
be laid on the table. 

Upon which motion the yeas and nays being demand¬ 
ed, resulted yeas 10, nays 76, as follows ; 










696 


CONNENTION EEPORTS. 


Ykas.—M essrs. Case, Gillett, Gregg, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Manon, Mitchell, Stidirer, and Thompson of Stark.—10. 

Nays. —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates. Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, ('ahill. Case of Licking, Chaney, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, 
Ewart, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Henderson. 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, 
Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lidey, Loudon, Ma¬ 
son, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Patter¬ 
son, Peck. Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemeliti, Riddle, Ptoll, 
Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Vance 
of Champaign, Warren, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, andWor-. 
thington.—76. 

The question then being on striking out all alter the 
word “ Resolved,’^ in the resolution, a division of the 
question upon Mr. Lawrenck’s motion to strike out 
and add other words, having been called for, the yeas 
and nays were demanded, and resulted yeas 19, nays 
60, as follow.^:- 

Yeas. —Messrs. Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hock 
ing, Curry, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hitchcock of Cuya' 
hoga, Hootman, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lid<^*y, Manon, Mitch¬ 
ell, McCloud, Peck, Stanton, and Vance of Champaign.—19. 

Nays. —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Cook, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Henderson, Holmes, 
Holt, tiorton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson. Jones, Ken¬ 
non, Kirkwood, Larsh, Loudon, Mason, Morris, McCoz'raick, 
Nash, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reeme- 
lin. Riddle, Roll. Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stilwell, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struble, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of 
Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, 
and Worthington.—66. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

Mr. NASH moved to amend the original resolution, 
(for which see forenoon’s proceedings,) by adding the 
following at the end thereof: ‘‘ or any otln-r changes or 
improvements in the Hall to prevent its echoing, that 
may be deemed best.” 

Which amendment was agreed to. 

The quc'stion then being on agreeing to tin* resolu¬ 
tion for making improvements in the Hall, the yeas 
and nays being demanded, resulted, yeas 65, nays 19, 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brow'n of 
Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chaney, Cook, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuya¬ 
hoga, Holmes. Holt, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Ken¬ 
non, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwdll, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Mc¬ 
Cormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ree- 
melin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Williams and Worthington—65. 

Nays —Messrs. Curry, Graham, Gnenof Ross, Gregg, Hamil¬ 
ton, Hootman, Humphreville, Lawrence, Leech, Lidey, Manon, 
McCloud, Peck, Ranney, Smith of Highland, Stanton, Vance of 
Champaign, Wilson and Woodbury—19. 

So tlie resolution as amended was agreed to. 

Mr. MASON moved that the Conventitzn resolve it¬ 
self into a committee of the whole on the orders of 
the day—which was disagreed to; and then, on motion 
by Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


SATURDAY, December 7, 18-50. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournm. jit, Mr. 
Va.vce, of Butler, in the Chair. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. ORTON presented the petition of Asher Cook 
and one hundred and three others, citizens cd' Wood 
county, praying that the plan for a judiciary, reported 
to the Convention l>y the standing committee upon that 
subject, be so amended as to give the county courts 
concurrent jurisdiction with the court of common pleas 
in the busine s of naturalization, and exclusive juris¬ 
diction in cases of license and revenue. 

Referred to the standing committee on the .Judiciary 
Department, 


Mr. REEMELIN presented the petition of .John 
Grable and ninety other citizens of Wayne county, on 
the subject of law reform. 

Referred to the standing committee on Jurispru- 
dcnc©. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE presented the petition of 
Mi s. Mary A. Bronson, praying for an extension and 
greater security of the rights of married women. ^ 

Referred to the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects 
and Propositions. 

Mr. REEMELIN presented a petition from Robert 
Sinzey and eight others, asking that a clause be in¬ 
serted in the new constitution authorizing either branch 
of the General Assembly to expel any member who 
shall present himself drunk on the floor during their 
session. 

Referred to the select committee on the subject of 
Temperance. 

Mr. KIRKVVOOD, from the standing committee on 
Privileges and Elections, submitted the following re¬ 
port : 

That the said James T. Wohthingron has been duly elected a 
meiiiber of this Convention for the counties of Pickaway and 
Ross, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Wes¬ 
ley Claypool. 

All of which was respectfully submitted. 

On motion of Mr. KIRKWOOD, the report was agreed 
to. 

Mr. HAWKINS, from the select committee on the 
subject of printing, to whom was referred the resolu¬ 
tion of Mr. Reemelin, requesting the Secretary of State 
to make the necessary provision for printing and trans¬ 
mitting to this body the reports of the officers of State, 
&c., reported the same back, and recommended its 
adoption; which was agreed to, and the committee 
were discharged from any further consideration of the 
same. 

On motion of Mr. HUNT, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the Whole on the orders of 
the day, Mr. Humphreville in the chair. 

The order of the day being the report of the select 
committee upon the subject of capital punishment, the 
question was upon the motion of Mr. Riddle to strike 
out the first two lines of the same; which was decided 
in the affirmative: yeas 44, nays 26. 

The question then being upon striking out the sec¬ 
tion as amended— 

Mr. QUIGLEY. I am in favor of striking out, not¬ 
withstanding the gentleman from Licking has given us 
to understand that the sanguinary system of capital pun- 
isment was lit only for the dark ages, and was sujiport- 
ed by bigotry, superstition and fanaticism. If all are 
bigoted, superstitious and fanatical who are favorable 
to capital punishment, he will find that he has included, 
with very few exceptions, all the clergymen and theo¬ 
logians of ancient and modern times—he will include 
the great majority of prolessing Christians—the great 
majority of the moral part of community; classes sus¬ 
taining the virtue, morality and integrity of society ; 
these are the bigots, the superstitious, the fanatics, 
who favor a continuationof capital punishment for capi¬ 
tal crimes. But, sir, if capital punishment to be abol¬ 
ished in Ohio, let it be done by the Legislature as di¬ 
rected by the people’s will. I am opposed to abolish¬ 
ing capital punishment for capital crime, by constitu¬ 
tional authority, believing, as I think every member of 
this Convention believes, that laws ought to be based 
on strict principles of morality and justice. 

That capital punishment was directed by the Su¬ 
preme Ruler of the universe, we cannot do otherwise 
than admit, acting upon the princijiles of strict and in¬ 
flexible justice and morality adhered to by all who be¬ 
lieve in the sacred Scrijitures; and must at that time, 
and under the circumstances, have been moral, wise, 
and just, and was not given to a dark and benighted 
nation, or to any nation, but to Noah, before organiza¬ 
tion existed in the post diluvian world. Now, sir, I 
take my stand upon the ground, that the law was giv¬ 
en to Noah by the Supreme law-giver, even God him- 








CONVENTION REPOETS. 


self, and was, of necessity, moral, wise and just; and 
that it never has been, nor ever will be repealed, so 
long as capital crime—so long as wilful, deliberate, 
malicious murder is perpetrated. No intimation of its 
repeal is found in the sacred volume, that ever I could 
see—neither can it be repealed, from the nature, of the 
case. Moral writers lay it down as a sacred and es¬ 
tablished principle, that amoral law given or laid down 
under immutable circumstances, must forever remain 
unchangeable. Now, I inqiiire, what were the circum¬ 
stances under which this law was given, and designed 
to operate? Whosoever sheds mairs blood, by'nian 
shall his blood be shed—which, according to the opin¬ 
ion of our ablest commentators, together with the con- 
curiiug opinion ot the clergy ol almost every denomi¬ 
nation, and all who are acquainted with the original 
language in which the law was given, at least so far as 
iny knowledge extends in this matter, have considered 
a law directing capital punishment for capital crime. 
What, then, is capital crime ? Without doubt, the delib¬ 
erate willful,and malicious taking away the life of an in¬ 
nocent person, without cause or provocation. I ask, Mr. 
President, what has been, and what now are, the circum¬ 
stances ? Did the a"es of darkness and superstition, 
or the refined and enlightened age in which we live, 
alter, in any respect whatever, the nature of the case? 
Most assuredly not; willful, deliberate, and malicious 
murder is now a violation of God’s law as much as it 
was when first given, and is the same essential crime 
in all ages, so long as perpetrated, and incurring the 
same dread penalty. 

The definition of this law given by my friend from 
Licking, whose judgment and talent I higlily appreciate, 
mid who.se philanthropy and humanity I admire—mak¬ 
ing it a kind of lex ialionis, or law of retaliation;—as 
for instance if you receive a blow on the nose, return 
the compliment by inflicting a blow on the assailant’s 
nose, and both having bloody noses, will be shedding 
of blood according to the divine law, which in the 
opinion of my friend does not amount to capital pun¬ 
ishment. But as the gentleman is met in opposition by 
a host of theologians, and expositors who diff’er with 
him in the definition of the law, I must remain of the 
same opinion which I entertained before, namely that 
the law is capital punishment for capital crime. I am 
of opinion that strict justice requires capital punish 
ment for capital offences. I take it to be a sacred 
principle, that punishment must be proportionate to the 
crime. All our laws proceed upon that principle, and 
when a person is arraigned before a court of justice, 
charged with any offence punishable by law, and con¬ 
victed of the offence, the court pronounces, and the 
law recjuires punishment commensurate with the of¬ 
fence. Willful and malicious murder being thehighest 
de gree of offence which man can inflict on his fellow- 
man, requires, (according to the principles of justice 
above mentioned) the infliction of the highest grade of 
punishment among men. It is urged in opposition to 
capital punishment, that inasmuch as life is an inalien¬ 
able right, we cannot delegate authority to government 
to take it away. Let us examine the theory and see 
the results to which it leads. Our declaration of inde¬ 
pendence declares that man is possessed of certain “ in¬ 
alienable I'ights, among which are life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness.” The theorist says that life be¬ 
ing an inalienable right, cannot therefore be touched; 
that same theory must debar all interference with liber¬ 
ty and the pursuit of happiness. By what authority 
then is any person immured in the Penitentiary or other 
prison ? By what authority is the robber, thief, and 
other offenders who make crime their pursuit of hap- 
iness, in any wise disturbed ? Such a theory cuts up 
y the root all laws and means for the protection of so¬ 
ciety, and lets the scoundrel run at large and prey up¬ 
on community. 

But sir, I ask how far a person may go in self de¬ 
fence? Suppose a murderer, whose intentions you are 
fully aware of, assails your house by night, or by day, 


6 ^ 

and if left to pursue his desperate career without mo¬ 
lestation. would murder yourself, your wife and your 
children, how far would your duty require you to go 
in such a case in defence of your family, self and prop¬ 
erty ? Why sir, I answer, and I think every man in 
community will answer, just so far as is necessary for 
protection—even if that necessity requires it to taking 
the life of the aggressor. This is nothing more nor 
less than the great law of SL-lf defence, the first law of 
nature—and to stand still and see your wife and chil¬ 
dren butchered before your eyes, when you could pre¬ 
vent it, would involve guilt, for which such person, I 
doubt not, would be accountable to his God. But the 
common safety and good of society demand that mur¬ 
derers, thieves and robbers, should be punished. If 
the non-resistance principle be adopted, then murder¬ 
ers may murder and you cannot arrest them—they 
armed and you unarmed, would prevent their arrest in 
the great majority of cases, especially if the robber or 
murderer is aware of tlu' fact that you dare not take 
his life. Another objection to doing away with capital 
puui.shment and substituting imprisonment for life, is 
the possibility of the incarcerated murderer, murdering 
some officer or inmate of the prison. Who would be 
chargeable with this last murder ? May it not be called 
a legalized murder, at least a murder that would have 
been prevented by inflicting capital punishment for 
the first offence ? It is .said that executions do not pre¬ 
vent crime. This assumption I pronounce altogether 
gratuitous—no one knowing, neither can he know, 
how many ^ ossessed of malicious intention to murder 
his neighbors, have, by witnessing an execution, been 
deterred from carrying out his wicked, his hellish de¬ 
sign. If capital punishment be abolished, (which I do 
oppose,) let it be done by the Legislature. 

I will conclude by remarking, that capital punish¬ 
ment has been practised for capital crime by all nations, 
with few if any exceptions—has been approved by the 
wise—the humane—the pious—the virtuous—the be¬ 
nevolent in all ages, since the days of Noah, and I 
: doubt not will be countenanced while murderers 
continue to perpetrate murder. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, spoke in favor of retain¬ 
ing the section, and at some length in favor of the abo¬ 
lition of capital punishment; but was heard with much 
difficulty. 

He thought it the duty of the men of the present ago 
to examine themselves, their own coi dition and times, 
and the state of refinement and civilization to which 
they have arrived, and fit their government to their 
present condition, rather than look back among the re¬ 
cords of cruel and barbarous ages to find the models 
for their legislation and jurisprudence. For himself, 
he was opposed to the taking of human life, on any 
account and for any reason whatever. He desired that 
our history should not be written in blood, and believ¬ 
ed the time to have come, when, under the influence of 
feelings more humane, and a religion more benign, the 
executioner might safely be banished from the machin¬ 
ery of government. 

In looking at a subject of this kind, it is of the first 
importance that we take into consideration the nature 
of the being to be acted upon, as well as the result 
sought to be secured. The being is Man. In his ori¬ 
gin, he comes pure and unsophisticated from the hand 
of his Maker, to become the child or the victim of a 
destiny in a great measure beyond his own control, 
and which he does not, in any sense, create. He is to 
be made, moulded, and his character is to be fixed and 
determined, by the society into which he falls. In his 
origin, he is plastic and impressible. He takes the 
form that the world impresses upon him, and becomes 
good or evil, according to the sphere in which he re¬ 
volves. If he is then impelled into the entertainment 
of the baser passions—if the vices, follies, injustices, 
cind oppressions of humciii society Imve sown llieir seed, 
in his bosom, and given origin to a crop of bitter and 
criminal fruit, the blame should, in part, at least, fall 










698 


CONVENTION EEPOETS. 


upon that society whose ill construction, false princi¬ 
ples and demoralization, have caused his downfall. 
And if society should divide the fault with the crimi¬ 
nal, what propriety is there in forcing upon him, not 
merely the whole burthen of the punishment, but that 
of an extreme punisliment, and one that puts it out of 
his power to retrace his steps, and profit by the good 
of that society of whose evils he is the victim? It is 
indeed a poor vindication of the safety of society, and 
a poor means of reforming the criminal, to take his 
life. Until we can enter into the soul of the criminal, 
we have no means of estimating the amount of his 
guilt; for the wrong act merely does not constitute the 
crime, but the intention with which ihe act was com¬ 
mitted. There is a necessity of examining into the 
moral and mental light which the delinquent was pos¬ 
sessed of at the time of the act; for perhaps no man 
ever committed an atrocious crime against humanity, 
who was not, for the time being, more or less insane, 

Mr. ARCHBOLD was unwilling to occupy the atten¬ 
tion of this august body at this time. He had ever felt 
great reluctance to do so, but was particularly under 
the influence of that sentiment now; when it seemed 
like inflicting capital punishment upon each other for 
members to attempt to convey and I'eceive ideas. 

He thought that during the course of this debate, the 
argument had been nearly all upon one side. Our 
worthy friends who are in favor of the abolition of the 
extreme penalty of the law, seem to delight to re})re- 
sent that the feeling against the great reform which 
they advocate is merely the effect of political and reli¬ 
gious bigotry—a mere relic of the barbarism and cru¬ 
elty of ages of uncivilization. For his part, he did not 
regard that as a relic of barbarism nor an evidence of 
bigotry, which prompted mankind to institute laws 
that should throw a guard of law around the tender 
mother, while she watched the slumbers of her infant, 
or guarded the husbandman, while he followed the 
peaceful calling of cultivating his fields. It is no relic 
of barbarism, no feeling of bigotry, and he hoped that 
such expressions, if intended as arguments, would be 
abandoned. For himself, he protested against any such 
conclusion. He believed that the friends of capital 
punishment were just as humane, just as benevolent, 
just as tender hearted, just as philanthropic as any men 
in Ohio, or any wliere else. Gentlemen speak of the 
law as founded upon principles of revenge! By what 
authority do they make such a charge ? Where is the 
evidence of it ? Law is defined to be, “ a rule of civil 
conduct, prescribed by the supreme power of the State, 
commanding what is right and prohibiting what is 
wrong.” What is there to revenge in this ? What is 
the duty of the law-making power in the government? 
It is to take into consideration the nature of the evil to 
be remedied, and to apply the remedy which shall be 
the most effectual. The law of the land, enacted in 
furtherance of this view, is in no sense a system of re¬ 
venge. That which has been termed ” Lynch law,” 
which under the first feeling of detestation for some 
horrid and wanton act, seizes upon the offenrler, and 
upon perhaps a mere presumption of his guilt, hangs 
him upon the next tree, and exults in his expiring ago¬ 
nies, may be called the law of revenge; but such is not 
the law of the land, and nothing but a false philanthro¬ 
py—a diseased and mawkish sensibility would have ap¬ 
plied to the law so unworthy a name. 

It is evident to all, that, in some manner, crime must 
be punished, to prevent, as far as possible, its recur¬ 
rence. If the last horse were stolen in Ohio, or the 
last act of violence done to the laws of society, we 
might then unbar the doors of the prisons, and cease 
to punish for crimes already committed; but such is 
not the case, and we may well hesitate to subscribe to 
the doctrine that a failure to punish would contribute 
to a cessation from crime. Gentlemen upon the other 
side have been pleased to contend that the reformation 
of the criminal is the main object of punishment. Such 
is not the case. The great and primary object of pun¬ 


ishment is the protection of society—the safety of socie¬ 
ty ; and if we look back upon the history of the world 
we shall learn a fact that is apparent through all its 
pages: that every system having for its object the re¬ 
formation of the criminal, has proved a system' of tyr¬ 
anny and most horrid cruelty. Barely to refer to the 
Inquisition of Spain, and the Court of High Commis¬ 
sion, is sufficient. It is admitted that the reform of the 
criminal is a good secondary consideration, and is to 
be pursued as far as is consistent with the circumstan¬ 
ces; but humanity itself protests against its being 
made a primary reason. I would inquire of gentle¬ 
men, what does the safety of society demand ? If they 
will convince me that the punishment of death is im¬ 
potent to deter men from the commission of murder— 
that most horrid of all crimes—I will instantly abandon 
my ground. But such is not the result of the teachings 
of experience. I have the good fortune to reside in a 
county, containing more than thirty thousand inhabi¬ 
tants, and where, by the blessing of God, no capital 
crime has ever been committed. He had, however, 
professionally, in other communities, been called upon 
to act for persons charged with capital crimes; and he 
had'observed in all such an intense and overwhelming 
desire to be saved from the punishment of death. The 
worst of assassins triumph when they can escape this, 
to them, most dreadful of all events. 

He would admit that if men prone to crime could 
have conferred upon them the happy moral organiza¬ 
tion so appai-ent in the thousands who have flooded this 
and the legislative halls with their petitions, something 
might be done; but it must be borne in mind, that we 
have to deal with the ruffians that infest society—with 
men who have voluntarily divested themselves of every 
feeling of remorse for crime and sympathy with good¬ 
ness ; and the question is, how we shall impose upon 
them that degree of salutary terror, that shall so far 
hold them in check, that the matron may watch, in 
safety by the cradle of her sleeping charge, and have 
some faith at least, that her prayers for its safety may 
be effectual. The ruffian has the same instincts and 
terrors as the petitioners—he has- the same dread of 
death, but he has not their fine moral sentiments and 
sympathies. The love of life is instinct in all bosoms 
alike; and none certainly have more reason to dread 
its end, than the wretches in question. Shall we not 
then, for the security of society, take hold of the strong¬ 
est principle within our reach, to impose the obligation 
of obedience upon the incorrigible ? 

He desired to notice one argument more, which had 
been frequently repeated by gentlemen upon the other 
side. Gentlemen say that it is not the severity, but the 
certainty of punishment, that operates to prevent the 
commission of crime. This might, in a limited sense, 
be a good argument, in counties where there is no 
standard of crime, and where insignificant offences are 
punished with vindictive severity. For instance, in a 
county whose statutes are like those of Draco—that 
were said to be written in blood ; or where, as in Eng¬ 
land, men have been hanged for stealing sheep, for the 
reason that men will not prosecute to conviction, and 
the seveiity of the law, amounts to its repeal. But if, I 
ask, if a code which only inflicts the death penalty in 
the case of the highest crimes committed by the worst 
of ruffians, so conflict with the moral sentiment of 
man, that any one would refuse to prosecute the per¬ 
petrator ? 

This agitation is most mal a propos, and he had 
thought so for years. Is it by any means certain, when 
you have your murderer in the penitentiary, tliat he 
will be punished, even to the extent of his sentence ? 
By no means. Every assassin, when he arrives at the 
penitentiary finds the very persons who were opposed 
to his death ready to petition for his release. He re¬ 
collected a case where one of the most diabolical mur¬ 
ders ever perpetrated by human malignity had been 
perpetrated. It w'as one of those terrible cases, the 
bare thoughts of which will thrill with horror a person 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


acquainted with the circumstances, for the l emainder 
of his life. Yet, in that case, the executive of the State 
was literally flooded with petitions and overborne with 
importunities. He, himself, then a member of the Gen¬ 
eral As.sembly, had been followed and pursued with 
solicitations to use his influence, until he had been 
obliged to to tell the gentlemen he could not help them. 
There is as great an opposition to imprisonment as to 
death, and the abolition of the latter will only be the 
signal for a ferocious, persevering and exterminating 
attack upon the former. 

Mr. MANON believed that a large majority of the 
people of the State were in favor of abolishing'capital 
pun'shment. 

Mr. HOLT said the question presented by this re¬ 
port had once been before a committee of which he 
was a member, and a report made in regard to it, in 
substance leaving it in the hands of the General As¬ 
sembly. Some gentlemen, dissatisfied with the action 
of the committee, had procured the appointment of a 
select committee, who had presented this report. He 
concurred with the sentiments of the former commit¬ 
tee. In regard to the abstract question he had formed 
no very decided opinion, and did not know at what re¬ 
sult he should eventually arrive. In the different ca¬ 
ses which had fallen under his observation, circumstan¬ 
ces of mitigation in some and aggravation in others had 
caused him to fluctuate somewhat in opinion. He felt 
called upon to make these remarks, because in the re¬ 
port of certain remarks of his upon a previous occa¬ 
sion, he had been represented as saying he had no fix¬ 
ed opinion upon any question; which, he was happy 
to say, was not strictly correct. He was in favor, at 
present, of leaving the whole question to the General 
Assembly. 

The question being on striking out, was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the committee rose 
and reported. 

The question being upon concurring in the report of 
the committee of the Wdiole, 

Mr. HAWKINS was in favor of the abolition of cap¬ 
ital punishment, but he would not say that the public 
sentiment of the entire community would approve of 
the incorporation of such a provision in tlie fundamen¬ 
tal law. He wished to have the sense of the Conven¬ 
tion directly taken, so far as related to making the sec¬ 
tion which was stricken out, a part of the Constitution, 
and not as related to the simple question of capital 
punishment. He would vote against concurring in the 
amendment (to strike out Sec. 1,) but was at the same 
time aware that it would receive the support of a ma¬ 
jority of the members of the Convention. 

Mr. BATES moved to recommit the article on “cap¬ 
ital punishment,” to the select committee on that sub¬ 
ject. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, would be willing to accom¬ 
modate the gentleman from Jefferson, [Mr. Bates,] pro¬ 
vided he thought any good would result from the re¬ 
committal of this report. He apprehended, however, 
that the minds and opinions of the members of this 
body had been formed on the subject, and that they 
were now ready to dispose of the question. 

He did not wish to act discourteously in the matter, 
but he supposed that if the subject were again referred, 
the committee could do nothing but report a similar 
proposit/on to the one now before the Convention. He 
knew t-^ at in regard to this subject there was a great 
deal o f excitement in the public mind ; and perhaps it 
might be said, with truth, that public opinion was in a 
transitive state on this subject. His own impression 
was, that those who opposed capital punishment were 
increasing in nurnbex's in Ohio. But he was decideilly 
of opinion, whatever might be his own views on the 
subject, that it would be bad policy to make this mat¬ 
ter a f undamental principle in the constitution. Let it 
bo left to legislative enactment—to public opinion. If 
it were deemed advisable by the Legislature hereafter 
to tiy this experiment, let it be tried—if it should an¬ 


699 


swer a good purpose, well and good—if not, it could 
be I'epealed. He hoped, ihei*efore, that the abolition 
of capital punishment would not be established by con¬ 
stitutional provision. There was one State in this Un¬ 
ion ill which the expeinment had been tried—the State 
of Michigan. He understood that thei'e was a great 
deal of difference of opinion in that State in x’eference 
to the propriety of the measui'e. By some it was 
claimed that the abolition of the death penalty had a 
good effect; whileon the other hand, it was contended 
that the commission of atx'ocious crimes had been aug¬ 
mented. He was decidedly in favor of leaving the 
matter to the Legislature. Perhaps the gentleman 
[Mr. Bates] might change them by the remarks he 
might offer. 

Mr. BATES had no desire to argue this question any 
further. It was clear to his mind, and had been for 
some time that the majority of the Convention were 
opposed to incorporating the report into the constitu¬ 
tion. He had no direct knowledge of the sentiments 
of those whom he represented, upon this subject—em¬ 
bracing the entire county. But he knew that the com¬ 
munity felt a very deep interest in this question. He 
knew furthermore that during the eai’ly sittings of this 
body (at Columbus) he presented a petition very nu¬ 
merously signed by the citizens of Steubenville, (the 
county seat of Jefferson county,) of all classes—of all 
parties—and of all denominations. It embraced a 
considerable proportion of members of the bar—one 
of them a very aged and experienced man—a man 
who had perhaps as much experience at the bar and 
on the bench as any member of this Convention. They 
all petitioned that capital punishment should be abol¬ 
ished. 

His object in desiring to have the ai'ticle re-commit¬ 
ted, was simply to introduce a resolution declaratoiy 
of the opinions of the Convention on this subject. Not 
for the purpose of incoi’porating it into the constitution 
—that he thought could not be done—but mei’ely an 
expi’ession of opinion that capital punishment ought to 
be abolished. He would here take occasion to say in 
reply to his friend from Monroe, that he did not possess 
the ‘‘mawkish sensibility” to which that gentleman 
referred. He did not say that there was any want of 
benevolence on the part of those who wei’e opposed to 
his opinions on the subject. On the contrary, he knew 
that there were many truly benevolent and Christian 
people, who were opposed to abolishing capital pun¬ 
ishment. He agreed with the gentleman that the pri¬ 
mary object of punishment was the security of society. 
The report stated that. Again, he agreed with him 
that the secondaiy object was to effect the reformation 
of the criminal. But then gentlemen contended that 
the death penalty more effectually deterred persons 
from the commission of mui’der than would any other 
punishment. This he doubted. But let him apply 
that theory to all crimes. It would, according to him, 
more effectually deter men from commiling robbery, 
seduction and all the other crimes which outraged the 
peace of the community. Go and carry out that doc¬ 
trine and hanging would be the order of the day. Gen¬ 
tlemen should prove the necessity for the death pen¬ 
alty befoi’e they inflicted it. Life was the gift of God. 
Man could not bestow life, and even on the principles 
urged by gentlemen he shouli not take it away with¬ 
out the clearest necessity. He firmly believed that 
man had no right to take away life in any case, as a 
punishment for crime. He did not desire to argue that 
question now. But he took the simple ground that 
gentlemen must prove the necessity for capital punish¬ 
ment. That which we could not restore, we should not 
take away. 

In all countries—in England, France, Germany, the 
United States, Pennsylvania, Michigan—in fact where- 
ever there had been an amelioration of the criminal 
code, a diminution of crime usually followed—vyhere 
the infliction of capital [lunishment had been abolished, 
crime diminished. Formerly capital punishment was 









700 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


inflicted for some twenty or thirty crimes. He would 
stand upon this position in this Convention, and he dc- 
manJed of gentlemen to show the necessity for the in¬ 
fliction of this terrible punishment; if they failed in 
that, their argument was reduced to the nari’ow ques¬ 
tion of “ blood for blood.” They had not done so; 
and until they did, he considered his ground to be im¬ 
pregnable. lie felt a reluctance at all times to say one 
word in this Convention. He did not purpose occupy¬ 
ing their attention any more; for he came here to listen 
to others—to derive benefit from their wisdom, and not 
to obtrude his own opinions before this body. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD observed that he had not made any 
reflections upon the benevolence of those who advoca¬ 
ted the abolition of capital punishment. He knew 
many most worthy gentlemen, some belonging to the 
same tociety of which the gentleman [Mr. Bates] was 
a membei*—strenuously advocated the same side of the 
question that the gentleman did. 

• Mr. MITCHELL (very inaudibly heard) said he ap¬ 
prehended it was rather out of oi’der now to discuss 
this ^ question under the motion pending. Still if it 
were the pleasure of the Convention to indulge, he 
would be glad to submit a very few remarks in reply 
to what was said by the gentleman from Jefferson, [Mr. 
Bates.] Several voices—‘proceed.’ He had discovered 
since the commencement of the session of the Cfinven- 
tion, (as he thought every member of the Couvention 
had) that this gentleman desired to speak to the point 
at all times, always within the bounds of reason, and 
never state any thing which he did not believe would 
be supported by truth. This discussion had proceeded 
from the outset upon the hypothesis that this doctrine, 
as drawn from the scripture, belongs to and was part 
of the Levitical code, commonly denominated the law 
of retaliation. This he proposed to show was a great 
mistake. The text cited by the gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize, found in the 9th chapter of Genesis, has at all 
timts, by those taking part in tlie discussion, been 
treated as belonging to this class of laws. A simple 
reference to that text would show this to be an error. 
This text reads “whosoever sheddeth man’s blood, by 
man shall his blood be shed ; for in the image of God 
made He man.” Here sir is the reason. Here sir is 
the reason clearly assigned for the rigor of this punish¬ 
ment. It is sir, because he who wilfully and malicious¬ 
ly strikes a blow at the life of a fellow-man, thereby 
aims a blow at the image of his Maker. This is the 
reason assigned by the Almighty himself for this severe 
punishment, for this highest of human offences. 

The Sacred Scriptures, as he maintained, were not 
left in dubiousness upon any subject; and upon this 
subject, of all others, they were more perfectly clear. 
It was most evident that the construction given to this 
text by the gentleman from Licking [Mr. Case] was 
not the true one; various texts settle this. He would 
refer to a few only; Exodus xxi and 12, Lev. xxiv and 
17, Num. XXXV and 31, Deut. xix, 11, 12 and 15. 

He would ask the most serious attention of the gen¬ 
tleman from Jefferson [Mr. Bates] to this matter. The 
gentleman, he was well assured, believed in that Book 
containing the words of eternal truth ; he believed in it 
too. And he believed that that book, like all others, 
was to be construed by taking every part of it together. 
Taking this mode of construing the Sacred Scriptures, 
and not the slightest doubt was left as to the meaning 
of the text first quoted by the gentleman from Auglaize, 
and repeated b 3 " the gentleman from Jefferson, “ Should 
a man slay his brother by the providence of God, if he 
fly to the House of Refuge he was saved. But if 
through malice he killed his fellow-man—if he should 
show such a disregard for the life given by his Maker, 
and the sacred image designed by God to be connected 
therewith, as to aim a deadly blow at his brother, he 
was cast off from the house of Israel. If then he flew 
to the House of Refuge, the Elders of the House of Re¬ 
fuge and of the house of Israel were required to deliver 
him up, that his life might be taken, and that the guilt 


of innocent blood might be taken away from the house 
of Israel, that it might go well with them. The text 
from Deuteronomy is very clear to this point. He de¬ 
sired to call the attention of the gentleman from Jeffer¬ 
son to the texts above cited in the books of Numbers 
and Deuteronomy. These showed the meaning of this 
text from Genesis most clearly. He desired to be 
rightly understood in this matter. He did not believe 
that every thing which belonged to the Levitical code 
was binding upon us now. The Levitical dispensation 
he considered in part a practical one, and many of its 
enactments had their fulfillment and had been repeal¬ 
ed; among them, perhaps, we may safely say was the 
law of retaliation. When the great harbinger of mer¬ 
cy came down from heaven, he showed us that this 
part of the law, or one principle contained in it, was to 
have an end. One object of this law, with many other 
of the Levitical institutions, was to impress the mind of 
men with some just sense of the rigors of justice when 
unmitigated by the benignity of mercy. 

When the great fountain and author of mercy to our 
race had come, and was about to publish, in the most 
ample manner, his great dispensations of mercy and 
forgiveness, it was entirely necessary that he should 
mitigate or repeal some portions of that first dispensa¬ 
tion, whose every page declared that “ the soul that sin- 
neth it shall die.” Accordingly, in many things, he 
did thus mitigate or repeal this rigor of the Levitical 
code. He was one of those who believed that there 
was nothing in the inspired volume which could not be 
defended on the principles of justice and sound reason¬ 
ing. Here, then, was an express declaration of the ne¬ 
cessity of graduating the punishments with which cer¬ 
tain offences were to be visited. 

He maintained that this was sufficient to establish 
the doctrine contended for, and that this doctrine is sus¬ 
tained also by the soundest principles of ethics. What 
was one of the great objects to be attained in the estab¬ 
lishment of a criminal code 1 Clearly it is the gradua¬ 
tion of the punishment of crime according to its enor¬ 
mity. The object of punishment was to inspire in the 
minds of men that fear of the commission of crime, 
which would be sufficient to keep them within the lim¬ 
its of propriety and virtue. Take that alone, and it 
was in itself sufficient. He would ask, what crime was 
there so great as the one here spoken of ? and where 
will you find a punishment proportioned to it, unless 
you adopt the one here propo.sed to be assigned ? There 
was nothing in the foim of punishment which bore a 
comparison to the crime, but the puni.shment of death. 
We punish a great many crimes by imprisonment for 
life in the penitentiary; and it was necessary. Ho 
knew that there had been a great disproportion in the 
graduation of punishment to crime; but a wise govern¬ 
ment would always graduate the punishment to the 
heniouaness of the offence, as nearly as possible. At 
this time he would take occasion to enter his protest 
against the doctrine which obtained on this floor, viz: 
that the protection of society was the only considera¬ 
tion for the infliction of punishment upon offenders. 
He maintained that there was an inherent iniquity in 
crime, independent of any other consideration, which 
demanded punishment; and he maintained that this in¬ 
herent iniquity of crime rested upon grounds entirely 
distinct from connection with society. He contended 
that if a man living in a wilderness, with but two oth¬ 
ers, killed designedly one of them, he was as deeply 
steejied in crime as if he committed that murder while 
residing in the midst of thousands. The crime deman¬ 
ded punishment in the one instance, as much as in the 
other. That was a high ground which should not be 
overlooked. He admitted that the protection of soci¬ 
ety was an important considei’ation ; but when gentle¬ 
men said it was the only one, he believed they commit¬ 
ted a great and dangerous error. 

Mr. BATES (by consent) said that he desired to 
thank his friend from Knox for the favorable opinion 
expressed of him, however undeserving it might be, and 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


701 


if he would convince him that the coniinand “ Whoso 1 
slieddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed,” 
was a command still in force, he would go witli him 
hand in hand. But he thought it a very doubtful ques¬ 
tion whether it was ever a binding command in the 
sense in which the gentleman took it. There was a 
text in the scripture which said we should not eat meat. 
He supposed the gentleman eat meat every day of his 
life. In what part of the Scriptures was that" injunc¬ 
tion repealed ? 

Mr. MITCHELL was understood to reply, under the 
dispen.'ation of Moses—that privilege was expressly 
limited. Certain meats were allowed and certain ones 
prohibited. 

Mr. BATES observed he could find other texts. It 
is declared “that he that dippeth his hand with me in 
the dish the same shall betray me.” Now, does the 
gentleman from Knox claim that this is a command or 
only a prophecy? 

Air. AIirCHELL. Certainly it was only prophetic. 
Bu*: will the gentleman say, as a scholar, that the word 
“shall,” in the Scriptures, has always a prophetic mean¬ 
ing? (Mr. Bates replied, ceitainly not.) Again, there 
was another text which said, “he who takolli the sword 
shall perish by the sword”—was this an imperative 
command? Still binding upon us? Is it not rather a 
prophetic warning? If the gentleman contended for 
this principle here, let him carry out the entire law and 
apjdy it to all descriptions of crime. He would refer 
to the provision in relation to adultery, which, according 
to that law, was punished with death. When the wo¬ 
man was brought before our Savior, did he command 
her to be stoned to death? No—he .said “go and sin 
no more,” although the Levitical dispensation punished 
the crime with death. His belief was that the Leviti¬ 
cal law was suited to the age in which it was made, but 
was superseded by a pure and more perfect law, the 
Christian dispensation, which should be our guide in 
preference to tlie Mosaic code. 

Did not “ blood for blood” amount to the same thing 
as “ tooth for tooth,” and “ eye for eye?” It was noth¬ 
ing whatever but the same principle inculcated in dif¬ 
ferent words. But there is another command which 
said “ thou shalt not kill.” Did it say that man, in his 
private capacity, shall not kill, but that a legally ap¬ 
pointed executioner should, at the direction of judicial 
officers, take away human life ? No such thing. The 
command was promulgated under the old dispen* ation, 
(and if I may use the term) re-affirmed by Christ, 
when personally upon the earth—a command univer¬ 
sal in its application, and perpetual in its duration ! 
He thought the texts cited to sustain the death penalty, 
were of too doubtful construction, (even if not repeal¬ 
ed) to be considered as imperatively binding com¬ 
mands upon ns to take the life of our fellow man. He 
therefore caWed upon those in favor of capital punish¬ 
ment, to bring forward more substantial reasons than 
had yet been done. 

The question being upon recommitting the article. 

The Convention divided—affirmative 27, negative 
not counted. 

The motion was lost. 

The question recurred upon agreeing to the report 
of the committee of the whole. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I desire to say a word in 
explanion of the vote I am about to give. Personal¬ 
ly. ^ am opposed to capital punishment; and if this 
wer. e a legislative body—if we were making a law 
wldch might readily be repealed if found to bo inexpe¬ 
dient, 1 certainly would vote to abolish capital punish¬ 
ment. Wo are now, however, preparing a fundamen¬ 
tal law for the State of Ohio. This question as to 
whether it would be right and expedient or not, to 
abolish capital punishment, is one at least of doubt; it 
would, in fact, be an experiment. And, if capital pun¬ 
ishment should be abolished, my opinion is, that it 
should be done in such a manner that the steps could 
be retraced if found to be wrong and inexpedient. I 


intend to vote m favor of the report of the committee 
of the whole—that is, to strike the whole matter out. 
Another reason why 1 shall vote as I have indicated is, 
that there are a great many men in the State of Ohio 
opposed to the abolition of capital punishment; and if 
we incorporate that principle with the constitution, 
there is a great danger of arraying very many votes 
against the adoption of the instrument itself. We should 
deal in generals more, and in particulars less. Leave 
these matters open to the Legislature. I hear no com - 
plaint of our present constitution in relation to this sub¬ 
ject. Power is there given to the Legislature to ap¬ 
portion punishment to the enormity of the crimes. 
That is all the people ask for, and if they desire the 
abolition of capital punishment, let them so instruct 
the Legislature. 

Air. TAYLOR next took the floor, but for some time 
was very indistinctly heard. He was understood to 
recommend the Convention to pursue the same course 
towards this article, which it had taken in relation to 
other articles, at this stage of the proceedings, viz: to 
lay the article upon the table. He considered that the 
Convention ,'hoidd not, by its action in this matter, fore¬ 
stall public opmion. It should not take an attitude of 
refusal, but rather should decline taking any further 
action on the subject. The Convention, by its action 
here, should say, if it would be said significantly, that 
this question was left, with all its merits fro et con, for 
the action of the representatives of the peo])le in the 
Legislature, at some future period. He moved, there¬ 
fore, that the report, with the pending amendments, be 
laid upon the table. 

Mr. MASON. I believe, sir, the motion to lay the 
report upon the table is not a debatable one. I will 
ask the gentleman to have the kindness to withdraw 
it. 

The motion was withdrawn. 

Mr. AlASON. I desire to say a few words, as the 
argument has not been conducted on the side of those 
who favor retention of capital punishment with any 
view to meet the arguments on the other side, unless 
it has been done'-by one gentleman. The argument in 
favor of capital punishment may be sustained, as I un¬ 
derstand, from two sources. There is a sound, and I 
believe solid, scriptural argument. Tnat I pass by; it 
has been already gone into. There is another argu¬ 
ment that may be deemed, by gentlemen here, more 
appropriate; or, at least, if not more appropriate, they 
may regard it, probably, as more in accordance with 
the arguments and principles of statesmen. Society 
has the right to take the life of the murderer on the 
same principle that an individual has the right to take 
the life of the man who assails him with a murderous 
intent. The right of self defence exists not only in a 
state of nature, but also in a state of society—in the 
social condition. And whenever society is assailed in 
the person of one of its members, with the intent to 
take the life of that member, society may take the life 
of the as.sailant, the individual assailed having foiled 
successfully to assert the right of nature in that given 
case. No one doubts this. No one doubts but that I 
have the right to take the life of the man who assails 
me with the intent of depriving me of my life—that I 
have a right to repel force with force, and with such 
an amount of force as will overcome the resistance 
with which I am met. Whether the gentleman from 
Jefferson [Mr. Bates] will agree with me or not, I do 
not know. 

Mr. BATES. I will ask the gentleman if a man at¬ 
tacked him, and he overcame the assailer, and had him 
in his power, tied down, would he have the right to 
take his life? 

Mr. MASON. I suppose the argument is successful 
if we establish the fact that the person assailed has the 
right to take the life of the assailant. And if there be 
an exception, I would ask the gentleman if an excep¬ 
tion to a general rule has the effect to overthrow a gen¬ 
eral principle? 












702 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


Mr. BATE)S, [iudisliiictly heard.] The exception 
dues not apply. You must have a man in your possess¬ 
ion, thorougldy secured, before you hang him. 

Mr. MASON. Then the argument is, that when you 
have a man in your power after murdering another, 
you are to spare his lil'e. 

Mr. BATES. That is it. 

Mr. MASON. I said that the right of self-defence is 
not surrendered by entering into society, for in a state 
of society, if assailed, it is my admitted right to re¬ 
sist the assailant to the extent of taking his life if ne¬ 
cessary to save my own. I am faultless—he is guilty 
—one or the other must sutfer in the struggle—the life 
of the one or the other must be forfeited. The theory 
of justice and of truth says that the life of the guilty 
ought, in such case, to be taken, and the life of the in¬ 
nocent party preserved. The rights of every individual 
in a state of nature revert to the society of whicli he is 
a member; and* whatever individuals can do, society 
can do—otherwise society affords a less degree of pro¬ 
tection for the rights of individuals than a state of na¬ 
ture. 

It has been adduced here by one gentleman, as an 
argument against capital punishment, that every man 
who commits a murder is insane. Thereis no authori¬ 
ty for the declaration. You may trace the steps of the 
murderer, and at every step 71,11 will perceive traces 
of design—of purpose—of cunning—of contrivance— 
often the most complicated and ingenius contrivances. 
Why talk of the insanity of the man who has long 
plotted the death of his victim ? Why talk of the in¬ 
sanity of the man who has exerted the whole of his 
powers of reason and intellect to compa.ss a given end ? 
The assumption is gratuitous. Then, again the doc¬ 
trine has been advanced here in opposition to the in¬ 
fliction of capital punishment, that the offence of the 
murderer rises out of the defective organization of so¬ 
ciety. Those who have used that reasoniug have not 
favored the Convention with a plan for the re-construc¬ 
tion of society upon such a basis as will prevent the 
perpetration of those high crimes. Gentlemen who use 
that argument ought to favor the world with their new 
lights, that the world may have the benefit and advan¬ 
tage of thcjse principles upon which society can be re¬ 
constructed, so as to repress crime. 

It is said, too, that a portion of the community have 

absorbed all the wealth, and therefore those who 
are not as rich as the other part, are at liberty to prowl 
upon the community and take the life of those who 
have been more thrifty and industrious than them¬ 
selves. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, here interposed, and was 
understood to observe that what he had said in the 
course of his remarks was, that the centralization of 
property, as in large cities, conduced to the commis 
sion of crime. 

Mr. MASON. Mr. President, does it follow because 
a man is poor that he must be a knave, and not only a 
knave, but a reprobate ? Does it follow from that tljat 
he has neither the fear of God nor of man before his 
eyes ? Must he be a I’obber and a murderer because 
he has not as many cattle, or horses, or broad acres of 
land as his neighbor ? “ Let him who is poor rejoice 

in that he is poor.” That is the doctrine of Holy 
Writ, and I believe the doctrine and the great princi¬ 
ple which it announces. If a man commit a murder, 
there is an authorized tribunal to investigate the mat¬ 
ter, and if his excuse be sufficient, he shall have the 
benefit of the plea. 

Then, again, it is said some men are obliged to com¬ 
mit murder on account of their physical organization. 
Their prenological develo[)ments are such that they 
cannot prevent themselves from committing murder, 
and therefore they ought to be excused, and should not 
suffer the penalty. 

Mr. Pi’esident, I believe in no theory of morals, nor 
of philosophy, which teaches that man is not an ac¬ 
countable creature—that he is not the subject of moral 


government. I deny and denounce every new fan- 
gled theory, hatched in the brain of dreamers, that 
goes to destroy the moral accountability of man. Man 
is free, and the consciousness that he is free exists in 
the bosom of every man, and the man who asserts the 
contrary ktiows that he is a free agent. Sir, there is 
nothing in man’s physical nature that necessarily makes 
him a murderer, or a traitor, or an adulterer, or a drun¬ 
kard, or a thief. The difficulty is in the heart of man; 
it is the depravity of his nature—it is the depravity of 
his moral principles—it is that his heart is a fountain of 
corruption. The great teacher sent down from Heav¬ 
en, (for which we ought to be thaukl'ul,) declared the 
invaluable truth, *• that out of the heart of man proceed 
murders, &c.” The gentleman from Wyandot, [Mr. 
Smith,] says that out of the head of a man and his 
phrenological bumps proceed murders. [Laughter.] 
Mall is a moral agent and an accountable being. He 
is accountable for his actions, and he can do, and for¬ 
bear to do, as he wills. 

During this present debate, and since it commenced 
there was laid upon your tables a newspaper contain¬ 
ing an account of an attempt to murder a whole family 
in the mnlhern part of the State. A family asleep—a 
family at peace, was invaded at the dead hours of night 
by a man with a murderous knife, and he then under¬ 
took to murder that entire family that he might plunder 
the house. Think ye there was a phrenological excuse 
for that scoundrel ? Does not eveiy man feel in his 
bosom something thatrises up to repel such an apology 
for Clime ? I have very rarely heard the advocates of 
thi.' doctrine declare voluntarily and from their hearts, 
that they sympathized with the slaughtered man, his 
children and widowed wife, unless they have been 
challenged to do so ; and then they have done it per 
forma and technically. Their tears do not seem to tall 
upon the graves of the slaughtered family : but their 
sympathies seem rather to gather about the blood 
stained murderer. Take him away from society ? 
What a tremendous shock does it give their sensitive 
nerves'? “ See a man executed!” Yes, I would rather 
see a man executed than to see that same man engaged 
in the dead hours of night butchering in their sleep 
men, women and children, suspecting no harm. Much 
rather would 1 see men executed in accordance with 
the forms of law, in accordance with the principles of 
jusiice and truth, than to see them prowling about 
committing murder with impunity. There never has 
been found, and never will be found a sufficient pro¬ 
tection against crimes of this sort, but that which is to 
be found in taking the liie of the murderer. He has 
shown by his conduct that he is dangerous to society— 
that there can be no safety to that society, but by cut¬ 
ting off the rotten member, that the community may be 
purged of the murderer. Allow a man who commits 
a deliberate murder in the streets of this city to go at 
large and invite him to your next parly ! Would you 
like to take the murderer by the hand and smile upon 
him and introduce him to your wdfe and daughters 
with the mark of Cain upon his brow ? No ! every man 
has an instinctive abhorrence of the murderer—no man 
will associate with him. But he is good enough to 
mix with the inmates of the penitentiaries! “ Spare 
his life a little longer—life is too dear to be taken 
away.” But life was not too dear for the fiend to take 
life by the wholesale. No sir, never let capital punish¬ 
ment be abolished as long as there is capital crime to 
punish—never while there is another murderer on the 
face of the earth. There is no other safety to society— 
it is the only way in which it can protect itself. It is 
the only method by which we can secure that peace, 
protection and enjoyment of life and happiness, that 
man has ever devised. 

You never have been, and never will be, furnished 
with a remedy by the science of phrenology or infideli¬ 
ty, in any of their various developments. And I re¬ 
commend you, sir, to take care how you adopt these 
new lights. They never have done any thing but be- 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 703 


wilder those who have embraced their doctrines. Let 
us follow the old paths in thi.s case. We have the law 
of nature and of nature’s God, as I believe, and we 
have the law of self-dei'ence to uphold us in the doctrine 
of taking the murderer’s life. The life of the murderer 
is only taken when he has committed murder in the 
first degree; that is, with malice aforethought—delibe¬ 
rately concocted and well considered malice. Murder 
in the second degree is now punishable with imprison¬ 
ment; and you have no security in the punishment in 
the penitentiary that the man will be letained. You 
have a pardoning power to interpose. The walls of 
the penitentiary are not always secure; they are not 
sufficient to secure society against the depredations of 
such men—there is no security. I wish to state to this 
body a circumstance wdiich came within my own judi¬ 
cial experience. It is a case in point, and a case that 
furnishes a powerful argument against abolishing capi¬ 
tal punishment. Within my own judicial circuit a man 
was charged with the murder of his wife, a few years 
ago. He was indicted, and all men knew that the 
mangled corpse of his wife furnished indubitable aud 
conclusive evidence that he was the murderer. He 
had murdered, her in the most wanton and cruel man¬ 
ner, in the dead hours of night. The protector and 
natural guardian of that woman became a demon—not 
upon the doctrines of phrenology either—and he took 
the life of the partner of his bosom. He was imprison¬ 
ed ; that man broke jail, went to an adjoining State, 
married, and again murdered his wife. He was arrest¬ 
ed and tried in Baltimore—he was convicted and exe¬ 
cuted, to the satisfaction of thousands that had been 
made acquainted with his guilty career. There was 
no punishment for such a man that would s atisjy the 
most benevolent feelings of the human heart, except 
the one inflicted. Two or three wives that man butch¬ 
ered; for it was not well ascertained that he had iiot 
killed one before. With these remarks I conclude, 
thanking the Convention for the attention with which 
many of them have been pleased to honor me. 

Mr. MANON denied that he was of those who would 
take a murderer into his i’amily. Nor was he willing 
that a murderer should run at large. The gentleman 
last up sepmed to argue that those who advocated the 
abolition of capital jmnishment were in favor of such a 
system. He entirely denied it. Because this principle 
had not the stamp of long trial imprinted upon it, that 
was no argument against its justice. The gentleman 
was for following in the ‘‘ old paths.” It he could 
have his way he would not favor any reform in our 
Constitution at all; at least he [Mr.MANON] considered so 
from the general tone of the gentleman’s speech. He 
thought we ought to act in regard to this article in the 
same manner that the Convention had four months ago 
with other articles, aud not to press it through nov\^ 
He was in favor of re-committing the article. 

Mr. HAWKINS observed that the gentleman irom 
Clark [Mr. Mason] had brought some charges against 
the advocates of the abolition of capital punishment, 
and of a serious character too. He charged them with 
not possessing any sympathy for the family of the mur¬ 
dered man, and that all their sympathy was with the 
murderer. Did he seriously intend this ? 

Mr. MASON never applied his remarks persoiudly 
in this Hall. He said that the doctrine by which that 
argument was upheld was based more upon a sympathy 
with the murderer than with the family of the murder¬ 
ed. He trusted that gentlemen would understand and 
appreciate the position which he had taken in the 
matter. 

Mr. HAWKINS could assign no further reason in 
support of his position, than the well ascertained factt 
that the punishment of death would increase the amount 
of crime by familiarizing the people with scenes of 
human cruelty and suffering. He gave an instance of 
this kind in the history of a young man of Morgan 
county, who was of good promise till after he had tra¬ 
veled down the river and elsewhere; and after he had 


witnessed several public executions of criminals, and 
had become familiar with the destruction of human 
life, he committed a murder in this city, and was him 
self hung up by the executioner. 

Mr. TAYLOR moved to lay the report and pending 
amendments upon the table. 

This motion was lost, upon a division—affirmative 
29, negative 37. 

Mr. LARSH moved that the Convention take a recess 
till 3 o’clock; but gave way for a motion to adjourn, 
by Mr. Reemehn. 

This motion was also lost upon a division—affirma¬ 
tive 38, negative 39. 

Mr. MORRIS said he should vote for the amendment, 
although he concurred fully in the principle of the pro¬ 
position as originally reported. There was a division 
(d' opinion amongst the people of this State with refer¬ 
ence to this principle, and he feared that the adoption 
of the re{)ort might operate against the acceptance of 
the constitution. He would freely vote for a resolution 
declaratory of the opinion of the Convention, in the 
very terms of this report. 

The PRESIDENT said the first question was upon 
striking out the two first lines of the section. 

Mr. BATES moved to lay the report on the table. 

This motion was lost—affirmative 35, negative 42. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved that the further consid¬ 
eration of this subject be indefinitely postponed; and 
he demanded the yeas and nays upon this question. 

Mr. CASE, of Hocking, moved that the Convention 
do now adjourn. 

The yeas and nays being demanded and taken upon 
this motion, the Secretary reported—yeas 42, hays 42, 
as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Brown of 
Athens, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Collings, Cutler, Gil- 
lett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hawkins, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Holmes, Hootmnn, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter. John¬ 
son, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Loudon, Manon, Norris, 
Orton, Perkins, Reemelin, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Smith, of 
Highland, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Taylor, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Townshend, and Vance of Champaign—42. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bennett, Brown of Car- 
roll, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Curry, Ewart, Farr, Forbes, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hen¬ 
derson, Horton, Jones, Kennon, Lidey, Mason, Mitchell, More- 
head, Morris, McCloud, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, I^Riddle, 
Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stanton, Stilwell, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Warren, Woodbury, and Worthington—42. 

So the Convention refused to adjourn. 

And ihe question recurring upon Mr. Gkeen, of Ross’ 
motion to postpone indefinitely, ami the yeas and nays 
being taken thereon, the Secretary reported—yeas 50, 
nays 34, as follows: 

Yeas. —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bennett, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, 
Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Forbes, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Green 
of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga. Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, 
Leech, Lidey, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Pat¬ 
terson, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle. Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, 
Stilwell, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Warren, and Worthington—50. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnett,, of Preble, Bates, Case of Hocking, Case 
of Licking, Cook, Farr, Gillett, Gray, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Larsh, Larwill, Loudon, Mason, 
Nash, Norris, Orton, Perkins, Reemelin, Sellers, Smith of Wyan¬ 
dot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Stuble, Taylor, Townshend, 
Vance of Champaign, Wilson and Woodbury—34. 

So the motion was agreed to, and the further consid¬ 
eration of the report and amendments were indefinitely 
postponed. 

And then, upon the motion of Mr. SMITH, of War¬ 
ren, that was agreed to. 

The Convention adjourned till Monday morning, 9 
o’clock. 


MONDAY, December 9, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment; the 
President in the chair. 

Mr. TAYLOR presented a petition from James Brown 












704 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


and twenty othtos, citizens of Cincinnati, praying that 
a clause be inserted in tbe new consiiiution granting 
to colored persons the right of siiliVage. 

On motion of the same, the petition was laid on the 
table. 

Mr. QUIGLEY presented a petition from William S. 
Travis, William Miller, and forty-five others, citizens of 
Ohio, asking that a clause be inserted in the new con¬ 
stitution, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any 
law authorizing the trailicin spirituous liquors. 

Mr. ORTON inesenled a petition from S. B. Foster 
and forty-six others, citizens of Sandusky county, Ohio, 
on the same subject. 

Mr. STEBBINS presented a petition from S. H. 
Dodd and thirty-five others, on the same subject; also 
a petition from B. A. Crochet and twenty others, citi¬ 
zens of Henry county, on the same subject. 

Mr. DORSEY presented a a petition from J. M. Ca 
veil, D. H. iTace and fifty-seven others, on the same 
subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of retailing ardent spirits. 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens, presented a petition from 
Israel E. Heacock and four hundred others, citizens of 
Morgan county, Ohio, on the subject of licenses for tlie 
sale of spirituous liquors; acommunication from the court 
of common pleas of th-- same county, recommending 
that a clause be inserted in the new constitution, ‘‘ pro¬ 
viding for some uniform rule for the prevention of the 
evils of intemperance.” 

Mr. RIDDLE presented a petition from John R. 
Smith and thirty-sew n other citizens of Hamilton coun¬ 
ty, asking that a clause be inserted in the new consti¬ 
tution, prohibiting the Legislature from legalizing the 
traffic in sj)irituous liquors 

The PRESIDENT presented a petition from Ann P. 
McLungldin, Sarah G. Daughter, Sarah Clark Hunt, 
Mary Hardin and Sarah T. D. Clark, and two hundred 
and forty-nine other ladies of Clermont county, on the 
same subject 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee <>n the subject of letailing ardent spirits. 

The PRESIDENT then laid before tha Convention 
the following communication from the Ohio Mechanics’ 
Institute. ' 

Hall Ohio Mechanics’ Institute, > 
Cincinnati, Dec. 6, 1850. 3 

At a meeting of the Institute held on the 4th instant, it was 
unanimously 

Resolved, “ That the hospitalities of the Ohio Mechanics’ Insti¬ 
tute be tendered to the members of the Ohio State Convention, 
now in session in this city.” 

You will please therefore request the members of the Conven¬ 
tion to visit the rooms of the Institute and register their names 
with the Actuary. 

By order, &c. 

JOHN S. WHETSTONE, 

Cor. Sec. O. M. I. 

To the President of the Ohio State ? 

Convention, College Hall. > 

Mr. TOWNSHEND offered the following resolution, 
which was adopted: 

Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be presented 'To 
the officers and members of the Ohio Mechanics’ Institute, for 
their polite tender of the privileges of that Institution, to the 
members of this Convention. 

On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Warren, the Conven¬ 
tion resolved itself into a committee of the Whole 
upon the orders of the day —Mr. Leadbettjcr in the 
chair. 

The order being the report of the standing commit¬ 
tee on the Judicial Department, 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, moved, that in consequence 
of the absence of several gentlemen, members of the 
committee by which said i eport was drawn up, the 
same be laid over; which was agreed to. 

The next order being the report of the standing 
committee on Finance and Taxation, was then taken 
up. 

Sec. 1. That the levying of taxes by the poll, is grievous and 
oppressive; therefore, the Legislature shall never levy a poll tax 
for County or State purposes. 


Mr. RANNEY moved to strike out of the second lino 
the words county or State purposes,” and insert in 
their place the words, “ for any purpose.” 

Mr. RANNEY said that he knew no reason why the 
principb- declared in this section should be confined in 
Its operation to the county and State merely ; or why 
is it not equally just and equal in its application to 
townships? Nor did he know wliy the General As¬ 
sembly should have power over the subject in regard 
to counties more than States. He believed in the lun- 
damentai principle with which the section set out, that 
“ the levying of taxes by the poll is grievous and op¬ 
pressive, and he desired to have that principle carried 
into effect in tliis constitution, in thp most ample and 
perfect manner. 

Under our jtresent system of laws, there is but one 
manner in which a tax by the poll is levied—for road 
purposes. Tims law enforces ujion every citizen the 
obligation to perforin a given amount of labor on the 
public highway, and this without regard to the amount 
of property he may possess, or, in fact, whetlier he 
have property or not. The object of the amendment 
propo.se d is to get rid of this, as well as of the possibil¬ 
ity of all other taxes of this character, as well in town¬ 
ships as in counties and States. He believed that what¬ 
ever necessity may have once existed in the country, 
while it wtis new aiul but sparsely settled, and few 
roads existed, that necessity now no longer continues. 
The true doctrine seems to be, that all the property of 
the State shall pay all the expenses of the State,—that 
of keeping up the roads us well as all others. He had 
long been ot the opinion that the imposition was an 
unjust one ; and now, as it has been lor so long a time 
a part ot the general policy of the State, he thought it 
could only be pul an end to by a provision for that pur¬ 
pose in the constitution. 

It would seem as if there were an especial fitness in 
taxing [troperty, instead of persons, for road purposes. 
The public roads improve the value of the property. 
They are frequently constructed for that purpose. 
Aside from tlie conveniences they afibrd to the commu¬ 
nity in general, they confer important private benefits 
upon individuals. But it was to maintain the integrity 
of the [u inciple that the motion to amend was made. 

Mr. LOUDON said that, as a member of the cora- 
iniitce that drew' up the report, he felt himself called 
upon to stcite the motive that actuated the committee in 
doing what it had done. The committee had believed 
that in cases where the provisions of the constitution 
under which we now live had worked well, and had 
been concurred in by the people, it was its duty to ad¬ 
here to them. The section now under consideration 
was taken verbatim from that instrument. He believ¬ 
ed it would be conceded that ft had worked well. He 
thought it would continue to do so. He thought the 
people were satisfied with it. They understood its op¬ 
eration and effects. So far as he knew, they had never 
complained, and he did not think they would. 

Mr. RANNEY said it was true that the present pro¬ 
vision is taken from the present Constitution; but the 
chairman of the committee, [Mr. Loudon,] had not 
given any reason in favor of the principle involved in 
it. He desired to ask that gentleman if he thought it 
consistent with the general principle upon which all 
taxation should be based ? He was aware that a ne¬ 
cessity for the practice may have grown out of the 
condition of the country at its earliest settlement; but 
he believed that with the growth of the country, and 
the distribution of land, that necessity did no longer 
exist. It is provided that neither State nor county taxes 
could be levied upon any other basis than that of jirop- 
erty ; and he, for himself, saw no reason in this isolated 
case, of departing from a principle at once so just and 
so obvious. 

Under the present regulation, every man—no matter 
whether he be poor or rich—whether he have property 
or not, is bound, without regard to his means or his 
condition, to pay, either in money, or in labor, a tax 











705 


CONVEN'IION REPORTS. 


that amounts to about two dollars per year, lor theben- 
elil of the public roads and those who hai)pen to own 
property situated upon them, and without regard to 
the question whether the jierson paying i*eceives any 
benelit or not. In many cases he knew that it did 
work unjustly. There are young men, residing away 
from home, who are at work by tlie month, who have 
disposed of all their time to another. To such an one 
the road is of no benefit. His time to him is money. 
You would require him to pay his two dollars, andyou 
would enforce upon him the obligation with the same 
strictness as if he were worth thousands. He thought 
it the duty of the Convention to say here, that no such 
law, or such practice, shall in future be allowed. He 
did not know tliat there were, at present, any other 
taxes of the kind in the State, but there might be, if 
we do not come up to the [)rinciple which we have de¬ 
clared, and say that it shall not be done. He wanted 
to see this done in the Constitution. Even admitting 
that at present the people do not complain under the 
present practice, they may do so under a practice more 
stringent and unjust; and who can say that such an 
one may not in future obtain. By admitting the ])rin- 
ci{)le, we throw open the door for abuse. By such an 
admission, under the present practice, we equivocate, 
and, in fact, deny while we assert it. Taxation accor¬ 
ding to property is the correct principle. Here is the 
place upon which we are to take our stand, and assert 
it. 

Gentlemen say that this is a copy of 'he present con¬ 
stitution. This is undoubtedly true, and, iji the ab¬ 
stract, so far as it goes it lays down the true doctrine. 
But it does not go far enough. He wanted to cut oil 
in future the means of practising falsity. He was wil¬ 
ling to retain the princi[>les of the present constitution, 
but when that instrument admit.s of a practice loreigu 
and opposed to the principle wdiich it declaics, he 
wanted to amend it. If gentlemen will maintain, and 
prove to us, that it is right to tax the person as well as 
the property, he would abandon the ground he had 
taken ; but so long as they admit the principle that 
property is the only basis ot taxation, he should go for 
carrying out that principle, wherever it might lead him, 
for a conclusion. 

Mr. SAWYER said that he was not satisfied that the 
old constitution is wrong. He thought that in the case 
that had been cited by his friend from Trumbull, [Mr. 
Ranney] a deviation from the strict rule is not only 
proper but necessary. We, in the first place, set out 
with the proposition that no man, however poor and 
insignificant he may be, has not an interest in the pub¬ 
lic roads equal to the two dollars which he annually 
pays. He pays this because he is a man and a citizen. 
My friend may be, and I suppose is rich. I am not. 
We each work out our two dollars. Then we begin 
upon property. I, who have none, pay nothing, lie, 
who has much, pays in proportion. Who complains ? 

There is another case in which this principle is ap- 
•plied. Every man has an interest in the preservation 
of that government which protects his person and his 
property, and to that end, we perforni military duty. 
The poor, as well as the rich, are required to do this, 
upon the principle that every man loves his country 
better, who feels that he can contribute his mite for 
her defence. The poor, he had observed, in such ca¬ 
ses, feel as strongly as any, the patriotic desire to do 
something by which they can identify themselves with 
the public interests. We see men ready to do military 
duty, from whom not a cent, by way ot fine, could be 
collected for delinquency. 

Besides there are portions of the State yet so new 
that they could not, without great injury, part with 
this means of taxation; and he would tell gentlemen 
that in some parts, he would cut off, by such a piovi- 
sion, eighty out of every hundred now liable to labor on 
the [)ubHc roads, and annihilate the principal means by 
which they are supported. He believed, with the gen¬ 
tleman from Trumbull, most cordially in the general 

45 


correctness of the principle, but he ccuild not (;lo8e his 
eyes to tile fact that there must, in this case, be allowed’ 
an exception. 

The question being on the amendment, the same 
was disagreed to on divi.sion; yeas 20; nays not counted. 
Sec. 2. The Legi#liituro shall provide by law a unil'ormrule of 
assessment and taxation, and shall prescribe such re^iulations as 
will secure a just valuation of all property, both real and personal: 
Provided, school houses, burying grounds, and grounds upon 
which religious edifices are erected, not exceeding in value the 
sum of-dollars, shall not be subject to pay a tax. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to strike out all in the sec 
tion, preceding the proviso, and insei t as follows: 

The General Assembly shall provide by law, for the levyin'^ of 
taxes upon all residents of this iState, in proportion to the amo'unt 
of the property and assets owned by each, deducting therefrom 
the debts, by him owing, ; nd upon the property of all non-resi¬ 
dents according to the value thereof. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said that he was not by any means 
certain that he should vote for the amendment, but of¬ 
fered it merely for the purpose of eliciting the views of 
others, who had given more thought and attention to 
the subject. From such he was desirous to hear. His 
object (whether secured by the amendment he had pro¬ 
posed or not, he was not so certain,) was to tax every 
man for what he is worth, and not for what he merely 
holds. For instance: If a man buys a farm of the val¬ 
ue of, and for which he is to pay ten thousand dollars, 
for which he jiays five thousand and continued to owe 
five thousand dollars; he expects, m the course of 
years, l»y the assistance of his own skill and labor, to 
make the money out of the land, to pay the balance. 
Under the present ’.ax law, he is taxed iq)on the whole 
ten thousand dollars. By what right is he so taxed ? 
He desired, by the amendment now before the com¬ 
mittee, so to fix it, that a man, in future, will he taxed 
upon property only to the extent of his own interest, 
and not upon the whole that he holds, whether his own 
or not. 

Mr. BARBEE was a member of the committee that 
made the report. With great deference for the opinions 
of the other members of the committee, he had been 
obliged to difier somewhat in opinion with the majuri- 
tv. He had intended at some time during the discus¬ 
sion of this re[)ort, to ofier an amendrntnr, embracing, 
in some sort, the same doctrine with the present—that 
is, that as the true basis ot taxation is property, a man 
should be taxed upon what he is worth, and not upon 
the property that he holds. He intended at some future 
time, to move the adoption of a section of the report 
of the minority of the ccminittee, which should em¬ 
brace not only the proposition of the gentleman from 
Richland [Mr. Kirkwood,] but also a proposition that 
in the taxation of moneys at interest and other j»roperty 
of a like character, the faith of the State, pledged by 
repealed acts of the General Assembly, in relation to 
her own stocks, shall be held inviolate. As a mere ab¬ 
stract principle, he could not see why our own stocks 
should not be taxed, as well as those of other States; 
but he held that the faith of the State having been 
pledged to their exception from the general rule, they 
should form an exception, that Ohio might not stand 
charged before the world with a violation of her faith. 

Mr. DORSEY held equally with the gentleman from 
Richland [Mr. Kirkwood] that it is unjust to tax a man 
for what he does not own. For example, in the in¬ 
stance cited, he could not believe in llie justice of ma¬ 
king a man pay taxes on the whole farm, where in fact 
he is the owner of only one half. The true principle 
is to tax every thing that a man owns, whether propei* 
ty or credits, deducting therefrom all his debts and lia¬ 
bilities; and it did not seem to him to be of conse¬ 
quence whether the property consisted in lands or 
stocks, money at interest or any thing else. He, how¬ 
ever, for the purpose ot giving a more full expression 
to his views, proposed the following amendmeal to the 
amendment now under consideration, as a substitute 
for the same: 

The Legislature shall provide by law a uniform and equitable 
rule of taxation, so that every person shall pay a tax on the ac- 
















706 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


tual value of his or her property, real and personal, exclusive of 
•debts, including nil moneys on hand and moneys at interest, the 
latter term embracing all moneys invested in bank stocks and all 
other stocks or corporations. 

Mr. DORSEY said that this amendment etnbraced 
nearly tlje substance of that proposed by his friend and 
colleague from Miami, [Mr. Baiibke ] It leaves out 
liowever the proviso intended by that gentleman to be 
included in the atuendment he has in view—that in re¬ 
lation to State stocks—the })ropriety of which omission, 
he intended to maintain. He desired to see the taxes 
of the State levied upon all [)roperty, whether in lands, 
bank or any other stock, moneys at interest, and every 
species and description of valuables whatsoever, lie 
should not extend his remarks for the present, but at 
another oppm tunity intended to give his views upon 
the subject. 

Mr. BENNETT said he should forbear to detain the 
committee with any extended remavks for the present; 
but ho de.sired to suggest a diliiculty that had arisen in 
his own mind, regarding the application of the plan 
])roposed by the gentleman from Richland, [Mr. Kirk¬ 
wood,] in making deductions, in the case of taxati^m 
of real estate, where interests were owned by difi'erent 
persons. The principle that all the property in the 
State shall pay taxes upon what it is worth, is right; 
but under the application of the principal made by the 
projiosed amendments, it is easy to see that the taxes 
on many of the farms of the State will bear a very 
small proportion to what they are worth. 

Suppose, for instance, a man in the State of New 
York owns a farm in Ohio, and .sells it to a citizen of 
this State. The price of the farm is ten thousand dol¬ 
lars. The purchaser ])ays up<m the purchase one 
thousand dollars, gives his notes for the balance. He 
is taAed upon the one thousand dollars which he has 
paid, and no more. You cannot tax the proprietor in 
New York; how will the remaining nine thousand dol¬ 
lars be taxed ? 

Mr. LOUDON. The gentleman confounds the .sec¬ 
tion and amendments under consideration wi'.h the 
present tax law. It would .«eem that there would be 
n(» difficulty under this provision, for the Legi.slature to 
))rovide for the taxation of all the property in the State. 
He was opposed to going so lar into detail, and to en¬ 
act a cotiRitution that shall fix the modus overandi in 
which all properly is to be taxed. Tlie committee sup- 
]K)sed that it would be only necessary to assert the 
principle in its broadest sense, and to leave to the di.-^- 
crelion of future Legislatures, to enact such laws, as 
would carry the general principle into full and equita¬ 
ble efiect. 

For his part, he was unable to see how any amend¬ 
ment Could make it more [tlain than it is now. The 
section asserts the broad principle, and no amendmeui.s 
could do more or make it more plain. The General 
Assembly are given full jiower to establish a tystem id 
jtist and equal taxation on all property, and that is all 
we should require. 

Ml-. KIRKWOOD intended to be brief. He had 
hoped that the discussion would have been more free 
and general. Under our present mode of taxation of 
real estate, a man is taxed upon all the land he has title 
to, whether he has paid for it or not. The amendment 
he had ofi’ered announced the other doctrine—a man 
.shall be taxed only upon what he is worth. His 
amendment wa.s hastily drawn up, and he did not 
think it very ]uecise in its terms. Such is the case 
also with the gentleman from Miami, [Mr. Dorsky ] 
The great question is, is it not best to adopt such a 
principle ? 

^Ve say that taxation by the poll i.s grievous and op¬ 
pressive—in otlnu’ woads, that propelty is the only 
true basis of taxation. In order to carry out the prin- 
ci{)le, we say that all the property shall pay all the tax. 
Now, why shall I, by the force of any circumstaui'es. 
pay more than my share? All the property in the 
Slate is valued at. say one hundred millions of dollars. 

I own property to the amount of one million. The 


taxation of the Slate is, say one hundred thousand dol¬ 
lars; my share is one tlnjusand. Why should I pay 
more or less than my share? I cannot see anything 
against the system, unless it is a difficulty resulting 
f rom a difi’ereiice of opinion among the owners of prop¬ 
erly as to its value. But that difficulty could be obvi- 
atetl by official asse.ssment of the value (d' the land 
(Uice in four years, and by obliging holders of real 
estate to nifike an exhibit of the interest they have in 
what they hold. 

Mr. BENNETT desired to inquire how a farm could 
ije taxed equally with other property in the State, 
wlien the holder owned only a small interest, the bal¬ 
ance in the form of notes, mortgages, and obligations, 
being the property of a citizen of another Slate ? 

Mr. KIRKVVOUD. Then it would not be taxed. 
You cannot tax non residents on their chattel property, 
of course. This may not be right, and it may, if wrong, 
be ol)viated. He was glad to hear the question of tfie 
gentleman from Tuscarawas, [Mr. Bennett.] The 
object he had in view wa-^ to elicit discussion. He 
thought the principle he had asserted to be right. Its 
details may be more difficull to arrange. He was in 
search of light upon this very difficult and interesting 
subject. 

He thought the present law unjust in its operation. 
It calls upon many men to pay taxes upon more than 
they are worth. It brings in property for taxation 
twice over; once in the form of land and attain in the 
form of the obligations given for its purchase. The 
vendor and the vendee both pay ; and a farm sold for 
ten thousand dollars may readily be made to pay taxes 
upon fifteen—ten thousand on the land and five thous- 
.•ind on the mortgages. A. sells a farm for ten thousand 
dollars, lor whicli he receives five thousand in hand, 
and takes notes secured by mortgage for five thousand. 
On this five thou.'<aiid he is taxed, while at the same 
time B. is taxed for the whole price of the farm, or ten 
thousand dollars. This is wrong. The gentleman 
from Tu.scaiawas [Mr. Bennett] suggests that if the 
principle dc-clared in the constitution is right, the de¬ 
tails can be fixed by the General A'Sembly. He was 
anxious to hear the views of gentlemen. 

Mr. HUMl’HREVILLE was disposed to appreciate 
the remarks of the honorable chairman of the commit¬ 
tee on Finance and Taxation, [Mr. Loudon.] that it is 
desirable to retain the princijifi s of the pn seiit consti¬ 
tution, so far as they are consistent with justice, and 
have I'eceived the assent of ihe peiqile of the S ate. He 
thought the only objectionable fealure in thi,-! repor. 
taken from that constitution, is that in relation to taxa 
tion by the poll. He had been in favor of the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from T'rumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] 
and was in hopes that it would have prevailed. He 
wanted to see the priuci[)le of taxation according to 
[iroperty tidly carried out. Ho believed, as a general 
rule, that it was best to leave all that is consistent with 
the General Assembly. He believed that property, and 
not debt.s, is the subject of taxation. When the prop¬ 
erty is sold and debts are contract( d, if you tax the 
property, equity requires that you should tax the debts. 

If you tax both debts and i)roperty, you lay the burden 
of two tuxes iqton what is e.-iser.tially tiie same estate. 
Yb.t he believed he had rather bear the evils of double 
taxation, than to a'luw the Shy locks of the country to 
go free of taxation. 

Mr. BARBEE. Would the gentleman say that we 
must tax the Sh^docks, even if in doing so, it is neces- 
-sary to lay on a double tax. 

Mr. HLiMFHREVILLE. Certainly. 

Mr. BARBEE. If you lay a lax on the whole prop¬ 
erty, where the holder owns but one-half, do not you 
really lay a double tax? 

Mr. IIUMI’HREV'I LLE "agreed in general with the 
gentleman from Miami, [Mr. Barbee] but he arose to 
aiiswerthegentlemanfrom 'fuscaiMwas, [Mr. Bennett.] 
We say that {)ro[)erty should be taxed but once. That 
is true; but he held that money at interest should be 
taxed, even at the risk of double taxation. It should 









707 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


be (loublless avoided, wdierever it i.s possible, and prop- 
er me nis should be used to ascertain the facts. This 
has been done in Kentucky. There the rule is, that 
wlien a man owes fora farm, the amountof his indeitt- 
cdness is deducted from his personal ostate; where as 
in Ohio, his debts are only deducted from his credits. 
But a constitution cannot be exj)ected to [)rovide a sys¬ 
tem ot la.xation ; that must be left to the General A - 
senibly. One duty is to guard, as far as possible, 
against abuse of power and de[>arture from {>rinciple 
We can do no more. 

In the case put by the gentleman from Tuscarawas 
—where A in New York .sells a farm to B in Ohio, for 
ten thou.sand dollars, of which B pay.sone-half in hand, 
and owes the balance. What is to be done? Shall B 
deduct from the value ot the whole farm what he owes 
to A ? If so, how .shall we collect a tax on the pro[)erty 
of A in the land ? It is easy enough to enforce the 
payment by a process .similar to that of an attachment, 
in Ohi<». If A in New York has adrbt of fi\e thousand 
dollars against B in Ohio, he can easily ca>llect it, if B 
has land in New York to that value ; so it is ea y in 
thi.s case to force u[)ou the creditor in New York, the 
necessity to pay the tax ujH)n the land in which he still 
has an interest. Let the debt be attached, or if sees 
fit to p ly it, make the certificate of the ’I'reasiirer in 
Ohio a legal effect to its amount against the debt. Thi.s 
may be done in the collection of taxe.s as well as in 
otlier ctil'ections. 

It was his impression, however, that we should per¬ 
form our duty i.i the premises if we shf)uld strike out 
the entire section, and insert something like this : “ Tlie 
General Assembly shall jirovide hy law for an equita¬ 
ble system of taxation, excepting such property from 
taxation as it shall see fit.” He thought tliere was dan¬ 
ger of too much law enacting in tln^ consliiution. It is 
our duty to declare general jirinciples, and not to a.s- 
suine that we know more than any General Assembly 
that may come after ns. It has been s lid that if in 
some one or two subjects, the General Assembly had 
been le't by the pre.sent constitution with a little more 
power, no necessity for this Convention would have 
arisen. Let us not fall into the Same error, into which 
the really wise and eminent men who gave ns our pres¬ 
ent form of government fell. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Rrehle, said the question nowbe- 
foie the committee was an important one. He differed 
with some of ilie gentlemen wIk^ had spoken upon it 
and was opposed to too great restriction. He wa.s sai- 
isfiedl hat if the matter were left to ih * General Assem¬ 
bly, that body would, in its wisdom, construct a good 
system. He desired to add a few words to what had 
been said tty the gentleman from Medina [.Mr. Hu.m 
phukvicle] in regard to enforcing u[)on non-residents 
the obligations to piy taxes. Ho thought the true 
remedy fitr th.it difliculty to be this. The matter is 
equitably distributed already. There are large owners 
of obligations for land sold in Ohio, residing in other 
States; so there are resident in Ohio many holders of 
obligations lor land snid in other States. He thought 
by the taxation of such credits the matter was nearly 
balanced and we gain as much on one hand as vve lose 
on tile other. 

We might leave the whole po ver to the General As¬ 
sembly, merely saying, ” The G ‘ner il Assembly shall 
have the power to provide an uniform system of taxa¬ 
tion.” 

Mr. L.YRWILI.. wanted the discussion to continue. 
He ho[)ed, eventually, to arrive at .something that would 
meet iho minds of geutlemeu belter th in either the 
original report or the amendment.s. Gentlemen seem 
disposed to leave every thing to the Genera! Assembly. 
If they were to persevere in the practice of auch a spir¬ 
it of liberality, we miglit consummate our labors here 
in a very short time. But it was his o[)iiiiou that upon 
this subject and various others, the people are desirous 
to take Irom the Legislature the svveeping powers it 
lias had. It is due to us to fix some bonds to this pow¬ 


er. If we do not, there will be great danger of abuse 
and thictuations, both in the system and the amount of 
taxation. With this hill, in general, he was suited, but 
h>" thought it might be improved. He iiileaded, at a 
future lime, lo oiler some amendments. 

Mr. DORSEY ihouglit the subject one of much im- 
()ortance, and that, considering its importance, and the 
danger of error, the amendment he had presented was 
not (piite as full and definite as it should he. They 
embody (iriaciples which ho was anxious to embody in 
the Constitution. He would agree with the honorable 
chairman of the stinding committee, [.Mr. Louoo.v,] 
that it was notprop^ r to embody a mere modus operandi 
in the Constitution. That he did not propose to do. 
He only de.sired to declare great and general principles, 
trom which it is not proper, under any circumstances, 
to depart—that the taxation be upon the actual value 
of what property is possessed by the individual who s 
taxed, ft matters not what that [iroperly consists of. 
He would add a proviso: •* Such stocks to he taxed at 
the actual and not the nominal money value.” He did 
not offer the [troviso, hut read it for information. He 
thought that if we could include such a provision in tho 
Constitution, great benefit would accrue from it to the 
State of Ohio. 

The State 1ms a right to draw a tax from all properly 
and value jiossessed hy her citizens, and has no right to 
tax any thing else. This is an answer at once, to the 
gentleman from Tuscaiavvas [Mr. Bennett.] It matters 
not where a man lives, whether in Ohio, or Benusylva- 
nia, or any other State. If he lives here, and. owns 
pro[)eriy here, tax him here. If he live,s there, and 
owns property there, tax liim there. If a citizen of 
Ohio has purchased a farm'valued at ten thousand dol¬ 
lars, on which he has [laid five thoinsaud dollars, lie 
ought not to he taxed except for th i five thousand that 
he owns. Again, on all United S atesand other stocks, 
owned by citizens of Ohio, the State has a right lo, and 
will levy a tax. So upon all Bank stocks; whether the 
hanks be in Ohio, or in other States, she has a right to 
tax. He was not willing to let this Conslilulion go 
fr .m under the hands of this Convention, until this 
priiici[)le is unequivocally laid down, that on all stocks 
held in the Sate, our own as well as tliat of other 
States and countries, whatever their value may be, U[)- 
on 111 It value they should be taxed; and that no man 
shall be forced to pay taxes upon what he owes for. 

Mr. HUNT said, sup[)ose a merchant in the country- 
had })urch.ised ten thousand dollars worth of goods of 
a merchant iu Cincinnati, upon credit—himself not 
worth a copper, would you lay no tax upon the goods 
in his hands ? 

Mr. DORSEY. If he is not worth a copper, he should 
not be taxed a cop[)er. He would not deviate from 
the general pi incipie, even in such a case. 

Mr. BARBEE said the amendment proposed by the 
gentlem?iii from Miami [Mr. Dorsey] and hims; It did 
net dilLir, except iu the proviso which tnat gentleman 
proposed, iu regard to the taxes u[)ou stocks. He 
could not see, a-s an abstract proposition, why a man 
investing his money in stocks of the State sliouhl not 
pay taxes ui>on tliem as upon other property ; but iu 
regard lo our stocks, there is a reason for a deviation. 
In 182 ), the State of Ohio had entered upon an impor¬ 
tant sy.siem of internal improvements. For the pur- 
[)ose of carrying this fi'rvvard, instead of taxing the 
|)eoi)le, she liad decided to issue her st.cks, and bad at 
the same lime pledged the public faith dial they should 
not be taxed. Slie had at the lime the term.s in her 
own hand. She made her {iroposition to the world, 
based upon tho.se terms, and they were accepted, the 
stocks sold, the money realized and expended, and ihe 
works were constructed. From 18-2,'3 to 1850, acts of 
the same character \V(>re pas.sed from time to time, all, 
with one exception only, containing the same [irovi- 
sions in n'gard to tax ition. The lust act wa.s iu 1850, 
and has the same fe.ituro. Is it proper now to repudi¬ 
ate, in this particular, the solemn contract of tho States 












I 


708 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Aud is that the object of the geiitleiiiaii’s ameiidineut? 
He wanted to see the iaith ol the State preserved invi¬ 
olate, whatever may be the effect. It is said by gen¬ 
tlemen, that the State being sovereign, the Legislature 
is sovereign. He did not believe that one Legislature 
had power to annul a contract that another Legislature 
had made. But suppose you assume this important 
power, are you not violating a |)rovision of the consti¬ 
tution of the United States? There is a clause in that 
instrument ondiibiling any State from passing any law 
violating the obligations of contracts. In that particu¬ 
lar, we have given away a part of our sovereignty that 
we cannot take back again. Would not, then, our acts 
to that effect be a dead letter? Would it not be a di¬ 
rect attempt to violate the constitution of the United 
States ? 

Mr. DORSEY. Did the gentleman from Miami make 
any motion? 

Mr. BARBEE said he knew it was out of order for 
him to offer a proposition at this time, but he hoped 
the geuileman would accept ol his proposition as a 
substitute. 

Mr. DORSEY was understood to decline. 

Tlie CHAIRMAN stated the order: The gentleman 
from Richland, [Mr. Kikkwood.] had proposed to 
amend by striking out all the words of the second sec¬ 
tion of the report preceding the word “ provided ; ” 
and the gentleman from Miami had proposed a sub¬ 
stitute for the amendment of the gentleman from Rich¬ 
land. The first question was upon the adoption of the 
substitute. 

Mr GILLETT would name one objection to the pro¬ 
position of the gentleman over the way, [Mr, Dorsey.] 
If that gentleman’s proposition were placed in the or¬ 
ganic law, a man might be worth any amount of money, 
and avoid the payment of a single dime in tax. For 
example: He might sell his farm for $10,000, and take 
the bonds of his purchaser, and go to his neighbor liv¬ 
ing on the opposite side of the river in the State of 
Vir ginia, and purchase a farm in the lich bottom lands 
of his own county—paying nothing down, but giving 
his bonds for payment in 20, 30, or 40 years. There- 
foie, (he continued,) the Assessor might come round, 
and, under the jiroposition of the gentleman, ask me 
what I am worth ? 1 reply, I am worth nothing. But. 
he would say, you own a farm down in the bottom 
theie. 'True. I ha\e bought that farm and it is true 
that I hold promissory notes to the amount of $10,000; 
but I owe just this amount for the farm which I have 
purchased. Under such circumstances, I affirm to you 
that you could not compel me to pay any tax upon this 
properly. But the poor men to whom 1 might rent my 
farm, because they might own a little personal prop¬ 
erty, or hogs and sheep, would have to pay a tax upon 
such property, whilst I, the owner of the farm, and 
reaping the benefits of their labors, would pay no tax 
at all. Will gentlemen look at this ? < 

Mr, BARNETT, of Preble. If I understand the gen¬ 
tleman, his ca.se proves that he is worth nothing, and 
therefore, he ought not to pay any tax at all. In the 
plan, he sells his farm for bonds to the amount of $10, 
000. If the statement went no further than this, he 
ought certainly to pay ta.xes upon the bonds ; but he 
proceeds to purchase another farm in the same county, 
of his neighbor across the river in Virginia, promising 
to pay therefor a certain amount of money in 20, 30, 
or 40 years—a case which, by the by, does not happen 
once in ten thousand transactions of the kind. But, in 
this case, though he might not be worth anything, the 
land would be held for taxes against the Virginia own¬ 
er, under the provision suggested by the gentleman 
from Medina, [Mr. Humphueville.] But I may have 
mistaken the gentleman. 

Mr. GILLETT rehearsed his case, and insisted that 
his conclusion was well taken. 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens. I have listened with what¬ 
ever attention I could to the discussion of this section, 
and the pending amendments, and have came to the 


conclusion that I shall vote against the amendments 
every one. I hold this to be the true doctrine, that it 
is to the lands of the State—to the fixed and tangible 
[)ropeiTy of the Slate—that the General Assembly 
should look for the principal source of revenue. I hold 
that it should make no difference, whatever may be the 
conditif n of the holders of the soil—whether they be 
solvent or insolvent—the State of Ohio has a right to 
look to the soil of the State as one of the principal 
means of raising the revenue to pay the debt of the 
State. The debt was contracted for the purposes of in¬ 
ternal imjjrovement, the benefits of tlie construction 
of which have enured to the land-holders, by enhanc¬ 
ing the value of real estate. Would it then be either 
politic or prudent for this Conventii-n to attempt to re¬ 
lieve the land of the State from the burden of taxation 
which this debt has imposed ? ^ 

If I understand the language of the amendment of 
the gentleman from Miami, it is to this eff^^ct, that if 
a man owns a tract of land, or a village lot, or a castle 
in a city—such as we see every day in this city—how¬ 
ever valuable the land, or village lot, or castle may be, 
if, by hook or crook, or in good faith, the owner hap¬ 
pens to be embarrassed in his circumstances, the State 
may not.be able to collect the accruing revenue upon 
.such property. 

The question recurs then, where are you to get the 
revenue for the public debt ? Ever since the creation 
of this public debt, which is now hanging upon the 
peoj)le of the State, we have been accustomed to look 
to the soil of the State as one of the principal objects 
of taxation for the payment of the accruing interest. 
We have looked to this source, irrespective of what 
might be the condition of the owner of the soil. Where 
then would be the wisdom of putting this certain reli¬ 
ance upon a contingency by which, in many cases, it 
would be certain that we could derive fiom it no reve¬ 
nue at all? It is something of the same principle which 
gentlemen seem to be desirous to apply to the assess¬ 
ment of ta.xes upon cattle and horses. The old system 
was to assess them, so much per head; but now it is 
proposed to tax them accord.ng to their value. But, 
if you are going to deduct from the value of taxable 
property the amount of the indebtedness of the owner 
of the property, you will find a beggarly account of 
empty boxes, when you come to makeup the revenue. 

But there is another consideration which leads me to 
oppose the proposition. It will open a very wide door 
for the practice of fraud. All the ingonuity of the mind 
of the country would be taxed to the last degree to avoid 
the just piaymeiR of taxe.s. 

Another objection to the thing, is, that it would be 
running into the details of legislation—an error of which 
I think we all partook too largely during the first ses- 
,sion of this body. My own opinion is, that we should 
adopt the principle which shall secure a just system of 
taxation, and leave the details to be carried out by the 
representatives of the people, in such manner as they 
may think best. 

Mr. TAYLOR called for a division of the question 
upon Mr. Dorsey’s amendment—the first question be¬ 
ing upon striking out all the words of the second sec¬ 
tion except the proviso. 

After some conversation upon the point, whether, if 
the committee should refuse to strike out the matter 
thus retained in the section, could be afterwards amen¬ 
ded. 

The CHAIRMAN decided that under the 32d rule 
the matter might afterwards be amended. 

And the committee refu- ed to strike out. 

So both the amendments weie rejected, and the 
question recurred upon the adoption of the second sec¬ 
tion. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, now offered the following, as 
an amendment by way of substitute f )r the second sec¬ 
tion, although it embraces matter more properly belong¬ 
ing to the first section; he hoped it would not be ruled 
out of order on that account: 













CONVENTION REPOllTS. 


The rule of tftxntion shsll bo eQiiftl snd uniform tbrougbout tbe 
Stato, and shall be levied upon such property as the General As¬ 
sembly shall prescribe by law. But no poll tax shall be levied for 
State or county purpo es. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, proposed to amend 
the original section by striking out all alter the word 
“ provided.” and inserting thu second section of the mi¬ 
nority report, which he read, and it is as lollows: 

The property of the State and counties, real and personal, shall 
be exempt troin taxation, and the Legislature shall have power 
to exempt such property of townships, churches, schools, litera¬ 
ry and scieniilic societies, and institutions purely elemosynary, as 
they may deem right, but such exemp ions, except as to the pro¬ 
perty ol State and counties, shall always be subjv^ct to inoditica- 
tion and repeal. 

Mr. H. said: The object of this moiion is the same 
which has been stated by other gentlemen, to leave 
this quest ion of exemption wholly to the Legislature— 
to leave it altogether to their discretion to determine 
to what extent the exemptions from taxation of this 
species ot propei ty shall be carried. The difi'erence 
between this and the proposition of the gentleman on 
my right, [Mr. Green, of Ross,] is, that his places it in 
the power ot the Legislature to exempt no other species 
of property save such as are embraced in tbe terms ol 
his proposition, whilst this second section of the minor¬ 
ity report leaves the question open, and allows the 
Legislature to be governed wholly by experience and 
the circumstances of the case. 

Mr. GREEN, ot Ross, I feel very unwilling to enter 
into the discussion of this question at this tiuje, on ac¬ 
count ol the difficulty of hearing. Every gentleman 
must be aware that no subject can be presented for the 
consideration of the body of more importance than this, 
or which can be more immediately interesting to every 
citizen. It is a subject, which, in homely phrase, 
comes home to the hearing and bosom of every man. 
It rea.:hes into his pocket. It involves the exercise of 
the highest attribute of sovereignty. It enters into the 
concerns of every department of business in the State. 
For this reason I should infinitely prefer that the subject 
should be postponed for the present. I am decidedly 
ol the opinion, that it would be unwise, and even dan¬ 
gerous, to enter into the details of the adjustment of 
this question at this lime. But I may be in error in 
this: the prevailing opinion may be against me. For 
the purpose, then, of ascertaining whether, in the opin¬ 
ion of the committee, this subject may be profitably 
discussed or not, at this present time, I shall move 
that the committee rise and report progress. Ho then 
proceeded to reason further in favor of postponement 
in this way, from the consideration that a number of 
gentlemen had expressed their views fully, and that a 
variety of propositions were before the coinniittee 
which deserved mature consideration, and a delibera¬ 
tion and interchange of views which could not be car¬ 
ried on profitably on account of the present difficulty 
about hearing in the Hall. 

Mr. LOUDON. As one of the members of the 
Standing Committee which prepared this report, I am 
exceedingly desirous that we should progress with the 
discussion in committee of the whole. As before re¬ 
marked, we could not have the benefit of the views of 
all the members of the Standing Committee at the lime 
the report was agreed upon—some of the members be¬ 
ing absent and unwell. It is the desire, therefore, of a 
portion of the members of the Standing Committee that 
the subject should be re-committed, in order to obtain a 
fair understanding of the views of all the members. 
But, before that re-commitment shall take jilace, I 
would like to have the subject fully discussed here, so 
that the committee might be the better prepared to re¬ 
port back the subject in such a shape as might meet 
the views of the whole Convention. Our minds having 
been now fully drawn to the subject, I am exceedingly 
desirous that we should proceed with our deliberations 
in committee of the whole, until we shall get through 
with the consideration of the principles embraced in 
both the majority and minority reports. 

Mr. MASON. I should be quite willing to have the 


709 


report referred back to the Standing Committee, with¬ 
out proceeding any further with the subject at [iresent 
if such a couise would suit the views of the body; for 
I believe that the Comniittee would be al)]e to make 
some valuable corrections in their report, if they had 
it again under consideration. I think that it would be 
well for the committee to rise with tliis understanding. 
But if the committee should refuse to rise, I think we 
might as well go on ; for when we leave this hall, we 
have no opportunity for consultation, nor can we carry 
away from this jilace much knowledge of what we 
have had in our memories; therefore, I think it would 
be better to sit here and talk over the matter until we 
obtain a perfect understanding. I should j)refer, how¬ 
ever, that the committee rise, with the understanding 
that the matter shall be re-committed, for I believe, as 
suggested by the chairman, [Mr. Loudon,] that they 
wmdd now be enabled to bring in a re})ort which would 
suit the views of a greater number of the members of 
the Convention. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, offered an apology for 
proposing his substitute at this time. He intended to 
offer his proposition in the Convention. He was late 
coming to his place, and was not aware, at the moment, 
that they were in committee of the whole. Therelbre, 
he would ask leave to w'ithdraw his substitute. 

The leave was granted, and the substitute was ac¬ 
cordingly withdrawn. 

Mr. HORTON. 7'he chairman of the committee on 
Finance and Taxation [Mr. Loudon] has mentioned 
the fact that some of the members of that committee 
were not present when the report was adopted. I was 
one of the absentees af that time. I believe that I at¬ 
tended all the meetings of the committee previous to 
the time of agreeing to tho report. I might say, that 
I did not agree neither to the report of the majority 
nor that ot the minority, and it would certainly be very 
gratifying to me for the subject to be re-committed, for, 
from the discussions which have intervened, I am of 
the opinion that the report might be so modified as to 
meet more entirely the views of the Convention. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON suggested that both of the 
reports—that of the majority and that of tin' minority, 
prescribe that certain kinds of property shall lie ex¬ 
empt from taxation by the Legislature ; but he did not 
think that either of the reports went far enough with 
this principle of exemption. It had been the policy of 
all governments—even of arbitrary governments—to ex 
empt from taxation a certain amount of the property of 
individuals—looking especially to the relief of such as 
possess but a small amount of property; and if no others 
were to be exempted, he considered that the relit f of 
this class of citizens, in this respect, ought not to be 
overlooked. 

Mr. BARBEE. I am satisfied in my own mind, that 
nothing will be gained by re-committing this report, in 
one particular, and that has been named by the ch:dr- 
man of the standing committee, [Mr. Loudon.] He is 
tenacious, and the minority are also tenacious, upon 
the subject of the difference between the two re[)orts 
—with reference to the principle ot taxing money in¬ 
vested in State boiid.s. This is the> main point upon 
which the majority and minority differ. If the subject 
were re-committed, we might, and in all probability 
would, harmonize in other principles. Some good 
would, perhaps, result to the w’hole. But I am well 
satisfied that we shall not agree upon that one poiut. 

The question was now taken upon the motion that 
the committee rise, and it was rejected ; but, upon a 
division, it w'as ascertained that there was not a quo¬ 
rum voting. 

Whereupon, after some conversation in relation there¬ 
to. 

On motion by Mr. CHAMBERS, the committee rose, 
and the chairman reported no quorum voting. 

A CALL OF THE CONVENTION. 

On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, which was agreed 
to, a call of the Convention was ordered. 












710 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


And after several members were excused, fer rea¬ 
sons presented, the secretary rept)rted the following 
list of absentees, whicli was ordered (under the rule) 
to be entered upon the journal: 

Mosers, Andrews, Blair, Blicltensdorfer, Case of Licking, Clark 
Collings, Ewinif, Farr, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, King, Law¬ 
rence, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Reemelin, Scott oi Harrison, 
Stanbery, Swan. Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Butler, 
Vance of Champaign, Way and Wilson. 

And then, on the motion of Mr. ARCHBOLD, all 
further proceedings under this call were dispensed 
with. 

Some conversation arose here upon a point of diffi¬ 
culty suggested by the Chair, whether this dispensing 
with further proceedings under tlie call of the Conven¬ 
tion, dispensed also with the necessity for entering the 
names of the absentees upon the journal, in which sev¬ 
eral members participated. 

In order to settle the question, 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, m ived that the names of 
the absentees be not entered upon the jouraal. Pend¬ 
ing which, 

The Convention took a recess till 3 o’clock, P. M. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

The pending question, when the Convention took a 
recess, being upon the motion of Mr. Smith, of Warren, 
that the names of absentees be not entered upon the 
journal: upon which the yeas and nays were ordered, 
and resulted, yeas 29, nays 43, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Cook, Cut¬ 
ter, Dorsey, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Hard, Holmes, Hum- 
phreville. Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Leadbetter, Loudon, 
Norris, Orton, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stickney, Struble 
and Thompson of Stark—5:9. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett ofPre- 
ble, Bates, Bennett, Brown ol Carroll, Chaney, Gray, Greene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hootman, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Manon, 
Mason, Mitchell, Mcehead, Morris, McCloud, Patterson, Peck, 
Quigley, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stilwell, Taylor, Townshend, War¬ 
ren, Woodbury, Worthington, and Mr. President—43. 

Ou motion by Mr. LOUDON, the Convention resolved 
itself into acommilteeof the Whole, Mr. Leadbetter in 
the chair, and resumed the consideration ot the report 
of the committee ou 

FINANCE AND TAXATION- 

The CHAIRMAN stated the pending question to he 
upon the motion ol Mr. Hitchcock, of Cuyahoga, to 
strike out the proviso of the second section, and in¬ 
sert ill lieu thereof the second section of the minority 
report. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, in order to perf^t the original sec- 
ti(jn, moved to fdl the blank in the proviso with the 
words “ five hundred.” 

Mr. HORTON moved to fill the blank with the words 
“ ten thousand.” 

This latter motion was rejected. 

Mr. SAWYER proposed “ two thousand.” 

Mr. HAWKINS said it appeared to him that no sum 
C'-uld he fixed upon which would be appropriate. A 
sum which would be sufficient for one district wi'uld 
be too small for another. 

Mr. MANON would tax the property of all these in¬ 
stitutions. He would serve them all alike. Fro[)erty 
alone should pay the taxes, but he wanted to see no 
man laxed for property fur which he was indebted. 

Mr. DORSEY would vote for the largest sum, and 
then he intended to vote for striking out the proviso. 
Tfie very difficulty in which the Committee now found 
itself showed the impropriety of entering into these 
specialises. These matters should be left to the Leg¬ 
islature. The Legislature should have the riglit to ex¬ 
empt ground for scliool and church pui’jioses if it sees 
proper so to do; and they ought also to have liie right 
of exempting a certain amount of property for taxa¬ 
tion, say three or four or five hundred dollars, for the 
relief of every poor ma i. He had said before that 


this report was quite defective. We needed sometliing 
else for the basis (d' a pist svstem of taxation. 

Mr. HUMlMJREVIl’.LE lield that all property in the 
State should be taxed for the support of Government, 
excepting only such {iroperty as may belong to tho 
State or ci uuty; for to tax such i)ropeiTy would be like 
taking money out of one [)Ocket and piitling it into an¬ 
other. But with reference to projierty belonging to 
churches, colleges, schools and literary institutions, and 
library and eleemosynary associations, why should 
such property be exetnpt? lii very many cases these 
issociations were formed merely, or in part, at least, for 
the pnrpo.se of making money. 

By way of illustration, he remarked that the very 
building iu which they were sitting belonged to a lite¬ 
rary association, and would be exempted under some 
of the amendments which had been olfered to lliis sec¬ 
tion. By the fact that $100 per month was paid for 
the u'e of this hall, they knew and experienced the 
fact that at least one of the purposes of the institution 
in the erection of this building was to make money. 
Why, then, should such an in.stitutioii be exempt from 
paying taxes any more than an individual ? Why make 
exceptions in favor of corjiorations and associated 
wealth? He miglit go on fm ther and cite instances in 
the cities of Cincinnati and Cleveland, and other places 
in the State, where, if the section be retained and 
adopted in its present shape, property to an inunen.se 
amount would be exempted from taxaUou foi State and 
county [mrposes. In the country tliis amount would 
be, perhaps, trifling in most cases, but still it would be 
a violation of principle. He could see no reason why 
a company in Cincinnati should beexempted from pay¬ 
ing tax upon {iroperty to the value of $109,000, while a 
similai- company in the village of Medina would be ex¬ 
empt from paying their tax upon projierty only to the 
value of two or iliree thousand dollars. The only rule 
which would work equaTy would be to tax all accor¬ 
ding to the value of their property; any other rule 
would work injustice and ofipressioii. 

He was not disposed to say that because an individu¬ 
al belonged to any of these associations, therefore he 
should be excused, according to the amount of his in¬ 
terest therein, from bearing the burden of State and 
county taxes. If they were to legislate in the Consti¬ 
tution at all upon this subject, he would say, ‘‘let us 
make things equal.” His plan, however, was to leave 
the matter open entirely to the discretion of future leg¬ 
islation. There had not yet been a single amendment 
proposed touching any point of the difficulty. He might 
proceed to greater length, but he supposed the few re¬ 
marks he had made, would be sufficient to call down 
upon bis head as plentiful a share of the anathemas 
from those associations, as he could well bear. But he 
must vote upon this, as upon all o her questions, exactly 
according to the dictation of the sense of duty and con¬ 
science which govern him. 

Mr. LARWILL was not disposed to exempt any pro¬ 
perty from taxation, except gravc-yafds and cliurch pro¬ 
perty. He should vote for filling the blank with the 
smallest sum. 

Mr. HORTON was iu favor of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Cuyahoga; and at the proper time, he 
would be disposed to carry out the idea suggested in 
the proposition of the gentleman from Ros.«, [Mr. Green.] 
He was in favor of the amendment of tlie gentleman 
from Cuyahoga fur various reasons. It gave to the Le¬ 
gislature a discretion either to exempt a certain descrip¬ 
tion of property or not, as the case might require. Ho 
was a believer in the doctrine,that iu forming the Con¬ 
stitution of the State, we should not go into sjieci d le¬ 
gislation, but that we should give power to Lcgi-slatures 
to make certain exeinpiions and prohibitions v\hei ever 
and whenever they may be required. It had hereto¬ 
fore been the policy of the State, to exempt certain de¬ 
scriptions of pioperty from all taxes; such as school 
houses and bnryiug-giomids. And he believed this was 
still iu accordance with the feelings of the people of tho 











CONVENTION IlEEORTS. 711 


State of Oliio; and ho was willing for the continuaiic 
of that policy. 

He was surprised to hear the gentleman from Medi¬ 
na [Mr. HuMPHRfcviLLE,] assert that this would work 
injury to the great mass of the coimnunity. The inju 
ry, if any, would fall upon the cities and small towiis 
and not upon the people generally. There were bu¬ 
rying groinitls about the city of Cincinnati which were 
worth four or five times as much as the sum likely to 
be exempted ; whereas the burying grounds of all the 
rural districts were worth comparatively nothing. 

But there were the trustees of a literary institution, 
whom he sn[)posed to be exempted to the amount of 
$10,000. Who were these corporators, that they should 
thus be^taxed ? They were iif) moi'e intere.sted in the 
prosperity no more benefited by the security of those 
institutions, than the rest of the community. They 
were trustees for the boys as well as the men of the 
State ; and why should they be taxed ? lie consider¬ 
ed that all the people of the State of Ohio had an in¬ 
terest in burying grounds. The great mass of them 
would, before long, themselves require the use of bii- 
1 lie could in:)t, therefore, see any great 
haidship in exempting this species of property from 
taxation. It had been suggested that a maximum lim¬ 
itation ought to be fixed, from the fact that there are 
large amounts of property of this description which 
are Iteld exempt frmn taxation. But it seemed to him 
It would be better for the Legislature to meet the evil 
and apply the lemedy according to the suggestions 
and exigencies of tlm times. There were people all 
over the State, who felt very sensitive upon this poii t, 
and it was no more than right that the Legislature 
should have the pow'cr to apply the remedy as it might 
be suggested by the public sentiment. 

^ Mr. RANNEY proposed so to amend the proviso that 
It would exempt from taxation only school houses, 
public buiying grounds, and the grounds upon which 
religious edihces may be erected. 

Mr. SAWYER now modified his amendment by pro¬ 
posing, instead of words “ five thousand dollars,” 
to insert the vyords “ five dollars.” 

This projiosition was rejected ; and the question re¬ 
curred upon Mr. Kirkwood’s motion to fill the blank 
with the words ‘-five hundred.” 

Mr. LARSH desired, if in order, to move to amend 
the proviso, by striking out the words “not exceeding 

dollars. He did not like to vote for a nde which 
would inevitably Operate unequally in different por¬ 
tions of the State. 1 

.Mr. LOU DON desired that this exemption should be 
laige enough to cover the value of all the school-houses 
and common burying-grounds in the State. Further 
than this he w^ould not lie willing to go. In some pnr 
tions of the State there were institutions of this class, 
which held large land property, from which the State 
could not derive a single sons of revenue; and he was 
informed that there w'ere even some churches in the 
State owning real estate to the amount of hundreds of 
thousands of dollars, and paying notliing in the way cf 
taxes. This was a violation of the republican princi¬ 
ple wh'ch prescribes that property shall support the 
government. He would be imw'illing to exempt even 
all the grave-yard property of the State. In most cases 
burying-grounds were simply designed and appropria¬ 
ted lor hallowed purposes; iDut there were some places 
in the State wdiere grave-yards were got up and sur¬ 
veyed and sold out by lots, for the purpose of specula¬ 
tion ; so that, unless a man were rich, he could not 
have his bones laid in such a place. If speculationsf*f 
this character were actually carried on—and he had 
been told that there were cases of the kind not far 
from this city—it was but right that all companies en¬ 
gaged in such speculations should be taxed. 

He supposed about one thousand dol’ars would be 
sufficient to cover the value of any decent homestead 
burying-grouiid in the State, and lie would be willing 
that the same minimum should be applied to literary 


associations, and associations for Christian worship. 
He would allow them all so much to begin upon; and 
if they desired to go beyond that sum, either in the 
way of s[)eculatii!n, or in an ostentatious display of 
wealth, let them not be shielded any further from the 
burdens of taxation. His friend from Licking [Mr. 
Maxon] and himself, who belonged to the great church, 
were disjiosed to be just in this matter; and, therefore, 
they had agreed to the broad principle laid down in 
the section—that the Legislature should fix upon a just 
and equal system of taxation, to include all the prop¬ 
erty of the State, with the exception of common school- 
houses, and your old-fashioned churches—such as per¬ 
tain to the people—the bone and sinew—the working 
classes of the State. He was opposed to this aristo¬ 
cratic notion of paying so much money into the church 
fs, atid thereby abstracting so large an amount of capi¬ 
tal from the tax dupli( ate. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON thought this was a subject 
with reference to which no arbitrary rule could be es¬ 
tablished, which would be either just or satisfactory. 
He was willing, therefore, to allow the blank to be 
filled with any sum, and then he moved to strike out 
the proviso, and insert in lieu thereof, a clause giving 
a discretion to the Legislature in this matter. There 
coultl be no danger but that all the legitimate subjects 
of taxation would be faithfully assessed. He thought 
that this power might be safely entrusted to the Legis¬ 
lature, and hoped that such a course would be taken. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD could not refrain from saying, that 
he felt like a stranger far from home while engaged in 
this debate. Whilst the press was demanding of this 
body to econom’ze their time, he was ready to confess 
to this, that, in his judgment, they might save time by 
leaving the subject entirely inconsidered. He was sat¬ 
isfied. that if no allusion to the subject of taxation 
should get into the constitution, there could be no 
doubt but the law-makers could still have plenary au¬ 
thority upon the subject. Could any man doubt that ? 
It was his judgment that this whole matter could be 
managed much more discreetly by the Legislature, 
without any of those minute provisions which tluy 
were now considering. Still, he was himself disposed 
to offer a few considerations to those gentlemen vvho 
were disposed to fix up this clause and engiaft it into 
the constitution. He would ask the gentleman from 
Brown [Mr. Loudon.] how he could seem to be so 
anxious to perplex and harass the cliuiches, by sell¬ 
ing out their houses of worship for taxes? Suppose 
alfthat gentleman desires in this matter were accom¬ 
plished, and that under a law taxing the property of 
the churches, a house of public woiship should be 
brought under the hammer; where could there be 
found a purchaser for such property ? >uppo,o it were 
one of those aristocratic churches, in this C;tv, refeired 
to by the gentleman from Brown, which cost $100,000 
—(we have but a few such, but suppose it cost that 
amount)—suppose such building were brought to the 
hammer, for the collection of a fax levied by the Auditor 
and Treasurer of Hamilton county, where could you 
find a bidder? where could be found the sacrilegious 
band willingto buy the Church of God, and make a stable 
of it ? Were gentlemen iirepared to violate the noblest 
feeliims of the people in such a case as this? Weie 
they imt in danger of making enemies of a large class 
of people vvho were now distmgnished as the friends 
of la w and order ? Were they not fixing up a law to 
heard the conscience of the people? In his opinion, 
th*^ laws were already snfficientlv stiiiigent. In his 
opinion, there were already snfficienl tmuptations and 
T r ivocations to the violation of the law. in his^ opin¬ 
ion ihe tone of the fiublic press w'as already sufficient¬ 
ly licentious, and adver.se to the restraints of law and 
order, and good government. And he warned the 
Convention, that if they undertcok to set np a principle 
which would sell out the chuiches of the State, they 
would raise up a more formidable opposition to law, 
than bad ever yet been witnessed iu the State, 










712 CONNENTION EEPORTS. 


No man could charge him with a superstitious adhe¬ 
rence to religion. He was coiisdered by those who 
knew him to be rather heterodox. But for one, he was 
unwilling to fix up a clause in the organic law of the 
State, under which the tax-gatherer might proceed to 
sell out the churches and the bones of our ancestors ! 
If such a step was ever to be taken here, it should be 
taken without his concurrence. Such a provision was 
not merely unnecessary—it was absolutely pernicious. 
But there was a sort of proclivity on the part of gen¬ 
tlemen to get too much into the constitution ; and this 
discussion was an example of it; and he considered 
those were best employed who set themselves to keep 
out this excess of propositions. But where was the 
object, where was the necessity for this provision ? A 
hundred and ten thousand dollars annually would pay 
all the expenses of the State government. It was true, 
as gentlemen would say, we raise an annual revenue 
of three millions; but this included divers other sour¬ 
ces of expense, and amongst the rest the revenue rais¬ 
ed on account of the ])ublic debt, which was gradually 
diminishing, and which he trusted the property of State 
could at least pay off. There was no necessity for fix¬ 
ing up a system of taxation as rigorous and oppressive 
as that which is enforced by the emperor of Russia. 
It should be remembered that if we have nothing liang- 
ing over us but the expenses of the State government, 
our necessity for revenue would be to the last degree 
inconsiderable. It was true that the effects of our for- 
nuM* errors were upon us ; but he saw no occasion for 
fixing such a rigorous system of taxation as gentlemen 
seemed to be about to perpetrate. On the contrary, he 
would say : Let us pay off our debt; and then let those 
who will, contrive to filch an excess of revenue from 
the hard hand of the virtuous and pious yeomanry of 
the country. I will have no hand in it. A cheap, fru¬ 
gal government, is the best: and that was all we want. 
He was op})osed to any law for the taxation of charity, 
strictly considered. If my neighbor, who may be reli¬ 
giously inclined, gives $.500 for the establishment of a 
church, and is taxed upon that amount, while I, who 
may be less piously inclined, give nothing, and conse- 
(pjently, have no taxes of that kind to pay, the practi¬ 
cal effect certainly is, that the State levies a direct tax 
upon charity and benevolence. 

Mr. RANNEY would suggest to the chairman of the 
standing committee, [Mr. Locdon,] whether $1,000 
would not be entirely inadequate. That gentleman 
proposed to exempt school houses and common bury¬ 
ing grounds, and $1,000 would hardly begin to exempt 
even the land upon which many school houses stand in 
this city. It the object were to exempt school houses 
and burying places, he would say so in so many word.s. 
For in the first place, the State has to support the 
schools, and then to tax the school houses w'ould be but 
to take money out of one hand and put it into the 
other; and then, in the other case, it was an outrage 
upon the sense of religion, so strong in the minds of 
people, to tax a grave yard. The question of exempt 
ing church property need not be mingled with the 
question of the exemption of school houses and grave 
yards; for all must be educated,and at last Jie and be 
buried, in the country as well as in the city. He did 
not concur in the sentiment that every thing .shoidd be 
left open to an undefined and undefinable discretion of 
the Legislature, with respect to the question as to what 
description of property should be exempted and what 
brought within the province of taxation. In his opin¬ 
ion, there could not be left with the Legislature any 
more dangerous power than this—a discretion, the ex¬ 
ercise of which was more beset with temptations and 
tendencies to corruption. Interc.sted parties would be 
continually besetting the Legislature to withdraw cez'- 
tain property fi’om taxation, and the deeper the intei'- 
est, the more intense would be the feeling and the 
sti'ongcr the effort; and the success of one such appli¬ 
cation would be but as the entering wedge for the suc¬ 
cess of other applications of equal merit. He could 


not well conceive of any thing better calculated to lead 
to those corrupting influences which ai’e most apt to get 
round legislative bodies in this coinztiy 

He did not know but he would be considered a per¬ 
fect heretic in constitution making. The gentleman 
from Monroe had intimated that the great duty of a 
member here was to set himself to woi'k to keep ev¬ 
erything he could out of the constitution. If this were 
rezdly said in earnest, he would think it ought to occur 
to that gentleman, that instead of sitting hei’e at the 
expense of the State, it would be the course of duty 
for him to bo making tracks towards borne; for all we 
would have to do, acting upon this zxdvice, would be 
to adopt the old constitution, as good enough, or pass 
a resolution leaving everything to the discretion and 
management of the Legislature, which we could do 
to-mori’ow, azid be ready to start home the next day. 
He looked upon our whole duty hei’e, as naturally di¬ 
vided into two branches ; the declai’ation of cei’tain 
fundamental pi’inciples, wdiich lie at the foundation of 
government; and pi'esci’ibing the details necessary to 
carry out those princifdes. He understood that it w’as 
the business of this Convention to make laws. He 
meant here by the word “ laws,” just what it meant in^ 
every case. He meant a rule of action by which some¬ 
thing is commanded to be done, or something prohib¬ 
ited. • He did not suppose that this Convention had 
been sent here merely to I’ead homilies to the Legisla- 
tui’e, ormei’ely to recommend propositions for the Gen- 
esal Assembly to cari’y out. For if such were the ob¬ 
ject of all the pi’opositions which Izad been introduced 
here, he begged gentlemen to leave them out, and not 
waste paper upon them. But there are certain great 
principles wdzich lie at the foundation of free govein- 
ment, and the people of Ohio had sent us here to de¬ 
clare those principles; and they had provided that af¬ 
terwards they themselves will put their own seal of 
appi’oval upon them. This was the way which our 
people had determined to take in making their funda¬ 
mental laws. No people should delegate power which 
they could exei’cise themselves. It is a fact, as asserted 
by the gentleman fi’om Medina, [Mi’. Humph reville] 
that the people have always delegated too much power. 
Here we have ali’eady proceeded so far as to deter¬ 
mine, to curtail the extent of those delegated powers. 
We have determined to takecei’lain elections from the 
Legislatui’e, and give them to the people. We have 
; determined to withdraw from the Legislature the pow¬ 
er to ci’eate monopolies ; and still he was satisfied that 
there was an abundance of power besides these, now 
exercised by that body, which ought to be withdi’aw’n. 
He W’as not one of those w’ho looked to tlie legislative 
power as the chief source of safety and happiness for 
the people. There seemed to have been a strife amongst 
gentlemen here, as to who coidd state, in the clearest 
and sti’ongest terms, that this body was here merely 
to command or to I’equest the Legislature to d" this or 
that. If this were their business, he would repeat 
that they had better go home at once. But he did not 
so understand his duty here, nor did he think the dele¬ 
gates to this Cfinvention need be so very modest. 

After some farther informal discussion, the committee 
rose and rep rted progress. 

And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned. 

TUESDAY, Decemder 10, 1850. 

10 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by the Rev. Dr. Brooke. 

Mr. LARWILL presented a petition fi’om John C. 
Taylor and forty-six others, citizens of Wayne county’, 
asking that a provision be inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
authorizing the .‘lale of intoxicating di’inks. 

Mr. STILWELL, a petition from Wm. P. Sage, and 
one hundred and fifteen others, citizens of Muskingum 
county, on the same subject. 

Mr. GILLETT pi’esenied a petition from Robert Reed 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


and forty others, citizens of Scioto county, on the same 
subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Ardent Spirits. 

On motion of Mr. LOUDON, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the whole on the orders of 
the day, Mr. Lkadbetter in the Chair. 

I'he question being on the amendment of Mr. Gregg 
to the proviso in the second section, to strike out of the 
third and fourth lines, the words “ not exceeding in val¬ 
ue the sum <if - dollars,” and to insert “ especially 

devoted to such pnrposfs.” 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to amend by substituting the 
word “ exclusively,” for the word ” especially,” which 
was accepttd by the mover. 

Mr. LOUDON was in some doubt whether he could 
consistently vote for the amendment of the gentleman 
from Columbiana, [Mr. Gregg.] He could readily see 
how it might be productive of great practical abm^e and 
loss to the State, and great inequality and injustice to 
individuals. It was evident that if it should pi evail, i 
would ].lace it in the power of wealthy corporations to 
possess and hold large amounts of valuable property, 
and to keep them forever exempt from taxation. What 
would such a church corporation have to do, but to pos¬ 
sess itself of a quarter or a half township of land, and 
to erect a church upon one corner of it. If there is to 
be no limit to the practice, the whole territory of the 
State will soon be taken up with church lots and cem¬ 
eteries, to the loss to the revenue, and the injury of eve¬ 
ry other public and private interest. 

Mr. MANON w'as willing to go for the exemption of 
school houses, and the lots upon which they stand, and 
buryiiig-grounds ; but he should vote against extending 
the exemption any further. A church might, under the 
proposed amendment, cover half the territory of a 
township with its privileged claims, by the mere act of 
putting up a meeting house. He should go against lea¬ 
ving the door open for any such abuse. He should, 
also, give his vote against any plan of taxation that 
should oblige a man to pay taxes upon w’hat he does 
not own, or upon his debts, and should, upon all ques¬ 
tions of this kind, so govern his votes as best to secure 
that object. 

Mr. REEMELIN desired upon a question of so much 
importance to vote understandingly. He wanted to 
consider the whole principle presented in the amend¬ 
ment, both in its features and in its probable effects. 
The proiiositinn of the gentleman from Columbiana, 
[Mr. Gregg,] is to exempt school houses, burying 
grounds, and the grounds upon which religious edifices 
are constructed, and all the edifices thereon, whatever 
may be their amount or extent, forever from taxation. 
He could not concur in such a proposition, however 
badly some gentlemen might construe such an opinion. 
He was aware that a proposition to tax churches, and 
the ground upon which those sacred edifices are situa¬ 
ted, would strike most persons with astonishment and 
aversion. We are all of us controlled more or less, by 
certain preconceived notions ; and in approaching this 
question, these preconceived notions of the rights and 
interests of the churches, naturally start up against 
what would otherwise be our views upon the subject. 

One part of mankind has succeedeef in making the 
rest believe that the objects with which they are iden¬ 
tified should be exempted from the burdens of society 
—yea, they should ever receive the particular fostering 
care of the Government. They have impressed upon 
us in early life these sentiments so strongly, that they 
have now become a second nature to us, so that we 
tread with less firm step when we approach, as mem¬ 
bers of the Convention, questions connected with reli¬ 
gious institutions. And if the amendment of the 
tleman from Columbiana, [Mr. Gregg,] prevails, it is 
not because the amendment in itself is right, but be¬ 
cause we are afraid to act in a matter where our preju¬ 
dices so strongly control us. I suppose the gentleman 
from Columbiana will ask us, “what, are you going to 


713 


discourage art by taxin? churches? Are you going to 
discourage the finer arts in the embeliishment of ihe 
temples of God? Are you, by taxation, going to dis¬ 
courage religious morality and those deep feelings of 
[iroprieiy which lie at the foundation of all govern¬ 
ment? ” I have no doubt, sir, that just si ch pathetic 
speeches will be made, and that appeals upon the sub¬ 
ject of religion and morality will find ready allies in 
our own prejudices. To all such appeals I have but 
one rejily, and that is, that in the discharge of my du¬ 
ties as a public man, all feelings of that kind must give 
way to the stern demands of principle; and when 
called upon tovotoon the Constitution, Idoirtask myself 
what interests I should prefer, what feelings I shcaild 
especially regard, and what objects I should especially 
foster ; but 1 am guided by the principle of equal rights 
to all, asking in return for equal laws to all ; only that 
all should be subjected to equal burthens. 

Let us, Mr. Chairman, look a little closer to this mat¬ 
ter. Religion, we all admit to be one of the high ob¬ 
jects of society—we all admit it to be the great ground¬ 
work of both public and private morality. 1 trust 
however you will be equally ready to admit that there 
is one other equally high interest—equally as high 
objects—equally as high pursuits, which come, cons d- 
ering the nature of our Government, more properly 
within the range of Government. And I cannot see 
with what propriety, one of these objects is singled 
out, as the favored child of legislation; why it ts to 
enjoy exemption from the burthen of society, whil 
the others are taxed. AVhat is this else, but taxing all 
others for the sup[)ort of it? Every dollar, which is 
withdrawn by exemption of any kind, has to be made 
up by others and is so far a tax. Nor can I see that 
religion is particularly injured by subjecting it to the 
common burthens of society ; much less can 1 see how 
taxing a costly edifice, as a rule, has anything at all to 
do with the subject of religion. I cannot see how it 
makes any difference as to the kind of property in 
which a citizen may have invested his means—whether 
in a church pew or in the stocks of a railroad, so it be 
property whose advantages, privileges and pleasures 
he, and he only, enjoys; and in whose enjoyment he 
is guarantied and protected by government. No good 
citizen will ask to be exempted in this wise. What 
difference does it make to the government whether it 
is the blacksmith’s hammer or the proceeds of the 
blacksmith’s industiy; or whether it be the painter’s 
pencil, exhibiting his labors in the embellishment of 
churches—it is labor that produced the property, equal¬ 
ly protected, it should be equally taxed. Why should 
we discriminate in favor of the carpet weaver’s shuttle 
that makes a carpet for a splendid church, against the 
fai mer’s plow that tills our soil and gives our families 
their daily bread? What difference is it whether the 
carpenter’s industry produced the hovel for the beggar 
or the dwelling for the artisan ; or whether the same 
mechanic, assisted by the architect, rears a splendid 
edifice? Whatdifference whether he build a fine steam¬ 
boat or a fine church ?—what difference wdiether ho 
works upon the generally useful parts of his trade, or 
in fitting out a splendid pulpit, in which sorne eloquent 
pulpit orator may display his powers? It is industry 
in every case—it is the product of labor in every in¬ 
stance. And taxation is just so much a drawback in 
one case as in the other, and we would be coinpelled 
to admit that taxation was wrong—that taxation was 
an error, or else we must give up discriminating in 
favor of one species ot labor against the proceeds of 
labor in another shape. 

What is taxation sir? It is the compulsory contribu¬ 
tion of each citizen, according to his means, to the sup¬ 
port of the government under which he lives. The 
mode of taxation proposed in the report, and not con¬ 
troverted by any, is that the aggregate property of the 
State should be the means from which the tax should 
be collected ; and the amount in the hands of each in¬ 
dividual, should be the measure by which the amount, 












714 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


he is called upon to contribute, should be measured 
As you exemi)t one species of [)roperty you increase 
the burthens upmi the remainder; and in reajily all ex¬ 
emptions have tended oidy to the complica’ifm of our 
tax laws, and to make them bear unequally and im¬ 
properly. The aggregate wealth of the State of Ohio 
18 in the hands of its ])eople—the tax is paid by the la¬ 
bor of the people of Ohio ; the proceeds of that labor 
is either converted into personal property or real es¬ 
tate ; is the evidence—the thing upon which the tax is 
levied. I am inclined to the opinion that if the jieople 
of Ohio will examine the subject, they will find that 
those who tell them that this species of property is 
more holy than the rest, but that that species of prop¬ 
erty needs exemption from taxation, are deceiving them 
U[)on the subject; for who pays the taxes at last but 
the men—the laboring men of Ohio? It is not a ques 
tion of the amount of taxation, but as to its being prop¬ 
erly equalized ! 

1 am lidly aware, Mr. Ch iirman, that in claiming, 
upon the subject of taxatictn, these great princi])le8 of 
equality, upon which I have always acted, I may call 
up those deep-seated prejudices to which 1 have adver¬ 
ted at the coinmcncemenj; of my remark,. I am aware 
that i! is an easy matter to set a mark upon a man and 
pervert his remarks—to make him, when he is a favor¬ 
er of equal taxation, an enemy to religion, and to mo¬ 
rality, while nothing may really be farther from his 
heart. The phanton of French infidelity may be rear¬ 
ed up within these halls, and be made to stalk through 
them, not for the purpose of reminding us of thesegreat 
principh 8 of equality and justice, but for the purpose 
of friglitening us from a fair and candid consideration of 
thesidqect. The “ raw-head ” and “ bloody-bones ” of 
“ Danton and Robespierre ” will be conjuied up toom- 
imag nation, to prevent that cool and steady gaze which 
is determined to get at the bottom of this C]ue.stion. 
Be it so. I trust that I am understood,and be the con¬ 
sequences what they may, I freely and openly avow 
that I am in favor of the doctrine avowed by Mr. 
Brough, in a rej)oit made by him as Auditor of the State, 
and subsequently embodied in a bill brought before the 
General Assembly, that all wealth, every species of 
roperty that affords to man either comfort, revenue, 
Icasure, or the means of gratifying his pride, wheth¬ 
er it be a fine pew in a church, or a fine education for 
’"is children—whether he please to hang his property 
h poti the back of his wife, in jewelry and fine clothes— 
Qvxhethcr he loves to support a fine horse and carriage, 
cr loves to dwell in a splendid house—no matter what 
it may be, whatever constitutes his wealth, that should 
be the measure of his taxation, exacted of all equally 
alike. 

To make myself understood upon this particular 
question, let me illustrate it by stating two ca.ses that 
no doubt ha[)pened the day before yesterday : 

On last Sunday morning one of the wealthiest citi¬ 
zens of this city, leaving his elegant m-ansion, either 
alone or attended by his family, rolled in his carriage 
to church. As he approached the splendid edifice of 
the congregation of which he is a member, his pride 
was elated as his eye rested upon the towering spire 
which rose high above the dwellings, looking down 
uj)on the rest of mankind. The architectural beauty, 
perhaps in imi ation of some Doric Temple or some 
Gothic structure, made him feel elated that he was a 
member of a society able to build such a church. As 
he opened the door he felt that he need iiof be in a 
hurry, for he had already secured a right to a rich vel¬ 
vet cu.'hioned pew, and he felt no doubt that he had 
taken good care tlnu the outer man should not suffer 
while he went to take care of the spirit within him. 
Hel istened to the eloquent oration of a highly gifted 
and highly salaried mini.slerof the congregation. The 
height of the church, its walls being tastefully painted, 
the richly decked pulpit, the brillimt caiidelebras, 
the studied sermon, each and all contributed to make 
him feel exceedingly comfortable in thus adoring the 
“lowly Jesus.” 


At the same hour, or most likely a little earlier, in 
the country portion of Hamilton, or some other eounfy, 
you could perhai>s see a lightly clad poor girl leaving 
he hund,)le roof of her j)arent8 on horseback. We will 
follow her some three or four miles to one of our coun¬ 
try im eting houses. She rides up to the fence to tie 
her horse, for generally there is not even a post sup¬ 
plied for that purpose. The meeting house is a log 
cabin, not even weather-boarded outside, scantily sup- 
[)lied with windows, and they not all 6U[)plied with 
glass. As she opens the door you can see within a few 
wooden benches; a pulpit made of af*w rough boards 
nailed together. The inside of the meeting house may 
not ev3n be ])laster(d. All round that jtoor girl is dis- 
comf)rt to the body, but within her lives that true 
spirit of religion that is frightened at no obstacle, that 
finds its God in the lowliest dwelling as well as in the 
magnificent palace. 

Sir, the e emption of that rich man’s church is a tax 
upon that poor girl’s industry! The tax that should 
have been levied and collected from that splendid edi¬ 
fice has to be made up by the laboring men and wo¬ 
men of Ohio, who congregate in just such meeting¬ 
houses as these throughout many parts of the State. 
One-tenth of the jieople of Ohio congregate in meet¬ 
ing-houses that are exceedingly costly, while nine- 
fenths congregate in the meeting houses last described. 
Still, the nine-tenths are taxed to support the other 
one-tenth in their pride. A serious eflibit will be made 
to make the nine-tenths believe that to tax church pro¬ 
perty the same as other property is an injury to them ; 
while, if they will for a moment consider the subject, 
they will find that it is a benefit to them. 

This is not an over-wu’ought picture. The meeting 
that I hav^e just described is the meeting-house for the 
great mass of the people of Ohio; yea, even at the 
present day we might quote with propriety and truth 
a cou})let from a song of one of our western poets, en¬ 
titled “ Fifty years ago 

And no^v the solemn Sabbath came : 

We gHthered in the wood, 

And lift! d up our hearts in prayer 
To God, the only good. 

Our temples then were earth and sky; 

None other did we know. 

In the days when we were pioneers. 

Fifty years ago. 

To resume, then, briefly: I think that by leaving the 
section stand as reported, striking out the whole pro¬ 
viso, will make the matter, in my humble opinion, 
right. All property will then be subject to taxation ; 
the assessment will then have to be uniform and the 
valuation just. I do not know'but what I would favor 
the proviso permitting the General Assembly to pro¬ 
vide by law, that in snch case.s where the tax of any 
one individual for personal property, and where such 
person has no real estate, does not amount to a certain 
fixed maximum, say fifty cents or one dollar, that then 
such tax shall not he forcibly collected. I do not ex¬ 
press a decided opinion upon this matter; but if I 
would exempt at all, I would do so iii favor of poor 
men. 

Mr. GREGG. In offering my amendment, it was 
with a view to extend the same rule to all religious 
denominations, in all places. In one place an acre of 
land would be worth two or three dollars, while in 
another it would be vvfirth two or three hundred, or 
two or three thousand, and in this city, as high us two 
or three tliousaiid dullars. Again, if you fill the blank 
with $-2,000, yfuir system of taxation will operate un¬ 
equally, even in the same town, and while it will tax 
the rre.shyterian or Methodist who may have erected a 
good substantial church in a convenient pai-t of the 
town, the Quaker or Baptist, who may not be so well 
situated in wordly affairs, will go free. There is ihere- 
fore a difficulty in fixing upon any amount—and if one 
denomination is permtttcd to worship free fnnn taxa¬ 
tion, all should have the same privilege extended to 
them. 













CONVENTION EEPORTS. 715 


Ml’, humph LIE VILLE was not plea.sed with any 
of Uie pnipositions tluit had been laid before the com¬ 
mittee. lie thought some went too far, were too ex¬ 
clusive, and excluded too nnith ; while on the other 
hand, some were too limited and narrow. He did not 
think any of tliem exactly in accordance with the 
views, either ol a majority of the Convention or of the 
community at large. He had drawn up an amend¬ 
ment which, at a proper time, he [iroposed to offer for 
consideration. It speaks his ow’u views; and he 
thought perhaps, if not concurred in, in all its details, 
it might serve as a basis upon whit h to harmonize the 
views of others. He would read it for the information 
of the committee. 

Sec. 2. Strike out all after the word “ Provided,” 
and insert: 

“ Tlie property of the State, of counties, townships, cities and 
towns held and used as public property, and also pu'lie school 
houses, academies, colleges and universities, and the lands on 
which they stand, and public ! uryingcri undsand highways shall 
be ex( inpl from taxation ; and tlie General Assembly may ex¬ 
empt liiiin taxation the property ot churches, literary societies, 
and institutions purely eleemo-ynary, not exceeding two acres in 
extent, and two thousand dollars in value ; also, the kitchen and 
houseiiold lurniture of tainilies, and the tools and implements of 
laborers, nnehaniesand agriculturists, not exceeding two hun 
dred dollars in value, and the pei tonal property of any whose 
whole assessment shall not exceed one hundred dollars. 

He was aware that the details might not suit the 
views of all, but the principle embodied, he thought 
to be correct. In regard to the exemptions in the last 
part of tlie amendmeut, it left the extents and the 
amounts to be fixed by the General Assembly. He 
wished, in the former pait, to make some specifica¬ 
tions, because, if general words only are emjiloyed, 
the matter is less ojien to abn.«!e. At present, the 
whole nialter is left in the hands of the General As¬ 
sembly, and he thought abuses had been snfiered to 
creep in. For instance, the jiroperty of all the col¬ 
leges of the State is exempt from taxation. Now, 
many of these institutions own lands to a very great 
extent, from which a large revenue is derived. He 
w’onld tax all such wealthy institutions. He did not 
know as the sum of two tliousand dollars was large j 
enough; and the amount of land specified might seem 
loo small in some cases, and too large in others; but 
some amount should be fixed, and he could see no rea¬ 
son why above that amount they should not be taxed. 

Mr. MITCHELL said he should be obliged to vote 
upon the proposition now before the committee, with 
the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] but 
he felt it his duty to say, that he did not do so upon 
the principle avowed by that gentleman. He never 
had, and he never could envy that gentleman in the 
zest with which he attacked all the institutions of reli¬ 
gion, whenever they came in his way. He could not 
agree with the gentleman in his ideas of democracy, 
nor assent to the proposition that it is a distinctive fea¬ 
ture characterizing democracy or the Democratic par¬ 
ty, that makes indiscriminate and ferocious attacks 
upon religion and religious sentiments, at all times and 
upon all occasions. ' 

Mr. REEMELTN desired the gentleman from Knox, 
[Mr. Mitchell,] to designate when and where he had 
been guiliy of an attack upon religion. He denied 
that he had ever been inlenlioually guilty of any such 
attempt. 

Mr. MITCHELL said he had too long been accus¬ 
tomed to the vocabulary peculiar to the stripe of no¬ 
tions held by the gentleman fiom Hamilton, to be un¬ 
der any mistake ujion the subject. When be talks of 
the opinions and belief of Clnistians being a mere jire- 
judice, and narrowness of mind, and preconceived no¬ 
tions, and errors, and bigotry, it is easy enough to un¬ 
derstand what he means. I can understand what he 
is at. Sc’iitimcnts like those advanced by the gentle¬ 
man ought not to be heard in silence by an American 
assembly; nor borne without rebuke. They are the 
sentiments of the worst days, the days of Infidel per¬ 
secution, and ought to have no place here, and nothing 


to recommend them to our favorable consideration, nor 
even our forbearance. 

If there is anything that gives dignity and respect to 
our situation as representatives of the wisdom and 
patriotism of a free peojde, it i.s, that, we recognize in 
all things our religious accountability, and sub.<cribe 
ever to the truth of the g;eat princii>les of ttligion. 
The notions of thegenlleinau from HamilUiii, and sumo 
other gentlemen here, are of another chai actor. Their 
fundamental principle appears to be, that leligiou is to 
be persecuted and jmt down, and that the first duty of 
people in the establishment of a form” of government is 
to deny their accountability to God. This is the doc¬ 
trine in substance, however concealed under a form of 
words, that the gentleman is so ready to broach on 
all occasions, and to drag into all subjects ot discus¬ 
sion. In the eai ly history of the government ot this 
country, it seemed to be a fact admrnitled that the pu¬ 
rity and depth of religious sentiments held and recog¬ 
nized by their founders, had given to our governmeiila 
their chief strength and purity. Latterly, however, 
under the iulhieuce of sentiment such as had been 
broached by these gentlemen, the tendency had been 
the other w'ay. He hoped, however, to see a change 
in our day. He hoped that the day was not far distant 
when the truth w’ould again be triumphant, and reli¬ 
gion be recognized as the only sure foundation ot safe¬ 
ty to society and consequently to government. Not, 
sir, that he would have it patronized and supported by 
governraeui, but tolerated—let alone. 

He said he should be obliged to vote against the 
amendment of the gentleman from Columbiana, be¬ 
cause he deemed it impracticable in its application. 
He thought it might be found to operate unequally and 
unjustly upon the very classes of our people which it 
professed to favor. He thought the very objects for 
which governments are iiistitu’.ed is to give encourage¬ 
ment to these very pursuits whicli gentlemen seem 
anxious to hedge in and restrict. The progress of 
learning is for the good of the State and is important 
to its ])erpetuity. Morality is just a.s essential. Reli¬ 
gion is the great motive to upright conduct, whic h con¬ 
stitutes the chief safe-guard to the State, and is the le¬ 
gitimate result of both the others. The idea of separa¬ 
ting learning and morality from government, is a mere 
figment of the brains of those who would erect the 
structure of the State, without first laying its tounda- 
tion. 

The idea of the gentleman from Browui seems to be, 
that education, to a certain extent, is well enough, but 
beyond that it is wrong ; it bee omes a mere appeiid'ige 
to aristocratic pretensions,or is employed for purposes 
of speculation and gain. He did not believe it. He 
did not believe that there was any such thing as too 
much education. He believed learning tp ke good, 
and he did not care how much w’e have of d; and as 
soon as we are ready to cry down education, and dis¬ 
parage learning, we are ready to make the retrograde 
movement, and go back to the ages of bai bavisin. He 
believed that learning w’ould distinguish the nation that 
gives it encouragement. By it we shall atlAin tc) a 
higher fame and nobler reputation than can ever be 
gained by feats of arms, or by the emoluments and ac¬ 
cumulations of the most bounclless commerce, mUrnal 
and external, domestic or foreign. It is encourged by 
all good governments as much as possible, and several 
of the States in this Union have given a noble testimo¬ 
ny of the value they place upon the menus of educa¬ 
tion. He intended to vote so us to give his aid to every 
measure, consistent with justice, calculated to adv'auce 
the cause of education, morality and true r:digi(m. For 
this purpose he was fav’oiahle to the amendment read 
by the gentleman frem Medina. [Mr. Humphreville.] 
Mr. REEMELIN could not allow the remarks of the 
genth mau from Knox [Mr. Mitchell] to pass without 
raisiim his voice in denial of the charges which that 
fTcntlemau saw fit to make against him. He asked 
That <Tenlleman to look back over his whole course. 










716 CONVENTION REPOETS. 


both in this Convention and elsewhere, and point out 
a single idea that even squints towards an attack upon 
religion or morality, lie found, in the remarks of that 
gentleman, the very proofs—the testimony in point, to 
prove the words he had uttered, and the remarks he 
had made, in regard to the nairowing effect of early 
education upon the minds of men, preventing them 
from seeing the truth, even where it is clear and plain 
as the nocniday sun. 

For liis jiait, he was unable to see how it was possi¬ 
ble for the gentleman from Knox so to construe his re¬ 
marks, as to see in them an attack upon morality or re¬ 
ligion. He knew it was easy to charge a man with 
being an infidel or an atheist, and to raise the cry of 
“ mad-dog,” and set the whole community after him. 
The gentleman from Knox is deep in a theological argu¬ 
ment, but his mind runs in a narrow channel. He is 
one of those who, under a conscientious sense of duty, 
would burn witches ! He would denounce with a zest, 
Robespierre, Danton, the French Revolution; and all 
the great reforniors of the world, would, if they lived 
now, receive the gentleman’s opprobious epithets. His 
raw head and bloody bones have lost their charms, and 
the world will no longer be compelled by force to car¬ 
ry this or that favorite creed. If that gentleman had 
lived in ihe time of Tom. Jefferson, probably he would 
have hid his Bible. Now, however, he is a disciple of 
Torn. Jefferson, and yet is in favor of anything butfree- 
dom and equality on the subject of religion. 

Thomas Jefferson said to the world, that the true doc¬ 
trine was to stand aside, and let i-eligion take care of 
itself—not to intermingle with the jarring sects, but to 
give equal protection to all, by allowing liberty of con¬ 
science to every one. This is the great feature of Ame¬ 
rican law ; it is what makes our country the asylum of 
the oppresseJ throughout the woidd, and which has and 
will ensure our freedom on religious subjects for all 
coming time. The gentleman, democrat as he claims 
to be, does not seem to heed the great principle laid 
down by^ Mr. Jefferson, when he moved to abolish the 
protection thrown around the church of Virginia. So 
far as religion is concerned, Mr. Jefferson desired to 
leave it to God, and to men’s consciences. Has it been 
any worse for this ? No, not for one mement. He could 
say from experience that it was no worse. He had 
lived in countries where religion is fostered by laws, 
and where men are forced, whether they will or not, to 
support a public worship not congenial to their feelings. 
He had seen all the good effects that could arise from 
such a practice, in contrast with that practice, where 
Jefferson’s rule of freedom of conscience does prevail; 
and he could say from actual observation, that in no 
country had he seen men more deeply impressed with 
the sentiment of religion than here. No where does 
religion find more zealous votaries, no where do its min¬ 
isters receive higher respect and higher renown. This 
he aMributed to our freedom of action. Where an at¬ 
tendance upon religious ordinances is forced, it must 
generally be insincere and hollow. 

He would say, though very reluctantly, a few words 
in regard to himself. He was no infidel. So far from 
desiring to bear down true religion, there is no mem¬ 
ber of this body more desirous to build it up. No man 
is more aware how prone bigots are to misconstrue and 
misrepresent the motives of those who do not, in every 
respect, agree with them. He had suffered deeply in 
this respect. No man abhorred the infidel or the athe¬ 
ist more than himself; but, much as he disliked them, 
still would he even to them give freedom of opinion, 
because he believed that the idea that government 
should interest itself in the support of religion, to be 
injurious to both government and religion; and the re¬ 
marks made by Mr. Biddle about the connection be¬ 
tween government officers and the United States Bank 
was true here: “It is a connection beneficial to neither 
party and injiiiiousto both.” In regard to his personal 
religion, he would refer the gentleman from Knox to 
those who knew him intimately. Let him ask them 


as to his princijdes. He would not brag on the subject 
of religion, but he would allow no man to say that he 
bad no love for religion, or that he would injure its in¬ 
stitutions. Because I .‘<hovv that it worked unjustly to 
exclude from taxation the ten or hundred thousand dol¬ 
lar church, built by wealthy men to gratify worldly i 
pride, while you can only recompense the grand mass 
of an agricultural district by excluding churches cost¬ 
ing only a few hundred dollars, am I to be told that I 
am an infidel? He was sorry to say these things of 
the gentleman from Knox. He had long known him 
to be a gentleman, in many other res[)ects, fully up to 
the great reforms of the age, and he felt it his duty, on 
hearing such charges from him, to rise and throw off 
the imputation. He did not desire that his children ^ 
should be told that their father had attacked religion ; < 
for, although they will know that it is a lie, he did not 
want to be even charged falsely in their ears. 

Mr. MITCHELL could not regret having made the , 
remarks which had fallen from him, since it had giveni j 
the gentleman Irom Hamilton an opportunity to declare 
his real views upon the subject. It might be that he 
was so narrow-minded as not to be able to judge of a 
man’s sentiments by his declarations and by his acts. 
He was glad to hear from the gentleman the declara- ■ 
tionu just made, that ministers of the gospel are more 
respected m this country than in any other country in 
the world. _ _ . 

Mr. RE EMELIN said the reason was, that in this^ 
country they do not attempt to exact respect. 

Mr. .MITCHELL. This is undoubtedly true; but ho 
would put it to the common sense of the gentleman 
whether his remarks in relation to religion and its 
ministers first made this morning, were calculated to 
increase that respect; whether his picture of the poor 
girl, going to church to worship in her poor log cabin, 
the same God that the millionaire worships in a stately 
edifice, was calculated to increase that res[)ect. If he 
had drawn the picture to the life, as he should have 
done, he would have made his poor girl thankful to : 
God, for having spared her and given her any place 
upon His footstool to worship Him in. Still at all times j 
standing ready to be devotedly thankful if in his be- i 
nign providence, he should therefore afford her a more j 
comfortable place for this Holy service. This would ; 
have been the true picture of the humlde and pious 
girl whose portrait he soughtto draw. Noenvy would 
have filled her heart, against those who worship in 
elegant houses. Such a picture would he have drawn, 
had he rightly appreciated the subject. 

The gentleman from Hamilton saw fit to attend a • 
little to the county of Knox. Now it is true in some 
respects that the people of that county have not come 
up to the high standard of perfection which the gentle¬ 
man seems to arrogate for himself. But we have be¬ 
gun to appreciate our deficiencies, and are beginning i 
to get rid of them. We have become learned enough 
to know how little we do know, and this I have heard 
said was no inconsidei’able attainment. I would com¬ 
mend to the gentleman from Hamilton the study of 
this apothegm and its application. The gentleman 
seems to think that his own constituents have got high 
enough. In Knox, we are glad to possess the means to 
make still further advances. 

He was not in favor of the encouragement of religion 
by direct governmental action, but of leaving it to the 
individual man himself to go forward in his own aided i 
way, looking only to the mercy and kind Providence i 
of God for other aid. Our Creator has made us ac¬ 
countable for our sentiments and our conduct toward ; 
Him. We have a duty to perform in that behalf, which, 
if rightly performed, will redound not only to the glory 1 
of God, but to the peace and safety of our country, the i 
perpetuity of its institutions, and the best good of those I 
who are to come after us, and will powerfully tend to ^ 
support and snstain the government our forefathers j 
shed their priceless blood to establish. 

His reason for being opposed to the exemption con- 



















CONVENTION REPOIITS. 


tained in tlie amendment of the gentleman from Co¬ 
lumbiana, Gkegc.,^ were, that it will be ditlicult, 
if not impossible, to hit upon the true criterion. In 
some cases, larger amounts and values will be exempt¬ 
ed than in others. The plan cannot work equally and 
justly, and rather than have an inequitable ])lan of ex¬ 
emption, let there be no plan. It will be difficult, if 
not impossible, to fix upon any plan not subject to the 
same objection. 

Mr. DOdSEY said, the matter now’ before the com¬ 
mittee was of 60 much importance, that he hoped to 
hear the views of every gentleman upon the floor. It 
is a matter of great importance to discover the true 
principle of taxation. If he understood the views of 
the gentleman from Hamilton, they were the same 
with his own. He would tax the value of every spe¬ 
cies of property owned by every citizen of Ohio, and 
of no other man. But he did not want that, from his 
remarks, it should be deduced that he was in favor of 
the proposition of the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. Tay¬ 
lor.] It he understood the gentleman, he wuis in fa¬ 
vor of following up the doctrine by the establislirnent 
of something like an income tax, by which taxation 
shall increase in proportion to the amount of jiroperty 
holden by the individual—as so much, or such a per 
cent, on one thousand dollars, more on two, or the se¬ 
cond thousand, and so on He was not in favor of such 
a doctrine. He did not believe that there could be 
any equity in provisions of law to restrain the accu¬ 
mulation ct property in individual hands. He thought 
all such attempts would be wrong, unfortunate, and 
would operate unjustly ; and that the true doctrine is 
to leave such matters to the operation of natural laws 
always in existence and operation. It is true that there 
are many large fortunes in this country, but they 
scarcely ever continue longer than one generation in 
the hands of the same men or family. Death or other 
means produce subdivisions, and the thing regulates 
itself without legislative assistance. 

But my ideas upon the subject of exemption are 
these. There is among us too constant a disposition to 
ruuinto the minutim, in matters of this kind, so that in¬ 
stead of a general code of organic law, we are to have 
a system of particular legislation. I am in fu' or, as far 
as possible, of more general provisions. But even here 
we are obliged to discriminate. In some respects we 
I shall be obliged to particularize. In so doing, I wish 
I to make the proper discriminations, and only select such 
subjects as are necessarily the subjects of more detailed 
legislation. I have no fear to leave the interests of the 
State in the hands of the General Assenjbly, where it 
is proper to do so. I am not in favor of, neither do I 
believe the doctrine that all wisdom and all judgment 
and discretion will necessarily vani.sh with the dissolu¬ 
tion of this body. There are assemblies to come after 
us, who will be gifted with ability, intelligence and 
honesty, doubtless in as high degree as we are, and I 
am not afraid to delegate the proper measure of power 
to such. I am willing to leave the question whether 
churches, school-houses, and burying grounds shall be 
taxed to the discretion of the Legislature. I know that 
abuses do exist, and have no doubt they will continue 
to exist; but so will they ever; and that legislation 
that shall be so minnte and so exact as to shut out eve 
ry possibility of an abuse, will be either superhuman 
in its character, or intolerable for its oppressive strin- 

I gency. I know that in many church establishments, 
large amounts of valuable property escape taxation; 
but this does not prove that we can prevent it, or that 
I the General Assembly may not be quite as discreet and 
j successful as ounselves. Let us leave the subject to that 
( body. I wish to specify as little as possible. Now, 
i sir, school-houses, academies and universities—many of 
them have large estates, many more none; but does 
not all the income of these estates go for the support of 
the institution in some form? Education,religion, and 
morality are the safeguards of the State. Their value 
is infinitely greater than all the loss we suffer in regard 
to the abuses in the taxation of their property. 


717 


But tiiere are abuses of greater consequence, the 
remedy for which should be provided in this constitu¬ 
tion—things that do not accrue from any public benefit, 
or grow out of that which in any form ministers to the 
Safety or welfare ofthe State. There are large amounts 
of our own State bonds, which now [)ay no taxes, and 
hu'ge amounts of bank stock in the same condition. 
To this abuse, there is no redeeming feature. It is a 
benefit that accrues to the few, and not to the many. 
To ihi.s w’e are bound to provide a remedy, and if there 
is any wisdom in the teachings of the past, we must not 
give these matters the go by and trust to the Legisla¬ 
ture. 

Again, if we attempt to particularize in these mat¬ 
ters of churches and school houses, we shall never see 
the end of the difficulty in which we are involved. 
Amendment after amendment, drawn up by the ablest 
men in the body, has been presented, without any pro¬ 
gress in harmonizing conflicting opinions. I have at¬ 
tempted myself, without much hope of meeting the 
sen.se of the Convention. If they are right in one res¬ 
pect, they are wrong in another, and wo only arrive at 
the conclusion, that it is impossible in a general ])rovi- 
sion to suit the sense of the whole Stale. A<;ain, if you 
exempt churches, without specifying any value to the 
excluded property, you get into difficulty again. Many 
churches are holden in the u[)per rooms of buildings, 
while the lower stories are occupied as business houses 
at a high rent: others are situated in the rear of busi¬ 
ness lots, with ranges of stores in front. We find dif¬ 
ferences in circumstances, and difficulties at every step, 
which minute legislation to suit each class of cases 
can only obviate. I should be glad to fall upon some 
general provision by whicli we can get over all these 
difficulties. There is one exception I am willing to 
glance at in the organic law, leaving the detail to the 
General Assembly. It is that a certain amount of 
property be left free from taxation to every man in the 
State. I would not specify the amount, but would 
lay down the princi|)le. At the proper time, I intend 
to offer an entire substitute for the report of the com¬ 
mittee, which I will read for information. It is as 
follows : 

Sec. The Legislature shall provide by law’a uniform rule of 
assessment and taxation, according to the actual value of prop^'r- 
ty owned, of every description whatever, whether real or per¬ 
sonal, exclusive ot liabilities, and exempting such amount and 
such species of property as may be deemed entitled to such ex¬ 
emption. 

Leaving the whole matter to the judgment and dis¬ 
cretion of the General Assembly, and providing only 
for the security of the tax-payer. I believe that if we 
go farther than this, we shall be liable to get into diffi¬ 
culties from which it will be difficult to disengage our¬ 
selves, leaving more important subjects entangled, and 
thus by our omissions and commissions to jeopardize 
the acceptance of this constitution by the people. 

Mr. RANNEY. There was one thing in the remarks 
of the gentleman last upon the floor, which, if the allu¬ 
sion was to him, demanded a correction. The charge 
was, that the ground had been taken that this body, in 
attempting to fix and establish something in the char¬ 
acter of law in the constitution, were arrogating to 
themselves a degree of wisdom above that of every 
other deliberative body, and acted as though they felt 
that wisdom was about to die out whenever they might 
get ready to adjourn and go home. (And from present 
appearances, if the wisdom of the State were not to 
die before that time, it would stand a good chance to 
last some time yet.) But this he averred, that such a 
sentiment never fell from his mouth—such a thought 
never entered his heart. 

Mr. DORSEY, (interposing.) He mentioned no name 
—his allusion was general. 

Mr. RANNEY. My views, Mr. Chairman, are these. 
I take the ground that the whole subject of municipal 
regulation naturally divides itself into two branches ; 
the first, (as I have before said,) is to establish funda¬ 
mental provisions of law; and the second is to pre¬ 
scribe the details for carrying out these provisions. We 














718 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ore entrusted with the duty of friuning and |)niposi;:g 
to the people lor tlieir adopiicjii, ihe first cla^s of laws; 
and wi hout arrogitiug to ourselves an undue amount 
of vvi.sdoin, it may be said that die peo[)le are willing 
to trust us thus far. The reason why I am in favor of 
fixing the I'undamentdl principles and making such 
laws liere, is this. I am practically in favor of the doc¬ 
trine of democi’acy—using the word in no party sense. 
The ])eople must delegate some power. Cut as 1 have 
also before said, from this place, it is the part of politi 
cal wisdom as demonstrated in the history of the past, 
to delegate as little povv'er as possible—a d why ? Be¬ 
cause all delegated power is liable to abuse. This is 
my idea. Wlien you adopt a constitution, it is the act 
of the great demooracy—the poo[)le themselves pre¬ 
scribing their own rule of civil action. But when you 
leave fumlamental laws to be .settled by the Legislature, 
it is placing the exercise of power one ste]) further 
from the source; and the peo])le possess no direct 
power to correct the decision. It is true, we have the 
power of going to the {tolls and displacing our sci- 
vants; but, at die same time, it is true that die {tower 
of the {)eo{)le is not Itrought so directly to bear upon a. 
law of tlie Legislature, as when the law is submitted 
directly to the {)eo{tle, for acce{)tance or rejection. 

Widi reference to the subject uinler consideration, 
my ideti is, that the ta.\ing power is the most im{)or- 
taut ,tower that can ever be e.xercised in any govern¬ 
ment—and why? Yttu hold the right of {trivate pro{i- 
erty t(t be sacred and inv.olate: you will not permit 
the State iiself to encntach il{ton it; nor will you per¬ 
mit one citizen to interfere with the itro{Ti rty of an¬ 
other citizen. But you will come in and lake the pro¬ 
perty of the citizen under the name of taxatictii. Sir, 
the most arbitrary governments in Europe, do not, at 
this day, allow themselves, by open violence, to invade 
the rights of {U'ivate pro{)ciTy. How, then, do they 
make their exactions of the {leojile ? They do it all by 
means of the tax-gatherer. It is the noiseless tread of 
the tax-gadierer that makes his way into every house 
a:id hovel—into every nook and corner of the land 
where a man or a woman can be found—to draw from 
each mie the small surjiluS which they may have been 
able to jtiodiice by their labor. And this is now the 
case in Great Britain, where every thing, even lieht and 
heat and the air they breathe, is all brought under the 
tax-gatherer’s jurisdiction. Therefore it is that 1 say, 
there is nothing which more naturally belongs to the 
framers of the fundamental law, than the duty to regu¬ 
late and prescribe rules for the exercise of the taxing 
{lower. I di em it one of the greatest evils which has 
ever befallen the State of Ohio, that the Legislature 
have so grossly disregarded the true {)rinci{)les of taxa 
tion. Heretoiore they have laid the heavy burden o( 
taxation u{)on some descri{)tions of pro{)erty, whilst 
they have entirely exenpited other descri{).ions of {iro- 
perty. Still, gentlemen are {)ro{)osing that the s ;tiie 
jirinciiile which has heretofore been so much abused, 
shall be [lursued hereafter! 

Sir, if I understand any thing of the demands of the 
peo{)le u{)on this bo iv—if I understand any thing of 
the obj 'Cts which have induced the people toassendile 
this Convention, one of the princi|ial objects was, to 
take the inci[tient step.'^, and etjuiiably to lix in the 
fundamental law, the great |)rinci|)le8 of taxation, u{)- 
oii wliich this whole m itter sh d! firoceed oeieafter— 
leaving nothing to the Legislative body but the adjust¬ 
ment and aila[>talioa of the detads of the system. 

As a gener.d princi{)le, it is correct, that when we 
find a true ()riuci|)le it is safe loadliere to it, and follow 
it to all its legitiinaie results ; because the great Crea¬ 
tor has .so adj'i-'t -d and atlafited all truth, that it shall 
be consistent with itself. So that it you {iroclaim a 
principle tint is correct, and right, .‘iiid just, all ytm 
have to do is to tollow it wherever it leails, ami you 
are safe. Weil, now, w’hat is the {iriiiciple before us? 
It is, that tlie {trojier y of the Slate ought to bear the 
burdens of the State, so f.ir us tlie {layment of taxes are 


concerned. I tim aware that iht're is anotlier very im¬ 
portant requisition u{u)n the citizen, which sometimes 
IS made for the {imqiose of delending the country; but 
iliat is a {personal demand, and it lia.s always been re- 
.spoiided to by the citizen, whetlier he lias any {)ro{>er- 
fy or not. But, so f.ir as the ex{)ense of tlie civil ad- i 
niiiiistratiou of the State is concerned, we look to {)rn{7 
erty to su{){)ort that burden, by means of taxation, ex- 
ce{)ting only the {)r(i{)erty belonging to the State, to 
tax which would be iDtliiiig but an idle ceremony. 
But, with refeience to church property, there is no 
country on the lace of the earth, where all the churches 
ol every sect of religion, are so much indebted to the 
State as they are in this. We say to them all, we will 
jirotect you in all you possess, aud also iii the enjoy¬ 
ment of such mode of W(irshi() as you see lit to ado{it. 
No country has said this but our own. It is the {iroud 
eminence of the Ann rican Common wealth to have said 
ihat all reliiiions .shall be t c{ually protected. We liave 
come in with our {irolection, extending alike' over all 
the property of all the churcbe.. in the S'ate, aud ex¬ 
tending to every man in the State tlie right of silting 
under his own vine ami fig tree, and worshi{){)ing God 
as he sees fit. I ask if it is uni easonahle to say to them 
that, out of their substance, they shall contribute some- 
tliiiig towards the sn{i{)ort uf the government which ' 
secures to them the enjoyment of these inqiorlatit rights 
and {Privileges? It does not strike me that such a de-i ,i 
maud would be unreasonable. i 

Ei her we ought to follow out the piinci{)le, that the: 
{)ro{)erty of the {leojile of the State, regardle.ss as to 
whom it belongs, shall equally contiihuie t iward the , 
expenses Of the civil administralivUi; or, if we depart*' ‘ 
from the (iriiicijile at all, we ought at least to ado{)t the i 
coui se which v\iU a{){>roximute nearest to an equaliza-, | 
lion—that is, adopt some rule of excuqption which shall j. 
o|)erate etjuaily and give all tho.-ame beiiefii—securing 
all from the payment of taxes alike to a reasonable ex-' 
tent. For, 1 hold to no [)riuci{)le iqtoii which you might; 
exem{)t one congregation to the amount of $x?,()()0, and j 
another to the amnuiii of $10,000, $20,000, or $30 000. 1 
We should meet mi agree n{)on some equal {)rmcij)je, i 
or exeiiqit nolliing at ali. which, alter all, is {)et ha{)8j 
the iriie coiuv-e. But I will admit that the rule of ex- j 
emiilions, tqxui the {irinci{)le of equality, has very j 
strong reasons in its favor. For it is true that tlie great j 
mass of religious congregations througlmut the State, | i 
conti ibnte largely fiom tlu ir {Private resources towards I | 
sustaining {inblic te.iching in each neighborhood, much ] ' 
to the hi'iielit of the iieighhorhood in which they are j 
loc:»led. 'I'hese consideialiens may con>li<nte a very 
good reason why tlie great mass of churches should be 
exenqited from taxation to a reasonable and limited 
extent. And tor a similar reason we should exem{)t a 1 
small amoiHil of property in the hands of every indi- i 
vidiial, such as his looks and im{)lements of trade, aud { 
his household furniture, &c. , 

After teas tiiiig some lime against the injustice aud ||l 
inetjuality of exenqitiiig the more wealtliy congrega- {i 
tions of the cities, iu all their immense accumulations 
of cliureh proiierty, Mr. R, concluded by saying: It I 
seems to me, that this is the better way after all. It i 
vvdl relieve entirely the great mass of chnrehes from : 
the burden of taxation: whilst it will carry relied’, to 
siune extent, to those eimtcites vvho.se members may 
choose to invest more in buildings and grounds; and at i 
the same time it will conti ibnte something toward ! 
bearing their legitimate share of the burdens of the j 
Slate; aud it would Ipe putting all on the same pl itform ! 
ofequalily and justice, , 

Mr. MITCH FLL. I would like to call the attention ' 
of the gentleman from Trumlpull [Mr. Ranney] and the 1 
committee, a little more closely loan examination of the 1 
{)ro|)osiiion to exem|it church pro{ierty. I would my- i 
self, be willing to make the discrimination {;roposcd,if j 
I could be convinced that it would he acting justly. I 
But, taking the matter itixm the gentleman’s hy|)olhe- ' 
sis, I take this view, aud ask, if the people worshipping i 
























CONVENTION REPORTS. 


in cities are not as iniuh entitled to exemption Ironi 
luxation ujxm their church property, as the peo{)le wor¬ 
shipping in the couuti y 1 Wliere is the justice then, ot 
making any discrimination between them ? If we ex¬ 
empt to an amount which would be sullicieut to cover 
the value of the great mass of chuch property for the 
CJuntryaiid some country towns, including ground and 
building; whilat the same amount \vu»uld not enable a 
church worshipping in the city of Cincinnati to pur¬ 
chase even so much as the ground which woidd be 
necessary for the foundation of a small house, becau.»e 
of the large disproportion in the value of properly, 1 
ask, where is the justice or equity iu this ? Now, it 
cannot be answcned, that the fact, that property is high¬ 
er in the city than el.'ewhere, is any reason why the 
people of Cincinnati should be tax(>d, and the })eopleof 
the country should not be taxed; for, wherever the 
value of properly, is higher, there is collected a greater 
portion of tax for the support of government. It you 
will act upon the principle of justice in this matter, you 
ought to exempt for each church a sum hearing arelative 
proportion to llie value of pro[)erty around such church. 
This is tlie very ditlicuhy. Becaii.se 1 cannot see how 
we can do ju,slice under any priMci[)le of exemption, 
that I am in favor of no exemption at all. Tint i.s the 
way it looks to me, and that is the reason why I am 
in lavor of the section as it is, or us it will be after tbe 
lines proposed to be .stricken out by the gentleman from 
Licking [Mr. Case] shall he dispensed with. There 
is a principle in the proposition made by the gentle¬ 
man from Medina, [Mr. H umphrevili.e,] which, I ad¬ 
mit, addresses itself to the soundest judgment of an 
enlightened people; but, I apprehend that, upon ex¬ 
amination, that principle also, will bo found to tiperate 
unequally. 

Tlje CHAIRMAN now put the que.stiou upon the 
amendment of the gentleman from Columbiana, [Mr. 
Gregg,] and it was ngected. 

The question then recurred upon the amendment of 
the gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Mano.v,] [)roposing 
to strike out the two last lines of the second section. 

This proposition was also rejected ; and the question 
recurred iq)on the ado[)tioii of the substitute for the 
provi.so, proposed yesterday by the gentleman from 
Cuyahoga, [Mr. Hitchcock.] 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga. With the leave of 
the committee, I will modify the amendment I have of¬ 
fered, so as substantially, to embrace the proviso sug¬ 
gested by the gentlenian from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey.] 
In place of the second section of the niiuorily re[)ort, i 
will offer as a substitute for the proviso, the following, 
which has been prepared for me by a member of the 
Finance commitUe; 

“ The property of the State and counties shall be exempted 
from taxation, and the General A-ssenibly thall have power to ex¬ 
empt such property of towiiohips, towns, cities, literary and sci¬ 
entific societies, and institutions ior purposes of public charity ; 
also, public buryim: grounds and places fur public worship, and 
such amount and description of personal property belonging to 
individuals as it may deem right.” 

Mr. H. continued. The only material difference be¬ 
tween this and the former substitute, is in the last clause, 
which embraces the amendment of the gentleman from 
Miami. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I would like to know whedier 
the gentleman’s amendm nt leaves to tbe Legislature a 
discretional y [lower to exempt church propei ty ? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. The iutenlion is not to allow of 
the exemption of the entire amoiuit of property whidi 
may belong to a clmrch ; but simply to exetrqit tlie 
place of public worship. For instance, there is a church 
—[pointing to the new edifice being erected by the 
First rresbyterian Clinreh of Cincinnati]—which the 
amendment would authorize the Legislature toexemfii 
from taxaiion, but not any other properly which niighi 
belong to tliai religiou.s society. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Does it authorize the exemption 
of the building of literary iiistitulious? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. The substitute authorizes the 


719 


Hxenqition of property belonging to literary iusiitutioiis; 
but, 1 b' lieve, wiihout sju'cilicalion. 

^lr. KIRKWOOD. My idea ol’ the true piinciple » f 
levying tuxes is, that tbe nieaius of the citizens should 
all be taken to form a basis of taxation. I lay it down, 
ill llie first [dace, as u general principle, that every thing 
shmild be taxi d without exception. 

I do not understand whether the proviso now pro¬ 
posed to be inserted, expressly requires, that any prop¬ 
erty shall be exempted. The dilliculty heretofore has 
been, that tbe Legislature have been authorized to 
make bargains with cor[)oralion.«, and to determine 
whether their stock should be taxed or not, or to what 
extent it should be taxed. Now, I do not believe that 
the Legislature should have the right to tax the prop¬ 
erty oi corporations in Tine way, and the pro()eny be¬ 
longing to the citizens of ihelSlate generally in another 
W!>y- 

Heretofore, credits have escaped taxation entirely. I 
do not think credits ought to escape taxation. 1 do not 
see, if 1 hold the notes of individuals to the amount of 
$10,000, why I should not be taxed for lliem. We have 
taxes njion properly, and upon money at intere.st, and 
why should we not tax credits? 

1 desire to see the constitution to provide expressly 
what description ol’pro[)erty shall he exeinptetl, so that 
nothing but what is specified iu the constitution can be 
exempted. 

I believe that, heretofore, w'e have had nothing at all 
in the constitution with reference to taxation; hut the 
whole has been left to the Legislature to make such 
distinctions as they may have sien lit. Now, 1 do not 
want to leave to iliein the exerci.ie of this power here¬ 
after, for it h s been grossly abused by them hereto¬ 
fore. They have been bargaining with particular clas¬ 
ses of men how their pro[>erty should he taxed, whilst 
they have left other properly belonging to the people 
of the Slate to be taxtd under a general law. We 
might call such a Legislature a despuiisni, for such a 
course is despotic iu {)riiici[)le. 

I believe that the princi[)le of exempting all the pro¬ 
perty of churches is wrong; but 1 believe that the Leg¬ 
islature should have power to exeiiqil a specific amount 
(»f church property, as such, and aspeciic amount of the 
firoperty of all literary and scienlilic inslitutions, as 
such. But 1 would not be willing that any literary in- 
sliiuliou should jxissess a college endowment of half a 
million, ainl hold the vvh de exempt from taxation. I 
am willing that school houses and grave yards should 
be exempted, but 1 want all those to be clearly defined 
in the constitutinii. 

Mr. WOODBURY proposed to amend the amend¬ 
ment by adding the following: 

“ Provided, That in all instances where the property exempted 
from taxatiun thall behaig to any society or corporation not po¬ 
litical, no suit at law or equity shall ever be brought or prosecu¬ 
ted for any injury to or trespass upon the same.” 

Mr. W. said. I perceive that some anxiety exists, 
and ever has existed, to shuffle the burden ol ta.xarion 
from one part of the community to another. I prwpo.se, 
ihercfure, that all property that does iiot pay its quota 
of the revenue shall be thrown out of the pale of the 
protection of the law. Fur it is unjust that properly 
should be protected by the laws and yet not contnbiilo 
to the support of the government. 11 men are imwil- 
ling to 6iq)[)ort the government, let iIriii be ibrown 
out of the pale of its protection. The ground whieh 
I take upon ibis question is, that all properly should 
be taxed alike—that all the property iu the Stale, not 
belon"in" to the public, should be stdiject to taxation, 
ll’ one portion of the coinmnnity obtain e.xenqitioiis, 
die same right will he claimed hy other portions; and 
the very minute you exempt a part ol the projierty of 
ihe Stale, you nece.'^sanly increase the burden of taxa¬ 
tion upon the remainder. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I siifipose the gentleman from Ash¬ 
tabula offered bis amendmenl merely in jfSt, or, {ler- 
haps, with a view of showing up the consistency of 
these discriminations. 


/ 








720 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Oil yesterday moniiiig I suggested that this qtiestiou 
of e.veuiptioas from taxation was a iiiatler diflicult to 
settle, either as to the amount or the kind of property 
that should be exempted. With respect to exeuqitious 
in favor of church and school pro[>erty, if we could 
make a just and proper discrimination, 1 should be glad 
if we could avail ourselves of it. I have listened at¬ 
tentively to the arguments on both sides, and, upon re- 
tlection, I am rather disposed to believe that it would 
be about as well to tax all alike. It is laid down by 
the writers u[)on this subject, that that system which 
requires the least amount of revenue is most equitable, 
ami tliat which may bo collected with the least embar¬ 
rassment to the individual is the best. Then if taxing 
without discriminations will lighten the burden, and 
afford the greatest facilities for collecting, the question 
is, whether that is not what we should aim at. 

Mr. MANON. There is a very respectable portion 
of the members of this Convention who are? men of a 
high order of h'arning, and the gentlemen from Mon¬ 
roe [Mr. Archbold] will rank as high as any. But, 
after all, even a common man may see the absurdiiies 
in which such men will sometimes involve themselves. 
Now, the gentleman from Monroe has said, you will 
tax a church member, who pays his money towards 
building churches and sustaining the ministry; but 
only let him turn inlidel, and you will not tax him. 
But now, if any such idea as this has been advanced 
in this chamber, I have not heard it. No man here has 
proposed to tax a church member any more than any 
other class of men. Those gentlemen who advocate 
taxing churches, advocate the princijile of taxing all 
properly alike. This is a subject which, as a coiinnon 
man, 1 claim to understand about as well as any otlnr 
man. My constituents have sent my colleague [Mr. 
Case] here, that, to some extent, he may take care of 
the judiciary department, and I shall look up to him 
to some extent, at least, because he is a good lawyer; 
but upon this question I am prepared to act as efli- 
ciently as he or any other member. Because, now, if 
we would act in accordance with the advice of those 
learned gentlemen,—that is, leave this whole matter to 
be determined by legislation, and all woidd be right— 
together with I know not how many other questions 
which have been before us,—it seems to me that all we 
would have to do, would be to adjourn and go home. 
If this be the prevailing seu.iment, 1 have prepared a 
resolution tUat ought to carry it out; and whenever it 
may be in order, I shall offer it. I will read it now, for 
information ; 

Resolved, That the General Assembly be and is hereby author¬ 
ized to provide for the general good government of the people ol 
the State, and su.-h other provisions as they may think best. 

I shall offer this resolution at some proper time, for 
it is manifestly absurd for us to stay here, at the public 
expense, and finally wind up and leave the Legislature 
to manage everythTig just as they please. 

Mr. LOUDON. At an early day of the session of 
this Convention, I was aware of the difficulties which 
this I’eport would have to meet with; and, if I could 
have had any choice in the matter, I would not have 
had anything to do with it. But I deemed it my duty 
to present such a report to the Convention as would be 
just in itself, and honorable alike to the Convention, 
the committee, and the State—embracing such princi 
pies as would bring no unpleasant reflections upon the 
committee nor upon the Convention; and I now appeal 
to every member, whether, if we take this whole sec¬ 
tion as it stands, it is not based upon just and equitable 
principles. 

[Mr. L. here read the section—pointing out a mis¬ 
print—the word “ may,’' should have been printed in 
stead of “ shall.”] 

The committee (he continued) were unwilling to fix 
the precise sum; proposing that that should be left to 
the discretion and better judgment of the Convention. 
A very largo majority ..f the committee were in favor of 
exempting country churches, school houses, and com¬ 


mon burying-grounds, but, upon full consultation, they i 
believed it would be unjust in principle to exempt the j 
whole of the church property in the State. They saw 
that the accumulations of church property in some por- ! 
tions of the State were increasing in enormous ratios— | 

that hundreds of thousands, and even millions of dol¬ 
lars might be accumulated under the denomination of 
church property ; and they considered that as we were 
now about to start anew in the allairs of government, 
it was a proper time for the people to take this matter 
into their own hands, and stop this immense abstrac¬ 
tion of property from the tax dujdicate. We conclu¬ 
ded that we would go back to the .Jeffersonian doc¬ 
trine, that all men were created free and equal; and 
that equality, with respect to the principle of taxation, i 
should, as far as possible, be maintained throughout 
this broad State. And now, I would like gentlemen to 
say, whether ihi.s principle is not fully embraced in 
this section ? But this is nut saying, that, if anamend- 
ment should be presented, better calculated to secure j 
equal rights to the people, than this proviso, I would 
not go for it; on the contrary, I pledge myself to sup¬ 
port such an amendment. 

Mr. Woodbury’s [iroposition was now rejected ; and 
the question recurred upon the adoption of the substi¬ 
tute for the proviso of the second section, proposed by 
Mr. fliTCncoCK. of Cuyahoga. 

Mr. iST ANTON deman Jed a division of the question 
—the first question being upon striking out. fl 

Mr. LALIWILL w’ould vote this time for strikingout; Ij 
not, however, with a view of inserting the proposition Sj 

(jf the gentleman from Cuyahoga. He had not yet en- jj 

joyed the pleasure of hearing an amendment, which (j 

met his views exactly. But, he had himself prepared j: 

a proposition, which he intended to offer at the proper j| 

time, with the view ( f exhibiting his own sentiments i 

upon the subject. He would read his amendment, for 
information. It was to strike out all after the word j 

“pi’ovided,” and insert: “Bublic* burying-grounds, I 

{)ublic school houses, and the property belonging to . I 
the State and county,shall not be subject to taxation,” ^ 1 
Mr. KUIKWOOD moved to amend the words pro- i 

posed to be stricken out, by striking out of the 4th line “ 1 

of the section, after the word “and,” these words, ,i 

“grounds upon which religious edifices are erected,” 'if 

and insert in lieu thereof, the word “churches.” He iji 

doi^iivd to embrace notliing but the building, and the I' 

gr.'und upon which it should stand. 

This amendment was adopted—affirmative 43, nega- ! 
tive 27; but 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, intimated that he did not i 
vote upon the question because the word “church” 
had a very indefinite meaning. 

Some conversation followed, in which Messrs. Hitch¬ 
cock of Cuyahoga, Mason, Kirkwood, and Horton, 
took part; when the latter gentleman suggested that 
the words “ place of public worship,” would cover 
both the ground and the house. ! 

Mr. KIRKWOOD was willing to accept that modifi¬ 
cation. ' 

Whereupon, by unanimous consent, the vote was 
taken over again, and the Chairman reported—affirma¬ 
tive 40, negative 32. 

So Mr. Kirkwood’s amendment was agreed to ; and 
the question recurred again upon striking out the pro¬ 
viso, as now amended. \ j 

This proposition was agreed to without a division; 
and the question recurred upon inserting the substitute 
of Mr. Hitchcock, of Cuyahoga. i 

Pending this question, i 

On motion, by Mr. MITCHELL, which was agreed ' 
to, the committee rose, and the Chairman reported. | 

And then, on motion by Mr. BROWN of Carroll, 

The Convention took a recess till 3 o’clock, P. M. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

On motion of Mr. LOUDON, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the Whole, upon the orders 
of the day, Mr. Leadbetter in the Chair. 


















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The committee resumed the consideration of the ar¬ 
ticle entitled “ Finance and Taxation.” 

The question was announced as being on the propo¬ 
sition of the gentleman from Cuyahoga, [Mr. Hitcei- 

«OCK.] 

Mr. HUNTER moved to amend the amendment by 
inserting after the word “ power,” the words “ by geii- 
eral laws.” 

The modification was accepted. 

Mr. GROESBECK. The proposition pending is one 
which I cannot allow to pass without a -simple and 
brief expression of my views and feelings. 

He [Mr. Groesbeck] believed that the proposition 
to tax the burial grounds of the community was so 
novel and so contrary to the cherished feelings of all 
classes, of all parties and of all creeds in society, and, 
withal, was so contrary to the dictates of a sound pub¬ 
lic policy, that it could not stand the test of investiga¬ 
tion and argument. 

As the cemeteries of this (Hamilton) county had 
been alluded to by the gentleman from Auglaize and 
others, he might be permitted to refer to them. 

The Methodist, the Presbyterian, the Episcopalian, 
the Catholic, and perhaps other societies, had all pro¬ 
vided burial grounds, in which, severally, the dead of 
this city and its neighborhood were interred. Those 
of the Methodist persuasion may prefer to bury their 
dead within the enclosure of their own grounds, set 
apart for that purpose, but are not necessarily confined 
to those grounds. And this preference generally ex¬ 
ists with the communicants of the other denomina¬ 
tions. The burial grounds of this city are all private 
or denominational cemeteries. He believed there was 
not a public burying ground, strictly speaking, in the 
county, and perhaps none in the State. He would, 
therefore, ask gentlemen to explain what they meant 
by the term “ public burying grounds,” when they 
proposed to exempt them only from taxation? He 
ventured to say that were the proposition now in de¬ 
bate to be incorporated in the constitution, and in its 
present form, almost every burying ground in the 
State would be subject to taxation. When the ques¬ 
tion came to be properly understood, the Convention 
would find itself unprepared to declare that the burial 
grounds of the people should hereafter be taxed in the 
same manner and to the same extent as their farms, 
their merchandize, and other property. It seemed to 
him that it was only necessary to submit the question 
to a direct vole to obtain from every delegate the 
response, “ We will not tax the burial grounds of the 
State.” 

He would ask of those gentlemen who had favored 
the proposition under discussion, how they would pro¬ 
ceed to levy and collect a tax upon this species of prop¬ 
erty ? It was proposed to levy the tax, not upon the 
person —not upon the owner of a cemetery lot—but 
upon the thing. The State of Ohio levies a tax upon 
the burial ground of a citizen, which probably com¬ 
prised an area of fifty feet square; if the tax was not 
paid, that spot of ground, set apart tor the last resting 
place of a family, was forfeited, and became the proji- 
erty of the State; and, according to the law that is 
now, and that will be in the future, it would be order¬ 
ed that the Sheriff, or other proper officer, put up that 
grave lot for sale, to the highest bidder, at a public 
auction ! It was proposed that the State of Ohio should. 
In the event of the non-payment of taxes, sell out the 
little spots of ground, selected and kept in order by A, 
and B, and C, and D, in every neighborhood in the 
State ! The idea was monstrous. Nor was he willing 
to b'elieve that it was the fixed purpose of gentlemen 
to embody and carry it out in a solemn Constitutional 
provision. 

It was true that cemetery lots came within, the defi¬ 
nition of the term “property;” but it was not such 
pioperty as should be taxed by the State. It could 
not be hoarded—it could not be the basis of financial 
speculation—it was not wealth, when considered with 

46 


721 


regard to the duties of the Assessor of property for the 
purpose of taxation. 

He asked gentlemen w'hosupported this proposition, 
if they would take burial grounds, or cemetery lots by 
execution or judgment ? The man must be a monster 
who would take property in that way, and for the 
State doing the same thing he had no milder term. 
He cared not how far the Convention might carry the 
the application of the taxing power, but he did ask, in 
all earnestness, that the graves of the dead might be 
preserved intact. For what end was this strange pro¬ 
vision proposed ? Why, that the great State of Ohio 
might gain a very slight accession to her revenue! He 
had never before heard of such a thing—he had never 
heard of the society, civilized or barbarian, Christian 
or Heathen, who had proposed to desecrate the graves 
of their dead for a paltry addition to the public treas¬ 
ury. 

It had been remarked that there were cemeteries in 
this city, and in other portions of the State, which 
were laid out as a matter of private speculation. It 
was not so. Not a dollar of the funds arising from the 
sale of cemetery lots was applied for speculative pur¬ 
poses. If the proceeds from such sales left a surplus 
after paying for the original purchase, such surplus was 
employed in keeping in repair and beautifying the 
grounds—most laudable objects, and entirely worthy 
of encouiagement. He hoped that the proposition 
would be rejected, or that gentlemen would be more 
definite in their use of terms, 

Mr. HORTON moved to strike out the word “ pub¬ 
lic,” where it occurred in the amendment of Mr. Hitch¬ 
cock. He thought this would obviate the well foun¬ 
ded objections of the able gentleman from Hamilton, 
[Mr. Groesbeck.] 

The motion was agreed to. 

Mr. TAYLOR moved the following as a substitute 
for the original proviso; 

Provided, That the General Assembly shall have power to re¬ 
mit the taxes levied upon the property of the United States, the 
State, counties and townships; upon burial grounds, and also up¬ 
on buildings for churches and schools, the value of which shall 
not exceed-dollars. 

Which motion was disagreed to. 

The question then recurring on the original amend¬ 
ment, [Mr. Hitchcock’s] the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. LARWILL moved the following as a substitute 
for the original proviso : “No burying ground or pro¬ 
perty belonging to the State or counties ” shall be sub¬ 
ject to taxation. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON moved the following as a sub¬ 
stitute ; 

Provided, That Public School houses, grounds exclusively used 
as burying grounds, edifices used exclusively as churches, and the 
ground on which they stand, shall not be subject to pay taxes, 
and the General Assembly shall have power to exempt from tax¬ 
ation by general law such property of the United States, of town¬ 
ships, churches, schools, hterary and scientific societies, institu¬ 
tions purely eleemosynary and such personal property as they 
may deem just 

Which was disagreed to. 

Mr. MANON moved to amend the proposition of 
Mr. Larwill by inserting in the proper place the 
words “Public School Houses,” which motion pre¬ 
vailed. ' 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved farther to amend by in¬ 
serting the words, “ and houses used exclusively for 
public worship and the grounds whereon such build¬ 
ings are erected;” which motion also prevailed. 

Mr. GROESBECK proposed farther to amend by 
adding the following to come in after the proviso: 

“ That public school houses, all burying grounds used express¬ 
ly for the purposes of interment, all public grounds, all public 
buildings owned by this State, counties, townships, cities, or 
towns, which have been or may be erected and paid for, by a tax 
levied and collected according to law, shall not be subject to tax¬ 
ation.’’ 

Upon which motion the committee divided, and stood 
affirmative 43, negative 30. 

So the motion prevailed. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON suggested the propriety of 















722 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


adding at the end of Mr. Gkoesbeck’s amendment the 
words, “from which a revenue is not derived.” 

At this stage of the proceedings, and without taking 
a vote upon the pending amendment [Mr. Larwill’s,] 
the committee rose and reported. 

The report as amended was then re-committed to the 
standing committee on Finance and Taxation. 

And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY, December 11, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Fisher. 

On motiou of Mr. LOUDON, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the whole on the order of the 
day, Mr. Leadbetter in the Chair. The subject un¬ 
der consideration being report number one of the 
standing committee on Finance and Taxation, the ques¬ 
tion was on the amendment of Mr. Holmes to the sub¬ 
stitute for the proviso to the second section, offered by 
Mr. Larwill. 

Mr. HOLMES asked and obtained leave to withdraw 
his amendment. 

The question then being upon the amendment of Mr. 
Laravill, the same was agreed to. 

The question was stated by the CHAIR, to bs upon 
the amendment of Mr. Green, of Ross. 

Mr. HORTON thought that as the amendment of the 
gentleman from Ross was intended as a substitute for 
the entire section, any amendment that proposed to per¬ 
fect this section took precedence of the motion to strike 
out; to which view the Chairman conceded. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE had an amendment, or rath¬ 
er a substitute to the section, which he proposed, at 
some future time, to offer. He had given much rebec- 
tion to the subject, and found that it presented many 
difficulties, so many that any attempt to harrainize con¬ 
flicting opinions seemed almost impossible. He was 
satisfied that it would not do to go into too great mi¬ 
nuteness in specifying particular exemptions. It was 
the duty of the Convention to declare general principles, 
and solar to fix the boundaries of exemption as to guard 
the General Assembly against too great an abuse of its 
power in that behalf. There are many articles which 
cannot and should not be ever enuraei’ated for taxation. 
He remembered the cry that was raised in 1840, against 
the chicken tax, originating from nothing more than the 
fact, that the government of the United States had re¬ 
quired a return, in the official census, of the number of 
fowls owned by the people. The mere inquiry raised 
a fear and aery of taxation, although there was not, and 
never had been the least intention on the part of the 
general government to raise a direct tax upon chickens, 
or any other species of property. It will not do to de¬ 
scend to too great minuteness. There are many things 
that he wanted left off, and the omission to tax which 
could by no possibility work any injury either to indi¬ 
viduals or the public. 

He did not know that he should ofler his amendment 
at all. He, however, would read it, for the informa¬ 
tion of the committee, and if he saw the proper oppor¬ 
tunity, present it for adoption, in lieu of the second sec¬ 
tion. It is as follows: 

Sec. 2. All the property in this State shall be subject to an 
equal and unilorm rule of taxation—prouidetZ, property owned 
and used strictly as public property, and personal property to a 
limited amount owned by individuals, and property used exclu¬ 
sively for educational, religious, burial and charitable purposes, 
may by general laws be exempted from taxation. 

Mr. LOUDON hoped the gentleman from Medina 
[Mr. Humphreville] would not press his substitute at 
this time. He desired to pass over this section for the 
present, and to get upon the remainder of the report. 
We are making no progress, and he wanted to get 
forward as fast as possible. He hoped the section 
would be passed for the present; and would make a 
motion to that effect, hoping for the indulgence of the 

committee. 

The question on passing the section for the present 
was agreed to. 


Sec. 3. The Legislature shall make provision for taxing mon¬ 
ey invested in State, and United States bonds, as money at inter¬ 
est is taxed. 

Mr. LOUDON did not desire at this time to occupy 
the attention of the committee further than was neces¬ 
sary briefly to state the views that had governed the 
majority of the committee on Finance and Taxation in 
reporting the section as it here stands. The section, 
as will be seen, does not propose to tax the bonds or 
stocks of the State, but to tax the money that is or 
shall be invested in those securities. If there is any 
distinction between that property or those moneys in 
the State that ought not to pay taxes, and those that 
ought to pay, the majority of the committee was una¬ 
ble to draw it. He would suppose a case that would 
exemplify his idea of the principle inxolved. A, B 
and C are capitalists in the State of Ohio. Each has 
money which he desires to invest for the purposes of 
profit and income, to the amount of, say thirty-three 
thousand dollars. A purchases improved farms with 
his money, B invests his in merchandize, while C 
lays his out in the bonds of the State, bearing inter¬ 
est— 

Mr. CHAMBERS inquired what question was before 
the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN said that there was none. 

Mr. CHAMBERS submitted if the gentleman was in 
order. 

Mr. HORTON said that for the purpose of enabling 
the gentleman from Brown [Mr. Loudon] to make his 
statement, he would move to strike from the section 
under consideration the words “United States.” 

Which motion being in order— 

Mr. LOUDON proceeded, to say. The whole 
amount of one hundred thousand dollars invested in 
the three diflerent kinds of property is equally entitled 
to, and does receive, the protection of the government; 
and each part of the same, it seemed to him, ought to 
pay its [)roportioii of the tax for the support of, or as 
it is said, of greasing the wheels of that government. 
Yet, while A and B are forced to pay their share, C, 
more fortunate, or moi*e wise, escapes. He has pur¬ 
chased property that is exempt from taxation. The 
consequence is, that in its application to the State as 
an entire community, A and B pay the taxes upon the 
entire one hundred thousand dollars. This is wrong 
in principle. 

He knew how his friends who had signed the minori¬ 
ty report met this question. They say that by repeat¬ 
ed acts of the General Assembly, at the various times 
of the creation of these bonds, the faith of the State 
has been pledged against their taxation for all time to 
come. It may be so. Gentlemen cite the acts of 1825, 
and subsequently, to prove the truth of their assertion. 
This may have been the statute, and the law of the 
General Assembly. But we are about the business of 
constructing an organic law for the State, to last, as we 
hope, during all future time; and if an evil of such 
magnitude, it should be corrected in so important an 
instrument. He held it to be an evil. Property of 
this kind falls only into the hands of the wealthy. It 
is only such that can deal in it. There are said to be 
millionaires in the State of Ohio—men who had the 
means and the sagacity, at the time when the State 
was in distress and its stocks had fallen below par, to 
invest large amounts in these securities. These go un¬ 
taxed, at the expense of the laborers, the farmers and 
the mechanics of the State, causing the taxes to fall 
heavily on such, while they escape. Now, shall we 
not correct so vital an error? The majority of the 
committee thought that it should be done, and for that 
purpose they have presented this section lor considera¬ 
tion by this body. 

Mr. HORTON said he made the motion now before 
the Convention, for the purpose of giving the gentle¬ 
man from Brown [Mr. Loudon] an opportunity to de¬ 
liver his views. He had also other reasons for his mo¬ 
tion. He was, with that gentleman, a member of the 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


723 


committee that made the report now under considera¬ 
tion. In some respects, he had not been able to agree 
in opinion with the majority of the committee, and 
this was one of the instances. He desired, therefore, 
briefly to state the reasons which had put him in the 
minority. He said it would be conceded, as a general 
rule, that it is a matter of prudence, with all corpora¬ 
tions, of every kind, whether municipal or of a merely 
private character, whether States or banks, to avoid a 
contest in which they are certain to be worsted. He 
believed that the question presented by this section to 
the State of Ohio was one of that character. It will 
present problems of a legal character, to be decided 
by judges, according to law. He thought it correct to 
say that we have no constitutional right to tax the spe¬ 
cies of property under consideration—United States 
stocks. We should bring ourselves in collision with 
the government of the United States. Who desires to 
try the question of right, when he is sure he has the 
wrong side of the argument? It has been frequently 
tried, and on solemn argument, before the highest tri¬ 
bunals of the land ; the law has been settled, that we 
have no right to tax this species of property. If he 
was in error, gentlemen on this floor could easily cor¬ 
rect him. If not, he desired that the words be stricken 
out. 

The question being on striking out, the same was 
lost, on division—yeas 27, nays 52. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend the section, in the 
first line, by adding, between the word “ money ” and 
the word “invested,” the words, “ now or hereafter; ” 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. REEMELIN desired that the section be so 
amended, as that the right to tax the stocks of other 
States, owned in Ohio, be unequivocally declared. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE thouglit the section suffi¬ 
ciently definite for that purpose. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to amend the section, by 
adding at the end the following: 

And the General Assembly may by law make it a bar to the col¬ 
lection of every liquidated credit, or on money loaned with or 
without interest, if the same be not listed for taxation. 

Mr. REEMELIN said that the object of this amend¬ 
ment was to lay the foundation of some plan, to be 
carried out by the Legislature, by which money loan¬ 
ed at interest or on bond and mortgage, or in other li¬ 
quidated form, might be listed for taxation, without the 
difficulty of forcing men to swear. He thought, by an 
amendment of this kind, the object might be secured 
and the difficulty avoided. He had, while a member 
of the General Assembly of the State, brought forward, 
in a committee of conference, of which, Messrs. Cow- 
en, of Belmont, and Kelley, of Franklin, were mem¬ 
bers, a proposition of this kind, which had met the ap¬ 
probation of those gentlemen, though they had looked 
upon it as impracticable under the present constitution, 
on account of its coining in conflict with a provision in 
that instrument, regarding the obligation of contracts. 
The object is to oblige all men to list that portion of 
their property which consists in liquidated credits, by 
rendering it impossible for them to collect those cred¬ 
its unless they shall do so. Gentlemen may look upon 
such a remedy as somewhat harsh, but when they 
come to examine its workings they will not think so. 
It merely obliges a man to pay a tax on the money he 
has loaned at interest, as a condition precedent to its 
collection. He thought it a very simple means to reach 
a kind of property not easily reached. 

The amendment, it will be seen, is worded—The 
General Assembly may —not &hall The demand is not 
imperative. It merely gives to the General Assembly 
the power to make such provision in the premises as 
they shall deem proper in regard to the collection of 
taxes upon liquidated debts, to bar the action, in case 
they are not disclosed. If some such provision is adop¬ 
ted, we shall have no trouble in future. He said there 
were hundreds of men in the city whose property was 
many times larger than his own, who paid less taxes. 


He knew a gentleman who paid seventy-eight dollars 
taxes, while he paid three hundred; yet that gentle¬ 
man’s property was three times as great as his. He 
had asked one of these gentlemen if he did not think 
this to be wrong? He replied that it was not right, 
but as it suited him well enough, he was not anxious 
to have it changed. 

Mr. DORSEY said he agreed cordially with the prin¬ 
ciples of the amendment, but thought there would he 
a difficulty in carrying it into practice. He rose, how¬ 
ever, for another purpose. He was in favor of the prin¬ 
ciple upon which the third section was predicated, but 
he thought that section not sufficiently full and explicit 
—not sufficiently broad. It does not cover all the ground 
that it ought to cover. In order to make the section 
sufficiently comprehensive to suit his views, he would, 
at some future time, when it should be in order, offer 
ihe following amendment; 

Strike out all after the word “ invested,” and insert 
as follows : “in public stocks, bonds and securities as 
money at interest is or shall be taxed.” He desired to 
make this amendment for the purpose of including a 
large amount of new stocks, which would soon be in 
the market. He alluded to the large amount of coun¬ 
try, town and city stocks, which are soon to be issued 
and thrown into market, for the purpose of building va¬ 
rious lines of railroads in the State. He thought all 
would see the propriety of including all these in the 
lists for taxation. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said there was one difficulty that- 
suggested itself to his mind, in regard to the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Hamilton, providing that 
the failure to list liquidated credits should be a bar to 
all actions for their collection. He desired to know 
how it was to be determined whether a certain given 
amount was listed or not? The true system of the 
taxation of a man’s liquidated credits would be to sub¬ 
tract from this sum the amount of his liquidated debts 
and tax him on the balance. Now, when this is ar¬ 
rived at, how are you to know whether or not any par¬ 
ticular parcel of those credits are listed or not. For 
instance; A man has listed credits to the amount of one 
thousand dollars. One of his debtors, owing him one 
hundred dollars, he is forced to sue for the collection 
of the amount. The defendant sets up for a defense, 
that the amount has not been listed. He shows that 
the plaintiff holds credits to the amount of three thou¬ 
sand five hundred, while he only owes to the amount 
of two thousand dollars; so that the balance to be 
listed is actually fifteen hundred instead of one thou¬ 
sand dollars he has given in. How is it to be known 
whether this sum of one hundred dollars forms a part 
of what has not been listed? Will not infinite difficul¬ 
ties, and questions hard to be settled grow out of such 
a practice ? 

Mr. REEMELIN said the subject was not a new one 
to him, nor was the question propounded by his friend 
from Richland [Mr. Kirkwood] unforeseen. The sup¬ 
positions of the gentleman are founded upon the tax 
laws of the State as they are. He does not seem to 
understand that those of any other kind can exist; but 
he will readily understand that it is easy for the Gene¬ 
ral Assembly to supply defects, and enact such a sys¬ 
tem as will easily and without oppression, carry out the 
principles of the amendment. He did not intend to 
make it imperative upon the Legislature to exercise 
the powers granted in the amendment, but merely to 
place it in their power to do so if they deemed it pro¬ 
per. He had once drawn up a bill carrying out, in de¬ 
tail, the plan proposed, and the only difficulty in car- 
rying it through the Legislature was the constitutional 
bar which many of the members thought would be fa¬ 
tal to it. He did not recollect all the features of the 
bill, but was of the opinion that the objections of the 
gentleman from Richland were obviated by it. He 
was very anxious that something of the kind should be 
incorporated in this Constitution; for he had no doubt 
that in Hamilton county alone, not less than two mill- 












124 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ious of dollars, invested in this kind of securities an¬ 
nually escapes taxation, being placed in a condition 
that it is impossible to be reached by the utmost ener¬ 
gy of the Assessors. Let the gentleman from Richland, 
look at his own case and circumstances. He would 
have no difficulty in arriving at the exact amount of 
his own debts and credits. If he has money to lend, 
or credits that are at interest, he can tell to a dollar 
how much they are. He had spoken upon the subject 
to merchants in this city, and had asked their opinion 
upon the practicability of carrying out a provision of 
this kind. They were of the opinion that there would 
be no difficulty whatever in the practice. Let each 
man be required to go to the county Auditor and make 
out a statement of his property of this kind, with the 
names of his debtors and the amount of each sum ow¬ 
ing to him. If he receives payment from one and 
loans to another, he can easily go to the Auditor and 
make the proper change in his statement. Such kinds 
of loans are usually made for a definite time—usually 
for one year, and the proper amendments could be 
regularly made, with very little inconvenience to any 
party. He admitted that it was a very easy matter to 
make objections to any system of taxation, and to start 
difficulties to any principle of taxation that could be 
broached for that purpose, and especially so, when any 
thing like detail in the operation of the system is at¬ 
tempted ; but such objections ever were, and ever 
would be made, still the necessity for taxation and re¬ 
venue would exist, and if the difficulties raised were 
always to be set down as insurmountable, no law could 
ever be made, and no taxation ever effected. 

Mr, ARCHBOLD said that it used to be understood, 
in old times, that democracy sought the good of the 
people, by fixing up such a form of government as 
would bear the most lightly upon the people, and not 
expose them to infinite trouble and vexation. Now, 
it seems to be necessary for us to go to school to the 
gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] to learn 
democracy. According to his system of democracy, it 
seems to be the whole duty of the government to drag 
money from the people; and it matters not how op¬ 
pressive and vexatious the means employed are, so 
that the great end is secured. To him, the State goes 
about crying, “ money, money, money!—taxation, tax¬ 
ation, taxation!” like John Hook, when he went to the 
American camp, in the revolution, crying, “ beef, beef, 
beef!” It makes no odds how hard it comes, or how 
difficult or distressing the times ai*e, the cry is money ! 
Now, we have a civil list of one hundred and ten thou¬ 
sand dollars. We are obliged to raise that enormous 
sum annually for the support of the government. And 
for this the gentleman from Hamilton would harrass 
and distress every small man in the State of Ohio, who 
happens to have an insignificant debt due to him, com¬ 
ing under his rigid and iron rule. He had always had 
a distrust for the gentleman’s anecdotes. He found 
they were not always correct in their facts or their 
applications. He has brought here his fellow-citizens, 
the merchants of Cincinnati, and he has made them to 
speak by his organs, and to assent to his theories and 
propositions. He would ask the gentleman if he had 
not better introduce the prosecuting attorney of the 
county, and prosecute for perjury every man who made 
a false or fraudulent statement of his assets ? He said 
again he had always distrusted the gentleman’s anec¬ 
dotes. He had had occasion to find some of them in¬ 
accurate, and thought he had sometimes been carried 
away by his zeal too far to be perfectly accurate. Un¬ 
der the operation of the system recommended by Ihe 
gentleman from Hamilton, the citizen would be com¬ 
pelled to give in a minute list of all his property ; if he 
held a note for one hundred dollars, he must make a 
return of the same, that it may be taxed, although, 
aside from his debts, he may not be worth five dollars 
or submit to an overhauling of all his private transac¬ 
tions before a jury. I do not think such an exactitude 
in this regard is necessary; and for that reason, and 


because the whole process is complicated and too com¬ 
pulsory, shall vote against the amendment. 

Mr. REEMELIN. If the pending proposition was 
before the General Assembly, accompanied by details, 
the objection of the gentleman from Monroe would 
lie. If the proposition was to prevent the creation of 
a specified debt, his objection might lie. The proposi¬ 
tion at present made is to leave the whole matter to fu¬ 
ture Legislatures. The gentleman from Monroe, is, 
however, too good a debater to attack this proposition 
upon its merits. He is too shrewd a man to declare 
that because a citizen may refuse to contribute to the 
expenses of Government, that Government is to with¬ 
draw its protection from that non-tax payer. The 
system proposed will prove to be less comjdicated 
than the one which is now the law of the land. You 
now ask a man to swear to the list of property which 
he hands to the Assessor. The pending proposition 
leaves it to the will of a man to list upon the tax du¬ 
plicate a note which he may hold, or omit it. But,sir, 
should such an individual fail to list that species of 
property, 1 should take it as an indication that he did 
not desire the protection of the Government under 
which he lived, and would say that the Government 
should decline assisting him to collect his debts. I 
would not furnish to a citizen who was trying to avoid 
the just obligations resting upon every member of so¬ 
ciety, with paraphernalia of justice, and I would debar 
him from recourse to the courts of law, from that of 
the justice of the peace up to the supreme tribunals of 
the land. 

Upon a careful investigation, gentleman will find 
that the plan of taxation now proposed is less compli¬ 
cated and less compulsory than the one now in opera¬ 
tion. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I must still insist that the pend- 
proposition is obnoxibus to several objections. The 
citizen must give in a list of every article of property 
to the least item, because a legal investigation would 
be more expensive and vexatious than the payment of 
the tax—although of questionable justice—in the first 
place. I know of but one nation which lays a tax up¬ 
on every transaction between its citizens, and that is 
Spain. Sir, I am no admirer of Spanish institutions, 
and I have no desire to import the al cavallo from the 
banks of the Guadalquiver to the shores of the Ohio. 

The question then being on the amendment of the 
gentleman from Hamilton, the same was disagreed to. 
On division, yeas 36, nays 43. 

Mr. DORSEY then presented his amendment, (copied 
above.) 

Mr. HORTON moved to strike from the section, as 
it was originally reported, the words “ State and.” Ho 
desired the indulgence of the committee for a few mo¬ 
ments, while he stated the reason for his motion. He 
was a member of the committee on Finance and Taxa¬ 
tion, and pending the construction of the report, had 
taken time to examine the question relative to ihe right 
of the State to tax her own issues of stocks. In the 
year 1825, when the first creation of stocks took place, 
and at the time of the inception of our system of pub¬ 
lic improvement, the faith of the State was pledged 
that they should never be taxed. He had examined 
all the laws of the State, whereby stocks were created 
after that date. Most of them refer to that law, and 
carry with them the same obligation, and some do not, 
in express terms make the same pledge; but on a fair 
and liberal construction, taking into consideration the 
spirit and meaning of the law, there is no doubt but 
all should and were intended to be under the operation 
of the pledge. He thought that under such circum¬ 
stances it would not be right to tax any of them ; and 
that if a man were under the same, he would feel him¬ 
self bound, in honor, to place all upon the same foun¬ 
dation. Such was his deliberate opinion, and he felt 
bound to act in accordance with it. He thought the 
question, so far as present stocks are concerned, to be 
settled. Many of the later issues are for the renewal 
of former ones. 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


725 


The question is; If we make provision for the taxa¬ 
tion of future issues, will not Ohio, if it ever becomes 
necessary for her again to go into the market, lose 
more on the strength of the idea that she has unlimited 
power of taxation, than she will gain out of any taxes 
she will be likely to levy? Will not, in fact, the cer¬ 
tain loss be greater than any probable gain ? Should 
not such a consideration point us clearly and impera 
lively to our future course? But this is more than a 
mere question of dollars and cents. It is a question of 
State credit, standing, and respectabdity. As a citizen, 
he felt an interest in the reputation and credit of the 
State, and in the standing and value of her stocks in 
the market of the world. And when he could see, as 
is now the case, the stocks of Ohio standing as high as 
those of New York and Massachusetts, and nearly as 
high as those of the United States, he did not wish to 
look forward to any course of policy, by which he 
should be deprived of that gratihcation; nor to have 
the State deprived of that advantage. He thought 
equally that it would be bad faith to tax the issues of 
the past, and bad policy to tax those of the future. 

Mr. MITCHELL desired to ask the gentleman from 
Meigs [Mr. Horton] one question, and hoped for a 
categorical answer. He would ask him if, in his opin¬ 
ion, the laws of the State, exempting certain species 
and amounts of property from execution for debt, are 
not repealable? 

Mr. HORTON said he had not examined the law, 
and had not, at present, any opinion upon the matter. 

Mr. MITCHELL did not consider the reply of the 
Honorable gentleman consistent with his usual firm¬ 
ness and candor. 

Mr. HORTON did not know what that question had 
to do with the one before the committee. 

Mr. MITCHELL would ask the difierence in prin¬ 
ciple between the repeal of such law, and the repeal 
of any other statutes that confer upon individuals any 
particular advantage of any other kind. For instance: 
There is a poor man in Ohio, who, under the influence 
and encouragement of the laws exempting certain pro¬ 
perty from execution, takes the limited means that he 
may happen to have acquired by his industry or his 
frugality, and lays it out, upon the faith of the State, 
in such articles of property as are exempt by law from 
execution. He makes it upon the faith of the State. 
On the basis of that faith, he expects that it will for¬ 
ever h6 exempt from seizure. The Legislature in its 
wisdom repeals the law', and takes away that privilege 
which has been expressly conferred. There is no com¬ 
plaint about this. We do not hear the gentleman from 
Meigs crying that a wrong has been done. Now why 
is it that the poor man, who has confided in the Lith 
of the State, has not as much right to complain as the 
millionaire, who invests his hundreds of thousands in 
State stocks, in order to obtain an improper advantage? 
He ought to be ashamed to ask such a thing at the 
hands of the public. It has been the prevailing char¬ 
acteristic of such men to endeavor to secure an exemp¬ 
tion from bearing their share of the burdens of the 
State. Who are they who have invested their capital 
in stocks ? The wealthiest men in Ohio. Are they 
not ashamed to stand up and ask for such an exemp¬ 
tion ? Are there men in Ohio so rich as to have got 
beyond (he reach of the binding force of the govern¬ 
ment ? so powerful as no longer to need its protection? 
He could not seethe ditference in the principle, wheth¬ 
er applied to the poor man, whose case he had cited, 
or the rich ]»ossessor of the obligations of the State. 
Both, according to their means, should aid in bearing 
the public burden. It is all a humbug to talk of the 
faith of the State. There is nothing of State faith in¬ 
volved in the question. The only faith which the 
State is bound to observe towards her citizens is, that 
she lay on each, according to his proportion, his share 
of her expenses; and those who invest their money in 
stocks have intelligence enough to know', that by such 
means is the public faith and honor most adequately 
conseived. 


Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman: The committee on 
Finance and Taxation have reported the following sec¬ 
tion, to be inserted in the constitution, namely : 

“ The Legislature shall make a provision for taxing money in¬ 
vested in State and United States bonds, as money at interest is 
taxed.” 

A motion has been made to strike out the words that 
propose to tax the Slate bonds. 

The report makes no distinction between bonds, as 
to which the faith of the State has been solemnly pledged 
that they shall never be taxed, and bonds that may be 
hereafter issued. Such a distinction is necessary, if we 
would not violate our plighted faith. 

The question presented is, therefore, not whether it 
would be expedient and proper to tax money invested 
in bonds that may be issued according to laws hereaf¬ 
ter to be passed, but whether we have the power to tax 
bonds heretofore issued under laws that have expressly 
guarantied their exemption from taxation. I suppose 
we have no such power; and if we have not, the motion 
ought to prevail, and the report of the committee to be 
so amended as to apply to bonds that may hereafter be 
issued. 

In 1825, the State having adopted an extensive sys¬ 
tem of internal improvements, took measures to pro¬ 
vide for the execution of so important an undertaking. 
And the General Assembly passed “ An act to provide 
for the internal improvement of the State of Ohio by 
navigable canals.” This law, dated the 24th of F’eb- 
ruary, 1825, laid the foundation of the system which 
has since been completed, at a cost of twenty millions 
of dollars. This law made provision for raising money 
by borrowing, and pledging, irrevocably, for the pay¬ 
ment of principal and interest, among other things, the 
revenue derived from the canals and a certain amount 
of taxes, for which “ transferable certificates of stock 
were to be issued to the lender, redeemable between 
the years 1850 and 1875.” 

And as a further security to the lender, it was de¬ 
clared that “ the faith of the State was thereby pledged 
that no tax should ever be levied by the Legislature, or 
under the authority of the State, upon its stocks, to be 
created by virtue of this act, nor upon the interest which 
may be payable thereon; and further, the value of the 
said stocks shall be in no wise impaired by any legis¬ 
lative act of the State.” 

With this law in their hands, the agents of the State 
went into the money market and negotiated a loan of 
several millions of dollars. The law sets forth the 
terms and conditions upon which the State was willing 
to contract for the loan. These terms and conditions 
were satisfactory to the capitalist, and relying on the 
ability and good faith of the State, he accepted the 
terms proposed, and advanced his money. 

The law under which a contract is made, enters into 
the contract and becomes a part of it; and if the law 
should afterwards be altered or repealed by one of the 
parties, without the consent of the other, the obliga¬ 
tion of the contract would still remain in full force un¬ 
der the Constitution of the United States, which de¬ 
clares that *'no State shall pass any law impairing the 
obligation of a contract.” Such, briefly, are the facts 
and the law relating to the bonds you propose to tax; 
and the qtiesliou arises, whether we have power or 
right to tax them, and can do so with ut violating the 
public faith. 

The power of the State to impose a tax upon money 
vested in bonds of this description, and held by the 
citizens of this State, docs undoubtedly exist, unless 
taken away by the terms of the law under which the 
contract was made. But if the bonds were issued un¬ 
der a law which pledged the faith of the State that 
they should never be taxed, it became a part of the 
contract, binding upon both parties, and so the power 
could not, in such a case, be exercised, without a pal¬ 
pable breach of faith. 

It is fortunate that there is a power above us which 
is competent to correct the wrong that would be done 








726 CONNENTION REPORTS. 


by the refusal of the State to comply with its contract. 
The attempt to violate our own contract in this matter 
of taxation, can have no other effect than to fasten an 
indelible stain on the hitherto fair character of the 
State. The attempt must fail of ultimate success, and 
be followed by the shame that attaches itself to acts of 
perfidy. 

Sir, we have heard the Chairman of the committee 
which reported this section, in explanation of the re¬ 
port, [Mr. Loudon.] And I will state the effect of his 
argument. Admitting that the faith of the State had 
been pledged, he says that we are about to construct 
anew the organic law *, and that was the amount of his 
argument, to satisfy the conscience of this body and the 
people, that it would be I’ight to violate the pledge of 
the State, because we have the physical power to do it. 
We are about to lay the foundation of the government 
anew—(is that the argument of the Chairman?)—and 
being thus engaged in reconstructing the organic law, 
we have the right, if we choose, to disregard our sub¬ 
sisting and pre-existing obligations to those whom we 
have induced to lend us their money upon our faith 
and hqnor. 

Mr. LOUDON [interposing, and Mr. M. yielding], I 
stated that the report did not propose to tax the State 
bonds issued under the law of 1825, but, that it did 
propose to tax money invested in the stocks of Ohio— 
money invested in State bonds, as well as in every 
thing else. Now, I will ask the gentleman from Clark 
—does he suppose, that, at the time these loans of 1825 
were negotiated, the Legislature had the most distant 
idea or expectation that their own citizens would ever 
become the holders of these bonds? They certainly 
did not; and the clause which the gentleman recited 
was inserted because it was supposed that their bonds 
would be held by foreigners. 

Mr. MASON [resuming.] I would like to know, Mr. 
Chairman, how the gentleman from Brown [Mr. Lou¬ 
don] came to the knowledge that the Legislature of 1825 
did not expect any of the citizens of Ohio to become 
the owners of any of these bonds. They made them 
negotiable upon the face of them. I would like to 
know how that gentleman arrived at the knowledge of 
what that Legislature never understood, or never in¬ 
tended ? and how it is he is able from such premises 
to reach the conclusion that you are at liberty to vio¬ 
late the faith of States, because a few citizens of Ohio 
have an interest in those bonds. But, as to the foreign 
bond-holder, he is to be better treated. He would 
throw the shield of protection around the citizens of 
New York or Great Britain ; but, if these bonds, in the 
regular course of business, should come by assignment, 
into the hands of the citizens of Ohio, then forsooth, 
the law which protects them from taxation must be 
set aside. 

Mr. Chairman, we have cause to rejoice—those of 
us who will not go into this crusade against the honor 
and faith of the State—that there is a power above 
you, able to control and rectify all attempts at nullifi¬ 
cation, by even constitution makers. 

These bond-holders, Mr. Chairman, will not pay 
your tax, until they shall have made it a judicial ques¬ 
tion in the courts of the United States. I know that; 
and I also know that there is nothing in the sugges¬ 
tion to drive gentlemen from their purpose—nothing 
at all. 

Does any gentleman doubt that it was a contract, 
which the government made with the money-lender, 
and that this money was borrowed, and the certificates 
issued under a law declaring that they should never be 
subject to taxation ? The State, by its agents, went 
to the money lender with this law in their hands. Sir, 
this law constitutes the warrant, and contains the terms 
and conditions upon which the State of Ohio proposed 
to obtain its loans. 

Mr. Chairman: the State of Ohio has solemnly and 
expressly plighted her faith, as before said, to the orig¬ 
inal bondholders, and to tho.se who held them by as¬ 


signment or otherwise, not only under the law of 1825, 
but under subsequent acts of legislation. I refer to the 
act of March 16th, 1839, page 68, where it is prescri¬ 
bed that the money authorized to be loaned under that 
act was to be taken upon the same terms upon which 
the loan was negotiated under the act of 1825, and pla¬ 
ced under the shield of the 5th section of that act. It 
is in this language—quite worthy of the attention of 
gentlemen who are engaged in this proceeding: “And 
the guaranties, incidents and conditions specified in the 
said 5th section of the last recited act, shall extend to 
the loans made under this act.” 

Thus, Mr. Chairman, you have placed the bonds now 
proposed to be taxed, and shielded them from taxation, 
under the most solemn and deliberate legislation that 
a State can engage in. 

I know, sir, (and who does not?) that all the ordina¬ 
ry acts of legislation are capable of. being repealed, 
modified, or changed. But one party to a contract can¬ 
not rescind or modify its terms. One party to a con¬ 
tract cannot nullify a provision which imposes an obli¬ 
gation upon himself. It takes the same power to re¬ 
scind or modify the terms of a contract which is requi¬ 
red to make that conti'act. 

These are all elementary principles, and learnd gen¬ 
tlemen on the other side of the chamber are quite well 
acquainted with them. But 1 intend that the people 
of Ohio shall have this matter brought to their consid¬ 
eration, when called upon to adopt this constitution, 
which, upon its face, is about to violate a solemn con¬ 
tract, which the State entered into vvhen it was com¬ 
paratively poor and destitute of any income adequate 
to the construction of the work's it had undertaken. 

I will make a general remark with reference to the 
attempts at legislation which are being made in our 
constitution. The experience of several days past, must 
have convinced every gentleman upon this Hoor, how 
very difficult, and how very inapt it is to our position 
here, to be engaged in mere matters of legislation— 
legislating in detail—thus endeavoring to tie up the 
hands of the Legislature, and manacle the people of 
the State of Ohio. Heretofore this whole subject has 
been confined to the General Assembly, under the gen¬ 
eral grant of legislative power, without specification 
of the kinds of property to be taxed or exempted. 
The General Assembly, with reference to just policy, 
and a wise consideration of circumstances and expedi¬ 
encies, in which, from time to time, the State has been 
placed, have exempted certain property from taxation; 
and doubtless, they will ever do so ; or whether they 
do or not, it is still a question which may be always 
safely left with the people, to be disposed of by their 
representatives. 

My own view is, that we ought to leave this whole 
matter to the discretion of the General Assembly. My 
judgment is, that the whole report before us confers 
no new power; that the General Assembly would pos¬ 
sess the same power over the subject, if we were to 
strike the whole report out of existence, and refuse to 
insert any thing of the kind in the constitution. No 
gentleman upon this floor doubts this. The report, 
tlierefore, is an attempt, not to restrain the Legislature 
from exercising the power of taxation, but to stimulate 
that body to exercise the power. It is an effort to 
com^iel the Legislature to subject every thing to taxa¬ 
tion, which is not particularly enumerated in the clause 
of exemptions ; thus establishing an unyielding rule, 
and thereby permanently making provision for all time 
to come; leaving no legislative discretion—no margin 
for the action of future General Assemblies, with refer¬ 
ence to a wise consideration of the circumstances and 
exigencies of their own time,'^. 

It is in this way we incur the danger of omitting 
things which ought to be included, and of including 
things which ought to be omitted; because it is im¬ 
possible, at this time, to foresee the exigencies of the 
future, which will arise out of its multiplied interests 
and transactions. 


















CONVENTION EEPORTS. 7S7 


The principle upon which the effort here is made to 
I’estrain the power of the Legislature, and the people 
of Ohio, is a principle of distrust, and a want of confi¬ 
dence in the capacity of the people for self-govern¬ 
ment. Gentlemen may reply to this suggestion as 
often as they choose; but there the facts are. You 
dare not trust the people to regulate the question of 
taxation. You are afraid that they will not ex<?rcise 
it wisely. You prefer your owm wisdom. Y'ou have 
greater confidence in your own wisdom and skill than 
you have in the capacity of the people. You prefer 
dealing out your own nostrums, though they should 
impair the health or take the life of the patient. 

The difference between a constitution and a law is 
that the one you can alter, amend, and adapt to the 
varying circumstances of the day; but the other you 
cannot change without great care and difficulty, in¬ 
volving a call upon the whole body of the people of 
Ohio. Arid I think, after the taste which they will 
have had of our five months' session in constitution 
making, at an expense of over a hundred thousand 
dollars, they will be slow to call another Convention. 
And it is worthy of the consideration of the people, 
that there is not a Constitution in the thirty-one 
States of this Union, that has undertaken to legislate 
upon the subject of taxation, as it has been attempted 
in this report. There is no example of any such 
thing in the Constitution of the United States — the 
best, wisest, and most perfect model of a written 
constitution, that the wisdom of man has ever yet de¬ 
vised. 

But the people would regulate all these matters as 
they should be, if you had confidence in them ; but 
you practically deny that they have the capacity or tlie 
w'ill to do so. But I confide in the people, that they 
would send up representatives to execute their will; 
or if they did not, they would recall the unfaithful ser¬ 
vant, and send one in his place who would faithfully 
carry out their will. 

I tell you, Mr. Chairman, if the members of this 
body, instead of going about to instruct the people 
upon the principles of taxation, would be content to 
leave this subject where it has been left for more than 
forty years, they would act with a great deal more 
wisdom and prudence. For, the State has made pro¬ 
gress in the principle of taxatjon. Public sentiment 
requires it, and 1 am in favor of progress, until every 
article of property in the State shall be taxed which 
ought to be taxed, and which can be taxed without 
violating any principle of pledged faith or public 
honor. 

We might tax the future bonds of the State; but, for 
fear that the clause under consideration would be only 
prospective in its effects, the gentleman over the way 
[Mr. Rannet] has ofiered an amendment, which has 
been adopted, making it retroactive—embracing all 
stocks now issued, or hereafter to be issued. He was 
afraid that we should fail in the effort to violate our 
faith, and therefore he has put it broadly upon the face 
of the report by his amendment, so that there can be 
no mistaking him. 

I should be happy if we could agree to put into the 
constitution only general grants of power, coupled 
with general prohibitions and restraints, instead of at¬ 
tempting to cover the whole ground of legislation. I 
would rather we would consent to legislate less. Look 
at all the details of this report, as to the various kinds 
of property to be taxed. Proceeding in this way, sir, 
you will make a book which the people cannot under¬ 
stand, by reason of the complexity of its various pro¬ 
visions, not always in harmony with one another. Sir 
there are no examples of this kind of constitutional le¬ 
gislation. It has already been referred to by the gen¬ 
tleman from Cuyahoga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] that the 
constitution of the State of Wisconsin has the whole 
of the matter of this report condensed into one and a 
half lines of printed matter, and that good democratic 
State has been content with that provision, and I think 
their course much wiser than that here proposed. 


But, Mr. Chairman, I know that my opinion is of no 
avail with you. I do not belong to the same political 
school with you. You have no confidence in me, and 
I have no confidence in you, [laughter] so there is a 
perfect reciprocity between us in this matter. It may 
be that we both desire to advance the best interests of 
the Slate of Ohio. I admit that gentlemen may well 
diHer in regard to the means of advancing the public 
interest. There is scope and margin enough for honest 
differences of opinion, and I am bound to believe that 
there is no settled purpose to do wn.ng. If gentlemen 
have determined amongst themselves. Upon pursuing 
a certain course, they cannot be diverted from it, es¬ 
pecially if their minds are made up upon partisan 
principles. In that case they are bound by their alle¬ 
giance to one another. They cannot, under such cir¬ 
cumstances, give the same weight to argument which 
it might otherwise have if the mind wei*e not pre-occu- 
[)ied. It may be very well to have the mind pre-occu- 
pied, but not with foregone conclusions, or with a pre¬ 
determination. 

Mr. Chairman : I do not believe we shall be able to 
dispose of the report during the next month, either in 
committee of the whole, or in the Convention, unless 
it is done by the power of the rule which cuts off de¬ 
bate; and I should have no objection to that; for I 
desire very much to get along more rapidly than we 
do. 

1 had hoped that the Chairman of the standing com¬ 
mittee would not have been so tenacious, after all that 
had been said, as to insist upon the whole report; but 
that he would have been contented with fewer provis¬ 
ions, which might be embraced in a suigle section ; so 
that the whole subject might have been disposed of in 
conformity with the example of all the States of the 
Union, and the model furnished us by the fathers of 
the revolution—the framers of the constitution of the 
United States. We should then have a wise policy, 
which would permit the public sentiment to settle 
down upon whatever shall best promote the interests, 
*the honor, and the happiness of all. The people only 
want unshackled hands, and unmanacled feet and 
limbs, that they may execute their own will. Will 
you take the responsibility of saying to the people of 
Ohio, “ We will put you upon a Procrustean bedstead, 
and lop off those legs which happen to be too short for 
that bedstead. It will do you good. A little mortifi¬ 
cation of the body will be good for the mind.” 

This is all wrong, in my judgment; and, with these 
remarks, I shall submit to be governed by the action 
of the majority. I can live under the old constitution, 
or the new, as contentedly as any man; knowing that 
we are all embarked in the same vessel; that we all 
have a common interest in her safely ; and, more than 
all, that we are all destined for the same haven. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I acknowledge the applicability 
of the gentleman’s remark, that we are all going to 
the same place of accountability. I beg ray venera¬ 
ble friend to remember that that accountability is to 
be before one who has commanded us emphatically 
“to do justice.” I commend this admonition to the 
gentleman himself, that he may prepare his justifica¬ 
tion before the people, for repealing a law which af¬ 
fords protection to the poor man, whilst he denounces 
the injustice of a proposition to repeal a law which 
gives protection to the capitalist. I ask the gentle¬ 
man from Clark, and others who act with him, to ad¬ 
dress themselves to this ^proposition, and shovy us, by 
sound reason and correct principles of equality, how 
it can be entirely just to repeal the law which express¬ 
ly protects the [)Oor man s little supply ot comforts, 
for his helpless, and, perhaps, suffering family, and 
still would forbid you to repeal the law affording pro¬ 
tection to your millionaire, on his immense, and, in 
most instances, useless or penurious hoards. Convince 
me of the justice of this strange discrimination, and I 
can listen to the gentleman when he talks about fol¬ 
lowing fore-gone conclusions; but until he shall satis- 










728 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


fy my mind upon this subject, he may talk to eternity, 
and 1 will, I must vote against him, so deeply is my 
mind convinced of the iniquity of this gi’oss discrimi¬ 
nation. 

Mr. SAWYER. I am one of those who are not wil¬ 
ling to exempt from taxation any species of property 
whatever, and before we complete this constimtion, I 
desire to have a clear opportunity to record my vote 
upon this proposition. You voted yesterday against 
exempting a certain species of property in the hands 
of every man; which was wrong. But I have just as 
much right to ask that my farm sliould be exempted, 
or any property in which I have invested money, as 
you have to ask for the exemption of a church. A 
church, in the abstract, is no more to be exempted than 
a barn or a warehouse. They are all good in their 
places. But, by these exemptions, you are throwing 
the burden of taxation upon farmers, mechanics and 
laborers, and bringing about the state of things depict¬ 
ed by my friend from Clark, when he took the asses¬ 
sor into the cellars, and kitchens, and chambers of the 
citizen in search'of the objects of taxation. But, sir, 
yesterday, an attempt -was made to exempt a small 
amount—say $100 worth of taxable property, in the 
hands of every man, and how was it met? It was 
voted down. But, sir, it is urged here that you can 
with propriety exempt the money of the citizen when 
it is invested in State stocks, because not to exempt 
them would be a violation of law. Sir, there are a 
hundred laws upon your statute book that you violate 
every day. We are here for that very j)urpose. We 
are rubbing out the old constitution, and remodeling 
laws. 

Gentlemen talk about vested rights. Sir, there is no 
such thing as a vested right where it is found to ope¬ 
rate against the interests of the masses of the people. 
The great mass of the people have a vested right, and 
that is, the right of equality, that is the basis upon 
which our government rests; and the moment you de¬ 
part from it, you depart from the great pi-inciple of free 
government. 

The hog-growers and the wool-growers of the State, 
some years ago, held vested rights in this species of 
property, because you'had never taxed them: and 
when you sold your lands many years ago, you sold 
them with the understanding that they should never 
be taxed more than a mill on the hundred dollars. 
But when you proposed to alter these laws, you did 
not ask leave, neither of the hog-growers and wool- 
growers, nor of me. You consulted only the public 
good, and considered whether it was demanded by the 
republican principle of equal rights. Neither will I 
ask those rich land-holders, who have invested their 
thousands in that species of property, whether we 
shall tax them. Wo have come up here to remodel 
the laws, and hence it is obligatory upon us to do what 
is right in the matter. 

When the proposition is made here to exempt the 
poor man’s hundred dollars worth of property, no 
voice is raised upon this floor, pleading his cause; but 
there are enough who will stand up and say it is all 
wrong to tax the money of the millionaire. Sir, if God 
spares my life, I will go before my constituents with 
my recorded vote in favor of taxing every church in 
the State of Ohio—my own with them—the same with 
every other species of property. 

The property in the city belongs to the city for tax¬ 
ation ; but, sir, I am told that there is a church in this 
city owning IGO acres of land adjoining the city, and 
enjoying the rents at a large profit, which property is 
measurably exempt from taxation ; and so it is, in all 
probability with other churches. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD (interposing.) I have myself felt 
some sympathy with those who are opposed to taxing 
churches, and turning them out to the officer of the 
law, to sell them to tlie highest bidder. But, if that 
be so which the gentleman from Auglaize has learned 
—if it be true that there is a church in this city, own¬ 


ing IGO acres of land exempt from taxation, I say, in- i i 
stantly, that it is an abuse; and I, for one, am unwil- I' 
ling to tolerate it for a single moment. i 

Mr. SAWYER resuming. A sympathy for the ex- ,i 
emption of churches has been started in this body by ji 
the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold.] He i 
asks. Will you sell these churches under the hammer ? j 
I answer. Yes sir, if their members think no more of | 
them than to allow them to be disposed of. Yes, sir; || 
far quicker than I would sell the feather-bed or the l| 
corn of a poor woman. Far quicker. I am informed if 
by good authority, that one of the Baptist churches in ij 
this city, owns the IGO acres of land to which I have n 
referred. I 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Is it not taxed? 

Mr. SAWYER. I know nothing about it; and I 
care less. 

Mr. GROESBECK, (in his seat.) It is taxed. 

Mr. SAWYER. I do know that this property is taxed 
partially; but it would be put upon a far different foot¬ 
ing, if it was not subject to any exemption more than 
a farm, a mill, or a clothing establishment. 

But, again: those of our citizens who have money 
invested in State bonds, have purchased them at from 
30 to 50 cents on the dollar; and gentlemen say, If you 
tax them, it will reduce their value. But I am not so 
much inlluenced by such a consideration as to be 
swerved from my adherence to what I esteem a correct 
principle: and why should gentlemen take a more live¬ 
ly interest in the price of stocks, than in the price of 
wheat, or pork, or farm-land? 

Upon the subject of my hard money propositions, I 
have but a word in reply to my worthy friend from 
Clark. I will not, however, travel out of my way to 
speak particularly, at this time; but when that subject 
shall come up, I will show my friend, by data not to be 
disposed of easily, that the people of Ohio have sol¬ 
emnly decided in favor of a hard money Constitution, 
t take the decided majority of democratic members 
sent up into this body, as strong evidence of this. And 
at the last election, we elected a Governor scarcely se¬ 
cond to any man, in his adherence to this principle ; 
and a sterling anti-bank commissioner of Public works. 

We went before the people, and spread our banners, 
marked with letters as plain as the Sun; and our op- 
posers ceased not, neither upon the stump nor through 
the press, to urge the question upon the people, and 
tell them, that, if we succeeded in electing our Gover¬ 
nor and Commissioner, it would be I’eceived as conclu¬ 
sive evidence that the voice of the people was in favor 
of hard money. 

With reference to oUr free soil friends, they voted, I 
suppose for their own candidate; and, because the 
Democrats had not a majority over both Whigs and 
Free Soilers, it is claimed that there was no decision of 
the people upon this subject. But I think you will 
generally find that the leaders of the Free Soil party 
are hard money men. Although, I confess, I have not 
counted the votes with a direct I’eference to this mat- 
ter. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga. I wish to inform 
the gentleman from Auglaize, that, so far as Free Soil¬ 
ers are concerned, all those who call themselves hard 
money men, voted for Judge Wood, whilst those whose 
love for free soil and the freedom of their race was 
ahead of their hard money propensities, voted for Mr. 
Smith, they w^ere not hard money men. 

Mr. EW'ART. 1 profess to know something about 
the Baptist denomination, and I wish to correct a state¬ 
ment which has been made here with reference to the 
Baptist church in this city. I state that there is no 
Bapiist church in this city, owning IGO acres of land. 
There is no Baptist church in this city, which to my 
knowledge owns any land. 

Mr. SAWYER. My information was from a gentle-. 
man of this city. 

Mr. DORSEY next obtaining the floor, upon his mo¬ 
tion, which was agreed to, the committee rose and re¬ 
ported progress. 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


129 


AMIN BEY. 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved the adoption of the follow¬ 
ing preamble and resolution: 

Wheekas, This Convention has learned that the Hon. Amin 
Bey, Turkish commissioner to the United States, and suite, are 
now in this city, and wishing to show proper respect for so distin¬ 
guished a personage and for his most liberal and beneficent sove¬ 
reign, whose noble treatment of the Hungarian retugees has en¬ 
titled him to the thanks of the friends of freedom throughout the 
world, and to furnish his most accomplished minister all the op¬ 
portunities within our powerfor the successful prosecution of the 
important duties of his mission ; Therefore, 

Be it resolved, That a committee of five members be appointed 
by the President to wait upon the Hon. Amin Bey, and tender to 
him and his suite seats within the bar of this Convention during 
their sojourn in this city. 

Mr. GREENE, of Defiance, moved to lay the pre¬ 
amble and resolution on the table; but immediately 
withdrew the motion for 

Mr. LAWRENCE, who said : It must be apparent 
to every membp, that the adoption of this resolution, 
or one of a similar character, is but an act of courtesy 
which is due irom us, not only to the distinguished in¬ 
dividual who is now on a peace mission to our country, 
but it is due also as a testimonial of our regard for the 
high character of his most beneficent Sovereign. This 
gentleman comes to us from a foreign country, and is 
now passing through the United States, for the purpose 
of examination into our improvements—in the arts 
and sciences, and the general workings of free govern¬ 
ment. The object of this resolution is to give him all 
the advantages in our power to prosecute the duties of 
his mission with success. His mission is emphatically 
a peace mission; and coming to ns from a foreign gov¬ 
ernment, whose protection to the Hungarian refugees 
entitle them to the thanks of all the friends of freedom, 
and establishes the fact of the progress of freedom in 
the old world, I hope the resolution will be adopted 
as a mark of our cordial respect, not only for the pow¬ 
er that has sent the Hon. Amin Bey here, as their friend¬ 
ly minister, but as a mark of our respect for himself 
personally. 

Mr. HUMBHREVILLE. I will not vote againstthe 
proposition, but I am sorry it has been offered. If this 
distinguished stranger is in our country for the pur¬ 
pose of witnessing the operation of our free institu¬ 
tions—our free-and-easy mode of doing business,—I 
could wish that the matter had been left open ; so that, 
if the stranger saw fit to visit the Convention, the offi¬ 
cers of the Convention, by unanimous consent, and 
without any bluster, might have tendered seats within 
the bar, to himself and suite, just as they would have 
tendered a seat to any other distinguished individual. 
Then, in this particular, he would have seen what re¬ 
ally is the working of our institutions. But, as it is, 
we are proceeding more in accordance with the cus¬ 
toms of other countries, not so free as ours. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I simply wish to submit one consid¬ 
eration to the gentleman from Guernsey, [Mr. Law¬ 
rence.] It is this: Whilst I concur with him fully 
as to the objects of the preamble and resolution, I shall 
vote for the proposition from another consideration. 
The Convention has heretofore denied the granting of 
equal rights to any but the Anglo-Saxon race, and I 
shall vote for this proposition as a cheering indication 
that the body has overcome its prejudices against color. 
[Much merriment.] 

Mr. MITCHELL, (in his seat.) I shall vote for the 
proposition, but not upon that hypothesis. 

The resolution was then agreed to, and the President 
nominated Messrs. Lawrence, Smith of Warren, Hunt, 
Larwill, and Green of Ross, to serve as the commit¬ 
tee of invitation. 

And then, upon the motion of Mr. LAWRENCE, 
which was agreed to. 

The Convention took a recess till ,3 o’clock, P. M. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

The Convention resolved itself into a committee of 
the whole, Mr, Lbadbetter in the Chair, and resumed 


the consideration of the report of the committee on> 
Finance and Taxation; the pending question being 
upon the propriety of taxing burial grounds and church 
property. 

Mr. SAWYER desired to inquire of the delegates, or 
any one of them, from Hamilton, if he [Mr. S.] was- 
correct in the remarks he had made this morning rela¬ 
tive to the cemeteries of this county ? 

Mr. HOLMES replied that Spring Grove Cemetery, 
which was the most extensive burial ground in Hamil¬ 
ton county, was incorjiorated in 1845, and comprised 
an area of three hundred and forty acres. Of this 
amount, one hundred and sixty-seven acres was ex¬ 
empt from taxation. The balance was taxed in th& 
same manner and to the same extent as farming oi" 
other landed property. In 1848, forty acres of the* 
Spring Grove Cemetery property (which is located some 
four miles from the city of Cincinnati) was valued at 
twelve hundred dollars, and the taxes thereon amount¬ 
ed to $6.40; in 1850 the tax amounted to $7.80. 

Mr. SAWYER. Some of these cemetery lots have 
been sold at prices double and quadruple those of the 
original cost, and yet some gentlemen would continue 
this species of property free from taxation. It is well 
known that the lots in the valuable grounds near this 
city, known as Spring Grove Cemetery, and which is- 
one of the largest in the country, had been sold at a 
very large advance upon the original cost, and 1 pre¬ 
sume this is the case with several cemeteries in the 
State. I am told that there is one at Dayton which is- 
in a similarly prosperous condition. It seems to me,, 
sir, that they should go upon the tax duplicate in the 
same manner in which other property is placed there. 

Mr. EWART. I think it will be found, when gen¬ 
tlemen investigate the matter, that the act of incorpo¬ 
ration of the Cincinnati, Dayton, and othercemeteries,. 
that all moneys received from the sale of lots must be 
expended upon the cemetery grounds—in their im¬ 
provement and adornment, so that the owners of buri¬ 
al lots can receive no pecuniary benefits from their en¬ 
hanced value. I must be allowed to say, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, that gentlemen of the opposite side must be 
“ hard pushed ” for ground to stand upon, when they 
seize upon this subject of ‘'church and church-yard ’’ 
taxation as a party measure. 

Mr. BARNET, of Montgomery, explained the situa 
tion of the Dayton Cemetery Company. Citizens who> 
associated together, in that case, for the purchase and; 
laying out of decent and pleasant burial gr-amds, did 
so at a sacrifice of their pecuniary intei’ests. A law of’ 
the association was, that the original purchasers of the 
land, when it was sold out in lots, should only receive- 
back the amount of the original purchase, and without 
interest. He could assure the gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize, that no person connected with the purchase and 
management of that cemetery could receive a dollar of 
profit. 

Mr. GROESBECK remarked that the manner in 
which the cemeteries of this county were projected 
and managed was probably very much the same as in 
Dayton, Cleveland, and other places. Take the case 
of the Spring Grove Cemetery, which has been alluded 
to by the gentleman from Auglaize; in that instance,, 
the people of this city, becoming convinced of the 
great and pressing necessity for ample burial grounds— 
there being but few, and those of contracted and inad¬ 
equate dimensions—went out a distance pi five miles 
from the city for the purpose of securing another with an 
area more commensurate with the necessities of a great 
city like this. The land, now known as the Spring 
Grove Cemetery grounds, was purchased for five hun¬ 
dred dollars an acre, and divided and subdivided into 
lots of fifty feet square, each ; and surely no gentleman 
will consider that amount too great for the burial place 
of a family. I am free to say that these lots were sold 
at a considerable advance upon their original cost; but ’ 
by the requisitions of their charter, the Cemetery Asso¬ 
ciation are bound to apply all such excess to the suita- 












730 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ble preparation of the grounds for the puiposes for 
wh'ch they were first purchased. These grounds need 
to be intersected with roads; vaults must be erected ; 
persons need to be employed to guard the premises, 
and the whole must be kept in repair—should be adorn¬ 
ed and improved, and the profits, if I may so speak of 
the proceeds of the transfer of these grave lots, are 
thus applied. 

As to what has been said relative to taxing churches 
and church property, I affirm the law to be—I know 
the law to be that church property other than that upon 
which the church edifice itself stands, must be taxed. 
No longer ago than last year I was spoken to by the 
Auditor of this county with regard to the instructions 
he had received from the Auditor of State relative to 
his levying a tax upon the ground occupied by the Ro¬ 
man Catholic Cathedral, a few squares from this Hall. 
The lot upon which it stands is some two hundred feet 
in width, by four hundred deep. We will suppose that 
the Cathedral occupies one-half of this area, leaving 
two hundred feet square, which is occupied by the 
Bisliop’s house, but the entire amount of land is with¬ 
in one enclosure. The instructions of the Auditor of 
State was, that all the land not occupied by the Cathe¬ 
dral should be taxed—and it was taxed and the amount 
paid. So that gentleman will find that church proper¬ 
ty is already taxed. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. In addition to the remarks of 
the gentleman from Hamilton, I will observe that the 
instructions of the Auditor of State are, not only that 
the ground not absolutely occupied by the church, shall 
be taxed, but if any income is derived from the rent of 
any part of the church building, then the whole must 
be taxed. 

Mr. TAYLOR desired to ask the gentleman from 
Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,1 whether this was a public 
or a private enclosure for burying? 

Mr. GROESBECK said it was like every other cem¬ 
etery with wliich the city was surrounded. It was ap¬ 
propriated for the burial of those who were willing to 
conform to the requisitions of the association, by pay¬ 
ing a certain .sum for the right of burial there. 

Mr. RE EMELIN observed, that the charter of the 
Spring Grove Cemetery was prepared in Cincinnati, 
and sent up to the House of Representatives. His re¬ 
collection was, that the members from Hamilton coun¬ 
ty were exceedingly averse to its passage. 

The CHAIRMAN I’eplied that the question was upon 
the motion to strike out the words “ State and,” in the 
second line of the third section of the report. 

Mr. DORSEY, being entitled to the floor, said, the 
little debate of this afternoon, to his mind, was addi¬ 
tional evidence of the truth of the principle with which 
he had endeavored to impress the committee on yester¬ 
day afternoon, namely, that it was better to leave a 
considerable discretion to the Legislature in the matter 
of taxation. For whenever the committee had attempt¬ 
ed to scan the subject particularly,they found that they 
not only ran into difficulties amongst themselves, but, 
also, that the Legislature could not be successfully ac¬ 
cused of remissness in the matter of carrying out the 
wishes of the people in this resj)ect—but that they 
might be trusted with abundant safety, both as to the 
amount and what specific objects of taxation .should be 
exempted. But still he held that there were matters 
in connection with this subject, upon which it became 
the duty of this body specifically to express themselves 
in the constitution. There were matters which he 
would not be willing to leave to the discretion of the 
Legislature, without certain specific guidance. He re¬ 
ferred to the necessity for taxing those large amounts 
of money which the citizens of Ohio had invested in 
public stocks. He had been prepared to hear gentle¬ 
men come up here and talk about preserving inviolate 
the faith and credit of the State; but he was not to be 
swerved, by such bug-bears, from what he considered 
to be the dictates of right and justice. He also held 
that the faith of the State should be pi’eserved, and was 


as anxious with reference to this matter as any member 
upon the floor. But he was not willing, for the sake 
of a word which had no meaning whatever, that the 
right of the people should be trampled upon and great 
abuses tolerated. Gentlemen had made it a matter of 
conscience that the wealih of the ciuzens of Ohio 
should not be taxed, because the faith of the State was 
plighted to the landholders that their lands should not 
be taxed ; but, by refusing to tax this portion of the 
wealth of the State, by an indirection, they showed 
themselves to be willing to increase the burdens upon 
these articles which were listed for taxation. This 
was not the first time that he had seen gentlemen stand 
up before a deliberative body in this State, and plead 
for the privileges of the few against the rights of the 
many. It was upon the plea of a contract made with 
rich men, who have lived upon the interest of the State 
bonds, that this exemption was claimed. 

He would ask whether there were not other con¬ 
tracts entered into by the State with the poor man, 
which should be held equally as inviolable? Had not 
the State of Ohio sold her lands to the poor man, giv¬ 
ing him a title thereto ; and in the progress of her rail¬ 
roads and canals, whenever she had seen fit, had she 
not taxed these lands of the poor man, without asking 
his leave, rendering to him only such a return therefor 
as she deemed right and pro 2 )er? Who then stood up 
to plead for the inviolability of that conU*act with the 
{)oor man ? Aye, there wei’e always men enough, 
when the rights of the rich stock-holder were likely to 
be imperiled, to stand up and talk about jneserviug in- 
violale the faith of the State. But whenever the State 
saw fit to trench uj)on the rights of the poor man, few 
and far between were the advocates who would stand 
up for his rights. 

There was another question to be met upon this 
floor, and upon which he was desirous that the Con¬ 
vention should make their mark before the people ; 
and that was, the right which a legislative body had to 
repeal the acts of any legislative body which had pre¬ 
ceded it. He held that it was the duty of the Con 
vention to set forth their views clearly and unequivo¬ 
cally upon this subject. He held, in common with a 
large number of members, that the jieople, being the 
depository of all political power, any body of men, 
holding power delegated from them, during the time 
they might hold such delegated power, it would be ne¬ 
cessarily as broad and unrestricted as that of any body 
of delegates which had preceded them. As a matter 
of course, then, no legislative body could so bind and 
restrain the people, that a succeeding legislature might 
not cast their restrictions to the winds. This was ta^ 
king broad ground, but it was ground which delegates 
here, as representatives of the people, ought to occupy. 
It was ground which he was willing to occupy, and 
answer for the consequence. It was true that the Leg¬ 
islature of Ohio, in the year 1825, did borrow a certain 
amount of money from certain rich men, to whom 
bonds were given ; and it was specified in the law au¬ 
thorizing that loan, that these bonds were never to be 
taxed. The act of 1825 thus bound the State with re¬ 
ference to a very considerable portion, but not all the 
bonds of the State of Ohio. 

But, what were the facts with regard to those bonds 
now proposed to be taxed within the limits of the State? 
As a general thing, these bonds were not primarily 
held by citizens of the State. But even supposing this 
were not the case—(for he was willing to take it upon 
the broadest ground) supposing that this loan were ta¬ 
ken by citizens of Ohio, and supposing the same ar¬ 
rangement to have been entered into between the cit- 
lens of Ohio and the Legislature of 1825 ; during the 
period of a quarter of a century—almost the ordinary 
life-time of man—these men have been resting at their 
ease, and drawing their interest from the State, with¬ 
out bearing their share of the burdens of taxation 
which, as good citizens, they should have borne. But 
now, after so long a time, when the burdens of taxa- 









731 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


lion were bearing not lightly upon her citizens, the 
State of Ohio was proposing to place upon her tax list 
these very bonds; and he would ask if there could be 
any injustice in doing so? Had not these men already 
reapt an ample harvest of gain ? 

[ But, it was only proposed to tax the money invested 
I in these bonds. There was more difference between 
' taxing the money invested in these bonds, and taxing 
, the bonds themselves, than might at first, meet the un- 
I derstanding. He happened to know something about 
the manner in which a portion of these bonds were 
held; how they had been accumulating; and how 
they stood in the hands of those who held them at the 
present time; He knew that there were large amounts 
of State bonds, upon which our citizens were drawing 
a clear interest every six months, which were bought 
from the original contractors at rates varying from fbr- 
I ty to sixty cents on the dollar. Where, then, w’as the 
injustice of taxing such investments of money ? Our 
right to tax the money of capitalists invested in U. S. 
Stocks could not be successfully contested. And, as for 
those other cases in which our citizens, who had bought 
up Ohio bonds, at rates far below their value, and had 
I been for years drawing their regular semi-annual in- 
f terest, without paying any tax upon these profitable 
investments, it was an evil which the people demanded 
should be done away. These men had made profits 
enough—a speculation sufficiently large in this matter; 
and they were bound now, by every idea of justice, to 
come forward and pay their portion of the taxes of the 
State, like other citizens who receive the same protec¬ 
tion with themselves. 

But, we had been told, that our unwillingness to 
trust this matter to the hands of the Legislature, results 
j from a want of confidence in the people. This, how- 
I ever, was not the case ; and the charge, he took leave 
I to say, came with an ill grace from gentlemen, who, 

; in almost every political act of their lives, had them- 
i selves evinced the most unjustifiable distrust of the 
people. It was because of his abiding confidence in 
the people that he was willing to go before them with 
■ this most righteous measure. Heretofore, this question 
had been made to turn upon an equivocation with ref¬ 
erence to the right of one Legislature to repeal the act 
of a preceding Legislature. But now, when in this 
body we were called upon to do right, he would ask 
gentlemen to approach the subject in the true spirit of 
republicanism, and their scruples could not fail to van¬ 
ish away like frost-work before the morning sun. The 
people were always willing to do right. So long as 
their bonds remained in the hands of the men to whom 
given, they were willing to stand up and fulfil their 
, engagement. They had continued to grant them ex¬ 
emptions from taxes for twenty-five years. But now 
circumstances were so changed that there was not a 
man upon this floor who would stand up and deny the 
abstract right of the proposition to place these bonds 
j upon the tax list. He would say, then, that there was 
i no man, cherishing that trust and confidence of the 
j people which he ought to cherish, who would refuse 
; to admit that the time had arrived when this thing 
j could be done without disgrace to the name of the peo- 
; pie of Ohio. 

The gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] had told 
j them, that he had always been a democrat; and he 
' was so, while putting forth the arguments which he 
used. No one respected that gentleman more than he, 
[Mr. Dorsey] did; but he fancied that he could per- 
i ceive a smile of irony on the usually placid counten¬ 
ance of that gentleman, and while listening to his ar- 
guments, he could not help exclaiming to himself, ‘‘if 
I this be democracy, from such good Lord deliver me.” 

! (Laughter.) It might be that the action taken in this 
[ matter, would make the people of Ohio “ slow to call 
another Convention,” as had been already stated. He 
[Mr. Dorsey,] was not anxious that there should be any 
occasion for their immediate meeting in Convention 
again. He should hope that they would make such, 


amendmeuts as wmuld seem best, and that whether they 
were to assemble again or not. he trusted they would 
not close the present sitting before they had made some 
some strong and indelible landmarks, by which they 
who came after might know what was republicanism— 
that something should now be defined as the basis of 
democratic doctrine. 

Rut to resume. It was asserted that future bonds 
might with justice be taxed, but not .so with those al¬ 
ready existing. That was the old song. It was ad¬ 
mitting the right in the abstract, but refusing to give 
power to the people. If they were w'orthy of being 
trusted for the future, what objection could there be 
in applying the same rule to the past. The action of 
the people ought to be as free and unrestrained as the 
wmves of the ocean; and not attempted to be restrict¬ 
ed, or to say “ thus far shalt thou go and no farther.” 
He w’as willing to trust every thing to the good sense of 
the people. 

It had been further asserted by the gentleman from 
Clark, (and he may be right in his assertion, at least 
he, the Speaker, would premise him to be so,) that 
although in its wisdom, the Convention might impose 
the tax, that there it would end—that thei’e were pow¬ 
ers above them, namely, the supreme court, to which 
tribunal bond-liolders would appeal, and thus, set 
aside the decision of the Convention. He was willing 
to concede that fact to the gentleman, alluded to, and 
indeed would only be followingup the course hitherto 
pursued by that court. But even if the tax could not 
be collected, he would be in favor of its passing this 
Convention as a broad declaration of its integrity. 
The judges of the supreme court had received their 
places at the hands of the people, and had sworn to 
support the constitution: and he, [Mr. Dorsey] hoped 
that their proceedings, (if any should be taken on the 
section under consideration,) would be made a test in 
the votes which would be cast at a future election for 
judges; and that men might be placed on the bench 
who would remember having sworn to support, not to 
subvert the constitution. It might be, (as already- 
stated,) that not a single mill of this tax could be col¬ 
lected ; nevertheless, it would stand forth as a land¬ 
mark, as well as an evidence of the intentions of this 
Convention. The inffiction of such a tax was more a 
matter of principle than of dollars and cents, and as 
such he hoped to see it assented to. In Wisconsin 
they had provided for these matters, (as the Conven¬ 
tion was informed,) in “ a line and a half of printed 
matter,” but that could not be an argument for their 
guidance, as the people of Wisconsin had not the same 
experience of the evils as the peo[)le of Ohio. There, 
they had not men drawing support from the State 
withoutcontributing to its revenue ; while here we have 
suffered from that cause, and seek for its removal by 
organic laws of the State. He would state plainly and 
openly that this section was only the ” stepping-stone” 
to the fourth section, by which banking capital would 
be taxed. It was a step in the ladder of improvement. 
He did not recollect the exact words of the report, but 
he was anxious that it should be so worded as to em¬ 
brace all stocks and securities. He hoped to see bonds 
and United States stocks brought within reach of that 
section, and if it did accomplish that object he would 
endeavor so t© modify it as to have them included in 
its provisions. 

Mr. HORTON wished to make a few remarks. He 
was aware that the committee must now be weary of 
the discussion; but, as the question was one of very 
great impoi’tance, he hoped to be tolerated for a few 
minutes. His object in moving to strike out two 
words of the second line of Sec. 3, namely. States, 
and,” was to prevent the Stocks of Ohio being taxed. 
He had stated in substance, previously, that to tax them 
would be, in tbe first place, contraiy to public faith, 
and, in the second place, opposed to sound policy. He 
also stated, (and it had not been controverted,) that the 
act of 1825, as well as subsequent acts, had pledged. 










732 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


publicly and solemnly, the faith of Ohio, that the stocks 
issued in pursuance thereof, should not be taxed. 
Those acts did not state, that such stocks should not be 
taxed for twenty-live years, nor during the continuance 
of the then generation, as is argued by gentlemen, but 
was exj)licit in stating that they never should be taxed. 
The gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Masox,] had, with 
his usual ability, put forward arguments on the same 
side that he [Mr, Horton") took. The gentleman from 
Clark [Mr. Mason] took another range of argument 
from himself, and his arguments, no one from the oppo¬ 
site side had yet attempted to answer. In the remarks 
submitted in the morning when his motion to strike 
out was made, he [Mr. Horton] confined himself to 
the cpiestion, principally, of Public faith. Three gen¬ 
tlemen had spoken in reply. He proposed to examine 
the grounds they had assumed in the discussion. The 
learned gentleman from Knox [Mr. Mitchell] replied 
first; and what was the ground he took? Did he 
bring forward argument to show that he was right and 
the other side wrong? Did he array his fierce and 
terrible logic, and crush, by force of reasoning, the ar¬ 
guments of his opponents in the discussion? No, he 
did no such thing. Assuming to himself a peculiar air; 
and speaking, ex cathidia, he pronounced all that had 
been said ol the public faith of Ohio, humbug! hum¬ 
bug!.' humbug!!! 

Mr. MITCHELL rose to explain. He did not re¬ 
collect having used the word ‘'humbug,” but would 
ask it he had done so ? 

Mr. HORTON replied in the affirmative. 

Mr. MITCHELL. That being the case, he should 
stick to it. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HORTON resumed. Then he should have some 
hope of the gentleman, [Mr. Mitchell.] If he would 
stick to his opinions of to-day it would indicate pro¬ 
gress since yesterday, [renewed laughter.] It was a 
fair inference from what had fallen from the gentleman 
from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] that, in hi.s view, not on¬ 
ly what had been said in regard to the j)ublic faith was 
a humbug, but that public faith itself was a humbug; 
that the pledge of the General Assembly of Ohio, rep¬ 
resenting the people of Ohio, and recorded upon the 
statutes of Ohio, was a humbug! For himself, he 
[Mr. Horton,] did not acquiesce in that opinion, and 
lie lijd seen no proof that the people of Ohio enter¬ 
tained it. 

The^ gentleman from Knox, while addressing the 
committee, had asked him a question while he [Mr. 
H.] was engaged in writing a reply to a telegraphic 
dispatch, and demanded a categorical answer, yes or 
no. Perhaps I did not reply to the question clearly ; 
certainly my reply did not please the gentleman from 
Knox. And that gentleman at once charges him with 
not being candid. It was a trick—a habit of tliatgen- 
tkman, (failing argument,) to get up in his jdace and 
say, in answer to his opponents, and in a way peculiar 
to himself, I am holier than thou, stand aside! I'he 
question put to him by that gentleman was as to whe¬ 
ther a certain statute was repealable or not ? Suppose 
it was, what had it to do with the argument? When 
the law was passed, to which he refers, the Legisla¬ 
ture did not intend that it should be repealed, i;or did 
any one make a contract under its provisions, and if 
such were the case, does wu’ong doing in one case jus¬ 
tify it in another ? What says the gentleman from 
Knox ? Is that humbug ? The gentleman from Knox 
[Mr. Mitchell] had expressed sympathy with the 
poor man, who (he asserts) suffered by the repeal of 
that law. Did any one hear it said in Convention thet 
it was right to oppress the poor man ? No, they never 
had, and they never would, from those whom the "en 
tleman styles as his [Mr. H.’s] compeers. But wlien 
gentlemen are found in that assembly to state that they 
were not bound to keep faith with the rich man, he 
could only believe that the doctrine would become so 
progressive that bye and bye they would not consider 
themselves bound to keep faith with any one, poor or 


rich. He [Mr. H.] did not impute such motives to| 
any one; he scorned such a course; dealing as he didi 
with arguments, not motives, he reasoned from whati 
men said, and did, and did not go behind that to im ; 
pute motives. 

Mr. DORSEY remarked that those were his deduc¬ 
tions from what had been said. 

Mr. HORTON [assenting] resumed, after the gen¬ 
tleman from Knox came the gentleman fi om Auglaize, 
[Mr. Sawyer] in regard to him he must be allowed to 
say he failed to hear any thing like argument in what 
he said. Yet he could say, in all sincerity, in the 
words of the gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason] that 
he liked that gentleman. He did not assume, in his 
manner, to say, I thank God that I am not as other men. 
He did not assert that every one who differ from him 
was actuated by improper motives, as some gentlemen 
did. And he would say, with the gentleman from 
Clark, [Mr. Mason] that he liked the gentleman, 
[Mr. Sawyer,] but he didnot like his opinions, [laugh¬ 
ter.] But the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] 
dealt not in arguments, but in dogmatic assertions. 
He says that the question is the old one, of vested 
rights, and that there is no right that these stocks should 
be exempted from taxation. This is the assertion. He 
has neither proved its correctness, nor invalidated, by 
fact or reasoning, the opposite view, nor did he attempt 
it. Let us examine this position. If there is no vested 
right in the stockholder, that these stocks should be 
exempted from taxation, by wdiat reasoning do you 
establish his right to demand that the stocks themselves 
should be paid ? The reasoning that denies the one 
must necessarily deny the other. They both rest on 
the same basis, the solemn guaranty of a statute of Ohio. 
Can the gentleman from Auglaize avoid this conclusion? 

I think not. 

He would next reply to the gentleman from Miami, 
[Mr. Dorsey,] and in order to simplify his remarks, 
he would repeat that, in the morning he confined him¬ 
self to the question of public faith, in reference to the 
stocks already issued ; and of public policy in reference 
to those which might hereafter be issued. The argu- ! 
ment in reference to the Supreme Court of the United 
States, he would leave to the able gentleman from 
Clark, [Mr. Mason.] 

He would then reply to the gentleman from Miami, 
whom he understood to say, that having kept the pledge 
of the State for twenty-five year^, and being about to 
have a new constitution, the public faith no longer re¬ 
quires us to exempt these stocks from taxation. The 
answer is short. The State of Ohio under the new 
constitution is the same Ohio as under the old. She 
has perpetuity of existence and obligation. He could 
not. therefore, understand the logic which absolved the 
Stat ■ from engagements, because they had been kept 
twenty-five years. The gentleman from Miami, [Mr. 
Dorsey,] shakes his head, implying that ho does not 
consider it a breach of faith to do away wnth a contract 
in 18-50, which was to run tillJlSoG, or 1870. If there 
was any obligation in the matter at all, moral or oth¬ 
erwise, it was certainly in force until the payment of 
the debt. 

Mr. RANNEY should like to know what the origi¬ 
nal amount of those bonds was, and the amount now 
outstaiidiiur ? 

Mr. FIORTON could not at that moment answer the 
qne.stion. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The report of the Fund Com¬ 
missioners suggested the question as to how far the 
State was pledged for those bonds, and added their 
opinion that the faith of the State was not pledged to 
them at all. 

Mr. HORTON. The gentleman from Hamilton is 
probably correct. 

Mr. REEMELIN made some remarks relative to 
bond-holding in the State of New York, which the Re¬ 
porter did not catch, adding that in the State of Ohio 
the original bonds could not be traced at present, and, 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


733 


4 5onsequently, the State was made to appear to owe 

i nore than she had received. 

i! Mr. HORTON resumed. He had carefully examined 
i he statutes of Ohio relative to the issue of stocks, and 
ound it difficult to arrive at a perfectly clear conclusion 
c. Us to the question, are any of them excluded from the 
j operation of the pledge of 1825, and 1839; he was, 
j.' aowever, satisfied that it would not be in good faith to 
e j attempt (if it could be done) to exclude any from the 
k Dperation of the pledge. The State should act in the 
jt I same manner as an individual would do who had re- 
le, gard for his character, who would lean to the side of 
i! ^ Uberality. 

ii j The gentleman from Miami [Mr. Dorsey] did not 
I I fail to say a good deal about defrauding the poor man. 
t :Now, if any person would point to him [Mr. Horton] 

{jany probable injury to the poor man in consequence 
j ; of the bad faith of the State, he would go as far as any 
L one to prevent such a result. Neither did the gentle- 
i, jman from Miami [Mr. Dorsey] omitto do as was quite 

customary, to say a good deal, in a peculiar strain, of 
Ian “ abiding faitfi ” in the people ; and implying that 
la portion of the members had no such faith. He [Mr. 
H.] could give a name to this practice which would 
truly characterize it, but he would not do it. He must, 
however, be pardoned for saying, that the practice nei¬ 
ther consisted of fair argument nor good taste. For one, 
he was as willing to trust the people as any one, but 
he was not willing to tempt them to break the solemn 
pledge of the law-making power of Ohio—acquiesced 
in and sanctioned by themselves for a quarter of a cen¬ 
tury. He was not willing to ask the State of Ohio to 
do an act which, if done by an individual to his neigh¬ 
bor, would, in the judgment of all fair-minded men, 
be considered dishonest. Far be it from him to coun¬ 
sel dishonor to the people of Ohio. He desired to 
mention another of the positions of the gentleman from 
; Miami, [Mr. Dorset.] That gentleman said, in reply 
to the member from Clarke, [Mr. Mason,] that he 
[Mr. D.] would authorize in the constitution, the tax¬ 
ing of these stocks, even if the Supieme Court of the 
United States would interfere, and prevent any tax be¬ 
ing collected. It could do no harm in the constitution. 
He did not accord with the gentleman in opinion. He 
could not sympathize with the gentleman in being wil¬ 
ling to do anything contravening the constitution of the 
United States, which, as members of this Convention, 
we had taken a solemn oath to obey and to protect. 
The doctrine sounded strange to his ear, strange in¬ 
deed. He could not agree with the gentleman. Gen¬ 
tlemen would act in this matter according to their own 
views of duty ; for himself, he must vote to strike out 
the words, as moved, and raise his humble voice to 
sustain the plighted faith and fair fame of Ohio, term¬ 
ed by its proper name, in plain, terse English. 

Mr. MI TCHELL said that the provisions made by 
; the Legislature of the State on former occasions, and 
! likely to be carried out by the present, prevented him 
i from occupying much of the time of the Convention 
in defending himself from the gross scurrility which 
had fallen from the individuals who had alluded to 
him. The people of Ohio would judge between the 
gentleman from Meigs [Mr. Horton] and himself, as 
to in whose breast such feelings as those imputed to 
him were likely to dwell; the world would also judge 
from their present appearances and demeanor, and 
I from their subsequent actions, to whom most justly 
such epithets applied, and with that consolation he 
would rest under the load of scurrility and gross abuse 
heaped upon him by the gentleman from Meigs. His 
1 acts should speak for his character, and he would en- 
I deavor to outlive the effect of indecent imputation ut- 
j terly unbecomiag this place, and would, at once, pro- 
I ceed to the matter under consideration, as the only le¬ 
gitimate subject. The gentleman from Meigs [Mr. 
Horton] told them that no person on that floor had re¬ 
course to argument, (he did not include himself, no 
doubt;) but he [Mr. Mitchell] would leave the world 


to judge, on seeing that gentleman’s speech in print 
how far he had had recourse to legitimate argument! 
It was not by drawing sound conclusions from matters 
of fact that that gentleman sought to impress them 
but simply that his ipse dixit should be received at all 
times as the end of all controversy. He would have 
the laws of this State like those of the “ Medes and 
Persians, which changeth not.” It was on that absurd 
principle that the majority of the so-called arguments 
of the past fifteen or twenty years had been based. 
Certain acts are irrepealable, utterly irrepealable. This 
is the cry. Such arguments were altogether un-Aineri- 
can, going, as they did, to establish the principle that 
your Government may confer upon a certain portion of 
the people of the State high and valuable privileges, 
not to be enjoyed by the rest, secured, too, by un¬ 
changeable laws, no difference how imperative may be 
the demand of justice for their repeal. Why, the pow¬ 
er of this Convention was for ever taken away, if such 
was to be the interpretation of the statute. Would it 
not be regarded as most presumptuous for those of the 
present day to make laws, as mere statutary euict- 
ments, with the express declaration that they should 
never be changed by their successors? It would be ri¬ 
diculous in the extreme, and no sane man would de¬ 
fend so insane an act, unless his judgment and reason 
were utterly blinded by some fatal prejudices. Where, 
sir, within the provisions of our constitution, could any 
pretext be found for passing any such law ? And cer¬ 
tainly, sir, such power is clearly forbidden by the foun¬ 
dation principles of government itself. How can gov¬ 
ernment answer the ends of its creation but by retain¬ 
ing to 'itself at all times the power to pass such laws 
as may be necessary to secure justice and equality 
amongst its members. This is, sir, the broadest and 
deepest foundation stone on which the fabric of gov¬ 
ernment rests. To attempt to part with this power 
would be striking a blow for its own destruction. 

Upon the hypothesis, then, sir, that the Legislature 
can never have the power to pass irrepealable laws, 
he put it to the venerable gentleman from Clark, [Mr. 
Mason,] that sound-headed old lawyer,—and he used 
the expression in no disrespectful sense, but in a com¬ 
plimentary one,—sir, he would put it to him to say 
what force there was in any law passed without author 
ity? He must answer now. How, then, can a law, 
bearing the interpretation sought to be put upon this 
one, be binding on the successors of those who framed 
it ? He, for one, claimed that it would amount to no¬ 
thing ; for their not having the power to pass such a 
law, renders the enactment a perfect nullity; and that 
it was so, was his (the speaker’s) firm conviction. What 
was a government formed for but to enact just laws, 
establishing right and justice ? But would any gen¬ 
tleman assert, with sincerity, that under our govern¬ 
ment could make laws which might not be repealed 
by their successors, whereby injustice and oppression 
would be fastened irrevocably upon us and our poster¬ 
ity forever? The thing was too absurd to dwell on. 
The gentleman from Meigs [Mr. Horton] did not at¬ 
tempt to contradict his [Mr. Mitchell’s] arguments. 
He would go on the hypothe.sis that justice demanded 
that the public good required the repeal of the lavvs 
referred to, and that the public voice seconded this 
demand; and there his doctrine was, and ever had 
been, that the public voice should be at once attended 
to. He then dwelt at considerable length on the in¬ 
justice of making a distinction in taxation, because of 
the mere evidence of the investment, and illustrated 
his arguments by supposing that two persons had loan- 
ed to ihe State $10,000 each, the one on mortgages, 
while the other was on State stock ; both being led to 
believe at the time of investment, that they should be 
free from taxation. Now, with what justice could the 
State levy a tax on one, while it passed by the other ? 
—or where was the authority, upon any principles of 
justice or just policy, for any such discrimination? 
And if the Legislature attempted to fasten upon our 













734 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


people any such policy, it was over-stepping its author¬ 
ity, and acting most unjustly, inequitably. The ques¬ 
tion at issue involved the people of this State to the 
extent of fifteen millions—perhaps to double that 
amount. He was anxious to have the laws so framed, 
that no man should suffer injustice. The marked dif¬ 
ference between their government and that of the 
country from which their forefathers had originally 
come, was, that the Legislature here was prohibited, 
not only by express declaration, but by the very nature 
of our institutions, from making laws creating a privi¬ 
leged class in the community. That was the charac¬ 
teristic feature of their government—providing, as it 
did, against any invidious distinction, and carefully de¬ 
signed to prevent insidious movement, on the part of 
those in power, whereby such distinctions might be 
cix’ated and perpetuated. The State was bound not 
only to pass good laws, but also to repeal those which 
were not good,—those which were found to bear 
harshly, unjustly, or inequitably, on any portion of her 
citizens,—and not be led away by the howling of a 
few ambitious as well as avaricious individuals, who, 
while gloating over their unreasonable exemptions,— 
obtained, perhaps, by inadvertence on the part of the 
people’s servants, but probably by designing avarice,— 
sought the protection of tho State to their own exclu¬ 
sive benefit. He looked upon Stq,te securities as mere 
evidences of the amount of wealth belonging to an in¬ 
dividual, in the same manner as notes of hand, horses, 
oxen , houses, and lands. In eabhinstance, these things 
cimstitute only the evidence of the amount of wealth 
their owners may have accumulated. 

Si r, much cry is made now about the preservation 
1 11 h e State. He felt anxious for the honor of the 
at e as any gentleman here or elsewhere. The great 
ifference consisted in their judgment as to what con- 
lituted the good faith and honor of the State. He 
onitnued that good faith in the State consisted chiefly 
in justly and with fidelity discharging the great ob¬ 
jects of its creation, namely, the passage of just and 
equal laws for the government of the people, by the 
( i er ation of which the blessings and benefits of gov- 
1.1 urn ent may be equally dispensed to all, and its bur- 
^ ns in like manner be borne. This, sir, he called 
keeping untarnished the faith of the State and pre- 
-11 vi ng unsullied her highest honor, and this he main- 
lanied could never be done by following the policy ad- 
\i cated by the gentlemen of the opposite side of this 
question: right the reverse must be the result, and 
with it, dishonor and broken faith in the worst sense of 
the word. 

Upon motion of Mr. GREEN, of Ross, it was ordered 
that the committee rise. 

Mr. GROESBECK explained the nature of arrange¬ 
ments made by the Young Men’s Mercantile Library 
Association, to facilitate access to the Library of that 
Institution, at the same time taking occasion to pass 
a high enconium on its officers for their well-timed 
favors. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said that while on that subject, he 
would retract anything which might be considered of¬ 
fensive in what he had said on a former occasion [hear, 
hear,] and would beg to add his need of acknowledge¬ 
ment for the kindness shown then. [Great laughter.] 
Mr. MITCHELL considered the arrangement wasof 
the highest importance to the members of the Conve-n 
tion, and felt satisfied that the Institution had the thanks 
of every member present. 

Mr. GROESBECK moved for an adjournment, which 
was agreed to. 

THURSDAY, December 12, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. BARBEE presented a petition from William 
Collins and fourteen others, citizens of Miami county, 
praying for the insertion of a clause in the new Con¬ 


stitution, prohibiting the General Assembly from pas¬ 
sing any law, legalizing the traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. HAWKINS presented a petition from Samuel F. 
Carey, and seventy-five citizens from Hamilton county, 
upon the same subject. / 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of retailing ardent spirits. , 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE offered for adoption the fol¬ 
lowing resolution: 

- Resolved^ That the Sergant-at-Arme be, and he is hereby instruc¬ 
ted to communicate with the Secretary of State, and procure 
six copies of the General Laws of this State, for the members ot 
this Convention. 

On motion of Mr. REEMELIN, the resolution was 
referred to a select committee of two; and Messrs. 
Reemelin and Humphreville were announced by the 
President as constituting said committee. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, offered for adoption the fol¬ 
lowing resolution, which was agreed to : 

Resolved That a committee of five be appointed to inquire into 
the expediency of having the Debates of this Convention up to 
the time of its adjournment, on the ninth of July last, bound up 
in one volume ; and if found expedient to do so, that the com¬ 
mittee report what may be advisable to be done in the premises 

The PRESIDENT announced Messrs. Case, of Lick¬ 
ing, Brown, of Athens, Gregg, Hitchcock, of Cuyaho¬ 
ga, and Holmes, as said committee. 

On motion of Mr. LOUDON, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee of the whole, on the or¬ 
der of the day, Mr. Leadbetter in the Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN stated the question before the Con¬ 
vention to be, upon the amendment proposed by Mr. 
Horton, to strike from the second line of the third 
section of report number jOne of the majority of the 
standing committee on Finance and Taxation, the words 
“ State and.” 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, said he did not intend to tres¬ 
pass for any great length of time upon the attention of 
the committee. On account of the state of his health, 
he felt a physical inability to speak with that efficiency 
which the importance of the subject demands. He 
would endeavor very briefly to express his views upon 
the question involved in the section now under con¬ 
sideration ; and although the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Meigs [Mr. Horton] presented a distinct 
proposition, which perhaps the strictest rules of debate 
would require him to adhere to, still, he did not deem 
it out of order to follow the example of others and ex¬ 
tend the range of his remarks over the whole ground 
presented by the section now under consideration. 

He intended, in what he should say, to speak fear¬ 
lessly and openly, and to call things by their right 
names. He was sure that in so doing, that the long 
and kindly personal intercourse which he had had, du¬ 
ring the session of this body, with members upon this 
floor, would protect him from any suspicion of an in¬ 
tent to be unkind or rude. He felt as if there was an 
absolute necessity for this course, in the discharge of 
an imperative duty, as a member of this body, and 
with no desire or wish that any personal application 
should be made. 

The great object for which we are sent here is to 
discharge the high and solemn duty of re-organizing 
the organic law of the State, and to advance, as far as 
is possible its interests and its welfare. Yet in the 
furtherance of this great and important trust, we are 
not left entirely to the exercise of our own whims and 
caprices, or to the enjoyment of an unlimited and irre¬ 
sponsible discretion. There are certain higher laws— 
certain great landmarks, which, if we will, we may 
not overstep—laws equally binding and of an authori¬ 
ty even paramount to that under which we hold our 
seats in this assembly; and while we convey the prop¬ 
ositions now before us into the constitution of Ohio, and 
provide that they shall form a part of the fundamental 
law for the government of the people of the State, in 
all future time, we are not to forget the existence of 
that higher law, which is not only of equal obligation 
to us and equally binding upon our action, but which 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


will also, to a certain extent govern and control the 
very instrument we have undertaken to construct. 
Aye, sir, it is more binding. For if we will look into 
the constitution of the United States, under which, to 
some extent, our own State had its origin and owes its 
existence, we shall there find laid down the doctrine, 
that within the range of its powers, it is the supreme 
law of the laud, anything in the constitutions or laws 
of the States, to the contrary notwithstanding. 

The obligations of this higher law of which I have 
spoken, requires that, before we act definitely upon 
any of the propositions to be incorporated in this 
constitution, we should examine into their provis¬ 
ions, and see whether they do not conflict with its 
commands. 

In regard to the second proposition in the section as 
it was reported by the committee, requiring a tax to 
be laid upon the bonds of the United States, the first 
inquiry is : Is it prudent—is it wise—is it discreet, to 
establish a provision in our organic law which shall 
come in direct conflict with the fundamental law of the 
Union ? If it is so, there is an end of the argument. 
All that remains is a trial of strength between the two 
governments. Nor is a question of this kind one of 
mere party, or one in which the dogmas or principles 
of party can, in any manner, be concerned; and it was 
not a little a matter of surprise yesterday, when the 
vote on the motion of the gentleman from iVIeigs [Mr. 
Horton] was taken—to strike out of the section under 
consideration the words, “and United States”—to see 
upon one side—in favor of striking out—only twenty- 
seven or eight gentlemen of one political caste, while 
upon the other, the large majority of the democracy 
of the Convention rose m masse to oppose it. I re¬ 
peat it, sir; I was surprised. And why—why was it 
so? Is there anything of a party, political character 
in the simply legal question now before us? Is there 
anything partizan in taxation ?—anything that is to af¬ 
fect party lines now or hereafter ? If any opinion or 
set of opinions is wise, is just, is correct, is patriotic 
for one side or one party, it is so for the other. Yet 
gentlemen argue and vote in favor of their views, be¬ 
cause they say they are democratic. Sir, let gentlemen 
propose a constitutional measure—one that shall carry 
out, in good faith, the intentions and solemn pledges 
of the State, and I care not for party. Satisfy me 
that your plans and principles are such as can be hon 
estly entertained, not only in view' of sound policy 
and good conscience, but of the paramount law of the 
land, or I cannot go with you. even though you invoke 
my assistance, in the high and holy name of Democ¬ 
racy. 

So far as the right of the States, to tax the stocks 
of the Union is concerned, the question res adjudicata. 
The supreme court of the United States, after full ar¬ 
gument and deliberation, has solemnly settled the very 
mdentical proposition. Yes, sir, in eveiy respect, the 
case goes upon all fours with the question before us. 
But before I proceed to call attention to the decision 
I desire to notice the attempt of gentlemen to avoid 
the constitutional difficulty by drawing a distinction 
between the power to tax the thing itself, and the 
money which the thing represents. By this lame at¬ 
tempt at an evasion, gentlemen seem to concede tlie 
want of power to tax the bonds themselves. They 
are only seeking, they say, to tax the r oney invested 
in their purchase. It may be that I have not compre¬ 
hended this very nice distinction, announced so ora¬ 
cularly by the gentlemen from Knox [Mr. Mitcheli,] 
and Miami, [Mr. Dorsey] convey an idea to others, of 
which we are ourselves possessed. Mr. Chairman, 
there is no ditference. Let not gentlemen quibble on 
a question of so much importance. If you will insert 
a clause in the constitution in efiect, commanding the 
General Assembly to tax the stocks of the United 
States, have the courage to avow it boldly, eo nomine. 
In this body there should be no quibbling—no sbufi- 
ling. Let it not be said that we attempted to do that. 


735 


indirectly, which we dare not do directly—nothing 
should be left in a state of uncertainty, whether in re¬ 
gard to what we believe or what we do. Away with 
this idle attempt to draw distinction where none ex¬ 
ists, and treat the real question as if it were, as in fact 
it is, really before us—a proposition to tax the thing it¬ 
self, and not the mere representative of the thing. I 
hold in iny hand the second volume of Peter’s Reports 
of cases decided in the supreme court of the United 
States, and propose to read, with the indulgence of the 
committee, from the case of Weston, et al, vs. The 
City Council of Charleston. In Error*, p. 449. 

The facts of the case are as follows : 

On the 20th of February, 1823, the city council of 
Charleston passed “an Ordinance to raise supplies for 
the use of the city of Charleston for the year 1823.” 
The ordinance provides “ that the following species of 
property, owned and [) 0 sses 6 ed within the limits of the 
city of Charleston, shall be subject to taxation, in the 
manner and at the rate conformable to the provisions 
hereafter specified *, that is to say, all personal estate, 
consisting of bonds, notes, insurance stocks, six and 
seven per cent, stock of the United States, or other ob¬ 
ligations, upon which interest has been or will be re¬ 
ceived during the year, which has been paid, (secured 
stock of this Slate, and stock of the incorporated banks 
of this State, and of the United States Bank, excepted) 
twenty-five cents upon every hundred dijllars. 

The Constitutional Court of South Carolina, by a 
majority of the judges, decided in favor of the constitu¬ 
tionality of the ordinance. The case then went up to 
the Supreme Court of the United States in Error, to test 
the validity of the ordinance. 

In the course of the argument the dissenting opinion 
of Huger, Justice, was quoted. To which Mr. Green 
referred gentlemen as containing an unanswerable ar 
gument—on the constitutionality of the ordinance. He 
would only read the recapitulation of the objection to 
the lax. 

1. Because tax upon the Stock of the United States, 
eo nomine, is a tax upon the credit of the United States 

2. Because the credit of the United States was not a 
subject for taxation by the States, anterior to the adop¬ 
tion of the Constitution. The credit of the United 
States being a result of the establishment of the govern¬ 
ment of the United States, and the Constitution has 
given no new powers to the State government. 

3. Because the objects of taxation by the State go¬ 
vernment are not diminished by withnolding from the 
power of taxing the stock of the United States, as the 
money borrowed by the United States is immediately 
returned, by disbursements, to the people of the differ¬ 
ent Sates. 

4. Because it renders the general government depen¬ 
dent upon the discretion of the State government for 
one of its special means of accomplishing thepurposes 
for which it was established, and result at variance 
with one principal object of the Constitution, which 
was to render the general government independent 
of the pecuniary aid of the State governments; and 
lastly, because it is a violation of the obligation of a 
contract. 

But turn we now to the opinion of the Supreme 
Court of the United Slates, as delivered by Chief Jus¬ 
tice Marshall—the greatest jujit mind that has 
adorned the bench of any country i lany age—at page 
404 he says; “ If the States and corporations through¬ 
out the Union, possess the power to tax a contractdor 
the loan of money, what shall arrest this principle in 
its application to every other contract ? What measure 
can government adopt which will not be exposed toils 
influence ? 

“ But it is necessary to pursue this principle through 
its diversified applications to all the contracts, and all 
the various operations of the government. No one can 
be selected which is of more vital interest to the com¬ 
munity than this of borrowing money on the credit of 
the United States. No power has been conferred by 


*1 












736 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the American people on their government, the tree and 
unburdened exercise of wliich more deeply affects 
•every member of our republic. In war, when the ho¬ 
nor, the safety, the independence of the nation are to 
be defended, when all its resources are to be strained 
to the utmost, credit must be brought in aid of taxa¬ 
tion, and the abundant I’evenue of peace and prosperi¬ 
ty must be anticipated to supply the exigency, the ur¬ 
gent demands of the moment. The people, for objects 
the most important which can occur in the progress of 
nations, have empowered their government to make 
these anticipations, to borrow money on the credit of 
the United States.” Can any thing be more dangerous 
or more injurious than the admission of a principle 
which authorizes every State and corporation in the 
Union which possesses the right of taxation to burden 
t£he exercise of this power at their discretion? 

“Itis not the want of original power in an indepen¬ 
dent sovereign State to prohibit loans to a foreign gov¬ 
ernment, which restrains the Legislature from direct 
opposition to those made by the United States. The 
restraint is imposed by our constitution. The Ameri- 
<can people have conferred the power of borrowing 
money on their government. And by making that gov- 
ornment supreme, have shielded its action in the exer¬ 
cise of this power, from the action of the local govern¬ 
ments. The grant of the power is incompatible with 
41 restraining or controlling power, and the declaration 
of supremacy is a declaration that no such restraining or 
(Controlling power shall be exercised.^^ 

I will not, Mr. Chairman, trouble the committee with 
reading further extracts from this clear and luminous 
exposition of this question of constitutional law. I 
commend it to the calm and serious consideration of 
this committee. 

I take it for granted that this settles the question at 
once, so far as the right of the General Assembly, either 
with or without a grant of power in the constitution of 
the State to tax the stocks of the United States, is con¬ 
cerned. I think gentlemen will concede that it is in 
vain and idle—that it is worse than vain and idle, thus 
to fling a defiance in the teeth of the general govern- 
ment, while that government has power to settle de- 
iinitely this question of conflict between itself and 
the State governments; unless gentlemen desiro to 
.•show their teeth when they dare not bite—to invite a 
quarrel in which the State must certainly be worsted. 

Now, sir, a word or two in regard to the question of 
conferring power upon thfe General Assembly to tax 
the stocks of the State in the hands of those of its 
creditors. The gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] 
directed the attention of the committee to those legis¬ 
lative enactments by which the faith of the State 
was irrevocably pledged to the public creditors that 
no tax should ever be levied upon this species of public 
credits. 

Mr. RANNEY desired to inquire of the gentleman 
from Ross [Mr. Green] what amount of stocks were 
issued under, and excluded from taxation by the law 
of 1825. 

Mr. GREEN had no idea of the exact amount, and 
did not look upon it as material to the view which 
tie took, or the arguments he proposed to offer. 

Mr. REE ME LIN said that he had yesterday stated 
the amount at three millions. He had since became 
satisfied that the statement was incorrect, having since 
taken some trouble to ascertain. He sent to the desk 
the report of the Auditor of State upon the subject, a 
passage in which in support of his position, was read, 
at his request. 

Mr. GREEN said he did not look upon it as mate¬ 
rial, whether the whole amount of the debt, or even 
whether any portion of it was covered by the guaran¬ 
ty. He would go so far as to say that if the Legisla¬ 
ture had been totally silent upon the subject—if in¬ 
stead of a solemn guaranty entered into under cir¬ 
cumstances the most binding and obligatory, they had 
said nothing on that point—he would maintain that un¬ 


der the circumstance we are bound to maintain good 
faith toward the public creditor, and to abstain from 
the imposition of those taxes which there was either 
an express or an implied agreement should never be 
levied It perhaps makes the question somewhat 
wronger, when the exemption has been made and 
guaranteed by direst legislative acts; but I hold that 
if there had been no legislative action, expressly pro¬ 
tecting these public obligations, we are under the in¬ 
fluence of a higher obligation—the obligation to keep 
the public faith inviolate. What difi’erence does it make 
in view of the morality of the question, whether we 
have in express words avowed that, which by inevita¬ 
ble inference is a term in the contract or not? Not a 
particle ; and gentlemen have but strange ideas of pub¬ 
lic morality, who deem that it is to be limited and de¬ 
fined only by express legislation. 

So far as these bonds are protected by express legis¬ 
lation, gentlemen seem to entertain a little doubt of the 
question of power. In regard to the others that do not 
by express reference to tne law of 1225, come under 
that rule, I hold that we are bound that they shall be 
exonerated, by the operation of that higher rule to 
which I have referred—by a bond stronger than the 
hand of power, a rule higher than constitutions—by the 
obligations of State faith, of public morality. Why? 
Because, by a solemn contract entered into upon a 
good nnd suflicient consideration, the Stale has im¬ 
pliedly, if not expressly agreed that for all time, by no 
act of hers, by legislation or otherwise, should the val¬ 
ue of these stocks be impaired. 

Upon this pledge of her faith she borrowed this mo¬ 
ney, and made herself a party to the contract with the 
public creditor. She did not hoard this money. She 
scattered it broadcast through the land. By it she has 
built up that splendid system of public works that has 
made her what she is—the second State in this glo¬ 
rious confederacy. 

If the Supreme Court of Ohio, under similar circum¬ 
stances, would interfere to protect a little bank char¬ 
ter, I would ask, what would they do in a case of this 
kind ? I would refer gentlemen to a decision of the 
Supreme Court of Ohio; “ The Commercial Bank vs. 
the State of Ohio,” 7th .Ohio Reports. And let me re¬ 
mind gentlemen that this decision, acquiesced in as 
right by the bar and the people, was made with the 
concurrence of a gentleman then a member of the 
Court, the Hon. Reuben Wood, who, in reward of the 
consistency of his democracy, they have recently pla¬ 
ced at the head of the government of the State. What 
do the Court say in regard to the rights of corpora¬ 
tions—aye, sir, a despised bank corporation ? They 
laid down the doctrine that even they could not be vio¬ 
lated with impunity. The General Assembly, by an. 
act of incorporation, created the Commercial Bank of 
Cincinnati, and had imposed upon her by that charter 
a tax of four per cent upon the dividends. The Legis¬ 
lature, by a subsequent general law, saw fit to levy a 
tivc of five per cent, upon all the dividends. The Com¬ 
mercial Bank resisted the execution of the law, and 
the question came before the supreme Court for decis¬ 
ion. That Court decided that the charter was a con¬ 
tract—that the provision for imposing the tax was a 
term of the contract—that by the constitution of the 
United States, States are prohibited from passing any 
law impairing the obligation of a contract—that the 
law of the State, so far as it was applicable to the Com¬ 
mercial Bank of Cincinnati, is in violation of the con¬ 
tract, and therefore void. If the Supreme Court of 
Ohio, under all the pressure of external influences—of 
that clamor against banks which has been got up by 
politicians, and claimed to be public opinion—which 
has been to them a perfect god-send in the way of cap¬ 
ital on which to speculate in humbugging the people. 
If, under such a pressure, the Court would maintain its 
independence, and protect the right of a despised bank 
corporation, think you they would falter or hesitate to 
nullify your law when you bring home die question, to 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


737 


*he individual rights of the citizen—not of the million¬ 
aires rioting in wealth, but of the widow and the or¬ 
phan, who have their little pittance invested in the 
public securities, and depend upon the income arising 
therefrom lor their daily bread, relying upon the faith 
of the State ? No, sir, they will assuredly set its mark 
of reprobation upon so wanton a violation of the pub¬ 
lic engagements. Gentlemen talk of reaching the mil¬ 
lionaires!^ Can they reach the millionaires of Wall 
street? of Threadneedle street? No, sir; the foreign 
bond holder is beyond your i-each, but you seek to reach 
your own citizens—to tax the funds of the poor widow 
and the orphan. 

Happily, though you may attempt this fraud, you are 
powerless to carry it out. There is a higher law, a 
greater power than yours, a power behind the throne 
greater than the throne you occupy —imperium imperio 
—that will say, emphatically, NO! To leave the 
(juestion of morals involved in the question, for a mo¬ 
ment let us look at what will be the practical opera¬ 
tion ol the policy proposed by the report. It is con¬ 
ceded by every one who has participated in the dis¬ 
cussion, that you cannot reach the foreign creditor. 
He is beyond your reach. What is the consequence? 
You create a distinction between the foreign and the 
domestic creditor, founded u[)on no want or necessity 
of the State. The burden falls entirely and exclusive¬ 
ly upon our own citizens, and not upon the, million¬ 
aires who I’eside abroad. The domestic creditor will 
find his investment unsafe from legislation: there is no 
limit to the power; and if you can diminish the reve¬ 
nue arising from these stocks to the amount of a frac¬ 
tion of a cent, you may tax away the whole revenue. 
Having no faith in the stability or lionesly of the Leg¬ 
islature, he will part with his securities as soon as {los- 
sible, or remove to another Stale, carrying his capital 
with him. The guardian will find them unsafe for an 
investment in behalf of bis ward ; all classes of your 
citizens will put them away. I would ask gentlemen 
which they prefer, to have them held in foreign coun¬ 
tries or in our own? Do they desire to increase that 
current of precious metals now flowing from this to 
foreign countries, in the payment of semi-annual iu- 
stalnients of Interest? or would they retain those in¬ 
stalments in the hands of our own citizens, to swell 
the aggregate wealth of the State, forming a link in 
that chain of duty and interest that binds men to the 
Government under w'hich they reside? What is the 
policy of Great Britain in regard to her one hundred 
millions of public debt? She encourages its invest¬ 
ment in the hands of her citizens, and by this means 
makes every man interested in the stability of the Gov¬ 
ernment. 

God forbid that the State of Ohio be ever reduced to 
that miserable condition, when she shall be obliged to 
depend solely upon her public securities for her public 
peace ; but it is prudent and right to avail ourselves 
even of such means to render the citizens desirous to 
promote the general welfare; and for such pur{)oses 
should the home investment be encouraged. Shall I 
be told that the investment in them by citizens of other 
counties should be encouraged as a means of bringing 
foreign capital to the country? The argument is [)lau- 
dible, but it is unsound. We need capital because of 
the enterprise of our citizens and of the age in which 
we live, and we are constrained to go abroad for it 
from necessity. If we had it at home, every man will 
admit, that we should not go abroad to seek it. Better 
owe your own citizens interested in the stability and 
prosperity of our free institutions, than lie under mon¬ 
ey obligations to the citizens of other countries, with 
the consequent, influence which it may confer in attec- 
ting the action of your government. But again ; you 
have invited your state bonds home, by making them 
in part the basis of the banking capital of the State— 
and you have authorized the independent banks to is¬ 
sue paper on a deposit of those bonds—you have pro¬ 
vided that if any of those banks shall fail, to redeem 

47 


the paper so issued, these bonds shall be put into the 
the market and sold for the purpose of raising a fund 
for the redemption of those notes. And now what 
further do you propose—simply to destroy the value 
ol the very security upon wliich the bill holder is to 
rely, by imposing a tax on these bonds in the hands 
of your own citizens, by which they will cease to be 
sought fur, as they must pass into the hands of foreigners, 
if they pass at all, but at a depreciated price, thus per¬ 
petrating a double fraud. First upon the banks who 
deposited these bonds, relying upon the faith of the 
State, that in so far as her action is concerned, nothing 
should be done to impair their current market value, 
in case it should become necessary to resort to a sale 
of them, in order to meet the liabilities of the bank. 
Secondly, and as gentk men here will say is of infinite¬ 
ly greater importance, the holders of the paper of these 
banks who have trusted in, relied upon the indemnity 
attorded by these State securities for payment, in case 
llie banks should fail, or refuse to do so at the counter, 
are deprived ol the benefit of those securities, at all 
events to the extent to which, by your action, those 
securities are depreciated in value. 

Sir, if we have this power, 1 hold it would be most 
unwise to use it. No State, not revolutionary, has ever 
resorted to a tax upon its own Stock. No State acting 
upon principles of sound policy will ever do it. Be¬ 
cause it is the violation of ihe contract to do so, and 
iberofore immoral—and because such a tax must nec¬ 
essarily operate injuriously upon foreign loans. 

Mr. Chairman, the proposition under consideration 
is unworthy the dignity of this body, whose high prov¬ 
ince and privilege it is to uphold the character, and de¬ 
clare the sentiments of the people of Ohio. I have re¬ 
ferred to a higher written law than your constitution 
or any that you have power to ordain—a law which, 
within its own limits, governs our government, and re¬ 
strains its action. But there is an unwritten law high¬ 
er than that high law—a law higher than any govern¬ 
ment—a law which should bind every act and control 
every motion—a law enjoined by God himself, and ad¬ 
dressed to the hearts and consciences of men. That 
law is the law of good faith. 

Mr. Chairman, it has long been my opinion that the 
good [)eopleof Ohio require but little at the hands of le¬ 
gislation or of this Convention. Give them law to define 
readily mmm tuum, aiid sufficient power to enforce 
those rights and powers of property, and they have all 
they require. They live under the influence of an ele¬ 
vated tone of public morals, which w’ill guard them 
against any infraction of that higher law, to whose test 
all other laws must come. 1 care not what your Leg¬ 
islature may do or say. II acts are not consistent with 
imblic morals, they will fall powerless—a sound pub¬ 
lic opinion will repudiate them, and powerless they 
will ever be when they attempt the perpetration of a 
fraud upon the rights of the citizens. IVhat is this 
public faith ? I must own that I was sur[)rised when I 
heaidthe gentleman from Knox [Mr. Mitchkll] pro¬ 
nounce the public faith to be a humbug. I am sure 
that the gentleman must have used the phrase inadver¬ 
tently, or in an unguarded moment; or perhaps in 
(ileasautry. Oiherwise be certainly would not have 
suffered himself to have been betrayed into an expres¬ 
sion so unworthy ol his character. What then is this 
[)ublic faith? Is it mere declamation ? Hasitnodel- 
iniie, fixed meaning in the minds or hearts of honest 
men ? 

Mr. MITCHELL said that the remark was made 
merely in reference to the denial by some of the right 
of the General Assembly to repeal laws, whose repeal 
would affect the interests of individuals. He thought 
that to be a humbug and a bug-bear. 

Mr. GREEN. I am sorry to say, the gentleman does 
not vary his position hy his explanation. The taxing 
power is a sovereign power. It is one of the highest 
attributes of sovereignty. It is a power which it is not, 
in general, advisable for the Stale to part with. But 










738 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


that the State can, in special cases, divest itself of that ( 
power, there can be no doubt. And having paited i 
with it, it is right and necessary that she should adhere ' 
to the terms of the grant to the fullest extent of the le¬ 
gal and moral obligation consequent upon the act. 
And to that extent, despite your constitution or your 
laws, the judicial tribunals of the country will hold 
her. When, therefore, the General Assembly has, for 
a valid consideration, stripped itself of the power of 
taxation, the law by which it is done is as irrevocable 
as the law of the Medes and Persians. Thank God 
there is no power of sovereignty here that may revoke, 
of its own mere will, a contract solemnly entered into 
by the government. 

Sir, what is public faith ? It is the reflection—the 
expression of the active principle of the public moral¬ 
ity. It is the aggregation—the sum—of the individual 
honesty of the citizens, when corruption finds its way 
into the administration of a government. When fraud 
and falsehood mark its dealings, and the people sanc¬ 
tion and approve, the downfall of that government and 
of that people is near at hand. What does the teach¬ 
ings of all past history inculcate upon us as our duty, 
as citizens of a free, republican country ? Look to Car¬ 
thage, to Greece, to Rome, to France—and mark the 
destruction of human institutions, following closely and 
inevitably the decline of public faith. Upon the virtue 
and the intelligence of the people rests the whole fab¬ 
ric of republican government. Where there is virtue, 
there will generally be found intelligence; the posses¬ 
sion of the one inspires a desire for the other. No 
doubt a high degree of civilization may exist where 
virtue and morality are but little regarded. But such 
a state of things is a sure, unerring evidence of inter¬ 
nal rottenness and decay—a certain presage of ap¬ 
proaching downfall. 

I ask, for information, what is democracy ? I ask 
tfiose who claim to speak ex cathedra on the subject— 
of gentlemen on this floor who claim to be the repre¬ 
sentatives of the people, and who seem to think that 
verily thejjy “ are the people, and wisdom shall die with 
them.” I err greatly, sir, if they do not find that the 
kind of democracy involved in the proposition before 
you will be scouted as spurious by the people. The 
people!—I am one of them; and whatever concerns 
them, concerns me: I love them so well, that I will 
r tistevery attempt to injure their reputation for hon¬ 
esty and fair dealing. I shall not rest my claim to their 
favor by eternally prating to them of how much I love 
them; and let me say, they are not so silly as to believe 
everything that is told them: they can recognize a 
friend, whose acts bespeak his attachment to their in¬ 
terests, even though he be not often and loud in his 
professions. But I would ask of the democracy on this 
floor, if inviolate public faith is not the corner stone of 
democracy ?—which regards the rights of the meanest 
as well as the highest—which performs i^ engagements 
with all its citizens aud with all the world, without re¬ 
gard to position, to parties, to forms of government or 
of religion. Yes, 8ir, upon the broad front of true de¬ 
mocracy is stamped, in characters of living light, the 
eternal principles of truth and honesty. 

Am I mistaken, Mr. Chairman ? Does not this sound 
to your democratic ears with the sweet familiarity of 
the recollections of former and better days—when true 
democratic principles were understood and practiced 
better than they are now? Sir, you have adopted res¬ 
olutions, and very properly, to extend the civilities of 
this body to a distinguished stranger—a friend of his 
sovereign, who has come to this country for the pur¬ 
pose of acquiring light in regard to the principles and 
workings of our republican form of government, our 
free institutions, and all those vast and wonderful im¬ 
provements which have placed our country in the fore¬ 
most rank among the nations of the earth. Let us im¬ 
agine him, after having passed through every portion 
of the United States, and observed our progress, our 
institutions, and observed their workings and results, 


o have returned to his native land, and givemhis royal 
tmaster an account of his visit and his observations. 
One of his chapters he devotes to his sojourn in Ohio. 

He tells his sovereign that he was invited to visit a 
body deputed by their fellow-citizens to the high and 
responsible trust of re-organizing the fundamental law 
of their State. And what struck his mind most forci¬ 
bly, as evidence of the peculiar character of the peo¬ 
ple and the tendency of their institutions was, that 
while one hundred and eight gentlemen were engaged 
in reforming and remodeling a government for two 
millions of people, there was no strife—no appearance 
of confusion—no symptoms of popular commotion; all 
was quiet and orderly. But he will also be forced to 
say, that though he saw much to admire in the external 
appearance of this assembly, with shame, it may be 
with a sneer, he will acknowledge that this show of in¬ 
telligence, of public virtue, was mere parade—mere 
talk—that, at the very time they invited him to wit¬ 
ness the practical workings of their vaunted beautiful 
system of Republicanism, they were engaged in dis¬ 
cussing a proposition whether it was lawful to cheat 
the public creditors! 

I said, in the opening of my remarks, that I intend- j 
ed to call things by their right names. I say now, that 
I hope no gentleman will suppose that I intend to 
impute to him improper or unworthy intentions or 
motives ; but I say that this Turk could go home and 
tell his sovereign that these Christians, professing to | 
act under the sanction of the God of Christianity, 
were contriving to do what the Koran does not per¬ 
mit, aud what he, in the plentitude of his absolute do- ; 
minion, dare not undertake to practice upon his own 
subjects. 

I say it is a proposition to cheat the public creditor. 
Glaze it over as you may—paint it an inch thick—to 
that complexion will it come at last. Strip it of the [ 
sophistry and special pleading with which gentlemen 
seek to hide it—tear off the veil, and the hideous fea¬ 
tures of the demon Repudiation will appear. 

You sent your agents into the market with your 
bonds—you proposed to pay five, six, or seven per cent, 
interest. That was the consideration for which they 
were purchased. You received the money. What 
have you done with it ? Turn your eyes over the State 
of Ohio. Whether judiciously or not, it has been ex¬ 
pended. and the result has been the elevation of Ohio 1 
to the proud position of the second State in the confed¬ 
eracy. You gave those who furnished you with the 
means, an express or an implied guaranty not to attempt 
to invalidate the contract. I would ask, what was it ; 
that enabled the State to realize half a million dollars 
of profit in the exchange of bonds during the past year ? 

It was the fact that our public faith stood unimpeached, 
aud not oijly unimpeached, but so far unimpeachable 
—like Caesars’ wife—not only pure, but above suspi- j 
cion. It was that character which enabled the State 
in 1839, when the public debt pressed heavily—when 
public contractors were knocking at the door of the ; 
Treasury for money to pay their suffering, starving la¬ 
borers, to go the banks of our own State, and obtain 
money to relieve the pressing wants of the laborer, | 
and his children crying for bread. Look at the history 
of the State from 1825 to 1850. From the origin of the 
first loan for the public improvement, to the last ope¬ 
ration by which you realized more than half a million i 
in the shape of premiums on your new issue of stocks. 
What has enabled you always to command the means 
to carry out your vast aud splendid schemes? I an¬ 
swer emphatically, confidence IN THE PUBI.IC FAITH. 

In 1824, when we went into the marketof the world 
with our bonds, what had we to pledge ? Nothing but 
our forests. But we had credit, not based alone on 
the visible means of payment, but on our public char¬ 
acter. The world believed our promises, when we 
pledged our faith aud honor to the public creditor. 

If capitalists had supposed for an instant, that while we 
were oflering a pledge of public faith as a security, 









CONVENTION REPORTS, 1<(9 


there was a mental reservation of the right—the sover¬ 
eign right of repudiation whispering the word of prom¬ 
ise to the ear, think you these monuments of enterprize 
would have come into existence ? No sir. Your for¬ 
ests would have remained unbroken, and the wolf 
would prowl where now cities stand, and smiling fields 
teem with wealth and plenty. 

We pay interest upon our bonds semi-annually. If 
you impose a tax on the bonds, you reduce the rate of 
interest to the amount of the tax, and the value of the 
bonds is reduced to that extent. Many of the public 
creditors paid fi'om five to ten per cent, premium, in 
consideration that they were to receive a fixed rate of 
interest unreduced, to the extent that we, by legisla¬ 
tion, reduce the value of the bonds we repudiate. To a 
small extent it is true, but not the less reprehensible on 
that account. In fact it is more so, inasmuch as petty 
larceny is a meaner crime than bold and open robbery. 
If we are to do wrong, let us at least do it in an open 
and fearless manner. Say to the public creditor, we 
have got the money and the power; we do not like to 
pay; we will pay the intei’est when we please, and the 
principal when we get ready ; we mentally reserved 
the right to swindle you whenever it suited our conve¬ 
nience; you committed an error when you trusted 
your money on the faith of a sovereign State, because 
it is lawful at any time for State necessity to repudiate 
State honesty. 

Suppose we do it in regard to those bonds not ex¬ 
cluded from taxation by the laws of 1825 ? The gen¬ 
tleman from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney] is an able law¬ 
yer, and I put the question for his considei’ation: does 
he suppose those bonds issued under the law of 1825 
stand on any better footing than those not pi'otected ? 
Can an express guaranty be any better in morals or in 
law than one fairly and legitimately.implied ? So far 
as the constitution of the United States protects an 
express guaranty, just so far it protects an implied one. 
It is to the nature of the transaction that courts ever 
look, to determine the extent of the obligation. 

Suppose we succeed in repudiating the small amount 
not especially exempt from taxation ? It will exhibit 
only the dilference between a grand and petit larceny 
—tnat is all. 

I have felt this question to be an important one, and 
I could not, in the discharge of my duty to the peo¬ 
ple I represent, permit it to pass without my solemn 
protest. I have shown that we are expressly preclu¬ 
ded by the Constitution of the United States from tax¬ 
ing the national securities—that to place such power 
in the hands of a State might have the eifect to para¬ 
lyze the whole strength ot the nation, and divest it of 
that power which is necessary for the protection of 
itself and this great confederacy. That so far as those 
of bonds of the State that are protected from taxation, 
by positive law are concerned, they fall within the de¬ 
cision of the Supreme Court of the United States. In 
regard to the others, the same moral objection remains 
to preserve the faith of the State inviolate. That the 
effect of taxation would be to drive the public securi¬ 
ties from the State, and place them in the hands of the 
foreign capitalist. 

One word in conclusion. I do not agree with some 
of modern reformers that the times are all out of joint 
—and that it is necessary to rub out every thing and 
commence de novo. I think that a few changes are 
necessary; but we are to seek a wise and salutary re- 
fom, not universal destruction and overthrow. I ask 
to be convinced that reforms are necessary, and I shall 
ever be found in favor of them. I desire light and in¬ 
struction; but 1 must have more powerful arguments 
than fall from the lips of those who avow themselves 
the friends of desecration and demolition. I say to 
gentlemen in the language of a distinguished reformer 
of another country, “True reform has but one enemy 
to dread. All other foes Tnust sooner or later fall be¬ 
fore the expression of the popular will, provided it be 
urged with sincerity and temper—but she cannot sur¬ 


vive the intemperance of her own friends, act then 
like men associated in the greatest of all causes—and 
resolve to resort to no other measures, no other argu¬ 
ments than which are suggested by reason and truth.” 
Let us act like men associated for the purpose of 
carrying forward a great and important work, in which 
countless millions are hereafter to be interested. Let 
us coolly, calmly and philosophically survey the ground 
before us—not entertaiiling propositions merely be¬ 
cause they are reforms in name, but look at the thing 
itself. With this spirit, and in discharge of a solemn 
duty, I now in the name and by authority of the 
people of Pickaway and old Ross, whom I in part rep¬ 
resent, earnestly protest against this unconstitutional 
most unwise, unjust and iniquitous innovation. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, was aware that the Com¬ 
mittee was weary with the discussion of the question 
before them, but considering the importance of the 
proposition, he felt that it was a duty which he owed 
to the constituents which he represented, to state, in a 
few words, the grounds of the opinion that would gov¬ 
ern him in giving his vote. In the statement of the 
reasons which had influenced his mind, he had already 
been anticipated by gentlemen of more ability than he 
claimed to possess, nevertheless he had a few words to 
say as the representative of an intelligent and indepen¬ 
dent constituency, and he did not feel that he could, 
consistently with his feelings of duty to them, remain 
entirely silent. 

It will be seen, Mr. Chairman, that the section now 
under consideration includes in its provisions, not only 
the stocks of the State which are hereafter to be is¬ 
sued, but those that are already in the hands of the 
public creditors—issued and transferred to them under a 
solemn legislative pledge that they should forever re¬ 
main free from taxation. So far as regards the stocks 
that may be hereafter issued, I do not propose to say 
anything, but shall confine my remarks to the ques¬ 
tion pi’eseuted by the proposed amendment of the 
gentleman from Meigs, [Mr. Horton.] 

In 1825, the State of Ohio embarked in a system of 
Internal Improvements. In February of that year, the 
General Assembly, bylaw, authorized loans of money 
upon the basis of a solemn pledge of the public faith 
for the purpose of carrying her plans aud improve¬ 
ments into efiect. For this purpose that body selected 
and set apart, as is usual in such cases, certain reven¬ 
ues which were to be applied to the payment of the 
accruing interest and to the final extinction of the prin¬ 
cipal. Upon this pledge the money was realized. I 
propose to road a part of the 5th section of that law. 
It is as follows: 

“ And the faith of the State is hereby pledged for 
the payment of the interest and the final redemption 
of the principal of the sums to be borrowed by vir¬ 
tue of this act; and that no tax shall ever be levied by 
the Legislature, or under the authority of this State, on 
the stock to be created by virtue of this act, nor on the 
interest which may be payable thereon; and further 
that the value of the said stock shall be in no wise im¬ 
paired by any legislative act of the State.” 

Under the authority of this law, the State went into 
the market as a borrower. She had pledged her reve¬ 
nues—she had plighted her faith that her stocks should 
remain free from taxation—the terms were accepted 
the loan procured, and a contract was completed on 
as good and sufficient consideration as it was in the 
power of the State to make. 

The members of the General Assembly of 1825 were 
wise men. They saw the duty they were required to 
perform. They understood what provisions of law 
were necessary, and they made them. They set apart 
the necessary revenues. They pledged the public fai th ; 
and I submit to you, sir, if it is not right after all this, 
that that public faith should be observed, and those 
pledges religiously kept ? Is it for us, their successors, 
to violate a trust, a contract—a pledge made with so 
much solemnity ? 













740 


CON VEN TION REPORTS. 


As an abslra-t proposition, I trust there can be no 
tloubt but the members of the committee understand 
and agree with me in the meaning and construction ol 
that provision of the constitution of the United States, 
that provides that no State shall pass any law impairing 
;ho obligation of contracts. But here we are met by 
che objection of the gentleman from Knox. He claims 
that the act of February 1825 is, in effect, void or void¬ 
able at least, because one General Assembly has no 
power to pass any law which another may not repeal. 
Ho claims that, because there is in the constitution no 
express power of this kind granted, therefore it does 
.lOt exist. I admit that there is no such power ex¬ 
pressly granted; but I hold that under the general 
grant of legislative power to the General Assembly, 
that body has liie right to pass any legislative act not 
prohibited by the constitution of the State or of the 
United States. It has, as 1 hold, full and plenary dis¬ 
cretion over all matters within the scope of legislative 
authority, unless expressly restrained. 

Can, then, a Legislature pass a law creating a con- 
rract within the true and legitimate meanitig of that 
term ? Tiiis can be considered Uo longer an open ques¬ 
tion. It has been settled on solemn agreement, by the 
highest judicial tribunal of the Union, as well as by the 
supreme court of this Slate. 

Is then the law of 1825 a contract, according to the 
legal intent and meaning of the term? If there ever 
was a legislative act of this character, that was one. 
Stocks were to be issued, containing an express prom¬ 
ise to pay. Terms were submitted. Pledges were 
given, not only of payment, but that nolliiug should be 
done to impair the value of the credit thus created. 
Thes(‘ were the inducements which the State held out 
to her ciWitors. Should, these promises not be com¬ 
plied with, on our part, to the fullest extent ? It strikes 
me that ti.ey should. 

If an express power, granted in the constitution had 
been acquired, this debt never could have been crea¬ 
ted. If opinions, such as those of the gentleman from 
Knox, had jorevailed, thecanalsol Ohiocould neverhave 
been made—no stc'cks created—no money borrowed. 
Bui I hold, Mr. Chairman, that no such express junver 
is nccissary. In a constitution ol enumerated powers, 
like that of the United States, doubtless such authori¬ 
ty should be given, either expressly or by implication, 
as necessary for the carrying of its other pow'ersinU) 
effect, but our State government, so far as legislatiuii 
is concerned, is not one of enumerated powers; and 1 
hold ihal any action of this Convention, which effects 
either an express or an implied repeal of the act ol 
1825—which I believe to be a contract as solemn and 
as .'■acred as it is in the power of a sovereign State to 
make, would be a violation of that clause of the consti¬ 
tution of the United States, wdiich is expressly intended 
to ibrb'd such acts. Mr. Chairman, 1 could not so vi¬ 
olate the oath I have taken to support that constitution, 
as to vote for such a clause. 

T wi.'h to be understood; I attribute to no member ol 
this body an improper motive. I act upon rny own 
opinions, deliberately formed, and I presume other 
gentlemen do the same. Believing that the adoption o( 
the section now before us would be a violation of the 
constitution of the United States, and a violation of the 
letter and spirit of the act of 1825, I cannot go for it. 
Gentlemen may differ, and honestly differ upon ques 
tions of this kind. Men constantly differ in regard to 
qmstions of law’, both statute and constitutional—upon 
the right to pass such acts as the law of 1825; but I 
put this question: Suj)po8e the General Assembly of 
1825 bad transcended its pow’cr, and that another Leg- 
islaUire had the constitutional right to repeal the law; 
would it be expedient to do so; and should tiiis con¬ 
vention, by its acts, enjoin upon future Legislatures to 
perpe trate such breaches of faith. Admit, for the .sake 
of the ai’gument, that the General Assembly of 1825 
had not the power it assumed to exercise—that undei 
a mistaken view, it Irauscended its authority, what is 


the result ? That body believcG that it had the power 
—under that belief it acted. No subsequent Legisla¬ 
ture has ever doubted the binding effect of the law, 
nor has its validity, by any competent tribunal, legisla¬ 
tive or judicial, ever been called in question—your 
people have never questioned the power of the Gene¬ 
ral Assembly to pass that act, or demand its repeal. 

The public credit was jiledgeJ by the act of 1825. 
Did the people question (he ability of the Legislature 
to pass such au act? No! Why then should this Con- 
veutioa repudiate the terms oi it? Did not the pub¬ 
lic creditors rely on the public faith for the fulfillment 
of State engagements? Had a judicial tribunal of iho 
country ever questioned the act alluded to? On the 
contrary, it is known that in relation to similar acts 
they have especially recognized the power of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly to puss them, and thereby to make Leg¬ 
islative contracts. He would put the question to gen- 
! tlemen on the opposite side of the Hall, (and he i 
would do so confidently giving tliem credit fur all hon- j 
esty of purpose, for he was happy at all times to give j 
them credit for the same intentions as these to which j 
ho laid claim himself,) would it bo right and proper, j 
admitting, for a moment, that the L 'gislnture did not j 
possess the authority, (although illiad never been seri- ^ 
ously questioned,) would it bo right, ho would ask, < 
when the public faith was pledged iu 1825, by an ex- j 
press and solemn act, for this Convention to enjoin | 
upon all subsequent Legislatures the duty of taxing ■ 
moneys invested in those bonds? He would submit 1 
that question to every lawyer in the Convention, as i 
well as to the gentleman from Knox, as a moralist and 
a Christian gemlemau, Wi.uld it be right in individuals < 
to repudiate the forms and obligations of a contract? 

Ho would, for a moment, suppose that he was to bor¬ 
row $100 from the gentleman from Knox, promising 
to pay at the rale of 10 per cent., and at tiie expira¬ 
tion of the term refuse to pay more than 6 per cent., 
which was the legal rate of interest, would such a 
line of conduct be right or honest ? Afli r ha. ing re¬ 
ceived the money on a solemn promise, and when in 
need, w ithout fraud or imposition, the man wlio would' 
rei»udiate the obligation, could not be considered 
honest or conscientious. And if such ought not to be 
the manner of doing business by an individual, how i 
much less should it be that in which a great aud pow- i 
erful State should act, the Legislatuio of which had i 

passed a law on the subject, pledging itself tliat no tax ! 
.should ever be levied on those securities? If thev 
llius violate a solemn agreement which had been 
passed by former Legi.slatures, and alsu required of 
tho.se who should follow, to continue to violate those 
contracts, what would be thought of the State? After 
lo.sing its character for morality, a'.l i.s lost. 

It struck him that however much gendemen might 
differ iu ojiinion as to the power of the Legislature to 
puss such a law’, that upon the question of morality, 
right and jusdee, there should be no difference of opin¬ 
ion in regard to these slocks, which Iiave been issued 
oil the faith of the State solemnly pledged by the law 
of 1825. H e could not perceive the slightest ground 
tor a difference of opinion, and iu making that asser¬ 
tion it was far from his intention to say to gentlemen, 

“ Stand back, I am holier than thou.’^ He was merely i 
stating his own ojiiniou, and he would say it was not * 
right tor them to violate a solemn contract, entered in¬ 
to with their eyes open, and iu which there was nei¬ 
ther fraud nor imposition, but every tiling under.'^tood, 
and as clear as the sun at noon day He would put 
one question relative to the policy of the me.'isure: 
Would it be right for them as a Coiivenliou, to declare 
hat not only the moneys hereafter to be invested but the 
moneys already inveslcd, should be subject to Ibis tax? 

It it be right that all propel ty should be taxed, could 
they not agree upon some provision that such tax 
.should not apply to those stocks which were issued 
under the act of 1825, and subsequent acts containing 
similar provisions? Let such a provision he introduced 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 741 


and he would support it, unless he was convinced that 
such provision was notin accordance with public poli¬ 
cy, and that the State would lose thereby more than 
she would gain. But he could not, with his present 
views and feelings join, as a member of this Conven¬ 
tion, in voting for a proposition which was in his opin¬ 
ion, a direct violation ot a law, and which law was in 
form and substance a solemn contract, and containing 
all its essential elements. 

As the gentleman Irom Ross [Mr. Grkkn] had well 
remarked, if we attempted to do this where would we 
stop? There was no member of the Convention but 
would view with repugnance and abhorrence any at¬ 
tempt to repudiate the State debts, he cared not from 
what quarter the gentleman might come, or to what 
party he belonged. Such being the case, should any 
part of the contract be repudiated ? Was not the mo¬ 
rality of the same description, whether it applied to a 
art or to the whole ? If it was right in either to abide 
y the original contract, surely the argument which 
made it so in one instance made it equally strong in 
bo^h. li w'e impair the security by a direct violation 
of the law, ii is a part of the same species of morality 
which would wipe otF the debt altogother—the only 
difference being that the latter would be done openly, 
while the former was only tiIdling a part of the credi¬ 
tor’s revenue. He washed his hands of all such tran 
sactiors. 

He [Mr. Smith] did not know that he had a single 
constituent who possessed a single dollar in Slate 
stock. But he would say that he did not think that he 
had a constituent who would not blush, if he fully un¬ 
derstood the present proposition, at this example of pu- 
nic fai’.h and violated credit. He alluded to the taxing 
of those stocks which had been issued not only under 
the act of 1825, but also under subsequent acts of the 
Legislature, containing the same pledge of the public 
faith. He understood from the report of the Auditor 
of State, read this morning, that in 1849 there were 
some sixteen millions of those stocks then outstandin!?. 
Who were the mi n to whom those bonds were paya¬ 
ble? Was the Jesuitical doctrine to be introduced 
here, that those who in the gloomy hours of the State 
stepped forward with their money to enable the State 
to carry on those ex'ensive public works so important 
to the commercial prosperity of our people, and mere 
especially important at that period, were heretics with 
whom no faith is to be kefit ? And now it is sought to 
deprive those creditorsof their just rights; rights which 
had n; ver b'ea questioned by judicial authority. Is 
this a specimen of the Christianity of the nineteenth 
century, requiring an act of spoliation to be committed 
upon the rights of property by the Legislature of the 
State? Mr. Chairman, we may he justly proud of the 
improvement of our State—her increase in wealth and 
her great advancement in commerce and civilization; 
but I hesitate not to say that, as a State, the briglitest 
jewel in her diadem is the promptitude with which she 
has heretofore met her liabilities, and her hitherto uu- 
sullied public faith. Whatever else you may say ot 
her legislation; the excesses of party asperity—which¬ 
ever party has been in the ascendant, her public credit 
and her pledged faith have hitherto been nobly main¬ 
tained ; and I do hope that that credit will remain in¬ 
violate. Destroy the moral character of your citizens; 
let it be once understood that the public faith was to 
be violated, and all was lost. Public laitli was like 
that brightest of gems—female virtue—once lost, it 
could never be restored. 

The gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] who is 
a good lawyer, has argued, if I understood him cor¬ 
rectly, that if it be right to repeal a law exem[)ting 
property from execution, then it must be right and 
proper for this Convention to annul the provision of the 
act of 1825 to which I have referred. Well, now, if I 
shall, for argument’s sake, admit that when the Legis¬ 
lature once passed a law exempting certain property 
from execution for the payment id' debts, that it would 


bo wrong for subsequent Legislatures to repeal that 
act, I cannot see how that wrong can sanctify tliis 
greater wrong; for if it would be wrong to repeal acts 
by which certain articles are exempted from execution 
for debt, it would certainly be a greater wrong to vio¬ 
late a solemn legislative pledge, that this stock never 
should be taxed or its value impaired. 

Mr. MITCHELL begged pardon of the gentlem m 
then in possession of the floor, [Mr. Smith.] That 
gentleman did not catch the drift of his argument on 
yesterday, which was to this effect: That whenever 
a law was found to work unfairly towards any portion 
of the citizens, the Legislature was empowered to re¬ 
peal it, and could not see why the Convention had not 
the right to repeal the present law having reference to 
taxation. 

Mr. SMITH (resumed.) It was impossible that gen¬ 
tlemen, situated a.s we were in this hall, could, in con¬ 
sequence of the difficulty of hearing, apprehend the 
full force of arguments, unless in the immediate vicin¬ 
ity of the gentleman addressing the chair. After the 
explanation of the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitch¬ 
ell,] he did not disagree with him, in the power of 
the Legislature to repeal an act exempting property 
from execution, but he put it upon the ground that the 
repealing statute would be a law affecting the remedy, 
and not impairing the validity of a contract, and in such 
case, good policy required that it should operate on 
cotiitracts o be made in future. 

lu reference to the act of 1825, I hold that it is a sol¬ 
emn legislative contract—one which the legislature has 
the power to make; one, the impairing of which would 
be a violation of the constitution of the United States, 
But if I am wrong in that, I insist that the insertion of 
such a provision in this constitution as the one propo¬ 
sed, requiring a tax to be levied on the stock issued 
under the provisions of that law, would be unjust, un¬ 
wise, and wholly wrong. 

Another argument of the gentleman from Knox was, 
that the tax proposed to be levied is not on the stocks 
themselves, but on the moneys invested in those stocks. 
He would recommend to that gentleman’s attention, 
the old law maxim, “ qui heeret in litera, hoiret in cor- 
tice.'^ “ He that sticks to the letter sticks to the book.” 
How could that gentleman go for his interpretation, 
when the third section (the second not being considered 
sufficiently strong) went the length virtually, and sub¬ 
stantially of taxing all stocks ? That interpretation of 
the gentleman was too technical, “ Tiie letter killeth, 
but the spirit giveth life.” You cannot tax the money 
invested in stock, without taxing the stock itself. And 
I call upon the gentleman from Knox to draw a sensi¬ 
ble, legal distinction between them. It could not be 
done. The stocks, and the money invested in them, 
are in legal acceptaticn, hue and the same. Unless, 
indeed, we put it on the ground contended for by au 
old gentleman on one occasion, who, having made a 
contract, was anxious to repudiate it, and on being re¬ 
minded of his having made an agreement, he denied 
it, alleging that the other party had made a proposition 
which was accepted by him—but, said he, “ I made 
no contract.” [Laughter.] That was about equ;.! to 
the distinction drawn by the gentleman from Knox. 

The gentleman from Brown, [Mr. Loudon] as area- 
son for the proposition, says that we have met here to 
form an organic law, and the gentleman from Auglaize 
[Mr. Sawyer] said that “ we were rubbing out the 
objectionable features of the old constitution; that there 
are no vested rights if they be contrary to the great 
interests of (he people, and that complaints were made 
when we attempted to tax the inilionaire.” He [Mr. 
Swift] represented immediately, no milionaire. His 
constituents were men in the ordinary walks life, 
many of them in moderate circumstances ; but it did 
not follow that, because we had met for the purpose 
of framin'^ a new constitution, that public faith and 
public credit were to be violated, the social system 
broken up and the rights of property destroyed. If 










742 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


you trespass upon the rights of t)ne class, you infringe 
the rights of all. 

The gentleman from Miami [Mr. Dorsey] said that 
he expected to hear the faith and credit of the State 
referred to; that it was not the first time he had lieard 
it, and that he was not to be frightened by any such 
bug-bear. “ Why keep faith (says the gentleman) 
with the bond-holder, and not with the poor man ? ” 
He [Mr. Smith] had come here to protect, to the best 
of his ability, the people of the State ol all classes— 
the poor as well as the rich ; and there is no mode in 
which that can be done more effectually than by pre¬ 
serving the sanctity of contracts, and the inviolability 
of the public faith. 

It had been remarked by the gentleman frorn Clark 
that in the event of this Convention adopting this sec¬ 
tion, there was one consolation, that there was a power 
above us, alluding, as I understood him, to the Consti¬ 
tution of the United States, under which rights guaran¬ 
tied by contracts might be protected. He [Mr. Smith] 
trusted that that glorious palladium would ever protect 
our rights. The times, however, at present, were not 
the most auspicious, if we may judge from appearan¬ 
ces. Our glorious Union was threatened, but he hoped 
that the day was far distant when the Union would be 
dissolved ; he trusted that that day might never come. 
But if in the wildness of ultraism it should come, and 
the constitution of the United States should be destroy¬ 
ed, let us preserve intact, in this constitution, some of 
its glorious safeguards. He had come here with the 
most anxious desire to frame such a constitution as 
would work for the general good of society, not for 
any isolated portion or class. He had come here to 
aid in framing a constitution for ike whole people and he 
hoped that such a one would be framed as would meet 
the sanction of the people. He was one of the people 
himself. But, as a member of this Convention, and as 
one of the people, he could not vote for, or sanction, 
any proposition in this Convention, which, in his opin¬ 
ion, would be a violation of the constitution of the Uni¬ 
ted States, which he had sworn to support, and which, 
with God’s help, he would support with all his strength 
and ability. 

On motion of Mr. KIRKWOOD, the committee rose 
and reported. 

The PRESIDENT laid before Convention the fol¬ 
lowing : 

7'o the President of the Constitutional Convention: 

Sir : — Permit me, through you, to tender to yourself and the 
body over which you preside, an invitation to visit the Gallery of 
the Western Art Union at any and all times you may find it con¬ 
venient during your stay in the city. 

Very respectfully yours, 

CHARLES STEPSON, Pres’t. 

Western Art Union. 

Office Western Art Union, ? 

Cincinnati, Dec. 12,1850. 3 i 

Mr. HITCHCOCK offered the following resolution : 


Mr. REEMELIN would quote for the gentleman’s 
information from the report of the Commissioners ap¬ 
pointed to inquire into the particulars of those bonds. 
It was as follows: 

“ We attempted to trace the outstanding certificates of Ohio 
State Stocks through a regular chain of transfers, to the original 
obligations issued by the Board of Canal Fund Commissioners, 
and soon become satisfied it would require years of labor to ac¬ 
complish it, if it was practicable. The answer of W. M. VermR- 
yo, transfer agent of Ohio Stock, in New-York, to the seventh 
question propounded to him, and the deposition of John J. Pal¬ 
mers, Register of said Stocks, are referred to. These gentlemen 
who are well acquainted with the duties of the office, deem it im¬ 
practicable to trace said transfers, except in a few cases, where 
the transfers have not been frequent nor complicated.” 

And those gentlemen further, in another place, state, 
“That after much examination and refiection we concur with 
Mr. Vermilyojand Mr. Palmer in the opinions they express.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. That act only goes to demon¬ 
strate that the information required was in the posses¬ 
sion of the State Auditor, and that although they could 
not get at the amount due A. B C. or D. respectively, 
yet it was possible to arrive at the amount of outstand¬ 
ing bonds which had been issued under the law of 1825 
and which were exempted from taxation. If the Con¬ 
vention had been sitting at Columbus the information 
miglit be readily obtained by reference to the State 
Library, but situated as they were at present, they must 
have recourse to the Auditor. It was not of much 
consequence as to what description of Stock was held 
by this or that bank. 

Mr. SAWYER regretted that any opposition should 
be offered to the passing of that resolution. It was a 
legitimate inquiry of which every gentleman would 
see the effect. The Auditor who was asked for such 
information had already given his opinion on it, but on 
a full investigation it might appear that those bonds 
were in the possession of parties who had bought them 
without any guarantee of their not being taxed. 

Mr. REEMELIN could not see the utility of such a 
resolution after reading the answer of the Auditor to ® 
the commissioners, as follows: I 

I respectfully answer, that the records of this office do not ; 
show specifically, the amount of the foreign stocks issued under j 
each act, tracing the issues. The stocks issued under the several j 
of these acts, have been blended and consolidated, and cannot * 
now be separately stated.” i 

He would act on a suggestion from a friend, and { 
withdraw his amendment. 

The motion was adopted. 

Mr. STANTON offered the following resolution, I 
which was agreed to: 

Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention are tendered to j 
the members of the Western Art-Union for their invitation to ! 
visit their rooms. 

Upon motion, the Convention took a recess. i 

3 o’clock, p. m. I 

Amin Bey. 


Resolved, That the Auditor of State be requested to report to 
this Convention, at his earliest convenience, the dates and amount 
of the several issues of the stocks of this State now outstanding-, 
and what portion of said stocks were issued under statutes ex¬ 
empting the same from taxation. 

Mr. REEMELIN thought it useless to make appli- 
calion, as, on reference to the printed work on the 
subject, all the information jjossible to give would be 
found there. It was a moral impossibility to trace 
those bonds, as stated by the Commissioners who had 
been appointed for that purpose. In the report made 
by Mr. Brough, they would find the names of the in¬ 
dividuals who held stock, but nothing further on the 
subject required by the gentleman making the mo¬ 
tion. He would move that the motion be laid on the 
table. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK was not as well acquainted with 
the history of the matter as the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] but he could not help regardin" 
as passing strange if there was nothing in the State 
Departments to enable them to know what amount of 
bonds had been issued. They did not want the speci¬ 
fic bonds, but only the amount. 


Mr. LAWRENCE, from the committee raised yester¬ 
day to invite Amin Bey, a visitor to this country from 
Turkey, to a seat within the bar of the Convention 
chamber, made the following report: 

The select committee appointed to wait upon the Hon. Amin 
Bey and tender to him and suite the hospitalities of the Con¬ 
vention during their sojourn in this city would respectfully re¬ 
port : iij 

That they have performed the duty assigned them and Amin j 
Bey intqrmed them that he would take pleasure in being pres- j 
ent within the hall of the Convention on Friday, the 13th inst. 
at 10 o’clock A. M. 

Respectfully submitted. 

WM. SAWYER, 

GEO. J. SMITH, 

JOHN LARWILL, 

JOHN L. GREEN, ' 

JOHN E. HUNT. | 

TAXING PUBLIC STOCKS. 

Upon motion by Mr. MITCHELL, which was agreed ! 
to, the Convention now again resolved itself into acorn- j 
mittee of the Whole, Mr. Leadbetter in the chair, and ' 
resumed the consideration of the 3d section of the re- j 
port from the committee on Finance and Taxation. ' 

The question being upon Mr. Horton’s motion to 























CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Strike out from the third line of the section, the words 
“ State and"— 

Mr. EANNEY. He wished to say a few words in 
reply to the gentlemen who had preceded, him in op¬ 
position to this section of the report. They had com¬ 
plained that they had yet heard no argument used in 
its favor. Although he did not expect to produce any 
thing better than had already been said, he still beg¬ 
ged the careful attention of the gentlemen toseeifthe'y 
could not find something in the remarks that he was 
about to submit, that they could condescend to dignify 
by that name. A very troublesome hoarseness made 
it painful for him to speak, and still more painful for 
others to listen. But the importance of the question 
induced him to make an effort to communicate his 
views. The gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] is 
distressed for the honor of the State—radicalism, as he 
calls it, is about to overwhelm it, and with marvellous 
courage, he has avowed his determination to plunge 
into the turbid pool, and “ pluck up drowned hon¬ 
or by the locks.” I cannot but congratulate the coun¬ 
try that the defence of its honor has fallen into so able 
hands, and those who are willing to sacrifice themselves 
to preserve it. I was not myself aware, until they in¬ 
formed me, that I was engaged in a crusade against 
the honor and faith of the State. I had supposed that, 
when I consented to abandon my business and take a 
seat in this body, I had reserved to myself the right to 
speak and vote according to ray convictions of duty. 
The gentlemen have not yet convinced me of the con¬ 
trary. But the gentleman from Clark says that the 
public creditors trusted our faith and integrity, when it 
turns out that we are possessed of neither. 

Mr. MASON rose to explain, the remark was not ap¬ 
plied to gentlemen on the other side personally, but to 
the proposition which they advocated, without, for a 
moment imputing to the gentlemen advocating it any 
motives descreditable to them, but more as to the ef¬ 
fects resulting from their opinion of sound policy. 

Mr. RANNEY could not be mistaken, that gentle¬ 
men who had preceded him in opposition to this 
section had expressed themselves of its adoption, as a 
departure from the principles of honor and faith; but it 
would be to break faith with the public creditor, by 
denying to him what was justly his due; that it would 
justly subject us to the imputation of unfairness; and 
one of the gentlemen—the gentleman from Ross [Mr- 
Green] had characterized it as an act of petit larce¬ 
ny, for us to undertake to tax money invested in the 
public stocks of Ohio and of the United States, held 
by citizens of this State. The remarks of these gen¬ 
tlemen had been strong and decided; and if one half 
of what they had said were true, it must be that the 
Convention were about a most nefarious business, alike 
dishonorable to them and disgraceful to the State.— 
Gentlemen had spoken in a tone and manner that in¬ 
dicated their belief that a majority of this body were 
lost to all sense of good faith and honor, ready to sac¬ 
rifice the faith and credit of the State, and were now 
engaged in the work; and that they themselves, as the 
especial guardians of honor and faith of the State,* 
washed their hands of the wholeproceeding. It would 
be very singular, if gentlemen upon this side of the 
Hall had not some regard for the faith and credit of 
the State, as well as the gentleman from Clark [Mr. 
Mason] the gentleman from Warren [Mr. Smith] and 
the gentleman from Ross [Mr. Green.] They surely 
knew that we all would be compelled to live under 
the same government; and that we must leave to our 
children,that we love as well as the gentlemen do theirs, 
the same political inheritance which we now enjoy.— 
How% then, could it be supposed that we were lost to 
all sense of public honor and faith, surpassed any cal¬ 
culation of his. He repudiated the charge as a base 
slander. The word “honor,” was of rather equivo¬ 
cal import. The great poet had putinto the mouth of one 
of his characters the query, “ What is honor?” The 
query was pertinent in this connection; what do the 


743 


gentlemen call honor? It sometimes required a man 
to challenge his fellow to mortal combat. He could 
have wished, therefore, that gentlemen had given us 
their definitien of this word. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, (interposing) said, his defini¬ 
tion of the word honor, was, the payment of our debts 
according to the terms of our contracts. 

Mr. RANNEY. That definition should be made 
good by all his votes here. He, too, would despise the 
State that could not stand up to its engagements, and 
upon whose honor no reliance could be placed. He 
understood true honor to be just about equivalent to 
honesty, and dishonor to be dishonesty ; and one might 
apply as many qualifying and soothing epithets as he 
pleased, but still this would be found to be the true 
definition of the term; and so long as we stood up for 
the equal protection of the interests of the high and 
the low, the rich and poor alike, we would be acting 
honestly and consequently honorably. The gentleman 
from Meigs, [Mr. Horton] had stated that it would 
be impolitic to tax Ohio stocks, if there were no pledge 
in the case—that such a thing was not done by any 
State of the Union. 

Mr. HORTON was very desirous to hear the gentle¬ 
man’s argument; but he also desired himself to be un¬ 
derstood correctly. 

Mr. RANNEY certainly wished to understand the 
gentleman correctly. 

Mr. HORTON had no doubt of that. He had said, 
that, with respect to all State bonds, it was a matter 
of public faith to exempt them ; and as for those here¬ 
after to be issued, it was a mere question of policy. 

Mr. RANNEY. And what did the gentleman say 
with reference to the question of policy ? 

Mr. HORTON. That as a question of policy, it was 
best not to tax them. But that matter had nothing to 
do with the question the gentleman was driving at. It 
was his part to upset the argument that it would not 
be right to tax bonds heretofore issued. That was a 
mere business matter, but the matter in hand involved 
a question of public faith. 

Mr. RANNEY now understood the gentleman to 
say he was opposed to taxing either those bonds which 
have been heretofore issued, or those which may be 
hereafter issued; and that in the former case, it would 
be a violation of public faith ; but he met the latter up¬ 
on the ground of policy. 

Mr. HORTON, (in his seat.) That is right. 

Mr. ARNNEY would look a little further at these 
facts. The gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] had 
told us yesterday, that the adoption of this report wmuld 
send the assessor into the private toilettes of the ladies, 
in search of articles to be placed upon the tax list; 
and the gentleman from Ross, [Mr. Green,] had told 
us this morning what a sad effect it would have upon 
the interests of the widow and the orphan. This was 
not the first time he-had observed men looking one way 
and rowing another. He ventured to say, that if it 
were not that this section proposes to tax a large 
amount of stocks, these gentlemen would not think of 
raising objections to the taxation ol articles of small 
value. It was not the first time a false alarm had been 
raised to cover the retreat of a wily toe. It was the 
millions in the hands of the w'ealihy that we were now 
endeavoring to get upon the tax duplicate, tor the very 
purpose of relieving the poor, and he would assure gen¬ 
tlemen that this could not throw dust enough to pre¬ 
vent that from being distinctly seen. 

He would look first at the proposition to tax money 
invested by our citizens in U. S. and State bonds, and 
consider it under the questions of honor, right, justice, 
and policy. He would come to the legal question 
hereafter. As the gentleman from Ross [Mr. Green] 
had set him the example, he would suppose the case of 
a widow of a man was pos8e8.sed of just property 
enough to buy a small tenement for his family in this 
city, and who dies, leaving it in her possession—a tene¬ 
ment for which she would probably be taxed about ten 












744 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


or fifteen dollars. But hero was a rnex’chant of this 
city, who had been successful in business, and was 
possessed of property, the lawful tax upon which was 
$300. Being rich enough to retire from active busi¬ 
ness, he sells out his merchandize, and turns his mon¬ 
ey into State and United States bonds. When the tax 
gatherer comes round, he collects his ten or fifteen dol- 
l ars of the poor widow, that has taken her two months 
with industry and economy to raise, and who is oblig¬ 
ed to labor all the time for the sujrport of her house¬ 
hold; but when he comes to the merchant, who for¬ 
merly paid a tax of $300, the rich man says to him, 
Pass by Mr. Taxgadjerer, I have nothing for you. 1 
belong to the privileged order—I have put my property 
beyond the reach of taxation.” He would inquire of 
the gentleman from Ross, whether this would be right? 

‘Mr. GREEN, of Ross, (in his seat.j Yes, if there 
were a contract in the case. 

Mr. RANNEY. But here was a man living under 
the protection, and enjoying all the benefits of govern¬ 
ment, in protecting bis person and tens of thousands of 
property, but paying not one cent toward its support; 
et, it would be right in the case of a contract. But 
e had not come to the legal question yet. The gen¬ 
tleman had undertaken to sustain his position on the 
ground of honor and justice and policy, fie would 
ask then, if it would be either honorable or just, to tax 
the poor widow, and exempt the man worth $50,000, 
because he had converted his merchandize into money 
01 invested it in bonds ? 

Mr. GREEN, fin his seat.) Abolish the debt and 
tax too. 

Mr. RANNEY could not go with the gentleman 
there. He would be betrayed into no inconsistency, 
and would do no injustice. It was right the debt 
should be paid. It was also right that every citizen 
should contribute to its payment in proportion to his 
ability. Repudiation was neither talked of nor thought 

by the people. The debt will be paid, and that in 
spite of and against the tendency of the gentleman’s 
doctrine. The most obscure man in your back settle¬ 
ments would go into the woods with nothing but his 
axe, to make a living for his family, and labor cheer 
fully, not merely for them, but for the support of gov¬ 
ernment, and to help pay his full share of the debt; 
but to such a man it would be setting but a sorry ex 
ample—bolding out but a poor inducement to adhere 
to his allegiance, to tax him and exempt the rich man 
in his place, who receives the very money collected, 
but adds nothing to it. And upon the ground of lionor 
and faith, he supposed another case. If this people 
were to become a nou-taxpaying people, the capitalist 
might still semi-annually drive up to the treasury for 
his interest; but where was the money to come from? 
Repudiation was to be deprecated certainly ; but it 
would bo but the same thing which was here upheld 
and defended in these capitalists; and if it should ever 
be resorted to, the largest share of the guilt should hill 
upon those who were willing to live in the community 
and enjoy its protection and advantages, and refuse to 
bear any share in its burdens. But let this principle of 
repudiation, now practised by our capitalists, be parti¬ 
cipated in by every citizen, and what would your stocks 
be worth ? Who would sell his farm, or his merchan¬ 
dise, for State stocks, when the security for their pay¬ 
ment was gone ? This was the honor which the gen¬ 
tleman proposed. This was the entertainment to which 
their example would invite us. 

Mr. GREEN, (interposing.) It was not only right, 
but obligatory. When you have a contract, it should 
be observed, although you have the power legally to 
avoid it. He cared not if the rich man were worth 
five millions. 

Mr. RANNEY had not yet come to that point of the 
argument. But suppose there was no legal barrier in 
the way of taxing these bonds ? Would the gentleman 
then be in favor of it ? 

Mr. GREEN, (in his seal.) Public faith was in the 
way. 


Mr. RANNEY. Public faith was in the way. He 
hoped the gentleman from Ross would not blush, when 
he admitted that he was a very able member of this 
body. But the gentleman’s argument covered a pretty 
extensive field. He had pointed us to the example of 
Great Britain, and the protection which she held over 
her stocks—not permitting them to go out of the coun¬ 
try. Now, every man to his taste ; but ol all the ex 
amples for teaching the principle of taxation, which 
ought to be adopted in this Republic, he could not 
but consider the example quoted by the gentleman 
from Ross to be the most unfortunate. For the exam¬ 
ple of Great Britain, in this respect, could be followed 
oidy by a government lost to all sense of equality and 
justice, and strong enough to draw its revenues from 
the poor, by force, and take its burdens off the shoul¬ 
ders of the rich. What was the practical operation in 
Great Britain. This whole system of government 
stocks originated there. They had gone on creating 
government stocks, till no man, at this day, could tell 
precisely how much they amounted to. These stocks 
had all been issued upon the principle proposed by the 
gentleman Irom Roes—they were exempted from taxa¬ 
tion. But still there must be something to pay the ac¬ 
cruing interest upon these bonds, and lor this purpose, 
that government goes into all the workshops and farni- 
houses, and every nook and corner of ibe land, alter 
objects of taxation, which are made to extend to ev¬ 
erything to eat, drink and wear, and even if there is 
as much as a pane of glass in any miserable hovel 
which happens to be inhabited, the tax-gatherer is 
there to gather the means to roll up the immense sum 
with wiiich it is necessary to replenish the treasury of 
the kingdom to feed the thousands of parasites that 
hang upon it. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, interposed to ask 
how many windows in one house were necessary to 
subject them to taxation in Great Britain ? 

A Voice. “One.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, (in his seat.) No, seven win¬ 
dows. 

Mr. RANNEY confessed that he could not answer 
the question. But he knew very well that such op¬ 
pression as this could not be maintained without a pow¬ 
erful executive arm; that one-half of the people could 
not be exen)})led, and the other half taxed, without the 
sanction of a strong force. The atiections ol the peo¬ 
ple of a free goverment could not be drawn around 
such a system. It must be maintained by a standing 
army. 

Mr. green, (interposing) was sorry to intenupl 
the gentleman, but he was still misunderstood. He 
alluded to the English government simply lor the pur¬ 
pose of showing that it was their policy to concentrate 
their debt in the hands of their own citizens—and that 
such was the true policy of our government, for two 
reasons; first, because the interest would be paid to 
our own citizens; and, secondly, because the citizen 
acquired thereby an additional interest in the support 
government. But he said, expressly—with an ejacu 
lation—he thanked God that we were not in such ^ 
situation that the maintenance of our government mus^ 
depend upon a public debt. He was very far from ei¬ 
ther advocating or apologising for the slate of things in 
Great Britain. 

Mr. RANNEY understood the gentleman at the first, 
and he understood him now. But he wanted to show 
the practical operation of the theory which that gentle¬ 
man was advocating ; for the wit of man never devised 
a better system to foster privileged orders, whether it 
was established on the banks of the Thames, or on the 
banks of the Ohio. It was true that there was no her- 
aldrio pomp belonging to the privileged orders of this 
country ; but the power of privileged orders did not 
rest upon the mere trappings which were thrown 
around and upon them. It was their hold upon the 
public treasury which gave them strength. 

In Great Britain, in addition to the thousands inter- 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 74 ^ 


e«tcd in the public stocks, there hangs upon the public 
treasury, unU led from it, a standing army and afi es¬ 
tablished priesthood. It is their vocation to resist all 
reforms. Acting in concert, the one enforces obedi¬ 
ence to every oppression, by the exhibiiion ol bristling 
bayoiicts, and the other by denouncing eternal punish¬ 
ment upon all who refuse to submit. If driven to des¬ 
peration, any unfortunate being makes a despairing ef¬ 
fort at resistance, the army are ready to cut his throat, 
and the hierarchy to send him to perdition. If we 
wish to lay the foundation of such a system, we cannot 
make a better beginning than to create a public debt 
relieved from taxation. The same causes will ulti¬ 
mately produce the same effects. 

But gentlemen had expressed their feare that, on 
account ol the presence of a distinguished personage 
[Hon. Amiia Bey] from the Old World, the shores of 
tlie Mediterranean would be made to resound with the 
cry that the State of Ohio was practicing bad faith to¬ 
ward her creditors. But if that gentleman should car¬ 
ry back with him any political sentiment, he trusted it 
would be that of the greatest man of this age, when he 
said in substance, that a “ good government, like the 
dew of heaven, should dispense its benefits upon all 
alike ”—that be would take back with him the senti¬ 
ment of the ec|uality of rights—equality in the support 
of the burdens, and in the enjoyment of the benefits 
of government. Let but this sentiment go abroad from 
us, and our State would stand before the world with 
far higher honor than she could ever attain to upon the 
basis proposed by the gentleman over the way, or up 
on any other basis. 

But to the argument, that, if money invested in our 
State bonds were to be taxed, they would go out of the 
hands of our citizens. Suppose a man in this city, 
holding a hundred thousand dollars worth of Stale 
bends; if he should sell them out of the State, he 
would bring back property into the State which could 
be taxed, which would be certainly quite as beneficial 
to the State in the matter of revenue, as though the ia- 
dividual were to hold on to the bonds. But where 
would he flee with his bond.«i to sell them where they 
would escape taxation? The moment he might trans¬ 
fer his bonds to any citizen of the State of New York, 
they would levy a tax upon their cash value, as upon 
every thing else; and the same was the law in Penn¬ 
sylvania, and he presumed in all the other Stages. 
When he first came into this convention, he supposed 
that all the bond-holders of the State w'oukl be glad to 
receive the money for them, and the sooner the better. 
But he had not been two w'eeks in the convention be¬ 
fore he found that he was green upon this subject; and 
he made then the declaration, which he still believed 
would be found mo.st true, “ That it would trouble us 
more to get leave to pay our State debt, than to get the 
money to pay it ” There was a great amount of sur¬ 
plus capital in the State, and it was continually increas¬ 
ing; and the moneyed classes in the State would cla¬ 
mor for the creation of more bonds ; because they 
would be desirous of investing their capital securely, 
and in such a way as to be relieved from all public 
burdens. Who could not see, that, if this doctrine was 
to be maintained, that we have no power to tax money 
invested in the pnblio stocks, it would be utterly de¬ 
structive of the rights of citizens generally, by inducing 
their increase to any and every extent. 

But when gentlemen find that no other argument can 
avail them, then, as a last resource, they say, leave it to 
the Legislature. Whenever a proposition comes up to 
throw the public burdens upon all alike, they tell us 
we are running our business into perfect ridicule by an 
attempt at legislating. He saw this several days ago. 
The rumbling of the distant storm did not deceive him. 
The galled jade winced as soon as we put our finger 
on the unsound spot. Leave it to the Legislature. 
Aye, where had we left this subject heretofore ? Gen¬ 
tlemen had told us that no Legislature had ever laid 
their hands upon the State bonds to tax them, or the 


money invested in them—and that was the very reasoiv 
why he was not going to trust them any longer. 

The gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] had said 
he would appeal to the people to repudiate the new 
constitution if we succeeded in incorporating this sec¬ 
tion. Let him not lay that flattering unction to his soul 
He would like to meet that gentleman before the peo 
pie ofi the question now before us; but as that was an 
improbable event, he would say, that whenever that 
gentleman shall get upon the stump, and get a verdict 
in his favor on this issue, he hoped to hear from him. 
For if after this ct nstitution shall be signed, the gen¬ 
tleman should go home and tell the people that the Lo- 
cofocos had determined to lax them all alike, in pro¬ 
portion to the property they possessed, he should nev¬ 
er die of fear that the people would not respond, “All 
is right!” 

When he looked at the position of the National Con 
gress upon a kindred question, in years gone by, he 
was strongly continued in the ground he had taken, 
that it was unsafe to leave great pecuniary interests tO' 
the Legislature. He saw them establishing a maiumotb 
moneyed institution, extending its branches into every 
State of the Union, including millions of stocks exemp 
ted from taxation, and when the time comes for the 
reebarter of that institution, he saw 140 members ot 
Congress with the money of that bank in their pock 
ets, called upon to give a vote—an impartial vote! — 
whether that institution should be rechartered or not 
He saw the press in every important city subsidized in 
its favor; and he saw, when the vote of Congress wul- 
called upon the question, that it was decided to rechar¬ 
ter the bank, by a large maj' rity. But, thank God ' 
we did see, then, another spectacle, though we might 
never look upon its like again—our eyes were turned 
upon a man who had the popularity aud the indepen¬ 
dence which enabled him to say, “ I forbid it! the bill 
shall not pass.” And if nothing else bad ever distin¬ 
guished the name of Andrew Jackson —if the battle oi 
New Orleans were stricken from history aud the mem 
ory of men, and bis other great and glorious deede 
were obliterated, that single act would entitle him t<. 
the highest niche in the temple of fame! 

He had proceeded thus far to consider this qucsliotv 
in the light of justice, and honor and faith ; and he- 
could not but think that gentlemen would finally con¬ 
clude tliat it wotdd bo best for tliem to tako “terni'-: 
named in the bond.” They must, however, remember 
that although they may be entitled to their “pound ol 
llcsh,” they must not draw one drop of blood. 

There were now outstandingsome eighteen millions 
of Ohio slocks; and the Lord knew the amount ol 
stock of the federal government; anotherwar would 
increasethe sum hundreds of millions, besides the 
neighboiing State stocks and stocks of corporations o( 
the neighljoring States, wliich he was in hopes this re ¬ 
port would be made to embrace, so that we might 
catch them all. Having made this statement, we 
would come to the legal question, whether money in¬ 
vested by the citizens of this State in these stocks could 
be legally taxed. He would remark in the first place, 
that he hud enjoyed no opportunity for an examination 
of the question. He would give his first impressions, 
and founded upon the autff .rity which the gentlemen 

upon the other side have produced and rely upon. It 

had been strenuously contended that the States could 
not tax the money of a citizen invested in bonds ol 
the United States. That to do so would be a violation 
of the Federal Constitution which secures to that gov¬ 
ernment the power to borrow money. The gentle¬ 
man from Warren [Mr. Smith] warns uS against suefi 
a collision as this will produce, expressing fears lor 
the Federal Union, and warns us of the oath we have 
taken. He felt perhaps as strongly attached to the 
Union of the States as the gentleman. He had taken 
an oath to support the constitution of the United States 
and would do so at all times, oath or no oath. As long 
as a thread of her glorious flag floated in the breeze. 







746 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


he would be found ready to stand by it. But how was 
it best supported and its perpetuity ensured. He 
would answer, by a strict interpretation of the Federal 
compact, and a sturdy inaintenence of the reserved 
rights of the States. He wished he had strength to 
speak as strongly as he felt upon this subject. Sover¬ 
eign States constitute the pillars upon which rests the 
national edifice. Strengthen the pillars and you give 
salety to the structure ; weaken them, and you endan¬ 
ger it. The worst enemies of the Union are those 
who would encourage it to intermeddle with the local 
affairs of the people, and encroach upon the rights of 
the States. For the purposes of external administra¬ 
tion—to enforce the great principle of free trade be¬ 
tween the States, and to provide them with a uniform 
currency, it was indispensable. But to preserve our 
rights and liberties, and to regulate our internal affairs, 
we must look to the States, and must be careful not to 
deprive them of the means to effect the end of their 
creation. 

The Union at first extended over thirteen States, lo¬ 
cated along the Atlantic sea-board. It now extends 
over thirty, spreading from ocean to ocean. Every ex¬ 
tension rendered it less fit for internal administration, 
more difficult to be reached, and more powerful to op¬ 
press. The more you weaken the States, and add 
weight to the federal government that rests upon them, 
the more certainly you hasten the crash which builds 
upon the ruins of the State government a great consoli¬ 
dated empire. Let us then, as State-rights men, care¬ 
fully examine the true boundary between State and 
federal authority, and preserve the just rights of each 
inviolate. The federal government has the express 
power to borrow money. The State governments have 
the power to tax all property within their jurisdiction, 
except exports and imports—a power, he would remark, 
indispensable to their very existence. But it was 
claimed that as soon as a citizen of a State saw fit to 
place his property, before subject to taxation, in the 
stock of the federal government, it placed it beyond 
the power of the State, and he could thereafter prevent 
the anomaly of enjoying the benefit of government 
without contributing to its support, and it was further 
claimed that the federal courts had so decided. This 
he denied—he denied that it was law, or had ever been 
held to be law. He was cited by gentlemen to the 
case of McCullock v. the State of Maryls^id, 4 Wheat. 
R. 316, decided in 1829 by the supreme court of the 
United States. The State of Maryland passed a law 
to lax the Branch Bank of the United States located in 
that State. The supreme court held that the tax was 
unconstitutionally levied, inasmuch as the bank was a 
means employed by the general government to carrv 
into execution its delegated powers, which was beyond 
the power of State taxation. Did they thereby hold 
that the money which a citizen of Maryland might 
have invested in this means could not be taxed ? No, 
directly the contrary. Chief Justice Marshall says; 

“ The principle does not extend to a tax paid by the real prop¬ 
erty of the bank in common with the other real property in a par¬ 
ticular State, nor to a tax enforced upon the proprietary interest 
which the citizens of that State may hold in this institution in 
common with other property of the same description through¬ 
out the State.” And again he says : “ As to the bank stock be¬ 
longing to its own citizens, it still continues liable to State taxa¬ 
tion as a portion of their individual property in common with all 
other private property in the State.” 

The case needs no comment. Instead of denying, 
it expressly affirms the power we claim. The gentle¬ 
man next cites us to the case of Weston: et al vs. the 
City Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. R. 449. The City 
Council, amongst other things, levied a tax of twenty- 
five cents on every hundred dollars of the six and seven 
per cent, stock of the United States. A majority of 
the Council held the tax illegal. Chief Justice Marshall, 
in delivering his opinion, states the ground upon which 
the decision was based. He says: 

“ The tax in question is a tax upon the contract subsisting be¬ 
tween the government and the individual. It bears directly upon 
that contract, while subsisting and in full force. The power ope¬ 


rates upon the contract the instant it is framed and must imp!} a 
right to effect that contract ’’ 

Justice Johnson and Thompson not regarding it as a 
tax upon the contract, dissented, and each deliverer! a 
very able opinion. Justice Johnson says: 

“Why should not the stock of the United States, when it be' 
comes mixed up with the capital of its citizens, become subject 
to taxation in common with other capital ? or why should one 
who enjoys all the advantages of a society, purchased at a hepy 
expense and lives in affluence upon an income derived exclusive¬ 
ly from interest on government stock, be exempted from taxa- 
tion? ” 

Justice Thompson says: 

“But great injustice is done to others by exempting men who 
are living upon the interest of their money invested in stock of 
the United States, from the payment of taxes; thereby establish¬ 
ing a privileged class of public creditors who, living under the 
protection of the government, are exempted from bearmg any of 
its burdens. A construction of the Constitution, drawing after 
it such consequences ought to be very palpable before it is 
adopted.” 

What, then, do these cases amount to ? They sim¬ 
ply deny the right to the States to tax the means directly 
employed by the Federal Government. While the first 
case expressly, and the last impliedly, affirm the rights 
of the States to tax any interest that a citizen may have 
in them. Thus substantially preserving the power of 
the General Government to borrow money by placing 
its contract beyond State control, and the power of the 
States to impose taxes justly and equally upon the prop¬ 
erty of all their citizens. This construction leads to no 
collision between the two governments, but furnishes 
another happy illustration of the workings of our com¬ 
plicated yet nicely adjusted system. To allow the 
States to tax ikiG contracts the Federal Government 
would be to put that Government in the power of the 
States, while, upon the other hand, to allow the Federal 
Government to withdraw from the power of State tax¬ 
ation all the property of its citizens in any way con¬ 
nected with or invested in such contracts, would place 
the States at the mercy of the Federal Government, 
and hazard their very existence. The distinction taken 
by the Supreme Court in the cases cited, removes all 
danger to each, and is in perfect accordance with the 
spirit of other decisions of that eminent tribunal upon 
kindred subjects. The States have no power to tax 
"imports,” and yet so vital does the Court hold eth 
power of the States to tax their citizens upon all their 
property, that they have held that as soon as an im¬ 
ported article is taken into a State and subjected to 
sale, it loses its character of an import, and is liable to 
taxation. 

But gentlemen/ear a conflict with the General Gov¬ 
ernment, if we claim this right in the constitution. He 
did not apprehend any such danger ; but if he did, he 
hoped he did not possess so craven a spirit as to yield 
up the just rights of the third Slate in the Union through 
fear. Sir, if it is the intention of the Federal Govern¬ 
ment to override the State sovereignties, and reduce 
them to mere dependent corporations, the sooner that 
conflict comes the better for the rights of the people 
and the liberties of mankind. Every good citizen will 
then do his duty peacefully, calmly, yet resolutely and 
firmly. 

He would next examine very briefly the legal objec¬ 
tion interposed to taxing money invested by the citi¬ 
zens of this State in Stocks of the State. The objection 
was vested upon the act of 1825, which provided in 
substance that the State would not impose any tax 
upon the Stock thereby created, or the interest to be 
paid upon it. Before proceeding to examine this act 
he would notice a remark of the gentleman from War¬ 
ren, [Mr. Smith,] that we owed a great debt of grati¬ 
tude to those who stepped forward and advanced their 
money to relieve our distress in time of our need. Let 
us see how large this debt of gratitude due to those 
disinterested patriots is. We issued our bonds, binding 
ourselves and our posterity to pay one hundred cents 
upon every dollar, and au interest of G and 7 per cent 
semi-annually. The patriots paid for many of these 
bonds 52 cents upon the dollar to the State. We have 









CONVEN'IION EEPORTS 


747 


not for a single day failed to pay them the interest as 
it fell due. We have for 20 years relieved those resi¬ 
ding in this State and enjoying the benefit of our lands 
from all taxation. Every acre of our land and every 
cent of our property is mortgaged to pay the principal 
and accruing interest. If the gentleman calls this helpf 
“ may the good Lord deliver us ” from such in future. 
How many of the bonds issued under that act are still 
outstanding 1 cannot say, and the Auditor of State says 
he cannot—I apprehend however, that they have been 
mostly taken up and renewed under laws containing 
no pledge. 

But to the law. It is a sound rule to construe every 
law with a reference to its reason and spirit, the sub¬ 
ject matter, and the inducements that procured its en¬ 
actment. We sent these bonds into other States and 
foreign countries to be sold. We said we would not 
tax the bonds or the interest to be paid upon them. If 
we taxed the bonds, it would be a tax to be paid, re¬ 
gardless of the residence of che owner. Did we there¬ 
by intend to say, that when these bonds became an ar¬ 
ticle of merchandize, and were bought by our own cit¬ 
izens, with money before subject to taxation, that that 
money could, at their pleasure, be withdrawn from our 
power ? No, never—such a construction is at war with 
the spirit and meaning of the law. We cannot pre¬ 
sume that the General Assembly intended to go beyond 
their constitutional power. If such was the construc¬ 
tion of the law, he denied its constitutionality. The 
General Assembly might borrow money, and bind the 
State to repay it with interest; but they could not bar¬ 
ter away the sovereign power of taxation, so as to bind 
their successors. Even the British Parliament could 
not do it, much less the Legislature of a Republican 
State. Every act that derogates from the essential 
powers of a succeeding Legislature is void. This is a 
familiar principle, and well settled. The constitution, 
for the good of the people, armed the Legislature of 
1825 with full power of taxation over all the property 
of the State. It also armed, for the same purpose, ev¬ 
ery succeeding Legislature with the same power, and 
to the same extent. If that of 1825 could barter away 
a part, that of 1826 could barter away another part, 
and so on until there was nothing left. The State would 
then be forced into bankruptcy, and would present the 
singular spectacle ot a government run down and ut¬ 
terly powerless to protect the people in their rights and 
liberties, under the workings of its own constitutional 
system. Yes, even worse than that; the peeple them¬ 
selves, in their sovereign capacity, could n-t set it up 
a'^ain—but must give up to anarchy, confusion and dis- 
•’■race, because their faithless servants had sold out their 
inherent sovereign rights and powers. ^ To such conse¬ 
quences would the advocates ot a privileged monied 
power lead us. and this, under the siren cry of honor, 
faith, law ! For one, he could not, and would not fol¬ 
low them. 

He had endeavored to consider this important sub¬ 
ject in all its bearings. The irresistable conclusion to 
which he was brought was, that honor, integrity, good 
faith to the people, and republican equality, all demand 
that we should tax the money of the capitalists, how¬ 
ever or wherever invested, as we tax all other proper¬ 
ty ; and that we were not forbidden to do so, either by 
the constitution of the Federal Government, or by any 
law of this State. He would so record his vote on all 
occasions, and trust to his own conscience and the ver¬ 
dict of the people for justification. 

On motion, the committee rose and reported 

And on motion by Mr LARWILL, the Convention 
adjourned. 


FRIDAY, December 


13, 1B5U, 

9 o’clock, 


A. M. 


The Convention met pursuant to adjournment 
Mr. REEMBLIN, from the select committee on the 
subject, submitted the following, which was agreed to : 
The select committee to whom was committed the resolution 


in reference to furnishing to this body copies of the General 
Laws have had the same under consideration and now recom 
mend that the original resolution be stricken out and the follow 
ing substituted in lieu thereof: 

Resolved, That the Secretary of State be requested- to transmit 
as soon as possible to this body, for the use thereof, such number 
of copies, not exceeding ten of any one species, ot the general and 
local laws, of the volume of public documents, and of the journals 
of the two houses of the General Assembly, as can, of the differ, 
ent years, be conveniently spared from the State Library. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

Mr. CHAMBERS offered the following, which was 
agreed to: 

Resolved, That when the Convention adjourns, it will adjourn 
till Monday morning next, at 9 o’clock. 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the 
following communication from the Indiana Constitu¬ 
tional Convention, accompanied by sundry documents : 

Indianapolis, Dec. 10,1850. 

Hon. Wm. Mbdill, 

President of the Constitutional Convention 
Sir ; In compliance with a resolution adopted by the Consti¬ 
tutional Convention of this State, I have the honor to transmit 
herewith copies of the sections made by the several standing 
committees of said Convention, up to this date. 

VGry rGspccttu-lly^j 

WM. H. ENGLISH, Sec'y. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the communication and 
accompanying documents were laid on the table. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention resolv¬ 
ed itself into a committee ot the Whole, Mr. Lkadbet- 
TER in the chair. 

Mr. McCormick then addressed the committee to 

the following effect: _ • • u 

The report proposes a uniform rule of taxation, t»© 
operation of which shall equally effect all. 

This is neither more nor less than justice; wealth 
should not complain that on the same species^ of arti- 
licles, it is compelled to pay a larger amount into the 
treasury, than the less favored citizen, as the protec¬ 
tion of the government is in the one case greater than 
the other, and poverty is equally taxed on all it pos¬ 
sesses, and although the all be small in amount yet is 
is all. 

Pride, luxury, vanity, are proper objects tor taxation, 
whether exhibited in apparel, furniture, plate or chur¬ 
ches, and those who seek the display of magnificence, 
in either, have no good grounds of accusation or coli- 
plaint, against the law of equality. The reportstrikes 
not at morality or religion, but revering both, declares 

that ostentation in edifices of worship, is neither; and 
places them on the list of ordinary property. 

Capital invested in public bonds, differs from omi- 
nary property ; and the question is gravely asked, if it 
it can be assessed for taxation without a breach of pub¬ 
lic faith; without sacrificing the truth, honor, and jus¬ 
tice of the State ? The subject is worthy of grave con 
sideration, for the honor of the States should be sacred- 
It is claimed that the law of 1825 was a contract, if 
so, and obligatory upon us, the parties to that contiact 
must have had legal ability to make it. In order to 
make this argument bear with all its birce, the asser- 
tors of the proposition claim for the Legislature a pow¬ 
er it does not, and never did possess—■ sovereignty. 
The Legislature is not sovereign, lor above it are the 
Constitutions of the State, the United States, and the 
people. The acts of the Legislature within these Con¬ 
stitutions are sovereign until repealed without them 
they are void. States cannot issue bill? of credit, and 
the issue of a bond for credit, is a bill of cijdit. 

The Ohio Constitution recognizes the ordinary pow¬ 
er of taxation for the necessary purposes of the gov¬ 
ernment alone; and if the national law does not pro¬ 
hibit the issue of bonds, the fundamental law of the 
State grants no power to create debts for any purposes 
other than the one specified Whether P^liibited by 
the national law, or withheld by the law of the State, 
the result is the same—a want of legitimate power in 
tile Legislature to create debts for extraordinary pm-- 
noses and issue bonds as evidences of such debts. The 
isiature, then, being deficient inability, legally to 


Leg 


mate such a gontract as that contemplated by the law, 













748 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


and the friends of the motion, the contract is void. 
This view of the subject, seemingly, but nof inevitably, 
leads to repudiation of the debt. The Legislature is 
the agent, the servant of the people, and although it 
has contracted this debt without legal c'-dity so to do, 
yet, as the people of the State, by the ac -eptance and 
use of the funds arising from the sale i i the bonds, 
have sanctioned the sale, they are, in h ii.r and con¬ 
science, bound to redeem them—they h ve so far rati¬ 
fied the illegal act of their agent; out neither truth, 
honor nor justice, can rightfully clan ‘iiat they are 
board for more than tlieir redemption, a.,d therefore, 
their taxation would accord with these high moral 
qujilificalions. 

Again: The advocates of the motion do not pretend 
that all the bonds were issued under the laws exempt 
ing from taxation; and the facts show that it is im¬ 
practicable to determine which were and which were 
not issued under the law, and are protected by it, and 
it cannot in reason be pretended that those bonds, is¬ 
sued without the protection, are legally exempt. In 
this case, it is incumbent upon the party claiming the 
the benefits of the law of ’25, to bring himself within 
the exemption of that law, and show that his bonds 
were issued under it; failing so to do—and no one can 
show that any particular bond was so is.sned—the pre¬ 
sumption of the law is, that no bonds now in existence 
were issued under that law, which il is believed ac¬ 
cords with the fact. Parties claiming exemptions must 
prove them, and failing so to do. must come within the 
ordinary rule. 

The Legislature posesses no right to alienate or de¬ 
stroy the sources of the revenue of the State. Were 
this admissable in one case, it would bo so in every 
other, and in a short time the revenue from taxation 
would be entirely destroyed, and the Treasury bank¬ 
rupt by act of the Legislature. 

There is a clifterence between bonds and the money 
invested in bonds, the bonds being evidences of debt 
and the money invested in bonds being evidences of 
capital. This distinction is maintained by the decisions 
of courts, and is not now created by the friends of the 
report. 

Again. If this motion does not prevail, it is said we 
violate the law in changing the rate of interest; the 
law providing 6 per cent., which taxation reduces to 
about 5. This cannot be claimed as the violation of a 
contract any more than the taxing of orduiary com¬ 
mercial paper. One law provides that per cent, 
shall be the rate of interest, and no more, and under 
the law that rate of interest is always accruing on 
such paper, and is the standing legal contract. Yel 
the tax is the same in both cases, and the effect the 
same. No one claims the last case to be a violation of 
contract. 

These reasons, in addition to those ollerod by other 
gentlemen, are satisfactory to me that we violate no 
Idith in assessing the money invested in the public 
bonds, for tax, while justice demands that it should be 
80 assessed. 

It is claiming that it would not be policy so to do, 
even should public faith justify such a proceeding. To 
this it is answered, that the capital of the State is 
small, not sufficient for the commercial purpo.ses of the 
people; that money is commanding from 20 to 50 per 
cent.; and while this is the case, it is not wise to alien¬ 
ate any portion of our capital in permanent invest¬ 
ments, which would bring but small returns. Bring¬ 
ing our stocks home would only be done by sending 
our capital to the distant market in which those stocks 
now are, and would place us very much in the position 
of a young tradesman, who, expending his ready mon¬ 
ey for goods, should sell them to his customers on 
credit. His books might show a very pretty transac¬ 
tion, but his actual capital would be certainly beyond 
his reach. 

Were we in possession of superfluous wealth, we 
might, with benefit, imitate the example of Britain, so 


exultiugly displayed by the friends of the nation ; but 
until we are so, the wisdom of the policy may well be 
doubted. 

The people of Ohio are bowed to the earth with the 
weight of taxation, and demanding from our hands 
such relief as it is in our power to give to them. It is 
our duty, as it is my pleasure, to answer that demand 
promptly and efficiently. In order to do so, the bur- 
iluns of the taxes must be placed equally upon ah. 
and it matters not what form capital or property as¬ 
sumes—whether it ministers to the pride, the vanity, 
the arrogance, or the humility of the citizen, it shah 
contribute its share. Justice demands it, and the peo¬ 
ple will be satisfied with nothing less. 

Mr. STANTON said that as the time had arrived 
which had been designated by the Convention and the 
committee appointed for that purpose, for the reception 
of Amin Bey in the Hall, he would move that the com¬ 
mittee rise and report; which was agreed to. Tlie 
committee accordingly rose and reported, and the chair 
was taken by the President. 

It is said, by gentlemen upon the other side of the 
hall, that there is a portion of the stocks of the State 
now outstanding, that are not covered by the law of 
1825, nor by any of the laws subsequently enacted 
which refer to the pledges of that act. It may be that 
there have been a few issues not, in express terms, 
brought v/ithin its provisions. Those that have been 
omitted under that law, we have no right to tax, in any 
contingency. I wish to call the attention of gentle¬ 
men especially to the provisions of the law of 1825. 

After providing for the creation of the loan and the 
issue of the bonds—after pledging for tlie payment of 
the interest and the final redemption of the principal, 
the tolls of the canals, the water rents and other sums 
arising from different tunds, the law goes on to say ; 

“ And the faith of the State is hereby pledged, that the tax 
hereby levied shall not be altered or reduced, so as to impair the 
security, hereby pledged, for the payment of the interest, and the 
final redemption of the principal of the sums to bo borrowed by 
virtue of this act; and that no tax shall ever be levied by the Le¬ 
gislature, or under the authority of this State, on the stock to be 
created by virtue of this act, nor on the interest which m&y be 
payable tbereon; and further, that the value ol the said stock 
shall be in no wise impaired by any Legislative - ct of this State.” 

Now, Mr. Chairman; what i.s the meaning of this 
provision made by the General Assembly of Ohio? 
First, it authorizes the issue of the bonds, and provides 
a fund for the payment of the interest and the final re¬ 
demption of the principal; secondly, it provides that 
they shall never bo taxed, either in themselves or the 
interest payable upon them; and, thereby, lest there 
should be a possibility of doubt ora chance for evasion, 
it decrees that their value shall be in no wise impaireti 
by any Lcgi.slative act whatever. 

Mr. Chairman, there is one thing in this debate, 
which is. to say the least, remarkable. In all the dis¬ 
cussion that has taken place, by gentlemen over the 
way, not one word has been said upon the prohibition 
against any act impairing the value of these securities. 
The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr, Rannky j noticeri 
the provision against taxation ; so did the gentleman 
from Adams, [Mr. McCormick,] and the gentleman 
from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] but neither of those gen¬ 
tlemen had one syllable to offer, concerning the clause 
which pledges the faith of the State against any aR:t of 
its own that shall impair the value of the stocks of the 
Stale. 

It was argued by the gentleman from Meigg, [Mr. 
Horton,'] who moved the amendmeut now under con¬ 
sideration, that the SAte having issued these securities, 
thrown them into the market of the world, invited 
capitalists of all countries to invest their funds in them 
under a pledge of the honor of the State, taken the 
money, used it, and had thebenefitof it, we have made 
and concluded a solemn contract, which, under no 
circumstances, and in no possible contingency, we 
have a right to annul—that we cannot enter into a 
bond, and not be bound by its obligations. This, gen¬ 
tlemen upon the other side admit, but seek to evade its 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


application. They do not seek to tax the bonds—so 
chey «ay: oh, no; but we may tax the money that was 
invested in the |)urchase of the bonds. This, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, though I do not like to speak in terms of disres¬ 
pect, either of gentlemen or their arguments, seems to 
me to be, at best, but a pitiful evasion. What was 
meant by this solemn pledge, given by the supreme 
legislative power of a sovereign Stale? Wliat was 
intended? Was it contrived as a mere bait to lure 
uuwary men into an investment of their money, to 
cheat them afterward ? Let me illustrate. 

Suppose I was a citizens of the State of Ohio, in 1825, 
at the time of the enactment of this law. I had in my 
hands a small amount of means, which I was seeking 
to invest. I w'aut to lay out my money in somethini' 
that would not be subject to taxation—something that 
required little care or skill in its inanagerneut. I was 
willing to pay a premium—to pay more than the amount 
which 1 received. I saw the State about to enter up- 
ona large and expensive system of public improve¬ 
ments. I knew that the taxes for many years to come, 
would be heavy and oppressive. I saw the promise 
)f the Stale that her securities should be exempt from 
taxation. Well,sir; when I am dead, and my chil¬ 
dren, wi.h the bonds in their hands, present themselves 
at the Treasury of the State, to receive their Instali- 
ments of interest, shall they bo told that the sum ha.s 
been reduced by a tax of one, two or Utree per cent. 
—not upon the bonds, but upon the money which their 
ancestor invested in their purchase ? Is this honest ? 
It is reputable for the Stale of Ohio to play the part of 
the witches in Macbeth—those juggling fiends who 
“ palher in a double sense and keep the word of pro¬ 
mise to the ear, to break it to the hope ?” It is wrong 
—it is criminal for the State of Ohio to setup a mere 
technical evasion, to get rid of a solemn promise.— 
But there is no room for such an evasion. It is impos¬ 
sible. Whether you tax the thing itself or the money 
it represents, will it not equ diy reduce the value of 
the article. Will capitalists give as much for the bonds 
in the market as if they or the money invested in them 
were free from taxation ? Will they give as much by one 
percent.? Certainly they will not. There, in the very 
teeth of your proposition, you are forbid. It is no 
matter how little or how much you attempt to reduce 
the value of the article in question, when by the ex¬ 
press words of '.he contract, you are prohibited from 
reducing it all; and it makes no difference whether 
you propose to reduce it ten, twenty or only one per 
cent. 

The gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Kannev] at¬ 
tempted, yesterday, to give us some authority upon this 
subject. Yes, he read the dissenting opinion given 
by some judge who thought that money invested in 
r.he stocks of a bank might be taxed, although the 
stocks themselves were exempt. There were howev¬ 
er, two difficulties in the way of his authority; first, 
the opinion which he road was not the law of the case, 
and was overruled by the other judges; and secondly 
that in that case, it did not appear that there was any 
promise or obligation on the part of the State not to 
tax, or not to reduce by any legislation, the value of 
the stocks. 

Another principal objection made by the gentleman 
IS, that the Stute had no power to make the exemption 
which it undertook to make. Ti iie it is—so they say, 
that the General A.^sembly did undertake to exempt— 
that for that purpose they exercised all the power 
which they had ; bat that the exemption is void for the 
want oi sufficient pow er to carry it into effect. 

I desire to call the attention of the committee, for a 
moment to the practical result of this doctrine. If the 
State has the power to borrow money, to stipulate the 
terms of paymentand the rate of interest, and to make 
all those stipulations and provisions binding upon itself, 
has it not the same power to contract to do no act by 
which the value of the credits it has created shall be 
reduced ? If it has not, it has reserved to itself the 


749 


power to do, by an indirect act of repudiation, that 
which to do directly would be an act of dishonor and 
crime. 

Mr. Chairman; it is too late now to say that the Le¬ 
gislature has no right to pass a law creating a loan, or 
that for this purpose one General Assembly may jiass 
a law which a subsequent legislative body may nut re¬ 
peal. The General Assembly of 1825 passed an act, 
l)y the authority of which stocks to the amount of 
about sixteen millions of dollars were issued and sold. 
We had the money and used it; and shall we now say 
in this constitution, that another Legislature shall re¬ 
peal the law by virtue of which that money was bor¬ 
rowed, and thus discharge ourselves of all liability to 
pay it? Here, in the law, is the obligation to repay 
the money, and to abstain from taxation ; but, says the 
gentleman, the obligation is void, for the wantof power 
to make the contract. They, as attorneys for the State, 
interpose a plea of infancy, to avoid the debt. The 
State had not arrived at adult age—it was not twenty- 
five years old perhaps. Well, let us test this question. 
I go and buy of some tail young gentleman, who 
bears all the marks of maturity, a farm. I pay two 
ihousaud dollars for it, and take possession. The next 
day he brings his suit in ejectment against me, and 
ousts me from the premises, because he was under 
age, and the deed was void for the want of legal abili¬ 
ty to contract. I file my bill against him to re/und the 
purchase money. W'onld any court under Heaven al¬ 
low him to keep the money and have the land ? If he 
seeks equity must he not also do equity ? Such a doo- 
tiino would be against all laws and all constitutions. 
Is there really no power in legislation to place the par¬ 
ty contracting in ti>e situation where we found lain? 
The idea of standing up here and denying an obliga¬ 
tion of this kind, argues a species of public faith such 
as I never expected to have heard upon this floor. 

But, Mr. Chairman, how is this answered? The 
gentleman from Knox, and the gentleman fiom Trum¬ 
bull, ask us, with an air of triumph, “ Don’t you tax 
the poor man ? Why then not tax the millionaire?” 
What has that to do with the question? The inquiry 

is, whether the State has a right to break a promise 
given not to tax her own bonds. When the gentlemen 
show me that there is a proposition to tax thy poor and 
exonorate the rich, I will go with them against it; but 
when it is a question whether we shall keep th(>. 
plighted faith of the State, 1 will allow no conside'ra- 
tion of riches or poverty to interfere w ith my sense of 
justice. Such an appeal to the mere passions and preju¬ 
dices of men, I did not expect to heiir from the gentle¬ 
man from Trumbull. 

Mr. SAWYER said that while the Convention was 
awaiting the arrival of their foreign friend, he had a 
proposition to make, which he was sure would meet 
the views of every gentleman upon the floor. W’e 
are, said he, members of a body delegated to iho per¬ 
formance of a high and responsible duty. He looked 
upon his seat here as an honor to him ell, and he felt 
desirous to carry away something which he and his 
children, and bis children’s children migdit preserve, as 
an evidence, of the instrumentality which he had had 
in the perfoi mance of this great work. He therefore 
proposed that each member of the Convention, on its 
final adjournment, should pay for and carry aw.iy the 
desk w hich he occupied, and the pen with which he 
should sign this constitution ; and he had no doubt 
posterity would look with pride and pleasure upon rel¬ 
ics so interesting and sacred to so many glorious recol¬ 
lections. 

Mr. HORTON inquired if the gentleman from Aug¬ 
laize [Mr. SAWYEn] would be willing that these arli- 
cl?8 should be exempted from taxation. 

Mr. SAWYKR said he looked upon the proposition 
of the gentleman from Meigs [Mr. Horton] as unfair. 
It was a poser. He would take time to consider upon 

it. He must own he w'as much pleased with the idea 
or carrying home something of the kind—he would 











760 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


like to have the chair also, and he could say to the gen¬ 
tleman from Licking [Mr. Case] that it would be in¬ 
teresting and valuable for us to hand down to our pos¬ 
terity. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WORTHINGTON said there might be one diffi¬ 
culty that would alFect the value of the gentleman’s 
relics. We are told in the sacred volume, “Let not he 
that putteth on his armor, glory as he that taketh it 
off.” It was barely possible that the one hundred and 
eight gentleman assembled here might fail to make 
such a Constitution as would be acceptable to the peo¬ 
ple of the State. In such a case the relics might be of 
somewhat doubtful value. 

Mr. SAWYER would ask the gentleman from Picka¬ 
way, [Mr. Worthington] if, after looking around upon 
this assembly, and seeing its intelligence and its patri¬ 
otism, he could, for a moment, doubt for the success of 
its labors? For his part, he had no doubts nor fears 
but the constitution would be accepted by the people, 
and would redound to their honor. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved that all proceedings under 
the call (of the gentleman from Turkey) be dispensed 
with. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MANON hoped the absentees would not be en¬ 
tered upon the journal. 

At 11 o’clock Amin Bey entered the Hall of the Con¬ 
vention, attended by his suite, the Hon. J. P. Brown, 
Dragoman to the American Legations at Constantino¬ 
ple, and the members of the committee appointed by 
the Convention for his reception, and was introduced 
to the President and the Convention, by Mr. Lawrence, 
Chairman of the committee. 

The PRESIDENT addressed him as follows : 

Sir: The representatives of the people of Ohio, as¬ 
sembled in Convention to revise the Constitution of the 
State, directed on yesterday that a committee be ap¬ 
pointed to wait upon and invite you to take a seat with¬ 
in the bar of this chamber, whenever you might be 
pleased to visit them, during your stay in this city. As 
their organ, it now gives me great pleasure to welcome 
you among us, and to extend to you, and to those who 
accompany you, the privileges and hospitalities of this 
Convention. 

The object of your mission to this country being 
that, as I understand, of an inquiry into the nature and 
workings of our free institutions, cannot but command 
the admiration and sympathy of our constituents, as 
well as the admiration and sympathy of every member 
of this body. It is an object, sir, that is not only flat¬ 
tering to our national pride, but one that is worthv of 
the enlightened and distinguished sovereign, who, 
amidst the dangers that were thereby incurred, dared 
to afford to Kossuth and his glorious associates, an asy¬ 
lum within his dominions, when, overcome in their last 
great struggle for the liberty and independence of their 
fatherland, they were pursued by the sword of tyranny 
and oppression. 

In the deliberations of this body, you will see a beau¬ 
tiful illustration of the nature and advantages of repub¬ 
lican institutions. The constitution under which this 
great and flourishing State first came into the Union, is 
undergoing an entire revision. The people in their 
representative, and yet sovereign capacity, are assem¬ 
bled in council, quietly engaged in engrafting such 
changes into the Supreme organic law of the land as 
sense and experience have demonstrated to be necessa¬ 
ry and proper for their own happiness. They have 
been impelled to this by no particular grievance, by 
no outbreak or threatened revolution, but by that self 
renovating and self correcting principle that steadily 
progresses with the march of mind, and which consti¬ 
tutes the strength and chief excellence of all ‘Govern¬ 
ments that are founded exclusively on the popular will. 

In conclusion, I congratulate you, sir, on the advan¬ 
tages you must necessarily derive from being accompa¬ 
nied in your tour through the country by one of our 
most accomplished and enlightened citizens. 

Hon. Mr. Brown, in beh^f of Amin Bey (who does 


not speak the English language,) then read the follow¬ 
ing reply: 

[translation.] 

Mr. President —I am greatly obliged to the gentle¬ 
men of this Convention, for the privilege which they i 
have been pleased to grant me, of visiting it, during its [' 
sessions. ]• 

I participate warmly, in the deep interest which the i 
members of this Convention must naturally all feel, in j 
the first object for which they have assembled here, j 
To form a Constitution in so great and flourishing a j 
State as that of Ohio—and in which its future prosper- i 
ity, and the happiness of its citizens must greatly de- i 
pend, is a task of the most serious and important na- | 
ture, and consequently calls for all your solicitude. 

I am most happy to be here during the Convention, 
and to have an opportunity of seeing assembled for [ 
such a purpose, the Representatives of the citizens of 
Ohio, whose kind hospitalities I have so much enjoyed. 

I beg leave to express my warmest thanks for the i 
flattering and kind language of the Committee which 
was so kind as to call upon me yesterday, to present 
me with a copy of the friendly intentions of the Con¬ 
vention, in my favor. I am, also, most grateful for the 
elegant commendations which I have heard of my hon¬ 
ored sovereign, and for the kind remarks' respecting 
me personally. 

My visit to the United States, is wholly a mission of 
friendship, and inquiry after useful knowledge; and ■ 

no where in the United States have I found it respond- I 

ed to in a more cordial manner than in the State of 
Ohio. I shall esteem myself most happy, indeed, if it j 
results in strengthening the relations which have al i 
ways existed between the two countries, and in crea¬ 
ting a mutual interest for each other’s welfare, in their ^ 
respective people. 

Both my government, and myself personally, are 
greatly indebted to my friend and companion, Mr. i 

Brown, and I am happy to find that he possesses the j 

esteem of the citizens of his native State. Thanking j 
you all for your kindness to me, I beg you to believe 
that you have my best wishes for the entire success of 
your labors, and future happiness and prosperity of 
your constituents. 

At the close of the address. Amin Bey, and suite 
were conducted to seats on the floor of the Hall. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention again 
resolved itself into a committee of the Whole, Mr. 
Leadbetter in the chair. 

Mr. STANTON said that in the few remarks which 
he intended to submit for the consideration of the com¬ 
mittee, he intended to confine himself to the question { 
presented by the gentleman from Meigs [Mr. Horton.] i 
H e thought it better to come up to that question fully i 

and fairly; and like skillful navigators who have been | 

driven out of their course, to begin by taking an obser¬ 
vation as to the latitude and longitude of the place in 
which they find themselves. The committee on Fi¬ 
nance and Taxation have made a report, the section of j 
which now under consideration reads as follows: 

Sec. 3. The Legislature shall make a provision for taxing 
money invested in the State and United States Bonds, as money 
at interest is taxed. 

We say that this proposition comes in direct conflict 
with an existing law of the State, so far as regards 
those bonds of Ohio, which have been already issued. 

The gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Rannky,] in or¬ 
der to make assurance doubly sure, and take a bond of 
fate, not only for all the past but for all future time, in 
order that there should be no doubt of the fact of a 
conflict between this constitution and the existing laws 
and contracts of the State, has introduced, by way of 
amendment the words “ now or hereafter,” so that the 
section as amended now reads, 

The Legislature shall make a provision for taxing money novD 
and hereafter invested in State and United States bonds, &c. 

The gentleman from Meigs has moved an amend¬ 
ment, to strike out the words “ State and,” so that the 
section, if his amendment shall prevail, will read; 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 751 


The Legislature shall make a provision for taxing money now 
or hereafter invested in United States bonds, &c. 

Mr. RANNEY said that his first proposition was that 
the State had a right to tax the property of its citizens, 
whether invested in State bonds or not; and, secondly, 
that no State can, for any consideration, barter away 
its essential attribute of sovereignty—the right to tax. 
The gentleman might make what else of it he pleased, 
and, it he chose, he might build up a man of straw, to 
batter it down again. 

Mr. STANTON. I understand the argument of the 
gentleman now to be, that the State has no power to 
exempt any species of its securities from taxation. To 
that argument, T only answer by reading the statute. 
It was ably answered by the gentleman from Ross, 
[Mr. Green,] yesterday. He says the right of taxation 
is a supreme power. I grant it; but I say this, that 
while we are availing ourselves of our part of the con¬ 
tract, it is unjust to endeavor, even by the assistance of 
our sovereignty, to get rid of our portion of the respon¬ 
sibility. Surely the gentleman will concede that the 
right to refrain irom taxation is as sovereign as the right 
to tax. 

Let us, then, come now to the second proposition of 
the gentleman. I care little for the question, whether 
a State may legally bind herself and her future legisla¬ 
tion by a contract in which she has received a fair and 
full consideration. As the forcing the compliance of a 
State to such a contract is only to a limited degree in 
the power of any tribunal, a State has only to will an 
act of repudiation and it is done. If we determine hot 
to pay the bonds which we have issued, no power on 
earth can enforce such payment. If that is to be done, 
let us go directly about it, and wipe out the whole. 
The morality that would repudiate a part differs only 
in degree from that which would repudiate the whole. 
It is of the same kind. You proposed the loan, made 
the terms, made the exemption, received the money, 
used and enjoyed it, and now the question is, will you 
perform your part of the contract 1 In answer, the 
gentleman fi'om Trumbull tells us we have no right to 
tax the poor man and exonerate the millionaire; and 
upon the issue thus made up, he tells us he is willing 
to take the stump, and go before the people. I tell 
him that he had better do it somewhere else than on 
the waters of Mad River. They talk of avoiding the 
contract, but not a word do we hear about restoring 
the consideration or of doing equity to the other con¬ 
tracting party. 

Mr. Chairman, if we can keep gentlemen to the dis¬ 
cussion of this view of the subject, it would seem as if 
we could have no difficulty in convincing them that 
they are in the wrong. If you desire to tax the inter¬ 
est or the principal of our State securities, let the Gene¬ 
ral Assembly give notice to that effect—call in the 
bonds—pay them up fully and honestly—issue others 
that shall be understood to be subject to taxation. 
When men take them with the knowledge that they 
are to be taxed, there is no difficulty and no wrong; 
but whilst we have the money and keep it, and then in 
violation of the strongest pledge that it is in the power 
of the State to make, subject it to taxation, we practice 
upon the morals of a pirate and not upon those of hon¬ 
est men. But he would pass that. 

He never could understand the wisdom of a State 
taxing what they owe. He had heard of individuals 
living upon the interest of what they owed ; but he 
believed it was never regarded as an approved mode of 
financiering ; and it was his judgment that it could be 
no better in a State than in the individual. 

Suppose the State were now going to borrow money. 
If they were going to borrow with an honest purpose 
they would say, when they issue their bonds, that they 
shall be subject to taxation, in the hands of the citizen 
holding them, as all other capital; and then, of course, 
every capitalist proposing to buy would make his cal¬ 
culation as to what would be the amount of the tax, 
and he would give just that much less for bonds sub¬ 
ject to taxation. 


But now, if the State wanted to borrow twenty mill¬ 
ions, and found that, by throwing nineteen millions of 
bonds into the market, not subject to taxation, she 
could sell themfor twenty millions, the question would 
be, whether it would be better to sell twenty millions 
of bonds, paying the same interest, and subject to tax¬ 
ation, or only nineteen millions, paying no tax. 

I suppose the average rate of taxation over the State 
is about one per cent. The State pays six per centum 
on her bonds. The taxes will reduce it to five per 
cent, to the bond holder. But the one per cent, which 
ought to go into the State Treasury, or rather now to 
have been taken from it, will be reduced by expenses 
of collection, hundreds of defalcations, &c. For exam¬ 
ple the State has sixteen millions of bonds outstanding. 
The interest, at six per cent., is ninety-six thousand 
dollars. The tax at one per cent, will be sixteen thou¬ 
sand dollars. On this sum you will pay your County 
Treasurer about three per cent, for collection, making 
$480. Would it not be better to issue five percent, bonds 
at once, and save the expenses of collecting? For these 
reasons, I am opposed to the section as it now stands, 
and in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Meigs, [Mr. FIurton.] She should, by all means, ful¬ 
fill her contract in good faith. She has exercised an 
ordinary power of sovereignty—borrowed money. It 
is a power which has been repeatedly exercised by the 
government of the United States, and probably every 
State m the Union, as well as almost every other gov¬ 
ernment, ancient or modern. Republican or Monarchi¬ 
cal. And for us now to undertake to repeal or alter 
this law, so as to discharge us from an obligation to 
pay the whole, or any part of the money borrowed 
upon the faith of it, is an outrage which would shock 
the moral sense of every honest man in the State. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I do not intend, in the remarks 
I shall make upon the subject now before us, to enlarge 
upon the f)oints that have been already made by those 
upon our side of the question. I deem it an unreason¬ 
able position, that no General Assembly could deprive 
a subsequent General Assembly of the power to tax. 
All General Assemblies, getting their power at the 
same fountain, possessed the same power equally ; and 
to admit that one General Assembly might contract 
away the taxing power upon any one species of prop¬ 
erty, would lead to the absurd proposition that one 
General Assembly might, by the assumption of impro¬ 
per powers, irrevocably deprive all its successors of 
that power. 

Nor do I desire" to enlarge, particularly, upon the 
point that even if such contract was valid, still no such 
contract now exists. I shall not discourse upon the le¬ 
gal positions; but I do desire to say a few words upon 
the moral aspect of the question. 

Permit me, however, to ask my friends on this side 
of the house, whether they have not, by this time, 
found out that the opponents of the proposition now 
before us, are sailing under false colors, and are endea¬ 
voring to frighten us by high-sounding phrases. Did 
you not notice, a few days ago, how the friends of the 
bond holders of the State of Oliio, did, in solid phal¬ 
anx vote not only once, but twice,^ ye*^; three or four 
times, for various propositions, disguised in various 
ways—all of them, on their faces, looking to the ex¬ 
emption of some particular property, but really inten¬ 
ded to get some power lor the General Assembly to 
exempt what it pleased ; that was the opening battle of 
the campaign. Exemption, of various kinds—and the 
fuller the power given to the Legislature to do so, the 
better—was the great object of our opponents. They 
then fought under the mask of religion and morality ; 
and had they won that battle, they would, perhap8,not 
now be fighting under the mask of “ plighted faith.”^ 
It is one of the characteristics of that party, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, to fight under high-sounding phrases,—to make 
a big noise, and “a great ado about nothing.” 

I trust, Mr. Chairman, that since we were not fright¬ 
ened from our duty by the high-sounding phrases oi 












752 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


“religion anl morality,” that we will still keep our 
senses, even under the reiterated cry of “ repudiation 
and plighted faith.” I will, at least, endeavor to show 
that the original contract between the two parties in¬ 
volved in this controversy, is completely changed—that 
the original obligations are cancelled, not only legally 
so, but morally so. I will show, that so far from any 
creditor of the State of Ohio standing, either now, or 
after the exercise of the taxing power by the General 
A-ssembly, woise than he did originally, that each and 
all of them will really occupy a far more profitable and 
lucrative position. I shall answer the question pro¬ 
pounded to us so confidently, this morning, by the gen¬ 
tleman from Logan, [Mr. Stanton:] “ has the State 
any right to impair the value of those stocks?” I 
shall show that no such result will follow, and that the 
State of Ohio has, not only in the past, but oven if she 
should exercise the taxing power, will not in future 
impair the value of our stocks. 

I ask the attention of the Convention for a few mo- 
.ments to a very brief recapitulation of the history of 
Ohio, as far as relates to the history of this subject. 

The first loans of Ohio were made in 1825, under the 
pledge so repeatedly urged upon us by gentlemen on 
the opposite side. Some $4,000,000 wei'e borrowed 
distinctly under that pledge; the State subsequently 
continued to borrow up to 1836, for the purpose of ma¬ 
king the Ohio Canal from Portsmouth to Cleveland ; 
and the Miami Canal from Cincinnati to Dayton. Some 
five millions were borrowed for that purpose—but not 
all of this money was borrowed with the pledge al¬ 
ready adverted to. From 1836 the State ceased to bor- 
I’ow frugally and sparingly, as it had done before, and 
turned canal digger and turnpike builder by whole¬ 
sale. Our General Assembly got as crazy as “ the rest 
of mankind” upon these subjects, and improvements 
upon improvements were projected—all intended to 
make the people rich, not by their earnings, but by 
drawing upon those of their children that came after 
them. 

In 1839 an additional law was passed in reference to 
borrowing money, and the pledge in i*eference to taxa¬ 
tion renewed. The State continued in its headlong 
policy—our State stocks Paving already suffered in the 
estimation of capitalists, till in 1842, we were brought 
to a dead stand by the loss of our credit—our stocks 
having sunk to be worth only 52 cents on the dollar in 
the New York market. The last loan was made in the 
.•spring of 1843 with no pledge upon the subject of tax¬ 
ation. 

During the eighteen years preceding, the stocks of 
Ohio had fluctuated in various ways. Up to 1836 our 
credit was good, but from that time the headlong 
course we pursued U[)on the subject of internal im¬ 
provements had frightened the capitalists; and it took 
all kinds of financiering to keep the State government 
in operation. The value of the original bonds of 1825 
was impaired by subsequent legislation, and every dol¬ 
lar added to the public debt, was to that extent, a vio¬ 
lation of the original contract—that is, if the position of 
the gentleman from Logan [Mr. Stanto.v] is correct. 
Why ? Mr. Chairman, every railroad that the people of 
Ohio have since made with their own money, every 
thing that tends to render of less value, any of the im- 
ju'ovements of the State—they and their proceeds i)e- 
ing pledged to the redemption of the bonds—iniglit l)e 
called “impairing the original value of the bonds.” In 
fact to cary out the doctrine of the gentleman from Lo¬ 
gan, we should have to stop the exercise of all powers 
of government for fear that it might disturb the ex¬ 
ceedingly nice obligations under which we lie to our 
creditors. 

Sir, the original creditors of the State of Ohio have 
all disappeared from the records. Most of tlietn are in 
their graves, and those who now hold the stocks of 
Ohio, have bought them, some for 60, some for70, some 
for 80, some for .00—and some few have purchased 
above par. Some of our bond-holders have lost and 


some have gained by the purchase and sale of Ohio 
State stocks. They have sometimes been affected by 
the money market, but often, very often, by the course 
upon the subject at home. Those who lent us money 
between 1825 and 1836 were sacrificed by an improvi¬ 
dent policy, pursued between 1836 and 1839. Alltmr 
creditors suffered between 1840 and 1843 by auimprorj- 
er course pursued by the Ohio Life and Trust Comp-a- 
ny, under the unfortunate orders of Alfred Keil.-y. 
[Sensation.] 

Whatever might be the moral obligation to our origi¬ 
nal creditors, that obligation has been cancelled by 
their own act—we can no longer find them ; all trace 
to them have been destroyed by themselves, they hav¬ 
ing cancelled at the Register office in New York the 
original bonds. Of one thing I am sure, that the pres¬ 
ent bond-holders of Ohio have been enriched by the 
action, not only of our General Assemblie.s, but of that 
of the great body of our people. The value of the 
stocks they hold have been enlmnced from 40 to 100 
per cent. To them no such pledge of exemption from 
taxation has been given. They have received at our 
hands nothing but benefits ; they have accepted of ev¬ 
ery benefit conferred upon them since 1843 ; and they 
have purchased their bonds, not under the laws of 
1825, but under the laws as they now stand in the 
Stfite of Ohio, and these laws contain no provision for 
exemption (rom taxation. 

Sir, we have not only fulfilled our obligations by the 
most careful regard to our credit, and by the most 
scrupulous payment of our interest, and olten at the 
greatest sacrifice; our people have been the most pa¬ 
tient in tax-payiug; yea, they have borne taxation as 
patiently as lainb.s,—yes sir! we have not only fulfill¬ 
ed all our obligations, but we have gone fiiriher. Wo 
have conferred upon our bond holdeis additional privi¬ 
leges, for which, as yet, we liave received no recom¬ 
pense. Our friends of the opposite side will contend, I 
suppose, that we have the right to change the contract 
in favor of our creditors, but when we attempt to do a 
little justice to ourselves, that then we are attacking 
the “ vested rights ” of somebody. 

Strange, Mr. Chairman, that our friends can see 
“ vested rights” only in that species of property that 
finds its sympathies in men’s pockets. Strange that the 
vested, sovereign rights of the people in defending 
themselves against the encroachment of power, fiuds 
no advocate with them. 

Strange too, Mr. Chairman, that our friends at the 
opposite side conceive .so fully and so minutely, every 
thing that tends to injure the bond holders. How in¬ 
ventive is their genius in finding arguments, or rather 
sophistries they should be called—to sustain the cause 
of the bond-holders!! Notone amongst them has men¬ 
tioned the fact that our boiid-Iioldeishave been benefit- 
ted by Ohio legislation—not one of them has stated to 
us ; although well aware of the fact, that not only the 
principal of the debt has been increased to our bond¬ 
holders, but the interest has been punctually paid, and 
in addition to that, we have conferred upon them, the 
special privilege of banking. The holder of the bonds 
of this State can now make not' less than 20 per cent, 
upon his original investment! And the capitalist who 
bought our bonds last summer, understood that very 
well, for they lent their money very freely, and with¬ 
out exactly any pledge ufion tlie subject of taxation. 
Yea, sir, 1 will go further; I hold it to be au incoutro- 
vcrtable fact that some of those who held bonds, con¬ 
taining a pledge not to be taxed, exchanged them for 
bonds containing no such pledge. This fact, of which 
I am just informed, stands out ill bold relief in this 
discussion. It shows that the zeal of the friends of the 
bond-holders has out-’^uii their discretion. 

Sir, I ask why this culpable neglect in stating the 
facts tending to the exoneration of the State from all 
moral turpitude in this regard? Why is it that our 
friends ol the opposite side love the jingling of high 
sounding phrases and pointed epithets, all of them 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


tending to mipugn the moral feelings of the people of 
Ohio? Sir, in iho language of Robespierre, when he 
pointed his linger at Vergniand, “ I have no confidence 
in the men that have such good memories of the cata¬ 
logue of crimes charged upon the people.” So do I 
doubt your patriotism. So do I doubt the correctness 
of your judgment; for I can see no sympathies within 
your hearts but the sympathies for the ‘‘ almighty dol¬ 
lar.” Your sympathies are against the people', and 
those who have watched you closely have clearly 
marked this peculiarity of your action. 

Fermit me, Mr. Chairman, to protest against that 
monstrous doctrine, that no matter how much power 
the General Assembly may assume to itself—no matter 
how many of the rights of the people or of govern¬ 
ment they may have bartered away, once done it is ir 
revocably done, and the power to rectiiy has departed 
frun the people. 

regard this, sir, as a revolutionary body, bound to 
inquire into the original elements of society, to rectify 
the errors of the past, and provide new safeguards for 
the future. In this instance, we find an improper ex -1 
ercise of power on the part of'the General Assembly, 
and it is not only our right to resume the original pow¬ 
er, but our duty to enforce its exercise hereafter. The 
doctrine of the gentleman from Logan will unavoidably^ 
lead to the subversion of all our freedom, for our Gene¬ 
ral Assembly might barter away one right and another, 
till every vestige of freedom and all proper powers of 
our government might be lost by an imprudent assump¬ 
tion of power. And in this connection, for fear I for¬ 
get it, 1 will s<iy to the gentleman from Ross, [Mr.* 
Green,] that his allusion, yesterday, to the commis¬ 
sioner now' traveling through this country as an agent 
from the Sultan of Turkey, and whom we had this 
morning in our midst, was exceedingly unfortunate. 
The present Sultan of Turkey, and his father before 
him, if they have deserved and received the plaudits 
of the present generation, it is because they have dared 
to take into their own hands powers which their pre¬ 
decessors had bartered away', and to reform long stand¬ 
ing abuses. The admonition given to us by the gen¬ 
tleman from Ross, by constituting the comparison, is 
out of place; for so far from being intimidated by the 
allusion, the course of the Sultan of Tui’key, as the 
great reformer of that empire, should cheer us on in 
the path of duty. 

Another allusion of the gentleman from Ross, I 
will briefly advert to—it is the courage he claimed for 
himself in claiming to defend the bond holders from 
the aggressions of the radical democrats. Sir, it does 
not take much courage to be the friend of the rich man, 
nor does it take much courage to be the servile tool of 
those peculiar interests of Ohio, which claim exemp¬ 
tion from the burthens of society', while they are en¬ 
joying exclusive privileges. It does take courage to 
j defend the rights of men—it takes but little to defend 
j their interests ! I have watched members of the Leg- 
j islature and members of this Convention as they pass¬ 
ed out of this hall locked arm in tinn with the men 
whose interests are at stake, during discussions such 
as these. I have noticed the smiling countenances as 
they would congratulate each other upon the manner 
in which their interests had been defended. No such 
cheering meets a radical democrat—he must discharge 
his duty fearlessly, expecting no reward except that of 
his conscience. The only reward he will get is abuse 
from the enemies of the people. 

Permit me to say that one great error in this discuss¬ 
ion on both sides, has been, that it has been treated as 
a case between two individuals. The State, in my 
humble opinion, occupies an entirely difi'erent position, 
and if I were called upon to compare it at all, I should 
compare it to a case of an Attorney, with special pow¬ 
ers, on the one hand, and the creditors on the other. 
The government of the State of Ohio was a govern¬ 
ment of limited powers. The language of the present 
Constitution of Ohio is expressly “that all powers not 

48 


753 


granted are reserved to the people.” The creditors of 
the State of Ohio must be deemed to have known the 
first cree<I of the land. That constitution was the es- 
prcial power of attorney', and if the General Assembly 
exceed- d its especial powers, and in doing so, either 
usurped the power of another department of govern 
nient, or of a subsequent General Assembly', it was cer¬ 
tainly oj)tional with each subseiiuent Gimeral Assembly 
to resume the power thus improperly attempted to be 
withdrawn from it; and much more obvious is the right 
of this Convention to act in the premises as he, at the 
particular time deemed right and jToper. I will not 
enlarge upon this jmint; it is sufliciont forme to say 
that the Constitution gives no power such as is claimed, 
and, therefore, the power was reserved to the people, 
and the people, having met in Convention, or, in other 
words, met to institute an inquiry into the original ele¬ 
ments of society', have a right to act in the premises, do¬ 
ing not only justice to others, hut also justice to them¬ 
selves. No greater error can be committed in politi¬ 
cal discussions, than to sufi'er improper comparisons to 
be made, such as is attempted to be made in this in¬ 
stance. To compare the State to an individual, is beg¬ 
ging the question, and to call it the plea of infancy, or 
“pleading the baby act,” because the people have dar¬ 
ed to institute an inquiry into the conduct of their gov¬ 
ernment, and have expressed a willingness to direct ft 
more proper exercise of power in the future than has 
taken place in the [)ast, is also begging the question. 
It is an insult to the people, and misstating the true po¬ 
sition. 

Sir, I have looked tliis matter square in the face; I 
will not do any thing that will in the least look like re¬ 
pudiation, or that will squint, even towards a violation 
of our plighted faith; but I am clearly of the opinion 
that no such charge can be laid at our d( ors, and that 
the clause proposed to be inserted in the constitution, 
by the report of the Finance committee, is clearly right 
—legally right and morally right. 

The gentleman from Logan, not satisfied with under¬ 
rating the government under which he is going to live, 
in his own mind, must institute comparisons odious in 
themselves, and doubly unjust to the people of this 
State. He proudly asked “ what government has ever 
before committed an act equal to the one now pro¬ 
posed?” I answer him that England did in her late 
“income tax.” France did hy the conversion of her 
four per cent, rents into three and a half per cent. And 
England, too, has frequently converted bonds bearing 
higher interest, into bonds bearing lower interest, 

Mr. STANTON. My position’is, that when a gov¬ 
ernment thus proposes to alter the terms upon which it 
borrowed money, it should tender to the bond-holder 
the amount originally borrowed. 

Mr. REE ME LIN. I expected that the gentleman 
would make just such an explanation as this. He was 
exceedingly severe upon those of our friends who tried 
to draw a distinction between the money invested and 
the bond itself, and that part of his speech was the 
most successful part of his work, but now we find the 
gentleman himself attempting to draw distinctions be¬ 
tween tweedle dum and iweedle-dee. The governments 
of England and of France know that the passage of 
the act tendering to their bond-holders the amount of 
their bonds, or a reduction of interest, was compulso^ 
in its character—they knew that the bond-holders did 
not want the money—they knew that the state of the 
money market was such as compelled their bond-hol¬ 
ders to accept a reduction of the^ interest. This was 
neither denied in the Parliament of England nor that 
of France; and had I been there, I should have acted 
upon precisely the same doctrine which they adopted, 
that whenever a fair and equitable chance occurred to 
relieve a people, ground down by taxes, by the reduc¬ 
tion of interest, it was the duty of the government ot 
do so. 

Stock-mongers lake advantage of every thing that 
may turn up ic their favor in the course of time, and 














754 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


I can see no reason why the government should noj 
do justice to itself whenever it can do so without down¬ 
right violence to its creditors. So far from its being 
true that other governments have hot changed the ori¬ 
ginal contracts existing between themselves and their 
creditors, I doubt whether there is a government now 
in existence which has not done so. I know that the 
government ol Spain has done it—the government of 
Austria has done it, and the government of Prussia has 
done it, by compelling a part of the revenues to he 
paid in the bonds of the government. In fact, sir, each 
and all of these governments seem to have viewed the 
relations between themselves and their bond-holders 
in the proper light. The bond-holders exacting all they 
could in the first instance, making very often severe 
bargains against the State ; and the government would, 
on the other hand, whenever a chance occurred to re¬ 
imburse themselves for previous losses, if they could 
do so without violating, too grossly, their plighted faith, 
re-adjust the mutual relation on such a basis as at the 
time might appear just and proper, In fact, there has 
always been some implied understanding of this kind 
between governments and their creditors. The cred¬ 
itors looking to the government, and the interest deri¬ 
ved from the State, as their annual pension; the gov¬ 
ernment, on the other hand, looking upon its creditors 
as the men on whom they must rely when they might 
get into financial difficulties. Sometimes the creditors 
would sutler — sometimes the government. Stocks 
would rise and fall; and, in fact, both have been 
working very carefully into each other’s hands, even 
when they pretended most to quarrel. And here I 
desire to enforce a point that I shall make in this con¬ 
troversy, upon the minds of my fellow-members—it 
is, that all duties incurred by the States for specula¬ 
tive improvements, are incurred under an implied joint 
risk. 

Mr. MASON. And what does the gentleman from 
Hamilton mean by “ an implied joint risk? ” 

Mr. REEMELIN. I will explain to the gentleman. 
In all cases of that kind before the loan is* made, the 
borrower furnishes, and the creditor examines into the 
probability of the profitableness of the undertaking. 
The creditor loans his money not so much on the faith 
of the government as on the expected profitableness of 
the undertaking. For instance. New York State stocks 
are in higher demand than those of any other State in 
the Union. These stand much higher than those of her 
next door neighbor, Pennsylvania, not because any 
body doubts the willingness of Pennsylvania to pay; 
it is because every body knows that her State works 
are not as productive as those of New York, and her 
ability, therefoi’e, to pay, is doubted. So it is between 
Ohio and Indiana—none doubts the ultimate payment 
of the debt in either of these States. Because Ohio 
has so much better regulated finances than Indiana— 
because the wealth of her citizens has become better 
developed, and her public works are completed: it is 
for this reason that our credit is better and our stocks 
higher than those of Indiana, and not because she is 
thought to be more willing to pay than our sister State. 
The bond holder expects, as a matter of course, that 
as a misfortune strikes a State to which he has loaned 
money, either as a result of financial mismanagement, 
or of unforeseen circumstances, he is willjng to submit 
to his fate, because he considers himself and his moneX 
identified with the prospects of the State of which he 
is a creditor. Apply this reasoning to our own case. 
The State of Ohio engaged in speculations on internal 
improvements in 182.5; things went on well enough till 
1837. The presses of the party interested with the 
capitalists, persuaded the General Assembly to go more 
largly into the system of public improvement. “ Lob¬ 
by members,” from capitalists and from men interested 
in the particular improvements, kept the ball moving; 
they produced the unnatural excitement that has re¬ 
sulted in the loss of the State—the State became the 
victim to the persuasions of the capitalists and the spec¬ 


ulators, and the capitalist became the victim of his own 
snares. The State met loss upon loss, and, I suppose, 
to estimate the loss of the State at dollars, millions of 
dollars is not over-estimating it. All the original bond 
holders sold out at a sacrifice, the new bond holders 
purchased under par. The State has since made up 
the deficits by taxation, or in other words, the genera¬ 
tion of the present time, whose money has been spent 
by the previous generation, without its opinion having 
been asked upon the expenditure, is now ready to jiay 
a principal and interest upon that debt, asking only, 
that since it was a joint error that the implied joint 
risk, which the original bond holders, so far as they are 
concerned, have met, should be made by a trifle from 
the present bond holders, while the lion’s share of the 
loss should fall upon the people. 

I doubt, sir, if the bond-holders, if present themselves, 
those especially who have ei,joyed the privilege of 
banking, upon State bonds, whether one of them would 
object to contributing his mite towards making up a , 
loss incurred by the common government. That I am 
right in this principle, if correctly understood and not 
misinterpreted, I refer to the case in Indiana and Illi¬ 
nois, where, in both cases, the bond-holders have come 
forward and shouldered a part of the losses. The let¬ 
ter of iheir agent, and the speeches made in the In- i 
diana Legislature upon that subject, as well as in Illi- i 
nois, clearly indicate that the people of Illinois and of 
Indiana, regarded the whole undertaking engendered 
by the errors of both, subject to an implied joint risk 
which both parties have since cheerfully incurred. 
There is a kind of partnership existing between a gov- ,j 
eminent and its creditors, a kind of partnership to this 
extent, that so far as the credit of the government is . 
concerned its stock rises and falls as its resources in¬ 
crease or diminish. This is well understood in the stock }■ 
market; and the capitalists regard with the most vigi- | 
lant eye every government in whose stocks they have 
invested, and they are ready to sell or hold on as the ' 
prospects improve or the resources in the hands of 
the government increase or diminish. Sir, the barome- i 
ter of the stock market is guided chiefly by considera- » 
tions such as these, and to tell me that in our action 
upon the powers of government to be conferred by this 
new constitution, we should be so nicely discrimina¬ 
ting as the gentleman from Logan insists, seems to me 
a misunderstanding of the true relative positions of the 
bond-holdei’ and the State. There is hardly an exer¬ 
cise of one power under the government that might not 
be reasoned away by a similar process. We can do 
nothing in a financial view, that will not, more or less ^ 
impair or increase the value of our stocks. In asking 
ourselves therefore what powers we could confer upon 
the new government on this particular question, we 
should clearly examine the true position which the two 
parties now relatively occupy, and not that which they 
cccupied a quarter of a century ago. 

I will not, Mr. Chairman, be drawn into a discussion 
on the general question of the debt-contracting policy; 
but I will say this, that the man who will arrest stock- 
jobbing—the man who will bring about the reduction , 
of this, the great evil of our age—the man who will 
lay the axe at the root of this system and bring it down 
with all its branches, wnll deserve the gratitude of eve¬ 
ry living man and the blessings of unborn generations. 

Sir, I wish Ohio, so far as she is concerned, would pass 
a law removing her register office from the city of New 
York, depriving, so far as she is concerned, the stock 
market of that city of its nourishment. I would that 
other States would then follow her example, and that 
the General Government would pay oflf its debt, and 
incur no more, that stock-mongering would cease in the 
United States. I think it is a humiliating spectacle to 
see the credit of the proud State of Ohio subjected to 
the tricks, the jeers and the jibes, the smiles and the 
frowns of the sharpers of Wall street. It is a system 
borrowed from Europe , corrupting in its tendencies; 
its whole course is mischief, and it is rapidly sapping 







CONVENTION REPORTS. 


755 


the purity of our government. Capital thus fortified 
sucks the life-blood of the people ; from Europe it 
drives annually millions to our shores, and everywhere 
it interrupts the prosperity of the people. It is the im¬ 
pediment to reform ; it is, to sum it all up, the great 
robber of the age. Sir, this is the great citadel of the 
arty opposed to us in politics. Its friends on this floor 
ave never been so excited as when their dai'ling has 
been touched. 

Mr. STANTON. Upon this floor I am the represen¬ 
tative of the citizens of Logan county. They own no 
stock, as far as 1 know, nor do I hold a dollar of that 
species of property. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I understand denials of that kind. 
The gentleman may hold no stock, but he is a member 
of the party which has always sustained the interests 
of the stock-mongers. Why, sir, up to within a few 
months back the party with which that gentleman acts, 
fiercely denied the claims of Texas to any part of New 
Mexico, but the moment Uncle Sam oiled their palms 
with a little financiering by the Texas indemnity, con¬ 
sisting of ten millions of United States bonds—the mo¬ 
ment the Texas scrip speculators and Wall street cap¬ 
italists began to be the regulators in the matter, the 
Whigs ceased all their wailings, and became dumb as 
a lamb. It is this peculiar feeling of that party that 
has brought out their “ great guns” upon this floor upon 
the question in debate. They feel peculiarly sensitive 
upon this subject, and they are endeavoring to frighten 
us from a due consideration of the subject by high 
sounding phrases, such as “ plighted faith and repudia¬ 
tion.” 

Sir, I do not deny that I have no feeling in common 
with this system, that I have no sympathy with the 
men who connect themselves with it. The State of 
New York has allured her sister States, by false ap¬ 
pearances, into egregious financial blunders. As my 
friend from Monroe [Mr. Archbold] has so often and 
so well remarked, “It is her system of internal improve¬ 
ments, deceptive in appearance, that has done more 
mischief throughout the Union than any system ever 
yet devised. New York is the door through which the 
vast products of the great west must pass to reach the 
commercial world; she stands there as a tax gatherer, 
levying in direct and undenied violation of the consti¬ 
tution of the United States, toll upon our industry; and 
this it that has made her system of internal improve¬ 
ments so successful. The false glare of that success de¬ 
ceived our weaker sister States, and I hesitate not to say, 
had each and all of them never possessed a dollar’s 
worth of credit, as intended by the framers of the con¬ 
stitution of the United States, their people would have 
been happier, and this day possessing far more and bet¬ 
ter internal improvements, than they have received un¬ 
der the debt contracting system. The deficits in the 
revenues, amounting to near a million of dollars per 
annum, resulting from the interest which we have to 
pay upon the debt contracted to construct our public 
works, would annually make fifty miles ot railroad. 
But, sir, I will argue this matter no farther, it is plain 
and obvious to every man, and lest it might be constru¬ 
ed into desiring repudiation of the principal and the 
interest due on the State debt; I will only say that it 
is with no such intention that I have adverted to the 
matter. The fund commissioners, in one of their re¬ 
ports say that the people of Ohio pay their taxes with¬ 
out amurmur; yea Mr. Chairman, we are a tax paying 
people. Our citizens about this time must have the pa¬ 
tience of Job, to bear up under the burthens of society; 
and the only complaint that I have heard on the subject 
is, that all species of property are not put equally upon 
the tax list to assist iii bearing the burthens of govern- 

ment. . , r r 

Sir, I have looked this matter square in the tace. i 
do not desire to defend the granting of the taxing pow¬ 
er in reference to State stocks to the General Assembly, 
by any legal quibbles. Show me that there is the 
slightest moral obligation to exempt the present bond¬ 


holders from taxation, and I will come up fully to the 
subject. What I have desired to do in the remarks I 
have made, is to tear the mask from the laces of our 
opponents, and to riddle their high sounding phrases. 

I think, sir, that I have shown that the mask of “ plight¬ 
ed faith ” is worn only to deceive; that beneath it lurks 
a desire for exemptions of every kind, and especially 
for this, their darling object. I think, sir, that I have 
shown that there is not the least legal obligation to ex¬ 
empt the present State stocks from taxation, and I think 
I may be allowed to say that I have also shown that 
there is not the least moral obligation resting upon us 
to do so. I repeat it, the original parties are gone, the 
original contract is annulled by the consent of both 
parties, the original obligation is cancelled, the whole 
relation between original creditor and debtor is entirely 
changed. With the exception of those who purchased 
our bonds last summer, whose case is not involved in 
this discussion, the holders of our stocks in every case 
stand in a far more favorable position than when they 
first purchased the bonds of the State. We have con¬ 
ferred benefits upon them which they did not previously 
possess—our action has increased the value of these 
stocks, and I ask, sir, whether in view of all the cir¬ 
cumstances, it is wrong for us to confer upon the new 
government of Ohio, one of those sovereign powers 
which is absolutely necessary to equalize the enormous 
burthens of society. Let others reason as they may, I 
expressed it unqualifiedly as my settled conviction, af¬ 
ter a full and candid examination of the subject, that 
there is not resting at this time upon the people of 
Ohio, the slightest legal or moral obligation to exempt 
their State stocks from taxation. 

On motion of Mr. LIDEY, the committee rose, re¬ 
ported no conclusion; and, then, 

Upon the motion of Mr. MITCHELL, which was 
agreed to, the Convention adjourned till Monday mor¬ 
ning, nine o’clock. 


MONDAY, December 16, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m* 

The Convention met in pursuance to adjournment. 

Mr. LARWILL presented a petition from John H. 
Kauke, and foi'ty-three other citizens of Wayne county, 
asking that a provision be inserted in the constitution, 
prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law, 
whereby the right to sell intoxicating drinks shall be 
granted to any one, or the traffic therein shall be, in any 
manner, legalized. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Stark, presented a petition from 
Ellis N Johnson, and 212 other citizens of Stark coun¬ 
ty, on the same subject. 

The foregoing petitions were severally referred to 
the Select Committee on the subject of retailing ardent 
spirits. 

Mr. TAYLOR presented a petition from N. R. John¬ 
son, and 21 others, citizens of Cincinnati, asking for 
such provisions in the constitution, as will forever pre¬ 
vent any fugitive slave, or any person claimed as such, 
from being taken out of the State for the purpose of re- 
enslaveraent. 

Said petition was referred to the standing committee 
on “Preamble and Bill of Rights.” 

Mr. SAWYER ottered for adoption, the following re¬ 
solution, which was agreed to: 

Resolved, That the Printer of this Convention be instructed to 
send a copy of all the reports and proceedings of this Conven¬ 
tion to the Constitutional Convention now in session in and for 
the State of Indiana. 

Mr. SAWYER desired to say a few words in relation 
to the progress of business in the Convention, and to 
submit a motion in regard to such progress. He was 
very anxious for the Convention to proceed and com¬ 
plete the performance of its duties. He thought that 
at present we had got into a tight place. We did not 
seem to be making any progress. He did not think 
that any benefit could arise from any further debate 
upon the proposition now in committee of the whole. 















756 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


He liad always had his doubts about tho mode ot pro¬ 
ceeding adopted by the Convention. He wanted io say 
that something tangible had been done—something had 
been acted upon iinally, and put into the constitution. 
He would therefore move that tho Convention take up 
the report of the standing committee on the Legislative 
Department. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, thought that the best way to 
make progress was to go on in the order that had been 
fixed upon, and settle questions as they arose. Besides, 
he understood there were several gentlemen upon that 
side of the house who were anxious to express their 
views upon the question now before the committee, 
and he hoped out of courtesy to them, that an opportu¬ 
nity would be given for that purpose. 

The PRESIDENT suggested that the sense of the 
Convention might be tested under a motion to go into 
committee of the whole. 

Mr. RIDDLE moved that the Convention resolve it¬ 
self into a committee of the whole on the order of the 
day. 

Mr, CHAMERS demanded the ayes and noes, upon 
the motion. 

Mr. NASH said there was one reason for not break¬ 
ing in upon the established order, without good cause 
for so doing. A question is now before the committee 
—it has been debated somewhat, but not settled, and 
before the vote is taken there are others desirous to ad¬ 
dress the committee upon it. It was important that 
the entire debate should go into the volume of reports 
together; otherwise those who would have occasion 
to examine the reports would be misled. 

Mr. CHAMBERS said that the same question would 
again come up before the Convention, and if debated, 
the debates would necessarily occupy a different place 
in the reported proceedings. 

Mr. MITCHELL did not understand the remarks of 
the gentleman from Muskingum [Mr. Chambers] as an 
answer to the objections of the gentleman from Gallia 
[Mr. Nash.] He thought the entire debates upon each 
question agitated in the committee ought, injustice to 
all, to go out together. Pie thought it the duty of the 
Convention to pass all the reports of the committees 
through the committee of the whole. We are construc¬ 
ting an instrument, which when completed is to be a 
whole, complete in its parts and complete in its entire¬ 
ty. In order to do so, we should not pass over or omit 
portions of the materials, nor allow our discussions up¬ 
on distict propositions to be broken into parts. He 
thought therefore it was best to go on in the same or¬ 
der that had been observed. There was another sub¬ 
ject upon which he desired to make a remark. He did 
not like to hear from members, a constant admission of 
the charge which had been made, that we are misspen¬ 
ding our time. He didnot believe the charge to be true. 
He was not conscious of any such offense himself, and 
saw no ground to make it against others. The busi 
n( ss pon which we are engaged is important and dif¬ 
ficult. Everything by which light may be thrown up¬ 
on it should be admitted, and every opportunity given 
for a free interchange of opinion. For this purpose, 
while it is important that we should make progress, it 
is, of all things most important that we shall proceed 
rightly. 

Mr. CHAMBERS thought a very wrong course had 
been pursued, and had thought so all the time. He 
thought we w'ere spending our time uselessly in going 
through with these reports in committee of the 
whole, when, as all understand, they will all have to 
bo discussed again in Convention. Such is not the case 
in Legislative bodies. Then, immediately after the 
bills have passed through the committee of the whole 
—while the subject and the arguments are all fresh in 
the minds of members—the amendments are acted up¬ 
on, and the business is finished. Now, he would ap¬ 
peal to members to say if any of them—unless they 
had taken especial care to keep minute memoranda for 
that purpose—could tell the condition of any particular 


report or question at the time when the Convention 
adjourned at Columbus. 

He thought it by far the best way to take up each re¬ 
port as it comes from the committee of the whole, and 
act iinally upon it, while the whole subject is fresh in 
the minds of tho members. He would beseech mem¬ 
bers to take such a course as would bring the labors of 
the Convention to a close as soon as possible. Many 
things in other portions of the constitution will depend 
upon the form and contents of the report on the Legis¬ 
lative Department, and he thought the first business 
should be to take up that and perfect it. Until^this is 
done, many things in the other reports must remain 
contingent upon it. He w\as not very tenaciou3,^hovv- 
ever, upon this point, but would vote to take up the 
Legislative Report, act upon it, and thus lay a basis for , 
future operations. 

The PRESIDENT begged leave to read to the Con¬ 
vention its thirtieth Standing Rule, as follows: 

“ The following questions shall be decided without debate, to 
wit:—To adjourn; to take a recess; to lay on the table; to go 
into committee of the whole on the orders of the day, and all 
questions relating to the priority of business; but any member 
may offer an explanation touching the question of priority of 
business.” 

The question being on the motion of Mr. Riddle, 
to go into committee of the whole, the yeas and nays 
were ordered, and resulted, yeas 68, nays 13, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll,. Cahill, Case 
of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Ewing, 
Forbes, Gillet, Graham, Gray, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, 
Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, 
Jones, Kennon, King, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leadbetter, 
Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, 
Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thomp¬ 
son ol Stark, Townshend, Vjmee of Butler, Warren, Way, Wil- • 
liams, Wilson, Woodbury and President—68. 

Nays — Messrs. Archbold, Chambers, Clark, Cutler, Ewart, 
Farr, Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Lidey, Morris, Sawyer, Steb- 
bins and Swift—13. 

* So the Convention resolved itself into a committee 
of the whole, Mr. Leadbetter in the Chair, and pro¬ 
ceeded to the consideration of Report No. 1 of the ma¬ 
jority of the standing committee on Finance and Taxa¬ 
tion The question being upon striking from the third 
section of said report the words “State and,” 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, said he had desired, during 
the progress of this debate, To offer a few remarks upon 
the question now before the committee, but as he 
found himself in a state of health that precluded mucli 
exertion, he should only detain the committee while 
he would say a few words explanatory of the vote 
which he intended to give. The question presented 
by the amendment now under discussion is one, as all 
will admit, of the first importance ; and as most of the 
propositions upon which it depends are of a legal chai- 
acter, and present for discussion and settlement, points 
of constitutional or statute laws, he as a humble mem¬ 
ber of the legal profession, had devoted to it some re¬ 
flection ; and although as the debate progressed he had 
found his opinions from time to time vibrating, yet in 
reviewing the whole ground, he was prepared to vote, 
and to give his I’easou for such vote. 

The question now before ns is not upon the passage 
of a mere teniporai’y law of the Legislature which may 
be passed at one session, and if found inconsistent with 
the Constitution, unwise, impracticable, or opposed to 
the will of the people, repealed at the next. But on 
the contrary, we propose to place a provision in the 
fundamental, organic Jaw of the State, which gives 
birth and power to the legislative authority itself, to 
endure for many years, and which cannot be changed 
with the lacility of a mere legislative enactment. We 
propose to do this, and yet if this provision should be 
found contrary to the Constitution of the United States 
—if it conflicts with that which is declared the para¬ 
mount law of the land—itis liable to be considered and 
pronounced a nullity, a dead letter, to stand only as a 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


751 


perpetual testimony of the folly of tliose who 
ted it. Therefore it is of more importance than a mere 
act of the General Assembly, which may, when found 
unwise or nncou.stitutional, be expunged and swept 
from our statute books. The first pnjposition pre¬ 
sented by the section now befofe the committee, i.s to 
tax the stocks of the United Stales, holdeu by citizens 
of Ohio. 

Mr. McCORMICK. That is not the question. 

Mr. CASE. The gentleman insists this is not a true 
statement of the question. Well, what is a true state¬ 
ment? It is this, I suppose: We are not to tax the 
bonds themselves, for it is by all admitted that that 
cannot be done,—but the value of the bonds—the mon¬ 
ey they represent—the money invested in them, and 
the interest derived from them. Now, I am unable to 
draw any distinction between a tax upon the bonds 
themselves and a tax upon investments therein, or up¬ 
on the interest derivable therefrom ~it is too much like 
the distinction between tw^eedledum and tweedledee. 
To tax the one or the other is, in eflect, the same. The 
result is the same. If one is wrong, the other is so; 
for it is an indisputable principle of law that we have 
no right to do that by indirect means which we may 
not do directly. I am aware that strenuous attempts 
have been thus made to sophisdcate this question, but 
it is in vain. There is no solid, no substantial distinc¬ 
tion—no reason in it—no sense—no law. There is no 
right to tax the money—no right to tax the stocks—no 
right to tax the interest. The reason against the one 
is the same as against the other, and in all the cases both 
reason and law are conclusively against the right.— 
What was the reason given by the Supreme Court of 
the United States, for not allowing taxation, by the 
States, of the bonds, &c., of the general government? 
In the case of McCullough vs. the State of Mary¬ 
land, 4th Wheaton’s Reports, Chief .Justice Marshall, 
in delivering the opinion of the Court, said : 

“ The States have no power by taxation or otherwise to retard, 
impede, burthen or in any manner control the operations of the 
constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution 
the powers vested in the general government ” 

Again, the same great Judge, in giving the opinion 
of the Court, in the case of Weston and others vs. the 
city of Charleston, 2nd Peters’ Reports, says: 

“ The American people have conferred upon their government 
thepower of borrowing money, and by making that government 
supreme have shielded its action in the exercise of this power 
from the action of the local governments. The grant of the pow¬ 
er is incompatible with a restraining or controlling power ; the 
right to tax the contract to any extent, when made, must operate 
upon the power to borrow before it is exercised and have a sensi¬ 
ble influence on the contract. The extent of this influence de¬ 
pends on the will of a district government.—To any extent, how¬ 
ever, inconsiderable, it is a burthen on the operations of the go¬ 
vernment. It may be carried to an extent whichshall arrest them 
entirely.” 

I have thus given the language of the Court on ibis 
Bubject, because it is more expressive than any which 
I myself can command. The gentleman from Trum- 
bul;, [Mr. Raxney.][ assumed, in his remarks upon the 
case ill 2nd Peters’ Reports, that it was by a majority 
of the court, considered a case of a tax on the bond it¬ 
self, that it was decided to be unconstitutional upon 
that ground, and that that decision does not cover the 
present question. In that he is mistaken. It is true 
that .Judge Thompson, in delivering his dissenting opi¬ 
nion, did assume the tax to be an income tax, and as 
such, in bis opinion, unobjectionable in view oi tlie 
constitution of the United States. But the opinion of a 
majority of the court, as deliveied by Chief Justice 
Marshall, covers the whole ground, and lays down the 
broad principle that whether the tax be upon the liond 
or upon the income of the bond, makes no difference. 
The doctrine laid down, in its broadest, fullest, and 
most comprehensive sense, is, that the State had no 
power to tax a contract of the general government, un¬ 
der any pretence or for any purpose whatsoever. Tins 
decision has never been doubted—controverted or 
called in question, judicially or otherwise, to rny 
knowledge; but, on the contrary, it has been referred 


to as authority by the same court, in' 16th Peters, iu 
the case of Dobbins vs. Brie county, and that court has 
ever been tenacious of questions once solemnly settled 
iu that high tribunal. 

1 have 110 doubt upon the abstract question—dives¬ 
ted of all (juesiions of conflict between the State and 
general governments, and of all pledges made and oon- 
fracts entered into by the State—of the right of the 
State to tax, in general, moneys invested in stocks, as 
well as moneys otlierwise invested. But the question 
here presented is not divested of these difficulties, nor 
can these difficulties be surmounted by treating this 
proposition as a tax on income in government invest¬ 
ments. Otherwise, why may we not tax the officers 
of the general government residing within this State, 
upon their official income^ The Postmaster of this city 
holds an important and lucrative office, the emoluments 
of which are very considerable. He has a large in¬ 
come : Why not lay a tax upon it ? 

Mr. REEMELIN believed it had been done, and is 
the practice in Virginia. 

Mr. CASE. That cannot be. The case in 16th Pe¬ 
ters is directly against it. That was the precise ques¬ 
tion there mooted and decided by the nine judges of 
that Court. 

Mr. RANNEY. The Postmaster in thiscity enjoys a 
large salary which he receives from lime to time. Will 
the gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Case,] say that when 
the assessor comes round, if he does not put into his 
statement all the money he has. ho will not be guilty of 
perjury ? 

Mr. CASE. I do not feel myself obliged to answer 
all questions that may be sjn'uiigupon mein the course 
of my remarks. 1 will say however then when one’s 
salary, or his earnings, as au officerof the general gov¬ 
ernment enter into and become a part of his own prop¬ 
erty when it becomes completely disintegrated and 
severed, it is and should be taxed as other property is 
taxed. But certainly gentlemen will not insist in the 
teeth of the decision iu 16th Peters, that officers of the 
general government, for instance, Post Masters, Judges, 
Marshals, &c., can be taxed by the States, as such 
officers, oil their income. 

But. Mr. Chairman, there is not really thatgreat in¬ 
justice in being deprived of the right of taxation of the 
bonds of the United States, that at first view there 
would appear to be. Let us take, for example, a case 
occuring in the State of Ohio. The general government 
is about to build in this city a Custom House, to cost a 
large amount of money—say one hundred thousand 
dollars—perhaps several times that sum. It for that 
purpose issues its certificate of stock, promising to pay 
A. B, or bearer asum amounting to the total cost of the 
edifice. This is brought into market and a citizen of 
this county who has his money so invested that he 
pays a lax upon it, withdraws it from your duplicate 
and lays it out iu this bond. This is not taxed, it is 
true, but the money which was withdrawn from the 
duplicate and thus invested is gone from your duplicate, 
but where? Why, not to Europe, not to New-York; 
no sir; it is distributed among the people of this city— 
to material men—mechanics—farmers, &c., and it goes 
into the circulation of the country, and in other hands 
is taxed as before. I will agree, sir; that the proposi¬ 
tion to tax, seems to possess many of the elements of 
popularity. It addresses itself directly to the selfish 
views and passions of rnapkind. But if it is uncon¬ 
stitutional—if it is illegal—if it is contrary to the true 
intent and meaning of the solemn compact between 
the States, I apprehend that upon a sober second 
thought, it will not, after all be so very popular. 

If it is necessary for the existence of the General 
Government to have the power to make a loan, in case 
of war or other exigency, it is a virtual annihilation of 
that power to leave with the States the right to tax that 
lean, either iu itself or its proceeds: for if the rightie 
conceded, there is no limit to it but the sovereign will 
of a State. During the war of 1812, in nearly nV K'.iW 
















758 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


England, combinations were formed to embarrass the 
general government in making loans to carry on the 
war. Men who made loans were denounced from the 
pulpit and the stump, and the credit of the general gov¬ 
ernment thereby much impaired. Massachusetts pass 
ed resolutions condemnatory of the war and declared 
it to be wrong to rejoice over the victories gained by 
our forces. They endeavored by every means to tie 
the hands of government. Does any one suppose that 
if at that time Massachusetts had had the power of nul- 
ifying the laws and crippling the powers of the gov¬ 
ernment by laying a tax on her bonds, she would not 
have exercised it to an extent that would have para¬ 
lyzed the general government? Would not the city ol 
Boston have made such an attempt? For if States 
have this power, cities also possess it. Boston, New 
York, Philadelphia and Charleston, cities in which 
most of such loans are made, might have laid their bur¬ 
dens upon the government as well as Massachusetts. 
Hence we preceive the importance of the general gov¬ 
ernment having untramelled this sovereign, vital pow¬ 
er of taxation—without which there can be no vigor¬ 
ous power or vitality in a government, without which 
the old confederation perished—and without which 
our present glorious constitution would crumble to the 
dust. 

Mr. Chairman; when we took our seats in this body 
we took a solemn oath to support the constitution of 
the United States. We assumed an obligation not on¬ 
ly to do nothing hostile to that Constitution but to sup¬ 
port it. We are bound no less by our duties as citizens 
than by our oaths as members of this body to support 
it. Are we discharging these obligations, to the gov¬ 
ernment, created by that instrument, when we are con¬ 
triving means to embarrass its opei’ations—when, in 
fact, we are making a direct attact upon its sovereign¬ 
ty? when we are proposing to arm this State with the 
power to stab it in a vital part ? Let us pause—let us 
reflect before we take this step—above all things let 
us pause at this particular juncture in our national af¬ 
fairs, when the Union is menaced with civil discord. 

Now sir; let us look a moment at the position in 
which the Supreme Court of the United States, in 16th 
Peter’s, already referred to, has placed the power of a 
State to raise a tax on the income of the officers of the 
general government. The State of Pennsylvania, some 
years ago, passed a law levying a tax upon the income 
of lawyers, physicians &c., as well as all officers and 
posts of profit. The plaintiff, an officer of the U. S., 
was master of the Revenue Cutter upon Lake Erie, re¬ 
siding at Erie in Pennsylvania—under the law of that 
State the net income of his office was rated at five hun¬ 
dred dollars yearly and the tax thereon amounted tosome 
eight or ten dollars. It was resisted, and after going 
through the courts of the State, came at last, for final 
adjudication to the Supreme Court of the Union. There 
the law was holden to be unconstitutional—that a tax 
upon the income of the officers of the general govern¬ 
ment was an attack upon its sovereignty, affecting its 
ability to carry its own laws into execution. In this 
case, the distinclion madeby the gentlemen from Knox 
and Trumbull between a tax upon the proceeds or in¬ 
come, and a tax upon the thing itself was not recogni¬ 
zed. There was no such distinction made. It was ad¬ 
mitted to be an income tax, and decided upon that 
ground. Judge Wayne, who delivered the opinion of 
the court, pronouncing the law of Pennsylvania uncon¬ 
stitutional, speaking of the nature of that law said: 

“ The law is, that an account shall be taken of all offices and 
posts of profit. The next section makes it the duty of the asses¬ 
sor to rate the same, having due regard to the profits arising there¬ 
from.” “ The emoluments of the office then, and not the office, 
are taxable.” “The tax is to be levied upon a valuation of the 
income of the office.” 

Such was the unanimous and emphatic language of 
the court. 

To what absurd conclusions, Mr. Chairman, would 
a contrary doctrine, lead us? Ohio might lay a tax of 
say five per cent; Pennsylvania ten; Virginia fifteen; 


I each would have a different rule and what would be 
the irresistible conclusion ! All equality in the salaries 
of office would be destroyed and the powers of the 
government would be prostrated. The Judge says in 
conclusion: 

I “ Does not a tax by a State upon the office, diminishing the re- 
I compense, conflict with the law of the United States, which se- 
I cures to the officer its entireness ? It certainly has such an effect, 

I and cannot therefore be constitutional.” 

i This decision was unanimous— ihe whole bench 
jof Judges, including Judge Thompson, who delivered 
I the dissenting opinion in 2nd Peters, upon which gen¬ 
tlemen have based their arguments—that income, as 
contradistinguished from the source of it, could be tax- 
'ed. There is another view which I wish to present, 
iin illustration of my position.—Can the State tax one’s 
j interest in a patent right ? Suppose one has an inter- 
i est of this kind, which he values at a thousand dollars; 
can you tax it? If one has a mail contract, which in 
consideration of prospective profits, is valued at ten 
thousand dollars; caii that be taxed ? Clearly they can¬ 
not be taxed by the States. 

Mr REEMELIN inquired if stage coaches carrying 
the United States mail could not be taxed? 

Mr. CASE. There was a case in the United States 
court in which Neil, Moore & Co., of Ohio, were par¬ 
ties. The controversy related to tolls, levied on coach 
passengers on the National road, and not in regard to 
taxation or tolls on the coaches. The question in re 
gard to the taxation of mail coaches has not been set¬ 
tled by any decision. I am aware that there are sever¬ 
al nice questions upon that subject; as, for instance, 
the right to tax the vehicle in which the mail is carried 
—whether the horses can be seized in execution for 
debt; and whether the driver being a criminal, may 
be taken from the box? But the question before us 
has been settled unanimously, definitely, conclusively, 
and without a doubt. 

This doctrine has gone into the text books of the 
law. It has been incorporated by Judges Kent and 
Story, into their elementary works, and every lawyer 
who has any respect for the rule ot Stare decisis, ought 
to regard the question as forever at rest. 

If gentlemen who have taken the other view of the 
question feel convinced that they are in the right, let 
them make it a question before the people. Let them 
select a General Assembly that coincides with them. 
Let them pass a law, and let a question be made and 
carried to the supreme court for adjudication and see 
if that tribunal will retrace its steps. If it will, the 
point is gained as effectually as if a clause for that pur¬ 
pose were inserted in the constitution. And if that 
court shall not retrace its steps—if it should be so per¬ 
verse as to adhere to its decisions—and gentlemen 
(think the rights of the States are thus outraged—there 
is still left a peaceful remedy, and that is to amend the 
constitution of the United States. But, I doubt if a 
single State, unless it might be South Carolina, would 
wish to prostrate the general government at the feet 
of the States, on that vital point. No one in full pos¬ 
session of his faculties, can, it seems to me, recommend 
the State to embark upon a measure so doubtful. It is 
a matter upon which the human mind may well pon¬ 
der before entering upon so vile and doubtful an ex¬ 
periment. If the question is a doubtful one, that of it¬ 
self is a sufficient reason why it should not go into the 
organic law of the land. If, after a conflict it shall be 
decided against us, we shall have recorded in this con¬ 
stitution, which we are about to form, an inscription to 
our eternal shame and confusion. 

There is also, in the section under consideration, a 
provision to tax the stocks of the State of Ohio, now in 
the bauds of our citizens. Most of these stocks were 
issued under statutes more guarded than I had suppos¬ 
ed would at that time have been thought of or deem¬ 
ed necessary; and if the General Assembly of that day 
had foreseen what is here proposed, it could not by any 
language have more effectually guarded against it. It 
provided that neither the stock or the interest thereon., 


) 

i I 
I' 

















CONVENTION REPOETS. 


should ever be taxed, or the value in any respect im¬ 
paired by any legislative act. I know oi no language 
that can be stronger. That there may be no mistake 
about its force and import, I will read from the stat¬ 
ute itself. Swan’s Revised Statutes, page 747. 

“ And the faith of the State is hereby pledged, that no tax shall 
ever be levied by the Legislature, or under the authority of this 
State, on the stock to be created by virtue of this act, nor on the 
interest that may be payable thereon ; and lurther, that the value 
of said stock shall be in no wise impaired by any legislative act 
of this State.” 

Yel, strange as it^ may appear, in the face of such 
guarded language—in the foce of such emphatic pledg¬ 
es of the public faith of the State, it is here.deliberate¬ 
ly proposed to violate that sacred pledge, and turn 
round, after we have received the money, and tax such 
stocks. The proposition is a bold one. I can, how¬ 
ever, imagine one bolder, for which we have an ex¬ 
ample in the State of Mississippi—that is, repudiate 
the whole contract; that would only be doing, on a 
large scale, what is proposed to be done on a very 
small one. 

But we are told that a State has not the power to 
barter away, for any consideration, this attribute of 
sovereignty—the right of taxation. This question has 
also come before the Supreme Court of the United 
States, and has been decided otherwise. The case is 
reported in 7th Cranch. The facts are as follows: 
There was, in the State of New Jersey, a remnant of a 
tribe of Delaware Indians, that laid claim to a consid¬ 
erable tract of territory, the boundaries of which were 
not exactly defined. The Legislature of New Jersey 
proposed to purchase this claim, and to give them, in 
exchange, a tract, with the boundaries defined, which 
should be forever exempt from taxation. The trans¬ 
fer took place under the terms proposed. The Indians 
afterwards sold these lands. The General Assembly of 
New Jersey repealed the law creating the exemption, 
and imposed a tax upon them. The case went to the 
Supreme Court, where it was holden, that the State 
having made a contract, and upon a consideration 
covenanted not to tax, was bound by the agreement. 
The law imposing the tax was therefore unconstitu¬ 
tional and void. Such was the unanimous opinion of 
the Court. Yet, in the very teeth of this decision, gen¬ 
tlemen propose to introduce into this constitution an in¬ 
junction upon the Legislature to tax the bonds of the 
State, and that too, in spite of the most emphatic 
pledges and covenants that such a thing should never 
be done. Now, I call such an act repudiation. 

Admitting that the law is unwise and unfortunate, 
and that the Legislature of 1825, in making it, exceeded 
its powers, which I admit is a fair question for argu¬ 
ment, is it honest—is it honorable to repudiate? Does 
any one here desire that the faith of the State of Ohio 
shall stand beside that of Missi.ss{ppi ? And yet the 
cases are the same, except that in our case, we have 
not as yet consummated the deed. 

I for one, Mr. Chairman, am unwilling to stand upon 
this side of the house, and, as a member of the Demo¬ 
cratic party, to bear the imputation of practical repu¬ 
diation. In times past, the charge has been made 
against us that we are agrarians and repudiators of the 
faith of the State. I have always denied the truth of 
any such charge. I cannot bring myself to acknow¬ 
ledge it, even now. That we should enter upon such 
a work, is unworthy of us—of the times—of the con¬ 
dition of the State, which, amid the faithless, has ever 
faithful been ; that we should be willing to do it upon 
a small scale, is most unworthy. It is adding mean¬ 
ness to dishonesty. Good faith in a State is like good 
faith in an individual; without it, in either, there is no 
credit, no character, no standing. The poet has not 
placed too high a value on honesty when he says: 

“ Lord, who’s the man that shall to that blest court repair ? 

Not stranger like to visit them, but to inhabit there. 

>Ti8 he * * * ******* 

**** ******* 

Who to his plighted vows and trust has ever firmly stood, 

And though he promise to his loss, he makes his promise good.’’ 


759 


And of Ohio I trust it may be said: 

“ She to her plighted vows and trust has ever firmly stood, 

And though she promise to her loss, she’ll make her promise 
good.” 

Mr. Chairman, I was disposed when this discussion 
commenced to look upon the proposition as more than 
half a joke—as a sort of scheme to practice upon the 
nerves of gentlemen upon the other side ; but I find it 
regarded as a serious matter. 

Mr. RANNEY assured the gentleman from Licking 
that he was serious in it. 

Mr. MITCHELL said he was serious. 

Mr. CASE. 1 find it is a serious matter, and it re¬ 
minds me of a scene that occurred, some years ago, 
with the Vicksburg gamblers. That class of profes¬ 
sional gentlemen becoming very obnoxious, yea, intol¬ 
erable, to the people of that city. Judge Lynch, with 
his posse, one day seized them—put ropes around their 
necks—put them into a cart, and with a band of music 
marched them on to a hill in the rear of the city; the 
gamblers at first thought it all a joke to scare them off; 
as they moved up the hill, This is a very fine joke,” 
said the gamblers—but, as they approached the top of 
the hill, they began to have some misgivings, and ex¬ 
claimed, “Really, gentlemen, this is a very good joke, 
but have you not carried it far enough ?” “ Oh, no,” 

said Judge Lynch, “ a little further, gentlemen;” and 
on went the cart till it stopped under a very ominous 
looking tree, and the ropes about their necks were at¬ 
tached to a strong limb, when the gamblers exclaimed, 
“In the name of God, gentlemen, haven’t you carried 
this joke far enough?” “Yea,” said Judge Lynch, 
“just far enough,” and the music struck up, and crack 
went the whip, and away went the cart, and the gam¬ 
blers hung dangling in the air. (Laughter.) 

He thought this joke had been carried far enough— 
at all events, he had a great repugnance at being hung 
up between the heavens and the earth on this question; 
and when the time shall come, he would endeavor to 
guard against it by the vote he should give. 

Mr. GROESBECK said he felt a deep interest in the 
question now before the committee, and desired, before 
he should be required to give his vote upon it, to pre¬ 
sent briefly the reasons that would govern him in giv¬ 
ing it. The question, redujced to its plainest terms, is 
simply this : Shall the citizens of the State of Ohio, 
who have invested their capital in the bonds of the 
State, be compelled to pay a tax upon this investment. 
He wished it to be understood, that he had no intention 
of saying anything as to the right or policy of taxing a 
similar investment in the bonds of the United States. 
That question was not now before the committee, and 
he would confine himself strictly to the matter in 
hand. 

Mr Chairman—It would seem there is no gentleman 
of the committee who is not willing to admit that the 
holders of these bonds should not be exempt from pay¬ 
ing their share of the expenses of the government, un¬ 
less they present, in support of their claim to exemp¬ 
tion, a strong, clear and unquestionable case. Here 
are citizens of Ohio, men who have from choice made 
our State their home—men who share with us in an 
equal degree in the common blessings and benefits of 
the government—who vote at our elections—who may 
fill our public offices, participate in making our laws 
and in their execution, and who enjoy every protection 
and privilege common to us all. It seems to me that, 
under such circumstances, when they ask so special 
an exemption, their case should be uncjuestionable, 
clear and plain. Let it be observed, that by the con¬ 
stitution no such thing as a poll tax can be levied, and 
that in no other way than by an assessment upon their 
property, can they be brought to contribute their quota 
of the means necesi-ary to" keep up that government 
which protects them in their lives, their liberties and 
their property. 

1 would make one other preliminary remark. I ap¬ 
prehend that no member of this committee can take 
up the laws of the Slate passed upon this subject, 










760 


CONVENTION REFOKTS 


from the year 1825 to the year 1848, under the author¬ 
ity of which the bonds now outstanding were issued, 
and not come to the conclusion that the intention of the 
State of Ohio was simply this : So to frame laws—so to 
pledge the property and revenues oftlie State as to obtain 
credit abroad. There is no man who has read those laws 
—which are from fifteen to twenty in number—who will 
not see that the Slate only intended to do what should 
be necessary to encourage the investment of foreign 
capital in our securities—that the decrease of our tax¬ 
able resources was not contemj)lated, and that there 
was no design that the people of the State should, in 
any contingency, escape taxation. The character of 
the pledges evince the intention. The bonds were sold 
abroad—our officers went abroad to sell them—we es¬ 
tablished an office abroad, I may say, to facilitate their 
transfer. 

I say this before I proceed to my argument, with a 
reference to the question of morals that has been raised, 
and to present all the aspects of the case in this connec¬ 
tion. We have heard much in this debate about mo¬ 
rality. Let us look a little into that. 

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if there is not. in fact, 
a question of good faith lying behind this matter; 
whether it is strictly an act of good faith in the citizen 
to take up his moneys and property which he has in 
the State, subject to taxation, cany them out of our 
jurisdiction, dispose of them, and return, bringing in 
their place that which is exempt from taxation ? This 
is an inquiry which it is not improper to advert to here. 
It may be, I say, a question whether those who enjoy 
the benefits of the goverinneut should—can, in strict 
honesty and good faith, escape the burdens of that tax¬ 
ation, which all admit, is necessary to support the gov¬ 
ernment ? Gentlemen had better not say too much, 
or dwell too long upon the ethics of this matter. 

But, let me say, this is no good and sufficient argu- 
nient for the imposition of this tax. Standing alone, 
it is not. And without regard to it, and banishing the 
inquiry, whether these citizens, in seeking to escape 
taxation, havepreserved entire good faith towards their 
goveryinient and fellow citizens, I hold that the State 
of Ohio is bound to exercise towards all, whether citi¬ 
zens or foreigners, the highest good faith. I demand 
of her that she shall do so. I desire that she shall be 
the model, the exemplar, the standard of the highest 
and most scrupulous honor; and if I shall arrive at the 
conclusion that she cannot tax this intei’cst or property 
in the hands of her citizens, without a violation of that 
honor, I shall most assuredly, with my voice and my 
vote, oppose all such taxation. 

Charges of bad faith and repudiation have been iter¬ 
ated and re-iterated in the ears of this committee, and 
yet gentlemen who make them must be very illy ac¬ 
quainted with the subject. They cannot but be aware 
that the entire matters in relation to our public debt, 
have been placed in the hands of a standing committee 
of this Convention, at the head of which is placed the 
respected gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins.] 
Do they not know that that committee has proposed 
and recommended an entire recognition of our public 
debt—and not only a recognition, but a constitutional 
pledge for its redemption, to the last farthing ? 

Who talks of repudiation, when such is the juirpose 
of the committee and the Convention ? Who dares to 
say, that it is our iutention to avoid the i)aynieut of 
public debt? Yet gentlemen say that there is a dis¬ 
position here to repudiate ! Away with such cljarges! 
They are not fit to be made. And when the foreign 
bond holder comes to know that our constitution id- 
firms the validity of his bond, that his bond is not tax¬ 
ed—when he finds that the State of Ohio is merely 
making preparations to tax equally her own citizens he 
vyill laugh at the charge of repudiation. How is it, 
sir ? Do you tax the securities at the Treasury of the 
State ? No. Do you tax the foreign bond-holder up¬ 
on his principal, or withhold a portion of his interest 
for that purpose? No, We say, impliedly, iu thecou- 


slitutiou, that the foreign bond-holder shall not be tax¬ 
ed on his bonds. Let him look into this new constitu¬ 
tion of the State, and in no other constitution will he 
find so much to strengthen his confidence in the public 
faith and integrity of States as that ol the State of Ohio. 
He will feci no alarm at seeing in the debates of this 
Convention, that we have seen fit to declare, simply 
and only, that our own citizen.s shall bear a part of 
the burdens of the government. 

A few words upon the policy of the proposition. 
What will be the effect of the taxation of those ol our 
public securities that are in the hands of our citizens ? 
Will it diminish the value of the bonds ? It may force 
a sale of them to foreigners, who will pay iio tax upon 
them. But as it will not afi’ect the i)ublic confidence 
iu their payment, nor the confidence of the foreign 
holder in their immunity from taxation, it will not, to 
the amount of a single dollar, have the efi’ect to reduce 
their value iu the markets of such property, and our 
Slate will get back for taxation, that which has been 
taken away, and was once a pan of her taxable re¬ 
sources. 

And now I proceed to the case. With the indulgence 
of The committee, Mr. Chairman, I propose to take up 
and review this whole question, precisely as I would 
any other, before this or another tribunal—to examine 
its facts ; to weigh the testimony tliat has been ad¬ 
duced upon it; and to inquire into the principles of 
both organic and statute law that have a bearing upon 
it. What is the question now pending? It is this: 
Shull the citizens of Ohio, who have invested their 
capital iu the bonds of the State, be taxed upon their 
interest in these securities? Is money invested in the 
stocks of the State a legitimate and proper subject of 
taxation ? Is there anything in that species or kind 
of property—any quality in the thing itself, thatshould 
exonerate it from bearing its ratable proportions of the 
burdens of the State ? The bonds constitute the evi¬ 
dence of a recognized public debt. To secure their 
payment, the State has pledged—gaged—mortgaged 
every foot of land, and evei'y dollar’s worth of proper¬ 
ty, of every kind, within her borders. To say that this 
is a most sufficient and ample security, is only to state 
a proposition that is sell-evident. There is not a coun¬ 
ty, nor a village, nor a city, in Ohio, that is not, to al 
intents and purposes, overlaid with a mortgage, for the 
payment t»f these bonds. The home in which I dwell 
—the home of every citizen, however wc'althy or hum¬ 
ble—is substantially mortgaged for tin- payment of its 
proportion of this great obligation. Ttiat it is a sub¬ 
stantial interest, then, there can be no question—much 
more substantial than in the case where a man loans 
money to his neighbor, and takes a mortgage upon his 
houses or his lands to secure the payment of the sum 
loaned. Yet we tax the latter, and who doubts the 
correctness of the taxing the former, or of its consis¬ 
tency with sound and correct principles, unless it be a 
plain case for exem[)tioii ? 

Now, what are the facts of this case ? It appears 
that from 1825 to 1843, the State was engaged, ffiom 
time to time, in borrowing moneys to carry out a sys¬ 
tem of internal improvements; and it further appears 
from an examination of her history, that, beginning at 
the former period, she passed laws, authorizing her 
agents to go into the markets abroad, and borrow such 
sums of money as were specified by those laws. It ap¬ 
pears that the General Assembly of 1825, iu the first 
act which it passed authorizing the contraction of a 
loan, made a pledge of the property of the State, togeth¬ 
er with the woi'ks to be constructed with the money 
that should be borrowed, I'or the final payment of the 
principal and interest of the debt; and, furthermore, 
that the stocks or bonds issued in pursuance of such 
loan, should be forever exempt from taxation uuder 
the laws of the State. In examining the laws upon 
this subject, in subsequent volumes of the stat¬ 

utes, it will appear that the provisions and stipulations 
ol the law of 1825. were not followed up, and that in 
















CONVEN'IION REPORTS. 


761 


all of the subsequent enactments, save one under the 
authority ot which loans were made, there was in each, 
its own distinct, carehd, and clear pledge. 

It will further appear, that the law of 1839, contain¬ 
ed a recognition ol and a reference to the provisions of 
the law^ ol 1825, and so far as the General As.sembly 
was capable of contracting on behalf of the State, 
bound it to observe the same rule of action—to keep 
the same pledges, and to preserve inviolate the same 
faith. These are facts which belong to the case before 
us, and being matters of record are not to be contro¬ 
verted. So far, we all agree, for the testimony cannot 
be disputed. It is a part of the history of the Slate. 

There is another thing—another fact—if I may be 
aliow^ed to use the expression—to which I ask the par¬ 
ticular attention of the committee, belore I come to 
the question of law ; because it is in a form that we 
may recognize it, and because, as I believe, it is equal¬ 
ly uncontrovertable with the other facts of the case. I 
refer to that portion of the Report of the Auditor of 
State, in regard to our public indebtedness, by which 
it appears that the bonds issued under the laws of 
1825 and 1839, on account of renewals and extensions 
given at the instance of the holders themselves, have, 
m process of time, become so changed and involved 
with others that it is now impossible to ascertain or 
identify them. Another fact, insisted upon by gentle¬ 
men upon the other side, should also, for the sake of 
impartiality be stated. It is this—that it was the un¬ 
derstanding at the time the several loans of the State 
were negotiated, that all the securities issued by Ohio, 
were virtually, at least, if not actually, covered by the 
provisions of the law of 1825, and like the stocks to 
which that act gave birth, exempt from taxation. It is 
to a particular examination of these facts, that I soli¬ 
cit the attention of ‘he committee, before a decision 
shall be pronounced upon the important proposition 
now before us; and to these points, in the same man¬ 
ner as if I stood before a legal tribunal, I propose to 
confine myscdf, and to inquire into the rights of the 
claimants to this exemption; and I say again, that if 
gentlemen can, in the course of this debate, show me 
any reason, upon which to found a doubt that this in¬ 
terest in the bonds of Ohio, in the hands of her citi¬ 
zens is not taxable, I will not give my vote that they 
shall hereafter be taxed. And, sir, I am willing fur¬ 
ther, to respond to the appeal of gentlemen to that 
higher law, wdiich is above the teachings of your civil 
and your common laws—tiie high and immutable stan¬ 
dard of morality and good faith. 

Upon these tacts, and upon this testimony, I now 
propose to enter upon an inquiry as to the legal liabili¬ 
ty and the 2 noral tibligaiion ot the State ot Oliio, in re¬ 
spect of that portion of her public securities, svhich 
now are or may hereatter be in the hands ot her citi¬ 
zens. And tirst: is the Stale morally bound to ex¬ 
empt this species of pi operty from taxation ? 

Now', sir, let us have no hearsay testimony—no evi¬ 
dence at second hand, but let us demand the proof, and 
that of the liighest nature. What are the facts in hand? 
Under the law of 1825, authorizing the creation of a 
debt to a specified amount, the bonds of the State is¬ 
sued as evidence of that debt were e8{)eci:illy exemp¬ 
ted from taxation. This is an admitted fact. But un¬ 
der every other law passed since that year, the act ol 
1839 only excepted, this pledge of exemption has been, 
purposely, as I might say, and as there is strong reason 
to believe, omitted. From fifteen to twenty difierent 
laws have been passed, authorizing or controlling the 
issue of such bonds, from the year 1825 to the present 
day, each one containing its own terms and conditions. 
Here are no parol contracts—no obligatiojis simply in 
writing or under seal, but we have something more 
solemn and binding tban all—contracts in the form of 
legislative enactments, and about v/hich there can be 
no dispute nor doubt w'hatever—contracts upon which 
the simplest person in the State could not fail to put a 
true and a legal interpretation. In the face of such 


facts would gentlemen claim an exemption in favor of 
other bondliolders than those whose right is expressly 
established by the laws of 1825 and 1839 1 Here are 
fifteen or tw'enty difierent contracts, the terms of which 
we cannot for a moment mistake, in no one of which 
is there the slightest ambiguity, and in only two of 
which is the pledge of exemption given as applicable 
to the certificates issued under their authority, while 
the other eighteen, neither directly nor by implication 
contain any provision to that effect. Where is the mor ¬ 
al obligation on the part of the State, to exonerate all 
such securities from taxation, when it is in evidence 
and uncontradicted that only three of the eighteen 
millions of our State debt were contracted under such 
a condition ? 

Mr. MITCHELL did not wish ti) be understood as 
claiming an exemption for any other than the securi¬ 
ties issued under the acts of 1825 and 1839. 

Mr. BARBEE inquired if the act of 1850 did not 
contain a reference to that of 1825. 

Mr. GROESBECK. I am not aware that any law so 
late as 1850 has been passed on the subject. 

Mr. STANTON. There is a difference between the 
gentleman from Hamilton and myself as to the terms 
of the various laws authorizing loans. I think that 
every law has by implication, affirmed the exemption- 
tional provisions of the statutes of 1825 and lfi39. 

Mr. GROESBECK. That is the mistake that has 
prevailed all through this discussion. Gentlemen who 
liave maintained the opposite side in this discussion 
have failed in getting hold of the facts in the case. 

Mr. Cliairman; this is the true statement. There 
are, say twenty distinct contracts, in the form of sol¬ 
emn legislative eiiactmeuts, no one of which can admit 
of a doubt as to its meaning, no one of which leaves 
room for a question, as to a fair, direct, and conclusive 
construction. Upon these contracts, the State should 
take her stand whatever may be the consequences, but 
beyond them, equally I’egardless of the results, she 
should never go. But it is said that, in the absence of 
an express contract, there was an implied understan¬ 
ding, between the State on the one hand, and the pub¬ 
lic creditors on the other, that all the securities should 
be placed upon the same footing of exemption. Let 
us look for a moment at that question. How much of 
such au understanding obtained here and abroad I 
shall not now stop to inquire, but in its connection with 
this claim of exemption, I propose to inquire into the 
maimt r in which the loans were, from timoto time made. 

I As I have said before, no one can read the several laws 
bearing upon the subject, without coming to the conclu¬ 
sion that they were expressly framed for the purpose of 
gidning credit abroad. And it isa further factin this case 
that there was a transfer office established in the city of 
N. York, for the purpose of facilitating the sale uudtrans- 
fer of Ohio bonds, and we know that officers appoint¬ 
ed for the purpose were sent to that city, to eftect a 
loan—or, in the laiiguage of the gentleman from Ross, 
[Mr. Green,] to negotiate in “ Wall street, New-York, 
or Threadneedle street, London*'—none of them be it 
observed, to be negotiated in the State ot Ohio, but all 
to seek their purchasers in the great cities of America 
and Europe. Let us push our inquiries a little further, 
and ascertain what was done by the Auditor of State, 
or the commissioners, whose duty it was to set out on 
such an errand. Li llie first place he or they went to 
the office of the Secretary of State, and procured a 
copy of the statute authorizing the loan, for which 
provision had been made. They would not be so fool- 
i.sh as to present themselves in the market without their 
credentials. They went with the authenticated law, 
and the maps and the profiles of the contemplated im¬ 
provements in their hands. They applied to capitalists 
who had money to invest. What was done 1 Before 
partino- with their funds they would naturally and pro¬ 
perly desire to see the authority under which they ac¬ 
ted. The law of the State is exliibited. The capital¬ 
ist scrutinizes it section by section, reads the pledge 












'i62 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


of exemptiou or ootices its absence, looks at the maps 
and profiles, hears the Auditor descant upon the pro¬ 
bability of success, with regard to the improvements 
to be made, and when he has become satisfied in his 
own mind as to the security, makes the loan 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, was 
there ever one dollar or one cent of these eighteen mil¬ 
lions loaned, concerning which the party making the 
investment did not know exactly what laws had been 
enacted, what pledges they contained, and what rights 
they conferred upon him ? Such a case cannot be 
found, and the supposition would be as absurd as to 
imagine that any prudent man would loan a hundred 
or even ten thousand dollars w'ilhout knowing the ex¬ 
act terms of the security and the precise extent of his 
legal rights in the premises. It is idle, then, to claim 
for these capitalists any rights other than are conferred 
by the law under which they made their loans. 

There may have been a rumor that all the securities 
of Ohio were exempt from taxation, and there is prob¬ 
ably no doubt of the fact that certificates were changed 
and transferred from time to time, and perhaps in each 
case it was represented by the seller to the purchaser 
that the exemptions of the law of 1825 applied to all 
the bonds of the State; but, admitting it to be so, does | 
the fact furnish any ground for action or even for argu¬ 
ment in this body ? The question is, did the original 
lender of the money, under any other acts than those 
of 1825 and 1839, have any ground to expect that the j 
bonds which he received would be exempt from ta.\a -1 
tion ? I cannot believe so, sir, for a moment. The I 
very fact that there was a specific exemption in certain j 
laws is, of itself, an evidence of the intention of the 
Legislature that the exemption should be limited to 
those securities especially provided for, and equally in¬ 
dicative of the legislative determination not to exoner¬ 
ate the remainder. And if a rumor exceeding the 
truth has gone abroad and has been acted upon, it may 
be unfortunate for those who have been misled, but no ' 
one can claim that it should in any manner corhpromise [ 
the honor or control the action of the State. And they I 
may not complain, for up to this day, at least, not one j 
dollar of tax has ever been paid by these securities, j 
Let me refer to other rumors, observing the reason for 
exemption in the cases to which they refer is equally 
strong as in this. In the margin of the tax law, ais 
printed in the volume of our statutes, there stands a 
brief syllabus in these words: “ Property exempt from 
taxation.” Now take all the subjects then exempted, 
and rumor has been just as fruitful as in the case of 
State bonds. The understanding of the community is 
ust as prevalent that a certain amount of property, 
household furniture, &c., is free of tax. In the same 
manner the public creditors have made it a prevalent 
idea that their securities were exempt. So far as ru¬ 
mor is concerned, both claims are equal; but who will 
make it a question whether in either the State is bound 
by these mere floating opinions ? 

I wish to advert to another view of the case, in con¬ 
nection with the moral aspect of the question. It is 
only claimed that to the extent of about three millions 
the faith of the State stands expressly pledged in favor 
of exemption; and it further appears in evidence in the 
official report of the Auditor of State, that, in conse¬ 
quence of the frequent and repeated transfer of bouds, 
it is now impossible to identify those that are by law 
exonerated—that is to say, those that were issued un¬ 
der the laws of 1825 and 1839. 

And now, with a view to the consideration of the 
moral question involved in this matter, let us compare 
the position of the State to that of an individual under 
the same circumstances ; for no one will insist that the 
rules applicable to the one case would not be equally 
so in the other. Suppose that I should borrow eighteen 
thousand dollars, for fifteen thousand of which I obli¬ 
gate myself to pay an interest of two per cent, per an¬ 
num, and for the remaining three thousand, an interest i 
of six per cent, per annum. And (in order to suit my j 


illustration to the facts of this case) the rate of interest 
was not specified upon the face of my notes of hand, or 
that being so originally, it had, in consequence of re¬ 
peated changes, and renew’als, become so that it was 
impossible to determine upon which of the notes I was 
bound to pay six per cent, and upon which only two 
per cent. It is an admitted fact that upon fifteen of 
the eighteen thousand, I was originally bound by my 
contract to pay only two per cent. All my notes have 
arrived at maturity, and the holders present themselves 
before me for payment. I look over the notes, and we 
mutually examine the contents and terms, but neither 
the holders nor myself can determine which of the 
notes are entitled to the interest of six per cent. All 
claim the highest rate, six per cent., and all perhaps 
suppose themselves entitled to receive it, and the sub¬ 
ject has become so involved that the true state of facts 
can in no manner be ascertained. What is to be 
done ? Am I bound to pay the highest rate upon all 
my obligations ? Am I holden as a moral and honest 
man, without any reference to mere legal obligation, 
to do so. If any gentleman believes it, he would ; 
oblige me by giving his reasons and exhibiting his au¬ 
thority for such an opinion. Yet this is precisely the 
case which we now have under consideration. And, 
with reference to the law of the case, how stands the 
matter? The gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] has ' 
threatened us with an appeal to that great court which : 
sits, in the exercise of its high calling, in the eastern 
wung of the national capitol. JBe would take us there, | 
if in the exercise of our duty as citizens of the sover¬ 
eign State of Ohio, we should have the temerity to lay j 
a tax upon the securities of the State in the hands of her 
owm citizens. Sir, I will go there with him. 

W^e are in the august presence of the federal court, 
and upon an issue made, are examining the question in ' 

its legal aspect. He offers in evidence my bond for 
one thousand dollars, upon which he claims an interest 
of six per cent., from its date to its maturity. There is 
no rate of interest specified upon the face of the inslru- * 

ment, but he says to the court that it was stipulated 
by the maker of the note that it should bear with it 
an interest of six per cent. Upon this testimony, and 
this statement he rests his case. On the part of the de¬ 
fence, the execution of the instrument is admitted, and ' 
then I follow with this statement: “I gave this bond, j 
along with others, to the amount of eighteen thousand 
dollars, upon three thousand of which 1 pi’omised to pay j 
interest at the rate of six per cent., and upon no more. 

It is at present impossible to distinguish the six per j 
cent, bonds, and this impossibility is admitted on both I 
sides.” The gentleman from Clark would claim judg- j 
ment with six per cent, interest, and I would laugh at j 
his demand, and I 'wdll submit it to any lawyer in this i 
Convention whether that high court, or any other, un¬ 
der the same^circurastanccs, would render judgment in 
his favor. 

Mr. MASON. I should expect, were I pro,secuting j 
such a case as the one alluded to, that it would be a 
part of my evidence as plaintiff’, to show that the bond 5 

was issued under the act of 1825, or an act containing j 
a similar provision—a proof that had been omitted in j 
the statement of his friend from Hamilton [Mr. Groes- 
BECK.] Then, I would ask the gentleman if it is his 
opinion, provided I should prove that such a bond had 
been issued under the law of 1825, would the court, 
in his opinion, render judgment against me as to inter¬ 
est, and for the defendant ? 

Mr. GROESBECK. I have presented the case to 
the committee, upon the facts as we know them to ex¬ 
ist. We know what these contracts are, and the pur¬ 
pose for which they were executed; and upon the bond, 
the law, the admissions and the testimony of the Audi¬ 
tor of State, I went into court with my friend from 
Clark [Mr. Mason.] We appealed to the federal court, 
and there we offered our evidence, and it was all the 
evidence we bad. My case was simply this: The 
bonds were mine; I admitted their execution and my 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


obligation to pay, but it could not be satisfactorily de¬ 
fined which of them we^e entitled to the interest of six 
per cent. 

Mr. STANTON. Does the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton [Mr. Groesbeck] contend that in consequence of 
this state of uncertainty, the State is exonerated from 
paying six per cent, on any of her bonds ? 

Mr. GROESBECK. I am not at all embarrassed by 
such a question. All I have contended, and all I now 
contend for, is that the court would not permit you to 
recover six percent, until you prove that your identical 
bond was entitled to interest at that rate. And I re¬ 
peat, that if the facts of the case are as I have stated 
them, there is not a lawyer in this body, who can insist 
that the State has parted with her right to tax these 
securities. 

Mr. STANTON assented to that proposition. 

Mr. GROESBECK. There is no doubt aboutthe law 
of the case, and the law being admitted, as I claim it 
to be, I will not argue it. A bond is a contract, but 
whether it be so or not, makes no dilference in regard 
to the right of the State to tax. All the tribunals that 
have examined such a question, have sustained this 
view of it, when it has not been distinctly stated in the 
contract, that there was an exemption. 

The gentleman from Ross [Mr. Green] referred us 
to several decisions of the Supreme Court of the Uni¬ 
ted States, bearing as he understood, upon the question. 
You are aware, that Court had already decided that un¬ 
less the property sought to be thus exempted, was ex¬ 
empted by the express terms of the contract, from tax¬ 
ation, to tax it would not be contrary either to law, 
morality or good faith. And in this connection I desire 
to call the attention of the committee to another opi¬ 
nion of Chief Justice Marshall, in a case which has not 
been referred to, in the course of this debate. In the 
uncertainty existing in regard to the fact which are the 
issues which by the terms of the law are exempt from 
taxation, the decision of the eminent Judge is of great 
force. It will be found in 4th Peters, 514. The case 
was that of a bank charter which contained no provi¬ 
sion regarding taxation. Subsequent to the passage 
of the act conferring the corporate powers, and subse¬ 
quent to the time of the commencement of operations 
uy the bank, the State of Rhode Island proceeded to 
levy a tax upon the institution. On the part of the 
bank, it was contended in an elaborate argument, that 
the contemplated tax would destroy, or at least impair 
the privileges intended to be conferred by the act of 
incorporation. That the charter was a contract, whose 
validity could not be impaired, &c. The opinion of 
the court was delivered in the following terms: 

•‘It has been settled that a contiact entered into between a 
State and an individual, is as fully protected by the tenth section 
of the first article of the Constitution, as a contract between two 
individuals ; and it is not denied, that a charter incorporating a 
bank, is a contract Is this contra climpaired by taxing the banks 
of the State?” 

And at page 561, the leanied Judge, in commenting 
upon the taxing power as reposed in the States, says: 

“ That the taxing power is ot vital importance; that it is essen¬ 
tial to the existence ol government, are truths which it cannot be 
necessary to reatfirm. They are acknowledged and asserted by 
all. It would seem that the relinquishment of such a power is 
never to be assiuned,” &c. 

The Chief Justice goes on to say there is nothing in 
the contract forbidding the imposition of the tax, and 
affirms the validity of the law taxing it, &c. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I desire to apply the principles 
settled by that authority to a part of the facts of this 
case, in answer to the claim that an understanding had 
gone abroad, that all the securities of this State were, 
by law, exempt from taxation. It would be unbecom¬ 
ing in a court to presume upon anything less than the 
clearest and most conclusive testimony that the ex¬ 
emption had been stipulated for at the time the con¬ 
tract was executed ; and it is strange indeed that we 
should now be called upon to exempt the entire eigh¬ 
teen millions—not merely to run counter to the spirit 


763 


of that authority, but to commit, if I may so speak, an 
outrage upon its principles, as well as upon the people 
we represent. 

This Convention, sir, has no right to surrender any 
portion of the power of taxation. The law arising 
from the facts of this case is, that no such surrender 
has taken place. Unless we are driven in an opposite 
di ection, by plain and conclusive testimony, our duty 
is not to arrive at such a conclusion as that argued for 
by gentlemen on the other side. Such is the law, and 
if I have been correct in my statement of the evidence,, 
there is no court in Christendom in which these bond¬ 
holders could protect themselves from that taxation, to 
which, as citizens enjoying the protection and benefit 
of the Government, they are, at all events, morally" 
bound to submit. If it is impossible to identify the 
particular bonds issued under the laws which provide 
for an exemption, it is a sufficient ground in law for 
the rejection of the whole. 

I come now to another question—to the question ot 
the right of the General Assembly to give away, or 
barter away the power of taxation; and I intend, fair¬ 
ly as I can, and candidly throughout, to make the- 
claim, that the Legislature of the State of Ohio had no¬ 
right to do such a thing. Let us look at it for a mo¬ 
ment. Here is the constitution. It declares that tax¬ 
ation by the poll is grievous and oppressive—that the- 
the pro])erty of no man can be taken from him for the 
public use, without a just and adequate compensation.. 
You cannot take my property without paying me for 
it. There is no other way known to the constitution,, 
nor can the wit of man devise a mode by which the 
State can exist without taxation. In the language ot 
the Chief Justice of the United States, “It is essential 
to her existence; an attribute of sovereignty.” Take- 
up the constitution, and how does it read? It pre¬ 
scribes the duties and limits the powers of the various- 
departments of the government. No where in the- 
constitution is there a word said about the taxation o 
property. It is as silent as the grave on this subject,. 
There is no grant of it, in terms; and at the close of tho> 
constitution we declare, “that all the powers not here¬ 
in granted, are reserved to the people.” One might 
almost suppose that there exists no power in the State 
of Ohio that can impose a tax upon the property of hey 
citizens. But such is not the case. By the mere cre¬ 
ation of the government, this power exists. The pow¬ 
er of taxation must necessarily belong to every gov¬ 
ernment, as a part of itself—an essential attribute of 
sovereignty—a part of its very sovereignty. Can that 
power, consistently with the safety of the government, 
itself, be bartered away or tampered with? Where is 
the authority, in any department, to do any act consti¬ 
tutionally—I say constitutionally, having even a re¬ 
mote tendency to bring the government to an end ? If 
one of you were to approach me now, and sever my 
arm at the shoulder—my right arm—my laboring arm,, 
by which I subsist, you would not more certainly im¬ 
pair the integrity of my body than you would diminish 
and impair the sovereignty of the State, by parting 
with a part of this power by which it is sustained ana 
held together—by which it lives from year to year. It 
you may give away a part, how much ? and where is 
the limit ? 

I remember the language of Judge Marshall, in 4th 
Wheaton, referred to by the gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull, [Mr. Ranney.] Why was it that, in that case, 
he held that the State of Maryland could not impose a 
tax upon the United States Bank ? Because, as he ob¬ 
served, if the State can do this, it might be, that the 
States might obstruct and impair the means of the Fed¬ 
eral Government, by which it subsists. This bank is 
one of the means of carrying on the General Govern¬ 
ment therefore, it can’t be taxed by a State. This 
was his o-reat and reliable reason. Nothing was said in 
that case as to the amount to be taken. The amount 
was as a single sons in an exhaustless treasury. It was 
as if one stood upon the shore of the neighboring 


I 











764 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


stream, and stooping to its never-failing flood of waters, 
ftliould take out as much as he could hold in the hollow 
ef his hand. It was as nothing—nothing. It was the 
[principle involved, _ It might be—it might be, that if 
a State had such a right, she might obstruct or impair 
the means by which the Federal Government is car¬ 
ried on. 

Tfje some principles were declared by the same 
Judge, in 2d Peters, in the cose of the city of Oharles- 
tion. And may I not apply the same principle in this 
place ? May I not say to the General Assembly of this 
State: You have no right to part with the power of 
taxation. By doing so, it may happen that you bring 
this government to an end. If this be true in one case, 
it is in the other, and if the doctrine is applicable in 
one, it is equally so in both cases. The power of tax¬ 
ation is “vital to the existence of the government.” It 
is tho essential and the only means by which it main¬ 
tains itself from year to year. 

t admit that there are cases in which it has been 
holden, that a State may surrender her powers of tax- 
tation, but, I think gentlemen will agree with me, that 
m all those cases, the real question has not been fully met 
tiud considered. But, Mr. Chairman, since questions 
concerning these rights and powers have been taken 
tip by the Federal Courts in earnest, they have expres¬ 
sed a doctrine that makes it perfectly clear that there 
can be no surrender of these attributes of sovereignty. 

Take the case of the right of “Eminent Domain,” 
which is nearly analogous to the one now under con¬ 
sideration. What is the right of Eminent Domain? It 
IS the right of State to control the property, real, per¬ 
sonal, and of every description, belonging to its citi- 
'ieiis for public uses. It is a power necessarily belong¬ 
ing to government not necessary to be conferred in ex¬ 
press terms by the Constitution. Let me call the 
attention of members of the Committee to the language 
of the Constitution of this State upon this subject. It 
has a clause, upon the subject of eminent domain— 
why? For this reason. We desired to assert in ouv 
Constitution, another great doctrine—the inviolability 
of private property. We said, private property shall 
bo inviolate, but lest this declaration might impair an 
attribute of sovereignty, we further said, it shall always 
be subservient to the public uses. For this reason,“it 
was mentioned. It needed no grant, that the State 
might have it. Like taxation, it is a part of her very 
iiovereignty. 

And now, what is the law of Eminent Domain ? It 
has been declared by the Supreme Court, in 11th Pe- 
lers, and again affirmed in 6th Howard, that it is not 
competent for the legislative power to part with that 
right—the right of occupying lands and takin? property 
requiied, JR pR emergency, for the common defence, or 
or any public purpose; and, sir, it will not be conten¬ 
ded for one moment, that that right is equal in impor¬ 
tance to that of taxation. It is, in fact, of mere second- 
'^^en compared with it; hut it is a 
dittererice in degree and not in kind—in magnitude, but 
not in principle, and so it i.s treated by the authorities, 
i should like to read from these authorities. The 
cases are recent—very recent, but I forbear. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I am admonished by roy failing 
voice that I should bring these remarks to a close. I 
am sure, sir, that the members of this Convention will 
not corne to the conclusion that one—one department 
of cur State, or all of them, can barter away its sover- 
eigiity. Take up the Constitution and turn to its open- 
ing page, and what is the language? In substance 
this. We, the people of the State of Ohio, to secure to 
ourselves and our posterity, (not our immediate poster¬ 
ity, but our posterity in all time,) the blessings of lib¬ 
erty, do ordain and establish this free and independent 
State. Is there any man who, at thi.s late day, will 
^aiid up here and contend that one department of this 
Government has a right to bring it to a close ? Will 
they contend that the Legislature, whose powers are 
fixed, and whose functions are well understood—the 


Legislature whom we send to Columbus to continue i 
the Government—has not only the right to destroy | 
itself, but to include the whole fabric of the State in its ' 
downfall. The doctrine is monstrous—it is unnatural. 

It has neither law, nor constitution, nor decision, nor 
precedent in its favor—it has neither reason, nor right, 
nor truth, nor morality to sustain it. It is revolution¬ 
ary— unconstitutionally revolutionary. [ 

And now I bring my remarks to a close, with this : 
brief explatiation. I say that the right of eminent do- i 
main cannot be bartered away, and let me state anoth¬ 
er case. The Legislature of Ohio recently incorporated 
a cemetery in this county, and declared that the grounds j 
should be occupied for the purpose of sepulclire and i 
for no other. Such an act did not exempt even a place I 
of burial from the right of einineiit domain, and I well ; 
recollect how our feelings were outraged when under j 
llie exercise of that right, a charter was granted for a i 
railroad, and in the exercise of the right, it drove right j 
through the consecrated ground. All were disposed to i 
dis])ute the existence of such a power, but it was of no ; 
avail. And if such is the power of the State over her 
territory, by virtue of eminent domain, how much I 
stronger and more immutable should it be so in regard I 
to taxation, a power which miist be exercised every | 
year—and forever. 

I say that the right of eminent domain cannot be sold. 

But what if the State should sell it ? Would the con¬ 
tract of sale be sustained? I am free to admit that if 
the courts declare a contract affecting eminent domain 
to be void, for its uncoiistitutionality, it is the duty of * 
he State to make the jiarty whole, whether or not such ! 
be the law. It is, at all events, the morality of the • 
case; and if her contract to exempt a few of these , 
bonds from taxation, is also unconstitutional, as I be- I 
lieve it to be, it is equally her duty to refund what she ' 
has received as the equivolent for such exemption. I 
could have wished that the committee that made this ^ 
report, had said they shall be taxed—all of them, with¬ 
out exemption, and accompanied it with a proviso to 
this effect: That the tax may be remitted in regard to ' 
such bonds as may be clearly shown by the holders, 
v/ere issued under the acts of 1825 and 1839. Do this, 
and I have no fears for the credit of the State. My ' 
conscience in this matter is fully satisfieal, and the law i 
is with us, and in every view which I take of it—in ! 
every aspect in which it has been presented. I see no 
I'easou for coming to a different conclusion. 

Mr, HOLT next obtained the floor, but give way for 

Mr. MITCHELL’S motion, that the committee rise 
and report progress ; which was agreed to. 

And then the Convention took a recess till 3 o’clock 
P. M. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

The PRESIDENT resumed, and. 

On motion of Mr. LAWRENCE, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into committee of the whole—Mr. Lead- 
better ill the Chair—and resumed the consideration 
of the question pending at the moment of recess, name¬ 
ly : Mr. Horton’s motion to amend the third section 
of the report of the committee on Finance and taxa¬ 
tion, by striking out the words, “ State and,” in the 
fourth line. 

Mr. HOLT (being entitted to the floor) addressed 
the committee asjollows: 

Mr. Chairman:' What little I have to say upon this 
subject, I have chiefly committed to paper ; and so de¬ 
fective is my vision, that I hope I may be indulged in 
speaking out of my place; for, otherwise, I should not 
be able to read my notes. 

The only question which it is strictly in order to dis¬ 
cuss, and the one which I shall alone consider, is :— 
Shall the State tax the money invested in State stocks 
created by any act or acts of the Legislature, which 
contains a pledge on the part of the State not to tax 
them ? 

The gentleman from Hamilion, [Mr. Groesbeck,] 
















766 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


who last addressed the commitiee, if I understood him 
correctly, concluded his argument by expressing a wil¬ 
lingness to exempt the stock shown to be expressly 
exempt by the statute. If this opinion were concur¬ 
red in by the committee, I should not occupy their at¬ 
tention for a moment. All other stocks I am willing 
to tax. But several gentlemen have advocated the tax¬ 
ing of all State stocks, indiscriminately. 

My relation to this question,'perhaps, calls on me 
briefly to assign the reasons for the vote which I now 
expect to give, and which I shall give, unless convin¬ 
ced that 1 am in error. 

I was a member of the General Assembly, at its ses¬ 
sion in the year 1825, and for several succeeding years. 
With a large majority of that body, I voted foi the act 
“ providing for the internal improvement of the State, 
and to borrow money for that purpose.” To obtain the 
loan, I voted for the proposition that the State should 
pay the interest, to be stipulated, not exceeding six 
percent.; that neither the stock nor the interest should 
be taxed, nor should any act be done by the State to 
impair the value of the stock. Upon this proposal we 
obtained the money, with it made our canals, which 
we are now using; we have not paid the debt, yet we 
propose to tax tha stock, or, in the language of the re- 
'port, to tax the money invested in the stock. Upon 
this proposition I am called upon to vote. I said in 
1825 that I would not tax it—I am now required by 
the advocates of the proposition, to say that I will. 
Had I done a similar act in my individual character, 
and it had been known to my constituents, I should, 
unquestionably , by all parties, have been relieved from 
the responsibility of voting upon this question in this 
body. 

Mr. Chairman, I have given willing and anxious at¬ 
tention to the arguments of gentlemen who advocate 
the right and duty of the State to tax these slocks. If 
it ( ould be done without breaking the faith of the State, 
no member of this committee would vote for it with a 
better appetite than myself. But the State said when 
she borrowed the money—and I helped her to say it 
—that she would not tax them. She not only said so 
in ordinary language, but she formally and solemnly 
pledged her faith to the performance of her stipula¬ 
tions. 

I now proceed to examine briefly, very briefly, the 
principle grounds upon w'hich it is argued that these 
securities, may be taxed, without a breach of the pub¬ 
lic faith. 

The first which I shall mention is, that the law ex¬ 
empting them from taxation transcended the constitu¬ 
tional power of the General Assembly, and has never 
been sanctioned by the people. The want of this pow¬ 
er in the General Assembly rests upon the assumption, 
that if the power exist at all, it exists without limit. 
If it can exempt one species of property for a given 
time, so as to bind the legislature at a subsequent sess¬ 
ion, it may exempt all property, in all time to come. 
The answer to this is, that such an abuse of power is 
not to be supposed. The supposition of an extreme 
I imaginary case, which w’e know can never happen, 
1 furnishes no premise from which we can reason with 
I safety or profit. In further answering this assumption 
or proposition, I also will suppose a case. Not a fan- 
I ciful case, but a case which has substantially existed, 
k in fact. In the negotiation of a loan, by the State, the 
I lender estimates the exemption from taxation equal to 
|: one per cent, and proposes to lend at six per cent., sub- 
[ ject to taxation, as the State should tax otlier property 
I of a similar nature, or at five per cent, exempt from 
taxation. May not the representatives of the people 
1 accept either proposition, as they shall think most ad¬ 
vantageous to the State? 1 do not know that I can 
make this plainer than to let the question furnish the 
answer. 

i The Congress of the United States, having the pow- 
i er to levy taxes upon land, has exempted the public 
[ land from taxation for five years from the day of sale. 


The State, and other States, if my recollection be not 
at fault, has done the same. The right, therefore, to 
exempt specific property for a given time, has been 
recognized and exercised by Congress, and by the Le¬ 
gislatures of the States ; no watchful, strict construc¬ 
tionist supposing that, because the power might be im¬ 
prudently exercised or abused, therefore it did not ex¬ 
ist. By the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court 
of the United States, in the New^ Jersey case, reported 
in 7 Crunch, it was held, that exempting the Indian 
lands irom taxation forever, was within the constitu¬ 
tional power of the Legislature. So that it would not 
be taxed in the hands of subsequent purchasers, being 
citizens of the State. We have then the recognition 
and practice of Congress, of our own State, and of 
other States of the Union, sustained by the Supreme 
Judicial power of the United States, sanctioning the 
constitutionality of this law of 1825. 

But, admitting that the act was beyond the consti¬ 
tutional power of the General Assembly, I cannot yield 
my assent to the assertion, that it never receiv(jd the 
sanction of the people, and that the people have had 
no opportunity until now of disowning it. Why, sir, 
they have had tw’enty-five opportunities—pertinent oc¬ 
casions—one every year, for the last twenty-five years. 
If the people had disapproved this law, either on the 
ground that it was impolitic or unconstitutional, they 
should and they would have expressed that disappro¬ 
bation long since at the polls. They would have elec¬ 
ted members to the Genei’al Assembly who would have 
refused to receive the money on the terms proposed, 
or, if received, refunded it. Sir, it ought not to be said 
by gentlemen who understand well the theory of our 
Government—who are observant of its workings, and 
the maner in which the people exercise a revising and 
correcting power over legislation, that they have had 
no opportunity, until now, to expres their opinion, 
and to have done it efficiently, too, respecting the 
constitutionality or unconstitutionality of this act oi 
1825. 

In the case of individuals, if an agent exceed the uti- 
thority given him by his principal, as a general rule, 
the principal is not bound. But it, instead of disown¬ 
ing the act, he proceed to take advantage of the stipu¬ 
lations in his favor, he thereby becomes bound to fulfil 
the stipulations made on his behalf to the adverse party. 
Such is the law in the case of individuals, and right 
and justice is the same where the State is concerned. 

When heard we this objection—the want of consti¬ 
tutional power to make this law and this loan from the 
people themselves? When was it raised in the Leg¬ 
islature? When did the most ambitious aspirant for 
office, start this question even lor debate ? 

Sir, as one of the people, I consider an acquie.scenee 
in the provisions of this act for a quarter of a centuiy— 
our having received and used the money, which re¬ 
mains unpaid—binds us to a fulfilment of all our stipu¬ 
lations, even though the act were not within the con¬ 
stitutional power of the General Assembly. 

The next ground taken, to which I shall reply, is, 
that the report does not propose to tax the stocks, but 
the money invested in the stocks. If gentlemen wil' 
devise a way, or if I myself could devise a wa,y, by 
which we could reach and tax these stocks, without 
breaking our contract, 'l should do so with a hearty 
good will. But an attempt to arrive at this object, 
however desirable, by making a distinction where there 
is no difierence—using a different name for the same 
thing—making a shadow equal to the substance, or 
rather manufacturing a substance out of a shadow, it*, 
not convincing, to my mind. Gentlemen mistake .fudge 
Marshall, when they say that he recognized this diff'er- 
ence. By way of episode, 1 will say that Judge Mar¬ 
shall was an eminent jurist, a profound logician, and a 
successful sophist; and among the many able and ex¬ 
cellent opinions which he delivered, he gave others, 
tending in their influence, to transfer the rights and 
powers of the States to the General Government, be- 













166 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


yond any other man of his time, or who has existed 
since. In this I concur fully with the gentleman from 
Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney.] But he recognized no such 
distinction as is claimed for, or imputed to him. The 
distinction which he, in fact, made, was between the 
corporate property, or perhaps the corporate franchise, 
of the United States Bank, and the stock owned by in¬ 
dividual citizens of the State of Maryland in that insti¬ 
tution. 

A further ground assumed to justify the imposition 
of ta.ves upon this stock, is, that it was not contempla¬ 
ted to exempt it in the hands of our own citizens ; that 
the exemption was intended exclusively for the benefit 
of foreign capitalists, from whom alone we expected 
to receive the money—that this was the spirit of the 
law, and therefore our own wealthy citizens ought not 
to be allowed to withdraw their money nor their pro¬ 
perty from taxation, by investing it in these stocks, and 
then claiming the exemption. If the question before 
the committee were, whether, in morals, these bond¬ 
holders ought to pay taxes on the stock, I would say 
that the same moral obligation rests upon them to pay 
the tax that would require them to distribute that por¬ 
tion of their property among the laborers who earned 
it, and who have never received a full compensation 
for their labor. But the question of ethics involved 
here is one applicable to the obligation of the State, 
not the bond-holders. If I borrow money of my 
neighbor, and promise to refund it, it is not for me to 
violate my promise, and justify myself on the ground 
that he got his money by usury or I'raud. Nor can the 
♦State justify the violation of her contract with the bond¬ 
holders on this ground. If the bond-holder made a fair 
contract with the State, it would be a singular justifi¬ 
cation on the part of the State for a breach of her con¬ 
tract, to say to him, you don’t fulfil your contracts with 
others, or you make hard and oppressive bargains with 
others. 

But this is a digression. The ground assumed for 
taxing these bonds, which I am now to answer, is, that 
our own citizens ought not to have the benefit intended 
only for foreigners. My answer is, that this also is a 
violation of our contract. In terms we made this stock 

transferable.” What is included in this term trans¬ 
ferable ? We said by it to the money lender, we will 
place this stock in such a shape that you may go with it 
into any market, at home or abroad; you may dispose 
of it here or elsewhere, to our own citizens or to for¬ 
eigners, unclogged or unembarrassed, and the purcha¬ 
ser shall have it just as you have it—exemptfrom taxa¬ 
tion. 

I said then, sir, in 1825, as a member of the General 
Assembly, that I would not tax these stocks, nor do 
any act to impair their value. What I said then I say 
now. What I promised I mean to perform. And as 
the promise was made in behalf of my constituents, I 
mean they shall perform it. Sir, I have not consulted 
my constituents, not a man of them, upon this ques¬ 
tion. But I do not believe any considerable portion of 
them would require me to vote for taxing that portion 
of the State stocks which were created and issued un¬ 
der a pledge that they should not be taxed. Nay, sir, 
I do not believe they would even justify me in giving 
such a vote. 

These, then, sir, are my reasons for opposing the tax¬ 
ing of this stock—clumsily expressed, but arranged in 
the best manner that I could do it with less than half 
my ordinary strength of vision. I have not been able 
to read books nor examine cases. 

Before I sit down, I cannot forbear a brief notice of 
the analogical reasoning of the gentleman who I am 
permitted to call, and am happy to call, my friend from 
Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] to some extent endorsed by 
the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] who 
last addressed the committee. The gentleman from 
Knox argued, with an air of apparent, and no doubt 
real sincerity, and an air as triumphant as sincere, 
that, inasmuch as the Legislature have repealed, and 


have a right to repeal a general law exempting any 
species of property from execution, they, therefore, in 
like manner, can repeal an act exempting State stocks 
from taxation. If he means by this that it can be done 
by general laws, where there is no contract or pledged 
faith in either case, he is right. But the law referred 
to, exempting certain property from execution, is but 
an ordinary enactment. It is so in form and fact, in 
letter and in spirit. It makes no proposition to be ac¬ 
cepted or rejected ; it asks compliance with no request; 
its language is that of command. All must obey it, 
nolens volens. Or, in language which my friend from 
Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] likes better, and probably it 
is in better taste—willing or unwilling. Not so with 
the act in question. So far as this question is concerned, 
it was a bare proposal. If accepted, it became a con¬ 
tract in form and in fact, in letter and in spirit. If not 
accepted, not a line or letter of the whole act would j 
have the least force or efficiency. Why, sir, there is | 
no analogy at all between them. ■ 

I will put a case to the gentleman which is strictly i 
analogous. It may also be used in answer to what has I 
been argued by other gentlemen during this debate— ; 

it is this : that some of these bonds have been purchas¬ 
ed by the present holders at a great discount, say fifty ' 
cents on the dollar, whereas they are now quoted at 
one hundred and sixteen. j 

Supiiose the State, by an act of the Legislature, pro¬ 
poses to sell lands at two dollars per acre, and in the 
act says to purchasers, on paying the money into the 
land office, you shall have a deed, and the land shall j 
not be taxed for five years. A purchases a tract of 
land, pays the money into the land office, and receives j 
a deed. At the end of one year there is a revulsion in I 
business; property sinks in value; and A sells the land 
to B for half what it cost him. At the end of the sec¬ 
ond year business revives, and by some improvement 
in the vicinity the land is tripled in value. Will you i 
now say to B, “ When we sold this land to A we antici¬ 
pated no such state of things as now exists; you made j 
an extraordinary good bargain, and we will tax your ) 
land for the next three years, our contract and our faith j i 
to the contrary notwithstanding ” ? Would the gen- ' | 
tlemaii from Knox, would any gentleman of this com- j | 
mittee, so act ? I think I may respond an emphatic ( 
nay, for every gentleman. 

Sir, there is, in honor, perhaps a stronger obligation f 
on the part of the State to keep her faith in her con¬ 
tracts than rests upon individuals; for the reason, that I 
he who trusts the State relies alone upon her good faith, i I 
He knows if she fail to perform she cannot be sued ; i 
no compulsory process can be had against her. Where¬ 
as, in the case of an individual, if his faith fail, resort i 
may be had to a judgment and execution. ; 

Mr. Chairman, f am not ignorant of the fact that the I, 
legislation of the civilized world at all times has been ! 
favorable to capital, at the expense of labor—for money ; 

rather than for men. It has been too much the case in ' 

our own country—this land of boasted “ liberty and j 
equality.” It is time to change its tone and current. |i 
With all my heart I will go with gentlemen to do it. 11 
But in doing so, let us act prospectively; and not, in 1 
our zeal and solicitude to make a radical and speedy 
change, violate our honor and break the public faith al¬ 
ready pledged. 

Sir, I am not to be understood, by what I have said, ^ 
to be a stickler for what is usually called vested rights. ; 
That the Legislature, by improvident or unwise leg¬ 
islation, can conpromise the interest of the people for 
fifty or a hundred years, by the ordinary grant of cor¬ 
porate franchises. For example: that it can confer up¬ 
on a corporation the control of the money of the State, 
its quantity and value, by creating a feast or a famine' 
by enhancing or depressing the value, or rather the 
price of all the property in the State, from the planta¬ 
tion and farm to the day’s work of the hod earner, and 
the brown loaf and beef shank, provided by his half 
rewarded labor, to feed his children. That such pow- 

















CONVENTION EEPORTS 


ers can be granted, and be beyond subsequent reme¬ 
dial legislation—beyond the resumption or modification 
of the sovereign power of the Stale represented in the 
General Assembly, is so revolting to that sense of right 
and justice, and republican equality, which I entertain, 
that it costs an etibrt of chai'ity to find an apology for 
the advocates of the doctrine. What I urge, and all I 
urge is, that the State should fulfil her contract fairly 
made, even though the party with whom she contract¬ 
ed, gets the better side of the bargain. There is a 
commendation from high authority bestowed upon 
him “ who sweareth to his own hurt and changeth 
not.” 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, desired to say one word, by 
way of explaining the remarks he made this morning. 
He had been told by a gentleman upon the other side 
of the chamber, that he was understood to lay it down 
as an undoubted rule, that the Legislature had the 
power and the right to bargain away their sovereign 
power of taxation. If this were so he had been mis¬ 
understood. He had merely stated that he regarded 
this as a doubtful ciuestion—a ciuestion upon which 
men might well pause and refiect seriously ; and that, 
being doubtful, it ought not to be put into the consti¬ 
tution. 

He would say further; that, were he a member of 
the Legislature, he would not hesitate a single moment 
upon the question of taxing the banks of Ohio, pre¬ 
cisely as other property ; notwithstanding the grants ol 
exemption in their charters. Although this would in¬ 
volve a doubtful question, as all must admit, in view 
of the decision in 7th Crunch; yet he would be glad to 
see it brought up to the Supreme Court at Washington. 
But it would be a bold movement. Nevertheless, he 
knew of a bolder movement. He referred to a ques¬ 
tion in the trial of the celebrated Daniel O’Connell, 
raised before the English House of Lords a few years 
ago. O’Connell, as we all know', had been convicted 
by the Queen’s Bench of Ireland of a grand State mis¬ 
demeanor—everything both of law and fact had been 
urged in his defence to no efi'ect—every remedy, every 
relief known to the law had been exausted, save and 
except one most desperate throw of the die, which 
per-chance might win, and which could but lose—and 
that was a writ of error to the House of Lords of Eng¬ 
land. The w'rit was brought and in time came on for 
hearing that celebrated case before their Lordships. 
The indictment contained some fifteen counts, it was 
admitted that some of them w'ere good and some bad, 
and that the judgement was general in view of all the 
Counts. And it was also admitted by the counsel lor 
O’Connell that up to that time it never had been doubt¬ 
ed but that such a conviction was good—that the uni¬ 
versal I’ule of criminal law w'as, when the conviction 
w'as general and there are sundry counts, if there are 
but one good one the judgment is good, but they stated, 
that, although such had ever been the understanding 
of the law in England, although such was the language 
of all the books upon that subject—although no judge 
or lawyer had ever doubted or called in question its 
soundness, although men had been drawm, executed 
and quartered, banished and imprisoned under just 
such judgments as that against O’Connell—yet said they 
we demand the reversal of this judgment, because, 
such is not the law of the land—a smile played over 
the countenances of the barristers present on the occa¬ 
sion, and their lordships could hardly suppress their 
merriment at so nevol a proposition—yet when the ar¬ 
guments were closed on that proposition, the Lord 
Chancellor put the question to the law Lords. “ Shall 
the judgment stand ?” “ non content,” said Lords Len- 
man, Campbell and Cottenham—“content,” said the 
Lord Chancellor and Brougham. “ The ‘non content8‘ 
have it and the judgement is reversed ” said the Lord 
Chancellor—and the Irish Liberator once more roamed 
at large—a bolder forensic movement was never made 
—he would like to see those sharp, bold Irish lawyers, 
he would like to see the cut of their countenances—he 




always had a great curiosity to see O’Connell himself 
but a much greater one to see his counsel in that case. 

One word more and he would be done. The gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton [Mr. Groesbeck] had taken 
the ground, that no sovereign power could be bartered 
away. He would ask that gentleman if the power of 
making contracts, was not a sovereign power, pertain¬ 
ing to every government? Was it not the case, that, 
at every session of the Legislature, a portion of this 
power was transferred out of their hands pro tanto? 
He took the case of an act incorporating a bridge com¬ 
pany, with a clause in the charter, that for twenty years 
there should be no toll-bridge erected upon the same 
stream, within one mile either above or below said 
bridge. There could be no doubt that it was compe¬ 
tent for the Legislature to pass a charter with such a 
provision. But when the charter was passed and ac¬ 
cepted, and the company had complied with its terms 
of completing their work, had not the Legislature par¬ 
ted with that portion of their sovereign power which 
they might have exercised over this portion of the 
stream in question, for the period of twenty years ? 

When he had concluded there were cries of “ ques¬ 
tion, question,” in various parts of the chamber. 

Mr. MITCHELL might have allowed the question 
now to be taken, without asking the indulgence of the 
committee any further, were it not for the serious and 
candid appeal made to him by the gentleman from 
Warren [Mr. Smith.] He felt constrained by the re¬ 
spect which was due from him to that gentleman, and 
to the people whom they mutually represented in this 
body, to make some answer to the earnest and emphat¬ 
ic appeal which that gentleman had made to him, as a 
man who “ would do no act which he did not think was 
supported by the principles of justice and morality.” 

Certainly, he would not do any act which he did not 
believe to be supported by the principles of a sound 
morality, nor would he ask of the people he had the 
honor to represent, nor of the State in general, to 
sanction any act of his, nor to do anything themselves, 
which would not bear the test ot a most strict and rig¬ 
id morality. 

The gentleman from Warren has propounded to him 
this question: Had the Legislature the power to make 
a contract? He answered the question in the affirma¬ 
tive—just as he would admit the power of a body cor¬ 
porate, or of an individual to make a contract. But, in 
his turn, he would ask the gentleman from Warren, or 
any other legal gentleman, whether, in every case 
where an individual or any set of men, possess the 
power to make contracts, they have, of necessity, also 
the power to make all sorts of contracts ? It would 
certainly be conceded that this was not the case. 11 
needed but to be suggested, it seemed to him, to show 
its fallacy. The law had set limits to the power of 
every man to make binding and valid contracts. It 
might be true that most men might make as many con¬ 
tracts as they please, even such would not he binding, 
either in law, or upon the principles of a just morality. 
It was not true, however, that all persons, natural ami 
artificial, possessed the same powers in this respect— 
the powers of some were much more restricted than 
others. Artificial persons and agents belong to this latter 
class. The Legiislature falls within both descriptions. 
It is an artificial person, and an agent, and as a matter 
of course is limited in the extent to which it could not 
go. Its power to make contracts, it seemed to him, 
were clearly more limited than that of the individual, 
or general agent. They acted in the capacity of spe¬ 
cial agent in this respect, and could not go beyond the 
terms of their letter of attorney—beyond that which it 
mi°ht be absolutely necessary for them to do to secure 
the end for which they were created. They might 
make contracts, either by virtue of express grant, or of 
the necessity of the case. When the constitution was 
silent this necessity must be clearly shown. When, 
sir can the constitutional grant or necessity be shown 
for making contracts proposing to give up irrevocably 















768 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


the power to make wise and wholesome laws, or to 
adopt a just and equal system of taxation. 

It was with pleasure lie agreed with his esteemed 
friend, the gentleman from Montgomery, [Mr. Holt,] 
that these contracts, also, were only to be lived iij) to, 
upon the principle of honor and good faith. 'fhe 
agreement of all governments were only binding in 
honor; for there was no mode of enforcing a compli¬ 
ance with them. There was no sanction by which an 
individual could compel the government to comply 
with their contracts; although this is undoubtedly true, 
still he admitted that their contracts should always be 
regarded precisely as all other contracts, upon the prin¬ 
ciples of strict justice and a sound morality. Conse¬ 
quently, the idea of repudiation, as the word is com¬ 
monly understood among our people, is not consistent 
with good morals. It was, consequently, not worth 
talking about here. The people of Ohio wez’e not con¬ 
templating any such thing. They were never unwil¬ 
ling to pay their debts. It was always their intention 
to do BO; but this word has been used in a very differ¬ 
ent sense, with which he had never sympathized, never 
agreed. This was the want of strict compliance with 
the demand to pay the interest at the very day it was 
due. It was this which had brought down upon the 
people of these States all the odium which had been 
lulrainated against them, from across the Atlantic, by 
Sidney Smith, and others ol kindred spirit and stripe ; 
and he must say that he had even felt ashamed to see 
so large a number of our own people ready to repub¬ 
lish this malignant and unjust reproach. Sir, if virtue 
is left with our people, (hey should feel ashamed of 
their conduct in this matter, maligning and traducing 
our government for no other delinquency than thou¬ 
sands of themselves are practicing upon each day, and 
claiming and maintaining respectability. He main¬ 
tained for our State government, they were only bound 
to the same exertions to preserve good faith in her con¬ 
tracts as individuals may be. His was simply pledged 
to go as far as a reasonable prudence might require; 
that was to say, they were not required to make un¬ 
reasonable sacrifices ; but that they might avail them¬ 
selves of the privilege to defer payment till they could 
be prepared and provided with the means, without 
making ruinous sacrifices; and for doing so, he did 
not consider that the States of this Union were justly 
liable to the reproach which had been cast upon them. 

Mr. MASON, (interposing.) Will the gentleman al¬ 
low me to make an inquiry ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly. 

Mr. MASON. It is simply this: Supposing the 
State has not the power, as the gentleman has urged, 
to make all kinds of contracts; what i.s the opinion of 
the gentleman as to the power of the State to make a 
contract to borrow money, upon the faith and credit 
of the State ? 

Mr. MITCHELL did not propose to take n[) the time 
of the committee by answering questions which did 
not properly belong to this discussion. The gentle¬ 
man might have perceived that his power was admit¬ 
ted upon all hands. He referred particularly to the 
closing remark.' of the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 
Groesbeck] with reference to this question as meetino’ 
his approval—as words which ought to stand forever. 
But if the abstract questions were to be discussed, he 
would be found upon the side of those contending that 
the issuance of State bonds was in controversion of that 
provision of the constitution of the United States which 
prohibits the States from issuing bills of credit. But 
this discussion did not belong to the point in issue be¬ 
fore us. He denied again that this discussion had any 
connexion with repudiation; there was no call for that. 
It was not even contemplated by the people. It arose 
simply from a desire that all should bear the burdens 
of government in proportion to the amount of proper¬ 
ty they have to protect. He maintained that the Leg¬ 
islature of the State of Ohio had not the power to 
make the contract in question, namely, that they 


would never lax the wealth of her citizens invested in 
State bonds, issued for borrowed money. There 
was no warrant for such an exemption in the con- 
.stiiuiion. It was n.ot even claimed by the opposite 
side that any such power was expressly granted; with 
what semblance of reason, then, can it be claimed that 
by implication the Legislature had power to give up 
their right to pass any law which might be necessary 
lor the public good ; it was utterly inconsistent with 
the very existence of government itself; and it was di¬ 
rectly in contravention of the long established princi¬ 
ple that the Legislature may pass any act required for 
the public good. Constitutional restrictions upon the 
power of the Legislature did not take away the ancient 
principle by which statutes wmre required to be so 
con.strued as to preserve the independence of each 
succeeding Legislature. But to allow the Legislature 
to divest itself of the power to pass any act for the 
public good, would be to authorize that body to divest 
itself of the very foundation principle upon which it 
rested. 

He would ask the gentleman whether this were a 
prudent doctrine to declare, that one Legislature may 
pass u law which shall bind or restrict the power oi a 
subsequent one ? To what lengths of absurdity and 
inconsi.stency, and even oppression, might they not go, 
upon such a principle, if once established ? He was 
unable to see how any practical limit could be fixed 
to this arogant and extravagant claim, if the principle 
were for one moment allowable. Nothing can be more 
important than that the Legislature should possess, at 
all times, the power to make wise and wholesome lawsj 
Nothing could be more utterly subversive of the very 
end of her creation than to allow her to barter it away 
or subject it to the least lestriction. 

He had been not a little surprised at the discussions 
of this question, in this country, from time to time. It 
had generally been discussed by legal gentlemen upon 
the side opposed to the ground wheie he stood. Some 
of the most profound men of that profession in the 
country bad been found advocating the opposite side 
of this question? 

He then went into an argument, showing that the 
English principle of jurisprudence, prohibiting ex post 
facto laws, was nothing changed in our constitutions, 
by the different wording it had received ; that the con¬ 
struction of the English courts was, that one parlia¬ 
ment had the power to repeal the act of a former par¬ 
liament, whenever the public good required it, only 
that enactment must be construed so as to have a pros¬ 
pective, not a retrocative operation. He maintained 
that no contract could be binding, unless it were such 
a contract as could be enforced before an ordinary 
court of justice. In other words it must not be a void 
contract by theknown principles of justice as establish¬ 
ed by our system of jurisprudence. 

But, conceding, for the sake of argument, that there 
was a contract for exemption from taxation, made be¬ 
tween the Legislature and the money lenders—that it 
was a possible thing to identify the particular bonds 
issued under such a contract—still, be would maintain 
that such a contract could not be enforced, by reason 
of the well established principles of morality and jus¬ 
tice, in any court of law or equity. 

But it should be remembered that this discussion 
had proceeded upon the principle of the right to tax 
money invested in these bonds; and it seemed to liave 
been conceded, upon all hands, that justice required 
that such law should be passed. It was claimed by 
those with whom he acted, that the time had now ar¬ 
rived, when it was demanded by justice and true poli¬ 
cy, that these investments of money should be taxed 
as other property in the community; and that this re¬ 
quirement of justice should be met, either here or by 
the Legislature. Assuming this to be a just claim, 
what should become of any contract, standing in the 
way to prevent such a requirement of justice and sound 
policy ? 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


769 


He had before remarked that the opposite side of tijis 
qaestion had been most frequently taken by even em¬ 
inent men in the legal profession ; it had been a mat¬ 
ter of surprise to him, that they had not had some reg-ii d 
to those well settled principles found in the books, 
which established, beyond controversy, that a large 
number of the contracts made in the courts of business, 
cannot be enforced, because they are against good mor¬ 
als, and against public policy. That is, a contract which 
would directly tend to injure the great interest of so¬ 
ciety, if sanctioned by judicial support, must be held 
voia, and incapable of enforcement. If this be as he 
claimed, it was a well settled rule of decision in our 
courts of equity. It was entirely satisfactory to his 
judgment and his conscience, for, as a general thing, 
beheld that these rules of decision were according to 
good conscience, sound moralit}’-, and enlightened jus- 
ice. 

It has been contended, it was true, that there was no 
morality in these legal decisions which settled th; se 
questions. But he would notenter into any metaphys¬ 
ical examination of this question. For it was generally 
conceded that the decisions of the courts of the coun¬ 
try, as to what is the law, were, morally speaking, 
sufficiently correct, as a general rule; although partic¬ 
ular cases might possibly arise, in which the demands 
of law might not satisfy the demands of conscience. 
He could not sympathize with those who were wiliing 
to cast the aspersion upon those venerable gentlemen 
who administer the law upon the bench, as occupying 
a position where they must be constantly violating 
their Cvonsciences. He considered that, when they ad¬ 
ministered it according to its true principles, they were 
serving the end.s of justice, and discharging the highest 
and most honorable of earthly duties. He had but lit¬ 
tle doubt that, whenever they were able to settle what 
the rule of law required, then conscience and moral 
sense would be entirely satisfied in enforcing the rule. 
He asked no better, nor higher satisfaction to his con¬ 
science, as to what was right and just, than the great 
body of the decisions and adjudications of the courts. 
As a general thing, they were founded upon the dear¬ 
est suggestions of justice, and, as generally were sup¬ 
ported by the principles of a sound morality. 

He held, then, and considered that he had show n 
that no State contract should be maintained as inv'ola 
ble, if it were founded upon such principles as would 
not stand before a court of justice, and that the con¬ 
tract in question was not only in contravention of the 
constitution of the State, but a contract which, in a 
court of justice, would be held a perfect nullity, as 
against public policy. 

Ho would call the attention of the gentleman from 
Warren, and others, to this view of the subject, as vvell 
as to those offered by the gentleman from Hamilton, 
CMr. GnoKstiKCK,] going to show that the contract for 
the exemption of these bonds was void for want of 
power to make it. If this contract was indeed then a 
nullity, could he or could his friend from Warren have 
any scruples of conscience in requiring future Legisla¬ 
tures to so treat it ? Gould courts of justice have any 
compunction in so regarding it? 

^ He woul !, in support of ihis position, call the atten¬ 
tion of the committee to what had been said by one ol 
the most enlightened judges of this country. He 
would read from page 268 of Judge Story s first volume 
of Equity Jurisprudence, where lie opens the considera¬ 
tion of the subject of contracts void, because against 
public policy—a rale which, he says, does not rest up¬ 
on the hypothesis that fraud exists in the contract; but, 
in order to prevent a contract operating, against tbe 
public inlei est, it was necessary that it should be linc- 
iared with fraud. 

Judge Story says that these contracts “ are such act' 
and contracts as, although not originating in any evil 
design or contrivance to perpetuate a positive fraud or 
injury upon other persons, are yet by their tendency 
to deceive or mislead other persona or to violate private 

49 


)r public confidence or to impair or injure the public 
interest, deemed equally reprehen.sible with pjsitive 
f aud, and, therefore, are prohibited by law as within 
he same reason and mischief as acts and contracts 
done malo amino,” (with an evil intent.) 

The same author adds, on the next page, “ Some of 
I he cases under this head are principally so treated, 
becau. e they are contrary to sound public policy.” 

Ho proceeded to show that the object here, was to 
secure the highest advantages to the community; and 
therefore it was, that the law would not allow of the 
existence of any contract that would restrain the rights 
ot trade and commerce, such, for example, as might 
establish monopolies. Another class of these contracts, 
were such as were calculated to impede public justice 
or effect the public interest. Another arose out of pe¬ 
culiar reladons which the parties might maintain to 
each other, such as a guardian and ward, attorney and 
cliaut, tru.stee ccstua que trust. 

Mr. STANTON, (in^ierposing.) If he understood the 
gentleman, he claimed, that where parties engaged 
themselves in a contract which would operate against 
the public policy, the courts would not enforce it, be¬ 
cause they were boih rascals. Did'the gentleman pre¬ 
tend to claim, that agents of the State who had made 
the contract under discussion, were all rascals? 

Mr. MITCHELL wished the gentleman from Logan 
would either listen a little more aUentively or would 
sit a little n arer him; or could it be that the gentle¬ 
man desired to caricature him before the people of 
Ohio? He hud said no such thing as that imputed to 
him. The word rascal had not escaped his lips. He 
had said that this principle of law was to discourage 
and prevent the making of contracts. The tendencies 
of wliich would necessarily be to effect injuriously the 
public interests. This was what he said, and it was 
what the law most clearly taught. In many of the 
cases, the parties immediately concerned, could not bo 
charged with any po.sitlve unfairness. But the con¬ 
tract was set aside, simply upon the ground that to en¬ 
force such, would be establishing rule, the tendency of 
which would be to encourage immorality to hinder 
justice or the promotion of sound policy for the public 
good. He cited a case from Leig & Ibiwl’s Reports, 
showing the correctness of this position. If the prin¬ 
ciple to which he had referred were true; and if gen¬ 
tlemen could see that all contracts shotild be brought 
to the test of that principle—and in the name of justice 
why should they not ?—where is the ground, then, for 
the clamor that is here made against its apfilicatioa to 
the contract here attempted to be set up? Could it be 
urged that this contract was not against public p.dicy? 
.4gainst the public good ? In fact striking at the very 
foundati'.n of our government? Setup this injurious 
claim as it is here urged, aud you may soon make your 
government a mere shadow, a miserable cheat and de¬ 
lusion. Ho now hoped that his friend, the gentleman 
from Warren, and all others, could easily understand 
how he could be serious aud sincere in advocating the 
doctrines which he did : and he hoped, also, that the 
[teople were satisfied with the same conclu'*ion which 
had so firmly impresjed his own mind. They would 
feel not only at liberty, but constrained tr> su))port the 
same, not from any party predilections, but from the 
highest sense of jubiice and morality, and from a high 
sense of the absolute necessity of doing so in order to 
the preservation end perpetuity of their precious liber¬ 
ties and th(i priceless blessings flowing tlierefrom. 

The question being upon the motion tositikeout 
words “State and ” liom the third section-— the same 
was put and the committee divided, thu.': affinnutive 
;H, ne'^ative 51. So the amendment was bisi. ' 

Mr.I n ASH moved f t striking ont the whf.Io of the 
third section. He could not understand wliy, iii fra- 
miiig the constilntion, they were to puss a law regula- 
timj; taxation. Now, the second section requires equal 
'axation, upon an equal basi.s, and it appeared to him 
that if they prevrisd for an assessment of all property. 












CONVENTION REPORTS 


710 


real and personal, it was about as coinprehensive as 
could be made. But it appeared that this was not suf¬ 
ficient ; for that while providing for such a general as¬ 
sessment, they required one thing in particular. That 
while required to obey all the commandments, yet 
there was one in particular which they were bound to 
obey. If there was any meaning in all this, it was that 
out of the property specified the General Assembly 
might raise the whole revenue of the State, that that 
property should be taxed at all hazards, and the bal¬ 
ance at the option of the General Assembly. He would 
say that if such was not the meaning, it had none what¬ 
ever. Why, in the name of Heaven, first require that 
all property should be taxed, and then go on to specify 
two species in particular? Suppose that such a state of 
thin'^8 existed as in Massachusetts, where they have a 
very slight State tax, it might be raised from this prop 
erty alone. The others were embraced in the first 
section, or they were not. If not, then the Legislature 
would be bound to tax them at all events, revenue or 
no I'evenue. If they were embraced in the previous 
section, the section was then useless. He would ap¬ 
peal to the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer,] 
if it was not policy to incorporate in the constitution 
disputed questions of legislation. Gentlemen had now 
been arguing it for four or five days. The opinions ex¬ 
pressed on both sides existed all over the State, and if 
men who believed that laws of that character would 
be a violation of the faith of the State, how could such 
men vote for their constitution who did not agree with 
an important part of it ? It jnattered not what his opin¬ 
ion might be on the matter, it was sufficient for him to 
know that it was a disputed question ; that the opinions 
of those against the adoption of the rep«)rt were hon¬ 
estly and openly entertained, and must induce them to 
vote against a constilulion in which such a principle 
was embodied, us being a direct violation of the fiilh 
of the State. 

Was it wise or politic to seek to incorporate into that 
fundamental law questions of expediency, as to taxa¬ 
tion, a question which has been debated, and holly de¬ 
bated too, and o[)inions freely expressed which would 
Ibrce men who regarded tlie [uiblic faith as sacred, to 
vote against the whole of this constitution while it con¬ 
tained such litigated and disputed questions, they would 
drive those men to make such an amount of opposi¬ 
tion as would ultimately sink their constitution. i{ 
they inserted this section, and that the courts should 
decide that they had no right nor power to do so, we 
shall have then standing in our constitution and fun¬ 
damental law a provision which should be a disgrace 
to the Stale, and to the men who framed the coiisti- 
tion. It is a que.stion which should be left to the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, and not incorporated in the constitution. 
Whatever his opinion might be on the question of tax¬ 
ing those bonds, his vote should be for striking out the 
section altogether, because if they believed that they 
had the power of taxing them and that it was policy 
to do 80 , there was no necessity lor its insertion, since 
the Legislature could provide for it. Such appeared to 
him to be the common sense and practical view of the 
matter, and the only view by which their conduct 
should be regulated. He was anxious that their four 
months’ labor should not end in an abortion. By in.sert- 
ing a series of propositions hotly disputed, they would 
array against their constitution a sufficient force to vote 
it down. There was one class of men who would, he 
believed, vote against it at all hazards, because the 
word “ white” was retained before “ rnen and there 
were others who would vote against it for other rea¬ 
sons, and if they were to go on in the manner describ¬ 
ed, their labor when completed would have arrayed 
against it force enough to sink it. From the first origi¬ 
nation of this Convention he had protested against this 
itching for legislation—against this anxiety of gentlemen 
to crowd their own peculiar opinions into this instru¬ 
ment—their views of finance and taxation—of banking 
and currency ; which disputed opinion must secure a 


defeat of any constitution we may form. Ho was wil¬ 
ling to leave it to the Legislature, and the people. But 
it was said that we could not trust them, that this Con¬ 
vention should tic up the people’s hands and feet. We 
seem to have no confidence in the people, in present 
and future generations,—that unless they are all bound 
down, to what the Convention, in its wisdom, may 
consider right, we fear they may run wild. It might 
be true that those composing the Convention were 
wiser than all those that had come before or that 
may come hereafter, that there may be none like them 
for the future, but he [Mr. Nash] did not believe such 
doctrine. He had faith in the good sense of the people 
and believed that they would do what was right on this, 
as well as on every other question, and therefore, he 
was for expunging the section altogether. The same 
remark applies to the next, and to some sections of the 
report. They were efforts to legislate and not making 
a constitution, and that, as he said before, they were 
arraying against ttiem a mighty force, sufficient to sipk 
the constitution. He would now propose striking out 
the whole of the third section. 

The CHAIRMAN decided on the amendment being 
out of order, audit was accordingly withdrawn. 

Mr. MASON proposed the following amendment, to 
add to the end of the 3rd section the following words ; 

“ Provided that iu making such provision the faith of the State 
shall be inviolatcly preserved.” 

Mr. TAYLOR said that he was about to remark, 
when he had risen wiili Mr. Nash (to whom he gave 
way) that the second section was expressed and 
in a comprehensive form, and included in the third, 
and perhaps he might add the 4th section, and as he 
understood the objection of the gentleman from Gallia 
was, that those sections were repetitions of the others— 

Mr. NASH. The objection was that they undertook 
to settle the question too precipitately. 

Mr, TAYLOR understood the gentleman to state in 
die first instance that the geneial terms employed in 
the second section included the stocks in question, 
while, belbre he closed, he expressed a doubt whether 
the language of t’ne section was, “ that the Legis¬ 
lature should provide by law a uniform rule of assess¬ 
ment and taxation, and shall prescribe such regulations 
as will secure a just valuation of ail property both 
real and personal.” If that gejitleman and those who 
Surrounded him would meet those on his [Mr. Tay¬ 
lor’s] side, frankly and cordially, he had no doubt but 
tlial a compromise, honorable to both parties, would 
be arrived at. The language just quoted was all that 
he demanded, and he trusted that when they had pass¬ 
ed the Report, that it would be committed with an un¬ 
derstanding from all sides that such language should 
be used, as would include all property, not expressly 
implied in any act of exemption. That there would 
be no disputed points thrown out for tlie Legislature, 
and that every thing should be included on the tax 
list not otherwise set forth as an exemption in the pro^ 
vise. 

He would prefer one to three sections, a comprehen¬ 
sive phrase not subject to doubt and of such a nature as 
that it should be understood by the Legislature and the 
people. The form of property under discussion would 
then be taxed, so would bank stocks, in fact there 
should be no exempting unless enumerated specifical¬ 
ly. What would be the result if the holders of United 
States stock could each establish an exemption ? Ho 
would say, so be it. It would be established by the 
constitution of the United States, the supreme law of 
land,when administered by the tribunals of the coun¬ 
try, and if they were so to decide, let all submitto their 
decision. If it was to be the understanding of both 
parties, that such a general provision, so comprehen¬ 
sive iu its nature as not to be misunderstood, was to 
take the place of the third section, he hoped that such 
a form would be returned from the committee. He 
did not like repetitions if general terms could convey 
the same meaning, but so long as there were doubts. 
















CONVENTION liEPOKTS. 


771 


and gentlemen show an intention to reserve them for 
future dispute, it was the duty of the majority, by their 
votes to record the fact of their having attached a dif¬ 
ferent meaning to the article. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, would move, as an amend¬ 
ment to that proposed by the gentleman from Clark, 
the insertion after the words “ the faith of the State” 
the following words, “ heretofore pledged by express 
law.” 

Mr. MASON would, with that gentleman’s permis¬ 
sion, accept his proposition as a modification of his 
amendment, and in doing so would wish to make one 
remark. He trusted that the proposition, modified as 
it was by his acceptance of the amendment suggested 
by the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. Vanch] would be 
adopted by a large majority of the Convention. He 
was quite willing that the State bonds should be tax¬ 
ed, provided it could be done and at the same time the 
good, faith and credit of the State be preserved invio¬ 
late and intact. 

Pending the question upon Mr. Mason’s amendment’ 

Mr. DORSEY moved that the committee rise, which 
was agreed to : 

And then, on motion, the Convention adjourned. 

TUESDAY, December 17, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The COlivention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Begger. 

Mr. LEADBETTER presented a petition from Ann 
Mitchell and forty-two oth'er female citizens of Dela¬ 
ware county, praying that a clause be inserted in the 
new Constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from pas¬ 
sing any law legalizing the traffic in spirituous liquors. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from John 
Mitchell and forty other citizens of Delaware county, 
on the same subject. 

Mr. HOLT presented a petition from S. U. Ripley 
and eighteen others, citizens of Montgomery county, 
on the same subject, 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of retailing ardent spirits. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention resol¬ 
ved itself into a committee of the whole on the the 
order of the day —Mr. Leadbetter in the Chair. 

The question being on the amendment offered by 
Mr. Mason to the third section of report number one 
of the standing committee on Finance and Taxation. 

Mr. HAWKINS said thathedid not make the motion 
to go out of the committee of the whole last evening 
with a view to get the floor this morning, nevertheless 
as gentlemen seemed disposed to accord it to him, he 
proposed to make a few, and but a few remarks. He 
had listened with great pleasure to the discussion that 
had taken place on both sides of the question. He had 
been enlightened and instructed by the arguments that 
had been presented. He felt it his duty to say that he 
had observed in the remarks of no member any dis¬ 
position to violate the faith of the State, or to do any 
act that could be construed into an act of repudiation. 
It certainly was not his intention so to do, nor either 
by his word or his vote to give the slightest ground 
for such a charge against him. He desired above all 
things, that the utmost good faith should be preserved 
by the State toward the public creditor—that all injus¬ 
tice should be avoided—that the money borrowed 
should be paid, and that every pledge of the State 
should be strictly, fully, sacredly, and to the last letter 
preserved. Up to this time the honor of the State has 
remained untarnished. Through all the past periods 
of great pecuniary difficulty and distress, no cause has 
been given for the slightest imputation, and he should 
deeply regret if now, in the midst of her obvious pro¬ 
gress and great prosperity, any occasion should be real¬ 
ly found for so serious a charge. 

A difficulty has been suggested in regard to certain 
of the securities of the State, that is something like 
this; That while a portion of them are exempt from 


taxation, in the hands of our citizens—by the terms of 
the contract, or the law under which they were issued, 
such changes have been made, or such is the manner 
in which the emission has taken place, that we are un¬ 
able to determin>e which they are that are so exhone- 
raled. It did not appear to him that this difficulty could 
be so great as to be deemed insurmountable. The 
bonds are issued under specific laws providing for 
their redemption. They are issued at a particular 
time, and payable at a particular lime, and it would 
seem to him an easy matter to determine under 
what particular law they had their origin. Under 
the law of 1825, the amount loaned amounted to 
the sum of four millions three hundred thousand dol¬ 
lars, which became payable in 1850. For the purpose 
of cancelling these stocks, the law of 1849 was pass¬ 
ed, authorizing the issue of stocks, to be exchanged 
for those of 1825; and under this law exchanges were 
efl'ected to the amount of seven hundred thousand dol¬ 
lars. But the officers of the State, finding that many 
of the holders of the bonds which fell due in 1850 did 
not desire to continue their investment in the securi¬ 
ties of the State, and preferred payment to an exchange 
—procured the passage of the,law of March 19th,-1850, 
by which they were empowered to sell the new stocks 
and with the avails to pay up and cancel the old ones. 
There was one restriction in regard to the sale of the 
new bonds, which, he feared, had not been observed, 
and that was a provision that a portion of them should 
not be so transferred as to put them out of the reach 
of a certain Sinking Fund that had been provided for 
their redemption. The sum sold, at any rate, was suf¬ 
ficient to meet all the stocks redeemable in 1850,, and 
he desired to inquire if the provisions, conditions and 
pledges of the law of 1825 had been extended to the 
stocks issued in 1850? and if so, why such an exten¬ 
sion of those pledges had been made, and by what, 
authority? He did not believe it had. 

Mr. REEMELIN said he had last evening learned, 
that the law which was passed in 1849, to pay the 
bonds issued under the law of 1825, and which fell due 
in 1850, and au'dit)rizing the issue of new stocks to be 
exchanged for those that had fallen due, did refer to 
the pledges and conditions of the law of 1825; so that 
if the General A.ssemblv has the right to barter away 
the power of taxation, it has been done in this case as 
effectually as in any olhei’. So, he believed it was un¬ 
derstood by the Legislature, and so it was understood 
by the bondholder. 

Mr. HAWKINS said that in the law of 1849, refer¬ 
ence may have been made to the law of 1825, but he 
had his doubts whether the General Assembly intended, 
by such reference, to continue in force all the provis¬ 
ions and conditions of that law. 

Mr. PERKfiNS said he had the law in his hand, and 
would, if the gentleman desired, read the pi'ovisiou 
upon the subject. Mr. Perkins read from the law of 
March 19, 1850, entitled "An act to amend an act to 
authorize the Canal Fund Commissioners to exchange 
certificates of the funded debt of this State, passed 
March 11, 1849,” as follows: 

“ Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, That 
the Fund Commissioners are hereby authorized to issue, in accor¬ 
dance with the provisions and conditions of the act of February 
4,1825, creating the State debt, and of the several acts amenda¬ 
tory thereto, transferable certificates of stock,” &c. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The law of 1849 authorized the 
exchange, and that of 1850, the sale of the certificates 
of stock; and it would seem, from the provisions of 
the section just read, that it is incumbent upon us to 
guard the interests of the State, in this Constitution, or 
our rights will all he bartered away before we are 
aware of it. And the fact that after all that has been 
said, after all the discussions and agitations that have 
taken place in regard to it, the Legislature should as¬ 
sume the authority to exercise, such a power is a warn¬ 
ing to us, to be very guarded in regard to the discre¬ 
tion we leave in their hands, for the future; for no one 
can suppose that in 1849, such a pledge as that con- 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


'i72 


^ained in the law of 1825, could be necessary to the 
credit of the S ale. 

Well, su>)po3e that the law and the contract, so far 
as concerns the bonds issued under the act of 1825, and 
the laws that refer to it are binding upon us, we have 
only to sever these bonds from the whole sum of the 
credits of the State, and tax the remainder, so t'ar as 
they are within oar reach. And this, a.s I said before, 
does not saem to me to present a case ol very great 
difficulty. For my part, I rft'ust confess, I h ive my 
feas's of fraud upon the State, in this business of trans¬ 
fer of bonds. Up to the year 1834 we heard nothing 
about the necessity of a transfer office; since that time, 
however, about the sum of one thousand dollars has 
been semi-annually paid to keep open such an office in 
the city of New York. 

But admitting the law, and the application of it, it 
does not, I ap[)rehend, go to tlie extent claimed for it 
by gentlemen upon the opposite side. It i.s said that 
we are proliibited from doing any act by which, direct¬ 
ly or indirectly, we shall reduce the value of the secu¬ 
rities intpiestitm, in the hands of the holders. Suppose 
this to bo true—suppose it to be the real int tit and 
meaning of the law of 182.5, what are the facts of the 
case? Why, we have violated the law a hundred times. 
Every law authorizing a new issue has been a viola¬ 
tion, because it, to some extent, depreciates the value 
of tho.se previously disposed of. The ernissionof nearly 
a million and a half m 1835, was an act of bad faith, as 
have been all the others from that day to this. Here we 
have been supposing that we wore preserving the reputa¬ 
tion—the integrity—the good faith of the State, while, 
in fact, we were constantly engased in its violation. 
What a delusion ! After promising that we would, by 
no act, reduce the value of our stocks, we in 1842, 
threw a million and a half of them into the market, to 
be sold at fifty or sixty cents on thS dollar, a p’Ore.^^s 
having the undoubt' d tendency to produce the effect 
we had pledged ourselves should never take place. 

As it regirils the particular provision that shall go 
into the constitution I am not very strenuous. I had 
rather see a declaration tlmt all property in the State 
shall be taxed, and then if there are to be exemptions, let 
them be specially made, so thatvve may know dfffiaite- 
ly what they are. I hope, however, that we shall but 
for a few year.s to come have such a thing as a public 
debt. Then a clause iii regard to its taxation will have 
no meaning, It will only stand as an excrescenceup- 
on the face of our organic law, reminding us of the 
period of our humiliation. I hope, however, to see in¬ 
corporated into this constitution a provision that, ex¬ 
cept to a very limited amount, there shall be no public 
debt contracted in future. I want the debt paid off as 
soon as possible, for as no prudent man is willing to 
pay interest while he has the power to pay the princi¬ 
pal, so no Well governed State will be desirous to have 
a large and burdensome public debt hanging over it, 
beyond the period when they are able to pay the prin¬ 
cipal. I know that there are those who insist that a 
public debt is a public blessing. This doctrine, more 
or less covertly, has been declared in this Convention 
if not here, at least during the session at Columbus. I 
am not among tho.se who entertain such a belief, and I 
am sure that nothing would give higher satisl'acliou at 
large to the people of the State than the fict that ali 
the debts of the State were finally paid off and dis 
charged. 

I had no intention to make a speech upon this ques¬ 
tion. I desire only to vote, and so to vote that there 
shall be no grouml for a charge against me ol repudia¬ 
tion. As an individual, I feel the worth of a re[)uta- 
tion for integrity. To a State, such a reputation is 
equally valuable, and so far as I act in my official ca¬ 
pacity I de.sire so to act as to do no injury to the raith, 
the credit or the reputation of the Slate of which lam 
a citizen. 

Mr. ARCHbOLD said, he did not intend to detain 
the committee more than a very few minutes with any 


remarks which ho might make. He rose merely to 
add a few 8ugge.stion8 to the remarks of Ills friend from 
Morgau [Mr. Hawkins] to whom he had—as indeed 
he always did—listened witli the greatest interest, 
fhat gentleman made a remark upon the strange posi¬ 
tion in which we have placed ourselves by llie acts the 
General Assembly, since the law of 1825, in doing pre¬ 
cisely what we there covenanted not to do. It cannot 
be controverted tiiat every act that authorizes the is¬ 
sue and sale of new stock is an act which endangers 
the interest of the public creditor. It was singular that 
that this view had not been taken by gentlemen who 
are so smitten with the laudable desire to save the hon¬ 
or—to save the credit of the State. He merely rose to 
notice anoiher instance of the same kind. For years 
past, it has been the practice of the General Assembly 
of the State to authorize counties, townships and cities 
o contract enormous debts. If one quarter of the acts 
that have been passed shall be carried into effect, the 
total amount will be va.stly greater than ihatof the en¬ 
tire debt of the State. The whole amount authorized 
is doubtless over one hundred millions. In the public 
councils of the State he had always raised his voice 
against this practice. He had from the beginning seen 
the danger tlmt would accrue to the Stale, and the 
practical bad faiih to the public creditor that was in- 
voivc'd in it. The danger was as open to view as the 
sun-beams themselves. Cities are creating debts to 
die amount of two or three millions, and small counties 
are a.ssuming obligations qf one, two or three hundred 
thousand dollars. It is a gigantic evil, and the danger 
is equally gigantic, and I tell tliese guardians of the 
public faith—these anxious conservators of the public 
honor, that there is infinite danger that large portions 
(if the State will be reduced by the pressure of their 
local debt, to such a condition of insolvency, that it will 
be impossible for them to pay even that, to say nothing 
of their share of the debt of the State. In such a con¬ 
dition of things, will it be possible for the remainder 
of the State to discharge the public obligations as they 
fall due? 

Mr. RE EMELIN. They will have to. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. The gentleman says they will 
have to. Now, I arose to call the attention of all, to 
this startling condition of our public affairs. It is laud¬ 
able—it is praiseworthy, iu genilemeu to feel for the 
honor of the State. Yet I have not seen one who seem¬ 
ed to appreciate the danger we are incurring, in thus 
creating mountains of puhlio debt. I have always 
raised my feeble voice and given my vote against the 
practice; yet I have been obliged to vote in a mi¬ 
nority—a mere corporal’s guard of six or seven. Why, 

I ask, are gentlemen so tender upon one point, and so 
impassible upon anoiher? Why are they so ready to 
detect the slightest taint in the breeze at one time, 
while at another they are so unconscious of its corrup¬ 
tion? Now I admit that we ought to do nothing to en¬ 
danger the public credit. I admit that the law of 
1825 binds us to do nothing. But I submit whether it 
is not better for the bond-holder himseif that ati ex¬ 
emption so invidious—so liable to excite the popular 
clamor and arouse the popular feeling should be avoid¬ 
ed. I feel sure that the bringing of these bonds upon 
the tax list, would add to the estimate of their perma¬ 
nency, create a feeling of security in their ultimate re¬ 
demption, takeaway the odium which now attaches to 
them and to the property they create, and iu fact, in¬ 
crease their value. 

Mr. PERKINS said: I did not intend, at the com¬ 
mencement of this debate, to have spoken, and I did 
not change my original intention until after having re¬ 
peatedly heard statements made in regard to the laws 
under which the debt of the State was created, and to 
the terms upon which her bonds were sold, which! 
knew were incorrect. Ye.sterday I spent several 
hours at the office of the Auditor of this county, in au 
examination of the laws, and I have made some inqui¬ 
ries at. the State offices at Columbus, in reference to 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


773 


the conditions upon which the several loans were ne¬ 
gotiated, and desire briefly tolay the results before the 
conmiitteo. The information I have to present will, I 
regret to say, be incomplete, for I have found it im¬ 
possible to get access to any full series of the laws of 
the State, or of the reports of our public officers, but it 
will suffice, I think, to correct some errors into which 
gentlemen have fallen in the discussion of this question. 

Before proceeding to the subject in hand, I wish to 
premise a few remarks in reference to the argument 
which has been urged here in justification of a depart¬ 
ure from a tenor of the obligations created by the laws 
anthcrizing this debt. It is plainly and merely an ar¬ 
gument in favor of repudiation, and may be concisely 
stated as follows: It pi’emises that all just governments 
are formed for certain definite and limited objects, ari¬ 
sing necessarily out of the relations of the individuals 
who compose a State, and suseej)liblo of distinct enu¬ 
meration and definition—that these objects may be 
compreliensively stated to be the preservation oi' the 
public order, the administration of justice, and the re¬ 
straint of offenders—in short, the protection simply of 
the righfB of per.son and property, which rights, how¬ 
ever, exist prior to and independent of the government 
—that the right of taxation rests in the government to 
the extent necessary for the accomplishment of these 
objects above enumerated, and not farther—that, there¬ 
fore, the appropriation of money by a government for 
purposes of internal improvement is unauthorized, and 
afortiari the borrowing of money and the contracting 
of a funded debt for such purposes is unauthorized ami 
unjust, being of the nature of an usurpation, and in 
fraud of the rights of the citizen. Hence all State 
bonds and stocks created for purposes pf internal im¬ 
provement are claimed to be null and void, aboriquie, 
being tainted with fraud and usurpation. 

Now, I will not undertake to say that these views 
are destitute of force. I will not say but that I might 
myself adopt' them if the policy of creating a public 
debt was to be continued and extendi d in tins country. 
What 1 do wish to say is this; that the Legislature, by 
repeated acts, and the people, by the clearest indica¬ 
tions of public opinion in every portion of the State, 
and the members of this Convention, individually, as 
they have risen on the iloor, have expressly waived 
this argument. They have declared their intention not 
to go behind the laws creating this debt, nor to inquire 
into the authority of the Legi.slatures by which they 
were passed. They have affiecd to assume the laws 
according to their terms, and to discharge the do'ht, if 
nut as a legal, at least as an honorable obligation. I 
then submit that gentlemen, having expressly waived 
this argument, have no right to introduce it into this 
discussion. Tney have no right, when driven to the 
wall upon every other argument to tax these bonds, to 
re.sort to the charge of original bad faith in other Leg¬ 
islatures, or with obligations which, in the name and ' 
on behalf of the people, those Legislatures have assum¬ 
ed. Moreover, the result of the argument is repudia¬ 
tion, not taxation. It goes to the wlu)le sum, and not 
to a part; and if gentlemen desire to repudiate, let 
them say so in plain teims, and come up in practice to 
the extent of their predicate. 

I shall answer, Mr. Chairman, that the people have 
acknowledged the obligation of tho debt—that they 
intend to pay it, and that they intend to pay it accord¬ 
ing to the forms upon which their representatives have 
contracted it. Upon this as.sumption lot us fiiTt look a 
moment into the law of this case ; and here I do not 
claim—I do not wish to claim that the power of taxa¬ 
tion can be alienated by our Legislature, so as to pre¬ 
clude its exercise by another. I d.f not claim that in 
the parallel case of Eminent Domain that right can be 
alienated. I do not claim tliat ordinary laws exemp¬ 
ting property from execution or from taxation vest any 
right in the owners of such properly, to hold such ex¬ 
emption, except at the discretion of each succeeding 
General Assembly. 


What I do claim is simply what the gentleman from 
Hamilton, and other speakers on that side, have con¬ 
ceded, to wit: that if the State by an expresp contract, 
and in consideration of a sum of money which she re¬ 
ceived to her full satisfaction, at the time of entering 
into the contract, has waived the right of taxation, she 
has, by that act, established an equity in the holders of 
her securities which uiusl bo canctlled before the right 
of taxation can bo resumed. 

I shall endeavor then to show, first, that the State 
lias agreed to exempt from taxation morethaa one-hall 
of her bonds by express law, and that she has assumed 
tlie same obligation as to nearly, if not all tbe balance 
of her bonds, so far as she can be bound by the acts 
of her agents, and by the form of the bonds she has is¬ 
sued ; and secondly, I shall endeavor to show that the 
bond liolders have paid the State a full equivalent for 
that exemption in money. 

The statutes under which the debt of the State has 
been created, are to be found in some 15 or 20 volumes 
of law’s, a portion of which I have not been at>le to ob¬ 
tain. Those which I have examined contain six laws 
authorizing loans, and creating, either in direct terms, 
or by reference to preceding laws, an exemplicn from 
taxation of the bonds to be issued under them. They 
are a.s follows; 

The law passed Feb. 4, 1825 ; the act amendatory of 
the preceding, passed .Tan. 18, 1826; the act passed. 
March 16, 1839; the act passed March 2, 1846, and the 
act passed March 21, 1849, as amended by the act pass¬ 
ed March 19, 1850. 

These acts all embrace, substantially, the following 
pledge, which has already been correctly quoted from 
the act of 1828, and is as follows: 


“The faith of the State is hereby pledged that no tax shali 
ever be levied by the Legislature or under the authority of this 
State, on the stock to be created by virtue of this act, nor on the 
interest which may be payable thereon; and further, that the 
value of the said stock shall in no wise be impaired by any legis¬ 
lative act of this State.” 

From 1830 to 1836, there is a vacancy in the laws 
which I have not been able to fill. There were cer¬ 
tainly some laws passed durii!gthat period, as has been 
here stated, which did not embrace atty express ex¬ 
emption frotn taxation of the loans to be created under 
them. It is my strong impression that there are oth¬ 
ers during the same period, containing such exemp¬ 
tion. In the uncertainty which rests over this period, 
I shall for tho present say nothing about it, or the loans 
which were contracted during it. 

The law's w'hich I have recited abo 'e as embracing 
the exemj)tioii from taxation, authorize the issue of the 

following amount of stocks: 

In 1825. $400,000 

In 1820. 

In 1827. 1,200,000 

In 1828”.'!””'...”]’.!. 1,200,000 

In 1829. 600,000 

Wabash and Erie Canal. 

Western Reserve and Maumee road.. 100,000 

Walhonding Canal. 

Hocking Canal... 

Warren Co. Cai al. ”0,000 

Muskingum Improvement. 430,01^ 

^ Zanesville Improvement. 50,000 

( Miami Extension Canal. 

1 Wabash and Erie “ . 

Act of 1846. „ . i^,0W 

[Sundry Works. 60,000 

Act oi 1849, ( 5 J fjg. .... 1,600,000 

amended 18501 cts!. 1,000,000 


Acts of 1825 
and 1826, 


Act of 1839. 


Total.$10,428,206 

In all, tei. millions four hundred and twenty-eight 
thousand two hundred and six dollars—which loans 
were actually negotiated. 

The sums 1 have stated as authorized to be borrow¬ 
ed under the various acts mentioned, are all recited 
specially in the acts themselves with the exception of 
the stocks re-issued under the acts of 1850, and for the 
amounts so re-issued, I have the authority of a letter 
from John Woods, Auditor of State, which I hold in ray 
hand. 

































T74 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


A portion of the re-issues uii(ier tlie act of 1850 were 
for the redemption of stocks issued in 1826 and ’27 
how large a portion I have been unable to ascertain. 
It has been stated on this floor to be $700,000. If so, 
it still leaves nine million seven hmidred and tweiity^- 
eight thousand dollars, which I show to have been ori¬ 
ginally issued under an express pledge from the State 
to exempt them from taxation—and this, be it remem¬ 
bered, is the result of an investigation into a partial 
and incomplete series of the laws. 

In the same connection I wish to state a further fact 
which I beg the committee to receive as of my own 
personal knowledge. I have looked for one ot the 
bonds of Ohio throughout the city, and have not been 
able to find or to hear of any except one, which is 
said to be locked in a box in deposit with the Ohio 
Life Insurance and Trust Company, belonging to a 
gentleman who is absent from the city, and has the 
key in his possession. I cannot therefore procure a 
bond, or the form of a bond, but I take it upon myself 
to say, that all of the 18G0 six per cent, bonds recite 
that they are issued in pursuance of the laws of 1825, 
1826, and other years, specifying them, seriatim, up to 
1842, expressly showing and publishing to the world 
that the State through her officers and agents did re¬ 
cognize upon the face of the bond the obligations of the 
law of 1825 to the debt redeemable in 1860. The 
amount of the 1860 six per cent, bonds, here referred 
to, was originally six millions nine hundred and one 
thousand seven hundred and eighty-one dollars, which 
sum however included the bonds issued in pursuance 
of the law of 1839 and embraced in the previous table 
to the amount of one million seven hundred and ninety 
thousand dollars, leaving five millions one hundred and 
eleven thousand seven hundred and eighty-one dollars 
not included in the previous table, which are issued 
under the authority of laws that I have not been able 
to discover, but which by an express declaration on 
the face of the instrument comes under the exemption 
of the law of 1825. In stating the above facts in re¬ 
gard to the form of the 1860 bonds, I rely upon memo¬ 
ry, but I am convinced,, that I am not mistaken, and 
hope to be able to prove my as.sertion by an exhibition 
of one of the bonds, before a final vote upon this ques¬ 
tion is taken in the Convention. 

To recapitulate: If I am correct in the preceding re¬ 
marks there is one portion of the debt of Ohio which 
I can show to have been issued undei- an exemption 
from taxation in the form of express law to the 

amount of.$9,728,000 

Also another portion issued under laws to 
which I have not access but which re¬ 
cites upon the face of the bond the 
same exemption to the amoumit of_$5,111,000 

Total.$14,839,000 

in all fourteen millions, eight hundred thirty nine thou¬ 
sand dollars, being within about one and a half mill¬ 
ions of our whole reducible debt—I’or which balance I 
do not undertake to prove any thing pro or con, not hav¬ 
ing the authorities at hand, 

i'wTll next proceed to show that the purchasers of 
our securities have paid to the State of Ohio a fair and 
full consideration for this exemption. For the purpose 
of corroborating my own evidence on this subject, I 
addressed a letter to the Secretary of State, asking 
him to transmit a statement of the terms x^pon whicii 
our stoc^ had been sold. In reply he says : 

“ I spent an hour or two yesterday at the Fund”Comiiiiasio^- 
er’e Office, examining original entries on the old Journals &c.. 
and have noted the rates of discount and premium as far as I 
could find them on Mr. Brough’s report, (which 1 send you) op¬ 
posite several of the earlier loans. You can rely upon these items 
if the original entries are correct. Mr. Woods has furnished me 
a statement as to the rates of last summer’s sales, which I also 
enclose. They are the only ones since 1843, I believe.” 

The documents sent by the Secretary of State, show 
the following facts: 


1825 

$400,000 1 

ive 

per 

cts. 

sold 

at 

per ct. 

dis. 

1826 

1,000,000 

six 

per 

ct. 

(( 


8 4-100 per ct. 

pm. 

1827 

1,200,000 

(1 

“ 

U 


for 

$77,580 67-100 

pm, 

1828 

1,200,000 

(i 

(( 


H 

at 

4 7-100 per ct. 

pm. 

1830 

600,000 

it 

“ 

(( 

(< 

U 

17 57-100 per ct. 

pm. 

1832 

100,000' 

a 


iC 


ti 

24 per ct. 

pm. 

1837 

500,000 

n 

H 

ii 

H 

(( 

12 57-100 per ct. 

pm. 

1838 

700,000 

six 

per 

cent, sold at 

6 per cent. 

pm. 

1839 

175,000 

six 

per 

cent 

, sold at 

8 per cent. 

pm. 


1850 1,600,000 six per cent, sold at 
“ 1,000,000 five per cent, sold at 

“ 1,541,468 six per cent, sold at 


This statement embraces all the information sent me 
by the Secretary of State, being as far as he could pur¬ 
sue the investigation in the time at his command. I 
will venture however, to make some furllier statements 
ill relation to this subject, which I am certain are cor¬ 
rect, although I have not any documentary evidence at 
hand. I assert then, that up to 1840, no loan of this 
State was ever negotiated at a discount, except the 
first loan above mentioned of $400,000 in 1825, which 
was a five per cent, loan, and which was sold at nine¬ 
ty-seven and a half cents in New York, then equal to 
])ar ill Ohio. All the others were sold at rates ranging 
Iroui par to 24 per cent, premium. I furthermore assert 
that no other stocks were ever sold by the State at a dis¬ 
count except a comparatively small amount which 
were hypothecated in New York by authority of the 
Legislature, to raise means for the payment of interest 
oil the debt, and which not being redeemed in season 
were afterwards sold at a sacrifice by the companies 
to whi ;h they had been hypothecated; but the whole 
sum so hypothecated and sold at a discount was less 
than a million and a half, and possibly less than a mil¬ 
lion of dollars. All the residue of our stocks have sold 
as I have before said, at rates ranging from par to 
tw’eiity-four per cent, premium. 

1 would now ask, Mr. Chairman; why premiums of 
six, twelve, and from that to twenty-four per cent have 
been obtained upon these bonds, when during the 
whole period in which they have been sold, money has 
been worth from eight to fifteen per cent, in all com¬ 
mercial, business transactions ? It was because it was 
known that the bonds were by law exempt from taxa¬ 
tion, and men were willing to pay a consideration for 
such exemption. The bondholders have paid for our 
securities prices nearly equal to those paid at the same 
periods for the bonds of the United States and simply, 
of course, because they were understood to be placed 
upon the same footing with those of the United States 
exemption from taxation. The bond holders then, 1 
assert, have in reality paid this tax and paid it too in 
advance, and whether the right of taxation be aliena¬ 
ble or not, the State must be ruled to have waved this 
right for a full consi eration, and thereby to have an 
exiuity in the holders of her bonds which in all fair¬ 
ness, she is bound to cancel before the right of taxa¬ 
tion should be resumed, 


I now desire to refer to the distinction which gentle¬ 
men have attempted to establish between the taxation 
of these bonds in the bands of non-residents and the 
taxation of the interest held in them by citizens of 
the Slate. It is urged that when the law was passed, 
the Legislature anticipated that the certificates would 
all be negotiated in New-York and London, and the 
sole intent of the law was to relieve the foreign bond¬ 
holder from the fear that his securities might be taxed 
Eo nomine,” collectively at the Treasury, and not to 
impair the right of the State to tax the property of her 
own citizens, invested in such bonds. 

I admit that a distinction might be made between 
the two cases; and that if the Legislature had chosen 
to make such a distinction, it would have been a good 
one. The truth, however is, they did not make it 
The idea never entered into their heads, or into the 
heads of the purchasers of the bonds, while the busi¬ 
ness was being done. And as illustrating this ques¬ 
tion, I wish to direct your attention to the amount of 
bonds that were originally issued to citizens of this 
State. 


















CONVENTION EEPORTS 


775 


For this purpose I hold in niy hand the report of Mr. 
Brough, made to the Legislature Feb. 15, 1845. Now. 
sir, with uiy limited knowledge of the peo{)lo of Ohio, 
I can figure up from this report the sum of nearly four 
millions, about one-quarter of the whole debt which 
had been contracted up to the time the report was 
made, that were originally issued to citizens, banks 
and corporations in this State. 

Mr. RE EMELIN Read the itames. 


Mr. PERKINS. 

Bank of Muskingum.$25,000 

Bank of Marietta.125,000 

Bank of Muskingum. 50,000 

T. P. Handy. 100,000 

Gustavus Swan. 10,000 

Do. 50,000 

Joel Buttles. 10,000 

S, F. Maccracken.108,500 


&c., &c., up to a total amount of three millions, six 
hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars. 

Mr. RE EMELIN. Those stocks may have been sold 
in ten days afterward in New York. 

Mr. PERKINS. I do not know whether these men 
and institutions purchased these stocks to keep or to 
sell, but I do know that they transacted the business 
in their own names, and whatever equity was created 
between the State and the purchaser of her bond.s un¬ 
der the exemption in her laws, accrued directly, and 
with the full knowledge^of the Legislature, to citizens 
of this State. 

I believe these facts are sufficient to show that the 
distinction above referred to, although it might have 
been a good one, if expressly made originally by the 
Legislature which passed the law, was. in point of fact 
never made, and that to introduce it here at this late 
day is a mere quibble, entirely unworthy of the digni¬ 
ty of this State. 

I wish to say. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, that there 
is no doctrine I more fully believe, than the doctrine 
that taxation should be uniform, equal, and universal, 
and that all property should alike assist in bearing the 
burdens of the State which affords it its protection. 
But, Mr. Chairman, it is no fault of mine that the State 
has seen fit to enter into a contract for the relinquish¬ 
ment of this right, and to receive a sum of money in 
commutation therefor. It is true, I believe, that in so 
doing the State made a good bargain—I believe if the 
agents of the State should to-day go into New York 
market with a seven per cent, loan, subject to taxation, 
in one hand, and a six per cent, loan exempt from tax¬ 
ation, in the other, that the six per cent, loan would 
bring the highest price. But even if I did not so be¬ 
lieve. I find my action in this case controlled by the 
action of my predecessors, and so long as I represent 
any portion of the sovereignty of Ohio I shall look for 
no middle grf)und between repudiation and a full dis¬ 
charge of the plighted faith, and honorable obligations 
of this Stale. 

I am opposed, Mr. Ohairmai: to this whole system of 
a public debt. I shall vote on every occasion to pre¬ 
clude the Legislature, and to preclude all counties, 
cities, and towns, from ever hereafter contracting debts 
for internal improvements. I believe our system of 
internal improvements by the State, is nothing but a 
curse, and 1 believe we had better sell them tq-day for 
a song, than undertake to keep and manage them for 
fifty years. But with the burdens of this government, 
established by our fathers, have also descended to us 
its blessings, and I wish to discharge in full, at the ear¬ 
liest practical period, the liabilities they have incurred, 
and then religiously avoid incurring any more. _ 

I have already said that I have sought in vain for a 
bond in this city. 

Mr. RE EMELIN There are banks in this city hold¬ 
ing bonds. 

Mr. PERKINS. They are deposited vy^ith the Treas¬ 
urer of State in security for their circulation. After 
diligent inquiry, I have heard of but a single one in 
the hands of an individual, and that was inaccessible. 
Is not this fact of some force as showing the trifling 


amount of tax which would be realized from these 
bonds if taxed as ]n-oposed, only in hands of citizens of 
this State. In the commercial capital pf the State but 
one bond has been found in a day’s search. I have no 
doubt that the whole amount belonging to citizens of 
this State, including the amounts held by banks, is less 
than three millions, and probably less than two and a 
half millions of dollars. I am not prepared to compro¬ 
mise the credit of the State for the tax upon this sum. 

I have no wish to place the State of Ohio among the 
Bsaus and Iscariots of this world. If we barter away 
our birthright in her faith and honor, let us not do it for 
a mess of pottage, or for thirty pieces of silver. 

Mr. BARBEE did not rise for the purpose of argu¬ 
ment, but to add to what had been said by the gentle- 
nian from Trumbull, [Mr. Perkins,] and also with a 
view to correct what had been said relative to the laws, 
and if he could, to correct an impression that had gone 
abroad, arising from the arguments of the gentleman 
from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck.] Mr. Chairman, 
said Mr. B.] I understand that gentleman as taking 
the ground that an attempt to exempt State bonds from 
taxation, was void for want of certainty, us the acts un¬ 
der which those bonds had been respectively issued 
could not be identified, or that you could not identify 
what particular bonds had been issued under the act 
of 182.5, or that of 1839—that there had been some fif¬ 
teen or twenty acts passed, one or two only of which 
carried on their face the exemption embraced in the 
act of 1825. And I did understand the gentleman to 
come to the conclusion, that of the whole amount issued, 
(which was some eighteen millions,) fifteen millions 
had been issued under acts that did not carry on their 
face the exemption, and that three millions only were 
entitled to such exemption, in any state of the case. 
Hence, he argued that where the amount really ex¬ 
empted was small, it would be dangerous to exempt 
any, lest .such exemption should extend to the greater 
portion which was subject to taxation ; and that, there¬ 
fore, it would be no breach of the faith of the State to 
tax all 

Mr. Chairmau, I propose very briefly to examine this 
jiosition. It may not be amiss for me here to state 
that I was one of the committee on Finance and Taxa¬ 
tion, and when I entered upon the duties assigned to 
that committee I was in favor of taxing the bond-hold 
er; for, up to that time I had not examined the subject, 
nor bestowed much thought upon it, as an abstract 
proposition. I then, and do yet, hold it right and prop¬ 
er that every citizen who receives the fostering care 
and protection of government should, and of right 
ought to contribute to sustain that government in pro- 
jiortion to the amount of what he, she, or they may be 
worth. This, to my mind, is the only true basis for 
taxation! With these views and feelings I went into 
that committee, determined to take every species of 
property, as a principle of right. 

On taking up the laws creating our State debt, I 
went back to the act of 1825, and there I find, as has 
been stated, that the act declares '‘that no tax shall be 
levied by the Legislature, under the authority of the 
State, on the s*ocks to be created by virtue of this act, 
nor on the interest which may be payable thereon, and 
that the value of the said stocks shall in no wise be 
impaired by any legislative act of the State.” Here, 
Mr. Chairman, I find a positive promise—a pledge- 
yea, plighted faith—given to the State and to the 
world. If you will lend us your money, (said the Le¬ 
gislature,) to prosecute the undertaking we are about 
to embark in, your money, thus invested, shall not be 
subject to the burthens of taxation. Yea, more, we 
pledge our faith that no act on our part shall ever be 
done to impair the value of the investment we invite 
you to make. 

Mr. Chairman, I have not been able to ascertain the 
amount of stock issued under that act of 1825, but am 
inclined to the opinion that at least one-third, if not 
half of all our stocks were created under that act. I 




















776 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


then went into an examination of all the laws that I 
could find touching this subject, and now regret that 
these laws are not before me. I have just made .search 
for them, in the Library to which we have access in 
this city, l)ut can find none, and therefore have to re¬ 
ly on the limited notes I made at Columbus, at cur, 
summer sessior. 

Mr. Cliairinan, I said one object I had was to correct 
the error of the genllemaii Irorn Hamilton, when he 
asserts that but three millions were issued under acts 
which carried on their face the exemption from taxation. 
Several acts were passed subsequent to the act of 1825, 
authorizing the is.sue of stocks without the terms stipu¬ 
lating this exemption. These will be found in Vol. 34, 
local laws, pages 331, 336,311, 620, 624 ; also, Vol. 35, 
L. L., 467—Vol. 36 general laws. These several acts, 
it will be found, authorized, in the aggregate, the issu¬ 
ing of but a small ajnouut of stock. The act of March, 
1839, Vol. 37, page 68, authorized the issuing of near 
two millions n()()n the same terms ol the act of 1825, 
and refers, in expres.s terms, to the section creating the 
exemption in that act. 

Small loans were authorized afterwards, without 
any expression on the subject of exemption, as will be 
found in Vol. 38, Vol. 41, and Vol. 44. By the act of 
March, 1850, Vol. 48, page 56, the Fund Commissioners 
are authorized to issue certificates of stock in accord¬ 
ance with the “act of 1825, and the several acts amen¬ 
datory thereto.” 

Mr. Chairman, 1 now wish to call the attention of 
Hon. gentlemen to an important fact, not brought to 
view by any of the preceding speakers. It may be I 
am in eiTor, but if so I hope some gentleman will cor¬ 
rect me. Take the act of 1825, and that of 1839, and 
of 1850, all of which have on their face the exemption 
clause, and it will be found tijat under these three acts 
were issued more than half (and I will venture to say, 
from the examination I have given this subject, that 
full two-tliirds) of all the stocks of Ohio, were issued 
under these three acts. 

But the important point I wi^•.h to attain is, what was 
the fair and iegilimate understanding of the Legisla¬ 
ture, taking into view all these acts, especially the first 
and the last? And here let me stop and ii.quire, what 
are we to understand by the “ faith of the State?” It 
is a promire onade or implied, to do or not to do a certain 
thing. Now, if my position is correct, that the three 
acts referred to did authorize tlie issuing of the largest 
portion of uur stocks, expressly exempting them fiom 
taxation, what, I ask, is the fair inference ? And w hat 
did the Legislature mean, when it declared in the act 
of 1850, (the last act authorizing the issuing of stuck,) 
that 'the certificates of stock issued under that act 
should be in “ accordance with the provisions and con¬ 
ditions of the act of 1825 and the several acts amenda¬ 
tory thereto?” Clearly they did understand that all the 
acts subsequent to the act of 1825, and up to that time, 
creating State stocks, were amendatory to the act of 
1825, and, if amendatory, I ask legal gentlemen, is 
there not force and argument in that expression of 
“ amendatory thereto?” The Legislature did under¬ 
stand that all the acts which preceded the act of 1850 
were amendatory to the act of 1825, and, il so, I ask 
legal gentlemen if they would not curry with them ail 
the rights and exemptions of the original act ? It seems 
to me that I have shown the gentleman from Flamihon 
to be in error, and that more than half of all our stocks 
have been expressly exempted by law from taxation. 
The whole, by fair implication, are exempt, and were 
so understood by the different Legislatures and the 
people at large. 

Mr.Chairman, I will again refer to the remarks of the 
gentleman from Hamilton. He stated that to tax such 
portion of the bonds as were exempted under the laws 
of 1825 and 1839, would be no violation of the good 
faith of the State, because there was only a very small 
amount of them (being three millions) which could be 
identified as coming under the acts authorizing exemp¬ 


tion. He seems to admit that, if they could be identi¬ 
fied, it would be unfair to tax them. So far we agree. 
I would usk the gentleman, it being the fact that only 
a small portion was exempt, would he not do equal iii- 
ustice to tax all, when the fact was clear that a major¬ 
ity in amount was exempt? 

Mr. Chairman, it was my misfortune to differ with the 
majority of the conimitfeeon Finance and Taxation, and 
I did make the minority report, in which I recognize 
llie principle of taxing the citizens on the amount each 
is vvurth, and even now I hold to that rule, with the 
exception of a few objects which I would exempt; 
subject, however, to the discretion of the Legislature. 
I aLso make an exception where such exemption would 
come in conflict with the constitution of the United 
States, and (he faith heretofore pledged by this State. 
Such, for instance, I regard State bonds, banks and 
other corporations; as I hold them to be contracts, and 
can’t be ch^iiiged or modified, but by consent of both 
p;;rties. 

Mr. B. said he would answer an argument that had 
been urged in the course of thi- debate; that was, that 
the friends of taxing bonds did not propose to ta.x the 
bonds, but the money invested in them. 

Mr. Chairman, I cannot myself see the distinction, 
that gentlemen do. Let me answer by a parallel case. 
Take the case of tho United States exempting lands 
from taxation for five years after their entry, to which 
the State of Ohio responded, and made the act her own. 
I ask is not this exempticju from taxation, us much a 
part of the contract, as the purchase money required; 
and does it not enter into the consideration of the pur¬ 
chaser as much as the money paid? Verily it does, 
and suppose these same lands, so purchased, change 
hands, as (hey do, and also change in value, before the 
end of five years. Was not the exemption as fully ta¬ 
ken into consideration by the subsequent purchaser, as 
the money to be paid and agreed upon as the price ? 
To my mind it is just as clear, and it entered into the 
bargain as fully as if it were a part of the purchase 
money, which in reality it was, and it was a part and 
parcel of the proposition made by the State, and insep¬ 
arable from that proposition. Having thus complied 
with the terms of the State, paid the purchase money, 
and being in possession of the lands, the assessor comes 
along, and claims the right to assess a lax on my land. 
I plead the exemption and state that the five years have 
not yet expired, and this, was a part of tho contract, 
viz: th.it my land was not to be taxed. Tho assessor 
l eplies, “ sir I do not desire to tax your land but only 
tin money you paid for the land.” 

I put it to honorable gentlemen on the other side, if 
tliis is a good and valid answer to my plea for exemp- 
tie-o? Nay, verily: it is but to mock Justice and good 
faith: 

Mr. Chairman, I have briefly given my views, and 
tldnk I have but expr(:'3sed the views oi’a majority of 
an honoi'able constituency, that I stand here to repre- 
sc'nt,and also of tlie State generally. I shall, therefore, 
V'ae for the amendment to preserve the faith of the 
Sta^e. 

Mr. MITCHELL pro[)osed to amend the proposi¬ 
tion of the genllemau from Clark, [Mr. Mason] by ad¬ 
ding the following: 

“Provided, also, Tliat in the opinion of this Convention, the 
highest good faith known to the Elate of Ohio, as a government, 
is her solemn pledge to pass just, wholesome and equal laws at 
any and all times when Justice and Equality require them, and 
in doing so, to have due respect to the rights of the tax-payers, 
rather than tlie clamor of the unscrupulous and abandoned Shy- 
locks, who are, and lor sometime have been endeavoring to 
purchase her priceless freedom for a paltry mess of pottage.” 

Mr. MASON raised a question of order, staling that 
the amendment was in the third degree. 

Anti, after debate upon the question of order, in 
which Messrs. Mitchell, Archbold, Reemelin, Hum¬ 
ph reville, Barnett of Preble, and others participa¬ 
ted, 

The CHAIRMAN decided tfiat Mr. Mason’s motion 












CONVENIION REPORTS. 777 


beiug for tl’e perfection of the original section, was 
susceptible of amendnieiit, and, therelore, the auaend- 
ruent of Mr. Mitchell was in order. 

iVlr. NASH rather thought there was a defect or so 
in the amendment. He would suggest, that it ought 
to be settled as to what sort of “ pottage” this was. It 
certainly became a very grave question, if the State 
had been bought up with a mess of pottage, that we 
should know what sort of pottage it was — wheth¬ 
er it were common fish and potatoes, or pork and 
cabbage; or, if it were soup, whether it were corn- 
soup or bean-soup. Such a grave proposition, ought, 
by all means, to go out “with note and comment;” 
so that our children, and our children’s children might 
know and understand it perfectly, in all its abstrac¬ 
tions and concretions; if, indeed, it were really true, 
that this Convention, of which we had boasted so much, 
had actually bargained and sold out of the honor and 
faith of the State for a mess of pottage. And, then, as 
to this man Skylock, who is represented as a party to 
this operation,—he was a very important personage ; 
and if there should happen to be another condagratiuii 
of literature, and Shakspeare were to be lost, it might 
not be known to future generations who this man was. 
It was certainly very important that we should know 
and declare particularly who this Shylock was, and 
what was this mess of pottage, for which he purchased 
the credit of the State, aud took away the lights of the 
people of Ohio. For his part, he had never before 
eard that the rights of the people had been sold to 
this man Shylock. It was all news to him—and there¬ 
fore be would be glad to hear ahso whether there was 
any utility in the equivalent received. 

Cries of “ question”—“question,” amidst considera¬ 
ble merriment. 

Mr. Mitchell’s amendment was rejected; and the 
question recurred upon the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Clark. 

Mr. GREGG proposed to amend the ameiidnieut, by 
adding the following; 

“ And provided, further, That our duty to the great tax-paying 
interest ol the State, shall be laithfully performed, and the right 
of “eminent domain” aud of taxation, also invariably observed.” 

Mr. STANTON would like to know how the right of 
eminent domain, came to be connected with this sub¬ 
ject? 

Mr. GREGG. It was connected with the right of 
taxation, and was a part of the State sovereignty. 

This amendment was agreed to, and the question re¬ 
curred upon the adoption of the amendment as umeud- 

od. 

Mr. MASON. I offered this amendment last eve¬ 
ning, in good faith; and I supposed it would commend 
itself to the approbation of a majority of the members 
of this body. All who have addressed the committee 
have professed their willingness, nay more, their desire, 
that in the proposed taxation, the plighted faith of the 
State should be preserved,—especially with regard to 
that class of bonds which have been expressly exempt¬ 
ed from taxation under the solemn pledge of the State 
that they never should be taxed. Gentlemen have pro¬ 
fessed an ardent attachment to the honor and character 
of the State, and, that on all proper occasions, they 
would be found advocating the honor and credit of the 
State, and that they would by no means be found vio¬ 
lating the failh of the people, as pledged by their rep¬ 
resentatives to the public creditors. I thought that 
the amendment offered, would relieve the section from 
the principal objection to its adoption. The section 
provides that the Legislature shall make provision for 
taxing money invested in these bonds, and the proviso 
which I have offered, asserts nothing more, than that, 
in making these provisions, the faith of the State shall 
be preserved, not asserting that the faith of the State 
has been pledged to exempt a given amount, or all o 
those bonds, but merely, if it should be found that the 
faith of the State had been committed, not to tax any 
or all of these bonds, then the State shall not put itsel 


into the disreputable attitude of violating its solernr 
promise. Now, it seems to me, that, if the professioriK 
of gentlemen were sincere, they w'ould agree* to vote 
for the adoption of the proposition that I have offered 
—that the laith of the State shall not be dishoneTed and 
trampled under foot, when it has been pledged by ex 
press provision of law. 

Does this proviso interpose a difficulty in the way <. 
carrying out the foregone conclusion of gentlemen 
that they will lax these bonds, right or wrong? Have 
they determined that they will violate the pledgee 
faith of the State, and therefore they will not vote for 
my proposition? 

If there has been no failh pledged—if there is nc 
faith to preserve—the proposition, at least, is harmless. 
It does no wrong. It injures nobody. It misleads no 
body. Its adofition would be simply saying to thr 
world, that it is the sincere* desire of this body not t( 
commit an outrage upon good inoraKs. I should think 
that gentlemen would take pride in voting f(*r a prop<, 
sitiou to sustain the honor and faith of iho'State. 

Mr. Chairman, 1 am sorry—it grieves me—to set 
grave, intelligent, respectable men, as far as their vote 
can do so, attempting to cast contempt and ridicule 
upon a proposition, the object of which was simply tc 
do homage to the plighted faith of the State. And 
the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] hasuu 
dertaken, by means of an amendment, to do the same 
thing, and very many others with him, have not been, 
ashamed to stand up here, in the day-liglit, and vote foi 
it! 

I will not make this the occasion of a serious, argu¬ 
mentative reply to the various suggestions that have 
been made. I have another purpose in rising now 
You have agreed to incorporate upon my pntiposition 
a most ridiculous and contemptible paragraph, undei 
the pretence of an amendment, offered oii j)urpo8e U 
embarrass and prevent the success of my propositioii 
ust because you have not the moral courage to vott 
against it directly. I submit, whether it would noi 
have been more honorable to vote against my propc*- 
sition directly, than to undertake first to load it down 
with ridiculous and impertinent matter, for which nc 
man would vote ? I ask if it would not have been 
more manly, more dignified, to have assumed the ro- 
sponsibility of voting directly against my j)ropo8itioii? 
I would like to see gentlemen come up and do so yet 
I could vote for the original section with much more 
satisfaction, with this amendment, than without it 
and unless there should be au insuperable objection it, 
the way, of taxing United States bonds, I can vote foi 
the entire section, with the simple reservation, that the 
honor of the State shall be maintained. 

I am making no argument, in regard to our right tc 
tax U. S. bonds, but 1 liave referred to them rather fot 
the purpose of explaining my own position, and to con¬ 
vince geiitlernei), if I could do so, of the shicerity of 
purpose with which my amendment was ofFered. 

Gentlemeti mistake themselves, when they under 
take to cast ridicule upon those who through an humble 
way, endeavor to preserve inviolate the faith and hoii” 
or of the State. You may do what you will to cast rid¬ 
icule upon me. Your sliafts fall harmless at my feet , 
they strike me not. I am willing to be found in com¬ 
pany with those who labor to maintain public honor m 
the faithful performance of our contracts. 

Mr. MITCHELL (interrupting.) It is perhaps, due 
from me, that I should state, that in offering the pro¬ 
position I did, it was the farthest thing from my mind 
toofter a personal indignity to the gentleman from 
Clark. I ofiered the paragraph, simply because it em¬ 
bodied the sentiments of my own mind upon the sub- 
ject. 

Mr. MASON. I accept the statement, and I believe 
it is entirely true. I have no idea that the amendment 
was offered^ by the gentleman from any motive per¬ 
sonal to myself, but to get rid of the responsibility ol 
actin'^ directly upon my proposition. I have no idea 











778 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


that there is a geutlernaii on that side of the chamber, 
who desires to offer me any personal affront. The mo¬ 
tion is to get rid of a proposition which gentlemen dare 
not vote against. I believe that there is a majority of 
the body who would vote for my proposition; and yon 
will have hard drilling to defeat it. I think it will yet 
carry. There is no mistake about it. And, whatever 
may happen to it in committee of the whole, gentle¬ 
men will have to record their names on it some other 
day, and they may make up their minds to do so. 

Mr. SAWYER. The extraordinary character of the 
remark of the gentleman from Clark [Mr. Mason] in¬ 
duces me to say a word. He seemed to think that 
some of us were afraid to vole against his proposition. 
But I will tell him that I shall vote right square against 
it, without any hesitation whatever. I voted for the 
amendment of the gentleman from Knox, for the pur¬ 
pose of making the original proposition more odious ; 
and if it had been adopted, of course I should have vo¬ 
ted against the whole. The original section, as it 
now stands, meets my views. I want no provisos. All 
1 shall have to do, to justify my action in support of it, 
will be, to go home, and tell my constituents that we 
have placed them upon an equality with “ the rest of 
mankind *, ” that we protect no species of property 
from taxation, but place all on a perfect equality, in 
consonance with the genius and spirit of our institu¬ 
tions. I will go home and tell them that they are not 
exempt from taxation in anything they hold; that farms 
and homesteads, and mechanics’ tools, and stock-hold¬ 
ers of every variety, shall be placed upon a perfect 
equality as to the matter of taxation; and I would ask 
for nothing better than to confess before them, that I 
voted against every proposition to exempt property 
from taxation, and especially that which interests the 
bondholders ; for it is well known that, as a class, 
they are not slow’ to ask for the protection ol' govern¬ 
ment; and, so far as my vote is concerned, I intend 
that they shall not be slow any longer in the matter of 
bearing their share of the burdens of government. I 
will tell the gentleman from Clark, that I am prepared 
to vote against his proposition—right in its face. 

Mr. MASON (in his seat). That is manly. 

Mr. SAWYER. But I will also tell him what I am 
not prepared to do, and what I dare not do. I dare 
not vote to exempt the property ofthosebond holders. 
1 also am the holder of no small amount of State 
stocks; and I intend that they shall be taxed by my 
vote; and I believe that any man who would refuse to 
tax them, cannot be a faithful representative of the 
peo])le. 

I have been in favor of exempting burying-grounds 
and school houses— 

. Mr. MASON (interposing). I would like to inquire 
of the gentleman, whether, in his judgment, it would 
not be a surrender of a portion of the sovereign power, 
to exempt grave-yards from taxation ? 

Mr. SAWYER. It looks so. 

Mr. MASON. Would it not be so; without merely 
^‘looking so ?” 

Mr.SAWYER. It may be so, but whether taxed or 
not, the result would be the same. For if the pi’opri- 
etors would refuse to pay, the grave-yard would be of 
no value as an object of public sale. Nobody would 
buy a grave-yard. It is really worth nothing. 

Mr. MASON (in his seat), Would not the doctors 
pay something for it ? 

iVIr. SAWYER. That was rather a nice question. 
But, after all, he would go for taxing grave-yards too ; 
for he believed in every sentiment and sentence, with 
reference to this subject, which was delivered ye-ster- 
day by the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Groes- 
BECK.] He believed that we ought to exempt nothing. 

Mr. TAYLOR (interposing). I agree with the gen¬ 
tleman from Auglaize as to his general reasoning; but 
I wish he would not use the word “ exempt,” any 
more in this discussion. Why not say, tax every form 
and description of property, and then give the Legis- 


ture power to remit the taxes upon particular descrip- |i 
tions ? I like that phrase better. 

Mr. SAWYER. I know that I do not use very ^ood i{ 
language, but I am liappy to discover that my friend ij 
from Erie, [Mr. Taylor], understands my meaning, 
and agrees with me on this subject. 1 believe from 
several votes which have been taken, that the Oonven- i 
tion have determined to adopt the section by an over- ii 
whelming majority; and that the gentleman from ! 
Clark may make up his mind to take the Constitution p 
with this section in it. 

Mr. LARWILL. From the remarks of the honora¬ 
ble gentleman from Clark, I feel called upon to explain 
my object in voting for the proposition of the gentle¬ 
man from Knox [Mr. Mitchell.] I voted for'that 
amendment, not with a view of affording any personal 
insult to the gentleman from Clark, or any other mem- 
her of this body, but with a disposition to defeat the 
amendment of the gentleman from Clark. So, when ; 
that gentleman undertakes to say that wo are either ; 
ashamed or afraid to vote directly against the amend- . 
ment he has offered, his remarks cannot apply to me. 

I never yet have, and I trust that I never shall, give a 
vote in any deliberative body, which I would be asham- : 
ed to record in the most direct manner. When the ; 
gentleman’s amendm'Uit was first otierod, I observed 
that it was well calculated to catch my party friends j 
upon this side oi the house ; and, I think I also comma- :! 
nicatetl to gentlemen around me, that I should vote .! 
against it, for the reasons offered by the gentleman from 
Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer.] That proposition would not 
meet the wishes of the people of the State, so far as 1 
am conversant with them, especially my own constitu¬ 
ents. For, if there is any question upon which I have 
received instruction, it is upon this proposition to place 
public stocks upon the tax list. I, therefore, could 
give no vote which could be understood as an excuse 
for voting against exempting that species of property. 

If I w'ere one of these State bondholders, as a matter of 
expediency, I should be in favor of taxing them. For, 
although the question of repudiation has never yet 
been seriou.sly thought of by the people of Ohio ; yet 
I tell these bond holders that, if they stand back and 
refuse to sustain any share in the burdens of taxation, 
their example, more than all things else, will induce 
repudiation. 

i Mr. DORSEY. Before the vote is taken upon the 
proposition of the gentleman from Clark, I wish to 
make a single x’emark in reference to the vote which 1 
shall give. With regard to that gentleman’s intimation, 
that certain of us over here voted to embarrass his 
proposition, because w'e were disposed to avoid the 
responsibility of voting directly against his proposition, 

I wish to say, that, so far, as I am concerned, I have 
desired to avoid no responsibility. I should have voted 
j against the naked amendment of that gentleman. I 
I did vote for the amendment offered by the gentleman 
I from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell.] and that proposed by the 
gentleman from Columbiana, [Mr. Gregg,] for the 
purpose of rendering the amendment of the gentleman 
from Clark still more obnoxious; although I was per¬ 
fectly willing to reject the original amendment, for the 
following reasons; Is the faith of the State more sadly 
violated by taxing these bonds, than it is every day vio¬ 
lated l)y the additional tax burthens which their ex- 
exeinption imposes upon the mass of the people? The 
preamble to ®ur constitution, declares that that instru¬ 
ment was framed to establish justice within our borders. 
Whenever I may be called upon to vote on any ques¬ 
tion involving this consideration, I trust I shall be found 
ready and willing to record my vote in favor of carry¬ 
ing out this principle. 

Again: While I am as ready as the gentleman from 
Clark, to sustain the faith of this State, and unwilling 
to do any thing which can ever violate that faith, or in¬ 
jure her reputation, I shall oppose his amendment as 
wholly unnecessary. Why, sir, who talks about repu¬ 
diation? Who talks about not paying the debts of the 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 779 


j State ? Oi', who talks about violating the good I'ailh ol’ 
the State ? Sii’; I will never be one of those who are 
■ ready to label this great State with the broad inscri])- 
i tiou, ^‘no repudiator,” as if the world had a right to 
, doubt her faith or her integrity. 

J Sir, the State needs no such endorsement; and I say 
plainly, tltat by my vote or by my action, she shall 
never have such an endorsement, 
i For these reasons I shall vote against the amend- 
i ment ol the gentleman from Clark, let it come in what 
shape it may; and I am willing to record my vote and 
abide the result. 

The amendment of Mr. Mason, as amended, was 
now rejected. 

On motion by Mr. LARWILL, the committee now 
rose, reported “ no conclusion,” and then. 

On motion, by Mr. MORRIS, the Convention took a 
recess till 3 o’clock, P. M. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

JEXCHANGE OF PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES WITH THE IN¬ 
DIANA CONVENTION. 

Mr. RBEMELIN moved to reconsider the vote of 
yesterday adopting the resolution instructing the State 
Printer to send a copy of the proceedings and debates 
of this body to each of the members of the^Indiana Con- 
gtitutional Convention. 

The PRESIDENT entertained the motion. 

Mr. R. said he had been informed that his resolution 
could not be carried out without re-printing. Seeing 
that the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] who 
proposed the resolution, was not at this moment in his 
place, he hoped the vote would be re-considered; and 
then that the subject would be laid on the table, until 
that gentleman should come in. In the mean time, he 
would prepare a substitute for the resolution to cany 
out the object he had in view. 

The vote was accordingly re-considered: 

And then, on motion of Mr. RE EMELIN, the resolu¬ 
tion was laid on the table. 

FINANCE AND TA.XATION. 

On motion by Mr. MITCHELL, the Convention again 
went into committee of the Whole, Mr. Leadbetter 
in the chair, and resumed the consideration of the 
third section of the report of the committee on Fi¬ 
nance and Taxation—the question being upon the mo¬ 
tion of the gentleman from Miami [Mr. Dorsey] to 
strike out and insert, a division of the question having 
been demanded— 

Mr. ARCHBOLD had intended to move a farther 
amendment to this section, by proposing to strike out 
the words United States and,” but he was informed 
that he was preceded, by the fact that a motion to 
stike out these words had already been made and lost, 
although he believed but few members of the Con¬ 
vention were aware of it. He did not intend that this 
foolish crusade against the rights and powers of the 
Getieral Assembly should be prosecuted with his con¬ 
sent; but, being precluded now, he should allow the 
section to remain in its present shape—giving notice, 
that, at some convenient time, when the subject shall 
be considered again in Convention, he would make his 
sentiments known in relation to it. Let none suppose, 
therefore, that, by passing the matter over now, it was 
abandoned by those who were opposed to it. In due 
time they would pay attention to it. 

MR. HUMPH RE VILLE said, before the question 
upon striking out was taken, in order to render the 
section more perfect he had an amendment, which he 
desired to offer. The terms of the section were not 
broad enough to suit the views of several members 
with whom he had spoken. They extended only to 
State and United States bonds and internal improve¬ 
ment stocks ; whereas, they ought to extend to coun¬ 
ty, city and township bonds, and all other public secur¬ 
ities. He proposed, therefore, to amend the section, 
by inserting, after the word ‘ bonds,' these words, ‘and 
other public securities.’ 


He made no speech upon tiie subject, and hoped the 
question would be taken without any extended discus¬ 
sion. 

This amendment was agreed to, and the question 
recurred upon the substitute of the gentleman from 
Miami,—the first question being upon striking out. 

The committee refused to strike out—affirmative 32, 
negative 44. 

So the substitute wa.s rejected, and the section was 
passed over. 

The CHAIRMAN now announced the consideration 
of the 25th section of the report which was read, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Sec. 4. The legislature shall provide for taxing bank capital, 
and the issues of banks, railroad stock, turnpike company stock, 
and canal company stock, the same as personal property is taxed. 

Mr. GREGG proposed to amend the section by strik¬ 
ing out from the first and second lines the words, 
“ The Legislature shall provide for taxing bank capital, 
and the issues of banks,” and insert in lieu thereof the 
following: 

“ The legislature shall provide for taxing the loans and dis¬ 
counts, or capital of banks in whatever form invested, as well as 
issues of banks.” 

Mr. STANTON proposed to amend the amendment, 
by inserting after the word “ discounts,” the words 
“ and circulation.” 

Mr. REEMELIN said these amendments were com¬ 
ing up rather more speedily than he could desire. He 
was himself trying to write an amendment. He cer¬ 
tainly could not vote lor the amendment, of the gen¬ 
tleman from Columbiana, [Mr. Gregg,] because he 
regarded it as unjust. He would not be unjust, even 
to banks. [A laugh.] If he understood the reading, 
the gentleman from Columbiana intended to tax the 
loans and discounts, and then the capital, and then the 
issues of banks. It seemed to him that this would be 
taxing their stock about three times, which would be 
rather too bad. He might be willing to tax them 
twice, which would certainly be going far enough. 

Mr. GREGG explained. The loans and discounts in 
the amendment were separated from the capital. But 
hi these cases where banks might undertake to cover 
up their discounts, or their capital by means of bills of 
exchange, or by any other means, it was simply the 
object of the amendment to reach it, whether found in 
one form or the other. It was not intended to tax the 
capital and the discounts. 

Mr. REEMELIN resumed. He had been endeavor¬ 
ing for several years to reach banks properly in refer¬ 
ence to taxation ; not only by expressing his views in 
speeches, but in the way of legislative reports. His 
plan was to tax loans and discounts, making no deduc¬ 
tion either for circulation or deposits, excepting as in 
the case of the Ohio Life and Trust Company, here in 
Cincinnati, which always allowed more than five per 
cent, on deposits. The difficulty with him was, how 
the section should be worded. If our tax laws were to 
be changed—if we should adopt the principle of tax¬ 
ing wealth, instead of taxing visible property, as at 
present, then it would require a change in the phraseolo¬ 
gy of the constitutional provision. We only taxed the 
visible property of the merchant, whereas the law 
ought to reach the capital. But the law specifies—in 
the 59th section, he believed—that the average amount 
of goods on hand should be taxed—a valuation table 
made by the merchant once a month, to ascertain that 
average. It was in order to reach the commission, 
merchants that this rule was adopted by Mr. Kelley. 
Now, he would ask, what was the visible property of 
banks? What was the object of interest, from which 
they derive their profits.^ It was their loans and dis¬ 
counts, where you find not only their capital, but also 
their privilege of making issues. He wished to catch 
their capital, as well as the capital created by their is¬ 
sues ; and whenever he could reach these two he wag 
willing to stop. 

Mr. GREGG, (in his seat.) That was what he de 
sired. 











780 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


’ Mr. RBEMELTN diiJ not so understand tho gentle¬ 
man’s amendment. Ho was not willing to exempt 
their circulation on the plea of its being a debt—be¬ 
cause it was a privilege conferred by government— 
and because, in fact, it furnished to the banks the 
same as so much additional capital. 

The sum of the capital stock of all the banks of Ohio, 
was about seven millions of dollers, whilst their ci?- 
culatirn was about sixteen millions. It was from their 
issues—the same as so much additional capital—that 
they derived much of their profits. This privilege ot 
issuing enabled them to realize a profit of sixteen per 
s,:erit.; whereas, without this privilege, they would 
not realize a profit of more than seven or eight per 
cent. 

By taxing upon their loans and discounts, we would 
reach the capital furnished by thestockholdcns, and the 
issues; whereas, if you tax the circulation besides, you 
would lax them to the amount of about twenty-three 
millions, which would be unjust. 

What he desired to propose was, that the Legisla¬ 
ture be directed to provide by law for taxing the loans 
and discounts of banks, with no deductions, except up¬ 
on such deposits as those upon which they pay over 
five per cent, interest. 

Mr. Stanton’s amendment was now rejected, and 
the question recurred upon the adoption of Mr. Gregg’s 
amendment. 

And a division of the question having been demand¬ 
ed, the committee refused to strike out. 

So the amendment was lost; and the question re¬ 
curred upon the adoption of the fourth section. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD proposed to amend the section by 
inserting after the word “ stocks,” at the end of thi.' 
second line, the words, “ at their true value in money.” 

The CHAIRMAN having stated the question, 

Mr. A. said he was not sure that he very well under¬ 
stood this section; nor was he sure that it would be 
good policy to put a great part of it into the Coustitu- 
tion. 

He did not intend, now, to touch upon the question 
of banks; he intended that his remarks should relate 
merely to the section. 

Here were proposed numerous objects of taxation ; j 
bank capital and bank issues, railroad stock, turnpike 
stock, and canal stock—all to be taxed u.s personal pro¬ 
perty was taxed. It seemed to him that the policy of 
these specifications was exceedingly doubtful. An erm- 
ineration of some things is understoo<i to exclude oth¬ 
ers. There may be other specie.s of property out of the 
reach of the Assembly to tax.' 

Again, su: pose A. B. has $.500 of turnpike stock, 
yielding half of one per cent., or nothing—sup[)03e it 
was of no value; was it the intention of the corninittee 
to tax him for such stock, the same as though ha had 
$500 invested in land, or bond and mortgage, which 
brought him a valuable return? It did seem to him 
that this report would bear too hard u()on those who 
might choose to make good roads and lines of coin- 
inercial interconimimicatiou. It seemetl to him that 
the exertions of such men ought to be regarded with u 
more favorable eye. Why bear down upon such inen 
for the purpose of paying the State debt, which was 
created for objects entirely local, and not productive of 
any advantages to the counties where these roads were 
now most needed—a debt which ought never to have 
been created ? 

But now, we were forming a constitution, who.se pro¬ 
visions were not alterable at the will of the people, with 
the same facility that an act of legislation might be 
changed. Gentlemen should consider this. It was 
for this reason that he deprecated any disposition here 
to enter so very minutely into these matters. He had 
proposed his amendment merely for the purpose of 
eliciting the views of gentlemen. 

It seemed to him that the former portion of the sec¬ 
tion was of expressly doubtful expediency. It impo¬ 
sed a burden upon those ill able to bear it. for the pur¬ 


pose of [raying off the State debt. The burden of the 
payment of this debt was thrown upon 86 counties, 
whilst all the benefits of the improvements for which 
it was created, were conferred upon some 35 to 40 
counties. He doubted, indeed, whether more than 
25 counties had received real benefit from theseirnprove- 
ments. The other districtsof the State had all been trea¬ 
ted colonially in this thing. The debt had not been cre¬ 
ated with reference to their interest a? all, but with ref¬ 
erence to the interesl of the dominant sections <;f the 
Stale, to construct improvements for certain favored dis¬ 
tricts ; now if the citizens of the neglected counties of 
Brown, or Ashtabula, or Clermont, or Columbiana or Jef¬ 
ferson—be only named them exertnpli gratia, as lawyers 
would say—for the sake of the example—if they pro¬ 
posed to make a little turnpike road for themselves, it 
was a hard proposition to tax their stock ni such a 
work. And this stock might be altogotlu r unproduc¬ 
tive. He was not aware that so important a subject 
was coming up for consideration at this time, and the j 
thoughts wliich he now tljrew out must be taken as his j 
first thoughts upon the subject. 

He called upon gentlemen to pause before they pro¬ 
ceeded any further with this proposition to inflict intol¬ 
erable burthens on the uni mproved sections for the pur- i 
pose of paying olf the public debt, which is rapidly 
diminishing, and especially since the objects for which 
that debt was contracted were, to the vezy last degree, 
worthless. He had heard gentlemen acknowledging, j 
and e\mn boasting, that our system of internal improve- ] 
rnents had increased the wealth of the State. He af- » 
firmed, on the contr; ry, that the system had effected | 
nothing, but to throw a heavy burden of taxation upon i 
the people, and he held himself ready to lay this pro- j 
position demonstrably before the mind of every man ^ 
within these walls. It was a system which had been ,i 
inflicted on the State without any resulting benefits: | 
but leaving us depressed in our energies by a burden- n 
some debt, and degraded by lowering the standard of ' 
morality of the State. ' 

If the Stale government could have been kept to its i 
appropriate sphere of operations—the protection of our ^ 
persons and property—cafjilalists would, long ago, have ' 
juade all these commercial improvements, upon those 
approved principles of economy which were generally 
developed in the entorprizes of sharp-sighted individu¬ 
als; and so the State would have been relieved of the 
consequences of a number of most windy and worthless j 
peculations. And, after all this immense expenditure ‘ 
of money by the State, individual capital was going to | 
do what it would have done at first—it vvas going ti, 
send “the iron horse” allal;)ng the lines of our canals; 
and this, commercial men would have done ten or fif¬ 
teen years sooner, if these canals had never been con¬ 
structed. 

Gentlemen were too ready to admit that the wealth 
of this great State had been advanced by the govern¬ 
ment turning pedlar, going into a splendid speculation, 
adopting a huckstering policy, instead of looking at 
the only real elements of wealth and greatness—the 
industry und frugality of the people; our genial climate, 
our natural idvers; our extensive plains; our fertile 
hills, and beautiful valleys. 

But he had wandered from the question. He would 
again warn the committee that there was danger in 
going iijlo these minute details—taxing railroad, turn¬ 
pike and canal stocks. What was to be done with the 
stocks invested in bridges, aqueducts, tunnels,, tele¬ 
graphs, and other improvements of various kinds? He 
did not understand that there was any difference to be 
made between productive and unproductive stocks. 

He supposed there was to be none. Such was the 
prima Jade meaning of the section; and if it was the 
true meaning, then his amendment would come in and 
provide for the taxation of all stocks, according to 
their value. Was not this just? He could not but look 
upon the section as immature ; and he would again call 
upon the committee to pause and consider it well. 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 781 


He woukl go as far as any man to pay off thq pub¬ 
lic debt. He only objecteii to the argument that our 
public iniprovcmetilB, I'or which the debt had been cre¬ 
ated, had increased the wealth of the State. This could 
not be, for the wealth of the Stale was increasing 
whilst the improvements wore going down. Ho had 
no fear that our taxable property would be sufficient to 
pay off the debt. The present amount of property up¬ 
on the tax list was some two orffiree hundred millions, 
and in ten years that sum would be doubled. Where, 
then, was the necessity for putting this provision into 
the constitution ? 

Mr. LOUDON would hero remark that althongli the 
committee made two reports, yet u^ion that section 
there was no disagreement. The motion now was to 
attach a “cash value” to articles enumerated. That 
was what the committee had in view. It was to have 
railroad stock, turnpike stock and canal stock, taxed as 
personal property, and how was that to be done ? Why, 
by sending the assessor round, who would put an esti¬ 
mate of its “ cash value ” down, and on which it would 
be taxed accordingly. He did not claim for that com¬ 
mittee the wisdom, patriotism, and all the oiher high 
and noble virtues which gentlemen have alluded to. 
They did not claim perfection, but they wished to pre¬ 
sent something for the consideration of the Convention, 
which might, as it had done, bring the best minds in 
the assembly to bear upon it. That great good would 
result from its having gone abroad to the people, he 
had no doubt. The section was very plain, and he 
could not see how the gentleman from Miami [Mr. 
Barbee] could have misunderstood it. He would luimo 
;i case in point. There was the Little Miami Railroad, 
where the investments yielded a very large per centage, 
while a certain turnpike road in the county of Hamilton 
yielded a very small per centage, (if any.) Well, now, 
when the assessor went to tax the stocks in the Little 
Miami Railroatl, he was to tax it according to its “ cash 
value,” and the same principle would apply to the 
turnpike road alluded to. Justice would then be done 
to each. The committee take the very sime view as 
the entleinan who has moved the amendment. With 
that explanation, and after the elaborate argument of 
the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold] with 
which ho was perfectly satisfied, should he submit 
the question to the Convention. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD had the highest feeling of respect 
for every gentleman in that committee; and as the 
gentleman who had last spoken had explained the sec¬ 
tion, it was consistent with his views of the subject. 
With the amendment which was now proposed, the 
matter would be put beyond all doubt, for at present 
there was a doubt about it. Now, he was not aware, 
that if a man who had lent $500, and who might be doubt¬ 
ful of the solvency of his debtor could get clear of the 
tax unless it was proved beyond doubt that his debtor 
was insolvent. Now, it was not so in the case of State 
stocks, for they bad at all times a certain known mar¬ 
ketable value, and by the insertion of the words of the 
amendment, they would relieve the section of all doubt, 
and make it plain. The insertion of those words would 
not only remove all doubt, but also be in conformity 
with the views of the committee. 

The question was then put on inserting the words of 
the amendment, namely, “at their cash value;” which 
amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. BARNET, of Montgomery, proposed, as an 
amendment, to insert the words “plank roads” after 
the words “ Company Stock,” and before the words 
“at their cash value.” Ho thought that the commit¬ 
tee would see the propriety (.d inserting that amend¬ 
ment, as such iiive.stment3 were more profitable than 
•-hose of Turnpike roatis. 

Mr. MANON th ought it was understood that the re¬ 
port was to be committed, and he had no doubt but 
that the committee would make it to include all de¬ 
scriptions of stock. He would be in favor of taxing 
svciy species of property iu the State, and, at the same 


lime, he would not tax any man for a dollar wliich he 
might owe. But he would tak all corporate property, 
.such as Railroads, Bank Stock, Telegraph Companies, 
Turnpike Roads, and such like. 

The amcndiiient [Mr. Manon’s] was agreed to. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to i.isert af;er the 
words just inserted, the following: “ and all incorpora¬ 
ted companies.” 

Mr. LOUDON Imped that the amendment would not 
.interfere with church property, as he understood that 
there weie a great many religious societies incorpora¬ 
ted, who had small properties in connection with their 
church, and he would not wish to meddle wit lx such. 

Mr. liUMlTlREVlLLB. My amendment has refer¬ 
ence only to companies incorporated with a view to 
make money. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved “that the committee 
ri.se and I'epcrt.” He made that motion with a view 
that the re;^Oft should be le-coinmitted, with instruc¬ 
tions to the committee to inser: a section giving power 
to the Legislature to tax all property as they consider¬ 
ed right and pi'oper—consisteiit with the preservation 
of the public fuiih. 

Mr. MASON. Don’t talk of public faith. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, was reiriinded not to speak 
of public faiih—and lie would attend to the warning. 
They liad suMieieut of this discus-sion for their own I'e- 
spectabifity. He doubted the propriety of the propo- 
biuon of tlie gentleman from Ciark, and was willing to 
vote for a general pi’ 0 ])ositiou which would give the 
government power to make n tax on any species of 
property which they might think proper. He was un¬ 
willing to bring any thing into the constitution which 
should impose upiUi the Legislature the duty of taxing 
any particular de.scripliou of property. The discussion 
bad occupied the committee now for four or live days 
—profitably or otherwise, be would not say ; but they 
all coucuri’ed in the propriety of conferring on the 
Legislature the power of imposing a tax on every 
species of pro])erty in tlie State. Thei’e were some 
descriptions of projxerty whic h from good faith should 
be exempt; but let the whole subject rest with the 
Legislature. 

Mr. MASON saw that that would be giving them too 
large powers. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, said that was at all times a 
powerful argument with him, as well as with the gen¬ 
tleman from Clark, but, he was anxious to give them 
lidl powers, so as not to be di'awn into a hostile con¬ 
flict wiih the general government, but if such was to 
arise, let it be betweeu the genei’al government and 
the General Assembly. Th^re was, aft( r all, no dif¬ 
ference between the gentlemen in this chamber. 
Every gentleman was willing and anxious, that the 
rule of taxation should be uniform, and equal, and 
brought to bear upon every speoie-i of property. Then, 
the only difference in opinion wa.s as to the propriety of 
specifying in that instrument, particular subjects. 
Why, then, wa.stc so ntuen precious tune, in discussing 
those topic.s, when the vvay to avoid it was perfectly 
clear and open. Tliere was no difficulty wlxatever. 
Let the committee who made that report, after having 
had now the benefit of four or five days’ discussion, 
take it again, and return it, with a proposition embod¬ 
ied, sufficiently broad and comprehensive, that would 
cover the whole ground, not in specifying parlicidar 
subjects for taxation or exemption, but leaving the ques¬ 
tion altogeibei* with the Legislature. He concurred in 
the remarks of the gentleman from Miami, [Mr. Dor¬ 
sey.] He felt unwilling to vote for the proposition, 
which looked like a doubi of the honesty of the peu- 
[deofOhio. He was unw.lling by bis vote, to be a 
[larty to inserting any thing into the Coiistitutiou, that 
would imply a doubt that under any circumstances 
the f’-ood faith of the State of Ohio would be violated. 
WhOo he inclined to vote with the genih man from 
Clark for the reasons put forward, lie was still unwil¬ 
ling to vote far such a proposition. In ordei’, then, to 








t82 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


put an end to what he considered a profitless discussion, 
let the committee rise, and the report stand re-comniit- 
ted, and let them insert a proposition embracing the 
views of every gentleman present, and leave the whole 
subject to the discretion of the Legislature. He had 
no fears of the Legislature, which was, or should be, 
a true reflection of the popular will, and if it failed to 
be in conformity with that will, the people had the 
power in their own hands. He had (although gentle¬ 
men would perhaps say, that his political relations did 
not authorize him to make such a declaration,) yet he 
would assert it, he had perfect faith in the people, and 
although he might not be permitted to love them as 
tenderly as other gentlemen, yet he had as much faith 
in them as any man on that floor. Leave, then, the 
question with them, and they would do all they desired 
should be dune, and they (the Convention) should not 
attempt any more. He did really think that alter the 
time which had been spent in the discussion of the 
proposition, which had so little to do with the business 
before them, and after the interchange of opinions on 
that vexed question, and when it was manifest that all 
were agreed upon the main point, he thought further 
time should not be expended in discussion. He hoped 
for their own sakes, and for the sake of the respecta¬ 
bility of their body, in view of the high and important 
interests committed to them, in view of what the peo¬ 
ple expected from them, in view of the regard and re¬ 
spect which they should hold for themselves, collec¬ 
tively and individually, that an end should now be put 
to this discussion. If the Legislature should undertake 


to bring the government into conflict with that of the 


United States, that was their affair. But he did hope 
that the Convention would not assume a power which 
he considered as belonging to the highest tribunal of 
the United States, and further, that it would not at¬ 
tempt to incorporate such a provision, which, in the 
judgment of several members of this body, had aman- 
fest tendency to impair the good faith and credit of the 
State. 

Mr. REEMELIN wushcd to say a few words why 
the committee should not rise. It was gratifying to gen¬ 
tlemen on his side of the hou.se, to see that gentlemen, 


who had fought so hard against them during the last 


few days, were now so anxious to coincide with them. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, rose to explain. It was only 
with a view of avoiding the necessity of bringing ihe 
Legislature into conflict with other departments of the 
Government, that those on his side of the house, now 
took the step which they did, and not, as had been 
insinuated by the gentleman then in possession of the 
flooi-, [Mr. Reemelin] from any desire on their part, to 
flinch from the position which they had assumed. 

Mr. REEMELIN continued. He understood the 
gentleman veiy well, and while the press and the peo¬ 
ple of that party, were loud in their complaints of the 
delay in the business to be done here, and after those 
gentlemen had spent days in endeavoring to make 
them believe that they were anxious to carry out their 
views, after they had elicited a long debate, they now- 
say “ we will adjourn the question, take a new start 
and fight it all over again.” He would ask them, if 
there was anything behind the Report, which they 
were reserving for further discussion ? Suppose they 
did agree to its recommitment, w'ould they not have to 
discuss it all over again ? It was a waste of time,' 
from beginning to end. There was very little matter 
to be discussed in the next section, and he hoped they 
would be ready to take up the last two sections on to¬ 
morrow, and he hoped, that while all proper courtesy 
would be extended from the majority toward the mi¬ 
nority, that they would not surrender the ground 
which they had so hardly fought for, and so nobly 
won, that they would not be lured to a postponement 
of the question by those “ syren songs.” 

The question was then put on the motion “ that the 
committee rise and report,” which was negatived. 

The question was then put on the insertion of the; 


words of the amendment of the gentleman from Medi¬ 
na, [Mr. Humphreville,] which was agreed to. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, moved to strike out the 
words '' the issues of banks ” from the section. It oc¬ 
curred to him that it was an attempt to tax the same 


species of property twice. 

Mr. LOUDON said that if a citizen of Ohio had the 


sum of $1000 in hi.s chest, the law reached that amount, 
and subjected it to taxation, although it remained in¬ 
active, and then, as to bank issues, they were equiva¬ 
lent to money; the Legislature empowered them to 
issue their notes, and upon such issues, they made 
their profits, and large profits too. Some gentlemen 
termed it a " debt;” if it was so, it was of a totally dif¬ 
ferent nature, from the debt of a I'armer, or other pri¬ 
vate person, for by an act of the Legislature conferred 
pon the banks, they paid no interest, while they charg¬ 
ed an interest, and for this reason the committee placed 
them upon the same footing as farmers and mechanics. 
If the banks had the money lying inactive, let them 
put it forward, in the same way as farmers and oth- j 
ers did. His intention was to place them on the same 
footing with private individuals. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, said that it was claimed 
by the gentleman from Brown [Mr. Loudon] that if a 
farmer had $1000 in his drawer, the law would tax 
it; to which he w'ould answer, that the two cases werej 
not parallel; for in one it was actual cash which ho' 
might use at pleasure, while in the other the capital^ 
must be retained on hand, and therefore, kept idle," 
but upon which $20,000 may be issued and thal^ these 
issues were evidence of debt, for which the bank would^ 
be liable to pay any mijment it might be demanded.* 
Therefore, on the principle set up by the gentleman ; 
from Miama [Mr. Dorsey] that they might deduct] 
ihf ir debts from the assetts, the issues of the baniss; 
should be exempt from taxation, and the capital alone i 
be subject to taxation. 

The question being put on the amendment to strike¬ 
out, it was not agreed to. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, moved to strike out the 
word Legislature ” wherever it occurred in the re¬ 
port, and insert in lieu thereof, the words “ General- 
Assembly ”—which -was agreed to. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, moved to insert after the 
word '' shall,” in the first line of every section, the 
words “ by law,” which was also agreed to. 

Sec. 5. The General Assembly shall by law provide for a tax 
sufficient to defray the expenses of the State for each year, and 
also a sufficient sum to pay the interest on the State debt. , 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to strike out the 
word “tax ” in the first line, and insert the words “a 
revenue” in lieu thereof. Agreed to. 

Sections six and seven were passed without amend- 
ment. i 


Sec, 8 . The State shall never contract any debt for purposes 
of internal improvement, unless the object be particularly spe- 
cified and the proposition shall have been first submitted to the 
people, and a majority of all the voters voting at the next annual 
election, be found in favor of the creation of such debt. 

On motion by Mr. ARCH BOLD, the committee rose 
and reported. 

On motion of Mr. REEMELIN, theOouvention timn 
took up the following resolution: 

“ Resolved, That the Printer to this Convention be instructed tc 
send a copy of all the reports and proceedings of this Convention 
to the Constitutional Convention now in session in and for the 
State of Indiana. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to strike out all after the 
word “ Resolved,” and insert the following which was 


agreed to 


That the Printer to this Cbnvention be instructed to transmit 
to the Constitutional Convention now in session in Indianopolis, 
in and tor the State of Indiana, a copy of the reports of the stan¬ 
ding committees of this body, and the amendments made thereto 
in committee ot the whole, so far as they have been or may here¬ 
after be ordered to be printed, and so lar as they may be on hand 
and also a copy of our debates and proceedings, as far as they 
have been, and as fast as they may be hereafter printed in book 
or pamphlet form 

Resolved, That the Secretary of this Convention inform the 




















CONVENTION REPORTS. 783 


Printer ol this body by telegraph of the passage of the prece¬ 
ding resolution, as a substitute ior the resolution transmitted to 
him on yesterday.” 

The question then being on the adoption of the Res¬ 
olution as amended, the same was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. HORTON, the Convention adjourn¬ 
ed. 


WEDNESDAY, December 18, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Robinson. 

Mr. MORRIS presented a petition from Absalom 
Mendenhall, a citizen of Clinton county, praying that a 
clause be inserted in the new constitution, exempting 
persons from performing military duty who are con¬ 
scientiously scrupulous upon that subject. 

Referred to the standing committee on the Militia. 

Mr. LARSH presented a petition from Wm. J. Shaey, 
J, E. Freeman, and fifty-eight other citizens of Preble 
county, asking that a clause be inserted in the new con¬ 
stitution, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any 
law legalizing the traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. GRAHAM presented a petition from Eleanor 
Edgar, and fifty-seven other ladies, resident in Frank¬ 
lin county, on the same subject. 

Said petitions w^ere severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. RIDDLE presented a petition from Hugh Glas- 
go, and fifteen others, praying that the new constitu¬ 
tion may recognise God and His Government, and Jesus 
Christ as a Mediator, and the Bible as the only inl'alli- 
ble rule of action. 

Referred to the standing committee on the Preamble 
and Bill of Rights. 

On motion of Mr. LIDEY, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the whole on the orders of 
the day—Mr. Leadbetter in the chair. 

The question under consideration being on the mo¬ 
tion of Mr. Archbold to strike out all after the word 
“ improvement,” in the second line of the eighth sec¬ 
tion of report numV)er one of the standing committee 
on Finance and Taxation—the mover of the amend¬ 
ment being entitled to the floor: 

Mr. ARCHBOiiD said ha had brought forward the 
proposition now before the Convention because it em¬ 
bodied, or rather it indicated, the views which he en¬ 
tertained with regard to the contraction of a public 
debt. He should express his views in support of his 
motion in as brief and terse a manner as possible. 

The inquiry naturally arises whether we ought to 
create a public debt, and induce the necessary conse¬ 
quence of taxation for the purposes mentioned in this 
section; and if it shall appear that we ought not—if 
it shall appear that such a course arrays itself in antag¬ 
onism to the moral sentiments—then, sir, my motion 
ought to prevail. What is the basis of the right of so¬ 
ciety to tax the citizen ? What, indeed, is the basis— 
the design of all society ? 

The original design of society and of human govern¬ 
ment is the preservation of social order—the keeping 
of the peace—the securing of the aggregate good by 
the yielding of the aggregate will to that of the ma¬ 
jority declared and sanctioned in a prescribed form. 
It is to prevent the discord and perpetual conflict which 
must result in a society where each man was the judge 
of his own rights and the sole vindicator of his own 
wrongs. When men formed a government aod yielded 
allegiance thereto, they agreed not to be, severally, jud¬ 
ges of theirowncases, butto submit all differences tothe 
decision of a prescribed tribunal, to which they bound 
themselves to submit. But government is an expen¬ 
sive institution. The power of taxation, therefore, is 
correlative to the original design of government, and 
an incident of its establishment and existence. It fol¬ 
lows, then, that as much taxation as is necessary to the 
support of government, legitimately administered, or 
to aid it in carrying out the original idea of its institu¬ 
tion, is right and proper. 


But, sir, I contend, and the position seems tome too 
clear and palpable to need an argument, that govern¬ 
ment has no right to engage in any scheme of financial 
speculation, or any system of internal improvement by 
the construction of public works.—All works of public 
improvement, railroads, canals—if, indeed, canals 
should ever be built—plankroads turnpikes, bridges, 
telegraph lines, and all that lie within the legitimate 
province of individual enterprise and private under¬ 
taking. 

In point of fact, our speculations entered into by the 
State have all “ turned out ” most disa.strou8]y for the 
people. It is a demonstrated truth, that government 
cannot construct any work in so economical a manner 
as can private enterprise. Extravagance anJ waste are 
the inevitable incidents of a work of any kind carried 
on by the State. 

The New York and Erie canal stands out as a .single 
exception to the declaration that in point of fact (say¬ 
ing nothing now about the abstract right of government 
to engage in any speculation,) all speculations entered 
into by the State have resulted unfortunately for the 
people. But, sir, when closely examined, the case of 
the construction of that great work will prove the truth 
of the principle I have stated, for owing to the geo¬ 
graphical location of New York, that canal is the great 
artery for half the commerce of the country. 

But, as a general principle, goveniment speculations 
are always disastrous. In a moral point of view, the 
construction of works of public improvement by the 
State, are to be deprecated by every wise and honest 
statesman. It is wrong, and never to be silently en¬ 
dured, that one portion of a State should ever be al¬ 
lowed to rob another and a weaker portion by voting 
the treasure of all for the benefit of a part. The prin¬ 
ciple is intrinsically and heinously wrong, because a 
line of public improvement, which is constructed by 
means of taxes levied upon the whole people, will em¬ 
brace some towns and cities, and confer upon them 
great benefits, while it may positively injure all the 
other towns and cities in the State. 

For example: a canal may be built by the State, run¬ 
ning through the cit)’^ of Dayton, which place having 
splendid and exhaustless stone quarries in its vicinity, 
may be enriched and built up in consequence of its ar¬ 
tificial commercial channel, through which it can send 
its stone to a profitable market. But by the construc¬ 
tion of this same canal, the town of Urbana may be 
positively ruined—grass may spring up in her streets, 
for her stone quarries are rendered valueless on account 
of the facilities ol getting at those of Dayton. And 
yet, sir, the citizens of Urbana are taxed for the con- 
. struction of that same canal! By your system of in¬ 
ternal irnptovements, you compel these ruined loca¬ 
tions to pay roundly a first rate calamity I [Laugh- 
ter. ] 

But, Mr. Chairman, even if such speculations, un¬ 
dertaken by the State, were pecuniarily successful, ;f 
they yielded a handsome return t© the State Treasury, 
they are morally wrong, and inevitably productive ol 
the w’orst results. They engender social convulsions, 
and thereby the foundations of social order are shaken. 
You tax the whole people for the exclusive benefit ct 
a part, and you array one section against another. 
You direct the fund of the State Treasury to the con¬ 
struction of aline of public improvement through Cam¬ 
bridge and St. Clairsville, and you materially injure 
Cadiz and Steubenville. Are these latter thereby en¬ 
couraged to labor for the promotion of the prosperity of 
the State ? 

Sir, the whole principle of constructing public works 
by the State is wrong—government has no business to 
be engaged in any speculations, and no tax is legiti¬ 
mate except for the purpose of sustaining government 
within itvS proper sphere. And its proper and only le¬ 
gitimate functions are to secure social order—to keep 
the peace. 

I have no desire to detain the Convention with a 










784 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


speech, and vvilh ihose brief remarks I submit the ques¬ 
tion, trusting that the proposition will be adopted. 

Mr. CHAMUBRS said he did not intend to enter in¬ 
to a lengthy argument with the gentleman from Mon¬ 
roe, [Mr. Archbold,] in regard to public loans, or the 
right of the General Assembly to pledge the credit of 
the State for the purpose of carrying on works of inter 
rial improvement. In the course of his remarks, that 
gentleman forgot that he lived upon the banks'of the 
river Ohio, and that the county he represents lies along 
the borders of that great and important thoroughfare. 
He did not seem to be avvare that in the broad,State of 
Ohio there is a vast interior, which that river does not 
roucb, rich in all its natural capabilities of soil and 
climate, but entirely deprived by nature of those means 
cf commercial intercourse which his constituents en¬ 
joy. He thought the gentleman had fallen into an 
egregious error in his estimate of the present and fu¬ 
ture value of the improvements which the State had 
constructed, and in regard to their importance upon 
the wealth, prosperity and happiness of the State. He 
would ask that gentleman, and every member of this 
Oonvention, what would have been the destiny of the 
State of Ohio, had it not been fur these improvements? 
What would Ohio have been, had she been shutoff, by 
the hard provisions of a constitution such as he propo¬ 
ses, from every means of improving her condition— 
with a democratic, hard money currency ? What would 
this city of Cincinnati have been, under the operation 
of a system, at once so restrictive and so oppressive ? 

Now, in regard to the section under consideration, I 
shall vote with the gentleman from Monroe, to strike 
out the part which he proposes to strike out, and then 
E oball vote to strike out the other part; because I be¬ 
lieve that nothing in our history has tended more to 
promote and secure the pro.sperity of the State, than 
those works of internal improvement which we have 
undertaken and carried forward. For the truth of my 
views upon this subject, I appeal to the experience ot 
the gentleman from Wayne, [Mr. Larwill.] He 
doubtless recollects the time, many years ago, when if 
;:he farmer of Wayne or Stark counties was desirous to 
procure his annual supply of salt to preserve his pro¬ 
visions, he was obliged to load up h;6 wagon widi his 
wheat or other produce, and with the provisions nec¬ 
essary for himself and his team upon the journey of 
sixty or seventy miles through the almost impassable 
roads of the day, go to Cleveland, and there barter his 
wheat, bu'^hel for bushel, for the salt he required. How 
is it now? Let us look at the consequences of the 
construction of the canal. Will the citizens of those 
counties exchange their present condition for their for¬ 
mer one? At that time they were far below us in the 
scale of advance and improvement; now they are equal 
or ahead. The reason is obviously the great facilities 
of access to market which these works have furnished 
tio them. They have every thing they require, deliv¬ 
ered at their doors almost without expense, and they 
have a cash market at home for every thing they seek 
to dispose of. 

Gentlemen say that they would cutolF the State from 
i,he power of goitig any further in this syslem of im¬ 
provement, aud would have the.se works, iu future to 
be undertaken and carried forward by the means of in¬ 
dividual enterprise, and a.ssociated wealth in private 
companies. T.iey are under a mistake. In the pres¬ 
ent state of things it is impossible. The people are 
slow to enter into projects of this kind. Nothing but 
a strong local interest in the work to be undertaken, 
will ever, except under the most favorable circumstan¬ 
ces, induce s :ch au undertaking. 

The gen I niaa from Monroe is behind the times, 
when he talks of the impro{)i iely or the immorality of 
a pledge of the credit of the State, for the purpose ol 
curying forward a great public improvement. He 
lias much to say of the wisdom of the Legislature ol 
1825, which he seems largely to doubt, and which he 
is not a little disposed to rellect upon. Now, sir, 1 


have still some confidence in the wisdom and discre¬ 
tion of our General Assemblies. I am willing to trust 
them. I am willing to trust them to loan the credit 
of the State, whenever they deem the public interest 
requires it. I believe them to be as capable of ma¬ 
king loans, as we are to guard them against making 
loans. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD said he supposed the remarks of 
the gentleman from Muskingum [Mr. Chambers] de¬ 
serve a reply. It seems now convenient to preach the 
doctrine of the importance of preserving the public 
faith. It was certainly contrary to his intentions, to 
say anything against the most scrupulous observation 
of the faith of the State, at all times, and on all occa¬ 
sions. No one could be more fully impressed with 
the importance of such a course than himself, and he 
had preached no doctrine from which a contrary opin 
ion could be implied. 

Mr. CHAMBERS said he had not intended to charge 
the gentleman from Monroe of being in favor of any 
breach of the public faith. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said he considered the question 
now before the committee, to be one of public morality. 
If he was tenacious of anything it was that that should 
be preserved pure. He was opposed to the principle 
of taxation for the purpose of carrying on works of 
internal improvement, on account of the encourage¬ 
ment which such projects gave to speculation, to 
stock jobbing, to every plan for the taxation and op¬ 
pression of the many, for the benefit of the few. It 
was inexpedient, because it was immoral, for nothing 
that is immoral can be expedient. Gentlemen speak 
of the benefits that have accrued to certain ])ortionsof 
the State, by the construction of the public works, 
and of the good conferred by them upon the citizens 
of those counties wliich do not lie upon the natural 
thoroughfares of the country. I will ask, did not men 
have their choice of the whole country, to settle where 
they please? If they cho 58e to settle in Wayne, or 
Richland, or Knox, they had an undoubted right to do 
it, but what claim does that give them that the other 
f)arts of the State shall be taxed for their benefit; and 
I tell gentlemen if these things had been left to 
the free promptings of individual enterprise, every 
public work of any value, now in existence, would 
have been made long ago. Tlie gentleman from Mus¬ 
kingum, says that men are slow to invest their money 
in such enterprises. I admit that in such cases as 
that of the Warren County Canal they might well be 
slow. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Yet the Warren County Canal 
was commenced by individuals. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. But it was soon abandoned by 
the individuals that commenced it, and handed over 
to the State, in whose hands it has become a place of 
deposit for dead horses. The gentleman knows that 
the original estimate was only four hundred thousand 
dollars. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I was not m favor of the Mus¬ 
kingum Improvement. I looked upon it as a waste of 
public money. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. Name the public improvement 
that has not been a waste of the public money. In the 
hands of individuals, the Ohio Canal would be a good 
investment, but in the hands of tlie State, although it 
■runs through a country with a fruitful soi], wealthy 
aud populous, it pays to the State only four per cent. 

I tell gentlemeu that such speculations would have ru¬ 
ined the Rothschilds long ago. We were led into a 
great error, iu following the bad example of tlie State 
of New York. Had the Hudson and Erie Canal been 
constructed by private capital and enterprise, ours 
1 would also. One of the vices of the system is. that it 
drives ont individual enterprise. The difierence be¬ 
tween the gentleman and myself, is this; He thinks 
ihe works of the State would never have been con¬ 
structed h id it not been done by the State; I believe 
that it would have been done better, more surely, more 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


785 


itafely, more certainly, more profitably, by private eii 
terprise, and we should have been saved from the 
deep wound which the adoption of the practice has in¬ 
flicted upon the moral character of the Slate. If it had 
been important for the canals to have been rriade they 
vv^ould have been made. Capital would have been 
found. Enterprise would have been excited. Every 
part of the State would have had her improvements; 
every locality would have been occupied. Cin’ciunati 
would have had her own roads and canals, and that 
Slate of high prosperity that we have now i*eached. 
would not have been alloyed by an immense, an enor¬ 
mous public debt, as unequal in its pressure as was 
partial in its creation. 

Gentlemen charge me with having no respect for the 
Legislature that created the debt. Now, I have as 
high an opinion of the General Assembly of 1825 as any 
man. It contained some of the best men in the State ; 
and yet no niiin can look into its proceedings vv^ith care, 
without coming to the conclusion that it had all along 
a sort of sleepy, half awakened consciousness that it 
was doing wrong—that it was establishing a system 
that would work unequally—that would tax one man 
to put it into the pockets of another—that w'ould call 
into being a host of speculators, stock-jobbers, and land 
sharks, that would eat up the substance of the State. 
If they had not had such a consciousness, why would 
they not have trusted to future legislators to make ar¬ 
rangements to pay the interest and redeem the princi¬ 
pal of the debt they were about to create ? It would 
seem as if they thought they were entering upon a sys¬ 
tem that would make local improvements at the gen¬ 
eral cost, and that if they did not do by indirect means 
what they were afraid to by direct, they should not get 
hold of the money—as if they were conscious that they 
were doing little better than doing wrong. Such en¬ 
terprises never turn out happily. They had no right 
to expect that they would, when they took a trust 
fund, devoted to the preservation of the public peace— 
of the imblic order—sacred to the defence of the maj¬ 
esty of the law, gave it away to speculators, andrai.sed 
up- an enormous, a tyrannical one-power, to exercise 
the sovereign right of taxation over a free people. Un¬ 
der this system, we have created and assumed a debt 
equal to the cost of seven State governments, under 
other circumstances, and yet, strange to say, every 
public servant is a beggar at the start, and we are com¬ 
pelled to put up with inferior public service of every 
kind. I tell gentlemen that the great moml principle 
is to act right, and in strict accordance \yith the rules 
of rectitude, and I had rather all my life live in the un¬ 
broken woods, and have no facilities other than those 
t;hat nature accords to the savage, than to live in the 
most polite and civilized community, and yet, as a 
breaker of the public faith, be held up to the scorn and 
contempt of the civilized w'orld. Would any man bar¬ 
ter that interest which he has in the good name of the 
State of which he is a citizen, for the highest political 
or social standing, or for any material results whatso¬ 
ever? If so, I would ht)ld up the States of Pennsyl¬ 
vania and Mississippi to their view, and ask them if 
they envy their condition. 

Mr. BARNET, of Montgomery, said he desired to 
make a few remarks that had been suggested to his 
mind by the speech of the gentleman from Monroe, 
[Mr. Archbold.] He had always listened to the sug¬ 
gestions of that gentleman with pleasure, and never 
more so than at present. His intimate acquaintance 
with histoiy gave to his addresses an interest which he 
was alw'ays ready to feel and acknowledge. 

The gentleman from Monroe thinks that, in this 
business of public improvements,-we are getting along 
coo fast, and that we are outstripping the ability and 
the demands of the time. He was reminded, by this 
of the condition ‘of an old neighbor of his, at the time 
they were getting the fourteen turnpike roads that 
now led into the city of Dayton, in operation. He ob¬ 
jected strongly to the system. He said that now, he j 

50 


should have to get his horses shod every time he went 
into town with produce, and should have to wear 
shoes himself, to secure his feet from the gravel of the 
road. Does not that go back far enough ? If not, we 
may return to our ditches, and use them instead of 
turnpike roads, and go back to the canoe and pack- 
ho rse system. There was another innovation upon 
he practice of the good old times, that gentlemen 
might deem a departure from sound principles. It was 
the primitive custom, when a man got up his horse to 
go to mill, to put his corn in one end of the bag, and 
to balance it, put a stone in the other. Here we have 
made an innovation. Would it not be advisable to re¬ 
turn to first principles and get rid of the improve¬ 
ment 1 

Mr. Chairman ; it is evident we have gone astray in 
these works of internal improvement, and it is time 
to return to correct principles. We have been in er¬ 
ror ; I hope we have yet the power to retrieve our 
steps. We must abandon our canals, railroads and 
turnpikes, and go back to the good old times, when 
in the honest simplicity of mankind, every citizen car¬ 
ried his grain to mill on horseback, as such things as 
w^agons bad never been invented. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said he considered the dis¬ 
cussion now going on before the committee as entirely 
a matter of supererogation. Under the consideration 
that took place upon the report of the committee upon 
Public Debts and Public Works, the question now be¬ 
fore the committee had been agitated and definitely 
acted upon, and he did not believe that any present 
agitation would unsettle the conclusion arrived at. He 
could not, however, now let it pass under the false 
reasoning and sarcasm that had been thrown upon it 
from the other side. Sections first and second, in the 
report alluded to, specify the purposes for which money 
may be raised by the General Assembly, among which 
the subject of the construction of public works is not 
enumerated, and the third provides that: 

“ Except the debts above specified in sections one and two of 
this article, no debt whatever shall herealter be contracted by or 
on behalf of the State.” 

This section effectually precludes all loans for that 
purpose. Upon this subject I concur with the remarks 
of the gentleman from Slonroe, [Mr. Archbold,] that 
there should be an end of the system. I will illustrate 
its effects by a reference to the county which I repre¬ 
sent. That county has not been benefitted by any o 
the public works. The county-seat is twenty-five miles 
from Cleveland, and the business of its citizens goes to 
that city over a road made by private entetprise, and 
little or none of it through the canal. I have been told 
at Wadsworth, which is on the canal, that their busi¬ 
ness is nearly all done by the road, that mode being 
the cheapest. Have we, then, been benefitted by the 
canal? Not at all. Have we been injured ? In early 
times, the people of Medina paid from three to five 
dollars per acre for their lands, in consideration of the 
vicinity of the canal, while in the counties south ot us 
they paid only one and a half and two dollars. We 
paid double price for being near the market, for the 
prices were raised in view of the supposed advantage 
of that vicinity. I do not complain because the pro¬ 
duce of the central portions of the State comes to the 
lake shore for a market; but I do complain that vve 
have been forced to pay for what is not a benefit, d he 
countv of IMedina pavs about eleven thousand dollars 
per year in taxes, over nine thousand dollars of wijich 
goe.s into the treasury of the State, mostly to pay the 
interest and principal ot our puolic debt, while she has 
never received any benefit from the public works.^ It 
is said that the State has increased the value of her 
taxable property by her canals. How is this, when 
Medina county pays nearly ten thousand dollars a year 
upon the debt, while her taxable property has in no 
w'ise been increased by the improvements ? 

I would go further than the section I have read pro¬ 
vides. I would declare that the Legislature shall con- 








786 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


tract no debts for public improvements, at least for any 
new entei’iu'ise. I do not say that 1 would not have 
those lluished that are already commenced, but I would 
sell otV the whole as soon as possible. If they bring 
any thing, employ it to pay the debt. Get the whole 
oil’our hands—pay the debt with all convenient speed, 
and let the State bo out of debt as soon as possible, 
and avoid any such thing as a debt in all lime to come. 

Mr. LOUDON thought there had been a great waste 
oi time in acting upon this report. He was very 
anxious that the labors of the Convention should go 
on with more rapidity. But as no other member of the 
committee had seen lit to speak upon the propositions 
contained in the report, he proposed to occupy the at- 
tion of the body for a few moments. 

He always listened with pleasure to the observations 
of the gentlemen from Monroe, ami in general agreed 
with him ; but he felt bound to say, as a citizen olUhio, 
he felt proud of the advances which the State had made, 
whether by the energy of her people or through the 
agency of her splendid system of public improvements. 

He became a citizen of Ohio in and recollected 
well the appearance ot this city at that time, and he 
was sure that the gigantic strides which she had made 
since that period were such as should render every son 
of Ohio proud of her progre.ss and her position At that 
time, in the infancy of the State, and in the absence 
of public thoroughfares of every kind, it required near¬ 
ly a mouth to send a supply of provisions from this city 
to the army of General Harrison on the Maumee; now 
millions of pounds might be transmitted, if necessary, 
in two or three days. Now, what has dune this? Has 
it been done by the mere unaided enterprize of our 
citizens? No, great as that enterprise may be, it was 
in the nature of things iusuflicient to produce so mighty 
an eilect. What then has done it? The magniiicent 
and far-seeing views of l)e Witt Clinton, aided and car¬ 
ried out by the representatives of a free and enterpri¬ 
sing people. We were poor in wealth, but rich in 
hope. We had the hopes for the future of a virgin coun¬ 
try, rich in all the elements of future wealth, and in 
our hopes for the future, we went forward —we pledg¬ 
ed the Ifiith and the future revenues of the Stale—we 
accumulated that mighty power which belongs to hon¬ 
est intentions and unquestioned faith,—the vvi>rk was 
executed, aiid the result is the admiration of the world. 
No age has produced such a result. Within less than 
the age of man, we have from nothing, amassei the 
wealth of a continent. 

In respect to the democracy of the course we have 
pursued, I can say, we are a democratic people, and 
nothing in the course that has been pursued has been 
inconsistent with the principles of democracy. I have 
ever been a member of the Democratic party, and a 
faitnlul follower of the principles of Jellerson and 
Jackson. Gentlemen taking the other side claim to be 
Democrats, also, and they clainr that their views are 
Democratic views ; but I believe that every measure 
that tends to raise our country to greatness, wealth, 
power, happiness, and the respect and admiriition of 
the world, is a democratic measure. Now, if the gen¬ 
tlemen object to the creation of a debt, let them come 
up to the ballot-box. and vote yea or nay upon it, and 
let the majority decide. That is democratic. Who 
shall say that the voice of the people shall not be heard? 
The gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Arcubold] thinks 
they should not. He is too good a Democrat to wish 
to carry such a doctrine into practice. He must recol¬ 
lect that we have fought together for this matter in a 
different place. He remembers the battles we have 
had for what were called, the “dry land counties.” 
The county I represented was in the same situation 
with that of Monroe, and we fought shoulder to shoul¬ 
der, because we both wanted public improvements in 
our vicinities. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD wished to correct the gentleman 
from Brown [Mr. Loudon.] He had never asked for 
a dollar from the Treasury of the State for any public 
improvement. 


Mr. LOUl)C>N. Then 1 take back that observation. 
My memory may have not been perfect. 1 recollect, 
however, a long harangue which the gentleman deliv¬ 
ered in the General Assembly, upon the subject of a 
mud turnpike in his county—while, at the same lime, 

I was asking fora McAdam road in the county of Brown. 

1 think he would have liked the State to take hold and 
help build the mud road. I know how things went on. 
and we thought there was unfairness in the action of 
the Legislature, and that some counties got more than 
their share. We thought Hamilton county received 
more than it was entitled to, and used to call it the 
State of Hamilton county. It was true that Hamilton 
county at that time paid one-eighth of the entire tax of 
the State, and the members from that county went in 
for internal improvements. 

We are all citizens of Ohio, and it is selfish in us not 
to be willing to promote the interests of the whole be¬ 
cause every small section does not get all it desires ; 
and it gives mo great pleasure to look back through a 
period of forty years of almost uninterrupted progress, 
and pay a tribute to the worth of those men who orig¬ 
inated our system >f improvement in the General As¬ 
sembly ol 18'25. It is true that practically the conse¬ 
quences have been severe upon some sections, but we 
have ri.^en to be the Empire State of the Great West, 
and shall soon be able to carry on our public enterpri- 
zes without calling in the aid of other people. I ask 
then, is this not a democratic proposition, which gives 
to the people to decide whether or not a debt shall be 
contracted, for to use a quotation of the gentleman 
from Monroe, vox popuii, vox Dei. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON inquired if it would be in or¬ 
der to oiler a substitute for the .section now under con¬ 
sideration. 

The CHAIRMAN said it would be in order after 
(the motion to strike out. iiow pending, had been deci¬ 
ded. 

Mr. WOHTHINGTON then read his amendment, 
which was as follows : Strike out of the 8th section all 
after the word “ improvemejit,” in the second line, and 
insert; “ Except in cases where the persons making 
the loan shall receive, as the sole pledge for its redemp¬ 
tion. the public work for the construction of which the 
money shall be borrowed.” 

The question was now taken upon striking out all 
after the word “improvement.” m the second line of 
the 8th section; 

Which was agreed to ; and then the question recur¬ 
red upon the adoption of the substitute proposed by i 
Mr. Worthington. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD liked the section very much, as it 
stood, and should oppose the addition of any matter. 
But lest the substitute should prevail, he w’ould move 
to amend the substitute by strikhig out the arlicie “a,” 
where it occurs after the word “ pledge,”and insert in 
lieu thereof the words “the only.” 

This modification was accepted. 

Mr. ^VORTHINGTON would not detain the commit¬ 
tee long by way of explanation. The object for which 
men were sent upon the earth, according to the highest 
authority, was to subdue and to occupy; and in doing 
so, it sometimes liappened that the rights of minorities 
were disregarded. The successors ot those w’ho make 
internal improvements were often pledged to bear part 
of the burden of their construction; and also, in many 
case.'S, those who never could be in any manuer bene- 
litted by them. Now, the proposition he had made 
(though somewhat new), was intended, so far as possi¬ 
ble in human legislation, to place the people upon the 
same footing, with reference to property in internal 
improvements, that the law rests upon with reference 
to property which he derives by descent from his fath¬ 
er ; so that the property may be either received, or re¬ 
stored, or given up. If the public improvement should 
not be considered worth paying the interest on the 
money with which it was constructed, according to his 
proposition, nothing would have to be done but to give 
up the work to the public creditors. 









CONVENIION REPORTS. 


Mr. HAWKINS felt very iiulifterenl as to whut dis¬ 
position might be made of this section. The whole 
subject of the section had been covered in another re¬ 
port; and it stood there in a more appropriate plan 
than here. It seemed to him but a useless waste of 
time, to consider the same subject in two ditlerent 
reports. 

Mr. Worthington’s substitute was now rejected. 

Mr. WOODBURY proposed further to amend the 
section, by inserting, after the word “ debt,” in the 
first line, the words, “ nor appropriate any money so 
that the section would read, ” The State shall never 
contract any debt, (nor appropriate any money,) for 
purposes of internal improvement.” 

This amendment was rejected—affirmative 42, neg¬ 
ative 4G. 

On motion by Mr. SAWYER, the committee rose and 
the Chairman reported the bill to the .Convention, with 
sundry amendments. 

On motion by Mr. HAWKINS, the report and pend¬ 
ing amendments were recommitted to the committee 
on Finance and Taxation. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE proposed to instruct the 
committee on Finance and Taxation to amend the re¬ 
port by inserting the following: 

“ The General Assembly may provide tor raising revenue by 
such other means, besides those herein enumerated, us to them 
may appear just and reasonable.” 

The PRESIDENT. Was it the intention of the gen 
tleman to offer his proposition as a resolution ? 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. It was. 

The resolution was rejected. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the Convention do now go 
into the committee of the whole, upon the considera¬ 
tion of bills in the calender ; but withdrew the motion 
at the request of several gentlemen. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved a resolution instructing 
the committee on Finance and Taxation to report a 
section to the following effect, in lieu of their whole 
report: 

“ The rule of taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout 
the State, and taxes shall be levied upon such property as the 
General Assembly shall prescribe by law. But no ijoll tax shaU 
ever be levied either for State or county purposes,” 

Mr. G. demanded the yeas and nays upon the adop¬ 
tion of this re.solution, and the vote being taken, the 
Secretary reported—yeas 36, nays 60, as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, Florence, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Horton, 
Hunter, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Peck. 
Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, 
Stilwell, Williams and Worthington—36. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case 
of Licking Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, 
Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Loudon, Manon, McCormick, Norris, Patterson, Perkins, 
Quigley, Keemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Tay¬ 
lor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, \Vil3on, Woodbury and President—60. 

iSo the resolulioii was rejected. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, proposed the consideration of 
the following resolution: 

“ Resolved, That the committee on Finance and Taxation, be, 
and they are hereby instructed to so amend their report, as to 
exempt from taxation the stocks of the United States held by the 
citizens of Ohio. ” 

Upon the question of the adoption of this resolution, 
Mr. C. demanded the yeas and nays. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler moved to amend the resolu¬ 
tion by striking out all after the word ” Resolved ” and 
inserting the following: i 

“ That the General Assembly shall provide by law for taxing 
capital invested in State bonds, and other public securities, held 
and possessed by residents of Ohio, as moneys at interest are or 
may be taxed : Provided, That in the levying and collection of 
euch tax, the faith of the State heretofore pledged under express 
law forming a part of the law or the contract under which the 
loan was procured, shall be held inviolate until full payment 


shall have been made or tendered to the holder of such securi¬ 
ties. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking was agreed to the seulijnenls 
of the resolution of the gentleman from Butler, but 
he desired first to see the vote taken upon his own 
resolution, if the gentleman would withdraw for that 
pur[> 080 . 

Mr. VANCE of Butler, had prepared the matter just 
read by the Secretary, to offer it when the report 
should come up again before the Convention. But, as 
he undetstood the resolution of the gentleman from 
Licking covered the same ground, in a different form, 
he hud thought it advisable to offer it now, to give him 
an opportunity of recording his vote upon it. He un¬ 
derstood the resolution of the gentleman from Licking 
to include State bonds. 

Mr. CASE of Licking. It was limited to bonds of 
the United States. 

Mr. Vance’s embraced State bonds, and other public 
securities. 

Mr. CASE then appealed to the gentleman to with¬ 
draw his amendment. 

Mr. VANCE accordingly withdrew his amendment, 
and the question recurred upon xMr. Case’.s resolu¬ 
tion. 

Mr. ARCIIBOLD supposed he felt as much for the 
success of this motion as the gentleman from Licking 
himself. He deprecated as much as any the foolish¬ 
ness that would bring u[)on us the sin of taxing U. S. 
Stocks. But, though he had listened to the argument 
of the gentleman from Licking, and others, the other 
day upon this subject, yet he did not think the Conven¬ 
tion were prepared now to vote upjon it. For one, it 
seemed to him, that he himself could (Rier some good 
reasons why this resolution should be adopted—.some 
good reasons why a proposition of this kind should go 
into the constitution ; and he also believed that he 
might bo able to render some good i-easons why other 
provisions, with reference to this subject, proposed by 
other gentlemen, should nut go into the constitution. 
But the Convention were weary now, and he h mself 
felt physically unable to explain his views as he ought; 
and if it were the pleasure of the friends of the resolu¬ 
tion, he would concur in a motion to lay it upon the 
table for the present. He feared that we would be 
periling too much to go to the vote now ; and he be¬ 
lieved also, that upon full consideration, the Conven¬ 
tion would not beti’ay the State into .so humiliating a 
contest as would be the attempt to defend the right to 
tax U. S. bonds. 

He would, however, propose an amendment to the 
proposition of the gentleman from Licking, making it 
a resolution of inquiry, by inserting in tlieir proper 
place the words, ” inquire into the expediency of.” 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, would be very happy to hear 
the gentleman from Monroe upon this question; but he 
intended, for one, to “ face the music ” upon it. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, (in his seat.) And so do I. 

Mr. CASE, was willing to accommodate by laying 
it upon the table ; but rather seemed to think it were 
better to proceed to the vote. 

' Mr. KIRKWOOD desired to vote right upon every 
subject. But this question, he confessed, he had not 
examined. He had not heard the arguments which 
ought to be offered, if they had not been offered. His 
mind was not yet made up. But, as at present advised, 
he should vote against instructions, unless he might be¬ 
come satisfied that we could succeed in taxing U. S. 
Bonds. 

With reference to the single remark of the gentleman 
from Licking, about “ facing the music ” upon the call 
of the yeas and nays, it strack him that it was rather 
out of place. It was to be presumed, that every gen¬ 
tleman was willing to record his vote; and if he voted 
what he believed to be right, it was no other man’s 
business. And, whenever any gentleman would allow 
himself to intimate that he [Mr. K.,] desired to shirk a 

vote_was not willing to ” face the music”—he would 

be saying what he had no right to say. 









i88 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. SAWYER x^'as heartily tired of this manner ofjatit in its plain, homely habiliments. He supposed 
doing business. We had been four or five days en-1 there was not more than a thousand dollars worth of 
gaged in the discussion of this question. The gentle -1 United States stocks held in the State ,of Ohio; and this 
man from Licking and others had discussed it ably, and j fact should go far to dissuade us from adopting what he 
several clear votes had indicated the will of the major- would call a most contemptible provision. There could 


ity. And now, that we had disposed of the report, the 
first thing was that a set of mandatory instructions to 
the committee to report back a proposition which, in 
committee of the Whole, we had refused to sustain. 
There must be an end to all this if we would progress 
with business. It would be a very easy matter for the 
gentleman, when the report shall come in again, to rise 


not well be mooted a proposition which would natu¬ 
rally excite more abhorrence in the minds of members ; 
and they only wanted permission to tell why they ab¬ 
horred it so much. 

Mr. KENNON felt exceedingly desirous that this 
question, in some shape or other, should be disposed 
of. He was very anxious that a direct vote should be 


in his place, and move to strike out the words “ United | taken, not only upon the proposition of the gentleman 
States.’" i from Licking, but also upon the proposition which had 

He would now make his motion to go into committee} been offered by the gentleman from Butler. If they 
of the whole, upon the orders of the day. ! could be made test questions, he thought they had bet- 

Upon this motion the yeas and nays were demanded, ter be settled now; but he was a little apprehensive 


and being taken, the Secretary reported yeas 45, nays 
.51—and they were recorded as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hen¬ 
derson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, 
Norris, Patterson, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stidger, Stru- 
ble. Swift, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson, Wood¬ 
bury and President—45. 

Nays. —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Horton, Hun- 
ti.'r, Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Lawrence, Lidey, Manon, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris. McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Patterson, Pi^ck, 
Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of 
Stark, Williams and Worthington—51. 

So the Convention refused to go into committee, and 
the question recurred upon Mr. Arckbold’s amend¬ 
ment. 

Mr. CHAMBERS voted against going into commit¬ 
tee for the same reason that the gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize had voted for it, namely ; in order to expedite 
business. This matter had been long under discusssiou, 
and the minds of gentlemen were made up pretty gen¬ 
erally. The report was directly in the teeth of the pro¬ 
position of the gentleman from Licking; and he desired 
the vote, which would be decisn^e of the quesiii'ii. He 
would be glad also to hear thegentlcmau from Monroe, 
[Mr. Archbold.] 

Mr. ARCHBOLD was not of the impression that this 
subject had received any very extended consideration, 
either in Convention or in committee of the Whole. 
He had been told, as a matter of history, that, at one 
time, the committee had refused to strike out the words 
“ United States”—a fact which, regular as he was in 
his attendance here, had entirely e.scaped his attention. 
Had he been present, he should not have voted with 
the majority. He professed all honor for the talents 
and learning of his friend from Licking, [Mr. Case,] 
who had been heard upon this question. He was with 
that gentleman. But still he feared that, if we came 
now to the vote, we would be in danger of deciding in 
favor of a proposition, which would bring upon the 
State the humiliating necessity of attempting that which 
they would never be able to do. Whenever a delicate 
question of this sort came up, men were anxious to set 
themselves right upon it before the world, as well as 
to stand up to their rendered reasons; and he would 
say to gentlemen, that if it were determined to enforce 
the matter now, he would not come to the vote silent¬ 
ly; for he cherished a lively, almost an electrical feel¬ 
ing upon this subject, He would proceed with his rea¬ 
sons as well as he might be able. But the friends of 
the resolution asked for time, because they were im¬ 
pressed, if we came now to the vote, we should sustain 
a defeat. He hoped that the gentleman from Licking 
would accept of the modification he had offered—ma¬ 
king it a resolution of inquiry; and then let us take 
time to look at the dress which had been thrown around 
this question—let us take off its theatre-dress, and look 


that they would not be so considered. For his own 
pai t, he had examined both questions. His mind was 
fully made up ; but, at this time, he was not going into 
either of these inquiries. It had been said that the 
question of the power to tax United States bonds had 
been fully argued here. It had certainly been well ar¬ 
gued on the qne side; and, although he had no doubts 
upon the subject himself, he was willing that others 
might have time for their examinations. The Supreme 
Court of the United States—all the judges concurring 
—’liad decided this question in 1843, and in accordance 
with that decision, he was fully prepared to vote now 
that the committee be instructed not to tax these bonds 
nor the money invested in them by the citizens of 
Ohio; for there was no difference between the two 
phases of the question. He was inclined to vote for 
the amendment of the gentleman from Monroe, for the 
reason that he feared it might not be considered a test 
question. 

Mr. HAWKINS referred to the fact that, some eight 
months ago, the committee on Finance and Taxation 
were instructed to inquire into and decide upon this 
subject; and the Convention had now been,nearly a 
week ill committee of the whole upon the same sub¬ 
ject, and he was convinced that now was the time to 
come to that vote. He was himself satisfied and pre¬ 
pared to vote—leaving his constituents to conjecture 
the reasons which governed him, instead of wasting 
time and money by attempting to deliver them here 
It was his judgment that we could not legally tax these 
bonds ot the United States, and he was jirepared to in 
struct the committee accordingly. He should not vote 
for any provision to be taken as a part of the constitu¬ 
tion, which he had reason to believe would be render¬ 
ed null and void by a decision of the Judiciary. He 
hoped the Convention would now begin to decide upon 
the questions before us. 

And then, upon the motion of Mr. TAYLOR, which 
was agreed to. 

The Convention took a recess till 3 o’clock, P. M. 


3 O CLOCK, p. M. 

The question being on agreeing to the resolution of 
Mr. Case, of Licking, that gentleman with the unan¬ 
imous consent of the Convention, offered the following 
as a substitute for the resolution : ° 

“ Whereas, The Supreme Court of the United States has 
determined that no State has the constitutional power to tax a 
contract of the United States with one of its citizens. Therefore, 

‘‘ Resolved, That the committee on Finance and Taxation be 
and they ary hereby instructed to amend their report so as not 
to provide for taxing tlie bonds ot the United States.” 

The question being on agreeing to the foret^oiii" 
preamble and resolution, Mr. CASE, of Lickin°, de'’- 
mandeil the yeas and nays, upon which— ^ 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said that he would be the last man 
in the world, to give away the sovereignty of the peo¬ 
ple. The Convention was well aware, that he had 
not promised to adduce any very great arguments at 
present. His opinion had been, that a little more time 
would have been afforded him, when he had hoped to 
be able to address to them something worthy of consid- 























789 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


eraliou. He had not had the time desirable for that 
purpose, and he should ask the indulgence of the Con¬ 
vention while he offered a few reasons why the mo¬ 
tion of the gentlemau from Licking, [Mr. Case] should 
prevail. What were the considerations which they 
lay open before them? I’erhaps the first one which 
would present itself to the citizens of Ohio was, that 
they formed one of the great confederac ies of the Uni¬ 
ted States ; and that whatever they did, was sure to be 
imitated; and that all the other States would almost 
be compelled to do so; so that in the end, it would 
neither be more nor less ttian draining out of the Uni¬ 
ted States Treasury the supplies for the treasuries of 
the States. Suppose the State of New-York would lay 
on a tax of two per cent, on the United States bonds 
held by her citizens, it would equally affect all the oth¬ 
er States, inasmuch as the General Government would 
be compelled to borrow at a much higher rate than at 
present. It was neither more nor less, than making 
the United States tributary to the particular States. 

It might be safely calculated that when the citizens 
of Ohio held one hundred thousand dollars of United 
States stocks, those of New-York would hold three 
millions, so that when we take one dollar out of the 
National Treasmy, New-York will take thirty; and 
every other State will have a right to follow the exam¬ 
ple. So that we may be taxed by thirty Assemblies in 
which we have no representation, and no opportunity 
to be heard. What w’as this but a mere appeal from 
the councils of all to the council of one ? What was 
it but taxation without representation? What was it 
but anarchy—a return to the schemes of the old con¬ 
federation? What was it but marking out a system by 
which every State might, at its pleasure, bring the ope¬ 
rations of the National Government to a stand? If 
one State taxes such debts, others, all must tax in self- 
defence, and jealou.sy in the breast of each one, lest she 
should not get a sufficient share, will soon make that 
taxation excessive. In time of war, party spirit will 
make this privilege of taxation a mighty engine to 
impede the operations of the National Government. 

It was probable that the amount of United States 
stocks held in Ohio did not amount to one hundred 
thousand dollars. 

To his [Mr. Archbold’s] knowledge, the decision 
referred to in this debate had been confirmed, and that 
so late as the year 1842; he alluded to the case of Dob- 
byns vs. the commissioners of Erie county. It was 
not in his powder to procure the boox containing the 
decision, in the short interval of his being aware of 
that subject being entered on, but he was acquainted 
with it. The case was an unanimous decision of nine 
judges of the court, and was founded upon the case of 
Charleston^ City vs. Weston, which they considered 
identical in principle, and so it was. It was true, that 
ill the case of Dobbyns vs. the cornmisoioners of Erie 
county, it w’as an attempt to tax for personal labor, 
whereas in the other case it was for the hire of money. 
He apprehended that the ingenuity of gentlemen on 
the opposite (great as he knew it to be) would fail in 
establishing a distinction between the two cases allud¬ 
ed to. Chief Justice Marshall so understood it; after 
quoting the constitutiou, he says, in substance, for I 
have not the book at hand and must quote only from 
memory : “This is a tax on the contract, a tax on the 
means which the Union uses for carrying on its ojmra- 
tions, a tax on its machinery. It is a means of trans¬ 
ferring money from the treasury of the Union to that 
of the States.” And if that great man had never said 
so, would not common sense inform every man that so 
it must be? Not only so it is a means of enabling eve¬ 
ry disaffected State during the distress and difficulties 
of war, or in fact during w’ar or peace, to repeal any 
act of Congress to borrow money within its territories 
by taxing the General Government out of the market. 
If the principle is admitted that the States may tax the 
loans of the General Government, who will prescribe 
a limit—who will limit sovereignty? If the States 


may tax the loans of the National Government one per 
cent., why not two, why not ten, why not twenty ? 
Where would gentlemen draw the line? It was clear 
that to do so was an impossibility. Thus we will find 
ourselves in time of war and distress returned to the 
miserable imbecility of the old confederacy. 

Mr. RANNEY. Suppose a man had a contract for 
supplying the army with provisions. He goes to work 
and collects a large number of cattle together in order 
to fulfill his contract: would it be right to tax such 
property while in his possession? 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said that if the property was left 
for some months in one place, it might, but if only in 
transit, it could not be taxed ; but to resume his argu¬ 
ment. He would call the attention of gentlemen to 
the following extract. [Here Mr. Archbold read 
from the case of Doboins v. the Commissioners of Erie 
county, IGlh Peters, 435.] In this case the judges 
quote and rely upon the decision in the case of Weston 
agairst the city of Charleston. They speak of it as 
unquestioned and unquestionable authority. They sup¬ 
posed themselves to be deciding a case identical in 
principle. They argued that as a tax on the hire of 
money would increase to the general Government the 
rate of that hire, in other words, the rate of interest, 
so a tax on salaries for personal services would in¬ 
crease the price paiJ for official labor, in other words, 
the salaries of public officers. That in both cases the 
National Treasury would be rendered tributary to that 
of the States. That both cases eventuated in a mere 
transfer of money from the National to the State Treas¬ 
ury, so that the decisions in 1829 and 1842, were the 
same in principle. The court so underttood it, and 
there was not the slightest difference between the two, 
the taxing the hire of money and the hire of services ; 
and so far from the opinion of the present members of 
the court shaking the decision, they had absolutely 
confirmed it, and they had at all events settled what 
might be considered as supreme law, inasmuch as 
what was based on the constitution was the supreme 
law of the land, or State, by attacking the government 
of the United States on so frivolous a matter, would 
say that if the Supreme Court had not made a decision 
on the matter, they ought to do so at once, and if they 
did not, they were unworthy of the post which the 
people had elected them to fill for the benefit of all. 
And now let them consider the question in its bearing 
to the doctrine understood. It was a fair argument, 
that when a doctrine was mischievous in its effect, it 
could not be constitutional. He bad great respect for 
the body of gentlemen who had framed the Constitu¬ 
tion. It was ]iot to be supposed that they could have 
been guilty of such folly as to render tiie contracts of 
the Union subject to I’epeal by the States, (for, be it 
remembered, that in all probability, we never should 
have a debt were it not for that incurred for the pur¬ 
poses of the war,) unless it was with a view to pro¬ 
duce disunion among them. It must have been as 
Jefferson once said, “ that if we could get rid of half 
the wars occasioned by our own wickedness, we could 
not hope to escape the other half, occasioned by the 
wickedness of others.” They had a commm'ce float¬ 
ing on every sea, cruising every wl'ere, visiting every 
coast. We could not, therefore, hope to escape wars 
and contests which must tax all our energies—which 
might even peril our national existence. II we were 
to insist upon taxing United States bonds—if we were 
to assent the principle at all, we would surrender the 
same right to every member of the confederacy. There 
was no bounds to the sovereignty of the people, and if 
Ohio could tax those bonds at 20. per cent., so could 
every State in the Union. r 

Mr. ARCHBOLD expressed regret that this debate 
had been forced upon him, as he was laboring under a 
severe cold, and felt himself unable to do justice to 
that great question. 

Mr. RANNEY w’ished to correct the gentleman from 
Monroe. He assumes, that gentlemen who ha^ e sus- 











790 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


tained this section, have contended for the rights in the 
States to tax the contracts of the Federal Goveriinieiit. 
No such argument has been used, or rights claimed. On 
the contrary, the very distinction taken by the Su¬ 
preme Court of the United States in the two cases of 
McCullock vs. The State of Maryland, and Weston, et 
al, vs. The City of Charleston, brought forward by the 
gentleman himself, had been relied upon by those who 
sustained the section. In the first of those cases, the 
Branch Bank of the United States was held (errone¬ 
ously, he believed,) to be a legitimate means used by 
the General Government to carry into efiectits express¬ 
ly delegated powers. As such, they farther held it be¬ 
yond the power of State taxation. But they took care 
also to hold that the State could tax any interest that 
one of its own citizens might hold in the stock of that 
Branch Bank. 

So, also, in the last case; the bonds issued by the 
Federal Government were held to be but means used 
by the Government to carry into execution its ex¬ 
pressly delegated power “ to borrow money,” and, as 
such, exempt from taxation. But the Court, by no 
means, intended to, or did impair the important reser¬ 
vation they made in the former case, in favor of the 
State’s power to tax their own citizens according to 
their property, however invested. On the contrary, 
the tax was held to be illegal, upon the express ground 
that it was an attempt to tax the “ contract ” itself. 

He had put the case to the gentleman from Monroe, 
of a man who had contracted to deliver five hundred 
head of cattle at a certain military post of the United 
States, and had collected them together for that pur¬ 
pose. Would they be liable to be taxed by the State ? 

Mr. KENNON. They would while they remained 
the property of the individual. It could not be known 
that they would ever be applied to fulfil the contract, 
and, until so applied, they could be taxed. 

Mr. RANNEY. Then the property that was provi¬ 
ded to comply with the contract until delivered, and 
the money received for it as soon as delivered, could 
be taxed. And what did this amount to but affirming 
the right of the State at all times to tax the “proprie¬ 
tary interest of the citizens,” although it might be in¬ 
vested in a contract with the Federal Government, or 
derived from it. This he admitted was a close distinc¬ 
tion, but not more so than many others that were well 
settled, to prevent a collision between State and Nation¬ 
al authority. The States could not tax imports—a 
barrel of gin at the Boston custom-house could not be 
taxed by the State of Massachusetts, but as soon as it 
was taken by a merchant and held for sale he could be 
taxed. It was necessary to draw the hire somewhere, 
and in that case as in this.i': was drawn where it would 
conflict least with tne powers of the General Govern¬ 
ment, or the sovereign, vital power of the Slates to tax 
equally all their citizens in proportion to the property 
they possessed, which we are told by the distinguished 
authors of the Federalist, were left unimpaired, with 
the single exception before stated. 

The gentleman froih Monroe greatly fears that this 
doctrine would cripple the Federal Government in the 
event of a war, by which she would be compelled to 
greatly increase her debt. While the gentleman’s fears 
are up, does he not see great danger to the States, on the 
other hand, in alio wing so vast a source of their revenue, 
now immense and constantly increasing, to be dried up 
without their consent? and what is still worse, the cre¬ 
ation of a vast monied oligarchy in their midst, entirely 
relieved from the burdens of taxation, and placed be¬ 
yond the reach of State laws? The General Government 
has the whole world in which to borrow—the States 
can tax nothing but what is within their borders. Be¬ 
sides, it should ever be kept in view, that without the 
States there can be no Federal Government. To re¬ 
duce them to mere petty corporations, is to destroy the 
national fabric, as well as the States. 

Mr. McCormick. Equally opposed to the report 
of the committee and the resol tion of the gentleman 


from Licking, [Mr. Case] I deem it my duty to assign 
my reasons for such opposition. I have constantly vo¬ 
ted in committee for the report, and the proposed 
amendments thereto, and have advocated the right of 
the State to enact laws in conformity with the require¬ 
ments of the report, but at the same time I shall feel 
myself guiltless of any violation of those votes when I 
shall insist on an entire modification of the whole sul)- 
ject. 

The right of the States to tax all kinds of property 
held or owned within them is in my oi)inion undoubt¬ 
ed ; and it matters not what form property assumes, 
the right still exists, and follows the property. Duty 
and right are in this instance correlative, and while 
such is the case, I conceive it to be very unwise to at¬ 
tempt to specify objects of taxation. 

We have in Ohio created exemptions by law, and 
these laws have been and are the subject of well 
grounded complaint on the part of the people; and 
they have been led to demand specifically that tax shall 
be imposed on articles exempt. ♦ 

This has produced the inventory character of the 
report, but may we not fall into a worse error than that 
for which a remedy is provided, for the time may ar¬ 
rive when new combinations of power and property— 
new developments of commercial enterprise — new 
discoveries in arts, and the cupidity of dishonesty may 
form new and different forms of property, which are 
“ not dreamed of in the philosophy ” of this Conven¬ 
tion, all of which would be exempt from tax upon the 
plain princip'e—that in all specifications whatever is 
not included is excluded. 

I insist that the general principle “ that all property 
shall be subject to tax” be declared in our Constitution, 
and nothing more—for when we have-said all shall be 
so taxed we include every thing which is or shall be ! 
hereafter, and give no right or opportunity to claim ex- j 
elusion, because of a failure to specify. The word all 1 
includes every thing, and specification can do no more, ! 
—it may do less. | 

Now with these opinions of our duty it would be 
higly improper to instruct the committee, to exclude I 
U. S. bonds or money invested in them, while the pow- y 
er of the State on the subject being left in some doubt i 
by the decisions of the courts, would make it equally 
improper to designate them by name. i 

The preamble of the resolution claims that the Su¬ 
preme Court have decided U. S- bonds exempt from i 
tax by law of the States. This I do not admit; but if : 
It is so, for one I wiF freely so act as will produce a re- ' 
versal of such decision, as I will at all times oppose > 
the usurpation of the rights of the States by the general 
government. 

I have no doubt of the right to tax money invested in 11 
ail kinds of bonds and stocks, and shall therefore vote 11 
against the resolution of instruction, while at the same | 
time I will vote against a report or constitution which 
specifically mentions such articles as peculiar objects - 
ol tax. ' 

It is useless to attempt coercion in matters of this j ' 
kind, by a call of yeas and nays. To me such an or- ' 
deal has no tenor.s, for the oath resting upon me to ' 
faithfully discharge my duty to the State of Ohio, is j 
su[)erior in its obligations to the opinions, not only of j 
the members of the Convention, but even of my imme- I 
diate constituents. My duties to God are far higher, in ‘ 
my estimation, than the opinions of men. j 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, said that as reference had ■ 
been made to the motives by which he was actuated i 
in calling for the yeas and nays, he would say a few 
words m explanation. It was the first occasion on 
which he did so; and he disclaimed all intention of 
giving offence to any gentleman by such motion. He . 
considered it as an established rule, and if he under- • 
stood his duty, the right exercised by liim did not ex- 
ceedit; and he could not understand, by what right, 
members took upon themselves to rebuke another, for 
the legitimate exercise of those privileges, which by 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


IWY 


- - 1 . nf tViR DoTu oiil ioii they were entitled to. I responsible for its sentiments, not having consulted any 

"enUevtu fol oSce aAr.-em^rking .l,at friJud a, to the policy of the doctrine iherem ,et forth 
0^0 rp^flv to vote and face the music.” He might I am anxious to see something which, whde it shall 
;i’™grirhirrodl%Teip.;:sri^^^ shot, and.plai.,, yet shall beac on t.s face ouv 

e 

ways V..V--, I _ . 

custoined to do all his business in a ready 
forward way. While he admitted his wish to have 
every man agree with him in his views of the matteis 
under debate, yet when they did not agree with him, 
he cheerfully accorded them that which he demanded 
for' himself, the credit of being sincere in their opin¬ 
ions at least. i i q 

The question being on agreeing to the preamble and 
resolution offered by Mr. Case, ot Licking, the yeas 
and nays stood as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Andrews, Barbee, Barnet ot Montgo¬ 
mery. Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown ot 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Cook» Ca^ ot 
Licking, Case of Hocking, Curry, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hawkins, Harlan, IlOTton, 

Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 

Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith ot 
Warren, Stilwell, Williams and Worthington—41. 

Navs —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, 

Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, He^* 
derson, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunter, Hunt, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitch¬ 
ell, McCormick, Norris, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelm, 

Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, 

Stidger, Struble Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance 
of Butler, Warren, Wilson and President—47. 

So the preamble and resolution was disagreed to. 

Mr. MANON submitted the following: 


“ Resolved, That the committee on Finance and Taxation, be, j 
and they are hereby instructed, to report back the bill on that sub¬ 
ject, with the following as a substitute for the whole bill: 

“ The General Assembly shall provide by law, a general and 
uniformruleof taxation, by which all property, both real an^d 
personal, shall pay an equal proportion of the rev^ue ot the 
State, including all public stocks, the property and effects of a 
Corporations, or Associations, of whatever name or device, all 
bonds, mortgages and credits whatever; provided, Imwever, the 
General Assembly may exempt from taxation, personal debts and 
liabilities, burying grounds, public school houses, places kept ex¬ 
clusively for public worship, and also, such personal property, as 
they may think or see proper, not exceeding in value one hun¬ 
dred dollars.” 

In offering that resolution for the consideration of 
the Convention I have to offer a few remarks. I will 
not, because I cannot, as some members have done, 
boast of my illustrious ancestors. I was born of hum 
ble parentage, but as I suppose that 1 can lay claim to 
be a descendant of Old Adam, I have never taken the 
trouble to look up my pedigree. Nevertheless I may 
here be permitted to say, that while I regret having, ac¬ 
cording to my humble judgment, to differ from my 
learned colleague, with whom it would give me nuich 
pleasure to agree on all leading Subjects, yet notwit i- 
standing the disparity existing between us, we are at 
liberty to act, each for himself, on this, as on all other 
question.s and although we differ on the present ques¬ 
tion, I have no doubt, but that our constiments will le 
gard such difference, as emanating in the breast ot 
each, from conscientious motives, and will appreciate^ 
our respective votes, as being in accordance with the 
dictates of conscience. 

We have been favored vnih a great many tirgiiments 
pro and con, on the question now under considenition, 
and I am placed much in the situation of the lad who 
acknowledged himself as being ” past redemption. 

The words of the gentleman from Monroe were to 
the effect that we were “ young in the business of ma¬ 
king constitutions.” I; for one, plead gui ty o ns 
impeachment, and acknowledge myself, as it were, 
the youngest, yet I may be excused for intruding upon 
this Convention a few, and but a few observations, ex¬ 
planatory of my views on the subject, whicli has occu¬ 
pied this Convention for a considerable length of time. 

I have proposed the amendment just read, with a 
view of meetLg, to some extent, the wishes of the ma¬ 
jority of this Convention ; and although it does not go 
the full length of meeting my own views, yet 1 would 
vote for it; but whatever its results may be, I alone am 


del .stand on reading it. 

On reference to the second paragraph of rny amend¬ 
ment, it will be found that I have included all proper¬ 
ty, of what nature so ever—of the proviso I shall 
hpreafter speak—and standing as I do, upon the broad 
principles of equality, (which, in my opinion, is the 
only just principle to go upon) I will say, let every 
man bear his proportion of the burthens of the State 
accor ding to his means; no matter whether those 
means are invested in land or merchandise, in banks or 
bonds, or in any other public or private security in 
which he may think proper to make such investment. 

And now one word as to that oft-repeated doctrine 
of public faith. I would put faith and works together, 
and my faith is, that every man shordd be protected in 
the enjoyment of his rights; and my works -would be, 
that he should bear an equal proportion of the burthens 
of the State, no matter what position he might occupy. 
And now a few words relative to the proviso. 

By it 9 . gr 69 t dool of discrotioii is Idt to tho Goueral 
Assembly. Under it they may deduct debts and lia¬ 
bilities, to the amount of the personal property that a 
man owns, and still require bim to pay taxes on his re¬ 
ality. although he may be in debt for part of it. Even 
that would be approaching nearer to justice than the 
law as it at present stands, which is odious in many of 
its features, and in none more so than in its length and 
intricacies, which, in my opinion, are sufficient to con¬ 
sign it to everlasting disgrace and oblivion. 


I would be for having a law by which taxation was 
sought to be imposed, clear and explicit in its terms, 
so as to be capable of being understood by the hum¬ 
blest capacities, and I would apply the same observa¬ 
tion to all laws upon the system of banking. None of 
your laws, containing from 90 to 120 sections, so inter¬ 
spersed (we may say contaminated) with extra and ve¬ 
ry often extraneous terras, which merely go to show 
that it was the work of some person acquainted with 
the phraseology of the law. I for one detest this unne¬ 
cessary repetition, which, in my humble judgment, 
does not go to prove the compiler as either a scholar 
or a man ^possessed of extra common sense. But to 
the matter now before us. , n , f 

I do not think that a man ought to be called upon to 
pay a tax on what he owes, no matter whether the debt 
was contracted for houses or land, yet I propose leav¬ 
ing a discretionary power in the matter with the Gene¬ 
ral Assembly, which I sincerely hope they will soon 
remedy. As regards burial grounds and school houses, 

I do not suppose that any genllemaii here, and but tew 
persons elsewhere, would find fault with their bemg 
exempt. Churches I would tax if in my power, but 
these also I have included in the discretionary power 
which I propose to invest the General Assemb y • 

I would tax churches, not, as some perhaps would be 
found to say, because I am opposed to re igion a 
charge which I would emphatically deny as would 
those acquainted with my general habits and comae ot 
life. But the present was neither the time nor place 
to make professions of religion, which was at all times 
a subject between the creature and Ins 

But I would tax churches for a very diffoient reason, 
and it was this: Suppose that five hundred 
citv of their wealth and affluence raise a chiiich, 
which shall cost them, say $40,000, and you exempt 
that church from taxation. The men of Franklin county 
aUo erect n church at a coat of *20 000 ; wh. e the 
men of Licking erect another at a cost of only $10,000 
—all of which are exempt from taxation. Now the 
men of Franklin and Licking invest the balance of thei 

















792 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


money in merchandise or agriculture, lor which they 
are required to contribute to the State revenue ; while 
men of this city have $20,000 more exempt than those 
of Franklin, and $30,000 more than those of Licking ; 
and why should that difference exist? For no other 
reason than the simple one, that the men of Cincinnati, 
having refined tastes, had built a splendid house—while 
those of Franklin and Licking, being humble in their 
pretensions, prefer investing their money in another 
way. I say it is not correct, but still, I have also left 
that as a discretionary power with the General Assem¬ 
bly ; believing, as 1 do, that it would accord with the 
views and feelingsof this Convention. 

Again, the Proviso says, “ and such personal proper¬ 
ty as they may think or see proper, not exceeding in 
value one hundred dollars.” 1 propose to give tliem 
this discretion for two reasons, one of which is, tliat 
they may, in all cases, where the tax would not pay 
tile expenses of assessing or collecting it, not put the 
State or county to any expense; and the other is, that 
the assessor or tax gatherer may not be required to 
look into the private wardrobe of every lady of the 
State, as some of this Convention are afraid they may. 
I wish to deal out equal and exact justice to all men ; 
equality in taxation, protection and justice. 1 have 
now to thank the Convention for its kind indulgence, 
while endeavoring to give my views in my own way, 
and it is upon these views my actions shall be gov¬ 
erned. 

The question being on the foregoing proposition of 
Mr. Manon, 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, said, that on yesterday after¬ 
noon he had made a projiosition to the efi’ect, that the 
committee rise and report, with a view to the re-com¬ 
mittal of their report, with instructions to the commit¬ 
tee to report back a proposition embracing property of 
every description, not jirotected from taxation by the 
constitution of the United States, and the faith of the 
State—and he was so unfortunate as not to obtain a ma¬ 
jority on that motion. He had, in consultation with 
several other gentlemen, drawn up a proposition, which 
he should move as a substitute for that proposed by the 
gentleman from Licking [Mr. Manon.] He would 
now move to amend, by striking out all after the word 
" Resolved,” and substituting the following: 

“ That the standing committee on Finance and Taxation, be 
instructed to report, (in lieu of the report by said committee 
heretofore presented,) a section, declaring that the rule of taxa¬ 
tion shall be uniform and equal within the State ot Ohio, and 
shall be levied upon all the property within the State, of every 
kind and description, not exempt from taxation by the constitu¬ 
tion and laws ol the United States, or the good faith of the State of 
Ohio; provided that the legislature may provide a uniform rule- 
exempting from taxation, the property of the State, of counties, 
townships, cities and towns, set apart lor public use, and all 
school houses, places ol burial, and places of worship used exclu¬ 
sively for such purposes, and also the property of individuals, not 
exceeding two hundred dollars in value.” 

It would be seen, if gentlemen would take the trou¬ 
ble to consider the proposition for a moment, that it 
first proposed to subject all property to a uniform rule 
of taxation; excepting only such as was exempt by the 
constitution and the laws of the United States, or by 
the good faith of the State. Now he was satisfied that 
there was no gentleman on that floor, however anxious 
he might be that the State should avail herself of every 
Bource of revenue, who desires that any thing shall be 
done to involve the State in difficulty or disgrace. By 
his proposition, the duty was imperatively imposed 
upon the legislature, by levying such a tax, by a uni¬ 
form rule, upon all the property not protected by the 
constitution of the United States. Now he hoped that 
no gentleman would desire, that they should deliberate¬ 
ly enact, or ordain, the assertion of a power, which 
would bring the constitution of the State of Ohio into 
conflict with that of the United States. No gentleman 
had yet stated his desire to do so, but gentlemen on the 
other side contend for tlie right of State to tax all pro¬ 
perty within the State, and that they incurred no dan¬ 
ger of such a conflict by insisting on that right. Flis 


proposition would meet the views of sucli gentlemen, 
as by it the right to tax such property was vested in the 
legislature, to try the question if they thought proper. 
Again, they differed as to the extent to which they 
could impose a tax upon the State bonds without viola¬ 
ting the public faith of tlie State of Ohio. If gentle¬ 
men who contend it can be done, are right, then his 
proposition conferred on the Legislature the right to do 
so. If these bonds were not protected by express lavv. 
and by the regard which ought to be had for the public 
faith of the State; it was competent for the Legislature 
to tax them, and then leave the parties interested to 
their remedies; not as a question between the State and 
her citizens, but between the Legisluture and the Fed¬ 
eral Governnitmt. The proposition goes still further, 
for it proposed that the Legislature may by law pro¬ 
vide for a like uniform rule, exempting from taxation 
the property of towns, counties, and municipal corpo¬ 
rations; and such school houses and places of worship 
as may be used exclusively for such purposes. Although 
; he was one of those who would exclude places ot pub¬ 
lic worship from taxation, yet he wmuld not exempt 
the property of church corporations, from which they 
derived revenue. He would not, if there w^as in this 
city, as there was in New York, a church corporation 
with immense property, allow' it to be exempt. He 
would be for taxing all corporations, as such, unless the 
property and revenue was set apart exclusively for the 
purposes of municipal, religious or eleemosynary. 
The proposition went a step further, for it proposed to 
exempt the property of individuals not exceeding two 
hundred dollars in value. He would be for exempting 
the last cow, or perhaps the wash-tub of the poor wid¬ 
ow, as well as the little property of individuals in the 
humbler walks ol life. That proposition had been 
drawn up with a view of satisfying gentlemen on both 
sides of the house. Surely it was not right to attempt 
forcing upon them a proposition which, in express 
terms, as a whole, was perfectly odious to a large num¬ 
ber of gentlemen on the floor. If the gentlemen op¬ 
posed to those on his [Mr. Green’s] side of the house 
were right—if hereafter, as had been remarked by the 
gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] that the 
tendency of the courts should be to shift their ground, 
and that they should decide that the money borrowed 
was not protected by the constitution—then that pro¬ 
position would give the right to levy the tax. But, in 
case the courts shall adhere to their decision, he pre¬ 
sumed that no gentlemen would desire that the Legisla¬ 
ture of the State shall be placed in the humiliating po¬ 
sition described by the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. 
Archbold.] The gentleman from Erie, [Mr. Taylor,] 
to whom he had submitted the proposition, objected, 
because it was not broad enough. He would ask him, 
(and he should apologize for anticipating him,) where 
was the difference between incorporaiinginto the con¬ 
stitution a clause which would make it the imperative 
duty of the Legislature, by general language, to do a 
wrong act, and specifying in terms the act itself in the 
instrument? Did it not amount to the same thing? 
Let them then place the proposition in such a form, as 
that if gentlemen who contended against those on his 
[Mr. Green’s] side were right, the power would be 
conferred on the Legislature, who would take care to 
use it, and il those on bis side were wrong, the proposi¬ 
tion embracing the property exempt from taxation, 
which would be preserved. 

Mr. TAYLOR had listened to the gentleman from 
Ross, hoping that the interview to which he had re¬ 
ferred, had for its result the production of a much 
clearer and more ample proposition than the one now 
submitted. He liked the words of the proposition, ex¬ 
cept those having reference to “ exemptions,” and “the 
good faith of the State,” The good faith of the State, 
a 'erm undefined in its limits, boundless in its vague¬ 
ness. Hitherto its application had been limited to 
State bonds, anon it would be extended to banking 
stock. Where were they then, but at sea again, and 















CONVENTION REPORTS 


793 


on the same question. Tlio whole subject was propo¬ 
sed to be thro wn into the arena of legislation, as it was 
before, under that clause, with the exemption it con¬ 
tained, not a single })ropo8ition or discussion, which had 
or may hereafter take place iiei’e, would be final. His 
sincere belief was, that the peoj)Ie of the State desired 
a constitution which should settle the common basis of 
taxation. They were tired of the manner in which 
this subject had been treated by the General Assembly 
of the State of Ohio. The present proposition virtual¬ 
ly left the whole matter discretionary with the Legis¬ 
lature. The gentleman from Ross had indeed remark¬ 
ed that the Legislature, at some future period, would 
perhaps proceed to place those bonds, and perhaps 
bank stock also, on the tax list. Still the Legislature 
—that same body which had dissatisfied the people by 
former and existing exemptions. If the gentleman 
from Ross would so modify his proposition that all the 
property of the State should be embraced within it— 
omitting the specification; or if they could find lan¬ 
guage to convey the same idea, so much the better; but 
let there be no discretionary powers vested in the Le¬ 
gislature. We should thus be furnished with a gener¬ 
al basis for taxation, while the Legislature would be 
simply an administrator with the will annexed. Re¬ 
move, then, the subject from the legislative arena , let 
us establish a constitutional basis—a rule of taxation 
which should be imperative, and which w’ould impose 
upon the Legislature of the State an imperative duty. 
And then, if any citizen claimed exemption, let him 
make it a subject of judicial inquiry, not of legislative 
enactments. He did not suppose that a decision was 
attainable on the matter that evening. He would (for 
information only) read a resolution which had been 
drawn up by him in the course of the day : 

"Resolved, That tlie committee on Finance and Taxation be 
instructed to report a general provision (in lieu of Sections 2, 3 
and 4 of the report heretofore presented,) making it the imper¬ 
ative duty of the General Assembly to tax all the property own¬ 
ed or held within the State of Ohio; admitting no exceptions to 
the rule, unless the committee see fit to propose them in a spe¬ 
cial proviso.’’ 

If gentlemen holding these bonds, orconcerned in 
bank stocks, wish to test the facts and the law; if they 
rely on the justice of their case, why will they not go 
to Columbus—or to that great and just tribunal at 
Washington; where if they establish their right, we 
shall have no objection whatever. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD inquired if it would be in order 
before the question was put, to offer an amendment to 
the proposition of the gentleman from Ross. 

The PRESIDENT said that the proposition was not 
then under consideration; the motion being on the 
amendment. 

Mr. LARWiLL demanded a division of the ques¬ 
tion. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
word “resolved ; ” Pending which, 

On motion of Mr. KIRKWOOD, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


THURSDAY, December 19, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjouement. 

Mr. LAWRENCE asked and obtained leave to re¬ 
cord his vote on the proposition submitted yesterday, 
! by Mr. Case, of Licking, relative to taxing United States 
j bonds; and on being called, voted, “ nay.” 

Mr. STANTON asked and obtained leave to record 
his vote on the same proposition, and his name being 
called, voted “ aye.” 

Mr. PECK presented a petition from R. H. Smith 
and two hundred and twenty-four adult male, two 
I hundred and forty adult female, and thirty one minor 
; citizens of Belmont county, Ohio, praying that a clause 
be inserted in the new constitution, prohibiting the 
Legislature from passing any law legalizing the traffic 
in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. QUIGLEY presented a petition from 1. W. 


Knowles and fifty-one others, citizens of Columbiana 
county, Ohio, on the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the Select 
Committee on the subject of rctailitig spirituous liquors. 

Mr. REEMELIN presented a petition from George 
W. Shurrager and three hundred and eleven other citi¬ 
zens of Cincinnati, Ohio, praying the engraftment of a 
clause into the new Constitution, the effect of which 
shall be the listing for taxable purposes of ail individual 
and corporate property within the State, without dis¬ 
crimination. 

At the request of Mr. Reemelin, said petition was. 
read at the Clerk’s desk, as follows; 

“ To the Honorable Members of the Constitutional Convention of 

Ohio ; 

Whereas, It is the bounden duty of ail good governments, in 
levying taxes for their support, to assess upon all property its. 
equal proportion of the burthens necessary for the support ol 
government, and believing that the exemption of any particular 
species of property from taxation is not only wrong in principle, 
and manifestly unjust, but it is in direct conflict with individual 
rights, and is subversive of the great principle of equality, whichr 
teaches that all should share the burthens of the Government, in 
proportion to the amount of their property, protected by said 
Government, without reference to what purposes said property 
is devoted. Therefore, we, the undersigned, citizens of Hamil¬ 
ton county, do respectfully ask your Honorable body to engraft 
in the new Constitution, a clause, tne eflect of which shall be the; 
listing for taxable purposes, of all individual and corporate prop¬ 
erty within the State, without discrimination : And your peti¬ 
tioners will ever,” &,c. 

Mr. REEMELIN said he had looked over the names 
annexed to the petition. They were among them mem¬ 
bers of all denominations of Christians—some of them: 
ministers of the Gospel, and all of them good citizem?. 
and persons of the highest respectability of all rankit-' 
and classes. 

Said petition was then referred to the Standing Com¬ 
mittee on Finance and Taxation. 

Mr. SAWYER said that there was one order yet re¬ 
maining for the action of the committee of the Whole- 
—that of the report of the standing committee on the? 
Judicial Department, which was under consideralioa 
at the time of the adjournment, at Columbus, and hath 
been passed over informally here. He was veiy anx¬ 
ious to expedite business, and get through with the- 
reports, and he would therefore move that the Conven¬ 
tion resolve itself into committee of the whole, on the 
orders of the day. 

The Convention then resolved itself into a commit ¬ 
tee of the whole, on the orders of the day, Mr. Hunter 
in the Chair. 

the judiciary report. 

The CHAIRMAN stated the subject before the com-- 
mittee, to be the seventh section of report No. 1, of the; 
standing committee on the Judicial Department, which; 
was as follows ; 

Sec. 7. Justices of the Supreme Court shall be at least thirty 
years of age at the time of their election. Immediately after 
their first election under this constitution, they shall be classified' 
by lot, so that one shall hold for the term of two years, one for- 
four years, one lor six years and one for seven years. Judges of. 
the courts of common pleas shall have the same qualifications as- 
the Justices of the Supreme Court, and during their respective 
terms shall reside in the district lor which they are elected. Im-- 
mediately after the first election of the Judges of the common/ 
pleas, they shall be classified by lot in each district, so that one 
shall hold for the term of three years, one for five years and one 
for seven years; and at all subsequent elections, the term of each 
Justice of the Supreme Court, and of each Judge of the Court of 
Common Pleas shall be for seven years. 

The question under consideration, at the time of the 
adjournment was stated to be, upon the amendment ol 
Mr. Archbold, to the amendment of Mr. Clark, of 
Lorain. The amendment of Mr. Clark was, so to- 
change the fourth line of the section, that instead of 
reading “ one for three years, one lor four years and one- 
for five years,” it would read, “ one for two years, one 
for three years, and one for four years, and one for five 
years.” To this the amendment of Mr. Archbold had 
been offered, which was to substitute in the place oi 
the .substance stricken out, a provision, “that the Judges 
should be elected every two years.” 

Mr. KIRKWOCiD thought the question before the 



















794 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


committee was upon the amendment of the gentleman 
from Lorain, [Mr. Clark.] He said the committee 
had determined, in effect, by its action upon the pre¬ 
ceding section, that the terras of the .Judges of the Su¬ 
preme Court should be five, instead of seven years, the 
amendment was intended to make their terras of elec¬ 
tion correspond with their terms of service. 

Mr. STILWELL said there was pending at the time 
a question of order, which he had raised, which was 
this. The amendment of the gentleman from Lorain, 
by providing for an increased number of elections, pro¬ 
vided, in fact, for an increased number of judges, which 
was out of order, as being inconsistent with itself, and 
with previous portions of the report that had been act¬ 
ed upon. The report provided for four judges; the 
amendment for the election of five. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD did not feel willing to recognize 
the amendment attributed to him as his own. He did 
not recollect offering any such, and it was totally at 
war with all his opinions, both now and previously. 
He did not wish to say that he had been misreported, 
for the official reporter of the Convention had always 
been in the habit of submitting to him the reports of 
his remarks. He was therefore disposed to believe the 
error to be a typographical one, and that by some trick 
of the types the word “ two ” had been inserted in the 
place of “ five." That certainly would better corres¬ 
pond with his views and opinions. He would there¬ 
fore withdraw the amendment so far as he had any 
right to control it. 

The amendment was withdrawn. The question then 
being on the original amendment, 

Mr. CHAMBERS said if gentlemen insisted that the 
amendment to the sixth section covered the terms of 
the supreme judges, this amendment should pass, as a 
matter of course. 

Mr. STANTON demanded a division of the question. 

Mr. KENNON. What is the object of that? 

Mr. STANTON. To admit of different terms than 
those proposed in the amendment, if it should be iiec- 
essar}’-. 

Mr. KENNON. Are not the terms as good as they 
can be under the circumstances ? 

Mr. STANTON. We might determine to elect the 
whole bench of judges once in five years. 

Mr. CURRY thought the amendment to section six 
bad no reference to judges of the supreme court. That 
•section as amended reads, “ All judges otliei than those 
provided for in this constitution shall be elected by the 
•electors of the judicial district for which they may be 
•created, but not for a longer term of office than five 
years." 

He supposed this section only to ap[)ly to the judges 
of those courts not created and provided for in the con¬ 
stitution, but which might be created wdieuever it 
should be deemed necessary by the General Assembly, 
and whose judges would be, in grade, inferior to those 
of the supreme court. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, said that it did not follow, 
as a matter of course, that the terms of the judges pro¬ 
vided for in the seventh section of the report should be 
reduced so as to compare with the amendments made 
iu the preceding section. There wms no connection 
whatever between the provisions of the seventh and 
of the preceding sections. The seventh section pro¬ 
vided for the election and term of service of the judges 
of the supreme court and the courts of common pleas. 
No amendment had, as yet. been made to this section; 
nor did it follow, as a matter of course, that any 
amendment became necessary in order to make its 
provisions conform to those of the previous sections. 
The section stood entirely independent of the previous 
part of the report. 

Mr. GROESBECK was of the opinion that the ques¬ 
tion in regard to the term of the judges of the supreme 
court had been virtually settled by the action of the 
committee upon the sixth section. He thought the 
sense of the majority to be that no term of any judge 
should extend beyond five years 


I Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE was of the same opinion. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, read from the published re¬ 
ports, in regard to the condition of the question at the 
time of the adjournment at Columbus. 

Mr. MASON said he had, while section six was un¬ 
der discussion, been opposed to any debate in regard 
to the terms of office of the supreme judges. He did 
not think the vote upon that section effected the ques¬ 
tion of the tenures of other judges, otherwise provided 
for. 

Mr. McCORMICK said the debate upon that section 
had taken a very wide range, and the entire ground of j 
the tenure of judicial office had been gone over by the 
two gentlemen from Franklin, [Messrs. Stanbery and 
Swan,] and by many others. The whole merits of long 
and short terms had been discussed, and he hoped wo 
should not be forced to go over it again. ' 

Mr. MASON. Was there not a proposition to com- ! 
promise upon the period of six years ? | 

Mr. McCORMICK. There were various proposals i 
made for compromise, the result of which appeared to 
be, that the Convention would not go over the term of 
five years, at any rate. He hoped that it would be ad¬ 
hered to. 

Mr. STANTON said the gentleman from Adams 
[Mr. McCormick] was mistaken. It was true that the 
whole ground had been gone over, but he did not be¬ 
lieve that it was intended that all the terms of all the 
judges were fixed. 

Mr. VANCE. The question has not been settled, 
neither in regard to the supreme court nor the court of 
common pleas. 

Mr. STANTON. I know it. But still I have felt as 
if it was more nearly settled iu regard to the common 
pleas than the supreme court. I have said that [ would 
vote against this constitution if it fixed the terms of 
service of the judges of the supreme court at less than 
seven years. 

Mr. REEMELIN would go again into the discussion 
if gentlemen desired it. He would not vote to give 
any man power in the State of Ohio, for over five years. 
Any provision which should do so, would sink this con¬ 
stitution so low, with the people, that the hand of re¬ 
surrection would never reach it. 

Mr. MITCHELL thought the question had been de¬ 
finitely settled as to the terms of all the judges. 

Mr. EWART hoped the committee would proceed 
to the question in order. He thought time enough had ' 
been taken up in this desultory discussion. 

Mr. HOLT asked the Chair to state the question. 

The question being on striking out of the fourth line 
of the seventh section the words “for four years, one 
for six years, and one for seven years,” the same was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting in the blank, 
the words, “for two years, one for three years, one for 
four years, and one for five years,” the same was 
agreed to. 

Mr. MANON moved to strike out from the first and 
second lines of the section, the following words, “ shall 
be at least thirty years of age at the time of their elec¬ 
tion.” 

Mr. MANON hoped the amendment ho had moved 
would prevail. For one he was always fond of giving 
his vote in favor of taking off restrictions upon all can¬ 
didates, except that they shall possess the qualifications 
of electors. He was willing to trust to the wisdom and 
discretion of the people iu all matters of this kind. If 
there is a young man among us, who is qualified to 
discharge the duties of the judgeship, and in whom the 
people have confidence, and you desire to elect him, 
though he be but twenty-one years and one day of age! 

I will say yea and amen to it. To say that a man 
must be thirty or thirty-five years old, before he knows 
anything, is to my mind supremely ridiculous. Sir; 
some of the best men in the country, are not more 
than twenty-three or twenty-four years old ; yet you 
would say that a man must be thirty before he can be a 









CONVENTION REPORTS 



judge of the supreme court. Sir; William Pitt was 
only nineteen years of age when he defended the cause 
of the Aiiiericnn colonies in the British Parliament, 
and only twenty-two when he was made Chancellor of 
the Exchequer. 

Mr. GROESBECK was in favor of the proposition of 
the gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Manon] and thought 
it should be adopted. He saw no danger in leaving 
the question of age, as well as of other qualifications, 
to the wisdom of the people, who would undoubtedly 
exercise the proper discretion in the selection of their 
judicial officers. In this connection he had taken oc¬ 
casion to look into the constitutions of the other States 
of the Union. In thirty-one States not more than three 
or four, or at most five, impose any restrictions in re¬ 
gard to the age of judicial officers. . Besides, look at 
our own constitution, and it will be found that when 
we left the election of judges to the General Assembly 
there was no such restriction such as is now sought to 
be imposed upon the people. I wish, in this matter, 
to express our confidence in the judgment and discre¬ 
tion of the people, and 1 know that whatever trust of 
this description is imposed upon them v/ill not be abused. 
We have in this county a judge who is not yet thirty 
years of age, and I feel constrained to sa}:^ that, in my 
apprehension, he has filled the place in such a manner 
as has been honorable to himself and satisfactory to the 
community, and it will occur not unfrequently, that a 
young man will be found to perform the duties of an 
official position with an energy and vigor not so often 
found in men of more mature age. In such places des¬ 
patch is very desirable, and men of twenty-seven or 
twenty-eight years of age are usually more capable of 
acquiring those habits so essential in a judge, than 
when they come upon a bench at a later period. He 
would move to amend by inserting in the blank to be 
made, if the words shall be stricken out, the words 
“ shall po.ssess the qualifications of electors.” 

Mr. MANON accepted the amendment. 

Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE said that the, friends of 
measures of this kind were usually charged with being 
innovaters. He was, however, m favor of the amend¬ 
ment. Not only so, but he was especially instructed 
upon the subject. The people on the Western Reserve 
are essentially a Democratic people, to whatever party 
they may belong. Many of them belong to the Demo¬ 
cratic party, and those who belong to the Whig party 
are as Democratic as their associates in other parts of 
the State will permit. But I will read, as the main 
reason for my vote upon this question, from the in¬ 
structions passed by the Convention by which I was 
nominated. They are as follows ; 

“That we believe no qualifications for the holding of any office 
in the State, should be prescribed by the constitution, except 
those of a qualified elector of the age of twenty-one years, and 
a residence in the locality where elected.” 

The amendment was then adopted. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to amend the eleventh 
line, by striking out the word “seven,” and inserting 
the word “five,” so that that clause of the section would 
read, “ the term of each Justice of the Supreme Court, 
and each Judge of the court of common pleas, shall 
be for five years.” Which was agreed to. 

Mr, KIRKWOOD moved to amend the sixteenth 
line, by striking out the word “ regular,” and insert¬ 
ing the word “annual;” so that the clause would 
read: “ The vacancy may be filled by appointment by 
the Governor, until it shall be supplied at the next an¬ 
nual election.” 

Mr. MASON had no objection to the amendment, if 
it was only sufficiently definite. He wanted it fixed so 
that the office should be filled at the next election after 
the vacancy occurs. 

Mr. REEMELIN was in favor of leaving this matter 
to the General Assembly. 

The amendment was then adopted. 

Sec. 8. The Justices of the Supreme Court, and the judges of 
the court of common pleas, shall, at stated times, receive lor their 
services an adequate compensation, not less than two thousand 


795 


dollars per annum each, for the Justices of the Supreme Court,and 
eighteen hundred dollars per annum each, for the judges of the 
court of common pleas, which shall not be diminished during 
their term of office; but they shall receive no fees or perquisites, 
nor hold any other office of profit or trust under the authority of 
this State, or the United States. All votes for either oi them, for 
any elective office except a judicial office, under the authority of 
this State, given by the General Assembly or the people, shall be 
void. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to amend by striking out 
of the third, fourth and filth lines, the following words: 
“ An adequate compensation, not less than two thou¬ 
sand dollars per annum each, for the Justices of the 
Supreme Court, and eighteen hundred dollars per an¬ 
num each, for the judges of the courts of common 
pleas,” and to insert, in lieu thereof, the words, “ Such 
compensation as may be provided by law.” 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to amend the part proposed 
to be stneken out, by striking out in the third line the 
word “ less,” and inserting in the place thereof, the 
word “ more,” so that the part amended should read: 
“ not more than two thousand dollars.” 

Mr. REEMELIN said that all he had to say to his 
friend from Morgan was that he was afraid he would 
get his foot into it instead of out. He would ask that 
gentleman, who had had some experience as a member 
of the General Assembly, if when a maximum was fix¬ 
ed, that body did not always come up to it. He was 
pleased with the proposed amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Adams [Mr. McCormick.] He wanted to 
see every officer in the State, from the Supervisor up 
to the Governor—or from the Supervisor down to the 
Governor, as the case might be—rest, in regard to their 
salaries, upon one common foundation—thus avoiding 
too great particularity and multiplicity in the provis¬ 
ions of the constitution. 

He said it must be obvious, that in process of time, 
there must be increase in the salaries of officers in the 
State. The cost of living would increase and other 
expenses in proportion, and what was very large at one 
time might be very small at another. He would give 
an instance; Martin Luther was professor in a college 
of Wittemburg in Saxony, at a salaiyof eighty guilders 
per annum. Upon a certain time, the Elector of Sax¬ 
ony, as he said, out of his great love for the person of 
the reformer, his respect for his abilities and his admi¬ 
ration for his virtue was pleased to add to his salary the 
sum of forty guilders, making in all one hundred and 
twenty guilders—about forty eight dollars per annum. 
But times have since changed. The increase of specie 
from Spain—the changes that have taken place in com¬ 
mercial affairs, and other causes have had the effect so 
to raise salaries in that country, that a professor now 
receives from twelve hundred to two thousand guilders 
per year. He would ask gentlemtn if, when the gold 
of California comes pouring into the country, when 
railroads are finished and men travel more, spend more 
and live higher, salaries must not necessarily be raised. 
So in after fluctuations, tire time may come when they 
may be too high, and may need the legislative inter¬ 
position to bring them down to the standard of other 
things. 

Mr. HAWKINS was not disposed to controvert the 
position that Legislatures were prone to come up to the 
maximum, rather than keep down the minimum, there¬ 
fore he desired that the maximum shoidd be determin¬ 
ed. He would ask if we do not exhibit as much dis¬ 
trust of the Legislature by fixing a minimum as by fix¬ 
ing a maximum ? Gentlemen seem to be afraid that 
Legislatures will cut down salaries too lovv. ^ There 
may be times of great plentitude of money, it is true, 
when salaries may seem too small; but there may al¬ 
so be periods of great public distress, when they will 
be as much too high. He held that our public officers 
ought not to have the means to set an example of ex¬ 
travagance. He knew something of the history of sal- 
aries,\s well as the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 
Ref:melix.] He knew men who thought once they 
were doing pretty well to get twelve dollars per month 
in teaching school, who after they had got to be eleva- 















796 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


ted to the office of Auditor or Treasurer realized eight, 
ten or twelve hundred dollars per year, while their 
neighbors, of e(]ual talents atid intelligence, could not 
clear half so much. The people cannot understand the 
reason for this. And as for the gentleman’s railroads 
—if they add to the cost of traveling, we had better 
take them up. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The cost of traveling is undoub¬ 
tedly less for the same distance, but the lacilities for 
traveling being increased, people will travel more, and 
of course spend more in traveling. 

Mr. McCORMlCK concurred in the views of the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] and desired 
to state, in a few w’ords, the reasons for the amend¬ 
ment he had proposed. He was satisfied that the sal¬ 
aries as they stand in the section are not tco thick. 
We are making progress in the State of Ohio, not only 
in learning and the application of science to the pur¬ 
poses of life, but in refinement, in luxury, and in things 
nut absolutely necessary for the mere purpose of exis- 
ence, and it is not necessary to argue that men who 
hold office must live as well and in the same manner, 
and with the same expenses with men who do not hold 
offices, and that they should receive compensation ade¬ 
quate to that purpose. I object to the whole system of 
fixing or even suggesting limits. If we fix a maximum 
or a minimum here, the Legislature will instantly go 
up or come down to it. If left to itself, that body will 
exercise its discretion, and it would be far better left 
to them to increase or diminish, as the exigences of 
the time shall seem to dictate. Besides, the fixing of 
salaries by fundamental law will be found, on trial, to 
be odious to the people, as showing an unnecessary 
distrust of their wisdom and discretion; they have the 
riglit, rather than we, to say what shall bo the salaries 
of their officers. He believed they would be always 
willing to put their servants on a respectable footing. 

He did not believe the people to be so much smitten 
with the idea of low prices, as to want to cut down 
the pay of judges unreasonably low. He was aware 
that if the salaries were reduced from what they are— 
about twelve hundred dollars for judges of the com¬ 
mon pleas, to four or five hundred, the competition 
for those places would be infinitely greater than it is 
now. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. It would be a regular wholesale 
competition. 

Mr. McCORMlCK. So I was going to observe. At 
the present salaries, not one half the members of the 
bar in practice, are willing to go upon the bench; re¬ 
duce it, and there is a class who neither have nor de¬ 
serve business, would enterinto the scramble, and their 
name is legion. He had no doubt the Legislature 
would consent to pay such a price as would bring into 
the service, the best men of the profession, and keep 
the office out of the reach of such men as ought not to 
come upon the bench, under any circumstances. 

Mr. LOUDON had on another occasion delivered Ins 
views. He may have gone too far at that time ; but 
although ho v as in favor of leaving the question of 
amount to the Legislature, he w'as not in favor of high 
salaries. The people understand their own interests, 
and if at any time five dollars shall be worth no more 
than one dollar is now, the whole thing could be regu¬ 
lated by law. He w’as opposed to the amendment of 
his friend from Morgan [.Mr. Hawkins] for he knew 
that if we fixed a limit, the Legislature would come 
right to it. He said, there was one remark however, 
of his friend from Adams, that he did not like. He 
spoke of a legion of small men of the bar who would 
seize upon office at any price. Now he did not like to 
hear such remarks. 

Mr. McCORMlCK inquired of the gentleman if there 
was not a class of men down about Decatur and Slick- 
away.in the county of^Brown, who, if the office of judge 
were thrown open to those who would take it at two 
or three hundred dollars, would get admitted to the 
bar and become candidates. i 


Mr. LOUDON said he felt bound, on this floor, to de¬ 
fend all his constituents. He felt bound to say that the 
legal practitioners of his county were all lawyers and 
all gentlemen. 

The question being on the amendment of Mr. Haw¬ 
kins, Mr. McCORMlCK demanded a division of the 
question. 

The question tlien being on striking out the word 
“ more,” the motion was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
McCormick, Mr. MASON demanded a division of the 
question. 

The question then being on striking out, prevailed. 

The amendment was then inserted. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to insert in the fifth line, 
after the word “ diminished,” the words “nor increas¬ 
ed.” / 

Mr. LARSH thought the effect of the amendmeiit 
would be to produce inequality in the salaries of offi¬ 
cers. Its effects might be that some judges would be 
serving at one salary, others at a different one. 

Mr. REEMELIN said the object sought to be attain¬ 
ed was to prevent collision between members of the 
Legislature and of the Judiciary. He had been a 
member of the General Assembly and was fully aware 
of the solicitations and influence brought to bear upon 
members, to induce them to vole for an increase of 
judicial salaries. If it is right not to diminish, it is also 
right not to increase. 

Mr. HAWKINS said there was a remedy always at 
hand for those public servants who found their sala¬ 
ries too low. He recollected the advice that was given 
by a member of Congress to a chaplain in the Navy, 
who complained of the inadequate compensation paid 
to gentlemen of his profession in the service. “ Bir,” 
said he, “ I deeply sympathize with your unfortunate 
condition, and will tell you how your brethren can se¬ 
cure an efficient and effectual remedy. It is this, you 
can resign, and I advise you to do it.” 

The question being on the amendment, the same was 
adopted, on division—yeas 45, nays 34. 

Section nine was read, and passed without amend¬ 
ment. 

Sec. 10. The clerks of courts shall be elected by the electors, 
in such manner and for such term, as may be fixed by law 

Mr. CLARK moved to strike out all after the word 
“electors,” and add in the place of the words stricken 
out, the words “for the term of three years.” 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend the amendment, by 
inserting after the word “electors,” the words “of each 
county,” which amendment was accepted by Mr. 
Clark. 

Mr. RANNEY said it was just as reasonable to leave 
open the the term of the judges as of the clerks. He 
thought the people demanded a reduction of the term 
of office, and he hoped the amendment would prevail. 
He knew no reason why the clerk of the court should 
enjoy a much longer term of office than any other coun¬ 
ty officer. The amendment gave him one year more, 
which he did not object to, in consideration of the time 
it might be necessary for him to acquire a knowledge 
of his duties. 

Mr. McCORMlCK desired, before the question was 
taken upon striking out, to perfect the section. As it 
now 8 ood, the section was veiy indefinite as to how 
extensive should be the jurisdiction or the constituency 
of this officer. He supposed that the object was to pro¬ 
vide one clerk for each county. He would therefore 
move to amend by inserting after the word “courts,” in 
the first line, the words “fur each county;” and after 
the word “elected,” in the same line, the words “by 
the electors thereof.” 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE explained, that this very 
question, as to the number of clerks, was considered at 
length in committee; and the difficulties thickened up¬ 
on them, so that they were constrained to compromise 
upon the matter as reported in this section. They saw 
that one clerk in each county, might be sufficient ibr 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


797 


many counties, whilst other counties would require a 
plurality—a clerk for each court. He recollected that 
the section was left purposely in the shape now pre¬ 
sented, in order that the Legislature might adjust the 
matter according to the wants and exigencies of the 
people. 

Mr. MASON said the committee had more difficulty 
in fixing up this short section, than could ever occur to 
the mind. And finally, as a matter of compromise, 
they put it into the form before us—leaving the whole 
subject to be regulated by law. He considered, that 
if it should be thought advisable to fix the term of this 
office, it would be well to make it correspond with the 
terms of the judges. He would not be particular. He 
referred again and more particularly to the difficulties 
in which the subject was involved in the committee; 
uud whilst he would be willing to acquiesce in any de- 
cesion to which the committee of the Whole might 
come, he warned them, that, if they got into a minute 
consideration of this subject, they W'ould not get out of 
it so easily, perhaps, as some might imagine. The 
duration of the term, however, might be fixed, without 
affecting the rest of the section; and with reference to 
that he repeated his suggestion, that it would most 
naturally conform to the term of the judges. The du¬ 
ties of the clerk of any court, were now, and always 
would be, so diversified, and responsible, that he 
would think the term of three years, would be too 
short for a man to qualify and perform well. He rath¬ 
er thought it best not to insert any term ; though he 
cared not much about it. One thing he knew; that 
whatever term the Legislature might fix upon, they 
might change it with facility, if it were found not to 
work well. The work of the Convention could not be 
changed so easily. 

Mr. MORRIS moved to amend the amendment of the 
gentleman from Lorain, [Mr. Clark] by striking out 
“ three ” and inserting “ five.” 

Mr. McCORMICK suggested that this amendment 
was out of order. 

The CHAIRMAN was of the opinion that the first 
question would be upon the motion to strike out from 
the amendment of the gentleman from Lorain the word 
three,” and insert the word “ five.” 

Mr McCORMICK intended to perfect that part of 
tlie section proposed to be stricken out. 

The CHAIRMAN perceived that the gentleman’s 
proposition did not eftect any part of the section pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out. It was not entertained. 

Mr. MANON should favor the proposition of the gen¬ 
tleman from Lorain [Mr. Clark.] He desired that 
the term of this office should be limited. He would leave 
ail the rest to the Legislature. He would favor noth¬ 
ing in the section more specific than to define the time 
that the clerks shall hold office. He did not pretend 
to know the practice in other counties, but he could 
tell how it was in Licking county. It was the case 
there, that, if a man filled an office pretty well, he was 
pretty sure of being re-elected. Six years was long 
enough for any man to serve in any place, if it were 
profitable, and if it were not profitable, the officer him¬ 
self would consider it much to long, and he would like 
to be able to reach a bad officer certainly as early as at 
the end of three years. 

Mr. RANNEY had very good evidence that the Judi¬ 
ciary committee were not unanimous in their judgment 
upon this section. He had bestowed his best refiec- 
tions upon this section, and he did not believe that it 
would meet the contingencies required ; and whenever 
it should be in order, he intended to strike out the 
whole, aud insert what he would now read, 

He read as follows: 

“ There shall be elected in each of the counties of this State, by 
the electors thereof, one county clerk, who shall hold his office 
for the term of three years, and until his successor is elected and 
qualified, and who shall be the clerk of all the courts of record 
held therein; provided, that the legislature may provide for the 
election, in any county, of a clerk for each of said courts.” 

This would fix the general rule, that there should be 


elected one county clerk lor each county. He was 
aware that in some of the more populous counties', it 
might be advisable to elect a clerk for each of the 
courts held in said counties, and for those cases he 
should propose to leave it for the legislature to provide. 
But, in the great majority of the counties, there was no 
propriety in electing but one officer of this kind. The 
great convenience of investing all these duties in one 
man, would occur to any gentleman upon the reflection 
that all these court records have to be examined fre¬ 
quently, and frequently in diflerent courts. Another 
reason for this rule was, that when you give to one man 
the clerkship of all the courts held in his county, you 
can cut down his com[>ensati')n much easier than where 
you have these several offices split up and divided 
amongst several incumbents. He proposed that the 
term of this office should be for three years. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE, (in his seat.) What will 
you do for the district courts? 

Mr. RANNEY. I am asked what I would do with 
the district courts. I will say to the gentleman from 
Medina, that I hope before we get through, we shall 
have none of them. 

Mr. MORRIS thought the term of five years was not 
too long, for the reason that it would reqtiire an inex¬ 
perienced officer some two or three years to become 
acquainted with the business of his office. 

Mr. KENNON hoped the amendment, and the amend¬ 
ment to the amendment, would both fail, though he 
did not regard it as important that the term of ” three,” 
or any other number of years, should be fixed here, 
he did not know whether this would be the best policy 
for the Common Pleas, or for any other court. But one 
thing he knew, that it took an inexperienced man a 
long time of practice before he could discharge the du¬ 
ties of his office well. He would say, it would require 
more than three years for that, others might say that it 
would not take so long, and they might be right and he 
wrong. But what he wanted was this: that the term 
of the office, the manner of the election, and the man¬ 
ner of discharging the duties of these offices, should 
be all left to the Legislature. And could we not afford 
to confide this to the Legislature? It was but a very 
small matter, and he was very sure that their knowl¬ 
edge and experience of the times in which they were 
to act, would qualify them better than we could now 
be qualified to direct in these things. 

Mr. LARWILL was not disposed to be tenacious 
upon the subject, but if this term were made short, he 
supposed the people would be more carelul to choose 
a man who would be qualified by such habits of busi¬ 
ness as would enable him to go into his office and dis 
charge its duties at once. He trusted that the proposi¬ 
tion for three years would prevail. 

Mr. Morris’ amendment was now rejected, and the 
question recurred upon Mr. Clark’s amendment. 

Mr. MASON called for a division of the question. 

The CHAIRMAN. The first question, then, was 
upon striking out all after the word -‘electors.” 

The Convention refused to strike out. 

So the amendment was lost. 

Mr. BROWN, ot Athens, proposed to amend the sec¬ 
tion by inserting, after the word ” the,” in the first line, 
the words '‘county clerks and,” so that it would read, 
” the county clerks and clerks of courts,” &c. 

The mutiou being entertained by the Chairman, 

Mr. B. said he considered it important that these of¬ 
ficers should be known as county clerks, excepting the 
clerks of municipal courts, and courts of peculiar ju¬ 
risdiction. 

Mr. REEMELIN desired that members of the legal 
profession would give their attention to the propriety 
of separating the ministerial from the judicial duties of 
these County Clerks, and he referred to the celebrated 
“Hamilton county case,”_as resulting from the present 
combination of these duties. 

Mr. BROWN explained. He had deemed it almost 
indispensable that there should be such an officer as 











798 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


county clerk. Taking the section with his amendment, 
such other duties might be assigned to the county clerk 
as the Legislature might see proper—such as might be 
found convenient in practice. This, he believed, was 
the case in the State of New York. He considered 
that the importance of having a clerk of that name 
must be obvious to every mind. 

Mr. McCORMICK said it seemed to him that this 
was not the proper place to introduce an amendment 
providing for the creation of a new county officer. 

Mr. BROWN, (in his seat.) This wasnotan amend¬ 
ment providing for another county officer. 

Mr. McCORMICK. The auditor and treasurer ol the 
county were still unprovided for, but these clerks were 
to be county officers, to perform county business, apart 
from their judicial duties. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLB, (in his seat.) The county 
officers were all provided for in the report of the Exe¬ 
cutive Committee. 

Mr. McCORMICK. That was the proper place for 
them to be provided for. But this was not the proper 
place, because the duties of the officer were not de¬ 
fined in the report. That matter seemed all to be left 
for the Legislature to provide hereafter. He objected 
not that this office should be provided for in the proper 
place—the report which should provide for the organi¬ 
zation of counties. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, had no I'ecollection that the 
office of county clerk had been provided for in any of 
the reports before us; nor had he heard of the proprie¬ 
ty of such an office, till it was just now suggested by 
the gentleman from Athens. He had not yet reflected 
upon the matter. He did not know that he had any 
settled opinions with reference to the propriety of cre¬ 
ating such an office. And even, if it were expedient 
to provide for an officer of this kind, with duties dis¬ 
tinct from those which pertain to the .Judicial Depart¬ 
ment, he did not think this was an appropriate place 
to provide for his election. 

Mr. RANNEY. If in order, he would move to 
strike out the whole of the 10th section, and insert a 
substitute. 

The CHAIRMAN said it woxild not be in order now. 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens. In order that the sense oi 
the committee might be ascertained upon the section, 
he would withdraw his amendment. 

The amendment was accordingly withdrawn. 

Mr. RANNEY then moved to strike out the whole 
of the 10th section, and insert the following: 

“ There shall be elected in each of the counties of this State 
by the electors thereof, one county clerk, who shall hold his of¬ 
fice for the term of three years, and until his successor is elected 
and qualified, and who shall be the clerk of all the courts of re¬ 
cord held therein; provided that the legislature may provide for 
the election in any county, of a clerk for each of said courts.” 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, called for a division of the 
question. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD desired to ofler a substitute for 
a matter proposed by the gentleman from Trumbull 
[Mr. Ranney,] which he read for information, as fol¬ 
lows : 

“There shall be elected a clerk for said court, by the electors 
within the jurisdiction of said court, who shall hold his office for 
the term of three years; shall perform such duties, receive such 
compensation, and be removeable for such cause, and in such 
manner, as may be prescribed by law.” 

And then on the motion of Mr. BATES, which was 
agreed to, 

The Convention took arecess till 3 o’clock. P. M. 

THURSDAY. December 19, 1850. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

Mr, STANTON ofiered the following: 

Resolved^ That when this Convention shall aojoum on-, it 

shall stand adjourned till-, at 9 o’clock. 

Mr. STANTON moved to fill the first blank with the 
words “ Monday next.” 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, proposed ‘‘Tuesday next.” 

Mr. McCORMICK proposed “ Saturday next.’’ 


Mr. McCormick’s proposition was rejected, and the 
question recurred upon the proposision of Mr. Smith, 
of Warren. 

Mr. SAWYER moved to lay the resolution and amend¬ 
ments upon the table, and demanded the yeas and nays 
upon the question, which being ordered, resulted, yeas 
60, nays 23, as follows: 

Yeas.— Messrs!. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, Cook, Florence, Forbes, 
Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groes- 
beck, Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood, Lar- 
will, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, 
McCormick. Norris, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Roll, Sawyer,Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Stebbins, Stilwell, Struble, 
Swift, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson, 
Woodbiiry and President—60. 

Nays— Messrs. Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Collings, Curry, 
Ewart, Ewing, Graham, Hard, Harlan, Hootman, Larsh, Manon, 
Mason, McCloud, Nash, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stanton, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Williams and 
Worthington— 

BOOKS AND DOCUMENTS. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, proposed the following, which 
was adopted: 

Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms be instructed to procure 
from the Secretary of State, for the use of this Convention, three 
copies of Chase’s Statutes of Ohio, three copies of the Local and 
General Laws of Ohio, passed since the year 1835; and three 
copies of the Journals, and all reports made to each branch of the 
General Assembly of Ohio, from the year 1825, up to the session 
of 1849-50 inclusive—so far as the preceding books can be spared 
from the State Library : and, that the resolution heretofore passed 
upon that subject be and it is hereby repealed. 

THE JUDICIARY. 

On motion of Mr. RANNEY, the Convention now 
again went into committee of the whole, Mr. Hunter 
in the Chair, and resumed the c uisideration of the re¬ 
port of the Judiciary committee. The question being 
upon the adoption of Mr. Ranney’s substitute, 

Mr. RANNEY would briefly explain what he under¬ 
stood by the section as it now stands, and the provis¬ 
ion which he had proposed to insert in lieu of it. The 
section reported by the committee, was in this lan¬ 
guage: “The clerk,s of the courts shall be elected by 
the electors, in such manner and for such term as .shall 
be fixed by law.” 

Now, there was provided for .sitting, in each coun¬ 
ty, a county court, and a court of common pleas. 
That would involve the election of two Clerks in each 
county. There was then provided a District court, 
which was to be ambulatory in its character—some¬ 
times sitting here, and sometimes there, as conveni¬ 
ence might dictate. That would involve the election 
of a kind of circuit riding clerk. And then there was 
a Supreme court to sit in different places, and this 
would make a necessity for another circuit riding clerk. 

He thought this was complicating the thing rather 
too much. It was parceling out the clerical duties of 
the Judiciary into so many hands, that he was fearful 
it would be providing for a more “ hungry swarm” 
than what before us before. 

The substitute he which had ofiered, provided a 
general rule lor the election of a county clerk for 
each county; and, unless the Legislature interfere, but 
one would be elected, who should be the clerk of all 
the courts held in his county. But, if the business of 
any county, such as the county of Hamilton, should re¬ 
quire more than one clerk, he had introduced a provi¬ 
so, permitting the Legislature to authorize the elec 
tion of two or three more—a clerk for each of the 
courts which might he held therein, requiring specific 
duties of each. 

Again: in the original section, the tenure of the 
clerks was left entirely open. It was proposed there 
to leave the tenure of this first officer to the county 
entirely open, to be regulated by the Legislature. But 
he had^a very decided opinion upon this subject him¬ 
self, and he supposed the people had. He thought 
this officer should hold only for a reasonable term, and 
that that would be about three years; therefore he had 
provided that the tenure should be three years. Now. 












CONVENTION EEPOETS. 


799 


if tlie committee agreed with him, he hoped they 
would take his substitute. 

There was great dfficulty iu dividing up the clerk¬ 
ship of the several courts, especially between the court 
of common pleas, and the Supreme court. Tlie office 
of clerk of the Supreme court, not being worth much, 
but requiring equal qualifications—the consequence 
was, that we have to spoil one good man in each coun¬ 
ty for this place; though he believed it was true, in 
some instances, that the judges had been careful to 
keep these clerkships together in the hands of one 
man. 

He did not exactly understand the views of the 
gentleman from Hamilton, with reference to the elec¬ 
tion of a clerk whose duties were not to be connected 
with the judiciary. It was true, that we elected for 
this purpose an officer in every county; but he was the 
county Recorder. There was no other business, un¬ 
connected with the Judiciary, which would require a 
clerk in each county. His idea was, that there slnmld 
he no partitioning of the clerkships of the county 
courts of the State. For, if you split them up, and put 
them into ditferent hands, every man must get his liv¬ 
ing by his office ; and if he can’t get it legitimately, he 
will get it illegitimately. In the cities it would prob¬ 
ably be requisite to have a .separate individual for the 
clerk of each court; and if so, the Legislature would 
always be ready to increase the number according to 
the number of the courts. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandoi, was opposed to altering 
the section. But, if a change were to be made, he 
would prefer the former to the latter amendment. He 
was decidedly opposed to the second amendment. 

The gentleman from Trumbull, however, had most 
admirably pointed out the evils of too large an accu¬ 
mulation of offices. He considered it belter, instead 
of creating a new office, to combine the duties of two 
offices in one. He would prefer the smallest number 
of officers, and he would have their duties defined as 
specifically as possible. 

He thought it wrong, at this time, and in this man¬ 
ner, to create any new county offices. He would rath¬ 
er the subject might be allowed to come up in the 
report of another committee; and rather than create 
another officer to discharge the ministerial duties of 
the clerks of the courts, he would blend those minis¬ 
terial duties with the office of Recorder, or some other 
office. 

Mr. McCORMiCK affirmed that the section already 
provided for all that the gentleman from Trumbull 
asked. That gentleman wished for a single county 
clerk in each of the counties; and who did not know 
that more were not necessai'y ? That gentleman want¬ 
ed more, where the business of the courts demanded 
more. The section provided for such cases. But the 
section did not, as the gentleman imagined, fritter 
away these offices, requiring a distinct individual to 
be the clerk of every court, and compelling him to live 
by his office, honestly or dishonestly. The section did 
not provide that each court should have a separate 
clerk; but left it to the Legislature; so that they might 
appoint the same individual to hold the office of clerk 
of every court sitting in his county, or appoint more 
than one clerk in every county, as the necessity of the 
case might demand. This was what the section meant 
now ; and the ^amendment of the gentleman from 
Trumbull, provided for nothing more nor less than 
what was admissible by the section, as it now stood, 
excepting the reduction of the term to three years, and 
changing the name of the office. The amendment did 
not propose a radical change in the section as reported, 
excepting so far as it replaced a question before the 
committee, which has already been voted down by 
them—that vote was equivalent to saying, there shall 
be no term fixed for which these officers shall be elec¬ 
ted. It did not improve the phraseology of the sec¬ 
tion ; and the section even provided for more than the 
amendment—by allowing the Legislature to act as the 
necessity of the case might demand. 


Mr. RANNEY considered that the gentleman from 
Adams, [Mr. McCokmick,] had put a very singular in¬ 
terpretation upon the section. The section provided 
that “ the clerks of the courts should be elected by the 
electors.” But who are the electors? You would 
elect your county court clerk by the electors residing 
within the jurisdiction of said court. But how would 
you get your district clerk ? By electing him, certain¬ 
ly ; for there were no other means of appointment pro¬ 
posed in the section. But who were the electors?— 
The voters of the district. Then how were you to get 
a clerk for the Supreme Court, which, it was contem¬ 
plated, would sit in but very few counties ? 

Mr. KBNNON (iu his seat.) How did you find 
that out? 

Mr. RANNEY (laughingly.) By what you told me.. 
I ask the gentleman from Belmont, if be contemplates 
that the Supreme Court is to sit in every county ? 

Mr. KENNON (in his seat.) I think they will. 

Mr. RANNEY. I think- so too ; but not under your 
system. The Chief Justice was to be elected by the 
State at lai’ge. He was the Grand Mogul of the sys¬ 
tem. The associate judges were to be elected by dis¬ 
tricts; and if any mure were hereafter created, they 
were to be elected by the people at large. 

[Mr. R. here read the provision of the Judiciary com¬ 
mittee’s report in regard to the Supreme Court.] 

Here it was provided that one term should be held in 
each year at the seat of government. 

Mr. KENNON (interposing.) The only difference 
between us was in the different use of terms. We had 
been in the habit of sitting with four judges at the seat 
of government, and calling that the court in bank ; and 
he had been in the habit of considering that the Su¬ 
preme Court ‘which was held by a single judge iu eveiy 
county. 

Mr. RANNEY. The gentleman from Belmont was 
considering the Supreme Court to be one thing ; whilst 
in his report he was calling it another thing. 

Mr. KENNON (in his seat.) It ought not to be call¬ 
ed the Supreme Court. 

Mr. RANNEY. When the time should come to re¬ 
baptize it, he would help to name it over again. But 
how are you to have a clerk for this court? The Leg¬ 
islature could not appoint him. He must be “ elected 
by the electors.” There was no other way ; and in¬ 
asmuch as the jurisdiction of this court was co-ex ten¬ 
sive wuth the State, he could not see how you could ge' 
this clerk without a State election. 

Now you have got in the report of the committee a 
distinct court, called a district court, composed of 
three common pleas judges and one Supreme judge, 
and the clerk of this court must (he supj)Osed) be elec¬ 
ted by the ninth part of the voters of the State. 

He considered that this thing of adopting a sectiors 
of such obscure and doubtful meaning, was even worse 
than legislating in the Constitutional Convention. He 
did not think the section was fairly open to the inter¬ 
pretation which the gentleman from Adams had placed 
upon it. But, if that gentleman had really given the 
ti’ue sense and meaning of the section, he would still 
strike out the whole matter, and put in its place some¬ 
thing that could be uridei'stood—something that would 
say there shall be one clerk in each county, except in 
cases where it may be expedient for the Legislature to 
provide for more. For, if the section was susceptible 
of the interpretation which the gentleman from Adams 
had placed upon it, it was too obscurely worded to be 
understood. 

Mr. MASON said, the gentleman last upon the floor 
had complained of the obscurity of the provision before 
the committee. The provision was, ‘‘ the clerks of 
the courts shall be elected by the electors, in such man¬ 
ner, and for such term, as shall be fixed by law.” This 
language, the gentleman had told us, was so obscurely 
worded, that he could not comprehend it. And the 
gentleman inquired, how it was possible to obtain a 
clerk of the supreme court sitting in Bank, unless all 






800 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


the people of Ohio were to becalledupori to elect him? 
He would say, in reply, that the Legislature might 
provide by law, that the clerk of the court of common 
pleas of any county, in which there shall be held a 
terra of the court in Bank, should act as the clerk of 
that court. And the moment they should make this 
declaration, this great mystery of the gentleman from 
Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] would cease to be a mystery 
any longer. The provision here was a very compre¬ 
hensive one, under which the Legislature might supply 
the Judiciary with all the clerical force which might be 
required for the proper transaction of that sort of busi¬ 
ness. The only question that could be raised against 
it, was, whether the people would be able to select 
men to represent them in the Legislature, of sufficient 
intelligence to make a law providing for the election of 
the clerks of the courts. It might be, that neither the 
General Assembly nor the people would possess the 
intelligence and ability to provide legally for the elec¬ 
tion of these officers; but he did not himself see any 
difficulty in the way of their doing so. 

The gentleman had said that the section was very 
bunglingly drawn; but he could not see in what re¬ 
spect ; nor any grounds for the objection, unless it were, 
that the aid of the honorable gentleman from Trumbull 
was not invoked in the matter. In very appropriate 
language, it expressed the intention of leaving the 
whole matter to the Legislature. Perhaps it was not 
wisest to do so, but that was another matter. The 
proposition was not so very bunglingly worded, but 
that it might be understood as referring the regulation 
of the election, the fixation of the terms of office, the 
compensation, and all other matters relating to the 
duties of these officers, to the General Assembly. 

He preferred disposing of the subject in this way, 
for the reason, that there were peculiar difficulties here 
in the way of going into legislative details; and, be¬ 
sides, there was a most manifest inconsistency in ma¬ 
king a code of laws upon every subject we touch,— 
evincing a most extraordinary confidence in ourselves, 
and a most unjustifiable distrust of all the Legislative 
wisdom of the future. 

Under this section, it was in the power of the Legis¬ 
lature to provide for the appointment of clerks of any 
of the courts, for the election of a clerk in every county, 
and there devolves upon him all the duties which gen¬ 
tlemen desire. 

He did not know whether it was the desire of any 
gentleman to create an officer of the county, entirely 
distinct from the court, charged merely with ministeri¬ 
al duties—such as the issuing of marriage license. 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens, (in his seat.) That was not 
my meaning. 

Mr. MASON. He did not know whether that was 
the intention or not. But there could probably be ad¬ 
duced some weighty considerations in opposition to 
creating such an office. 

He hoped it would be satisfactory to the committee 
to adopt this provision of the report just as it is; for, 
upon the whole, he thought it would be found better 
calculated to work out the ends of justice and econo¬ 
my, than any other that had been suggested. The 
(Tenoral Assembly would be competent, under this 
jirovision, to provide for the election of these officers, 
in every county, and prescribe their duty and compen¬ 
sation; and if they should not hit upon the best ar¬ 
rangement at the first, they could come in at the next 
session, and make the amendments which experience 
might suggest. 

The gentleman from Trumbull, being hostile to the 
appellate district court, could not but give it a kick 
as he passed along. That gentleman was preparing to 
offer a project as a substitute for the whole system re¬ 
ported by the Judiciary committee, and therefore he 
was bound to make it appear as odious as he could, in 
the mean time. But really, there was not one of the 
gentleman’s objections yet stated that had any validity 
in it at all. 


Mr. MORRIS said, he should vote against the amend- j 
rnent. He thought the provision, as originally report- j 
ed, was better than any modification which had been 
suggested; it recognized the jirincijffe of making all 
judicial officers elective by the people. With refer¬ 
ence to the character of the duties of these officers, ^ 
that would have to depend upon the character of the 
courts, which were yet to be organized. Hence, he 
thought all these considerations, in detail, were better 
left to be arranged by the Legislature. 

Mr. RANNEY. The whole argument of the gentle¬ 
man from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] turned upon this, that, 
where there shall be elected a clerk of the common ; 
pleas the Legislature may make him the clerk of the Su¬ 
preme Court, or of the District court; and this, he says, 
is a fair compliance with the Constitutional provision. . j 
which requires that “the clerks of the courts shall be 1 
elected by the electors.” i 

Mr. MASON (in his seat.) Yes sir. i' 

Mr. RANNEY. Suppose then, that the Legislature p 
should say that the Auditor of Franklin county should 
serve as clerk of the Supreme Court of the State, sitting 
in that county,- 

Mr. MASON (interposing.) He could not do so un¬ 
der this constitution; and I reckon the member knows I 

that as well as I do, when there is a direct provis- j 

ion that clerks of courts shall be elected by the people. 

Mr. RANNEY. But not of the courts you would 

make clerks for- ; 

Mr. MASON. Exactly. “ The clerks of the courts” j 
is the phrase. j 

Mr. RANNEY. No, of some court; and then the 4 i 
Legislature can make him the clerk of another court; 
and that is electing him ! But I do not so understand i 

the section. It does not follow, that, because a man I 

has been elected a clerk of one court by the people, ’ 

that the Legislature can make him the clerk of anuth- ^ 

ercourt, by their act. But if this is the intention, that “ 

the General Assembly may come in and make a clerk |. 

by a legislative provision, gentlemen ought to say so; 
and, if this provision is open to such an objection now, 
what may we not expect will be its interpretation here- , 
after ? But the gentleman says, possibly any objec- ! 
tions to this arrangement of the judicial system may 
be traced to the fact that the committee had not the 
help of the gentleman from Trumbull. No sir; you 
did not have the help of the gentleman from Trumbull 
in any portion of that report; ai.d I thank God that you 
did not. 

Mr. MANON, (in his seat.) And so do 1. [Alaugh.] I 

Mr. RANNEY. And so do I, [continued laughter;] ! 

and when you shall come to submit your constitution 
to the people, (if you get your repoit in the constitu¬ 
tion,) you will then be able to determine whether it is 
really a recommendation to have signed that report. 

No, sir; you had not the help of the gentleman from 
Trumbull. But you had the help of some distinguish¬ 
ed gentlemen, standing high in professional life, who 
had a clear conception of every provision which would 
advance the interests of leading members of the pro¬ 
fession, and who have in this report looked much more 
to the interests of the profession than to the interests 
of the masses of the people. 

Mr. MASON, (interrupting.) I would like to ask the 
gentleman whether he supposes it necessary for his 
signature to be attached to every proposition submit¬ 
ted here, in order to insure its successbefore the people? 

Mr. RANNEY. I do not regard it so. If you desire 
information upon that subject, you have it. But if I 
wanted to get the signature of any gentleman which 
would be sure to defeat a proposition before the peo¬ 
ple, I do not know of any gentleman’s name that I 
would select quicker than that of a gentleman I have 
now in my eye. [Some laughter.] I came here as a 
representative of the people, ai>d I am responsible for 
my acts here or elsewhere ; and I did not come here 
after having written over the broadside of a newspaper 
to prove that the people are incompetent to elect their 



















CONVENTION REPORTS. 801 


own judges, and then come here and sign a report ma¬ 
king the judges elective. 

Mr. MASON, (interrupted.) Does the gentleman 
say that I wrote su^i a communication ? 

Mr. RANNBY. I^do most distinctly recollect seeing 
the gentleman’s name signed to such a paper, declaring 
it a most pernicious doctrine to affirm that the people 
should elect their own judges. 

Mr. MASON. What was the reason assigned for that 
position ? 

Mr. RANNEY. It is enough for me to state the fact. 
Mr. MASON, (with emphasis.) What was the pre¬ 
cise and only reason? 

Mr. RANNEY. There was no reason in it. 

Mr. MASON. The gentleman, then, entirely misrep¬ 
resents me. I hope ho does not do it wilfully. 

Mr. RANNEY. One at a time would be comforta¬ 
ble. (Yielding.) 

Mr. MASON. I supposed, Mr. Chairman, that it 
was right, and even parliamentary, that I should in¬ 
quire what, in that communication, was the reason 
rendered why I was not in favor of a popular election 
of judges. There was a i-eason assigned and urged, 
and the gentleman refuses to give it. It was to set 
myself right in regard to the gentleman’s statement, 
that I did not believe in the capacity of the people to 
elect their judges. Such an idea was not in the com 
munication. 

Mr. RANNEY. I said the gentleman took ground 
against the election of judges by the people. 

Mr. MASON. It was just as I have stated. The 
gentleman said I did not believe in the capacity of the 
people to elect their judges. 

Mr. RANNEY. The gentleman runs ahead of the 
statement I made. I do not show all the reasons that 
may have governed him; but he certainly came to the 
conclusion I have stated. 

I ask pardon of the committee for this diversion, in 
which I should not have participated but for the 
sneering remark about the aid of the gentleman from 
Trumbull, which must have been intended as a cut at 
me. ' 

Mr. RANNEY then referred to the particularity of 
the rule prescribing the appointment of clerks, and 
mere 'pro tempore clerks, in the old constitution, and 
added: but now, when we had proposed to fix the 
term for three years it was called legislation; But he 
could not so consider it. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said, with reference to the amend¬ 
ment which he had read, and intended to offer as a sub¬ 
stitute for the section proposed by the gentleman from 
Trumbull, he had since that lime examined the origi¬ 
nal substitute, and prefen’ed it now to his own propo¬ 
sition, apd should vote for inserting it in the report. 
But he should also move to amend it so as to make the 
clerks rernoveable. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, proposed to amend the sub¬ 
stitute of the gentleman from Trumbull, by striking 
out the word “ county,” where it occurs before the 
word “court.” 

This amendment was rejected. 

Mr. MASON moved to strike out the word “three,” 
where it occurred before the word “ years,” with a 
view of inserting the word “ five; ” which was not 
agreed to. 

The que-tion then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Perkins, the committee divided, and stood 
affirmative 42, negative 43. So the amendment was 
disagreed to. 

Mr. REE ME LIN moved to insert, at the end of the 
section, the following words: 

“ Provided, however, that such term shall not exceed 
three years;” which was disagreed to. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to insert the following at the 
end of the section : 

“ Clerks of courts shall be removable for such causes 
as may be prescribed by law;” which was agreed to. 
On motion of Mr. RANNEY, the committee rose, and 

51 


the Chairman reported, that they had hud under con¬ 
sideration report No. 1. c^f the standing committee on 
the Judicial Department, and had instructed him to re¬ 
port the same back with sundry amendments. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved that the report and pending 
amendments, be laid on the table, and that tlie report, 
as amended, be ordered to be piinted. 

Mr. SAWYER demanded a division of the question, 
which, turning first on laying the report on the table, 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the report as 
amended to be printed, 

On motion, by Mr. HORTON, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


FRIDAY, December 20, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Jewell. 

Mr. SWIFT presented a petition from Jonathan My¬ 
ers and 56 others, citizens of Summit county, Ohio, 
praying that a clause be engrafted in the new constitu¬ 
tion prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing the traffic in spirituous liquors. Referred to 
the select committee on the subject^ Retailing Ardent 
Spirits. 

Mr. WILSON presented a petition from John Gra- 
ble and ninety-seven others, citizens of Wayne coun¬ 
ty, praying that the new constitution prohibit the 
exclusive right of lawyers to practice in courts of 
justice, and also praying that the jurisdiction of jus¬ 
tices of the peace be extended to one thousand dol¬ 
lars. 

One motion of the same gentleman, that part of the 
petition relative to the jurisdiction of justices of the 
peace, was referred to the standing committee on the 
Judiciary Department, and that part relating to the 
rights of lawyers, to the standing committee on Ju¬ 
risprudence. 

Mr. LARSH presented a petition from Lewis Geiger 
and eighteen others, citizens of Preble county, praying 
that a clause may be inserted in tjie new constitution 
prohibiting the Legislature from posing any law legal¬ 
izing the traffic in spirituous.liquors., 

Mr. STILWELL presented a p,etition from Isaac 
Kille and two hundi'ed and fif^-two other citizens of 
Muskingum county, on the' Sariie subject. 

Mr. CHAMBERS presentiad a petition from Joseph 
W. Marshall and five hundred and seventy-nine oth¬ 
ers, citizens of Muskingum county, on the same sub¬ 
ject. 

Mr. CHANEY presented a petition from John Span¬ 
gler and twenty-one others, citizens of Fairfield county, 
on the same subject.* 

The same gentleman presented a petition from James 
Peckering and forty-eight others, citizens of Fairfield 
county, on the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. HARD presented a petition from William J. 
Merrett and forty-eight others, citizens of Jackson 
county, Ohio, praying that a clause be engrafted in the 
new constitution prohibiting the emigration of black 
or mulatto persons into this State. Said petition was, 
at the request of Mr. Hard, , 2 :«ad at the desk, as fol¬ 
lows: 

“ To the Constitutional ConvenMt^u of the State of Ohio: 

“We the undersigned, citizens of Milton township, Jackson 
county, and State of Ohio, do solicit your honorable body to pro¬ 
hibit, in the new constitution, the emigration of any negro or 
mulatto person into the State of Ohioi” 

Said petition was then' referred to the standing 
committee on the Preamble and Bill of Rights. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from C. Ya¬ 
ger and forty-four others, citizens of Vinton county, 
Ohio, on the same subject. 

Said petition was referred to the standing committee 
on the Preamble and Bill of Rights. 

Mr. LARSH presented a petition from James E. 
















802 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


Whitiney, Levi rurviunce and eleven others, citizens 
of Preble county, praying that a clause may be insert- 
ted in the new constitution prohibiting the Legisla¬ 
ture from passing any law legalizing the traffic in spir¬ 
ituous liquors. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from An¬ 
drew Adams, and eleven other citizens of Preble coun¬ 
ty, on the same subject. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from J. G. 
McMannus and nine others, citizens of Preble county, 
on the same subject. 

Mr. FARR presented a petition from Clark Barnes, 
and sixty-eight others, citizens of Huron county, on 
the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. HUNTER moved to take up the motion laid on 
the table by the adjouriiment'of yesterday, relative to 
printing the report of the Judicial Department, with 
the amendments made to that report in the committee 
of the whole; which was agreed to. 

The question then being onordering the report, with 
the said amendments, to be printed, the same was 
agreed to. 

Mr. HARD moved that the Convention take up the 
petition, presented by him of Martin Pray and others, 
on the second day of the session in this city, which 
was agreed to; and on motion of the same gentleman, 
the petition was referred to the standing committee on 
the Preamble and Bill of Rights. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, moved to take up the 
resolution of the gentleman from Logan, [Mr. Stan¬ 
ton,] offered yesterday, relative to the adjournment of 
the Convention during the holidays; which was agreed 
to. 

The question pending being on filling the first blank 
in said resolution with the words “ Tuesday, the 24th,” 
the same was agreed to. 

The question then being on filing the second blank 
in the resolution, providing for the period to which the 
adjournment should extend: 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLEproposed Thursday the 26th. 
Mr. NASH proposed Monday, the 30ih. 

The question being first upon filling the blank with 
the words “ Monday the 30 th.” the same was disagreed 
to. 

Mr. STANTON suggested Friday, the 27ti]. 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, suggested Wednesday, the 
25th. 

The question being then on filling the blank with 
the words'' Friday, the 27th,” the same was disagreed 
to. 

The question then being upon filling said blank 
with the words " Thursday, the 26th,” the same was 
agreed to. 

The question them being on agreeing to the resolu¬ 
tion as perfected. 

Mr. BROWN, ol Carroll, moved to lay the resolution 
on the table, which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON demanded the yeas and nays, 
which being ordered, resulted, yeas 45, nays 46, as 
follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Monf 
eomery, Bates, Blair, Blickensderfer, Case of Licking, Chaney, 
Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Farr, Florence, Gillett, Gray, Grrene 
of Defiance, Groesbeck, Hard, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, 
Hunter, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Leadbetter, Mason, Mitchell, 
Morris, McCormick, Nash, Patterson, Reemelin, Sawyer, Sellers, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Towns- 
hend, Vance of Butler, Vance of Champaign, Wilson, and Wor- 
tliiu K ^' 

Nays —Messrs. Banaett of Preble, Bennett, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Clark, 
Curry, Ewart, Ewing, Forbes, Graham, Green of Ross, Gregg, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hunt, Johnson, King, 
Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Lidey, Manon, Morshead, McCloud, 
Norris, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stebbins, Struble, Swift Thompson of Shelby, Warren, Williams, 
Woodbury, and President—46. 


So the resolution was disagreed to. 

THE legislative DEPARTMENT. 

Mr. SAWYER said he was disposed to insist now, 
that tlie Convention take up the Reports of standing 
committees, so far as they have passed through the 
committee of the Whole, and proceed to act finally up¬ 
on them. As the matter now stands, all the reports 
that have been made, have been gone through with by 
the committee. There were four or five of the stand¬ 
ing and select committees of the Convention who had 
not yet reported, among which are the committee on 
the Preamble and Bill of Rights—an important com¬ 
mittee; the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects—a 
very important committee ; the committee on Temper¬ 
ance, also, to which so many thousands of petitioners 
have been sending in their prayers, is silent. He did 
not understand the reason for this delay, and was afraid 
that the effect would be, that important and perplex¬ 
ing questions would be sprung upon the Convention at 
a late period in its session, and when members would 
not be prepared to meet them. The heads of these 
committees are members of the Democratic party, and, 
in some degree responsible for the action of their sev¬ 
eral committees; but we must not delay our business 
because these gentlemen do not see fit to perform their 
duties. He made these remarks for the purpose of 
urging gentlemen to proceed with their work. He 
would ask the President if there was any report now 
referred to the committee of the Whole, that had not 
been gone over. 

The PRESIDENT said thei’e was not. 

Mr. SAWYER. Then I move that the Convention 
take up the I'eport of the committee on the Legislative 
Department, and proceed to consider it. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, wished to say a word in re¬ 
ply to the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer.] 
He was a member of a select committee which came 
under the terms of that gentleman’s complaint, as it 
had not yet made a report. He would state the reason 
for the apparent delinquency. One of the members of 
that committee, who look a very deep interest in the 
subject committed to it, had been absent since the Con¬ 
vention re-assembled, and that gentleman, he knew, 
was very anxious to be heard, in committee, upon one 
or two questions, in regard to which there was a dif¬ 
ference of opinion. All the members were anxious to 
mature and complete a perfect and unanimous report, 
and one that, if possible, should harmonize their own 
views, and meet those of the Convention ; and for that 
reason it could not have been made at an earlier day, 
although it had been for months drawn up and com¬ 
pleted in its principal features. He could say, also, 
that be did not believe that expedition would be gain¬ 
ed by too hasty action in committee, and might reply 
to the gentleman from Auglaize that, if his committee 
had kept back the report upon the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment a few weeks, and more fully considered its pro¬ 
visions, many thousands of dollars would have been 
saved to the State, and much time that was spent in 
discussing amendments to it would have been saved. 
He did not think the Convention to be losing time on 
account of the failure of committees to report. It has 
business enough before it, and doubtless more time will 
be spent in discussing questions in Convention than was 
in committee of the whole. He saw no reason for 
hasty action, and thought that to save cost reporta 
should be better matured before they are presented. 

Mr. REEMELIN said that he had a word to say in 
defense of the Legislative Report. The Constitutional 
Convention, now in session in indiana, had copied three- 
fourths of their Legislative Report from ours. 

Mr. SAWYER said that every member of the com¬ 
mittee had signed the report, which was a pretty good 
reason for supposing that they had been harmonious; 
and thought that if the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. 
Vance,] would look at the amendments that had been 
made in committee of the whole, he would come to 
the conclusion that it had escaped pretty well—as 













CONVENTION KEPORTS. 803 


well as any, perhaps, except that on Banking and 
Currency. He had no doubt the report of the gentle¬ 
man’s committee, being so long delayed, would be so 
fully matured, that not an i would be dotted, or a t be 
crossed, by the committee of the whole, or the Con¬ 
vention. 

The question being on taking up the report of the 
committee on the Legislative Department, the same 
was agreed to. 

Mr. TAYLOR moved that the report and amend¬ 
ments be recommitted to the standing committee from 
which it originated. 

Mr. CHAMBERS hoped the motion would not pre¬ 
vail. It had been unanimously made, and as one mem¬ 
ber of the committee, he did not desire to review it. It 
is now befoi’o the Convention—the amendments are 
printed, and we cun act upon it as well as if it again 
passed thi-ough the committee. 

Mr. TAYLOR said he understood that the unanimity 
was scarcely more than a formal concurrence of the 
members of the committee in the report. He would 
prefer to lake up first the report of the committee on the 
Executive Department. 

Mr. SAWYER would like to know what the gentle¬ 
man wanted the committee to do with the report. If 
the Convention had any instructions to give, they might 
desire its recommitment for that purpose. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The subject of annual or bienni¬ 
al sessions. If the Convention will instruct upon that 
point, I will agree to vote to recommit. 

The question oix the motion to recemmit was then 
taken, and resulted, on division, yeas 32, nays 45. So 
the motion was lost. 

The several amendments made in Committee of the 
Whole, to the report on the Legislative Department, 
were then read, and the Convention proceeded to the 
consideration of the same, in order. 

The question being on agreeing to the first amend¬ 
ment, to-wit; Strike out all after the word “ Repre¬ 
sentatives,” in section 1, line 2, to the end of the sec¬ 
tion, the same was agreed to; and the section, as 
amended, is to-wit; 

Sec. 1. Tlie Legislative power of this State, shall be vested in 
a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and House 
of Representatives. 

The question then being on agreeing to the second 
amendment, as follows; 

Sec. 2. Strike out the words “by the electors in each 
county,” 

Mr. REEMELIN said he hoped the words would 
not be stricken out. There would then be no provis¬ 
ion in the Report for the election of Representatives by 
the people. 

The amendment was then agreed to. 

Mr. REEMELIN then moved to reconsider the vote 
taken upon the amendment to the first section. 

Mr. CHAMBERS thought the motion out of order. 
The oi’der of proceeding as he understood it, would be 
to go thi’ough all the amendments first, they being enti¬ 
led to preference over any other question. 1 

The PRESIDENT understood the parliamentary 
rule to be different. A motion to reconsider is always 
in order, and must be considered in preference to any 
other. 

The motion to reconsider then disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the second 
amendment, 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to amend the amendment 
by striking out the words, ” each county,” and in.sert- 
ing in lieu thereof the words, '‘their respective dis¬ 
tricts.” 

Mr. STANTON inquired if such an amendment 
would be in order. 

The PRESIDENT said that he understood the rule 
to be, that when each amendmentcomes up to be passed 
upon, it may be amended. The members of the Con¬ 
vention are not obliged to vote negatively or affirma- 
ively upon the proposition as it stands, but may, if 
hey please, offer amendments to it. 


Mr. NASH objected to the amendment as unneces¬ 
sary. The same thing was otherwise provided for in 
the report of the committee on Apportionment. 

Mr. McCORMICK insis-ted upon his amendment. It 
was proper that theie should be repetitions now. 
When we have got through with all the reports, the 
committee on Final Adjustment will be able to recon¬ 
cile all partsof theinstrumenttoeachother. He thought 
while we were upon this department we ought to set¬ 
tle every principle necessarily connected with the leg¬ 
islative function. 

The question on the amendment to the amendment 
was lost on division—yeas 41, nays 41. 

The amendment was then agreed to. 

The section as amended is in the following words: 

“ Sec. 2, The representatives shall be ellected biennially,on the 
second Tuesday of October.” 

The question then being on agreeing to the third 
amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 3. In line four, after the word ” on,” insert the 
word “the,” the same was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fourth 
amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 3. At the end of line five, insert “the United 
States, or of this State,” the same vyas agreed to, and 
the section as amended is as follows: 

Sec. 3. No person shall be a representative unless he possess 
the qualification of an elector, and have attained the age of twen¬ 
ty-five years. He shall also have resided within the limits of the 
county in which he shall be chosen one year next preceding his 
election, unless he shall have been absent on the public business 
of the United States or of this State. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fifth 
amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 4. In line two, strike out the word “ four,” and 
insert the word “two.” 

Mr. MANON hoped the amendment would not pre¬ 
vail. For one, he was in favor of making the distinc¬ 
tion originally provided for, between the terms of Sen¬ 
ators and of Representatives. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. The principle upon which gen- 
(tlemen proceed, would constitute two Houses of Rep- 
1 resentatives without any distinction, except as to 
name; which he doubled not would be much better 
than one House. Such was the constitution of our 
present General Assembly ; and he had no doubt that 
our laws had been matured much better by two Hous¬ 
es, than they would have been by the action only of a 
single body. ^ 

He hoped that gentlemen would remember that he 
had rendered some reasons upon this subject during 
the Summer session. He did not wish to repeat those 
ideas now. But he cherished a very decided and 
strong feeling upon this subject—a feeling of the utmost 
repugnance to this proposition. Fie felt that this body 
WHS about to enter upon an untried and novel experi¬ 
ment. He felt, that, if they reduced the term of the 
Senators to that of the Representatives, that in a short 
time we should have but one House. And a One House 
Legislature having become the order ol the day, he 
feared that it would furnish a prelude to the cry of 
Death to our repulfiican institutions. 

This experiment had been tried in the two great 
States of Pennsylvania and Virginia, and perhaps by 
some of the New England States. But certainly, the 
experiment was tried by these two great common 
wealths, until they had proved it to be “evil, and on¬ 
ly evil, and that continually-” And one of the great¬ 
est, the most polite, and never-to-be-too-much-admired 
amongst the nations of Europe, had also tried the ex¬ 
periment of a “ one-horse Legislature, ’ and abandoned 
it in despair. 

He would venture to say, that this reduction of the 
term of Senators would be as the entering wedge in 
the work of the abolition of that body. 

Mr. McCORMICK (interrupting.) I desire to ask 
the gentleman when it was he discovered that the 
French people had abandoned the “ one-horse Legisla¬ 
ture,” as he calls it ? 















804 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


It was virtually abandoned in the times of Robes¬ 
pierre, when terror reigned; when blood ran down the 
streets of Paris; when the guillotine was in operation; 
when terror filled all hearts, 8o> that the voice of the 
peojile was strangled, and the nation itself was more 
dead than alive. 

He (Mr. A.) then pi*oceeded further to consider the 
provision before the Convention, taking the position 
that two Houses were necessary, whether we have 
annual or biennial sessions; that a one House Legisla¬ 
ture would operate with too much rapidity to be di¬ 
rected and governed by any just expi’ession of the mind 
of the peo{)le; and that it would be fixing up an oli¬ 
garchy of the worst stamp. Short terms for represen¬ 
tatives in the public councils—a I’apid change of men— 
could be of advantage only to the trading, village 
politician. 

He did nut pretend to argue this question, but only 
to throw out some hints, if, peradventure, he might in¬ 
duce gentlemen to pause and reflect. 

Mr. REE ME LIN said, that he could not, even at the 
risk of intruding at this late hour of the session, permit 
the question to be taken, without once more raising 
his voice against biennial sessions. The friends of bi¬ 
ennial were surely becoming afraid of their own shad¬ 
ows, for the gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins] 
seemed to have some fear of some thing very serious 
lurking beneath his simple proposition, that the first 
session under the new constitution should be on the 
Ist Monday of January, 1852. The biennial men were 
beginning to see ghosts, and they were like men trav¬ 
eling a dark road, which had not a single ray of light 
to illuminate it. 

This appeared plain, when we observed these bien¬ 
nial men frightened from the result of their own prin¬ 
ciples. Biennial sessions require a quadrennial Senate: 
but this the biennial men will not grant—and being 
afraid,that toelect Senators for fouryear8,mightopeulhe 
eyes of the people to the fact asserted by us, that a det 
parture from annual elections and annual sessions to 
biennial ones, is a departure from the people—is a de¬ 
nial of the right of the people to reform their Govern¬ 
ment whenever they pleased, they ruin the idea of a | 
Senate, and really give us but one house,' rather than 
give up their error. 

“ Convince a man against his ■will 
He’s of the same opinion still.” 

Mr. R. would also once more remind the Convention, 
that biennial sessions were equivalent to an eternal 
denial to the legislative power to define and determine 
upon the taxes to be levied, and to fix the appropria¬ 
tions of money. Surrender annual sessions and the 
purse strings of our treasury remain with your State 
Auditor I'or ever. 

The General assembly may attempt to fix, within a 
few hundred thousand dollars, the revenue to be col¬ 
lected, and so it may attempt to say by a hundred 
thousand or two, how much money shall be paid out, 
but the real tangible power over these subjects must 
be left discretionary with the auditor, or else the first 
attempt of the financiering of the General Assembly 
will make it the laughing stock of all the world. Let 
men attempt to smile this position down—the experi- 
of a few years under biennial sessions, would set them 
right. 

In short, it was plain, the fatal leap would be taken ' 
—biennials were triumphant. Be it so—all he had to ■ 
regret, was that he had not the eloquence of an angel j 
to show them the error of their ways, and to weep at | 
the folly, that was leading men in this rejmblican 1 
country to adopt the doctrines of the Kings and the ar-! 
istocrats of Europe. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, said, it would be remembered 
that this amendment was made in committee of the 
whole upon his motion, and that it was adopted by a 
very decided majority of the committee. He would 
not now recapitulate what he had said in committee, 


for, if he were to go into the argument, it would be bu 
to recapitulate what he has said before. 

He had risen now for the purpose of replying briefly 
to an imputation which seemed to have been cast upon 
him by his friend, the gentleman from Monroe ; name¬ 
ly : That this thing was done, looking to a most impor¬ 
tant change in the legislative department of the gov¬ 
ernment. He assured the gentleman from Monroe, 
that he desired no such result. He diflered entirely 
upon this subject, with the gentleman from Hamilton, 
who had just taken his seat; if he could even doubt 
that the adoption of his amendment would lead to any 
such result, he should surely abandon it. 

He could see no necessary connection between bien¬ 
nial sessions of the General Assembly and the proposi¬ 
tion now before us. Several States of the Union had 
adopted the same term for the members of both branch¬ 
es, which had been adopted here in committee of the 
whole. 

A Voice. “ What number of the States ?” 

Mr. GREEN could not tell at once ; but if the gen¬ 
tleman would take the trouble to look back into the de¬ 
bates, it might lie found where he [Mr. G.] had refer¬ 
red to these exaxamples particularly. 

He recollected very well, that, at the time this mo¬ 
tion was made, it was charged upon him as a covert at¬ 
tack upon the theory of biennial sessions. But wheth¬ 
er this be so considered or not, and whether biennial 
sessions be adopted or not, he was desiious that this 
provision should remain as reported by the committee 
of the whole. He saw' no necessary connection be- 
tw'eeii these two propositions; but, if gentlemen were 
determined to consider them as related to each other, 
he would suggest whether it would not be better to 
postpone the further consideration of the amendment 
till the other question shall be disposed of. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD next gained the floor, but yielded 
for 

Mr. TAYLOR, who desired, before the gentleman 
from Monroe proceeded with his argument, to refer to 
an admission which that gentleman made during the 
summer session, with respect to the subject of dual 
Legislature. Sometime during that session, the gen¬ 
tleman was advocating the necessity of two branches 
of the General Assembly, because of the chance that 
the bills of one House could be materially revised in 
the other; but allowing himself to couple with his ar¬ 
gument the important admission, that he had frequent¬ 
ly know'll bills of the House to pass the Senate without 
consideration, through a feeling of complaisance, on 
account of personal influence, or some such cause. 
Such being the fact, the inference, he supposed, would 
impair the force of the gentleman’s argument in favor 
of tw'o Houses. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD replied, that if ever he had made 
such an admiss on, he had utterly forgotten it; so that, 
before the gentleman could use it in argument against 
him, he would have another labor to perform—that of 
awakening in his mind and menioiy the recollection 
of having made the admission. 

With reference to the opinion of the gentleman from 
Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin,] that a sympathetic change 
had taken place in the minds of the people with refe¬ 
rence to biennial sessions of the General Assembly, he 
would say, that every indication of such a change in 
the popular mind had escaped his notice. He came 
into this body instructed to favor a constitutional pro¬ 
vision by which the General Assembly should be call¬ 
ed together but once in two years, unless upon the re¬ 
quisition of the Governor; and, since the summer ses¬ 
sion, he had told his constituents that the State was in 
favor of biennial sessions; and for that reason, amongst 
others, he should support a four years’ term for Sena¬ 
tors. No man amongst them all had evinced any 
change of mind upon the subject, nor cast a breath oi 
censure upon his course; but he came back here, en¬ 
dorsed and strengthened in these positions by the ap¬ 
probation of the people of good old Monroe. 


















CONVENTION REPORTS. 805 


The gentleman from Ross [Mr. Grekn] had told us 
that his motion to reduce tiie teiun of (Senators was 
made in good faith. He had no doubt of tiiat. But he 
was also aware that it needed not to drive a regular 
bargain between the friends of annual sessions and the 
friends of a unit Legislature, to make one effort amongst 
themselves to. bring about the success of both these 
propositions. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, (interrupting.) If the gentle¬ 
man undertakes to assert that there exists any pre-ar¬ 
rangement for a combination or a concert of action 
upon this question between the friends of these two 
propositions, I disclaim it. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD also disclaimed the assertion; but 
the case required no pre-arrangement, where it was so 
obvious that the success of the designs of the friends of 
one propositit)!! would advance the wishes of the friends 
of the other. 

He proceeded to reply to the intimation of the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Rkememn,] that his posi¬ 
tion that short terms of office, instead of increasing ,the 
power of the people, only increased the power of the 
mei e village politician—the managers and wire-work¬ 
ers were anti-dcmocratic. The rule which ought to 
regulate official terms was that which would enable the 
people to form a just judgment of the manner in which 
the incumbent had performed. There was a point in 
this matter, from which, if we diverge, the plane would 
be likely to “ turn the other way,” and diminish the 
power of the people. That was the point of difficulty; 
and the result of going to either extreme, instead of 
producing a faithful representation of democracy,would 
produce a monstrous absurdity. 

Mr. KING (interposing) de.dred to ask the gentle¬ 
man whether he considered that the term of two years 
would be long enough for the people to form a correct 
judgment with reference to the choice of their repre¬ 
sentatives? , 

Mr. ARCHBOLD was of the opinion that two years 
would be long enough, if the people had opportunities 
for discussion. According to his plan, they would 
have to form some political judgment, once every two 
years. But the terms should be graduated according 
to the number of people called upon to act. 

Mr. KING would propound another question. This 
body was engaged here in constructing the organic law 
for the State of Ohio, which must be submitted to the 
people, and they must pass some judgment either in 
the way of approbation or rejection; and he would 
ask the gentleman whether it ought to require so much 
as four years for the people to form an opinion in re¬ 
gard to this matter. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD admitted, that when the people 
were greatly roused—when any questions of paramount 
importance were presented to them—a larger number 
of the people would desert the plow when they were 
called upon to consider a question of the utmost urgen¬ 
cy and importance, than would be found at the polls 
on common occasions. The case which the gentleman 
had presented was quite different from those cases 
wherein the people were called ujion to form opinions 
upon the ordinary subjects of legislation. 

Mr. DORSEY said, the gentleman from Monroe had 
passed over some ground of argumentation to show 
the superiority of a four year’s term for Senators over 
the term for two years, without producing any effect 
upon his mind. Whether this was on account of his 
own obtuseness of perception, or the want of force in 
the argument, he w'ould not pretend to determine. 
He should vote for retaining “two years ” in the section, 
for various reasons. But he should not do so because 
of any hope or desire thereby to bring llie Convention 
back to the establishment of annual sessions of the Leg¬ 
islature. He believed there was no question which had 
been agitated in this Convention, upon which the 
minds of the people were more fully and determinately 
settled, than this question of biennial sessions of the Leg¬ 
islature. There was certainly no question more gene 


rally or more frequently spoken of amongst the people, 
prior to the electioi,! of Delegates. He had heard much 
of a chqnge in the public mind since that time, but he 
had seen no evidence conclusive to his mind, that any 
material change had taken place. Therefore he should 
continue to favor the provision for biennial sessions. 

All the States of the Union which had reformed their 
con8titutiou.s within a few years past, had made the 
terms of their Senators and Representatives identical. 
There might be an exception, but he could then think 
of none. The fact was that no good reason had been 
assigned this morning, and he doubted whether any 
could be offered, why the term of service of a Senator 
should be greater than that of a Representative. Both 
Houses stood upon the .same platform; there was no 
distinction between a Senator and a Representative, 
except in name, and in the number of constituents 
which they respectively represent. They both come 
up to the Capitol to represent the same interests, under 
the same influences, and for the purpose of carrying 
out the same great ends; and with all gentlemen could 
say about the instability of such a Legislature, he could 
see nothing that could help the matter by continuing 
these Senators in office longer than two years. He had 
not yet heard a single argument, in thus body or else¬ 
where, going to show that stability could be acquired 
for any department of the government by lengthening 
the terms of office. The stability of free government, 
as he considered, depended upon a very different prin¬ 
ciple. He was always in favor of the shortest terms of 
office, where there was not good reason to the contra¬ 
ry. He was in favor of biennial sessions of the Leg¬ 
islature, because he believed that they would just as 
well subserve the wants of the public, and because he 
believed they we recalled for by the popular voice and 
he must see some strong expression of the public mind 
upon the subject, before he could be induced to extend 
the term of our Senators to a longer period than two 
years; because it would be in violation of a great 
principle which ought to obtain more favor in this 
country. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD (interposing.) The latest intima¬ 
tion of the progress of public opinion upon this sub¬ 
ject has been given in the Indiana Convention; and 
they had estabtished their Senatorial term for four 
years. 

Mr. DORSEY. The gentleman might interpret pro¬ 
gress one w’ay and he another. He wanted to see a 
well defined expression of the wish of the people of 
Ohio, to that efi’ect, before he would be willing to ex¬ 
tend the Senatorial term to any period beyond two 
years. 

He made these remarks, because he wished to call 
the attention of gentlemen favorable to biennial ses¬ 
sions, to the fact, that there w’as no neces.sily to extend 
the Senatorial term beyond two years, for the sake of 
any supposed symmetry in the principle. 

Mr. TAYLOR, by way of personal explanation, said, 
he had hitherto scrupulously avoided the introduction 
here of any thing not germain to the subject, until to¬ 
day, when he asked the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. 
Archbold,] with reference to the admission to which 
he had referred, and intended, perhaps, to use in this 
discussion, when he might attempt to show that the 
tendency of two branches of the Legislature was to an 
excess of legislation; and that their labors would re¬ 
sult in less well-considered action than the labors of a 
single branch. He had made his reference before en¬ 
tirely from memory, and upon the spur of the moment. 
He would now refer to the remarks of the gentleman 
from Monroe, as recorded in the Official Reports, p. 
148, delivered by that gentleman on the 22nd day of 
May last. 

[ Mr. T here read from Mr. Archbold’s speech above 
referred to.] 

Mr. archbold cared not to ask for leave to ex¬ 
plain. He did not pretend that all his words were wise 
and well chosen and well timed. 

















806 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. MITCHELL objected to occupying the time of 
the Convention, in personal explanations and exposi¬ 
tions of the inconsistencies of members. He hoped tlie 
Convention would not indulge in any such rambling 
discussions, so unfavorable to progress. The question 
before us involved but a single point. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, now renewed his motion to 
lay the section and proposed amendment upon the ta¬ 
ble. 

The motion was lost; and the question recurred up¬ 
on the amendment, reported from the committee of the 
whole. 

Mr. MANON should vote against the amendment 
reported, whether his course were denounced as anti¬ 
democratic or not. With annual sessions of the Leg¬ 
islature, he would be in favor of a two years’ term for 
Senators ; and wex’e his own views alone to be consul¬ 
ted, he should vote for annual sessions; but if there 
was any question upon which his constituents were 
united, it was to sustain the proposition for biennial 
sessions. He desired, to some extent, to hold a check¬ 
ing power in the Senate, and, for that reason, with bi¬ 
ennial sessions, he should vote for the term of four years 
for Senators. 

Mr. STANTON said, no man had been more anxious 
than he, to secure biennial sessions. But he had ex¬ 
perience enough in legislation, to know, that it would 
not do well to send up a General Assembly composed 
entirely of new members. They must have some 
members of experience in the legislation of the State ; 
and this was a matter of primary necessity, especially 
in the Senate. 

This amendment reported from the Committee of the 
Whole was utterly hostile to biennial sessions; and 
there were members around him, who would vote for 
it, because, by the success of this amendrnent, they 
expected to gain strength for annual sessic/ns ; and to 
his mind, this proposition was much more objectiona¬ 
ble than annual sessions. He doubted very much 
whether he himself could vote for annual sessions, if 
thereby he would be depriving the General Assembly 
of the advantage of Legislative experience. Besides, 
the State wanted stable men in the Legislature. In 
these times of popular agitations, we wanted a Senate 
capable of pouring oil upon those agitated waves. 

He warned the Convention, that the success of thi.s 
amendment, would in all probability, be the destruc¬ 
tion and defeat of the proposition for biennial sessions 
of the Legislature. 

Mr. HAWKINS should vote against this amendment, 
in view of the statement made by the gentleman from 
Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin.] Those favoring biennial 
sessions should vote against the present amendment; 
for if it were to succeed, he doubted whether biennial 
sessions could be maintained. 

As an individual, if he were to foi-get that he stood 
here in the character of a representative of the people, 
he would vote for annual sessions. But acting for his 
constituents, he felt the obligation to carry out their 
will, and he should do so according to his ability. It 
was the instability of our laws, that the people desired 
to correct, and the expense of annual sessions of the 
Legislature that they desired to get rid of; and, if these 
two difficulties could not be otherwise remedied, he 
would agree, that the fewer sessions we have of the 
Legislature the better. 

' Mr. RANNEY desired barely to say that he was in 
favor of biennial sessions, in favor of twq branches of 
the Legislature, and in favor of a senatorial term of 
two years. He should vote for them all, as involving 
no inconsistency whatever. He was convinced that 
the people would not be satisfied with the proposed 
extension of the senatorial term. He never would be 
satisfied himself to delegate legislative power for a 
longer term than two years. He was opposed to ex¬ 
tending this term upon principle. It was too long alto¬ 
gether. No man could look into the future for four 
years to come. We were in the midst of a great and 


growing country. Interests of vital importance are 
continually being created and continually changing 
and it was proposed to delegate power for four years. 
To-day, the opinions of the representative might be in 
accordance with the opinions of a majority of his con¬ 
stituents; but, under a new combination of circum¬ 
stances, it might be that he would take a position which 
would misrepresent their views entirely. 

There was no force in the argument that sufficient 
stability could not be gained for this branch of the 
General Assembly from the experience of two years. 
If gentlemen were about to set up a school to educate 
and raise up senators for the State, there might be 
some weight in this argument. But tiie presumption 
was that the people had already some sense amongst 
themselves, and that they need not be compelled to 
wait two years for a senator to grow. 

He saw no inconsistency in establishing the same 
term for senators and representatives. Seven out of 
eight of the foremost States of the Union had estab¬ 
lished this rule. 

Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE, (in his seat.) Six out of 
eight. 

Mr. RANNEY was in favor of two branches of the 
General Assembly, because it secured the separate 
consideration of every measiu’e submitted for legisla¬ 
tive action, and because every senator would represent 
a different, a larger constituency, than a representative 
ill the other branch, and would be under the control of 
different influences. And he was in favor of biennial 
sessions, not only because it would save expense, but 
because the world was governed too much. 

Mr. REEMELIN, (interrupting.) What amount of 
government would you get clear of by the establish¬ 
ment of biennial sessions ? Would you not confer up¬ 
on the executive all that you would take away from 
the legislative department? 

Mr. RANNEY said that Representatives and Sena¬ 
tors were but agents of the people. Suppose one wefe 
to constitute an agent to act for him for the term of one 
month, and another agent to act for him for the term 
of two years, would both of these agents be invested 
with the same amount of power? 

Mr. REEMELIN. That was not the question.— 
The question was, not as to the amount of power, but 
whether the power taken from the Legislative depart¬ 
ment was not conferred upon the Executive depart¬ 
ment ? 

Mr RANNEY. The Executive could only exercise 
Executive power. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The taxing power was not an 
Executive power. 

Mr. RANNEY. Certainly not. But, according to 
the principle that all power was inherent in the peo¬ 
ple, It could only be removed from them in such cases 
as they might choose to delegate it. Then it was 
plain that if the people delegated the exercise of their 
power only once in two years, they retained more 
power in their own hands than if they delegated their 
power every year. But if there were no other con¬ 
sideration than the demand of the popular judgment 
for biennial sessions on account ot the expense that 
would be saved, he would still be in favor of that rule. 
If gentlemen were willing to go home and tell the peo¬ 
ple that they had voted for annual sessions because 
they could not succeed with the proposition for Sena¬ 
tors to hold over for four years, he feared for their jus¬ 
tification. 

Mr. McCORMICK regretted much that this discus¬ 
sion had taken the course it had. He could see no 
propriety in discussing the question of annual or bien¬ 
nial sessions of the General Assembly in this connec¬ 
tion. He was unable to see how this question could 
be made to depend, in any manner, upon the establish¬ 
ment of the term of Senators. With reference to the 
former question, it appeared to him, that the Conven¬ 
tion had already decided, time and again, what they 
understood the will of the people to be. And he also 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


807 


regretted that some gentlemen had been pleased to 
say, that those who were in favor of but one branch 
to the Legislature, were in favor of the pending amend¬ 
ment, because its success might assist them in their 
movement. 

The gauntlet had already been thrown down to us 
who were in favor of that proposition; and gentlemen 
would find that it had been taken up; and that such 
arguments as could be offered in its favor, would be 
offered freely at the proper time. And they would 
find also, that we should demand to be met by reason; 
that we should require that logical reasonings should 
be met by logical reasonings, and if we were to be de¬ 
feated, it should not be by mere brute force. 

But we return. The question now under condside- 
ration was, whether the Senators should hold two or 
four years. Why should Senators hold for two years, 
and no more? First, because the people of Ohio de¬ 
manded short terms—a frequent surrender of official 
, trusts. All officers of the government were but agents 
of the people; and it was reasonable that all agents 
should be immediately responsible to their principals ; 
that they should only hold their agency long enough 
to enable them to perform the service assigned to them, 
and that they should then give an account of the man¬ 
ner in which they had performed that service. That, 
certainly, was a very material and conclusive reason 
against the proposition to prolong the Senatorial term; 
and it ought to be sufficient to carry the vote of every 
man having a just regard for the voice of the people. 
If the voice of the people were to rule in this matter, 
it seemed to him that this question was already set¬ 
tled ; for, he concurred with the gentleman from 
Trumbull [Mr. Ranney] in the opinion, that, if this 
body were instructed by the people wi h reference to 
anything, it was, that the terms of office should be 
short. 

He desired now to be indulged in a few words of 
reply to the gentleman from Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] 
and the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archaold.] It 
appeared to be a sine qua non with these gentlemen, 
that the term of the Senators should be double that 
of the members of the House of Repi'esentatives, but 
would these gentlemen be so good as to look at the 
effect of their argument, bef re they proceed to estab¬ 
lish themselves firmly upon it? One oi these gentle¬ 
men, [Mr. Stanton,] had insisted that some legisla¬ 
tive experience was necessary in the General Assem¬ 
bly, in order that business might be properly conduct¬ 
ed ; and if this proposition were true with reference 
to the Senate, it was equally true with reference to the 
Hou.se; for the members of the House, newly elected, 
would be ecpially inexperienced; and those gentlemen 
who denounce the proposition for a short Senatorial 
term, by their owui reasons, declare the House shall 
have no term, or in other words, there should be no 
House, and thereby favor what they are pleased to call 
the feudal and absurd proposition for a one branch 
Legislature. Why should the gentlemen forget that 
Legislative experience was necessary in the House as 
well as in the Senate ? for, admitting the necessity of 
Legislative experience, as the gentlemen affirm, oueo 
two things would follow: either a portion of the mem¬ 
bers of the House must hold over, or the House itself 
become useless. 

But he took the other side of the argument. If leg¬ 
islative experience were neces.sary in one branch of 
the Legislature, it was also necessary in the other; 
and the greater the experience the more able and facile 
the transaction of business. And this being admitted, 
it follows also, that the longer the term of the legisla¬ 
tor, the better service he would render. Gentlemen 
would be compelled to advocate thi.s proposition upon 
their own admission; namely, that, if it is better a 
Senator should hold ovmr for four years, it would be a 
better rule, to require him to hold over for six years; 
and, that if six years were better than four years, he 
should hold for eight years; and so on; and thus, if 


they did not render the office heraditary, they would 
at least appoint their Senators for life. The very mo¬ 
ment the principle, that official trust should be frequent¬ 
ly surrendered to the people, is abandoned, war is 
waged against the principles of republicanism. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD (inhisseat.) How would you de¬ 
fend the two years’ term ? 

Mr. McCORMICK. Upon this principle, that the 
Legislature hold but one session in two years, and then 
the members both of the Senate and House, deliver up 
their power, and were it determined to have the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly in session annually, he would be in 
favor of electing the members of both Houses every 
year. 

When men prate of their democracy, he desired to 
see them “ show their faith by their works,” and he 
would have gentlemen vote upon the pending question, 
not being influenced either by their preference for an¬ 
nual or biennial sessions, or for one or two branches of 
the Legislature, but being actuated simply by their 
preference either for a two years’ or a four years’ term 
for Senators. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, should not again have troubled 
the Convention upon this subject, but he was forced 
to do so in defence of his own position. 

The gentleman from Logan [Mr. Stanton] when 
last upon the floor, warned the friends of biennial ses¬ 
sions to beware of this amendment, that it was a co¬ 
vert attack upon their favorite theory ; and he a8.sured 
them that, if it were not for defeating the provision for 
biennial sessions, no gentleman upon this side of the 
chamber would advocate such an absurdity as a two 
ye:\rs’ term for Senators. 

Mr. STANTON (interposing.) I said there were 
twenty members who would not vote for both propo¬ 
sitions. I did not mean to include the gentleman from 
Ross. 

Mr. GR-EEN did not think the explanation(except as 
to himself personally) made any difference in the state¬ 
ment he had submitted. He differed with that gen¬ 
tleman, and held with the sentiment expressed upon 
this question by the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. 
Ranney,] and the gentleman from Adams [Mr. Mc¬ 
Cormick.] He would not again trouble the Conven¬ 
tion w’ith the views which, upon a former occasion, 
he had expressed upon this question; but, as gentle¬ 
men had thought proper to mingle the pending ques¬ 
tion with the subject of biennial sessions, and since 
the gentleman from Logan had taken it upon himself 
to warn the friends of biennial sessions against lending 
their assent to the two years’ senatorial term, he would 
take the liberty in his turn, to call upon those who 
were in favor of short terms of office, to come up now, 
and “manifest their faith by their works.” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD [interposing.] I understand that 
the gentleman from Adams [Mr. McCormick] is in fa¬ 
vor of a seven years' term for the judges; and I should 
not think the gentleman from Ross wmuld be likely 
to succeed in conjuring such spirits “fi’om the vasty 
deep.” 

Mr. GREEN knew that “spirits from the vasty deep” 
might be called unheeded; and he knew’ also that there 
were some spirits wdthin these walls that would not 
come for the call of reason. But he was about to re¬ 
mark upon the peculiar propriety of short terms in this 
department of the government, in order to relieve him¬ 
self from the charge of inconsistency, growing out of 
the fact that heretofore he had not advocated the pro¬ 
posed shoit term for the judges. 

He held that the Legislative Department of the gov¬ 
ernment was the reflection of the popular will. It was 
as the mirror of the popular wrill, and there was no 
principle more thoroughly republican, than that which 
demanded a frequent accountability of those agents of 
the people whom they intrust with the legislative pow¬ 
ers of the government. But the courts representing 
the majesty of the law, should be permanent, fixed, 
settled in their administration. He held that it was 












808 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


/ 


better to have no laws than to have the laws frequently 
changed by judicial legislation. The stability of the 
Judiciary was all important. It needed not for him to 
go into an argument to show that the people should 
frequently have the power to call back their Repre¬ 
sentatives in the Legislative Department, who may have 
been either ignorant or unfaithful in regard to the pub¬ 
lic wants. 

It was proposed to elect the Governor every two 
years. Where was the propriety of making this dis¬ 
tinction against the Executive, by calling him to ac¬ 
count every two years, and surrendering for twice the 
term of the Executive, the most important powers of 
the government—the legislative trust? He would ask 
gentlemen to think deliberately upon this proposition, 
and not suffer their minds to be carried away by what¬ 
soever phantoms that might be gathered up to frighten 
them from their propriety. He would ask for this 
amendment, that it be treated as a separate and inde 
pendent proposition, resting upon its own merits, as 
pertaining to the great theory of representative govern¬ 
ment. He had been surprised to hear gentlemen de¬ 
clare that, rather than lose their darling theory of bi¬ 
ennial sessions, they were willing to commit a violation 
of one of the first principles of our government, willing 
to give up a principle for the sake of carrying out an 
experiment. 

He hoped gentlemen would weigh and consider the 
closing remarks of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. 
R.4NNEV.] He would ask them, if they were willing 
to go home to their constituents, and say to them, “ It 
is true that we did violate one of the most essential 
principles inthe theory of free government—the pow¬ 
er of re-calling our immediate representatives,at short 
periods—but we did it simply because we wanted to 
save you some fifty thousand dollars in the annual ex¬ 
penses of legislation ? He admitted that it was the 
duty of this body so to frame the constitution, that the 
operations of government might be carried on as econ¬ 
omically as possible; nevertheless, if they were to 
place in the scales mere dollars and cents, in opposi¬ 
tion to any of those cardinal principles lying at the 
foundation of our government, they would very soon 
find out which end would “kick the beam.” The peo¬ 
ple, much as they desire economy in the administration 
of the government, yet they regard those great princi¬ 
ples essential to the preservation of liberty, of vastly 
more importance than a few thousands. 

Mr. HUNT had heretofore very doubtfully support¬ 
ed biennial sessions ; but he was now satisfied that 
annual sessions would be more democratic. He saw 
no force at all in the argument for biennial .sessions, 
upon the score of economy. 

Mr. SAWYER had only a word to say—only wanted 
to get the last word. The committee which reported 
this bill, contemplating the establishment of annual 
sessions, thought it best to adopt the four years’ term 
for Senators; and, notwithstanding the committee of 
the W’hole had proposed two years, he still thought the 
Convention ought to return to four years. 

He was particularly attached to biennial sessions of 
the Legislature. This question had been agitated in 
the community in which he lived, and he believed he 
had not heard there adissenting voice. He was bound, 
therefore, to support biennial sessions, not only by the 
known will of his constituents, but also by his own 
sense of right. So strong was his attachment to bien¬ 
nial sessions, that, if striking out the four years’ term 
for Senators, and inserting two years, were essential to 
the establishment of biennial sessions, he would be 
willing to yield his predilections for four years. He 
was most fully persuaded that biennial sessions, under 
the proposed curtailments of the power of the Legis¬ 
lature, would be ample and sufficient for all purposes. 
Upon the score of economy, there would be a reduc¬ 
tion of the expenses of the elections, and a saving on 
account of printing, and mileage of members, which, to¬ 
gether. would amount to many thousands of dollars ; 


and there would be eft'ected, also, an escape from the 
ill consecpiences of being encumbered with too much 
legislation. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, would state the ground up¬ 
on which he should cast his vote. When the second 
section of this article was under consideration at the 
summer session, he then endeavored to show why he 
w'^as in favor of biennial sessions. He stated then his 
belief, that a very large majority of members upon this 
floor, were in favor of the provision reported from the 
standing committee, and he reckoned himself with 
that majority. But he wished now to say, that, if the 
pending amendment were to be agreed to—if it were 
to be made a constitutional point, that the Senators 
shall be elected for the same period of time with the 
members of the House of Representatives in the Gene¬ 
ral Assembly of the State,—notwithstanding his opi¬ 
nion had not undergone any change with reference to 
the provision for biennial sessions, he should consider 
that the inconvenience resulting from the adoption of 
this amendment would be so great, that, with his pre¬ 
sent opinions, he would have to go jn favor of annual 
sessions. He was agreed to the declaration of the gen¬ 
tleman Irom Logan [Mr. Stanto.v,] that it was essen¬ 
tial to free government, not only that we should have 
two branches to the Legislature, but that there should 
be a discrimination and a diiference in the periods of 
time for which the members of the two Houses should 
be elected ; and that it was of the most essential im¬ 
portance that, at each recurring session of the Legisla¬ 
ture, there should remain some legislative experience 
amongst at least a portion of the members of that body. 
He would not say, positively, that, if the amendment 
should prevail, he would go in favor of annual sessions; 
but such were his present views and opinions. 

Mr. COLLINGS had entered this Convention as a 
friend of biennial sessions; nor had he yet changed 
those impressions. But those impressions were never 
so strong as induce him to seek to place a provision 
for biennial sessions in the constitution, when such a 
provision would conflict with any other portion of the 
constitution. But the Convention had voted that there 
should be no assessment of taxation, but by the direct 
action of the Legislature. Pie submitted, then, wheth¬ 
er it would be safe to clothe the Legislature with pow¬ 
er to assess the per cent, of taxation so far as two years 
in advance? He affirmed that this vote had brought 
them back to the necessity for a continuance of annual 
sessions ; and since they had agreed to a provision ma¬ 
king annual sessions necessary, he had yielded his pref¬ 
erence for biennial sessions. He .suj)po8ed the execu¬ 
tive could not be trusted with the assessment of the per 
cent, of taxation; and by reference to the contingen¬ 
cies of famine, of revulsions in trade, and breaches in 
public works, he showed that the great interests of 
taxation could not be safely exercised for two years in 
advance. For this reason, he should vote for the two 
years’ term, expecting to bring the Convention back to 
the establishment of annual sessions. 

Mr. MASON said the Convention was called upon 
to amend the report by I'educing the term of Senators 
from four to two years. If the proposition for bien¬ 
nial sessions were to be retained, he would be in favor 
of four years, and would vote, with the gentleman 
from Auglaize [Mr Sawyer] and others, in favor of 
the section as reported by the standing committee. 
But, if annual se.ssion8 were to be adopted, he would 
then be in favor of reducing the term to two years. 
Until these questions of annual and biennial, sessions 
could be disposed of, and the one or the other deter¬ 
mined upon, it would be impossible for him, or for 
any other member of the body, to give a satisfactory, 
intelligentand proper vote upon the pending question. 
And because gentlemen could not control their own 
will upon this question, he desired to postpone the 
further consideration of the section for the present. 

Mr. MASON then moved a re-consideration of the 
vote by which the Convention had refused to postpone 
the section. 














CONVENTION EEPORTS. 809 


But before the motion was entertainetl, 

On motion, by Mr. LARWILL, the Convention took 
a recess. 


3 o’clock, r. M. 

The question being on re-consiclering the vote by 
which the motion to puss by the hi'th amendment, (be- 
inga proposition to make the term of State Senators two 
years instead of four,) was lost. 

Mr. McCORMlCK said: Mr. Tresident, I hope that 
the motion to reconsider will not prevail, and I hope 
to be able to show such reasons as may induce gentle¬ 
men to agree with me. We have, but a short lime 
since, resolved that we will not pass over any portion 
of the business, but take it up seriatim "dnd. thus pro¬ 
gress with it until the whole had been gone through 
with. I do hope that members will adhere to that reso¬ 
lution, for reasons which I shall now assign. I find in 
the Ohio State Journal the following article : 

•< CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION. 

“A distinguished member of the Constitutional Convention 
writing to us says: 

“ ‘ Our time has been wasted in an effort to legislate, tor which 
effort the majority deserve a real castigation. Had the Conven¬ 
tion confined itself to altering w'hat had been directed to need 
change, the judiciary, we might have closed up ere we adjourned 
in July. As it is, we shall now waste three months more in at¬ 
tempts to legislate. 

• The argument is, the people cannot be trusted, they will do 
things we do not approve of, therefore we must prohibit. There 
is a total loss ol all confidence in the good sense of the people.’ ” 

After which comes the following editorial: 

" This excess of legislation in a constitution is one of the evils 
of the times, and the majority at Cincinnati seem determined to 
be as foolish and absurd as any of their neighbors, in this respect. 
This kind of democracy that leaves nothing to be done by those 
that come after them ; that assumes to itself all the wisdom there 
is going; and that trusts nothing to the good sense of the people, 
is the kind that now prevails. From indications from dilierent 
parts of the State, we feel warranted in saying that this monstrous 
assumption is fast disgusting the reflecting portion of our citi¬ 
zens. 

“ It would be as well for these men to remember that the peo¬ 
ple have yet to pass upon their labors.” 

Mr. McCORMlCK resumed: I do not know’, Mr. 
I’resident, nor do I care to know, who the “distin¬ 
guished member” of the Convention is, who wrote that 
letter, or penned the accompanying article, or whethe^- 
any person holding a seat in this Convention did so at 
all; lor were any member of this Convention so to 
write, to that or any other paper, he would Vje unwor¬ 
thy to take his seat with us, or in any body composed 
of honorable men; because, a delegate acting thu.s 
makes use of his influence to destroy the labors and 
influence of this body. No honorable man would 
take upon himself the commission of such an act. 
But whether it was written by a member or not, it was 
at least a hint to the majority, and lor whom I suppose 
the castigation was intended, as to what their duty was. 
If, as gentlemen say, we are wasting the time of the 
Convention and the people, let us cease from so doing. 
We on this side of the chamber are the majority, and 
1, for one, propose to the rest of that majority, that we 
immediately proceed and perform the labors assigned 
to us ; in accordance with our duly, and according to 
the dictates of our consciences ; and then trust to the 
people for their decision. No man on the democratic 
side is alfaid to trust the people; and I here declare 
any charge to the contrary to be an unequivocal false¬ 
hood. 

This is not the first effort, Mr. President, which has 
been made by this paper, (holding up the Ohio State 
Journal,) and by its friends of a particular party, to 
injure the standing, as w’ell as to impede the progress 
ol this Convention. It is not the first broad hint, or 
inuendo, that this Convention, and all its labors, were 
Mike dishonorable to the State. It is well known that 
a large portion of the whig party were opposed to any 
amendments in the Constitution, and it was their ob¬ 
ject from the first day of the Convention up to the 
present time, to endeavor to defeat the efforts of those 
who considered that amendments to the organic law of 


the State were necessary. This then, was only part 
and parcel of the antics to be played olf, as well as of 
the scherne.s to be restored to, by that party. Thinr 
paper speaks of the labors of the Convention, and seeks 
to lower the body in public estimation ; but their object 
is plain. Tiiey know that if the confidence of the peo¬ 
ple is shaken now, it would be difficult again to restore 
it. But I trust and I believe that all such eftorts will 
prove abortive in effect, as they are dishonorable in 
design. 

Mr. CHAMBERS was extremely sorry to hear such 
language as that made use of by the gentleman from 
Adams, [Mr. McCokmick.] He did not consider that 
the occasion called for such bitter remarks generally, 
with regard to the conduct of the great Whig party , or 
that a single paragraphia a newspaper, which might 
or might not have been written by a member ol this 
body, should have excited such remarks and severe 
animadversions on the great Whig party oi the State 
of Ohio, and more particularly on those wdio were 
their representatives in this body. He, for one, had 
come there for the purpose of assisting in the forma¬ 
tion of a constitution, under which they wmuld live in 
harmony and concert. That was his aspiration by day 
and by night; and with I'egard to the assertion made 
by that gentleman, that all the Whigs were opposed to 
the making of a new constitution, he was in a position 
to state, that were it not for the exertions of a distin¬ 
guished Whig member of the Legislature, from the 
county of Muskingum, this body would not now be 
sitting in Convention. So much, then, for the asser¬ 
tion, that the Whigs were opposed to making a new 
constitution. 

He would tell that gentleman, [Mr. McCormick,J 
and those around him, that not one of the Whig party 
within the reach of his voice, had any other feeling: 
on the matter than a sincere and anxious desire that 
such a constitution should be framed as would be for 
the general good, without distinction of class or party. 

The re-consideration of the vote by which the mo¬ 
tion to pass by the fifth amendment was lost, was re- 
fused. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fifth 
amendment, to wit, to strike out the word “ four,” and 
insert the word “ two,” in the 4th section, providing for 
the term of Senators. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, moved a call of the Con¬ 
vention, and being ordered, 

Messrs. Case, of Licking. Currry, Cutler, Ewing, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Masoiu 
Nash, Orton, Otis, Stanbery, Stickney, Swan, Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, antS 
Way, were found absent. 

On motion, Messrs. Ewing and Way, (absent on ac¬ 
count of indisposition,) were excused. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, all further proceedings 
under the call were dispensed with. 

Mr. MORRIS said that having already delivered ms 
sentiments on the subject of the fourth section, he did 
not consider it necessary to repeat his former argu¬ 
ments, especially as his opinion remained unchanged. 
He was in favor ol bienniahsessions, which was a para¬ 
mount consideration with him, and for whi h he should 
vote under all circumstances. Since the adjournment, 
he had had opportunities of consulting wth bis con¬ 
stituents, and they were as one man, and with one 
voice, in favor of that measure. The people felt that 
they had an excess of Legislation. They wanted less 
of it, and better done than it iiad been hitherto; as 
also that the Legislature should be restricted in its time 
of sittino^. He cared not what party was for one meas- 
sure or another, Lis object should be the attainment of 
biennial sessions ; upen that question, he had no fears 
of his constituents being displeased with the vote 
which he should give. 

Mr. BARBEE said that he lelt called upon to say a. 
fevv words— not as regards his position before the 
house, but as to his position before the people by whom 















810 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


he had been sent here, and for whose good opinion he 
felt desirous. Up to the present time he had voted for 
biennial sessions, in accordance with his views, as well 
(he had reason to believe) as in accordance w’ith the 
views of his constituents. But after hearing the argu 
■ments on the report in committee of the Whole, as well 
as on the reading of the report itself, he had come to 
the conclusion, that the reasons there adduced were 
sufficient to induce him again to return to the support 
of annual sessions. It had been remarked that there 
was a general cry for biennial sessions, that the peo¬ 
ple were tired and wearied with annual sessions, and 
that they were burthened with legislative enactments. 
He did not wonder at the cry, as he felt that they had 
I’eason to complain. When the Legislature assembled, 
their time, as well as the money of the State, was spent 
in foolish quibbling, as to what parly should assume 
the reins of government. And perhaps, the most futile 
source of evil existing under the old constitution, was 
the mode by which the laws were enacted. Two- 
thirds of the whole body composed a quorum for the 
transaction of business; a majority of which, enacted 
Jaws. Now, this so-called majority, amounted to about 
twenty-five members, so that, in reality, the formation 
of the laws rested with a minority. Was any n an sur¬ 
prised, that, with such a state of things, there should 
come up from the people, a universal cry against the 
I'requency of annual sessions ? It was not by the voice 
of the people, but by that of a small minority, the 
laws of the land were enacted. And every measure 
which passed both houses of the Legislature did so 
w'ithout the yeas and nays being taken, thus, (to a cer¬ 
tain extent)relieving the members from individual re- 
aponsibility. 

Nor did the cause of complaint end there. Honora¬ 
ble members were constantly in the habit of intention¬ 
ally absenting themselves from the house, when meas¬ 
ures were under discussion which they wished to pass, 
but which, from motives of policy, they could not vote 
for. But, it would be some consolation to the people 
to know, that the evil was about to be removed. The 
Report of the committee contemplated a provision, by 
which a majority of all the members elect should con¬ 
stitute a quorum, and that such majority only, could 
enact laws, and that upon the question being taken by 
yeas and nays. That was a very salutary measure, 
and would prevent a repetition of the inconsiderate, 
hasty manner, in which the laws had been hitherto 
enacted. Another cause of complaint had been, that 
all the officers were elected by the Legislature, in¬ 
stead of by the people. That wms a very fruitful source 
of waste of time and money. The people had com¬ 
plained of it; they had actually been burthened and 
cursed with it, and seeing (as they now did) the eftect 
of it, they seek to remedy the evil. The report of the 
committee amply provided for that object, by proposing 
to transfer the election of all officers fi’om the Legis¬ 
lature to the people; a m^easure he believed which 
would be acceptable to all. There were also other 
extraneous matters, which had been thrown among 
them as bones of contention, for the removal of which, 
the report of the committee provided. 

Seeing therefore that the causes of complaint were 
about being removed, he was in favor of holding on to 
the annual sessions, as a system under which the peo¬ 
ple had hitherto prospered ; notwithstanding the many 
abuses which had, from time to time, crept into it.— 
But, he was opposed to acceding to the proposition of 
extending the term for which a Senator should be elec¬ 
ted, to four years. He considered the proposition as 
replete with evil. No gentleman having a property or 
business, which circumstances compelled him to en¬ 
trust to the care of another, would agree that his agent 
should not be called upon to render a true and faithful 
account, before the termination of so long a period.— 
The great resources of Ohio were now only being de¬ 
veloped. When they.looked about them, and saw the 
new sources of wealth ; the daily opening channels of 


enterprise; the rapid progress of improvements ; with 
the increasing facilities afforded them by the ingenious 
inventions of her citizens ; and that they were advan¬ 
cing—not with the rapidity of the locomotive, but with 
that of the telegraph itself—he would ask of them to 
pause and inquire, what may be their wants before the 
expiration of four years ? The political aspect of the 
State may be changed. Four years hence a reverse 
might come; the condition of their now happy land 
might be changed; and although they might now elect 
a man, whose views coincided with theirs, yet, in the 
event of such a change as, he had averted to, it would 
be well to have it in their power to call on their agent 
or representative, for an account once in every year, 
or at farthest, once in every two years. 

He was also of opinion that the Senator should be 
elected for a longer period than the members of the 
legislative Assembly, and should accordingly vote to 
sustain the amendment made in committee of the 
Whole. 

The question then recurring on the fifth amendment, 
(before recited,) 

Mr. HAWKINS demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being taken, resulted—yeas fi6, nays 39 —as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Case of Hocking, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Dorsey, Farr, Forbes, 
Graham, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hard, Harlan, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, Johnson, King, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Patterson, Perkins, Quig¬ 
ley, Rnnney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of VV yandot, Stidger, Struble, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, 
Tovvnsheiid, Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury, Wor¬ 
thington, and President—56. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Chambers, Cook, Curry, Ew'art, Florence, Gillett, Gray, Hamil¬ 
ton, Hawkins, Henderson, Horton, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, 
Larsh, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Nash, Peck, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swift, and Wil¬ 
liams—39. 

So the fifth amendment, of the committee of the 
Whole to the 4th section was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the sixth 
amendment to section 4—to wit; 

Strike out all after the word “years,’’ where it first 
occurs in the section; the same was agreed to. 

The cpiestion then being on agreeing to the seventh 
amendment to section 4—to wit: 

After the word “respectively,” in the 4th section, 
insert the words, ** on the second Tuesday of October;” 
the same was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the eighth 
amendment—to wit: 

Strikeout the word “chosen,” where it occurs in 
section 4, and insert the word “ elected; ” the same 
was agreed to. 

Sec. 4, as amended, reads as follows : 

“ Sec. 4. Senators shall be elected bienially, by the electors in 
each Senatorial district, on the second Tuesday of October. 
Their term of office shall be two years.” 

The question then being on agreeing to the ninth 
amendment—to wit: 

Strike out all after the word “ Representative,” in 
section 5; which was agreed to, and the section as 
amended reads as follows : 

“ Sec. 5. The quali.ications for a Senator shall be the same as 
for a Representative ” 

The question.then being on agreeing to the tenth 
amendment—to wit: 

Sec. 6. Strike out the words “ two-thirds,” and in¬ 
sert the words “a majority of all the members elected;” 
which was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the eleventh 
amendment—to wit: 

Sec. 6. Strike out the words “be authorized to ;” the 
same was agreed to, and the section as amended reads 
as follows: 

“ Sec. 6. Each House shall be the judge of the election returns 
and qualification of its members. A majority of all the members 
elected of each House shall be a quorum to do business, but a 








811 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and to compel the 
attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such 
penalties as maybe prescribed by law.” 

The question then being on agreeing to the twelfth 
amendment—to wit; 

Sec. 8. Strike out the word ** question,’’ and insert 
the word “ vote;” which was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the thirteenth 
amendment—to wit: 

Sec. 8. After the word law,” insert “ or reiolution 
designed to have the force of law, or whereby money 
may be drawn from the treasurj'which was agreed 
to. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, inquired of the President if 
he considered the amendment as agreed to; and, on 
being answered in the affirmative, movedthat it be 
reconsidered.” His reason for adopting that course 
was, that they had already provided that no money 
should be paid out unless authorized by law; where¬ 
as, the amendment now under consideration would 
have the pernicious tendency of allowing the Legisla¬ 
ture to appropriate the moneys of the Slate, if the con¬ 
currence of a majority could be obtained. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, was desirous that the 
amendment should be reconsidered, in order to make 
it clear that the money should only be drawn from the 
Treasury by law, and not by resolution. 

The question then being on re-considering the vote 
taken on the adoption of the thirteenth amendment, it 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment. 

Mr. MASON then moved to amend the amendment 
of the Committee of the Whole, by striking out all 
after the word “ or,” and inserting in lieu thereof, the 
following words—“joint resolution of both Houses;” 
which wras agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment as amended, 

Mr. MITCHELL said, that he was of the opinion 
that the section as originally reported would be better 
than to incorporate an amendment on it. It was true 
the report of the Finance Committee had obviated the 
difficulty, and he felt that there w'as danger of mis¬ 
construing that amendment, and for that reason, he 
thought that the leport should stand as it was. It 
might embarrass the Legislature if it was necessary to 
have two-thirds of all the members elected to appro¬ 
priate small sums of money, and great injury might 
arise to the public interests. 

The amendment as amended w'as disagreed to. 

The section as amended reads as follows: 

“ See. 8. Each House shall keep a correct Journal of its pro¬ 
ceedings, and take efficient means to publish the same; the yeas 
and nays shall, at the desire of any two members, be entered 
upon the Journal, and on the passage of every bill, in either 
House, the vote shall be taken by yeas and nays, and entered 
upon the Journal, and no law shall be passed without a concur¬ 
rence of a majority ol all the members elected to each House. 

The question then being on agreeing to thefourteenth 
amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 10. After the wmrd “resolution,” strike out 
the following v/ords, “ wdiich they may think injurious 
to the public or any individual;” which was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fifteenth 
amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 10. Strike out the words “dissent from and;” 
it W'as agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the sixteenth 
amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 1.0. After the word “resolution” insert the 
word “thereof;” which was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the seven¬ 
teenth amendment, to wit; 

Sec. 10. After the word “ protest,” insert the words 
“and reasons therefor ;” which was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to theeighteenth 
amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 10. Strike outthew'ords “ two members,” and 
insert the words “one meir.ber;” 


The same was agreed to, and the section as amend¬ 
ed, reads as foliow's; 

“ Sec. 10. Any one member of either House shall have the 
right to protest against any act or resolution thereof, and such 
protest, and reasons thereior, shall be entered upon the Journal.” 

The question tlien being on agreeing to the nineteenth 
amendment, to wdt: 

Sec. 11. Strike out the words “as soon as possible;” 
which was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenti¬ 
eth amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 11. Strike out the word “ an ” before the word 
“ election;” which was agreed to, and the section as 
amended, reads as follows : 

“ Sec. 11. All vacancies which may happen in either House 
shall be filled by election, and the Governor shallissue the neces¬ 
sary writs of election, according to law.” 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
first amendment, to-wit: 

Sec. 13. Strike out the words “a majority of;” 
which W'as agreed to: 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
second amendment, to-w'it: 

Sec. 13. Strike out the words “ at all times;” it was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
third amendment, to-wit; 

Sec. 13. Strike out the words “such” and “as,” and 
insert in lieu of the word “as” the word “which;” 

The same was agreed to, and the section, as amend¬ 
ed, reads as follows: 

“ Sec. 13. The proceedings of both houses shall be public, ex¬ 
cept in cases, which in the opinion of two thirds of those present, 
require secrecy.” 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
fourth amendment, to-wit: 

Sec. 14. After the w'ord “days,” insert the words 
“Sundays exclusive;” 

The same was agreed to, and the section, as amend¬ 
ed, reads as follows; 


The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
fifth amendment, tow'it: 

Sec. 15. Strike out all after the word “other,” to 
the end of the section ; 

The same was agreed to, and the section, a.s amend¬ 
ed, reads as follows: 

Sec. 15. Bills may originate in either house, but may be al¬ 
tered, amended, or rejected in the other.” 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
sixth amendment, to-w'it: 

Sec. 16. After the w'ord “be,” (where it follows the 
v.'ords “ and no law shall,”) strike out to the end of the 
section, and insert, “ revised or amended by reference 
to its title only, but in revising or amending an act, the 
new act shall contain the entire act revised, or the sec¬ 
tion or sections amended, and the section or sections of 
the act amended, shall be entirely repealed;” 

The same was agreed to, and the section, as amend¬ 
ed, reads as follows; 

« Sec. 16. Every bill shall be fully and distinctly read on three 
diflerent days, unless in case of urgency, three-iourths of the 
House, in which the question shall be pending, shall deem it ex- 
pedient to dispense with this rule, and every bill shall contain but 
one act, embrace but one object, which shall be clearly expressed 
on its title, and no law shall be revived or amended by reference 
to its title only, but in reviving^ or amending an act, the new act 
shall contain the entire act revived, or the section or sections, 
amended; and the section or sections amended, shall be entirely 
repealed.” 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
seventh amendment, to wit: 

That section 18 be stricken out; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the 
twenty-eighth amendment, to wit: 

Sec. id. IR strike out all after the 

word “ elected;” 

Mr. RE EMELIN said that he was well aware that 
the Legislature would not have much power after the 


“Sec. 14. Neither house shall, without the consent of the oth- 
’ er, adjourn for more than two days, Sundays exclusive, nor to any 
other place than that in which the two houses shall be in session.” 












812 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


Convention had finished its labors; still, he could 
easily imagine, that there were ofiices wliich th'.'y 
could create. The people complained bitterly of 
Legislators ai)pointing themselves to the lucrative situ¬ 
ations, as had occurred in the Penitentiary, Lunatic 
Asylum, and other public departments. 

Mr. MASON understood that the section had been 
struck out in committee of the whole, on the ground of 
ds being a violation of the constitution. 

The amendment was agreed to, and the section or¬ 
dered to be stricken out. 

The question then being on the adoi)tion of the thir¬ 
tieth amendment, to wit: 

'‘That section 21 be stricken out;” the same was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the thir¬ 
ty-first amendment, to wit: 

“ Sec. 22. After the word ‘ received ’ (where it oc¬ 
curs a second time) insert the word ‘ respectively;’” 

The same was agreed to, and the section as amended 
reads as follows: 

“ Sec. 22. An accurate and detailed statement of the receipts 
and expenddures of the public money, and of the names of the 
persons who shall have received the same, and the amount they 
shall have received respectively, shall annually be published.” 

The question then being on the adoption of the thir¬ 
ty-second amendment, to wit: 

“Sec. 23 Add to the end of the section these words, ‘The 
General Assembly shall provide by law for the removal of Jus¬ 
tices of the Peace, and county and township officers, in such 
manner and foreuch cause, as to them shall seem just and pro¬ 
per;’ ” 

The same was agreed to, and the section as amended 
reads as follows: 

“ Sec. 23. The House of Representatives shall have the sole 
power of impeachment, but a majority of all the Representatives 
must concur in the impeachment. All impeachments shall be 
tried by the Senate, and when sitting for that purpose, the Sena¬ 
tors shall be upon oath or affirmation to do justice according to 
law and evidence. No person shall be convicted without the 
concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators. The General Assem¬ 
bly shall provide by law for the removal of Justices of the Peace, 
and county and township officers, in such manner and for such 
cause as to them shall seem just and proper.” 

The question then being on the adoption of the thir¬ 
ty-third amendment—to wit: 

Sec. 24. After the word profit,” insert the words 
“ under the authority of the State 

The same was agreed to, and the section a.s amended 
reads as follows: 

“Sec. 24. The Governor, and ali civil officers under this State, 
shall be liable to impeachment for any misdemeanor in office, but 
judgment in such case shall not extend further than removal from 
office and disqualification to hold any office of trust, honor or 
profit under the authority of this State.' The party, whether con¬ 
victed or not, shall nevertheless be liable to indictment, trial and 
judgment, according to law.” 

The question then being on tiie adoption of the tliir- 
ty-fourth amendment—to wit: 

Sec. 25. At the end of tlie section, in.sert the word 
*' biennially 

Mr. REEMELlN moved a call of Uie Convention; 
and it being ordered, Messrs. Cutler, Ewing, Hitch¬ 
cock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Lawrk.vce,' 
Larwill, Orton, Otis, Stanbeuy, Stick.vey, Swan, 
Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Champaign, and Way, 
were found absent. 

On motion of Mr, SAWYER, all further proceedings 
under the call were dispensed with. 

The question then being on agreeing to the thirty^- 
fourth amendment, (before cited,) 

Mr. REEMBLiN moved to amend the amendment, 
by inserting after the word “biennially,” the following 
words; “and the first session under this constitution 
shall be on the first Monday of January, 1852.” 

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the thirty- 
fourth amendment of the committee of the whole, as 
amended, 

On motion of Mr, HAWKINS, the Convention ad 
journed. 


SATURDAY, Decemrer 21, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Sears. 

Mr. LARWILL, who was absent from indisposition 
yesterday, at the time of the call of the House, ntr.v 
asked and obtained excuse for such absence. 

Mr. HAWKINS presenlad the petition of William 
Montgomery and 160 others, citizens of Ohio, jiraying 
that every description of property may be taxed, 

Mr, HOLMES presented the pelilion of Thomas 
Johnson and 109 othes, citizens of Hamilton county, 
asking that a provision be engrafted into the new con¬ 
stitution, taxing all property in the State equally and 
fairly. 

Which petitions were severally referred to the com¬ 
mittee on Finance and Taxation. 

Mr. MASON presented the petition of J. H. Rey¬ 
nolds and 150 others, citizens of Clark county, praying 
that a clause be inserted in the new constitution pro¬ 
hibiting the Legislature from passing any law legali¬ 
zing the traffic in spiritous liquors; 

Which, upon his motion, was referred to the commit¬ 
tee upon the subject of Retailing Ardent Spiriis. 

BIENNIAL SESSIONS. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention now 
resumed the consideration of the amendments to the 
report of the committee on the 

LEGISLATIVE DEPART.MENT. 

The question being upon agreeing to the 34th amend¬ 
ment, to wit: 

At the end of section 25, add the word “ biennially.” 

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. President: If there is really 
any good reason for continuing the annual sessions of 
the General Assembly ; if the peojile can realize, to any 
extent, an equivalent for the expenditure consequent 
upon the support of annual sessions, let us continue to 
have them. But, if it should be shown that from past 
experience, that the people have not realized anything 
like an equivalent for tlie expenses incurred, then, let 
us have a change. 

The people of Ohio are a calculating people. When¬ 
ever any proposition is submitted to them, they in¬ 
quire into it; and the query, will it pay ? is apt to be 
suggested to their minds. And with respect to annual 
sessions of the Legislature, they have been investiga¬ 
ting that subject in these two questions : Are they ne¬ 
cessary ? Do we reolize, in any shape, an equivalent 
for the expenditure incun*ed in maintaining them ? 

But, before looking particularly into these questions, 
let us notice some of the remarks of the gentleman 
from Hamilton, [Mr. Ree.melin]. The gentleman has 
charged it upon us, that the advocates of biennial ses- 
.sions, are taking a step backward from the true repub¬ 
lican ground. I would like to know by what rule that 
gentleman has fixed upon what is true republican 
ground, and by what authority he has maiked out 
and legally defined its limits ? 

For my part, I am very much attached to republi¬ 
canism; and, if it is true that we are about to abandon 
this great old democratic ground, I want to know it. 
My idea of republicanism is something like this: that 
it requires the representative of the people, to obey the 
dictates and decisions of public sentiment. I consider 
it a very essential point in the republican doctrine, that 
the will and wish of the people with reference to all 
matters connected with their own interests, should al¬ 
ways be strictly regarded ; and I consider that the de¬ 
terminations of an intelligent constituency should be 
obligatory upon us here, unless they should happen to 
require something of us which wouldxcontravene the 
paramount authority of our oaths, and our allegiance 
to the Federal Constitution. I cannot even imagine 
the possibility of the existence of a species of repub¬ 
licanism that would thwart, and deny, and disregard 
the will of the people. 

But. with re.spect to this public sentiment requiring 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


813 


Legisla- 


the establishtnent of biennial sessions of the 
ture, the gentleman from Hamilton has cliargecl it upon 
us as “ a home made sentiment, manufactured by hon¬ 
orable gentlemen here, before they left their homes.” 
There is one thing, atleast, connected with this charge, 
about which I cannot be displeased, and that is, that 
there is nothing of llattery in it. It does not appear to 
me to be very complimentary to gentlemen who hap¬ 
pen to ditfer with him in opinion upon this quesiion; 
nor do I think it very complimentary to some of the 
distinguished colleagues of tlie gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton. I think it was rather a hax’sh charge, and hardly 
fair, or even generous tor him to say, not only, that 
this public sentiment was manuiactured by gentlemen 
beibre they left their homes, but that they had since 
become frightened at the work of their own hands. 
But let it pa 5 S. 

Another objection which the gentleman has to bien¬ 
nial sessions, is, the difficulty of making appropriations 
of money for the public expenses for two years in ad¬ 
vance—leaving too large a margin for erroneous esti¬ 
mates. But let us inquire whether this objection is 
well founded. I undertake to say, that the ordinary 
expenses of government may be very safely estimated 
for two years ahead. We may calcidate exactly the 
expenditures for the civil list, when we know the num¬ 
ber of the public officers, and their salaries, and the 
number of members of the Legislature. But with re¬ 
spect to the expenditures upon the public works, these 
necessarily depend upon so many unforeseen contin¬ 
gencies, that the best estimates cannot be anything 
more than mere conjectures, just as they have been 
heretofore. No specific legislative appropriations have 
been made for the public works since that which was 
authorized by the act of 1825. 

And, sir, of the three millions drawn from t!;e treas¬ 
ury during last year, but a little over three hundred 
thousand w'ere drawn in pursuance of specific appro¬ 
priations. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. Less than that. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The report gives it a little rising 
of $300,000. I do not mention this in the way of ap¬ 
proval. Very far from it; but I mention it to show that 
this has been the case, notwithstanding all that is 
claimed for annual sessions of the Legislature ; and that 
a change to biennial sessions need not necessarily make 
it any worse. I wish to see this matter remedied; and 
I will go heartily with my friend from Monroe for cor¬ 
recting this thing. 

I have before remarked, that appropriations for re¬ 
pairs on the public works cannot be estimated in ad¬ 
vance, with any degree of certainty. These estimates 
being wholly conjectural—depending upon unforeseen 
contingencies—it is manifest that you can make an es¬ 
timate for the second year with just about the same de¬ 
gree of certainty that you can make an estimate for 
the first year; and if you cannot tell for one year in 
advance, what amount of appropriation would be ne¬ 
cessary to repair damages by flood and freshet, the 
same objection with regard to this item of appropria¬ 
tion which has been raised against biennial sessions, 
must also apply to annual sessions. I hope, however, 
that we shall be able, after a while, to return to that 
kind of government so much desired by the gentleman 
from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] —a government merely 
for the purpose of preservhig public order—and then, 
and not till then, shall we be able to avoid all the diffi¬ 
culties of this character, which now present themselves 
on every side. 

It was one of the strongest reasons of the gentleman 
from Hamilton, in favor of annual sessions, that the 
people, by this means, would be correctly informed of 
the condition of public affairs, and especially of the 
disbursement of the public money. But he did not 
proceed to show that by means of the Legislature as¬ 
sembling at Columbus once a year, and remaining there 
for three months, the people had heretofore been fur¬ 
nished with a correct and intelligible account of the 


disbursements of the public revenue. This, however 
was precisely what he should have done, in order to 
have given weight to his argument; but this, I appre¬ 
hend, was precisely what he could not do. 

And now, Mr. President, withoutdesiring to impeach 
the integrity or the wisdom of our former Legislatures, 

I affirm that, for the last fifteen years we have not had 
a single legislative report containing any thing like full 
and complete information upon this subject. 

Mr. REBMELIN desired to mention the first message 
of Gov. Seabury Ford, as the most comprehensive, cor¬ 
rect, and satisfactory statement of the condition of the 
public debt, which had ever before emanated from the 
Executive of the State. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Upon that statement he was pre¬ 
pared to take issue with, the gentleman. As much as 
he esteemed Governor Ford, as much confidence as he 
had in the virtue and intelligence of that gentleman, 
he was constrained to say that the matter of the mes¬ 
sage referred to was not only incorrect, but it was well 
calculated to deceive the public mind. 

He repeated that he had never seen the report, and 
he did not believe that it could not be shown, in an in¬ 
telligible and satisfactoi’y manner, that even the four 
hundred and fifty thousand dollars annually appropri¬ 
ated for the repairs of the public works, had been prop¬ 
erly expended, nor could any report be produced, giv¬ 
ing a complete account of the disbursements annually, 
of those three millions, for three or four years past. 
But still, the interest on the State debt had been paid, 
and the debt, itself, to a small extent, diminished. The 
per cent, of taxation, however, had been annually in¬ 
creased ; so that the levy which, in 1846, was2| mills, 
was now 3 1-5 mills. 

Mr. REEMELIN referred to the report of Mr. Dis¬ 
ney for 1843-’4, the report of the Secretary of State, 
and of Mr. Alfred Kelley, as affording satisfactory in¬ 
formation upon this subject, and he affirmed that re¬ 
ports giving this kind of information were issued every 
year from these departments of the government. 

Mr. HAWKINS had been looking over this report of 
Messrs Kelley aud Disney; and their obect seemed 
to be to convict Mr. John Brouh of some improper 
management of the public finances. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Did Mr. Disney sign it alone? 

Mr. HAWKINS knew that the report was made as 
chairman of the committee; but it gave out the idea 
which he had suggested. It proceeded to hunt up a 
large deficiency of the money properly applicable to 
the payment of interest on the debt; and then under¬ 
took to account lor the manner in which the interest 
had been paid, whilst the moneys applicable to the 
object were largely deficient. But, at the end ot the 
report, it appeared, that they had not been able to find 
where Mr. Brough had contracted any debt for this 
purpose. 

Mr. REEMELIN. He used the ministerial and 
school kinds for that purpose. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Not a dollar of it. At the con¬ 
clusion of their report, the committee say, “There 
would seem to be a deficiency of $900,000 or upwards; 
yet this money had been promptly paid, and they were 
unable to find out where the Auditor had obtained the 
money to do it.” 

He affirmed that it was impossible for any ordinary 
legislative committee to make out such a report, upon 
the subject of the public disbursements, as would be 
satisfactory. They had heretofore failed to do it, and 
as a consequence, 'the people cherished a suspicion of 
fraud. In order to furnish a thorough understanding 
of this business to the people, it would be necessary 
lor the Legislature to provide a special commissioner, 
whose duly it should be to make all the necessary ex¬ 
aminations, and repo.it semi-annually. Gov. Ford, in 
his first annual message, (delivered in 1848,) communi¬ 
cated the fact officially to the General Assembly, that 
a large poriion of the principal of the public debt had 
been paid olf since 1845. He was glad to hear this 













814 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


announcement; and he went to the Auditor’s report 
for 1845, and compared the statements there with the 
statement of the Gov. in 1848, and the statement of the 
Auditor to see whether these things were so; to see 
whether, as a result of our excellent financial sys¬ 
tem,” a large portion of the public debt had really been 
paid off. But, he found it was not so. He found 
that the whole amount of the reduction during these 
three years was but about thirteen to fourteen thou¬ 
sand dollars and not even so much as that sum ; be¬ 
cause 200,000 of surplus revenue had been disbursed 
in the mean time, but it had never been noticed in any 
legislative report. And a year ago last summer, when 
the whig newspapers stated that two millions of the 
debt had been paid off, he was notable to find a report of 
any member of the Legislature—showing that it was a 
mere falsehood, put forth for electioneering purposes. 
And he found many democrats who were disposed to 
grumble against their party, and say, here is a wdiig 
scheme of finance, which in three years time has ex¬ 
tinguished nearly one tenth of the public debt. 

But he did not desire t(» give himself so extensive a 
range. It was his object, more particularly, to show, 
that the annual assembling of the Legislature was not 
requisite and necessary in order to give to the people 
full information w’ith reference to the condition of the 
public debt, and of the disbursements of the money of 
the Treasuiy; and to show, also, that the performance 
of this service w'as wholly incompatible with the du 
ties of a legislative committee. 

The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] had 
spoken of the Legislature as the very eye of the peo¬ 
ple ; and perhaps that body might be so considered in 
a figure. But -so far as a portion of the members of 
that body were concerned, he supposed there was at 
one time, only a few years ago, a little danger of losing 
their literal eyes, without a figure. [A laugh.] 

He supposed it was known to this body, that there 
was prevailing a pretty strong persuasion amongst the 
people of the State, that the General Assembly had 
been originated and must be continued as a sort of ne¬ 
cessary evil; and it was upon observations made of 
the results of the delibei’ations of that body, that many 
had come to the conclusion that it would be better to 
dispense with one-half the expenses of that body, by 
the establishment of biennial sessions—the additional 
expenses not being warranted by the advantages result¬ 
ing from the continuance of annual sessions. Wheth¬ 
er right or wrong, such were the convictions of a large 
portion of the people; and when this constitution 
should be presented to them, they would examine and 
decide upon it with reference to these convictions. He 
feared that if the Convention decided upon annual ses¬ 
sions the people would reject the new constitution. 
And it was to avoid a misfortune of this kind, that he 
was anxious to defer to what was really the public 
opinion in these respects. 

Mr. HAWKINS proceeded to slate the figures of 
some of the items of expenditures for the last General j 
Assembly, and to give the total of the expenses of 
that department for the last year, at $84,795 95—ask¬ 
ing the gentleman from Hamilton whether he could 
seriously think that the people had received of that 
body anything like an equivalent for the expenditure 
named ? 

Mr. REEMELIN. Just as much an equivalent as 
they received for money paid for services rendered in 
any other department of the government. 

Mr. HAWKINS. That was a very indefinite kind 
of an answer. But he did not think the people had 
received anything like an equivalent for the expendi¬ 
ture he had named ; and he warned the Convention, 
that the people would discard the new constitution, 
unless, under its provisions, they could hope to receive 
for these expenditures of the public moneys some val¬ 
uable return. 

What did the people ever receive at the hands of the 
Legislature for this expenditure? They received a 


change of their laws—sometimes a little too sudden 
either for their convenience or advantage. The laws 
passed in the winter would be printed and distributed 
about the first of July; and then, about five months 
from that time, the Legislature would be assembled 
again, prepared to correct the errors and blunders of 
the prcceeding session. One of the reasons why so 
many blunders were committed, w’as, that the mem 
bers themselves did not feel the full weight and im¬ 
portance of their responsibility; and perhaps they 
could not so well feel the importance of their position 
so long as they know that the same body will re-as- 
semble very soon, and may correct their blunders.— 
Some laws, indeed, were amended before the close of 
the session in which they were originated. The peo¬ 
ple were heartily tried of this constant tendency to 
change in our legislation. It was an evil which they 
had for a long time wished to avoid; and whenever 
this could be affected along with the saving of eighty 
or ninety thousand dollars, every two years, they 
w'ould consider it quite a reform. 

With regard to the repairs on the public works, 
$450,000 per annum had been assumed as the average 
expenditure for this purpose. But the legislative com¬ 
mittees on Finance had not yet at any time, taken up 
this matter, to see whether this money had been all 
properly applied. They had left the people in the 
dark—entirely ignorant of whatever w’aste and prodi¬ 
gality may have attended the disbursements of their 
appropriations. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD (in his seat.) He had no doubt 
there had been great waste. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Nor have I; and since these ex¬ 
positions had never yet been made by the Legislature, 
the necessity for making them was but a poor argu¬ 
ment in favor of annual sessions. 

Mr. REEMELIN said he understood the position o 1 
the question to be, that the Legislature meeting annu¬ 
ally hitherto, had not performed certain duties which 
should be performed by the General Assembly. Now, 
he would ask the gentleman to tell us how much, more 
or less, would be the approach to the performance of 
that duty, if the Legislature were to meet only once in 
two years ? 

Mr. HAAVKINS. He was answering the gentle¬ 
man’s argument, based upon the assumption that an¬ 
nual sessions were necessary, in order that the people 
might be informed of the manner of the disbursements 
of the public moneys. He would now ask the gentle¬ 
man, since, by means of annual sessions, this informa¬ 
tion had not yet been elicited, how could he claim, for 
the sake of this information, that annual sessions should 
be continued ? 

Mr. REEMELIN stated, in reply, that the Legisla¬ 
ture had sent out this information to some extent; and 
he referred again to the reports and papers he had 
mentioned before. 

Mr. HAWKINS knew that attempts had been made 
I to inform the people with reference to these expendi¬ 
tures of the treasury, but they had never been success¬ 
ful, and they never would be, either with annual or bi¬ 
ennial sessions. In order to give this inlormation to 
the people, quite a different course would have to be 
pursued. These investigations would have to be com¬ 
mitted to men who could command more leisure than 
any legislative committee; and they should be requir¬ 
ed to report semi-annually to some body, and their re¬ 
port should go into details far enough to give the ut¬ 
most satisfaction. 

There are two things which the people desired to 
avoid, by the establishment of biennial sessions; One 
was the instability^of legislation; and the other was the 
unnecessary expense of legislation ; and he might add, 
as a third consideration, that the people desired to avoid 
a recurrence of those humiliating scenes, which on two 
or three occasions, of late years, had disgraced our leg¬ 
islative halls, and which had led many to look upon 
I our Legislature as something like a nuisance, and a 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


815 


very costly nuisance, at that. So strong was this feel¬ 
ing amongst the people, that, when he had proposed 
to remedy the evil by limited annual sessions, they had 
replied to him, “ The fewer we have of them the bet¬ 
ter/’ 

He could speak particularly of the region which he 
had the honor to represent. He knew their sentiments 
apon this subject. Above all other reforms, they de¬ 
sired retrenchment in the public expenditui’es; that 
our laws should be plain and intelligible to men ol 
common understanding; that there should be less fluc¬ 
tuation in our legislation ; and that the elections of State 
and judicial oflicers should betaken away from the 
Legislature and given to the people. 

Much complaint also, had been made on account of 
the expenses of this Convention. Even $40,000 had 
appeared to the people as a large expenditure for this 
object; and it was on this accolmt, also, that he was 
anxious for the body to succeed with all the measures 
of reform to which he had now distinctly referred. 
For, if something should not be done of a decidedly re- ) 
formatory character, all the work of the Convention 
would be considered as thrown away, and the new 
constitution would be rejected. 

It had been truthfully charged upon this floor, that 
there was a proclivity in this country to legislate and 
govern too much. He had himself observed, that there 
was always an extra-ofliiciousness observable amongst 
us, in the way of attempting too many things in legis¬ 
lation—but, at the same time, taking care to be well 
paid for the service; for, if they were not well paid, 
why was it that office was always so eagerly sought 
after. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. It was always sought after; for 
sometimes a seat in the General Assembly had to go a 
begging. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Never. Even in the county of 
Monroe there was frequently a strife, in which the gen¬ 
tleman himself commonly took part, to see who should 
go up to the Capitol for $3 a day. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Three dollars a day was not the 
consideration at all; for, poor as were his abilities to 
make money, ho found that, in the pursuit of his busi¬ 
ness at home, he was in the receipt of nearly twice as 
much. 

Mr. HAWKINS had no doubt of that. But still it 
was no proof that the office went a-begging. 

He would now close by stating, frankly, in his place, 
that, if he had been left to follow the dictates of his 
own judgment upon this question, wnth the hopes which 
he entertained of the accomplishment of several propo¬ 
sed reforms in the legislation of the State, he slnjuld 
vote for annual sessions of the General Assembly. The 
remarks which he had now closed, were intended to 
'•epresent and defend what he iindcrstood to be public 
opinion at home—opinion to which he felt bound to 
defer. 

Mr. NASH. There was one argument, w'hich, more 
tiian any other, seemed to affect the minds of gentlemen 
both in and out of the Convention. It was this: The 
alleged impossibility for the Legislature to manage the 
finances of the State for twm years in advance. Not¬ 
withstanding all that had been said, he really believed 
that there was nothing at all in this argument. 

It had been alleged that the Legislature could not 
prudently make all the necessary aj>propriations for so 
long a term as four years. He would consider this for 
a moment. 

And first, there could be no difficulty about the ap¬ 
propriations for the civil list, so long as the number and 
the salaries of the various officers were known. The 
items and the amount could be just as wellascertained 
for the second year as for the first year. 

Another argument for annual sessions was the neces¬ 
sity for annual appropriations for the support of the 
public institutions of the State. These appropriations 
were now ascertained by taking the average of appro¬ 
priations made for these instiiutions during several of 


he years preceding. But there were contingencies_ 

such as the admission of an universally large number 
of individuals—for which it was beyond the reach ot 
legislation to provide, even for a single year. All that 
could be done for contingencies, was to set apart a con¬ 
tingent fund. He saw no more difficulty in making all 
these appropriations for tw’o years, than for one year. 
Then, in regard to the contingencies for public officers,, 
and the contingencies for these institutions, neither the 
Governor, Auditor nor Treasurer, could say what would, 
be the requisite expenditure, with any more certainty 
than any man could estimate by an examination of the- 
appropriations and expenditures for these contingen¬ 
cies for several of the past years. 

The next item of appropriation was the payment of 
the interest on the public debt, and this was all a ques¬ 
tion of pure figures, to be settled by calculation; since 
it was proposed that these appropriations, both for the 
payment of interest and the reduction of principal, 
should be made by the Legislature instead of the Fund 
) Commissioners. There certainly could be no more dif¬ 
ficulty in making these calculations for two years than 
for one year. 

But the great matter to be provided for, was the 
public works. Here, with the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton, [Mr. Reemelin] was the great difficulty—the 
impossibility of forseeing these items of expenditure. 
He agreed with that gentleman in the remark, that 
these items were very enormous; and whether they 
ever could be diminished or not, was more than any 
man could say. The first class of these items embrac¬ 
ed the pay of the officers having charge of the public 
works, which could be as well calculated for the sec- - 
ond as for the first year. To the second class of these 
items belonged what w’as called the expenses of the 
ordinary repairs on the public works. These could 
not be correctly ascertained until after the work has 
been accomplished ; but upon looking over the opera¬ 
tions of the past, the sum of the items of appropriation 
for each year could be taken and averaged, and the re¬ 
sult of this average would give about the amount of ex- 
penditure which would have to be met. This was the • 
only rule, and, of course, it could be just as safely ap - 
plied to two ye.ars as to one year. Then, there was 
what was called the extraordinary repairs—those which < 

. were caused by flood, and freshet, and storm. These 
were I'everses which could not be foretold ; but it was 
just as easy to estimate these for one year, as for two- 
1 years. We could just as well provide for casualties of 
this class for the next twenty-four months, as for the 
next twelve months. The only rule would be, to draw 
an inference from past experience, founded upon what 
: has been the average annual expenditure for these ex- 
I traordinary repairs, say for the last ten years. If this 
; rule were 'to be rejected, there could be found no oth- 
I er ; and by this rule the appropriation could be as vveil 
made for two years as for one. Moreover, by taking 
I two year.s together, the estimates would be more likely 
1 to be correct; because the more numerous casualties ot. 

) one of the years might be balanced by less numeroue- 

■ casuultie.s of the other. 

Mr. STANTON suggested, that the crops v/ould no-:3 
i fail for two vears in succession. 

Mr. NASH. That was very true. But it was all a* 

; matter of guessing. There was no absolute certainty. 

I about it. 

With regard to the position of the gentleman froim 
Hamilton, [Mr. Reemeein], that the Legislature must 
. be called together every year, for the purpose of ex - 
I amiuint^ into the fidelity of the disbursements of the 
; appropriations he was willing to admit, that, if the 
1 object could be attained, it would justify even twice 
the amount of expenses induced by annual ses&ions. 

■ But he claimed to know something of the labor of 
; delviii" into these accounts, and he affirmed that no 
i le^^islative committee—he cared not what might be 
- their talent and qualifications for the work—could, in 
f less than six months’ time, arrive at the truth with re¬ 
gard to these disbursements for a single year. 










816 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


Mr. REEMELIN tiesired to ask the gentleman from 
Gallia his opinion as to what would have been the 
probable loss to the State, if the Commission appoint¬ 
ed by the Legislature of 1845-6, (of which the gentle¬ 
man was a member,) had not been appointed? 

Mr. NASH. His opinion was, that the State would 
have experienced no loss. What he meant was, that 
no new fraud would have been perpetrated; for the 
reason, that there had been an entire change made 
in the superintendence. But that was not the question. 

He then proceeded to rehearse the duties of the 
Commission to which he was attached. It was not 
until after four or five months of inquiry, as individ¬ 
uals, unknown in their official capacity, that they 
went upon the road to gather up information. Had 
they gone upon the route at first as a committee of 
the Legislature, they never would have ascertained 
the hundreth part of what they did. It was impossi¬ 
ble to find out anything from the books and papers of 
the Superintendent of public works. His vouchers 
and receipts, all agreeing perfectly, would not always 
answer the object of the inquiry. The real difficulty 
would be—Has the work been done ? Was the signa¬ 
ture upon the receipt a real name or not ? I'liese in¬ 
quiries could only be answered by going upon the 
road, looking at the work, and hunting up the men 
themselves. 

Mr. Brough was the first man in Ohio who had the 
discernment to see, and the independence to declare, 
that something wrong was going on in connection with 
the disbursements of the public moneys in the North¬ 
west part of the State; and for that, he was hunted 
with a vindictiveness of feeling which would not re¬ 
mit until it had crushed him ; and he had heard the 
enemies of that gentleman make this declaration over 
and over again. 

A satisfactory examination into these disbursements 
could be made in no other way than by a commission. 
A legislative committee had not the time. It was all 
folly to rely upon their reports; and the people placing 
any reliance upon them for this kind of information, 
would be cheated—as they deserved to be. 

He would say, once for all, that there was no outlet 
in this or any other government, offering such facilities 
for fraud, as these expenditures of money upon the 
public works. The system originally adopted, and 
still in force, contained no guards against peculations. 
It gave the whole matter into the hands of a Superin¬ 
tendent, requiring him only to receipt the money which 
liis vouchers called for. The difficulties about it were 
almost insurmountable, and it was worthy of the ap- 
j)ointment of a special commission to ascertain whether 
this appropriation of half a million a year could be dis¬ 
bursed in such a manner and under such a system of 
accountability as to protect the State from fraud. It 
was idle to rely upon annual sessions to establish such 
an accountability; and he did not believe there was a 
man in Ohio prepared to say what that system of ac¬ 
countability should be. 

But, whether annual or biennial sessions were to be 
established, was a question of no great moment with 
him. He could not think the interests of Ohio would 
1)6 jeopardized very much either way. He cherished 
lioue of the fears of the gentleman from Hamilton, 
[Mr. Reemehn,] that the liberties of the people were 
to be sacrificed by means of biennial sessions; nor 
had he any apprehension that the prosperity of the 
State was to be materially increased by such means. 
On the other hand, he could not agree with the gentle¬ 
man from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] that the cost of 
annual sessions should be taken so much into consid¬ 
eration. If the public intere.st required annual ses¬ 
sions, the cost ought not to be nicely estimated; but 
if annual se.ssion8 were not required by the public 
interest, then, certainly, the extra expense would be 
well saved. But, as he considered, alongside of those 
other evils attendant upon annual sessions, the expense 
was but as dust in the balance. He entertained the 


opinion, that the public interests would be just as well, 
if not belter subserved, by the General Assembly meet¬ 
ing once in every two years, as by their meeting every 
year. 

Mr. TAYLOR was averse to repeating the arguments 
hitherto presented, and he should pass those considera¬ 
tions which were domestic in their character. He de¬ 
sired to refer to the federal relations of Ohio. 

The early, as well as the present history of the fede¬ 
ral government, demonstrated the danger of political 
consolidation. The Alien and Sedition law was the 
occasion of the great civil contest of 1800- When it 
passed, the fathers of the republican party threw them¬ 
selves into the State Legislatures. The Virginia reso¬ 
lutions of 1798 were drawn by James Madison—those 
of Kentucky by Thomas Jefferson. Had those expres¬ 
sions been withheld twelve months, John Adams might 
have been re-elected, and the direction of the Repub¬ 
lic changed. He thence derived an argument in favor 
of annual sessions of the Legislature, in order that they 
may be ready for the work of reconciling differences, 
and of asserting and vindicating the rights of the States, 
and defending them from the encroachment of the fede¬ 
ral government. 

He considered this to be a consideration of peculiar 
force. It was certainly inportant that the States should 
be protected from this central innovation. Looking at 
the federal government, its immense executive pat¬ 
ronage, its life Judiciary, and the emoluments which 
were bestowed upon every department; it was mani¬ 
fest that the States should be required to exercise a 
constant vigilance in order to hold the general guvern- 
meut to the clear and definite limit of its power. Then, 
there was the Legislative Department of the general 
government meeting annually. Every December as¬ 
sembled it. The Congress was superior in power, if 
not in influence, to the United States Executive. In 
view of these things, he asked if it would be prudent 
for the State to suspend the power of its Legislature for 
half the period of time in which it was now exercised? 
Should the State assemble that body, which is the na¬ 
tural correction of all federal encroachments, only once 
in two years, whilst the federal power was being 
strengthened every year at Washington? Were we go¬ 
ing into the unequal contest, by depriving ourselves of 
those weapons which might be most successfully used 
in defence of the rights of the State? 

He spoke now for the State of Ohio, as one of the 
first powers of the confederation. The time had now 
arrived when Ohio was accounted the first agricultural 
State of the West; and it was probable that she might 
yet be called upon to stand up for the integrity of the 
Union, as Virginia stood up in 1798. He conceived 
that the tendency of the times under the present exec¬ 
utive of the United States, was to centralization and 
consolidation. The Federal Government was assum¬ 
ing the attitude of consolidation at this moment, more 
than it had ventured to do since the year 1798. Only 
two years ago, almost every man in the country repu¬ 
diated the assumption of the State debts; but now we 
saw those debts assumed in behalf of the State of Tex¬ 
as. 

John C. Calhoun, with all his faults, was a friend of 
State rights. He stood with those who denied to Con¬ 
gress all power to legislate, except upon expressly 
granted powers, and the incidents necessary to carry 
out those powers. But we had seen recent legislation 
at Washington in total violation of this principle; and 
if that legislation had been upon any other subject than 
that named in the bill, the whole people would have 
set themselves against it, from Maine to Louisiana. It 
was the remark of a Southern Senator, that he could 
not resist the argument which denied to Congress the 
right to legislate upon the reclamation of slaves; and, 
if the principle were to be applied to any other subject, 
he would denounce it. 

He found no w in the Federal Government those very 
tendencies to consolidation and centralization, and all 










CONVENTION REPOKTS 


817 


those influences which we all had been taught to war 
against; and, if they were not fairly developed now, 
might it not be so hereafter that a crisis, like that of 
1798, might arise, when those who would stand up for 
the rights of the States, might desire to make an appeal 
to the reason of the people, similar to the appeal made 
by Mr. Madison, when he went to Richmond, and that 
made by Mr. Jefferson, when he sent his resolutions to 
Kentucky. How soon might it not be that the safety 
of this Union would demand from the State of Ohio a 
similar intervention. Give us, then, the chance, the op¬ 
portunity, for such an important intervention. So long 
as the Congress of the United States shall continue to 
trench upon and usurp those reserved rights of the 
States, take not from us any portion of our power to 
vindicate the latter. 

Mr BROWN, of Carroll, said he was not vain enough 
to suppose that he could add a great deal to what had 
been said ; but he felt that his duty to himself and to 
his constituents required that he should give the rea¬ 
sons that would influence him in giving his vote upon 
this question. He did not expect to bring much force 
to the argument, but his reasons, such as they were, 
would gf) for what they were worth. 

The question between annual and biennial sessions 
is before this body to be decided, and it must be settled 
one way or the other. Now, if we determine that 
there shall be a session of the General Assembly once 
in two years only, we depart from the old path laid 
down by the fathers of the State half a century ago. 
He hoped it would not be done, without a good and 
sufficient reason. When the constitution, under which 
wo now live, wa.s adopted, every thing was new and 
unsettled. There was no revenue, scarcely, to be col¬ 
lected, no debt nor interest to be paid—the State had 
no trade, no commerce, and no wealth. There were, 
probably, more Indians within its territory than white 
people, more wild than domestic animals, more wolf 
scalps than any other currency, yet it was thought even 
then that it would be better to post the books annually 
—to square the accounts of the State—to look into its 
affairs and regulate its policy, and for that prudent pur¬ 
pose they, even then, deemed it expedient to adopt the 
plan of annual sessions. 

Is it possible that our affairs require less attention 
now than they did halt a century ago ? I am con¬ 
vinced what the answer of every member of the com¬ 
mittee would be to that question. Look at the subject 
of revenue. We are now collecting about the sum oi 
twenty-six hundred thousand dollars annually. We 
have a large and costly system of public works; a wide 
and extensive commerce, grasping every interest of the 
country ; a great agricultural interest, demanding fre 
quent legislation; a population active and vigorous be¬ 
yond precedent in every species of public and private 
enterprise; a large public debt; benevolent and other 
institutions ; a judiciary ; and I ask, do not all these re¬ 
quire the constant attention of the people? 

There is no prudent business man who does not de¬ 
sire, at least once in a year, to post his books, and see 
how his accounts stand, and how his business is pros¬ 
pering. I would ask gentlemen, if this great territory, 
instead of being the property of the people who inhab¬ 
it it, belonged to some high and sovereign prince, they 
do not believe that oftener than once in two years he 
would desire to look into his finances, and see how his 
•revenues had been collected and expended ? But I am 
met by the allegation that the General Assembly does 
not aid in these matters, and have no right or agency 
in correcting existing abuses. This is, I must confess, 
news to me. I suppose that all our institutions of gov¬ 
ernment belonged to the people of the State—that the 
General Assembly was the agent of the State, and that 
this was among its principal and most important du¬ 
ties. If it is not so, it ought to be; and if it has not 
been so, one of the first and most important obligations 
of this Convention should be to make it so for the fu¬ 
ture. 


But gentlemen say that the finances of the State can 
be better regulated—its wants forseen and provided 
for, and its necessities guarded against, once in two 
years, than annually. If this rule be true, why is it 
not equally true that it can be done better still once in 
ten years? Mr. Chairman, these allegations are all 
wrong and incorrect. They have no foundation in 
reason, none in experience, none in the philosophy of 
government. 

Suppose, for instance, the General Assembly of 1847, 
sitting at a time when money was plenty, the crops un¬ 
precedentedly good, trade lively, and commerce flour¬ 
ishing, should, upon the basis of the existing state of 
things, make their appropriations for two years to come. 
A revulsion of the next year might overturn every cal¬ 
culation. Crops might fail; the public works, instead 
of yielding a large revenue, might, in consequence of 
floods, need heavy repairs, and large expenditures of 
money; the ability of the people to pay taxes, on ac¬ 
count of a loss of trade, might be greatly reduced, and 
the result would be enormous distress, and such a 
pressure as no government ought ever to impose upon 
the people. 

I hear gentlemen say that the benefit received from 
annual sessions does not pay their cost. Now, I re¬ 
collect one instance which may serve both as illustra¬ 
tion and argument, upon this branch of the question. 
There were certain bonds of the State that fell due 
this year. The State had not the money to redeem 
them. In 1849 the General Assembly passed a law 
authorizing the issuing of new bonds, to be exchanged 
for those that had arrived at maturity. It was found, 
on trial, that a saving might be made by a sale of the 
new and a redemption of the old stocks, with their 
avails. For this purpose, during the forepart of this 
year, a little act, of not more than ten lines, was passed, 
by which the sum of three hundred and thirty-seven 
thousand dollars has been saved to the State—enough 
to pay for several sessions. Now, if under the bien¬ 
nial rule, there had been no session, no power could 
have been given to the Fund Commissioners to make 
this arrangement, and we should have been put to the 
expense of an extra session, or what was worse, to the 
loss of the money. 

I tell gentlemen, that the system of biennial sessions 
is not the thing for this people, and the friends of the 
plan do not seem to understand the true genius of our 
population. The State is full of incorporated compa¬ 
nies, whose members have associated themselves to¬ 
gether in some enterprise of commerce, of industry, or 
of improvement. They are yearly asking at the hands 
of the General Assembly some little amendment to 
their act of incorporation, which may be of much im¬ 
portance to them, though not of great seeming benefit 
to the public. But it must be remembered that the 
public is made up of individuals, and there is nothing 
which postpones the sessions of the General Assembly 
that does not come in conflict with that first rule of all 
governments, that its duty is to provide for all annual 
wants—not only of the State collectively, but of its citi¬ 
zens. 

It is perhaps true that in some of the States, where 
they have no revenue, no commerce, no trade, no en 
terprise, a sparse population, and no wealth but a 
parcel of niggers, the rule might be adopted without 
serious injury or complaint. The State of Kentucky, 
for instance, where it is now being tried. That Slate, 
as I am informed, pays no more taxes than the county 
of Hamilton. But in a State like ours, alive with in¬ 
dustry and enterprise, the case is very different; and 
while I should be very unwilling to adopt the social 
condition of Kentucky as our model, 1 am equally 
disposed to protest against following her example ia 
this matter; and I should look upon the system of 
biennial sessions applied to our condition, as one of 
the greatest grievances a State could be called upon 
to bear. When Oliver Cromwell was about to tom 
the Rump Farliament out of doors, some one objected, 


63 













818 


CON VENTION KEPORTS. 


aaying that that body was called together to redress 
grievances. “ Grievances,’’’said Oliver, “it is itself the 
greatest grievance of all.” And so I would say of 
biennial sessions. They would be almost the heaviest 
burden the State could be called on to bear. 

But gentlemen seem to lake pleasure in speaking 
against the General Assembly, and to say that it is a 
disgrace to the State, &c. It is true that there have, 
within a few years, been some diffieulties in organiza¬ 
tion, and some unfortunate collision; but they have 
all been got over with. Members had their talk out. 
and the thing was settled. No damage has been done 
to our institutions, nor has our liberty been endanger¬ 
ed; and 1 am disposed to think, after all, that more of 
the difficulties were occasioned by the outside pressure 
of politicians than by any other cause. 

I, confess Mr. Chairman, that I came here somewhat 
disposed in favor of biennial sessions; But since I have 
had time to think upon the subject, I cannot, for my 
soul, consent to vote for them. The plan conflicts with 
the great republican maxim, that a frequent return of 
the representatives of the people is one of the great 
safe-guards of liberty. It mars the symmetry of our 
plan of government. In carrying it out, the Senate 
and House of Representotives are to be elected at the 
same time, and for the same term. This is not right. 
A portion of the Senate should always hold over from 
term to term. If it produces no other good effect, it 
places in that body men who are familiar with the le¬ 
gislation of past sessions. I am asked why lam not 
willing to vote for a Senate elected once in two years. 
I answer because I am unwilling to vote to elect mem¬ 
bers of the House of Representatives for four years. I 
do not desire men to hold a legislative office in Ohio 
for so long a period. 

All the argument of gentlemen upon the other side 
seems to result in this, that by adopting the biennial 
plan, we shall save the 'per diem of members of the 
General Assembly. In reply to this, I would say, I am 
by no means sure that, on settlement of accounts, the 
cost would be any more for two sessions in two years 
than for one session in that period. With an annual 
session. Representatives return annually to their con¬ 
stituents, who would pass upon their conduct, and the 
principles upon which they had acted would, at the 
next election, be virtually adopted or rejected. 

The great cause of the disturbances in England, 
which preceded the revolution in that country, was the 
want of frequent sessions of the legislative power. 
The Kings of the Stuart race did not want their con¬ 
duct inquired into by the people; and it was the usur¬ 
pation of the executive power on the one hand, and 
the struggles of the jieople on the other, that brought 
the head of one monarch to the block, and drove anoth¬ 
er to seek a refuge in a foreign land. It ismy opinion, 
Mr. Chairman, that when the people are fully informed 
upon this subject, they will be unanimous in favor of 
annual sessions of the Legislature, 

Mr. ARCH BOLD said he had listened with atten¬ 
tion to the speeches of gentlemen who had addressed 
the committee in favor of frequent sessions of the law 
making power, and that, he felt bound to say, without 
the slightest conviction. He must also say, however 
disagreeable the remark might be, that he was forced 
to disagree with his allies upon the same side of this 
question, as to the ground upon which the argument 
should be placed. He did not believe with his friend 
from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins] that there was anythinc^ 
in the cost of the two plans that was to be taken into 
consideration. The great argument against the too 
frequent sessions of law making bodies is, the instabili¬ 
ty of legislation. We want the commonwealth to ex 
hibit more firmness of will. We want more stability 
in the laws. In that view of the case, I am in favor of 
biennial sessions. Gentlemen upon the other side ar¬ 
gue that by frequent elections, you bring the power 
nearer to the people, and include a larger amount of 
popular power. Sir, you need not be informed by 


me, that the will of the people is now in this country 
a most absolute sovereign. It is perfectly irresistable. 
The autocrat of all the Russias, in comparison with the 
sovereign under which we live, is a weak and feeble 
instrument indeed. The people are absolute, and who¬ 
ever tells them they are in danger of being cheated out 
of their power, conjures up a hydra—a chimera—a 
mere thing of the imagination. 

Take the people at large, as they exist, some idle 
and some industrious, and the collective power is abso¬ 
lute; but when you come to a contest between the idle 
and the industrious, you give to the former a conse¬ 
quence which it does not desei’ve, and I will never 
knowingly consent to any measure which shall give to 
the idle an undue force in the government. That in 
this extreme popularization of the government, there 
will be a contest between these two forces is just a.s 
clear as the sun. The argument, it is true, is not ca¬ 
pable of mathematical demonstration, but that the ev¬ 
idence is perfectly obvious cannot be denied by any 
one who looks narrowly into the direction of popular 
tendencies. Who cannot see that the sharp, the cun¬ 
ning and the knowing men, habitual office hunters and 
bai’-room politicians, men of sinister designs, who can 
manufacture home-made thunder and lightning, would 
become the leaders in every section of the country 
for it requires usually a long time to arrive at any pure 
expression of the popular will from those of our fellow 
citizens who drive the plough, lift the axe and wield the 
sledge with their stalwart arms. 

As to the mere question of the expense of annua! 
sessions, it is petty to the last possible degree. What 
are these expenses? In 1844, when, the tables of 
members were groaning with petitions to cut down 
salaries, and reduce the expenses ol government, the 
whole civil list, the whole cost of this extravagant and 
expensive system was but five per cent, upon the mo¬ 
ney received from taxation, paid into the treasury at 
Columbus, so that if the whole cost of the government 
had been stricken out of existence, a man would still 
have paid a five franc piece where he paid a dollar be¬ 
fore. 

It is true that we have, as was remarked by the gen¬ 
tleman from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] a large debt to 
be cared for. And how was it accumulated ? The 
State abandoned the functions for which it was con¬ 
tracted, turned merchant, went into speculations, and 
we have, in consequence, a monstrous canal debt, with 
all its attendant evils. Gentlemen say we need annual 
sessions until this debt is paid off. How is this? The 
General Assembly has no instrumentality in this mat¬ 
ter. It parted with it long ago. The General Assem¬ 
bly has not appropriated one cent to pay the interest 
on the public debt since 1830. It is the Auditor of 
State who annually makes the immense appropriations 
that annually empty the Treasury—and it is the Audi¬ 
tor of State who exercises the power of taxation ovei 
the people. The power of the General Assembly is 
paralyzed. 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the fol¬ 
lowing letter from the City Clerk of Cincinnati: 

City Clerk’s Office, ( 
Cincinnati, December 21,1850. j 

Hon. Wm. Medill —8ir: By a resolution of the City Council, 
passed December 19th, I was directed to present five copies ol 
the Charter and revised Ordinances of the City of Cincinnati, t(t 
the Constitutional Convention, which you will please accept for 
the use of the body over which you have the honor to preside. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. G. WILLIAMS, City Clerk 

Mr. DORSEY moved that the Convention take a re¬ 
cess. 

Mr. LIDEY moved that the Convention adjourn. 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted, yeas 54, nays 38, as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett 
Blair, Blickensderfer, Brovni of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Castt 
of Licking. Chaney, Cutler, Dorsey, Forbes, Gillett, Graham 
Greene ot Defiance, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Harlan, Haw ’ 
kins, Holmes, Hootman, Huinphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


819 


Kennon, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mason, 
Mitchell, Morehead, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Perkins, Ranney, 
Reeinelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, 
Stanton, Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, Taylor, Thompson ot Stark, 
Way, Williams and Woodbury—54. 

Nays— Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Brown of Athens,Cahill, 
Chambers, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Ewart, Farr, Gray, 
Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Henderson, Holt, Hunt, King, Kirkwood, 
Larwih, Loudon, Manon, Morris, McCloud, Patterson, Peck 
Quigley, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Warren, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stickney, Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson, 
Worthington and President—38. 

So the Convention adjourned. 


MONDAY, December 23, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Trayer by the Rev. Mr. Lord. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON presented a memorial from 
Daniel Drake, praying ihatthe Convention, by a clause 
in the new constitution, authorize the General Assem¬ 
bly to enact such laws as may, as far as possible, 
prevent the future ingress of both emancipated and 
tugitiye slaves, and also, such laws as may promote the 
colonization in Africa of the existing colored popula¬ 
tion of the State, which was read at the Clerk’s desk. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON said that the memorial was 
upon a subject of much importance, and one upon 
which there existed a good deal of feeling, both in this 
and other States. It had come from a distinguished in¬ 
dividual, and contained suggestions well worthy of con¬ 
sideration. He therefore moved that it be laid on the 
table and printed. ^ 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded a^division o^ the ques- 

Ihe question then being on laying the memorial on 
the table, the same was agreed to. 

The question then being on printing: 

Mr. KIRKWOOD hoped the motion to print would 
prevail. It appeared from the reading to be well writ¬ 
ten, and he desired an opportunity to peruse it at his 
leisure. 

Mr. TAYLOR said it had been an usage adopted 
early in the session to forbid all printing of memorials, 
and on several occasions the Convention had express¬ 
ly refused to order it to be done. He did not see in 
this paper, any reason for a departure from the rule. 
The memorialist might be a citizen of Ohio; but he 
was under the impression that, at present, he resided 
in Kentucky.li iSr;’ 

Mr. WORTHINGTON said he livea in Ohio, 

Mr. TAYLOR said it was true that the memorialist is 
a distinguished personage, but other petitions from 
persons of equal eminence had been presented, and the 
printing refused. If memorials upon one side were 
printed, he could see no reason why those upon the 
other should not be printed also. If the Convention 
would make an order to print counter memorials, he 
would not object. 

Mr. NASH thought that the character of the memo¬ 
rialist should make no difference. The rule, if adopt¬ 
ed at all, should be universal. 

The question then being on ordering the memorial 
to be printed, 

Mr. McCORMICK demanded the yeas and nays, 
which being ordered, resulted yeas 27, nays 58, as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Cahill, Dorsey, Green of Ros?, Gregg, Hard, 
Henderson, Holmes, Hootinan, Hunt, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, 
Leech, Lidey, Mitchell, Peck, Quigley, Sawyer, Smith of Wyan¬ 
dot, Stanbery, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Vance of 
Butler, Wilson, Worthington and President—27, 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, 
Holt, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Lawrence, 
Leadbetter, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, 
Nash, Patterson, Perkins, Ranney, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Warren, 
Way, Williams and Woodbury—58. 


So the motion to print was disagreed to. 

Mr. HAWKINS presented a petition from Joseph A. 
Marquis and twenty-seven others, citizens of Morgan 
county, praying that a clause be inserted in the new 
constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from passing 
any Jaw legalizing the traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. TAYLOR presented a petition from R. J. Jen¬ 
nings, C. B. Judson and seventy-eight others, citizens 
of Erie county, asking that a provision be inserted in 
the new^ constitution, (to be submitted to a vote of the 
people,) prohibiting tlie Legislature from passing any 
law legalizing the traffic in spirituous liquors. 

The PRESIDENT presented a petition from Nathan¬ 
iel Witham and fourteen others, citizens of Clermont 
county, on the same subject. Said petitions wei’e se¬ 
verally referred to the select committee on the subject 
of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. RIDDLE, from the select committee upon the 
subject of making provision for the session of the Con¬ 
vention in Cincinnati, presented sundry bills from va¬ 
rious persons for fitting up the hall occupied by the 
Convention, which, on motion, were referred to the 
standing committee on Accounts. 

Mr. CHAMBERS, from a select committee, present¬ 
ed a bill from Alcan and Vandvier, for work done to 
improve the hall of the Convention, which on motion 
of that gentleman, was referred to the standing com¬ 
mittee on Accounts. 

Mr. RIDDLE, from a select committee, submitted 
the following report: 

The committee appointed to make the necessary arrangements 
for the accommodation of the Convention, when they ahall meet 
at the city of Cincinnati, have attended to the duties assigned 
them, and now report: 

That the members of the committee residing in the city of Cin¬ 
cinnati, with such aid as they could receive Irom the other mem¬ 
bers residing in other parts of the State of Ohio, examined various 
public halls situate in Cincinnati, and from the best evidence they 
could get, selected “ College Hall.” 

The Trustees of the Cincinnati College property proposed to 
rent the hail called and known as “ College Hall,” furnishing coal 
and fuel for heating the same from the furnace, and gas from the 
chandeliers—the use of the chairs and settees in use in the same, 
at the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars per month, for the 
time the Convention might wish to use said hall. Tlie proprietors 
of the “Mechanics’ Institute Hall’’ asked for the use of their hall, 
including fire and gas-light, four hundred and fifty dollars per 
month. The committee accepted the proposition oi the Trustees 
of the Cincinnati College, and engaged the hall on the terms afore¬ 
said, commencing on the 22d day of November, 1850. The Trus¬ 
tees reserving the use of said hall Tuesday evenings in each week, 
before granted by them to the “Young Men’s Mercantile Associ¬ 
ation ot Cincinnati,” for the purpose of public lectures. The 
lighting of the gas-burners, and the keeping up of the fire in the 
furnace for heating the hall, was not included in the contract, ex¬ 
cept to the extent of one dollar per day paid James Pollock, by 
said Trustees. 

The committee have made the necessary improvements to ac¬ 
commodate the Convention. They procured one hundred and 
twelve tables, and the large tables for the use of the member.®, 
Secretaries and Reporters, suitable desks and chairs for the use 
of the President and Secretary, provided rooms for the Recording 
Secretary, Reporters, and Sergeant-at-Arms, by extending board 
partitions across the hall beneath the gallery, and otherwise fitted 
up said hall, by making a recess door, and carpeting the hall, 
with a cheap, but good rag domestic-made carpet. In all con¬ 
tracts made for the improvement of the hall, the committee had 
a strict regard to public economy. 

The committee recommend the appointment of James Pollock, 
by the Sergeant-at-Arms, to make the necessary fires in the fur¬ 
nace for heatingn he hall, and to light the gas-burners, at a price 
not exceeding one dollar per day. 

All of which is submitted, 

ADAM N. RIDDLE, Chairman. 

The question then being on the adoption of the re¬ 
port, the same was agreed to. 

Mr. GRAY offered for adoption the following resolu¬ 
tion, which was agreed to: 

Resolved, That the President of this Convention be requested 
to ext< nd to the Hon. John P. Hale, a Senator of the United States 
from the State of New Hampshire, an invitation to a seat with¬ 
in the bar of this Convention, during his stay in this city. 

Mr. McCORMICK offered for adoption the follow¬ 
ing resolution, which was agreed to : 

Resolved, That the copies of the City Ordinances of Cincin¬ 
nati be accepted, and that the thanks of this Convention arehert;- 
by tendered to the City Council therefor. 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the 

















820 


CONVENTION REPOKTS. 


following cotnmiinicatioii from the President of the 
Maryland Coustitntional Convention, now in session in 
Annapolis, in that State, accompanied by a preamble 
and resolutions adopted by that body; which was 
read: 

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, } 
Annapolis, December 16, 1850. 3 

To the Hon. President of the Convention of Ohio : 

Sir—By the direction of the Conventicm of the People of Ma¬ 
ryland, assembled to revise the constitution, I have the honor to 
transmit to you a report and resolution unanimously adopted, in 
relation to the measures of Compromise passed by the Congress 
of the United States at the last session. 

I have the honor to be, with great respect. 

Your obedient servant, 

J. G. CHAPMAN, 
President of the Convention. 

The report and resolution are as follows : 

Report of the Committee of the Maryland Reform Convention on 

the late Acts of Congress forming the Compromise^ 6fC. 

Mr. CHAMBERS, from the committee, presented the follow, 
ing Report; 

Whereas, The constitution of the United States, was design¬ 
ed mor« effectually to secure the civil and political rights of the 
citizens of every part of the Union, and especially to protect 
their persons and property, as well in other States as in the State 
in which they might reside; and Whereas, among the rights of 
property there was none more generally known or more distinct¬ 
ly recognized, than that of holding slaves ; and Whereas, the pe¬ 
culiar risk of loss to which this species of property was exposed, 
was so obvious, and the absolute necessity of a suitable provision 
to guard against it so universally felt, that no one hesitated to ac¬ 
knowledge that without such a provision the Union could not 
have been framed; and Whereas, certain pepons, in various por¬ 
tions of the Union, instigated by a spirit of fanaticism, have com¬ 
bined for the purpose of openly resisting and defying the guaran¬ 
tees of the constitution and laws, by which alone the slavehold¬ 
ing States can be assured of the rightful possession, and justpro- 
tection of their property : We, the members of the CONVEN¬ 
TION OF MARYLAND, lately elected Irom the body of the peo¬ 
ple, and intimately acquainted with their feelings and opinions 
deem it proper to declare, in calm and deliberate terms, what we 
believe to be their views in relation to the exciting subject to 
which we have referred ; and do, therefore. 

Ist Resolve, Tbatthe constitution of the United States has ac¬ 
complished all the objects, civil and political, which its most san¬ 
guine framers and friends anticipated, and that the affections of 
the people of Maryland are justly rivetted to its principles, by the 
memory of the sacrifices of the wise and good men who framed 
it, as well as by the blessmgs it has so liberally dispensed to our 
country. 

2nd. That a proper appreciation of these blessings should lead 
every State in the Union to adopt all such measures, as from time 
to time may be necessary to give complete and full effect to any 
provision of the constitution or of the laws pursuant thereto, 
intended for the protection of any portion of this great family of 
States. 

3rd. That while we do not conceal that the several acts of Con¬ 
gress passed at their late session, relating to the admission of Cal¬ 
ifornia ; to the Territorial Governments of Utah and New Mexi¬ 
co ; to the adjustment of the boundary of Texas ; to the prohi 
bition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and to the 
reclamation of fugitives from labor, do not, to the extent we de¬ 
sired, meet the just demands of the South ; nevertheless, view¬ 
ing these several acts as parts of an entire system, to be adhered 
to and maintained as a whole, proceeding on the basis of com 
promise, and intended, by the permanent adjustment of so many 
critical questions, to heal the public agitations and perpetuate the 
Union, they have received our acquiescence, and have inspired 
us with admiration of those eminent statesmen, who, rising above 
the influence of party and sectional considemtions, periled their 
well earned reputation for the enduring welfare of their country. 

4th. That the vigorous and faithful execution by the General 
Government of all laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, 
is its primary duty, and affords the only security for the just pro¬ 
tection of the rights and property of the citizens, and for the 
permanency of the Union ; and it is equally the duty of all good 
citizens to encourage and support the officers of the Government 
in the execution of the laws, and to discountenance and rebuke 
the efforts of those who seek to subvert them; and while, there¬ 
fore, we entertain every proper confidence in the ability and de¬ 
termination of the Chief Magistrate of the Union faithfully to 
perform his duty in the present crisis, and take the opportunity 
to tender to him our assurances that in any emergency that should 
require it, he may safely rely upon the cordial co-operation of 
the people of Maryland, we cannot withhold the warmest expres¬ 
sion of our firm and continued reliance upon the patriotism ot 
those of our countrymen, in all sections of the Union, who have 
fearlessly asserted the constitutional rights of the South; and, in 
view of the calamities which must ensue if those rights continue 
to be violated, we would earnestly suggest to the Governments of 
the non-slaveholding States the propriety and importance of en¬ 
acting such laws as will facilitate the recovery of fugitives from 
labor; and upon the citizens of every State we would anxiously 
urge the absolute necessity of maintaining and enforcing each 
and all of the measures of adjustment adopted at the last session 
of Congress. 

5th. That the aforesaid series of laws that intended to ensure 


the restoration of fugitives from labor is the only one professing 
to protect the peculiar rights and institutions of southern States 
from the mischievous hostility of a wicked fanaticism in other 
portions of the Union, is but a tardy and meagre measure of com¬ 
pliance with the clear, explicit and imperative injunctions of the 
Constitution, and hold out the only hope that the protection 
which the South was authorized to expect from the Union of the 
States, to this species of property, will be afforded to them, and 
being the chief inducement to the South for its accession to the 
compromise, the repeal of that law, or the failure to enforce its 
provisions, could only be regarded as evidence of a determined 
purpose in other States to violate the sacred charter of our rights 
or a want of ability in the General Government to enforce the 
laws made for our protection, and in either event there would be 
a failure to comply with the solemn obligations which give to the 
Constitution its chief value and binding force, and which could 
not be violated or deliberately evaded without leading to a disso¬ 
lution of the Union. 


E. F. Chambers, Ch’n, 
James R. Hopewell, 
A. Randall, 

George W. Weems, 
Wm. D. Merrick, 
James M. Buchanan, 
Edward Lloyd, 

John Dennis, 

Louis McLane, 
William H. Tuck, 
William Grason, 


L. L. Dirickson, 
Samuel M. Magraw, 

R. C. Carter, 

Lewis P. Fiery, 
Washington Waters, 
W. M. Holliday, 

Jacob Shower, 

Robert J. Brent, 

John D. Gaither, 

Wm. T. Goldsborough. 


PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION ON THE REPORT. 

On the question being put, “ will the Convention adopt said re¬ 
solutions i” 

Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, moved for the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, appeared as follows : 

Affirmative —Messrs. Chapman, President, Morgan, Black- 
stone, Dent, Hopewell, Lee, Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Ricaud, 
Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Kent, Sellman, Weems, Dal- 
rymple. Sellers, Merrick, Jenifer, Buchanan, Bell, Welsh, Chan¬ 
dler, Ridgeley, Lloyd, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Hodson, Golds¬ 
borough, Eccleston, Phelps, Miller, McLane, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, 
McCubbiu, Spenser, Greason, George, Wright, Diricson, McMas- 
ter,Fooks, Shriver, Biser, Annan, Sappmgton, McHenry, Magraw, 
Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart ot Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, 
Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood of 
Baltimore city. Ware, Schley, Fiery, Harbine, Neill, Michael, 
Newcomer, Waters, Kilgour, Davis, Brewer, Anderson, Weber, 
Hollyday, Sheer, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parker, Edge, Shower, 
Cockey and Brown—81. 

So the resolution was unanimously assented to. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to lay the communication 
and resoluf ions on the table. 

Mr. SAWYER had rather that motion would not be 
made. 

Mr. HAWKINS. What would the gentleman do 
with it? 


Mr. SAWYER thought to lay on the table would ap¬ 
pear disrespectful to the honorable body, in which it 
originated. He thought a more decorous course would 
be to proceed to the business of the day, without taking 
any special order upon it. 

Mr. HAWKINS had no objection to that course. 
His only object in the motion was to avoid occupying 
lime with a discussion upon the subject of the commu¬ 
nication, at present. 

Mr. MASON inquired if it would not be the better 
way to lay upon the table and print, and take no fur¬ 
ther order now. They may be afterwards referred if 


necessary. 

Mr. HAWKINS withdrew his motion. 

Mr. MASON moved that the communication and ac¬ 
companying documents be laid on the table and print¬ 
ed. 


Mr. NASH demanded a division on the question. 

The question being first upon laying upon the table, 
the same was agreed to. 

The question then being upon ordering said commu¬ 
nication and the accompanying preamble, resolutions 
and proceedings to be printed, 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE demanded the yeas and na^s, 
which being ordered, resulted, yeas 50, nays 39, as fol¬ 
io w^s : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Arcbbold, Barbee, Bates, Bennett, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Dorsey, Gillet, Green of Ross, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Haid, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, 
Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Patterson, Peck, 
Quigley, Ranney, I^emelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Har¬ 
rison, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stidger, Struble, 
Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Way, Wilson, Worthington 
and President.—50 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


82 i 


Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, 
Collings,;, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Farr, Forbes, Graham, Gray, 
Greene ot Defiance, Hamilton, Hawkins, Humphreville, Hunter, 
Johnson, Larsh, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, 
Perkins, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Wyan¬ 
dot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney. Swift, Taylor, Townshend, War¬ 
ren and Woodbury—39. 

So the motion was agreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the Convention take up 
Report No. 1, of the standing commit!ee on the Legis¬ 
lative Department. 

The PRESIDENT stated the question to be on 
agreeing to the thirty-fourth amendment, as amended, 
to-wit: 

Sec. 25. At the end of the section add the word “biennially ” 
(amended by adding lurtheiq “ and the first session under the 
constitution shall be on the first Monday of January, 1852.” 

Mr. SAWYER said he hoped the Convention would 
pi’oceed so far at least, as to take a vote upon this ques¬ 
tion. He thought time enough had been spent upon it, 
and did not believe any further discussion would be 
profitable. It was now Christmas, when some days 
would probably be lost and he was anxious to come to 
a vote upon this question before that time. 

Mr. DORSEY said, that however anxious he might 
be to expedite business in this Convention, and he did 
not yield to any one here in his anxiety upon this sub¬ 
ject—there were a few remarks which he felt it his 
duty to make before a vote should be taken upon the 
question now under consideration. It will be seen, on 
looking back upon the debate that has taken place, 
that by far the greatest number of speeches have been 
delivered by those opposed to the plan of biennial ses¬ 
sions of the General Assembly. He could only account 
for this by the fact that gentlemen who had occupied 
similar ground with himself, trusting to the strength of 
their cause—to the well known opinions of the people, 
frequently expressed, and to their numerical force in 
the Convention—have felt themselves secure of suc¬ 
cess, and had not deemed it necessary to come up so 
fully in the advocacy of their opinions as they would 
otherwise have done. For himself, he did not desire 
to enter into the picayune argument, as it had been 
designated by the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Reemelin] —the mere business of saving a few dimes 
to the State ; but would merely state a few facts, which 
if they did not form a conclusive argument in favor of 
biennial sessions, he would agree to abandon the plan, 
and give his vote for annual. But, if on the other 
hard, it shall appear to be for the interest of the State 
at large, and in consonance with the will of the people 
that the meetings of the Legislature shall be biennial, 
he hoped the friends of that measure would not allow 
themselves to be drawn away from the pi’inciple, by 
any mere neglect of their own to enter upon its advo¬ 
cacy; and he thought it nothing more than fair fo ac¬ 
cept the proposition of the gentleman from Hamiltoii, 
[Mr. Reemelin,] who had said he was willing to give 
two speeches to the friends of biennial sessions, to one 
made by those in favor of annual, inasmuch as we pro¬ 
pose hereafter to relieve the State forever, i'rorn one 
half the burden of talking, to which she has always 
been heretofore subjected. 

A great deal has been said in regard to the proposi¬ 
tion for biennial sessions, being opposed to that gener¬ 
al and all prevading spirit of progress which forms so 
distinguishing a feature of the State and of the times. 
It has been urged that there is such a thing as change, 
without progress, and that the plan of biennial sessions 
is such a change as comes under that description.— 
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not so fund of change mere¬ 
ly as to become its advocate when nothing is thereby 
secured to the v*^ell being of the State. 1 believe that 
the change proposed here is really and substantially 
an improvement—that is in accordance with the spirit 
of progress—in accordance with the spirit of advance 
ment. If I did not believe so, I would not urge it. 

We are told that the length of the legislative term, 
under the system we propose, would prevent that fre-) 


quent return of the representative to the influence of 
the popular opinion whose sovereignty is so necessary 
to secure and preserve the freedom of our institutions. 
Is it so, Mr. President? In what does this frequent 
consultation of the popular will consist ? Does it con¬ 
sist in calling the people of the State out to vote every 
month, or every six months, or every year ? No. If 
it were so, the oftener an election could be holden, the 
more perfectly would the freedom of the citizens be 
preserved. The true principle is, that when a specific 
trust, or series of trusts, has been delegated to a body 
of men, and that body has performed the duties for 
which they were chosen, they are to return the power 
to the hands of the people from whom they received 
it, and this may equally be done, whether the function 
be exercised during a period of one, two or tea years. 
But this is not all. It is a matter of great importance 
to the people, that the government of the State be as 
light and simple as possible, consistently with the per- 
lormance of its great and primary duty—to secure to 
the citizen all the benefits which he is entitled to ex¬ 
pect from its organization, and in consideration of the 
burdens which it necessarily imposes upon him. All 
governments are in fact a burden, submitted to only 
from necessity and for the purpose of securing great 
interests, which cannot otherwise be attained, and it is 
a primary duty of those upon whom the organization 
of its institutions may fall to remove from them every 
weight that is unnecessary. Now, I hold that this con¬ 
stant repetition of the sessions of the General Assembly 
is a burden which it is not necessary for the people to 
bear. The time which is occupied—the agitation in 
the public mind which it produces—the political fer¬ 
ment and excitement which it brings with it year after 
year, all furnish strong and conclusiv.e reasons why the 
frequency of these periods of public agitation, and per¬ 
haps of public danger, should be reduced in number as 
far as is consistent with the interests of the people in 
other respects. 

The frequent changes which take place in the laws 
is a subject of constant complaint and perplexity, not 
only to the people at large, but especially to those to 
whom is entrusted the duty of carrying the laws into 
execution. Once in a year the county offices of the 
State are loaded with the receipt of vast volumes of 
laws of the General Assembly. Scarcely have they 
come to hand, before another session is ready to com¬ 
mence. First, perhaps, a long period is spent in the 
agitations which, of late years, are incident to an or¬ 
ganization. At length the session commences, and 
the process of demolition and reconstruction begins. 
Another large volume is the result. Men’s minds are 
unsettled in regard to their rights. The law of to-day 
may cease to be the law of to-morrow, and a general 
feeling of insecurity takes the place of that implicit 
confidence which men should feel in regard to the gov¬ 
ernment under which they live. If such changes are 
an evil, a multiplication of changes is an accumulation 
of evils, which it is our duty to get rid of, if we can, 
and if we can do it in such manner that no harm can 
result, the eflect will be a great and substantial benefit. 
By these means we shall approximate not only to the 
lightest, but the best form of government, and the 
change will be so decidedly one of real progress, that 
no one can mistake its character, and the proposition 
to dispense with annual sessions of the Legislature, 
cannot be held obnoxious to the objection that it is in 
contravention to the principles of republicanism, or to 
the progressive spirit of the age. 

Again, the people of Ohio are decidedly an utilitari¬ 
an people. “ Cui bono ? What good is to result ? *’ is the 
first question that is asked by men, when any change 
is proposed to be made. Now I ask, what interest is 
to be secured by this continual legistation ? So long as 
we were engaged in the construction of public works, 
and had an embarrassed treasury, the frequent action 
of a legislative body may have been necessary, al¬ 
though I hold this to be not unmixed with doubt. But 











822 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ilo principle is now better established than that we 
have done, and in all human probability forever, with 
the construction of public works by the State; and 
some gentlemen are disposed to go so far as to say that 
they are anxious the State shall dispose of her canals 
to individual capitalists, and relieve the public of its 
burdens of taxation and legislation arising from this 
source. Now, if we are to nave no new public works 
constructed by the State, we shall be relieved of one 
great cause, which has heretofore been very strongly 
urged, for the necessity of annual sessions. 

There is a true mean for the decision of all these 
questions of governmental policy, and the great object 
is to reach it, and not to go beyond. Gentlemen tell 
us that if our argument in favor of biennial sessions is 
correct, it would be well to have a meeting of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly only once in eight or ten years, or even 
never. This illustration by extreme cases, however, 
is of little value in arriving at the truth. It may do in 
the argument of a case before a jury, but is entirely out 
of place here. We have, on the one hand, to conserve 
the great principles which lie at the root of a republi¬ 
can government; and on the other, to preserve the 
people fi'om those fluctuations in the laws, by which, 
when carried to an extreme, the very essence of re¬ 
publican freedom is lost and dissipated. The safe 
course is in this, as in most political affairs, a middle 
one. Extremes are ever dangerous. We are now at 
one extreme, and it would be no mark of genuine wis¬ 
dom to go to the other. Such is not my desire. Let 
us give the laws at least that permanency that is nec¬ 
essary for a fair trial of their provisions. Let us avoid 
as far as possible the excitements and dangers of pop¬ 
ular effervescence. Our governments have been sus¬ 
tained thus far by popular vigilance. That is an ele¬ 
ment that we can never dispense with. No free gov¬ 
ernment can exist for a day without it. It is in no way 
to be holden in check, because the law-making body 
shall sit only once in two years. The true system is 
that which avails itself of all its benefits, ,while, as sel-1 
dom as is consistent with the public interest, it incur ! 
the danger of its excesses. If the masses of the people 1 
are occasionally liable to be carried away by sudden I 
excitements—and no one can deny but they are—it! 
can be as little denied that a wholesome, and at thej 
same time perfectly innocent check will be provided, 
by merely interposing time for more sober and careful 
reflection. And this is all we propose ; for surely no 
one will accuse me of being in the slightest respect 
inimical to popular liberty, in the highest and most 
perfect manner in which it can, with safety, be enjoyed. 

But we are told that annual sessions are necessary, 
in order that the treasury of the State may be properly 
watched. Now without entering into any argument 
as to the relative ability of the Legislature and the offi¬ 
cers of the State, to watch over and regulate the pub¬ 
lic finances, 1 will merely refer to one existing fact, 
which is, that as a general rule, for many years, the 
principal regulation of the monetary concerns of the 
State has been in the hands of the executive officers of 
the government. Without inquiring here into the de¬ 
gree of faithfulness that has been exercised by the State 
officers, it is sufficient to remark that they have the 
means and the opportunity of acquiring a more inti¬ 
mate acquaintance with the public interests than can 
be gained by legislative committees, who at best can 
exercise but a general supervision over them, and who, 
from the very peculiarity of their situation, must nec¬ 
essarily be confined to only a partial knowledge of our 
complicated financial system, and be totally unable to 
attain the p'ower of making that close investigation 
which is necessary in order to discover great defects or 
correct important errors. And I would remind gentle 
men that we have virtually admitted this fact, by fixing 
the term of service of the Auditor of State, the great 
financial officer of the State, at four years—a longer 
term than is fixed for any other executive officer—for 
the very reason that it requires a. longer period for an 


officer in that department to acquire a full knowledge 
of all the important concerns which come under his 
supervision, at the same time that the most intimate 
acquaintance is acknowledged to be absolutely neces¬ 
sary for the best interests of the State. 

1 will now call the attention of the Convention, for 
a few moments, to the subject of appropriations for the 
ordinary expenses of the government and for the pay¬ 
ment of the interest and principal upon the public debt, 
whether made by the General Assembly or by the Au¬ 
ditor of State, acting under authority of law—and let 
us endeavor by a reference to facts and to records to 
determine whether it cannot be done as easily and as 
well for a period of two years as annually. It has not 
seemed to me, that it is now, or has been during past 
years, necessary to call a session of the Legislature 
yearly for the purpose either of making appropriations 
of money, or of fixing the rate of taxation. Let us go 
back for a few years and compare the estimates of the 
Auditor, for receipts and expenditures for any given 
year with the actual receipts and with the actual 
amounts received and expended during the same pe¬ 
riod. They show conclusively that there are certain 
datn, upon which they are founded, by which they 
may be made up lor two as easily and as safely as for 
one year, and with as great certainty. According to 
the report of the Auditor of State, for the year 1845, 
the estimated receipts from the public works for the 
coming year of 1846, was $1,4-30,000; the actual re¬ 
ceipts for the same year, were $1,526,000. So in ma¬ 
king payments out of the canal fund, the estimate 
for interest of foreign debt, was $1,006,258 ; the esti¬ 
mate for interest on domestic bonds $46,042, and the 
actual payment $45,787 ; on the school fund, the esti¬ 
mate $87,30'^, amount paid, $88,450. But I say that 
now the master has, by the increased accuracy of the 
system introduced into our financial affairs, become 
reduced so nearly to perfect certainty that the Auditor 
of State cJ'n calculate to the last cent, the interest to be 
paid on the foreign and domestic debt; so that this— 
the largest, and indeed almost larger than the sum of 
all our other expenditures can be calculated as well, 
and with the same certainty for two years or even for 
ten years aa for one.j • 

Again, take the item of appropriations for repairs, 
&c., on our public works, one which is acknowledged 
to depend on many contingencies, most of which how¬ 
ever are of such a character that they can be no better 
foreseen for one year than for two, and we shall find a 
degree of i-egularity attending the amount of these ex¬ 
penditures for a series of years which we could scarce¬ 
ly have expected, and which demonstrates the fact, that 
to those intimately acquainted with these subjects, 
there are data on which may be based estimates for at 
least a succession of two years. Take for example the 
years 1846 and 1847, the estimates and expenditures, 
as found in the Auditor’s reports of those years, were 


as follows: 

In 1846 estimates.$300,000 

“ expenditures. 257,680 

In 1847 estimates. 275,000 

expenditures. 315,178 


So that the excess in one year nearly balances the 
deficit in anothei', and the result is a conclu.sive demon¬ 
stration of the fact in this branch of the public expen ■=' 
diture, acknowledged to be the most changeable and 
uncertain, the matter may be as easily estimated, and 
as effectually provided for, for two years as for one. 

In 1847, the interest on the foreign debt was calcu¬ 
lated exactly, and corresponding appropriations were 
made ; and on the domestic debt the amount was reach¬ 
ed by a very near approximation; and we may look 
at what item we please and we shall find, that with 
the data now in existence, there is no difficulty in cal¬ 
culating its cost for a series of years 

The cost of the State government, with appropria- 
ions for incidental expenses, support of asylums, &c., 
generally—near two hundred thousand dollars annu- 
















CONVENTION REPORTS 


823 


ally ; the appropriations for common schools have for 
several successive years amounted to about the same 
sum, and if we will look at the annual api)ropriations 
and expenditures on any particular item of public ex¬ 
pense we shall find that very seldom has there occur¬ 
red either a remarkable excess or an inconvenient de^ 
ficit. Look at the rate of taxation for State purposes 
from 1847 to 1850, and it will be found that there has 
been a very great uniformity, commencing with two 
and three quarter mills in the former year and ending 
with three and two-tenth mills on the dollar in the lat¬ 
ter year. 

It is true that the rate of taxation changed very ma¬ 
terially from 1846 to 1847, in conseqtience of the law 
of 1847 bringing a large amount of property previously 
untaxed upon the list, the single items of merchant 
capital and money at interest, have changed from sev¬ 
en millions in the former year to forty-five millions in 
the latter, but in the rate for any two successive years 
since that time has been very nearly the same. Indeed, 
wo are yearly growing more and more precise in our 
mode and system of taxing, and every year the facility 
to make exact estimates is increased. 

These reasons seem, to my mind, conclusive in favor 
of biennial sessions. They will take away a portion of 
the expenses of the State, give stability to legislation, 
and bring us nearer to a perfect system of government. 
For that government is most pei'fect which with the 
least possible change, the least excitement, the least 
irritation produces the greatest amount of happiness 
for its people, and secures all their rights with the least 
burden. Nor is there any necessity, as has been urged 
by the gentleman from Erie, of an annual session of 
the law making body, in order to prevent or repel ag¬ 
gressions upon the rights of the States by the national 
Legislature. This body, it is true, holds its annual ses¬ 
sions, and it is also true that there we have seen and 
do see attempts made upon the sovereignty of the 
States, but the time for danger from such aggressions 
may be considered as well nigh past. 

There was never a time when the rights of States 
were better understood and defended—never a time 
when our delegates in that body stood more ready to 
rebuke usurpations of national authority, and to carry 
even to excess, that jealous vigilance which watched 
over the rights of the individual States. It is suppo¬ 
sed a recreancy in their trust to our own Representa¬ 
tives in that body to- apprehend any danger from such 
a source. 

A.nd now, gentlemen on this door will hear me wit¬ 
ness that. I am not in the habit of saying that if this or 
if that particular feature is adopted or rejected in this 
Convention, I will not support the constitution which 
it shall frame, when it comes before the people for 
adoption ; and I will say now, that no one single ob¬ 
jection that I am now aware of will prevent me from 
giving it my support and my vote. It is true that there 
18 a bare possibility that it may contain such a multi¬ 
plicity of errors that I may not feel myself able to do 
it. But such a result, I do not now appi'ehcnd. But 
I wish to say in reference to this question, that it is 
well known that in the short anti hurried space of time 
which intervened between the calling of this Conven¬ 
tion by law of the Legislature, the election of Dele¬ 
gates and the assembling of this body, the people had 
little time to discus the principles which they desired 
should be settled by the^new organic law; nevertheless 
if there was any one provision upon which they seem¬ 
ed to have fully made up their minds, it was that in 
favor of biennial sessions of the General Assembly, 
and I must say that while I have no disposition to au¬ 
gur evil with regard to the reception which this con¬ 
stitution will meet at the hands of the people, I must 
say that I have some fears for its adoption, should it 
not contain this one single feature on which they seem 
so fully to have concurred. 

I had intended to say a few words upon the subject 
of Senatorial term, because gentlemen have remonstra¬ 


ted against a term of the same length with members of 
the Ollier House, as too short; and against a term of 
four years as too long; and I fear some of the friends 
of biennial sessions are suftering their minds to he led 
astray on this important subject, by the attempts which 
have been made to show that a serious difficulty may 
arise from this source. But, sir, there is no difficulty 
here, to my mind. I am in favor of a Senate elected 
for the same term with the members of the House of 
Representatives. They are elected for the same pur¬ 
pose, by the same people, though in districts of differ¬ 
ent territorial extent—have the same duties to perform, 
and should be responsible as frequently, and in the 
same manner. The system has worked well in other 
States, and I see no reason why it should not work 
equally well in our own. No valid objection can be 
against this system, because of its introducing instabil 
ity ill legislation; for in the States of New England, 
where this feature of the constitution prevails, there 
has been more stability of legislation, whetherfor good 
or for evil I will not say, than in any part of our Union. 
In these States the sessions are annual; but the Sena¬ 
torial and Representative term is the same ; and no in¬ 
convenience is felt from the possible fact—not, I ap¬ 
prehend, often occurring—that a Legislature may con¬ 
sist in both branches of entirely new men. 

But, sir, 1 have detained the Convention longer than 
I intended. I will say no more, but allow this matter 
to be decided by a vote—hoping that if I have made 
myself understood, I may have removed some doubts 
and fears in the minds of the friends of biennial ses¬ 
sions, as to their practical bearing on the welfare of the 
State ; and that they will now give to that side of the 
question a firm aiid successful support. 

The question being on the amendment, as amended, 

Mr.-demanded the yeas and nays, which were 

ordered, and the Secretary was proceeding with the 
call, when 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, inquired if it would be in or¬ 
der to move a call of the Convention ? 

The PRB^DENT was of the opinion that under cir¬ 
cumstances, a motion of that kind would not be in or¬ 
der. It was the rule in all parliamentary assemblies, 
that after a division had commenced, no business of 
any kind could be interposed to put a stop to the pro¬ 
ceeding. 

Mr. GREEN supposed that it would bo in order to 
move a call at any time before the result of the vote 
should be announced. Such was the rule as he under¬ 
stood it, and he supposed the I’cason to be, that the 
body has, in all cases, a right to the vote of every mem¬ 
ber who is within the reach of the Sergeant-at-Arms. 

The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman appeal from 
the decision of the Chair? 

Mr. GREEN. Ido. 

The PRESIDENT said that the Convention, in form- 
ing its rules had made no rule directly bearing upon 
this question, for the reason, as he supposed, that it 
was considered sufficiently settled by general parlia¬ 
mentary law. It was, however, settled in the rules 
that no member could ask to be excused from giving 
his vote unless he did so before the division commenc¬ 
ed, and he considered that a much stronger case than 
the present. 

The question then being: Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the Convention, the de¬ 
cision of the Chair was confirmed, without division. 

The call of the yeas and nays upon the adoption of 
the amendment, as amended, then pi-oceeded, and re¬ 
sulted, yeas Gl, nays 20, as lollows: 

Yeas _Me8.srs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben¬ 

nett, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Curry, 
Cutler, Dorsey, Forbes, Gillett, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Hard Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Humpbreville, 
Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Lar- 
will Leech, Leadbctter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morchead, 
Morris, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ran- 
ney. Sawyer, Scott of Harrison. Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Warren,Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stob- 
bins, Stickney, Stidger,*Struble, Swift. Thompson of Stark, Vance 













824 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—61. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Case of Hocking,Clark, Collings, Farr, Graham, Greene of 
Defiance, Green of Ross, Hunt, Hunter, McCloud, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Roll, Stanbery, Taylor and Worthington—20. 

So the amendment number 34, as amended, was 
agreed to. The section, as amended, is as follows: 

Sec. 25. All regular sessions of the General Assembly, shall 
commence on the first Monday in January, biennially, and the first 
session under this constitution shall commence on the first Mon¬ 
day of Jfumary, 1852. 

The question then being on agreeing to the 25th 
amendment—to wit: 

Sec. 25. After the word “dollars,” insert the words 
“ per annum.” 

Mr. BENNETT remarked that it would be well for 
the Convention to pause before passing such an amend¬ 
ment. It struck him that by that amendment, a class 
of officers in several parts of the State would be e.xclu- 
ded, to whom he was satisfied it was never intended 
that it should apply. It also struck him, that follow¬ 
ing a strict construction of the words of the section, 
(if so amended,) would have the efi'ect of rendering 
an individual ineligible in certain parts of the State, 
while in other places, under the same section, he might 
be eligible. For example, a situation might be worth 
$100 in one section of the State, while a similar situa¬ 
tion, in a different place, might only be worth |50. He 
thought that for such reasons the Convention should 
weigh the probable result of the amendment. 

The amendment was agreed to, and the section, as 
amended, reads as follows : 

Sec. 26. No person bolding any office under the authority of the 
United States, or any office under the authority ol this State, the 
emoluments or compensation of which exceed one hundred dol¬ 
lars per annum, shall be eligible as a candidate for, nor have a 
seat in either House of the General Assembly. 

CELEBRATION OF THE LANDING OF THE PILGRIM FATHERS. 

Pending the consideration of the succeeding amend¬ 
ment, the PRESIDENT, by unanimous consent, laid 
before the Convention an invitation from the New 
England Society, of Cincinnati, to attend the celebra¬ 
tion of the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers, at the Sec¬ 
ond Presbyterian Church, at 11 o’clock this day, at 
which time and place the Hon. John P. Hale would 
pronounce a discourse. 

On motion by Mr. SMITH, of Warren the report of 
the committee on the Legislative Department was laid 
on the table. 

On motion by the same gentleman, the Convention 
accepted the invitation of the N. E. Society of Cincin¬ 
nati. 

And then pn motion, the Convention took a recess. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention again 
took up the report of the committee on the Legislative 
Department, with the pending amendments. 

^ The question then being on agreeing to the thirty- 
sixth amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 28. In line one, after the word “shall,” insert 
the word “ hereafter; ” the same was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the thirty- 
seventh amendment, to wit 

Sec. 28. In line one, strike out the words “a defal¬ 
cation,” and insert the word “ an ” before the word 
“ embezzlement.” The same was agreed to, and the 
section, as amended, reads as follows: 

Sec. 28. No person who shall hereafter be convicted of an em- 
bezzlenient of the public lunds, shall be capable of holding any 
office of trust, honor, or profit, nor shall any person holding any 
public money tor disbursement, or otherwise, have a seat in 
either house ot the General Assembly, until such person shall have 
accounted tor, and paid into the Treasnry all money for which 
he may be accountable or liable. 

^ The question then being on agreeing to the thirty- 

eighth amendment, to wit: Strike out section 29, and 

insert in lieu thereof, the followine : 

^ o 

No divorce shall be granted by the General Assembly, nor shall 
any judicial power, not herein expressly granted, ever be exer¬ 
cised by the General Assembly. 


It was agreed to. 

'The question then being on agreeing to the thirty- 
ninth amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 32. Add the following words at the end of the 
section: “ except the appointment of officers for their 
own body ; ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fortieth 
amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 32, line two, after the word “constitution,” in¬ 
sert the words “or constitution of the United States;” 
The same was agreed to, and the section, as amended, 
reads as follows: 

Sec. 32. The appointment of all civil officers, not otherwise 
directed by this constitution, or the constitution of the United 
States, shall be made in such manner as may be directed by law 
provided, however, that no appointing power shall ever be vested 
in, or exercised by the General Assembly, except the appointment 
of officers for their own body. 

The question then being on agreeing to the forty-first 
amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 33, line one, after the word “shall” insert the 
words “ hereafter send, accept, or carry a challenge,;” 
the same was agreed to, and the section, as amended, 
read as follows: 

“ Sec. 33. No person who shall hereafter send, accept or carry a 
challenge, fight a duel or assist in the same as second or other¬ 
wise, shall be eligible to, or capable of holding any office of trust, 
honor, or profit.” 

The question then being on aggreeing to the I'orty- 
second amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 35 , line two, strike out these words “ or their 
remedies;” It was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the forty- 
third amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 35. Add at the end of the section the follow¬ 
ing: '■'Provided that the General Assembly in session 
shall have power to amend or revoke any charter of 
incorporation granted by any preceding General As¬ 
sembly;” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to amend the amendment, 
by inserting the word “ alter ” before the word 
“ amend;” which was agreed to. 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens, moved to further amend the 
forty third amendment of the committee of the whole, 
by inserting after the words “ General Assembly ” the 
following words “ after the adoption of this constitu¬ 
tion ;” 

On which motion Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the 
yeas and nays, and being ordered, resulted yeas 32, 
nays 50, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett Blickensderfer, Brown of AthenB,Brown of Carroll, Case of 
Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, 
Gillett, Graham, Hamilton, Hawkins, Kennon, Hunter, Mason, 
Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Woodbury 
and Worthington—32. 

Nays. —Messrs. Archbold, Cahill, Dorsey, Farr, Forbes, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kiikwood, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
McCormick, Norris, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wj^andot, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Taylor, Thompson ot Stark, 
'I'ownshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, and Presi¬ 
dent—50. 

So the motion of Mr. Brown, of Athens, to amend 
the amendtneut was agreed to. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warreu, moved to further amend the 
forty-third amendment, by striking out the words “ in 
session;” which was agreed to. 

Mr. HOLMES moved to further amend the forty- 
third amendment by inserting the word “ repeal” be- 
forethe words “or revoke;” which was agreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to further amend the forty- 
third amendment, by adding after the word “incorpo¬ 
ration,” the words “ or franchises;” which was agreed 
to. 

The question then being upon agreeing to the forty- 
third amendment, as amended, 

Mr. McCORMICK was opposed to the proposition 
contained in this amendment when it was first made, 
and he was even less inclined to support it now than 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


825 


then; because it was an interference of one committee 
with the duties of another. 

Mr. SAWYER. In the report of the committee on 
“ Corporations other than Corporations for Banking,” 
to which the gentleman from Adams refers, the read¬ 
ing is diiferent and applicable to an entirely different 
class of corporations—in the report referred to, the pro¬ 
vision is prospective in its character. The proposition 
now in debate is retroactive in its operation upon all 
corporations ; it confers upon the Legislature the pow¬ 
er to repeal the charters granted by any former Leg¬ 
islature. 

Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE. It has been remarked that 
the second section of the report of the committee on 
Corporations other than Corporations for Banking,” 
covers the whole ground in debate, making this pro¬ 
vision unnecessary. I will read, from the report of 
that committee, that second section, that gentlemen 
may see that it is entirely different from this: 

Section two of the report of the committee on Cor¬ 
porations other than Corporations for Banking : “ Cor¬ 
porations may be formed under general laws, but all 
general laws passed pursuant to this section may be 
altered from time to time, or repealed.” 

Now, there is given in that section, no pow'er—no 
authority to repeal, amend or revoke a particular fran¬ 
chise acquired under a general law. You may alter a 
general law, and that will affect all corporations under 
t ; but the pending amendment provides that if any 
particular corporation, growing up under a general 
law, shall abuse its privileges and become detrimental 
to the public interests, it may be dealt with by the 
Legislature—its charter may be amended or repeal¬ 
ed, as the circumstances of the case may require. 

With this view I am in favor of the section now be¬ 
fore the Convention, as it now reads. I desire to give 
the Legislature power over all corporations in the 
State. 

Mr. RANNEY. When we were in committee of the 
Whole, I offered an amendment, giving to the Legisla¬ 
ture the power to amend or lepeal the charter of a par¬ 
ticular corporation without changing the general law. 
That amendment was voted down, on the ground that 
a similar provision was made in another report. With 
my present views of the case I shall vote for the pend¬ 
ing section in its present form. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking. If I understand the provis¬ 
ions of this section, it is to cdnfer upon the legislative 
department the power to repeal any act ol incorporation 
heretofore passed in Ohio Now, sir, I am in favor of 
granting the power to repeal any such act that may be 
passed hereafter', as to corporations already in existence, 
however, 1 will not vote to^confer that unlimited pow¬ 
er of repeal. 

As an humble member ol the legal profession, I can¬ 
not, consistently with the principles—the well settled 
principles—of law, vote for a provision having this re¬ 
troactive as well as prospective power. Ever since 
the great “Dartmouth college case,” all our courts, 
both State and national, have concurred in holding that 
the legislative department of government has no power 
to change, amend or revoke an act of incorporation to 
such an extent as to impair the obligation of a contract; 
whether the courts have decided right or wrong is not 
now the question; they have so held, and I know of no 
decisions to the contrary. I shall vote against the adop¬ 
tion of this section. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend the amendment by 
inserting after the word “incorporations” the words 
“and all franchises.” 

Mr. GROESBECK. If it is intended, by the provis¬ 
ion of the section now under consideration, that the 
State may take the property of a corporation, whose 
charter may be repealed, without regard to the rights 
gained under the franchise, I decline to vote for the 
proviso. 1 do so for the reason that the language of 
the section is not properly qualified. 


Mr. STANTON. This Convention has already sol¬ 
emnly declared, that the Legislature shall have no pow¬ 
er to pass a retroactive law, or a law impairing the ob¬ 
ligation of contracts. But sir, it is now boldly proposed 
to engraft a section in the organic law of the State, de¬ 
claring that the General Assembly may pass a retroac¬ 
tive law, for that is the true meaning and will be the 
operation of the provision, that the Legislature shall 
have the authority to amend, or repeal the charter of 
any incorporation now in existence, or hereafter to be 
created. In what an attitude of arrogant presumption 
does this place this body! Yesterday we declared that 
no General Assembly shall exercise a certain power— 
to-day we declare that it may. 

Mr. RANNEY. Where is it provided that the Leg¬ 
islature may pass what the gentleman terms “ a retro ¬ 
active law ?” 

Mr. STANTON. In the 35th section. 

Mr. RANNEY. Is it not the section that we are* 
now considering, and is it not in that very section that 
we propose to incorporate the proviso complained of? 

Mr. STANTON. Iti e; and so much the greater is 
the inconsistency. 

Mr. STANTON then offered the following amend¬ 
ment to the pz'oviso: 

Provided, That on such repeal the title to property and credits,, 
legally acquired under any former law, shall not be affected by' 
such repeal. 

The question being upon this amendment, the yeas 
and nays were demanded by Mr. STANTON, and be¬ 
ing ordered, resulted, yeas 48, nays 39, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates,, 
Bennet^ Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll,. 
Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, Collings,. 
Cook, Curry, Cutler, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Groes- 
beck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Holt, Humphreville, Hunt, Hun ¬ 
ter, Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Taylor, Warren,, 
Woodbury and Worthington— 48. 

Nays —Messrs. Cahill, Dorsey, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Gregg, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Jones, Lawrence,. 
Larwiil, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCormick,. 
Norris, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll,. 
Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith ot Wyandot, Stebbins,, 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Towns- 
hend, Vance of Butler, Way and Wilson—39. 

So the amendment [Mr. Stanton’s] was agreed to. 

The question then being upon agreeing to the 
amendment as amended, 

Mr. TAYLOR remarked that he had voted for Mr, 
Stanton’s amendment as a truism, to the affirmation of. 
which he had no objection. All that he understood by 
the section was, the declaration of the right of govern¬ 
ment at any time to withdraw its sanction from the op¬ 
erations of an incorporated company, which sanction 
had been given in the form of a charter. That thie 
right of withdrawal should be acknowledged as inher¬ 
ent in government, he was convinced. At the same' 
time, he agreed with the gentleman from Logan, that 
the State had no right to sequester the property invest¬ 
ed in corporations. 

Mr. HAWKINS. A few words, Mr. President, be¬ 
fore this vote is taken ; otherwise, my action might in¬ 
duce some animadversion. 

I wish to keep in good company that is, in Demo¬ 
cratic company—(a laugh) if 1 can; and I will not, for 
trivial reasons, separate from my political filends. But, 
sir, upon the pending question, I fear I^ cannot vote 
with them. I think that I have discovered in the present 
occasion something like a verification qt a verse I once 
read, and which ran something like this . 

Man chano-es with fortune—manners, with climes; 

Dupes with their leaders, and principles with the times. 

I recollect, Mr. President, some twelve years since,, 
when questions similar to those now in debate used to 
arise in the Legislature of this State. At such times I 
have united with others of my (the Democratic) party 
to vote down direct propositions to reserve the right to 
repeal charters—to fix such a proposition in an act of 
incorporation—on the ground that to insert such a pro¬ 
vision implied that the Legislature did not possess the 








826 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


right of repeal without such express reservation. We 
held—and, sir, I still hold, that the Legislature posses¬ 
ses the right to amend or repeal any act of incorpora¬ 
tion, whenever the public interests demand such amend¬ 
ment or repeal. That was the Democratic creed, and 
based upon the ground assumed and maintained by 
the distinguished legal gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 

(tROESBECK.] 

Time passed on. In a few years, when, to use the 
Language of the delegate from Trumbull, [Mr. Ran- 
NEY,] “ the State became shingled over with corpora¬ 
tions,” and the Democratic party aimed to assert this 
right of repeal in express terms — abandoning the 
ground formerly occupied, viz : That the authority to 
repeal an act of incorporation was inherent in the Le¬ 
gislature, and needed no express declaration ; that, in¬ 
deed, such reservation of the right, in terms, implied 
the non-existence of the power in the absence of such 
reservation, and which implication was antagonistic to 
the received creed of the Democratic party; I decli¬ 
ned to act with those who sought to introduce this new 
rule of political action. 

What is the state of the case now 1 Why, the posi¬ 
tion taken is that the Legislature has this right of re¬ 
peal with regal'd to corporations, but it is proposed to 
remind that department of government of its posses¬ 
sion of this authority—perhaps to strengthen their 
courage to exercise it! The amendment which my 
political friends seem disposed to adopt is, in effect, 
simply declaratory of the right of the authority of the 
General Assembly, to exercise the right of repealing an 
act of incorporation—you simply say to that body, 
“ you may repeal a charter.” 

But if the right to revoke a franchise is inherent in 
the body that grants it, why say any thing about it in 
the constitution? On the other hand, if this right is 
not inherent, and ex-necessitate, if the Legislature does not 
possess the power to resume a franchise which has 
been granted out to a corporation, can we confer that 
act by a constitutional declaration like this ? Can we 
in a section providing against retroactive laws, declare 
a retroactive law ? I shall do no such thing—I will 
commit no act so’inconsistent. 

Mr. President, I shall vote against this amendment, 
notwithstanding the admitted fact that it is at the risk 
of affecting my standing with my fellow Democrats. 

Mr. SAWYER, (addressing Mr. Hawkins.) I will 
■stand with you. v— 

Mr. HAWKINS. Really, Mr. President, I feel en¬ 
couraged by the assurance of such substantial backing. 
£ Laughter.] 

Mr. SAWYER. But if I rightly apprehend the effect 
of the adoption of the amendment, as amended, it will 
be that we shall disown our own offspring. I think 
that this amendment disposes of all the benefits to be 
derived from the section before the amendment to the 
amendment was proposed. 

Mr. ROLL. Did you understand this when you vo¬ 
ted ? [A laugh.] 

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, sir! But I object to the prop¬ 
osition now before us, because I believe that the pow¬ 
er, which it proposes to confer upon the Legislature, 
is inherent in that body, and it is not necessary to make 
an express reservation in the act, of the right to repeal 
any act of incorporation that may be passed by the 
Legislature. 

I hold that if a corrupt and wicked Legislature, or an 
ignorant one, passes an act granting away to select 
bodies of men those rights which belong equally to 
the whole people, the succeeding or any succeeding 
Legislature has the right to resume the franchise—to 
repeal the charter which has been found antagonistic 
to the interests cf the people, 

I shall vote against this amendment, as amended.— 
But I shall do so in the hope that hereafter we may be 
able to engraft the principle unmistakeably in thecon- 
.stitution—the principle that any act of the Legislature 
may, when the public interests require it, be revoked 
by any succeeding Legislature. 


Mr. RANNEY. I am clearly of the opinion that the 
Legislature has an undoubted right to amend or repeal 
any act of any preceding General Assembly. A cor¬ 
poration is an artificial person, created by the Legisla¬ 
ture to subserve certain useful purposes—at least that 
is supposed to be the object. Now I hold that the life 
of these artificial persons are just as much in the hands 
of their Creator, as the lives of natural persons are, be¬ 
yond all preadventure, in the hands and subject to the 
will of their Creator. Upon this broad ground do I 
place the right of the General Assembly to resume any 
franchises which it may have granted. 

It is an utter and a palpable perversion of the lan¬ 
guage and intentions of the framers of the constitution 
of the United States, to say that that section which 
provides against the passage of “ retroactive laws, and 
laws impairing the obligation of contracts,” is to be so 
construed as to apply to the case of franchises granted 
to incorporated companies, which incorporations are 
termed “ contracts.” 

Mr. GROESBECK. What would become of real 
estate belonging to a corporation at the time its char¬ 
ter should be repealed, without a saving clause in this 
section which provides that all acts of incorporation 
may be repealed? 

Mr. RANNEY. I will answer the gentleman by 
remarking that if an association of men choose to em¬ 
bark their property under a charter, depending upon 
the General Assembly for the exclusive privileges by 
which the investment of that property is made more 
profitable, and enjoys greater protection and advanta¬ 
ges than the property of other citizens, those members 
of an incorporation must continue to trust—to depend 
upon—the good faith and the sense of justice of the 
body that gave them their corporate being. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I shall vote for the amendment, 
as amended, believing thet it asserts a true principle. 
Corporations are granted on the ground that they are, 
as is always claimed, for the public good ; therefore I 
hold that when the “ public good ” requires that an as¬ 
sociation of persons should be divested of a franchise 
or franchises, the General Assembly has an undoubted 
right to repeal the act of incorporation and resume the 
franchise or franchises. And I wish to assert this prin¬ 
ciple, clearly and fully, in the new constitution. But I 
desire at the same time to secure a corporation in the 
property or credits belonging and attaching to it at the 
time of a repeal of its charter. 

Mr. GROESBECK. There is no administrator for 
persons dying from the effects of legislative action. 
^Laughter.) 

Mr. KIRKVVOOD. True. But unless this property’ 
can be secured to the individual corporators—subject 
to the liabilities of the corporation—I could not vote for 
the section. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. My own opinion of the 
law, in this case, is that when real'estate is conveyed 
to an association of persons acting under an act of in¬ 
corporation, that corporation holds tlie same during its 
life time and transmits it to its legal successors. A cor¬ 
poration has no heirs. If, then, you sell land to a cor¬ 
poration, and that body dies, either by its own act or 
by the act of the Legislature, the land reverts to you 
as the original grantor. And so in all cases where real 
estate is conveyed to a corporation, where that corpo¬ 
rate body ceases to exist, the property legally reverts 
to the original grantors. 

Mr. STANTON. Is that right? 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I am stating what is law, 
and the gentleman from Logan cannot gainsay my po¬ 
sition. 

For this reason, Mr. President, I say that there should 
be a saving clause in this section, for, unless there is 
one, it will be beyond the power of the Legislature to 
say that the property of a corporation shall vest in the 
individual members thereof. Because, sir, it is a part 
of the contract between the individual citizen and the 
corporation, when the former sells real estate to tho 










827 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


latter, that upon the death of the corporation, when it 
ceases to exist, that estate shall revert to the grantor. 
Unless we insert a clause in the constitution saving the 
real estate of a corporation to the individual members 
thereof—subject of course to the liabilities of the cor¬ 
poration—there is no way by which a reversion to the 
grantor can be prevented. 

A.nd now let me reply to the question of the gentle¬ 
man from Logan ; I say that it is not just that the indi 
vidual members of a corporation should be divested of 
the corporate property when the corporation is dissolv¬ 
ed, and therefore declare that there should be a saving 
clause somewhere. If in the constitution, then it be¬ 
comes a part of the contract. 

Mr. SAWYER remarked that the pending amend¬ 
ment opm-ated as a sugar coating to the pill contained 
in the original proposition, so that some would be in¬ 
duced to vote for the latter who, abstractly, were 
bitterly opposed to it. He asked gentlemen to exam¬ 
ine the matter carefully before voting. 

Mr. Ml rCHELL thought that some gentlemen on 
his side of the chamber had been caught in the vote 
for Mr. Stanton’s amendment. 

Mr. STANTON would explain. The amendment 
he had offered was a crude and ill digested one—writ¬ 
ten in the hurry of the moment, and needing revision 
to put it in a shape that could be objectionable to no 
delegate on either side of the chamber. It was intend¬ 
ed to secure individual members of a corporation in 
the possession of the corporate property after the char¬ 
ter of such incorporation might be repealed. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the gentleman move a re¬ 
consideration of the vote on his amendment, in order 
that it may be changed as he indicates it should be ? 

Mr. STANTON. The committee on revision can 
change the phraseology and retain the idea and spirit. 
(A laugh.) 

Mr. CASE of Licking, t will move a reconsidera¬ 
tion of that vote, to oblige gentlemen, although I am 
satisfied with the amendment. 

Mr. MITCHELL- I an glad to hear that, for 1 do not 
wish to be caught in a snare. I understood the gentle¬ 
man from Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] to say that his amend¬ 
ment just embraced the provision contained in the sec¬ 
ond section of the report of the committee on Corpora¬ 
tions. But upon inspecting his amendment more close¬ 
ly, it is plain that it differs widely from that section. 
The saving, in this proviso, as it is now worded, is un¬ 
doubtedly inconsistent with the proviso to which it is 
attached, and in effect annuls it. 

Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE. The fears of the gentle¬ 
man, [Mr. Mitchell,] are groundless, for the settled 
rule of construction is, that a clause, inconsistent with 
the spiiTt and intention of an article, or section of which 
it forms a part, is to be disregarded. I hope the vote 
will not be reconsidered, for the principle of the amend¬ 
ment is a good one. 

Mr. MASON. The proviso to the section under con¬ 
sideration is wrong—wrong in conception and design. 
I hope there will be no exception to the provision, that 
the General Assembly shall have no power to invali¬ 
date vested rights or pre-existing contracts. 

Mr MITCHELL. This is a question which has agi¬ 
tated the country for years—a question deserving our 
most deliberate action. 

The statesman who first boldly declared the right of 
the Legislature to amend or repeal charters, was George 
M. Dallas. When he declared the right to repeal the 
charter of the United States Bank, he was assailed by 
the entire Whig press of the Union, as a revolutionist 
and an agrarian—a monster who dared to lift his impi¬ 
ous hand against “vested rights” and “the solemn ob¬ 
ligations of contracts.” Nevertheless he has lived to 
see the day, when the great body of the intelligent 
American people, embrace the doctrine he first pro¬ 
claimed. I avow myself a firm believer of the prin¬ 
ciple enunciated by Mr. Dallas. I well remember that 
f had just finished ray course of common law reading. 


when the question was first agitated, and I was aston¬ 
ished to hear that the section of the United States Con¬ 
stitution, which declares that no State shall pass a retro¬ 
active law, or a law impairing the obligation of con¬ 
tracts, was, by the federal course of this Union, applied 
to the case of the repeal of an act of incorporation. It 
was, to my mind, consistent with every received no¬ 
tion of law and justice, that the Legislature had an un¬ 
questionable right to repeal an act of incorporation 
whenever the interests of the people would be sub¬ 
served by such repeal. The framers of our national 
constitution could have had reference to no such cases 
when they adopted the section providing against the 
passage of retro-active laws. I appeal to the venera¬ 
ble gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] who is an 
able lawyer, if the idea of post fado laws” was not 

derived from magna charta, and intended to refer and 
apply to contracts among men—between private citi¬ 
zens? Whether that provision of magna charta was 
not so understood that an English Judge was expected 
so to construe it, that all laws were to have a prospect¬ 
ive effect and not act retrospectively on, the subject? 
All laws of an opposite character were called retro¬ 
active, and claimed by the opponents of kingly prero¬ 
gative, to be against magna charta. 

This same idea was sometimes expressed by the 
terms, retroactive law, or law “impairing the olDliga- 
tiou of contracts.” These terras had received a fixed 
and definite meaning, before the constitution of the 
United Stales was framed, and, therefore, we are to 
look back to the period when that term was first used, 
to ascertain what was their true meaning—and what 
was then, must be now their true and legitimate inter¬ 
pretation. The term “ retroactive,” as distinguished 
from “ ex post facto," was most common in use, perhaps. 
The constitution of the United States simply re-enacts 
and re-declares that the people of this country shall 
have all the privileges and the protection in this regard, 
which the people of England enjoyed. I ask gentle¬ 
men, if, in all the history of England, since the grant of 
Magna Charta, they ever heard of an instance where 
the right of Parliament to repeal a charter was called 
in question ? And, indeed, this right of the legislative 
department of our own government to repeal a charter 
was never questioned, until the decision in the Dart 
mouth College easel Until Chief Justice Marshall, 
wiiose principles all leaned to the federalist side, made 
that decision, no one had asserted that the Legislature 
could not repeal a charter. In England, the Parlia¬ 
ment always claimed and maintained the right to re¬ 
peal a charter; the King, also, claimed the same power, 
to annul them at pleasure. 

And yet, it will not be denied that the principle de¬ 
clared in our constitution had long been recognized as 
a settled principle of their jurisprudence. A short time 
before our Revolution, or before the drafting of our 
constitution, this doctrine, as to its application to the 
subject of civil rights, or to contracts, seemed in a few 
cases to be doubted in the English courts. To settle 
this doubt, this clause was asserted in the form it was. 
Clearly, these great sages and patriots never intended 
to assert in that sound instrument a principle which 
could so easily, and, under the promptings of avarice, 
would so inevitably be applied to the utter subversion 
of the great liberties which they were then so anxious¬ 
ly seeking to secure and establish. No, sir; such 
thought never entered their minds. What may be the 
tendency of latter decisions in our courts on this sub¬ 
ject, I do not pretend to say. Sir, I do not care. All 
I inquire for is, what ought they to be? What really 
is the constitution, is ever my inquiry; and to deter¬ 
mine this, I go to the words, and if they are plain, I 
have no further trouble. I care not for your decisions. 
Thousands of them have been erroneous and long since 
overruled, and thousands still will be, if our courts and 
lawyers come up to their duty as they ought to do— 
these decisions' among the rest. 

And every lawyer knows that the tenor of all the re- 










828 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


cent decisions of the country, have been against the 
authority of the Dartmouth College case, and declara¬ 
tory of the power of the Legislature to amend or re¬ 
peal all and any acts of incorporation. 

I trust the vote, ado^)ting the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Logan, will be re-considered. 

And then, upon motion of Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, 
the Convention adjourned. 


TUESDAY, December 24, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

At five minutes past nine, Mr. THOMPSON, of 
Stark, moved a call of the Convention; which was 
ordered, and Mes.srs. Andrews, Baniett of Preble, 
Chambers, Chaney, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, 
Florence, Forbes, Gillet, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hitch¬ 
cock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hor¬ 
ton, King, Lawrence, Manon, Mason, Morris, Orton, 
Peck, Perkins, Riddle, Roll, Stanbery, Stanton, Stil- 
well, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Cham¬ 
paign, Williams and Worthington were reported ab¬ 
sent. 

On motion of Mr. CAHILL, Mr. Forbes was ex¬ 
cused. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved that all further proceed¬ 
ings under the call be dispensed with. 

Mr. McCORMICK demanded the yeas and nays, 
which being ordered, resulted yeas, 44, nays 28, as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomeryj 
Bates, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking) 
Clark, Collings, Graham, Green of Ross, Gregg, Henderson) 
Holmes, Holt, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, I.arsh) 
Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, 
Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Reemelin, Scott of Auglaize, Smith 
ot Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stickney, 
Swan, Townshend, Vance of Butler and Way—44. 

Nays —Messrs. Blickensderfer, Case of Licking, Cook, Farr, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Hootman, 
Humphreville, Johnson, Lidey, Mitchell, McCormick, Quigley, 
Ranney, Sawyer, Sellers, Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, Swift, 
Thompson of Stark, Warren, Wilson, Wootlbury and President 
—28. 

So the motion was agreed to. 

Several gentlemen asked and obtained leave to re¬ 
cord their votes upon the vote taken yesterday, upon 
the adoption of the thirty-fourth amendment made in 
committee of the Whole, to the report of the stand 
ing committee on the Legislative Department, invols'- 
ing the principle of biennial sessions of the General 
Assembly, and being severally called, responded as 
follows: 

Those who voted in the affirmative were Messrs. 
Blair, Barnet of Preble, Holt and Norris. 

Those who voted in the negative were Messrs. Ma¬ 
son and Townshend. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD presented a petition from William 
McBride and one hundred and thirty others, citizens 
of Monroe county, praying that a clause be inserted in 
the new constitution prohibiting the Legislature from 
passing any law legalizing the traffic in spirituous li¬ 
quors; which was referred to the select committee tm 
the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

On motion of xMr. WORTHINGTON, the petition of 
Daniel Drake was taken u[), and referred to the sland- 
ino- committee on Miscellaneous Subjects and Pro])o- 
sitions. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren, offered for adoption the fol¬ 
lowing resolution: 

'^Resolved, That when this Convention adjourns on this day, 
it will adjourn to meet on Monday, the 30th day of December in¬ 
stant, at 9 o’clock, A. M.” 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to amend the resolu¬ 
tion, by striking out “ Monday, the 30th,” and insert¬ 
ing “ Thursday, the 2Gth.” 

Mr. LARSH demanded a division of the question. 

The question being on striking out the words 
" Monday, the 30th.” 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays, 


which were ordered, and resulted, yeas 60, nays 29 [> 
as follows: 1 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Bates, Bennett, 1 1 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case | 
of Licking. Chambers, Clark, Cook, Farr, Gillett, Graham, Gray, il 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Flard, Hawk- \, 
ins, Henderson, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, ! | 
Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leadbetter, Li- i 1 
dey, Mitchell, Morehead, McCormick, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Per- 11 
kins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, Taylor, 
Thompson ot Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson and i 
Woodbury—60. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Blair, : 

Case of Hocking, Collings, Curry, Cutler, Green of Ross, Holmes, 1 
Holt, Jones, Leech, Loudon, Mason, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Rid- l 
die. Roll, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyan- i ^ 
dot, Stanbery, Stickney, Swan Swift, Townshend, Worthington | | 
and President—29. i 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the words i 

Thursday, the 26th.” | 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved to lay the resolution j; 
and pending amendment upon the table ; upon which ! 
question he demanded the yeas and nays, which being j 
ordered, resulted, yeas 47, nays 41, as follows: | 

Yeas. —Messrs. Andrews, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, ; 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Cutler, Gillet, Graham, Gray, j 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Holmes, Holt, Hunt- i 
cr, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Lidey, I 
Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Otis, Perkins, Quigley, B 
Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of High- | 
land, Smith of VVarren, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Woodbury, Wor¬ 
thington, and President—47. 

Nays. —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar- . 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Farr, Groesbeck, Ham- : 
ilton, Flard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Kirkwood, Larwill, Leadbetter, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Patter¬ 
son, Peck, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Wy¬ 
andot, Stanbery, Struble, Taylor, Warren, Way, and Wilson—41 

So the resolution to lay on the table was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention again 
took up the report of the standing committee on the 
Legislative Department. 

The PRESIDENT stated the question to be upon the 
motion of Mr. Case, of Licking, to re-consider the vote 
taken yesterday, by which the amendment of Mr. Stan¬ 
ton to the forty-third amendment, made in committee 
of the Whole, was agreed to, as follows: 

The forty-third ameudmetit of the committee of the 
Whole, is as follows : 

Sec. 35- Add at the end of the section the foliow- 
ing: 

“ Provided, That the General Assembly, in session, shall hare 
power to amend or revoke any charter of incorporation, granted 
by .Tny preceding General Assembly.” 

The amendment of Mr. Stanton proposes to add at 
the end of the foregoing proviso, the following : 

“ Provided, further, That, on such repeal, the title to property 
and credits, legally acquired under any former law, shall not be 
affected by such repeal.” 

The question in order, then, was u{)on the re-consid¬ 
eration of the vote by which the amendment to the 
amendment had been adopted. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, desired to state, in a few 
words, the reasons that would influence him to vote for 
the re-consideration. It would not be necessary for 
him to say a word in favor of the general principle in¬ 
volved in the ameiiclment to the amendment, lor he did 
not suppose any member upon the floor would be wil¬ 
ling to stand up and say that it would be just to de¬ 
prive the individuals composing ji chartered company 
of their property, by the act which repealed the act of 
their incorporation. 

But tliere was a difficulty that might occur to legis¬ 
lative bodies, in giving construction to a provision in 
the words of the amendment as .adopted. There 
would be a difficulty in regard to the construction of 
the term ‘ franchise.” If it should be holden to mean 
property, merely, the provision would have no mean¬ 
ing whatever. He should, therefore, vote for the re¬ 
consideration, for the purpose of enabling some gen- 












CONVENTION REPORTS 


829 


lleniaa to offer an auieuJnieut which should more 
fully accord with his views. He observed, further, 
that he deemed a change in the proviso, added by the 
committee of the whole, necessary. It would seem 
enough it the constitution should prospectively provide 
for those chartered institutions that should come into 
existence under its provisions. An attempt to inter¬ 
fere with those whose rights are already acquired, un¬ 
der a constitution diffei’ent in its provisions, might raise 
difficult and perplexing questions between legislative 
bodies and courts of justice; and a provision to that 
effect in this constitution might endanger its adoption 
by the people. 

The question then being on re-consideration, the 
same was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment to the amendment— 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, moved to amend said amend* 
ment, by striking out all after the words "provided fur¬ 
ther,” and inserting as follows: 

“That on such repeal the property or credits legally acquired 
by any corporation, or holder ot a IrancUise, shall rest in the in¬ 
dividual corporauous, subject to the liability ot the corporation.” 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, said he should not be satis¬ 
fied with this proposition alone, and ii^tended, at the 
proper time, if it should be done by no one else, to 
move an amendment to the substance of the amend¬ 
ment of the committee of the whole. If we can confer 
no power upon the Legislature to repeal existing char¬ 
ters, it is useless to attempt it, and if there is no legis¬ 
lative power adequate to it, we cannot confer such 
power here, because we can give no right to pass laws 
that are retroactive in their operation. 

The question being on striking out the amendment 
of Mr. Stanton, and inserting that of Mr. Vance— 

Mr. REEMELIN demanded a division of the ques¬ 
tion. 

The question then being on striking out. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said he had had no intention to 
take any part in the debate upon this question, but de¬ 
sired to suggest to the gentlemen from Butler [Mr. 
Vance] and Knox [Mr. Mitchell] whether they bad 
better not take time for consideration, and present 
their propositions a little more mature. He did not 
pretend to be aufait in these matters relating to corpo¬ 
rations, but the true doctrine, the ancient doctrine, the 
Democratic doctrine, the doctrine laid down in the 
horn-books—the Westminster catechisms—the Say brook 
platforms of Democracy, is that all grants of corporate 
powers, of whatever name, kind and description, to 
whomsoever and for what purpose soever they may 
have been conferred, may be revoked and taken away 
at the sovereign will of the grantor. But, at the same 
time, when the privilege is taken away, it is equally 
right, equally proper, equally consistent with Demo¬ 
cratic principles, that a compensation in money should 
be made to the party, in coi sideration of the rights of 
which he had been deprived, and adequate to the inju¬ 
ry that he has suffered The principle is the same as 
when private property is taken for the public use. The 
existence of a given charter may be inconsistent with 
the free enjoyment, by the people, of all the rights 
which they are entitled to claim at the hands of the 
government. The public interest demands that it 
should be repealed. The private property is taken for 
the public use. The private privilege is divested that 
the people may all share in its benefits. T his is right, 
but at the same time the right of the individual must 
be preserved, so far as is consistent with the higher de¬ 
mand of the public. We cannot continue his franchi¬ 
ses to him, but we can compensate him for their loss. 
This is the Democracy in which I have been instructed 
by men holding high places in the esteem of the Demo¬ 
cratic party. 

I have said that the General Assembly has done 
wrong in granting so many acts of incorporation. Ihey 
have made haste in a bad manner, in taking this course 
to develop the wealth of the country. 1 have said 


that the public interest has been weighed down by the 
collective power of thousands of corporations. The 
General Assembly has seemed to delight in building up 
a Colossus—a business doing giant, to overshadow and 
compete against the industry and enterprise of individ¬ 
ual citizens. If necessary, let us impose upon the 
Legislature the necessity to divest these charters, in 
case when the public interest suffers. By .so doing, 
we shall convey an instructive lesson to those who 
have the power to create them. 

Mr. HUMRHREVILLE rose to answer one or two 
of the objections made against the doctrine of the right 
of repeal. He, in common with the Democratic party 
at large, had ever held the doctrine that one Legisla¬ 
ture had no right to grant that which another Legisla¬ 
ture could not take away. He had been taught that 
bank charters were not contracts. This doctrine had 
been vociferated long and loud through the State, and 
the Democratic party had long striven to establish it 
in practice in the State. And what has been the ef¬ 
fect ? Why, sir, just so long as the attempt has been 
made, just so long has the Supreme Court declared that 
a charter is a contract that cannot be overthrown with¬ 
out the consent of the corporators. So that if the doc¬ 
trine is to be recognized at all, why not put it into the 
constitution 1 

I agi’ee that corporations have property in their fran¬ 
chises, provided they pay a consideration for them; 
otherwise not. And I am not to believe that because 
the General Assembly has the power, it will therel'ore 
eventually exercise it by taking away corporate privi¬ 
leges. The power may be exercised for a very whole¬ 
some purpose, and, if not exercised at all, may still have 
a beneficial effect. Suppose a chartered company has 
committed an offence, what should prevent the Legis¬ 
lature from taking cognizance of it, and applying the 
remedy, either by a repeal of the privileges altogether 
or by such a modification as will prevent a repetition of 
the wrong ? The case of a public officer is precisely 
parallel. If he be guilty of misconduct, he maybe im¬ 
peached, and his office taken from him. He may be 
said, in some degree, to have a property in his office: 
would you make him a compensation in money for the 
office he has lost by misconduct? Yet he has the same 
claim as a corpoiation under similar circumstances. I 
go, then, for incorporating a provision in the constitu¬ 
tion that the Legislature shall have the right to repeal 
—leaving it to that body to decide in what cases it 
shall be exercised; n)aking that body judges of the law, 
and, in fact, to act as a court of justice would do under 
similar circumstances. 

But I do not wish to have it understood that I would 
deprive chartered companies of the property that they 
may have acquired. Let them retain it, deprived only 
of the power to employ it in a corporate capacity. I 
would make it subject to the joint liabilides, and I 
would go no further. It would seem as if this would 
enable the Legislature to do justice to all parties—to 
preserve the rights of the citizens, while it inflicted no 
unnecessary wrong upon the corporator, and so to pro¬ 
vide for the future government of the State that, ex¬ 
cept for certain special purposes necessary for carry¬ 
ing forward important improvements, there vvould be 
little or no demand for grants of chartered rights. 

Mr. GROESBEOK said that in the report of the 
standing committee on Corporations other than corpo¬ 
rations for banking, it had been provided that all law.s 
for the creation ol such bodies may be altered from 
time to time, or repealed. This provision is applica¬ 
ble to all corporate bodies that may be created after 
the adoption of thi.s constitution, and there can be 
no doubt but legislative bodies organized under it, will 
exercise the right to amend or repeal, as they may 
deem expedient. 

In the amendment now under consideration, it is 
proposed to assert the right of repeal not only in refer¬ 
ence to corporations granted by future Legislatures, 
but also to give to the General Assembly the power to 












880 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


cancel and destroy every charter hitherto granted, 
without regard to consequences. That is to say, you 
would leave the property—the lands—the movables, 
in the hands of the stock holders, but you would take 
away the Iranchise or right to use them in a certain 
way and without regard to its effect, merely throw 
back the dead and useless property upon the hands of 
those whom you have stripped of the power to einploy 
it. Mr. Tresident, this is wrong ! clearly and manifest¬ 
ly wrong ! ^ " '£4^^ 

Let us, in examining this doctrine, take up a class 
of cases and look at them in its light. Let us take 
bridge companies, plank road companies, turnpike 
companies, railroad companies, and make to them 
the application of the doctrine. They have laid their 
road or built their bridge. They have invested their 
capital in confidence that the right, which they had 
acquired under the laws of the State, would be con¬ 
tinued to them. Their charter is repealed, and what 
do they get? They have their narrow strip of land 
about sixty feet wide running through the country; 
they have the timber of their bridges, the plank of their 
plank roads, and the metal and iron of these McAd- 
am and railroads, and nothing else. Millions of prop¬ 
erty in the State have been invested in these enter¬ 
prises—in grading, digging ditches, filling vallies, and 
in cutting down hills, and for all this, which is per¬ 
fectly useless without the franchise which gave life to 
it, you would give nothing. You would charitably al¬ 
low the stock holders to pay the corporate debts out of 
the useless materials, and that is all. You would say 
to them, take your property—your narrow line of land, 
your iron, your metal, your cars—take them where 
' you will, but the right to use them out of which their 
value is derived—that is at an end. Mr. President; it 
is idle, it is worse than idle to assert such a doctriire. 
The property, with the right to use it, as the Legisla¬ 
ture has authorized it to be used, may be worth a great 
deal. The property without the right to use it will be 
almost worthless. 

Now, Mr. President, what is the true doctrinev It 
is this, that if the franchises belonging to individuals 
ai'e resumed by the State, it is the duty of the State 
to pay to the individuals in return, a fair and adequate 
compensation to make them whole under the circum¬ 
stances—to act fairly with them according to the cir¬ 
cumstances. It is the taking of private property for 
public use, and it makes no difference in the applica¬ 
bility of the doctrine, whether the property be in lands, 
in movables or in franchises. The presu 2 nption when 
they are taken is, that they are required by the public 
necessities, for the public use or good, and the appli¬ 
cation of this doctrine is the inevitable consequence. 
Go to the courts of justice, take a case in which a Le¬ 
gislative body has taken from a chartered company its 
privileges, and the company having in no particular, 
violated its charter seeks compensation for injury or 
damage. You urge in defence; There is the line of 
land, there is the timber, the metal, the iron. We have 
only taken the franchise of right to use them in a cer¬ 
tain way, and have left you all your property ; I say, 
Mr. Chairman, there is not a court in Christendom that 
would not reject such an argument. And why ? Be¬ 
cause it is wrong. And I tell gentlemen that we may 
fill the benches with democratic judges, and we can¬ 
not do it. It is not democratic, and so will democratic 
judges pronounce. 

And now, I say to gentlemen; take back the char¬ 
ters, where it is necessary to do so—we can do it— 
there is not a charter in the State we can’t revoke ; but 
let us say, that when it is done, the Legislature shall 
make to the party injured an adequate compensation 
for his loss. 

Mr. IIANNEY. Has not the doctrine of the inviola¬ 
bility of charters been put upon other ground—that 
they are contracts, and as such, not repealable? 

Mr. GROESBECK. It is true that courts have deci¬ 
ded corporate franchises to be in the nature of con¬ 


tracts, and, as such, beyond the power of the Legisla¬ 
ture to repeal. But they further say a charter is a 
vested right, that it is property and taxable as such, 
and on that ground, on the ground that it is property, 
it can be taken, but not without compensation. There 
is a case in 6th Howard, where the question came up, 
whether a franchise could be taken as other property 
for the public use, and it was holden by the court, that 
it could be so taken and paid for at its value. The 
doctrine of the right of the State ta take property for 
the j)ublic good has no special application to any parti¬ 
cular species of property, but includes all, whether 
houses, lands, and personalities, or franchises and choses 
in action. There is nothing in the State it may not take 
for the public good. All things are subservient to the 
public welfare. 

Mr. President, 1 will not protract my remarks. It 
is to be observed, that the question is presented in a 
case where it is admitted that the company has in ail 
i-espects, observed its charter, in letter and in spirit. 
In such a case, I assert, the State may, notwithstand¬ 
ing, take away the charter on the principle I have 
slated—where the company has violated its charter. 
The case is different where the charter is violated—the 
State may take it away upon another principle, and 
without the sSme scrupulous regard to the conse¬ 
quences. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD was glad to hear an extended dis¬ 
cussion upon the important subject now before the 
Convention. He agreed in general, with the gentle¬ 
man from Medina, [Mr. Humphreville] but desired 
-to say a word in further explanation of what he con¬ 
sidered the true doctrine. When the sovereign pow¬ 
er, for purposes of public necessity, sees fit to resume 
the grant that has been made, it is due to the party 
injured by the act, that an inquiry be made into the 
value of the thing taken away, and that he be paid a 
lull consideration therefor. The public good requires 
the resumption of the franchise, and it is taken and 
paid for as other property is taken, and a compensation 
made under similar circumstances. 

But if, on the other hand, a corporation is charged 
with a violation of the law of its existence, or any 
crime or offence against the public policy—if it be- 
con es wantonly inimical to the public welfare, or 
dangerous to the security and peace of individuals, it 
is the duty of the legislative power to deprive it in¬ 
stantly of its franchises, and send the question to the 
judicial courts to determine the rights of the parties. 
If there are facts to be inquired into, the courts are 
the only proper places for such an inquiry, for any 
one who is acquainted with legislative bodies, must 
be aware that the General Assembly is, of all places, 
the worst and most illy organized body to make an ex¬ 
amination into facts. 

Look at this system ! It has harmony of parts and 
consistency as a whole; and if any gentleman thinks 
that the General Assembly has or should have, the 
right, wantonly to take property without cause and 
without compensation, he should go back to first prin¬ 
ciples, and learn his democracy over again. This is the 
doctrine which, while it will di.scourage the granting 
of charters, wdll be just and benign in its operation to¬ 
wards those that exist. 

Mr. HOLMES would, in a few words give his views 
upon the question. He thought it to be one of com¬ 
mon sense, and not very difficult to settle. All that is 
proposed, is to give the General Assembly the power to 
alter or revoke acts of incorporation. The power is 
not very formidable in itself, exercised as it ever must 
be, under the jealous supervision of the people of the 
State. 

But we are told by gentlemen that no sooner will the 
constitution containing this clause be adopted, than at 
the first session of the General Assembly in which the 
Democratic party is in power, that body will go to 
work and repeal all the charters in the State. I do 
not believe it. I hold that there is no danger that the 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


831 


power will be exercised unless it is imperatively re¬ 
quired by the public good. It seems to me also, that 
in all questions regarding the securing to stockholders 
their rights or their compensation, the matter may 
be safely left to the Legislature. But some gentlemen 
are unwilling here to trust to law making bodies. 
They charge in this connection, that they are reckless 
and always ready to do wrong, and must be tied up 
by constitutional provisions. Gentlemen play fast and 
loose with the Legislature. Sometimes they have un¬ 
limited confidence in its wisdom, and sometimes unlim¬ 
ited distrust of its discretion—sometimes thev are a 
set of asses, and sometimes all that could be" asked. 
For myself, I have the most implicit confidence that the 
Legislature will not undertake the repeal or alteration 
of acts of incorporation, except when it is palpably re¬ 
quired by the public interest, and I would prefer to 
vote for the section in the report, without any amend¬ 
ment, leaving a discretion to the General Assembly in 
such cases, to consult what they deem to be the good 
of the public, and with the full confidence that if a re¬ 
peal becomes necessary, they will do for the corpora¬ 
tors and parties in interest all that justice shall require. 
But it seems to some gentlemen, that the moment a 
charter is about to be timched, the country is to be ru¬ 
ined, and that these things should, above all others, be 
protected. Sir, I have seen grievious wrong commit¬ 
ted by chartered companies, and have seen the public 
groan under those intiictions. So have many others; 
and I must confess that I have been surprised to hear 
my colleague, [Mr. Groks beck,] asserting so strongly 
that franchises are property, and that the Legislature 
has no right to touch them. The gentleman from Mon¬ 
roe, [Mr. Archbold,] also, seems to think that the 
matter is one for judicial cognizance, and the action of 
the legislative power is to be hampered by the decis¬ 
ions of courts. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said he had not asserted that the 
General Assembly would be subject to the decisions of 
courts. On the contrary, he had asserted the right of 
repeal in its broadest and most comprehensive terms. 
But when the legislative function is performed, it be¬ 
comes a proper subject of inquiry by the courts, as to 
the value of the franchise destroyed. But when a 
chartered company is charged with a forfeiture of its 
charter for a crime or ofience, the matter is, at once, a 
question for the judicial courts. 

Mr. HOLMES stood corrected. He did then under¬ 
stand the gentleman to say, that when the corporation 
had committed an offence—a public wrong, it was a 
question for the courts. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. And when the general good of 
the community demands a repeal, it is a proper sub¬ 
ject for the courts to inquire into the private injury 
sufiered by such repeal. 

Mr. HOLMES. The committee on Corporations, 
other than corporations for banking, has reported a 
provision as follows: 

“ Corporations mayb e formed under general laws, but all gen¬ 
eral laws passed pursuant to this section, may be altered, from 
time to time, or repealed : Provided, on said repeal, the property 
or crc dits legally acquired by any corporation, shall rest in the 
individual corporators, subject to the liability of the corporation,” 

There I would leave the subject, t wish the princi¬ 
ple of repeal to be distinctly declared in our organic 
law, leaving it to the discretion of the General Assem¬ 
bly to decide when that power shall be exercised, and 
in what manner the rights of the corporators shall be 
secured. I shall therefore vote against the amendment, 
but if the amendment shall prevail, will vote for the 
section as amended. 

Mr. LEADBETTER said, that on yesterday, during 
the debate upon this question, upon looking around the 
hall, T endeavored to catch the eye of the President, 
in order to inquire whether I was still a democrat or 
not. But observing that the chair was temporarily oc¬ 
cupied by the gentleman from Ross, [Mr. Green,] I 
came to the conclusion not to make the inquiry. 


Mr. GREEN would imjuire if he was to under¬ 
stand the gentleman Irom Holmes, as saying that ho 
[Mr. Green] was not capable ofdeciding that question. 

Mr. LEADBETTER said that he did not intend, by 
his remarks to call in question the capacity ol the gen¬ 
tleman from Ross, to decide any important question, 
but that the President, from long acquaintance and 
association was better acquainted with his political 
opinions than the gentleman from Ross. And sir, 1 
find myself again to-day, in somewhat strange compa¬ 
ny ; and to my surprise, I find those around me who, 
acting with the democratic party, and professing dem¬ 
ocratic principles, are in fact, advocating and contend¬ 
ing for all that has ever been claimed by the Whig 
party, in favor of their favorite doctrine “ of vested 
rights,” In common with the democracy of that part 
^Jf the State which I have the honor in'part to repre¬ 
sent, and which I am led to believe is entertained by 
the party throughout the State; I hold to the doctrine 
and the right of absolute and unconditional repeal of 
all charters, and of all laws, heretofore passed, by any 
subsequent General Assembly. I am not speaking of 
the policy of repealing acts of incorporation, or as to 
the direction which the General Assembly should give 
to the property and eliects of the corporations, but as 
to the right and power of the General Assembly to re¬ 
peal, as an abstract proposition. I had supposed that 
I was a member of that party, which hold the doctrine, 
that the General Assembly was not clothed with pow¬ 
er and authority to confer franchises that a subsequent 
Legislature might never resume. If you admit the 
principle that the Legislature is rightlully possessed of 
this power, you admit that the destructability of this 
State government is vested in any Legislature that is 
either base or corrupt enough to barter away all those 
rights and privileges, worthy of enjoyment by a free¬ 
man, past hope ol redemption. 

I understood the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Groesbeck,] to say, that those rights once given can 
never be taken away, and that no court of justice would 
so ever decide, even if yourbenches were covered with 
democratic Judges, nor they ought not. 

Mr. GROESBECK said, he had on yesterday, assert¬ 
ed his belief in the right to repeal all charters created 
under this constitution in the most unqualified manner, 
and in terms not to be misunderstood. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. I will endeavor to do the 
gentleman justice, for I have no desire to mis-represent 
him. I understand that the gentleman has stated a 
case wherein the State has deprived a chartered com¬ 
pany of its privileges, which has in no wise violated 
any of the provisions of its charter, by putting the State 
on the defensive, in action of damages for this depriva¬ 
tion, and the State sets up a defence, in case of a rail¬ 
road for instance, there is your line of land, your tim¬ 
ber, iron, cars, &c., we have left you all of your prop¬ 
erty, and have only taken away your corporate exis¬ 
tence. I understand the gentleman to say that, that is 
not a good defence to the action, and that no court, 
even of democratic judges, would so decide, because it 
is wrong? Without going into an argument upon the 
subject, as against the Stale, the people of the State, as 
the result of the doctrine of the right of repeal, being 
inherent of itself, and the corporators accepting of their 
charter with a full knowledge of all the facts belore 
them, I hold the converse of the proposition, and insist 
that the State has made a good defence. I hold that 
the Legislature, with or without good cause shown, 
may resume any franchise granted to any corporate 
body without being bound to make any compensation. 
These franchises are procured for individual gain or 
convenience, and they may be deprived of the privi¬ 
lege of their corporate existence without originating 
any claim for damages as against the creator of their 
existence. We are gravely told, that it is not coming 
up to the requirements of justice to leave to the corpo¬ 
rators their property. Why sir, do we not propose to 
leave them the land, the timber, the iron, all that be- 











«32 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


■longs to them, with the right to use it in their own way ? 
Do we propose to’place their property in any other sit¬ 
uation than that of all other individuals ? My present 
•opinion is, that they will be left in the situation of part¬ 
ners, and as such, what is to prohibit them from put¬ 
ting their cars in motion ? They have only been divest- 
i9d of their corporate name and power as a body cor¬ 
porate. The danger to be apprehended is, that this 
ipower will not be exercised often enough, instead of 
• dragging in extreme cases to frighten us from our pur- 
.pose. And I tell gentlemen now, that if there is any 
money in the corporation, the most fastidious among 
us will have but little to fear of its ever being repeal- 
■^d by any Legislature, while the present state of parties 
and feelings exist. For twenty years past, the money 
power has controlled the action of the General Assem- 
•bly ; and if the doctrine of the gentleman from Flamil- 
ton, and others, is to prevail, we had better not merely 
adjourn over the holidays, but sine die. 

In conclusion Mr. President, I wish to say to our 
friends upon this side, that the Democratic party of the 
-State expect at our hands a settlement of this question, 
now and forever; and let us walk right up to the mark, 
or no longer hold the places we now occupy 

Mr. MITCHELL. The gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton [Mr. Groesbeck,] has evidently given far greater 
breadth to the term “ franchise ” than its established 
meaning will allow. I had doubted if he was correct, 
and have procured one of his own law books, in order 
to ascertain the signification of the word. He will not 
of course deny his own authority. The word is a law 
term, and as such is employed and should be defined. 
In Jacob’s Law Dictionary, it is defined to be “A 
privilege or exemption from ordinary jurisdiction,” and 
sometimes “ An immunity from tribute.” The idea of 
-a franchise then is, that it is a free gift; or rather, as it 
is understood in this country, an exemption from some 
sort of tribute ; and that appears to be the reason why 
it is so highly valued. People are anxious to escape 
taxation. There has ever been a great difficulty in 
bringing the moneys of the State upon the tax list; 
and when men have secured an exemption from trib¬ 
ute, they are greatly desirous to preserve it. 

In the gentleman’s example, it is not precisely an 
escape from tribute, perhaps. But take his bridge or 
his railroad company. What do they gain by their 
■charter? The right to sue and be sued as a corporate 
body, and an exemption from forfeiture, in case of a 
failure to perform their duties. Now what is the con- 
^sideration to the State for conferring upon this body 
immunities that citizens do not enjoy I And what is 
■taken away by the repeal? The right to sue and be 
.sued in a corpoi’ate name. Is there any reason, when 
this is taken away, that the State should pay for it ? 

The right of repeal is a Democratic doctrine, and 
the assertion of it is an honor to the Democratic par¬ 
ty ; and to decree that it shall, in future, be exercised 
by the legislative power, in its sound discretion, is 
no more than is due to the people by a wise and dem¬ 
ocratic government; for there can never be a conclu¬ 
sive reason why a State should pay for the resumption, 
;to itself, of an unmerited, free gift. 

Mr. RANNEY said that whatever may be the pres¬ 
ent slate of the question, he perceived gentlemen had 
^one on to consider the right of the General Assembly 
te repeal acts of incorporation already granted. He 
koped gentlemen would not split hairs upon this ques¬ 
tion. If it is right and prudent to entrust future Leg¬ 
islatures with the power to repeal acts of incorporation 
to be passed in future, it is equally safe to place in 
their hands those that already exist. In either case, 
and in both equally, would they allow those not in¬ 
consistent with public rights to exist, and those not 
consistent would they take away. I would say a word 
in regard to the positions taken by the gentleman from 
Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck. j I do not understand him 
to deny the right of the Legislature to repeal uture 


acts of incorporation, When he has gone so far there 
is no need to stop. 

Gentlemen have said that charteis are contracts, and 
being contracts, no Legislature has the right to repeal 
their provisions—but if they are repealed it is the duty 
of the State to pay the damage. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said he did not put it upon that 
ground. He held to the right to repeal, on the ground 
of the power in the State to appropriate private prop¬ 
erty to the public use, on paying for it. 

Mr. RANNEY. That is just what I have been sta¬ 
ling: that we may not repeal the charter without pay¬ 
ing what it is worth. For instance. The General As¬ 
sembly sees fit to incorporate a bank for, say twenty- 
five years. Next year, if it should be necessary to 
repeal the act, it is to be estimated what the charter 
would be worth for the remaining twenty-four years. 
Suppose it could make three thousand dollars a year— 
three times twenty-four are seventy-two thousand dol¬ 
lars, to be paid to the stockholders for the loss of their 
privilege, and that amount must the State pay for the 
resumption of a franchise. 

But what is a charter ? Gentlemen say it is property. 
1 agree that it is property ; but because it is property 
can it always be seized for the public use 1 Must there 
not be first an existing necessity? For instance: I 
own a horse. Under ordinary circumstances, the gov¬ 
ernment has no right to take my horse from me. But 
a war suddenly springs up; it becomes necessary to 
send a courier through the country where 1 reside; 
my horse becomes necessary for the purpose, and it is 
taken, and paid for. Here is the necessity, and the true 
application of the rule. For gentlemen will agree that 
governments have no power wantonly to seize upon 
individual property. A necessity must actually exist. 

The doctrine of gentlemen is therefore unsound. It 
has no applicability to the case ; and yet it is, they say 
one of the old principles of democracy. How long is 
it since it was declared ? 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. It was declared in 1848. 

Mr. RANNEY. Only as old as 1848 ? 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I say it was declared as late as 
1848. 

Mr. RANNEY. My democracy goes back beyond 
1848. I do not know but it is an old doctrine, but I 
never heard of it. But what is property ? According 
to Blackstone, property is divided into real and per¬ 
sonal. There is a sort of property called choses in 
action, and a charter seems to come as near to that as 
any thing. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, inquired if he might interrupt 
the gentleman with a word. 

Mr. RANNEY. This is a matter with which the gen¬ 
tleman from Ross can have nothing to. I am now try¬ 
ing to teach democracy to democrats. It is a question 
betwen the allies, and not with the enemy. 

Mr. GREEN begged pardon; he had nothing to do 
with the affair. 

Mr. RANNEY. So far as it is a question of democra¬ 
cy, certainly not. 

Look at the English law! A franchise is a gift of 
the crown to one or more persons of some special pri¬ 
vilege or exemption; and questions arising under such 
grants have nothing more to do with our discussions 
here, than they have with the Christian faith. I i-ecol- 
lect the cases referred to by the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton, [Mr. Groesbeck.] But what have we to do 
with cases ? Instead of inquiring what rule we shall 
fix to govern future decisions, we are inquiring what is 
our rule of action, decided in 2d Peters, or somewhere 
else. I recollect a case like this: A company in 
Charlestown, Massachusetts, had constructed, under a 
charter, a bridge across one of the arms of the bay, to 
connect that town with Boston. The State afterwards 
decided to build a bridge in the same place, and it be 
came necessary to seize the land of the company for 
the purpose, and the supreme court said it could be 
done. It would be dangerous to fix a different rule. 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 833 


The right of the State should be paramount to every 
private right. 

i^^The gentleman from Logan [Mr. Stanton] expects 
that when the General Assembly gets the power, it will 
repeal every act of incorporation. Now, I cannot un¬ 
derstand his idea of a Legislature so tlangerous to pres¬ 
ent corporations, and so safe to future ones. It is the 
same Legislature in the one case as in the other. He 
cannot trust that body—it is dangerous. Now, that is 
a tune that cannot always be sung. When monopolies 
are to be created, ho is all trust; when they may be 
repealed, he is all distrust. I can tell gentlemen how 
to avoid the difficulty. Let them never apply to the 
Le<yislatnre for corporate powers. Live like the rest; 
but if you choose to take the privilege, you must also 
take the responsibilities. The only true ground, as 
well for Whigs as Democrats, is, that the Legislature 
shall have no power to grant what it may not resume. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, asked and obtained leave 
of absence for Mr. Oollings, for one week. 

Mr. LARWILL asked and obtained leave of absence 
for Mr. Smith, of Wyandot, for one week. 

Mr. RANNEY asked and obtained leave of absence 
for Mr. Holt, for one week. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the Convention adjourn 
to meet on Thursday the 26th, at 9 o’clock, A. M. 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted, yeas 37, nays 49, as 
follows: 

Yeas —Ijlessrs. Andrews, Archbold, Bennett, Blickensderfer, 
Cahill, Case of Hocking, Collings, Farr, Gray, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Holmes, Holt, Hunter, 
Jones, Kennon, Lawrence, Leech, Mason, Mitchell, McCormick, 
Otis Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Swan, 
Taylor, Thompson of Stark, and Vance of Butler—37. 

Nays— Messrs. Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blair, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, 
Cook Curry, Cutler, Gillett, Graham, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Kirkwood, 
Larsh Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Morehead, McCloud, Norris, Pat¬ 
terson Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Stan- 
toery ’stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Townshend, 
Wwren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President 

-49. 

So the motion to adjourn was disagreed to. 

Mr. REEMELIN asked and obtained leave of ab¬ 
sence until Thursday morning. 

On motion of Mr. LARWILL, the Conventiun took 

a recoss. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

The question being on agreeing to the amendment 
of Mr. Vance, of Butler, to Mr. Stanton’s amendment, 
to wit; Strikeout all after the words “ provided far¬ 
ther,” and insert the following; “ that on such repeal, 
the property or credits legally acquired by any corpo¬ 
ration, or holder of a franchise, shall vest in the indi¬ 
vidual corporators, subject to the liabilities of the cor- 

^^Mr!°REEMELIN remarked, that the question now 
recurring, was the same as that which was before the 
Convention at the summer session, viz: whether one 
General Assembly has the right to bind the action of 
any succeeding General Assembly. It was a question 
which was agitated not alone in Ohio, but as to the 
national Legislature, and then again in county govern¬ 
ments. The Democrats uniformly declaring that one 
Legislature has the right to repeal the acts of a for¬ 
mer one; and the Whigs contending for the right ot 
one General Assembly to create a “vested right, 
which no subsequent Legislature can touch. 

There are qualifications to this cardinal doctrine of 
the Democratic party; for instance, the one declared 
this morning, by an able colleague, [Mr. Holmes,] that 
while the Legislature has the right to resume any fran¬ 
chise—to repeal any act of incorporation—the proper¬ 
ty acquired by that corporation should, at its dissolu¬ 
tion, vest in the individual corporators. 

Mr. President, it is, to my mind, peculiarly strange, 
that such an exemption should be claimed for corpo- 

53 


rations, as against every other interest in society. It 
is contended that when an act of incorporation is grant¬ 
ed, there becomes a vested right, which no Legislature 
can interfere with. Corporations and their friends de¬ 
mand greater privileges and exemptions than all the 
private interests of society. The Legislature can, at 
any time, change the law of inheritance, and the law 
of dow u', but citizens are not asking that either of 
these shall be exempt from change for all time to come. 

But, sir, corporations alone, of all other interests in 
society, demand at our hands, a solemn pledge, en¬ 
grafted in the organic law, that they shall be forever 
secure from legislative action. And why is it that these 
bastard children are so fearful of trusting, their inter¬ 
ests to the Legislature ? Because there is an innate 
consciousness of wrong — a consciousness of enjoying 
special privileges not granted to the mass of citizens, 
and a greedy desire to intrench themselves in the per¬ 
manent possesrion of those special privileges. It is 
not because the people have ever been unjust to corpo- 
I rations, but because of a fear that they will be justly 
dealt with. 

Corporations always have their lobby members in 
and around the halls of legislation, to watch for and se¬ 
cure their interests. Not so with the people—they 
cannot act with that directness and system that a corpo¬ 
ration can. No individual will take it upon himself to 
go up to the Capital at his own expense, to watch the 
representatives of the people, and to “lobby” against 
the potent influences of corporations. But corporations 
have the money, and it is to their interest to expend it 
to secure the passage of partial laws. 

Therefore, I say that corporations have nothing to 
fear at the hands of the Legislature; that body has al¬ 
ways proved their best friend. 

I am opposed to any constitutional provision for ma¬ 
king compensation to the individuals of a corporation, 
whose charter may be repealed, for every corporation 
differs from another, and it is impossible to make one 
rule applicable to all. It is best to leave the whole 
matter open to the Legislature to make compensation 
or not, as the circumstances of the case may require. 

Mr. MITCHELL remarked that it was a settled 
principle that when a man conveys property to a cor¬ 
poration, he may do so upon the supposition that the 
corporation may become defunct, and in that case the 
property may revert to him. The doctrine asserted on 
yesterday, by the gentleman from Medina, [Mr. Hum¬ 
phreville,] that on the death of a corporation the pro¬ 
perty thereof reverts to the original grantor, is undoubt¬ 
edly con'ect. 

In support of this position, I will read the following 
extract from Jacobs’ Law Dictionary : 

“ Corporations may be disselved in several ways, which disso¬ 
lution is the civil death of the corporation; and in this case their 
lands and tenements shall revert to the person, or his heirs, who 
granted them to the corporation; for the law doth annex a con¬ 
dition to every such grant, that if the corporation be dissolved, 
the grantor shall have the lands again, because the cause of the 
grant faiieth.— Co. Lit. 13. The grant is indeed only during the 
life of the corporation, which may endure forever; but when that 
life is determined by the dissolution of the body politic, the grant¬ 
or takes it back by reversion, as in the case of every other grant 
for life. The debts of a corporation, either to or from it, are to¬ 
tally extinguished by its dissolution; so that the members there¬ 
of cannot recover, or be charged with them, in their natural ca¬ 
pacities.” 

The question being on the amendment [Mr. Vance 
of Butler’s] to the amendment, [Mr. Stanton’s,] 

Mr. HOLMES demanded a division of the question ; 
and the same turning first on striking out, 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays; 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 47, nays 34—as 
follows : 

Yeas. _Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Clark 

Farr Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hum 
phreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill 
Leech Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Patterson 
Quigley Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sa^|^er, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
Swift Tavlor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, Way,, 
Wilson. Woodbury, and President—47. 















834 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Nays. —Meeers. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Blickensdcrfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Gil- 
lett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Deliance, Green of Ross, Groes- 
beck, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hunter, Kennon, Larsh, Morehead, 
McCloud, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of War¬ 
ren, Stanbery, Swan, and Worthington—34. 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Vance, of Butler, 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE demanded the yeas and 
nays; and being ordered, resulted—yeas 4.3, nays 40— 
as follows: 

Yeas. —Messrs. Andrews, Arehbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensdcrfer, Brown 
ol Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Cook, 
Curry, Cutler, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holt, Humphreville, Hun¬ 
ter, Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Mitchell, McCloud, Otis, 
Peck, Perkins, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, 
Swan, Warren, Woodbriry, and Worthington—43. 

Nays. —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Clark, Farr, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Holmes, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Morehead, 
Norris, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, 
Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of 
Stark, Townshend, Way, \\Tl6on, and President—40. 

So the amend meat was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Stan¬ 
ton’s amendment, as amended, 

Mr. STIDGER demanded the yeas and nays; and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 43, nays 40—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Groes¬ 
beck, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Humphreville, 
Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Mitchell, Morehead, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Swan, Woodbury and 
W orthington—43. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Clark, Farr, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunter, Hunt, Jones, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Norris, 
Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of 
Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney. Stidger, Stru¬ 
ble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Towmshend, Warren, 
Way, Wilson, and President—40. 

So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing jto the 43d 
amendment of the committee of the Whole, as amend¬ 
ed, to wit: At the end of the section, add the following 
words, “ Provided that the General Assembly shall have 
power to alter, amend, repeal or revoke any charter of 
incorporation or franchises granted by any preceding 
General Assembly; provided further, that on such re¬ 
peal the property or credits legally acquired by any 
corporation or holder of a franchise shall vest in the in¬ 
dividual corporators, subject to the liabilities of the 
corporation ;” 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays, 
which being ordered, resulted ^yeas, 41. nays. 42, as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Clark, Farr 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Pat¬ 
terson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Swiit, Taylor, 
Townshend, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—41. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Bro\vn of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Cook, 
Curry, Cutler, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Roes, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Hawkins, Hunter, Kennon, Larsh, Morehead, McCloud, 
Norris, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, 
Tompson of Stark, Warren, and Worthington—42. 

So the amendment of the committee of the whole, 
as amended, was disagreed to; and section thirty-five, 
as amended, reads as follows: 

“ The General Assembly shall have no power to pass retro¬ 
active laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts.” 

The question then being on agreeing to the forty- 
fourth amendment, to wit: “ Strike out section thirty- 
six;” the same was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the forty-fifth 


amendment, to wit: “ Strike out section thirty-eight,” 
which is as i'ollows: 

“ Sec. 38. The General Assembly shall by law provide for the 
organization of a board of selectmen for each county, to consist 
of a delegate from each township and ward, to be elected annu¬ 
ally by the people thereof, in which board the General Assembly 
shall vest such local legislative power over all matters which con 
cern such county exclusively.” 

Mr. TAYLOR hoped that the majority who had de¬ 
clared that sessions of the Legislature should be bien¬ 
nial, would so far defer to the opinions of the miuority 
—would so far reconcile them to biennial sessions, as 
to vote for this or some good system of local Legisla¬ 
tures. If the Legislature of the State was to assemble 
' annually, the local business could be entrusted to the 
State Legislature; and even then he would prefer that 
this class of business should be transacted by county 
boards thougliout the State. But now that it was set¬ 
tled that we must submit to “ biennial sessions” of the 
State Legislature, the necessity for the creation of these 
local Legislatures was greatly enhanced. 

Mr. HAWKINS also expressed himself in favor ol 
the provisions of the section in debate—he believing 
that county boards have power to transact all exclu¬ 
sively local business. At the session of the General 
Assembly iu which he last served there were introdu¬ 
ced 730 bills, of which more than 500 were of an ex¬ 
clusively local character. All of this mass of proposi¬ 
tions were printed at the public expense, and an enor¬ 
mous expense, too, and distributed to all parts of the 
State. A load of good hay would have been of more 
value to any one of the counties than a cart-load of 
those “ public documents,” except the infinit^Sssimal 
part of that load which pertained to that particular 
county. 

The question being upon agreeing to the amendment 
of the committee of the whole, proposing to strike out 
section thirt 5 ^-eight, 

Mr. HAWKINS demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted, yeas 59,nays 18, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Clark, Curry, Cutler, Gillet,, Graham, Green of Ross, 
Groeslaeck, Hamilton, Hard, Holmes, Hootman, Humpreville, 
Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, Mc¬ 
Cormick, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ran¬ 
ney, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Stanbery, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Town- 
shed, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and Pres¬ 
ident—59. 

Nays —Messrs. Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Chambers, 
Cook, Farr, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Holt, Hunter, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Stidger, Swift and Taylor—18. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren moved that the Convention 
adjourn to meet on Monday next, at 9 o’clock, A. M. 

Mr. LARW’ILL remarked that some complaint had 
been made as to the amount ol time consumed by this 
Convention, and he had therefore hoped the Conven¬ 
tion would proceed with its business, and not adjourn 
on Christmas or New-Year’s. 

Mr. LARWILL demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted, yeas 16, nays 63, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Bamet of Montgomery, Blair, Geeen of Ross. 
Holmes, Holt, Jones, Leech, Loudon, Mitchell, Patterson, Riddle, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stidger, Worthington and 
President—16. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, 
Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Cahill, Chambers, Clark, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Farr, Gillett, 
Graham, Grey, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hootman, Humpreville, Hunt, Hun¬ 
ter, Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Otis,* 
Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swift, 
Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, Way, Wilson 
and Woodbury—63. > J'* 

So the motion to adjourn until Monday next, was 
lost. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, then moved that the Con¬ 
vention adjourn to meet on Thursday next, at 9 A. M. 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


835 


On which motion Mr. STIDGER demanded the 
yeas and nays, and being ordered, resulted, yeas 55, 
nays 28. 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, 
Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Clark, 
Cook, Cutler, Farr, Gillet, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, 
Hard, Hawkins, Holmes, Holt, ihimpreville. Hunt, Hunter, Jones, 
Kennon, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Loudon, Mitchell, 
McCormick, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Ranney, Riddle, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott, of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Struble, Swan, Taylor, Townshed, Warren, 
Way, Wilson and Worthington—52. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Blair, Brown of Athens, 
Chambers, Curry, Graham, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, 
Henderson, Hootrnan, Johnson, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, 
Morehead, McCloud, Perkins, Quigley, Scott of Auglaize, Steb- 
bins, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Woodbury 
and President—28. 

So the motion prevailed, and the Convention ad¬ 
journed to meet on Thursday morning, at 9 o’clock. 


THURSDAY, December 26, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met, pursuant to adjournment. 

At five minutes past 9, Mr. Mitchell moved a call 
of the Convention, which was ordered, and the follow¬ 
ing gentlemen were reported absent: 

Messrs. Barbee, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chaney, 
Collings, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Green of Ross, 
Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootrnan, Horton, King, Larsh, Manon, Mason, Morris, 
Nash, Orton, Perkins, Reemelin, Roll, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Taylor,^ 
Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Vance o^ 
Champaign, and Williams. 

Messrs. Barbee, Case of Hocking, Collings, 
Forbes, Holt, Smith of Wyandot and Stilwell were 
severally excused. 

There being no quorum, 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved that the door be closed, 
and the Sergeant-at-Arms despatched for the absen¬ 
tees ; which was agreed to. 

The Sergeant-at-Arms returned that Messrs. Horton, 
Larsh, Stebbins and Case of Licking were now pre¬ 
sent. 

A quorum having assembled, 

Mr. LEADBETTER moved that all further proceed¬ 
ings under the hall be dispensed with ; which was 
agreed to. 

Mr. LAWRENCE presented a petition from William 
Young, and one hundred and fifteen other citizens of 
Guernsey county, praying that a clause be inserted in 
the new constitution prohibiting the Legislature from 
passing any law legalizing the traffic in spirituous li¬ 
quors. 

The same gentleman also presented a petition from 
Henry Taylor, and forty-two others, citizens of the 
same county, on the same subject. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from Mar¬ 
garet Skinner, and eighty-four other ladies, residents 
of Guernsey county, on the same subject, which was 
read at the Clerk’s desk. 

Mr. FARR presented a petition from Timothy Baker, 
and one hundred and fifty-five others, citizens of Hu¬ 
ron county, on the same subject. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON presented a petition from Ja^ 
cob Benner and forty-three other citizens of Ross 
county, on the same subject. 

Mr. BATES presented a petition from Joseph Grim- 
shaw, and eighty-seven others, citizens of Warren 
county, on the same subject. 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens, presented a petition from 
John H. Rigg, and eighty-nine others, citizens of 
Athens county, on the same subject. 

The foregoing petitions were then severally referred 
to the select committee on the subject of Retailing Ar¬ 
dent Spirits. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to take up the report of the 
standing committee on the Legislative Department, 
which was agreed to, and the said Report was taken 
up. 


The question then being on the 46th amendment 
made in committee of the Whole, to the Report of the 
standing committee on the Legislative Department, to 
wit: 

Sec. 38. Add at the end of the section the follow^ 
ing: “ To be assessed by a jury, and subject to no de¬ 
duction for any benefits derived to any other property 
of the owner 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said: The 5th section of the Re¬ 
port of the standing committee on Corporations, other 
than Corporations for Banking, provides that the right 
of way maybe granted by general laws to corporations, 
provided the same shall not be appropriated to the use 
of any incorporation, until full compensation therelor 
be made in money, irrespective ot any benefit or ad¬ 
vantage to the owner from any improvement proposed 
by such corporation; and provided, further, the amount 
of compensation shall be ascertained by a jury of 
twelve men, in a court of record, or shall be prescribed 
by law. He apprehended that this was the lull extent 
to which the Convention desired to carry the docfrin©* 
The original section under consideration appears te^ 
have been intended to meet another class of easels—- 
those cases of necessity, when the State is in danger ot 
war and invasion, when it is neither expedient noi’pos¬ 
sible to await the termination of those fomalities 
which, in regard to mere works ot improvement, it is 
proper to insist upon. He believed, therefore, the 
amendment of the ciimmittee of the Whole to be im- 
necessaiy, and should feel himselt obliged to vote 
against it. 

Mr. HAWKINS had seen the progress of the publio 
works of the State, and had some experience in the 
manner in which the property of citizens had been ta¬ 
ken for the public use. He deemed some other 
vision necessary in order to a full security of therights 
of the people, other than that of the comrnittee on 
Corporations. The amendment under consideration 
was calculated to supply that deficiency. He had 
the property of individuals taken, Aud when ap¬ 
plied for compensation, they were %old that the value 
of their other estate had been ^ftfriciently enhanced to 
pay all the damage. This in manifestly unjust. This 
provision is intended to secure to the owner the value 
of his property, irrespective of any enhancement, 

Mr. REEMELIN did not believe that the provisions 
of the report of the committee on Corporations would 
efiect all that is demanded by the necessities of the 
case. Under the present Constitution, there has been 
a great variety of abuses, which it is necessary to pro¬ 
vide a remedy for. In this city, for instance, it has 
been tlie custora to seize upon private property for a 
great variety of pretended public purposes. There 
have been several instances where men have been to¬ 
tally ruined by it. There was now pending a propo¬ 
sition to take the property of individuals, on which to 
erect a court-house and jail. There was a case of a 
man who, after the labor of several years as a tailor, 
had been enabled to buy him a house and lot. The 
corporation ran a street through the lot, taking it all 
but a few feet, and he was deprived of a home. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD did not know as he was master of 
the question, but if he understood it, he felt himself 
bound to say that this species of legislation, such as is 
contemplated in the amendment, by a body deputed to 
construct merely organic laws, was, in his opinion, 
most unadvised and improper. No man acquainted 
with his cast of mind would for a moment, believe 
that he was one who would throw down the barriers 
to private property, or to take away any of those se¬ 
curities which it is the duty of law makers, on all oc¬ 
casions, to throw around it. On the contrary, he held 
it to be one of the first principles of jurisprudence tO' 
fence it in by every security which the most rigid re¬ 
gard to the rights of the citizen would require, Nev 
ertheless, he could not cease to regard the amendmer 
now in contemplation, as most improvident, ill advise^! 
and crude. The original section, as reported by the 













836 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


committee, says that private property shall ever be 
held inviolate, and no private property shall ever be 
taken for public use, unless the public good impera¬ 
tively demands it; but, in all cases, full and adequate 
compensation in money shall first be made to the 
owner. The amendment adds the words: “To be 
assessed by a.jury, and subject to no deduction for any 
benefits derived to any other property of the owner.” 
My objections are to the amendment, and I am admon¬ 
ished by a friend upon my left, that if the principles 
which it involves shall prevail, all public improvements, 
made by the assistance of the combined wealth, indus¬ 
try, and enterprise of our citizens, are at an end, and 
we may just as well pass a law at once that no such 
combination shall exist. 

I admit that there have been practical evils under 
the system pi’ovided by the old constitution, and per¬ 
haps that instrument did not sufficiently provide for the 
security of the individual citizen, and perhaps also the 
Legislature has been derelict in its duty, in not provi¬ 
ding an efficient remedy. But the gentleman from 
Morgan asks, “ Would you give to the public the au¬ 
thority to take the pz’operty of an individual, and when 
he ^ks for compensation, point him to the advantage 
ytfikh he may have received, and tell him that he has 
been paid ? I answer, no ! Butyou woulddrive men to 
go to a jury to settle this question, whether they desire 
to do so or no? May they not compromise these 
questions among themselves if they see fit? I would 
leave the question in the hands of the parties, to ar¬ 
range in accordance with their own views of their in¬ 
terests, and in case they cannot agree, throw the courts 
open, that on a full investigation of the fiicts, they may 
obtain justice at the hands of a jury of their fellow 
citizens. Is there any probability that a jury, even 
if left to their own discretion, with the law and the 
fact before them, would do gross injustice in such a 
case? No! 

We are engaged in forming the organic law of the 
State, and in order to secure the introduction of a 
particular provision, gentlemen cite particular instan¬ 
ces of hardship that have occurred under the pres¬ 
ent constitution. It is a dangerous legislation, in all 
cases, that is based upon especial circumstances of 
hardship; and I tell gentlemen that if they attempt, 
in this constitution, to apply a particular remedy to 
every case of hardship, an accumulation of new and 
^rave evils will be begotten in this body of organic 
law, to go forth and afflict mankind. I tell gentle¬ 
men, that they are engaged in fixing up what will be, 
to all intents and purposes, a constitusional prohibi¬ 
tion to every work of public improvement hereafter 
to be' undertaken by the people of Ohio. Hitherto 
the public moneys of the State, laid out in the con¬ 
struction of public thoroughfares, have been laid out 
in certain sections. Now it is to be provided that no 
more public works are to be undertaken by the State. 
Hereafter, if canals, railroads, or plankroads, are to 
be constructed, it must be by the aid of the associated 
wealth of the citizens of the State; and if the pro¬ 
vision now sought to be adopted goes into effect, you 
might as well name the counties that have not been 
reached, and say at once, that they shall be forever 
prohibited from all the advantages accruing from the 
combination of their means for a public izurpose. Now, 
why should not the owner of property that has been 
increased in value four-fold, or ten-fold, not be con¬ 
tent with what a jury of his fellow citizens will 
award him ? Why would you extort from the sons 
of labor—from the toiling millions—from the haid- 
handed children of industry the full pound of flesh, 
by forcing them, when they combine their little means 
to carry on a work to benefit the public, as well as 
themselves, to pay the full value of the land which 
they take, irrespective of the benefit they may con 
fer by their enterprise? What is an act of incorpo¬ 
ration, for the purpose of carrying forward a work of 
enterprise ? It is merely the power to use a corporate 


name—a convenience as im{>ortant to the public as to 
the corporators. It is a different thing from a bank; 
and yet, gentlemen, deluded by the talk about special 
privileges, are ready to say, that so great is iheir ter¬ 
ror of an incorporation, the people shall never have 
the power to construct public improvements, and nev¬ 
er enjoy the advantages of associated wealth. If you 
give these advantages to the millionaires, who can 
carry on their enterprises without the necessity of 
combination, and at the same time refuse them to the 
sons of toil—if you say to them that they shall not 
combine to benefit themselves and improve their con¬ 
dition, you will build up a system to which the despo¬ 
tism of Turkey will be znost benign and parental in 
the comparison. 

Mr. CUTLER moved to amend the amendment by 
striking out all after the word “jury.” 

The question then being on the amendment to the 
amendment; 

Mr. MITCHELL said that whether a privilege was 
to be conferred or an encroachment made upon the 
rights of t!ie poor or the rich, was not the question 
now before the Convention. We desire simply to re¬ 
cognize in all men their rights of property, and to se¬ 
cure to each all the benefits they have a right to de¬ 
mand from the government. The question, to illus¬ 
trate it by an example, is simply this. A and B each 
own a farm through which a canal line passes. In a 
commercial point of view, each are alike benefitted. 
But from A is taken a large piece of his land and oth¬ 
erwise injure his estate. Now, shall A be told, when 
he claims damage for the injury, that he has been suf¬ 
ficiently paid for his particular loss by that benefit 
which he enjoys in a degree no higher than his neigh¬ 
bor to whom no damage was done ? I do not desire 
to stand here to talk about democracy. If men prove 
their democracy by their actions, it will be understood 
and estimated by their fellow citizens, and there is a 
saying in regard to females whose virtue has been sus¬ 
pected, which might not improperly be applied here— 
Mhat those most doubtful are always the loudestin their 
disclaimers. 

Mr. HAWKINS thought that the amendment of the 
gentleman from Washington would strike at the very 
root of the principle they sought to establish. He had 
known acts of outrageous injury perpetrated against 
persons whose property had been taken for the public 
use. For instance, there are cases of minors, who own 
land, and have no one to represent their interests. 
Their lands have been stripped of their timber and in¬ 
jured every way by the construction of a canal. Along 
come the appraisers of damages. They ride through 
the country twenty or more miles in a day, look down 
the valleys for miles, and guess at the injury, or in 
most cases, guess that there has been more benefit 
conferred than injury committed. In other cases, 
where there have been influential men to travel with 
them, and influence their opinions, immense sums have 
been allowed. These things should be remedied. Peo¬ 
ple should have their day in court, where the injury 
can be estimated and proven. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. That is precisely what I am in 
favor of. 

Mr. HAWKINS. What then is the gentleman’s rule 
of damages ? It is this, a man has been injured by the 
passage of a public improvement through his land. 
His timber has been cut down, his stone taken, his mill 
site destroyed. He asks for compensation, and he is 
told that the benefits resulting from the work is a full 
payment for all his loss—in view of the augmented val¬ 
ue of his property, he has received no injury. I would 
ask gentlemen if, in carrying out the doctrine, they 
might not with equal propriety, assess a tax upon the 
whole community, in view of the benefits it has re¬ 
ceived ? If you take my land may you not, with equal 
propriety, take my wagon and team, and pay for it in 
the value you have added to my farm ? I knew a case 
in the Hocking Valley. Two men owned a mill, the 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


837 


‘‘ite of which was injured by the construction of the 
Canal. To one man the commissioners gave a thousand 
dollars, to the other nothing, because he had a farm 
somewhere in the vicinity that was said to have been 
increased in value. 

The gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Akchbold] has 
made his plea here twenty times about the injury we 
are about to do to the sons of toil, and about counties 
through whicli no improvements have been made. Now 
I can show him a law that was passed providing for 
the survey for a public work through his county. The 
survey was commenced, and suspended. Malicious 
persons said the reason was the want of provisions in 
Monroe county. It was a slander, I know; but I know 
also that when a project was started for a road from 
Somerset to Monroe, in his county, the people of Mon¬ 
roe refused to bear their share of the cost, and the work 
was dropped. 

Mr. LOUDON said the cpiestion was simply whether 
the Legislature shall have the power to leave to the 
jury the right, in rauking up the account for the dam¬ 
ages, to take the benefits into considei’ation. It w’as 
clear that both the elements should be taken into con¬ 
sidei’ation, when a great benefit has been conferred, 
and he conceived the section, as amended by the gen¬ 
tleman from Washington, [Mr. Cutler,] would leave 
the rights of parties just where they should be in a re¬ 
publican government. He w’as aware that there had 
been hard cases under the old practice; but in this 
mode of submitting the question to a jui’y, provision 
would be amply made lor doing justice in all classes 
of cases; and certainly men should not be afraid to 
trust to that tribunal of which those who are best ac¬ 
quainted with all the circumstances, form the greatest 
part. 

Mr. RANNEY said there were about three objects 
contemplated to be secured by the section and the 
amendment, as reported from the committee of the 
whole. First, the courts, under the present constitu¬ 
tion had allowed the property to be taken, while the 
owner was forced to trust the State, or the corporation, 
as the case might be, for the pay. It wuis intended 
that this should be abolished, and that the property 
ifliould be paid for before it is taken. Secondly, the 
amendment was intended to provide against the abu¬ 
ses that had grown out of the manner of ascertaining 
the amount of compensation due for property that had 
been taken, by the appointment of commissioners by 
the General Assembly at the instance of the corpora¬ 
tion, and to leave the matter to be fairly ascertained by 
a jury. Third, to prevent the effect of pretended ben- 
ebts against damages that had actually accnied. Now 
here is no remedy provided that is not indispensable to 
the ends of justice and the proper security of the rights 
of individuals. 

Tile gentleman from Washington [Mr. Cutler] pro¬ 
poses to strike out the most important and essential 
part of this system of provisions. What will be the 
result? Will it not be a virtual acknowledgment by 
this Convention, that the principles of the oldconstitu- 
tion and the practice thereunder is correct? Will we 
not be held to have admitted that the rule hitherto 
fixed is right ? I believe the gentleman from Brown 
[Mr. Loudon,] has misapprehended the extent of the 
application of this section. It applies as well to char¬ 
tered companies as to the works to be undertaken by 
the State. It ap^ilies to all property taken for the pub¬ 
lic use. Now what is the public use ? 

Mr. LARWILL. What rule would the gentleman 
lay down in the case of a State or county road? Would 
he hold that none of the benefits arising from the road 
should be taken into consideration. 

Mr. RANNEY. If it is for the interest of a county to 
make a road, that interest should be of importance 
enough to enable them to pay for the property taken. 
Look at the proposition. Two men own adjoining lots 
in this city. ' One puts up a building upon his property, 
which adds one third to the value of his neighbor’s lot. 


Would you allow him to lake one-third of the lot in 
payment ? The right of a man in his property is sacred. 
Nothing but an overwhelming necessity should furnish 
an excuse for taking it; but if it is taken he should be 
paid for it in money. A man owns a lot, two-thirds of 
which is taken for a canal; the price of the remainder 
is raised, so that the one-third is worth as much as the 
whole was before ; he can take nothing for the depri¬ 
vation of his property. There is no justice in this, no 
right, no equality. And these benefits are, in most 
cases illusory—they are not benefits. You cut a man’s 
farm in two by a canal. You compel him to keep up 
bridges and fences. He is put to a great variety of ex¬ 
penses, besides the loss of his land. You tell him that 
he has a better market than he had before, and thus 
you pay him his damages. A man in the valley of the 
Mahoning had his farm of a mile in length cut in two 
by a canal. He w’as told he was entitled to no dama¬ 
ges. Why ? He had a better market. He got his salt 
j cheaper. He could make better disposition of his pro¬ 
duce. So could the man w’ho had not his farm cut in 
two by the canal, and it would be just as reasonable to 
tax him for the benefits he received, as to compel the 
individual upon whom the injury fell to bear his loss. 
If the work is worth making, there is no difficulty. 
Men are in general sufficiently anxious to have it go 
forward; not to be very strenuous about any moderate 
damage. If men then are really losers, they can have 
their losses assessed by a jury, and get justice, a thing 
they never got under the old system by the acts of 
commissioners. It is mockery to hold up the doctrine 
that private property is inviolate, and then go on, take 
it upon trust and pay for it in moonshine. 

Mr. GROESBECK. The vote to be taken upon the 
proposition now before us is to determine a very im¬ 
portant principle. It is, what shall be the rule of dam¬ 
age for property taken for the public use, without the 
i consent of the proprietor. The principle of the invio- 
j lability of private rights is one that we all hold sacred. 

I With this declaration, we set out upon an inquiry 
what will be the rule of damages, where a man's pri¬ 
vate estate is taken from him at the demand of the pub¬ 
lic necessity. How is it? 1 own a piece of land. If a 
man wants it he can have it by giving me what I ask. 
If twenty, an hundred or an hundred thousand men 
want it, they must pay me my price, for my right is 
inviolable. But I hold that right with one qualifica¬ 
tion. What is that? It is, that my right must always 
be subservient to the public use. 

If the public necessities demand it, my property 
may be taken, and I must submit. But there is stilla 
right resulting to me out of the transaction. What is 
it? I am entitled to payment for the property taken. 
But, sir, is it right in that case for the State to say, I 
will take your property, and I will assess,—not the 
damages,—but I will take into consideration the dam¬ 
age that is done, and the benefits that are to accrue to 
you from the use to which I put your property, and I 
will pay you the balance ? No, sir, that is not right. 
It is not consistent with the rule that private property 
shall be held inviolate. Now what is the rule ? Go 
through my land—take whatever you want, whether I 
desire to part with it or not, and pay me exactly what 
it is worth. Under that rule, I shall get all that I am 
entitled to ; under the other I may get nothing. My 
property must be taken, and I have no right to com¬ 
plain. All that I can ask, and all that I have a right 
to ask is, that at the hands of a jury of my countrymen 
I may receive for compensation the full value of that 
which has been taken from me. If in going through 
i my laud with a public work, damage is done to other 
land beside that which is taken, doubtless the benefit 
which 1 receive may be set oft' against this injury, but 
where the land itself is taken, there is no basis for such 
a commutation. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said that every diff'erent feeling 
and interest exhibited here had been acquired, in some 
manner, by the habits of the individual and his mode 














838 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


of life. He desired to plead for the interest of one 
great and numerous class, with which, in feeling, in 
thought and habits, he had always been identified—for 
the sons of toil—the hard working children of labor, 
whose hands are hardened by wielding the ponderous 
sledge, and the axe. He desired to be listened to for 
a moment, while he untied the web of sophistry with 
which this subject had been surrounded, and placed 
the question upon the right ground. The sophism of 
the gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] the gen¬ 
tleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] and the gentle-' 
man from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] is, that we con¬ 
tend that the rule shall be that an offset shall be made 
between the damages and the resulting benefits. I 
have contended for no rule of that kind. It may be 
equitable, or it may not be—I only ask a jur 5 % 

The gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] tells 
of cases in which great injustice has been done to par¬ 
ties. I ask him if those cases were not under the old 
system of commissioners appointed by the Legislature. 
He makes no answer. By his silence he admits that 
such is the case. Then, I say, send a jury to assess the 
damages, and you have provided a sufficient remedy 
for the evils he complains of. But this does not satisfy 
gentlemen. They want to lay down a rigid and iron 
rule, and under its influence forestall the action and the 
discretion of the jury. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD inquired if he might ask the gen¬ 
tleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] a question. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said he might, if, as gentlemen 
sometimes said, it was not a hard one. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD wished to inquire if in such cases 
the jury would be judges of both the law and the 
facts. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD said that he had agreed to let the 
gentleman ask a question, if it was not a hard one. 
Now- 

Mr. RANNEY. The gentleman from Richland, [Mr. 
Kirkwood,] had better withdraw his question. It is a 
hard one. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I say I would fix the jury prin¬ 
ciple in the organic law, and leave it to the wisdom 
and discretion of the Legislature to arrange the details. 

I would willingly trust that body to dt7 what sound 
policy shall require. But gentlemen seem determined 
that this shall not be the case. They would bind down 
the Legislature, the courts and the juries by a rigid 
rule, which, while the jury remains the judge, leaves 
it no discretion whatever, and takes away the power to 
do in each particular case what reason and justice shall 
demand. 

I have heard the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitch¬ 
ell,] argue that there may be cases in which the de¬ 
mand for works of public improvement may be so 
great that the State may be justitied in making them, 
and paying their cost out of the Treasury. If the ne¬ 
cessities may be so very great, it is surely an object to 
all land-holders in the State, to make the rule as equit¬ 
able as possible. The man who demands an immense 
bonus is not a good citizen. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said that if the man who is depriv¬ 
ed of his property for the public use is obliged to set 
off against his damages the benefits he may receive, it 
comes to this, that he, of all the community in which 
he resides, may be the loser. He thought if the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Cutler] 
should prevail, the principle w’ould be precisely the 
same as it had been settled under the present organic 
law, and the Convention would be considered as hav¬ 
ing approved the practice under it. He thought it 
would be, to all intents and purposes, a sanction of all 
the old abuses. What will be gained by the jury? The 
jury will be merely judges of the fact, under the in¬ 
struction, in regard to questions of law, of the court. 
What will the court in such a case tell the jury ? That 
they must take into consideration the resulting benefits, 
because the Constitutional Convention, after mature de¬ 
liberation, has refused to change the rule. 


Mr. ARCHBOLD. It has been the practice of com¬ 
missioners, under the present constitution, to lake into 
consideration the resulting benefits, but I believe the 
Supreme Court has shaken the rule. Ido not know 
the fact that such benefits taken into consideration 
would be a sufficient cause for the court to send the 
case back to the commissioners. But it matters not. 
By giving this class of cases to the decision of a jury, 
they take it with all its incidents. Suppose, as in the 
case put by the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ran¬ 
ney,] two-thirds of a man’s land were taken, would 
any one contend that in such a case a jury would take 
the benefits into consideration? The jury, in a general 
verdict, are judges of the law and the facts, and it is 
not to be believed that in such a case they would be 
guilty of such gross and flagrant injustice. 

Mr. McCORMICK. If I understand the question, 
Mr. President, we have involved ourselves in a difficul¬ 
ty. If we are in the wrong, it is proper to set our¬ 
selves right, before we proceed further. The section 
provides that private property shall ever be held invio¬ 
late, and 110 private property shall ever be taken for 
public use, unless the public good imperatively de¬ 
mands it, but in all cases, full and adequate compensa¬ 
tion in money shall first be made to the owner. The 
amendment adds; to be assessed by a jury, and subject 
to no deduction for any benefits derived to any other 
property of the owner. But before the examination 
proceeds further, I find that it has been provided in the 
second section of the report of the committee on Pub¬ 
lic Debts and Public Works, that the State may con¬ 
tract debts to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, de¬ 
fend the State in wai’, or to redeem the present out¬ 
standing indebtedness of the State; but the money 
arising from the contracting of such debt, shall be ap 
plied to the purpose for which it was raised, or to re¬ 
pay such debts, and for no other purpose whatsoever. 
By the third section of the same report, it is provided 
that except the debts above specified in sections one 
and two of this article, no debt whatever shall here¬ 
after be contracted by or on behalf of the State. By 
section sixth, it is provided that the Legislature shall 
never authorize any county, city, town or township in 
this State, by vote of its citizens or otherwise, to be¬ 
come a stock-holder in any joint stock company, corpo¬ 
ration or association whatever, or to raise money tor, 
or loan its credit to, or in aid of, any such company, 
corporation or association. And by the first section of 
the same report it is also provided, that the State may, 
to meet casual deficits or failures in revenues, or for 
expenses not otherwise provided for, contract debts ; 
but such debts,, directly and contingent, singly or in 
the aggregate, shall not, at any time, exceed seven 
hundred and fifty thousand dollars; and the money 
arising from the creation of such debts, shall be ap¬ 
plied to the purpose for which they were obtained, or 
to repay the debts so contracted, and for no other pur¬ 
pose whatever. 

It appears then, if the report has any meaning at all, 
that the State shall never hereafter engage in public 
improvements, either as a joint owner, or upon its own 
capital; for, first, it is prohibted from undertaking 
them in connection with companies, and secondly, it is 
prohibited from raising the means for their construc¬ 
tion in a State capacity. However, we have the re¬ 
port of the committee on Corporations other than Cor¬ 
porations for Banking, which provides that the right of 
way may be granted by general laws to corporations. 
Those may be consequently called public works,though, 
strictly speaking, they are not; nor do they come un¬ 
der that title, as it is generally understood. 

There is a provision, that private property may be 
taken for the public use whenever It shall be impera¬ 
tively demanded by the public necessity ; and a ques¬ 
tion may arise under the organization of a company to 
construct one of these quasi public works, whether it 
be such a work as is imperatively demanded by the 
public good. And who shall decide that question ? The 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


839 


ndividual land-holder claims for himself that it is not 
so demanded, and the company forit'elf, claims that it 
is; and the Legislature has iio discretion in ihe case. 
Here is a question between the company and the own¬ 
er, for the decision of which there is no tribunal crea¬ 
ted ; and we are involving ourselves in a difficulty by 
not establishing one rule for the public necessity, and 
another for private corporations. For, [ say that jus¬ 
tice to the public demands that the rule of the two 
€a8es should be different. 

The section as originally reported is right, as applied 
to the public necessities; and the section in the report 
of the committee on Corporations is right in its place; 
but we cannot intermingle these provisions without 
producing a wrong. We shall produce a jumble, like 
the Kalmuc’s prayer, when all his offerings were min¬ 
gled in a bowl and stirred up together, the result of 
which w'ould be only confusion. The gentleman from 
Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] is usually clear, but the 
‘‘smoke of the battle” has blinded him, for he does not 
seem to appreciate the difference in circumstances and 
condition between a mere private corporation, a body 
corporate, and the State. I would ask him, would it 
be just to apply the same rule, when the State demands 
that private property be sacrificed, and that sacrifice is 
required by a mere incorporated company ? I have 
always understood the rule to be, that when the pub¬ 
lic necessity demands of a man his property, he is en¬ 
titled in return to a compensation at its actual value : 
but when it is taken by a company of private individ¬ 
uals, he is entitled not merely to the price of the thing 
taken, but to a fair and adequate compensation for all 
the daniages that accrue in consequence of its depriva¬ 
tion. For example, there is a fire raging in the city, 
and in order to put a stop to its ravages, it becomes 
necessary that a block of buildings be blown up, and 
the whole property totally destroyed. The public good 
imperatively demands that it should be done. Would 
justice require more than a fair remuneration for the 
property destroyed ? Would it give damages for the 
loss of rents, &c.? On the other hand, you run a rail¬ 
road through a square of lots, would not justice de¬ 
mand another and a different measure of damages ? 
Most certainly it would. In the one case, you would 
only be required to pay for the property ; in the other, 
to pay all the damage that accrues to individuals fi-om 
the seizure and deprivation of their property. 

If this doctrine is right, we should leave the section 
as it is, giving to men the privilege of having their 
damages assessed by a jury or not, as they please. But, 
the foregoing apart, I cannot see such terrible results, 
if the amendment does prevail. I do not believe that 
the loss to the “sons of toil ” will be very great, any 
more than I believe their advocate, by his multifarious 
speeches, identifies himself with the interests and feel¬ 
ings of those sons of toil. But w'hat is the object and 
application of this provision? Not to the ordinai’y 
roads of the country, for they are manifestly for the use 
of the public, and receive no aid from associated 
wealth. But if they are for the benefit of the sons of 
toil, neither they nor their representative should com¬ 
plain, for the application is equal, whether the slock 
holders be rich or poor. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to amend the part proposed 
to be stricken out, by adding the word “ general ” be¬ 
fore the word “ benefit.” 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention took a 
recess. 


THURSDAY, December 26, 1850. 

3 O'CLOCK, p. M. 

LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 

The question being upon the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment [Mr. Kirkwood’s,] proposing to insert the vvord 
“general,” between the word “any,” and the word 
“ benefit,” so that the last sentence of the section (the 
39th) would read ; 


“ Such damages to be assessed by a jury and subject to no de¬ 
duction for any general benefits derived to any other property of 
the owner; ’ 

Mr. SAWYER thought there had been quite enough 
of debate upon this report, [that of the committee ou 
the Legislative Department.] and he hoped the Con¬ 
vention would proceed to vote upon the amendments 
which bad been made by the committee of the Whole. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD thought there was a material dif¬ 
ference between the ' word “ general ” and the word 
“ any,” in this connection. The public generally par¬ 
ticipates in the benefits arising from the construction 
of a railroad or other work of public improvement. 
The word general, in this connection, must mean that 
which is common to all citizens of the State. But 
there are special and particular benefits arising from 
the construction of public works—such as the drainage 
of swamp lands, &c., where particular persons are 
bene fitted more than community in general. 

It must be apparent that where a person receives 
special benefits of great value from the construction of 
a public work over his land, it is no more than right 
that such benefits should be taken into the account in 
assessing the damages done to a portion of his proper¬ 
ty. I therefore hope that the word “ general ” will be 
inserted, as I have indicated. 

The question being taken on the motion to insert the 
word “"eneral,” the same was lost. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD then moved to strike out the word 
“other,” between the word “any.” and the word 
“ i>roperty,'’ in the amendment to the 39th section, so 
that the amendment proposed to be added to that sec¬ 
tion, would read: 

“ To be assessed by a jury, and subject to no deduction for any 
benefits to be derived to any property of the owner.” 

Upon which motion Mr. HAWKINS demanded the 
yeas and nays, which were ordered, and resulted, yeas 
51, nays 24, as follows ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Blair, Barnet of Montgomery, Blick- 
ensderfer. Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Licking, Clark, Cook, 
Farr, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larwill, I/eech, Leadbetter, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, 
Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, 
Swift, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wil¬ 
son, Williams, Woodbury and President— 51. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Curry, Cutler, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Horton, Johnson, Larsh, 
Lidey, Loudon, Morehead, McCloud, Peck, Smith of Warren and 
Stanbery—24. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being upon agreeing to the motion 
of Mr. Cutler, to amend the amendment, [made in 
committee of the whole, to add the following to the 
end of the 39th section: “To be assessed by a jury, 
and subject to no deduction for any benefits derived to 
any property of the owner,] !>y striking out all after 
the word “jury,” 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted, yeas 28. nays 49, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Curry, Cutler, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton,, Horton, Kennon, Larsh, 
Loudon, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Otis, Peck, Smith of 
Warren, and Stanbery—28. 

Nays _Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Clark, Cook, 

Farr, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hard, Haw- 
kins, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunter, Hunt, 
Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbet¬ 
ter, Lidey, Mitchell, Norris, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, 
Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stickney, Stidger, Stru¬ 
ble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Williams, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—49. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. With a wholesome fear of the 
gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] before my 
eyes, [laughter,] I must be allowed to make another 
motion. I know that gentleman is growing restive 
under the numerous amendments that are offered to 
the report of the committee of which he is chairman, 
but I trust he will be consoled with the reflection that 











840 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


bis sufferings may result to the public good. [Laugh- 
ter.] 

I move to amend the amendment by inserting, after 
the word'“jury,” the words “ as in other cases.” 

Mr. LARWILL said he had voted with the gentle¬ 
man [Mr. Kirkwood] on his previous motion, but he 
could not assent to this. It was throwing too many 
obstacles in the way of the construction of works of 
public improvement. It is not necessary that there 
should always be a jury of twelve men in this case “ as 
in other cases.” 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE remarked that if the com¬ 
mon law term “jury,” was liable to any such con¬ 
struction as the gentleman from Wayne, [Mr. Lar- 
will] seemed to desire to put upon it, he should vote 
for the amendment just proposed, for he would be sat¬ 
isfied with nothing less than a jury of twelve men un¬ 
der the provisions of the section in debate. 

Mr. LARSH would vote against the amendment, if 
for no other reason than his conviction that a jury sit¬ 
ting in their box at the court house could not arrive at 
a correct conclusion on the amount of damages to be 
awarded. The value of the property to be taken for 
public use can only be accurately determined by a ju¬ 
ry upon the spot, where they can see and judge for 
themselves. 

Another objection to the amendment is that it in¬ 
volves too many “law proceedings.” The people are 
tired of so much law business, and desire a simple and 
speedy adjustment of business, without, if possible, the 
intervention of courts, and lawyers, and bills of costs. 

Mr. LARWILL. It is very evident that if this 
amendment passes, the legal profession—not the land 
holders—will be beuefitted. Perhaps the gentleman 
from Medina had this fact in view. 

The question being upon agreeing to Mr. Kirk¬ 
wood’s amendment, to wit: insert, after the word “ju¬ 
ry,” in section thirty-nine, the words “ as in otlier ca¬ 
ses,” the same was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the forty- 
sixth amendment of the committee of the Whole, as 
amended, Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and 
nays, and being ordered, resulted yeas 54, nays 24, as 
follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Blair, Bennett, CahiB, Case of Lick¬ 
ing, Clark, Cook, Farr, Gray, Greene oi Defiance, Gregg, Groes- 
beck, Harlan, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, 
Humpreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, Norris, 
Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, 
Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, 
Wilson, Woodbury and President—54. 

Nays —Messes. Barnet of Montgomery, Barneft of Preble, Bates, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, 
Curry, Cutler, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hor¬ 
ton, Loudon, Larsh, Morehead, McCormick, McCloud, Otis, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Warren and Stanbery—24. 

So the forty-sixth amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the forty- 
seventh amendment, to wit: 

“Section 39, line three, strike out the word first.” 

Mr. GROESBECK demanded the yeas and nays; 
and being ordered, resulted, yeas 37, nays 42, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, I 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Gillett, Gray, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Horton, Hunter, Humphreville, 
Larsh, Leadbetter, Loudon, Morehead, McCloud. McCormick, 
Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Warren, Stan¬ 
bery, Struble, Swan, Vance ot Butler and Williams—37. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Clark, Farr, Gra¬ 
ham, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, 
Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Mitchell, Norris, 
Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of 
Auglaize, Sellers, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Thompson of Stark, 
Warren, Way, "Wilson, Woodbury and President—42. 

So the amendment of the committee of the whole 
was disagreed to,-and the section, as amended, reads as 
follows: 

‘‘ Sec. 39. Private property shall ever be held inviolate, and no 
private property shall ever be taken for public use, unless the 


public good imperatively demands it: but in all cases, lull and 
adequate compensation in money shall first be made to tlm own¬ 
er, to be assessed by a jury, and subject to no deduction for any 
benefits derived to any property of the owner.” 

The question then being on agreeing to the forty- 

eighth amendment, to wit: 

“Add, as the forty-first section, the following: 

“Sec 41 It shall be the duty of the presiding officer of each 
House, to sign all bills and joint resolutions passed by the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly.” 

The same was agreed to. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to amend the report ol the 
committee on the Legislative Department, by inserting 
in lieu of section 20, which had been stricken out, 
the following: 

Sec. 20. When any claim or demand shall be presented to the 
General Assembly, and one-fourth of the members elected to ei¬ 
ther branch thereof, shall be opposed to the allowance of such 
claim or demand, the General Assembly shall then and forever 
thereafter, be prohibited from allowing the same, but provision 
shall be made by law for the protection in the courts of law and 
equity, of all claims or demands against the State. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved to amend the amendment 
by adding thereto the following: 

“ But such claims shall be decided on the same principles ol 
law and equity as those originating between individuals. ’ 

Mr. WOODBURY remarked that a legislative body 
is the poorest tribunal iu society for the investigation 
of claims. No testiniouy can be taken, and in a great 
majority of cases the financial history of the State will 
show that the payment of claims has gone by favor 
not strict equity. 

Mr. REEMELIN said he should vote against boin 
propositions. 

The great error of all propositions upon this subject 
is, that the Slate is supposed to stand in the same posi¬ 
tion, in aU business transactions, that an individual does. 
Why, you might as well put an infant forward in court 
to defend its interests, as the State—both will always be 
“plucked ” in the absence of guardians or protection 
in some shape. It is no case at all—there is no possi¬ 
bility of a fair trial, with the State on one side and the 
individual on the othex’. 

He was in favor of the section as originally reported 
by the standing committee, which provided that no 
claim for money should ever be allowed, except in ac¬ 
cordance with express provisions of law. If a provis¬ 
ion like this could have been made in 1825, two mil¬ 
lions of dollars would have been saved to the Stale, and 
to the citizens of Ohio six millions more. 

The questions being taken on Mr. Archbold’s 
amendment, the same was agreed to. 

Mr. CURRY moved to further amend the amend¬ 
ment by striking out the words “ one-fourth,” and in¬ 
serting in lieu thereof the words “oiie-third,” whicfi 
w’as agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Wood¬ 
bury’s amendment, as amended, it was disagreed to. 

Mr. GREGG moved to amend the report of the 
coimnillee on the Legislative Department, by striking 
out section 26, and inserting in lieu thereof thefollow- 
in|: 

Sec. 26. No person holding any lucrative office under the Uni¬ 
ted States, or ot this State, shall be eligible to a seat in either 
branch of the General Assembly; provided that township offi¬ 
cers or officers ol the Militia shall not he deemed lucrative offices, 
nor shall any officer be so excluded under this section unless the 
annual fees or compensation shall amount to the sum of three 
hundred dollars. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD saw a difficulty in the practical 
working of such a provision, of two persons holding 
the same office in different parts of the State or in dif¬ 
ferent parts of the same county, one might be eligible 
to a seat in the General Assembly and the other not. 
fake the case of two .Justices of the Peace—the in¬ 
come of one might be a little under the sum of $300 
and of the other a little over—the latter would be ex¬ 
cluded from the Legislature, the other admitted. It 
vilis difficult, if not impossible, to fix upon a specified 
amount of income from an office which should disqual¬ 
ify the incumbent from eligibility to any other office. 
















CONVENTION REPORTS 


841 


Mr. FARR. The terni ‘'lucrative office” is quite in¬ 
definite—it admits of too great a latitude of construc¬ 
tion, and unless the term is satisfactorily explained, or 
put in a more precise and definite shape, I cannot sup¬ 
port the proposition. 

Mr. SAWYER demanded a division in the motion of 
Mr. Gregg, (above recited) and— 

The question then being on striking out section 2t), 
it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Gregg’s 
amendment, 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to amend the amendment 
by striking out all after the words " lucrative offices.” 

Mr. LARSH moved to amend the words proposed to 
be stricken out by striking out the words “ fees or com¬ 
pensation,” and inserting in lieu thereof the word “sa¬ 
lary,” which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
words “lucrative offices,” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Gregg’s 
amendment ,as amended, 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to further amend the 
amendment by inserting before the words “ United 
States,” the words, “ authority of the;” which was 
agreed to. 

Mr. HOLMES moved further to amend the amend¬ 
ment, by adding the following thereto : 

“Nor shall any person holding the office of President of a bank, 
railroad or turnpike company.” 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved to amend Mr. Holmes’ 
amendment, by inserting after the word “ President,” 
the words, “ Cashier or Director,” and after the word 
“ bank,” the words “ or President;” 

Which was agreed to. 

Mr. PERKINS moved to further amend Mr. Holmes’ 
amendment by adding the following thereto : “ Or any 
other incorporated company in this State;” 

Which was agreed to. 

Mr. CURRY moved to further amend Mr. Holmes’ 
amendment by inserting after the word “ bank ” the 
lollowing ; “or borrower or holder of any bank bill;” 

Which was disagreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to further amend Mr. 
Holmes’ amendment by inserting before the word 
“ railroad ” the words “director or agent of a;” 

Which was agreed to. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved further to amend by inser¬ 
ting the word “incorporated” before the word “bank;” 

Which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Holmes’ 
amendment, as amended, 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, demanded the yeas and 
nays, and being ordered, resulted yeas 37, nays 41, as 
follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Clark, Farr, Greene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, 
Humphreville, Jones Lawrence, Larwill, Leach, Leadbettcr, Li- 
dey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris Patterson, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stick- 
ney. Stidger, Struble, Vance of Butler, Wilson and President 
—37. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Parnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Chambers, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Horton, 
Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Morehead, 
McCloud, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith 
of Warren, Stanbery, Swan, Swift, Vance of Champaign, War¬ 
ren, Way, Williams and Woodbury—41. 

So the ameudment was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Gregg’s 
amendment. v 

Mr. PERKINS moved to strike out all after tlie word 
“ holding, and insert in lieu thereof the following : 

“ Any office under the authority of the United States shall hold 
a seat m either House of the General Assembly of this State.” 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, demanded a division 

The question then being on striking out all alter 
the word “ holding,” 

Mr. HOLMES demanded the yeas and nays; and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 38, nays 40—as follows : 


Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Baraett ol 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Brown ol Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Chambers, Cook, Cutler, Farr, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene 
of Defiance, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Horton, Hunter 
Larsh, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, Norris, Otis, Peck' 
Perkins, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Warren* 
Swift, Thompson ot Stark, Williams, and Woodbury—38. ’ 

Nays —Messrs. Blickensderfer, Cahill, Clark, Curry, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Hum 
phreville. Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Lawrence,. 
Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, McCormick, Patterson, Quig¬ 
ley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Stanbery, 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way„ 
Wilson, and President—40. 

So the motion to strike out was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr, Gregg’k 
ameudment (above recited,) 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


FRIDAY, December 27, 1850. 

9 o'clock, a, M. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by Rev. Dr. Rice. 

At three minutes past 9 o’clock, Mr. LARWILl^ 
moved a call ot the Convention, which was ordered,, 
and the following gentlemen were reported absent: 

Messrs. Barbee, Case of Hocking, Chaney, Collings, Curry 
Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Hitchcock o 
Geauga, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, King, Manon 
Mason, Morris, Nash, Orton, Peck, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stilwell, Taylor, Thompson ol 
Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, Williams, and Wor 
thington. 

On motion, Messrs. Barbee, Forbes, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, and Smith of Wyandot were severally ex¬ 
cused. 

On motion, all further proceedings under the call 
were dispensed with. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, presented a petition from: 
M. J. Hornell and one hundred and forty others, male- 
citizens, and Sarah .lane Harlan and one hundred andi 
forty others, female citizens, of W’arreu county, pray- 
. ing that a clause be inserted in the new constitution^, 
prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law legal¬ 
izing the traffic in sjnrituous liquors. 

Mr. HORTON presented a petition from Malinda B, 
Holt and two hundred and twelve others, female res¬ 
idents of Meigs county, on the same subject. 

Mr. GILLETT presented a petition from J. M. Bry¬ 
ant and twenty-seven others, citizens of Lawrence- 
county, on the same subject. 

Mr. NORRIS presented a petition from D. C. Bryant 
and forty others, citizens of Clermont county, on the- 
same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. SAWYER offered for adoption the following; 
resolution: 

Resolved, That no member be allowed to speak 
any one question before the Convention, or in commit¬ 
tee of the Whole, longer than fifteen minutes. 

Mr. SAWYER said he did not intend to make any 
remarks upon the resolution. _ Pie laid it before the 
Convention, and members could act on it as they 
pleased. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to amend the resolution 
by appending at the end, the words, “ unless on leave.” 

Mr. MITCHELL proposed to amend by adding at 
the end of the amendment, " not more than five times 
in one day.” 

Mr. BENNETT thought the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Muskingum [Mr. Chambers] would be 
of no practical utility. 

Mr. SAWYER thought it unnecessary. Leave may 
be granted without its insertion, where the Convention 
deems it necessary. 

Mr. LARWILL was sorry to see a proposition to 
cut off debate, and to prevent gentlemen from having 
a full opportunity to deliver their views. He thought 
in a body like this the fullest liberty should be given. 
Discussion in this body is not sc unimportant as some 













842 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


gentlemen suppose. We are engaged in a great and 
important work, and a free interchange of opinion is, 
of aP things, most desirable. He hoped the resolution 
would be voted down. 

Mr. HORTON said there had been a periodical pre¬ 
sentation of resolutions of this character, ever since 
the commencement of the session at Columbus. In 
one thing, however, this was an improvement upon its 
predecessors. They had always been accompanied by 
a lecture upon the manner in which we were misspend¬ 
ing our time, and bringing ourselves into contempt 
with the people. This time the lecture had been omit¬ 
ted. He hoped the resolution would be voted down. 
For his part, he came here to speak his sentiments as 
well as to vote them. We have much to gain by a free 
expression of opinion. He was aware that some gentle¬ 
men spoke quite often; but he was always willing 
to listen with patience, if not with interest. He went 
for free speech, and for freedom of action. He did not 
plead guilty to the charge that we are misspending our 
time, and thought frequently as much progress was 
made by words as by votes. 

Mr. SAWYER said his friend from Meigs [Mr. 
Horton,] was a gentleman, and he had frequently had 
occasion to feel the quiet, smooth way in which he 
could insinuate a reproof. He had been rapped over 
the knuckles by him before. He may make as many 
insinuations about my officiousness as he pleases; still 
I shall continue to perform what I deem my duty. 
He may feel very comfortable in his position here, be¬ 
cause he is under no responsibility for the time spent 
or the result. It is otherwise with myself and those 
on this side of the house. If we sit here till next har¬ 
vest, it is us that the people will hold responsible, and 
I will tell my friends that the people are already be¬ 
ginning to inquii'e, why it is that we are not comple¬ 
ting the work we were sent here to perform. For him¬ 
self he had not occupied much of the time of the 
Convention, and with the exception of the time when 
the report made by the committee to which he belong¬ 
ed has been under discussion, there were weeks in 
which he had not spoken. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD should vote against the resolution. 
He could see no one good effect to come from it, and 
there might be many bad. There were gentlemen 
whose views, at length, he wished to hear, and he 
thought there had been rather a want of debate, than 
an excess. It had been a.ssei’ted that the Convention 
had brought itgelf into disrepute, and that it had 
done nothing. He did not believe it. The charge 
that we have been derelict is untrue ; and he wished 
to know if these reports and these charges were not 
the echo of the allegations of members themselves 
upon the floor of the Convention. 

Mr. HAWKINS rose to repel the charge that the 
Convention had wasted'its time, or disgraced itself. 

Mr. MITCHELL said that the charge had been made 
and reiterated by the venerable gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize, [Mr. Sawyer.] And look at the first hunrlred 
pages of the report of the proceedings at Columbus, 
and who is it that appears to have spoken twice to the 
once of any other member? It was the gentleman from 
Auglaize. Who was it that in .June last stood up in 
the Convention and said that this body was wasting its 
time, and disgracing itself ? It was the gentleman from 
Auglaize, and the gentlemaai from Morgan, [Mr. Haw¬ 
kins.] They were not the men who should have set 
afloat and published to the world this most unrighteous 
slander. They are slanders, and the people do not and 
will not believe them, and I throw them back again, 
upon the heads of their authors. I see no occasion to 
adopt this rule. The debates of this body, if they have 
been distinguished for anything it is for their brevity 
and pertinency, and I appeal to the gentleman from 
Auglaize himself if there has been any more time spent 
upon this report than has been necessary? 

Mr. SAWYER said he did not want the gentleman 
from Knox to appeal to him, after having treated him in 
the way he had. 


The question being on the amendment, the same was 
disagreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution: 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted, yeas 34, nays 46, as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Bennett, Blair, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clwk, 
Curry, Farr, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, 
Holmes, Johnson, Kennon, Lidey, Loudon, McCloud, Otis, Patter¬ 
son, Peck, Perkins, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, Warren, Wilson, Wood¬ 
bury and President—34. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Cahill, Cook, Cutler, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill Leech, 
Leadbetter, Mitchell, Moreheafi, Morris, McCormick, Norris, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Sellers, Smith of Warren, 
Stanbery, Stanton, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, 
Way and Williams—46. 

So the resolution was disagreed to. 

The PRESIDENT laidbefoi'e the Convention a com. 
munication from Dr. Daniel Drake, asking the use of 
the Hall for to-morrow evening for the purpose of de¬ 
livering a narrative discourse on the condition of the 
slaves of the South. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that leave be granted. 

Mr. GROESBECK thought the surrender of the Hall 
to any person, and for any purpose, would be to esta¬ 
blish a bad precedent. He would as soon give it to 
Dr. Drake as to any other person, and the relation in 
which he stood to that venerable gentleman, and his 
friends would acquit him of any charge of unkindness 
to him or w'antof sympathy wuth his opinions. But he 
thought that if the business of allowing the Hall to be 
occupied by lecturers were once entered upon, the ap¬ 
plications would be endless. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE doubted whether the Con¬ 
vention had any right to let out the Hall to be occupied 
for such a purpose. 

Mr. SAWYER said the subject of the lecture was 
one of interest and importance not only to the people 
of Ohio, but to the Union, and coming from such a 
source would be worthy the attention of every member 
of the Convention. He should like to hear it. We 
should not, as a necessary consequence, be obliged to 
grant the use of the Hall to every applicant. He 
thought the subject a proper subject, the man a proper 
man, and the occasion a proper occasion. The Doctor 
was, as he believed, a Colonizationist, and agreeing 
with him as he did, he was anxious to hear an expres¬ 
sion of his views, and to give him an opportunity to be 
heard. 

Mr. STANTON. Will the gentleman agree to vote 
to allow the Hall to a speaker upon the other side? 

Mr. SAWYER. Certainlv I will. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD would like to hear the lecture, but 
thought the right of the Convention to grant the use of 
the Hall to be doubtful. 

The question being on the adoption of the resolution, 
the same was disagreed to ; on division—yeas 38, 
nays 40. 

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved that the Convention take 
up the report of the standing committee on the Legis¬ 
lative Depaitmeiit; which was agreed to. 

The question was upon the second division of the 
amendment of Mr. GREGG—to insert in the place of 
section 26 wdiich had been, under the first division of 
said motion, stricken out, the following words: 

Sec. 26. No person holding any lucrative office under the 
authority of the United States, or of this State, shall be eligible 
to a seat in either branch of the General Assembly; provided, 
that township officers or officers of the Militia shall not be deem¬ 
ed lucrative offices. 

Mr. BENNETT moved to amend the amendment, 
by striking out all after the word “ no,” in the first line, 
and inserting in lieu thereof the following : 

“Judge of any court of law or equity ; Secretary, Treasurer, 
, or Auditor of State, Attorney General, Register, Clerk of any 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


843 


court of record, Sheriff, collector of public moneys; Auditor, 
Treasurer, or Recoi der of a county, member of the Board of Pub¬ 
lic Works, Fund Commissioner, Engineer, or Superintendent in 
the sendee of the State; or person holding civil office under the 
authority of the United States, shall be eligible to a seat in the 
General Assembly.” 

Mr. BENNETT said his object in offering tiie amend¬ 
ment was to define with certainty in the constitu¬ 
tion what those offices were which w'ould be a dis¬ 
qualification. There had been, during past years, a 
difference of opinion in regard to the construction of 
the term “ lucrative office ” in the present constitution. 
If lucrative offices are such as from which a profit is 
derived, the question arises as to the amount of the 
emolument. That sum which may be a profit in one 
place may not be so in another. ' On the other hand, 
if it is to coinprehend all offices for the discharge of 
the duties of which pay is received, another rufe of 
construction would prevail. He thought it better to 
define by name, what offices should be a disqualifica¬ 
tion. 

Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE had a suggestion to make. 
The business of elaborating this report in Convention 
is laborious to the officers of the body, and complicated 
and difficult to its members, by the interposition of 
the rules that apply to sessions in Convention. He 
thought another course might be taken that would save 
time, and better suit with the views of members. He 
therefore moved that the report and amendments be 
committed to the committee of the Whole. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, wt)uld prefer to have the 
report recommitted to the standing committee on the 
Legislative Department. For the purpose of making 
such a motion, he should vote against the one now 
pending. 

Mr. CHAMBERS was opposed to any recommit¬ 
ment. 

The question being on a recommitment of the report 
and amendments to the committee of the Whole, the 
same was disagreed to on division. Yeas 26, nays not 
counted. 

The question then being on agrecdug to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Bennett, 

Mr. LARWILL demanded a division of the question. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
wmrd “ no,” in the substitute of Mr. Gregg, 

Mr. REEMELIN said he should vote to strike out, 
for the reason that he thought the substitute of the gen¬ 
tleman from Columbiana [Mr. Gregg] to be ambigu¬ 
ous. He intended, when it should be in order, to offer 
an amendment that would meet his views, and perhaps 
those of other gentlemen. It provided to exclude ail 
officers of the United States, and such State officers as 
received from their offices ovei one hundred dollars 
I per annum. That was what he desired to arrive at. 

In his amendment he had adopted the views of the gen- 
j tieman from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] as expressed in a re- 
; port made by him on a certain occasion in the General 
Assembly, and by him cited from some other learned 
authority. 

Mr. REEMELIN read the amendment for informa¬ 
tion, as follows: “ No person holding any office under 
the authority of the United States, or any office under 
the authority of this State, to which bylaw any salary, 
fee or emolument whatever is attached, shall be capa¬ 
ble of being a candidate to have a seat in the General 
Assembly : provided that justices of the peace, town¬ 
ship and militia officers, and officers temporarily ap 
pointed by the courts, shall not be deemed as coming 
within the provisions of this section. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to amend the substi¬ 
tute of Mr. Gregg, by adding, after the words “town¬ 
ship officers,” the words “justices of the peace, nota¬ 
ries public which was agreed to. 

Mr. LARWILL moved further to amend said substi¬ 
tute, by adding the words “ president, cashier or officer 
of any bank of issue.” 

The PRESIDENT. The amendment must come in 
in another place. 


Mr. LARWILL withdrew his amendment. 

Mr. HOLMES said he was anxious to exclude the 
class of persons mentioned in the amendment proposed 
by the gentleman from Wayne, [Mr. Larwill.] He 
wished he had been more precise in offering it. He 
thought those persons ought not to have seats in the 
legislative bodies of the country. He had an amend¬ 
ment which he proposed to read, which was as fol 
lows: 

“No President, Director, or Cashier of any banking company 
in this State, or President or Director of any railroad company, 
shall be eligible to the office of Governor, Senator or Representa¬ 
tive, so long as he shall be such President, Director or Cashier, 
nor until the lapse of twelve months from the time at which he 
shall have ceased to be such President, Director or Cashier. No 
money brokers, minister of the Gospel, or teacher of any reli¬ 
gious sect; no person holding any office under the authority of 
the United States, or under this constitution, shall be eligible to a 
seat in the General Assembly of this State.” 

He hoped that some such principle would be adopted, 
or at least a portion of it. One State in the Union— 
Florida—had excluded from the Legislature the presi¬ 
dents and directors of banks. 

The question being on striking out all after the word 
“No,” in the amendment of Mr. Gregg— 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted, yeas 29, nays 46, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Licking, Cook, Cutler, Farr, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Green of Ross, Harlan, Larsh, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
Morehead, Norris, Patterson, Perkins, Scott of Auglaize, Stan- 
bery, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Warren and Wilson—29. 

Nats —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Brown 
of Athens, Cahill, Chambers, Clark, Curry, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirk¬ 
wood, Lawrence, Larwill, I.eech, Leadbetter, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of 
Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stickney, Struble, 
Vance of Butler, Way, Williams, Woodbury and President—46. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the substitute 
of Mr. Gregg as amended, to wit: 

Sec. 26. No person holding any lucrative office under the au¬ 
thority of the United States, or of this State, shall be elegible to a 
seat in either branch of the General Assembly; Provided, that 
township officers, justices ot the peace, notaries pxxblic, or officers 
of the militia, shall not be deemed lucrative offices. 

The same w'as agreed to, on division; yeas 48. hays 
not counted. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to amend sectixm 35, 
by adding at the end the following: “Provided, that 
the General Assembly shall have power to repeal or 
revoke any charter of incorporation, and the privileges 
and franchises of any incorporated company, upon 
such just and equitable terms for thecollction and pay¬ 
ment, and the disposition of the property of such com¬ 
pany, as they may provide. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said, that on examining the 
amendment, gentlemen would see that it had been 
drawn with some care. It would be observed that he 
had omitted the words “alter or amend,”and he would 
state the reason. He thought the power given to 
amend or revoke to be ample for all beneficial purpos¬ 
es, without that to alter or amend. He had endeavor¬ 
ed to provide against special legislation, and especial¬ 
ly such legislation in favor of corporations. We have 
a provision, in the report of the committee on Corpo¬ 
rations, that there shall be no special act Jof incorpo¬ 
ration, but that corporations may be created by gene¬ 
ral laws. He was desirous in this amendment, first, 
to assert the repealability of charters, and secondly, to 
prevent opening a door for abuse, by putting in the 
hands of the General Assembly the power to transform 
an act of incorporation under a general law into a spe¬ 
cial charter, under the pretense of an alteration or an 
amendment. By such means, if an unlimited power 
were given to amend, the Legislature rniglit let in all 
that we desire to keep out, additions of power might 
be made and corporations grow up under the clause 
providing for their amendment. 













844 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


That part of the amendment which relates to the 
disposition of corporate property is so worded, that the 
Legislature may exercise a sound discretion, and vest 
the estates in the stock holders, the corporators, the 
grantor, or make such other disposition as the justice of 
the case may require. There is a class of cases, where 
the corporate body is only trustee; as a college which 
holds property for the purposes of education. If it 
should be necessary to dissolve such a corporation, the 
property, should not, of course, vest in stock holders 
or trustees of the college, but in some form or other 
revert to the grantors. The amendment also provides 
for the application of tin? property to the payment of 
the debts, which is an important proposition, as the dis¬ 
solution might otherwise work great injury to credi¬ 
tors. 

Mr. RBEMELIN moved to amend the amendment 
by inserting before the words “ repeal or revoke,” the 
words “ alter, amend.” 

The question being on the amendment to the anmnd- 
ment, 

Mr. MITCHELL hoped the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton, [Mr. Reemelin] would not insist upon his amend¬ 
ment. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD did not fully understand the prop¬ 
osition of the gentleman from Medina, [Mr. Humphre- 
ville] and he could net vote upon it until he did. He 
wanted to vote for the principle declared in it but was 
afraid of ambiguity in the words. Suppose it is adopt¬ 
ed, and afterwards the Legislature should undertake to 
tax banks, which had by law been previously exempt 
from taxation. Would it, under this section have the 
power to do so ? He saw a difficulty that would arise 
from leaving out the power of amendment. If the 
Legislature desires to get rid of an improvident feature 
in a charter, it can only do so by repealing the whole. 
What if the Legislature should only desire to get rid of 
one obnoxious feature ,and save the remainder ? 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. The object was to give 
power to repeal all or any part—to destroy the whole 
or to take away an obnoxious franchise. If a bank is 
exempt from taxation, that exemption may be revoked, 
leaving all its legitimate powers untouched. But noth¬ 
ing can be added. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Suppose the Legislature, by a 
hasty act should create a charter, and it should be found 
that some restriction was necessary; could that restric¬ 
tion be effected ? 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. It might by the repeal of 
what is obnoxious. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD hoped to hear the subject discussed 
still further. 

Mr. REEMELIN thought the right to alter and 
amend as necessary as that to repeal oi- revoke. Fre¬ 
quently an amendment may answer all the purposes 
that can be secured by a repeal, and may be useful in 
cases where otherwise a repeal would bo necessary. 
He could not see how any one who asserted the right 
of appeal could object to that of emendation. He de¬ 
sired to place corporations upon the same ground with 
individuals—entitled to equal privileges, subject 1o the 
same rules. He said that remedy would be a harsh 
one which would destroy to get rid of an insignficant 
defect, 

The amendment to the amendment was then agreed 
to. 

The question then being on the amendment, as 
amended, 

Mr. SWAN moved to amend by inserting after the 
word ” company,” the last time it occurs, the follow¬ 
ing: 

“ And the mode of ascertaining and paying such compensation 
as may be just, on account of such revocation, repeal, amend¬ 
ment or alteration." 

The question then being on the amendment to the 
amendment, 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted yeas 40, nays 40, as fol¬ 
lows : 


Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Cook, 
Curry, Cutler, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, 
Larsh, Morehead, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Swan, Williams and 
Woodbury—40. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Clark, Farr, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Huntj 
Jones, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 
Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reeme¬ 
lin, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Struble, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Way, Wilson and President—40. 

So the ameiidmeiit to the amendment was disagreed 
to. 

The question then being on the amendment, as amen¬ 
ded, 

Mr. PERKINS moved to amend, by striking out all 
after the word ^‘company,” the first time it occurs, and 
iisertiug in lieu thereof the following : 

“ Upon the same terms and in the same manner as the General 
Assembly may condemn and appropriate private property for 
public use." 

Mr. BLAIR demanded a division of the question. 

The question then being on striking out, 

Mr. BLAIR demanded the yeas and nays, whicr. 
were ordered. 

The Secretary was about to proceed with the caill. 
when, 

At fifteen minutes beiore 12, M., 

Mr. MITCHELL demandeda call of the Convention, 
which was ordered, an<# the following gentleman were 
reported absent: 

Messrs. Case of Hocking, Chaney, Collings, Dorsey, Ewart, 
Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock oi 
Geauca, Holt, King, Manon, Mason, Morris, Nash, Orton, Riddle, 
Srnitli of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stilwell, Stidger, Tay¬ 
lor, Thompson, of Shelby, Vance, of Champaign, and Wor¬ 
thington. 

Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the Convention take a 
recess. 

Mr. LOUDON desired to know how the Convention 
could take a recess with closed doors ? 

Mr. GREEN said he thought they might be opened 
again. 

The motion to take a recess was disagreed to on di¬ 
vision—yeas 51, nays 31. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that all further proceed¬ 
ings under the call be dispensed with; upon which 
motion 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER demanded the yeas and 
nays, which were ordered, and resulted yeas 51. nays 
31; as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Clark, Cook, Curry, Cutler, 
Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hen¬ 
derson, Holmes, Horton, Hunt,Hunter, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Larwill, Loudon, Morehead, McCloud, Norris, Otis, Peck, Per¬ 
kins, Quigley, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Struble, Swan, Swift, Vance of But 
ier, Way, Wilson and President—51. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Blickensderfer, Case of Licking, Gillett, 
Greene of Defiance, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hootman, Humphre- 
ville, Johnson, Jones, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mc¬ 
Cormick, Patterson, Ranney, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Williams. 
Woodbury and Wortbington—31. 

So the motion was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. LAWRENCE, the Convention took 
a recess. 

3 o’clock, r. M. 
call of the convention. 

Cn motion of Mr. SMITH, of Warren, which was 
agreed to, a call of the Convention was ordered and 
being had, the Secretary reported seventy-seven mem¬ 
ber present, and the following members absent without 
leave, namely: 

Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Brown of Carroll* 
Case of Hocking, Chaney, Collings, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Flor> 
ence, Forbes, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geaugn 
Holt, Kennon, Lawrence, Manon, Mason, Morris Nash, Orton 
Perkins, Smith of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Sth 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 845 


well, Taylor, Townshend, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Cham¬ 
paign, and Worthington. 

On motion, Messrs. Collings, Forbe.s, Holt, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stilwkll, and Vance of Champaign were 
severally excused. 

On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Warren, the Sergeant- 
at-Arras was despatched for the ahseiitees, who were 
known to be in the city, and the doors were closed. 

The Sergeant-at-Arms now returned, and I’eported 
that he had found Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Pelkins, 
Brown of Carroll, and Barbee ; and that they were 
now present. 

Upon motion, and for reasons rendered, special ex¬ 
cuses were accorded to Messrs. Case of Hocking,HiTCH- 
cocK, of Cuyahoga, Ewart and Mason 

The Sergeant-at-Arms now again returned, and re¬ 
ported the presence within the bar of Messrs. Arch- 
boLd, Kennon and Lawrence. 

The members brought in by the Sergeant were sev¬ 
erally excused. 

Mr. CURRY thought the process of excusing mem¬ 
bers, without satisfactory reasons being rendered fur 
their absenne, had been carried on long enough. 

Mr. CURRY moved that all further proceedings un¬ 
der this call of the Convention be dispensed with. 

The yeas and nays having been demanded and ta¬ 
ken upon this motion, resulted yeas 54, nays 31 as fol¬ 
lows : 




Ybas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee. Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case ot Licking, Clark, Curry, Cut¬ 
ler, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson, Holmes, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lead- 
better, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Hairison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Warren, Stanton, 
Stickney, Struble, Swan, Switt, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Warren, Way, Wilson, and President—54. 

Nays. —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chambers, Cook, Farr, Greene of 
Defiance, Hard, Hawkins, Hootman, Jones, Larsh, Lawrence. 
Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Otis, Pat¬ 
terson, Pock, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Sellers, Stebbins, 
Stidger, Thompson of Stark, Williams, Wilson and Woodbury— 
31. 


So all further proceedings under this call of the Con¬ 
vention were dispensed with. 

Mr. HAWKINS gave notice of his intention, on to¬ 
morrow, or some subsequent day of the session, to :n- 
1 tvoduce an amendment to the rules regulating the call 
1 of the Convention. 


THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT-THE REPEALABILITY OF 

CHARTERS. 

The PRESIDENT stated the question to be upon the 
motion to strike out all after the word “company,” 
where it first occurs, in Mr. Humphreville’s amend¬ 
ment (as above recited) and iuserthig the words “ upon 
the same terms and in the same manner as the General 
Assembly may condemn and appropriate private prop¬ 
erty for public use.” 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE demanded a division of the 
question. 

And then the first question was upon striking out 
these words from Mr. H.’s amendment, to wit: “ Upon 
such just and equitable terms for the collection and 
payment of the debts, and the disposition of the prop¬ 
erty of such company, as they may provide.” 

The yeas and nays being demanded and taken, upon 
this question, resulted, yeas 36, nays 48, as follows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont- 
' ^omery, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Cook, Curry, Cutler, 
; Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Har- 
Lan, Horton, Hunter, Kennon, Larsh, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
' Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Warren, Stanton, 
Swan and Williams—36. 

is Nays— Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Blair, Cahill, Clark, Parr, 

d Greene ot Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, 
, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, 
■ Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
\ Norris, Patterson, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Saw- 

yer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
L Swift, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—48. 

So Mr. PsRKiNs* amendment was lost, and the ques 


tion recurred upon the adoption of Mr. Humphre- 
ville’s amendment. 

Mr. WOODBURY, as a friend of the proposition, 
desired that some gentleman who voted for the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reeme- 
LiN,] inserting the words “alter, amend,” after the 
word “ repeal,” would move a reconsideration of that 
vote. 

Mr. FARR would like to ask the gentleman from 
Ashtabula, [Mr. Woodbury,] how it was that a special 
corporation could be afi'ected by a general law? The 
Legislature would have the right only to alter or amend 
the general corporation law, which would, of course, 
affect all corporations alike which had been created 
under it. 

Mr, REEMELIN moved the reconsideration of the 
vote adopting his amendment. 

This motion being agreed to, the question again re¬ 
curred upon inserting the words “ alter, amend,” be¬ 
fore the word “ or,” in Mr. Humphreville’s amend¬ 
ment. 

Mr. LARSH said, if he understood the clause as pro¬ 
posed to be amended by the gentleman from Hamilton, 
it would constitule a provision by which the Legisla¬ 
ture could alter and amend any corporation charter, 
and increase or diminish the value of the franchise of 
any company to such an extent as to afl'ord as beautiful 
a specimen of local legislation as the State had ever 
yet sufi’ered. But, if he understood the proposition of 
the gentleman from Medina, [Mr. Humphreville,] it 
was that the General Assembly should have no power 
over corporations, except to revoke or repeal their 
charters, so that they would not have the same charter 
up before them for amendment and modification, time 
after time. They must repeal or revoke, if they act at 
all in the case, and there would be au end. He should 
vote against the amendment. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said, during the summer session at 
Columbus, he had prepared a proviso to this section, 
which he would read for information : 

“ To come in at the end of section 5: Provided, That the laws 
conferring corporate powers and privileges, shall not be held to 
be contracts within the meaning of this section." 

His opinion always had been, that the power to re¬ 
peal existed necessarily in the power to create a char¬ 
ter. If he understood the proviso of the gentleman 
from Medina, it affirmed the existence of the power 
of repeal, and he had read his proviso merely for gen¬ 
tlemen to consider whether it would not obviate a dif¬ 
ficulty by asserting that a charter is not a contract. 

Mr. SWAN remarked that he oftiered an amendment 
in the forenoon, under the belief that the amendment 
proposed by the gentleman from Medina related to 
corporations heretofore created. Upon examination 
of the gentleman’s amendment, and from his sta’^e- 
ment, lie was sati.sfied that the construction of the 
amendment would be, that corporations hereafter cre¬ 
ated were within its provisions. If so, he should vote 
for it, or for the proposed substitute of the gentleman 
from Richland. 

While up, he would briefly state Iris own view^s up¬ 
on this question. He was in favor of a provision in 
the constitution, by which all acts of corporation here¬ 
after granted should be liable to amendment and re-, 
peal. ^ 

That the Legislature have a right to repeal all char¬ 
ters heretofore created, if they make a just adjustment 
of the value of the property and losses incident to 
such repeal, treating it as property taken for the pub¬ 
lic use, he had no doubt. Upon this subject, he con¬ 
curred in the views of the gentleman from Hamilton, 
[Mr. Groesbeck.] But he could not vote for a pro¬ 
vision authorizing the repeal of charters heretofore 
granted, unless some provision be inserted by which a 
fair and honest adjustment of losses may be recognized. 

As to a repeal of charters, without regard to the in¬ 
jury done thereby to the property of stockholders, it 
has been said that there is a considerable number of 
authorities against it. It would have been more cor- 
















846 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


rect to have said, that all courts in the United States 
who have had the question before thepfi, have uniform¬ 
ly decided the question against the exercise of that 
power. Laws repealing and amending charters have 
been declared unconstitutional, not only by the Su¬ 
preme Court of the United States, but by the highest 
courts of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
Connecticut, New York, Michigan, Kentucky, Virginia, 
Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, Maryland, and 
others. If a single court of any State in the Union had 
decided otherwise, he should be glad to be interrupted 
and corrected. There was, he ventured to say, no de¬ 
cision the other way. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Does the gentleman say that the 
courts have decided that the Legislature cannot amend 
and repeal charters of municipal corporations ? 

Mr. SWAN. Certainly not. I am not referring to 
municipal corporations, but to private corporations, in 
which stockholders have invested their property. 

The Legislature of these States have undertaken 
what some gentlemen desire us to undertake now, and 
the courts have met the question by determining that 
such laws contravened the constitution of the United 
States, and were therefore void. Now, with these de¬ 
cisions before us, it is proposed that we introduce this 
condemned provision into the constitution, and for 
what good purpose ? The power cannot be acquired 
over charters heretofore granted by a constitutional 
provision, unless the power already exists in the Legis¬ 
lature. If it already exists in the Legislature, then the 
provision is unnecessary; and if it does not exist, then 
nothing is gained by its insertion, except being met by 
decisions already made. The decision of our own 
highest courts upon this question can have no more 
effect than that of a justice of the peace; for this cpies- 
tion can always be taken to the Supreme Court of the 
United States. 

Now, although as an original question, I entertain 
the opinion, that as a mattei'of public policy and just 
construction of the constitution of the United States, 
corporations should be held subject to legislative con¬ 
trol, (a power, indeed, which exists in the British Par¬ 
liament,) yet independent of the impracticability of in¬ 
ducing the Supreme Court to disturb their decisions, 
there is one view of this subject which has had a ru¬ 
ling influence upon my mind. While, from the Dart¬ 
mouth College case down to the present time, and year 
after year, a uniform, and therefore, settled course of 
decisions have been made by the Supreme Court of the 
United States, and the courts of our own and sister 
States, that charters are in fact, and, under the faith of 
these decisions and the belief when property was in¬ 
vested in them that the Legislature could not repeal 
them, it strikes me that if you now destroy them with¬ 
out any breach of their charters, common honesty re¬ 
quires that their property lost or injured by the repeal 
should be paid for. It must be remembered that we 
are dealing not simply with a single class of corpora¬ 
tions, but all and every kind. The people demand 
nothing but what is right and just, and I would ven¬ 
ture to ask any man, no matter what his politics, the 
question put by the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Groesbeck,] whether he would deem it right to repeal 
the charter of abridge company, and destroy their pro¬ 
perty without any renumeration for the loss, when the 
stockholders expend their money under the belief that 
the charter could not be repealed, and the charter was 
never violated. There could be no ditterence of opin¬ 
ion upon such a question. 

If a provision is introduced into the constitution 
which will authorize the Legislature to repeal all char¬ 
ters hereafter granted, (and I shall heartily concur in 
such a provision,) stock holders will invest their prop¬ 
erty in them knowing the terms upon which the char¬ 
ter is granted, and will have no reason to complain of 
legislative- interference. 

Mr. REEMELIN, on leave, withdrew his amend¬ 
ment. 


Mr. RANNEY moved to amend the amendment of 
Mr. Humphreville, by inserting, after the word “cor¬ 
poration,” the words “ now or hereafter granted.” 

Mr. SWAN suggested the words, “heretofore or 
hereafter granted.” . 

Mr. RANNEY wished merely to say, that he had not 
perceived, till the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. 
Swak] ^called his attention to it, that this proviso was 
subject to misinterpretation. He had not supposed 
that any gentleman would vote for this proviso, upon 
the ground that it was going to be applicable alone to 
future acts of incorporation. If there was anything in 
the principle, it should be asserted as applicable to ex¬ 
isting corporations. If it were to be held, that the 
principle must not apply to existing corporations, he 
would not support it. The gentleman from Franklin 
admits the decisions of the courts to this effect, that 
these charters are contracts and irrepealable, have 
I been w'rong. But still the gentleman had advised us, 
that, in settling upon what shall be the fundamental 
law of the land, these decisions, founded in error, 
should be regarded. If there was really such extraor- 
dijiary strength in precedents, acknowledged to have 
been established in error, he would go for making a 
few precedents upon the right side, so that we might 
have a starting point, and, after a while, perhaps, be 
able to balance accounts with error. He did not 
1 think, however, that the courts were going to stand by 
their decisions against this power, to the extent to 
which the gentleman from Franklin supposed, nor did 
he think they had heretofore stood by it to that extent. 

He desired merely to add, that when we escaped 
from the amendment proposed by some gentleman this 
forenoon, that we should pay damages if we saw fit 
to revoke a charter, he had hoped that this subject 
was at an end, for to connect it with a proposition de¬ 
claring the right of repeal, would be worse than noth¬ 
ing ten times over. It would be giving up the ques¬ 
tion of right. For then, just in proportion as the pub¬ 
lic had been cheated, the value of a charter to the cor¬ 
porators would be increased, and just in that propor¬ 
tion would it be desirable that the charter should be 
repealed. The more the public were cheated, the 
more it would cost tljem to get out of it. He wanted 
no such thing. He wanted the subject to stand out 
without disguise. He was willing to record his vote, 
that the General Assembly has the power to repeal all 
charters, whether heretofore or hereafter granted, up¬ 
on such just and equitable terms as they saw fit. 

Mr. MITCHELL would not now obtrude himself 
upon the attention of the body, but for the singularity 
of the proposition put forth by the gentleman from 
Franklin, [Mr. Swan.] That proposition was, that, 
although the decisions of the courts have been erro¬ 
neous, still the judge who sits upon the bench, and is 
sworn to administer justice according to law, should 
allow such decisions to have weight with him, and af¬ 
fect his judgment and his conscience. Why, sir, if a 
decision of our courts were to be found erroneous and 
wrong, it vvould be no law at all. If this were not so, 
he, all his life, had been grossly misinformed of what 
the true principles of law were. If that gentleman 
should feel in his mind, that it was probable that this 
construction of the constitution of the United States 
was erroneous, and on that account, of no binding 
force, how could he sit in judgment and follow an er¬ 
roneous decision; a decision, procured at first, per¬ 
haps, by the instigation of bad motives ?—at all events, 
procured by following out a wrong principle of con¬ 
struction; and how could he follow a construction giv¬ 
en in violation of the true principle of construction, and 
against the letter of the instrument? If there was 
any way of reconciling such a course with a just sense 
of duty, he had never heard of it. Would it not be 
thought strange in any judge, whether in Europe or 
America, to say, “I admit that this decision is wrong, 
but still I must follow it!” 

Gentlemen should remember that a decision could- 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


not make the law. It was only one out of many other 
evidences of what the law had been, and was of no 
force, even in this respect, unless it were according to 
law. A decision of a court never did make law. Even 
when the courts construe a statute, if they pervert the 
meaning by false glosses or unsound rules of construc¬ 
tion, the construction could not change the law. The 
question still must be, what was the intent of the law 
maker in this particular case. This being sought from 
the text and the context, and satisfactorily ascertained, 
must be regarded by the judge who has, as all should 
have, strict reference to his conscience in every deci¬ 
sion he makes. In this country we have never recog¬ 
nized any source of law, but two: one is immemorial 
usage, and the other the statutes of the country. 

Our judges were never designed to be legis’ators. 
Far from it; no such power was conferred or designed 
in their creation. It was the province of the decision 
to declare what the law was before; not what it shall 
hereafter be. Bui it was a melancholy fact, that after 
a single decision coming from the United States courts, 
or the courts of Massachusetts, of New York, or any of 
the States, the whole judiciary of the country, like a 
floek of sheep following their leader over a hedge or a 
precipice, blind to the fatal consequence of their act, 
drive headlong after this isolated decision, regardless of 
its reason or propriety. After one of these decisions 
were made, it forthwith becomes the worst of judicial 
sins, to doubt the infallibility of this decision, more 
especially if it should chance to be the judgment of 
Chief Justice Marshall, or some other high toned fede¬ 
ralist. 

Nor did the length of time for which a decision may 
have stood, give it any validity, or binding force. Age 
might give it sanctity and consideration; but, where a 
decision has been made contrary to the true spirit and 
principle of the law, and it may be shown to have been 
a perversion of these principles, it should not stand, 
even though the decision might have been a thousand 
years. The famous case called “Shelly’s case,” was 
an example of a decision overruled nearly two hundred 
years after it was made, the validity ol which was 
first denied by a text writer, Lugdon on contracts. 
Another example of this kind was the English decision 
in the case of Wayne vs. Warlters, overruled by an 
American court,—to the honor of our judges, be it spo¬ 
ken. The credit of this was chiefly due to Massachu¬ 
setts. 

Why, then, he continued, should we show ourselves 
unworthy of those eminent sires ? Why refuse to at¬ 
tack a decision, or even a considerable list of them, 
when, so palpably against the very letter of the Con¬ 
stitution? We ought to be ashamed to support such a 
decision. It was utterly unworthy of an American 
lawyer, who ought never to lose sight of that most ex¬ 
alted characteristic of his calling—to preserve and de¬ 
fend the true and faithful administration of justice ac¬ 
cording to law. It is our duty to attack and expose 
every erroneous decision, and to obtain what the spirit 
01 the law demands, its reversal. I do not say that the 
judges who have followed these decisions, should be 
resisted in the particular case, nor that their decision 
should be disregarded. No sir, we should submit to 
their determination, quietly in the particular case. But 
sir, certainly it is not our duty to close our mouths and 
say, that this fixes it as a binding rule for all cases 
which may arise hereafter. No sir, he insisted, it was 
our duty to address ourselves in reason to our fellow- 
men, and endeavor to obtain the right decision some 
time or other. 

I think, sir^ that justice and right does require of us 
now, that we should adopt the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Eanney,] because it has 
in it our true meaning. I want nothing that can be 
misunderstood. The vote upon that amendment will 
be a genuine test. It will tell who prefers to be guided 
by the intention of the sages of the revolution ; rather 
than follow the political bias of the judges. 


847 


Mr. KENNON had been all the time, since this ques¬ 
tion had been proposed, voting against putting any 
clause into the constitution, looking to the repeal of 
charters heretofore granted. He had no fear of the 
name of Chief Justice Marshall, or of any body else 
upon a question of this kind. 

If he understood the proposition of the gentleman 
from Medina, [Mr. Humphreville,] coupled with the- 
amendment of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. 
Ranney,] it was, that the Legislature should have the 
power, not only to repeal all charters of corpora¬ 
tions which may hereafter be granted, but all the 
charters now in existence in the State—no matter to 
what class they may belong, the Legislature may make 
such disposition of their charter as they choose. 

He understood the true question to be this; wheth¬ 
er we here, as members of this Convention, should 
express our opinion to the efi'ectthat the uniform decisi¬ 
ons of the courts of all the States of the Union, supported 
by the decision of the Supreme court of the United 
States, have been all wrong in law ! He understood 
this to be the true and real question we were about 
to decide. 

But the gentleman from Trumbull, had said there 
had been decisions the other way; that, however, had 
never been questioned by any one, maintaining here 
the doctrine that charters were not repealable. But 
the gentleman had said that all these decisions to* 
which we refer, were wrong, and he was right; and 
that he would be glad to set up adverse precedents, so* 
as to endeavor to make the scales turn the other way. 
But, (continued Mr. K.,) let me inform the gentleman, 
that it was because of the precedent which he now 
proposes to follow, that the decision to which he ifr 
opposed was first made. It was because the Legisla¬ 
ture repealed a charter, that these decisions were 
made at ail; and therefore he may pile up precedent 
upon precedent as long as he pleases, and they will 
avail him nothing; because they have been already 
overruled. 

Mr. RANNEY, (interrupting.) Will the gentleman, 
allow me to ask him a question? 

Mr. KENNON. I believe not. I am opposed to 
answering hard queslions, (laughter.) Gentlemens 
seemed to be looking fifty years or more into the fu¬ 
ture ; and expecting that all these decisions will be 
overruled. But now I will undertake a prophecy, that 
you will never find in all the constructions of the con¬ 
stitution of the United States, a single decision contra¬ 
ry to what has already taken place. 

Sir, you are at the wrong tribunal. This is not a 
question as to what the State of Ohio may do? What 
we may do here, in pursuance of our own business ; 
but the question is, whether or not, by repealing a 
charter heretofore granted without condition, .you do 
not violate the constitution of the United States ? All 
those decisions of which we have spoken, have been 
upon a construction of the constitution of the United 
States; and if you were engaged in the consideration, 
of amendments to that instrument, there would be 
some propriety in these amendments. 

And, now, all I have to say to the gentleman from 
Trumbull and his friends is, that they will never per¬ 
suade me to vote in favor of any thing to be engrafted 
into the new constitution which I know, as well as I 
know any future event, will subject our work to be 
decided against by the proper tribunal, as an unconsti¬ 
tutional constitution. 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays upon 

the adoption of his amendment. 

Mr KIRKWOOD. It seems to be conceded on all 
hands that good policy requires that, with respect to 
all charters to be hereafter granted, the Legislature 
should retain the power of alteration and repeal. But 
now if this be true, it must be true also, that good pol¬ 
icy requires of us to re-establish the power which we 
have lost over those charters already in existence, if. 
we can. 










848 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


A Voice. “ That’s well put in.” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Now can we? I am frank to 
say I do not know. It is a matter of doubt with learn¬ 
ed gentlemen for whose judgment I have the greatest 
respect. I confess that I too have my doubts with re¬ 
gard to our ability to exercise this power. But we 
never know what we can do, till we try. And, al¬ 
though the same thing has been tried, and failed, I am 
willing still to record my vote in favor of another trial. 

Mr. GROESBECK desired to explain his view of the 
question before casting his vote upon it. He had al¬ 
ways believed, since he had examined this question 
for himself—and he had endeavored to examine it im¬ 
partially—that there was not a single charter in the 
State of Ohio which the Legislature could not revoke. 
This doctrine he asserted the other day, and he ex¬ 
plained himself in this way. 

I admit (continued Mr. G.) that all the decisions de¬ 
clare that the charter of a corporation is a contract; 
and that many of the judges have taken the ground 
that you cannot touch a charter because it is a contract, 
asserting that a contract is inviolable. They have gone 
otF in this direction. But I have struck out my own 
path upon this question. It is this, those very judges 
who affirm this doctrine, in every judicial tribunal that 
has taken up this question, assert another doctrine, that 
a charter or franchise is property. That is the language 
of the courts. It is also the language of Blackstone, 
one of the first text-books upon the subject. He de¬ 
clares that it is property. And the judges of the Su¬ 
preme Court of the United States declare the same 
doctrine. I affirm their position upon this subject to 
be just what I have stated—that a charter is in the na¬ 
ture of property. 

In this way, then, I arrive at the conclusion, that, 
according to the decisions themselves, a charter may 
be taken. 

Mr. Justice Daniel, a strongman, appointed by Presi¬ 
dent Polk, upon the bench of the federal court two 
years ago, as late as 1848, asserted that a charter 
was property ; and Levi Woodbury, an eminent judge 
of the same court, reiterated the same doctrine. Let 
them call it a contract then; but, if it be property, by 
virtue of the right of eminent domain the State may 
take it. 

This is the path of reasoning by which I arrive at 
the conclusion that a charter is repealable; and I be¬ 
lieve that, not only in our own courts, but in the fed¬ 
eral courts, and in every judicial tribunal, the repeala- 
bility of a charter may be maintained. I claim this 
now to be the doctrine. 

But, if you assert this doctrine in the terms of the 
amendment of the gentleman from Medina, you will 
be headed. A charter is property, as much as this 
college-site is property. 

But now, what is the rule ? Why, make the parties 
whole. If a corporation has lived up to the very letter 
and spirit of their charter—if they have not deviated a 
hair’s width, and if you have ncf tone of coinplaint to 
utter against them; I only ask, that, when you de¬ 
clare they shall have their charter no longer, you shall 
make them whole, in cases where real, honest damage 
will result. If the charter has been violated, the case 
is different. The charter is thus forfeited and you can 
take it by judicial proceedings without regard to con¬ 
sequences. 

Mr. GREGG, (interrupting.) Supposing now, that 
this body agree to the principle of taxing banks a cer¬ 
tain per cent, upon their capital and income,—and that 
under such a provision their charter should be changed 
or infringed upon to that extent by law,—would you 
ask for damages in such a case ? 

Mr. GROESBECK. No sir; but I am ready, when¬ 
ever that question shall come up, to say that the Legis 
lature had no constitutional authority to grant a char¬ 
ter with such exemptions from taxation. 

But I wish the Convention to consider the view which 
I have taken. It is the view of Mr. Justice Daniel and 


Mr. Justice Woodbury, as presented in a case in 6th 
Howard’s S. C. Reports, and acquiesced in by the Fed¬ 
eral Court. But your amendment is not according to 
the views of the courts. When you take away a char¬ 
ter, upon my plan, the revocation will be affirmed by 
the Federal Court; but if you take it upon the other 
plan, you will be headed as often as you make the at¬ 
tempt. 

I make these remarks now, simply to explain my 
vote. I say that the Legislature can repeal any char¬ 
ter now existing in the State. But when you come to 
the amendment of the gentleman from Medina, as pro¬ 
posed to be modified, gentlemen cannot agree upon it 
amongst themselves ; and it is not just, in my opinion. 

I shall, therefore, vote in favor of the present amend¬ 
ment, that charters can be repealed, but against the 
amendment of the gentleman from Medina, 

The yeas and nays being now ordered and taken 
upon Mr. Ranney’s amendment to Mr. Humphre- 
ville’s. ycroviso, the result was, yeas 46, nays 39, as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Clark, Farr, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Hum- 
phreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, 
Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
Swift, Thompson of Stark, Townsbend, Warren, Way, Wilson, 
Woodbury and President—46. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Cook, 
Curry, Cutler, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Ma¬ 
son, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Swan, Vance of Butler and 
Williams—39. 

So the amendment was agreed to; and the question 
recurred upon the adoption of Mr. Humphreville’s 
proviso, as now amended, which is as follows : 

Sec. 35. Add at the end of the section the following: 
Provided, That the General Assembly shall have power to re¬ 
peal or revoke any charter of incorporation, now or hereafter 
granted, and the privileges and franchises of any incorporated 
company, upon such just and equitable terms for the collection 
and payment of the debts, and the disposition of the property of 
such company as they may provide. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD now proposed further to amend 
the proviso, by striking out all after the were “grant¬ 
ed,” and inserting the following words: “ or any of the 
privileges or franchises of any company that heretofore 
has been, orheieafter may be incorporated, upon such 
just and equitable principles as the General Assembly 
may provide.” 

The proposition having been entertained by the 
Chair, 

Mr. R. said, by way of explanation, that his proposi¬ 
tion left a higher discretion to the Legislature than the 
words which he proposed to strike out. It proposed 
simply, that the Legislature might revoke a charter 
upon such terms as were just and equitable, whilst the 
amendment of the gentleman from Medina, Mr. [Hum- 
phrevii-le,] prescribes that the Legislature, in such a 
case, shall act just and equitably in relation to the 
payment of the debts and the distribution of the prop¬ 
erty of the corporation. 

Mr. STANTON demanded a division of tho ques¬ 
tion; and then the first question was upon striking 
out. 

The yeas and nays being demanded, ordered, and ta¬ 
ken upon this question, the result was, yeas 129, nays 
56, as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Brown of Athens, Chambers, Cutler, 
Graham, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Holmes, Hunt, Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Morris, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of War¬ 
ren, Stanton, Stidger, Swan, Taylor, Vance of Butler, Williams 
and Woodbury—29. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Clark, Cook, Curry, Ewing, 
Farr, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hootman, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Jones, King, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, McCor- 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 849 


mick, Norris, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Riddle. Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stick- 
ney, Struble, Swift, Thompson ot Stark, Townsliend, Warren, 
Way, Wilson and President—56. 

So Mr. Kirkwood’s ameiulmenl was lost, niid the 
question recurred upon the adoption oi Mr. Humphre- 
ville’s proviso, as amended. [Recited above.] 

Pending which, Mr. McCORMICK moved that the 
Convention adjourn : 

Upon which motion Mr. LIDFY demanded the yeas 
and nays, and being ordered, resulted, yeas 30, nays 
52, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Blickensderfer, Case of Lick, 
ing, Cook, Curry, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Groes- 
beck, Hawkins, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, King, 
Kirkwood, Larsh, Leech, Morehead, McCormick, Norris, Quigley, 
Thompson ol Stark, Vance of Butler, Williams, Wilson and Pres- 
ident-^0. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Cahill, Chambers, Clark, Cutler, Farr, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Harlnn, Henderson, 
Holmes, Hootman, Plumphreville, Jones, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Pat¬ 
terson, Peck, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Scott of Auglaize Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Steb¬ 
bins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Townshend, War¬ 
ren and Woodbury—52. 

So the Convention refused to adjourn. 

After some unimportant discussion, 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, moved that the Convention 
adjourn, which was agreed to. 


SATURDAY, December 28, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Shepardson. 

Mr. KING, of Butler, presented a petition from 
Franklin Stokes, and one hundred and thirty-four oth¬ 
ers, citizens of Butler county, praying that provision 
be made in the new constitution for the removal of all 
black and mulatto persons from the Slate. At the re¬ 
quest of the presenter, said petition was read by the 
Secretary, and afterwards referred to the standing com¬ 
mittee on Miscellaneous Subjects and Propositions. 

Mr. HARLAN presented a petition from Richard 
Randolph, ol Green county, on the subject of the ten¬ 
ure of the judicial otBce, the jurisdiction of the courts 
of common pleas, and the right of trial by jury; which, 
at the request of the same gentleman, was read by the 
Secretary, and afterwards referred to the committee on 
Jurisprudence. 

The rails of the Vermont and Canada Railroad are 
now within less than a mile of Lake Champlain. For 
a short time past many workmen have been engaged 
on some turn-tables, but a few days will see the road 
in readiness to take Ogdensburg freight. 

Mr. CHANEY presented a petition from Thoma.s 
Babcock, and twenty-six others, citizens of Fairfield 
coimty asking that a clause he inserted in the new con¬ 
stitution, j)i’ohibiting the Legislature from passing any 
law, legalizing the traffic in spirituous liquors. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from Sam¬ 
uel Burman, and twenty-three others, citizens of Fair- 
field county, on the same subject. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, presented a petition from 
■John Polls, and seventy-three citizens of Ross county, 
on the same subject. 

Referred to the select committee on Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. BARBEE presented a petition from Joshua 
Smith, and thirty-six other colored persons, of Miami 
county, praying for equal rights and privileges without 
regard to color. 

Referred to the committee on Preamble and Bill of 
Rights. 

Mr. BATES presented a petition from Oliver C. 
Smith, and tweuty-sevea others, citizens of Jefferson 
county, praying that a clause be inserted in the new 
constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from passing 
any law, legalizing the traffic in ardent spirits. 


Also from William Harlan and seventeen other citi¬ 
zens of .Jeffi rson county, on the same subject. 

Mr. RANNEY presented a {,>etition from Michael Ohl, 
and one hundred and nine others, citizens ol Trumbull 
county, on the same subject. 

Said petitions were referred to the select committee 
upon the subject of Arderit S{)irits. 

Mr. GROESBECK presented a petition from A. M. 
Cook, and two hundred and seven others, citizens of 
Hamilton county, praying that all property, without 
exception be made liable to taxation, by constitutional 
provision; 

Which was I'eferred to the standing committee on 
Finance and Taxation. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, asked and obtained leave 
of absence until Thursday next. 

The same gentleman asked and obtained leave of ab¬ 
sence for Mr. McCloud, until Tuesday next 

Mr. McCORMICK asked and obtained leave of ab¬ 
sence until Friday next. 

Mr. LARWILL asked and obtained leave of absence 
until the 12lh day of January next. 

Mr. BARNET, of Montgomery, moved that when 
the Convention adjourn on this day, it adjourn to meet 
on Thursday next, at 9 o’clock A. M. 

Mr. CLARK moved to lay the resolution on the ta¬ 
ble on which motion he demanded the yeas and nays, 
which being ordered, resulted, yeas 46, nays 36, as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Brown of 
Athens, Cahill. Cbambers, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Curry, Farr, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hootman, Hunt, Hunter, 
Kennon. King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Mitchell, Morris, Peck, 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Stanton, Stebbins, Swan, Swift, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Wilson and Woodbury—46. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Bennett,Blair, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Cutler, Green 
ol Ross. Harlan, Holmes, Horton, Johnson, Jones, Lawrence, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Morehead, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Riddle, Scott of Harison, Sellers, 
Smith of Warren, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Warren, 
Way, Williams and President—36. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

THE LEGISL.ATIVE DEPARTMENT. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved that the Convention take up 
the the report of the standing committee on the Leg¬ 
islative Department; which was agreed to, and said 
report was taken up. 

The question being on the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Hu.mphreville, as amended, to wit: add 
at the end of section thirty-five the following : Provi¬ 
ded, that the General Assembly shall have power to 
repeal or rtvoke any charter of incorporation, now or 
hereafter granted, and the privileges and franchises of 
any incorporated company, upon such just and equita¬ 
ble terms, for the collection and payment of the debts 
and the disposition of the property of such company as 
they may provide— 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler,'in connection with the 
amendment now before the Convention, and in con¬ 
tinuation of his remarks made last evening, before the 
aojournment, desired to premise what he was about to 
say, with a few observations upon the original section 
to which the amendment cf the gentleman from Me¬ 
dina, is proposed to be added. That section provides 
that “the General Assembly shall have no power to 
pass retroactive^ laws, or laws impairing the obligation 
of contracts or their remedies. ’ He held that it was 
totally unnecessary, that the constitution of the State 
should contain any such restriction. No legislative 
body can ever exercise it, so as to impair the obliga- 
iioh of contracts without violating the provisions of 
the constitution of the United States and endangering 
the rights and liberties of the people of the country, 
instead therefore of restricting where a reslriciiou 
can be of no possible efficacy, it is due rather, that 
the framers of this constitution should provide au ex 
ception as to that class of cases, where, to a certain ex. 












860 


CONVENTION IlEPOllTS 


tent the exercise of such a power is not only right but 
sometimes absolutely necessary. There is one class of 
cases in relation to which the Legislature should have 
the power to pass laws that shall be retrospective in 
their operation. I refer to those that affect the reme 
dy only. There are many contracts, which are in eve¬ 
ry respect morally binding in their character, but which, 
on account of some circumstance connected with them 
cannot be enforced, either at law or in chancery. 
Now, it is most necessary that the Legislature of the 
State should have it in its power to prescribe some 
rule, which, while it neither changes the position of 
the parlies nor the binding force of the contract itself, 
shall put it in the power ol the courts to interpose such 
a remedy as wiihout injustice to either party, shall ef¬ 
fectually secure and declare the rights of both. I 
refer to that class of laws which have been denomina¬ 
ted curative statutes. These laws have been decided 
by the supreme court of the Union to be proper, and 
to be consistent with the constitution, of the United 
States. The supreme court of the State of Ohio also, 
has declared that such laws—as, I'or instance, the law 
of 1835, regarding defects in the mode by which deeds 
for the conveyance of land had been authenticated— 
were not retroactive laws operating upon the contract 
itself and impairing its obligation in such a manner as 
to be obnoxious to the provision in the constitution of 
the United States upon that subject. 

If we adopt the provision in the shape it now stands, 
we deny to the Legislature the power to pass any law 
of this kind, and effectually cut off the possibility of 
any remedial or curative enactments being passed in 
future. Now, I would not deny to the Legislature the 
right to pass laws of this kind. They are frequently 
important in securing the rights of persons who other¬ 
wise would be denied that relief which it is, in all 
cases, the duty of the law-making power to provide— 
relief in every case of a meritorious demand. I have 
said thus much for the purpose of turning the attention 
of the members of the Convention to the section to 
which an amendment is proposed to be jnade. The 
subject was before the Convention in June last, and 
was discussed to some extent at that time, and niy own 
opinion is that it was then amended in committee of 
the whole. 

I desire now to render to the Convention a few of 
the reasons that will determine me to vote against the 
amendment of the gentleman from Medina, [Mr. Hum- 
phreville,] as amended. I would say, that so far as 
the repeal of acts of incorporation is concerned, I be¬ 
lieve it proper for the constitution to vest that power 
in the General Assembly; but. at the same time, 1 wish 
it to be distinctly understood that I believe no member 
of a legislative body should ever aid in currying into 
execution a provision of this kind, unless he is fully 
convinced that the public good imperatively requix'es 
it at his hands. But whenever it does become neces¬ 
sary, it should be executed, but always upon the most 
just and equitable principles. If by this necessary re¬ 
vocation a loss of property shall accrue to the stock¬ 
holders of the corporation, it should be made up to 
them. The constitution of the United States extends 
its protection to evei’y kind of prop.'^tty, in the hinds 
of its owners; and it matters not whether the property 
be lands, houses, moneys, stocks, incorporations, or 
what not, the constitution of the United States inter¬ 
poses a provision that the holder shall be protected in 
the enjoyment of it, unless it becomes necessary to 
take it, or make a sacrifice of it, for the public good, 
m which case its value shall be returned to the owner. 
The ownership of private property legally acquired is 
thus protected against any law that may be passed to 
divest it, unless lor the public good or public safety. 

What, then, is the true principle? Take the proper¬ 
ty—divest the franchise—repeal the act of incorpora¬ 
tion ; but do it upon these conditions: first, that the 
act is demanded by the public interest; and, secondly, 
that a reasonable and adequate compensation in money 


shall be paid for the property thus taken or sacrificed 
by the repeal. 

There is another Cjuestion that arises under the 
amendment. Gentlemen have said that acts ol incor¬ 
poration are contracts, and that the courts of the Union 
have already decided that, being such contracts, they 
may not be annulled by legislatve authority upon any 
ground nor for any purpose whatsoever. The section 
of the constitution of the United States, under which 
these decisions are said to be made, is as follows: 

“ No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation, 
coin moneys, emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold or sil¬ 
ver coin a tender in payment of debts, pass any bill ot attainder, 
expost facto law', or law impairing the obUgation of contracts, or 
grant any title of nobility.” 

Upon this provision of the constitution the decisions 
of the courts have rested. Now it may be a serious 
que.slion, and one worthy of consideration, whether all 
the acts of incorporation passed by the General Assem¬ 
bly of Ohio are contracts. I do not believe they are. 
Some of them may be, and probably are contracts; 
others, I know are not. It is my opinion that this pro¬ 
vision has been too often misapplied, in debate, if not 
in the decisions of courts. i 

Looking to the legislative history of the State ol Ohio, 

I am disposed to believe, and I will say, that I am firm 
in tliis opinion, that perhaps all the legislation grant- i 
ing corporate powers and privileges in Ohio partakes 
only of the nature of simple grants, and have but few, 
if any, of the elements of contracts—no consideration 
ha.s been granted or promised for the privileges so 
granted. Yet I will say that when these grants have 
been made in good faith—when the same have been 
received by the citizens intended to be beiielitted with 
the same good faith, and investments of money or oth¬ 
er valuable property is made under the grant, and up¬ 
on the implied faith of the State ; when valuable and 
usel'ul improvements have been constructed, or large 
and desirable entei-prises engaged in for public as well 
as private advantage, &c., the obligation of the State 
in regard to such grants ought to be the same as if they 
possessed all the featui'es of a contract. Such grants 
should not be wantonly violated. They may be re¬ 
sumed, and so may a contract be annuled by legisla¬ 
tive aiiihority, and altogether disregarded—but before 
such power should be exercised, there should be a rea¬ 
son for it, founded in the public good or public safely 
of our citizens. 

But, Mr. ITesident, I have ever held, and do now 
hold the doctriue that the General Assembly may an¬ 
nul contracts and resume grants of every kind, when 
the public good, the public interest, or the public safe¬ 
ty, demai ds this exercise of legislative power. But 
in the exercise of thi.s pow'er the provisions of the con¬ 
stitution of the United States should be strictly obser¬ 
ved in its letter and in its spirits. No one shall be de¬ 
prived of property, without due process of law; nor 
shall private property be taken for public use, without 
just compensation. This provision of the constitution 
is imperative upon every legislative body, and upon 
every citizen of our Union. It should never be viola-- 
ted. Private property should ever be held inviolate 
unless for the causes contemplated in the coustituticin. 
And the owner of private property should ever- have 
a guarantee for its possession and enjoyment, far above- 
the mere will of a representative body. This guaran¬ 
tee should ever be found in the organic law of the 
land. Make his rights merely dependent upon legis¬ 
lative will, and he has no rights with respect to the 
sacred enjoyment of private property worlli preserv¬ 
ing. He knows not at what moment he may be de¬ 
prived of it, and that too, without just compensation. 

Mr. President, I do not mean to be misunderstood 
upon this important question. I bold, sir, that the 
General Assembly has, and ever should have, full and 
ample control of every franchise granted, or hereafter 
to be granted within this Stale. The Legislature has 
j the power to tax, and should ever retain that power 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The taxing power of the government is not easily par¬ 
ted with. And I hold that it never can be parted 
with by the Legislature, uidess for a just and ample 
consideration in return, and that too, under the sanc¬ 
tion of bona fide and binding contarcts entered into for 
good and justifiable ends. I hold, therefore, that the 
capital vested in every corporation within this State 
can be taxed, and ought to be taxed, precisely as other 
property is taxed. The taxing power has never been 
parted with in respect to existing corporate property. 
It is said that the banks agreed to pay a certain amount 
of tax, and that therefore they should not be taxed be¬ 
yond that amount. Very well—they agreed to pay a 
certain amount of tax—and were they not bound to 
pay the same amount of tax, and even more—much 
more, upon their capital, before this agreement was 
made. Where, then, is the just and adequate con¬ 
sideration for this agreement, which is relied upon ? 
What of corresponding value has been retained to the 
government for this exemption from taxation? Noth- 
ing. 

1 have already said that I believe, and fully believe, 
in the repealing power of the General Assembly. This 
power should be exercised in all proper cases. And 
the power should never be exercised in a case where 
the p^ublic good or the public property and security 
calls not for it. Why, sir, the Legislature may take 
the farm or the house of a citizen for the- public wel¬ 
fare. The contract by which this farm or this house 
is held, so far as it secures the rights of the owner, is 
annulled—rendered inoperative and useless. Why not, 
then, take the jiroperty or franchise of a bank, or a 
railroad company, when the interest and security of 
the citizens demand an appropriation or sacrifice of 
such property. But when property of this kind should 
be so taken, it should be paid for by the same consti¬ 
tutional rule that the farm or the house is paid for 
when taken for like purposes. I would only provide 
for the payment, however, for the property actually 
taken, or actually rendered valuless to the owner by 
reason of the act disposing of it for the public good. 
Nor would I include in the estimate, the value of the 
franchise—merely the properly, sir, other than the fran¬ 
chise. Now, sir, if such compensation should be with¬ 
held, the State will not act in conformity to the Consti¬ 
tution of the United Slates, which provides that private 
property shall not be taken for the public use without 
just compensation. But, if the public good does not 
demand this sacrifice of the rights and interests of indi¬ 
viduals, and the Legislature, in the mere wantonness of 
power, or to gain some temporary or partisan purpose, 
goes on to make a wholesale repeal of charters, merely 
because they are acts of incorporation, the result—call 
it by whatever name you please—is agrarianism, and 
nothing else. 

Now, Mr. President, I have heard things said, and 
appeals made to partisan interests and partisan feelings, 
upon this floor, which I had rather not have heard in 
this place. 

Gentlemen have spoken of their Whiggery and of 
their Democracy here, as if they acknowledged the ten¬ 
ure of party above the interests of the State, or the 
rights of its citizens. Such allusions, sir, I have never 
made. I however will take occasion (following the 
example of others,) to say that I have from my youth 
been a Jeffersonian Democrat, and as such have ever 
held it to be the first duty of every legislator to en¬ 
deavor to extend to all citizens of the commonwealth 
the same privileges and the same blessings. I am 
proud, sir, to own that I am a Democrat; but at the 
same time, I declare that I never was, and never can be 
an agrarian. I cast the imputation from me. Agrari¬ 
anism is calculatud to dry up every source of individu¬ 
al and national prosperity, and to leave nothing but a 
naked and barren waste in its place. It is opposed to 
every real interest—moral, social, industrial; or politi¬ 
cal, and would as certainly prove the destruction of all 
public property as it would the demolition of every pri¬ 
vate right or interest. 


851 


Let us now come to the proposition before us, upon 
the amendment, as amended. That amendment pro¬ 
vides that the General Assembly shall have power to 
re[)eal or revoke any charter of incorporation now or 
hereafter granted, and the privileges and franchises of 
any incorporated company, upon such just and equita¬ 
ble terms for the collection and payment of the debts, 
and the disposition of the property of such company as 
they may provide. 

To this, yesterday there was proposed an ainend- 
ment providing to give to the General Assembly the 
power to alter or amend as well as to repeal or revoke 
acts of incorporation; but this, after having been op¬ 
posed by the gentleman from Medina [Mr. Humphre- 
ville] and others, had been, after some debate with¬ 
drawn by the mover, [Mr. Reemehn] so that now, if 
the amendment as it stands shall be adopted, the only 
functi(jn which the General Assembly can exercise 
towards an act of incorporation of any kind or for any 
purpose, is nothing more nor less than its absolute, 
unconditional repeal and revocation. Let us look for a 
moment at the difficulties that will surround a measure 
of tins kind. It is said to be a Democratic proposition, 
and yet does it not come in direct conflict with the 
doctrine long advocated by the Democratic party, of 
the right of the Legislature to tax the Banks of the 
Slate upon their property, as citizens of the State are 
taxed? Do you not forever cut off the exercise of 
this power by this', the constitutional provision under 
consideration? Can you bring the banks under the 
operation of this principle without the necessity of an 
alteration in their charters? I seriously believe not. 
The provision under consideration partakes not of the 
character of a law that may be altered or repealed at 
the pleasure of the people or their representatives. It 
is a proposition intended to form a part of the organic 
law which will be imperative as long as the constitu¬ 
tion exists. The General Assembly will be bound by 
it. The Legislature can, under the provision, repeal 
charters, but cannot amend or alter. It may destroy 
them but cannot extend, by alteration or amend¬ 
ment, the influence and operation of the taxing power. 
Do gentlemen intend thus to limit the exercise of legis¬ 
lative power ? I trust—I believe not. 

But sir, it is not in relation to the taxing power only, 
that I look upon the proposition as injudicious, but for 
other reasons connected with the interest of the citi¬ 
zens. When it has become apparent that through 
some defect or oversight in legislation a right has been 
conferred, which, in its exercise may be incompatible 
with the public interest, the power to alter or amend 
the act becomes necessary; and if it is not possessed, 
the Legislature would be forced to consider the alter¬ 
native, either to bear the wrong, which may result 
from the unfortunate provisions of the charter, or to 
repeal it at once, and thus cut off the evil com¬ 
plained of. Now which would be preferable ? To 
have power by a simple provision, to retain all that is 
desirable, or to be forced, in order to get rid of a little 
that is bad, to destroy much that is good ? But, it is 
said that to confer upon the General Assembly the 
power to amend acts of incorporation, \vould be in el- 
lect to give encouragement to acts of special legislation. 
It is provided, say the advocates of this view of the 
subject, that corporations shall be created only by gen¬ 
eral, and not by special laws; now if a power still re¬ 
mains in the General Assembly to alter or amend the 
privileges of particular associations in particular cases, 
it is claimed that the result would be precisely the 
same as if the Legislature had the power to pass special 
acts of incorporation, and all the evil that has been the 
result of that practice would still exist, and perhaps in 
a still higher degree. 

But Mr. President, it does not seem to me, that the 
power to alter or amend, by any means necessarily 
admits the necessity of special legislation in these 
cases. Amendments to general laws may be provided 
by amendments as general as the laws themselves; and 













852 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


it will be found true that when a general act needs 
amendment, in order that the rights of one body organ¬ 
ized under it may be changed, it will require the same 
in regard to all others in like circumstances. For ex¬ 
ample : the General Assembly enacts a general law for 
the erection of one class of corporations—Banks per¬ 
haps. Under its provisions, three companies are form¬ 
ed —one in Cleveland, one in Cincinnati, and one in 
Columbus. The one in Columbus goes into operation, 
in advance of the other two; when it is found that 
owing to some defect in the law, the benefits supposed 
to accrue under its operation, and intended to bo con¬ 
ferred, are totally nullified and destroyed. Tins body 
petitions the General Assembly to supply the defect by 
a supplementary act; and it is certainly by no means 
necessary that the rights conferred by this act should 
be restricted to the institution at Columbus; but on the 
contrary it would be just and proper to make the 
amendment as extensive as the defect, and to apply it 
to all companies then or thereafter to be organized 
under the provisions of the general law. So that this 
objection falls to the ground. 

I have one other objection to the amendment. It is 
this, that it does not {)rovide sufficiently for the remu¬ 
neration of stock holders, when they have sustained 
loss by the repeal of their charters. 1 do not say that 
I would make such remuneration upon any prospec¬ 
tive profit which they might realize in case they w^ere 
permitted to continue their business. 1 w’ould not un¬ 
der the charter ; but I say this, that there must be ca¬ 
ses where there will accrue to the stockholders severe 
and serious loss, by the revocation of their franchises, 
which every principle of public faith and honor de¬ 
mands should be made up to them. To cite an in¬ 
stance; there are in the county in which I represent, 
as many as three bridges built l)y incorpoi'ated compa¬ 
nies, and which cost from fifteen to twenty-five thou¬ 
sand dollars each. These bridges have been of great 
convenience to the public, and are as necessary for the 
public convenience now as they ever were. But the 
General Assembly may see fit to repeal the charters 
under which they were erected, and by virtue of which 
private property in these bridges are now held. It says 
to the stock holders that all this property is w'antcd fi r 
the free use of the public—therefore your charters are 
repealed and the gates of these bridges are throw 
wide open for the benefit of the public to pass at pleas¬ 
ure liee from the liability of contribution. Now, sir, 
the stocks in these bridges are held by adults and mi¬ 
nors—by the wealthy citizen and by the man of moder¬ 
ate means. They are divested of their property forthe 
public good, but you provide not a payment to them 
in proportion to the value of the property you take. 
Now, sir, it may be said that the amendment under 
consideration gives to the Legislature the power to 
make just such remuneration as it may deem right and 
equitable. I admit this ; but in answer I will repeat 
what 1 have already said, that the right to occupy and 
enjoy private property should ever find security from 
above and beyond the mere will of the Legislature. 
This right should be found in the organic law of the 
State. The right is found iu the constitution of the 
United States, and itis because the terms of this amend¬ 
ment conflicts with that constitution, that I now raise 
my objection to its adoption. Say in your constitution 
that when such property is taken for the benefit of the 
public, that its just value shall be paid for, and leave 
it not to the mere will of the Legislature and I am wi h 
you. Such a provision as I have suggested would har¬ 
monize with the provisions of the United States con¬ 
stitution, and consequently on that ground be unobjec¬ 
tionable; whilst at the same time it would secure to 
the honest and industrious citizen a guarantee of the 
enjoyment of his property entirely without the reach 
of mere legislative will. 

Now, sir, what I have said with respect to properly 
in bridges, applies with equal force to turnpike compa¬ 
nies, railroad companies, and all other chartered com¬ 


panies for tlie purpose of promoting the public welfare 
by means of internal improvements. Why, sir, mill¬ 
ions—millions of dollars have been vested by our citi¬ 
zens in improvements of this kind—and yet you pro- 
{)Ose no other guarantee of its enjoyment than that 
which is found in mere legislative enactment! I can 
support no such provision. Nevertheless, I propose to 
give the Legislature power (which by the by it has al¬ 
ways had) to take all this })roperly if the public wel¬ 
fare requires it, but pay a just compensation therefor, 
and let that kind of compensation be provided for in 
the constitution. 

Now’, gentlemen, when they are talking of corpora¬ 
tions, and the power that should be exercised by the 
General Assembly, &c., are too apt to direct their at¬ 
tention exclusively to banking corporations, and lose 
sight entirely of the hundred other corporations that 
are provided, as well for the public advancement as 
for the interest of the corporation. They forget the 
millions of property invested in corporations for inter¬ 
nal improvement—capital that is held in greater or 
less amounts by every class of our citizens—and think 
only of the rich banker. Hence the great feeling that 
grow’s out of this subject. Why, sir, you may repeal 
a bank charter without taking from the banker one 
dollar's worth of property which he may have in store. 
You leave all his property and eftects of every kind 
with him. He still continues to enjoy it as though no 
repeal had taken place—so that he can have little or 
no claim to damages for property sacrificed. The re¬ 
peal affects him not, except in prospect. But, sir, such 
is not the fact wdth respect to the thousand and one 
corporations for public improvements. That portion 
of our fellow citizens who have freely vested their 
means for their own and the public good, should have 
the same protection—no more nor less—than the cit¬ 
izen whose real estate is taken fur the public good. 
Now', as to this case, you have protected the citizen 
by an express provision that the full value of his pro¬ 
perly shall be paid him, if taken for the public welfare. 
We were all unwilling to leave to legislative discretion 
the question of fixing the amount to be paid for the 
property so taken. Place property holders in corpo¬ 
rations formed fur the public welfare upon the same 
foundation precisely, and I am content. Let us not 
make a constitution that will ajiply to the enjoyment 
and security of one man’s property in one way, and to 
another man’s properly in another way. Such a con¬ 
stitution will not suit a peopde who advocate the doc¬ 
trine of equal rights and equal privileges. 

I object to the amendment, therefore, because it does 
not go far enough to harmcmize with the provisions of 
the constitution of the United States. It merely makes 
provision for the repeal, without securing to the prop¬ 
erty-holder the just value of his property taken or ren¬ 
dered valueless by the act of repeal. 

Mr. KING. My colleague has declared it to bo a 
part of the true policy of the State to pay damages to 
stockholders where franchises have been diverted by 
act of law’. May 1 ask how this policy is to be carried 
out? Who is to pay the damages, and how are they 
to be paid ? 

Mr. VANCE. My colleague has asked in what man¬ 
ner this compensation is to be made. Where such pro¬ 
vision is made, and a full and ample hearing is guar¬ 
anteed to the citizen, w'e have accomplished all, iu this 
respect, that it is our duty todo. 

I hold, Mr. President, that it is the duty of all gov¬ 
ernments to be just, as well in consideration of their 
duty, as of their respectability and their safety. I be¬ 
lieve, sir, that all governments that practice injustice 
w’ill sooner or later fall. No individual can be habit¬ 
ually dishonest without coming to ruin, and the rule 
as applicable to governments, is the same as applied 
to individuals. Such is the law of God, and it is im- 
unitublQ. We cannf)t practice national or individual 
dishonesty without, in the end, meeting that condign 
punishment which seems to be annexed to ill-doiifg, 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


not only as a penally, but as a necessary consequence. 
Dnless a government is just it will sooner or later be 
destroyed. Not only so, but the bad faith of govern¬ 
ment has all the effect of evil example upon the people 
who live under them; and the dishonesty of the one 
will be ever found to act upon and increase that of the 
other, thus augmenting the cause of evil, and aggrava¬ 
ting the tendency to the overthrow of the one, and the 
moral desolation of the other. 

Our duty here is merely to lay the basis, to establish 
the rock upon which the future legislation of the State 
is to be based. When we have done this we have done 
our duty—we have done enough. If we attempt to 
do more there is infinite danger of leaving undone what 
we came here to do, and endangering the adoption of 
the result of our labors, by the people. If we perform 
this duty well we shall have done a great work—infin¬ 
itely greater than to have traveled out of the true line 
of duty, for any purpose whatever. Here we ought 
to stop ; and I have regretted to see members so strong¬ 
ly disposed to go into detail, where generals are all, 
not only that is necessary, but that is compatible with 
our duty. 

If the General Assembly commits an error in legis¬ 
lation the obnoxious provision can be repealed. It 
need to exist but one year; but if we commit a mistake, 
and embody it in the constitution of the State, the peo¬ 
ple have power to remedy it but by another Conven¬ 
tion. 

I have drawn up an amendment which, in case of 
the rejection of the one under consideration, I propose 
to offer. I am not fully satisfied with its provisions, 
but if it meets the views of gentlemen, it may be per¬ 
fected in what it is defective—it is as follows : 

Mr. VANCE here read for information his proposed 
amendment; but subsequently modified, it was to read 
as follow’s: 

" Prided, that all acta ol incorporation, and acts granting 
franchises, may be altered, amended, revoked, or repealed, by 
the General Assembly of this State, upon such terms and condi¬ 
tions pertaining to the inviolability of private property, as is pro¬ 
vided in other cases in this constitution.” 

Mr. REEMELIN said: I had firmly resolved last 
^night not to say any thing again on this question, but 

ome four or five speeches have since been made on 

is subject, all adverse to the proposed amendment, 
and I trust therefore, it will not be taken amiss for the 
ffiends of the amendment to make one speech to their 
four. 

Before I enter into the main points under discussion 
I will, however, for fear of forgetting it, reply briefly 
to the point made by the gentleman from Butler, in re¬ 
ference to the amendment I bad the honor to offer yes¬ 
terday. I withdrew it, because I was not satisfied 
whether the addition of the words “ to alter or amend ” 
would not weaken the proposition, and carry with it a 
meaning which I do not desire. Being, therefore, not 
satisfied in my own mind, I withdrew it, becau e I pre 
fer, under such circumstances, not to act. So far as 
bank taxation is concerned, the gentleman,however, is- 
certainly wrong, for we will have a distinct proposi¬ 
tion in the constitution in reference to that subject, so 
that he need not be afraid but what banks will be prop¬ 
erly taxed. 

In endeavoring to get at the true meaning of all 
those who oppose the amendment, I was reminded of a 
remark attributed to the late Charles Hammond, “ that 
politics made strange bed-fellows.” In this discussion 
we find the greatest conglomeration of men, ideas and 
principles, which has ever been together in one politi¬ 
cal trundle-bed. No two of the opponents of the 
amendment could agree together in their opposition to 
it. It is a kind of triangular fight amongst them—all 
fighting together for one' object, but crossing and re¬ 
crossing each other. It is a thing so mixed up that 
you cannot get head nor tail of it. 

Here is the great Whig party, denying, in toto, the 
right to intei’fere with charters. Their doctiune is, that 
when the people have parted with any power, it is 


853 


gone forever. They have the merit, at least, of a kind 
of consistency—an immortal, anti-republican consisten¬ 
cy in their doctrines. Their preaching corresponds 
with their actions, and I cannot but admire the bold¬ 
ness of the ground they assume. With them the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly can barter away a portion of the pow¬ 
er of the sovereign people, and the people could not 
get it back again ! Their position has something tan¬ 
gible. 

But the positions of our so-called Democratic friends 
are of a migratory character—they hold all sorts of 
doctrine. 

Here is my honorable colleague [Mr. Groesbkck] 
voting for the unqualified power of repeal. He de¬ 
clares, by his vote and by his speech, the repealability 
of all charters now existing or to be brought into ex- 
stence hereafter—declaring that the right of repeal 
positively exists. But after he has gone the whole doc¬ 
trine, he takes it back by qualifying it, that whenever 
the Legislature does repeal a charter, it must make the 
parties whole; and making them whole, he says, means 
paying them for their property and their franchise. Let 
me say to my colleague, in all kindness and in all se¬ 
riousness, that I would most respectfully decline ac¬ 
cepting the power of repeal upon any such terms ! In 
the language of my friend from Monroe, [Mr. Arch- 
bold,] “ I look upon such a condition to a charter as 
an incestuous connection, which can lead only to mis¬ 
chief and corruption !” 

To illustrate the monstrosity of this doctrine, let us 
suppose that a parcel of men are going up to the Leg¬ 
islature to lobby the people out of a portion of their 
rights. They secure a charter of incorporation. The 
next year, or a few years afterwards, they go up again 
to the Legislature, to lobby for a repeal of their charter, 
and to get pay for the losses they sustain ; will they 
not have cheated the people one year by getting their 
charter 1 And the subsequent General Assembly will 
pay them for their roguery. Does my colleague’s pro¬ 
position not amount to this? According to his doctrine, 
if the Legislature has bartered away any portion of our 
rights, w’e must recover them back (if it is to be re¬ 
covered at all) by paying the price which may be set 
upon it by our plunderers! 

I admit that a corporate franchise is^property—prop¬ 
erty created by law—a grant or gift from the State. 
But, in many cases, it is property improperly obtained, 
and such cases the right of repeal is intended to reach. 
Shall we, then, be made to pay our own spoiler, and 
thus invite continued attacks upon our rights ? 

Let us for a moment longer consider the monstrosity 
of this proposition. Railroads were now made in the 
State of Ohio, not with a view to profitable dividends 
upon the money invested in them; but vv'ith a view to 
benefit the particular localities through which they 
pass—and to give an additional value to farm lands 
and town and city lots, and for commercial rivalry. In 
less than twenty years from this time, these railroads 
will cease paying fair dividends—such will be the ef¬ 
fect of competition. Their stockholders will then go 
to the Legislature and remind that body, that there is 
in our constitution a provision, which authorizes the 
repeal of all charters by paying for the franchises 
and' making the stockholder whole. They will log¬ 
roll for the repeal, and ask the State to take their rail¬ 
roads off their hands. They will have Iranceises re¬ 
pealed, so as to lie paid for them as property. If you 
thus repeal them they will be much obliged to you! 
As fast as the railroads or turnpikes will become un¬ 
profitable, they will log-roll for their repeal and thus 
their property will be paid for by the State ! The doc¬ 
trine leads directly to this monstrous result. It would 
prove, indeed, a most incestuous construction between 
the government and the corporations. I would far 
rather that all tliese corporations should live out their 
own time, unrepealed and undisturbed, save by their 
own blunders. Better no right of repeal, than on the 
condition that the State shall become thus responsible 










864 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


for the final adoption of these the bastard children of 
unequal legislation. This proj;)osition would saddle the 
people with a debt which no man dreamed of, and not 
a human soul can calculate. 

My honorable colleague tells us, that on such terms 
he has no doubt of the right of repeal. Neither have I, 
nor any body else—he warns us both privately and pub¬ 
licly, that his is the best way to get rid of obnoxious 
corporations. 

But I have to say to my colleague, as the Presbyte¬ 
rian said to the Universalist—“ If there is no hell, then 
I am as safe as you are, but, if there is a hell, llien I 
shall be safe, and you may be in danger;” so I may 
say to my honorable colleague. If he is right, (and I 
know he is,) in his affirmation, that we may exercise 
the right of appeal, without putting it in the constitu¬ 
tion, by paying for the franchise, still, putting in the 
right of repeal in so many words, will do no harm. 
But, if he should happen to be wrong, and I know, 
that, under the decisions of the United States, he is 
wrong, in his affirmation, that, under the right of emi¬ 
nent domain, we have the I’ight to take away charters, 
(I say this with due deference to the superior legal 
knowledge of iny colleague,) then, the adoption of the 
amendment he opposes, comes in as a saving clause—it 
will save us all. 

I trust I have demonstrated the untenableness of ray 
colleague’s proposition, but lest that should fail, here 
comes my friend from Belmont, [Mr. Ken non] by ta¬ 
king another shute. He travels out of the State and 
plants himself on the constitution of the United States, 
and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, under it. They, in his opinion, effectually de¬ 
bar us from the assertion of this right of repeal. 

When the gentleman from Belmont made the few 
remarks he did on yesterday, (though I heard him but 
very imperfectly,) I was struck with admiration more 
than ever before, for the wisdom and forecast of Thom¬ 
as Jefferson. I used to doubt whether Mr. Jefferson 
was right when he said, “ the time would come when 
the people of the United States would tremble at the 
power of the Supreme Court of the United States.” 
But when the gentleman from Belmont addressed the 
Convention last night,I acknowledge I trembled for our 
rights, as he portrayed the power now claimed for and 
exercised by that court. He tells us that, in matters 
pertaining to our own State business only, and to cor¬ 
porations within the State, the Supreme Court of the 
United States could undo, by its decisions, our consti¬ 
tution. That thus that Court can do what Congress 
has no right to do, and dare not do—attack and demol¬ 
ish our sovereign rights as a State! In other words, 
that all our rights, civil and personal, from the time of 
our infancy to the time of our grave, were, at last, to 
be decided upon by that tribunal; so, that, at least we 
have to depend, for the assertion of our rights, upon 
the abitrament of that Court. If that is the case, then 
we should feel humbled as a people, for but few know 
that such powers ever were intended to be conferred 
upon that tribunal; we should humbly, with due rev¬ 
erence for that dread arbiter, try, at least, to take the 
power back again. We should, like men, keep asser¬ 
ting our sovereignty, until we regain it. 

Sir, it is a most startling proposition, to hear men 
say that the Supreme Court of the United States may 
interpose their power in behalf of corporations in Ohio 
—may interfere her decisions in a case between a sov¬ 
ereign State and her creatures—may interpose with 
the authority of the Legislature of the State of Ohio 
in mere domestic matters. Sir, if this assumption be 
true, then the Judiciary of the General Government 
can do what Congress cannot, and dare not do. Then 
the Supreme Court has verified what Patrick Henry 
and others predicted. Through that tribunal the Gen¬ 
eral Government may sweep away one after another 
of the liberties of the country. Ther^, indeed, the Uni¬ 
ted States Government will become the grave of our 
freedom. 


This assumption of power, on the part of the Su¬ 
preme Court, amounts to this; The people of Ohio, 
meeting here in Convention like this, have no right to 
question its decisions in determining upon its domestic 
policy. Its judgment must be our judgment. Their 
decisions, when read to us, shall be as a plaster upon 
our mouths, to stop further inquiry. Sir, in this in¬ 
stance, as in all other cases of the exliibition of tyranny, 
I confess that I feel the spirit of resistance rising with¬ 
in me. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, (in his seat.) Maybe it is the 
spirit of prejudice. 

Mr REEMELIN. Well, perhaps it may be; per¬ 
haps we have been mistaken in the matter, but I will 
even put my prejudice against the prejudice of the 
Court, that 1 have yet to see the first political decision 
of the Supreme Court of the United States that was 
right; and it is pretty conclusive evidence, to my 
mind, that a man is wrong upon any political question 
when he gets to quoting the decisions of that Court. 
Instead of giving us sound political doctrine, I say they 
should have but little weight with us, for the people 
en masse reject them: but be their decisions what they 
may, that is no business of ours. It is our business to 
do right, to make a good Constitution, and to let the 
Supreme Court attend to its sphere. It is our business 
to declare the supreme law in Ohio—let us wait and 
see whether the Supreme Court dare interfere with it! 
I do not think that my friend from Butler, [Mr. Vance.] 
will differ much with me when we come to understand 
each other, and if we should be acting on any particu¬ 
lar case. I do not object much to the general propo¬ 
sition, that the Legislature should exercise the power 
of repealing charters upon equitable terms. Nor 
would I object to the idea, that when the faith of the 
State has been properly pledged, a charter should be 
heedlessly repealed. I admit that we should not 
heedlessly disturb any of the existing relations of life. 
But who ever contended that we should do so ? Who 
wants the Legislature to sweep, indiscriminately, eve¬ 
ry corporation in the State out of existence, and com¬ 
mit wholesale robbery all over the land, by appropria¬ 
ting their property to the State treasury, or render it 
useless ? None have pi’oposed such a thing, none desire 
such a state of afiairs. 

Nor have I much objection, that inmost cases,'when 
you take away the franchises, the property held by 
the corpoi’ation should revert to the corporators. Some¬ 
times tins would be right, and sometimes it would be 
wrong. In the case of some turnpike companies, it 
might not be right to give them anything when you 
take away their corporate powers—as in the case of 
the Sandusky Turnpike Company—in others it would 
be right. But I object to making a rule by which all 
corporations shall be judged. We are laying a foun¬ 
dation upon which our institutions are to be based, and 
therefore, should not go so far into specifications. We 
should state the general principle, leaving details to 
the General Assembly. I ask him to consider, wheth¬ 
er, in his amendment, which he read for information, 
he is not committing the very error against which he 
admonishes us? Has he not gone more into detail 
than we ? He not only asserts the right of repeal, but 
he establishes an iron rule by which the Legislature 
shall be governed in the matter in every case. For in¬ 
stance, in the case of a benevolent society, whose pro- 
])erty was collected from men long dead, but which 
has declined and gone down, so that the existijig mem¬ 
bers would ask the Legislature to take away their 
charter, with a view that the property in such a case, 
under his amendment, might go to the remaining cor¬ 
porators, as most certainly it would, would it be right? 
Again, in the case of a bridge company, which may 
have already received back (as the gentleman gave in¬ 
stances) some four fold of the original investment; sup- 
pose it were necessary, for public purpo.se8, to displace 
it for a better bridge, which the company would refuse 
to build, and the Legislature should takeaway its char- 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


856 


ter, should they go to such a company and say, we will 
repay you to the amount of your capital, and six per 
cent, on your original investment ? Certainly not! 
Equity should guide there, and not a pre-existing con¬ 
stitutional rule. This would satisfy both parlies better. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, (interposing.) I did not ad¬ 
vocate the principle that damages should be paid where 
the parties had brought evil upon themselves, but only 
in cases of actual loss. 

Mr. RBEMELIN. Well, what is the property of 
such a bridge company worth? for that is all you pro¬ 
pose to leave them—the stone abutments, jdaidis and 
shingles. They would be wmi-tn very little. I say 
that his iron rule wmuld work in many cases as great 
injustice, as any arbitrary Legislature could inflict. I 
admit that it might perhaps operate equitably in other 
cases, but of that the General Assembly should be the 
judge as each case arises. 

Mr. VANCE. I said upon such principles as the 
Legislature may prescribe. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Yes sir, the gentlenmu did say 
so. But his amendmnnt reads different, and I am try¬ 
ing to show him the injustice of his attempts to estala- 
iish an unalterable rule, such as his amendment con¬ 
templates, where the stock of a company has been un¬ 
productive, and where a company have long exercised 
their powers with advantage, then different rules oughc 
to obtain. The matter should be settled upon terms 
which will be equitable then and not upon what may 
be equitable now. 

In many cases, as I have said before, corporation 
stock is taken wdth a view to increase the value of prop¬ 
erty along the line of the contemplated improvement; 
and now, I would ask the gentleman, whether he would 
be willing to prescribe a rule which must be binding 
a hundred years hence. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, (interrupting.) Does the gentle¬ 
man think there is any charter in the State w^hich has 
even thirty years to run ? 

Mr. REEMELIN. Yes sir, that unfortunate word 
“ perpetual,” is to be found in the charter of a good 
many companies in Ohio. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. There never was, whilst I was 
in the Legislature a single charter granted forpez'petu- 
ity; nor, as I think, for more than twenty years. 

Mr. REEMELIN. All I have to say in reply, is, that 
the gentleman is mistaken. The point I make is, that 
you cannot make a rule that will apply equitable in all 
cases, in this constitution ; and when I was interrupt¬ 
ed I was about to ask the gentleman from Butler, 
whether he was willing to make a rule to operate one 
hundred, or even fifty years hence. 

Mr. VANCE, (interposing, and Mr. R. yielding,) 
said: There may be an equitable mode adopted; but 
that mode should be in itself equitable, and not left to 
the discretion of the Legislature. The objection which 
I take to the proposition, is, that it proposes that the 
Legislature shall prescribe the terms upon which the 
repeal shall be made. I would prefer that the terms 
should be fixed here, so as to operate equitably be- 
tw'eeu the State and the stock holders. Let the naked 
principle go into the constitution, and let that be equi¬ 
table. If there be no loss, then there need be no re¬ 
muneration. 

Mr. REEMELIN resuming. The gentleman has not 
bettered his condition. There must be a discretion in 
the General Assembly at the time they exercise the 
power of repeal. Let any one go through carefully 
with all the various classes of corporations, such as 
religious corporations, literary corporations, intellectu¬ 
al improvement corporations, and banking corpora¬ 
tions—and it will become self-evident, that a discre¬ 
tion as to the manner of winding up, and the final dis¬ 
position of property, must be exercised by the Legis- 
lure, whenever they exercise the power of repealing a 
charter. 

(Mr. R. gave instances from the past, in the case of 
the Sandusky Turnpike Company, and other instances. 


&c.,) and added, corporations are the creatures of the 
law. The law gives them breath—without it they 
cease to exist. Natural persons have rights from Na¬ 
ture’s God. Their rights are inalienable. Those of 
corporations are ephemeral, and they must abide by 
their ephemeral existence. 

But let us not mistake each other, (he continued,) 
let no man suppose that we are differing only about 
details. Our friends may be involuntarily deceiving 
themselves. The difference between us lies deeper—it 
is radical—from the starting point upward. The sover¬ 
eign power of the people, the basis of all democratic 
principles, is involved. We do not differ merely about 
the rule to be applied, in case the power of repeal is 
exercised; no, the real point of difference upon their 
part, arises from a leaning toward corporations on one 
side, and a distrust of the people on the other. I know 
that my colleague and our other erring democratic 
friends will revolt at this imputation ; but I will show 
that it is so, however much they may try to deceive 
themselves or others. 

Let me ask my colleague and the gentleman from 
Butler, to tell us honestly what picture was in their 
minds of the Legislature and the people, when speak¬ 
ing on this subject. Do not their words reflect from 
the mirror of their hearts, the Legislature as a kind of 
public authorized mob, going about, amongst corpora¬ 
tions, seeking whomsoever they may devour? taking 
off the heads of corporations, here and there, at pleas¬ 
ure ; removing turnpike gales, and running riot all over 
the land ? Sir, I see the picture plainly, and your lis¬ 
ters have with me recognized it. Instead of seeing in 
the Legislature what they ought to see—a body of rep¬ 
resentatives reflecting the will of an honest people, 
taking care of the general interests of the people, ha¬ 
ting none, but protecting all—they see nothing but a 
kind of mob entirely hostile to the interests of corpora¬ 
tions and kindred interests, and therefore from its pre¬ 
judices liable to improper and dishonest impulses— 
incapable of exercising the power of repeal properly. 
To show that I am right in this, let me remind you 
only of the language of my honorable colleague. He 
supposes the existence of a corporation,‘-which has 
meekly exercised clearly nothing but its appropriate 
legal powers.” That is a supposition surely! for if 
there is such a corperation in the State of Ohio, I should 
like to hear the name of it, and Barnum should show it 
about the country as a curiosity. But my colleague 
proceeds: “If the Legislature, acting impulsively and 
upon the spur of the moment, should repeal the char¬ 
ter of such a company”-Did I not tell you that 

while they look upon the Legislature as a kind of mar¬ 
ket-house assembly , easily excited and acting from ex¬ 
citement, they also look upon corporations as meek 
and honest, and under the control of fair-minded menj? 
The People and the General Assembly they paint 
black—the corporations white. 

It is a little strange, and worthy of remark, that each 
and every member who has spoken upon this subject, 
and taken this ground, belongs to the legal profession, 
and that each and all of their propositions tend di¬ 
rectly to increase the amount of litigation ; I make no 
charge of improper motives, but such is the direct ten¬ 
dency of every proposition which those gentlemen 
have made ; and none of them is more plainly marked 
in this respect than that read by the gentleman from 
Butler. 

If my colleague’s proposition were coupled with that 
of the gentleman from Ashtabula, [Mr. Woodbury,] 
givin*^ the right to sue the State, then the sooner eve¬ 
ry honest man could get out of the State, the better; 
for evei'y corporation in the State would then be anx¬ 
ious for repeal, whenever their business would become 
unprofitable, and the State would have to foot the bill. 
What a harvest for lawyers! What a fine milch cow 
the State would prove to be. 

Strange that these legal gentlemen should strive to¬ 
gether in order to drive us back from the plain course 










856 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


of our duty ! Will they take it unkindly if I tell them 
that the whole basis of their studies is in direct conflict 
with our institutions, and that they have studied law 
upon monarchical, and not upon republican principles; 
tnat their arguments are all derived from monarchical 
institutions ? For such is the fact, and it is but seldom 
that legal men get clear of the early impressions 
they receive by studying monarchical authors. They 
have got their ideas from Blackstone, Montesquieu, and 
men of that kind, who were far ahead of their own 
times, but really never reached true republican prin¬ 
ciples. In monarchies, corporations are properly de¬ 
fended by the courts against the whims of the king. 
There the charters of corporations should not be taken 
away easily. Corporations there occupy a position 
antagonistical to the king. And it may be right there 
to curb the kings, for experience proves kings too of¬ 
ten to have been violators of the rights of property. 
But here, where there is no king, wliere we want no 
power antagonistical to the great sovereign—the peo¬ 
ple—here there is no need of such a rule. 

The true position corporations occupy in this gov¬ 
ernment, is too often mistaken. This was the error of 
Chief Justice Marshall, and is the error of every gen¬ 
tleman who has spoken here upon this subject, aud 
against the right of repeal. They are all wrong as to 
the facts ; and the premises being wrong, the argu¬ 
ments based thereon are equally so. They claim that 
a charter and its franchises are a contract; whereas, 
in most instances, it lacks the main ingredient of a con¬ 
tract—the right of the contracting parties to make it. 
Almost every corporation takes away power from the 
people, and is, in most instances, a violation of the fun¬ 
damental compact, at least to the extent of the exclu¬ 
sive privileges granted to them, and to some extent do 
they all take away power from the people. There¬ 
fore, while in England, 1 might favor the proposition 
that corporations should not be at the mercy of the 
government, because, in that country, they abstract 
power from the crown, and are so far useful, and con¬ 
tributing there to a greater distribution of power, they 
strengthen the power of the great body of the people. 
But, sir, in this countiy, corporations continually ab¬ 
stract power from the people, and they have become 
the fortified strongholds of legal wrongs. They feel 
that they occupy a position antagonistical to the spirit 
of our institutions, and, therefore, they are alarmed at 
every popular movement. The holder of a wrong 
never yet felt safe beforathe people. They know they 
enjoy exemptions and privileges beyond what is ac¬ 
corded to individuals, and they feel it is expecting a 
little too much of a republican people to be permitted 
to enjoy them long unquestioned. But their fears have 
so far been only of their own creation. 

The people and the Genei’al Assembly have been the 
very fathers of corporations. Will the gentleman from 
Monroe point me to the time when the Legislature of 
Ohio has exercised this power of repealing charters 
improperly? Or will any other gentleman point out to 
me the repeal of a single corporation which has acted, 
as my friend says, meekly, aud within the letter of the 
law? Where has been the case? Take the whole 
range of the United States, and where, I ask, is the 
example of such a corporation heedlessly stricken 
down ? 

Gentlemen talk about prejudices against the banks 
and corporations generally. Who created those preju¬ 
dices, if they exist at all ? Who, but the banks and 
corporations themselves ? Had the banks of Ohio 
done only what they should have done, had they 
not violated the rights of individuals, had they doffed 
their exclusive charter, then these dreadful dema¬ 
gogues might have said what they pleased, the peo¬ 
ple would still have stood by them. It is wrong to call 
the popular feeling against the banks and corpora¬ 
tions a prejudice: it is a judgment upon them on ac¬ 
count of their iniquities. Sir, the only difficulty is, 
that this power of repeal will not be exercised as of¬ 


ten as it should be. I appeal to my friend from Mon¬ 
roe, with whom I have often stood shoulder to shoul¬ 
der in the Legislature, in many a battle against the 
power of corporations,—I appeal to him to say wheth¬ 
er the power of corporations is not too strong ? wheth¬ 
er it ever was as weak as members now desire to 
paint it, or whether there is any danger that it will' 
ever become so ? I tell you sir, and a long experience 
proves my assertion true, that every corporation which 
acts properly, by keeping in view the public good as 
tlie great object of its creation is as safe in the hands of 
the Legislature as a babe in its mother’s lap. Then let 
us hear no more talk of the opposition and the preju¬ 
dice raised against banks and corporations by the 
preaching of demagogues. Let men cease to ask ex¬ 
clusive privileges and immunities. Let corporations 
be confined to their appropriate sphere of duty; let 
equality be the rule of all, and demagogues may preach 
in the market house, but nobody will listen to them. 
Corporations, which under the pretence of public good 
have obtained charters and then violated every prop¬ 
er public interest, only sub.serving private interest, 
may well fear, for they will receive the animadver¬ 
sions and attacks of freemen. Or does my friend from 
Butler [Mr. Vance] mean to assert that when a cor¬ 
poration does violate its powers, its charter should not 
be repealed? Certainly he does not mean that*; but 
still his doctrine leads to it, and his speech was as 
much in defence of the dishonest and oppressive, as of 
the honest and unoffending corporation. 

All we ask is, that the Legislature shall possess the 
discretion to exercise this power equitably—and the 
only question is, whether you have confidence in that 
body that they will do so. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, (in his seat.) Undoubtedly. We 
have as much confidence in the Legislature as the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton. 

Mr. REEMELIN. If you have confidence in the 
Legislature, what are you afraid of ? 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I am afraid of anarchy. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Who will bring about anarchy ? 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Thedemagogues, by cheating the 
people. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Ah'! Are you there? Afraid 
of demagogues? Afraid of the freedom of speech? 
He need not be. Our people act not from violent tem¬ 
porary excitements. They rule through the ballot 
box. Nor is it the people of one county, that rules ; 
no mere local excitement can prevail, for it will require 
a majority of all the members of the General Assembly 
to effect the repeal. Sir, I affirm it again, that these 
gentlemen have no confidence in the Legislature, and 
still less in the people. The people they picture to 
themselves as a mob in a market house,—the General 
Assembly like a French Assembly; verily the fears of 
their own iniquity make them afraid. 

Sir, the history of Ohio in reference to this subject, 
has been the history of wrongs, without parallel in the 
world,—and patiently borne by the people. What 
corporation has clearly carried out the intention of the 
law, creating it? What corporation does not now 
enjoy exclusive privileges and exclusive immunities. 
Turnpike road companies have done perhaps the least 
wrong, but still even they have often violated the 
rights of the people—even they sometimes deserved 
repeal. But the people have been patient aud enduring 
—too much so for their own good. 

Our friends admit the right of repeal as inherent in 
the General Assembly,—why will they not trustit with 
its equitable exercise? 

And now I wish to say a word, in conclusion, which 
I hope will not be taken unkindly. 

What is it that the people expect of us? Do they 
not expect of us to assert the doctrine of the right of 
repeal, without qualification ? Did they not for that, 
among other purposes, send the majority here ? And 
why have the democracy of the State of Ohio, in State 
and county conventions—yea, why have we, in our 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


867 


town meetings, in our speeches and in our presses, as¬ 
serted this great doctrine ? Because, in the language 
of Lamartine, it is an assertion of the rights of the liv¬ 
ing against the wrongs of The dead ! What is it ? If 
men, now in their graves, have granted improper char¬ 
ters, improperly, the People, here assembled in Col 
lege Hall, holding an inquest upon the past, have a 
right to assert the right of the Legislature to say to 
these dead men, “ you were wrong.” 

And what will the people say of us democrats if you 
fail to say so ? They will say of us as a neighbor of 
mine says of his dog : as you approach the door sill, 
the dog will run up to you, looking ferociously, as if 
he were going to tear you to pieces. But the old man 
will cry out, in his peculiar sharp tone of voice, Don’t 
be afraid, the dog won’t bite.” So they will say of 
the democrats, if we fail to put the unqualified right of 
repeal into the constitution. They will say of the dem¬ 
ocrats, “ they can bark, but they won’t bite.” The 
people will hereafter justly mistrust the democratic 
party, and men will with justice call us demagogues— 
for it will become obvious to the most blind, that our 
actions do not correspond with our speeches, and that 
we are afraid to act upon our principles. 

Mr. BATES now moved that the Convention adjourn; 
which was agreed to. 


MONDAY^ December 30, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr BARNET presented a petition from James Wil¬ 
loughby and forty-seven others, citizens of Ohio, pray¬ 
ing that the Convention may form a Republican Con¬ 
stitution, and also that they will not prohibit by consti¬ 
tutional provision, the use of ardent spirits: Which 
was read by the Secretary. It is in the following 
words: 

To the Constitutional Convention: 

We, the undersigned, citizens of Ohio, pray your honorable 
body to form a republican constitution, for the government of 
the State of Ohio ; and ask your honors not to put in a provision 
to prohibit the use of ardent spirits, as we regard it dishonorable 
and anti-republican, to dictate to man what to eat and drink 
We suppose ourselves capable of dictating to our own conscien¬ 
ces; or at least, we suppose that the constitution of the United 
States gives us the privilege of dictating to ourselves, and believe 
all fanatical position for the prohibition of said ardent spirits, 
anti-republican, and injurious to mankind and the rest of the the 
world. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND, presented a petition from Aaron 
Andrews and sixty-seven others, citizens of Lorain co., 
praying that a clause be inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD presented petitions from Joseph 
Johnson and two hundred and five others, citizens, and 
from Martha L. Johnson and one hundred and Ibrty-five 
others, ladies of Monroe county, on the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. STANTON. Mr. President, I ask the indul¬ 
gence of the Convention for a moment, to enable me 
to correct an error in the report of the proceedings of 
the Convention, which cannot now be corrected in any 
other way. 

In the Ohio State Journal report of the remarks 
made by me on the 13th iiist., on the subject of taxing 
State bonds, as reported in the Daily Journal of the 
24th inst., a portion of the speech, making about one- 
third of a column, is taken from its place, made the 
close of my remarks, and given as the beginning of 
them, before the introduction of Amin Bey; who, it 
will be recollected, was introduced before I commenc¬ 
ed. Following this fragment of the speech, comes in 
a jocular conversation between the gentleman from 
Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] and some others, whilst wait¬ 
ing the introduction of the august visitor. Then comes 
the introduction of Amin Bey, the address of the Pres¬ 


ident, and the reply to it. Then the commencement 
and conclusion of the speech. 

The Statesman report is correct, with the exception 
of a few typographical errors of no great consequence. 
The Journal report has the same typograi)hical errors, 
and was published one day after the Statesman, thus 
showing that it was copied from the Statesman report. 
This shows that tfip blunder was made in the Journal 
office. 

The Journal containing the speech, was read here 
on the 25tb, or 26th, I arn not sure which. On the day- 
after the recept of it, I addi essed a note to the publish¬ 
ers of the Journal, advising them of the error, and re¬ 
questing its correction before publication in the volume 
of debates. On yesterday, I read it in book form, in 
the same mutilated condition. I am therefore compell¬ 
ed to resort to this, as the only mode left, of correcting 
it. I know it is customary on such occasions as this, to 
exonerate reporters, printers, and all concerned, from 
all blame, and to charge it all to inevitable accident, 
I shall not do violence to my convictions of truth, by- 
saying any such thing. 

To say the least, it was the result of the grossest neg¬ 
ligence, and ought to impair public confidence in the> 
correctness of the entire work. 

It is due the reporters, to say, that I revised the man¬ 
uscript of the speech, and found it reported with more 
than ordinary accuracy. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the Convention take up ihe^ 
report of the standing committee on the Legislative De¬ 
partment; which was agreed to. 

The question being on agreeing to the amendment of 
Mr. Humphrevillk, as amended: 

Mr. KING desired the indulgence of the Convention 
for a few moments, while he endeavored to define hie- 
position upon the important subject now under consid¬ 
eration, and he was the more anxious to do so, on ac¬ 
count of the difference in opinion between his colleague,. 
[Mr. Vance, of Butler,] and himself—a difference how¬ 
ever, which he thought when they came to understand 
each other perfectly, would disappear. 

The question now under debate, involves the right^of 
the General Assembly to repeal acts of incorporation. 
That the legislative power of the State, does possess- 
this right, is a principle of the democratic party, for 
the triumph of which, it has long contended. That 
party has always holden that the power to enact laws,, 
and to repeal euch laws as have been enacted, is an 
attribute of the popular sovereignty, which cannot be 
parted with. The object of all legislation, is to pro¬ 
vide such laws as shall best promote the general wel¬ 
fare, and this is as applicable to its functions in the 
creation of corporate bodies, as to all others. If the 
general welfare is not promoted by the laws that are 
passed, or by the acts of incorporation that are estab¬ 
lished—if on the contrary, the public interest is preju¬ 
diced, what is the remedy ? The body which had the 
power to enact, has reserved the power to repeal, al¬ 
ter and amend. If it is not so, every object of our po¬ 
litical organization is defeated. 

Gentlemen appear to apprehend, that should the 
right of repeal be established in the constitution, that 
therefore, every act of incorporation must be repealed. 
Our turnpikes, railroads and bridges, must be thrownr 
open to the public. Now, Mr. President, it would ap¬ 
pear to me, that this is expressing great distrust of the 
legislative power, as well as of the people, and goes 
very far, to establish the opinion, that corporations are 
of too sacred a character, to be subjects of legislative- 

control. TP, 

The Le^^islature is the guardian of the general wel- 
fore. It is'not to be presumed, that they will repeal any- 
act of incorporation, unless the public interest imperi¬ 
ously demands it. When the public interest shall de¬ 
mand it, it is not only their right, but it becomes their 
duty, as the representatives of the people, to resume- 
those powers conferred upon corporators inimical to 
the general welfare, upon such just and equitable terms- 












«58 


CONVENTION REPOKTS, 


as iu their judgment would appear to be right and 
proper. 

But we are told that the courts of the State and of 
the United Slates have decided that acts of incorpora¬ 
tions are contracts, and that being such, Legislatures 
have no power to repeal, alter or amend them. That, 
Mr. President, is the very reason why I want to in- 
-clude that power in the constitution. In order to 
prove the correctness of their doctrine, gentlemen 
bring up the decisions of courts, as if these decisions 
were to be binding upon us. Now I have no disposi¬ 
tion to treat with disrespect the decisions of the courts, 
except so far as they conflict with the majesty and 
power of the people; but if gentlemen suppose that 
the labors of this Convention are to be controlled and 
counteracted by the decisions of tribunals existing 
under its provisions, they will find themselves mista¬ 
ken. 

But v/e are told that the “ faith of the State ” is in¬ 
volved in this matter, and that we cannot declare that 
the Legislature shall have power to repeal all acts of 
incorporation—those now iu existence as well as those 
hereafter to be granted—without a violation of that 

faith. 

1 cannot see the application of this argument to the 
•question in debate, lor I know of no citizen of Ohio, 
belonging either to the Whig or Democratic party, 
who is not in favor of upholding the faith and credit of 
the State. 

But my colleague [Mr. Vance] also desires to press 
upon us the binding force,, “ the validity of contracts,” 
in this case. Does he mean to be understood that all 
acts of incorporation are “ contracts?” 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler. I do not. 

Mr. KING. How then can the gentleman apply his 
remarks, upon which he laid so much stress, with re¬ 
gard to the “ validity of contracts,” and the imperious 
necessity that we should preserve the “ faith and cred¬ 
it” of the State by recognizing the binding fox’ce of 
contracts? Sir, Ido not believe that my honorable 
•colleague really thinks that an act of incorporation is a 
“ contract,” in the sense iu which that term is used in 
■the constitution of the United States. But I am at a 
loss to understand why he should spend so much time 
in arguing upon the binding force of contracts in con¬ 
nection with the question upon the right of the Legis¬ 
lature to repeal all acts of incorporation, when the pub¬ 
lic interest shall require such repeal. 

In the course of the remarks made by my colleague 
on Saturday, and while ho was advocating the proprie- 
ity of compensating individual members of a corpora¬ 
tion for the peeuniai'y damages caused by the repeal 
•of a charter, which the Legislature might declare an- 
itagonistic to the public interests, I inquired of him up¬ 
on what principle he would refund to corporators the 
amount of money they might be supposed to lose by a 
repeal of their charter ? 

Take the case which he himself cited—the Hamil¬ 
ton Bridge Company.” 

If the General Assembly must pay heavy damages 
to corporators every time a charter is repealed, that 
fact alone will prevent the resuming of any franchise 
by the State, no matter how much the grant thereof 
may have been abused. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Why then do you desire that the 
power of repeal, acting on all charters now in exist¬ 
ence as well as upon all hereafter to be granted, shall 
be conferred on the Legislature ? 

I Mr. KING. Because that power rightfully belongs 
to the people, and they should have freedom to exer¬ 
cise it, through their representatives, at all times and 
on all occasions, where and when they may deem 

right- . S® 

If corporators are afraid to trust the people with 
this power, that fear is, of itself, a good argument in 
favor of the retention of that power by the people. 

There are some Democrats—some who class them¬ 
selves with the Democratic party—who shrink back 


when it is proposed to lay the hand of legislation upon 
corporations with the same freedom that legislation ap¬ 
proaches any other interest iu society ; and they ask us, 
” Why do you seek to confensuch a novel power upon 
the General Assembly ?” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Why will not the gentleman 
from Butler be satisfied if we incorporate iu the new 
constitution a provision that all acts of incorporation 
hereafter granted may be repealed ? 

Mr. KING. Because, sir, it is upon those very char¬ 
ters—those already in existence—that we desire this 
Democratic principle to operate. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking. Does the gentleman deny 
that the courts have held that acts of incorporation 
cannot be repealed ? 

Mr. KING. Since the decision iu the “ Dartmouth 
College case,” the courts, it is true, have often decided 
that charters could not be repealed by legislative en¬ 
actment. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking. Then suppose that, under 
the provisions—such as gentlemen propose—of the new 
constitution, the Legislature repeals an act of incorpo¬ 
ration, the corporators appeal to the courts, and they 
decide that the Legislature possesses and can possess 
no power to enact such a repeal? 

Mr. KING. Being a “law and order” man, I sup¬ 
pose I should have to yield to judicial decisions. 

Mr. MITCHELL. We will appeal and take the case 
up to the people. 

Mr. KING. This is an age of progress—progress in 
political and legal knowledge, as well as in the arts and 
sciences, and I hope for a reform in the judiciary in 
this respect. 

But, Mr. President, if the courts do at ali times thus 
protect the rights of corporations—if gentlemen are so 
certain that the judiciary will always step iu between 
the will of the people, as expressed through their 
representatives, and the corporations of the State, why 
are gentlemen so sensitive about incorporating the re¬ 
peal principle in the constitution ? With their view of 
the case, corporations are certainly safe. But believing 
as I do, that the decisions of the courts are wrong and 
adverse to the rights and best interests of the people, 

I could not discharge my duties to my constituents, nor 
satisfy my personal convictions of what is right in the 
case, did I not do all in my power to assert in the or¬ 
ganic law of the State, what I believe to be an inherent 
and inalienable I’ight of the people. Thus much with 
regard to acts of incorporation. The views that I now 
express, are those that have governed me every where 
and in every relation of life—they have governed me 
as a private citizen, as a member of the Legislature, and 
are governing me as a delegate ot the people in this 
Convention. I sincerely regret the necessity of differ¬ 
ing from my colleague upon this question, and I may be 
allowed to express the hope that before this question 
is finally decided, it will be found that we do not differ 
so much as it would seem that we now do. 

The question being upon agreeing to Mr. Humphrk- 
ville’s amendment, as amended, to wit: 

Add to the end of Sec. 35, the following: 

“ Provided that the General Assembly shall have poveer torepeal 
or revoke any charter of incorpoi'ation, now or hereafter granted, 
and the principles and franchises of any incorporated company, 
upon such just and equitable terms for the collection and pay¬ 
ment of debts, and the disposition of the property of such com¬ 
pany as they may provide.” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD rose and said: 

Mr. Rresident: As iu the course of this debate, fre¬ 
quent allusions have been made, to opinions known to 
be entertained by my friends and myself, and as none 
of them seem disposed to say any thing, I shall attempt 
a reply. The gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer,] 
has admonished us of the value of lime, and the neces¬ 
sity of brevity in our remarks. Aware of the purity 
of tliat gentleman’s intentions, I assure him, and the 
Convention that I shall not utter one word except under 
a sense of duty—not one word for mei-e display, or to 
court newspaper notoriety. It is due to justice to add^ 









GONVEN'IION REPORTS. 869 


that if the session shall be prolonged—if our work shall 
become tedious, that result will be produced by the 
instrumentality of those men, who insist on embodying 
a whole code in the constitution, by the men who insist 
ou carrying their extreme dogmas into that instrument. 
If men will make propositions and propositions known 
to be objectionable to many members on this Hoor, they 
will be debated—they will be resisted—they ought to 
be debated—they ought to be resisted. Let gentlemen 
who agree with us in desiring a short session, agree 
with us also in continuing our labors to the formation 

of an ORGANIC LAW. 

I bespeak a kind hearing from the Convention, while 
engaged in defending, as I verily b&lieve, not only the 
interests of my own constituents, but of all the men of 
small and moderate means throughout the State. It 
gentlemen wish to ask questions, I would prefer that 
they should do so towards the close of my remarks, 
they shall then bo answered according to the best of 
my poor ability. I make this request because a sud¬ 
den interruption of my train of argument sometimes 
produces slight embarrassment. It is well known that 
1 have not a hard face. A man rising in the midst of 
such an assembly as this, may well be excused, if he 
manifest some slight trepidation—some litt'e nervous 
agitation. It is profound respect for his audience 
which overawes him. It is the immense array of moral 
and mental force which he discovers all around him, 
that makes him solicitous for the result. The same 
man might possibly do himself no disgrace in going on 
a forlorn hope, or in scaling a counterscarp. Rightly 
understood, then, these manifestations of slight nervous 
agitation, are the most forcible appeal^ to the kindness 
and generosity of an audience. No man is so affected 
in the presence of an assemblage, wdiich does not im¬ 
press him profoundly. 

Since this debate began, we have repeatedly heard, 
in this Hall, the language of intimidation. Gentlemen 
rise and exclaim, “ You have no confidence in the peo¬ 
ple,” “ You distrust the people,” “ You do not believe 
in the virtue or intelligence of the people,” “ You care 
nothing for the interests of the people,” “ You have no 
sympathy wdth the people,” “ You do not love the peo¬ 
ple.” There can be no mistake as to the persons to 
whom this language is addressed. It is addressed to 
seven or eight men on this side of the Hall, to my par¬ 
ticular friends and myself. The short list of names | 
might as well be read out. ! 

The name of the people is a name of power, a name 
of magic. It fills the mind with vast ideas, like the 
sight of the vast illimitable ocean, or of mountain 
masses piled on mountain masses—the Andes or the 
Cordilleras, the Alps or the Appenines. Like the con¬ 
ception of objects in nature, the most august and the 
most sublime. Residing in the millions that inhabit 
this great union, we behold an aggregate of mental, 
moral and physical force, perfectly overw'helming. 
Yet, when this great name is invoked, to overawe me, 
to turn me into a trembling slave, to make me forego 
my convictions of right, to make me speak, and vote, 
and act ou this floor, in defiance of the voice of con¬ 
science and of duty, my heart rises in instant rebellion. 

If the people of good old Monroe are willing to be 
represented by a man breathing the air of moral puri¬ 
ty, honest throughout, soul, body, and spirit, if they 
are willing to be represented by a man all whose aims 
are his country’s his God’s and truth’s, my humble 
abilities are very much at their service. But if they 
expect me to form one of a band of polished and elo¬ 
quent, or mute and trembliug “slaves,” from the east¬ 
ern, western, or middle “provinces,” I shall disdain 
to mingle with the ignoble crowd. Gentlemen can 
effect nothing by covert threats of loss of elections. 
They cannot lay hold of my mind by the representation 
of such motives. T have no political ambition. Once, 
indeed, when sunk ten thousand fathoms deep in the spit 
of adversity and indigence, I may have had aspirations 
of that kind, but time and experience have wrought a 


change. A jilace in legislative assemblies is not nec¬ 
essary to my happiness, perhaps does not even increase 
it. My heart can bound joyously, my blood can run 
and niy [)ulse can beat quickly, when far away from' 
such places. I indulge no affectation of being indiffer¬ 
ent to the good or ill opinion of mankind. He that is 
so, must be more or less than mortal man. I can even 
worship the image of popular favor, with .something 
like the fervor of an eastern devotion. But if that 
worship demands one artificer, one sacrifice of truth 
and candor, I shall renounce it as a costly and forbid¬ 
den idolatry. I will not listen to the voice of an up¬ 
braiding conscience, when my locks turn white and 
my eyes grow dim. Let me alone, therefore—let me 
alone, I will pass on in a right line to my destiny. 

Gentlemen insist on granting to the General Assem¬ 
bly an unlimited, unqualifiea right of repeal of all 
charters of incorporation, either heretofore or hereaf¬ 
ter granted. We do not deny this right of repeal, but 
we insist that when the property of “ Associates ” is 
taken away by mere legislative enactments, it ought to 
be paid for, just as the property of other citizens must 
be paid for, when taken for the public use by legisla¬ 
tive action, by an exertion of the right of eminent do¬ 
main ; that, when it is alleged that the associates have 
forfeited their property or their franchises by crime or 
delinquency—reason, sound policy, the principles of 
jurisprudence, all demand that the accused should be 
sent into some court, where .he fact can be inquired 
into. Gentlemen tell us that it is not to be supposed 
that the majority in the General Assembly would do the 
injustice to take away men’s property iniquitously. 
and the proposition under discussion is, in substance, 
to empower the Assembly to repeal all charters, upon 
such equitable terms, for the payment of debts and 
distribution of property, as that body may in its dis¬ 
cretion see fit to prescribe. I shall not repeat the sig¬ 
nificant question of my friend on the left, [Mr. Groes- 
BECK,] as to what would be the value of the stones of 
a turnpike, or the timbers of a plank road, or the rails 
of a railroad, after the corporation is dissolved and for¬ 
bidden further to act. He has done justice to that part 
of the argument. But, “ it is not to be supposed that 
the General Assembly will wrong or oppress compa¬ 
nies of associates engaged in enterprizes of internal 
improvements.” In the name of Heaven, when did 
I this sudden confidence in that body spring up here!.'! 

! How often, when in order to abridge the code and 
shorten our labors, we have been inclined to leave mat¬ 
ters to the discretion of that body, have wo heard it 
described as weak and wicked in the extreme. Words 
have almost failed gentlemen to depict their utter dis¬ 
trust—their want of confidence in its wisdom or its 
goodness. Our worthy opponents are not entitled to 
both sides of the argument. They cannot reasonably 
ask us to concur with them in framing one portion of 
the organic law, on the theory that the Assembly will 
be weak, worthless, and profligate in the extreme, and 
another portion on the opposite theory, that it will be 
all wisdom, benevolence and justice. 

Gentlemen well know my sentiments as to that body; 
they know whether I am “ to its faults a little blind, 
and to its virtues very kind,” or not. They know how 
often they have called me to my feet to engage, most 
reluctantly, in defence of the people’s representatives; 
although, as a very humble member of a very numer¬ 
ous body-—only one in one hundred and eight—I must 
be entitled to a very small portion of the odium, which 
they have seen fit to heap upon it without measure or 
stint. 

But when did blind and implicit confidence in mere 
let^islative majorities get to be a firm article in the 
statesman’s creed in our representative republics ? If 
we have no distrust of majorities what are we doing ? 
Why are we forming a constitution ? Does not every 
man who assists in our labors from day to day practi¬ 
cally express his distrust in mere unrestricted legisla¬ 
tive majorities? If no such distrust is felt, why do we 











860 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


not simply frame a short article, organizing a legisla¬ 
tive department and closing our labors, leaving every- 
tliingat large to the w’isdom and discretion of the ma¬ 
jority ? What is the rational end and aim of a Consti¬ 
tution except to be a restraint upon the strong, and a 
protection to the weak ? What rational design has it 
except to curb the majority, and shield the minority ? 
It is a charter which the latter have a right always to 
hold in their hands, always to spread out before the 
eyes of power as the enduring recerd of their rights 
and the means of their defence. What shall we say 
then of the wisdom of a constitutional provision, whicli 
not only empowers, but stimulates a majority to make 
retroactive edicts against tlie property and rights of 
their opponents after quarrels and conti’oversies arise, 
after prejudice begins to speak from her ten thousand 
throats, after all maimer of extraneous influences grow. 

If put to define law as it ought to be, I would say 
that it is the deduction of calm reason, camly made 
from an extensive acquaintance with human nature 
and human affairs, as to what ought to be done by the 
citizen, or left undone. The definition as given by ju¬ 
rists is not very ditferent. “ Law, they say, is a rule 
prescribed, commanding what is right, forbidding what 
is wrong.” It is prescribed. Written out before¬ 
hand—written when the legislative authority is calm. 
When its reason is unclouded by the prejudices arising 
from particular quarrels and contentious. When its 
sagacity is aroused to consider what is wise, just and 
expedient for the community or the future; not to de¬ 
vise means of punishing opponents for the past. It is 
a rule prescribed, known to those who are to yield 
obedience. Known beforehand, so that every good 
citizen may understand what to do and what to for¬ 
bear. It is mockery to call an ex post facto edict a law. 
Nothing can sanctify it—nothing can justify it. The 
man who lives under such dominion, is a slave, dwell 
where he may. 

Constitutions are formed as a law to sovereign pow¬ 
ers and for the protection of the weak. They are in¬ 
tended as beacon lights, which ought to flame high to 
give the alarm when the passions of the majority are 
becoming exorbitant. When stormy majorities, either 
deluded by sophistry or overawed or deceived by out¬ 
side influences, invade the just rights of minorities, 
the constitution is to be appealed to as a means of 
warning to the honest yeoman of the country, to flock 
over to the standard of the oppressed, and give them 
strength to resist aggression. 

But now it is gravely proposed not only to destroy 
the best citadel of the weak, but to give constitutional 
sanction to the exhorbitant passion of majorities when 
heated by prejudice they destroy the property and 
annihilate the rights of their opponents by retroactive 
edicts. 

Has history uttered no voice of warning ? Do stor¬ 
my factions never persecute each other ? Have Leg¬ 
islative proscriptions and massacres, with their attend¬ 
ant horrors been unheard of? What lesson does the 
history of Rome, of France, of the Seven United Provin¬ 
ces teach us on this head ? Is the history of the Anglo 
Saxon race and even of our own free and haj:>p)y coun¬ 
try, devoid of all instruction ? It is undeniable that 
one at least of the States of this Union was engasted in 
a furious civil war a little before the adoption of the 
national constitution, and others seemed on the point 
of intestine convulsions. I might call attention to the 
little republics of ancient Grece, inhabited by men who 
still claim our reverence as the master spirits of the 
old world, whose precocity in the arts, more especially 
those arts which adorn life, is still a subject of aston¬ 
ishment. 

Hero Mr. REEMELIN rose and inquired if Mr. 
Archbold thought thei’e was any thing similar in our 
condition to that of the little old Greek Democi acies. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD proceeded : The gentleman and 
those who vote with him, are intentionally no doubt 
doing their utmost to create cause of discord and con¬ 


vulsion, similar to those which at times distracted the 
Greek States. No association will ever be destroyed 
or have its propierty annihilated by its own political 
friends. The absolute, unqualified right of repeal, for 
w’hich the gentleman contends, is only a weapon with |ll 
which faction may war upon faction—with which tri- , | 
umphant majorities may oppress and injure their op¬ 
ponents. Now this very war of faction upon faction, 
and the stormy passions thus engendered, I understand 
to be the principle causes which so soon enveloped the 
bright sun of Greek liberty in a pall of gloomy clouds, i 
and caused.it to descend into a night of misery and bar- 4 
barism, which has scarcely yet known a morning. 

It was probably the adoption of the national consti- 'j 
tution, with its prohibition of these angry retroactive :> 
edicts, employed by faction as a means oJ offence i 
against faction, that has saved us hitherto from a simi- i 
lar fate. 

There is still another objection to this absolute, un- ; 
qualified power of making retroactive ('diets, as con¬ 
tended for by the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Reemelin.] It vests legislative and judicial functions 
in the same hands—in the same body of men. Gen¬ 
tlemen themselves, put it upon that ground. They 
argue strenuously and at great length, for this unlim- 
ted right of repeal, because, as they say, associations 
created for purposes of internal improvement, rail¬ 
roads, plank roads, turnpikes for instance, may in va- 3 
rious ways injure and olfend individuals and the pub¬ 
lic. We do not deny the right of repeal, but we say, 
that when exerted by legislative power, that power 
should proceed on legislative grounds. It takes away 
the property of associates, because the public interest 
requires the surrender. It takes away the land of an 
individual, because the public interest demands the 
surrender. But in both cases, the duty is imperative 
and it would seem alike imperative to pay the value 
of the property of which the citizens are deprived 
without their consent. But if the association is ac¬ 
cused of delinquency, every principle of equity, as 
well as of sound policy demands that it should be sent 
to some tribunal, where parties can be heard and the 
facts inquired into. To condemn a man by legislative 
enactment, is to condemn him without a hearing. No 
bounds can be set to the encroachments of a judiciary, 
which is at the same time armed with legislative pow¬ 
er. Hence it has become a cardinal maxim amongst 
the doctrines of our Anglo Saxon liberty, that the pow¬ 
ers of government should be kept distinct, and that ^ , 
the legislative and judicial functions should never be 
exercised by the same body of men. The doctrine is 
the offspring of experience. It originated in the felt 
evils of the opposite course. It has been recommend¬ 
ed and defended by our Hampdens, our Russells, our 
Sidneys, our Madisons, our Marshalls, and our Storys. 

But perhaps these mighty nameS’ create no sensation 
in the breast of the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Reemelin.] Then let me tell him that the same doc¬ 
trine was preached by Montesquieu in his Spirit of 
Laws. Fie proclaimed it in the very teeth of power, 
in the very face of the corrupt court of Louis the 
fifteenth. 

Oh how in my inmost soul I love the man who has 
the courage to take the part of the weak against the 
strong—of the feeble against the powerful! ! 

The flatterers of power are the same in all countries 
—in all ages. The African worshipper of power grows 
frantic in the fervors of his devotion and roars out. 

“Hurra! for the son of the Sun, 

Hurra for the brother of the Moon; 

In all this great world, there is none 
Like Quash boo ! the only one 
Decended trom the great baboon I baboon 1 
Descended from the great baboon I 
Butt'aloe of buffaloes ! and bull of bulls! 

He sits on the throne of his enemies’ skulls, ; 

And if he wants others to play at foot-ball, 

Ours are at his service, all! all! all I 
Hugaboo Joo! Hugaboo Joo I 
Hail to royal Quashboo 1 
Emperor and l.ords of Timbuctoo.” 












CONVENTION REPORTS 


861 


Here the genllemau from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] 
rose to a point of order, to wif. that the genllemau from 
Mouroe was wandering from his subject.) 

Mr AKOHBOLD. But I want to finish the picture 
—you might as well stop a painter who was merely 
sketching the head and shoulders, (great laughter and 
cries of “ go on,” “ go on.”) 

Mr. ARCHBOLD resumed. Then from this dark 
land w^e come back to Europe. Europe, a name which 
produces an electrical thrill in our nerves as the biiTli 
place of our ancestors, the home of science and of 
arts which either sustain or adorn life. But the woi- 
shippers of power are there also. They flock to the 
court of Vienna or St. Betersbiirg—suppose the latter. 
They draw near the throne and bowing low ad¬ 
dress themselves to the mighty Niidiolas with honeyed 
words. 

“ VVe are so fully convinced of the perfect etptity of 
your majesty’s intentions that nothing can add to the 
strength of our convictions. Not only so, but the 
matchless wisdom which characterizes all your majes¬ 
ty’s measures, overwhelms us with astonishment. Nev¬ 
er yet has a throne on this planet been filled by such 
a happy union of wisdom, strength and goodness as 
that which we disc(jver in yours, as to whether other 
worlds supply a parallel, it would be audacious in us to 
conjecture. (Laughter.) 

But we must tell your majesty there is a set of stern 
rude ungrateful fellows, and some of them holding 
your majesty’s commissions too, who have the wicked¬ 
ness to grumble at your royal government. They say 
that your majesty’s retroactive edicts and ukases un¬ 
settled property. That men are then stript of their 
rights and deprived of their possessions. They even 
at times, proceed to such a pitch of treasonable audaci¬ 
ty as to pretend that in so much as your majesty is pos¬ 
sessed of absolute, unlimited legislative power, you 
ought to delegate your judicial authority to your judges 
and then not interfere with their decisions, in particular 
cases, by issuing edicts or orders immediately from the 
throne. It is possible that such men can longer be 
permitted to hold your majesty’s commission in the 
army, or navy, or in civil employments. Surely if,your 
majesty’s mistaken lenity' shall leave them this side of 
Liberia, you will instantly dismiss them from your 
royal service, and fill their places with your majesty’s 
true and faithful friends.” 

Here Mr. REEMELIN inquired, “ Does the gentle¬ 
man from Monroe contend that there is any' similarity 
in the condition of the Emperor of Russia, as a sover¬ 
eign, and tliat of the people of this countiy ?” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Ceriainly I do. Considered as 
the possessors of BOWER, as the fountain of honor, of 
office, of emolument, of all that ambitious men covet, 
the people as a sovereign are infinitely stronger than 
the Emperor of Russia. There is always, in fact, a 
limitation to the power of every despot, however ab¬ 
solute he may be in theory. A latent opposition always 
exists and is ready to start into tremendous energy up¬ 
on any unusual or exorbitant exertion of authority. 
But where is the power that could for a moment dream 
of making forcible resistance to our sbvereign, the peo¬ 
ple, possessing as they do an aggregate of physical, 
mental and moral force, absolutely overwhelming in 
the contemplation. And this force is all their own, and 
can never be turned against them. A sovereign whose 
throne is so irnpregnably secure as that of the people, 
may well tolerate some generosity of sentiment, some 
freedom of thought, some manly boldness of speech, 
in the servants engaged in the public councils, and 
need not always demand to be addressed in the slavish 
language of A.siatic sycophants. 

In the same degree that our sovereign is stronger 
and more secure than the sovereigns of Europe, so is 
the American flatterer of power a more pertinacious 
animal than the European. For those animals are 
here; they have crossed the ocean in great numbers. 
Would to heaven that they and their ancestors had 


staid on the other side! Oh, how happily we would 
have lived without them! [Loud laughter.] We 
were eloquently and impressively reminded on Satur¬ 
day last, of the majesty'and force of the people, as pro¬ 
ceeding from some orator on the stalls in one of the 
market-houses of this city, and addressed to the listen¬ 
ing crowds around. It is said not to be polite to speak 
of the present company. I will not permit my Ameri¬ 
can worshipper of power to sit for his portrait in this 
city. [Laughter.] 

But suppose one of the s[)ecies to get on a stall in a 
market house in Moyamensing—Moyamensing, that 
twin name with anarchy' and infamy. And in the long 
course of ids frantic declamation, he tells the attentive 
crowd, in substance, as occasion offers, that the people 
are a visible manifestation of all beauty, of all strength, 
(ff all truth, of all courage, of all wisdom, of all per¬ 
fection, and that without mixture of weakness or er¬ 
ror. And that they themselves, the said people of 
Moyamensing, beyond all others, possess all these qual¬ 
ities in the most eminent and superlative degree, and 
that the rascal who presumes to doubt or dispute any' 
of these positions, deserves instantly execution under 
the Lynch code. Then he excites the low animal pas¬ 
sions of their natures against the rich and the aristo¬ 
cratic; then he fires them with burning and deathless 
indignation against the stubborn sons of toil, whose 
daily and nightly labors and long continued frugality 
have surrounded them with property and its comforts. 
And he not obscurely hints, that a general plunder of 
such fellows would be highly proper and expedient, 
though probably some controlling circumstance renders 
it advisable to defer the design for the present. The 
best judge of the force and impressiveness of his elo¬ 
quence is the good and peaceable citizen, w'ho daily' 
and nightly trembles and turns pale and sickens under 
the mild dominion of the killers and skinners and ran¬ 
gers and regulators of Moyamensing. 

Thus have I endeavored to give a slight sketch ofthe 
vvorship[iei 8 of power, as they exhibit themselves in 
three continents. There may be slight shades of differ¬ 
ence, but they are the same identical specie.s of ani¬ 
mals, in all ages, in all climates. In one particular, 
they' agree precisely. They all address themselves to 
pow'er, and they neverre commend moderation. They 
use no sedatives, but they urge power to violent and 
exhorbiiant efforts. Their motives are the same— 
“ they bend the supple hinges of the knee that thrift 
may follow fawning.” Does any man doubt this ? Go 
to the theatre, there you may see a set of courtiers sur¬ 
rounding a tragedy throne, and greeting the ear of ma¬ 
jesty with much more soft and honeyed phrase than 
my republican tongue can utter or rejteat. The cur¬ 
tain falls, the scene shifts. The curtain again rises, 
and you behold men using bright daggers against a 
fallen despot, treating him with the most opprobriotis 
language, and loud in their praises of popular liberty^ 

Nothing but youthful greenness could fall into the 
error, that the latter set of men differ in habits, feel¬ 
ings, opinions and prejudices from the former. Every 
mail knows that they are the same old set of stcck ac¬ 
tors, who have distributed ihemselved to their various 
parts according to their views of their own interest. 
So the w'orshijipers of power, whom we have been de¬ 
scribing. are in reality acting for their own interests, 
under all the various disguises which they may choose 
to assume. 

But the little band of men on this side of the hall 
who are determined to go where principle goes, and to 
stop where principle stops, are reproached as not lov'- 
ing the people, as' having no sympathy with the feel¬ 
ings, the wishes, the prejudices ofthe people; more 
e.specially of the more unfortunate and indigent class¬ 
es of the people. The very instincts of my nature 
rouse me in opposition to the charge. It is not true. It 
is the very reverse of the truth. I know the origin of 
some of the men who are thus accused, and I know 
that they have in their own persons experienced eve- 











862 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


ry evil that now weighs down the energies of the poor¬ 
est of Ohio, that they have in their own persons en¬ 
countered every difficulty which now opposes the pro¬ 
gress of the most indigent, of the most unfortunate. 
Campbell’s Sea boy cradled on hi.s rock” never suf¬ 
fered greater hardships—never drank deeper or bitterer 
draughts of human sorrow than were quaffed in early 
life, by some of the very persons thus reproached. 

“ Poor child of danger, nursling of the storm, 

Sad are the woes that wreck thy manly form; 

Condemned to bear misfortune’s rudest shock, 

Scourged by the winds, and cradled on a rock.” 

An allusion has already been made to the stage. 
Shakspeare says that 

“All the world’s a stage. 

And all the men and women merely players; 

And one man in his time, acts many parts.” 

Let the curtain again rise, and behold in your mind’s 
eye a rough cabin in the westean wilderness, contain¬ 
ing a little flaxen-haired child, hanging-over the rude 
couch which contains the wasted form of his dying 
father. Death soon does his office, and the boy feels 
the unutterable grief of orphanhood. His mother 
draws the little sorrowing wretch near her knees, and 
whispers words of cheer: 

“ Courage, my son, every prize is reserved for the strongest.” 

The scenery shifts—the curtain again rises, and you 
behold him in the forest, assailed by wintry winds, 
breathing a frosty atmosphere, wasting his little strength 
in the rudest toils, until he is partially frozen on the 
huge trunk which his ax has brought to the ground. 
Another change, and you may behold him in the dawn 
of early manhood, under the sun of “ fierce July,” 
toiling by the side of sooty slaves, and chiefly distin¬ 
guished by the immense physical energy which per¬ 
forms the daily tasks only imposed by humane masters 
on two or three of them. Still another change, and the 
orphan has become a man of books, and is conversing 
with the master spirits of all ages, sometimes entran¬ 
ced and electrified by their burning words. Another 
change of scenery ; the curtain rises once more, and 
he is beheld as an inhabitant of Legislative Hails. 
And here he is met and told that he does not love the, 
people—the laboring masses—that he has no sympathy 
with their griefs, their cares, their sorrows,' their anx¬ 
ieties. Oh charge false to absurdity ! Oh libel on our 
common human nature ! Where did this child of ca¬ 
lamity leai’u exclusive notions ? W’here or liow did 
he acquire aristocratic ideas? By what magic did he 
unlearn the very instincts of his being ? How did he 
become able to do violence to all his early feelings, pre¬ 
judices and prepossessions? There is a popular pro¬ 
verb, which my gentlemanly opponents may perhap.s 
deem vulgar, and unfit to be repeated to ^'ears polite.” 
But, like all other popular proverbs, it has the stanq) of 
sturdy good sense. It says, “ that habit is second na¬ 
ture ; ” it means, that every man is just the being which 
his early education, associations, sympathies, actions 
and sufferings have made him. and that he is nothing 
..else. That no good man ever did or ever could be¬ 
come callous to the sufferings, or indifferent to the in¬ 
terests of the class from which he sprung. And, ac¬ 
cordingly, the gentleman from Hamilton and myself 
have taken opposite sides on this very principle. He 
himself a large proprietor, and the representative of 
millionaires—1, a small proprietor, and the representa¬ 
tive of small proprietors. 

Here Mr. REBMELIN rose and disclaimed, saying 
that he was not at all in favor with the millionaires, 
that those gentlemen greatly preferred Mr. Archbold’s 
ideas to his. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD proceeded. I verily believe that 
if the millionaires are men of calm reflection, taking a 
wide survey of the political horizon, they will prefer 
my opinions to those of the gentleman from Hamilton. 
These opinions constitute a mild and beneficent sys¬ 
tem of political philosophy which would make the ac¬ 
tion of the government “ descend like the dews of Hea¬ 
ven ” in blessings and benefits upon all, in heavy bur¬ 


thens and rigorous exactions upon none. But if those 
millionaires are anxious merely to increase their es¬ 
tates without reference to remote consequences, they 
will greatly prefer the system of the gentleman from I 
Hamilton, for that system does give a great and undue i 
advantage to large capitalists in the competition with ! 
men of smaller means. > 

Here Mr. RANNEY, of Trumbull, called out to Mr. | 
; Archbold, that the Ohio State Jouzmal was speaking 
very kindly of him. Mr. Archbold rejoined : "Then 
Birnam wood has surely come to Dunsinane.” I am 
thankful to the Journal editor for speaking kindly of 
me, and I should be thankful to any other human be- ! 
jing for the same favor. But it makes me a little ner- 
ivous to hear of it in the middle of a speech, for I fear 
I that the Journal’s kindness is mixed with much, very 
much that I should deem cruelty. 

But to resume the subject. The question arises upon 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Medi¬ 
na, vesting in the General Assembly the unqualified, 
unlimited right of repeal over all corporations, at the 
mere will and discretion of a majority. Gentlemen 
have in argument spoken of the amendment as princi¬ 
pally concerning associations for internal improve¬ 
ments, such as railroad, plank road and turnpike com¬ 
panies, though in terms the provision is broad enough 
to embrace others. It seems to me that the question 
may be briefly stated thus: Does a man who associates 
with his neighbors and subscribes one hundred, or five 
hundred dollars to aid in making a thoroughfare de¬ 
serve as to that property to be treated as a slave, to be 
liable to have it taken from him by others, without 
trial by judge or jury, without opportunity to hear his 
accusers, witnesses and without proof. Gentlemen 
generally concede, that associations for internal im¬ 
provements are necessaiy. 

Sums of money will never again be granted out of 
the State Treasury for internal improvement purposes. 

An enlightened public opinion will no longer tolerate 
such an abuse. Then we need the principle of associ- i 
ation, in order to construct works of iiHernal improve- | 
ment for the same reason that we need government | 
itself; that is, in order to remedy the weakness of indi- i 
viduals. The individual man is insufficient. The i 
small capitalist is insufficient without the principle of 
association. What will a single sum of five hundred or 
one thousand dollars do towards a work of internal 
improvement? It is plain that small men must have 
the benefit of the principle of association, if they would 
effectuate anything. They need the same principle, 
in order to enable them to compete with the larger 
capitalist; in order to takeaway the unjust and undue 
advantages which the system of the gentleman from 
Hamilton would give to the millionaire. This man is 
an immense association within himself. The man who 
can spare a million of dollars is just one thousand times 
as strong as the man who can spare but one thousand, 
and if the principle of combination and association is 
denied to the small man his capital will take full pos¬ 
session of the market—will enjoy the whole field of 
enterprise without competition. And the principle of 
association is denied to them, wffien it is surrounded 
with such vigorous restrictions, and made so extremely 
perilous that no sane man, no man capable of accumu¬ 
lating or managing capital, will think of subscribing. 

The principle will operate most harshly and unequal¬ 
ly on the different sections of the State. Some sections 
have their great capitalists, their opufent men, who, 
either singly or in connection with a very few others, 
are able to cai'ry on extensive works of internal im¬ 
provement without incorporation. And the same sec¬ 
tions have an extensive network of costly and valuable 
internal improvements, so they are in reality, but little 
interested in the question. 

Other sections that have suffered everything under 
the old exploded system of State treasury grants for • 
internal improvements, that are now paying seven 
fold taxes on account of that system and the deb l 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


which it incurved, have no improvements at all supe¬ 
rior to common country wagon roads. Yet now, when 
the increase of'population and wealth in those sections 
has been such as to create immediate expectations ol 
being able to make internal improvements lor them¬ 
selves, innocently, without calling on the tax-payor, 
without goading him to desperation, without legal¬ 
ized plunder, they are met by the representatives ol 
more populous and wealthy sections with the language 
of the sternest and most implacable hostility. -‘You 
may make your roads and lines of communication if 
you see lit, it you will associate fur such purposes, but 
the designs which you have formed of opening lines 
of commercial communication through your counties 
is so malignant, so inadmisable, that in addition to 
every other difficulty which we can create, every 
share of stock subscribed for such purposes shall be 
liable at all times to instant confiscation without the 
slightest attempt at judicial investigation. Every dol¬ 
lar so invested shall be in the situation of the peculium 
of a southern slave—he may keep it while his master 
remains in a good humor.” 

Gentlemen are loud in their denunciations of exclu¬ 
sive privileges. They cannot be too severe upon such 
privileges. They will be the advocates of exclusive 
privileges sooner than I will. But gentlemen amuse 
themselves and others with empty, unmeaning sounds. 
We demand nothing but to save the mere naked prin¬ 
ciples of association. Give us this, and we rest con 
tent. Do we demand any favors in point of taxation ? 
Certainly not. No one will pretend it. We all agree 
that property thus invested shall bear the same burthen 
of taxation, as an equal value invested in any other 
mode. Perpetuity is not essential to a corporation. It 
may be, and perhaps ahvays ought to be limited to a 
term of years. The principle of succession is all that 
is necessary to take in ard let out members, without 
an everlasting change of partnership deeds. How could 
a mere partnership of small capitalist s,numerous enough 
to make a line of commercial communication, prose- 
cute or defend any right in a court of justice. Every 
change of a member abates the suit. What record could 
be lumbered with the long bead-roll of their names?; 
Who shall act or speak for, or on behalf of that uncon -1 
nected multitude? Any one single obstinate, or stu¬ 
pid, or treacherous partner may dismiss their suit. 
Any one stupid or treacherous partner may make ad¬ 
missions fatal to their defence. Who shall manage for 
them ? They are all equals. 

But it is in vain to multiply words. If gentlemen 
choose to call this principle of association an exclusive 
privilege, they may do so. And in order to destroy 
exclusive privileges, they may, in effect, forbid associa¬ 
tions. Southern masters forbid association on the part; 
of their slaves. They individualize and they govern 
them. They are consistent. Gentlemen here would 
be consistent if they would come out and say, that no 
combination or association of small capitalists, for im¬ 
portant purposes, shall ever take place. Then we 
would know where to meet them. But they,in words, 
acknowledge the principle of association to be useful, 
and thereby do homage to their own inconsistency. 
Exclusive privileges ! Does any one propose to forfeit 
or confiscate the property of the individual citizen 
without judge or jury, or witness, or trial, or investiga¬ 
tion ? If we can get the same security for the proper¬ 
ly of the association, will we ask any more ? Excfu-' 
sive privileges !! Well, does it give the small stock-; 
holder two votes at an election, or make him more in¬ 
fluential as a juror, witness or arbitrator ? Who is hurt 
by the exclusive privilege ? Who is robbed ? Who is 
injured ? Who is the worse of it? 

The apparent zeal of the gentleman fills me with as¬ 
tonishment. The subject of the currency has not been 
mentioned in this argument. When gentlemen address 
me on that subject—when they explain to me that large 
and improvident loans from the banks to their custom¬ 
ers may dilate the currency, unsettle prices,, and di- 


868 . 

minish the value of coin iti the coffers of individuals 
without their consent, 1 can understand the argument! 
There is somethiug for the intellect to grasp. It is 
true that this dirniuuiion of the value of coin will, in. 
any short space of time, be inconsiderable,, but in a 
long space of time it may become very considerable. 
At all events, the principle is clearly discernible. But 
when a gentleman works himself into a storm of pas¬ 
sion to depict the mischiefs and horrors of a little turn¬ 
pike or plank road company, he resembles a man going, 
into hysterics to describe the mischiefs and horrors of 
pigeons, and turkeys, and turtle doves. 

The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Rekmelin,] in 
his honest zeal, cries out that “ resistance to tyrants is 
obedience to God.” O, it is a noble sentiment. It 
electrifies us. It stirs our blood like magic. It touchea 
and rouses the deepest, and highest, and holiest in¬ 
stincts of our nature. But in the present instance, oh, 
how misapplied. “ Resistance to tyrants is obedience 
t(j God therefore, you must repeal a little turnpike 
company!!! “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to- 
God;” therefore, you must annihilate a little plank 
road company by act of Assembly !!! It does seem, 
to me that the gentleman is guilty of enormous extrav¬ 
agance in the use of powek. He fixes up vast and ex-- 
tensive machinery to effect a small object. The incon¬ 
gruity in the ideas spoils the stage efl'ect of the whole 
thing. He calls a god upon the stage, when no diffi¬ 
culty worthy of a god is to be overcome. He calls 
the great Jupiter himself forward to untie his shoe¬ 
strings ! [Loud laughter.] 

Here the gentleman from Hamilton rose and dis¬ 
claimed. He thought the gentleman from Monroe wae- 
mistaken. He had not used that sublime maxim in 
such a connexion. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. 1 am not mistaken. The gen¬ 
tleman forgets. He was much excited in the argu¬ 
ment. A listener sitting calmly by remembers much 
better. 

Mr. REEMELIN still disclaimed, and thought Mr. 
Archbold mistaken. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD resumed. Well, 1 must concede 
the matter, then, proforma, as the lawyers say. In • 
point of mere politeness I must give way. But never 
shall I forget the torture that was inflicted on my moral 
nature, by having its holiest instincts sported vvitli, by 
seeing so much zeal and energy misplaced. “Resis¬ 
tance to tyrants is, indeed, obedience to God.” But it 
inflicts intense pain on a generous mind to hear such a 
sentiment degraded by being employed on slight and 
trivial occasions. It fills us with profound impressiona 
of the extreme violence and rigor of gentlemen’s prin¬ 
ciples, when they have to resort to such means to sus¬ 
tain them. 

The principles which we recommend will be found 
to have symmetry and consistency. The property oi 
the incorporator is to have no other protection thars 
that of the individual. If it be necessary to take it 
away for the public good, we say that it can be takecj 
by legislative enactment, on the same terms as private 
property of the individual, to be paid lor by the locai 
or general fund, as the one or the other interest de¬ 
mands its surrender. II the associates are accused of 
orime, every sound principle demands that they 
should he sent to some tribunal capable of inquiring 
It cannot perform tbal function satislactori— 

ly- 

Here Mr. LEADBBTTER, of Holmes, arose, and 
inquired very earnestly, if Mr. Archbold did not, m 
the General Assembly, continually and perseveringly 
oppose appropriations from the State Treasury, for 
internal improvements? 

Mr. ARCH BOLD resumed. I will answer the gen¬ 
tleman from Holmes, as “our great ancestor, iEneas,” 
did Queen Dido, when she commanded him to tell of 
the sack of Troy—“ Horrors most terrible, O Queen, 
youVorce me to renew.” I did perseveringly oppose 
appropriations from the State Treasury, for purposes ol 







864 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


internal improvement. I stood in the General Assem¬ 
bly from day to day, and contended that commerce 
should be left to groove out its own channels. That it 
would soon do so, if unrestrained by government inter¬ 
meddling. That individual and commercial wealth 
would soon be sufficient to make all useful and neces¬ 
sary internal improvements, if government c »uld be 
restrained from exorbitant taxation. That works car¬ 
ried on by commercial men, would be conducted with 
all the advantages of individual sagacity, frugality and 
order. That government works are conducted on the 
principles of boundless wastefulness and extravagance. 
That governments are always cheated in their dealings 
with individuals. That it is morally wrong to take the 
treasures of all and bestow them on a part. That it is 
mere legalized plunder to take the substance of the 
people of Ashtabula and .lefferson, and Harrison, and 
Belmont, and Guernsey, and therewith dig a great ar¬ 
tificial lake on our western borders. That rightful tax¬ 
ation is the mere price of social order. That it is 
not to be wantonly levied on the citizen, nor levied at 
all, except in return for benefits conferred. That men 
outer into societies and form States and governments, 
for thegiakeof social order. Thc.t rightful government 
is a mere agency for keeping the peace. That an agen¬ 
cy implies agents ; and as these agents spend their time 
in the public service, they are entitled to a compensa- 
from the public purse. That this is the true foundation 
of the taxing power. That to take the people’s taxes 
and therewith carry on a commercial speculation, is to 
trade with a trust fund. 

These principles have been endorsed by this body, 
repeatedly. They have been presented in different 
ahapes, and on Vi rious occasions, and have uniformly 
met the decisive approbation of this body. They will, 
in future, exercise a controlling influence over the 
affairs of this great State. I am forbidden, by the pro¬ 
found respect which I feel for this august assembly, to 
regard those jirinciples as altogether worthless and 
idle. 

But when I first broached these principles in the 
General Assembly, and manifested invincible attach¬ 
ment to them, a whole Niagara of persecution and de¬ 
famation was poured on my devoted head. I was des¬ 
cribed as weaker than a brute and more wicked than a 
fiend. “Worldsjudged me perverse,” for when every 
countenance is turned upon a man in auger, when 
every eye that he beholds, beams indignation, the 
crowd around constitute the world to him. He cannot 
know that a future day will reverse the verdict of the 
present. But the 'corps of Ti'easury Guards was soon 
formed upon the one principle of uniform and inexora¬ 
ble hostility to the system of treasury grants for inter¬ 
nal improvements. We sought allies v/herever they 
could be found, and without inquiring as to their mo¬ 
tives, and we tore that system limb from limb, and 
scattered its carcass to the four winds of Heaven. I 
came out of that contest with my plume torn, my hel¬ 
met pierced, my shield broken, my armor soiled and 
dusty, war-w’orn,and w^eary and “bleeding from innu¬ 
merable ghasty wounds of reputation,” but encouraged 
a.s I am by this Convention, I come out a victor, a vic¬ 
tor, A victor! And it is not likely that I shall now 
abandon principles for which I have toiled so long and 
suffered so much. That I shall now consent to a con- 
fi'.ilu'icnal prohibition of commercial w'ealth from ma¬ 
king internal improvements, in an innocent and unob¬ 
jectionable manner, without defrauding or injuring the 
taxpayer. Is the gentleman answered? He puts Ifis 
question without the slightest warning and it is an¬ 
swered without the slightest premeditation. 

But to return to the subject. We surely do enough 
for the right of repeal, when w’e submit every incorpo¬ 
ration and every^ interest of the associates to the ope¬ 
ration of the principle, upon the same principles and 
with the same safeguards, as when private property is 
taken for public use. To go further, and to vest in one 
body powers of legislation and judiciary to be exercised 


at the mere discretion of a partizan majority, is the com¬ 
mencement of that despotism abhorred, which will 
soon leave the valuable interests of the country nothing 
but the poor privilege, which the Giant Polyphemus is 
said to have given to some of his prisoners, the privi¬ 
lege of being last devoured. 

Many other interests are ranch,more susceptible of 
being made hateful than little church and turnpike cor¬ 
porations. 

Here Mr. REEMELIN inquired if Mr. Archbold did 
not vote for the repeal of the Columbus and Sandusky 
turnpike road charter. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I did not. I was not in the As¬ 
sembly at the time of the repeal, I will give my views 
of that matter before I sit down. 1 was saying that 
many other interests are far more capable of being 
made hateful to the crowds that surround our market 
house orators, of whom the gentleman from Hamilton 
told us on Saturday hist, than little turnpike corpora¬ 
tions. The exclusive ownership of a farm can be set 
in a more odious sight, than the owniership of a road 
which passes by it. Already this spirit has gone forth. 
It is boldly declared in some quarters, that all proper¬ 
ty ill land is the basest tyranny. That a landlord is as 
great an absurdity as au air-lord, or a water-lord, or a 
sunbeam-lord. That no man has any more right to 
sell the land, than to sell the sunbeams. If the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton supposes that no plausible found¬ 
ation, for prejudice, no plausible theme for impassioned 
declamation can be found in this subject, he is mista¬ 
ken. His own lauded professions can be rendered 
completely odious, by the very same reasoning, or 
rather declamation, which be employs to convince us 
that the small capitalists combining to make a turnpike 
or plank road, ought to be placed under restrictions the 
most galling and the most intolerable. 

So the institution of marriage itself can be assailed 
and set in an odious light. What! compel two people 
to live together ? Compel them to remain together, 
when their union makes them miserable—^when a sep¬ 
aration is essential to their happiness ? Hold them to 
their contract when both wish to dissolve it? The 
truth is, every question admits of arguments on both 
sides. Mathematical demonstration .is not to be had 
in politics. Statesmen must be content to submit to a 
preponderance of reason. 

Will gentlemen, who have some stake in society 
never be done, unsettling foundations. Will they nev¬ 
er be done weakening the security for every right that 
we hold dear, or that in a civilized society makes life 
eligible or desirable. 

Macaulay says that the lenity and the cruelty of that 
odious and worthless tyrant .James the 2d, were such 
as mutually to illustrate and shed infamy on each other. 
Not intending to give the slightest offence, I must be 
permitted to say, that the love of anarchy and the love 
of despotism existing in some minds around me, most 
mournfully illustrate each other. Whether the so¬ 
cial fabric, which they would rear, unduly weakened 
and attenuated in some parts, rendered massive and 
ponderous and disproportioned in others, would be 
able to stand the shocks which time and change will 
produce, is not for me to determine. I confess my 
doubts and misgivings. 

The gentleman Irom Hamilton has called my atten¬ 
tion to the Columbus and Sandusky turnpike road. 
This then must be regarded as an appendix to my 
speech. The company had a charter to make a road 
between the two places of “ good hard durable mate¬ 
rials.” They made it of the nicest, softest mud along 
their line. Wagons sank above the hubs, and of 
course stuck fast. In this state of things the demand 
of toll at their gates occasioned, as well it might, unu¬ 
sual wrath. A quarrel raged all along their line. Their 
gates were forcibly cut down. Firearms were em¬ 
ployed and one man at least was shot and wounded, 
though perhaps not mortally. The General Assembly, 
partaking in the excitement, at the session of 1842-3 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


865 


passed an act to repeal their charter. This, I have but 
little doubt, was undue lenity to them. They ought to 
have been sent to some tribunal, which could have en¬ 
quired into the facts and have declared their charter 
forfeited. The next session and every session while I 
was in either branch of the General Assembly, they 
were in our halls as clamorous petitioners. But peti¬ 
tioners for what? for a restoration of their charter ? No; 
they did not regard that as of the least value. Nor did 
they ask us to strengthen the bonds of social order by 
making more stringent laws against mob-violence. But 
they asked us to give them damages for the repeal. 
This demand they proposed so long, and so industrious¬ 
ly, that the per diem and other expenses of the Assem¬ 
bly while engaged in the matter must have amounted 
to a large sum. 

At the session of 1848-9 they got a bill through the 
House of Representatives, to allow them a very large 
sum of money, more than seventy thousand dollars, i 
I remember rightly. This bill after much irritation 
and after stormy debates, was rejected in the Senate, 
and I am informed that they were before the Assembly 
last session again as petitioners; so that a large annual 
expense has been incurred every year since 1842, in re 
sisting this claim. Had they been sent to a court and 
jury, they could not have said as they always have said, 
^‘Why we are the victims of a popular clamor. The 
passions of the mob got up against us. The General 
Assemble was deceived ; it was prejudiced against us 
unjustly. There was no sufficient proof- We had no 
chance to defend ourselves. We were condemned 
without a heanng,” &c. &c. &c. The gentleman from 
Hamilton could not have brought forward a more un 
fortunate instance in support of his principles. As 
long as memory lasts, of the long struggle for indemni¬ 
ty maintained by the Columbus and Sandusky turnpike 
company, I shall need no other argument to show the 
impropriety of legislative repeals of charters on judicial 
grounds ; that is where crime or delinquency is alleged 
against the incorporation. 

The General Assembly is a most unwieldy, unhap¬ 
pily constituted body for the investigation of facts. 
But is it not self-evident that a body consisting of more 
than one hundred men cannot investigate facts? What 
wise statesman would seriously propose to subject the 
j^ity to the enormous expense of a tiibunal so 
numerous, for the investigation of facts. And if it de¬ 
cide cases involving important interests without an in¬ 
vestigation of facts, who will respect its decisions. 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the previous question up 
on the pending question, (stated at the coinmeucernent 
of Mr. Archbold’s speech.) 

The question then being, “ Shall the mam question 

be now put?” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD demand the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted, yeas 22, nays 57, as follows 

Yeas _Messrs. Blair, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Farr, Greene 

of Defiance, Gregg, Hawkins, Holmes, Hunter, King, Lidey, Pat 
terson, Quigley, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Stebbins, Stid 
<»er Swift, Way and President—22. 

® Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Cook, 
Currv Cutler, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray,Groesbeck, Ham 
ilton'Hard, Henderson, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Johnson Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence. Leech 
Leadbetter, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, Nash, Otis 
Peck Perkins, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle,Scott of Harrison, Set 
lers ’stanbery. Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townehend 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson, and Woodbury—57. 

So the demand for the previous question was not 

sustained. tt 

The question then being on Mr. Humphreville s 

amendment, as amended, 

Mr. MORRIS demanded the yeas and nays. 

Mr. CURRY moved a call of the Convention, and 
being ordered, the following gentlemen were found 

absent. . 

Messrs. Andrews, CoUingB, Dorsey, Ewart, Forbes 

Green of Ross Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of 
Geauca. Holt Larwill, Manon, Mason, McCloud, McCormick, 
SS!"orS it HigUaDd, Smitk of W«reo, Smith of 


Wyandot, Stanton, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Vance of Cam¬ 
paign, Williams and Worthington. 

The following gentlemen were excused. 

Messrs. Collings, Ewart, Forbes, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holt, 
Mason, Orton, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stilwell, 
Vance of Campaign, Worthington, McCloud, McCormick, Lar¬ 
will and Stickney. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved that the doors be closed, 
and the Sergeaiit-at-Arms despatched after the absen¬ 
tee.?. 

Pending which. 

On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, the Convention took 
recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

The pending question being upon the motion of Mr. 
Chambers, to close the doors of the Hall, and despatch 
the Sergeanl-at-Arms after the absentees— 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved that all further proceedings 
under this call be dispensed with. 

This motion was agreed to. 

Mr. LAWRENCE now moved another call of the 
Convention. 

And the .same being ordered, and proceeded upon, 
it appeared that Messrs. Brown of Athens, Codings, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Forbes, Harlan, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Larwill, Manon, 
Mason, McCloud, McCormick, Orton, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stilwell, 
Stickney, Vance of Champaign and Worthington, were 
absent. 

Messrs. Collings, Ewart, Ewing,Forbes, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Holt, Larwill, McCloud, McCormick, Ma¬ 
son, Orton, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stick¬ 
ney, Stilwell, Vance of Champaign, and Worthington, 
were severally excused. 

And then, on motion of Mr. RANNEY, all further 
proceedings under this call were dispensed with. 

THE legislative DEPARTMENT. 

The PRESIDENT now stated the question to be up¬ 
on the adoption of Mr. Humphrevii.le’s amendment, 
as amended, to wit: 

Add to the end of the 35th section the following : 

Provided, That the General Assembly shall have power to re¬ 
peal or revoke any charter of incorporation, now or hereafter 
granted, and the privileges and fr.anchises of any incorporated 
company, upon such just and equitable terms lor the collection 
and payment ot the debts, and the disposition of the property of 
such company as they may provide. 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays upon 
this question, and the same being ordered, the result 
was, yeas 42, nays 44, as follows: 

"Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Farr, Gray, Greene 
of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Hum¬ 
phreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Patterson, Quigley, Ran¬ 
ney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Way, Wilson, and President—42. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet ot Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Browm 
of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Cook, 
Curry, Cutler, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Ken¬ 
non, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, 
Scott of Harrison, Stanbery, Stanton, Swan, Thompson of Shel¬ 
by, Vance of Butler, Wilhams, Warren and Woodbury—44. 

So the amendment, as aineuded, was rejected. 

Mr. SAWYER proposed further to amend the repoi t, 
by inserting after section 37, the following: 

Sec. 38. No new county shall be formed or established by 
the General Assembly, which shall reduce the county or coun¬ 
ties, or either of them, from which it shall be taken, to less con¬ 
tents than 400 square miles; nor shall the county lines of any 
county be altered, or have any part of the territory stricken 
therefrom, without submitting the question to a vote of the 
people of the counties, nor unless a majority of all the legal vo¬ 
ters of the county voting on the question, shall first, at some 
general election, vote for the same, 

Mr. SAWYER offered this on account of his knowl¬ 
edge of the difficulties which have occurred in the State 
on account of making new counties. He lived in, 
probably, nearly the newest part of the State, and his 
constituents all thought with him, that there were al- 


55 













866 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ready counties enough. But ii the people, or the Leg¬ 
islature, should ever desire to erect a new county, it 
could be done by the mode he had prescribed, namely: 
by the vote of the majority in all the counties interest¬ 
ed. He urged the necessity of a constitutional provis¬ 
ion of this sort, from the consideration of the numerous 
applications to the Legislatui’e upon the subject of the 
formation of new counties, and the expenses and waste 
of time induced ; and he added his belief that nine 
tenths of these applications were got up solely as pro¬ 
jects of speculation. It was a question addressing it¬ 
self to the common sense and experience of every mem¬ 
ber of the Convention. 

Mr. HAWKINS proposed to amend the amendment 
by striking out all after the phrase ‘‘ four hundred 
square miles.” 

Mr. HAWKINS said, he presumed that, upon the 
conditions proposed in that part of the section, which 
he had moved to strike out, no new county would ev¬ 
er be organized in the State, however just its claims 
might be. Men were little disposed to relinquish the 
power which they possess; and there would hardly be 
found a majority of the voters of any county in the 
State willing to vote for the dismemberment of their 
own county. The strong motives of selfishness would 
usually prevail against any proposition of the kind. 

Mr. LOUDON understood the proposition difi’erent- 
ly. The gentleman from Morgan seemed to suppose, 
that no new county could be formed without taking a 
vote of the people; but he understood this provision 
for a vote of the people to have respect only to the al¬ 
teration of county lines. It was only by a solemn 
vote of a majority of the people of both counties in- 
erested, that a change of county boundaries could take 
place. 

Mr. HAWKINS. If the gentleman could get a new 
county, without a change of county lines, then he 
would acknowledge himself to have mistaken the ques¬ 
tion. 

Mr. NASH thought something ought to be done in 
regard to new counties. There was hardly a case in 
the State, perhaps, where the public interest required 
a new county. But if thei’e should be, and a majority 
of the people interested should vote ior it, he could not 
see why there should be any objection. If it would 
prevent and put an end-to those frequent violations of 
the old constitution, by cutting down one county be- j 
low the limit of 400 square miles, and then making 
it up by trenching upon an adjoining county, and thus 
making a continual shifting of county seats—if this 
practice could be prevented, he was willing to vote lor 
the proposition. 

Mr. BENNETT proposed to amend (by way of per¬ 
fecting the words proposed to be stricken out,) by in¬ 
serting after the word attend ” these words, “ for the 
purpose of making a new county.” 

Mr. B. said there were cases arising sometimes, in 
which some very slight alteration of a county line might 
be very desirable to some few individuals who wWe 
immediately interested, and it would seem to be put¬ 
ting the people to a great deal of trouble to subject 
them to a general county vote upon such a question. 

Mr. STANTON thought some such provision was 
necessary in a case where a county line might be in 
controversy, to be adjusted by the Legislature. With¬ 
out such a provision, they might encounter the consti¬ 
tutional difficulty, that it would be an alteration of the 
county line. 

Mr. WOODBURY hoped the amendment would not 
jprevail, because it would be to continue in their full 
force all the evils of the formation of new counties, the 
removal of county lines and county seats, of which so 
much cause of complaint now existed. 

Mr. Bennett’s amendment was disagreed to. 

The question recurred upon the adoption of Mr. 
Hawkins’ amendment; which was also disagreed to; 
and then the question recurred upon the original amend¬ 
ment offered by Mr. Sawyer. 


Mr. CHAMBERS proposed to amend the amendment 
by striking out all after the word “ than,” and insert¬ 
ing the following words: 

Four humlretl square miles. No new county shall be erected 
which shall disturb the permanency of any county seat, or require 
the detachment of any adjoining territory from an adjoining coun¬ 
ty to make up the constitutional area; nor shall the waters of 
Lake Erie be counted as territory to make the contsitutional 
quantity. 

The question being upon the adoption of Mr. Cham¬ 
bers’ amendment, 

Mr. LARSH demanded the yeas and nays, and the 
same being ordered, resulted yeas 36, nays 44, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery,Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer,Brown of Athens,Brown of Carroll, Chiim- 
bers, Clark, Curry, Florence, Gillett, Green of Ross, Hamilton, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Larsh, Leadbetter, Lidey, Morehead, Morris, Nash,Otis, Patter¬ 
son, Peck, Roemelin, Stanbery, Stanton, Stidger, Switt, and 
Warren—36. 

Nays. —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hock¬ 
ing, Chaney, Cook, Farr, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Holmes, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Ren- 
non, King, Kirkwood, Loudon, Norris, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Stebbins, Struble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Way, Wil¬ 
liams, Wilson, Woodbury and President—44. 

So Mr. Chambers’ amendment was disagreed to, and 
the question recurred again upon the amendment of 
Mr. Sawyer. 

Mr. RANNEY said he concurred entirely in the prin¬ 
ciple of the proposition of the gentlemen from Auglaize 
[Mr. Sawyer,] but he was not quite explicit enough 
for his taste. He would therefore offer the following 
as a sub -titute: 

Sec. 38. No new county shall be erected by the General As¬ 
sembly containing less than 400 square miles of territory. Nor 
shall any county be reduced below that amount. Nor shall the 
lines of any county be changed, or any territory taken from it, 
\intil the consent of such county shall be first obtained, by a ma¬ 
jority of all the votes given at some general election, voting in 
favor of Eu.ch change or detachment of territory. 

Mr. SAWYER accepted the substitute. 

Mr. OTIS moved to amend the amenament by .stri¬ 
king out all after the word “Assembly,” and inserting 
these words: “No new county shall be created unless 
the population thereof shall entitle it to one Representa¬ 
tive, nor unless by the consent of a majority of all the 
votes of all the counties to be affected thereby at an an- 
1 nuai election.” 

Mr. WOODBURY suggested that each of the coun¬ 
ties interested should have the right to determine this 
question for itself, that the phraseology of the amend¬ 
ment might allow a very small minority to defeat the 
will of the majority interested. 

Mr. OTIS was willing to substitute the word “each,” 
if the modification would make the amendment more 
complete. 

The question being upon the adoption of the 
amendment offered by Mr. Otis, the same was disa¬ 
greed to. 

The question again recurring upon tire additional 
section proposed by Mr. Sawyer, (above recited,) 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted yeas 48, nays 38, as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Bates, Bennett, Blickensder¬ 
fer, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Flor- 
ance, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Harlan, Hen¬ 
derson, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, King, Kirkwood, Larsh 
Leadbetter, Lidej-, Morris, Norris, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ran’ 
ney, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stanton, Stebbins, Swan 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance 
of Butler, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury, and President—48. 

Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Blair, Brown oi Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Curry 
Cutler, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Holmes’ 
Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Lawrence, Leech, Lou¬ 
don, Mitchell,Morehead, Nash, Otis, Perkins, Reemelin, Riddle 
Roll, Scott of Harrison, Stanbery, Stidger, Struble, Townshend’ 
Way, and Williams—38. ’ 

So the section was adopted. 

Mr. MORRIS now proposed further to amend the 
report by adding the following section: 












867 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


No member of the Legislature shall receive more than three 
dollars per day diiring his attendance on the Legislature—to be 
computed from the day of its organization; nor more th?tn three 
dollars for every twenty-five miles he shall travel in going to and 
returning from the General Assembly; and no session of^the Le¬ 
gislature shall exceed ninety days. 

Mr. REEMELIN proposed to amend by inserting 
before the word “ attendance,” the word “actual.” 

Mr. MORRIS accepted the modification, and said he 
had embraced in this section wliat he had supposed was 
contemplated by the people upon this subject in cailing 
this Convention. It was a serious matter of complaint, 
that the members of the Legislature would sometimes 
meet and spend five or six weeks of time without or¬ 
ganizing, and charge the State with their per diem, 
Irom the first day of their assembling. He considered 
that, since it was (determined to repress local legislation, 
and since the election of officers were to be taken away 
from the Legislature, and given to the people, where it 
rightfully belonged,—he considered that ninety days 
would be sufficient for them to get thi’ough with all 
the legislative business for two years. 

Mr. LIDEY moved to amend the amendment, by 
striking out “ninety,” and inserting “sixty.” 

Mr. STANTON demanded a division of the que.s- 
tion. 

And the question first turning upon striking out. 

Mr. CHANEY was opposed to the propo.-ition to de¬ 
prive members of their joer diem compensation for such 
time as the General Assembly might remain unorgani¬ 
zed, inasmuch as it would be punishing minorities for 
the sins of majorities. He was also opposed to fi.xing 
the per diem at three dollars, because he considered it 
an insufficient compensation. 

The question was now taken upon striking out 
“ninety,” and it was agreed to; and the question then 
recurred upon filling the blank with “sixty.” 

Mr. CHAMBERS proposed to fill the blank with 
“one hundred.” 

This motion was rejected, and the question recur¬ 
red upon filling the blank with “ sixty.” 

Mr. MORRIS demanded, the yeas and nays, upon 
this question. 

And the same being ordered and taken, the result 
was—yeas22, nays 64—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case of Licking, 
Farr, Gray, Groesbeck, Henderson, Hootman, Hunt, Lidey, Mor¬ 
ris, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott ot Harrison, Sellers, Stidger, Taylor, 
Thompson of Stark. Townshend, Vance of Butler, and President 
— 22 . 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet ot Montgom¬ 
ery, Barnett oPPreble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Cook, 
Curry, Cutler, Florence, Gilleti, Graham, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Holmes, 
Horton, Hmnpreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, IGng, 
Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Mitch¬ 
ell, Morehead, Nash, Nonis, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stebbins, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Way, Wil¬ 
liams, Wilson and Woodbury—64. 

So ihe amendment to the amendment, was rejected; 
and the question recurred upon the adoption of Mr. 
Morris’ amendment, as amended. 

Mr. CLARK proposed further to amend the amend¬ 
ment. by adding at the end thereof, these words: 
“Nor shall the General Assembly make any appropria¬ 
tion to pay the postage of members.” 

The question being upon the adoption of this amend¬ 


ment, 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays. 

And, the same being ordered, resulted—yeas 23, 
nays 63—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Chambers, Clark, Cook, Curry, Farr, GilleU, 
Gregg, Hamilton, Johnson, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, Morris, 
Reenielin, Sellers, Stebbins, Stidger, Swan, Swift, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Way and W’illiams—23. . * 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderier, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, 
Chaney, Cutler, Florence, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, 
Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence. Leech, Loudon, 


Morehead, Nash, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley 
Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Au- 
glaize, Stanbery, Stanton, Struble, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby 
Thompson of Stark, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury and President 
—63. 

So Mr. Clark’s amendment was rejected. 

Mr. STANTON proposed further to umend the 
amendment, with reference to the per diem, by strik¬ 
ing out the word “three,” and inserting the word 
“ two.” 

Mr. S. remarked that he was surprised that the gen¬ 
tleman I'rom Clinton, [Mr. Morris,] in his zeal for re¬ 
trenchment had not proposed to fix the^er diem at two 
dollars. (A laugh.) 

Mr. REEMELIN said, he should vote for striking 
out, but he would demand a division of the question, 
with a view’ of subsequently voting to insert the word 
“four.” He intended also, at the proper time, to pro¬ 
pose the following additional amendment, to the sec¬ 
tion, which he would read for information : “And no 
other allowance or compensation shall be made, either 
collectively or individually, to members, for postage, 
stationery, or for any other perquisite or purpose what¬ 
ever, except the per diem and mileage aforesaid:” 

The question being now taken upon striking out the 
word “ three,” it was agreed to upon a division—affir¬ 
mative 40, negative 36. 

Mr. REEMELIN now proposed to fill the blank 
with “ four.” 

Mr. STANTON desired to withdraw his proposition 
to fill the blank with “ two.” 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman’s motion was in 
the hands of the Convention—one branch of it having 
been already acted upon. 

Mr. WOODBURY proposed to fill the blank with 
“five,” 

Mr, STIDGER proposed “ two dollars and twenty- 
five cents.” (A laugh.) 

Mr. MITCHELL should vote against filling the blank 
with anything. He considered that the adjustment of 
this matter ought to be left with the Legislature, for 
the reason, that, what might be a fair compensation at 
one time, might not be so at another. Like everything 
else, the amount of this compensation ought to depend 
upon the character of the times. 

The question being upon the motion of Mr, Stid¬ 
ger, to fill the blank with the words “ two dollars and 
twenty-five cents,” 

Upon motion of Mr. LOUDON, it was 

Ordered, That the bill and pending amendments be 
laid upon the table. 

Mr LOUDON proposed for adoption the following 
resolution: 

Resolved, That from and after the first day of January next, 
this Convention will hold evening sessions till otherwise or¬ 
dered. 

Pending the £j[uestion upon which ; upon motion of 
Mr. LIDEY, 

The Convention adjourned. 


TUESDAY, December 31, 1850. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Boynton. 

Mr. LAWRENCE presented a petition from John 
Tod and seventy-five other citizens of Guernsey coun¬ 
ty, praying that a clause be hiserted in the new consti¬ 
tution prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing the traffic in spirituous liquors.^ 

The same gentleman presented a petition from Pris¬ 
cilla Taylor and ninety-five ladies of the same county, 
on the same subject. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from Ma¬ 
ry Allen and sixty other ladies of the same county, on 
the same subject. 

Mr. FLORENCE presented a petition from Chester 
Olds and two hundred and forty-seven other citizens 
of Pickaway county, on the same subject. 











868 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. STANBERY presented a petition from Walter 
Thrall and fifty-four other males, and fifty females of 
Franhlin county, on iliesame subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. PATTERSON submitted the following: 

Resolved, That all debate in the Convention on the Legislative 
Department, shall cease this day, at 11 o’clock, and the Conven¬ 
tion shall then proceed to vote upon such amendments as may 
then be pending, or may be thereafter offered; Provided, that the 
mover of any amendment may be allowed ten minutes, and any 
other delegate, who may desire it, five minutes. 

On the adoption of which the same gentleman de¬ 
manded the yeas and nays, and being ordered, result¬ 
ed yeas 34, nays 51, as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Brown of Athens, Chambers, Chaney, 
Clark, Curry, Farr, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Hard, Hawkins, 
Humphreville, Hunter, Kirkwood. Lidey, Loudon, Morris, Patter¬ 
son, Perkins, Ranney, Reemelin, Sawyer, Sellers, Smith of Wy¬ 
andot, ^tebbins, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Townshend, Vance of 
Butler, Warren, Way, Woodbury and President.—34. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bate.'', Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Cook, Cutler, Dorsey, 
Florence, Graham, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hen¬ 
derson, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Ken- 
non. King, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Mitchell, More- 
head, Nash, Norris, Otis, Peck, Quigley, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Swan, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stai’k, Williams and Wilson. 
—51. I 

So the re.solution was disagreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to take up the resolution sub¬ 
mitted on yesterday by Mr. Loudon, relative to eve¬ 
ning sessions, which motion was disagreed to. 

On the motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention 
again took up the report of the committee on the Leg¬ 
islative Department, together with the pending amend¬ 
ments. 

The question pending being on filling the blank in 
Mr. Morris' amendment to the report, with the word 
“ five,” it was disagreed to. 

Mr. REEMELIN said that it had been the custom to 
class any man with “ demagogues ” who, in the Legis¬ 
lature, had ventured to speak with regard to the post¬ 
age accounts and stationery of members, but notwith¬ 
standing this, the evil growing out of the present sys¬ 
tem of charging those accounts to the State was an 
enormous one, and would convince any man who would 
pay attention to the subject, that it must be checked. 
This is the place and the proper time to put an end to 
what I might characterize as a great fraud upon the 
public treasury. A simple provision in the new con¬ 
stitution, will obviate the whole difficulty—will save 
thousands annually or biennially to the State, and for¬ 
ever remove from members of the General Assembly 
the temptation to commit wrong. I do not desire to 
enter into the discussion of this last mentioned subject. 

I will not characterize the flagrant abuses of the priv¬ 
ileges with regard to postage and stationery as pecula¬ 
tions as frauds, but gentlemen who have been mem¬ 
bers of the General Assembly can appreciate my mean¬ 
ing when I say that the present system is a very strong 
temptation to commit wrong. 

I submit to gentlemen if it is not better to pay mem¬ 
bers of the Legislature four dollars per diem and de¬ 
clare that they shall receive no other pecuniary com¬ 
pensation whatever, direct or indirect? By so doing 
will we not subserve the public good and materially 
elevate the character and standing of the Representa¬ 
tives of the people ? Gentlemen of this Convention 
who have been members of Congress will bear me out 
in saying that the present regulutions of that body 
whereby each member is allowed a specified sum of 
money on account of stationery, works well. 

Paying members of the General Assembly four dol¬ 
lars per diem (allowing each member to pay for his own 
stationery and postage) the expenses of a session would 
be $12,000 per month. The postage account, also, of 
several sessions of the Legislature has amounted to 
$8,000 and $9,000 for the entire session. At one ses¬ 


sion the postage account amounted to $12,000. This, 
be it remembered, is exclusive of stationery, which 
makes, comparatively, an enormous aggregate. 

I am well convinced that the adoption of a provis¬ 
ion similar to the one contained in my proposition will 
save a large sum of money, at every session, not only 
to the State, but a considerable amount to members, 
and free them not only from the temptations I have ad¬ 
verted to, but relieve them from the charges which for 
years past have been made with a view of disgracing 
the representatives of the people. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, was in favor of leaving 
this matter of the compensation and perquisites of 
members to that body; to be settled by them in accord¬ 
ance with the circumstances by which they may be 
surrounded. This Convention could not determine 
how long this constitution would endure, and there¬ 
fore could not fix the compensionof officers under it, 
so as to be in harmony with the circumstances which 
might spring up in the unknown future. 

Mr. LOUDON was opposed to the original proposi¬ 
tion, nor could he vote for the one made by the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] the fluctua¬ 
tion in the value of a specified amount ot money was 
so great in the course of half a century, that he thought 
it unadvisable to fix the compensation of members of 
the Legislature for the future—he would prefer to leave 
the whole matter to the General Assembly. 

As to the postage accounts of members, he thought 
those accounts were incurred for the benefit of their 
constituents, and therefore are justly incurred. 

Mr. HAWKINS. If I were disposed to fix any sum 
in the new constitution as the compensation of mem¬ 
bers of the General Assembly, it should be a low sum, 
and it should be coupled with a prohibition from re¬ 
ceiving any other pecuniary compensation. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I would ask the gentleman from 
Brown [Mr. Loudon] who thinks that the compensa¬ 
tion of members of the General Assembly should be 
left to the determination of that body, if it is not a very 
delicate matter for public officers to fix their own com¬ 
pensation? It certainly was so tome; and I desire 
to free others from so disagreeable and ungracious a 
task. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I consider the principle embra¬ 
ced in the proposition of the gentleman from Hamilton 
[Mr. Reemelin] a good one, and shall support it. The 
wasteful expenditure of the public money under the 
present system of paying the postage of members and 
furnishing stationery at the expense of the State, would 
convince any one who would look into the matter, that 
a thorough change is demanded. At first sight it ap¬ 
peared a small matter, but in the aggregate it was one 
of vast expense, and productive of greater evils than 
mere pecuniary abuse. 

Mr. RANNEY would vote for the proposition to pay 
members of the General Assembly lour dollars per 
diem, coupled with a prohibition from receiving, di¬ 
rectly or indirectly, any further compensation. He be¬ 
lieved that such a provision would lessen the amount 
of public printing now ordered at every session—an 
amount vastly greater than required by the public in¬ 
terests. 

Mr. CLARK. I shall vote for the amendment of 
the gentleman from Hamilton. I do not think that a 
per diem of four dollars is too great, provided there 
is a distinct provision that members shall purchase 
their own stationery, and pay their own postage ac¬ 
counts. 

Mr. HUNT should vote to fix the compensation of 
members at three dollars per diem—the sum original¬ 
ly named in the report of the committee on the Legis¬ 
lative Department. He thought that a fair remunera¬ 
tion for the service. 

The question being upon adopting the amendment 
[Mr. Reemelin’s] proposing to fix the compensation of 
members of the General Assembly at four dollars per 
diem, provided that no other compensation, direct or 
indirect should be allowed. 


I 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


869 


Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, demanded the yeas and 
nays; and being ordered, resulted—yeas 31, nays 56— 
as follows : 

Yeas—M essrs. Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Case of Lick¬ 
ing, Chambers, Clark, Cook, Cutkr, Ewart, Farr, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Gray, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hootman, Horton, Hunter, 
Jones, Leadbetter, Nash, Otis, Perkins, Ranney, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, and Woodbury— 
31. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of 
Hocking, Chaney, Curry, Florence, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Johnson, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, 
Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, Nor¬ 
ris, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Wyan¬ 
dot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stidger, Thompson of Stark, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson, and President 
——56. 

So the motion to fill the blank with the word " four’ 
was disagreed to. 

The question pending being on agreeing to the mo¬ 
tion to fill the blank with the words “ two dollars and 
twenty-five cents,” it was disagreed to. 

The question pending being on agreeing to fill the 
blank with the word “ two,” it was disagreed'to. 

Mr. CASE, of Hocking, moved to reconsider the 
vote by which the word “ three ” was stricken out ol 
Mr. Morris’s amendment. 

On which motion, Mr. STANTON demanded the 
yeas and nays ; and being ordered, resulted—yeas 27, 
nays 61—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Bates, Blickensderfer, Case of Hocking, Cham¬ 
bers, Clark, Curry, Cutler, Gray, Holmes, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Morris, Otis, Ranney, Reem¬ 
elin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Stidger, Struble, and President—27. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgom¬ 
ery) Barnett of Preble, Bennett Blair, Brown of Athens, Browm ol 
Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Cook, Ewart, Farr, Flor¬ 
ence, Gillett, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, 
Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hootman, Horton, Hunter, 
Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood. Larsh, Loudon, Ma¬ 
son, Mitchell, Morehead, Nash, Norris, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, 
Quigley, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stebbins, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Vance ol Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson 
and Woodbury—61. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

Mr. NASH moved to amend the araedment by stri¬ 
king out the words “ more than,” and inserting in lieu 
thereof, the words “ not less than three.” 

Mr. LAWRENCE. It is safe as w'ell as proper to 
say, that the pay of members of the Legislature shall 
never be less than three dollars per day, for whatever 
the fluctuations in the intrinsic value of the circulating 
medium, that amount would never be too much—it 
might be too little. It is my desire to put it out of the 
power of members of the General Assembly to resolve 
themselves into a body of deuiagogues by voting to re¬ 
duce their compensation, just at, or near the close of a 
session, when the efiect will be to deprive their suc¬ 
cessors of a fair compensation for their services. When 
the time arrives for an increase of pay, let the mem¬ 
bers take upon themselves the responsibility of an in¬ 
crease. I regard that as a sufficient check upon any 
tendency to extravagance. 

The question being upon the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment [Mr. Nash's,] 

Mr. CLARK demanded the yeas and nays, which be¬ 
ing ordered, resulted—yeas 30, nays 58—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Cook, Cutler, Dorsey, Ew¬ 
art, Farr, Greene of Defiance, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Jones, 
Lawrence, Leech, Mason, Nash, Otis, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of 
Hsrrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Stebbins, Swan, 
Swift, and Taylor—30. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett ol 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chaney, 
Clark, Curry, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Gregg, Groes- 
beck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes- 
Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, klorri.?, Norris,, 
Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Struble, Thompson 
of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend,' Warren, ^Vay, Wil¬ 
liams, Wilson, Woodbury, and President—58. 


So the motion to amend the amendment was disa¬ 
greed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend 
ment, as amended, it was disagi’eed to. 

Mr. NASH moved to amend the report by adding at 
the end of the same, the following as an addition sec¬ 
tion, which was agreed to: 

The General Assembly shall pass no law, which 
shall either increase or diminish their own compensa¬ 
tion, after the pay has once been fixed. 

Mr. GREGG moved to amend the report by adding 
at the end of the same, the following as an additional 
section: 

Sec. 42. The members of the General Assembly shall receive 
such just and equitable compensation as may be deemed just and 
equitable, and which shall not be incrcreased or diminished du¬ 
ring their term of service. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to amend the amendment by 
inserting after the word equitabte ” the words “ fixed 
by law;” which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment, as amended, 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved to further amend the 
amendment by striking out the words “just and equi¬ 
table,” where it occurs first in the amendment, which 
was agreed to. 

Mr. WILLIAMS moved to further amend the amend¬ 
ment by striking out all after the word law; which 
was disain eed to. 

Mr. BENNETT moved to further amend the amend¬ 
ment by striking out the words “ or diminish;” which 
was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment, as amended, Mr. MORRIS demanded the yeas 
and nays, and being ordered resulted—yeas 47, nays 43 
—as follows: 


Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Chambers, 
Chaney, Dorsey, Ewart, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Hootman, Horton, Humphre'^H^ 
Hunter, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Leech, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, 
Nash, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott 
of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stid¬ 
ger, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Way, and President—47. 

Nays —Messrs. Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown ot Car- 
roll, Case (Jf Hocking, Case of Licking, Clark, Cook, Curry, Cut¬ 
ler, Farr, Florence, Gillett, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Holmes, 
Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
Morehead, Morris, Norris, Otis, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Smith ot 
Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Sttuble, Switt, 
shend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams, Wilson, and Wood- 


)ury—43. 

So the amendment, as amended, was agreed to. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to further amend the 
■eport by inserting after the word “ protest’ section 
[0, the following words : “ without alteration, commit- 
nent or delay;” which was agreed to. 

Mr. LARSH moved to further amend the report, by 
idding, as an additional section, the following : 

Sec. 43. On the first day of each session of the General 
)ly, the Secretary of State shall call the House of Representatives 
o order, and preside until a Speaker be elected. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to further amend by stn- 
dng out all after the words “ Sec. 43,” and inserting in 
ieu of the words stricken cut, the following : 

On the day designated in this constitutton, ^ 

he General Assembly, the Secretary-ol State shall, at hour ot 
LO o’clock A. M., call the House of Represenlatives ^ 
jailing over the counties alphabetically, and t ® be efect 
8tatc shall preside over its dehberations unttl a Speaker be elect 
3d: provided,, however, that the said Secretary ot 
iecisions, be guided by the rules of the preceding House ot Rep 
-esentatives. , 

Mr. TAYLOR would prefer that the moae ol '^rgau’ 
izing the Legislature should be left to that body. It 
le mistook not, the idea of having the session of the 
House of Representatives opened by the Secretaiy ot 
State, was borrowed from New York. In that Slate 
;t was an old custom, and done in pursuance ot law, 
lot by virtue of a constitutional enactment. He thought 
t very proper that the Secretary of State should pre¬ 
side at the opening of the session of the House of Rep- 
'esentiitives until a Speaker should be elected, but he 









870 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


thought that matter should be prescribed by legislative 
enactment. 

Mr. LIDEY moved to amend the words proposed to 
be stricken out, by striking out the words, “ Secretary 
of State,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words, “the 
senior member present;” which wa> disagreed to. 

The question being on agreeing to Mr. Reemelin’s 
amendment— 

Mr. LARSH demanded the yeas and nays, and being 
ordered, resulted—yeas 67, nays 19—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case ot Hocking, Case of 
Licking, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Earr, Flo¬ 
rence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groes-; 
beck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Holmes, Hootman, Hum -1 
phreville. Hunt, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbet- 
ter, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Nash, Norris, Otis, Patter¬ 
son, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott 
of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, 
Thompson ot Shelby, Way, Williams and Wilson—67. 

Nays— Messrs. Baniett of Preble, Brown ol Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Chambers, Cutler, Henderson, Horton, Hunter, Jones, 
Kennon, King,Lar8h, Morehead, Morris, Perkins, Stanton, Taylor, 
Vance of Butler and Worthington—19. 

Mr. MASON moved to further amend the amend-1 
ment, by adding at the end of the same the following:! 
“ Provided, further, that in case of the failure of thei 
Secretary of State, by i*eason of his absence or other 
disability, to attend, the duty of presiding shall devolve 
on the senior member of the House present at the 
time.” 

Mr. FARR. I would inquire whether the word “se¬ 
nior,” as used by the gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Ma¬ 
son,] refers to the age of the member or to the length 
of time he has been a representative? 

Mr. MASON thought there would be no misunder¬ 
standing of the term “senior,” as referring to the old¬ 
est representative—the person who had served the 
longest time in that capacity. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking. Certainty in this matter is 
very desirable—it is necessary precisely to indicate the 
officer who is to call the House to order. 

I thei-efore propose so to amend the amendment that 
it shall provide that the “ best Democrat” shall preside 
on that occasion. [A laugh.] 

Mr. MITCHELL. I rise, sir, to second that amend¬ 
ment, for various reasons. I will only mention one— 
and that is, that its effect might be to exclude .some 
entlemen [pointing to Mr. Case] now in my eye from 
ischarging the duties referred to. [Renewed laugh¬ 
ter.] 

The amendment of Mr. Mason was agreed to. 

The question then being on Mr. Larsh’s amendment 
as amended, it was disagreed to. 

Mr. SWAN moved to further amend the report, by I 
adding to the end of the same the following, as an ad¬ 
ditional section^ which was agreed to : 

Sec. 43. The mode of organizing the House of Representatives 
at tlie commencement of each session, and until a Speaker is 
elected, shall be prescribed by law. 

Mr. HOOTMAN moved to further amend the report, 
by striking out from section three, these words, “and 
have attained the age of twenty-five years.” 

On which motion Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the 
yeas and nays, and being ordered, resulted—yeas 60, 
nays 31—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Bates, Blair, Blickensder¬ 
fer, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Cook, 
Dorsey, Farr, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Ham¬ 
ilton, Hard, Hawkins, Holmes, Hootman. Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsb, Law¬ 
rence, Leech, Lidey, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith ot Wyandot, Steb¬ 
bins, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Woodbury and Pres¬ 
ident—60. 

Nays— Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery. Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Browm of Carroll, 
Cahill, Chambers, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Graham, Har¬ 
lan. Henderson, Horton, Leadbetter, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, 
Morehead, Morris, Nash, Peck, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Thompson of Stark, Williams and Wilson—31. 


So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to further amend the report, 
by striking out section thirty-one, which is as follows: 

Sec. 31. No power of suspending laws shall be exercised un¬ 
less by the General Assembly, nor shall any law be passed con¬ 
tingent upon the approval or disapproval of any other authority, 
except as provided in the constitution. 

The provision against “ the passage of any law con¬ 
tingent upon the ajiproval of any other authority ex¬ 
cept as provided in the constitution,” was, in his opin¬ 
ion wrong. The rest of the section he thought unne¬ 
cessary. 

Pending which, 

On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Warren, the report 
and pending amendments ot the committee on the leg¬ 
islative department were laid on the table. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, asked and obtained leave 
of absence until Tuesday next. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the Convention adjourn. 

On which motion Mr. STANTON demanded the 
yeas and nays, and being ordered, resulted—yeas 42, 
nay 48—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Bennett, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill,Case of Hocking, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart 
Florence, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Harlan, Holmes, 
Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, 
Lareh, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Mason, Mitchell, Nash, Norris, Per¬ 
kins, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Warren, 
Stanbery, Stebbins, Taylor and Williams—42. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates , 
Blair, Brown of Athens, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, 
Clark. Cook, Curry, Farr, Gillett, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hunter, King, Kirkwood, Lidey, 
Loudon, Morehead, IMorris, Otis, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith ot Wyandot, Stan¬ 
ton, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Thomp 
on of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way. WiJ 
son, Woodbury and President—48. 

So the motion to adjourn was disagreed to 

On motion of Mr. BLAIR, the Convention took a 
recess. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. CASE, of Hocking, offered the following: 

Resolved, That hereafter, when the Convention takes a recess, 
it shall be until 2 o’clock, P. M. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to lay the resolution on the 
table. 

Mr MORRIS demanded the yeas and nays upon this 
motion: 

And the same being ordered and taken, the result 
vva.s—yeas 51, nays 34—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, 
Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene 
of Defiance, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Morehead, Nash, Norris, 
Otis, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbms, Stidger, Swan, 
Thompson of Shelby, To%vushend, Vance of Butler, Williams and 
Wilson—51. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery. Blair, Cahill, 
Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Farr, 
Gregg, Harlan, Hunter, lung, Kirkwood, Lidey, Loudon, Morris, 
Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Stanton, Struble, Swiit, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, 
Warren, Way, W'^oodbury and President—34. 

So the motion to lay on the table was disagreed to. 

the legislative department-SUBMISSION OF LAWS 

TO THE PEOPLE. 

Ou motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention resum¬ 
ed the consideration of the report of the committee on 
the Legislative Department. 

The PRESIDENT stated the question to be upon 
Mr. Ranney’s motion to strike out section 31, which is 
as follows : 

Sec. 31. No power of suspending laws shall be exercised un¬ 
less by the General Assembly; nor shall any law be passed to take 
eii'ect upon the contingency of its approval by any other authori¬ 
ty than that which is provided for in this constitution. 

Mr. RANNEY said he had heard the explanation of 
the gentleman from Hamilton with regard to the sec¬ 
tion, and still he thought it ought to be stricken out. 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


871 


He did not suppose that the first part of the section 
would work any wroufr, but he would strike that out 
also, because he regarded it as mere .'surplusage. It 
was copied originally from an instrument but very 
poorly adapted for the purposes of a constitution of the 
State of Ohio—an instrument having no adaption to 
our institutions or form of government. But the latter 
part of the section, it seemed to him, was calculated to 
restrict and cramp the power of the Legislature, in a 
matter where there ought to be no restriction. The 1 
gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemecin] had said ' 
that this portion of the section was intended to deny 
to the Legislature the right to submit a law to the peo¬ 
ple for approval, before it shall have the force and ef¬ 
fect of law. He believed he understood the gentleman 
correctly. Was not that the design ? 

Mr. REEMELIN (in his seat.) Except in cases 
where the Legislature is authorized so to do by this 
constitution. 

Mr. RANNEY. Exactly so. In regard to the for¬ 
mation of new counties, and the alteration of county 
lines, the Convention had determined to make it obli¬ 
gatory upon the Legislature to submit such questions 
for the approval of the people. 

But the gentleman from Hamilton referred to a class 
of cases in which injustice had been done resulting 
from laws allowing counties, townships and cities to 
vote upon a question of subscription, and taxation for 
the construction of some public work. But the gentle¬ 
man would recollect that, in committee of the whole, 
we had adopted a provision denying entirely to the 
Legislature the power so to do hereafter. He was in 
favor of the proposition ; for he denied the right of ma¬ 
jorities to tax minorities, for anything or any purpose 
beyond the support of government. He would not put 
the taxing power into the hamls even of a majority, for 
any other purpose than barely to execute thoselaws 
which are necessary for the protection of the people in 
their various interests. Therefore he was in favor of 
restricting the Legislature, and any and eveiy portion 
of the people, with reference to the exercise of the 
power of subscribing money to be raised by taxa¬ 
tion, for works of internal improvement. And this was 
necessary in order to protect the rights of minorities. 
But taking the case of a law, affecting certain locali¬ 
ties, such as towns and cities exclusively, andnotrela- 
ting'to other portions of the State ; could there be any 
more desirable privilege exercised by the Legislature, 
than to submit such a law for the approval of the peo¬ 
ple to be affected by it? W'ould it not be democratic, 
without using the word in any party sense ? What 
could be the objection ? But here, genllemen were 
undertaking to say by this section, that, in ail future 
time, the Legislature should never do such a thing. 
He wanted to hear some better reason for this, tiian 
he had yet heard; for whilst he had been unable to 
conjure for himself any reason in support of it, on the 
other hand, he could see numerous objections to it. 

Mr. SAWYER said it was mentioned before the 
committee which drafted this section, that it was known 
to have been the case in several counties, townships 
and cities, authorized by act of the Legislature to vote 
for subscribing for stock for the construction of a rail¬ 
road, plankroad, or turnpike road, that a majority of 
the voters would come together and vote to subscribe 
for stock, and compel the minority to pay their quota, 
whilst they I’eceived no benefit from the work, and 
the committee considered this thing of compelling mi¬ 
norities to construct public works in which they could 
have no earthlv interest, to be the fruit of a most anti¬ 
democratic an^ tyrannical principle, and it was to pre¬ 
vent the exercise of this power, that this latter part of 
the section w'as drafted. With regard to the first part 
of this section, in which it was provided, that no pow¬ 
er of suspending any law should be exercised, unless 
it were done by the General Assembly, this clause 
was inserted, in order to arrest the assumption of the 
power on the part of the Supreme Court of Ohio, to de 


dare, as by an edict, a law of the land to be unconsti¬ 
tutional, and thereby suspend its operation. He con 
tended that this court had no right to do any such thing; 
that they were neither the law-making nor the law¬ 
suppressing power, and that whenever they attempted 
to exercise this power they assumed that which be¬ 
longed only to the representatives of the people. This 
was a kind ot democracy which he would never sub¬ 
mit to. 

Mr. RANNEY resuming. His friend from Auglaize 
' certainly could not have been attending to what he 
had been saying. He had said that he subscribed 
ally to the principle, denying to counties, townships 
and cities, the i ight to subscribe for internal improve¬ 
ment stock. He was in agreement with that gentle¬ 
man, with regard to this principle, which also, (as he 
had before said,) had been passed upon by this body ; 
and is not one constitutional provision of this kind 
enough ? But why should it be necessary to insert a 
provision that no law should be submitted to the peo¬ 
ple? This seemed to his mind to be denying to the 
Legislature a power which might be very properly and 
prudently exercised in some cases. But, with regard 
to the former portion of the section, that it was said 
was intended to prevent the supreme court from exer¬ 
cising the right to determine ujiou the constitutionality 
of the statutes,—certainly there could not be anything 
further from the design of the section than that, but if 
within it, nothing could be more pernicious. 

To illustrate this prerogative of the Supreme Court, 
he said, it was a constitutional provision, carefully in¬ 
serted in this instrument, that the property of the citi¬ 
zens should remain inviolate. It could only be taken, 
even for public use, upon full indemnity But here 
comes along the State authority, and takes away my 
property. I have, then, but two resources for redress; 
one is club-law, and the other is a resort to the Judicial 
tribunals. But being neither a very strong, nor a very 
valiant man, I do not resort to club-law ; I come to the 
law of the land. And when I come to the Supreme 
court, I say to them, that my property has been taxed 
against a constitutional guarantee: the Court interposes, 
and decides that my property shall not be thus 
taken away. Is it possible that the gentleman would 
press this section so as to prevent the Court from giving 
that kind of redress ? I hope not. I think not. If I 
thought this part of the sectioirwas liable to that inter¬ 
pretation, it would enlist all my powers of opposition. 

But I have looked upon it as a mere abstraction, put 
in for ornament. If we had in our government a de¬ 
partment claiming the power of suspending the force 
of law, such as was exercised by the crown in the 
times of .lames the second, there would be some .rea¬ 
son lor this provision; but now it is retained in all 
our constitutions, merely for the purpose of showing 
our respect and veneration for the institutions of our 
ancestors. When the Parliament undertook, in those 
times, to pass laws against the Catholics and Non-con¬ 
formists, the Monarchs were in the habit of suspending 
the execution of these laws. 

Here, then, was a reason for the origin of this pro¬ 
vision which the committee had copied; and in the 
year 1688, when this monarch was put down, it became 
' a part of the English constitution, that no law should 
be suspended, except by the Parliament. Here was 
a reason for it; but to introduce such a pi’ovision into 
the constitution of Ohio, where the Executive could 
exercise no such power, was mere surplusage. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I ask whether the Auditor of 
State has not been authorized to suspend the tax law ? 

Mr. RANNEY. Who authorized him to do so, allow 
me to ask ? 

Mr. REEMELIN. He was authorized by the au¬ 
thority of the General Assembly, to suspend the opera¬ 
tion of the 60th and 6l8t .sections. 

Mr. RANNEY. But you deny the power of suspend¬ 
ing laws to everybody but the Legislature ; and now 
point me to a case where the Legislature has author- 














872 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ized somebody to suspend the laws. This is not get¬ 
ting rid ol' the difficulty, because here the law was 
suspended by the authority of the Legislature them¬ 
selves. I regard it as a mere surplusage—ornament— 
respect for the memory of our ancestors—nothing else. 
But if it is to go beyond this, and trench upon the pow¬ 
ers of the Judiciary—denying to the courts to decide 
what is the law and the constitution of the State—de¬ 
nying to them the power to stand between the citizen 
and the Legislature, and give to the citizen the full 
benefit and enjoyment of those guarantees which we 
are passing upon here; then it is a much graver prop¬ 
osition than I had supposed, and it seems to me that 
no man having any respect for the supreme law of the 
land, could support it. It is utterly futile for us to sit 
hereto frame the supreme law, unless we give to some 
court the supremacy necessary to assert and declare 
what the law is. 

With the construction thus given to the former por¬ 
tion of this section, instead of regarding it as meaniug 
merely nothing at all, I am compelled to look upon it as 
absolutely pernicious; and, with respect to the latter 
portion of the section, no vote of mine shall ever be re¬ 
corded, denying to the Legislature the power to submit 
to the people the question whether their act shall have 
the force and effect of law or not. So far from dis¬ 
couraging and prohibiting the exercise of this power, 
I would rather encourage and recommend it. 

Mr. REEMELIN regretted that he had not now be¬ 
fore him the decision of the Supreme Court of Penn¬ 
sylvania upon this subject, that he might sustain his 
own opinion by reading and showing the impropriety 
of submitting any legislative proposition to the people, 
not absolutely necessary to be submitted. Could not 
the gentleman see, that if the legislative power may 
be delegated, the time might come when it would be 
difficult to tell where the legislative power of the 
State exists? It might be so covered up in the hands 
of commissioners and auditors, that the citizen would 
not know where to look for it; and the legislation of 
the State might be like the law of Congress authori¬ 
zing the Secretary of the Treasury to explain the Cus¬ 
tom House law. 

It was the object of this provision to prescribe that 
the law-making power shall remain with the Legisla¬ 
ture, in order that the citizen may know exactly where 
to look for it. 

Could not the gentleman see that this thing.of sub¬ 
mitting a proposition to the people was a mere loop¬ 
hole for members of the General Assembly to shove oH 
responsibility ? He recollected that, at the time when 
this legislative practice was first introduced, it was 
claimed as a kind of democracy; but, as the gentle¬ 
man from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] had remarked, it 
was a kind of democi’acy he would never submit to. 
It happened frequently, that where a few individuals 
wanted to build a court house, a school house, or a rail¬ 
road, they could not get their proposition to tax the 
people through the Legislature without resorting to this 
popular lever —“ submit it to the people.” He had of¬ 
ten heard in the Legislature language like this: “What 
business is it to you, if the people of Allen county ru¬ 
in themseleves by this subscription?” But, he would 
ask, what was the use of having a legislative body, il 
their judgment were not sufficient to declare and es¬ 
tablish the law ? If this were democracy, then every¬ 
thing could be decided without the intervention of the 
Legislature—through the newspapers. 

Mr. RANNEY would ask the gentleman whether, 
under this provision, the Legislature could authorize 
the people of a school district to levy a tax upon,them¬ 
selves to build a school house? 

Mr. REEMELIN. No; but the Legislature could 
authorize the levying of a school tax by general law*. 

Mr. RANNEY. And this would be more democratic 
than to authorize the people to do so for themselves? 

Mr. REEMELIN. Yes. But it was merely the ten¬ 
dency of the principle to which he desired to call the 


attention of his friend. The idea of the popular sover¬ 
eignty, as distinct from the power of the Legislature, 
he did not desire to see adopted into the constitution, 
and it should not be done if he could prevent it. 

Mr. TAYLOR. The course of this discussion for the 
last half hour has suggested to my mind a few conside¬ 
rations which I desire to present. 

In respect to the relation of the judiciary to the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly of the State, I concur in the remarks of 
the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney.] It 
seems to me necessary and important that the judicial 
department, who are representatives of the people, 
should stand as sentinels to guard the constitutional 
rights of the people, 11 a law of the General Assem¬ 
bly should conflict with any right of the people—any 
constitutional guaranty—there should be a department, 
proceeding from the people, and responsible to them, 
which can revert to those great fundamental principles 
at the foundation of the State government, and preset ve 
the landmarks of the constitution. I say this arises 
from the necessity of the case—from the very nature of 
our institutions. Whilst I confess to the truthfulness 
of the remark of the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. 
Sawyer,] that this is the exercise of a high prerogative 
of power, I claim it also as the exercise of an impor¬ 
tant function of the government; and I hope it will be 
the work of this body to popularize the judiciary as 
far as possible, so as to make the judges the represen¬ 
tatives of the people, as much as the members of the 
General Assembly themselves. 

But, I desire, in this connection, to interpose a cawat 
with reference to what seems to have been admitted 
by many in the discussion which we have had for the 
last few days. It seems to have been admitted, as a 
kind of legal tradition, that the decision of a court shall 
have the force of an edict—possessing more binding 
force upon public opinion than any act of the legisla¬ 
tive department. II the General Assembly pass a law, 
the fact that it remains a law', does not arrest the free¬ 
dom of discussion with reference to its merits. And if 
it be objectionable, we arraign its wisdom, and demand 
its repeal, by all the considerations we can bring to 
bear upon it; and no man alleges that it is an extin¬ 
guisher upon the freedom ol discussion. But we have 
seen, in this Convention exhibited, all ol that awe¬ 
struck leeling with which many stand before a judicial 
edict—a feeling that must stop our mouths. It is 
against that which I protest, and 1 demand for the 
press of the country, of which I am a humble represen¬ 
tative, the exercise of that right which will authorize 
us, when anything has passed into the foi-m of a judi¬ 
cial decision, to arraign the grounds of that decision 
just as freely as we may arraign an act of the General 
Assembly. Stare decisis, is a maxim which may be ap¬ 
pealed to with respect to the decision of a case between 
individuals and involving individual interests: but when 
the court makes a decision touching any' subject of con¬ 
stitutional construction and popular rights, then I say 
the jiress has a right to arraign the reasons of that de¬ 
cision just as freely, and as boldly, as we arraign a leg¬ 
islative act. 

If I may be allowed to do so by way of illustration, 
I will refer to the decision of Chief Justice Marshall, 
declaring that the bank of the United States was con¬ 
stitutionally authorized by Congress. It was sought, 
by that decision, to foreclose discusion in Congress. 
But such was not the course of the American people. 
They arraigned the opinion of that Judge, with the 
same freedom and boldness that they are wont to ar¬ 
raign the reasonings of their Senators and Representa¬ 
tives in Congress, and they overruled it. 

We have a written constitution. And it was wisely 
determined from the beginning, that the judicial de¬ 
partment should stand between the Legislature and the 
people, for the security of the constitutional rights ot 
the latter. We place the judiciary of this country in a 
[losition of more'dignity and influence, and power than 
is witnessed in any other country in the world. This 











CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


873 


arises from the necessity of l!ie case. Hence, it be¬ 
comes the duty of every renublican to watch jealously 
every judicial act; and no decision of the court should 
ever be held up before the American people in order 
to foreclose discussion and gag the expression of the 
public mind. Every such attempt is a usurpation, and 
calls for resistance. But these judicial decisions have 
an influence upon legislative bodies in this country, 
which ought not to be maintained; and the time will 
come when the American people will witness in that 
life judiciary of the federal government, one of the 
most prominent obstacles to the development of our 
free institutions. 

The reason assigned by the chairman of the commit 
tee on the Legislative Department [Mr. Sawyer] in 
favor of the adoption of the first portion of the section, 
namely, because it was to deny to the courts the judi¬ 
cial function of standing between the individual and 
the violation of his constitutional rights by the Gener¬ 
al Assembly, constitutes the very reason why I am op¬ 
posed to it. 

In respect to the remaining portion of the section, 
providing that no law shall be submitted for the ap¬ 
proval of the people, except as prescribed in this con¬ 
stitution, Mr. 5. declared himself indisposed to discuss 
the submission of Icical questions to the people, but he 
saw no evil that could grow out of the submission of 
any general law. 

With respect to the apprehensions of the gentleman 
from Harnilton [Mr. Reemelin] that such a practice 
would be injurious, he referred to a case in the legis¬ 
lation of the State of New York. The Legislature of 
that State recently passed a free school law—an inno¬ 
vation upon the former system of the State, and, in 
consequence of the opposition which it received, the 
subject of its repeal was presented to the people at 
their last general election. The resistance to the law 
seemed a perfect avalanche, before the election came 
on. The friends of the law were comparatively quiet, 
but its enemies established presses and employed lec¬ 
turers. The election came off^—the people voted—and 
a majority of thirty or forty thousand decided in favor 
of the law; The people themselves proving more con¬ 
servative than their representatives would probably 
have been. And he believed that any proposition sub¬ 
mitted to the judgment of the people at large, would 
be approached with a more jealous and conservative 
scrutiny than was ordinarily to be found in our legis¬ 
lative bodies. 

There were many thinking men in the State, who j 
were advocating the submission of every general law 
to the people, for their approval or rejection, and there 
was a leading journal [he referred to the Toledo Re¬ 
publican,] in the northern part of the State, at this 
time engaged in an efficient advocacy of this principle, 
and its reasonings were very plausible to the effect, 
that it would not only work well in practice, but that, 
in all respects, it would have a salutary effect upon the 
public mind. Ihen why not leave this to the discre¬ 
tion of the Legislature, instead of establishing here an 
iron rule against the submission of any law to the 
judgment of the pei'ple. 

In no respect was it important, as it seemed to him, 
that this section should be retained in the report, and 
he hoped that it would be stricken out; for, by retain¬ 
ing it, the strength and efficiency of the judiciary of 
the State might be impaired, and the present genera¬ 
tion and their successors might be deprived of the ben¬ 
efit of that “ sober, second thought,” which wuis sel¬ 
dom wrong, and always efficient.” 

Mr. NASH said the first part of the section w’as a 
mere copy from the old constitution, and it had receiv¬ 
ed its construction long ago. The history of the pro¬ 
vision had been correctly stated by the gentleman from 
Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] and he admitted that it real¬ 
ly had no meaning in a government where the law¬ 
making power was confided exclusively to the Legis¬ 
lature. It could neither do any hurt nor any good, in a 


State where no officer could claim to exercise the pow¬ 
er of suspending the execution of the law. 

The difficulty with one gentleman was, that he did 
not seem to discriminate between the construction of 
law and law making; he seemed to imagine that, when 
the courts undertook to decide cases, they were ma¬ 
king laws instead of merely ascertaining what the 
law is. 

All were in the first place bound to ascertain and 
construe the constitution and laws at their peril; and 
some tribunal must settle all controversies arising out 
of conflicting constructions and opinions. From the 
first organization of our government, this power had 
been given to the judiciary. 

When men talk about the edicts of the Supreme 
Court, they not only talk nonsense, but something' 
worse. A court enter an edict! An edict signified the 
publication of a law, by the authority of one man 
holding the whole of the lavv-raaking power. No mar> 
in this country had any power to issue an edict. 

Mr. TAYLOR said: I referred to a decision of the 
court upon a question of a political nature, and termed 
it an edict, because the course of the argument here 
had given it that character. 

Mr. NASH continuing. It only grew out of a mis¬ 
conception of what were the real powers and rights of 
the courts. If the court pass upon any point in the 
Constitution or laws, their construction becomes the 
meaning of such a point in the constitution or laws. So,, 
if the gentleman from Erie and himself were to have a 
dispute, and agree to refer the matter to the gentleman 
from Warren, the settlement or construction given by 
the gentleman from Warren would become their under¬ 
standing of the question in controversy. It was thie 
that gave force and effect to the decisions of the courts-- 
which the State had organized to settle the meaning of 
the constitution and laws in all cases where parties dis¬ 
agree. 

Mr. RANNEY. Does the gentleman say that where 
a wrong interpretation has been given, it precludes, 
another court from construing the same point different¬ 
ly. 

Mr. NASH did not say anything of the kind. Of 
course, court decisions might be i-evised in all matters,, 
but when a question has been settled by revision, over 
and over again—there must be either an end of contro¬ 
versy some time or other, or men would have to live Id 
a government of everlasting agitation, as unstable as- 
the bosom of the ocean itself. 

The framers of our constitution w'ere men of wisdom^ 
and they organized thejudiciary to settle and decide 
upon what should be the true construction ot the con¬ 
stitution and laws ; and if the construction oi the courts 
should not prove satisfactory, it was provided that the 
people, through their conventions or their Legislature,, 
might alter or amend the constitution and laws and 
make them conform to their wishes. 

In regard to the second clause of the section,^ not¬ 
withstanding the remarks of the gentleman from 1 rum- 
bull, [Mr. Ranney,] his opinion about the propriety of 
retainingit, remained unchanged. His opinion as to the 
course of legislation which this clause intended to pro¬ 
hibit, was, that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, 
it was unjust and luinous. The principle for whicn he 
contended was, that no law should be passed to tak€> 
effect upon any contingency whatever; that the con¬ 
stitution should give the exclusive law-making power 
to the Legislature, and require that body alone to de¬ 
termine what shall, and what shall not be the law. 

There had grown up a system of legislation in this 
country, under wliich the General Assembly had un¬ 
dertaken to divest themselves of the law making pow¬ 
er; but the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylva¬ 
nia had decided that all laws so enacted were uncon¬ 
stitutional. 

What was the character of this kind of legislation? 
It grew out of the fact that one portion of the Stale 
wanted the enactment of laws which another portion 










874 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


of the State did not want, and the consequence was a 
diversity of laws in ditfereiit counties, and even in dif¬ 
ferent townships; and especially with reference to the 
license law, a man was a criminal in Hamilton county, 
who might walk abroad in Clermont an innocent man. 
There were at this time some three or tour ditferent 
laws regulating this matter of temperance in difterent 
portions of the State. This whole thing—including 
the diversity of school laws—was all wrong. There 
should be but one law for the regulation ot any single 
subject throughout the whole State ; and then every 
man, having his rights in his own county or township, 
need not feel that he must change or lose his rights by 
passing from one county or township to another. 

It had been intimated that this clause would prevent 
the building of school houses by the people. But, the 
Legislature having settled what the school law should 
be, the details comprehending the building a school 
lijOUse, of course, would have to be carried out under 
regulations and restrictions to be adopted by the people 
themselves. Whether the district have a school house 
or not, might depend upon the vote ol the people; but 
the law for the payment of the school tax and for the 
hiring of teachers depended upon no vote at all. 

There was also a law authorizing commissioners of 
the county to build a court-house; but that was not 
giving the law-making power to these commissioners 
Mr. RA.NNE Y. We have a law now allowing town¬ 
ships to vote whether they will admit the force of the 
school law or not, commonly called “ the Akron law;” 
would the section before us prohibit that privilege ? ■ 
Mr. NASH. Certainly. He agreed with the su¬ 
preme court of Pennsylvania, that all such laws were 
unconstitutional. He never had but one opinion up¬ 
on the subject. But a ditferent practice had grown 
up in this State; and to suppress it, lie thought there 
should be engrafted into the constitution what he un¬ 
derstood always to have been the true construction of 
the law. 

Mr. MITCHELL. It seemed to be considered upon 
all hands that the first part of the section had no force 
nor applicability in it. As to the latter portion of the 
section, if the intent and meaning of the committee was 
what the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] 
had said it was, he thought the committee had not used 
very appropriate words to express their meaning. 
When the courts came to construe this section, they 
would, of course, attempt to get at the meaning by its 
words. Even the supreme court had no right to change 
the meaning of words, when they are plain and une¬ 
quivocal, and tie would condemn them as usurpers, if 
they attempted such a thing. But if the courts should 
give the same construction to the section which the 
gentleman from Hamilton had giv'eu to it, he would be 
very much mistaken. 

But the laws to which gentlemen refer as instances 
of the abuses heretofore suft'ered, were expressly pro¬ 
vided against in the 6th section ot the report of the 
committee on Public Debts and Public Works, which 
he would read; 

“The Legislature shall never authorize any county, 
city, town or township, in this State, by a vote of its 
citizens or otherwise, to become a stockholder in any 
joint stock company, corporation, or association, or to 
raise money for, or to load its credit to, or in aid of 
any company, corporation, or association.” 

That was clear and unequivocal language. The 
courts would have no dilRculty about applying that; and 
that was the section upon this subject, which he desired 
should stand in the constitution. 

He could see no propriety’ in retaining the section 
under consideration. It was entirely too indefinite, 
and he hoped it would be stricken out, or something 
more definite and certain provided. 

Mr. CURRY proposed further to amend the section, 
by striking out all after the word “ Assembly,” in the 
second line. 

Mr. C. said he supposed it would be well enough to 


retain the first part of this section, for the reasons sta¬ 
ted by the gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash.] But, 
in regard to that portion of the section which he had 
proposed to strike out, there seemed to be a misunder¬ 
standing amongst gentlemen. The gentleman from 
Gallia, had contended that these words could have no 
application to the common school law; whilst other 
gentlemen took the ground that it would affect this 
law. He understood the gentleman from Hamiltf>n, 
[Mr. Reemelin] to state, in reply to the gentleman from 
Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] that these words were appli¬ 
cable to the law relating to common schools ; and he 
was of the same ojiinion. He showed that the school 
law was nugatory without the votes of the household- 
er.s of every district, and therefore it necessarily came 
into conrtict with this clause ; and so also would this 
clause conflict with the provision introduced yesterday, 
witli reference to the erection of new counties and the 
change of county lines. 

Mr. NASH suggested that the words excepted those 
cases. 

Mr. MASON moved to amend the words proposed to 
be strickon out, by striking out all after the word 
“ passed,” in the second line, and inserting the follow¬ 
ing words; “ to take effect upon the contingency of its 
approval by’ any'other authority than that which is pro¬ 
vided for in this constitution.” 

' The amendment was agreed to. 

The question then recurred upon Mr. Curry’s mo¬ 
tion, to-wit, strike out from section 31, (proposed to be 
stricken out) all after the words General Assembly;” 

Upon which motion Mr. Ra.n'ney demanded the yeas 
and nays, and being ordered resulted, yeas 18, nays 
70, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Blickeiisderfer, Case of Hock¬ 
ing, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Farr, Hamilton, Humphrevillc, Hunter, 
King,Mitchell, Perkins, Ranney, Sellers, Taylor, Townshend, and 
Vance of Butler—18. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Cahill, Chambers, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, 
Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Hoot- 
man, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, 
Morris, Nash, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanberj', Stanton, Steb- 
bins, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of 
Stark, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson. Woodbury and Presi¬ 
dent—70. 

So the motion to strike out was lost. 

And then the question recurred upon striking out 
the whole of section 31. 

Mr. RANNEY’ demanded the yeas and nays upon 
this question; and the same being ordered and taken, 
the result was—yeas 19, nays 69—as follows : 

Y'eas —Messrs. Case of Hocking, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Hamil¬ 
ton, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Lead- 
better, Mitchell, Ranney, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Taylor, Town¬ 
shend, and Woodbury—19. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, 
Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Farr, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Horton, Johnson. Kennon, King, Kirkw'ood, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Nash, 
Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Scott ot Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stanbcry, Stanton, Stebbins, Struble, Swan, Swift, 
Thompson of Shelby. Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, War¬ 
ren, Way, Williams, Wilson, and President—69. 

So the Convention refused to strike out; and the fur¬ 
ther consideration of the section was passed over, 

CONTESTED SEATS IN THE GENERAL ASSE.MBLY. 

Mr. LOUDON proposed to amend the sixth section 
of the report as follows. Strike out from the section 
these words: “Each House shall be the judge of the 
election, returns, and qualifications of its members; ” 
and insert in lieu thereof the following : 

The county commissioners, clerk of the court, and two justices 
of the peace, shall have power to hear and determine all contests, 
be judges of the qualifications, and give certificates to members 
elected. 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 876 


Mr. LOUDON believed the principle of his auiend- 
ment to be right, although it might be that he had not 
placed the adjudicating power in the hands of the 
proper persons ; and he repeated the same views of 
the expediency, econoniy, and justice of his proposi¬ 
tion which he gave in committee of the Whole when 
he introduced this amendment during the summt}^’ ses¬ 
sion. 

Mr. TAYLOR considered the county Legislature to 
be the most appropriate tribunal for the adjudication 
of these cases, but all w^ere aware tUat the proposition 
for county Legislatures had been routed, horse, foot 
and dragoons. Whenever that system should be estab¬ 
lished, he would go for taking away the determination 
of these cases from the General Assembly. He regret¬ 
ted that he could not now go with the gentleman from 
Browm. 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded a division of the ques 
tion. 

And then the first c[uestion being upon striking out 
the words, “ each House shall be the judge of the elec¬ 
tions, returns and qualifications of its members,’*— 

The Convention refused to strike out; and so the 
amendment was lost. 

RKMOVAL OF COUNTY SEATS- 

Mr. FARR proposed to amend the thirty-eighth sec¬ 
tion of the report, by adding the following; 

And that no county seat shall be removed without first receiv¬ 
ing the sanction of a majority of all the votes cast at some general 
election. 

The question being taken upon the adoption of this 
amendment, it was disagreed to upon a division of the 
Convention—affirmative 38, negative 41. 

Mr. STANTON moved that the Convention adjourn, 
which motion was disagreed to. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved that the Convention adjourn 
till Thursday morning at 9 o’clock. 

Mr. MITCMELL demanded the yeas and nays upon 
this motion, and the same being ordered and taken, the 
result was, yeas 52, nays 35, as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Blickensderfer, Ca* 
hill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Cutler, Dor* 
sey, Ewart, Farr, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of De* 
fiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Harlan, Henderson, Hootman, Horton, 
Hunt, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Mason, Mitchell, Nash, Norris, Peck, Perkins, Quig¬ 
ley, Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith 
ol Warren, Stanbery, Stidger, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Towmshend, Vance of Butler, Williams and Presi¬ 
dent—52. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, 
Brown of Athens, Brown ofCarroll, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Curry, 
Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Li- 
dey, Loudon, Morehead, Morris, Otis, Patterson, Ranney, Reeme- 
lin, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton Stebbins, 
Struble, Swift, Taylor, Warren, Way, Wilson, and Woodbury— 
35. 

So the Convention adjourned till Thursday morning 
at 9 o’clock. 


THURSDAY', January 2, 1851 

9 o'clock, a. M. 

The Convention met pursuant to a'djouriiment. 

Mr. FLORANCE presented a petition from G. W. 
Gooby, and thirty other citizens of Pickaway county, 
praying that a clause may be iuserted in the new Con¬ 
stitution, that shall effectually prohibit the legalizing 
of the sale of intoxicating drinks. 

Mr. HOOTMAN presented a petition from A. J. 
Tannyhill and thirteen other citizens of Ashland coun¬ 
ty, on the same subject. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from Peter 
Van Horn, and twenty-six others of the same county, 
on the same subject. 

Mr. BARBEE presented a petition from P. H. Y'oung, 
and one hundred and eighty-seven other citizens of 
Miami county, on the same subject. 

Mr. STANTON presented a petition from A. J. 
Gould, and thirty-three males, and Elizabeth Inskeep, 
and twenty-six females, of Logan county, on the same 
subject. 


The same gentleman presented a petition from W. 
M. Marion, and twenty citizens of the county of Logan, 
on the same subject. 

Mr. McCloud presented a petition from J. F. Free¬ 
man, and sixty-eight other citizens of Madison county, 
on the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the Se¬ 
lect committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent 
Spirits. 

Mr. REEMELIN presented a [)etition from Henry 
L. Wolforili, and twenty three other citizens of Wayne 
county , praying that all public officers shall hereafter 
be compelled to pay out nothing but the constitutional 
currency. Referred to the standing committee on 
Banking and Currency. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, presented a memorial from 
Win. C. Goodrich, and eighty-six otiier citizens of War¬ 
ren county, respectfully asking the Convention to in¬ 
corporate into the Bill of Rights for the people of 
Ohio, the self-evident declaration of Jefferson, “that 
the earth belongs in usufruct to the living," and also 
asking the Convention “to provide in the new Consti¬ 
tution that no person shall hereafter acquire in this 
State more than one hundred and sixty acres, and to 
protect man in his inalienable right to the earth; they 
ask for a similar provision securing to every one pos¬ 
sessed thereof at least forty acres of laud with a domi¬ 
cil, or in lieu thereof, a house and town or city lot, a 
home, the same to be inviolated for any debt or lia¬ 
bility contracted after the adoption of the new Consti¬ 
tution." 

So much of the above as refers to title and possession 
and real estate was referred to the standing committee 
on Preamble and Bill of Rights, and the remainder to 
the standing committee on Miscellaneous Subjects and 
Propositions. ' 

Mr. LIDEY', from the standing committee on Militia, 
to which was recommitted the report of the committee 
on that subject, reported back the following as a sub¬ 
stitute lor Report No. 1: 


ARTICLE ON MILITIA 


Sec. 1. That all white male inhabitants, residents of this 
State, being eighteen years of age, and under forty-five yeai'S, 
shall be enrolled in the Militia, and perform military duty as may 
be directed by law. 

Sec. 2. Captains and subalterns shall be elected by those per¬ 
sons subject to military duty in their respective districts. 

Sec. 3. Colonels, Lieutenant Colonels and Majors shall be 
elected by those liable to duty in their respective regiments, bat¬ 


talions or squadrons, 

Sec. 4. Brigadier Generals shall be elected by those liable to 
duty in their respective brigades. 

Sec. 5. Major Generals shall be elected by those subject to 
militia duty in their respective divisions. 

Sec. 6. The Governor to appoint the Adjutant General, Quar¬ 
ter-Master General, and such other staff oflicers for the State m 
may be provided for by law; the Major Generals to appoint their 
division staffs, the Brigadier Generals to appoint their brigade 
staffs; the Colonels or commandants of regiments, battalions, or 
squadrons, to appoint their staffs, and Captains to appoint their 
non-commissioned officers and musicians. 

Sec. 7. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the 

protection and safe-keeping of the public arms. _^ 

JOHN LIDEY, JAMES LOUDON, 

JOSEPH THOMPSON, SABIRT SCOTT, 

H. N. GILLETT, Committee. 


On motion of the same gentleman, the I’eport was 
laid on the table and ordered to be printed. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention again 
took up the report ot the committee on the Legislative 
Department, with the pending amendments. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend section 31, by adding 
to the end of the same these words, “ and laws relat¬ 


ing to public schools." 

Mr. RANNEY said it had been, for twenty-five years, 
the law in this State, that in districts where it becatne 
necessary to build school houses, to submit the ques¬ 
tion whether they should or should not be constructed, 
to a vote of the people. This practice had, so far as 
his observation extended, been not only salutary, but 
had been acquiesced in by the people, and been look¬ 
ed upon as a very just, a verj' equitable and a very 
proper mode of settling such questions. Also in re- 











876 , CONVENTION REPORTS. 


gard to the adoption and putting in practice the provis 
ionvS of a certain system of school laws, providing for a 
more efficient organization ol schools, it had been hith¬ 
erto the practice of the General Assembly, to provide 
by law that the question on the adoption of the system 
should be submitted to the people, at some popular 
election, as well as that relating to the additional taxa¬ 
tion necessary for its support. And for himself he saw 
no danger in the principle, or impropriety in the prac¬ 
tice of allowing the people to vote to themselves such 
schools as they were willing to support. He did not 
believe it to be the object of gentlemen, in refusing to 
strike out this section, to cut up this system of school 
laws, or to prevent any future action of the people, by 
which their benefits are to be realized. That they had 
been in general very beneficial he did not doubt, hav¬ 
ing had a fair opportunity to witness their operation. 
He desired that they should be continued, and if there 
was anything in the section which would endanger 
their further application, he was desirous to remove it. 
He knew there was a Ciuestion upon the subject, and 
a difference of opinion, some gentlemen holding 
that all acts which required the assent of the people 
upon the subject, would be unconstitutional; others 
not. Which opinion was right, he was not prepared to 
say, but he was desirous to avoid anything which 
should in future admit of such a cjuestion being raised. 
He thought it should be settled here, in one way or the 
other. Otherwise, the first time a school house should 
be built under the existing law, a law suit would be 
the consequence, and the result would be that people 
would be afraid to act, for fear of acting wrong and 
subjecting themselves to liability. He thought in the 
formation of a constitution, every thing should be made 
clear as possible, and especially that no question should 
be left, which would on its face demand an appeal to 
the tribunals of justice, for its settlement. If we can¬ 
not here settle upon the construction that is to be given 
to a particular clause, it is our duty to omit it altogeth¬ 
er—otherwise we enact what we do not understand, 
and fix provisions, whose consequences we are unable 
to foresee. 

Mr. NASH said that the section under consideration 
did not, in his opinion, interfere with the power of the 
General Assembly to make laws, whether of a general 
or local nature. It leaves the power untouched, unim¬ 
paired. The effect of the provision is to confine, and 
to prevent the General Assembly from delegating this 
high power to any other body. Whatever law it is 
claimed the General Assembly might leave for its vi¬ 
tality to a vote of those to be affected by it, the Gene¬ 
ral Assembly itself can pass. The effect, therefore, 
upon such laws as that ot the Union School law, is not 
to preclude such legislation; but to compel the Gene¬ 
ral Assembly itself to extend it to towns that desire it, 
and not to leave that part to a vote of the people. 
Hence the power of local legislation will continue just 
as broad as it is now, but it must be wholly exercised 
by the General Assembly, and cannot by that body be 
devolved upon any other person or persons. 

This is in conformity to the theory of our govern¬ 
ment. The law making power is by its very terms 
vested in a General Assembly. The compact entered 
into by every citizen is this, that the General Assembly 
shall have the power to declare what is or is not law, 
but a practice has grown up of devolving this power 
upon the people or voters in certain localities—and as 
this practice is admitted to be wrong in principle, this 
section expressly settles the question, denies the pow¬ 
er, and commands the General As.sembly to do its 
duty, to declare what shall be or shall not be law, 
without leaving the effect or operation of its acts to re¬ 
main contingent upon the vote or approval of any oth¬ 
er body. Whether a law, whether a rule of action 
shall be e.stablished, declared obligatory as law, must 
be settled by the General Assembly, where of right it 
belonged, and not to be left to become obligatory as 
law upon the will or action of one or many. The sec¬ 


tion means this, and in my humble opinion, can i^*tn 
nothing else. No law should be passed to take effect 
upon a contingency of the approval of others. The 
question here presented is, who shall declare the law. 
This duty is required to be performed exclusively by 
the General Assembly. 

Mr. RANNEY. But does it not prevent the provis¬ 
ions of the school laws from being extended to other 
townships or counties by a vote of the people.^ 

Mr. NASH. Certainly it does. That question is to 
be decided by the General Assembly. The law-making 
power must decide the fact of law or no law in the par¬ 
ticular locality; and not the voters in the locality itself. 

If the inhabitants wish a law so extended, they can 
make that fact known to the law making power.— 
The constitution by its bill of rights points out the 
manner of so making their wishes known, and that is 
by petition. When such wish is so made known, the 
law-making power must, in viewof all the surrounding 
circumstances, of the interests of the entire State, decide 
whether the public welfare requires or forbids the pro¬ 
mulgation of such a law. 

Nor does this provision interfere with our school 
laws, with the power to build school houses, and raise 
taxes by a vote of the people. The two questions are 
wholly distinct, dhe law prescribes the rule, ordains 
the regulation, grants the power ; whether the people . 
will exercise this grant of authority, may well rest 
upon their votes. The power to build school houses, 
to raise the taxes, is found in the lavv, and whether 
this power shall be granted to school districts, and on 
what conditions it may be exercised, must be decided 
by the General Assembly; but whether this authority, 
when granted, shall be exercised, is no part of the law. 
The law is as much a law of the State, whether a sin¬ 
gle school house is built or not. There is the 5 
you may read it on the statute book; whether it shall 
be a law or not, depends upon no contingency what¬ 
ever. It is the difference between the granting and 
the exercise of an authority; the one must bo given 
by the General Assembly ; the other may be exercised 
or not, just as the individuals see fit. The lavv pre¬ 
scribes how real estate shall be conveyed, and this, for 
me, is just as much a law, whether I ever make a con¬ 
veyance or not. There is the rule, and if I make a 
conveyance, it must be followed ; there is the law au¬ 
thorizing the erection of school houses, and it is as 
much the law of the State, whether a single district 
ev'er votes to erect one; if it does wish to erect one, it 
must look to this law; it must follow its provisions 
whatever they may be. 

Nor can this clause limit or obstruct the power to 
vote taxes. The law points out whether taxes may be 
raised, and how it shall be done. • Ibis is the whole 
law. Whether the taxes shall be assessed and collect¬ 
ed, may be left to the will of the tax-payers. Nor is 
there anything in this provision to prohibit it. 

Such is ray understanding of this provision, and so 
understood, I believe it a most wholesome provision— 
one calculated to improve our legislation, and settle 
what has been a disputed question of constitutional 
law. I never have had but one opinion as to the pro¬ 
priety and constitutionality of such legislation. 1 have 
believed it wrong in principle as well as unconstitu¬ 
tional, and always, as a legislator, voted against their 
passage. This section expressly settles the question, 
as the Supreme Court of Renusylvania has settled it 
in the case of Parker vs. Commonwealth, 6 Barr, Pa. 
State Reports, 540. In that case the court decided a 
law inoperative, which was to take effect upon a vote 
of the people in the locality ; holding that the power 
to declare law was vested in the General Assembly, 
and not in the voters of the State or a county, or 
town. This is, in ray opinion, the true doctrine—a 
doctrine growing directly out of the very nature ol our 
form of government, and I am therefore prepared so 
to declare in the constitution itself. 

Mr. EWART agreed in general with the doctrine 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


laid down by the gentleman from Giillia, [Mr. Nash.] 
But that gentleman has given no reason of a practical 
character why the General Assembly may not pass a 
general law, leaving its provisions to be adopted or not, 
as the people shall deem it necessary, on a full consid¬ 
eration of their own circumstances, in connection with 
the provisions of the law itself. His reason seems to 
exist in something connected with what he views the 
theory of government, but of the working of which he 
has cited us to no practical examples. The system of 
school laws known as the Akron system, has worked 
well in the part of the State which he represented, and 
he was able to see no wrong that had accrued either 
from its adoption or from the manner in which it had 
been made operative in particular locations. 

If this power is not given to the people, of course it 
must be exercised by the Legislature, and the only 
practical diffeience will be, that that body will have a 
little more to tlo. It must first create the general law, 
and then, by a series of local enactments, it must apply 
it to this or that township, county or school district, as 
the exigencies of the people shall demand. He was 
ready to vote to cut oil’ the power of voting taxes for 
purposes ofintei’nal improvements by townships, cities 
or counties, because he could see how such a power 
might be abused ; but he did not see the same reason 
in such a case as this. There must be cases in which 
it will be for the interest of the people to act, of them¬ 
selves, upon questions regarding the school laws of the 
State, that do now, or hereafter may exist. Some por¬ 
tions of the State are waked up upon the subject of 
schools. They have done much, and want to do more. 
They have progressed as far as is possible under one 
system, and may desire to advance to a higher ; and in 
all such cases, it seems not only necessary, but in the 
highest degree proper that they should have the priv¬ 
ilege to act in their ow-n case, as their view' of their 
own welfare and interest shall demand. He could see 
no danger in the practice, and hoped no obstacle would 
be interposed to prevent it. , 

Mr. REEMELIN was sorry that this question, which 
he supposed had been settled, had been raised again. 
He was coustraiued to say that lie was forced to differ 
from his friend from Washington in regard to the efi’ect 
of laws local in their operations, passetl in this manner. 
It had frequently been the occasion of great careless¬ 
ness in legislation. Members of the General Assem¬ 
bly have not exercised that scrutiny which they other¬ 
wise would, when they learn ihat the law, in order to 
become operative, is to be submitted to a vote at the 
people. It is also the occasion of multiplicity in leg¬ 
islation, and if the practice is persisted in, we shall 
soon have laws for every live niiles of territory in the 
State, different from all the others. 

He had bad occasion to observe this himself in the 
General Assembly. A member brings in a bill—not 
liking its provisions, he had risen to oppose it. The 
member asks in surprise: What have 50 U to do with 
this ? It is to be submitted to the people, and they are 
to vote upon it before it becomes a law. Members 
mouths are stopped. It is like interfering with the 
mere local interests of these fellow members. He did 
not believe in the practice. It is inconsistent wdih the 
theory of a republican government. He thought that 
the laws should be made at the seat of the government, 
and by the representatives of the people, otherwise 
there is no safety to the people in those institutions 
which we delight to call Republican. 

Mr. RANNEY desired before voting, to know if this 
provision, as it stands, would not cut up the system of 
schools alluded to, to be adopted by a popular vote. 

Mr. NASH. It would by no means cut up, or even 
affect the system : but would merely leave it to the Le¬ 
gislature to say whether it should be applicable in a 
particular part of the State or not. 

Mr. RANNEY. But why not leave it to the people? 
Let the General Assembly provide the system, and the 
people choose whether or not they will come under it. 


It seems to me, that it will, in fact cut up the system 

Mr. PATTERSON moved to re-consider the vole ta¬ 
ken, by which the Convention refused to strike outsec- 
tion 31. 

Mr. NASH was opposed to the motion. If it should 
prevail, the question of striking out would again recur, 
if that motion should prevail, it would have the effect 
of giving a constructive power to the General Assem¬ 
bly, which that body w'ould not have had, had the sec¬ 
tion been simply omitted in the report. It would have 
the force of a negative pregnant—not merely the de¬ 
nial of a thing, but the affirmance of the O) posite. 

Mr. SWAN said there was a difficulty in giving con¬ 
struction to the section, wdiich he should wdsh might 
be obviated by amendment. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE hoped the Convention would, 
at the proper time, re-consider the vote by which it re¬ 
fused to strike out the last clause of the section. He 
thought gentlemen had not fully considered all the ef¬ 
fects which might follow it. He beleived it to be preg¬ 
nant with mischief. It was a novelty in constituiions, 
and as of course no construction had been given to it, 
it presented much that was calculated to excite appre¬ 
hension. Under such a construction as might be given 
to it. Courts of Justice might be debarred from declar¬ 
ing those rules of pleading and pi'actice which are so 
essential to give efficacy to their acts. These, together 
with rules for the government of jails, and other mat¬ 
ters of the county police, usually left to the discretion 
of the Courts of Common Pleas, must in future emanate 
from the General Assembly. The people could not 
build school houses, nor vote a local tax for any pur¬ 
pose, He was opposed to the iuroduction of the sec¬ 
tion into the report. He thought the people had not 
asked for it, and he wanted no novelties in our organic 
law, unless the expression of the popular opinion had 
been first full and conclusive in the matter. 

Mr. LARSH had his difficulties in regard to the sec¬ 
tion, and was afraid the Convention had gone a little 
too far. 

Mr. CURRY suggested another reason for the recon¬ 
sideration. He thought the provisions of the section 
would be found to conflict with that upon the same 
suliject in the report of the committee on Corporations. 
Besides, there is a difficulty in the construction of the 
section itself—the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ran- 
ney] contending for one construction, and the gentle¬ 
man from Gallia, [Mr. Nash] for another. If these 
opinions cannot be reconciled, it is, of itself a sufficient 
reason for striking it out; for no one will contend that 
we should delegate to any other body, whether judi¬ 
cial or legislative, the task to interpret that which we 
cannot interpret ourselves. In general he agreed with 
the opinions of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. 
Ranney] as to the effect of the section. 

The question being on the reconsideration of the 
vote by which the Convention refused to strike out the 
section, (31) the same w'as agreed to, on division ; yeas 
51, nays not counted. 

The question then being on striking out said section: 

Mr. NASH was opposed to striking out for the rea¬ 
son that by so doing the Convention w'ould give an 
implied power to do what it had refused to prohibit. 

Mr. GREGG spoke in favor of the beneficial opera¬ 
tion of the Akron School System, and in o[)po 8 ition to 
any plan by which the people might be prevented from 
taking advantage of it at their will. 

Mr. SWAN moved to reconsider the vote by which 
the Convention refused to strike out all that part of 
Sec. 31, which occurs after the words “ General Assem¬ 
bly.” 

Which motion having the precedence, the question 
was on the reconsideration : 

Mr. SWAN then moved to amend the section, by in¬ 
serting in the second line, after the word any,” the 
words “local or s})ecial.” 

Mr. MASON said it seemed to him that the effect 
of this amendment w'ould be to sanction, so far as con- 










818 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


cerned general laws, the very mischiefs we are making 
an effort to guard against. He knew this was not the 
object of his friend from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] for he 
was sure that gentleman agreed with himself in sen¬ 
timent, and the only dirtereiice that there could be, 
would be U])on the proper means of producing an ef¬ 
fect which both admitted to be desirable. If this 
should be the plan, all geueral laws might be made to 
depend upon a vote of the people, whether they should 
be operative or not—and this not only in I’egard to the 
laws providing for general policy, but such as define 
and punish offences and crimes. This class of legisla¬ 
tion, if carried to the extent which it may be under a 
constitutional encouragement, will produce such a fruit 
as will be appalling to those counties which enter into 
the system. The statute book will be full of laws, 
general in their provisions, but local in their applica¬ 
tion. We shall have one code of criminal law, as ap¬ 
plied to this county; another, perhaps, to Franklin, 
and a third to Cuyahoga. We have only to multiply 
the class, and we shall have wheels within wheels, 
until no one can tell what the law is, in any one par¬ 
ticular place. There is now in existence a general law 
for regulating railroad companies, which provides that 
any railroad company may adopt any section or clause 
of its provisions, which is suited to its case, and make 
it a part of its charter. The law is doubtless a good 
one, and each company has the right to cull from it 
such gems as suit it, to deck itself withal. And to 
such a pitch has this arrived, that now, in order to as¬ 
certain which Is the law of each of these great corpo¬ 
rations, you are not to go the acts of the General As¬ 
sembly, but to search through the books of record of 
the nroceedings of the Board of Directors of the Com¬ 
panies themselves. I know this from experience. It 
may be right; but it does appear to me that the law¬ 
making power of the State should not depend upon 
the acts or votes of the people, in any particular local- 
ity. 

Mr. STANTON rose merely to express his opinion 
in concurrence with that of the gentleman from Gallia 
[Mr. Nash.] He thought these laws were to be look¬ 
ed upon, in all cases where they are calculated to op¬ 
erate upon the State at large, as general laws; and 
this whether they had been made efficient by a vote 
of the people or not. In giving construction to such a 
law, neither sections of the law itself, nor the interest 
of sections of the State where it may have been adop¬ 
ted, are to be taken into consideration. It is the whole 
law considered with reference to the whole State. 

The question being on the amendment of Mr. Swan, 
to insert the words " local or special,” the same was 
disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
words “ General Assembly,” 

Mr. STANBERY had his doubts about so much of 
the section as is now proposed to be stricken out. It 
is an entirely new provision in this State, and in the 
United States. Not one of all the constitutions of all 
the States, new or old, has adopted any such clause, 
or made any similar provision. And now, sir, what 
evil has happened during past years to the State of Ohio, 
or to her people, that demands in this new constitution 
a remedy of this kind ? Besides it is our duty to con¬ 
sider the evil—to look at the old law and its defects in 
furnishing a remedy, before we proceed to experi¬ 
ments of this kind. So far as the evil of allowing the 
people to vote to impose upon themselves a tax for the 
purpose of internal improvement is concerned—if it is 
an evil, it has been checked by the provisions of the 
report of the committee on Public Debts and Public 
Works. So there is an end to that. 

Now what is the other class of cases, which depend 
for their operative force upon the popular vote, and 
which ought to depehd entirely upon legislative ac¬ 
tion ? I am not aware of any. I admit , that there are 
laws, whose operation depends upon the vote of the 
electors of sections of the State; and very wholesome 


laws they are too—such as regard the building of 
school houses, the adoption of school systems, &c. 
Gentlemen say these should be uniform all over the 
State. I think they are mistaken. People in one sec¬ 
tion desire a more extended and comprehensive sys¬ 
tem of schools than in another. What principle forbids 
their havii g it ? I can see no objection. I'he power 
to regulate the law still belongs to the Legislature; 
and its adoption is ieft to the good .sense and the abili¬ 
ty of the people—precisely where it should be left. 

There is another objection. Gentlemen say that the 
laws are not uniform—that there is one law for one 
place and another law for another. Well, what of that? 
It might be wi.shed that all were uniform ; but the thing 
is impossible. Every town—every city, must, of ne¬ 
cessity have its own peculiar laws enacted by its own 
law makers, to suit its own peculiar circumstances. 
What w’ould be proper for a small town might not be 
for a large one—what would suit a city in one location 
would not suit a city in aiiother. Cincinnati has one 
set of laws, Columbus another. What is the objection ? 
To burden the LegislaUire with the enactment of all 
the laws of all the corporations in the State would be 
intolerable. 

There is another law which has been submitted to 
the popular action. It is that for the protection of 
sheep. This law—extremely salutary as it is for some 
parts of the State, would not do for others. Now what 
is the objection to its being adopted where it would be 
of use? Thei'ecan be none. I agree with gentlemen, 
that it is desirable that there should be uniformity in 
general laws, but if that uniformity were enforced in 
every possible subject of legislation, it would be intol¬ 
erable. Sir, we alwaysmust have, or wealways have had 
local legislation—laws which are to regulate certain 
defined sections—which are to operate within those 
localities, and no where else. 

Mr. TAYLOR. He had anticipated that the gentle¬ 
man from Claik [Mr. Mason,] would favor the propo¬ 
sition, that the force and ability of important general 
laws might be made to depend upon the action of the 
people at large. For when the question of the veto 
power was under discussion in this body, there were 
gentlemen opposed to the veto, and in favor of submit¬ 
ting to the public, important general laws, because, said 
they, that would be the most effectual check upon hasty 
and inconsiderate legislation. 

As an example of the operation of this principle, he 
supposed the case of a bill pending before the General 
Assembly, and the minority to ask of the majority that 
it may not go instantly into effect; but that it might be 
submitted to the people at large—to be decided upon 
by a general vote. Here might be extended an addi¬ 
tional protection to the rights of minorities. 

The argument as it was well presented by the gen¬ 
tleman from Clark, certainly applies to this proposition. 
It follows, therefore, that, in the enactment of laws, a 
provision of this kind would have a mo.st wholesome 
and conservative effect. From this consideration, he 
had expected of the gentleman from Clark, and others, 
who, like him, were jealous of the danger of hasty and 
inconsiderate action on the part of the General Assem 
bly, that they would favor this proposition. 

He next glanced rapidly at the principle of submit¬ 
ting to the people the question of the repeal of an im¬ 
portant law—giving it another trial, and minorities, 
another opportunity of presenting its defects before the 
bar of public opinion ; and asked if there was not 
another rampart, another strong barrier against the 
danger of hasty legislation. 

He wished simply to interpose these considerations 
in favor of contingent legislation—in favor of giving to 
the Legislature a discretion, upon extraordinary occa¬ 
sions, to make this appeal to the popular vote. 

The question was not whether all the laws should 
be thus submitted. The honest pride of opinion in the 
Legislature would prevent that. It would only be 
done in extraordinary cases, such as the repeal of the 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


879 


School Law ol the Stale of New York, to which he re¬ 
ferred the day before yesterday. It was a resort which j 
would but rarely be nmde. 

But then, it had been ailedged, that this practice would 
admit of an unmanly .shrinking from re.spensibility, and 
that the laws under it w'ould not be framed with care. 
But he considered that, in the prospect of a submission, 
the laws would be framed with n:ore care than other¬ 
wise ; because it would be known and considered that 
every proposition would have to pass the ordeal of the 
imess, of public discussion, and the ballot-box. So far 
from inducing hasty and inconsiderate law-making, he 
believed that the foreshadowing of an appeal to the 
ballot-box, would have a conservative eil'ect upon every 
act of the law-making power. 

Mr. REEMELIN. A few words more in reply to 
the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. Taylor,] and the gen¬ 
tleman Irom Franklin, [Mr. Staneery,] I appeal to 
the latter gentleman to say whether he holds, in this 
particular, that statesmanlike position that, from his 
reputation he should hold upon this subject. He says 
that he is willing to provide, by specia' clause in the 
constitution, against one of the evils that have arisen, 
in consequence of this delegation of the legislative 
power, to a part ot the people of Ohio,un the ditferent 
counties? He is willing that no more subscription to 
stock should be taken by a vote of the people, and I 
understand him, also, to be willing to provide, by an¬ 
other special clause, against the taxing power being 
exercised by the people in different school districts. 1 
ask him then, whether it is wise, yea, I ask him whether 
it is consistent with the homilies he has read us upon 
constitution making, thus to provide only against the 
recurrence of a special case, while true wisdom points 
out that we should guard against the recurrence of all 
similar evils? 

The gentleman told us yesterday that he would vote ■ 
for the insertion of that clause in reference to the pow -1 
er of suspending laws, not because he could now see 
any danger frtmi the omission to insert it, but because 
he considered it the part of wisdom to preserve provi¬ 
sions such as these, it it were merely to show our chil¬ 
dren what dangers other people have passed through, 
and how necessary it was to guard against them in the 
tuture. I ask him, then, and my lellow members, 
coolly to reflect whether there is not a direct tendency, 
both in the public mind and in the legislative halls, to 
exercise powers under the specious pretext of getting 
the approval of the sovereign people, which no wise 
man, that would in the least desire the protection of 
minorities, would grant to the General Assen.bly, In 
other words, whether legislating through the ballot 
box is that kind of legislation which is consistent with 
the institutions we are about to frame, and whether we 
are not endangering the whole symmetry, yea, the very 
basis of the government under which we live ? 

The gentleman from Erie [Mr. Taylor] tells us that 
there is no danger; that all laws will hereafter be sub¬ 
mitted to the approval of the people. On the contrary, 
he seems to think that the exercise of the right of the 
people, throughout the State at large, to pass upon 
special questions, is often desirable; and he therefore 
argues that an entire prevention of such a practice is 
to be deprecated. Let me say to my friend, that he is 
completely mistaken in the tendency of the times. 
That tendency is to disturb the true equilibrium that 
should exist in a government .such as ours, and to un¬ 
settle, especially, the seat where the law-making pow¬ 
er rests. Members of the General Assembly are play¬ 
ing into the hands of this tendency, because it relieves 
them of responsibility’, and wily demagogues encour¬ 
age it with the hope of obtaining, at the hands of the 
people, the right to exercise powers which the General 
Assembly would not dare nor have a right to exercise. 
Thus, sir, in Ohio we have seen laws enacted and en¬ 
forced through this new medium of legislation, which 
were, perhaps, in harmony with a certain kind of local 
sentiment, but which were revolting to the great public 
opinion of the whole State of Ohio. 


The law-making power, instead of being an integral 
Whole, vested under limited and strictly defined pow¬ 
ers; in a body of representatives, acting under a sense 
of direct responsibility to the people, will be reparcel¬ 
ed out to the people, in townships, cities and counties;, 
and it becomes, from an organized and w'ell understood 
power in the government, a power boundless in its 
character, and irresistible in its tendency. 

Our Senators and our Representatives might, in the 
legislative halls, argue till doomsday that certain prop¬ 
ositions were unconstitutional—the ever ready reply 
would be, “ we will submit it to the people, and their 
approval shall be the arbiter between us.” However 
clear and’ convincing might be the arguments that “ the 
election of tavern keepers by the people,” was demor¬ 
alized in its character, and that no such power should 
be granted or exercised by the people at large, still 
they w’off d be met by the oily tongues of men, who 
prate about the “ sovereignty of the people,” and the 
right of the people to decide all questions, while in. 
their hearts they despise the people, expecting only to 
use them in particular instances for nefarious purposes, 
and with a view to the exercise of powers which the 
government itself would not dare to exercise, or from 
which they were precluded by the terms of the con¬ 
stitution. 

I say then that my experience and that of the gentle¬ 
man from Erie, difier materially upon this [)oint; and 
I where mine teaches me that if 1 desire a government, 
limited in its powders, clearly defined in its spheres, 
protecting alike the rights of majorities and minorities, 
I must battle for the integrity of the legislative power 
to be exercised, not sometimes in my townships, some¬ 
times in a county, but by the authorities recognized 
and defined in the organic law of the State. 

Our basis is understood to be a compact between 
the people and the government; we, in Hamilton coun¬ 
ty, for instance, submit to have a government in Ohio, 
in which the legislative power is exercised, not by us, 
but by representatives chosen in the different counties 
of this State. We part, therefore, wdth the sovereign¬ 
ty vested in us, and invest and join it with the sover¬ 
eignty of the whole State, so far as the law-making 
power is concerned, and we have determined it shall 
be vested in a General Assembly, meeting biennial at 
the seat of Government. In this General Assembly we 
have the right to ask the advice and experience of the 
members from Franklin, Ashtabula, Monroe, or any 
other county; or in other words, that the assemblecS 
wisdom and experience of the State should scrutinize 
all laws to be p>assed in Ohio. I say we have said sO' 
by adopting the first section of this report, and, 'wheth¬ 
er it be wise or unwise for the people in the different 
counties thus to delegate their sovereignty to the whole- 
State, I cannot consider it as an open question, or ai 
question w’hich 1 am at all likely to be called upon to- 
investigate. 

Were it a new question, were there any probability 
of organizing a government based upon the sovereign¬ 
ties in the different townships or counties in this State-,, 
this question might be differently decided, but as it is,, 
having already provided where so much of the sover¬ 
eignty as refers to the law-making power, shall be nes¬ 
ted, it becomes, not a question of the kind of govern¬ 
ment we will have, but whether the exercise of such a 
power, is consistent with the already adopted frame¬ 
work of our government. I understand public senti¬ 
ment in Ohio, to be in favor of a representative de¬ 
mocracy, voting through the ballot-box for the men 
who are to exercise the powers conferred by the con¬ 
stitution we are about to make ; and all that I mean 
to contend for is, that the exercise of the sovereign 
rif^ht of the people in counties, or townships, to legis¬ 
late through through the ballot-box, is inconsistent with 
the structure of our government. Such I understand, 
to be the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylva¬ 
nia and Delaware. And I must admit, that the decis¬ 
ions of those two courts, and especially that of Penn- 











880 CONVENTION REPORTS., 


sylvania, have redeemed in my eye, many of the errors 
that courts have unfortunately fallen into, and, [turn¬ 
ing toward Mr. Archbold,] if the supreme court of the 
United States, would occasionally give us a decision so 
truly in consonance with our own institutions, I might 
even yet get a good opinion of that court. 

I take it for granted then, that the law-making pow¬ 
er is intended to be invested in a General Assembly, 
that such is the idea of our people, and such, also, is 
the strong sentiment of this Convention; and, there¬ 
fore, I will not argue the question, whether a pure, un¬ 
adulterated democracy, acting through no agents, but 
retaining all power within itself, would be the better 
government of the two. I acknowledge freely, that 
my presentiments lean towards such a government, 
and in general, I have always, and will always, act up¬ 
on the principle, that no power should be granted, ex¬ 
cept what is absolutely necessary to preserve social 
order. As the question stands however, I repeat, that 
we have a right to say that no law should be passed, 
except by the consent of a majority of the representa¬ 
tives of the people ; and that no other authority—ex¬ 
cept the authority fixed in the constitution, for the law¬ 
making power—shall make laws for us. 

We are, to be sure, not entirely a homogeneous peo¬ 
ple. The people of the Western Reserve are different 
from the people of the Southern part of Ohio. They 
have their peculiar notions; but they cannot, under 
our government, get these opinions into the shape of 
law, without passing the scrutiny of the people south 
of the National road. And it is this very spirit of our 
institutions, meeting each other in the common arena, 
for the determination of our legal enactments, which 
gives us, in my opinion, better laws — thus acting, 
and, if you please, controlling and re-acting upon each 
other. 

We, in Hamilton, have a right, for the protection of 
our interests, to have the restraining influence of Cuy¬ 
ahoga; and so has each county the right to rely upon 
the other; each is bound to contribute its share of 
wisdom and experience, contributing to each other’s 
comforts, and the preservation of each other's rights, 
and thus is made up the law-making power in Ohio. 
This I deem to be the true spirit of our institutions. 
Whether that kind of government be right or not, is 
not a question now to be decided, for we nave decided 
it already. 

All I wish to say in conclusion is, that if I ever 
should become a participant in a government based 
upon pure democracy, I should then insist that the 
guards and the restrictions, and the limits to the exer¬ 
cise of the power of the people, should be as clearly 
defined as they are in the present constitution of Ohio, 
with regard to the different departments of govern¬ 
ment. If all my rights are at the hazard of a mere 
majority, it makes but little difference to me whether 
all my rights are jeopardised at the mere whim of many, 
or at that of one. As a Democrat, I desire the exer¬ 
cise of but little power, and what I especially fear, as 
the tendency of the law-making power being vested in 
more than one place, is, that it will accelerate the as¬ 
sumption of power on the part of the Government, 
which but few of us as yet anticipate. Such has been 
the result already, and much more so will this be its 
tendency hereafter. This I desire to prevent. 

The question was now taken upon striking out the 
latter clause of the section, to wit: 

All after the words General Assembly,” in section 
31* It was agreed to upon a division—affirmative 43, 
negative 35. 

The question then being on striking out the whole 
of section thirty-one, it was agreed to. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, moved to further amend 
the Report, by adding the following as a substitute for 
the thirty-first section: 

Sec. 31. All laws of a genera! nature, shall have a uniform 
operation, nor shall any law be passed, to take eflFect upon the 
approval of any other authority than the General Aseembly, ex¬ 
cept as otherwise provided in this constitution* 


Mr. GREGG moved to amend the amendment, by 
inserting after the word '' passed ” the words, “ except 
on the subject of common, schools; ” which was disa¬ 
greed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Smith, of Warren, 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to amend the amend¬ 
ment by striking out all after the word “ operation.” 

Mr. SWAN moved to amend the words proposed to 
be stricken out, by inserting after the word “ efiect,” 
the words, “ or to be operative ; ” which was agreed 
to, on a division—affirmative 51, negative not counted. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
word “operation,” 

Mr. REEMELIN demanded the yeas and nays . and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 34, nays 54—as follows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dor¬ 
sey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Hamilton, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunter, Jones, Larsh, Loudon, 
Mason, Morehead, McCloud, Patterson, Ranney, Scott of Auglaize, 
Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Swift, Taylor, Woodbury, and Pre¬ 
sident—34. 

Navs —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, 
Cahill. Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Florence Gillett. Gray, Greene 
of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Holmes, 
Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Kennon, King, Lawrence, Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Mitchell, Morris, Nash, Norris, Otis, Peck, Quigley, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith 
of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stidger, Stru- 
ble. Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Town- 
shend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, and Wilson— 54, 

So the motion to strike out was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amende 
ment of Mr. Smith, of Warren 

Mr. CURRY demanded the yeas and nays. 

Mr. MITCHELL thought we ought to be careful, in 
making provisions here, to proceed upon correct prin¬ 
ciples. The object of general laws was to make the 
necessary encroachments upon the natural rights of the 
people as slight as possible. But there must be ex¬ 
ceptions to every general rule, and, if we would act 
properly, we would provide for all the exceptions— 
such as the gentleman from Trumbull had in his mind 
—and arrange them under their proper heads. 

Mr. MASON would call the attention of the gentle¬ 
man who offered this proposition, to what was meant 
by the phrase “general law’s of a uniform effect?” 
No general law should be passed but such as would^ 
have a uniform effect. Would not that prevent those 
acts of the people which were now so common under 
general laws, provided for a very great variety of pur¬ 
poses? There were general laws authorizing numer¬ 
ous incorporations, such as seminaries of learning, 
churches, and the like; was there not some doubt, 
whether those acts of incorporation (as we call them) 
of the people, could be obtained under such a provis¬ 
ion of the constitution as this ; Was it clear that these 
acts of incorporation could be obtained, under this pro¬ 
posed constitutional provision, as they are now obtain¬ 
ed ? Another suggestion which he desired to make, 
was, as to whether there could be an act of incorpo¬ 
ration for the most innocent purpose obtained under 
the latter clause of the amendment, and consistently 
with it, without making the act of incorporation man- 
datoiy and positive in the first instance, and not at all 
dependent upon the consent of the corporators, whether 
they would accept it or not ? It would be placing the 
State in a very strange position, if it should turn out 
that we had put into the constitution a provision by 
which an act of incorporation could not be obtained 
in the State of Ohio, except that that act must be per¬ 
emptory—that you are incorporated, with or without 
your consent—and whether you are incorporated or 
not, shall not depend upon your resolution accepting 
the act of incorporation. If it were replied to him^ 
that there was a sufficient guarantee against this in the 
section itself, he must still say that he could see noth¬ 
ing in it which would cover the objection. The objec¬ 
tion to which he referred, was, that there never was an 
act of incoi*poration which went into effect, without 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


881 


the consent of the corporators; and whether it be an 
act of incorporation, or no act of incorporation, must 
in the very nature of the case, depend upon its accep¬ 
tance or refusal; and that must be optional with the 
corporators. It might be said that the Legislature could 
give them such a law as they might petition for. But 
w’^ould learned gentlemen say that such an act might 
not easily be made to contain a provision which the 
corporators never dreamed of ? A single line, or a sin¬ 
gle word changed or superadded, might make of it a 
piece of perfect, unmitigated tyranny—such as the 
corporators could not, nor would not bear. 

Ho simply threw out this idea, as his contribution 
to aid in the formation of a suitable proposition upon 
this subject, or no proposition at all. And he believ¬ 
ed now for himself, having heard so much about this 
proposition, that he would vote against the whole of 
it in all its parts, parcels and beanches. We had 
got nothing in the proposition of the gentleman from 
Warren, [Mr. Smith,] which we had not before, ex¬ 
cepting a single clause in the first part; of which 
he confessed he did not know what it meant; and that 
was reason enough for him to vote against ir. 

The question being upon the agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. SMITH, of Warren. 

Upon the motion of Mr. LARSH, the Convention 
took a recess. 


3 O CLOCK P. M. 
on agreeing to the 


The pending question being _ _ 

amendment of Mr. Smith, of Warren, (above recited.) 

Mr. NASH suggestei’^as a correction, which might 
belong to the committee on Revision, that, instead of 
“ law,” the word ‘‘ act ” should be written; and after 
the word “ operative,” the words ‘‘ as a law ” should 
be inserted. 

Since the recess, he had b^en looking at the case de¬ 
cided ill Pennsylvania, (heretofore referred to,) in 
which it was decided that the law of that State in re¬ 
gard to license for the sale of intoxicating liquors, 
which, was left open—to be operative or accoiding 
to the votes of the people in certain localities, was un¬ 
constitutional. And to settle this was what he under¬ 
stood to be the object of this section. But in Ohio, 
this was a disputed question, whilst in Penns}l\ania 
and Delaware they had decided such a law to be un¬ 
constitutional—that the Legislature must say what 
shall, and what shall not be the law; and that they 
could not delegate this power. If gentlemen would 
take the trouble to examine this decision, they would 
find here all their objections answered; —that the 
whole subiect of the school law was discussed here, 
and shown to be not affected by this principle; neither 
ilid it affect acts of incorporation, nor any law author¬ 
izing towns and counties to provide for their own tax- 
.'.fion. The courts had used almos^ identical!} the 
same language here employed in this amendment. The 
decision was too long to read, but gentlemen could see 
it in his possession. 

With the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemei.in,] 
in- was anxious that this question should be settled m 
Ohio, and that by a provision in the cijnstitution itsell. 
It was certainly a matter worthy of being settled ; and 
should not be longer left open for discussion and adju¬ 
dication. All he was desirous of, was, to settle it, one 
one way or the other. If gentlemen were prepared to 
sanction the principle of special legislation, let them 
say so, and put it into the constitution, that the Gene¬ 
ral Assembly may exercise the legislative authority of 
the State, or delegate it to anybody else as they may 

^■^WUh reference to the first part of the amendment, 
it had been said by tha gentleman from Franklin, [ Mr. 
Stanbeky.] that there was no necessity for it Wa- 
not that gentleman aware that we had now, all o\ei 

the State, almost as many different laws as we had 
counties? That crime was punishable in Hami Uni 
county in one way, and in Greene county m another 

56 


way ? That a man guilty of petitlarceny in Hamilton 
county was put into the chain-gang, and made to work 
the streets, whilst in other counties this was not the 
case ? We had a law, also, by which the county com¬ 
missioners could change the character of the punish¬ 
ment of criminals. So, that a man, in one county, 
guilty of petit larceny, might be confined in the county 
jail and subject to pay a fine, whilst, in another county, 
another criminal of tliis class might be subject to hard 
labor for 30 or 60 days. Again, we had a general 
law that land should not be sold under execution for 
less than two-thirds of its appraised value, yet, in the 
county of Cuyahoga, and two or three other counties 
at the North, this law was not in force. We had also 
different laws in relation to the transmission of real es- 
ate in different counties. Now it was the design of the 
first clause of this section to provide against all excep¬ 
tions and discrepancies of this character in our general 
laws—to provide that all laws of a general nature shall 
be uniform throughout the Stale. 

In the State of Massachusetts the court had decided 
that any act of the Legislature which undertakes to 
suspend the operation of a general law in regard to an 
individual case, was void. 

By this section, these two niles would be definitely 
settled, namely ; That the law-making power is in the 
General Assembly ; and that general laws shall be uni¬ 
form throughout the State 

These were the reasons why he was in favor of the 
amendment of the gentleman from Warren, and why 
he insisted that it was founded upon those [)rinciple8, 
of constitutional law which belong to eveiy well regu¬ 
lated, civil and limited government. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, was desirous of saying a 
word before the question should be taken. In relation 
to the first branch of the amendment, from the votes 
already taken, it seemed that the principle embraced 
in it, was a favorite one with the majority ; and he him¬ 
self thought it a very salutary provision. Since there was 
conferred upon the General Assembly all the law mak¬ 
ing and all the legislative power, he was in favor of 
holding that body to a proper lesponsibility for their 
acts. They should not, for the purpose of screening 
themselves, devolve the responsibility of the passage of 
acts which might be thought unpopular, or of doubtful 
expediency, upon the votes of the people. He under¬ 
stood that a majority of the Convention was in favor of 
this doctrine. He himself had been, for a long time, 
and still continued to be in favor of it. lie was against 
the passage of any law, the operaation of which should 
be made to depend upon the vote of the peoj)ie. 

With reference to the first branch of the proposition, 
he wished to say, that, in I'elation to the phraseology 
there used, he was by no means prepared to say that it 
was altogether the best and most si)ecific language that 
could have been employed. His chief object w as to 


annunciate the principle. He was willing to leave the 
matter of regulating the language to the committee on 
Revision. The principle upon which he insisted in 
this branch of the amendment was, that all laws of 
a general nature should be uniform in their operation 
throughout liie State. Was not that a correct princi¬ 
ple? Was it proper that we should have one system 
of laws in one county, and another in another? He 
wished to cut off' all that sort of legislation, and re¬ 
move it from the statute book. 

It was truthfully remarked by the gentleman from 
Gallia, [Mr. Nash,] that we had different systems of 
laws in different counties. In relation to the punish¬ 
ment of crimes, although we had a general law upon 
the subject, petit larceny was punishable by fine and 
iniprisonment in some counties, and in other counties, 
(by a constructive provision extending the limits of 
the jail to the limits of the county,) the same offence 
was made punishable by hard labor ujion the streets or 
ill the stone-quarries. He objected to all this. He 
objected, also, to every law which made an act crim¬ 
inal in one county of the State which was not also 

















882 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


criminal in every other county in the State. This was 
all wrong in principle ; and it was the object of his 
amendment to arrest this practice of partial legislation. 

He would state further, that the terms of the amend¬ 
ment wei*e not original with him. He had taken the 
proposition from a provision in the same words in the 
constitution of California. 

Mr. STANTON said, if he understood the feelings 
and wishes of gentlemen on all sides, they were wil¬ 
ling to adopt some provision, by which to guard against 
the evils alluded to by the gentleman from Gallia and 
the gentleman from Warren. But there was also some 
apprehension that this provision was too sweeping in 
its terms. His friend from Clark supposed, that under 
the provisions of this section, all laws authorizing cor¬ 
porations, and the levying of taxes to build school 
houses, would be cut off* 

Mr. STANTON then moved to amend the amend¬ 
ment, by adding at the end the following ; 

Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be so construed 
as to prevent any individual, body corporate or politic, or any as¬ 
sociation, from availing themselves of any privileges or benetits, 
or exercising any powers conferred by any act of the General 
Assembly. 

Mr. RANNEY. The present modification of the sec¬ 
tion, as he understood it, was about the same that it 
was at first, unless it had been made a little worse, by 
the process of amendment. He did not know how the 
gentleman from Warren came to the conclusion that a 
majority of the Convention were in favor of the latter 
branch of his amendment; for they had certainly once 
struck out a proposition very similar to it. 

He affirmed that the proposed section would utterly 
prohibit the building of a school-house, or any thing 
else, by means of a tax law, which would require a 
vote of the people to carry it into operation. If there 
ever was a direct attack upon the right to build a 
school-house, by a voluntary tax of the people, this 
was one. He did not know but the section was more 
satisfactory to the Convention, since its terms were 
made stronger*, but it was less so to him. 

The gentleman [Mr. Nash] had cited extreme cases, 
in local legislation; but he would take one of them: 
Here was a law, in the county of Hamilton, which al¬ 
lowed the officer to take a criminal out of the jail, and 
work him upon the streets—for, in this case, it could 
be done without anv great expense of supervision. 
But it was manifest that a general la-.v of this nature I 
could not be made operative in every county without 
hiring about four honest men to take care of one rogue. 

It had been said that by submitting laws to the peo¬ 
ple, we delegate legislative power. But if, in the ex¬ 
ercise of power delegated by the representative, the 
sovereign, the principal, ratify the thing done, what 
amazing wrong was there ? 

Mr. REEMELIN was understood to say that therep- 
resentaiives received their power from the whole peo¬ 
ple, and to ask whether the representatives had the 
right to parcel out to portions of the people that pow¬ 
er which they received from the whole people. 

Mr. RANNEY meant to maintain that if the people 
of a given locality were to be afiected by any law, it 
was reasonable for the people of that locality to be al¬ 
lowed to say whether they will have the law or not; 
and he meant to maintain that upon the passage of a 
general law, affecting the business and interests of the 
people, it was reasonable that all the people should 
have an opportunity of saying whether they will have 
it or not. In all this, he saw no departure from cor¬ 
rect principles. 

When gentlemen affirm that we are all tenacious 
about keeping away from the people the power to rat¬ 
ify the doings of their agents, he would beg leave to 
say that he was not to be included amongst those who 
were subject to this charge. On the coiitrary, he be¬ 
lieved that the people should be consulted upon the 
propriety of the passage of every important general 
law. 

The question was now taken upon the adoption of 
Mr. Stanton’s amendment. 


Mr. CURRY demanded the yeas and nays, and the 
same being ordered and taken, resulted yeas 17, nays 
G9, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Bennett, Ceilings, Curry Cutler, Ewart, Gray, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Hootman, Hunter, Larsh, Mason, Nash, Scott 
of Harison, Smith of Warren, Stanton and Wilson—17. 

Nays —Messrs. Bjunet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, Blickens- 
derfer. Brown of Athens, Brown of CaiToll, Cahill, Case of Hock¬ 
ing, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, 
Ewing, Farr, Florence, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Green of 
Ross, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Horton, Humphre- 
ville. Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennou, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbet- 
ter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Norris, Otis, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney,Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer, 
Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Steb- 
bins, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Sw’ift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, 
Williams Woodbury, Worthington and President— 69. 

So the amendment to the amendment was disagreed 
to. 

And then the question again recurred upon the 
amendment of Mr. Smith, of Warren. 

Mr. COLLINGS. This last vote had brought us to 
the precise question which he desired to see presen¬ 
ted. It had been urged in argument, that if acts of the 
Legislatures of other States, passed and left open for 
the ratification of the people, were unconstitutional, 
acts of the same character should be unconstitutional in 
this State. But, if it should happen that this should 
not be the true construction, then this provision must 
be regarded as an infringement upon the legislative 
power. 

It was proposed here to confer all the law-making 
power upon the Legislature. He was apprehensive 
that, in creating this agency, there was danger of going 
to the other extreme, and so narrowing down the pow¬ 
er of the people, that nothing could be done without 
the intervention of the Legislature. 

We have now come to the vote, whether it should 
be constitutional for counties and townships to say, by 
their votes, whether they will accept or reject a legis¬ 
lative enactment. Suppose this section to be adopted, 
and the Legislature to pass an act of incorporation; be¬ 
fore it could be efi'ective, it would first have to be ac¬ 
cepted by those to whom it might be addressed. But 
it would be in the constitution, that unless a law could 
be made effective without the approval of any other 
authority, it must be void. Would not this be narrow¬ 
ing down the power of the Legislature ? It seemed 
to liim like a proposition to bring the wheels of govern¬ 
ment to a perfect stojj. The act of incorporation, (he 
continued,) must be accepted; and itcan be of no effect 
until it is accepted ; yet you say the vote of the compa¬ 
ny is not to make it operative ! To what pass are we 
bringing ourselves, when this body allows themselves 
to decl.ire that submission of important questions to the 
people is unconstitutional, and an infringement of the 
legishrtive power! 

Mr. NASH. This whole matter, in respect to corpo¬ 
rations, is j)rovided for in a special section. 

Mr. COLLINGS. That is what we haveiust refused 
to do. 

The question being now taken on agreeing to the 
amendment of Mr. Smith, of Warren, 

Mr. STANTON demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered resulted—yeas 47, nays 41—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Cahill, 
Chaney Clark, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Har¬ 
lan, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Hunt, Johnson, Kennon, 
King, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Mitchell, Nash. Norris, Otis, Quigley, Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stebbins, Stidger, 
Struble, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Williams and Wil¬ 
son—47. 

Nays —Messrs. Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Ceilings, Cook, 
Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Gillett, Green of 
Ross, Hamilton, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holt, Horton, Humph- 
reville. Hunter, Jones, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris,McCloud, 
Patterson, Ranney, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Swift, Taylor, Woodbury, Wor¬ 
thington and President—41. 

So the amendment of Mr. Smith, of Warren, wae. 












CONVENTION REPORTS 


883 


agreed to, and the section, as amended, reads as fol¬ 
lows : 

Sec. 31. All laws of a general nature, shall have a uniform op¬ 
eration, nor shall any law be passed to take effect or be operative 
upon the approval of any other authority than the General As¬ 
sembly, except as otherwise provided in this constitution. 

Mr. LEADBETTER proposed further to amend the 
report by inserting, in lieu of section twenty, which 
was stricken out, the following : 

Sec. 20. Contested elections for officers elected to the Execu¬ 
tive Dei)artment, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other offi¬ 
cers which may be elected by the State at large, shall be determin¬ 
ed by both Houses of the General Assembly, in such manner as 
shall be prescribed by law. And that the General Assembly shall 
provide by law for the contest of the election of all other officers 
elected under the provisions of this constitution, and such other 
officers as may be elected under legislative enactments. 

The question being upon the adoption of the amend 
ment, the same was agreed to. 

Mr. SWAN moved to further amend the report by 
striking out section thirty-nine, and inserting the fol¬ 
lowing : 

Private property shall ever be held inviolate, but subservient to 
the public welfare. 

When, in time of war or other public exigency, imperatively 
requiring an immediate seizure of private property for public 
use, a full compensation shall be made to the owner in money. 
And in all other cases, in which the public good shall require pri¬ 
vate property to be taken for public use, a full compensation 
therefor, shall first be made to the owner in money, and such 
compensation shall be assessed by jury, and without deduction 
on account of the public use being a benefit to any property of 
the owner. 

Mr. SWAN remarked that no such exigency as that 
alluded to, might occur, but he thought it the dictate 
of wisdom that such an exigency .“hould be provided 
for. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren moved to amend the amend¬ 
ment, [Mr. Swan’s,] by striking out the word “ first,” 
where it occurs, so that the latter part of Mr. Swan’s 
proposition would read: “ And in all other cases in 
which the public good .shall require private property 
to be taken for public use, a full compensation there¬ 
for shall be made to the owner,” &c. &c. 

The amendment to the amendment was disagreed to. 
The question then being upon the adoption of Mr. 
Swan’s amendment, 

Mr. HORTON demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out, 

Mr. CURRY demanded the yeas and nays, and being 
ordered, resulted yeas 59, nays 29, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, BUckensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case 
of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Cutler, Dorsey, 
Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Gillett, Green of Ross, Harlan, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holt, Hootman, Horton, 
Humpreville, Johnson^ Kennoii, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Load- 
better, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morris, McCloud, Nash, 
Norris, Otis, Patterson, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, 
Stidger, Struble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Warren, 
Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—59. 

Nays— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Clark, Collings, Curry, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Holmes, Hunt, 
Hunter, Jones, Mitchell, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Roll, Scott of Harrison, Stanton, Stebbins, Swift, Thompson of 
Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Way and President—29. 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Swan, 

Mr. HOLT moved to amend the amendment, by ad¬ 
ding, at the end of the same, the following : 

And in all cases where the real estate of individuals has been, 
or may be appropriated for public uses, only such use thereof 
ghall be had as may be req^uired for public convenience, the fee 
gimple remaining in the individual owner. 

Mr. SMITH of Warren, moved to perfect the words 
to be inserted, by striking out the words has been 
which was disagreed to. 

Mr. HOLT. I freely declare that I am in favor of 
the right of the State to take private property lor public 
use, but the public needs nothing but the use of that 
property. I hold that when that property is no longer 
needed for public purposes, to subserve which it was 
condemned and appropriated, it should revert to the 
owner. Where private property is conveyed to the 


State, or to an incorporated company for a considera¬ 
tion, in which case the owner parts with itwullingly and 
parts with the fee simple, of course such property 
would not revert to the individual who had thus con¬ 
veyed it, although the State or the company to which 
it was conveyed, might come to have no use for it in 
accordance with the design with which it was original¬ 
ly obtained. But where property is condemned, against 
the owner’s will, for public use; either for the use of 
the State, or of incorporated companies, to whom the 
State has granted the right of “ eminent domain,” then 
I say, when the purposes for which that property was 
first taken, have been abandoned, the property should 
revert to the owner, in whom the fee simple still vests. 
The right to the possession of that property is justly 
denied him, so long as the public interests require that 
possession; but when the public, in whose name the 
property was condemned, no longer requires its use, 
then the owner should be reinstated in the postession 
and use of his property. 

I have a case in my mind at this time, which may 
serve to illustrate the use of a proposition like the on® 
I have offered. 

Some years since the State obtained from jirivate 
owners a quantity of land in Mercer county, for the 
purpose of constructing a large reservoir, for canal 
purposes. The owners of the land adjoining the area 
set off for the reservoir, have fenced in their own 
estates, up to the line which divides them from the 
public property, but leaving the side next to the water 
unenclosed. At an ordinary stage of water, the whole 
reservoir area is overflowed, and the water comes up 
to the line of the adjoining farms, and forms a natural 
enclosure on that side. But in the time of low water 
a considerable strip of land is left between the proper¬ 
ty of individuals and the actual edge of the w'ater in 
the reservoir. At such times this strip is claimed by 
fishermen and others as public property, and they enter 
upon it at will, causing great inconvenience, and often¬ 
times damage to the adjoining farms. Now in my 
opinion, when this strip of land, left bare by the rece¬ 
ding waters, cannot be used for public purposes, it 
should be deemed to be the property, and in the pos¬ 
session of those persons from whom the State obtain¬ 
ed it. 

And it is my humble opinion that in all casess where 
private property has been condemed for public use that 
property should revert to the individual, when the pub¬ 
lic interests no longer require its use. The public in¬ 
terests can never require anything more than the use of 
the land—when the necessity for that use has passed, 
the property itself should revert to the 2 >erson having 
the fee simple. 

Mr. NASH. My impression is that under the act of 
1825 the State obtained the title in fee simple, to the 
lands adjoining the St. Mary’s Reservoir, in Mercer 
county. This being the case, those who conveyed those 
lands to the State can have no claim whatever to a re¬ 
version, when the State may no longer use those lands 
for the purposes originally intended. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, suggested that the gen¬ 
tleman from Montgomery, [Mr. Holt,] should so 
amend his proposition that it should act in cases where 
private property is hereafter condemned for public 
use. 

Mr. HOLT. The very case, (St. Mary’s Reservoir,) 
to which I have alluded, is one reason why I desire to 
have the provision retroactive. 

Mr. OTIS. I cannot su^iport either the proposition 
of the gentleman from Montgomery, [Mr. Holt,] or that 
just offered by my friend from Warren, [Mr. Smith,] 
for the new constitution contains a provision that when 
private property is condemned for public use, the 
owner shall be paid therefor its full value in money, 
and irrespective of the benefits conferred upon any 
other property, by the construction of a public work 
for which a portion of his property may be condemned. 
Now take the case of a Railroad company which has 













884 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


purchased an acre of land and paid its full value in 
money; if the charter of that company is repealed, or 
by any means the company is dissolved, I can see no 
Reason why that ajre of land, for which the private 
owner has been fully paid, should revert to his posses¬ 
sion. Most clearly it rightfully belongs to the compa¬ 
ny and is a part of its assets. Or a Railroad company 
might build a Depot upon a lot of ground for which, at 
the time it w'as taken for public use, it had made full 
compensation in money, and in course of time it might 
be advisable to change the location of the Depot, leav¬ 
ing the ground whereon it stood vacant or unoccu¬ 
pied for the specific purposes for which it was origin¬ 
ally condemned. It must be evident to all in such a 
case, the individual from whom this land w^as obtained 
by the company can have no rightful claim to the re¬ 
version of the property. 

Mr. STANBERY said he was opposed to the amend¬ 
ment proposed by the gentleman from Montgomery, 
[Mr. noLT.] And he was surprised to see that learn¬ 
ed and experienced delegate gravely making a propo¬ 
sition purely legislative in its character—proposing 
to engraft in the organic law of the State a provision 
to meet an isoh ted case—to correct an evil, local in its 
character. 

Sir, it is such propositions as these—propositioi.s 
of a legislative character and going into minute de¬ 
tails—that have consumed three-fourths of the time of 
this Convention. 

If members would but confine themselves to those 
general principles which alone can be legitimately dis¬ 
cussed in connection with the framing of an organic 
law for a great State, this Convention could close its 
sesskvn, within one month. 

!rhe (jUitfatlon being on agreeing to Mr, Holt’s a- 
mendment, he demanded the yeas and nays, and be¬ 
ing ordered, resulted—yeas 22, nays 66—as followsj 

Yeas —Messrs. Clark, Dorsey, Greene of Defiance, Henderson, 
Holmes, Holt, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Lawrence, 
Leech, Manon, Mitchell, Ranney, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Struble, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend and President—22. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, 
Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brow'ii of Carroll, Ca¬ 
hill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Col- 
lings, Curry, Ewart, Farr, Florence, Gillett, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard. Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuy¬ 
ahoga, Hootman, Horton, Hunter, Kennon, King, Larsh, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, 
Norris, Otis, Patterson, Quigley, Reemelin, R-iddle, Scott of Har¬ 
rison, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Swan, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren Way, Williams, 
Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—66. 

So the amendment to the amendment was disagreed 
to. 

The fjuesiion then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Swan, 

Mr. MASON moved to' amend tlie amendment by 
striking out all after ‘^Jury,” to wit: strike out these 
words “and without deduction on account of the pub¬ 
lic use being a benefit to any property of the owner.” 

Mr. M. said that for a moment he desired to call at¬ 
tention to that class of roads which was coeval with 
the settlement of the State, and the construction and 
repairing of which would be sadly obstructed by the 
adoption of a constitutional provision, that in all cases 
compensation must first be made to the owner of pri¬ 
vate property needed for the public use. 

Take the case of a man who owns a tract of cold 
swamp land, which is unproductive and comparatively 
valueless. The route of a rdad is perhaps for a distance 
of three miles laid out through that swamp land, and 
by the provision now proposed to be inserted in the 
constitution, the damages done to that land by the con¬ 
struction of the road over it must be assessed and first 
paid ill money, irrespective of any benefits conferred 
upon surrounding land of the same owner. In order 
to the proper construction of the road, ditches must be 
dug on each side of its line for purposes of drainage. 
By this means, the vast tract of land on each side of 
the road is drained, and made at once arable, produc¬ 


tive and valuable. It may be that the owner of that 
swamp land might have made'money by paying one 
thousand dollars for the drainage of his land, to say 
nothing of the benefits conferred by the proximity of 
the road itself; and yet by the provisions of the con¬ 
stitution, he ban claim damages for the narrow strip of 
land on which the road bed is constructed, and they 
must be assessed without regard to benefits, and must 
be paid in money before a stake can be set or a spade 
put into the ground. I ask gentlemen if this is right? 

I appeal to the farmers in this body to reflect before 
they vote for a proposition which will throw so many 
and such serious obstacles in the way of the necessary 
improvements of the country—the construction of 
turnpikes and plank roads, to say nothing of railroads, 
bringing the distant counties within a few hours’ travel 
of the best markets in the west. 

The people ha\m not called for such stringent provi¬ 
sions with regard to the right of way for public im¬ 
provements. Had such provisions, so discouraging to 
the settlement of a new country, formed a part of the 
present constitution, far different would have been the 
condition of the people of Ohio to-day. 

I am glad that the section as originally reported has 
been stricken out. The proposition now submitted 
[Mr. Swan’s") is much better—still it embraces provi¬ 
sions for which I cannot vote. 

Mr. MANON. As a farmer, I will say that I deem 
the pending proposition [Mr. Swan’s —above recited,] 
to be in accordance with the interests of the agricultu¬ 
ral population of the State. As a farmer, 1 am not 
willing that a Railroad Company should take off a 
strip from my farm, and pay me for it in “ supposed 
benefits,” while my neighbor, by the side of whose 
farm the road runs, without touching it, receives equal 
“benefits ” with me, and yet loses none of his land. 

Mr. CUTLER. The section relative to the terms 
upon which private property can be taken for public 
use, as originally reported, provided that in no case, 
could private property be taken without damages first 
assessed by a jury, irrespective of any benefits con¬ 
ferred upon any other property of the owner, and 
the amount of damages must be paid in money, before 
possession of the land could be taken for public use. 

The pending proposition, [Mr. Swan’s substitute,] 
is preferable to the original section, still it is too au- 
tagpnistic to a legitimate spirit of internal improve¬ 
ments to receive my support. 

The gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Manon,] has ap¬ 
pealed to the farmers in this body to go for the propo¬ 
sition now before the Convention. Sir, I am a farmer 
—a practical farmer—and I tell that gentleman, and 
declare to this body, that any provision which will 
throw so many obstacles in the way of public im¬ 
provements, is the most deleterious—the most ruinous, 
to the farming interest. 

Take the case of farmers, who, like myself, live two 
hundred miles from this city. Cincinnati is our best 
if not our only market town, but we, w'ho have to 
wagon our produce over mud roads, or resort to a still 
more expensive mpde of transportation, cannot com¬ 
pete with farmers who live within a circuit of twenty 
miles from this city. We wish access to this point in 
the speediest and cheapest manner possible. This 
access can be obtained best by a Railroad. Under the 
present law, the right of way for a road, for twenty- 
live miles from this city, will cost four thousand dollars 
per mile. But under a constitutional provision, like 
the one now proposed, (providing for the assessment of 
damages done to private property taken for public use, 
without regard to betiefits conferred upon other prop¬ 
erly of the same owner, and providing that the money 
shall first be paid,) the right of way for a road for twen¬ 
ty-five miles from Cincinnati, will cost twelve thousand 
dollars per mile. The farmers and land owners along 
the proposed line of a railroad leading from this city 
far back into the country, are hostile to the construc¬ 
tion of such a a road, because it brings the produce of 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


88.5 


the country into market—it brings the farmers of the 
distant counties into competition with them—it destroys 
the monopoly of the market, enjoyed by those living 
within a few miles of the city, while the country far¬ 
mers are shut out by the distance and the bad roads. 
Hence the owners of land within twenty-five miles ot 
Cincinnati will ask the most exorbitant prices for the 
right of way, in order, if possible, to prevent the con¬ 
struction of roads leading into the country. Under the 
provisions of the present constitution they are preclu¬ 
ded from thus interposing an impassable barrier to the 
construction of works of public improvement, upon 
which the aggregate prosperity of the people of Ohio 
so entirely depend. 

But, sir, adopt the provision now in debate—declare 
in your organic law that no property shall be taken 
for public use, without compensation first made in 
money, and without an assessment of damages, irre¬ 
spective of the benefits which the public improvement 
may confer upon other property of the owner, and you 
virtually say to the people, especially the people of the 
remote counties, " You shall have no encouragement 
for the development of the re8()urce8 of the country— 
we will throw every obstacle in the way of the con¬ 
struction of roads of every kind, and you may either 
get to market as best you can, over the mud roads of 
the country, or remain shut out from the advantages of 
the best markets of the State.” The result is, that the 
roads necessary to the improvement of the country will 
never be built. I wish that these things might be 
viewed in a practical light before a vote is taken upon 
this question. Is it not clear, in the case I have put, 
that the eight thousand dollars per mile additional cost 
of a railroad leading from this city into the country, 
would fall upon the people of the country to pay, if, 
indeed, it did not operate against the construction of 
the road at all ? 

Suppose it is proposed to change the location of a 
county road running over a hilly portion of the coun¬ 
try. In many cases such roads were located most dis- 
advantageously at the time the county was first settled. 
The effect of the provision insisted upon by the gentle¬ 
men from Knox and Hamilton [Messrs. Mitchell and 
Reemelin] would be this : you could not lay off and 
construct one of these county roads across new lands 
without first summoning a jury to assess the damages, 
which must be done without taking into account the 
benefits conferred by the building of the road, upon 
adjoining property of the same owner, and then the 
amount of damages must be paid in money before you 
could take possession of any private property. This 
may cost some two hundred and fifty dollars per mile. 
How many counties are there in Ohio able to pay that 
price for the right of way for a county road? 

And, I beg gentlemen to observe who it is that reaps 
the advantages from the construction of these roads. 
Not the people of the entire county who would be 
compelled to pay this enhanced price of the right of 
way for some side road ; not at ail, but the land own¬ 
ers along the line of the road who use it but who have 
taken advantage of this constitutional provision to have 
a road constructed at the public expense for their al¬ 
most excusive benefit, and receive the full price of so 
much of their land as was necessary to build their own 
road. Mr. President, I am opposed to any such pro¬ 
vision as the one now in debate, and shall vote 
against it. 

On motion of Mr. VANCE, of Butler, the report of 
the committee on the Legislative Department was then 
laid on the table. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, from the committee on Pre¬ 
amble and Bill of Rights, on leave, submitted the fol¬ 
lowing : 

Report No. 1 of the Standing Committee on the Pream¬ 
ble and Dill of Rights. 

PREAMBLE. 

VVe, the people ol the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God 


for our freedom—to secure its blessings and promote our com¬ 
mon welfare, do establish this 

CONSTITUTION. 

ARTICLE I. 

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. 

Sec. 1. All men are, by nature, free and independent, and 
have certain inalienable rights, among which, are those of enjoy¬ 
ing and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and 
protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and 
safety. 

Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people—govern¬ 
ment is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they 
have the right to alter or reform the same whenever tliey may 
deem it necessary. 

Sec. .3. The people shall have the right to assemble together, 
in a peaceable manner, to consult ior their common good, to in¬ 
struct their representatives, and to petition the legislature for the 
redress of grievances. 

Sec. 4. The people shall have the right to bear arms for their 
defence and security, but standing armies in time of peace are 
dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up, and the military 
shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. 

Sec. 5. The right ol trial by jury, as heretofore used, and 
herein provided, shall be inviolate. 

Sec. 6. There shall be no slavery in tliis State, nor involunta¬ 
ry servitude, unless for the punishment ot crimes. 

Sec. 7 All men have a natural and indefeasible right to 
worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own 
conscience. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or sup¬ 
port any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship 
against his consent, and no preference shall be given by law to 
any religious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of 
conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required as a 
qualification for any office. But religious morality and knowl¬ 
edge being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of 
the Legislature to pass suitable laws to protect every religious 
denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own rnode of 
public worship, and to encourage schools and means of instruc¬ 
tion. 

Sec. 8. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not 
be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the 
public salety may require it. 

Sec. 9. All persons shall be bailable, by sufficient sureties, 
unless for capital offences where the proof is evident, or the pre¬ 
sumption great. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor ex- 
cessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflic¬ 
ted. 

Sec. 10. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or 
otherwise infamous crime, (except in cases of impeachment, and 
in cases arising in the Army and Navy or in the Militia, when in 
actual service in time of war, or public danger, and in cases of 
petit larceny, and inferior, and in public oflences,) unless on pre¬ 
sentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. And in any trial many 
court whatever, the party accused shall be allowed to appear and 
defend in person, and with counsel; to demand the nature and 
cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereoi 
to meet the witnesses lace to face, and to have compulsory pro¬ 
cess to procure their attendance—nor shall any perstm be com¬ 
pelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himse i, or 
be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same oflence. 

Sec. 11. Every citizen may freely speak, wrffe rad 
his sentiments, on all subjects, being responsible for tne a u 
the right, and no law shall be passed to restrtun or abndg 
hberty of speech, or of the press. In all criminal pro^cu 
or indictments for libels, the truth may be given , 

the jury, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matte ‘ S 
as libelous is true, and was published with good motiv , 
justifiable ends, the party shallbe acquitted. j ,tLo 

Sec. 12. No person shall be liable to be transported out ol the 
State for any oflence committed within the same. ,. 

Sec. 13. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be 
house, without the consent of the owner, nor m tim , 

cept in the manner prescribed by law. nprsoos 

Lc. 14. The right of the people to be secure m their pe^o , 
houses, papers and possessions, against unrea issue 

and seizures, shall not be violated, rad no wai ’ 

but upon probable cause, supported bJ oath or ‘‘ffirm^tion, pa 
ticularly describing the place to be searched, and p 

,hall be imprisoned for debt m an, civil 
action on mesne or final process, unless m cases o • , 

Sec. 1G. The levying of taxes by the poll, is ?^®Jcnuntv nur- 
pressive, and the same shall not be done for State or county pur 

^*Sec. 17. No hereditary emoluments, honors or privileges shall 

ever be granted or conferred by this State. exercised 

Sec. 18. No power of suspending laws shall ever be exercisea, 

'^^Se^c 19 ^^This enumeration of powers shall not be construed to 
impair or deny others retained by the people, and all powers not 
herein delegated, remain with the people. 

On motion of Mr. NASH, the report was laid on the 
table and ordered to be printed. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, the Convention ad- 
jouriu d. 















886 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


FRIDAY, January 3, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. bi. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. RANNEY presented a petition from Charles A. 
Brighan and fifty-seven other citizens of Trumbull coun¬ 
ty, praying that a clause be inserted in the new consti¬ 
tution, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any 
law legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. CHAMBERS presented a petition from Mary J. 
Campbell and four hundred and thirty-nine other ladies 
of Muskingum county, on the same subject. 

Mr. QUIGLEY presented two petitions from Lydia 
Davis and four hundred and fifty-seven ladies of Colum¬ 
biana county, on the same subject. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, presented a petition from 
David Silver and ninety-four other citizens of Warren 
county, on the same subject. 

Also, the petition of J. T. Miller and thirty-eight 
other citizens of the same county, on the same subject. 

Also, the petition of Elizabeth B. Farr and one hun¬ 
dred and twenty-four other ladies of the same county, 
on the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally refeived to the select 
committee on the subject of “ Retailing Ardent Spir¬ 
its.” 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren presented a petition from 
Celia Anderson and seventy-six other ladies of Ohio, 
praying that a clause be inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion, securing to all persons, without regard to sex or 
color, the same rights which belong to males. 

Referred to the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects 
and Propositions 

Mr. LARSH presented a petition from Martha J. 
Higgins and four hundred and seventy-two other la¬ 
dies of Preble county, praying that a clause be insert¬ 
ed in the new constitution, prohibiting the Legislature 
from passing any law legalizing traffic in spirituous 
liquors. 

Mr. SWAN presented a petition from Mary Clark and 
one hundred and ninety-seven other ladies of Franklin 
county, on the same subject. 

Mr. MORRIS presented a petition from Mary A. Car¬ 
ter and three hundred and twenty-one ladies of Cler¬ 
mont county, on the same subject. 

Mr. CHANEY presented a petition from Sarah J. 
Flattery and one hundred and eighty-one other females 
of Fairfield county, on the same subject. 

_ Mr. SWIFT presented a petition from Amanda Mer¬ 
rill and three hundred and eighty-nijie other ladies of 
Summit county, on the same subject. 

Also, the petition of G. B. Waterton and forty-two 
other citizens of the same^ county, on the same subject. 

Also, the petition of Seth Herman and seventy other 
citizens of Ohio, on the same subject. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from Noah 
Gravis and thirty-two other citizens of Cleveland, pray¬ 
ing that the right to participate in the government 
equally with men, be secured to women, in the new 
constitution. 

Referred to the committee on Miscellaneous Sub¬ 
jects and Propositions.” 

Mr. HARD presented a petition from E. Hudson 
and two hundred and seventy three other females of 
Scioto county, praying that a clause be inserted in the 
new constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from 
passing any law legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. CAHILL presented a petition from Sarah Mason 
and one hundred and twelve other females of Richland 
county, on the same subject. 

Mr. GROESBECK presented a petition from Abigal 
E. Simmons and thirty-nine other citizens of Hamilton 
county, on the same subject. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from Re¬ 
becca Rainsford and thirteen hundred and twenty-four 
ladie.s of Hamilton county, on the same subject. 

Mr. DORSEY presented a petition from Sarah Smith 
and sixty-four other females of Morgan couzity, on the 
same subject. 


Mr. PRESIDENT presented a petition from Sarah 
E. Clark and one hundred and seventy other ladies, of 
Perry county, on the same subject 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Report No. 1 of the standing committee on the Pre¬ 
amble and Bill of Rights was read a second time by its 
title, and, on motion of Mr. SMITH, of Warren, com¬ 
mitted to a committee of the whole Convention. 

Report No. 2 of the standing committee on Militia 
was read a second time by its title, and, on motion of 
Mr. REEMELIN, laid on the table. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the Convention take up 
the report of the standing committee on the Legislative 
Department, which was agreed to; and said report 
was taken uj). 

THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 

The question being upon the motion of Mr. Mason, 
to amend the amendment offered by Mr. Swan to the 
39th section of the report: 

Mr. SAWYER said that when the question was upon 
striking out, for the purpose of admitting the amend¬ 
ment now under consideration, as proposed by the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] he thought it was 
understood that was the amendment that was to be in¬ 
serted. He supposed that state of facts to have been 
tacitly agreed upon. Now, however, when the section 
is stricken out, gentlemen raise questions going to the 
principles of the section. He thought this was not 
fair dealing, and he warned gentlemen against the con¬ 
sequences of conducting in this manner. 

Mr. CURRY thought the lecture of the gentleman 
from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] did not apply. So far 
from it being understood that the amendment of the 
gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Swan] was to be adopt¬ 
ed without amendment, the motion to divide the ques¬ 
tion was made for the very purpose of giving the op¬ 
portunity for amendment, after the section had been 
stricken out. 

Mr. MANON spoke with much zeal uj^on the local 
benefits which accrue from the construction of rail¬ 
roads. 

Mr. Clark moved the previous question upon the re¬ 
port and amendments, which was seconded. 

The question then being: Shall the main question 
be now put ? 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 3G, nays 59— 
as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Cahill, Chambers, Chancy, Clark. Cook, Ewing, 
Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene ot Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hootman, 
Hunt, Hunter, Lidey, Loudon, Morris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, 
Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stidger, 
Swan, Swift, Ta 5 'lor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President— 36. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of JMontgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Collings, Cutler, Dorsey, 
Ewart, Florence, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, Horton, Hum- 
preville, Johnson, Jones, Kennou, King, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, Mc¬ 
Cormick, Nash, Norris, Olis, Peck, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Roll, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Struble, To wnshend, Vance of Butler, 
Williams and Worthington—59. 

Sojhe Convention refused to sustain the previous 
question. 

The question then being on the amendment, offered 
by Mr. Mason, 

Mr. CUTLER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 29, nay 66—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case 
of Hocking, Chambers. Collings, Cutler, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, 
Hamilton, tlorton, Larsh, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of War¬ 
ren, Stanbery, Stanton and Worthington—29. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Blair, Cahill, Case of Lickii:g, Chaney, 
Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hai’lan, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, 
1 Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbet- 











CONVENTION EEPORTS. 887 


ter, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, 
Otis, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Rcemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stidger, 
Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson 
of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren,Way, Williams, 
Wilson, Woodburyjand President■■ .06 

So the amendment was lost. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Swan, 

Mr. KENNON moved to insert in said amendment, 
after the word '' made,'’ the words “ or secure to be 
made.” 

Mr. KENNON supposed that it would not be con- 
tended by a majority of the Convention that a time 
might not arrive when some works of public improve¬ 
ment might be necessary. The object of the amend¬ 
ment he had offered, was to provide that in case such 
works should be contemplated they might not be re¬ 
tarded, and perhaps defeated by the mere obstinacy of 
property holders who might refuse to receive payment 
tor their property, and thus, for years perhaps, prevent 
the progress of the work. We have provided that the 
value of property taken shall be assessed by a jury. 
This is right. But suppose the owner of the property 
has a mind to resist. What is to be done ? He can 
take the company to the court of common pleas, the 
Supreme Court, the Court in Bank, and back again, 
and if his lawyer is skillful, and he has the courts of 
the county of Hamilton to transact his business in, he 
can retard the progress of the work for two or three 
years. Now if there is a great work in progress, {fiid a 
large capital invested to lie idle while this process is 
going on, great loss must accrue as the consequence. 
But if payment is secured, and amply secured, that is 
all which the justice of the case requires, for it cannot 
be contended but that the payment is soon enough, 
which is made whenever the sum to be paid is ascer¬ 
tained. 

Mr. REEMELIN would ask the gentleman if it would 
not be equally wrong, by a pretence of security, to 
keep a man out of his money, and force him into the 
law for four or five years before he could recover it? 

Mr. KENNON. Doubtless it would, if such a case 
should happen. But it is not the comiiany that appeals. 
It is the party, who prevents the progress of the work 
by refusing to receive that which the company is ready 
to pay him, and which, perhaps, a jury has awarded. 
I want that the payment should be secured, and se¬ 
cured amply—secured to be paid whenever the sum 
to be awarded is finally ascertained. That is all that 
justice can require. To do more is to do injustice to 
the other party. 

Mr. RANNEY said the effect of the amendment of 
the gentleman from Belmont [Mr. Ken non,] would be 
to fritter away entirely all that protection to private 
property, which was provided in the original section. 
The proposition has now assumed the shape of a plan 
for the protection of corporations. Its efl’ects will be 
to keep from the hands of the citizen his property, for 
years. He would vote for no such proposition, wheth¬ 
er as applicable to property taken by the State for its 
own use, or by mere private corporations for theirs. 
He held that the same rule should apply in both cases. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said that gentleman had ar¬ 
gued this question under a misapprehension as to the 
practical effect, which he proposed to correct. The 
object of the section was to apply to cases where prop¬ 
erty has been taken by the State, for its own uses, and 
not to those cases w'here it is taken by an incorpora¬ 
ted company, to carry forward the purposes of its or¬ 
ganization. He knew that under the present constitu¬ 
tion, an idea had become prevalent, and a practice had 
grown up under it, that property taken by incorpora¬ 
ted companies was, in some sort, for the public use. 
But we are about to establish a new rule. The pro¬ 
vision regarding corporations, will be found in the fifth 
section of the report of the committee on Corporations, 
other than for banking. It is as follows: 

The right of way may be granted by general laws to corpora¬ 
tions ; provided, the same shall not be appropriated to the use o( 


any incorporation, until full compensation therefor be made in 
money, irrespective of any benefit or advantage to the owner 
from any improvement proposed by such corporation ; and pro¬ 
vided further, the amount of compensation shall be ascertained 
by a jury of twelve men, in a court of record, or shall be ore- 
scribed by law. ^ 

He believed the rule intended by the committee to 
be this, that corporations were to have the power to 
secure to themselves the right of way by a process of 
compulsion, if it should be necessary ; but for no other 
species of property of whatever kind or description, 
were they to be placed upon any other footing than 
mere private citizens. If they want timber, or stone, 
or gravel, they must buy it in the market, and pay for 
it as others. 

But a different rule should be established for the 
State. In that connection he cared little whether the 
word “ first ” was retained or not, though he rather 
preferred it should. But when incorporated compa¬ 
nies seize upon the property of citizens, he wanted the 
security to be perfect ; to have the money paid, when 
the property is taken. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. How is he more secure with the 
public than with private corporations 1 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. The public is just; the peo¬ 
ple feel safe when they rely upon its faith. But in re¬ 
gard to the section and amendment, he would say, he 
did not think a great deal of injury would arise in prac¬ 
tice, by fox'cing companies to pay for property before 
they take it. If they want it, let them go to the pi’o- 
prietor, buy it, and pay for it as individuals, and all this 
argument as to the obstruction, falls to the ground.— 
Respecting, however, what are denominated works o f 
public improvement, undertaken by the State, he hoped 
we wei’e to have no more of such. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, thought the gentle¬ 
man from Medina had taken but a superficial view of 
the subject. If it is true that the people have decided 
that there shall be no more public works in the State, 
where is the necessity of providing that property taken 
for their construction, shall be paid for before it is ta¬ 
ken, or at any other time, or of fixing any regulations 
regarding it. But there are certain works of improve¬ 
ment which the public will construct; and what are 
they? They are roads leading from one part of the 
country to another. They are constantly demanded 
by the increasing progress of the country. But in 
such cases, this provision would allow a rich Shylock 
to stay the progress of an important line of [)ublic road 
for three, lour, or five years, until he has forced from 
' the reluctant hands of the people an exorbitant price 
for his property. 

Mr. RANNEY inquired if we have not now good 
roads all over the country, constructed under the op¬ 
eration of the principle that payment must first be 
made for all property and materials taken for their 
construction. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Whatever may have been the 
law upon the subject, such has never been the prac¬ 
tice. But there has been no law in existence, by 
which payment must necessarily be made before the 
property was taken. The gentleman from Trumbull 
has not perhaps'acted as sujiervisor, or he would have 
seen the difficulty of such a practice. Take for instance 
a fact which very frequently occurs. A bridge has 
been swept away by a sudden flood. The exigencies 
of the public require that it should be speedily repla¬ 
ced. It is the duty of the Supervisor to proceed in¬ 
stantly with the work. Stone, timber and all the ma¬ 
terials that are necessap^ must be taken from the 
nearest and most convenient place. The Shylock who 
happens to own the contiguous property comes and 
forbids the taking of a stick of timber, a single stone, 
or a load of gravel, until, at the end of a tedious and 
len'Tthy process tlie price is ascertained and payment 
is forced upon him, which is not till he has exhausted 
every expedient of delay. Now if this were a mere 
private enterprise in which the public was not interest¬ 
ed, tlie case might not be so severe. But when the 
interest of the public demands, it does seem as if a dif. 











888 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


ferent rule should prevail. The argument of the gen¬ 
tleman from Medina, [Mr. Humphreville] has satis¬ 
fied me that the amendment ought not to prevail. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The argument of the gentleman 
from Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitchcock] has satisfied me, 
that it ought to prevail. The gentleman has arisen 
here, and talks of his Shylocks, as if they were the on¬ 
ly people whose interests could be affected. He draws 
his arguments from extreme cases—such as can never 
occur in practice. It is not a fair mode of argument 
thus to draw conclusions from extreme cases. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I would ask the gentleman 
from Knox [Mr. Mitchell] how many days and times 
has the bridge over Owl Creek been without a bridge, 
and how often has it been necessary for the public au¬ 
thorities to exercise the utmost expedition to replace 
that important thoroughfare ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I do not know. But I do not 
know that the Shylocks have ever prevented the ac¬ 
tion of the public authoi’ities in their attempts to do 
their duty. 

Mr. STANBERY would ask the gentleman from 
Knox [Mr. Mitchell] a question. Suppose a public 
highway, from some sudden cause becomes impassable, 
and a traveler in passing along finds himself unable to 
proceed by the road. He has no means of accomplish¬ 
ing his journey, but by passing through a field of 
wheat upon one side of the road. Would he require 
of the traveler, before he proceeded upon his journey, 
to search out and find the owner of the wheat field, 
and fix upon and pay for the right of way, before he 
can go through ? 

Mr. MITCHELL thought the rule could not apply 
to such a case. The case put by the gentleman irom 
Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery] is one of extreme public ne¬ 
cessity. 

Mr. STANBERY. All these are cases of public ne¬ 
cessity. ' 

Mr. MITCHELL did not expect such a question 
from a lawyer of the standing of the gentleman from 
Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery.] This matter has ever been 
understood. It is settled by the common law, that 
when a road becomes dangerous and impassable, trav¬ 
elers have a right to pass through the adjacent fields, 
so far as is necessary to avoid the danger. The right 
does not extend beyond the simple necessity of the 
case. It involves no doctrine that is applicable to the 
principle of public works. The right of the injured 
party in such a case, is not against the traveler, but 
the proprietors of the road. To them he must look for 
his damages. 

Mr. GROESBECK did not think the example put by 
the gentleman from Franklin applicable to the present 
case. In such a case, it is not the traveler but the 
company that owns the road, that is liable. But to 
take another view of the case. We desire to fix the 
rule which shall be invariable, that in all cases where 
private property is invaded, compensation shall first be 
made. It is admitted that in a few exceptional cases, 
public improvements may be temporarily retarded. It 
is easy to imagine such cases—perhaps easier than to 
find them. But must we change the rule to meet every 
exception? There will, perhaps, scarcely be found a 
general rule without a few practical exceptions. 

But what does the amendment propose ? It propo¬ 
ses in the place of payment, to give security, or in other 
words, to give bonds for the ultimate payment of the 
sum that may be found due. It allows the property 
to be taken ; and what have you for it ? A bond. And 
if the company should happen to fail, you have nothing 
but the bond. It is a mere proposition to take by force 
the property of a citizen, on a credit, no one knows 
how long. 

Mr. KBNNON said, that when he proposed the 
amendment, he thought it a fair and reasonable one. 
At the time he proposed it, gentlemen around him 
thought it correct; whether they retained that opinion 
or not, was of no consequence to him. 


The gentleman from Hamilton, however, supposes it 
to be unfair in its provisions. Why ? Because he sees 
fit to suppose a case where an insolvent corporation has 
given its bonds, which it is unable to pay. Is that my 
proposition? No. What is it? That it shall be se¬ 
cured to be paid. How? By any mode that shall 
render the security perfect—by security upon freehold 
estate—by a deposit of money—by any means that 
shall ensure the payment of the money as soon as the 
amount is ascertained. Such has been the practice 
heretofore, and so far as he knew, it had worked well 
enough. 

Gentlemen were going on to make these restrictions 
as if all men, as individuals, were perfectly honest and 
would on all occasions do what is perfectly right. Novv, 
my experience in legislation teaches me that this is 
not the correct principle. We should, on the contrary, 
legislate as if men were not all honest; and it is our 
duty to provide that dishonesty shall not, on either 
hand, have the advantage. 

An important work is going on. The proprietors go 
on and make their contracts. It becomes necessary to 
appropriate a portion of the laud of an individual. How 
is the value to be ascertained ? By a jury. The own¬ 
er is not satisfied. It is appealed to the court of com¬ 
mon pleas. In Hamilton county, if the case happens 
there, it may be kept in that court for five years, if we 
may credit the popular report. From there it goes to 
the supreme court, then to the court in bank, and all 
this time the work must be suspended, because the 
money must first be paid. And before this it cannot 
be paid ; for it is paid—when ? When the application 
is made, or when the amount is ascertained. It is to 
guard against this species of abuse that I have proposed 
this amendmetit. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. I invite gentlemen to reflect up¬ 
on what they are about to do. It cannot be that they 
understand the full bearings. Do they intend that 
when a public road is to be made by a township or a 
county, or before trees or stone can be taken to mend 
the public highways, that without reference to the ur¬ 
gency of the public necessity, a jury must sit, and that, 
after taking time to overcome the obstinacy of particu¬ 
lar owners, the money must first be paid ? 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. That is precisely the law 
as it now exists. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. Well, if such is the law, I must 
say, as the old woman did, “ it is not the reason.” If 
such is the law, it is not the practice. But such is not 
the law. I challenge gentlemen to produce any such 
law. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE read the sixth section of the 
act entitled “ An act for opening and regulating roads 
and highways,” passed March 14,1831; the last clause 
of which is as follows: 

And if the commissioners shall be satisfied that the amount so 
assessed and determined, be just and equitable, and that said road 
will, in their opinion, be of sufficient importance to the public to 
cause the damages to be paid by the county, they shall order the 
same to be paid the petitioner from the county treasury; but if, 
in their opinion, the said road is not of sufficient importance to 
cause the same to be paid by the county, they may refuse to es¬ 
tablish the same as a public highway, unless the damages and 
expenses are paid by the petitioner. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. The very law I supposed the 
gentleman would produce, and I am very certain it 
does not maintain his position. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, called the attention 
of the gentleman from Medina [Mr. Humphreville] to 
a similar provision on page 795. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I knew the gentleman from 
Medinu was not very exact. He had got a general 
idea that the damages were to be paid, in some way 
or other, and he thought that they ought to be paid in 
advance. But is there any gentleman here who will 
assert that in the construction of a mere county road, 
the damages must be paid before the land is taken ? 
Why, at this rate, there are counties in the State which 
would have no roads. There are some counties in the 
State of twenty-five or thirty thousand inhabitants, who 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 889 


are just acquiring the ability to pay for that which it 
was necessary to take years ago. 

I tell gentlemen, that they are introducing a new 
rule; such as, at any previous time, has not and never 
could have existed. And it seems to me, that the gen¬ 
tleman is rather exhorbitant in his demands of these 
poor counties. If they cannot pay these demands, he 
would have them rode out of the State—into Ken¬ 
tucky, or Canada, or to a w'orse place, which I will not 
mention. He has no sympathy with these poor coun¬ 
ties, and their poor population. Well, that is natural 
enough. He is a money-lord—a man of immense 
wealth—a- 

Mr, REEMELIN. I call the gentleman to order. 
He is misrepresenting me. He has been hoaxed. 

Mr. MITCHELL rose to a question of order. It 
was not in order to discuss the question whether a 
member of this body was worth half a million or not. 

Mr. LAWRENCE rose to a point of order. It is 
out of order to raise one question of order before an¬ 
other is settled. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. It was natural for me to suppose, 
when the gentleman from Hamilton's [Mr, Reemelin] 
expenses are so enormous that he must be very rich. 
II 1 have been hoaxed, it is by the gentleman himself. 
He said he paid three hundred dollars in taxes. This, 
compared with what I pay on my little property, 
makes his wealth look somewhat collossal. 

The fact that there is a difference in the circumstan¬ 
ces of counties, should render us careful about fixing 
up an inflexible rule in our organic law. The rule 
proposed is one that will increase the number of ob¬ 
stinate owners, and in the place of one or two in a 
road of fifteen or twenty miles, we shall have a plenty 
of them. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Even at the risk of speaking 
when obviously the Convention is tired of discussion, 
I will now proceed to expose some of the false as¬ 
sumptions of those who have preceded me on this 
question. 

I will, once for all, expose the sophistries under which 
my friend from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] is endeavor¬ 
ing to disguise his true position. I know it flatters his 
vanity to be considered the poor man’s friend, and I 
would have no particular objection to his assuming that 
character, if he would not drag on the public stage the 
miserable prejudices that always characterize the gen¬ 
tleman’s remarks, upon questions of that kind. When 
he talks of the money lords of the city of Cincinnati, 
and when he speaks of the unimproved counties in 
the State of Ohio, w’hen he reminds us of the hard 
fisted yeomanry, and of the poor men of other parts of 
the State, and when he tells us he is fighting for the 
latter and against the former, I take it he must either 
have been'hoaxed pretty severely himself, or else he is 
trying to hoax others. If my friend will take the 
trouble, I will go with him to some of our rich men in 
this city—I will give him an introduction to Nicholas 
Longw’orth, the richest man we have, and he will find 
that these men and himself perfectly agree. And if 
he will go with me, but a square from here, I will take 
him to the office of a railroad company, where he may 
meet some of our rich men, the L’Hommedius, the 
Fosdicks, and he will there find friends and associates, 
who will not only agree with him, but who will ap¬ 
plaud him for the ingenious manner with which he is 
defending their interests. They will smile, when they 
hear themselves abused by the gentleman, and they 
will take it as a good joke, to have their interests de¬ 
fended under the pretence of the poor man’s interests, 
and to hear railroad interests sustained under the plea 
of county and township roads—I say they will laugh at 
it, and so far from getting angry at being abused as 
money lords, th-ey will bid my friend God speed, in his 
endeavors to defend their interests, even if he abuses 
them, and even if it be done under the plea of fighting 
for poor men. 

I say what I know to be so, those men and the gen¬ 


tlemen from Monroe agree precisely upon this ques¬ 
tion, and so far from defending the interests of the 
poor men, or the poor counties of Ohio, he is now 
speaking and voting exactly as these nabobs would de¬ 
sire him to do. And so far as I am concerned, person¬ 
ally, let me assure him that some person has imposed 
upon him severely, if he has been made to believe 
that I belong to the rich men of Cincinnati. However 
flattering it may be to some men to be deemed rich, I, 
for one, deem it a case of extreme hardship to be charg¬ 
ed with wealth that I do not possess. Would that the 
gentleman from Monroe could make what he thinks I 
am. (Laughter.) 

. I know that it is easy to appeal to prejudices, easy 
to say that Hamilton county is actuated by a spirit of 
opposition to internal improvements, and that we, rep¬ 
resentatives of the people of this county, instead of 
being actuated by a principle, are only pretending to 
be so for the purpose of creating obstacles to the fair 
development of other counties of the State. It is easy 
to say that we have got all that we want, here in 
Hamilton county, but all such talk is mere humbugs 
and the gentleman at once exposes his ignorance as to 
the real position of Cincinnati, and of the true position 
of its representatives, when he makes the statement. 
The reverse is true ! The gentleman from Monroe wa& 
very careful to speak of county roads,‘‘township roads,”’ 
and of “ bridle paths,” and “ cow paths. ” As if 
these were now under consideration, or as if any 
difficulty had ever existed in Ohio with reference to 
such public improvemenis. I understand the gentle¬ 
man completely, when he is thus trying to get clear of 
the true question at issue. I not only understand the 
drift of what the gentleman from Munroe wants, but I 
can also understand why the President of a Railroad 
comj)any, as tho Representative from Washington coun¬ 
ty [Mr. Cutler] is, should talk of this kind of im¬ 
provements, of county roads and of bridlepaths, which 
belong to the primitive days of Ohio. If they can, by 
leading us into the rural districts of Ohio, and by tak¬ 
ing us along their “ bridle paths,” and cow paths,”" 
get clear of the true issue here, they will have succeed¬ 
ed fully in their purpose. But let me say to them,, 
that I. for one, at this season of the year especially, 
most respectfully decline being taken on either town¬ 
ship or county roads, (laughter,) for I have no disposi¬ 
tion to be bemired in this discussion. (Renew'ed laugh¬ 
ter.) Let me say to those gentlemen that their pre¬ 
tended simplicity and their defence of county roads and 
township roads, is completely understoood, and that 
however much they may succeed in throwing dust in 
their own eyes, they certainly have not succeeded in 
blinding the eyes of others. 

Sir, it is amusing to hear the President of a railroad 
company descant—for full thirty minutes on the merit© 
of county roads, and bridle paths across hilly districts; 
and to hear him talk of farmers’ w-agons sticking in 
the mud on their way to market, as if that gentleman 
had never heard of a Turnpike or a Raiiroad. Why 
he should be chary of mentioning the name of a Rail¬ 
road ; why so carefully conceal under the pretence of 
fighting for the obtaining of private property from pub¬ 
lic good, the fact—that they really want it for private 
speculation? 

With ref^ard to the remarks privately made to the 
gentleman from Monroe, I have only to say, that they 
were made in reply to the assertion of the gentleman, 
that there were counties in this State who had orders 
outstanding for more than six years. I say that the 
county that thus suffers its finances to get into disorder, 
whose auditor and county commissioners permit its 
creditors and its people thus to be kept out of money, 
and that is thus trifling with the public faith due from 
a county to its citizens, is not fit to live in a civilized 
community like ours. I re-assert it all. I take none 
of it back. For a county that has officers or a people 
that permit such dilapndation contains within it the 
direst foes to mankind. The county has to pay double 











890 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


for every thing it gets, the taxes are double on account 
of interest, and a stale of affairs must exist, such as 
I had not supposed could exist in Ohio. Such a policy 
would sink the richest people that ever lived on the 
globe, and the poor county whose finances are thus 
managed, will be a poor county till the people resi¬ 
ding there will kick out of office financial agents that 
show themselves so incapable of managing public 
business. 

But to the question. What injustice is there in the 
position so ingloriously attacked by our opponents. 
It proposes that in case of war or other great public ne¬ 
cessity, private property may be taken at once, ren¬ 
dering therefor full compensation subsequently. In 
all cases of public improvements, the principle assert 
ed that for property taken, compensation shall first be 
rendered; the amount to be assessed by a jury. Now, 
su*, the proposition is precisely the same as the com¬ 
promise effected in the Legislature of this State, after 
a long discussion upon the subject. Property taken for 
public improvements, such as railroads and other roads, 
must be paid for before it is appropriated ; this I deem 
no more than right. It is property that was there be¬ 
fore the corporation entered it, and no benefits what¬ 
ever that that company may pretend to confer upon 
that individual, can be set off, and brought forward 
for the purpose of getting this person’s property out of 
his hands. 

The result of the adoption of the proposition, will be, 
that railroad companies will be more careful, and less 
arrogant in their dealings with the rights of private in¬ 
dividuals. And so with other incorporated companies. 
There will be fewer law suits, and fewer difficulties of 
every description. The company will be armed with 
the right of the public to private property; the private 
individual will be anned with the rights granted to 
him in his private property; the company will pay 
for what it gets; the man will be paid for what he 
must give up. So far, then, there is no injury—no in¬ 
equality in the relative position of the two. The pri¬ 
vate individual has been made to yield to the public 
good, and the company has obtained upon fair terms, 
what is necessary to carry out the objects of its crea¬ 
tion, and this is all that I desire. I want to give to 
neither pai’ty the advantage. I desire to place them, 
in contending for their relative rights, in that equal 
and fair position that they should occupy towards each 
other. Should the private owner afterwards claim con¬ 
structive damages, then constructive benefits may be 
brought forward as a fair set off against such claims, 
and thus the matter be, not only properly compromis¬ 
ed, but truly equalized. 

I cannot see upon what principle any person can ob¬ 
ject to this; every individual in Ohio will thus be se¬ 
cured in the possession of his private property, while 
that right has to yield upon fair considerations, when 
public good demands it. 

Mr. MITCHELL said that the practice in the State, 
upon this subject, had hitherto been correct. The 
principle had been to pay beforehand, and the practice 
had been consistent with it, and had given vitality to 
the principle. An attempt was now being made to 
break up the practice, and thus destroy the efficiency 
of the principle; and for this purpose a factious and 
obstinate individual was invoked. He hoped the Con¬ 
vention would not be led astray by this apparition; 
and he believed that this attack upon a long establish¬ 
ed principle rendered its affirmance in the organic law 
of the State necessary at this time. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, desired to say a few words 
before he gave his vote upon the proposition of the 
gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. Kknnon,] for the reason 
that he believed that, without the amendment, the sec¬ 
tion would present an insuperable barrier to the con¬ 
struction, not only of railroads, but of every other Sf)e- 
cies of public improvement in the State, as well by 
counties as by companies or individuals. The section 
provides that, before the property is taken, it must be 


first paid for. How ? Why, the damages must be first 
assessed by a jury of the county. How long will it 
take? It may not be settled in two, three, nay, five 
years. It may be delayed in court. Juries may disa¬ 
gree. Courts, on the ground that the damages are too 
high or too low, may grant new trials, and the case 
may ultimately go to the supreme court and court in 
bank. The progress of the work in the mean time is 
retarded—suspended. If it is a county road, the feelings 
of the people are excited, enmities are engendered, 
lawyers are fed, trials had, and the law’s delay invok¬ 
ed, so that years may pass before the work can pro¬ 
gress. This is unjust. It is unnecessary. It is .an excess 
of caution on one side, without a proper consideration 
for the wants of the public on the other. Justice to 
all parties requires no such excess on either hand. We 
do wrong to require a county to stand still for years, 
until an obstinate land-owner can be forced to an as¬ 
sessment of damages. In the county which I repre¬ 
sent, there are some fifty or sixty miles of railroad fin¬ 
ished or about to be finished. The improvement is 
popular with our people, and while they demand a 
change in the rule of damages in taking private proper¬ 
ty for public use, and ample provisions for its prompt 
payment when ascertained, they want no provision 
which would enable one man from mere caprice to de¬ 
lay a public improvement for years by litigation. 

I would, however, suggest a further amendment to 
the section. I would inmude public property, as well 
as private, so that if public property shall be taken, it 
shall be paid for as private property. For example, if 
a public highway shall be taken po-session of by a 
railroad company, and appropriated to its use, I can see 
no reason why the damages should not be assessed, and 
the amount paid, say to the county or township, as in 
the case of individuals. So in the case where a plank 
road company has appropriated a public road, taken its 
track apd bridges, and put up toll gates upon it, is there 
any reason why it should not pay for the loss and dam¬ 
age the public has thereby sustained? I think there 
should be some such provision, and I shall not look 
upon this section as perfect, until something of the kind 
is introduced. 

But, Mr. President, it is said that corporations are 
wealthy—that they are composed of rich men, and that 
therefore they need not be protected. Sir, it is not so 
in my county. The stock of our rail and plank roads, 
is in the hands of men of moderate means—of farmers, 
mechanics, lawyers, physicians and men of business 
associations, who have taken some one, some five and 
some ten hundred dollars, as they had the ability ; and 
instead of corporations for public improvements being 
unpopular there, sir, they are v.astly popular; and I 
know no reason why, when the word “corporation” 
is named, men should grow so nervous, getin a passion 
and deem it necessary that every good democrat should 
curse and damn, in order to keep in the party. 

The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] 
thinks a man is entitled to no standing in the Demo¬ 
cratic party unless he is dead against all kinds of cor¬ 
porations. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The gentleman from Licking is 
mistaken—I have not so declared. 

Mr. CASE. Well I am glad I am mistaken—but 
really from what has been said here by the gentleman, 
I so understood him—and I thought if I was so much 
opposed to corporations as the gentleman, I would not, 
like him, pick out the largest corporation in this city, 
(the Burnet House,) to eat, drink and lodge in. 
(Laughter.) 

I have no repugnance to that corporation—I have 
slept soundly in it, ate good victuals there, and better 
than all, drank good liquor there too. (Laughter.) 

Mr. REEMELIN. I say the gentlemen has entirely 
mistaken my position in regard to corporations—I not 
only recognize their necessity, but regard them as val¬ 
uable assistants in social life. 

Mr, CASE. The gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitch- 







INVENTION REPORTS. 891 


ELL,] also would make hatred of corporations a test 
of democracy; and he thinks it will not be long before 
the democrats will read me out of the party. Not for 
my defence of corporations for public improvements, 
will they do it. I reside in a county where the whole 
population is interested in w'orks of public improve¬ 
ment of great importance, and I will say, as a closing 
remark, that nothing that could happen would be so 
likely to interpose an insuperable bar to the further 
progress of these great works, as the insertion in this 
constitution of the words, “ first paid in advance.” 
I think the rights of the public and individuals both 
will be sufficiently protected by providing for tender¬ 
ing, or amply securing the damages that may be finally 
assessed by a jury in court. 

Mr. LA.WRENCE. The gentleman from Knox [Mr. 
Mitchell] may have his public and private tests of 
the democracy of his fellow mombers, but I will not 
permit him to apply either to me, in the discharge of 
my official duties upon this floor. That gentleman 
may not have declared publicly in his place, that he 
considered the vote upon this question a test of a man’s 
democracy; but he very emphatically made such de¬ 
claration in his seat, within the hearing of members 
around him, and as I suppose, intended particularly for 
mjr ear. Now 1 care very little about that gentleman’s 
opinion, when such opinion interferes with what I deem 
right and proper. Upon all and every real question 
involving the principles of the democratic party, I will 
be found where I have ever been, but 1 do not believe 
that the question under consideration involves any 
such issue. 

There is no difference of opinion upon the subject of 
the inviolability of private property, but at all times 
to be subservient to the public welfare upon just and 
adequate compensation being made to the owner in 
money. The amendment to the original report made 
by the committee of the whole requires that when pro¬ 
perty is thus taken, it shall " first be paid for.” The 
amendment of the gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. Ken- 
NON,] proposes to insert after the word “paid,” the 
following words: “ or secured to be paid.” I shall vote 
for this amendment with the intention if it shall pre¬ 
vail, of proposing further to amend, in order to make 
the proposition of the gentleman from Belmont a little 
more difiuite, by adding something like the following: 
“ by depositing a sufficient amount of money with the 
clerk of the court in the county in which the property 
is situated; said amount to be determined by one of the 
judges of said court.” No gentleman would go fur¬ 
ther than I would to secure the inviolability of private 
property, but in doing so a due regard must be had to 
the public interests. 

Now, sir, I am not in favor of granting special privi¬ 
leges either to the rich or the poor. “ The benefits 
and burthens of government, like the dews of Heaven, 
should descend alike, upon the rich and the poor, the 
high and the Ipw.” 

1 cannot be made to assume the defence of chartered 
incorporations. I am opposed to all such special and 
exclusive grants of power; they are inconsistent with 
the genius and spirit of our republican institutions, and 
totally subversive of the prosperity and happiness of 
the people. But in making this declaration let me not 
be misunderstood. I am in favor of associations of cap¬ 
ital for the purpose of effecting great public improve¬ 
ments, which are entirely beyond the means of a sin¬ 
gle individual—all such associations to be allowed and 
regulated under general laws giving persons thus as¬ 
sociated, power to sue and be sued, and determining 
the succession of their property—when this is done, 
they are clothed with ?vll the power.s necessary for ef¬ 
fecting the legitimate objects of their association, and 
any further powers would be incompatible with the 
rights of the individual citizen. 

If the Convention should disagree to the amend¬ 
ment now pending, and adopt the amendment of the 
committee, they would thereby, in my opinion, render 


the provision securing this subserviency of private pro¬ 
perty to the public welfare, wholly inefectual. It 
would then be within the power of a single individual 
to arrest the progress and completion of any improve¬ 
ments, though the same might be demanded by a great 
public necessity, until the termination of a protracted 
investigation by the Judicial tribunals of the country. 
The word “jury,” in the section, must have reference 
to such legal investigations. How manifest the injury 
to the public interests, occasioned by such delays. It 
would cau.se much inconvenience and be pregnant with 
litigation amongst neighbors, in the execution of our 
admirable system for the construction of roads and 
highways. Under this limitation you would be pre¬ 
vented from taking private property for any purpose, 
until the same should have first been paid for. Sup 
pose, then, a great public necessity demanded private 
property for the location of a road, or the construction 
of a bridge, or for any other purpose, and that the 
owner of the same would refuse the application, would 
spurn all just and adequate compensation, and would 
not consent that his property should be taken, (as un¬ 
der the operation of this provision he would have the 
power to do.) until payment was first made. I ask 
gentlemen what would they do, what would be right 
and proper? 1 can say what I would do under such 
circumstances. I would provide that the owner should 
be amply secured in the manner I proposed and that I 
would convert the property to the public use. Can any 
evil or injustice by possibility result from such a 
course ? Brivate interests must be in obedience to the 
public welfare—and I would remove all inducements 
from selfish and obstinate persons, to persist in their at¬ 
tempts to thwart the public good. 

Is this not justice?—is it not demanded for the pro¬ 
tection of the rights of the people ? I must unhesitating¬ 
ly claim that it is. 

In the determination of this matter, let the same rule 
be applied as in other affairs. Reason will most readi¬ 
ly point out the best and easiest modes. If the amount 
I can be ascertained and agreed upon between the par- 
I ties amicably, let it be instantly paid. If it cannot, let 
j the security be most ample, that it shall be paid as 
soon as ascertained. But do not put it in the power of 
a single individual to bring the progress of an impor- 
I taut work to a stand still, for one, two, or three years, 

I merely to extort an exhorbitant sum for his land or 
I other property, from the necessities of the public, or to 
i gratify his own malice or obstinacy. 

Our attention has been directed to the great injury 
to, and total disregard of private rights, by companies, 
in the converson of private property for public use, by 
the location and building of our railroads, &c. All 
this I admit, and would go far to prevent its recurrence 
again. But how happened such injury ?—was it not 
from the one-sided and fraudulent manner of assessing 
the damages—by computing the supposed benefits of 
such improvements to the owner of the property, and 
to that amount, offsetting the damages he may have 
sustained ? Herein was the great fraud and injustice 
perpetrated, under the name and plausible guise of 
public interests upon private righis. This we have al¬ 
ready prevented, by declaring that such supposed 
benefits shall not be taken into consideration in as¬ 
sessing damages. This I look upon as a most whole¬ 
some provision, and one which will most effectually 
gua'rd and protect the people from such inroads and 
aggressions hereafter. 

Permit me to remark, while I am up, that some gen¬ 
tlemen appear to manifest a holy horror to public im¬ 
provement, provided the same is to be accomplished 
by the association of capital. Our attention has been 
particularly directed by such gentlemen to railroads 
and such like improvements. I do not join in this cru¬ 
sade against railroads, nor would the people of Ohio 
unite with gentlemen in this warfare. Sir, it is the 
farming interest that feels the strongest upon the sub¬ 
ject of railroad enterprises. It is that interest that is 
















892 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the most benefitted by them. Gentlemen speak of 
these things as if the capitalist is only benefitted. They 
are mistaken. It is the farmer who is shut out from 
market, and who is thus unable to compete with his 
more fortunate neighbor, and who needs an outlet for 
that surplus which would otherwise remain valueless 
upon his hands. 

These, Mr. President, are my sentiments, and I have 
expressed them thus freely, at the eminent hazard of 
offending the gentleman from Knox, and of incurring 
political excommunication at his hands, for their utter¬ 
ance. That gentleman has a very great disposition, as 
manifested here, to square the conduct and opinions of 
others by the same rules he has applied to the regula¬ 
tion and formation of his own. I hope he will pardon 
me for denying his authority and refusing to submit to 
his kind offices in this way. 

Mr. MITCHELL would say, in addition to what it 
was said he did say, to the gentleman from Guernsey, 
[Mr. Lawrence,] that he would find himself voting 
with the softs—that the result will show where he be¬ 
longs. Sir, when the battles of federalism are to be 
fought, federalism itself is silent. It finds its cohorts 
on this side the chamber. I said that when I saw a 
man opposed to combinations of wealth, I knew him 
to be a Democrat; but, on the other hand, if I saw him 
in favor of such combinations, I looked upon it as a 
pretty bad indication of Democracy. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Well, I must say, I never heard 
a word of that revelation before. I disregard all the 
gentleman’s anathemas. 

Mr. RANNEY said he was willing to put the State 
and corporations upon the same ground—that neither 
should take the property of individuals until they put 
its value in its place. He thought that the true rule 
for the protection of private property. 

Mr. LAWRENCE would ask the gentleman from 
Trumbull one question ; whether he would have a rail¬ 
road or public work of any kind to stof), when almost 
completed, until, during a litigation of two or three 
years, in the judiciary, the amount of damage can be 
ascertained. Would this be public justice ? 

Mr. RANNEY. In answering the question, I will 
say, that the first tiling such a company should do, is 
to secure the right ol way; and it will turn out in 
practice, in ninety-nine out of an hundred cases, that 
neither the party nor the company will be very unrea¬ 
sonable. But in case they disagree, what is the reme¬ 
dy ? That the amount shall be assessed bv a jury.— 
What for? To get rid of the old system of commis¬ 
sioners, and to put the interests of the parties into im 
partial hands. Make the proceeding as summary as 
you please. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. What does the gentleman un¬ 
derstand by the word jury 

^ Mr. RANNEY. Just what is meant in the constitu¬ 
tion. Send them upon the ground. Let them see the 
damages for themselves; and settle it as soon as you 
please; but not until it is settled and paid, should 
the State or the individual be allowed to take pos¬ 
session. 

Mr. LARSH said he thought the Convention had got 
befogged. The committee on corporations, in the fifth 
section of the report, had made provision regarding 
the right of way to be granted to bodies corporate. 
Now if that covers the same ground, he saw no use 
for this. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Kennon, 

Mr. HAMILTON demanded the yeas and nays, wViich 
were ordered, and resulted yeas ,50, nays 45, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Browmof Carroll, Case 
of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Codings, Cook, Curry, 
Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, Gray, Green of 
Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Horton, Hunter, 
Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Lawrence, Loudon, Manon, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Peck, .Scott 
of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stan¬ 
ton, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—50. 


Nats —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Forbes, Greene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Mitchell,Norris, Orton, Patter8on,Quigley, Ranney, Reeme- 
lin. Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stebbins, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, War¬ 
ren, Way and President—45. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Swan, as amended, 

Mr. HOLT moved to amend the same by adding to 
its close, the following ; 

And in all cases where real estate of individuals has been, or 
may be appropriated directly by the State, for public uses, and 
not held under any grant or contract with the owners, only such 
use thereof shall be ha d by the State as may be required for pub¬ 
lic convenience, the fee simple remaining in the individual owners. 

On motion of Mr. BATES, the Convention took a 
recess. 

3 O CLOCK, P. M. 

PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE. 

The PRESIDENT announced the question to be 
upon the adoption of Mr. Holt’s amendment, hereto¬ 
fore recited. 

The same was agreed to. 

Mr. HOLT said he desired to call the attention of 
gentlemen to the principle involved in hi.s amendment, 
and to illustrate its application by reference to facts. 
His present position w'as somewhat different from that 
submitted on yesterday, in this. He had carefully ex¬ 
cluded those cases where the fee simple of the proper¬ 
ty had passed from the original owner to the corpora¬ 
tors. 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved further to amend the 
amendment, by inserting after the words, “ secured to 
be made,” the following —by depositing a sufficient 
amount of money with a clerk of the court, of the 
county in which the said property is situated, to pay 
the damages when judicially ascertained ; said amount 
to be determined by some judge of a court of record 
of said county.” 

Upon which motion he demanded the yeas and nays, 
and being ordered, resulted, yeas 45, nays 48, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Arcbbold, Blair, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Ewingi 
Farr, Gregg, Groesbeck, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, HumphreviUo 
Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Sellers, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stanton, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, 
Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—45. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blick¬ 
ensderfer, Brown ol Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of 
Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Cut¬ 
ler, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of 
Defiance, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Henderson, 
Hit.’hcock of Cuyahoga, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, King, Larsh, 
Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Scott of 
Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of War¬ 
ren, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Taylor, Williams and Worthing¬ 
ton—48. 

So Mr. Lawrence’s amendment was rejected. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD moved further to amend the 
amendment, by inserting after the w’ords “ public use,” 
the following, “or stone or timber shall be taken for 
the construction or repair of county roads.” Which 
was agreed to. 

The question then being upon the adoption of the 
amendment, as amended, 

Mr. SAWY^ER moved to reconsider the vote taken, 
by which section 39 was stricken out. 

Mr. S. said he thought it very evident now that 
the majority would not be able to arrive at anything 
better than the printed section. He was himself, at 
first, anxious for the amendment of the gentleman from 
Franklin, [Mr. Swan] but it had been amended so that 
he supposed but few members would be willing now 
to vote for it. The printed section, as it stood, was a 
kind of compromise, agreed upon once, and he thought 
it might probaply be agreed to again. 

The amendment of the gentleman from Belmont 
I [Mr. Kennon] was a proposition to adopt the credit 







CONVENTION EEPORTS. 893 


system into the constitution, which, above all things, 
he would be most careful to avoid. It proposed a 
credit till the finding of a jury. And then, he sup¬ 
posed, the matter of the damages which might be thus 
assessed, or secured to be paid, might be taken by ap¬ 
peal, to the court of common pleas, then to the Supreme 
Court, and after that to the Court in Bank. With a 
powerful corporation on one side and an humble individ¬ 
ual on the other, it was plain that in tins way the own¬ 
er might be kept out of his rights for years together, 
until his patience would be all exhausted. To give the 
corporation possession, and compel the individual to 
commence an action for his rights, was to induce a 
very unequal contest. 

The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Guernsey, [Mr. Lawrence] compelling the corpora¬ 
tion, to deposit money to the amount of the damages, 
would have been better; but that we rejected. He 
could not think that any member of this Convention 
would be willing to put himself into the place of an 
individual contesting his rights with a powerful corpo¬ 
ration. 

He would have been Willing to take the amendment 
of the gentleman from Franklin, because it made a 
prudent discrimination between ordinary cases, and 
cases of public emergency. But we could get along 
very well without any provision for emergencies. In 
time of war (and he hoped no such time would ever 
come) nothing could be wanted by the public which 
would not be freely accorded by every good citizen. 

The question being upon the motion to reconsider 
the vote by which section 39 was stricken out, 

^Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, demanded the yeas and 
nays, and the same being ordered, resulted—yeas 58, 
nays 38—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, 
Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene ot Defi¬ 
ance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hoot- 
man, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, Law¬ 
rence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCormick, 
Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize,*Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Steb- 
bins, Struble, Swan, Switt, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wil¬ 
son, and President—58. 

Nays— Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown oi Carroll, Case oi 
Hocking, Case of Licking, Collings, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Flor 
ence, Gillett, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuy 
hoga, Horton, Kennon, Larsh, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Me 
Cloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Williams, Wood¬ 
bury and Worthing!on—38. 

So the motion to reconsider was agreed to.' 

And then the question recurred upon striking out 
section 39. 

Mr. SWAN asked and obtained leave to withdraw 
his proposition. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON moved to further amend the 
report by striking out section 39 and inserting in lieu 
of the same the following : 

Private property shall ever beheld inviolate, but may be taken 
for public use, provided that the value thereof in money be paid 
to the owner. 

The question being on the adoption of the amend- 

.... ,, 

Mr. W. read the corresponding provision in the old 
constitution, and said: The chief objection he had 
heard to this section in the old constitution, was, that 
the word “ compensation ” had been constred by the 
Courts and the Legislature so as to justify,^ in the as¬ 
sessment of damages, the practice of weighing the ad¬ 
vantages of the proposed work to the owner of the pro¬ 
perty taken. That great abuses had been practiced 
under this construction, no man knew better than 
himself; for he himself had been a sufierer in that 
way. But by the terms of the substitute he had offer¬ 
ed—“ the value in money”—this objection to the old 
provision would be obviated. He had been careful to 
provide that the full value of the property taken should 
be paid in money—not in “ moonshine.” It was suffi¬ 
ciently apparent that the Convention could not agree 


amongst themselves upon any lengthy details as to 
how this course of injustice could be best provided 
against. 

The full value paid in money, he thought, should ob¬ 
viate every reasonable objection; and it gentlemen un¬ 
dertook to amend this proposition, they would be like¬ 
ly only to render the proposition obscure, which by 
itself was clear, and well understood. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD now read, for information, an 
amendment which he desired to introduce, (when in 
order,) to come in at the close of the amendment of 
the gentleman from Ross, [Mr. Worthington,] as fol¬ 
lows: “But nothing in this section shall be so con¬ 
strued as to extend to cases in which the right of way 
is to be acquired by corporations.” 

Mr. REEMELIN demanded a division of the ques¬ 
tion upon the motion of Mr. Worthington. 

The question then being on striking out section 39 ; 
Mr. HUNT demanded the yeas and nays, and being 
ordered, resulted—yeas 40, nays 56—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of 
Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, 
Florence, Gillett, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Horton, Kennon, Larsh, Loudon, Manon, Mason, 
Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Waren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Wil¬ 
liams, Woodbury and Worthington—40. 

Nays. —Messrs. Barbee, Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Clark, 
Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, Lawrence, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, 
Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Struble, 
Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson and Presi¬ 
dent—56. 

So the motion to strike out was disagreed to. 

Mr. BENNETT proposed further to amend the Re¬ 
port of the committee on the Legislative Department, 
by inserting in the first line of the seventh section, after 
the word “officers,” the following words: “except as 
otherwise provided in this constitution.” 

Mr. B. desired merely to state his object in introdu¬ 
cing this amendment. It was to avoid the inconsisten¬ 
cy which would exist by the adoption of this report, 
in view of a provision made in the report of the 
committee on the Executive Department, which had 
been agreed upon in committee of the Whole, and 
would probably be agreed upon in the Convention, 
namely: that the Lieutenant Governor should be Pre¬ 
sident of the Senate—thereby constituting him one of 
the officers of the Senate, which might create some 
confusion. It was in order to avoid that confusion, 
that he had oftered the amendment, wbich had been 
read. 

The amendment was adopted. ^ 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to further amend the report 
by adding to section 38, the following which was dis¬ 
agreed to: 

Provided, however, that any county now or hereafter contain¬ 
ing a population of one hundred and fifty thousand or more in¬ 
habitants, may nevertheless be mbdivided whenever, subsequent 
to a law passed for that purpose, a majority ot the qualified elec¬ 
tors thereof shall, at a general election, approve ot such subdi¬ 
vision. 

CURATIVE LAWS. 

I Mr. STANTON moved to further amend the report, 
by striking out of the thirty-fifth section, the word 
“ retroactive,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words 
ex post facto." 

The motion having been entertained by the Chair, 
Mr. STANTON said, I have not been exceedingly 
troublesome to the Convention heretofore, nor 'do I 
propose to be hereafter. But, if I can get the atten¬ 
tion of the body for not more than fifteen minutes upon 
this question, I will promise not to make another 
speech for two weeks. 

Mr. President, it seems to me that many gentlemen 
have been voting to retain the word “ retroactive” as 
it now stands in the section, without being fully aware 
of its meaning. To nfembers of the bar, it seems to 












894 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


gether legally taken; for a lime, the courts held this 
act to be unconstitutional; but more recently they 
have come to the other doctrine, and hold that it is 
constitutional. Without the power to pass that act, 
more than a million of property would have changed 
hands, in violation of every principle of honesty and 
justice. 

I will state another case, which, though it did not 
exactly bring the threatened evil upon us, came so near 
to it, that it is worth alluding to — and I think the 
memory of the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stan- 
BERY j will sustain the statement. A suit was brought 
for the recovery of lands sold in this State, in which 
the will of a Mr. Bailey, who died in Virginia, was in¬ 
troduced as evidence; which was not executed accord¬ 
ing to the laws of Ohio; and it was claimed that a 
will not executed according to the laws of Ohio, could 
not pass the title to real estate in Ohio. The Supreme 
Court in Bank, at one time, decided that the will must 
be executed according to the laws of Ohio, or that all 
titles based upon it would be void. But, subsequent¬ 
ly, they took back the decision, reviewed it, continued 
the case, and finally decided it the other way. But, 
if the court had adhered to that decision, that no for¬ 


me, there can be no diffiulty at all about understand¬ 
ing the consequences of the change which ray amend¬ 
ment proposes. But I will invite the special attention 
of gentleman who are not members of the bar, and 
those who sometimes assert here their aversion to 
Latin phrases in the law, to a few remarks. 

The terms ex 'post facto are words used in the consti¬ 
tution of the United States, and in the constitutions of 
twenty-seven out of the thirty States of this confedera¬ 
cy. It is a phrase which has been frequently discuss¬ 
ed in the courts of all the States in the Union, as well 
as in the Federal Court; and its meaning everywhere 
has been most definitely ascertained. It means simply, 
that you shall pass no law making any transaction a 
crime, and punish it as such, which was not a crime at 
the time the transaction took place. 

The substitution of the word retro-active, proceeds 
upon the assumption, that, without this word, you con¬ 
fer upon the General Assembly the power to pass all 
retro-active laws. That you authorize them to take 
the property of A, and give it to B. That you authorize 
the Legislature to impair vested rights, and to disre¬ 
gard the sanctity of property and the rights of con¬ 
tracts. But it is not so. These things are at variance 
with fundamental principles, and the institutions of the | eigu will, not executed according to the laws of Ohio, 
jountry. I will read for the information of gentlemen, could pass the title to real estate in Ohio, you must 
Kent’s Commetaries, vol. 1, p. 455 : have had another curative law passed, or another mil- 

“ A retrospective statute, affecting and changing vested rights, ^lion of property would have changed hands unjustly, 
is very generally considered in this country, as founded on un- ■ ’ ’ ’ . • 

constitutional principles, and consequently, inoperative and void. 

But this doctrine is not understood to apply to remedial statutes 


which may be of a retrospective nature, provided they do not 
impair contracts, or disturb absolute vested rights, and only go 
to confirm rights already existing, and in furtherance of the rem- 


Bul perhaps the strongest case, demonstrating the 
I necessity of the exercise of this power of passing cura- 
j live laws by the General Assembly, arose in the State 
I of Connecticut. By the early marriage laws of Con¬ 
necticut, it was provided that no clergyman, unless Im 


edy, by curing defects, and adding to the means of enforcing ex- sinlPTniiivp n 

isting obligations. Such statutes have been held valid, when al-> ^ seltlecl mimsmr, snoulu solemnize a marriage. 


ready just and reasonable, and conducive to the general welfare, 
even though they might operate in a degree upon existing rights, 
as a statute to confirm marriages defectively celebi*ated, or a sale 
of lands defectively made or acknowledged.” 

It is this class of statutes which I desire, by this 
amendment, to preserve. It is that power which may 
be used for the protection of private right.s—for the 
purpose of curing those evils which sometimes arise 
in society, and which, if not cured, would work im¬ 
mense mischief and wrontr. 


During the times of the early settlement of that State, 
the itinerant Methodist clergymen went there, and 
proceeded to solemnize marriages throughout the boun¬ 
daries of their respective charges, and continued to do 
so for twenty years—nearly the period of an entire 
generation. But, ultimately, the question of the valid¬ 
ity of these marriages came up. It was claimed and 
held that the marriage was void, because not solemniz¬ 


ed according to law 


that 


the children were illegiti¬ 


mate, and that the property should go to collateral re¬ 
do not propose to go into any discussion of the j lations. But the Legislatui’e of that State immediately 

passed an act legalizing these marriages, which the 
courts held to be constitutional. But, without that cu¬ 
rative law, all these marriages would have been held 
void, their issues held illegitimate, and the property 
have descended to collateral relations. But, by the ex¬ 
ercise of the power now sought to be withheld from 
the Legislature, the people of Connecticut were saved 
from this terrible calamity. 

There is another class of cases which frequently ari¬ 
ses. A justice of the peace, supposing there can be no 


subject at large; but I wish merely to present a few 
leading views to the candid consideration of the Con¬ 
vention. 

The best mode of arguing a question of this kind, 
perhaps, is, to first allude to some of the instances in 
which it is claimed that such legislation ought to be 
exercised. Therefore, without attempting to amuse 
our minds with imaginaiy cases, I will, in the first 
place, very briefly, call the attention of gentlemen to 
actual cases that have arisen in the history of this 


raer. 


country, and which, it seems to me, demonstrate the | great matter about his being sworn in and giving bond 
necessity of the exercise of this power on the part of on the tenth day, goes up and qualifies on the eleventh 
the Legislature. Some of the causes to which I will, J^y, and proceeds to issue process, render judgment, 
call your attention were commented upon last sum- collect money, &:c. But, at last, it turns out that he 

has not been qualified according to law for these du¬ 
ties ; and the courts would hold that every man who 
has paid his money under his process, is liable to be 
sued again, and every officer who has collected money 
under his process is also liable. 

Mr. RANNEY, (interposing.) Does the gentleman 
say that the courts would hold that way, even if the 


By the act requiring the acknowledgment of deeds ! 
for the conveyance of lands by married women, it was 
provided that, in such acknowledgment, there should 
be a separate examination of the wife, and that she 
should be made acquainted with the contents, and the 
nature of the conveyance ; and that the execution was 
voluntary, and not under any undue restraint on the 
part of the husband. But, very soon a vast amount 
of land was transmitted without this certificate em¬ 
bodying the facts required by the statute, and they 
were consequently held void, so far as the rights of the 
wife were concerned. 

The purchasers, who had paid their money, and re¬ 
ceived their titles in good faith, were deprived of both, 
and had no remedy. In 1835, the General Assembly 
passed an act curing these defective acknowledgments, 
and declaring that they should be as binding and ef¬ 
fectual as though the acknowledgments had been alto- 


magistrate had not given bond at all ? 

Mr. STANTON. I should be very much at a loss to 
know how you would avoid such a conclusion, where 
a man has exercised the functions of a justice of the 
peace who was never qualified. I should like to know 
upon what pretext it could be held that such a man is 
a justice of the peace de facto ? It may be that the 
gentleman from Trumbull is right, but I should not 
think it at all strange if the courts were to differ with 
him. But, at all events, the Legislature ought to have 
the power to legalize the acts of such an officer, in the 
event of the courts so deciding, for they have certainly 
TOiade stranger decisions than that would be. 













CONVENTION EEPORTS. 896' 


And there was another case within my own know¬ 
ledge. I think it was in the year 1847 that the coun¬ 
ty of Auglaize was organized, and at that time two 
of the commissioners of Allen County lived within the 
limits of Auglaize, which, of course, deprived them of 
their office. Sometime afterwards these two commis¬ 
sioners met with the other commissioner, and appoint¬ 
ed a treasurer for Allen county, to fill a vacancy occa¬ 
sioned by death, who entered upon the duties of the 
office, w'ent to work collecting and giving receipts for 
taxes. Now, a thousand questions might arise upon 
that case, and what a court would hold, no living man 
could tell. Whether they would hold that a payment 
of taxes to a treasurer so appointed would be a good 
payment, or whether the tax-payer could be compel¬ 
led to pay them again, I suppose no man can tell. The 
difficulty was increased by the Associate Judges of Al¬ 
len county, meeting and appointing another board of 
county commissioners, who appointed-another treasu¬ 
rer. Thus there were two boards of commissioners 
and two treasurers at work at the same lime. 

I could submit a vast variety of cases, going to show 
that no human sagacity could foresee and provide 
against them, demonstrating completely that it was 
nothing short of a primary necessity that there should 
be left with the Legislature the power to pass curative 
or remedial statutes. But I forbear, because I have 
promised iu)t to be tedious. 

Mr. MITCHELL, demanded the yeas and nays upon 
this question, and the same being ordered and taken, 
the result was—yeas 42, nays 50—as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hock¬ 
ing, Case of Licking, Chambers, Ceilings, Cook, Cutler, Ew¬ 
ing, Florence, Gray, Greene of Ross, Harlan, Henderson, Hitch¬ 
cock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, Kennon, Larsh, Ma- 
non, Mason, Morehead, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanhery, Stanton Stilwell, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Butler, Williams and 
Worthington—42. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair,Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Curry, Dorsey, Farr, 
Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Hard, Holt, Hootman, Humphrevilie, Johnson, King, Lawrence, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, 
Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stehbins, Sti uble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Warren, Way, 'Wilson, Woodbury and President— 50. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, moved to further amend the 
report, by adding to section thirty-five the following : 

“ Provided that all acts of incorporation, and acts grant¬ 
ing franchises, may be altered, amended, revoked or 
repealed by the General Assembly of this State, upon 
such terms and conditions pertaining to the inviolabil¬ 
ity of private property, as is provided in other cases in 
this constitution.” 

Mr. SAWYER moved to amend the amendment, by 
striking out all after the word “ State,” on which ques¬ 
tion he demanded the yeas and nays, and the same 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 47,nays 48—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Henderson, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphrevilli, Hunt, Jones, King, Lawrence, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, 
Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stehbins, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Way, Wilson and President—47. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Codings, Cook, 
Curry, Cutler, Florence, Gillett, Gray, Green of Ross, Groes- 
• beck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Horton, 
Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, McCloud, 
Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of VVarren, Stanhery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Thompson of 
Shelby, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams, Woodbury and 
Worthington—48. 

So the amendment w^as rejected. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to amend the amend¬ 
ment, by inserting after the word “ franchises,” the 
following ; “ and the privileges and franchises of any 
incorporated company.” 

Rr. ROLL demanded the yeas and nays upon this 


motion, and the same being ordered, resulted—yeas 
59, nays 35—as follows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case 
of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Forbes, Gray 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Holmes* 
Holt, Hootman, Humphrevilie, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon’, 
King, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Mitchell, McCormick. Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stehbins, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson 
of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Warren, Way, "VVilson and President—59. 

Nays. —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, 
Collings, Curry, Cutler, Florence, Gillett, Green of Ross, Ham¬ 
ilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, 
Mason, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Warren, Stanhery, Stanton, Stilwell, Williams, Wood¬ 
bury and Worthington—35. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. KING moved to further amend the amendment, 
by inserting after the word “ company,” the following;, 
‘^now or hereafter existing.” 

Pending which. 

On motion by Mr. ARCHBOLD, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


SATURDAY, January 4, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. 

The,Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. EWART presented a petition from Rebecca A. 
Maron and one hundred and forty-five other female.s of 
Washington county, praying that a clause be inserted 
in the new constitution, prohibiting the Legislature 
from passing any law legalizing the traffic in spiritu¬ 
ous liquors. 

Mr. NASH presented a petition from G. M. Young 
and flfty-tw’O other officers and members of the Grand 
Division of the Sons of Temperance of Ohio, on the 
same subject. 

Mr. GILLETT presented a petition from William 
P. Mendis and 35 other citizens of Scioto county, on 
the same subject, 

Mr. NORRIS presented a petition from WilliomPat- 
tison and sixty other citizens of Clermont county, on 
the same subject. Also, a petition from H. McClure 
and thirty-three other citizens of the same county, on 
the same subject. 

Said petitions were seveially referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE gave notice that on Monday 
next, or some subsequent day of the session, he would 
move to amend the rule, so that when a call for the 
previous question is sustained, the main question shall 
extend to the immediate question then under conside¬ 
ration, and no further. 

On motion of Mr. LAWRENCE, theConventionagain. 
took up the report of the committee on the Legislative 
Department, with the pending amendments. 

The question pending being on agreeing to the 
amendment of Mr? King, to the amendment of Mr. 
Vance, of Butler, to wit: by inserting after the word 
“ company ” the words ‘^now or hereafter exististing,” 

Mr. HARD moved to reconsider the vote taken by 
which the Convention refused to strike out all after the 
word “State” in the proposition of Mr. Vance, of 
Butler. 

The question then being on the reconsideration, 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, said that the motion to re¬ 
consider which was now pending, although unexpect¬ 
ed, did not demand from him any change in the order 
or the substance of the remarks he was about to 
submit. As he understood it, the whole merits of the 
amendment proposed by the gentleman from Butler 
[Mr. Vance] was under codsideration, and thus he 
should treat it, for the purpose of the present argu¬ 
ment. 

He wished farther to say, that he felt some reluc¬ 
tance in occupying the attention of the Convention. 














896 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


He had, from the beginning, avoided, as far as possi¬ 
ble, taking a part in the debates of this body, and did 
not believe that from the commencement ol the ses¬ 
sion at Columbus, until the present moment, ho had oc¬ 
cupied more than one hour of its time ; and he would 
not have done so at present, had it not been that al¬ 
though he and those who agreed with him in senti¬ 
ment, had acted from the best of motives, and under 
the full conviction of the correctness of their views, 
as he was bound to believe, they had been publicly 
charged with the abandonment of their principles, 
and held up as deserters from and traitors to the 
democratic party and its doctrines, and their constitu¬ 
ents had been invoked to brand them as apostates and 
heretics. These charges had not only been made 
here, but they had gone forth through the State in the 
newspapers, in many of which, the “Twelve” had 
been grossly misrepresented, and thus was imposed 
upon him the necessity of stating precisely what was 
his position, and his reasons for assuming and maintain- 
ing it. 

Mr. President: I have heard, in this hall, what I 
never expected to have heard in an assembly like this. 
1 have heard the spirit of parly invoked. I have 
heard action of a mere partisan character demanded, 
by one member from another. Sir; let it be under¬ 
stood, once for all, that I came here to meet no such 
demands, and so far as I am concerned, that call will 
be answered, like the call for Spirits from the vasty 
deep. 

In fact, so strong was the determination of the peo¬ 
ple in my county ^gainst enlisting feelings of a party 
character, in the canvass for members of this body, 
that when I became a candidate, so well was I known 
as a strong partisan, that in order to obviate objections 
which might arise from that fact, 1 deemed it necessary 
to address, on the eve of the election, a card to my fel¬ 
low-citizens, in which I made use of the following 
language: “ If elected, whatever I do in that Conven¬ 
tion shall be for thp people, the whole people, and 
nothing but the people—a man who cannot rise above 
mere party feelings, is unfit to have a seat in that Con¬ 
vention—a constitution, is the vessel of State in which 
we all must float together.” 

Now, Mr. President, allow me to say that I have ne¬ 
ver changed the opinions I there declared, and I trust 
I shall never have occasion to do so. To the people by 
whom I was elected, I made a solemn public pledge, 
over my own signature, and that pledge I am deter¬ 
mined to carry out to the fullest extent. Gentlemen 
may spring the party rattle as much and as often as 
they plea r^e, they shall never shake me. 1 would as 
soon take partisan motives into consideration, were I a 
member of a sworn jury, in a jury box, as here; and 
should deem an appeal to mere j)arty feelings, as wrong 
in the one place as in the other. We came not here to 
make a constitution which should be a mere record of 
parly dogmas and party edicts—but, on the contrary, 
to make it a record of the wants of the people. We 
want no whig—no democratic—no free soil constitution, 
in a party sense—but we want a people’s constitution, 
and that will be democratic enough for me and my 
constituents. 

Yet we have arrived at a strange pass in this assem¬ 
bly. A member can hardly vote upon a question of 
adjournment without exciting a cry of " hards ” o,r 
“softs.” A mere abstract proposition comes up—a 
member gives his vote upon it, according to the dictates 
of his conscience and his judgment—he is told that he 
has voted with the “ softs,” and has exposed himself to 
the contempt, the detestation and the scorn of the whole 
democratic party. I now state that I hold in utter 
contempt all such appeals, and all such denunciations ; 
I consider them debasing and degrading to the sworn 
members of this body. 

But let us come to the question now before the Con¬ 
vention. The right of the General Assembly to repeal 
any law which it has enacted; to revoke any franchise 


which it has conferred, and to annul any act of incor¬ 
poration which it has established, whenever the public 
good shall demand it, is one in which I concur as fully 
as any gentleman upon this floor. The public good is, 
and ever should be paramount to individual right. 
Whether the property of the citizen be inlands, in per¬ 
sonal property, in choses in action, in rights or in fran¬ 
chises, when the public good demands, it must be sur¬ 
rendered; but always upon this condition, that in all 
cases, a full and adequate compensation in money be 
made to the party who has been injured by the divest¬ 
ment of his property or rights. 

The right of grant, in itself, presumes the right to re¬ 
sume, but the faith which results from the grant, vests 
in the grantee the right to demand and receive a com¬ 
pensation for his injuries. The power to grant maybe 
exercised without fear and without danger, when coup¬ 
led with the power to annul at the demand of the pub¬ 
lic necessity. It is in this way that the public and in¬ 
dividual good combine and unite. This paramount 
right of resumption rests in every government, and is 
essential to its welfare. If the State of Kentucky, for 
instance, should determine that the public welfare of 
that Commonwealth required that the existing right of 
property in slaves, should be resumed, revoked, or 
annihilated, and that every slave should go free, and 
that property of man in man should be no longer re¬ 
cognized,—it undoubtedly has the power so to do, but 
forever upon the condition of compensating the owners 
therefor. 

Suppose the State of Ohio, after having leased her 
School Lands, should, from considerations of public 
policy see fit to call in those leases, in order to sell and 
grant the lands in fee. May she not do it ? Certainly 
she may, but can any one doubt that she can only do 
it by compensating those who have been divested of 
their property ? Nor is this by any means a new doc¬ 
trine; on the contrary, it has been the doctrine of Ohio 
ever since the organization of the State. It was made 
a part of the Bill of Rights in the present constitution, 
that ‘‘ private property ought and shall ever be held in¬ 
violate, but always subservient to the public welfare, 
provided a compensation in money be made to the own¬ 
er,” [See Bill of Rights, section 4,] Gentlemen will 
observe the phraseology. It is not merely the public 
use, but when the public welfare shall demand, that 
private property may be taken ; a compensation how¬ 
ever to be made therefor in money. It was then that 
the doctrine of the right of the Legislature to repeal 
existing franchises was declared, and it has ever since 
been the doctrine of the democratic party; and if gen¬ 
tlemen want to aid in the triumph of democratic prin¬ 
ciples, let them come up and vote for this proposition. 
We shall then see whether they are willing to assist in 
asserting the principles of democracy, and whether that 
democracy of which they talk so loudly, shall be made 
manifest by their votes. 

We are daily hearing lectures upon the security 
which must be thrown around the rights of the citizen, 
when his property is about to be taken for the use of 
some municipal or other corporation engaged in a work 
of public improvement. Then the utmost jealousy is 
to be exercised, that no wrong shall be done to the in¬ 
dividual. He has guarantied to him the right to a trial 
by jury; he has his day in court—can have his wit¬ 
nesses, and the assistance of counsel—every thing that 
is necessary fully to secure his interests is furnished to 
him, and the ability to preserve every right to which 
he is in law or injustice entitled, is as fully as jmssible ■* 
placed within his reach by the constitution we are here 
forming—all which meets my hearty concurrence and 
has had my votes. 

Bqt when the property of a corporation is to be ta¬ 
ken for the use of the State, the thing becomes changed 
at once; and there is none of that careful circumspec¬ 
tion as to the rights of the injured party which you 
would exercise in the other case. You are not willing, 
in the case where mere individual rights are concerned, 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


to trust to the wisdom and impartiality of the Legisla¬ 
ture. Here you must bind the legislative power by a 
rigid and inflexible rule, to see that justice be done. 
But in caso^ where the State, yielding to the demands 
of the public welfare, I’esumcs, confiscates or annihi¬ 
lates the property of a corporation, you can repose the 
most implicit confidence in her impartiality and jus¬ 
tice— there the Legislature can do no wrong. There 
she needs no restraint. Now, sir, is this according to 
the Democratic doctrine? That doctrine is the doc¬ 
trine of equality. It teaches, that the first principle of 
government is to secure equal and exact justice to all— 
to the State and to the citizen ;—to individuals and to 
corporations;—to the poor as well as the rich. It 
holds an equal security over every kind of property 
■whether real or personal;—whether existing in goods 
and chattels, lands, or in incorporal hereditaments, in 
rights, or in franchises. 

Here, then, is where we differ. We all agree in the 
doctrine that the Legislature may resume a grant to an 
individual or body corporate, whenever the public 
welfare demands; but we disagree as to whether the 
State shall be bound to render a full compensation in 
damages for that of which ehe deems it necessary to 
divest the individual in case of a corporation or its fran¬ 
chises. Now I will put a specific case, by way of il¬ 
lustration—one that has in part fallen under my own 
observation, and see whether there is any just reason 
for this difference of opinion. We will take the case 
of the bridge over the Maumee river at Maumee city. 
I will speak of this work because I had occasion re¬ 
cently to pass it, and to pay what might be deemed a 
pretty heavy toll—some thirty-seven cents, I believe, 
for a horse and buggy. The bridge is a very valuable 
one, crossing a broad and difficult stream, at the place 
of a great and important thoroughfare; and it is prob¬ 
ably the best structureof the kind in Ohio. This bridge 
was built by a company incorporated in 1831>, with a 
charter of thirty years duration; and must have cost 
not much less then fifty thousand dollars. It belongs, 
at present, as^ I arn informed, to two men, who have 
invested their labor and capital in its construction, and 
who have thus, as I believe, conferred an important 
benefit upon the public. Under their act of incorpora¬ 
tion they were virtually told by the Legislature, in or¬ 
der to accommodate the public, to expend their money, 
to take the risk of losses by fire or floods, and to take 
in return, tolls at certain rates. They do so. Perhaps 
the first freshet takes off their bridge. I do not know 
whether it has been dune-r— 

Mr. HUNT. The bridge has been twice swept away 
by freshets. 

Mr. CASE. That makes the case a still stronger 
one. In order to enjoy the benefits of their chartei;,. 
they are obliged to rebuild, and the State mslkes no al¬ 
lowance therefor—the company take the chance of 
making, or perhaps losing much. 

Well, now, this company has had the use of this 
bridge under its charter for several, say ten, years. It 
may have reimbursed itsdlf for all its expenditures. 
They have the property upon which it is built—the 
piers, the fixtures, the structure, the toll-house; but 
they have a higher and more valuable property than 
all these—they have the franchise to take tolls for 
twenty years to come, to repay them for the interest on 
their capital, their enterprise, their insurance, their 
hazards ; would it be right lor the Legislature, under 
the influence of political or selfish feelings, or acted 
upon by some neigliborhood clamor, to take in hand 
this company, and without notice, without giving it a 
day in court, without counsel, witnesses, hearing, to 
strike down at one blow tin's valuable franchise, worth 
perhaps fifty thousand dollars, without awarding to its 
proprietors one single cent of compensation ? Is this 
the doctrine for which gentlemen contend ? Is this the 
democratic doctrine? 

Mr. RE EMELIN said such was not the doctrine for 
which he had contended. 

57 


897 


Mr. CASE. If you then are in favor of giving com¬ 
pensation in such cases, why do you not vote with us, 
and exhibit, by your vote, the sincerity of your profes¬ 
sions? 

Now, if tile General Assembly should grant a charter 
to a railroad company, and that company should find 
it necessary, under the provisions of its chaUer, to 
seize for its use this Maumee bridge, what would the 
course then be? Why, the bridge company would 
have its rights protected by every means which the 
caution of this body and the jealousy of the Legisla¬ 
ture could invent. It would have ample notice, a day 
in court, a jury trial, witnesses, advocates, and, last 
of all, payment of damages in advance to ihe last cent, 
before a thing could be done or a single act of owner¬ 
ship exercised by the railroad company. But when 
the State of Ohio herself, yielding to the demands of 
the public good, repeals the charter, revokes the fran¬ 
chises—these securities, which in other cases it throws 
around the property of its citizens, are all disregarded, 
and no hearing is had, no money is paid. And this ia 
called democracy! 

Now, it will not do for gentlemen to tell us that they 
are in favor of giving compensation in such cases, when 
they vote against every proposition by which it is in¬ 
tended such compensation shall be secured. They tell 
us there is no danger in such cases; that we may rely 
with perfect confidence on the faith of the Legisla¬ 
ture. Ah! but you yourselves have no faith in the 
Legislature, when the case is between an individual 
and a corporation, or between an individual and the 
State. Then your jealousy is aroused, and you are 
ready—not only to declare the principle—but to lay 
down an inflexible rule of legislative action in this con¬ 
stitution. 

Mr. REEMELTN inquired if the vote which he. gave 
yesterday did not prove that he was in favor of secur¬ 
ing to corporations all the rights which belonged to 
them ? 

Mr. CASE. You voted against a pi-ovision for com¬ 
pensation to be secured by a constitutional provision, 
which should place corporations upon the same footing 
as individuals. You voted against this provision, and 
the enduring records of this Convention will show it 
to the wor d; and because myself and a few others 
here insisted upon that just provision, we have been 
denounced as having apostatized from the Democratic 
faith, and as having betrayed our coi stituents. Thank 
God, I know nothing of that Democracy which would 
arm the State of Ohio with such power, that at the 
mere will and caprice of a dominant majority in the 
Legislature, she, in the plentitude of her stiength, 
without notice—without jury — without evidence — 
without council—willioiit compensation—could delib¬ 
erately, in time of })eace, and without any extraordi¬ 
nary emergency, seize, condemn, confiscate, annihilate 
and destroy the private property of one of its citizens 
—citizens, too, who pay taxes to support the Govern 
ment, and are liable, and bound in case of need, to 
peril their lives in defence of its soil. No, sir! Such 
is not democracy: or if it be, it is the democracy of 
the bandit—of the brigand—of the guerilla! It is not 
morals, unless it be the morals of a highwayman ! It 
is not religion, unless it be the religion of an Arab! It 
is not State policy, unless it be that of Algiers. 

Mr. REEMELIN thought he ought to call the gen¬ 
tleman to order. He looked upon it as out of order to 
employ such epithets as Arabs and Algerines, in con¬ 
nection with members of this Convention. 

Mr. CASE, i have employed no such expressions, 
as personal epithets. It is in reference to principles 
and cases that I have put, and not to men, that they 
were used. 

But "eritlemen say, all around me, they are with us. 
Then why not vote with us, and settle the question at 
once. Ah, they are willing to put their trust in the 
State to do that justice which they cannot find it in 
their hearts to provide for in the constitution. I re- 











CONVENTION REPORTS 


898 


member au inscription over the door of a court house, 
in a county adjoining my own. It is; “ Let justice 
be done if the Heavens fall.” And it will be, in my 
opinion, about the time when tlie heavens fall, that 
these gentlemen will be willing to do justice in these 
cases. 

It is easy to imagine a variety of cases, where the 
resumption by the State of grants, contracts, &c., 
made by the public authority, might operate to the 
manifest injury of individuals. Take the water leases 
upon our canals, for instance. They are granted usu¬ 
ally for a long terra. They are valuable, and upon 
their faith frequently, costly works are erected. That 
the State may resume these grants for a good cause, 
that she may repeal the laws under which they are 
granted, there can be no doubt, but would not justice 
demand that an adequate compensation be made to 
the injured party, and that too in a court of justice ? 

Gentlemen may ask, what compensation would you 
give, on the repeal of a bank charter ? I say, not 
much, if I were to have the power to fix it; but never¬ 
theless, upon the principle of giving even the devil his 
due, whatever the real damage may be, it should be 
paid, but this doctrine of repeal falls heaviest, not on 
banks and bankers, for if you repeal their chatter.';, 
their real and personal property can without much 
damage be appropriated to other purposes—the mon¬ 
ey they have, can be used in other channels of busi¬ 
ness— not so with a bridge or turnpike company. 
Take away the charter—take away the right to tolls, 
and what is left? The structure, it is true, but what 
is that worth ? nothing—notliiug, without the right to 
use it as provided for in their charter—so. to say that 
when you repeal the charter, you take nothing from 
them—that you still leave them their property, is the 
most bitter irony. 

Now, it is said here that the democratic party of the 
State, during the canvass for the election of members 
of this Convention, did insist upon the adoption ot a 
provision for the unconditional repeal ol all acts of in¬ 
corporation, as well those existing as those hereafter to 
be created. Sir, I deny it. I deny that any democrat¬ 
ic paper in the State took ground to that extern. It is 
true that such ground was taken, so far as charters 
granted by future Legislatures, and so far we all go 
cheerfully—none will go further than myself. 

Yet we are told that because we have not voted to 
put in this constitution what we believe unjust and un 
constitutional—what we believe the people have never 
called for—for there can be no evidence to that efi'ect 
produced, it is said we have violated our duty to the 
people. Sir, I deny it. I deny that during the can¬ 
vass such a pi'oposition was ever dreamed, or thou<>:ht 
of. To convince gentlemen that such was not the 
case, I will read from what gentleman will deem good 
democratic authority—from Medary’s work entitled, 
“The New Constitution”—a sort of omnium gatherum 
of democz’atic sayings and writings upon the subject, 
from the various democratic papers of the State, and 
other sources. It was published in the summer and 
fall of 1849, when the question was before the people, 
whether they would have a new constitution, and if 
so, in what respect it should be amended. Mr. Me- 
dary, in the first number, states its object iu these 
words, on page 2 : 

“ It ia intended to confine this paper, as far as possible, strictly 
to discussions growing out of the question of a Convention lor a 
new constitution—1st, to the necessity of a Convention—2nd, to 
the investigations of the various reforms that should be adopted.” 

So much for the object of this very valuable work ; 
and now I assert, that throughout the 408 pages of that 
work there is not a sentence or a word upon (he sub 
ject which is here proposed—plenty of doctrine, I 
agree, as to a prospective provision to go into the con¬ 
stitution, yet not a word as to a retrospective provis¬ 
ion. So far from it, it is the fact, that Mr. Medary, in 
more than one place, precludes and excludes all such 
retroactive doctrines of repeal. Hear him, on page 
338: I 


“ Bear in Mind !—That every change advocated by the friends 
of constitutional reform, has been tried in ottier States, and found 
to work well. No new experiments are proposed, but only such 
measures as have received the sanction of the people in other 
States—w’hich have been tried by experience, and found salutary. 
With the lights of experience before them, the Convention in two 
weeks time, cim frame for Ohio, a constitution which will be the 
modle one of the model republic, and conduce to the interest and 
happiness ol the people.” 

Again on page 315 : 

“If a majority ot the freemen voting for Representtiaves, de¬ 
cide, in accordance with the recommendation of the Legislature, 
to call a Convention, that body will meet next summer, and in 
session of two weeks can, and we doubtnot will give to the peo¬ 
ple of Ohio, the best constitution of any State in the Union, for 
the members wall have before them the constitutions of the ditfer- 
ent States, and without introducing a single feature which has not 
been tried and found to work well, they can give us such a con¬ 
stitution, as we remarked last week, as will be the model con¬ 
stitution of the model republic of the age.” 

Again on page 249 : 

“ Taking the new constitutions of the difi'erent States, it wil 
be an easy matter to form one that will give Ohio a constitution, 
worthy of her name, her people and her position as the acknow¬ 
ledged head of the Northwestern States, for it is a fact, which we 
would impress upon our readers, that every Reform recommen¬ 
ded has been tried by other States, and found to be all its advo¬ 
cates promised it would be.” 

Yet not a constitution of any State old or new, can 
be found containing the doctrine here pressed with so 
much zeal and pertinacity. I challenge their j/roduc- 
liou. No State has ever proposed it—much less tried 
it. Y^et Col. Medary reads us a lecture because we 
will not go beyond what he admitted to be the bounds 
of Reform. The “ Cincinnati Enquirer ” has also read 
us poor sinning democrats a lessen upon the same sub¬ 
ject, when here on page 119 of Medary’s “ new consti¬ 
tution ” we find the follow extract from that paj>er; 

“We also desire to have embodied in the new constitution a 
self-adjusting apportionment, which will give the l.egislature as 
little to do with the subject as possible. Another legislative re 
striction that we consider of importance, is that no law shall be 
passed which, it it shall prove injurious to the public interests, 
cannot be repealed.” 

And yet because we are willing to go as far as 
that paper proposed to go, we are denounced in that 
journal as traitors to the democratic party. Oh! con¬ 
sistency, thou art a jewel! 

And now I ask gentlemen to point mo to the place 
where (he unconditional repeal of acts of incorpora¬ 
tion previously passed has been advocated, as a provi¬ 
sion to go into the new constitution ? In what part of 
the State has it been done ? Where, in other States, 
has the principle been adopted ? In what other con¬ 
stitution is it to be found? Yet we were told that we 
were to try no new experiments, and to adopt nothing 
but what had been tried in other States, and found to 
work well. Such is the doctrine that was advocated 
last fall a year—the doctrine before the election—the 
doctrine at the time when the party was willing to 
give the lie to the cry of radicalism that was raised 
tigainst it by the Whig press of the State; but no soon¬ 
er does it happen that the Democrats have the majori¬ 
ty here, than a new song is sung. 

But we were told the other day, that for Democrats, 
we had fallen into strange company—we had gotten in¬ 
to strange society. Let us see. If gentlemen will ex¬ 
amine into their own position, they may find that it is 
they who have fallen into strange company. What 
State—what democi’acy of any State which has had in 
its hands the formation of a new constitution, has as¬ 
serted the right of the unconditional repeal of acts of 
incorporation, to operate retrospectively? Not one. 
Will gentlemen tell us that it has been declared by the 
democracy of Ohio ? They cannot! Is there any 
such proposition in the democratic constitution of 
New York? No! In Kentucky? No! In Indiana? 
No! In Michigan? No! In Iowa? No! In Wis¬ 
consin? No! In California ? No! It has been heard 
of nowhere but here in this Chamber. Yet we have 
fallen into strange company ! I suppose that the gen¬ 
tleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] means that we 
have fallen into the company of the Whigs. If that is 









(:!ONVENTION REPORTS. 


899 


what he means, I must be allowed to say, that he also 
fell into strange company the other day, when he voted 
with the Whigs., that the people were not to be trusted 
in the choice of representative, unless we provided in 
the constitution that the candidate should be 25 or 30 
years old. 

Mr. MITCHELL. So did you, sir, on the same oc¬ 
casion. 

Mr, CASE. !l think not. How so? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Were there not fourteen or fif¬ 
teen Whigs, voted with you upon that question ? 

Mr. CASE. Under the circumstances, whether 
strange or not, it was very good company. They ai-e 
progressive Whigs. 

I have heard it asserted upon this floor, and I have 
not heard it denied, that a franchise is property, and 
subjsct to all the rules by which property is governed- - 
that it may be sold, bought, inherited, taken in execu¬ 
tion or under a decretal order; that it may be devised; 
that it has a value which maybe ascertained by ap 
praisement, and it follows, as a matter of necessity, i 
that like ather property, it may be taken for the public 
use, the proprietor being entitled to a compensation at 
the hands of the party taking the same. 

Mr. KING. In what manner. 

Mr. CASE. I will stale a case that occurred, and in 
that way answer the gentleman. Under an act of in¬ 
corporation passed by the Legislature of Vermont, a 
company was incorporated, which constructed a toll- 
bridge across West river,*in that State. After some 
years, the people of the vricinity petitioned the Legis¬ 
lature, that the bridge be taken from the company, be 
appropriated to the public use, and be made free. The 
Legislature took the case into cousideration—passed an 
act repealing the franchise, and dedicated it and the 
bridge to the public use, aud appointed commissioners 
to examine into and appraise the damages that might 
accrue to the company from the seizure*of their bridge 
and fixtures and their divestment of their right to tolls 
upon the same. 

The commissioners in their report say: [here Mr. 
Case read from 6 Howard’s United States Courts Re¬ 
ports, page 510.] 

“ The said commissionere are unanimously of the opinion that 
public good required that the real estate, casement or franchise 
of the West River Bridge Corporation should be taken and com¬ 
pensation made therefor, that said toll bridge might thereafter 
become a free bridge. They have, therefore, assessed to the said 
West River Bridge Corporation the sum of f4,000—in full com¬ 
pensation for said real estate, casement or franchise,” &c., &c. 
Such was the procedure in Vermont in such cases—and that pro¬ 
ceeding was reviewed in the United States Supreme Court and 
sustained, and the court in that case say, page 534 : “Afranchise 
is property, and nothing more”—“it is incorporeal property.” 
Levi Woodbury, in the same case, says : “ I concur in the views, 
also, that such a franchise as the incorporation is a species of 
property—subject to be sold, and may be devised or inherited. 

I concur, therefore, in the further views that the corporation, as a 
franchise, and all its powers, as franchises, both being property, 
may in proper cases be taken for public use.” 

I say, sir, it is too late to doubt the doctrine that a 
franchise is property, and that, as such, it may be ta¬ 
ken for the public use; but never without a compeii 
sation. Such is the law of Ohio; such is the law of 
all the States, and of the Union. It is the law that we 
inherited from the mother country, and has been the 
law of England ever since the days of Magna Charla. 

The supreme court of Ohio, also, in the 11th Ohio 
Reports, in a case from this county, held that a law 
providing for taking private property for public use, in 
which there is no provision for compensation to the 
owner, is void—absolutely void. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the gentleman from Licking 
[Mr. Case] tell the Convention and the people of Ohio, 
what and how much compensation was made by King 
Charles II. for the charters and franchises seized and 
confiscated by him ? 

Mr. CASE. The reign of the Stuart race was that 
of a race of tyrants—a reign of tyranny and blood—of 
lawless and irresponsible power—of departure from 
every principle calculated to secure the rights ol the 


citizens. If frauchis'e?i» were seized, they were doubtless 
seized without rigfrt, without law, without compensa¬ 
tion. Does the gentleman desire to seek'in the reign 
of the Stuart family precedents for the coulirmaiion of 
his democratic ])rinciples? 

Mr. MITCHELL. But will the gentleman tell us of 
one particular franchise that was taken and paid for? 

Mr. CASE. There was never one taken without, 
since the accession of William and Mary to the English 
throne. There was the little isle of Man, in the Irish 
sea. It was a kingdom in miniature**—made its owu 
laws, had its own sovereign, and its independence to a 
certain degree, was acknowledged. The British go¬ 
vernment, however, finding it to be a place of resort 
for smugglers, debtors, outlaws, &c.,appointedcoramis- 
sioners some time in the reign of George L to negotiate 
the surrender of its corporate rights, franchises and 
privileges. The negotiation was completed and the 
amount agreed upon, fixed and paid, before the govern¬ 
ment of England would take absolute possession, juris¬ 
diction, ami control of the island. The gentleman 
from Knox [Mr. Mitchell,] may take this as an offset 
to his authority of the lime of Charles, and will find it 
in Blackstone. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the gentleman from Licking 
[Mr. Case] tell the Convention how much was paid 
under the late reform bill in England, in consideration 
of the repeal of the borough franchises? 

Mr. CASE. These were mere municipal corpora- 
tions, my dear sir, about which there was never any 
question about the right of repeal—there or here. 

Mr. MITCHELL. That was also the case with the 
isle of Man. 

Mr. CASE. No; that was a subordinate royalty— 
originally independent of England—at all events Vts 
rights were respected, negotiated for, and valued ^ and 
that value paid for them. 

Sir; the thing has never been done. Svook through 
all the writers upon public law, from Grotius to Whea¬ 
ton, and Kent, and you will find no one that recognizes 
the right of a State to seize aud appropriate the pro¬ 
perty of the citizen, without compensation. 

Sir, there is not a heart that will not revolt at the 
idea that the State—that mere aggregation of power 
which men have created to establish justice and secure 
the blessings of liberty—may, in the wantoiiness of 
that power, lay its hands upon whatever of private 
property comes in its way, and appropriate it to its 
own use or destroy it, without giving to its pioprietor 
the poor privilege of a hearing. Under such a law, a 
man may be worth fifty thousand dollars to-day, and 
to-morrow, by a mere act of government, in which 
he has no agency, aud of which he has no notice, be 
so poor that there would be none to do him reverence ; 
precedents for it may be found in the worst days of 
Spanish rapacity, but not among enlightened States, 
except occasi(uially like that of the Stuarts, alluded 
to by the gentleman from Knox. To follow the exam¬ 
ple of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] 
in putting extreme cases—we will place this franchise, 
the Maumee Bridgefranchi.se if you please, worth fifty 
thousand dollars, in the hands of a widow. It is all 
she has. Upon its income she depends for her own 
support and the education of her children. She is in¬ 
dependent and comfortable to-day. To-morrow, by a 
single act of the law making power, her property is 
annihilated by a repeal of the charter, and she and 
her children are left to suffer all the evils of poverty 
and wretchedness. And this is to he done by the 
State of Ohio ! God forbid, that we should everset 
such ail example. If such things are just in a State, 
why punish the highwayman for acts that differ only 
in magnitude ? 

It is plunder ! nothing else. And the people would 
scorn such doctriuce. It is not democracy. Gentle¬ 
men may say what they please, about reading me out 
of the democratic party. I will go for impartial and 
even handed justice to all—to the .poor as well as the 


















900 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


rich—to the corporations as well as individuals. That 
is what I call Democracy! Justice! 

Mr. President; I have heard several attempts at 
ridicule upon those who have presumed to cite high 
judicial authorities in this assembly, and the cases re¬ 
ported in Wheaton and Howard and Peters have been 
sneered at. Geiitlemea tell us it is not 2d Peters’, but 
2d Peaple’s reports that are authority here. Now I do 
not know as I should succeed, if I were to attempt to 
define a demagogue ; but when I hear a lawyer sneer¬ 
ing at the citation of an acknowledged legal authority, 
I should say that the act exhibits the very essence of 
demagogueism. I have also heard here much ridicule 
thrown upon our courts both State and national. Now 
if there be anyone thing more than another, that com¬ 
mands the respect of the people at large, itis our courts. 
To them they look, whenever life, liberty or property 
are assailed, and seldom look in vain—and I cannot and 
will not join in a sentiment calculated to weaken this 
almost universal respect of our people for our courts of 
justice. In England, for the last hundred years, they 
nave been found the great citadels of liberty—and il 
liberty is ever overthrown in this free country, her last 
struggle will be had in the courts of this country—and 
so long as the legal tribunals are respected and upheld, 
so long and no longer, will liberty and virtue flourish 
in this land. 

I will close, sir, with a brief recapitulation of the po¬ 
sitions I have taken. 

I hold that every company incorporated by the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, for the purpose of carrying forward any 
work of industry or of enterprise—whether it be a 
bridge, a ferry, an insurance company, a rail, or a plank 
road—whatever the franchises may be, that are confer¬ 
red by the charter, these franchises are property, and 
are holden by a tenure independent of that by which 
the mere structure of a bridge, the track of a railroad, 
are holden. That the right to these franchises, as the 
right of a bridge company to take toll, the right of a 
railroad company to transport passengers and freight, 
and to receive payment therefor, is a substantial right, 
having a value of its own, and in general, one infinite¬ 
ly greater than the mere fixtures to which it is attached, 
and out of which the right springs. 

That the General Assembly may, whenever the pub¬ 
lic good shall demand, divest these franchises, and an¬ 
nihilate all the special privileges which they confer; 
but only on this condition, that a full and adequate com¬ 
pensation in money be made, for all the loss and dam¬ 
age suffered by the party whose franchises have been 
divested. This compensation not to be fixed by the 
arbitrary act of the Legislature, but to be assessed by 
a jury—the party having his day in court, and the aid 
of counsel and testimony, as to the value of those fran¬ 
chises thus taken. 

Mr. President, these are the principles for which I 
have given my vote, and to which I have pledged my 
support. I believe they are correct, and in their sup¬ 
port, I have acted conscientiously, and in good faith. 
For this I have been rebuked in this Hall, and out of 
it. I have been accused of desertion from the ranks of 
the Democratic party. This I have borne unmoved. I 
know that I shall meet no censure from my constitu¬ 
ents for this part of my course. They hold justice, 
even banded justice, to be a virtue, and not a crime; 
they are not rapacious; they are not agrarians; nor are 
the people of Ohio. They will ask from me the per¬ 
formance of no act that is not consistent with my views 
of honesty and justice. I have thus given my opinions: 
misrepresentation has driven me to it. I would gladly 
have avoided what 1 have said, could I have reconciled 
silence with a sense of duty. I have heard doctrines 
advanced here that I believe to be pernicious; hostile 
to the principles of the Democratic party; hostile to 
the sentiments of the people of Ohio; hostile to the 
con.stitution of the United States, which guaranties the 
inviolability of private property; hostile to the very 
jewel of the bill of rights oi our present constitution; 


hostile to sound State policy; hostile to sound morals; 
hostile to that sacred canon written by the finger of 
God upon every mortal heart: “Thou shalt do so 

WRONG ! ” 

I have entered my emphatic protest against them, 
and I am now ready to follow it with my vote. 

Mr. LEECH. Mr. President: I feel constrained to 
reply briefly to a portion of the remarks just submitted 
to the Convention, by the gentleman from Licking [Mr. 
Case.] Tnat gentleman has read several extracts 
from “ Medary’s New Constitution,” In order to show 
that the doctrine that the General Assembly should 
have an express grant of power to repeal charters of 
incorporation, was not advocated by the democratic 
party, during the canvass for a convention to revise the 
constitution. He has asserted, with great positiveness 
that “ Medary’s New Constitution,” the “ omnium gath- 
ei-um^' as he is pleased to call it, of the constitutional 
reforms demanded by the democratic party, does not 
contain a single article, either editorial or select, in fa¬ 
vor of this doctrine of repeal. Now, sir, upon this 
point, I boldly take issue with the gentleman from 
Licking. I affirm that the doctrine of repeal was as¬ 
serted and ably advocated by the democratic press of 
the State, and that this ‘■^omnium gaihcium'' contains 
articles of that character. Whilst the gentleman was 
speaking, I marked an extract, and reqire.-^ted him to 
read it to the Convention, but from some cause or other 
he refused to comply with my request. 

Mr. CASE of Licking, (m his seat.) I forgot it. 

Mr. LEECH. I will read the extract. It is found 
on page 316 of “ Medary’s New Constitution,” under 
the heading. “ Reasons why the People should vote for a 
Convention to amend tlce Constitution of Ohiof and is as 
follows: 

“ All laws, except those by which the faith of the State may be 
pledged in contracting public debts, should be made subject to 
repeal. Just so far as the people are ruled by laws which they 
cannot change, they are ruled by a despotic power. It is an es¬ 
sential principle ol democratic governments, that the will of the 
tnajority shall govern at all times, and the majority of this year, 
has no right to make their present will omnipotent, on any sub¬ 
ject of legislation against the will of all opposing majorities for 
twenty or fifty years to come. For, it in adopting any measure 
whatever, they should be mistaken in their views ot public poli¬ 
cy, it is manitestly unjust for them to place their mistakes beyond 
the reach of reform. It the members ot the Legislature should 
disregard the general welfare, and pass bad laws from bad mo¬ 
tives, it is an outrage for such men to have the privilege of mak¬ 
ing enactments for any period, like the tyrannical ‘laws of the 
Medes and Persians,’ unalterable." 

Here, sir, is the doctrine of repeal boldly advocated 
in its broadest sense, and it applies as well to charters 
now in existence, as to those which may be hereafter 
granted. It is here maintained that the power does 
exist in any General Assembly to repeal the acts of any 
preceding General Assembly. The great principle of 
legislative supremacy which is here asserted, is just as 
applicable to the past as to the future. The gentle- 
mau cannot construe it to have merely a propective 
signification. 

The work from which I have just read contains, as 
I am well aware, numerous articles similar iii their 
import to the extract which I have quoted ; but as this 
debate lias sprung up suddenly, and to me entirely un¬ 
expectedly, I am not now prepared, “ upon the spur of 
the moment,” to point them out. Moreover, sir, I 
trust I have adduced sufficient to completely disprove 
the position assumed by the gentleman from Licking. 

The Democratic party, Mr. President, has always 
maintained that the power to repeal charters was inhe¬ 
rent in the General Assembly, and that an express 
grant of that power, in the constitution, was not neces¬ 
sary in order that it might be exercised. But in order 
to make P assurance doubly sure”—in order that the 
question might be completely, yea, constitutionally set¬ 
tled—the Democracy of Ohio, through the press and in 
their [irimary assemblies, have most unequivocally de¬ 
manded that the new organic law of the common¬ 
wealth shall contain a provision expressly conferring 
upon the General Assembly an unqualified power ofi’e- 












CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


901 


oeai. I imst, sir, that their demand will be complied I Mr. McCORMICK. Well, I certainly did understand 


with, and that this great cardinal principle of the 
Democratic faith may be engrafted in the new consti 
tutiou 

But, Mr. President, I did not rise to argue thisques 
lion at length. 1 rose simply to set the gentleman from 
Licking right upon this subject, and to vindicate what 
I conceive to be, a cardinal principle of the democrat 
ic party—that gallant old party to which I am proud 
to belong, and in defence of whose glorious pnnciple 
I am ever willing to do battle. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, apologized briefly for his for 
getfulness about reading the abstract, but insisted upon 
the truth of his assertion, that the power of repeal with 
respect to charters already granted, was not agitated 
amongst the people; and that no such idea was given 
out as that of repealing a charter without making a 
compensation. 

Mr LEECH. A word in reply to the gentleman 
from Licking, [Mr. Case.] I will admit, sir, that the 
democracy of the State did not go into all the details 
of this subject, and lor the good reason, that the idea 
that a charier ought not to be repealed without a com¬ 
pensation, was too great an absurdity to bear discus 
sion. When a bonus is granted by a State to a corpo 
ration, w'hich the corporators have no right to demand 
and which the State is under no obligation to bestow^ 
and the General Assembly sees proper to take the gift 
—to say that the State ought to pay it, is too ridiculous 
and too monstrous an absurdity to admit of discussion 
before an intelligent community. And, strange to say 
the doctrine fipds advocates on this floor i 

Mr. McCORMICK. I rise, not for the purpose of 
making a speech, for I think we have had enough 
speeches in all conscience. But, as we have just been 
highly interested with a speech of an hour and a half, 
the whole point of which was based upon a false hy¬ 
pothesis, I rise for the purpose of propounding to the 
gentleman from Licking, a question or two, which 
most respectfully beg of him to answer, and to answer 
fairly 

The question before us is the propnety of re-consid¬ 
ering the vote by which the Convention refused to 
strike out a portion of the words of the amendment of 
the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. Vance,] which reads 
as follows, in connection with the section which we 


have agreed to amend: 

The General Assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive 
laws, nor laws impairing the obligations ol contracts; provided, 
that all acts of incorporation, and all acts granting franchises, and 
the privileges and franchises of any incorporated company, may 
be altered, amended, revoked, or repealed, by the General As¬ 
sembly of this State, upon such terms and conditions pertaining 
to the inviolability of private property, as is provided tor in oth¬ 
er cases in this constitution. 

The proposition is to strike out from the proviso 
these words: ‘‘ Upon such terms and conditions per¬ 
taining to the inviolability of private property, as is 
provided for in other cases in this constitution.” Now% 
the gentleman from Licking has declared, and the 
whole point of his argument is, that a few of us demo¬ 
crats here are Arabs and robbers, because we wish to 
strike out these words, and leave corporations to be 
robbed of their franchises—(their property as he calls 
them, but as I do not call them)—and do not propose 
that they shall have any compensation for the franchi¬ 
ses of which they may be deprived. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, (interposing.) I should be 
sorry to be understood as making such a remark of any 
man. What I did say, was, that to take property with¬ 
out compensation, was the doctrine of guerillas and 
bandits. 

Mr. McCORMICK. If I understand the gentleman’s 
argument, it was, that if we vote to strike out, we 
vote to take property without compensation, which is 
equivalent, in the opinion of the gentleman from Lick¬ 
ing, to being Arabs and robbers. 

Mr. CASE (in hb seat.) 
you please. 


the gentleman so; and he is one of the last men whom 
I would allow myself to misunderstand, for I hold the 
gentleman in very high esteem, and I was very sorry 
to hear the language which fell Irom him this morn - 

ing- 

The position of the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Groesbeck,] and the gentleman from Licking, [Mr. 
Case,] is, that a Ifanchise is property. Now', if these 
gentlemen are correct—if a franchise is property—then 
1 ask, are not the stockholders secured by the 39th sec¬ 
tion of this report? And doesmot, therefore, all the ne¬ 
cessity for this amendment, upon which the gentleman 
from Licking has based his argument, fall to the ground! 
The 39th section, for which we have voted, secures the 
right of private property. Do you desire that the prop¬ 
erty of corporations should be more secure than the 
property of individuals? If this be so—if a franchise 
be property—then wdienever the Legislature shall re¬ 
peal a charter, the case will come under the provision 
of the 39th section; and we who are disposed to vote 
for striking out this clause, (I hope it will be stricken 
out,) are neither Arabs nor robbers. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking. I cannot submit to have 
any man put into my mouth words which I never 
used. I reiterate my denial. I used no such language. 
What 1 said, was, that the doctrine of taking property 
by the State without compensation, hearing or trial, 
was the doctrine of guerrillas and bandits. I said no 
more than this. 

Mr. McCORMICK. Then, as a matter of course, 
if that is the gentleman’s position, his whole argument 
falls to the ground. For, it has nothing at all to do 
with the question, as not a man here has advocated 
such a proposition. 

I hesitate not to avow my hostility to all corporate 
bodies, as they now exist in this State; and I hesitate 
not to declare them not only illegal, but illegal frauds 
upon the public, and I believe the Legislature has the 

acting in the 


I leave you to consider as 


unqualified right of repeal; and, w'ere I 
Legislature, I should so act, and so vote. I am not 
only opposed to corporations, as they now are, but I 
am opposed to the legal position taken by gentlemen 
here, in order to secure them in the possession and 
enjoyment of their franchises. At the same time, I 
affirm, that no man here proposes to take property 
without pay. The observance of that principle is 
amply secui*ed by the 39th section, and if the legal posi¬ 
tion of the gentleman be correct; particular legisla¬ 
tion, such as this amendment proposes, is uncalled for, 
unnecessary and absurd. 

Mr. DORSEY. I do not wish the vote to be taken 
without first availing myself of the privilege of making 
a few remarks upon this subject. I suppose that a ^ 
motion to reconsider, naturally calls for remarks upon 
the whole matter at issue, and gives us the right to 
state the position which we occupy. I wish to make a 
plain statement, stript of all verbiage, of the position 
in which I expect to stand, and that which I hold rnay 
be safely occupied, not only by gentlemen standing 
upon the same side with myself, but also by those up¬ 
on the opposite side of this chamber. 

As a short introductory to what I shall say, I wish it 
to be understood, that I do not intend to speak in any 
party sense. The gentleman from Licking [xMr. Case] 
cannnot stand, with reference to this matter, in a worse 
category than myself, ior, in common with that gentle¬ 
man, I also have, since the commencement of this Con¬ 
vention, stood some very narrow chances of being read 
out of the party. But I say nothing about that. I ad¬ 
vocate this principle—not on account of party consid¬ 
erations—but, because it is founded in right and jus¬ 
tice. It is a principle, with respect to which I can ap¬ 
peal to gentlemen of all parties upon this floor, as rep- 
lesentatives of the people of Ohio, to come over and 
stand, and vote with me. 

The doctrine which I advocate here, in common 
with those with w'hom I vote, is the broad doctrine of 









902 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


repeal, namely: that one Legislature has the right and 
the power to repeal the acts of’ every previous Legisla¬ 
ture—be they what they may—that no power can, by 
any^ possibility, be invested in any one legislative body, 
which may not be assumed and exercised, with all its 
concomitants, by any legislative body which may suc¬ 
ceed it. And I say this, plainly, and openly, that this 
doctrine was that upon which the Democratic party 
came into this contest, and it is a doctrine which they 
expect this Convention to carry out; and the gentle¬ 
man from Licking agrees with me here. He argues 
that the doctrine of repeal was plainly and expressly 
advocated among the people, and expected to be car¬ 
ried out in this Convention. But I go farther, and say, 
with the gentleman from Licking—•and there is no 
member upon this floor will contradict me—that, in 
carrying out this doctrine, it was no part of the design 
that one particle of injustice should be done to any in¬ 
dividual or corporation within the bounds of the State 
of Ohio. 

I am not one of those who seem to have a peculiar 
horror of corporations. Indeed 1 am not at all oppos¬ 
ed to corporations properly formed. I believe they 
are decidedly necessary to carry forward the best izi- 
terests of the people. 

But, at the same time that I would be unwilling to 
do anything that would derogate from the just rights 
of corporations, I am utterly averse to inserting any¬ 
thing in the constitution which shall prescribe, even 
by implication, that corporations have any rights or im¬ 
munities which are not enjoyed by every individual 
citizen of the State of Ohio. And because I am not 
willing to put anything of that sort into the constitution 
I am opposed to the latter part of this proviso. 

Mr. STANBERY, (interposmg.) 1 wish to ask the 
entleman in what particular any member upon this 
oor has avo wed himself in favor of giving to corpora¬ 
tions any privilege not belonging to individuals? 

Mr. DORSEY. That is exactly what I expect to 
show. That is exactly what T am coming to; and I 
expect to show that the latter clause of this pioviso has 
been dug up for the express purpose of granting juiv- 
ileges, at least by implication, which are not granted 
to individuals ; and for that reason I am opposed to it. 

I am opposed to the State being allowed ever to assume 
such a relation, either towards individuals or corpora¬ 
tions, as will allow the rights of the latter to be infring¬ 
ed, or their propeity invaded, by the strong hand of 
power; and we have provided against this in the 39th 
section of the report before us. What is the language 
of that sectiuu ? It is that private property shall ever 
be held inviolate. Whatproperty ? of individualsonly ? 
No sir; but all private property, whether of individu¬ 
als or corporations, all such property is to be held invi 
olate.^ A corporation is nothing more nor less than an 
association of individuals; and if a corporation has 
property, and the State chooses to take it to itself, the 
State becomes bound fur that property, and must pay 
for it. But whatsoever the State has freely granted 
that the State may freely take away. If she freely 
gave certain privileges, franchises, if you please, those 
privileges she may be allowed freely to resume. That 
is the doctrine. And, therefore, when we have provi¬ 
ded that all acts of incorporation, and all privile"e8 of 
incorporated companies may be altered, amended, re¬ 
voked, or repealed, that is all we wish to provide here. 
But if we go on and state that this shall be done “ upon 
such terms and conditions, pertaining to the inviolabil¬ 
ity of private property, as is provided in other cases in 
this constitution,” it will be equivalent to an assertion 
in the constitution, that corpoi’ations have certain rights 
which do not belong to individuals; or if this is°not 
the intention of the clause we shall then be doing only 
that which is amply provided for in the 39th section 
of this report. Here is the dilemma for the friends of 
the latter clause of this jzroviso. I care not which 
horn they take. I take neither. I strike it out. 

Mr. RANNEY. The latter part of the proviso, pla 


ces the franchise of a corporation upon the same 
ground with property in all cases. No matter how 
great the injustice inflicted by the corporation upon 
the community might be, it would still be obligatory 
upon the General Assembly, to provide for paying 
them for their franchise, whenever they take their 
charter. This question would come up in all cases of 
repeal. The State could never exei’cise the right of 
repeal, without going into the public treasury, and 
drawing as much money from it, as the charter is 
worth to the stockholders. 

Sir, if the latter portion of this proviso is to remain, 
I shall vote against it. I am in favor of the declaration 
in the former part of the proviso, though I do not re¬ 
gard it as giving any more power to the Legislature 
than they already possess. But with the latter por¬ 
tion, it would be much worse than nothing. The 
right of repeal would unquestionably remain in the 
General Assembly without any constitutional declara¬ 
tion. But, inasmuch as it has been open to perversion 
heretofore, inasmuch as different opinions have pre¬ 
vailed and the rights of the people disregarded by 
means of false constructions, I think we ought to 
make such a declaration, simply, stript of all objection¬ 
able matter—a declaration plain, direct and positive— 
open to no perversion, and subject to no evasion. 

Mr. President, I make allowance for the gentleman 
from Licking [Mr. Case] as I do for every man who 
speaks in the heat of debate. 1 do not think he real¬ 
ly intended what the words he used would indicate. 
But he did say that this kind ot democracy, which 
we are contending for, was the democracy of the high¬ 
way men. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD (interrupting.) I think the gen¬ 
tleman from Licking was misunderstood. He was ar¬ 
guing upon an abstraction, and none were included 
within the terms he used, unless gentlemen choose to 
include themselves. I endorse everything said by the 
gentleman from Licking. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, rehearsed the language he 
had used, as heretofore given. 

Mr. RANNEY. The gentleman, by his explanation, 
only gets in deeper. 

Mr. CASE, (in his seat.) Very w'ell. I go that 
deep. 

Mr. RANNEY. We have his explanation; and 
what does it amount to? Why, simply this: that the 
advocates of a certain doctrine—men here, who are 
known to speak and vote that way—are advocates of 
the doctrine of the highwayman. Such are the advo¬ 
cates of the doctrine which the gentleman argued 
against, and which the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. 
Archbot.d,] and himself undertake to denounce. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, (in his seat.) 1 said 1 did nothold 
the language to be personal. 

Mr. RANNEY. The allusion was to those persons 
who sustained that doctrine, and I am one of that num¬ 
ber. Then let it be the doctrine of the highwayman. 

It is my doctrine neverthele.?6,that the legislature have 
the jiower, and the right, to take away the privileges 
and franchises they have granted, and that without com¬ 
pensation. The franchises, Isay—not property. Any¬ 
body that cannot distinguish between the most artifi¬ 
cial person, the creature of legislative power, and their 
property, cannot make a veiy close distinction. I 
would not touch one cent of the property of a corpora¬ 
tion any sooner than I would that of an individual. I 
would guard the rights of property with the same fidel¬ 
ity, whether it were the property of rich or poor, cor¬ 
poration or private individuals. Sir, I have always 
claimed, that the rights of property should forever re¬ 
main inviolate, nid I trust that my votes here have 
given no indication of a willingness to relinquish that 
claim. The acquisition and enjoyment of private 
property is a natural right. Government is bound to 
protect it. The State does not confer it, and ought not 
to invade it. The State does confer all corporate pow¬ 
ers and privileges. When it takes them away, it takes 










CONVENTION REPORTS 


903 


nothing but what it has confeired. The public good, 
guided by justice to all, should control, both in the 
grant and its resumption by the State. 

Sir, if gentlemen choose to brand the doctrine which 
I advocate, with hard names, it will not disturb me. 

I am not disposed to flare up at being called hard 
names. I have lived too long for that. I have had so 
much experience in political warfare, I have been so 
often called hard names, that they sound to my ears 
more agreeable than flattery. Ido not care for the 
names. Let us look at the thing. 

The gentleman, [Mr. Case,] said, when he came 
here, that he left at home all his party principles. 
Well, if he meant that he would not allow his mere 
party tactics to guide him in his acts here, I am witli 
him. But, if he meant that he left his party principles 
at home, that is another thing. If I had left my party 
principles at home, I should have left myself there. I 
never adopted a party principle but what I could cim 
brace with my whole heart, as founded in justice. 
Such, I am convinced, are all the great principles of 
the democratic faith, and every year but adds depth 
to that conviction. Therefore, wheresoever I find a 
a democratic principle—a principle founded in justice 
and right, it cannot fail to receive my support any less 
zealously here, than elsewhere. It is in such a sense 
as this that we hold our party principles. They are as 
dear to us as our lives, and if we cannot carry them 
out here, I know not where, with more propriety, w'e 
could carry them out. This is to be a fundamental 
law; where more proper to insert fundamental prin¬ 
ciples ? 

The gentleman from Licking has put a case. It is 
the same old bridge—nearly worn out as an argument 
—but these gentlemen can never get anything but a 
bridge. A comj:lany of men built a bridge across the 
Miami river. They used it until, he said, it had fully 
repaid them for everything they had expended upon it. 
He says the structure cost them $50,000 to begin; and 
that the franchise or act of incorporation is still worth 
$50,000 ; and he asks, in triumph, would the State now 
lay hands upon that charter without paying them $50,- 
000 ? 

But when that exclusive privilege was conceded to 
these men, it was so much taken away from the liber¬ 
ty of every citizen around there, who might choose to 
occupy that bridge site. And now, in order to regain 
the liberty so taken away from these citizens, it is the 
gentleman’s doctrine, that it becomes the duty of the 
State, to give these fellows a bonus of $50,000 for it, 
and collect the money from you and me, by means of 
taxation! I want nothing but his own example, to en^- 
able me to say, that a doctrine, with consequences 
more unjust, could not be advocated. 

But, let us suppose another case. Let us suppose 
that, twenty years ago, the exclusive right of ferrying 
across this river was secured by a charter to a compa¬ 
ny here, along the wharfs and landings of this city. 
Suppose that right to have been enjoyed for twenty 
years, and that the charter has yet twenty years to run. 
The right is without competition, to carry you across, 
under just as unfavorable circumstances as they please. 
Nobody can interfere for forty years; for that is the 
term of the charter. I will suppose, moreover, that 
the profits of every year repay to them four-fold all 
that they have ever embarked in it. And yet the peo¬ 
ple of this great city are to stand still for twenty years 
more, and allow this single company to pile up their 
twenty, thirty and forty thousand dollars a year, by 
way of profits ; because, twenty years ago, the Legis¬ 
lature of the State bargained away the rights of this 
people to enjoy the benefits and profits of a ferry for 
forty years ! All that they have embarked in the en¬ 
terprise I suppose never to have cost them more than 
$5 ,000, out of the profits of which they have piled up 
their fortunes, which are still increasing; and you are 
to stand by and see these immense fortunes made out 
of a franchise, (which is your own,) because your an¬ 


cestors passed an act of incorporation! I do not know 
that such a case has actually occurred, but the example 
illustrates the principle and shows the consequence to 
which the doctrine of chartered immunity leads us. 

But it has been said that a franchise is property. 
Following the same example, then, I suppose that each 
of the individuals composing this company, before this 
privilege of a ferry was granted to them, to have been 
worth $2,000, consisting of lands, houses, cattle, horses, 
any thing And the day after the charter was passed, 

I suppose the franchise itself to have been worth $50,- 
000. That, in the hands of the two individuals com¬ 
posing the company, would make them worth $27,000 
apiece. How so ? Why, this act of the Legislature 
has given them $25,000 apiece, out and out. It is 
property. You cannot touch it. And if the Legisla¬ 
ture, on the next day after the passage of the charter, 
had been disposed to take it away, they must call a jury 
and witnesses to declare what this right would be 
worth for forty years, and pay the estimate of $50,000, 
before they could get it! This is property, is it ? Is 
it not a sheer absurdity so to name it ? 

What is property ? We have all been accustomed 
to regard it as something tangible. When we have ac¬ 
quired a horse, or a farm, we know what it is. But 
the idea that you can cheat the Legislature into the 
grant of some exclusive privilege, and call that proper¬ 
ly, is certainly the most absurd of all humbugs. 

When the U. S. Bank charter expired, and applica¬ 
tion was made to the Legislature of the State of Penn¬ 
sylvania for another, we all know that the proposition 
was got through that body by means of downright 
bribery, fraud and corruption. And the moment the 
charter was passed, it was worth a million. For now, 
it was entirely out of the power of the Legislature to 
repeal it—and why? Because, the charter granted 
was property ! Well, but the government never crea¬ 
ted anything. We have been accustomed to regard 
the government as a great consumer; but the idea that 
it ever produced anything was never asserted. Then, 
if the government make a grant of anything valuable, 
where does it come from ? It must come from the 
gi’eat mass of the interests of the people, which the 
government represents. So, if any General Assembly 
have granted and bargained away anything of value, it 
belonged originally to the people they represented. 

I cannot rank myself with those who are great eu- 
thusiasts for coi’porations; and if this restriction should 
have the effect of reducing the number of them, it 
would be all the better in my jitdgment. I am aware 
that there are certain great social and commercial ob¬ 
jects, which cannot be accomplished without associa¬ 
tion. Well, let corporations be authorized then, but 
give them no exclusive privileges. People are not 
going to submit to wrong under this idea much longer. 
The worst enemies to corporations, in a just sense, are 
those who would hang on to the power, by which they 
have always endeavored to drag something from the 
community, not enjoyed by all. Sir, it corporations 
cannot exist without this—if franchises are to be taken 
and enjoyed by corporations, at the expense of the 
rest of the community—if this is to be demonstrated 
to my mind—from that day forth, I wage an eternal 
and extertninating war against all corporations. I am 
for death and destruction to the whole of them. But, 
sir, I believe that the great principle of association can 
be maintained ; and that all the benefits to be derived 
from the legal identity of many persons, may be se¬ 
cured without being attended by this dangerous prin¬ 
ciple. If this can be done, then I am in favor of cor¬ 
porations; but if it cannot, then I am against them 
from the stump. 

What are corporations created for ? My friend from 
Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] contended that they ought 
not to be created, unless they were for the public good. 
We cannot look into the future. We are all fallible 
j^en—especially all democrats. But, by the creation 
of corporations, our power is put into the hands of the 













904 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


Legislature for the public good. They may unexpect¬ 
edly work injury ; and then they will very likely say, 
that after it is once granted and bargained away, it is 
eternally gone, if such be the terms of the charter. 

Mr. STANBERY (interposing.) Corporations are un¬ 
doubtedly created for the public good ; and their fran¬ 
chises may be resumed upon the same grounds that 
other property may be taken. If the gentleman in¬ 
stead of stating extreme cases, would argue a principle, 
I would listen to him with more pleasure. But 1 al¬ 
ways hear him with pleasure. 

Mr. RANNEY. I want to. ask the gentleman from 
Franklin a question. Does that gentleman hold, that 
the franchise of a corporation may be resumed by the 
State, when no public use of the State demands that it 
should be resumed ? 

Mr. STANBERY, (in his seat.) It should not be re¬ 
sumed, unless the public good require it. 

Mr. RANNEY. Public good, and public use, are dif¬ 
ferent terms. Let us look at the right of property. 
Property cannot be taken except for public use. Now 
will the gentleman come in and say, that the franchise 
of a corporation shall not be taken except for public 
use ? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, (interposing). Does 
the gentleman suppose, that, in case an invading army 
were to land in Sandusky City, the government could 
not destroy the two railroads leading out from that 
point? 

Mr. RANNEY. No doubt of that whatever. But 
the gentleman would thank me not to put extreme ca¬ 
ses. Well, I am willing to extend that courtesy to the 
gentleman, if he will extend the same to me. But I 
have heard of nothing but bridle-paths and bridges, ta¬ 
ken for examples on that side of the argument. A 
bridge ! A bridge .' that is their great cry. They first 
get something plainly for the public good, and then 
proceed to make their illustrations by it. But, let me 
say to the gentlemen, that I put it upon the ground that 
the Legislature has power over the subject. I do 
not undertake to say how the Legislature shall exer¬ 
cise that power. But, if the object in the creation of 
the corporation be the public good, does the gentleman 
suppose that the Legislature are going to repeal the 
charter of a corporation whenever such repeal is not 
demanded for the public good ? Oh, this distrust of the 
Legislature! Whenever the question is in regard to the 
creation of a corporation, then it is safe to trust the 
Legislature. But the moment the corporation is crea¬ 
ted, it becomes too dangerous to give the Legislature 
any more power over them. They themselves would 
not do injustice, were they in the Legislature. The 
gentleman from Franklin would not. No gentleman 
would. “All men think all men mortal but them¬ 
selves.” But I am willing to say. Let the people’s 
representatives do their duty in these cases, as well as 
in all others. Let them do right. If the exercise of 
corporate power promotes the public good,continue it; 
if not, take it away. ’ 

But you can trust the Legislature, that they will do 
no injury to individuals. Sir, the old ladies have been 
appealed to in this debate; but, did it ever occur to 
those old ladies, when they went to bed at night, and 
slept sound, that all the interests that existing laws se¬ 
cure to them in the estates of their husbands, were in 
the hands of the Legislature, and that it might be taken 
avvay from them any day, by the power which they 
might exercise? Did any nervous old man, whose fears 
are attempted to be awakened, ever reflect, that this 
same Legislature could so change the law of descent, 
that not one copper’s-worth of the wealth which he has 
been striving all his life to pile up, could go to his chil¬ 
dren ? Did he ever reflect, that even his life and liberty 
were, to a very great extent, in the hands of the Leg¬ 
islature ? Then, life, liberty, private property, and so¬ 
cial relations, are all safe enough in the hands of the 
Legislature; they can provide laws safe enough for the 
natural person : but when it comes to the legal person 


—the corporation—all is fear and caution; and the 
ground of that fear was well stated by the gentleman 
from Hamilton, [Mr. Reewelin,] to be, because they 
know that they have been exercising injustice. Sir, 
their conscience afflicts them, “ The wicked flee when 
no man pursueth.’’ Give to them no more privileges 
than individuals have, and they need not fear. 

Sir, there is not a government in the world, as con¬ 
servative in regard to the rights of property, as the 
people of America. Every man in this country, either 
has a little property, or expects to make some; and 
the less he has, the more careful will he be to throw 
the sanctions of law around it. And I do hope that 
we are progressing toward that point of our political 
history, when there shall come up from every elector 
in the country, a demand for a practical exemplification 
of equality of rights and equality of privileges and 
burdens. In no other way can either person or prop* 
erty be adequately protected. 

The gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Case,] puts his 
whole argument upon the ground, that a franchise is 
property, and that we are bound to protect the rights 
of property. But I ask that gentleman, if he cannot 
distinguish between property which an individual 
may own, and the bare legislative privilege, to use it 
in a particular manner ? It seems to me there is a 
very palpable distinction. For example, to-day I may 
be in the enjoyment of an office, I have embarked my 
property in such a manner as to be able to execute its 
duties. But, to-morrow you sweep away the office— 
taking only the office, not the property. Who grum¬ 
bles at this ? Not even the gentleman from Licking. 
This is plainly a right which the Legislature may exer¬ 
cise. But when you come to touch the charter of a 
corporation, said to be suspended upon the principle 
of the public good, gentlemen would be down upon 
you with the cry of “ a contract.” 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, (in his seat.) If it were a 
contract, it could be taken for the public welfare. 

Mr. RANNEY. Does the gentleman pretend to lay 
down the doctrine, that the property of private indi¬ 
viduals may be taken at the will of the Legislature? 
or must they not find some imperative public necessity 
for the use of it, before they can take it ? ' 

Mr. CASE. The latter, certainly. 

Mr. RANNEY. Unless yon can demonstrate some 
public use for it, you cannot take it. If this be the 
case, then I concur with the gentleman from Adams, 
[Mr. McCormick,] that you are amply protected by 
the 39th section. Aye, but there is a little fear about 
that; and I frankly confess, that I do not believe it 
will protect you, in your claim for pay for charters. 

If I thought it \vould, I would vote against that section. 

It might be right, in some cases, to pay something, 
to a corporation, for their privileges. A change of time 
might render that which has been heretofore a public 
benefit, hereafter, a public injuiy. fn such cases 
there is nothing to prevent the Legislature from doing 
justice. 

But the gentleman from Licking says, that a fran¬ 
chise is property, and that valuation and compensation 
is the rule you must follow before you can take it. 
Then, as I have said before, it results in this : that the 
more the community has been cheated the more valu¬ 
able will be the exclusive privilege. The more un¬ 
guarded the charter, the more it will be worth to the 
corporators. The more palpable and thorough the 
cheat the more it would cost to get clear of it. 

Sir, I acknowledge no such doctrine as that; and, if 
the remedy proposed should have the effect to discour¬ 
age the process which has been so long going on, of 
shingling the State all over with corporations, engulph- 
ing all business in the hands of monopolies, thereby 
striking down the energies of private enterprise—I am 
neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I veri¬ 
ly believe, that fifty years hence, the men that shall 
stand in your places, and possess this goodly land, will 
bless you for this day’s work, if it shall have the effect 










CONVENTION REPORTS 


906 


of protecting individual men from the power of asso¬ 
ciated wealth. 

But gentlemen say, we will extend the operation of 
this clause to all future corporations; hut we cannot 
look back. 

Well, another bridge will have to be made across 
the Maumee river, when the old one shall rot down, 
by the hand of another company ; and I want to see 
the Legislature guided by a correct rule, in granting 
their charter. But the gentleman cannot safely trust 
their existing corporation interests in the hands of the 
Legislature, where they are willing to leave the interest 
of every one who shall embark his property in corpo¬ 
rations hereafter. How is it, that gentlemen can talk 
of the same principle, as just in its application to the 
future, and unjust in its application to existing corpo¬ 
rations. I speak now of the justice of the case ; not 
of the legal question ? Can gentlemen suppose that 
the same legislative body, which would be just toward 
the interest of all corporations hereafter to be author¬ 
ized, would become Arabs, barbarians, and guerrillas 
with respect to the interests of existing corporations ? 

But, upon the question of justice the gentleman’s doc¬ 
trine cannot be maintained for one moment; and I do 
not propose to follow him, in his application of that 
higher law to which he referred. He affirmed, how¬ 
ever, that the law of God itself, forbids that we should 
apply the repealing hand to these charters. But in re¬ 
spect to those charters to be granted hereafter, it ap¬ 
pears that the same high law admits of their repeal. 
So that, according to the gentleman, even the Almigh¬ 
ty himself, has made two rules upon the subject. 

But now I do hope that we may, at this time, dis¬ 
pose of this question. If a majority are going to vote 
down the right of repeal, let it be done. If we are 
to go home, and tell the people, that whenever our an¬ 
cestors may have bargained away their rights, they 
cannot touch them again, let us go and tell the mourn¬ 
ful tale. I do not know but the friends of equal 
rights, whom gentlemen represent, will respond to it— 
well done. But I do know, if there is any one thing 
above another winch I have desired with reference to 
our action here, it is to carry out a principle which I 
have long maintained against majorities; it is that this 
constitution shall proclaim that the people’s represent¬ 
atives are supreme upon the subject of corporate 
rights. Other gentlemen can do as they please. I im¬ 
peach the motives of no man; nor do I characterize 
any course of action by hard names, which can only 
help to bolster up a bad cause. 

But I do think that my friend from Licking [Mr. 
Case,] will find, that his pride of opinion, after hav¬ 
ing embarked upon the wrong side, has really more to 
do with his position upon this question, than his cool, 
calm and deliberate judgment. 

We, sir, contend for no unjust doctrine. We con¬ 
tend for the same equal and exact justice to be exer¬ 
cised towards corporations as we are willing to con¬ 
cede to individuals—no more, nor no less. We main¬ 
tain that the law-making power shall not be crippled., 
We cannot subscribe to a bare legislative edict, ma¬ 
king one portion of our fellow citizens rich, at the ex¬ 
pense of the rest, and declare such an edict to be be¬ 
yond the power, not only of the Legislature, but of 
the people themselves, to repeal. If 1 am a heretic in 
this, I am an irreclaimable one. The first lesson—the 
first thought I ever had upon political subjects was in 
opposition to that. And if I know of anything which 
has constantly floated at the mast-head of the Demo¬ 
cratic flag, it has been legislative, supremacy over cor¬ 
porate powers. This claim has been made constantly 
m all our legislative bodies, and constantly by the peo¬ 
ple; audit has been as constantly resisted by those 
who now resist it. But I am astonished to-day, to find 
that the democracy of Ohio have sent up here some 
men holding a difi'erent doctrine. Sir, I believe this 
right of unqualified repeal to be one of our fundamen¬ 
tal principles. It was one of the great elements of our 


party creed, first proclaiuvtd by Thomas .Teeferbon, in 
that imperishable document, ihe Declaration of Amerir 
can Independence. —that all men are born free and 
equal—and the doctrine of the majority here is a di¬ 
rect infringement upon the great principle there pro¬ 
claimed. 

Such, sir, is my .understanding of this doctrine of 
repeal. It has always met with my hearty approba¬ 
tion ; and I have proclaimed it upon the stump, be¬ 
cause it was the conviction of my heart. I meant 
what I said. I did not mean to tickle the ears of the 
community with a sounding declaration upon one day, 
which I would not stand by on the next day. I did 
not handle my political creed as a boy did his top— 
being amused with it to-day, and to-morrow throwing 
it to the winds—to-day approving and proclaiming a 
great party principle, and to-morrow putting into the 
new constitution what is as nearly allied to the princi¬ 
ples of the party opposed to us, as any thing can be. 

Mr. REEMELIN then moved that the Convention 
adjourn, on which motion 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being oz’dered, resulted—yeas 38, nays 55—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case of 
Hocking, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Greene of Defiance, Green of 
Ross, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Holmes, Holt, Humphreville. 
Jones, Kennon, King, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
Loudon, Morehead, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Stebbins, Struble, Thompson of 
Shelby, and Williams—38. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Cha¬ 
ney, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, 
Gray, Gregg, Hamilton, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Manon, Mason, Mitch¬ 
ell, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, 
Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, 
Wilson Woodbury, Worthington and President—55. 

So the motion to adj';urn was disagreed to. 

The question ther being on the motion of Mr. Stan¬ 
bery, to take a recess, it was agreed to. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

The pending question being upon the motion of Mr 
Hard, to I’econsider the vote by which the Convention 
refused to strike out the latter clause of the amendment 
of Mr. Vance, of Butler, 

Mr. ARCHBOLD opposed the motion, on grounds 
heretofore fully stated ; principally because the effect 
of adopting a constitutional provision, such as the popo- 
sition of Mr. Vance would be, wuth the latter clause 
stricken out, would be to discourage the laudable and 
most beneficial system of internal improvements carried 
on by associations of individuals, without connection 
w'ith the State Treasury. 

Mr. KENNON. Mr, President, allow me to occu¬ 
py the time of this body for a few minutes, with a 
review of the pending question. What is the ques¬ 
tion 1 

On .the day before yesterday, the gentleman from 
Butler, [Mr. Vance,] offered the following amend¬ 
ment to the section relative to the repealability of char¬ 
ters : 

Provided, that all acts of incorporation and acts granting Iran- 
chises, may be altered, amended, revoked or repealed by the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly of this State, [upon such terms and conditions per¬ 
taining to the inviolability of private property, as is provided in 
other cases in this constitution.] 

On yesterday, a motion was made to strike out the 
latter clause of this amendment, to wit: “Upon such 
terms and conditions pertaining to the inviolability of 
private property as is provided in other cases in this 
constitution.” 

The motion to strike out failed. Amotion has since 
been made to reconsider the vote by which the Con¬ 
vention refused to strike out the words I have just re¬ 
cited, with a view to strike them out. 

The proposition really before the Convention at this 
time, therefore, is, that all acts of incorporation, and 
acts conferring franchises, may be altered, revoked or 













906 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


repealed by the General Assembly. If the Convention 
reconsiders the vote by which it refused to stike out, 
and then strikes out (from Mr. Vanck’s amendment) 
the words, “ upon such terms and conditions pertaining 
to the inviolability of private property, as is provided 
in other cases in this constitution,” then the proposition 
which I have stated as the pending question, alone is 
left. 

The real difference between the two parties on this 
question, is this: one party contends that we should 
confer upon the Legislature the right not only of re¬ 
pealing the charters of all corporations hereafter to 
be created, but the right of repealing all charters here¬ 
tofore granted and now in existence. The doctrine 
avowed by the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Ran- 
ney] is, that the General Assembly has the power— 
not the power, but the right—to terminate the political, 
life of all corporations, unconditionally. Then it is 
openly avowed that we should declare in the new con¬ 
stitution that the legislative department shall have the 
power to repeal all acts of incorporation heretofore 
granted, without making compensation either for the 
tangible property or the franchise of the corporation. 
Now, I declare that I will sanction no such proposition 
by my vote. 

In the first place, Mr. President, I will give the rea 
sons for the vote which I shall give upon this question. 
I shall not do so for the purpose of infiuencing the vote 
of any other delegate; all that I wish to do is, to justi¬ 
fy my own action to my conscience and to my constitu¬ 
ents. 

The moment that the Legislature repeals an act of 
incorporation, its property is gone. The real estate 
reverts to the donor, and every debt owing to and from 
that corporation, is gone in law and equity. This, gen¬ 
tlemen, is the power you will confer upon the Legisla¬ 
ture, if you reconsider the previous vote and then strike 
out the latter part of the proposition of the gentleman 
from Butler, [Mr. Vancr.] I contend that when we 
confer upon the Legislature the right to repeal char¬ 
ters, we should confer with it the limitaiion upon its 
exercise. 

I know that the gentleman from Miami [Mr. Dorsey] 
thinks that he relieves himself of the responsibility of 
voting to strike out the latter part of the amendment, 
[Mr. Vance’s] and thereby giving the General Assem¬ 
bly power to repeal all charters without a provision for 
making compensation, by saying that section 39 pro¬ 
vides for compensation in such cases. 

But, sir, he cannot throw off the responsibility thus 
easily; that section does not apply to the property of 
corporations. 

Mr. DORSEY. Will it not apply as well to the pro¬ 
perty of corporations as to that of individuals? 

Mr. KBNNON. No, sir. Section 39 reads as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Private property shall ever be held inviolate, and no private 
property shall ever be taken for public use, unless the public 
good imperatively demands it; but, in all cases, full and adequate 
compensation in money shall bo made to the owner, subject to 
no deduction for any benefits, &e., derived to any property of the 
owner. 

Now, will the gentleman undertake to say that when 
the Legislature, acting under a constitutional provis¬ 
ion like the one now in debate, repeals an act of incor¬ 
poration, that the property of that corporation is taken 
for “ public use,” within the meaning of section 39, and 
so that the State would be bound to make compensa¬ 
tion therefor ? Not a particle of it, sir. 

If I have correctly read the intentions, and compre¬ 
hended the designs of this Convention, they have been 
to restrict the Legislature in the exercise of power, to 
confer as little power as possible upon this department 
of government. But, sir, uow when we have arrived 
at the section providing for the repeal of charters, it is 
proposed, by the very men who have been most earn¬ 
est in their endeavors to curtail the Legislature of pow¬ 
ers, to confer upon that body the exercise of unlimited 


power—power w.bich I would confer upon no tribu¬ 
nal on earth. 

It has been said, in the course of this debate, that it 
is within the legitimate exercise of legislative powers, 
to repeal all existing acts of incorporation; and this, it I 
is also declared, is a great leading principle of the Dem¬ 
ocratic party, and has been a portion of the creed of 
that party for years. Now, sir, I think no man in this 
Convention can prove the truth of that assertion. 

In the first place, Mr. President, every member of 
this Convention has taken an oath to support the con¬ 
stitution of the United States. I know that every del¬ 
egate will sacredly observe that oath Now what is 
the power of the Supreme Court of the United States 
over this question of the repealability of charters ? J 
And here, in passing, I will notice a remark made by 
the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemeein,] a few 
evenings since, when I was briefly stating the position 
of the courts with regard to the repealability of char¬ 
ters. He said that “ the announcement of my princi- j 
pies in this regard made him tremble for the interests i 
of the people,” at the time. Sir, I regarded this ejacu- i 
lation as a rhetorical flouiish, but really I should like to j 
have seen him tremble, [laughter.] If the gentleman 
wore boots we should have seen more—a man trem¬ 
bling in his boots! [laughter.] I cannot repress a desire 
to have seen the vibrations ol the State as she trembled 
in sympathy with her would be champion. [ Renew¬ 
ed merriment.] 

But let ine resume the investigation of this question, | 
and let us see how much real cause there exists for this | 
alarm for the people’s interests. I will read section 10 j 
of article 1, of the United States constitution: j 

No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, } 
grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money, emit bills ot j 
credit, make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in pay¬ 
ment of debts, pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law 
impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobil¬ 
ity. 

There is another clause of that instrument to which 
I call the attention of the gentleman, [Mr. Reemelin.] 

The first section of the third article says : 

The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one 
Supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may 
from time to time ordain and establish. 

The second section reads: 

The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, 
arising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and 
treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to 
all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and con¬ 
suls ; to all cases of admiralty and maratime jurisdiction; to con¬ 
troversies to which the United States shall be a party; to contro¬ 
versies between two or moi'e States ; between a State and citizens 
of another State; between two citizens of different States; be¬ 
tween citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of 
different States ; and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and 
foreign States, citizens or subjects. 

He, [Mr. Reemelin,] is apprehensive that the Su¬ 
preme Court would take away the sovereignty of the 
people while it conferred and concentrated power on 
the federal government. Now, let us suppose the time 
to arrive when gold and silver becomes so scarce that ' 
the quantity in circulation fails to meet the demands 
and the necessities of commerce, and suppose we,in¬ 
troduce a clause into the constitution of the State of 
Ohio, providing that paper money shall be received i 
as a legal tender for debts in this State ? And suppose ! 
that a member of this Convention should support such > 
a proposition, what would the anti-bank and hard mo- ' 
ney delegate from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] say to 
that? 

Mr. REEMELIN. I would, if overruled by a major¬ 
ity, submit the matter to a vote of the people. 

Mr. KENNON. But you have swoiai to support the 
constitution of the United States—you took an oath to 
that effect when you took your seat in this body, and 
you can, in view of that oath, incorporate no provision 
in this instrument which conrtavenes any provision of 
the federal constitution. 

Now if an act of incorporation be a contract, then 
in the face of the Constitutional declaration that no 
















907 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


State shall pass any ‘‘ox post facto law, or law impair¬ 
ing the obligation of contracts,” this Convention can no 
more repeal a charter than it can “ make anything bat 
gold and silver coin a tender in payment for debts.” 
The same oath which would require us to reject the 
first proposition would compel us to reject the latter. 
The people of this country, have through their Represen¬ 
tatives, in National convention assembled, created a 
Supreme Judicial Tribunal—the Supreme Court of the 
United States, which is to decide all cases arising under 
the constitution. The question to be decided before 
this tribunal is, “ is an act of incorporation a ‘ contract’ 
within the meaning of the Sec. 10 of Art. 1 of the U. S. 
constitution?” I am told by the gentlemen from Knox, 
Medina, Trumbull, and Hamilton, [Messrs. Mitchell, 
Humphreville, Ranney, and Reemelin,] and others, 
that a charter is not a contract. I shall not now enter 
into the discussion of that particular question. I shall 
not undertake to prove that an act of incorporation is 
or is not a contract. But, sir, what I do say, is that 
the highest tribunal of the country—the only tribunal 
competent to decide the question, has decided that a 
charter is a contract. And not only so, but the Su¬ 
preme courts of most of the Slates in the Union have 
uniformly made similar decisions. The Supreme court 
of the United Stales has existed for more than half a 
century and during all this time has been filled by men 
as eminent for their legal attainments and constitution¬ 
al learning as any member of this Gonventton, and they 
have all decided that some, at least, of these acts of 
incorporation, are contracts within the terms and mean¬ 
ing of the constitution. The Supreme Court of the 
United States has so decided as late as 1848, a Dem¬ 
ocratic bench at that. 1 admit that the Supreme Court 
may have been wrong, but we have sworn to obey 
the constitution, and these uniform decisions are the 
best evidence of the meaning of that instrument. 
What is to be done ? Here is a proposition to confer 
upon the Legislature the power to repeal all charters, 
wherever and however granted. The constitution of 
the United States declares that “no State shall pass an 
ex fost facto law, or a law impairing the obligation of 
contracts, and the Supreme Court of the United States 
has decided that charters are contracts. 

Gentlemen say, “ let us adopt this section conferring 
upon the Legislature the power to repeal charters—let 
us declare in the organic law that which the Supreme 
Court has decided unconstitutional, and the Supreme 
Court may change its decision.” 

Mr. REEMELIN. And it would be so if the judges 
of that court were elected by the people. 

Mr. KENNON. Aye, but you must demand another 
constituticn before you can elect the members of that 
bench. I know that by skillful management, and by 
the intervention of caucuses and conventions the Su¬ 
preme Court of Ohio may, by possibility, be so consti¬ 
tuted as to decide in favor of the repealability of char¬ 
ters, on the ground that they are not contracts. But 
suppose this thing ellected, what then? You would 
presently find that the Supreme Court of Ohio, how¬ 
ever much it might hannonize with your own views of 
the question, it is not final—you would find that if the 
individual members of a corporation, whose charter 
might be repealed, chose to appeal to the Supreme 
Court of the United States, that high and final tribunal 
would declare that a charter was a contract, and would 
set aside the decision of your State court, as in contra¬ 
vention of the tenth section of the first article of the 
constitution of the United States. Thus the decision 
of your State court might come to be of no more valid¬ 
ity than that of a Justice of the Peace. 

For the sake of illustration lel-us suppose a case thus 
made up between the State, the Legislature of which 
has repealed the charter of a corporation, by virtue of 
this proposed constitutional provision, on the one hand, 
and the members of that corporation who appeal from 
the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio that a char¬ 
ter is not a contract, and therefore repealable, on the 


other. Let us follow the case to the Supreme Court of 
the United States, fori confess to an inclination to see 
what is to become of it. 

If I were to select counsel on behalf of the State I 
should retain the geutlemau from Trumbull, [Mr. Ran¬ 
ney] and the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell] 
and, sir, in order that “public opinion” might bo fully, 
if not fairly represented there, I would take along the 
gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin.] [Laugh¬ 
ter.] Well, sir, these distinguished gentlemen would 
present a brief containing their authorities pertinent to 
the case, in accordance with the rules of the court. 
Who shall make the opening speech ? Now I do think 
that this honor should be conferred upon the gentleman 
from Hamilton. [Laughter.] Will he permit me to 
make his ojiening speech upon this occasion for him? 

Mr. REEMELIN. I could not entrust you with that 
service. [Much laughter.] 

Mr. KENNON. Well, then, we will pass over that 
interesting, and in that hall, unique performance. 

We will let the gentleman from Trumbull make the 
first speech. What will he say? Here is the Supreme 
Court room—a small hall is the one in which the Judg¬ 
es sit, no noise, no mere harangues, all is comparative¬ 
ly still—all the arguments are carried on in a conversa¬ 
tional tone. No appeals to the feelings of the court or 
the prejudices of the people find a place here—all is 
quiet, solid, and earnest argument. I can distinctly 
see the gentleman from Trumbull as he rises to address 
that august tribunal. [Great merriment.] He says, 
among other things, “Here, may it please the court, 
in opposition to the positions I have assumed, are the 
decision and opinions of Chief Justice Marshall. He 
was a great sophist—he was a greater federalist; [re¬ 
newed laughter] but he is dead. In the early history 
of this government a wise effort was made to confer as 
little power upon the federal government as possible, 
and to reserve more to the federal States, but Mr. Mar¬ 
shall exerted himself, with other federalists, to concen¬ 
trate power in the hands of the General Government, 
and to leave as little as possible with the sovereign 
States. Chief Justice Marshall, may it please the court, 
has always decided cases with reference to the repeal- 
ability of charters—wrong.” [Laughter.] 

But, Mr. President, there have been other justices, 
who have decided that charters are contracts, within 
the meaning of the constitution—^^justices who were 
apjiointed by General Jackson. Here is Woodbury 
and others, every judge on the bench coming from the 
democratic party, with one exception. And I wish to 
hear what more the gentleman from Trumbull has to 
say; he proceeds : 

“May it please the court, I have always been a 
democrat, and it has always been my opinion not¬ 
withstanding the uniform decision of the Supreme 
Court, that acts of incorporation are not contracts. I 
know that this court has always, and after full and 
solemn argument, decided the other way, but I now 
desire you to reverse this decision—not upon any le¬ 
gal authority, for lhave been unable to produce any— 
upon no authority save one, and that is the declaration 
of 108 very intelligent men in the State of Ohio, con¬ 
vened in Columbus and afterwards in Cincinnati, in 
the year 1850, for the purpose of amending the consti¬ 
tution of that State. That body of wise men declared 
that charters were not contracts, and that the Legisla¬ 
ture of Ohio might repeal all charters, whenever grant¬ 
ed, and without compensation being made for the loss 
of property consequent upon such repeal.” 

But sir, I cannot follow the ingenious gentleman 
from Trumbull, through his entire argument—we will 
suppose it continues in the same convincing course of 
demonstration. [Laughter.] After he concludes, we 
would listen to the gentleman from Knox [Mr. Mitch- 
EL.] He would make a strong argument. [Renewed 
merriment.] The first authority he would jiroduce, 
would be a copy of Jefierson’s letters ' [Great laugh¬ 
ter. ] 














908 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


He too would review the “Dartmouth College case” 
and be terribly severe upon Chiel Justice Marshall, 
whom he woula hold up to the “ scorn and contempt ” 
of all admirers of “ the glorious system of common 
law ” principles and precedents. 

Well, and what would the result of this all be? 
Why, sir, the Supreme Court of the United States 
would declare that the constitution of Ohio was uncon¬ 
stitutional, and reaffirm its decision that an act of in¬ 
corporation is a contract. What then,—for it would 
not do to stop so important a matter here. Those three 
gentlemen would return home and tell the people of 
Ohio that the Supreme court had decided this question 
wrong, and tell them they were the proper judges in 
the case. The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reeme- 
LiN,] might propose to nullify. A few citizens might 
be found to side with the gentleman, but the great ma¬ 
jority of the people—composed of two classes, the one 
believing the Supreme Court of the United Slates had 
decided right, the other who, although they might con¬ 
sider the decision wrong, yet recognized that court as 
the highest, the final and the only competent tribunal 
to decide this question, and all questions arising under 
the constitution, and therefore its decisions binding 
upon them as loyal citizens—would refuse to participate 
in or countenance any further efforts to carry on an 
unconstitutional provision of the organic law. They 
would say “ to be sure the members of the Convention 
of 1850-1, were great men, but the Judges of the Su¬ 
preme Court of the United States, who have had thir 
whole question repeatedly argued before them, and 
have uniformly decided that charters are contracts, are 
as likely to be right as the members of our State Con¬ 
vention—*• and a little more so.” (Laughter.) 

The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Keemelin,] says 
that this is a “ Revolutionary body.” I deny that it is, 
save in one sense; it has met for the purpose of chan¬ 
ging the frame-work of our State Government, it is 
true, but sir, for a change of government according to 
LAW. A law called this Convention, a law necessarily 
in accordance with the laws of the Union. You have 
no right—no power—to engraft a provision upon this 
instrument which conflicts with a provision of the con¬ 
stitution of the Union—the supreme court of the Uni¬ 
ted States is the final tribunal to decide upon all cases 
arising under that constitution, and so long as that 
court holds its present decided position upon this 
question, a provision in this constitution proposing to 
confer upon the Legislature power to repeal all char¬ 
ters, w ill be a nullity. The Legislature have precisely 
the same power now which it would have if this clause 
was put into the new constitution. I venture the 
prophecy, that the supreme court of the United States 
will hold its present position with regard to the repeal- 
ability of charters, and no affirmance, by this constitu¬ 
tion, of a contrary doctrine, will change that position. 
At the same time, I neither assail nor uphold the cor¬ 
rectness of that decision. I am not now discussing 
that question. I am speaking of certain corporations 
now in existence, and our right to confer power on the 
Legislature to repeal them. I have no objections to 
give the power as to all future corporations. This can 
be done without interfering with any provision of the 
constitution of the United Slates. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, said he was averse to 
any thing like lepressing debate when debate w’as ne¬ 
cessary ; but he thought every delegate on the floor 
would agree with him that this question had been fully 
and amply debated. He was therefoi*e disposed to in¬ 
sist upon his privilege of calling for the previous ques¬ 
tion, with the sole purpose of expediting business. 

Mr. Smith then moved the previous question upon 
the motion W re-consider the vote by which the Con¬ 
vention refused to strike out the latter clause of the 
proposition of Mr. Vance, of Butler ; 

Pending which, 

On motion, the Convention adjourned. 


MONDAY, January 6, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Couvention met pursuant to adjournineut. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Gerhart. 

Mr. HAWKINS presented a petition from B. F. Allen 
and sixty-five other citizens of Morgan county, praying 
that a clause be inserted in the new constitution pro¬ 
hibiting the Legislature from passing any law legali¬ 
zing traffic in spirituous liquors. Also, the petition of 
Jesse Abbot and nineteen other citizens of the same 
county, on the same subject. 

Mr. HOOTMAN pre.sented a petition from L. D. 
Doolittle and thirty-five other citizens of Ashland coun¬ 
ty, on the same subject. 

Mr. MORRIS presented a petition from EbenezerR. 
Watts and twenty-four other citizens of Fayette coun¬ 
ty, on the same subject. 

Mr. PECK presented a petition from Thomas Mich- 
ener and seventy-four other citizens of Belmont coun¬ 
ty, on the same subject. Also, a petition from Wra. 
D. Waters and forty-eight other citizens of Belmont 
county, on the same subject. 

Mr. LOUDON presented a petition from Amanda 
Humphreys and two hundred and eighty-two other fe¬ 
males of Brown county, on the same subject. Also, 
the petition of N. A. Devore and one hundred and 
ninety-four other citizens of the same county, on the 
same subject. 

Mr. THOMl’SON, of Stark, presented a petition 
from J. T. Firestone and sixty-five other citizens of 
Stark county, on the same subject. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, presented a petition from An¬ 
drew J. Gregg and ninety other citizens of the county 
of Ross, on the same subject. Also, the petition of 
Hannah Murphy and seventy-one other citizens cf the 
same county, on the same subject. 

Mr. HAWKINS submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the printer of this Convention be and he is here¬ 
by instructed to procure from the Secretary of State a certified 
copy of I he returns of the Ohio census, heretofore called for, and 
that he print copies thereof lor the use of tlie Convention. 

Mr. LOUDON moved to fill the blank in the resolu¬ 
tion with the words “ one thousand;” which was agreed 
to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution, it was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention again 
took up the report of the committee on the Legislative 
Department, with the pending amendments. 

The question being on the motion of Mr. Hard to 
reconsider the vote taken, by which the Convention re¬ 
fused to strike out all after the word “ State,” in the 
following proposition: 

Provided, that all acts of incorporation and acts granting fran¬ 
chises, may be altered amended, revoked or repealed by the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly of this State, upon such terms aud conditions per¬ 
taining to the inviolability of private property, as is provided in 
other cases in this constitution, 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, moved the previous ques¬ 
tion. 

The question then being, “shall the main question 
be now put ? 

Mr. STANTON moved a call of the Convention, and 
being ordered, Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnett of 
Preble, Graham, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga King, 
Larsh, Larwill, Lidey, Norris, Perkins, Roll, Scott of 
Harrison, Stebbins, Stilvvell, Stickney, Stidger, Swan 
and Vance of Champaign, w^ere found absent. 

Messrs. Larwill, Stickney and Vance of Champaign, 
were severally excused. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved that the doors be closed, 
and that the Sergeant-at-Arms be dispatched after the 
absentees, which was agreed to. 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved that all further proceed¬ 
ings under the call be dispensed with; on which motion 
Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted, yeas 35, nays 54, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Case of Hocking, Case of 
Licking, Clark, Cook, Gray, Groesb'^ck, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Holmes, Holt, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrenoe 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Leech, Mimon, Orton, Raniiey, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Statibery, Struble, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson, Worthington and President— 
35. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates Bennett, Blair, 
BlickensdeiTer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Chambers, Chaney, Ceilings, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Plorenee, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Green ol 
Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Ilootman, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunter, Kennon, Leadbetter, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, More- 
head, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Peck, 
Quigley, Reeinelin, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Taylor, 
Thompson of Stark, Way, Williams, and Woodbury— 54. 

So the moliou to dispense with all further proceed¬ 
ings under the cal) was disagreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to dispense with all further 
proceedings under the call; wliich was agreed to. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
be now put?” Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas 
and nays, and being ordered, resulted yeas 16, nays 70, 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Clark, Farr, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, 
Hootman, Kmg Leadbetter, Loudon, Patterson, Sawyer, Smith 
of Wyandot, Sfruble, Switt,Wil3on and President—16. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnetof Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brownof Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hock 
ing. Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Ceilings, Cook, Cutler, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitch¬ 
cock ot Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, Horton, Humpreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, ..ohnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, 
Man«m, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, 
Orton, Otis, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott ot 
Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith ol Highland, Smith ol 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Thompson of Stielby, Thompson ot 
Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams, Woodbu¬ 
ry and Worthington—70. 

So the demand for the previous question was not sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then beingon the motion of Mr. Hard, 
to reconsider the vole taken, by which the Convention 
refused to strike out all alter the word “ State,’' in the 
proposition of Mr. Vance, of Butler, 

Mr. GROES13ECK said he desired to say something 
more on the subject now under consideraiion, before it 
was discussed by the Convention. He believed, from 
what had been said in debate and in [irivate conversa¬ 
tion, he had not been entirely understood, and it was 
due to himself, and the subject, that he should explain 
himself further. 

What is the question now before the Convention ? 
It is not a question relating to corporations, whose 
charters may hereafter be granted, for there is hardly 
a difference of opinion among delegates, as to the pro¬ 
priety of conferring upon the Legislature the power to 
repeal the charters of such corporations. The question 
is not whether the Slate of Ohio has the right, and that 
too without regard to consequences', to take the life ol 
a corporate body, which in any particular has violated 
the terms of its charter, for there is nothing clearer 
than that right. But the question is, what shall be the 
rule, and what the principle upon which the State may 
exercise the power of taking the charter of every in¬ 
corporation within her borders, where there has been 
no violation of the charier—no departure from the rule 
of action, prescribed by the law which created it? 1 
repeat my statement of the question, that there may 
be a clear understanding at ilie outset—suppose the 
Legislature utters no complaint—prefers no charge o 
violated terms—can the Legislature take such a charter 
and if so. what shall be the terms of adjustment upon 
which it shall exercise the right of repeal? I arn 
free to say, that in my opinion, and that it has been 
ever since I first examined the question, that the State 
had the right to repeal every bridge charter, every 
turnpike charter, every railroad charter, every churcli 
charter, every college charter, in a word sir, every char¬ 
ter of every description. But whaf is the power in the 
State, that sways this potent sceptre over the existence 
of all incorporations, and this too upon the admission 
that they have violated neither the letter nor the spiiit 
of their charters? What shall we naine that power? 
It is a great power and well worthy ol a name. 


909 

fore I proceed to name it, let us first inquire what is a 
charter? This inquiry may throw some light upon 
the subject. I shall not here call it a “contract.’’ Ajs 
I understand the course and history of the decision up¬ 
on the subject, it was not until the “Dartmouth College 
case,’’ that acts of incorporation were held to be “con¬ 
tracts.” Previous to that time, through hundreds of 
years of recorded legal decisions—for there is no law 
older than that relating to corporations—it had never 
been held that charters were “contracts.” 

In the first place, a charter is not a “contract,” be¬ 
cause a grant of an act of incorporation is not made in 
the form of a contract—it lacks the incidents and dis¬ 
tinguishing features of a contract The State in giving 
it, does not observe the same formalities, as when 
she purposely makes a contract. Secondly, I would 
not call it a contract, because of the settled practice of 
those who hold charters. Whenever corporators desire 
to dissolve their artificial connexion, whenever, for 
any reason, they deem it to their interest to cease the 
use of their franchise, and no longer to pursue the bus¬ 
iness for tlie prosecution of which they were incorpor¬ 
ated, they do so without consultation with the State. 
If their charter were really a contract, and so regard¬ 
ed by them, seriously and in earnest, they would not 
undertake to throw it up without the consent of the 
other party—the State—whose release must (were it 
a contract) be granted. 

I take another view of this question. Suppose a 
charter granted by the legislature and accepted. No 
money was paid for it. The consideration was that 
they to whom it was given, would do what itauthori- 
zed for a certain fixed lime. They who hold it, some 
time afterwards discover, that the business in which 
they are embarked, is likely to result disastrously. 
They hold a meeting and resolve to put a stop to their 
undertaking, and to dissolve the corporation. They 
do so. Now if their charter was a “ contract ” the 
State of Ohio would have a right to compel a specific 
performance of what they had undertaken to do, (for, 
be it observed, money is not paid for charters, and the 
only consideration, is the service to be performed by 
those who accept them,) or the State would have a 
good and valid claim for damages, on the ground of a 
breach of contract. Can she compel performance or re¬ 
cover damages in such ti case? I think not; and yet, 
why not, if it be a contract? In many other ways, 
Mr. President, I could show that a charter is not a re¬ 
al, actual contract. Then what is it? Is it a law, in 
he ordinary acceptation of that term? In the early 
history of incorporations, it was never the practice to 
give them in the form of law. They were grants from 
the Executive power to the subject. How is it now? 
Let us look at the constitution of our own State. VVe 
find that instrument divided into distinct articles, sev¬ 
erally embracing the difieient subjects and divisions 
of the organic law. There is one article in the consti- 
tution conferring upon the legislative department all 
law-making power. In turning over the pages of that 
instrument we find, in another ariicle—an article ea- 
dtled “the bill of rights,”—a distinct section upon the 
subject of charters, or acts ot incorporation. I will 
here remark, that I do not say that an act ot incorpo¬ 
ration is not a 1 iw, but merely call attejition to the 
fact that in our constitution this subject is entirely sep¬ 
arated from the article on the law-making power. _ It 
seems as thougti the tfatners ot our constitution might 
have considered a charter as something ditierent from 
laws generally. But I do not care to dwell upon this 
poiiiCand only stop to throw out tliis suggestion be¬ 
cause I find this authority for so doing. 

To return to the question I have proposed, what is a 
charter? I decline to call it a “ contract.” 1 will not 
whether it is a law or whether it jS not a law, 
within the ordinary sense ot that term. 

Gentlemen, by the authority of the constitution itself 
I shall name this thing—I name it neither “ a charier,” 
a “ contract” or “a law ”—but I shall name it a letter 









CON VENTION REPORTS; 


of incorporation. That is its constitutional designation. 
What is the language of that instrument?—and it is 
very proper to dwell for a tnoinent upon this point, for 
this is the first lime that the language of the constitu¬ 
tion has been adverted to in this Convention, and some 
of the members seem to regard all charters as uncon¬ 
stitutional. What are the terms? Section twenty- 
seven of the bill of rights is as follows; 

That every association of persons, when regularly formed 
within this State, and having given themselves a name, may, on 
application to the Legislature, be entitled to receive letters of in¬ 
corporation, to enable them to hold estates, real and personal, for 
support of their schools, academies, colleges, universities, and for 
other purposes. 

In 1802, when the people met in Convention by 
their delegates at Chillicothe, they had just as much 
power as we now have. They assembled to frame an 
organic law for a State. They did so, and made this 
constitution—and by no implication, by no forced con¬ 
struction, but in plain, direct and express language, 
they gave to the Legislature the authority to grant 
“ letters of incorporation” in certain instances—for cer¬ 
tain purposes therein named. 

I will make a further remark upon this point—no 
right of repeal accompanies this authority, thus confer¬ 
red upon the Legislature. The old constitution is si¬ 
lent on this subject. 

What sort of a “ letter of incorporation ” is constitu¬ 
tional ? I think I may safely say, one that incorpor¬ 
ates a business that might be legally carried on without 
it. A railroad charter, a plank road charter, a bridge 
charte, a turnpike charter, a church charter, or the 
charter of a charitable institution, is constitutional; 
and I presume that there is no member here who 
will affirm a contrary doctrine. It certainly is not 
going too far to say, that the constitution author¬ 
izes the incorporation of an association of individuals 
for the prosecution of any lawful business—any busi¬ 
ness they might do in their individual capacity. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. Does it authorize bank 
charters ? 

Mr. GROESBECK. I do not contend that a bank 
charter is constitutional, but I will speak of that here¬ 
after. I only go as far as I stated—I did not class the 
incorporations named by the gentleman from Medina 
[Mr. Humphreville] among those which I designated 
as formed for the prosecution of a business lawful and 
proper to be carried on without a charter, and, there¬ 
fore; such as might be constitutionally incorporated. 

And now we come to the question, what are the 
rights of incorporations with relerence to the proposi¬ 
tion now before the Convention ? They are constitu¬ 
tional in the cases I have named. Can the State take 
back their letters ? There is a right by which she can. 
Knowing, now, what incorporation is, I proceed to 
name that right—1 call it the right of eminent domair 
—the right to control and take every thing within the 
State for the public use or good. The State has this 
right, and. in the view I take of it, it matters not whe¬ 
ther you call a “letter of incorporation ” a contract, a 
charter, or a law. It is a thing—a something which 
the State may thus take, in every instance, by this pow¬ 
er, but by no other. Let it be observed, that if there 
has been a violation of the terms and conditions of a 
letter of incorporation, then the case is different—the 
power above named need not be invoked—and there is 
no need of any special authority to take the life of that 
corporation. There is a clear right on the part of the 
State to break it up by judicial proceedings. Bull 
argue the question upon the supposition—upon the 
open admission of the supporters of the pending propo¬ 
sition—that there is no violation of the terms of the 
charter. The only question, I repeat, is as to the right 
of repeal in such cases. 

Mr. REEMELIN. How is it when the Legislature 
has exceeded its powers and so conferred undue privi¬ 
leges upon corporations ? 

Mr, GROESBECK. Then the act of incorporation 
is unconstitutional—the charter is flatly void, and it is 


idle to suppose such a case a subject for repeal. There 
is nothing to repeal or revoke. A charter granted un* 
dor such circumstances is a nullity ah initio for its un« 
constitutionality. 

Mr. STAN BE RY. By what authority can the Legist 
lature repeal a charier which has been violated ? 

Mr. GROESBECK. I said that the State could taktt 
the charter of any corporation which had violated 
terms, without regard to the consequences. 

Mr. STANBERY. By the Legislature’s repealing its 
charter ? 

Mr. GROESBECK. There is another W’ay. 

Mr. STANBERY. How? 

Mr. GROESBECK. By a writ of quo warranto. And 
if that remedy should for any reason, prove insufficient, 
then the Legislature has the power to devise a better 
and more summary remedy. The whole case is in the 
hands of the people themselves, and in the event of 
the abuse of a franchise, the people have as effectual a 
remedy in the courts, as it the Legislature possessed 
the constitutional right of unqualified repeal. I see in 
the judicial department, especially when the judges 
shall be elective, as perfect a remedy as could be con¬ 
ferred upon the legislative. 

Mr. REE MELIN. And what will you do when you- 
come to the Supreme Court ? 

Mr. GROESBECK. There is no difficulty with re¬ 
gard to the decision of that court. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The Judges of that court have 
never decided against corporations. 

Mr. GROESBECK. They have never refused to de. 
cide so, and will not hesitate, when the charter has 
been violated. 

But how shall a charter be taken when the terms of 
incorporation have not been violated ? Here again we 
must recur to the meaning of a “letter of incorpora-- 
tion,” and I will remark in passing that in 1302, when 
the constitution of this Slate was framed, the decision 
of the Supreme Court of the United States, declaring 
a charter a contract, had not been made, and in seek-’ 
ing to ascertain what is meant by a “ letter of incor¬ 
poration,” as referred to in our present constitution, it 
may be proper to take into consideration the state of j 
the law, with regard to charters, a half century since, , 
that is in 1802. At that time what we call a “charter” j 
was considered as a franchise, a right to prosecute a 1 
particular business in a particular manner prescribed i 
in the letter of incorporation. It was so treated and j 
held in all the courts—it was so recognized every- 1 
where. 

What is a franchise? It is a privilege—a right— ; 
something in the nature of property not tangible and : 
real—you cannot touch it, still it partakes of the nature , 
of property, inasmuch as it may be of value. Every ! 
action of “ trespass on the case ” brought by a railroad, ; 
a turnpike, or a bridge company, pi'oceeds upon the j 
recognition of some quality of property in the charter *, 
'of incorporation. For hundreds of years past, and \ 
every day of our own time, every action of “ trespass ( 
on the case’’ bears with it the recognition of something 
like property in the franchise that has been conferred, j 

Now, I declare it to be the law of that court with | 
whose decisions we have been threatened—I mean the I 
Supreme Court of the United States—that there is no 
difficulty in taking any charterin Ohio. When the case 
reported in sixth Howard was brought before the court. 1 
Webster and Collamer argued at length that a charter 
was a contract, and presented and urged the weight of I 
the former decision to that efi’ect. After a full argu- i 
ment, and alter deliberate consideration, the court, as | j 
it were, overleaped the “ Dartmouth College case,”. ,1 
and took up the old doctrine, that a charter wrs a 1 
“franchise.” In that way it asserted the right to take ' 
a charter without the violation of law. This decision I 
was made by Daniels—as I think a good Judge. Wooyd- 
bury re-affirmed this doctrine, shrinking, it is true, iu 
the enunciation of some points. But Daniels affirmed 
it broadly and boldly, overleaping, as I have said, the 


I 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


911 


often quoted “Dartmouth College case,” and asserting 
that a charter was a franchise, and being a franchise, 
it might be taken for the public uso or good. 

And now I put it to the wit of any member of this 
Convention to suguest any other method by which our 
old charters still existing can be taken. Not one of 
the gentlemen who maintained the opposite side of this 
question, has shown us how else they can be taken. 
And they cannot. There is no other way. They may 
search any library—any books, and they will get no 
light. Declare the doctrine on any other principle 
and you will fail. 

I affirm fearlessly that this is the only proper meth¬ 
od for divesting corporations now in existence, of their 
charters, where no right of repeal has been reserved 
at the time of the grant, and where there has been no 
violation of its terms. Try any other method, and you 
will be defeated. We come now to the equity of the 
rule. Take the case of a plank road, a turnpike, or a 
railroad charter; what wmuld the rule require ? It 
would require, if you take charters, the conditions of 
which have not been violated, that you should make 
the parties whole—you should compensate them for the 
amount of property you take or destroy in so doing. 

The gentleman from Knox [Mr. Mitchell,] says 
that if the Legislature repeals the charter of a Railroad, 
a Plankroad or a Turnpike Company, they could still 
use their property as before, and, theretoro, would be 
entitled to no damages. Not so. You divest the in¬ 
corporations I have named, of their charters, and they 
have no right to use either of those kinds of property 
as before. They cannot use a Plankroad and charge 
and collect tolls of those who pass thereon. They can¬ 
not use a Railroad—x-un a Locomotive, with freight 
and passenger trains, and collect freight and passage 
money. The land on which the road has been cou- 
stiTicted, was condemned for the use of the corpo¬ 
ration and for no other purpose. When the corpora¬ 
tion dies, it has no heirs, nor executors, nor adminis¬ 
trators. Kill the corporation, and the enterprise must 
stop. If you can contrive a method—if the Legislature 
can—by which the corporatoi’s can use their Railroad, 
their Plankroad, their Turnpike as before, and with fa¬ 
cility, then no damage has been done—no compensa¬ 
tion is due, and none will be allowed. But suppose, 
that no such method is devised, is it not an equitable 
rule, that the Legislature when it repeals an act of in¬ 
corporation, should make the parties whole ? 

Let us look at it. How are your Turnpikes and 
Plankioads and bridges and the like, built—of what 
are they built? A citizen lakes an hundred or a thou¬ 
sand dollars from his pocket, the earnings of his har¬ 
vest field, his shop or his store—and buys the right of 
way for a Turnpike. By his proper agents he goes to 
the brook or quarry and gets the stone to lay upon 
that right of way, and thus is the road built. Now 
this is still private property—as much now and in its 
present shape, as when the money was in his pocket 
and the store, in the quarry or the water course; and 
it is jui-t as much entitled to the protection of law, as 
the property of any individual. He earned his money 
in an honest way. It is the fruit of his industiy and 
frugality, and he has thus converted it into Turnpike 
road stock by the sanction and authority of the State of 
Ohio. You take away his charter, and it is admitted 
that his right to do as before and collect tolls on that 
road is gone. The right of way is now valueless to 
him—the stone and gravel which he has laid upon that 
right of way are w’’orth nothing to him—his labor, his 
money and his materials have mixed with the franchise, 
and when that is destroyed, his property is also de¬ 
stroyed. What then is the right and honest course to 
be pursued? Every man will understand that there is, 
in the cases I am supposing, no fault, no misconduct 
on the part of those who manage the franchise. Cer¬ 
tainly it is right, then, that the corporators should be 
compensated for the loss of their property caused by 
the taking of their charter. Do I put extreme cases? 


1 put the cases of Railroads, Plankroads and Turnpikes. 
These constitute the majority, nine-tenths of the corpo¬ 
rations in the State. Thousands upon thousands of our 
citizens are connected with them, and when I plead 
that their actual property thus invested, may not be 
couhscated, I plead in the name and behalf of no iri* 
considerable portion of our people. 

Let us now turn to the case of a Church charter—1 
claim no damages other than nominal damages; the 
case of an Orphan Asylum, or other benevolent institu¬ 
tions, 1 claim no serious damages when such corpora¬ 
tions are dissolved, because the corporators can still 
pursue the objects and carry out the designs of those 
institutions as individuals, and without letters of incor¬ 
poration. 

We come to the case of bank charters—supposing 
them to be constitutional—what will be an equitabie- 
rule of compensation when such associations are d s- 
banded by the State ? Let me repeat, we are suppos¬ 
ing they have not violated their charters. It is not 
with banks as with Railroad, Plankroad and Turnpike 
Companies. The property of bank stockholders is not 
mixed in with their franchise so that it cannot be sepa¬ 
rated. The property, in this case, is in money and 
real estate. Here I would not allow more than nomi¬ 
nal damages. Some member has remarked that a bank 
charter might enable the stockholders to make twenty 
per cent, per annum, upon their capital invested, for 
twenty years, and therefore they would suffer damages 
to that amount if their charter were repealed. But 
they might lose twenty per cent., I answer. This is all 
a contingency—an uncertainty, and no such rule cam 
be applied. 

Let us test this doctrine still further. We will sup¬ 
pose the case of a Railroad Company coming before 
the Legislature and asking for a charter. It is granted. 
In the construction of their road, the company find it 
necessary to appropriate the entire right of way of a 
short turnpike. What is the rule of damages? They 
must and in all like cases, do pay for every dollar’s 
worth of property they take. In that case, the State, 
indirectly througli its agent the Railroad Company, is 
taking the property of an incorporation, and it makes 
fair and just compensation for that property. Is it any 
thing more than fair and just that the State should pay 
for the property of a corporation, when she takes it 
oiRECTLY ? Remember gentlemen, that I am speak 
ing of cases where there has been no violation of the 
charter, because in such cases it may be forfeited, 
without looking to the consequence.s. 

But we are told that the amount and manner of com ¬ 
pensation in the case of repealed charters, should be 
left to the Legislature, and that nothing should be said 
on this subject in tlie constitution. We are also told, 
that these incorporators have, for the most part, rnad®' 
the amount of their investment two or three tiinee. 
over, and are not entitled to compensation when they 
are so divested of their franchises as that the corpor¬ 
ate property becomes valueless. I regard this latter 
declaration, as a bold assumption. But I pass on. 1 
put this case. Four men, neighbors, have each an 
equal amount of property, say a thousand dollars. 
One gets a charter and erects a bridge across the river 
in his vicinity. Another invests his thousand dollars in 
a turnpike which runs to his neighbor’s bridge on either 
side. The thiid devotes his attention to the purchase 
of real estate, and becomes a speculator in the lands 
lying in the neighborhood of the bridge and turnpike, 
and enhanced in value by them. The four all being 
farmers, if you please, takes his thousand dollars and 
loans it out to his neighbors at ten per cent interest, 
taking mortgages upon their their homestead farms. 
We will suppose ten or any given number of years to 
elapse. At the end of that time, the bridge owner 
finds, that he lias realized a handsome profit upon his 
investment. The man who built the turnpike has also 
received remunerating dividends. The man who bought 
lands has also prospered; and his pmchases have 









912 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


proved a great speculution. Equally fortunate has he 
been, who has loaned his money, and has bought in his 
neighbor’s property at forced sale, for non-payment of 
his loans. All four have done well. We throw around 
the property of the land owners and of the money len¬ 
der the protection of the law'. They cannot be divested 
of that property even for public use, without a full 
compensation. Why not be equally just to the two 
men who invested their property in the turnpike and 
the bridge? Undertakings, both of them, equally law¬ 
ful, and perhaps, more laudable than the business of the 
land speculator and the money lender. I propose to 
make no distinctions between the cases of these four 
men. I express no preference , but I say that the first 
two, (the owners of the turnpike and the bridge,) have 
as full claims for constitutional protection of (heir prop¬ 
erty, as the two last. And, sir, I know that I am sur¬ 
rounded by men, who fully appreciate the investment 
of capital for the construction of turnpikes and roads 
generally, in the newer portions of the State ; and by 
men who know the fact that twenty years ago, the man 
who would thus invest his money, was a public bene¬ 
factor indeed. 

Several voices interrupting (“ True; that is true.”) 

Mr. GROESBECK. And there are thousand of citi¬ 
zens in the State, who have thus invested their proper¬ 
ty* 

But I am still met with the remark, that these corpo¬ 
rators, should trust entirely to the Legislature; that we 
entrust it with our lives, our liberties, our property. 
I do not trust my life to the Legislature; that body has 
not the power by a unanimous vote, to take away my 
life, nor to deprive me of my liberty. Look at the 
safe guards, which the constitution has thrown around 
the life and liberty of every citizen. Neither does the 
citizen trust his property to the action of the Legisla¬ 
ture. Gentlemen will remember the additional safe- 

uards we threw around private property, but the other 

ay, in the section providing that no private properly 
should be taken for public use, without comp(. nsalion 
first made in money ; and this, too, without regard to 
any benefits conferred upon any other property of the 
owner. I favored this proposition. I thought it was 
right. And so with other of the citizen’s interests. 

Upon deliberate reflection, therefore, it does seem to 
me that the doctrine I have urged, is true, just, and 
politic. 1 propose, where the Legislature exercises the 
right of repeal, in cases where there has been no viola¬ 
tion of the charter, and where the property invested, is 
so mixed with the franchise, that the latter cannot be 
resumed by the State, without causing a loss, that the 
State shall make compensation for the loss. I propose, 
simply and only, to recognize the same principle here, 
we have api)lied to other property. 

Allow me, Mr. President, to attempt a simple illus¬ 
tration, which now occurs to me. Suppose (holding, 
up a glass of watei) the water in this glass to repre¬ 
sent the franchise. The citizen comes forward, by 
authority of the State, w'ho hands him the water, and 
pours his brandy into the water. The two fluids, the 
property and the franchise, mix. You cannot separate 
them; and when you take the water, you must take 
the brandy. If the State takes the water, let her pay 
for the brandy. Let her pay for the mixture. We 
call him a mean man who will not pay for his grog. 
So, Mr. President, where the property runs into the 
franchise, given by the State, and cannot be sepa¬ 
rated, let tlie rights of property be held sacred— 
let the citizen be compensated for his property, if 
taken,—unless, I again repeat, the"" charter has been 
violated. 

There is yet much more which should be said, but 
I have already consumed loo much of the time of the 
Convention. 

^ I thank gentlemen for the patient hearing they have 
given me. 

^ STANBERY. I have felt that I could not remain 
silent under the doctrines advanced here. I apprehend 


that these doctrines will lead further than has been 
supposed. For (me, I do not acquiesce in them; and 
my purpose now is, to endeavor to set the matter in its 
true light. 

In the first place, what is the que.stion? It is with 
reference to striking out a part of the proviso of the 
thirty-fifth section. I will read the section, so that we 
may gather the force of the proviso: 

The General Assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive 
laws, nor Jaws impairing the obligations of contracts ; provided, 
that all acts of incorporation, and all acts granting franchises, 
and the privileges and Jj-ancliises of any incorporated company, 
may be altered, amended, revoked, or repealed by the General 
Assembly of this State, upon such terms and conditions pertain¬ 
ing to the inviolability of private property, as is provided in other 
cases in this constitution. 

We have once put this proviso into the constitution; 
and the present motion is to reconsider the vote for 
the purpose of striking out a portion of it, so as to al¬ 
low it to remain a simple declaration, that the General 
Assembly may alter, amend, revoke, or repeal any 
charter of incorporation, or any franchise granted loan 
incorporated company, absolutely, unconditionally. 
The question is whether this shall be done ; or wheth¬ 
er a charter or franchise shall be taken on the same 
terms and conditions as other property. 

It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this 
question. I know it is a common trick with speakers 
to make a question appear to be very important. 
There is no such necessity here: for every man that 
looks at this proviso will see the importance of it to 
every citizen of the State of Ohio. There is perhaps 
not a single line to be put into the constitution, or left 
out, that seems to strike so home to the people as this 
very clause. And now, sir, let us attempt to settle 
some clear view about this matter. 

We are not now dealing with an abstraction. We 
are proposing that which is to become an active rule, 
that, one way or other, is to affect the interests of every 
man in Ohio. Then let us go about it uuderstand- 
iiigly. 

What is the first thing proposed in this proviso ? It 
is, that the General Assembly shall have'absolute con¬ 
trol over corporate rights : eo that at any time, and un¬ 
der any circumstances, they may take any charter, or 
any franchise in the State without compensation, and 
without any reason for so doing, but simply upon the 
motion and will of the Legislature. That is it. 

And gentlemen say, Why not do this? Gentlemen 
say. We have great respect for private rights; but a 
franchise is not property. It is no private right. It is 
a mere public privilege, committed to some individu¬ 
als for a time, and to be revoked at the pleasure of the 
donor. 

A franchise is not property! This, I believe, was 
first heard in this debate from the gentleman from Mi¬ 
ami, [Mr. Dorsey,] who, I am sorry to perceive, is not 
in his place; and it was reiterated by the gentleman 
from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] who, I am happy to 
see, is in his seat. A doctor of medicine and a doc¬ 
tor of laws have told us there is no property in a fran¬ 
chise. 

As far as the gentleman from Miami is concerned, I 
shall have no controversy with him about the meaning 
of a franchise. I suppose his reading has been in a 
different direction. I take him to be a very learned 
man ; but, instead of Coke and Blackst me, I suppose 
he has been reading Sydenham and Boerhave. I shall 
enter into no contest with him, because he would not 
be apt to know the law. I suppose he knows no more 
about a franchise than I do about a febrifuge. And 
there is another reason why I will not enter into a conS 
test with the gentleman from Miami. I am not at ali 
afraid of a lawyer. I am accustomed to contests with 
lawyers; and we give and take hard knocks, and for¬ 
get them as soon as they are passed. But it is not 
quite so with our friends, tin; physicians. You recol¬ 
lect the weirds of the play, “ The Lord deliver me from 
an angry physician ; for, truly, his wrath is more fatal 
' than his recipes.” [Laughter.] 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 913 


But a doctor of laws has told us that a franchise is 
not property. Why, sir, the very first le^sou in law 
which I give to a student when he comes into my office 
is, that a franchise is property, and it is taught in the 
very horn-books of the law. The first great division is 
into property real and property personal. We then 
divide real property into lauds, tenements, and here¬ 
ditaments. And hereditaments we divide into corpo¬ 
real hereditaments, capable of being seen and handled, 
and incorporeal hereditaments, which cannot be seen. 
Amongst these incorporeal hereditaments are classed 
rents, ways, commons, franchises. 

Mr. RANNEY, (in his seat.) Are not acts of incor¬ 
poration included? 

Mr. STANBERY. Most acts of incorporation give 
a franchise: and if they are not franchises, then pvery 
man may incorporate himself; but, if it is a public 
thing, then we must have a statute of the Legislature. 
Sir, where are we going? Where has the gentleman 
been all his life? Where are his books, that he has 
not found out that an act of incorporation is a fran¬ 
chise ? 

Mr. RANNEY, (interposing.) I believe the gentle¬ 
man intends to meet what I have said: but he can’t 
find it in Blackstone. I have seen the books. 

Mr. STANBERY. It must have been a long time 
ago- . , 

Mr. RANNEY. He can read that a franch se is an 
incorporal hereditament in this way; rights issuing out 
of real property. Persons are of two kinds, natural 
and artificial. Corporations are of the latter class. 

Mr. STANBERY. I have read all that. We have 
natural persons and artificial persons—very natural 
persons. I was going to say. [Some laughter.] Un¬ 
doubtedly wG find artificial bodies called corporations, 
and we find that these corporations have franchises 
granted to them, and that these franchises are called 
incorporeal hereditaments. Does not the gentleman say 
that a franchise is not property ? That is his argument; 
and yet the law tells us that it is properly—an incorpo¬ 
real liereditament—a thing issuing out of a thing corpo¬ 
rate or tan<»ible. I will hold the gentleman to his de¬ 
claration. '^He shall not shift his ground by saying that 
the act of incorporation is not property. The first ques¬ 
tion to be answered is. What is a franchise? For the 
question under consideration is, Shall we repeal acts 
of incorporation and their franchises? Corporations 
differ from one another as much as the stars differ in 
magnitude. Some have hardly any franchises at all, 
and others have very important franchises. 

Now, to make this matter plain what is an incot po- 
real hereditament? Let mo put a few examples to 
show that it is property. The first and readiest is the 
right of way—and what is that? It is the right to 
travel ov’er another’s land, by certain fixed lines and 
boundaries. The land over which the man travels un¬ 
der this right, does not belong to him ; but he simply 
owns the right of way. It is not the laud itself, which 
is tan^^ible and visible—but a right to use the land in a 
particular manner—a sort of right or of property 
which cannot be seen or handled —a sort of right 
which exists alone in use. With this right of way, it 
may be, your farm is worth ten dollars-an acre; with¬ 
outit, it Is not worth five dollars an acre. Novy we 
bet^iu’to see what it is. I assert that the right of way 
exists with reference to the use of visible property. 
Perhaps it is even more valuable than the visible pro¬ 
perty itself. , . , , 

Another example, is the right to take water over an¬ 
other man’s land. I am about to build a mill. I have 
a tract of land on a stream above my neighbor, where 
I can build my dam, and another tract below my neigh¬ 
bor where I can build my mill,—and if I can come 
over my neighbor’s land with my race, I can make my 
mill property valuable. I go to my neighbor and say 
to iiim. Sir, will you grant me for a consideration-not 
your land—but simply the right to dig and use a mill- 
race over it? lie gives me this right for a cousidera- 

58 


tion ; and thereupon I go forward and build my mill. 
Here I have an incorporeal right, though I do not own 
a foot of the land. Subsequently my neighbor fills up 
my race. According to the gentleman here from Trum 
bull, [Mr. Ranney,] he has not touched my property. 
But he has deprived me of that, without which my 
mill is not worth a cent. When I complain to him, my 
neighbor replies to me and says, I have not taken your 
mill nor your dam. I have only deprived you of a 
right which I have granted to you for a particular use 
of your properly. 

With this illustration, let us look at that species of 
incorporeal heraditaments called a franchise; and let 
us take the case, so often taken, of a bridge. And now 
I will take a franchise not given to a corporation, but 
to an individual. Take the case of a road, much trav¬ 
elled, crossing a stream which, nine-tenths of the year, 
is impassable. The public convenience requirs that 
the stream should be bridged. But the difficulty is, 
that the job is beyond the county means, and the State 
will not touch it; still the public necessities require it. 
But near that point there happens to live a man, i*ich 
beyond his neighbors, who has a large surplus of mon¬ 
ey; and he is beset by his neighbors to build this 
bridge. He consents, and goes to the Legislature for 
a grant, without which he cannot collect one dollar of 
tolls. The public are too much interested to allow an 
individual to have the control of this matter, and to es¬ 
tablish and collect tolls without the intervention of the 
Legislature. He goes to the Legislature and proposes 
to build this bridge. His object is for private gain. 
But the Legislature will never yield a grant for the 
mere purpose of private gain; therefore he must show 
the Legislature that this bridge is required by the pub¬ 
lic necessitie?, and then it will become their duty to 
yield him the grant. He says, I am willing to invest 
my money to build this bridge, if you will give me 
the authority to take and pay for the land on each 
bank, and to collect tolls upon the travel over the 
bridge, for a certain length of time. If the Legisla- 
tute will give me this authority, I will build the bridge. 
The Legislature authorizes him to do so, and this is his 
franchise. Well, he goes on—takes his ten thousand 
dollars—perhaps all he has in the world—erects the 
bridge—does everything according to the terms of the 
grant—puts up his toll-gate and begins to take toll. I 
suppose, that under his charter, he has the right to 
take toll for twenty years. 

I suppose, further, that, without any public necessi¬ 
ty, or any reason at all, except the mere will of the 
Legislature, that franchise is repealed. And no injus¬ 
tice is done, according to the gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull, because no property is taken. He says to this 
man. Sir, there is your bridge. We do not touch a 
stick of it. You have it all, just as it was before. You 
can take it to pieces, if you please—remove it—make 
a barn of it if you can. Use your property in any way. 
We have a holy horror of infringing the rights of pri¬ 
vate property. But, you shall take no more tolls. We 
know we said to you, that you might take tolls for 
twenty years, which you said would be necessary to 
reimburse you. But what matters that? We freely 
gave you the grant, and we freely take it. If you think 
your property is affected, you labor under a mental 
hallucination, says the gentleman from Miami. You 
are just as rich as before. True, you have not your ten 
thousand dollars. You have only your abutments, pil¬ 
lars and timbers. The right to take toll was only im¬ 
aginary. When vve took that right, we did not take 
any property. This is exactly where these gentlemen 
land, when they affirm that a franchise is not property. 

Mr. DORSEY (interposing.) If the State take the 
brid-m and allow it to stand—to be passed over, day 
by d'ay, by the public—is it not taken for the public 
convenience and benefit, and is not the State bound to 

ay it? • . 

Mr. STANBERY, Yes, sir. 

Mr. DORSEY. So I say. 












914 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. STANBERY. Why, I supposed that was just 
the thing the gentleman did not say. 

Mr. DORSEY, No, sir. 

Mr. STANBERY. Do you say it is unconstitutional 
legislation, without the thing is paid for? 

Mr. DORSEY. I do. Timbers and all—their full 
xalue. 

Mr. STANBERY. Timbers and nothing else. You 
do not say that you will pay for the thing taken—for 
the valuable thing taken—for the property taken. 

Mr. ITDMI’HREVILLE. We do say so in the 39th 
section. 

Mr. STANBERY. Not at all. I shall come to this 
in a few moments, and show that you have not said so. 
It has been asserted that a thing of value is not prop¬ 
erty. Cannot a franchise be sold ? This bridge with 
the right to take toll- 

Mr. RANNEY, (in his seat.) Suppose the bridge is 
gone, can’t you sell the charier ? (Several others put¬ 
ting questions at the same time.) 

Mr. STANBERY. One at a time, if you please. But, 
as I was saying, this bridge with the right to take toll, 
may be sold under execution. Is it not property, then? 
W'hat idea has the gentleman ? I am puttling the case 
of an individual owner of a franchise. Upon his death, 
it goes to his children. If he gets into debt, it goes to 
his creditiJi’s. It is transferable and descendable, as 
other property, in all respects. So the law vindicates 
itself. 

Mr. REEMELIN, (interposing.) Can the Legisla¬ 
ture giant a franchise to a single individual, under the 
constitution ? 

Mr. STANBERY. They can grant a franchise to 
an individual. If the gentleman will come to me, I 
will teach him more about law tlnn he seems to know 

now. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The gentleman might teach 
more than 1 know about legal technicalities. 

Mr. STANBERY. Now let me tell the gentleman 
that a franchise may be granted to a single individual. 
An individual may have a ferry. That is a franchise. 

But the gentlainan from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney,] 
says a franchise is like an office. A man, he says, has 
his right in his office, and yet the Legislature is allow¬ 
ed to repeal that franchise, by taking away his office. 
This, says the gentleman, is a parallel case—a public 
right grpted to an individual, which the public may 
at any time take away^. But an office is a public trust. 
Can it be sold ? Caint be purchased? Upon the de¬ 
cease of the incumbent, does it go to his children ? 
Can it be levied upon by execution? Not at all. None 
of these things pertain to an office. An office is sim¬ 
ply a public trust. An officer does not act in pursu¬ 
ance of any business of his own. He is merely a ser¬ 
vant—an agent acting in a public employment; and, 
like all other agents, he can be dismissed. But, mark 
this—he never can be dismissed without compensation. 
He may be dismissed, but you must pay him for his 
service, up to the very last moment of his term. There 
is the power of removal, but, along with that power, 
goes the great rule of right—make the proper compen- 
satiou. 

I come now to another doctrine. My friend from 
Hamilton last up [Mr. Groesbeck,] has his way of 
getting over this point. He says a franchise is proper¬ 
ty—is a valuable thing—that it must obey exactly all 
the rights of private property. But still, it is that sort 
of property which the Legislature may take away by 
repeal, in the assertion of the right of eminent domain. 
Thu.s, according to the gentleman from Hamilton, the 
Stale, can take every charter in existence under the 
law. But, says the gentleman, it must be done upon 
compensation; and therein he differs from many upon 
this side of the house. 

I agree with the gentleman, that if done at all, it 
must be done upon compensation—but I do not agree 
with him that it can be done simply upon compensa¬ 
tion. There must be something else besides compen¬ 


sation—some reason, some necessity—some public ne¬ 
cessity. The moment the gentleman puts the right to 
take corporate property or franchises upon the right of 
eminent domain, he puts it on tlie true ground. But he 
cannot sustain the right of indiscriminate repeal, even 
coupled with compensation, upon the doctrine of emi¬ 
nent domain. The exercise of this right of eminent 
domain proceeds upon fixed principles—compensation 
is one—a public use or necessity is another. The 
proposition before us is to repeal or take at pleasure 
—and that too without compensation. 

It has been said that on this side of the chamber we 
go for an inviolability of property vested in corpora¬ 
tions beyond the degree of inviolability which attaches 
to property vested in individuals. This is a common 
error which should be set right. We go for no such 
thing. Never a man of us has said that corporate 
property should be held more sacred than individual 
property. But we say it is just as sacred, and the same 
thing; because it is private property—the property of 
a number of natural persons vested in one artificial 
person. 

And now I say there is not a corporation or a fran¬ 
chise in the State of Ohio but may be taken by the 
State, precisely upon the same terms and conditions 
that the State may take every farm and every horse in 
Ohio. It can take a franchise just as it can take pri¬ 
vate individual property, and in no other vvay. For if 
it is property vested lawfully it is just as solemnly in¬ 
violate as though vested in individuals. The rights of 
property, however secured, are still subservient to the 
public good, and may be taken for the public use; but 
always with compensation to the owmer—giving to ev¬ 
ery man the full value of the thing taken. 

I understand the gentleman Irom Hamilton [Mr. 
Groesbeck] to say that the State can only take a fran¬ 
chise by virtue of the right of eminent domain; and 
that it may be taken by repeal, provided only the State 
{tays for it. What a non sequitur is here. The gentle¬ 
man says the same rule should apply with respect to 
the repealing or taking the property of corporations or 
individuals. Aye, is that the rule ? But may the State 
repeal my deed, my patent, and so lake my property 
simply upon the condition of compensation? No sir; 
the State cannot do that. It is not in iho power of the 
State to do that. If the amount of my land is but half 
an acre, and not worth a half dollar, not twenty laws 
of the State of Ohio can take it in that way—nor in any 
way, unless it may be required lor a public necessity. 

This was just the fault in an argument which was all 
but a sound argument; but there was a vast chasm be¬ 
tween it ?nd what would have been a sound argument. 
One term of the proposition slips out of the gentleman’s 
mind. He wanted to find some middle ground be¬ 
tween the doctrine of absolute repeal and the denial 
of that doctrine. But I must tell the gentleman that 
there is no “free soil”—no middle ground here. The 
one position is right, and the other is wrong. The truth 
does not lie between them. 

In order to reach this ground of absolute repeal, 
the gentleman from Hamilton found it necessary to 
say that a charter was not a contract. He said this 
idea ol a contract, was first established in the Dart¬ 
mouth College case—that the old books gave no coun¬ 
tenance to such a doctrine, and he was not willing to 
follow the Dartmouth decision. I do not see of what 
avail this denial is to the gentleman—for although he 
denies that the charter which vests a franchise in a 
corporation is a contract—yet he admits that the fran- 
(hise so vested is property—and the difficulty remains. 
It is just as much beyond legislative power, under our 
system, to violate property, as it is to violate a contract 
—just as unconstitutional to take the one at pleasure, 
as to break the other at pleasure. But, sir, I find it 
very difficult to separate the idea of a contract from a 
legislative grant oi property. 

A Voice. How is it in the case of descent? 

Mr. STANBERY. Property there passes by opera- 














CONVENTION REPORTS 


916 


tion of law—1 am now speaking of the vesting or pass¬ 
ing of property by a particular legislative grant—and 
1 say that it is diflicult to see how property can be so 
vested, and yet not be vested upon the footing of con¬ 
tract. It has all the qualities of a contract. It is made 
upon a valuable consideration—for the security and 
disposition of property—and on the faith of it, real and 
personal property is devoted to certain uses, and often¬ 
times so devoted as to be valueless for any other uses. 

Sir, in one sense the gentleman from Hamilton was 
right in saying that the old books were against the 
Dartmouth College case. That case denied to a State 
Legislature the power to repeal a charter vesting indi¬ 
vidual rights. The old books, that is the English 
books, contain no such doctrine as that in relei’ence to 
the powers of their Legislature. The English Parlia¬ 
ment is in theory, omnipotent. It can do anything— 
and of course can, at will, repeal all charters and seize 
all franchises. All that is theoretically true, and yet it 
was well said by one of the greatest of English law¬ 
yers, when a bill for the repeal of a charter was be¬ 
fore the Parliament, that the exercise of that power of 
repeal would “cur every Englishman to the bone.” 

But the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Groes- 
BECK,") has given us a new reason why a charter is not 
a contract. That it wants mutuality—the corporation 
not being bound by it—not being compelled to ac¬ 
cept it—not being obliged to perform its stipulations 
—or rather that after the act is passed, and the con¬ 
tract is made upon the part of the State, it remains op¬ 
tional With the corporators whether they go on with it 
or not. 

Not a contract? What, then, is a policy of insu¬ 
rance ? I have a ship with which I propose to descend 
the Ohio river. I take out a policy of insurance upon 
my vessel—binding everything securely. But subse¬ 
quently, it happens that I do not send my ship. I do 
not choose to perform that part of the matter contem¬ 
plated in the policy. The gentleman’s doctrine is, that 
my policy is no contract. 

I have another case. A man grants me the right of 
way over his lot of ground, for a consideration, by 
which myself, my heirs and assigns are to have the 
right to pass over, going and returning, for all time to 
come. Now, unless 1 am bound to go on and exercise 
that right, according to my learned friend, this is no 
contract. 

Mr. GROESBECK (interposing.) I ask the gen¬ 
tleman ; if it is not the declaration of the courts, that 
you find the consideration by which the State is held, 
from the fact that the company go forward with the 
work ? 

Mr. STANBERY. That is not the point. The posi¬ 
tion was, that a charter cannot be called a contract, 
because when granted it does not bind the corporators 
to take advantage of it. They may or may not, and 
therefore it is no contract, because both parties are not 
bound. The answer is, that the contract is not made 
until the charter is accepted. Then we have what 
is necessaiy in all contracts, the consent of both par¬ 
ties. We are talking about a right of repeal after ac¬ 
ceptance,—not about a right of repeal before acceptance 
—or before anything is done upon the faith of the char- 
ter. 

Mr. GROESBECK. What is the consideration of 
the contract ? Is it not the obligation on the part of 
the company to go on with the enterprise contemplated 
in the charter? Or, if they enter upon the work, and 
stop after a time, can they be compelled to go on ? 

Mr. STANBERY. That would depend u{)on the 
terms of the charter. If the terms of the charter bind 
the corporation, after having entered upon the work, 
or whatever it may be, to persevere, then, of course, such 
is their contract and they must perform it. 

And now, I affirm again that the gentleman is wrong 
when he says that the Legislature has the right at all 
times, to repeal a charter, by paying a compensation to 
the holders. There must be something else—some 


public necessity—an actual, not a pretended necessity 
—why the charter should bo repealed. It is for the 
common good that an act of incorporation is granted; 
and it is only when such a corporation becomes inju¬ 
rious to the common good that its franchises can be ta¬ 
ken away. Whenever they are i'ound to interfere with 
those rights and liberties of the people, which the gov¬ 
ernment is bound to secure, there is a public necessity 
for taking away the charter; and until that shall ap¬ 
pear you cannot touch it. 

But, it is said if a franchise is private property, then 
we need not be careful about the terms of the section 
under consideration; because it will find ample pro¬ 
tection in the 39th section. Undoubtedly it is private 
property; and undoubtedly its protection is provided 
for in the thirty-ninth section. This provision is: that 
private property shall not be taken for public use, with¬ 
out compensation. We are willing to trust it under 
the 39th section. If you will leave that alone we will 
have nothing to say. 

A Voice. That won’t protect you. 

Mr. STANBERY. That is true—it will be no pro¬ 
tection if this provision is stricken out. If we say, as 
is now proposed, that the Legislature shall have the 
unrestricted power to repeal all charters and destroy 
all franchises—then we introduce a new rule. We 
then say that charters and franchises are not property 
—that they are not to have the safeguards of property 
—that they may be.taken or destroyed without a pub¬ 
lic necessity, and without compensation. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD (interrupting.) What tribunal is 
to determine the existence of this public necessity. 

Mr. STANBERY. In the last resort, the courts are 
to determine it—the same authority which protects you 
and me from legislative oppression. And I will show 
you how. Does the gentleman say that the Legisla¬ 
ture can take my farm for public use, upon the ground 
that the public good requires it for a mill ? I tell yon, 
sir, they could not affirm the existence of such a pub¬ 
lic necessity; they could not determine the case at all. 
For if they could, we might be in the hands of ty¬ 
rants. If they say land may be taken for a road or a 
bridge—these are necessary for the public use; but if 
they determine to take my land for a mill, a tavern, or 
a cotton factory, they propose what they have not the 
power to do; and the courts would decide any such 
law to be unconstitutional. 

But my friend from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney] says. 
Trust the Legislature; your fears are all imaginary; the 
Legislature never will do your property any harm, ves¬ 
ted in corporations ; they will always respect private 
property—trust the Legislature. Who is he that says 
this? The very gentleman who, from the first of the 
sittings of this Convention, has told us that he never 
would trust the Legislature. 

Mr. RANNEY (in his seat.) The gentleman states 
what I never uttered. 

Mr. STANBERY. When I said, sometime in the 
summer, that the Legislature ought to be in Columbus 
once a year, to watch the disbursements of the public 
treasury, the gentleman’s reply was, that they would 
watch these public interesisas a dog watches his mas¬ 
ter’s dinner. Aye, .sir, and when we were upon the 
39th section, he avowed that he would not trust them 
at all; he would not trust the public—that was it—to 
take individual property, even for a public use, unless 
compensation were first paid in money, according to 
the assessment of a jury of twelve men. ^ Such a pro¬ 
vision as that, he declared he would put into the con¬ 
stitution ! for he had neither trust in the Legislature, 
nor in the courts; he had no confidence in them, when¬ 
ever private rights stood in their way. Trust the Leg- 
gislafure ! have confidence in the justice of the govern¬ 
ment ! The gentleman has no such trust or confidence. 
I was not willing to go the length of that gentleman, 
when the question was before us touching the invi¬ 
olability of private rights; although nearly all the 
little property I possess on earth is individual proper- 
















916 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


ty, I could not consent to go the length which that gen¬ 
tleman desired. He would not allow the government 
'to take private property for public use, or public ne¬ 
cessity, until the government should first furnish the 
compensation in money, according to the assessment of 
a jury. Who e\ er heard of such a constitutional pro¬ 
vision ? But the gentleman says that is right! 

What is an individual, that his rights should bo ele¬ 
vated so far above the rights of the public? He is but 
an atom; ai.d, although I respect his rights, what rights 
has he which this hated public has not given or secured 
to him? I respect the rights of the individual; but, 
whenever the time comes to decide between individu¬ 
al good and the public good, I can have no hesitation. 
Let the individual yield. The government may even 
demand the life of the individual, if the public necessi¬ 
ty require it. The gentleman himself might be drafted 
into the war service, and die in the ranks in his couu- 
try’s'defence ; and he could not die in a better cause. 
How, then, would the gentleman justify himself in 
withholding his property from the government ?—a 
sacrifice infinitely below the demands of patriotism. 
Why, sir, what would your property be worth without 
the protection of the government ? The strongest man 
would hold the most; and you do not look like one of 
the strongest. The high principle of patriotism re¬ 
quires the surrender of life or property whenever either 
may be demanded by the public good. In other coun¬ 
tries, they take these without compensation. Hero 
compensation is made in all cases. But the gentleman 
requires that it shall be first paid in money—a thing 
never before thought of in a constitution. In his solici¬ 
tude for the protection of individual property, the gen¬ 
tleman seems to forget that we have any government 
at all. But, if we go on stripping the government of 
its powers, what is to become of individual rights? 
For when the government dies, individual rights must 
die with it. 

I have more confidence in the Legislature than the 
gentleman from Trumbull has; but I have not so much 
confidence in that body as to prevent me from putting 
into the constitution some wholesome limitations upon 
the infractions that maybe made upon property; and I 
would have the same rule for the protection of proper¬ 
ty held by an individual and property held by a com¬ 
pany. I would take no properly but upon some public 
necessity, nor then without compensation. 

Mr. President, what are we about ? I address my¬ 
self to the sound sense and judgment of both sides of 
the House. I affirm that we are about to change the 
tenure of property. By and by, some gentleman will 
come in with an amendment, declaring expressly what 
is now fully implied in this section, that this uncon¬ 
ditional right of repeal shall operate retrospectively 
upon charters which have been already granted ; and 
the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] will 
lead this column. 

Mr. REEMELIN., (in his seat.) I shall not lead; 
but I will go along. 

Mr. STANBERY. Well, then, perhaps the gentle¬ 
man will whip it up behind. But he will have a busy 
time of it, at any rate. I made this supposition, be¬ 
cause the gentleman from Hamilton has told us that 
he has a “ holy horror of all corporations. I was 
much surprised when the gentleman from Licking 
[Mr. Case] told us this morning, that the gentleman 
from Hamilton had selected his quarters in the house 
(the Burnet) owned by a corporation. I would almost 
as soon have expected to hear that he had taken up his 
abode in a den of lions. Who would have dreampt 
that his democratic tread should ever be heard upon 
the marble floors of that incorporated palace? lean 
see him now in those saloons decorated with more than 
oriental splendor—regarding his democratic features 
before those vast mirrors 

“ In which he of Gath, 

Goliah—mi?ht have viewed his giant bulk 
Whole without stooping—towering crest and all.” 

I can see the gentleman reposing his democratic limbs 


upon the yielding velvet of those incorporated otto¬ 
mans—basking in the glare of those crystal lamps, 
blazing with many a row of burning cressets, and 
yielding “light as from a sky.’' 

And I can follow him a little further,—when he 
takes his seat at that incorporated table, and finds be¬ 
fore him an incorporated plate, an incorpoi’ated knife, 
and an incorporated fork—a silver fork at that, with 
as many prongs as a hay-rake. And I can regard him 
still a little further, but with less surprise, I can see 
him drink— 

Mr. REEMELIN (in his seat.) Home-made Ca¬ 
tawba. 

Mr. STANBERY. —of that incorporated brandy; 
and although he has always insisted that corporations 
have no soul, I think, by this time, he must have found 
out that they have some spirit. 

Mr. REEMELIN (in liis seat.) Has the curtain 
dropped ? 

Mr. STANBERY. I wont follow the gentleman 
into any other of the incorporated places about that 
house. 

Mr. REEMELIN (rising.) I would say to the gen¬ 
tleman that he don’t know what democracy means— 
that it is one of the first ideas of a democrat to live 
upon the best which the country affords. 

Mr. STANBERY. Yes, if he is a rich one. 

Mr. REEMELIN. No; if he is a poor one, as well. 

Mr. STANBERY. I shall pursue the gentleman no 
further. I was led away into an episode, which I 
could not help following a little. 

But, let us consider the subject seriously. You de¬ 
clare ill this constitution the inviolability of individual 
property. But, you do not stop then. You declare 
that the Legislature shall have the right to repeal char¬ 
ters of corporations. And you want to go a step fur¬ 
ther. You want to assert a new legislative power over 
their property—not only over those charters which 
may be hereafter granted; but over all those now in 
existence. Now they are all safe. Before this Con¬ 
vention met; before the consultations of these hundred 
and eight delegates began, there was not a dollar vest¬ 
ed in any corporation in Ohio, but what was as safe as 
your land or mine. There were, to be sure, some pop¬ 
ular cries against this manner of investing property by 
the rich. But now we come here to declare another 
doctrine—to make a change in the tenure of property. 
What property? Bank property alone? Not at all; 
and that would have been unreasonable and oppres¬ 
sive enough; but the pz'operty of all corporations. 
Churches, bridges, turnpikes, railroads,—you are to re¬ 
peal all. 

Gentlemen have affirmed that the Legislature have 
always had this power, although the courts have never 
found it out; and the gentleman from Hamilton, I 
think it was, asserted, in support of this ground, that 
the present Legislature of Ohio had just as much pow¬ 
er as any Legislature which has preceded it. Now, I 
say this, that no Legislature in Ohio ever yet had the 
power to repeal a charter. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD (interrupting.) Had not the Le¬ 
gislature, at one time, the -power to say that nothing 
should circulate as currency in the State of Ohio, ex¬ 
cept gold azid silver? ' -i 

Mr. STANBERY. Is that taking a charter? The 
gentleman does not consider what I am upon. Had I 
the time to attend to this question, I would cheerfully 
do so. I say, the Legislature cannot repeal a charter; 
although any thing may be taken for a public neces¬ 
sity. 

Mr. HOLT (interposing.) Is the Legislature to be 
the judge of that necessity, or the courts ? 

Mr. STANBERY. The courts wfill judge. They 
would, of course, give great latitude to the judgment 
of the legislature; but the courts are our final resort. 
They are our anchor and safeguard. Otherwise, the 
legislature might take ail our property under the plea 
of a public use. 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 917 


But now, again,! affirm (with the geiillemaii from 
Hamilton) that the present legislature, sitting in Co* 
lumbus, has all the power of any legislature that ever 
sat there. But still, the grant of a franchise by one 
legislature, cannot be resumed by another. There is 
no question about political power here. No legislature 
has orever had the unlimited power to repeal a- 
charter; although all have the power to grant char 
ters. 

To illustrate this—the State often holds public lands. 
Take the case of the State granting to an individual 
one hundred acres of land for the consideration of two 
dollars per acre. Could the next legislature take back 
that property, because they may exercise as much 
power as the preceding legislature? Not at all. They 
cannot touch it. Whatsoever is lawfully granted in 
the way of pi’operty, cannot be resumed by any au¬ 
thority of the State, except upon the demand of some 
public necessity. This is the tenure upon which cor¬ 
porations hold their franchises, and individuals their 
property; and there is no danger of our liberty being 
infringed by this. ^ . 

Danger to our liberties from corporations! Pray, 
sir, who is there here that does not feel that he is pre¬ 
cisely as free in the midst of all these corporations, 
as he would be, if not one of them was in exist¬ 
ence ? 

But corporations are not above the law—they must 
proceed according to the terms of their charters. If 
they infringe their charter, in but one particular, we 
punish them capitally—we destroy their life—but not 
without a trial. 

Now let us contemplate the State of Ohio, and the 
vastinterests upon which this great subject is to operate. 
The gentleman from Trumbull has said the State is 
“shingled all over with corporations.^’ I thank God, 
that it is. 

Mr. RANNEY (in his seat.) You thank God for 
small favors. 

Mr. STANBERY. Small favors, do you call them! 
What have these corporations done? They have built 
your churches; they have bridged impassable streams; 
they have erected colleges and universities; they have 
leveled hills and filled up valleys, and made roads over 
which you can travel with lightning speed ; they have 
erected telegraphs for instant communication from one 
end of the land to the other. We came down to this 
city in the cars of a corporation. We paid our fare 
with the money of a corporation. And when we came 
here, we could find no better place to sit in, than the 
hall of a corporation. Yes, sir, and when the light ol 
day fails us here—in an instant—in the twinkling of an 
eye—a flood of corporate light is poured upon us. 
Would, sir, that this brilliant outward light might but 
shine inward, and our dark minds irradiate. 

With the little wealth we have in Ohio, there would 
have been no other way of carrying out those great ob¬ 
jects of public necessity and convenience, than by this 
means of corporate association. And it is because we 
have not many very rich men amongst us, that we re¬ 
quire more corporations in this country than they do 
in England. There, enterprizes requiring much mo¬ 
ney, come within the means of single individuals—here 
they can only be accomplished by the association of 
many individuals, each contributing apart towards the 
common cai)ital. 

This goodl}’- State—so pleasant now to live in—what 
would it have been without corporations? We should 
have been quite behind the age—with no railroads, no 
colleges, no universities, and few turnpikes, plank 
roads, bridges, or churches. But now, by this means 
of association, we have obtained these good results, 
and the land is covered with blessings. And now, are 
you going to strike down these corporations? Are you 
going to take away the security of their property, and 
frighten men so that they will never embark their 
means in corporations for the future? Sir, I do not 
believe you can do this thing: for the more you talk 


about it, the more you find yourselves divided upon 
that side of the chamber. Besides, who has seen a pe¬ 
tition or a memorial of the people here, asking for the 
power of repeal to be extended to all corporation char¬ 
ters, past, as well as future, without compensation? 
There is no such wish among the mass of the people. 
And if you were able to put this piece of ultraism into 
the constitution, and were to do it, I tell you, sir, I 
would not give any thing for its chance before the peo¬ 
ple. 

I was in hopes, at one time, that we should not run 
into these ultraisms in our action here. I was glad, in 
the commencement of the summer session, to hear the 
gentleman from Auglaize declare, that he did not bring 
his party prejudices here. But that was answered by 
the gentleman from Trumbull, when he told us that he 
should not dispense with his. 

Mr. RANNEY (in his seat), I said I brought my 
party principles here. I carry them about with me at 
all times. 

Mr. STANBERY. All I ask of you, then, is not to 
put them into the constitution. 

Mr. RANNEY. I’ll do my best to put them there. 

Mr. MITCHELL. And so will I. 

Mr. STANBERY. Then party principles are to be 
put into the constitution, are they? The gentleman 
from Knox, and the gentleman from Trumbull are 
agreed in this —par nohile fratrum I 

This is our ground. We go for the inviolability of 
private pro{)erty. We are opposed to the idea of pro¬ 
tecting one kind of property, and subjecting another 
kind to public plunder: and one half of the people of 
the State, who think with us, are known to approve 
this doctrine, as one man. 

What, sir, is the object of a constitution ? Is it not 
this very thing—not to trample upon, but to protect 
the minority ? Party principles may be one thing to¬ 
day and another thing to-morrow. But the principles 
of the constitution should be eternal. Therefore I do 
not wish to see party principles in the constitution; 
and, if w'O were in the majority they would not be 
placed there. 

Mr. RE EMELIN (in his seat.) You would not have 
put in any principle. 

Mr. STANBERY. You are w^rong, sir. But we 
would have changed the old constitution as little as 
possible, and we would have completed our work— 
fixed out the whole—in ninety days time: whereas 
you will require more than ninety days to come. The 
highest praise which can be given to the people of any 
district, is to say, that they did not select a mere party 
man to send up here for this work—that they did not 
send up delegates here to put their ulti aisms into the 
constitution ; but that they sent men to settle and fix 
upon the great principles of government. 

Sir, those that listen attentively can hear above the 
present clamor against corporate property, a still more 
threatening cry against individual property. There 
are men among us—and not a few, not willing to stop 
with the privileges of a corporation. Teach this les 
son of plunder, aim this blow at the inviolability of 
property and it will not be long before you will come 
to hear that your farm of one hundred acres is an ex¬ 
clusive privilege. 

After Mr. Stanbery had coneluded. 

On motion by Mr. CHAMBERS, the Convention 
took a recess. 


3 O CLOCK P. M. 

The pending question being upon the motion of Mr. 
Hard, to reconsider the vote taken by which the Con¬ 
vention refused to strike out all after the word“ state,” 
in the proposition of Mr. Vance, of Butler, (before re¬ 
cited,) 

Mr. McCORMICK. It is with no pleasurable sensa¬ 
tion, Mr. President, that I rise to deliver my opin¬ 
ions upon the question now before this body, and to 
find myself, to some extent, isolated in opinion, from 












918 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


those with whom it has hitherto been my pride and 
my pleasure to act and to associate. I am not one oi 
those who would willingly cherish a difference of opin¬ 
ion, unless driven to do so by the force of circumstances. 
Such circumstances have now arisen, and they have 
imposed upon me the duty of stating to the Conven¬ 
tion the reasons by which I have arrived at the conclu¬ 
sions which I have been forced to entertain, and to 
lay down the grounds that will govern my action upon 
this and similar questions to be settled by this body. 

Now, I do not conceive that the actual difference in 
opinion between gentlemen is as great as at first sight 
would appear, or as some suppose. There are, in fact, 
differences of words that do not exist in substance. I 
know that we are all aiming at one and the same thing 
—the general good of the people of Ohio; but from the 
different distances from which we view the questions 
that come before us—the differences that exist in men¬ 
tal conformation and habits of thought and expression, 
diversities spring up which are partly imaginary and 
partly real, but which we are too prone to treat as 
real in every respect and to the fullest extent. I, for 
instance, claim for the legislative power of the State, 
without reference to any constitutional provision here¬ 
after to become operative, the right to repeal all acts 
of incorporation heretofore granted for certain purpo¬ 
ses. Let it be remembered that I do not say all acts; 
but I lay down the broad ground of the absolute and 
unqualified right to repeal any, every and all charters 
of incorporation heretofore granted, for certain pur¬ 
poses. 

Now, it will be seen that I assert the right of the 
General Assembly, to annul and destroy those fran¬ 
chises which are attached to, and grow out of acts of 
incorporation ; but, 1 beg leave to remark, it does not 
follow, that I am in favor of an extreme and instant ex¬ 
ercise of that right, irrespective of the public benefit 
or the private injury that may accrue from the act. 
Such is not my idea of public justice; and I would 
be the last to be guilty of a mere uncalled for and 
Wanton injury to the citizen. There are others who 
believe that the Legislature may, for certain 8})ecific 
purposes, and with certain qualifications, and under 
certain restrictions, exercise the pow'er to repeal; and 
they are willing to establish the existence of that right 
by pursuing what seems to me to be devious paths 
and specious ways. Others again deny the right of 
the Legislature, in any case, as flatly as I assert it. 
Yet we all meet at last upon one common ground, 
which is this: Should the Legislature see fit to re¬ 
sume the franchises which in any case it has granted, 
and take from an incorporated company, the rights it 
exercised under its charter, it is the duty of that body 
to repeal the charter, and to provide that the injury 
done be compensated, and the party injured made safe 
from loss. 

When, therefore, gentlemen upon this floor, are 
pleased to say that we seek to do a wanton injury to 
associations of men—when they are pleased to assert, 
that we are practicing upon the code of morals of the 
highwayman, the guerilla chieftain, or the Arab of the 
desert they are pleased to declare what rests for its 
foundation, upon their own mere assertion, and upon 
no safer or more substantial basis. 

Again, it is claimed that in case the right of the 
General Assembly to repeal acts of incorporation, 
shall be declared in this constitution, so opposed is 
the democratic party to the practice of allowing wealth 
to be associated, that there would be an instantaneous 
repeal of all acts of incorporation. Not so. Master 
Brooke; not so sir. I believe I understand tlie wants 
of the people, in this respect. I know too, the bene¬ 
fits that have accrued from such associations, and I re¬ 
spect the men who have the courage and the enter¬ 
prise, to associate their wealth and their energy, for 
the promotion of works calculated to benefit the pub¬ 
lic. And I will assert here, as broadly as it can be 
laid down in words, that to the Legislature alone, un¬ 


der the constitution belongs the right to provide the 
means by which individual wealth may be legally as¬ 
sociated for enterprises of a public or economical char- 
acter. 

The point which I desire to make is this : it is not 
the principle of associated wealth against which I 
contend, but the practice of granting exclusive special 
{)rivilege8 connected with the franchise. To the Leg¬ 
islature belongs the right to associate wealth, to build 
common, plank or railroads, bridges, or to engage in 
any other similar enterprises; and to grant to such 
associated wealth that royal right—that emanation 
from the sovereign prerogative known as a franchise; 
but the right to grant other exclusive privileges and 
exemptions, does not exist under our constitution, and 
cannot, for that reason, be conferred by the Legisla¬ 
ture ; and every act by which these privileges and ex¬ 
emptions are pretended to be conferred is, so far, ab 
initio, null and void ; and it is upon this position that 
I shall presently base the argurneut which I am about 
to make. 

Again, sir: I do not propose that the right to repeal 
charters heretofore granted be inserted in the constitu¬ 
tion. To do so would be of no avail. The question 
involved is judicial rather than legislative, and stands 
thus : The Legislature has granted charters of incor¬ 
poration. Now, if the charters so granted have been 
legally granted—granted in accordance with the funda¬ 
mental law of this State, then by the decision of the 
highest judicial tribunal of our country, such charter is 
declared a contract, and is obligatory in its terms upon 
the Legislature and people of the State. 1 do not say 
it is a contract; but the supreme court has so said, and 
the decisions of that court are obligatory until revers¬ 
ed ; and I am consequently bound to admit that such 
charter is a contract. Now, sir, if these charters have 
been legally granted, this Convention cannot clothe 
the Legislature with the power to repeal them—not 
possessing in itself such power; and the insertion of 
such a declaratory power would be void. But, on the 
other hand, some of us claim that the Legislature has 
not possessed power to grant charters of incorporation 
except for specified purposes ; and these charters hav¬ 
ing been granted by an authority not legally authorized 
so to do, the grant itself is void, and requires no legis¬ 
lative act to make it so, but merely the judgment of a 
court to declare it so. If the Legislature has parted 
with no power, it can resume no power; if it has le¬ 
gally granted power, it cannot resume it; and to this 
view of the question we are bound by the opinions of 
the highest courts in the Union. 

And now, sir, let us look at the question before us. 
The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Groesbeck,] 
assures us tha': the State, or the General Assembly, 
upon the principle of eminent domain, may take the 
[iroperty of the individual citizen, and employ it in 
the construction of a public work. No one denies 
that this may be done whenever it is demanded by the 
public welfare. The State, doubtless, has its right of 
eminent domain—a right superior and paramount to 
, every other in certain exigencies, but inferior to all 
others, at ordinary limes. When it becomes active, 
it is mighty and commensurate to the demand that 
gives it vitality; when it is dormant, it is impercep¬ 
tible, and there are no muniments to signify its ex 
istence. The question is: how shall this right be exer- 
cisec 1 

Some gentlemen seem to suppose that at the demand 
of almost any public exigency, or public expediency, 
or party expediency, the Legislature may trample 
down, at once, all the charters of the State, and their 
dependant franchises, under the right of eminent do¬ 
main. This proposition, while it seems to be admitted 
by the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] is 
denied by the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbe- 
RV,] in a portion of whose remarks, I concur, while I 
must beg leave to dissent from others. He says, the 
court alone are to be the judge of the expediency of 


I 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the confiscation. What! The court to be the judge 
of the question of public expediency—of what is de¬ 
manded by the public good—the public welfare! 
Why, sir, the gentleman for once forgot himself—learn¬ 
ed and astute as he is. Let me present a case of pubr 
lie necessity, and apply the rules of the gentleman. 

A war breaks out, and two opposing armies meet 
upon a plain for the purpose of battle. There happens 
to stand a house between the two bodies, which the 
public good at the time requires should be immediate- 
W destroyed. The right to destroy the house is un¬ 
doubted, the question is under what authority it shall 
be done. The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Groes- 
beck] stands forth, declares that by virtue of the right 
of eminent domain, the State may command, and the 
house must fall. But he insists that before this can be 
accomplished, a session of the General Assembly must 
be convened, the public exigency declared with all the 
formalities of law; the house condemned, and removed 
by the Executive of the State. On the other hand, 
the gentleman from Franklin would argue that a court 
must be called, a bench of judges organized, a jury 
empannelled to determine from the testimony the ne¬ 
cessity for destroying the house. Lawyers must wran¬ 
gle over the question, the court lay down the law, the 
jury find a verdict, judgment be pronounced, and pro¬ 
cess issued to the sheriff to take away the obstruction. 
And all this time the armies are to stand still, while 
the Legislature is convened, or the court, and until the 
gentleman from Franklin has made his appearance on 
the part of the State, to enlighten the court and jury 
upon the law of the case. 

I hold, Mr. President, that whatever may be the pe¬ 
culiar circumstances of the case, the law fixing the 
rule must be the same. An army in its march, requires 
the transportation of its baggage. The wagons and of the 
teams country are seized upon for the purpose. Will 
gentlemen contend that before they can be made avail¬ 
able, the Legisl ature must sit upon the case to determine 
the exigency and provide for the payment, or that the 
action of a court must be invoked to fix the value and 
pay it—the army to remain in its camp until the ques¬ 
tion is determined and the payment made 1 Sir, such a 
proposition requires no argument. The statement of the 
doctrine is its refutation. The Legislature on the one 
hand, and the court on the other, have a power that is 
adequate to the emergency. So when the necessity 
arises, the power comes with it—to the Executive offi¬ 
cer, pressed by the emergency—that great power of 
great public necessity which overrides all written laws, 
and is a law unto itself. The emergency is instanta¬ 
neous ; so is the taking. The proprietor sufiers at the mo¬ 
ment under a pressure that he neither can nor ought to 
resist. The State has exercised upon his property its 
highest and most irresistible act of sovereignty. In 
time he is paid for the damages he has incurred, and 
the public, which for reasons vital to its existence has 
been forced to an act of violence, renders at the first 
practicable moment a return in money for the injury 
that has been sustained. 

The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Groesceck,] 
claims that franchises are property, and that it is be¬ 
cause they are property, that they may be taken for 
the public use on being paid for. The gentleman from 
Trumbull avoids the conclusion of the gentleman 
from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] by denying the 
premises. He denies that franchises, are or under any 
circumstances can be property—so does the gentleman 
from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey.] Tne gentleman from 
Franklin [Mr, Stanbery,] stands aghast at this—not 
because the physician from Miami [Mr. Dorsey] say 
so, but because the doctor of laws from Trumbull 
[Mr. Ranney] says so. Well, a franchise is, and it is 
not property. This sounds like a paradox ; but it ad¬ 
mits of an explanation. And now, to solve this seem¬ 
ing contradiction : A franchise is property, as being a 
value in estate real—a property in property, and there¬ 
fore the gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery,] is 


919 


correct when he calls it property. Still it is not prop¬ 
erty in the general acceptation of that term. It is not a 
tangible, palpable something, held by seizing, and ca¬ 
pable ot being reached by execution at law. And, in 
this sense, the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ran¬ 
ney,] is correct. A franchise is a part of the sover¬ 
eignty of the State, vested in the citizen and giving an 
additional value to his property. But that property in 
property is only to be transferrred by the disposition of 
the substantial basis to which the peculiar property at¬ 
taches. You cannot sell the right of private way, 
without a sale of the reality to which it attaches, or the 
right to take tolls without disposing by the same act of 
the turnpike or bridge which forms the basis of the 
right; consequently a franchise is not, in common par¬ 
lance, property. The Supreme Court has decided that 
the lease of a water privilege, on the canals of the 
State, is not such a property, in the lessee, as may be 
sold on execution ; yet this is a property more palpa¬ 
ble than any ordinary incorporation franchise, and (to 
give the devil his due) that court has once more, deci¬ 
ded right. Therefore, sir, when the gentleman from 
Trumbull [Mr. Ranney,] said that a franchise is not 
property in the ordinary acceptation of the term, he 
stated no more than is strictly correct; and when the 
gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery,] insisted 
that a franchise is property, in a limited sense of the 
term,he was correct also. 

Take, for illustration, the right of w^ay which by ac¬ 
tion of law one man may acquire over the farm of 
another. A owns a farm lying along the public high¬ 
way; and B owns another farm, which is cut otf from 
the highway by the farm of A. In this case, upon the 
principle of eminent domain, B has the franchise of 
passing to the highway over the land of A. But can 
B sell this right of access to his own land over that of 
A to a third pei’son ? By no means. Can it be taken 
and sold on execution ? No. The right is attached to 
the laud, cannot be transferred without it, and goes to 
and is vested in the purchaser of the realty. 

So with the right to take tolls upon any work of a 
public character, or constructed for the accommoda¬ 
tion of the people, it exists only in connection with the 
property, and you cannot dispose of the one without 
the other. 

But, sir, I could never submit to the invocation of 
the principle of eminent domain, for the purposes to 
which gentlemen claim that it may be applied. It is 
a right in itself too potent, and all pervading to be 
called into action for any but high purposes, and at any 
call but that of extreme necessity, and is not the 
proper engine to be put in action for the mere abstrac¬ 
tion of a franchise. Why, sir, the General Assembly 
incorporates a company lor the construction of a I’oad— 
it gives to that company the power to receive tolls at 
a certain rate upon the work it has built, and this du¬ 
ring all time to come. Subsequently it asserts that this 
right to take tolls is a franchise—that being a franchise, 
it is property, and as such, upon the principle of emi¬ 
nent domain, it may be taken upon a plea of public 
necessity. Sir, to do this, is like arousing up the 
whole fury of the ocean to waft a feather, and piling 
up all his billows to drown a fly. 

Sir, the principle of eminent domain is not intended 
to be the subject to such common calls and ordinary 
uses. It is insidious enough, and powerful enough, to 
be held in reserve for difl'erent and greater occasions ; 
to be brought upon the stage only when the highest 
power known to a government is to be exercised for 
purposes vital to its own welfare or existence. Sir, 
the power it holds in reserve is like the power of a 
God—it is omnipotent within the sphere of its action. 
It demands and takes property, liberty—even life itself 
—at the call of the public necessity. It takes the man 
from his field, the father from his family, the bridegroom 
from his bride, and places him in the ranks of death; 
it calls the priest from the altar, and lays the altar all 
prostrate in the dust; nay, it even wrestles with dis- 












920 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ease for its victim, and is inexorable as death. Like 
the bloody cross of Clan Alpin, it rushes from hill to 
valley—now Hashes on the mountain top—now speeds 
over the plain ; every one who is called upon becomes 
its bearer, and all who catch a sight of its branches, 
speed on its summons, and forgetting all other claims, 
swift as the embrace of ardent love, rush to the gather¬ 
ing strile of death. 

Sir, I would not convert such a power into a thing 
of ordinary use, for common occasions. 

The question then is, what is a charter ? The gen¬ 
tleman from Belmont [Mr. Kennon] says it is a con¬ 
tract. Well, it may be so; but I have my doubts of it. 
However, it is little worth my while to deny what can¬ 
not be overcome. The gentleman from Belmont cites 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States; 
and to this I am forced to bow—not because 1 believe 
it is the law, but because it is the decision. It being 
80 decided, I am forced to grant that the charter of a 
road or a bridge company, which has been conferred 
by a Legislature competent to create the same, is a 
contract. If, however, the Legislature was not em¬ 
powered by the fundamental law of the laud to make 
such a grant, then it is not a contract. 

And now, Mr. President, let us examine the law of 
the case, as a judicial question ; and for the porpose of 
so doing, let us take the same starting point, and pur¬ 
sue the same course taken by the gentleman from Bel¬ 
mont. Take the case of the Little Miami Railroad 
Company. The company was chartered by the Legis¬ 
lature of Ohio, and we will suppose the Legislature 
has exercised the power of repeal. A writ of quo 
warranto issues, calling upon the company to show 
cause why it continues to take tolls, &c., and the ques¬ 
tion finally gets to the Supreme Court of the United 
States. The gentleman from Belmont, wdio appears 
on the part of the stockholders, produces the charter 
conferring the usual corporate powers—to use a com¬ 
mon name—run carts, take tolls, «&;c., for the use of the 
company, and here he rests his case. In reply, I ex¬ 
hibit to the court, the act of the Legislature by which 
the charter was repealed. Then he meets me with 
the celebrated case of the Darmouth College, and there 
he says he has me fast; and then he wants to see my 
brief. Well, I’ll show him my brief. 

Now, if the decision of the Supreme Court is author¬ 
ity, and binding upon all tribunals of inferior jurisdic¬ 
tion, in all cases in point, or where the facts are paral¬ 
lel with those in the case decided, it will at leasibe ad¬ 
mitted, that where the facts are not parallel, the case is 
not in point, and the decision of no authority. 

And now, I ask, is the Dartmouth College case par¬ 
allel with that supposed, concerning the Little Miami 
Railroad ? Let us see. The charter of Dartmouth 
College w'as a royal charter, granted by the Sovereign 
of England, at a time when New Hampshire was a 
colony of that country. It had its origin prior to that 
of the State of New Hampshire, and was one of the 
pre-existing elements which entered into the composi¬ 
tion of the State. Now, Mr. President, had this char¬ 
ter been repealed by act of the Legislature of New 
Hamp.shire, before she became a member of the Union, 
the right of that Legislature to repeal would have been 
undoubted. Why? Because her Legislature is sover¬ 
eign as to all things within its reach; but this charter 
was part and parcel of herself, when her legislative 
power was created—was an existing being, recogniz- 
ed as such—a part of her fundamental law, when she 
was admitted into the Union, and a repeal would be, 
in effect, a disavowal of her constitution and terms of 
admission as one of the United States, under the fed- i 
eral law, ! 

Now, it cannoLbe claimed that any Ohio corpora- j 
tion is, in these respects, parallel with the case cited, 
as all our corporations are junior to the constitution, 1 
and supposed to be in existence under and by its au- j 
thority. So far, the Dartmouth case fiils as author- i 
ity. Let us pursue the question further. Are the I 


corporations of Ohio created by legal authority, an*^ 
in this respect brought within the rule of the case ci’ 
ted ? This is dnly determinable by giving a construe' 
tion to the fundamental laws of the land. I will ex¬ 
amine them briefly but freely. By the bill of rights in 
the constitution of Ohio, it is provided, “ that every as¬ 
sociation of persons, when regularly formed, within 
this State, and having given themselves a name, may, 
on application to the Legislature, be entitled to re¬ 
ceive letters of incorporation, to enable them to hold 
estates, real and personal, for the support of their 
schools, academies, colleges, universities, and for other 
purposes. 

There, Mr. President, is the law under which, and 
under which alone, the Legislature has the right to 
grant or refuse acts of incorporation ; for in the same 
article w'e find the fundamental principle, under which 
all powers were granted to the Legislature. 

To guard against the trangression ofthe high powers, 
which we have delegated, we declare that all pow¬ 
ers not hereby granted, remain with the people.” 

• It is not, then, Mr, President, the Legislature, nor the 
Congress, that is sovereign and supreme in this country, 
but it is the people. I declare this, sir, not for the 
mere purpose of making capital in buncombe, but as a 
great, leading fundamental democratic principle, upon 
which the very foundations of the government are laid. 
The constitution of Ohio opens with the declaration, 
that “ We, the people****do ordain and establish,”’ 
and the same phraseology is employed in the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States. It is, '* we, the people,’'' 
and we only, who possess the power to bind ourselves. 
The very fact that we sit here in this Convention, ie 
evidence that the people, under whose authority we 
hold our places, are the fountain and source of all pow¬ 
er ; and if such is not the case, where is our authority ? 
Constitutions, then, originating with, and drawing their 
validity from the people, are constructed for the pur¬ 
pose of limiting and defining the powers delegated to 
the government, and should always be construed in fa- 
forof liberty, and to the restriction of arbitrary power. 
This is an opinion in which I do not stand alone. I 
have an authority which, although I must confess, not 
very good with me, ought to be so with a large body of 
the gentlemen upon this floor. Story, in his commenta¬ 
ries on the tenth amendment of the constitution of the 
United States, says: 

This amendment is a mere affirmation of what, upon any just 
reasoning, is a necessary rule of interpreting the constitution. 
Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows 
irresistibly that what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to 
the State authorities, if invested by their constitutions of govern¬ 
ment respectively in them, and if not so invested, it is retained by 
the people, as a part of their residuary sovereignty. 

Now, sir, let us construe a section of our own consti¬ 
tution, upon the plain principle of exposition laid down 
by the authority which I have read—the authority of a 
man whose exposition of the constitution, and construc¬ 
tion of law, was never in favor of the largest liberty. 

“ Associations of persons shall be entitled to receive 
letters of incorporation;”—for what ? The question is 
not left in doubt. On the contrary, the purposes are 
explicitly declared and clearly defined—to holdestates, 
real and personal, “ fur the support of their schools, 
academies, colleges, universities.” 

The objects expressed in the section are purely of a 
literary and benevolent character; and it would seem 
to have been the sole object of its authors to provide 
that a class of charities, of an eleemosynary character, 
should be empowered to hold real and personal estate. 
But there is one expression over which gentlemen 
stumble. There are the words “ and for other purpos¬ 
es.” I am not now referring to the vast, irresponsible 
and almost illimitable power that has been assumed 
and exercised by the legislative bodies of Ohio, under 
no authority but what is contained in these four simple 
words, ‘‘ and for other purposes ;” but am endeavoring 
to look at their real meaning, in the light of the fore¬ 
going part of the section to which they belong. The 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


921 


section is a whole, and its parts are to be construed 
with especial reference to its unity. To what, then, do 
the words “ for other purposes ” reler ? and what is the 
legislative power granted by the section ? Do they 
refer to the purposes for which corporations may be 
created, as for schools, colleges, academies, universi¬ 
ties, and whatever other purposes a company may seek 
to be incorpoi ated by such an act ? or do they refer to 
the mere fact that estates may be holden by incor[iord- 
ted bodies other than those specified ? or is the legis¬ 
lative power restricted to the grant of the mere right 
of holding estates by an incorporated company ? I in¬ 
sist that the last is the true meaning; that when a com¬ 
pany, having given itself a name, shall apply to the 
Legislature for an act of incorporation, that act of in¬ 
corporation can only empower such company to hold 
estate, real and personal, and no more. The Legisla¬ 
ture cannot clothe such company with franchises for 
the use and occupation of the estates they are incorpo¬ 
rated to hold. The Legislature cannot vest in such 
company rights, privileges and immunities not known 
to the constitution, and by virtue of the words “ other 
purposes ” invest “ companies incorporate ” with the 
powers, rights and privileges of sovereignty, in contra¬ 
distinction to the powers, rights and privileges of the 
citizen. 

By the section the powers of the Legislature are 
limited to a single object, and by no rule of fair con¬ 
struction can that power be extended to new, other or 
different objects. By it, companies may be incorpora¬ 
ted to hold estates real and personal, and that is the 
only section in the constitution of Ohio under the au¬ 
thority of which corporations may be established. In 
it there is not a word upon the subject of roads or 
bridges—nothing in relation to franchises—rights of 
way or rights to take tolls and enjoy exclusive privi¬ 
leges ; nothing in fact, but the simple right to hold es¬ 
tates leal and personal. And, sir, when the Legisla¬ 
ture goes beyond thjs, it transcends its power, violates 
the rights of the people, and acts in contravention to 
the fundamental law of the State, by the authority of 
which it thus exists, to exercise unconstitutional pow¬ 
er, and therefore, when the General Assembly empow¬ 
ered the stock holders of the Little Miami Railroad to 
go upon and condemn the land for a track, to lay its 
rails, to hold exclusive posses.sion of its property and 
fixtures, to carry passengers and receive payment, to 
transport freight and to claim and collect tolls, it did 
that which it had no power to do, and enacted a 
law which, if not void itself, is, to say the least, repeal- 
able. 

Mr. President, the gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. 
Kennon,] must fail in his case, for the authority upon 
which he relies is not in point—the cases are not par¬ 
allel. 

But that gentleman endeavors to sustain his case by 
the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio, in Com¬ 
mercial Bank vs. Ohio, respecting which, first, I re¬ 
mark, the decision was not made by a full court; sec¬ 
ondly, it was not concurred in by all the judges who 
were present at the time; and thirdly, that it is not 
such a decision as declares to the fullest extent, against 
the right of the Legislature to repeal charters already 
granted. The court take it as admitted that the Dart¬ 
mouth College does apply, without entering into an ex¬ 
amination of the relative circumstances of the two ca¬ 
ses. They say this: “We take it to be well settled, 
that the charter of private corporation is in the nature 
of a contract between the State and the corporation.” 
As a matter of course the court would say so, and now 
for their wise reason for so saying. “ Had there ever 
been any doubts upon this subject, those doubts must 
have been removed by the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States in the case of Woodward vs. 
Dartmouth College.” The court in this case have de¬ 
clared their decision from precedent, without examin¬ 
ing if the precedent claimed is in point. It is not au¬ 
thority because the precedent is not authority, 


We have, in this coun’ry, Mr. President, three spe¬ 
cies of corporations, twoof which no man is boldenough 
to assert may not be repealed by act of the Legislature; 
First, the old English eleemosynary foundation, design¬ 
ed for the support of educational and benevolent insti¬ 
tutions, regulated by the common law of England^ 
which have ever been deemed subject to repeal by act 
of Parliament. Second, municipal corporations, which 
were always liable to repeal. The first time the right 
was questioned in Ohio, was in the case reported in 
4th Ohio Rep., in which it was claimed that the char¬ 
ter of a town was a contract, by whicli the Legislature 
was bound, and over whose provisions it had no control. 
This was claimed upon the authority of the Dartmouth 
College case. The decision in that case settled the 
question to some extent. And third, all other corpo¬ 
rations which have for their object private gain, as 
well as public benefit, which are only known to the 
laws of the United States, and which are the peculiar 
care of the courts which, in their wisdom and benevo¬ 
lence, have kindly declared their charters contracts. 

These various corporations are measured by different 
rules of judicial construction, and justly so ; but to me 
it seems most singular, that gentlemen of wisdom, ex¬ 
perience, and learning, should attempt to bring them 
all within the protection of the rule of the Dartmouth 
case; aye, sir, and gentlemen who love liberty—the 
largest liberty, and ecpial rights—should attempt to 
cover these last named corporations by the Dartmouth 
rule, and thus manufacture chains, and fasten them up¬ 
on their own arms, and clasp them to theirown bosoms. 

Upon this point, then, Mr. President, rests my argu¬ 
ment. I say that the power to create acts of incorpo¬ 
ration for any purpose not provided for in the constitu¬ 
tion of the State, is not granted to the Legislature, and 
that all charters granted for any other purpose than 
those provided, are void. Remember, sir, I do not say 
the Legislature should immediately proceed to sweep, 
by repeal, every such act from the statute book, nor 
that the couHs should at once declare them totally void. 
But I do assert, fully, roundly, and distinctly, they pos¬ 
sess the power to do so, and in so doing, the question 
of property is not legitimately raised. 

There is one ground upon which it may be claimed 
that the right to create chartered companies for the 
purposes of works of public improvements may be 
holden by the Legislatiu’e. It is this, that the Legisla¬ 
ture may create an agent to do acts which, of itself, 
it has a right to do. As for instance: the General 
Assembly may, by law, authorize the construction of a 
road, a bridge or canal, or other public improvement; 
and by the same power it may also establish an agen¬ 
cy, or company of individuals, who may exercise the 
right to construct such roads. But, as the Legislature 
may not construct a road without making an adequate 
compensation for all individual injury, so the compa^ 
ny, while it receives tolls, may not be exhonerated 
from all such liabilities as would, in like cases, attacU 
to individuals or the State. Doubtless the Legislature 
does, in this manner, possess power to associate wealth 
and vest that association with va,riou8 franchises, al¬ 
ways subject, however, to the liabilities of individuals; 
always amenable to the general laws of the State. 

I do i.ot deem it necessary to pursue the subject fur¬ 
ther, and discuss the measure of compensation, which 
has so largely entered into the arguments of those who 
have preceded me, but will close my remarks by say¬ 
ing that I do not, and never have, appreciated corpora¬ 
tions as highly as some gentlemen; I have never 
thought them worth thanking God for, or blessings m 
any guise, but believe their existence to be most perni¬ 
cious, and derogatory to public and private morals. _ 

Mr. SAWYER. It is very evident that we are divi- 
din^^ materially upon this matter of repeal, but I hope 
stilf that we shall be able to carry out something that 
will satisfy all parties. As the question now stands, 
it is very uncertain which side will gain it. Some of 
us are iii favor of an unconditional repeal to be placed 












922 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


in the hands of the Legislature; and others are op¬ 
posed to it, in toto. As for the latter part of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Butler, 
[Mr. Vance,] for my part, I never will go for that. 
However, if it should be engrafted into the constitu¬ 
tion, I will not say that I will not then go for it, be¬ 
cause the constitution may contain some reforms that 
will overbalance the objection. But I look upon the 
latter part of this proviso as pernicious in the extreme; 
and I never could vote for it directly, without sacrifi¬ 
cing a principle which I hold most sacred. If the Con¬ 
vention will strike out from the proviso all after the 
word “ State,” I am willing to offer a clause to be in¬ 
serted in lieu of these words, which I will now read 
for information: 

Upon such just and equitable terms as may be provided by 
law. 

Mr. S. observed that he was willing to offer this as a 
compromise, which all could vote for without a sacri¬ 
fice of principle. A number of radical gentlemen, of 
all parties, to whom he had submitted this proposition, 
had told him they would vote for it. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby. Before the question is 
taken I wish to say a few words. I have regarded it 
as a question which, from its intrinsic importance, de¬ 
served an elaborate consideration and discussion. But 
at this period of the session, and after so much time oc¬ 
cupied by this question, I will not detain the Conven¬ 
tion but a few minutes ; and I suppose it would be but 
a mere work of supererogation for me to attempt to 
say anything by way of argument. I will be content, 
therefore, with claiming the privilege of merely defi¬ 
ning my position. 

I regret exceedingly, that, on account of a variety of 
circumstances, some of the members of this Convention 
have been placed in a false position before the public ; 
and I regret the feeling which has been manifested in 
consequence of misapprehensions growing out of that 
state of things. 

I voted the other day against the naked proposition, 
which proposed to grant to the Legislature the power 
to repeal all charters heretofore or hereafler granted. 

I did so from considerations, which, at the time, fully 
satisfied my mind. I did not, however, vote the way 
I did from any feeling of opposition to the doctrine 
contained in the clause proposed to be inserted. On 
the contray, it has been for a number of years, (indeed 
I know not how long,) my firm and settled conviction 
that the Legislature does now possess, and always has 
possessed, to the fullest extent, the power to repeal char¬ 
ters which have been granted by any previous Legis¬ 
lature. 7'here may be some question, and there has 
been some doubt upon my own mind, to what extent 
the Legislature is bound by the constitution of the Uni¬ 
ted States. But, saving that, I presume that, by vir¬ 
tue of the right of eminent domain, and the provision 
in our present constitution, that all private property 
may be taken for public use when necessary, the Leg¬ 
islature has the power and right to act by way of re¬ 
peal, in every case where it may be necessary for the 
public welfai'e 

But whilst I thus advocate this doctrine in its broad¬ 
est extent, I am free to admit, that it always was my 
settled conviction that the exercise of this power 
must be in accoi*dance with the principles of equity 
and justice, which we are endeavoring to guard and 
perpetuate in the instrument which we are about to 
frame. And it was partly for the want of an acknowl¬ 
edgment of those principles that I voted the other 
day against the proposition to which I have referred— 
thereby placing myself, in the estimation of my friend?, 
in a position different from that which I have always 
occupied, and, as I trust, ever shall occupy, with refer 
ence to the party to which I belong and the question 
at issue. 

From the imperfect opportunity which I have had 
of attending upon the debates which have taken place 
upon this subject—having been absent part of the time 


on account of indisposition—I had not, perhaps, consid¬ 
ered the question, as fully as its importance demands. 
But, believing that the Legislature already possessed 
this power of repeal, I did not suppose that an ac¬ 
knowledgment, or declaration of that power was nec¬ 
essary in the new constitution. It should be recollect¬ 
ed that we are considering the power of repeal as to 
pre-existing charters. I presume there is no diversity 
of opinion among themembers,at least those on the dem¬ 
ocratic side of this hall, in regard to the insertion of such 
a clause in the constitution as to aU acts of incorpora¬ 
tion or charters which may be hereafter granted. 
Such a provision being inserted will govern all cases of 
the kind, and remove any doubts which may have ex¬ 
isted on the subject. But so far as relates to charters 
already existing, I have not thought it a matter of much 
importance whether such a provision is in the constitu¬ 
tion wo are now framing, or not, believing that, as 
heretofore stated, the Legislature already possess am¬ 
ple power on the subject; and I doubt very much 
whether this Convention can confer on the Legislature 
any power over pre-existing charters which that body 
does not already possess. 

If it is thought best however, to insert in the con¬ 
stitution, a clause declaring that the Legislature shall 
have power to repeal charters heretofore granted, I 
am perfectly willing, and will vote for it, but desire 
that it shall carry with it, a provision to protect the 
rights and property of those w’ho may be affected by 
the exercise of this power of repeal. I am now speak¬ 
ing of cases in which the Legislature may (the pub¬ 
lic good requiring it) repeal the charter of a compa¬ 
ny or association, without any fault having been 
committed by the company or association. In cases 
where the company violates its charter, we have al¬ 
ready ample provision in our Statutes lor taking away 
their franchises, by a proceeding in our courts of jus¬ 
tice. 

But if, without a violation of their charter, the pub¬ 
lic good should require the repeal of any act of incor¬ 
poration, and the Legislature should exercise the pow¬ 
er I conceive they have in the premises, and repeal it, 
they should be required by constitutional provision to 
do ample justice to all who may be affected by this ap¬ 
propriation of private property to public use. 

We have been ver}^ careful to provide constitutional 
guards for individuals when their private property 
shall be taken for public use, and is there any reason 
why the property and rights of individual corporators 
should not in like manner be ])rotected? I think not. 

I think if the members of a plank road company, of a 
turnpike company, railroad company, or any other 
company, have in good faith expended their money or 
property in the legitimate purposes and objects of the 
incorporation, and the public good requires a repeal of 
their charter, thus destroying their existence as an in¬ 
corporation and rendering valueless all their expendi¬ 
tures, in all conscience the Legislature should be re¬ 
quired to provide them a just compensation in money. 

It has been asked here, why not trust the Legislature ? 
why not leave the matter to their sense of justice ? 
they will do rigli*^, &c. I would reply by asking, why 
not trust the Legislature in all cases ? 

I go for protecting all—no matter whether individu¬ 
als or individual corporators. “ Equal and exact justice 
to all, exclusive privileges to none.” 

I will say now, in conclusion, that I am not altogeth¬ 
er satisfied with the amendment of my friend from 
Butler, [Mr. Vance.] I prefer the proposition of the 
gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer;] and I hope 
the^ proposition may yet be so shaped as to be satis¬ 
factory to all of us who believe in the doctrine of re¬ 
peal. 

I repeat, Mr. President, that 1 regret very much that 
misconceptions should have arisen in regard to the pre¬ 
vious votings upon this question. 

I have thus briefly given my views upon this subject, 
and I am satisfied there is no substantial difference be- 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 923 


tween nie and the party having a majority on this Hoor 
—that party with vvliom it has ever been niy pride and 
my pleasure to act, and with which I have ever been 
identified. If there be difi’erences, in matter of detail, 
with mysc'lf or others on this side, I sincerely trust 
they may all be reconciled, and that we shall all be 
found casting our votes for the same important prin- 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga. It is not my pur¬ 
pose to detain the Convention long with remarks upon 
this question. My object is, for a moment or two, to 
allude to what I suppose to be the real difterence be¬ 
tween us, and to inquire into the practical object to be 
gained by continuing this controversy, or by adopting 
the proposition which is urged upon us through a re¬ 
consideration of the vote of Friday last. 

Sir, the real dispute is not whether this right of re¬ 
peal shall be recognized, with reference to future cor¬ 
porations, as contemplated in the amendment of the 
gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. SAWYER,j for I do not 
understand that gentleman as offering his amendment 
with any idea that it is to have any effect upon exist¬ 
ing corpori.tions. I understand him to regaid that 
branch of the question to be entirely waived in his 
amendment. But the question we have before us to¬ 
day, and that under consideration on Saturday last, 
was the question of the exercise of the power of repeal 
with I'eference to the charters of existing corporations. 

Now, how is that question sustained, and what is the 
issue between us ? 

A portion of the members upon this ffoor, who are 
undoubtedly sincere, advocate the proposition, that the 
Legislature have, independently of any authority which 
might be given by this body, the right of repeal, abso 
lutely and unqualifiedly. The gentleman from Shelby 
[Mr. Thompson,] whohas just now so clearly expressrd 
himself, took that ground, if I understood him correct- 

There is another portion of this Convention, who be¬ 
lieve that it is futile to carry up this question again to 
the Supreme Court of the United States, since that 
Court and all the other courts in the Union have decided 
it repeatedly for a series of years past, so that there can 
be no possible question as to what would be the result 
there. It occurs also to this portion of the body, that, 
since we have sworn to support the constitution of the 
United States, if we should put into the constitution 
which we are to frame, a provision conflicting with the 
constitution of the United States, we shall be bound to 
opjiose the new constitution, so long as we act official¬ 
ly- , . . 

Now, why 18 It that gentlemen who advocate this 
unqualified power of repeal, will undertake to urge 
their proposition upon those who oppose it with the 
belief, that, if it is adopted they will be bound by their 
oath to oppose the new constitution? What is to be 
gained by such a course? Have they no confidence in 
the power of their own principles ? 

The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney,] told 
us the other day, that when we come to the protection 
of the rights of corporations, we dare not trust the 
Legislature—we had no confidence in that body ! Sir, 
I hurl back the charge upon that gentleman. The 
charge does not attach to our side, but to you. You 
have no confidence in the Legislature. You will not 
trust it to exercise the powers belonging to it. And 
not only have you no confidence in the Legislature, 
but you have no confidence in your own principles, 
when you say the power of unqualified repeal has 
always existed, and yet insist upon inserting it here, 
when you admit that could have no effect. Nor have 
you any confidence in the people, that they will judge 
correctly in the selection of their agents and represen¬ 
tatives to administer the powers of Government. 

What is the object of the re-consideration proj) 08 ed? 
It is to engraft into the constitution a declaration of the 
right of unconditional repeal, with respect to all acts of 
incorporation. But the gentleman from Trumbull has 
always maintained that right to exist. 


If he is correct, no action of ours is necessary to con¬ 
fer it. If he is wrong, we cannot confer the power. 
Our affirmation of it, is entirely inefficient. We might 
as well bid the Ohio no longer to pay tribute to the 
Mississippi, as to attempt it. 

Where, then is your {)rinciple, which you stand up 
here to maintain ? Does the gentleman from Trumbull 
himself, really believe what he solemnly affirms ? I 
have no doubt of his sincerity. But how does he show 
his confidence in his principle? For, if the principle 
be correct, he must know that it would be a mere 
work of supererogation to make such a declaration in 
the constitution. 

But he has confidence in the Legislature! And yet 
he is not willing to trust to them to carry out his own 
democratic principles. He says, in effect, you cannot 
get representatives of independence enough to act out 
their principles, unless you stimulate their moral cour¬ 
age by a declaration of this Convention. Has he 
confidence in the Legislature ? He is bound to doubt 
them, unless the Convention back them up. Has he 
any confidence in the people? Then, why cannot he 
trust them to select representatives and judges, of in¬ 
dependence enough to act justly, without being in¬ 
structed by this Convention, which can add nothing to 
their powers? 

It seems to me that this is going back again to the 
old theory, that all the wisdom in the wide world is 
concentrated in this body; and that nothing will be 
done by the Legislature which we do not sanction and 
direct. I can see no other object than a mere useless 
declaration of principle, if gentlemen are sincere. 

I wish to be understood upon this point distinctly. 
The proposition is to engraft into the constitution the 
unqualified, unlimited right of repealing existing char¬ 
ters. But it is admitted that the decision of the Con¬ 
vention upon this question confers no power upon the 
Legislature which does not now exist. Where, then, 
is the necessity for making the proposed declaration? 
If you believe that the Legislature will do their duty, 
>why not trust them ? If you have confidence that the 
people will elect Representatives of suitable intelli¬ 
gence and independence, why not trust them ? Or, if 
if you believe that the people can elect a judiciary ca¬ 
pable of an intelligent and faithful execution of your 
law relative to quo warranto, why not trust them ? Will 
you say that it is necessary that tins'principle should 
have the sanction of this Convention, in order to make 
them do their duty ? 

In relation to future corporations, with the gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton, who addressed the Convention 
this morning, I have no doubt that it is the intention 
of the Convention to declare the power of legislative 
repeal. This principle will, no doubt, become a part 
of every charter hereafter to be granted, so as to fix 
the right of repeal beyond all question. Whether we 
shall agree as to the manner in which this power is to 
be conferred, I know not. So far as I am concerned, I 
believe it ought generally to exist, but the point of dif¬ 
ficulty is not in asserting the power, but in determi¬ 
ning the manners and condition of its exercise. 

But the question now is, shall we do an act which 
confers no power, lor no other reason than to declare a 
principle, in order to encourage the people and their 
representatives hereafter to do what they have the 
power to do without our sanction. I or one I am wil¬ 
ling to trust the people to elect men who will carry 
out correct principles. 

But I ask again, what is to be gained by the course 
proposed. I believe I have represented the position 
of members truly. It seems to me then, that when 
you put into the constitution a principle which con¬ 
flicts with the construction of the constitution of the 
United States, as interpreted by the highest judicial 
tribunal in the countiy, and one which was establish¬ 
ed for the very purpose of settling these questions— a 
provision which directly conflicts with the opinion of 
such men as Marshall, Tracy, Daniels and Woodbury, 









924 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


who have each of them declared that these charters are 
not subject to repeal—you necessarily raise opposition 
to your constitution. Every man, of course, must have 
his own views of duty. I have mine ; and, as at present 
advised, I must say that the oath wdiich you required 
me to take at the commencement of the session will 
compel me to oppose it, if this clause be put into it. 
Others will undoubtedly pursue the same course—and 
the only practical result which I can see that is likely 
to arise from putting in this clause, is that about one 
half, or a little more than one half of the members up¬ 
on this floor, must feel more or less constrained by a 
regard for their oath, to oppose the new constitution. 
And I have heard it whispered, (though I do not be¬ 
lieve it,) that that was the object—to force us to take 
antagonistic ground. But if this is true, let gentlemen 
say so. We will not desert our post. You may make 
your constitution just as you please to make it. Ap¬ 
point your committee and let them do it. It wdll not 
take more than three or four days. And then when 
you shall come in with your constitution, it will be 
known that we must oppose it, because of your amend¬ 
ments, which we cannot endorse. 

It seems to me that the only practical result of the 
course proposed, is to create opposition to the consti¬ 
tution ; while I confess that I do not believe that any 
gentlemen on the other side of the chamber entertain 
anything like such a design. But may we not ask that 
we be not forced to take a hostile position ? May we 
not rather hope that something like the proposition of 
the gentleman from Auglaize, applicable only to fu¬ 
ture acts of incorporation, will be adopted, and that 
gentleman will consent at once to let alone this bone 
of contention ? 

I submit to the Convention, that here is a considera¬ 
tion that ought to be well weighed by all, namely: 
that there can be no practical result following from the 
introduction of this principle, beyond that of arraying 
a large portion of the Convention and of the people 
against the constitution. I do not say that I will do 
anything toward defeating it myself; but with this prin¬ 
ciple in it, I cannot, with my present views oflduty, 
support it. 

I have not been disposed to go into any of the rea¬ 
sons governing my opinion, on the subject of the re- 
pealability of existing charters. This subject has been 
well discussed by others. 1 only intended to present a 
few practical views upon the question of striking out. 

From the beginning of this discussion to this mo¬ 
ment, I have not been able to keep out of my mind the 
inquiry as to what good can come of it. 1 should re¬ 
gret exceedingly to find myself forced into an attitude 
of hostility. 1 should be very sorry not to support this 
constitution. I have labored for the calling of this 
Convention for fifteen years. I have labored for this 
object, when democrats and whigs have opposed it, 
because I thought that the old constitution required 
some reforms. I have sometimes found the pro])osition 
supported by a large number of whigs, and sometimes 
by a large number of democrats; though, at present, 
I suppose it should be called a demociatic measure. 
But I should be very sorry now, at the last, to be con¬ 
strained to rank myself with the opposition. And 1 
do again most respectfully ask that we may not becon- 
strained to oppose this constitution, on account of a 
proposition which you yourselves admit to be power¬ 
less. If it is necessary that the people of the future 
age should have the sanction of your opinion, why, just 
get together in a political meeting and pass a resolution 
in proper form ; but let it have no connection with the 
constitution. .. 

As at present advised, I shall vote for the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Butler; and if that is de¬ 
feated, it will remain for me to determine wh^t course 
I shall then take. I cannot vote for the principle of 
the unqualified repealability of charters. I cannot vote 
for the constitution, with such a clause in it; and I do 
not believe that a majority of the people would sup¬ 
port it. 


Mr. REEMELIN. For the life of me I cannot com-) 
prehend the consistency of the position of the geutle-i 
man from Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitchcock.] I may havel 
misunderstood him, but I understood him to adrnit the) 
right of repeal whenever the public good requires it.l 

Mr. FllTCHCOCK. The gentleman misconceives 
me; what 1 said was, that the gentleman and his 
friends claimed that the right of lepeal existed any 
how, whether asserted in the constitution or not; and f 
I asked what was to be gained by its assertion in the | 
organic law. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Ah, is that it? Worse, even i 
than I expected. The gentleman tells us, in so many 
words, that we claim the right of repeal to exist, even 
without a constitutional provision. And therefore, he 
says, there is no reason for its assertion in the constitu¬ 
tion. I will test the gentleman’s sincerity. What will 
you do in case we fail to assert it, and still exercise thei 
right of repeal ? The gentleman is silent. 1 can tell 
you, if he will not. He would argue, as the attorney 
of a corporation, that, the right of appeal not haying 
been asserted in the constitution, it was a part of the 
contract between the corporation and the State, that it 
should not be repealed. It is thus'that the democratic j 
party has been treated in the legislative halls. When : 
they had a majority, the whigs would meet them with 
sophism, “you need not insert the right of repeal be- i 
cause it is inherent in the Legislature.” But in case 
the democrats met the attorneys of corporations in j 
courts, or in legislative halls—for what are they but|l 
attorneys for corporations—then they would be told, 1 
“ you failed to assert the right at the time the charter ] 
was granted—the words are not in the bond, and there- i 1 
fore, you are debarred from the right to repeal.” The 
gentleman may exclaim cui hono, or in his Yankee trans- ■ 
lalion, “ what is to be gained V' I answer him, that a : 
great deal is to be gained always by the assertion of a j 
conect principle; and especially in this instance is | 
there a great deal to be gained for the people and their 
rights, by guarding, and avoiding, if possible, the mis- j 
construction of courts upon this section. That is what 
1 desire. Courts have decided corporations to be con¬ 
tracts, and therefore irrepcalable by the party that ^ 
granted the contract. I wish to meet such decisions of 
the courts, by a frank and unequivocal avowal that we 
hold those decisions to be wrong, that our language in 
this 35th section, shall not be misconstrued, that 
charters are not contracts, and that they are repeal- 
able. 

From this course the opposite side are endeavoring 
to frighten us, by heralding through these halls the 
ghost of Chief Justice Marshall. Decision upon de¬ 
cision is quoted to us to frighten us from a fearless dis¬ 
charge of our duties. But I, for one, may be pennitted 
to say that all attempts of that kind pass by me like the 
idle wind ; that I, for one, have been in battles of that 
kind before, and that no such mock artillery can fright¬ 
en me. No high-sounding phrase can deter me from 
my duty. Sir, we have sworn here to support the 
constitution of the United States—not as Chief Justice 
Marshall understands it, but, to use the language of 
Gen. Jackson—“ as'‘we understand it.” I was aston¬ 
ished the other day when the gentleman fiom Belmont 
[Mr. Kknnon] prided himself upon the efficient sup¬ 
port he had rendered to Gen. Jackson’s administration, 
to find him now quoting the decisions of that same Su¬ 
preme Court against whose decisions Gen. Jackson 
and the Democracy fought, and conquered, after a pro¬ 
tracted struggle. I was astonished ‘o find that gentle¬ 
man, [Mr. K.] with w’hose assistance w'e had made the 
decision of the constitutionality of a U. S. Bank an ob¬ 
solete idea, now quoting that same Supreme Court to 
frighten us from an assertion of an honest principle, in 
spite of its decisions. In the contest between Gen. 
Jackson and the United States Bank nothing was often- • 
er urged against that illustrious hero than the fact that 
he wms endeavoring to set his will against the decisions 
of the Supreme Court of the United States. “ The con- 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


925 


stitutioii, as I unclerstaud it,” was a by-word and a re¬ 
proach in the mouths of whig 8tumj)ers, and in the col¬ 
umns of wing newspapers. But the Democracy, under 
the lead of Gen. Jackson, laughed all such attacks to 
scorn. We hav(‘ rendered the decision of the constitu 
tionality ol a United State Bank an obsolete idea, and 
80 will we, on the question now in debate, ultimately 
conquer, d we only adhere, undismayed, to an honest 
principle. 

Sir, to use a figure of speech employed by John Van 
Buren, in one of his great speeches in New York, let 
me say that, although weighed down by the personal 
influeuceof the gentleman from'Belmont, [Mr. Kknnon] 
—sought to be intimidated by the potent infiuence of 
the Supreme Court—although we may be forsaken by 
some of our friends, I have confidence in the future; 
for I see a spirit of liberty w'alking upon the waters, 
beckoning to the honest democracy, ” be not afraid, it 
is I.” [Applause.] 

I am sorry to have digressed, in following the devi¬ 
ous course of those who have preceded me, even thus 
far from the question. 

I will look at the distinct question now in debate. 
The proposition that the State, on the exercise of the 
right of repeal, shall pay for the property held by the 
corporation at the time of repeal. The views of gen¬ 
tlemen framing this proposition, are various. Some 
contend that the franchise is property, and when they 
talk of paying for property, they mean that the State 
shall not only pay for the tangible property on hand, 
but also for the value of the franchise. Others, again, 
contend that a franchise is not property, and that, in 
voting for the proposition, they mean only to pay for 
such tangible property as* may be found in the hands 
of the corporation at the date of the repeal of its char¬ 
ter. For the purpose of understandiug each other ful 
ly, I will take it for granted that my colleague, [Mr. 
Groesbeck,] holds the first position, at least it I under¬ 
stand correctly his allegory of “ the brandy and water,” 
which he exhibited to us this morning. 

Mr. GROESBECK. My colleague misunderstands 
me eniirely. 

Mr. REEMELTN. I am trying to get at the spirit, 
although I acknowledge, there was but little spirit in 
the application. [Laughter.] But lest we misunder¬ 
stand each other, let us take a case in point: take, for 
instance, the turnpike running from Cincinnati to the 
town of Harrison. In this turnpike, the State has 
$86,000, and the individual stockholders the same 
amount. By what rule would my colleague measure 
the compensaiion to be made to that company, in case 
of a repeal of its charter ? Would he value the stone 
upon the road, and the toll-houses, or would he include 
the franchise ? 

Mr. GROESBECK. I would send out a jury to value 
it altogether. 

Mr. REEMELTN. And who should pay the value 
thus ascertained? My colleague is silent: let the pro¬ 
position speak for itself. It means that the State should 
pay for it; and I ask my friend from Monroe, whether 
he is willing to tax his constituents for repealing a turn¬ 
pike charter in Hamilton county, for the sole benefit ol 
Hamilton county? 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. I will answer the gentleman 
when he is through. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Or take another instance. There 
is in this city a gas company, which enjoys the exclu¬ 
sive privilege of laying gas-pipes, and of retailing gas 
to the people and to the city ; according to its chart<u* 
no other person can sell gas here besides that compa¬ 
ny, and in consequence of this privilege its slock is 
something like fifty per cent above par. I ask my col¬ 
league what he w<mld do in case that charier was re¬ 
pealed ? would he again send out the jury, or would 
he pay them the fifiy per cent above [)ar? That char¬ 
ter is granted for carrying on a legal business, and un 
der the construction given by my colleague this morn¬ 
ing, is a legal charter. That company has not violated 


u single provision of its charter, and I again ask him, 
[Mr. G.] wmuld he, to use his own language, “make 
the parties whole ?” 

Mr. GROESBECK. I have not examined that char¬ 
ter, but I understand it to be the opinion of eminent 
legal gentlemen of this city', that their charter is not 
a binding contract. At any rate, I would not pay the 
premium ; I would leave them the property and per¬ 
mit them to pursue their business without a charter. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I thought, Mr. President, that 
when it came to the point, gentlemen would back 
square out of their propositions. I ask my colleague, 
is that “ making men whole ?” 

The exclusive right to lay pipes in the streets, which 
is granted to that company for a series of years, by the 
terms of their charter, makes their stock as valuable as 
it is. Repeal their act of incorporation and their stock, 
which is worth $150 to-day, will be worth but $.50 the 
moment you bring that company in fair competition 
with other gas manufactories. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. I ask whether the gentleman 
from Hamilton is willing to pay the full value of the 
stock—that is, will he pay the ten or fifty per cent, 
above par? 

Mr. REEMELIN. The gentleman from Ross is a 
clear-headed man, and withal, consistent upon this 
question, and I have no doubt he would pay the full 
amount. 

Mr. GREEN. But we want to know what the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton would do? 

Mr. REEMELIN. I answer, that if I believed in 
your principle I would pay for the last cent of value; 
I would not only pay the men for the tangible proper¬ 
ly taken, but I would pay the Harrison turnpike corn- 
pay, which I have memtioned, the thirty-six thousand 
dollars additional, and I would pay the gas company 
fifty per cent, above par on their slock. That is what 
I call “ making men whole.” 

But, sir, I desire to call the attention of my friend 
from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] who distinctly an¬ 
nounced, the other day, that he would vote for the 
proposition under consideration, (that of Mr. Vance, of 
Butler,) to the admitted results that I have just drawn 
out from gentlemen all over the Hall. 1 call to his 
mind his able report relative to the Toledo Plankroad 
Company, made in the Senate of Ohio in the session of 
1848, in which he distinctly opposed the connection of 
any stipulation with the affirmance of the right of re¬ 
peal, such as is contained in the proposition now in de¬ 
bate. Will he now unsay what he then said ? Will 
he now say that the State Treasury should, by repeal¬ 
ing, buy up turnpikes, plankroads, railroads and gas 
companies ; has he, I ask, in view of that report where¬ 
in he so clearly defined the taxing power—is he now 
ready to tax his constituents for purposes such as these? 
The bare possibility of such a thing happening in the 
case of the plankroad company referred to, then arous¬ 
ed all his energies, all his opposition, though the whole 
amount that could have been clamed in that case (of 
the Toledo plankroad) would have been one hundred 
thousand dollars. Really, sir, I cannot see how the 
gentleman from Monroe can be found in league with a 
proposition whose results you can only estimate by 
millions! 

Every unproductive railroad, ev'ery unprofitable 
turnpike, will be thrown upon the State, and the 
“ plunder law,” so manfully and so successfully warred 
upon by the gen'.leman from Monroe, will be revived 
in its w'orst form. Yea, sir, I see plainly that it will 
lead to the assumption of the debts of cities, of coun¬ 
ties, and of townships, by the State. The section of 
this constitution prohibiting any further creation of a 
State debt, will at once be overleaped by the provis¬ 
ion now under consideration, and we will not only suf¬ 
fer from the granting of charters, but we will suffer far 
worse by their repeal! 

I look upon the proposition before me, as explained 
by its friends, as nothing move nor less than a premium 
upon that policy that robs the people of its rights. 










926 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


But I perceive that my friend from Butler [Mr. 
Vance,] is becoming impatient, for lie has repeatedly 
said to me, during llie few remarks I have just made, 
that such is not the inter[>retation of his amendment. 

I listened, the other day, very attentively to that 
gentleman’s speech, and I have, with equal care, ex¬ 
amined his amendment. I lind that while the language 
of his amendment and its obvious intent look only to 
remuneration for tangible property, such as individuals 
own, still there is a squinting towards recognizing the 
franchise as property and paying for the value of that 
franchise. For instance, in the case of a bridge com¬ 
pany, my friend would certainly not insist that to pay 
it for the lumber and stone abutments would be such a 
remuneration as he should consider just, in case of a 
repeal of the charter of that company. 1 look upon 
his position, therefore, as being involved in some doubt; 
but he will certainly admit that the friends of his pro¬ 
position have almost unanimously given it the construc¬ 
tion upon which I have animadverted. Take, howev¬ 
er, the strictest construction of the proposiiion of my 
friend from Butler, and how will the matter stand ? 
Take, ibr instance, the repeal of the charier of the Har¬ 
rison Turnpike Company : you repeal it; your propo¬ 
sition provides that the value of its property shall be 
assessed by a jury and paid for. The property of that 
turnpike company, excluding its franchise, would not 
be valued at twenty thousand dollars—still its true 
value is something like one hundred and seventy thou¬ 
sand dollars. Such would be the result with that com 
pany, if only the tangible property was taken into con¬ 
sideration. 

Again, take the Gas Company of Cincinnati, to which 
I have already alluded. You simply repeal it, leaving 
them as private business men to dispose of their gas as 
best they may, taking away the exclusiveness ol their 
privileges ; you leave them their whole establishment 
—their gas pipes and their gas fixtures and all the ap¬ 
paratus connected therewith; you take no property— 
what would be the amount of compensation to be 
awarded in that case under a strict construction of the 
amendment of the gentleman from Butler, [ Mr. 
Vance 7] All you took was the franchise—that you 
would not value—still it is valuable, and by taking that 
franchise you would render men who are worth to-day 
perhaps a hundred thousand dollars, worth but ten 
thousand dollars to-morrow! You have taken value; 
to be sure it is but constructive value, still it was taken 
by you, and would not be paid if the strict construc¬ 
tion of the amendment last made should prevail. The 
result would be the same when applied to railroads, 
and, when applied to other corporations, would be still 
more disastrous. 

I say, therefore, that the amendment, as construed by 
far the largest portion of his friends, is unsafe for the 
State, and if construed strictly—not construing the 
franchise as property—then your amendment is unsafe 
for the corporations. In either Case good policy dic¬ 
tates to every delegate in this Convention, that he 
should vote against it. 

In addition, permit me to say, that I still adhere to 
the point, that 1 made a few days ago—you cannot 
adopt a qualifying, iron rule with regard to the right of 
repeal, which will not in many instances prove dis¬ 
astrously unjust, either to the State or to the corpora¬ 
tion. The objects, the interests, the different pursuits, 
the mode of conducting, as well as the localities of our 
corporations, are so various that no one rule can apply 
to all. The rule as to property which you [turning to 
Mr. Vance,] have offerred with reference to property, 
would undoubtedly work well with reference to a 
church corporation, for there, surely, the property 
should either vest in the individual corporators, or, if 
taken, be paid for at its full value by the State. In 
other instances, if you would refuse to pay for the 
franchise, you would commit gross injustice upon the 
corporation, as, for instance, in the case of turnpike, 
railroad and bridge companies, who had not violated 


their charters, but had clearly fulfilled the purposes for 
which they were created. 

Again, as in the case of the Sandusky Turnpike Com¬ 
pany, the bank of Gallipolis, the Ohio Railroad Com¬ 
pany, or other corporations, that have used their pow¬ 
ers, for mischief only, I would repeal them without 
making tliem one cent of compensation either for prop¬ 
erty or franchises. The General Assembly must m 
each case furnish the special rule. The right of repeal 
will be but seldom, and must be carefully exercised, 
and whether the General Assembly be acting against a 
fraudulent corporation, or one of a different character, 
all the rule that we should adopt, is that the right of 
repeal should be exercised upon just and equitable 
terms in each particular case. 

Mr. President, a few words in reference to another 
matter. I cannot permit the occasion to pass without 
replying to the little episode made this morning by the 
gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery.] Aud i 
wish the few remarks I shall make, to apply also, to 
the gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Case.] The gentle¬ 
man from Franklin stept out of his way this morning, 
and followed me, in his remarks, to my hotel. I hope 
you will not take it unkindly, if I follow him to the 
same place, for I find that he was there (at the Burnet 
House,) the other evening. I read this morning the 
little speech he made at the “ Booktrade supper.” In 
that speech he called the membere of this Convention, 

Book makers,” and for the purpose, as I suppose, of 
proving his identity with the other members of this 
body, he turned book-maker this morning and helped 
us to make a few pages. (Laughter.) 

Now, all I ask the gentleman, is, how will he feel, if 
hereafter one of his little boys, in searching for the ev¬ 
idences of his father’s eminence, should happen to 
stumble upon the part of the book, which he made this 
morning, and which refers to the hotel at which I board? 
Would he not feel as if his boy spoke right and true, if 
he should, book in hand, looking slyly up at his tall 
daddy, say: “Papa, you was a demagogue, then.” 
(Laughter ) I ask the gentleman [Mr. Stanbert,] 
whether he will hereafter look with any sort of pride 
upon that kind of “book-making,” and whether he will 
say, when he hands our “book” to his children, 

“ I leave you here a little book. 

For you to look upon; 

That you may see your father’s face, 

When he is dead and gone.” {Renewed Laughter.) 

But, seriously, I ask whether this kind of book-mak¬ 
ing, is not beneath the dignity, even, of the gentleman 
from Franklin ? What has my hotel to do with the 
question before us 7 What have its marble walls, its 
mirrors, its ottomans, its good beef, or its brandy, to do 
with the argument 7 

Sir, 1 thought when I listened to the gentleman, that 
he was personifying before us, poor Ogle, of Pennsyl¬ 
vania, whose close inquiries into the furnitu re of the 
White House, have given him an u^ienviable reputation. 
It reminds me of a remark of Senator Allen, that “ of 
all demagogues, the whig demagogues sunk the lowest 
and w'ere most vindictive.” 

Mr. KENNON. The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Reemelin,] has taken the liberty of alluding to me— 
to my principles, and my motives—or rather the influ¬ 
ences which he sees—or thinks he sees—operating up¬ 
on my mind. I have been denounced as the exemplar 
of the “ stand-still policy.” 

Now, sir, I do not afi’ect to be entirely indifferent to 
the denunciations which, in the course of this argu¬ 
ment, have been thickly showered upon those mem¬ 
bers who are not prepared to vote for the unqualified 
right of repeal; the repeal of all charters—those now 
existing, as well as those hereafter granted. I would 
rather they should not have been made. 

It has been remarked that if, before the election for 
delegates to this Convention, I had declared that I 
should be controlled or influenced even by the deci¬ 
sions of Judge Marshall, and of the Supreme Court of 
the United States against the doctrine of the repeala- 


















CONVENTION REPORTS. 927 


bility of charters, and for the doctrine that a charter is 
a contract, I could not have been elected to a seat in 
this Convention. This forces me to make a single re¬ 
mark with regard to my election. I was not a candi¬ 
date for nomination, did not desire it, and never even 
accepted the nomination. But, without my knowledge, 

1 was taken up and nominated—without opposition, I 
believe—and elected without any agency of mine in 
the matter Irom first to last. 

But, sir, as to my adherence to the decisions ol 
Chief Justice Marshall, I am misrepresented. What 
I did say is this : The Supreme Court of the United 
States has repeatedly arnl uniformly decided that 
charters are “contracts,” within the meaning and 
terms of the federal constitution. That constitution 
declares that no State shall pass laws impairing the 
obligation of “contracts.” Therefore, I say this Con¬ 
vention can confer no unlimited power upon the Leg¬ 
islature unqualifiedly to repeal all “ contracts.” To 
adopt a provision purporting to conier such power, 
would, therefore, be to make an unconstitutional con¬ 
stitution, which I, for one, whether denounced on the 
one hand or flattered on the other, will have no hand 
in doing. 

I expressly declined making any expression of opin 
ion either for or against the doctrine asserted by Chief 
Justice Marshall, in the Dartmouth College case, and 1 
also declined approving or condemning the uniform de¬ 
cisions of the Supreme Court, that charters are “ con 
tracts.” I simply stated that that highest court had so 
decided, and I ventured the opinion that it would so 
decide lor fifty years to come. 

I also stated that in cases where corporations had in 
any way violated their charters, those charters were 
void, and would be so declared—not by the Legisla 
lure but by the courts. And I further said that the 
Legislature was the worst tribunal in the State for as¬ 
certaining and deciding facts. The judicial depart¬ 
ment is the proper tribunal. 

Allow me to remark to the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton, [Mr. Rekmelin, j who is so assidious in cracking 
his party whip, and so keen scented on the track of 
what he considers heterodox Democracy, that he may 
have been guilty of a breach of the party creed: for, 
if 1 am correctly informed, he reported a resolution to 
the Democratic State Convention, assembled in Colum¬ 
bus, on the 4th of July last, that the collection of all 
dues to the State should be made in gold and silver 
This may or may not have been the case, but if so, the 
gentleman did a very undemocratic thing, for, by a 
law, all collections are to be deposited in some bank. 
These banks would derive an immense benefit from re¬ 
ceiving deposits in gold and silver and paying out their 
paper money. 

Be this as it may, it is time that gentlemen learned 
that there are men on this side of the chamber who 
can neither be driven or frightened into measures that 
receive not the approbation of judgment and calm rea¬ 
son. 

Mr. REEMBLIN. A few words only, in reply. The 
gentleman, [Mr. KENNON,j is incorrect in reference to 
the 4th of July resolutions—they had no reference to 
the collection of the State revenues nor to their deposit 
anywhere—all they provided for was, that the members 
of the Board of Public Works should pay out, to the 
laborers of the State, gold and silver only. I neither 
introduced nor reported them, but I ajiprove them hear¬ 
tily, and voted for them in convention. I honored the 
man who did introduce them, for I trust it will ere long 
be the settle polidcy of the State. 

The gentleman has also misrepresented me as to my 
position in reference to the support of General Jack- 
son’s administration. What I said was, that the main 
opposition on the part of the whigs to that administra¬ 
tion was, that the President disregarded the decisions 
of the Supreme Court. I said that in this disregard the 
gentleman from Belmont firmly sustained the adminis¬ 
tration. 


Mr. KENNON. General Jackson never advocated 
the right of repeal. 

Mr. REEMBLIN. He di^ not propose to repeal the 
United States Bank, but he removed the “deposites,” 
which were in that bank, and for which, as the whigs 
claim, that bank had given a consideration. And I re¬ 
peat that it was in direct coiitravention of the known 
decisions of the Supreme Court, that General Jackson 
removed its deposites and vetoed die Bank of the Uni¬ 
ted States. What else did he veto it for, but upon the 
question of its unconstitutionality ? 

Mr. KENNON. General Jackson, in his message, 
.states that had he been asked he would have drafted a 
charter for a constitutional bank. 

< Mr. REEMBLIN. Has it indeed come to this, that 
the man who, in this Convention, prides himself on the 
friendship he enjoyed with General Jackson, can stand 
up here, and, in contradiction of a letter yet extant, 
and under the sign-manual of that illustrious hero, say 
that by that phrase in his veto message General Jack- 
son meant a bank ? I cannot suppose the gentleman 
ignorant of the fact, that General Jackson has flatly de¬ 
nied the charge, and I can but consider it a base slan¬ 
der on his memory. 

Mr. KENNON. General Jackson vetoed the United 
States Bank in the exercise of his constitutional right— 
therein I supported him. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD expressed assent, and said that the 
monster institution was to the last degree inexpedient. 

Mr. REEMBLIN. Oh! How fatal are all steps 
from the straight path of duty !! Here is a man, (look¬ 
ing towards Judge Kennon,) grown grey in the service 
of Democracy, whose brightest laurels were won in 
that great contest between a haughty supreme court 
and the honest President of the people. That same 
mail would now strip himself of all his laurels, for 
the purpose of avoiding the point in a question that 
tells fatally against the position to which he now feels 
committed. He would reduce the bright page of 
the history of General Jackson—and of his own, from 
a battle upon the constitutionality of the United 
States Bank into a mere fight upon a question of ex¬ 
pediency ! 

Sir, the gentleman may dofi” his plumes of his for 
mer contest, if they remind him of this which remem¬ 
bers now, only as a counterpart of his present position. 
But he shall not doff any of the laurels that encircle 
the brows of General Jackson. I repeat that the con 
test then was, whether the decision of the supreme 
court of the United States should be considered like 
the decrees of fate—immoveable and unchangeable 
Jackson held the position that the decrees of tha 
court should be obeyed while they existed, but re 
versed by the edict of the people as soon as possible 
He put his own honest construction of the constitu¬ 
tion against that of the supreme court, and sir, the peo¬ 
ple of the United States, including the gentleman from 
Belmont, shouted amen to his efforts. The gentleman 
from Belmont then refused to be cowed by the deci¬ 
sions of that court—he then assisted General Jackson, 
and he has no right to intimidate us by quoting th© 
decisions of that supreme court. Jackson and the 
people conquered then, and so will the people and the 
right of repeal conquer in this struggle, if we, their 
servants, will but inflexibly and undismayed, assert the 
doctrine. 

On motion by Mr. LIDEY, the Convention then 
adjourned. 


TUESDAY, January 7, 1851. 

9 O Cf-OCK, A. K. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Pl ayer by Rev. Mr. Presley. 

Mr. BATES presented a petition from George W. 
Matthews and one hundred and thirty-eight other citi¬ 
zens of Jefferson county, praying that a clause bo in¬ 
serted in the new constitution prohibiting the Legis 













928 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ature from pissing any law legalizing traffic in spirit¬ 
uous liquors. 

Mr. MORRIS presented a petition from Newton 
McMillen and twenty-nine other citizens of Clinton 
county, on the same subject. 

Mr. MORRIS presented a petition from Jeremiah T. 
Haughey and one hundred and twenty-four other citi¬ 
zens of Ohio, on the same subject. 

Mr. WAY presented a petition from Sarah Ogleby 
and twenty-three other females of Monroe county, on 
the same subject. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from John 
W. Cox and forty-three other citizens of Monroe coun¬ 
ty, on the same subject. 

The same gentlemen presented a petition from John 
Lars and forty-four other citizens of Monroe county, on 
the same subject. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON presented sundry petitions 
from Elizabeth Dray, Washington Simpson and one 
hundred and sixty-eight others, residents of Ross couij- 
ty, on the same subject. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Stark, presented a petition 
from Daniel Gotshall and sixty other citizens of Stark 
county, on the same subject. 

Mr. LAWRENCE presented a petition from William 
Douglass and ninety other citizens of Guernsey county, 
praying Ihst^ a clause be inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. CHANEY presented a petition from Joseph 
Baughman and twenty-one other citizens of Fairfield 
county, on the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. LEECH presented a petition from Charles Ar¬ 
mor and forty other citizens of Guernsey county, pray- 
ing that a clause be inserted in the new constitution 
prohibiting the General Assembly from creating any 
banking institutions, or authorizing in any manner the 
emission of paper promises or “ bills of credit” intend- 
ed to civculate as money. 

Refeiied to the committee on Banking and Currency. 

IV^. MORRIS presented eighteen petitions from T. 
A. Parris, and five hundred other citizens of Ohio, 
praying that the new constitution may embody a clause 
granting speedy justice to all persons. 

Referred to the standing committee on Miscellaneous 
Subjects and Propositions. 

Mr. HUMFREVILLE in accordance with previous 
notice, submitted the following: 

standing rule of this Convention be, 
and the same is hereby so amended, that a call of the previous 
question sustained, shall brin^ the Convention to an immediate 
^“der consideration, but shall extend 

On rnotion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
referred to the standing committee on Rules 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention again 
took up the report of committee on the Legislative De¬ 
partment, with the pending amendments. 

The question then being on Mr. Hakd’s motion to 
re-consider, ■ .'vi , , '■ 

On motion of Mr. GREEn! of Ross, the report and 
pending amendments were laid on the table. 

.1 moved to re-consider the vote by which 

the Convention refused to amend, section 35, of the re¬ 
port of the committee on the Legislative Department 
by striking out the word “ retro-active ” and insertin<- 
ill lieu of the same, the words “ ex post facto." ^ 

On motion of Mr. AKOHBOLD, the motion was laid 
on the table. 

On motion of the same gentleman, the Convention 
again took up the report of the committee on the Le^is- 
la ive Department, with the pending amendments. ° 

Ihe question then being on the motion of Mr. Hard 
to re-consider, 

Mr. AROHBOLD said that he had not intended fur- 
ther to debate this question, and should not have doi 


so, but for the argument made yesterday, by the 


le 


gen¬ 


tleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] in which had 
been brought up the duty of members of this body, as 
representatives of a constituency to which they were 
responsible. It was in vain to conceal that party spirit 
had been invoked in this body, as the means of car¬ 
rying forward plans, that otherwise could not be suc¬ 
cessful, and of establishing principles that otherwise 
could not prevail. 

Mr. A. jiroceeded to remark upon the great necessi¬ 
ty there was for the Democratic party, as represented 
in this Convention, to exercise a spirit of moderation 
and mutual forbearance. That party was not strong 
enough, either in the State, or in this chamber, to be 
able to denounce, as heretics and corrupt men, those 
Democrats who entertained views not entertained by 
the enemies of all public improvements by the people. 

The twidve (a number full of apostolic significance,) 
Democrats upon this floor, who would not vote to con¬ 
fer upon the Legislature unlimited authority to repeal 
all charters—present and prospective—would vote with 
their brethren, on the subject of currency—on almost 
every question, indeed—but they could not be driven 
into the support of measures, which did not command 
the approval of either their judgments or their con¬ 
sciences. But, if the majority undertook to carry their 
notions of African, of Turkish despotism, into this con¬ 
stitution, they, (Mr. A., and those whose opinions ac¬ 
corded with liis,) had no sympathy with the bantling, 
they disclaimed all pateimity. He should ploclaim 
against such a constitution, war! war!! war!!! If 
they were forced into this conflict, in defence of the 
rights and interests of the people, of the newer and less 
favored portions of the State, who only asked the right 
to develope the resources of the country, by means of 
public works, constructed by associations of individual 
labor and capital, they should cry— 

“ Lay on, lay on, Macduff'! 

And damned be be who first cries, hold! — Enough I” 

They had the sense of right and the physical consti" 
tutions, to combat the proposed new constitution for 
eighteen hours each day, if necessary; and they would, 
if they were compelled, fight it to its “ bitter end.” 

Mr. LEADBETTER. After the speech to which we 
have just listened, I hardly think the Convention is in 
that tranquil and unagitated state of mind, necessary to 
useful deliberation. 

Mr. L. then moved that the Convention adjourn. 

On which motion, Mr. HAWKINS demanded the 
yeas and nays, and being ordered, resulted—yeas 5, 
nays 88, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Bennett, Clark, Holt and Stebbins— 5. 
Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Blair, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cut¬ 
ler, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, 
Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Holmes, Hootman, Horton, ilumphreville. Hunt, Hunter, John¬ 
son, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Har¬ 
rison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Struble, Swift, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilsdn, Woodbury, 
Worthington and President—88. 

So the motion to adjourn was disagreed to. 

Mr. DORSEY. The remarks of the gentleman 
[Mr. Archbold.] who has just taken his seat, in com¬ 
mon with those of many other gentlemen who have 
spoken on both sides of the Chamber, would seem to 
indicate on amount of difference in opinion in regard 
to the position which is occupied on the subject now 
under consideration, which I am convinced really does 
not exist between gentlemen on this side of the House. 
Indeed, I am convinced, from observing the remarks of 
gentlemen, that there is really in this Oeainber much 
less ditlerence of opinion than is supposed, and in the 
few remarks which I propose to offer on this subject, I 
desire to state some propositions, which I hope can be 
subscribed to, to some extent, by gentlemen of both 


















CONVENTION REFOirrS. 


929 


parlies on tin’s floor, but vvliiili I feel confiiltiit must 
nifM't tlie ai>pr«>val ( f tliose {.u nerally who ticcupy the 
euine side of lids Cliauiber with myself. 

And 1 ow, Mr. Preside u', I do deprecate tlHMlennn 
cialions which have Ixam made a"aiiist me, and those 
who vote with me on this (piestion—the charge so freely 
made that we are making a war on eorpenations. S’.r, 
there is no war on corporatii.ii.s, I am ever ready In re 
and elsewhere to declare myself the friend ofcajrpora 
tions, well and ]>ro[)erly regulated by some gt neral 
system of legislation. I shall not, however, as ilid ihe 
gentleman from Fianklin, “thank (.’od, that the Stale 
id or is to be shingled over with acts of incorporation.’* 
but I will say that I am convincetl that Ohit» owes 
much of her [)resent wealth and prosperity to ihc* facil¬ 
ities for the settlement of her territory and tin* devel¬ 
opment of her vast resources, all'urded l)y associations 
0 l incorporated wealth. No man, sir, wlio has grown 
up iu the midst of the vast system (tf improvements 
whieh for years has been going on in tliis State nmlei 
the influeiiee of these associations, who has seen the 
construction of turnpikes and railroa«ls, and all the 
conveniences and luxuries of civili/ed life S[)finginir n{) 
from their action, can stand tip here and say in his 
heart that he is ready to destroy all these iuthiences, to 
put a stop to all these actions. On the other hand, sir, 
I am not blind to the incidental evils of incoriiorations. 
I know too well the evil elfects that in too many case.s 
have resulted from them, and lit,it still contiime to 
exist in this State; but these are but iucideutal evils— 
they are not the nccessaty concomitatiis of corpora¬ 
tions, and may and f hope will be, lieresifter avoided. 
I do heartily desire that we may dive.st the sytem of 
ell special, of all exclusive privileges, and that we may 
place corporations and individuals on precisely the 
same footing. 

Mr. ARC 11 HOLD. That’s the doctrine. 

Mr. DORSEY. Now, what is the inm view and the 
only view which we should tai\e of the right of ihx 
Legislatuie to interfere with corporate associations? 
Or, if you please, what are the circuinstau es under 
wh’.ch, uud under which oidy, it can be [troper f« i the 
Legislature t<i re^ieal the chartered i ight.s of a cot fioru- 
tion? Simply this, sir. The legislative power of re¬ 
peal is only to be exercised w ben it is clearly for the 
good of the sovereign jieople of die State. 1 am ready 
and w’illing to go as far as any delegate on this floor for 
tlie right in the Legislature to repeal act.s ol iiicorfiora 
tion. I believe that right is inlierent in the legisladve 
department, as the representative of the sovereign 
power of the peojile, and I carry the tbictrino to the 
extent of declaring that no one Legisla'm e has, or oyer 
had, orevercan have, the power to pass any act wbidi 
is not subject in all its [lai ts, to be modified, changed, 
repealed or atmulled by a succeeding fj“ei8lature, I)e- 
caiise the sovereign power ol the peo(d>- is just its fully 
'represented, and is just as eflicieiit and complete iu the 
Legisla'ure which sits this year,as iu any that ever pre¬ 
ceded it, ;ind vvill be asetlichmt and as sovlm eign in tin 
Legislature whit b convenes ne.vt year us in thal. which 
finished its session this year. 

Mr. AUCHbOf.D. Suppose one General Assembly 
should pass a law to pay the militia and the money i-" 
already [>aid—what then? 

Mr I)Ull>:^EY. In that case the thing is done, the ad 
is coiisunim ited—the moni'y having been paid ontciiii- 
liot be gallieied up, brought buck and replaced iu tin 
State Treasury—tliis doe.s not atl’xt the [tt iuciple; llte 
question is lidicnlous ainl absurd. 

I3ui to resume. We have now statml the great [irin- 
cip1e wbieb is to guide the legislative action in resn 
mill" to Itself (lowers gr.mietl to corporations—we havi 
Staled it to be ii bro-id, an iidieienf, aii iuaben ibb' 
power. lint we ('ome now f.o another important (jnes 
tion, which is this: Imw far is it really incessary lo as¬ 
sert this [lower iu this coinlitu'ion—uid lice is one 
ground of ditVerence betweru many gent leiiieii who, so 
fur as the mere priuciplo is coucenied, really donut 

59 


dilfei at all. Is it necessary that we should en-'i-aft in 
the new conslitutiori whicdi wo are about to frame a 
(iiovision declaring tliat the Legislature shall havo tl,e 
power to l epeal any grant of power—if you (dease, any 
I barter, win thcr bcia after grunted er now existing, and 
consequmitly, herctof a-e give n. Will the assertion of 
tliatdoctiiue in the firganic law of the State, make the 
power, as regards existing coriioratioii.s, greater, or the 
right more c!< ar and incoutestihle ? Will our failure to 
insert the provision iu that instriinieut make* tlic power 
dess or the right more diiubtful ? Sir, it will not. 

I ho light of reiieal, as I believe, does already exist 

in the Legi.slatuie, without a constitutional declartitiotj, 

and that right, at least with regard to past legislation, 
can he neither increased nor diminished, strengthened 
:or weakened, by any action of this body. To the Leg- 
jis’atnre this power belongs, and in my opinion wo 
may safely trust its exercise there. We are obliged to 
entrust the Legislature with regard to our iiidi idual 
proiierty and with our most important private inter¬ 
ests, and why should not the same department of gov¬ 
ernment be trusted with the management of incorpora¬ 
tions? For if the Legislature can be trusted to grant 
charters, to pass acts of incorporation, why,,I ask, may 
it not bo trusted to re[)eal them, when the public 
illicitBt would be thereby subserved. We hear much 
here, sir, about trusting the people, about leaving pow¬ 
er in the bauds of the Legislature, and we, upon this 
side of the chamher, have been not unfrtqnently taunt¬ 
ed wiili a desire to take all power from the hands of 
that body, and to disiicse of every thing according to 
our own will; but 1 perceive, sir, that although there 
arc gentlemen on this floor who are exceedingly wil- 
ling to trust to legislative discretion, when [lower is to 
he drawn away from the people and consigned to tho 
haud.s of associations, the very same persons are very 
fearful of the inthience of evil counsels, when these 
grants of power are to be resumed and again given 
bill k to the people. 

Now, sir, tor my life I cannot see why the Legisla¬ 
ture is not lo be trusted as fully and as far in the one 
case as in the other. Whenever a charter <ir act of in¬ 
corporation is demanded, it is claimed to be for the 
fiiililic good, and tho Legislature is assumed to he ca¬ 
pable of judging whether the public interest will be 
subserved or not, by granting llie demand, and is not 
the same body to be supposed ca[)able of judging of 
the same interests of the people when these privi¬ 
leges and powers are to be taken away. 

Mr. BARBEE. Would you be willing to place your 

iiidiviiiiml property under the control of die Legisla¬ 
ture. in the same way that you would have that body 
control eor|»orate property ? 

Ml*. DORSEY. Certainly—It is already so placed. 

Mr. BARBEE. Would you be willing to have a ju¬ 
ry intervene in case of taking corporate jiroperty for 
[liiblic use, in the same manner as in case of private 
propel ty ? 

Mr. DORSEY. I now think of no objection to such 
a course. I have said that [ would place corporate • 
uid milividnal (iroperty on precisely the same founda- 
finn im(io.H:ng the same burdens on the one as on tho 
other, and ol cour.se extending the same (irolection, in 
every pai ticiilar, to the one as to the other. 

’ Mr. MASON. I ask f-r nothing more liberal than 
he (xisitioii of the genlleinan. [Mr. DottsKr.] 

Mr. DORSEY. Thiiie is a rule liy which the State 

is regulated — by which she is hound to he reguJated-— 
hy will. Ii her legislators are bound by their oath in ta¬ 
king private propeity. whclher of individii-ils or of 
corporations, for [itihlic use; such property i-j to bo 
faki*n oi|ty for the (xihhc use and benefit, and when so 
r.-ikeii we |i ivc provided, iu smother section of this 
same re|)oil, fluii it sIi iH be [laiil f'(»r in money. Wlieu 
he Slate t ikes private p'' 0 |>eiTy fur (luhlic inse, slie is 
jalwavs to (»ay tor if, and this wo liavc already assert- 
:ed liy i; >ii>tiiMiioii:i'. enactment. 

And liero let mo refer for a moment to tho genlle- 


I 









930 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


mau from Belmont, [Mr. Kenkon,] who condemned 
my construction of the thirty-ninth section of this re¬ 
port. I never contended, as that gentleman seemed 
to suppose, that in that section we obtained the power 
to repeal charters; but I did contend, and I still con. 
tend that its provisions protect the property of corpor¬ 
ations when their charter is repealed, just as it pro¬ 
tects the rights of individual property holders. Let us 
look at its language—for this is not a matter of legal 
construction, in which I should certainly yield to my 
friend from Belmont, [Mr. Kennon.] but a mere ques¬ 
tion of the meaning of terms. The section reads: 

Private property shall ever be held inviolate.” Not 
the private property of individuals only, but all pri¬ 
vate property, w'hether ot individuals or corporate as¬ 
sociations, is at once included in the broad terms of 
this section. “ And no private property,” whether of 
individuals or associations, “ shall ever be taken for 
public use,” &c. Kow', as no private property wn'li 
ever be taken for public use, and as no charter will 
ever be I’epealed, except when the public good imper¬ 
atively demands it, it follows of course, that the prop¬ 
erty taken by a State in the repeal of a charter, or 
w’hat is the same thing, appropriated to the public use 
and benefit, is protected and ordered to be paid for by 
the very provisions of this section. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga. Does the gentle¬ 
man mean to say that wdien the property of a corpora¬ 
tion is destroyed by a repeal of its charter, that section 
thirty-nine of this report provides tor redress or com¬ 
pensation? 

Mr. DORSEY. 1 do. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. How? 

Mr. DORSEY. Justin the manner I have pointed 
out. The State must pay for all the property she 
takes. She can take—she dare take no property ex¬ 
cept for the public use and benefit, and for this she is 
bound to pay. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Must she send out a juiy and 
assess damages, when the repeal of a charter destroys 
corporate property ? 

Mr. DORSEY. I have no objections to that, when 
the circumstances of the case render it necessary. It 
is done in the case of private property, and may be 
equally well done iji the case of corporate property. 
But the State is bound to pay only the actual value of 
the property, of the money invested in the property, 
and not the value of any adventitious right or privileges 
which she has herself bestowed—these rights and 
privileges were freely given, and may be freely re¬ 
sumed; and if the property of an association is enhanc¬ 
ed by such free gift from the Stale, certainly it cannot 
be demanded, that when the Stale resumes this gift 
she should pay for an adventitious value, created by 
her own gift—in other words, while the State pays for 
the property she is not bound to pay for the franchise 
attached to the property. 

And here, sir, I must say a few words in reply to 
the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery.] I 
stated in a few remarks made previously on this sub 
ject, that a franchise was not property, and by so do¬ 
ing I have unfortunately run counter to the legal ojjinion 
of that gentleman. The gentleman has told you that 
I am no lawyer, not a doctor of law, but only a doctor 
of medicine! Well, sir, the gentleman is correct; it 
is my ill fortune, or good fortune, not to belong to the 
legal profession, but only to belong to the class of 
“ homines tristes et doctiy' the “ sad and learned men,” 
as we are called in all the charters down to the end of 
the reign of Queen Elizabeth, but I will assure the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin that, though belonging to the pro¬ 
fession which has usually been designated as the “g'g- 
nus irritahile'' he shall not be troubled here with what 
he seems so much to fear, ” an angry doctor.” I have 
great respect, sir, for the legal attainments of the gen- 
man ; but, sir, when I wish to know the political ap¬ 
plication of a legal maxim I shall never go to that gen¬ 
tleman for information, for I have seen enough of his 


course on this floor, to feel well assured that if I did 
so, I should go to the wrong place for instruction. It 
m .y be w’ell, sir, for him to give, as his first lessons to 
his students in law, that a franchise is properly. This, 
sir, may make them good Whigs, but I humbly submit 
that it will make iheui very bad lawyers ! A fran¬ 
chise is not property—in itself it cannot be property 
It is a free grant, a right or an exemption \yith regard 
to property: It is an appendage to property, and an 
appendage only—it cannot be sold, given, or devised, 
independent of property—without property it is noth¬ 
ing. Attached to property, it may render property val¬ 
uable ; and if the State take away rights which render 
property valuable for the actual amount of money in¬ 
vested in the property, she is bound to pay; but fur the 
simp)le right, or the franchise, as it is termed, she is 
not, she never has been, and I trust never will be held 
bound to pay. 

We are told that the prospective value of property, 
to which a franchise is attached for some twenty or 
thirty years, is or may be very great, and for this pros¬ 
pective benefit or value the State should be bound, in¬ 
asmuch as individuals have been led to invest money 
in public works, with a view to this pros^iective ad¬ 
vantage. I reply, that the Slate granted this benefit 
to the association only because it was deemed a public 
advantage, and she resumes it only where the public 
good demands it. She has done the same thing with 
private property. Let me call the attention of gentle-' 
men for a moment to a case strongly analagous. Years 
ago, citizens of the State of Ohio purchased lauds on 
the Miami river; these lands were granted to them by 
deed, and to their successors forever—not for the term 
merely of twenty or thirty years—and granted with all 
the appurtenances thereunto belonging. On many of 
these lands were valuable mill sites, rendered valuable 
by the waters of the river; but in time the State con¬ 
structs a canal, builds a dam, turns the waiters of this 
river into this canal, and leaves the owner of the iand, 
witli his mill, it is true, and witli his mill site; but to¬ 
tally ‘deprived of the w’ater which rendered them valu¬ 
able. But now in the assessment of damages, the 
State does not pay for the prospective advantages accru¬ 
ing, from the fact that the investment in this milUvas a 
permanent fund for the support and maintenance of a 
family forever. No, sir; she pays the assessed dama¬ 
ges, tlie value of the property destroyed or injured, 
and the courts have uniformly refused to pay any thing 
more, or even to consider the prospective damages. 
Thus has the State dealt with the property of indi¬ 
viduals; and shall she have another rule for that of 
corporations? 

Mr. BARBEE. 1 will ask my colleague a question. 
Did not the property which he speaks of remain still 
in possession of the owners, and did not the State p-ay 
for the franchise or privileges which she took frorn 
them? 

Mr. DORSEY. No sir. The State always professed 
to pay for the damage assessed on the property in¬ 
jured or destroyed, for in some cases the whole prop- 
erty was destroyed entirely, cut away by the canal 
and in a manner nothing left, I said the cases W(.r<; 
analagous, not identical, and the same principle should 
apply to both—but I find here sir, as I have found be¬ 
fore, that these same gentlemen who regard with such 
holy horror any thing that seems to them like an in¬ 
fringement on the rights of corporations, sitby unmov 
ed, and regard with the most stoical indifference the 
assaults made on the rights and property of indi¬ 
viduals, 

Mr. BARBEE. To get a clear idea of my colleague’s 
position, I will ask him, if he will vote for section 39, 
if amended as follow’s: 

Sec. 39. Private and cojyorote property shall ever be held in¬ 
violate, and no private or corporate property, or franchise shall 
ever be taken for public use, unless the public good imperatively 
demands it; but in all cases, lull and adequate compensation in 
money, shall first be made to the owner, to be assessed bv a 
jury, &c. " 












931 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. DORSEY. I desire to speak for myself only, 
and not for other gentlemen who may or may not agree 
with me in oinnion, but I say I will not vote for this 
section, if amended as proposed by my colleague, for 
the simple reason that here lie has placed private and 
corporate property in opposition, while 1 desire to 
place them together on the same basis, and in return 1 
will ask my colleague if he will vote for section 39, if 
amended so as to read, “ Private property, whether of 
corporations or individuals, shall ever be held inviolate, 
and no such property shall ever be taken for public 
iise, unless the public good imperatively demands it,” 
&c. The gentleman [Mr. Barbee] says no. I sup¬ 
posed as much. Thus ends the boast that private and 
corporate property are to bo put on the same level. 
Gentlemen are always willing for this till they are 
brought to the test. 

Mr. STANBBRY. Suppose the State should not 
want the properly of a railroad, for instance for public 
use, but should repeal its charter, what then ? 

Mr. DORSEY. I am not at all embarrassed by that 
question. 

Mr. STANBERY. But will you answer ? 

Mr. DORSEY. Certainly I will. Gentlemen seem 
continually to forget or obstinately to refuse to couple 
together two parts of this matter which are inseparable. 
We contend that the Legislature has power to repeal a 
charter, but only when the public good demands it. 
Now the property held under this charter must either 
be of value or of no value. Let it be supposed to be a 
bridge or a railroad. If no one used it, if no one pas¬ 
sed over it or traveled upon it, then it was of no value 
to the public, and could not in this sense be taken for 
the public use or benefit. But if it was of real value, 
if the wants of the community still demanded that they 
should pass over the bridge or travel on the railroad, 
they must continue to do so, and as the charter being 
repealed the company cannot derive any profit from 
such travel, the property being used by the ]>ublic and 
I for the public, the State must pay its just value. This 

' is my answer to the gentleman from Franklin. And 

now, Mr. President, I have detained the Convention 
1 much longer than I should have done, had it not been 
for the singular system of catechising to which gentle- 
I men have been pleased to make me submit. I have 
; borne the infliction, because I have been anxious only 
to discover the truth, and I will only say in conclusion, 
that the supporters of this measure desire to go to no 
extremes or to force those who oppose us to act against 
their conscience, as has been supposed by the gentle¬ 
man from Cuyahoga [Mr. Hitchcock.] There is com¬ 
mon ground on which we can meet, and let us occupy 
that—union is desirable, inasmuch as we are to frame 
a constitution for the whole State and not for a pttrty— 
let us do what is right and let us remember that the 
work which we are performing here, is to be submit¬ 
ted to the inspection and to the judgment of our fellow 
citizens of the State. But while we arc willing thus to 
make any proper concessions, we cannot forget that we 
have principles to support, we must remember that we 
are democrats, and above all things, that we came here 
to support the doctrine of “equal and exact justice to 
all men—exclusive privileges to none.” 

The question then being on the motion to reconsider 

Mr. HITCFICOCK, of Cuyahoga, moved a call of the 
Convention, and being ordered, 

Messrs. Andrews, Hitchcock, of Geauga, Larsh, 
Larwill, Perkins, Smith of Highland, Stilwell, 
Stickney, Stidger, Swan and Vance of Champaign 
were found absent. 

Messrs. Larwill and Vance of Champaign, were 
severally excused. 

Mr. RANNEY moved that all further proceedings, 
under the call be dispensed with ; on which motion, 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 51, nays47—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Case of Licking, Clark, 
Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, | 
Henderson, Hard, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 


Jones, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 
Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sei¬ 
lers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Way and Wilson—51. 

Navs —Mesoro. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfei*, Brown oi -Vtliens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Curry, 
Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, King, Mason, Morehead, Mor¬ 
ris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott ot Harrison, Smith of High 
land. Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Warren, Williams, 
Woodbury, Worthington and President—47. 

The question then being on the motion of Mr. Hard, 
to reconsider the vote by which the Convention refus¬ 
ed to strike out all after the word “ State,” in the prop¬ 
osition of Mr. Vance, of Butler, 

Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas and nays, and be¬ 
ing ordered resulted—yeas 50, nays 49—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ran¬ 
ney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Augiaize, Sel 
lers. Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Struble Swift, Taylor, Thomp. 
son of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Way, Wilson 
and President—50. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Green of Rose, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Keimon, Ma¬ 
son, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Har¬ 
rison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stilwell, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams, Woodbury and 
Wortliiagton—49. 

So the motiou to strike out all after the word “State” 
prevailed. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
word “ State,” in the proposition of Mr. Vance, of 
Butler, 

Mr. NASH moved that the Convention take a recess; 
on which motion Mr. McCORMICK demanded the 
yeas and nays, and being ordered resulted—yeas 46, 
nays 53. 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, 
Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holt, 
Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Plarrison, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Sttmbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Wilson, 
and Worthington—46. 

Nays —Messrs. Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Cook, 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Plunt, 
Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Ptoll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Struble, Swift. Taylor, Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, and President—53 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the motion to strike out 
all after the word “ State,” 

Mr. NASH j)roceeded to address the Convention. 

Mr. REEMELIN rose to a question of order. He 
slated that he called the gentleman to order for irrele¬ 
vancy—“ he is discussing the question whether this is 
the proper tribunal to force men to vote contrary to 
their own convictions, and in violation of the duties 
they owe to their own constituents.” 

The question of order having been reduced to wri¬ 
ting, as above, the PRESIDENT [Mr. Morris m the 
chair] decided that Mr. Nash was not in order. 

On motion of Mr. LAWRENCE, and by unanimous 
consent, Mr. Nash was permitted to proceed with his 
remarks, in order. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention took a 
recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, moved that the report of 
the committee on the Legislative Department, with the 












932 


I CONVENTION llEPOETS. 


pending ameudnients be laid on the table, which was 
agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the 
following communication and accompanying docu¬ 
ments : 

AUDITOR OF STATE’S OFFICE, ? 

Columbus, January, 1851. ) 

Sir: fn answer to the resolution I'eijuestiug mo to 
report to the Convention “ the date and amount of the 
several issiu's of the stocks of this State now outstand¬ 
ing, and what portion of said stocks were originally is¬ 
sued under statutes exempting the same from taxation.” 
I have the honor to state, ihatfiie records in this office, 
and in the Fund Commissionerks office, Inrnish no data 
from which tlie information required can be obtained. 

The stocks of the State have been for several years 
distingnislied on the face of the certificates, and on the 
books of the agent of New York, by the rate of inter¬ 
est, and the years when they become payable, and not 
by reference to the particular acts under which they 
were at first issued. For example, ${>67,063 50 of six 
per cent, stocks were issued under the act of the 7th 
March, 1842, payable in New York after the year 1870, 
which have been denominated the six ])er cents, of 
1870. Under the act of March, 1840, and the amenda¬ 
tory act of March, 1850, to authorize the Fund Com¬ 
missioners to exchange or sell stocks to pay the debt 
due in December, 1850, the commissioners issued $1,- 
516,468 43 of six per cents., payable in 1870, making 
the amount of the six per cents of 1870, now outstand¬ 
ing, $2,183,531 93. Both these classes are now issued 
in the same form, and are consolidated or sub-divided 
as convenience requires, without any distinction be¬ 
tween the original certificates issued in 1842 and 1850. 


Annual Iteport of the Auditor of State, Relative to 
the liiabilities of the State of Ohio. 

AUDITOR OF STATE’S OFFICE, 
Columbus, February 15,1845. 

7’o the General Assembly: 

I have the honor to transmit herewith my annual re¬ 
port of the liabilities of the State. 

This document would have been transmitted at an 
earlier^ date, but for some difficulty experienced in 
p/'oeuring and making a perfect record of the foreign 
debt. That record is now fully and accurately made 
up, and a transcii])t of it herewith furnished. 

JNO. BROUGH, Auditor of State. 

Record of the Stock and other Iiidcbtcdnes-s of the 
State of Ohio. 

Five per cent, stoek of 1850. 


Date of issue. To whom issued. Amount. 

1825. 

April 5...Tolm Rathhone, Jr. $199,000 00 

do 5.. Eleazer Lord. 201,000 00 


Total. $400,000 OO 

Five per cent, stock of 1856. 

1837. 

Aug. 11..Bank of Muskingum. $25,000 00 

Sept. 20..Bank of Marietta. 100,000 00 

Dec. 31..Bank of Marietta. 25,000 00 


Total. $150,000 00 


Six per cent, stock of 1850. 

1826. 


The same course has been pursued with all the other 
Foreign stocks of the State. This practice is not of re¬ 
cent origin. 

The Fund Commissioners exchanged and sold stocks 
under the authority of the acts of 1849 and 1850, to 
the amount of $4,141,477 43, the whole of which 
were issued under the conditions and pledges of the 
act of 1825 that they should he forever exempt from 
taxation. 

It afipears by the records in this office, that more 
th:^n two millions of State stocks were issued in 1839, 
nearly the whole of which appears to have been is¬ 
sued under the act of 19th March, 1839, by which it 
was expressly exempted from taxation. It is not 
known whether any of this stock remains separate 
from the six per cent, stocks of 1860, issued under oth¬ 
er acts 

I respectfully refer to the report of the Auditor of 
State, made to the Legislature on the 15th February, 
1845, a copy of which is herewith submitted. This) 
report contains a list of the names of the persons to 
whom the original stocks of the State were issued, 
with the date and amount issued to each. I also refer 
to the accompanying list of the names of the persons 
to whom die five and six per cent, stocks were issued 
on the first of July last, witli the amount issued to 
each. Exchanges of stocks had been made previous 
to July, tt) the amount ,of $1,541,468 43. On which 
the premiums received amounted to $116,187 72. 

The report of Mr. Brough, and the list of the stocks 
issued in July last, contain all the information in this 
office in rehition to the date and amount of Foreign 
stocks of the State and die persons to whom issued. 

It is heheved that no special clause or exemption in 
regard to taxation, existed in any of the haws under 
widcli the balance of die domestic stocks of the State 
now outstanding were issued. 

JOHN WOODS, Auditor. 

IIoN. Wm. Medill, 

rresideut Convention, Cincinnati. j 


July 20..John Jacob Astor. 

do 20. .Lewis Cass. 

do 20.. John Rathhone, Jr. 

do 20..Rufus L. Lord. 

1827. 

May 24..Prime, Ward & King. 

July 5.. Prime, Ward & King. 

Oct. 23..Mathew Lawler.. 

do 23.. Hale & Davidson_......... 

do 23..Benj. Tevis... 

do 23..Thomas Biddle. 

do 23..Guy Bryan. 

do 23..B. & J. Bowlin. 

do 23..John R. Baker & Son. 

do 23..Charles H. Baker & Go. 

do 23..Wra. W. Woolsey. 

1828. 

Oct. 8..Prime, Ward & King. 

do 8.. Lewis Curtis. 

do 8.. George New bold. 

do 8..Frederick Perkins. 

do 8.-James Lloyd. 

do 8.-Farmers’ Fire Insurance and 

Loan Company. 

do 8..Frederick A. Tracy. 

do 8.. Wm. G. Bncknor... 

do 8..Thomas Biddle... 

do 8.. Wm. W. Woolsey .. 

do 8..Johu Jacob Astor.._...... 

1830, 

Oct. 16..Prime, Ward & King........ 

do 16.. Wm. G. Bucknor..... 

1832. 

Nov. 10..Robert White, cashier. 


$800,000 00 
20.000 00 
105.000 00 
75,000 00 

100,000 00 
200,000 00 
30.000 00 
100,000 00 
50,000 00 
310,000 00 
100,000 00 
110 (too 00 

105,000 00 
25,000 00 
70,000 00 

170,000 00 
5,000 00 
5,000 00 
5,000 00 
30,000 00 

55,000 00 
30,000 00 
225,000 00 
308,300 00 
66,700 00 
300,000 00 

400,000 00 

200,000 00 

100 000 00 


, ^ Total.$4,100,000 00 

Deduct stock canceled in 1844 
and 1845. 81,341 24 


Balance outstanding February 

1845.$4.018 658 76 






















































CONVENTION REPOETS 


933 


Six per cent, stock af l8oG. 

183G. 

Aug. 25-.David Crouse.. $20,000 00 

1837. 

Jan. 1..Panic of Muskingum. 50,000 00 

July 7..Charles H. Uussell & Co_ 85,000 00 

do 7..Thomas VV. Ward. 135,000 00 

do 7..rrime, Ward & King. 140,000 00 

do 7..Christnia“t, Levingslon, Priiuo 

& Co. 25,000,00 

do 7..John Robbins. 44,000 00 

do 7.. Isaac Carrovv. 26,000 00 

do 7-.John Ward &, Co. 45,000 00 

Sept. 18..Painesville and Fairport Rail¬ 
road Company. 6,182 00 

do 21.. Monroeville and Sandusky City 

Railroad Comijany. 14,667 00 

1838. 

Mar. 1.. Mad River and Lake Erie Rail¬ 
road Company. 34,000 00 

April 1-.Urbaiia Banking Company_ 50,000 00 

do 20..I’rime, Ward & King. 400,000 00 

do 21..Urbana Banking Company_ 50,000 00 

July 9.. Monroeville aiui Sandusky City 

Railroad Company. 7,333 00 

Aug. 11..T. P. Handy, Cashier. 100,000 00 

do 11..J. N. Perkins. 700,000 00 

do ll-.Gustavus Swaii. 10,000 00 

Dec. 11.. Monroeville and Sandusky City 

Railroad Company. 11,333 00 

1839. 

Jan. l-.Lancastcr Ohio Bank. 75,000 00 

do 28.. Urbana Banking Company_ 100,000 00 

Feb. 14..Ohio Railroad Company. 50,000 00 

do 20..Lancaster Ohio Bank. 50,000 00 

April 23..Lancaster Ohio Bunk. 50,000 00 

do 23..J. N. Perkins, Cashier. 150,000 00 

May 22..Bank of Wooster. 30,000 00 

do 22..Lancaster Ohio Bank. 35,000 00 

July l..Cammann and Wliitcliouse... 5,000 00 

do 1..Roswell C. Peck. 10,000 00 

do 1..Simon Perkins. 10,000 00 

do 1..Chelsea Bank. 10,000 00 

do l..Gnstavns .Swan. 50,000 00 

do 1 ..Columbus Insurance company 200,000 00 

do 15..Joel Buttles. 10,000 00 

do 29..J. D. Beers, President. 300,000 00 

do 30..Robert White, Cashier. 26,123 00 

Nov. 22..J. N. Perkins, Cashier. 100,000 00 

1840. 

April 17.. Urbana Banking Company... 100,000 00 

Oct. 26..Bank of Wooster. 50,000 00 

Nov. 1..R. H. Winslow. 50,000 00 

Unkno’n..Secretary of the Treasury of 

the United States. 100,000 00 


Total.$3,514,638 00 

Deduct stock cancelled in 1844 
and 1845. 148,858 76 


Balance outstanding, Feb. 15, 

1845..$3,365,779 24 


Six per cent, stock of 1860. 

1838. 

April. 20..Prime, Ward & King. $300,000 00 

Aug. 11.. Lancaster Ohio Bank. 100,000 00 

do 11.-J. N. I’erkins, cashier. 300,000 00 

1839. 

March 25...To6eph S. Lake, cashier,.. 50,000 00 

April 7..T. P. Handy. 25.000 00 

uo 19-..Joseph S. Lake, cashier.., 50,000 00 

do 20..J. D. Beers, president_ 500,000 00 

do 23..J. N. I’erkins, cashier. 350,000 00 

do 28..Mad River and Lake Eric 

Railroad Company. 86,000 00 

Nov. 22..J. N. Perkins, cashier. 65,900 00 

do 27 ..Barings, Brothers ifc Co.... 500,000 00 

do 30.. Barings, Brothers & Co.... 425,000 00 


1840. 

March 19..Penn, and C. Canal Co. ... 50,000 00 

April l..Chio Railroad Company_ 69,000 00 

do 1.. Barings, Bi'othcrs & Co_ 150,000 00 

do 2.-Same, for L. M. R. R. Co.. 40.000 00 

do 11..Joseidi S. Lake, cashier... 305.000 00 

May 23.. Penn, and Chio Canal. 30,000_00 

June 23.. Vermillion and Ashland R. v 

R. Company. 19,000 00 

July 23-.Barings, Brothers «&, Co... 400,000 00 

Aug. 13..James Hall,cashier. 100,000 00 

do 20..Alexander Grimes, cashier 25,000 00 

do 21..E. F. Drake, cfishier. 25,000 00 

do 22.. Joseph S. Lake, cashier-. - 50,000 00 

do 25..J. Woodhridge,cashier_ 50.000 00 

Oct. 1..John H. James, president.. 100 000 OO 

do 1..Kilgore, Taylor & Co. 20,000 00 

do 26...Joseph S. Lake, cashier_ 10,000 00 

Nov. 13..W. G. W. Gauo, cashier... 50,000 00 

Dec. 7.. R. H. Winslow. 50,000 00 

do 11..Joseph S. Lake, cashier_ 25,000 00 

do 11..A. J, Smith, cashier. 50,000 00 

1841. 

Jan’y 15..J. N. Perkins, cashier. 50,000 00 

do 21..John 11 Jame.s. 50,000 00 

do 21 ..Sainu(/1 F. MacCracken_ 108,500 00 

Feb. 2..J. N. Perkins, Cashier. 41,000 00 

do 5.. Little Miami Railroad Co_ 25,000 00 

do 11..R. H. Winslow. 59,000 00 

April 18..John Woodbridge cashier.. 44,502 09 

do 20..John Woodbridge, cashier.. 23C,000 00 

do 26..Gustavus Swan. 10.500 00 

May 1 ..Franklin Bank of Columbus. 98,779 00 

June 4.. Vermillion and Ashland Rail 

road Company. 25.000 00 

do 4..Bank of Wuosterfor ChioR.R. 30,000 00 

do 22..Bank o( Commerce, N. Yolk. 120,000 00 

July 8..Bank of Commerce, N. York- 90,000 00 

Sept. 17...loseph S. Lake, cashier. 50,000 00 

Dec. 2-.Barings, Brothers & Co., for 

Litttle Miami Railroad.... 40 000 00 

do 2..A. H. Ewing, treas’r for same. 10,000 00 
do 31..Jonathan Thompson, PresidT. 90,000 00 

1842. 

Jah. 3. .Cammann, Whitehonse & Co. 25,000 00 

do 5..J.N. Perkins, cashier. 200,000 00 

do 14.. J. N. Perkins, cashier. 15,000 00 

do 15.-Joseph S. Lake,cashier. 50,000 00 

do 15.-Same, for Ohio Sinking Fund. 50,000 00 

do 18..Same. 70,000 00 

do 27..R. H. Winslow. 20,000 00 

do 27..Prime, Ward & King. 75,000 00 

Aug. 3..B. Stephens & Sous. 10,000 00 

1843. 

June 30..CelinaAndrews. $1,400 00 

do 30.. Joel Battles. 7,500 00 

do 30..John Burr. 

de 30..Amanda S. Benfield. ^5^ 00 

do 30..Temperance Backus. 1,500 00 

do 30..Lucy T. Bell. 1,500 00 

do 30..C!iarle3 II. Baker. 3,800 00 

do 30..Sa.sau B. Brown. 1^500 09 

do 30..Joshua Baldwin. 3,100 00 

do 30..Alexander Bourns. 1.700 00 

do 30..William Creighton. 300 00 

do 30..Samuel McMastors. 1,100 00 

do 30.-Thomas Moodie. 7,400 00 

do 30 ..Milt()n, II. and G. Brayton... 4,300 00 

do 30 .. Mary and Louisa Casey. 1,500 00 

do 30..Nathan Dunn. 24,000 )0 

do 30..James Ewing. 600 00 

do 30.-Lincoln Goodale. 19,000 00 

do 30..John Greenwood. 500 00 

do 30 ...Jacob Grubb. 3,000 00 

do 30..John U. Geisey. 2,300 00 

do 30 .. Eli W. Gvvynne. 1,900 00 

do 30 ..Wiliiam B. Hubbard. 3,800 00 

do 30..Jacob Hare. 700 00 

do 30...Tames Hoge. 1,500 00 







































































































934 


COISVENTION REPORTS 


do 30. 
do 30- 
do 30. 
do 30. 

do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 

do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30- 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30- 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 
do 30. 

do 30. 
do 30. 


Oct. 28. 
Nov. 20. 
Dec. 11. 


.Heirs of Horton Howard. 

.Orange Johnson. 

.John Johnson. 

.Christin Lippincott, in trust for 

A. Winslow. 

.John Lisle. 

. Reuben Lamb. 

.Circleville Bank. 

.William Little.. 


.J. R‘ Swan for E. S. McDowell 

.Robert W. McCoy. 

.0. J. McCauley. 

.Robert Neil. 

.Daniel K. Converse. 


.William Patten, jr. 
.Samuel Parsons... 
.Jacob Rice. 


.George B. Reece 


.T. C. Rockhill. 

.Recompence Stanbery. 

.John Stanbaugh. 

. Gustavus Swan. 

.Jesse Stone. 

.Hosea Williams. 

.Samuel F. Smith. 

.Samuel Simpson. 

. Lyue Starling. 

.Abiather V. Taylor... 

.James B. Thomas_ 

. George Thomas. 

.Isaac Taylor.. 

.Thomas Wood.. 

.Benjamin Tappan- 

.Amasa Van Horne... 
.Samuel F. Vinton ... 

.James Weir. 

. Wisner & Gale. 

.Potter Wright. 

.John Wood.. — 


lin Bank of Columbus. 

.Effie McA. Coons. 

.Jos. Taggart (issued 1870 stock, 
but changed to 1860 stock on 

New York books). 

.W. M. Vermilye, cashier.. 

.W. M. Vermilye, cashier.. 
.Joseph S. Lake & Co. 


Deduct canceled stock 


Balance outstanding, Feb 15, 1845..$6,862.781 


Six per cent, stock of 1870. 

1842. 

April27..M. T. Williams, president,- 

do 30..J. N. Perkins, cashier. 

June 21..Franklin Bank of Cincinnati., 
do 21 ..T. S. Goodman & Co. 

4.. T. S. Goodman & Co. 

7.. P. Outcalt. 

21.-J. N. Perkins, cashier. 

25.. R. W. McCoy and L. Goodale. 

16.. J. N. Perkins, cashier. 

24.. Gordius A. Hall. 


July 
do 
do 
do 

Sept 
do 

1843. 

Jan. 29. 

June 30..John Wood 
do 10..Lyne Starling.. 

Auff. 15-.Bank of Wooster 


John Woodbridge and others.. 


1,000 

00 

1,100 

00 

3,800 

00 

1.900 

00 

3,800 

00 

800 

00 

800 

00 

3,000 

00 

800 

00 

4,100 

00 

7,900 

00 

4,500 

00 

. 10,500 

00 

500 

00 

a 700 

00 

7,700 

00 

15,000 

00 

15,000 

00 

3,800 

00 

15,000 

00 

3,800 

00 

4,000 

00 

20,200 

00 

2,000 

00 

200 

00 

11,300 

00 

3,800 

00 

27,400 

00 

3,300 

00 

400 

00 

2,000 

00 

2,300 

00 

1,500 

00 

7,500 

00 

2,500 

00 

2,300 

00 

3,800 

00 

2,200 

00 

900 

00 

400 

00 

2.600 

00 

2,000 

00 

‘ 

7,500 

00 

323,000 

00 

100,000 

00 

100,000 

00 

$6,901,781 

00 

39,000 

00 

$6,862,781 

1 Sll 

1 II 

$34,400 

00 

300,000 

00 

45,000 

00 

8,000 

00 

2,000 

00 

1,000 

00 

200 000 

00 

60,000 

00 

100,000 

00 

3,000 

00 

52,000 

00 

5,700 

00 

2,800 

50 

15,163 

50 

$829,063 

50 

1 162,000 

00 


Seven per cent, stock of 1850. 


1843. 

May 13..J. N. Perkins, cashier. 100,000 

do 13..J. N. Perkins, attorney. 100,000 

do 13..Jacob Little & Co. 100,000 

do 13.. Ketchum, Rogers & Bement- 30,000 

do 13..R.H. Winslow. 143,000 

do 13..Drew, Robinson & Co. 25,000 

do 13..Rufus L. Lord. 20,000 

do 13..John Rankin. 20,000 

do 13..Elisha Riggs. 10,000 

do 13-.Joseph S. Lake &Co. 50,000 

Sept. 15-.W. M. Vermilye, cashier. 150,000 

do 15..J. N. Perkins,attorney. 150,000 

do 15..Jacob Little & Co. 150,000 

do 15..R. H. Winslow. 217,500 

do 15..Elisha Riggs. 15,000 

do 15..Drew, Robinson & Co. 37,500 

do 15..Ketchum, Rogers & Bement- 45,000 

do 15.. Joseph S. Lake & Co. 75,000, 

do 15..RufusL. Lord. 30,000 

do 15.. John Rankin. 30,000 


Total...$1,500,000 


School Funds, 4'C-< loaned to Canal Fund, to November 
15, 1844. 

School section number sixteen. $952,018 40 7 

Virginia military 'School fund. 133,652 13 7 

United States militaiy school fund. 119,168 31 8 

Common school fund. 39,306 31 2 

Moravian school fund. 686 88 8 

Connecticut Western Reserve School 

Fund.... 158,659 00 8 

Ministerial section number twenty-nine 19,703 85 4 

Ohio University. 1,897 39 0 


Total. ^ 

Ohio Domestic Scrip. 

Zanesville Canal & Manufacturing Company $8,946 13 
William A. Adams, assignee of John Dillon 4,500 00 
William A. Adams, assignee of Seth Adams 267 00 

A. Buckingham. 4,000 00 

Warren County Canal Company. 11,718 88 


Total. $29,432 01 


Of the above, the scrip in the name of A. Bucking¬ 
ham, for $4,000, has been redeemed by an issue of 
faith and credit domestic bonds, since Nov. 15, 1844, 
and hereafter must be charged to account of said bonds 
issued on Muskingum imjjrovement. 

Ohio Domestic Stock. 

Miami Canal Extension.$249,230 16 

Redeemed to Feb. 15, 1845, viz : 

Land bonds.$23,353 00 

Faith and credit ... 500 00 

- 23,853 00 

-$225,377 16 

Same on contract of P. W. Taylor & Co., viz : 

Issued to Nov. 15, 1544.$190,000 00 

Issued from Nov. 15, 1844, to 

Feb. 1.5, 1845. 42,000 00 

- 232,000 00 

Wabash and Erie issue. $90,456 50 

Redeemed, to wit: 

To Nov. 15, 1844...$69,069 00 
From Nov. 15, 1844, 
to Feb. 15, 1845.. 6,.970 00 

- 76,039 00 

-14,617 50 

Turnpike bonds issued, to wit: 

Up to Nov. 15,1844 $296,870 48 
From Nov. 15,1844, 
to Feb. 15, 1845. 3,297 00 

---$300,167 48 


Bal. outstanding, Feb. 15,1845 $667,063 ,50 




























































































































CONVENTION REPORTS. 935 


Redeemed, to wit; 

Up to Nov. 15,1844.$56,427 74 
From Nov. 15, 1844, 
to Feb, 15, 1845.. 6,616 42 

- 63,044 16 

- 237,123 32 


Hocking Canal issue. 10,700 00 

Muskingum Improvement issue. 7,949 83 

Walhonding Canal issue. 812 13 

Western Reserve and Maumee Road. 300 00 


Total outstanding.$728,679 94 


Suiplus Revenue. 

Amount paid in by sundry companies, to No¬ 
vember 15, 1844.$59,523 66 

Amount loaned in by sundry counties to the 
State, viz: 

Trumbull. 27,716 58 

Summit. 7,272 48 

Portage. 9,727 50 

Warren. 8,284 25 

Athens. 12,594 37 

Lawrence. 11,967 72 

Mercer. 3,239 14 

Vanwert. 1,599 57 


Total.$141,925 27 


01" the above, the amount loaned from Trumbull 
county has, since the 15th November, 1844, been paid 
into the State Treasury as surplus revenue, under the 
act of March 13, 1843, and will hereafter be charged 
to that account. 

Recapitulation—Foreign Debt. 


5 per ct. stock. 

1850.... 

$400,000 00 

5 

do 

do 

I860.... 

150,000 00 

6 

do 

do 

1850.... 

4,018,658 76 

6 

do 

do 

1856.... 

3,365,779 24 

6 

do 

do 

I860.... 

6,862,781 00 

6 

do 

do 

1870.... 

667,063 50 

7 

do 

do 

1850.... 

1,500,000 00 


-$16,964,282 50 0 

School funds. 1,425,092 31 4 

Domestic scrip.. 29,432 01 0 

Domestic bonds. 728,679 94 0 

Surplus revenue. 141,925 27 0 

Total.$19,289,412 03 4 


Of the foreign debt, above stated, the sum of eighty- 
three thousand dollars is held by the Canal Fund Com- 
rnissioners, for the Canal Sinking Fund. 

JOHN BROUGFl, Auditor of State. 

S TA TEMEN T of Ohio Stocks issued on the first of My, 
1850, showing the names of the purchasers and the amount 
issued to each. 


Names. 

Amount 

sold 

Premiums 

received. 

A. Belmont, King Sc Sons; Winslow, La¬ 
nier, & Co.; Camann, Whitehead & Co., 
and others, upon a joint bid - - - - 

J. J. Hamilton,. 

L. & E. Decoppet,. 

S 1,525,000 
25,000 
50,000 

$196,950 00 
3,877 50 
6,630 80 

Amount of six per cents - • - . 

$ 1,600,000 

$207,458 .30 

A. Belmont, King & Sons: Winslow Lani¬ 
er & Co; Camman, Whitehead & Co., 
and others, upon a joint bid - - - 
George Mygatt,. 

$985,000 

15,000 

$13,078 00 
300 on 

Amount of five per cents - - • • 

$1,000,000 

$13,378 00 


Mr. SAWYER moved that the communication be 
laid on the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend the motion so as to 


have the documents accompanying the communication 
also printed; which was agreed to. 

The question then being on laying the communica¬ 
tion and the accompanying documents on the table 
and ordering the same to be printed, the same was 
agreed to. 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, (Mr. Nash having preceded 
and alluded to certain newspaper articles with refer¬ 
ence to the course pursued by Mr. C. on this question, 
and having yielded the floor for the purpose of expla¬ 
nation) said: So far in life, I have paid very little at¬ 
tention to newspaper attacks; and the effect which 
generally have upon me, is much like the eflect of 
snow falling upon the surface of an unruffled lake. I 
am here in an official capacity, acting under a solemn 
oath, in the discharge of a serious duty as a represent¬ 
ative. I have a constituency whom I respect and hon¬ 
or, and I am proud of them as men and as democi’ats. 
On to-morrow, (the 8th of January,) to the democracy 
of Licking, with whom I fought shoulder to shoulder 
in the last campaign, will be presented by the democ¬ 
racy of Franklin county, with appropriate ceremonials, 
a splendid banner, bearing the portrait of the old hero 
of New Orleans, Andrew Jackson, in honor of their 
late achievements at the polls. I claim the honor of 
having done at least a piivate’s duty in that contest. 
But it is not so much on account of myself as on ac¬ 
count of the relation which I sustain to my constitu¬ 
ents, that I deign to answer any newspaper attack in 
this place. They would probably expect me to notice 
so distinct an allusion to their county and one of their 
delegates on this floor. 

I could hardly have been more surprised at being at¬ 
tacked personally in this Hall, than I was upon being 
presented this morning with the article alluded to in 
the Cincinnati Enquirer—a paper which I have taken 
since I have been here, to the conductors of which I 
have been merely introduced—never having spoken 
with them but once in my life ; and yet, without any 
apparent cause, they have not only charged me with 
corruption, but they have charged the county of Lick¬ 
ing with being represented by corrupt men in the Le¬ 
gislature. 

There is another fact which I wish to state as pre¬ 
liminary to this explanation. It will be admitted I 
think, that, hitherto, I have not occupied much of the 
time of this body: and at the first, it was my intention 
to occupy much less than I have. On last Saturday, 
however, I felt constrained to address the Convention 
at length : and how was I reported,in the Cincinnati 
Enquirer? By a downright falsehood put into my 
mouth. Flere is what they say of me: 

“Mr. Case, of Licking, opened-the session by a labored at¬ 
tempt to show that party had nothing to do with the election of 
members of the Convention, and that the doctrine that the Leg¬ 
islature should be declared to have the power to z-epcal charters, 
was not a part of the Democratic creed.” 

Now, Mr. Presideent, I stated no such thing. ^ I sta¬ 
ted exactly the reverse of that. I asserted that it vvas 
well known, however, that the doctrine of repeal, with 
respect to corporations hereafter to be granted, was a 
Democratic doctrine ; respecting a clause in our new 
constitution, and I have voted for it here. According¬ 
ly, I went yesterday to see the young man who reports 
here for that paper, and asked him it that was the way 
he reported mo. He replied, “ That is not my report. 
It has been altered. I gave nearly two squares of mat¬ 
ter describing your speech; and here is not halt a 
square.” I said no more. We all know how imper¬ 
fectly we are reported in these city papers, and, until 
this mornin^^, I cared nothing about that. But when 
I saw the deliberate assault which the same paper 
makes upon me this morning, I cannot but feel that 
there was, on the part of the editor, a deliberate inten¬ 
tion to falsify my position before the public. And why 
it is so, I cannot divine. If any man here can give me 
the reason, I shall be glad to know it. 



































































936 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Let me read now what ihis paper has against me 
this morning, and not against me alone, but against Uie 
twelve members upon ibis side ot ihe chamber, who 
have dbre to voted according to the dictation of their, 
own judgnie-nt and conscir ncc. In t)jc first place J 
will read a })reliminaiy paragraph, which is intended 
here as a lecture fi-r “the twelve.Speaking oil 
whom and of their vote on repeal, the editor says: i 

“ Was there only a ditference of opinion upon the phraseology 
of the section proposed, or was there absolute npostacy from 
principle ? We are aware that some of the e gentlemen will chur- 
acterize our inquiries usiuterfereiice beyond unr bailiwick * * 
but we shall respond * * * that they have defeated one ofi 
the cardinal principles which for years their party has main¬ 
tained : and, in a word, that they are false to the faith which 
trusted them with the high place they have so mischievously 
filled. Let the history of agi ation in Butter, Belmont, Licking, 
Hocking, Morgan, Franklin, f(C., whose democracy are now 
abandoned, in the most perilous hour, by their agents, give wit¬ 
ness to the fact, that the integiity of the party, as then vindicated,, 
is now abandoned.” * * * * * 

In this morning’8 paper here is what is said in rela¬ 
tion to myself in counection with my vote on repeal. 
Speaking of an attempt being made some years ago in 
the Legislature to repeal the charter of the Bank of 
Gallipol 8, and which failed by corruption, as he says, 
of some members, the editor says: 

“But it is not known positively where corruption made its 
mercenary approach, with cash in hand, to buy the legislator to 
sell his constituency. 

The corporate interests ol the State had then in the Legislature 
no more devoted triend from Licking than they now have in the 
Convention. Whether the same “intluences ” operate now, is 
one oi those cases reserved for a “ higher court.’’ 

Such are the attacks made itidividiiully upon myself 
In relation to newspaper attacks, I venture to say that 
there is not a man upon this Hoor, who has been more 
virulently assailed by the Whig press iban 1 have been. 

am accustomed to these attacks. But when I am at¬ 
tacked by my own party, the thing comes in a little 
■0 ereiit aspect. 

The imputation is cast upon my county as well as 
myself, all of which is new to me. 

Mr. NASH, (interposing.) Was George H. Flood in 
the Legislature at that lime ? 

Mr. CASE. I know not, I was not personally ac¬ 
quainted with Mr. Flood. He was a member of the 
Legislature before I located in that county. But 1 
know one thing; he was a man respected and beloved 
by all, without distinction of party. And I know an¬ 
other thing. Shortly after the lime of this imputed 
corruption, he received the signature of every demo¬ 
cratic member of the then Legislature of Ohio, to a pa¬ 
per recommending him to the President of the United 
Slates, as a suitable person to be appointed to the 
chargeship of Texas; and accordingly he was appoint 
ed to that place by Martin Van Buren. And I believe, 
moreover, that any man who would now reiterate that 
charge against him in Licking county, would be met 
on ail sides, with scorn and contempt. This is the first 
time I ever heard it in my life. 

But, I a.sk, wlty are these charges and in iuuations 
cast out ? Why is it said here that men are bought up, 
bribed, purchased ? Is there any truth in it, is thire a 
single act. to justify any man in nsakiiig this charge ? 
Is there a member on this floor who can answer ? Tlie 
vote I have given in common with eleven others, is tin 
only evidence of corruption suggested. Has Judge 
XeNjNon been bought up, as a merchantable article, by 
the pioprietors of our railroads and turnpikes? Has 
Judge Vance, of Butler, or.Judge SwajJ, of Franklin, 
or Col. Hawkins, of Morgan, or Mr. Groeskeck, o! 
Hamilton county, been bought up? Or, is thero a 
foundation for such a thing to be said of any one of tin 
twelve ? I affirm, that a more infamous, premeditated 
and damnable libel was never concocted. 

H as it come to this, that a man cannot vote according 
to the dictates of his own judgment, without such im 
pulations as these being publicly cast upon him? 

I know not who wrote the article ; but I undertake to 
say, seeing that there is no foundation—no circum¬ 
stance upon which it can bo founded—that it can be 


notliiug but a piece of downright nnilice and wicked- 
i)e.ss. And a man wdio could make sin b a charuej 
vviibout any prelext whatever, is be, who would be 
found ready and anxious himsilf to ce bought and 
sold, if bo could find a purchaser, for bis very soul 
must be already gangrened in corruption. ^ 

I know, not, sir, winvt more I need say in this case. 

I would not have said thus much, but 1 felt called upon ' 
at least, to pronounce the ebarge-s to be utterly false 
and libelous, and I challenge ai y man to get up here, 
Hid declare, if be can, lliat tiiere is a syllable of truth | 
m the etatements. I arn jiersuaded that no one can, 
and I will say now that no man dare do it. 

Mr. SAWYER. Itia not proper for the gentleman to 
any that no man dare do this or that. I desire myself ^ 
to make an iniiinaiion to the gentleman, in orde» that i 
he may stand Oiirrei ted. I understood the honorable 
member from Licking to say that the doctiine of repeal 
was not a democratic measure in the last canvass; and fl 
m answer to that, I remember that the gentleman be¬ 
fore me [Mr. Leech,] got up and read an extract from 
Medary’s New Constitution, selling it forth as a cardF 
nu! principle. 

Mr. CASE. Do I understand the gentleman from" 
Auglaize to affirm that I did say so? Aud the gentle¬ 
man from Knox to endorse it? 

Mr. MITCHELL. That was what he said. I nn- 
derslocd the gentleman to say distinctly, that he did 
not know when the doctrine of repeal had become a 
democratic doctrine—a test of democratic faith. And,, 
if 1 do not very badly remember, tlie gentlemen ap-' 
pealed to members to say what convention, what pri-' 
mary meeting of the people had endorsed that doc-, 
trine; and I, in my seat, then told him the county of 
Knox had. 

.Mr. LEECH. I certainly under.«tocd the gentleman | 
from Licking, in a portion of his speech on Saturday 
lust, to take the ground, disliuclly, that the doctrine of j 
repeal, without distinguishing between chartcra now 
in existence, and those which might be hereafter 
granted, was not a Democratic doctrine, that the Demo-! 
cralic party, in no instance, made it an issue in the^ 
canvass for a Convention to amend the constitution. 
Upon this I took issue with him, and made a reply. 

After I had passed over to the gentleman’s seat, and 
■ pri\ ately called his attention to to some articles in “ Me-,- 
clary’s New Constitution,” he made the distinction 
wdiicli ho now claims to have made. This, Mr. Presi* 
dent, is my recollection of the posiiions assumed by the ; 
gentleman from Licking, on Saturday. But, sir, as I \ 
make no pretensions to infallibility, I admit that I may 
be mistaken in all this. 1 feel entirely satisfied in ray ' 
own mind, however, that I am not mistaken. More- ■ 
over, other gentlemen here, fully concur with me. ' 

Mr. CASE. If he so understood me, he must have 
been the only man 1 think, to get that understanding. 

It is impossible that I could have been generally so 
poorly understood. For I stated over and over again,: 
that the docriue of repeal was admitted democratic 
(locti'ine.. That it was recognized in my county, and 
throughout the Slate oi Ohio with the democratic par¬ 
ty. 1 say I stated that disliuclly. Am I right or wrongs 
in that ? 

Several Voices. “ Right—right.” 

Mr. CASE. Certainly I am right. But I stated: ‘ 
also, thi.s, that I did not know, nor did I believe, that ' 
it was the wish of the people that a provision should i 
be put into the constiliuion providing for the repeal of 
charters heretofore passed ; ibat 1 did not believe it had 
been advocated as a doctiine of the party. It was that 
kind of repeal that I spoke of. 

Mr. SAWYER, (in his seat.) Thai may have been 
the case. 

Mr. CASE. I said it was called for to operate pros¬ 
pectively, but not retro.'ipectively. Is there any man 
here who can gainsay Ibis? 

Mr. MITCHELL, (in his seat.) Yes, I am her© to 
gainsay it. 























CON VENTION REPORTS. 


937 


Mr. CASE. Then you gainsay that which is not 
true. 

Mr. MITCHELL here reiterated his understanding 
of what was said, as above recited. 

Mr. GREGG. 1 understood the gentleman from 
Licking as represented by the gentleman from Guern¬ 
sey, [Mr. Leecu ;] and in answer to his statement of 
the position of the Democratic party prior to the elec¬ 
tion of delegates, I produced a paper and read the 
following from the proceedings of a Democratic Con¬ 
vention held in Columbiana county on the I8th March, 
1850:___ 

Resolved, That the Dnmocracy of Columbiana county "are in 
favor ot such constitutional amendments as will secure the fol¬ 
lowing among other results: 

“ No Legislature shall pass a law, grant a right, or confer a pri- 
rllf ge, which may not be moditied or wholly annulled by a sub- 
■equent Legislature.’' 

My reading of that resolution, (and with which I 
neglected to furnish the Reporter,) while Mr. Case w’as 
speaking, shows clearly that I understood him to take 
the ground that the Democracy had not declared for 
the repealability of charters prior to the election for 
delegates to this Convention. But I suppose the gen¬ 
tleman from Licking [Mr. Case] will contend that his 
is prospective only. • 

Mr. CASE. VVtien you interrupted me on Saturday, 
and read the resolution in the instructions now referred 
to, and remarked that you 8up[)osed I would contend 
that it had a prospective bearing, I then replied that 1 
did so consider these instructions. 

Mr. DORSEY. 1 am not one of the twelve included 
in this explanation; but I will say, that I understood 
the gentleman from Licking to take the grounds which 
he now assumes that he did take. I did not vote with 
the gentleman upon this question, and I can be entire¬ 
ly impartial as far as that is concerned. But I under¬ 
stood him distinctly, not to deny that the doctrine of 
repeal was a Democratic doctrine; but I understood 
the gentleman to deny both the popular demand for, 
and the expediency of delegates voting for a clause 
respecting charters already in existence. 

Several Voices. That’s right. 

Mr. CASE. I will state another circumstance go¬ 
ing to show that I ought not to have been mistaken. 
Did I not read two or three extracts from Medary’s 
Constitution ; in which the doctrine was advocated for 
the prospective operation of the rule ? Did I not read 
from the Cincinnati Enquirer, declaring that it waste 
be applicable only to i'uturelegislation ? 

A Voice. ‘ Yes you did.’ 

Mr. KING. I think the gentleman truly states his 
position. Although I may dilfer with him in voting, 1 
think he has a right to be I’airly represented. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. If it were otherwise, would that 
justify the charge of corruption ? 

Mr, CASE. But I have really consumed more time 
than I intended, and I beg pardon for occupying so 
much of the time of this body—I am done. 

Mr. SAWYER. The gentleman from Licking should 
remember that the righteous must sutfer perscculiou : 
and if he is persecuted a little, it will not hurt him 
much. I remember a series of newspaper attack.^ 
which were made upon me in 1840, by a country ed- 
tor in the district where I was candidate for an impor¬ 
tant office, up in the north west, without much pros¬ 
pect of success. His attacks being continued from 
week lo week became a little annoying ; and finally, 
to get rid of the fellow, I advertized in another paper 
that 1 would send the fellow a barrel of flour, if he 
would continue his attacks upon me every week, till 
the day of the election. The result of that advertise¬ 
ment w’as that he ceased his attacks upon me. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention again 
look up the report of the committee on the Legislative 
Department, with the pending amendments. 

The question pending being on striking out all after 
the word “ State,” in the proposition of Mr. VANCE 
of Butler. 


Mr. SAWYER moved the previous question. 

The question then being “ shall the main question bo 
now put ?” 

Mr, STANTON moved a c^ll of the Convention, and 
being ordered, Messrs. Andrews, Ewart, Larsh, 
Larwill, Patterson, Ferkins, Smith of Highland,. 
Srii. WELL S MCKNEr, and Vance of Champaign, ware 
sent. 

Messrs. Larwill and Vance of Champaign v.'ere 
found ah.severally excused. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved that all further proceed 
ings under the call be dispensed with, which was agroeol 
to. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
be now put ?” 

Mr. MORRIS demanded the yeas and nays, and be¬ 
ing ordered, resulted—yeas 46, nays 55—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clarfe, Ewing, Forbes, 
Farr, (Ireeno of Deliance, Gregg, Hard, Hender.«on, Ilootman, 
fiiimphreville, .Jones, Kennon, Ring, Leadbetter, I.idey, London,. 
Mason, Mitchell, Morris, Mt'Cormrck, Norris, Orton, Patterson,. 
Quigley, Runrioy, Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Set 
lers. Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stidger, Slruble, 
Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Way,. 
Wilson and President—46. 

Nays —Messrs, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brow n of Athena,. 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking', Case of Licking, Chambers, 
(Pollings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, 
Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lawrence, I.eech,. 
Manon, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Riddle, Scott oti 
Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stil- 
well, Thomjison of Shelby, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams, 
Woodbury and Worthington—55. 

So tho demand for the previous question w’as not 
sustained. 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved that the report, as amend- 
ded, w'ith the pending amendments, he laid on the 
(able, and ordered to he printed; which was dis¬ 
agreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL moveil that the report, with the 
pending amendments, he re-committed to the commit¬ 
tee which re{)orted it; on which motion, 

Mr. MORRIS demanded the yeas and nays, and be¬ 
ing ordered, resulted—yeas 54, nays 48—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbolil, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Cha 
ney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defl'- 
aiice, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkin.®, Henderson, Holmesp, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King,. 
Kirkwood, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidoy, Manon, Mitchell, McCor¬ 
mick, Morris,Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Beemelin, Pod- 
dle. Roll, Sawyer, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stidger,, 
Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark,. 
'Townsheud, Way, Wilson and President—54. 

Nays. —Messrs. Barbee. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Atbeiis, Brown of 
Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Colliugs, Curry, Cutler,, 
Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green oi Ross, Ham¬ 
ilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Horton, Hunb'r, Kennon, Lawrence, l.oudon, Mason, Morehead,. 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, (3ti.s, P< ck,Scott ol Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith oi W'arren, Stan¬ 
bery, Stanton, StilweJl, Swan, Vance ol Butler, Warren, Wil¬ 
liams, Woodbury and Worthington—48. 

So the motion to re-conmiit was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. NASH, the Convention adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY, January 8, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a- 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by tiie Rev. Dr. Iloge. 

Mr. MANON presented a [letition from H. O. Han¬ 
na and seventyone other citizens of Licking county, 
f)r!iying that a danse be inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing traffic in spiritous liquors. 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens, presented sundry other 
petitions from Cynthia Hill, Ann Miller and eighty 
other females, of Athens county, on the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred lo the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 
On motion of Mr. LeADBETTER, the Convention 















988 


CONVP^NTION REPORTS. 


took up the report of the committee on the Executive 
Department. 

The question being on agreeing to the first amend¬ 
ment of the committee of the whole, to wit: In sec¬ 
tion 1, line one, strike out the word “ one” and insert 
in lieu thereof, the article “a” before the word “ Gov- 
ernoi"” which was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the second 
amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 1, line one, strike out the word one ” after 
the word “ Governor,” and insert in lieu thereof the 
article “a”— 

A division being demanded, the question turned first 
on strikmg out the word one;” which was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the article “a;” 
it was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the third 
amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 1, lino 2, after the words, ” Lieutenant Govern¬ 
or,” strike out the word one and insert in lieu thereof, 
the article “ a ”— 

A division being demanded, the question turned first 
on striking out the word “one;” which was agreed 

The question then being on inserting the article "a;” 
it was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fourth 
amendment, to wit: 

Sec. 1, line 2, strike out the word “ one,” before the 
word ” Auditor,” and insert in lieu thereof the article 
' * an ”— 

A division being demanded, the question turned first 
on striking out the word “ one ; ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the article 
‘ an; ” it was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fifth 
amendment, to wit: 

In section 1, line 2, after the word “ Auditor,” strike 
out the word one,” and insert in lieu thereof the ar¬ 
ticle “ a”— 

A division being demanded, the question turned first 
on striking out the word “ one; ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the article “a;” 
it was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the sixth 
amendment, to wit: 

In section 1, line 3, strike out the word “one,” after 
the word “ Treasurer,” and insert in lieu thereof the 
article “an”— 

A division being demanded, the question turned 
first on striking out the word “ one;” which was agreed 
to. 

The question then being on inserting the article “an;” 
the same was agreed to; and the section, as amended, 
reads as follows: 

Sec. 1. The Executive Department shall consist of a Gover¬ 
nor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasur¬ 
er, and an Attorney General. 

The question then being on agreeing to the seventh 
amendment, to wit; 

In section 3, line four, strike out the word “ have,” 
and insert in lieu thereof the words “ has not”— 

The same was agreed to; and the section, as amend¬ 
ed, reads as follows: 

Sec. 3. No person shall be -eligible to the office of Governor 
who has not the qualification of an elector, and has not been a 
citizen of the United States twelve years, and an inhabitant of 
this State five years next preceding his election, and has not at¬ 
tained the age of thirty years. 

The question then being on agreeing to the eighth 
amendment, to wit: 

In section 4, line two, strike out the word “ Legisla¬ 
ture,” and insert in lieu thereof the words “ General 
Assembly ”—the same was agreed to ; and the section, 
aS amended, reads as follows: 

Sec. 4. The Governor shall be elected by the qualified electors 
at the time and places of voting lor members of the General 
Assembly, and shall hold his office for two years from the time 
ot his inauguration, and until his successor is qualified. 


The question then being on agreeing to the ninth 
amendment, to wit: 

In section 5, line three, insert after the words “pub¬ 
lish them,” the words “and declare the result;” it 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the tenth 
amendment, to wit: In sectionJ), line five, strike out 
the word “Legi.slature,” and insert the words “Gener¬ 
al Assembly; ” it was agreed to. 

The questton then being on agreeing to the eleventh 
amendment, to wit: At the end of section 5, insert the 
following ; “ contested elections for Governor shall be 
determined by both houses of the General Assembly in 
such manner as shall be prescribed by law; ” it was 
disagreed to, and the section, as amended, reads as 
follows: 

Sec. 5. The returns of every election for Governor shall be 
sealed up, and transmitted to the seat of Government by the re 
turning officers, directed to the president of the Senate, who shall 
open and publish them, and declare the result in the presence of 
a majority of each house of the General Assembly during the first 
week of the session. The person having the highest number of 
votes shall be Governor, but if any two or more shall be equal and 
highest in votes, one of them shall be chosen Governor by the 
joint vote of both Houses. 

The questioti then being on agreeing to the twelfth 
amendment, to wit: In section 7, line one, strike out 
the word “ Legislature,” and insert in lieu thereof, the 
words “General Assembly; ” it was agreed to, and the 
section, as amended, reads as follows: 

Sec. 7. He shall communicate by message, to the General As¬ 
sembly, at every session, the condition of the State, and I'ecom- 
mend for their consideration such measures as he shall deem ex¬ 
pedient. 

The question then being on agreeing to the thirteenth 
amendment, to wit: In section 8, line two, strike out 
the word “ Legislature,” and insert in lieu thereof, the 
words “ General Assembly ; ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fourteenth 
amendment, to wit: In section 8, line two, strike out 
the words “ to both houses when assembled,” and in¬ 
sert in lieu thereof the words “ in his proclamation.” 
Mr. MASON demanded a division. 

The question being first on striking out the words 
“ to both houses when assembled; ” it was disagreed 
to. 

The question then beingon inserting the amendment 
of the committee of the Whole ; it was disagreed to, 
and the section, as amended, reads as follows: 

Sec. 8. He may, on extraordinarj* occasions, convene the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly on proclamation, and shall state to both houses, 
when assembled, the purpose for which they shall have been 
convened. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fifteenth 
amendment, to wit: In section 9, line two, strike out 
the word “ Legislature,” and insert the words “ Gene¬ 
ral Assembly;” the same was agreed to, and the sec¬ 
tion, as amended, reads as follows : 

Sec. 9. In cases of disagreement between the two Houses in 
respect to the time of adjournment, the Governor shall have the 
power to adjourn the General Assembly to such time as he may 
think proper, but not to a period beyond the regular meeting 
thereof. 

The question then being on agreeing to the sixteenth 
amendment, to wit: In section 11, Hue two, insert after 
the words “ for all,” the words “crimes and;” it was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the seven¬ 
teenth amendment, to wit: In section 11, line three, 
insert before the words “ such restrictions,” the word 
“ under;” it was agreed to. 

The question then !)eiug on agreeing to the eighteenth 
amendment, to wit: In section 11, line seven, strike 
out the word “ Legislature,” and insert in lieu thereof 
the words “ General Assembly ;” it was agreed to. 

The question then beingon agreeing to the nineteenth 
amendment, to wit: In section 11, line eight, strike 
out the word “Legislature,” and insert in lieu thereof 
the words “ General Assembly ;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeiugto the twentieth 
amendment, to wit: In section 11, line ten, strike out 















939 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


the word “ aunnally,” and insert in lieu thereof the 
words “ at every regular session of the General Assem¬ 
bly it was agreed to. 

Mr. MASON moved to i-e-consider the vote taken by 
which the Convention agreed to the twentieth amend¬ 
ment of the committee of the Whole; which was disa¬ 
greed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
first amendment, to wit: Strike out in section 11, line 
eleven, the words “ to the Legislature,” and insert in 
lieu thereof the word “ thereto which was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
second amendment, to wut: In section 11, line twelve, 
strike out the word “ he,” and insert in lieu thereof the 
words ‘‘such person;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
third amendment, to wit: In section 11, line four¬ 
teenth, add these words, “and his reason therefor;” 
the same was agreed to, and the section, as amended, 
reads as follows: 

Sec. 11. The Governor shall have the po .ver to grant reprieves, 
commutations and pardons after conviction, for all crimes and 
offences, except treason and cases of impeachment, upon such 
conditions and under such restrictions and limitations as he may 
think proper, subject to such regulations as may be provided by 
law, relative to the manner of applying for pardons. Upon con¬ 
viction for treason, he shall have power to suspend the execution 
of the sentence until the case shall be reported to the General 
Assembly at its next meeting, when the General Assembly shall 
either pardon, commute the sentence, direct the execution of the 
sentence, or grant a further reprieve. He shall, at every regular 
session of the General Assembly, communicate thereto each case 
of reprieve, commutation or pardon granted, stating the name of 
the convict, the crime for which such person was convicted, the 
sentence and its date, and the date of the commutation, pardon 
or reprieve, and his reason therefor. 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
fourth amendment, to wit: In section 14, line two, 
strike out the word “ the ” before the word “Govern¬ 
or it was agreed to, and the section, as amended, 
reads as follows: 

Sec. 14. No member of Congress or person holding office un¬ 
der the United States or this State, shall execute the office of 
Governor. 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
fifth amendment, to wit: Strike out the whole of sec- 
lion 16 ; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
sixth amendment, to wit: In section 18, lines one and 
two, strike out the words “ twenty-five hundred ” and 
insert in lieu thereof the words “ two thousand.” 

Mr. HOLT demanded a division. 

The question being first on striking out the words 
“twenty-five hundred ;” 

Mr. MASON demanded the yeas and nays, and being 
ordered, resulted—yeas 83, nays 15—as follows ; 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown ot Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hock¬ 
ing, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cut¬ 
ler, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock ot Cuyahoga, Hitchcock ot Ge 
auga, Holt, Hootman, Ilumpreville, Johnson, Kennon, King lurk- 
wood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mitch¬ 
ell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Orton Otis, 
Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranuey, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott ot 
Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith ol 
Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton Stebbins, Stiilwell, Stickney, Stru- 
bel, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury 
and President—83. 

Nays —Messrs Barnett of Preble, Blair, Brown of Athens, Cham¬ 
bers, Groesbeck, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Mason, Riddle, 
Roll, Swift W’illiams and Worthington—15. 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The question then being on filling the blank with 
the words “two thousand.” 

Mr. STANTON moved to perfect the words to bo in¬ 
serted by inserting before the same “ not less than.” 

Mr. MASON demanded the yeas and nays, and be¬ 
ing ordered, resulted — yeas 16. nays 82 as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Brov/n of 
Athens, Chambers, Cutler, Groesbeck, Horton, Hunter, Jones, 
Lareh, Mason, Riddle, Stanton, Taylor and William-s-16. 


Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Bennett, Blair 
Blickensderfer, Brown ol Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case 
of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart 
Ewing, Furr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga Hithchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootmanl 
Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Law- 
rence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Orton, OtisPattei’son, Peck, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Sawye,r, Scott of Harrison, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stan¬ 
bery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson 
of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, War- 
ren,Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington, and President—82, 

So the motion to insert the words “ not less than” 
was disagreed to. 

The question then being on filling the blank with 
the words “ two thousand.” 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, and be¬ 
ing ordered, resulted—yeas 20, nays 71—as follows; 

Y'eas— Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Cham¬ 
bers, Collings, Groesbeck, Hitchcockof Cuyahoga, Hunter, Lead- 
better, Mason, Otis, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Smith of Warren, Stil¬ 
well, Swan, Swift, Taylor and Williams—20. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Bennett, Blair, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case 
of Licking, Chaney, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Farr, Flor¬ 
ence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humpreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, 
Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Lidey, Ma¬ 
non, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, 
Orton, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Scott of 
Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Steb¬ 
bins, Struble, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Town¬ 
shend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Wor¬ 
thington and President—71. 

So the motion to fill the blank with the words “two 
thousand” was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
seventh amendment, to wit: add at the end of section 
18, the following; 

Provided, That the Legislature shall have authority to increase 
or diminish such compensation, at any time after the year 1860, 
but no such alteration shall effect the compensation ot the in¬ 
cumbent of the office at the time it is made. 

It was disagreed to, and the section, as amended, 
reads as follows: 

Sec. 18. The Governor shall receive for his compensation,- 

dollars per annum. 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
eighth amendment, to wit: In section 19, line two, 
strike out the word “Legislature” and insert in lieu 
thereof, the words “ General Assembly,” the same 
was agreed to, and.the section as amended, reads as 
follows: 

Sec. 19. The Lieutenant Governor shad receive, while attend¬ 
ing upon the sittings of the General Assembly, as President in 
the Senate, five dollars per day. 

The question then being on agreeing to the twenty- 
ninth amendment, to wit: In section 20, lino two, 
strike out words “ time and;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the thirtieth 
amendment, to wit: In section 20, lines three and 
tour, strike out the w'ords “ for the term of two years,” 
and insert in lieu thereof, the words “ the Secretary of 
State, Treasurer, and Attorney General, for the term of 
two years, the Auditor for the term of four years.” 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE demanded a division. 

The question turning first on striking out the words 
“ for the term of two years.” 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to perfect the words propo¬ 
sed to be stricken out, by striking out the word “two,” 
and inserting in lieu thereof, the word “ three,” which 
was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out the words 
“ for the term of two years.” 

Mr. MORRIS demanded the yeas and nays, and be- 
in" ordered resulted—yeas 51, nays 46—as follows; 

_Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case ot Licking, Chambers, 
Collin‘'s, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, ^Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Hunter, Kennon, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Otis, 















940 


convp:ntton eeports 


Peck, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of VVarri n, Stiinbery, 
Stanton, Stilv\ oil, Swan, Taylor, Vance of Butler, Warren. Wil- 
liairiB, and \\'orthington—51. 

Mays — Meesrs. Blair, Cahill, Chancy, Clark, Farr, Forhce, 
Greene of l)(diunce, Gregg, Groeeheck. Hard. Ilawkln?, Ilootinan, 
Ilnntphrevillc, Hunt. Johnson, .tones. King, Kirkwood, Leech, 
Leiidbftte-, Lidcy, Mitchell, McMormick, Nh)iris, Orton, Patb-r- 
*on. Quigley, Kanncy, Hremelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, 
Self rs, Smith of Wyandot, Sb'bbins, Stidgt r, Struhle, Swift, 
Thompson of Shelby, 'fhompson ot Stark, Towusheud, Way, 
Wilson, Woodbury and President—46. 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The question then being on filling the blank with the 
ameiidnient of the committee of the wlude, 

Mr. VANCE,of Butler, moved to reconsider the vote 
by which the words “for the term of two years,” was 
fttricken out. 

Mr. CURRY moved a call of the Convention, which 
was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the motion to recon¬ 
sider, 

Mr. MASON demarded the yeas and nays, and being 
ordered, resulted—yeas 45, nays 51—as follows : 

Vkas—M epfrs. Blair, Chaney, Clark, Ewing, Farr, Forbes> 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groeheck, Hard, Hootman, Ilumphnr 
ville. Hunt, John.son, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Leech, Lcadbettcn 
Lidey, Mitchell, McCoimick, Norris, (Irton, Patterson, Quigley* 
Ranney, Rjemelin, Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stehhins, Siickney, Stidger, Struhle, Swift, Thomp¬ 
son of iSh' lhy, Th( mpson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—45. 

Nays— Meters. Archhold, Barbee, Barnet ol Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett ot Pr ‘hlf', Bates, Bennett, Blickenederfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Collings, (’cok, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Gr.aham, 
Gray, Hamilton, Harlan. Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock ot 
Cuyahoga, Hitcbcotk ol Geauga, Holt, lloittm, Hunter, Kennon, 
Lnrsh, Lav, rence, Manon, Mason, Mor* head, Morris, McCloud, 
Otis, Peck, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Warren, Stan- 
bery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Taylor, Warren, Williams and 
Worthington—51. 

So the motion to reconsider w’as disagreed to. 

The qui slion then being on filling the blank with 
the proposed aimudment of the committee of the 
whole, 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler,demanded a divi.don. 

The (luestinn being first on inserting the words ‘‘the 
Sec retary of Slate it wits agreed to. 

The question then fieing on inserting the words 
“Treasurer and Attorney General for the :crtn of two 
years;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the words' the 
Auditor fi>r the term t:f four year.s;” 

Mr. MASOf'J demanded the yeasand nays, and being 
ordered, resulted—yeas 52, nays 45—as follows : 

Ykas —Messrs, Archhold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar- 
nett^of Preble, Bates,, Bennett, Bli kensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Browm ot CiOToll, Case ot Hocking, Case ot Lickiiiij, Chr.mliere, 
Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Hamilton, Hnrliin, Henderson, Ilitchci.ck of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt. Horton, Hunter, Kennon, Kirkwood, 
Liirsh, Lnwience, Manon, Mn.=on, Morehoad, Morris, McCloud, 
Otis, Peck, Fawyer, Fcott of Harrison, Smith of Iliglihir.d, Smith 
of Warren. Smith of Wyandot, Staiibery, Stanton, Stilwell,Swan, 
Warren, Williams and Worthington—52. 

N'ays—M essrs. Blair, Cahill, Chancy, Clark, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Gref ne of Dtdiance, Greg^, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, 
Hootiium, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, I eech, 
Leadbettcr, Lidey, Mitchell, McCorm ck, Norris, Orton, Patter- 
~8on, Quiuley. Ranney, Reemclin, Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Stebbins, Stidger, Strubli', Swift, Thompson of SheHiy, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Way, Wilson, 
Woodbury and President—45. 

Sotiie amendment was agreed to. 

Tfie question then being on agreeing to the thirty- 
gecend umenduicnt, to-wit: In section 20', line seven, 
before ihe word “ bec!)iiie,” insert tlie words “the in¬ 
cumbent;” it was agreed to. 

The quei^tion iheii being on agreeing to the 32nd 
ementhnenf, to wit: “ In sectiun 20, in lines 8 one! 9, 
strike otit these words—“ for ihc remainder of the t( rm 
for which be was elected, or until the disability shall 
be removed,” and insert in lieu of the words pioposed 
to be stricken out, the follownng—“ until the next an¬ 
nual election, when sucli vacancy .shall be filled up by 
an election, provided the death shall have occurred 
thirty days previous;” 


Mr. L.ARSM demanded a division. 

The {juestion then luiuing first on striking out; it 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the amendment 
propost d by the committee of the Whole, 

Mr. 1.,AIISH moved to amend the words proposed 
to be inserted by striking out the word “death,” and 
inserting iti lieu of the same the word “vacancy;” 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to further amend the 
words proposed to be inserted by inserting alter the 
word ' election,” where it occurs in the second in¬ 
stance, the) following words, “ for the residue of the 
unexpired term ; ” which was agreed to. 

Mr. STANTON moved to further amend the words 
proposed to be inserted by striking out the word “ an 
nual; ” w hich was agreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment of the 
committee of the Whole, as amended ; it was agreed 
to; and the section, as amended, reads as follows; 

Sec. 20. The Secretary cf State, the Auditor, Treasurer and 
Attorney General, shall be elected at the same places and in the 
same manner as the Governor—the Secretary of State, Treasu¬ 
rer and Attorney General for the term of two years—the Auditor 
for the ti rm of four years, and until their successors in office 
shall be qtiiilified. 11 the office of either of the officers in this sec¬ 
tion named, shall become vacant by impeachment, resignation, 
death, or removal, or the incumbent becomes incapable ol per- 
loi ming Iho duties of the office, the Governor shall fill the vacan¬ 
cy until the next annual election, when such vacancy shall be 
filled by the election for the residue ol the unexpired term ; pro¬ 
vided the vacancy shall have occurred thirty days previous. 
Their compensation to be fixed by law. 

The qtieslion then being on agreeing to the thirty* 
third amendment, to wit: 

In section twenty-one, line one, after the words “ap¬ 
pointment is,” strike out these words, “ by the consti¬ 
tution ; ” w Inch was agreed to. 

3'he question then being on agreeing to the thirty- 
fourth nmeiKlineiit, to wit: 

In section twenty-one, line two, strike out the word 
“ Legislature,” and insert in lieu thereof the words 
“ General Assembly ; ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the thirty- 
fifth ameuduient, to wit : “ strike out the whole of sec¬ 
tion twentyone,” it was agreed to. 

The question ilien being on agreeing to the thirty- 
sixth anieudinent, to wit: Add as section twenty-two 
the following; “The General Assembly shall make 
piovision, not inconsistent with this constitution, for 
filling casual vacancies in oflice ;” it was agreed to. 

Mr. MANON moved to further amend the report by 
striking out all after the word “ elector,” in line two 
of section three. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, moved to amend the 
words proposed to be stricken out, by striking out all 
alter the word “election ;” which was agreed to. 

The qurstion then being on striking out all after the 
word “elector,” pending which, 

Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the Convention ad¬ 
journ, on whicdi motion 

Mr. REEMELIN demanded the yeas and hays, and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 55, nays 40—as follows: 

YEAf—Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barrett of 
Pn.ble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brov'ii of Carroll, Cahill, 
Case of Hocking. Chaney, Collings, Curry. Cutler, Flwart, Flor¬ 
ence, Greene ol Defiance, Gregfr, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geaug.n. Holt, Hootman, Horten, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, i.arsh, Lawrence, Let ch, Lead- 
better, Lidey, kfcCoimick, Norris, Orton, Ranney. Riddle, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott ot Auglaize, Smith ol Highland, Smith ol Warren, Stan- 
bery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, S\vnn, Taylor,Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Townshend, Way, Williams, Worthington and 
President—55. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Case of Lickinir, Chambers, Clark, Cook, 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hunter, Johnson, King, Manon, Mason, 
Mitchell, Morc'head, Morris, McCloud. Otis, Patterson, Peck, 
Quigley, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith cf VV'ynndot, 
Stanton, Struhle, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, 
Warren, Wilson and Woodbury—40. 

So the motion prevailed, and the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 









941 


CONVENTION IlEPOETS. 


THURSDAY, Jani'auy 9, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournnieut. 

Urayer by Rev. Dr. lingo. 

Mr. MORRIS [uesentetl a polilion from .Tames T. 
Caldwell and fil'iy-two other citizens of Ohio, praying 
that a clause be inserted in the new constitution au 
thorizing the Legislature to organize counties witli an 
area of three liundred square mdes. 

Referred to the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects 
and Propositions. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from .John 
C. Dalton, and 58 other citizens of Clinton county, 
praying that a clause bo inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion prohibiting the Legislature from [iassing any law 
legalizing the sale of spirituous liquors. 

Mr. McCORMICK presented a petition from Nathan 
Steele and 29 other citizens of Vinton county, on the 
same subject. 

Said petitions were .severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spii its. 

Mr. HAWKINS presented a memorial from S. F. 
Carey, on the subject of inserting a clause in the organ¬ 
ic law pi ohibiting the enactment of law licensing the 
sale of liquor. 

Referred to the committee on the subject of Retail¬ 
ing Ardent 'pirits. 

Mr. STILWELL presented a petition from E. Buck¬ 
ingham and 70 other females of Muskingum county,on 
the same subject. 

The same gentleman presented sundry petitions 
from V. P. Bennett, J. P. Caldwell and 41 other citi¬ 
zens of Muskingum county, on the same subject. 

Mr. LARStl {(resented sundry petitions from .Joseph 
Mills, Wesley Andrews and 50 other citizens of Preble 
county, on the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Sjiirits 

On motion of Mr. RIDDLE, the Convention again 
took up the report of the committee ou the Executive 
Department, with the pending amendments. 

The question pending being the motion of Mr. Ma- 
KON, to strike out all after the word “ eletcor,” in line 
two, of section three, 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to amend the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, by striking out these words 
“ and has not been a citizen of the United States 
twelve years ” 

Mr. HlTCFlCOCK, of Geauga, moved to perfect tin 
words proposed to be stricken out, by striking out tin 
word “ twelve,” and inserting in lieu thereof the word 
” five.” 

Mr. RANNEY demanded a division. 

The question being ou striking out the word “twelve;” 
it was agreed to. 

The question then being ou inserting the word “five,” 

Mr. MITCHELL deminded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 40, nays 58—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomi'ry, Barnett ol 
Preble. Bates, Brown of Atlien«, Brown of Carroll. Caliiil, I'liani 
bers, Collings, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, (tilleit. (trahiim. 
Gray, Grefn of Ross, Groesbeck, llrttnilton, Hard, Harlaii, lien 
deraon, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Gemii'a, Horton. 
Hunter, Leadbetter, Mason, Morehead, Morri-, McClouil, Otis, 
Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith ol VVarren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stilwell, Williams and VVorihington—40. 

Nays _Messrs. Archbuld, Bennett, Blair, Blickensilcrfcr, Case 

of Hockinc:, Case of Lickitig, Clark. Co(ik, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr. 
Forbes, Greene of Defiau e, Gre<rg, Hawkitis, IhJines, Holt, 
Hootman, Humphreville. Hunt, Johnson, .Joins, Keniion. Kirk 
wood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Lidi'y, Manoii, ^iit hell, M( Coi ■ 
mick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Pei kins, (iuiuley, Ramu y. IUm nu • 
lin. Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaiz., Seller-. Smith of Wyan¬ 
dot, sti bbiriP, Stickiiey, Struhlc, Swan. Swilt, Taylor, Thomps. i 
of Shelby, 'J'hompson ot Stark, 'l'owii«hend, Vance of Butli i 
Warren, Way, W'ilson Woodliury, and Pres'tieiit- .'>8. 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER tnoved to p* rfett the 
words proposed to be stricken out, by strikiug out tin 
word “ years which was agreed to. 

The question iheu being ou iho mueudmeat of Mr 
Reemelin, 


.Mr. M.YSON demanded the yeas and nays, and being 
ordered, lesult. d—yciis G9, nays 35—as follows: 

Veas —Messrs. Archbold, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Athens, 
Brown ol Carrol!, Cahill. Clnik, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, 
Hoibes, Greene of Defiance, Gregtr, Groesbeck, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, Holuiea, Holt, Hootman, Ilumphreville, Hunt, Hur.tei', 
Johnson, .Jones Kennon, Kirkw'ood,Larsli, Lawi-ence,Leech,Lead- 
better, Lidey,Manjn, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris,.Orton, Patter* 
.-on,Perkin.-,Ouigley, Pu'cmelin, Riddle, Sawyer,Scottuf Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of VVyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, .Struliie, .Swan, 
Swilt, Tiiylor,'I hompson of .Slielhy, Thompson of Stark, 'I'owna* 
liend, VTmee of Butler, VVarren, Way, Woodbury and President 
—CO. 


Nays —Messr.?. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett ol Pteble, Bati's, Blickensderfer. Chambers, Collings, Curry, 
Cutler, Florence, Gillctt, Gr<.hani, Gray, Green of Hoss, Hatnil- 
ton, Hard, IJarlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock ol G au- 
ga, Horton, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, 
Peck, .‘^eott of Harrison, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stilwell, Williams and Worthuigton—35. 

So tho funeiidiniuit was agreed to. 

The (jiiesliou ilien being ou the motion to strike out 
all after iho word “elector,” 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to pcrfectlheso words pro 
posed to be slrick'^n out by inserting tho word “ been ” 
before the words “an iiihabitaut.” 

- The qiiesiiou then lieiug on the motion to strike oul 
all after the word “ elector,” 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE demanded the yea?and nays, 
and being ordered, resulted—yeas 5G, nays 38—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, llawkiiiA, 
Henderson, IJoimes. Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, 
Johnson, Jones, Keniion, Kirkwood, Lar&h, Lawrence, Leech, 
l.eadbetter, Lidey, Marion. Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, 
Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Kaimey, Reemelin, Kiddle, Scott of 
Auglaize, ciellers, Smith ot VVyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Strublo, 
Swan, Swilt.'I'aylor,'I'homp-on ol Shelby, Thompson ot Stark, 
Townsheiui, VVarren, Way, Woodbury and President—56 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Prelde, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brow'll of Carroll, Cliambers, Collings, Curry, Cutler, Flornnco, 
Gillett, Grabain, Green ot Ross, H.HUiilton, Hard, Harlun, Hitch¬ 
cock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Gi auga, Horton, Mason, More¬ 
head, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Sawyer, .''^cotl of Har¬ 
rison. Mrntli ot VV'arrt;n, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, VVilliama, 
and VVorthington—38. 

So the iimtiori to strike out wa.^? agreed to. 

Mr. BROVVN, of Athens, moved to strike out tho 
whole of section 3, on which motion 

Mr HOLMES denmuded the yeas and nays, and be¬ 
ing ordcreil, resiilteil—yeas 16, nays 80—-as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Brown ot Attieiis, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Gillett, 
Green of Ross, Hard, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Mason, Nash, Reem- 
rlin, and Stanton—16. 

Nay3 —Mes-rs. Arelibold, Barnett of Preble, Blair, Blickensder- 
ter, Cahill, Clark. Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Flon nci-, Foibes, Graham, Gray. Greene of Detiame, Gregg, 
Groesbeck llainilton. Harlan, IJawkins, H> nderson, Hitchcock 
ot Geau'ja, Holmes, Holt, Hootmun, Horton, Humplueville, Hunt; 
Hunter, Joliinon. Jone.-;, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, l.awrenco, 
LeecI), Leadhi-tter. Lidey, Maiion, Mitchell, Morehead, Moiria, 
McCloud, ^J(■Corlnick, Noiri.-;, Orton, (nis, Patterson, Peck, Po.-- 
kius, Quigley, Ranney, Kiddle, .'■awyer, .''^cott of Harrison, ScoU 
of Auglaize, Seller..*, Smitli of VVarren, .'^nnth ot VVyandot, Stall- 
hery, Sreldiins, Stilwell .'■tickney, Struhle, Swan, Sw'itt Taylor, 
Thompson ol Shelby, Tnoiniison of Stark Towns'iend, Vance ol 
Bnller, Warren, Way, Williams, VVoodhury, Worthington and 
President—8J. 

8(1 tlie motion to strike out wn.s di.sagrecd to. 

Mr. BENNETT nmvetJ to riutlur amend the report 
!>>■ sit iking out all after du? word “receive,” in section 
18, uotl insert in lim of llie words strickou out, the 
tolluwiiig: “ such compensation us may be fixed by 
law.’’ 

Mr. MORRIS (h mniidi d a division. 

'I'he same gcntleniaii moved to perfect file vvordu 
(U-oposed to lie sir ekeii out, by i...‘.eilijig die yvorda 
“ liliccn l.niidrcd,” al'er Hie vvmd “ coitqiensatimi ; ” 

II vvliicli ii.oiioii lie demanded the jia-i and nays, and 
Loiii'f ordered, iesiiU< d —yeas G, luvvs 91 --as follows: 

Vka.s—M essrs. Cliainl.crs, Clark, Curry, Lidey, Morris and 
Swill—6 

Navs —Amliews. Aiclil old Barbee, Barnet ot MontiO m- 
f ry Piainelt ot I’lehle, Bales, Benn< tr. Blair, Blu k'iiMiei t<f, 
Bniwii I t Alia Brownof I'anoll, Cahill, (,'olhng-, (.'onk, Cut- 
'cr Dorsey, Ewiul, Ewing, Farr, Flcience, Forbes, Gilklt, Cro- 














942 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hor¬ 
ton Humphrevllle, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, 
Larsh Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, 
Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Pat¬ 
terson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Rauney, Reemelin, Riddie, teaw' 
yer Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of War¬ 
ren’ Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, 
Stickney, Struble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wil¬ 
liams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President—91. 

So the motion was disagreed to. ^ 

The question then being on striking out ail after the 
word “receive,” 

Mr. RANNEY moved to perfect the words to be 
stricken out, by striking out the words “dollars per 
annum,” and inserting ^in lieu thereof, the following: 
“ such sum as may be fixed by law, which shall not be 
inci’eased or diminished during his term of olfice.” 

Mr. NASH demanded a division, ^ 

The question then being on striking out the words 
“ dollars per annum; ” it was disagreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the following 
words, “such sum as may be fixed by law, which shall 
not be increased or diminished during the term of of¬ 
fice,” 

Mr. LARSH moved to perfect the words proposed 
to be inserted, by striking out the words “increased 
or; ” which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Ranney’s 
amendment, the same was agreed to, and the section, 
as amended, reads as follows : 

Sec. 18. The Governor shall receive for his compensation, such 
sum as may be fixed by law, which shall not be increased or di¬ 
minished during his term of office. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, moved to reconsider 
the vote by which section IG of the report was strick¬ 
en out. 

Pending which, 

Mr. MASON moved that the Convention lake a re¬ 
cess, but withdrew the motion at the request of Mr. 

Case. , j , 

Mr. CASE, of Licking. I designed on the day be¬ 
fore yesterday, Mr. President, to have called the atten¬ 
tion of two or three gentlemen on this floor, who ap¬ 
pear to have misunderstood my remarks on last Satur¬ 
day, to the manuscript report of them, which I now 
hold in my hand, and so far as any controversy is con¬ 
cerned, in the hand writing of the Reporter without 
the alteration of a single word or letter; but I was 
prevented from doing so then by the adjournment of 
the Convention at noon over to this morning. I will 
now read so much thereof as show, that I as well as 
the reporter am right and that a few gentlemen here 
are wrong. [Here Mr. Case read sundry extracts 
from the reporter’s manuscript of his speech going 
to establish his statements, and referred to the repor¬ 
ter to state whether tho paper from which ho read 
was not in his hand writing and just as he was repor- 
ted at the time of the speech—to which the reporter 
assented.] 

I will now state that in tins morning’s Cincinnati 
Enquirer, is a statement that those gentlemen to whom 
I have referred as misunderstanding my remarks on 
last Saturday, did in stating their understanding^ of 
them, impeach my varacity. I now put the question 
distinctly to those gentlemen, whether in that respect 
they are correctly reported? 

Mr. LEECH. I have no desire to do injustice to 
any man, much less to the gentleman frorn Licking, 
[Mr. Case.] But, sir, I think I am not mistaken in 
the statement I made, on a former occasion, in relation 
to the matter now in controversy. On the occasion 
to which I refer, I stated that l understood the gentle¬ 
man from Licking, in a portion of his speech, to as¬ 
sume the position that the Democracy of Ohio did not 
make the question of the repeal of charters an issue in 
the canvasss for a Convention to amend the^ constitu¬ 
tion. That was my impression then, and it is ray im¬ 
pression still. 


As to the direct question propounded by the gentle¬ 
man from Licking, I will say tliat I do not consider 
that I have impeached his veracity. I have merely sta¬ 
ted my understanding of his remarks. 

Mr. SAWY’BR said that in the remarks he made on 
Tuesday he certainly did not intend to impeacli itie 
veracity of the gentlemen from Licking, [Mr. Case.] 

Mr. MITCHELL. I must still reiterate w’hat I be¬ 
fore said, that I clearly understood the gentleman from 
Licking to state, in tho first part of his speech, that the 
Democratic party of Ohio did pot make the doctrine of 
the repealability of charters a test question prior to 
the assembling of this Convention. The gentleman 
asked, “ in what county the doctrine of repeal was in¬ 
sisted upon by the Democracy?” and I replied, “in 
the'county of Knox.” 

Mr. GREGG. As I am among those called upon by 
the gentleman [Mr. Case] to answer wdiether or not I 
“ impeach ” his “ veracity,” I can only refer to what I 
before said wdien this subject was up, and which has, 

I as a matter of course, gone upon the official record 
made by the Reporter. I did not impeach tho veraci¬ 
ty of the gentleman, [Mr. Case,] but I denied the cor¬ 
rectness of his statement with regard to the position 
of tho Democratic party, and I still adhere to what I 
then said. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga. One fact ought to 
satisfy every man that the gentleman from Licking is 
correct—for when he was speaking, the gentleman 
from Columbiana interrupted him and read a resolu¬ 
tion of his county on the subject of repeal, and then 
added that he supposed Mr. Case would contend that 
that re.solution was prospective, and Mr. Case replied 
that ii certainly was. 

Mr. CASE resumed. Mr. President, all the gentle¬ 
men allujled to in the Enquirer having distinctly dis¬ 
claimed what is therein imputed to them, I am done— 
but I owe an apology for having in this body referred 
to so contemptible, dirty and libelous a paper as this, 
(the Cincinnati Enquirer,) and I will, and do now. 
most humbly ask pardon of this body for so doing. 1 
ask pardon of members on the right as well as on the 
left. I ask pardon of the officers sitting here before 
me—yea, I ask pardon of the little messenger boys 
about this hall, and last, and by no means to be over¬ 
looked, if there be a solitary half starved mouse danc¬ 
ing about tliis chamber, I in the most humble manner 
asK its pardon, for it too have I offended. 

Mr. CASE, of Hocking. Mr. President, 1 have had 
my attention called to an article in this morning’s Cin¬ 
cinnati Enquirer, in which I am, very much to my sur¬ 
prise, represented as a bank president! [Laughter.] 

The only notice that I think proper to make of the 
editorial in question is, simply to state that it is u)i- 
qualifiedly false in every particular. 

I never was a bank president, nor do I hold any of^ 
fice in connection with the institution alluded to. 

On motion of Mr. MASON, the Convention then 
took a recess. 


THURSDAY’, January 9, 1851. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending being on the motion to recon¬ 
sider the vote by which section 16 of the report on the 
Legislative Departments, was stricken out, 

Mr. MASON said he had expressed his views fully 
upon the propriety of a qualified veto power in the 
hands of the Governor, when this report was discussed 
in committee of the Whole, and he only rose now to 
call attention to the argument he had then made. The 
section, conferring that power, which was stricken out 
in committee of the Whole, does not confer upon the 
Executive the authority to pass a bill or to defeat it— 
it simply provides as follows: 

Every bill or joint resolution which shall have passed both 
houses of the Legislature, shall before it, becomes a law, be pre¬ 
sented to the Governor; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if 
not, he shall return it with his objections to that house in which 











CONVENTION REPORTS 


943 


it originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their 
journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsidera¬ 
tion, a majority of the whole number elected shall agree to pass 
the bill or resolution, it ^hall be sent, together with the objections, 
to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered; 
and if approved by a majority of ail the members elected, itshall 
become a law, notwithstanding the objections of the Governor. 
But in ail such cases, the votes of both houses shall be determined 
by yeas and nays, and the names of the members voting for and 
against the bill or resolution, shall be entered on the journals of 
each house respectively. If any bill or resolution shall not be 

returned by the Governor within-days, (Sundays excepted,) 

after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, 
in like manner, as if he had signed it, unless the Legislature shall, 
by their adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall 
not be a law. 

It appeaars to me that such a provision will prove a 
remedy for hasty and ill considered legislation, as also 
upon excessive legislation. ! 

I will remark that I am informed that a majority of 
the framers of our present constitution were really in 
favor of providing for the exercise of a qualified veto, 
but owing to the extreme unpopularity of the then 
Governor of the Territory, and also to the fact that he 
had recommended such a pt’ovision, it failed to receive 
the sanction of a majority. 

I trust that the motion to re-consider the vote by 
which the Convention refused to strike out section 16, 
will be re-considered, and that the principle of that 
provision may yet find a place in the new constitution 

I might, and with some propriety, appeal to gentle¬ 
men on the other side of the chamber to support this 
motion to reconsider and to vote with me for so demo¬ 
cratic a measure as that of a I believe that by 

so doing they would make thousands of votes for the 
new instrument in the adoption of which we all have 
so much interest. 

Mr. KIDDLE. I shall consume no time in the dis¬ 
cussion of this question, but I trust that the motion to 
reconsider will prevail. I am decidedly of the opinion 
that the "Interests of the people of Ohio would be ma¬ 
terially subserved by a constitutional provision for a 
qualified veto, not a veto which would require two 
thirds of all members elected to jiqss a bill which had 
been returned with the Governor’s objections, but a 
majority to vote for it before it could become a law. 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll. I was a member of the 
committee on the Executive Department, and with¬ 
held my name from the report, on account of its con¬ 
taining this section sixteen, which the gentleman from 
Clark is so desirous of engrafting upon the new consti¬ 
tution. I grant that his argument was a good one, but 
it reminded me of Ovid’s description of the Temple of 
the Sun—the workmanship was better than the materi¬ 
als. [Laughter.] That gentleman [Mr. Mason,] ap¬ 
pealed to the democratic side of this chamber for assis¬ 
tance in adopting this veto provision. Now I will not, 
in this case, appeal from Ciesar, but I will appeal 
[turning to the Democratic side of the chamber,] to 
Caesar. [Laughter.] And I will advise those gentle¬ 
men, that if they wish to see this constitution adopted, 
they had better steer clear of this veto provision— give 
it a “wide berth.” I know that they, (the democratic 
members,) desire to engraft upon this instrument hard 
money and anti-bank provisions, and I can tell them 
that such provisions will be all that the disposition of 
the people to adopt the new constitution will carry 
through. Add the veto provision, and the whole is in¬ 
evitably defeated. 

I hope the motion to reconsider will not prevail. 

The question being upon reconsidering the vote by 
which section sixteen was stricken out, 

Mr. MASON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 41, nays 50—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Cahill, Chaney, Cook, Borsey, Ewing, Fair, 
Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, King, Kirkwood, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Mason, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Perkins, Quig¬ 
ley, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stick- 
ney, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Wilson, 
Worthington and President—41. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown 


of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Clark, Collings, Curry, 
Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamil¬ 
ton, Hard, Hai’lan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Lawrence, Manon, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Ranney, 
Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stil- 
wcll, Thompsen of Shelby, Townshend, Warren, Way and 
Woodbury—50. 

So the motion to reconsider was disagreed to. 

Ml. MANON moved to further amend the report by 
striking out the whole of sections 18 and 19; which 
was agreed to. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to further amend the re¬ 
port by adding at the end of section 22, the following: 

“Provided that in filling vacancies by election it 
shallbe for the residue of the uiiexpired term;” which 
was agreed to. 

Mr. LEADBETTER moved to reconsider the vote 
by which the Convention agreed to section 22; which 
was agi'eed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to section 22 
it was disagreed to. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to further amend the re 
port by adding as an additional section the following; 

Sec. 22. The officers, connected with the Executive Depart 
ment, or with any of the public State Institutions, shall, at least 
five days preceding each regular session of the General Assem¬ 
bly, transmit to the Governor, the reports which they may be 
directed to make by law, who shall transmit the same, with his 
message, to the General Assembly; 

Which was agreed to. 

Mr. LARSH moved to further amend the report by 
striking out of section 11, line four, these words “ as he 
may think proper subject,” to such regulations; which 
was disagreed to. 

Mr. MASON moved to further amend the report by 
adding as an additional section the following: 

Sec. 23. There may be established in the office of Secretary of 
State a bureau of statistics, under such regulations as may be pre 
scribed by law. 

Mr. MASON. I believe sir, that the establishment 
of such a department would be productive of the most 
beneficial results. We have nothing of the kind now 
in the State except some fragmentary information col¬ 
lected by the Secretary of State, with regard to com¬ 
mon Schools. 1 believe that this bureau would develoj) 
one of the most useful institutions in Ohio—would be¬ 
come a department more visited and referred to by 
citizens of all classes, than any other. The vast amount 
of valuable and accurate information, would be of the 
greatest service to the Legislature at each session, as a 
basis for all political, religious, educational, agricultu¬ 
ral, financial and scientific calculations. Such a bureau 
would indicate the progress of the people—the progress 
of art and science in Ohio. 

But I will not enlarge—I merely ofi’er a proposition 
for the establishment of such a bureau, and leave the 
matter to the Convention. 

The question being on agreeing to Mr. Mason’s 
amendment, the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to reconsider the vote by 
which the Convention refused to strike out section 3 ; 
which was agreed to. 

'J^e question being then on striking out the wdiole ot 
section 3 ; it was agreed to. 

Mr. CURRY moved to further amend the report by 
striking out section 17. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to perfect the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out by striking out all after the 
words “ when the Senate shall be et^ually divided,” in 
the section, and insert In lieu thereof the following : 

And the General Assembly shall by law provide for the case of 
removal, death, resignation or inability of both the Governor and 
the Lieutenant Governor. 

Mr. MASON demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
word “divided,” it was disagreed to. 

Mr. MASON moved to further amend the report, by. 
inserting after the word “ divided,” in section 17, the 
following; which was agreed to t 

The Senate shall choose a President tmpore^ in the absence 
















944 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


cf thrt Lieutenant Governor, or when he fchall exercise the office 
of Governor. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLB moved to further mrimid 
section .17, by striking out in lines two mid three, these 
words: “qualifications and eligibility;” which was 
agreed to. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, moved to fiirtlier 
amend the same section by inserting in the second line, 
after the word “manner,” these words; “and for the 
same term of oflice;” wliich was agreed to. 

The same gentleman moved to strike out, in the 
same section, in lines three and four, these words; 
“and his term of oflice shall also be the same;’’ which 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on the motion to .strike out 
the whole of .section 17, 

Mr CHAMP>EPiS demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 19, nays 81—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Chambers, Clark, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Flor¬ 
ence, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Henderson, Holt, Kennon, lyawrenct', 
Leech, Mitchell, Morris, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Struble and 
Worthington—19. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, P,arbee, Barnet, of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickonsdei fer. 
Brown of Athrms, Bro%vn of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, 
Case of Licking, Chaney, Coliings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Cray, Greene of Defifmce, Green of 
Ross, Gregg, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Huraphreville, 
Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Manon, Mason, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, 
Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reeme- 
!in, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Seders, Smith of Warren, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Sfilwcll, Stick- 
ney, Swan, Swilt, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of 
Stark, Townshend, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson, Worthing- 
and President—81. 

So the motion to strike out the whole of section 17, 
was disagreed to. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to further amend the report, 
■by adding at the end of the section 1, the following: 

and such other executive offices as may be created 
by the General Assembly.” 

The question having been stated by the President— 
Mr. H. said: He had offered this for the purpose of 
giving to the Legislature, (in view of a necessity which 
would probably arise.) the power of creating the office 
of Comptroller of the Treasury. Fie knew that there 
was a strong feelingin the State in favor of the creation 
-of such an office. 

Mr, GILLETT hoped the amendment would pre¬ 
vail; for the prebability was, that it would not be long 
before it would be desirable for the State to make pro¬ 
vision for the election of an officer whose title should 
be, that of Commissioner of Agriculture. Fie had no 
doubt that the time would soon arrive, when such an 
•office would be exceedingly desirable to the ugricnl- 
itural portion of the State, if it were not so at this day. 
Mr, WOODBURY moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
be now put ?” 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER moved that the Conveu- 
•tion adjourn ; on which mutioii 

Mr. MITCFIELL demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 42, nays 56 —as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnetof Montgomery, Bennett, Blick- 
ensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hockiiisr, 
Case of Licking, Chambers, Colling-s, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Flo¬ 
rence, Forbes, Gillett, Cray, Green of Ross, Ilamilton, Hard, Har¬ 
lan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, IJimt, 
oJohn.son, Kennon, Lawrence, Leech, Morehead, McCloud, Mc¬ 
Cormick, Nash, Quigley, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Warren, 
Ftaiibery, Stanton, Stilwell, Thompson of Stark, Williams and 
Wilsoji—42. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blair, 
Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsejf, l^wart, Flwing, Farr, Greene ot 
Defiance, Greg", Groesbeck, Hawkins, Henderson, Holt, Hoot¬ 
man, Ilumphreville, Hunter, King. Kirkwood, Larsh, Leadbetter. 
Lidey, Manon. Mason, MitcheJl, Morris, Norris Orton, Oiis, Pat¬ 
terson, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, lleemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott 
oi Aug:laize, .‘-'elleis, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stru- 
l)!e, Swan, Swift, 'Paylor, Thianpeon of .Shelby, Townehend, 
Warren, Way, Woodbury, Worthington and President—56. 

So the motion to tidjouru was disagreed to. 

Tlie question theu being, “Shall the main question 
bo now put?” 


Mr. MITCFIELL demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 51,n‘.iy8 48—as follows; 

Yeas —Me.s8rs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Curry, Dor¬ 
sey, i’Aving, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Gr> ene oi Deiinnce.Gregg, Groes¬ 
beck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hootman. Ilumphreville, Hunt, 
Hunbr, Kennon, King, Kirk wood, Larsh, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, 
Norris, Orton, Fatter-^cn. Qui^iley, Ranney, Rcnnelin, Sawyer, 
•Scott of Auglaize, Seilers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Strnble, Swan, Swift, 'i'aybir, Thompson of Shelby, TovvnsheuJ, 
Warren, ^Vay, Wil-on, Woodbury and President—51. 

Nay's—M i'Esrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, i^arnet of Mont- 
gomi ry, Burnett of Preble, B-ites, Bennett Blickonsderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers Collings, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, GilhUt, Graham, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Johnson, Lawrence, Leech, Lead- 
better, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormica, Nash, 
Otis, Peck, Perkins, Kiddle, Scott of Harrison, Smitli of Warren, 
.Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Thompson of Stark, Williams ana 
Worthington—48, 

So the demand for the previous question was sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then being on the motion of Mr. Haw- 
KiN.s to amend secliou 1; it was disagreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the report to be 
engrossed, 

Mr. NASH demanded the yeas and nays, and being 
ordered, resulted—yeas 74, nays 25—as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Bates, Benneth 
Blair, Brown ot Carroll. Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Cha* 
iiey, Clark, Collings, Cook, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, F'orbes, Gillett] 
Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton] 
Hard, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga] 
Holt, Hootman, ilumphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, KennoU) 
King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, McCloud, Nor¬ 
ris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Rcemelin, 
Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Siauton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stru- 
ble, Swan, Switt, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Iffiompeon of 
Stark, Townslu nd, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthing- 
ton and President—74. 

Nays— Messrs. Barnetof Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Blick- 
ensderfer, Brown of Athens, Case ol Hocking, Curry, Cutler, 
Dorsey, Florence, Green of Ross, Harlan, Henderson, Horton, 
Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Morehead, Morris, McCor¬ 
mick. Nash Otis, Scott of FJurrison, Stilwell and Williams—25. 

So the bill was ordered to be engrossed. 

And on motion was ordered to be read a third time 
oil Saturday next. 

Mr. LIDEY moved that the Convention adjourn, on 
which motion, 

Mr. McCORMICK demanded the yeas and nays, 
and being ordered, resulteed—yeas 55, nays 52—as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett. Blair, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of AthenSj Brown of Carroll, Cfhill, Case of Hocking, 
Case of Licking, Chambers. Chaney, Clark, Collings, Cook, 
Curry, Dorsey, Florence, Forbes, Gray, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, lloit, Hootman, Humphrevilla, 
Hunt, Hunter, Kirkwood, Lidey, Manon. Mason, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Patterson, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Fcott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanliery, Stilwell, 
Stickney, Swan, Taylor, Warren and President—5.5, 

Nays— Messrs. Cutler, Ewart, Graham, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hitchcock of Cuyatioga, Horton, 
Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Mitchell, Morehead. 
McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton Otis, Peck, Quigley, Scott m 
Harrison, Stanton, Stebbins, Struble, Townshend, Way, WiF 
liams, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—32. 

So the moticii prevailed, and ihe Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


FRIDAY, January 10, 1851. 

9 o’clock a. u. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjourn meat. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, presented sundry pr titions 
from FI. Cary, P. S. Luuman, S. Rockliill, William Swe- 
uey, John F. Loyd and eighty three other citizens of 
Greene county praying that a clause be inserted in tho 
new constitution, pr(»hibitiiig the Legislature from 
passing any law legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors. 

The same gentleman presented a petition from Em¬ 
ily Hollings, Ann Carey, Margaret Costy, and on? 
hnndreil and ninety-one oilier females of Greene coun¬ 
ty, on the same subject. 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens, presented a petition from 















CONVENTION REPORTS.' 


945 


Thomas Davis and thirty-two other males, and Nancy 
Crawford and utwenty-four females, of Vinton county, 
on the s un 3 s bject. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON presented a petition from M. 
Lewis and one hundred and fifty other citizens of Ross 
county, on the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee “ on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spir¬ 
its." 

Mr. MITCHELL called attention to the published 
report of the debates on the morning of December 
27th. By a misconception of some remarks then offer¬ 
ed as to the propriety of restricting speakers to fifteen 
minutes, he was made to censure the gentleman from 
Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] by coupling his name with 
that of the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] 
in the same sentence. This was not intended—he 
would not wish to apply such language to the gentle¬ 
man, [Mr. Hawkins.] 

As to my strictures upon the course of the other gen¬ 
tleman, [Mr. Sawyer,] I frankly admit that my re¬ 
marks were too severe. I trust that he,[Mr. Sawyer,] 
is already convinced that I regret the remarks then 
made, and that I cherish none but respectful feelings 
towards him. 

Mr. SAWYER remarked that he was perfectly satis¬ 
fied with the position of the gentleman, [Mr. Mitch- 

EI.I..] 

Mr. MANON moved that the Convention take up the 
report of the committee on Banking and Currency; 
which was disagreed to. 

On motion of Mr. REJIMELIN, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into committee of the Whole, Mr. Law¬ 
rence in the chair, and after some time spent therein, 
the committee rose and the chairman reported that the 
committee had under consideration report number one 
of the committee on the preamble and bill of rights, 
and had instructed him to say that they had come to 
no resolution thereon. 

Mr. MANON moved that the Convention take up the 
report of the committee on “ Banking and Currency," 
on which motion he demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 42, nays 5l—as follows t 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett cf 
Preble, Bates Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, 
Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Florence, Gillet, Gray, Ham¬ 
ilton, Harlan, Hawkins. Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Johnson, 
Kennon, King, Larsh, Manon, Mason, Morehead,Morris,McCloud, 
McCormick, Nash, Norris, Otis, Peck, Reemelin, Scott of Har¬ 
rison, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, Swilt, Warren, Way 
and Woodbury—42. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Brown of Athens, Cahill,Case 
of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene 
of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Ilunt, Hunter, Jones, 
Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, Orion, 
Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott ot Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith ol Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, 
Trylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Williams, Wilson, Worthington and President—51. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention took 
up report number one of the committee on “ Public 
Debts and Public Works," with the pending amend¬ 
ments. 

The question being on agreeing to the first amend¬ 
ment, to wit: Add at the end of section five the fol¬ 
lowing: “ Unless such debt shall have been created for 
the purpose of repelling invasion, or to suppress insur¬ 
rection, or to defend the State in warthe same was 
agreed to, and the section, as amended, reads as fol¬ 
lows : 

8kc. 5. The Lesialature shall never, on behalf of the State, 
assume the debts of any county, city, town or township within 
this State, or of any corporation whatever, unless such debt shall 
have been created for the purpose of repell ing invasion, or to 
suppress insurrection, or to defend the State in war. 

The question then being on agreeing to the second 
amendment, to wit: In section seven, line two,strike 
out the word “ provided," and insert in lieu of the same 
the word “ created;" it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the third 

60 


amendment, to wit; In section seven, strike oat lines 
five and six, and insert the following : 

Be sufficient to pay the accruing interest on the public debt of 
the State, annually to reduce the principal, by a sum not less than 
one hundred thousand dollars, increased yearly and each and 
every year, by compound interest, at the rate of six per cent, per 
annum. 

Mr. SAWYER demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking oat the fifth and 
sixth lines of section .seven, 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, and 
The question then being on inserting the amendment 
of the committee of the Whole, 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to amend the same, by in¬ 
serting after the words “one hundred,” the words “and 
fifty;" on which motion he demanded the yeas and 
nays, and being ordered, resulted—yeas 27, nays 68— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blickensderfer, Chaney, Farr, Hawkins, Hender¬ 
son, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hootman, Humphreville, Kennon, 
Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, 
McCloud, Orton, Perkins, Reemelin, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Swan, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—27. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll,^ahill, Chambers, Clark, Collings, Cook,Cur¬ 
ry, Cutler. Dorsey, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Greene ot Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Ham¬ 
ilton, Hard, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga. Holmes, Holt, Horton, • 
Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, King, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, 
McCormick, Nash. Norris, Otis, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, 

Sa »yer, Scott ot Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Warren, 
Smith of Wyandot, Sianbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, Struble, 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson ot Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Town- 
shend, Warren, Way and Williams—68. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The amendment of the committee 
of the Whole proposes to change the amount which 
shall be raised annually, and made applicable to the 
extinguishment of the public debt, so that the excess 
beyond paying the accruing interest, and applicable to 
the reduction of the principal, shall be $100,000 to com¬ 
mence with, and shall be increased yearly by the ratio 
of compound interest. 

Upon this part of the report, in the committee, there 
was considerable diliei’ence of opinion. For one, I 
would be willing to retain the largest sum which could 
possibly be raised, and made applicable to the payment 
of the State debt. I desire, as one of the representa¬ 
tives of Morgan county, to diminish the State debt as 
rapidly as possible. But there are other districts of 
the State whose local taxes are much more oppressive 
than those of the county which I have the honor to 
represent, and on that account I am desirous that the 
sum proposed to be raised shall be entirely within our 
means. However, I do not desire to insist upon the 
adoption of any provision, either with reference to this 
or any other subject, which cannot command the sup¬ 
port of more than a bare majority; but I should my¬ 
self be glad to go back to the sum originally reported, 
by the standing committee. I regret to perceive that 
one gentleman, [Mr. Hitchcock of Cuyahoga^ who 
has taken a great deal of pains to inform himselt of the 
facts connected with this subject, is not now in his 
place; and I could almost move that tUe subject bo 
passed over until he shall be present, for I know ho 
desires to be present. 

This amendment is certainly very important. It 
proposes materially to reduce the sum to be applied to 
the extinguishment of the State debt. 

Mr. OTIS. I would inquire of the chairman of the 
standing committee, whether the actual difference be¬ 
tween the snm to be raised as reported by the standing 
committee and the committee of the whole, is not 
something like $150,000 or $160,000. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I have not looked at the figuix)8 
lately, but I think that is about the difference. 

Mi\ ARCH BOLD. I understand the chairman of 
the committee, to state, that the sum to be raised under 
the amendment, will be less; and that is what attach¬ 
es me to the amendment. I think that good faith and 
good policy demand of us, that we should make exer- 














946 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


lions to pay off the State debt. But I do not think it 
expedient to make any .spasmodic exertion. Our abil¬ 
ity to pay will be much greater, in seven or eight 
years, than it is now; and it is therefore, that I prefer 
to begin with the smallest amount. Let this be remem¬ 
bered, lhai, if beyond the interest, wo diminish the 
principal of the debt in 1851, by $100,000; in 1852 by 
$106,000; and so on, this compounding ratio will not 
increase the amount of taxation; but the burden of the 
public debt, will be continually decreasing, by little 
and little, till at last, it will wholly dissolve, like snow 
in the spring. 

Mr. SAWYER. I am confirmed in the opinion, 
which I expressed in Columbus; but I tell you g.intle- 
men, now, that I will not give my consent to any 
proposition for the liquidation of the State debt, in any 
shape or form, until we shall first arrive at some defi¬ 
nite conclusion, in relation to some other matters. 
Whilst wo were at Columbus, I referred to a resolution 
offered by the gentleman from Summit, [Mr. Otis,] 
which was full of meaning with reference to this sub¬ 
ject. It was to the effect, that the committee on Fi¬ 
nance and Taxation should report a scheme for raising 
a sufficient amount of revenue, to defray the expenses 
of government, and pay off the State debt, within — I 
forget the time exactly—but the debt was to be paid 
precisely at that point of time, when the present State 
bank charter shall expire. Some gentlemen are op¬ 
posed to taxing the- banks now existing; and by the 
votes and speeches upon this floor, it is feared 
that we shall not be able to compel the banks now 
chartered, to pay taxes upon their property as the rest 
of us do. 

Mr ARCHBOLD, (interrupting). Upon his princi¬ 
ple, then, the gentleman ought to support the amend¬ 
ment. For, by the provision, then, it will require 
thirty or forty years to pay off the debt; some longer 
than the bank charter will last. 

Mr. SAWYER. The gentleman does not know 
what I am driving at. The amendment is just what I 
am after; only I want to reduce still lower the amount 
to be laised—and I shall make that attempt. If gen¬ 
tlemen will come up to the principle of taxing every 
description of property alike, then I am willing to go 
as far as any man toward paying oft‘the debt. .Other¬ 
wise, I do not care particularly about keeping up our 
public stocks to high water mark, 

Mr. OTIS. 1 wish to say, in reply to the gentleman 
from Auglaize, that when I introduced the resolution 
referred to, I mentioned the time 1 did because I un¬ 
derstood, that, at the rale we are now pajdng off the 
debt, it would be accomplished at the period mention¬ 
ed in the resolution. I wish to say further, that I am 
willing, that all banking capital should pay its just and 
equal proportion of tax towards defraying the public 
debt. And I wish to say one thing further; that, upon 
the passage of the law of last winter authorizing the 
taxation of banks, the branch with which I am connect¬ 
ed, immediately came in, and paid the tax upon their 
capital stock, as upon «ther property. 

I introduced the resolution, not with the motives at¬ 
tributed to me, but in. good faith. 

Mr. SAWYER. The explanation is sufficient. But 
there was a coincidence between the time of the expi¬ 
ration of the bank charter, and the time proposed to 
be fixed for the payment of the debt; and I confess I 
was a little suspicious of the gentleman from Summit. 
He hoped the payment of the debt would be so gradu¬ 
ated, as uot to throw all the burden upon the present 
generation. At the proper time he should move to re¬ 
duce the proposed amount to be applied to this object 
to $500,000. It was his opinion that the original sec¬ 
tion would extend the time longer than the amend¬ 
ment. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The scheme of liquidation in the 
report of the standing committee was intended to apply 
to a debt of $16,000,000. That was assumed to be the 
sum of the Stale debt at the time when this provision 


would go into operation. The sum proposed to be 
raised by the original report, would extinguish that 
debt in about the period of 30 years, and by this plan, 
it would be done at an immense saving to the people of 
Ohio. The difference between paying the debt within 
tke period uf 30 j ears, as buggesied iii ihu leportoflhe 
standing committee, and going beyond that period, 
upon the plan of the amendment reported from the 
committee of the Whole, would be something more 
than $10,000,000. 

Surprising, as it might be to many, this was the re¬ 
sult of a very critical and accurate calculation, which 
he explained by a brief statement of figures. 

He then glanced briefly at the history of the operation 
of our present tax law, to show, (what he had hereto¬ 
fore elaborated,) that it was to be expected, at any rate, 
that the people would be taxed to the utmost amount 
which they could bear, easily ; and here he drew an 
argument in favor of with drawing the revenue from 
other objects, (to which it would certainly be applied, 
without a constitutional intervention,) and applying as 
much as possible toward the extinguishment of the 
State debt. 

In conclusion, he begged the gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize [Mr. Sawyer] to re-consi^er his position, and 
see whether it was required, either by economy or 
good policy, to continue this evil of a public debt, be¬ 
cause we could not get rid of that other evil of a dis¬ 
crimination upon the tax list in favor of money vested 
in banks. The whole amount of the capital of all the 
banks in Ohio, was but as a drop in the bucket, com¬ 
pared with the aggregate amount of taxable property 
in the State. Although he himself would have the 
banks contribute their equitable proportion of the re¬ 
venue, yet he would uot oppress the people by a con¬ 
tinuance of the public debt, until the time should 
arrive when the banks could be taxed as other prop- 
erty. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD liked the phraseology of the amend¬ 
ment, better than that of the original iection, but he 
desired to increase the annual amount applicable to the 
extinguishment of the principal of the debt, from 
$100,000 to $150,000. He preferred the form of the 
amendment, because it gave every man to understand 
precisely what was to be the amount of reduction ; 
which could uot be gathered from the original section, 
without some calculation. He was willing to fix the 
amount of reduction as high as it could be sustained. 
He believed that the State, as well as an individual, 
would make money by paying its debts. He was as 
desirous as his friend from Auglaize could be, to have 
ail the property in the State taxed equitably and fairly; 
but he could not be in favor of continuing a greater 
evil, for the sake of endeavoring to overcome a lesser 
evil. 

The question being upon striking out a portion of 
sec. 7, and inserting other words, 

Mr. SAWYER demanded a division of the question, 
and the same turning first on striking out, 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, and the 
same being ordered, the result was—yeas 71, nays 23 
—as follows: 


Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, 
Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewing, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of 
Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, 
Hunter, Johnson, King, Kirkwood, Lidey, Manon, Mason, More- 
head, Morris, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, 
Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Scott of Ilarrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor, Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Townshend, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson and 
Worthington—^71. 

Navs —Messrs. Blickensderfer, Hawkins, Humphreville, Jones, 
Kennon, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Mitchell, McCloud, 
Perkins, Reemelin, Sawyer, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Steb- 
bins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Thompson of Stark and 
Woodbury—^23. 

So the motion to etrike out was agreed to. 












CONVENTION EEPOETS. 947 


The question then being on inserting the ameud- 
uient of the committee of the whole; namely, these 
words: “Be sufficient to pay the accruing interest on 
the public debt of the State, and annually to reduce 
the principal by a sum not less than one hundred thous¬ 
and dollars, increased yearly, and each and every year, 
by compound interest, at the rate of six per cent, per 
annum.” 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to amend the same by in¬ 
serting after the words “one hundred,” the words 
“ and fifty.” 

On which motion he demanded the yeas and nays, 
and the same being ordered, resulted—yeas 27, nays 
68 —as follows: 

Ykas —Messrs, Blickensderfer, Chaney, Farr, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hootman, Humphreville, Ken- 
non, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Leech, Lidey, 
Mitchell, McCloud, Orton, Perkins, Reemelin, Sellers, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Swan, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—27. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers. Clark, Ceilings, Cook, Cur¬ 
ry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green- of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, 
Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, King, Manon, Mason, Morehead, 
Morris, McCormick, Nash, Norris. Otis, Peck, Quigley, RUnney, 
Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stidger, Stilwell, 
Strubld, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 'I'hompson of 
Stark, Townshend, Warren, Way and Williams—68. 

So the motion was disagreed to: and the question 
again recurred upon inserting the amendmentt of the 
committee of the whole. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, now moved to amend 
the words proposed to be inserted, by striking out the 
words “ one hundred,” and inserting in lieu of the same 
the words “ seventy-five.” 

Mr. RANNEY demanded a division of the question, 
and then the first question was upon striking out the 
words “one hundred.” 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble. During the summer I 
took ground against a sinking fund so large as $100,- 
000, and gave my reasons. I was not, however, very 
well understood, I suppose, and I do not know that I 
shall be able to make myself well understood now. 
But I cannot vei-y well sit still in my place, and per¬ 
mit the matter to go by in silence. I then proposed to 
strike out $100,000, and insert $75,000, to be increased 
by such a compound interest ratio, as would pay off 
the public debt in a given time—any time which might 
suit the views of a majority ef the Convention. 

The chief object which 1 had in view was this: that 
we should commence with a smaller sum at first, such 
as might better suit the present condition of the people 
to pay. 

It appears to me that we are about to deny to the 
people, for the present, the power of making any of 
their very much needed public improvements; that 
we are about to deny to the people of our townships, 
counties and cities, not only tfie power of engaging in 
those works of improvement upon their own means, 
but also the power of loaning their credit for those ob¬ 
jects—and so throwing the whole matter upon individu¬ 
al exertion. While we are making these radical chan¬ 
ges, 1 cannot but think that it is important that we 
should begin with a small sum to be applied toward 
the public debt. And I cannot but think that the Con¬ 
vention would come to this conclusion if they would 
consider the matter thoroughly. If we are to make all 
our improvements by means of individual capital, it 
must be obvious to every mind that we cannot progress 
very rapidly. Jt seems, to me it would certainly be 
impolitic to tax the people high now, when the debt 
would be paid at even a lower rate of taxation alter 
our population and resources shall have been increased, 
as they will be, under the auspices of a wholesome 
system of public improvement. 

I hope the amendment of the gentleman from Mor¬ 
gan [Mr. Hawkins] will not prevail; and that even a 
less amount than $100,000 will be agreed upon. 


With reference to the subject of taxing banks, (hav¬ 
ing some little connection with the matter of banking,) 
I say here, as a banker, Ibr myself as well as for those 
with whom I am connected, that I am willing perfectly, 
and always have been, that our stock should bo taxed 
a.s other property. But, it is well known, that, in 
their zeal for taxing banks, gentlemen are anxious to 
overtax us, and unjustly to tax our means beyond those 
of other men. Let the Legislature present us with a 
fair 8y.stem, and I venture to say that there are not five 
banks in Ohio that will reject it, although they could 
not be bound by it. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Are you willing that your stock 
should be ta.xed as mercantile property ? 

Mr. BARNETT. I. am willing to be taxed as all 
other people are taxed—that my property should be 
taxed just as all other property in the State is taxed— 
upon the ad valorem principle. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Loans and credits ? 

Mr. BARNETT. I am willing to be taxed as all 
other men. I wish to read my proposition for informa¬ 
tion. It is as follows: Strike out “ $100,000,” and in¬ 
sert “ $75,000.” Strike out “ the rate of six per cent, 
interest,” and insert “ such rate of interest as will pay 
the debt in thirty years.” 

Mr. LARSH saw no necessity for so long a time as 
forty years to pay the State debt. He felt very much 
disposed to go with his colleague, [Mr. Barnett, of 
Preble,] for this reason : The sooner the debt is paid, 
the smaller will be the amount of money we shall have 
to pay. 

Mr. NASH believed that all that was necessary—if 
anything was necessary to be inserted in the constitu¬ 
tion upon this subject—was to settle two facts, name¬ 
ly: a recognition of the debt, and that it should be 
paid. This was all that .should be done here. This 
body ought not to legislate iqxrn the principle of 
taxation. They might legislate with safety for the 
present; but the contingencies of the future they 
knew nothing about, and could exercise no control 
over them. This business should be left to the General 
Assembly. 

There was another consideration. The State debt 
was hereafter never to be increased beyond a million 
or a half million of dollars. This provision would 
effectually cut up the idea of constructing works of 
internal improvement by the State. He did not ob¬ 
ject to that. But the peple were desirous of making 
improvements for themselves: and if the State should 
undertake to pay off* the public debt loo rapidly, it 
would effectually prevent this also. He hoped gen¬ 
tlemen did not mean to put a stop to all the contem¬ 
plated works of improvement in the St-ate, upon which 
the future growth and prosperty of the State so mate¬ 
rially depended. Company after company were now 
engaged in the construction of various railroads in dif¬ 
ferent sections of the State, all necessary for the de¬ 
velopment of its resources. Should not gentlemen be 
careful, then, to leave “room and verge enough ” for 
the operation of this policy, and not think to cripple it 
by an effort to pay off’ the State debt. 

It was a mere question of policy and statesmanship, 
as to what period should be fixed for the extingushment 
of the State debt; and the only difference of opinion 
should be as to whether all the resources of the State 
should be turned towards the payment of the debt, 
or whether a portion should be left to be applied to 
works of internal improvement. 

He submitted further, that in the course of the next 
.five years, almost the whole of this debt would he held 
by individuals living out of the State. The State stocks 
01 this country were going again to Europe. Public 
confidence was being restored, so that United States 
stocks were the best in the world. And the conse¬ 
quence would be, that every dollar applied to the pay¬ 
ment of the public debt, would be withdrawn from the 
effective capital of the State. 

It was no matter here whether the debt had bee i 











948 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


brought about loosely or not. The obligation to pay it 
rested upon the State, and in the action to be had here, 
the public iutei-est should be consulted. 

Mr. REEMBLIN. The gentleman had affirmed that 
the payment of this debt was a mere question of expe¬ 
diency. But the real question was: Is it a bles.qng or 
a curse? If it were a blessing, the State should hold 
on to it. But if it were a curse, they should gel clear 
of it as fast as possible. He knew that when the sub- 
iect came to be considered in this revolutionary body, 
(he hoped the gentleman from Belmont would not ex¬ 
cept to the phrase,) they would consider the debt a 
curse—a thing to be got rid of as fast as possible. 

The same political party which nursed the national 
debt were now here nursing the State debt, and the 
principles advocated by his “native” friend from Gal¬ 
lia, represented the views of the capitalists in Wall 
street. New York, and Thread-Needle street, London, 
and if those men were here to-day, they would applaud 
every sentiment which that gentleman had uttered. 

He looked at the prices of American securities, and 
saw' that stocks running to 1870, vv^re worth 18 per 
cent, more than those running to 1855 ; and he inferred 
from this, that every hour the payment of the debt was 
prolonged, was but increasing the burdens of the peo¬ 
ple, instead of relieving them. 

Of all the sophistry he ever heard, the gentleman’s 
argument was the most palpable. He fancied that he 
could see a lurking smile upon the fine Anglo-Saxon 
face of the gentleman, [Mr. Nash,] speaking with a 
power of expression above his words, to this effect— 
“ Boys, how I am deceiving you!” [Laughter.] 

He showed that the only impediment to the State’s 
borrowing money upon the best terms, was to be re¬ 
ferred to the lack of punctuality in the payment of 
old debts; and that the man who w'as really in fa¬ 
vor of money borrowing by the State, should be in 
favor of the State paying her debts as fast as they be¬ 
come due. 

He hoped that it would begin to be understood at last 
that there was a party in this country—a distinct po¬ 
litical interest in favor of public debts, whose nucleus 
was in Wall street, but whose ultimate constituency 
were in London, Amsterdam and Paris. 

The capitalists of Europe were apprehensive of re¬ 
pudiation at home. They felt insecure of their owm 
people and they were turning their eyes towards this 
country, as they would look upon a fat oyster. This 
was the reason why our State stocks were traveling 
over to Europe. He affirmed, therefore, that the men 
who nursed a State debt that went to be paid in Eu¬ 
rope, was the friend of the European capitalist, rather 
than the friend of this country. 

Mr. TAYLOR said he had expected that the views, 
heretofore expressed by himself upon the subject would 
have been met with a more hearty concurrence on the 
part of his political friends. He bad also vainly 
hoped that the report of the committee on Fnanceand 
Taxation would have removed some of the objections 
to this measure, which rested upon his mind. The 
point was, that we should not take the responsibility of 
imposing an additional burden upon the people, in the 
shape of a sinking fund; unless a certain description of 
property—that was to say—the property of the banks 
of the State; their capital, securities, issues and money, 
could be brought upon the tax list, upon a level with 
other taxable property. But there was at this mo¬ 
ment, no assurance that this would be done. No act 
of this body was likely materially to increase the 
amount of property upon the tax list. This body would, 
in all probability, shrink from the responsibility of re¬ 
suming so much of the franchise enjoyed by the banks 
as exempts them in part from taxation. 

He would, therefore, appeal to his party friends to 
vote down this whole proposition, and substitute a sim¬ 
ple guarantee^ to the creditors of the State, for the fu¬ 
ture payment of the debt. 

By taking this course, it was possible that they might. 


in lime, revive the consideration of the subject of the 
resumption of franchises; for, he believed, that if so 
much of the bank franchises were resumed, as allows 
them now to remain untaxed, it would create a new 
source of revenue, which would be sullicient to supply 
the entire amount proposed for this sinking fund? 

With respect to the propriety of the provision under 
consideration he did not wish to say anything. As a 
a matter of legislative detail, he doubted its propriety 
and feasibility. But he o])posed it now, upon the broad 
ground, that it was'inexpedient to impose upon the peo¬ 
ple this prospective increase of taxation, whilst, at the 
same time, we shrink from the responsibility and the 
duty of resuming so much of the bank franchises, as 
exempts them in whole, or in part, from the operations 
of the general tax lav^^ 

Mr. MANON defined his position. He should vote 
against this proposition. He claimed, that, if it might 
be to the advantage of an it dividual to keep money 
borrowed at 6 per cent., it might be wisdom for the 
State to defer the payment of the public debt. His 
opinion was, that the State should not be compelled to 
pay this debt in a given length of time. He never in¬ 
dulged the thought that the debt should not be paid at 
all. But he desired first to see the property of every 
man placed upon equal footing with respect to taxa¬ 
tion—bank property and all. He doubted not but that 
the Legisluture would see that the debt was paid, as 
soon as the people would be able to day it. 

[Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, next obtaining the 
floor, addressed the Convention for about fifteen min¬ 
utes, glancing rapidly at the leading features of the 
section as originally reported from the committee on 
public debts and public works, (of which he is a mem¬ 
ber,) and comparing them with the proposed amend¬ 
ment, reported from the committee of the whole—re¬ 
plying to every objection which had been urged this 
morning, and vindicating the proposition of the stand¬ 
ing committee, by sundry statements of figures derived 
from his speech, which will be found on page 430, 
ante.] 

Mr. RANNEY moved a recess, but withdrew the mo¬ 
tion to enable 

Mr. MORRIS to ask leave of absence till Monday 
next—which was granted. 

And then, on motion by 

Mr. RANNEY, the Convention took a recess till 3 
o’clock r. M. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending, being on striking out the 
words “one hundred,*’ in the amendment of the com¬ 
mittee of the whole. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD briefly remarked that he was in 
favor of paying off the State debt within the shortest 
time possible for the accomplishment of so desirable 
an object. 

Unless, (said Mr. K.) a definite provision, for the cre¬ 
ation of a sinking fund that would ensure the payment 
of the public debt of Ohio within a reasonable time, is 
fixed in the constitution, I cannot—with my present 
views—consent to any recognition of that debt in this 
instrument. 

Mr. KENNON. The pending question is not wheth¬ 
er a public debt is a public blessing or otherwise. The 
simple, plain and direct question is, “ How soon should 
the public debt be paid?” I hold that that which, in 
financial matters, is good policy for an individual, is 
good policy for the State. I shall vote to secure the 
payment of the highest sum annually to be appropriated 
for the paymmeut of the State debt, that has been 
named. 

Allow me, Mr. President, in a brief manner, to make 
a calculation to show how much each citizen of Ohio 
would have to pay, if the whole public debt was to be 
paid off in one year, supposing all State stocks to be 
sold at their par value. The public debt is something 
less than fifteen millions of dollars. The last report 











CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


949 


of the Auditor of State exhibits four hundred and fift)- 
millions of taxable property in the State. There is this 
day not less than five hundred millions. A levy of three 
per cent, on every citizen’s property would, therefore, 
produce a sum sufficient to pay off the whole public 
debt ol the State. This is a per cent, amounting to one 
half of the lowest rate of interest money. A levy of 
three and one third per cent, upon four hundred and 
fifty millions would phy the debt in one year. As an 
individual, I vvould be willing to pay my share of the 
public debt in one year, for I can see no wisdom in 
the policy of deferring its payment. 

There is a popular mistake about the amount of tax¬ 
es for the payment of the public debt. The greatest 
proportion ol the gross amount of revenue derived 
from taxes, is for township, county, city and other 
purposes. 

Supposing the taxable property of the State to be 
five hundred millions, a levy of three per cent, would 
pay the public debt in one year, and a levy of one-fifth 
of a mill would produce one hundred thousand dollars 
towards its payment. It is evident, therefore, that to 
raise one hundred thousand dollars per annum for this 
purpose is entirely practicable. 

Mr. RANNEY. I shall vote to strike out the words 
“ one hundred thousand dollars.” not because I think 
this an improper subject for constitutional settlement, 
but because I desire to adopt a provision that will se¬ 
cure the payment of the entire public debt in the 
course of twenty.five years. I should like to see its 
payment equalized over that period, allowing the sum 
raised each year for that purpose to be increased an¬ 
nually, as the amount of taxable property in the State 
increased. If we pay as much now, in proportion to 
our ability, as we ask those who are lax payers in 1870 
*0 pay, we are certainly acting honorably and justly. 

Within the next twenty years many portions of the 
Slate will be vastly improved, and abler to pay their 
just proportion of this State debt; and, sir, they are 
the very portions which have received the most bene¬ 
fit from the construction of these public works, for 
which a great portion of the public debt was incurred. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga. Three-tenths of a 
mill less than the present rate of taxation in this State 
will pay off the public debt in twenty-six years. 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER. It will pay it oft'in twen¬ 
ty-three years. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga. I should have 
been willing to provide for the payment of this debt 
in twenty or twenty-five years, but as the Convention 
decides otherwise I have acquiesced without opposi¬ 
tion. 

But I cannot agree with the gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull, that we should not pay as much this year as those 
who pay taxes twenty years hence. We contracted the 
debt. Those portions of the State upon which the tax¬ 
es fall the heaviest, are the very portions which have 
been most benefitted by the public works; itis, there¬ 
fore, just that this generatiQu should pay as much as 
the next. 

The question being upon the motion to strike out the 
words “ one hundred thousand,” Mr. HENDERSON 
demanded the yeas and nays, which resulted—yeas 
21, nays 71—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs.. Barnett of Preble, Blickensderfer, Case of 
Hocking, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Forbes, Graham, Green of Ross, 
Holt, Hunt, Leadbetter, Manon, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Aug¬ 
laize, Stanbery, Stidger, Swift, Taylor and Townehend—21. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Bates, Bennett. Brown of Athens, Brow-n of Carroll, 
Cahill, Chambers, Collings, Dorsey, Ewinc, Farr, Florence, Gil- 
lett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock ol Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunter, .Johnson, .Tones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood,Earsh, Leech, 
Mason, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, 
Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of Harrison 
Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Warren, Way. Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, 
Worthington and President—71. 

So the motion to strike out wus disagreed to. 


I The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of the committee of the Whole, it was disagreed 
to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fourth 
amendment, to wit: In section 7, after the word ‘‘State,” 
in the fourth line, insert these words: “ and whatever 
funds or resources are and may be provided for by 
law; ” the same was agreed to, and the section, as 
amended, reads as follows: 

Sec. 7. The faith of the State being pledged to the payment of 
all its existing indebtedness ; in order to provide therelor there 
shall be created an annual sinking fund, which shall be constitu¬ 
ted of the nett annual income of the public works and stocks 
owned by the State, and whatever other funds or resources are or 
maybe providedtherefor bylaw, and such sum to be raised by tax¬ 
ation as shall be sufficient to pay the accruing interest of the pub¬ 
lic debt of the State, and annually to reduce the principal by a 
sum not less than one hundred thousand dollars, increased year¬ 
ly, and each and every year by compound interest at the rate of 
six per cent, per annum. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fifth 
amendment, to wit: Strike out section 9, and substi¬ 
tute the following; 

TTie commissioners of the sinking fund shall, immediately pre¬ 
ceding each regular session of the General Assembly, make an 
estimate of the probable amount of the fund provided for in sec¬ 
tion seven, from all sources except from taxation, and report the 
same, together with all their proceedings relative to said fund, 
and the public debt, to the Governor, who shall transmit the same 
with his regular message, to the General Assembly, and the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly shall make all necessary provisions for raising and 
disbursing said sinking fund, in pursuance of the provisions of 
this article. 

The same was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the sixth 
amendment, to wit: Strike out section 12; it was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the seventh 
amendment, to wit: 

” Insert at the commencement of section 13, the fol¬ 
lowing: ‘So long as this State shall possess public 
works which may require superintendence.’ ” 

The same was agreed to; and the section, as amend¬ 
ed, reads as follows: 

Sec. 13. So long as the State shall possess public works which 
may require superintendence, there shall be a Board of Public 
Works, to consist of three members, who shall be elected by the 
people at the first general election after the adoption of th’s con¬ 
stitution, one for the term of one year, one for the term of two 
years, and one lor the term of three years—and there shall be 
elected annually thereafter one member of said board, who shall 
hold his office for three years. 

Mr. TtlOMPSON, of Shelby, moved that the Con¬ 
vention adjourn ; which was disagreed to. 

Mr. CUTLER moved to further amend the report, 
by striking out the whole of section 6. 

Mr. STANTON moved to amend the section proposed 
to be stricken out by adding at the end of the same 
the following, “ exceeding three per cent, upon the ag¬ 
gregate valuation of the taxable property of such 
county, city, town or townships.” 

Pending which, 

On motion of the same gentleman, the Convention 
adjourned. 


SATURDAY, January 11, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Covention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved a call of the Conveution; 
and « cull being ordered, accordingly Messrs. Barbee, 
Blair, Cook, Ewart, Graham, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, 
Harlan, Henderso i, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Holmes, Kennon, King, Larwill, Leadbetter, 
Loudon, Morris, Norris, Otis, i’erkins, Riddle, Roll, 
Smith of Flighland, Stanbery, Stilwell, Struble, Vance 
of Butler and Vance of Champaign, were found absent. 

Messrs. Larwill, Vance of Champaign, and Morris, 
were severally excused. 

On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, all further proceed¬ 
ings under the call were dispensed with. 

' THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. 

Report number one of the committee on the Execu¬ 
tive Department was read the third time. 











950 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The question then being on the passage of the article, 

Mr. CURRY moved that the same be laid on the ta¬ 
ble and ordered to be printed; which was agreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER asked and obtained leave of absence 
for the Secretary, for a few days. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention again 
took up the report of the committee on 

PUBLIC DEBTS AND PUBLIC WORKS. 

The question being on the amendment of Mr. Stan¬ 
ton to section six, 

That gentleman obtained leave to withdraw his 
amendment, and substitute in lieu thereof the follow¬ 
ing words, to come in at the end of the section, to wit: 

Exceefling — per cent, on the aggregate value of taxable pro¬ 
perty in such county, city, town or township, 

Mr. REEMELIN desired the gentleman from Logan 
to give some reason why there should be any restric¬ 
tion in this matter at all. If it were right and proper 
for the people to vote a tax upon themselves, he could 
see no reason why they should be restricted. And if 
the thing were unjust and improper, he could see no 
reason why it should be allowed at all. ‘ 

Mr. STANTON moved to fill the blank in his amend¬ 
ment with the words “ two and a half.” 

Mr. S. said he did not intend to go into any discus¬ 
sion, for he supposed gentlemen had pretty well made 
up their minds upon the subject. For himself, he could 
see no reason why the people of counties, cities and 
townships should be restricted in their power to tax 
themselves for the construction of such railroads, turn¬ 
pikes and plank roads as they required; but there were 
other gentlemen who had paid more attention to these 
matters than himself, from whom he would like to hear. 
He "would like to hear from the gentleman from Wash¬ 
ington [Mr. Cutler] upon this subject. 

Mr. CUTLER had not paid much attention to that 
part of the question which refers to filling the blank— 
he would prefer that no restriction should be placed 
upon the legislative and popular discretion which he 
desired to secure—because a fixed per cent would ope¬ 
rate unequally ujion different portions of the State, 
It would secure to those sections whose improvements 
were completed, and who had consequently a high 
valuation of property, a large sum, when they needed 
but little, while to the neglected portions it would 
yield a sum nearly inadequate to their wants. At the 
same time he would not object to a reasonable restric¬ 
tion, if thereby the proposition could be made accepta¬ 
ble to a majority. 

But, (he continued,)! will state in a few words what 
I have to say, in regard to the whole question involved 
in striking out this 6th section of the report. And I 
feel justified in occupying a little time, from the fact 
that those whom I represent are at this time most deep¬ 
ly interested in its decision—more so than in any other 
that has or probable will command the attention of this 
Convention. 

I am free to admit that this question is attended with 
difficulties—that there has been, and probably will be 
abuses in the exercise of this power of voluntary taxa¬ 
tion. 

I do not think it is incumbent upon us who are op¬ 
posed to this section, to show that no case will ever 
arise in which this discretion will be imprudently ex¬ 
ercised. It may be claimed, however, that we should 
point out important cases, where it will yet be neces¬ 
sary to use the credit of counties, cities and towns, in 
completing valuable works of internal inprovement. 

It is conceded, I suppose, upon all hands, that no fur¬ 
ther aid is to be expected from the State, and having 
scarcely domestic capital enough for our ordinary com¬ 
mercial transactions, it follows that foreign aid must be 
brought in upon some other securities. Now, all that I 
ask, is that some discretion may be left to the Legisla¬ 
ture to grant the power—and then, for those who are 
solely interested, to exercise it, if they please, in im¬ 
posing burdens upon themselves, to secure benefits 
which can be obtained in no other way. 


In pointing you, Mr. President, to cases which I think 
demand the use of this credit, 1 will call the attention 
of gentlemen, to one or two geographical facts. One 
is, that the northern, central and western portions of 
this State are mainly adapted to agricultural pursuits— 
their wealth—their resources—their means of an un¬ 
bounded prosperity, are in their fertile valleys—their 
wide spread prairies—the iuexaustible richness of 
their surface. They early demanded and received as¬ 
sistance from the State, to convey to proper markets 
their immense surplus productions. 

Four lines of internal improvements are now stretch¬ 
ed from the north to the south, and southeast across 
the State, to accomodate their business—not a mile of 
which, I will venture to say, would ever have been 
built, if they had been denied the use of State, county 
or city credit. Now sir, I do not stand here to look 
with envious eye upon this 1200 miles of thorough¬ 
fare enjoyed by my neighors, or to complain that some 
twenty millions have been expended in their construc¬ 
tion, or to grudge the share of interest upon the cost 
of a portion of them, which is annually drawn from 
the pockets of my constituents. I rejoice rather that 
agriculture, the noblest pursuit of man, has been thus 
cherished—that Ohio, mainly by this development of 
one of her important resources, now stands “ next to 
the head,” among her sister States. 

But sir, there is another fact connected with our 
natural resources, as well as our wants, which seems 
hitherto to have received but little attention. It is this: 
that the twenty-five counties lying east of the range of 
counties through wffiich the Ohio canal passes, has had 
the advantage of State credit in completing only about 
200 miles of improvement, worth at a fair valuation, 
(although costing more,) less than a million of dollars 
—that although a portion of this section of the State 
is well adapted to agricultural pursuits, its greatest val¬ 
ue and most important resource is found in its inex¬ 
haustible stores of mineral wealth, which, beyond any¬ 
thing else, requires the construction of expensive im¬ 
provements, to secure its thorough development. 

To illustrate the effect of this policy on the part of 
the State, and to present a strong case, demanding the 
use of the credit, you propose forever to deny it in this 
section. I will call the attention of the Convention to 
some statistics and facts connected with a portion of 
this neglected region, including and adjacent to the 
county which I have the honor to represent. It will 
be foand, by reference to the Auditor's report of 1849, 
that the present land valuation of the following coun¬ 
ties, (which includes most of what is now Vinton coun¬ 
ty.) viz: Athens, Gallia, Meigs, Jackson, Lawrence, 
Hocking and Washington, is $^9,384,907, being an av¬ 
erage of $4,70 per acre. Gentlemen may say that this 
is too low a valuation, but I can tell them that it is 
correct and fair, corresponding well with selling pri¬ 
ces at the time the valuation was made—for, sir, if we 
are poor we claim to be honest. There are still re¬ 
maining unsold the Chillicotheland district, and mainly 
within the counties I have named, over 200,000 acres 
of public lands. 

Allow me now to state a few facts showing what this 
region of country might become if allowed even the 
poor privilege of helping herself. Not to occupy time 
in dwelling upon the admirable facilities for producing 
salt to an unlimited extent, or to speak of the product 
of the forest, the marble, burr-millstone, limestone, fire 
clay, &c., which there abound, I will direct your at¬ 
tention to the immense, but as yet hidden treasures of 
coal and iron. The latter, in ore of the finest quality, 
and of easiest access, is known to extend in a belt some 
12 miles in width, a distance of 100 miles, through the 
coundes I have named, equal to 1200 square miles. 
A single furnace, employing a hundred hands, will 
yield eight tons per day, worth $25 per ton, or an an¬ 
nual product of $60,000. With proper railroad facili¬ 
ties, fifty such furnaces would be scattered over that 
region within a reasonable time. Without such facili- 












951 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ties the ore will reamiii forever as wortless as the ster¬ 
ile clay in which it is imbedded. 

Goal, of the best quality, in banka of from three to 
thirty feet in thickness, underlays the surface of all the 
counties enumerated. It is easily rained; requiring in 
most localities, no shafting, or expense in draining. 

A single acre, of 5^ feet vein, will produce 250,000 
bushels, worth, at 10 cents, (which is lower than the 
average price to consumers, in the markets to which it 
might be taken,) $25,000. At which rate, a single 
square mile will yield $16,000,000 ; or an annual yield 
ot a quarter of a million for 64 years. 

The immense importance of the trade, in this article 
—now become of prime necessity—is not readily real¬ 
ized, without comparing the present with the past, or 
glancing at those counties, where it has long stood in 
importance next to food and clothing. Who remem¬ 
bers to have heard, 30, or even 20 years ago, of the coal 
business on the Ohio river ? Now it amounts from the 
mines in western Pennsylvania alone, to 20,000,000 ot 
bushels per annum. 

Look sir, at Pomeroy, not known to your census 
more than 10 years ago, now numbering her busy 
thousands, all depending, and all prospering, upon 
this new business. Thirty years ago, the export of 
the Anthracite coal, from the Pennsylvania mines, was 
365 tons; now it is 3,700,000 tons per annum, and 
worth near $20,000,000. 

England with an area of 750 square miles of coal— 
less than two of your counties—produces annually, 
$50,000,000 worth of coal, to which might be added, 
$30,000,000 worth of iron—making an aggregate near¬ 
ly equal to the entire agricultural exports of the Uni¬ 
ted States. And yet, I can tell you sir, without fear of 
incurring the charge of an extravagant assertion, that 
England, to-day, with a full knowledge of the value of 
the mineral region of Ohio, would exchange with you, 
and give both her Indies to boot. 

Now, I ask, is it wise—is it good policy—is it states¬ 
man-like, to discourage those who are endeavoring at 
their own expense, to throw open these treasures ? 

I can say to gentlemen from the central and western 
counties, that not a single square rod of this most valu¬ 
able article, is to be found in this State, west of the 
range of counties I before alluded to; and the day is 
not distant, when they ma^ be glad to have their own 
hearth stones made cheerlul, and their own industry 
stimulated, and made profitable, by the very fuel they 
would now lock up in the mines of Hocking, Vinton 
and Jackson counties. 

Again, sir, is it no object, that the lands in these 
counties, shall go on to your tax list, at an increased 
value 7 Does any man suppose, that government would 
long be an owner of them, at $1,25 per acre, or that 
they would long remain at the low average of $4,75, if 
a proper outlet was secured for these mines? 

Why, coal lands, or rather the coal, without the land, 
in Western Pennsylvania, is worth from $500 to $700 
per acre; and if I am not wrongly informed, similar 
prices prevail in the neighborhood of Nelsonville, 
where a small portion of this mineral wealth—just 
enough to demonstrate its value—has been developed. 
Is it an unreasonable supposition, that instead of $9,- 
384,097—the present valuation—you would soon have 
$20,000,000, or an average of about $10 per acre; more 
addition than you will get to your tax list, by dogging 
the banks till dooms-day. 

But, sir, it is said, that all this can easily be accom¬ 
plished by private enterjprise; by individual subscrip¬ 
tion. This may answer in lighter improvements, and 
where individual capital is abundant; but it requires 
an expensive work to secure a cheap transportation 
of the product of your mines; nothing short of rail¬ 
roads. A farmer may afford to transport his produce— 
wheat for instance—30, or even 50 miles, upon com¬ 
mon roads, with his own team. A ton of wheat may 
be worth $30 in market; a ton of coal, not $3 ; and of 
course, is soon lost, in the expense of hauling. It can 


never be transported 10, or even 5 miles, by teams, 
upon common roads, and become an article of general 
use. It must be moved by steam power, and with that, 
you may distribute from the mines I have named, a 
lull supply to this city which now consumed annually, 
5,000,000 of bushels; or, to the Scioto and Miami val¬ 
leys, whose cities, towns and villages will soon demand 
twice that amount; or eastwardly to the Ohio river, 
where it can be placed in boats from the cars, and sent 
to supply the constantly increasing demands of the en¬ 
tire Mississippi valley. 

Private or individual enterprise, will do much—very 
much—but unaided by the strong arm of good securi¬ 
ties—by which, alone, foreign capital can be comman¬ 
ded—it must fail of attaining the end. 

I have a little experience in this business of railroad¬ 
ing, (the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemklin,] 
the other day, volunteered to you, the very important 
information, that 1 was connected with a railroad com¬ 
pany,) though 1 can say to that gentleman, that I am 
there, as I always have been through life, in other call¬ 
ings—a laborer—with no pecuniary interest at stake, 
beyond other farmers; all of whom desire such facili¬ 
ties for transporting their produce. 

I will venture to assert that there is not a single rail¬ 
road, or other important improvement in the State, with 
the exception of the Cincinnati and Dayton road, that 
ever has been, or ever will be completed without the 
use—and without mainly depending too—upon either 
State credit, or that class of credits you now propose 
to deny to the rest of us. 

Are we to waitfor private capital to accumulate when 
you deny us the very means of increasing it? How 
long shall we wait—ten—twenty—thirty years? We 
have already stood by like a poor boy at a frolic that 
length of time, and are very much disposed to protest 
against any further delay. Supposing Marietta should 
be dispos^ to secure a steady and uniform supply of 
coal from neighboring mines to drive the machinery of 
her infant manufactures—will Cleveland stand here to¬ 
day, and say she will not do it? Will Columbus? 
Will Dayton ? Will even Cincinnati say she shall not 
use her own credit for her own benefit? 

That 6th section says—no—although eveiy voter in 
Marietta should say yes. 

You may say that Marietta is too small, as yet to talk 
about such large enterprises: but where, I ask, would 
the proud cities I have named, stand to-day, if they 
had not been cherished, nourished—yea, brought up 
from infancy to maturity, by the use of these very cred 
its which have cast millions into their laps. 

Now sir, you would look well, after this old fashion¬ 
ed way of doing business, after Stale, county, and city 
securities have become as familiar as “household 
words ” with the money lender, to be tagging round 
the streets of Cincinnati or New York, after your rich 
men, coaxing them out of a few picayunes to make 
your surveys, or do the grading of your road. They 
will tell you that they want to see enough of your own 
money—of domestic means expended, at least to grade 
the road—an amount which cannot be secured in many 
cases, without resort to county or city subscriptions.— 
When that is done, the bonds of your company, if the 
route is a good one, may command some credit, and you 
may also secure some subscription or stock from stran- 
gers. 

Having shown, as I think, beyond a doubt, tnat im¬ 
portant cases will arise, where the discretion which I 
ask you to lodge with the General Assembly and the 
people, may be exercised greatly to the advantage, not 
only of those immediately concerned, but of the State 
at large, I will examine for a moment the great ob¬ 
jection which is urged to these subscriptions. It is 
that a majority are thus permitted to impose taxes up¬ 
on a minority against their consent. Now sir, I think 
this objection comes with a very bad grace from a ma¬ 
jority of this Convention who distinctly avowed the 
principle, a few days ago, and inserted it in the Legis- 









952 


CONVENTION KEPORTS 


lalive report—not that a minority should be taxed for 
the benefit of a majority, but the reverse—that a ma¬ 
jority shall be taxed against their consent, to benefit a 
very small minority. 1 allude to the principle adopt¬ 
ed by which no State, county or township road can ev¬ 
er be laid out without payment is first made in money, 
for the full value of the lan.d taken, notwithstanding 
the individual land holders through whose property the 
road may pass may be benefilted to ten times the val¬ 
ue of the land used, so that hereafter we shall either 
have no new roads, which I am inclined to think is the 
most probable result, or else the entire county is to be 
taxed to pay for a road which is to benefit a neighbor¬ 
hood in general, and half a dozen of their number in 
particular. 

But this is not the only case—this pretended princi 
pie which is nothing more than a crude theory—is con¬ 
stantly violated in every movement that is made by a 
community for the public good. Look at your school 
laws—one of which declares, that a majority in every 
school district may decide by vote to have a school 
kept six months a year, and assess the necessary tax 
upon the property in the district to sustain it. Look at 
our laws for assessing taxes forroad—and particularly 
ridge purposes. A bridge is wanted in a remote part 
of the county, where perhaps two-thirds of the people 
will never see it. The tax is levied and the bridge 
built. But it is said that these are cases of public neces¬ 
sity—so is a railroad necessary. Ask the farmers along 
the routes and the business men in the towns aud cities, 
where they are now running, and they will tell you, 
they must have them—and will clamor louder at their 
temporary obstruction than my constituents would if 
they were blockaded all winter by the mud. 

Look however at the practical working of this ques¬ 
tion, and the inequality aud injustice is found to vanish. 
Suppose a railroad is located centrally a distance of 30 
miles through a county—one of our four dollars seventy 
cent counties if you please—and a county subscription 
of 100,000 dollars be voted. Every gentleman at all 
acquainted with this subject, will bear meout in there- * 
mark, that a sudden and important rise in the value of 
real estate almost invariably follows the construction 
of a railroad—dift’eriug in this respect from almost any 
other improvement. It may be claimed in the case 1 
have supposed, that five miles on each side of the line 
being a distance of 30 and equal to 300 square miles 
would be benefitted, and of course vote for the sub¬ 
scription, while the remaining 100 miles would not be 
benefitted aud vote against it. 

Now let us look up the burdens and see where they 
rest. The road is built in 1851 and the valuation is in 
1852. An addition of three dollars per acre to the 
lands benefitted by the road, would place on the tax i 
list $600,000, which would not have been there if the ! 
road had not been built—the tax upon this sum at 10 ( 
mills, would yield $6000, nearly enough to pay all the ! 
interest due on the county bonds. 1 do not claim that | 
the results would occur just as I have stated, them, but j 
Ido believe that with a prudent expenditure of money - 
and a just valuation of property, the road will provide ; 
for its own taxes, and distribute the burden where it < 
ought to be borne. I 

It should also be recollected that the full amount, 
and often three times the sum borrowed, is expended < 
in the county, and finds its way in some shape on to | 
the tax list. t 

It is true that many persons in this way are compel- f 
led to aid in works of public improvement against j 
their will. There are those, aud men of wealth, too, f 
who always grumble at the payment of any public 
burden—but it is also true that in nine cases out of ten t 
they are the very men who receive the chief benefits, g 
Instead of the inequality so much complained of, gen- < 
tlemen will find that in its practical operation it irnpo- c 
ses burdens where there is the greatest ability—geue- a 
rally, too, bestowing ample equivalents. a 

In all cases where ordinary prudence is exercised in 


• making these subscriptions, there is no danger of taxa- 

• tion at all, except for the short time intervening be- 
1 tween the time of payment and the completion of the 

• road—then the dividends on stock will pay the interest. 

• It can hardly be supposed that any well applied fund 
, will lay idle more,than two years. I know that much, 

very much depends upon a good route and a judicious, 

! prudent expenditure of the money. I will call your 
attention to a single fact, which I think, in addition to 
the local reasons I have presented, should dissipate 
any doubt as to the propriety of urging forward, in¬ 
stead of retarding, the great railway schemes which 
are or ought to be projected in Ohio. It is this; the 
most direct route from every important seaport on the 
Atlantic coast, north of Charleston, to St. Louis or San 
Francisco, must pass through Ohio. All the lines of 
purely railway connexion now projected and being 
constructed from Norfolk, Richmond, Baltimore, Phila¬ 
delphia, and New York, will pass through your bor¬ 
ders. An air line from Boston to St. Louis will cross 
the Ohio river a little north of Marietta. Look at the 
immense wealth that has flowed into New York—her 
earnings, as the common carrier for the whole country. 
And, now, where there is a universal disposition to 
abandon the slow and uncertain movement of water 
transit, is it good policy to obstruct or delay the pro¬ 
gress of these improvements through your Slate ? The 
same golden prize which has so long been held by New 
York, is now held out to you. Will you turn^'our back 
upon it ? 

I have felt, sir, that it is a very awkward task to 
stand here in a Constitutional Convention, called togeth¬ 
er for the simple purpose of remodeling the organic law 
of the State, aud discuss these questions of mere State 
policy—or of mere local interest. But there i’s a dispo¬ 
sition manifestsd not only in this section, but in every 
part of your proposed constitution to strike down these 
works of internal improvement. 

As a friend to these great enterprises, and as a rep¬ 
resentative of those who desire their progress andcom- 
.pletion, I have felt it my duty thus to enter my feeble 
and I fear unavailing protest, against this iron restric¬ 
tion upon the legislative aud popular will. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD argued against this morality of 
the principle of “ forcing blessings” upon the people 
against their will; and affirmed that the section which 
the gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Cutler,] desir¬ 
ed to mutilate aud destroy, would prevent a multitude 
of sins. 

He was interested in the remarks of the gentleman 
from Washington; but that gentleman had impugned 
the potency of private enterprise, and affirmed the im¬ 
possibility of having works of public improvement con¬ 
structed without the use of public credit; and for proof 
he had referred to the want of prosperity in the min¬ 
eral region of the State. But the fact was, that the 
stench of the baseness of the Virginia land titles had 
firevented the influx of population there, as well as the 
general prosperity and improvement of that region. It 
was in consequence of the mismanagement of public 
agents, which in the settlement and improvement of 
every country, was always reckless, wasteful and ex¬ 
travagant. 

He insisted that private enterprise would be suffi¬ 
cient for the construction of all our lines of public im¬ 
provement, and that, whenever the State interposed in 
these matters, it was always a losing concern. He re¬ 
ferred to the opinions of Jean Baptiste Say and Thom¬ 
as B. Macaulay upon this subject, and was glad to be 
found in such good company. 

He contended that all rightful taxation was simply 
the price of the protection of life and property and of 
social order. This principle was plain, easy to be un¬ 
derstood, and recommended itself to all men. It would 
carry us through the labyrinth of every opposition. If 
a tax was not necessary for the preservation of peace 
and social order, it was a social robbery. 

He deprecated the principle of taxaUon asked for by 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


9bS 


the gentleman from Washington, as a rule giving to the 
majority a right to plunder the minority, a ru’e without 
the sanction of any law, human or divine. 

He proceeded, also, to show how the operation ol 
such a principle must aftect the public credit; and as a 
devoted friend ol internal improvements, expressing 
his hope, that the section would not be mutilated, he 
concluded by thanking the standing committee for in¬ 
troducing it. 

hr HAWKINS concurred in the sentiments so elo¬ 
quently expressed by his friend from Monroe, [Mr. 
Akchbold.] 

There is something implied, (he said,) in the propo¬ 
sition to extend this privilege, which has not yet been 
noticed. The chief portion of the small minority of 
the people at large, who have any spare capital at 
all, have collected it through years of toil, industry and 
economy ; and when any work of public improvement 
was suggested, they would be generally slow to sub¬ 
scribe, and they wpuld have no ear for solicitations up¬ 
on the subject. They were generally unwilling to al¬ 
low themselves to be taxed beyond what is absolutely 
necessary for the support of government. In order to 
reach these individuals, it is proposed that a vote shall 
be taken upon the question of extending the credit of 
the county; and thus they are compelled to become 
stockholders in the work against their will. I under¬ 
take to say that there are a majority of the legal voters 
who pay but a very small amount of tax; and there 
are hundreds of voters in every county who pay no tax 
at all. It is by the votes of such men, usually, that pro¬ 
perty is invested in such enterprises against the will of 
the owner, and the people c f the county compelled to 
assume all the liabilities of stockholders in such an en¬ 
terprise. It was a proposition to despoil individuals of 
their private property, not for any legitimate object. It 
was a principle too palpably unjust to have a place in 
the organic law. 

The gentleman from Washington had drawn a paral¬ 
lel between this principle and that upon which school 
houses were erected; but there was no analogy in the 
cases—for the support of our school interests was a 
consideration far too high to be measured by mere dol¬ 
lars and cents 

I know of no question upon which the mind of the 
people has been more definitely expressed in the region 
where I live, than that there should be a constitutional 
provision to the effect that the people shall not be co¬ 
erced any longer in this matter. 

Mr. GILLETT also concurred in opinion with the 
gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold ;] and while 
he was compelled to admit the correctness of the sta¬ 
tistics of the gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Cut¬ 
ler,] he was not prepared to adopt his theory. 

He lived in a poor county ; although, in his immedi¬ 
ate neighborhood, along the river, they had all paid 
high prices for their land. It was true, as the gentle 
man had stated, that the average value of land was not 
more than four or five dollars an acre; still their river 
land had cost them from thirty-five to fifty dollars an 
acre. And now the question was, whether it would 
be right that those who weie living upon the Ohio 
river, in the enjoyment of the privileges of that natu¬ 
ral thoroughfare, should be compelled out of their pri¬ 
vate means, to contribute to the advancement of the 
price of lands in their neighborhood, but back a few 
miles from the river, which could not now be sold for 
more than $1,25 an acre, in order that those rich mines 
of coal (worth more than all the mines of Mexico) 
might be opened, and the products of iron and coal 
brought successfully into competition with their own ? 
The inevitable consequence would be a depression in 
the value of the property of these men. 

Mr. CURRY. The gentleman from Washington, 
[Mr. Cutler,] if I understood him correctly, made the 
general statement, that the agricultural portion of the 
State had already received as much benefit from works 
of public improvement, as to him seemed to be desira¬ 


ble ; but, that that portion of the State to which he 
more particularly referred, had not been beuefitted in 
this way to the extent which was desirable, and there¬ 
fore he claimed for it the privilege of being exempted 
from the restrictions of the section before us, as well ae 
the restriction proposed in the amendment of the gen- 
tlemau from Logan, [Mr. Stanton.] 

Now, Mr. Tresideut, the remarks of the gentleman 
from Washington, with regard to the benefits already 
conferred upon the agricultural portion of the State i.u 
this way, are true, only in part. It is true, that ia 
sections of the agricultural portion of the State, pub¬ 
lic improvements of this kind have been made, and 
the resources of those portions of the State have beeir 
pretty fairly developed by such means. But it is alstv 
true, that in my section, which belongs to the agri¬ 
cultural portion of the State, they have not been ben- 
efitted in this way. They remain still unbenefitted by 
works of internal improvement, and their resources are- 
still, to a great extent, undeveloped. But the gentle¬ 
man’s omission to make this exception, does not in the 
least detract from the force of his argument. The argu¬ 
ment was a very conclusive one ; but I very much f ear,, 
that on this occasion, it will prove altogether ineffec¬ 
tual. Gentlemen seem to me to have paid but little at¬ 
tention to it. Sir, it is sometimes, unfortunately the case-’ 
in this, as it is in all deliberative bodies, that gentle¬ 
men have pre-conceived opinions in regard to many 
of the cpiestions upon which they are called to act. 
And notwithstanding that sound arguments may be? 
plainly and briefly laid before them, reasonably suffi 
cient to induce in them a change cf purpose, they wil^ 
still persist in voting according to their pre-conceived 
opinion!?. 

I beg leave to refer to an instance of this kind of ac¬ 
tion, in this body. It has not been long since we had; 
under consideration the report ol the standing com- 
mitte on the Legislative Department. 

A motion to strike out the Slst section was rejected 
by an overwhelming majority. It was very evident 
to my mind at the time, that members were not atten ¬ 
ding to the discussion; and that they did not vote un- 
derstandingly. About a week or ten days afterwards,, 
the consideration of the same subject came up again, at 
a time when gentlemen happened to be in a better 
mood for deliberation, and then reversing their previ¬ 
ous action, they struck out the section, by the vole of a. 
very large majority. 

An instance of blind and inconsiderate action on the- 
part of the General Assembly may be mentioned. 

During the debate upon this floor, mention has beeti 
several times made of a law formerly upon our statute- 
book, familiarly called " the Blunder Law.” I happens 
to have some little knowledge of the history ol that 
law. It was introduced as one of the finishing fea¬ 
tures of that immense scheme, which then existed lor* 
the expenditure of the public money, in the construc¬ 
tion of w'orks of internal improvements, all over tho- 
State : and the specific i-eason for its introduction was. 
that the previously existing modes of lavishing the 
people’s money upon those works were too slow in 
their operation. It was introduced for the purpose of 
draining the people’s treasury more rapidly. It was 
obvious, from the first, to a certain small number of 
the members of the General Assembly, that that law 
must prove a means of enormous waste and extrava- 
‘^ance in the public expenditures, a prolific cause of 
abuse and corruption in public aflairs—a measure, in 
short, to the last degree injurious to the people of Ohio: 
and they so stated their convic’ion when the bill waa 
put upon its passage. But gentlemen of the majority, 
holding pre-conceived opinions of the matter, pushed 
the bill through without hesitation—almost without 
consideration—certainly without the slightest attention 
to the arguments and appeals of the minority. In the- 
lower House of tliat body, there were thirteen votes 
cast against the passage of that political abomination: 
and I '^hope I shall be pardoned if I plume myself a 











964 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


little upon the fact, that in the record of that vote, my 
name is found with those of '‘the immortal thirteen.” 

Sir, there are gentlemen within the hearing of 
words, who witnessed the passage of that law, and 
who, if they were now to speak, must be constrained 
to endorse what I have said in relation to the manner 
of its passage. As soon as it became a law and went 
into active operation, the propriety of the opposition 
which had been made to it, was made manifest to all 
men. Having borne its natural fruits of public injury 
—its nefarious results having been fully developed, it 
has now, by common consent, been stricken from the 
statute book. 

The instances which I have mentioned will show 
the dangerous tendency of the hasty and ill-considei-- 
ed action of bodies like this, upon pre-conceived opin¬ 
ions. I hope we shall never have occasion to look’ 
back with unavailing regret upon any such action of 
ours in this hall. 

And now, in behalf ot that portion of the people of 
Ohio whom I in part represent, I beg leave to say that 
the doctrine of the proposed amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Logan is right and expedient; and that it 
ought to be incorporated into the organic law of the 
State. 

I have said that there are certain sections of the ag¬ 
ricultural portion of the State of Ohio, which have nev¬ 
er been benefitted by any portion of your public works, 
any more than the mineral region, represented by the 
gentleman from Washington—and so the fact is. But, 
nevertheless, in those unimproved portions of the State 
people have been all along subject to the operation 
•of your tax laws, and have been compelled to con¬ 
tribute their full proportion of the means which have 
been invested in your works of public improvement; 
and to that extent their means have conduced to 
the furtherance of the interests of the people where 
those works of improvement have been constructed. 

I suppose it to be a fact, that a majority of honora¬ 
ble gentlemen upon this floor come from sections of 
the State where those public works have been con¬ 
structed, and represent constituencies who have been 
benefitted, and the value of whose property has been 
increased by the outlay of that public money, a por¬ 
tion of which came from the pockets of my constituents, 
and others, who have not received any, or if any, but a 
very small modicum of those benefits. 

And now, when gentlemen and their constituents 
have completed their works of improvement by the 
expenditure of money which they have forced from 
our pockets, for their benefit and not for ours, I ask if it 
•can be possible that they are prepared to turn round 
and say to us, not only that there shall be no more pub¬ 
lic money expended for purposes of this sort, but that 
the people of the unimproved sections of the State 
flhall not be permitted to enjoy the poor privilege of 
appropriating their own money to make their own im¬ 
provements ? Really, it seems to me that this would 
be going from one extreme to another with a vengence! 
But, if gentlemen will adopt the proposition of the 
gentleman from Logan, they will stop at a middle point, 
and do that which in my judgment would be right and 
Just to all portions of the State. 

But if gentlemen are determined to insist upon their 
extreme doctrine, let them at least be just. The plain¬ 
est dictates of justice and honesty require that they 
should first refund to us so much of our money as has 
been employed to increase the value of their property, 
and to benefit them in numbex’less ways. Give us 
back the money of which we have been plundered for 
your benefit, and then you will have some show of 
equity when you say to us and to all the people of the 
State that you are too wise and patriotic to permit the 
construction of any additional work of public improve¬ 
ment. 

Gentlemen proceed here upon an assumption of doc¬ 
trine, the incorrectness of which has been demonstra- 
te»d by the gentleman from Washington, by showing 


that its insertion in the constitution would prevent the 
construction of works which were of the most desira¬ 
ble and necessary class, and which, if constructed, 
would work no counterbalancing evil. In that direc¬ 
tion the argument has not yet been exhausted. 

There is a law now in force in Ohio—sanctioned by 
the consent and strong approval of the people—pre¬ 
scribing the assessment of county taxes for the im¬ 
provement of roads and highways. This has been 
long practised in our counties, and, although every¬ 
where opposed by small minorities, has received the 
sanction, as I have said, of the majority of the people 
and of the Legislature. And I submit whether here is 
not an instance of taxing the minority for the benefit 
of the majority? There are some people to be found 
in every community who are unwilling to be taxed for 
any purpose; but the public welfare requires them to 
submit to the will of the majority. 

Again; taxes have been assessed in this way all over 
the State for common school purposes; and there are 
gentlemen in this body who are in favor of that doc¬ 
trine, and are willing to incorporate the principle into 
the organic law, that a majority of the people in any 
school district shall have the power, by vote, to appro¬ 
priate the money of all the taxable inhabitants of such 
district for the purpose of constructing a school house 
and furthering the general interests of education. 

Now, if gentlemen insist upon the application of this 
doctrine to the subject of education, how can they con¬ 
sistently object to its application to important and ben¬ 
eficial public improvements ? 

Again; your county commissioners always have been 
and still are authorized to make assessments of taxes 
for the erection of a court house and buildings of that 
nature. Although I do not positively assert, that as¬ 
sessments of this kind fall within the meaning of the 
words of this section; yet, if gentlemen insist upon re¬ 
jecting the amendment of the gentleman from Logan, 
it seems to me, that, to be consistent, they must hold 
and proclaim the doctrine, that assessments of this 
sort, of which I have just been speaking, shall not be 
made hereafter upon the people of any county. 

With reference to the objection, that the effect of 
the amendment under consideration will be that we 
shall have the assessments of taxes, distressing and 
impoverishing to the people of the counties, I have 
this to say; I understand the operation of a county 
subscription to any public work to be something like 
this. Instead of the whole amount being raised in 
money, there is an issue made of county bonds; and 
these bonds are sold in the market, at a certain per 
centum of discount. And, after a time, when a cer¬ 
tain portion of the work has gone into operation, it al¬ 
ways happens, that the bonds and subscriptions are 
disposed of so as to exonerate the county from paying 
any considex’able portion of them by means of taxa¬ 
tion. True, it may be necessaiy to pay the intei'est in 
this way some four or five years, until the work shall 
be completed, but that is all. 

I think the per Centum proposed by the gentleman 
from Logan is too low. My own opinion is, that there 
is no need of limiting the people at all in this thing. 

I do not believe that the people have not discretion 
and prudence enough to know and decide how much 
money they shall expend upon works of internal im- 
pi'ovement at home. I believe that they do know, 
and can judge of these mattei’s more con-ectly than 
we can, and that it is democratic to permit them to 
do so. 

I have said that the amount in this amendment is 
too low; still, for fear the section before us may be¬ 
come a part of the organic law in its original shape, I 
hope the amendment will prevail, and that we shall 
have the privilege, to the extent named in the amend¬ 
ment, of expending our own money, for our own pur¬ 
poses, in our own way. 

The gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] with 
his usual eloquence and power, has attacked the argu- 














CONVENTION EEPORTS. - 953 


merit of the gentleman from Washington, with whom | 
I agree in sentiment. The gentleman from Monroe 
has affirmed, that the argument of the gentleman from 
Washington impugns the great doctrine, that the peo¬ 
ple shall not have any policy forced upon them against 
their will. 

I understood the gentleman from Monroe to lay it 
down as cardinal doctrine, that the majority should 
not have the power to levy a tax upon the minority 
against their will. Now, I beg leave to submit to 
th^at gentleman, that, by acting as he has always done, 
in support and furtherance of the doctrine that there 
should be caused by a majority of votes, a continual 
expenditure' of the public money for the advancement 
of education amongst the people, he has himself im¬ 
pugned the very principle which he has charged the 
gentleman from Washington with impugning. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, (interposing, and Mr. C. yielding,) 
said, money expended for the advancement of educa¬ 
tion is money spent for the preservation of social order. 
Education makes men enlightened, moral, peaceful, 
orderly and conservative. As a friend, therefore, to 
peace and social order, and, as an individual disposed 
to relieve society of the expense resulting from the 
punishment of crime, I am justified in my disposition 
to advance the interests of schools. 

Mr. CURRY. 1 supposed that sort of an explana¬ 
tion might have been made. But it seems to me, with 
deference to the judgement of the gentleman from 
Monroe, that his explanation does not save him. For 
I submit that in his explanation, he has failed to prove 
one of his positions to which I object, namely: that 
education is indispensable to the maintenance of peace 
and public order. I agree with the gentleman, of course, 
in saying that there should be education and general 
public enlightenment, and that the most desirable ob¬ 
jects of society are to be reached in this way. But 
the gentleman has failed, and must always fail to show 
that peace and public order cannot be maintained 
where there is no general public enlightenment. The 
gentleman is too good a historian and too well inform¬ 
ed as to the condition of human affairs, not to know 
and concede that there have been and still are countries 
and governments, where peace and public order have 
been preserved amongst people unenlightened and 
uneducated, thus demonstrating that the preservation 
of peace and public order may be attained where there 
is no general public enlightenment; and, therefore, 
that education and public enlightenment are not indis¬ 
pensable concomitants of a government, such as may 
or can preserve peace and social order. If I am right 
in this statement, then the gentleman from Monroe is 
wrong in his allegation that education is necessarily a 
part of government machinery. Therefore, in this 
respect he is impugning his own doctrine, and advoca¬ 
ting taxation for other than the necessary purposes of 
government. 

It was also stated by the gentleman from Monroe that 
majorities ought to rule in all matters, except that of en¬ 
forcing taxation for means other than the support of 
government. Now I think if the gentleman were to 
undertake to establish that doctrine by argument and 
illustration, it would puzzle him a good deal, with all 
his acknowledged talents and ingenuity. 

Let me suppose a case. A great deal has been said 
about the disruption of the Union of these States, and 
a great many apprehensions of such an event have been 
expressed on all sides, which 1 hope are all groundless 
But let us suppose that result to have actually occur¬ 
red. Suppose the bond of allegiance to the United 
States to have been effectually sundered by an, and 
each of the individual States to have entered upon the 
process of setting up a government j»r itself; and sup¬ 
pose, at that critical moment i their political history, 
the people of Ohio to be en-aged in determining what 
sort of government t ey will have, it should appear 
that a million of voters, if you please, are in favor of 
he adoption of a republican form of government. On 


the olliur hand, one voter prefers a kingly or despotic 
govoBwiiuent. According to'the doctrine of the gentle¬ 
man from Monroe the kingly government ought, -in 
such case, to be established, and republicanism repu¬ 
diated. Such would be the legitimate result of the 
gentleman's doctrine. But take the same number of 
voters and refer to them for decision, the question 
whether a general system of education shall be sustain¬ 
ed and supported by taxation, amongst the masses of 
the people. Nine-tenths of the whole number of vo¬ 
ters are in favor of making provision for the education 
and enlightenment of all the people. One-tenth of the 
voters &re opposed to any such system of education. 
Here the result of the gentleman’s doctrine is, that the 
one-tenth shall rule the nine-tenths, and there shall be 
no tax for education. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, (in his seat.) I expressly argued 
that the members of society had a right to tax them¬ 
selves for educational purposes. 

Mr. CURRY. I know ; but 1 have shown that such 
was not a legitimate tendency of the gentleman’s doc¬ 
trine. Education is not a necessary incident of govern¬ 
ment, and the gentleman holds that the minority ought 
not to be taxed except for governmental purposes. 
His doctrine, therefore, involves him in the precise 
consequences which I have been showing. 

In conclusion, I wish to notice another argument 
which has been mentioned here. The gentleman from 
Lawrence, [Mr. Gillett,] by way of illustrating his 
opposition to the position of the gentleman from Wash¬ 
ington and the amendment of the gentleman from Lo¬ 
gan, has told us, that the people of his section of the 
State have good rich lands, and excellent natural facil¬ 
ities for trade and transportation; and if the people of 
the less favored interior were to be allowed to persist 
in constructing works of internal improvement, those 
works, when completed, would so operate as to bring 
the people of the interior upon a footing of equality 
with himself and his neighbors and constituents, who 
possess those very enviable natural advantages. Now, 
it seems to me that this is just the sort of illustration 
which might be advantageously used upon my side o 
the question. We desire, by our exertions, to effect 
that which will place us upon something like an equal¬ 
ity with those residing in the more favored positions. 
And those residing in these more favored positions turn¬ 
ing upon us, and saying to us, gentlemen, you shall not 
do this thing; we know better than you do what posi¬ 
tion you should occupy. It is for our interest that you 
shall be prevented from benefitting yourselves and you 
shall be prevented. If we permit you to go on, you 
may ultimately become able to compete with uS in the 
market, and we may fail to hold you in a tributary po¬ 
sition. We will, therefore, not only not assist you, but we 
will refuse you permission to assist yourselves. This, 
sir, appears to me to be a just application of the illus¬ 
tration furnished by the gentleman from Lawrence; and 
I very much fear that the sentiment thus accidentally 
exhibited by him, is far more widely spread than has 
been generally supposed. 

Mr. GILLETT (interposing and Mr. C. yielding) 
said, he had earned what he possessed by the hard busi¬ 
ness of boating upon the river; and he would ask, 
whether it would be right and proper to require him 
to contribute of his means, to raise the value of the 
wild lands of his interior neighborhood, and place 
them in competition with him in the only profitable 
trade which he enjoyed? \ 

Mr. CURRY. I am not asking that either my es¬ 
teemed friend from Lawrence, or his constituents, 
should contribute anything for the benefit of me or my 
constituents; but, simply that we be not deprived, by 
a provision of the organic law of the State, of the priv¬ 
ilege of making every laudable and lawful eftbrt to 
elevate and improve our own condition, so that We 
may stand upon something like an equality with the 
more favored portions of the State. 

Mr. President, I have no further remarks to offer. 








956 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


foi* the reasons stated. 1 hope it will be the pleasure 
of the Convenlioij, to sustain the amendment proposed 
by the gentleman from Logan. 

Mr. MANON said, if the blank were to be filled 
with anything but a zero, he would vote against the 
amendment. He would not do anything to prevent 
the people from employing their own means according 
to their own pleasure. 

Mr. STANTON was thoroughly convinced, that a 
great wrong was about to be done by this body. A 
great evil had been felt throughout the State, by im¬ 
provident subscriptions of public stock, on the part of 
counties and towns; and to avoid one extreme, gentle¬ 
men seemed to be willing to run into another. Gen¬ 
tlemen, who had themselves been made rich by the 
taxes levied upon portions of the State less fortunate 
than themselves, were now prepared to incorporate in¬ 
to the organic law a prohibitor against the people (jf 
other portions of the State making their public im¬ 
provements with their own money. He submitted 
whether there was any evidence of liberality in this. 

But, (said he,) let us look the matter plainly in the 
face. You have, in another part of the constitution, 
prohibited the appropration of one dollar of the j)ub- 
lic money for purposes of internal improvement. You 
have cut off all the means of making railroads, plank- 
roads and turnpikes, except through the instrumentali¬ 
ty of individuals or corporate enterprize. And if you 
are about to take away the pow’^er of subscribing stock 
from counties and towns,'gentlemen might as well re¬ 
alize that they are saying to the people, “You shall 
not construct another railroad, for a quarter of a cen¬ 
tury.” For, if gentlemen suppose they can make a 
railroad, without the aid of capital subscribed by coun¬ 
ties and towns, it is all a mistake. 

The gentleman from Monroe undertakes to say to 
me, that no authority can rightfully tax the citizen for 
any purpose beyond what is necessary for the preser¬ 
vation of social order. Why, sir, this allegation is con¬ 
tradicted by the history of every government which 
has ever been set up in the world, from Adam down to 
the present day. I undertake to say, that government 
may do whatever is necessary to “ promote the gener¬ 
al welfare;” and amongst the necessities of every peo¬ 
ple, are roads to market, the improvement of rivers and 
harbors—imj)rovements which are indispensable, and 
for which the government alone can provide. 

This being the case, I say it is right that the people 
should exercise the power of controlin® their own 
means for these objects. Limit them, if you will.— 
Provide that they shall not go into debt beyond their 
ability to pay; and that the majority shall not plunder 
the minority. But I do not hold that it is a matter of 
primary necessity, that the people should exercise the 
power of constiucling for themselves a highway to 
market. 

Mr. S. then went into a statement of figures showing 
what amount of indebtedness might be incurred by 
the people of the several counties, under the limitation 
of two and a half per cent., and expressed his willing, 
ness to consent to any reasonable reduction of that li¬ 
mit. 

He then proceeded to show that the principle of his 
amendment was supported by the legislation of the 
State, and had been constantly acquiesced in by the 
people. 

Mr. DORSEY. There are some facts which I have 
not yet heard broached in this debate, and I desire to 
call attention to them. We have been going on for 
several days, I will not say abridging the liberties of 
the people, but hedging up their power of action; and 
now we propose, by one sweeping clause, to lake away 
from the people of Ohio the exercise of a power, 
which, in my opinion, is most vitally important to the 
growth and prosperity of the State. 

We have declared, in this constitution, that there 
should be no increase of the Slate debt, and that the 
existing debt should be paid off in a short space of 


time. And we have done well in both these things— 
We have done this in accordance with a strong expres¬ 
sion of public opinion. But, it was just as much de¬ 
termined that there never should be an increase of the 
public debt of Ohio, before this Convention assembled 
in May last, as it is at this day. It was determined by 
the strong voice of public opinion. And gentlemen 
will find, that, whenever they attempt to go in advance 
of this expression of public opinion, they will meet 
with barriers in their way continually', which they will 
not be able to overcome by mere enactments upon 
parchment. 

I do not deny that the power of voluntary taxation 
in counties and townships may be liable to abuse. I 
do not deny that the rights of the weaker party may be 
stricken down to a certain extent. But I do say, it is 
totally and entirely wrong to lay down an iron rule in 
the constitution which shall constantly prevent the peo¬ 
ple of every county, township and city in the State 
from voting a tax upon themselves for the consruct- 
ion or completion of public works within their bor¬ 
ders. 

The sixth section of the report now before us, pre¬ 
scribes that there never shall be, under any circum¬ 
stances whatever, any tax levied by any county, town¬ 
ship or city authority, for internal improvement; and 
the amendment of the gentleman from Logan proposes 
to extend the exercise of this power, under a given 
limitation. Well, this is better than nothing at all. I 
am willing to vote for the amendment of the gentleman 
from Logan if I can get nothing better. But, if that 
amendment does not prevail, I shall vote to strike out 
the section, believing that the whole matter may be 
better provided for in another part of the constitution. 
I refer to the sixth section of the report of the commit¬ 
tee on Corporations other than Corporations for Bank¬ 
ing, which I will read. [He read the section.] A 
very slight amendment of this section will cover the 
whole ground; and you will, by its adoption, establish 
a very important principle, and leave the whole mat¬ 
ter of the details to legislative control. 

Mr. CUTLER suggested that the blank in Mr. Stan¬ 
ton’s amendment be filled with the word “five.” 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, suggested “three.” 

Mr, MASON suggested “two.” 

The question being on filling the blank with the word 
“ five,” 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross said that he desired to make a 
very few remarks on the question, but as the usual hour 
for taking a recess had arrived, he w’ould move that 
the Convention do now take a recess. 

The motion being decided in the negative, 

Mr. GREEN proceeded. The proposition of the 
gentleman from Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] is to limit the 
amount of debts wTiich these municipal corporations 
shall hereafter incur, to twm and a half per cent, on 
the value of the.taxable property within such corpora¬ 
tions. 

He concurred in a remark made this morning by one 
of the Senators from Hamilton county, [Mr. Reeme- 
LiN.] If it is right and expedient to leave these muni¬ 
cipal corporations to the exercise of this power of bor¬ 
rowing money at all, there should be no limitation or 
restriction upon it. 

The vice of the. proposition of the gentleman from 
Logan is, that it makes the value of the taxable pro¬ 
perty, in a county or city, the rule to govern what shall 
be sufficient to provide for the wants or the conven¬ 
ience of the people. Now, it may be, indeed it is so, 
that in some of the counties of the State, where, owing 
to w'ell known causes, although abounding in wealth, 
the land and personal property makes but little show 
on the tax list, all that is wanting to develop that 
wealth is the exercise of this very power now sought 
to be taken away. 

Let us take examples. I will select four counties in 
the southern part of the State, a portion of that region 
of whose undeveloped mineral wealth the gentleman 










957 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


from Washington, [Mr. Cutler,] has so forcibly spo¬ 
ken to-tlay. 

The report of the Auditor of State, made in 1849, 
shows the value of the taxable property in the follow¬ 
ing flamed counties: 

Washington..$3,919,246 00 

Jackson.*. 1,520,397 00 

Athens-:. 2,286,636 00 

Lawrence. 1,910,834 00 

Vinton, (estimated). 1,500,000 00 

Hocking. 1,232,396 00 

I have included Athens and Jackson in this state- 
statement because, althougli those counties have made 
one step in the system of internal improvement by 
Railroads, it will doubtless become absolutely neces¬ 
sary that they shall have power to go on to perfect 
them. 

Here, thert, are six counties, with an aggregate value 
of taxable property amounting to $12,369,509. Now 
2^ per cent, upon that valuation will give, say, in round 
numbers, $300,000. I leave it to srentleraen to say how 
far they suppose this amount will go in the construc¬ 
tion of the improvements, for want of which that sec¬ 
tion of the State is kept back in the general prosperi¬ 
ty of the State. 

Let us take, now, from the same report, the valua¬ 
tion in six counties lying in the middle and northern 
portions of the State. In this I do not include Hamilton 
county, although I might properly do so—that county 
being in interest identified with the central portion of 
the State. 


strange intermeddling. But they have taken care to 
put an extinguisher upon all aid from the State. In 
this very report, you provide that no more money shall 
be borrowed for new works of internal improvement— 
and that the State shall never assume the payment of 
any debt incurred by any county, city, or other muni¬ 
cipal corporation, thereby forever closing the door, by 
the constitution, upon all and any legislation that may 
involve the State. And being full themselves, they 
will not concede to their brethren the privilege of 
picking up the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s 
table. 

Mr. President, I commend to the attention of gen¬ 
tlemen, the statistics on this subject. It is said that 
there is great danger in permitting these municipal 
corporations to carry on this system. That a heavy 
debt has already been created by it, that may be con¬ 
sidered as part of the State debt. That if a stop be 
not put to it, ruin must follow. Now, if all this be 
true, it is a startling fact. It is true, that a large debt 
has been created by municipal corporations, under this 
species of legislation. But let us look, where and by 
whom this debt has been created. I have prepared 
the following: 

STATEMENT, showing the counties, towns and cities authorized 
by law, on vote ot the people and otherwise, to incur debts for 
works of internal improvements, the amount of debt authorized, 
and the works to be constructed; for the purpose of inviting 
attention to the facts. 


Counties. 


Amount 

authorized. 


Objects. 


Cuyahoga... 

.$10,474,689 

00 

Butler. 

. 10,467,004 

00 

Montgomery.. 

. 12,622,331 

00 

Franklin. 

. 11,108,963 

00 

Licking.'. 

. 8,931,727 

00 

Muskingum. 

. 11,004,726 

00 


Here we have a difference in the I’elative valuation 
of pi’oferty in these twelve counties, of $42,239,921. 
Now, sir, no man acquainted with the fads can pre¬ 
tend to deny that this vast difference is mainly owing 
to the advantages and facilities afforded to the wealthi¬ 
er counties, by the internal improvements furnished 
by the system now to be suppressed. 

Sir, the gentleman from Washington has done no 
more than justice to this region of the State, in the de¬ 
scription he has given of its dormant wealth. Give it 
the fostering care you have bestowed on more favored 
portions of the State, and in a few years it will as far 
exceed in value the counties I have put in contrast 
with it, as they now surpass it. Yes, sir, permit them, 
by their own energies, with their own means, to de- 
velope their hidden treasures, and in ten years I would 
not exchange the fee simple of the mineral region in 
Southern Ohio for that favored region added to a like 
valuable territory. 

But what do gentlemen propose to do ? Sir, that 
portion of the State that has thriven and waxed fat at 
the public crib—that has been the peculiar and exclu¬ 
sive beneficiary of the scheme of State improvements— 
that thrust their arms up to the shoulder into the pub¬ 
lic purse, during the life of the “plunder law”—is in 
a perfect plethora of prosperity, by the use of the mo¬ 
ney of the people of the State at large. Yet sir, gen 
tlemen on this fioor, representing this favored region, 
are here insisting upon withholding from their poorer, 
because less favored, fellow citizens, the humble priv¬ 
ilege of helping themselves with their own money. 

Why cannot these gentlemen permit other people to 
manage their own affairs. If the people in southern 
Ohio are willing to tax themselves for the purpose of 
getting out of the fastnesses of the hjlls that surround 
and encompass them, what business have these gentle¬ 
men to interfere ? What business is it of theirs ? If 
they ask to bleed the public treasury, until the body 
politic shall be reduced to the brink of dissolution, (re¬ 
pudiation,) in order to satisfy their grasping and selfish 
avarice, there might bo something to explain this 


Allen ... - 

$100,000 00 

Carroll - - - 

20,1 00 00 

Darke - - - . 

50,000 00 

Delaware - • 

100,000 00 

Franklin - - - 

100,000 00 

Greene - . - - 

31,000 00 

Hancock - - - 

60,000 00 

Hardin - • - 

30,000 00 

Highland- - - 

41,950 00 

Jackson - - - 

100,000 00 

Knox.... 

100,000 00 

Licking - - • 

600,000 00 

Logan- - - . 

140,000 00 

Marion - - - . 

100,000 00 

Miami- - - • 

No vote taken 

Muskingum- - 

170,000 00 

Pike. 

20,000 00 

Ross - - - - 

289,000 00 

Shelby - - - 

110,000 00 

Stark - . - . 

200,000 00 


$2,361,950 00 

Cities. 

$1,930,000 00 

Cincinnati - - 

365,000 00 

Cleveland - - - 

150,000 00 

Columbus - - 

2,000 00 

Circleville - - 

5,000 00 

Lancaster - - - 

3,000 00 

Maumee City - 

70,000 00 

Newark - - - 

40,000 00 

Troy ... - 

5,000 00 

Xenia - - - - 



$2,570,000 00 


$2,361,950 00 


2,570,000 00 

Counties, Cities 

-- 

and towns. 

$4,931,950 00 

Amount of debt 


actuallyincurred 

$3,370,597 00 


Great Western R R 
Pittsburg and Cleveland R R 
Greenville and Miami R R 
Cleveland and Columbus R R 
Rail Roads 
C C X and C R R 
Findlay and Carey R R 
Mad River and Lake Erie R R 
Turnpikes 

(ronton R R and other purposes 
Railroads and other purposes 
C and L E R R and C and O R R 
Mad River and Lake Erie, stock 
in Urbana Bank 
Bellefontaine and Indiana R R 

Cent O R R and other purposes 
Port and Col Turnpike Companies 
Railroad and Turnpike Co 
Bellefontaine and Indiana R R 
Ohio and Pennsylvania R R 


Funding city debtR R and Canals 
Plank Roads and R R 
Rail Road 
Turapikes 
same 

Plank Roads 
Plank Roads and R It 
Turnpike Roads 
Rail Road 


It will be remembered that the valuation for taxa¬ 
tion of the real property in the above list, was made 
prior to the completion of some of the important works 
named. A re-vuluation will show a vast increase.— 
The report of the Auditor of State, made in 1849, 
shows the aggregate value of all the taxable property 
in the State to be $430,861,265.00. I have no doubt 
that the amount, on a re-valuation, will not fall much 
short of $600,000,000.00. 

Now sir, the debts thus incurred, fpot up largely— 
but where and by whom have they been incurred! 







































958 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


With two solitary exceptioas, the works to which Ross 
and Jackson counties have subscribed, the works to 
aid in which these moneys have been borrowed, lead 
from or tend to Cincinnati—and all traverse the State 
north of the National Road ! and farther, it is incurred 
by muse whose means of payment are the results of 
the bountiful expenditure of the money of the State', in 
the construction of canals, turnpikes and railroads, by 
which their agriculture has been fostered, and their 
physical energies fully developed. These gentlemen 
now tremble tor the credit of the State, because the 
people of the “huckleberry knobs,” want a chance to 
raise a little money on their own credit, to dig down 
and through their hills to get to market. They say the 
money market will be so gorged with this kind of se¬ 
curities that it will create great confusion and embar¬ 
rassment. Possibly, if the people of southern Ohio 
should go into the market with their bonds—it might 
embarrass these gentlemen in raising the balance of 
the money they are authorized to, but have not yet 
borrowed, on their corporation bonds. 

I commend these facts to the liberal minded gentle¬ 
men on the floor—I will not stop to discuss the democ¬ 
racy of this argument—nor shall I consider the argu¬ 
ment that it is taking property of the citizen against 
his consent—they may be answered satisfactorily—the 
Convention is impartial—as majorities always are where 
minorities are struggling with them to prevent injus¬ 
tice—I will not therefore trespass further on their time. 

I simply again ask attention to - the statistics I have 
presented. Look at the value of the taxable property 
in the counties enumerated. What has produced the 
vast difference between these counties and others in 
the State ? Not their superior natural advantages, but 
the expenditure of public money. Look at the valua¬ 
tion of the older counties, rich beyond calculation, in 
wealth embodied in the earth, as ray friend from 
Washington has well-said—“ not in the soil but under 
the soil,” and then let them say if they will persist in 
thus inflicting a paralytic stroke upon the energies of 
that people, from which they never can recover. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, now moved that the Conven¬ 
tion take a recess ; which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on filling the blank in Mr. 
Stanton’s amendment, with the word “ five it was 
disagreed to. 

The question then being on filling the blank with 
the word “ three,” 

Mr. CUTLER demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 13, nays 81-:—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Collings, 
Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewing, Hamilton, Stanton and Wor-. 
thington—13. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Bates, Bennett, 
Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, 
Clark, Farr, Florence, Forbes, (lillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of 
Defiance, Green of Iloss, Gregg, Groesheck, Hard, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Lidey, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, 
Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Pat¬ 
terson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Kanney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, 
Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stick- 
ney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, Taylor, ^'hompson of Shelby, Towns- 
hend, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and Presi¬ 
dent—81, 

So the Convention refused to fill the blank with the 
word “ three.” 

The question then being on filling the blank with the 
words “ two and a half,” 

Mr. STANTON, on leave, withdrew his amendment 
to the amendment. 

The question then being on filling the blank with 
the word “ two,” 

Mr. CURRY demanded the yeas and nays, and being 
ordered resulted—yeas 19, nays 74—as follows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Collings, 
Cuny, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewing, Hamilton, Hunter, Larsh, Nash, 
Peck, Stanton, Taylor, WiUia'ms and Worthington—19. 


Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Bates, Bennett, 
Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, 
Clark, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of 
Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesheck, Haid, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Hichcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, 
Horton, Humphreville, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Law¬ 
rence, Leech, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, McCloud, McCormick, Nor¬ 
ris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Raitney, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stan¬ 
bery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, lliomp- 
son of Shelby, Tovvnshend, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury 
and President—74. 

So the motion was not sustained. 

The question then recurred upon striking out the 
sixth section. 

Mr. CUTLER was aware of the impatience of ma¬ 
jorities, commonly manifested whenever a minority 
were insisting upon rights which came into couflct with 
present comfort. He had no doubt that now, as be¬ 
tween a good dinner and the rights claimed by the mi¬ 
nority upon this question, the decision of the majority 
would turn in favor of the dinner. But he would tell 
gentlemen that there were portions of the State which 
felt a deep interest in the question now before the 
Convention; and for that reason he would claim a 
little more time to talk and act upon it. The time 
could be far better afforded for this purpose than for 
the discussion of any party question. 

He understood the objection to his motion to strike out, 
to lie against the principle, that a majority ought not 
to have the power to impose a tax upon the minority 
at all. He wished, therefore, to ask for a vote upon 
that naked principle. 

Mr. CUTLER then moved to perfect the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken put (section 6) by adding to the 
same, the following; 

No tax shall hereafter be levied by the authorities of any coun¬ 
ty, city or township for the construction or improvement of any 
bridge, road, street, or highway. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved that the Convention ad¬ 
journ, on which motion 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, and be¬ 
ing ordered, resulted—yeas 47,nays 46—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Blickensderfer, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Cur¬ 
ry, Florence, Greene of Defiance Green of Ross, Groesheck, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Jones, 
Kennon, Lawrence, Leech, Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, Norris, 
Orton, Otis, Peck, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott 
of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan¬ 
bery, Stebbins, Stickney Stidger, Swan, Thompson of Stark, 
Williams, Wilson and President—47. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, 
Collingk, Cutler, Dorsey, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, 
Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hor¬ 
ton Hunter, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lidey, Manon, Morehead, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stanton, Stilwell, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, 
Warren, Way, Woodbury and Worthington—46. 

So the motion prevailed,and the Convention adjonrn- 
ed till Monday morning, 9 o’clock. 


MONDAY, January 13, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. CHANEY demanded a call of the Convention, 
which was ordered, and the following gentlemen were 
found absent: 

Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Ewart, Gillett, Green of Ross, Harlan, Holt, Larsh, Loudon, 
Mitchell, Morris, Norris, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Roll, Seilers, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Struble, Vance of 
Butler, Vance of Champaign and Warren. 

On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, all proceedings un¬ 
der the call were dispensed with. 

Mr. HUNT presented a petition from W. H. Barker 
and 99 other citizens of Lucas county, praying that a 
provision may be inserted in the constitution, prohibit¬ 
ing the Legislature from passing any law granting the 
right to sell intoxicating drinks. 

Mr. QUIGLEY presented a petition from Mary D. 












CONVENTION KEPORTS 


969 


Johns and one hundred and thirty-eight females and 
three males of Columbiana county, on the same sub¬ 
ject. 

Mr. GREGG presented a petition from Jesse Van 
Metres and twenty-seven males, and Phoebe Wickers- 
ham and fourteen other feinuies of Columbiana,county, 
on the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of “ Retailing ardent Spirits” 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the Convention take up 
the report of the standing committee on Public Debts 
and Public Works; which was agreed to. 

The question being on the amendment, of Mr. 
Cutler, 

Mr. McCORMlCK moved to amend the amendment 
by striking out the first word “ no,” and inserting “ a,” 
in lieu thereof. 

The question being on the amendment to the amend¬ 
ment, 

Mr. CUTLER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered and resulted—yeas 28, nays 52—as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Bates, felalr, Cahill, Case of Licking, 
Farr, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, 
Horton, Hunter, Jones, Kirkwood, Mason, Mitchell, McCormick, 
Orton, Perkins, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Stidger, Thompson of Shelby, Way, Woodbury and ■ 
President—28. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Chambers, Chaney, Ceilings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dor¬ 
sey, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Humphreville, Hunt. Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Leadbetter, Li- 
dey, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, 
Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stan¬ 
ton, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Townsbend, 
Williams, Wilson and Worthington—52. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

The question then being on tlie amendment, 

Mr. CUTLER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas none, nays 84—as 
follows: 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, BlickensOerfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case' of Licking, Chambers, 
Chaney, Clark, Ceilings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock, of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunt6r, Johnson, 
Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Orton, 
Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Scott of Harrison, Scott 
of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Way, 
Williams, VVilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President—84. 

So the amendment wa's disagreed to. 

Mr. DORSEY moved further to amend the sixth sec¬ 
tion, by adding at the end, the following words: Pro¬ 
vided, That if any county, city, town or township be 
already a stockholder in any such company or associa¬ 
tion for public improvement, whose work is already 
commenced, it shall be lawful for such county, town, 
city, or township to vote such amount as may be ne¬ 
cessary for the completion of such work. 

Mr. CURRY moved to amend the amendment by in¬ 
serting, after the word *' commenced,” the words, “ or 
authorized to be commenced.” 

Mr. DORSEY inquired of the gentleman irom Union, 
[Mr. Curry,] the object of his amendment. 

Mr. CURRY thought there might be works in pros¬ 
pect, which, although not actually commenced, were 
provided for, and which should be protected. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Cuyahoga, thought that there 
was no need of the amendment;—that such cases were 
protected, inasmuch as the section itself did not cut ofl 
such cases. , 

Mr. DORSEY did not wish, in cases where works 
had commenced, and where more funds were necessa¬ 
ry, to cut off, by a constitutional provision, the people 
from voting such sura, by tax, as should be needed to 
complete the work. It was for this purpose he had of¬ 
fered his amendment. ' 


Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, presented and read for 
information, a substitute for the amendment of Mr 
Dorsey, which he thought better calculated to secure 
the object. It is as follows: “Provided, That the pro 
visions of this section shall not be applicable to any 
County, city, lowu or township which is already a 
stockholder in any company organized for the construc¬ 
tion of any work of improvement.” 

Mr. RE EMELIN was opposed to the amendment of 
the gentleman from Union, [Mr. Curry,] as well as to 
the proposition of the gentleman from Shelby, [Mr. 
Thompson,] because it would authorize the city of Cin¬ 
cinnati to subscribe eight millions to the St. Louis rail¬ 
road, and fifteen millions to the Charleston railroad.— 
He did not want to confer such power. 

The question being on the amendment to the amend 
ment, the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. BARBEE moved to further amend the amend¬ 
ment, by striking out the word “ county.” 

Mr. BARBEE made a statement of certain local 
matters in Miami county, in relation to which himself 
and his colleague, [Mr. Dorsey,] disagreed in senti¬ 
ment—in reference to certain taxes voted in that coun¬ 
ty, for the construction of certain public improvements 

Mr. DORSEY rejoined very briefly. 

The question then being upon the amendment of Mr 
Barbee, the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. DORSEY then moved to amend the amendment 
offered by him, and now under consideration, by strik 
ing out the words, “ it shall be lawful,” and inserting 
the words “ the Legislature may authorize.” 

Mr. RANNEY did not exactly understand the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey.}, 
He thought it amounted to about this: that where the 
minority has been robbed once it shall be proper to do 
it again. He thought this to be justice upon the homoeo¬ 
pathic principle—curing the bite with the hair of the 
same dog. He did not believe in any such practice;,, 
and was opposed to this species of taxation in all cases. 

The question then being on the amendment to the 
amendment, the same was lost. 

The amendment was then disagreed to. 

The question then recurring upon striking out the 
sixth section, 

Mr. WORTHINGTON moved to amend the same by 
striking out all after the word “ town,” where it occur:* 
in the first line, and inserting the following: “Town 
ships or other municipal corporations in this State, fc' 
contract debts not exceeding — per cent, on the valut 
of their property, as assessed for taxation.” 

He briefly explained his views, and the reasons for. 
offering his amendment. 

The question being on the adoption of the amend ¬ 
ment. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK demanded a division of the queo 
tion. 

Mr. REEMELTN spoke against any admixtureol the 
interests of the public with those of corporations. 

Mr! WORTHINGTON spoke of the necessity of in 
corporated companies, especially when the State shaf. 
be prohibited from engaging in public works of hei 
own. He did not look upon the dangers arising fronct 
these agencies as so very iminent. He desired to pre¬ 
vent improvidence on the part of municipal corpora¬ 
tions, but at the same time did not wish them to be 
entirely prohibited from employing the agency of char¬ 
tered. companies to carry forward works necessary or 
highly beneficial. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD supposed the sixth section as re¬ 
ported, was intended to prevent municipal corpora¬ 
tions from combining their means with those of indi¬ 
viduals, for the purpose of effecting a public object. 
He thou‘^ht there were objects for the furtherance of 
which, such combinations might properly take place, 
as to li'^ht a city with gas, or to furnish it with pure 
and wholesome water. He did not wish to prevent 
such junctions of interest. 

Mr. HAWKINS spoke against the whole system 











960 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


voting taxes or stock, to carry on works of a public 
character. He thought it an invasion of individual 
rights, and calculated to place the property of the in¬ 
dustrious and enterprising, under the control of the in¬ 
dolent ai d the profligate. He thought the question 
had been settled liere. 

Mr. GREGG thought the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Ross, [Mr. Worthingto.v,] would conflict 
with the sixth section of the report of the committee 
on corporations. He was opposed to the whole sys¬ 
tem of voting taxes for carrying o.n public works. 

Mr. BA-RNBTT, of Preble, moved to fill the blank 
with the word “three;” which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out after the 
word “ town,” in the sixth section, 

Mr. LARSH moved to amend t|ie words proposed 
to be stricken out, by striking out all after the word 
“ whatever,” where it occurs in the third line. 

Mr CLARK demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 11, nays 82—as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Ykas —Messrs. Brown of Athens, Curry, Cutler, Green of Ross, 
Unmilton, Hard, Larsh, Mason, Stanton, Williams and Worthing¬ 
ton—11. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, 
Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensdefer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Case, of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, 
Ceilings, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeek, Harlan, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Horton. Humpreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, 
J ones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Orton, 
Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, 
Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and 
President—82. 

So the motion to strike out was disagreed to. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to amend the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, by adding at the end the fol¬ 
lowing : “ Except for purely municipal purposes.” 

The question being on the amendment, 

Mr. KIRKWOOD demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—^yeas 12, nays 75, 
as follows: • 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Case of Hocking, Cutler, Ewing, 
Gregg, Hamilton, Kf nnon, Kirkwood, Manon, Mason, Thompson 
of Stark and Worthington. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Curry, Dorsey, Farr, 
Florence, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of 
Rots, Groesbeek, Hard, Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuya¬ 
hoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Orton, Otis, Pa'terson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ran¬ 
ney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of 
Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins Stil¬ 
well, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, Way, Williams, Wilson, 
Woodbury and President—75. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
word town, 

Mr. CLARK demanded the yeas and nays, which 
v/cre ordered, and resulted—yeas 14, nays 73, as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Brown of Athens, Curry, Cut¬ 
ler, Ewing, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Mason, Nash, Peck, 
Stanton, Williams and Worthington^—14. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews. Archbold, Barbee, Bates, Bennett, 
Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Dorsey, Farr, Florence, 
Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeek, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, 
Johnsbn, Jones, Kennon, KirkwOod, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, McCloud, McCormick, Orton, 
Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, 
Swiit, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—73. 

So the motion to strike out all after the word 
“ town,” was disagreed to. 

Mr. GREGG moved to amend by striking out the 
words “ city, town;” which was disagreed to. 


Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, moved to strike 
out the word Legislature, and insert the words “ Gen¬ 
eral Assembly,” which was agreed to. 

The question then being on striking out the whole 
section: 

Mr. CUTLER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 12, nays 78—as fol¬ 
lows; 

Yeas —Mesers. Barnett of Preble, Brown of Athens, Curry, 
Cutler, Dorsey, Ewing, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Mason, Peck, 
Williams and VVorthiiigton—12. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Bates, Bennett, 
Blair, BPekensderf'er, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Cook, Farr, Forbes, Graham, 
Gray, Greene ol Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeek, Hard, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock ot Geauga, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, 
Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, 
Orton, Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Wd- 
dle. Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stil¬ 
well, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelbjj 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and 
President—78. 

So the motion to strike out section 6, was disagreed 
to. 

Mr. GROESBECK moved to amend the same sec¬ 
tion, by adding at the end of the same, the following 
words: “ Nor shall aijy county, city, town, township, 
or municipal corporation, for any purpose, contract 
debts, which shall in the aggregate, exceed three per 
cent., on the amount of its taxable property. 

Mr. GROESBECK thought that as the Convention 
had determined to limit the amount of debt of the 
State, the same principle would require that it should 
limit the amount of debts to be contracted by the less¬ 
er municipal corporations. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved to amend the amend¬ 
ment, by striking out all after the word “ debts.” 

Mr. GROESBECK was not to be scared away from 
his amendment by the gentleman from Ross. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, inquired if the 
amendment was intended to apply to present, as well 
as prospective debts. He was disposed to think the 
ratio of three per cent, too small. He desired to know 
if, even in Cincinnati, they would not be cramped by 
the rule. 

Mr. GROESBECK thought not. He said under this 
rule, the city of Cincinnati might incur a debt of two 
millions of dollars. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, said the rule might work well 
enough here, and two millions might be as large a sum 
as this city ought to go in debt, but the gentleman 
from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] must remember that 
there are other parts of the State, where the same rule 
might be attended with great inconvenience. In his 
own town for instance, by that ratio, they would be 
able to accumulate a debt of only about thirty thous¬ 
and dollars; but perhaps the gentleman thought that 
the advantages of pure wholesome water, and of light¬ 
ing their city with gas, were too valuable to be enjoy¬ 
ed by his constituents. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Green ; the same was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Groesbeck: 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, demanded the ayes and noes, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 32, nays 66— 
as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Ewing, Farr, Forbe®, Groesbeek, 
Hard, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holt, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kirk¬ 
wood, Mason, McCormick, Ranney, Reemelin, Smith of Wyan¬ 
dot, Stickney, Swan, Townshend and Worthington—22,| 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blickensderter, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case 
ot Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of 
Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Ge¬ 
auga, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Ken¬ 
non, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, 
Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, 
Quigley, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Aug¬ 
laize, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilweik 









CONVENTION REPORTS 


961 


Stidger, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Way, 
Wilson, Woodbury and President—66. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 
jj- Mr. LBADBETTER moved to amend the second sec¬ 
tion by striking out the following words: ‘‘or to re¬ 
deem the present outstanding indebtedness of the 
State.” 

He said that the existence of this clause in the con¬ 
stitution would have a tendency to perpetuate the debt 
of the State for fifty or an hundred years to come. In¬ 
stead of paying the bonds of the State at maturity, the 
Legislature would go on extending the time, and crea¬ 
ting new bonds on a new debt. He thought the peo¬ 
ple demanded that the debt should be paid as soon as 
possible. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, thought that it 
would be unsafe to provide that the debt shall be paid 
as it falls due. The result will be that the debt will 
be substantially paid within eight years of the adop¬ 
tion of the constitution. It will be necessary by the 
year 1860, to meet and pay about ten and a half mil¬ 
lions. This sum must be raised by taxation, and if the 
people are willing he had. no objection, but he thought 
we should be convinced that the people are willing, 
before we fixed an inflexible rule that may be very se¬ 
vere in its operation. 

The question being on striking out: 

Mr. LEADBETTER demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 20, nays 69— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Farr, Gray, Green of Defiance, Henderson, Holt, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Leech, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Perkins, 
Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stick- 
ney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark and Woodbury—20. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, 
Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dor¬ 
sey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Groesbeck, Ham¬ 
ilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, Joh*^ son.. Jones, Ken- 
non, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Lidey, Manon, Mason, Morehead, 
McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Quigley, 
Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, Thompson ot Shelby, 
Townshend, Way, Wilson, Worthington and Px'esident—69. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY moved, to amend the seventh section 
by adding at the end of the section, as amended, the 
following: 

“ Provided, That the amount levied for this purpose shall not 
be less than two mills upon the dollar, of the valuation of the 
taxable property of the State.’’ 

Mr. RANNEY said that he believed that the two 
mills provided for, would, so great will be the increase 
of taxable property in the State, pay off the entire 
debt in less than twenty years. 

Mr. HAWKINS was in favor of fixing a time for the 
payment of the State debt, much shorter than had been 
agreed to by the Convention. Pending Mr. Hawkins’ 
remarks. 

On motion of Mr. STANBERY, the Convention took 
a recess. 


MONDAY, January 13, 1851. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

The question being on agreeing to the amendment of 
Mr. Ranney, 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, and being 
ordered, resulted—yeas 37, nays 46—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, 
Cook, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Green of Defiance, Gregg, Plard, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunter, Ken 
non, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitch 
ell, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Scott of Auglaize, Smith ot Wy¬ 
andot, Stebbins, Stickney, Townshend, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, 
Worthington and President—37. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hock¬ 
ing, Chambers, Clark, Collings, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, 
Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunt, John¬ 
son, Jones, ^^Manon, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, 

61 


Patterson, Peck, Riddle, Roil, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stilwell, Stidger, Stru- 
Thompson of Shelby and Thompson of Stark.—46. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to amend the report by add¬ 
ing at the end of section 1, these words: 

But no such debt shall be created, except in pursuance of a law, 
which law shall impose and provide for the collection of a dii'ect 
annual tax, sufficient to pay the interest on such debt, as it falls 
due, and also to pay and discharge the principal of such debt 
wthin five years from the time of the contracting thereof. 

Upon this question Mr. REEMELIN demanded the 
yeas and nays, and the same being ordered, reesulted— 
yeas 40, nays 49—as follows ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Ewart, 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Henderson, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Kirkwood, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stick- 
ney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, 
Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—40. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown ofAthens, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, 
Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Har¬ 
lan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunt, 
Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Larsh, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, 
McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Peck, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott 
of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor, Thompson of Stark and Worthington 

49. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved, to further amend the Re¬ 
port, by striking out all but the thirteenth and four¬ 
teenth sections, and inserting in lieu thereof the follow¬ 
ing: 

Sec. 1. The General Assembly shall provide for the payment 
of the principal and accruing interest of the public debts of the 
State. 

Sec. 2. The public debt shall not be increased, and until the 
present debt is paid, no other shall be created except for the pur¬ 
pose of repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, or to defend 
the State in war; and in no instance shall the credit of the State 
be loaned to a corporotion. 

Mr. SAWYER demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out, 

Mr. MITCHELL concurred in the sentiments of the 
amendment; but lest it should fail, he desired to amend 
the original Report. 

He would therefore move to amend the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out in the first section, by striking 
out in lines three and four, the words “ seven hundred 
and fifty,” and inserting the words “ five hundred,” in 
lieu thereof. 

Mr. MANON demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out the words 

seven hundred and fifty 

It was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. McCor¬ 
mick’s amendment, 

Mr. HOLT moved to further amend the Report, by 
adding at the end of section 2, the follovving: 

“ Nor shall the State contract any debt for the pur¬ 
pose of redeeming its outstanding indebtedness, which 
shall not be redeemable at such period as may be pre¬ 
scribed by law, not exceeding five years 

Which was disagreed to. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to further amend the Re¬ 
port, by adding at the end of section 2, the following; 

“And all debts contracted, to redeem the present 
outstanding indebtedness of the State, shall be so con¬ 
tracted as to be payable by the sinking fund, hereinaf¬ 
ter provided for, as the same shall accumulate.” 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said; We are here provi¬ 
ding for a sinking fund, the object being to pay off the 
State debt as fast as the means provided by the fund 
will do it. And, if I iiave made the calculation cor¬ 
rectly_calling the debt sixteen millions—it will be 

paid oft* in about forty years; and, calling it fifteen mil¬ 
lions, in about the period of thirty-nine years. But 
there are some portions of the debt falling due in large 
amounts and at earlier periods than can be met by this 
sinkin*' fund; and it might so happen, that, in order to 












962 


CONVENTION EEPOETS. 


pay otVas fast as the debt falls due, new stocks might 
be created, exteuding the time ol their payment per 
hai)s for fifty years—carrying such porlioiisof die debt 
clear beyond ihetime when the sinking fund would pay 
the debt. 1 admit that such a provision would besub- 
Btaniially a violation of the constitution. But tlien, in 
such an event, what wmnld be done ? Here is a con¬ 
stantly liccuniulaling sinking fund, provided for in the 
constitution and wdiich mustcontiime to accumulate so 
much annually, until the debt shall be entirely jtaid off. 
And it might so happen that there would be au enor¬ 
mous fund collected and uuapjiropriated in the treasury; 
which, as we have seen, in the case of the United States 
surplus revenue, is a great curse to any pei'ple; and 
such an accumulation in our treasury would be the oc¬ 
casion lor the iutioductiou of so many and such enor¬ 
mous frauds in the disposition of our State affairs, as it 
would be melancholy to contern [date. Therefore I wish 
a provision to be incorporated that shall expressly pro¬ 
hibit any extension of the lime ot the first jiaymeiil of 
tlie debt beyond the time when the sinking fund which 
we have provided, would meet all the outstanding 
bonds of the State : and, if 1 have correctly gathered 
the import of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Richland, that must be its object. Do I understand 
that to bo the object of the gentleman from Richland ? 

iMr. KIRKWOOD nodded his assent. 

Mr. HUMfHREVILLE. I hope, then, it will not 
be voted against on account of any general hostility to 
all amendments to this rejiort. 

The yeas and nays being now taken upon the ques¬ 
tion of the adoption if Mr. Kirkwood, s amendment, 
the result was—yeas 53, nays 35 —as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs .\rchbold, Bennett, Blair, lllickensdei fer, Brown 
of Carrol!, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Ewing, Farr, Forbes. Greene 
ot Defiance, Gregg, Groesheck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootinau, Humphrt-vilie, Hunt, Johnson, Kirkwood, harsh, Lar 
will, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, Patterson, Quialcy, 
Ranney, Eeemelin, Eoll, Sawyer, Scott of Ausilaize, Sm th of 
Wyandot, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Taylor, Tiionipson ot Shelby’. 
Thompson of Stark, Town.-hend, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, 
Worthin;.'ton and President—53. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Motgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, r»ate8, Brown of Athens, Case of Hocking, 
Chambers, rollings, Curry, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Green of Rois, Hamilton, Harlan, Horton, Hunter, Mari¬ 
on, Morehend, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Pecq, 
Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Smith ot Highland, Smith of VVarren, 
Stanbery, Stanton and Stilwell—35. 

So ihe amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. CAHILL moved the previous question. 

The question then being “ shall Hie main question 
be now put?” 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, demanded the yeas and nay.«, 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 51, nays 38—as 
follows: 

Ybas—M essrs. Andrews, Barbee Bennett. Blair, Blickensderfer, 
Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Greene 
of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holme?, Hoot- 
man, Hunter, Kirkwood, Lar»ill, Lidey, Manon, Mason, More- 
head, Mor is, Patterson, Perkins, Quiglcyi Eeemelin, Eoll, Saw¬ 
yer. Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith ot Wyandot, 
Blebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Switt, Taylor, Thomp- 
Bon of siielby, Townshend, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worth¬ 
ington and President—51, 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, 
Colliiigs, Curry, Florence, Graham, Gray, Green ol Ross, Groes- 
beck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holt, Horton, Hu nphrevillc, Hunt, Johnson, Lar.-h, 
Leech, Leadhetter, Mitchell, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Oils, 
Peck, Ranney, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, 
Stilwell, and Thompson of Stark—38. 

So tlie call for the previous question was sustained. 

The (joestion then beitig on striking out all except 
the thiit< enfh and foui teenth sections of the report, 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cnyahogti, demanded the yeas 
and nays, and being ordered resulted—yeas 17, nays 
7G—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Brown of Athens, Case of 
Hocking, ('oiling?, Curry, Grnlinm, Green of Ross, Hunt, Mason, 
Mitchell. WcCoi’inick, Stanbery, Stanton, stidger, Taylor, Will¬ 
iam:; and Worthington—17. 

Navs —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 


Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Case of Licking. Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Cook, PI wart, Ewing, 
Farr, P'lorence, Forbes Gillett, Gray, Greene of llefiance, Groes- 
beck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock 
of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootnian Hor¬ 
ton. Huinphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
l.arwili, l.eech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, .Morehead, Morris, 
McCloud, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quidey, Ranney, Recmelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith ot 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandoq Stebbins, Stil¬ 
well, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Swift, 'I’bompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and 
President—76. 

So the motion to strike out ■was disagreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the report to 
be ongro.sst'd, 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cu5nihoga, demanded the yeas 
and nay.?, and being ordered, resulted—yeas 76, nays 
16—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Monl' 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfert 
Brown of Carroll, Cahiil, Cate of Hocking, Case of Licking 
Chambers, Cbaney, Collings, Cook, Ewarl, Ewing, Farr, Flor’ 
ence, Forbes, Gillet, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg* 
Groesheck, Hamilton, Hind, llarlan, Hawkins, Henderson,Hitch¬ 
cock ol Guvhoga, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Holmes, U jlt, Hootraan, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Larwitl, Lidey, Manon, iMorehead, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Peck, 
Quiglt-y, Ranney, Recmelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, S ott of Au¬ 
glaize, Smith ot Highland, Smith ot Warren, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Stidgesr, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, 
ThotJipson of Shelby, Townshend, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and 
President—76. 

Nay.s —Messrs. Brown of Athens, Curry, Gre>en of Ross, Hor¬ 
ton, Leech, Leadbetter, Mason, Mitchell, felcCormick, Nash, Scott 
of Harrison, Stanbery, Stauton, Stilwell, Thompson of Stark and 
Wot thington—16. 

So tlie report was ordered to be engrossed, and 

On motion, was ordered to bo read a third time on 
Wednesday next. 

The CHAIR announced Messrs. Ranney, Swan, Ma¬ 
son, Riddi.e and Andrews, as the committee on ‘'Re¬ 
vision, EnrolLment. and Arriingement.” 

Mr. McCORMICK asked and obtained leave of ab¬ 
sence for Mr. Norris, f(*r the space of one week. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYEEi, theConveiitioti lookup 
the re[)ort of the coininittee on .Iuri.?prudence. 

The (jnestiou being on agreeing to the tirst amend¬ 
ment, to wit: In line two, strike out the word “ap¬ 
point,” and insert in lieu thereof these words: “ provide 
lor the ti|>})ointment of;” it was agreed to. 

Mr. HOLT moved to further amend the report by 
striking dut these words: “The General Assembly, at 
its first session after the adoption of this constitution, 
shul’ [u'ovide for the appointment of,” and inserting, in 
lien thereof, the fallowing: '• At the tirst session of the 
Gen: ral As.sembly after ilic ado{>tionof this constitution, 
the Governor shall nomiaale, and by and with the con¬ 
sent of tin* S nato apjtoint.” 

Mr. TAYLOR expressed bis regret at hearing this 
proposition announced ; for, if there wag to be any in¬ 
novation iipon the manner of the appointment of these 
commissioners, he hoped it would be determined, that 
they .vhould be elected by the people. He confessed, 
that, after the discussion of the stibject, in the commit¬ 
tee of the whole, he was not prepared to expect this 
proposition to come from the chairman of the standing 
committee, [Mr. Holt.] 

There was a propriety in the appointment of these 
commissioners by the Legisl.iiiirc. because tliey were 
to m-rdie their report to the Legislature, and it was to 
he subject to their apfiroval, amendment, or rejection. 
He trusted that a reform so essential to the interests 
and [)nts[)erity ot the people, was not to be jilaeed be¬ 
yond ihe conir<d of the peojile, by tlie app.tinunent of 
these rt'tnmi-sioners by the Governor and the Sen¬ 
ate. Of all thing.?, it was most desirable, ibat these 
commi.ssi liens should bo removed from professional in¬ 
fill tee. 

Whilst ihe Convention were at Columbus, there 
seemed to be a general acquie.<cence in the appoinl- 
ment of ibese commi.ssioneMs by the Legislature. But, 
if that provision wete now stricken out, he [tresumed 
the change of the manner of their appointment, would 







CONVENTION REPORTS. 


963 


be in another direction; and that instead of giving 
it to a single individual, gentlemen would recognize a 
sufficient amount of ijn[)ortance in their trust, to place 
them, with reference to their appointment, at least 
upon an equal footing with the Directors of the Peni 
tentiary. But he trusted that there would be no change 
at all 

Mr. HOIiT replied, that the gentleman from Erie, 
[Mr. Taylor,] should not be apprehensive of too much 
professional inlluence, in this matter; for this was pre¬ 
cisely where it was desirable that the influence of the 
rofession should be brought. Undoubtedly the mem- 
ers of this commission should be selected f^rom among 
the most distinguished lawyers of the State, if the re¬ 
form was to be a good one, and worthy of the name. 

The question was now taken upon the adoption of 
Mr. Holt’s amendment, and tipon a division of the 
Hou^e, it was rejected—affirmative 33; negative 49. 

Mr. R.\NNEY now proposed further to atnend the 
report, by striking out, in lines four and five, these 
words; “and so far as practicable and expedient.’' 

Mr. R. said, the object of the amendment, if it should 
prevail, was, to make it obligatory upon these comrnis- 
sioner.s to provide for the abolition of the diiVereut forms 
of action in the practice of the law now in use, and to 
provide that justice may be admini.stered, without any 
discretion as to the mode of procedure between an ac¬ 
tion at law and in equity. As the report now stood, it 
would be left discretionary with them, whether to 
provide for the abolition of these forms r,r not. 

If any genileman vvotdd look at the hisUiry of law- 
reform in the State of New York, it would be perfectly 
satisfactory to him, that unless this duty was made ob- 
iigitury upon the commissioners, nolhingcould be done, 
at least, for a considerable length of time. 

For his part, he was prepared to say, that it was en¬ 
tirely practicable and expedient to abolish the differ¬ 
ent forms of action. He saw no necessity for retaining 
them. And he was prepared to say, that it vyas entire¬ 
ly practicable, and expedient, to dispense with all the 
differences between tlie manner of dispensing justice 
in courts at law, and equity. He wished the Conven¬ 
tion to decide for themselves, whether this reform was 
“practicable and expedient,” leaving to the commis¬ 
sioners nothing to do l)ul to go about the work. 

The great reform demanded for the good of all, he 
believed would in this way be accomplished without 
evasion or delay. 

To effect this end, he had made the motion. 

Mr. NASH. This amendment proposes, in fact, to 
turn this body into a grand committee upon law re 
form, instead of a Constitutional Convention. We are 
called upon by this amendment, to incorporate into the 
conslitutioti an iron rule,dictating to these commission¬ 
ers their whole duty—requiring them to do particular 
acts. It would be bolter to dispense with the con)mis- 
missioners altogether, and do the work ourselves—de¬ 
clare the whole thing to be done at once, andnotspeitd 
ten years abmtt it, as they have done in New York, in 
making their law reform, and they do not seem to be 
yet prepared for it. 

The gentleman says he is prepared to abolish the 
forms of practice at common law. You may change 
the names, but still the declaration and the cause of 
action will remain unchanged. It would not alter the 
law one iota. Turn every action into an action on the 
ca.ee, and you would still have to state your cause of ac¬ 
tion just a.s yon do now. It seems to me, that this is 
rather a small husiiie.es to engage the deliberations of 
aC'institufioiial Convention. 

Tiiere is a more important matter lying back, than 
appears upon the surface liere. 'Ihis amendmeait in¬ 
volves, T hardly know wbat. Here yon have in tlie 
bill of rights a guarantee of the right of trial hy 
But now when you undertake to abolish all distinctions 
between law and chancery, is it to result in a rule to 
try everything hy a jury, as in actiotis at law, or is it 
to take away the jury trial altogether 7 I confess that 


I am utterly unable to perceive the utility of converting 
both of these systems of practice into one. I cannot ap¬ 
preciate the n suit. 

My imjiression is, that the civil law proceedings on 
ihe contract, would generally be fijiuid cheaper, and 
more expeditious and satisfactory, than the common 
law method, and if I were forming a new system, I 
am ii(>t certain but that I should adopt the civil prac¬ 
tice, for there are arguments in favor of it, which are 
wortljy of all consideration. But what 1 object to, is 
that we, here, in one sweeping clause, should under¬ 
take to make a union, the result of which we cannot 
comprehend until we shall huye run it out into prac¬ 
tice. 

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman speaks of the duty 
of these comniis.sioner8 to inquire into the expediency 
of wliat 1.S proposed in this article. But is it not to be 
supposed that the hundred and eight men called up 
here to represent the people of Ohio in Convention to 
alter and amend their constitution, can decide this ques¬ 
tion themselves? I believe, sir, that a majority of this 
body will faithfully represent the wishes of the people 
of Ohio, when they declare that it is expedient and 
practicable to carry this reform into effect. If any such 
fact can be demonstrated by the action of the people 
of our own State, as well as of other States, and the 
people of England, where the common law originated, 
it seems to me that it lias been demonstrated—that the 
proposition embraced in this article is not only feasible, 
but called for by many considerations. We do not 
want any longer to substitute forms for meaning in our 
judicial proceedings; but we w'ould require that the 
rule of common sense should be regarded ; that there 
should be but one mode (not form) of proceeding; and 
that is nothing more than that the parties, when brought 
before a tribunal of justice, shall state their case, and 
proceed according to the rules of logic and right reason 
to trial and judgment. 

We would also dispense with the distinctions in the 
mere forms and technicalities which at present exist 
between the practice in courts of law and courts of 
equity. As long as this State has had a political exis¬ 
tence, we have substantially given up those distinc¬ 
tions. by allowing the same court to become a kind of 
hybrid affair, and to sit either upon law cases or upon 
(:ase.s in equity. There are two sides to tho f?ame 
court, and this seems to me to be giving up the whole 
question. There were, in the Slate of New York, to 
which the gentleman has referred, much stronger con¬ 
siderations for retaining tliese distinctions than there 
can be here, because there they had their law courts 
and their equity courts. Here we have nothing of the 
kind ; but we are confused in our courts of jus’.ice by 
the commingling of legal and chancery jurisprudence. 

What is law? and what is equity? Justice is the 
word which ought to be substituted for both and all 
these distinctions, whether in jurisdiction or in prac¬ 
tice. Can we not have courts ot justice, which shall 
administer upon the constitution and laws ot the State, 
as they relate to the rights of individuals, by a simple 
and uniform mode of proceeding? Is not this body 
capable of deciding thi.^ question ? Docs not the pub¬ 
lic voice call for this ? Do not the movements of our 

public men most clearly point in that direction? We 

take the responsibility ia other things, and I want to 
know if we cannot decide for ourselves, that these 
distinctions are absolutely unnecessary, useless and 
iiijuricms ? 

In the course of the discussion of this subject in 
committee of the whole, last summer, we heard much 
of the excellence of the common law of England, 
which had so long defied the storms of rewilutione. 
But w'iihin the brief period of the recess of this Con¬ 
vention, the fomidaiions of that system liave heev. 
shaken. The reforms in the State of New York, have 
attracted tlie attention of the first minds of the bar of 
Emdand; and now the probability is, that, if we die- 
miss this subject of law reform for the next ten years 













964 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


even the mother country w’ill get the start of us. Lord { 
Brougham and Sir Samuel Romilly, have already sha- i 
ken the foundation of that pile of legal fictions; and i 
it ina.y tliiit ih© liritisli Pa.rli3,ui6nt &ud. lb© legal c 
minds of England, will approach and consummate £ 
this reionn sooner than ourselves. It is too late now, i 
for ^©iitlemen to point to the soui’c© of the common i 
law^ and claim that we ought to defer to that sys- c 
tern on account of its venerable oiugiu, since it is 
now rocking upon its ioundatious, and totteiing to 

We ask, then, that these commissioners shall have ( 
a clear, plain course ol duty before them ; so that, ( 
when appointed, they shall proceed directly, with all 
their resources, to arrange and propose the reform in ( 
question. 

Ihe reform in New York would have been consurn- < 
mated long ago, but for the obstructions and opposi- 
lions of its enemies. 1 hope, then, that the friends of | 
law reform here, will give to these commissioners a j 
reasonable opportunity of proceeding to their work, i 
without so much chance for the interposition of these 1 
impediments, by striking out the words px’oposed by ' 
the amendment of the gentleman from Trumbull. * 

Mr. COLLINGS. I would like to know whether ] 
the New York commissioners were not all friends of 
reform ? 

Mr. TAYLOR. I know there was a dissent irom 
their action, by one of their number. 

Mr. MITCHELL had never before heard of the ■ 
blows inflicted upon the courts of chancery by Lord 
Brougham and Sir Samuel Romilly ; nor of their advo- 
cacacy of the abolition of the distinctions in course of 
practice between courts of law and chancery. ' 

He would ask the gentleman from Trumbull, (be¬ 
cause he was a lawyer,) why it was, that, amongst the 
text books of the profession. Coke was not so useful to 
the profession as Blackstone ? Was itniot because 
Blackstone divided the subject of his lectures and ai’- 
ranged them under convenient heads ? This w^as done 
for the convenience and advantage of students of the 
profession, both young and old. For the same reason 
it was that these different forms of action arose in prac¬ 
tice. They were originated to enable us more fully to 
adopt forms for pleading and practice, the real use 
of which is to assist the less experienced members ol 
the profeesion. For by the aid of forms, they could 
practice with more success, and with more certainty, 
and safety to their clients. The older members of the 
bar, who were well versed in practice, could dispense 
with the aid of all forms. But, it was not so with be- 
‘^inners, and those who are anxious to represent their 
own case in court. They need forms. This latter at¬ 
tainment seemed at times to be the beau ideal with 
the gentleman from Trumbll and the gentleman frotn 
Montgomery. He was astonished at the amount of ex¬ 
citement wfiich had been raised here upon this ques¬ 
tion. It w'as a disposition to run after something, with¬ 
out knowing what. Men had got a sort of airy idea 
into their heads, that the result would be marvellously 
advantageous, if they could only get rid of this learn¬ 
ing about the law. But he could tell them that so long 
as°the rights ol men, and our present state ol civiliza¬ 
tion should remain complicated as they are now and 
ever must, so long every effort of this sort would prove 
Dothiug more than a splendid abortion. 

He would only add, in proof of what he had affirm¬ 
ed, that it was now beginning to be manifest that the 
attempt at law reform in New York vyould prove a fail¬ 
ure, and such had been his expectation of it from the 

beginning. . i /• 

He believed that his venerable friend from Clinton, 
[Mr. Mokrts,] had introduced the only practicable 
scheme of law reform here—which was the abolition 
of all legal ffetions. This was the reform toward 
which Sir Samuel Romilly had directed the labors of 
his life, without accomplishing it. But still his labors 
were well spent. This reform had been shown to be, 


practicable. It was a reform upon which a man could 
make a speech and render a reason. But, with refer¬ 
ence to the abolition of law and equity distinctions, 
as the gentleman from Gallia had said, you must either 
abolish the employment of written testimony, and 
bring every ciuestion before a jury, or you must abol¬ 
ish jury trials, and bring everything before the chan¬ 
cellor. 

Great saving is now made in the costs of litigation 
by the use of written testimony in chancery. This 
mode is also admirably calculated to secure careful and 
deliberate investigation on the part of both counsel and 
court. 

Mr. RANNEY, (in his seat.) Retain juries in all 
cases where facts are disputed. 

Mr. MITCHELL. But that can now bo had when¬ 
ever it is necessary, in a court of equity. 

Mr. COLLINGS was apprehensive that an undue de¬ 
gree of importance was attached to this report upon 
both sides. Fie had no idea, if the report were rejected 
in toto, that the affairs of the world would be brought 
to a stand still, nor if adopted that the world would be 
turned upside down in consequence. There had been 
a gradual reform going on in the courts, in the rules of 
proceeding upon the administration of justice. 

The only object which he could have in view in this 
report, would be to attract the attention of the Legis¬ 
lature more especially to this subject. He was not 
without confidence, that something might be done with 
reference to law reform. But he recollected, at least 
one distinct instance in his life, when he had been 
mistaken; and it might be the case in this instance. 
He was not in favor of hurrying the world on so fast 
as some gentlemen seemed to imagine to be expedi¬ 
ent. He supposed that if the different forms of action 
were reduced to a uniform rule, that still it w'ould not 
be found a very easy matter to draw up a declaration 
without a form. Many a pretty good lawyer had failed 
of framing a proper declaration, n an action on ihe case, 
not requiring particulars, buta plain statement of facts; 
and it was not unfrequently the case that they found 
themselves demurred out of court. 

Upon one hand, we had, as matter of information, 
that the State of New York, had to a great extent, fail¬ 
ed in their attempts at law reform. But his informa¬ 
tion from New York was difl'erent from that. Their 
lawyers were divided upon this question, but the more 
distinguished among them, being in favor of reform, it 
, was confidently expected that, in a few years, they 
, would entirely succeed. But if they should not suc- 
. ceed in New York, and if the proposition here should 
. not succeed, still it could ilo no great harm. But to 
. make it imperative, might be embarrassing. He con- 
^ sidered it the better plan to leave it to the Legislature 
, to carry out the various objects of this reform, accor- 
, ding to the suggestions of experience. 

His latest information from England, with reference 
, to the agitation of this subject there, was that they had 
^ fallen back upon their special and technical pleadings, 

, believing that thereby parties would be brought to a 
more simple and certain issue. 

, It had been asserted as the voice and judgment of 
^ the people of Ohio, that this reform should be carried 
I out. This might be so or not. So far as he was inform- 
g ed, he had no certain information of the opinion o' 
the people whom he in part represented upon this sub¬ 
ject: and he doubted very much whether they had 
g formed or expressed any opinion at all with regard to it. 

He concluded by giving it as his deliberate opinion, 
g that if it would not be positively injurious, it would 
at least, be hazardous and unsafe, to adopt measures 
exceedingly stringent upon this subject, 
g And then upon the motion of Mr. HOLMES, 

The Convention adjourned. 


TUESDAY, January 14, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The ConyeuUou met pursuant to adjournment. 


















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


965 


Mr. NASH presented a petition from Hiram G. Dan¬ 
iels and seventy-four other citizens of Vinton county, 
praying that the new constitution may prohibit the pas¬ 
sage of any law authorizing the traffic in intoxicating 
liquors, or in any way legalizing it. 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, presented a petition from 
Israel Archbold. Thomas H. Cummings, and sixty-tvvo 
other citizens of Carroll county, on the same subject. 

Mr. STILWELL presented a petition from Mary T. 
McDonald and fi(ty-five other females of Muskingum 
county, on the same subject. 

Also, a petition from‘Martha J. Findlay and fifty- 
nine other females of Muskingum county, on the same 
subject. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, presented a petition from 
Phoebe Richards and forty-four other males and fe¬ 
males of the county of Warren, on the same subject, 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, presented a petition from E. 
M. Boring and forty-three other citizens of Licking co., 
on the same subject. 

Mr. GILLETT presented a petition from 0. H. Glid- 
don and sixty-two other citizens of Scioto and Law¬ 
rence counties, on the same subject. 

Mr. PERKINS presented a petition from Thomas J. 
McLain and seven other citizens of the county of Trum¬ 
bull, on the same subject. 

Mr. HARLAN presented a petition from William 
Winter, John Haughey and thirty-five other citizens of 
Greene county, on the same subject. 

Mr. LIDEY presented a petition from T. E. Taylor 
and thirty-six other citizens of the county of Perry, on 
the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. CLARK, of Lorain, offered for adoption the fol¬ 
lowing resolution: 

'“Resolved, That no memher of this Convention be hereafter'al- 
lowed to speak longer than ten minutes upon any one question 
without the unanimous consent of this Convention, except when 
in committee of the Whole. 

Mr. CLARK. I have offered this resolution with the 
hope and firm belief, if it is adopted by the Conven¬ 
tion that it will tend to facilitate the business of this 
body. If this end can be attained it is certainly very 
advisable. This Convention has been in session now 
over three and one half months, and thus far, of some 
fifteen or twenty reports of standing committees but 
two have been engossed. It is apparent to me, Mr. 
President, that the great difficulty in the way of 
making progress in this body is the numerous long 
speeches, made here, and that unless some measure 
can be adopted to shorten them, it is difficult to deter- 
mine when the labors of this body will close. Some 
gentlemen appear to think that a portion of this body 
are not prepared to act without being instructed or 
lectured here from day to day with numerous long 
speeches. In ray opinion they are greatly mistaken. 
I believe that portion of this body which they seem to 
suppose need such instruction are fully qualified and 
prepared to vote without it—that their minds are 
already made up, and that not a vote is changed by 
such efforts. I really hope the resolution will pass— 
that we may have a few days of voting in the room of 
long speeches—that it may be tried a few days at 
least, and if it does not work well, we will rescind it 
and go back again to long speeches. 

Mr. MANON hoped the resolution would not pass. 
He had seen enough of this kind of attempts to expe¬ 
dite business. He moved therefore that the Conven¬ 
tion resolve itself into a committee of the wffiole, on 
the report of the committee on the Preamble and Bill 
of Rights. 

Mr, CLARK demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 32, nays 60—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas _Messrs. Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, 

Case of Hocking, Chaney, Collings, Dorsey, Ewart, Forbes, 
Green of Ross, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock ol 
Geauga, Holt, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Kenuon, Kirkwood, Larsh, 


Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mitchell, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, 
Perkins, Thompson oi Stark, Williams and Worthington_32. ' 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bennett, Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Clark, Farr, Florence, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Flunter, Jones, King, Larwill, 
Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, 
Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Sawyer. Scott of Harrison,, 
Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, 
Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—60. 

So the motion to go into committee of the Whole 
was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution of Mr. Clark, 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, moved to amend the reso¬ 
lution, by adding at the end, “ except when in com¬ 
mittee of the whole,” which was accepted by the mo¬ 
ver. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to amend the resolution, 
by striking out ‘‘ ten,” and inserting “ fifteen.” 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, moved to lay the resolu¬ 
tion and pending amendments on the table; upon which 
motion, 

Mr. CLARK demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 51, nays 41—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensdei-fer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Collings, Cook, Cutler, Dorsey, Farr, Florence, Green of Ross, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, John¬ 
son, Kennon, Ivirkwood, Larsh, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Ma¬ 
son, Mitchell, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Peck, Perkins, Ran¬ 
ney, Smith of Highland. Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Thompson of Stark, Williams and Worthington—51. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Blair, Chaney, Clark, Forbes, Gillett, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Holt, 
Humphreville, King, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Morehead, Morris, 
Orton, Otis, Patterson, Quieley, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Har¬ 
rison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stilwell, 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Towns¬ 
hend, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—41. 

So the motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER presented the following: 

Report No. 2, of the Standing Committee on the Leguf* 
lative Department. 

ARTICLE. I. 

ON THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT. 

Sec. 1. The legislative power of this State shall be vested in 
a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and House 
oi Representatives. 

Sec. 2. Senators and Representatives shall be elected bien¬ 
nially, by the electors in the respective counties or districts, on 
the 2d Tuesday of October. Thetei'm of office shall be two years, 
to be computed from the first day of January succeeding their 
election. 

Sec. 3. Senators and Representatives shall have resided witm 
in the limits of the respective county or district, from which 
they shall be chosen, one year next preceding their election im- 
less they shall have been absent on the public business of the 
United States or of this State. 

Sec. 4. Each House shall be the judge oHheelections, returns 
and qualifications of its members. A majority of all the members 
elected to each House shall be a quorum to do business, but a 
smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the at¬ 
tendance of absent members, in such manner and under such pen¬ 
al ties as shall be prescribed by law. _ . 

Sec. 5. Each House shall, except as otherwise provided in 
this constitution, choose its own officers. Each House luay de¬ 
termine its own rule of proceedings, punish its members for dis¬ 
orderly conduct, and with the concurrence of two thirds, 63^ 
pel a member, but not the second time for the same cause ; and 
each House shall have all other powers necessary to provide 
for its safety, and for the undisturbed transaction of its busi- 

”^Sec. 6. Each House shall keep a correct journal of its pro¬ 
ceedings and take efficient means to publish the same. The 
yeas and nays shall, at the desire of any two members, be enter¬ 
ed upon the journal, and on the passage of every bill in either 
House the vote shall be taken by yeas and nays, und entered up- 
on the journal, and no law shall be passed in either House with¬ 
out the concurrence of a majority of all the members elected 

*^^S^ec?' 7. The printing of the laws, journals, bills and all legis¬ 
lative documents and papers lor each branch of the General As¬ 
sembly together with the printing required for the executive de¬ 
partment and other officers of State, shall be let on contract to 












966 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the lowest responsihle bidder, by such executive officers, and in 
such mode and manner ns shall he i)rescribed by law. 

Sec. 8. Any member ol either House shall have the right to 
protest against any actor resolution thireof, and such protest 
and the reasons therefor, shall, without alteration, commitment 
or di.lay, bo entered upon tln^ journal. 

Sec. 9. Allvacancus which may happen in either Ilouseshall 
be tilled by election, as shall be directed by law. 

Sec. 10. Senators and Representatives shall, in all ca-ses ex¬ 
cept treason, felony or breach of the pi-ace, be in ivileged from 
arrest, during the session of the General Assembly, and in going 
to and returning from the same, and for any speech or debate 
in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other 
place. 

Sec. 11. The proceedings of both Houses shall he public, ex¬ 
cept in cases which, in the opinion of two-thirds of those present, 
require secrecy. 

Sec. 12. Neither House shall, without the consent of the othei', 
adjourn for more than two days, Sundays excluded, nor to any 
other place than than that in which, the two Houses shall be in 
session. 

Sec. 13. Bills may originate in either House, but may be al¬ 
tered, amended or rejected in the other. 

Sec. 14. Every bill; shall be fully and distinctly read on three 
different days, unless in case of urgency, three-fourths of the 
House in wliich the question shall be pending, shall deem it ex¬ 
pedient to dispense with this rule ; and every bill shall contain 
but one act, and embrace but one object, w'hich shall be clearly 
expressed in its title, and no law shah be revived or amended by 
relerence to its title only, hut in reviving or amending an act the 
new act shall contain the entire act revived, or the section or sec¬ 
tions amended, and the section or sections of the act amended or 
altered shall be entirely repealed. 

Sec. 15. The styl.i of the laws of this State shall be—“Be it 
enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio.” 

Sec. 16. The General Assembly shall fix by law, the term of 
office, and the compensation of all officers, not otherwise fixed in 
this constitution ; provided, that no change therein shall affect 
the incumbent then in office, for the term ol office for which he 
shall have been elected or appoint^’d. 

Sec. 17. No Senator or Representative shall, during the term 
for which he shall have been elected, nor during the period ol 
one year subsequent to the expiration of his term of office, be 
elected or appointed to any civil office under this State, which 
shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have 
been increased, during the term for w hich he was elected. 

Sec. 18. The General Assembly shall determine by law, be¬ 
fore what authority and in what manner contested elections shall 
be conducted ; provided, however, that no elections shall be con¬ 
tested before either House of the General Assembly, except in 
reference to members of their own body. 

Sec. 19. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, except 
in pursuance ot a distinct and specific appropriation made by 
law, and no appropriation shall be made f ur a longer period than 
two years. 

Sec. 20. An accurate and detailed statement of the receipts 
and expenditures ol the public money, and of the names of tlie 
persons who shall have received the same, together with the 
amount and the object for which they have received it, respect¬ 
ively, shall, from time to time, be published as shall be directed 
by law. 

Sec. 21. The House of Representatives shall have the sole 
power of impeachment, but a majority ol all the Representatives 
elect must concur therein. All impeachments shall be tried i y 
the Senate, and when sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall 
be upon oath or affirmation to do ju^tice according to law and 
evidence. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence 
of two thirds of the Sei ators. Justices of the Peace, County 
and Township officers, may be removed in such manner, and for 
such cause as shall be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 22, The Governor, and all State officers, including the 
Judges of the different Courts, shall be liable to impeachment 
for misdemeanor in olfiee; but judgment shall not extend farther 
than removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office 
of trust, honor or profit under the authority of this State. 'Phe 
parties, whether convicted or not, shally nevertheless, be liable to 
indictment, trial and judgment according to law. 

Sec. 23. All regular k’ssions of the General Assembly fhall 
commence on the first Monday of January, biennially, and the 
first session under this constitution shall commence on the first 
Monday of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-two. 

Sec. 24, No person holding any office under the authority of 
the United States, or any lucrative office under the authority of 
this State shall be eligible as a candidate, or have a seat in the 
General Assembly ; provided, that Township officers. Justices of 
the Peace, Notaries Public, or cfiicers of the Militia, shall not he 
deemed lucrative offices. 

Sec. 25. No person shall be elected or appointed to any office 
in this State, unless he possesses the qualifications of an elector. 

Sec. 26. No person who shall hereafter he convicted of a de¬ 
falcation or < mbezzlement of the public f unds, shall be capable 
of holding any office of trust, honor or profit, nor shall any per¬ 
son holding any public money for disbursement, or offieiwige, 
have a seat in the General Assembly, until such person shall have 
accounted for, and paid into the treasury, all moneys for wdiich 
he may be accountable or liable. 

Sec. 27. No divorce shall be granted by the General Assem¬ 
bly, nor shall any judicial power not herein expressly granted 
ever be exercised by the General Assembly. ’ 


Sec, 28. Columbus shall be the seat of government, until oth¬ 
erwise ordered by liw. 

Sec 29. All laws of a general nature, shall have a uniform 
operation, nor shall any law be passed to take effect or be opera^ 
five upon the approval of any other authority than the General 
Assembly, except as otherwise provided in this constitution. 

Sec. 30. The manner ot the election and appointment of all 
officers, and of the tilling of all vacancies not otherwise directed 
by this Constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, 
sliall be made in such manner as may be directed by law, provid¬ 
ed, however, that no appointing power shall ever bo vesff'd in, or 
exercised by the General Assembly, except the appointment of 
officers for their ow'n body, and United States Senators, and in all 
such elections, the vote shall be taken “rira voce." 

Sec. 31. No person who shall hereafter send, accept or carry 
a challenge for, or fight a duel, or assist in the same, as second, or 
otherwise, shall be eligible to, or capable of holding any office of 
trust, honor or profit. 

Sec. 32. Lotteries, and the sale of lottery tickets, for any pur 
pose whatever, shall forever be jtrohibited in this State. 

Sec. 33. The General Assembly shall have no power to pass 
retroactive laws, or laws impairing tiie obligation of contracts, 
provided, however, that acts of incorporation or corporate fran¬ 
chises, privileges or immunities, whether granted by a general o» 
special law, shall never be deemed contracts or irrcpealable. 

Sec. 34. The General Assembly shall never authorise the pay¬ 
ment of any extra compensation to any officer, public agent or 
contractor, after the service has been rendered, or the contract 
entered into, nor grant by appropriation or otherwise, any amount 
of money to any individual on any claim, real or pretended, when 
the same shall not have been provided for by preceding law. 

Sec. 35. No new counties shall be created by the General As¬ 
sembly, containing less than four hundred square miles of tern* 
tory, nor shall any county be reduced below that amount, and all 
laws providing for changes in county lines, and for the removal 
of county seats, shall be first submitted to the qualified electors, 
within nich county or counties, at a general election and only be 
valid when approved by a majority of the voters voting at such 
election; provided, however, that any county, either now or 
hereafter containing a population of one hundred thousand, or 
more inhabitants, may be subdivided whenever a majority of the 
voters residing in each of the subdivisions shall approve of the 
law passed for that purpose. 

Sec. 36. Private property shall ever be held inviolate, and no 
private property, whether held by individuals or corporations, 
shall ever be taken for public use, unless the public good impe¬ 
ratively demands it, but in all cases full and adequate compensa¬ 
tion, in money, sha'l first be made to the owner or owners, to be 
assessed by a jury, and subject to no deduction for any benefits 
accruing to any property ol the owner or owners. 

Sec. 37. Every person when cliosen or appointed to any office 
of honor, trust or profit under this State, shall, before enttring 
on the execution thereof, take an oath or affirmation, to support 
the Constitution of the United States and of this State, and also 
an oath of office. 

Sec. 38. It shall be the duty of the presiding officer to sigm 
{.uhlii Iy, in the presence of the House over which he presides, 
and while the same is in session, and capable of transacting bu- 
siries.s, all bills and joint resolutions passed by the General As¬ 
sembly. 

Sec. 39. The members of the General Assembly shall receive 
suv'h compensation as shall, from time to time, be prescribed by 
law, and which shall not be increased or diminiched, to be ope¬ 
rative during their own term of office. 

Sec. 40. The mode of organizing the House of Representativea 
at the commencement of each regular session, shall be prescribed 
by law. 

All of which is respectfuily submitted. 

WM. SAWYER, CHAR. REEMELIN. 

J. THOMPSON, D. CHAMBERS, 

SAM'L. MOREHEAD, B. B. HUNTER, 

JOSEPH BARNET, R. W. CAHILL, 

THOMAS A. WAY. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Treble, moved that the report of 
the committee on Jurisx>rudeuce be taken up; which 
was agreed to. 

The question being on the amendment of Mr. Ran- 
ney, to strike out of the fourth and fifth lines the word# 

“ as far as practicable and expedient,” 

Mr. RANNEY thought the reform in the system of 
jurisprudence was either demanded or it was not. If 
it was demanded, the commissioners appointed to car 
ry it out ought not to be called ufion to settle the ques¬ 
tion whether the reform was called for. All ho desired 
was, not to throw down and destroy the science of the 
common law, but to strip it of its deformities and ex 
rrescences, and to leave it iii a form best calculated to 
attract the aliections of the people. 

It is as important, in the furtherance of justice, that 
there should be a sound system of laws, as it is that 
there should be a learned and honest judiciary. With¬ 
out the one, the other will prove to be powerless in se¬ 
curing justice to the people. In regard to the system 











967 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


of pi notice, we are inlinitely beliiiul England in pro¬ 
gress and improve ment. We drew our system of prac¬ 
tice Iron) Great Britain at a time when she was compa¬ 
ratively a rude and harbarous State. Slie has made 
progress, and now, in the simplicity of her practice, 
and in the directness of her pleadings, *lie i.s far before* 
us in ()hio. Her system i.s much more consistent wiih 
reasoning and logic, more stripped of its fiction and its 
absurdity, than our own. Gentlemen may defend their 
errors and fictions f s long ns they please, but the time 
of reform will come. 

The gentleman from Knox [Mr. Mitchele] inquires 
if I would give a jury iu cases now tried in courts ol' 
chancery? I would give every man who has a case 
to try in a court ol justice, his election whether it shall 
be tried by a jury or not. Tliis, however, belongs to 
the details of llie system. 

The gentleman further inquires whether in such ca¬ 
ses I would bring witnesses into court? Of all the abu¬ 
ses that we now labor under, I look upon this jiractice 
of making witnesses upon paper as one of the greatest. 
In all cases when the witne-^s is within reach of the 
court, I would bring him in, in person, and then, in the 
presence ot the court and in the hearing of the parties, 
call upon him to testify what he knows in the case, un¬ 
dercircumstances better than all others calculated to 
elicit the truth. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD said that the gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull, [Mr. Ranney,] had entirely mistaken the ques¬ 
tion. His whole speech may be regardi d as a string 
of sophisms. His argument is based upon the pre¬ 
sumption, that the committee to revise the rules of 
practice, may comply with their duties, by reporting 
back to the Legislature, that they had nothing to do. 
This is not true. The section provides that the com¬ 
missioners shall abridge they shall simplify rules and 
forms of practice, and they aie, as far as they deem it 
racticahle and expedient, to abolish the di tiiiction 
elween law forms and chancery forms. Here is where 
the discretion is allowed ; and if the gentleman will 
descend fiom the high horse of his transcendental elo¬ 
quence, he will see that such discretion is absolutely 
necessary, in order to accouq>lish the objects contem 
plated ‘to be secured. If the commissioners he forced 
to go further llian they deem it practicable and expe¬ 
dient, their'work will not he well done ; for men only- 
do well, that which they deem expedient to be done. 
The committee that made this report, w'eie every one 
hold reformers. They were willing to go as lar as 
reason and common sense would permit. They felt as 
if they were [iioviding for a great woi k ; and that in 
doing 80, it would be absolutely necessary, to leave 
something to the discretion of those who were to per¬ 
form the labor. 

Mr. STANBERY. The report of the committee — 
although I cannot concur in it—is evidently prepared 
with care. It proposes merely a reform of the mode 
of proceeding in civil cases, and doesnotgo to the law 
itself. The gentleman from Trumhul, [Mr. Rannky,] 
proposes to abolish all forms of action to make it 
incumbent upon the commiliee to take away all dis¬ 
tinction between proceedings at law and in chance 
ry. And this, lie calls a wholesome reform. There is 
to be but one form of action, for all riglits, either at 
law or ill chancery. That, Mr. Bresident, can never 
be done. Let us look at the consequences. The first 
consequence is, that it will abolish at once, all statutes 
of limitations—those wholesome laws of repose; for 
these laws go to the form of action, and not to the 
thing itself. 

Mr. RANNEY. Might not the Legislature frame a 
statute of limitations, to apply to cases instead (d'forms? 

Mr. STANBERY. That statute must be framed to 
to suit each particular case. It must be extensive as 
the law itself. It would require a book of five hun¬ 
dred pages, to contain the law merely of limitations. 

But the gentleman complains of a multiplicity of 
forms. Why, sir, forms are the very life ot the law. 


We cannot, even iu this assembly, do without forms. 
They are not only convenient, hut they are of great 
benefit to the client and his lawyer. They are the 
shortest, simplest, and most direct means of staling his 
case. He knows by it what it is necessary' for him to 
|)rove ; for he is not required to state more than he can 
prove. It is the protection of the young lawyer 
against the experience of his elders, or the tyranny of 
the court. 

But what is meant by abolishing all distinctions be¬ 
tween law and equity? Are all cases to be stated 
alike? When you declare upon a promissory note, 
would you render the form analogous to that of au as¬ 
sault and battery ? Are there to be no distinctions be¬ 
tween forms of action? Is there to be the same set of 
forms to try a suit in which the title of land is called in 
question, as where a man sues another for slander? 
Is this what the gentleman intends?' 

Mr. RANNEY. There would be of course, differ¬ 
ent modes of statement, to suit difterent cases. 

Mr. STANBERY. Then it only amounts to this, 
that we are to aboHsli one set of forms for another. 
Now I prefer those that we have. A man who desires 
to proceed in a court of justice, must file his libel or 
his complaint, in which he sets forth his cause of action, 
in general terms; and thus, in the place of well defin¬ 
ed and well understood terms and forms, that w'e all 
comprehend, we are to have an infinitude of different 
forms, resulting in uncertainty and loss to every one but 
the old lawyers. 

As yet we have kept the law free from these miscall¬ 
ed reforms of the law. Destructive as they have been 
to other sciences, we are compelled to say, let us re¬ 
frain from setting anything afloat upon the wide sea of 
pretended reform. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD thought the commission provided 
for by the report, unnecessary. He thought the Con¬ 
vention might declare that all forms of action and all 
distinction between law and chancery be abolished,and 
then the commission would be unnecessary. Then any 
man might go into a court of justice aud state his own 
case, and go to trial. 

Mr. RANNEY. The object of the commission is to 
provide nn uniform mode of jiroceeding. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Why this would be providing a 
rew set of forms. It would be providing precisely 
that which we are trying to get rid of. Now I was a 
little in favor of judicious law i-eform, but since the 
gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] has declar¬ 
ed that he did not expect the lawyers of this body to 
he in favor of reform, I must confess I have grown a 
little afraid of it. 

But, to speak candidly, I confess I am afraid we are 
undertaking too much. That some of the known forms 
of action may be suppressed is, perhaps, true, but that 
a sweeping destruction of them all would be attended 
with benefit, or even with safety, I do not believe. 

Mr. MITCHELL thought that there was a great 
deal of lying in this profession of law, and ^^a 8 dis¬ 
posed to go as far as his friend from Clinton [Mr. Mor¬ 
ris] in abolishing all legal fictions. He will l^rn, 
however, if he will examine into the subject, that these 
fictions are only made use of for the purpose of pre- 
seiitiiig some real proposition of numbers or question 
of fiict that is to he solved by their assistance. And 
why, when these simple Qiicl palpftble fictions are made 
use of as instruments to prevent a complexity ol s^te- 
ment, when they mislead nobody, aud when they affect 
the rights of no person, should there he so much aiixie- ^ 
ty to abolish them? 

The form of action in ejectment was devised to get 
rid of the strict rules and cumbrous pleadings of the 
ancient real actions. They had become the subject of 
couplaintfor the exactness that was required in the 
statement—the slightest variance in the prool being 
fatal. The subject was up in parliament, and several 
statutes were framed, the result of which has been, 
that by the use of a simple fiction the whole of this 










968 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


complexity has been avoided. And it is to carry us 
back to these old times that the reforms advocated by 
the gentleman from Clinton [Mr. Morris] tend. 

The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney] com¬ 
plains of fictions that hang around the action of Tro¬ 
ver. These have grown out of the extension of the 
remedial power of the action. It has been in the pro¬ 
gress of reform that this, fiction has arisen. But does 
It affect the issue to be joined in the case ? No, sir. 
The issue is a truth, and upon that issue the trial pro¬ 
ceeds. 

Gentlemen talk of an attempt on the part of lawyers 
in this body to put a stop to the progress of reform. 
Do these gentlemen read enough of the history of Eng¬ 
land to have learned the position holden by the great 
Lord Coke, and other legal luminaries of his day, in 
regard to reform and improvement, as well in the prin¬ 
ciples of liberty as in the forms of law? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, said that it seemed 
to him, gentlemen were consuming time unnecessarily 
in this debate. He thought perhaps it would be as 
good a way as any, for us to adopt the sentiments and 
conform to the practice of the Solicitor General of 
Great Britain, and abide by the common law. 

He did not understand gentlemen in their ideas of 
reform. Under our present practice, suit is commenc¬ 
ed by process, which brings the defendant into court. 
Then comes the declaration, which is a succinct state¬ 
ment of the causes of action. This puts the defendant 
upon his defence, and he pleads the several matters of 
defence, of evidence or of set off which he may be en¬ 
titled to by the circumstances. What more do gentle- 
tleman secure by these reforms ? The person com¬ 
plaining must file his petition to the judge. In that 
petition he must state his cause of complaint with suf¬ 
ficient certainty to enable the tribunal to give the prop¬ 
er relief. He must have all the substance of a declara¬ 
tion in his petition, if not its form. The defendant in¬ 
stead of pleading must answer, and this is all that this 
reform amounts to. You abolish a few useful names, 
abandon a few convenient forms, and the reform is 
achieved. 

Gentlemen are very anxious for reform—so anxious 
that everything that changes what we have is dubbed 
reform. It may be well to remember that although all 
changes may be reforms, all reforms may not be im¬ 
provements. He thought that as the change here pro¬ 
posed might not be reform, he should vote against the 
amendment. 

Mr. MORRIS wanted to reply to the gentleman from 
Knox, [Mr. Mitchell.] He has undertaken to de¬ 
fend his old friends John Doe and Richard Roe. It is 
said corporations have no souls. But John Doe it ap 
ears, as well as Richard Roe, have neither souls nor 
odies—neither beginning of days nor end of time. 
[Laughter.] 

Andj Mr. President, I do assert here, in my place, 
as a member of this Convention, that there never was 
an action of ejectment commenced and concluded in 
the State of Ohio, that did not, as its result, put a false¬ 
hood upon record. The declaration relates that the 
real person interested, leased the premises in contro¬ 
versy to John Doe, for a term of years which has not 
yet expired. Now, I ask the gentleman from Knox, 
[Mr. Mitchell,] if this is true ? We may, I think, set 
this down as a falsehood. Then, although the suit may 
be in reality for but a single case of land, the declara¬ 
tion pompuously avers that the person interested leas¬ 
ed to the said John Doe, one thousand acres of arable 
land, one thousand acres of wood land, and one thous¬ 
and acres of various other kinds of land. I would ask 
the gentleman if here is not another falsehood ? Did 
he lease one thousand acres of arable land? or one 
thousand acres of wood land ? or one thousand acres of 
meadow land? or one thousand acres of laud cover¬ 
ed with water ? or one thousand acres of other land ? 
or one thousand acres each of all these kinds of land 
put together ? Is all this true ? And so it goes on mul. 


tiplying falsehoods by each other, until the result is 
too great for computation. I am astonished! I say sir, 
I am astonished, that a gentleman so learned, and so 
astute as the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] 
for whose talents, I have so boundless a respect—upon 
whose integrity I place such implicit confidence—upon 
whose understanding I have relied with such bound¬ 
less faith, and who is in general so strong, so consist¬ 
ent, so bold, and so courageous an advocate for pro¬ 
gress, for advancement and improvement, as well as 
for truth and morality in all the relations of public and 
private life, should urge the continuance of a form of 
action, at once so fraught with fallacy, and so sugges¬ 
tive of untruth. 

And now comes the defendant to this suit in eject¬ 
ment ; ail'd he is no less a personage than the celebra¬ 
ted, the ubiquitous—the perpetual Richard Roe—a 
person having, in regard to his perpetual succession— 
for he eventually succeeds himself—all the powers of 
a corporation. [Laughter.] He writes a letter to the 
tenant in possession, or the person claiming title, in¬ 
forming him, that he, the said omnipresent individual, 
to wit: Richard Roe. having been sued as the casual 
ejector, advises the tenant in possession, or claimant of 
title, to make himself a defendant in his stead, or he, 
the said Richard, will be under the dfSagreeable ne¬ 
cessity of sufteriug judgment to be rendered against 
him, by delault, by which he, the tenant must be turn¬ 
ed out of the possession. To this he signs himself: 
“ Your loving friend, Richai^d Roe. [Laughter.] 

This ridiculous form of proceeding, my friend from 
Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] advocates as the perfection of 
legal logic and of human invention, and for the moment, 
losing sight of his democracy, he strays back into the 
regions of a forgotten antiquity, and in his respect for 
the mists of past ages, he quotes from Lord Coke, as if 
he were the very pick and choice of modern reformers. 

There is another objection to this form of action. It 
bars nothing, and ten or twenty suits may be brought 
upon the same cause of action, and still it is no nearer 
concluded than it was before. 

Mr. STAN3ERY, (in his seat.) You can file a bill 
in chancery. 

Mr. MORRIS. Yes. But then another lawyer’s fee 
must be paid. [Laughter.] 

The law should be fixed in such a way that if my 
fiiend from Knox should claim a piece of land of mine, 
he could bring his action in the name of Matthew H. 
Mitchell against Isaiah Morris, and lay claim to it. 

I in my own name could defend—the question could in 
that form be submitted to the court, decided, and all 
further claims concluded. 

The gentleman from Knox talks of Lord Coke, and 
draws his ideas of liberty from some bill of rights. 
Now, I date my bill of rights from the fourth of July, 
1776, and I wish we may adopt a code of organic laws 
based upon our own ideas and for which we shall not 
be indebted to any foreign power. He claims to be a 
Democrat of the progressive kind. With what face, 
then, can he come up and cite to us his Cokes, his Ba¬ 
cons and his Chittys. q’his reform in the action of 
ejectment has been adopted in Rennsylvania and in 
New York, and shall we, I ask, be behind those States 
in the adoption of that which is at once simple and sal¬ 
utary ? I hope not. We have the opportunity to re¬ 
form now before us—it is our duty to improve it; and, 
in spite of the scruples of the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin [Mr. Stanbery] and the gentleman from Knox, 
[Mr. Mitchell,] I hope we shall do so. 

Our system of jurisprudence, now that we have the 
means of revising it from its very foundation, should be 
made plain, clear, direct, certain and conclusive. It 
should be adapted to our republican forms of govern¬ 
ment, and present that appearance of uniformity and 
consistency with our other institutions that shall give 
to the whole the symmetry of a perfect edifice, com¬ 
plete in all its parts, complete in their adaptation to 
each other, and completer still as a great and magnifi- 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 969 


cent whole. How nuich better is this than a patch- 
work, made up of shi*eds taken here and there from 
Great Britain, and joined without symmetry, without 
elegance, and without reason in justice or the necessi¬ 
ties of mankind ! I am myself no admirer of the gov¬ 
ernment of Great Britain. It has been quoted as a 
stupendous labric of human wisdom, erected, compact¬ 
ed and consolidated by the experience of ages, and 
promising to stand, as long as time shall endure, an im¬ 
perishable monument of the progress of man toward 
the summit of perfection. 

Sir, in my opinion, it is no such thing. It is rather a 
stupendous fabric of human oppression, laid upon a 
foundation of tyranny and built up of exploded errors 
and obsolete absurdities—useful only in perpetuating 
the slavery and servitude to which it owes its motley 
and barbarous origin. Its safety consists in that it is 
sustained by the superstitions of a church without re¬ 
ligion, and the happiness it confers may be seen in its 
millions who are crying for br'fead. Sir, that country 
presents no model for our imitation. [Applause.] 

For the purpose of still farther showing the absurdi¬ 
ty of this mode of procedure, and how little it is un¬ 
derstood by the people, allow me to relate an anecdote 
which I had from an honorable gentleman now occu¬ 
pying a seat upon the bench. 

On the trial of an action in ejectment, the title papers 
of the plaintiff were, as usual read in evidence, and the 
declaration. When they came to the allegation of the 
demise to .John Doe, of one thousand acres of laud 
covered with water, a bystander who had all along lis¬ 
tened very impatiently, could contain himself no longer. 
“Stop,” said he, “ that is a mistake. 1 know all about 
it. My father-in-law bought that land, and paid for it 
in a stud-horse.” [Roars of laughter.] 

Thus, Mr. President, it may be seen, at a glance, 
how little such fictions are adapted to the inquiring 
spirit of the people, and the freedom of our form of 
government. 

And, sir, in looking over this whole matter, and in its 
light studying, my duty to my constituents and the peo 
pie of the Stale, I am constrained to say that I .shall vote 
for the amendment, and if that shall fail, I will vote for 
the original report, and trust that even without the 
amendment it will answer the purpose. 

Sir, let us come back to first principles. Let us look 
at those doctrines which lie at the foundation of hu¬ 
man liberty. Let us draw our wisdom from a rigid 
examination of our own condition. The fathers of our 
liberty in seventy-six did not look to Great Britain as 
their model. Had they done so, where would wo be 
at this time? We should be colonies, instead of free, 
independent States. And now we are called upon to 
continue and carry out that reform then so gloriously 
begun. The platform is before us, and we have only 
to build upon it. Sir, let us begin by expelling from 
our courts of justice these suppressors of truth and 
fathers of falsehood, John Doe and Richard Roe. [Ap¬ 
plause.] 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the report of the commit¬ 
tee on Jurisprudence be laid on the table; which was 
agreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER, from the committee on the Legisla¬ 
tive Department, to which had been re-committed re¬ 
port No. 1 of the said standing committee, reported 
back a new report; which, on his motion, was laid on 
the table, and ordered to be printed. 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the 
following communication from Mr, Vance, of Butler: 

CiNCiNNAi*!, Jan. 14, 1851. 

Col. Medill, President Ohio Constitutional Convention -. 

Sir —At a public meeting held at the Court House on Saturday 
evening last, the following preamble and reiolutions were intro¬ 
duced, and immediately voted lor, by some twelve or filteen of 
those who were present: 

Whehkas, Believing as we do, that circumstances have lately 
transpired in our Constitutional Convention, rendering it neces¬ 
sary, or at least proper, for the democracy of Butler county to 
renew their expression of sentiment upon public measures now 
agitating the people of the State; therefore, be it 


Resolved, That we do re-afflrm, and strictly adhere to the prin¬ 
ciples set forth and declared in certain resolutions passed at a 
county meeting of the democracy of Butler, on the ninth dav of 
March, 1850. 

Resolved, further, That we rigidly adhere to the principle of 
the right of repeal; and that we believe said right in the Legisla¬ 
ture should extend to any and all acts of previous Legislatures, 
and, therefore, now declare it our wish and desire, that a clause 
conferring this right, unqualifiedly, upon the State Legislature, 
should be engrafted upon our State constitution. 

Resolved, also, That we do hereby reiterate our instructions of 
9th March last, to our delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 
and that unless those instructions be adhered to strictly, that 
said delegates be, and hereby are requested to resign their posts. 

It will be seen by these resolutions, that I, as a delegate, am in¬ 
structed to support the doctrine of unqualified repeal, as well 
with respect to existing charters, as to those which may be gran¬ 
ted in the future. It will not be proper for me, on the present 
occasion, to call into question the authority of those who under¬ 
take to speak for, and express the voice of the constituent body, 
by whose suffrages I obtained a seat upon this floor. The fact 
as to whether they have assumed the guardianship of my constit¬ 
uents by force of arms and unlawfully, I leave to be decided else¬ 
where, and at another time. It is due to myself, however, to say, 
that that portion of the instructions which arc referred to, as 
“ our instructions of 9th of March last,” were drawn up by them 
and published, as understood at the time, for my especial benefit, 
prior to my having been elected a delegate to this Convention. I 
refused then, over my own signature, to acknowledge as binding 
upon me the platform thus laid down. Some of the sentiments 
therein expressed, 1 opposed, and still do oppose, as being xm- 
wise, and in truth ridiculous, when viewed in connection with 
our duties here as delegates. The opposition. I then made to 
them, gained me more than one thousand votes, over any other 
candidate then running for the same office in Butler. 1 had sup¬ 
posed that my success in this particular had put to rest forever 
“our instructions of the 9th of March.” 

As to the remaining sentiment, of conferring the right of re¬ 
peal “unqualifiedly” upon the state legislature, I cannot, and will 
not obey. My own sense of duty renders it impossible, and the 
obligations imposed by my oath of office forbid it. 

It is well known to the members of the convention, that I have 
advocated, and zealously advocated, the doctrine of repeal upon 
this floor. But I have done so with a qualification compatible 
with the provisions of the constitution of the United States. The 
General Assembly shall have a controlirig power over all corpo¬ 
rations and franchises, and as ample as the ends of justice and 
the safety of our people could demand. The power to alter, 
amend or repeal, never should be denied. But where in the ex¬ 
ercise of this pow’er, the private property of the citizen is taken 
or destroyed, a just compensation should be made therefor.— 
Aside from constitutional guarantee, justice and honesty demand 
the inviolability of private property, when honestly possessed by 
the citizen. Upon this basis. Courts of Justice would sustain the 
General Assembly in the exercise of the powrer of repeal. The 
exercise of the power of unqualified repeal, when property 
would be lost thereby, never would be sustained whilst the con¬ 
stitution of the United States remains as it now is. The conse¬ 
quences therefore, would result in a hazardous conflict between 
the state and the Federal constitution. And who could knowing¬ 
ly encourage such a ruinous conflict? I only answer for m 5 ’self, 
I would not, nor could not. Such evils can only be avoided by 
providing for a just compensation, when private jiroperty is de¬ 
stroyed or taken by the act of the Government. 

In matters of fraud upon the part of corporations, I w'ould 
likewise provide an ample and speedy remedy by forfeiture. In 
such case I would provide for the forfeiture ot both property and 
iranchise. This, in truth, under careful and wholesome legisla¬ 
tion, would be found the most effective remedy that could be gi¬ 
ven the people, in order to guard them against the mischiefs, the 
evils and the dangers hitherto, and now, so much complained of. 
Such a remedy would require no appropriation out of the pub¬ 
lic Treasury—nor is there any constitutional obligation incom¬ 
patible with it. 

As to the taxing pow^er, I entertain no doubt property in cor¬ 
porations should be taxed as other property. 

But I desire not to be tedious. I have said that the obligations 
imposed upon me, by the oath of office which I have taken, ren¬ 
der it altogether out of the question for me to obey the instruc¬ 
tions given me upon the subject of unconditional repeal. Nor 
will I permit those, who have assumed to be my inquisitors, to 
place me in a position which would carry with it even the ap¬ 
pearance of disobedience to the will of my constituents. The 
instructions will doubtless be understood by those out of my 
county, as embodying the sentiments ot the people, whom I have 
represented in part here. To disregard them therefore, would 
involve me in that kind of censure, which I am determined, 
whilst I have the power, to avoid. If the few that have instruct¬ 
ed me have spoken in a matter of so much solicitude, without 
authority, they have forfeited even the compassion of their fel • 
low-men;’ and they should be held immediately responsible to 
those whose voice they have so officiously misrepresented. But 
if they have truly spoken the sentiments of the people of my 
county, then I could not act the part of an honorable man, if I 
did not at once vacate my seat. In order, therefore, that right 
and justice may be done in the premises, 1 have prepared my rej 
signation, which I shall forward immediately to the Governor.— 
My official relations with you, Mr. President, and with my much 
esteemed fellow delegates around me, are consequently at an end. 

ELIJAH VANCE. 










970 


CONVEN'l'ION REPORTS. 


Ou uloliou of Mr. NASfl, the Convtuliou took a re¬ 
cess. 

3 o’clock p. m. 

Mr. S.MITH, of Wyaudot moved to take u[) the 
resolution offered this uiorniug, by Mr. Clark, (.'f L(i- 
rain, to limit the time of siieeches in Ouuveution, with 
the ameiidiiien’s. 

The question being on taking up, 

Mr. McCORMICK demanded the yeas and nays. 

Mr. LEECH demanded a call of the Conveutiou, 
which was agreed to on division—yeas 38, nays 21. 

A call of the Convention was then ordered, and the 
following gentlemen were reported absent: 

Mescrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnett ol Preble, Chambers, Clark, 
Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hootman, 
HoiTon, Kennon, Lnrsh, Lawrence, Reenielin, R.odle, Sellers, 
Stanbery, Taylor, Vance of Champaign and Warren. 

Mr. STANBERY moved that all proceedings under 
the call be disp; used with ; 

Upon wbicli (pieslion, 

Mr. MITC HELL demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were oidered, and resulted—yeas 68, nays 20—as iol- 
lou s ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrew?, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Codings, Cook, Curry, 
Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson, Holt, Hunt, Hunter, 
Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larv/ill, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Orton, 
Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyan¬ 
dot, Stanbery, Stantoff, Stebbins, Stilwell. Struble, Swan, Swift, 
Townsbend, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and Pres¬ 
ident—(18. 

Nays —Messrs.Brown of Carroll, Chaney, Ewing, Farr, Graham, 
Greene oi Defiance, Hard, Hitchcock of Geauga, Humphreville, 
Johnson, Leech, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Nash, Quigley, Scott of 
Auglaize, Stidger, Thompson of Sheiby, Thompson of Stark, 
and Wilson—20. 

So the Convention dispensed with all further pro¬ 
ceedings under the ctxll. 

The question being on taking up the resolution, the 
yeas and nays were not insisted'on, and the qm?slion 
was taken by divLsion ; yeas 52, nays not counted. 

So the resolution was taken up. 

The question liieii beijig on the amendment, to strike 
out “ ten ” and insert “ hlteen,” 

Mr. MANON would go for the shortest time, if any 
time was to be fixed. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, thought as time was fast 
passing, it was high time for t!)o Convention to pro¬ 
gress with business. He was not dispo ed to gag mem¬ 
bers, but thought that gentlemen might, in fifteen min¬ 
utes, give their views on any question now to be dis- 
ctissed. 

Mr. MANON inquired if there were not some re 
ports that had not been discussed at all, as they passed 
tlirough committee of Whole—the bank report for in 
stance. 

A division of the question being called for, the quos 
tion turned on striking out the word “tem;” which was 
agreed to; yeas 49, nays not counted. 

The (juestioii being on filling the blank, the several 
terms of “thirty,” “twenty-five,” “ twenty,” “ fifteen ’ 
were suggested. 

The question on filling the blank v.’ith “ thirty was 
disagreed to. 

Tile question then being on filling the blank with 
“ twenty-five,” the same was disagreed to. 

The question then being on filling the blank with 
“ twenty.” 

Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered and resulted — yeas 30, nays 62, a.s f)l- 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs, Bate.®, Cahill, Collings, Carry, Dorsey, Ewart 
Ewing, Florence, Graham, Hamilton. Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Kirkwood. Leech, 
Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, McCloud, Otis, I’erkins, Smith of H gh 
land, Stanbery, Stilwell, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Wilson and 
Worthington—30. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbnld, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 


gomery, Barnett ol Preble, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Chan y. Cook, Farr, Forbes, Gilleit, Gray, Greene ol 
Defian .e. Cre( n ol Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Haw- 
kins, Henderson, Holt, Humphreville, Johmon, Jones, King, 
Larsh, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Morehead, Morri-, .McCormick, 
Nash, Norris, Orton, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Smith of Warren, Stanton, ‘-tebbuis, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
.^wilt, Taylor, Thoinpst n of Shelby, Townsbend, Wuy, Williams, 
Woodbury, and President—G2. , 

So the motion to fill the blank with the word “twen¬ 
ty ” was disagreed to. 

The queblion then being on filling the blank with 
“fifteen,” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, moved that the res¬ 
olution and pending amendments be postjmned to the 
first Monday in May next; iqx.n which motion, 

Mr. SMrfH. of Wyandot, demanded the yeas and 
nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 43, nay* 
50 —as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. /Andrew’s, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett ol Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Hocking. Case of Licking, Chambers, Cook, 
Cutler, Dorsey, Florence, Gray, Green ol Ross, Gregir, Grocs- 
beck, llamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Hort(,n, Humpbreville. Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Ki/kwood, 
Lars)), Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mitchell, Nash, Peck, Ranney, 
Riddle, Roll, Bmith of Highland, Smith of Warnn, Stanbery and 
Stanton—43. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee. Bennett, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Collings, 
Ewing, FaiT, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Hard, Hawkins^ 
Henderson, Holt, Hunter, King, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, 
Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Orton, Otis, Patteisou, Perkme, 
Quigley, Recmelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 'I'owu*. 
bend. Way, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthingtonand Pres¬ 
ident—50. 

So the motion to postpone was disagreed to. 

The question being on filling the blank with “fif¬ 
teen,” 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
weie ordered, and resulted—yeas 51, nays 47—as fol¬ 
lows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Btirbee, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Carry, 
Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Hard, Hawkins, Holt, Hunt, Hunter, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lidey, 
Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nor- 
ri.«, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Rcemclin, Sawyer. Scott of Har- 
risop, Scott ot Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stilwell, 
Stiduer, Struble, Swan, Swift Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson ol Stark, Townshend, Waj', Wilson, Woodbury. 
Worthington and President—51. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Kates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brow'ii of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking 
Chamber.?, Collings, Cook, Cutler, Dorsey, Florence, Green oi 
Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson, Hiti'hcock ol 
Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, John¬ 
son, Jone.=>, King, Larsh, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mitchell, 
Nash, Oti.s. Peck, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Sellers, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith ol Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stickney and Wil¬ 
liams—47. 

So the blank wa.s filled with the word “ fifteen.” 

The qtteBlion being on the adoption of tlie resolution, 

Mr. LOUDON moved to amend the resolution by ad¬ 
ding at the end the following: “And from and after to¬ 
morrow, this Convention shall hold evening sessions, 
until otherwise ordered.” 

Mr. CHAMBERS was ojiposed to the measure pro¬ 
posed in the amendment. He thought there was time 
enough spent, and rather than hold evening sessions, 
we had better tneet earlier in the day time. 

Mr. LOUDON asked and obtained leave to withdraw 
his aineiulment. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved to lay the resolution 
on the table; on which motion, 

Mr. KIRKWOOD demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 40, nays 53— 
as follows: 

Y'eas —McBPre. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett Blickensderfer, Brown of Car- 
roll, Case of Hocking, Case ol Licking. Collings, Cook, Dorsey, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson,Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hinhcock of Geauga, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, 
Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mason, Mitchell More- 
bead, Nash. Otis, Riddle, Roll, Smith ol VVarren, Stanbery, Stan¬ 
ton, Struble and Williams—40. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athena 













971 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Cabill, Chnmbere. Choney, Clark, Cutler, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, 
Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene ol Defiance, Gregg, Hard, 
Daw kins, Horton, King, Kirkwood, Lidey, Loudon, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McConiiicK, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, 
Banney, JJe.-inelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott ol Auglaize, 
Smith ofIJighland, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stick- 
ney, Swan, Switt, 'Jaylor, Thompson ol Shelliy, Thompson of 
Stark. 'J'ownshcud, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and 
Preside nt—54. 

So the Convention refused to lay the resolution on 
the faille. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution, 

lyir. GREEN, of Ross, moved to strike out of the reso¬ 
lution the words “ except when in the committee ol 
the Whole.” 

Mr. GREEN could not see any reason for making 
this distinction. If any discrimination is to be made, 
it sbould be in favor of debates in Convention, instead 
of commiltee ol the Whole. lie thought the adoption 
of a rule of tliis kind of very doubtful wisdom. 

Mr. ARCH HOLD also saw no reason for a disciimi 
nation in iavor ol committee of the Whole, Mr. Arch 
BOLD went on to re[)el the idea that the debates in this 
Convention had been lengthy and windy. 

He could and would tell the people of Ohio who it 
was that was to blame fur the great protraction of the 
debates of this Convention. It was those who were for 
forcing upon us the business of making a code of laws, 
instead of a constitution. He should vote against all 
gag laws himself, and il gentlemen on the other side 
understood their interest too, they would do so. 

The question being on striking out, it was agreed o 
on division—yeas 55, nays not counted. 

Mr. HUMTHREVILLE moved furtlier to amend, 
by striking out the word •‘unanimous,” inihe resolu¬ 
tion. 

Mr. CLARK hoped the amendment would not pre¬ 
vail. It would become inoperative. It was so last 
summer. 

Mr. MANON agreed with the gentleman from Lorain, 
[Mr. Clai^k.] 

The question then being on the amendment, the same 
was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the res¬ 
olution, 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, ol Geauga, wanted to know wdiat 
was the great evil that was to be remedied by this so 
stringent resolution. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, thought there might be dilli- 
cullies of construction under it. He proceeded to state 
a few of them. 

The question then being on the adoption of the res¬ 
olution, 

Mr. HARD demanded the previous question, which 
was sustained by live members rieiiiR. 

The question then being, shall the main question be 
now put ? 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas, 51, nays 4C— 
as follow s: 

Yeas —Mesere. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Blair, 
Blickentderfer, CabilJ, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Cook, 
Dorsey, Ewing, Furr, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Groesbcck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holt, Hunter, Jones, 
King, Kirkwood, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Morris, McCormick, 
Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott ol Auglaize, Stebbins, Stillwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
Swan, Switt, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Way, 
Woodbury and President—51. 

Navs —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case ol Hocking, Chambers, Collings, 
Curry, Cutler. Ewart, Florence, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Larsh, 
Larwill, l.eech, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud. Nash, 
Norris, Otis, Peck, Roll, Smith ol Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Smith ol Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Thompson of Stark, Wil¬ 
liams, Wilson and Worthington—46. 

So the Convention ordered the main question to be 
now put. 

The question being on the adoption of the resolu¬ 
tion, 


Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 45, nays 54— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Curry, Ewing, Farr 
Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hurd, Holt, Hun¬ 
ter, King, Lidey, Loudon, Morris, Orton Putlerton, Quigley, 
Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Hai rison, Scott of Auglaize, Stebbins, 
Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger Struble, Swan, Swilt, Taylor, Thomp. 
son ol Shelby, '1 hompson ol Stark, Townshend, Way, Whsonj- 
Woodbury Worthington aud President—45 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbuid, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Hajiiett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderler, Brown of Ath¬ 
ens, Brown ol Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Cham- 
hers, Collmgs, Cook, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Graham,, 
Green ol Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hender¬ 
son, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcoclt oi Cnauga, Holmes, 
Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larsh, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, More- 
head, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Peck, Ranuey, Riddk', Roll. Smith 
ol Highland, Smith ol Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, and Wilhams, 
—54. 

So the resolution was disagreed to. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved that the Convention take 
up the report of the committee on Jurisprudence; 
which was agreed to ; and said report was taken up. 

Mr. NASH said the legal reforms of New York had 
been quoted in this asiembly as models for our imita 
tion, aud lie wished to exhibit a record of a suit undei 
the new practice in that Slate, to compare it with out 
own. He proceeded to read a very prolix record of a 
judgment, which he said, was an example of the prac¬ 
tice under the rule of every man stating his ease in hie 
own way. He then went on to compare the practice 
in Ohio, with that under the present system in New 
York. 

Mr. NASH proceeded to draw a paralel betweec 
that practice and our own. 

Our ancestors came to this country with strong feel¬ 
ings of dislike against the code oi civil lavr a. It wa» 
their boast tliat they brought to this country the com¬ 
mon law of England, with its guards and its securities 
of liberty and human rights. They were aware of the 
abuses and corruptions that existed under the civil 
law. They knew that under that system of procedure, 
it was beauty and gold that won the cause, ratherthan 
right and the justice of the cause. It was the juries o f 
the common law mode, that intervened to prevent this 
flow of corruption into England. Under the civil law, 
the judges were tryers as wellot the fact as of the law, 
and the result was" abuses without number, and with' 
out remedy. 

We cannot combine the two modes of proceeding— 
by the common and by the civil law. The question 
which of the two is preferable, is another question, 
but the proposition here is to combine both, and that 

cannot be done. /• i 

It is a mistake to say that the lawyers ol the Con- 
venlioii are opposed to legal reform. The bar ol Ohio 
has ever been in favor of judicious aud salutary re¬ 
form ; and many valuable iinprovemeiits have been the 
result. Neither is it true that we are behind England 
in legal reform. That may be true in legaid to the 
State of New York, before their late constitution, but 
cannot be said of Ohio. On the coutiaiy, England 
might learn of us, instead of we learn oi them. 

Mr. NASH then proceeded to give a view of the 
ancient and modern practice under the common law 
and of the reforms that have been made in Ohio, and 
the -.buses that exist in New York, under the new 
mode of procedure. He thought we ought to wait the 
trial of the system in New York, before we proceed to 

adopt it. , , , • - 

Mr. TAYLOR said there had been a commission ap¬ 
pointed by the English Parliament, vvhich had mad© 
a report recommending an abolition of all distinction 
between forms of action at Iaw. 

Mr holt spoke in favor of legal reform. 1 he gen¬ 
tleman from Gallia had read a declaration said to be 
drawn up by an eminent lawyer in New York, at great 
len°th. He could say that undert he present practice 
in New York, the same declaration might have been 
drawn in far less space. He thought the people of Ohio 








972 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


demanded some reformation in the law of remedies in 
the State. They had duriiiff his experience, grown 
prolix, and he thought needed some curtailment. He 
thought the defect in the system in New York was to be 
attributed to the haste in which the new system had 
been brought into use. He had had much correspon¬ 
dence with eminent lawyers in New York, and that 
was the reason they gave for the difficulties which had 
occurred. Two things are required—first, that the ad¬ 
ministration of justice should be cheap, simple and cer¬ 
tain ; and secondly, that it should be administered in so 
plain and intelligible a manner, that all who see can 
understand it. He went into an examination of the 
practice in Ohio. 

The remedy we propose is this. A man has a cause 
of action. He may make his statement of the case; he 
may call it a petition or a declaration, or whatever he 
please; he may present this to the court; the defendent 
may answer, and upon this issue he may go to trial, 
and have his remedy as fully and completely as if 
there were twenty forms of action and twice as many 
sides of the court as there are at present. 

Pending Mr. Holt’s remarks, 

Mr. STILWELL moved that the Convention ad¬ 
journ, which was agreed to, yeas 60, nays not count¬ 
ed. 


WEDNESDAY, January, 15, 1851. 

9 o’clock, A. M. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjourunient. 

Prayer by Rev. Dr. Lord. 

Mr. MORRIS presented a petition from Joseph Mills, 
praying that a clause be inserted in the new constitution 
prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law legal¬ 
izing traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Referred to the select committee on the subject of Re¬ 
tailing Ardent spirits. 

Mr. HENDERSON presented a petition from Peter 
Humbarger and forty other citizens of Richland coun¬ 
ty, praying that a clause be inserted in the new con¬ 
stitution, making it an indictable offence for members 
of the General Assembly to disobey the instructions of 
their constituents. 

Referred to the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects 
and Propositions. 

Mr. HOOTMAN presented sundiy petitions from.!. 
L. Anderson, Daniel Sigler, William Hughes and one 
hundred and fifteen other citizens of Ashland county, 
praying that a clause be inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. LOUDON presented a petition from Marion 
Johnson and twenty-five other citizens of Brown coun¬ 
ty, on the same subject. 

Mr. MORRIS presented a petition from Ira Dillman 
and one hundred and thirty-one other citizens of Cler¬ 
mont county, on the same subject. 

Mr. EWART presented a petition from Thomas 
Thomas and sixty-three other citizens of Washington 
county, on the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Report No. 1, of the committee on Public Debts and 
Public Works, was read the third time, and 

On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Warren, laid on the 
table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. MANON moved that the Convention take up the 
report of the standing committee on Jurisprudence; 
which was agreed to. 

The question being on striking out a part of the 4th 
and 5th lines of said report, 

Mr. HOLT concluded bis remarks in favor of the 
reformation in the practice of the law. He read from 
the code of procedure in New York, to show that the 
reform did not necessarily do away with statutes of 
limitation. 

Mr. COLLINGS had his apprehension of the effect of 


the amendment if it should prevail. He should, in case 
it did prevail, vote against the whole report. There 
were others who would vote against the report if the 
amendment should be adopted—who, if it should not 
be adopted, would do otherwise. He thought the re¬ 
port ought not to be jeopardized in this manner. 

He thought, also, the effect of the amendment would 
be unfortunate, in regard to the persons who would 
take office under the commission. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, was in favor of the motion 
when originally made, but as its prevailing would jeo¬ 
pardize the adoption of the report itself, he felt con¬ 
strained to vote against it. 

The question being on the amendment, 

Mr. HOLMES demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 38 nays 56—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chaney, Farr* 
Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Haw* 
kins, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Hunter, Larsh, Larwill, 
Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Morris, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Quigley, Ilanney, Reemelin, Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Townshend, Wilson, Woodbury, andPreeident—38. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, 
Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, 
Graham, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hender¬ 
son, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hum- 
phreville, Johnson, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Leadbetter, Mason, 
Mitchell, Morehead, klcCloud, McCormick, Otis, Peck, Riddle, 
Roll, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Way, Williams and Worthington— 
59. , 

So the motion to strike out was disagreed Jo. 

The question then being on the engrossment of the 
report, 

Mr, HOLT demanded the yeas and nays, which were 
ordered, and resulted—yeas 81, nays 15—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Cook, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, 
Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of 
Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Kirkwood, Larsh, Leech, 
Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, 
Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, 
Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Way, 
Wilson, Woodbury, VVorthington and President—81. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Curry, Harlan, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Kennon, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, MitcheU, Nash, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton and Williams—15. 

So the Convention ordered the report to be engross¬ 
ed, and read the third time to-morrow. 

Mr. MANON moved that the Convention resolve it¬ 
self into committee of the Whole on the Preamble and 
Bill of Rights, which was agreed to—yeas 58, nays not 
counted—and the chair was taken by Mr. SAWYER. 

The report of the standing committee on the Pream¬ 
ble and Bill of Rights was taken up, and read through 
by the Chairman, and the committee afterwards pro¬ 
ceeded to consider said report, by sections. 

Pkeabible. —We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to 

Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and pro¬ 
mote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to amend the preamble by 
striking out the words “ people of,” and inserting the 
following: “the free white male citizens within;” 
which was disagreed to. 

Sec. 1. Read and passed. 

Sec. 2. Read and passed. 

Sec. 3. The people shall have the right to assemble together in 
a peaceable manner, to consult for the common good, to instruct 
their representatives, and to petition the Legislature for the re¬ 
dress of grievances. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to amend the third section 
by striking out the words “ petition the Legislature 
for the,” and insert in lieu thereof, the words •' demand 
of the Legislature a.” 

Mr. Hawkins thought it absurd for the people to 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


973 


appear in the guise of petitioners to their own servants. 
He wished to declare the right to demand ofihein are- 
dress of grievances, whenever and wherever they exist. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD thought there was some confusion 
in the mind of his friend from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins.] 
Petitioners were usually lew in number, and their 
memorials are addressed to the representatives of mil¬ 
lions of people. He thought that when petitioners tew 
in number addressed the majesty of the whole people, 
some little modesty might be exercised. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga thought the sugges¬ 
tion of his friend from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] a 
good one enough, provided he carried it out. He 
should add at the end of the section, that the Legisla¬ 
ture shall obey. He agreed with his fi’iend from Mon¬ 
roe, [Mr. Archbold,] that when a few people in a 
township saw lit to ask the representatives of the whole 
people for something, they did not stand exactly in the 
attitude of having a right to demand. 

Mr HAWKINS did not feel convinced by the 
reasoning of his friends Irom Geauga and Monroe, 
[Messrs. Hitchcock and Archbold.] 

Mr. QUIGLEY demanded a division of the question. 

The question then being on striking out, 

Mr. LARWILL did not like the section as it stood, 
and should vote against it. 

Mr. QUIGLEY moved to amend the words to be 
stricken out, by striking out the word “petition,” and 
insert the words “ apply to.” 

Mr. LARWILL would vote for the amendment of the 
gentleman from Columbiana. 

Mr. GROESBECK did not deem the word “petition” 
to be so very objectionable. It was an usual word and 
had a definite meaning; and in his opinion was the 
most proper. 

Mr. HOLMES spoke in favor of the amendment. 

The question being on the amendment of Mr. Quig¬ 
ley, the same was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out, the same 
was disagreed to. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, moved to strike out of the 
first line, in the third section, the word “ shall;” which 
was agreed to. 

Sec. 4. The people shall have right to bear aims for their de¬ 
fence and security ; but standing armies in times of peace, are 
dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up, and the military 
shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, moved to strike out of the 
first line, the word “ shall; ” which was agreed to. 

Mr. LIDEY moved to strike out all after the word 
“peace,” in the second line, and insert in lieu thereof 
the words, “ shall be regulated as may be provided by 
aw.” 

1 Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, demanded a divis 
ion of the question. 

The question then being upon striking out; the same 
was disagreed to. 

Sec. 5. The right of trial by jury, as heretofore used and here¬ 
in provided, shall be inviolate. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, moved to strike 
out the words “ as heretofore used and herein provi¬ 
ded.” 

Mr. GROESBECK said that the words proposed to 
be stncken out were inserted by the committee, to 
provide for a class of cases where jury trial might be 
deemed unnecessary—as in petty offences. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK thought the striking out would 
not aflect the settlement of that question. 

But he thought the clause dangerous, as in effect it 
would place in the hands of the Legislature the power, 
by instituting new modes of proceeding, to take away 
the trial by jury. _ • i • 

Mr. NASH thought the words restrictive in their ef¬ 
fect. The trial by jury was to be as heretofore used. 
That is to remain inviolate. The only doubt was 
whether this clause might not sanction the practice of 
calling six men.before a niagistrate, or jury. We all 
know what is a trial by And the section pro¬ 


vides that this thing shall remain as it is. It puts an 
end to the tampering with the trial by jury. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD inquired of the gentleman from 
Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock] if it had not been holden un¬ 
der the corresponding section of the present constitu¬ 
tion, by the Supreme Court, that a commission of three 
men to assess the damages upon a public work was a 
jury and a compliance with the constitution. .. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, said that it rnight 
have been from the want of astuteness in the court that 
they had holden that the Legislature had the power 
to declare what number of men should iu all and every 
case constitute a jury. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD did nyt understand the decision of 
the Supreme Court as settling the question whether the 
three men were a jury or not. The right to depute a 
commission to assess damages was put upon other 
grounds. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD wanted to invent some means to 
do away with the practice. 

The question being on striking out, the same was 
agreed to—yeas 62, nays not counted. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to amend the section by ad¬ 
ding at the end the following: 

And the right of redress for injuries to person, property 
character or morals, shall be secured by legislative enactment! 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, was afraid the amend¬ 
ment would be restrictive in its character, instead of 
enlarging the boundaries of legal remedies. 

Mr. HAWKINS said there was a large class of cases 
not provided for. It was these that he desired to 
reach. For instance—for the waste of his property by 
the head of a family. Who can demand redress in this 
case? 

The question being on agreeing to the amendment, 
the same was disagreed to. 

Sec. 6. There shall be no slavery in this State, or involuntary 
servitude, except for the punishment of crimes 

Mr. LEECH moved to amend the section by adding 
the following: 

Whereof the party shall have been duly convicted according 
to law. 

The question being on agreeing to the amendment; 
the same was disagreed to. 

Sec. 7. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship 
Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own conscien¬ 
ces. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any 
place of worship, or maintain any form of worship against his 
consent; and no preference shall be given by law to any reh- 
gious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of con¬ 
science be permitted. No religious test shall be required as a 
qualification for any office. But religion, morality, and knowledge 
being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the 
Legislature to pass suitable laws to protect every religious de¬ 
nomination, in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of pub¬ 
lic worship, and to encourage schools, and the means of instruc¬ 
tion. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to amend the sec¬ 
tion by adding at the end of line 6th, the following 
words, “ or lor any other purpose.” 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE wished to do away with all 
tests in relation to the religious belie! of witnesses in 
courts of justice. A doubt had existed under the old. 
constitution, which he desired to obviate. 

Mr. ORTON moved to amend the amendment by 
inserting between “other” and “purpose” the word 
“civil.” 

Mr. NASH stated the reason why the section was 
left as it is. Pie thought it might be left to the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly to settle the rules of the competency of 
witnesses. It had always been done by that body, 
and it can then be done in consonance with public 
opinion. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, ol Geauga, hoped the amend¬ 
ment to the amendment would be adopted. It might 
prevent great difficulty in the management of religious 
c^orporations. He had his doubts however, whether 
such a provision as is contained in the section should 
be inserted in the constitution. It might endanger the 
acceptance of the constitution by the people. 

The amendment to the amendment was accepted by 
the mover. 









974 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


Th'.^ question then being on the amendment, the 
same was agreed to—yeas 50, nays not counted. 

Mr. BENNETT moved to strike out the word “ any” 
in the sixtli line, where it occurs before the word of- 
ifice; which was agreed to. 

Mr. STANBEllY moved to reconsider the vote on 
agreeing to the amendmentof Mr. HuMrHRKviLLK. 

Mr. STAN BE RY was opposed to going to the ieu Tth 
proposed in the section, fie would not say any thing 
about it in the constitution, but leave it to the courts 
as a rule of evidence. It was tantamount to saying That 
there shall be no oatli, in the administration of justice, 
[f we thus abandon all religions sanctions, why do we 
say in the next line, that religion and morality are es¬ 
sential to good government. 

Mr. HUMl’HREVILLE thoughtthe gentleman from 
Franklin. [Mr. Stavbkry,] unduly tenacious. The o.ith 
is abolished virtually, already. Men avoid it when they 
please, by an afllrmation, and the laws prescribe no 
mode or form of the administration of an oath. 

Mr. MASON said this amendment was to work the 
abolition of all oaths of a judicial or official character: 
he should be disposed to vote for the re-consideration, 
though he had voted for its adoption. 

Mr. STANBERY. The object of the aTnendment is 
to take away all distinction in witnesses on account of 
religions belief 

Mr. HU.MBHREVILLE. That is the object. 

Mr. MASON. Every oath, however taken, is a di¬ 
rect recognition of the existence of a moral responsi¬ 
bility. It is a religious test, and binding ufion the con- 
(science of the iridividual taking it. He voted for the 
proposition, and as it now appeared, under a misappre¬ 
hension. He tliought that theamendment would pro¬ 
vide for the abolition of all oaths, and all species of re- 
fdgioustest for the verification of truth. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, did not understand 
the amendment as it appeared to be understood by the 
gentleman from Clark, [Mr. MasOxN ] or the gentleman 
from Franklin [.Mr. Stanbery. ] He did not under¬ 
stand an oath as a religions test. He understood a re¬ 
ligious test to be a rule which excluded a man from 
holding an office, or from being a witnes.s, on account 
of some peculiar belief or want of belief in religious 
matteiB. There is such a test in New Hampshire, 
where it is provided that no man shall hold an office, 
unless he lie a I’rotestant. Is it right, is it politic to 
exclude men from testifying for the want of religious 
belief? I would permit them to te.-lify, because I have 
found Binoiig them men of truth. The question tlien 
really is. shall these men he excluded from testifying? 

Mr. M.ASON said that if he was sure that the aineiul- 
:meiit extended no further, be was in favor of it. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK A judge may hold the doctrine 
which is o[)posed to a belief in future jmnishments; 
but a man comes iq) as a witness. He is asked: do 
/on believe in a state of future rewards and punish¬ 
ments? He answers in the negative. He is excluded. 
Ils this ri^lit ? 

Mr.:STANBERY wished tohave such a rule as taking 
men as they are, should bring every man to sucb a lest 
4S sbnnld be binding upon tlicir consciences. It is not 
ircercly to {protect against irreligious men, but against 
•religious men, wlio need to be })laced in such a position 
as shall l)ind their consciences. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, showed that a religious test 
711 this country was the sanction hv which the partv 
bound himself, according to the religlou.s lielief which 
he ackiiowlt dged. It was the sanction of the oath n'- 
quired of a witnes.sorof a juror. It required no speci¬ 
fic religion but it required some religions belief. Now 
he considered it a little questionable, whetlnT the peo 
pie of the State would sanction a doctrine which would 
absolve all jurors and witnesses from the necessity of 
any religions belief. He admitted, that under sucb a 
test, cases might arise in which injustice would be 
done to honest men : but they would be as the excefi- 
tions to every general rule. If the construction of the 


gentleman from Geauga, [Mr, Hitchcock.] was cor¬ 
rect, the amendment might be well enough. For him¬ 
self, he was decidedly of the opinion that every lionest 
man ought to be permitted to testify. 

Mr. MANON was opposed to the re consideration. 
Ho thought the amendment went just as fiir as wa.s 
iipc ssary. He was opposed toall religious tests what¬ 
ever. He w ould not believe a liar, bec.iuse he believed 
in the existence of a God. 

Mr. ORTON moved that the committee rise and re¬ 
port; which was agreed to; and the committee rose, 
and the chairman refiorted that they had under consid¬ 
eration the rejiorl of the standing committee on the 
Preamble and Bill of Rights, and had come to no reso¬ 
lution thereon. 

On motion of Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, the Con¬ 
vention took a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

On motion of Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, the Con¬ 
vention again resolved itself into a committee of the 
Whole—Mr. Sawyer in the chair—and resumed the 
consideration of the report of the committee on the 
preamble and bill of rights. 

The Chairman said when the committee rose, the 
pending question was upon Mr. Stanbery’s motion to 
re-consider the vote by which Mr. Humphreville’s 
amendment to section 7, was adopted, inserting at the 
end of the sixth line the words, “ for any other civil 
purpose.” 

And the question being now taken upon this motion, 
it WHS rejected. 

Mr. REEMELIN proposed further to amend the 7th 
section, by striking out from the last of the lOih line 
these words: “ and to encourage schools and the 
means of instruction.” 

Mr. REEMELIN desired to strike out these words, 
because the matter was to be provided for iii another 
part of the cons'itutinn; and because the language 
(which was copied from the old constitution,) was 
found to be ambiguous and of different construedon. 

The motion was lost. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, proposed further to 
amend the 7th section, by striking out fi-ora the fourth 
line the words “against his consent,” so that the clause 
will read: “ No man shall be compelled to attend, erect 
or support any place of worship, or maintain any form 
of worship.” 

He made this motion because it implied an absurdity 
in the language—he supposed a man could not be very 
well conqielled with his consent. 

This amerxlment was agreed to. 

Mr. BARN ETT, of Preble, proposed further to amend 
the .section by striking out the word “ Legislature,” 
and inserting the words “ General Assembly.” 

This was akso agreed to. 

Sec. 8. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall ns t bo 
suspended, unless in cases of rebellion or invasion, or the publie 
safety may require it. 

Mr. CASE, of Li king, proposed to amend by strik¬ 
ing out from the first line of this section, after the 
wt)rd “of,” the words “the writ of;” which was dis¬ 
agreed to. 

Sec. 9. All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, un 
less for capital oflences where the proof is evident or the pre¬ 
sumption great. Excessive bail shall not be required,nor exces¬ 
sive tiiua imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted. 

Mr. BATES proposed the following amendment: At 
the end of the section add these words, “ Nor sha'l life 
be taken a.s a punishment for crime.” 

He offered tliis to make the sectioti consistent with 
itself—believing also, as he did, that the death [leualty 
was entirely unnecessary. A part of the language of 
the section was, that cruel punishment should not bo 
iiiff i(Ted ; and if hanging a man up by the neck until ho 
was dead, was not cruel, ho did not know what cruelty 
was. 

This amendment was disagreed to. 

Sec. 10. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otb- 













CONVEN'IION REPORTS, 


975 


erwiric inlamous crime, (except in cases of iinp^nichment, and in 
cases arising in the anriy and navy, or in the militia, when i ac¬ 
tual service m times of war or public danger, and in Ciises of pe¬ 
tit larceny and inferior otfence-*,) unless on presentu eat or in¬ 
dictment of a grand jury. And in any trial in any court whatev¬ 
er, the party accused shall be allowed to ajipear and defend in 
person and with counsel—to demand the nature and cause of the 
accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof—to meet the 
witnesses fact; to lace, and to have compulsory process to pro¬ 
cure their attendance. Nor shall any person be coinpedled in any 
criminal case to be a witness against himself, or be subject to be 
twice put in Jeopardy for the same offence. 

Mr. COLLINGS [iroposed to amend, by strikintr out 
from the ninth line the words “ their attendance ” and 
inserting in lieu thereof “ the attendance of witnesses 
in their behalf.’' 

Also, in lino four, after the word “,anLl," insert, 
“other.” 

Also, in lino ten, strike out the words “ subject to 
be,” iVoin between the words “ be” and “ twice.” 

Which amendments were severally adopted. 

Mr. SMITH, ot Wyandot proposed further to amend 
by insvrtiug after the word “presentment,” in the 4th 
line, the word “ information.” 

Which amendment was lost. 

Mr. R.\NiNEY proposed further to amend the sec¬ 
tion by striking from the fourth line these words: 
“andjn cases of petit larceny, and other inferior of 
fences.” 

Mr. R. said this was a most important innovation 
which ho was not prepared to make. No man sliould 
be put upon his trial upon a criminal charge, wiihont 
some accusing tribunal; for, otherwise, the power of 
indictment would have to be given to one man—some 
Judicial officer; and that officer mi^ht be a young man 
—an inexperienced prosecuting attorney; and this 
would be giving to such a man too niucli pow^er over 
the liberty and reputation of the citizen. Again, this 
officer would have to be made responsible for the char¬ 
acter of the indictment which he might bring in ; and 
this, if he were a modest and sensitive man, might in¬ 
duce him to neglect cases which should he prosecuted, 
and so the criminal justice of the country might go en¬ 
tirely disregarded. He held that the old method of 
indictment—by c grand jury—was the best, because 
they Could go forward and do their duly without fear, 
or any sort of impediment. 

Mr. NASH said that it was not prescribed in the sec¬ 
tion ihat a man should be put upon his trial in any par¬ 
ticular way. That was left entirely with the Legi^!a- 
ture. He did not midcriake to say that justice could 
not be better di.spensed in these minor cases without 
the intervention of a grand jury, but he adhered to the 
system as more safe and secure than any thing which 
w'as likely to be set n[) in its place. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD never could see the reason why 
we might not have a final trial in these cases of petty 
offences, without the intervention of a gratid jury. 

Mr. RANNBY was willing to vote for a reduction of 
the number of the grand jury, or to admit of presetit- 
ment and trial wiilumt a grand jury, in cases where 
the liberty or life of th i accused were not ifivolved. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD objected to the grand jory system 
on accfuint of its expense. He would be glad to see 
sll cases of assault and battery, selling liquor without 
license, and all petit larceny, disposed of before a jus¬ 
tice (>f the peace; and if the judginentof the magistrate 
should happen to be wrong, let a writ of error or a cer¬ 
tiorari go u(* to the common pleas, 

Mr. B.ARNETT, of Preble. Was not the character 
of an individual as much at stake if he weie charged 
with stealing a pen knife, as if he were charged with 
stealing a horse ? 

Mr. KIPKWOOD thought the question of character 
was as inucli involved in the one ease as in the other. 
But he did not iliink it any part of the olqect of crimi¬ 
nal law to protect character; the object was rather to 
protect the property of the citizen. But was it good 
policy to expend $200 in order to protect an interest ol 
the value of six and a-fuurth cents? Why could we 


not have as fair a trial of these smaller offences before 
a justice of tho peace ? 

Mr. BARNET 1’. Because the Legislature can make 
just such laws uj)on the subject a.s tliey please. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, Practically,'the prosecndiig at- 
j torney now attends to all the business of presenting 
tiiese cases, lint there might be created a court of 
three justices of the peace, to .say whether the accused 
should be bound over, aiul then let the pro.secnling at¬ 
torney make out his indictment, wiihont tho interven¬ 
tion of a grand jury. Why would not. this answer for 
the mode of deterrninii^g ca.->e8 of small ufiences? 

Mr. RANNEY. It would only cost about three 
times as uiujh as the process of indictment by a grand 
jury. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, moved to amend the 
words proposed to be stricken out, by striking out the 
words, “ petit larceny and.” 

Mr. B. said, witli an honest, upright, high-minded 
man, the question of character was the principal thing, 
and he wished to be protected from any abu.^e of power 
which the Legislature might exercise in this matter. 
He wished to make it secure, that the trial should be 
the same, and as lidly and fair, for all inferior ofi'ences, 
as for the most infamous offences. 

Mr. HOLMES was opposed to striking out. He had 
no special partiality for grand juries. The examina¬ 
tions before tlicm were always of an ex parte charac¬ 
ter, frequently very frivolous—always very expensive. 
But if they constituted a tribunal before which cases 
could be lairly investigated, he would not object to the 
ex[)eii8e. 

Mr. GROBSBECK said the standing committee had 
some difficulty in corning to a conclusion upon this 
mutter, before they finully fixed upon the words re¬ 
ported. It was believed by the committee that the le¬ 
gislature would not abuse this discretion. No doubt 
there were a great many cases in petit larceny, for the 
ti ial of which the law should make [irovision, without 
sending them before a grand jiuy. it frequently oc¬ 
curred when a man bad committed petit larceiiy, that 
he was ready and anxious to plead guilty. But that, 
according to the law, would avail him nothing. He 
would liave to go to jail, and lie there till the grand 
jury should sit, and then, perhaps, come at last to his 
trial, and again be sent to jail. There were many 
guilty persons, who would be glad to acknowledge 
their crime, in the first instance, and get through with 
it at once. In all the-se cases, the interveulioa of tho 
grand jury and the going to jail were very expensive, 
and certainly unnecessary. \Vith reference to the pro¬ 
tection of character, which was insisted upon by the 
gentleman from Preble, [Mr. Barnett,] the commit¬ 
tee found some difficulty ; but at last they felt that the 
matter might be safely confided to the Legislature,and 
their decision turned very much upon the fact, that 
such a provision would induce a great saving ol ex- 
[)en.'ie. 

Mr. MASON proposed farther to amend the matter 
pro[)osed to be stricken out, by striking out the words 
“ petit^larceny and inferior ofiences.” and^ in>erling 
these words: “such immoral practices^and inferior ot- 
fences as may be provided for by law.” 

Mr. M. considered that this proposition would meet 
the objection of those who were opposed to retaining 
llie words “ petit larceny/ because the class ot crimes 
so denominated, sometimes mount up to the standard of 
very grave ofiences. And he would suggest, that tho 
liOgislature ouglit to declare stealing not above the 
value of $.5, to be petit larceny. Now it extended to 
$3'); and then the Legislature might provide for the 
(junishment of persons guilty of thi.s lower grade of 
[letit larceny, without rcj^ortiiig to a grand jury. He 
considered that the Legislature might be safely trusted 
with this discretion, and that tiu-y might provide am¬ 
ply for the trial and punishment of all these petty of¬ 
fences, without the cumbrous machinery of a grand ju- 
rv and a solemn indictment. 











976 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The exceptions which are here in the section includ¬ 
ed in parentheses, were as mandatory as any part ol' 
the constitution. As to these cases the Legislature 
would have no power to direct that they should be 
prosecuted by indictn)enr. He supposed that this en¬ 
tire class of cases would be jtunialiable without the in¬ 
tervention of a grand Jury. 

Mr. NASH, objecting to the ameiidmeiit of the gen¬ 
tleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] said; immoral prac¬ 
tices were not now legal subject matters of indictment 
and trial by jury: and he showed that the words “ in¬ 
ferior otfences” might be construed as having reference 
to the same class of offences mentioned before in the 
section, and which were now triable by a grand jury. So 
that the amendment would effect nothing more than to 
make that a constitutional point which, had grown up 
in practice under the old constitution. 

Mr. MASON then asked and obtained leave to trans¬ 
pose the words which he proposed to insert, so that 
they would read : “ Sucli inferior offences and immor¬ 
al practices as may be provided for by law.” 

Mr. RANNEY demanded a division of the question. 

And then the committee refused to strike out. 

So Mr. MASON’S amendment was rejected, and the 
question recurred upon Mr. Barnett’s amendment, 
proposing to strike out the wcrds “ petit larceny and;” 

Which was also rejected. 

The question now recurred upon Mr. Ranney’s 
amendment proposing to strike out the words, “ and 
in cases of petit larceny, and other inferior offences.” 

Mr. HOLT moved to amend the words proposed to 
be stricken out, by adding at the end thereof these 
words: “ and wherein the person accused shall plead 
guilty before an examining court or magistrate.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. Our present consti¬ 
tution, upon this subject, reads in these words: “ No 
person shall be put to answer any criminal charge but 
by presentment, indictment, or impeachment.” No 
matter what was the nature of the criminal charge — 
w'hether it were ot a greater or less degree of turpi¬ 
tude, the person could not be put to answer till he was 
indicted or presented: and he supposed that it was in 
this view of the case, that the gentleman from Clark, 
[Mr. Mason,] seemed to consider that a law which 
would compel the person to answer without indict¬ 
ment or presentment, was unconstitutional. 

The question was, w'hether, under this provision of 
the constitution, any evil had been experienced; and 
if so was it best to apply the remedy ? What had 
been the consequences ? Why, lor every little, petty 
offence, the individual had to be arraigned before the 
Court of Common Pleas, a grand jury had to be em¬ 
panelled and sit upon the case, and then he had to 
stand his trial by a traverse jury—all this formality and 
expense in a case of the most trifling amount. Every 
criminal offence was put upon the same footing in this 
respect, with homicide and perjury—all were upon the 
same footing in practice. They all knew, that, in con¬ 
sequence of this practice, costs had accumulated to an 
enormous amount in all the counties. 

He also referred to the hardships indiiced in cases 
wdiere the individual was desirous of pleading guilty, 
which was intended to be met by the amendment of 
the gentleman from Montgomery [Mr. Holt.] 

It was a matter of fact that there had been no more 
clamor against any clause in the constitution than 
against this ; and he had no doubt but that the people 
of Hamilton county had experienced its evil effects 
more than the people of any other county in the State, 
because of the enormous amount of costs w'hich it was 
constantly running up which had to be paid by the 
criminal if he were able, but if not, by the county. 

Now the object was to remedy this evil. Was there 
any danger in applying this remedy ? He could see 
none at all. It could not besupposed that there would 
be so little discretion in the Legislature that they 
could not apply the remedy properly. The probabili¬ 
ty was that they would require persons accused of 


petit larceny to be indicted before they could be put 
upon trial. But he did not think that cases of assault 
and battery ought to be so guarded. He thought that 
instead of binding them down to all the formalities re¬ 
quired by the present constitution, a little latitude 
might be safely extended in these cases. It would be 
far better that nine-tenths of these petty offences should 
be tried w'here they spring up, than that the whole 
county should be put to trouble and expense about 
them. 

He certainly could not have any objection to the 
proposition of tne gentleman flora Clark [Mr. Mason :] 
but it seemed to him that the same thing was propos¬ 
ed by the standing committee, and he was willing to 
vote lor it, believing that it would be an improvement 
upon the present practice. 

iMr. RANNEY now withdrew his amendment, in or¬ 
der to give place for the amendment of Mr. Holt. 

And the question being on the latter amendment, 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, said the effect of this 
amendment would be, that in every case, however 
trivial, where there was not a plea of guilty, all the for¬ 
malities of an indictment must be observed. 

The question was now taken on Mr. Holt’s amend¬ 
ment, and it was rejected. 

Mr. RANNEY then renewed his motion to amend by 
striking out the words, “ and in case of petit larceny, 
and other inferior offences.” 

Mr. STIDGER said, whenever it would be in order, 
he desired to move to strike out the words proposed to 
be removed by the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. 
Ranney,] and to insert at the end of the section, these' 
words : 

Provided, that the General Assembly may provide by law for 
the trial and punishment of petit larceny, and other inferior of¬ 
fences, by other means than by indictment. 

This amendment explained itself. It would obviate 
all difficulty, as it seemed to him. 

The question was now t ken on Mr. Ranney's 
amendment, and it was rejected. 

And then, on motion of Mr. CASE, of Licking, the 
whole of section 10 was stricken out of the report. 

Sec. 11. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his 
sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of the 
right; and no law shall be paased to restrain or abridge the liber¬ 
ty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or in¬ 
dictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the 
jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as 
libelous, is true, and was published with good motives, and for 
justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted. 

Mr. HAWKINS proposed to amend this section, by 
striking out from the Gth and 7th lines, these words: 
“and was published with good motives, and for justifi¬ 
able ends.” 

Mr. H. thought it would be a very difficult matter, 
in cases of libel, to decide what the motives were. Sup¬ 
posing the jury were to find that the words alleged m 
the libel w'ere true, the next thing, under this provision, 
would be to inquire whether the motives and ends for 
which they were spoken or published, were justifiable. 
He considered that this language was hardly justifiable 
in the constitution. 

Mr. NASH said, that these words ought not to be 
stricken out: although, he admitted, the questiou was 
not void of difficulty. As the law stood now, in a libel 
case, the truth could not be given in evidence, by the 
defendant, unless it were of a public character. In any 
article of a newspaper, said to libelous, if the individu¬ 
al affected, be not a public character—if he be the keep¬ 
er of a hotel or liquor establishment, the truth could 
not be given in evidence. Such was the decision of the 
Massachusetts courts, and it was practically so under¬ 
stood here. 

He was unwilling to open the door for private 
injury, to the extent proposed in,this amendment. 
If the charge could not be productive of public good, 
then the individual ought not to be allowed to prove it. 

The amendment was rejected. 

Sec. 12. No person shall be liable to be transported out of th e 
State for any offence committed within the same. 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


977 


Mr. GK.OESBECK moved to strike out the words 
‘ liable to be,” in the first line; which was agreed to. 

Mr. SMITH, of’ Wyandot, proposed further to amend 
the section, by striking out the words “ committed 
within the same,” in the luj;t line. 

The motion was lost. 

Sec. 13. No person shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any 
house, without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, ex¬ 
cept in the manner prescribed by law. 

Mr. HOLMES proptjsed to amend this section, by 
striking out from the first line, tlie words “ in time of 
peace;” which wasjost. 

Sec. 14. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 
houses, papers and possessions, against unreasonable searches 
and seizures, shall not be violated: and no warrant sliall bo issued 
but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, par¬ 
ticularly describing the place to be searched and the person and 
things to be seized. 

Mr. OTIS proposed to amend by striking out from 
Uie 5lh line the word “ and,” and inserting the word 
“ or ” in its place. 

This motion was agreed to. 

Sec. 15. No person shall be imprisoned for debt, in any civd 
action on mesne of final process, unless in cases of fraud. 

Mr. MANON proposed to amend this section by 
striking out the words, “ on mesne or final process, un¬ 
less in cases of fraud.” 

This amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to strike out the 
whole of section 15. 

He made this motion because he believed this was a 
matter which should be left to legislative action j and 
that it was going too much into detail for the action of 
this Convention. 

There were a great many people of the State who 
were anxious that there should be something like im¬ 
prisonment for debt. He could state a great many of 
these cases in which it was desirable that imprison¬ 
ment should be authorized, though perhaps theymiglit 
not be strictly and technically called cases of debt, 
wherein the ofending party ought to be arrested and 
imprisoned, but under our and laws he could not be. 
He would give almost any case of malicious trespass. 

For example, in the region where he resided there 
were a great many droves of cattle and hogs taken 
through the country, and almost every day or two 
trespasses were committed by these drover.s driving off 
the cattle and hogs of the people. There wa.s no rem¬ 
edy for this, but to pursue the drovers and take the pro¬ 
perty by writ of replevin, and, before that can be done 
the property would he gone. Whereas, il he could bo 
arreked for the trespass, there inight bo some chance 
for redress. And such a law held over the heads of the 
offenders, would very much restrain them from com¬ 
mitting such tresj)asse8. These men understood the 
law, and felt secure. They knew that, unless the 
owner came wdth a writ of replevin, they could take 
oft' Ills property with impunity; and in many cases the 
piO])fTty and the offender were out of the reach of the 
own r, before he could get out his writ and start with 
his oflicers. 

He had also known a great many malicious, evil 
miiuled persons, who would commit trespasses upon 
the property of their neighbors for the mere purpose 
of doing mischief—feeling secure in so doing, because 
they knew themselves to be irresponsible in damages, 
and that they could not be imprisoned. 

The fact was, that our present law upon this subject 
turned loose upon society a large number of individu¬ 
als, with no character to sustain and no property to 
aus^ver in damages; and unless this class of trespasses 
were made criminal and punishable by imprisonment, 
(as in some other States it was the case,) the people 
would be entirely unsafe. 

He was in favor of no imprisonment for mere debt, 
except in cases of fraud. 

Mr. HANNEY, in order to perfect the section, mov¬ 
ed to strike out the words “ for debt.” 

The question being now taken upon Mr. Humphre- 
ville’s motion to strike out the whole of section 15; 

62 


and, the same t.eiug agreed to, the section was strick¬ 
en opt accordingly. 

Sec. 16. The levying of taxes by the poll is grievous and op- 
preseivc, and the same shall not be done for State and county 
purposes. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved to amend this section, by 
adding the following: 

Rightful government being an agency for the keeping of the 
peace, for the jjrescrvation of social order, and for the defence of 
sociAy, taxation ought to be strictly confined to the promotion 
of these objects. 

The taxation necessary to pay the agentb employed in keeping 
the peace, and to promote social order by the good instruction of 
youth, is rightful and proper, and in accordance with the princi¬ 
ples of the social contract 

But to levy taxes to carry on commercial enterprises, is an 
abuse of the taxing power, and a fraud on the social contract. 

Mr. LOUDON would like to licar the gentleman’s 
reasons for laying down so broad a platform. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, said that in order to 
give the gentleman from Monroe a fair opportunity to 
discuss this abstraction, he would move that the com¬ 
mittee rise; which was agreed to. 

On motion, the Convention adjourned till to-morrow 
morning at 9 o’clock. 


THURSDAY January 16, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER presented a petition from 
Elijah Witty and fifty-fivc other citizens of Tuscaraw¬ 
as county, praying that a clause may be inserted in tho 
new coustilution, prohibiting the Legislature from pass¬ 
ing any law legalizing the traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. HCRTCN presented a petition from Joseph Hay- 
man and thirty-four other citizens of Meigs county, on 
the same subject. 

iMr. SMITH, of Warren, presented a petition from 
Sarah B. Cugdale and eighty other females of Warren 
county. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr REEMELIN presented a petition from forty-five 
citizens of Hamilton count}', asking the adoption of a 
clause for listing all property fur taxation, whether 
held by individuals or corporations. 

Referred to the standing committee on Finance and 
Taxation. 

Report number one of the standing committee on Ju¬ 
risprudence was read the third time and passed. 

Mr. MANCN moved that the article be referred to 
the committee on Enrollment, Revision and Arrange¬ 
ment ; whicli Was agreed to. 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER moved to take up the re¬ 
port of the standing committee on the Executive De¬ 
partment; which was agreed to. 

Mr. McCCRMIOK moved a call of the Convention, 
and being ordered, the following geutltmgn were re¬ 
ported absent: 

Messrs. Archbold, Brown of Athens, Ewart, Graham, Green of 
Ross, Groesbeck, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, Law- 
rence, Roll, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Stilwell, Thompson of 
Shelby, Vance, Warren and Wilson. 

Cn motion of Mr. MITCHELL, all other proceedings 
under the call were dispensed with. 

Tho question then being on the passage of the re- 
port, 

Mr. LEADBETTER moved that the bill be recom¬ 
mitted to tho standing committee on the Executive De¬ 
partment. 

Some conversation upon the subject of the recom¬ 
mitment and its effects, took place between Messrs. 
Leadbetter, Kirk''VOOd, Smith of Warren, Humphre- 
viLLE, Riddle, Mason, and others. 

The question then being on the recommitment of the 
report, the same was agreed to. 

Mr. LEECH inquired if it would be in order to move 
to instruct the committee. 

The PRESIDENT was of the opiniou that it would 

e. 














978 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


Mr. LEECH then moved to instruct the committee, 
as follows: 

J’zVsi—Strike the words Lieutenant Governor out of 
the first section. ... 

Second —Strike out the eleventh section, ana insert 
in lieu thereof, the lollowing ; 

ft. In case of deatli, impeacliment, resignation, dr tlie removal of 
the Governor Irom office, the Speaker of the Senate shall exer¬ 
cise the office of Governor until he be aetjuitted, or until anolhei^ 
Governor shall be dnly Qualified. In case of the impeachment of 
the Speaker of the Senate, or his death, removal from office, res- 
ienatfon, or absence from the State, the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives shall succeed to the office, and exercise the 
duties thereof, until the Govenior shall be elected an d qualified . 

Mr. LEECH. Tlie whole object of my motion, Mr. 
President, will be readily discovered by all. The mo¬ 
tion is simply to instruct the committee to so amend 
their report, as to dispense with the oflice of Lieutenant 
Governor. 

1 consider this office entirely unnecessary—that its 
incumbent would be a mere sinecure. What, sir, is 
the argument which has been adduced in favor of the 
creation of this office ? It has been contended here, 
that “ the disorganizing scene ” which occured in our 
State Senate, last winter, furnishes a sufficient reason 
why we should have a Lieutenant Governor in this 
State. This is the principal, and in fact, almost the 
only reason that has been urged by the advocates oi 
the new office, in favor uf its creation. The argument 
may be all sufficient to satisfy the minds of gentlemen 
in this chamber ; but it has utterly failed to work con¬ 
viction in my mind. Would it be wise and politic to 
create this permanent office, for the purpose of provi¬ 
ding for a mere contingency of that kind—a contin¬ 
gency that has occurred only once since the com¬ 
mencement of the State Government, and which may 
never again occur? I think not. On the contrary, 1 
am convinced that it would be the very reverse—that 
it would be unwise and impolitic in the extreme. To 
use a homely adage, “ the cure would be worse than 
the disease.” 

Sir, I am in favor of “ a light and simple Govern¬ 
ment.” I shall, therefore, oppose, as for as my influ¬ 
ence and my vote will extend, the creation of this un¬ 
necessary officer—this mere sinecure, that is proposed 
to be quarted upon the public Treasury, to aid in 
eating out the substance of the tax-paying people of 

Ohio. , , , , . 

I\ir. BENNETT said he supposed that the object of 
this amendment was merely to abolish the office of 
Lieutenant Governor. If such was the case, he want¬ 
ed to know what the gentleman would do with the 
LieuUuiant Governor provided in the fifteenth section ? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, said, that as it was 
merely a question whether we should have a Lieuten¬ 
ant Governor or not, he would demand the yeas and 

nays upon it. 

Mr. LEECH said,hisinstructions weredrawnup hast¬ 
ily and he had overlooked one thing. He now moved 
m amend hisinstructions by providing to strike out 
the fifteenth section; which was agreed to, unanimous- 

ly* 

Mr. RIDDLE hoped the question would not be open¬ 
ed again. It had been debated both at Columbus and 

^^^Mr. MITCHELL had become alarmed at the great 
number of offices we were creating. He had original¬ 
ly been in favor of creating this office, but on reflection 
had been induced to think it unnecessary. 

Mr. MANON was opposed to the creation of the 

^^r. WORTHINGTON had ever been opposed to the 
office'of Lieutenant Governor. He had voted against 
it recently, in a very lean minority. He looked upon 
it to use the expression once employed in relation to 
the creation of the office of Vice President of the Uni¬ 
ted States, that the most proper title of such an officer 
would be His most superfluous Highness. 

Mr. MORRIS had from the beginning been opposed 
to this innovation. He had moved to strike it out in 


committee of the Whole, but had failed.^ He looked 
upon the officer as about as useless as the fifth wheel of 
a wagon. 

Mr. HENDERSON spoke of the position he occu¬ 
pied. He had voted against the creation o£ the office 
of Lieutenant Governor. He had done so because it 
was one to which our people were unused, and one for 
which few if any of them had petitioned. It is true it 
makes provision for contingencies which may occasion¬ 
ally happen. The Senate may not be able indepen¬ 
dently of some such officer, immediately to organize 
and proceed to business. But such contingency had 
but once occurred in the history of the State, and 
might be provided for by some more simple and eco¬ 
nomical provision. In a petition presented by myself 
a few days ago, it is asked that the per diem of mem¬ 
bers of the General Assembly, be withheld until they 
organize. Again, it has been proposed, that either 
House should be called to order by some executive of¬ 
ficer, or the oldest member of the body’^, who should 
preside until an election of officers was held. And it 
has been suggested that, should two individuals receive 
an equal number of ballots for Speaker, owing to an 
equal division of parties, and neither of them be wil¬ 
ling to give way, the contest might be decided by lot, 
after a given number of ballotings had taken place. 

Again the office of Lieutenant Governor provides for 
a vacancy, which may occur by the death or resigna¬ 
tion of the Governor. But such vacancies have occur¬ 
red not more than two or three times since the adop¬ 
tion of the constitution, and as our elections for Gov¬ 
ernor are biennial, but for short periods, and the duties 
of the office, so far as I am apprised, were well per¬ 
formed by the Speakers of the Senate, who were elec¬ 
ted to preside over that body with express reference to 
such a contingency. And now I ask, is it wise, in view 
of these facts, to make permanent provision by an ad¬ 
ditional salaried officer for contingencies which, judg¬ 
ing from the past, must necessarily be few and far be¬ 
tween, and of short duration 1 It seems to me, sir, in 
unedical parlance, the remedy would be worse than 
the disease—the remedy would be permanent, while 
the disease would be but temporary. 

A few days ago, when the report was before us, the 
very qualified veto with which it was proposed bv the 
committee to invest the Governor, was stricken out. 
In that vote I did not concur, as it leaves our Chief Ex¬ 
ecutive Officer precisely where he is now”, divested of 
almost all power and patronage, and incapable of ex¬ 
erting any efficient check on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment. And now, sir, since that step has been taken, I 
cannot consent to place two men of straw at the helm 
of State—men w'ho are mere shadows. To my taste 
one is more than sufficient. Toborrowthe classic allu¬ 
sion, so often used by the gentleman from Monroe, 
[Mr. Archbodd,] I cannot consent to introduce a god 
on the stage when there is no nexus or knot to be sev¬ 
ered for which omnipotence only is adequate. 

Should the proposed oflice be created, 1 need not 
speculate on the political prospects before us. They 
will develope themselves in due season. I can imag¬ 
ine the coalition between different sections of the State, 
to secure the nominations for Governor and Lieutenant 
Governor; the distinct embodiment of different shades 
of interest and opinion in these two individuals, and 
their combined efforts to secure their election by divi¬ 
ding the labor of stumping the State, as suggested to 
us by the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell.] 
But I will not push these political speculations further. 
“Sufficient for the day is its evil.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, said that wo might 
if we w’ere so disposed, dispense with the Governor. 
There would be as much propriety in dispensing with 
the office of Governor, as that of Lieutenant Governor. 
The President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives might exercise the office of 
Governor. Gentlemen talk of the expense of the 
office. They are very much afraid sometimes of small 













CONVENTION IlEPORTS. 


matters, while they get over large ones with great ease. 
The Lieutenant Governor gets no salary. He is mere¬ 
ly the j)residing otlicer of the Senate, and Vico Cover 
nor. As presiding oflicer of the Senate, he gets his 
per diem allowance, and that is all. Nor is it an un- 
comraoii contingency that the State is deprived of her 
Governor. During the fifty years that the government 
has existed, there have been five times when the Pres¬ 
ident of the Senate has been called on to exercise the 
office of Governor. In such a case, would not the 
people prefer an oflicer elected from the State at large 1 
The question being on the adoption of the instruc¬ 
tions, the yeas and nays having been demanded, the 
result was—yeas 34, nays 62—as follows; 

Yeas —Measrs. Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Curry, Ewart, Forbes, Gillett, Green 
of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Holt, Hunt, Ken- 
non, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Manon, Mitchell, Morris, 
Peck, Qiiigley, Reemelin, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Stark, 
Wilson, Worthington andPresident—34. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrew's, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, 
Florence, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hoot- 
man, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Larsh, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, McCloud McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Ranney, Riddle, Saw¬ 
yer, Smith ol Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stan- 
bery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Way, Williams and Wood¬ 
bury—62. 

So the Convention refused to adopt the instructions. 
Mr. HOLT moved further to instruct the committee, 
by requiring them to insert in the first section, after 
the word “ Auditor,” the word “ Com.ptroller.” 

Mr. HOLT said he was willing to adopt the sugges¬ 
tion of the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] 
to modify his motion, so that it should read, “ such 
other offices as may be provided for by law.” He 
thought such power should be left to the Legislature, 
and that it ought to be in its hands.' 

Mr. CHAMBERS was opposed to both the motion 
and the modification. Ho did not want to put it in the 
power of the Legislature to multiply officers. If they 
had the power, they v^rould doubtle.«8 exercise it. He 
did not understand the difierence between Auditor and 
Comptroller. He had supposed they were the same 
thing. He was opposed to this eternal creation of of¬ 
fices. He thought it would stink in the nostrils'of the 
people. 

Mr. BENNETT moved that the Convention resolve 
itself into committee of the Whole ; which was agreed 
to, and the chair was taken by Mr. Sawyer. The re¬ 
port under consideration was that of the standing com¬ 
mittee on the preamble and Bill of Rights- 

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. 

The question being on the amendment to section 16, 
ofiered by Mr. Archbold yesterday, 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said the principles of this amend¬ 
ment had already been much discus.sed. The ohjeci 
of the amendment is to declare the first j)rinciplc8 of 
government. It is, in substance, that government is an 
agent for the preservation of the peace and the protec¬ 
tion of the citizen. It is said that a frequent recur¬ 
rence to first principles is necessary. Now, there is 
no doubt but it is the feebleness of men that drives 
them into society. Mr. Madison has said: “If men 
w'ere angels, there would be no need of government.” 
The real design of government is to coustitue a judge, 
in order to prevent a resort to the club and the dagger, 
for the settlement of disputes. It is therefore because 
men are weak, immoral, and imperfect, that they need 
the muniments which collectively they throw around 
each other. 

Government is not organized for the purpose of en¬ 
tering into commercial speculations, and it would be 
as wrong for the State to enter into the manufacture of 
iron, as the building of canals and railroads. The sys¬ 
tem of internal improvements must, in its very nature 
be unjust. This he looked upon as its only redeeming 


979 


feature, because it would bring it to an end. To make 
it equal, would sink the treasury of the Indies — it 
would be a vast Serbonian bog, which would absorb 
the wealth of the world. 

But he desired to call the attention of gentlemeu to 
another feature in our social system. The view is this: 
that w e provide for the moral purity of our government, 
by returning it to its original functions. The preserva¬ 
tion of social order, is the duty of our State govern* 
meats and we are to consider one great feature—ho\’^ 
cheajia government we can have. Brought to its real 
functions, our government would cost about one hun- 
di'ed and fifty thousand dollars per annum, now it is 
over two millions. 

There is something morally sublime, in this endeavor 
to restore government to its original functions. Since 
1825, the business of government lias become inordi¬ 
nate, on account of the great interests the State has 
undertaken. The enormous patronage that has been 
the result of this system, has carried party spirit to a 
fearful height, and caused a broad stream of corruption 
to flow through the length and breadth of the land. 
We Want to return to the pure and simple standard of 
seventy-six, and to take away these enormous encour¬ 
agements to corruption. 

There is an attempt here on this floor, to bring men, 
representing dift'erent interests and dift'erent constitu¬ 
encies, to support the same set of principles—princi¬ 
ples which perhaps they never heard of among their 
constituent.s. Now it is impossible to bring sixty men 
of difierent constitutions of mind and education, to all 
think precisely alike. He would tell these gentlemen 
an anecdote of Charles the Fifth, after he resigned his 
crown. It is said that in his retirement he attempted 
to regulate twelve watches to go in precisely the same 
time. He found it impossible, and the tyrant of Spain 
Germany and the Indies, was forced to acknowledge, 
that he could not bring even the twelve machines to 
act exactly in unison. In this he learned a lesson, and 
by it we may learn, that if this is so difficult, how 
much more so is it to bring men to act thus as mere 
automatons. He proceeded to speak of the animad¬ 
versions of the public press, upon the course pursued 
by some gentlemeu of the Convention. 

Mr. REEMELIN wished to ask his friend from Mon¬ 
roe [Mr. Archbold,] whether exempting from taxa¬ 
tion, was not as severe a mode of taxation as any di¬ 
rect mode known to the law. There are now iu Ohio 
fifteen millions of railroad stock which are exempt 
from taxation. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD was as ready as the gentleman to 
go for the taxation of railroads. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The gentleman’s proposition does 
not go far enough. We are in no danger from taxation 
to build public works. It is in another quarter. He 
desired only to put a little more truth into the gentle¬ 
man’s proposition. 

Mr. TAYLOR wished to say a few words in relation 
to the remarks of the gentleman from Monroe, frequent¬ 
ly made in relation to the public press of the country^ 
The press of the country is entitled to a high rank only 
as a vehicle of news. As a veliicle of opinion, it is a 
mere reflection of the public mind. It is doubtful 
if it ever can be any thing else.^ Take any newspaper 
and compare it with the tone of public sentiment, and 
it will be found to follow, not to lead. It is the mere 
echo of the public sentiment behind it. Let the gen¬ 
tleman hold the principal and not the agent, to the re¬ 
sponsibility which he desires to impose. It is idle for 
any man to suppose that as a journalist he can be a 
leadei. To attempt this is to fail- The press, as I 
said, is valuable only as a vehicle of news; beyond this 
they are but the the mere echo of what is moving 
around them. 

Mr. HAWKINS thought we might dispense with the 
political truisms contained in the amendment. He was 
in favor of the principle declared, but thought the dec¬ 
laration of them unnecessary, and should therefore vote 












980 


CONVENTION IIEPOIITS. 


against the amendment. The gentleman had some 
liu'.es lectured us upon }»utting too many things into 
the constitution ; he thought he would do well to le- 
member his own lecture a little. He had no fears 
as to what might be left out of this constitution. He 
was much more afraid of what would go in. 

He was not disposed tn enter into a cpiarrel with the 
public press. He cared little what they saitl about 
him. He thought they were rather bad exponents of 
pul)lic opinion, and were more frequently controlled 
by Uicre political cliques, than by any well defined 
popular sentiment. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Goauga, inquired if there was 
anything in the amendment about the public press ? 
It might affect bis vote. 

The CHAIRMAN said there was not. 

Mr. MITCHELL said it was a discussion upon the 
strength of the Democratic party. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD proceeded to define his opinions 
of the functions and duties of the public press. 

Mr. RANNEY called the gentleman from Monroe 
[Mr. Archhoi.d] to order- He was wandering from 
the point in de])ate. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD proceeded. He had made no at¬ 
tack upon the public press. He never intended to do 
so. He had a high respect for it, and had never intend¬ 
ed to array himself against it as an exponent of the 
popular opinion. 

Mr. NASH said: 
questions involved in this amendment, as to enter my 
protest against the truth of it. I am surprised to hear 
men saying this abstraction is true. I deny its truth. 

I pronounce it the essence of errors, wide-spread and 
dangerous. This amendment asserts that there are 
but three legitimate objects for government interfer¬ 
ence, and hence for government taxation ; and these 
are: first, to keep ihe peace; second, to promote social 
order; and third, to provide for the public defence. 
This reduces government to a mere instnimontality, to 
keep die [leace internally and externally. To preserve 
order, seems to comprehend the whole end and aim of 
governmeiil, according to this abstraction. Can gov- 
eiumeiit aspire to no higher function than that of a 
police officer ? Has it no other duties to p rform than 
to declare crimes and to punish them ? Where are all 
the great interests of humanity, which are commanding 1 
so much of the attention of the [n’esent generation ? ' 
What are your acts of emancipation—of education? 
Where are your colleges and academies, your whole 
machinery of education? Where is all your legisla¬ 
tion restraining trades and practices which tend to cor¬ 
rupt public morals? Where are your laws looking to 
the im)irovemenl of the State in its means of intercourse 
and communication? By what authority are roads 


I do not rise so much to argue the 


made, bridges constructed, railroads laid down ? The 
gentleman’s ideas of government are erroneous, entire¬ 
ly too restricted. If his theory be true, then the whole 
history of the world has been wrong. All your harbor 
and river improvements, all your State and county 
roads, all yonr canals and railroads, have been construc¬ 
ted directly iu the teeth of the gentleman’s theory, and 
directly against and iu violation of natural right, as ex¬ 
pounded by him. 

Sir, government has a higher object. It not only 
exists to secure the ends alluded to here, but for other 
and higher ends. Its duties look to the great inter¬ 
ests of humanity, to securing the means for the physi¬ 
cal development of a country, so that labor may se¬ 
cure its highest rewards, and for the intellectual and 
moral improvement of a people. A government which 
does not regard the elevation of the individual and the 
masses above all other duties, fails to discharge its 
highest functions. To render a people ^reat and hap¬ 
py, its soil must be highly improved, its agriculture 
and manufactures be encouraged, and its access to 
market be rendered easy and cheap, while the people 
themselves must be educated and moral. Now, this 
theory, here put forth, declares all these great inter¬ 


ests without the pale of g^overumeiit action. Why, 
sir, this is keeping order anti the peace, while the peo¬ 
ple may relapse into barbarism. If a portion of the 
people refuse to educate tliemselves and ibeir chil¬ 
dren, refuse to improve the soil, and waste their ener¬ 
gies in idleness, has government no power to require 
one and all to execute their duties, to cease Ifom idle¬ 
ness, and educate themselves and their children ? If 
not, then barbarism is nearer the true theory of gov¬ 
ernment than our boasted civilization has ever at¬ 
tained. 

But this theory goes still further; it cuts up, by the 
roots, all ameliorations and improvements. If govern¬ 
ment has no right to raise money to make a road, a ca¬ 
nal, or a railroad, what right has it to pass laws empow¬ 
ering others to do what it has no right to do itself? 
The government can transfer to others no greater pow¬ 
ers than it itself possesses; and as government cannot 
construct a railroad, it can by no act empower others 
to do it. Here, then, by this theory, the country is 
brought to a stand still, and every step of future pro¬ 
gress is left to individual efibrt and enterprise. This, 
in my opinion, demonstrates the ulfer'absurdity of the 
gentleman’s propositi.)!]. 

And yet, the geullemau claiii s that such taxes vio¬ 
late the social compact. Sir, 1 thought this theory of a 
social compact had become to be regarded as too ab¬ 
surd, for any one to think of again galvanizing it into 
vitality. The whole theory ot a social compact is not 
only absurd, but absolutely blasphemous. It assumes 
that man is not born under law—under government. 
If he is not so born, how does he become a subject of 
government? He is never asked whether he will be 
under government, or not; whether he will submit to 
law or follow his own unbridled will. In point of fact, 
no one ever entered into such a compact. 

Nay, more. What right have two men to make law 
for a third, if he chooses to deny their right—refuses to 
assent to it? If I am free to choose my own course of 
life, to say whether I will be iu government or out of 
it, under law or out of it—why is it that in practice a 
majority can make a government and law to bind a 
minority ? 

Sir, the whole theory is wrong. It came from the 
infidel philosophy of Hobbs and his successors. It 
assumes that man is an independent being, at liberty 
to choose his own course cf life, the law b^y which he 
will be governed; or that be may deny to be governed 
by an law at all. This is tlie idea of man which this 
philosophy assumes. But is this idea true iu theory 
or fact? Ls man an independent or dej)endent being"? 
Is he born under law, a law from which he cannot 
emancipate himself; or is he born without law, free to 
settle his own code, free to come under its restraints 
or not, just as he chooses ? 

Now, sir, govciimient is a divine institution; not 
the invention of man, but the appointment of God. 
Its existence pre-supposes a government, and law un¬ 
der a government is a necessity. It exists indepen¬ 
dent of our will, and without our content. Law lays 
its restraining hands upon us, from the moment we 
open our eyes upon this glorious earth, and it follows 
us oil all the way to the grave-yard. Aud we can no 
more escape from its jurisdiction than we can escape 
from the earth we inhabit, or the air we breathe. Man 
is a dependent being, unable to exist a day without 
the kindness and aid of his fellows, and the jirotecting 
wisdom of his great Creator. If he would cease to be 
dependent, he must give up society—relapse into bar¬ 
barism—live the life of isolation. 

No sir, Government is founded on no such weak and 
miserable device, as a social compact. It is of divine 
origin ; not the invention of man—but the appointment 
of God. Its existence pre-supposes a government and 
a law, under and above human government; a gov¬ 
ernment and a law, which men ought to obey_but 

which they do not. As subjects of God’s government, 
man has certain inalienable rights, of which humau 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


981 


goverinnent cannot deprive him. It is because men 
violate these inalienable rights—will not be obedient 
to God’s law ; it is in this fact, that arises the necessity 
for human government. There must be a power 
which can legally lay its hands upon the offender, and 
protect Olliers from his lawlessness. 

Hence, human governments cannot be perniilled to 
set aside the laws of divinity, and interpose between 
man and his Maker. Whenever it does this, then is 
resistance to government obedience to God. 'Here is 
the true foundation of all government; and how infi¬ 
nitely higher does it rise in our estimation, when we 
regard it in the true light! In the one case, we look 
only upon the cunning device of man ; in the other, 
upon the ordination of God. In the one case, the ad¬ 
ministrators ol government are alone responsible to 
man ; in the other, they are the servants of God, as 
well as of man—alike responsible to Him, as to them ; 
but never pin his responsibility to man justify him in 
violating his duty to God. How do, also, the functions 
of government become elevated! It is no longer a 
device for repiessing disorder. It is, al^o, an instru¬ 
ment of amelioration, co-operating with God himself, 
in bringing back this earth to its primeval beauty, till 
it shall become a garden home for man—and man him¬ 
self to his original purity; to that highest freedom- 
voluntary obedience to law. Ihis attained, peace and 
good will will once mere become as universal as hu¬ 
manity. 

Here, then, we find ample authority for all govern¬ 
ment acts, looking to the physical well being, and the 
moral and intellectual progress of humanity. When 
engaged in this duty, it is fulfilling the appointment of 
its divine Founder. 

I have thus stated the grounds of my dissent to this 
abstraction ; my denial oi' its truth. It would rec]uire 
a volume to argue these fundamental truths, and I must 
therefore omit all argument. I could not do less, with¬ 
out permitting it to abroad, that this body, and the 
people of Ohio, admitted the truth of this proposition. 
I could not consent to this, without a dereliction of 
duty. This discharged. I leave the subject lor sober 
reflection, and mature deliberation. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
x\rchboli) ; the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. SMITH, ol Wyandot, moved further to amend 
the section, by sti ikiug out all after the word “done.” 

The question being on the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment; the same was disagreed to—yeas 33, nays not 
counted. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to strike out section IG; which 
was disagreed to. 

Sec. 17. No hereditary emoluments, powers or privileges, 
shall ever be grunted or conferred in this State. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to amend said section by 
inserting after the word “ heieditary,” the words, “ or 
other S])ecial or exclusive immunities, title.c.” 

Mr. REEMELIN said he had looked vvith some soli¬ 
citude for thi.s report, because of the great considera¬ 
tion which was supposed to liave been given to it. He 
had been some what surprised when the report came to 
light. The committee had provided against a great 
number of evils that can never exist, but they had 
omitted other.s which were living all around us. They 
provided against hereditary titles, so that there .shall be 
no Lord Stanbery, no Earl Nash, no Baron Von Groes- 
beck, no Count Von Mason ; but they had failed to se¬ 
cure us agtun.st that system of perpetual succession, 
now growing up under oiir acts of incorporation, by 
vediich the laws of succession are changed, and all the 
rights belonging to an hereditary nobility are secund 
in almost precisely the same language. Unless you 
provide that no special or exclusive privilege shall be 
held in this State, yon have not accomplished the duty 
to which you were delegated. Tlit ie are special priv- 
ile ges, special honors, special einolumeut.'i, enjoyed in 
the State of Ohio, that are in violation of the grea and 
lundamental principles that lay at the foundation of our 


government. I ask that we shall apply the remedy to 
the real, and not to the imaginai’y evils that exist 
tirouud ns. 

Mr. SWAN wished to inquire how the right of way 
could be secured under his amendment? 

Mr. REEMELIN. That is not a special right, nor an 
exclusive privilege. It is for ihe benefit of all; and 
it is for the public good that it is taken, and llie right 
is enjoyed. He did nut deny the right of association, 
but it should be under general laws; but would pro¬ 
vide that they should be placed upon the same ground 
as individuals. 

Mr. GROESBECK said, the declaration in the report 
was a copy of the old constitution, and he thought it 
would not be amiss to adopt it again. To have put in 
the provision of his colleague would have been mu as¬ 
sumption of authority over the doings of other com¬ 
mittees, and would have taken the ground legitimately 
to be occupied by them. 

II we adopt this amendment, we must do away with 
the very report which he himself had signed—the re 
poit of ihe committee on Corporations. The committee 
on the subject of Preamble and Bill of Rights has 
done its duty modestly. It has not attempted to do 
the dutie.s of all the other committees. 

Mr. REE.MELIN said he did not intend to compete 
with his colleague [Mi\ GROiSBECKj in special plead¬ 
ing He will find, however, that it is inevitable that 
reports of committees will overlap, and in a certain de¬ 
gree interfere with each other. He thought, however, 
the subject not improper in this connection. It deals 
in hereditary rights and privileges—it asserts a {)riuci- 
ple. This is a declaration of rights, and if there is a 
place in the world where such a declaration ought to 
go, it is here. There is nowhere else that it can go, 
or does belong. 

Mr. NASH. It seems there are some things that 
have an astonishing vitality. This question of corpor¬ 
ations is one of them. He thought it was a waste of 
time, and he protested against the eternal recurrence 
of these questions, to be debated over and over and 
over again. He was prepared to acquiesce in the de¬ 
termination to which the Convention might come ; for 
after having delivered his opinions, and given his vote, 
he had discharged his duty. 

He wished to say one word upon the attacks con¬ 
stantly made by the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Reemki.ix] upon all who are opposed to him in opin¬ 
ion, charging them with being in favor of exclusive 
privileges, and other impeachments of the like nature. 
He was not disposed to bow to the opinions of a gentle¬ 
man who had come to this country to set hiinselt up as 
a model Democrat of the State, and to denounce every 
man who docs not come up to his standard of Democ¬ 
racy. 

He tells ns that when we get honest judges, we 
shall have these questions settled right. Does the 
gentleman know what he is saying? Does he know 
that he is calling in question the decisions of a judi¬ 
ciary selected from the very best men in the country, 
for the last half century ? What right has that gen- 
man to bring in here his imported new light and not 
only advocate it, but denounce as an ai;jstotpt eve¬ 
ry man whose standard of heliid is not precisely his 
own ? 

This will do well enough perhaj'S in the country 
from which the gentleman had his origin. _ There they 
have their own peculiar manner of settling constitu¬ 
tional questions. Here, if a wrong has been commit- 
ed by a legislative body, tlie remedy is discussion, ag¬ 
itation, and repeal, by the legitimate powers of tbe 
government. There the opponents oi an unpopular 
law descend into the streets; they arouse the popu¬ 
lace, barricades are erected, batteries are planted, aud 
an appeal to arms, the shedding of blood, and the em- 
ploylnent of the jiowers of iron and lead are called in¬ 
to use, fis the peaceful aud iulelligent remedy for that 
which the loaders of the movement deem to he im¬ 
proper in the laws they are colled upon to obey. 














982 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


But the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Ueemelin] 
complains that the committee have reported an old 
clause of no value—w'holly obsolete—when it should 
have reported the proposition now offered by him. The 
committee, sir, adopted the only sensible rule; it made 
the old bill of rights the basis of their report, including 
all its provisions, saving some already included in pri¬ 
or reports. The committee did not desire to introduce 
any new fangled notions by way of exhibiting their 
own illumination, as radicalism. This, in their opin¬ 
ion, was the best way to promote the dispatch of busi¬ 
ness, and bring the labors of this Convention to a close. 

But this modest way of doing one’s duty does not 
meet the approbation of the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton, [Mr. Reemelin.] This is truly painful to ihecom- 
mitte \ Now the gentleman ought to consider that the 
committee have not enjoyed the teachings of two con¬ 
tinents, as he has ; have not been illuminated as by the 
new lights, have not been made acquainted w’ith the 
latest importations from abroad. If he had been so 
kind as to intimate to the committee his wishes on the 
subject; had he been kind enough to have submitted 
his views to it, we would have received his suggestions 
with all respect, and have deliberately considered them. 
The gentleman should therefore be sparing of his cen¬ 
sures ; should have some compassion on the limited 
knowledge of the committee, when compared with his 
I’are advantages and illumination. As the gentleman 
knows what the latest imported notions are, he should 
have notified us, who have not the same facilities for 
recent information,for new light from abroad. Since, 
however, the gentleman did not see fit to enlighten us 
we must throw ourselves upon his charity for our defi¬ 
ciencies. If we had had access to two continents, had 
been blessed with mingling in the ranks of socialism 
elsewhere, wo might have been able to have met his 
wishes. As it is we have exercised our American sense 
upon the matter; knowing no better, we have appeal¬ 
ed to the old constitution, the wisdom of our predeces¬ 
sors, and the great men of our country, and the report 
is the best result of our undertaking; as such the house 
must dispose of it as to it seems good. 

Nor will the gentleman’s amendment carry out his 
speech. The gentleman’s speech looks to the crushing 
of corporations. Now we have a committee on cor¬ 
porations, and on our action on that report will de¬ 
pend our action on the whole matter, jf we decide 
that acts of incorporation may be ])as6ed by the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, we shall also lay down the terms on 
which such acts may be passed. Then this amend¬ 
ment will be wholly inoperative; because we shall 
have by our action given a construction to this clause ; 
and that construction will exclude corporations from 
its terms. 

But this is not all. If we should fail to make any 
provision on this subject, then another difficulty will 
arise. These words do not necessarily exclude the 
passage of acts of incorporation. The question wheth¬ 
er corporations are the grant of any special or ex¬ 
clusive privileges or immunities, or titles, is still left 
open. 

On this question there is a conflict of opinion; and 
this conflict is left where it now is. Tliis amend¬ 
ment therefore only raises a dispute on which the 
gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] is on 
one side, and the whole country on the other. Now 
an exclusive privilege is one granted to one man. 
or a few, to the exclusion of all others. If every citi¬ 
zen may obtain similar acts, then there is nothing 
exclusive ill it,—nothing like a monopoly. I; would 
therefore seem idle to insert an amendment only to 
create doubt—for the mere purpose of raising a con¬ 
troversy. If corporations are to be prohibited, let it be 
done directly, and in words, which leave no doubt, 
no uncertainty. Such, in my opinion, is the more 
manly course, more consistent with the dignity of this 
body. 

Mr. LIDEY moved that the committee rise and re¬ 
port; which was agreed to. 


So the committee rose, and the chairman reported 
that the committee had had under consideration the 
report of the standing committee on the Preamble 
and bill of Rights, and had come to no resolution 
thereon. 

And, on motion of Mr. MORRIS, the Convention took 
a recess. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

On motion of Mr. BATES, the Convention resolved 
itself into committee of the whole, Mr. Sawyer in the 
Chair, and resumed the consideration of the report of 
the committee on the 

PREAMBLE ANB BILL OF RIGHTS. 

The CHAIRMAN announced the question to be up¬ 
on the ad-.ption of Mr. Reemelin’s amendment to sec¬ 
tion 17 ; namely: after the word “hereditary,” insert 
these words; “ or other special or exclusive immuni¬ 
ties, titles,” so that the section will read: “ No heredi¬ 
tary, or other special or exclusive immunities, titles, 
emoluments, honors or privileges, shall ever be grant¬ 
ed or conferred by this State.” 

Mr. LARSH said he felt somewhat disposed to vote 
for this amendment, because it seemed to accord with 
a notion which he had entertained for a good while, 
that it was wrong for a portion of the people of the 
country to be born with privileges which do not per¬ 
tain to all. It was in the nature of things, that some 
should be born more wealthy than others; but because 
a man had been raised up in luxury, it was no reason 
that he should inherit special or exclusive privileges. 
And because he was willing to vote for the proposition 
of the gentleman from Hamilton, he hoped that gentle¬ 
man would be willing to vote for a proposition which 
he intended to offer, to the following effect: 

The right of association, for the prosecution of all enterprises, 
for the advancement of the public good, and for the promotion 
ol morality, shall ever be held inviolate. 

The question was now taken upon Mr. Reemelin’s 
amendment, and, upon a division, it was rejected—af¬ 
firmative 22; negative not counted. 

Sec. 18. No power of suspending laws shall ever be exercised, 
unless by the Legislature. 

Mr. LARSH proposed to amend, by substituting 
“ General Assembly ” for “ Legislature;” 

Which was agreed to. 

Sec. 19. This enumeration of powers shall not be construed 
to impair or deny others retained by the yjeople, and all powers 
not herein delegated, remain with the people. 

Mr. GROESBECK moved to amend this section by- 
striking out from the first line the word “powers,” and 
inserting in lieu thereof the word “rights;” 

Which was agreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY said he perceived that the committee 
had left out of this report a number of articles in the 
old bill of rights. He had copied one of them, and 
would move its adoption as an additional section, as 
follows: 

Sec. —. That all courts shall be open, and every person, for 
any injury done him, in his lands, goods, person, or reputation, 
shall have remedy by the due course of law, and right and justice 
administered without denial or delay. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, had no objection to 
the amendment, if it could be carried out. Justice 
should certainly be administered without denial or de¬ 
lay ; but delay could not possibly be avoided in the 
courts, unless they could have a gag law there, as well 
as in this body. (A laugh.) 

The section was agreed to. 

COLONIZATION BY THE STATE. 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER proposed to insert the fol¬ 
lowing, as an additional section of the report; 

Sec. —. Appropriations of money may be made out of the State 
Treasury for the transportation of colored persons who may re¬ 
side in this State, and desii’c to emigrate to the western coast of 
Africa, and to assist them in settling at that place, whenever the 
General Assembly shall deem it expedient and beneficial to the 
citizens of this State 

Mr. BLICKKNSDERFER said there was nothing 
iuleuded by this proposition but to do away with the 


I 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


983 


coustitutional objection, whicli was always I’aised, 
whenever this thing of an appropriation for coloniza¬ 
tion purposes was proposed in the General Assembly. 
The probability was, that such a thing would never be 
undertaken, without first stopping the influx of black 
population into the State. It was merely designed to 
remove the constitutional objection, whenever*such a 
thing might be deemed advisable by the General As¬ 
sembly and the people. The adoption of this declara¬ 
tion might also be productive of good eflects in the 
way of example for the other States. 

Mr. LOUDON suggested that it would be well to 
• guard against the liability of incurring the expense of 
carrying ofl to Alrica all the surplus black population 
which might be thrown upon us by our neighboring 
States oi the South. The blacks had no claims upon 
the people of Ohio—especially that portion of them 
which had come into the State since the adoption of 
the old constitution. Ohio was a State for white men. 
The negroes were intruders among us, and it was un¬ 
reasonable for anv man to claim that it rested upon us 
as a public duty, to transport these people at the ex¬ 
pense of the treasury. 

Mr. HAWKINS proposed to amend the amendment 
of Mr. Blickensderfer, by adding at the end thereof 
the following: 

Provided, That the General Assembly may pass a law as far as 
may be deemed practicable, to prevent the immigration of blacks 
and mulattoes into this State. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, suggested to the gentleman 
from Morgan to make the provision imperative—strik¬ 
ing out “ may,” and inserting “shall.” 

Mr. HAWKINS accepted the modification. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, said he would not object 
to the section, if it left the matter to the discretion of 
the Legislature. It was a power which belonged to 
the Legislalui'e at all events. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, admitted that th^Legislature 
bad the power; and they had attempted to exercise it 
—how effectually eveiy citizen in southern Ohio knew 
full well. The law upon the subject was a perfect 
dead letter. Therefore, it was that he said, if they 
were to have any provision of this kind in the constitm 
tion let it be imperative—for, unless this were done it 
would be very uncertain whether the Legislature would 
attempt to exercise this power or not. 

He proceeded at some length to set forth the neces¬ 
sity of legislative action upon this subject, and amongst 
other things, he said Virginia permitted no manumitted 
slave to remain within her borders; and Ohio had al¬ 
ready become an asylum for the free negroes of Vir¬ 
ginia and Kentucky; and, if it were determined to 
open the door wide for the admission of the blacks, 
and for their elevation to the position of equality in 
political and civil rights with the citizens of Ohio— 
thereby making the State a focus and centre-point of 
attraction for this class of people—if this was to be 
done, it should be done without his vote. 

The presence of the blacks was a nuisance, e.special- 
ly in the southern portion of the State ; and the people 
of this portion of the State would submit to no tax 
more cheerfully than that by which they might get rid 
of this nuisance. There was no division of sentiment 
amongst us in regard to this matter. Gentlemen from 
the northern part of the State could not, by reason of 
their prejudices, understand why this was so. But if 
they were to come down and live amongst us, they 
would get some information upon the subject. They 
would learn this fact, that we were opposed to eleva¬ 
ting the blacks to the same rank with ourselves; but 
that, while we consider them an inferior class of be¬ 
ings, we treat them with the same kindness and faith¬ 
fulness which we extend to all others in the same con¬ 
dition of life ; we feed them well; we pay them well; 
and we do not overtask them. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, said he had supposed, 
when this article was taken up, that it was the design 
to declare certain great principles with which our ideas 


of government should accord. He did not suppose 
that we were about to consider and adopt here an ap¬ 
pendage to the report of the committee on the Legisla¬ 
tive Department. It did seem to him that this propo¬ 
sition was altogether out of place. It was undertaking 
to declare what the General Assembly should do, in a 
part of tile constitution which had no connection with 
the subject. 

Mr. TAYLOR was with the gentleman from Ross in 
his preference for the imperative form of this resolu¬ 
tion. He also pi’eferred “shall” to “ may.” He liked 
to see a bold front, as he despised to see a mean thing 
done sueakingly. If they were going to expatriate 
the negroes, he hoped gentlemen would face the mu¬ 
sic ; and the word “ shall ” being interposed, it would 
afford a better test of the spirit of gentlemen upon a 
call of yeas and nays. 

Perhaps he was imbued with a share of that preju¬ 
dice upon the subject which the gentleman had attribu¬ 
ted to his constituency; but he hoped that, whatever 
of prejudice might have fiilleu to his lot by education 
or otherwise, he should not be led by it into the perpe¬ 
tration of any act of palpable injustice. 

He happened to belong to that political school which 
teaches a belief in human rights and human equality’’ 
and, as he understood the true principles of Democra¬ 
cy, it “had that extent, and no more.” 

In respect to the allusion to the comparative extent 
of the black population in the northern and southern 
portions of the State, it might be that all the counties 
of the Western Reserve did not contain as many color¬ 
ed people as the single county of Ross. And why this 
was so he could not tell, unless it might bo explained 
by the familiar adage, “birds of a feather flock togeth¬ 
er.” But how it should happen that the gentleman 
from Ross, whose constituents are the objects of such 
partiality, could be willing to support this proposition, 
he was utterly unable to tell. 

Perhaps the most effectual guaranty of their rights, 
would be to incorporate the colored people—thus en¬ 
listing, in their behalf, the active championship of the 
Whigs. Their rights, real or fancied, would thereby 
become vested and sacred. For him.^elf, he preferred 
to rest their assertion on the principle of justice—of 
equality—the Democratic principle. 

Mr. HAWKINS believed that the time had fully ar¬ 
rived for Ohio to act in this matter of the colonization 
of the colored population of the State. It had been 
proposed, in the National Legislature, to give aid to this 
class of emigrants, by establishing a line of steamers, 
and he thought Ohio ought to be foremost in seconding 
this motion. He would favor the amendment of the 
gentleman from Tuscarawas, [Mr. Blickensderfer,]) 
but with special reference to the idea of getting clear 
of the black race in Ohio, by the enactment of strin¬ 
gent laws to prevent their further immigration into the 
State. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. The gentleman from Erie, 
had told us that he admired the imperative character of 
the proposition; because, if it were the design to do a 
mean thing, it would be better to go about it in a bold 
and manly manner, than to go sueakingly about it. 
That was presisely his (Mr. G.’s) opinion. Let us do 
what we do in a bold and independent manner. Let 
us say what we mean. 

The proposition was, to prevent, as far as possible, 
the further immigration into the State, of a people, 
whom we consider, beyond all question, a nuisance 
amont'st us. And it was de.sirable to do this by pur- 
suino-a straight-forw'ard course. We did not call in 
any adventitious aid. We did not call in to our aid any 
other influence. Wo did not undertake to make politi¬ 
cal capital out of it. We did not make any appeals to 
the seiise of humanity and philanthropy ; but we in¬ 
tend, simply, to say, there is a nuisance, and we want 
to get rid of it. 

But now, wliat was the course of the gentleman 
from Erie, and others from the North, with reference 















984 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


to this matter, who knew nothing about its practical 
workings ?—who knew nothing about the character oi 
this class of our population; who are totally unac¬ 
quainted with them? Why, they would get uj), and, 
in the name of humanity and universal right, endeavor 
to impress the public mind with the necessity ot throw¬ 
ing wide open our doors to the admission of these peo¬ 
ple amongst us; — when, at the same time, they ought 
to know, perfectly, that we, at the South, must sutler 
the evil, and not tliey. They manifested, politically, 
their regard for these people. But how did they man¬ 
ifest their regard for them when their works might 
show it? They merely went about whining, and en¬ 
deavoring to make political cajiital out of the oppres¬ 
sions of a people of whom they knew absolutely noth¬ 
ing, and endeavoring to enlist in their belialf the sym¬ 
pathies of those who know as little about them as 
themselves. And what for? Was it to promote any 
important end—to elevate the character of the people 
of Ohio, either morally or politically ? Oh, no; but to 
make*a little political capital in particular quarters. 
He would submit, now, which of these two was the 
meaner course: which looked the most sneaking? 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER said, as this section was 
considered out of place in the report before the com¬ 
mittee, he would ask leave to withdraw it—giving no¬ 
tice of his intention to inlrodiice the same or a similar 
proposition at some convenient time, when the legisla¬ 
tive report should be under consideration. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, proposed the following 
amendment, to come in at the close of the seventeenth 
section: 

Nor shall any property be entailed beyond persons in being, 
or the immediate issue or descendants of such as arc in being 
at the time of creating such entail; and any lease, or grant ot 
land, for a longer period than fifteen years, hereafter made, in 
which shall be reserved any rent or service of any kind, shall be 
void. 

Mr. S. remarked, that the law of Ohio in regard to 
the entailment of estates was merely statutory; and 
being impressed that this matter should be in the or¬ 
ganic law, he had offered this amendment. 

The amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. PERKINS proposed the following, as an addi: 
tional section of the report: 

Sec. —. No excise or license duties shall be imposed in this 
State, but ti'ade and commerce among the citizens of the State 
shall always be tree. 

Mr. F- said he had offered this section, because he 
believed this policy to be indicated by the petitions 
which had been sent to this Convention in great num¬ 
bers against the policy of our license laws—allowing 
some individuals to pursue trade iu ardent spirits. The 
sairu; reasons which had led him to believe that the 
policy indicated in these petilioiis was correct, name-, 
ly: That the Stale ought not to license the retailers in 
this trade, governed him with reference to trade in all 
other matters which are the objects of trade and com¬ 
merce among our citizens. He had no doubt that mer¬ 
chants’ and pedlars’ licenses were all wrong in princi¬ 
ple, and he wished to see some general provision in¬ 
serted in the constitution to the eftect that trade and 

commerce among our citizens should always be free_ 

subject, of course, to the market laws, and all other 
general municipal regulations. 

Mr. REEMELIN liked the proposition very much, 
but he was afraid that it was too sensible and demo¬ 
cratic to receive the support of a majority of this Con¬ 
vention. He was afraid it would be fVumd in a vvofnl 
minority. But he would like to go a little further than 
the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Perkins.] He 
would like to protect the occupations and professions 
of men from the encroachments of legislation—especi¬ 
ally the legal professson, which had been a peculiar 
mark of attack in this way. 

With reference to th^amendment of the gentleman 
rom Trumbull he declared himself opposed to all 
liquor-selling, coffee-house and other licenses. He 
hated the very name “license.” If the thing was 
right, let it be done. It was very wrong—proliibit it. 


It was not republican to restrict any thing that was 
right. If one man had a right to sell, every man should 
have the same right. , 

He could understand this principle of granting licen- 
te.«, as exercised by the Autocrat of Russia, upon the 
pretence that all rights came from the Emperor, and 
the Autocrat professed to get his ot God. But there 
was not so good a pretence as that lor the exercise ot 
tills power iu this country. 

He had been much pleased with a pamphlet upon 
this subji.ct, addressed to the British Parliament by 
Mr. Russell, of New York, demonstrating that all spe¬ 
cial taxation was wrong; and, in the carrying out 
of this principle, more than in anything else, was mani¬ 
fested the wisdom of the administration of Sir Robert 
Peel. 

With reference to the pedlars, now oppressed by our 
license law, he remarked that, especially in early times,, 
there was not a more useful class ot men in the State, 
not only on account of the accommodations which their 
goods and ware.s afforded, but many citizens of Ohio 
would not have found out in those days, whether Gen, 
.lackson or Mr. Clay wa.s the President of the United 
States, if it had not been for these early dispensers of 
the earliest intelligence. 

He hoped the word “license ” would never be known 
hereafter amongst the statutes of Ohio; but that all 
the rights of trade enjoyed by one man, would be free 
and open to all. ^ 

The question was here taken upon Mr. Perkins 
amendnieiit, and it was agreed to upon a division of 
the HoUvSe—affirmative 40, negative 39. 

Mr. GRAY proposed the following as an additional 
section of the report: 

Sec. —. The right of the people to thi; security of home shall 
be recognized, and it shall be the duty ot the Legislature to ex¬ 
empt the homestead of every family, ot a I'casonable extent, from 
liability for the payment of debts. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, said ho did not know 
why it was that an individual who happened to be for¬ 
tunate enough to own a little land, should have any 
preference in this respect to aii honest mechanic, who 
happened to be dependentupou his trade for his living* 
He was opjiosed to this distinction. Pie looked upon 
the mechanic to be as necessary to the pro.5perity and 
well-being of the community as the land-holder, and 
our exemption laws should protect the one as much as 
the other. 

The question being now taken upon Mr. Gray’s 
amendment it was rejected upon a division of the 
House—affirmative 24. negative not counted. 

Mr. REEMELIN proposed farther to amend the Re¬ 
port, by adding the following as an additional section: 

No law debarring any citizen from the free and unmolested ex¬ 
ercise and pursuit of any legal trade, occupation, profession, or 
business whatever, shall ever have validity in this State. 

The amendment was disagreed to upon a division— 
affirmative 29, negative not counted. 

Upon motion of Mr. NASH, the committee rose and 
reported back the report of the committee on the 

Preamble and Bill of Rights,” with sundry amend¬ 
ments. 

On motion of Mr. ORTON, the Report and accompa¬ 
nying amendments were laid on the table, and ordered 
to be printed. 

On motion by Mr. McCLOUD, the Convention ad¬ 
journed, 

FRIDAY, .Ianuary 17, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Mills. 

Mr. MANON presented a petition from J. B. Coudit, 
Thomas Smith and sixty othercitizens of Licking coun* 
ty, praying that a clause may be inserted iu the consti¬ 
tution prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing the traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. CHAMBERS presented a petition from Jerome 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


985 


Virden and iiiueteeu olbei* citizens of Muskingum 
county, on the same subject. 

Mr. LOUDON presented a petition from D. F. Lad- 
ley and fifty-four other citizens of Brown county, on 
the same subject. 

Mr. STANBERY presented a petition from Eleanor 
Seegar and fifty-five other females of Franklin county, 
on the same subject. 

Mr. PECK presented a petition from D, W. New’port 
and forty-eight other citizens of Belmont county, on 
the same subject. 

The same geniieman presented a petition from Smith 
Holloway and twenty other citizens of Belmont coun¬ 
ty, on tlie same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. GILLETT presented a petition from Wm. Bech- 
ard and sixty-seven other citizens of Lawieuce conn- 
ty, praying that a provision may be inserted in the new 
constitution, prohibiting all persons of color, who may 
hereafter oome, from settling in the State. 

Referred to the standing committee on Miscellane 
ous Subjects. 

Mr. RIDDLE presented a petition from James W. 
Newbold and twenty-five other citizens of Hamilton 
county, praying that a provision be inserted in the new 
constitution providing for the speedy collection of 
small debt.s. 

Referred to the standing committee on “ Miscellane¬ 
ous Subjects.” 

Mr. RANNEY, from the standing committee on “Fu¬ 
ture Amendments to the Constitution,” made the follow¬ 
ing report, which was read the first time by its title: 
Report No. 1, of the Standing Committee on future amendments to 
the Constitution. 

Sec. 1. Amendments to this constitution may originate in ei¬ 
ther branch of the General Assembly ; and if the same shall be 
agreed to by three fifths of all the members elected to each of the 
two Houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be 
entered on their journals with the yeas and nays taken thereon, 
and shall he published in at least one newspaper in each county 
of the State, where a newspaper is published, for six months 
preceding the next general election for Senators and Representa¬ 
tives ; at which time the same shall be submitted to the electors 
for their approval or rejection, and if a majority of the electors 
of the State, voting at such election, shall ratify and approve such 
amendment or amendments, the same shall become a part of the 
Constitution; provided, that when more than one amendment 
shall bo submitted at the same time, it shall be done in such man¬ 
ner, as to enable the electors to vote for or against each amend¬ 
ment separately and distinctly. kv- 

Sec. 2. Whenever two thirds of the members elected to each 
branch ol the General Assembly shall think it necessary to call a 
Convention to revise, amend or change this constitution, they 
shall recommend to the electors at the next election for members 
to the General Assembly to vote for or against a Convention; and 
if it shall appear that a majority of the electors have voted for a 
Convention, the General Assembly shall at their next session, pro 
vide by law for calling a Convention, to consist of as many mem¬ 
bers as there may be in the General Assembly, to be chosen in 
the same manner, at the same places, and by the same electors 
that choose the General Assembly, who shall meet within three 
months after theirelection, for the purpose'of revising, amending 
or changing the Constitution. 

Sec. 3. At the general election to beheld in the year one thous¬ 
and eight hundred and seventy-one, and in each twentieth year 
thereafter, the question, “ shall there be a Convention to revise, 
alter or amend the Constitution i” shall be decided by the elec¬ 
tors of the State, and in case a majority ot the electors voting for 
Representative- at such election shall decide in lavor of a Con¬ 
vention for such purpose, the General Assembly at its next ses¬ 
sion shall provide by law for the election of delegates, and the 
assembling of such Convention as provided in the preceding sec¬ 
tion; hut in no case shall any amendment of this constitution 
agreed upon by any Convention assembled in pursuance of this 
Article, take etfect or be in force until the same shall have been 
submitted to the electors of the State, and approved and adopted 
by a majority of those voting thereon. 

R. P. RANNEY, E. P. SMITH, 

C. S. HAMILTON, H. C. GKAY, 

On motion of Mr. RANNEY, the report was laid on 
the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. REEMELIN rose to a question of privilege. He 
said he very seldom took notice of any mispresenta- 
tions that might happen to be made in reference to him 
in the public papers, because he believed in the liberty 
of the press in its broadest sense. But tliei’e had, in 


the Ohio Statesman received this morning, appeai’ed, 
in the olficial report of the debates of the 5th instant, 
such an entire p'erversion of his true position, that he 
could not suffer it to pass unnoticed. The misrepre¬ 
sentation is contained in the following paragraph, from 
the Statesman of the 16th instant: 

Mr. KENNON is reported as saying— 

“ Suppose w'e introduce a clause into the constitution of the 
State of Ohio, providing that paper money should be received as- 
a legal tender for debts m this State—and suppose that a member 
of this Convention should support such a proposition; what would 
the anti-bank and hard money delegate from Hamilton [Mr. Ree- 
MELiN] say to that? 

Mr. REEMELIN. I would, if overruled by a majority, submit 
the matter to a vote of the people. 

Mr. KENNON. But you have sworn to support the constitution 
of the United States—you took an oath to that etfect, when you. 
took your seat in this body ; and you can, in view of that oath, 
incorporate no provision in this instrument which contravenes 
any provision ot the federal constitution.” 

Sir, I said no such thing as is there attributed to me^ 
In the reply to the question of Mi’.Kennon, I said, in an 
ironical manner, “ Suppose you submit it to the peo¬ 
ple?” And I said so because I had understood that 
the gentleman from Belmont [Mr. Kennon] favored e, 
propcsition of that kind. But, as above stated, he de¬ 
nied it, and made an able argument to show the absur 
dity of such a course, for whicli I publicly thanked 
him, and as publicly acknowledged it to be my doc¬ 
trine. That part of my remarks is omitted. I say, 
then, in conclusion, that I would under no circumstan¬ 
ces vote to submit a proposition to the people, whether 
the constitution of the United States should be valid in. 
Ohio ; for such an effect would be the result of a vote 
of the people upon the question of paper money. 

I trust the reporter will make the proper correction.. 

Mr. REEMELIN said he had also noticed in the Ohio 
Statesman a complaint that the reporter of this Con¬ 
vention did not furnish a copy of its proceedings to the 
publisher as fast as was proper and necessary, and that 
paper of the 16th instant says that the reports are elev¬ 
en days behind. Now, what I desire is, that if our re¬ 
porter is ten days behind in the performance of his du¬ 
ties, the thing should be investigated, and if he is in 
fault, he should be discharged. I, therefore, offer for 
adoption the following resolution: 

Resolved, That the select committee heretofore appointed upon 
the subject connected with the reporter pf this Convention, be,, 
and the same is hereby revived, and the said committee be, and 
the same is hereby directed to inquire into the cause of the de¬ 
lay of the publication of the debates and proceedings of this- 
Convention, in the Ohio Statesman and State Journal, and to re^ 
port the satne to this Convention. 

Which resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY asked, and was excused from serv¬ 
ing on said committee. 

xMr. CHAMBERS moved that tlie Convention take 
up the report of the standing committee on the Ju- 
dinary, which was agreed to, and the said report wa& 
taken up. 

Mr. KENNON moved that the said bill be recom- 
mited to the standing committee on the Judiciary De¬ 
partment which was agreed to, and the bill was re¬ 
committed. 

Mr. RIDDLE moved that the committee take up the- 
report of the committee on Pu lie Institutions; which 
was agreed to, and the same was taken up, aud the 
amendments made in committee of the Whole were 
read by the President. The Convention then proceed¬ 
ed to consider the same severally. 

The question then being on agreeing to the first 
amendment, to-wit: In section one, line one, strike 
out these words : The institutions for the benefit of 
those classes of the inhabitants of the State, who are 
deprived of reason or any of the senses,” and insert 
in lieu thereof the following : “Institutions lor the ben¬ 
efit of the insane, deaf and dumb, and the blind ;” it 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeiug to the second 
amendment, to-wit: In section one, line five, strike 
out the word “ reasonable,” and insert in lieu thereof 
the word “such;” it was agreed to. 











986 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The question then being on agreeing to the third 
amendment, to-wit: Add at the end of section one 
these words, “ as shall be imposed by the General As¬ 
sembly,” the same was agreed to, and the section as 
amended, reads as follows: 

Sec. 1. Institutions for the benefit of the insane, deaf and 
dumb, and the blind, shall always be lostered and supported by 
the State, and be regulated by law so as to favor all classes alike, 
subject only to such restrictions as shall be imposed by the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fourth 
amendment, to-wit: In section two, lino one, stiike 
out the words ” the Directors of the penitentiary,” and 
insert in lieu the following: 

Three Directors of the Penitentiary shall be elected by the 
people at the first general election after the adoption of the Con¬ 
stitution, one for the term of one year, one for the term of two 
years, and one for the term of three years, and there shall be 
elected annuall}'^ thereafter one Director, who shall hold his 
office for three years. 

Mr. REEMELIN said that there was a difficulty in 
this section which he had not before observed. The 
time will soon come when the State will find it neces¬ 
sary to have one or two additional penitentiaries. In 
such case there will be required more than one set of 
directors, and this section would stand in the way of 
such an arrangement He therefore otFered the follow¬ 
ing amendment: to insert after the word ” penitentia¬ 
ry,” in the first line, the words “or penitentiaries.” 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE thought all the penitentia¬ 
ries of the State should be under the same general di¬ 
rection—having a different Warden to each. He also 
saw no reason for electing by the people the dii'ectors 
of the Penitentiary, while those of the other institutions 
of the State are to be chosen by the Legislature. He 
saw no reason why all of them might not be chosen by 
the General A.ssembly. He did not think the people 
demanded any other mode. His principle was, that 
when the officer is responsible to the people, he should 
be elected by the people ; when to the Legislature, to 
be appointed by that body. 

Mr. CHAMBERS agreed with the gentleman from 
Medina. He thought these officers should reside neari 
the place where their duties ai’e to be performed. He 
saw no reason for applying the doctrine of popular 
elections to the case. He thought they all should bo 
appointed by the Governor, with the advise and con¬ 
sent of the Senate. 

Mr. REEMELIN thought perhaps the best method 
would be to leave the whole matter open to the Leg¬ 
islature. Circumstances might change, and it might 
be deemed advisable to leave the whole matter so that 
three directors might be appointed to control all the 
institutions of the State. 

Mr. RANNElf was opposed to this. He did not 
want to leave this matter subject to party fluctuations. 
He preferred a popular election ; next to this, an ap¬ 
pointment by the Governor. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, moved that the report be 
recommitted to the committee that reported it, with 
instructions as follows: to provide for the appointment 
of the directors of the Penitentiary by the Governor,' 
by and with the consent of the Senate. 

Mr. BENNETT demanded a division of the ques¬ 
tion. 

The question being on recommitment, the same was 
agreed to. 

The question being on agreeing to the instructions, 

Mr. SMITH then, with the consent of the Conven¬ 
tion, withdrew his motion to instruct. 

Mr. RANNEY moved further to instruct said com¬ 
mittee in such manner as to piovide for the election 
of directors of the Penitentiary by the people. 

Mr. HOLMES thought that as the Penitentiary it¬ 
self must necessarily be under the direction and con¬ 
trol of the Legislature, the directors should be elected 
by that body. Ho should vote against the instruc¬ 
tions. 

Mr. KING thought it would be better to leave to the 
General Assembly, the power to choose whether these 


directors should be elected by the Legislature or by 
the people. 

Mr. RANNEY thought it to be a matter of great im¬ 
portance, and that when we shall have sevei’al State 
prisons, it would be better that the jteople have the su¬ 
pervision of the whole by election. 

Mr. HUNTER moved that the Convention re-consid- 
er the vote by which the report was re-committed; 
which was agreed to. 

The question then being on the re-commitment, 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, with the consent of the Con¬ 
vention, withdrew his motion to re-commit. 

The question then being on concurring in the fourth 
amendment made in committee of the Whole, to wit: 
in section two, line one, strike out the words “ the di 
rectors of the Penitentiary,” and insert in lieu thereof 
the following: 

Three directors of the Penitentiary shall be elected by the peo¬ 
ple at the first general election after the adoption of the constitu¬ 
tion ; one for the term one year, one for the term of two years, 
and one for the term of three years ; and there shall be elected 
annually thereafter one director, who shall hold ffiis office for 
three years. 

It was disagreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY having voted under a misapprehen¬ 
sion, moved to re-consider the vote just taken ; which 
was disagreed to—yeas 36, nays 37. 

So the motion v/as lost. 

The question being on agreeing to the fifth amend¬ 
ment, to wit: in section two, line six, insert these 
words, “and other States;” 

It was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the sixth 
amendment, to wit: in section two, lines seven and 
eight, strike out the word “ subsequent;” 

It was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the seventh 
amendment, to wit: strike out the words “ legislative 
enactments,” and insert in lieu thereof, “ law ;” 

It was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the eighth 
amendment, to wit: strike out the words, “ under the 
constitution;” 

It was agi'eed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the ninth 
amendment, to wit: add at the end of section two, 
these words: 

And the question upon all nominations made by the Governor, 
shall be taken by yeas and nays, and entered upon the journal of 
the Senate. 

The same was agreed to, and the section as amend¬ 
ed reads as follows: 

Sec. 9. The directors of this Penitentiary, and the trustees of 
the benevolent and other State institutions, now elected by the 
General Assembly of the State, with such others as may be here¬ 
after created by law, shall be appointed by the Governor, by and 
with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the question upon 
all nominations made by the Governor, shall be taken by yeas and 
nays, and entered upon the journal of the Senate. 

The question then being on agreeing to the tenth 
amendment, to wit: add the following as an additional 
section: 

Sec. 3. The Governor shall have power to fill all vacancies that 
may occur in the offices created by this article of the constitution, 
until their successors in office shall be elected and qualified, or un¬ 
til the meeting of the ensuing Legislature, and the successor con¬ 
firmed and qualified. 

Mr. COLLINGS moved to strike out, in lines two 
and three, these words : “ until their successors in office 
shall be elected and qualified, or;” 

Which was agreed to; and the section as amended 
reads as follows: 

Sec. 3. The Governor shall have the power to fill all vacancies 
that may occur in the offices created by this article of the consti¬ 
tution, until the meeting of the ensuing Legislature, and the suc¬ 
cessor confirmed and qualified. 

The question then being on agreeing to the whole 
bill, as amended, 

Mr. REEMELIN demanded the yeas and nays, 
and being ordered, resulted—yeas 60, nays 28, as fol¬ 
lows : 














CONVEN'ilON REPORTS 


987 


Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfcr, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Cahill, Case ot Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, 
Horton, Hunt, Jones, Kirkwood, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Otis, 
Pock, Perkins, Quigley, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Stilwell, Thompson of Shelby, Way, Williams, and Woodbury— 
60 . 

Nays. —Messrs. Barnett ot Preble, Clark, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, 
Hitchcock ot Geauga, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, King, 
Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Reemelin, Scott of 
Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, 
Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Wilson, Worthington and President 
— 28 . 

So the amendments to the ainendrneuts of the com- 
niittae of the whole were agreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend the second section of 
the report, by inserting after the word penitentiary the 
following words: “ shall bo elected by the people, in 
such manner as shall be provided by law.” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD was in favor of the principle of 
electing all officers by the people, but he was afraid 
that too much might be thrown upon the people^by a 
multiplicity of elections. He wanted to hear more up¬ 
on the subject before he gave his vote upon it. 

Mr. CHAMBERS said that the duties of directors 
were merely ministerial. They had the supervision of 
the accounts of the institution, and ought to live near 
the seat of government. He thought the appointment 
might be better made by the Governor, and there cer¬ 
tainly could be no danger in allowing him to do it. 

Mr. LG ED ON thought the office of director to be 
one of much power. They have indirectly the control 
of several branches of trade in the State. He wanted 
the mechanics of the State to be able to say who should 
have the management of these affairs. 

Mr. SWAN said the gentleman from Brown, [Mr. 
Loudon,] was mistaken in his notions of the power of 
the directors of the penitentiary. They are mere mi- 
nisteria I officers, they have no control of the kind al¬ 
luded to. by the gentleman from Brown. They cannot 
even enter into a contract for themselves, but are en¬ 
tirely under the control of the Legislature. 

Mr. MANON was in general in favor of elections by 
the people, but in this case he saw no danger in en¬ 
trusting it to the General Assembly. 

Mr. LIDEY said there had been gigantic frauds per¬ 
petrated under the present system. He wanted to 
have the directors elected by the people. He thought 
that the Legislature was as liable to make mistakes as 
the Governor. He would go for a law to prohibit the di¬ 
rectors for making any contract whatever. He had been 
on a committee of investigation, and had seen and inves¬ 
tigated cases where the directors, warden and all had 
been engaged in perpetrating frauds upon the public 
Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, moved to strike out of 
the amendment of Mr. Ranney, the words “by the 
people." 

Mr. SMITH was in favor of popular elections, but 
he thought we might have too much of a good thin 
^ He thought this was essentially running the thing in 
the ground. He knew that under all systems such a 


thing as fraud may occur, and such remote contingeii 
cies cannot be all provided against in an organic law 
He w'as in favor of leaving it to the Legislature to di¬ 
rect the mode of election. 

Mr. GILLETT said he was disposed to favor the 
amendment of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. 
Ranney,] for the reason that he had some constituents 
who were printers, whose interests, if printing should 
be introduced into the Penitentiary, might be affected 
thereby. 

Mr. RANNEY thought the importance of these offi¬ 
ces Were underrated. If the appointment were in the 
hands of the Governor, there would be great danger of 
favoritism in the making of contracts. The offices 
would be given to persons in Columbus, andsuch junc¬ 
tion of interest had been known to occur, that colos¬ 
sal fortunes had been built up as a consequence. He 


had rather have the Treasurer and Auditor of State ap¬ 
pointed by the Governor, than the directors oI the Pen¬ 
itentiary. 

Mr. MASON said that precisely the same question 
involved in the present motion ol the gentleman from 
Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] had been directly or indi¬ 
rectly twice before the Convention this morning, and 
had been decided again.st the opinions of that gentle¬ 
man. He could not see the use of again bringing it 
up ; but there were some gentlemen in this body, who 
when a question had been decided against them, would 
bring it up again in some other shape, and in the hope 
they could induce some member to change his vote, 
would agitate, agitate, agitate, until either by accident 
or otherwise they could carry their point. 

In regard to the election of Directors of the Peni¬ 
tentiary by the people, gentlemen might be assured of 
one thing—that it would in fact increase to the people, 
the cost of the Penitentiary three or four fold.^ We 
should have directorsfrom the Maumee, the Miami, and 
the Muskingum valleys—it would be necessary to in¬ 
crease their compensation, in consequence of their dis¬ 
tance from the place their services were rendered, as 
well as their salary or emoluments. This consideration 
perhaps wftuld not weigh much with gentlemen, but it 
did with him. Besides it would be attended with great 
inconvenience to have the board scattered all over the 
State. It is necessary that they sit often. They have 
ministerial duties entering into the detail of the man¬ 
agement of the prison, to perform; It is advisable that 
they be within convenient distance, that in cases of 
sudden emergency they may assemble as speedily as 

possible. 1 1 . . 

The difficulties of the system of popular elections m 
this case, will increase, as the number of the penal in¬ 
stitutions of the Slate is augmented. Wo shall soon be re¬ 
quired to add two or more to the number of these es¬ 
tablishments ] and if the directors of each ot these are 
to be elected by the people, the practice will soon be¬ 
come the sheer mockery of a sound principle, by its 
fla°'rant misapplication. Why, sir, the mere cost of 
making and publishing the returns of these elections, 
and the necessary expense of canvassing the votes and 
commissioning the incumbents, would be greater than 
the present cost of the directory. , t i 

It is an office too, in which the people take little or 
no interest. They do not know who holdsit, and they 
care not to inquire, and believe me, sir, they will not 
thank us for throwing upon them the burden of select¬ 
ing the incumbents. . c i u 

I agree, in general, that the doctrine of election by 
the people is the true one. I would give to the people 
the election of every officer, who is entrusted witli po¬ 
litical power, or whose post is calculated to confer po¬ 
litical influence or consideration; and especially all 
such as have in the remotest degree aiiy "ty, 

which an effect may be produced upon the liberties of 
the people. Bat these directors have no power. They 
do not prescribe what manufactures shall be carried on 
in the shops of the prison. They have not even the 
power to ionclnde a contract for any purpose. They 
are the mere ministenal agents of the Legislatuie. The 
utmost they can do is to suggest; while the represen¬ 
tatives of the people in the General Assembly control 
all, shape all, and regulate all. And i is properly 
though their representatives that the will of t ^ peo¬ 
ple is made operative upon tlie management ol the m- 

“Tnd what if these gentlemen are taken from the vi¬ 
cinity of Columbus 1 What 19 the harm 1 It the con¬ 
venience of the State requires I can see no reason of 
state why they should not reside near the place where 

ley perform keir duties. Nor do I see why the Gov- 

erndr with the advice of the Semte may not select 

with as much skill the men qualified for the discharge 
of the particular duties required, as the people Hiem- 
selves. Besides the popular election of such officers 
will be but the carrying out of the behests of the po- 












988 


CONVENTION EEPOETS, 


liticiii caucus that puts them iti nomination. Now I had 
rather have the selection of a sworn ollicer, than that 
of any political caucus whatever. 

Of the two propositions, I prefer that of the gentle¬ 
man from Wyandot, [Mr. Smith,] but rather than ei¬ 
ther, I should prefer to fix the mode of lilling'the of¬ 
fice in the constitution, and not lea^ve that useless dis¬ 
cretion to the Legislature. 

Gentlemen speak of the matter, as if they were afraid 
to entrust the Governor of the State with so important 
a function as diat of appointing directors of the Peni¬ 
tentiary. Why so ? Of what use is a Governor if he 
have neitherfunction nor discretion ? Gentlemen would 
denude the office of every vestige of that which alone 
can render it respectable. We create a Governor. W^e 
make him, by the constitution, the Commander-in-chief 
of the Annies of the State of Ohio, and the admiral of 
of her Navies; and then we turn him out to grass ! It 
is no objection to an office, that it is important. If there 
are any unimimportant offices let us abolis^h them im¬ 
mediately. We do not want them. We have created 
an executive officer to carry out the law. Give him 
the power to do it. Hero is a minor executive, gene¬ 
ral in its character but limited in its jurisdiction ; and 
where is the injury that can possibly arise from allovv- 
its tenure of office to spring from the Supreme execu¬ 
tive ? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK thought there could be no doubt 
but the directors of the Penitentiary had a very impor¬ 
tant trust imposed upon them. He had found on an 
examination of the law that they were entitled to re¬ 
ceive annually, in payment for their services, the very 
considerable salary of one hundred dollars each—a 
good round sum, as all gentlemen must acknowledge. 
He found, also, on examining the law, that these offi¬ 
cers were entrusted with a very broad, not to say (hin- 
gerous patronage. They appointed the Wbirden of the 
Penitentiary, and they had i)o\ver to appoint the Phy- 
sician to that Institution! Ho hud discovered, also, 
that another important trust was reposed in their 
hands. It was their duty to establish by-laws and 
regulations for the internal government of tiie Peniten¬ 
tiary. Added to this, they were to examine into the 
accounts of the W^arden, and see that he periorrn.^ his 
duty. All these important duties devolve upon these 
officers, and these are all. 

Now, this is certainly important, and wc ought to 
have good men to fill places of so much digniiy. Per¬ 
haps it will be necessary to select them from different 
parts of the State. In such cases, however, we ought 
to increase their salaries ; at least, if we compel them 
to travel from the farthest limits of the State to the 
seat of government, three or four times a year. I in¬ 
cline, however, to the opinion, that the people will 
not care to be troubled wdth the election of these offi¬ 
cers. Foi' my own part, I am willing to trust it to the 
Governor, at least wiih the guidance and advice of the 
Senate. 

As a general principle, I have been in favor of elect¬ 
ing all officers by the people, and I would have carried 
ibis principle through all the provi.sions of the cousii- 
tution, but I w'as opposed in that matter by .some of 
the most ]adical of the reformers of the Convention 
last summer’, at Columbus,-and the rule wa.s broken. 
It was in regard to the appointm mt of comniissioners 
to reform the legal practice of the State. I insisted 
that tliey should ho elected by the people, but tlie 
whole body of law reformers rose up in a body ag.aiiist 
it. They said it was a matter of too much importance 
to be entrusted to the peo]de, and I was ov( riuled. 
Being so, in case of all iniportant offices like those un¬ 
der consideration, I am disposed to trust it to the Go\- 
ernor or the Legislature. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE was in favor of the elec¬ 
tion in general of all officers by the neopie, hut doubt¬ 
ed but ill this case there might be an excejition. He 
thought there would be more propriety in electing the 
Warden than the Director,s by the people. He was in 


favor of striking out the second and third sections of 
the rc’port, and w’ith this view, he would vote on this 
question with especial reference to that. He had not 
fully examined llie report. It is one of much impor¬ 
tance, and he had many doubts in relation to it.s pro¬ 
visions. 

Mr. LARSH would vote for the amendment of the 
gentleman from Wyandot. He did not coincide in the 
election of these oilicers by the people, for the very 
reason that these are important offices, and he did not 
believe the people of his county could judge of the 
qualitications of a candidate in Asiitabula county. The 
knowledge of men likely to become candidate.s does 
not extend all over the State. 

Mr. LIDEY w'as oppo.sed to the whole system of 
penitentiary punishment as now practised. 

'i he question being on the amendment to the amend¬ 
ment offered by Mr. Smith, 

Mr. RANNEY dejiianded the yeas and nays. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved a call of the Convention, 
which was not sustained. 

The question then being on the amendment to the 
ameiuhuent, offered by Mr. Smith, to strike out the 
words "by the people,” the yeas and nays were order¬ 
ed, and resulted—yeas 46, nays 41 —as follows ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickeusderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown ot CaiTolI. Chambers, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, 
Ciilett, Graham, Gray, Hamilton, Ilaidan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Manon, Mason, More- 
head, McCloud, McCormick, Nash Otis, Peck, Riddle, Roll, Scott 
ot Harrison, Smith of tJigliland, Smith of Warren, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Taylor, Way and 
W orthingion—46. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holt, 
Hootman, Huraphrcville, Johnson, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, 
I.eech, Lidey, London, Mitchell, Morris, Norris, Patterson, Per¬ 
kins, Quigley, Ptanney, Reemelin, Sawj'^er, Scott of Auglaize, 
Stehhins, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Town- 
shend, Wilson, Woodbury and President—41. 

So the amendment to the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment, as umeiuJed. 

Mr. RANNEY obtained leave to withdraw his amend¬ 
ment. 

iSIr. MITCHELL offered lo amend the report by ad¬ 
ding, as section four, the following : 

Sec. 4. No art, trade, or calling, in use among the citizens of 
this State, shall be carried on by Jaborers in its penitentiary, or 
other places of correction for crimes or ofi’ences. 

Mr. SAWYER was o[)posed to tiie adoption of any 
thing of that sort. If the citizens of Columbus are op¬ 
posed to the carrying on these trades, and consider 
themselves injured ihereliy, let them expatriate them¬ 
selves. He was in favor of enq4oying the crimiuala in 
any employment in which they can pay for the enor¬ 
mous expense to which the State is subject. 

Mr. NASH .said this was a question of jirison disci¬ 
pline. It wa.s a question in fact, whether any trade or 
calling of any kind shall bo exercised in the Peiiiten- 
tidily- 

Mr. MIlCHELLsaid this was not a question that 
affected the citizens of Columbus alone. It affected 
every honest mechanic in the State. It was no new 
sentiment with lam. The means of conveyance in the 
State were loaded down with the producti«>u of peni¬ 
tentiary labor, coming in competition with the honest, 
the industiiou.s and the virtuous mechanic of the State. 
We are raising monuments to the disgrace oi the State, 
in building niaguificeiit buildings by the labor of con¬ 
victs, thus offending the eyes of cveiy honest mechan¬ 
ic in the State when he looks iq)on them. He did not 
know as ho should live to see the triumph of this prin- 
ci()le, but he was determined to vole for it, if he voted 
alone. He would therefore demand the yeas and nays 
upon the proposition. 

Mr. HAWKINS was in favor of the jirincipie of tiie 
section il it were practicable, but he did not deem it to 
be so. He thought the principal subject of complaint 
arose from the competion from the penitentiaries of 














989 


convp:ntion repokts. 


Ollier Stat',6. Ho tliouglit that lu adoj)t the section 
would be to decree lliat the convicts should be sup¬ 
ported in idleness, and would turn convicts loose upon 
the Stare, prepared only for a repetilion of the crime. 

Mr. GROBSBECK ihougiit this a very serious (pies- 
tioii. It would virtually be the a'.lojttion of the most 
cruel of all known systems of puni.shment—that ot 
solitary continement. l ie did not believe the people 
of Ohio were prepared to adopt such a system. It would 
be tantamount to a declaration that the convicts should 
be subjected to a system of constant, solitary and idle 
confinement. 

Mr. RIDDLE concurred in the opinion of bis col¬ 
league [Mr. Groksukck.] He demanded the previous 
question, which was seconded. 

The que.stion then being. Shall the main queestion be 
now put? the same was ordered. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Mitchell, the yeas and nays were ordered, and result¬ 
ed—yeas 4, nays 79—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Gregg, Hootman, Mitchell and Reemelin—1. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrew’s, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carrol!, Cahill, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Ceilings, Cook, Ew’art, Ewing, Farr, 
Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Green ofRoss, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lar- 
will, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, iNIorehead, Morri.s, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, 
Quigley, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of ^Vyaadot, Stan- 
bery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swilt, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Way, Wilson, Wood¬ 
bury, Worthington and President—85. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

rhe question then being on the engrossmeul of the 
report, 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, wliich 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 62, nays 26—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Chancy, Clark, Collings, Cook, Ew’art, Ewing, Farr, Florence, 
Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Ilolnit-s, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, 
Johnson, Jones, Kirkw’cod, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, More- 
head, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Sawyer, 
Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, Tovvns- 
hend^Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—62. 

Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Cook, Forbes, Gray, Greene of De¬ 
fiance, Gregg, Henderson, Holt, Ilcrton, Kennon, King, I.arsh, 
Leech, Manon, Mitchell, Morris, Norris, Perkins, Quigley, Ran- 
ney, Reemelin, Scott of Auglaize, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger 
and Worthington—26. 

So the Convention ordered the report to be engrossed 
for ils third reading, and to be read a third time to¬ 
morrow morning. 

Mr LARSH moved that the Convention take a re¬ 
cess; which was disagreed to. 

Mr. MANON moved that the Convention take up 
the report of the committee on Banking and the Cur¬ 
rency. 

Mr. MANON thought this report to involve the ques¬ 
tions most interesting to tlie people, and he thought it 
should be acted upon. 

The question then being on taking up the said re¬ 
port, 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays. 

Mr. LIDEY moved that the Convention take a re¬ 
cess ; which was disagreed to—yeas 33, nays not 
counted. 

The question then being on taking up the report of 
the committee on Banking and the Currency, 

Mr. LARWILL demanded a call of the Convention; 
which was disagreed to—yeas 22, nays not counted. 

The question then being on taking up the report of 
the committee on Banking and the Currency, the yeas 
and nays were ordered, and resulted—yeas 46, nays 
45, as follows: 

Yeas—M essrs. Andrews,, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 


nett of Preble, Balc-e, Bennett, lUickensderfer, Brown of Athens 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook' 
Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Harlan' 
Hawkins, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Horton, Hunter, cohnson, Ken- 
non, Larsh, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott ot Harrison, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Wnrien, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Swift 
and Woodbury—<16. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humpreville, Hunt, Jones, 
Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Pat¬ 
terson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Smith oi Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Way, Wilson, Woi’thiugton 
and President—45. 

So tho Cotiventiou ui’derod that the report be taken 

On motion ot Mr. MITCHELL, the Convention then 
took a rece.ss. 


3 o’clock, p. M. 

BANKS ANU THE CURRENCY. 

The question being on agreeing to the report of the 
.standing committee on Banks and the Currency, 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, moved to amend the rej/ort 
by substituting the following for the report of the ma¬ 
jority of the committee: 

That at the same time when the votes of the electors shall be 
taken upon the adoption of this constitution, there shall be sepa¬ 
rately submitted to them, the question of banking, in the manner 
following : 

A separate ballot may be given by every person having a right 
to vote upon the adoption of this constitution, to he deposited in 
a separate ballot box, upon which shall be endorsed the words 
“hard money," or “anti-hard money,” and if a majority of the 
votes thus cast and endorsed shall contain the words “hard mo¬ 
ney,” then, and in that event, the following sectitm shall become a 
part of this constitution, to wit: 

ARTICLE -. 

BANKS AND CURRENCY. 

Sec. 1. The General Assembly shall have no power to create 
or incorporate bank or banking institutions whatever, or to au- 
tliorize the making, emission, or putting in circulation of any bill 
of credit, bond, check, ticket, certificate, promissory note or 
other paper medium, intended or calctilated to circulate as money 
or currency. 

Hec. 2. The General Assembly shall prohibit by law, any per¬ 
son or persons, association, company, or corporation now in exis¬ 
tence, irom exercising the privileges of banking, or creating, 
emitting, or putting in circulation any bank notes or paper of 
any description whatever, to circulate as money or currency. 

fcsEC. .3. The business of loaning and dealing in money, shall be 
left free to all, subject to such restrictions as may be provided by 
law; but no special privileges or exemptions shall ever be grant¬ 
ed to those engaged in, or who may hereatter engage in such bus¬ 
iness.; nor shall any person or persons, either natural or artificial, 
ever be allowed to deal in or issue paper money, so called. 

Mr. CASE, of Lickiug, said he did not rise to give 
his views upon the question of the currency at thi.s 
liine, but he would give his reasons in brief for ofier- 
ing this propn.sition. He had, in common with many 
men on this floor, serious objections to inserting the 
report under consideration in the constitution we are 
about to form. Without saying whether he as an in¬ 
dividual concurred in its sentiments, it was enough 
for him to say, that he believed no one could affirm 
positively that he had rea.sons to believe that it was 
the sentiment of a majurity ot the }»eople of Ohio. 
For that reason, if for no other, he would not put it in 
the constitution, and thus impose upon it a weight 
which, if it did not defeat it, would, in his opinion, 
very much hazartl its adoj*lion ; but he wotild fav’or a 
separate submission of the question, and il adopted 
b 3 ^ a majority, it then becomes a part of the constitu¬ 
tion, but if defeated, still we save the constitution it¬ 
self, provided, however, we do not in other respects, 
^et into it more sinkers than buoys. He considered 
himself pledged to ofter this proposition, and ho be¬ 
lieved that the expectation as well as the desire was 
quite general that this vexed question of the currency 
should be disposed ot in the manner contemplated by 
his proposition. No question had agitated the people 
of this State more. For many years it has been a nrom- 
inent measure of division between two great political 
parties in Ohio, and has not been altogether an unvex- 













980 


CONVENTION REPOETS 


ed question among the democrats themselves. For a 
number of years past the doctrine of this report has, 
in State and County Conventions of that party, beoi 
resolved and re-resolved tlie unadulterated doctrine of 
that party, and if resolutions can settle such a ques¬ 
tion, it must be considered settled, but that the major¬ 
ity of the people favor this doctrine, he thought could 
not be affirmed with great confidence. At all events, 
men differed on that point—many think that that ques¬ 
tion, when it has been before the [)eople, has been so 
mixed up with other considerations, that it could not 
be considered as settled. 

There can be no doubt but that the public expect 
that something should be done by this Convention with 
this question, and my mind is fully made up as to what 
that something .should be, to wit: a separate submis¬ 
sion to the people of this very report—yes, this very 
report. I ain tenacious on this point, for this reason: 
it comes from a strong committee, selected with great 
sagacity, and that committee reported right on the 
heels of a great 4th of July State Convention of the 
democratic party, assembled, it was said, to advise up¬ 
on this question, and the report is in conformity with 
the doctrines then and there proclaimed, except in one 
particular, and he would now draw the attention of 
the committee to that defect. The report requires the 
Legislature to cut up the present banking system at 
once, and requires that body to prohibit banking for¬ 
ever in Ohio, but it nowhere guards against the circu¬ 
lation in Ohio, of the paper of neighboring States. We 
shall have made very little progress towards an exclu¬ 
sive metalic currency so long as we leave that door 
open. 

Mr. MITCHELL. If the report is open to that ob¬ 
jection, it shall be corrected—it was intended to go 
that far, and he thought it did. 

Mr. CASE. No. The gentleman will find that it 
does not. That amendment being made, the question 
can be fairly made. Again, I am the more tenacious 
of this very report, because the Whig party in the late 
political campaign put it at the head of their papers all 
over the State, and declared that it was in issue, and 
that if the Democrats elected their candidate it would 
be considered as an endorsement of that doctrine. 
Well, we elected our man, and they are at least en¬ 
trapped in gainsaying the issue—an issue which, if we 
did not accept and make, we at least did not decline. 
True, we did not obtain a majority vote for our Gov¬ 
ernor, which ill the opinion of some still leaves the cur¬ 
rency question open and undetermined, and which, as 
he before remarked, makes it a proper question to be 
separately submitted. We were not without prece¬ 
dent for his proposition. The question of negro suf¬ 
frage was separately submitted with the present con¬ 
stitution of New York, and sundry questions were sep¬ 
arately submitted with the present constitution of Il¬ 
linois. 

Before he took his seat, he would read a resolution 
upon the currency question, which he prepared last 
summer before the adjournment, and which but for the 
adjournment he should have offered. He at that time 
submitted it to a number of gentlemen, and he believ¬ 
ed it met with some favor. He would not be under¬ 
stood as being wedded to it, but, on the contrary, he 
was fixed in voting first ami last for the amendment 
which he had submitted. 

The resolution alluded to is as follows: 

Resolved, That the following clause ought to engrafted into the 
new constitution, to wit: 

No act of incorporation shall hereafter be created, renewed or 
extended, having banking powers ; but any Legislature, at any 
regular session, may pass one, and but one, general, free banking 
law, with such restrictions and under such regulations as maybe 
deemed proper for securing the bill holder, which law shall he 
submitted to the voters of the State at the then next general elec¬ 
tion, and if then approved by a majority voting on that subject, 
then, and not otherwise, it shall have the force and effect of law : 
provided, that the same may afterwards be amended or repealed. 

The question being upon the adoption of Mr. Case’s 
substitute. 


Mr. RIDDLE moved to recommit the report and 
pending amendment to the committee on Banking and 
Currency. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to recommit the same tf) », 
committee of the whole Convention; on which motion 

Mr. BROWN, of Carrol), demanded the yeas and 
nays, and being ordered, resulted—yeas 11, nays 82—as 
I'ollows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Chambers, Hamilton, Harlan, Haw- 
kins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Nash, Per¬ 
kins, and Stanton—11. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Lick¬ 
ing, Chaney, Clark, Codings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, 
Florence, Fofbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defianee, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Holmes, Horton, Hum- 
pbreville. Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, 
Larsh, barwill. Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Ma¬ 
son, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, 
Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck. Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, 
Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, 
Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Way, Wilson Woodbury, Worthington and 
President—82. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

The question then being on recommitting the re¬ 
port to the standing committee “on Banking and Cur¬ 
rency,” 

Mr. LARWILL moved to lay the bill, with the pend¬ 
ing amendment, on the table. 

On which motion Mr. BATES demanded the yeas 
and nays, and being ordered, resulted—yeas 43, nays 
50—as follows: 


Yeas —Messrs. Bates, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Farr, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holmes, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, Kirkwood, Larwill, 
I.eech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Pat¬ 
terson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll,Smith of VVyan- 
dot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Way, Williams, Wilson 
and President—43. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Baraet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Rase of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Horton, 
Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Manon, Mason, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of 
Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of War¬ 
ren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Woodbury and Worthington— 
50. 


So the motion to lay the report on the table wa.s dis¬ 
agreed to. 

Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the consideration of the 
report and pending amendment be postponed until 
Monday, the 27th inst. 

Mr. TAYLOR moved to lay the report and pending 
amendment on the table ; on which motion, 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays ; and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 43, nays 54—as follows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Grosbeck, Henderson, 
Holmes, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, Kirkw'ood, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Smith ot Wy¬ 
andot, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, a'ownshend. Way, Wilson, and President 
— 4 3. , 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar, 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Green ot Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Ma¬ 
non, klason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, 
Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith 
ot Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Stilwell, Swan, Williams Woodbury, and Worthington—54. 

So the motion to lay on the table was disagreed to- 

The question then being on the postponement of the 
report and pending amendment until Monday, the27tb 
instant, 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays; and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 50, nays 47—as follows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey* 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Haid* 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Humphreville* 









CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


991 


Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Kirkwood, Earwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Li- 
dey, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, 
Hanney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize,Smith 
of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Slidger, Swan, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Way, 
Wilii“J^“^» Wilson, and Presiuoni—JO. 

Navs—M essrs. Andrews, Barbee, Bamet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Collingfii Cook, Curry, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hichcock of Geauga, 
Horton, Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Loudon, Manon, Mason, More- 
head, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stilwell, Woodbury, and Worthington—47. 

^ So the motion was agreed to. 

Mr. DORSEY, on leave, submitted the Ibllovving 
proposition: 

Sec. 1. At the election which shall be held for the adoption of 
this Constitution, the question of “banks” or “ no banks” shall be 
determined by a separate ballot from each voter. 

Sec. 2. If a majority of all the votes cast at such election 
shall be in favor of “no banks,” then it shall be unlawful to make 
emit or circulate, w'ithin this State, any paper medium, intended 
or calculated to circulate as money. 

Sec. 3 If a majority of all the votes cast at such alection shall 
be in favor of “ banks,” then the Legislature shall, at its first ses¬ 
sion after the adoption of this constitution, provide a general 
banking law, embodying the following principles. 

let. The trade in money, comprehending the receiving on 
deposit and loaning on the same, and dealing in bills of exchange, 
shall be open to all. 

2d. No person shall be allowed to issue any bill or evidence of 
debt to circulate as money, until he shall first have deposited 
with'the Treasurer of State, or such other olficer as may be de¬ 
signated by law, a security for the whole amount of such issue, 
which shall consist of United States stock, or stocks of this 
State, or such county or other stocks within this State, as may 
be determined by law, and bills to circulate as money equal to 
the actual par value of such securities shall be furnished by such 
officer as above, alone subject to such provision as may be es¬ 
tablished by law, 

3d. The credit of the State shall never, in any manner, be 
given or loaned, in aid of any individual or any association 
for banking purposes, nor shall the State ever own or be liable 
for any stock in any such association whatever. 

4th. No bill or evidence of debt of a less denomination than 
five dollars, shall ever be issued or circulated as money in this 
State. 

5th. The stockholders of every association, and every individ¬ 
ual issuing bank “notes,” or any kind of paper credit, intended 
to circulate as money, shall be responsible in their individual ca¬ 
pacity for all the debts and liabilities connected with the same, of 
>every kind whatever, 

6th. The Legislature of this State shall have no power to pass 
any act sanctioning, directly or indirectly, the refusal of any in¬ 
dividual or association issuing bank notes of any description, to 
pay the same in specie on demand, and provision shall be made 
by law in tpse of the refusal of any individual or association, to 
pay such demand as above, for the immediate liquidation of the 
same from the proceeds of the securities deposited as above. 

7th. In case of the failure of any individual, or any association 
issuing bank paper, the amount of security deposited with the 
State shall first be applied to the redemption of the circulation of 
such association or individual, deducting therefrom the amount 
of any expenses accruing to the State in the process of liquida¬ 
ting such claims. 

Sec. 4. The existing banks of this State shall be protected in 
the exercise of the powers and privileges granted by their char¬ 
ters, until the legal expiration ot the same, provision being made 
for taxing them as all other property in this State is taxed. 

Mr. ORTON moved that the proposition be laid on 
the table and ordered to be printed which ; was agreed 
to. 

The same gentleman moved that the amendment of 
Mr. Case, of Licking, to the report of the committee 
on Banking and Currency be printed; which was agreed 

to. 

On motion by Mr. MITCHELL, the Convention then 
took up report No. 2, from the standing comm ittee on 

THE MILITIA, 

Sec. 1. That all white male inhabitants, residents of this State, 
being eighteen years of age, and under forty-five years, shall be 
enrolled in the militia, and perform military duty, as may be di¬ 
rected by law. 

Sec. 2. Captains and subalterns shall be elected by those 
persons subject to military duty in their respective company dis¬ 
tricts. 

Sec. 3. Colonels, lieutenant-colonels and majors shall be elec¬ 
ted by those liable to duty in their respective regiments, battal- 
lions or squadrons. 

Sec. 4. Brigadiers General shall be elected by those liable to 

duty in their respective brigades. 

Sec. 5. Majors General shall be elected by those subject to 
militia duty in their respective divisions. 


Sec. 6. The Govenior to appoint the Adjutant General Quar¬ 
termaster General and such other staff officers for the State as 
may be providrd for by law; the Major Generals to appoint their 
division staff; the Brigadier Generals to appoint their bri'^ade 
staff"; the Colonels or commandants of regiments battallions or 
squadrons to appoint their staff", and Captains to appoint their 
non-commissioned officers and musicians. 

Sec. 7. The General .Assembly shall provide by law for the 
protection and safe keeping of the public arms 

JOHN LIDEY, SABIRT SCOTT, 

JAMES^ LOUDON, H. N. GILLET. 

JOSEPH THOMPSON, 

The question being on substituting the report No. 2 
of the committee in lieu of report No. 1, 

Mr. HORTON moved to strike out the word “ to,” 
in section six, line one, and insert in lieu thereof the 
word shallwhich was agreed to. 

The same gentleniaii moved to strike out the word 
“ to,” wherever it occurs in in the section, and insert 
in lieu thereof the word “shall;” which was agreed to. 

Mr. NASH moved to amend by striking out in sec¬ 
tion one, line two, the word “ shall,” and inserting in 
lieu thereof the word “ may.” 

Mr. N. objected to any compulsory provision, requi¬ 
ring the General Assembly to provide for the enrol¬ 
ment and organization of the militia. He preferred to 
leave it optional with that body to provide for the en¬ 
rollment i)f all our citizens from eighteen to forty-five, 
or not. He would be willing for them to organize 
only independent companies, and leave the militia to 
be called out only in the emergencies of war. 

Mr. LIDEY thought the Captain from Gallia could 
not very well understand what he was after. The con¬ 
stitution provided that all the militia of every State, 
should be enrolled. Such was the supreme law of the 
land, which the gentleman had sworn to support; and 
he could not see liow any gentleman could get round 
that. It might be that the gentleman had found him¬ 
self unable to compete with some of the militia officers, 
down there in Meigs and Gallia counties; and this 
might be the true cause of his opposition to organizing 
the militia. 

Mr. LIDEY moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ Shall the main question 
be now put?” It was disagred to. 

The question being upon the amendment of Mr. 
Horton, 

Mr. NASH said it was with great deference that he 
dissented from the constitutional opinion of his learned 
friend from Perry [Mr. Lidey.] The fact was, they 
had hut little experience in military matters down 
where he lived. He knew but little of militia officers. 
There had not been such a thing down there for some 
time. 

A Voice. I hope you don’t call a militia officer a 
thing. [Laughter.] 

Mr. NASH. Pie was sorry that he could not enlight¬ 
en the gentleman from Perry, with respect to these 
matters; but it was a fact that they had not heard of a 
militia training where he lived for some time past. He 
admitted that the constitution of the United States re¬ 
quired the eiirollmeut of the militia, and a great deal 
more than that; but he supposed the constitution of the 
United Stales could not compel the State of Ohio to 
report more militia than they had ; and it they did not 
choose to organize their free white males between eigh¬ 
teen and a hundred, they would not have them. But, 
seriously, every gentleman must know that any at¬ 
tempt to organize the militia of Ohio must prove an 
utter failure. 

Mr. LARSH said it seemed to him that this matter 
might be got rid of iu a summary way, such as was 
suggested to his mind in Columbus; and he would 
have proposed it there but the opportunity was not af¬ 
forded to him. His proposition was very short, and 
he would read it now for iufoimation: 

The General Assembly shall provide by law for the 
enrollment and officering of the militia; for the en- 
coura^^ement of volunteer companies; for calling the 
militia into service in time of war or public danger, or 
for the preservation of the public arms of the State. 













982 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. HORTON. Since this was a matter in which 
all took a very lively interest, he would read for infor- 
uiation, a proposition which he had prepared upon the 
subject of the militia: 

The General Assembly shall have power to pass such 
laws, from time to time, for the organization and regu¬ 
lation of the militia, as may be deemed expedient. 

Mr. LOUDON was aware that this was a subject 
which members here, as well as gentlemen of the Leg¬ 
islature, were in the habit of making very free with ; 
-and if they wanted to have a little levity they would 
.get up something connected with the militia. But now 
he regarded it in a different light. He considered this 
tampering with military affairs to be a serious matter. 

He believed it was conceded on all hands that it 
was absolutely necessary that a military organization 
should be maintained in every government. There 
was no well accredited government on earth, that he 
knew of, which had not a well organized military es¬ 
tablishment, and the militaiy estalnishment of the Uni¬ 
ted States was the cheapest of them all. We wei*e all 
citizen soldiers. It did not cost the State of Ohio one 
cent to keep up her militia system. 

Sir, how could the civil law be enforced without the 
military ? Who could undertake to say, that the State 
would not recjuire the aid of the military for such a 
..purpose within the next six months, in these times of 
-agitation on account of the fugitive slave law? 

There was another reason for this oi’ganization. It 
■was necessary that the State of Ohio should furnish to 
the general government, a correct statement of her 
military force; and upon that showing she %vas to draw 
her share of the public arms, which were being con- 
stanily manufactured. Therefore, if they allowed the 
militia system to go down, they could not expect to ob¬ 
tain their quota of the public arms. 

Again, this was a frontier State—upon the borders of 
Canada. The world itself w\as all a mere histrionic 
stage, and no man could tell what the next scene would 
be till the curtain rises. There might be found busi¬ 
ness for the militia before the organization of the next 
-^jeneral Assembly. 

He did not like to see this levity in connection with 
the military system, as though it were not a worthy 
:arm of the government. It was a saying of Washing¬ 
ton, (bo continued,) that the militia was the bulwark 
■roif the Jiation; and so says my friend from Ferry, 
'[laughter,] and I say so too. 

This article had been drawn up in conformity wdth 
the constitution and law's of the United States. It w'as 
••already obligatory upon the Legislature to do all that 
<was required of them by this article, namely: to di¬ 
rect the enrollment of all the free white males of the 
iSdate, between eighteen years of age and forty-five 
years of age. 

The details of the plan of organization was left en- 
vcirely to the Legislature. If a majority of the people 
fflhould be in favor of reviving the old fashioned drills, 
’which he himself would prefer, let it be so. Odier- 
wise, nolhng was compulsory. He only insisted that 
t:he militia system should be kept up. 

All the deviation proposed here from our present 
^constitutional provision governing the militia, was the 
change in the election of superior officers, taking their 
election out of the hands of the inferior officers and 
giving it to the rank and file. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, was afraid that this 
article really contained more than it was the intention 
of its framers that it should contain. Here was the 
language ; " All the white male inhabitants, residents 
of this State, being eighteen years of age, and under 
forty-five years, shall be enrolled in the militia and 
perform military duty, as may be directed by law.” 
Now, giving to this language a fair construction, it 
would seem to make it the duty of the General Assem¬ 
bly, that they should pass laws directing, not only the 
enrollment of all the free white males between eigh¬ 
teen and forty.five, but also that the people should go 


back to the old system of mustering. He did not sup¬ 
pose that his comrades—(for he was once a militiy 
man)—had intended to go so far as that. Perhaps the 
article was right enough as itw'as; but he would 
hardly think it advisable to go so far as to make it com- 
pukory upon the Gtneral Assembly to re-establish the 
old practice of mustering. He w’ould leave that open. 

As to the particular amendment under consideration, 
he W'as in favor of it. And it would seem to be neces 
sary to extend this discretion, in order that the Gene- 
I'al Assembly might prescribe the cxemj)liun of certain 
classes of individuals from the performance of military 
duty. He would himself rejoice as much, perhaps, as, 
the gentleman from Brow'u, [Mr. Loudon,] to seethe 
old system adopted, if he could think the people would 
be satisfied with it. But it should be recollected, that 
these were days of refonn; and that one of the reforms 
of these days had been to bring the militia system into 
disrepute. 

He considered that it w'ould l)e better to adopt the 
amendment of the gentleman from Gallia, than to leave 
the article as it was; and also to extend the Legisla¬ 
tive discretion, as he had suggested. 

Mr. MITCHELL held that the wmrd “shall,” was not 
compulsory, as used in the section : and upon an anal¬ 
ysis of the section, he showed that, to substitute the 
word “may,” would mar the style. 

Mr. GILLETT believed it was absolutely necessary 
to have the militia enrolled and organized ; and, as a 
friend of the coloied race, he "ave an instance, (which 
occurred not long since,) in which several colored 
persons w'ere forcibly kidnapped from his county into 
slavery, by a company from Kentucky—done in broad 
daylight, because thex'e was no militia organization to 
resist them. 

The question then being upon Mr. Horton’s amend¬ 
ment; to strike out the word “to,” in sec. 6, and in¬ 
sert the word “ shall,” so that the section would read, 
“ The Governor shall appoint,” &c. 

A division of the question w'as demanded, and the 
question then being upon the motion to strike out the 
word “to,” 

Mr. LOUDON demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 39, nays 43—88 follows; 

^EAs—Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensdefer, Brown of Carroll, Case ol 
Hocking, Chambers, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Florence, 
Gpham, Gray, Greene of Defiance,Tlamilton, Harli|ii, Hawkins, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Morehead, Morris, 
Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott ot Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift, Taylor, Townshend 
and Woodbury—39. 

Navs— Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Cahill, Case, of Lickm<r, 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gillett Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, 
Holmes, Hootman, Humpreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, 
Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitch¬ 
ell, McCloud, Patterson, Quigley, Keemelin, Riddle, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Way, Williams Wilson, Worthington and 
President—43. “ 

So the motion to strike out was disagreed to. 

Mr. HORTON moved to amend the report by striking 
out the first section and substituting in lieu thereof the 
following: 

The General Assembly shall have power to pass such laws, from 
time to time, tor the organization and regulation of the militia, as 
may be deemed expedient. 

Mr. KENNON moved to amend the report by insert¬ 
ing in section one, line two, after the word “ and,” 
where it occurs the second time, these words “ may be 
required to;” which was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Horton, 

Mr. TAYLOR demanded a division of the question. 

Mr. TAYLOR was in favor of a part of the motion_ 

striking out the section—but was disinclined to substi¬ 
tute any other provision. 

The constitution of the United States reserves ex¬ 
pressly to the State, “ the appointment of officers and 
the authority of training the militia.” While this pro¬ 
vision remained as the supreme law, he had no appre¬ 
hension of aggression from the federal quarter. 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


993 


All omission of this article would, in his opinion, 
leave the Legislature with discretion and power over 
the whole subject. The subject did not possess suf¬ 
ficient dignity and interest to merit a position in the 
coLstitution. On other topics,gentlemen were zealous 
in their resistance to legislative details—he hoped that 
they would be induced by that consideration to strike 
out the section. 

There was another consideration in favo of such 
an omission, which he did not desire to overlook. The 
world was moving, not openly, but by the silent agen¬ 
cy of opinion, in the direction of peace—at least among 
civilized nations. The disarmament of Europe, or the 
bankruptcy of its leading States, must soon ensue, and 
he believed that the United States should pioneer by 
abolishing a standing army and navy. It could be 
done by us, safely and immediately. He was in favor 
of contributing, in an humble degree, to such a con¬ 
summation, by withholding in this constitution any re¬ 
cognition of such an usage of force and blood. Let 
our duties be civil, reformatory, in consonance with 
the spirit of the age. The founders of the federal 
constitution carefully avoided the terms “ slave ” or 
“ slavery ” in that instrument, because they deemed 
it exceptional and temporary—an accident or misfor¬ 
tune, which should not mar the phraseology of the 
ederal league. As James Madison remarked, they 
were unwilling to recognize the idea of property in 
man. So with this subject. I hope that war will be 
an obsolete tradition, before the life of this constitution 
ends, and I oppose its unnecessary recognition in the 
body of that instrument. 

Mr. HORTON had not intended to speak on this 
question, but he felt constrained to relieve himself a 
little from the unfortunate position in which he found 
himself—between the hot fire of the gentleman from 
Erie on one side, and the frowns of a Major General 
on the other. He could assure the latter gentleman, 
the gen lie man from Brown, that neither I’idicule nor 
dissimulation of any sort was covered up in his course. 
He was a sincere supporter of the militia system, so 
far as it was necessary;—and he was also perfectly 
sincere in offei’ing the amendment, which he had sub¬ 
mitted. He had always thought it the better course 
to leave the details of this subject with the Legislature. 
He had not here given rise to any thing ridiculous in 
connection with this subject; and he would not. 

He was sorry that he could not think with the gen¬ 
tleman from Erie, [Mr. Taylor,] that the Slate of Ohio 
would never be called upon again to employ a military 
force. He would say to that gentleman also, that he 
was perfectly sincere in proposing his amendment. 
He' thought it best to leave the whole matter to the 
Legislature; and, then, if, in process of time, the civil¬ 
ization of the Stale should arrive at the degree of pro¬ 
gress intimated by the gentleman from Erie", the whole 
subject being under the control of the Legislature, 
.every thing could be accomplished which he seemed 
to desire so ardently. And, on the other hand, all tlie 
wishes of the military gentlemen could be carried out, 
with equal facility, by the same instrumentality. 

Mr. STICKNEY moved a cessation of hostilities till 
< -morrow morning, 9 o’clock; which, being entertain¬ 
ed as a motion to adjourn, 

The Convention adjourned. 


SATURDAY, January 18, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Covention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. LOUDON presented a petition from Wm. Pang- 
burn and thirty-two other citizens of Brown county, 
praying that a clause be inserted in the constitution 
prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law legal¬ 
izing the traffic in ardent spirits. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, presented the petition of G. W. 
Worrell and thirty-six other citizens of Fayette county, 
on the same subject. 


Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. LEADBETTER, from the standing committee 
on the Executive Department, to which was recom¬ 
mitted the report of said committee, with the pending 
amendments, reported the same back, with sundry 
amendments. 

The question being on agreeing to the first amend 
ment, to wit: 

Add to the end of the first section these words: " and 
they shall receive such compensation as may be pre¬ 
scribed by law, which shall not be increased or dimin¬ 
ished during their respective terms of office 

The same was agreed to, and the section, as amend¬ 
ed, reads as follows: 

Sec. 1. The Executive Department shall consist of a Governor* 
Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, 
and an Attorney General; and they shall receive such compensa¬ 
tion as may be prescribed by law, but which shall not be increas¬ 
ed or diminished during their respective terms of office. 

The question then being on agreeing to the second 
amendment, to wit: 

In section sixteen, in the eighth line, strike out the 
words, “for the residue of the unexpired term;” 

Mr. STANTON was opposed to the amendment. 
He did not see the necessity for it, and thought it 
would defeat the very object for which the section 
was framed. 

Mr. LEADBETTER said the gentleman from Logan 
[Mr. Stanton] had been forward in advocating the 
term of four years for the Auditor of State. He could 
not see the difference between electing a man for two 
years, and electing a man to fill a vacancy for two 
years. The committee did not see any difference, and 
therefore the amendment was proposed. 

Mr. STANTON said he supposed that the report was 
made to conform to the system of biennial sessions. 
He thought it important to have the «dection8 ,of these 
officers of State take place at the regular elections; 
otherw'ise, there might not be that attention to the 
subject which w’ould secure a full vote of the people. 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, said it would be indis¬ 
pensable to have annual general elections. He thought 
the people would prefer to have an election once in 
a year, rather than to have a swarm of officers to elect 
once in two years. We, on the part of the committee, 
saw'^ no reason why, when a vacancy should occur, the 
people might not just as w’ell fill it at the first election 
as at any other. 

Mr. TAYLOR was in favor of general annual elec¬ 
tions. He had voted to elect the Auditor of State for 
four years, but wmuld vote to re-consider the vote if 
it could be considered as sanctioning the system of 
biennial elections. He wanted to distribute the elec¬ 
tions in such a manner as to hold an election every 
year. 

Mr. MANON \vas in favor of general elections every 
year. We fthail have a large number of elections and 
officers to elect, and he hoped to see them distributed 
in such a manner that there wdll be a yearly day of 
election. 

Mr. LARSH said that he thought that the adoption 
of this amendment wmuld render it necessary to re-mod¬ 
el the whole report; otherwise there would bo no tri¬ 
bunal to try questions of contest. 

Mr. CHAMBERS said that the report had provided 
that the Legislature shall provide such tribunal. 

The question then being on the adoption of the 
amendment, the same ■was agreed to—yeas fi6, nays 
not counted. 

The question then being on agreeing to the third 
amendment, to wit: strike out at the end of section 
sixteen these words: “ their compensation to be fixed 
by law;” the same was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fourth 
amendment, to wit: add at the end of section sixteen 
these words: 

And in the election of any officer in this section named, where 
a vacancy shall occur, the same shall be for a full term; and if 












994 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the General Assembly shall not convene at a regular session in 
January next, succeeding said election, the returns thereof shall 
be sealed up and transmitted to the acting Secretary of State, by 
the returning officers, and the acting Governor shall, in the pres¬ 
ence of the officers of the Executive Department, or a majority 
thereof, open and declare the result of said election, prior to the 
first Monday in January next succeeding said election. 

The same was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the tilth 
amendment, to wit: In section 16, at the end ot the 
seventh line, add these words: “ and until his succes¬ 
sor shall be elected and qualified ”— 

The same was agreed to ; and the section, as amend¬ 
ed, reads as follows: 

Sec. lb. The Secretary of State, the Auditor, Treasurer, and 
Attorney General, shall be elected at the same places and in the 
same manner as the Governor. The Secretary of State, Treasur¬ 
er and Attorney General for the term of two years, the Auditor 
for the term of four years, and until their successors in office 
shall be qualified. If the office of either of the officers in this 
section named shall become vacant, by impeachment, resignation, 
death, or removal, or the incumbent become incapable of per¬ 
forming the duties of the office, the Governor shall fill the vacan¬ 
cy until the next annual election, and until his successor shall be 
elected and qualified, when such vacancy shall be filled by an 
election. Provided, the vacancy shall have occurred thirty days 
previous. And in the election of any officer in this section named, 
where a vacancy, shall occur, the same shall be for a full term; 
and if the General Assembly shall not convene at a regular ses¬ 
sion in January next succeeding said election, the returns there¬ 
of shall be sealed up and transmitted to the acting Secretary of 
State, by the returning officers, and the acting Governor shall, in 
the presence of the officers of the Executive Department, or a 
majority thereof, open and declare the result of said election pri¬ 
or to the first Monday in January next succeeding said election. 

The question being on the passage of the article as 
amended, the same was agreed to. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, moved that the ar¬ 
ticle be committed to the standing committee on Revi¬ 
sion; which was agreed to. 

The report of the standing committee on Future 
Amendments to the Constitution, was read tlie second 
time, and, on motion of Mr. SMITH, of Warren, was 
referred to the committee of the whole. 

The report of the committee on Public Institutions 
was then read the third time, and thecjuestion being on 
the final passage of the same, 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the bill be divided, and 
the vote taken upon each section separately. 

Mr. SAWYER wanted to act upon the report He 
was not prepared to vote for it or any part of it. 

Mr. KING moved that the same be recommitted to 
the standing committee on Public Institutions, which 
was agreed to—yeas 51, nays not counted. 

Mr. MANON moved that the Convention take up the 
report of the standing committee on the Militia, which 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Horton, offered yesterday, 

Mr. TOWNSHEND moved to amend the section be¬ 
fore the words were stricken out, as follows: “ Strike 
out the words ‘ all white male inhabitants, residents,’ 
and insert, ' all male citizens.’ ” 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. Mr. President, I am in favor 
of the motion of the gentleman from Meigs, but fear 
iug that his proposition to strike out the section may 
fail, in which event this part of the I’eport must remain 
as it is, I prefer to attempt to amend what he wishes to 
strike out. 

.1 am opposed to retaining the word “ white,” be¬ 
cause I hope to see, in this constitution, no distinctions 
made among men on account of color. On this point I 
am aware that many gentlemen differ with me in opin¬ 
ion, but on the propriety of substituting the word “citi¬ 
zen,” for “inhabitants,” or “residents,” I lu’esume 
there will be no difference of opinion. Gentlemen 
certainly do not intend to compel foreigners to be en¬ 
rolled in our militia who have taken no steps towards 
naturalization and who are therefore to be regarded as 
the citizens or subjects of other governments. Such, 
at any rate, has not been the practice heretofore in this 
State; I hope, therefore, that those words will be 


stricken out and that what I send to the Chair will be 
inserted. 

Mr. MITCHELL, in order to perfect the words to 
be stricken out, demanded a division of the question. 
He then moved to amend, by striking out the word 
“inhabitants,” and inserting the word “citizens;” 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. BENNETT then moved to strike out the word 
“ residents;” which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out the words 
“ all white male citizens, residents,” for the purpose of 
inserting the words “ all male citizens; ” 

Mr. HOLMES demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 22, nays 62—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Brown of Athens, Clark, 
Cook, Ewing, Farr, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Huraphreville, Hunter, Larsh, Mason, Orton, Otis, 
Perkins, Sawyer, Swift, Taylor, Townshendand Woodbury— 22. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bennett. Blickensder- 
fer. Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Ilocking, Chambers, Col- 
lings, Curry, Dorsey, Florence, Forbes, GLllett, Graham, Green 
of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, 
Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Loudon, Meson, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Nash, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott 
of Auglaize, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highiaiid, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Way, Worthington 
and President—62. 

So the motion to strike out w’as disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out the section, 
for the purpose of inserting the amendment of Mr. 
Horton ; 

Mr. LOUDON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 49, nays 42—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case 
of Hocking Chambers, Clark, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Florence, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance Green of 
Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Horton Hum- 
phreville. Hunter, Larsh, Leech, Leadbetter, Mason, Mitchell, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of 
HaiTison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stan¬ 
ton, Stilwell, Swift, Taylor, Townshend and Woodbury—U q. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Cahill, Case of Licking, Forbes, Gil- 
lett, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Holmes, Hootmat!. Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, 
King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Orton, Patterson, 
Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Saw-yer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Sti-uble, Swan, 
Thompson ot Stark, Way, Williams, Wilson, Worthington and 
President—42. 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the amendment 
offered by Mr. Horton, 

Mr. LARSH said he should vote for the amendment, 
but in case it should fail, he should move to insert the 
amendment which he read for information yesterday. 

Mr. LOUDON said that he thought the Conventiou 
had destroyed the bill, and he now cared not what 
should become of it. There was now no rule for as¬ 
certaining the military strength of the State. It can 
now never be done. The committee had followed the 
constitution and laws of the United States. Ho had 
discharged his duty, and he now was prepared to let 
it alone. He regretted the result, but must bow to the 
wisdom of the Convention. 

Mr. MITCHELL said, that so far as the committee 
had followed the con.stitution and laws of the United 
States, it had committed an act of supererogation. That 
constitution and those laws were the supreme law of 
the laud, and there was no necessity for re-enacting 
them here. 

Mr. LOUDON agreed to that proposition; but the 
constitution of the United States had provided that such 
and such things should be done, that the Convention 
had refused to do, and of that he complained. 

Mr. MITCHELL said that there was no necessity 
for this action, and if the gentleman from Preble, [Mr. 
Larsh,] dW hot offer his amendment, he would offer at 
the proper time, something to provide that officers shall. 











CONVENTION REPORTS, 


995 


be elected by those whom they command, and vote to 
dispense with the rest of the report. 

Mr. LIDEY said the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. 
Mitchell,] stands up here and tells us a parcel of 
stuff, and claims to know more than the rest of us. 
Now, he would tell that gentleman, that a law of the 
United States, had said that such a thing should be done. 
The gentleman from Knox says it shall not. He had 
discharged his duty in this mattter, and he cared not 
now what became of the report. His military days 
were over, and he felt no personal interest in the mat¬ 
ter; but he thought it the duty of the State to provide 
against invasion, and to so fix it, that the force of the 
State can be ascertained and made effective in the 
easiest and best possible manner. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, said he was disposed 
to sympathise with the gentleman from Perry, [Mr. 
Lidey] and his friend from Brown, [Mr. Loudon] but 
the section had been stricken out, and the only ques¬ 
tion now is, what shall be put in the place of it? For 
the purpose of supplying this vacancy, if it should not i 
be otherwise fdled, he had drawn up the sketch of a 
section, embodying principles such as are contained in 
the constitution of one of the States of the Union, and 
which he believed would an.swer the purpose, and 
save going into further and more minute details, which 
he proposed to offer, in case the amendment of the 
gentleman from Meigs [Mr. Horton] should not be 
agreed to. He would read his proposition for the 
information of the Convention. It is as follows; 


Sec. 1. The General Assembly shall provide bylaw for organ¬ 
izing and disciplining the militia of this State, in such a manner 
as they shall deem expedient, notincompatible with the constitu¬ 
tion and laws of the United States, in relation thereto. 

Sec. 2. Commissioned oflicers of the militia shall be elected 
by the persons liable to perform military duty, and the qualified 
electors within their respective commands, and shall be commis 
sioned by the Governor. 

Sec. 3. The Governor shall have power to call for the militia 
to execute the laws of the United States, to suppress insurrection 
and repel invasion. 

Mr. HORTON said he was not tenacious of the form 
of the amendment which he had offered. It might 
doubtless bo improved; and he was willing, if such 
should appear to be the wish of the Convention, to ac¬ 
cept the proposition of the gentleman from Geauga 
[Mr. Hitchcock] as an amendment or substitute. He 
would therefore ask leave to withdraw his amendment, 


that the other might be presented. 

The PRESIDENT said that this could not be done, 
in the present condition of the question. The gentle¬ 
man from Meigs had moved to strike out one section 
and inseiT another in its place. The question is one 
and entire. A division had been had, and the Conven¬ 
tion had stricken the section out of the report; but a 
vote must still be had upon the other branch of the 
question. The amendment, however, might be amend¬ 
ed, and the substance of the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Geauga might be inti'oduced into it, it it 
could be done, and still leave some portion of the orig¬ 
inal amendment. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, then moved to amend 
the amendment, by striking out all after the words 
General Assembly, and inserting the amendment read 
by him. 

Mr. NASFI said that he was opposed to one clause 
in the amendment—that which provides for the elec¬ 
tion of officers. It is impracticable. You cannot get 
rank and file of a company together now to elect a 
a captain, much less a colonel or a general. He was in 
favor of leaving the whole matter of elections to the 
Legislature, so that if one plan does not work well it 
may be changed. He thought it would break up the 
whole system, though he did notknow but that might 


be desirable. , i • 

Mr. HOLMES said the Convention had taken this 
matter out of the hands of the experienced gentlemen 
of the committee, and were now endeavoring to doctor 
it up by a species of quackery, until they were now 
scarcely able to recognize their own bantling. 


Mr. HORTON said he had no objection to be called 
a quack himself, but he protested against the applica¬ 
tion of that term to his friend. Major General Hitch¬ 
cock. (Laughter.) 

Mr. HOLMES said he desired to make no changes. 
He thought the constitution should provide for the en¬ 
rollment ol the militia, and to give it ail the elfeciivo- 
ness that should be necessary. 

Mr. TAYLOR said that, for its simplicity, he was in 
favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Meigs, 
[Mr. Horton.] 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, thought the difficul¬ 
ties of election would not be so great as the gentle¬ 
man from Gfllia, [Mr. Nash,] supposed. The practice 
of election of officers by those subject to their com¬ 
mand, has been tried in other States, and there bad 
been no great difficulty. 

Mr. TAYLOR demanded a division of the question; 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
words “ General Assembly,” in the amendment of Mr. 
Horton, 

^ Mr. LOUDON said he thought the committee had a 
right to complain. The report liad been discussed, 
amended, recommitted and reported back, with all the 
amendments. Now there is an attempt to destroy the 
whole bill. He did not think the committee had been 
well treated. They had been led by what appeared 
to be the sentiment of the Convention. Now the 
Convention appears to have made an entire change in 
its opinions. He protested against the attempts now 
making, to put down, discredit and ridicule the militia 
of the State. 

When, at the demands of their country in the year 
18lf?, the spirit of the fathers of the State rose in pro 
portion to the exigency—when roused by the blast of 
the bugle, that rung through the valleys and over the 
plains of this then wild and wilderness region, warn¬ 
ing them of the danger, and summoning them to Ihe 
field, they shouldered their muskets and went forth to 
meet tiie enemy, and stood up in defence of the fron¬ 
tier, they performed a service that was then no laugh¬ 
ing matter. They protected with their own breasts the 
homes and the firesides of the land, and saved the de¬ 
fenceless women and children from the tomahawk and 
scalping knife of the savage. There was no lack of 
courage to fire their bosoms—no w'ant of patriotism to 
inspire their souls. 

Now gentlemen see fit to laugh at the militia of the 
country, and talk of corn-stalks and of flood-wood sol¬ 
diers. Sir, they may talk of corn-stalks as much as 
they please; but I cannot fail to remember the actual 
services performed by the yeomanry of the country, in 
the days that tried men’s souls. 

Gentlemen seem disposed to discourage all militia 
organizations for the purpose as they say of promoting 
the organization, of light or independent^ companies. 
But, if they will look back upon the history of the 
country, they will find, that when the call has been 
sounded for the collection of the forces of the land, it 
is the militia that has obeyed the summons. During 
the late war in Mexico, I would ask. where the troops 
of thi^State came from. Not from the organized light 
companies of the State. Few, if any of these went. 

No sir; it was the cornstalkers In them burned the 
spirit of the fathers of 1812. It had been handed down 
to their children of 1846. They heard the call, and 
shouldered their muskets and the story of their doings 
is a portion of the history of the country. And now 
gentlemen come here with their set speeches, and ridi¬ 
cule and sneer at, and attempt to put down this strong 
arm of the State. But if they will do this, upon them 
must rest the responsibility. The committee has done 
its duty, conscientiously, and for the discharge of that 
duty they are ready to respond to the people. I have 
said all I shall say, in defence of this report. It is be¬ 
fore the Convention, and subject to its will; and I wash 
my hands of all further responsibility. 

Mr. MITCHELL said he had no desire or intention to 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


996 


ridicule the inililia or military atfairs, nor did he think 
any geutleinau who acted with him had lelt any such 
disposition. There may be abroad some such spirit, 
but he had not observed it here. The system had 
been brought somewhat into disrepute by having been 
mingled in politics—different parties holding and i)ro- 
fessiiig different opinions. Injury has also been done 
by attempts to legislate public opinion into existence, 
'there have been a multiplicity of laws passed upon 
the subject, and all without effect. Another reason 
is that military office has been sought as the means 
of political preferment. This the people have seen, 
and the result is the people have been disgusted by it. 

Mr. FARR moved to reconsider the vote by which 
the first section of this report was stricken out. 

The question then being on the reconsideration, 

Mr. WORTHINGTON was in favor of the reconsid¬ 
eration. He thought that, although now was a time of 
jieace and happiness, there might bo a time when a 
more efficient system would be necessary. The sub¬ 
ject is looked upon as one that may be treated wuth 
ridicule. He preferred the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock] to that of the gen¬ 
tleman I'rom Meigs, [Mr. Horton,] but he preferred 
the bill as reported to either. He had held military of¬ 
fice, and had parted with it without much sorrow ; but 
there was a time when he arrived at the age of forty- 
five and quitted the muster roll forever, that a pang 
shot through his heart, compared to which all his other 
losses of military office had been nothing. 

Mr. W. proceeded to speak of the exigencies which 
t<(dght arise, to render a miiitaiy organization neces¬ 
sary jn the State. He said we have not arrived at 
that age of the world when we may safely lay dowm 
the swmrd. 

Mr. LARSH disclaimed the imputation tha*^ in vo¬ 
ting for the amendment of the gentleman from Meigs 
[Mr. Horton] he was endeavoring to break downi the 
militia system. He thought all that was necessary 
upon the subject is clearly defined and set forth in the 
constitution of the United States, and that such provis¬ 
ions were sufficient for all practical purfioses. He 
did think undue prominence had been given to the 
subject. 

The question being on the reconsideration of the vole 
by which the first section of the report was stricken 
out, 

Mr. WILLIAMS demanded thoyoas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 46, nays 46—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Arcbbold, Cahill, Case of Licking, Forbes, Gil- 
lett, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes,"Hootman, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, I.arwill, Lcadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manou, McCormick, 
Orton, Patterson, Uuigley, llanney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Way, Williams, Wilson, Worthington and President—46. 

Nays—M essrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, 
Chambers, Clark, Codings, Cook, Dorsey, Florence, Graham, 
Gray, Greene ol Defiance, Green pf Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Larsh, Leech, Mason, 
Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Otis, Peck, 
Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift, Taylor, Townshend and 
Wo odb ury—46. 

So the motion to reconsider vv^as disagreed to. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON moved that the report be re¬ 
committed to the standing committee on the Militia; 
upon which qestion, 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 52, nays 43, 
as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Cahill, Case of Licking, Dorsey, 
Ewing, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Humphre¬ 
ville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larwil), 
Leech, Lcadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, 
Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Way, Williams, Wilson, Worthington and President—52. 


Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensuerfer, Brown oi Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Hocking, Chambers, Clark, Collings, Cook, Farr, Flor¬ 
ence, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, 
Norris, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift, Taylor, 
Townshend and VVoodburj*—43. 

Oil motion of Mr. LARSH, the vacancy in the com¬ 
mittee on the subject of Reporting iu this Couventiou, 
occasioned by the resignation of Mr. Ranney, was fill¬ 
ed by the Chair, and 

The PRESIDENT appointed Mr. Reemelin to fill 
said vacancy. 

THE elective KRANHISE. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the Convention now take 
up the report of the committee on the Elective Fran¬ 
chise ; which was agreed to. 

Mr. MANON moved that the Convention take a re¬ 
cess; which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the first 
amendment, to-wit: In section one, line two, insert 
the word “next” before the word “preceding;” it 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the second 
amendment, to-wit : In section four, line one, strike 
out the word “ Legislature,” and iiLsert in lieu thereof 
the words, “ General Assembly ;” it was agreed to. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to strike out the 
word “ white,” iu the first line of the first section. 

Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the Convention adjourn, 
on which motion he demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 45, nays 49—as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Carroll, Collings, Ewing, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of 
Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Humphreville, Jones, Larsh, Leech, L''adbettor, Mason, 
Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Perkins, Quigley, 
Ranney Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Smith of Warren, Stan¬ 
bery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Williams and Wood¬ 
bury—135. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates,-Bennett, 
Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, 
Graliam, Gregg, Hawkins, Henderson, Hootman, Horton, Hunt. 
Hunter, Johnson, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, 
Manon, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Pa'ilerson, Peck, 
Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Wyaudot, Stanton, Stickney, Swift, Taylor, Way, Wilson, 
Worthington and President—49. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

Mr. DORSEY moved that the Couventiou take recess; 
which was disagreed to. 

The question then being ou striking out the word 
“ white,” in the first line of the first section, 

Mr. GROESBECK moved that the Convention ad¬ 
journ ; 

Ou which motion Mr. MANON demanded the yeas 
and nays; which being ordered, resulted—yeas 63, 
nays 32—as follows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Cham¬ 
bers, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene 
of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, 
Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, 
Hunter, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Mason, Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stebbins, 
Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Williams and Woodbury—63. 

Nays— Messrs. Bates, Brown of Athens, Case of Hocking, Case 
of Licking, Clark, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Hawkins, Hender¬ 
son, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Sawyer, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stidger, Swift, Way, Wilson, 
Worthington and President—32. 

So the motion prevailed, and the Convention adjourn¬ 
ed until Monday morning at 9 o’clock. 


MONDAY, January 20, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Hamilton. 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


997 


Mr. LOUDON presented a petition from D. J. Stew¬ 
art and thirteen other citizens of Brown county, pray¬ 
ing that a clause may be inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. STILWELL presented a petition from Thomas 
Maxfield and fifty other citizens of Muskingum county, 
on the same subject. 

Mr. KENNON presented sundry petitions from Ben¬ 
jamin Thomas, .John Kuowlton and sixty other citizens 
of Morgan and Guernsey counties, on the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. KENNON, Irom the standing committee on the 
Judicial Department, to whom was re-cornmilted the 
report on that subject, with the pending amendments, 
reported the same back without further amendment. 

On motion from the same gentleman, the report and 
the pending amendments were laid on the table. 

Mr. ORTON offered for adoption the following reso¬ 
lution : 

Resolved, That this Convention will adjourn sine die, on Tues¬ 
day, the 4th day of March next, 

Mr. MANON moved that the resolution be laid on 
the table ; on which motion he demanded the yeas and 
nays, which being ordered, resulted—yeas 36, nays 44 
—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Blickensderfer, 
Cahill, Case of Hocking, Collings, Ewing, Green of Ross, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Kirkwood, Larsh, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Patterson, Quigley, Reemelin, Scott of Auglaize, Stilwell, 
Stickney, Stidger, 4'hompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Warren, Williams, Woodbury, Worthington and President—36. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Brown of Athens, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, 
Clark, Cook, Dorsey, P'lorence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Hootman, 
Humphreville, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, 
Orton, Peck, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of War¬ 
ren, Smith of VVyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Swift, Taylor, 
Tovvnshend, Way and Wilson—44. 

So the motion to lay on the table was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the resolu¬ 
tion, 

Mr. WILLIAMS moved that the further considera¬ 
tion of the resolution be postponed until the first Mon¬ 
day of February; which was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Warren, the Conven¬ 
tion took up the report of the committee on the Judi¬ 
cial Department, with the pending amendments. 

The question being ozi agreeing to the first amend¬ 
ment made in committee ot the Whole, to wit; In 
section 2, in the first part of the same, strike out all 
after the word “law” to the word “and,” where it 
occurs further below, and insert in lieu thereof, the 
iollowing : “ The judges of the supreme court shall 

be elected by the qualified electors of the State at 
large.” 

Mr. SAWYER demanded a division of the question. 

The question then being on striking out, 

Mr. ARCH BOLD said that he was almost equally 
opposed to the original proposition as reported by the 
committee on the subject, and the amendment made 
in committee of the Whole. He had not quite so 
much objection to striking out as he should have to in¬ 
serting the substitute, and thought he should vote to 
strike out. The proposition in the original report is 
wrong in principle, and he thought the substitute still 
more objectionable. He hoped the Convention would 
pause and consider, before it adopted the plan of 
electing all the justices of the Supreme Court from 
the State at large. He felt it his duty to say that he 
could not give countenance to such a plan. Its ten¬ 
dencies are aristocratical, and gentlemen must be 
aware of it. It has more of the aristocratic princi¬ 
ple in it than any thing else that has been before this 
body. If it is adopted, farewell, I say to humble mer¬ 
it ; farewell to rising merit. It is in effect equivalent 
to giving the office irrevocably to the sons of the weal- 
y and the well born. The supreme bench of the State 


will be filled—not with the learned—not with the stu¬ 
dious—not with the faithful and the virtuous, but mod¬ 
est and perhaps poor members of the profession, but 
with those whose fathers are able to give them a suffi¬ 
cient sum of money to enable them to go to Columbus, 
to act on caucuses and give suppers, and distribute 
champagne. He thought the amendment contained the 
seminal principal of all mischief. He should vote to 
strike out, and hoped that such an amendment would 
be made that all judges may be elected in single dis¬ 
tricts, if for no other purpose, to give an equal chance 
to men of modest merit. 

Mr. REEMELIN said the gentleman from Monroe 
[Mr. Archbold] although he had not appealed to him 
seemed, by his looks, to have intended them for his 
benefit; he did not know why. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD said he had no such intention. 

Mr. REEMELIN. He contends that the provision 
in the report, for general elections, will only enure to 
the wealthy and well born. He would ask that gen¬ 
tleman if Governor Shannon was either wealthy or re¬ 
markably well born. Report said otherwise. Was 
that the case with William Bebb, or with Josph Vance 1 
Is it so in fixet, or has it ever been so in practice? He 
did not want to use invidious terms, but he really 
thought the optics of the gentleman from Monroe [Mr. 
Archbold] remarkably keen in their search after aris¬ 
tocracy, and that he sometime saw it where it did not 
exist. » 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. What relevancy has the plan of 
electing the Governor of the State by the people at 
large with this question? A seat upon the supreme 
bencti of the State is well worthy the ambition of any 
man in it; while it is well understood that the Gover¬ 
nor is a mere cypher. Why sir, a member of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly is of far moi'e practical importance. 
If a man has a project to carry through the General 
Assembly it is of far more importance to him to se¬ 
cure the vote of one member of the Legislature than 
all the influence the Governor can control. The of¬ 
fice is of no importance; it gives no consideration; it 
carries no influence; it embodies no authority; and 
that is the reason that obscure men get the place. 

The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] had 
seen fit to make a species of argtimenhim ad hominem, 
by referring to a very near friend of his—the Flon. 
W'ilson Shannon. He would confess that the office of 
Governor conferred no dignity upon him, but he, on 
the other hand, conferred dignity upon the office. But 
the election of judge is a very different thing, and 
as he said before, it would fall into the hands of those 
whose fathers had the most money. He had intended 
to take no part in this debate, but he had been com¬ 
pelled to make these remarks, to define his position. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, said he regretted having 
pressed upon the Convention the taking up of this re¬ 
port at this tim.e. On looking around the hall he ob¬ 
served that several eentlemeii were absent, whom he 
had hoped would be in their seats during its discus¬ 
sion. Fie had himself no intention to make a speech, 
but desired the indulgence of the Convention, while he 
presented his views upon the proposition now under 
consideration. 

According to the original report of the committee on 
the Judiciary department, it was provided that the 
chief justice shoidd be elected from the Stale at large, 
while, for the election of three associate justice^, the 
State was to be divided into as many distiicts, by the 
electors of each of which, one was to be chosen. The 
present proposition is, in effect, that that pio\ision be 
stricken out, and the report so amended that all four 
of the judges shall be elected from the Slate at large. 

Now sm, the inevitable consequence of the preva¬ 
lence of this system, will be, that whichever party— 
whether by its" own strength, or by a coalition whit 
some other—shall be able to obtain supremacy iii the 
State, thatjiaity wull fill the bench. It is in vain to 
conceal the fact tha tthis will be the result. In fact 












998 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


sir, the Supreme Court of the State will be made by a 
convention of politicians, that shall meet on the 8th ol' 
January, or on the 22d of February, or the 6th of May, 
as the case may be. Now, I ask, gentlemen, if it is 
not imjiortant to have men upon the Supreme bench, 
of ability, of learning, of talents, of irreprctichable pub¬ 
lic and private character? I presume there is no dif¬ 
ference of opinion upon that score. And, I ask gen¬ 
tlemen of all parties, who have attended the conven¬ 
tions of the party at Columbus, whether they have 
always been satisfied with the nominations there 



in which these bodies are constructed, and tlie ele¬ 
ments of which they consist. Are the delegates who 
go up to Columbus, always the representatives of the 
people? How are they, in general, appointed? A 
few active politicians about the court houses, in the 
counties, get together, for the purpose of making the 
appointments. It is enough if they have a chairman, 
a secretary, and a committee of two, to make the nom¬ 
inations. 

The next day, the paper of tlic party tells of a meet¬ 
ing of large and respectable citizens, and so on; while, 
in all human probability, the delegates selected are of 
so little significance that they could not be elected to 
the^ office of constable, in the townships where they 
reside. 

_ These delegates, clothed with plenary and irrespon¬ 
sible power, go on to the seat of govemment and assist 
to nominate a justice of the supreme court, What are 
the chances that they will make the best nomination 
that the circumstances of the case will admit ? We are 
told, however, that in this manner has the supreme ex¬ 
ecutive office of the State been filled, and respectably. 
I admit thacthat office has been respectably filled; but 
I would inquire if, on some court day, when the peo¬ 
ple of any county are collected, a blindfold man might 
not go into a crowd of fifty and select at random a man 
competent to fill the office of Governor of Ohio ? The 
reason is, that officer has no duty to discharge—no ser¬ 
vice to perform. But how is it with the judges of the 
supreme court—the tribunal of the last resort—which 
pronounces the final decree upon questions involviiig 
the li/e and the property of the citizen ? ^Vou]d you 
go into a crowd and play catch whom yon can, to se¬ 
lect such a functionary ? What are the qualities that you 
require ? They are learning, ability, experience, purity 
of character—qualities that cannot be found in a mo¬ 
ment, but which are as necessary as it is necessary that 
in seeking for them we exercise the utmost discretion 
and disinterestedness. 

Mr. Fresideir, for myself I agree that, in genera], 
gentlemen may make the constitution of Ohio pretty 
much as they please. They may, if they desire, put 
into it all their fallacies, heresies and absurdities, if 
they will only agree to come up to this question, and 
settle it as it should be settled, with a view to the best 
interests of the State and the people. Not but there 
are other interests of im 2 )ortance; but this one, con¬ 
stantly practical in its operation, is of vast and para¬ 
mount importance. 

Let gentlemen reflect upon the consequences of a 
wise or unwise decision of this principle. What is the 
Supreme Court of Ohio ? What relation does it bear 
to the interest and welfare of the people ? We may- 
have a corrupt Legislature, and yet the State may en¬ 
dure. We may have a feeble and venal Executive, and 
yet the evil be remedied. Another election, and the 
error or the wrong may be corrected by an appeal to 
the ballot box; and if we have, with all these, a firm, 
an intelligent, a learned, and a conscientious court, we 
are safe, les, sir, if that tribunal, which has the su 
pervision of the acts of all the officials of the State— 
if that tribunal is pure, upright and intelligent, we have 
nothing to fear. 

Now, sir, what will be the effect of the system pro¬ 


posed ? Let us look for an answer to the political his¬ 
tory of the State for the last ten or fifteen years. This 
year one party is in power, the next year another, the 
next year a third, or balance of power party. This 
year, we shall have a whig bench, the next a demo¬ 
cratic, and perchance, if an arrangement can be made, 
the next year a free soil bench. I appeal to my dem¬ 
ocratic friends, who, I suppose, by this arrangement, 
hope perpetually to have a democratic bench, if they 
feel safe or certain as to the result ? May they not be 
disappointed in their calculations ? And to my friends 
oji this side also : Are you sure that you are taking the 
proper measure to secure a safe, sound, and learned 
bench ? 

I ask gentlemen if they do not know, that if this 
provision is adopted, the result will be as I have sta¬ 
ted?—that we shall have a party beuch in Ohio. We 
are endeavoring to get rid of that partisan influence 
which controlled the choice of the General Assembly, 
and of giving the election to the people. But shall 
we not again come under it, when we submit the selec¬ 
tion of judges to a caucus of politicians ? 

The General Assembly, for this purpose, is but a 
caucus. The nominations of the parties are made in 
secret, in the night time—a proper time for such acts 
of darkness. And who did they select ? Not, in gen¬ 
eral, men of integrity, but mousing politicians—men 
who could stoop to Hatter, and wire-pull, and cajole. 

The object of taking the election of judges from the 
Legislature, is to find a safer place for the depository 
of that power. To do so, we must remove that elec¬ 
tion as far as possible from the inHueuce of party ma¬ 
chinery. We must all meet on conimoii ground, and 
aid instead of retarding each other in our endeavors. 

Ill case of an election by the State at large, how 
many of the electors will know anything of the talents 
and qualities of the man they are voting for ? Is it not 
important that they should know something of the fit¬ 
ness of the candidate for so important an office ? In 
the selection of a Governor, the risk is not so great. 
An error by a Governor may be corrected in various 
ways. But a blunder by the Supreme Court may 
carry with it effects that may reach every citizen and 
every neighborhood in the State. It is not as easy to 
correct its blunders. A man may be hung—property 
may bo divested—a citizen subjected to an ignominious 
puiiishmeiit. 1 would prefer that the State be divided 
into four grand divisions, a judge to be elected in each. 

I (lid not intend to make a s[)eech. 1 had hoped to 
hear from those who were in favor of this proposition. 

I consider the principle here involved, to be one upon 
which the whole .system depends. Whatever may be 
the features of the system, it is after all, the men who 
shall be selected, that are to give vitality to it. It is 
the men that are to make our system of judicial pro¬ 
ceedings, a curse to the people of the State, or a bless¬ 
ing to all vvhorn its inHueuce may surround. Sir, then 
let us, as far as possible, remove these officers from the 
iiiHinmce of P^iyty—and especially from central party 
itiHuences. If it is an object to get honest judges upon 
the bench, this is the course and the only course that 
can be pursued with any probability of success. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, said that he would 
agree with the gentlemanfrom Ross, [Mr. Green,] that 
tlje caucus system in this State, was not well regulated 
He did not suppose that we could correct the evil, or 
had jurisdiction over the matter. The question under 
del)ate had been fully discussed in committee of the 
Whole, and they had come to the result shown by the 
report. He was not now prepared to .say that this prop 
ositioii would be as good as the one first reported, but 
it seemed to conform to the principles that had been 
settled by the Convention. He looked upon a judge to 
be as much a representative of the people, as a mem¬ 
ber ol the Legislature. The Supreme Court is the 
cou|-t ()f the whole; the District Court, of a district. 
And if the Supreme Court is the court of the whole 
people, why should not the whole people vote for the 
judges ? 















CONVENTION REPORTS 


Mr. GREEN, of Ross. I understand the gent’email 
from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] to say, that the Su¬ 
preme Court represents the whole people, and the dis¬ 
trict courts represent the people of the districts. The 
doctrine is, the representative may he instructed by 
his constituents. May I be allowed to inquire if the 
Supreme Court may be bound by the instructions of 
the people ? 

Mr. HirCHCOCK. By the whole body of the 
people, authentically expressed, undoubtedly ; not by 
those of htlle cliques of politicians. Such general in 
structions were never given in Ohio, and probably 
never will be. ^ ^ 

.. ji^^diciary is, as I said before, the representa 

tive of the people-not in their legislative, but in their 
juc icial character—and it seems to me the whole peo 
pie stiould vote at its election. 

Ml. ARCH BOLD. Then why not elect Senators an 
Representatives by general ticket ? Each of these/ s 
also a representative of the whole State. 

Ml. HITCHCOCK. That may bo sound doctrine, 
r. 1 resident, m theory. In general matters, it is 
true, they are representatives of the whole; but, in 
practice, I apprehend the gentleman from Monroe has 
1 ^’^Pi’esentative is not only a lo¬ 

cal delegate, but a local legislature, and if any of his 
measures are interfered with, we hear him inquiring 
^ J w lat right gentlemen interpose in matters interest¬ 
ing only to himself and his constituents. 

I suspect that all this alarm about political judges, is 
m a great measure unnecessary. If judges will be 
politicians, we cannot prevent it; but i do not appre¬ 
hend much danger in the premises. .Judges will at first 
be elected under the constitution, and may be all of 
one political party. After two years one goes out and 
his successor is elected; in three years, anoiier, and 
so on. ft there is any change in the politics of ihe 
btate, we shall have judges differing in political opin- 
1 f’t'esident, the amendment will be 

adopted, because it .accords with a principle that ba.s 
been recognized in this Convention. That principle I 
have ever been anxious to carry out, and in all cases 
but one, have succeeded. 

The question then being on .‘Striking out: 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross demanded the yeas and nays ; 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 52. nays .35— 
as follows: 


-^^'chbold, Barnett of Preble, Cahill, Chane\ 
oiark, Dorsey, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, Haro 
Dawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hool 
man, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leecli 
neadbetter,Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Morris, McCormick 
vatterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawj-er 
^ott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandol 
y Stidger, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, 'Thomp 

Preddent-S^'''°*^^^'^’ Way, Wilson, Worthingtoi 

^^^®®7®' _^"<lrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery 
r'oTT.r.’n ^bekonsderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown o 

r'rnTT n Collings, Curry, Florence, Gillett, Graham 

reen of Ross, Hamilton, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Ken 
Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Perkins 

^ 


So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting'the words pro- 
the amendment of the committee of the Whole, 
Mr. STANBERY moved to amend the amendment, 
by striking out the word “ judges,” and inserting in 
lieu thereof the word “justices;” which wasagreed to, 
Mr. S PANTON moved a call of the Convention; 
winch was disagreed to. 

The question then bein^ on inserting the proposed 
amendment of the committee of the Whole, ' 

Mr. TAYLOR said that the proposition to elect the 
judges by the State at large, was so contrary to the 
true interests of a judiciary that he was willing to com¬ 
promise with the friends of the report and carry it 
through 7 u its original form, if rectified in this respect. 
He thought it the duty of (he Convention, as far as pos¬ 
sible to guard against the tendency to centralization,' 


999 


which is so great and dangerous in the consequences it 
threatens. We are endeavoring to avoid the evil in 
the general government. It is a cardinal principle of 
democratic policy to resist at all points the consolida¬ 
tion of power—to distribute its exercise from the cen¬ 
ter to the circumference. Why should we impair the 
popular freedom of our elections, by abandoning the 
district system and leaving the nomination of .Judges 
of the Supreme Court to the chances of a Columbus 
caucus ? Experience had shown that no agency was 
more imperfect for selecting a public choice. He ap¬ 
prehended that the character and iutlueuce of the court 
would suffer by the adoption of the amendment. 

He was free to confess that the original report was 
liable to a kindred objection. It provides for three 
large districts for the election of Justices of the Su¬ 
preme Court, and nine lesser districts forjudges of the 
Common Pleas. These districts are not designated— 
that subject is left to the Legislature. There is not, in 
this report, a single provision to prevent the Legisla 
ture from applying the gerrymander to the judicial dig 
tricts of the State. They are left open to be changed 
by the General Assembly, whenever it should suit the 
views of that body to do so, for party or other purpo¬ 
ses. Was not this an evil ? There was an unanimou- 
sentiment against legislative gerrymander—why shall 
we not take measures of precaution against judicial 
gerrymander? 

^ But gentlemen may say that if we are to have the 
single district system, the result will be the same, and 
we shall be subject to the same evil. I do not think 
so. It is understood that there are to be thirty-three 
senatorial districts in the State, whose limits are to be 
permanently fixed by the constitution. Why not make 
these districts judicial districts? When this is done, 
and the judges are elected, the Legislature may fix by 
law the system under which the duties of the judges 
are to be distributed. It may provide for an inter¬ 
change of judges within nine districts—to detail a cer¬ 
tain number by virtue of seniority or otherwise, to sit 
as a Supreme Court, to sit in the several districts, and 
as a Court in Bank at Columbus. 

What I ask is that this Convention shall interpose 
an effectual check to the evil of judicial gerrymander¬ 
ing that is now staring us in the face. 

But it is said that even then the danger of iiiefiicient 
men, by mere parly action, will still exist. I think 
not. Knowing the importance of having tho best men 
upon the bench, the people will elect such. In pro¬ 
portion as they have a personal knowledge of candi¬ 
dates, tliey will rise above party considerations. In a 
large district, the knowledge of the qualifications of in¬ 
dividuals disappears in the mass, and men fall regular¬ 
ly into the party rank.s, and, in the absence ot know¬ 
ledge, submit to party di.scipline. 

1 protest against the election of judges under central 
party infiuence. Let us have political elections, but 
not party elections. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to amend the words to be 
stricken out, by striking out the words, “ by the elec¬ 
tors of the State at large.” 

Mr. HAWKINS agreed with the remarks of the 
gentleman from Eide, [Mr. Taylor,] and had made 
his motion for the purpose ol giving effect to its prin¬ 
ciples. 

Mr, STANTON rose to enter his protest against the 
opinions expressed by the gentleman from Geauga 
[Mr. Hitchcock,] thatthe Judges of the Supreme Court 
were representatives of the people, and were bound by 
the instructions o^ the people as expressed through the 
ballot box. Ho was anxious that the bench of the Su¬ 
preme Court should not be the fighting ground of the 
parties of the State. He wanted the highest legal tri- 
bunal of the State to be totally free from every species 
of party infiuence. If the court is the representative 
of the people, where are we to be led by the fiat of 
that opinion, and where is to be the stability of rights 
or the safety of life or property ? Coming from the 













1000 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


source that it does, he looked upon the doctrine as in¬ 
finitely dangerous, and he was surprised to hear it an¬ 
nounced by one whose talents and judicial experience 
and whose standing in the State, were calculated to 
give a currency to his sentiments, such as otherwise 
they could not obtain. And he thought that these 
opinions would not harmonize well with those express¬ 
ed by the same gentleman, at Columbus, on a previous 
occasion. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said he was sorry to come under 
the censure of the gentleman from Logan, [Mr. Stan¬ 
ton.] The constitution declares that the people are 
the source of all political power. The people could 
make laws for themselves, were it not that fi'om their 
numbers, the practice would be inconvenient. On that 
account, they delegate to the Legislatui'e, the power to 
make law's for them. It is the same in the executive 
department. Instead of exercising that power them¬ 
selves, they delegate it to their agents. And the same 
rule applies in regard to the judicial function. It is 
inherent in the people; but they cannot easily exercise 
it, and therefore it is delegated to judges, who, for and 
in the name ot the people, exercise the power vested 
in them by the people. 

What is the duty of a judge ? He takes an oath of 
office, to administer justice to all, without respect to 
persons, and in accordance wfith the principles of the 
law. It makes no difference how he is appointed, he 
is bound to carry out the law. For my part, I cannot 
see why a man, elected by the people, should violate 
the law, any more than if he were appointed by the 
Governor. If he does violate the law, he is personally 
responsible., 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, said he joined with his friend 
from Logan [Mr. Stanton] in his protest against the 
heresies of the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitch¬ 
cock.] It is true, that all political power comes from 
the people. The tenure of the judicial office comes 
also from the people. But the duty of a judge—like 
the great lundamental principles upon which ultimate¬ 
ly all law is based—is from a higher source, and impo¬ 
ses a paramount obligation. From the most ancient to 
the most modern limes, in all ages, and in all countries 
where human government had stood and contributed 
to the happiness of the people, the doctrine had never 
been recognized that the judicial should depend upon 
the popular opinion. 

If, however, the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitch¬ 
cock] had any ulterior objects to secure by the course 
he was pursuing, or the heresies he was uttering, he 
had nothing more to say. He had a right to pursue 
his own course of policy". 

Mr. MITCHELL w^anted to inquire a word of gentle¬ 
men on the other side. He wanted to know whether 
judges elected in one part were to exercise their du¬ 
ties in another part of the State? 

Mr. STANTON. Certainly. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Then against that I enter my pro¬ 
test. If a judge is to exercise his authority in my part 
of the State I want to assist in electing him. 

Mr. STAN BE RY said there was great propriety, if 
the judges of the Supreme Court were judges over the 
whole State, that they should be elected by the whole 
people. Upon this subject the precedents were both 
ways. He did not suppose that, in election by districts, 
the system of caucus nominations could be avoided. 
He did not perceive any great difference between the 
practical workings of the two systems, and he thought 
that as the general system appeared to be the opinion 
of a majority the minority should remit their opposi¬ 
tion. He believed that as judges would be elected in 
different years, there would be little practical danger 
of a political court. 

^ Mr. RANNEY said that the very fact that the judi¬ 
ciary subsists by virtue of power delegated by the peo¬ 
ple renders the judges the representatives of the senti¬ 
ments and vvill of the people. He was, therefore, if 
this system is to be retained, in favor of electing judges 


of the whole State by the State. He did not expect 
the report, however, wmuld meet his views in the end, 
after all the amendments that may be made to it. 

Mr. TAYLOR said that the report as it is, appears 
better than many other propositions made in Convention 
by others. Ho thought that if gentlemen arrayed 
themselves in opposition to it in any event, they should 
at least present us with a better. 

Mr. RANNEY said if the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. 
Taylor,] w’ould examine the proposition he had the 
honor to submit, he would find that, in that, there was 
a provision for the election of all the judges, by dis¬ 
tricts, by the people. 

Mr. TAYLOR. So far, so good. 

Some conversation took place between Messrs. Ran- 
NEY and Taylor, in regard to the details of the several 
systems; and also between Messrs. Ranney, and 
Green, of Ross, upon the same subject. 

Mr. STANTON wished to say a few words in reply 
to the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock.] He 
would allow that the right to perform the duties of the 
judicial office came from the people. From the people, 
through their representatives, comes the written or 
statute laws. So far as it goes, the judge is bound by 
the statute, when it is con.sistent with the constitution. 
Here his responsibility to popular opinion ends. No 
Legislature—no political or other body can, beyond 
this, dictate to the judge a legal opinion. If it were 
otherwise, we might as well have our cases tried and 
voted on in town meetings. Nor did he believe that it 
was convenience alone which gave occasion for the es¬ 
tablishment of a judiciary. 

It is true that the legislative fur.ction comes from the 
people, and is inherent in them. It is true, that under 
the republican system, the Legislature is the main¬ 
spring of all government. It is also true that they 
have, under the constitution, the right to establish the 
general principles upon which the law is to be admin¬ 
istered. But the question, how the law is to be admin¬ 
istered, is a different thing from the question, what 
shall be the rules upon which thedicisions of the court, 
in particular cases, shall be based. Here the power 
of the people stops, and the immutable laws of right, 
above human constitutions and human laws, assert 
their superior and paramount authority. 

The question then being on the motion of Mr. Haw¬ 
kins, 

Mr. ARCH BOLD demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 32, nays 59— 
as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs, Andrews, Archbold. Barnet of Montgomery, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Graham, 
Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hunter, Johnson, 
harsh. Mason, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Perkins, Smith of 
Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Taylor, Way and Wood¬ 
bury—32. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnett ot Preble, Bates, Cahill, Chaney, 
Clark, Dorsey, Florence, Forbes, Gilletl, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Hitchcock ot Geauga, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, 
Kt rinon, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 
.Marion, Mitchell, Morris, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Har¬ 
rison, Scott ol Auglaize, Sellers, Staiibery, Stebbins, Stilwell, 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Warren, Wilson, Worthington and President—59. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the words, 
“the judges of the supreme court shall be elected by 
tlie qualified voters of the State at large,” 

Mr. NASH said his desire was to get rid of a party 
court. He said that the danger of a party court was, 
that one party would be dissatisfied with its opinion. 
Tljc system of the gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. 
Ranney] did get rid of this difficulty. He thought 
this a great object to be attained. The moral force of 
the supreme court of the United States had arisen from 
the fact that the members were from all political par- 
tie.s. It had been adopted in New York, in Indiana, 
and Illinois. He should look upon a whole court of 
ihe same party, whether ‘Whig or Democrat, as a ca¬ 
lamity. 











CONVENTION REPORTS. ' 1001 


The question then being on inserting as above, 

Mr. HARLAN denianJed the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 04, nays 27—as fol¬ 
lows : 


Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Batf's, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, 
Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Florence, Forbes, Greene ot Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Holt, Hcotman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, 
Kennon, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 
Mauon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCormick, Norris, Orton' 
Patterson^ Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Harrison, Scott ot Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stanbery, Stebkins, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Thompson 
ot Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, Wilson, 
Worthington and President—64. 

Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, 
r Cook, Curry, (iillett, Graham, Gray, Gryen 

Hawkins, Hunter, JohnsoD, Larsh, Mason, 
McCloud, Nash, Otis, Perkins, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stid- 
ger, Taylor, Way and Woodbury—27. 

So the amendment of the committee of the Whole 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the second 
amendment, to wit: Strike out all after the word 
“ and,” where it occurs in the second section— 

The same was agreed to; and the section, as amend¬ 
ed, reads as follows: 


Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice 
and three Associate Justices, any three of whom shall be a quo¬ 
rum. It shall have original jurisdiction in Quo Warranto, Man¬ 
damus, Habeas Corjnis, and Procedendo, and such appellate juris- 
^ction as may be provided by law. It shall hold at least one term 
m each year at the seat of government or elsewhere, as mav be 
providled by law. The Justices of the Supreme Court shall be 
elected by the qualified electors of the State at large. 

The question then being on agreeing to the third 
amendment, to wit: In section three, in its first part 
strike out the words and for; ” it was agreed to. ’ 
The question then being on agreeing to the fourth 
amendment, to wit: In section 3, line 14, strike out 
the words, “ of Common Pleas; ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fifth 
amendment, to wit: In section 3, line 17, strike out 
the words “ other than the district courts ’’— 

The same was agreed to; and the section, as amend¬ 
ed, reads as follows: 


hjsc, 3. The State shall be divided into nine common pleas 
districts, of which the county of Hamilton shall constitute one 
of compact territory, and bounded by county lines, in each of 
which three judges of the common pleas shall be elected by the 
qualified voters therein. Courts of common pleas shall be held 
by one or more of these judges, in every county in' the district, 
as often as may be provided by law, and more than one court may 
be held at the same time in each district. 

District courts shall be held in each district by the judges of 
common pleas and one of the Justices of the Supreme Court, 
any three of whom shall be a quorum, as often in edch year, and 
at such places in said district, as may be prescribed by law: Pro- 
mded, that nothing herein shall prevent the General Assembly 
from authorizing the judges of each district to fix the time of 
holding the courts therein, as maybe prescribed bylaw. 

The district courts shall have like original jurisdiction with the 
tupreme Court, and such appellate jurisdiction as may be pre¬ 
scribed by law. 

The jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas, and of the 
judges thereof, shall be fixed by law. 

The question then being on agreeing to the sixth 
amendment, to-wit: In section four, in the first part 
of the same, strike out all after the word “guardians; ” 

Pending which, on motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, of 
Geauga, the Convention took a recess. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

The question being upon agreeing to the sixth amend¬ 
ment, reported by the committee of the whole, namely: 
proposing to strike out from the close of the fourth sec¬ 
tion of the report, these words: “and such appellate 
jurisdiction in civil cases, and such original and ap¬ 
pellate jurisdiction in criminal cases, as may be provi¬ 
ded by law. The General Assembly may confer on 
this court jurisdiction for the sale of lands by executors, 
administrators and guardians.” 

Mr. McCormick proposed, by way of perfecting 
the words to be stricken out, to strike out the last 
clause of the section, to wit: “ The General Assembly 


may confer on this court jurisdiction for the sale of 
lands, by executors, administrators and guardians.” 

Mr. HAWKINS thought the effect of the success of 
this motion, might be to retain those words in the report. 
At all events, he denied that the General Assembly 
might confer upon this county court the power to sell 
lands. He desired to strike out the former clause pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out by the committee of the whole ; 
and if ihe present motion should prevail,he should vote 
against the whole of the amendment reported from the 
committee of the whole. 

Mr. McCORMICK said this matter had undergone 
considerable discussion heretofore, and be felt no dis¬ 
position to go over the ground again. But he would 
merely refresh the memories of some gentlemen, by 
referring to the early discussion of this proposition^ 
The original object of the standing committee, was to- 
make this a probate court. But there were a great 
many who thought—and he concurred with them in 
the opinion—that this county court should be some¬ 
thing more than a mere court of probate; that it should 
intervene and stop a great deal of appellate business^ 
which would be continually coming up to the com¬ 
mon pleas from the justices’ courts ; that there should 
be given to it a little more importance. It was thought;,, 
by the standing committee, and other gentlemen not 
of the committee, that the judges elected to this- 
county court bench would be likely to have sufficient 
legal knowledge and general intelligence, to justify the- 
Convention in giving them original and appellate ju¬ 
risdiction over smaller crimes; and that a limited ju¬ 
risdiction here, both in civil and criminal cases, would 
save much of the costs of litigation, and much of the' 
excitement and exacerbation of feeling, which is al¬ 
ways attendant upon the trial of small causes in the 
higher courts. * 

There was another reason for extending this juris¬ 
diction. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the ab¬ 
struse question of law did not apply to such minor civil 
cases as would come before this court; and they were- 
generally better settled by reference to the moral sense 
of the community than to any technical rule. The 
main point to be gained in all these cases should be- 
not law, but justice. It was to secure this object, and 
with a view also, that little or nothing should be lost 
in these cases in the way of costs, that the committee- 
were induced to give to this court appellate jurisdic¬ 
tion in civil cases. 

It was also thought by the standing committee, that 
if the adjudication of those smaller crimes and offencesi 
—offences of the third class, as they were known in the 
statute—the punishment whereof was fine and confine¬ 
ment in the county jail, without the intervention of a 
grand jury presentment—could be kept out of the- 
court of common pleas they would be very much re¬ 
lieved from the press of business with which they had 
always been so much crowded. 

These were the reasons which induced the commit¬ 
tee to extend the jurisdiction ot this court. 

With regard to the latter clause of the section whicii 
he had proposed to strike out, he would beg leave to- 
say that he never did concur in that. He did not think 
that provision was dictated either by prudence or jus¬ 
tice. It had been heretofore well remarked by sorne 
gentleman of this body, that as often as about once ia 
twenty-five years the title to all real estate in Ohio had 
to pass through the courts. Ihis was sure to be the 
case throughout the country, as often as once every 
quarter of a century- And it was certainly right and 
proper that the title to the soil of the State should re¬ 
main intact, and that it should always be adjudicated 
upon by judges of sufficient legal knowledge to be able 
to decide between what proceeding would and what 
proceedincf would not pass the title to re-al estate. The 
adjudication of legal titles to real estate should be en¬ 
trusted only to such courts as might be able to pass the 
title so that there could be no such thing afterwards 
as setting it aside on -account of improper proceedings. 













1002 


COXTEXTION KEPGRTS. 


It was for this reasou that he thought it uothing but 
right and proper that this business should be confided 
to a higher and. striclley speaking, to a more legal tri¬ 
bunal than that which would be found ordinarily in a 
county court. 

Mr, GROESBECK thought the geurlemaii from Ad¬ 
ams [Mr. McCormick,] was entirely right. There waS' 
no jurisdiction about which more care snould be exer¬ 
cised, than that which was proposed to be conferred in 
these two lines—the jurisdiction over the estates of in¬ 
fants, controlled by executors, administrators and guar¬ 
dians. Gentlemen who are acquainted with court pro¬ 
ceedings, and the history of this jurisdiction in Ohio, 
needed not to be told that no subject iiad given rise to 
more cases of legal controversy than diis ^eueral mat¬ 
ter of the sale of lauds by administrators and guardi¬ 
ans. It was certainly a most sacred jurisdiction, about 
which it was impossible to have too much care. There¬ 
fore he heartily seconded the motion of the gentleman 
from Adams, to strike out these two lines; and he also 
agreed with tiiat gentleman in the opinion, that the 
balance of the section ought to be retained. 

Mr. COLLINGS declared himself to be entirely in 
favor of getting rid of this clause. His little experi¬ 
ence in these matters had satisfied him. that there was, 
no greater legal abuses than those practiced in connec¬ 
tion with the settlement of estates, by administrators • 
and guardians. The hearing of these cases nf petition 
for the sale of real estate, was always, ex parte: and i" 
was sometimes the case, that the attention of the court 
not being sufficiently called to the subject, the land 
would be sold, and nobody could tell wherefore. 

Mr. LARS H save notice of an amendment which 
he desired to ofter, to-wit: to strike cut from the sec-' 
tion the words *• in criminal cases.” and insert in lieui 
thereof, these words : “ in cases of minor ofiences and ! 
immoral practices.*’ ! 

His object was not to entrust to the jurisdictiou oft 
this court, the adjudication of crimes of a higher grade : I 
—but that such cases as should properly come before j 
a grand jury, should be kept out. If he understood 
the object of this sectiou.it was to provide a court' 
which should be always open, like a justice’s court 
and he did not think it would be prudent to encum¬ 
ber such a court with grand jury proceedings. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to perfect the worxis pro- 
pL>sed to be stricken out, by inserting before the word 
*• appellate’* the following words, “ original and:** ; 

On which motion he demanded the yeas and nays, 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 41. nays 49—as 
Allows: , I 

Yeas —Messrs. Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll. Cahill. 
Case of Hocking, Clai'k, Dorsey, Forbes, Gray. Green oi Defiance. 
Gregg. Hard, Holt, Hootman. Humphreville, Hun:, Hunter. Lit 
will,” Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manoa. Mitchell, Norris, Ferkins’, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Scott of .4.uc-;uze' 
Sellers’ Smith of fVyandot, Stanton, Stickney, Struble, SwitY i 
Taylor, Thompson of Stark. Townshend, Wilson. Woodbury and! 
President—41. 

Nays —Messrs. .Andrews, Archbold, B;»rbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates Bennett, Blickensderfer. Cham¬ 
bers, Chaney, Collings, Cook. Florence. Gillett, Green of Rcss. ’ 
Groesbeck, Hamilton. Harlan, Hawkins. Henderson, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holmes, Horten. Jones, Kenncn. King. Kirkwood. Larsh, 1 
Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris. McCloud. McCormick, Nash. 
Orton. Otis, Fatterson. Peck. Riddle, Sawyer, Smith of Warren, 
Stanbery, Stilwell, Stidger, Thompson of Shelby, Warren, Way [ 
and Worthington—19. 

So the motion was not sustained. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD demaudevl a further division, to ter¬ 
minate with the won.1 “ cases.*’ 

The question then being on strikin? out the follow¬ 
ing woi^s, “and such appellate jurisdiction in civil 
cases 

Mr. SMTTH. of M'arren, demanded the yeas aud nays, 
which being ordered, resulted—veas 30. nays t'l—as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews. Archbold. Famet of Montgomery, 
BUckensderfer, Chambers. Collings. Cook. Dorsey. Florence, 
Gray, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes. Holt. 
Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood. Leech. More- 
head, Nash, Otis, Ranney. Riddle, Smith of Wyandot. Stanbery. 
Stickney and Thompson of Shelby—30. 


Kats—M essrs. Barbee, Bamen of Preble, Bates. Beimett. Brown 
of Athens, Brown cf CarrolL CahilL Case of Kc-cking. Case of 
Ltcking, Chanev, Clark. Ewing, Forbes, Giilcit. Greene cf Denanct. 
Green of Ross. Gregg. Groesbeck. Hard. Harlan, Hentiersan, 
Hootman, Horton, Hunt. Kermon. Kmg. Larsh. LarwDI. L^d^t- 
ter, Lidey, Lcndcn. Man on, Mitohed, Morns, McC.on^ _IcCor- 
mick. Norris. Orton, Patterson, Feck Perkins. Quigley. 

Sawver, Scett of Han-ison, Scott oi Augiaire, cru^rs. rm-m o. 
Warden, Stanton, Sttlwell Sddger, Strnhle. Taylor. Tnctnpson 
ct Stark. Townshend. Warren, Way, TSTs .n, Woodbury, AA or- 
thinston and President—oL 

So the motion to strike out was disagreed to. 

Tne questk n then being on striking out the follow¬ 
ing worus: “and such original and app«ella*.e jurisdic¬ 
tion in civil cases as may be provided by law; 

Mr. L.AESH moved to perfect the words prop-osed 
to be strickeu out, by strikingou: the words, “in crim¬ 
inal cases.*' aud inserting in lieu thereof the words 
•' petit larotuv and et'uer interior otieaces: ’ 

Wuich was disagreeat 

The question then being on striking out the loilow- 
ing words. *• and s-cli original and appeliaie jurisdic- 
diction in civil c..se5 as may be provided by lawit 
was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out the lollow- 
inu words: “The Genera* Assembly may confer on this 
court jurisdiction tor the sale oi lands by executors, 
administrators and guardians :** 

Mr. MANON moved to perfect ihe words proposed 
to be stricken ou'. by striking cut the word “ may,” 
and insert t'ne word ••shall:" which was disagreed to. 

The question I’aea being on striking out the words 
•• the Geut ral Assembly.'* Arc.: 

Mr. McGORMICK said he did no: think th s court 
would possess the power to order the sale of real estate, 
unless it should be especially given to them by the 
Legislature. This misat ^eem to be a part of the tes- 
tumeutarv office; but it was not. The powers of pro¬ 
bate did not include the power to disp-:se c* the effectB 
of an estate not dis’^>oseii of by will. And the admin¬ 
istrator of ati estate could no; touc’a the land, e.xcept 
on -rder of the court to j-ay the debts of the estate. 

Ikir. L-ARSH knew tbs: tiiey hud just this kind of a 
v.nirt jurisdiction i:i ihe ueig'iiboring State of Indiana; 
and that I'ue cost of the settlement of an estate there 
\va? not one-tenth as great -as it was. in this State. The 
seutleman need not te.l him that the General Assembly 
could not make a law for the tran-fe.- of real estate: 
'O that a m iu cf co-nmou 'ease could ed’ect a sale, se¬ 
cure t’.ie title to t'ne purc’naser. ana secure the interest 
f heirs, just ss well as any court that cr>uld be organ¬ 
ized. 

Mr. M-A'A'ON could net so well tell w'nai ousht to 
be done, w'aeu lawyers disagree; b’ut he believe^i that 
he shonld adhere to ’nis opinion, thvit the power to or¬ 
der the ?-ale of land, s'nould be granted to this Probate 
court, 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geausa. said, the present con¬ 
stitution cave tae c urt of couruion nle?.s the same 
jurisdictiou in all matters of testimony, which it was 
i ro^oosevl 'nere might be conferred by the Lea'siature 
upon the county court. There was no:hine~ said in 
this secriou about ordering the sale of lands. Tiiis 
matter was to be “prescribed by law." But, now. if 
these last words ot tne section were to be stricken 
out. It wouli most unquestionably be in the power of 
the Legislature, v^atui he though: they would adopt that 
course) to give to iliis court the jx>wer to sell the land 
of desceu Jen Is; l^cause it was to be a probate court. 
They might, if they saw proper, confer this power np- 
ou some other court. The prevailing opinion of the 
Judiciary committee waa, that it would be belter to 
confer it ui>ou some other co-art; and it was in order to 
call t'le attention of the Legislature to this querv. that 
these worvis. •• The General .Assembly may confer on 
j this court jurisdiction for the sale of lands bv execu- 
' toios. admimstritors aiul cuardiaus,'* were inserted. In¬ 
stead A>f oonterring power, the intention was to limit 
i the e.xercise of power. 

Mr. McCormick’s amemicieut was now rejected. 

i 








CONVENT ION EEPOETS. 


1003 


• A 4. IV 4 UV i V'ill.:.^«Xl wli ui-1^ j 

The question then being on agieeing to the seventh ^heir radicab's 

amendment, to wit: In section 6, in the first part of'^'ouldonly sweeptbf 


So, every branch of the amendment to the 6th sec-' they mi^ht run it into the nd as much 

tion, reported from the committee of the whole, was pleased:"[laughter,] be would not be deterred f?om 

concurred in. what he ought to do, b'^ any arprebensioi-s of the ten- 

TERM OF THE JUDGEa. dcncies to radicalism on the part of this bodv. He 

ilisin. Let it cotne like a 
part ot •“ '»*jvina t'ii,\ c^ v* themselves sway, as woL 

the same, strike out the w^nrd “ seycn,” and insert in vrork of tneirhunds, 

lieu thereof, the word ‘‘five;’' The PRESIDENT said the question wrrJd have to 

Mr, MASON demanded a division. taken upon both branches of the division before 

The question then being first on striking out the! term couid be proposed, 

word “ seven ^ The yeas and nays being now ordered and taken 

.Mr. MASON said be was entirely satisfied of oue|°P^^ striking out “seven.” the result was—yeas 67. 
thing—that the people of the State had demauded a 1 follows: 

change in the mode of appointing their judo'es; but I ^ eas—M essrs, Archbold, Barbee, Blick-^i-sderfer. CahilL C5ia- 
they never had demanded of this body any cEanse in ' “e^Jlark Ceilings, a-ok. ^rsey. Fo^es, Gillex G^. 

'T'l 1 j A 1 Greene oi Defiance, Grccff, Groesbeci. Haro. Hswims. Head^ 

then teim ot othce. There never had_ been such a j son, Hitchcock of H,v.r, Hoctmim, Enmptre- 

demand irom any quarter. And now, since the elec-! ville. Hunt. Johnson. Jones. Kennon, Kins. Kirkwood, Ltrvrill. 
tiou of the judges had been given to the people their i Leadbetter. Lidev, Loudon, M£n<^ MrtchelL M.-irehead- 

tenn of office ought not to be reduced, because the ef- i 
lect ot such a reduction would be to make it the mere' ' ~ 

difficult to get men to consent to leave their practice I 

and go upon the bench. This was one of the efiecis t. .t - 

of the proposed amendment, which he thought would I 

be obvious to every gentleman upon that floor. The Curry, Florence, Green of Ross. HiinEt.aL Hnrltn, Horten. H-cn- 
judicialterm of office was a consideration of great im- ^ Mstson. McClcud, Nash. .S-ir.ith of Warren. Stanbery, 

portance, as tending either to weaken or strenethen i 

the system. If you made a set of dependent judges, I -o out was agreed .o. 

you would have, iuevitably, a set of exceedinily ‘de-! S o r •' ?"•„ 

pendent decisions i Mr. Kbh.MhLIN said he should vote to reject “Pve, 

There was no weakness thrown into the judiciary ,>o gain the opponunily for tuserdug “ four; - 
by the election of the judges by the people-noae what- r«>p!e would have "o elect one Judge every 

ever. The principal, and the only considerable change i ,, .. - 

effected, would be in the nominatiig power. Heretofote! , I’'''V?^v 9°'^ “ ijve lor. 

the nomination of judges had beeS made by a legisia- ■ te had been m favor of a if nger term, he con- 

five caucus. Hereafter tliese nominations would be! <bat thts was the term upon whicn gentlemen 

made by a political caucus. The selections by the peo- i feehng nptm the subject had been wiiung 

pie will be just as wise as they possiblv could be, 'f "fiy ' fhonH be rejected, and the .ssue 

&1 the bad influences which’wiH be brought to bear' between •• four and six. he was fearim that 
upon these nominations. But he thought it would be ; 
better for the courts of justice, and therefore for the 
people, if the judges w'ere to have a longer term than 
five years, as proposed by this amendment. 


the chances would be in favor of “ four.” 

Mr. COLLINGS though; there was a go *d deal of 
weight in trie remarks of the geuTleman from Richiaiid. 
[Mr. Kirkwood.] It was, according to his recoilec- 

Tj' 1 ■ ,1 ' •«. • • f- I tion also, that last summer extreme views appeared to 

He knew that last summer, it was the opinion of aji , ’ , , , - t 

. *1 r .i,* lie 1 • j * nave been met and ?ccommo;iate<i upon thts term o: 

great many gentleman of this body, for whose judg- ^ tt - a- in j • 

o . _ J.o, ...JO tivevears. He mtrbt himself have preferred six veirs; 


ment he hud the greatest 


_ .4-1 4 1, ’1 4 ii'cricaiff. ijt: iidiu. ij; Li i LUafii lia i tr ‘ •iy itri i cu. sul » i 

respect, that a higher term a ^'i .u j i v. ■ u :* 

., 4 . u „ 4 -u ^4 4 i,b, btit ali things censiuered now. he thousht n be.i*: 


could not be obtained. But he saw that the Conven-, 


tiou now sitting in the State of Indiana, had named, 


retain the term of five years, as propeshd by the com- 

i, 1 T j ~ r .1 • ’ j 4.1 A- inittee of the Whole, 

he believed, seven years lor their judges; the New i cut'tu r h- ' u .-n ^ 

TT 1 • 4-4 4 - 1 n 4 - ‘'i f 1 j Mr. b.MITH, of Marren. would sti!’ aecidedlv pre- 

Hampshire Constitutional Convention, lately adjourned, : ^ 41, 4 r TT 1, Ji, 

11^ j • 4i 4 y ter the term of seven Tears. He had bard.v ever heard 

had agreed upon six years; the same term was hxed . ^ , , ,1,4, rr,-- 

upon ty the Constitutional Convention of .Michigan, ^ ’-o- '» ^ 

which met last summer; and eight years was the term 


a complaint emonirsT the people, as to the tenure 
judge’s office. 

The question bein? now taken upon the adoption of 
the amendment of the committee of the Whole* propo 
sing a judicial term of five years. 

Mr. HUNTER demanded the yeas and nays, and the 
same being ordered and taken, the result was—yeas 62, 
nays 31—as follows: 

Yeas—M essrs. Andrews, Archboj-d, Bwd^ Barnet of iilcHit- 
ffomery, Bameti ot Preble, Bates. Bennett, Backensderfer. Brown 
of Athens. Brown of CarroD. Case of Lic kin g. Chambers, Cha¬ 
ney, CoHings, Cook. Dorsey, Ewing. ITormce. Fcr^ GdLstI, 


Henderion. Hirchcock of 


in the State of New York. Seven years—a medium 
terra—was the old term in Ohio; and tee people had 
never demanded a change. It was all a gratuitous 
work, on the part of wise politicians upon this floor. 

The term six years had been lost at t’ne summer ses¬ 
sion, by a majority of but one, in committee of the 
W’hole: but be supposed it quite likely that they had 
been progressing downward since that time. But it 

was to test this that he had called for a division of the ^ „ *- 1 .' v -cr -if tr^xx-'-jT,- 

question, and intended to move to fill the blank with : GSng^^Sl^ Horton, Hunter, Johnson. Jemes, 
the word “ six,” and to demand the yeas and nays. Ser.non, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lead^tier, London, MItcbelL Mcae- 
What was the end to be gained by reducing this term head. Morris, McCloud, JlcCormkt Od^ PatiCTsen. Peekes- 
to five years ? Was it to make the judge more depen-: 

dent on the will oi the people? The people had no ; t^QjQp-Qjy ^jjejby, Wurren, Way, oodbnry, Worthing- 
will of wdiich the judge could take notice, but that , ton and President—62. 

will which was embodied and declared in the constitu- 1 Nats— Messrs. Cahill, Cl^k, Cu^, Gre^e^^..^?, 
tlon and laws. Their wull as expressed by iesolutious, 1 L^h, Lidey, -Manon, Mason. Nask. Norris, Orton, 

or otherwise in their primary assemblies, how much- j gyiigTev, RoTt Ttpy, Reemehn, Scott of Auglaige. Sellers. SraniiGn, 
soever to be respected in polical matters, is no rule i Strnbl^ Taylor, Thompson of ctark, Townsiena and Wilscc 
for judicial action — no guide to the interpretation of i — 31. 

the law. i So the amendment was agreed to. 

It had been said to him, in a sort of under tone that] The question then being on agreeing to the eighth, 
it would be dangerous to move this division of the ] amendment, to wit: in section ?even, ^trike out tce*e 
question, because of a disposition to reduce the term to j words. “ shall be at least thir^ years of age at the time 
four or three years. In reply, he would say, they j of their election, and insert in lieu thereof the words, 
might reduceit to one year, if that w'ere their purpose; j ‘‘shall possess the qualifications of eiec.ora. 







1004 CONVENTION REPORTS 


Mr. REEMELIN demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out these words, 
“ shall be at least thirty years of age at the time of 
their election,” 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to perfect the words pro¬ 
posed to be be stricken out by stiiking out the word 
“^shall; ” which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out, 

Mr. STANTON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 60, nays 34—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Lick¬ 
ing, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Forbes, Greene of 
Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Huraphreville, Hunt, John¬ 
son, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, LarwTll, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon,"^McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Stidger, Stnible, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, 
Warren, Way, Wilscm, Woodbury, Worthington and Presi¬ 
dent—60. * 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar; 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collmgs, Curry, Florence, Gillett, 
Gray, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, 
Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, 
Sawyer, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell and 
Thompsonof Stark 34. 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The c|uestion then being on inserting the following 
words: “ shall possess the qualifications of an elector 
it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the ninth 
amendment, to-wit: in section seven, strike out the 
following words : “ two years, one for four years, one 
for six years, and one for seven years,” and insert in 
lieu thereof the following words : “two years, one for 
three years, one for four years, and one fur five years ;” 
it was agreed to. : 

The question then being on agreeing to the tenth 
amendment, to-wit: in section seven, strike out the 
following words: “one for five years anti one for 
seven years,” and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
“ and one for four years, and one for five years;” it was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the eleventh 
amendment, to-wit: in section seven, line fourteen, 
strike out the word “ seven,” and insert in lieu thereof 
“ five ;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the twelfth 
amendment, to-wit: in section seven, line eighteen, 
strike out the word “ regular,” and insert in lieu there¬ 
of the word “annual;” 

The same was agreed to, and the section as amend¬ 
ed reads as follows: 

Sec. 7. The Justices of the Supreme Court shall possess the 
qualifications of electors. 

Immediately after the first election under this constitution 
they shall be qualified by lot, so that one shall hold for the term, 
of two years, one for three years, one for four years, and one for 
five years. 

Judges of the courts of common picas shall have the same 
qualifications as the justices of the supreme court, and during 
their respective term shall reside in the district for which they 
are elected. 

“Immediately after the first election ot the judges of the com¬ 
mon pleas, they shall be classified by lot in each "district, so that 
one shall hold for the term of three years, one for four years, and 
one for five years, and at all subsequent elections ihe term of 
each Justice of the Supreme Court and each judge of the court 
of common pleas, shall be for the term of five years. 

“In case the office of any Justice of the Supreme Court, o” 
judge of the court of common pleas, or judge of any other court 
shell become vacant, before the expiration of the regular term 
for which he was elected, the vacancy may be filled by appoint¬ 
ment ot the Governor until it shall be supplied at the next annu¬ 
al election.” 

The question then being on the 13th amendment, to 
wit: In section 8, strike out the following words: 
“ an adequate compensation, not less than two thousand 
dollars per annum each, for Justices of the Supreme 
Court, and eighteen hundred dollars per annum each 
for judges of court of common pleas,” and insert in 
lieu thereof the following: “ Such compensation as 

may be provided by law ”— 

Mr. STILWELL demanded a division. 


The question then being on striking out, 

Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded the yeas and nays; 
which were ordered. 

Mr. RIDDLE thought it was about time that the 
Convention should indicate a disposition to raise the 
salaries of the Judges and Governor of the State. For 
if this were not done here, whenever the Legislature 
might be called on to do it, the old argument would 
come up with all its force, in the following terms: 
“ Have we not commanded the services of Jeremiah 
Morrow and Reuben Wood for $1,200; and with rej 
spect to the Judges of the Supreme Court, have we 
not had the services of a Hitchcock, a Sherman, and a 
Burnet, for these small salaries ? Why, then, tax the 
people of Ohio for higher salaries, since the old sala¬ 
ries have commanded, the services of such men as 
these?” And with reference to the salaries of the 
District Jud es, the same argument would be urged in 
connection with the names of Stilwell, and Smith, and 
Andrews, and other distinguished lawyers of the State, 
whose services bad been retained upon the bench for 
a thousand, and sometimes twelve hundred dollars a 
year. 

It was for this reason that he favored the report of 
the standing committee, fixing these salaries at two 
thousand dollars, in order that the State might be se¬ 
cure in the I’ight to command the services ot the best 
men upon the bench. Personally, he might be in fa¬ 
vor of a higher sum; but he was willing to take the re¬ 
port of the Judiciary committee, namely: two thous¬ 
and dollars for the judges of the higher court, and 
eighteen hundred dollars for the judges of the district 
courts. The services of a good clerk, cashier of a bank, 
or engineer, could not be commanded for less than 
from $1,500 to $2,500: and should it be expected that 
a learned judge might be retained for a les^ sum than 
a clerk or an engineer ? 

Mr, LARWILL said it seemed to him that the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton had made the best argument he 
could in favor of low salaries. He had pointed out the 
most distinguished men in the State who had acted in 
the capacity of judges, and no man had ever heard of 
a single instance of one of them resigning his office on 
account of the low salary. He was not one of those 
who believed that the highest salary necessarily secur¬ 
ed the highest order of talents. He preferred the 
amendment of the committee of the Whole, leaving 
the matter of fixing the judges’ salary with the Legis¬ 
lature. 

Mr. LOUDON hoped the amendment of the commit¬ 
tee of the Whole would be agreed to. The fixing of a 
specific sum might operate unequally—being a much 
belter compensation at some times than others, on ac¬ 
count of fluctuations in tlje price of labor and every¬ 
thing else. 

Mr. NASH. The real question was whether the 
compensation of the judges should be raised or not by 
the Legislature. The recent action of that body had 
shown most conclusively that they would not raise 
these salaries There was nothing plainer to his mind 
than that it was the will of Whigs and Democrats in 
his region, that the section, as originally reported, 
should be retained as a part of the constitution. He 
knew many judges, now sitting with credit upon the 
bench, who would not remain there unless their sala¬ 
ries should be raised. He argued that the success of 
the principle of an elective judiciary depended upon 
this question of advancing the salaries of the judges; 
and he urged it upon the Convention as a matter of 
economy, to fix these salaries, on account of the time 
consumed in debating the subject at every session of 
the General Assembly. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD had before expressed his views 
against putting down salaries. But the present could 
not be the time to raise them, when the revenue neces¬ 
sary to be raised for the payment of the public debt 
was as much as seven times that of the expenses of our 
civil list. 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1005 


Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, was not willing lo oppose 
the action of the committee of the Whole, nnlil he 
might know what was to be done with the question of 
the currency, which, in a certain event, would very 
much affect the wages of labor. 

Mr. REBMBLIN affirmed the fallacy of the doctrine 
that a return to a constitutional, metallic currency 
would have a tendency to reduce wages. It was not 
the amount of money that had any inlluence upon the 
price of laboi-, it was the amount of labor to be per¬ 
formed, and the number of people to do it. The in¬ 
stantaneous destruction of every bank note in the coun¬ 
try would not depreciate the value ot labor so much as 
five per cent. He also took the same view of the offi¬ 
cial salaffes; and he affirmed that this thing would de¬ 
pend very much upon the luxuriousness or thesimplic 
ity of the manners and costumes of the people. Hence 
the manifest wisdom of referring this discretion to the 
Legislature. He never did believe that it was impos¬ 
sible to get a good Judge without paying high salaries. 
The State had always been able to command the best 
talent upon the bench, for the salaries which the Leg¬ 
islature had heretofore prescribed. They were not al¬ 
ways the best servants of the State, who were the 
most ready to grasp after the highest salaries. Nor 
could he entertain so low an opinion of the legal pro¬ 
fession, as to think the only way to have honest or tal¬ 
ented judges, was to purchase their honesty or talent. 
These were not purchasable commodities. But there 
was another point. The true policy was neither high 
salaries nor low salaries. The true criterion was to 
pay judges and other officers tliat salary which would 
keep them with the middle classes of society—they 
were the salt of the earth. High salaries drew officers 
into the vortex of “high life,” with temptations which 
few men could withstand. 

On motion of Mr. LARWILL, the Conventiou ad¬ 
journed. 


TUESDAY, January 1851. 

9 o’clock a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

ihayer by Rev. Mr. Shepperd. 

Mr. HARLAN presented a petition from W. B. Huff¬ 
man and eighty-seven other citizens of Greene county, 
praying that a clause be inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. OTIS presented a petition from Thos. H. Good¬ 
in and thirty-eight other citizens of Summit county, on 
the same subject. 

Mr. McCloud presented a petition from Charles 

L. Hurd and thirt}-^ other citizens of Champaign county, 
on the same subject. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, presented a petition 
from A. J. Williams and sixty-three other citizens of 
Geauga county, on the same subject. 

Mr. BARBEE presented a petition from James Tnl- 
lis and fil’ty niue other citizens of Miami county, on the 
same subject. 

Mr. WARREN presented a petitio^i from Stiles Paik- 
er and forty-three other citizens of Delaware county, 
on the same subject: which was read at the Secretary’s 
desk. 

Mr. NASH presented sundry petitions from John 
Morrison, Wm. Bailey, and eighty-two other citizens of 
Meigs and Gallia counties, on the same subject. 

Mr. HOLMES presented sundry petitions from W. 

M. Grayson, Charles I’eterson and forty-six other citi¬ 
zens of Hamilton county, on the same subject. 

Said petitions were severally referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. McCORMICK, from the select committee on the 
subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits, submitted the fol¬ 
lowing report: 

REPORT 

OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE SUBJECT OF BETAILINO 
ABDENT SPIRITS. 

The special committee to whom was referred the various pe¬ 


titions on the subject of the retail of ardent spirits have had the 
subject under careful advisement, and beg leave to report and 
recommend the adoption of the following section : 

The Genaral Assembly shall not license traffic in intoxicating 
liquors, but may, by laws, provide against evils resulting there¬ 
from. J. McCORMICK, 

S. J. ANDREWS, 
WM. HAWKINS. 

On motion of the same gentleman, the report was 
laid on the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to take up the reportof the 
committee on Public Debts and Public Works ; which 
was disagreed to. 

Mr. MANON moved that one thousand additional 
copies of the report of the select committee on the sub¬ 
ject of Retailing Ardent Spirits, be ordered to be prin¬ 
ted ; which was disagreed to. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, moved lo take up the re¬ 
port of the standing committee on Public Debts and 
Public Works; which was agreed to. 

The question then being on the passage of the re¬ 
port, 

Mr. MANON moved tore-commit the report of the 
standing committee on Public Debts and Public Works, 
with instructions to the committee so to amend the 12th 
section of the report, as to provide that the present 
members of the Board of Public Works continue in of¬ 
fice, until the expiration of the term for which they 
were severally elected. 

Mr. NASH demanded a division. 

The question then being on re-conunitting the re- 
port, 

Mr. MANON said he saw no necessity for turning 
one set of officers out before their term had expired, 
when the next thing to be done must be to put others 
in their place, and he saw no good reason, either in 
principle or practice, for such a course. 

Mr. SAWYER was opposed to the motion, and hop¬ 
ed it would not prevail. If the practice is admitted m 
one case, it must be in all others. The adoption of 
this amendment would be the recognition of a princi¬ 
ple which, when recognized, must extend to all the 
offices provided in the constiintion. 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER hoped the motion to com¬ 
mit would prevail. There was one principle that had 
been ado[)tcd in other branches in the constitution, 
which he desired to see inserted in this. It was this, 
“ that the salaries of officers constituted under lliis ar¬ 
ticle of the constitution should not be increased nordi- 
Jiiinished, during their continuance in office.” He was 
a member of the committee that made the repuj-t, and 
he wished to say that he should have moved in com¬ 
mittee llie insertion of such a proviso, if it had not es¬ 
caped his memory. It had, on all occasions, met his 
approval, and he desired to see it adopted as a general 
principle, to govern all the offices constructed under 
this constitution. 

Mr. NASH desired to suggest auother subject to the 
committee, in case the bill should he committed for the 
purpose of amendment. In the first and second sec¬ 
tions of the report, there are certain provisions upon 
the subject of tlie creation ol a State debt, not to ex¬ 
ceed a certain sum, in certain cases, and to provide for 
certain 8f)ecific exigencies. Now as the actual amount 
borrowed may exceed the sum necessary to be ex pend¬ 
ed—because, in case of invasion or other great edami- 
ty, it will be impossible to calculate with absolute cer¬ 
tainty, the actual sum re(|uired—there will be a sur¬ 
plus remaining in the treasury. Under the provision 
that the sums borrowed “ shall be applied to the pur¬ 
poses for which they were obtained, or to repay the 
debts so contracted, and to no other purpose whatever,” 
this money may be obliged to lie unproductive in the 
treasury for years, until the time arrives when the sums 
borrowed shall fall due, and it will not be in the pow¬ 
er of the Legislature either by funding or by the ap¬ 
plication of it to the payment of other portions of the 
of the debt of the State, as they fall due, to realize any 
benefit from its employment. A difficulty similar to 
this had already occurred in New Y"ork, where the 











1006 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


provisions of the constitution are similar and bethought 
it should be guarded against. 

Mr. LARSH thought the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Gallia [Mr. Nash,] would not be necessary. 
He thought the creditors of the State would be glad 
enough to receive their money, whether it should be 
due or not, and that in practice the thing would regu¬ 
late itself. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, thought there was 
no necessity of the amendment proposad by the gentle¬ 
man from Licking, [Mr. Manon.] He, however, was 
in favor of the establishment, in this constitution, some¬ 
where, of a general rule, that all officers holding under 
the present constitution, should continue in office, un¬ 
til their successors shall be elected aud qualified. 

Several Members. That is right—that is enough. 

The question then being on the re-commitment of 
the report to the standing committee on Public Debts 
and Public Works—the same was agreed to. 

Mr. KING, of Butler, then moved to amend the in¬ 
structions proposed by the gentleman from Licking, 
[Mr. Manon,] in such a manner that the member of 
the Board of Public Works, recently elected by the 
people, under the law, should be retained in office un¬ 
der this constitution. 

The question then being on the amendment to the 
instructions: 

Mr. HAWKINS vvas opposed both to the instructions 
aud the amendment. Whatever the rule might be, he 
wished it general. Besides he thought that at this rate 
of making a constitution, all the offices in the State 
would expire before it is finished. 

Mr. TAYLOR expressed his concurrence in the 
views presented by the gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. i 
Haw'kins.] 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
King, the same was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the instructions of Mr. 
Manon, the same was disagi'eed to. 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER then moved that the Con¬ 
vention instruct the committee to amend the report as 
follows: That the said committee provide that the sal 
aries of all officers created under this article shall be 
neither increased nor diminished during their continu¬ 
ance in office. 

Mr. HAWKINS had no objection to the principle of 
the instructions. He thought, however, that the pro¬ 
vision should be general, aud apply to all the officers 
to be created by law or under this constitution. If it 
should be made so, this would not be the proper place 
for its insertion. He wmuld therefore suggest to the 
gentleman from Tuscarawas, [Mr. Blickensderfer.] 
to withdraw his instructions, with a view to a general 
provision, which he would sustain. 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER asked and obtained leave 
to withdraw his instructions. 

Mr. LEADBETTER moved further to instruct said 
committee to amend said report, by striking out of the 
first and second lines of the first section, the following 
words : “ or for expenses not otherwise provided for.’’ 

Mr. LEADBETTER said, he was at a loss to know 
what other expenses than those mentioned specifically, 
the Legislature might incur; except for the purpose of 
going into a general system of public works, and a 
State indebtedness to correspond. If it is the object 
of the Convention, to allow the State to run headlong 
into debt, the easiest way to do it, would be to allow 
the clause to remain. If otherwise, it should be strick¬ 
en out. He did not see what there was to prohibit 
the Legislature from incurring a debt to the full limit, 
every year, if it should be so disposed. 

Mr. HAWKINS said he thought the gentleman to be 
aiming at something which was not, in the least de¬ 
gree, necessary for the security of the State. He sup¬ 
posed the State to be effectually protected against an 
accumulation of debt, by the provision that the future 
indebtedness should be limited to the sum of seven hun¬ 
dred and fifty thousand dollars. What is the proposi¬ 


tion ? That the State may loan money to meet casual 
deficits in the revenue, or other expenses, not other¬ 
wise provided for. There might be exigencies that 
could not be foreseen. Would it be prudent, because 
we could not foresee and enumerate them all, to refuse 
to provide for them—in fact, provide against them? 
This would be an act of improvidence unworthy of the 
wisdom of this Convention. 

Mr. LEADBETTER was afraid of an abuse of the 
power of creating debts. He did not see, under the 
report as it stood, anything to prevent the Legislature 
from creating a debt of seven hundred and fifty thou¬ 
sand dollars this year, the same sum the next, and so 
on. All he wanted was to make the provision more 
definite. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD would vote for the instructions of 
the gentleman from Holmes, [Mr. Leadbetter.] He 
was afraid that advantage might be taken by the Leg¬ 
islature, of the seeming ambiguity of the section. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Perhaps the gentleman from Rich¬ 
land, [Mr. Kirkwood,] will suggest such an amend- i 
ment as will convey his ideas. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD., I have one, which I will read 
lor the information of the Convention. It is as fol¬ 
lows : 

Strike out section first, from the beginning, to the * 
word “aggregate,” in the third line, inclusive, and in¬ 
sert : 

“ The State may, to meet casual deficits or failures of 
revenue, contract debts, but the amount of existing ! 
debt contracted by virtue of this section,” 

Mr. BENNETT thought the Convention had better ' 
not be hasty in striking out the words. He thought a 
moment’s reflection would convince gentlemen that ! 
by so doing they might, in future, greatly embarrass i 
the State. He believed it the duty of the Convention 1 
to leave to the Legislature the power to meet casual 1 
deficits of revenue, whenever they should occur. We j 
may suppose a multitude of cases and casualties where 
such a power may be of vital interest to the public 1 
welfare. ‘ 

Mr. CHAMBERS said he did not deem the passage . 
of any of these instructions necessary, Thediscussion I 
will have enlightened the committee as to the views i 
of gentlemen. We do not disagree in opinion, but j 
only as to the mode in which opinion shall be express- \ 
ed. He thought all the object of the instructions had j 
been accomplished, aud he hoped they would be with- 
drawn. 

Mr. GROESBECK would suggest to the committee : 
to insert after the word “aggregate,” the words “though 
contracted by different Legislatures.” 

Mr. LEADBETTER, by leave of the Convention, 
then withdrew his motion to instruct. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, the Convention took 
up the report of the committee on the Judicial Depart- i 
ment. 

The question pending being on agreeing to the thir- 1 
teenth amendment, to wit: In section 8, strike out ' 
the following: “an adequate compensation, not less ! 
than two thousand dollars per annum each for the Jus. 
tices of the Suprepie Court, and eighteen hundred dol¬ 
lars per annum each for the judges of the court of ! 
common pleas,” and insert in lieu thereof these words, I 
“such compensation as may be provided by law ”— 

A division being demanded, the question turned first 
on striking out. 

Mr. CLARK moved to perfect the words proposed 
to be stricken out, by striking out the word “less,” and 
inserting in lieu thereof the word “ more; ” which was 
disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out, 

Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded the yeas aud nays; 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 74, nays 19—as 
follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Barnett of Preble, Bennett, Blair, Bbekensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chaney, 
Clark, Cook, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of j 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1007 


Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Ilum- 
phreville. Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, 
Larsh, Lai’will, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loxidon, Manon, Mit¬ 
chell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stidger, Struble, 
'Phompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, 
Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Wcrtliingtcn, and President—T4. 

Nays —Messrs. Bates, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Dorsey, Gra¬ 
ham, Green of Roes, Groesbeck, Jones, Nash, Norris, Riddle, Roll, 
Sawyer, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stan¬ 
ton, and Swift—19. 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the Ibllowiiig 
words, “ such compensation as may be provided by 
law 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to perfect the words propos¬ 
ed to be stricken out by adding to the end thereof the 
following : “ Provided, that no compensation shall be 
paid, except in consideration of the actual perfortnance 
of official duty.” 

Mr. PIAWKINS said he had been induced to make 
this motion by the suggestion of an old friend who had 
long performed the duties of an associate judge, and 
upon whom for Jong periods of time had devolved the 
labors and responsibilities of president, in the county 
where he resides. While the president judge was off 
at watering places, taking care of his health, his duties 
had fallen upon the associates. He felt this to be a 
grievance that demanded a remedy. If he does not 
perfonn the duty, he should not have the pay He 
should be affected by misfortune the same as persons 
in other branches of business. He hoped to have a 
recorded vote on this question, and if some other gen¬ 
tleman did not move a call of the yeas and nays, he 
should do it himself. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, said it seemed to him 
the amendment did not go far enough. If he would 
change the annual salary into a per diem compensation, 
he might be induced to go for it. If that was done, he 
would suggest that the gentleman offer a rule that 
members of this Convention shall not receive their pay 
unless they were in their seats. 

Mr. KEEMELIN was in favor of the principle ol 
the amendment, but wanted it to go further. He want¬ 
ed in all cases to provide against sinecures. Gentlemen 
were smiling at the idea of sineciu'es; but he could 
point to Several in this county. There was a man here 
who wms receiving some seven th .usand dollars as 
clerk of a court, while the man who performs the du¬ 
ties received six hundred. He hoped that the gentle¬ 
man from Morgan would withdraw his amendment, 
and so amend it that in cases of all public office the 
man who performs this service shall receive the pay. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD said that the evil of desertion of 
judges from the bench was a very grave one—a gross 
evil; and the remedy ought to be embodied in this 
constitution. He did not wish that the gentleman from 
Morgan should withdraw his proposition. _He had seen 
the evil, and suffered under it in his own circuit, where 
for many years the president judges of the circuit had 
been grossly derelict—so much so that he looked upon 
it as a crying evil, of vast injury to the public, and to 
the gri at disregard to justice. 

Mr. LOUDON was in favor of the proposition, but 
did not think this to be the place for it. He thought it 
should be general. Still he thought there might be cir¬ 
cumstances under which it would work hardly. ^ He 
did not believe tliat when a judge or member of the 
Legislature is taken down by sickness, he ought to 
have his wages stopped on that account. 

Mr. BARNET, of Montgomery, wanted the rule to 
be made general. He thought we should begin here, 
and dock the wages of members who are not in then- 
seats. He thought that the payment of those who do 
not perform service, is a discouragement to those who 
do. 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, thought the whole matter 
a picayune business. We had given the election of all 
officers to the people, and if a public servant shall be 


grossly derelict, the people will apply the remedy. 
He did not believe that if a judge should happen to be 
taken sick on his way to court, or should happen tO' 
stop at a good spring to drink, he should be docked 
two or three bits as a punishment for being derelict 
of duty. He thought the business of fixing the com¬ 
pensation cf offic'^vs might safely be left to the Legis- 
ture. 

Mr. HOLMES was disposed to propose that judges 
should come under the ten hour system. Seriously, 
hovvevei’, he was opposed to going into the matter of 
fixing all salaries in the constitution. If we ai'e to do 
so we sJiall not finish our duties here until the fourth of 


next July. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, wished to explain his 
views upon the question. He felt himself obliged to 
vote against this amendment, for a variety of reasons. 
In the first place he did not look upon it as the duty of 
this body to fix salaries of any officers. That is the 
proper function of the Legislatur-e. Again for the small 
salaries now paid, eminent members of the bar would 
not leave a lucrative professional business to go upon^ 
the bench, with the prospect that if they should hap¬ 
pen to lose their health, they would also lose all their 
means of support. He did not believe in the princi¬ 
ple of making the salary of a judicial officer depend 
upon a thing so precarious as his health. If so, how 
much real distress might be the result. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD thought that the evil sought to be 
luovided against was already obviated. By providing 
as we have done, to abolish the office of Associ-ate Judge, 
we have seciu’ed against the bench being abandoned 
to those officers. 

The question then being on the adoption of the 
amendment, 

Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas and nays, and being,, 
ordered, resulted—yeas 15, nays 78—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Cahill, Clark, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Hawkins. Humphreville, Leech, Mitchell, Manon,^ Patter¬ 
son, Reemelin, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, and Struble—15. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, 
Curry, Dorsey, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, GiUett, Graham, Gray, 
Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, 
Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lar- 
will, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Norris, Orton, Otis, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, 
Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren,. 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stick- 
ney, Stidger, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson ot 
Stark, Townshend, Way, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worth- 
ingtou, and President—78. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the followtng 
words: “ such compensation as may be fixed by law; 
it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the lour- 
teenth amendment, to wit; In section 8, axtei tlae 
word “diminished,” insert the words “nor increase , 
it was agreed to; and the section, as amended, read® 


IS follows: 

Sec. 8. The Justices of the Supreme Court and 
he court of common pleas shall, at times, rece ve for ^ 

services such compensation as may be piovi^ded by , 
shall not be diminished nor increased during 
DUt they shall receive no fees or perquisites, 

Dffice of trustor profit under the authority oi the 

United States. All votes for either of tjem for any sJS IWeL 
ice except a judicial office, under the authority of tins State, giveu 
oj the General Assembly or the people, shall be void. ^ 

The question then being on agreeing to the fifteenth 
amendment, to wit: Add, at end of section 10, 
the followin'^ : ‘‘ Clerks of courts shall be removed lor 
mch cause aSd in such manner as shall be prescribed by 

v^s agreed to; and the section, as amended, reads 

as follows: , . 

Spc 10 The clerks of courts shall be elected by the elector 
n such maimer, and for such term, as may be fixed by laxv. 
Vrks of courts shall be removable for such cause, and in such 
nanner as may be prescribed by law. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to further amend the report, 












1008 


CONVENTION REPOllTS. 


by striking out of section 2, in the first part thereof, 
'these words : “ at the seat of goverimienl, and sucli 
other terms at the seat of government or elsewhere, as 
tnay be provided by law,” and inserting in lieu thereof 
thetollowing: “in each of the common pleas districts 
provided for in section third of this article, at such 
times and places as may be provided by law.” 

Mr. R. said the object of the amendment which he 
had oflered, was to compel the Supreme Court that 
shall be established under this constitution to hold 
one session yearly, in each of the nine districts into 
which the State is to be divided. He looked upon 
the provisions which it contained as of the first im¬ 
portance, and hoped they w'ould, in some foi’m, be 
adopted. He wanted also, to see a full vote upon this 
and all other questions connected with this report, in 
the Convention. He did not propose to extend his 
remarks, for the proposition w'as one that could be 
easily comprehended, and its practical efiects under¬ 
stood without difficulty. 

I am perfectly satisfied, Mr. President, that, in or¬ 
der to secure the favorable reception of this constitu¬ 
tion by the people, it will be absolutely nscessary to 
engraft upon the plan of a judiciary system reported 
by the committee, provisions more popular in their 
character than any which, at present, it contains. I 
do not wish to speak extravagantly upon the subject, 
but if T have any knowdedge of what is the clear, 
conscientious, and almost unanimous opinion of the 
people in the part of the State which I have the honor 
to represent, I may state, upon that knowledge, that 
it is in the highest degree, adverse to the system here 
proposed, and that these opinions will exert a strong 
influence upon the votes they are to give, when this 
constitution is presented to them for their adoption. 
The reason is, that it is perfectly apparent to them, as 
it is to me, that it will introduce great delays in the 
’administration of justice, add largely to the cost of 
litigation, and remove the courts far from the sight 
and reach of the people. 

1 call therefoi’e, upon gentlemen of the Convention, 
and urge them, by every consideration which should 
toe operative upon men who desire to render their la¬ 
bors acceptable, to come forward at once, and aid in 
engrafting upon this bill such features as will render 
it an aid to, instead of a weight upon the adoption of 
the code of organic law we are engaged in construct- 
ing. 

I have, Mr. President, no personal feeling involved 
in this question. 1 am in favor of the best system that 
can be constructed, and for that I will give my vote. 

It is jirovided in the bill of rights which forms a part 
of the present constitution, that all courts shall i)e open, 
and every person, for an injury done him in his lauds, 
goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by the 
due course of law, and right and justice administered, 
wiiliout denial or delay\ In the draft of the bill upon 
the p-reamble and bill of rights, for the constitution we 
are engaged in constructing, the committee omitted 
this provision. It may be, that taking into considera¬ 
tion the provisions of the judiciary'^ report, they felt as 
if they could not give the assurance that justice shall 
he administered without denial or delay. That provi- i 
siun however, has been reinstated, and I hope to see 
its promise redeemed to the letter. 

Hut sir, what does this system, in effect provide? > 
The State is to be divided into nine judicial districts, of 
which the county of Hamilton will be one. Besides 
this there will be eight districts, into which the balance 
of the State is to be distributed. This will make about 
eleven counties in each district. This amendment, if 
adopted, will bring a session of the Supreme Court in¬ 
to one of these eleven counties every year. Is this un¬ 
reasonable ? Or are we to be bound to a system that i 
has no feature but the centralization of‘all the judicial 
power of the State ? But we are told by gentlemen, that i 
this is a mere matter of detail, and that the safest and i 
best way is to leave it all to the Legislature. If the ( 


thing is right, it can be and should be done here, for 
this reason,—that this constitution has got to go before 
the people, and they will insist upon reading on its 
face that they are not to be saddled with a system that 
shall centralize all the judicial power of the State at 
the seat of government. They want a guaranty that 
such shall not be the result. Many will vote against 
the system, with this provision for delay and consolida¬ 
tion in it. If you will erect this com t, give it some¬ 
thing to do, and let it do its business as near and as 
conveniently to the people as practicable. Let us then 
begin here. The amendment will take nothing from 
the symmetry of the bill. 

Mr. STANBERY. It will increase the delays in the 
ad ministration *of justice—that is all. 

Mr. RANNEY. I do not think so. The same busi¬ 
ness will be done. Can it not be done as quickly in 
the districts as at the seat of government? The ques¬ 
tion is, shall the Supreme Court perform the same du¬ 
ties in the districts, or at the seat of government? 

Under the present system, the Supreme Court goes 
into each county, and decides from sixty to a hundred 
cases in bank; and will gentlemen say that with an 
enlargement of the force of the court, they will be so 
overloaded with business that they cannot hold a ses¬ 
sion in eight different places in our territory ? He 
looked upon this Supreme Court as something like the 
fifth w’heel of a wagon. There was, it would seem, 
little for them to do. If they hold their sessions only 
at the seat of government, there would be next to noth¬ 
ing to do. Now he wanted to furnish them with some 
duties to perform, for of all the evils that could afflict the 
public, the worst would be a Court holding its sessions 
at the seat of government, with nothing to do. 

He looked upon it as of great importance for any 
court to go out among the people, to learn their char¬ 
acter manners, habits, and modes of thought. It 
would give them a species of information, that they 
could obtain in no other way. Besides the effect upon 
people will be in the highest degree salutary. For no 
court can acquire that power, dignity, influence, and 
authority, in the eyes of the people, wdiich it ought to 
have, unless it goes among the people, performs its du¬ 
ties in their sight, and places in their view the practi¬ 
cal workings of the system of judicial power vvhich acts 
upon and protects their interests. 

If you require this court to sit at the seat of govern¬ 
ment, the efl'ect will be, it will not command the re¬ 
spect and the confidence of the peole, as if its duties 
were performed in their midst. The question is, will 
you have a supreme court silting at Columbus, and the 
business to be brought to it, or shall it go from district 
to district, administering justice to the people, for the 
people and in sight of the people ? 

1 have ever said w’hen I have been inquired of, that 
this Convention would not fix upon any system that 
would not bring home justice to the people. I have 
used my endeavors to counteract the tendency to bring 
disrepute upon its labors. But, sir, dry up the foun¬ 
tains of justice—create a system that shall ensure de¬ 
lay and uncertainly—take it away from the people, 
and locate it at the seat of government, and you have 
damned—irretrievably damned this constitution. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said, it appeared that the gentle¬ 
man from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] had a deep seated 
opposition to the entire system of tlie committee. He 
attacks the report disingeniousiy, and lays to this sys- 
tern all the defects, delays of justice, continuances, ap¬ 
peals, &c., incident to the present system. These are 
subjects proper to be discussed, under the head of re¬ 
form, in the practice of the courts ; but have no rele¬ 
vancy to the present subject. The question is, shall 
the supreme court sit at Columbus, or shall it sit in 
each of the nine districts of the State. Now, the gen¬ 
tleman has himself introduced a system of his own; 
and it would seem, that he is ready lo break down that 
of the committee, in the hope, then, to introduce his 
own. 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1009 


There may be a question of his consistency which 
may be seen in the light of his own report. In that he 
is content to have his supreme court in three places in 
the State. Here he is not content that it shall sit in 
even nine places. He seems not to have read his own 
project recently, and to have forgotten its provisions. 
And he appears equally ignorant of the provisions of 
the report of the committee, or he would have known 
that to sit in bank at Columbus is but a small portion 
of the duties required by the judges of the Supreme 
Court. The provision of the report is, that the Supreme 
Court—that is, the court in bank—shall sit at least once 
a year at Columbus, and at such other times and places 
as the Legislature may direct. 

The proposition involved in the amendment is not 
that the court that now corresponds to the Supreme 
Court shall sit in each of the districts of the State; but 
that the court in bank shall sit in each of the districts. 
The gentleman’s court in bank comes close enough to 
the people, when it gets to three places in the State; 
but our court in bank does not come close enough, 
when it sits in nine places. He threatens, that unless 
his amendment is adopted, the people will reject this 
constitution. How is it then, that he has made no 
such provision in his own plan ? Does he design, by 
urging its adoption, to defeat the constitution before 
the people? 

On motion of Mr. LIDEY, the Convention took a 
recess. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

THE JUDICIARY. 

The question being upon the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney] 
proposing to strike out from the second section of the 
report of the committee on the Judicial Department, 
the words “ at the seat of government, and such other 
times at the seat of government or elsewhere, as may 
be provided by law;” and insert in lieu thereof the fol¬ 
lowing words: “ in each of the commom pleas dis¬ 
tricts, provided for in section third of this article, 
at such times and places as may be prescribed by 
law;” 

Mr. RANNEY moved a call of the Convention, and 
the same being ordered, the following gentlemen were 
found absent: 

Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Case of Licking, Chaney, 
Clark, Curry, Dorsey, Farr,Florence, Graham, Groesbeck, Hitch¬ 
cock of Cuyahoga, Hootman, Lawrence, Mason, Nash, Nonis, 
Peck, Perkins, Riddle, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Townshend and Vance. 

On motion, Messrs. Hitchcock, of Cuyahoga, Mason 
and Smith, of Warren, wei*e severally excused. 

On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, all further proceed¬ 
ings under the call were dispensed with. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, would like, if it were 
possible, to remove some of the difficulties in the way 
of his colleague from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney.] It 
seemed to him, that the different parts of that gentle¬ 
man’s address this morning upon this subject, did not 
very well tally with the other. 

The gentlman tells you, in the first place, [said Mr. 
H.,] that you have somewhere about sixty or seventy 
cases that go into the court in bank every year; and in 
this ho is not very far out of the way. He then seems 
to be impressed with the idea, that every case appealed 
from the court of a justice of the peace,—will necessa¬ 
rily go up into the court in bank under the proposed 
system; and brings in evidence his ninety dollar note, 
sued for in the county of Auglaize, and coming up 
through the county court, the common pleas, the dis¬ 
trict court, to the court in bank, which is precisely the 
same course now pursued in cases of appeals—indu¬ 
cing neither no more nor no less delay. 

But, this bill was drawn up with the view of leaving 
it to the General Assembly, either to have this supreme 
court held at the seat of government, or at such other 
places as that body may prescribe; so that, if it should 
be thought proper to have have this court held in each 

64 


district, it might be so appointed. It was di.stinctly 
provided in these words: that this court should hold 
at least one term in each year “ at the seat of govern¬ 
ment, and such other terms at the seat of government 
or elsewhere, as may be provided by law.” This is 
leaving a dUcretion with tiiat body, to be exercised in 
accordance with the wants of the State. It does not 
bind them down to any certain rule. And now the sim¬ 
ple question is, whether it would be best to adopt the 
amendment of my colleague, [Mr. Ranney,] and say that 
this court shall be held once a year in the nine specified 
districts of the State. 

It seems to me that it would be hardly desirable to 
fix this rule. 1 do not believe it to be necessary, nor 
do I believe it to be desirable to the people at large. 

I have this objection to it. Although my colleague 
thinks the supreme court will have nothing to do, I am 
satisfied that if you introduce this clause into the bill, 
it will be entirely out of the power of the court to per¬ 
form the duties which it will devolve upon them, unless 
you can manage to give an additional number of weeks 
to the year. 

My colleague says the supreme court will have noth-' 
ing to do. How is it ? These judges are to hold court 
in each of the nine districts of the State ; and I sup¬ 
pose that it will yet be determined that one of these 
judges, with three judges of the common pleas, will 
be required to hold court in each county of the State : 
that I suppose to be the determination, though it is not 
yet so fixed in the bill. Then, let us see how it would 
work. There are four of these judges. Any individu¬ 
al acquainted with the business of the courts of Ham^ 
ilton county, must be satisfied that at least the time oi 
one of these judges will be taken up with the business 
of the isolated district of the county of Hamilton. That 
would leave, then, the three other judges to perform 
all the duties of this court in the remaining eighty-six 
or eighty seven counties of the State; and, perhaps, 
before the adjournment of the present session of the 
General Asembly, the number may be increased to 
ninety. And if the number should be so increased, 
each of these judges would have to attend court in 
thirty difterent counties. Well, how long a term would 
be required in each county ? No man could tell that 
with certainty. It would, of course, depend upon the 
amount of business. I would suppose, myself, that one 
week’s time to each county, upon an average, would 
be suflicient. In some counties it might require a term 
of only one, two or three days; in others, two weeks 
or three weeks would be required. But, upon an av¬ 
erage, it would, perhaps, be safe to take one week for 
each county. Thus, then, we would have employment 
for these three judges for twenty-nine or thirty weeks 
of the year. Besides this, there are, according to the 
provisions of the bill, if adopted, the district courts and 
the court jn bank to be attended by these judges. The 
latter court, I suppose, would be held in three difierent 
places, namely: in the county of Cuyahoga, in the 
north; in the county of Franklin, in the centre; and in 
the county of Hamilton, in the south-west. Here are 
three difierent courts to be held by these three judges, 
and the question is, how much time will this require? 
It is impo:sible for me to tell. 

But I am satisfied of this fact, that under this system, 
much more business will go into this court than what 
is now taken into the Court in Bank. For, at the pre¬ 
sent time, all the business which goes into the Court in 
Bank, goes there at the election of the judges, and for 
their satisfaction. They cannot be compelled to take 
any case, unless, upon its consideration in the circuit, 
there has arisen a difiereuce of opinion; and then, if 
the parties desire it, it must be heard before the Court 
in Bank ; but no case goes there, except it is desired 
by the judges themselves. Under the proposed system, 
however, I presume that cases will be taken into this 
court from other considerations than the wishes of the 
judges. Well, we have seen that those three judges, 
besides the judge attending in Hamilton county, will 










1010 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


have employment for more than six months of the 
year, which will be permanent. And then, according 
to the system of my friend, you will have eight places 
for holding the Court in Bank, instead of three; and 
you will have the Supreme Court in Bank for Hamil¬ 
ton county, which will require the presence of all the 
judges for a term which, it seems to me, cannot be less 
than six weeks. Then you will have the eight other 
places in the State for holding the Court in Bank, each 
requiring a session of at least two weeks, to be attend¬ 
ed by all the judges, which, added to the six weeks 
required for Hamilton county, would make twenty-two 
weeks; and if those eight districts were to recjuire a 
session of three weeks each, this time, added to that 
required for Hamilton county, would make thirty 
weeks ; which, added to the time to be occupied in the 
circuits of these judges, would make something like 
sixty weeks—so the year would not be long enough tor 
this service. 

It seems to me that it would be utterly impossible 
for these judges to do the business which my friend 
would impose upon them. Still he would impose tliis 
service upon them, because they would have nothing 
to do! If these judges were to be men of families, 
those families must be entirely neglected. We may, 
perhaps, find bachelors enough amongst the lawyers 
of the S ate, to fill these offices; and that, in fact, 
would be the only safe way of proceeding, under such 
a system. 

For these reasons he was opposed to the amendment. 

Mr. RANNEY was particularly gratified at the state 
of progress, which geuilemen of the committee on the 
Judicial Department had manifested, with reference to 
some improvements which he bad been endeavoring 
to make in this report. Recurring to the debates at 
Columbus, he found about one hundred pages of the 
reports, made up of debate upon his motion to make 
this District Court go into the several counties of the 
State. 

Now, I am told, (he continued,) that this is a conce¬ 
ded proposition: although the very gentlemen who 
tell me so now, assisted to vote down my amendment 
last summer. I understood my honorable colleague 
[Mr. Hitchcock, of Geauga,] to say that he regarded 
this as a settled proposition. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, (in his seat.) That is my mind 
about it. 

Mr. RANNEY. Ido not know but it may be so. 

I hope it is so. And if it is, we certainly have been 
making some progress during the recess of the Conven¬ 
tion. If this is to be regarded as a conceded fact, then 
all ourjlabors have not been for nought: for certainly 
there has been no battle more fiercely contested, than 
that which was waged in the attempt to make this 
court sit in every county in the IState. 

Mr. R. continued. His colleague had assumed that 
it would require half the time of one of the Supreme 
Judges to do the business for the district of Hamilton 
county alone. He admitted that Hamilton county 
might constitute one of the districts of the State, al¬ 
though her population would not entitle her to be so 
constituted. But he admitted this, and supposed three 
judges of the common pleas to be elected for this coun¬ 
ty- These judges were to hear every cause, civil and 
criminal, which might arise in the county of Hamilton. 
And his colleague thought that it would require the 
service of one Supreme Court Judge, to sit half the 
year upon the hearing of issues at law, arising out of 
the cases already once heard before the common pleas 
court; and it was by this kind of showing that he 
would make it appear that the Supreme Judges would 
be overburdened with business. 

But tlien the presence of the district judge was not 
absolutely necessary to constitute a district court. The 
three common pleas judges could hold court without 
him, and, as he would show, without detriment to the 
service. But he could not see how this district for 
Hamilton county should be longer occupied with the 


hearing of appeal, than the supremo court had been oc¬ 
cupied with the appeal cases of this county heretofore, 
he would ask the gentleman from Geauga, how long 
the supreme court sat usually in Hamilton county ? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. From three to five weeks. 

Mr. RANNEY. There was no reason then in antici¬ 
pating a longer sitting of the district court, than the 
term occupied heretofore by the supreme court, in doing 
the same business. 

It should be recollected that the difference between 
doing all the business of this higher court at the seat 
of government, and in the different districts, consists 
only in the time lost in traveling from one district to 
another ; and with the present improved faciiities for 
traveling, that difference would be very inconsidera¬ 
ble, for the very same business would have to be de¬ 
termined at the capital, which they would find in the 
districts: and, to give one week, to be consumed in 
traveling, he considered, would be ample. 

Hence the whole question was simply this: Should 
the judicial business of the State all be forced to the 
centre? or should the court go to the districts, and do 
the business there ? It certainly could be done just as 
readily and just as well in the districts as at the seat of 
government—excepting only the little time required by 
the court for traveling from point to point. 

But if this w'as going to be such a terrible drag upon 
the judges of the Supreme Court, to go and sit in the 
districts with the common pleas judges, he would pray 
gentlemen to ;ell him what was to become of the judges 
of the common pleas, whilst they were to be sitting 
day after day upon the trial of cases both of a civil and 
criminal character ? Certainly, if they could find time 
for the hearing and trial of the facts connected with all 
the cases of a civil and criminal character to come be¬ 
fore them, the time would be most abundant for the 
Supreme Court to settle the complicated questions of 
law arising in the court below. Who did not know 
that in a given district, four-fifths of the time was re¬ 
quired for the trial of questions to be considered by a 
jury; whilst only one-fifth of the time world be neces¬ 
sary for the hearing of questions of law. 

But he would be willing to dispense entirely with 
the services of the supreme court judges in the dis¬ 
trict courts, for he considered this arrangement to be 
entirely out of joint. It was a most singular plan for 
dove-tailing one court upon another. What was the 
operation? Unless you dispense with the services of 
the supreme judge in the district court, (which he 
w'ould prefer,) you would have these judges of the 
common pleas, and one supreme judge sitting for the 
hearing of cases in the district court. From this court, 
questions might be removed to the supreme court, 
where three judges make a quorum ; and thus might 
be produced the anomaly of three judges reversing 
the decision of four judges—whilst the lower court— 
especially the common pleas judges sitting in that 
court, oil account of their familiarity with the case, 
might be better qualified to determine the case than 
those who would overrule their decisions; and he was 
told that this was correcting Errors! 

After some further notice of the argument, he re¬ 
marked, in conclusion, that he would have all the du¬ 
ties of the proposed Supreme Court in Bank to be per¬ 
formed by the district judges. But, if gentlemen 
would go and constitute this court, he would be in fa- 
for of giving them just as much labor as they could 
perform for the good of the people who employed 
them. But if it were charged upon him that he did 
not understand this system, he plead guilty to the 
charge. It was a system so complicated, that even the 
fathers of it did not themselves know how it would ope¬ 
rate. It was left very much to be fixed by the Legisla¬ 
ture. It was a most complicated system, involving 
many absurdities. It gave the principal part of the la¬ 
bor to the common pleas judges, sitting in the coun¬ 
ties; and then established two paper courts above them 
—the system growing lai’ger—investing the most dig- 










CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


1011 


nity in the district court, and tapering off with a smaller 
court placed above that! He did not know but that, 
in the judgment of some, he was precluded from the 
privilege of amending this report, on account of his op¬ 
position to it. Nevertheless, he should follow his own 
convictions of duty, and for fear that this system might 
yet be adopted, he would continue to endeavor to 
make it popular, by bringing it as near to the people 
as he could. 

Mr. WOODBURY said the question was not whether 
this plan was or was not better than that proposed, by 
the gentleman from Trumbull. It would be more ra¬ 
tional and proper for the framers of the bill to defend 
their own system, rather than go out of their way to at¬ 
tack another system. 

He then went on to defend the systen proposed by 
the gentleman from Trumbull, having the advantage of 
bringing the Supreme Court into every district of the 
State. With respect to the plan under consideration, 
he argued in favor of fixing other points than Colum¬ 
bus for the session of the Supreme Court in Bank; and, 
generally, in favor of the substitute proposed by the 
gentleman from Trumbull. 

Mr. MITCHELL suggested that the whole object of 
the Court in Bank was to hear merely such cases as 
should go into the shape of reported decisions. He 
thought it a thing quite uncalled for, to take a court of 
this character into every district of the State. 

Mr. OTIS desired merely to explain his position with 
respect to this report. He was opposed to carrying 
this Supreme Court, which was to be of the nature of 
our Court in Bank, into every district of the State. 
Since the recess to-day, he had gone into a computa¬ 
tion of the probable time which would be required to 
carry the district courts into every county of the State, 
and he found that there would not be time enough for 
the judges of the supreme court to perform their du¬ 
ties as a Court in Bank, and also to perform their du¬ 
ties as part of the district court in each county of the 
State. He was therefore, opposed to the amendment 
of the gentleman from Trumbull. At the same time, 
if the report should not be amended so as to require 
the district court to go into each county of the State, 
he should be opposed to the whole of it. 

Mr. RANNEY. How much longer would it require 
the same court to do the same amount of business, sit¬ 
ting at different times in nine places, than though it 
were to sit in one place, or in three places ? 

Mr. OTIS believed that the business would be done 
much better by allowing the court to sit in few places. 
In those classes of cases which were to be tried by the 
Supreme Court—all paper cases—it was important that 
they should have access to extensive libraries, in order 
to the determination of questions in a manner credita¬ 
ble to the court, and satisfactory throughout the State. 
This was the reason why he should vote against send¬ 
ing this court into several counties of the State. 

Mr. RANNEY (in his seat.) That is not the old rea¬ 
son. It amounts to this: that you are in favor of cen¬ 
tralizing. 

Mr. SWAN supposed that if there were nine districts 
for the Court in Bank, it would be necesssary for the 
Legislature to fix the time for holding these courts, be¬ 
fore it will be possible to know the amount of busi¬ 
ness to be done. And in doing so, it would be neces¬ 
sary to leave a considerable mragin between those 
terms. He was opposed to the amendment, on account 
of this and other difficulties which it involved. 

The question being on agreeing to the amendment 
of Mr. Ranney; 

Mr. STANBERY demanded a division. 

The question then being first on striking out; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 45, nays 50—as follows: 

Yeas _Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case 

of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey. Ilwing, Farr, Forbes, 
Gray, Greene ot Defiatice, Gregg, Hard, Holt, Hootman, Hum- 
previile, Hunt, Jones, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Manon, Mitchell, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 


Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebblns 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Townshend' 
Wilson, Woodbury and President— 45. ’ 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensdefer, Brown of Athens 
Brown ot Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Gillett, Green of 
Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, 
King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
McCormick, Norris, Otis, Peck, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Smith ot Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Warren, Way and Worthinor. 
ton—50. 

So the motion to strike out was disagreed to. 

Mr. OTIS proposed to amend the third section, by 
inserting in the eighth line, after the word “ in,” and 
before the word “ each,’’ the following words: “each 
county of.” 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE suggested a modification of 
this amendment, namely: striking out all after the 
word “ each,” in the third section, to the word “ pro¬ 
vided,” and inserting in lieu thereof, the following, 
county by the judges of the courts of common pleas 
of the district, and one of the justices of the supreme 
coizrt, any three of whom shall be a quorum, at least 
once in each year.” 

Mr. OTIS accepted the modification. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said the effect of the amend¬ 
ment was merely to provide that this district court 
shall be held in each county. It made no other change 
in the section. It did not change the character of the 
district court at all; but, instead of holding this court 
once a year, or oftener, in each district, it provided 
thtt it should be held once a year, in each county. 
That was the only amendment proposed. 

He would say here, that he was opposed to this dis¬ 
trict court: and in this respect, perhaps, he occuped a 
position somewhat similar to that of his friend from 
Trumbull [Mr. Ranney.] He was not in favor of this 
system. It was too complicated. It proposed more 
courts than were needed ; and more, as he believed, 
than the people desired or expected. Yet, if it was to 
be adopted he wanted to make it as little objectionable 
as it could be made; and he believed the people would 
submit to many things about it which were inconven¬ 
ient or expensive, provided their business should not 
be taken away from them to some central point. If 
the system was to be adopted, it would be less objec¬ 
tionable with this amendment, than as it now stood. 
With this amendment he should not grieve so much at 
its adoption. But he would not be able to avoid feel¬ 
ing exceedingly sorry if it were adopted without this 
amendment. [Laughter.] He did not know but that 
in the estimation of some gentlemen, it would be im¬ 
proper for him to propose an amendment here;’Jjut so 
long as the friends of the bill would offer no amend¬ 
ment he felt perfectly justified in offering it, although 
he was not yet quite certain but he should vote against 
the report, even if his amendment were adopted. He 
practiced neither trickery nor disguise in this matter. 

Mr. STANBERY remarked that lawyers knew that 
if this court was to go into every county of the district 
it would delay the decision of causes. He reminded 
the Convention also, that this district court was not to 
cost the State a single dollar. 

Mr. LARWILL staled his belief that nothing could 
be done to render this constitution more odious than to 
insert this article without a provision to take the dis¬ 
trict courts into every county. 

On motion of Mr. LEADBETTER, the Conventir.n 
then adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY, January 22, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
Prayer by Rev. Mr. Deering. 

Mr. BENNETT presented a petition from Elizabeth 
L. Anderson and seventy others, females of Tuscarawas 
county, praying that a clause may be inserted in the 
new constitution prohibiting the Legislature from pass- 













1012 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


iug any law legalizing the traffic in spirituous liquors; 
which was read at the Secretary’s desk, and on mo¬ 
tion of the same gentlemen, laid on the table. 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the 
following communication from J. V. Smith, Reporter of 
the Convention. 

To the Hon. Wm. Medill, President of the Constitutional Conven¬ 
tion — 

Sib : As the publication of my reports of the debates and pro¬ 
ceedings of this Convention is now 'some two weeks in arrears, 
it may°be proper for me to state, that my reports are written out 
and ready to be forwarded within twelve hours of their date, 
except in cases where some portions of the same are reserved by 
request of the delegates for revision. In such cases, my instruc¬ 
tions are, that the reports should be printed without the reserved 
copy, it the same does not arrive in time for the printer. 

On one or two occasions, the agents of the Express company 
have, by mistake, lost one day in transmitting copy—of such de¬ 
lays, I hold their written statement. 

To keep the publication of the debates and proceedings within 
forty-eight hours or less of their occurrence, would require the 
daily publication of about five columns in the Columbus Daily 
newspapers. 

There is now in Columbus the copy of some ten or eleven days 
reports, unpublished. Respectfully, 

^ J. V. SMITH, 

Reporter to the Convention. 

On motion of Mr. LARSH, the communication was 
referred to the 'select committee on reporting. 

Mr. SAWYER said he was glad the Reporter had 
brought the subject of the publication of the reports, 
before the Convention. He had long felt that there 
was great cause of dissatisfaction, but had not been 
able to ascertain where the fault lay. There is one 
grievance that ought to be speedily remedied. The 
publication of the reports ol the Convention are nearly 
two weeks behind, while any gentleman who would 
take the trouble to examine the papers printed at the 
seat of government, would see that the proceedings of 
the General Assembly are kept up to the very day up¬ 
on which they take place. He saw also, that the edi¬ 
tor of one of these papers, had taken upon himself to 
speak in jeering, unjust and contemptuous terms of the 
proceedings of this Convention. Now, sir, I am not 
soft enough to be willing to permit this state of things 
long to endure. If the papers at Columbus will not 
publish our proceedings within a i-easonable time, we 
ought immediately to employ some one else. 

Mr. CHAMBERS said he was sorry his friend from 
Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] had not been a little more 
plain and frank. He had alluded to the publication in 
a newspaper, but had not given the information as to 
which paper he referred. In regard to the publication 
of the proceedings of the Convention, he was aware 
that the blame rested solely upon the editor of the 
Statesman. The copy goes from the reporter to him, 
and is taken by the Journal from his copy. The Jour¬ 
nal, of course, can get it no faster than it is printed by 
the Statesman. 

Mr. SAWYER said if the Statesman was to blame, 
he would not stand up to defend it. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention took up 
the report of the committee on the Judicial Depart¬ 
ment. 

The question pending, being on agreeing to the 
amendment of Mr. Otis, to wit; In section three, in the 
commencement of the same, strike out the following 
words: “ district by the judges of the common pleas, 
and one of the justices of the Supreme Court, any three 
of whom shall be a quorum, as often in each year and 
at such places in said district as may be prescribed by 
law,” and inserting in lieu thereof, these words ; “coun¬ 
ty by the judges of the courts of common pleas of the 
district, and one of thejustices of the Supreme Court, 
any three of whom shall be a quorum, at least once in 
each year.” 

Mr. GROESBECK. Mr. President: We have now 
arrived at an important ci’isis in the consideration of 
this report. If the amendment of the gentlemen from 
Medina, [Mr. Humphreville,] shall prevail, 1 shall 
be constrained to believe that one of the great re- 
i'orms in the administration of justice—one which the 


people have long needed and demanded, will be de¬ 
nied them. 

It seems to be admitted, that if this amendment 
carry, we are to have in the counties but one appel¬ 
late term a year. For one, sir, I can never consent to 
this unnecessary delay. 

Mr. President, I am one of the committee, wdio have 
presented this plan of a Judiciary to the Convention, 
and although I have participated but little in the dis¬ 
cussions of jit, I may be permitted to say, there is no 
one of us who feels a deeper interest in it, or in the 
subject to which it relates, than I do. I was willing 
to be silent, while others were ready to defend th® 
plan of the report, but it would now seem we are to 
take 'this important vote without further debate. I 
cannot consent to do so. 

It has been often and well said, that this is the 
great subject, to consider which we are especially 
convened. I know the people are waiting in anxiety 
for what we shall do, and we cannot be too careful in 
our action on this subject, in their behalf. 

Mr. President, it has been the practice of those who 
oppose the plan here submitted, not merely to con¬ 
sider and discuss it, but, as well, to denounce and 
abuse it—to call it all kinds of hard names, and apply 
to it epithets, that manifest quite as much feeling as 
reflection. 

We have been told it is complicated, involved and 
unintelligible; and such language is used in the dis¬ 
cussion of the most trivial parts, as well as of the 
plan as a whole. It has seemed to me, there was 
something unfair and censurable in the mode of at¬ 
tack. 

Now, Mr. President, with the same propriety I may 
use the same language of any plan of a judiciary—yes 
of the old plan now in use in our State. It is idle for us to 
hope to devise a plan which the people will comprehend 
at a glance, and which shall have no appearance of 
being complicated. I speak within bounds when I 
say that three-fourths of our people do not, up to this 
moment, comprehend that system, which has been in 
practical operation among them for nearly half a cen¬ 
tury—since 1802. Who is there of the profession who 
has not been inquired of in numberless instances, and 
by our most intelligent citizens, on this subject ? What 
do you mean by your court in bank—what by your 
Supreme Court—what by your common pleas courts 
—what is their jurisdiction—how do they act, and for 
what purpose are they severally intended ? It is not 
strange that such cpntrivances should seem complica¬ 
ted to those who are not called upon to make them a 
study. It is long before the student at law himself, 
comes to have a clear and satisfactory understanding of 
them, and in many instances they do not till they have 
spent years in practice. 

I aflirm that the plan here reported is no more diffi¬ 
cult to be understood, no more complicated or involved 
than the one we have been using for the last forty- 
eight years—that it is just as clear, and plain, and in¬ 
telligible. The people have made no such complaints 
as these, and yet they have complained long and loud¬ 
ly, and properly. Of what have they complained 7 
They have complained that our system of practice was 
too mysterious, and that our courts did not administei 
justice “ without denial or delay.” These have been 
their complaints, and it is herein they demand of us a 
remedy and reform. 

I am one of those, who believe there is too much 
mystery in the proceedings that are conducted in our 
courts. While we have as good law in Ohio as can be 
found in the world, the -system of practice by which it 
is administered, is to the unintiated, as mysterious as 
necromancy—as unintelligible to the people as generally 
as the tricks of a juggler, or the performance of a Blitz 
or an Alexander. It is regarded by the masses and 
with some truth too, as an occult science. Sir, this 
should not be. It is our duty to make this system less 
technical, and plainer aud simpler. 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1013 


But, sir, the remedj^ for this, is not to be sought from 
this committee. This subject has been referred to 
another committee, the committee on Jurisprudence; 
and 1 have alluded to it, only because the gentleman 
from Trumbull has made use of it to throw discredit 
upon this report. We have nothing to do with this 
subject. Our duty is to report a plan of courts and 
not a plan of practice. The illustration of the gentle¬ 
man from Trumbull is wholly irrelevant, and I may 
say, also, with the gentleman from Richland, that the 
same absurdities and delays of justice, may occur under 
our present system, or under the system proposed by 
the gentleman from Trumbull, or any other, wherein 
there are courts for the correction of errors. Let us 
not, then, condemn this or any ^other plan, because 
there is an existing necessity for a reform in our modes 
of pleading and practice, or in some of the principles 
of our law. Doubtless, that subject will be taken up 
by our Legislature, and I hope with others that ere 
long our plan of administering justice may be such— 
so plain and simple, that our people may understand, to 
some extent at least, what is going on, when they en¬ 
ter our courts. But, as I have said before, this subject^ 
is not within the range of duty prescribed to the com¬ 
mittee that made this report. 

Mr. President, what is the duty of that committee ? 
It is, sir, to contrive, if they can, a judicial system, by 
which justice shall be administered “ without denial or, 
delay.” I adopt the views of the gentleman from 
Trumbull in this respect. This is what is requii’ed, 
this is the constitutional requisition, that the State, in 
her courts shall administer justice for her people with¬ 
out denial or delay.” With this view and to this end 
our judicial system should be framed. 

What do we require to accomplish this? 

Good law, a good system ol practice, good judges, 
and a good plan of courts. 

Good law, we have. A good system of practice, I 
trust we are soon to have. We may get good judges, 
by giving liberal salaries. We want a good plan of 
courts. 

^ This brings me, Mr. President, to a brief considera¬ 
tion of the iJlan presented in this report, and for the 
reason, that some are disposed to regard it as very new 
and as departing unnecessarily from our old due, I pro¬ 
pose to examine it, side by side with the old one, 
pointing out the difference between them, and the 
causes of this difference. And I will here say, it has 
always seemed to me to b« proper to keep as close 
as would be practicable to the old system, andonly de¬ 
part from it to remedy a clear and manifest defect. 

I begin with magistrates’ courts, or courts of justices 
of the peace, as they are called. Ilerein both plans 
are precisely the same. It is not proposed to make any 
difierence in the organization of these courts, but to 
leave them as they have been from the beginning. No 
one objects to the report in this particular. 

The next court in the new plan, is the county or pro¬ 
bate court. In the report it is required that this court 
shall have jurisdiction in matters of probate and ad¬ 
ministration and guardianship, and at all events, and 
in the first place, if I may so express myself, do this 
business. We further provide that the Legislature, if 
it shall be found expedient at any time hereafter, may 
confer upon it appellate jurisdiction in civil cases from 
justices of the peace, and inferior criminal jurisdiction. 
Herein the report departs from the present sytem. 
This is a new court. All agree that the people want 
some such court. All agree that it should be a probate 
coui’t. Some would make nothing else of it, and others 
desire to make much more of it than the committee 
propose. We provide that it shall be a probate court, 
and, believing that it may be desirable in many sec¬ 
tions of the State, we say the Legislature may confer 
upon it appellate jurisdiction in civil cases from the 
magistrates’ courts. This was done mainly to avoid 
the expense and delay that have heretofore been occa¬ 
sioned by appealing such cases to the courts of common 


pleas. For the same reason, we further say, it may 
have petty criminal jurisdiction. We believe the peo¬ 
ple will approve all this. If they prefer it shall be a 
probate court only, the Legislature will not make it 
any more. If, at any time hereafter, the people should 
think it desirable to give it the additional jurisdiction 
before mentioned, the Legislature can give it. If such 
an experiment should prove a failure, the Legislature 
can take away this additional jurisdiction. It seems to 
me this is about right, and that it would be unwise to 
allow this court to be incumbered with still more juris¬ 
diction, as has been proposed by some. 

The next court in the new plan, is the court of com¬ 
mon pleas. This is the same as the old court of com¬ 
mon pleas, relieved of such jurisdiction as is given to 
the probate court. This is also a county court, and will 
sit iu each county, as heretofore. This court in the 
new plan, differs from the same court in the old one, iu 
these particulars. 

In this report, we dispense entirely with the associate 
[judges. But one judge sits in this court, doing the 
same business it has done heretofore, except that which 
is confided to the probate court. 

It will be observed that the State is now divided into 
nineteen circuits or distiicts, in each of which there is 
a President Judge for this court, and three Associate 
Judges iu each of the eighty-seven counties, with 
whom the President Judge sits, as he goes from county 
to county, in his circuit or district. In the new plan, 
instead of dividing the State into^ineteeu circuits, we 
divide it into nine. Why is this? There is an imper¬ 
ative necessity for such a change iu districting the State, 
whether we adopt this plan or any other. What 
would be the result, if this change is not made ? Let 
it be remembered, \ve are to have no Associates here¬ 
after, no matter what plan we adopt. What follows? 
Suppose you divide the State into as many districts as 
you have Common Pleas Judges, electing one Judge 
for each. This Judge would stand alone in his district, 
without help or dependence. If he should be unvvell 
to do business, there could be no court in his district. 
There are to be no Associate Judges hereafter to meet 
this contingency. For this reason, partly, the districts 
are made larger under the new plan, so that there may 
be more than one Judge in every district or circuit, 
and if one should be incapacitated by sickness or oth¬ 
erwise, there will be another, or others, belonging to 
the same district, to hold his court, and thus keep up 
the administration of justice. Another reason for this 
departure from the old plan of districting the State, 
was to organize properly the District or Appellate 
Court. 

Thus far, the only material departure from the old 
plan, it will be observed, is in the creation of a new 
court—the Probate Court, and this court is demanded 
throughout the State. 

The next court, in the new plan, called the District 
Court, is the same as the Supreme Court on circuit, (ff 
the present system. It has the same jurisdiction, and 
is intended to fill the same place, and do the same bus¬ 
iness, but much more satisfactorily and expeditiously, 
wherein it differs from the Supreme Court on circuit. 
We believe it is superior to it, and will endeavor to 
show it in another place. 

There is one other court under the new plan, here 
called the Supreme Court, but under the present sys- 
I tem, called the Court in Bank. The difference is slight, 
we make a difference in name, and if gentlemen prefer 
to call this court the Court in Bank, I have no very seri¬ 
ous objections. I should prefer, however, to reject 
this ancient and inelegant title — halt French half 
English, neither one nor the other. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The name is proper enough, as 
this court has always protected banks. 

Mr. GROESBECK. There is then a good reason for 
rejecting the name, at least with my colleague. 

To recapitulate then, Mr. President, the committee 
has provided courts as follows; Magistrates’ courts, 









1014 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


which we have at present—the county or probate court, 
which is new—the court of common pleas, a court we 
now have—the district court which corresponds with 
the supreme court on circuit—and the supreme court, 
which corresponds with the present court in bank. 

How much have we in this system that is new ? I 
think it will appear from this comparison, that we 
have not been very wild on this subject, and that we 
have shown all proper respect to the old system. We 
have one new court, and we have made considerable 
change in ihe common pleas and in the supreme court 
on circuit. 

Let me here give the reason for this change in the 
old supreme court on circuit. 

In organizing an appellate court to take the place of 
the present supreme court on circuit, the committee 
thought it would not be amiss to bring more force into 
that court, than we now have. Instead of two judges 
as it has been heretofore, they have provided four, with¬ 
out any increase of jurisdiction. It was thought more 
business would be terminated in that court, by making 
it larger, than has been formerly. Under the operation 
of the present system, two judges start out and hold 
this court, in the several counties. They are always 
pressed for time. Business is hastily done, and they 
are not able to do it all even in haste. It was believed 
this court of two judges did not give entire satisfaction 
to the public, and the committee thought it would be 
prudent to give this court more efficiency by providing 
a larger equipment of judges. I cannot, sir, call to 
mind any appellate court of any other State, filling the 
high place assigned to this, that is not better organized. 
Three is the lowest number of Judges in high appel¬ 
late courts, and many have more than three. Gentle¬ 
men will observe, that this court is made twice as 
strong, numerically, as it is under the old plan. It will 
do more business—accomplish more, do it better, and 
in better time. 

There is another feature in this district court, wffiich 
it seems to me, entitles it to our regard. Three of the 
judges which compose it, are jui’y judges—men who 
will be engaged the greater part of their time in trying 
issues of fact befoi’e juries. The fourth is what may 
be termed a paper judge, Under the present system, 
all the judges of this court, are paper judges. 

It was also thought, it would have a good effect up¬ 
on the common pleas judges of the several di.^tricts, to 
elevate them to this appellate court for a part of the 
time, and also upon the Supreme judge, who is asso¬ 
ciated with them in holding this court. 

It is admitted on all hands, that the plan here re¬ 
ported will be economical. It is more so than ourpres- 
ent one, and as much so, I believe, as any that can be 
devised, that will be practicable. 

^ Under this plan we secure as much force and effi¬ 
ciency, as we would if we should increase the number 
of Supreme judges to eight. 

This, Mr. President, is a very brief exposition of the 
system reported by the committee. Its difference 
from the one now in operation is not very great. There 
is in it nothing very new. It is not more difficult to 
be understood—not more mysterious—not more com¬ 
plicated, than the one under which we have lived for 
half a century. 

I have made these remarks in the hope that by so 
doing, I might remove some prejudice or apprehen¬ 
sion, which may have been excited by the discussion 
in reference to the repoit—to show that the committee 
have not overlooked the old plan in their investigations, 
and that they have manifested no partiality or fond¬ 
ness for mere novelty. 

I come now to the amendment of the gentleman from 
Medina. I have said that if this amendment prevail, 
I care little whether we adopt this system, the old 
one, or any other. I mean by this, that I believe no 
system will succeed, which must be worked accord- 
ing to such a rule, and I know that in its practical ef¬ 
fects, it will not give satisfaction to the people. What 


is the intent of the amendment ? It is this, to provide 
by an unalterable, iron rule, in the constitution, that 
this district or appellate court shall go once a year in 
to every county of the State. It is conceded, that if 
the rule be adopted, this court will be held but once a 
year for the several counties; and this is desired by 
those who favor the amendment. 

As the report has it, the sittings or terms of this 
court are under the direction of the Legislature, and 
there I am content they should remain. 

Mr. President, it is a declaration of our ‘‘ Bill of 
Rights,” that the courts of the State shall be always 
open, and that justice shall be administered without 
denial or delay. It is an imperious duty that we pro¬ 
vide a system that shall faithfully and honestly carry 
out this declaration. How’ are you to do this ? In 
no other w’ay than by frequent sittings of the courts. 

Let us look into this subject. Take for instance, the 
courts of the justices of the peace, which do all the 
light business of the State. We require that they shall 
be always open—every day of the week, except Sun¬ 
day. This is right. But inasmuch as these courts are 
fallible, and we should administer justice without de¬ 
nial, (which means true and right justice,) we find it 
necessary to give to other courts—the common pleas— 
jurisdiction to correct the errors, and re-examine the 
proceedings of these lower courts. How many appel¬ 
late terms a year do we provide for judgments render¬ 
ed before our magistrates ? At least three, and yet 
there is deky here which is complained of. We give 
three appellate terms for business done before magis¬ 
trates, and yet gentlemen would allow but one for busi¬ 
ness done in our courts of common pleas. Is there 
any good reason for this distinction ? Is it not as im¬ 
portant that business commenced in the common pleas 
should be terminated “ without delay,” as that begun 
before justices of the peace should be speedily termi¬ 
nated? Is not the business done in our common pleas 
courts as important in amount, and in every respect, as 
that done in the other courts I have named ? Are not 
the citizens who are required to go to the common 
pleas courts to get their justice, entitled to as much re¬ 
gard in this respect as those who go to the magistrates, 
and are not they too entitled to justice without unnec¬ 
essary delay ? 

Again, it is so arranged, that a party who begins his 
case in the common pleas, can bring it to trial and judg¬ 
ment in six months or at most in nine months. It is 
contemplated, and the endeavor is made accordingly, 
that the judgment may be rendered by that time. And 
yet what does the party have to do in that court—how 
much labor must he perform? He must bring his suit, 
prepare his pleadings, gather his witnesses, examine 
into the facts, examine into the law, and try the case 
upon the law and facts. All this he must do, say in six 
months. Now compare this amount of labor with that 
which is required in the appellate court, to which the 
same case may be taken. It is more than twice as 
great; and yet there must be an interval of an entire 
year between the terms of the appellate court. Sir, I 
cannot see the philosophy of this arrangement. The 
party must do all the labor in the lower court, collect 
his witnesses, examine the facts and the law, and all 
this in the period of six months; but when the case 
gets into the higher court, where only the law is to be 
re-examined—where there is comparatively little to do, 
there must be a rest of an entire year. Mr. President, 
this is a plain departure from the principle, that justice 
shall be administered without delay. 

1 ask the attention of the Convention to another 
thought on this subject. The right of appeal—the 
right to a writ of errors, or any other process, by which 
suits are removed after judgmenv, in one court to an¬ 
other court—is not strictly a common law right; nor 
should any partiality be manifested towards it. I bring 
a suit and succeed. The judgment rendered, is mine; 
my right—and to suspend its execution, and allow the 
unsuccessful to carry the case to another court, and 










COJWENTION REPORTS. 


1015 


have It a second time considered, is a favor to him ; I experience, as a lawyer, thatatleatt one third of the 
and It does seem to me, that a delay of a year under cases that are appealed, aie appealed for lime. Take 
such circumstances, is an act of injustice towards me. the law of our religion. They that teach in temples 
been the great cause of com- say that this law is broken, and the great reason is, be- 
plaint, heretofore, in our administration of justice ? It cause its judgments lie far away, in eternity. Delay 
|ias been the delay, delay, delay. This has been the hi judgment upon wrong, creates wrong, 
complaint, every \vhere, until courts of justice have Suppose a kind Providence should commission one 
yecome proverbial for it. of his best and brightest angels, to come down to the 

In this coimty, there were upon the docket of the State of Ohio and administer justice for her people, 
ist term of the supreme court, between three and four We have now an infallible judge—one who is cer- 
iindred cases. The year rolled round, and the judges tain to administer justice without denial. We have no 
1 that cemrt, came here at ihe^ time fixed ; disposed need of courts of appeals or error, for there will be no 
■jabout thirty of them, and continued the remainder— errors. All these contrivances in our system, placed 
tore than three hundred—one solid year. Let any there because our judges are fallible—placed therein 
|e go to that docket; inquire into the different cases ; an honest endeavor to administer good justice, would 
tice out the distress and disappointment this long de- be dispensed with. The angel-judge appears incur 
^^^tJasion, and I think he will be cured of this | niidst, and, if you please, waits for direction as to how 

he shall begin. How would we direct him? Would 
we say, take your seat, hold a term and render judg¬ 
ments once a year—once in six months—once in three 
months—once in one month ? Oh no. But we would 
say, begin instantly — render judgment instantly — 
judgment—judgment—^judgment as fast and as soon, 


tion of holding this court but once a year. 

But we are told,it has always been so. The supreme 
eprt has always been held in every county, but once a 
^^ by, this is one of the evils we are now here 
tjcorrect. It was well enough to require this court 
tdgo into every county, at the time our constitution 


^formed. There were, then, but nine counties, and often as possible, for we know your judgments 

uy-nve thousand inhabitants. There are now, eighty- will be right, and it is our duty to have justice admin* 

0611 counties, finfl iriOVft tlmn T>Tillir\Tia r\f‘ XX71 Tti tKia 1 11 iifttrfttlnn finrl 


counties, and more than two millions of iuhabi 
tew. The State was then, comparatively, but a wil 
dehess; it is now far advanced ' 


istered “ without delay.” In this illustration we find 
the principle. We are bound to administer justice as 
in commerce, and I fast and as soon as we can, and do it rightly; and we 
and general prosperity. All is now in contrast have no right—aye, sir, we violate the constitutional 
wi) what then existed. Yet, gentlemen would make requisition, if we unnecessarily delay the judgment for 
thiiroii rule for the present state of things, merely c^rie day. 

beebse they find it in our past. In some localities, in this county and other places, 

^b a requisition is without a parallel or precedent, this appellate court must be held oftener than once a 
Thilcourt shall sit eighty-seven different times, in y^ar. Honest claims are often settled at a large dis- 
eigly-seven different places, every year. It is not to count—claims well secured and undisputed, to avoid 
bo ADndered at, in view of this duty, that it has been the evil of this kind to which we have long been sub- 
calle the stirrup court. In what other State or county jeet. No one can trace all the wrong it has occasion- 
will ou find such an arrangement ? ed. I had rather have two terms a year, of four weeks 

Buit is not of this I complain. If the counties in each, at intervals of six months, than one term of four 
any dtrict prefer that it should go into eveiy county months—much rather so have it. 

41... _T . All I ask is, that we so leave this matter in the con¬ 

stitution, as that we may all be accommodated, and to 


of the: district, let it be so. What I complain of is, 
that vAshould fix in the constitution a rule by which 


this shabe so always, and in every part of the State, hx it otherwise, and in a way that will be unsatisfacto- 
Becausebig may be desired in some parts of the State, to a large portion of the State, is unreasonable and 
it does n\ follow that it should be so arranged for olh- unjust. I hope the amendment wUl fail. 

T 1 • . I Mr. RANNEY rose to address the Convention, but 

gave way for 

Mr. McCormick, who said that he should like to 
propound a question or two to the gentleman from 
Trumbull, before he pi'oceeded with his argument. If 
these questions were now asked and answered, it 


er parts 0(tbe State which desire otherwise. Let us 
so fix the uistitution as that all sections may be satis 
fied. Let \ have a discretion with the Legislature. 

Delay sIum be encouraged. On the other hand 
it should b6'gQQuj.gggj_ 

I find? sir, > ouj- statute book, at this time, a law 


that shows, b^j^g clearest implication, that our people might save much time, 
regard this pla\f ^be Supreme Court, on circuit sitting . Did you make known to your people, that by hold- 
but once a year^ evil. I refer to the law which im- i^o courts in each county final judgment would be de¬ 
poses a penalty bve per cent, where parties appeal iayed for six months, or one year longer, than if ^he 
for delay. WhaV ^bat but an acknowledgment that courts were holden only in two, three, or four 

appeals are takenpj,g|y. delay, and that the pres- places in the district, and with this fact before them, 
ent plan allows of —unreasonable delay—delay did they demand the county term ? 

which we should \ gRow, and, therefore, impose a Did you make known to your people, that your sys- 
penalty to prevent let. us‘^ive of county courts would increase the taxes from 

the judgment, and possible. ^ ° seventy-five to one hundred thousand dollars per year 

We have rnade a gQ^rt, mainly to prevent for judicial purposes, more than the system offered by 

delay in that busines^l enable the courts of com- Ihe committee, and with these facts befoie them, did 
mon pleas to despatchu^. have to do in a recommend your system ? ,. . 

reasonable time. This V ^t; but when we come to Mr. RANNEY. The amendment now pending is a 
this court some geatlem\” allow of n^ost important one. If adopted, it will help to cover 

no change—although the^ ^ere has been especial- die multitude of sins found in other parts of this re- 

i__ XU- r -.i„.r,t , It proposes to deal justly and equally with all 

the counties of the State, by requiring: the district 


ly the cause of complaint. , 

^ Sir, we violate a ^eat b^i postponing, put 

ting off justice. I ^fi^^*^ %ne-half the crime—one- 
half the offences—one-halt ct breaches of contracts, 
and laws of every kind, are attributed to the de¬ 
lay that takes place in admint- remedy. 

Delay in judgment upon makes wrongs. It 
is so in every thing and everi 
Man indulges his appetite lor di because the conse¬ 
quences or judgment upon the y removed- 

men commit crimes on the sainff irmv 


counties of the Ktate, oy requiring 
court to be held in each of them. Thus preventing, to 
some extent, the centralization of judicial power and 
business, now inherent in the system a system alike 
injurious to the best interests of the people and a large 
majority of the bar of the State—a system calculated 
to sacrifice the small counties, and the profession loca¬ 
ted in them, for the benefit of a few commercial cen¬ 
tres The amendment I offered on yesterday, although 
I will agree second in importance to this, was intended 










1016 CONVENTION REPOETS. 


to effect the same end in respect to the business of the 
supreme court. I was then met with the objection 
that the adoption of that amendment would disable 
the supreme judges from attending the sittings of the 
district court in each county, which was much more 
desirable than that the supreme court shall sit in each 
district. The objection, though fallacious, was yet 
plausible; audit had the effect to defeat that amend¬ 
ment. My colleague [Mr. Hitchcock, of Geauga,] then 
stated that he had no doubt that the Conv'ention would 
so amend the report as to require the district court to 
sit in each county. I understood him then, as well as 
on other occasions, to be in favor of it; and from his 
remarks, coming from a leading member of the com¬ 
mittee who had signed the report, we were authorized 
to infer that the committee w’ould not oppose such a 
modification of their system. Not one gentleman of 
tjhe committee rose to controvert the proposition. Eve¬ 
ry man of them sat quiescent here, and heard the gen¬ 
tleman from Geauga say, that the reason why my 
amendment should be voted down was, that by its 
adoption the duties of the supreme judges would be 
increased to such an extent as would prevent their 
attending the sessions of the district court in every 
county. 

Mr. STILWELL, (interposing.) I stated at the time 
to the gentleman from Trumbull, that the gentleman 
from Geauga did not speak for mo. 

Mr. RANNEY. The gentleman is entirely correct. 
He did state that to me, individually. But did any 
gentleman rise in his place, on yesterday, when the 
gentleman from Geauga was giving that as the reason 
W'hy the Convention should reject my amendment, and 
tell this body that he was going to oppose that state¬ 
ment to-day 1 That he intended to oppose this amend¬ 
ment? Did the gentleman from Geauna intimate that 
he should ? , ^ 

^ We aie accused, sometimes, of not being ingenuous 
in our ojjpositioii to this rejiort and in our propositions 
to amend it; but I leave gentlemen to say for them¬ 
selves what kind of diplomacy this is. 

I do not know that my honorable friend from Frank¬ 
lin, [Mr. Stanbery,] will permit me to make another 
suggestion in regard to this report. On yesterday, he 
told me, that the bantling was not committed to my 
hands for nursing ; that its friends asked no aid from 
me—that I was for strangling the brat. I will most 
cordially yield to that gentleman, the honor of beiim 
wet nurse for it; for as much as any other gentleman 
upon this floor, he has the ability to give it credit and 
character, and make it respectable in after life. But 
he must recollect that this bantling, like one of Queen 
Victoria’s children, as soon as it shall be born, has got 
to be supported from the public treasury. My constit¬ 
uents, as well as his, will be taxed to support it. For 
this reason, then, I supjiosed I might venture to inti¬ 
mate to the gentleman, that it might conduce to the 
to the health of the child to have it travel through the 
State. But it may be, as it seems to be, that the gen- 
tlemam supposes that in this way, it will become too 
vigorous and healthy to meet the demands and answer 
the purposes of its “ nursing fathers,” and therefore it 
must be confined to ‘‘ London.” 

I hope I shall not be met again with the gentleman’s 
assertion, that I was not in favor of my own amend 
ment, in opposition to my own earnest profession. 

Mr. STANBERY, (in his seat,) was understood to 
say, that he intended no discourtesy. 

Mr. RANNEY. To be sure, as he says, he made the 
denial wfith great courtesy. But, sir, 1 do here aver, 
that, if I ever undertook seriously to do anything in 
my life, it was to let the bantling of this report — the 
Supreme court of Ohio—have the benefit of the moun- 
tair air, by requiring it to perform its duties in differ¬ 
ent parts of the State. I have always thought that an 
independent Supreme court could sit as creditably, 
and administer the laws just us wisely, at Mansfield or 
McConnellsville, as in the purlieus of Columbus, or 


Cincinnati, or Cleveland. I had not supposed that the 
presence of a great city was necessary to the adminis¬ 
tration of Justice. At the hazard of again being told 
that it is none of my business, I will make a sugges¬ 
tions why the present amendment should prevail. 

The proposition is, that the district court shall hold a 
session in each county, once at least in each year. I 
do not turn prophet, and declare that your system will 
be incapable of the performance of this service. For you 
have told me, that it can easily do it—you are all hon¬ 
orable men—and I am bound to presume that it can be 
done. I do not undertake to say that 27 judges, under 
the proposed system, can perform all the duties now 
devolved upon the common pleas and the duties of the 
present Supreme court besides, when twenty-three 
judges have heretofore failed in the performance of 
the first duty alone. That is your asseriion—not mine. 

Well—is this proposition expedient? is it desired b) 
the people? Every gentleman can speak fer his owr 
neighborhood. Is it expedient that justice should b( 
administered in each county ? It should be remem 
bered that but a single judge sits in the court of com 
mon pleas—and now, should you not require appeal 
from his decisions to be decided in the county in whicl 
the litigants are situated? or should you allow themt 
be taken out of the county, to be taken to remote par* 
of large districts of the State? 

My honorable friend from Hamilton, [Mr. Groi* 
BECK,] has taken his text from the old bill of riglr, 
(which came near being left out of the new bill,) whilt 
declares that the courts shall be open and free to a ; 
and that justice shall be administered without deniair 
delay; from which he proceeded to argue very faiy 
and candidly: and he deserve.s,and shall receive a di- 
did reply. I will say a few words by way of impive- 
ment from the same text. 

He says that complaints rightfully exist agains'he 
manner of administering the law in the State of Oio. 

In this he is correct; if thi.s were not true—if this >m- 
plaint had not been rife throughout the State, I cry 
much question whether this Oonveuiion would ^ave 
been in session at this day. The gentleman say that 
there are two complaints against the administr'^oti of 
the law; and the first is, that the proceedin have 
been too mysterious and complicated. 1 W’ agree 
with him cordially in that. 1 have attemptecO stand 
upon this floor and advocate a reform in lb particu¬ 
lar—believing that it would meet the just n'®<^*^3,tions 
of the people, to put our noble systein of >tpon a 
reasonable and plain foundation in its adhiislration. 
And when I made this effort, I would ha been glad 
to have received the aid of the jioter'*^^^® of my 
friend from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbec] I did 

not. I do not know but I am mistaH’ hut my im« 
pression has been, that, upon the call ^ ^he yeas and 
nays, my honorable friend voted proposi¬ 

tion designed to remove this compl *' "'Idch he says 
is rife in the mouths of the people,'^ which impera¬ 
tively demands reform. But, fi-o’''^hat he has now 
said, I certainly must have been hi his voting 

upon this occasion. 

Mr.^GROESBECK, (interposi.^ Does the gentle* 
man make an inquiry of me, a" how I voted? 

Mr. RANNEY. 1 have coj^^h myself. I have 
said, I supposed that I must b' heen mistaken, in the 
impression that the gentlemP against the propo¬ 
sition for law reform. 

Mr. GROESBECK. were mistaken, 

sir. 

Mr. RANNEY. I am ’P/ stand corrected. 

The next complaint ^?h has been made against 
the administration of ju " Ohio, (as the gentleman 
says truly,) is, that t ® has been too much delay. 

The delay, and cons'"?hy increased expense and 
vexation growing ou course of legal proceed¬ 
ings in the State of h^® been one of the promi¬ 
nent causes of difiif/. complaint on the part of 
the public. 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


ion 


Now, if the gentleman’s system is calculated to re¬ 

medy that evil, and get rid of the delay, and the in¬ 
creased expense and vexation which it induces, then I 
am with him. I desire nothing else upon this subject. 
But I cannot understand the system in that light. On 
the contrary it seems to mo to aggravate, rather than 
remedy the evil. 

The gentleman has introduced a comparison, now, 
and for the third or fourth .time, to show that his sys¬ 
tem is open to no^ delays, except such as are incident 
to the system which I myself introduced, as a minori¬ 
ty of the committee on the Judicial Department. The 
statement was not true at the beginning, and is it any 
more correct for being often repeated ? I will soon 
advert to this again, and show that he is incorrect in 
the statement. 

But he introduced a comparison between his system 
and the present judicial system in Ohio. I agree with 
him fully, in saying that there are just and valid ob¬ 
jections to the delays and vexations incident to the 
present system; for, if there were not, why are we 
here deliberating this day? But if the gentleman 
should compare the two systems, and be able to show 
that his was not, in this respect, worse than the present 
system, what would he gain ? for we could not have 
been called here to amend what was not a grievous 
evil. He ought to present us with a system that reme¬ 
dies the evil, and not content himself with saying, it is 
no worse than the present system. 

But, sir, I mahitain that it is infinitely worse than the 
present system. Let us look at it for a moment, and 
see if it is not worse. Under your present system you 
have three courts: justices of the peace, common pleas, 
and supreme court. 

Mr. GROESBECK. The Court in Bank. 

Mr. RANNEY. Does the gentleman say that is a 
distiact court? 

Mr. GROESBECK. I admit that it is not a distinct 
court. 

Mr. RANNEY. I might show what it is; but I need 
only remind the gentleman of what he already knows, 
that, for about twenty-five years of our political ex¬ 
istence, there was no such thing as a court in bank in 
the State of Ohio. 

I say sir, there are but three courts. These are 
ail that the constitution recognizes, except such as 
have been created in large cities for police and com¬ 
mercial purposes. And now, if you commence your 
suit before a justice of the peace, you can appeal to 
the court of common pleas, but not beyond that court. 
And if your action is commenced in the common pleas 
you can take it to the Supreme Court. Hence, the ex¬ 
isting system allows of but a single appeal—from the 
common pleas of the county to the Supreme Court, 
held every year in the same county. The theory of the 
system being to dispose of a case in the court of final 
resort the same year in which it maybe commenced in 
the court below. 

Now what is a court in bank. It is made up of these 
supreme judges, holding courts in every county. And 
whenever they meet with a case of sufficient impor¬ 
tance to report, or in v hich the judges diSer, they re¬ 
serve it upon their own motion, lor consultation in the 
court in bank, to be terminated at Columbus. It was 
but another term of the Supremo Court held by all the 
judges. It had neither feature nor attribute of an ap¬ 
pellate court. You could not go there, but by the ap¬ 
proval and recommendation of the judges themselves. 
Either the judges themselves reserve the case or else 
two of them at least, have to approve a writ of error, or 
it cannot go up to the court in bank. 

What is the practical result of this ? Why, that there 
gets into this court only some sixty or seventy cases in 
a year—less than one case for each of the counties of 
the State. The only object being, where the judges 
differ, to meet together and consult them all upon the 
case, in order that a report may be made. It was only 
all additional term of the same ^ L which finds its 


way once every year into every county of the State 
and dispenses justice to the people in almost every case, 
without removing it from the county. 

This, Mr. Rresident, is the old system qf judiciary— 
the grievous system which we are called here to re¬ 
form, because of the delays and abuses which have 
grown up under it. These the gentleman admits, we 
are bound to remedy. They are real, not imaginary 
evils. 

Now, let us take a case under the proposed system. 
In the first place, you have a case in the court of com¬ 
mon pleas. I am not undertaking to say how soon it 
will be decided there. I suppose there will be no great 
difference between the action of this court and the 
workings of the present court of common pleas; and 
then you would have six months delay. What, then, 
is the next step ? By the requirements of this new 
constitution, the district court shall be held once every 
year. After you get through with your six months 
in the court of common pleas, it may be necessary 
lor you to go into the district court, and suppose you 
go straight ahead, you may have consumed a year and 
a half, from the time your action was brought, before 
you get out of the district court. Well, what next? 
There is your supreme court, or your supreme court 
in bank, or whatsoever you please to call it, which is 
going to sit once a year—perhaps in one place, or, it 
may bo, in three places; but how are you going to get 
your case into the supreme court ? The gentleman 
says the people will be able to understand this system 
without the least difficulty. I will ask the learned gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] how is this 
case to go into the supreme court ? I would be glad 
to know. Can the aggrieved party take it there at his 
election ? 

Mr. GROESBECK (Mr. R. yielding.) It is well 
understood. The case is to go into the supreme court 
by the allowance of a writ of error, by two judges; 
or by being reserved by the judges of the district 
court, or, according to the mode which may be pre¬ 
scribed by law—^just as you now go into the court in 
bank. 

Mr. RANNEY". Y’’ouhave got to wait until your writ 
of error may be allowed. But, suppose, you have a 
chancery case—the district court have decided a chan¬ 
cery case against you, and they will not reserve it for 
hearing in the supreme court, when they have been 
unanimous in the decision—how are you going to get 
up into the supreme court, where you suppose they 
will do you justice ? 

In the present system, there is no difficulty, because 
two of the same judges sit upon the circuit, and under¬ 
stand the case perfectly. But when you undertake to 
remove a case from one court to another court, lor the 
correction of errors, would you leave a man’s rights to 
I depend upon the slender tenure of the grace allowed 
by the judges, who are against him, when the only 
question with them, will be, whether they should con¬ 
sider themselves asses enough not to have been right, 
when they have been unanimous ? 

The question still recurs, and again I ask the gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton, how he would get his cases into 
the supreme court ? I think he will find it one of some 
difficulty. When that gentleman took his text, that 
the courts should be open to every man, and that jus¬ 
tice should be administered to all, without denial or 
delay, I thought the declaration meant something; but 
the idea, when it comes to be interpreted by the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton, is, that we must depend for jus¬ 
tice in the supreme court, upon the grace of the judges 
in the court below. Either this is his position, or he 
is forced to the other alternative, of allowing parties to 
appeal at pleasure from the district to the supreme 
court; and then, under this system, he cannot escape 
from the loss of almost three years of lime, before he 
can get his case through this gauntlet of courts. Gen¬ 
tlemen may take either horn, I don’t care which. 

Now, I affirm that this system is tenfold worse than 











1018 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the old one. Our fathers framed a judiciary by which 
in the course of a single year, a man might have his 
cause decided: but you are framing a system which, 
if you give to the suitor all its benefits, you cannot get 
him through short of three years time. 

My own system has been referred to, and attacked. 
I do not claim it to be perfect. But it strikes me that 
gentlemen had better enter into the defence of their 
own system, when its battlements are crumbling 
away, rather than go abroad to attack others. I shall 
however, defend my own system, in a few words. I 
care not whether it gets another, it shall have my vote. 
It is founded upon the gentlemen’s text, that the 
courts shall be open to all; and justice shall be admin¬ 
istered without denial or delay. It makes good this 
declaration. But what is it? I have been guilty of 
believing that whenever you try a case before a well 
constituted and able judicial tribunal the first time, 
justice will be just as likely to be well administered, as 
it can be at any future time upon an appeal to another 
court. Therefore, in my system, I have provided that 
every case, when it has been tried before two judges of 
the Supreme Court with reference to the facts and the 
law, there shall be the end of it. I don’tknow but the 
old system of riddling cases from court to court, by ap¬ 
peal is the best, but I am constrained to believe that 
justice is just as well administered by competent men, 
upon the application of the law and the testimony, in 
the first instance; yes sir, and better than in any other 
way, or at any other time. This is the leading feature 
of my system. How can gentlemen say that such a 
system admits of delay ? I too have a Court in Bank. 
It is made up of the same judges who try the causes in 
the districts. To this court is reserved the hearing of 
such cases as are difficult and worthy of being publish¬ 
ed to the people of the State, in the shape of reports. 
I give my Supi’eme Court original, instead of appellate 
jurisdiction, of all the important cases in the State—to 
settle them in the counties where they occur—reserv¬ 
ing to themselves the power of carrying them to the 
Court in Bank, for review in such cases as I have al- 
reeidy stated. 

The gentleman, [Mr. Groesbeck,] says, if you could 
get angels to administer justice, you would not want 
a court of appeals. If we were to begin with men 
and appeal to higher intelligence, the gentleman’s log¬ 
ic would be good; but when we try a case by the judg¬ 
ment of two fallible men, and appeal from their excis¬ 
ion to the judgment of two other fallible men, how is it 
possible to know that the judgment and decision of the 
two last will be more correct than that of the two 
first ? Here is the great difficulty in the way of the 
doctrine of appeals. It is true that as a man rises in 
the scale of dignity and importance in the State, his 
head grows clearer, and his judgment more reliable ? 
Can the mighty chief, provided for in your report, hold 
the scales of justice evener, or with a less trembling 
hand thaii other judges of the State ? If this were so, 
the doctrine of appeals might do. It would then be 
all-important. But appeals under the system before 
us, are from the decision of four fallible men, to the 
judgment of three fallible men, and I ask what assur¬ 
ance have you that the decision of the last will be 
more righteous than that of the first? 

I enter no further defence, and offer no further ar¬ 
gument in favor of my system, but I feel assured my¬ 
self that it would insure the administration of justice 
as equitably and speedily as any other plan that can 
be devised. It tries causes by a good court at first, 
thereby superseding the necessity of appeals, and 
avoiding the expenses, vexation, and delay incident 
to them. It brings justice near to the parties, and re¬ 
presents equally in the court in bank, all parts of the 
State, and all parties. If the.se things are merits, then 
none of them belong to the majority system. If the 
public are ready, however, to renounce them, I as a 
lawyer, ought not to complain. 

I have already on a former occasion, recounted some 


of the arguments in favor of the district courts going 
into every county. I will now repeat them. The pub¬ 
lic, so far as I know, have held them valid and suffi¬ 
cient. The gentleman from Hamilton has stated, as a 
strong recommendation for the district court,’ that it 
brings into it judges experienced in jury trials. He 
said it was well that you should bring the judges of 
the common pleas into the district court. But, did that 
gentleman ever reflect, that whilst it was well to bring 
judges thus engaged into the district court, that the 
judges of his Supreme Court ever performed any of 
this duty? No judge of this court ever faces a jury, 
ever hears or examines witnesses, ever applies the law 
to the facts as they arise. It is to sit nowhere without 
the walls of the capitol at Columbus, if its originators 
are gratified. They never go down to mingle in the 
affairs of every day life ; they have never a jury before 
them. And yet the gentleman, [Mr. Groesbeck,] 
w’hilst he admits that it is a great recommendation for 
a judge to come up from the trials at common law, to 
sit in the district court, himself votes for a court that 
never performs any of this duty, and has not a particle 
of this strong recommendation. 

But, since we have come up here, upon the invita¬ 
tion of the people, in order that we may give them a 
good judicial system—one that shall be just, stable, 
cheap, expeditious in its operation, and open to ail—it 
seems to me that the Convention should be as patient 
in their investigations of this subject, as any other 
which can be presented to their consideration. And, 
for myself, as I said on yesterday so I say now, put in¬ 
to this constitution what system of judiciary you please, 
and I will vote for it; because, as I hope and expect, 
it will contain a clause for future amendment, in a 
summary and easy manner. Upon this I will rely to 
remedy defects as they appear. But I intend, when I 
go home to the people, that they shall know who in¬ 
serted this system, and who is responsible for it; and 
I give notice to gentlemen, that I have lost nothing of 
my zeal for sending the Supreme Court into different 
parts of the State, by the defeat of my proposition on 
yesterday ; but I intend still to propose to send it into 
five places in the State, and if that should fail, I will 
move again to insert four, and again, three ; and every 
time we will have the yeas and nays. I intend that 
every man who shall read these proceedings, shall find 
my vote and my voice recorded in opposition to the cen¬ 
tralization, and in favor of the equalization of the 
benefits of the judicial system to all parts of the State 
alike. 

I understand, sir, that complaints, in certain quar¬ 
ters, are to be made against this constitution, if this ju¬ 
diciary system is to go into it. The very last Whig pa¬ 
per which came to me from that county which I, in 
part, represent, in enumerating the reasons why the 
people ought to reject this constitution, refers specifi¬ 
cally to this judiciary system, and declares that it is in¬ 
finitely worse than the old one. So the organs of the 
Whig party, out of doors, are inviting the people to re¬ 
ject this constitution for the very features which the 
Whig party here are unanimously voting to put into it. 
But I intend the people shall see who are entitled to 
the credit and responsibility of fastening it upon them, 
as every man can see, who will examine the vote o" 
yesterday. This, I am aware, will not be the real rea¬ 
son for the opposition of the Whig press to the new 
constitution, but it will be amongst the most potent of 
those assigned. 

We might as well know at once the real cause for 
all this Whig zeal. It is because the constitution is 
likely to cut up monopoly and Exclusive privilege. 
And now. mark my words, if you put into the consti¬ 
tution thi.s judiciary system, it will really be one of the 
most objectionable of its features, and it will be seized 
upon by the Whig press to operate upon the prejudices 
of the people, and induce them to vote against it. It 
will be taken up and condemned, just as universally, 
by the Whig press of the State, as-they took up and 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 101 & 


condemned the adjournment of the Convention last 
summer, which was carried by every Whig vote in this 
body except two. 

Mr. LARSH, (interposing.) I ask the gentleman to 
except the Whig paper of Preble county. 

Mr. GREEN, ol Ross. The Whig paper of my conn, 
ty is also an exception. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking. The Ohio Statesman and 
the Mount Vernon Banner, are certainly in the cate¬ 
gory. 

Mr. RANNEY continuing. Well, sir, I intend that 
the people shall see what we oppose, and what we fa¬ 
vor, in connection with this subject. I shall stand to 
the record. If the people of the State are willing that 
their court of last resort shall be locked up within the 
walls of the capitol at Columbus, and never emigrate 
thence, let it be so. We shall all take the responsibili¬ 
ty incident to the votes we give. All I ask is, that you 
shall not attempt to defeat this constitution for the very 
features that you compel us to put into it. 

In reply to the gentleman from Adams, [Mr. McCor¬ 
mick] who asked me two long questions, as near as I 
can remember them, whether the people of my part 
of the country were aware that they would be delayed 
six months longer in their business, by having the dis¬ 
trict court go into each county, and whether they were 
aware that my system of judiciary would cost the 
State from $75,000 to $100,000 more than any other 
system, I have merely to say that I have not taken 
any extra trouble to go to the people of my part of the 
State, and tell them anything about these matters, or 
to learn anything from them. I made some remarks 
upon the subject last summer, which some of them have 
seen, and, so far as I have heard, they have been spo¬ 
ken of as reflecting their views. But I can tell the 
gentleman from Adams what the people have heard. 
They have heard all that could be said in a hundred 
pages of the reports of our proceedings and debates, 
in the way of recommendation of the system of judicia¬ 
ry before us; and they have heard all the attacks which 
were made last summer upon my system ; and now I 
speak in the face of delegates from the northern part 
of the State—I speak in the face of every delegate— 
and I demand of them to say whether there has ever 
yet been heard, from any respectable number of per¬ 
sons, the expression of an opinion formed in favor of 
this judicial system 7 I will yield the floor to any gen¬ 
tleman who can say he has heard this. 

In conclusion, as connected with this subject, Mr. R. 
made some brief reference to the subject of Law Re¬ 
form, as introduced into the I’emarks of the gentleman 
from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck] hoping that that 
gentleman, believing with him upon this subject, would 
even receive strength from deieat, and do his best in 
every honorable eflbrt to relieve the law practice of 
the State from the meaningless mystery in which it is 
enveloped. 

Mr. SAWYER referred to the fact that a large num¬ 
ber of copies of this report were printed last summer 
and sent out amongst the people. To these he had 
never yet received an unfavorable response; and 
amongst all with whom he had conversed, nine-tenths 
of them were satisfied. Some of those who had point¬ 
ed out objections, he had asked to frame a better sys¬ 
tem, but, up to this hour, nothing of the kind had been 
presented to him. During the interval since the sum¬ 
mer adjournment, he had examined the papers pretty 
extensively, and he had never seen the matter discuss¬ 
ed in the papers ; nor had he seen a lawyer outside of 
the Convention prepared to advocate any system in 
opposition to this report. There were some thirt^T- or 
forty lawyers in the Convention, and an able committee 
of lawyers had made this report upon the subject. 
Now, how was he to be guided in his course 1 Should 
he follow the lead of experienced members of the Con¬ 
vention, or consent to be guided by the morbid and in¬ 
active objectors without ? It was true that the oppo¬ 
sition of his friend here [Mr. Ranney] had staggered j 


him a little. He believed his friend to be an able 
lawyer, but still the weight of evidence was against 
him. 

This system proposed as many courts to be held in 
the counties, and in some instances more, than the old 
system; and, besides, a discretion was given to the 
Legislature to increase the number of the seniors. He 
believed that justice would be done more speedily, and 
that access to the courts would be more open and free, 
under the proposed, than under the present system;, 
and, from the evidence before him to this effect, he 
should be compelled to go for the report as it now 
stood. 

This matter had now been all talked over twice; 
and, if gentlemen had confidence in what they had 
said, he hoped they would be willing to come at once 
to the vote. 

Mr. HAWKINS considered the two points—wheth* 
erit was a practical matter to hold annual county terms 
of the district courts, and whether there existed a clear 
authority on the part of the Legislature to authorize 
these sessions—as of primary importance in this discus¬ 
sion. And, as soon as these questions should be set¬ 
tled to the satisfaction of his mind, he would be pre¬ 
pared to vote. 

Mr. COLLINGS demanded a division of the ques- 
lion. 

And then the first question being upon striking out,, 

Mr. COLLINGS moved to perfect the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, by inserting after the word 
“ district,” when it occurs the third time, these words,, 
“or in each county thereof.” Which was agreed to. 

And the question again recurred upon striking out.. 

Mr. KENNON said this matter had been examined 
with great care by him—so much so, that no amend¬ 
ment had been made to the system, which he had not. 
anticipated. As to the question of the gentleman fro ms 
Morgan, whether these district courts could be held in- 
each county—he had looked into this more than any 
other question connected with the subject—and he 
would now say, that it was his opinion that they could 
be carried into every county, without aftecting the sys¬ 
tem ; although it w’as also his opinion that it would be* 
better otherwise, especially as it had been left to the- 
power of the Legislature to take it into every county.. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved further to perfect the worde 
proposed to be stricken out, by inserting after the 
word “whom,” and before the word “shall,” the words 
“ including one of the justices of the Supreme court. 

Mr. M. said it was manifest, from the terms of the- 
report, the Supreme Court might become a sinecure. 
They might hold the Court in Bank nowhere else but 
in Columbus, and there was nothing to require the at¬ 
tendance of these justices upon the district courts with¬ 
out the insertion of these words. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, did not know but 
that the object of these judges would be to avoid the 
performance of their duty. But their duty would al¬ 
ways require one of these judges to be present at eve¬ 
ry district court; and if a judge refused to perform his? 
duty, he supposed he would be amenable to the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly by way of impeachment. The only ob¬ 
jection he had to the amendment was this ; possibly 
one of the judges of the supreme court assigned to- 
hold a certain district court might be sick and unable 
to attend, and it seemed to him that in such an event 
the people ought no* to be deprived of the benefit of 

the court. , ^ 

Mr. MITCHELL would like to know how a judge 
could be impeached for such a neglect unless his duty 
were specifically laid down, either here or by the Leg¬ 
islature ; and it could not be known whether the Leg¬ 
islature would do this or not. If the difficulty sugges¬ 
ted by the gentleman from Geauga should occur, it 
would be a good excuse against the requirement of 
the constitution ; but they could not bo impeached for 
ne^^lecting to attend on the district courts, without the 
exfstence of a positive requirement of that service. 








1020 


CONVENTION- EEPORTS 


On motion by Mr. EWART, the Convention now 
took a recess till 3 o’clock, P. M. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending being on agreeing to the mo¬ 
tion of Mr. Mitchepl, to insert after the word ‘• whom” 
these words, “including one of the Justices of the Su¬ 
preme Court; ” on which motion, 

Mr. MITCHELL said: Sir, I now propose to ex¬ 
amine as closely and as candidly as I can, the system 
for a Judiciary hqre proposed, and in doing so I do 
most sincerely hope I may be aiile to avoid giving of¬ 
fence to any one. I do it, sir, alone as a sense of du¬ 
ty ; not for the purpose of dilloviii;.' with any gentle¬ 
man, especially the highly resp. i^iable and able gen¬ 
tlemen who compose this committee. It is manilest, 
sir, that a number of these gentlemen feel as though 
any attempt to cliange this report, was an attempt to 
affect them personally; and they seem to take it more 
or less as a personal attack. Now, this is not ri*^!!!. 
Geiitlemen ought not so to regard the opposers oi’ 
their proposition. I know not what may be the feel¬ 
ing of others, but for myself I can say, 1 entertain no 
such feeling. On the contrary, the gentlemen who 
composed this committee are gentlemen for whom I 
have the highest personal respect. I also cherish the 
same respect for their opinions that I do for those ol 
other members ol the Convention. Neither have I any 
attacks to make upon their motives, in their advocacy 
of the principles of this report, proposing, as it un¬ 
doubtedly does, a new system of Judiciary. I believe 
them to be gentlemen actuated by right motives. I 
have yet seen no report which I should consider re¬ 
prehensible, or calling, in any manner, for the slight¬ 
est imputation upon the motives by which they are 
governed. But men will differ in opinion. We differ 
here, perhaps, vei-y essentially. But that is nothing 
very strange. It is an exceedingly rare thing, to lind 
tv\ o who can agree with reference to any matter upon 
whicb they may be called upon to think and act ‘ and 
it 12 a thing much more rarely to be met with, to find 
two men agreeing exactly updn every topic. There 
aie some ol the gentlemen of this committee with 
whom 1 act in a great many things, and still differ in 
80 .no r a.id there are others with whom I have differed 
widely from the beginning; but the last thing I should 
ever thiiik of, would be to impugn the correctness of 
their motiv'es. A dilierence ol opinion is a common 
an inevitable occurrence in all human affairs. And 
whilst we accord to others the right to entertain such 
opinions as they please, we claim for ourselves the 
same privilege, without becoming the subjects of bit¬ 
ter and angry feelings. I trust, therefore, that in the 
share which I may lake in this discussion, I shall not 
be supposed to be actuated by anything but those high 
considerations ol duty which are binding upon us all. 

I beg leave to say, that in any attack which I make 
upon the report, I am not actuated by any of those 
motives which have been imputed to others. I make 
no opposition for the purpose of rendering this report 
more odious. I shall support the present amendment 
but with no such object as that. But I shall support 
this amendment on account of the fear which I have 
that this article will be adopted as it is, and therefore 
I desire to improve it as far as I can. ’ 

I propose to show, as far as I am capable, to the 
members ol this Convention, that the judiciary sys¬ 
tem recommended by this report, is utterly inadequate 
to the attainment of the end desired—that is, bringiiif^ 
about a system of judiciary which shall administer 
justice with more speed and certainty than the old 
system. 

For the purpose of a proper examination, the course 
ol every intelligent mind would be, first, to inquire 
what IS now the evil. Because it would be a very 
foolish thing—very idle, and unbecoming the dignity 
and gravity of this Convention, to propose some new 


scheme of judiciary, (for this is a new scheme,) with¬ 
out,* at the same time, attempting to remedy some spe¬ 
cific and acknowledged evil existing in the old one. 

We all agree that evils do exist in our present mode 
ol adrninistering the laws; but perhaps we do not all 
agree in the opinion that these evils are justly attrib¬ 
utable to the system of judiciary which we have had. 
I, sir, for one, (hink that it is not the system that is 
chargeable with these evils; and I maintain, further. 


, - - -T-- 

that it 13 not the system of practice that is chargeable 
with these evils. And I defy any man to point out 
and .show to an intelligent mind that it is the existing 
system of judiciai’y which is chargeable with those va¬ 
rious delays ol which coinpluiiit is made, and I admit 
justly made, and then show, at the same time, that the 
system here propo.sed in its place is entirely clear. 
Geullemeii may make a showing, which might favora¬ 
bly impress a superficial mind; but when the matter 
comes to be silted and considered, as all matters should 
be here, it would appear that the system is very far 
from providing against those delays. Sir, this a thing 
which cannot be done whilst the evils exist which have 
caused these delays we are now complaining of. 

I say, then, that the evil is not in the .Judiciary sys¬ 
tem. 1 assert here, what every well informed mind in 
the State will accord, that until the last thirteen or 
lourteen years, we have not heard any complaints of 
unreasonable delays in the administration of justice. 
We had the same system before that time which we 
have now; and, for my part, I never heard of delays in 
our courts of iustice being so great an evil as to be a 
common subject ol remark, till within the last twelve or 
lourteen years. This is a consideration which should 
lead any man to doubt whether those evils are justly 
attributable to the system. Still it might be so. But 
I maintain tha^ it is not so; and I maintain, further, 
that il those evils are attributable to the system, you 
have not provided here a means by which they can be 
remedied. 

I maintain that the causes of delays in our courts of 
justice are various; that they are attributable not mere¬ 
ly to one, two, or three, but to a very great variety of 
causes; one ol which is the sudden and unexpected in¬ 
crease ol litigation in our day". Every one knows, that 
about the year 1837, an unusual amount of litigation 
.sprung up, on account of the money- and mercantile em- 
bai rassiDciits of that year uiid the years following. The 
n'sult of that calamity^ il we may so call it, was to 
throw into the court of common pleas a very large 
amount ol collection business; and this, together with 
the natural increase of p )pulation, and business, all 
contributed to swell the dockets of the courts, and nec¬ 
essarily occasion delays. 

But the lact is, we could not absolutely^ prevent the 
delays of justice, without making a very rigid and un¬ 
satisfactory judiciary—a judiciary that would not ren¬ 
der reasonable justice in many cases. The opportuni- 
ty ol appeal taking cases from one court to another, 

1.3 very olteii taKen advantage of, merely for the purpose 
ol obtamiiig lurther lime. In this way no, doubt many 
cases are broug.'.t into the supreme court, which would 
not come Iroro any other cause. 

T will ventiut liie assertion here, Mr. President, that 
you inay let .ne Supreme Court alone, after you have 
cut on all appeals Irom them as you have now done, 
and m less than five years they will be able to try all 
the paper casis which may be brought before them, 
upon y"our preseut plan. That may be too strong a 
statement P-ut this is cei’tain, that the Supreme Courts 
are what you may call catching up with the business 
upon their docket. I might venture to appeal to my 
venerable friend on my right, [Mr. Hitchcock, of Geau¬ 
ga,] to tell us whether this is not the fact. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK assented. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Well if this be the fact, all you 
nave got to do is to let the Supreme Court alone, and 
It Will be able to administer justice with as little delay 
as any other system which you may be likely to adopt. 










CONVENTION REPORTS. ' 1021 


But I do not desire to be understood as advising to 
leave the Supreme Court precisely as it now is. I de¬ 
sire to relieve it from two embarrassments; one is, the 
trial of capital offences and the necessity of holding 
but one court at a time in the State. For the remedy 
of the latter, I would give them another judge, so as 
to enable tliem to iioid cuui’ts simuilaueousiy in two 
places in the State, and also to allow them some oppor¬ 
tunity to attend to the ordinary affairs of life. Give to 
them these two modifications, and go upon the princi¬ 
ple settled in the statutes, and the Supreme Court will 
soon be entirely relieved and fully adequate to all the 
demands of the State upon such court. 

I will tell the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Groes- 
BECK,] that we will give him a court for six months in 
the year, and then do all the business in the r esidue o 
the State on such a plan. I have no doubt that a large 
amount of business has accumulated in Hamilton coun¬ 
ty, where I am told there are courts sitting almost the 
entire year round, from which, doubtless, all the time, 
business is going up to the Supreme Court. And hence 
here may, indeed I may say must be a large accumula¬ 
tion of business in the Supreme Court. 

But there is another cause of this accumulation and 
delay of business, which lies far deeper than any to 
which I have referred, and it is one toward the remo¬ 
val of which this Convention can do but very little; 
still, it has long existed, and has contributed more than 
anything else, perhaps, to bring about these complaints 
of fle'iay. This is the unusual prolixity which is in¬ 
dulged ill the examination of witnesses, and is in the 
argunicnt before the court and jury. This, in my 
opinion, is the great cause why the business upon the 
docket of the common pleas has accumulated to the 
extend' it has. Another cause of delay, allied to this 
is, that he common pleas judges, for the last sixteen or 
twenty years, have relaxed veiy much in their rigor 
and business energy upon the bench. They have al¬ 
lowed too much time to be occupied with calling over 
and passing cases—spending time in calling the docket, 
w hen they ought to be tryingcases. Questions and points 
made in the progress of causes, have often been al¬ 
lowed to be argued two, three, or four times, instead 
of once. Tt has been in these w^ays that our courts of 
justice have got behind with their business. 

But another cause of delay, has been a change in the 
moral character of the people, and in their pecuniary 
circumstances. There has been observable, latterly, a 
greater tendency to litigate everything to the extreme, 
than formerly. Men have become much more able to 
employ counsel and incur the expense of litigation; 
and in doing so, they have engendered in the commu¬ 
nity a litigious spirit—a spirit of contesting everything 
with more zeal than prudence. 

There are many other causes producing these embar¬ 
rassments and delays in the courts, which I need not 
stop here to notice. None of which, however, are in 
any waychargeable upon the organization of our courts. 
Now, i will beg gentlemen to go back—to go to facts 
which lie iii the past—and examine for themselves, and, 
see what are thd real causes of this evil, of which uni¬ 
versal complain is made, and then consider whether 
they can all,oi’even any considerable proportion of them, 
be referred to any peculiar organization of the court. 
And here, 1 wi'l make this remark, that not a man upon 
this Hoor nas yet uhiertakeu the duty of pointing out 
what it is in tile organization of the courts which has 
necessarily induced this state of things. 

Amongst these causes of delay, there are your long 
jury trials; and then, the large number of new' trials, 
which the courts, in many instances, are compelled to 
grunt. This latter is another reason why the common 
pleas courts have been so much burdened of late. Cut¬ 
ting off appeals to the Supreme Court, has had the effect 
to induce the common pleas to grant new trials with 
much greater liberality. 

And now, I ask gentlemen to point out the peculiar 
features in the organization of the courts, which neces¬ 


sarily bring about these delays in the administration 
of justice, with a view to apply the proper remedy. 
Would you be willing to stop jury trials ? Would you 
be willing to restrict the examination of witnesses, 
by restraining the right of lawyers to raise questions in 
relation to the character of evidence ? Would you pre¬ 
vent a man from introducing all the evidence which his 
counsel might think ought to be introduced ? Certain¬ 
ly you would not. No man would pretend to advise- 
any such thing. Yet these are principal items in the 
causes of the delays complained of. You have not in¬ 
dicated anything in your report, like a rule to restrain 
the practices above referred to, on the part of the 
counsel and the court. Yet gentlemen tell of great ex¬ 
pedition that is to be obtained in the trial of causes un¬ 
der the proposed system. Now, in heaven’s name,, 
pray do tell in what this expedition consists. 

I have been told that, by this system you are going 
to cut off a great deal of business from some of the 
courts. You are going to create a new court, for the 
probate business now done in the common pleas. Well,, 
what amount of business will that take away from this 
court ? Simply the matter of gi'anting letters of ad¬ 
ministration, and of appointing and removing guardi- 
dians, &c. I will venture to say that not one twenty- 
fifth part of the time of this court is now taken up by 
attending to this branch of their duties. A large share 
of this business is done by the associate judges off the 
bench; or else it is referred to some master, which 
is perhaps more common. Then in point of time, this 
advantage to the court of common pleas must be ex¬ 
ceedingly small. 

But it is said that you are going to confer upon this 
probate court, a much larger amount of jurisdiction, 
I ask then what additional jurisdiction is proposed ? 
What is proposed in the report 1 Not what is prom¬ 
ised in debate. We must take the case as it stands 
upon paper—in the bill; and the amount of relief 
which you there propose, is the amount of relief 
which you have a right to claim that you are affording 
—aud no more. 

But let us now turn to your common pleas court, 
and see what change for the better you are making. 

You propose to hold this court by a single judge. 
You propose to hold it as often as you now do. You 
propose to give it jurisdiction of the same kind and 
the same amount of business, with a very slight excep¬ 
tion. And you propose to increase its laboring capac¬ 
ity a very little. You propose, instead of the present 
number of twenty-two common pleas judges, and 
judges of commercial and superior courts, to elect 
twenty-seven hereafter; and it is only to that extent 
that you propose to add to their laboring capacity; 
and this increase of the number of the judges, I main¬ 
tain is no more than what is demanded by the regular 
increase of business. 

Now let us see whether the proposed system will, 
afford any greater busiue.ss facilities than the old one. 
I am proceeding upon the hypothesis, that this court 
is to be charged with similar causes with those which 
have engaged them heretofore, exceptingonly the tnat- 
ter of granting letters of administration and appointing 
guardians. 1 have stated above, all the relief you 
propose to give this court, and I am utterly unable to 
see what specific additional business capacities you 
have by this report added to it. Now, sir, look at 
what is proposed to add to the labors of this court I 
Nothing less sir, than all the duties of the Supreme 

Oourt_you might as well say all, because the three 

jud'^es ofcommon pleas, sitting in this appellate or dis¬ 
trict court, can decide all causes just as well—aud bet¬ 
ter so far as time is concerned—than if you throw in a 
Supreme judge to sit with them. 

How is this system to operate upon the common 
pleas ? You propose to divide eighty-six counties— 
leavin'^ out the county of Hamilton—-into eight judicial 
circuits. That would give to each circuit almost elev¬ 
en counties on an average. Then you have three com- 















1022 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


mon pleas judges lo each circuit. That would give 
three counties and three quarters to each judge—^^vve 
will say four, making this allowance for new counties, 
and for the sake of illustration. And take the common 
pleas business as it is now—four weeks to a term, and 
thiree terms for the year—gives forty-eight weeks of 
the year to be occupied by each judge in holding 
these courts. Now where is your time for holding the 
.Supreme Court ? You have but four weeks of the year 
left. Every man knows that there are many counties 
of the State where a four weeks term will not be suffi¬ 
cient for the business. I live in a county where it will 
not do; and the same is the case in the county above 
•me on the north—and there is hardly a county within 
the range of my practice, which will not require more 
than twelve weeks of the sitting of common pleas in 
^the y ear. Then I ask gentlemen to consider carefully, 
and answer to themselves this question: What addi¬ 
tional means are you affording to the common pleas 
for the discharge of their duties, which are now so ar- 
< duous t 

How is it possible, then, for this system to I’elieve 
• the people from the sad evils of which they complain 1 
d maintain that it cannot. I maintain that, if relief is 
to be attained at all, it will not come through the adop¬ 
tion of this system, and, if this system bring not the 
iremody, in the name of heaven, why adopt it ? Now, 
i ask attention to this, for no gentleman has met this 
•view of the case. No man has spent his time here, in 
.showing how this thing is to operate here to produce 
this most desirable relief. Relief is wffiat the people 
want—relief from the nine hundreds, and the twelve 
hundreds of [cases, which are now lumbering their 
•court dockets, and which amount to a prohibition 
■of justice. The people want these cases wiped off, 
.and if you adjourn this Convention, sir, without 
devising and adopting something which shall promise 
this result, they will be disappointed, most sadly dis¬ 
appointed and chagrined, and the works of our hands 
will meet with a people’s execration, and not their 
•approval. 

I now ask the attention of the gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull, £Mr. Ranney,] and the gentleman from Mont- 
,;gomery, [Mr. Holt,] to this thing, and beg them to 
look the subject straight in the face. If they will do 
•so< they cannot charge these evils upon the system of 
practice we now, and always have had. Sir, the rules 
of practice contemplate that, at the second term, you 
«hall get your judgment. The practice is responsible 
for delay only to that extent—not one day longer. 
Then how can you, as candid and reasonable men, 
charge these delays, of which you complain, upon the 
.system of practice, any more than your antagonists and 
amine can charge it upon the present judiciary system. 
You cannot, 1 maintain, with any show of propriety. 
Why, then, attempt to lug into this discussion, at every 
turn, your wild and airy schemes of law reform, as you 
are pleased to call it. The practice which we have 
adopted is no more the cause of embarrassment and de¬ 
lay in the business of our courts, than the system you 
insist upon would be. 

I ask these gentlemen to show what there is in the 
present system of practice, to delay an action any long¬ 
er than the second terra, except the right to continue 
the cause, and to have a hearing upon demurrer? 1 
suppose they would not take away from the parties 
either of these rights, nor the right to have another 
heanng in a superior court, nor the right to another 
trial. None of these rights are proposed by them, or 
their system, to be taken away. No, sir, the system 
they are so profoundly in love with—the famous New 
York system—has them all. 

Then it is not the practice, nor the system of judici¬ 
ary you have, which can be regarded as the cause of 
those lamentable evils. It must be something else, and 
I have just been endeavoring to show what the real 
causes are. And, if I am right, sir, in this showing, the 
Convention cannot entirely relieve the courts of these 


evils, for I think it most manifest that this Convention 
cannot adopt any positive system of judiciary, which 
would act positively upon many of these evils. Still, 
it is certainly the duty of the Convention to go as far as 
it can toward affording" relief. No change, I maintain, 
in your judiciary system, as a mere system, will do 
this. Your present one may, with a few changes, 
prove just as good as any. You provide for nine dis¬ 
tricts—have you provided for any more ? I am not ad¬ 
vised. 

Mr. STANBERY, (in his seat.) More can be made 
by the Legislature. 

Mr. MITCHELL. That’s very well. For this is 
certainly an essential feature, for a system of judiciary 
in a country like this. In anew country with compara- 
ftively a sparse population and limited business, such a 
system should be capable of expansion, so as to meet 
the wants of a growing community. I maintain that 
the great defect in the old system is the want of this 
very principle, as applicable to the Supreme Court, 
and a want of a disposition on the part ol the Legisla¬ 
ture to relieve the common pleas by the appointment 
of a competent number of judges. The people, look¬ 
ing at the evils which have overwhelmed the Supreme 
Court, seem to have forgotten that the greater evil ex¬ 
isted in the court of common pleas. No uncommon er¬ 
ror with frail, erring man. 

But it is claimed that you are going to obviate this 
difficulty. How, I ask, are you going to do it? Point 
out, I demand of you, the particular manner in which 
your system is^^tojdo this, inevitably do this. If a cause 
18 to be continued, it must be continued according to 
your plan, for one year. I ask you to tell me if this 
system, as at present arranged, is capable of affording 
time to hold more than one session of the district court 
in a year ? I challenge you to show me how it can. I 
maintain that your judges cannot even hold so much 
as one session a year, because the common pleas wil 1 
take up every hour of their time in many of their cir¬ 
cuits. The inevitable result of the most favorable es¬ 
timates is, that you will have but one terra of the dis¬ 
trict court in a year, and I am sure you would have to 
diminish the number you require for a quorum, in or¬ 
der to allow that. What could be done by the three 
judges for Hamilton county ? They have, I am told, 
some three thousand cases before them, and no new 
action can expect a judgment much short of three years. 
Now, how are these judges going to find time to hold 
a district court? I tell gentlemen, that in oi’der to an¬ 
swer the expectations of the people, a different system 
must be adopted. 

The gentleman from Hamilton, who addressed the 
Convention this morning, [Mr. Groesbeck,] alluded to 
some of the causes of litigation ; but if the gentleman 
had spent his time in showing how this system would 
remove the evils which he described, and justly, too, at 
the outset of his remarks—that is, how the system 
would secure the judgment when the parties would be 
entitled to it by the rules of practice, instead of des¬ 
canting, truthfully, to be sure, about the causes of liti¬ 
gation, his eflbrt would have been more to the point. 
But he did not even attempt such a thing. And I do 
not blame him. For none of the older advocates of 
his report—(he is comparatively a young man)—not 
even the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] 
nor the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] 
have yet attempted this. And why have they not ? 
Why have we had so much time spent here by gentle¬ 
men entertaining us with mere conjecture—mere hy¬ 
pothetical assumption ? The may-be’s which are to be 
hereafter the results of the system, they discuss here. 
Not, sir, the system they have actually brought forth, 
and here laid before us, but one which is the mere 
figment of their brains, when using this floor in debate. 

Mr. KENNON (interposing.) The argument which 
the gentleman has made, has been a very fair one. I 
have admired its candor from beginning to end. But 
his object has been to show that the juages of common 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1023 


pleas cannot do the business assigned to them, without 
an increase of their number. He agrees that we have 
taken away from them a small portion of their busi¬ 
ness—the probate business; and in the second place, 
he says, we have increased their jurisdiction. But ta¬ 
king no notice of these, either way, how does the mat¬ 
ter stand ? We have ascertained that the whole num¬ 
ber of days occupied in courts of common pleas, in all 
the connties of the State, last year, was a little less 
than four thousand, but call it four thousand, that we 
may be liberal between the gentlemen. Divide four 
thousand by twenty-seven — the number of common 
pleas judges proposed—will give about one hundred 
and titty cases to each judge. Divide one hundred and 
titty by six—the number of working days in a week— 
and it will be seen that each judge will be occupied 
about twenty-five weeks in each year. Thus, the gen¬ 
tleman's assertion that some forty-eight weeks would 
be required by each judge of the common pleas, for 
the performance of his duty, is shown to be without 
foundation in fact. 

Mr. MITCHELL continued. Sir, there are portions 
of the State where this court has been compelled to sit 
through the entire year; and it is not a small portion 
of the State where this has been the case, either. I do 
not mean to say that the judge has sat in one county 
throughout the year, but in his circuit—not leaving to 
him any time to attend to the ordinary affairs of home. 
It would be unreasonable to demand of any judge 
more than forty weeks service upon the bench in a 
year. It may be true that on account of the little bus¬ 
iness done in many counties, the average is what the 
gentleman has cyphered out; but you can’t make out 
the same result if you calculate by districts. But the 
gentleman will find it a hard thing to bring his algebra 
to bear advantageously upon any moral or political 
subject. This kind of reasoning must proceed upon 
historical facts. I have now done with that branch of 
the subject. 

I propose, in the next place, to examine the system 
of judiciary which has been introduced here as a plain 
and simple system. 

The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Groesbeck] has 
told us that it is like the old system. Now it may be 
that I cannot perceive its true character; but if I am 
capable of discriminating between one system of judi¬ 
ciary and another, I jnust say that I can see but very 
little similarity between them. 

You propose by the present system—and we are 
to take it as it appears in the bill—and although the 
bill proposes to give the Legislature power to re¬ 
model some of its features—yet we are entitled to be 
met in this discussion upon the system as it is here 
recorded. I say, then, you have nine circuits, which 
are to take cognizance of all appeal cases of litigation. 
It is urged in argument that these district courts are to 
be open to the people at all times, and, so far as we 
nowknow, for all causes now cognizable by your courts 
of common pleas, with the above limited exception; 
but we are not so told in the report. I ask the vener¬ 
able chairman why is it that the report leaves us in 
this uncertainty ? Why did you not point out what 
this court was to be ? Whether it was to be a mere 
court of error, or whether appeals might be had to it 
upon the election of parties. 

A Voice. The Legislature can provide for that. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I admit that it is a plain and 
fair answer to say that the Legislature can provide for 
that. But the field is still left open. So that you can 
claim nothing on that gr jund. No man can tell wlieth- 
er the Legislature will open this court to the people, 
so that they may go into it, or not. All we can cer¬ 
tainly know about it is, that the report does not open 
this court to the people, as a matter of course. But I 
am willing to go upon the hypothesis that this court is 
to be open to the people, for appeal of all causes from 
the inferior tribunals. To this I do not attach much 
importance, however. 


1 am willing that this court should be of the charac • 
ter described in the bill. Now, sir, in this respect, let 
us turn our attention to this district court. 

This court, as I have before said, you have sitting in 
nine districts, embracing upon an average, eleven 
counties in a district—to which all the appellate busi¬ 
ness of these eleven counties is to be taken. But 
how taken? You have made no pi'ovision as to when 
it shall be taken, or how it shall be arranged. But the 
fact, that, here is to be collected into one court, the 
entire amount of appellate business for eleven counties, 
is a matter worthy of regard. And it is essential to 
the efficiency of that court, that we should know how 
we may take a case there. Shall it be by sending up 
the papers—subject to loss or miscarriage, and to in¬ 
convenience and additional labor, on account of re-ar¬ 
rangement, &c.? 

Then how are you to keep the record of this court ? 
That also, is not provided for in the report. These re¬ 
cords are in a great variety of cases, the only legal evi¬ 
dences, and in many cases, the foundation of the rights 
of our people. I am told that we shall have the same 
regulations in this respect, which now obtain in the 
court in bank ; but I tell gentlemen, that if you are to 
be no more secure in these things in this court, than 
you are of the papers of the court in bank, you will 
have the most unreliable record in the world. This 
one however, would, upon the hypothesis I here take, 
be far less reliable than the one above alluded to, com 
ing from bank. 

The record of this district court, if made up as I take 
it the design now is in each county, will be subject to 
no inspection by the court which has passed the most 
important opinion upon it. 

It is claimed that this district court will do three 
times as much business as the supreme court. But I 
think I have shown, that it will not do as much. 

In addition to the position above assumed, that this 
system by no means removes the evils we suffer, and is 
novel and complex, I have two substantive objections 
to it, entirely independent of these. 

First. It necessarily leads to additional cost and ex¬ 
pense to the suitor. 

Second. It must injuriously effect both the interests 
and character of the legal profession. 

Costs of litigation must necessarily be increased in a 
variety of ways. I shall notice but two. The clerk's 
costs must necessarily be increased from three to tea 
dollars in each case. This sum, it is true, is small, inj 
the single case: but take the litigation of the country 
altogether, it cannot but be tremendously large. Next, 
the expense of counsel, must necessarily be greatly in¬ 
creased to every suitor who resides out of the county, 
where this district court is held. 

There will inevitably be an accumulation of business 
in this court, so that its sessions will be protracted for 
three, four, five or six weeks, in all human probability. 
Whereby the counsel attending upon his case, from a 
distant county must be subject to no inconsiderable ex¬ 
pense, and great loss of time, which would be valuable 
at his office at home. For these he must necessarily be 
compensated. He wdll be, beyond doubt. This must, 
of course, fall upon the suitor, and will be no small 
burden, you may be assured. 

A competent counsel could afford to attend to a case 
in this district court, in his own county, for a fee of 
twenty or twenty-five dollars, which he could not af¬ 
ford to attend upon, at a distant county, for less than 
sixty or seventy-five dollars. 

Indeed I maintain that a man in full practice would 
consult his interest far better by staying at home and 
attending upon his business there, and in his office, 
rather than to attend upon the tedious process of this 
district court, at even the fees above mentioned. 

This sir, is a very serious impediment, which no 
wise people will ever allow to be interpo.sed in their 
wav of obtaining redress in their courts of justice. 
Courts of justice should, sir, indeed, be open to all for 









1024 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


redress of injuries done to their persons, property and 
reputation; and, to this end, it is of first importance 
that justice should be cheap as possible. The expen¬ 
ses attending litigation may become so great as to close 
the doors oi your courts as eftectually against large 
classes of your population, as if you named them in 
your organic law, and expressly prohibited them an 
entrance there. 

But, sir, I come to notice the last objection I shall 
now trouble this Convention to listen to me upon. It 
is the effect this system is to have upon the profession 
I am proud to belong to. Much, sir, as the profession 
of the lawyer may be subjected to the petty obloquy 
which here and there a common fault-finder may be 
always casting upon it, still, sir, while civilization con¬ 
tinues at its past and present height among the race to 
which we belong, the professional lawyer, who prac¬ 
tises his high calling with fairness, fidelity and ability, 
will continue, what he ever has been, an honorable, in¬ 
fluential and useful member of community, and an or¬ 
nament to society and to his race. 

The effect, then, which any system is to have upon 
the character and calling of this profession, is a proper 
subject to be considered by any body of men charged 
with a duty like ours. 

I maintain, sir. that the direct and inevitable result 
of this system must be just what was insisted upon in 
debate at Columbus last summer, to create what gen¬ 
tlemen then called a splendid court, and a splendid 
bar, which, when rightly understood, really means, in 
the estimation of these gentlemen, a court and bar who 
have no necessary connection with the people ; no in¬ 
tercourse with them. A mere paper court, where the 
suitors never enter, wdiere the judges and the bar are 
relieved from all such humiliating connections. Sir, 
this never did, and I hope never will comport with my 
notions of a splendid court and splendid bar. It is true, 
sir, there will be congregated a sort of aristocratic bar, 
who are compelled to cultivate and exercise their intel¬ 
lectual powers in the examination of intricate and dif¬ 
ficult questions arising upon mere papers; but, sir, 
they will soon gi’ow careless if not callous to the inter¬ 
ests of poor humanity. They will soon lose all sympa¬ 
thy wuth their wronged and suffering brethren of the 
1 liman family, whose cases in a thousand instances 
need to be seen and felt, in order to be justly decided. 
Sir, I have said justly decided, and I mean what I say. 

By this system, sir, you necessarily deprive the bar 
throughout the State, except in the counties where 
these superior courts are held, of all the high and in¬ 
valuable advantages which every member of the bar 
derives from practice in these superior courts, and in 
their contests with these able and experienced lawyers, 
whom it is evidently designed—yea, expected by the 
gentlemen who have become tenacious for this system, 
will [congregate about this court, called the district 
court. 

The effect which this is to have upon the general at¬ 
tainment and character of the bar, no man can fully 
foresee or depict; suffice it to say, that my mind is most 
profoundly convinced that it must be sadly deleterious 
This branch of this subject I pressed upon the consid¬ 
eration of this body in committee of the whole, when in 
session at Columbus. This I do not desire further to 
repeat; only, I do beg this Convention, calmly and 
fairly to consider this system and its various bearings 
upon all the interests of the State, before they conclude 
to adopt it as it is. I need not say that I design to vote 
for the amendment offered by the gentleman from Me¬ 
dina to carry this court into each county. Although, 
this will not remove all objections to this system, in my 
mind, yet it will very materially improve it and render 
it infinitely more tolerable. 

Sir, I feel under great obligation to this Convention, 
for the kind and respectful manner in which they have 
born with me this long. For their kind indulgence in 
this instance, and indeed, others, I most freely render 
my hearty thanks to this honorable body, and now re¬ 
lieve their patience. 


The question being upon agreeing to the motion 
of Mr. Mitchell, to insert after the word “whom” the 
words “ including one of the Justices of the supreme 
Court;” 

On which motion, Mr. MITCHELL demanded the 
yeas and nay.'?, which being ordered resulted—yeas 44, 
nays 45—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Ca¬ 
hill, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, 
Orton, Patterson, Quieley, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Struble, Taylor, 
Thompson ot Stark, Townshend, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury 
and Worthington—44. 

Navs —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, jBarnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett ot Preble, Bates, Brown of Athens, Case of 
Hocking, Chambers, Ceilings, Cui-ry, Ewart, Ewing, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, 
King, Morehe&d, Morris, McCloud, Norris, Otis, Perkins, Riddle, 
Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, 
Switt, Thompson of Shelby, Way and Williams—45. 

So the amendment of Mr. Mitchell was not sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then being on striking out the following 
words, “district by the judges of the common pleas, 
and one of the justices of the supreme court, any three 
of w'hom shall be a quorum, as often in each year, and 
at such places in said district, as may be prescribed by 
law;” , 

Mr. EWART mbved to perfect the words proposed 
to be stricken out, by inserting after the word “law,” 
wdiere it occurs the second time, the following: 

Provided, that District Courts shall be held at least three times 
and at three several places in each district in each year. 

Mr. EWART demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 38, nays 59—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Bennett, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Ewart, 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Hard, Harlan,Horton, Hun¬ 
ter, Larwill, Manon, Mason, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Perkins, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott of Harrison, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan,Townsh- 
eud, Williams, Wilson,Worthiugton and President—38. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown o f Athens, Case of 
Hocking, Chambers, Clark, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of 
Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Larsh, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, 
Mitchell, Morehead, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Tay¬ 
lor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Warren. Wav 
and Woodbury—57. ^ 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out the follow¬ 
ing words: “ District by the Judges of the Common 
pleas, and one of the Justices of the Supreme court, 
any three of whom shall be a quorum, as often in each 
year, and at such places in said district as may be pre¬ 
scribed by law.” 

Pending which, 

On motion of Mr. OTIS, the Convention adjourned. 


THURSDAY, January 23, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met, pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. EWART presented a petition from G. S. Wea¬ 
ver, and forty-five others, citizens of Washington coun¬ 
ty, praying that a clause be inserted in the new con¬ 
stitution, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any 
law legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors, which was 
read at the Secretary’s desk, and on motion it was laid 
on the table. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE presented a petition fromS. 
C. Pritchai’d, and one hundred and thirty two others, 
citizens of Medina county, on the same subject, and on 
motion of the same gentleman it was laid on the table. 

Mr. TAYLOR presented sundry petitions from Sam¬ 
uel Dowd, S. C. Hall and fifty others, citizens of Huron 
county, on the same subject; which, on motion, were 
I laid on the table. 


y 









CONVENTION REPORTS 


1025 


The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention the 
following commiuiication from the Editorial State Con¬ 
vention, held in the city of Columbus on the 17th in¬ 
stant : 

Columbus, January 21,1651. 

Pik:—T ."prid herewith the followin? resolutions, nrlopted hy 
the Editorial State Convention, held iii this city on the 17th in¬ 
stant, and, on behalf of the Convention, respectfully request 
that you will present them to the honorable body over which 
you preside. 

With respect, I remain 

Your obedient servant, 

JAMES MACKENZIE, 
Secretary Editorial Convention. 

Hon. William Medill, 

President State Constitutional Convention, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

\ 

RESOLUTIONS. 

Whereas, a right understanding of all matters to be submitted 

to the sovereign people, is absolutely necessary to right voting 

when these matters come up for their action : therefore. 

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the constitu¬ 
tion now being formed by our delegates at Cincinnati should be 
published in at least one paper of each political party, in every 
county in the State where such papers exist, for at least four 
weeks preceding the day of voting upon the question of the adop¬ 
tion ol said constitution, and we urge upon the members of the 
Convention the adoption of a resolution authorizing such publi¬ 
cation. 

Resolved, That we believe that the interests of the State require 
that the Convention should make provision for the election by 
the people of a Printer to the State, the rate of whose compensa¬ 
tion shall be fixed by law. 

Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to 
the Convention to revise and amend the constitution of the State 
^ Ohio. __ 

Mr. LEECH moved thal the communication be laid 
on the table and ordered to be printed. 

The communication, he said, came from a State Con¬ 
vention of the Editorial corps of Ohio, held irrespec¬ 
tive of party. It came, he continued, from a very in¬ 
telligent and highly respectable fraternity, whose opin¬ 
ions and recommendations on all subjects were entitled 
to great respect; and as the communication contained 
recommendations of interest and importance, not only 
to this Convention and to the editors themselves, but 
to the people of the State at large, he hoped that no 
gentleman would seriously object to its being printed. 

Mr. STILWELL opposed the proposition to print. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, thought that no dis¬ 
tinction should be made between communications re¬ 
ceived, and saw no reason for printing the document 
just read. 

Mr. STILWELL demanded a division of the ques¬ 
tion. 

The question then being on laying on the table, the 
same was agreed to. 

The question then being on printing, 

Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas and nays, which 
wei’e ordered, and resulted—yeas 45, nays 43—as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Yeas— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Curry, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Ham¬ 
ilton, Hard, Ilawkins, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Johnson, King, Larwill, Leech, Leadbelter, Mitchell, Morris, Nor¬ 
ris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott o_ 
Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Thompson 
of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Worthington and 
President—45. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett o 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, 
Ceilings, Cook, Ewart, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Harlan, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Jones, Ken- 
non, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morehead, McCloud, Otis, Peck, 
Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift, 
Taylor, Warren, Williams, Wilson and Woodbury—43. 

So the communication was ordered to be printed. 

Mr. BENNETT moved that the Convention take up 
the report of the standing committee on the .Judicial 
Department; which was agreed to. 

The question being on agreeing to the motion t© 
strike out of the section of said report, the following 
words; “district by the judges of the common pleas, 
and one of the justices of the Supreme Court, any three 
of whom shall be a quorum, as often in each year, and 
in such places as may be prescribed by law.” 

Mr. OTIS said that the amendment offered by the 

65 


gentleman from Adams, [Mr. Collings,] and adopted 
by the Convention, was satisfactory to him. One class 
of persons in the Convention, desire that the district 
court shall hold one annual term in each county of the 
district; the other class desire that the district court 
shall hold three terms annually in three ditiereni places 
in each district. The amendment of the gentleman 
from Adams left the matter in such shape as to accom¬ 
modate those who desire the annual term in each coun¬ 
ty, and also those who desire the three terms annually, 
in each district; and whatever might be the relative 
strength of the friends of these two plans, neither should 
attempt to deprive the other of their favorite plan. He 
was unwilling himself, to take any such course, and 
should therefore vote against the amendment olfered 
by himself two days before, and which was then under 
consideration. If the amendment should be voted 
down, and the section be permitted to remain in its 
present form, it would in substance provide that dis¬ 
trict courts shall be held either once a year in each 
county of each district, or at least three times in each 
year in and for each district, by the judges of the court 
of common pleas, and one of the justices of the supreme 
court, any three of whom shall be a quorum, at such 
times and places as might be prescribed by law, and 
the whole matter will be in the bauds of the General 
Assembly, so that the different plans could be adopted 
for different districts, or one or the other plan be final¬ 
ly adopted throughout the State, as would be found on 
experience to be the most desirable. He especially 
wished to avoid the difficulty and embarrassment which 
we have experienced under our present constitution, 
in relation to our judiciary system, and which had re¬ 
sulted from the adoption of an unyielding rule in the 
constitution. We must be careful not ourselves to 
commit the same mistake, as we should do, if we left 
the General Assemly without discretion in the premi¬ 
ses, and positively required the district courts to be 
held in every county in the State. 

He said that since offering the amendment then un 
der consideration he had most carefully examined this 
particular provision of the report, as well as the entire 
report itself; he had carefully considered all the ar¬ 
guments advanced for and against this particular pro¬ 
vision, and the report generally, and he was free (o ad¬ 
mit that his opinions had undergone a change. If corn- 
pelled to choose between one annual term of the dis¬ 
trict court in each county, or three terms annually in 
each district, he should adopt the latter. He said he 
had carefully compared this repoiT with the numerous 
other systems proposed by the different members of 
the Convention, some of which had been printed, and 
others had been handed around in manuscript, and he 
was'constraiued to say thathe much preferred the system 
of the .Judiciary committee to that of any other which 
he had seen. It combined more excellencies, contained 
fewer delects, and was better adapted to the speedy 
administration of justice than any of them. At one 
time he greatly favored a system somewhat similar to 
the one submitted to the Convention by the gentleman 
from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] and he intended to 
submit his views during the sitting of the Convention 
at Columbus, but was unable to do so. He thought 
the system of the gentleman from Trumbull would*be 
acceptable to the people in the northern part of the 
State, but he had become .satisfied that it would neither 
work well nor be acceptable in other parts of the State. 
As evidence of the correctness of this opinion he would 
only refer to the fact that all the systems prepared by 
gentlemen from the other parts of the State were un¬ 
like the system submitted by the gentleman from 
Trumbull. 

All the presumptions, he said, are in favor of the su- 
periotity of the system of the committee. The com¬ 
mittee itself is a large one, is composed of individuals 
re.siding in different parts of the State, and embracing 
judges and lawjrers of great experience, talents and in¬ 
telligence. It 18 no flattery to the members of the com^ 
















1026 


CONVENTION REF01iT8. 


mittee and no disparagement to the other members of 
the Convention to say that another committee of equal 
experience, talents and intelligence could not be form¬ 
ed from this body. Tlie committee consulted with 
many of the legal gentlemen of this body, examined 
their views carefully, compared their plans, and after 
a patient deliberation of nearly six weeks, almost 
unanimously reported the system before us. Those 
who united in reporting the system still adhere to it; 
and many gentlemen, once opposed to it like himself, 
were becoming its friends. These circumstance them¬ 
selves furnished ev'idence satisfactory to his mind, that 
the system was better calculated to supply the wants 
of the State than any other which hud been or would 
be devised. No one or two persons could j)retend to 
bring to the formation of another system the amount 
of information and experience possessed by the com¬ 
mittee, nor was there now time to reduce the nuiner- 
merous plans into one harmonious system. These nu¬ 
merous plans of the members did not differ more from 
the present system than they did from each other. No 
two are alike. 

He said, it is claimed by some geiitiemen on this 
floor, particularly by the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. 
Mitchell,] that the system of the committee is not 
sufficiently efficient to do the business of the State. It 
was not so, as a comparison of our present and the pro¬ 
posed judiciary system would show. In our present 
system, our lirst courts are those of Justices of the 
Peace, in which aU the small civil and criminal busi¬ 
ness is transacted. In the proposed system, the first 
courts are also those of Justices of the Peace; and 
these courts will have the same powders and jurisdic¬ 
tion as they now possess. The next courts in the pro¬ 
posed system are the county courts, iiitei mediate be¬ 
tween the Justices’ courts and the courts of common 
pleas in our present system. These courts -will have 
juri.'diction of all testamentary and probate matters, 
and such appellate jurisdiction in civil cases, and such 
original and appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases, as 
may be prescribed by the General Assembly. In ad¬ 
dition to their probate duties, the final determination 
of all cases of road appeals, of a large portion of the 
civil cases appealed from the Justices’ courts, of all 
cases of petit larceny, of assault and battery, and other 
breaches of the peace—of all cases of inferior offences 
and misdemeanors generally, and of fxU cases of com¬ 
plaints founded on apprehension of violence to the 
person, or of malicious mischief to property, will be 
conferred upon these county courts. In anticipation of 
some arrangement of this kind, a provision had already 
been inserted in another portion of the instrument 
which we are framing, to dispense with the action of 
the grand jury in all the smaller criminal offences. All 
this business now finds its way into our courts of com¬ 
mon pleas, and constitute.s, if he might be allowed the 
expression, the trash and floodwood which obstruct, in 
these courts, tlie due and speedy administration of jus¬ 
tice, and consume at least one-third of their lime. The 
next in order, in our present system, are our courts of 
common pleas. The proposed system has the same 
courts, with the same original jurisdiction at law and 
in equity, but with a very decided advantage in favor 
of the efiiciency of these courts in the proposed sys¬ 
tem, in consequence of the relief furnished them by 
the business which will be disposed of in the county 
courts. Corresponding with our Supreme Court on 
Circuit, held once a year in each county in the State, 
by two of the Judges of that court, the proposed 
system provides us with a District Court, composed of 
the three judges of the court of common pleas in each 
district, and one of the Justices of the Supreme Court, 
to be holden either once a year in each county of the 
district, or three times a year in three different places 
in tlie district, with the same original and appellate ju¬ 
risdiction. These District Courts, however, even if re¬ 
stricted to a single term a year in each county, will be 
preferable to the Supreme Court on circuit, as they 


will be composed of a larger number of Judges, a ma¬ 
jority of whom, participating in the trial of jury cases, 
will be enaliled to see the practical operation of the 
legal principles which they will be required to decide. 
The last Court in the jireseut system is the Supremo 
Court in Bank, corresponding with which is the Su¬ 
preme Court, under the proposed system, com])osed in 
both cases of four Judges, and possessing the same ju¬ 
risdiction, but with this dillerence in favor of the Su¬ 
preme Court proposed to be established—that the Jus¬ 
tices of this court, though not ever engaged in the trial 
of jury cases, are required, as the presiding Judges in 
the District Courts, to act in connection with the Judg¬ 
es of the common pleas, who are. 

He proceeded to remark, at length, on the great ad¬ 
vantages which the proposed system would possess 
over the present system, in the .speedy administration 
of justice, if the district courts could hold three terms 
anuualiy, iu each district. That it would be practica¬ 
ble to do so, he could easily demonstrate. The popu¬ 
lation of the State is something less than two millions, 
one hundred thousand; the number of districts pro 
posed to be made is nine; and adopting population in¬ 
stead of business, as the basis of these districts, and 
which would he sufiicieutly accurate for the present 
purpose, each district would contain about two hun¬ 
dred and thirty-two thousand inhabitants. He would 
combine the counties of Ashtabula, Trumbull, Maho¬ 
ning, Portage, Geauga, Lake, Cuyahoga, Summit and 
Medina, which have two hundred and thirty-nine 
thousand inhabitants, in one district. In this district, 
there would he elected three judges of the court of 
common pleas, who could all hold their courts at the 
same lime. He would apportion the counties of Ash¬ 
tabula, Trumbull and Mahoning to one judge; the 
counties of Lake, Geauga, Portage and Summit to an¬ 
other, and the counties of Cuyahoga and Medina to the 
other. He showed by reference to the business of 
each of these counties, that each judge would be able 
to do the business of all the counties apportioned to 
him .in three terms of two months each. At the close 
of each period of two months a district court could be 
held at some convenient place in the district, for in¬ 
stance, altei’iiately at Cleveland, Warren and Ravenna, 
or at such other places as might be designated, to de¬ 
termine the questions of law and fact, supposed to be 
erroneously decided by the court.s of common pleas, 
and which would not ordinarily occupy more than 
two weeks time. As it would be necessary for the 
same Justice of the Supreme Court, to hold district 
courts in at least two districts, he would proceed to 
combine the counties of Lorain, Erie, Huron, Seneca, 
Sandusky, Ottowa, Wood, Lucas, Richland, Ashland, 
Crawford and Morrow, which have tvvohundreJ and 
thirty-five thousand inhabitants, in another district. In 
the same manner he showed that the business of all 
these counties would be easily done, the same period 
of two months, thus affording ample time for holding 
Ihree terms of the district court annually, in that dis¬ 
trict. He appealed to the gentlemen representing the 
several counties, mentioned by him, and especially to 
the lawyers from, or acquainted with the business of 
these counties, whether he had not allowed the sever¬ 
al judges of the courts of common pleas nearly one 
fourth more time than would be necessary to transact 
the business of the counties apportioned to them. 
Tins he regarded as sufficient, without pursuing the 
matter furtlier, to satisfy gentlemen that it would be 
practicable to hold three terms of the district courts 
annually, iu each district in the State. 

Another objection taken to the pi'oposed system by 
the gentleman from Knox [Mr. Mitchell] is, that it 
will necessarily increase the expenses of I’tigation ; and 
the gentleman mentioned the two items of the fees of 
the clei’ks, where the three terms of the district courts 
would be held, and the fees of the Attorneys, who 
would be compelled, under this system, to ^o out of 
their counties to attend these courts. But it hardly 











1027 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


need be stated that the fees of the clerks, which are 
regulated by law. would be the same whether tho busi¬ 
ness was transacted in each county in the district, or 
in three places in the district. There would be no in¬ 
crease of cost in this particular And as to the increas¬ 
ed fees charged by attorneys, if their fees should bei 
increased enough to cover travelinge xpcnses, it would j 
be more than counterbalanced, in the opinion of their | 
clients, by the more speedy determination of their busi-i 
ness. Delay in the administration of justice is the cause 
of complaint, and is what adds to the costs litigation. 

The last objection taken to the proposed system, by 
the gentleman from Knox [Mr. Mitchell] is, that it 
will tend to injure the members of the bar generally, by 
throwing the business before the Supreme Court, into 
the hands of a few distinguished lawyers at Columbus, 
and the business before the district courts into the 
hands of a few distinguished lawyers residing in those 
places where these terms of the district courts shall 
be held. Experience, he said, in relation to our Court 
in Bank, which furnishes the best possible test of this 
matter, did not justify the remark of the gentleman. 
The lawyers would accompany their cases to Colum¬ 
bus whenever their presence should be necessary; and 
especially would this be the case in relation to the dis¬ 
trict courts. The argument of the gentleman in favor 
of increased fees of the lawyers, is founded upon this 
hypothesis. 

It was, in his opinion, so obviously just and proper 
that the section should be permitted to remain as it 
now is, that he had come to the conclusion, as he had 
before stated, after a full consideration of the whole 
subject, to vote against the amendment which he him¬ 
self had offered. He hoped the members of the Con 
vention would sufficiently regard the views and wish¬ 
es of each other to adopt the same course. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said that for almost forty years 
after the adoption of the constitution the Supreme 
Court had no difficulty in going into every county of 
the State, but afterwards, as the State became more 
populous, and business increased, it became difficult, 
and the rule of the constitution became burdensome. 
At present he did not think there would be any diffi¬ 
culty in the district court going into every county in 
the State; but the time may, and probably will come, 
when it will be impossible. He should be constrained 
to vote against the amendment of the gentleman from 
Adams. 

The question being on the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment, 

Mr. LARWILL demanded a call of the Convention; 
which was ordered—83 members present. 

Mr. EWART moved that Mr. Cutler be excused; 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. KENNON moved that Mr. Way be excused; 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. LEECH moved that Mr. Lawrence be excused; 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. LARWILL moved that Mr. Lidey be excused; 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. ANDREWS moved that Mr. Hitchcock, of 
Cuyahoga, be excused; which was agreed to. 

Mr. HORTON moved that Mr. Nash be excused; 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. CAHILL moved that the Sergeant-at-Arms be 
despatched for the absentees, which was agreed to. 

Mr. McCORMlCK moved that the President be 
excused; which was agreed to. 

Mr. FARR moved that Mr. Blair be excused; 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. RIDDLE moved that Mr. Roll be excused; 
which was ^reed to. 

Mr. MITCllELL moved that Mr. Florence be ex¬ 
cused; which was agreed to. 

Mr. SWAN moved that all further proceedings un¬ 
der the call be dispensed with; which was agreed to. 

The question then being on striking out, 

Mr. RANNEY said that he had heard that wonders 


would never cease, and he was inclined to believe it. 
Fie had all along supposed that if he could count upon 
one fast friend of the county system, that one was the 
gentleman from Summit, [Mr. Otis,] but he found to 
his regret, that he should be compelled to part company 
with him, at a tiiqe when he least expected it. That 
gentleman seems to suppose, that while he is aware 
that the people in the part of the State which he repre¬ 
sents, are largely in favor of the county system, they 
are greatly mistaken in the matter, and that if they 
were well informed, they would prefer a session three 
times a year in eleven counties, to once a year in each 
county. I had supposed that I could have relied con¬ 
fidentially on his assistance and co-operation in favor 
of the amendment, but I fear that there is nothing to 
expect but a compact vote upon that side of the cham¬ 
ber against it. There is, however, one thing that I 
ask, and that is that they may put their names upon 
record, in order that the people may see to whom they 
are indebted for the benefits and blessings which it is 
proposed to confer upon them. 

Mr. KENNON had intended, if possible, to have avoid¬ 
ed saying a single word more upon the provisions of 
this report. He thought that speeches enough had 
been made upon it, and that every member had had 
the opportunity perfectly to understand the subject 
He had an objection to the course of the gentleman 
from Trambull, [Mr. Rbnney,] and to the spirit which 
he had exhibited in the advocacy of his opinions. 
What was the course which he had chosen to pursue ? 
He has abandoned argument, and proceeded to denun¬ 
ciation. He appeals to this side of the chamber and 
threatens to open the books ujion us, and show to the 
people of the State who it is that has put this system 

upon them. -i n 

^Vhat is the proposition now iindei consideration . 
It is to take from the Legislature the power to decide 
whether the district courts shall be held once tn a y^r 
in each county, or three times in each distiict, and to fix 
an unalterable rule in the constitution, that whatever 
may be the wishes or interests of the people, thoy 
shall be holden once a year in each county. Why do 
they do this ? Because they say that if left to the legis¬ 
lature, the county system will uot be adopted, u hat 
reason do they give ? That the strong delegation from 
Hamilton county will be opposed to, and will aid in 
defeating the measure. What force is there in the ar¬ 
gument ? Hamilton county has its own district, and 
has no interest or connection wuth any othei. Is t eie 
any reason for supposing that tbo delegation “om 
Hamilton county will not do jusUce to the les o e 
State ? On the other hand, of all others, there won d 
be the best reason for supposing they would be im¬ 
partial. For mvself, I do not think there is a particle 
of doubt but the Legislature will provide ffiat 
there will be a session in each counD » and the diffei- 
ence is this: gentlemen pretend to foiesee w la is o 
take place in all time, and are determine o p ace in 
the constitution an unalterable rule, tha can uevei e 
varied, whatever may be the future necessity for a 

^^Mn^HAWKINS w'as sorry to hear the gentleman 
from Trumbull insinuate charges against the legal pi o- 
fession as a body. There was, he saic, more lan 
enough prejudice against the profession m le pai Oi 
the State wdiich he represents. There w^as an impies- 
sion abroad that the lawyers of this Convention would 
manage the matter to suit themselves, but e la no 
expected to hear it acknowledged by mem jers o le 
bar on this floor, that the lawyers w^ere a set of rascals. 

Mr. RANNEY said he would like to have the geiitie- 
manffom Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] repeat any remarks 
which he had made, containing such a charge. 

Mr. HAWKINS. 1 am coming to it presently. 

Mr. RANNEY. I hope the gentleman will come to 


it pretty soon. 

Mr. HAWKINS 


The gentleman said that it would 


be impossible to obtain from the Legislature a law pro- 













1028 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


viding for a session of the district court in each coun¬ 
ty becauce the lawyers at central positions where the 
courts, if holden in only one place, would convene, 
would combine throughout the State to prevent it. 

Mr. RANNEY. I said they would use their influence 
to oppose it. 

iVir. HAWKINS. Did not me gentieinan say that 
there would be corrupt combinations for the purpose? 
I so understood him. 

Mr. RANNEY. I do not wish to be responsible for 
the gentleman’s understanding. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I appeal to the members of the 
Convention if 1 have not made a correct statement of 
the gentleman’s remarks. And 1 now protest against 
this species of wholesale charge against the whole le¬ 
gal profession. If I thought that members of the bar 
and hotel keepers at certain points, would be able to 
keep the provision from going into effect, I would vote 
against the amendment. But as I do not believe it, 1 
shall vote for it. 

The question then being on striking out, 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 49, nays 45—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Arclibold, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, 
Clark, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Detiance, 
Hard, Henderson, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, 
Johnson, King, Kirkwood Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, 
Manon, Mitchell, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemclin, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith oi 
Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townsheud, Warren, Williams, Wil¬ 
son, Woodbury andPresident—49. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickenederfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Ceilings, Cook, Curry, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Graham, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Harlan, Jones, Kennon, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormica, Norris, Otis, Peck, Riddle, Sawyer, Smith of 
Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Swilt, Taylor and 
Worthington—45. 

So the motion to strike out prevailed. 

The question theu being on inserting the following; 
“ county by the judges of the courts of common pleas 
of the district and one of the justices of the Supreme 
court, any three of whom shall be a quorum, at least 
ouce iu each year;” 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays, 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 57, nays 37—as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahiil, Case of Hocking, Case 
of Licking Chaney, Clark, Cook, Ewing, Farr, P'orbcs, Gillett, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, John¬ 
son, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lou¬ 
don, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, Orton, Patterson,Peck, Perkins, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemeliu, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Wil¬ 
liams, Wilson, Woodbury and President—57. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Motgomery, Barnet of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Chambers, Ceilings, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Graham, 
Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Holmes, Horton, 
Jones, Larsh, Mason, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Otie, 
Riddle, Sawyer, Smith of Highland, Stanton, Stanbery, Stilwell, 
Swan, Taylor, and Worthington—37. 

So the motion to insert was agreed to. 

Mr. STANTON moved to further amend the report 
by striking out the secoud and third sectious and in¬ 
serting in lieu thereof the following: 

Sec. 2. The State shall be divided into seven judicial districts, 
in each of which there shall be elected by the qualified electors 
therein, one President, and not more than four nor less than three 
circuit judges, who shall each receive for their services such 
compensation as may be fixed by law, which shall not be dimin¬ 
ished during the term for which they were elected. 

Sec. 3. The Supreme Court shall be composed of the presi¬ 
dent judges of the several judicial districts, auy four of whom 
shall constitute a qurum. It shall have original jurisdiction in 
quo warranto, mandamas, habeas corpus, procedendo, and such 
appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law. It shall hold 
at least one term in each year at the seat ot government, and such 
other terms at the seat ol government, or elsewhere, as may be 
provided by law. 

Sec. 4. District courts shall be held in each district by the 
president and circuit judges of each district, a majority of whom 
shall be a quorum, as often as once in each year, at such times 
and places in e'ach district as may be prescribed by law. The 


district courts shall have like original jurisdiction with the Su¬ 
preme Court, and such appellate jurisdiction as may be provided 
by law. 

Sec. 5. The president of each judicial district, or any one of 
the circuit judges thereof shall hold a court of common pleas in 
each county thereof, at least twice in every year, and as much 
oftener as may be provided by law. And said judges, sitting 
singly or otherwise, as they may choose, may hold said courts of 
common pleas in two or more counties ol the same judicial dis¬ 
trict at the same time. 

Mr. STANTON said that as the Convention would 
probably be called upon to vote upon this amendment 
without an opportunity of examining it, he would make 
a brief explanation of its provisions. 

He had hitherto voted with the committee in support 
of the report, much as he disliked some of its leading 
features. 

But since the adoption of the amendment which had 
just been agreed to, he concluded it impossible for the 
Convention to adopt a system which would be worse 
than the one under consideration, as it now stood. His 
amendment, if adopted would remedy what he consid¬ 
ered its most objectionable features. 

This report provided for a Supreme Court, to con¬ 
sist of four judges, to be elected by general ticket 
over the whole State. It required one of these judges 
to go into every county in the State and meet the com¬ 
mon pleas judges of the several districts and hold a 
court of errors (a paper court) once in every year. 

It would be found very diflicult it not impracticable 
to avoid having more than three of these courts iu ses¬ 
sion at the same time, and therefore the district courts 
would frequently have to be held without a judge of 
the Supreme Court. He thought it would ultimately 
result in having these courts held by the common pleas 
judges alone. And that the Supreme Court would be¬ 
come a stationary Supreme Court of errors at the seat 
of govenmieiit. 

But at best the judges of the Supreme Court were 
mere paper judges, having nothing to do with the trial 
of cases by jury. 

This he considered almost an insuperable objection 
to the system. 

He also considered it very important to have the 
judges of the Supreme Court elected by districts, to 
insure their being taken from different parts of the 
State. 

The various pursuits and conditions of the people 
give rise to various discriplions of litigation in ditler- 
eut parts of the State. At commercial points on the 
river and lake shore, there was a large amount of com¬ 
mercial business, cases of insuiance, suits against wa¬ 
ter crafts, &c. &c.,with which the profession in the in¬ 
terior of the State were not familiar, and about which 
they knew nothing- In the Vii’ginia Military District 
they had a description of land title which gave rise to 
a large amount of litigation, which were entirely differ¬ 
ent from titles iu any other part of the Stale. Hence the 
lawyers in other parts of the State were presumed to 
know very little about them. So undoubtedly in oth¬ 
er parts of the State they had litigation arising from 
local causes, with which lawyers in other parts of 
the State were entirely unacquainted. It is there¬ 
fore exceedingly important to secure an intelligent 
decision on questions of this kind, that there should be 
on the bench some judge who has some practical 
knowledge and experience of these various local laws 
and usages. 

This amendment proposes to divide the State into 
seven circuits, and take one judge of the court of last 
resort from each of these circuits. 

It also provides that the president judges of the sev¬ 
eral circuits shall hold courts of common pleas, try ju¬ 
ry cases, and perform all the other duties of a nisi 
judge. 

It also provides that there shall be a district court of 
errors, and in this it agrees with the report of the com 
mittee. 

If I could have this court organized to suit myself, 1 
would provide that it should hold its terms at three dif¬ 
ferent places iu each circuit every year. 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1029 


I would have all the Judges go round through the 
counties separately, try jury cases, chancery cases, 
and do all the other business belonging to a msi priua 
court. And when they had closed their several cir 
cuits, I would have them all meet together, and hear 
such questions as they may have reserved on motions 
for new trials, non suits, &c., and such writs of error 
as may bo brought before them. Thus I would have 
the appellate tribunal always follow immediately up¬ 
on the heels of the trial, while the case was fresh in the 
minds of the counsel and the Judge. 

I do not believe that any other system will secure 
so speedy and so intelligent an administration of jus¬ 
tice. 

I have also avoided what I consider a very grave 
error in the plan^of the gentleman from Trumbull, and 
several others that I have seen. 

They detail the Judges of the Supreme court from 
Ae judicial force of the State by lot, by seniority, or 
by expiration of comiiiision, or some other accidental 
mode. 

lip's T consider extremely objectionable. You are 
very likely, upon such a plan, to have your court of 
last resort composed of men of vastly inferior attain¬ 
ments to the Judges of your inferior courts. This should 
not be. ^ This amendment proposes to elect the Judges 
with strict regard to the positions they are to occupy. 
Each district, will therefore, elect the man of the high 
©st attainments on the list. President Judge, and he is 
ex-officio Judge of the Supreme court. I will not long¬ 
er detain the Convention. As a division of the (jues- 
tion upon striking out and inserting has been called 
for, I shall vote to strike out and trust to Providence 
to get in something better than the pi*esent bill. I have 
no fears of anything worse. 

Mr. SAWYER moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ Shall the main question 
be now put?” 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 19, nays 75—as follows 

Messrs. Cook, Dorsey, Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, 
Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Loudon, Morehead, Morris, McCor¬ 
mick, Orton. Peck, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Wyan¬ 
dot, Swift, Wilson and President—19, 

Nays— -Messrs, Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderter, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hockin<^, 
Case of Lickinff,Chamber8, Chaney,Clark, Collings, Curry, Ewart 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, 
Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, 
Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mitchell, 
McCloud, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Ree- 
melin. Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, 
Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilvvell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Towns- 
hend, Warren, Williams, Woodbury and Worthington—75. 

So the demand for the previous question was not 
sustained. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Stan¬ 
ton’s amendment, 

Mr. HITC HCOCK, of Geauga, demanded a division. 

The question being on striking out sections 2 and 3 
of the report, 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved to ])erfect the 
words proposed to be stricken out, by adding at the 
end of section 3 the following; “and provided, further, 
that if in any district it be found inexpedient to hold 
a district court annually in each county thereof, the 
General Assembly may, for such district, provide that 
said court may hold at least three annual sessions there¬ 
in, in at least three or iriore places pending which. 

On motion of Mr. MORRIS, the Convention took a 
recess. 

3 o'clock, p. m. 

_ The question pending being on agreeing to the mo¬ 
tion of Mr. Hitchcock, of Geauga, 

Mr. MITCHELL moved a call of the Convention; 
and being ordered, Messrs. Akchbold, Curry, Cutler, 
Florence, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hootman, Kirk¬ 


wood, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Lidey, Nash, Per¬ 
kins, Roll, Smith of Warren, Vance, and Way, were 
found absent. 

On motion of Mr. FORBES, all further proceedings 
under the call were dispensed with. 

The question then being on agreeing to the motion of 
Mr. Hitchcock, of Geauga, 

Mr. WOODBURY demanded the yeas and nays, 
which wei’e ordered, and resulted—yeas 47, nays 45— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll. Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Horton, Jones, Kennon, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, 
McCloud, McCcrmick. Norris, Otis, Peck, Riddle, Sawyer, Smith 
of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, Taylor and 
Worthington—47. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Ewing,Farr, Forbes, 
Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holt, Hum¬ 
phreville, Hunter, Johnson, King, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
London, Manon, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stick¬ 
ney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshcnd, Warren, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and Presi¬ 
dent—45. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on striking out sections two 
and three, 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to perfect the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, by striking, out in section two 
these word.s, “at least one term in each year at the 
seat of government, and such other terms at the seat of 
government or elsewhere,” and insert in lieu thereof, 
the following; 

“One term in each year at not less than-places 

within the State.” 

Mr. STANTON demanded a division. 

The question being first on striking out the words 
“ at least one term in each year at the seat of Govern¬ 
ment, and such other terms at the seat of Government 
or elsewhere;” 

Mr. FORBES demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 39, nays 56—as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Ewing, Forbes, Gillett, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Henderson, Holt, Hootman, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter. Loudon, Man¬ 
on, Mitchell, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Qnigley, Ranney, Reem¬ 
elin, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Taylor, Thompson ot Stark, Town- 
sbend, Woodbury and President—39. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, Graham, 
Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Ken¬ 
non, King, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Norris, Otis, Peck, Riddle, Sawyer, Smith ot Highland, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, 
Thompson of Shelby, Warren, Williams, Wilson and Worthing¬ 
ton—56. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out sections two 
and three, 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to perfect the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, by striking out the following; 
“a Chief Justice and three As.sociates,” and inserting 
in lieu thereof, to word “four.” 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, demanded a division. 

The question then being first on striking out the 
words, “ a Chief Justice and three associates,” 

Mr. WOODBURY said he saw no reason why one of 
the justices should be called a Chief .luslice, and the 
others inferior judges. He has no different or distinct 
powers ; and when the justices are elected by the peo¬ 
ple, there would be no guaranty that he would be su¬ 
perior to the others, either in talents, character, or ac¬ 
quirements. ... 

Mr. humphreville thought these distinctions 
ridiculous. In such an aristocratic system, only one 
thirif^ more is wanting, to add the word “lord,” before 
the word “ chief.” Seriously, however, he was oppo¬ 
sed to every thing of the kind, and hoped the word 












1030 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


justice would be stricken out, and the word judge put 
in its place. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said this was becoming a mon¬ 
strous aristocratic system. It is true that it is the same 
under which we have lived for forty-eight years. And 
gentlemen have just began to smell aristocracy in it. 
He would be willing to vote for the amendment, were 
it not that, under the laws of the United States, trans¬ 
cripts from one State, to go into another, must be sign¬ 
ed by the Chief Justice. 

Mr. MITCHELL was anxious to get rid of these ar 
istocratic distinctions, which had been productive of 
great evil and unhappiness in the world, and had many 
times been the cause of exciting an evil ambition that 
had filled the earth with bloodshed. 

Mr. SAWYER. I rise, sir, to address you as the 
President of this Convention. In so doing, I do noth¬ 
ing derogatory to myself, or to other gentlemen upon 
this floor. You sit there, sir, by virtue of an ollice 
which you have voluntarily undertaken, and which we 
have freely conferred upon you. We have given you 
the title of President, merely as a name to the oiHce 
which you hold, as a matter of convenience; and when 
we provide that there shall be a Chief Justice of the 
State, we do no more than to say that the Supreme 
Court shall have a presiding officer, for its own conve¬ 
nience. I think some of my democratic friends are 
rather keen in smelling out a distinction where there is 
no difference ; and it would seem as if, in this species 
of opposition to this bill, they were not so much con¬ 
tending against its substantial provisions, as endeavor 
ing to show off their valor, by setting up a scare-crow 
for the purpose of knocking it down. 

Mr. TAYLOR was in favor of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Ashtabula, [Mr. Woodbury.] He 
preferred to leave the matter, by merely providing that 
there should be four judges elected, as it is under the 
present constition ; and he preferred the title of judge 
to that of justice. 

The question then being on striking out the words 
“ a chief justice and three associatethe same was 
disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking outsections two 
and three, 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved a call of the Convene 
tion; which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out sections two 
and three, 

Mr. HOLT desired to call the attention of gentlemen 
to a system of judiciary which all can understand, and 
which will perform its duties in the most simple and 
efficient manner. He believed many members could 
yet say after all this tedious and wearisome discussion, 
they did not fully comprehend the workings nor disco¬ 
ver the probable effect of the one now before them. 
If there may be another that is plain cheap, and which 
will bring home speedy justice to the people, I ask the 
members, especially the lay members of this Conven¬ 
tion to come forward and give it their support. I want 
a simple system, simple in its construction, simple and 
plain in its operation. I want all your best judges to 
go into every county in the State, there do the business, 
there try the cases—the facts and chiefly the law— 
there make their decisions. This is what I earnestly 
desire; and if it can be easily accomplished, I ask gen¬ 
tlemen if it is not a reasonable request? 

It may seem an useless waste of time, Mr. President, 
to present another judiciary system to the considera¬ 
tion of this Convention, when the moment a plan is 
proposed, the previous question is sprung upon it, and 
witiiout discussion—without examination—without be¬ 
ing printed, it is voted down. Sir, I complain of my 
friend from Auglaize, for moving the pievious question 
under the circumstances of the case. 

Mr. SAWYER. Do I understand the gentleman 
from Montgomery as saying that the report of the com¬ 
mittee 18 the only plan for a judiciary system that has 
been printed. Now there have been several others. 


I Mr. HOLT. I said that it appears to be the object 
I to shut out every other plan and every other araend- 
! ment. The moment any other system is^proposed, it 
is to be despatched under the operation of* the previous 
question, which cuts off discussion and leaves no tirne 
for examination. Any plan proposed under these cir¬ 
cumstances, must necessarily fail. The delegate from 
Logan proposed an entire new plan. It was read once 
I at the Clerk’s table, and it w'as at once proposed to 
I smother it in this way. My friend from Auglaize has 
I had more light shed upon him by some of the lumina¬ 
ries of this report of the committee than shone in the 
pathway of some of the rest of us. 

Before submitting my own plan, and a few comments 
upon it, I remark that I regret the failure of the mo¬ 
tion to strike out the term “chief justice.’' It is a mis¬ 
nomer. The report of the committee provides no such 
office. Chief Justice ex vi termini signifies the main or 
principal justice on the bench, whereas all the justices 
have like and equal powers and duties, except the one 
j who presides at the terms. He should be called the 
Presiding Judge, and should be the senior in age. But 
this is of no great importance. 

I will now, Mr. President, endeavor, as briefly aspos- 

I sible to present the leading features of the plan which 

II have been led to propose. It first provides as in the 
plan reported by the majority of the committee, for the 
distribution of the judicial powder of the State, which 
is to be vested in a court of the correction of errors, in 

I courts of common pleas, in county courts, in justices of 
I the peace, and in such other couts, inferior to the court 
I for the correction of errors, as the General Assembly 
may establish. 

Then, for the purpose of establishing the principal 
courts of the system, and the mode by wliich the judges 
I shall be elected, it is provided that the State shall be 
! divided into five judicial districts of compact territory, 

I bounded by county lines, and as near as may be, equal 
I in population; in each of which districts there shall be 

I elected by the electors of -, five judges of the 

I Courts of Common Pleas, who atthetimeof their elec- 
i tion, and during their continuance in office, shall reside 
I therein. Their term of office shall be five years ; but 
I immediately after their first election, they shall be so 
classified by the General Assembly, that the official 
term of one judge from each judicial district, to be de¬ 
termined by lot, shall expire every year. 

I call the courts constituted by these judges, the 
Courts of Common Pleas. I call them so, because 
they are to do the chief burden of the business. It is, 

I however, as it should be, the best court of the system, 

! because it is to perform the great burden of the ju¬ 
dicial service of the State. The whole number of the 
Judges in the State will be twenty-five, or five in each 
district. At present we have nineteen circuits, or ju¬ 
dicial districts, with one President Judge in each; 
three local courts, with one Judge to each, and four 
Judges of the Supreme Court, making twenty-six in 
all. The present jurisdiction of the courts of common 
pleas in probate, administration, licensing taverns, 
road appeal.?, &.C., being taken away, and given to the 
local tribunals of the counties, I am satisfied ihattweir- 
ty-five judges will be amply sufficient to do all the 
business of the State ; but in case of a future increase 
in the business and population of the State, it should 
prove not to be so, there is a provision for adding five 
more, making thirty in all, at any time when it shall, 
by the Legislature, be deemecUexpedieiit. The report 
j of the committee has thirty-one, and in this respect, 
I we are nearly alike. 

For the purpose of a court of last resort, I have 
provided that five of the judges, one from each judi¬ 
cial district, during the last year of their official term, 
shall compose the court for the correction of errors. 
But the General Assembly may at any time provide 
that the same five judges may compose the court for 
the correction of errors for one year immediately suc- 
i ceeding the expiration of their official term of five 


























K 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 10-31 

- - — ---ft _ _ _ _ _ 


years. It shall have original jurisdiction in qzio war¬ 
ranto, mandamus, habeas corpus, procedendo, and such 
appellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law and 
shall hold at least one term annually, in each judicial 
district. 

Here we take from each district one judge—he who 
has had the most experience, and has been occupied 
for four years at least, in the trial of jury cases—has 
had an opportunity to observe the practical operation 
of the law, has mingled among the people, been obser¬ 
vant of their habits and business, and seen the effect 
of his own decisions; and of these we constitute a 
court for the correction of errors. There is, in real¬ 
ity, but one court—there is no chief justice—no high 
judge—no low judge—but all are on the same footing of 
democratic equality; just as it should be; and in this 
mode we may establish an uniform system of practice 
and of decisions ; and I must be allowed to say that if 
there is any better mode of arriving at this much to be 
desired result, it is not through any plan that has yet 
been proposed. 

I have heard an objection made, that by taking the 
judges, oldest in commission, to constitute the court for 
the correction of errors, we may not get the best. It 
is true that there may be instances where the judge 
who becomes a member of that court, may have a su¬ 
perior behind him, in strictly legal learning, and per¬ 
haps in other respects ; but I apprehend no practical 
difficulty on that score. It is not necessary that all the 
judges shall be taken from those who have the most 
knowledge of mere technical, arbitrary rules of law, 
and in many cases, I believe that the man of good edu¬ 
cation and intelligence, who has the most knowledge 
of men and of business—the man of common sense, 
and the most pi*actical views, will be found to be the 
most valuable officer. I should apprehend no danger 
from such a man, though a layman on the supreme 
bench. Such a man would comprehend an argument, 
yield a proper deference to the opinions of his legal 
brethren on the bench, who might be benefitted by his 
plain logic. The former prevented from doing injus¬ 
tice by an artificial train of reasoning; the latter pre¬ 
vented from a fluctuating course of decision by a too 
ready disregard of precedent. 

Even my friend from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,"] so 
fond of retaining in this article the title of “Chief Jus¬ 
tice,” may yet wear that high sounding title, and with 
it the wig and gown, star and garter. 

Mr. STANTON. I desire to ask the gentleman from 
Montgomery, [Mr. Holt,] one question. Will not his 
system make aconstant rotation in his court for the cor¬ 
rection of errors? 

Mr. HOLT. Certainly it will. That is, in fact, the 
part of the plan which I most admire. Five of the 
most experienced judges of the State will come togeth¬ 
er from year to year, confer together, communicate to 
each other the mode of practice and consent of decis¬ 
ions, and correct their own errors, if any have been 
committed. This is one of the most important con¬ 
siderations. It brings upon the bench of that court 
men who for the four years previous have been among 
the people, observant of their habits, manners, busi¬ 
ness and interests. Suitors, witnesses, grand and petit 
jurors, come before them ; they observe their demean¬ 
or, hear testimony, weigh evidence, and apply the law. 
It is by this service that the judge learns the proper ap- , 
plication of legal principles to the cases which he is 
called to decide, and to administer the law in such 
manner as shall best conduce to settle justly the rights 
of the parties litigant. On the contrary, a mere paper 
judge becomes a theorist—an abstractionist; he comes 
over the technicalities^ and arbitrary rules of the law, 
and its practice, and is in danger of forgetting or pass¬ 
ing over the right, and of abandoning himself to a mode 
of artificial and technical reasoning, which not unfre- 
quently shuts up the fountains of natural justice, the 
streams from which ought to flow freely, and so as to 
reach every case. No suitor ought to leave the courts 


■ with the real merits of his case either overlooked or 
lost in a labyrinth of technical machinery or arbitrary 
rules. By the report of the committee, your supreme 
judges never see nor are seen by the people. And the 
tendency and drift of their system is centralization. 

I As the auctioneers say, a turn at the seat of govern¬ 
ment once, a turn at the seat of government twice, 
i and the chance of a turn at the seat of government 
three-e-ee times. 

Under the action of the Convention upon the report 
; of another committee, we are encouraged to look for- 
, ward to the time when these technicalities will all be 

■ wiped away, and the peo])le by looking on will be able 
to understand the manner in which and the principles 

■ upon which the law is administered. Then will they 
1 learn to respect the government that gives them its 
I protection, and the law which screens their rights and 
' redresses their wi’ongs. Not only is the judge thus 

benefitted by nisi prius duties, but the people derive 
an important benelit, over and above that which results 
immediately from correct decisions. They hear your 
judge of this last court, the court of dernier resort, ex¬ 
pound the law. They thus learn what it is, and why 
it is so. Sir, our people know too little of the law; its 
administration is so wrapt up in forms and fictions, and 
to them mysteries, that they have no encouragement to 
try to learn it; they will soon, I hope, be able to learn 
more of it. It is highly important that they should. 

Mr. President, what agent or influence is so potent in 
establishing the morals of a people as the law and its 
administration ? If honesty and fair dealing among 
men be desirable ; if honor be commendable and integ¬ 
rity a virtue, your laws should encourage these and 
and frown upon their opposites. When the law is so 
administered as to do this promptly and efficiently, it 
inspires a reverence, and exercises not only a salutary 
influence upon the private character of the citizen, but 
a moral power more efficient in preserving the public 
peace than a constabulary force or the sheriff’s posse. 
At least, the morals of the people will not generally 
rise above the standard which satisfies the law. 

The fourth section provides that the jurisdiction of 
the courts of common pleas shall be fixed by law, and 
the Legislature shall provide for a sufficient number of 
terms of the court of common pleas to be held in each 
county, by one or more of the judges of the district; 
and more than one court of common pleas may be held 
at the same time in each district. This is like the 
plan in the report of the majority of the committee ; and 
it is arranged with a view to give ample time for three 
terms annually in each county. In general it is to be 
holden by one judge alone; but in the case of impor¬ 
tant civil or criminal causes, he may have the assist¬ 
ance of others, under such rules as the Legislature may 
provide. 

The fifth section provides that there shall be estab¬ 
lished in each county of the State a court of record, to 
be called the county court, to be holden by one judge, 
elected by the electors of the county, with jurisdiction 
in habeas corpus, of probate and administration, of guar¬ 
dianship of minors and of the sale of lands by execu¬ 
tors, administrators and guardians. The General As¬ 
sembly may confer upon this court such original and 
appellate jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases, as 
they shall deem expedient. The terra of office of the 
judges of this court shall be four years. 

Here we leave a question upon which gentlemen dis¬ 
agree, to the discretion of the Legislature, who, as ex¬ 
perience shall determine, may confer a jurisdiction 
civil and criminal upon the local tribunals, or limit 
them merely to the business of probate, administra¬ 
tion and guardianship ;* and I do not see why both par¬ 
ties may not stand upon equal ground, and trust to fu¬ 
ture trial and experience. 

I have had, Mr. President, some experience and ob¬ 
servation upon the practical operation of the law. I 
have nearly done with it, and have in this matter one 
sole object in view—to aid in the establishment of such 


% 











1032 


CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


a system of laws and of the practice of the law, and of 
courts to administer the law, as shall secure to ourpeo- 
ple, now and hereafter, as well as it can bedone, cheap, 
speedy and certain justice. 

For the appointment or election of justices of the 
peace—fixing the salaries of judges—filling vacancies 
—removing judicial ofiicers—the jurisdiction of judges 
at chambers and the election of clerks, I have adopted 
the provisions of the report of the majority of the com¬ 
mittee, as amended in Convention. 

There is one other feature to which I desire for a mo¬ 
ment to call the attention of the Convention. The 
sixth section of my plan provides that courts of concili¬ 
ation may be established, with such powers and duties 
as may bo prescribed by law; but such courts shall 
have no power to I’ender judgment to bo obligatory up¬ 
on the parties, except they voluntarily submit their 
matters in difference and agree to abide the judgment, 
or assent thereto in the presence of such court, in such 
cases as may be prescribed by law. 

This plan of a court of conciliation has many advo¬ 
cates, who desire to see it established. It has been 
tried in other counties, with excellent effect—greatly 
diminishing litigation, and subduing a litigious spirit— 
a spirit which is the bane of community. It sets neigh¬ 
bor against neighbor, brother against brother, and even 
father against son, and son against father. Such liti¬ 
gation have I often witnessed, and in some cases seen 
It prosecuted with an embittered spirit, little short of 
devilish. Every means which promises only a mitiga¬ 
tion of the evil should be employed. The expense and 
time wasted in such controversies, employing judges, 
jurors, witnesses, lawyers and suitors, is but a little of 
the mischief. The monstrous evil consists in the en¬ 
gendering and perpetuating of strife and contention 
among neighbors, begetting and nursing discord and 
hatred in families, and in disturbing the harmony and 
peace of society. A judicious, peace loving and peace 
making officer of this kind may be more useful, far 
more useful than the first judge of your State, whom 
you propose to dignify with title of Chief Justice of 
Ohio. 

Mr. STANTON. May I interrupt the gentleman 
from Montgomery ? I do not understand how his 
judges of (he common pleas are to be elected—wheth¬ 
er by districts or by the State at large. 

Mr. HOLT. I have left that question open to be 
settled by the Convention, and there is a blank to be 
filled. They are to be elected by the electors of the 
State at large, or by districts, as shall be deemed advi¬ 
sable. 

Mr. STANTON. If I understand the project, there 
is no court for the trial of causes erroneously decided 
by juries, except the district court, which sits once in 
a year, in each district ? 

Mr. HOLT. That is the only provision for the cor¬ 
rection of errors in law. New trials may of course be 
granted, when the jury err. 

I have here, Mr. President, presented the main fea- 
turer of my plan. I have endeavored as far as in me 
lies to prepare such a system as shall ensure the most 
speedy, cheap, and certain administration of justice; 
and in a manner that will be acceptable and satisfacto¬ 
ry to the people. Thus inspiring such reverence for 
the law^ and respect for its officers and administration 
as shall not only secure the public peace, but also, en¬ 
courage and advance private morals and public justice. 

The question then being on the motion to strike out 
sections ore and two, 

Mr. MORRIS demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered resulted—yeas 39, nays 54—as follows: 

Ykas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Holt, Hootman, 
Humphreville, Hunt. Larsh, Lnrwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, 
Manon, Mitchell, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, R«nney, Reemelin, 
Scott of Auelaize, Sellers, Smith ot Wyandot, Stanton, Stebhins, 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Woodbury and President—39. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 


of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Ceilings, Coos, Ewart, Gillett, Green of Ross, Groes- 
beck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Ge¬ 
auga, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, Johnson,. Jones , Kennon, King, 
Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Otis, 
Peck, Perkins, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of High¬ 
land, Stanbery, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shel¬ 
by, Warren, Williams, Wilson, and Worthington—54. 

So the motion to strike out was disagreed to. 

Mr. TAYLOR moved to further amend the report, 
by striking out of the first section the following words: 
“ both as to matters of law and equitywhich was 
agreed to. 

Mr. LOUDON moved to further amend the report, 
by adding at the end of section one the following 
words: 

“ And th(! proceedings of all courts in this State shall be public 
at all times, and any person having any case pending, or business 
to transact therein, may appear either for himself or herself, or 
be represented by such citizen or counsel as such person may 
choo se, any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.” 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, moved to amend the amend¬ 
ment, by inserting after tlie w'ord “ person ” where it 
occurs in the first instance, the words “ irrespective of 
color,” 

On which motion Mr, REEMELIN demanded the 
yeas and nays, which being ordered, resulted — yeas 
31, nays 59—as follows: 

"Teas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, 
Clark, Cook, Ewart, Farr, Gray, Greene ot Defiance, Hamilton, 
Humphreville, Hunter, Larsh, Manon, Morehead, McCormick, 
Orton, Otis, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Stanton, Switt, Taylor, 
Townshend, Warren and Woodbury— 31. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Blair, Brown of 
Athens, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Curry, Ew¬ 
ing, Forbes, Gillett, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Har¬ 
lan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Larwill, 
Leadbetter, Loudon, Mitchell, Morris, McCloud, Noms, Patter¬ 
son, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Steb- 
bins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Williams, Wilson, Worthington and 
President—59. 

So the amendment to the amendment was disagreed 
to. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Loudon, 

That gentleman demanded the yeas and nays, 
which, being ordered, resulted—yeas 49, nays 42—as 
Ibllows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Clark, Cooki 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton; 
Hard, Hawkins, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunteri 
Johnson, Jones, King, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Loudon, Manom 
Mitchell, Morehead, McCormick, Norris. Orton, Patterson, Per¬ 
kins, Quigley, Reemelin, iStanton, Stebitins, Stickney, Stidger. 
Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Warren, Woodbury and President—49, 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett ot Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, 
Collings, Curry, Ewart, Gillett, Green of Ross, Harlan, Hender¬ 
son, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Kennon, Leadbetter, 
Morris, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stanbery, Stilwell, .Swan, Williams, Wilson and Worthington— 
42. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr MITCHELL, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


FRIDAY, January 24, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by Rev. Dr. Brooke. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, presented a petition 
from Alexander Green and sixty-two other citizens of 
Shelby county, praying that a clause may be inserted 
in the new constitution, prohibiting the Legislature 
from passing any law legalizing traffic in spirituous 
liquors, which was read at the Secretary’s desk; and, 
on motion of the same gentleman, was laid on the ta¬ 
ble. 

Mr, HAWKINS, of the standing committee on Pub- 












1033 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


lie Debts and Public Works, to whom had been re¬ 
committed the Keport No. 1, of the committee on that 
subject, reported the same back with sundry amend¬ 
ments. 

The qne.stion being on agreeing to the first amend¬ 
ment, to wit: In section 1, in the first two lines, strike 
\ 3 Ut these words : “ but sftch debts direct or contingent, 
singly or in tin aggregate, shall not at any time,” and 
insert in lieu thereof the following: “but the entire 
amount of such debts, direct and contingent, 
whether contracted by virtue of one or more acts of 
the General Assembly, or at different periods of time, 
shall never.” 

Mr. HAlfLAN moved that the report and pending 
amendments be laid on the table; which was agreed to 
Mr. HOLT submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the following be incorporated into the new con¬ 
stitution as an article thereof; 

ARTICLE. 

Sec. 1. Taxes rhall be levied upon the productive capital of 
the banks in this State, whether such capital consists of money, 
debts, or creditt^, in such manner and for such purposes as shall 
be levied upon other preperty. 

Sec. 2. Tlie General Assembly, at its first session after the 
adoption ot this constitution, shall provide by law for the ascer¬ 
tainment ol the rate and amount of interest which shall thereaf¬ 
ter be received, annually, by the several banks in this State, on 
the amount of their actual capital in good faith paid in, whether 
received by means of a loan of money, of paper currency, or by 
any other device, expedient, or mode ot doing business; and if 
any bank shall have received, after deducting expenses, an exhi¬ 
bit of which shall be annually made to the Auditor of State, and 
by him reported to the General Assembly, a rate or amount ol 
interest on such capital, over and above the rate and amount of 
interest which shall be allowed by law to the citizens of the State 
generally, the excess ol such interest shall be paid into the Treas 
ury of the State, lor the use of the State. 

Sec. 3 At the same session, the General Assembly shall, by 
law, prohibit the circulation, as money, within this State, of ev¬ 
ery species ol paper currency of a denomination less than three 
dollars, after the fourth day of July, in the year one thou.sand 
eight hundred and fifty-two ; and ot a denomination less than five 
dollars, after the fourth day of July, in the year one thousand 
eight hundred and filty-four; and of a denomination less than ten 
dollars, after the foui ih day of July, in the year one thousand 
eight hundred and fifty-seven ; and of a denomination less than 
twenty dollars, after the fourth day of July, in the year one thou¬ 
sand eight hundred and sixty; and of every denomination, after 
the fourth day ol July, in the year one thousand eight hundred 
and sixty-six, until the question of “ bank or no bank ” shall have 
been submitted to, and voted upon by the electors of the State, as 
is provided for in this article 

Sec. 4. No payment made in paper currency, circulating as 
money contrary to the provisions of this article, for property 
bought or sold, or on any contract, shall be a bar to an action 
brought for the recovery of the price or value of such property, 
nor to an action brought upon such contract, and such payment 
shall, to all intents and purposes, be held void. 

Sec 5. After the fourth day of July, in the year one thousand 
ef^ht hundred and seventy-one, the General Assembly' may sub¬ 
mit to the electors of the State, at any general election, the ques¬ 
tion of ‘-bank or no bank,” and if, at such election, a majority ol 
the votes cast shall bo against banks, the General Assembly shall 
not thereafter autliorize, create, nor incorporate, by any general 
or special law, any bank, banking power or privilege, nor any in¬ 
stitution or corporation havmg any banking power or privilege 
whatever, and shall by law, prohibit forever, the circulation as 
money, of every species of paper currency ; but if a majority of 
all the votes cast at such election shall be in favor of banks, then 
the General A.asembly may grant bank charters, or pass a general 
banking law, with such restrictions, and under such regulations 
as they may deem expedient and proper for the security of the 
bill holder, but no such grant or law shall ever authorize any 
such corporation, banker or bankers, to demand or receive, direct 
ly or indirectly, by means of a loan ol money, of paper currency, 
or by any other device, or expedient, or mode ot doing business, 
a rate or amount ol interest on the actual capital in good faith 
paid in, greater than shall be by law allowed to the citizens gen¬ 
erally of the State; nor shall any such grant or law exempt any 
Individual corporatgi or banker from liability in his private capa¬ 
city for the payn.ent of all the debts of tlie corporation, banker 
or bankers, with whom, as a banker, he shall have been associa¬ 
ted, at the time of contracting such indebtedness: Provided, al 
ways, that no such grant or law shall have any torce or effect un¬ 
til the same shall have been submitted to a vote of the electors of 
the State, at some general election, and approved by a majority 
of the votes cast at such election. 

Mr. HOLT desired to call the attention of the Con¬ 
vention, for 51 short time, to the consideration of a sub¬ 
ject presenting important questions, which it would be 
absolutely necessary for tlio Convention to settle, in 
some form or other—questions in which he felt a deep 


interest, and which he w'as satisfied had occupied the 
atlenliou of members and of the people as largely as 
any that had been or would be presented under this 
constitution. 

There appear to be four varieties of sentiment en¬ 
tertained upon the subject of banking and the currency 
by members of this body : First, there are the gentle¬ 
men upon the left side of the chair, who are well 
enough satisfied with the banking system of the State 
as it is—who believe that it is safe, sound and secure— 
who think it has done well during the past, is doing 
well at the present, and that it will continue to do well 
ill future time. The party on the right of the chair, 
on the other hand, is distributed into three divisions— 
each to a greater or less extent opposed to banks and a 
paper currency, but difiering among themselves as to 
the time aud the manner in which the evil is to be erad¬ 
icated. There is that want of harmony among these 
several branches which as yet seems totally to prevent 
any co-opersition upon the subject. I say to gentlemen 
upon this side, that if we remain in the position in 
which we are—obstinately adhere to our own views, 
aud not relax at all upon the. points where we divide, 
wo may as well at once let the other side take the mat¬ 
ter into its own hands and decide it, as in the event 
they most certainly will. 

To describe the various opinions that are entertain¬ 
ed : There is one class that takes it stand upon what 
it deems to be constitutional gi'ound, and deduces its 
principles from the provision in the conslitiition of the 
United States, that no State shall emit bills of credit; 
and claiming, under it, that the State has no power 
whatever to pass any law whose effect shall be to bring 
about the issue of a paper currency. Another class 
look upon a paper currency, in itself, as an evil, but 
such an one as, under the present system of trade and 
commerce, cannot be avoided. They are opposed to 
the system we have, but believe one might be devised 
that will at once comply with the commercial demands 
of the State, and at the same lime be free from the ob¬ 
jectionable features now so much aud so justly com¬ 
plained of. The third class stands, in principle, upon 
nearly the same platform with the first. They believe 
that a paper currency is not necessary, and that as soon 
as possible it ought to be driven from circulation; but 
at the same time they think that a system that has been 
in use so long—that has become so intimately blended 
with the business, industrial and commercial interests 
of the community—under which so much indebtedness 
has been contracted, and so many credits extended— 
which is so iiuermingled with the movements and cal¬ 
culations of business men, both pre.sent and future, can¬ 
not be w'iped out at once without producing such con¬ 
vulsions in business, such a shock in the commercial 
world, as would be worse than any evil produced by 
its continuance. For this reason, they are disinclined 
to take ground with the first class, and go immediately 
for striking the banks out of existence. And, Mr. 
President, if we have not already discovered that by 
these divisions we have been rendered feeble and in¬ 
efficient ns a party, not only in regard to this question, 
but all others in which party principles are involved, 
vve shall not be long in making the discovery. 

I am not disposed, sir, to bring into tlie discussions 
which tsxke place in this body, mei e party feelings, nor 
party opinions, except where, from the nature of the 
case, it i.s proper and necessary. I have before said 
here, that 1 am a parly man, and that there are sub¬ 
jects and questions arising here upon which a man 
C5innot cease to be a partizan, without at tlie same 
time ceasing to be an honest man. At those times I 
can be nothing else*. Our friends upon the left of the 
chair in their conduct upon certain questions, have 
acted wisely and warily. Whether prompted by their 
ovvnconvictioiis—by the pressure of the people without, 
or the circumstances of their situation here, they have 
come forward gracefully, and yielded at once the prin¬ 
ciple that all the officers in the State shall be in future 










1034 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


elected by the people. What have they gained in re¬ 
turn? Ill effect, that we have yielded to them every 
thing else that has us yet been settled, and we may 
take to ourselves the assurance that it’ we are not to be 
united upon every important question now remaining, 
wo shall be a defeated party, and shall find to our cost, 
that we must go home to our constituents with a con¬ 
stitution that every Democrat in the State will be mor¬ 
tified to read. 

Mr. President, I desire that it shall be understood 
where I stand upon this question. I am, sir, a hard 
money man. I do not believe any banking system 
necessary. I believe that commercial exigencies and 
commercial ingenuity would be able, if the banking 
system were destroyed, instantly to supply its place 
with such a system of checks and drafts as would 
answer every purpose of the banks, without the dan¬ 
ger of the monstrous abuses which accompany those 
institutions. I am entirely in favor of driving out 
of circulation every species of paper currency at as 
early a date as possible. I have seen two several 
revolutions in this State, the effect of the too great ex¬ 
tension of paper credits—carrying ruin into every 
part of the community, and I venture to predict that 
in less than five years—it may wait a little longer— 
we shall experience another. They were in progress 
and effects like the pestilence that walks in darkness 
and the destruction that wastes at noonday, and such 
ever was, and ever will be their eftects; and in view 
of these evils, I will say to the hardest, that you cannot 
be harder than I am; for I look upon a paper currency 
as the very root of all the commercial ills under which 
we suffer. It is our duty then to examine each into 
the opinion of the other, that it possible we may hit 
upon some plan that may harmonize into one course of 
action all contlicting opinions, and enable us to present 
an unbroken front upon this important question. 

I will now proceed to review briefly, the plan 
vvhich I have proposed. The first section contains 
that to which all will not fail to assent. It provides 
that taxes shall be levied upon the productive capital 
of the bank, whether such capital consists of money, 
debts or credits, in such manner and for such purposes 
as shall be levied upon other property. 

The next provision is one upon which there ought 
to be no difference of opinion on either side of the 
chamber. It is to prohibit all the banks of the State 
from making merchandise of the necessities of the peo¬ 
ple, by demanding and receiving an extravagant rate 
of interest. The Legislature shall ascertain the rale 
and amount of interest received by the banks on their 
capital paid in, over and above the interest allowed by 
law to the citizens of the State generally, and the ex¬ 
cess of the same is to be paid into the treasury, for the 
use of the State. If the banks, under this provision, 
should so limit their circulation as to receive but the 
ordinary rate of interest, the effect would be salutary. 
If, by means of paper issues, they receive an amount 
of interest greater than other citizens are allowed to 
receive, the excess shall furnish a dividend for the 
people. 

Let every democrat, yes, and every whig, too, in 
the State, look into the statute and see the premium 
that is in effect, paid to the rich, to the banker, to the 
capitalist. He invests his money in a banking con- 
cera, and, by direct action of law, is allowed to re¬ 
ceive eighteen per cent, upon the capital he has in¬ 
vested, while every other citizen of the State is re¬ 
stricted to six, now ten per cent. There is no reason 
why such extraordinary privileges should be granted, 
and I hope that this great inequality will be immedi¬ 
ately and eff’ectually remedied. For this I have pro¬ 
vided in this section, and I should like to sec what 
gentleman upon the other side is willing to record his 
vote against this proposition. 

Sir, why are charters granted ? Is it not upon the 
piesumption that by their creation some benefit is to 
be conferred upon the community ? Why arc confer¬ 


red upon individuals these extraordinary powers and 
privileges ? They are granted for the purpose of aid¬ 
ing men so to combine their individual means, as to 
carry on some great enterprise, which is to result to 
the benefit of the people ? Is is not so ? They are to 
encourage men to undertake projects which would be 
hazardous to individuals, or which, while they promise 
to do good to the public, are of doubtful profit. Now, 
under either of these rules, it is a matter of great doubt, 
whether banks are entitled to any exclusive or extra¬ 
ordinary privileges, or franchises, whatever; because, 
first, there is no risk or hazard iu investing capital in 
them ; and, secondly, because the benefits they confer 
upon the community are of a very doubtful character, 
while the evils are plain andpalpable. 

I would then ask of gentlemen on this side of the 
chamber, if it is necessary to hire capitalists to invest 
their money in banks, by giving them from twelve to 
eighteen per cent., to induce tham them to go forward 
and do business ? Why, sir, it is one of the safest ope¬ 
rations in the world. If. honestly and prudently car¬ 
ried on, there is no possibility of a failui’e. The only 
hazard is from becoming so dishonest as to bring them¬ 
selves within the necessity of an explosion. There is 
far less risk in it than in the occupation of a merchant, 
or even of a farmer. 

Iwiisb, Mr. President, as I said, to get rid of a paper 
currency altogether; but, I will not say as some gen¬ 
tlemen do, that, if I cannot get the best I ask, I will 
have nothing, and that if banks are to be tolerated for 
one da 3 ^ I will go no further. 

Mr. SAWYER said. If the gentleman meant him 
he took no such position. He would try the most ul¬ 
tra measures first, and would make no proposition of 
compromise until it is tried ; and if that fail, I will try 
to secure the next best that presents itself. 

Mr. HOLT. That is what I entreat other men to 
do; and I ask, if we cannot meet upon some common 
ground. The absolute prohibition of banks, and their 
immediate destruction, hy a direct constitutional pro¬ 
vision, cannot, I fully believe, be efl’ected. It is evi¬ 
dent that it cannot be done upon this floor; and it is a 
matter of great doubt whether it would be prudent, if 
it could lie done. The commercial and business opera¬ 
tions of the community are so connected and combined 
with those institutions which create the currency, that 
the immediate destruction of the latter would give a 
shock which, in its reaction, would overthrow the party 
that made the movement. What, then shall we do ? 
The true course is to provide a system that shall gradu¬ 
ally bring the State into the position we desire, in or¬ 
der to make the change at once easy in its progress, 
and beneficial in its result. The plan which I have 
submitted, provides that after the 4th of July, 1852, 
all the one dollar r’ags and shin plasters, shall be got 
rid of; after the 4th of July, 1854, all the paper money 
under three dollars shall cease to circulate; after the 
4th of July, 1857, every thing less than five shall be 
j)ut an end to; after the 4th of July, 1858, everything 
less than ten; after the 4th of July, 1860, every thing 
less than twenty; and after the 4th of July, 1866, every 
species of bank notes of every kind or denomination, 
shall cease to pa.ss, be oflered, or received as money, for 
the yiayment of debts, or in the purchase of property. 
At this time, all the charters of the banks of circulation 
in the State will have expired, and there will be no 
currency of the issue of our own banks, to enter into 
circulation, until 1871. I have provided that, under 
the operation of a rule in the constitution, lor five years, 
the ex];)eriment shall be tried, .and I believe that, by 
that time, the opinions ol the people will have become 
settled, and they will be all of one mind. There 
will be no call lor banks except from those who wish 
to swindle. 

Gentlemen have distressed themselves by imagining 
great and terrible evils, as the result of the suppres¬ 
sion of a paper currency—the current of trade would 
flow away from us—manufactures would cease—the 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 1035 


surplus of the fanner would rot for the want of a pur¬ 
chaser. Do they suppose that the merchant of New 
Orleans, ol Boston, or of New York, will not buy our 
produce, because we v\dil receive only gold or silver in 
payment? There is no danger of such a result. They 
will go to their own banks and draw the gold and sil¬ 
ver, and pay to us the same sum as they would in pa¬ 
per, which is worth less. The same value in property 
would bring an equal amount of money, which, at all 
times, and in all places, would be money, and, if any¬ 
thing, trade would be more brisk, and the reward of 
manutacturing and all other industry more certain. 

The next article provides that no payment made in 
paper currency, circulating as money, contrary to the 
provisions ot this article, for property bought or sold, 
or on any contract, shall be a bar to an action brought 
for the recovery of the price or value of such proper¬ 
ty, nor to an action brought upon such contract; and 
such payment shall, to all intents and purposes, be 
held null and void. Without .such a provision, it 
would be impossible to put a stop to the circulation 
ot the paper ot other States. No penal law could pre¬ 
vent it. A portion ot the business men would break 
over the rule, as all experience has shown, and the 
rest would feel obliged to follow. But let it be once 
understood that it will not discharge the debt upon 
which it is paid, and that they are equally liable to be 
sued upon it afterwards, and the circulation is at an 
end. 

After the people of the State shall have made a fair 
trial of metalic currency, of five years’ duration, they 
will bo prepared to vote upon the question of bank or 
no bank ; which, under the provisions of this article, 
may be submitted to them by the Legislature. And 
here, permit me to say, that 1 do not suppose if that 
question should be submitted to popular vote, now that 
there would be a majority voting for no bank. The 
reason is obvious. There are multitudes of men — 
democrats as well as whigs—who are in debt: and they 
justly fear the revulsion that would take place, ou so 
sudden and violent a charge. They would be glad to 
get rid of the system; but they dare not vole to destroy 
themselves and their families, and they believe that it 
would be certain destruction. 

Let such a shock be anticipated, and the instinctive 
struggle of every man to save himself, would redouble 
its force, and gold and silver w’ould be hoarded up: 
general distrust of the solvency of each other wmuld 
annihilate every particle of business confidence; mo¬ 
ney w'ould be withdrawn from circulation, and times 
would again arrive, when even the rags of irresponsi¬ 
ble banks wmuld be a I’elief from the universal destitu¬ 
tion that would prevail. Tn such a crash the party 
that had been instrumental in producing it, would iall 
amid general execration. And it would be indebted to 
own its imprudence, for having in the mere rashness of 
party zeal, wrought out the utmost extreme of the 
very evil they had professedly set themselves to des¬ 
troy. There may be a wrong timeiand'Wrong way ol 
doing a right thing. 

Let, then, I say, Mr. President, the question be grad¬ 
ually acted upon by the people: let them have time to 
see its practical wrorkings; put them out of fear ol 
sudden and violent changes, and in course of a few 
years, an easy, quiet and noiseless revolution, wdli be 
wrought in Ohio, whose result will be oidy beneficial, 
and whose blessings and benefits will ^ive the surest 
and strongest guaranty, that it will be perpetual. The 
people will not desire to change that which conduces to 
their interest, and they will be disposed to remember 
with gratitude, and to sustain that party which, in its 
wisdom, has eradicated a pregnant cause of mischief, 
without disturbing the equilibrium of society. 

When the question of bank or no bank shall be sub¬ 
mitted to the people the result is to be final. If they 
decide that there shall be no banks, there shall be no 
banks for paper circulation in the State so long as this 
onstitution endures. If they decide otherwise, 1 am 


so much of a democrat that I shall be content that the 
voice of the people shall be the law of the land, and 
that there shall be no power to reverse their decision. 

But even in that case I have provided that while the 
Legislature may, by general law or special charter, 
provide for the incorporation of banks, no such grant 
or law shall ever empower those institutions to leceive 
—directly or indirectly—a rate of interest on their cap¬ 
ital actually paid in, greater than shall be, by law, al¬ 
lowed to the citizens, generally, of the State; nor shall 
any such grant or law exempt any individual corpora¬ 
tion or member from liability in his private capacity, 
for the payment of all the debts of the corporation, 
banker or bankers, with whom, as a banker, he shall 
have been associated at the time of contracting such 
indebtedness. 

Here it is provided first, last, and always, that there 
shall be no exclusive and chartered privilege resting 
with the banks to take advantage of the necessities of 
the people, and extort those enormous rates of interest 
which have contributed so much to their wealth, at the 
expense of the people, who pay interest to the banks- 
on the debts which the banks owe the people. There 
is, in my view, no earthly reason why a bank should 
be allowed to extort twelve or eighteen per cent, upon 
its capital, while individuals are restricted to six per 
cent. It is the profession of a sharper; and I look up¬ 
on a sharper, who has overreached a plain, simple man, 
and got his property for half what it is worth, or sold 
him property at twice its value, as no better than a 
thief. I wuuld, for aught of any restraint which a> 
sense of right or justice would impose upon him, re¬ 
gard him as such. * 

Your paper money system, with its privileges, ex¬ 
emptions, and facilities for speculation, encourages, 
and greatly multiplies this class of men. In this view 
the evil is immense. The most honest portion of the 
community, discovering that swindling is winked at— 
even tolerated—aye, more—protected by law—be¬ 
come disgusted, despise the law audits administration;, 
and become a law unto themselves. 

What was it, some dozen years since, that produced 
general commotion, confusion, and for a time, a reign 
of violence, carrying consternation through this city ?' 
That state of things had not its origin with those who 
might justly be called the rabble—there is no need of a 
rabble, if we would do right—the grave, sedate gray 
headed citizens were—some participant in—others- 
countenancing the movement—not because they loved 
anarchy and mob violence, but because they hated in¬ 
justice, fraud and swindling, which the law not only 
failed to repress—but tolerated and even protected. 

By making the banker liable in his individual capa 
city for the debts of the concern, I have given that se¬ 
em ity to the bill holder which, under any system, is 
his due, and which should never be relused in affairs 
where in every other respect the power is upon the 
other side. The democracy of this principle will not 
be questioned ; and I shall be sure in its support, ot 
an unanimous vote upon one side of the chamber at 
least. 

There is, Mr. President, s ill another provision. Af¬ 
ter the Legislature shall have elaborated its plan pro¬ 
vided against an inordinate rate of interest, and secured 
the bill holder among other things by making liable the 
private estate of the lender, I provide that they shall 
go before the people with the specific system which 
they have established, and inquire of them whether 
they will have it or not—that no such grant or law shall 
have any force or effect until the same shall have beeu 
submitted to a vote of the electors ol the State at some 
general election, and approved by a majority of the 
votes cast at such election. If they approve of it, they 
are to have it, if they do not approve of it, it shall by 
no act of law be forced upon them. 

I confess, Mr. President, that I feel somewhat anxious 
iu re^^ard to the fate of this system which I have pro- 
nosed. And more especially after having observed the 








lo'^e 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


differences of opinion so apparent in this ball. And I 
entreat gentlemen that if they cannot get the best that 
they desire, to take the next best that can be procured. 

In the presentation of this plan or by some other that 
may be adopted—for I am not tenacious of my own 
views, I hope to rid tbe State of the enormous evil of 
banks of discount and a paper currency. Mr. Presi¬ 
dent I need not say that itis with great leluctance that 
I at any time address this body, but I did not feel as if 
I could or dare go home to my constituents without 
having done or endeavored to do something to secure 
to them at least a prospect that at some future day, 
they might be rid of an inflated, fluctuating, uncertain 
currency, and of institutions not only inviting and in 
volving the people in dobt and distress, but immoral 
in all their tendencies; and have restored to them a 
measure of value and medium oi exchange which 
should be uniform, safe and certain. If, with a fair ma¬ 
jority, we should fail to accomplish what we were sent 
nere to do, I should fe?l unwilling on my return, to meet 
the interrogatory—why sat you silently by witnessing 

the GRAND FAILURE? 

I will close my remarks, sir, with an extract from a 
speech of a very eminent statesman—one who, although 
he may have committed great and glaring errors in his 
political course, has in the progress of his public ca¬ 
reer announced mahy important and fudamental politi¬ 
cal truths, in a most impressive form ; and among the 
last, because of the importance of the testimony, the fol¬ 
lowing; 

That the paper money system is the grandest device to fertilize 
the rich man’s field by the sweat of the poor man’s brow, evor in¬ 
vented by the wit of man in any age or country. 

If I am asked who this statesman is, that uttered such 
democratichumbug as this? 1 answer; the Hon. Dan¬ 
iel Webster, who spake it when his clear head was clear¬ 
est, and when he was under no temptation to be other¬ 
wise than honest. 

Mr. MITCHELL said that at this time he should 
make no speech with regard to the question involved 
in the report of the standing committee on Banks and 
the Currency—when that report came fairly before 
the Convention, it w'ould be time enough to discuss its 
merits. 

But he rose at this time for the purpose of entering 
his caveat against the flood of heresies just uttered by 
the distinguished gentleman from Montgomer)', [Mr. 
Holt.] He admitted, freely and frankly, that gentle¬ 
man’s abilities, and his opportunities for informing him¬ 
self of the state of public opinion but I feel certain that 
he is wrong in his positions, and wrong in the view he 
takes of what measures the Democracy of Ohio are pre¬ 
pared to sustain. The position of the gentleman is es- 
oentially that of our Whig opponents. He [Mr. Holt] 
declares to us that bank issues—abstractly considered 
—are an evil, and ever working injustice. But he is 
afraid of “revulsions” and “sudden changes'” and 
therefore virtually arrays himself on the side of the ad¬ 
vocates of a paper currency, and in opposition to a me- 
talic currency, or, as I would name it, a constitutional 
currency. He fears that the people are not prepared 
tor a specie currency, and therefore he desires the 
adoption of a series of “expedient” propositions— 
some graduated system. 

This is precisely the general position of our adversa¬ 
ries—they never have joined issue with us, and they 
never will, upon the merits of a gold and silver curren¬ 
cy, in opposition to Bank issues ; they invariably fight 
on the ground of expediency—admitting the cogency 
and the force of Democratic arguments, but contend¬ 
ing that the people would sanction no sudden change. 
Sir, I maintain that a majority of Ohio are prepared, 
and desirous for a constitutional currency—that the 
new organic law, if it shall contain so wise and benefi¬ 
cent a provision, will be adopted by an overwhelming 
mpiority. 

It af v question was settled in the last gubernatorial 
election, it is the currency question. The Whig can¬ 
didate for G' vernor canvassed the State with the“ hard 


money ” resolutions of the convention of July fourth, 
streaming from the roll of the issue he made. Govern¬ 
or Wood had these same principles inscribed upon his 
banner, and he was triumphantly sustained. The last 
elected member of the Board of Public Works who 
was nominated at that convention, stood upon this plat¬ 
form, and was also elected by a large majority. 

The minority of this same Currency committee, rep¬ 
resented by some of the ablest members on this floor, 
has put their report opposing the report of the major- 
ty, upon the very ground here occupied by the 
tleman from Montgomery—the inevitable rum that 
would follow. 

Sir, I have long been conversant with this controver¬ 
sy, more in colloquial debate, than in public loiums, 
and the various shifts and devices by which the oppo¬ 
nents of the Democratic doctrines resort to, m order to 

evade an answer, and get rid of the positions they oc¬ 
cupy. And among them, I hazard nothing in sayin^, 
none is more common than these, that had we started 
right with the hard money currency, it would no doubt 
have been all best, but having got into it, the sudden 
cessation or cliange back to constitutional cuiiency, 
would produce inevitable ruin, because 
gold and silver enough to do the business. This they 
repeat, and repeat, and repeat, with a pertmimity 
which is perfectly astounding, in the face ot the thou¬ 
sand examples constantly occurring to show unanswer¬ 
ably the fallacy of their positions. j r • j 

And here is my venerable and much esteemed 
from Montgomery, giving vent to these old exploded 
positions of these ancient enemies ol the democracy. 

Sir T deeply regret that he should have felt impel¬ 
led from any sense of duty, or otherwise, to take the 
position he has. If he be indeed, and in truth, a “ 
of the constitutional currency, as he here asserts that 
he is, and I am bound to believe him, until his ac s 
show otherwise, I beg him to consider whether his 
course on the present occasion has not been weU cal¬ 
culated to affect injuriously his influence here and else¬ 
where, upon this all important all-engro.ssing subject. 
As each side have had their say to an equal extent on 
this proposition, I now move that the proposition be 
laid on the table, and if the gentleman from Montgom¬ 
ery desire it, I will add and be printed. 

Mr. HOLT said he would prefer it. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved that the resolutions [Mr. 
Holt’s] be laid on tbe table, and ordered to bo pnnt- 

ted; which was agreed to. , 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention took up 
the report of the committee on the Judicial Depart¬ 
ment. 

Mr.'STIDGER moved to further amend the report, 
by striking out all after the word “ State,” in section 
one, and inserting in lieu thereof, the following: 

“Shall be vested in a Supreme Court, common pleas, orphans 
courts,” in juptice.s of the peace, and such other courts as may 
hereafter be found neciissary. 

Sec. 2. The Supreme Court shall consist ot not less than 
seven judges. The General Assembly shall divide tbe St^ 
into notions than three di.stricts. within which any two 
judges may hojd courts, provided, that courts shall be 
in each county annually, or semi-annually as may be directed by 

law. - ^ r 

Sec. 3. The several courts of common pleas shall consist ol a 
single judge. The General Assembly shall divide the State into 
such number of circuits a® may, from time to time, be tound ne¬ 
cessary. Courts shall be held in each county therein, as often as 
may be directed by law. 

Sec. 4. The Supreme Courts and courts of common pleas 
shall have original and appellate jurisdiction, both as to the rnat- 
ters of law and equity, and such jurisdiction incivil.and criminal 
cases as shall be. prescribed by law. . . . t 

Sec. 5. Orphans’ courts shall consist of a single judge m each 
county, which courts shall be open at all times <or the probate 
of wills, eranting letters of administration, appointment of gnar- 
dians, and for transaction of such other duties as may be pre¬ 
scribed by law. 

Sec. 6.' Such number of juetises of the peace shall bn elected 
in the several townships in each county^ and shall have such juris¬ 
diction as may be prescriiied by law. 

Sec. 7. The term of office of tbe judges of the Supreme court 
and courts of common pleas shall be five years; judges of the or¬ 
phans’ courts and justices of the peace three years. 
















CONVENTION EEPOllTS. 1037 


Sec. 8. Tne supreme court, and court of common pleas for 
each county, shall have one clerk, who shall be elected by the 
people, for the term ot five years and until his successor shall be 
elected and qualified, and shall give bond in such sum conditioned 
in the faithful performance ot the duties enjoined on him, and 
shall be removable for such cause and in such manner as may be 
provided by law. 

Sec. 9. The judges of the supreme courts, and judges of the 
several courts hereby created, shall be elected by the people in 
such manner as shall be provided by law. 

Sec. 10. Judges of the supreme court, judges of the courts, 
clerks of courts and justices of the peace, shall possess the qual¬ 
ification ot electors. Immediately after the first election under 
this constitution, the judges of the supreme court shall be classi¬ 
fied by lot, so that two shall hold their offices for three years, two 
for four years, and three lor five years. The senior judge shall be 
the chief judge. 

Sec. 11. In case the office of any judge of the supreme court, 
or judge of any other court, shall become vacant before the expi¬ 
ration of the regular term, for which he shall have been elected, 
the vacancy may be filled by appointment by the Governor, until 
the next annual election and his successor is elected and qualified. 

Sec. 12. The judges of the supreme court, and judges of the 
common pleas, shall at stated times, receive for their services 
such compensation as may be provided by law, which shall not 
be increased or diminished during their term of office. They 
shall receive no fees or perquisites, nor hold any other office of 
profit or trust under the authority of this State or the United 
States. 

Sec. 13. Clerks of courts, judges of orphans’ courts, and jus¬ 
tices of the peace, shall be compensated for their services by sal¬ 
ary, or such fees as may be provided by law. 

Sec. 14. Judges of the supreme court, judges of the common 
pleas, orphans’ courts, and such other courts as may hereafter be 
erected, may be removed from office by resolution of both Houses 
of the General Assembly, two-thirds of each House concurring 
therein. 

Sec. 15. The judge of the supreme court, shall hold at least 
one term in each year at the seat of government, and such other 
terms elsewhere as may be provided by law. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend 
ment proposed by Mr. Stidgkr, 

Mr. STIDGER said: I do not propose to make any 
extended remarks upon this amendment, for several 
reasons: one of which is, that I am not in the habit of 
public speaking *, and another i.?, that probably it is not 
necessary at this time to enter into any discussion of 
the various features of the amendment, for the further 
reason, that gentlemen would perhaps desire first to 
see it in print, if they should esteem it worthy of so 
much consideration. 

I will say, however, that I have taken much pains 
to inform myself of the wishes, in regard to this sub¬ 
ject, of that portion of the people of the State whom 
I, in part, represent upon this floor; and that I have 
endeavored to embody those wishes in my amend¬ 
ment. 

It will be recollected that, during the session of last 
summer, an extra number of the bills reported by the 
majority of the committee on the Judicial Department, 
were printed and circulated, with a view to elicit the 
sentiments of the bar, and the people throughout the 
State, upon this grave question. In accordance with 
that understanding, I sent quite a number of these 
bills home to my constituents—from some of whom — 
some gentlemen of the bar, particularly — I obtained 
responses. 

After the adjournment of the Convention in July, I 
took particular and special pains to inform myself of 
the wishes of my constituents in regard to this matter, 
and I now state, here in my place, that, amongst them 
all, I do not remember a single individual, either of 
the bar or amongst the people, who has approbated the 
report. 

So far, I think I fully understand the views of the 
people, whom I represent here; and, in obedience to 
those views, I have drawn up and presented this amend¬ 
ment to the Convention—leaving it with them to deter 
mine whether it shall or shall not become a part of the 
constitution. 

I believe I shall not myself make any motion upon 
the subject. I leave the disposition of the matter to 
others. 

Mr. SAWYER supposed other propositions to amend 
by way of substitute would be suggested, and when 
they should all come in, he would advise a little delay— 


that the whole subject be laid upon the table, until the 
amendments could be printed. 

Mr. STIDGER did not desire to embarrass the action 
of the Convention, but he confessed to a good deal of 
solicitude upon this subject. Whether the people of 
other enuntios of the State cherished thoi same views 
and feelings upon this subject, with the people of his 
county, he could not say. Other gentlemen would be 
able to answer for all. 

He would like to move to lay the amendment upon 
the table, and that it be printed. 

The PRESIDENT said if the amendment were laid 
upon the table, the bill must go with it. 

Mr. STIDGER. Then he would not make the mo¬ 
tion at this time. 

The question being on agreeing to Mr. Stidgeb’s 
amendment, 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, demanded a divis¬ 
ion. 

The question then being on striking out all after 
the word “State,” in the first line of the first sec¬ 
tion, 

Mr. TAYLOR moved to perfect the words proposed 
to be stricken out, by striking out section 11. 

Pending which ; on motion of Mr. LARSH, the Con¬ 
vention took a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending being on agreeing to the mo¬ 
tion of Mr. Taylor, to strike out the 11th section, 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens, moved to perfect the sec¬ 
tion proposed to be stricken out, by adding at the end 
of the same the following; “ But no removal shall be 
made by virtue of this section, unless upon complaint, 
the substance of which shall be entered upon the jour¬ 
nals, and of which the party afflicted shall have had no¬ 
tice and opportunity to be heard.” 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens, said: The amendment 
does not go so far as the original section in conferring 
jurisdiction upon this court. It confers jurisdiction in 
probate testamentary and guardianship matters alone, 
but leaves the subject open, so that the Legislature may 
confer their jurisdiction, if the workings of the system 
indicate its propriety and demonstrate its necessity. 
It avoids the stringent provision of the original section, 
and I believe it is in conformity with the wishes of a 
large portion of the Convention, if not of a majority— 
whilst I am convinced it is the desire of very many of 
the Convention. 

A provision similar to this is contained in the con¬ 
stitution of the State of New York, but embracing ju¬ 
risdiction in other matters—providing that in any coun¬ 
ty containing 40,000 inhabitants there may be elected 
a separate Surrogate. It seemed to have been the con¬ 
viction of the framers of that constitution that, where 
the business was not very extensive, these judges could 
attend to other matters besides those pertaining merely 
to probate and administration. 

This amendment proposes one thing not prescribed 
in the original section. It requires that the office 
of the judge shall be kept at the county seat, always 
open and accessible to the people from all parts of the 
county. 

I do not think there is any danger of the Legislature 
making improper use ot the liberty here propose to 
be conferred upon them. It there has existed any just 
complaint against the working of our judiciary, it has 
not been brought about by the action of the Legisla¬ 
ture. They have done for our relief all that they have 
been permitted to do, under the stringent provisions of 
the old constitution. And we ought to avoid that er¬ 
ror in the old constitution. We ought to leave to the 
Legislature the liberty, from time to time, to modify 
the jurisdiction of the courts so as to adapt them to the 
business of the country. In another part of this report, 
there is a provision permitting the Legislature to in¬ 
crease the number of judges as far as may be necessa¬ 
ry for the transaction of business; and it is a fact, that 
much just comp aint has existed for a long time in the 











1038 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


State oil account of delays induced by the want of 
strength in the judicial corps. 

The ainendinent provides that this court shall be 
held by at least one judge. Ihit, if the business of the 
■county should become loo great lor the capacity of the 
court, the jurisdiction may be divided, and another 
judge elected. 

Upon these several accounts, 1 think the amendment 
is preferable to the original section. 

Mr. MASON suggested to the gentleman from 
Athens, the propriety of modifying his amendment, 
by striking out “ residence,” and inserting “office”— 

mere error of the pen. 

Mr. BROWN accepted the modification, and his 
amendment wms then agreed to. ^ 

The question then being on striking out section 11, 
ns amended; 

Mr. TAYLOR moved to further perfect the section 
proposed to be stricken out, by inserting after the 
word “ office,” the following words: “for insanity and 
gross immorality.” 

The section reads as follows: 

Sec. 11. Justices of the Supreme Court, and Judges of the 
Court of Common Pleas, and of the county courts, and of such 
other courts as may be hereafter created, may be removed from 
office, by concurrent resolution of both Houses of the General 
Assembly , if two-thirds of each House concur therein. 

I propose to strike out these words, because they 
render the section too vague and indefinite in its phrase¬ 
ology. This provision for removal from office, where 
there exists not sufficient cause for impeachment, is 
not to be found in the new constitution, with reference 
to any other department of government. Under the 
provisions of this section, it might happen that a judge 
elected by the people, at a time when a certain politi¬ 
cal party is in power, might be removed by the Legis 
iature, the next year, when the opposite political party 
is in the ascendant. But the principal objection to the 
section, as it now stands, is on account of its indefi- 
uitenesB. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, said, this section, if he 
recollected aright, was fully discussed at Columbur 
last summer. It was certainly discussed, in privafe- 
amonget the members; and it was deemed a useful 
and necessary section of the report. Upon the first 
•examination which he made of the section, he was im- 
ipressed, like the gentleman from Frie, [Mr. Taylor,] 
-lihat it needed amendment. But since he had attended 
to the argumeuts of gentlemen, he was convinced that 
it was sufficiently guarded as it stood. There was no 
cieasou, that he could see, for inserting these words, 
aniess the gentleman doubted, the people ; for, if the 
(people should commit an error, by selecting an iucom- 
^>etant man, from his want of education or intelligence, 
f(and these errors have been committed by the Legisla- 
rture,) the bar would understand that the Legislature 
•would be cautious about the character of the testimo 
ciy they would receive in such cases. They would not re- 
•ceive the mere say so of anybody, but they would requii’e 
tsuch testimony as would relievethem of the responsibil¬ 
ity before the people, for making a removal. But to 
tiis mind, as the section stood, without any amendment, 
ihere was a sufllcient guaranty that the Legislature 
would act, whenever they were presented with the re- 
•quisite amount of testimony, going to show that the in¬ 
terests of the people requii’ed a removal. Should this 
body take away from the Legislature, and the people, 
all this wisdom and absorb it themselves ? Or should 
they attempt to dictate to the people, or to the Legis¬ 
lature, as to who and what description of men should 
hold office ? What should be his size, his age or his 
complexion ? He was disposed to give more latitude to 
the action of the Legislature, than this amendment 
I)roposed. He believed they vimuld act only upon such 
testimony, and in sucha maimer as would be justified 
in the districts where the accused might reside. 

Mr. HOLMES supposed, since he was made a law¬ 
yer by tbe vote of yesterday, he might venture upon 


ho arena of this discussion in company with lawyers. 
The object of this amendment, was to fix and deter 
mine what should render a judge competent, and what 
incompetent, to sit upon the bench. Truly, this was a 
comjdinient to the intelligence and discrimination of 
the people, who elect a judge, and of the Legislature 
who hold a supervisory power of the matter of his re¬ 
moval. He was willing to take the section as it stood, 
with the amendment of the gentleman from Athens, 
[Mr. Brown.] He was willing to leave the matter to 
the jicople, believing that they would select the proper 
men ; and, if afterwards, any judge should become 
grossly immoral, or incompetent from any otlier cause, 
he waa willing to leave the matter of his removal whol¬ 
ly with the Legislature. 

As I remarked at ilie outset, (he continued,) we are 
all legal gentlemen here, and can act for ourselves in 
this legal matter. Such is my modesty, that I would 
not have dared to controvert the opinion of a lawyer 
in this way, if I had not been inspired with confidenc 
to do so by that vote. I hope, therefore, that I shall 
be pardoned by legal gentlemen for interposing my 
opinion. 

The question being upon the amendment of Mr. Tay¬ 
lor, the same was disagreed to: 

The question then being on striking out section H, 

Mr. LARSH demanded the yeas and nays; which 
being ordered, resulted, yeas 18, nays 70—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Dorsey, Greene of Defiance, Hoot 
man, Humphreville, Leech, Manon, Mitchell, Orton, Patterson, 
Perkins, Stanton, Btebbins, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Wood 
bury, and President—18 

Nays— Mesrss. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Lick¬ 
ing, Chambers, Clark, Ceilings, Cook, Curry, Ewart, Ewing, 
Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Holt, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, 
Larsb, Larwill, Leadbetter, Loudon, Mason, Morebead, Morris, 
McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Otis, Peck, Quigley, Riddle, 
Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Williams, 
Wilson, and Worthington—70. 

So the motion to strike out section 11, was disagreed 
to. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
word “State,” in the first section of the report; 

Mr. RIDDLE moved to perfect the words proposed 
to be stricken out, by adding the following, as an ad 
ditional section ; which was agreed to: 

The style of all process shall be : ‘ The State ot Ohio,’ and all 
prosecutions shall be carried on in name and by the authority of 
the State of Ohio, and all indictments shall conclude against the 
peace and dignity of the same. 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens, moved to perfect the words 
proposed to be stricken out, by striking out section 4, 
and inserting in lieu thereof, the following: 

Sec. 4. The county courts shall be courts of Record, and shall 
consist of at least one judge, elected in each county, by the qual¬ 
ified voters thereof, for the term ol three years, who shall reside 
and keep his office at the county seat, and shall have jurisdiction 
in matters of probate, administration and guardianship, and such 
other jurisdiction as may be conferred by law. and shall receive 
such compensation to be paid out of the county treasury, and 
such fees iii probate, administration and guardianship, as may be 
provided by law. And the General Assembly may provide for a 
city.court in any large city to be held by a judge to be elected by 
the qualified voters thereof, with similar jurisdiction with county 
courts, separate from the remainder of the county, in which such 
city may be situated. 

A division being demanded, the question turned first 
on striking out section 4. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, moved to perfect ilie section 
proposed to be stricken out, by striking out all after 
the words “ guardian and,” in the first part of section 
4, to the end of the section, and inserting in lieu there¬ 
of, the following: “ the term of office of the county 
judge shall be three years, and he shall receive such 
compensation out of the county treasury, as shall be 
provided bylaw.” 

Mr. STANTON moved a call of the Convention, 
which being ordered. 












CON YEN'1 ION REPORTS. 


1039 


Messrs. Chaney Cutler, Farr, Florence, Hitch- I 
COCK of Cuyuhof>n, Kennon, Lawrence, Lidey, Nash, ' 
Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer, Smith of Warren,' 
Struble, Vance and Way, were found absent. 

On motion, -Messrs. Chaney and Kennon were sev¬ 
erally excused.^ 

On motion ot Mr. EWART, all lurther proceedings 
under the call were dispensed with. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
words “ guardians and,” in section lour to the end of 
the section, 

Mr. LAUSM moved to perfect the words proposed 
to be stricken out, by inserting after the word '• such,’ 
the words “ original and; on which motion, 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, demanded the yeas and nays, 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 42, nays 43—as 
follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case 
of Licking, Clark, Dorsey, Ewart, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, IJolmes, Holt, Hootrnan, Ilumphreville, 
Hiint, Johnson, Jones, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Mauon, 
McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Riddle, 
Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbius, Stickney, 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Towushend, Woodbury and 
President—‘12. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Carroll, Chambers, Codings, Cook, PI wing, Gillett, Graham, Green 
of Ross, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Horton, Hunter, King, Kirkwood, Loudon, Mason, Mitch¬ 
ell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Smith of Highland, 
Staubery, Stanton, Stillwell, Stidger, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, 
Warren, Williams and "Wilson—43. 

So the amendment of Mr. Larsh was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out after the I 
words “ guardians and,” in section 4, to tlie end of the | 
section, j 

Mr. OTIS demanded the yeas and nays, which being 
ordered, resulted—yeas 38, nays 48—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of 
Hocking, Case of Licking, Clark, Codings, Cook, Ewing, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Hard, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
King, Larsh, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, McCormick, Norris, 
Orton, Patterson, Scott ol Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Townshend, Williams end Woodbury—3S. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomer}', Bar- i 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Bhekensderfer, Brown of 
Carroll, Chambers, Ewart, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock 
ol Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, 
Larwill, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud 
Otis, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Riddle, Smith of Highland, Stun- 
bery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swan, Warr.en and President— 
46. 

So tlie motion to strike out was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out section 4, as 
amended; pending which, 

Mr. LARWILL moved to re-consider the vote just 
taken ; on which motion, 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER demanded the yeas and 
nays, which being ordered, resulted—yeas 41, nays 45 
—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Clark, Ewart, Ewing, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Johnson, Jones, King, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, 
Mitchell, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Riddle, Scott of 
Auglaize, Sellers, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Wilson and Woodbury—41. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Chambers, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Gillett, Graham, Green of 
Ross, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hor¬ 
ton, Huuter, Kirkwood, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormick, Norris, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith 
ofHighland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swan, Taylor, 
Townshend, Warren Williams, Worthington and President—45.^; 

So the motion to reconsider was disagreed to. 

The question being on striking out section four, as 
amended—pending which, 

On motion of Mr. LARSH, the Convention adjourned. 


SATURDAY, January 25, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
Payer by Rev. Mr. Fisher. 


Mr. CAHILL moved a call of ihe Convention, which 
being ordered, the following gentlemen were found ab¬ 
sent : 

^ Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Chambers, Cook, Curry, Cutler, 
P’lorence, Groesbeck, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holt Horton, Ken’- 
non. King, Larsh, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mason, Nash, 
Norris, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stilwell, Struble, Vance 
Way, and Worthington. 

On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, all further proceed¬ 
ings under ihe call were dispensed with. 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention a me¬ 
morial from the city council of Cincinnati, jiraying that 
a clause be inserted in the new constiluliou, forever 
prohibiting the Legislature from granting license for 
tlie sale of alcoholic liquors; which was read at the 
Secretary’s desk, and on motion, laid on the table. 

Mr. GRAY submitted the following : 

Resolved, That when the Convention takes a recess, it shall be 
until two o’clock, P. M of each day, until otherwise ordered. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble,moved to amend the reso¬ 
lution by striking out the word “two,” and inserting 
in lieu thereof, the words “ half past two.” 

Mr. IARWILL moved that the resolution and pend¬ 
ing aniendmenl be laid on the table. 

Cn which motion Mr. STANTCN demanded the yeas 
and nays, which being ordered, resulted—yeas 42, nays 
37—as follows: 

Y EAS—Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben 
nett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chancy, Collings, Curry, Dorsey, 
Ewart, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Green ot Ross, Gregg, Hard, 
Hootman, Ilu^nphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Larwill, Leech, Manon, 
Mitchell, Morehead, McCormick, Orton, Quigley, Riddle, Scott ot 
Hai’rison, Sellers, Smith oi Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stidger, 
Swan and Towjishend—42. 

N.A.YS —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Blair, Case of Licking, Clark, 
Cook, Ewing, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Hamilton, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hunter, Jones, 
Kirkwood, Loudon, Mason, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Patterson, 
Scott of Auglaize, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Warren, WTlliams, Wilson, Wood¬ 
bury, Worthington and President—37. 

So the motion to lay the resolution on the table was 
agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention took up 
the report of the committee on the Judiciary Depart¬ 
ment. 

The question pending being on striking out section 
four of the report, as amended; 

Mr. MORRIS demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 36, nays 52—asfollovvs: 

Yeas —Messrs. Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case ot Hocking, Case 
of Licking, Chanej', Clark, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Greene of 
Ross, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, 
Jones, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Patterson, 
Perkins, Ranney, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stanton, Stickney, Stidgei-, Townshend, Wilson, Woodbury, 
Worthington and President—36. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensdefer, Brown of 
Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Forbes, Gra¬ 
ham, Gray, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Kirkwood, 
Leadbetter, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Mc¬ 
Cormick, Otis, Peck Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, StilvA'cl), Swan, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stai'k, Warren and 
Williams—52. 

So the motion to strike out was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
word “ State,” in section one of the report, 

Mr. FIITCHCOOK, of Geauga, moved to perfect the 
words proposed to be stricken out, by striking out the 
word “justice,” wherever it refers to courts of record, 
and inserting in lieu thereof the word “judge;” which 
wasji greed to. 

Mr. STANBERY moved to perfect the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, by adding at the end of sec¬ 
tion seven, the following which ; was agreed to: “ If 

the vacancy happen thirty days or more prior thereto; 
hut if the vacancy happen within less than thirty days 
prior to an annual election, it shall be filled at the 
annual election next succeeding such first annual elec¬ 
tion, and the appointee of the Governor shall con- 




















1040 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


inue in office until his successor is elected and quali¬ 
fied.” 

Mr. RANNEY moved to further amend the words 
proposed to be stricken out, by striking out section ten, 
as originally reported, and inserting in lieu thereof the 
following: 

There shall be elected in each of the counties of the State, by 
the electors thereof, one Clerk, who shall hold his office lor the 
term of three years, and until his successor is elected and quali¬ 
fied, and who shall be the Clerk of all the courts of record held 
tliercin. Provided, that the General Assembly may provide for 
the election in any county of a Clerk for each of said courts, 
when, in their opinion, the business may require it; and provi¬ 
ded, also, that the Judge of the county court may be authorized 
to perform the duties of clerk of his court in such cases as may 
be prescribed by law. 

Mr. CURRY demanded a division. 

The question being on striking out section ten, as ori¬ 
ginally reported, 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, moved to perfect the 
words proposed to be stricken out, by inserting after 
the word “two,” the words, ‘ not exceeding five 
years.” 

Mr. WILLIAMS demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 51, nays 44—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Carroll, Chambers, Colb’ngs, Cook, Curry, Ewart, Ewing, 
Farr, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Loudon, 
Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, 
Peck, Perkins, Riddle, Poll, Scott of Harrison, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Wyandot, Staiibery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift, Tay¬ 
lor, Thompson of Shelby, Willians, Worthington and President 
—51. 

Nays —Messrs. Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, 
Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Forbes, Greene of De¬ 
fiance, Gregg, Groesberk, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hoot- 
man, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Town- 
shend, Warren, Wilson and Woodbury—44. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on striking out section ten* 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays; which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 51, nays 43—as follows: 

Yeas —Measrs. Archbold, Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case 
of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ew¬ 
art, P’arr, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groes- 
beck. Hard, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, Kirkwood, Larwill, Loudon, Manon, 
Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, St'ckney, 
Stidger, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, Wil¬ 
son, Woodbury, Worthington and President—51. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cham¬ 
bers, Collings, Curry, Ewing, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Larsh, 
Leadbetter, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, 
Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby and Williams—43. 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the amendment 
of Mr. Ranney, 

Mr. CURRY moved to amend the words to be insert¬ 
ed, by striking out the word “ three,” and inserting in 
lieu thereof “ not exceeding five,” 

Mr. MANON demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out the word 
“ three,” 

Mr. CLARK demanded the yeas and nays; which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 35, nays 59—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brow'n of Carrolf Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Horten, Hunter, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Mor¬ 
ris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Williams and Worthing¬ 
ton—35. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chaney, 
Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Lar¬ 
will, Leadbetter, Loudon, Manon, Jlitchell, McCormick, Norris, 
Orton, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 


Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, I'aylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury 
and President—59. 

So the motion to .strike out was disagreed to. 

The question then being on Mr. Ranney’s amend¬ 
ment ; 

Mr. WILLIAMS moved to amend the words to bo 
inserted, by adding at the end thereof, tlie following: 
“and deputy clerks, and clerks protein., may be ap¬ 
pointed in such manner as shall be provided by law;” 
which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on Mr. Ranney’s amend¬ 
ment ; 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend the words to be in¬ 
serted, by inserting after the words “ clerk for each,” 
the words “ or any;” which was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Ran¬ 
ney’s aniendnjent, as amended; 

He demanded the yeas and nays, which being ,or- ■ 
dered, resulted—yeas 67, nays 24—as follows: j 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Hock¬ 
ing, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ew¬ 
ing, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of i 
Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, I 
Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Loudon, Manon Mitchell, Morehead, Norris, Orton, Patterson, | 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott ! 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, | 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 'i hompson of Stark, Town- j 
shend, Warren, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and 
President—67. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Collings, Curry, Green of 
Ross, Harlan, Horton, Mason, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, 
Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stilwell—24. | 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on striking out all the re¬ 
port alter the word “ State,” in section one; i 

Mr. MITCHELL moved that the report and pend- f 
ing amendments, be referred to a select committee of 
seven. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved that the Convention ; 
adjourn; on which motion 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 41, nays 46—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown ^ 
of Carroll, Cahill, Chaney, Cook, Curry, Ewing, Graham, Gray, \ 
Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hitchcock of Ge- j 
auga. Holmes, Horton, Hunter, Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, Leech, ; 
Mason, McCormick, Orton, Otis, Quigley, Ranney, Reemlin, Rijl, j 
die, Roll, Sawyer, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swan, Thompson ( 
of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend and Worthington— 

41. I 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett 'of 
Preble, Blair, Brown of Athenr, Ca8eofHocking,Ca8e of Licking, 
Collings, Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, Forbes. Cillett, Gray, Gregg, Haw¬ 
kins, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Larwill, 
Leadbetter, Loudon,Manon, Mitchell Morehead, Morris,McCloud, 
Norris, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stickney, Stidger, ] 
Swift, Taylor, Warren, Wiison, Woodbury and President—46. 

So the motion to adjourn was disagreed to. 

Mr. MANON moved that the Convention take a re- 
bess, which was diasgreed to. 

The question then being on referring the report and ' 
pending amendment to a select committae of seven, 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved that the report j 
and pending amendments be recommitted to the stand- I 
ing committee on the Judicial Department. ' 

Mr. STANTON moved that the report and pending , 
amendments be laid on the table. 

On which motion Mr. SWAN demanded the yeas i 
and nays, which being ordered, resulted—yeas 43, nays * 

47-as follows: ' 1 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case ! 
of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene 
of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holt, Hootman, Humph¬ 
reville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Ma¬ 
non, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ran¬ 
ney, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Stidger, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Towshend Wilson and 
Woodbury-^3. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
reble. Bates, Bennett, Bhekensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 















1041 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Pof Carroll, Collintrs, Cook, Ewart, Gillett, Graham,Gray, Groes- 
beck, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, 
Hunter, Kirkwood, Larsh, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, 
McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Peck, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, 
Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of High¬ 
land, Stanbery, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, 
Warren, Worthington and President—47. 

So the inoliou to lny on the table was disagreed to. 

The question then being on recomuiitting the report 
and pending amendments to the standing committee 
on the Judicial department; 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved that the Con¬ 
vention adiourii, on which motion 

Mr. ARCH BOLD demanded the yeas and nay.s, 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 38, nays 53—as 
follow's: 

Yeas— Messrs.—Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Bainettof 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Col- 
lings, Cook, Curry, Ewart, Graham, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, 
Hitchcock ol Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, Jones, Kirkwood, 
Larsh, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Otis, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stilwell, 
Swan, Wilson, and Worthington—38. 

Navs —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case 
of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Holt, Hootman, Humphrevillo, Hunt, Johnson, Lar- 
will. Leech, Leadbetter, Manou, Mitchell, Morris,; McCloud, Or¬ 
ton. Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Scott 
of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stan¬ 
ton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, Woodbury 
and President—53. 

So the motion to adjourn was disagreed to. 

Mr. STANTON moved that the Convention take a 
recess, 

On which motion Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas 
and nays, which being ordered, resulted, veas 21, nays 
67, as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Gillett, Gray, Hawkins, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holmes, Hunt, Hunter, Manon, Morehead, Mor¬ 
ris, McCloud, Patterson, Peck, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harri- 
som Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Swift and Thompson of Stark 

Nays.— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnett of Montgomery, 
Bates, Blair, Bhekensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of 
Hocking, Case of Licking, Chaey, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Graham, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Henderson, Holt, Hoot- 
man, Horton, Humphreville, Johnson, Jones, I^arsh, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Mason,Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, 
Norris, Orton, Otis, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stebbins, 
Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Townshend, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and 
President—67. 

So the motion to take a recess was disagreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL said, that, without detaining the 
Convention with any extended remarks, he would 
bring to the attention of gentlemen a sketch of a plan 
for a judiciary system, which commended itself to his 
judgment more than any yet proposed. 

Mr. M. then read the following: 

ABTICLE —. 

OF THE JUDICIARY. 

Sec. 1. The judicial power shall be vested in a supi*eme court, 
courts of common pleas, probate courts, justices of the peace, 
and such other courts, inferior to the supreme court, as may be 
established by law. 

Sec. 2. The supreme court shall consist of five judges, and such 
other number as the General Assembly, from time to time, shall 
by law direct, not to exceed seven. A majority of whom shall 
constitute a quorum in bank. The supreme court shall have such 
original concurrent and appellate jurisdiction as maybe provided 
by law. 

The court in bank shall hold its sessions at such places and at 
such times as shall be prescribed by law; provided, that at least 
once in every three years said court shall hold its session at the 
seat of government. Justices of the supreme court shall be elec¬ 
ted by the qualified electors of the State, at their annual spring 
election, and shall hold their offices until their successors are 
elected and qualified. At the first election, one shall be elected 
tor one year, one for two years, one for three years, one for four 
years, and one for five years; which several periods shall be de¬ 
termined by giving'to the person having the highest number of 
votes the longest term, and so down, unless some shall have an 
equa 1 number, in which case seniority in age shall determine the 
preference. Said court shall, by two or more of its judges, hold 
one or more terms in each county in the State, every year. Once 
in every five years, at least, said court shall divide the State into . 

66 


two or more circuits,'and provide for holding the courts therein, 
if need be, at the same time in each circuit: provided, that the 
General Assembly may, upon application of any two of said 
judges, direct how the several members of said court shall alter¬ 
nate in the disfhdi i'c of their duties, so that, as near as may be, an 
equal amount id judicial labor shall be devolved on each. 

Sec. 3. The courts of common pleas shall consist of one judge 
for each of the following circuits, and such additional ones as 
may hereafter bylaw be created from territoryascontiguous and 
compact as po«.sible, taken from the same. 

Said judges to be elected at the annual spring election, by the 
qualified electorswithin their sevi'ral circuits. Said courts to be 
held in each county within said circuits as often each year as tb 
General Assembly shall direct, and to have such jurisdiction a 
may be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 4. The county of Hamilton shall constitute the first ci 

cuit. The counties of —^-shall composethe secon 

circuit. 

Sec. 5. There shall be elected by the qualified electors in each, 
of the counties of this State, one judge of probate, who shall be 
provided with an office at the seat of justice for said county, and 
shall at all times keep his office open for probate and testamenta¬ 
ry matters; for the appointment of guardians, the allowance of 
habeas corpus, and such other matters as may be devolved upon 
him by law. 

Sec. 6. There shall be provided by general law such number of 
justices of the peace, and other inferior tribunals of justice, for 
cities, towns, townships and boroughs, as the necessities of com¬ 
munity may from time to time require : provided, that their ju¬ 
risdiction in civil matters of said inferior tribunals shall be con¬ 
fined to the locality in which they are elected. Their criminal 
jurisdiction to be prescribed by law: provided, that like classes 
of these courts shall have a like jurisdiction on all subjects. 

Sec. 7. The judges of the several courts of this State shall re¬ 
ceive for their services such compensation as may from time to 
time be provided by law; respect being always had to the ex- 
pense of living, &c., in the different localities in which the said 
services may be required, which shall not be subject to any altera¬ 
tion effecting the compensation of any incumbent at the time. 

Sec. 8. The judges of all inferior tribunals of justice shall be 
subject to removal on complaint duly made before the court of 
common pleas, in such manner as shall be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 9. There shall be elected in each county of this State one 
clerk for the court of common pleas, and such other clerks, for 
this or other courts, as the General Assembly shall by law pro¬ 
vide ; such clerks to receive such compensation, and be subject 
to removal in such manner, as may be prescribed by law. 

The question then being on recommitting the report 
of the slanding committee on the Judicial Department 
and pending amendments to the standing committee on 
the Judicial Department; it was agreed to. 

Mr. PERKINS submitted the following; which was 
agreed to: 

Resolved, That a select committee of seven be appointed to re¬ 
port a judiciary system for the consideration of the Convention. 

Mr. MASON moved that the Convention adjourn; 
which was agreed to; and the Convention adjourned 
until Monday morning at 9 o’clock. 


MONDAY, January, 27, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Mitchell. 

Mr. CHAMBERS presented a petition from D. P. 
Mitchell and fifty-two other citizens of jVIuskingum 
county, praying that a clause be inserted in the new 
constitution prohibiting the Legislature^ from passing 
any law legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors ; which 
was laid on the table. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, presented a petition 
from Marshal Pepper and thirty-four other citizens of 
Shelby county, on the same subject; which was laid 
on the table. 

Mr. HARD presented a petition from B. T. Lock 
and forty-one other citizens of Scioto and Lawrence 
counties, on the same subject; which was laid on the 
table. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved that the Convention take 
up the report of the select committee on the subject of 
Retailing Ardent Sinrits; which was agreed to. 

On motion of the same gentleman, the report was 
committed to a committee of the whole Convention. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention took up 
the report of the committee on Banking and OuiTency, 
with the amendment. 

The question pending being on agreeing to theamei d- 
ment of Mr. Case, of Licking, to wit: 













1042 


CONVENTION llEPOETS. 


Insert preceding the first section of the report of 
the standing coraniittee on Bunking and Currency, the 
following: 

That at the same time when the votes of the elec¬ 
tors shall be taken upon the adoption of this constitu¬ 
tion, there shel! be senarately piihinitted to th^ni the 
question of Banking iii the lollowing manner: 

A separate ballot may be given by every person hav¬ 
ing a right to vote upon the adoption of this constitution, 
to be deposited in a separate ballot box, upon which 
shall be endorsed the words “ hard money,” or “ anti- 
hard money,” and if a majority of the votes thus cast 
and endorsed shall contain the words “ hard money,” 
then and in that event, the following sections shall be¬ 
come a pE.rt of the constitution, to wit: 

Sec. 1. The General Assembly shall have no power to create 
or incorporate any hank or any banking institutions whatever, or 
to auihorize the making, emission, or putting in circulation oi 
any bill ol credit, bond, check, ticket, certiticate, promissory note 
or other paper medium, intended or calculated to circulate as 
money or currency. 

Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall prohibit, by law, any per¬ 
son or persons, association, company or corporation now in ex¬ 
istence, I'rom exercising the privileges of banking, or creating, 
emitting or putting in circulation, any bank notes or paper of any 
description whatever, to circulate as money or currency. 

Sec. 3. The business of loaning and dealing in money shall be 
free to all, subject to such restrictions as maybe provided by 
lew; hut no special privileges or exemptions shall ever be granted 
to those engaged in or who may hereafter engage in such busi¬ 
ness ; nor shall any person or persons, either natural or artificial, 
ever be allowed to deal in or issue paper money, so called. 

Mr. LARWILL said that a large number of copies 
of this Report has been printed by order of the Con- 
veiilion, and circulated through the State This had 
been done, as he understood it, for the purpose of 
placing the question of Bank” or “ No Bank,” dis- 
tioclly before the people; and as far as he had had aii 
opportunity to observe, there was but one opinion 
upon the subject, among members of the Democratic 
party; and many Whigs, whom he had met, had ex¬ 
pressed themselves in favor of an exclu.sive metallic 
currency. It is true, that in other parts of the State, 
some ditferences may exist, even among Democrats, 
but within his own observation he had met but one 
opinion. 

There are other reports, which have come from the 
minority of this committee, dissenting from the opin¬ 
ions of the majority, and assigning reasons for such 
dissent. In this matter, the whole question has been 
placed before the public, who have had ample opportu¬ 
nity to form an opinion upon its merits. The discus¬ 
sions in the Legislature also, have aided the people in 
settling the merits of the question in their own mind, 
so that we have no right any longer to look upon it as 
an open one. I did not rise, Mr. President, to enter at 
length into the discussion of the merits of this bill, but 
merely to state my conviction, in geueral terms, of the 
correctness ctf its provisions. ^ 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, merely desired to remark, 
that tnany gentlemen had expressed a desire to take a 
direct vote upon the bill as reported. For this purpose, 
he had no objections to withdraw' his amendment, 
with the understanding that he would offer it again, 
in case the report was not sustained. He would, al¬ 
so beg leave to state, that he was not entirely satis¬ 
fied with the amendment, which he had ottered, but 
would, at a proper time, move to amend it in such a 
manner, that the vote should be stated upon the ticket 
—Hard Honey Sections, No.—Hard Money Sections, 
Yes. 

Mr. CHAMBERS would remark that he believed 
with the gentleman from Wayne, [Mr. Larwill,] that 
the people have arrived at well settled convictions up¬ 
on the subject of the curi t ncy; buthe did not believe 
they had arrived at the conclusions stated by his friend 
from Wayne. He was not, however, going back into 
the history of the past, for the purpose of tracing up 
the history of the currency of the State, nor was he de¬ 
sirous to enter into the discussion upon the merits of 
ihe report, at present. He would say, however, now, i 


that he was opposed to all this liumbuggery about hard 
money, coustitutioual currency', and a circulation made 
up exclusively of gold and silver coin. 'J'lie State had 
been born under the system of credits; it had grown 
up under its system of credits; it owed its rapid growth 
to cred't; all po!>!ieand most fd’ it?pri\ ate ’mprovc- 
meuts had been the result of credit; aud he saw no 
reason for an attempt to dispense with so important an 
aid. He would say, also, that he was ojiposed to the 
amendment of the gentleman from Licking, and oppos¬ 
ed to troubling the people with any question of this 
kind. He had no doubt that the people would reject 
a proposition for an exclusive metallic currency by a 
majority of over 50,000. How has it been in other 
States? Wherever the question has been tried, the 
people have decided to have banks ; and in the State of 
Indiana, where they have an overwhelming Democrat¬ 
ic majority, they have recently voted to establish a sys¬ 
tem like our own. 

Mr. MANON said that if his colleague [Mr. Case] 
was going to withdraw his amendment, he wanted him 
to do it now. He wanted gentlemen to come fairly 
out; and if they were determined to refuse to the peo¬ 
ple the privilege of voting upon this question, he want¬ 
ed to see their names recorded. For his own part, he 
had taken the position before the election, aud held it 
still, that this question should be submitted to the pop¬ 
ular vote. 

Mr. HAW'KINS wished to act upon this question in 
such a manner as to show his entire couttdence in the 
wisdom of the people; and he hoped, those who 
charged on him and others, a want of such confidence 
would now come forward, aud submit this important 
question to the popular vote. He thought this subject 
was pretty well understood by the people in all parts 
of the State, and that there would be no danger, but 
they would act intelligently upon it. He wished to 
record his vote upon the reference of this question, be¬ 
cause he believed that they had a right to decido such 
matters, and he had such confidence in their wisdom, 
intelligence and integrity, as to believe they would 
decide correctly. 

He said, there was a portion ol the public press of 
the State disposed to misrepreseut the sentiments of 
members here. He had felt .some of their attacks al¬ 
ready in regard to another subject, aud when the char¬ 
ges had been proved false, new attacks had been made 
by the assistance of new' falsehoods. He acknowledg¬ 
ed the right to canvass his position and his votes. The 
author of these misrepresentations is well known to 
me, and at some suitable time, I will lake occasion to 
set myself right, and hold him up to public view. I 
shall vote for the amendment of the geuUeman from 
Licking, [Mr. Case,] after it has been made as perfect 
as possible: and if the question sliall be submitted to 
the people, whatever their judgment may be, that judg¬ 
ment I shall cheerfully abide. 

Mr. LOUDON. I do not know, Mr President wheth¬ 
er I ought to vote for the amendment ol the gentleman 
from Licking [Mr. Casx,] or not. In the event I can 
get nothing better, I suppose I shall liave to go for it; 
but I desire first to vole directly ou the bill. The pro¬ 
visions of the report accord with my own feelings and 
opinions, and with those of my constituents. Sir, 
events have taken place within the last few years, that 
have demonstrated to my mind that the only cur- 
enrey proper for the people is the currency furnish¬ 
ed by the government of the United Slates, gold 
and silver. I have been placed, sir, by the partiali¬ 
ty of rny fellow citizens, in places where it was at 
my option to vote yea or nay upon the establishment 
of bank charters, and I always voted nay. The only 
argument that ever stunned me, was the assertion of 
gentlemen of the whig party, that we had not enough 
gold and silver to supply the demands of trade and 
commerce. 

But, sir, events have since transpired, that destroy 
that argument. Gold and silver is pouring iuto the 














CONVENTION REPORTS. )043 


country in vast quantities, so that there is no longer 
any ground to argue that we shall not have enough of 
the precious metals. 

Since that time we have acquired Calirornia with 
her mountains of gold. If we may rely on the reports 
of ihe amount oi monthly cousiguments of the pre¬ 
cious metal, in the city of New York, to say nothing of 
the vast amount that is brought to this country by pri¬ 
vate persons, then the old argument of "Whig gentle¬ 
men, that there is not enough hard money to answer 
all purposes of trade, falls to the ground. Sir, the 
mines of Califoi uia, yielding as they do, tons of gold per 
month, may warrant us in saying that the time is not 
far distant, when anew standard of value will have to 
be made for gold ; its abundance will lessen its value. 
Under these circumstances, who wall contend for a rag 
currency. 

Mr. DORSEY hoped the gentleman from Licking, 
[Mr. Case,] would withdraw his proposition, so that 
gentlemen who wished to give a direct vote upon the 
report might do so, and that afterw’ards the amendment 
would be reinstated. For himself he should vote for 
the amendment, which is good so far as it goes; but he 
hoped that gentlemen who desired to record their votes, 
might do so, to the end that their name might go down 
to posterity to all time to come, as the exclusive friends 
of a hard money currency. 

Mr. STAN BE RY wished, before he gave his vote 
upon this subject, to call the attention of the Chairman 
of the committee, [Mr. Larwill,] to a question as to 
the true construction of the report. He understood, 
from the Chairman, that the purpose of the committee 
is to establish an exclusive metallic currency, and to 
banish all paper money from circulation. Now, we 
have two sorts of paper money in circulation in Ohio— 
the issues of our own banks and those of other States. 
Is that object accomplished by the I’eport as it now’ 
stands? 

Mr. LARWILL. It is proposed, by this bill, when 
it shall be amended in some respects, to prohibit the 
circulation of all paper, both domestic and foreign. 

Mr. STAN BE RY. The chairman of the committee 
then admits, that this report, as it stands at present, 
does not do so. 

Mr. LARWILL. I admit that it does not. 

Mr. MITCHELL understood the report differently. 
The design, so far as he understood it, was to banish 
all paper money from circulation in Ohio, and he 
thought, that design fully expressed in the report. He 
would not consent that the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Licking, [ Mr. Case,] should be withdrawn. 
He wanted the Liends of that proposition—a proposi¬ 
tion that calls upon the people of Ohio to violate a plain 
provision of the constitution of the United States, to 
make their mark, as he was willing to make his. He 
was not one of those that had any fears of the result;, 
but the bare proposition to submit such a question to 
the people of Ohio, was an act so abhorrent, that he 
could not biing his own mind to contemplate it for a 
moment. He wanted these gentlemen to show that 
gold and silver was not the only constitutional curren¬ 
cy, before he would be willing to submit such a ques¬ 
tion to the people. The constitution of the United 
States provides, that no State shall enter into any treaty, 
alliance or confederation; grant letters pf marque or 
reprisal. Now, I ask if any gentleman here would 
vote to submit to the people a proposition to violate 
either of these provisions? If not, why will any one 
vote thus, with regard to the following provisions of 
the same section of that constitution: no State shall 
coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but 
gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; 
pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law'’, or law im¬ 
pairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of 
nobility. Now these provisions of the constitution all 
stand together, and the violation of one is as wrong as 
the violation of another. Again, sir. if a State cannot 
issue paper money itself, I should like to know a rea¬ 


son either in law or common sense, how it can confer 
such power upon another. 

Mr. LEECH. Mr. President, I must confess that 1 
am utterly astonished at the construdon placed upon 
the report of the ma jority of the committee on Banking 
and the Cuneiicy, by llie honorable chairman of the 
committee, [Mr. Larwill ] I have the honor to be a 
member of that committee, and I trust I may be per¬ 
mitted to state, without subjecting myself to the charge 
of egotism, that 1 acted no inconsiderable part in fram¬ 
ing the report, and that I know full well what were 
the objects of the committee. Our object was to pro¬ 
hibit the creation of all banks in Ohio, in the future—to 
abolish the present banking system, and to make it ob¬ 
ligatory on the General Assembly to enact laws to 
prohibit the circulation of all foreign bank paper in 
this State. And, sir, I can assure gentlemen, that if 
the report does not cover this entire ground—if it does 
not provide for all the objects which I have named, it 
was the intention of the committee which framed and 
reported it, that it should do so. The deficiency, if any 
exists, was “ an error of the head, and not of the 
heart.” But when gentlemen shall have thoroughly 
scrutinized these sections, I think they will discover 
that they embrace all I have claimed for them—that 
the committee have fully secured their objects in the 
riport. 

Mr. President, the question now before the Conven¬ 
tion, is on the adoption of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Case.] Whai does 
that amendment propose ? It proposes, in effect, to 
submit to a vote of the people, in a separate clause bf 
the constitution, the question of banks—of hard mon¬ 
ey. or soft money. Now, sir, I am opposed to submit¬ 
ting this quesion to a vote of the people, in the man¬ 
ner proposed in this amendment, and shall proceed to 
state, with as much brevity as possible, the reasons 
which influence me. 

The creation and regulation of the currency, belong 
exclusively to the general government. The State sov¬ 
ereignties are expressly prohibited from interfering 
with the subject. To prove this, we have only to re¬ 
fer to the constitution of the United States. That im 
strument, which we have all sworn to sufiport, contains 
the following express and emphatic prohibition : 

No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; 
grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; EMIT BILLS 
OF CREDIT; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender 
in payment of debts,” &c. 

The States of the Union are prohibited from exerci¬ 
sing any of the powers here enumerated. No reasona¬ 
ble man doubts this; and no reasonable man doubts 
that bank bills are “bills of credit.” If, then, the 
States are prohibited by the constitution of the United 
States, from “ emitting bills of credit,” how can they 
grant that power to corporations or banks? A State 
has no power to do that indirectly, which itis express¬ 
ly prohibited from doing directly. The government 
cannot transfer to others, powers which it does not it¬ 
self possess. Does any man doubt this ? 

Then, sir, entertaining these views, I cannot con¬ 
sistently support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Licking. I cannot vote to submit the question of banks 
or no banks to a vote of the people. To do so, would, 
in my opinion, be virtually submitting to them'the 
question for their decision at the ballot box, whether 
the constitution of the United States should be valid in 
Ohio—whether they would authorize the General As¬ 
sembly of the State to violate that instrument or not. 
Wilh equal propriety we might submit to a vote of the 
people, whether they would authorize the General As¬ 
sembly ol Ohio to grant to corporations the power to 
“enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation ;” or 
to “ grant letters of marque and reprisal,” or to “coin 
money!” And surely no man in his sober senses, 
would propose so monstrous an absurdity. 

In the construction that I have given to the article 
of the constitution which I have quoted, I am fully 
sustained by the framers of the instrument themselves, 














1044 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


and by some of the most able aud distinguished states¬ 
men who have adorned the annals of this Republic. 

But, Mr. President, apart from the constitutional 
objections which I have urged, I cannot see the 2 )ro- 
priety of singling out the currency question, and sub¬ 
mitting it as a “ separate proposition,” to the popular 
vote. Why not submit other important questions in 
the same manner I Why not submit in like manner, 
the iudicial system? Why not submit the subject of 
finance and taxation ? Why not submit the subject of 
public debt and public works ? Why not submit the 
vexed question of the repeal of charters to the popular 
vote? How happens it, sir, that the currency is the 
only question which, in the ojiinion of certain gentle¬ 
men in this chamber, the people ai’e more capable of 
deciding correctly than this Conveutioii ? Will some 
friend of the amendment now under consideration an¬ 
swer these questions? 

Sir, I will not sanction by my vote, a proposition to 
single out the currency question, and set it up as a tar¬ 
get to receive the united and concentrated fire of the 
enemies of the constitutional currency—the bankers 
and their allies, the WHiig party. I am firmly con¬ 
vinced, that the greatest enemy of the Democratic 
cause could not invent a more insidious and iniqui¬ 
tous scheme to promote the objects of the foes of a 
metallic currency, than that which is embraced in the 
amendment proposed by the gentleman from Licking. 

Mr. President: I do not propose, at present, to en¬ 
ter into any argument to prove that gold and silver is 
preferable to a paper currency; nor do I consider it 
necessary to do so. The subject of the currency has 
attracted the attention of the people of this State, and 
has occupied a very conspicuous position in the public 
mind tor a number of years past. It has been exten¬ 
sively discussed in public and in private, through the 
press, on the stump, and in our legislative Halls, and 
and if gentlemen are not now prepared to act upon it, 
they, I fear, will never be prepared. Our path of du¬ 
ty in relation to this subject is plain. 

The history of the banking system in every country 
(jjj the globe, where it has been established, is the same. 
It ores?^!*^® but little else than one continued scene of 
X swindling, and plunder, and robbery, aud ruin. In the 
lan‘^ua'^e of the immortal Jefferson, “ it has swept 
away, m its progress, the fortunes and the morals of the 

^^I am opposed, sir, to all banks of issue, and am in fa¬ 
vor of the constitutional currency of gold and silver, 
“the currency which defrauds no man.” I believe 
with Thomas Jefferson, that “ banking institutions are 
more dangerous than standing armies”—with Daniel 
Webster, that “ paper money is the most effectual of all 
inventions to fertilize the rich man’s field by the sweat 
of the poor man’s brow; ” aud with Andrew Jackson, 
that “ a paper currency is a great curse to any people, 
and a particular curse to the laborers of any country.” 
And finally, sir, I believe that the paper money system 
“ is the dreadful scourge of the nineteenth century!” 

Mr. MANON. I ask that the proposition may be sub¬ 
mitted to the people, and I would inquire if this was 
not the ground taken by the Democratic party, aud the 
Democratic papers before the election ? Did not Sam¬ 
uel Medaiy declare himself in favor of submitting this 
question to the people ? If the majority of the people 
want banks and the paper currency, I can live under 
it; if they want a hard money currency, I can live un¬ 
der tliat, too. But sir, I may be told that this issue 
was made and decided at the elections of last spring. 
That was not the case, sir. I denied it then, and I de¬ 
ny it now. I was myself a free bank man, yet I declar¬ 
ed myself willing,to go for a proposition to submit the 
que.stion of bank or no bank to a direct vote of the 
people. As to the Democratic platform of the 4th of 
Julv, it was never recognized as of any authority in my 
comity, and the Democratic papers there refused to 
publish it. 

Mr. LEECH. Did both the Democratic papers in 


1 Licking county refuse to publish the hard money reso- 
I lutious of the 4th of Ju!}^ Convention? 

Mr. MANON. The most popular Democratic paper 
—the one having the greatest circulation in the county 
—refused to publish them. 

Mr. LEECH. Does not the jiaper which refused to 
publisli the resolutions belong to a bank stockholder? 

Mr. MANON. I believe it does. 

Mr. LEECH. Ah! that exiiains the matter! 

Mr. STANBERY did not understand precisely the 
ground taken by the gentlemen from Knox and Wayne. 
He understood them to say, that under tlie constitution 
of the United States, no State is authorized to issue 
bills of credit, and that the creation of a bank violates 
that provision, as they understand it. Those gentle¬ 
men also maintain the doctrine, that every man has a 
right to construe the constitution as he understands it. 
Yet thes^ gentlemen are not willing to allow the people 
to exercise and express their o^uuiou upon the constitu¬ 
tionality of this proposition. 

Mr. MITCHELL would ask of the gentleman from 
Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] a question, to which he re¬ 
quired a categorical answer. If the jiroposition, when 
decided either way, shall provide that something un¬ 
constitutional shall be done, would you record your 
vote to submit such a question to be voted on by the 
people? 

Mr. ROLL desired the indulgence of the Convention, 
while he stated, briefly, the reasons which would im¬ 
pel him to vote against the proposition of the gentle¬ 
man from Licking, [Mr. Case.] The proposition is, in 
effect, to submit to the people, for their decision by 
popular vote, the question, Bank or no Bank. For 
one, he had always been willing to submit such ques¬ 
tions to the people, in cases w'here the people had not 
acted upon them. But he believed in this case the 
people had already decided ; and that they had declared 
their opposition to every thing in the shape of banks. 
Our position, that is, the position of myself and my 
colleagues as representatives from Hamilton county, is 
fixed 

But it may be said, that we are not only representa¬ 
tives of the county of Hamilton, but of the State at 
large. Well sir, the people of the State at large have 
spoken, and they have asserted the doctrine of “ Hard 
moneythat doctrine they declared at the Conven¬ 
tion which nominated the present Governor of the 
State. At the Convention holden upon the 4th of July 
following, it was again proclaimed ; and finally by the 
election of Governor Wood, it was confirmed by a deci¬ 
sive vote of the people. 

Mr. President, I am opposed to a paper currency of 
any kind, and in favor of that species of currency 
which speaks for itself. Its standard is its own value, 
needs no rejiresentative, and contains no promise to 
pay. But gentlemen say, we are not able now to 
enter ui>on a system, which shall exclude paper cred¬ 
its, that the business relations of the country and com¬ 
mercial affairs have become so mingled with it, that it 
cannot be taken away without great injury to those 
interests. Mr. President, in the name of God, if it 
cannot be done now—when can it be done ? As well 
an inebriate might say, that he could not stop drinking, 
because of ^he loss of strength he would incur by so 
doing. And I say, Mr. President, as one of the repre¬ 
sentatives of one of the largest commercial counties 
in the State, that if there is a I'eason, why banks should 
exist anywhere, that reason applies with the most 
force to Flamilton county; but if he had seen, as I 
have, the distress which has resulted from the paper 
Currency, he would with all his power, resist the es¬ 
tablishment of any banking system in future. I have 
seen the laborer go home at night with a dollar note 
in his iiocket, with which he intended to buy pro¬ 
visions lor his family, to be told, when he presented it 
at the market in ihe morning, that it was worthless. 

I have seen poor men, pressed by their necessities, 
endeavor to pass this spurious currency at one-third 
of its face. 












1045 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


Hero is where this question aftects the interests of 
the iiKissos ot tlio people—not the speculators, not the 
dealers in real estate, not the extensive merchant and 
manufacturer, but they who have liltle, who lay that 
little by to day, to supply the wants of to-morrow', and 
who find themselves disappointed. 

I am aware, Mr. President, that this question seems 
to call more directly upon the exercise of party feeling 
than any other which has been before us. I do not 
wish to arouse in this Convention any sentiment of a 
mere party character, but I cannot refrain from express- 
ing n’.y vitiws upon the subject. I do not believe the 
people ol the State, if called upon to vote directly up¬ 
on the question, would say that banks shall any longer 
exist, or that paper currency is, in the present condi¬ 
tion ol things, necessary to supply any existing wants 
of the people. For myself, I am a hard money man. 
I prefer to handle the standard of value, rather than 
its representative; and my experience has led me to 
believe that this principle, once adopted, will never be 
departed from. 

Mr. QUIGLEY said he in part represented a consti¬ 
tuency in favor of a metallic currency. He was in fa 
vor ol it himself, and so he had declared at the time he 
was nominated. The subject of hard money had been 
agitated in his county, and the people had been called 
upon to condemn the acts of a representative from 
his district, who had voted in the Legislature for the 
charter of a bank. On the election of a representative 
recently from that district, he had inserted a card in 
the public ])apers, in which be set forth that he was in 
favor of hard currency. lie w’as elected by a large 
majority. If any thing was to be inferred from this ex¬ 
pression of the popular will, he felt bound to sustain 
the hard money system. He should do so, and if he 
should not succeed in securing it, he should take the 
next best that offered. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The question now is, whether 
this proposition shall be separately submitted to the 
people. I hope the gentleman from Licking will now 
inform us wliether he intends to withdraw his amend¬ 
ment, so that we may either discuss the provisions of 
the bit!, after we have discussed the merits of liis pro¬ 
position, cr that we should vote upon it, and that it 
should n<:tbe Avitbdrawn. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking. I will withdraw it at any 
time to suit the convenience of gentlemen who desire 
to record their votes upon the bill. 

Mr. RLE.MELIN. The difference is here: I am 
willing to vote upon the amendment, but do not wish 
to discuss it two or three days and then have it with¬ 
drawn. 

For present purposes, then, I will regard tho amend¬ 
ment as before the Convention, and will speak to that. 
Why, Mr. President, so far as the general principle is 
concerned, tin's question presents no embavrassnit nt to 
me at oli All powers, all rights, all modifications of 
powers, all revocation of powers, are first, last, and al¬ 
ways with the people, who are the source and object of 
all power of government. As such, I am always ready 
to submit any question to the popular vote, unless there 
is a constitutional bar to such a course. 

But, Mr. President, what is the condition of this 
question 1 Keeping out of view the subject of paper 
money and there is not in this Convention a man who 
does not r gard the regulation of all matters relating to 
the constitutional currency to be vested by the consti¬ 
tution of the United States in the general government, 
and no gentleman would vote to make the establish¬ 
ment uf a mint in Ohio, or whether tonnage duties 
shall be levied at llie ports of Toledo, or Cleveland, or 
Cincinnati, without permission of Congress, a question 
to be submitted to the people of Ohio. If there is a 
member who will so vote let him rise. 

Mr. HAWKINS. We do not submit the question 
whether a State is entitled to emit bills of credit. 

Mr. RE EMELIN. But you submit to the people the 
question whether the State may authorize individuals 


to emit bills of credit. Now it is equally clear, that 
the exercise of one of those privileges is as unconstitu¬ 
tional as tho other. What 1 ask tlie gentlemen of this 
Convention is, would they vote, to ask the people 
of Ohio whether a mint shall be established in Co¬ 
lumbus ? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Certainly we would not do so. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking. I take issue with tho gen¬ 
tleman upon the question whether this proposition is 
unconstitutional. If it is, I do not w’ish to submit it to 
the people. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I understand the question to be 
submitted is, whether the Legisfature shall pass laws 
prohibiting any thing as a circulating medium, except 
w'hat may be recognized as currency by the constitu¬ 
tion. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking. The question is: shall cer¬ 
tain sections go into the constitution or not? 

Mr. REEMELIN. These sections deny the right to 
the General Assembly to authorize the establishment o f 
banks of circulation. If the people vote for them then 
we are to have no paper money, otherwise we are to 
have paper money. In other words we are to present 
to the people of Ohio the question whether the consti¬ 
tution of ihe United States shall he valid in Ohio. 
Being clear in my mind that the issues of banks are 
not const.itulional, I think that no such question should 
be submitted to the people of Ohio. I am not yet 
ready for nullification, and whether the constitution 
vests a power clearly in the General Government! will 
not vote for it. We form a part of the general govern¬ 
ment. Ohio is one of the Stales comprising the Union. 
She has no right to nullify the authority or the provis¬ 
ions of the constitution of the United States. I care 
not what those provisions may be, any power which 
we have parted with we have no right to exercise. 
Where the power of the general government com¬ 
mences that of the State ends, until it be in aid of 
the general govcrniueut. 

I had hoped that this question would be met square¬ 
ly and fully Ijere. We have power over the currency, 
or we have not. We are either right, when we assert 
that the State has no power to emit bills of credit, or 
we are not. U e are either right, when we take our 
stand by the side of Washington, Madison, Jefferson, 
arid Jackson, and other heroes of the revolution, and 
fathers of the republic, in asserting the sacredness of 
the constitution of the United States, or we are not. 
If the Legislature of Ohio has power to pass laws es¬ 
tablishing a paper currency, let us say so. If, on the 
other hand, the power over the currency rests in the 
general govermneat, then let us not attempt to nullify 
the United States constitution by the establishment of 
paper money mints, in opposition to the hard money 
mints of the Union. 

Now, Mr. rresident, a few words, only, upon the 
question of right. By the constitution ol the United 
States, the power over the currency is vested in the 
General Government, and in no other place. With the 
General Government rests the fixing of the standard of 
value. Gentlemen can inflict no deeper insult upon 
the Tiiemcries of the founders of the constitution of the 
United States, than to say they were so ignorant of the 
true principles of government, and so careless of the 
welfare of the people, as to leave the currency of the 
country to be controlled by each and every one of the 
States, thus to parcel out a sovereignty which should 
be in one place only. 

Mr. HAWKINS. If the issue of paper money is ex¬ 
pressly prohibited in the constitution of the United 
States why prohibit it in the constitution of Ohio ? 

Mr. REEMELIN. For the same reason that we have 
laws punishing the counterfeiting of national coin. Ex¬ 
perience shows that upon thissuliject Slates have pass¬ 
ed laws in violation of the constitution of the United 
States, and we fiml Ohio in the number. It is, there¬ 
fore, proper, having in view the oath we have taken, 
that we should endeavor, by constitutional provision, 











1046 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


to restore to Ohio the currency of the supreme law of 
the land. 

I say, Mr. President, that the power over the stand¬ 
ard value, belongs to the General Government, and to 
no other authority. Such was the intention of tlie 
framers of the United States Constiiuiion. What were 
the facts upon which they acted ? They had before 
them the example ol their own country, and of all the 
evils which, during the Revolution and for years after¬ 
wards, resulted from the continental currency, and the 
exercise of the currency power by ditferent authorities. 
They had before them the example of Germany, where 
after every twenty-five miles travel there is a new 
currency. They had the example of Italy, of France, 
and of other countries of Europe, each teaching that 
the power over the currency should be vested in one 
place only. They, therefoie, wisely vested the power 
in the General Government,and denied it to the States. 

I do not suppose that there is one member in this 
Convention who would be willing to ph ce himself in 
the absurd attitude of defending the exercise of the 
powers connected with the currency by the different 
States, so that each State should have its own mint— 

’ one to coin silver of one degree of richness, and anoth- 
other of another—to make the standard coin of differ¬ 
ent value, so that one should have dollars, another 
guilders, a third rix dollars, and so on. But change 
the qne.stion to paper money—make it a question of 
lamp black and a few' old rags,and gentlemen are ready 
to fight for the establishment of a currency thus com¬ 
posed by each State in the Union. Directly, they will 
not violate the constitution of the United States, but 
indirectly they will do so. Or w’ill gentlemen point 
out to us the difference between a counterfeit eagle, and 
a ten dollar bank note the one pretends to beau eagle, 
—the other pretends to represent it, both are base lies 
upon their face. Both interfere with the right of Con- 
gre.<ss to regulate the value of gold and silver, and of 
foreign coins. Both nullify the United States constitu¬ 
tion, both are counterfeits of the national coin. Both 
destroy the standard value, and you might as well au¬ 
thorize a merchant to buy w’itli a yard slick 3^ feet 
and sell with one three feet long. Congress has the 
power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, 
and that value thus fixed, is the law of the land, and 
any interference with it, either by counterfeiting coin 
or the creation of f)aper money, is equally the viola¬ 
tion of the Utiited Slates constitution. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Does the gentleman mean 
to contend that the real value of gold and silver is fixed 
by Congress? Does he not know that there is an in¬ 
trinsic value fixed by the laws of trade, which no hu¬ 
man power can control ? 

Mr. RE EMELIN, I am aware of the fact that there 
is an intrinsic value to gold and silver, and I am equal¬ 
ly well aware that paper money has no such value, of 
whicli I will speak hereafter. But I will show the 
gentleman, that not only nominally in all cases, bat also 
really in some cases, does Congress fix the value. It is 
granted, I understand, that silver is now worth one 
and a half per cent, more, and gold about the same 
amount, less than the value fixed upon it by law ot 
Congress. But if I came to you with gold to pay my 
debt of a thousand dollars, although it is worth fifteen 
dollars less than a thousand dollars in silver, ore you 
not bound to take it ? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. To be sure; every body 
knows that. 

Mr. REEMELIN. It must be admitted, then, that it 
is the law of Congress, if wiihiii the constitnliou of the 
United States, and nothing else, which regulates this 
matter, and compels him to take my tender of payment; 
although he loses fifteen dollars by it, 

I hope I atri not understood to say, that there is not an 
intrinsic value in the precious metals which cannot be 
impaired by Congress. I mean onlyMo say that Con¬ 
gress has the right to say how mucli of these metals 
shall be a dollar; and that neither we, as a State Con¬ 


vention, nor can the people at large, exercise such 
power, either in reference to paper money or coin 
Suppose the General Assembly of Ohio were to pass a 
law, declaring that an eagle should be only half the 
standard weiglit. Why, every man would cry out 
against such a law, because it would be in violation of 
tlie laws of Congi'ess, passed in pursuance of the United 
States Convention. 

But, our friends, by their speeches and explanations 
here, instead of getting out of the mine, are only get¬ 
ting deeper into it. Tlioy havecontended that the pre¬ 
cious metals have an intrinsic value, which cannot be 
affected by Congress; and if this be so, how much more 
injurious must be the exercise of that power by the 
States, in creating a paper currency? For as long as 
this power is exercised by the several States, the law of 
Congress, regulating the currency, must be forever pa¬ 
ralyzed. A pafer State currency with no intrinsic 
value nullifies far more completely the national curren¬ 
cy, than a metallic State currency would. 

I suppose gentlemen would say that the hundred 
millions of gold dug up out of the mines in California, 
will materially atiect the value of gold. But Congress 
must fix that value nominally, in dollars and eagles. 

No State can do so. To issue paper money by the 
State governments, will effectually neutralize any act 
of Congress upon the subject. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, (interposing.) Does the gentle¬ 
man suppose that any mere law' of Congress could 
tnako an ounce of silver pass in the country for an 
equivalent in value to half an ounce of gold? ' 

Mr. REEMELIN. No; not to that extent, but for ri 
twenty-five years, there bad been given by law a low¬ 
er value to gold that there ought to have been given, 
until Jackson’s Gold Bill remedied it. Such was the j 
tact; and it had resulted in heavy exportations of coin and ] 
bullion ; and we have been at work all the time upon 
paper money to supply the deficiency, thereby con¬ 
tinually increasing the evil. The exercise of the pow- j 
er to issue paper money by the State governments, j 
had reduced the power of the general government to 
regulate the value of money, to a merely nominal pow¬ 
er. The exercise of this power over the currency, 
has, in reality, been taken aw'ay from the general gov¬ 
ernment. 

I repeat that gold and silver have not a specific val¬ 
ue ; but Congress alone has the right to declare what 
that value is, as expressed in dollars and cents; and 
we, the people, must submit to the standard which 
they establish. If I refuse to take money at the value 
established by Congress, I lose my debt. I will ask 
(he experienced gentleman from Muskingum, l_Mr. 
Chambers,] or the sophistical gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin, [Mr Stanbery,] or my friend from Monroe fMr. 
Archboiu),] who call split a hair as nicely as anybody, 
to get up here and tell us the difference between the 
exercise of the currency power by States upon paper 
money or coin. Whenever two or more sovereign au¬ 
thorities vvilhiu the same government, exercise the 
currency power, it must bring about the same state 
of things with respect to currency, and exchange, 
which wc now find in Europe ? Every hundred miles 
a new currency and a new shave. If my friend from 
Monroe would go with me across to the frontiers of 
France, (and I would be glad some time to take a jour¬ 
ney with him, to my father-land,) we would then find 
bancs on one side of the Rhine, and guilders on the 
other, currency. 

But, going over a little further into Prussia, for in¬ 
stance, we would there find Rixdollars, and in every 
place a gold currency. The money you have won’t go 
here—and if you go to the brokers for exchange, they 
will shave you a good deal closer than your barber, 
and give you money which you have to change again 
as you go to Austria, or to Bavaria, or any direction 
you please. Shave upon shave meets you. You may 
change Ducats for Louisd’ors, Francs into Guilders, but 
as you progress you are told that another sovereign 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 1047 


rei;^i)s, and another currency exists in consequence. 
This is noi only the case in reference to coin, it i.s also 
as to paper money, for France and Prussia and Bavaria 
and Austria, and all have pa[)er money. The only differ¬ 
ence there, as here, being that you are shaved a little 
harder for y)aper rnmey than for coin. No greater mis¬ 
take can exist, than the idea, that paper money does 
not exist in despotic Prussia, Austria or Russia; all 
these are paper money countries. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON (in his seat.) Are not all 
those hard money ^governments? 

Mr. REEMELIN. No sir, the despotic govern¬ 
ments have named, have principally a paper money 
circulation. Switzerland, the only free Republic in 
Europe, is a hard-money country, and I affirm that 
the several States of this Union, assuming the control 
of the currency for themselves, will, and have pro 
duced the same spectacle in regard to currrency, so 
far as paper money is concerned, which is now pre¬ 
sented in the German States, and other parts of Eu¬ 
rope. You start from Louisiana, and their money wont 
pass in South Carolina,—the money you get there, 
wont pass in New York. New England wont pass in 
Ohio, and Ohio wont in Pennsylvania. Shaving is the 
inevitable result here, as in Europe, of this parcelling 
out tne currency power, instead of giving it unity. 

I desire here to make a brief reference to the histo¬ 
ry of Switzerland, in connection with this subject. 
Under the old constitution of that country, each Can¬ 
ton exercised its own control over the currency. But, 
when they met, about four years ago, in convention 
to frame a new constitution, one of tlie first proposi¬ 
tions to amend was to take this power away from the 
several Cantons, and confer it upon the General Gov¬ 
ernment; and T ask any gentleman to say whether the 
framers of the new Swiss constitution were not wise in 
this? They have adopted the currency of France, 
and an excellent one it is, though not quite so good as 
ours. 

The state of the currency is now, in this country, al¬ 
most equal to that which we find in Germany. You 
cannot travel through the United States with Indiana 
paper, or Ohio paper, or Pennsylvania paper, without 
being shaved! Can you travel with New York paper, 
which enjoys a pre-eminence above that of any other 
State paper, without being shaved ? I affirm that you 
cannot travel from Louisiana to New York, without 
being shaved five or six times. 

And is it for such purposes, and for such a state of 
things, that the Whig party has given up its old posi¬ 
tion on the United Smtes Bank question? Is it for 
this that that party is new in a state of uncertainty, 
halting between shinplasters, and State banks, and De¬ 
posit banks? Is it for this, that the national whig par¬ 
ty has given up its national bank, its national currency, 
and defends State paper money factories? Have our 
whig friends turned warming pans only for the projects 
of certain politicians on this side of the chamber? 
Have they no })roposition3, no principles of their own? 

Sir, that question was ever the strength of the whig 
party; and the day w'hen they gave up the question 
of a United States Bank and a national currency, then 
the strength and glory of the whig party departed for¬ 
ever. Then it was that it first began to leak out that 
that great party was not guided by any principle—that 
all they wanted was power, and that renegade demo 
crats could take them by the nose and lead them just 
where they pleased. Chasing power, they have lost 
their principles, and thus we find the gentleman from 
Franklin, the whig leader here, to come over to the 
aid of his fiiiihful ally, the gentleman from Licking, 
[Mr. Case,] not to defend his own position, or explain 
his own vote, but with the direct object so as to give a 
little bye play in the matter, and to strike a blow' at ray 
friends, the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitcheli..] 
and the gentleman from Wayne, [Mr. Lahwill.] He 
comes in merely as a warming pan to those democrats 
who rejoice in the opportunity they have of leading 


and controlling the whigs, upon this question, at will. 
Thus low has the whig party sunk, since it deserted its 
own standard, and since it had become the ally of ren¬ 
egade politicians 1 

Look at the position the whigs have occupied upon 
this question, ever since they were driven from the 
support of the United States Bank ! What is their po¬ 
sition, even now, in this Convention? They are the 
friends of shinplasters, the friends of State banks, they 
have been constantly the friends of the pet banks, and 
of all manner of banks, and institutions for banking 
purposes, and they have been wont to resort to all 
kinds of tricks for the support of these institutions; 
and whilst they are as bad as any body in denouncing 
the institution that has failed, they are always foremost 
in the effort to get up another institution to succeed it. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I would rather hear the 
gentleman define his own position, and that of those 
with whom he acts, of which he knows something. 

Mr, REEMELIN. The gentleman betrays only a 
little natural shyness as I go along. But let him quit 
interrupting me and I will, in duo time, get to my own 
position which is well understood. 

I say that the whig party in the United Slates form¬ 
erly occupied a respectable position before the world, 
but this was before they fell from iheir original position 
upon the subject of a United States Bank. 

I ask gentlemen to consider the position which 
they occupied upon this question in 1832, 1836, 1840. 
Sir, they contended then that a U. S. Bank was neces¬ 
sary to regulate the currency and exchanges of the 
country; and that the exercise of this power to regu¬ 
late the currency, not only of paper, but gold and sil 
ver coin was in the hands of Congress, and that it ex¬ 
isted nowhere ebe in this country. 

The gentleman from Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] shakes 
his head; but if I had some of the speeches of Henry 
Clay and Daniel Webster, delivered in those contests, 

I could prove it upon them; and those eminent men 
were nearer right when they made that assertion than 
' they ever have been since. To be sure they erred in 
claiming for Congress the right to manufacture paper 
money. They affirmed that the power to regulate the 
currency was vested in Congress; and had they clung 
to the true metallic currency, we would have acted with 
them. They predicted, and with too much truth, as the 
sequel proved, that if the United States Bank charter 
were withheld, and the States should exercise this 
power of controlling the currency for themselves, that 
it woxild spread ruin all over the country. They pre¬ 
dicted correctly; and being willing prophets, they set 
about the work themselves and assisted materially to 
make their predictions true. As soon as they were 
driven out of Congress, there were uo more faithful 
allies of the pet banks in the country than they. I should 
rejoice to see the whig [)arty gel back again to their 
old principles; for until they do go back, until they 
cease to be allies of renegades, until they become again 
a party for themselves, it will be impossible for me to 
respect them. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON, (in his seat.) We are pro¬ 
gressing. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Yon are? .lust look at your pro¬ 
gression. Since you have fallen from the support of a 
United States Bank, you have been divided amongst 
yourselves, and sold out like sheep in the market. You 
did not, nor do you now own yourself. lu Michigan, 
you are the friends of banks, erected upon moitgages 
upon I’eal estate. In New York, you are the frituds of 
banks based upon State stocks. In Indiana, you are 
in favor of a State bank, and free banking; and in Ohio, 
you are divided—some following in the lead of Alfred 
Kelly, and some following after other chiefs. But here 
stand'the hard money democrats—where they have ev¬ 
er stood—having lor their foundation the constitution 
of the United States, fighting inch for inch, and they 
will be sure to conquer—the right, the coustitutinn— 











1048 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


the framers of it, Jefferson, Washington and Jackson, 
are on their side. Yea, the very fates are rapidly turn¬ 
ing in their 1‘avor. 

Sir, it is now about five years when a proud chief 
sat down in Texas, on the Nueces river, in a log cabin. 
He there dictated to his adjutant, a despatch to tlie Sec¬ 
retary of War, at Washiugtoti. In that despatch, the 
government was advised, if’it intended to have the Rio 
Grande as the frontier, it had better authorize a forward 
movement and authorize a selection of some strong 
point on that river. The chief who dictated, w^as Gen¬ 
eral Taylor, the man who wrote, was Major Bliss. The 
suggestion was accepted—the necessary order passed 
from the Potomac to the Nueces—the Mexican war 
came, and thus sir, that despatch gave us California, it 
made General Taylor President—it decided that no 
slave shall ever tread the Pacific—it has turned to this 
country the lands of California—and they are going to 
settle the currency question. 

Great things sometimes come out of little things. 
That single paragraph, which that chief sat down 
there to dictate, decided more for this country than 
all the other documents of that war. That paragraph 
conquered Mexico, took our people to the Pacific, it 
scattered the Whig party into fragments on this ques¬ 
tion; for the only argument upon w’hich our Whig 
friends can hope to carry their point is, that there is 
not enough hard money in the country for the purpose 
of circulation. That argument is now gone; and as 
fast as the golden sands of California shall flow into 
this country, just so fast will come the triumph of Dem¬ 
ocratic principles, and just as fast will we return to a 
constitutional currency. I thank God for this historical 
development, for it show^s that, whenever men plant 
themselves upon any pnnciple in harmony with the 
laws of human nature, if they but stand to it, the time 
will surely come which shall justify them, and show 
that they are in the right. I thank God, moreover, for 
the manifestation of another fact, namely: that a polit¬ 
ical party, however talented and strong it may be, if it 
shall plant itself upon the wrong, must at every step 
but expose this wrong more plainly, and lead it on to 
certain discomfiture and ruin. Every Whig prediction 
against us hard money men—every one of their pre¬ 
dictions with reference to the currency, the tarifl’, or 
the public lauds have, each and ail of them, been 
proved to be mere pretensions and falsifications; so 
much so, that now, of all things in the world, they 
hate worst to be reminded of them. 

The point wdiich I wish to make is simply this : that 
the power to control the constitutional currency has. 
for wise purposes been entrusted by the fathers of our 
General Government, to Congress, and, therefore, no 
power can be exercised, in this or any other State, ex¬ 
cept so far as it may be in aid of the constitution of 
the United States, and the laws of Congress. W’e have 
no right to do any thing that will nullify the constitu¬ 
tional currency. Paper money does do so. If, how¬ 
ever, gentlemen will show me that we can exercise 
this power without nullifying the constitution of the 
United States, and the law of Congress upon the sub¬ 
ject, then I shall be content to see this power exercised. 
But the experience of the country demonstrates that 
the exercise of this power, by the State.s, is an infringe¬ 
ment upon the constitution of the United States, and I 
cannot go with them. 

1 would as soon think of referring to the people the 
decision of the question, whether the State of Ohio 
should exercise the power of levying import duties up- 
on goods coming from Indiana or New York, as to re¬ 
fer to them, or any other State, this question of con- 
trollingthe currency. And, because I take this ground, 
it need not be thrown up to me, that I have no confi. 
dence in the people; for, would even my friend from 
Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] who this morning gave us a 
long harangue upon the right of the people to decide 
this question, submit to the people of Ohio any ques¬ 


tion as to which his mind might be as clearly made up 
as mine is, with reference to this? I do not impeach 
his integrity or his motives for voting as he proposes to 
vote, it he believes that this power can be exercised in 
Washington City and in Columbus at the same time, 
wuthout public injury. All I have to say is, that I will 
hold him responsible as long as he lives, to the oath 
which he has taken here to support the constitution of 
the United Slates. If he thinks the control of the cur¬ 
rency does not rest with Congress, but with the people 
of the States, let him so act and vote; and, on the oth¬ 
er hand, I trust, he wdll not charge me wiih a want of 
confidence in tlie people, because 1 will not submit to 
them the decision of a question with reference to what 
I have not the thousandth part of a doubt that the con¬ 
stitution is conclusive and final. For, I cannot but re¬ 
gard the counterfeiter, and tlie cashier of a bank, in 
any of the States of this Union, as both equally ofl'end- 
ing against the law of Congress, and the constitution 
of the United States. I am not going to consent to 
submit the question to the people, whether the consti¬ 
tution of the United States shall be valid as a constitu¬ 
tion of Ohio or not. 

One word more in reference to the question imme¬ 
diately before us. The mover of this amendment, 
[Mr. Case, of Licking,] has intimated his belief that 
the people of Ohio decided upon this question at the 
last annual election; or, at least, in his opinion, the 
Whigs were estopped from denying this fact. 1 un¬ 
derstood him, also, to say that he was himself a hard 
money man, and others of his Iriends claim to be hard 
money men. Strange, however, that any hard money 
man can countenance this submission of such a ques¬ 
tion to the people. That is a mystery to be explained 
hereafter. I would have been gratified if the gentle¬ 
man had shown us how he reconciles such a course 
with the oath which he has taken here. Sir, I say 
here, not fearing contradiction, that no man, under¬ 
standing the power to control the currency to rest 
with the General Government, can, for a moment, 
countenance the proposition befoie us. Nor will any 
member of the Convention submit to a separate vote 
of our people, any other question upon which he is 
clear in his own mind. Such, I understand, is the ad¬ 
mitted position of all. 

The consideration has, however, been urged, that, if 
we put these hard money sections into the constitution, 
it will certainly be defeated. When General Jackson 
was about to put his hand to his veto of the charter of 
the United States Bank, we are told that the old hero 
was admonished by one of his constitutional advisers 
on this wise : “ Sir, if that document goes out, you are 
sure to be defeated next fall.” And when the same old 
hero put his hand to the order for the removal of the 
deposits from the United States Bank, a prominent 
member of the Democratic party said to him: “ Sir, if 
that order goes out, the Democratic party is dissolved.” 
And a similar admonition was oflered to him when he 
appointed a distinguished Democratic Senator as minis¬ 
ter to one ol the courts ol Europe. General Jackson’s 
reply, in ail cases, was worthy of the man. It is my 
business,” said he, “ to do right; and subsequently, it 
is the duty of the people to judge me honestly ” And 
as General Jackson then declared, so should we hard 
money men say now. That it is our business here to 
do right; and, being in the right, trust to the people to 
sustain the right. 

The man who tells us not to put this thing or that 
thing into the constitution for fear of popular defeat, 
while he admits the thing to be right, says, what is 
tantamount to a declaration, that the people are dolts 
and fools. 

Mr. R. concluded by giving a few historical illustra¬ 
tions ot the fact that the Democrats had always ruled 
the United States, except when they have been divided 
and distracted by renegades—making particular refer¬ 
ence to the popular demonstration in this city, sustain- 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 1049 


ing the order for the removal of the deposits. Ho had 
come here to sustain by voice and vote llie hard money 
doctrine, and he intended to do so. He cared not for 
numbers. He would rather be right alone, than w’roiig 
with a million. He would vote for what he believed 
to be right; for he trusted unhesitatingly to the people 
that they would stand to the right. 

He had now spoken merely of the principle upon 
which the report was based. Hereafter he intended 
to be heard upon the proposition that the adoption of 
this constitutional currency and a prohibition of paper 
money would advance the pecuniary intei’est of the 
State. 

Mr. SAWYER moved to amend the amendment, by 
striking out the word “ anti-hard,” and inserting in lieu 
thereof the word ‘‘sol't.” 

Mr, S. said he desired to make this motion fur a 
double reason. In the first place, the amendment did 
not state the question fairly ; and then'as gentlemen, 
knew, he w'as averse to the use of all Latin terms and 
phrases, so long as a corresponding English word or 
sentence could be better understood. This word 
“ antV was a Latin word, signifying “opposed to,” or 
“ fornest,” or something like that. Now, if we were 
to vote for hard money he wanted to say so ; and if we 
were to \ote against hard money he wanted to use the 
English word which would express that opposition. 
Half the people of the State might not be able lully to 
comprehend the word “an^i;”and he desired to put 
the matter upon tlje correct issue. Whilst ho was well 
suited with the object of the amendment, he could not 
bat regard it, in its present shape, as an insidious thing. 
It did not take bold and comprehensive ground. Be¬ 
sides, this amendment did not point out and prescribe 
any thing in the event that a majority of the voters 
of the State should be opposed to hard money. In 
that event, (he continued,) I suppose we would have 
to fall back upon the old system of banking. That, 
sir, is putting the voters in an unfair position; fori 
^ ant, when the people shall be called upon to vote 
( upon the question. Hard or Soft, I want them to have 
the assurance that they can fall back upon some re¬ 
strictions upon thehauks. 

I will tell you what I propose. In my judgment, 
the amendment offered by the gentleman Irom Miami 
[Mr. Dorsey] is a hundred fold better than this which 
is now' before us. I like it also much better than the 
proposition of the gentleman from Montgomery, [Mr. 
Holt,] although he proposed.to restrict the banks con¬ 
siderably. I, however, would restrict them further. 
But I am not prepared to vote for any proposition till I 
can see first w’hether w’e are able to carry the clean, 
naked, anti-bank question; and for this purpose I think 
the first section of the report would have been all suffi¬ 
cient. ] fear the consequences of proposing too much 
at once. A few years ago and one half our present 
propositions for reform would have been scouted at in 
any deliberative body in the State, whilst at the expi¬ 
ration of the teiTii of the present bank charter I would 
be perfectly willing to submit this question to the peo¬ 
ple, in the confident belief that, at that day, they 
would be perfectly satisfied, and heartily sick of the 
system. 

There never yet has been a system of banking pro¬ 
posed—except those now in existence—that has not 
resulted in failure, and a perfect swindle of the com¬ 
munity. This has been the case from the foundation 
of the world down to the present time; and I am per¬ 
fectly satisfied that before our present bank charters 
expire the people will have got enough of all banks. 

I will tell you what is my system. In the first place, 
I would, after the present bank charters expire, have 
a vote of the people taken upon the question whether 
or not the Legislature shall have authority to pass a 
bank charter; and if the authority shall be granted, 


I would have its exercise restricted in the following 
particulars: 

No bank should be authorized to issue below the de¬ 
nomination of twenty dollars. The private properly 
of the stockholders should all be held for the redemp¬ 
tion of their paper. And thus, in the event that such 
a bank charter should be granted by the Legislature, 
before it should go into operation it shbuld alsd go be¬ 
fore the whole people of Ohio, for their sanction or re¬ 
jection. With that kind of restriction, Mr. President, 
I would fear no result. But I fear, in the present con¬ 
dition of things, if we take upon ourselves the destruc- 
tiou of the present bank.s, it will be throwing upon the 
new constitution a burden which will sink it down, 
and so give an advantage to our opponents. 

I would be willing to do this—let a clause be put 
into the constitution curtailing the privileges of the 
present banks; so that after a certain period they 
should issue no notes of a smaller denommation than 
five dollars; and after another certain period they 
should issue no notes of a smaller denomination than, 
twenty dollars ; and then, after another certain period,- 
they should issue no notes at all. By the^ time of the 
expiration of those periods, in consequence of the large 
amounts of gold which would be flowing into the 
country, in the mean time, from diflerent sources—not 
from California alone—I believe that upon the expira¬ 
tion of the bank charter, going out under such'restric- 
tious as these, the people would be ripe for a constitu¬ 
tional cuirency. 

For political purposes alone, ! could wish Uiat the 
question of banks or no banks, were left opisn; be¬ 
cause it would be sure to make advantage for the Dem¬ 
ocratic party from year to year—so sure am I that the- 
friends of “ hard money” will ultimately succeed in. 
Ohio. 

I have said, that every scheme for the issuance of.' 
paper money has been mure or less a scheme of swind¬ 
ling ; and there are some delegates here from certain* 
counties of the State, who are familiar with some 
transactions of this character, to which I shall now re¬ 
fer, namely : the loss of that sacred fund, which was- 
placed with the counties for school purposes—mean, 
our share of the revenue of the United States^ which, 
was placed in the banks for sale keeping and’ invest¬ 
ment. There are gentlemen here who could give a 
more correct history of these transactions and losses- 
than 1 am able to do. 

A large amount of this money was deposited in that 
immaculate institution—the Urbana bank—some 70,- 
000 dollars in all were placed in that institution, by 
dilFerent county school fund commissioners; and the- 
whole amount was a total loss, prnicipal and interest.- 
Then there was also a deposit of some fifty odd thou¬ 
sand dollars of this lund made in the Fairfield bank, 
(the correct history of which I presume would be bet¬ 
ter given by my inend from Fairfield, the tion. Pres¬ 
ident of this Couventiot},) which also proved to be a 
total loss—the bank of Chillicothe going down and 
with it the whole of the deposits made by the commis¬ 
sioners of Hocking and Fairfield counties; and the 
people of those counties, a.s well as of the counties of 
Logan, Clark and Champaign, are now being taxed to 
make up these loses. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, (interposing.) Do I under¬ 
stand the gentleman to say that any public school 
money ha.s been lost in the bank of Chillicothe. I tell 
"entlemen that not a farthing of that fund has been 
fost by that institution. I tell the gentleman further, 
that the bank of Chillicothe has paid all its debts. 

Mr. SAWYER. If I said Chillicothe, it was certain¬ 
ly a mistake—a lapsus Ungues, as it is in Latin, I be¬ 
lieve, [laughter]—I meant the bank of Lancaster. I 
ask pardon, Mr. President, for using this phraso. 

Mr S. now read and commented at lengih upon the 












1050 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


g: L. - . ■ , ' 

various items of the following table, derived from the 
report of the Auditor of State, of the year 1816 ; 


o 





03 

<U 

O O ITS 
rt 00 


ic 00 

TJ* 05 
CO o 

C «! 


o 


CS 
<D 
CS 

* 

. CO 

m . 
h 

o O O <u " 

<= J ct 

I—I W t—( 


t^CCiCOt^OOOO 

COO'^OOC^CJOO 

O) o c? (?» 00 -< o o 

C500Ou^cr;00OC5 
10 0005'—'C500N. 




^ CO 05 »-( I—♦ T-( Ol 


05 

fN 


• o 

! o 

• o: 

I C5 

I 

• r—* 

I ^ 


ot 

CO 

crs 

nT 

Cl 


CO o 

i-( o o 

O CJ CO o 

Cl lO 

rr o o 

1—I 00 lO >—< 
f —1 rH 


CJ5 CO 
CO CO 

05 

05 Cl 
CO t>._ 

o' 05 " 
<M d 
1 —( 

•m- 




•TOJCIt^COCOOO 

^OI^I-ICOOOO 

00 O CO O CO Cl V-O O 
00 O 05 1^ Cl Cl Cl IC 
COOO'^CO'^05CO 
co' rsT isT 00" 00" <-* 

T-I d ^ Cl CO 


> 

10 
u 

’a 
o 

m 
««-• 
o 

as S 
® o 
CO r-^ »- 

^ aj 

S C3 m 

2 c C8 
c «3 ^ CJ 

ai u T3 
ec p 


CQ 


<li 00 


c® 05 
fcD fj 


0) 


VO i (-1 

D O g rt 

V- aJ S ^ 

efl aj rt (S s- 

POhJPD 


Cl Cl Cl CO CO CO 05 
df-t^OOCOOCOC5 

CO Cl CO CO CO Cl 05 V.O 

cococrscociddd 

CO Cl 0_ CO ^ o 

‘O fC CO 00 00 ocT 
Cl d d CO I-H 


CD 

o' 

d 

d 


60 


- *=05 

c3 c O 

2 P* tic-- ,« a 

ri:: SJ 5.2 C3 2 to tic 
Oto-O J 3 (UC^ o 
PQ O O tn O K 1^ t-3 


I Mr. STANTON, (interposing.) I would like for the 
gentleman to tell us, if he knows, what has become of 
the Butler county surplus revenue. 

Mr. SA.VVYER. lam obliged to the gentleman for 
the opportunity which he gives me of defending the 
character of John B. Weller from the malicious imputa¬ 
tion of having carried off this money belonging to But¬ 
ler county, for I am now able to assure the gentleman 
and the country, that Mr. Weller has paid up every cent 
of that money. 

Mr. STANTON. When? 

Mr. SAWYER. We have heard it from Whigs and 


Democrats, from year to year it has been copied into 
the newspapers, that John B, Weller hai been swind¬ 
ling the county of Butler; but now the sentence of con¬ 
demnation has been passed upon him, he has marched 
up, and, without recurring to his securities, he has paid 
every dollar, both principal and interest. Like an hon¬ 
est Iran, he left property enough to meet that liability, 
and it is now fully paid. This is the vindication of an 
honest man. 

Mr. S. admitted that there might be some individual 
exceptions amongst the banks, which were not liable 
to the wholesale charge of swindling. Some of them 
had been managed carefully, and the community had 
sustained no loss by them. If all men were honest, 
banks might be tolerated. But since men are dishon¬ 
est, the “bars'’ought to be “laid up,” and no more 
ought to be created. 

Col. Weller was boldly condemned for his supposed 
defalcation; but banks and banking can, with impuni¬ 
ty, become defaulters, and swindle the community; 
and their authors become special favorites. Those men 
who were loudest in condemning Col. Weller, now be¬ 
come the apologists of banks and bankers. The fur¬ 
ther consideration of this subject, I leave to an outraged 
people. 

Mr. CHANEY. I did not choose to interrupt the 
gentleman’.s remarks with reference to the bank of Lan¬ 
caster ; and I do not know that I shall be able now, to 
state the case very particularly. The Fund Commis¬ 
sioners of Fairfield county took stock in that institu¬ 
tion. And when the bank failed, I know it was con¬ 
sidered a total loss. However, a compromise was sub¬ 
sequently effected between the County Commissioners 
and the bank, by which the former took real estate of 
the bank—whether to the full amount of their invest¬ 
ment or not, I arn not aware—irt all events, the ar¬ 
rangement was made to the satisfaction of the Commis¬ 
sioners. The pro[)erty has since been sold, and I think 
the whole amount of their investment has been real¬ 
ized by the Commissioners. But the gentleman from 
Franklin, [Mr. Sta.nbkuy,] might be more able to give 
a correct statement of this matter than myself; fori 
believe he was one of the directors of the bank at the 
time of tlie failure. 

Mr. STANBERY. The gentleman is right in saying 
that all the stock has been paid back to the county ; 
but he committed a slight error in saying that the stock 
was ever regarded as a total loss. 

Mr. CHANEY. It might not have been so regarded 
by those that had the management of the bank, but it 
was so regarded by the people of the county—they not 
having the meansof knowing the condition of the bank. 
That however is immaterial, as the stock has been 
since paid. 

Mr. MANON. The gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. 
Sawykr,] has come over to us so far as to say that they 
are going to make the present banks honest; and that 
is all we want. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The gentleman fmm Hamilton, 
[Mr. Reemet.in,] calls upon me particularly to regard 
the oath which I took when I first came into this Con¬ 
vention, and he has undertaken to prove upon some of 
us, notwith.4tanding that oath, a very great dereliction 
of duty. He has undertaken to prove that we are 
about to violate the constitution of the United States; 
and cast insult upon the memory of our forefathers 
who framed that constitution. He says that this prop¬ 
osition to submit iliis question to the people, is an as¬ 
sumption on our part, that the people are dolts and 
fools; and that it is an insult to their intelligence to 
submit a proposition which is so clearly unconstitution¬ 
al. Now whatevermay be said of these remarks, their 
modesty certainly is not their most admirable charac¬ 
teristic. 

Mr. REEMELIN, (in his seat.) I stated that as my 
belief merely. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I was apprehensive that the gen¬ 
tleman would not like my statement of his position. 
























































CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1051 


But it wasjiis position and amounts to about this, that 
nearly every State in the Union, democratic or other¬ 
wise, which has gone about establishing banks ; and 
according to the gentleman from Hamilton, they have 
thereby insulted the memory of Washington, and the 
framers ot the constitution of the United States, and 
utterly disregarded the requirements and obligations 
of that sacred instrument. This certainly is taking 
pretty high ground. 

He has assumed that the constitution of the United 
States has placed alone, in the power of Congress, the 
entire control and regulation of the currency of the 
country. No, I do not believe any such thing. The 
word “Currency*' is not so much as once employed 
in the constitution of the United States. That instru¬ 
ment declares that Congress shall have power to coin 
money, to regulate the value thereof, and to regulate 
the value of foreign coin, and beyond that they have 
no power whatever, over that subject. And when it 
was assumed by the federal party, that Cotigi^ess pos¬ 
sessed a power beyond that, we combatted the idea. 
When they assumed that Congress, having the power 
to regulate the currency, as an incident to that power 
they must be able to institute and employ the means to 
regulate the currency, which they proposed in a bank 
of the United States, we denied that position—we call¬ 
ed the authors of it too latiudinarian in their views, we 
were strict constructionists. 

Now I certainly was not prepared to expect here, in 
1851, after we had so often and so successfully combat 
ted this opinion, that ultra democrats would take it up¬ 
on themselves to revive this old federal notion. For 
myself, I would as soon put on any of the other old 
cloth of federalism, as the principle that the control and 
regulation of the currency of the country, belongs ex¬ 
clusively to Congress. For if this be true, they have 
the power to exercise the means of regulating the cur¬ 
rency, and if a United States bank is assumed to be a 
proper means for regulating the currency, it is plain 
that Congress has the power to establish such a bank. 
Gentlemen can see how it is that their position will 
lead thus into the support of that old fashioned federal 
dogma. Yet this is the position assumed by the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton. 

Mr. RE EMELIN. No, sir. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I have got his words down be¬ 
fore me. He insists that Congress has the riglit to reg 
ulate the currency of the country; and will he cut thorn 
of! from the means and instruments of regulating this 
matter? 

Mr. REEMELTN. I admit they have the right to 
use right instruments. Nothing further. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I hope the gentleman will get 
my position. I say Congre.ss has no power except to 
coin money, regulate its value, and the value of foreign 
coin. I say that is the extent of their power over this 
subject. 

Currency is a term which applies to anything which 
the peoplechoose to constitute a medium of circulation. 
Anything habitually used for that purpose becomes 
currency. Tobacco was once a currency in Virginia; 
and in Ohio we have had to use pork, corn and many 
other articles for the same purpose. I was not aware, 
sir, that the people of this country, who have been 
driven to this course by their necessities, were violating 
the constitution of the United States, or that f)rnvi8ion 
of the constitution of the United States that gives to 
congress the power to coin money, &c. Congress does 
but fix the relative value of gold and silver, and the 
value of foreign coin. 

The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] has 
assumed that the issue of bank paper depreciated the 
value of gold and silver coin, and therefore its issue and 
circulation violated the constitution of the United 
States. If this is true, then the inci’ease of gold from 
California which we hope to realize, would have the 
same effect, and those who bring it hero might with 
equal justice be charged with a violation of the consti¬ 


tution, because it would not only depreciate, but 
change the relative value of gold. Ai-e they also vio¬ 
lating the constitution of the United Slates? If they 
are, I must confess it is news to me. 

The amount of the gentleman’s production is, that 
all the acts and doings of our democratic fathers, from 
the year 1787, down, have been nothing butanadulter- 
ated form of Federalism. They have never yet struck 
out so much as one clear democratic idea upon this sub¬ 
ject. Both representatives and constituents have been 
mere dolts and fools. 

Before Mr. HAWKINS had concluded his remarks, 
he gave way for a motion to take a recess, pending 
which. 

The PRESIDENT, on leave, announced Messrs. 
Le4dbetter, Green of Ross, Archbold, Stanton, 
Mitchell, Holt and Scott of Harrison, as the select 
cotnmittee to report a Judiciary system under the reso¬ 
lution of Mr. Perkins on the 25th inst. 

On motion, the Convention then took a recess. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending being on agreeing to the mo¬ 
tion of Mr. SAWYER, to strike out the words “anti- 
hard,” and insert in lieu thereof, the word “ soft.” 

Mr. LEAD BETTER moved that the report and 
pending amendments be referred to a committee of 
the whole Convention ; which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on Mr. Sawyer’s amend¬ 
ment, 

Mr. MANON demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out the words 

anti-hard,” 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays; 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 42, nays 47—as 
follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes.Greeneol Detiance,Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Mitch¬ 
ell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Quigley, Raiiney, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Roll, Sa^ yer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stebbins, Stidger, Stnible, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Woodbury and President—43. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Collings,Cook,Dorsey,Ewart, Florence, Gillett.Gray, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, .Tohnson, Kennon, Larsh, 
Manon, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Per¬ 
kins, Scott ot Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
S;anbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Warren and Worthington—47. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Case, of 
Licking’s, amendment, 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, moved to amend the amend¬ 
ment, by inserting after the words “hard money,” 
where it occurs just in the commencement, the words t 
“ sections—yes;” 

On which motion, Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded the 
yeas and nays; which being ordered, resulted—yeas 
46, nays 43—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Cham¬ 
bers, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gray, Green of 
Ross, Hard, Hamilton, Hawkins, flarlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Kennon, Larsh, Manon, More- 
head, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, 
Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith ot Warren, Stan- 
bery, Stanton, Stilwell, Warren, Woodbury and Worthington 
—46. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Plender- 
son. Holmes. Holt, Hootman, Hunt. Johnson, Larwill, Leech, 
L. adbetter, Loudon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, Swan, 
Swift, 'I'hompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
and President—43. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, moved to lurtlier amend the 
amendment, by inserting after the words “ anti-hard 
money,” the words “ sections—no;” which wasagreed 
to. 













1052 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The same gentleman moved to further amend the 
amendment, by in.serting after the word “ money” in 
the fifth line, the words “sections—yes;” which was 
agreed to. 

Mr. STANTON moved to reconsider the vote, by 
which the Convention refused to strike out the words 
“ anti-hard which was agreed to. 

The question then being on striking out the words 
“ anti-hard;” 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, moved to amend the amend¬ 
ment, by striking out the word “ antiwhich was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on striking out the word 
“ hard it was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Case, of Licking, as amended; 

Mr. DORSEY moved to amend the amendment, by 
striking out all after the word “ constitution ” in the 
second line, and inserting in lieu thereof, the following; 

The question of “ banks ” or “ no banks ” shall be determined 
by a separate ballot from each voter. 

Sec. 2. If a majority of all votes cast at such election sliall be 
in favor of “ no banks,” then it shall be unlawful to make, emit, 
or circulate within the State any paper medium intended or cal¬ 
culated to circulate as money. 

Sec. 3. If a majority ol all the votes cast at each election shall 
be in favor of “banks,” then the Legislature shall, at its first ses- 
ison after the adoption of this constitution, provide a general 
banking law, embodying the following principles : 

1. The trade in money, comprehending the receiving on de¬ 
posit and loaning of the same, the dealing in bills of exchange, 
shall be open and free to all. 

2d. No person shall be allowed to issue any bill or evidence of 
debt to circulate as money, until he shall first have deposited 
with the Treasurer of State, or such other officer as niay be de¬ 
signated by law, a security for the whole amount of such issue, 
which shall consist of United States stock, or stocks of this 
State, or such county or other stocks within this State a.s may 
be determined by law, and bills to circulate as money equal to 
the actual par value of such securities shall be funiished by such 
officer as above, alone subject to such provision as may be es¬ 
tablished by law. 

3d. The credit of the State shall never, in any manner, be 
given or loaned, in aid of any individual or auy association 
for banking puiposcs, nor shall the State ever own or be liable 
for any stock in any such association whatever. 

4th. No bill or evidence of debt of a less denomination than 
five dollars, shall ever be issued or circulated as money in this 
State. 

5th. The stockholders of every association, and every individ • 
uai issuing bank “ notes,” or any kind of paper credit, intended 
to circulate as money, shall be responsible in their individual ca¬ 
pacity for all the debts and liabilities connected with the same, of 
every kind whatever. 

6th. The Legislature of this State shall have no power to pass 
any act sanctioning, directly or indirectly, the refusal of any in¬ 
dividual or association issuing bank notes of any description, to 
pay the same in .specie on demand, and provision shall be made 
by law in case of the refusal of any individual or association, to 
pay such demand as above, for the immediate liquidation of the 
same from the proceeds of the securities deposited as above. 

7th. In case of the failure of any individual, or any association 
issuing bank paper, the amount of security deposited with the 
Shite shall first be applied to the redemption of the circulation of 
such association or individual, and the remainder, if any, shall be 
payable on demand to such association or individual, deducting 
therefrom the amount of any expenses accruing to the State in 
the process of liquidating such claims. 

Sec. 4. The existing banks of this State shall bo protected in 
the exercise of the powers and privileges granted by their char¬ 
ters, until the legal expiration of the same, provision being made 
for taxing them as all other property in this State is taxed. 

On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, the report and pen¬ 
ding amendments were laid on the table. 

Mr. MITCHELL asked and obtained leave to be ex¬ 
cused from serving on the select committee oii the ju¬ 
diciary. 

The PRESIDENT announced Mr. Stidger to fill the 
vacancy in said committee. 

On motion of Mr. GREEN, of Ross, the Convention 
adjourned. 

TUESDAY, January 28, 1851. 

9 o’clock a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. SAWYER moved a call ot the Convention, and 
being ordered, Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, 
Bennett, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Green of Ross, 


Groesbeck, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, 
Kirkwood, Lawrence, Mason, Nash, Perkins, Riddle, 
Roll, Stilwell, Swan, Vance, Way and Worthington, 
were found absent. 

On motion, Mr. Bennett was excused. 

On motion of Mr. CLARK, all further proceedings 
under the call were dispensed with. 

Mr. LOUDON presented a petition from L. E. Carey 
and one hundred other citizens of Brown county, pray¬ 
ing that a clause be inserted in the new constitution, 
prohibiting the Legislature from jiassiug any law legal¬ 
izing traffic in spirituous liquors, which on motion was 
laid on the table. 

Mr. FARR presented sundry petitions from Ira Por¬ 
ter. .1. Brooks and fifty other males and females of Hu¬ 
ron county, on the subject; which was laid on the 
table. 

Mr. HAWKINS presented a petition fromA. Adair 
and seventy-five other citizens of Morgan county, on 
the same subject: which was laid on the table. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, presented a petition from 
Margaret Play and forty-eight other females of War¬ 
ren county, on the same subject; which was laid on 
the table. 

Mr. RE EMELIN presented a petition from Henry 
Bicher and seventy-five other citizens of Brown coun¬ 
ty, asking that a clause be inserted in the new consti¬ 
tution, retiuiring all school expenses to be paid out of 
tlie State Treasury—that German English schools be 
established, and that no sectional i-eligious tenets be 
taught in the public schools. Referred to the standing 
committee on Education. 

Mr. REEMELIN presented a petition from L. Fried- 
ly and seventy-five other citizens of Brown county, 
asking that a clause may be inserted in the new con¬ 
stitution, prohibiting the Legislature from passing auy 
law by which the Iree use or disposal of “ so called 
ardent spirits,” may be denied or embarrassed. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved that th^ petition be laid 
on the table; which was agreed to. 

Mr. STANTON moved that the resolution of Mr. 
Gray, in relation to the Convention taking a recess, be 
iiviw taken iq). 

On which molioii the same gentleman demanded the 
yeas and nays, which being ordered resulted—yeas 45, 
nays 45—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Rates, Blair, Cahill, Chaney? 
Clark, Cook, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins* 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hootman, Hunter, Kennon* 
Kirkwood, Lidey, Loudon, McCloud, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney, Reemelin, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wy¬ 
andot, Stanton, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Stnible, Swift, Tay¬ 
lor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Williams* 
Wilson and Pi'csident—45. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Collings, Curry, Dorsey, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Greene of 
Defiance, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Holt, Horton, Hum 
phreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbet- 
ter, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCormick, Nash, Nor¬ 
ris, Orton, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Han-ison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stiuibery, Stebbins, Townshend, Woodbury 
and Worthington—45. 

So the motion to take up the resolution was disa¬ 
greed to. 

Oil motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention took up 
the report of the committee on Banking and Currency, 
with the pending amendments. 

The question pending being on the amendment of 
Mr. Dorsey, to the amendment of Mr. Case, of Lick- 

Pending which, Mr. REEMELIN rose to a point of 
order. He believed the amendment, made by Mr. 
Case, of Licking, and the subsequent amendments made 
to the same, out of order, because, first, that you cannot 
move to insert any thing before a bill, and secondly, 
that all amendments must be made to the body of tne 
bill, or at the end thereof. 

Mr. PRESIDENT said, the amendment submitted 
by Mr. Case, when first entertained some days since, 
was in the form of a proviso, to come in at the end of 



















CONVEN'llON HEPOllTS. 1053 


thn seclion. In its present form, it is difficult to deter¬ 
mine whether the mover intended it as a resolution, or 
as a substitute tor the original article. No one will 
probably claim the right to offer a resolution ,by way 
of amendment to an article, and no substitute can be 
entertained, that does not leave some part of the origi¬ 
nal article standing. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved that the report and pending 
amendments be laid on the table, 

On which motion, Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas 
and nays; which being ordered, resulsed—yeas 34, 
nays 59—as follows ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Bates, Brown of Alliens, 
Caliill, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Cook, Ewart, Ewing, 
Florence, Gillett, Harlan, Haivkins, Henderson, Holt Horton, 
Humphreville, Kennon, Kirkwood, Manon, Morebead, McCor¬ 
mick, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stan¬ 
ton, Stilwell, Warren and Williams—34. 

Kays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomer 3 ^ Barnett of Preble, 
Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case 
of Licking, Dorsey, Farr, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Greene of 
Defiance, Green of Boss, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, 
Hitchcock ol Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, 
Jones, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
Morris, McCloud, Norris, Orton, Quigley, Rannej', Reemelin, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stebbins, Stick- 
ney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelbj% 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthing- 
on and President—59. 

So the motion to lay on the table was disagreed lo. 

Mr. MANON wished every gentleman might have an 
opportunity to vote his sentiments upon the proposition, 
whether for or against. If gentlemen wished to vote 
that the State shall in all future time have a hard cur¬ 
rency, they should have a chance. If on the other 
hand, they desire that the State shall l>e cursed, (as is 
the expression of some,) with a currency composed of 
the issues of banks, the privilege of voting for it should 
be allowed to them. Rethought however, that if such 
a currency was to exist in the State, the people of the 
State ought to have the profits and benefits accruing 
from its issue, as well as the risks and losses; and 
that a paper currency, if tolerated at all, should be, 
tolerated as the issue of our own rather than foreign 
banks. 

He would however for the purpose of making assu- 
tance doubly sure, move to amend the second seclion 
of the report by adding at the end of the same, the 
following: “and shall also in like manner prohibit the 
circulationof any bank paper within the State.” 

He thought there would now be no ambiguity in 
the proposition, and that gentlemen would be able to 
come square up and vote upon it with the assurance 
that if carried, every species of paper circulation, 
whether domestic or foreign, would be effectually pro¬ 
hibited. 

The question being on the amendment of Mr. Ma¬ 
non, 

Mr. LEECH said he had all along entertained the 
belief, that the report of the Currency committee cov¬ 
ered the whole ground, with regard to a paper circula¬ 
tion, proposed to be covered by the amendment of the 
gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Manon.] Such he 
knew to have been the deliberate intention of the com¬ 
mittee, at the time the report was drawn up; and he 
thought that if gentlemen would read carefully, sec¬ 
tions two and three, if they did not discover that pro¬ 
vision was therein made to effectually prohibit the cir¬ 
culation, in this State, of all paper issues, both domes¬ 
tic and foreign, they would, at least, acquit the com¬ 
mittee of any intention to do oiherwise. He, however, 
should vote for the amendment, because he was in fa¬ 
vor of the principle it contained. If it did no good, he 
could not see that it would do any injury. 

Mr. LARWILL desired the opportunity to say, that 
it had been the intention of the majority of the com¬ 
mittee which presented this report, to prohibit the cir¬ 
culation of every species of paper currency—not only 
that which should be emitted by the banks of Ohio, 
but that of each and every other State. When, how- 


es’er, the gentleman iTom Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] 
yesterday, questioned him upon the subject, he had 
begun to entertain some doubts whether they had ful¬ 
ly succeeded. Perhaps as it was, the j>rovisions of the 
report would not prevent the issues of banks of other 
States from being received in payment of debts. He 
had taken into consideration the amendment of the 
gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Manon,] and thought he 
should vote for it. 

Mr. REEMELIN asked that the amendment be read. 

Mr. MANON said that at the suggestion of the gen¬ 
tleman from Wayne, he would move to amend the 
amendment by adding at the end, a provision that the 
bills of the banks of other States shall not be receiv¬ 
ed in the payment of debts. 

Mr. REEMELIN. If the gentleman from Licking 
will 80 modify his amendment as to provide that no 
bank in the State shall, at any time, issue any paper 
currency of any kind calculated to circulate as money, 
he would vote fur it. He looked upon the notes of a 
bank as no better than counterfeits, and he was assur¬ 
ed iliat the State had no right to pass such laws as shall 
authorize their emission and circulation; because they 
are in derogation of the constitution and laws of the 
United States. What he desired was that the State 
should retain the right to pass laws in aid of the provi¬ 
sions of the constitution and laws of the United States. 
It is proper to do so, as has frequently been done. It 
has passed laws to punish the counterfeiting the cur¬ 
rent coin of the country. He thought the creation by 
a State of a paper money shop was as wrong in princi¬ 
ple as to establish a mint. He would move to amend 
the amendment of the gentleman from Licking, [Mr. 
Manon,] by inserting after the word “ paper,” the 
words “ intended to circulate as money.” 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Reemelin to the amendment of Mr. Manon, 

Mr. KENNON said that when he first looked at the 
report of the committee, he bad thought it had not 
been the iutenlion of the committee to exclude from 
circulation here the issues of the banks of other States. 
On a more attentive reading, however, he had come to 
the conclusion that the second section does clearly ex¬ 
clude such circulation. The second provides that the 
General Assembly shall prohibit by law any person or 
persons, association, company or corporation, now in 
existence, from exercising the privilege of banking, or 
creating, emitting or putting in ciiculation any bank 
notes or paper of any description whatever, to circu¬ 
late as money or currency. It seemed to him, there¬ 
fore, on careful consideration, that the report covered 
the whole ground. 

Mr. STANBERY said that it seemed, then, that we 
lawyers dilTer. He was forced to disagree in opinion 
wilh his friend from Belmont [Mr. Kennon.] He did 
not think the purposes avowed by the committee had 
been fully carried out in the report. The second sec¬ 
tion prohibits any person, association, &c., to emit or 
pm in circulation. Now, what is the meaning of the 
terms emit or put in circulation? Is it the first issue 
of the paper money from the bank that creates it? Is 
it the transfer from hand to hand after it has been put 
forth ? 

Again, the prohibition extends to persons, com¬ 
panies and corporations now in existence. Does it 
prevent the future authorization of persons, or the fu¬ 
ture creation of banks to put in circulation a paper cur¬ 
rency? Certainly not. I wish the committee would 
do up their work, and place the question distinctly be¬ 
fore us. 

Mr. McCORMICK, would like to have tlie exposition 
of the gentleman from Franklin, of the fourth and fifth 
lines of the third section: “nor shall any person or 
persons, either natural or artificial, ever be allowed to 
deal in or issue paper money, so called.” 

Mr. STANBERY. That is no prohibition of the cir¬ 
culation of paper money. If I hand a bank note to a 
tavern keeper, to pay my bill, is that dealing in, or is¬ 
suing paper money? Not at all. 










1054 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. MITCHELL said he had originally ditiered from 
other gentlemen of the committee as to the force of the 
expression used in the report; but had chosen to defer 
to them in opinion. 

Mr. DORkSEY said he had no doubt the committee 
had iaiily lulentled tu piuhibil the issue oi ail hank [ai- 
per in Ohio; but he still believed they had, inadvert¬ 
ently, or otherwise, left a large creep-out place. In 
order that the people may vote understaiidingly in the 
matter, and to place before them definitely the ques¬ 
tion they are to vote on, he should vote to have this 
place stopped up, so that it shall be fully and conclu¬ 
sively provided that no paper emission, whether crea¬ 
ted in the State, or out of the State, shall ever be in 
circulation in Ohio. He wanted the people to be fully 
advised as to what they were voting on, that when the 
vote should be taken, the result should be at once con¬ 
clusive and satisfactory. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON would suggest to gentlemen 
whether it wmuld not be well to insert another sec¬ 
tion, applicable to institutions and persons not now in 
existence. Section second seemed only to provide in 
relation to those already in being. They are prohibi 
ted from doing certain things; but their successors, here- 
alter to be born or established, are, it seems, so far as 
the provisions of this report are concerned, to be left 
to do as they please. 

Mr. MANON said the object of his amendment was 
to make the thing plain, so that it might be understood 
by every one. Perhaps he had not succeeded. If gen¬ 
tlemen thought a better plan could be hit upon, he 
would withdraw his amendment. 

Mr. MANON, on leave, withdrew his amendment. 

Mr. MITCHELL then moved to amend the fifth line 
of the third section by inserting between the woids 
“ issue ” and “jiaper,” the words “circulate, pass, pay 
out, or receive any.” 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Mitchell, the same was agreed to. 

The question then being on the engros.sment of the 
report, 

Mr. KIRKWOOD inquired if the decision of the Con¬ 
vention in the negative, on the question of engross¬ 
ment, would cut off any further amendment. 

The PRESIDENT. Such a vote would be a final 
disptisition of the bill. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. What, then, w’ould be done ? 

Mr. DORSEY. The report would have been voted 
down and finished, and that would be an end of the 
matter. 

The PRESIDENT. It would be an end to the mat¬ 
ter under this report. 

Mr. DORSEY. There might be a new proposition 

The PRESIDENT. There may be a new bill intro¬ 
duced. When a bill is lost upon its engrossment, ii 
can only be revived upon a motion to reconsider the 
vote. 

Mr. CLARK moved to further amend the report by 
adding at the end of section tw’o the following: 

And after the adoption of tliis conetitulion, the lank notes or 
paper ot the banks of other States, intended to circulate as mon¬ 
ey, shall not be paid out or circulated in this State, and any paper 
60 paid out shall be void, and shall not extinguish any liability 
whatever, nor be jjayment lor any property or thing, nor shall 
any action he brought upon any contract, where such paper shall 
form any part of its consideration, and it shall be the duty of the 
Legislature to pass any law that may be necessary to aid in car¬ 
rying out this section. 

The question being on the amendment, 

Mr. NASH inquired if it would not be well to amend 
by inserting a penitentiary clause. 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays. 

Mr. REEMEldN said he hoped the gentleman from 
Monroe would vote, as he w’as present, though not in 
his seat just now. 

The PRESIDENT. It is the duty of every member 
to vote when he is present. 

The yeas and nays being ordered, resulted—yeas 62, 
nays 32—as follows: 

Yeas—M essrs- Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 


Preble, Bates, Blickrnsderler, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of 
Ilocking, Clark, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, (lillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins, IJ( nderson. Holmes,Holt, Hootman, ilumphn ville, Hunt, 
Joiie.«, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, I-cndbetU’r, Loudon, Manon, 
Mitchell, McCormick, Nath, Norris. Otis, I’atteison, Reemelin, 
Piddle, Ro'l, Scott of Ifari iscn, Scett of Auglaize, tellers, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, b'tebhins, Stickney, Stid- 
ger, .Struble, Swan, Swift, Thomjison of Shelby, 'I'liompson of 
Stark, Townshend, Warren, Williams, Wilson and Woodbury— 
C2. 

Navs —Messrs. Blair, Brown of Athens, Case of Licking, Cham¬ 
bers, Chaney, Curry, Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Green of Ross, 
Gregg, Hamilton, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, 
Keniion, l.arsh, Lidey, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Orton, Peck, 
Quigley, Ranney, Sawyer, Smith of Waircn, Staubery, Stilwell. 
Worthington and President—32. 

So the fimeiidmeut was agreed to. 

Mr. REEMELIN said he saw the geiitlemau from 
Monroe was now in his seat. He there lore moved that 
he have leave to record his vote. [Laughter.] 

The PRESIDENT said he had no power to compel 
gentlemen to vote. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved to further amend the report 
by adding as an additional section, the following: 

Sec. 4. That at the same time w hen the votes of the electors 
shall be takrn upon the adoption of this constitution, there shall 
be separately submitted to them the question of banking, in the 
rrjanner following : 

A separate ballot may be given by every person having a right 
to vote upon ihe adoption of this constiiution, to be deposited 
iu a separate ballot box, upon which shall be endorsed the words 
“ Banks ” or “ No Banks,” and if a majority of the ' otes thus cast 
and endorsed, shall contain the words “No Banks,” then and in 
that event, the preceding sections shall become a part of the con¬ 
stitution. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Hawkins, 

Mr. HAWKINS said it was stated by metnbers of 
tlie committee that it bad been tlieir intention to so 
provide as to exclude all paper mouc y from ciiculation, 
whether foreign or domestic. He supposed that the 
report, as now amended, would meet the a[)probation 
of gentlemen, as it presents the ijncstion plainly and 
faiily. He desired now that the question should be 
submitted to the people, and liave it settled iuthe con¬ 
stitution. It had been stated by one gentleman that 
he looked upon all bank jiaper as merely counterfeit, 
and in contiavcnlion of the eoneiiiution of the United 
States. Hehoi)ed, if such should jirove to be the case, 
that provision would be made for the punishment of 
those engaged in the business. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr, 
Hawkins, 

Mr. HENDERSON moved to amend the amendment 
by inserting after the word “banks” the words “of 
issue.” 

Mr. H. said he was opposed to the amendment of 
the gentleman fiom Moigan, as it stood, because it fails 
to place the real question in issue before the people. 
The true issue is, shall there be a currency composed 
exclusively of the juecious metals, or shall there not. 
That is the issue, and nothing more nor less. Now if 
I understand the position ol the Democratic party, it 
is not that of an exlerminaiing war ujion all and every 
species of banking dnstilulions. They have, as I un¬ 
derstand, no objection to banks of discount, of deposit, 
or of exchange. It is solely against the issue feature 
that they contend. They look upon that function 
which empowers banks to issue their own notes to cir¬ 
culate as money, as the nuisance wlwch they desire 
should be abated. It will he remembered that yes¬ 
terday I was opposed to submitting this question to the 
people, upon the proposition of the gentleman from 
Licking, [Mr. Cask] to vote “ hard money sections ” 
and “ no hard money sections,” because I tnought the 
exjirossions harsh, and involved a misnomer of absurdi¬ 
ty. I object also, to this: first, because it is indefinite ; 
and secondly, because it does not j)reseut the true issue. 

I desire that the public mind may not be misled, and 
do not want the peojde to be told that the issue before 
them is bank destruction on the one hand, and the crea¬ 
tion of banks on the other. I trust that gentlemen of 
the Democratic party will do justice to the wishes of 


















CONVENTION REPOItTS._1055 


their friends, and present the question in the manner 
in which it was presented, at the election last I’all. It 
it is so presented fairly and honestly, without fraudu¬ 
lent pretences and false issues, it will, 1 conceive, be 
met successfully and triumphantly, as it was last fall 
In the part of the State which I represent. I believe 
the public mind is now underfioing a ra])id change, and 
the day is not far distant, w hen the demands of the 
people, if they are not answered, will be made in such 
a tone and manner that they wdll be heard, and will 
command a proper response. 

They will demand to have secured to them a cur¬ 
rency composed solely of the precious metals; and 
they will not only demand it, but they will see that 
their demands are answered. For them now to secure 
such a currency, they have but to w ill it. At present, 
all I desire is that the question may be presented to 
them fully and lairly, and when it is^so done, what¬ 
ever may be the result, I am ready to abide the issue. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD concurred with the gentleman 
from Richland, [Mr. Hkmderson,] that the question 
should be so presented as to bo intelligible to every 
voter in the State. He thought that was done by the 
amendment of the gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. Haw¬ 
kins.] If the mode had been adopted which provided 
that ill case the people voted one way, certain sections 
should go into the constitution, otherwise not—that 
would he well enough, only that the tickets would be 
lumbered by the large amount put upon them. This 
was a serious matter, in a State of three or four hun¬ 
dred thousand votes. He thought the issue could not 
be mistaken, and that the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man trom Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] stated it with suf¬ 
ficient certainty. 

Mr. RANNEY did not see how such a proposition 
could be in order. He submitted that the amendment 
of the gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] did 
not in the least vary the question submitted in the re¬ 
port ; and that, however proper it might be in itself, 
this report was not the place for it. The proper place 
for it is in the schedule attached to the constitution, 
which provides the manner in which it is to be voted 
on by the people. It relates solely to the mode of vo¬ 
ting, and not in the least degree lo the provisions of 
the report. 

Mr. MITCHELL would suggest to the gentleman 
from Richland, [Mr. Henderson,] to alter his amend¬ 
ment a little. He would prefer the words “paper 
money or no paper money,” to that of “ hanks of issue 
or no banks of issue.” 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, had no great objection to the 
amendment proposed by the gentleman from Knox, 
[Mr. Mitchell.] He wished the question to he freely 
placed before the people. He thought it might be 
done by the words, “ exclusive metallic currency— 
yes—exclusive metallic currency—no.” He was op¬ 
posed to the employment of the word banks. It was 
full of traps and delusions that he wanted to steer 
clear of. He should vole against the proposition of 
the gentleman from .Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] because 
he preferred that of the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. 
Mitchell.] 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said it was a mere quytion 
of form. There was no substance in it. What is tlie 
qustion to he submitted to the peojde ? Merely this : 
tShail a hard money arilci tgo into the constitution or 
not ? He saw no form of words that would so fully 
express the real question, as that proposed by the 
gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Case,] of “hard money 
section—yes; hard money section—no.” But which¬ 
ever way it may he stated, the people should vote uu- 
derstandingly upon it. 

Suppose we put the question—" banks of issue— 
yes; banks of issue—no.” A question might arise, 
what are hanks of issue? No two gentlemen will agree 
in wlmt consists a hank of issue. One will say, it 
means the hank which first puts the paper money in 
circulation; another, that any bank that receives andj 


pays out notes for circulation is a hank of issue. The 
true question is, will we have these sections in the con¬ 
stitution or not ? 

Mr. STANBERY agreed with the gentleman from 
Medina, [Mr. Humphreville,] that the question was a 
very delusive one. If the question is to be submitted 
to the people, he wanted it to be done in such form 
that the people shall understand it, and know what 
they are voting for. There will undoubtedly be many 
men who will vote upon this constitution, who have 
never read it—and who cannot read it. We all know 
the noise and confusion that attend popular elections, 
and how easy on such occasions it is, to prevent igno¬ 
rant persons from apprehending the true question upon 
which they are to give their votes. The vote should 
fully express the question to be settled—"for exclusive 
hard money currency—yes; for exclusive hard money 
currency—no.” It is easy to imagine that a question 
may arise, as to what is a hank of issue—whether it is 
such an one as puts in circulation its own notes, or 
whether it is one that pays out the notes of other initi- 
tutious. For instance, the Ohio Life and Trust Com¬ 
pany. It issues no notes of its own, hut pays out those 
of other banks. The amendment of the gentleman 
from Richland, [Mr. Henderson,] does not come up to 
the question. 

He had a word to say in regard to the remarks made 
by the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] 
yesterday. Whoever heard such a libel upon the gov¬ 
ernment of the United States as had fallen from the 
lips of that gentleman ? Here, for more than fifty yeare 
past, every State in the Union, and every legislative 
body, has been doing—what ? Providing for the wants 
of liie people, by putting within their reach a currency 
made by themselves, adapted to their use, and neces¬ 
sary to their wants; and during all this time, what have 
they been doing ? Why, they have, according to the 
gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] been pass¬ 
ing laws that are equivalent to counterfeit laws. Not 
only we, in Ohio, but all the other States, have been 
enacting statutes to legalize fraud, to establish a coum 
terfeit currency, to be emitted wherever there is a hank 
or a banker behind the counter. 

Mr. MITCHELL rose to a question of order. He 
wanted to know what this had to do with the question 
under debate. 

Mr. STANBERY. I am opposing the amendment of 
the gentleman from Richland, [Mr. Henderson,] 

Mr. PRESIDENT. The question is on the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Richland. 

Mr. STANBERY. Isay that amendment does not 
present the true position; and that proposition lam 
arguing. 

The gentleman took us to Europe, and displayed be ¬ 
fore us, the benefits of this and that government, and 
the examples they had set for our imitation. Does not 
he know, that what may suit the little cantons on the 
Rhine, may not suit us? Does he not know that we 
are a people of far loo much energy, to be satisfied with 
a currency composed of the rix dollar? 

The PRESIDENT called the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin to Older. He thought the debate to be taking too 
much latitude. 

Mr. REEMELIN desired the opportunity to set the 
gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] right. He 
holds out the idea, that I have cited the governments 
ot Europe, as examples for our imitation. The very 
reverse is the case. I said the example of Germany 
had operated upon the minds of this government, to 
induce them to guard against the evils there prevalent. 
Such an appeal to the passions and prejudices of men, 
is unworthy of a member of this Convention. 

Mr. STANBERY. I have no objection to the gen¬ 
tleman coming here. I welcome all foreigners lo a 
home among us. What I find fault with, is, that he 
denounces our laws, and says that the legislation of the 
country is tantamount to authorizing a system of coun 
terfeiiing. 


















1066 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. HENDERSON said his only object was to pre¬ 
sent the question of currency fairly before the people, 
and he thought the amendment he had offered, did so, 
as fully as it could be done by any form of words that 
had been suggested. There could be no difliculty with 
the people, in understanding the term “ banks of is 
sue.” It means those who issue a currency for the 
purpose of a circulating medium, and my amendment 
proposes to deprive them of this function only. He 
could not vote for the naked proposition of the gentle¬ 
man from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins.] It would leave 
the matter open to tho wddest abuse. During the re¬ 
cent campaign, the part of the State which he repre¬ 
sented, had been Hooded with pamphlets, declaring 
that the issue before the people, was the question of 
banks or no banks; and that they^ were told, that if 
the Democratic party should succeed, all the hanks of 
the State would be prostrated. He hpd taken issue 
upon this charge, and liad denied it. A gentleman had 
undertaken to remind me that I had been inattentive to 
the proceedings of this Convention, during its summer 
session, or that I had a design to mislead, by my rep¬ 
resentations upon this subject. That is not the case. 
I have been neither inattentive, nor have I any de¬ 
sign to mislead; and my purpose now is, to set myself 
light, and I say to my friends, that if ihey do not sus¬ 
tain this amendment, they will lay themselves open to 
the same fire they experienced last fall; and I say, 
that it is absolutely necessary, if this matter is again to 
go before the people to be voted upon, that it should 
be met fairly, discussed fully, and defined truthfully. 

Mr. MANON would vote against the amendment, for 
the reason that it did not place the question fairly be¬ 
fore the people. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD disagreed with the gentleman from 
Richland, [Mr. Henderson] and the gentleman from 
Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery.] He did not see the least 
difficulty in the amendment of the gentleman from 
Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins.] He did not know what 
company the gentleman from Franklin keeps, but he 
believed the people would take care to understand the 
constitution before they vote upon it. All that would 
be necessary, would be to put the tickets in a conve¬ 
nient shape, and that could be done under the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins.] 

In regard to the proposed amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Richland, [Mr. Henderson,] he saw no rea¬ 
son for it. The committee who reported the bill, had 
made no distinction betw'een banks of issue, and other 
banks. Nothing but banks of issue, had been spoken 
of. Why not say, the Legislature shall prohibit banks 
of issue f He thought the amendment calculated to 
mislead. 

Mr. NASH. If the object of the report is to allow 
the Legislature to create banks that are not banks of 
issue, the amendment of the gentleman from Richland 
[Mr. Henderson,] is right; but if the intention is to 
prohibit the creation of all banks, it is a misnonier. The 
words of the report contain an absolute prohibition of 
any bank whatever. It further prohibits the Legisla¬ 
ture from authorizing the making, emission or putting 
into circulation, of any bill of credit, bond, check, tick¬ 
et, certificate, promissory note, or other paper medium, 
intended or calculated to circulate as money or curren¬ 
cy. The question then is settled to be “bank or no 
bank,” and not banks of issue or no banks of issue,” 
and to place the question before the people in any 
other form, is a deception. 

But this is not all. The third section contains a neg¬ 
ative pregnant, to correspond with the affirmation of 
the first. The business of dealing in money, is left 
here to all. That money is gold and silver, and noth¬ 
ing else, because all bank circulation,both foreign and 
domestic, is absolutely prohibited, and the peoj>le, un¬ 
der this constitution, are to have pure and unadultera¬ 
ted hard money and nothing else. The true proposi¬ 
tion then is, “bank or no bank,” or “hard money or no 
hard money ”—an exclusive metallic currency, without 


any provision for credits, or mercantile or commercial 
facilities whatsoever. 

Mr. HAWKjNS thought the proposition of the gen¬ 
tleman from Richland, calculated to embarass, rather 
than make it more clear. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Henderson, 

Mr, HENDERSON demanded the yeas and nays; 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 44, nays 50— 
as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Ewing, Forbes, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, 
King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Lead better, Lidey, Loudon, 
Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reeinelin, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wy¬ 
andot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Wilson 
and President—44. 

Navs —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, | 
Barnett ot Preble, fiates, Biickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case ol Licking, Chambers, Collings, .| 
Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Florence, Gi'lett, Graham, Gray, Greene i 
of Defiance, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, i 
Ilitchcock ot Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, | 
Kennon, Larsh, Manon, Moreliead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, 
Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stdwell, Swift, Warren, Woodbury 
and Worthington—50. i 

So the amendment was disagreed to. j 

Mr. McCORMlCK said, that he supposed ho might j 
now, as well as at any other time, submit a few re- | 
marks which, in justice to himself he felt called upon j 
to make, upon the proposition now under consideration, t 
as well as to point out the unfair position in which he | 
was placed in regard to its provisions. If he should ( 
vote against it, it would be said that he was opposed j 
to submitting to the people whether they should j 
have banks or not. On the contrary, if he should vote 3 
for it, he would be understood as having committed li 

himself in favor of this particular mode ol placing the ^ 

question before the people. He was not at present 1 

disposed to say whether he would submit the question j 

to the people separately. He much preferred such a ( 

clause, which would accord with his own views, as al- I 

so the opinions of his constituents, and make such a ( 

clause a part of the constitution, determinable on the ) 

single vote given for the instrument as a whole. 

If the Convention shall be pleased to adopt the first i 
section of the report of the standing committee, he > 
thought this object would be accomplished, and the * 
Convention have done all that prudence, policy, or n 
propriety required at their hands. 

That section denies to the Assembly the power to in- H 
corporate any bank. The efiect of this is twofold; 
first separating entirely the government of the State || 

from connexion with the bank paper or currency of the ) 

Slate, and thereby avoid the question of what is or I 

what is not a bill of credit within the meaning of the | 

constitution. Second, it will leave the subject of com- j 

mercial paper precisely where it should be left, to pri- j 

vate enterprize and private credit. 

He believed the present banks afforded sufficient fa¬ 
cilities, or had the power to do so, and if they failed it 
was wrong in them; and would afford those facilities as 
as long as popular opinion required or would demand 
them. The changes taking place in the commercial 
world and in public opinion, in relation to banks of is¬ 
sue, were great, and the great influx of precious met¬ 
als would seem to demand that issues should at least i 
be restricted to bills of the larger denominations. 
Should, however, this opinion prove incorrect at the 
expiration ot the charters of these banks, it would be I 
corrected by the legitimate action of the capitalists of I 
the Stale. 

The second section proposes the destruction of the | 
present banking system. Now he felt himself instruc- i 
ted by his constituents to let that system alone, and he ^ 

could not in justice to them do otherwise than vote ; 

against that section. A large majority of them are what j 
are called soft money men. They adhered to what 
A’ere called the West Union resolutions of 1842, and I 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1057 


he felt bound to respect and to vote those opinions, 
though they differed from his own. 

In regard to the third section, he would say that he did 
not wish to subject himself to such rules m legard to 
traffic in money as he would not submit to in reference 
to any other article. Money in his opinion was an ar¬ 
ticle of trade as much as wheat, flour or pork, and the 
restriction in one case was just as obnoxious as in 
another; and he looked upon those laws which said 
that men should sell the use of their money at six or 
ten or any other rate per cent, as wrong in principle. 

He was not willing to sustain the last clause of the 
section, because he did not desire to be restricted in his 
right to deal in paper money or anything else. So long 
as the State shall issue paper, and Congress shall au¬ 
thorize its issue, it is a legitimate subject of trade, and 
men have as good right to deal in it as in calicoes, 
cloths or anything else; and he would not restrict him¬ 
self in the privilege to buy and sell money or exchange 
any more thf^n to buy and sell any other subject of reg¬ 
ular trade or ^commerce. 

He should, therefore, vote against the amendment of 
the gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] because 
he did not believe the people desired the question re¬ 
ferred to them in the shape proposed. If any question 
is to be submitted to them, let it be upon some system 
for banks, which when adopted may be practical in its 
operation. If the people want incorporated banks, let 
them so declare by their votes. 

Mr. RANNEY said the amendment of the gentleman 
from Morgan [Mr. Hawkins] was calculated to place 
some in a false position. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The design is to allow gentlemen 
to show by their votes that they are in favor of sub¬ 
mitting the question to the people—nothing else. 

Mr. RANNEY- But you call upon us to vote to sub¬ 
mit a question to the people, before you define what 
that question shall be. Let us say first what shall go 
into the instrument, and then settle how it is to be vo¬ 
ted on by the people. He w^as willing that every part 
of the constitution should be voted on, but he wanted 
to know precisely what it was to be acted upon by a 
separate vote ; and then he wanted the provision to do 
so, put in the right place. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE was at a loss to know pre¬ 
cisely what the gentleman from Trumbull wanted. 

Mr. RANNEY wanted to settle the provisions to be 
submitted in advance of providing how it was to be 
done. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE thought the two propositions 
could not safely be separated. Pie would vote for the 
report, jirovided it was logo separately to the people— 
otherwise, not. Others were in the same condition. 
We may be trapjied in this way, and after carrying the 
report we may be defeated upon the other branch of 
the proposition. He did not care how hard a constitu¬ 
tion we had, if the people only said so. He thought 
the two (|uestion8 should go together. 

Mr. LARWILL inquired if the gentleman would de¬ 
vise a svstem of banks to go into the constitution ? 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said he had no intention to 
■devise such a system. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to amend the amendment 
of Mr. Case, of Licking, by inserting in the fifth line, 
after the word sections,” the words “ as they now are 
or may be amended by this Convention.” 

The question being on the amendment, the same was 
disagreed to, on division—yeas 42, nays 43. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to amend the amendment 
of Mr. Hawkins, by adding at the end, as follows; 

But if a majority of the ballots thus cast, shall be 
endorsed “ banks,” then the following sections shall be 
part of this constitution : 

Sec 1. Special charters for banking purposes shall never be 
passed by th«; t-eneral Assembly, but general laws may be enact 
ed under which banking companies may be formed, but all such 
laws, shall at all times be subject to alteration, amendment and 
repe^, and f uch alteration, amendment, or repeal sball allect as 

67 


well all companies then existing under such general laws, as 
those hereafter formed, thereunder. 

Sec. 2. The capital stock of any such company, shall never 

exceed-- dollars, nor shall its corporate existence extend 

beyond the period of-years. 

Sec. .I. No law shall ever be passed, authorizing the emission 
or circulation of paper credit of any description whatever, in¬ 
tended or calculated to circulate as money, of a denomination as 
low as the highest denomination of coin emitted by the govern¬ 
ment of the United States. 

Sec. 4. All payments made in paper credits of any description 
whatever, intended or calculated to circulate as money, of de¬ 
nominations of less thsn herein authorized, whether issued in 
this State or elsewhere, shall be void, and the General Assembly 
shall pass such further laws as may be found necessary to pre¬ 
vent the circulation of paper credits herein prohibited. 

Sec. 5. The members of such banking companies, shall be 
liable for all debts of such companies, in the same manner as 
members of general partnerships are liable for the debts of such 
partnerships. 

Sec. 6. A suspension of specie payments by any company, 
shall in all cases operate as a forfeiture of all the privileges of 
such company. 

Pending which, on motion of Mr. RANNEY, the 
Convention took a recess. 


3 o'clock p. m. 

The question pending being on agreeing to Mr. Kirk¬ 
wood’s amendment, 

Mr. HOLT moved that the report and pending 
amendments be laid on the table; which was agreed 
to. 

Mr. HOLT asked and obtained leave to be excused 
from serving as a member of the select committee on 
the Judiciary, under the resolutions of Mr. Perkins. 

The PRESIDENT announced Mr. Riddle to fill the 
vacancyiii said committee. 

Oil motion, the Convention took up the report of the 
committee on Banking and Currency, with the pend¬ 
ing amendments. 

The question pending being on agreeing to the 
amendment of Mr. Kirkwood ; 

Mr. KIRKWOOD desired to explain the position of 
tlie question, prior to the offering of his amendment, 
and the efl'ect of his amendment thereon. The report 
of the committee on Banks and the Currency has been 
considered and amended, and the vote being about to 
be taken on its final passage, the gentleman from 
Morgan moves a section, submitting that report to a 
separate vote of the people, providing that if a ma¬ 
jority of the people should aiiprove the report, it 
should become a part of the constitution, but making 
no provision for the insertion of anything in the consti¬ 
tution on the subject of the currency, in case the re¬ 
port of the committee should not be approved by the 
people. I have offered my amendment to remedy this 
defect, and to provide certain restrictions on the pow¬ 
er of the General Assembly over the subject of bank¬ 
ing hereafter, in case the people shall decide that they 
will have banks. I would prefer taking a direct vote 
on the report of the committee, without either the 
amendment of the gentleman from Morgan, or my 
own; but as the gentleman from Morgan presses his 
amendment, and as I see around me indications that 
his amendment will be adopted, I desire to amend bis 
amendment, by the addition of what I propose. 

But if a majority of the ballots thus cast, shall be 
endorsed ‘‘ banks,” then the following sections shall bo 
part of this constitution:' 

Sec. 1. Special charters for banking purposes, shall never be 
passed by the General Assembly, but general laws may be enact¬ 
ed under which banking companies may be formed, but all such 
laws shall at all times be subject to alteration, amendment and 
repeal, and such alteration, amendment or repeal, shall effect as 
well all companies then existing, under such general laws, as 
those hereafter formed thereunder. 

Sec. 2. The capital stock of any such company, shall never ex¬ 
ceed --dollars, nor shall its corporate existence extend be¬ 
yond the period of-years. 

Sec. 3. No laws sball ever be passed, authorizing the emission 
or circulation of paper credit of any description whatever, inten¬ 
ded or calculated to circulate as money, of a denomination as low 
as the highest denomination of coin emitted by the Government 
of the United States. 

Sec. 4. All payment made in paper credits of any description 
whatever, intended or calculated to circulate as money, of do- 













1068 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


nominations of less than herein authorized, whether issued in 
this State or elsewhere, shall be void, and the General Assembly 
shall pass such further laws as may be found necessary to pre¬ 
vent the circulation of paper credits herein prohibited. 

Sec. 5. The members of such banking companies shall be lia¬ 
ble for all debts of such companies, in the same manner as mem¬ 
bers of general partnerships are liable for the debts of such part- 
nership^i. 

Sec. 6. A suspension of specie payments by any company shall 
in all cases operate as a forfeiture of ail the privileges of such 
company. 

I shall now take up the clihereiit sections wliicn I 
have proposed, and reading them over again, I shall 
briefly, and clearly as I can, explain their design and 
eflect, for I desire gentlemen upon both sides of the 
chamber to understand these sections. And after I 
shall have spoken of what is recpiired in these sec¬ 
tions, I shall make some general remarks, by way of 
application. 

The first section is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Special charters for banking purposes, shall never be 
passed by the General Assembly, but general laws may be enacted, 
under which banking confpanies may be formed, but all such laws 
shall at all times be subject to alteration, amendment and repeal, 
and such alteration, amendment, or repeal shall affect as well all 
companies then existing, under such general laws, as those here- 
after formed thereunder. 

The intention of thi.^section is, andits effect will be, 
to prevent the General Assembly from passing any spe¬ 
cial charters for banking incorporations: so that all 
such incorporations will have to grow up under gene¬ 
ral laws ; and it will place this new princple in such 
general laws: namely: they may be amended so that the 
amendment shall affect every incorporation—whether 
its existence commenced before or after the date of the 
passage of such amendment. 

Here is the second section : 

Sec. 2. The capital stock of any such company, shall never ex¬ 
ceed -dollars, nor shall its corporate existence extend be¬ 
yond the period of-years. 

I have copied this section substantially from the mi¬ 
nority report of the gentleman iiom Warren, [Mr. 
AVilliams,] and therefore I do not pretend to under¬ 
stand fully what i.s intended to be effected by it. The 
first clause is probably designed to prevent the General 
Assembly from chartering any large and grasping in¬ 
corporation, which might overshadow and destroy eve¬ 
ry other company within reach of its influence. The 
intention of the second clause of the section, is to pre¬ 
vent the enactment of a law authorizing charters to run 
for a long period of time. 

The third section is: 

Sec. 3. No law shall ever be passed, authorizing the emission 
or circulation of paper credit of any description whatever, in 
tended, or calculated to circulate as money, ot a denomination as 
low as the highest denomination of coin emitted by the Govern¬ 
ment of the United States. 

The intention of this section is, and its effect would 
be, to prevent the putting into circulation, in this State, 
any paper money of such denomination as would come 
into competition with any of the authorized coin of the 
United States; so that we would not have any paper 
money in circulation as small as the denomination of 
$20. And then, upon the happening of a bank crisis 
iu the country, the loss would fall upon that portion of 
the community, for whose benefit the banks are espe¬ 
cially created—I mean the merchants and the traders. 
It is known that, under the present system of small 
bill circulation, in the event of a depreciation, or a bank 
failure, a large amount of the loss must fall upon the 
working classes; because they are compelled, if not 
by law, at least by the force of circumstances, to re¬ 
ceive paper money for their wages. A large portion 
of all the small bills in circulation are always in such 
hands; and they cannot hold on to them for years, un¬ 
til the bank will be able to buy them in at par, if it 
should ever be able so to do; but they are obliged to 
sell out to speculators at a discount. This preventing 
paper money from coming into competition with coin, 
would inevitably infuse into the circulation a large 
amount of metal, and guar^ the working classes from 
the losses they have hereiofore sustained- 


The fourth section is as follows: 

Sec. 4. All payments made in paper credits, of any descrip¬ 
tion whatever, intended or calculated to circulate as money, of 
denominations of less than herein authorized, whether issued in 
this State or elsewhere, shall be void, and the General Assembly 
shall pass such further laws as may be found necessary to pre¬ 
vent the circulation of iiaper credits herein prohibited. 

The intention of ihis provision is, uad i believe its 
effect would be, to prevent the circulation in this State 
of paper money of other States, of a denomination as 
small as the value of the largest coin of the United 
States. It would prevent all paper money, whether 
issued in this or any other State, from coming into 
competition with our coin, anywhere within our bor¬ 
ders. Gentlemen tell us that we cauuot prevent the 
circulation of small notes. They say we have tried it 
by penal statutes, and failed. That is true. But here 
IS the remedy which I propose. Let us take such a 
case as this : Suppose I am indebted to the gentleman 
from Guernsey to the amount of a hundred dollars; 
and I pay to him that amount of unauthorized bank 
paper. According to the terms of this provision, I have 
made no more payment to him than though I had paid 
him nothing, or had given him mere counterfeit money. 
Now, with this for a law of the land, does any gentle¬ 
man suppose that unauthorized paper would circulate 
as money? I say it would not. It strikes immediate¬ 
ly at the confidence in the circulating medium, which 
is the basis of the whole thing. 

I read now the fifth section. 

Sec 5. The members of such banking companies shall be lia¬ 
ble for all debts of such companies, in the same manner as mem¬ 
bers of general partnership are liable tor the debts of such part¬ 
nerships. 

VA^e have been often told by our Whig friends that 
individual liability was all a humbug. The Democrats 
of our State at one time contended for this doctrine 
very strenuously; and the AA^higs told them so earnest¬ 
ly and repeatedly, that it was ail a humbug, that I fear 
some of them have come really to believe that it is so. 

I do not say so positively ; but I fear that it is the case. 
The difficulty which I have always had upon the sub¬ 
ject ot individual liability has been as to the mode of its 
application. But suppose you make this liability the 
same with that of an ordinary partnership. If the 
liability were of this nature you could take the notes of 
the bank of AV'^ooster, or of Sandusky, or of Norwalk, 
and going before a justice of the jieace, you could 
bring your suit agaiust any of the stockholders of these 
banks and make him pay, just as you can compel the 
payment of an individual note. If you will give me 
that kind of liability on the part of the stockholders 
of these banks, I will engage that their notes would 
be quoted at par to-morrow; because the stockhold¬ 
ers are worth the whole of them, and a great deal 
more. 

The sixth section reads as follows : 

Sec. 6. A suspension of specie payment of any company shall 
in all cases operate as a forfeiture of all the privileges of such 
company. 

The intention of this section is to declare that if any 
bank shall so far deviate from the right—so far violate 
the first principle of its existence as to refuse to pay on 
demand specie upou their notes, they shall at once 
cease to exist as a corporarion. 

Now, Mr. President, these are the sections which 
I offer as an amendment to the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Morgan [Mr. Hawkins.] 

I do not pretend to say that these sections include 
all the restrictions that are necessary. Doubtless there 
are others which should be adopted. But I think I 
may say this ol them, that there is not a single one of 
these propositions which has not received the sanction 
of at least the democratic portion of the people of Ohio; 
and I believe I may say that they have received the 
sanction of a large majority of the people of Ohio, both 
whigs and democrats. 

I now propose to make a few remarks, by way of 
application, and I claim the privilege of speaking frhe- 
ly. 1 am in the habit of speaking what I think ; and 



















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1059 


what I ehai] say now will be what I have thought upon 
this question. 

^ There are several classes of members upon this floor, 
entertaining diverse views and opinions upon this sub¬ 
ject. Upon the opposite side of the chamber there is a 
lar.?e number who do not desire to have anythin? at 
all said about the currency in the new constitution. 
They would prefer to leave the subject as it stands in 
the old constitution. Upon this side of the chamber 
there are a largo number who desire to put into the 
new constitution aprovi.sion prohibiting the circulation 
of paper money in the State of Ohio; and of that num¬ 
ber I am one. I desire that. It is my opinion that it 
would result in the advancement of the best interests 
of the State, so to do. This opinion of mine is well 
knowm amongst the people whom 1 represent. It was 
frankly avowed over my own signature, before I was 
elected to come here. About that matter there is no 
dilference of opinion between myself and a majority of 
the people whom I represent, so far as I can judge— 
having placed myself upon that issue. 

But there is another division of delegates upon this 
side, who desire to submit to the people the question 
whether they shall have banks or not. And yet there 
is a fourth division of members, composed, perhaps, 
of fragments from the other three divisions, who, in the 
event of a submission of the question, and a decision of 
the people in favor of paper money, desire that the 
constitution shall contain a provision to prevent the 
Legislature from abusing the authority which they have 
heretofore exercised in the granting of bank charters. 
And when we come to this point I apprehend we shall 
find gentlemen on the other side who desire nothing 
said on this subject in the constitution, and gentlemen 
on this, who claim to be the " hardest of the hard,” 
acting together in defeating such wholesome restric¬ 
tions—of course gentlemen on the other side will so 
act, and I fear some gentlemen on this side will so act. 
For they tell us if they cannot get what they want they 
not have anything. 

I do not pi’opose to discuss this question [^with*; the 
gentleman upon the other side of the chamber,^but it is 
to those gentlemen upon this side, who say that if they 
cannot get identically what they want, they will not 
have anything, that I propose to address myself. I 
shall, for the present, give over my friends upon the 
other side “ to hardness of heart and reprobacy of con¬ 
science.” 

Mr. HARLAN (in his seat.) The prospect is about 
as dull on one side as on the other. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I will accord to every man, up¬ 
on every side, the widest latitude of opinion; I ask the 
same on my own part; and I will have it. At any rate, 
I will express and vote my own opinions ; and I would 
rather escape censure and controversy here for so do¬ 
ing. if I could—not because I am afraid of it, but be¬ 
cause it is unpleasant. 

If the majority of those on this side of the chamber, 
cannot get exactly what they want, what is the next 
best thing for them to do ? It has been told me in pri¬ 
vate conversation, that we had better do nothing; that 
California was bringing in gold enough, so that, five or 
ten years hence, under the new mode of amending the 
constitution which we are likely to adopt, we can get 
just exactly what we want. Therefore, it is best not 
to bind down the people to this plan. Well, if we did 
bind down the people by this plan, there would be 
force in the argument, but we do not. The question 
of hard money can be submitted hereafter as well with, 
these sections as without them. I admit everything 
these gentlemen claim. I admit that the influx of gold 
would work a revolution in the public mind upon this 
subject; and that at the end of five or ten years we 
might take a vote against paper money, and carry it by 
an overwhelming majority—how could we be worse 
ofl'with these provisions in the constitution than with¬ 
out them ? 

Mr. KING, interrupting—(not heard.) 


What these gentlemen w^ant, is this. They want to 
leave this thing open, subject to all the abuses which 
have heretofore existed : and although we may suffer 
these abuses, five, or ten, or fifteen years longer, yet 
there is “a good time coming,” when all will be right. 
Verv vvi^ll ; I prav bnw soon that good time may 
but in the meanlirne, I want to save myself all I ean 
I would, in the mean time, restrict the powers of bank¬ 
ing ; and these gentlemen would not allow them to go 
on unrestricted. And here is just the difference be¬ 
tween us. 

Sir, what do the people want ? Our friends here 
say, they would have hard money. Well, I am agreed 
to, that. I am a hard money man : and I believe that 
if this question could be fairly brought before the peo- 
jde they would also vote for it. But we cannot get 
such a proposition through here. It is now well under¬ 
stood by every member of the Convention that no 
hard money proposition can be engrafted into this con¬ 
stitution: and we might just as well say it atone time 
as another. [Mr. Reemelin interrupting—not heard.] 
And knowing this, knowing that a hard money clause 
cannot be placed in the constitution, do these gentle¬ 
men desire the old system to go on ? Do they desire 
the Convention to adjourn, and say not a word about 
banking ? Will they throw the question back into 
the politics of the State, just where it has been for 
the last eight or ten years? Will they allow the Leg¬ 
islature to go on and charter bank after bank, with the 
existing license of the system, and do nothing, but 
wait for “ the good time coming,” and in the mean 
time permit the same system of outrage and wrong 
under which we have sufiered so much ? If this be 
their policy, it is not mine. I am willing to go as far 
as any of these gentlemen, to effect what we all believe 
to be the best thing, but if that thing cannot be effect¬ 
ed, I then desire to effect the next best thing, and this, 
I apprehend to be the dictate of plain common sense. 
Admitting to be correct all these gentlemen claim ; ad¬ 
mitting that within a few years, such a change will 
have taken place in public opinion in this State, as to 
render absolutely certain the attainment of a hard 
money currency, I have shown, and every gentleman 
must see, that the attainment of this desirable end is 
not in any manner endangered or delayed by the 
adoptions of the sections I have offered ; but let us 
for a moment suppose that it is possible for these gentle¬ 
men to be mistaken, that it is possible that they may 
not be infallible, that it is possible these gentlemen 
may be ignorant of the future, although they know 
so well everything past and present, and what then ? 
Why this—that these gentlemen are about to fasten 
upon the people of this state for an indefinite period of 
time, a system of plunder and robbery, against which 
they have been struggling for years—a system, that 
these gentlemen and myself consider corrupt and de¬ 
moralizing, and but little, if any better, than legalized 
swindling. And are gentleman so sure that they know 
precisely and exactly, not what now is or what has 
been, but what will be, that they are willing to run 
the i-isk ? Are they willing to stake this fearful re¬ 
sult upon their infallibility ? If they are, lam not. 
I have a very high opinion of the wisdom of these gen¬ 
tlemen, but they must excuse me, from placing impli¬ 
cit reliance upon their foreknowledge. 

Now, I affirm that the people expect and desire of us 
that we should do something with this question of the 
currency; although I can speak positively of those only 
whom I represent. But I can say to my Whig friends 
here, that I have not met with a single Whig in Rich¬ 
land county, amongst the rank and file of the party, but 
desired to have some constitutional restriction upon the 
power of the Legislature to grant charters hereafter; 
and, moreover, I have never found a single individual 
in favor of the present banking system of the State, 
nor in favor of leaving to the Legislature the unrestrict¬ 
ed exercise of the same power which they now have 
with reference to this matter. I have found some 








1060 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


Whigs in favor of submitting the question of banks or 
no banks to the people, and,in case of their decision in 
favor of banks, to fall back upon a new constitutional 
alternative. I have seen not so much as one man, of 
either party, but what was in favor of some constitu¬ 
tional action upon this question, either a total prohibi¬ 
tion of paper money or some restrictions upon the legis¬ 
lative power of creating it. 

Then, if we cannot obtain our preference, let us have 
the best practical thing that we can get. Although we 
may think that we can see “ a good day a-coming,” 
«till we ought to guard as well as we can the interests 
of the people until it shall come. 

I address myself to practical men upon all sides of 
this chamber. Seeing that their extreme notions can¬ 
not be adopted here, I ask them to come up and do 
what they can to remedy existing evils. I tell them 
that the people of the State ask this at their hands, and 
that they will not be put off with an abstraction. 

How would it look in me to go home and say to the 
people, your party had it in their power to save you 
iroto plunder, but they refused to do so, because they 
thought that some ten years hence, perhaps, they could 
do it more effectually ? 

Here is a plain, common-sense illustration of the prin¬ 
ciple : I have a field of grain with a poor fence around 
it, and my neighbor’s cattle are in the habit of breaking 
in and destroying my crop. My neighbor makes to 
me a suggestion that I had better repair my fence at 
once, by putting on an additional rail or two. But I 
reply, no; I shall wait until after harvest, and then I 
will make a good fence from the ground up. I wait, 
and my crop is destroyed. 

Mr.*MITOHELL, (interposing.) But,suppose your 
field to be a field of weeds 1 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. But that is not the case, at all. 
Because the pockets of the people, with the bad iuclo- 
sure, is the field, and I want to repair the fence imme¬ 
diately. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Does the gentleman say in his 
place, that the protection of the interests of banking, 
would be to the advantage of the pockets of the peo¬ 
ple? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Either the gentleman does not 
understand me, or does not want to understand me. I 
say, that the people are interested, not in the protec¬ 
tion of banks, but in preventing their plunderings and 
robberies. Our pockets are the crop; the banks the 
breachy cattle, and our present constitution the bad 
fence. I admit, that the best fence could be construct¬ 
ed, by removing the old one entirely. But seeing that 
we cannot now do that, I am in favor of putting on the 
additional rail now, and making the new fence as soon 
as I can. But then, gentlemen say, we will take our 
time, and make a good one, and in the mean time, the 
crop can take care of itself. 

The people want some practical good to result from 
our deliberations upon this subject. They know that 
it is in our power to bring about such a result, and 
they will hold us responsible, if we do it not. 

I was desirous this morning, of giving to every mem¬ 
ber of the Convention an opportunity of voting his sen¬ 
timents directly upon every proposition which has 
been submitted upon this subject. But the action of 
extremes on both sides of the chamber, prevented this 
from being done. 

I should vote against the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Morgan also; but with my amendment, I 
am willing to vote for it; because I am anxious to ef¬ 
fect some practical good. I am willing and ready to 
record my vote upon every proposition separately. I 
am willing, and would be glad to test the sense of the 
Convention in any way that a test can be had upon this 
subject; and then, at last, I shall be willing to take the 
best thing that can be obtained. But I shall record my 
vote and raise my voice against the adjournment of 
this Convention, without some attempt to protect the 
people of Ohio from the system of bank plunder, under 
which they have suffered so long and so grievously. 


Mr. MITCHELL moved to fill the blank in the 
amendment of Mr. Kirkwood, with the word “ten.” 

On which motion, Mr. MANON demanded the yeas 
and nays; which being ordered, resulted—yeas 10, 
nays 80—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Collings, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, 
Holmes, Hootman, Jones, King, Mitchell, McCloud and Thompson 
of Stark—10. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Baniett of Preble, Bates, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, 
Clark, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr. Florence, Forbes, 
Gillett, Gray, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Humphrevi'ile, Hunt, 
Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Morehead, Morris, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ran- 
ney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of 
Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan- 
bery, Stebbins, Stilwell,Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Warren, Williams, Wilson, 
Woodbury and President—80. 

So the motion to fill the blank with the word “ ten ” 
was disagreed to. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to fill the blank with the 
words “ one hundred thousand.” 

Mr. WOODBURY suggested “ five hundred thous¬ 
and.” 

The question then being on filling the blank witji the 
words “ five hundred thousand,” 

It was disagreed to. 

The question then being on filling the blank with the 
words “one hundred thousand,” 

Mr. MANON moved to fill the blank with the words 
“two hundred thousand.” 

On which motion, Mr. MANON demanded the yeas 
and nays, which being ordered, resulted—yeas 35, nays 
59—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Blick¬ 
ensderfer, Collings, Dorsey, Ewart, Forbes, Gillett. Hard, Har¬ 
lan, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, 
Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Manon, McCormick, Nash, 
Norris, Otis, Patterson, Smith of Highland, Smith of Wanen, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, Swan, Swift, Warren, Williams and 
Worthington—35. 

Nays— Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case ol Licking, Chambers, 
Chaney, Clark, Cook, Curry, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Gray, Greene 
of Defiance, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, King, Larwill 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris! 
McCloud, Orton, Peck, Quit-ley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle. Rolf 
Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stanbery 
Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby! 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Wilson, Woodbury and Presi¬ 
dent—59. 

So the motion lo fill the blank with the words “ one 
hundred thousand,” was disagreed to. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD moved to fill the blank with the 
words “four hundred thousand;” which was disa¬ 
greed to. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to fill the blank with the 
words “ three hundred thousand.” 

Mr. ARCH BOLD demanded the yeas and nays, 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 32, nays 59—as 
follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Blick¬ 
ensderfer, Collings, Dorsey, Ewart, Hard, Harlan, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood 
Larsh, Manon, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Reeme- 
lin. Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, 
Taylor, Warren, Williams and Worthington—3:2. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomerj’’, Bates, Blair, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carrhll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Cham- 
here, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Ham¬ 
ilton, Hawkins, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Hunter. Jones 
King, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidev, Loudon, Mitchell' 
Morehead, Morns, McCloud, Orton, Pe;k, Quigley, Ranr-ey’ 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, SeL 
lers, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Wilson’ 
Woodbury and President—59. ’ 

So the motion to fill the blank with the words “ three 
hundred thousand,” was disagreed to. 

Mr. MANON moved to fill the blank with the words 
“ two hundred and fifty thousand.” 

Mr. SAWYER moved the previous question. 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 1061 


The question then being: “ Shall the main question 
be now put?” 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 48, nays 45—as follows ; 

Yejis—M essrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Cook, 
Dorsey, Ewing, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Lidey, Loudon, 
Morris, McCormick, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Ranney, Reme- 
lin. Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stebbins, Struble, Swilt, Townshend, 
Wilson, Woodbury, and President—48. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll 
Case ot Licking, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, Florence, 
Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Horton, Hunter, 
Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larw’ill, Leadbetter, Ma- 
non, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Quigley, Smith 
of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Stickney,Stidger, Swan, 
Taylor, Thompson ot Shelby, Thompson ot Stark, Warren, Wil¬ 
liams and Worthington—45. 

So the call for the previous question was sustained. 
The question then being on Filling the blank with the 
words “ two hundred and fifty thousand,” 

Mr. MASON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 34, nays 60 —as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Blick- 
ensderter, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Gregg, Hard, 
Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcockof Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, 
Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Manon, McCormick, Norris, 
Otis, Patterson, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stilwell, 
Stidger, Swan, Swift, Warren, Williams and Worthington—34. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Clark, Curry, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene oi 
Defiance, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, King, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Moreheacl, Morris, McCloud, 
Nash, Orton, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, 
Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Taylor, Thompson of Shel¬ 
by, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Wilson, Woodbui-y and 
President—60. 

So the motion to fill the blank with words “ two 
hundred and fifty thousand,” was disagreed to. 

The question then being on filling the blank with the 
words “ one hundred thousand,” 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being o rdered, resulted—yeas 34, nays 60 —as follows: 

Yeas" —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Preble"BatesTCMark^Tiol- 
lings. Cook, Ewart, Gregg, Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holt, Humpreville, Hunt, Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood, 
Larwill, Leadbetter, Manon, McCormick, Norris, Otis, Patterson, 
Quigley, Sawyer, Smith of Warren, Stidger, Swan, Swift, Taylor, 
Warren, Williams and President—34. 

Nays —Alessrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Blair, Blick- 
ensdefer. Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case ol 
Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Curry, Dorsey, Ewing, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene ot Defiance, Green of Roes, Groes¬ 
beck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, 
Hunter, Jones, King, Larsh, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Orton, Peck, Ranney, Reeme¬ 
lin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stick¬ 
ney, Struble, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Town¬ 
shend, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—60. 

So the motion to fill the blank with the words “ one 
hundred thousand,” was disagreed to. 

The question then being on Mr. Kirkwood’s amend¬ 
ment. 

That gentleman demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being oidered, resulted—yeas 20, nays74—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Chaney, Clark, Forbes, Henderson, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphrevillt;, Hunt, Kennon, Kirkwood, Lead- 
better, Manon, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Swan, Swift 
and President—20. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Cur¬ 
ry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, Gray” Greene of De 
fiance. Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Har¬ 
lan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, 
Johnson, Jones, King, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Loudon 
Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud. Nash, Otis, Peck, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan- 
hcry,^ Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Stniblo, Tay¬ 
lor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, War¬ 
ren, Williams, Wilson, "Woodbury and Worthington—74. 

So ihe amendment to the amendment wa.s disagreed 

to. 


The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Haw 
kins’ amendment, 

Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded the yeas and nays; 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 19, nays 65—as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Case of Licking, Cook, Dorsey, Gil¬ 
lett, Haid, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Humphreville, John¬ 
son, Kennon, Manon, Patterson, Scottof Harrison, Stanton, Swift, 
Warren, Williams and Worthington—19. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Bates, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Curry, Ewart, 
Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance Green of 
Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, King, Kirkwood, 
Larsh, I.arwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, 
Otis, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Stiuible, Swan, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend 
Wilson, Woodbury and President—75. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the report to 
be engrossed; 

Mr. SAWYER demanded a division. 

The question then being on ordering the first section 
to be engrossed; 

Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 47, nays 47—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Ewing, 
Forbes, Greene ol Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, 
Orton, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of 
Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Town¬ 
shend, Wilson and President—47. 

Nays— Messrs Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, 
Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Manon, Morehead, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Plighland, Smith of Warren. Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Warren, 
Williams, Woodbury and Worthington—47. 

So the Conveulion refused to order the first section 
to be engrossed. 

The question then being on ordering the second sec¬ 
tion to be engrossed, 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 38, nays 57—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Clark, Ewing, Forbes, Grrene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Hunt, 
Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Roll, Scottof Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Stru¬ 
ble, Sw'ilt, Thompson of Stark, Wilson and President—38. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery,Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, 
Cu'ry, Dorsey, Ew'art, Florence, Gillett, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Manon, 
iViorehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Patterson, 
Peck, Perkins, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Wan-en, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Warren, Williams, Woodbury 
and Worthington—.57. 

So the Convention refused to order the second sec¬ 
tion to be engrossed. 

The question then being on ordering the third section 
to be engrossed, 

Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas and nays; which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 43, nays 51—as follows : 

Yras _IMcssrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Ewing, Forbes, 

Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Hunt, Jones. King. Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Lead- 
better, Liiley, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Quigley, Ranney, Reeme¬ 
lin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thonipson of Stark, Townshend, Wilson and President—43. 

Nays _Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet ot Montgomery, 

Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chamber?, Collings, Cook, 
Cnrry, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Manon, More- 
head, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Peck, 
Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 




















1062 


CONVENTION REPOKTS. 


Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor, Warren, Williams,Woodbury 
and Worthington—51. 

So the Convention refused to order the third section 
to be engrossed. 

On motion of Mr. HOLMES, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


WEDNESDAY, January 29, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. ITessly. 

Mr. EWART presented a petition from D. E. Gard¬ 
ner and one hundred and eighty-three other citizens 
of Washington county, praying that a clause be insert¬ 
ed in the new constitution, prohibiting the Legislature 
from passing any law legalizing traffic in spirituous 
liquors; which, on motion of the same gentleman, was 
laid on the table. 

On motion of Mr. LEECH, the Convention took up 
the communication from the Ohio Editorial Convention. 

The same gentleman moved that the communication 
be referred to a select committee of three ; 

On which motion Mr. CLARK demanded the yeas 
and nays; which being ordered, resulted—yeas 66, 
nays 22—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Chambers, 
Chaney, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hum- 
phreville. Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Keunon, King, Kirkwood, Lar- 
will. Leech, Loudon, Mitchell, Morris, McCormick, Norris, Orton, 
Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Sawyer, Scolt 
of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stan 
bery, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Taylor,Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, Wil¬ 
liams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President—66. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Brown of Atliens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Clark, 
Collings, Cook, Graham, Horton, Hunter, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
Manon, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Smith of Highland, Stanton, 
Stilwell and Swift—22. 

So the motion to refer wuis agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT then announced Messrs. Leech, 
Orton and Hamilton, as said committee. 

Mr. SWAN wished to state to the Convention that 
he had yesterday votedunder a misapprehension, upon 
the question to engross the third section of the report 
of the committee on Banking and Currency. He gave 
his vote in the affirmative under a wrong idea oJ the 
terms of an amendment which had been adopted to 
the section. If he had properly understood it, he 
should have voted in the negative. He asked leave, 
therefore, to change his vote, and to have the same 
recorded; which was agreed to. 

On being called, Mr. Swan voted “no.” 

Mr. CASE, of Hocking, said that he had yesterday 
been prevented by sickness from coming to the 
hall, and giving his vote upon the questions arising 
under the report of the committee on Banking and 
Currency. In justice to his own opinions, and to 
place his course properly before his constituents, he 
desired, if the Convention would permit, to record his 
vote. 

The PRESIDENT. It can be done by the consent 
of the Convention, provided it does not change the ro- 
f>ult. There was one vote that was a tie, and a single 
vote miglit make a change. Pe.ihaps the gentleman 
can state how he would have voted. 

Mr. CASE said he would have voted to submit the 
question to the people, upon the terms proposed by the 
gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] and should 
have voted against the engrossment of each section of 
the Report. 

The PRESIDENT. That would not have changed 
the result, in either case. 

Mr, CASE. I then ask leave to record my vote up-i 
on all those questions. 

The question being: shall leave be granted; some 
voices opposing— 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geruga, thought the gentle¬ 


man from Hocking had attained his object, without a 
formal record of his vote. His position was under 
stood, and that was all ho required. Besides, if the 
practice should be admitted, we should get into diffi¬ 
culty, for other members of the Convention were ab¬ 
sent, and would claim the same privilege. 

Mr. CASE then withdrew his request. 

On motion of Mr. HARLAN, the Convention took up 
the report of the committee on Public Debts and Pub¬ 
lic Works. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, proposed merely to say 
that the report, as amended, did not appear liable to 
the objection he had raised against it the other day, 
when it was up before the Convention. He now 
thought the section would bear the construction put 
upon it by the chairman of the committee, and^ he 
had now no objection to it going into the constitution. 

The question then being upon the amendment of the 
committee; the same was agreed to. 

Mr. GREGG said he had not understood the ques¬ 
tion, and desired to move an amendment to the amend¬ 
ment, before it w’as acted upon. Not having voted up¬ 
on the question, he supposed he had no right to move 
a reconsideration. 

Mr. HARLAN having voted with the majority, to 
accomodate the gentleman from Columbiana, [Mr. 
Gregg,] moved that the vote on agreeing to section 
first, be reconsidered. 

The question then being on the reconsideration— 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays. 

Mr. Gregg desired the indulgence of the Conven¬ 
tion, while he said a few words upon the question pre¬ 
sented by the first section of the report. As had been 
stated by the Chairman of the committee that pre- 
sjiiited it, it placed in the hands of the Legislature the 
power to come up to the limit of debt prescribed re¬ 
peatedly, and as often as it pleases. It may run in 
debt seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars this 
year, the same sum next, and as much the year after, 
and so continue on until the credit of the State is ex¬ 
hausted. Now, if such is the case, he wished, as the 
very least that, on behalf of his constituents, he could 
ask, to reJuce the sum to a smaller amount, and he 
would be glad to hear from the Chairman of the com¬ 
mittee, his views upon the construction of the section. 

Mr. HAWKINS said the first objection to the section, 
as originally reported, was the objection stated by the 
gentleman from Columbiana, [Mr. Gregg,] that it 
placed it in the power of the Legislature to increase 
the amou'it of the Slate debt by a yearly loan. This 
objection the committee had, by its amendments, en¬ 
deavored to obviate; and to do so, he thought they 
had now provided, conclusively, that, though loaned 
at different times, the debt should never exceed the 
sum of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. At 
the same time, it does not depsive the State of the pow¬ 
er, after one debt has been created and paid, to incur 
another. A necessity may occur in 1851, for the ma¬ 
king of a loan, and it may be paid during the next year. 
Another want in 1856, may require another resort to ♦ 
borrowing; and to prohibit the Legislature from doing 
so, because one debt had been created and paid, would 
be absurd. 

Asa member of the committee, he would say, that 
they had endeavored to make the report conform to 
the wishes of the Convention. He would like to do so, 
but, at the same time, he was aware that it would be 
impossible to suit tho particular views of each indivi¬ 
dual member. 

Mr. GREGG saw no necessity for so large a sura as 
the maximum. He believed three hundred thousand 
dollars would be ample to meet all the exigencies 
likely to arise, to the farthest possible extent. He 
wanted, also, if the constitution .shall provide for the 
creation of a debt, to see, also, in the same instrument, 
some provisions for it.s payment, at some time or other. 
He felt it his duty to say, that the people in the part of 
the State which he represented were opposed to every 


















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1063 


spf^cies and kind of public debt whatever. The vast 
present indebtedness had been of no value to them— 
they had realized no benefit from its expenditure ; and 
the burden of taxation which it had imposed upon 
them, had fallen heavy and was still and would long 
be remembered. 

He would, therefore, move an amendment to the 
section, by striking out the woi’ds “ seven hundred and 
fifty,” and inserting the words “ three hundred.” 

Mr. MITCHELL said the time for such an amend¬ 
ment had gone by—the Convention having previously 
refused to strike out the words. 

The PRESIDENT said the motion to amend was not 
in order—the motion to re-consider being first in or¬ 
der ; and then it was doubtful if the motion to amend 
could be entertained, in the present condition of the 
bill. 

Mr. MANON said he had been engaged in making a 
calculation, and he found that the sum proposed would 
create a debt to the amount of about seven cents and 
a half upon each man, woman and child in Ohio. 

The question being on the reconsideration, 

Mr. MITCHELL withdrew his demand for the yeas 
and nays. 

The question was disagreed to. 

The other amendments of the committee were then 
agreed to. 

Mr. HAWKINS then moved that the bill be read the 
third time, and put upon its passage; which was 
agi'eed to. 

The question then being, shall the bill pass? 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays. 

Mr. NASH desired to vote for this bill, but could not 
vote for the second and third sections, as they stand. 
The committee had made no effort to get the Legisla¬ 
ture out of the difficulty he had pointed out, in case 
they have a .'urplus on hand. If it cannot, under the 
circumstances, be applied to the contingency for which 
it was borrowed, nor to pay the debt created by the 
loan, it must lie unproductive in the Treasury until 
that debt falls due. 

Mr. HAWKINS. If it cannot be applied to the pur¬ 
pose for which it was raised, can it not be appropriated 
to some other 1 

Mr. NASH. No. If the committee had made the 
amendment I suggested, it might have been done. At 
present the provision will do no good, but only mis¬ 
chief. The words are words of restriction and will 
inevitably tie up the money from all uses, except those 
that are indicated. 

Mr. HAWKINS. If the words had been omitted it 
would have permitted the money to be raised by the 
Legislature under pretence of one purpose, to be ap¬ 
plied to another. To remove the objections of the 
gentleman, w’ould be to increase other objections ten 
fold. Money might be raised to pay a debt and applied 
to another purpose for one time at least; and if for 
one time, for another. 

Mr. GREGG moved that the bill be recommitted to 
the standing committee on public debts and public 
works, wdth instructions to strike out seven hundred 
and fifty, and insert three hundred. 

Mr. GREGG said he was anxious to record his vote 
upon this question so thathis constituentscouldsee how 
he stood upon it. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, demanded a division of 
the question. 

' The question then being on the recommitment, 

Mr. HOLMES could not see the necessity for the 
recommitment. He thought the words of the section 
suflSciently explicit. He did not believe the gentleman 
from Columbiana [Mr. Gregg,] would so wish to tie 
up the hands of the Legislature, so that it would be 
unable to provide for the public wants. He did not 
look upon the amount as too large, or that the Legisla¬ 
ture, under the present circumstances, would be like¬ 
ly to be profuse in creating a debt. 

He had j iitraccount of the objection of the 


gentleman from Gallia. He thought any little balance 
over after providing for the contingency, might be dis¬ 
posed of under the constitution. He should vote 
against the recommitment. 

Mr. STANBERY said he thought the construction of 
the genthjman from Gallia was inevitable. Suppose 
the State, to repel a threatened invasion, borrows a 
million of dollars for ten years. The danger passes 
away. There is a surplus of 900,000 dollars. What is 
to be done? It cannot be applied to the payment of 
the debt because it is not due. It cannot be applied to 
repel the invasion, because the invasion has not come. 
It cannot be appli-d for any other purpose. Whatthen, 
is the objection that this money go into the general fund 
and be applied to the sinking fund for the payment of 
our other debt? He would, at the proper time, move 
an amendment for the purpos':^. 

Mr. HAWKINS said all these things might be avoid¬ 
ed, with a little prudence. In the fix-st place, we would 
not borrow until the invasion occurred. In the next 
place, we would borrow it on such terms that we might 
pay it back, if we did not want it. The gentleman 
had intimated his opposition to the whole I’eport. He 
did not know but this was one way in which he 
showed it. He thought, as had been shown by the 
gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] that great¬ 
er abuses than those he dreads would be the result of 
the amendment he proposes. He hoped the recom¬ 
mitment would not take place. 

Mr. LARSH thought if it were worth our while to 
provide for a contingency at all, the sum of seven hun¬ 
dred and fifty thousand dollars was too small rather 
than too large. 

He was opposed to the amendment proposed by the 
gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash.] He did not de¬ 
sire to give the General Assembly the power,under the 
pretence of supplying a deficiency in the revenue, to 
boxT’ow money and apply it to another purpose. He 
did not want such a power to reside anywhere. As a 
member of the committee, he would say that the sec¬ 
tion expressed precisely what he wanted it to express. 

Ml’. SWAN conceived the section to expi’ess precise¬ 
ly what it ought to express. Suppose, in case a mil¬ 
lion is raised to repel invasion, and there is a sui’plus, 
what is to be done ? Her stock is in max'ket. It can 
be bought precisely at what it is worth. Would not 
gentlemen prefer the money to go right back to repay 
the debt created ? The State, as the purchaser^ of her 
own debt, goes into the market; she can do it at its 
market value as w’^ell as an individual. He thought 
such a course would prevent abuse, and would be the 
easiest and best mode of di.<5posing of a surplus on 
hand. He should oppose the amendment. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, said he did not be¬ 
lieve thei’e was any danger that the Legislature would 
contract any unnecessary debts. W^e cannot foresee all 
the circumstances tliat may occur in future.^ He 
thought a surplus on hand xnight be applied in the 
mode suggested by the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. 
Swan.] He therefore would prefer to have the report 
remain as it is, Fle thought that after the debate that 
had been had upon this bill, it w'ould be improper to 
overset it, and go over the whole ground again, merely 
for an apprehended difficulty of this kind. He thought 
the sum proposed by the gentleman from Columbiana 
[Miu Gregg] too small. 

Mr. GREGG said there was great latitude under the 
expi’ession, to meet casual deficits and other expenses 
not otherwise provided for. We all know how such 
things begin and accumulate. Let us I'emember the 
new State House at Colnmbus ; first started to be com¬ 
pleted by Penitentiary labor alone, and now demand¬ 
ing an annual appi’opriation of seventy thousand dol¬ 
lars. He thought the sum of three hundred thousand 
dollars enough. 

The question then being on the recommitment, 

Mr. GREGG demanded the yeas and nays, whmh 
Were ordered, and resulted—yeas 25, nays 69—as fol¬ 
lows ‘ 







1064 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


Yeas —Messrs. Cahill, Clark, Forbes, Gregg, Henderson, Holt, 
Hootman, Huraphreville, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Nash, Quigley, Ranney, Scott of 
Auglaize, Stidger, Struble, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, and Wil¬ 
son—25. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, Blair, 
Blickensdefer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case ol Hock¬ 
ing, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, 
Farr, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green 
of Ross, Groesbeck,jHamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, 
Kennon, Larsh, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Mc¬ 
Cormick, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck,. Perkins, Riddle, Roll, 
Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Swan, 
Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Warren, Williams, 
Woodbury, Worthington and President—69. 

So the motion to recommit was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the final passage of the 
report: 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded a division of the vote. 
Mr. BENNETT sugge.sted whetlier such a division 
on the final passage could be had. VVould it not, in 
effect, be throwing open the bill to amendment, by vo¬ 
ting down a section after the time of amendment had 
passed. 

The PRESIDENT said that whenever articles were 
susceptible of division into distinct provisions, it was 
the rule to divide. The bill is divided into sections, 
each presenting some distinct proposition, and in his 
opinion it could be divided, and a vote taken upon 
each. 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER. Suppose the first sec¬ 
tion is rejected, and the remainder agreed to ; is it to 
go into the constitution in that form, beginning: “In 
addition to the above limited powers? 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair thinks the question 
divisible, and if there is no appeal, the vote will be ta¬ 
ken. 

The question then being on the final passage of the 
first section, the yeas and-nays were ordered, and resul¬ 
ted—yeas 82, nays 12—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Browm of Athens, Cahill, Case oi 
Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, 
Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, 
Horton, Hunt,Hunter, Johnson, Jones,Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Scott of Harrison, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Highland, Smith of W'arren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stebbins,Stilwell,,Stickney, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Townshend, Wan-en, Williams, Wilson, Wood¬ 
bury, Worthingtoii and President—82. 

Nays —Messrs. Gregg, Henderson, Humphreville, King, Lar¬ 
will, Leadbetter, Manon, Mason, McCormick, Nash, Stidger and 
Thompson ol Stark—12. 

So the first section was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the sec¬ 
ond section; 

Mr. NASH said the second and third sections in fact 
belonged together, and contained but one proposition. 

The PRESIDENT said he believed that to be true, 
but as the demand for a division had been made and 
sustained, perhaps the Convention had better proceed 
by sections. 

The yeas and nays having been demanded, w'ere or¬ 
dered, and resulted—yeas 84, nays 11—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Ben¬ 
nett, Blair, Blickensderfe.r, Brown oi Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Cur¬ 
ry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, 
King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Ma¬ 
son, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, 
Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott ol 
Harrison, Smith oi Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stan¬ 
ton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, 
Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President—84. 

Nays —Messrs Bates, Clark, Greene of Defiance, Leech, Manon, 
Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, and Stidg¬ 
er—11. 

So the second section was agreed to. 


The question then being on the passage of the third 
section; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the passage of the fourth 
section, 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, demanded the yeas and 
nays, which, being ordered, resulted—yeas 89, nays 6 
—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, Blair, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case 
of Hocking, Chaney, Clark, Collings,Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, 
Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hoimes, Holt, Hootman, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, 
King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, 
Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stil¬ 
well, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson 
of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, Wilson, 
Woodbury, Worthington and President—89. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Chambers, Mason, Nash, 
Stanton and Williams—6. 

So the fourth section was agreed to. 

The question then being on the passage of section 
five, 

Mr. LARWILL demanded the yeas and nays, which, 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 94, nays 1—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Atlmns, Brown ot Car- 
roll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Collings, 
Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gil¬ 
lett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Ge¬ 
auga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hun¬ 
ter, Johnson, Jones, Ke.nnon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patter¬ 
son, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott 
of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stid¬ 
ger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson ol Shelby, T homp- 
sonof Stark, Townshend, Warren, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, 
Worthington and President—94. 

Nay—M r. Mason —1. 

So the fifth section was passed. 

The question then being on the passage of section 
six, 

Mr. MORRIS demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 78, nays l(i—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, Blair, 
Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, 
Clark, Collings, Cook, Ewart, Farr, Flolfence, Forbes, Gillett, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, 
King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, 
Orton, Otis, i'atiersou, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, 
Sawyer, Scott pt Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Seilers, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stick¬ 
ney, Struble, Swan, Swilt, Taylor, Thompson ol Shelby, Thomp- 
son of Stark, Townshend, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury and Pres¬ 
ident—78. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Brown ot Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Curry, Dorsey, Ewing, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Mason, 
Mo’-ris, Nash, Peck, Stanton, Stidger, Williams and Worthington 
—16. 

So section six was passed. 

The question then being on the passage of sections 
7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, demanded the yeas and nays, 
which beijig ordered, resulted—yeas 76, nays 18—as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Bennett. Blair, Bhckensderler, Brown ot Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Fart, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hiichcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hor¬ 
ton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Larwill, Leech, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, 8cott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickriey, Struble, 
Swan, Swilt, Townshend, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury, Wor¬ 
thington and President—76. 

Nays —Me.«srs. Clark, Curry, Green of Ross, Humphreville, 
King, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, McCormick, Sawyer, Scott of 
Auglaize, Sellers, Stanbery, Stidger, Taylor, T hompson of Shel¬ 
by, Thompson of Stark, and Williams—18. 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 1065 


So sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 were passed. 

The question then being on the passage of sections 
12 and 13, they were agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. HENDERSON, the report was re¬ 
ferred to the committee on Revision, Enrollment and 
Arrangement. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, on leave, presented sundry 
petitions from R. D. Green, Sarah R. Martin, and one 
hundred and twenty-one other females, of Ross county, 
praying that a clause be inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors; which, on motion, 
were laid on the table. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the Whole, Mr. Stanbery in 
the chair. 

The order of the day being the report of the stand¬ 
ing committee on Future Amendments to the Constitu¬ 
tion : 

Mr. LARSH moved that the first section of the report 
be stricken out. 

The question then being on striking out, 

Mr. DORSEY moved to amend the section by strik¬ 
ing out all after the word “ to,” in the secoud line, and 
inserting in lieu thereof as follows: 

“—By a majority of the mf mbers elected to each house. Each 
proposed ami ndment or amendments shall be entered on theii 
journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and the Secretary 
of State shall cause the same to be published in at least one news¬ 
paper in every county in which a newspaper shall be published : 
and if in the Legislature next atterwards chosen, such proposed 
amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by a majority of 
the members elected to each house, thg Secretary of the Com¬ 
monwealth shall cause the same again to be published in man¬ 
ner aforesaid, and such proposed amendment or amimdmentsshall 
be submitted to the people in such manner, and at such time, at 
least three months after being so agreed to by the two houses, as 
the Legislature shall prescribe; and if the people shall approve 
and ratify such amendment or amendments by a majority of the 
qualified voters of this State voting thereon, such amendment or 
amendmi nts shall become a part of the constitution; but no 
amendment or amendments shall be submitted to the people 
oftener than once in five years. Provided, that if more than one 
amendment be siibmitted they shall be submitted in such man¬ 
ner and form that the people may vote for or against each 
amendment separately and distinclty. 

Mr. DORSEY said the amendment proposed, was ta¬ 
ken from the tenth article of the constitution o. Renn- 
sylvaiiia. It would be seen that it does away with all 
necessity for calling a Convention to revise the consti¬ 
tution. It submits the amendments directly to a vote 
of the people. He thought before w’e got through here, 
we should all see the difficulties of such Conventions 
enough to be willing to avoid, ii‘ possible, the calling 
of such bodies. 

Mr. HAWKINS demanded a division of the question. 

The question then being on striking out, 

Mr. RANNEY said the provision in the constitution 
of Reni.sylvania, provided for a vote upon the amend¬ 
ment by two sessions of the Legislature. That was ar¬ 
ranged in reference to annual sessions of the General 
Assembly. Here we are to have biennial sessions. 
It will therefore take five years before the question 
can be submitted to the people. In Rennsylvania only 
a bare majority at each session is necessary; here, 
where it is submitted at one session, we provide that 
it shall be agreed to by three fifths of the members of 
each branch of the Legislature. We provide that six 
months prior to the time it is to be, submitted to (he 
people, it is to be published in each county in the 
State. He thought the amendment proposed would 
place the thing too far oft’, if we hope to enjoy the ben¬ 
efits of it in our own life lime. They might accrue 'o 
our children, but they will be oc.t of the way of men 
on the stage when it is proposed. 

Mr. DORSEY thought the amendment brought 
amendments near enough. Its excellence is that the 
matter will be effectually determined at the next suc¬ 
ceeding Legislature, by the election of men with refer¬ 
ence to the amendments. Their action will be an ex¬ 
ponent of the will of the people on the subject. The 


question then may be submitted at the next general 
election, and, if approved, it becomes a part of the con¬ 
stitution. It provides against too rapid and constant 
amendments, and establishes the principle that all 
amendments shall beapfiroved by the people. 

Mr. RANNEY. Does the gentleman from Miami 
[Mr. Dorsey] contend that we do not propose to sub¬ 
mit amendments to the people? 

Mr. DORSEY. Certainly not. 

Mr. RANNEY. Why, then, does he claim that as a 
peculiar excellence of liis amendment ? He objected 
to it, as occupying too much time. 

Mr. LARWILL was opposed to the amendment, be¬ 
cause it throws open the constitution to be amended by 
the Legislature and not by the people. 

Mr. DORSEY. Oh, no. 

Mr. LARWILL. I so understood it. I may have 
been mistaken. There is another reason—it takes too 
much time. I like the report of the committee well 
enough, and shall vote for it. 

The question then being on striking out; the same 
was disagreed to. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to amend the first section, 
by inserting, in the second line, after the word “ by,” 
the words “ the separate vote of.” 

Mr. SAWYER said the amendment was out of order, 
the Convention having approved of the words by re¬ 
fusing to strike them out. 

The question then being on the amendment; the 
same was disagreed to. 

The question being on the passage of the section, 

Mr. LARSFI was afraid the operation of the section 
would be to turn the State into a perpetual constitu¬ 
tional Convention. We are putting it in the power of 
the Legislature to be constantly meddling with not on¬ 
ly the statute, but the organic law itself. He thought 
the report sufficient without this section. He doubted 
whether this plan would, as contended, reduce the ex¬ 
pense of amending the constitution. The expense of 
advertising alone would be many thousand dollars. He 
did not wish to put it in the power of any man or set of 
men to interfere in alfairsof the most vital consequence 
in the State. He recalled a remark that fell from the 
gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] that it mat¬ 
tered little wffiat went into this constitution, for it 
would contain in itself a recuperative power that would 
alw’ays secure its amendment. Now, he would say, 
that if this section went in, it did matter little what 
else the instrument should contain. He moved to strike 
out the first section. 

The question then being on striking out; the same 
was disagreed to. 

The second section was read. 

Mr. MANNON moved to strike out the second sec¬ 
tion.^ 

Mr. NASH moved to amend the second section, in 
(he seventh line, by striking out the words ‘‘ General 
Assembly,” and inserting the words “House of Repre¬ 
sentatives.” 

Mr. NASH thought the section, as it stood, would 
make the Convention unnecessarily large. 

Mr. LARSH said that the size, under the proposed 
system of apportionment, would be uncertain. 

Mr. RANNEY’ was not tenacious upon the subject, 
though he preferred the report as it stood. 

The question then being on the amendment, 

Mr. LIDEY demanded a division of the question. 

The question being on striking out, there being no 
quorum: 

Mr. HITCHCOCK moved that the committee rise 
and report; which was agreed to; and the committee rose 
and the chairman reported that the committee had had 
under consideration the report of the standing commit¬ 
tee on future amendments to the constitution, and had 
come to no resolution thereon. 

On motion of Mr. BARNETT, of Treble, the Conven¬ 
tion took a recess. 
















1066 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


3 o’clock, P. M. 

The Convention met: 

On motion of Mr. HUNTER, the Convention resol¬ 
ved itself into committee of the whole, on the order of 
the day; Mr. Stanbery in the chair. 

The subject under consideration being the report of 
the standing committee on future amendments to the 
constitution, the question in order was the motion of 
Mr. Nash, to strike out of the seventh line of the 
seventh section, the words General Assembly,” to 
insert the words “ House of Representatives ”—upon 
which motion a division had been demanded: 

Mr. MANON was in favor of the amendment. He 
thought by its adoption, the evils of too large an assem¬ 
bly would be avoided, while at the same time, for all 
purposes necessary to be secured, a less number than 
that provided for in the report would answer as well. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, said it might be true 
that a less number would do. It was difficult to tell 
how small a body might make a constitution, if the 
duty should devolve upon it. But it seemed to him 
that while we have a government founded upon the 
popular will, it would be better not to destroy the rep¬ 
resentative system. If, for instance, we should entrust 
the legislative power of the State, to the wisdom and 
discretion of one man, he might make such laws as 
would be unexceptionable, but such a course would 
not be consistent with the principles upon which the 
government is founded, and the result would be an ab¬ 
solute monarchy, however disguised under republican 
terms or considerations of economy. 

Perhaps it is true that a dozen men will agree in 
opinion more readily than one hundred and eight; the 
fruits of the deliberations of the one hundred and eight, 
will be received and adopted with more confidence, 
than those of the dozen. By the arguments of gentle¬ 
men, it would seem as if they were desmous to interfere 
with our system of government. They seem even to 
distrust the benefits of the government itself. He 
should vote against the amendment. 

. Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, said that a large number 
of members added safety and certainty to the delibera¬ 
tions of a representative body, and to its results. They 
were far more likely to produce a perfect instrument. 
It was true, there were two extremes, each of which 
should, if possible, be avoided. If the Convention 
were too large, it would be unwieldy, and the difficul¬ 
ty of arriving at a conclusion, would be too great. On 
the contrary, if too small, it would not inspire c.onfi- 
dence in the people. It matters not how intelligent a 
body may be, or how great the minds it contains; it 
will be frequently found, that suggestions w'ere made 
by men of even very limited intellect, which would be 
found extremely valuable. He appealed to the chair¬ 
man of the committee, if he had not frequently found it 
so. 

Our system of government is of such a character, 
that it is necessary thas every part of the State should 
be represented. The que.stion is, can it be done under 
the system proposed in the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Gallia, [Mr. Nash.] For one. he was dis¬ 
posed to think it could. He thought a Convention 
composed of an hundred, or a hundred and ten mem¬ 
bers, large enough to represent fairly every part of the 
State, and every interest of the people; while it was 
obvious, a body of only thirty would be too small. 
The question is purely a practical one, and should be 
discussed and decided upon the experience of gentle¬ 
men vvho have had experience in, and have studied 
the philosophy of deliberative assemblies. 

Mr. LARWILL did not feel disposed to favor the 
amendment of the gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash.] 
He thought that against the time when the people of 
the State would require another revision of their or¬ 
ganic law, that the State wdll have so increased in 
numbers and importance, that the Convention ought 
to contain as many members as there shall be under 
this constitution in both branches of the General As¬ 


sembly. He believed that such was the opinion of the 
people at large, and believing so, he should vote 
against the amendment. Gentlemen had spoken of 
the difference in expense between a small body and a 
large one. This he looked upon as a mere trifle. The 
people were able to incur such expenses, and there i 
was none that they would more cheerfully pay than 
that which would secure them a full representation. 

Mr. RANNEY said the more he thought upon the 
subject, the more he was satisfied that the number is 
not too large. One reason for preferring the larger 
number would be, that it would be less in danger of j 
being affected by undue and improper influences from 
^ without. It is easier to affect, by these influences, the 
individual members composing the whole of a small 
body than a large one; by the same rule that it is easi-. 
er to control one man than it is two. Under the ap¬ 
portionment scheme now in Convention, there cannot 
be, in such a convention, much over one hundred and 
thirty members, and there may be less, and gentlemen 
surely will not insist that in a State which may contain 
a population of four, five or six millions of inhabitants, , 
and will have accumulated interests of infinite variety | 
and vast magnitude, a convention of one hundred and i 
thirty members will be too large. Surely such a body, : 
if such an one will ever sit, will have a mighty duty 
to perform, a most weighty responsibility upon its 
hands. He was glad to hear his friend from Wayne, I 
[Mr. Larwill,] notice the petty considerations that 
had been urged, upon the subject of the expense of a ■ 
large convention, above that of a small one. Why, 
sir, all the expense which the people of Ohio have in¬ 
curred from the sittings of this body, will not exceed ; 
three or four cents a piece for each individual; and if ■: 
w’e are to look forward to the time when this work is , ^ 
again to be undertaken by our posterity, and look at 
the question in view of the probable wealth and popu- ; i 
lation at that time, the burden it will impose will not 
be greater than one or two cents apiece. It is certain- ^ i 
ly to be hoped that the periods at w'hich it will be ne- : 
cessary to revise the organic law of the land, will not , 
frequently occur, but when, perhaps, half a century ; 
hence, the State shall have made a vast stride forward, 
in all the arts of life and civilization, when she shall 
have increased in wealth, and doubled by many times 1 1 
the number and variety of her vast commercial and j 
industrial interests—when she shall have improved in :' 
many resjjects, that we cannot now even conceive of, a | > 
convention of one hundred and thirty men to lay anon ! i 
the foundations of the government of so vast a State, *! 
will not be too great to give that minute and familiar j; 
representation, which, on such occasions, is absolutely j) 
necessary. ! j 

The question then being on striking out, the same j 1 
was agreed to ; yeas 41, nays 36. 

The question then being on inserting the words of j 
the amendment, the same was agreed to. j 

The question then being on striking out the second I 
section, the same was agreed to. 

The third section being under consideration, Mr. j 
CHAMBERS moved to strike out the third section. j 

Mr. COLLINGS moved to strike out the first part of ' 
the same section to the word “ but,” inclusive, in the j 
seventh line. 

[The part proposed to be stricKen out by the motion I 
of Mr. CoLLiNGs, provides that once in twenty years a ' 
vote of the people shall be taken upon the calling of a 
Convention.] 

Mr. CHAMBERS said that the motion of the gen- ^ 
tieman from Adams, [Mr. Collings,] accorded with I 
his own views, and did not interfere with his motion. 

In fact it included the objectionable part of the section. 

He thought that all that was necessary, was simply 
to provide that when the Legislature should deem it 
necessary to call a Convention, it might do so. That , 
was done in another part of the report. Other provi- ; 
sions had also been made for amendment. Why then I 
force upon the people, once in twenty years, the neces- t 


I 


/ 




















1067 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


sity of voting upon this question, when they do not ask 
it. The voice of the people, when they require a revi¬ 
sion of the organic law, can be heard through their 
representatives, and there is no danger that it will be 
unheard. 

Mr. RANNEY said he had found this provision in 
the constitutions of several of the Stales in the Union, 
and particularly in that of New York. It has its origin 
in the theory that there should be some power in the 
people themselves, to originate amendments to the 
constitution—some power other than that which speaks 
by the General Assembly. Under the provisions of 
the first and second sections, the origin of all amend¬ 
ments depends upon the Legislature. Here, the appeal 
is directly to the people themselves. Here, however, 
the provision is much less stringent than in other con¬ 
stitutions. A majority of all the votes cast at the elec¬ 
tion is required. If the people do not need a revision 
of their organic law, all they have to do is not to vote 
for it. To refrain from voting is to vote in the nega¬ 
tive. The process involves no trouble, and not a cent 
of expense. In several States it is different. A ma¬ 
jority of those voting upon the question is sutficient. 

We are engaged in the creation of a government 
which IS not only for ourselves, but which we proudly 
say, is to be handed down to our posterity to be a rule 
of action for them. Yet posterity have no hand in 
making this government. They are not parties to the 
compact. They give no assent to its provisions. Is 
it not justice then to declare that when we deliver it 
into their hands, they shall have the privilege to say 
whether or not they will be bound by it?—whether 
they will have it or not ? We calculate that a genera¬ 
tion of men pas-ses away about once in twenty years, 
and this therefore, is the period that has been fixed 
upon, for the laws of one to pass into the hands of 
another. I see no objections to such a provision. It 
is right in theory, and if it is right in theory, it will 
work no wrong in practice. It certainly cannot be 
false to say that each generation is the best judge of 
what institutions are best fitted for its condition ; and 
if it is true, it must be also true that no wrong is done 
either to them or to us, to place it in their power to 
give their assent or dissent to those that exist, and if 
necessary, to take the earliest, easiest and most feasible 
means, to adapt their institutions to their peculiar con¬ 
dition and circumstances. 

Mr. HOLT thought the Convention snould take into 
consideration, in the same connection, section third 
and section first, in order to come at a correct view of 
the whole subject. If the first section remains as it 

is, this one seems absolutely necessary. He believed 
the Convention should reconsider the vote taken upon 
the amendment of the gentleman from Miami, [Mr. 
Dorsey,] and he hoped, at any rate, that members 
would consider well before they decided upon its final 
rejection. 

But to consider the third section by itself. Similar 
provisions are conhiined in the constitutions of Penn¬ 
sylvania and New York. He would be satisfied with 
it—the first secti m remaining as it is; but if this is 
stricken out, an amendment of the other will become 
imperative. 

Under the provisions of this article, except at the 
regular period (;f twenty years, no amendment can be 
made to the constitution. Unless two-thirds of each 
branch of the Legislature can be procured to vote for 

it, it cannot be submitted to a vote of the people. 
That, it may be diflficult to procure. It may not be 
easy to put a pressure upon a legislative body, suffi¬ 
cient to produce so extraordinaiy a degree of unanim¬ 
ity. And if an amendment is attempted without the 
intervention of the Legislature, it will require a vote 
of three-fflths of each branch, before it can be submit¬ 
ted to the peop]e.|:;Sl 

Now, the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] 
claims to be a good deal of a Democrat. I admit that 
he is so, and that on most occasions it is pretty difficult 


to get ahead of him in Democracy, but I think I shal 
be able to cut under him a little this time. As I would 
propose to have the report amended, if a change to the 
constitution is proposed in the Legislature, I would re¬ 
quire, first, that it should be sustained by a majority in 
each branch. What then ? Let it be continued to the 
next term, whose members are to be chosen after the 
session at which it was first acted upon. It would 
therefore go over to the second year. Then require 
that it should receive, before it is submitted to the peo¬ 
ple, the votes of a majority of the members of each 
branch of the General Assembly, chosen with especial 
reference to this question. Then— 

Mr. RANNEY wanted to know what bill, report or 
proposition, the gentleman from Montgomery, [Mr. 
Holt,] was attempting to describe. If his description 
was intended for the report of the committee, he could 
not have read it. 

Mr. HOLT said he was describing his own plan. He 
proceeded to say: Then, after having received the 
votes of a majority of each branch of two separate ses 
sions of the General Assembly, one of them elected 
with reference to the question, it may be submitted to 
the people. 

Mr. LARSH was iu favor of striking out this section; 
for the reason that the committee had already agreed to 
adopt two modes of amending the new constitution. 
It seemed to him that two modes of operation for ar¬ 
riving at the same result were sufficient. He saw no 
use in adding a third mode. 

As he understood this report, it proposed three dif¬ 
ferent plans of amendment. First, by the General As¬ 
sembly ; secondly, upon a proposition to call a conven¬ 
tion by the General Assembly; thirdly, requiring the 
people to vote upon the propriety of calling a conven¬ 
tion every twenty years. He thought this was a very 
poor commentary upon our labors here; that, after 
spending so much time and money, and labor, and 
brains, to provide a new constitution, a standing com¬ 
mittee of this body should report three or four plans 
for dispensing with the whole of it. It was a great 
pity that this report had not been presented during the 
first or second week of the session, for it seemed to 
him that if we could have adopted this report, which 
might have been done in two or three days, it would 
have been all that was needed. And perhaps it might 
be all the better to adopt the report as it is, since, as 
suggested by the gentleman from Montgomery, [Mr. 
Holt,] the sober second thought of the people might 
incline them to wipe out the whole thing. But he did 
not think that way. It seemed to him that the second 
section of this repo rUvas sufficient for all practical pur¬ 
poses 

Mr. TAYLOR dissented from what seemed to be the 
idea of gentlemen who had preceded him, to wit i that 
facilities for the discussion of those principles which 
lie at the foundation of government, ought not to be in¬ 
creased. He affirmed his belief that the discussions 
which had led to the assembling of this body, and the 
discussions which had attended their deliberations, 
were iii every respect desirable and advantageous to 
the people of the State, and that the benefits of some 
discussion of the principles of the organic law, and of 
the agitations attendant upon their discussion, should 
be given and secured to every generation. He believed 
that the politics of Ohio would attain a far higher 
grade, in consequence of the discussions of this body, 
than they would have attained by avoiding these agi¬ 
tations. Whether our action here had been a tissue of 
folly or not, he was willing to bear his share of the as¬ 
persions which had been cast upon the Convention, for 
the sake of the benefits to be derived by all the people 
from this moving of thepolitical waters. He contended 
that it was well that the people should be thus invited, 
irrespective of the movements of political parties, to 
ask themselves deliberately, whether the constitution, 
as administered by their agents, is one which they ap¬ 
prove. He believed that such an appeal to the people 








1068 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


once in twenty years, would have a salutary effect up¬ 
on their public character. He was not fearful of giv¬ 
ing too many facilities for the amendment of the con¬ 
stitution. He was anxious that the details of those im¬ 
portant fundamental principles, as manifested to the 
world in our written constitution should sometimes be¬ 
come the subject of grave consideration by the people 
at large, as a matter of public duty, irrespective of the 
cabals at Columbus. 

He was not one of those who believed that we were 
legislating here and laying down prii)ci{)le8 to govern 
the people of half a century. He entertained no such 
vanity as that. He was willing to surrender to a i'u- 
ture majority. He would be willing to surrender the 
instrument at the end of twenty years. 

He believed that when the generation of 1875 should 
come to the full responsibility of their citizenship, rmr 
institutions would be as far behind theirs, as tiiose 
were behind us, which we find by reverting a hundred 
years into ihe past. He believed that the ultima ihule 
of political science was not yet attained. He con.'^id- 
ered that men were still in their infancy. It was pre¬ 
sumption to pdace limits and boundaries to the progress 
of the American people. 

He would say, then, give these opportunities for re¬ 
vision—for sweeping away the errors of the past—to 
the people in their sovereign capacity. The opportu¬ 
nities could not come too of ten. Once in a generation 
certainly was not too often. 

Mr. RANNEY would not have said anything more 
upon this report, but for the remarks of the gentleman 
from Gallia [Mr. Nash.] That gentleman desires to 
dispense with the first and third sections of the report, 
and hold on to the second. This was the old method 
of getting a Convention, by the concurrence of two- 
thirds of both branches of the General Assembly. 

It needed not that tlie gentleman should tell me, 
(continued Mr. R.,) that he was opposed to everything 
that had marked upon it the least particle of progress. 
He was made for that sort of opposition. He was 
made up upon that principle. He would have made a 
first rate member of Parliament for the times of James 
the First. For, being admonished that he shoukl not 
meddle with affairs of State, he would be a very obe¬ 
dient man. James could have admonished him as 
much as he pleased, and he never would have had any 
trouble with him. 

Mr. NASH, (in his seat.) You ought to be called to 
order. 

Mr. RANNEY. The gentleman says I ought to be 
called to order, and I do not know but what I arn out 
of order; but, certainly, I am no more out of order 
than the gentleman himself, who was allowed to gel 
through. 

Mr. SAWYER, (in his seat.) Order is out of fasli- 
ion. 

Mr. RANNEY. The committee, in this report, have 
not assumed for themselves, nor for this body, all the 
wisdom in tlie world ; lujr for this generation any more 
wisdom than those that will succeed them. We liave 
proceeded upon the principle, that a free government 
rests upon the consent of the people; and that the peo¬ 
ple, whenever they see proper to change or modify the 
organic law, it is competent for them to do so. We 
have proceeded upon the principle that it is just, and 
right, and politic, for the men of succeeding genera 
tions to alter or amend the institutions which shall come 
down to them, just as they may fee fit. This is a right 
which they have ; and all we have to do is, to furnish 
them with peaceful and a[)propriate means and meth¬ 
ods of arriving at that end—which is simply an expres¬ 
sion of the people upon the question, whether the in¬ 
stitutions which they have inherited are agreeable to 
them or not. If I were under the ap{)reheusiou which 
seems to actuate the gentleman from Gallia, that he can 
frame a constitution so much better than any thing that 
could be produced for the next half century, then I 
suppose that I should be in favor of a provision that 


this constitution should not be touched for that length 
of time. But I do not know whether this constitution 
will last one year, or twenty years, or fifty. Whenev¬ 
er the people, or w-e ourselves, shall see lit to change 
this organic law, I will be the last man to cotffend 
against the power or the right so to do. It will last as 
long as the people choose, and, I hope, no longer. 

I do not say, in one breath, that all free governments 
rest upon the consent of the governed; and in the next 
breath, declare that that very co.isent sliall not find a 
w’ay to be expressed. The consent which the gentle¬ 
man from Gallia, would accord, would allow the peo¬ 
ple, once in half a cer.tury, (by consent of two thirds 
of the legislative body.) to look at our sacred work 
with a solemn face, and ask themselves whether they 
were of the same opinion with its authors. The gen¬ 
tleman seems to be determined that no body shall ven¬ 
ture to suggest that this constitution has any defects, 
so long as he keeps above ground. For my part, I 
must confess, that 1 am eernible of my own frailties, I 
find that I can scarcely do anything which will satisfy 
my own mind for any grt at length of time. But when¬ 
ever I am dissatisfied with anything I have done, I will 
get it right as soon as I can. No man can draw around 
the affairs of the State so much reverence as to keep 
me from the effort to make our political institutions 
conform to the wishes of the people. Believing in the 
doctrine, that free government re^ts upon the volunta¬ 
ry consent of the governed, I bold that it is the duty of 
every man, in framing the organic l.aw, to leave it so 
open to change that it never can become anything else 
than the free, voluntary cons nt of the | eop1e. 

There has not been a constitution formed in the 
United States, for the last ten years, but what con¬ 
tains, substantially, the first section of this article. 
In this way the people have preferred a more direct 
way of gett ng at the constitution, than by means of a 
a constitutional Convention. The constitution of the 
State of New York contains one of these sections, sub¬ 
stantially. But the last, as I look upon it, is more im¬ 
portant than either of the (itbeis. For whilst the first 
method admits of only slight amendments, which can 
be applied with facility; and whilst the second meth¬ 
od would never be resorted to, except in a great pub¬ 
lic emergenc\—(both requiring the intervention of the 
General Assembly)—tlio third method j.s the sponta¬ 
neous action of the people tlieniselves. It does not ap¬ 
peal to this or that cabal of interested politicians. It 
niiikes it the duty of the voters ihemselves to come up 
to the polls and declare whetlier they will or will not 
have a Convention. It is a periodical return of the 
mind of the citizens, to a special, deliberate, public ex¬ 
amination of the organic law of the State. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. It strikes me that this third 
section is a proposition of extraordinary character. 
The gentleman from Tiunjbull says it provides fora 
spontaneous expression of tlie jrublic opinion. I think 
it is rather providing for one of lliose premeditated ex¬ 
temporaneous effusions which we .sometimes hear of— 
a spontaneous expression of the public opinion required 
and commanded expressly in the constitution of the 
State twenty years in advance ! 

I bad supposed, Mr. Chairman, that this was an age 
of progres.s. But the idea must be a fallacy, if the people 
cannot tell whether they want a change in the funda¬ 
mental law, without a constitutional provision—a con¬ 
stitutional obligation, imposed upon them periodically, 
to say whether they are satisfied or not. It seems to 
me truly extraordinary that this report should come 
f.”om a committee, t he chairman of which [Mr. Ranney] 
has, upon all occasions, voted against leaving anything 
to be done by those who are to come after us ; who 
has been always uiivvilling to trust the Legislature, 
even with the power to grant the poor privilege of the 
right of succession to a church corporation by special 
act; who would not agree that the citizens of the State, 
or of any town, county or city thereof, should be per¬ 
mitted to tax themselves for the purpose of making pub¬ 
lic improvements. 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 1069 


Mr. RANNEY, (in his seat.) I would not permit a 
majority to tax a minority. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. I affirm that the gentleman 
is not willing generally to leave the Legislature free to 
exercise its ap[)ropriate powers and functions, yet, pas¬ 
sing strange as it is, he has provided, in the first sec¬ 
tion, (for 1 take it that he is the lather of the report,) 
that the General Assembly may, upon a vote of three- 
fifths, propose an amendment to the constitution; and 
in the second section, that three-fifths of each branch 
of the Legislature may submit the question of calling 
a convention ; and in the third section, the people, 
whether they are satisfied or otherwise—whether they 
wish to do so or not—shall be compelled to come up to 
the polls every twenty years and vote on the question. 

Now, the gentleman says that my friend from Gallia, 
here, [Mr. Nash,] would, have made a good member o 
Parliament, in the times ol James the fir.st, for he would 
most willingly have registered the edicts of the crown. 

He would not have made a good member of the 
Rump Parliament; he would not have been kept long 
enough in his seat. [Laughter.] I do not know but 
the characteristic of keeping our seats attaches pretty 
well to the rest of us, for we have now been sitting 
over a hundred days, and are still unable to see the 
end ol our labors. We have sat long enough to entitle 
this body to that significant appellation. This I doubt if 
weagreeupon—the “self-denying ordinance.” [Laugh¬ 
ter continued.] We have at least demonstrated this 
one thing—that we can sit and talk. 

But laying all jesting aside, it does seem to me, that 
this is a most unnecessary provision, to say the least of 
it. Why would you provide, that, once within the cy¬ 
cle of twenty years, these grave questions shall be agi¬ 
tated ? I may be, and I suppose will be, accounted be¬ 
hind the age; but in early life, I learned that it was 
easier to pull down, than to build up; therefore I arn 
disposed to be satisfied with our institutions as long as 
they are endurable. I am not disposed to change in 
these matters, unless a change is imperiously demanded. 
I am apt to ihiidt it 

-*' Better to bear the ills we have. 

Than fly to others which we know not ot.” 

It strikes me that the experiment which we are now 
making, if the instrumeiil we should adopt should be 
approved, will bring this truth home so forcibly and 
strongly to the people, that this Convention will be 
enough for them for the next fifty years. I am appre¬ 
hensive that we shall give them so much change, that 
they v\ill be entirely satisfied. 

I cannot see why all this effort should be made to in¬ 
vite change—as though the spirit of progress was not 
fast enough of itself, but needed a constitutional provi¬ 
sion to whip it up behind. I am willing that the con¬ 
stitution .should stand until the people, of their own 
motion, should seek to change it. I do not want to 
have any of these “ [)remeditated, spontaneous expres¬ 
sions” of public opinion every twenty years. 

Mr. RAiNNEY, (in his seat.) Would you not amend 
the constitution whenever desired by the will of a ma 
jority ? 

Mr. GREEN. No, sir. 

Mr. RANNEY. Why not? 

Mr. GREEN. Why, sir, you have yourself provided 
in your second section just what we want, but you are 
afraid to trust ihe peo[)le. You say to the people: you 
are very happy, contented, and prosperous; but you 
are great fools—for there are a great many other things 
you might have, that you do not now dream of, if you 
would call a new Convention and make another con¬ 
stitution. 

For my part I do not expect to be alive when this 
great era of reform shall come ; but if I should be, my 
most earnest prayer would be: “ defend me from such 
reformers s those of 1851.” 

Mr. SAWYER. I cannot very well understand the 
argument of the gentleman from Ross. He told !us, 
when he got about half through with his remarks, that 


he had been joking; and then he seemed to keep on 
joking. One of his jokes is this: he thought, from 
what he could gather of the results of our deliberations 
here, that the people would be tired of Conventions, 
and would not want another very soon. But he got to 
joking on the other side directly ; and seemed to inti- 
mate very strongly, that we were going to pass one of 
the most formidable constitutions upon record—so ac¬ 
ceptable, that the people will not desire to change it 
for the next half century. 

The same geutlepian, some time ago, was joking in 
favor of annual sessions of the Legislature; and then 
he stated it was necessary for the Legislature to meet 
annually, in order to keep things straight, which might 
be done without consideration by the preceding Legis¬ 
lature. Then he seemed to have but little confidence 
in the Legislature; and now he seems to place the most 
implicit confidence in this Convention.—So it is, he 
jokes upon both sides. 

My opinion is that we will get a pretty good consti¬ 
tution; although there are some unfavorable indica¬ 
tions. But it may be we shall get the repeal principle 
yet. 

A Voice. And hard money, too? 

Mr. SAWYER. I cannot answer as to what will be 
the result of the hard money question. I have nearly 
given up all hope of that. But I have confidence in 
the intelligence of this Convention; and it may be 
that they will not object to submitting an open clause, 
and let the people decide that question. 

If the last section should not be adopted, I shall 
move to strike out from the second section the words 
“ two-thirds,” and insert in lieu thereof the words “ a 
majority.” I shall ask this, in view of the difficulty 
which we have had in the Legislature for the last twen¬ 
ty years, about the matter of calling this Convention; 
and when the vote came at last to be taken, under the 
sanction of the constitutional majority of the Legisla¬ 
ture, there was found to be a majority of fifty thousand 
freemen of Ohio in favor of it. 

The gentleman from Ross closed his remarks by 
praying to be delivered from such a set of reformers as 
we are. I believe, sir, that that was a sincere prayer; 
and I believe, also, that his prayer will become more 
and more earnest and sincere, as we advance in our 
work hpre. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLB. I desire to add one word 
to the historical account of the call of this Convention, 
given by the gentleman from Auglaize. He told us 
that when the vote of the people came to be taken up¬ 
on the question of the call of a Convention, there was 
a majority of fifty thousand in favor of it; but I am not 
quite certain that they understood what sort of a Con¬ 
vention they were to have. 

But, now, with how much labor was it that the Leg¬ 
islature was induced to pass a law authorizing the 
people to take that vote. If I recollect aright, propo¬ 
sitions have been made for that object successively for 
several years past; and when the last proposition was 
lost in the Senate, and the project was about to fail, a 
certain Senator, who was anxious that the Convention 
should be called, told his fellow Senators that unless 
they consented to the passage of these resolutions to 
call a Convention to amend the constitution, he would 
vote for the repeal of the law dividing Hamilton coun¬ 
ty, for by his vote the law could have been repealed ; 
and, thereupon, a motion was made by the Senator 
from Muskingum, to reconsider the vote by which the 
resolutions were lost; and they were reconsidered; 
and, accorduigly, the resolutions passed the Senate by 
a forced vote. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. The question of a call of the 
Convention was lost irrevocably in the Senate, and a 
new proposition was introduced by the Senator from 
Muskingum. I have been acquainted with that gen¬ 
tleman for the last fifteen years, and I know that the 
call of a Convention has long been a favorite measure 
with him, and he never rested until he got it through. 












1070 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


But I State again, that the original resolution ior the 
call of a convention had failed, and was supposed to 
be buried beyond hope of a resurrection, when the 
gentleman from Muskingum offered an original propo¬ 
sition, which finally carried. Whatever by-play may 
have been enacted amongst other Senators. I know not 
But i know the gentleman from Muskingum well, and j 
I state here in my place, that I feel fully authorized 
to say, that he occupies a position too elevated for any 
suspicion of unmanly tampering to gain votes to rest 
upon him. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I may'? be wrong in the | 
statement, that the proposition W’as passed upon the 
success of a motion to reconsider It may have been j 
an independent proposition which succeeded; but it! 
was forced through, under the threat of the Senator to 
whom I have referred, to vote for the repeal of the law’ 
dividing Hamilton county. 

I had not intended, by any remark of mine, to as¬ 
cribe any ia.proper motives to the Senator from Mus¬ 
kingum. I do not know who were influenced by the 
motives to which I have referred ; but I do know' that 
the original proposition w'as lost. I know not that 
the Senator from Muskingum voted against the first 
proposition. 

Mr. CHAMBERS, (in his seat.) No, no! 

Mr. HUMPREVILLE. I am glad to be set right. 

I know that the new proposition was passed under the 
threat to w'hich I have referred. I do not know that 
there was any bargaining or agreement about the mat¬ 
ter. But, if I have been correctly informed, that Sen¬ 
ator had his mind so entirely fixed upon the necessity 
of certain amendments to the old constitution, that be 
was induced to make the declaration he did; and T re¬ 
spect and honor him for it. I w’ould, myself, have 
done the same, if I had believed that the proposition 
was withheld from the demand of so large a majority 
of the people. 

Well, this shows something of the difficulty of de¬ 
manding the call of a Constitutional Convention, over 
a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Legis¬ 
lature. 

With reference to the third section, now proposed 
to be stricken out, T w’ould rather part with either of 
the other sections than this. It is precisely what we 
want, and it will do no harm, if it can do no good. 

Mr. TOW'NSHEND. I do not know that the com¬ 
mittee is very much interested in the events by which 
a call for this Convention was allowed by the General 
Assembly. But, as I happen to be rather familiar with 
the matter, I will just take the opportunity to say that 
the gentleman from Medina [Mr. Humph re vtlle] is 
pretty near right in the whole of his statement. It is 
a fact, that a bill for this purpose was originated and 
defeated in the House, It is a fact, that a similar bill 
was introduced into the Senate—was passed in the 
Senate, and defeated in the House. It is also a fact, 
that one or both of these bills were reconsidered in the 
House, and both defeated upon their reconsideration 
by Whig votes. It is a fact also, that after this a mem¬ 
ber of the Senate (perhaps from Muskingum) intro¬ 
duced in that body a joint resolution, permitting a vote 
upon the question of a call for a Convention, and that 
proposition was passed, after similar propositions had 
been three times defeated during the same session, and 
after a select committee had reported in its favor, ex¬ 
cept two Whigs, who made a minority report agianetit. 

It was then that the Senator from Ashtabula made 
an arrangement such as has been stated. That if the 
Whigs, who had three times voted down this call, did 
not come up and vote these resolutions through, he 
would give his vote for a certain amendment of the 
apportionment bill. To prevent this the Whigs did 
come up and vote for the resolutions, every man of 
them in the House, with the exception of those two 
who signed the minority report. All the rest voted for 
the resolutions. The reason they all had to do so was, 
that many members had gone home, and there were 


but just Whigs enough besides those two, to make out 
the constitutional majority of two-thirds. 

I happen to know that our Whig friends there were 
not so wonderfully elevated in their notions of mo¬ 
rality that they could not do such a piece of trading as 
that. 

Mr. NASH. After'this bargain was made how’came 
it that the Senator from Ashtabula did vote for that 
repeal. , ! 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. He did not. The law was not i 
repealed till the winter after. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. I have no doubt the gentle- j 
.man from Lorain is well versed in all the bargains | 
and trading which wire going on in that General As-j 
sembly. : 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. To be sure I am. 

Mr. GREEN. 1 have no question about that. But f 
1 want to inquire whether the gentleman means to im- [ 
plicate the Senator from Muskingum in any way, in 
this trading? U 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. 1 believe all I said of the Sen- 1 
ator from Muskingum was, that he ofl’ered the resolu- j 
tions that were finally carried, as I have stated, after J 
similar propositions had been three times voted down ; 
—the wbigs, at last, voting for them in virtue of the | 
understanding, or bargain, of which I have spoken. ] 
The vote for this call was carried in the Senate with- iij 
out any difficulty—one-half of that body being demo-::] 
crats, and the other half whigs and free soilers. I do 
not know that any particular Senator was induced to 
vote foi the Convention resolutions on account of this ■ 
arrangement; but I do know’ that after such an under¬ 
standing was had, the whigs in the House took hold of 1 
the matter, and moved it straight through. i 

I think, myself, that there is something in the argu¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Medina, [Mr. Humphre- I 
viLLE.] It was w'ith great difficulty, the people could 
get this call of a Convention ; and they would not have 1 
got it at that time, had it not been for the condition of 
things, which made it possible to compel the whigs in¬ 
to it by a little training. 

Mr. COLLINGS explained the oujecl he had m view j 
in ofiering the pending amendment, by way of perfec- | 
ting the section proposed to be stricken out. He did 
not himself attach much importance to this action; but I 
perhaps, with the view taken by the gentleman from I 
Geauga, it would be as well to retain it. He w’ould 
much rather retain this third section, than submit to 
the reduction of the Legislative majority, suggested by 
the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer.] 

The question being now taken upon Mr. Colling’s -i 
motion to amend the section proposed to be stricken 1 
out, by striking out to the word “but” in the 7th line; i 
The amendment w’as rejected. I 

Whereupon Mr. CHAMBERS obtained leave to with- f 
draw his motion to strike out the third section. 

On motion by Mr. LIDEY, the committee now rose, 1 
and the CHAIRMAN reported the bill to the Conven- I 
tion, with one amendment. • 

The question being on agreeing to the amendment of 1 
the committee of the Whole, to-wit; 

In section 2, line seven, strike out the words “in the 
General Assembly,” and insert in lieu thereof the 
words “in the House of Representatives;” 

Mr. RIDDLE demanded a division. j 

The question then being on striking out the words I 
“in the General Assembly.” I 

Mr. FORBES demanded the yeas and nays; which 
being ordered, resulted, yeas 50, nays 41—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Case of Hocking* ‘ 
Chambers, Collings, Cnn-y, Dorsey, Ewing, Gillett, Graham’ 1 
Groesbeck, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Holt, Horton, Hum- 
phreville. Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Li- 
dey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick 
Nash, Otis, Peck, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland* 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Taylor’ 
Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Warren, and Williams—50*. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chaney, Clark' 
Cook, Ewart, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance’ 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1071 


Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, 
Hootman, Hunt, Jones, Larwill, Leech, Leudbetter, Mitchell, Mor¬ 
ris, Norris, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Thompson ot 
Stark, Woodbury and President—41. 

' So the motion to strike out wa s agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the words 
“meuibeiB ot the House oi ReiJieseataiives,’' it was 
agreed to. 

Mr. MAN ON moved to further amend the Report by 
striking out section two. 

On which motion the same gentleman demanded the 
yeas and nays, which being ordered, resulted—yeas 11, 
nays 81—as follows: 

Yeas —^lessrs. Barnet ot Montg^omery, BlickensdeiT'er, Brown 
of Carroll, Chambers, Dorsey, Ewart, Green of Ross, Larsh, 
Manon, McCormick and Nash—11. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Brown 
of Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chaney, Clark, Ceilings, Cook, 
Curry, Ewing, Farr, Florence. Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, 
Greene of Detiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hoot¬ 
man, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Ken- 
non. King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, London, 
Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Norris, Otis, Patter¬ 
son, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Allglaize. Sellers, Smithof Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
Swan, Swift, Taylor Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Warren, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and Presi¬ 
dent—81. 

So the motion to strike out section two was disa¬ 
greed to. 

Mr. LARSH moved to further amend the Report by 
striking out section 1. 

Mr. DORSEY moved to perfect the section propoised 
to be stricken out, by striking our, the words “ three 
fifths.” and inserting in lieu thereof the words, “a 
majority.” 

Mr. MANON demanded a division. 

The question being on striking out the words “ three 
fifths,” it was disagreed to. 

Mr. FARR moved to farther perfect the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, by striking out all after the 
word “by,” in tlie second line, and insertittg in lieu 
thereof, the following: 

A majority of all the members elected by each House ; such 
proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on the 
journals, with the yeas and nays taken thereon, and the same shall 
stand over until the next session of the General Assembly next 
afterwards chosen ; and if such proposed amendments shall be 
agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each House at 
the session last aforesaid, the Secretary of State shall cause them 
to be published in one or more newspapers, in every county in 
which anewspaper shall be published, at least three months after 
being so agreed to by the two Houses, as the General Assembly 
shall prescribe; audit the electors shall approve and ratify such 
amendment or amendments by a majority of all the votes cast at 
such election, such amendment or amendments shall become a 
part of the constitution; but no amendment or amendments shall 
be submitted to the people ottener than once in five years; and 
if more than one amendment be submitted, they shall be submit¬ 
ted in such manner and form that the people may vote for or 
against such amendments separately and distinctly. 

A division being demanded, 

The question then being first on striking out ail after 
the word “ by,” in the second line of the first section; 
it was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out section one ; 
it was disagreed to.g 

Mr. STANBERY moved to further amend the report, 
by striking out all preceding the word “ but,” in the 
7th line of section 3. 

Mr- RANNEY moved to perfect the words to be 
stricken out, by striking out the words “for Represen¬ 
tatives which was agreed to. 

The question then being on striking out all preceding 
the word “ but,” in the 7th line of section 3 

Mr. LARWILL moved to perfect the words propos¬ 
ed to be stricken out, by striking out the word “ seven¬ 
ty,” and insert in lieu thereof the word “ sixtypend¬ 
ing which, 

On motion of Mr. GREEN, of Ross, the Convention 
adjourned. 


'THURSDAY, January 30, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by Rev. Dr. Aydelott. 

Mr. CAHILL moved a call of the Convention, which 
ciueied, Auarews, AicLbuiu, Lai bee. 

Blown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Cutler, Ewart, 
Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hootman, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Mason, McCloud, 
Perkins, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stickney, Taylor, Way and Williams were found absent. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, all further proceed¬ 
ings under the call were dispensed with. 

Mr. STILWELL presented a petition from Mathew 
McNeal and forty others, citizens of Muskingum coun¬ 
ty, praying that a clause be inserted in the new consti¬ 
tution prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors; which on motion 
was laid on the table. 

Mr. MITCHELL presented a petition from Nancy 
Collings and forty-two other females of Knox county, 
on the same subject; which was laid on the table. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON presented sundry petitions 
from John Steel, G. Williams and fifty-eight others, 
citizens of Ross county, on the same subject; which on 
motion were laid on the table. 

Mr. CHANEY presented sundry petitions from John 
Giles, Maria Mayer and eighty-two other males and 
females of Fairfield and Franklin counties; which on 
motion were laid on the table. 

Mr. RANNEY fx’om the committee on Revision, En¬ 
rollment and Arrangement, submitted the following, 
which was agreed to; 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision, be and they are here¬ 
by authorized to direct such printing to be done as chey may 
deem necessary for the performance of their duties. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, the Convention took 
up the report of the standing committee ou Future 
Amendments of the Constitution. 

The third section of said report being under consid¬ 
eration, upon the motion of Mr. Stanbery to strikeout 
all of said section to the word “ but,” inclusive, in the 
seventh line; 

The question was upon the motion of Mr. Larwill 
to strike out the word "seventy,” in the second line, 
and insert the word “ sixty.” 

Mr. LARWILL said he made the motion from a con¬ 
viction that it was right. He thought the people of the 
State would ask amendments to the constitution before 
it could be done under the first section, or under the 
third section as it now stands. He thought the people 
ought to have an oportunity to vote upon the question, 
whether the constitution should be amended, once in 
ten years at least. He was aware that the people 
would not be satisfied with some of the features of this 
constitution, and that the Democratic party would call 
aloud for amendments before a long time. He was 
sure that such reforms would not be secured, in the 
currency question especially, but that the cry for re¬ 
form would soon be heard for further and oiore radi¬ 
cal changes. 

Mr. CHAMBERS hoped the amendment would not 
prevail. He thought the first and second sections alone 
ample provisions for that purpose. He desired, if pos¬ 
sible, to prevent the business of change being made too 
easy. He wanted the constitution we are making so 
perfect, that it will not want alteration in twenty years. 
Under the present constitution it had not been too diffi¬ 
cult. There was,in fact, no public demand for the present 
revision. He was opposed, above all, to that constant 
disposition to change, that had become so manifest in 
the States of New York and Virginia, where every 
ten or fifteen years a Convention is to be called, and 
the whole organic law of the State is to be re-organ- 
ized. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, thought that there was 
no danger injthe section, as it now stands. With the 
amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, it would 








1072 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


place the question before the people oftener than nec¬ 
essary. He saw no danger in allowing the people, if 
they choose, to vote upon the question once in twenty 
years. He denied the charge that had been made, that 
the Whig party had prevented a call of a Convention. 
It was in the year 1819 or 1820, that an opportunity 
was given to the people to vote upon the question, and 
the majority against it was four or five to one. He 
hoped the amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, 
[Mr. Larwill,] would not prevail. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND said, that the gentleman from 
Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] has alluded to me in con¬ 
nection with what he is pleased to style certain “ truck 
and dicker” transactions that took place in the General 
Assembly during the session of 1848-9. I was told 
that he said last evening, though I did not hear his re¬ 
marks, that these transactions had brought disgrace 
upon the Legislature of the State. On these matters, 
I have a word or two to say. 

Mr. President, I do not believe, that the bad odor, 
.into which the gentleman says our General Assembly 
has fallen, is attributable to any arguments that were 
ever made for the election of officers. But, sir, I do 
believe, that the disgrace of which he speaks, is justly 
attributable to the acts of the previous session, when 
the party of which that gentleman is a member, under¬ 
took, in an unconstitutional manner, to divide Hamil¬ 
ton county, for a corrupt party purpose, thus sacrifi¬ 
cing not only the honor, but endangering the peace of 
the State. 

I am not at all troubled by any thing that gentlemen 
can say about “bargain and sale.” In my opinion, 
there was nothing dishonorable in any of those ar 
>rangements, by which the elections were secured. My 
>moral conceptions may not be so acute as that gentle¬ 
man’s, for, as I did nothing for private gain, or that in¬ 
volved the sacrifice of principle, I have nothing to re¬ 
gret. How is it, with the gentleman from Geauga? 
He professes to think all such arrangements very wick¬ 
ed and corrupt, yet, I recollect that during the session 
referred to, there was no small effort made, to elept 
that gentleman’s own son to the United States Senate, 
by the same “ truck and dicker.” I do not say, sir, 
that the gentleman from Geauga knew or approved of 
this, nor do I say his son—now a member of this Con¬ 
vention, from Cuyahoga—knew or approved of what 
was doing in his behalf; but I suspect that if the fam¬ 
ily of the gentleman from Geauga, had profited more 
by these bargains, he would have felt less objection to 
them. Why, sir, how comes that gentleman to be a 
member of this Convention ? Was he elected by whig 
votes ? No sir, strange as it may seem, he was elected 
to his seat in this body, by precisely the same kind of 
“ truck and dicker,” that he condemns. Surely he is, 
of all men, the last that should undertake to administer 
a rebuke to another. 

Mr. HOLT, wished this constitution to last just as 
long as it answered the purpose, and no longer. He 
had now, in consequence of the vote upon the amend¬ 
ment to the first section, become anxious to have the 
amendment of the gentleman from Wayne, [Mr. Lar¬ 
will,] prevail. Suppose we fail to put into this con- 
stituti m some very important provisions. The inter¬ 
ests of individuals might be such as to prevent so large 
a part as three-fifths of the Legislature from voting for 
a change. It was true perhaps, that in some very great 
emergency, it might be done; but he did not want evils 
to accumulate until one of those great emergencies 
shall occur. Kentucky had adopted a provision simi¬ 
lar in effect to this. Indiana, in her earliest constitu¬ 
tion, had submitted the question to a majority of the 
people once in twelve years. In Iowa, in Missouri, in 
New York, the facilities for a revision of the constitu¬ 
tion had in various ways been made easier We have 
cast off the shackles of the past, when it was deemed un¬ 
safe to submit such questions to the people. He had 
rather the periods occur once in five years than once in 
twenty. If there be no necessity, the people will not 


vote for it. There is no earthly danger of such a thing. 
He was anxious, though he might have been wrong, to 
have it fixed so that a majority of two sessions of the 
Legislature could have settled an amendment so as to 
place it before the people. 

Mr. MASON said, as far as he had observed the i 
committee had hit upon about the proper medium bet' | 
tween too great diffiulty and too great facility in ma-? 
king amendments to the constitution. Heshould there-i 
fore vote against the amendment. The gentleman 
from Montgomery had argued the question, as if, ex-, 
cept in this section, there was no provision for future) 
amendments. In so doing, he had conveyed an erro¬ 
neous idea. If the amendment should be adopted, he 
did not feel as if he could vote for the seotion. He 
believed that while the ability to amend should be 
brought within the proper distance, it should not be 
brought too near. Once in twenty years would be fre¬ 
quent enimgh. 

The question then being upon striking out the word'* 
“ seventy ” in the second line, and inserting the word 
“ sixty,” ^ _ i 

Mr. McCORMICK demanded a division of the ques¬ 
tion. The question then being on striking out; the 
same was disagreed to. j 

The question then being on striking out the first part 
of the third section, to the word “ but,” inclusive, in the 
seventh line. i 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 19, nays 80—as fol- ^ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Brovrn of Carroll, Chambers, Florence, Gillett, 
Graham, Green of Ross, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Morehf*ad, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Nash, Perkins, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stil- 
well, Vance and Williams—19, 

Nays —Messrs. Archbolil, Parnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of A'hens, 
Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chaney. Clark. Collings, Cook, Curry, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Gr»-ene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, H tchcock 
of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, .John¬ 
son, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, L(!eeh, Leadbet- 
ter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morris, McConnicK, 
Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson. Peck, Quigley, Ranney, lie ‘melin, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Au<;laize, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith ol Warren, .Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, 
Taylor Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Warren, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President—78. 

So the motion to strike out was disagreed to. 

The question then being upon the engrossment of • 
the report; 

Mr. NASH moved to reconsider the vote by which j 
the Convention refused to strike out the second sec¬ 
tion ; which was disagreed to. ■ 

The que.sti()n then being on the engrossment; the i 
same was agreed to; and the article was ordered to be i 
engrossed and read a third time to-morrow. 

On motion^ of Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee of the whole on the or¬ 
ders of the day—Mr. Chaney in the chair. 

The order being on the report of the select commit¬ 
tee on the subject of temperance ; the same was read 
by the Chairman. 

The question then being on the adoption of the re- 
port; the same was agreed to. ; 

Mr. BENNETT moved that the committee rise and 
report; which was agreed to, and the committee rose j 
and reported the bill back to the Convention. 

The question then being on the engrossment, of the 
article; 

Mr. REEMELIN hoped the Convention would not, 
without consideration, go on to adopt the aml)igious 
provisions of the report. ‘ 

Mr. COLLINGS moved to amend the report, in the 
sixth line, by striking out the word “ license,” and in¬ 
serting in lieu thereof, the words; “authorize the li¬ 
censing of.” 

Mr. REEMELIN said he had strong objections to 
the adoption of such an article as this in the constitu¬ 
tion. He hoped the citizens of Ohio would deU'rmiiie 
that instead of attempting a remedy to the evils of in- 











CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


temperance so violent in its character, and at the same 
time so uncertain as to its result, they would leave the 
wrongs complained of to be regulated by the moral 
sense of the people. The right to sell liquors is an in¬ 
herent right. If it is wrong, let it be punished by a 
law as otlier crimes ; if it is right, why restrict it by li¬ 
cense laws. There is no more reason why this article 
of trade shall be hedged round with restrictions than 
any other. 

Mr. McCormick said he did not look upon the 
amendment of the gentleman from Adams, [Mr. Col- 
lings,] as making any change in the question. The 
Legislature shall not grant licenses, and of course the 
Legislature shall have no power to allow others to 
grant licenses. That which it cannot do of itself it 
may not do by the hands of others. Quifacit per alium, 
fadt per se, is a doctrine as well applicable to legislation 
as to law. What the Legislature authorizes, it does. 
To say that it shall not do, is to say that it shall not 
authorize. He thought therefore the amendment was 
not needed, and hoped it would not be adopted. 

Mr. STANBERY. I feel great doubt, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, how to vote upon this report—very serious 
doubts whether it will accomplish any good—very 
great fear that it may result in positive evil. The pro¬ 
position is that the system of licensing the sale of spi¬ 
rits is to be abolished. But what is this system ? It is 
in fact, a system of restraint—a system of general pro¬ 
hibition, and partial sale under the regulation of law. 
No one can now retail ardent spirits without a license, 
to be granted by your courts, or municipal authorities. 
The report proposes to take away this power of regu¬ 
lation and restraint—and leave the business or traffic 
open to all. It takes away all local supervision. It 
abandons whatever restraint is now imposed. It says, 
in effect, that no restraint is better than partial restraint 
—and that you take a step towards the cure of this 
evil, by a universal license to any one that may be dis¬ 
posed to engage in the business. 

I am hardly satisfied that it is proper to make this 
experiment. I admit the evil is enormous even under 
the license system—but I cannot see that it will not 
be worse without that system. Gentlemen say that a 
license is a legal sanction—that it dignifies and gives 
respectability to the business of retailing, and that the 
friends of the temperance reform are constantly met 
and confronted with this legal sanction of the evil 
which they are combatting. That is putting the mat¬ 
ter in a very plausable light. If indeed, the evil only 
existed by reason of the license—if the license author¬ 
ized that which otherwise would be unlawful, I could 
see the force of the objection. Hereafter, when the li¬ 
cense system is abolished, the business of retailing is 
to be a lawful business. It is still to have the sanction 
of law—a universal sanction, instead of a partial and 
regulated sanction. 

And then, sir, it is said under this free system the 
business will loose some of its respectability. No 
doubt of that. Under a system of free competition— 
with no restraint—no local supervision—this business 
will, in a measure, fall into hands to which it would 
never be entrusted even under the worst administra¬ 
tion of the license system. But how far have we got 
owards a cure of the evil when this change is made? 
We must not forget the dupes of our people most ad¬ 
dicted to this vice. Are we quite sure we shall do a 
good thing for those dupes, by removing all legal re¬ 
straint and supervision? For one, I have my serious 
doubts as to that—and with the most earnest desire to 
mitigate this great evil, I cannot but hesitate as to this 
proposition. I very much fear it will be a step in the 
wrong direction. _ _ 

Mr. BATES 8aid,'"with all deference to his friend 
from Franklin, he thought he had entirely misappre¬ 
hended the object of these petitions. The friends of 
temperance, so far as he was acquainted with their 
sentiments, wished to divest the traffic in ardent spirits 

68 


1073 

of that sanction which had been given to it by laws re¬ 
cognizing and authorizing it. 

They wished to leave it open—to divest it of the pro¬ 
tection of special statutes—to strip from the dealers 
that immunity which attaches to the trade in conse¬ 
quence of such protection, so that they may meet it as 
other moral questions are met, and with the assistance 
of an enlightened public opinion to put it down. 
They wished to create no monopoly—because they are 
well convinced, from long experience, that so long as it 
is thus guarded it will be impregnable. 

I, therefore, believe that the committee has correctly 
understood the prayer^if the petitioners, and that the 
section reported by them is in accorc^ance with their 
wishes. These petitioners are very numerous—about 
twenty thousand; very many of them are men who 
have spent years in endeavoring to eradicate the great 
evil of intemperance from our land; they believe this 
step is necessary for success. Will you grant it ? I 
hope so. 

Mr. HAWKINS said that the object of the committee 
had been to respond to the petitions upon the subject^ 
and, so far as he was aware, it had done so. He did 
not see that the amendment of the gentleman from 
Adams [Mr. Collings] changed the effect of the sec-^ 
tion, and, of course, did not deem it necessary. 

_Mr. COLLINGS was not perfectly satisfied that the 
criticisms upon his amendment, made by the gentleman 
from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbert,] or by his friend from 
Adams, [Mr. M«Cormick,] were well taken. It was 
true, in general, that what a man did by another he did 
himself, but this rule does not apply at all times nor to 
all cases, especially where a legislative body is con¬ 
cerned. The Legislature, for instance, may not, as it 
is at present understood, grant a divorce ; yet it is in 
its province to establish a court that may abolish the 
marriage relation. So the Legislature may establish 
the system of license by persons intending to marry, 
yet it has no power to authorize two persons to be¬ 
come man and wife. 

The question then being on the amendment; the 
same was adopted—yeas 59, nays not counted. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to amend the section, by 
adding, after the word “ liquors,” the following: or 
any other article or articles of merchandize.” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD did not know why the committee 
should single out one article alone, and say that the 
Legislature shall not license traffic in it. He saw no 
reason why all articles of trade should not be placed 
upon the same foundation. He wished by this amend¬ 
ment to test the sense of the Convention upon the prin¬ 
ciple. 

Mr. MANON could show the gentleman from Rich¬ 
land [Mr. Kirkwood] twenty thousand reasons, by the 
names of that number of petitioners, why this article 
should be singled out from others and made the subject 
of a special article. 

Mr. HAWKINS said the gentleman could not have 
paid much attention to the prayers of the petitions pre¬ 
sented here for some clause in the constitution, to re¬ 
strain the evils of intemperance. Twenty thousand of 

the citizens of Ohio have singled out this question_ 

the subject of this one ai’ticle, and have prayed that a 
prevention of any act to legalize a trade so destructive,, 
may be inserted in this constitution. He hoped the 
gentleman from Richland would treat this matter with 
a little deference to the prayers of those who are at 
once so numerous and so much in earnest. He wanted 
to have this question stand upon its own merits, and 
standalone. It is distinct in the long train of evils, 
both public and private, that surround and accompany 
it—fearfully distinct in the ravages it commits and in 
the track of ruin which marks the progress of intem¬ 
perance through the land. 

Mr. BENNETT said that when the gentleman from 
Richland, [Mr. Kirkwood,] could show a tithe of the 
evil resulting from the ordinary traffic [of the country, 
that attends the trade in ardent spirits, ho would vot€>i 
for the amendment; but not till then. 













1074 


CONVENTION REPOETS 


Mr. NASH supposed he should differ from the gen¬ 
tleman from Richland, [Mr. Kirkwooo,] upon the sub¬ 
ject of license. What is the object of license systems 
and laws? In their original idea it was a duty or tax 
laid upon callings that could be reached in no other 
way. Thus auctioneers take out a license and pay for 
it. It is an exercise of the taxing power of the State, 
and has notliing to do with the morality or immorality 
of the trades, calling.s or practices permitted. In these 
latter days, it is said to be em} loyed to legalize acts 
and occupations that are immoral, Sucli is not the 
case. It IS a mere regulation for purposes of revenue 
and nothing else. For what purposes are towns anx¬ 
ious to licen,se liquor shops? For purposes of revenue 
and for no other. 

But gentlemen say that the State, by deriving a rev¬ 
enue from this trade gives it a dignity that otherwise it 
would not possess- I think not, sir. In this view of 
the case, gentlemen say that the State ought never to 
desire a revenue from, or give the sanction of law to 
the trade, or raise it to the dignity of a profession by 
making it exclusive. I think the view is incorrect. 
The fact of license has no relation to the question of 
morality in this case more than in that of an auctioneer. 

Mr. PERKINS hoped the amendment would pre¬ 
vail. If the section was to go into the constitution at 
all, he wished it made general in its terms. He ob¬ 
jected to the whole license system, because its effect 
was to establish and legalize monopolies. If the city 
of Cincinnati has a right to license the sale of spirits, 
she has an equal right to license the sale of flour, and 
if the Legislature can delegate to the city of Cincin¬ 
nati the power to sell to an individual the sole right 
to supply her citizens with ardent spirits, it can dele¬ 
gate to the same city the power to confer upon an in¬ 
dividual the sole right to supply her citizens with 
beef, pork, or any other essential article of trade and 
commerce. This seems to be a valid objection to the 
whole license system. 

I do not desire, Mr. President, to treat the twenty 
thousand petitioners upon the subject of temperance 
with disrespect. I do not think the course I propose 
will be disrespectful. I am advocating the declaration 
of a general principle, in generai terms, and if we fol¬ 
ly accomplish the wishes of the petitioners, T do not 
think they will complain if at the same time we secure 
the adoption of an important political truth. 

The gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash,] says, and 
says truly, that the original object of license laws was 
taxation. Undoubtedly such is the case. It i.s a mode 
of levying a special tax, of fleecing a part of the com¬ 
munity for the benefit of the rest. It is, therefore, a 
departure from the doctrine, that all tl;e property of 
the State should be equally bound to pay the expenses 
of the State. It is a right that is granted to the corpo¬ 
rations of cities and towns, to gain a support of theii 
eovernraent out of the trade of the country. It is a 
mode of levying back mail upon he business of the 
■icinity to sappiii’t the cTies and towns. It is a grea- 
power and ve y pr uluctive; but it is incorrect in prin¬ 
ciple, and ought to bo provided against b a g-uieral 
provision in the organic law of the land w hich shall 
be equally applicable to one subject or article of trade 
as to another. 

Mr. BATES desired to say a few words in reply to 
the gentleman from Franklin. All wdio were engaged 
in the temperance refoi tn are anxious to apply to it a 
radical remedy. In all their eflbrt«, they bad foui.d 
themselves met by this fact—that the venders of spir- 
itoiis liquors, do it under a license from the L'-gisla- 
ture of the State, granted uiuh'r its provisions, sanction¬ 
ed by its aiidiority, and issued by one of the officers of 
the government. Here is at once a j)ower to vend with 
a patent from the State. It is issued only to men of 
good moral cliaracter. The calling is made respecta¬ 
ble i«y act of law, the evidence of which the patentee 
canues in his hand to refute at once any imputation 
upon his character. 


Well, what is this license ? It is authority to make 
men drunk, according to law. Ho may sell a man 
liquor until he is drunk—if he sells him a drop more, 
then thonice morality of the State is outraged, and he 
may be fined. 

The difference seems to bo here : The temperance 
men of the State—those who have been long engaged 
in the cause, think that in order to put down intemper¬ 
ance, you must abolish the license system, and so far 
take away the respectability of the business of making 
men drunkards. On the other hand, the gentleman 
from Franklin, who has not even read the peiidons, 
thinks otherwise. Which is the safest guide? For 
my part, I am disposed to believe that these men, who 
have thoroughly investigated the subject, are the safest 
counsellors. They ask that this monopoly shall be 
[lutdown—that the protection shall be taken away, so 
that public opinion may be brought to bear directly 
upon this subject. Is there anything unreasonable in 
this? Anything improper? Anything that in the least 
interferes with the rights of our citizens? I think not. 
But I have been astonished to see some gentlemen, 
w'ho have a holy horror of monopolies, still upholding 
this, the nio.st odious of all monopolies. But my friend 
from Franklin, who, I believe, as earnestly opposes in¬ 
temperance as any of us, is afraid that the result will 
be to increase the amount of liquor sold, and thus de¬ 
feat the object. How ? Can there be greater facilities 
for obtaining it than now exist? I doubt it. Nay, I 
will agree wdth the gentleman, that if he wdll show mo 
a man with money enough in his pocket, who cannot 
get his dram of whisky in any vicinity where there is 
a licensed public housfj, I will give up the question. 
He can’t do it, unless his observation has been differ¬ 
ent from mine! I hope the section will be adopted, 
and that much good will result. 

Mr. PERKINS said the time was when everything 
connected with human government was done by com- 
[ujlsion ; when forts, and fleets, and armies, were the 
chief means of governing the world. Then govern¬ 
ment was a sort of sausage stuffing machine—every¬ 
thing went by pressure—by driving—by steam. Now 
the tiling is otherwise. Another element enters in to 
form the motive power of public affairs. Thatelement 
is public opinion. The opinions of men are brought to 
bear upon the times, and the consequence is, that re¬ 
forms are radical and permanent, for they rest not upon 
laws which may be repealed, but upon the settled hab¬ 
its and principles of people themselves. 

In regard to .'he license question, I believe that those 
laws which hold a shield before such traffics as are im¬ 
moral ill their tendency, either to the person protected 
or his customer, are wrong; and 1 believe the effect of 
license laws has been uniformly bad. I say, then, re¬ 
peal tile license laws, and if men will engage in the 
trade, let them stand or fall by the public opinion of 
the community in which they reside. 

I would now inquire into the effect of the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Richland, [Mr. Kirk¬ 
wood] The gentleman from Franklin misrepresents 
the effect of the article which I offered f ’e other day 
as an amendment to tl e bill of rights. I then stated 
that I did not understand it to interfere with the pow¬ 
ers of corporate towns to establish markets, and mar¬ 
ket days, to regulate the introduction of powder with¬ 
in their corporate limits, make sanatory regulativins, &c. 

I stated that its object was merely to cut down the 
[lower to sell the exclusive right to trade in certain ar¬ 
ticles—the power to establish a monopoly, by making 
a given person the agent of the government to trade iu 
H given c. mmodi y. I hope the amendment of the 
gentleman from Richland will prevail, and that it will, 
before the subject is disposed of, be made still more 
broad and comprehensive. 

Mr. STANTON said the proposition of the gentle¬ 
man from Richland, [Mr Kirkwood,] might be right, 
but if BO, it was right for a different reason from that 
urged in favor of the section to which it was offered 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1075 


as an amendment. There was no necessary connec¬ 
tion between the two, and the attempt to unite them 
would be productive of confusion. He regretted that 
the gentleman from Richland had chosen to embarrass 
the original proposition by one so totally distinct. He 
hoped he did not want to destroy the report by indi¬ 
rection. That under the circumstances, would not be 
a fair mode of testing the strength of a question in the 
Convention. 

He wished to say a word upon the argument of the 
gentleman from Franklin. Until within a year or two, 
he had been of the same opinion, and had taken the 
same ground. But the friends of temperance, on eve¬ 
ry side, cried out for an open field. They could not 
contend against that sanction of the traffic which was 
conferred by a license issued to a man of good moral 
character. Take away that shield, and the parties are 
placed upon equal ground. If the people are willing 
to turn loose the horrors of intemperance upon them¬ 
selves, and then to bear them without an effort to rid 
themselves of the evnl, let them do it. 

One great obstacle to the adoption of a regulation 
like that proposed, is the necessity in towns and cities 
for the revenue that accrues from the traffic. There 
is always in these towns and cities a great dearth of 
revenue, and as the sale of licenses affords a certain 
and considerable sum, they are always ready and anx¬ 
ious to avail themselves of it. Sources of revenue are 
scarce, and the councils determine to risk the evil for 
the sake of the gain. That inducement should be ta¬ 
ken away. 

The truth is, the great obstacle to the temperance re¬ 
form is the respectability of those who engage in the 
traffic. And that traffic, being legalized, it is respecta¬ 
ble by law, and respectable men may make it a busi¬ 
ness. If every man who pleased were allowed to buy 
and sell spirituous liquors, it would bring in all sorts of 
men, and the calling would fall into disrepute and be¬ 
come degraded—men of character would not resort to 
the places where sjnrits are retailed. Now it is not so. 
So long as the places are respectable, men will resort 
to them, and drunkards will be made out of sober men. 
If we could take away the splendid temptations of the 
liquor doggeries, where the upper ten go, there would 
be few drunkards made; as to those other places 
where drunkards are finished off, it is not so much 
matter. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD wanted to say a few words by way 
of explanation. The gentleman from Morgan [Mr. 
Hawkins] had intimated that he had shown a want of 
respect to the twenty thousand petitioners upon this 
subject, by offering his amendment. He did not plead 
guilty to the charge. If he had differed from them in 
opinion, he might do so without disrespect. 

Mr. HAWKINS said he had no intention to make 
such charge. He had answered a question of the gen¬ 
tleman by referring to the petitioners—that was all. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD ’-aid the gentleman from Logan, 
[Mr. Stanton,] also had charged him with an attempt 
to load down the report and prevent its adoption. That 
was not his object. He was not the man to attempt to 
carry his points in that way; and if the peculiar friends 
of the report thought his amendment would do so, he 
would withdraw it. 

Mr. STANTON. I think so. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD did not wish to embarrass the 
friends of the proposition. He wanted them to have 
a direct vote upon it. It did seem a little strange to 
him that a regulation of this kind had been asked for, 
only in regard to one article. The business of this 
body is to assert general principles. If the general 
principle is correct, it will be correct in every particu¬ 
lar case. He had a few remarks that he desired to 
make, upon the general principle, but this was not the 

proper time. . , , , • 

Mr. KIRKWOOD obtained leave to withdraw his 
amendment. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, moved to amend the 


report, by striking out all before the word “many, ” in 
the sixth line, and inserting in lieu thereof, the follow¬ 
ing: 

No license or traffic in intoxicating liquors shalk hereafter be 
granted in this State, by the General Assembly. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, wished to explain brief, 
ly the object of his amendment. He understood that a 
number of the towns and cities of the State had now the 
power to grant licenses. Such being the case, he con¬ 
sidered the language of the report would not remedy 
the evil, and there would be no prohibition of the grant¬ 
ing of licenses, unless the Legislature should go back 
and repeal so much of their charters as gave the power. 
He had offered the resolution in good faith, to remedy 
what appeared to him a defect, and he hoped it would 
be adopted. 

Mr. McCORMICK said it did not appear to him that 
this amendment would change the power of the Legis¬ 
lature. The pi'ovision, as it is, would prohibit the Leg¬ 
islature from authorizing licenses. It would do more. 
It would empower that body to repeal all those laws 
which confer the power. More—the constitution itsel f 
will either operate as an amendment to the charter, or 
will make it imperative upon the Legislature to amend 
them. He thoughtthe amendment a mere change in 
phraseology—nothing more. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention took a 
recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending when the Convention took a 
recess, was upon the adoption of the amendment of 
Mr. Thompson, of Shelby, to wit: striking out from the 
report the words, “the General Assembly shall not 
license traffic in intoxicating liquors, but,” and inser¬ 
ting these words, “No license to traffic in intoxicating 
liquors shall hereafter be granted in this State, but the 
General Assembly shall.” 

Mr. CLARK. If I understand the wish of the many 
petitioners on the subject of the licensing and sale of 
ardent spirits, and the v. ish of the friends of temper¬ 
ance, as expressed here in debate, they desii’e that all 
laws on the subject of the sale of spirituous liquors 
shall be repealed, and the traffic be left entirely free. 
The report now before the Convention, it is claimed by 
its Iriends, is calculated and intended to produce that 
state of things. If that is the fair interpretation of it, 

I am willing to give it ray support. The friends of 
temperance ask that the license system be abolished, 
that they may have an open field and fair, free, fight, 
which tliey claim they cannot have while the traffic is 
made respectable by the license system. I am with 
them in opinion, and desire to give them a free field for 
operations. When the temperance reform first com¬ 
menced, its friends relied solely on moral means, and 
the cause prospered well until legislative aid was called 
in, when, from that moment, the reform has been on 
the retrogade. The friends of the reform, having seen 
the bad effects of relying measurably upon legislative 
ibree to carry forward the measure, now desire to re¬ 
turn to the use of moral means. All experience shows 
that religion or morality cannot be enforced by legal 
coercion, or by resorting to any forcible means what¬ 
ever, Much, however, lias been effected by moral 
means, to reform this greatest of all evils, and much 
may yet be done by resorting to the same means. 

Mr. SAWYER acknowledged that he felt cousider- 
ahle interest in this subject, but it was a matter with 
which legislation had really ncthiug at all to do. His 
constituents asked merely to be let alone in this mat- 
ter. 

According to his judgment, no instrument conld be 
more effective than such a clause as this, in the hands 
of its enemies, to defeat this constitution before the 
people. 

He was not himself very tenacious of the subject of 
temperance. He had never in bis life joined a teni- 
1 perauce society; and he objected to any social orgauiza 










1076 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


tion settiiiff up a standard, either in morals or religion, 
for him to be governed by. He recognized nothing as 
a crime, which was not interdicted in the sacred scrip¬ 
tures. He regarded the scriptures of the New Testa¬ 
ment as a perfect rule of practice, and adopted it lor 
himself in preference to any thing, and to the exclu¬ 
sions of every thing conflicting with it, suggested by 
mere human authority. 

But there were other sins besides drunkenness, and 
of more appalling magnitude, pointed out and forbid¬ 
den in the Bible, with which society were far more 
grievously afflicted, than with the vice of intemperance; 
and how was it that we had no petitions and memori 
als against the course of legislation, with reference to 
these blacker crimes? 

He objected to temperance societies, as a service in 
morals, going quite beyond the divine requirements. 
The only temperance society of which the New Testa¬ 
ment (a copy of which he held in his hand) gave any 
account, was to be found in the twenty-third chapter 
of Acts of the Apostles, twelfth and thirteenth verses. 

Several Voices. Read! read! 

Mr. S. then read as follows: 

“12. And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded them" 
selves together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that 
they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. 

“ 13. And they were more forty which had made this conspi¬ 
racy.” 

But, Mr. Chairman, continued Mr. S., these all broke 
their pledge. 

Sir, I am asked to join in a crusade against the un¬ 
fortunate inebriate. But let me say to you, sir, with 
respect to that class of mankind who are so unfortu¬ 
nate as to become drunkards, many of them posess good, 
honest hearts: and they are to be blamed, lor this frail¬ 
ty- And now, disguise it as you will, you are here 
framing a section which is to operate against this un¬ 
fortunate class of men. 

If you go to the legislative power to suppress intem¬ 
perance how will you proceed ? Will you confine your 
inebriates in the jail, or give them forty lashes, or will 
you fine them? But this proposition would open the 
retail traffic, and make it free to all. A pretty way 
that would be to suppress this evil. The most aban¬ 
doned and worthless portion of the community would 
immediately go into the trade. What, then, would you 
do ? My way would be to license only men of good 
moral character—just as you do now, and I would make 
them responsible for what they do. I would make it 
ail offence, punishable by a heavy fine and forfeiture, 
to sell ardent spirits to a drunkard. I would bind these 
cords of restraint strongly around the tavern-keepers, 
giving assurance to travelers that they should be well 
treated. That is the way I would suppress intemper¬ 
ance. And beyond all this, I would do whatever could 
be done to make this vice disreputable. 

I have already referred to the inconsistency of ma¬ 
king this vice, of all others, the subject of petition and 
legislation ; and I have said that the sacred scriptures 
were a perfect rule of conduct. I am not bound by 
any moral precept of less authority than those of this 
book. And now, if any gentleman will show me here 
authority for the enactment of penal laws to compel 
men to forbear and refrain from the use of spirituous 
liquors, or to punish the inebriate, then I will make 
no more opposition to this report. 

What is this sacred law ? We find it written to this 
effect, when a certain lawyer came to the Saviour and 
said: 

* * * “ Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may 
have eternal life ? 

“ 17. And he said unto him. Why callest thou me good ? there 
is none good but one, that is God. But if thou wilt enter into 
life keep the commandments. 

“18. He said unto him, which ? Jesus said. Thou shalt do no 
murder. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. 
Thou shalt not bear false witness. 

“ 19. Honor thy lather and thy mother; and. Thou shalt love 
thy neighbor as thyself. 

“ 20. The young man saith unto him: All these things have 
J kept from my youth up, what lack 1 yet ? 

“ 21. Jesus said unto him. If thou wilt be perfect—” 


Go and join in the Sons—take the pledge—was that 
what he said ? I tell you, sir, I would rather take this 
sacred word, which I believe, for the man of my coun¬ 
sel, than submit myself to be guided by all the inven¬ 
tions of men or women. Here is what the Saviour said: 

“ If thou wilt be perfect, and sell that thou hast, and give it 

to the poor.” 

To show the impropriety of making the vice of intem¬ 
perance a great object of legislation, to the neglect of 
others, I will read a catalogue of the higher crimes, 
against which the denunciations of this book are spe¬ 
cially directed, and in which not the mere use of the 
ardent, but even drunkenness itself is not included. I 
read from the first chapter of Paul to the Romans: 

“ 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wicked¬ 
ness, covetousness, maliciouaness ; full of envy, murder, debate, 
deceit, malignity, whisperers, 

“30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, 
inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 

“ 31. Without understanding, covenant-breakers, 'wdthout nat¬ 
ural aflfection, implacable, unmerciful.” 

Here was a class of crimes about which we did not 
hear so much. Where were the mighty efforts to re¬ 
form and restore this class of evil doers ? And where 
was the legislation to punish them ? Yet they were 
denounced in the written word with more emphasis 
than the poor inebriate. Where, then, was the author¬ 
ity for making the drunkard a special subject of pun¬ 
ishment? 

Mr. HAWKINS, (interposing.) The proposition was 
to punish injuries resulting from the traffic. 

Mr. SAWYER. But he feared it would be hard to 
arrive at the facts in all cases. 

But why were not societies formed for the purpose 
of putting down those more common, and malignant, 
and fearful crimes to which he had referred ? 

Where was the moral propriety of asking a sober, 
temperate man, to sign a pledge, that he will never get 
drunk, or never take the ardent? Or where was the 
propriety of askingfemalesto signa temperance pledge? 
If a company of reformed liars and thieves were to 
bind themselves in a pledge that they never would 
tell a lie nor steal any more, it might be very well for 
them ; but if one of their friends were to come to you 
and ask you to sign their pledge, you would show him 
the door. Was there any benevolence in signing such 
a pledge ? What would be thought of a pledge against 
licentiousness, emanating from such reformed individ¬ 
uals as are usually collected in a modern house of ref- 
uge? 

He suspected some hypocrisy in all this noise about 
the suppression of intemperance, whilst every other 
form of vice was sweeping over the land like a del¬ 
uge, without provoking the play of our benevolent 
artillery. The reason of this wa*s, that acts of benev¬ 
olence, when confined to other subjects of vice and 
crime, could not be noised abroad with so much facili¬ 
ty. If those who are clamorous for the suppression 
of intemperance, were really as honest and disinter¬ 
ested as they pretend, they would be just as ready to 
organize societies for the suppression of those other 
vices and crimes which have no mixture of good in 
them, but which are ‘‘ evil and only evil, and that con¬ 
tinually.” 

With regard to the manufacture and use of spiritu¬ 
ous liquors, he proceeded to show the necessity for 
employing the article in various business pursuits, and 
that a distillery afforded a good market for the produce 
of the farmer, and gave much employment to carpen¬ 
ters, coopers, coppersmiths, &c. And, besides, sir, (he 
continued,) as a freeman, sometimes I choose to refresh 
myself with a drink of this manufacture, and you have 
no more right to restrain me in the exercise of this 
privilege, than you have to say what shall be the color 
of my coat, or whether I shall wear boots or shoes, or 
go without either. I tell you, this is none of your bu¬ 
siness. You are traveling out of the record ; you are 
becoming excessively kind, whenever you attempt to 
interpose legislation in these matters. It is none of 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1077 


your business “ what I shall eat, or what I shall drink, 
or wherewithal I shall be clothed.” 

In the couclusion of his remarks, Mr. S. dilated con¬ 
siderably upon the besetting weakness of drinking to 
excess. It was, perhaps, as much to be pitied and de¬ 
plored as any other weakness of our nature. There 
was no lawful thing which a man of feeling would not 
do to save his fellow man addicted to this vice. But 
there were blacker and deeper crimes than this— 
crimes without mitigation—which it would be more 
reasonable to make the subjects of primitive statutes. 
This whole matter should be left to the control of pub¬ 
lic opinion. The freemen of Ohio would not bear the 
dictation of law, with reference to things which were 
in themselves indifferent. 

The question being upon the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Shelby, [Mr. Thompson,] to wit: striking 
out the following words, “ the General Assembly shall 
not license traffic in intoxicating liquors, but,” and in¬ 
serting in their place the words, “ No license to traffic 
in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be granted in 
this State, but the General Assembly 

Mr. COLLINGS remarked that the object of this 
amendment was to prevent the granting of license by 
municipal authorities in the State. 

Mr. STANTON demanded a division of the question. 

And the question being upon striking out, it was 
agreed to. 

The question then being upon inserting the words 
above recited, 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, said the amendment of the 
gentleman from Shelby, [Mr. Thompson,] presented 
the whole subject for discussion. It is simply, that 
hereafter no license shall ever be granted in Ohio for 
the traffic in intoxicating liquors. And he desired to 
say a word or two on the subject. His position on this 
license question was well understood at home. It 
had been brought to bear upon him at the polls. Many, 
doubtless from very conscientious motives, used it 
against him, whilst others had done so, not because of 
their zeal in the cause of temperance so much as to 
gratify personal malice. He should not, therefore, have 
troubled the Convention with a word had it not been 
for a reason he would now state. He had the honor, a 
day or two since, to present two petitions bearing the 
signaturfes of some hundred and fifty of the ladies of 
the county of Ross. On looking over the names, he 
recognized a few with whom he had the honor of 
personal acquaintance. But he would say of all of 
them that the high position they occupy for respecta¬ 
bility and moral worth, entitles them, not only to his 
profound respect, but an avowal of the reasons which 
govern his action on the subject which they have in 
some sort, entrusted to his care. I shall do so sir, (said 
Mr. G.) freely, with great respect for them and for the 
subject. Before I do so, however, I desire to say a 
word or two, by way of comment on the position assu¬ 
med in their petitions. The form is printed, conse¬ 
quently both are alike. 

They set out with asserting that “ the women and 
children of Ohio, are many of them in extreme pover¬ 
ty and wretchedness, caused by existing laws sanction¬ 
ing and legalizing the traffic in ardent spirits.” Here 
sir, is the fallacy which has been repeated by gentle¬ 
men upon this floor, “existinglaws ” do not “ sanction 
or legalize” the traffic. They simply regulate the 
traffic. In the absence of any law on the subject, the 
traffic in whisky would be just as free as in any thing 
else. The traffic does not grow out of the legalizing 
effect of the laws—and it is therefore an error to im¬ 
pute the disastrous effects of the use of intoxicating 
liquors to the laws which look to restraining the traffic. 

Suppose all existing laws authorizing the granting of 
licenses to retail spirituous liquors, were repealed? 
The result would be that every man who could raise 
twenty-five cents, to buy a jug of whisky, might go to 
work. “ Free trade in whisky.” That is what the 
iViends of temperance, some of them, have upon this 


floor said they desire—but I will comment on that 
branch of the subject presently. 

I repeat then, that it is erroneous to impute to the 
laws on the subject, the evils that arise from intemper¬ 
ance, unless it can be shown that limiting the number 
of those who shall be permitted to vend liquor, stimu¬ 
lates the appetite, and increases the facilities for pro¬ 
curing liquor. 

After speaking in language, truly eloquent, of the 
terrible disasters which follow in the path of this vice, 
the petition goes on to say : “ In vain have we trusted 
to legislators and the church—the one interested to se¬ 
cure popular favor for future advancement, the other 
having their time, talent and energy, devoted to send¬ 
ing missionaries to the heathen, or building and fur¬ 
nishing churches at home, neither of whom are wil¬ 
ling to take one step in advance of public sentiment, 
for the defence of the weak, or for the advancement of 
their countiy’s honor.” 

Can this be so, sir ? Is the General Assembly afraid 
to act for the defence of the weak and the advance¬ 
ment of their country’s honor ? Can it be that the 
church of God is locked up in selfish schemes for its 
own temporal advancement, and declines to move in 
obedience to its divine mission in this great moral ref¬ 
ormation ? 

Sir, among the signers of these petitions, I recognize 
the names of some who are devoted members of Chris¬ 
tian churches—who worthily, I doubt not, stand high 
for their true piety and pi'actical exhibition in life, and 
conduct, of the religion they profess. Will they admit 
that their chui'ch, the blessed sanctuary around whose 
altars cluster their dearest hopes of earth and heaven— 
the church where they resort to hear the truths of 
eternal blessings or eternal woe from the lips of the 
man of God, chosen to preach His word.—Will they 
admit that their church and the pious men who minis¬ 
ter at its altars are derelict in duty on the subject in¬ 
volving the appalling consequences in time and eterni¬ 
ty, which they so eloquently depict ? 

Sir, I commend this assertion in their petition, to 
their careful and serious reconsideation. I say to 
them ill all respect, they have been induced to give 
their sanction to an error unfounded, in fact, and 
injurious to the well iutentioned and as I believe, 
well directed, efficient efforts of the church, to eradicate 
vice of every hue and name, not alone intemperance, 
but all the sinful and vicious propensities of humanity. 

Mr. GREEN then proceeded to read and comment 
on the petition, and continued: 

Sir, these ladies have thus in elequent language pre¬ 
sented their grievances. I am most happy to say that 
there is not one of them, as I believe, so unfornate as 
to be the victim of the wretchedness of which they 
speak, being wives, mothers and daughters of respec¬ 
table temperance citizens. But they have seen—do 
see the mischiefs they describe, around them. I do not 
doubt it, as they say so. And to their credit let it be 
said that they do not presume to prescribe the remedy, 
though they evidently look to something like the prop¬ 
osition before us as the proper one.^ Nothing, sir, 
would afford me more gratification—it would be my 
pride, as it is my duty, to aid in advocating any meas¬ 
ure they desire, but believing that they, and their ad¬ 
visers, are mistaken in the course they would seem to 
indicate as the proper one, I cannot lend the proposi¬ 
tion my aid. 

Mr. SAWYER interposed and read the following ex¬ 
tract from a petition presented some ten days ago by 
the gentleman from Clinton, [Mr. Morris,] which he 
pronounced a slanderous falsehood: 

This (selling liquor under license,) has no parallel in history, 
which now occurs to us, save the wicked sale of indulgences to 
the commission of sin, by the Pope of Rome. 

This was a falsehood when it was penned ; always 
had been a falsehood; and he supposed it always would 
be. 

Mr. GRElgN resumed; sir, intemperance is most un- 








1078 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


questionably a great evil. But it is not peculiar in the J 
present age; wlierever and whenever men have been 
able to avail themselves of the use of intoxicating 
drink.s, they have always done so. The denuucia’ions 
of the boi'k, to which the gentleman from Auglaize 
had referred, were directed again.st drunkenness; but 
they are also directed against gluttony, and the abuse 
of every good thing. It is the abuse, tiot the use of the 
thing, which is evil. 

But, now, it is proposed to prohibit the Legislature 
from licensing by law the retail of ardent spirits. The 
gentleman from Logan, [IMr. Stanton,] has aflirmed 
that the license made the liafHc respectable; it author¬ 
ized respectable men to pay a license to keep a drink¬ 
ing house, where the upper ten might resort for grog; 
but take away the license, and the traffic will become 
infamous—for a respectable man would not go into a 
grog shop. Sir, there is one thing which must be con¬ 
ceded—it is beyond allcontroversy—and that is, wheth¬ 
er you license the sale of intoxicating liquors or not, they 
will be sold, and they will be drank. But you are to 
make the traffic infamous. And this you will accom¬ 
plish by withholding the license. Now, sir, suppose 
(for the sake of the argument,) I concede the proposi 
tion, (which, in all respects, I consider an absurdity,) 
and what follows? Why, the traffic is to fall into the 
bands of infamous men. The restraint imposed by the 
laws, I'equiring that the privilege shall be contined to 
such as can give evidence of moral standing, it to be 
removed. And here, let me say, that if this intention 
of the laws is not carried out, it is the fault of those to 
whom the administration of the laws is intrusted. All 
restraint is to be removed, and then say gentlemen, the 
traffic will become infamous. Do they suppose that 
infamous men, such as they seem to have in their 
mind’s eye, will not be found to engage in the traffic? 

Sir, your general government has tried every ex¬ 
pedient to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors to 
the Indians—but notwithstanding, it is well known 
the '‘fire water” rouses the passions of the savage to 
madness, and turns him loose a maniac, armed with 
tomahawk and scalping knife, upon helpless women 
and children—yes, there are men vile enough to 
evade the law, and mwiister to this accursed traffic 
with the savage. Yes, sir, make the traffic as odious 
as you may, so long as men have an appetite for li¬ 
quor, and will pay for it, it will be sold. 

And now what is proposed? It is said that licensing 
the trade makes it respectable—that is, respectable 
men will engage in it. Take away the license laws, 
and though you can’t suppress—annihilate the trade, it 
will become so infamous that none but infamous men 
will engage in it. This is the argument. Sir, where 
do the evils of intemperance most strikingly exhibit 
themselves—among your “upper tens,” spoken of by 
gentlemen ? No, sir, it is among the poorer classes 
that they are seen in their most appalling forms. Here 
there is a great moral evil that, like a pestilence, walk- 
eth in darkness and wasteth at noonday. And instead 
of striking at the root—prohibiting the sale of wdii.sky. 
by heavy pains and penalties, gentlemen propose that 
it shall be left free to all; and then, according to the 
necessary result of their argument, the most unworthy 
character in community will be left free to carry deso¬ 
lation, disgrace and death to all whose appetite is too 
strong to be controlled by j>rudence. 

Why do they not meet the case fully? Why not 
ask for a provision in the constitution prohibiting tlie 
sale of liquor? Because they frankly admit that pub¬ 
lic opinion will not sustain such a provision. But 
public opinion does demand some salutary restraints 
upon the traffic—these restraints ymur laws design to 
impose—but these laws gentlemen desire shall be re¬ 
pealed. 

Sir, the evils consequent upon intemperance are 
great—all concede this—but until you can convince 
men that the use of liquor, temporarily, prudently, is a 
wrong, you cannot effect anything by prohibitions. 


Every inordinate cup is unblessed, 

And the ingredient is a devil. 

It is the “inordinate cup ” that is cursed, whose in¬ 
gredient is a devil, which men “ put into their mouths 
to steal away their brains.” True, legislation must 
proceed upon this hypothesis, to be effective—if it at¬ 
tempts to do more, it will fail. No government ever 
attempted to euforce sumptuary^ laws without failing. 
Men will not submit to be directed by law, in what 
they shall eat, or what they shall drink, or wherewith 
tliey shall be clothed. These petitioners desire steps 
to be taken “in advance of public sentiment.” I say 
to them, beware how they recommend a fatal error. 
Let me say to them that sound, wholesome, practical 
legislation, is but the reflection of sound, wholesome 
public sentiment. You cannot force a public senti¬ 
ment by means of legislation. If you attempt it, be¬ 
ware of the re-action. Let legislation be forced through 
the medium of public sentiment, and then it will be ef¬ 
fective. 

Mr. Fresideiit, if these petitioners had themselves 
drafted these petitions, or had they oidy reflected upon 
the sentiments they contain, I am constrained to think 
they would have been far from giving their sanction to 
them. I deny, most respectfully, that the Legislature 
of Oliio is uiuniiidful of “ the country’s honor.” I deny 
that the church of God is unwilling “ to take one step 
in advance of public sentiment, for the defence of the 
weak or for the advancement of their country’s honor.’’ 
Its ministers are, I believe, faithful servants, deeply 
impressed with the solemn responsibilities imposed 
upon them ; and if they can be charged with error in 
the manner of their ministry, it is that they do some¬ 
times attempt to take a step in advance of public senti¬ 
ment, in the enfoi'cement of moral precepts and duties. 
The Gospel of the Saviour of the world covers the 
whole ground, and it is sufficient for lime and for eter¬ 
nity—it is the perverseness of men that retards its 
growth and weakens its power. Its mission is, how¬ 
ever, to persuade men, not to force them, and its min¬ 
isters act wisely when they so act, in treating with a 
habit which has its source in the appetite of man, 
which is an evil only when cairied to excess—which 
is wrong only when imprudently indulged. You may 
persuade them into the conviction that total abstinence 
from that habit will otter the surest safeguard, and in¬ 
duce them to adopt your plan, but you can’t force 
them ; if you attempt it, the very perversity of man’s 
nature prompts him instantly to rebel. They point 
you at once to the hosts of pious, venerated names, 
who, in their day, have partaken soberly of the cup. 
They brand your efforts with the stigma of fanaticism; 
and then your advice is useless. 

Sir, I take issue with those who say that the traffic 
in licpior is stimulated by your license laws—they do, 
to some extent, operate as a restraint. Establish this 
proposition—repeal your laws, prohibit all similar en¬ 
actments, declare “ free trade in whisky,” and you will 
have a day of general jubilee among these “rum sell¬ 
ers and rum suckers,” as the venders and drinkers of 
liquor are so eloquently denominated by gentlemen. 

I will not aid in any such project—I will not interfere 
with this subject in any way in this constitution—I 
will leave it where it properly belongs—to the work¬ 
ings of a sound, practical public sentiment, operating 
through the Legislature. I will not in this instrument, 
undertake to ask that which this same “ public senti¬ 
ment ” has not yet enforced by legislation. Gentle¬ 
men admit that the time has not come—the public 
mind is not ripe for decided action, and therefore they 
will not vote to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor. 
When the public sentiment shall demand it—it will be 
done. Until that is done—restrain, regulate the traffic 
by your legislation as you please, for myself I care not 
—but I will not, by my vote, legislate upon this or 
any other question if I can avoid it. 

What I have now said, sir, has not been so much to 
explain my position before this body; 1 have spoken 
more especially and particularly, (though Ido not often 















CONVENTION EEPORTS, 


1079 


make speeches here for ontskle eiTect,) because of the 
respect and esteem which I entertain fur these signers, 
who have sent these petitions to me, knowing the 
position which I occupy upon this question. And I 
now say to them, in conclusion, that 1 claim to know 
better than they do, what they want upon this subject; 
and I claim the right to say here, that this proposition 
is not what they do want. That is, that it will not ac¬ 
complish the good they look to. 

Mr. HAWKINS said the general question had been 
discussed, whilst not a w'ord had been said upon the 
particular question before the committee; but such 
was the prevailing license of debate in committee of 
the Whole. 

But why should gentlemen take alarm at this report ? 
One gentleman had assumed that it was an attack upon 
the poor inebriate; and that the Convention was about 
to provide^ some cruel punishment for every unfortu¬ 
nate individual who might become a drunkard. But 
this was a most singular and unfounded apprehension. 
And the gentleman called upon the Convention not to 
go in advance of public opinion. But how was this 
public opinion to be certified to us except by their pe¬ 
titions. Would that gentleman assume, with the gen¬ 
tleman from Auglaize, that these petitioners w’ere 
insincere ? These petitioners were numerous and they 
were respectable, yet they were represented as med¬ 
dlers. The voice of public sentiment proved that it 
was the duty of this Convention to make some response 
to these petitions. What should be that response? 
The gentleman from Auglaize would tell them they 
were insincere and hypocritical, and going quite be¬ 
yond the record. 

Both gentlemen had evaded the real question. The 
first proposition was that “ no license to traffic in intox¬ 
icating liquors " should be granted. 

He had expected the support of the gentleman from 
Auglaize for this proposition; because it was a law 
against monopolies, and that gentleman was known to 
be opposed to all monopolies. He believed tliat gen¬ 
tlemen had sanctioned a constitutional f)rovision against 
duelling ; and a provision against vending lottery tick¬ 
ets. Yet he would tolerate this evil of making an in¬ 
famous traffic respectable, by taking it into the folds of 
the law. 

But this report had been treated as though gentle¬ 
men had not seen the second line—suggesting to the 
Legislature, to provide against the resulting evils of 
this traffic. 

The object was to take away the shield of this evil 
—the shield of the law ; which rendered it more diffi¬ 
cult to combat. 

The whole amount of revenue derivable from county 
licenses, was only a little over $12,000 annually. 

He believed that this report embodied what would 
be regarded as a satisfactory response to the numerous 
petitions which had been presented upon this subject. 

He was not very much attached to the amendment, 
though he believed he should vote for it. This provis 
ion would not affect any man’s liberty, or any man’s 
rights. 

The gentleman from Auglaize, had been unfortunate 
in his selection of authority. If he had gone a little 
further back, he would have found a divine approval of 
a temperance effort in the family of Jonadub the Jew. 
The Rechabites were commanded and blessed for ad¬ 
hering to the command of their father, to drink no 
wine for ever. 

Mr. LARWILL rose to a question of order. He 
wished to know whether we should have so much 
preaching here without any prayers. 

Mr. HAWKINS replied that we had been a long 
time praying, here ; every morning we had been pray¬ 
ed to, and prayed for. It might be that the singing 
had been neglected ; but it was now certainly time to 
come to the lecture. 

There v/ere great financial and political considera¬ 
tions not to be lost sight of here. He undertook to say 


that the evils—the plunder and monopoly resulting 
from this cause, were more oppressive, more afflicting 
—more wide spread in their ruinous consequences, 
than those resulting from all other causes by which the 
people of this State have been cursed. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I have sought the floor because I 
desire to interpose one or two considerations, and ad¬ 
dress them to those who are disposed to debate this 
subject at length. 

As I understand the section, now proposed to be 
amended, I am in favor of it; but, if it is to have the 
construction given to it by some gentlemen, I cannot 
approve it. But, as I understand the principle, I say, 
it commands my assent. 

The word “license,” is a republican anomaly. Its 
idea is anti-republican. It should not be known amongst 
free men. If any traffic be honorable and lawful, then 
you have no right to impose restraints upon it; but if 
it is criminal, certainly the people of Ohio, through 
their representatives, have no right to legalize crime. 
Take either horn of the dilemma; If the traffic is 
wrong, then your license is wrong; and if it is right, it 
should be free to all. 

The amendment makes the terras of the section more 
comprehen‘'ive. They are not now confined to the 
action of the Legislature; but running down through 
all the grades of municipal law, they prescribe that no 
license for this traffic, shall be granted in the State of 
Ohio. I am in favor of that. 

And here I desire to be allowed to call attention to 
thelat'er clause of the section, namely: that the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly may, by general law, provide against 
the evils resulting from this traffic. From this, I un¬ 
derstand, that subsequent Legislatures cannot prohibit^ 
but that they may only provide against the evils re¬ 
sulting from this traffic. 

The gentleman from Jefferson, [Mr. Bates,] seems 
to have taken that line of argument, whilst the gentle¬ 
man from Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] seems to understand 
that, upon petition, the General Assembly may suppress 
the traffic; and herein they differ. 

I am with the gentleman from Jefferson. I am 
against the license system, in all its forms. I am with 
that gentleman, also, in giving to the Legislature pow¬ 
er to pass remedial laws, against the evils of this traflSc, 
But I am with him only on this hypothesis. 

I find my zealous friend before me, [Mr. Stanton,] 
wishing the power of license to be taken away, so that 
tliere may be a pell mell of local applications to the 
Legislature, to prohibit the traffic. 

Now', before we vote upon this proposition, sir, I 
w’aiit tliese discrepancies reconciled. I want to know 
whether I am to vote against license, or whether I am 
going to vote to the Legislature the entire control of 
the subject. I am ready to give a remedial power 
over the resultant evils of the traffic. 

This discussion, sir, will be of a most salutary effect, 
if we improve it as we should, and ascertain the lim¬ 
its of the Legislative department. 

The other day, upon another subject, I ventured to 
express the opinion, that there was an unlimited pow¬ 
er exeicised by the General Assembly, except in cases 
wherein their power was restrained by the constitu¬ 
tion and bill of rights. That except in cases where 
they W’ere so restrained, their power was unlimited. 
But I was then reminded—and forcibly, too—that the 
closing section of the bill of rights, upon which we have 
passed, is in these words: “ This enumeration of pow¬ 
ers shall not be construed to impair or deny others re¬ 
tained by the people ; and all pow’ers, not herein dele¬ 
gated, remain with the people.” 

Sir, I wish that were the practical construction of 
the instrument we are forming. It is a beautiful theo¬ 
ry of the general government, “ that all power not 
delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States 
respectively, and to the people.” Here w'e have al¬ 
most the same language applied to the General Assem- 
















0180 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


bly; but I hold that they have hitherto been treated as 
void and meaningless words. But gentlemen say all 
power not expressly delegated is reserved, and I yield 
on account of the importance of the principle. It be- 
oomes, at once, a fundamental, a sentimental principle 
—a clear touch-stone, by which to bring the action of 
the Legislature to the test. 1 am willing to yield, if 
I am to understand this to be the construction. I ap¬ 
ply it in this way. Here is a grant of power. But the 
former portion of the section is in the nature of a pro¬ 
hibition, if the amendment should be adopted. The 
General Assembly may apply their remedy against the 
evils of the traffic. They can entertain no pz’oposition 
to interfere with the liquor traffic itself. That is not 
in the bond. 

Unless this section is to place this whole subject in 
a state of repose hereafter, I am against it. If it is to 
remove the agitation of this subject from Columbus, 
then I am content—I cheerfully yield my vote to its 
adoption. But if this is to be only as the entering 
wedge—the prelude to legislative agitation—then, I 
say hands ofl‘ from the whole subject. But I am for 
it, as it stands, because I understand it is not to be 
made the topic of agitation in the General Assembly, 
except by the enactment of subsequent and remedial 
laws. 

Mr. STANTON. I had supposed there could be no 
controversy about the meaning of the latter clause of 
this report—that laws providing against or restraining 
the evil results of this traffic, might be passed. What 
kind of laws will be passed, surely is a question no 
man can answer. The gentleman from Erie [ Mr. Tay¬ 
lor] says that the Legislature may pass laws providing 
against the evils resulting from this traffic; but he asks 
what kind of laws ? I cannot tell: this remains to be 
a question lor the consideration of the Legislature. I 
cannot tell what descriptions of law they may see pro¬ 
per to enact. It may be for confining the traffic to 
particular persons and for particular purposes. Or it 
may be for restraining the sale to particular quantities. 

I speak only for myself, but my own view of the 
subject is, that if the license is prohibited, as is propo¬ 
sed by this report, the Legislature should restrain the 
sale of intoxicating liquors, except for such purposes 
and in such quantities as might be consistent with the 
ublic welfare and in accordance with public opinion, 
would pass no law that public opinion would not sus¬ 
tain, because it would not be executed, but would re¬ 
main a dead letter upon the statute book. 

I have heard strange things this afternoon. Strange 
doctrines, time and place considered. Strange morals 
for the Ohio Constitutional Convention, and the middle 
of the nineteenth century. 

The gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] and 
the gentleman from Ross [Mr. Green] incidentally 
have resorted to a kind of logic which I had supposed 
was long since exploded. I had not supposed that any 
gentleman would hazard his reputation for intelligence 
by resorting to it here. And what of it ? Why, it is 
said that a vast number of other vices prevail, about 
which we do not propose to say one word in this con¬ 
stitution, and, therefore, we ought not to do any thing 
against the evils of intemperance. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, (in his seat.) I did not use 
that argument. 

Mr. STANTON. I know the gentleman from Ross 
only alluded to it incidentally. But the gentleman 
from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] dwelt on it at length, 
and enumerated a long list—murder, stfealing, adultery, 
lying, &c., and asked why let all these alone and em¬ 
ploy all your artillery against intemperance? If we 
should not do our whole duty, would that be a good 
reason why we should not do it, in every particular in¬ 
stance ? But who ever heard of murder, stealing adul¬ 
tery or lying being licensed—legalized—for a conside¬ 
ration paid to the State. If the gentleman will say to 
me that he apprehends such a calamity, I will unite 
with him in prohibiting it in the constitution. But if he 


has not then the parallel fails. And now I submit to 
the gentleman if he does not feel that he was hard run 
when he resorted to such an argument, and indeed if he 
is not now a little ashamed of it. But, sir, here is a gi* 
gantic evil which produces more misery and wretched 
ness, and crime, than all other vices combined, and 
the question is not whether it shall be prohibited and 
punished, but whether it shall be licensed, sanctioned, 
sanctified, and made honorable and respectable, so far 
as the law can give it that character. And a gentle¬ 
man of the standing, intelligence, and respectability of 
the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] answers 
in the affimative, and justifies himself by such logic 
as this! 

But the gentleman has another argument, which I 
used occasionally to hear some eight or ten years ago 
amongst loafers about bar-rooms and street corners. 
And that is, that he and his constituents are indepen¬ 
dent freemen, and will not surrender their right to suck 
rum and make beasts of themselves as much as they 
please. This is a privilege that I do not esteem very 
highly, and am at all times willing to transfer it to any 
gentleman who attaches the least importance to it. 

Mr. President, I had not supposed that we should 
be called upon here to make an argument in support of 
the cardinal principles of the temperance reformation. 
I had supposed they were well understood and gener¬ 
ally recognized by all intelligent men. 

The argument in brief is this: The use of intoxica¬ 
ting liquors as a beverage, is the cause of intemperance. 
That, although some men may be able to control their 
appetites, so as not to use it to excess, yet there always 
will be a large number who cannot, and who fall vic¬ 
tims to the destroying angel. 

The evil is one of such magnitude that it calls for 
correction at any cost, and at all hazards. 

The only remedy is total abstinence from all that in¬ 
toxicates. 

Total abstinence, therefore, is a social and Christian 
duty. 

If abstinence is a duty, then it would seem to follow 
that the use, and consequently the traffic in spirits to 
be used as a beverage, is sinful in itself. 

And all experience demonstrates that the tendency 
of it is “evil and only evil, and that continually.” 

You prohibit gaming, Sabbath breaking, &c., upon 
the same principle, because their tendency is evil. 

If two boys upon the street ratile for a penny, they 
are liable to a fine. Not on account of the enormity of 
the transaction, but because the tendency of it is evil. 
So you fine an unlicensed person who sells a gill of 
whisky ; and for the same reason. But traffic in ar¬ 
dent spirits is the only indictable ofience which has 
been authorized and sanctioned by statute. It is the 
only offence against public morals, which particular in¬ 
dividuals have ever been authorized to commit for a 
consideration. 

This is a monstrosity which ought not to be tolerated 
for a moment. The effect of it is to interpose a shield 
between the licensed rum-seller, and the efforts of the 
temperance reformer who is seeking to fix infamy and 
ignominy upon it. The friends of temperance ask that 
this may be taken away, and that they may have an 
open field and a lair fight. 

Whilst the traffic is licensed and sanctioned by law, 
respectable men will not hesitate to engage in it. Un¬ 
der existing laws, the license is a certificate of “good 
moral character.” This gives to it a standing and re¬ 
spectability, which it could not get without it. 

And it is your respectable liquor sellers that do the 
mischief. They make drunkards out of sober and re¬ 
spectable men. Your low doggeries only finish off 
ready-made drunkards. It is at your “upper ten” 
drinking houses, where your most respectable men are 
in the habit of taking an occasional glass, that your 
young men of high hopes and bright prospects first 
acquire the taste for intoxicating liquors, which soon 
acquires absolute control over them, and sends them. 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 1081 


through years of degradation, and infamy, and crime, 
to a drunkard’s grave. 

I had supposed all this was well understood, and that 
the only point of controversy was, whether the evils 
resulting Irom the traffic could be best prevented by 
confining it to such persons as it is supposed may be 
safely entrusted with it. But experience proves that 
the license system does not exclude from the traffic 
those who are least fit to be entrusted with it. In 
proof of this, I will state a transaction, which I am 
told took place not one hundred miles from here. 

Some three or four years ago the Sons of Temper¬ 
ance had raised a mechanic from a drunkard’s grave, 
and he had reformed, and was pursuing his business 
with diligence and industry for some eight or nine 
months. 

Hope and peace and comfort were restored to his 
once miserable home. On a Sunday afternoon he call¬ 
ed into a licensed grocery, met some of his former com¬ 
panions, alter much coaxing and bantering about 
“ signing away his liberty,” he was induced to taste 
the “ forbidden fruit.” His old appetite once aroused, 
he of course, lost all control of himself, and was soon 
down upon the floor in a state of beastly intoxication. 
Remaining absent from home longer than usual, his 
wife became uneasy, and went in search of him. Fear¬ 
ing the worst, and knowing his old haunts, she went 
to the grocery and found him. In the extremity of 
her agony and distress she wept aloud, and begged of 
the “ man of good moral character,” who kept the gro¬ 
cery, not to sell her husband liquor. Madam, said he, 
“ I have a license to sell liquor, and w'ill sell it to him 
whenever he wants it; and you must leave here im¬ 
mediately, as I cannot have your noise.” She redou¬ 
bled her cries and entreaties; the noise drew a crowd 
to the door, a police officer came along and demanded 
the cause of the disturbance, and was told that the wo¬ 
man was making a noise and disturbance, and could 
not be kept still. 

He forthwith took her to the watch-house, kept her 
there all night, and the next morning she was taken 
before an officer and fined one dollar for disturbing the 
public peace. I will not vouch for the truth of this 
statement, though I have it from reliable authority, 
yet I do hope, for the honor of human nature, that 
there may be some mistake about it. But any one 
can bear witness to the repeated outrages upon the 
peace of society, that daily occur from the licensed 
traffic in ardent spirits. 

I agree fully and entirely with the statement of the 
ladies at Bainbridge, in Ross county. I don’t like 
much to interfere in this difficulty between the gen¬ 
tleman from Ross, [Mr. Green,] and his constituents, 
but I must take the liberty ol endorsing fully the 
statements contained in their petition. The gentle¬ 
man from Ross thinks that some of these gentlemen 
who control this temperance movement, have asked 
these ladies for their signatures, and they out of sheer 
kindness have signed it. 

However that may be, the petition has come here 
with the names of those ladies to it, and from the 
language they employ, I take it that they are ladies of 
intelligence; that they understand, and mean what 
they say. And I undertake to say that they state what 
is true, when they say that the women and children of 
Ohio are many of them in extreme poverty and wretch¬ 
edness, caused by the sale of ardent spirits; and this, 
the gentleman undertakes to say is not true. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, (in his seat.) I said it was not 
in consequence of law. 

Mr. STANTON. But it is in consequence of law; 
and it is on this account, and jfor this reason, upon the 
principle I have laid down, that you are making an- 
unally an immense number of drunkards of sober 
young men, who would have lived long and honora¬ 
ble and useful lives, but for the license system, which 
makes drinking respectable, so far as law can make it 
respectable. 


Mr. GREEN, of Ross, (in his seat.) Ai‘e you willing 
to incorporate into the constitution an absolute prohi¬ 
bition of the traffic ? 

Mr. STANTON. The gentleman asks me a very 
proper question, whether we are willing to incorporate 
into the constitution an absolute prohibition of the 
traffic, and the answer is, no. And the reason for this 
answer is, because I do not believe the public senti¬ 
ment will sanction it, and I would pass no law which 
public opinion will not sustain and carry into execution. 
You cannot force a reformation by law, which public 
opinion will not sustain. 

But if the Convention should choose to incorporate 
this clause into the constitution, you will take away 
from the traffic the standing which license alone can 
give it: and then, as the public mind advances, there 
should be placed such restrictions upon the traffic as 
the public good may require. , 

It is upon the same principle that we prohibit gam¬ 
bling, horse racing, and violation of the Sabbath, be¬ 
cause the tendencies of these practices are evil. 

I am told, by the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. 
Sawyer,] that this matter belongs to the church.— 
But the trouble is, that the church and the State, the 
preachers and the politicians, are behind the age on 
this subject. 

Established organizations, moving along in an old 
and beaten track, are not often the first to realize and 
propagate newly developed truths. And whilst I re¬ 
cognize the Christian Church as the great conservator 
of civilization, and peace and order, yet on this sub¬ 
ject it is, in my judgment, with a few honorable ex¬ 
ceptions, falling wofully behind its duty. I have never 
seen a place where, in my opinion, this vice of intem¬ 
perance was making such fearful ravages as in this 
same city of Cincinnati. I have been to your churches, 
and have heard most excellent sermons upon various 
theological questions. 

But upon this great evil, so far as I have heard, the 
pulpit is dumb and opens not its mouth. Can it be that 
this mammon-worshiping generation, in the Queen City 
of the West, is struck dumb with terror at the magni¬ 
tude of the evil? 

Can it be that the clergy, like the ox, lows only for 
provender? I cannot and will not believe it. But it 
must wake up to this subject, or it will lose the confi¬ 
dence of sagacious and reflecting men. 

How stands the case? If a man sells a glass of liquor 
without license, he is indicted, and fined not less than 
five dollars. He is a criminal in the estimation of the 
laws of the laud. Yet, in how many of your churches 
would it subject him to church censures, or exclude 
him from the communion table? This is a most extra¬ 
ordinary state of things. The church fixing a lower 
standard of morals than your criminal code! Certain¬ 
ly, if the criminal code is wrong, the church ought not 
to follow it. But if it is right, ought not the church to 
come up to it? 

So with politicians. A. Mr. Brown, in California, 
announces himself a candidate for office, and tells the 
electors that at a certain grocery they can drink at his 
expense till after the election. I suppose the same 
thing is proclaimed here, though not in the newspa¬ 
pers. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Mr. President, is it in order for 
the gentleman from logan, to give us a history of the 
way he was elected to Congress? 

Mr. STANTON. I will answer to my constituents 
for the way I was elected, and not to the gentleman 
from Hamilton. 

Mr. President, I have only to say, in conclusion, that 
I hope the sanction of law will be taken from this traf¬ 
fic ; and that church and State, clergymen and politi¬ 
cians, will take this monster by the horns, and grapple 
with it to the death. 

And then, on motion of Mr. LIDEY, the Convention 
adjourned till to-morrow morning, 9 o’clock. 












1082 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


FRIDAY, January 31, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Coiivenlion met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. SAWYER moved a call of the Convention, which 
being ordered the following gentlemen were found ab- 
Beut: 

Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Blair, 
Case, of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Green of 
Ross, Grosebeck, Hamilton, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Holt, Kina:, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Mason, Nash, Norris, Otis, 
Perkins, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, 
Stilwell, Stickney, Taylor, Vance, Way and Wilson. 

On motion, Messrs. (Smith of Wyandot and Stick.ney 
were severally excused. 

On motion ot Mr. BENNET, all lurther proceedings 
under the call were dispensed with. 

Report hiumber one, of the committee on Future 
Amendments to the Constitution, was read the third 
time at tlie Secretary’s desk. 

The question then being on the passage of the Re¬ 
port : 

Mr. LARSH demanded a division. 

The question then being on the passage of the first; 
section; 

Mr. LARSH demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 80, nay 1 —as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet ol Montgomery, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, 
Florence, forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene ot DeSance, Gregg, Hard, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock ol Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johns'on, Jones, Keiinon, 
fcng, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 
Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, MoitIs, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, 
^^tterson. Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbius, Stillwell, Stidger, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson 
of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Williams, 
Woodbury, Worthington and President—81. 

Nay —Mr. Larsh—1. 

So the first section was passed. 

1 he question then being on the passage of the second 
Bection, it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the passage of the third 
section. 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 73, nays 11, as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben- 
net^ Blickensderler, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case ot Hocking, 
Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, 
Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Harlan, Hitch- 
^ck of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kenuon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon Mason, Mitchell, Morehead! 
Mopis, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, 
Quigley, Ranncy, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize 
k.cott ol Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stebbins, Stidger' 
Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, T’hompson of Shelby, Thompson of 
Stark, T ownshend, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Woodbury, 
Worthington and President—73. 

Nays— Messrs. Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Hunter, Larsh, 
fclmith of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell and 

Williams—11, 

So the third section was passed. 

Ou motion of Mr. PATTERSON, the report was re- j 
ferred to the committee ou Revision, Enrollment and 
Arraugemeut. 

Mr. TAYLOR presented the memorial of the Rev. 
Henry Brisbane, of Cincinnati, praying that all oath 
taking may be made unnecessary under the m \v cou- 
stitulion. 

Mr. TAYLOR said that the memorialist was a gentle¬ 
man well known in this city. He was a Baptist cler¬ 
gyman, a philanthropist, and one who bad been, at va¬ 
rious periods, prominently connected with the religious 
press of the country. He was a man of great worth 
and ot excellent abilities. He would therefore move 
that the memorial be read at the desk. 

The memorial was then read as follows; and aftcr- 
■vv'ards, on motion ot the same gentleman, laid on the 
table. 

7'o fAe Constitutional Convention of the State of Ohio: 

The uiiderMgncd, a citizen of Ohio, reepectfully petitions your 
nonoraole body to make all oath taking unnecessary under the 


new constitution. Affix the same penalties to false witnessing, 
that you would to a false oath, and require officers to perform 
their official duties as strictly without an oath as with it. In the 
place of an oath of allegiance, on the part of aliens, take the 
mere word of the applicant for naturalization. Your petitioner 
believes that this course will tend to make our citizens more re¬ 
gardful of their word in the ordinary intercourse of life ; as he 
has also believed that the frequent requirement to take an oath, 
has a tendency to demoralize the community. 

And your petitioner prays our Heavenly Father to bless you in || 
your labors for the commonwealth. 

WM. HENRY BRISBANE, f 

Minister of the Gospel. J 

Cincinnati, O., Jan. 23,1851. 

Mr. SAWYER noved to take up the report of the I 
committee ou the Legislative Department; which was I 
agreed to. ' 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention took up b 

the report of the select committee on the subject of f 
Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

The question pending being on inserting before the f 
word “may,” in the report, the following words: { 
“ No license to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall here- * 
after be granted in this State, but the General Assem- t 

blyj 

Mr. SAWY^ER moved to amend the amendment by | 
striking out all after the word “ State,” and inserting { 
in lieu the following : “ Nor shall the Genral Assembly 
ever prohibit such traffic.” 

Mr McCORMICK said that in order to place himself 
in a correct position in regard to the report, as well as 
to do justice to the endeavors of an absent member of 
the committee, he would endeavor to explain what the 
committee understood by the report. It would be re¬ 
collected by members that during the fore part of the 
session especially, the Convention w'as flooded with i 

petitions upon the subject of retailing spirituous li- •: 

quors. These w’ere at first referred to the committee 
on .Turisprudence, but the number became so great that 
it was deemed advisable that a special committee 
should be raised, to which they might be committed. 

A movement for ibis purpose was made, the committee 
raised, and himself appointed upon it—a distinction 
which he had not sought, but which he did not feel at 
liberty to refuse. To this committee had been referred 
the petitions of twenty thousand petitioners, soliciting 
the action of this body upon a subject of great impor¬ 
tance, and which, all will admit, was one of extreme 
diffiulty. They were all the petitions of highly re¬ 
spectable persons, many of them vvell known in the 
State, and containing different recommendations; but 
with, in all this large numbor of petitions, but one 
prayer—that the protection of law maybe taken away 
from the business of I'etailing spffituous liquors, and 
that there may be no law which shall in any manner 
recognize or legalize the traffic. 

He had been all along doubtful if any thing could be 
done in this constitution. He had looked at what had 
been tried in other States, ard was fearful that no pro¬ 
visions adopted by any w’onld he of avail. He thought 
the best way w’ould be to leave the whole matter to 
the Legislature to try various w’ays, in order if possi¬ 
ble to hit up m that which w'ould be at once easiest in 
its operation, and most beneficial in its eflects. But 
gentlemen would recollect that w hen the report of the 
committee on the Bill of Rights was under disciDsiou, 
the gentleman Irom Trumbull had ofl’ered an amend¬ 
ment which covered not only thetraffiic in ardent spir¬ 
its, hut all other trades and callings to which the prin¬ 
ciple of especial license could he applied. The vote 
upon that question attracted the attention of the com¬ 
mittee. Its members thought that if tliat amendment 
passed, they might try to do something. They met 
again, three in number, with minds somewffiat ehang- 
ed from wdiat they were before. They had examined 
the whole matter. They saw the objections that could 
and would be made to granting the prayer of the pe¬ 
titioners. Still they thought something might be done 
tow'ards granting the prayers of the petitioners. 

The petitions, in effect, pray that the respectability, 
the legality that attends the sale of spirituous liquors 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


loss 


in consequence of its being protected and regulated by i 
the law of the land, may be taken away, and that pub¬ 
lic opinion may be left free to act upon it as upon any 
other folly—any other abuse, any other ofience against 
good morals that exists in the land. 

Some of the petitioners, it is true, have gone much 
further than this. They have asked that the sale of in 
toxicating drinks shall be entirely ])rohibited. The 
commmittee could not, on mature deliberation, consent 
to go so far. 

The committee took the subject into consideration, 
and determined at length to report an article prohibi¬ 
ting the General Assembly from passing laws in future, 
under which licenses should be granted. They took a 
different view of the subject from that taken by many 
of the petitioners, who say that the effect of regulations 
hitherto has been to license an evil. The question 
really is, have we a right to regulate an evil that exists 
without our permission. It is the use of intoxicating 
drinks that is the evil—not the license. The license 
laws may not be the proper means to regulate and re¬ 
strain the evil, but they do not create it. They are the 
effect of its existence, not the cause. 

But the question is, what is to be done? The peti¬ 
tioners say cease to legalize the traffic—take away its 
sanction, its protection, its legal respectability—throw 
it open to competition—throw it open, at the same time 
to the attacks of public sentiment. We thought this 
might be done, and that while saying that in future no 
licenses shall ever be granted, we might leave it to the 
Legislature to do what it could to mitigate the evils re¬ 
sulting from intemperance. According to the provis¬ 
ions of the report, the General Assembly shall have no 
power to pass such laws as shall permit licenses to be 
granted. Its efi'ect will be to repeal all existing laws 
under which they may exist, and it will place tavern- 
keepers and coffee-house keepers upon the same ground 
with men of other trades, leaving them to stand or fall, 
according to the force of popular opinion. 

In regard to the amendment which had been adopt¬ 
ed, he still believed it unnecessary. It makes use of 
more words, to express fewer ideas. It is perfectly 
clear, that without it, the Legislature has no power to 
authorize licenses. 

It is said, by gentlemen, that the phraseology of the 
report is defective ; that the Legislature, though denied 
the power to authorize the sale of spirituous liquors, 
may confer upon some other body, the power to do so. 
This is saying that the Legislature may do by another 
what it cannot of itself perform. My colleague, [Mr. 
CoLLiNGS,] insists that such may be the case, and gives 
a divorce as one of the instances. But it is very doubt¬ 
ful, indeed, whether, if the right to grant divorces 
were taken by the constitution, from the Legislature, 
that body might constitutionally establish a tribunal 
with power to dissolve the marriage relation. The 
courts of the State exercise jurisdiction in such cases— 
not in consequence of any specific delegation of pow¬ 
er for that purpose—but by virtue of common law 
power which they have inherited. 

I therefore, deny the right of the Legislature to do 
this thing indirectly, and in this opinion, 1 am sustain¬ 
ed by the people of the State. If, then, sir, we adopt 
this report, we shall provide, that in all coming time, 
no license will be granted for the retailing (tf ardent 
spirits ; the traffic will be left free to all, and the trade 
thrown open to be discussed, affected, estimated, and 
put down by the effect of the moral power of the peo¬ 
ple. 

Mr. TAYLOR desired to ask if in the opinion of the 
gentleman from Adams, [Mr. McCormick,] the Legis¬ 
lature might, under this section, prohibit the traffic in 
ardent spirits ? 

Mr. McCORMICK. I apprehend it would. The 
Legislature may provide against the evils resulting 
therefrom. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Resulting? 

Mr. McCORMICK. This would be construed to ex¬ 


tend to a prohibition. The limit and control of the 
Legislature will be as extensive as the evils to be lim¬ 
ited and controlled ; aud they are very great. The sta¬ 
tistics of the State show, that four-fifths of the crime 
in the State is the result of intemperance, the cost of 
which, to the treasury of the State, is very great ; 
while the misery cannot be estimated. The experi¬ 
ment proposed—whose result, it is hoped, will go far to 
prevent this crime and misery—is a great one. The 
cost to the State, and to incorporations, will be the loss 
of the revenue accruing from the sale of licenses. 
The question to bo settled, is whether the experiment 
will be worth the cost of the trial. I have my doubts 
as to the power of moral opinion upon this subject. I 
have great doubts, whether there is not even now, an 
under current of popular sentiment, that upholds the 
use of ardent spirits ; and I fear the results ot any plan 
that may have the effect of catching only the smaller 
er fish, while the larger ones escape the net. I doubt 
if there are not some—even ladies—who are forward 
in this temperance movement, who did not, on the first 
day of this year, keep open house, and place intoxica¬ 
ting drinks in tempting positions, to encourage the 
guests who called to drink. I have seen too much of 
this hypocrisy—not only in politics, and the Legisla¬ 
ture—but in the church, and by the fire-side. I doubt 
the effect of this kind of public opinion. I doubt its 
effect in the church, and in matters connected with 
the public morals. There is too much hypocrisy and 
infidelity, to do much good. However, the experiment 
is well worth trying, and the question is, whether we 
w'e shall try it, or not. For myself, I feel no pride of 
opinion upon the subject. He thought so to report, 
as to meet the views of petitioners. We have done 
so. If the Convention see fit to reject the report, and 
cast it aside, I have not one word to say, except that I 
have discharged my duty. 

Mr. CHAMBERS wished to say a word upon the 
subject of this rejiort. He was ready aud willing to go 
as far as the farthest, to comply with the wishes of the 
petitioners. But he felt misgiving upon the amend¬ 
ment ol the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr Sawyer.] 
His opinion was against all licensing the sale of intox¬ 
icating liquors : but he thought the Legislature the true 
power to act upon the subject, and that it ought to be 
left to the wisdom of that body. He desired this report 
to be recommitted to the committee, and improved. 
He trusted all members of the Convention were in fa¬ 
vor of the cause of temperance, and wanted to do right 
upon it; but he thought a better plan could be devised 
than that of the committee, and hoped w e should have 
it. He should, however, vote for the report, it nothing 
better offered. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD hoped the amendment would not 
prevail. He thought the report a Janus-faced thing, 
looking both ways. If we adopt one side, we get 
more than twelve legions of liquor sellers to vote 
against this constitution. If w'e lake the other, a more 
numerous host is array^ed against it. Now, w-e shall 
have hard work enough to get the constitution passed 
by the people, if we keep all extraneous matter out of 
it. There is no use in putting a foreign mill stone upon 
it to weigh it down. Gentlemen say, however, that 
these things must go into the constitution, ^^ hy ? Be¬ 
cause the Legislature will not act upon them. Why 
not ? If the Legislature will not act, it is because pub¬ 
lic opinion does not act upon it. Of all the bodies in 
the world, a legislative body is the most obsequious- 
most servile to popular opinion. 

Mr. MANON felt inclined to go for tbe report, even 
though it Ijad seven or nine faces. He did not feel ac¬ 
countable to respond to the views of the people of the 
State ; it was enough for him to comply with the wish¬ 
es of his constituents. The temperance men of the 
State want it, and he was disposed to gratify them. 
The liquor sellers say it suits them, and he was w’illing 
to gratify them also. He,went for free trade and sail¬ 
ors’ rights ; aud he had not heard a single individual of 











1084 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


any class who objected to the report. On the contrary, 
all seemed in favor of it, and each thought it the very 
best that could be devised. Temperance men said, 
take away the respectability of the traffic—give us a 
clear field and a fair fight. 

He knew some gentlemen who were afraid of public 
opinion. The gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] 
seems afraid of public opinion. He wants to prohibit 
the Legislature from putting a stop to the sale of ar¬ 
dent spirits, when the people shall require it. Public 
opinion should in general govern, and, when well set¬ 
tled, it is invariably right. 

Mr. LIDBY inquired if it would be in order to offer 
an amendment? 

The PRESIDENT said that it was not. The gentle¬ 
man could read his amendment for the information of 
the Convention. It might affect the vote upon the 
present amendment. 

Mr. LIDEY read his amendment, which was in the 
form of a substitute for the entire report, as follows: 

PREAMBLE. 

Whereas, It has become evident to the minds of nearly all the 
tnembers of this Constitutional Convention, that mankind gener- 
.ally have a decided appetite for alcoholic liquors ; and, whereas, 
we believe that the sudden stoppage of the sale of ardent spirits 
would be injurious to the people as well as to the country : 

Sec. 1. That all men are hereafter authorized to eat, drink and 
oe merry, whenever the Spirit moveth them, without fear. 

Sec. 2. That every person shall hereafter have full privilege to 
purchase, traffic, sell or dispose of any liquors, in any quantity, 
either sm all or great, without legislative or other interference. 

Mr. NASH. The amendment moved bjTthVgentl^- 
man from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] is an important one; 
and, if adopted, calculated to defeat the original prop- 
-osition of the committee. I supposed the gentleman 
designed to accomplish precisely that result. But I 
would be^ glad to know if the gentleman will really 
vote for his proposition, declaring that this traffic shall 
never be prohibited, whatever may hereafter become 
public opinion. 

Mr. SAWYER (interposing) said he certainly should 
vote for his proposition, and then against the article so 
mnended. He moved it to see whether the friends of 
mis measure were sincere in saying they wished a fair 
field in this fight. joj 

Mr. NASH, resuming. The gentleman’s amendment 
does not give us a fair field. It proposes to restrict the 
povver of the General Assembly, to prohibit it from re- 
slrmning this traffic, even if public opinion should come 
to believe restriction, prohibition, the only remedy 
against the giant vice of iiitemperaiico. The friends of 
temperance never said that they did not, when public 
•opinion was sufficiently enlightened and prepared for 

want laws of oppression. But meantime they do 
ask that the laws should not give respectability and 
•character to this traffic by clothing it with its sanction. 
All that was asked was that the license should be ab- 
YOgated, and then an appeal to public intelligence would 
accomplish the rest; and legislation then must, and 
should be left free to act in whatever way should be 
■deemed best adapted to eradicate the evils. The gen¬ 
tleman is, therefore, mistaken in saying the friends of 
temperance did not design, did not wish that legislation 
‘should be left free to act as a matured judgment might 
advise. If the grand inquest of the nation shall decide 
that this traffic is an evil, and only evil continually, 
then should society be left free to deal with this evil 
as It deals with other evils destructive of public morals 
Bud prosperity; restrain it, and, if need be, prohibit it 
by sound and wholesome legislation ? 

And the gentleman is equally mistaken upon another 
point. In his [Mr. Sawyer’s] remarks on yesterday, 
he seemed to suppose that this article was to interfere 
with one’s personal liberty. The article proposes no 
rach tiling. It leaves every individual free to follow 
ms own views of propriety, to drink or not to drink, as 
each may choose. Nor is it open to the charge of the 
gentleman from Ross, [Mr. Green,] who seemed to 
suppose that the object was to throw the traffic open 
to all without any law of protection against its licen¬ 


tiousness. The first part of the article, and the only 
operative portion of it, simply declares that all power 
to license the traffic in intoxicating liquors shall be 
at an end. It simply puts an end to your license 
system; that is its whole effect. It, however, in its 
second clause, distinctly intimates that the evils of in¬ 
temperance, the evils growing out of this traffic in in¬ 
toxicating liquors, are fit subjects for repressive legis¬ 
lation. What this repressive legislation shall be, is 
wisely entrusted to the General Assembly. This lat¬ 
ter clause is a mere declaration of a power already 
vested in the General Assembly. It has the entire 
power, without this clause, of passing all laws neces¬ 
sary to put down such evils. As a grant of power, 
therefore, it is of no value ; whether retained or not, 
the powers of legislation are the same. But as a de¬ 
claration of the people of Ohio, that such legislation 
is called for, ought to be resorted to to eradicate the 
evils incident to the traffic in, and use of intoxicating 
liquors ; as such an authoritative declaration of the peo¬ 
ple, it is prospectively of vast import. It will be re¬ 
spectfully listened to; and the friends of temperance 
can appeal to it as conclusive evidence in support of 
appropriate laws, looking to the extirpation of these 
giant evils. Such, then, is the proposition of the com¬ 
mittee : 1st, it prohibits the enactment of laws licens¬ 
ing this traffic; 2nd, a declaration merely that to pro¬ 
vide against the evils incident to this traffic, is a fit sub¬ 
ject for legislation. 

Now comes the amendment of the gentleman from 
Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] and prohibits the General 
Assembly from restraining or prohibiting the traffic. 
This is a very comprehensive amendment, and if adop¬ 
ted would involve very ominous consequences. It 
would depi’ive the General Assembly of all power of 
restraint, and throw the traffic open to unlicensed free¬ 
dom, and deprive society of all power of self-protection, 
and self-preservation. This, certainly, is notdesirable. 

But it was said by the gentleman from Hamilton, 
[Mr. Reemelin,] that this traffic is a rightful traffic, 
and therefore should never be restrained—never be 
prohibited. This amendment does involve this ques¬ 
tion—the right or wrong of the traffic in intoxicating 
liquors If the traffic be right then let it continue; 
but if it is wrong then the amendment is wrong, and 
the power of prohibition should remain in the General 
Assembly, to be exercised as public opinion and the 
public good may require. 

Is this traffic right? Is it a traffic calculated to ad¬ 
vance the material interests and elevate the intellectu¬ 
al and moral character of society ? Before undert-aking 
to answer these inquiries, permit me to interpose a 
preliminary inquiry, but one intimately interwoven 
with it, and it is this : What is the nature of this 
traffic ? 

To answer this we must inquire into the character 
of the subject of this traffic—intoxicating liquors. 
Now, a trade may be beneficial to the community, or 
the reverse. Whether useful or not depends upon the 
nature of the merchandise itself. Certain articles are 
necessary to the support of human life, and must be 
passed from the hands of the producer to those of the 
consumer. Such is the trade or traffic in wheat, bread, 
meat, clothing, and other articles of similar necessity. 
These trades—this traffic, should never be discouraged, 
but encouraged. 

But there are other trades—traffic in other articles 
which tend to the injury of society. Every traffic 
which demoralizes society, and those engaged in it, like 
the keeping of gaming houses, the slave trade, &c., 
should not receive public sanction ; but, if legislation 
regard them at all, it should act as a restraint—as a 
prohibition. Another class of traffic, without increas¬ 
ing public wealth, caters to social vanity and ministers 
to mere outward show ; yet, as it does not degrade so¬ 
ciety and its morals, it may be left to the judgment of 
an advancing intelligence. 

Now, to which of these classess does the traffic in 











CONVENTION KEPOETS. 


1085 


intoxicating liquors pertain ? In the first place, the 
article of traffic is valuless. It is an article neither of 
food nor of nourishment; it will neither clothe or 
shelter its purchasers. The buyer gets no value for 
his money. Nay more. Wealth is destroyed; food is 
destroyed, to produce this valueless article of trade. 
The corn out of which it is made will support life, ere 
it is subjected to the baneful process of distillation. 
The traffic is a traffic to^destroy wealth; to change 
value into no value, to convert what God design¬ 
ed as food for his creatures into that which is not 
food. It cannot require argument at this day to prove 
these assertions. All science speaks but one voice on 
this subject; and its echo is that intoxicating drinks are 
useless to man; unnecessary to him as a beverage. 
To encourage this traffic, therefore, is to encourage the 
destruction of national wealth, of the products of labor, 
of the capital of the country. Is it desirable to en¬ 
courage such a traffic ? 

But this article is not only valueless; but its con¬ 
sumption becomes an active cause of crime and pau¬ 
perism and that to a fearful extent; beyond indeed any 
other single cause. Drunkenness is its own handi¬ 
work. Hence it destroys the labor of a country; labor, 
without which capital and wealth cannot be created, 
and civilization advanced. Hence this traffic operates 
with a two-fold power upon society ; first, by destroy¬ 
ing the capital and food already produced; and second¬ 
ly, by destroying the labor necessary to their produc¬ 
tion. Nor is this destruction of wealth and labor a 
small item in the capital of a country—and therefore 
to be disregarded by the legislator and the statesman. 
As a question of economy alone, it is one involving a 
loss of millions upon millions, even in this State alone. 
The amount each year wasted in this way, in Ohio, 
would in four years pay off our State debt, and make 
all the railroads and improvements needed in this great 
State. Is it not then an object worthy of legislation ? 
Ought legislation to encourage a traffic, which thus 
dries up the capital of the State ? which thus annually 
destroys the poor man’s food, and ruin’s the consumer’s 
health ? Society then has no interest in the continu¬ 
ance of this traffic ; since it destroys, instead of produ¬ 
cing wealth ; paralyzes, instead of nourishing labor. 

Political economy then will demand the annihilation 
of such a traffic. But the influence of the traffic does 
not stop here. The men engaged in it are ministers of 
demoralization. The use of intoxicating drinks not 
only paralyzes labor ; it saps public morals, engenders 
crime, peoples poor houses and jails; ossifies the 
heart, and petrifies the feelings. It becomes the source 
of much of our pauper and criminal expenses, and pro¬ 
duces woes and miseries, which no line and plumb is 
is long and heavy enough to sound and measure. 

What, therefore, ought to be done ? Shall the states¬ 
man and legislator sit in inaction, while such a traffic 
is devouring the wealth, paralyzing the industry, and 
corrupting the morals of society ? Are the morals of 
society a matter of no moment ? Rather are they not 
in all governments the one thing needful to be cared 
for? Can society remain organized, and its progress 
continue onward, if its morals are undermined and de¬ 
graded? Above all, can a government, resting upon 
the popular will, like ours, last a day after public vir¬ 
tue has become extinct? Education and morality—and 
they are as inseparable as the Siamese twins—are the 
sole condition of popular forms of government. And 
since these two great objects, the mind and the heart 
of society, must command the attention of the states¬ 
man; if worthy of the name, he will give to their pro¬ 
motion the best tribute of his heart and his head. 

.But let us for a moment look at this excrescence 
of modern society, the coffee-house. What useful pur- 
' pose does it subserve? What aid does it lend to mod¬ 
em civilization ? What great interest of humanity is 
promoted by it ? Is this institution calculated to add 
to our wealth, expand our minds, or improve our mor¬ 
als ? Are the industrious and enterprising found here ? 


Would one enter here to obtain aid in fighting more 
successfully the battle of life; in overcoming more easi¬ 
ly his passions and depraved appetite ? Nay; are they 
not lures in the way of the young and inexperienced,, 
to draw them aside from duty and happiness ? What 
great interest would suffer, if the coffee-house was 
abolished? The keepers of these houses are interest¬ 
ed too in encouraging, in enlarging a consumption 
which is not only useless, but wholly mischievous. Is 
that legislation which creates such an institution, cal¬ 
culated to promote morals, and education, and mate¬ 
rial development ? I think not. 

But enough on the nature of the traffic, examined 
by the light of political economy. The time is coming, 
when it will seem strange, (strange as now appears to 
us the slave trade,) how a people could thus squander 
its wealth, and impair its morals. Let us however, 
turn for a short time to an examination of the moral 
character of this traffic. On this question I have opin¬ 
ions formed years ago ; opinions, which time, exper¬ 
ience and discussion have only served to confirm; and 
however singular they may seem in this body, and in 
such a place, I shall not shrink for avowing them—and 
asking for them that consideration which their impor¬ 
tance demands. I could hope too, that the promulga¬ 
tion of them here in connexion with the grave deliber¬ 
ations of this Convention will attract attention out of 
this body, and aid somewhat in guiding public opin¬ 
ion to the truth. Is, then, the traffic in intoxicating li¬ 
quors right ? or is it wrong ? 

The proper discussion of this question necessarily 
involves the discussion of one lying still back of it. Is 
it right for an individual to drink intoxicating liquors 
as a beverage ? I say no—such is my well considered 
opinion, which renders its use by me as a beverage a 
sin in the sight of high heaven, and in direct violation 
of my duty as a Christian, and a man. 

And I will begin with the assertion of the gentleman 
from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] that drunkenness is a 
sin. I am happy to see that gentleman plant himself 
upon that book of books, the New Testament. With 
his example before me, I may, without offence, refer 
to this holy book as the true foundation of all our prin¬ 
ciples of morality and government. Drunkenness, 
says the gentleman, is a sin. I thank him for his ad¬ 
mission. So says this holy book; so say all intelligent 
minds. There is, then, no difference of opinion on 
this point. Now, then, if drunkenness is a sin and a 
crime, what are all the habits and acts which conduce 
to this fearful sin ? If the result is sin and wrong, 
must not the means which bring about that result be 
equally a sin ? 

What, then, is the cause—what the inducement, 
which leads to drunkenness ? I affirm it is the tempe¬ 
rate drinking of intoxicating liquors. Here the gentle¬ 
man and myself may disagree; but let him answer how 
else do men become drunkards? No man is born a 
drunkard; no man becomes a drunkard at once—in a 
day, in a week, in a year. is first a temperate 
drinker; it is by temperate drinking that his love for it 
is cultivated, his nervous system first impaired. How 
else does the man become a drunkard ? In this way, 
and not otherwise. If, then, temperate drinking is the 
means by which all drunkards are made, I ask, is not 
this means just as much a sin as drunkenness itself? 
Is it answered that gluttony is also forbidden, yet eat¬ 
ing is not a sin? But eating is the means ordained by 
God for the support of life. To cease to eat, then, is a 
sin, because death must ensue. But is it so with in¬ 
toxicating liquors ? What law of God or man com¬ 
mands us to drink? None whatever; all that can be 
claimed for it is, that it is a luxury, in which we may 
temperately indulge with impunity. This might be 
true, if this temperate indulgence never had gone or 
could go further; but in a multitude of cases it does 
not stop here. And shall we indulge in a mere luxury, 
when there is so much danger in the issue? When all 
I experience shows that of one hundred who indulge in 











1086 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


this luxury, a portion at least will certainly become 
drunkards ? 

In that holy book, used as an authority by the gen¬ 
tleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] there is found a 
prayer dictated by Truth himself, and in that prayer is 
this petition lead us not into temptation. If we are to 
pray not to be led into tem[)tation, then most certainly 
it is a sin in one to walk voluntarily into the jaws of 
temptation—and what but plunging recklessly into 
temptation is this practice of temperate drinking? 
Can it then be right? Is it the w’ay in which a Chris¬ 
tian would seek to perfect himself in the way of truth 
and righteousness? Is it the way to clear the the in¬ 
tellect, and purify the head ? Does experience show 
us among these men, the most shining examples of vir¬ 
tue and godliness ? I appeal to experience for an an¬ 
swer—and that answer can be but one way, and it de¬ 
clares that temperate drinking is any thing but a righte¬ 
ous and Christian vocation; a vocationin which the man 
who aspires to become like his Father in Heaven, can 
never conscientiously engage. 

But let us look at this subject in another point of 
view. Drunkenness being admitted a sin, it becomes 
the duty of all, according to that authority which is 
authority, to labor to extirpate this sin. God requires 
this of us all; even man’s morality does not require 
less. Weeping humanity calls for our influence and 
exertions to extirpate from society this giant evil, this 
deep-dyed sin. To discharge this duty, we must all 
make use of the means placed within our power for 
this holy purpose. Two remedies, and two only have 
been proposed for the removal of this gigantic evil and 
admitted sin; and these are:—1st. Temperate drinking. 
2d. Total abstinance by all, from all that can intoxicate. 
If either of these remedies is adequate to remove the 
sin and its evils, ought not every good man to adopt it 
at once ? Can he refuse to adopt it without lending his 
example and influence and practice to the perpetuation 
of the sin ? 

Is temperate drink this remedy ? If all continue to 
drink temperately, will drunkenness cease? Now, 
whatever theory may affirm, we do know, as a fact, 
that drunkennea.s is the child of temperate drinking. 
It has been tried for five hundred years, and drunken¬ 
ness has never ceased, but gone on increasing and ex¬ 
tending its ravages, and multiplying its victims, until 
fear and trembling have seized hold of society; and the 
cry of dispair went up from the whole land, like the 
wailings of despair. Is it safe, then, longer to continue 
this remedy for drunkenness? Longer to reason with 
men of righteousne.ss, temperance and a judgment to 
come, while their lips are still wet with the fatal mix¬ 
ture ? 

The only lomedy is total abstinence. Now it re¬ 
quires no argument to demonstrate that this remedy 
is adequate to the removal of the sin and its evils. L 
no one ever touched the deceitful cup, ever moistened 
his lips with the bewitchingmixture, then drunkenness 
must die oiit as certainly as the rattle-snake ceases to 
be dangerous when his fangs ai e extracted, just as cer¬ 
tainly as the .stream ceases to flow when the fountains 
that feed it are dried up, just a.s certainly' as the effect 
will di.sa’ppear when tlte cause is removed. Cause and 
efmet are not more certainly allied than temperate 
drinking and drunkenness. 

Snell being the case, I a.^k are we not all bound to 
adopt this remedy ? and not only to adopt it ourselves 
but to urge upon others the adoption of it? Can we 
sit down and f< Id our hands in inaction while sin is 
walking around u.s in broad daylight? And what is 
ou!‘ man’s duty is the duty' of all. Is it possible that 
we c,:!? suppose ourselves clear from guilt, while refus¬ 
ing to do that which alone can elo away with a sin, and 
remove the varied evils flowing therefrom ? Can we 
remonstrate with the drunkard with any hope of sue 
cess, while engaged in the very practice which has 
brought him low where belies?" 

But I am told that every man must answer for his 


own conduct; and if men will violate the laws of tem¬ 
perance, why let them look to it. Does such a view of 
duty find any sanction in that book of books, cited by 
the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer] ? There 
we are commanded to work for the salvation of a wprld. 
Men are indeed responsible for their own conduct; not 
for the conduct of others. But our duty is not wholly 
performed when we have healed ourselves; we are 
commanded to teacli and instruct, and labor to bring 
others info a perception of the truth and an obedience 
to it. He that converts a soul from the error of his 
ways shall not only save a soul, but hide a multitude of 
sins. We are then bound to save the drunkard from 
his vices and sin; and to do this we must ourselves 
pursue the course we urge on him—total abstinence. 
This appears to my mind the truth, clear as the sun¬ 
shine; a truth I would to God all other minds could 
perceive—then would this fearful plague be stayed in 
all the land. I pray gentlemen not to turn from the 
truth; but to take it into their minds, and earnestly in¬ 
quire if it does not also commend itself to their sober 
judgment 

Having thus endeavored to demonstrate that total ab¬ 
stinence was the clear (^ath of duty, how does this 
proposition affect the traffic in intoxicating liquors? If 
it is a sin for me to drink, it must be equally a sin in 
another to offer or furnish mo with this drink. We 
have only to apply the old doctrine of accomplices and 
the question is settled. The adviser of a theft and the 
receiver of the stolen goods are equally guilty with the 
thief himself; are so considered by the law of God and 
man—certainly then, the man who gives me poison, 
knowing the use I intend to put it to, is as criminal 
as rayselt—so must he be whose business it is to make 
money by affording facilities for me to commit sin. 

The argument does not, however, stop here; it in¬ 
cludes, under its condemnation, every one who deals in 
the forbidden merchandize, from the retailer up to the 
manufacturer. Traffic is only a means of passing the 
article from the producer to the consumer. And, if 
the consumer is guilty, then must every one be, who 
knowingly is engaged in supplying him with the for¬ 
bidden article. And all engaged in this trade know 
the article is made to be consumed by men. This fact 
stares every one in the face, and cannot be argued 
down. Were it not drank, the trade, save for medicine 
and the arts, would decrease, and shrink into the di¬ 
mensions of the drug shop, instead, as now, of filling 
huge warehouses in all cur towns and cities. I there¬ 
fore appeal to all dealers in it to answer to their own 
consciences, if they are engaged in a work of love— 
a work which they can ask God to bless and enlarge? 
What would this be but to pray God to increase drunk¬ 
enness and crime, which flow from the use of this 
deadly poison? Let merchants and manufacturers 
turn this subject over in their miuds, with an anxious 
desire to learn the truth, and do it. Tlie fact that 
others will engage in it, if you do not, can never 
justil'y you in doing a moral wrong. It is an argument 
that can never satisfy the judgment and the conscience. 

Having thus endeavored to demonstrate the immo¬ 
rality of this traffic, I now return to the proposition 
of the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer.] His 
amendment is that this traffic shall never be prohibi¬ 
ted, whatever may be the state of public opinion. If 
the traffic is immoral, prejudicial to public morals, and 
the public welfare, ought it not to be prohibited so 
far as to protect society from its evils. This, however, 
no one w'ould wish to see done, unless public opinion 
Called for it. That it should be left open for legislation, 
is very clear to iny mind—left to be dealt with as an 
enlightened and purified public opinion may deem 
best. I presume there can be little conflict of opinio 
on this point, and I shall, therefore pass it over. 

The propf)8ition of the committee is of a more doubt¬ 
ful expediency. It is a question not free from difficul¬ 
ties. The committee propose that no license for the 
traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be granted. 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 1087 


If this is inserted in the constitution, the law will, un¬ 
til altered, prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors by 
the less quantity than a quart. This is now practically 
the law in all counties, where the courts refuse to grant 
a tavern license, with authority to retail intoxication. 

In several counties, in my portion of the State, such has 
been the state of things for years; and I believe it has 
done good, and will continue to do good so long as it is 
persevered in. 

The objection to the license law is, that it gives a 
kind of legal sanction to a traffic that ought not to be 
encouraged; and what the law sanctions is, with many, 
their standard of right. One can, therefore, hardly as¬ 
sail one as engaged in a wrong who is acting uncler a 
license paid for and sanctioned by law. Men are slow 
to believe that law would license a wicked or sinful 
trade or business. Nor should law ever countenance 
wrong or immorality. It should restrain or do noth¬ 
ing. It should never come in contradiction with the 
law of God; it should follow that higher law, or remain 
silent. 

Nor is this all. This system renders the traffic profi¬ 
table, by securing it to a few and excluding all others. 

It is, in fact, an odious monopoly. Now, if the traffic 
is left free to all, competition will bring down profits, 
until no respectable man with capital will engage in it. 
As it now is, it is the most lucrative business one can 
follow; and hence, men who are eager for money, and 
whom nothing but high profits could tempt, are drawn 
into it. Now, legislation ought always to act in aid of 
useful trades, and in discouragement of those which 
are injurious. This species of legislation seems to me 
to act the other way—to the encouragement, and not to 
the discouragement of a trade highly detrimental to 
the public welfare. 

Again, it organizes a large body of men, and makes 
it for their interest to enlarge this traffic; to encourage 
others in doing that which the public welfare requires 
them not to do. I do not think this is correct legisla¬ 
tion. Besides all this, we know that these houses are 
the hiding places of other and deeper crimes and vices 
—vices which the law has declared crimes. It is idle 
to disguise the truth that such is the natural alliance 
between crime and intoxicating liquors, that the good 
moral character required by the law is no protection 
against this union. 

Here we know men are inveigled on to intamy, dis¬ 
grace and ruin. Ought law to lend its sanction to a traf¬ 
fic which necessarily carries with it such tearful abus¬ 
es ? I think not. 

But it is said that the General Assembly has power 
to do all this. Grant it; and yet, if such legislation is 
now and ever must be wrong, it can do no hurt to put 
this prohibition in the constitution. If such laws are 
wrong on principle, then they never ought to be pass¬ 
ed ; and it can do no hurt to say so. But I believe it 
will do good. A little piece of history, illustrative of 
its utility, now occurs to my mind. Some years since, 
a law was passed, repealing so much of every town 
and city charter as empowered either to grant license.-: 
for the sale of intoxicating liquors. This was consid¬ 
ered, over the whole State, as most wholesome legisla 
tion. And yet, at the very next session, a law was 
carried through, restoring this mischievous power to 
the authorities of Cincinnati; and she has retained it 
ever since. 

Now, I have been told that Cincinnati is deriving a 
revenue of $25,000 from her fifteen hundred cotlee 
house licenses. Here is a povvertul inducement lor tax¬ 
payers to wink at this system, to endure it, to approve 
of it. A constitutional provision will remove this 
temptation, by declaring that the traffic, if it exists, shall 
be free. This being the law, you can rally society to 
the destruction of this most deadly evil. 

This clause will have another good effect: it will 
be a declaration of the people against a system which 
encouraged a wrong, and in favor of the passage of 
laws in restraint of the evils which grow out of this 


traffic in intoxication. This will do a blessed work— 
exert a commanding influence upon all future legisla¬ 
tion. 

For these reasons I have made up my mind that it is 
best to insert this clause in the constitution. 

Nor do 1 believe that it will jeopardize the adoption 
of the constitution. It merely declares that the trade 
shall be free to all, so far as it is permitted to exist. 

What objection can any one have to this ? Surely 
not the coffee-house keeper, who is relieved from the 
payment of his license. I believe, on the contz-ary, 
that it will secure votes to the constitution. The friends 
of tempei’ance—and their name is legion—will rally 
as one man to its support, if it contains so salutary a 
provision. 

I have thus, Mi*. President, endeavored to present 
the pi'inciples upon which my action here must be gov¬ 
erned ; and may I not hope, that what I have said will 
derive IVozn the place and the occasion, a jzower to in- 
tluence other minds, and contribute, in some small de- 
) gree, to the formation of a correct public sentiment on 
this all important subject; a subject in its relation to 
legislation full of difficulties, and also full of promise. 

I would look on this great people, growing in intelli¬ 
gence ; in virtue; and in i*eligion, and then I would 
depart in hope, knowing that such a peo[)le could nev¬ 
er be otherwise than great, and prosperous, and hap¬ 
py. Sir, T have done. 

Mr. IlEEMELIN had listened with some attention 
to the gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash.] If he un¬ 
derstood him correctly, he was opposed to the insertion 
of the amendment of the gentleman from Auglaize 
[Mr. Sawyer.] That pi-oposition is, that the Legisla¬ 
ture shall have no power to prohibit the sale of intoxi¬ 
cating liquors. Is the gentleman from Gallia opposed 
to this ? 

Mr. NASH said he was opposed to the amendment. 
He wished to leave the whole matter to be arranged 
by the Legislature, as public sentiment shall dictate. 

Mr. RE EMELIN. The gentleman will then vote 
against the amendment and for the report, in case it is 
not adopted. He had heard from the gentleman from 
Gallia [Mr. Nash] a lecture stuffed full of ideas and 
principles which were favorites of the kings and aris¬ 
tocrats of Europe. We find thus that the gentleman 
from Gallia [Mr. Nash] need not hereafter lecture him 
on the subject of importing ideas from Europe. The 
gentleman himself was a wholesale importer. Those 
who are opposed to the amendment of the gentleman 
fi’om Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] talk about leaving the 
whole matter to the people. All they pz’etend to ask 
is a fair fight and a clear field. They say that the 
friendsoflempei’anceask only" liandsoff—letus alone.” 
Why then object to and oppose the ainondmezit, because 
it proposes to provide that the Legislature shall not 
interfei'e to sanction oi’ pi’ohibit the sale of ai’deut spir¬ 
its? This shows zne that they are for interfering too, 
at least when called u[.on to give that fair field which 
they clamor f'U’, they then back out, and ask us to vote 
ioriheir Janus-faced propos'tiou. They want free lorn 
on their side secured by constitutional piovision, but 
their si- ond proposition leaves the door open so as to 
secure restriction hen?after on the other side. While they 
are clamoring for freedozn they are secretly plotting to 
concoct an article in this con.siitution that .should put 
it in the power of the Legislature to put a stop to the 
sale of ardent spirits in the State, and to give ii such 
a construction as to render action of this kind impera¬ 
tive upon the G'^neral Assembly. 

Mr. McCORMIOK. Will the gendeman say who it 
was thatgave .‘^ncli a construction to the article? 

Mr. REEMELIN. I have listened to the gentleman 
from Logan, [Mr. Stanto.v,] and I have listened to the 
c^entlemnn from Morgan, [Mr. IIawkixs.] 

” Mr. STANTON. The gentleman misunderstood me, 
if he supposed me giving it any such construction. 

Mr. McCORMICK. All I have to say is that I will 
lay the Report of the committee before him and he 
can read it for himself. 















1088 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. REEMELIN. I will read the Report, as it is 
not very long. The General Assembly shall not au¬ 
thorize the licensing ofthe traffic in intoxicating liquors. 
Here is the first proposition. It contains an admission 
on the part of the temperance men that all their move¬ 
ments heretofore have been wrong; and that they now 
say to the Legislature, “ hands oft’”—and we will deal 
with the rum seller by the force of public opinion. 

Then follows the remaining proposition of there port 
—“ but may by law provide against the evils resulting 
therefrom.” Now I would ask, what law of any other 
State in the Union—what fifteen gallon law, or five 
gallon law, or what other restriction could not be pass¬ 
ed, and receive official sanction in the State of Ohio, 
under this clause of the article ? We have been re¬ 
peatedly told that all the friends of temperance ask, is j 
a free field, and a fair fight, and that their trust is in 
the public opinion. But when we are ready to give 
them free scope with that public opinion, they then 
turn round and set themselves at work to establish a 
system of restriction, more stringent than ever before 
was attempted. The amendment of the gentleman | 
from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] will make the report 
precisely what all claim it should be. It takes away 
the license and the prohibition, and if it is to be voted 
down, it will show the covert design not to rely upon 
popular opinion, but to call upon the strong arm of the 
law to help them in their movements. All I ask is, 
that there shall be no license, no special privilege, nor 
will I sanction any special restriction in reference to 
this particular trade. In fact the whole question may 
be narrowed down to this; Shall the people regulate 
the government, or the government regulate the peo¬ 
ple ? Shall the people take care of their own morals, 
or shall they be taken care of? 

The time was when but few men dared to say that 
religion ought to be left to take care of itself, without 
being set down at once as an idiot or an atheist. Now 
the thing has been tried, and it has been found that it 
can take better care of itself than government can; and 
if religion must be content with a fair field, why not 
this temperance movement, which is but one of the vir¬ 
tues inculcated by religion. 

I have watched the temperance movement closely, 
from its beginning, through all its history, and have 
ever found that when it attempted to use the law in re¬ 
straint of the liberties of the people, it failed; but when 
it would trust to the moral feelings of the people, then 
it gathered strength. 

I w atched this movement, because I wanted to see 
how a free people w'ould treat such a cpestion, and 
whether they were worthy of the freedom they enjoy¬ 
ed ; and the conviction was forced upon my mind, that 
the free course was the true one—that the people could 
be trusted with their liberties, and that to the quiet ac¬ 
tion of the popular sentiment was not only the true 
place to leave this question, but that it was the very 
place where the people were determined it should be 
left. Let the temperance men take away the custom¬ 
ers from the rum-seller, and afterwards the rum-seller 
will take himself away. 

Liquor is a great evil. There is nothing that de¬ 
stroys both the intellectual, moral, and physical force 
of man, quicker than it will. I hope to see the day 
when it shall be banished from the land. I hope to 
see the day, also, when no citizen of Ohio will sit 
down to his table without a bottle of wine by his side, 
to cheer his heart, and lighten the labors of the day. 
Wine civilizes, but liquor brutalizes mankind. Every 
nation has its beverage, and the effect of that beverage 
may be seen, to a great extent, in the national charac¬ 
ter, modified as it may be by climate. The Turk has 
his opium, the Spaniard, Italian, Hungarian, and the 
Southern German their wine, the Irish and Scotch their 
whiskey, and the Englishman his beer. 

Mr. STANTON. Does the gentleman call opium a 
beverage ? 

Mr. REEMELIN. It is not used exactly as a bev¬ 


erage, yet the Turks have a drink in which opium is 

infused. . t ^ 

The gentleman from Gallia has inquired if there was 
a man who made the sale of liquors his trade, who 
could go upon his knees and ask his Maker to bless his 
trade. He had known as good, as pious, as charitable, 
as noble-hearted and public-spirited men in that busi¬ 
ness as any other. He would in return ask the gentle¬ 
man if he, when he was a Director or Attorney for the 
Bank of Gallipolis, was so satisfied of the honesty of 
his calling, that he could invoke the blessing of heaven 
upon it. It is, in my opinion, just as preposterous for 
a paper money bank director to ask a blessing upon 
his business, as it could be, in the opinion of the gen¬ 
tleman from Gallia, for a tavern-keeper. 

The true doctrine is, to suffer all trades to be as free 
as the winds, subject only to the action of the free and 
enlightened sentiment of a free people. 

Mr. LOUDON felt it his duty to endeavor to bring 
this debate to a close. He therefore demanded the 
previous question ; upon which, 

Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 42, nays 49— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderl'er, Cahill, 
Case of Hocking, Cook, Dorsey, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of 
Defiance, Hard, Henderson, Hootman, Humphreville. Hunter, 
Jones, King, IHrkwood, Lidey,, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Or¬ 
ton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott ot Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stnible, 
Swift, Townshend, Woodbury and President—42. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Brown of Athens, 
Brown ol Carroll, Chambers, Collings,Curry, Ewart, Ewing, Flor¬ 
ence, Gray, Green of Rose, Gregg, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Hitchcock oi Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Horton, Hunt,Johnson, Ken- 
non Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Manon, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
McCormick, Nash, Norris, Quigley, Reemelin, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, 
Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance 
of Champaign, Warren, Williams and Worthington—49. 

So the Convention refused to order the previous 
question. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said he did not intend to deliver 
a temperance lecture. He hoped the amendment of 
the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] would 
not prevail. Petitioners to the number of twenty ihou- 
eand, had prayed to have a restraint put upon all li¬ 
censes for the sale of spirituous liquors, and they have 
at least a right to an expression of the opinions of this 
body upon that question. The amendment proposes a 
very dilferent thing, and may have the effect to pre¬ 
vent a vote upon the naked proposition. He wanted 
to vote upon that question, not to evade it, and he 
hoped, for that purpose, the amendment would be de¬ 
feated. 

Mr. MORRIS desired to place himself right before 
his constituents. The evils of intemperance were nu¬ 
merous as those of Pandora’s box. The sword had 
slain its thousands, but drunkenness its ten thousands. 
He thought the petitions on the subject entitled to se¬ 
rious consideration, and that the Convention ought, at 
least, to take a vote upon the naked proposition they 
contain. 

Mr. COLLINGS had not been in favor of putting 
anything upon the subject in the organic law of the 
State. He preferred to leave the matter to the Legis- 
ture. If the Convention should do wrong, it could not 
be easily corrected. If the Legislature make a false 
step, it is easily retraced. 

The question then being on Mr. Sawyer’s amend¬ 
ment, 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, moved to lay the Re¬ 
port and pending amendments on the table; 

On which motion, Mr. WILLIAMS demanded the 
yeas and nays, which being ordered, resulted—yeas 20, 
nays 70—as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Ewing, Florence, Henderson, Hitchcock of Ge¬ 
auga, Holt, Horton, Kennon, Kirkwood, Patterson, Peck, Ranney, 
Sawyer, Stilwell Stidger, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Vance, Warren, and President—20. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll. 












CONVENTION REPORTS 


1089 


Cahill, Case ofHocking, Chambers, Collings, Cook,Curry, Dorsey 
Ewart, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of 
Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Holmes, Hootman, Ilumphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, 
King, Larsh, Larwill, Leech Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, 
Norris, Orton, Otis, Perkins, Quigley, Keemelin, Riddle, Roll, 
Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Struble, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Williams and Woodbury—70. j 

So the motion to lay on the table was disagreed to. j 

Mr. QUIGLEY moved to re-commit the Report to I 
the select committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent! 
Spirits, with instructions to strike out the word “ may," 
and insert in lieu thereof the word “ shalland also, 
that the committee be instructed to provide, that the 
section may be submitted to a direct and separate vote 
of the people, with the full understanding that if a 
majority of the electors approve it, then it shall be¬ 
come a part of the constitution, and mce versa. 

A division being demanded, 

The question then being on re-committing the Re¬ 
port ; it was disagreed to. 

The question then being on Mr. Sawyer’s amend¬ 
ment to the amendment, 

Pending which, on motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the 
Convention took a recess. 


3 o’clock p. m. 

The question pending, being on agreeing to the 
amendment of Mr. SAWYER; 

Mr. LARWILL moved a call of the Convention, and 
being ordered, the following gentlemen were found 
absent: 

Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Case of 
Licking, Chaney, Clark, Cutler, Dorsey, Farr, Graham, Hitch¬ 
cock of Cuyahoga, Holt, Lawrence, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Per¬ 
kins, Riddle, Smith of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, 
Stilwell, Stickney, Swan, Way and Wilson. 

On motion, Mr. Wilson was excused. 

On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, all further proceed¬ 
ings under the call were dispensed with. 

, The question then being on Mr. Sawyer’s amend¬ 
ment ; 

Mr. KENNON. He wanted to say a few words in 
explanation of the vote he intended to give on the 
amendment under consideration, and on the whole re¬ 
port. Upon consultation with his colleague from Bel¬ 
mont, (who occurred with him in opinion) he had 
concluded to vote against the amendment and the 
whole report. 

In the first place, the petitoners seem to have had 
in view, and to have directed their efforts to guard 
against what they considered a sinful practice—a prac¬ 
tice legalized by granting licenses. If there w£s no 
act of the Legislature in relation to the traffic in ar¬ 
dent spirits—no law authorizing a license—every man 
and woman would by the common law, have authority 
to keep and sell any quantity of ardent spirits. The 
door would then be thrown open to all to retail. The 
adoption of such an article in the constitution, would, 
in his opinion, have a tendency to increase, instead of 
.diminishing the evil. The business would fall into 
worse hands. 

In the second place, it would bte an experiment— 
an untried experiment, which shoud not be made in 
the organic law. 

This experiment ought to be made by the Legisla¬ 
ture ; and, if it did not work well, the act might be re¬ 
pealed or altered, as circumstances might require. He 
doubted the propriety of putting any thing in the con¬ 
stitution of this nature; much more the article under 
consideration. For these reasons, he would vote against 
the amendment, and the whole report. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, desired only to make a 
remark or two upon the whole question. It is a ques¬ 
tion upon which, as ho remarked on yesterday, he had 
felt a great deal of doubt as to how he ought to vote. 
I found (he said) that the advocates of this measure were 
claiming that we should prohibit the Legislature from 

69 


granting authority to license this traffic, thereby throw¬ 
ing open the whole matter, and giving to both parties 
in the case, in the language of the gentleman fiora 
Logan, “ an open field and a fair fight.’’ But like the 
gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. Kennon] I had some 
doubt about the propriety of pursuing this course. 
But 1 had, upon reflection, concluded to vote for the 
proposition, with the understanding that it was to 
throw the door of tiiis traffic open to all—rather yield¬ 
ing my own judgment to others who had been foremost 
amongst the advocates of the temperance reform. 

A friend upon the other side of this chamber last 
evening, showed me an amendment which he had pre¬ 
pared, making it the duty of the Legislature to repeal 
all existing laws in relation to the traffic; and with 
that amendment I had concluded to go for the report. 
But my friend informed me this morning that the 
friends of the report were not willing to adopt his 
amendment. 

What then would be the effect of inserting this clause 
in the constitution ? It would prohibit all granting of 
license in future, and leave in the statute book all the 
existing prohibitory laws upon the subject, and thus, 
so far as the constitution and laws could contribute to 
such a result, it would forever prohibit the traffic in in¬ 
toxicating liquors. And could such a thing be done 
effectually, it might be a desirable result. Could this 
report accomplish the purpose its friends say it will, 
every lover of his species ought to say amen to it. 
But I do not think we could safely go that far at this 
time; because I fear that such an absolute prohibition 
of the traffic would defeat our labors here. I cannot 
be mistaken upon this matter. Our constitution would 
meet with opposition enough, from various interests ; 
and if we add to this, the tremendous opposition of 
those who are engaged in this traffic, and those who 
participate in it, I am well satisfied that they would be 
able to reject the constitution we are now endeavoring 
to frame. 

Therefore, unless the friends of the measure could 
think it would be desirable to remove all restrictions 
upon the traffic, leaving it unlegalized and uncondemn- 
ed—leaving it to the Legislature hereafter to apply 
such remedy against the evils resulting from this traffic 
as future experience may suggest, I could not feel pre¬ 
pared to take the step which I had almost consented 
to do, although I do not withhold my support from this 
report on account of any feeling of opposition to the 
report itself, but for fear of defeating not only that ob¬ 
ject, but the constitution itself. I would, therefore, 
suggest to those who are anxious to try this experi¬ 
ment, to consent to the amendment which would suit 
our views, for the reasons I have stated, and allow us 
to vote with them upon the report. 

Mr. MASON. The gentleman from Shelby [Mr. 
Thompson] supposes that if we insert this provision in 
the constitution, taking away from the General Assem¬ 
bly the power of authorizing by license the traffic in 
spirituous liquors, that such a provision, together with 
the existing laws upon the subject, would have the 
effect to prevent the manufacture of, and all commer¬ 
cial dealings in those articles. I understood that to be 
the substance of the gentleman’s legal opinion. 

Mr. THOMPSON assented—repeating his language 
as given above. 

Mr. MASON. I then desire to say a word or two in 
the hearing of the gentleman, upon this suggestion of 
his. All our laws regulating or prohibiting the sale of 
spirituous liquors provide for a license authorizing cer¬ 
tain individuals to sell intoxicating drinks, and de¬ 
nounce penalties against those who sell by the small 
measure without such license. The General Assembly, 
by the exercise of its ordinary functions as a legisla¬ 
tive body, has undertaken to regulate the sale of ardent 
spirits through the instrumentality of license. So 
that, where there is no license, there is no right to sell 
under a certain quantity; but, above that certain quan¬ 
tity, the trade is free.—The limitation, I believe, is one 










1090 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


quart. The Legislature, then, has authorized the issu¬ 
ing t)l a license to sell by the small. That is all they 
have done—there being no constitutional provi-ion in 
the case. 

One suggestion further. From what I have already 
{i*aT('d, thpr<‘ rnn^t necess^rilv bo a revisif>r> nf “j+at- 
utory provisions upon this subject, because they are all 
based upon the principle of a license. And, therefore, 
when you take away the license, all your legislation 
fuunded upon it, of course, falls to the ground. 

Mr. President: 1 expect to vote for thi.s proposition. 
1 have not heretofore said a word about it. nor do 1 now 
mean to detain this body many minutes. I expect to 
vote for this proposition, upon the principle that it is 
wrong in the State to license any immoral practice. 
Public sentiment in Oliio would not tolerate the Legis¬ 
lature of the State in authorizing a license to keep a 
gaming house, or a house of ill-fame, or a band of 
counterfeiters. Yet there is really no ditierence in prin¬ 
ciple between legalizing these employments and au¬ 
thorizing a man to keep a mere dram drinking-house. 
All of them are wrong in niorabs—leading and tending 
to different consequences to be sure—but all pernicious 
to good order and the prosperity of society. The State 
ought to desist froai the policy of levying a tax upon 
the appetite of man, when the gratilication of that 
appetite is at the cost of the [it ace, prosperity and hap¬ 
piness of his household, as vyell as destructive of bis 
spiritual interests—Ibrbidden by the law oi God, and 
the best interests of society. The Legislature ought 
not to give a man license to make his neighbor drunk. 
But, under the existing license law, such a man goes 
out and meets hi.s fellow man, and stands up in society 
with the endorsement of the law in his pocket. He 
has his license under the great seal of Ohio, for the 
prosecution of the business in which he is engaged; 
and remonstrance can have no effect upon such a man. 
He will say to you, if you are as law-abiding as I am 
you will go about your business, and let me and my 
business alone. 

The license law was intended as a means of regula¬ 
ting this traffic, and deriving a revenue to the treas¬ 
ury from the appetites of men which are stronger than 
law. 

What will be the consequence of adopting this pro¬ 
vision? Simply, that the Legislature can no longer 
give to counties, towns and municipal authorities, the 
power to license a man to deal in spirituous liquors. 

Mr. SAWYER, (interposing.) I think the gentleman 
from Clark has made a statement, which, if my under¬ 
standing be correct, he would not, I think, like to have 
go abroad. 

Mr. MASON. If that is the case, I shall he glad to 
bee orrected. 

Mr. SAWYER. The gentleman referred to certain 
houses of ill-fame, gambling shops and bands of coun¬ 
terfeiters—not known to our laws, and seemed to in¬ 
fer that those who sell ardent spirits are to be classed 
in the same category. 1 hope tlie gentleman did not 
mean to say that, for I know some tavern-keepers who 
would not like to he clas.sed with such characters. 

Mr. MASON. 1 am glad the gentleman has afford¬ 
ed me the opportunity of limiting the remarks which I 
have made, if I have said any thing that can bear tlie 
construction he has put upon them. I know there are 
keepers of hotels and taverns as re.spectable as any 
men in the community ; and who cannot be classed 
with those to whom I have referred. I said that the 
evil of selling drams was as great as that which results 
from the other vicious practices referred to. I did 
not compare characters at all. I would not extend the 
comparison beyond what would bo proper. I suppos¬ 
ed the principle to be the same in all these cases. I 
cannot think there was any impropriety in making 
these references by way of illustration. I know that 
in a neighboring city, (New Orleans,)a large city reve¬ 
nue is derived from both gaming houses-and brothels 
—an American city, loo. f am sorry to say it. 


You may take the case of counterfeiters. They have 
been amongst us from the beginning of our history as 
a Slate—banded together in considerable numbers; 
and such is their thirst to make money, that you might 
derive a large addition to the revenue from this immor¬ 
al :md Tni«rbievous practice, by mean.s of license. Rut 
you will not. And why not '! 

I have said I would vote for this proposition, simply 
because it i.s wrong to authorize that to be done which, 
in itself, and its consequences, is bad, and only bad— 
bad in regard to the peace of the individual—bad in re¬ 
gard to his social relations—bad in regard to his fami¬ 
ly. We all know that degredation, misery, and im¬ 
poverishment of innocent and unoffending families have 
followed from the gratification of the appetite of some 
father, some husband, or some brother. And now 
what do I say ? I implore gentlemen, if they can, to 
assign some reason why the State of Ohio should au¬ 
thorise such a thing to be done ? Why ? 

I know that we cannot legulate this subject in this 
Convention. We could not do it, if we were to sit here 
till August. But 1 submit whether the difficulty, on 
the part of the General Assembly, would be any greater 
with this constitutional provision than without it ? 
But the difficulty is upon us, and we must meet it. 
The license system has failed, pi the judgment of thou¬ 
sands ; and I incline to the opinion that it has failed 
most signally. It seems a monopoly—a strange rnono- 
[)oly—the exclusive right to make drunkards, author¬ 
ized by law ! 

[ am not a member of any temperance society. 1 
am a member of another body, which is a society not 
only to maintain temperance, but every other Christian 
virtue—a society, of which it has been said, it contains 
many hypocrites and infidels. I am not carried away 
by any feeling of fanaticism upon this subject; and I 
am no great admirer of many things said and done by 
those who are called “ the apostles of temperance.” 
My sympathies are, certainly, with this great cause of 
temperance. But I have no more sympathy for this 
cause, than I have for any other of the many virtues 
that adorn the Christian character. 

Mr. DORSEY. I shall vote in favor of the report; 
and I have come to this determination after very ma¬ 
ture thought upon the subject. 

Although I have never been an advocate of the tem¬ 
perance cause, yet I have always opposed legislative 
interference in the matter; and I came here with the 
intention to oppose anything of the kind. But, from 
the opposition which 1 see raised here, upon different 
sides of the Chamber, I feel that it is the duty of every 
member, who is in favor of forwarding the temperance 
movement, to give his support to this provision. 

Sir, what is proposed by this report ? Is it to bind 
up and restrain the liberties of men ? No such thing 
—nothing of the kind is contemplated. All that is 
proposed by it, is, simply, that the Legislature shall 
not be allowed to license the traffic in intoxicating li¬ 
quors. 

Now what has been the position of the friends of 
temperaneg? They have assumed this ground, and 
said they were perfectly willing to combat, by public 
opinion and the force of tnoral suasion, the whole broad 
evil of intemperance, provided the majesty of the law 
should not be brought up to its support. If the pow- 
er and majesty of the-law were taken away from their 
position, as stumbling-blocks in the way of the advo¬ 
cates of temperance, they would ask nothing more. 
And this and nothing more, is precisely what the re¬ 
port proposes. I would neither advocate it nor vote 
for it .upon this floor, if it proposed anything more 
than to take away the sanction which the law has gran¬ 
ted to intemperance. And I say it is a duty which I 
owe to the people—to the <cause of morality in Ohio 
and throughout the United Statesat-io see to it, that the 
law shall not occupy suoh a pdsilioi/sfs that. 

No man, who has seen the practical t^ofldngw of the 
license system, can deny that it does ndt act as weffiady 



















1091 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


reason to hope it would, but that it acts as a support to 
the power of interapei’ance. Many a man who would 
not be willing to violate any correct moral principle in 
defiance of law, would not hesitate, if he could cover 
himself with the shield of the law, to act in defiance of 
any principle of morality and right. I lay it down as 
a broad principle, that every man who retails spirituous 
liquors, does so in defiance of morality and right; and 
there are an abundance cd' men who would not be wil¬ 
ling to follow such a traffic in the face of morality and 
right if they were not protected in it by law. And it 
is to take away this protection that we desire to adopt 
this provision. 

For myself I would be willing to take merely the 
first line of this proposition, to wit: “The General As¬ 
sembly shall not license the traffic in intoxicating li¬ 
quors.” This, in fact, covers the entire ground. If I 
were obliged to admit the assertion of the gentleman 
from Monroe, [Mr. Archbolu,] that this was a Janus¬ 
faced report, which I do not, I would still contend that 
the two faces were looking precisely in the same direc¬ 
tion. But I regard it as entirely unnecessary to add 
this latter clause. The Legislature would have the 
same power which it implies without it. I do not 
make any motion in the case, but I should be willing to 
take the first alone. 

But of all the reasonings and conjectures that have 
been advanced in opposition to this report, the most 
singular is the idea that its adoption would jeopardize 
the reception, by the people of the State of Ohio, of the 
constitution which we are about to frame. Twenty 
thousand people of the State of Ohio have petitioned 
for this matter. If you insert it, it will, of course, 
meet their approval. But it is safe to say, that not one- 
third part of our fellow citizens who desire the adop¬ 
tion of this section have petitioned for it. If we be¬ 
lieve, with the gentleman from Ross, [Mr. Green,] that 
those who are opposed to the temperance movement, 
would regard the passage of this section as the signal 
for a universal jubilee among the grog drinkers, then 
we might depend also upon their support of the con¬ 
stitution on this ground. And if all in favor, and op¬ 
posed to the cause of temperance could be thus brought 
into its support, there would be little danger of its 
failing to receive the approval of the people of Ohio. 
But the question is this; the insertion of this clause will 
meet with the approbation of the friends of temperance 
and the friends of morality throughout the State, with 
few exceptions, but it will be opposed, I suppose, by 
all who have heretofore made gain of the liquor traffic, 
under the sanction of law. 

Mr. LARVVILL. I have listened with attention to 
gentlemen, who have spoken upon this question, and I 
have had some misgivings as to what should be the 
right course for me to pursue, but after scanning the 
whole subject I have come to a different conclusion, 
from that of the gentleman from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey.] 

I am not a member of any society for the promotion 
of temperance: but I wish to do the greatest possible 
amount of good that I can for the people of the State; 
and, to do that, I think I shall be compelled to vote 
both against the amendment of the gentleman from 
Auglaize, and the report of the Standing Committee. 

This is more properly a subject for the action of the 
Le‘^islature, than for the consideration of this body. 
Our present unpreparedness upon this subject, only 
offers another argument to my mind of the importance 
of the motion which I made the other, day to call the 
people together upon the question of a constitutional 
convention once every ten years. At the expiration of 
ten years from this time, I think this subject could be 
more prudently acted upon than at this time. T do 
not think the people at this time are jirepared to adopt 
this iron rule against the licenses, system. I believe 
that if these petitions, which have been presented here 
upon this subject, had been presented to the General 
Assembly, and I had been a member of that body, I 
should have gone for the repeal of all laws granting 


licenses, and let the trial be made. But my own 
opinion is, that such an experiment would only open 
the flood-gates of intemperance in all our towns and 
villages. 

Mr. STANTON. There seems to be a misapprehen¬ 
sion prevailing with some, who seem to argue tual uie 
friends of temperance are unwilling to relinquish the 
aid of legislation upon this subject. It is all a delusion 
for gentlemen to suppose that the friends of temperance 
are relying, to any extent, upon the aid of the law. No 
intelligent temperance man desires such a thing for a 
moment, until public opinion shall have so far correcL 
ed itself upon the subject of this traffic as to have made 
it perfectly infamous. Every man is convinced that 
legislation can do no good, so long as any man can pur¬ 
sue this calling, who is not below the reach of public 
opinion. But after the public mind shall have so sha¬ 
ped itself, I do think it would be proper to ask and 
obtain a legislative pixihibition. 

I should not have risen at this time’, but to reply to 
what I suppose to be an allusion made to myself by 
the gentleman from Clark. 

Mr. MASON. The gentleman can save himself the 
trouble of a reply; for I made not one word of allusion 
to him. 

Mr. STANTON. Then I have no more to say. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. This proposition, if adopted, 
I now understand, is to have an effect different from 
what I was led to suppose by what was said by the 
friends of the measure. What is to be the effect of it ? 
You have a law prohibiting the sale of spirituous liquors 
below a certain qiiaatiiy, except a man sell under li¬ 
cense. No person, without license, is authorized, un¬ 
der the existing law, to retail less than a quart, to be 
drank where sold. If they declare here, that no license 
shall be granted hereafter in this State, your constitu¬ 
tional provision does not repeal the existing law, It is 
a mere naked declaration of a prohibition of license. 
Your existing legislation imposes a penalty upon the 
sale of ardent spirits without license, and your consti¬ 
tution declares that no license shall be granted. The 
inevitable consequence is, this constitutional provision, 
coupled with existing legislation, amounts to a prohi¬ 
bition of the sale of ardent spirits, in the State of Ohio. 

Now, I do not understand that this is what the 
friends of temperance, here require. They say they 
do not want any legislative aid whatever; that all they 
desire is, that the Legislature shall not hereafter inter¬ 
fere to legalize this traffic. But if you adopt this pro¬ 
vision and the Legislature shall refuse to repeal the 
prohibition, then this provision as I have said amounts 
to a prohibition; and that, they say, public opinion will 
not sustain. * 

I desire the friends of this measure to tell us, can¬ 
didly, what it is they expect to accomplish by the adop¬ 
tion of the provision. Let all be done fairly, without 
concealment, nor by indirection. Let us know what 
they think will be the effect of the adoption of this 
section. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I rise to discharge what I regard 
as a duty—to make a motion which is not often looked 
upon with much favor in this body. I rise to move 
the previous question; but before doing so, I desire 
to remark, that, although there is a good deal of preju¬ 
dice existiu" in the minds of many, against this ques¬ 
tion, yet it 18 a rule which has obtained in all deliber¬ 
ative bodies for the last five hundred years; and it is 
found to be necessary here, as well as elsewhere. 

Mr. SWAN, [Mr. Mitchell yielding.] If the gen¬ 
tleman will give way, I have a proposition of which I 
wish to give notice, that I will ofler it as a substitute, 
if the previous question shall not be sustained. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly, I will give way for 
that purpose. 

Mr. SWAN then read the following proposition, by 
way of iiifonnalion to the Convention: 

No license to traffic in intoxicating liquors, shall hereafter be 
granted in this State; and all laws forbidding the traffic are hero- 












1092 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


by abrogated and repealed; but the General Assembly may pass 
such laws relating to said traffic, and against the evils resulting 
therefrom, as they may deem expedient, except laws to author¬ 
ize the licensing of the same. 

Mr. MITCHELL now moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
be now put ”— 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays; which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 47, nays 46—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Bennett, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hock¬ 
ing, Dorsey, Farr, Forbes, GiUett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg> 
Hard, Henderson, Ilootman, Humphreville, Hunter, Jones, Ken 
non, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, 
Morehead, Morris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Struble, Swift, Thompson 
of Stark, Warren, Woodbury, iind Pi'esident—47. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Cook, 
Curry, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Gray, Green of Ross, Groes- 
beck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, 
Holt, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Larsh, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, 
McCloud, McCormick,, Nash, Norris, Otis, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, Swan, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, 
Williams, and Worthington—46. 

So the call for the previous question was sustained. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Sawier, to-wit: strike out all after the word “State,” 
and insert in lieu thereof the following: “Nor shall 
the General Assembly ever prohibit such traffic, but.” 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 12, nays 81—as foLows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Farr, Henderson, Holmes, Kirkwood, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer and Taylor— 
12 . 

Nays— Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, Blair, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Cham¬ 
bers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hum¬ 
phreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Larsh, 
Larwill, Leech, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, 
Perkins, Quigley Riddle, Scott ol Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, St anbei'y, Stanton, Steb¬ 
bins, Stilwell, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, Warren, 
Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President—81. 

So the amendment to the amendment was disa¬ 
greed to. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Thompson, of Shelby, to-wit: Strike out all before the 
word “ may,” in the first line ol the report, and insert 
in lieu thereof the following: 

No license to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be 
granted in this State, but the General Assembly— 

Mr. McCORMICK demanded the yeas and nays, 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 56, nays 38—as 
follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Atliens, Brown of Carroll, Cham¬ 
bers, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Gillett, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Hard, Henderson, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunter, Larsh, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patter¬ 
son, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith ol Highland, Smith of War¬ 
ren, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of 
Shelby, Townshend, Williams, Woodbury and Worthington—56. 

Nays— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Curry, Florence, 
Forbes, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Holmes, Holt, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, 
Larwill, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stanbery, Stid¬ 
ger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Champaign, Warren 
and President—38. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the report to be 
engrossed, 

Mr. WILLIAMS demanded the yeas and nays; 
which being ordeted, resulted—yeas 48, nays 45—as 
follows: 

Yeas—M essrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, Blickens¬ 
derfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Cook, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hard, 
Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hoot¬ 
man, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Larsh, Leech, Lou-, 


don, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, 
Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Warren, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Towns¬ 
hend, Williams, Woodbury and Worthington—48. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Col¬ 
lings, Curry, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Green ol Ross, Gregg, Groes¬ 
beck, Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Johnson, 
Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
Mitchell, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Stan- 
bei’y, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Champaign, 
Warren and President—45. 

So the report was ordered to be engrossed; and, on 
motion, was ordered to be read the third time to-mor¬ 
row. 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, the 
Convention took up the report of the committee on 
the Legislative Department. 

The same gentleman moved that the report be com¬ 
mitted to a committee of the whole Convention. 

On which motion, 

Mr. REEMELIN demanded the yeas and nays; 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 61, nays 32—as 
follows: 


Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Hocking, Collings, Cook. Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Flor¬ 
ence, Gillett, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Harlan, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hum¬ 
phreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Leech, Manon, 
M^on, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, 
Otis, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith ol Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, 
Stidger, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Williams and Worth¬ 
ington—61. 

Nays —Messrs. Cahill, Chambers, Curry, Farr, Forbes, Greene 
of Defiance, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, 
Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 
Morns, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of 
Auglaize, Stanbery, Stebbins, Struble, Swift, Woodbury and Pres¬ 
ident—32. 


So the motion to commit to a committee of the Whole 
prevailed. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND moved that the Convention re¬ 
solve itself into a committee of the Whole; which was 
disagreed to. 

Ml. LEECH moved that the Convention adjourn. 

On which motion. 


Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays; which, 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 58, nays 34—as follows : 

YEAS--Me8sr8 Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, Blickens¬ 
derfer,^ Brown of Carroll, Collings, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Flor¬ 
ence, Gillett, Gray, Greene ol Defiance, Green of Ross, Hamilton, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes Holt 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Kennon! Kirk^ 
wood, Lwsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mason, More¬ 
head, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis Perkins 
Quigley, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of 
Highland, fctaiibery, btanton, Stilwell, Stidger, Swan, Taylor 
Ihompsonof Stark, Townshend, Vance of Champaicn, Williamfi’ 
Woodbury and Worthington—58. ’ 

Archbold, Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case 
of Hocking, Cbambers, Cook, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gregg, Groes- 
Horton, Johnson, King, Loudonf Manon. 
Mitehell, Moms, Patterson, Peck, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Sawyer, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stebbins, Struble Swift 
Thompson of Shelby, Warren and President—34 ’ ^ 


So the motion prevailed, aud the Oouvention ad¬ 
journed. 


SATURDAY, February 1, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment, 

I’r.u er I'v Eov. Mr. Robinson. 

Mr. FARR presented a petition from Geo. L. Russel 
and twenty-two other citizens of Huron county, pray- 
ing that a clause be inserted in the new constitution 
prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law le¬ 
galizing traffic in spirituous liquors ; which, on motion 
was laid on the table. ’ 

Mr. MANON presented a petition from Washington 
Coulter and mnety-tbree other citizens of LIckin- 
county, on the same subject; which, on motion, was 


Mr. HOLMES presented a memorialfrota Geo. Miley 








CONVENTION REPOllTS. 


1093 


and twenty-three other citizens of Cincinnati, praying 
that a danse he inserted in the new consthntion which 
shall prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors; which, 
on motion, was laid on the table. 

Report No. 1 of the select committee on the subject 
of Retailing Ardent Spirits, was read a third time. 

The question then being on the passage of the re¬ 
port, 

Mr. CURRY moved to recommit the report to the 
committee which reported it, with instructions to strike 
out the word “may,’’ and insert the word ‘‘shall,” so 
that the report, as amended, would read, ‘‘but shall by 
law provide against the evils resulting therefrom.” 

Mr. CURRY said, that in his opinion, the question 
710w under discussion was of greater importance to the 
tului’e welfare of the people of the State than any other 
that had been before the Convention fi’orn the day on 
which it first assembled, to the present time. No one 
doubted but the use ol airlent spirits is a great evil— 
no one denied but a I'emedy for this evil should, I’f 
possible, be devised. The question is, how is it to be 
done? Some gentlemen were in favor of such provi¬ 
sions in this constitution, as should, in their effects, 
abolish the traffic in the article; others were opposed 
entirely to any constitutional interference in the matter. 
It was his opinion that this Convention had been called 
upon, by the voice of popular sentiment, to act in the 
matter. Some gentlemen have urged that this was a 
subject which, from its nature, should be left entirely 
to the wisdom and discretion of the Legislature. Wliy 
so, any more than several other subjects which gentle¬ 
men had been very anxious to I’egulate by provisions 
in the organic law ? Such questions as that of the pub¬ 
lic printing of the State, for instance. That subject 
gentlemen are unwilling to commit to the control of 
the General Assembly, without first binding and direct¬ 
ing the action of that body by a provisioTi, to be incor¬ 
porated in the body of law weai’enow engaged in con¬ 
structing; and for that purpose an article is inserted in 
the report of the committee on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment. So, in regard to embezzling the public money— 
in regard to gambling—in regard to dueling—in I'egard 
to divorces—it has been thought that these subjects, 
which are, in fact, of infinitely less importance than 
the subject now under consideration, could not be left 
without invoking the aid of the constitution-making 
machinery. Many evils, pai'tial or local in their opera¬ 
tion, have thus been guarded against by this Conven¬ 
tion ; yet, all of ther7% summed up together, would fall 
infinitely’- short of the monstrous, the enormous evils 
resulting from the use of ardent spirits. Yet, gentle¬ 
men say, when we have labored week after week, and 
month after month, for the correction of these minor 
defects in polity, and ask for a correction of this great 
blot: “Let it alone. Leave it to the Legislature. The 
constitution is no place for such a provision. You do 
not take a proper view of the subject.” There is an 
inconsistency in such a course which should not exist, 
and gentlemen who are so anxious for restrictive provi¬ 
sions, when it suits their ideas, ought at least to be 
willing to meet the views of others. 

In the course of his remarks, the other day, the gen¬ 
tleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] made the very 
remarkable declaration that he considered the business 
of the sale of liquors as a laudable and beneficial call¬ 
ing. This was the first time he had ever heard any 
man, either in a public assembly or out of it, willii'g 
to say that such a traffic was either laudable or bene¬ 
ficial. It would seem as if that gentleman, during all 
his life, and especially during his residence in this city, 
had kept his eyes closed or he would never have ven¬ 
tured upon such an assertion. He could not have ob¬ 
served the almost countless instances of misei’y and 
crime, resulting from intemperance, daily seen in these 
streets. 

Mr. SAWYER wished to interrupt the gentleman 
from Uiiion [Mr. Curry] a moment, for explanation. 
He did not speak of the retail in ardent spirits, but of 


the mercantile vending and economical use of alcohol, 
as a subject in trade, and an important article in manu¬ 
factures. He did not intend to say^ that the business of 
selling grog to drunkards by the half gill was a lauda¬ 
ble and beneficial calling. He had as much contempt 
for that trade as any man. He spoks, or intended to 
speak merely of the economical use of the article. 

Mr. CURRY said if that was the sense in which the 
gentleman made the remark it would break its force. 
He had not so understood it, though he had supposed 
himself listening very attentively to his I’emarks. He 
might, however, have been wi’ong. 

Some gentlemen take another gi’onnd. They deny 
the right of this body, or any other body, either byHaw 
or in the constitution, to dictate to men what they shall 
eat, drink, or wear. One gentleman said that “ so 
help him God, he would not interfere in this manner 
with the original and iidierent rights of the people.” 
There seems to be an incongruity in what these gen¬ 
tlemen say and do. They claim that there is a great 
and pressing necessity to interfere with the people, 
and regulate and determine what sort of a currency 
they shall use—and whether they shall pay theirdebts, 
or purchase what they need with a dollar of silvei*, or 
one of paper. They expi’ess the opinion that the use 
of paper money is a gi-eat evil, and insist that the con¬ 
stitution shall contain a clause prohibiting it, because 
it is not adapted to the people’s necesities—may do 
them gi’eat injury and so forth. 

Now, these gentlemen are, as I said, placing them¬ 
selves in the attitude of great inconsistency. They say 
they cannot interfere where this question of public 
morals is concerned, on the ground that, in this mat¬ 
ter, the people can best regulate themselves. Now, 
to what extent these gentlemen are right, in supposing 
the regulation of the currency is more important than 
the preservation of the public morals, depends upon 
the relative value of currency and morals. To my 
mind, the preservation of public morals is a matter in¬ 
finitely more important than any question of currency. 

I have great doubts, Mr. President, whether we 
ought to pass the first clause of this report, unless the 
second is made more stringent in its provisions—more 
imperative in the obligation it imposes. The gentle¬ 
man from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] said that if the traffic 
should be thrown open to all without restriction, it 
would be the signal for a gi'eat and instant increase. 
Moi'e and worse men would enter into it. The flood¬ 
gates of licentiousness would be thrown open, and vice 
and crime would greatly increase. I have, I confess, 
strong fears of such a result, notwithstanding the opin¬ 
ions of a contrary kind, expi'essed by those who from 
their acquaintance with the subject, are entitled to 
great consideration. If the amendment which I have 
now proposed shall be adopted, it relieves nie from 
these fears. There would be no risk in wiping the li¬ 
cense law’s fi’om the statute book. Experience has 
shown that legislative bodies are exceedingly slow in 
responding to the wishes of the people, when subjects 
of this kind are attempted to be brought to their no¬ 
tice. Ttiey either do not design to hear, or do they not 
choose to act. They remain inactive. They procras¬ 
tinate. I have my fears that if the article shall be left 
as it now is, the same course will continue to be pur¬ 
sued by the Legislature. They will not recognize the 
obligation to act, and how'ever great and crying the 
evils may be, and however apparent they may become, 
they will leave them to be acted upon, and corrected 
solely by public opinion, or not at all. But, if in the 
organic law, the Legislature shall be compelled to pro¬ 
vide against the evils complained of, we may then with 
perfect safety, declare that all laws regarding the sub¬ 
ject of license may be wiped away. 

Mr. President: I have made this motion freely, in 
good faith, and impelled by what I conceive to l)e my 
duty as a member of this body. I shall vote for it if I 
vote alone, and in so doing, while remembering that in 
this and other public bodies, I have given many votes 










1094 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


bearing upon the public welfare, I shall look upon this 
as the best and must praiseworthy vote I have given in 
the whole course of my life. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to amend the instructions so 
as to require such an addition to the report as will an¬ 
nul the existing laws prohibiting the sale of ardent 
spirits without license. 

The question then being on the amendment to the in¬ 
structions ; 

Mr. McCORMICK was in favor of the recommitment, 
and opposed to the motion to instruct, both by the 
gentleman from Union, [Mr. Cuury,] and the gentle¬ 
man from Richland, [Mr. Kirkwood.] As he had said 
yesterday, the committee believed the report to be all 
that was necessary. They had been very modest— 
had not occupied much space, and had hoped their lit¬ 
tle report would pass through and escape the buftetings 
that had met those that were larger and more preten¬ 
tious. They had been mistaken. It iiad been charged 
with ail the crimes in the catalogue. They had thouglit 
it walked directly up to the point. It had been charg¬ 
ed with duplicity, with ambiguity, with looking one 
way and rowing another, and with looking both ways. 

When the bill of rights had been under discussion, 
the gentleman from Trumbull had offered an amend¬ 
ment, providing, in effect, for the abolition of all licen¬ 
ses, of every descti[)tion. It had been adopted in com¬ 
mittee of the Whole by a very large majority. See 
ing that vote, the committee thought the Convention 
would bear them out in a provision to remove the pro¬ 
tection of law from the sale of ardent spirits, and throw 
it open to bo acted upon by public opinion. They 
thought that il the Convention had decided that all trades 
should be free, the Convention would decide that one 
particular trade should be free. This was the reason 
for the report. They had made use of plain language. 
They had intended that the Legislature should have 
power to restrain. It was not equivocal, the gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton, [Mr. Rekmelin ] to the contrary 
notwithstanding. 

Mr. REE ME LIN. I did not say so. 1 said it was 
Janus-faced—looked both ways. 

Mr. McCORMICK. It is not Janus-faced either. 

Now, Mr. President, I will wait until the action of 
the Convention on the Bill of Rights, and in accordance 
with its action, will be my support of this bill. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said that the matter had been ever 
within the power of the Legislature, and there it 
should be left. He did not believe in the doctrine that 
removing the sanction of law from the sale of spirits 
would tend to reduce the quantity sold. He did not 
want to hang such a weight upon this cousliiulion. It' 
would have loads enough to carry. It had become 
an agglomeration already of all that is ultra. He be¬ 
lieved such a provision, attempting to force morality 
upon the people, would array forty or fifty thousand 
votes against it. Such an attempt to make sanctimo¬ 
nious saints of the people, would be revolted against, or 
result in a fearful reaction. 

I say, touch not the altar of the Lord with unhal¬ 
lowed hands. If we do, we shall meet the fate that is 
reserved as the punishment of such acts. It is a fear¬ 
ful question. I shall vote in favor of both the amend¬ 
ments, not that I think it will make the report any 
better, but because it will take aw^ay from it a feature 
of drivelling hypocrisy, which now renders it con¬ 
temptible. 1 want to strip off this cloak; but if this 
thing gets into the constitution, I don’t care what else 
you put into it, it will end it with the people—of that 
we may be certain, 

Mr. MANON. The gentleman from Monroe has now 
doubtless killed the bill. He will vote against it, and 
it will be destroyed ; however, he was still willing to 
try it in the constitution, and he should vote for the 
constitution whether it went in or not. 

, Mr. RANNEY was opposed to the report and all 
amendments. He voted noon all questions connected 
with it. He was against the whole matter, for the rea¬ 


son that this body was not the proper place to consider 
the subject. He was surprised that gentlemen who 
had so constantly been opposed to going into detail in 
the organic law, should be urging the inserting a 
mere sumptuary law into the constitutiou. But this 
is worse tlian that. It is a mere experiment—a trial 
the result of which even its friends admit to be doubt¬ 
ful—and yet they are urging that it shall form a part of 
the fundamental law of the State. Now this whole 
matter is within the province of the Legislature. That 
body has long since taken and exercised jurisdiction 
over it. That body only can reject the changes of 
public opinion upon the subject, and if it shall do that 
which is of doubtful propriety, a remedy is withintheir 
reach, by a repeal and a trial of that which experience 
has shown is more effectual to produce the desired re¬ 
sult. 

Mr. HOLMES said he felt this to l)e a question of 
much importance, especially to tlie people of Hamilton 
county. He was opposed to the article and to all the 
the action that had been taken in the premises, Mr. 
President, what are we here for ? Is it not to construct 
an organic law—to lay out by metes and bounds the 
different powers of the government ? Gentlemen 
come here and ask us to put into this code of princi¬ 
ples a legislative provision, which if it should prove 
uufortunate, could not be taken out without an amend- 1 
ment to the constitution. 

I have no fault to find with the gentlemen compos¬ 
ing the committee. They responded properly to the pray¬ 
ers of the petitioneis ; but I shall be unwilling by my 
vote to provide for leading men into temptation by 
opening a door wide to intemperance and allowing 
every man to enter into the traffic. No man familiar 
to a population like that of Cincinnati, would be wil¬ 
ling to throw away the restraints of law, because he i 
would be aware at once that it would increase ten told 
the evil and the consequences. j 

Mr. H. proceeded to speak of the petitions and of, I 
in many instances, the ignorance of the signers of the 1 
peculiar seutiments they contained; also of the action j 
of the Council of Cincinnati on the temperance question, I 

Mr, MANON. The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. j 
Holmes,] is gratified with the idea that ahhough the i 
City Council of Cincinnati, some twelve or fifteen days , | 

ago—and after this report was printed, (with no doubt j 
a copy before them,)—did adopt a memorial addressed i 
to tins body, asking us to incorporate this provision in I 
the constitution; they now, or will soon send to us ' 
another memorial explaining away what they have 
done. Let him so console himself, and act in accor¬ 
dance with it if he chooses; 1 will here read a few 
lines from a moral pamjdilet which I hold in my hand, 
on a subject closely connected with this in which I find 
the following: 

Speaking of certain places of resort for licentious ■ 
pur[) 08 es, in this city, the Report says: “If these ? 
places, so closely affianced with grog shops, were en- i 
dowed with the same respectability, by being taken i 
under the prote< tion of the civil authorities, and li- i 
censed by the city council—if these keepers were i 
bound to give assurance that they were persons of good j 
moral character, it would be less difficult to ascertain i 

their numbers and location. Their fruit is seen in eve- 1 

ry place.” ! 

These suggestions are emphatically true. I concur I 

in them fully. You see the fruits of the license system j 

daily. I would as soon vote for the licensing of one i 

species of these ])lace8 of resort as another. I am op¬ 
posed to the legalizing or upholding by law, of a thing i 

that I believe to be wrong—a thing that all here ad- ' 

mit to be so. I wish to comply with the prayers of the i 

petitioners, or a large majority of them at least. A.11 
they ask, is, that we prevent the General Assembly 
from licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors; and in : 
that I, for one, agree. Do not give it the sanction of 
law, but leave it free to be governed by public opinion; 
and when that shall be in favor of restraining laws, let [ 














1095 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


them come. For public opinion, maturely and delibe¬ 
rately made up, never errs. It will not do so in this 
case. I am opposed to all monopolies ; and above all, 
to those granted for the purpose of dealing out death 
and destruction. Legalizing that which is morally 
wrong, I protest against. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD desired the re-commitment, for the 
reason that he thought the language of the Report am¬ 
biguous, and that it would not be understood. Some 
gentlemen supposed its eifect would be. not only to 
strike down the power to license, but also annul the 
laws prohibiting and rendering penal the sale of spirits 
without a license ; others believed that it would only 
destroy the license system, leaving the prohibition 
standing. The latter was his opinion. He w'anted all 
chance for misapprehension taken away. If the efi'ecl 
was to be, to abolish all licenses, and leave the penal 
laws to restrain the traffic, standing, he wumted to 
know it—if otherwise, he wanted to know it. He 
should, therefore, vote for the re-conimitment. 

Mr. BATES said he apprehended the effect of re¬ 
committal would be, that this discussion would all be 
to go over again; and that gentlemen were as well 
prepared to vote now, as they w'ould be at any future 
time. While up, he desired to say, that he did not oc¬ 
cupy the position in which the gentleman from Trum 
bull places the friends of this measure. He divides 
them into two classes — those who would prescribe 
“ what we shall eat, what we shall drink, and where¬ 
withal we shall be clothed ”—and those who would 
open a barrel of whiskey on every corner, and say, 
come, “ drink and he merry.” This, so far as he was 
concerned, w’as not correct. What is the qiiesfirm be¬ 
fore us, stripped of all the mystification wliich the in¬ 
genuity of that gentleman and" others has thrown around 
it? Why, simply this—The General Assembly shall 
not have power to legalize, by special enactment, that 
which all acknowledge to be an evil, hut shall leave it 
to be controlled by public opinion, under such legal 
restraints as that public opinion may demand. It is 
this, and nothing more. 

Mr. LARSH said he should vote against the re-com¬ 
mitment. He believed the report contained enough, 
and not-too much. 

Mr, KIRKWOOD. Will the gentleman please to give 
his construction to the report, as to how far it goes ? 
Does it merely prohibit the license of the sale of ardent 
spirits, and leave in operation the penal laws against 
the unauthorized vending of that article ? or does it 
repeal those laws, also ? 

Mr. LARSH said it made, in his mind, no difference 
which, or what construction should be given to it by 
the Legislature. He thought that by putting it in the 
power of the Legislature to provide against the evils 
resulting from intemperance, all had been done that 
was necessary. He was opposed to the whole license 
system. It commenced upon a wrong principle. Some 
eight or nine hundred years ago, at Rome, when press 
ed for money, the Pope proclaimed the sale of indul¬ 
gences. From that germ the whole system grew, and 
the commission of all crimes known to men, and the 
practice of all vices, have been permitted by sales of 
iicenses, until men were compelled to look for some 
mode to rid themselves of so enormous an evil. In the 
process of time, the whole system has been wiped 
away, with this exception, and to this, men who wor¬ 
ship ancient abuses, cling as to the last plank of a sink¬ 
ing ship. Looking to the history of the past, it will be 
seen that there have been times when men have deem¬ 
ed it necessary to stand up, and make some sacrifices, 
in order to stem the prevailing torrent of immorality. 
We are now in one of those times, and for the good of 
the human race it is necessary to place ourselves in the 
breach. Now the law is all in favor of the rum-seller; 
and surely it is no more than justice to man, to religion, 
and to humanity, to ask that we be placed upon an 
equal footing. 

The question being first on the recommitment of the 

port, 


Mr. .TONES demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas .51, nays 3G—as fol- 
lov/r: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, 
Chambers, Codings, Curry, Dorsey, Ewing, Green of Ross. Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Hootman, Huraphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kirk¬ 
wood, Lurwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, McCloud, Mc¬ 
Cormick, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Selleie, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stid- 
ger, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Warren, Woodbury, Worthington and President—51. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blick- 
ensderfer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Cook, Ewart, Farr, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Horton, 
Hunter, Kennon, King, Larsh, Manon, Mason, Mortihead, Morris, 
Nash, Ranney, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swift, Townshend 
and Williams—36. 

So the motion to recommit was agreed to. 

The question then being on Mr. Kirkwood’s aineud- 
ment to the instructions, 

Mr CHAMBERS moved that the Convention ad¬ 
journ. 

On which motion, Mr. ARCH BOLD demanded the 
yeas and nays; which, lieing ordered, resulted—yeas 
28, nays 58—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, 
Greene of Defiance, Grern of Ross, Hamilton, Plitchcock of Ge¬ 
auga, Holmes, Holt, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, Larsh, 
Leech, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Riudle, Roll, Sawyer, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stebbins, Taylor, WTlliarns and Woodbury— 
28. 

Nays. —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnett ol Preble, Bates, 
Brown ot Athens, Cahill, Case ol Hocking, Collings, Cook, Curry, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hootman, Plumphreville, 
John.son, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, 
Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCormick, Orton, Otis, 
Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quisley, Ranney, Reemelin, Scott of 
Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Stanton, 
Stidger, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelbj', Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Warren, Worthington and President—58. 

So the motion to adjourn was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to ibe amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Kirkwood to the instructions, 

Mr. NASH moved to lay the in8tructjon.s on the 
table. 

Mr. STANTON moved that the Convention take a 
recess. 

On which motion, Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded the 
yeas and nays, which being ordered resulted—yeas 16, 
nays 58—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet o Montgomery, Browm ol Athens, Case 
of Hocking, Gray, Hunt, ■ anon, Morehead, McCloud, Patterson, 
Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Stanton, Stebbins, Swift, 
Taylor and Woodbury— 1 6. 

Nays —Messrs Archbo :d, Barbee, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Carroll, Cahill, Chaoibera, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, 
Ewart, Ewing, Florenc e, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Gregs, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hor¬ 
ton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon,King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Mitchell, Morris, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Orton, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Rcerae- 
lin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Sellers, Smith ot Highland, Smith ot 
Warren, Stanbery, Stilwell, Stidger, Swan, Thompson of Shel¬ 
by, Thompson of Stark, 'J’ocvnshend, Warren, Williams, Wor¬ 
thington and President—68. 

So the Convention refused to take a recess. 

The question theu being on laying the instructions 
on the table, 

Mr. CURRY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 58, nays30—as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Cook, 
Dorsey, Florence, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Grcjgg, 
Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hoot¬ 
man, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Larsh, 
Leech, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Nor¬ 
ris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Riddle, Roll, 
Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, 
Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren and President 
—58. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Cahill, Case ol Hocking, Cur¬ 
ry, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Henderson, Humphreville, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leadbetter, 
Lidey,Mauon, McCormick, Ranney, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, 
Stidger, Thompson of Shelby, Williams, Woodbury and Wor- 
thiugton—30. 










1096 


CONVENTION JREPORTS. 


So the,motion to lay on the table was agreed to. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren moved that the Convention 
adjourn. 

On which motion Mr, MANON demanded the yeas 
and nays, and being ordered, resulted—yeas 58, nays 
30—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Bates, Blickensderl'er, Brown 
of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, 
Florence, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamil¬ 
ton, Hard, Hitchcock ofGeauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, Lareh, Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Mason, Mitchell, Morris, McCormick, Nash, Norris, 
Orton, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith ot Warren, Stanbery, Stilwell, 
Stidger, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townsbend, Wil¬ 
liams, Woodbury and President—58. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Brown of Athens, Cahill, 
Case of Hocking, Cook, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Gregg, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Johnson, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Manon, 
Morehead, McCloud, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Stanton, Stebbins, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, 
Warren and Worthington—30. 

So the motion prevailed, and the Convention atljourn- 
ed until Monday morning, at nine o’clock. 


MOA^DAY, February 3, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by Rev. Dr. Rice. 

Mr. HAWKINS presented sundry petitions from 
James Rodgers, P. J. Patterson, and eighty other citi 
zens of Morgan county, praying that a clause be insert¬ 
ed in the new constitution, prohibiting the Legislature 
from passing any law legalizing traffic in spirituous 
liquors; which, on motion, were laid on the table. 

Mr. STICKNEY' presented sundiy petitions from 
Charles Foster, Ann S. Lewis, and forty-two othermales 
and females of Seneca county, on the same subject ; 
w hich, on motion, w’ere laid on the table. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the Convention resolve 
itself into a committee of the Whole ; which was agreed 
to—Mr. Humphreville in the chair. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that Report No. 2, of the 
standing committee on the Legislative Department be 
taken up, upon which question no quorum voting, 

Mr. PllTCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved that the com¬ 
mittee rise, which was agreed to; and the committee 
rose, and the Chairman reported that there was not a 
quorum of members present. 

Mr. MlTCtlELL moved a call of the Convention, 
which being ordered,’? 

Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Case of Licking, 
Chaney, Clark, Ewart, Ewing, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Harlan, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, Lawrence, Loudon, Norris, 
Perkins, Reemelin, Roll, Smith of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, 
Struble, Way and Wilson were found absent. 

Mr. SAWY’ER moved that all ftirther proceedings 
under the call be dispensed with, which was agreed 
to. 

Mr. SAWYER then moved that the committee of the 
whole be discharged from any further consideration of 
the report of the standing committe on the Legislative 
department; upon which motion, 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
wereorded and resulted—yeas 32, nays 53—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Blair, Cahill, Chambers, Farr, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Hawkins, Hootman, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, 
Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Mitchell, McCormick, Orton, Patterson, 
Peck, Ranney, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Steb¬ 
bins, Stickney, Swift,Taylor, Townshend, Woodbury and Presi¬ 
dent—32. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, Blick- 
ensderfer. Brown of Athens, Brown ot Carroll, Case of Hocking, 
Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, 
Graham, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, 
King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Leadbettcr, Manon, Mason, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Perkins, Quigley, Scott of Har- 
risou, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, 
Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Tliompson of Stark, Vsince ot Cham¬ 
paign, Warren, Williams, and Worthington—53. 

the motion was rejected. 

Mr. SAWY’ER moved that the Convention resolve 


itself into a committee of the vvhole, on the Report No. 
2, of the standing committee on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment; upon which question, 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 34, nays 50 — as fol¬ 
lows: 

Y EAS—Messrs. Bennett, Cook, Dorsey, Farr, Greene of Defiance 
Henderson, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Ken* 
non, Kirkw'ood, I^arwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mitch¬ 
ell, McCormick, Orton, Patterson Ranney, Riddle, Sawyer, Sel¬ 
lers, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Taylor, Thompson ot Shelby* 
Townshend, Woodbury, and President—34. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case 
of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Cutler, Florence Forbes, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, 
Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Jones, King, 
Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, 
Perkins, Quigley, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Thompson of Stark, 
Vance of Campaign, Warren, Williams, and Worthington—50. 

Mr. ORTON moved to take up the resolution offered 
by himself, a few days since, providing for a sine die 
adjournment of the Convention on the fourth day of 
March next: upon which motion; 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 43, nays 41—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, Brown of 
Athens, Case of Hocking, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Farr, 
Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Gregg, Haj-d, Hawkins, Kennon, 
King, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Mason, Orton, Otis, Peck, 
Quigley, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Scott of Harrison, 
Sellers, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Thompson 
of Stark, Vance of Champaign, Woodbury, Worthington and 
President—43. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Bennett, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Collings, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, 
Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, 
Kirkwood, Leadbetter, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, Me 
Cloud, McCormick, Nash, Patterson, Perkins, Riddle, Smith of 
Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Town¬ 
shend, Warren and Williams—41. 

So the resolution was taken up. 

The question being on the adoption of the resolution, 

Mr. MANON said the proper time to act on this re¬ 
solution was when the Convention had gone through 
its business, and had referred it to the committee on Re¬ 
vision. Fie was opposed to spending time in the dis¬ 
cussion of it now. We were in the habit of losing too 
much time. therefore moved that the resolution be 
postponed until the third Monday in February. 

The question then being on the postponement, 

Mr. MASON was in favor of having a day fixed, and 
thought the eftect of adopting the resolution would be 
to expedite biusiness- 

The question being on the postponement of the reso¬ 
lution, 

Mr. S^VIFT demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas CO, nays 27—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Pamet of Montgomery, Ben] 
nett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Chambers, Collings, Curry, Dorsey, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphre¬ 
ville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Manon, Mitchell, Morris, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Pat¬ 
terson, Perkins, Quigley, Ptanney, Riddle, Roll, Smith of Warren, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of 
Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Williams, 
Woodbury, Worthington and President—60. 

Nays —Messrs. Bates, Blair, Case of Hocking, Cook, Cutler, 
Farr, Forbes, Gray, Gregg, Hard, Kennon, King, Larsh, Lidey, 
Mason, Morehead, McCloud, Orton, Peck, Reemelin, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stanbery, Stebbins, Swift and Thomp¬ 
son of Stark—27. 

So the resolution was postponed. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved that the Con¬ 
vention take up the report of the standing committee 
on Preamble and Bill of Rights; which was agreed to. 

The busine.s8 in order, being the consideration of the 
amendment.s made to said report in committee of the 
Whole, the same were read by the Secretary. 

The question then being on agreeing to the first 
amendment of the committee of the Whole, to wit: In 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 1097 


section 3, line one, strike out the word “ shallit was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the second 
amendment, to wit: In section 3, the last line, stride 
out the word “ Legislature,” and insert in lieu thereof 
the words “General Assembly;” it was agreed to. 

The question thus being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment to wit: In section 4,'"line one, strike out the word 
“shall;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fourth 
amendment, to wit: In section 5, strikeout after the 
word “jury” as heretofore used and herein provided ; 
it was agreed to, and the section, as amended, reads as 
follows : 

Skc. 5. The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate. 

The question then being on agreeing to the liftli 
amendment, to wit: “Sec. 6, in the sixth line, strike 
out the word “ any,” and add at-^he end of the sixth 
line following, “ or for any other civil purpose.” 

The question then being on striking out the word 
“any,” the same was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the words, “or 
for any other civil purpose.” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved to amend the 
words, by inserting between the words “for” and 
“ any ” the words, “ for the purpose of,” and by stri¬ 
king out the word “purpose” and inserting the word 
“ duty.” 

The question being first on inserting the words, “ for 
the purpose of;” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD urged the great necessity for pre¬ 
cision of language, in this matter. He did not believe 
the gentleman from Geagua, [Mr. Hitchcock,] had 
any desire to abolish the practice of taking an oath in 
courts of justice; nor did he believe there was any de¬ 
sire here to establish a test of faith, as a qualification 
for office. But there was great danger, and ground to 
fear, that by using language not fully understood, an 
abuse might be established. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said, the sole object of the amend¬ 
ment was to provide that no man, whether Christian, 
Mahomedan or Infidel, shall be prohibited from testi¬ 
fying. There was no intention to establish any relig¬ 
ious test. 

The question then being on the amendments; the 
same was agreed to. , 

Mr. STANBERY then moved to amend the amend¬ 
ment of the committee further, by adding at the end, 
the following: 

But nothing herein contained shall be construed to dispense 
with the administration of oaths or affirmations. Which was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment of the 
committee, as amended; 

Mr. MASON wished to know whether the effect of 
this amendment would be to prevent an inquiry into 
the religious belief of a witness, with a view to ques 
tion his credibility. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, said so far as that 
was concerned, he supposed the matter woidd be left 
as it is now, to be regulated by the Courts. 

Mr. STANBERY inquired—then what is the ob¬ 
ject of the provision—if it does not change the rule of 
evidence ? 

Mr. RANNEY said, his understanding was that it 
would cut off all such inquiry. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE thought .such a question 
might be entertained by a court, under an impeach¬ 
ment of his character as a witness. 

Mr. LEAD BETTER was opposed to this change in 
the rules of evidence. The practice of oath taking 
was predicated upon the desire to bind the consciences 
of men. By so doing, all hold upon the consciences 
of men would be lost, and if the witness has no fears 
of the Penitentiary, there is no hold upon him what¬ 
ever. Men might, to carry out the idea, be sworn by 
the Penitentiary. 

Mr. REEMELIN said it seemed the effect of the 
amendment, if not its intention, was to defeat the pro-1 


position. The idea of the courts or juries believed a 
man any more because he has sworn, is all a humbug. 
It is no protection, but on the contrary, it puts it in 
the power of a rogue to swear away the rights of men. 
The gentlemen show that they are behind the age. 

Mr. RANNEY said it had never been necessary in 
the Courts of Justice of Ohio, for a man to take an oath. 
He has always been allowed to affirm. By that, all the 
objections of gentlemoii fall to the ground. The Su- 
pi’eme Court has, in effect, annihilated the old com¬ 
mon law doctrine on the subject. It was true that 
there had been some diversity of opinion, but at pres¬ 
ent, he believed it to be settled, that the common law 
doctrine was done away. He had seen instances that 
convinced him of the utter impropriety of such a rule. 

Mr. SWAN asked the gentleman from Trumbull, 
[Mr. Ranney,] to state wdiat the rule is at pre.sent. 

Mr. RANNEY said there was now a reported case 
in which the Supreme Court had done away with the 
common law doctrine, and that now no question could 
be raised as to the religious belief of a witness. He 
believed this a most proper provision to go into the 
fundamental law of he State; and for himself he 
would never consent that religion should be prostituted 
by becoming the test in courts of justice. He did not 
want the courts transformed into schools for hypocrites. 

Mr. GROESBECK said there was one view of the 
case which it appeared to him had not been presented. 
Gentlemen in their discussion upon the subject had 
spoken only of the effect of judicial oaths upon the wit¬ 
ness, and the constraint, whatever it might be, which 
they imposed upon him. But there was another view, 
of equal and even greater importance, and that waa 
the consideration of the effect which it might have 
upon the interests of parties. I have, for example, a 
claim for contract broken, or some other matter in which 
I deem my rights have been infringed. I bring my suit. 
I pursue the remedy which the law declares to be a. 
proper one. I examine A. B. and C. in support of my 
claim. I introduce D. upon the stand, and propose to* 
examine him because I know that he saw with his eyes; 
or heard with his ears those things which I deem ma¬ 
terial to be proven in order to secure the justice which 
I claim is my doe. An attorney upon the opposite side 
rises and objects to his testimony being received. 
Why 1 Because there is something in his religious be¬ 
lief that, under the present rule, renders him incompe¬ 
tent. He believes either too much or too little, and his 
testimony is excluded. Now who is the party wrong¬ 
ed ? I am. I am entitled to his evidence, whatever it 
may be, and though the exclusion may to some extent 
affect him, it is me that is injured. 

Again, I contend that the variety of mankind does 
not in half the cases in the world depend upon their 
religious belief. I agree that in many cases it does, 
but "in far the greater majority of instances, men swear 
without in the least reflecting upon the obligatioii 
which the oath imposes upon their consciencies. Take 
one hundred professors of religion from the body oi 
any evangelical church. Bring them upon the witness 
stand and call upon them to testify, and fifty out of 
that hundred will have their religious feelings so dor¬ 
mant, and their spirituality so lifeless that their fcon- 
sciencies will not for one moment recur to the distant 
pains and penalties which revelation has denounced 
against him who bears false witness. They may tell 
the truth ; but they will not tell it because they are un¬ 
der the influence of any present feeling of religious ob¬ 
ligation , and there are men of no profession in religion 
gion at all, whose testimony may be relied upon with 
just as much confidence as that of the inost zealous 
professor. With these views, Mr. President, I shall 
vote against the amendment, and should, if they were 
not adopted, move to amend the section by striking out 
the amendment, and inserting, as the termination of the 
section, the following 

Nor shall any person be rendered incompetent to be a vyitness 
on account of his opinions on subjects of religious belief; but 
nothing herein contained, shall be construed to dispense with the 
administering of oaths and affirmations. 










1098 CONVENTION REPOKTS. 


All I ask, Mr. President, is to leave the door of in¬ 
quiry into the religious belief of the witness open, 
that it may have whatever effect it should have upon 
his credibility—the question of his competency being 
settled. 

Mr. HOLT was opposed to the amendment of the 
gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] because 
it placed it in the power of parties to inquire into 
the religious belief of witnesses after they have giv¬ 
en their testimony. He did not deem such a prac¬ 
tice consistent or proper. You make no test of reli¬ 
gious belief for your judge or juryman; but a witness 
who may perhaps hold the same religious belief, may 
be excluded on account of it. The true rule is the 
plain scripture maxim—by their fruits ye shall know 
them. 

The question then being on the amendment of the 
Oommittee of the Whole, as amended; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being'ordered, resulted—yeas 33, nays 55—as follows : 

Veas —Messrs. Arcbbold, Bennett, Blair, Chambers, Cook 
Dorsey, Farr, Graham, Gray, Hitchcock ol Geauga, Holt, Humph- 
reville, Jones, King, harsh, Mitchell, Morris, Patterson, Perkins, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Stanton, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Woodbury, Worthington 
and President—33 

Nays —Messrs.—Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Collings, Curry, 
Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, 
Kennon, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey. Manou, 
Mason, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Orton, Otis, Peck, 
Siuigley, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highlaud,Smith of Warren, 
Stanbery, Stcbbins, Stilwell, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Champaign and Wil¬ 
liams—55. 

So the amendment of the committee of the Whole, as 
amended, was rejected. 

The question then being upon agreeing to the sixth 
amendment, as follows: section seventh, fourth line, 
strike out the words “ against his consent;” 

Mr. REEMELIN demanded the yeas and nays, 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 23, nays (55 —as 
follows. 

Yeas —Messrs. Dorsey, nolt, Jones, Larwill, neech, Lidey, 
Manon, McCormick, Perkins, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Champaign, Woodburyand Wor¬ 
thington—23. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Cahill, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, 
Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Hootman, Horton, Humphre.ville, Hunt, Hunter, 
Johnson, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Leadbetter, Mason, Mitchell, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patter¬ 
son, Peck, Quigley, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stantou, Stilwell, Swan, 
Townshend, Warren and President—65. 

So the amendmeut was rejected. 

The question then being on the seventh amendmeut, 
to wit: In section seven, where these words occur near 
the end of the same, “ it sliall be the duly of the Legis¬ 
lature.” strike out the word ” Legislature,” and insert 
in lieu thereof the words “ General Assembly; ” it 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the eighth 
amendment, to wit: In section ten, where near the end 
of the same these words occur, “to procure their at¬ 
tendance,” strike out the words “ their attendance,” 
and insert in lieu thereof “ the attendance of witnes.ses 
in his behalf; ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the ninth 
amendment, to wit; In section ten, where in the first 
part of the same these words occur, “and in cases of” 
after the word “ and,” insert the word “ other; ” it was 
acreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the tenth 
amendment, to wit: In section ten, in the last line, 
strike out the words “ subject to be ; ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the elev¬ 
enth amendmeut, to wit: In section twelve, in the first 


line, strike out the w'ords “liable to be;” it was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the eleventh 
amendment, to wit: In section 14, where in the last 
line these words occur, “the person and things to be 
seized,” strike out the word “ and,” and insert in lieu 
thereof the word “or;” it was agreed to 

Mr. GROESBECK moved to reconsider the vote by 
which the Convention adapted the twelfth amendment 
of the committee of the Whole. It was agreed to. j 

The question then being on agreeing to the twelfth 
amendment; it was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeiiig to the thirteenth 
amendment, to wit: Strike out section 15. I 

Mr. HUMBHREVILLE demanded the yeas and ; 
nays ; which, being ordered, resulted—yeas 35, nays 
52—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Ba||hee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bennett, Blick- Q 
ensderfer, Brown oiAthens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Col- j 
lings, Florence, Gillett, Green of Ross, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hor¬ 
ton, Humphreville, Kirkwood, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mason, 
Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Peck, 

Scott of Harrifion, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, 
Stilwell, Stidger, Swift and Williams—35. 

Nays —Messrs. Arcbbold, Bates, Cahill, Cooa, Curry, Cutler, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Holt, Hootman, 
Hunt, Hunter, Johnson.. Jones, Kennon, King, Larsh, Larwill, 
Manon, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stan¬ 
ton, Stebbins, Stickney, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson 
of Stark, Tovrashend, Warren,Woodbury,Worthington and Pres¬ 
ident—52. 

So the amendment of the committee of the Whole 
wa.s rejected. 

The question then being on agreeing to the fourteenth 
amendment, to wit: Strike out section 16, and substi¬ 
tute the following; 

That all courts shall be open, and every person for an injury 
done him in his land, goods, person or reputation, shall have re 
medy by the due course of law, and right and justice administer 
ed without denial or delay ; 

It was agreed to. 

^ The question then being on the fifteenth amendment, 
to wit: III section 18, strike out the word “Legisla¬ 
ture,” and insert in lieu thereof the words “ General 
Assembly ;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the sixteenth 
amendment, to wit: In section 19, the first line, strike 
out the word “ power,” and insert in lieu thereof the 
word “ rights;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the seventeenth amend¬ 
ment, to wit: add as section twenty the following: 

No excise or license duties shall be imposed in this State; but 
trade aud commerce among citizens of this State shall always be 
tree. 

Mr. PERKINS moved to amend the amendment, by 
striking out all after the word “ State,” where it first 
occurs. 

The question then being on the amendment, 

Mr. PERKINS merely desired to say that the sec 
lion, as amended, would convey precisely the idea he 
intended to convey when he offered the section for 
adoption in committee. He had no intention to curtail 
the power of the Legislature, or of municipal corpora¬ 
tions, to make and enforce such sanitary and other regu¬ 
lations as should bo necessary for the welfare of the 
commuuity. What he desired was to cut off the pow¬ 
er to pass license and excise laws as a means of taxa¬ 
tion. He thought this amendment would remove all 
apprehensions of those who feared that an important 
and necessary function of government was about to be 
interfered with. 

The quesliontlieu being on the amendment, the same 
was adopted. 

The question then being on the adoption of the sec¬ 
tion, as amended, 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER moved to amend the same, 
by adding at the end the following: “ Upon all traffic 
in intoxicating licjuors.” 

The question then being on the amendment, 

Mr. LIDEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1099 


were ordered, and resulted—yeas 31, nays 55—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Meesrs. Bamet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, Blick- 
ensderfer. Brown of Athens, Cutler, Ewart, Gillett, Hard, Haw- 
kins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Jones, Larsh, Lidey, Mitchell, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Smith of 
VVwren, Stickney, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Wiiliams 
and Worthington—31. 

Nays—M essrs. Archbold, Barbee, Brown of Carroll, Cahill 
Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Farr, Florence^ 
rorbes, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Henderson, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Manon, Morehead, Morris, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott 01 Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stebbins, 
Stilwell, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, Wood¬ 
bury, and President—55. 

So ihe amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on agreing to the section, as 
amended, 

Mr. SAWYER desired to know what was meant by 
the words he had used in this section. Does he mean 
that there shall hereafter be no laws by which licenses 
may be issued to auctioneers, pedlars, liquor seiiers, 
and so forth? Or does he mean that in future no taxes 
shall be imposed upon an article in the hands of its 
manufacturer? This was what was generally under¬ 
stood by the term excise. He could not vote for the 
section until he understood what was intended to be 
prohibited under its provisions. 

Mr. PERKINS said the object was to prevent the 
State from going into a mode of taxation which would 
interfere with the rights of individuals. Taxation 
should rest equally upon all the property of the State; 
and in order to do so, should be levied upon that proper¬ 
ty upon the basis of equal valuation. Here is a inode 
purely arbitrary, without regard to valuation or even 
property, by which a tax is levied upon the individual, 
his occupation, trade or pursuit. He understood an 
excise duty to mean a tax laid upon the specific article 
in the hands of the manufacturer; a license is a privil¬ 
ege to trade in certain articles, in certain locations, or 
in certain ways. 

The gentlenfan from Monroe, [Mr. Archboed,] had 
inquired if it was intended to cut off pedlers’ licenses. 
He supposed the tbing explained itself; but if he 
wishes to be informed, i can tell him that I suppose it 
wmuld go to uproot every species of that kind uf taxa¬ 
tion. 

Mr. NASH hoped the Convention would not adopt 
this provision without some inquiry into its tendency 
and effects. It seemed to him that it would go to cut 
up the power of the State in cases where, in an emer¬ 
gency, such power might be essential for the public 
safely'. 

On motion of Mr. REEMELIN, the Convention took 
a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

excise duties. 

The jquestion pending when the Convention took a 
recess, being upon the adoption of the 17;h amendment 
of the Committee of the Whole, proposed as the twen¬ 
tieth section of the Report of the Committee on the 
Preamble and Bill of Rights, which is as follows : 

Sec. 20. No excise or license duties shall be imposed 
in this State.” 

Mr. McCORMICK demanded the yeas and nays, 
and the same being taken, resulted—yeas 15, nays 65 
—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Farr, Gray, Greene of Dfiance, Hawkins, Holt, 
Leirsh, Lawrence Leech, Norris, Reemelin, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Taylor, Townshend, and Woodbury—15. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, 
Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Chambers, Collings, Cutler, Dorsey, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Ilootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hitnter, John¬ 
son, Jones, Kennon, King, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, 
Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, 
Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of 
Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stilwell, 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, 


Thompson of Stark, Vance ot Champaign, Williams, Worthington 
and President—65. 

So the amendment of the Committee of the Whole, 
as amended, was rejected. 

COMPENSATION FOR PUBLIC SERVICE. 

Mr. i i AWKINS moved to further amend the Report 
by adding as an additional section the following : 

Sec.—. The performance of public or official service, withou*' 
adequate compensation, ought not to be required; nor ehaU 
any fee, emolument, or compensation be paid to public officersi 
or agents, except in considaration of actual performance of offi' 
cial service, or discharge of public duty. 

Mr. BENNETT said, this amendment seemed to 
him to he very good advice: but he regarded it not as 
matter suitable to be placed in the Constitution. 

The question being upon the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment; 

Mr. HAWKINS demanded the yeas and nays, which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 24, nays 64—as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Cahill, Dorsey, Farr, Gillett, Gray, Greeue of 
Defiance, Hawkins, Henderson, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, 
Lawrence, Leech, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Reemelin, Sawyer, 
Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Stickney, Swilt, Townshend and Wood¬ 
bury—24. 

Nays— Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, 
Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown ot Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cham¬ 
bers, Collings, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Green 
of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hitchcock of Ge¬ 
auga, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larsh, Larwill, Leadbetter, Mason. Moreheadj Mo'’ris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, 
Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Stanbery,-Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, 
Stidger, Struble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson 
of Stark, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Worthington and Presi¬ 
dent—64. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. PATTERSON moved further to amend the re¬ 
port by adding the followinsr as an additional section ; 

Sec. —. All claims to real estate shall be held good to any per¬ 
son who has by himself, or those under whom he claims, had 
quiet posses8if)n and title thereto for twenty-one years. 

Mr. McCORMICK supposed this section to have been 
offered for the purpose of settling those mo.'Jt vexatious 
questions of land titles which were so frequently rising 
in the Virginia military district—embracing about one- 
Hftli of the territory of the whole State of Ohio—which 
had led to more litigation and loss amongst ourcitizen.s 
than all the litigation connected with the other four- 
lifihs of the realty of the State. Questions of titles of 
forty-years’ standing would sometimes be sprung upon 
innocent purchasers, and they would be turned out, 
houseless and homeless, upon the world. He hoped 
this section wbuld be considered worthy of a place in 
the constitution. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD was favorable to what seemed to 
be the policy of this proposition. But lie feared that 
its effect would be to repeal that statute vvhich short¬ 
ened theperiodof thestatnteof limitationsinthe.se cases 
from twenty-one to seven years. He contended that 
men ought to be compelled to bring forward their 
claims whilst the witnesses were living, and whilst 
there might remain opportunity of clearly deciding 
where the right lay. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. What would the gentleman 
do with squatters upon the public lands? Would the 
title of a squatter, after twenty-one years’ posses-sion, 
have to be made good by the courts of Ohio against the 
claim of the United States or the State of Ohio ? He 
hoped the section would be better matured before it 
was pressed upon the c onsideration of the Convention. 
*~^Mn^ATTERSON. Mr. President: It will be recol¬ 
lected that in the early part of the session I introduced 
a resolution instructing the committee on the Judicial 
proceeding to inquire into the expediency of inserting 
a clause in the constitution quieting land claims, where 
the individual holding the same had, by himself and 
others, under whom he claims, title and possession for 
twenty-one years. 

They have not reported to that effect, and believing 
as I do, that it is a subject that should be settled by 
this Convention, I have offered this amendment at this 













1100 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


^ime, believing this to be a proper place for its insertion 
in the constitution. 

Mr. President, the language of this amendment 
would seem to imply that the individual having pos¬ 
session and title, was really in possession of all that 
would be necessary to protect him in his lughts. Well 
sir, we have titles expressed in the strongest language 
that human ingenuity has invented, warranteeing and 
defending forever. These titles are signed, sealed 
and delivered in presence of two witnesses, and be¬ 
fore a sworn officer, who cenifies to the same; and in 
order to perpetuate the .same, they are made a matter 
of record. 

With this title the claimant takes possession, clears 
his land, builds houses and barns, plants his orchard, 
pays his taxes, and is permitted to remain until his con¬ 
stitution is broken down by fatigue, and the corrosive 
tooth of time has made a strong impress upon him, 
when he is informed that his title is what, in the far! 
west, would be called a floating title. Yes, Mr. Presi- j 
dent, the sheriff calls at his door, reads to him a dec- j 
laration informing him that John Doe and Richard | 
Roe claim title to his farm, and they being the majori- i 
ty he has got to leave. j 

The hotiorable member from Clinton introduced a 
resolution^o expel John Doe and Richard Roe. I will 
go with him in the expulsion, and ask him and this 
Convention to go with me, and expel the land sharks 
that stand behind these terms, who have been calmly 
looking on, while the poor man has been making the 
land valuable by the sweat of his brow. In many in¬ 
stances they have been permitted to remain until, like 
the old oak of the forest, they are leafless and almost 
limbless, when they are turned out of house and 
home, on the cold charities of the world, and their 
gray hairs to go down in sorrow to the grave. It is to 
prevent scenes like this, that I introduced this amend¬ 
ment. 

For half a century, the Legislature has had this sub¬ 
ject under its fostering care, and has failed to grant ad¬ 
equate security. The people appeal, not from Philip 
Drunk to Philip Sober; but, from the Legislature to 
this Convention. 

I hope the appeal may not be in vain, but that we 
may settle the vexed question, and in the language of 
our titles, forever. 

Mr. NASH thought, if the gentleman would scrutin¬ 
ize his amendment, he would perceive, that instead of 
benefitting, it would make the law even more objec¬ 
tionable than it was now. As the* law now stood, 
twenty-one years’ peaceable possession would give a 
title, and a good one, although the possessor might not 
have had any show of title before. But the gentleman’s 
section says the individual must have quiet possession, 
and a title thereto, in order to make him quiet in his 
possession. Fie had supposed that, if a man had a title, 
those twin brothers, John Doe and Richard Roe, might 
help him into possession ; or, if he had not a good title, 
they might dispossess him. He considered that a sta¬ 
tute of limitations would be a queer thing in a consti¬ 
tution. 


Mr. STANTON would go for a well digested provi¬ 
sion of this kind; but this was worse than nothing. 
He was satisfied with the statute as it now stood; ex- 
-cept that it did not run against outstanding government 
patents. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to amend the amendment, 
by striking out therefrom, these wmrds: " and title 
thereto.” 

Mr. STANTON. With that amendment, the section 
would authorize a person who had been in possession 
as a tenant, acknowledging the title of his landlord, to 
hold the land him’self, after twenty-one years. Such a 
provision ought to be framed with more care. i 

Mr. McCormick’s amendment was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. I’atter- 
son’s amendment, 

Mr. PATTERSON demanded the yeas and nays: 


which being ordered, resulted—yeas 32, nays 58—as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Farr, Florence, Gray, Greene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Harvkins, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, 
Hunt, Larwill, I.idey, Manon, Morris, McCormick, Orton, Patter¬ 
son, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stick- 
ney, Struble, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, 
and President—32, 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart. Forbes, 
Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Groesbcck, Hamilton, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, 
Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Mason, 
Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Otis, Peck, Quigley, 
Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell. Swan, Swilt, Thompson of 
Shelby, Vance of Champaign, Williams, Woodbury and Wor¬ 
thington—58. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. NASH moved to iurther amend the report by 
adding at the end of the preamble, the following: 

Sec. —. The powers of government shall be divided into three 
distinct departments—the legislative, the executive, and the judi¬ 
cial; and one department shall never exercise the powers of 
another, except in such cases as are provided for in this constitu¬ 
tion. 

Winch was disagreed to. 

Mr. LEECH moved to further amend the report, by 
inserting after the word “ reform,” near the end of the 
second section, the words “or abolish.” 

Mr. LEECH said that the section which he proposed 
to amend, asserted that all political power is inherent 
in the people—that government is instituted for their 
equal protection and benefit, and that they have the 
right to alter or reform the same whenever they may 
deem it necessary. 

In all this, he most heartily concurred; but the sec¬ 
tion, he said did not go far enough in asserting the 
rights of the people with regard to the government. 
He contended that the people possess an inherent right, 
not only to alter or reform their government, but also, 
to abolish it, and to establish a new government when¬ 
ever they may deem it necessary to promote the gener¬ 
al welfare. The Declaration of American Indepen¬ 
dence—that immortal document of which every true 
American feels justly proud, and which has called forth 
the admiration of the friends of freedom throughout 
the civilized world, asserts that whenever any form of 
government becomes destructiveof the ends for which 
governments are instituted, “ it is the right of the peo¬ 
ple to alter or to abolish it, and to institute anew, 
government, laying its foundation on such principles, 
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall 
seem mo it likely to afl'ect their safety and happiness.” 

His amendment, he said, w'as in harmony with this 
declaration, and was declaratory of a self-evident truth 
which should find a place in the Bill of Rights. 

Mr. LEECH, the question being upon agreeing to 
the amendment of that gentleman, demanded the yeas 
and nays, and the same bein^ ordered and taken, re¬ 
sulted—yeas 50, nays 40—as lollows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbokl, Blair, Cahill, Cook, Dorsey, Farr? 
Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, 
Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of 
Shelb}’, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Williams and President—50. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, 
Collings, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, Mason, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, SlcCormick, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Riddle, 
Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan¬ 
bery, Stanton, Stilwell, StidsTer,"” Swift, Townshend, Vance of 
Champaign, Woodbury and Worthington—40. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. LIDEY moved to further amend the report. In 
section 7, in the amendment of the same, strike out the 
word “ man,” and insert in lieu thereof, the word “ per¬ 
son which was agreed to. 

Mr. GREGG moved to further amend the report by 
striking out of section 15, the following : “ in any civil 






















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1101 


action on mesne or final process, unless in cases of 
fraud;’' which was disagreed to- 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to further amend the re¬ 
port by inserting in section 17, after the words “ honors 
or,” the following words, “special or exclusive immu¬ 
nities.” 

Mr. REEMELIN said this provision was only to 
operate prospectively, so that any exclusive privilege 
or title, hereafter confeiTed by the General Assembly 
would be void. He hoped the Convention were now- 
prepared to insert in the constitution this principle of 
equal rights. As the section stood, without this amend¬ 
ment, it did not mean anything. There was no such 
thing as hereditary titles in this country ; and lie sup¬ 
posed nobody would object to the title which any for¬ 
eigner might choose to wear, who might come to reside 
amongst us. But the real danger to be guarded against, 
w'as the conferment of exclusive privileges and exclu¬ 
sive emolument. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON objected to the amendment, 
on the ground that it would preclude the General As¬ 
sembly from conferring any distinction upon an indi¬ 
vidual who might have rendered extraordinary public 
service in the face of difficulty and danger. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The amendment certainly could 
not prevent such a thing. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD would go as far for what was real 
Democracy as any man, but he was really apprehen¬ 
sive that there was “ a cat at the bottom of this meal.” 
He had three objections to it: He did not understand 
it himself. He did not believe the gentleman from 
Hamilton, [Mr. Rkemelin,] understood it; nor did he 
believe it was understood by any gentleman u{)on that 
floor. [Laughter.] 

Mr. REEMELIN was w-illing to modify the amend¬ 
ment by inserting the word “ or,” after the word “ im¬ 
munities.” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. The ground which it covered was 
too extensive. It might prevent the rewards and hon¬ 
ors which belonged to military men, or it might even 
prevent the hire of a witness, or the incorporation of a 
tow-n, village or city. 

Mr. STANTON. Would it prohibit the Legislature 
from granting exclusive rights to sell spirituous liquors ? 

Mr. REEMELIN. Yes, it would exclude that. 
[Merriment.] 

Mr. LARSH. If the amendment would cut away 
the privilege which some enjoyed of being born rich, 
whilst others were born poor, he would support it. 

Mr. REEMELIN could not see anything to appre¬ 
hend from the adoption of the amendment. The same 
language had been adopted in the constitution ol Indi¬ 
ana. The difficulties suggested by the gentleman from 
Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] were wholly imaginary. 
The privileges to which that gentleman referred were 
all general privileges,—not exclusive. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE did not know that there was 
anything wrong in the amendment. It might be right, 
or it might be wrong. He protested against being 
called upon to vote upon an important amendment 
without an opportunity for its examination. It struck 
him, upon hearing the section read, with this modifica¬ 
tion, that it would almost abolish the civil government 
of the State. It seemed to him, that literally con¬ 
strued, it might even prevent our judges from the per- 
foi’mance of duties assigned them by law. He did not 
say that such was the intention of the mover. But 
that gentlemen had said enough about what he did in¬ 
tend by it, to induce him to vote against it, and that 
would be the only safe course for him. 

Mr. REEMELIN demanded the yeas and nays upon 
the adoption of his amendment; and the same being 
ordered and taken, resulted—yeas 36, nays .56—as fol¬ 
lows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Henderson, Hootman, Hunt, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, 
Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of 
Stark, Townshend, Woodbury and President-^6. 


Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Flor¬ 
ence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamil¬ 
ton, Hard, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, Larsh, Leadbet- 
ter, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Riddle, 
Roll, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of 
Champaign, Warren, Williams and Worthington— 56. 

So the amendmeut was agreed to. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to further amend the re¬ 
port, in section 2, line one, by striking out the words 
“is inherent iu the people,” and inserting in lieu there¬ 
of the following; “ under this constitution is inherent 
in the white male citizens of the United States, resid¬ 
ing within the State, of the age of twenty-one years.” 

Mr. MASON demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out the words 
“ is inherent in the people,” 

Mr. WOODBURY said he desired to make the word¬ 
ing of this section more definite. As the section now 
stood, it might be possible for some persons to mistake 
their rights under it. For example, he did not wish 
the females and colored people of Ohio, to think that 
they could enjoy any political rights under this section, 
if such were not the purpose of the Convention. He 
would himself be willing to admit females to the en¬ 
joyment of political rights; but he supposed the Con¬ 
vention intended to exclude them. He desired to fix 
the meaning of the section, and make it agree with the 
rest of the constitution. 

The question being upon striking out the words “ in¬ 
herent in the people;” 

Mr. WOODBURY demanded the yeas and nays, 
which being ordered, resulted—yeas 7, nays 83—as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Cook, Farr, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunter, 
Mitchell and Swift—7. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Blair, Blickensderfer, BrQwn of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Chambers, Collings, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Forbes, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock o f 
Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, 
King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadoi tter, 
Lidey, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Norris, 
Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Rauney, Reeme¬ 
lin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson 
of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, 
Warren, Williams, Woodbury, Worthington and President— 83. 

So the motion to strike out was rejected, and the 
amendment was lost. 

Mr. LARWILL moved to amend the report, by stri¬ 
king out the 12th section. 

Mr. DORSEY moved to amend, by way of perfect¬ 
ing the section proposed to be stricken out, by adding 
at the end thereof, these words, “ and no conviction 
shall work corruption of blood, nor forfeiture of es¬ 
tate.” 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to amend the amendment, 
by adding at the end of the same, the words “ or ser¬ 
vices ;” which was rejected. 

Mr. Dorsey’s amendment was then agreed to ; and 
the question recurred upon striking out the section. 

Mr. TAYLOR regarded the words which had been 
inserted in the section, as entirely unnecessary; be¬ 
cause the forfeiture of estates, and corruption of blood 
were entirely obsolete in this country; so much so, 
that a declaration of this kind ought not to be eleva¬ 
ted to a place in our Bill of Rights. 

He had heard a great deal of discussion of late, up¬ 
on the subject of prison descipline, the manner m 
which convicts should be employed, and the effect of 
turning them out upon the community; and had thought 
that the time might come, when transportation for 
crime would be legitimated in this country. 

Upon what principle did the law immerse a convict 
in prison? Was it not upon the principle that the 
criminal had forfeited his right to mingle in society ? 
If so, then transportation would certainly be more hu- 
















1102 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


mane than incarceration. Transportation for crime in 
Great Britain, was fast taking the place of the peniten¬ 
tiary ; and, it might be very naturally anticipated, that, 
at some future period, colonies would be established 
for the transportation of convicts from the United States. 

He could very easily understand how it was under 
the old feudal system, wdiich gave birth to the common 
law, that it became a valuable immunity that the citi¬ 
zen sliould not be transported beyond sea; but no such 
reason, or r.ecessity, existed here; and he believed that 
the final solution of every difficulty connected wuth 
this whole subject of prison discipline, might be seen 
in the present experiment of Great Britain transporting 
her convicts to Australia. For these reasons he was in 
favor of striking out. 

Mr. DORSEY was opposed to striking out, because 
it was amongst the rights of our citizens that they 
should not be transported out of the State. The rea¬ 
soning of the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. Taylor,] from 
the[example of Great Britain, could have no w'eight, on 
account of the vast diti’ereuce of the circumstances of 
the two countries. 

But there wras another reason why he was opposed 
to striking out. He intended, before they were done 
with the amendments to this bill, to introduce to the 
notice of the Convention, a section, which should have 
for its direct tendency, the transportation of certain 
persons within the State of Ohio, beyond its boundaries, 
and he did not wish the transportation of these persons 
to be at all connected with the idea of transportation 
for crime. 

Mr. STANBERY suggested another reason why tlie 
section should be retained. It would protect the citi¬ 
zens of the State of Ohio from transportation to other 
States for trial. Such had been its effect under the 
old constitution, and he gave illustrations. 

Mr. LARWILL now asked, and obtained leave to 
withdraw his motion to strike out the twelfth section. 

LIBEL. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved to further 
amend the report, in section eleven, in the last part of 
the same, by striking out the following words: “and 
was publised with good motives and for justifiable 
ends.” 

Mr. NASH said this section, as reported by the 
standing committee, was only a slight modification of 
the provision of the old constitution. But, if this 
amendment were to prevail, it w'ould admit of a justi¬ 
fication for publishing the indiscretions of youth, which 
the individual had put down by a subsequent life of 
honesty and integrity. 

Mr. RANNEY w'as satisfied that these words ought 
not to be stricken out. For, without them, he could 
see very plainly wherein the liberty of the press could 
be so employed as to gratify the most outrageous malice, 
with perfect impunity. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. If the reasoning of 
his finends were true, why punish thelibeler, when he 
may be actuated by good motives and justifiable euds, 
because he may happen to be mistaken in the matter 
of fact? Men might be mistaken as to the matter of 
fact. They might publish, with the best motives, what 
they suppose to be true, as they heard it from others; 
and if motives and euds were to be regarded, it seemed 
to him that gentlemen ought to extend the mantle of 
their charity over those who had been thus mistaken. 
He knew and admitted that there were such things as 
matters of fact being published, from a feeling of pure 
malice. But he had always thought, that in a pros¬ 
ecution for libel, the defendant was justifiable or not, 
according to the truth of the statement in the publica¬ 
tion. In an indictment for libel, as well as in a suit for 
libel, it was the truth, and nothing but the truth, by 
which the individual could be justified. Such had ever 
been his idea of the matter. 

Mr. HOLT moved to perfect the words proposed to 
be stricken out, by striking out the words “ with good 
motives, and.” 


Mr. H. said there might be a great many cases of 
publications for justifiable ends, though an enemy might 
make the publications even from malicious motives; 
still, if it w’ere with a view also to the public benefit, 
it ought not to be punished. 

Mr. COLLINGSsaia it was difficult for him tc con¬ 
ceive how an individual publishing an article against 
his neighbor, in vviiicb the public had au interest, 
could fail of showing sufficient evidence of good mo¬ 
tives on his part. 

Although not strictly in order, he desired to make a 
single remark in answer to the hypothesis of the gen¬ 
tleman from Geauga, that the bbeler should be ex¬ 
cused if he bad been mistaken. Certainly the individ¬ 
ual w'bo lakes up and publishes a report against his 
neighbor, should be first satisfied of its truth, knowing 
that he has no right to injure an honest man by his pub¬ 
lication. Moreover, if such a mistake should really 
occur, the circumstances would all go in mitigation of 
the ofience,and probably but a nominal verdict would 
be rendered against the offender. 

Mr. Holt’s amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on the motion of Mr. 
Hitchcock, of Geauga, 

That gentleman demanded the yeas and nays; which 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 24, nays 68, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Farr 
Gray, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt> 
Humphreville, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Mason, Mitchelk McCor¬ 
mick, Norris. Orton, Sawyer, Taylor, Worthington, and Presi¬ 
dent—24. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Charnbers, Collings, Cook, 
Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Ken- 
non, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of 
Champaign, Warren, Williams, and Woodbury—68. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved to further amend the re¬ 
port, by adding, at the end of section 2, the following: 

And to alter, revoke, repeal, or abolish by act of the General 
Assembly, any grant, or law, conlerring special privileges or 
immunities upon any portion of the people, which cannot reason¬ 
ably be enjoyed by all. 

On which motion, Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the 
yeas and nays; which being ordered, resulted—yeas 
51, nays 41—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Cook, Dorsey, Farr, 
Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, John¬ 
son, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ran¬ 
ney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thomp. 
son of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, and 
President—51. 

Nays— Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown ot Carroll' Chambers, 
Collings, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, 
Kennon, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, 
Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Vance of Champaign, Wil¬ 
liams, Worthington, and Woodbury—41. 

So the amendineut of Mr. Lawrence was adopted. 

Mr. MANON moved to further amend the report by 
adding, at the end of section 18, the following: 

No taxes shall be levied in this State upon any profession or 
occupation of any kind. 

Pending which, on motion of Mr. LIDEY, the Con¬ 
vention adjourned. 


TUESDAY, February 4, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to*adjournment. 
Prayer by Rev. Mr. Jewell. 

Mr. FLORENCE presented a petition from J. Hall' 
and fifty-four other citizens of Pickaway county, pray-^ 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


IIOS 


ing that a clause be inserted iu the new constitution, 
prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law le¬ 
galizing traffic in spirituous liquors ; which on motion, 
was laid on the table. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, presented a petition 
from .Tames Meeker and thirlysix other citizens of 
bheiby county, on the same subject; which on motion, 
was laid on the table. 

Mr. BLICKENSDBRFElipresented a petition from 
William Gibbs and seventy-three other citizens of Tus¬ 
carawas county, on the same subject; which on mo¬ 
tion, was referred to the select committee on the sub- 
ect of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. I’ECK presented a petition from Davis Harris, 
and thirty-six other citizens of Belmont county, on the 
same subject; which on motion, was referred to the 
select committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent 
Spirits. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention took up 
the report of the committee on the Preamble and Bill 
of Rights. 

The question pending being on agreeing to the 
amendment of Mr. Manon, to wit: Add at the end of 
section 18, the following: 

No taxes shall be levied in this State upon any profession or oc¬ 
cupation of any kind. 

Mr. MANON, on leave, withdrew his amendment. 
Mr. GROESBECK moved to further amend the re¬ 
port, in section seven, wherein the middle of the same 
these words occur, “ no religious test shall be required 
as a qualification for any office,” add after the word 
office, ” the following : 

Nor shall any person be rendered incompetent to be a witness 
on account of his opinions on subjects of religious belief, but 
nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and af¬ 
firmations. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to further amend the amend¬ 
ment, by inserting after the word “ witness,” the ' ords 
“ or for any civil employment;” which was disagreed 
to. 

The question then being on Mr. Groesbeck’s amend¬ 
ment, 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and re.sulted—yeas 77, nays 13—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Bennett, Blair, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers,Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, 
Farr, Florence, Gillett, Graham,Greene of Defiance,Green of Ross, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock ol Ge 
auga, Hootman, HumphreviUe. Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, 
Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbettei, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, 
Morris,McCloud McCormick, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan,Swift, Taylor,Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Champaign, Warren, 
Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President—^. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet ot Montgomery, Bates, Blickensderier, 
Ceilings, Curry, Forbes, Gray, Hamilton, Harlan, Nash, Stanbery, 
Stilwell and Townshend—13. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to further amend the re¬ 
port, by adding as an additional section, the following: 

Each family is entitled to become and be possessed of a home, 
which shall be exempt from sale, tor the payment of debts or 
discharge of liabilities arising from contract. 

Mr. McCORMICK said he felt very doubtful wheth¬ 
er the amendment which he had proposed in the Con¬ 
vention would prevail; nevertheless, he had felt it to 
be his duty to offer it, in order to produce in the instru¬ 
ment to be created by this body, that perfect uniformi¬ 
ty, equality and symmetry, which all admitted to be 
so desirable. The object of this Convention, iu the 
business in which it is engaged, is to lay the founda¬ 
tions of the government, and to declare the principles 
upon which it is based. The power ol the State is dis¬ 
tributed into its several departments—a legislative, a 
judiciary and an executive, and. the several rights and 
privileges of these, together with those of individual 
citizens, are set forth, for the purpose, as far as possible, 
of preventing striking inequalities in the conditions of 
men. 


He had, however, little expectation that his propo¬ 
sition would meet a fate any more favorabl e than that 
which had been, a lew days since, awarded to another 
one of a similar character, still he felt impelled to pre¬ 
sent it. It was but yesterday that a gentleman offered 
n pectioTi which Vjp nropooed phonM inrorporcted in 
me bill of Righisic) be incorporated iu this constitution, 
which proposed what no man seemed willing to op¬ 
pose, and claimed the right to repeal what no man ev¬ 
er desired to create. 

i was surprised at the facility with which the amend¬ 
ment was passed—without argument, and almost with¬ 
out remark, and inquired the reason for such a provis¬ 
ion and for such a vote: and received lor answer, 
that the thing “ means nothing ”—it will do no hurt, 
and no good, and it will have no effect, except as to 
the time occupied in its passage, and the space it fills 
upon the journal. Now, Mr. President, 1 protest 
against the filling of this constitution with provisions 
whose only recommendation is, that they “ mean noth¬ 
ing.” 

The gentleman from Highland [Mr. Patterson] 
had presented an amendment which provides that 
when real estate shall have been holdeii by whatever 
title, accompanied by possesion, for the period of twen¬ 
ty-one years, that possessive title shall cut off'inquiry 
into the title by which it is held, and vest absolutely 
the fee simple against all pei’sons whomsoever. But 
this proposition, so palpably right, and consistent with 
justice and common sense, was voted down by the 
same Convention that voted a clause into the constitu¬ 
tion because it “meant nothing.” 

Now, the amendment which I have offered does 
mean something. It has an object iu view whichmost 
men admit is a laudable one, and one that should be 
secui ed, if possible. I say, almost all admit this gener¬ 
al principle, though there are a variety of opinions as 
to the details through which it should be made efi'ect- 
ive. There have been reasons in its favor operative 
upon my own mind, which I do not recollect to have 
seen or heard rendered by any one else. I think such 
a provision will have a tendency to interest all men in 
the soil, by securing to each a home for his family, 
which neither could be lost nor alienated as the conse¬ 
quence of his vices or his follies. It would increase 
the number of freeholders—increase the amount of land 
cultivated—improve the modes of tillage—reduce the 
number and qualities of those great landed estates that 
are productive of so much evil and are such obstacles 
to improvement, and would put an end to the tyranny 
of the laud-holder, so frequently exercised over the 
landless laborer. 

In this country, there is a very great equality in the 
standing of citizens—scarcely any are enormously rich, 
and veiy few abjectly poor. The extremes, as seen in 
other countries, scarcely exist. The true object of 
every man, in standing in life, is to secure to himself a 
home; and he who has secured to him, against all con¬ 
tingency, a home worth five hundred or one thousand 
dollars, can never be reduced to that abject condition 
of dependence which may fall to the lot of those whose 
last cent of property is exposed to be taken from them, 
as the consequence of some act ol improvidence or 
fully. 

The adoption of a proposition like the one I have 
ofiered, will do another thing. It will put an end to 
that system of small credits that annually destroys its 
tens of thousands of men of small means. It is not the 
great credits between men of wealth, that are danger¬ 
ous; but it is the small credits that eat up the small 
men. Weak-minded men are seduced into debt—not 
because they want the article, but because it can be 
purchased on.credit. The amount at length has to be 
paid—it is collected by law ; the debtor's farm goes to 
a forced sale, and his family is left homeless. 

Sir, the practice ol credits is a great evil. It begins 
with the child—the boy—he grows up to manhood— 
buying on credit, selling on credit, until, in too many 














1104 


CONVENTION JREPORTS. 


cases, as the result of a too frequent resort to credit, he 
is buried iu the slough of insolvency. It is wdth these 
views that I have offered this amendment. Gentlemen 
may say that it is not a proper provision to go into the 
constitution—that it can be settled by legislative enact¬ 
ment, &c. It is true the Legislature may do it, and it 
may undo it. I hold that the rules and laws regulating 
the measure of real property, ought to be fixed and im¬ 
mutable. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. Mr. President, I hardly know 
whether I have risen to make a speech or not. But as 
there have been several speeches made, and all on the 
one side, it may not be altogether improper for me to 
«ay a little something on the other, as most questions 
ihave two sides to them, and I am willing to admit that 
this is one. And, sir, I have not the vanity to presume 
that any thing I oan say upon this subject will either 
interest or amuse. But my opinions upon this subject 
having been long formed and well known by a large 
proportion of my constituency, they might consider me 
derelict in duty, were I not to express my decided dis¬ 
sent to the proposition of the gentleman from Adams, 
([[Mr. McCormick.] 

The simple declaration that “ each family is entitled 
to become possessed of a home,” meets with my cor¬ 
dial approbation, although the idea is not to me a new 
one, nor will it be to this part of the proposition, that I 
shall raise any objections. 

As to the propriety of making this entire proposition 
a constitutional provision, I have nothing in particular 
'to say; being as I am utterly opposed to all proposi¬ 
tions of the kind, either as a constitutional or legislative 
provision. The dictates of wisdom and humanity for¬ 
bid it—it can neither be satisfactory in its operations 
or u.seful in its results—calculated to injure those whom 
you propose to benefit, by restraining their energies 
.and laudable exertions to rise above the frowns ot the 
world. 

It may sound very well in theory to some, and may 
Hook well upon paper to others; but while its warmest 
advocates and most enthusiastic admirers are painting 
the grandeur of its scenery and the glories of its future 
greatness,—exciting those lively sensibilities of human 
(nature in behalf of ‘‘ that unfortunate class of our citi- 
raens, who have not a foot of land that they can call 
itheir own, in strains of pathos unrivaled, and seldom 
^equaled—casting over the mind a dark and melancho¬ 
ly gloom, this gloom dispersing—revivified—catching 
rihe strain—the mind is instantly transported to that 
'high and elevated standard of morals and equality, 
■where laziness, indolence, and dissoluteness, occupy 
^the foreground upon this spleuded hypothetical picture 

human greatness,—they have exhibited but little artis- 
itic sliill in the design; having, as I conceive, left off one 
♦<df the most prominent features necessary to the full 
<oomplestion of the picture; and that is a sure and un- 
Ifailinr plan by which all men of all kinds of habits 
-and descriptions shall be compelled to acquire this 
iiiomes'iead. Suggest to me a plan by which all men 
■ohall make this acquisition without violating the rights 
jof others, and satisfy my mind that your plan is noton- 
'}y feasible but comprehensible and practical, and you 
rghall have my vote; for no man would rejoice more 
Ithan myself to see all men raised above the demands 
'of absolute want, and an elevation of morals over the 
•degradation of laziness, indolence and dissoluteness. 
But for this no provision is made. Even my esteemed 
friend from Montgomery, [Mr. Holt,] neither in his 
zeal for the cause, nor in the goodness of his heart has 
even suggested a plan of acquisition. 

Then, sir, what is the conclusion that we must come 
to? It is nothing more than this: that if a man can, or 
will acquire property to the amount of five hundred 
dollars, he may do it; but no plan is proposed to assist 
him in this acquisition, unless the honesty and justice 
of the entire propo.sition, now before us, will hold out 
the inducement to its proposed benificiaries, that, by 
A hypocritical profession of honesty, they may so man¬ 


age as to procure means fi’om the honest, industrious 
and confiding part of the community, and then, claim¬ 
ing the benefit of this proposed constitutional provision, 
refuse to pay an honest debt, by them dishonestly cre¬ 
ated. But, sir, we are told that when a young man, 
without property, breaks forth from the leading .stiungs 
of his minority, we shold hold out the inducement for 
him to acquire property, and that he should not be de¬ 
prived of it, although he may have acquired this pro¬ 
perly from his neighbors by dishonesty and misrepre¬ 
sentation. Is this the standard of morals that our at¬ 
tention has been called to? Is this the system ot mor¬ 
als that we are to be constitutionally called upon to 
teach our children? Are we to teach our children that 
when they go out from us, they shall procure pro 
perty by any means that will not subject them to the 
inflictions of legal penalties? Sir, to such a system of 
morals I must enter my solemn protest. But, sir, I can¬ 
not see wherein this homestead exemption can benefit 
any man in the acquirement of property, if it is not 
him, and him alone, who can procure the means from 
his honest neighbors, and then refuse to pay. Such a 
man may be seemingly benefitted. Sir, that young 
man, with habits of industry, with energy of character, 
who is capable of acquiring five hundred dollars worth 
of property, is capable of acquiring more, and desires 
no homestead exemption to protect his acquirements; 
he wants nothing but an open field and fair play in an 
honest struggle with his fellows through the world. 

It is insisted, that it will infuse energy and vigor into • 
the poorer classes, if you will adopt a provision into 
this constitution, by wliich they will know that the 
property they may acquire, cannot be subjected to the 
payment of their debts,—honestdebts I suppose. Sir, I 
admit that I am not capable of understanding this process 
ofinfusion; itis new to me; it is altogether differentfrom 
that which I have been taught. Before this discovery, I 
believe that parents taught their children the necessity 
of adhering to the old fashioned doctrines, of honesty, 
frugality, punctuality, economy, sobriety and industry, 
as the best means, not only of getting through the 
world, but as the best method of acquiring property. 

Is there anything in this new process of infusion of en¬ 
ergy and vigor, that should induce us to abandon the 
old? If not, then what is the real object of the propo¬ 
sition? For a better answer, I am forced to take that 
of the mover, and of those who have spoken upon 
this subject—and what are they, in connection with 
their arguments which I have already met? Why, sir, 
if I understand the mover right, “itis the small credit 
system that eats us up and destroys us, and not the 
large debts”—that“ it is in part for the purpose of de¬ 
stroying this small credit system that I make this 
amendment.” 

This being the object, I would most respectfully in¬ 
quire who is to be affected thereby, should we adopt 
the amendment? Is it the man of wealth? He needs 
no credit. The men of wealth have the means to do ? 
business without credit—their combinations and inter- * 
ests are such, that if the credit system was altogether ‘ 
abolished, they would not be materially afiected there¬ 
by. But, sir, while you let the man of wealth obtain 
credit in a great variety of ways, individually and by 
corporate association, you will not permit a man or 
woman, who is not worth more than five hundred dol¬ 
lars, to buy a plug of tobacco or a paper of pins with¬ 
out paying down the cash. No matter what may be , 
their wants, or the advantages arising to them, they | 
shall not be permitted to have and enjoy the same 
privileges in buying and selling, trading and dealing 
with whom and in what manner they please, as those 
men of greater wealth are privileged to do. Then, sir. 
we are to make a distinction in society—men and 
women who are not worth five hundred dollars, are to 
be, taken under our special regard, as not being capa¬ 
ble ot taking care of themselves—we must take care 
of them, and not let them get in debt at all, and if they 
do, they need not pay. This class of our citizens, will 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1105 


Dot, nor do not thank you for this special regard of 
yours for them—they regard this paternal care of yours 
not only as a matter of impertinence, but an infringe¬ 
ment of their I'ights and an eflbrt to disgrace them. All 
honorable and high minded men among that class— 
that worthy class of our citi/^^ns, should this effort to 
degrade and deprive them of privileges which others 
enjoy, become the permanent law of the land, will hold 
your law in utter abhorrence, and the individual who 
fastened the same upon them, with utter detestation. 
Sir, wait until this class of our citizens ask you to take 
them under your special protection—w'ait until they 
come clothed in the garb of degradation, admitting 
their inability or incapacity to take care of themselves ; 
then, sir, it will be time for us to take this matter un¬ 
der consideration, and not till then. This homestead 
exemption, and the giving away of the public lands, are 
tw'o of the most veritable humbugs of the age—mere 
gull traps, to be used by either party as occasion may 
require, for the purpose of catching votes. Do you 
desire to teach your children that there is no difference 
between industry and idleness—between relying upon 
their own energies, and the corrupting tendencies and 
influences attendant upon looking up to that govern¬ 
ment of which they must form a component part, for 
a home wherein to dwell ? These humbugs will have 
their time, and may rage until some other shall succeed 
them. I am reminded that this homestead exemption 
constituted a pai’t of the platform which was adopted 
by the democratic party that nominated Gov. Wood. 
That, sir, is true, and I state here in my place, that in 
the county where I live; especially in the eastern town¬ 
ships, the greatest difficulty that we had ti) encounter, 
was this very homestead exemption. Among our Ger¬ 
man population—honest, sturdy and industrious, un¬ 
derstanding their own rights, wants and privileges, 
as well as any others can understand them for them— 
they sir, wmnt none of your exemptions or restraints. 

Mr. President there is not a man in all this broad 
land who more deeply sympathizes with the poor— 
who claims to know their wants—who is acquainted 
with the difficulties and embarrassments with which 
they have to contend, much better than myself. Sir, I 
know them by sad experience. No man ever com¬ 
menced in Ohio under inore adverse circumstances than 
myself. What little vigor and energy that I posses, 
was infused under the old plan, and upon that I have 
acted. The difficulties in commencing business in this 
State are now as nothing, compared with the time I 
made this State the one of my adoption. Then, sir, 
there was not one dollar in this State where there is a 
thousand now, or nearly so. I could not have succeed¬ 
ed in even procuring a living but for this small credit 
which is proposed to be destroyed. 

Again, sir. The principle, or the idea once obtained, 
that a poor man’s honesty and integrity constituted his 
capital, and formed a part of that instruction which 
parents in the days of honest industry, gave their 
children; but now, sir, in these days of steam, some 
new system must be devised by which a ])Oor man, 
without energy, without industry or morals, can be 
elevated in morals and become an owner of the soil. 
Well, sir, I approve of the invention, if it shall suc¬ 
ceed; for those who have the energy, the frugality and 
the industry, do not stand in need of any new’ inven¬ 
tion to aid them; and I feel satified that your home¬ 
stead exemption will not change the character of those 
who do not now make a single effort to procure a 
homestead for themselves. I came very near being 
caught in this trap of no credit. Seeing the destruc¬ 
tion and desulution occasioned by the suspension of 
the banks, and the great indebtedness of the people— 
many ruined by being endorsers—I even went so far at 
a time as to advocate positive payment for all things at 
the time. But, upon due reflection, I could not con¬ 
ceive of the propriety of prohibiting a man from dis¬ 
posing of his property to whom he pleased, and upon 
such terms as the parties may agree. 

70 


Let us see where this entire destruction of all credit 
will end—where does it begin and where does it ter¬ 
minate ? If a man engages to work for another for a 
single day, one or the other must depend upon the 
good faith and responsibility of the other. Either the 
man who labors must tru^t the other to pay him when 
his day’s work is done, or the man who hires must pay 
him before he commences, and trust to the laborer to 
perform it. Sir, this credit enters more or less into 
most all of the business transactions between man and 
man. ^ 

Give men but a fair field, let them deal in good faith 
one with the other, and if a man violates his plighted 
faith, give us a good and wholesome provision, by 
which we can compel a man to discharge his honest 
obligations. 

This, sir, is all we want—it is all that an honest 
community desire. I hold this principle to be true in 
regard to the laboring, that class of people who have 
nothing but their hands, their physical energies for 
capital, that if they will work six days in the week, 
and go to meeting on Sundays, keep out of taverns and 
groceries, there is for them more than a living—first a 
competence and then an abundance. More than three- 
fourths of your eldest farmers, the pioneers of this 
great State, came into it years ago with but little means, 
and many of them without money enough to buy a 
mattock, with families to provide for; they sir, without 
either homestead exemptions or restraints upon their 
dealings, are now your men of property, and al¬ 
though I am unacquainted with the circumstances now 
or heretofore, of the members of this Convention, I will 
venture to say, that three-fourths of this body com¬ 
menced life with little or nothing but their own ener¬ 
gies. 

But my friend from Morgan [Mr. Hawkins] is in 
fovor of this homestead exemption upon the same prin¬ 
ciple of the mover, because he objects to see one man 
become proprietor of large quantities of lands ; he sees 
a fine splendid building to’wering over a hundred cab¬ 
ins. Very well, if an individual by his own exertions 
is capable of acquiring a quantity of land, and is fool 
enough to build a splendid palace, this being a free 
country, and the money his own, I can have no objec¬ 
tions to his benefitting the mechanic in an expenditure 
of this kind. Is experience and observation lost upon 
my friend? Is he not aware that the accumulation of 
property in the hands of the most wealthy is hut for 
a short time—the property passes into the hands of 
his children—it does not long remain in the same fami¬ 
ly—those boys, indwellers of my friend’s log cabins, 
some one or the other of them, will inevitably succeed 
to this towering mansion ; or some one like them. 

Sir, will you legislate against the follies or the ex¬ 
travagance of men ? It is the inevitable law of our na¬ 
tures—a misfortune, if you please, and one of the legiti¬ 
mate consequence of our being, that men must suffer 
the consequences of their own errors—their own follies 
and their own extravagance. 

I would not subject any family to the privations of 
being deprived of such means as would disable them 
from proceeding in their ordinary vocations. Every 
man should hold as much property exempt from sale 
on execution as would leave him at liberty to proceed 
with his work. And before the passage of the home¬ 
stead exemption law of this State, there was, in my 
opinion, a reasonable exemption for all practical pur¬ 
poses. No creditor should be allowed to strip the fami¬ 
ly of a debtor of the indispensable necessaries of life. 
Nor would I prevent him Irom enjoying the benefit of 
such credits a s his neighbors might extend to him ; it is 
a business of their own. I am aware that it is earnest¬ 
ly insisted that a repeal of all collection laws would be 
of the utmost importance, that it would not destroy 
credit, but would benefit credit, for then we should not 
trust any but those who were honorable and honest. 
But we are not advised how long it would take before 
wo could ascertain who was honest and who was not. 











1106 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


My opinion is that no man would live long enough 
to determine ihe question, and before we could as¬ 
certain tlie fact, we and those around us would pass 
off the stage ot action, and a new set come on for trial, 
and so on until a new order of things shall take its 
place. 

For one, I am in favor of the largest liberty of the 
individual man, and of his right to his acquisitions. 
Let him trade and deal with whom and as he pleases— 
throw no shackles of restraint around him—draw noth¬ 
ing from one for the beneilt of another, but leave all 
where the declaration of independence left us, where 
the fathers of oui’ common country designed to leave ns, 
“ free and equal,” independent of every legal restraint, 
except those which have been surrendered for the 
preservation of order and good goverment of the whole. 

Mr. REEMELliX. 1 .shall vote for this proposition. 

Mr. CASE, (interrupting.) Stick to the platform. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I shall. Not to the mere party 
platform, but to the platform of right, and I assure the 
gentleman. I do not have to run home every few weeks 
to gel myself upon the platform, or white-wa.shed 
again. Do right, and then, sir, I am on the platform of 
the Democracy. 

Mr. R. then said again that he should vote for this 
proposition, [Mr. McCormick’s,] although, if it had 
been his owu, he would have drawn it dift'erently. He 
would vote lor it, because he believed it was the first 
grand step toward the repeal of our laws for the collec¬ 
tion of debts. 

With this view, I vote for it, and with this view, his 
friend i’rom Holmes, to whoso remarks he had carefully 

’ened, would vote against it. For that gentleman 

.1 argued much more against Mr. R.’s proposition, 

iiich had already been voted down, than against the 
motion now before us. But, much as he would gene¬ 
rally pay deference to the gentleman from Holmes, 
[Mr. Leadbetter,] still he must say, that that gentle¬ 
man had entirely mistaken the true question. The 
true question is not, whether we shall legi.slate—wheth¬ 
er we shall help credit—but whether our collection 
laws should first be simplified and then repealed, and 
thus give every man credit who deserves i:, and deny 
it to all who do not. Thus, that legitimate credit 
which is now lost in the fog of collection laws, will be 
re-established on its true basis. The question is not, 
therefore, whether this class of men, or that class of 
men, shall be aided, but whether our collection laws 
interfere with their relative rights ; in short, whether 
our collection laws are right, and whether they answer 
the purpose of their enactment. I unhesitatingly aver 
that they have not, and I challenge every lawyer, and 
everv judge in the Convention to meet the issue, and 
to say that our collectiou laws liave failed in the pur¬ 
pose of their creation, and that there is so much cum¬ 
brous and expensive machinery about them, that any 
sane man would sooner forgive a man a small debt, 
than sue before a justice of the peace for its collection. 
Our collectiou laws should be denominated: “Laws 
intended for the sharpers to fleece honest men with ; 
and to provide for the feeding of justices of the peace, 
and constables, and lawyers, who cannot make a living 
by honest labor.” 

Sir, I repeat, and I defy contradiction, that the col¬ 
lection laws have not and cannot accomplish the pur¬ 
poses marked out by the gentleman from Holmes, [Mt. 
Leadbetter ] Step into a court, and you may there 
see the paraphernalia of justice; your judges, your ju¬ 
ries, sheriff’s, clerks, and the law^yers; look at that 
poor honest laborer—he has worked for a corporation 
—he has got to court—he there meets the corporation 
lawyer—he there meets for the first time the intricacy 
of onr collection !aws-^he is vanquished, and he leaves, 
cursing the laws to whidi he trusted. Again, look at 
that smiling Shylock—he has brought a poor man into 
court—the poor man’s lawyer tried to defend him, but 
he finds that all precautions have been taken, that no 
loop-hole is left, that the bond is drawn, that the con¬ 


tract means thus and so, and that he is the victim of 
his owu credulity and of collectiou laws, whose real 
force he did not know. 

Sir, these laws are well understood now, only to 
serve the purpose of the cunning and the crafty, and 
thus every honest lawyer will advise his client, if it be 
an honest claim, to keep clear of them. And such laws 
we must defend—their gradual repeal is pronounced a 
humbug—while every body know.s that the biggest 
humbug of our day are our collectiou laws. Every 
body knows, they are but edged tools, wherewith hon¬ 
est men cut their fingers. They are but fetters upon 
credit; they are but the clogs to legitimate credit; 
they are expensive, for no clumsier contrivance, and 
more costly, can be contrived, than our collection laws. 
The costs exceed its benefits, and in nine cases out of 
ten it costs more to collect the debt than the debt it¬ 
self. They are merely laws enabling men to act spite¬ 
fully, for they are far oftener used for such purpose 
than the real purpose of collecting a debt. 

Sir, (he couliaued,) repeal these collection laws, and 
go on lopping off all the foolish and complex machine¬ 
ry of government, and you will simplify legislation, 
until you shall come down to a simple and economical 
government, suited to the wants of a free and honest 
f)eople. This is the principle I go upon. Let credit 
be free—trusting to the sense of honesty in men, rather 
than to the law. Let creditor and debtor take care of 
themselves ; give to neither the handle of the law, and 
justice will be done for offences, and far better. I say 
it is the American principle to gradually take more and 
more power from the government, and leave more to 
the individual man—to trust to men more and more, 
and to trust less and less to the law. And the Demo¬ 
crat who rises upon this floor and opposes himself to a 
proposition to set credit free as the wind, does, in my 
humble opinion, not know what Democrat means. 

It is the simplification of government that we want. 
The freedom of credit from the restraiuis of law. For 
suc;h is the complex nature of our laws, that when a 
contract is made between two honest uihh, not versed 
in the law, if it happens to get into court, it will not 
stand—it will, ten to one, be set aside by the courts. 
But let a sharper be one of the contracting parties, one 
who is at home in our collection laws, and tlie law will 
always be found ready to do his grinding. 

Genileineu talk about abolishing credit. What is 
the meaning of the word credit? It comes from the 
Latin credo —I trust, I believe. Sir, our credit system 
is not a system of trust in man, but of trust in law. It 
reverses credit; for we say really, I do not trust my 
neighbor, I 'do not believe him. I ask you, as au hon¬ 
est observer, to step into any of our courts and point 
out, if you can, in any ordinary trial, any indications of 
trust in man. It ctinnot be found there. It is all trust 
iu the law. And, besides, it might be observed there 
that our credit system and our collection laws are but 
as cobwebs to catch flies—as nets for minnows, but 
too frail lor the strength of the larger fishes. That 
'Vas a most important, because a most true remark of 
the gentleman from Montgomery, [Mr. Holt,] this 
morning, when he said: “We legislate always for 
capital, and not for man, and that it was time to cease 
legislating, and let man be free.” That was a noble 
sentiment, coming from a man occupying his position 
in the State; and I shall honor him for it as long as I 
live. 

Sir, repeal our laws for the collection of debts, and 
man, and with him credit, will be free. And I affirm 
now that, with all our laws favoring the credit system, 
there is not at last, at this day, in the State of Ohio, any 
real bona fide legitimate credit. For, when I credit a 
man, 1 trust not his honesty or his punctuality, for I 
trust not the man, I trust only his ])roperty. 

1 repeat, sir, that our collection laws are a most ex¬ 
pensive piece of machinery. Just look at it. Iu every 
township we have three justices of the peace, and a 
constable ; and twenty or thirty times a year a jury of 


( 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1107 


aix men is to be called before to adjudicate upon 

most complex collection laws. We have, besides, coun¬ 
ty courts, and courts of common pleas, and district 
courts, and then the court in bank. All of these courts 
have clerks, sheritfs, and juries; and connected with 
them are some eight or nine thousand lawyers of the 
State, each and all of them drawing a living principal¬ 
ly from the proceeds of this most cumbersome machin¬ 
ery, called collection laws. Is it not, then, a most ex¬ 
travagant, and (may I not say,) a most bungling sys¬ 
tem ? I challenge lawyers here to answer me, wheth¬ 
er the credit system does really advance the object 
which is so triumphantly claimed for it, namely: the 
promotion of credit? I say, let all men stand upon 
the same footing—whether they be rich or poor—let 
their claims of credit rest upon their honesty of soul. 
Let man meet man face to face—neither armed by the 
law, and then promptitude, capacity, and honesty of 
purpose, will be the sure basis of credit—the only one 
that common sense will sanction, and not the law. 

It is a law of nature and of God, that, if a man is 
honest, and industrious, and prudent; he shall enjoy 
the fruit of his labor. On the other hand, it is a law of 
nature and of God, that a man who spends his time in 
idleness, shall not enjoy the fruit of the earth. But 
have not our Legislatures gone on to prescribe, in ef¬ 
fect, that this higher law shall not exist in Ohio ? Have 
we not said, that whether a man works or not—wheth¬ 
er a man be industrious, frugal, and prudent, or not, 
still he shall enjoy the fruits of labor other than his 
own? Have we not said, by our legislation upon bank¬ 
ing and other corporations, that capital shall live upon 
labor, even if it toil not, nor spin, no matter how deep 
it may grind the face of labor ? 

I will ask you, sir, whether the rich men in Ohio 
will not regard this proposition as an attack upon 
them and their interests? And whether the poor 
men of the State will not regard it as a means of I'e- 
lief to them ? 

I will repeat here what I have said upon a former 
occasion, that no government in all the world’s histo¬ 
ry, has ever reposed confidence in the people, and in 
the men with living souls in them, when that people 
did not come up fully to the most sanguine expecta¬ 
tions, and show that ^hey were far more capable to 
manage their affairs, unembarrassed by law, than 
where the law attempts to aid them. Laws have but 
mterfered and rendered irregular what would other¬ 
wise go on regularly and smoothly. 

Sir, I affirm that nine-tenths of all the evils, litiga¬ 
tions, quarrels and heart-burnings in the State of Ohio, 
arise in consequence of these follies of the law. And 
as we shall remove the fetters of the law—as we shall 
exercise less government, just lo that extent will man 
rise in the scale of being in this world, to what he was 
intended to be by nature’s God—a man—a true man— 
true to all the designsof Providence—carrying out hon¬ 
estly the purposes of life. 

Away, then, with these cobwebs of the law._ Let us 
have a state of affairs in the State of Ohio which will 
allow men to trust each other freely, and not have one 
man calling in a judge, and another man calling in a 
]ury, to interpose and help him to collect debts volun¬ 
tarily contracted, and based on reciprocal relations, 
with which the law has nothing to do. For I will now 
make a prediction — though I am not a prophet, nor 
the son of a prophet—and you may take down my 
words, and see if you do not find them verilied to the 
letter. The time will come when the people of Ohio 
and especially the democratic portion of them, will 
find out, that the only way in which they can strike at 
the tyranny of banks and incorporated capitalists, and 
make themselves really free, will be to repeal your col¬ 
lection laws, for what are collection laws but govern¬ 
ment machinery, to enable capital to compel laboi to 
work for it. The democratic party of the State—not 
its present members, but that living soul of democracy 
—that spirit which lives on the hills, and which diffu¬ 


ses itself over tho valleys of Ohio—that living spirit of 
democracy—not the mere party composed of individ¬ 
uals, not the gentleman from Holmes, [Mr. Leadbet- 
TER.] nor myself, nor any gentleman here, but the 
spirit that will live when we are gone—that spirit will 
yet embrace this truth, that the unjust privileges now 
enjoyed by capital cannot be effectually stricken down, 
except it is done through a repeal of our collection 
laws. That, and that alone, can place all men in the 
State upon the same platform of equality. We ask not 
for legislation, either for or against capital. We ask not 
for legislation, either for or against labor. All we ask 
is, that you legislate not at all—that you leave all free. 
For labor can live without capital; but capital starves 
unless labor sustains it. 

And since I am upon the question of labor and capi¬ 
tal, I will call the attention of members to a casual re¬ 
mark, which dropped from the lips of the gentleman 
from Holmes, [Mr. Leadcetter.] He said, “that as 
long as the law left a man free, as long as it did not im¬ 
prison him, and thus left him to labor and to work, so 
as to pay his debt.” That remark was inadvertent, 
but it shows the workings of men’s souls—the freeing 
of men’s bodies from being security for debt, was then, 
and is now, really only a boon to capital, «»o that man 
may work for capital. Leave the man free, but still 
keep labor in the chains—in some men’s raiiids, labor 
is only intended to feed and pay capital. And here let 
me just remark, as we pass along, that the fears of those 
who think that no credit will be given,unless we keep 
up our collection laws, are mere shadow's of imagina¬ 
tion. Sir, capital cannot live upon capital unless labor 
give it life by adding living hands to it. Capital is 
dead—it is non-producing But with labor, capital 
may afford a living to its holders. Capital, therefore, 
place it upon equal terms with labor, must come to 
terms; it cannot live upon itself, and it will be glad to 
lend itself to labor, glad to share with the laboring man 
the result of his labor. Repeal the collection laws 
and both are free, both equal, both have their true, le¬ 
gitimate positions. But as hmg as our collection laws 
exist, just so long will they favor capital and oppress 
labor; just so long will capital have an advantage over 
labor, which it should not enjoy. 

1 have made these remarks, in reply to my friend 
from Holmes, [Mr. Leadbetter,] with whom I gene¬ 
rally agree, but with whom I must differ strongly in 
this case. I may have spoken too feelingly, but when 
I see men of as strong minds as my friend, led astray 
1 y false arguments, I acknowledge I feel deeply, and 
then I speak so. 

I have nothing to conceal—I have but expressed my 
convictions, and they being the reverse of those of my 
friend’s, I have said so. 

My path lies with less government, less power, less 
machinery, less of expense—on the other hand, more 
confidence in man, eithar singly or in the aggregate, 
and I would have been glad to have had my friend on 
this, as on most other questions, with me; but I am sorry 
it is not so. Well, he has had his say, I have had mine, 
and all I have to say in the conclusion is, that i hope I 
am understood as speaking only on principle, and enter¬ 
taining the kindest feelings towards the gentleman 
from Holmes, [Mr. Leadbetter.] 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to amend the amendment, 
[Mr. McCormick’s,] by adding at the end thereof the 
following: 

And the General Assembly may repeal all laws providing for the 
collection of all debts contracted subsequent to such repeal, when 
the credit or trust is voluntarily conferred. 

Mr. REEMELIN said that the proposition ho had 
just had the honor to submit, although not a new one, 
was evidently striking the Convention wiih some as¬ 
tonishment; and he had no doubt some of the mem¬ 
bers were horrified at the very idea of setting credit 
free- 

Well Mr. President, the time has been, and not very 
long ago, when men were as much astonished, and as 
















I 1 ''‘Q 

II vO 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


much horrified when the proposition was first made to 
set the body of men i'ree from the claims of creditors. 
But on yesterday, section 15, which is in these words: 
“ no person shall be imprisoned for debt in any civil 
action on mesne or final process, unless in cases of 
fraud,” was passed by a large vote, and we have thus 
deteruiiiicd that the body ol muii shall no lunger be a 
security to capital for debts. Thus sir, we have ad¬ 
vanced by the force of public opinion, and we have just 
put into the new constitution a principle that could not, 
or at least did not find a place in the old. 

But while we have advanced, other portions of the 
world have stood still, and there are now places in the 
world where the body of the debtor constitutes a se¬ 
curity for the creditor, and where men would stare as 
much at section 15, which I have quoted, as members 
around me do at the motion I have had the honor to 
submit. Sir, I have an abiding confidence, that the 
progress is towards less government, and that the next 
constitution that is made in Ohio, will have an amend¬ 
ment to section 15, such as I have proposed, and that thus 
one part of the machinery of government and one of 
mischief principally, now, will be withdrawn. The 
men of Ohio we have declared free from the rapacity 
of creditors—our posterity will declare the indepen¬ 
dence of credit from justices ol the peace, constables 
and lawyers. 

To me it looks absurd to call in the whole parapher¬ 
nalia of law on a contract, which the original parties 
made among themselves and which they, when they 
made it, kept strictly secret. Yea, they would have 
considered it an insult for any body to interfere. But 
a contract thus secretly made, often foolishly made, of 
ten the mere result of craft on one side and of fimpli- 
plicity on the other, we, the people, must institute 
courts to enforce; for all this must we keep up justices 
of the peace, constables, lawyers, courts, sheritfs and 
all other paraphernalia of justice. A rather expensive 
piece of machinery for so small a purpose. 

Suppose we repeal these matters, and thus simplify 
our government, suppose we say hereafter, that as men 
trade with each other the only certainty they shall have 
is the individual character of the man they deal with. 
What will be the result? One effect it will have at 
once, that rogues, however rich, will have no credit— 
while honest men, however poor, will get credit. Punc¬ 
tuality in payment will become a virtue, a necessity— 
every man will have to pay his honest debts or lose 
his credit. Persuasive honor will accomplish in the 
human breast what law has hitherto bunglingly and 
very partially accomplished—and if, under the new^ 
constitution, I were to draw' up a bill for the repeal of 
all law's providing for the collection of debts—w'e hav¬ 
ing adopted a clause already that the true object of a 
bill should be stated in the title—I would call it a bill 
to secure credit to honest men, and to deny it to rogues. 

We need not suppose cases to show that such would 
be the inevitable result of the repeal of the collection 
laws. Now, for instance, in the purchase of a horse, 
two individuals wish to buy the horse, the owner w'ants 
to, and must sell, as he does not want to feed him any 
longer. Both have no money—but the one is reputed 
to be rich—the other is known to be poor—the rich 
man is known to be rather tricky—the poor man is 
proverbial for his honesty—I ask which will get the 
credit, under our present laws ?—we answer, the rich 
man. But repeal the laws and both stand upon equal 
terms; the poor man will then get the horse, since his 
credit is as good as that of the rich man. Thus, sir, 
one of the advantages that now accrues to property 
will be taken away, and credit will be what it should 
be, the result of individual rectitude, punctuality and 
honesty, and not of property. 

1 may be told that to repeal our collection laws would 
result in a denial of credit to our merchants in the 
east. In reply, I affirm that not one dollar of credit 
is now conferred upon our merchants with view to our 
collection laws. 


In all cases where tiiere is any fear of having to re¬ 
sort to collection laws, the credit is entirely relused. 
There, then, we really have the state of affairs which 
should be, to some extent, the result of a repeal of the 
collection laws, and 1 aver that there (in the east) the 
question is really only' as to the punctuality, business 
habils, and piumplituue ol our mei'chauLti, and not as 
to our collection laws. With these few remarks. I re¬ 
sign the floor to rny friend from Monroe, [Mr. Arch¬ 
bold] who has been anxiously w'aiting for it for some 
time. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. The gentleman from Hamilton 
goes into an examination of the principles, but he does 
not go back far enough. He does not go back to the 
first principles. Men enter into society and constitute 
judges for the sake of the peace. Government is a 
mere agency for keeping the peace. If we repeal all 
collection laws, credit will still be given and creditors 
will still, at times, be disappointed and deceived. Cred¬ 
it is now dependent on personal character. No man, 
fit to manage property, entrusts it to any person with 
the expectation of suing him. He expects the contract 
to be fulfilled. But contracts are olten broken and so 
they will be in the new slate of things, proposed by 
the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemklin.] Then 
the creditor will go about to enforce his contract in the 
court of honor, having no other tribunal to resort to. 
He will exclaim against his recreant debtor as a bad 
man—a dishonest man—a treacherous man, in one 
word, a knave. This prosecution, in a court of honor, 
the debtor will regard as an atrocious injui’y—his pas¬ 
sions will be inflamed to the utmost. He will meet 
the plaintiff in personal rencounter—they will settle 
the controversy “fist and scull,” “club or dagger,” 
“ bowie knife or butcher knife,” as the case may hap¬ 
pen. This seems to me to be the inevitable conse¬ 
quence. Men who have no common judge will settle 
their controversies by brute force, as best they may. 
If society becomes so advanced as not to be willing to 
see personal disputes settled peaceably '*efore a Judge 
in a court of justice, it must consent to see them set¬ 
tled by a personalconffict, inthe court of Judge Lynch i 
I am well aware that our collection laws, as well as 
our laws for the enforcement of contracts, are exceed¬ 
ingly defective ; yet they answer one valuable pur¬ 
pose—they preserve the peace of society—they act as 
a kind of safety valve or escape pipe. Men having a 
court to appeal to for the redress of grievances, do not 
take the execution of the law' into their ow'n hands. 
Society is nut horrified by the exhibition of personal 
broils, contentions and bloodshed. The peace is pre¬ 
served and this is the great end of society; other pur-' 
poses are subordinate. 

Mr. ARCHBOLl) added, in substance, that he was 
in favor of a considerable exemption of personality and 
reality, in behalf of the infortunate debtor, for he 
would make the law' speak the voice of humanity. 
He would not suffer the law to do that which no hu¬ 
mane man w'ould do, but he thought that much more 
stringent laws should be enacted to compel dishonest 
debtors to yield U23 the sur{)]us, above the legal exemp. 
tion for the payment of their debts. Gentlemen would 
not find him, (Mr. A.) engaged inthe foolish task of 
defending our collection law s. They give great and un¬ 
just advantages to dishonest and unscrupulous debtors,, 
and he believed that there was some truth in the re¬ 
mark of old Tom. Benton, that for one harsh or op¬ 
pressive creditor there were a hundred dishonest, eva¬ 
sive debtors. 

Mr. A. remarked that after hearing the crude propo¬ 
sitions occasionally brought forward here by the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamiltion, [Mr. Reemelin,] he was dis¬ 
posed to propose that this Convention might resolve it¬ 
self into a debating club for the discussion of moral 
propositions and untried experiments. Among other 
edifying propositions which might legitimately come 
before such a body would be one for the equalization, 
of the temperature of the globe by means, perhaps, of. 











1109 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Steam tugs to tow the ice-bergs of the Arctic Ocean to 
the equatorial latitudes for the purpose of modifying 
the frigid air of the poles, and, at the same time, cool 
ihe insutierable heatol the tropics. (Laughter.) 

I don’t know, whether I have 
much objection to the equalizing process moved by the 
geutleman who has preceded me. If he will but hitch 
himself on this his tug, to pull down some of his ice¬ 
bergs, I at least have no objection. 

The gentleman tells, us, that one great result of our 
collection laws has been, “to keep the peace ” Now, 
I should say, that the reverse is true. They cause more 
quaii^ls than any other laws extant,and mostcontracts, 
which might be settled peaceably, become tangled 
webs, when brought within the province of our collec¬ 
tion laws. They provoke more quarrels, more delay, 
more expense, than any other laws on the statute book, 
oo tar from contributing to keeping the peace, they op¬ 
erate 111 the reverse. 

The gentleman also tells us that no credit is now 
conferred in Ohio with any view to the collection laws. 
I reply, that he is at fault in the facts—let him go to 
Smead’s bank, and he will find that every loan is there 
made with a distinct reference to our collection laws— 
yea, to the merest detail. Agaui, all our banks act 
wim a view to these laws, and so do all our money 
lenders. The consequence is, that our collection laws 
^ mere government machinery to enable the 
sharp men of the community to pluck the unwary’". 

question that the provision should not be 
adopted in the constitution, it is surely proper to the 
amendment, for then every man’s homestead will be 
secure, unless he alienates it himself. But as to the 
question ot grafting it in the constitution, I can only 
say, that when a similar proposition was made a few 
years ago in the General Assembly*, by Dr. Olds, of 
Oircleville, we were told by eminent legal men, in the 
benate, that the proposition was unconstitutional, un¬ 
der that part of it which denied any^ law being passed 
impairing the obligation of contracts.” Now, when 
it is proposed to give the power, we are again turned 
to the General Assembly. 

The question being on the adoption of Mr. Reeme- 
lin’s amendment, 

Mr. REMEELIN demanded the yeas and nays; 
which were ordered, and resulted—y^eas 13, nays 82— 
as follows: 

Yeas—M essrs. Blair, Farr, Hunt, Jones, JMcCorraick, Norris, 
Reemelin, Stebbins, Stidger, Stickney, Slmble, Taylor and 
To-wnshend—13. 

Nays —Messrs, Archbold, Barbee, Baniet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderi'er, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, 
Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Haw- 
Mns, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, llootman, hlorton, 
Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, I.eadbettcr, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Orton, Otis, 
Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney,*Riddle, Roll, fiawyer, 
Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smitli of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, 
Thompson of Shelby. Thompson of Stark, Vance ot Champaign, 
Warren, Williams, Woodbury, Worthington and President—82. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
McCoRMtCK, 

Mr. SAWYER moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ Shall the amendment be 
now put?”— 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 37, nays 53—as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Ai-chbold, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Ca¬ 
hill, Cook, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, 
Henderson, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunter, Jones, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Struble, Swift, Woodbury and President—37. 

Nays —.Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blickensderi’er, 
Brown of Athens, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Curry, 
Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 


Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Otis, Scott of Har- 
I’ison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, 
Stidger, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance 
of Champaign, Warren and Williams—53. 

So the call of the previous question was not sustain¬ 
ed. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr# 
McCormick, 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 30, nay^ 61—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Case of Licking, Farr, Forbes, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hawkins, Holt, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, King, Manon, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Ranney, Reem- 
elin, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Stra- 
ble, Sw'ift, Taylor, Townshend, Woodbury and President—30. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Ca¬ 
hill, Chambers Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, 
Florence, Gillet, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hootman, Horton, .Johnson, 
Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, 
McCloud, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Quigley, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott 
of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stan¬ 
ton, Stilwell, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Champaign, 
Warren, Williams and Worthington—61. 

So the ameiidmeut was rejected. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to further amend the report, in 
section fen, tcUvards the end of the same, add after the 
word “behalf,” the following words: 

And a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county 
or district in which the offence is alledged to have been committed 

W’hich was adopted. 

Mr. HAW’KINS moved to reconsider the vole, by 
wliich ihe Convention, on yesterday, adopted the fol¬ 
lowing amendment, to wit : Add at the end of section 
two, the following: 

And to alter, revoke, repeal or abolish, hy act of the Genera 
Assembly, any grant or law conferring special privileges or im¬ 
munities upon any portion of the people, which cannot reasona¬ 
bly be enjoyed by all. 

Pending which. 

On motion of Mr. REEMELIN, the Convention took 
a recess. 


3 o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending, being on the motion of Mr. 
Hawki.vs, to reconsider the vote by which Mr. Law¬ 
rence’s amendment was adopted; 

Mr, LARSH moved a call of the Convention, which 
was order-ed, and Messrs. Andrew’s, Barnett of Preble, 
Case of Hocking, Chaney, Clark. Cutler, Ewing, 
Groesbeck, Holme.?, King, Otis, Perkins, Riddle, 
Smith of Wyandot, Struble, Thompson of Shelby, and 
Way were found absent. 

On motion, Mr. Holmes was excused. 

On motion of Mr. RANNEY, all further proceedings 
under the call were ilispensed with. 

The question then being on the motion of Mr. Haw¬ 
kins, to reconsider the vote by w’hicli the amendment 
of Mr. Lawrence, was adopted ; 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President: I can see no good 
reason for the. reconsideration of the vote by which 
the Convention agreed to the amendment, proposed 
last evening by the gentleman from Guernsey, [Mr. 
Lawrence.] It cannot be seriously contended that 
the proposition was not well understood, for every 
gentleman on the opposite (the ’whig) side of this cham¬ 
ber voted against it. This shows that it w’as well un¬ 
derstood by our opponents, and that without an expla¬ 
nation, or commentary from the mover. And the vote 
then taken, will show that the Democratic delegates 
in this Convention, as a body, understood it, for they in 
a body, voted for the amendment. But, sir, in its 
words, what is the amendment agreed to on last even¬ 
ing ? It is this: to add at the end of section two, id' the 
“ Preamble and bill of Rights,” the following: 













1110 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


And to alter, revoke, repeal or abolish by act of the General 
Assembly, any grant or law, conferring special privileges or im¬ 
munities, upon any portion of the people, which cannot reasona¬ 
bly be enjoyed by all. 

Are not its words plain sir. The very word repeal, 
revoke, &c., are there, and have they not received a 
significancy of late in our proceedings. 

But we are told that this is not a proper place for 
the insertion of this provision—that it belongs to the 
report of the committee on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment. 

In this objection there is no force whatever, for in 
the very place where the great fundamental rights of 
the people are enunciated and declared, this provision 
which 1 have quoted, clearly belongs. In the “ Bill of 
Rights,” is the proper place to declare how far the Legis¬ 
lature can sell or give away the dearest and most essen¬ 
tial rights of the people. It may well be asked how are- 
publican government can confer upon one portion of 
its citizens immunities, franchises, or privileges, from 
which another portion arc excluded ? It cannot sir, 

I maintain, consistent with duty or xu’inciple. Nothing 
can be more proper or natural then, than that a provis¬ 
ion against such inequalities—such anti-democratic 
grants should be incorporated in the Bill of Rights. 

Mr. KENNON. Does the gentleman from Knox ad¬ 
mit that the amendment [Mr. Lawrence’s] now in de¬ 
bate, applies to the case of corporations ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I suppose the gentleman wants 
this answered for the purpose of being used as con¬ 
temporaneous exposition. And if he would like my 
opinion as to the value of this, I can give it in a few 
words. I think it worth but precious little. The poor¬ 
est and least authoritative that can well be made. At 
least the contemporaneous exposition of the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States proves the truth of this, and 
shows how little that rule of construction can be de¬ 
pended upon. 

But I will answer the gentleman from Belmont. I 
understand the amendment in question, to declare 
broadly and unequivocally the right of repeal—and 
when I say I’epeal, I mean unqualiiied repeal, retroac¬ 
tive, retrospective, prospective and pi’csent, conditioned 
only upon the exercise of the sound discretion of the 
people through their Legislature. 

If there is a pitiful sight under the canopy of Heav¬ 
en it is the miserable subterfuge by which gentlemen 
seek to shrink from responsibility, with regard to the 
democratic doctrine of repeal; for, sir, I say it is a 
miserable subterfuge to say that you are in favor of re¬ 
peal, and at the same time, couple it with a condition 
that renders it utterly useless—utterly impracticable 
as a principle of protection to the people. All these 
distinctions raised here, various and multiform as they 
are, are simply designed to cripple and defeat the 
operation of the j^rinciple of repeal; that was what 
these distinctions were got up for; and that is just 
what all this cry for conditional repeal amounts to. 
That, although this thing might become a very great 
evil, and it might become the duty of the General As- 
einbly to remove it, yet you cannot do it until you. 
have gone and asked, and obtained the consent of 
the corporators. You cannot put an end to it by 
wholesome and judicious law, until you shall have paid 
for it. That is the doctrine, for it is on record here in 
all its varied forms. 

Now, sir, suppose this proposition turned into plain 
English. Snp[)Ose these gentlemen should come for¬ 
ward with their propositions translated thus : We are 
in favor of repeal by the Legislature, but you must, 
before you can exercise this power, obtain the consent 
of the corporators, by paying them a large sum of mo¬ 
ney. Could these gentlemen so lose their senses as to 
urge their proposition in this form ? What better is it, 
sir, I demand ? Here, these gentlemen insist, you can 
only repeal a charter on the same conditions that you 
can take private property for public use. And how do 
yon get this? Why, sir, first, of course, by agreement 
with the owner as to price and terms. In nineteen) 


cases out of twenty—yes, far more—this mode pre¬ 
vails, and nothing further is required. If this plan 
fails, then, sir, you must call a jury in a court of justice. 
This, then, is to be the plan for repealing charters, ac¬ 
cording to these gentlemen—first, by obtaining the cor¬ 
dial consent of the corporator, and if this cannot be 
gotten in this way, then by resort to your jury of twelve 
men in court. 

Now, sir, could there be a more absurd position 
than that a set of men, found to be exercising a grant 
of power given to them by the Government, and in 
that exercise, doing injury to the interests ol communi¬ 
ty, and to the republican character of our institutions; 
before you can redress this wrong, and restore to our 
people and their institutions what belongs to them, you 
must go and bargain with these men for the right to 
redress this great public evil; and if you cannot agree 
with them, you must have a jury of twelve men to set¬ 
tle how much you must pay them. 

Sir, this is the true proposition urged here by these re 
creants to the cause of justice and democracy. It is so 
absurd and preposterous that 1 cannot contemplate it 
with composure, much less talk about it. 

Sir, I maintain that it is nut only the right, but the 
duty of government, to repeal every charter—the exer¬ 
cise of which is found to be injurious to the people, or 
the cause of justice and equality in the community. I 
maintain that the highest duly that can be imposed up¬ 
on an American Legislature, is to see that our institu¬ 
tions are preserved pure and entire in their principles. 
The very character of our institutions necessarily con¬ 
fers this power upon the Legislature. 

But this is the great and cardinal point of difference 
between us. These men affirm that you can, by cun¬ 
ning and artifice, prompted by avarice or lust of gain, 
obtain from the Legislature an improvident grant, 
which they cannot nullify and reverse; they cannot 
remove the evil until they have purchased the privi¬ 
lege so to do. This is an absurdity, the equal of 
which I have never seen or heard, in all my experi¬ 
ence. 

I do not propose, at this time, to go fully into an ex¬ 
amination of the doctrine of repeal. 1 do not propose 
now to attack the battlements, from behind which our 
opponents have been wont to vindicate their position. 
But should the vote be reconsidered, and should we 
have an issue made up upon the question, I hope it 
will not be such an issue as is jiroposed by these mis¬ 
erable men, nor, sir, that indicated by the gentleman 
from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery.] I ask gentlemen to 
come up and defend their position manfully—to take 
up and defend the Dartmouth College case—to defend 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
—to say that a charter is a contract, and cannot be 
touched. That is the issue which the noble soul of the 
gentleman I'rom Belmont [Mr. Kennon,] would not 
allow him to escape. 

He is the only man that has met the issue like a 
man. His intelligent and masterly mind spurned the 
subterfuges to which all his associates have resorted, 
and took the ground, on which alone, a manly adversa¬ 
ry would seek to stand. I think, as a general princi¬ 
ple, it is so palpable that the government should have 
this right to repeal, that it would not be a proper use 
of time, further to spend it in elaborating the subject. 

I shall vote against this re-consideration ; but if it 
should be the pleasure of the Convention to re-consid- 
er, it will be my desire and effort to incorporate the 
word franchise, thereby marking and defining a little 
more clearly that which may be taken away by re¬ 
peal. These words, special privileges, are very com¬ 
prehensive, and from their acknowledged use of late 
years, will be generally admitted to embrace all the 
cases here desired to be met. They are, perhaps, 
more clearly expressive of the immunities granted to 
corporations, than the word franchise. 

Mr. RANNEY. I have not yet heard any reason 
I given why this vote should be reconsidered. It is 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 1111 


plain that our friends on my right (the Whigs) under¬ 
stood this principle, for they all voted against it, and 
that our friends on the left understood it also, I have 
no doubt, and I was pleased to see that they showed 
that they were willing to stand by it. Butit is a strange 
thing, that legal gentlemen here—quick minded men 
—men who see through things at a single glance—it is 
most astonishing that they should not be able to com¬ 
prehend this proposition. I do not think that there 
has been any occasion for surprise in this proceeding; 
and I was happy to see the vote taken yesterday with¬ 
out debate; ibr I hoped that we had come to the con¬ 
clusion to abide by this proposition all around, and 
here to end the matter. 

The proposition is not exactly what I could desire; 
but it is more than some gentlemen would be willing 
to concede; and because it is perhaps the best thing 
we can get, and because it commanded the votes of all 
my political friends, I am adverse to opening up the 
consideration of the matter again by way of reconsid¬ 
eration. I cannot yet understand why my venerable 
friend from Morgan [Mr. IJaw'kins] should move this 
reconsideration. I have observed also, that the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin [Mr. Swam] voted for the propo¬ 
sition, and he, as I should think, would be one of the 
last men in Ohio to be taken by surprise, upon the 
proper construction to be put upon my proposition. 

Under these circumstances, 1 cannot see any thing to 
be gained by reconsideration, but much to be lost in 
the consumption of time, in debate upon a subject 
which has already been fully discussed. 

One gentleman who has voted upon this provision 
is now before the people, canvassing for votes to return 
him again to the place in this Convention which he re¬ 
signed a short time since. That gentlemnn declares 
himself now in favor of the doctrine of repeal, and it 
is certain that we all, who have voted heretofore for 
the right, have said distinctly that we intend to stand 
up to the last in favor of this great principle, which w’e 
regard as laying at the foundation of all republican gov¬ 
ernment. Will any of our political friends who have 
at any time voted against this proposition say that they 
do not now stand by the right of the Legislature to 
repeal any act of incorporation, or act granting ex¬ 
clusive privileges ? I think there is not one that will 
say that. 

Mr. SWAN, (interposing.) Dors the gentleman mean 
an unqualified right to repeal a charter? 

Mr. RANNEY. Yes. 

Mr. SWAN. W’ell, I do not stand up to that doc¬ 
trine. 

Mr. RANNEY. The gentleman denies it then. But 
what is a qualified repeal ? Does the gentleman mean 
that one-half of a charier may be repealed, and the other 
half left unrepealed ; or what are we to understand by 
a qualified right of repeal ? 

Mr. SWAN. By an unqualified repeal, I mean the 
exercise of a pow’er in a legislature, to say that the 
charter of incorimration of such a company be, and the 
same is hereby repealed, and stop there. 

Mr. RANNEY. But what would the gentleman from 
Franklin add to that to make out a case of qualified re¬ 
peal ? Will he tell us how he wmvdd qualify the power? 
But then he denies, now, the right. I am glad to find 
that an issue is made, a little more specific than it was 
a few days ago. Gentlemen will not be able much Ion 
ger to evade the issue. 

But my friend, [.Judge Vanck, of Butler county,] 
who has made this issue before the great jury of the 
country, asserts before his constituents, that he is one 
of ihe fast friends of repeal. But then, he says, you 
cannot lake the property of a corporation without pay- 
ing for it. And so say we. But what would you pay 
for? is the question. We would pay for the property 
taken, in all cases, where the State took any. But 
would you pay for what the special privileges and im¬ 
munities which the land conferred might be worth to 
the stockholders, if they were permitted to still go on 


and enjoy them ? He says he would not. If gentle¬ 
men are content to occupy his ground, what objection 
can they have to this provision ? Let us see, before we 
go any further, what it means and what it embraces. 
It affirms the right of the people, through the General 
Assembly, to alter, revoke, repeal, or abolish any grant 
of law conferring special privileges or immunities upon 
a portion of the people, which cannot be reasonably 
enjoyed by all. It does not command or require a re¬ 
vocation of any of these; but it affirms that the people, 
by their representatives, have the right to do it. In 
this “ Bill of Rights,” it affirms this right as inherent in 
the people. When it shall be exercised, and how ex¬ 
ercised, Is left to those having the power to determine. 
Can any man say that he holds to the doctrine of repeal 
and deny this? What is the extent of the right here 
affirmed ? In the first place, it extends only to such 

special privileges and immunities” as areconfeired 
by law—it allows the law making power to have con¬ 
trol over its own creations only. 

In the next place it extenda only to such as are con¬ 
ferred upon a portion of the people, and cannot bo en¬ 
joyed by all. 1 have already said that it does not em¬ 
brace everything that I desire, but it contains much 
that is valuable, and nothing that any man, laying 
any claims to respect for a popular government ought 
to object to. Every law that we rely upon to protect 
us all in the enjoyment of our natural rights, may be 
altered or repealed at the pleasure of the Legislature. 
But laws conferring special privileges ai’e too sacred to 
be touched ! What is it that these gentlemen guard 
with such fidelity ? Where are these special privileges, 
that the government confers upon favored individuals, 
obtained? It has nothing of its own to give—it is it¬ 
self but a pensioner upon the bounty of the people, and 
all that it can confer must be drawn, either directly or 
indirectly, from the proceeds of their industry. So in¬ 
satiable is special privilege, that once fastened upon us 
it is worse than the bloodsucker—ii never gets its fill, 
and is never ready to let go, but constantly grasps lot- 
more. It has cursed the w-orld through all the gene¬ 
rations that have passed. In one shape or anoiher, it 
has “ fertliized the fields of the favored few-, by the 
sweat of the poor man’s brow ; ” and yet, in the lepub- 
lican State of Ohio in what has been called the noon 
of the nineteenth century, men, and men professing to 
be Democrats, are contending that this monster ought 
not to be subjected to the power, and brought within 
the control of a free people! That a part ot the polit¬ 
ical power of the State, and the most odious part, may 
exist above them and beyond their control! But gen¬ 
tlemen see in this provision an assertion of the right of 
repeal. Whatis repeal ? A repeal takes no property that 
belongs to the corporation. It barely terminates the use 
of a special privilege. It takes nothing but w hat is des¬ 
cribed in the language of the proposition itself—“special 
privileges or immunities,” which have been conferred 
by lavv. It does not affect anything beyond this.— 
Whatever legislativepower has conferred, which proves 
to be injurious to the public interest, may be taken 
back again by the same legislative power upon such 
just terms as a just people shall provide. The right to 
take private properly is rightfully taken from the leg¬ 
islative power. The right to acquire and enjoy prop¬ 
erty was antecedent to all government, and it may ex¬ 
ist without govenment. The office of government is 
to protect person and property, and not to invade the 
rights of either. And the natural rights of persons, 
whether they are associated or not, are the same. The 
right to acquire, defend and enjoy private property, is 
an inherent, natural right of every individual. 

It has never been proposed by the Democratic party, 
or any member of it, that the Legislature should have 
the pow-er, wdihout a public necessity, and full com¬ 
pensation, to take away the property of individuals, 
whether in an associated or private capacity—never. 
But in every case they have held, that all private prop¬ 
erty ought to be protected as all other natural rights 









1112 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


are, and ought to be protected by every just govern¬ 
ment. And the proposition which has been adopted 
by the Convention, and which it is now sought to get 
rid of by this motion to reconsider, affirms nothing to 
the contrary. It does not touch private property. 
There is not the most distant allusion to private prop¬ 
erty in it—no intimation that private property may be 
taken. It deals with those “ exclusive privileges” 
alone, which are created by law for the benefit of 
some at the expense of others. It proposes to subject 
these to the power of their creator. And yet, men can 
go out to their constituenis and proclaim themselves 
the advocates of the doctrine of repeal, and come here 
and help vote down such a provision as this ? No mat¬ 
ter how odious and unjust the privilege granted—no 
matter how much it invades the rights of the people— 
these men shrink from saying, that what was thus 
granted to a few, “without money and without price,” 
can be reclaimed for the benefit of all. The rights of 
the people thus gone, are gone forever. But let us for 
a moment look at this provision in the light of the bal¬ 
ance of this, my section, which has been unanimously 
passed. It reads thus: “All political power is inhe¬ 
rent in the people. Government is instituted lor their 
equal protection and benefit; and they have the right 
to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they 
may deem it necessary.” 

I think then gentlemen will find that it will be nec¬ 
essary to go back further in their reconsideration, and 
get rid of all the declarations contained in this section, 
before they can consistently vote against the provision 
under consideration. Their course belies every one of 
them. In the first place, it is asserted that “ all politi¬ 
cal power is inherent in the people.” To enact or re¬ 
peal a law is an exercise of political pow'er. To adopt 
a constitution is a direct exercise of this power, and to 
pass an ordinary act of legislation is an indirect exer¬ 
cise of the same power, through agents or representa¬ 
tives. You affirm that all this power is inherent in the 
people by this provision ; and yet you stand here and 
contend that an act that has granted exclusive privile¬ 
ges cannot be touched by the body having all political 
power, except upon qualifications that you cannot 
yourselves define. Political power has enacted the 
law, has created the “ exclusive privilege,” but the 
same political power cannot repeal it, cannot abolish 
its own creation! What absurdity! If you are right, 
all political power does not remain with the people, 
and it is a falsehood so to declare. As fast and as far as 
your servants have encroached upon it, by grants of 
exclusive privileges, you have lost all control over the 
subject, or there is no truth in some of the Solojs that 
are sent up to this Convention. 

But again it is declared: “ Goveri merit is instituted 
for their [the people’s] equal protection and benefit.” 
Whenever this provision is lived up to, and carried out 
in its true spirit, all special privileges will cease and 
die away as an accursed thing. You are willing to 
say that government is instituted for the equal protec¬ 
tion and benefit of all, but when you are asked to say 
that that same government shall have the power to re¬ 
peal such laws as violate this provision, and confer spe¬ 
cial privileges upon some that cannot be enjoyed by 
all, you refuse to do it. 

Beautiful consistency, that! The benefits of govern¬ 
ment ought to be equal to all, but if a few get more 
than their share in the way of special privileges, con¬ 
ferred by law, the people possess no power to right 
the wrong—no power ever after to make it a govern¬ 
ment of equal benefits, but must permit those that 
have got thei dvantage to enjoy it to tlie end of lime. 
Such IS your doctrine, and if it is true, the declaration 
that the government is instituted for the equal protec¬ 
tion and benefit of the people, is a falsehood, and 
should be stricken out. 

But again you say in this section : “ They [the peo¬ 
ple] have the right to alter reform or abolish the gov¬ 
ernment, whenever they may deem it necessary.” 


The government is but an instrument in the hands 
of the people, who possess all political power, with 
which to promote their own happiness, interests and 
safety. It is but the creature of their will. To make 
it effectual for these ends, it may be altered, changed, 
moulded into any shape, or even abolished altogether. 
You are willing to say that the pillars of the State may 
crumble away at the command of the people, and that 
every law of a general nature may be revoked and 
abolished; but when you come to an act incorporating 
a tavern, your courage fails you, and you can go no 
further ! Such laws, like those of the Medes and Per¬ 
sians, change not. You will not confess now that the 
people possess full powder over all their laws and insti¬ 
tutions; and, if they do not, the declaration that they 
do is a falsehood, and should be stricken out. Thus it 
will be seen that your reconsideration does not go far 
enough back to make you consistent. To protect your 
pets you must knock out some of the old corner stones 
of the political edifice. If you deny all power to the 
people over exclusive privileges conferred by law, you 
deny that all political power is in the people ; if you 
deny them all power to correct the inequalities of ex¬ 
isting laws, you deny that the government is instituted 
to promote equal benefits and protection; if you deny 
them the right to alter or repeal all laws that they may 
have passed, you deny them the right to alter, reform 
or abolish their governmezit and its institutions when 
they see fit. If these declarations are not true, let us 
strike out the whole section. ’ Let us proclaim no false¬ 
hoods on the face of this instrument. Let us not “ hold 
the promise to the ear, and break it to the hope.” To 
make it conform to the doctrines you advocate, and 
consistent with your opposition to the provision now 
under consideration, you should at least amend this sec¬ 
tion so that it will read that all political power is inhe¬ 
rent in the people, except such as may heretofore, or 
shall hereafter be granted away in the shape of “ spe¬ 
cial privileges.”—“ Government is instituted for the 
beneht of corporations, and the holder of exclusive 
privileges,” and the people may alter, reform or abolish 
every thing, except laws granting “ special privileges 
and immunities.” In short, “ government is supreme 
over men and all their rights, but monopolies are su¬ 
preme over it.” 

Such a section would make you tell the truth. There 
is no ti uthin it, (if your doctrines are true,) as it now 
stands, 

This denial of the power of the people over monop¬ 
olies and exclusive privileges arises from a conscious¬ 
ness on the part ol' those interested in them, that they 
are exercising injustice, and they fear they will be dealt 
justly by. .Justice is not what they want; but they 
demand impunity to practice injustice. The people in 
all time past have shown themselves exceedingly slow 
to anger. It is as true now, sir, as it was when the 
pen of Mr. Jellersou traced the sentiment in the Decla¬ 
ration of Independence, that the peo})le are disposed 
to sutler while evils are endurable, ratlier than to rise 
and right themselves. 

Does not the history of corporate rapacity in this 
State furnish abundant evidence of the truth of this 
statement? Ought it not to allay all apprehensions of 
their ever doing injustice to an honest corporation? 
Time and again has the laborer been defrauded of the 
earnings that were necessary to the comfort of his fami¬ 
ly, while the men who got the benefit of his labor, were 
rolling in affiuence and wealth, but protected by cor¬ 
porate immunity. And still in the midst of all these 
wrongs and outrages, the people have been temperate 
and forbearing—too much so; and this has been and 
will continue to be the fault, if any fault is committed. 
Can it be supposed that a reasonable, just and intelli¬ 
gent people will demand the repeal of any law which 
promotes the public good ? To suppose that, is to sup¬ 
pose them incapable of self-government. The dearest 
interests of every man, social, political and domestic, 
are in the hands of his fellow men, and yet we feel 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1113 


sure they are safe. If natural persons are thus safe, 
why should these artificial beings, created by law, 
feel distrust 1 They have much less that can be reach¬ 
ed by government than natural persons have. Indeed 
government can take nothing from them but what it 
has already conl'eiTed upon them. It is true that in 
some cases this might work an injury, but the nature 
and extent of that injury must be left to be ascer¬ 
tained and justice done as each case shall arise—very 
few repeals will take place, but the very fact that 
they can be reached and are not above the law, will 
induce corporations, in most cases, so to conduct 
themselves as not to desei’ve the remedy; and when 
they do not deserve it they need not fear its applica¬ 
tion. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, (interposing, and Mr. R. yield 
ing.) If it required no time to prepare partnership 
deeds, and to sign them,—if they could be forever 
written and forever signed,—1 want no corporation 
acts. But I would ask the gentleman, if the privilege 
of association by small capitalists might not be enjoyed 
without being classed as a special privilege ? 

Mr. RANiNEY. Yes sir. 

Mr. ARGHBOLD, Then there is no need of dis¬ 
pute. , . 

Mr. RANNEY. I have already said, that the great 
principle of the right of association belongs to man, ir¬ 
respective of all government. It lies back of all gov¬ 
ernment, if I may so speak. It has its origin in nature. 
It belongs to our social existence. “ God never made 
an independent man.” The consequence is, that as¬ 
sociation was begotten as soon as various families of 
men began to exist. It follows, that the power or the 
right of association was never conferred by any gov¬ 
ernment, for any lawful purpose. It always existed 
and will continue to exist, without any governmental 
consent whatever. Government may regulate and 
protect it, but cannot rightfully deny its enjoyment to 
all who choose to demand it. It is no exclusive privi 
lege ; it belongs to all alike. It was not conferred by 
any law, and has therefore, nothing to do with this pro¬ 
vision. 

If our friends will stand by the ground that they de¬ 
mand—pay only for the property taken—then I am with 

them. But what is it that we propose to take ? Priv¬ 
ileges and immunities—nothing else. Well, if we lake 
no property, and you are willing to say that you do not 
expect to be paid for your franchise, and admit that 
we have a right to take it, where is the issue between 
us? There is none. We have affirmed nothing else. 
We propose and affirm the power and tiie right to take 
the immunity conferred by law, at any time when 
the law-making j>ower may see fit, and upon such 
equitable terms as they see fit. Then our friends on 
my left do not want ti reconsideration, if they are hon¬ 
est in their professions. But, our friends on my right, 
with the gentleman from Belmont, [Mr, Ke.vnon,] 
hold a different doctrine. They say, that when the 
Legislature passes a charter, it is a contract, and you 
cannot touch it. Tiiat is tangible ground, whether cor¬ 
rect or not. 

I am sorry to see, that, when we once get a vote 
which makes good the reiterated declarations of our 
friends, and by the help of their own votes, that not 
one day can elapse, before gentlemen want a re-con¬ 
sideration. 

If you say that an act of incorporation may be taken 
by the Legislature upon such just terms as they may 
provide, then there is an end of all controversy be¬ 
tween us. But the battle cannot cease between us and 
our friends on my left; because they deny the right to 
touch a charter, and there is no middle ground be¬ 
tween us. He that is not for us, is against us. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD (in his seat.) lam against you, 

then. 

Mr. RANNEY. I am glad to hear you say it openl., 
if that is the case; for, if there is any tiling which [ 
admire in a man it is that courage and boldness which 


allows him to stand up and declare his opinions. And 
now, the gentleman says he is against me. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD (in his seat.) There is neither 
peace nor truce betw’een us. 

Mr. RANNEY. Well, that is all I want. I hope, 
however, it is a political, not a personal war. If I have 
an opponent, there is just where I want to see him, so 
that I can tell what chance there is for my life. 

But this thing of stealing a man’s own thunder to 
fight him with, is not very agreeable. I would far 
rather have a regular set to, and run all the chances of 
a bloody nose than to be compelled to kick at nothing 
half the lime, for the want of a knowledge where our 
opponents are to be found. This is our attitude with 
our political brethren here, upon this question ; for, 
whenever we atttempt to place them upon Whig ground 
they will not stand there only just long enough to vote. 
They then speedily back into our camp. 

Blit the vote of last evening gave me hope, which I 
would gladly cherish still, that these differences among 
i Democrats were being cleared away. I must confess, 
that I slept sounder for it last night, and that I got up 
this morning more cheerful than 1 have for a month j^ast. 
But what was my chagrin upon seeing my venerable 
friend from Morgan [Mr. HAWKiNsjrisinginhisplace to¬ 
day—even struggling to get the floor—for the purpose 
of moving a reconsideration of that vote. This showed 
at once—and beyond dispute—that there is earnest¬ 
ness in the declaration of the gentleman from Monroe ; 
that hostilities still exist between us: that we still 
stand upon either side of a dividing line, which there 
is no passing. 

■ would gladly have avoided this debate—gladly have 
avoided all conflict, especially with my political friends. 
But they help to vote into this constitution a vital 
principle, and before twenty-four hours have elapsed, 
insist upon voting it out again. They are alone respon¬ 
sible for the loss of lime. We could not yield to their 
demands, without cowardly abandoning a great princi¬ 
ple, which I hope, no man will be found crav^en-hearted 
enough to do. It is indeed a great and important ques¬ 
tion—none can be more so. Though it passes the line 
that divides free from despotic governments—a gov¬ 
ernment of the people, from a government of privil¬ 
eged aristocrats—a government of equality from a gov¬ 
ernment of special [irivileges. It has been truly said, 
that “ power is constantly stealing from the many to 
the few.” This is the tendency under any form of gov¬ 
ernment. To counteract this tendency is the part of 
wisdom and pali’iotism. But onr opponents propose 
to give it a “ local habitation, and a name,” within the 
sanctuary of onr political edifice. Concediii" all po¬ 
litical liovver to be with the people to begin, with, they’" 
contend, that whatever i,s stolen from them by wa.y of 
grants of exclusive privilege.®, is gone forever from 
them. Every new grant that is made, either through 
improvidence, ignorance, or corruption of the legisla¬ 
tive body, narrows the jurisdiction of the people, and 
enlarges that of the privileged order. A man with half 
an eye, it seems to me, must see where this process in 
a few generations will lead. Every branch of business 
will be oppressed with the nightmare of monopoly, the 
amount of property exempted from the burdens of tax¬ 
ation will be greatly increased ; every General Assem¬ 
bly will be invested with le.ss ^ower than its prede¬ 
cessor, until at length special privileges will have un- 
surped one half the political power of the land, and by 
its undue influence will be able to control the destines 
of the State. There is no stopping in this downhill 
road. The moment you concede the power to barter 
awav any part of the sovereignty of the people, over 
persons or things, you have conceded a principle that 
would justify the transfer of it all—a ])rivilege that 
ends in the government of a privileged aristpcracy. 
Let us then, while the State is young and vigorous, and 
able to grapple with this great enemy of republican 
equality, give her a fair chance. Take the cords from 
her limbs, and I have no fears but she will do so sue- 









1114 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


cessfully. I have no fears but that she will provide 
security for the future and indemnity for the past. 

Others may do as they please—my course is taken. 
I will fight for the great principle involved in this 
amendment at the threshold, and to the la.st. I will 
never surrender it, aud so far as my action is concern¬ 
ed, it shall always be true, that “ all political power is 
inherent in the people.” I will consent to no diminu¬ 
tion nor partition of that power. Whatever has a po¬ 
litical beginning, shall when the people will it, have a 
political end. The sovereignty shall be as broad next 
year, as it is this year—in the next generation as it is 
in this generation. 

In the close of his remarks, Mr. R. said, if we shrink 
from the performance of our duty, so far as to admit 
that the sovereign power can be granted away beyond 
the power of reclamation, in a few cases, it may be done 
in all cases. If we shrink so far from our duty, as to 
leave any latitude for the supposition, that free govern¬ 
ment may be turned into an engine for the benefit of 
select portions of the people, at the expense of the 
many, and that there is no power in the government to 
right this wrong, we extinguish, at once, the highest 
hopes of republicanism. For the great dividing line, 
as I have before said, which separates a government of 
the people from a government of the few, lies in this 
question : Can the Legislature grant away any portion 
of the sovereignty of the people, and make that grant 
irreclaimable? If this can be done, then this much 
cherished declaration here in our bill of rights, that all 
political power is inherent in the peo])le—is a sheer 
falsehood; and that they may alter or abolish their 
form of government at pleasure,—it is all a libel, the 
whole of it. But, it gentlemen will thus dissipate the 
popular sovereignty, 1 shall only ask of them one thing 
tariher; and that will be, simply, and consistently, to 
vote down all these sounding declarations in our bill 
of rights, and pul an appropriate heading in their place. 

Mr. SWAN said that he had not intended to say one 
word at this time; but he wished to explain what he 
meant in his remark to the gentleman from Trumbull, 
[Mr. Rannkv,] that he was opposed to giving the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly the power of unqualifled repeal of ex¬ 
isting charters. 

I desire to discuss this question without adverting to 
the repealabilily of pre-existing charters. Gentlemen 
have had their attention and their feelings so much oc¬ 
cupied by this c[ue8tion, whether the General Assembly 
have the pow'er of repeal, that they seem to forget 
what repeal is—it.s legal effect upon the properly and 
rights of stockholders. It may be well, therefore, to 
pass by that question, and inquire simply whether, con¬ 
ceding that we can give the power, shall we vest in 
the General Assembly an unqualified power of the re¬ 
peal of pre-existing charters ? Gentlemen seem to for¬ 
get what unqualified repeal is, and therefore lose sight 
of the terms, if any, or cjualification upon which this 
power should be authorized, lie, therefore, in order 
to present a fair field for the question, would concede 
that we can vest this power in the General Assembly. 
The power to do a thing and the mode in which that 
power should be exercised or limited, are two different 
questions. 

The gentleman from Trumbull and others in this hall 
seem to be in favor of vesting in the General Assembly' 
an unqualified power. Now, if this be right and prop¬ 
er, do it. But what is unqualified repeal ? Surely, no 
one would desire to confer this power until he knew 
what unqualified repeal is—its effect. For instance, 
we have conferred on the State, thi oiigh its officers, 
the power to lake private property lor the public wel¬ 
fare. But do we stop there ? If we did. the officers 
of the State could plunder every citizen, on the ground 
that they were taking the properly for the public wel¬ 
fare. We piovide against the consequences of such a 
provision ; for we will not trust the State or the Gener¬ 
al Assembly, or any other officers of the State, with 
such a power, even for the public good, without so 


limiting it that no citizen’s property can be touched 
without compensation being first made. What, then, 
is the effect of unqualified repeal? In other words, 
what do the' General Assembly do when they exercise 
the power of unqualified repeal? Its effect will test 
the expediency and justice of conferring the power, 
qualified or unqualified. 

Take the Little Miami Railroad Company. Exer¬ 
cise this unqualified power of repeal. The General 
Assembly simply declare the act of incorporation^ re¬ 
pealed. What becomes of its right of way? It is a 
special, exclusive privilege, and cannot be exercised 
or enjoyed by the people at large. By the repeal, the 
right of way is extinguished, destroyed, gone. Every 
farmer on the line of that road through whose land^ it , 
passes, could fence it up. The stock-holders and citi- | 
zens who should afterwards pass over the road, would j 
be trespassing, and could be sued therefore by those | 
farmers. The ownership of every engine and car be¬ 
longing to the corporation, would vest in the State. 
Every debt due to the company', and every debt ow- . 
ing by the company', w'ould be totally extinguished and ! 
cancelled. All their real estate for which they have ; 
paid, and received deeds in fee simple, is transferred i 
and vested in fee simple in the persons from whom the 
stock-holders purchased it; and all the money on hand \ 
vests in the State. This is unqualified repeal. 

Mr. MITCHELL (interrupting.) Does the State be¬ 
come entitled to the personal properly' of the com- 
pany ? 

Mr. SWAN. Yes sir. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I should like to see the authori¬ 
ty for such a proposition. 

Mr. SWAN. The gentleman shall be gratified. I 
do not speak without the book. 

And now let us see what is the effect of this simple 
repeal of the charter of plankroads. 

Every man who travels on the road after the repeal 
is a trespasser upon the fanner over whose land the 
road was built. Not a dollar of toll can afterwards be 
collected ; and if the stock-holders own any lots upon 
which they have built toll houses, the lots and houses 
belong to the persons who conveyed the lots to the 
corporation. 

Repeal unqualifiedly a manufacturing company, and 
the real estate, aud the buildings, and the machinery 
annexed to the buildings, are transferred by the sim¬ 
ple operation of the repeal, to the person from whom 
the company purchased the real estate, and tneir per¬ 
sonal property vests in the State. 

Suppose, then, the power to repeal charters hereto¬ 
fore created, were vested unqualifiedly in the General 
Assembly; suppose, too, citizens under the faith and 
belief that they were entitled to use their property for 
a certain limited period in the mode provided by the 
charter, and invested their earnings therein with such 
au understanding, as well on the part of the General 
Assembly as the stockholders, you propose under these 
circumstances, and before the period stipulated expires, 
to give the General Assembly the power to transfer by 
act of repeal, the real estate of the stockholders to 
those who convey it to the corporation—to transfer the 
personal property of the stockholders owned through 
the corporation to the State, and to cancel all the debts 
due to and owing by' the corporation. 

Mr. RANNEY, [interposing.] If the gentleman from 
Franklin were a member of the Legislative body, I 
suppose there would not he the least apprehension that 
he would vote to produce such consecjuences. 1 sup¬ 
pose he would himself have no such apprehensions, and 
I desire to ask him whether he can have as much con¬ 
fidence in the majority of the General Assembly, as he 
has in himself, with reference to any action which 
might he taken upc n this subject? 

Mr. SWAN. It is sufficient for me to commend to 
the gentleman his own words when speaking of the 
removal of judges by a two-thirds vote of the General 
Assembly. The gentleman then told us that the Genet- 












1115 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


al Assembly was the worst tribunal that ever existed 
to ascertain facts; and now the gentleman recommends 
this same tribunal to exercise a high judicial, absolute 
and unqualified power over citizens’ pioperty vested in 
corporations. 

Mr. RANNEY, (in his seat.) They cannot take a 
cent of it, (rising.) 1 desire to call the attention of the 
gentleman to the 36th section of the report of the com¬ 
mittee on the Legislative Department, which provides 
expressly that private property, whether of individuals 
(»r corporations, shall ever be held inviolate, and shall 
never be taken, except for public use ; nor then with¬ 
out adequate compensation. 

Mr. SWAN. I will test the gentleman’s sincerity 
about that when the subject shall come up. 

I am dealing now with the question whether it 
would be expedient, just and proper, to give this un¬ 
qualified power to the General Assembly. 

And now I am asked formy authority for thus stating 
the effect of unqualified repeal. It will be found in 
the Commentaries of Chancellor Kent. I will read a 
single paragraph: 

An absolute and unqualified repeal at once, of a charter ol 
incorporation of a money or trading institution, would be atten¬ 
ded with most injurious and distressing consequences. Accor¬ 
ding to the settled law of the land, where there are no special 
statute provisions to the contrary, upon the civil death ot a cor¬ 
poration, all its real estate remaining unsold, reverts back to the 
orignail grantor and his heirs. The debts due to and from the cor¬ 
poration, are all extinguished. Neither the stockholders, nor the 
directors or trustees of the corporation, can recover those debts, 
or be charged with them in their natural capacity. All the per¬ 
sonal estate of the corporation rests in the people, as succeeding 
to this right and prerogative of the crown, at common law. 

This is the law of the land, and the courts have no 
more power to alter it than they have to alter the law 
which enables a man to recover upon a promissory 
note given for a valuable consideration. 

I doubt whether the gentleman from Trumbull fully 
understood what he was proposing when insisting upon 
the power of unqualified repeal as to charters hereto¬ 
fore created. It will not do. 

Mr. RARNNEY. The power to do a thing and the 
manner of doing it, are two separate and distinct things. 
I do not suppose that any Legislature would have so 
little sense as to repeal a charter, without providing for 
winding up the afi’airs of the corporation. 

Mr. SWAN. I do not think they would. 

Mr. RANNEY. Does the gentleman deny that full 
power to repeal a charter is vested in the Legislature? 

Mr. SWAN. I do not doubt that the General As¬ 
sembly may take the property of a corporation and all 
its incidents for the public good; but if taken, the stock¬ 
holders must be paid like every other citizen, the value 
of the property taken, injured or destroyed by the State. 
And what has the gentleman been doing, and others in 
this hall ? If the State takes for the public good the 
wheat of a farmer in a granary, you require it to be first 
paid for by the State. That is right. You make the 
officer of the State a trespasser if he touches the prop¬ 
erty, unless a jury be first called, the value ascertained 
and the amount paid. If, however, the farmer .sells his 
wheat and invests the proceeds in a turnpike, you pro¬ 
pose to repeal the charter and thus destroy the same 
farmer’s property without compensation. 

Mr. RANNEY, (in his seat.) That would not be 
taken, for public use. 

Mr. SWAN. When you repeal a charter and destroy 
property, you will not pay for it, but when you repeal 
a charter and take the property, you will pay for it! A 
right of way ow ned by a railroad or turnpike, and paid 
for, you will destroy, by the repeal of its charter; but 
you will make no compensation because it w'as a fran¬ 
chise, an exclusive special privilege. 

Mr. RANNEY, (interrupting.) if the General As¬ 
sembly takes away a bank charter, would you pay for 
that ? 

Mr. SWAN. Is the gentleman there ? I thought so. 
Mr. President, there are two kinds of warfare—one 
manly, open and honorable—foot to foot, and eye to 


eye. There is another kind, once known on our bor¬ 
ders—Indian. When the Indian had a grudge against 
one member of a family, well or ill founded, he enter¬ 
ed the dwelling at night and indiscriminately toma¬ 
hawked and scalped the whole family, and set fire to 
the dwelling. There are many corporations in this 
State of the usefulness of which, no otie doubts; and I 
protest against any principle which will do injustice to 
all, for the sake of reaching one. I will engage in no 
such Indian warfare. If the gentleman from Trumbull 
desires to repeal the charter of banks, let him bring 
forward the proposition. But if a general rule is to be 
adopted, applicable to all corporations, let us have one 
that will be Uonest and just to all, and it the gentleman 
cannot frame such a one, without including the banks, 
it is no fault of mine. 

The unqualified repeal of charters heretofore crea¬ 
ted, by which the property of citizens is taken, or its 
use, and therefore the value of the property destroyed 
without compensation, is a power which is not vested 
in any potentate in Europe. 

Mr. RANNEY, (interrupting.) Is not the power of 
repeal exercised by the British Parliament? 

Mr. SWAN. Yes; for the British Parliament is om¬ 
nipotent, and the English people have no written con-, 
slitution. The British Parliament may tamper with 
the title to estates. Does any gentleman desire an om¬ 
nipotent Parliament? 

Mr. REEMELIN, (in his seat.) I assert that it has 
been done in the State of Ohio, in hundreds of cases by 
curative laws. 

Mr. SWAN. I do not understand what the gentle¬ 
man means—but if what the gentleman says, be true, 
perhaps he would defend that injustice ; I do not. 

In what cases do gentlemen desire to exercise this 
power of unqualified repeal ? The gentleman from 
Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] says, only when a corporation 
is a nuisance. Then you wish_ to destroy it, and the 
the use of the property as provided by its charter. If 
you desire to destx'oy a railroad or other corporation 
and repeal the charter, you would not dispose of the 
road or property and its use, to a purchaser, for you 
would then simply transler to the purchasei* the nui¬ 
sance, to be used as he pleased. What then would re¬ 
main to be disposed of? If a railroad—the engines 
and cars~~the iron and wood rail separated fiom the 
road, and the firewood on hand. If a plank road, you 
would sell the plank in the mud and the toll houses. 
The use of the road and the right to take toll being 
franchises—exclusive privileges, not enjoyed by all the 
people, you would destroy without compensation. 
And this is the fiirlhest that these gentlemen would go, 
and because I voted against such a proposition, made 
by^ the gentleman from Medina, I am denounced. 

But I will not pursue this subject farther at present; 
intending at another time, when the Legislative De 
parlment is before the Convention, to say a few words 
upon the iust.ce and honesty^ of injuring, taking oi de- 
troying the property of citizens, or its use by repeal, 
during the period that they, by^ the teims of their 
charter, are authorized to use it vyithout compel satiom 

My position upon this subject is simply this. I will 
not consent to any such repealing powei, except for 
the public welfare, nor without, at the same time dis¬ 
tinctly recognising a just compensation fei^ the injury 
done As to charters hereafter created, it is an entire¬ 
ly different question; and 1 deem it proper that the 
General Assembly, as to them, should retain the right 
of repeal, saving all just rights <.f the stockholders in 

the property of the corporation. j i , ,1 • 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. It will be recollected that this 
amendment, which itis sought now to re-consider, was 
only read from the Clerk’s t-.ble. It was made up 
and d« cided upon very suddenly ; and besides, it is 
ambiguous in its terms. The gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin [Mr. Swan] puts one construction upon it, wnilst 1 
have been compelled to put another construction upon 
it. But the mover of the amendment [Mr. Lawrence} 













1116 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the gentleman himself declares that his meaning was 
something near what has been assumed by the gentle¬ 
man from Franklin. But still 1 cannot place upon his 
proposition any other construction than what I put up¬ 
on his language at first. The language of the proposi¬ 
tion is most unquestionably ambiguous ; mid if it is lia¬ 
ble to be misunderstood here in this body, where it 
■originated, how can it be hoped that it can be correct¬ 
ly construed by the courts in future. Here then is the 
ease—the meaning of the provision is disputed and dis¬ 
putable, at this moment; and therefore it is important 
that its meaning should be fixed. 

I shall not enter at all into the ai'gument of the gen¬ 
tleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell] for it is all rather 
aside from the immediate question before us. But, if 
the Convention will reconsider the vote adopting the 
provision, I give notice that I will move an amend¬ 
ment, the substance of which shall be, that no immuni¬ 
ty or privilege injurious to the public, shall ever be 
granted in this State. 

The question being on the motion of Mr. Hawkins 
to reconsider the vote by which the Convention agreed 
to the amendment of Mr. Lawrence : 

Pending which. 

On motion of Mr. LARWILL, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


‘ WEDNESDAY, February 5, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournmment. 
Prayer by the Rev Mr. Crum. 

Mr. LEADBETTER, from the select committee on 
the Judiciary, submitted the following: 

REPORT NO. 1, 

■OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. 

Sec. 1. The judical power of this State shall be vested in a 
supreme court, superior courts, courts of common pleas, county 
courts, justices ot the peace, and such other courts, inferior to 
the superior court shall be created by law. 

Sec. 2. The supreme court, shall consist of not less than five 
judges, who shall be elected by the qualified electors, in such 
manner as shall be prescribed by law. The term of service of 
judges of the supreme court shall be five years, but immediately 
after the first election under this constitution, the judges then 
elected shall be qualified by lot, so that one shall serve for one 
year, one for two yeai-s, one for three years, one for four years 
and one lor five years. The one having the longe.=t term to serve 
.shall be chief judge, and thereafter the one longest in commission 
shall be chief judge. 

The supreme court shall have original jurisdiction in quo war¬ 
ranto, mandamus, habeas corpus, procedendo, and such appel¬ 
late jurisdiction as shall be provided by law'. 

It shall hold at least one term in each year at the the seat of 
government, and such other terms, at the seat of government or 
elsewhere, as may be provided by law', and a majority of the 
whole number of judges shall be a quorum. 

Sec. 3. The superior court shall consist of one of the judges 
of the supreme court, as president, and any one or more of the 
judges of the court of common pleas as associates. 

The superior court shall have like original jurisdiction with the 
supreme court, and such further original jurisdiction in civil or 
criminal matters, at law or in equitj', and such appellate jurisdic¬ 
tion for the trial of issues at law and of fact, as shall be provided 
by law. 

Terms of the superior court shall be held annually and semi- 
annnally, as shall be directed by law, in each of the counties 
within this State, and superior courts may be holden at the same 
time in dilferent counties. 

Sec. 4. The State shall be divided into not less than nine cir¬ 
cuits, of which the county of Hamilton shall be one, of compact 
territory, bounded by county lines, with equal population, as 
near as practicable; in each of which circuits tliere shall be elec¬ 
ted, by the qualified elector.a, therein, three judges of the court 
of common pleas, who shall be ex-officio associate judges of the 
superior court. The General Assembly may provide for the di¬ 
vision of such circuits into districts of like compact and contigu¬ 
ous territory and equal population, wdthin which shall be elec¬ 
ted, by the qualified voters therein, one judge of said court; but, 
in such case, each of tlie judges so elected in districts shall be 
competent to hold courts of common pleas in any county within 
the circuits. 

The term of service of judges of the court of common pleas 
shall be five years. 

Courts of common pleas shall have original and appellate ju¬ 
risdiction in civil and criminal matters, at law and equity, as shall 
be prescribed by law. 

Courts of common pleas shall be held by any one of the judges 
-elected in any circuit in each county thereof, as often as may be 


provided by law, and more than one such court may be held at 
the same time in each circuit. 

Sec. 5 There shall be established in each county of this State, 
a court of record, to be called the county court, to be holden by 
one judge, to be elected by the qualified electors of the county, 
whose term of office shall be three years. 

Judges of count}' courts shall have jurisdiction in habeas cor¬ 
pus, of probate, and administration, the issuing and revocation of 
letters testamentary, of administration and guardianship, the set¬ 
tlement of accounts of executors, administrators, and guardians, ' 
and such further jurisdiction as shall be prescribed by law. 

County courts shall alw’ays be open for the transaction of busi¬ 
ness, and the judges thereof shall be compensated for their servi¬ 
ces by a fixed salary, to be paid out of the treasury of the proper 
county, or by fees, as may be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 6. A competent number of justices of the peace shall be 
elected by the qualified electors in each township in the several 
counties, whose duties and powers shall, from time to time, be ' 
regulated by law. The term of office of justices of the peace shall 
be three years. . . 

Sec, 7. There shall be elected, in each of the counties of this 
State, by the qualified electors therein, one clerk of the court of j 
common jileas, who shall hold his office for the term of five years, | 
and until his successor shall be. elected and qualified. He shall be | 
ex officio clerk of the supreme court, whenever the same shall be j 
held within his county. He shall also be clerk of all the courts of i 
record within such county. 

But the General Assembly may, by law, provide for the elec- j 
tion, in like manner, of a clerk for each of the courts in any coun- i 
ty, when the business therein may require it: 

Provided, that judges of county courts shall perform the duties 
of clerks of their resiiective courts, unless, in particular cases, it 
may otherwise be provided bylaw. Vacancies in the office ; 
clerk .shall be filled, and clerks of courts shall be removed in such ; 
manner as shall be provided by lavs'. 

Sec. 8. Judges of the supreme court, and courts of common 
pleas, and of such other courts as may be created by law, under 
this constitution, shall, at stated times, receive for their services 
an adequate compensation, to be fixed by law, w'hich shall nei¬ 
ther be increased nor diminished during their continuance in 
office ; but they shall receive no fees or perquisites, nor hold any 
office of profit or trust under the authority of this State, or of the 
United States. They may be removed from office for good cause, 
by joint resolution of the General Assembly, two-thirds ot all the 
members elected to each House concurring therein: Provided, 
that the cause for such removal shall be entered upon the jour¬ 
nals of both Houses, and a copy thereof only served upon the 
party sought to be removed, to enable him to prepare his de¬ 
fence. 

In case of vacancy in the office of judge of any court herein 
provided for, before the expiration of the term for which he shall 
have been elected, such vacancy shall be filled by appointment 
by the Governor, until the next annual election : Provided, that 
if such vacancy shall happen within thirty days prior to such 
election, the same shall be filled at such election, and the appoin¬ 
tee of the Governor shall hold his office until his successor is 
elected and qualified. 

Sec. 9. Persons having the qualifications of electors, shall be 
eligible to any office provided for in this article. 

t^EC. 10. The General Assembly may increase the number of 
judges ot the supreme court, the number of the circuits of the 
court of common pleas, the number of judges in any circuit, 
change the circuits, or establish other courts ; but no such change 
or addition shall vacate the office of any judge of the supreme 
court, or other judge. 

Sec. 11. The several judges ot the supremo court, and the 
several judges of the court of common pleas, and of such other 
courts as may be created by law, shall respectively have and ex¬ 
ercise such power and jurisdiction at chambers, or othervrise, as 
may be directed by law. 

Sec. 12. All judges or other officers who may hereafter be 
created under the provisions ot this article, whose election is not 
herein provided for, shall be elected by the qualified electors 
within the judicial district for which they may be created, and 
shall hold their offices for the term of five years. 

Sec. 13. The title of all process shall be “ The State ot Ohio,” 
and all prosecutions shall be carried on in the name and by the 
authority ot the State of Ohio, and all indictments shall conclude 
against the ))eace and dignity ot the same. 

■ Signed) “ D. P. LEADBETTER, 

JOHN L. GREEN, 
HARMAN STIDGER, • 
ADAM W. RIDDLE, 
JOSIAH SCOTT. 

Mr. LEADBETTER moved that the report be laid 
on the table, and one thousand copies be ordered to be 
printed. 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded a division. 

The question then being on laying the report on the 
table; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering one thousand 
copies of the same to be printed ; it was agreed to. 

Mr. COLLINGS said that while the subject of the 
Judiciary system was before the Convention, he desir¬ 
ed to embi'ace the opportunity to present a plan of his 
own, which, after some experience and some reflec- 


















CONVENTION REPORTS 


HI 


tioii, he had drawn up; and to explain at the same 
time, in a few words, the general provisions of the 
plan, and the reasons that had operated on his mind 
in framing it. He desired to say that he had gone 
somewhat into detail in the project he had drawn up, 
so that if adopted, it might go immediately into oper¬ 
ation, and neea no iegisialive enacimenls to put it in 
motion^ 

He provided, as the first feature of the system, for a 
Supi’eme Court, to consist of seven judges—the judi¬ 
cial period to be five years in duration. Immediately 
after the first election, the judges are to be classified 
according to their age, so that the oldest shall hold his 
office for one year; the two next in age for two years ; 
the next one for three years; the next two for four 
years, and the youngest judge for five years ; and the 
Governor, in issuing commissions to the judges elect, 
shall determine on testiiru ny the class to which the 
judges respectively belong. The chief judge shall be 
he who has the shortest term to serve ; and if there 
are two or more having the same shortest period of 
service, the right shall be determined by seniority in 
age. To this Supreme Court, I have given no deter¬ 
minate jurisdiction, leaving that to be fixed by the Leg¬ 
islature; provided, however, that until so fixed, itshall 
be the same as with the present Supreme Court. 

A session of this Supreme Court is to be holden by 
two judges, one every year, in each county; but I have 
provided, that in view of the appellate jurisdiction of 
the Supreme Court, upon the circuit, on questions of 
fact, being restored to this court—as many desire it to 
be—a term may be holden by a single judge, and this 
court may sit in several counties at the same time. 
This court shall also hold sessions in bank, in such 
manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe. 

I next provide for a court, of common pleas, for the 
purpose of which, the present distribution of the State 
into circuits, is to continue until othei’wise provided; in 
each of these circuits there is to be one judge, and in 
each county one associate judge, elected by the peo¬ 
ple. To this associate judge, I give a general probate 
jurisdiction, and such other as shall be provided by 
law. I look upon the office of associate judge, in this 
case, as of some importance. He would be able thus 
to relieve the court of common pleas of much business 
which would more properly be transacted by a judge 
of the locality ; while at the same time, he would be 
an assistant to the president judge, giving necessa¬ 
ry information as to personal estate, and could hold the 
terms of the court in case of his sickness or necessary 
absence—and the presence of an associate judge would, 
probably, give confidence, and be satislactory to the 
people of his county. I have, al.-.o, provided superior 
and commercial courts in this county as at present; 
also, for a court of criminal jurisdiction, as shall be fix¬ 
ed by law ; also, for a superior court in Cleveland, sim¬ 
ilar to that now existing. 

I have furthermore provided for the election of a 
competent number of justices of the peace—the num¬ 
ber to be as at present fixed, until the Legislature shall 
otherwise enact. I have provided that one clerk shall 
be elected by the people of each county, to be called 
the clerk of court, who shall officiate in the common 
pleas, in the probate court, and in the supreme court, 
until otherwise provided. The judges all to hold their 
offices for five years, and the justices of the peace for 
three years. These, Mr. President, are the principal 
features of the plan which I propose, and which I de¬ 
sire to introduce to the consideration of this body. 

Mr. COLLINGS, on leave, then submitted the fol¬ 
lowing proposition in relation to the Judiciary. 

PROPOSITION OF MR. COLLINGS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE JU¬ 
DICIARY. 

The judicial power of this State shall he vested in a supreme 
court, in courts of common pleas, in superior, commercial and 
criminal courts, as herein provided, in probate courts, and jus¬ 
tices of the peace, and in such other courts, inferior to the su¬ 
preme court, as may be established by law. j . ,i 

The supreme court shall consist of seven judges, and shall 


have such civil and criminal jurisdiction as may be conferred by 
law; and until otherwise provided, shall have such jurisdiction 
as the present supreme court of Ohio may have at the time of 
the adoption ot this constitution by vote of the people. A term 
ot the supreme court shall be held once a year in each county, 
and until otherwise provided by law, shall be held by at least 
two of the judges of said court, but may be held by a single- 
judge, if so provided by law, and may be held in several coun¬ 
ties at the same time. Provisions shall be made for holding 
terms of the supreme court in bank. 

The judges of the supreme court first elected under the const! - 
tution shall be divided by age into five classes, the oldest judge 
shall hold his office for the term of one year; the two next in age 
for the term of two years; the next in age for the term of one 
year; the two next in age for the term of two years, and the youn¬ 
gest judge for the term of five years; and at subsequent elections 
judges of the supreme court shall be elected for the term of five 
years. The governor in issuing commissions to the judges of the 
supreme court first elected, shall determine on testimony the- 
classes to which they shall severally belong. The judge having 
the shortest term to serve shall be styled the chief judge of said 
court; but if two or more of said judges shall hold for an equal 
and the shortest term the oldest of them in years shall be styled 
the chief judge of said court. 

The court of common pleas shall consists of a president and 
associate judge, and shall have such civil and criminal jurisdiction, 
as may be conferred by law ; and except as herein otherwise pro¬ 
vided shall, until otherwise provided by law, have snch jurisdic¬ 
tion as the present courts of common pleas may have at the time 
of the adoption of this constitution by vote of the people. The 

state shall be divided into-common pleas circuits, in each of 

which shall be elected by the electors thereof, a president Judge 
of the circuit; and until otherwise provided by law, the circuits 
shall be composed, as they may be atthetime ot the adoption ofthts 
constitution by vote of the people. Provision may be made by 
law for increasing the number ot circuits and of president judges 
and for changes of circuits. There shall be elected, in each coun¬ 
ty by the electors thereof an associate judge of the county. He- 
shall by virtue of his office be judge ot the probate court of his 
county, and shall hold his office for the term of three years. 

The courts of common pleas shall be held in each county as 
often as may be provided by law, and may be held by the presi¬ 
dent judge of the circuit and associate judge of the county, or 
either of them. 

The associate judge, as judge of the probate court of his county,, 
shall hold stated terms ot his court in vacation of the court of 
common pleas, and shall at all times hold his court open for trans¬ 
action of business therein. He shall have jurisdiction in the proof 
ot wills and the granting and revocation of letters testamentary, 
letters of administration and of guardianship, and the settlement 
of executors’, administrators’ and guardians’ accounts as to per¬ 
sonality, and shall have such other jurisdiction, including sales of 
real estate by executors, administrators and guardians as may be 
conferred by law. 

There shall be established in the county of Hamilton a court ot 
record, which shall be denominated the supreme court of Cincin¬ 
nati, and another court of record, which shall be denominated the 
commercial court of Cincinnati. Each of said courts shall be¬ 
held by a single judge, who shall be elected by the electors of said- 
county, and each of said courts shall have such civil jurisdiction, 
as may be conferred by law, and until otherwise provided by law,, 
shall have such jurisdiction as the courts of like denomination in. 
said county may have at the time of the adoption of this constitu¬ 
tion by vote of the jjeople. There shall also be estabhshed in the- 
county of Hamilton a court of record, which shall be denomina¬ 
ted the criminal court of Hamilton county. Said criminal court 
shall have such criminal jurisdiction as maybe conteiTed by iaw> 
and shall be held by a single judge, who shall be elected by the 
electors of said county. 

There shall I'C established in the county of Cuyahoga a court of 
record, which shall be denominated the superior court of Clevo*- 
land. Said court shall have such civil jurisdiction as may be con¬ 
ferred by law ; and until otherwise provided, shall have such ju.- 
risdiction as the present superior court of Cleveland may have atr 
the time of the adoption of this constitution by vote of the people. 
Said court shall be held by a single judge, who shall be elected by 
the electors of said county of Cuyahoga. The term of office oS 
president judge and judges of the superior, commercial, a'ndl 
criminal courts aforesaid,‘shall be five years; and judges of otbex 
courts which may be established by law under this constitution^ 
shall hold their offices for a term not exceeding five years, and! 
shall have such civil and criminal jurisdiction as may be confer¬ 
red by law. 

There shall be elected in the several townships of the counties 
of this State, by the electors of the townships respectively, a com>- 
petent number of justices of the peace; and until otherwise pro¬ 
vided by law, such number as may be in office at the time of the- 
adoption of this constitution by the vote of the people. Justices 
of the peace shall respectively bold their offices for the term oi" 
three years, and shall have such civil and criminal jurisdiction as 
may be conferred by law, and until otherwise provided, shall 
have such jurisdiction as justices of the peace in this State may 
have at the time of the adoption of this constitution by the people. 

Judges of courts shall respectively reside within their territori-^ 
al jurisdiction, and shall be conservators of the peace therein. 

There shall be elected in the several counties of this State, by 
the electors of the counties respectively, a clerk of court. He 
shall hold his office for a term of three years, and shall be clerk 











1118 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


of the court of common pleas and probate court of his county; 
and until otherwise provided by law, shall be clerk of the su 
preme court, sitting within and for his, county, but the General 
Assembly n: ay provide by law for the election of a clerk of the 
supreme court lor one or more of the counties of this State. A 
clerk of the supreme court of Cincinnati, a clerk of the commer¬ 
cial court of Cincinnati, and a clerk of the criminal court of 
Hamilton county, shall be elected by the electors ot Hamilton 
county, and a clerk of the superior court of Cleveland shall be 
elected by the electors ot Cuyahoga county. The clerks of the 
lour courts last mentioned shall hold their offices for the tenn ol 
three years respectively. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, the report was laid 
on the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. HOLMES, on leave, presented a memorial from 
William C. Tovvnshend and thirty-one other citizens 
of Hamilton county, praying that a clause be incorpo¬ 
rated in the new constitution, prohibiting the Legisla¬ 
ture from passing any law legalizing tratlic in spiritu¬ 
ous liquors; which, on motion, was referred to the se¬ 
lect committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent 
Spirits- 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention a com¬ 
munication from the city councnl of Cincinnati, stating 
that the meaning and intent of a former communication 
from the city council, on the subject of temperance, 
was, “ that the object of said memorial was to place 
the traffic in the so called ’ardent spirits,’ upon an 
equality with the traffic in all other kind of merchan¬ 
dize which, on motion, was referred to the select 
committee on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention look 
up the report of the committee on'the Preamble and 
Bill of Rights. 

The question pending being on the motion of Mr. 
Hawkins, to reconsider the vote by which the Conven 
tion adopted the amendment of Mr. Lawrence, 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, said he had not designed' to 
address the Convention upon the subject involved in 
the amendment *iow under debate, until it should come 
up in its proper place—in the report of the committee 
on the Legislative Department; but since the endeavor 
had been made to incorporate in the Bill of Rights, a 
proposition purporting to define the powers and duties 
of the General Assembly, he had felt called upon, being 
(iiio of the members of the committee who made that 
report, to enter his protest against it. Where does 
such a section legitimately belong? In the Bill of 
Rights? By no means. It has no relation to the pro¬ 
visions nor the intent of that bill. Where then does it 
belong? To the legislative department. The amend¬ 
ment is as follow’s: 

Anri to alter, revoke, repeal or abolish, by act of the General 
Assembly, any grantor law conferring special privileges or im¬ 
munities upon any portion of the people, which cannot be rea¬ 
sonably enjoyed by all. 

The mover has undertaken to define and declare 
what the Legislature may do, and if there were no ob¬ 
jection, arising out of the peculiar provisions of the 
amendment itself, it would be sufficient to say that it 
is out of place, and does not belong here. 

There is another valid reason for the reconsideration 
of the vote by which this amendment was adopted. 
It is this—that it is ambiguous and does not convey to 
all who have attempted to give it a constructiou, the 
same meaning. One gentleman says that it means one 
thiu,>i—another that it means another thing, while a 
third strenuously contends that it means nothing at all. 
Some look upon its operation as piospeclive, and to 
have reference only to privileges or immunities hereal- 
ter to be granted ; others insist that it is retro-active 
in its force, and intended to take effect upon those 
which are already in existence. If there were no oth¬ 
er reason for this reconsideration, this very diversity 
of opinion among honest men, would be sufficient. 

But even this is not all. A number of worthy gen¬ 
tlemen upon this floor, have stated that they voted foi 
the proposition, under a misapprehension as to its 
meaning. They thought when they gave it their sup¬ 
port, that it meant one thing—now they are convinced i 


that it means another. I w^ould ask gentlemen, if com¬ 
mon courtesy does not dictate in such a case, that all 
should consent to the reconsideration ? Such has been 
the feeling heretofore among members; and I myself 
was publicly tlianked by the gentleman from Knox, 
[Mr. Mitchell,] for having, under similar circumstan¬ 
ces, moved a reconsideration of the vote taken upon an 
amendment of the gentleman from Logan, [Mr. Stan¬ 
ton,] a few days since. 

There is one thing, Mr. President, in connection with 
this amendment, which, I confes.s, has surprised me, 
and that is the covert manner in which this question of 
repeal has been pushed in upon us. Now this is a 
question that is not to be dodged. It is not to be fought 
from behind walls, breast-works or ditches, nor to be 
brought up inacovertor ambiguous manner. It should 
be, and must be fought openly ai d fairly. The battle 
should take place in the open field, with no undue ad¬ 
vantages on either side. Now I know that the gentle¬ 
man irom Guernsey [Mr. Lawrence] is the last man 
wiio would flinch from meeting any question boldly, 
openly, fearlessly, ar.d unambiguously. He, I under¬ 
stand, claims that there is no ambiguity; but the dif¬ 
ferent constructions honestly given to his amendment 
must be allowed to be conclusive upon that question. 
And why has this question been brought in here, and 
at this time? It did not fall within the duty of the 
committee which reported the bill. They took no no¬ 
tice of it. The bill w'as reported, printed, discussed in 
commit’ee of the Wh'^de, and no such provision was 
suggested. Yet at the last moment—at the very end of 
the discussion, just before the Convention adjourned 
last night—a clause was wrung in upon the tail of the 
repoit, and carried without debate, and almost with¬ 
out inquiry into its provisions. And now the gentle¬ 
man from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] says, with an air of 
tiiumph, that the twelve have caved in. 

Mr. SAWYER. When did I say that ? I deny hav¬ 
ing made such a remark. 

Mr. CASE. The gentleman from Auglaize said that 
he was happy to find that a section upon repeal had at 
length been devised, upon which all could harmonize. 

Mr. SAWYER. Yes, I said that. 

Mr. CASE. Well, 1 should like to know, in view of 
the construction placed on their amendment, that it 
means unqualified repeal, both prospective and retro¬ 
spective, what that meant but caving in. If that con¬ 
struction is true, we had caved in ; but I tell gentlemen 
there has been no caving in. There will be none. I 
shall make no change in my position, and I have but 
little hope that you will in yours. 

So much upon the subject of the re-consideration. 
But, Mr. President, while I am up, I desire to say a few 
words in reply to the remarks of gentlemen, going to 
the broad question of Repeal. It has been made a 
subject of criticism, that although the entire twelve 
had agreed in giving their votes on this subject, no two 
out of the twelve could agree in the reasons which 
they gave therefor. Now that remaik may be true, 
and it may not be true. I perfectly understand my 
own position, and have neither changed my opinion, 
nor seen any reasons for doing so. My posilionis this, 
that if the public good shall require that the charter 
of an incorporated company be repealed, without any 
charge of wrong doing on the part of the corporation, 
but merely because the repeal is demanded by the pub¬ 
lic welfare.—in such a case, the company should be 
made whole, to the full extent of the damages which 
it has suffered by the repeal—the amount to be ascer¬ 
tained on the finding of a jury, in a court of justice, 
after a full, fair and impartial hearing of the parties in 
interest. 

Mr. REEMELTN. Take the case of the gas compa¬ 
ny of this city, whose stock is now worth one hundred 
and twenty-seven per cent.; suppose the charter of this 
company should be repealed, leaving to the company 
its works, pipes, iron and fixtures; how much damages 
would the gentleman give in such a case ? 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1119 


Mr. CASE. If I were upon a jury, with the ques-! 
tiou submitted, and a full knowledge of all the facts, I 
would endeavor to form an opinion. 

I will ask the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reem- 
ELiN,] a question in return: Suppose, on the repre¬ 
sentations, and in compliance with the petitions of the 
people in the vicinity, and without any breach of law 
or of their charter, on the part of the company, the 
Legislature should, fur the public welfare, see fit to re- 
;)eal the charter of the company owning the bridge 
across the Great Miami river, connecting the towns of 
Hamilton and Rossville, in Butler county, what dam¬ 
ages would he give ? 

Mr. REBMELIN. I would not repeal in such a 
case. 

Mr. CASE. The gentleman is not in favor of the 
right of repeal, then? 

Mr. REEMELIN. No Legislature, except in cir¬ 
cumstances of extremity, should exercise the right of 
repeal, in such a case. 1 cannot conceive the existence 
of such a necessity. If, however, the public good 
should imperatively require it, the full value should be 
paid. 

Mr. CASE. The gentleman cannot conceive a case 
where such an act of repeal would be required ! Now 
I can very readily imagine one. The two towns con¬ 
nected with the bridge may represent that their inter¬ 
ests and that of the public is seriously injured by the 
exercise of the franchises of the company—ihat their 
growth is retarded and their intercourse interrupted 
by the demand for tolls—that it has become a great 
public inconvenience, inasmuch as, by the provisions 
of the charter, no other bridge may be constructed in 
the vicinity ; and that the public welfare would be 
yreatly advanced by the revocation of its franchises, 
and no wrong is imputed to the company. In such a 
case, would the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reeme- 
ein] refuse to repeal ? 

Mr. REBMELIN. I hold that all charters may be 
repealed, wherever it is shown that the public good 
requires it; but I w’ould submit the question of dama¬ 
ges to the Legislature. 

Mr. CASE. But by what process would you pro¬ 
ceed to ascertain them ? The gentleman does not an¬ 
swer. He would pay the whole amount of damages, 
and let the Legislature assess them. Now I can tell 
him how I would do. I would send the ques ion to 
be tried by a jury of Butler county, whosliould deal 
with it as with other questions of fact originating 

and w’hatever should be 


among their fellow-citizens; 
the verdict, that should be paid by that public deman¬ 
ding the repeal. But what is the doctrine of other 
gentlemen? They would give nothing at all. Ihe 
gentleman from Guernsey, [Mr. Leech,] said the other 
day, that the doctrine that compensation should first 

be made was ridiculous and absurd. 

I have declared in my 


Mr. LEECH. I’ll explain 
place here, and 1 now repeat the declaration, that the 
doctrine that the mere franchise of a corporation should 
be paid for, when the General Assembly repeals the 
charter, is not only ridiculous, but supremely ridicu¬ 
lous ! A corporate franchise, sir, is not property. The 
best definition I have seen is, that it is a “ legal non- 

^*^M^*CASE. As to the question whether franchises 
are property, I will come to that. Take, for instance, 
the bridge of which I have spoken, connecting the 
towns of Hamilton and Rossville; what would it be 
worth if the franchise consisting of the right to take 
tolls were taken away ? Nothing, absolutely nothing. 
If you destroy the franchise, you destroy the only pro¬ 
perty which can be of any value to the stockholders. 
What then is the substance of my proposition? In 
case it should be deemed necessary to repeal the fran¬ 
chise, I would present the question of damages-yes, 
damages thereby done to the whole property of the 
corporation, to a jury of twelve men. Hovv would the 
gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Eeemklin,] settle this 


buestioii? He would give damages; (the gentleman 
from Guernsey, [Mr. Leech,] would not,) but under 
what rule and inwdiatway? And here is the difter- 
ence between us—a difference as wide as that between 
north and south. He would give the case to the Legis¬ 
lature—a body of one hundred and fifty men, as is pro¬ 
posed under the new constitution, who should act as 
jurors upon the questions of fact, and judges in all mat¬ 
ters of law, who shall first assess the damages, and then 
find means for the payment of the amount. Gentlemen 
ask if I have no confidence in the wisdom and justice of 
the Legislature in such cases. 

I ask in reply, if they have no confidence in the 
honesty of the jurv ? I ask them w-hy they are not wil¬ 
ling to send the question to be settled where all such 
questions can be settled honestly and fairly—to a jury 
of the vicinage? Suppose the citizens of Hamilton 
and Rossville should become excited upon the subject 
of the bridge connecting those two towns, and raising 
a great clamor, unanimously petition the Legislature to 
repeal the obnoxious charter. Tliey elect and send 
two members who are pledged to the repeal. They al¬ 
lege no offence against the bridge, but demand that for 
the public good, the franchise should he destroyed. 
The case comes up before the General Assembly. We 
will suppose that they have given the corporators no¬ 
tice to go up and attend to their interests, for 1 suppose 
you would give them a day in court. They attend 
with their witnesses and counsel, and the Legislature is 
organized into a court. The Attorney General appears 
OH behalf of the State. The court, with its one hun¬ 
dred and fifty jurymen, sits at the cost of the State of 
1000 dollars per day. They first discuss the question 
of the right of repeal and the public necessity there¬ 
for, from day to day, until every thing is said that can 
be said, and that is at length settled. Next comes the 
question of damages, and here this court, with its one 
hundred and fifty jurymen, sits clay after day and 
week after week, heariug evideiice all the w'ay from 
Butler county, and at length judgment is rendered, that 
the company shall recover its damages together with 
its cost of suit. 

Mr. Bresident: I should like to be the officer to col¬ 
lect that bill of costs. The per ccatage upon it alone 
would amount to a very haudsoine sum, and the com¬ 
pany, or the tax payers of Ohio will have to foot the 
bill. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I desire to ask if the gentleman 
would try the right of repeal by jury ? 

Mr. CASE. If the corporation had violated the law 
I would ti*y it in a court of justice—give it a hearing 
on a writ of quo warranto, and if found guilty , the laws 
of Ohio forfeit the charter, and in such case nobody 
ever asks for damages, nor does the law or common 
honesty require any; but it is very different where 
there is no pretence of wrong or injury on behalf of a 
corporation whose charter has not run out, bat the pub¬ 
lic good requires that it should be destroyed. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the gentleman please to tell 
vvdio of us has advocated that a rotten franchise—the 
mere gift of the government, when taken away, shall 
entitle the holder to damages from the government that 
resumes it ? 

Mr. CASE. The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 
Reemeein] has admitted thatit ought to be done in cer¬ 
tain cases 

Mr. MITCHELL. For the taking away of a fran¬ 
chise ? 

Mr. CASE. Yes! Is not a franchise property ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Ah! 

Mr. CASE. Gentlemen differ in their ide-.'S upon 
this subject. The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 
Reemelin] would award damages in certain cases. 
The gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] would 
leave the question to the Legislature, to do what is 
equitable and just, according to its discretion. Novv, 
what I want is, to do away with this discretion. It is 
but another name for tyranny. Nothing can be more 













1120 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


dangerous; nothing can make the administration of 
Juptice so odious, uncertain and unequal. One ol the 
fundamental principles upon which all American gov¬ 
ernments are based is, that there shall be a rule pre¬ 
scribed in advance, by which, under one uniform mode 
of procedure, the rights of every man shall be ascer¬ 
tained and secured ; and when w’e pull down this great 
principle and endeavor to set up in its place a bound¬ 
less and irresponsible discretion, we have the very es¬ 
sence of tyranny and despotism. 

Now, as to the question whether a franchise is or is 
not property. I do not intend to go into an elaborate 
discussion as to what the law is or what it is not— 
what it does or what it does not say; but I do say this, 
that any man who is a lawyer and has read Blackstone, 
that can stand up and assert that a franchise is not 
property, is, in my opinion, unfit to belong to the pro¬ 
fession. Blackstone, like every other law writer, says 
that property is divided into corporeal hereditaments 
and incorporeal hereditaments—and he divides incor¬ 
poreal hereditaments into ten divisions, and among 
them classes franchises. 

Every court that has ever touched this subject, in¬ 
cluding Whig and Democratic judges—your Marshall, 
your Story, your Taney and your Woodbury—the last 
of whom learned their Democracy from Jackson, that 
pure fountain—and that they are right and that I am 
right I will prove out of your own mouths—yea, out 
of your own mouths will 1 condemn you. It is the law 
every where, so well known, understood, felt and act¬ 
ed upon, that a student applying for admission to the 
bar, who should deny it, would be rejected. And I 
will here state, that a very eminent lawyer, who has 
paid some attention to this subject, has expressed him¬ 
self, that any lawyer who would contejid that a fran¬ 
chise is not property, must be either a fool or a knave. 
That is pretty rough language, and I will not and do 
not endorse it or adopt it here. 

Ts a fi'anchise property ? In reply, I will begin by 
calling up the gentleman from Medina, [Mr. Humphre- 
viLLE,] and will read from the report of the debates of 
the Convention, part 2, page 170 : 

“I agree that corporations have property in their franchises, 
provided they pay a consideration for them, otherwise not.” 

Now, the gentleman is a lawyer, and it would oblige 
me essentially if either he or any other of the profes¬ 
sion would tell me the difference, as regards the ques¬ 
tion ot property, whether the thing be paid for or not. 
If the State donates me a piece of land, does the fact 
that it was a gift destroy its quality as property ? And 
if the State gives me a franchise, does that giving change 
the nature of the thing conferred? 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE said he might have said what 
he was represented as saying, but was of the opinion 
that he had not been fully reported in all he said in 
that connection. 

MR. CASE. I am afraid there are others who will 
complain of the reports before I am done. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I still say that if a corpo¬ 
ration has paid for the franchises which it enjoys and 
they are taken away, it ought to receive payment in 
return. 

Mr. CASE. I will call up another distinguished 
gentleman of the democratic party—the gentleman 
from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney.] I will put him upon 
the stand and inquire what he has said upon this ques¬ 
tion. 

I read from our debates, part 2, page 173: 

“But what is a charter ? Gentlemen say it is property. I agree 
that it is property; but because it is pi'operty, can it always be 
seized for the public use 1 Must there not be first an existing ne¬ 
cessity?” &c. 

Again on same page, he further says: 

“ But what is property ? According to Blackstone, property is 
divided into real and personal. There is a sort of property called 
choses in action, and a charter seems to come as near to that as 
any thing.” 

Will the gentleman answer. Am I correct, or am I 
not ? Is he also incorrectly reported ? 


Mr. RANNEY. If the gentleman means to contend 
that I have said that a franchise is property, he asserts 
that I have said what every member on this floor knows 
I did not. 

Mr. STANBERY I would suggest to the gentle¬ 
man from Licking, [Mr. Case.] that the gentleman 
from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] is a lawyer, and has a 
professional right to argue both sides of the case, when¬ 
ever it suits his convenience. (Laughter.) 

Mr. RANNEY. I would inquire then of the gentle¬ 
man from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] if he has ever 
known me to argue upon this floor that a franchise is 
property ? 

Mr. STANBERY. Not here upon this floor, that I 
am aware of; but there was a session of this body at 
Columbus last summer. It was there, that I understood 
the gentleman as taking that ground. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I think it is not fair to hold any 
gentleman who has spoken as much as the gentleman 
from Trumbull, to any degree ol consistency. 

Mr. RANNEY. Gentlemen who desire such rigid 
consistency in others, ought to practise a little of that 
virtue themselves. They ought not to be found among 
those who one night voted in a body for a proposition, 
and the next day got sick of it, and backed out. 

Mr. CASE. Permit me now, to call up a third mem¬ 
ber of the democratic party in regular standing—a sort 
of class leader—the distinguished gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton county, [Mr. Ree.melin,] whose remarks will be 
found on page 197 of the reports, part 2. Here is what 
he says: 

“I admit that a corporate franchise is property—property cre¬ 
ated by law—a grant or gift from the State—but in many cases, it 
is property improperly obtained,” &c. 

Does he too, repudiate the Book ? This “ Book of 
Martyrs ?” 

Here then are the authorities which we have upon 
the question from gentlemen who have now taken the 
other side, and deny what they then admitted; yet this 
very thing which they admit is property, and which 
the law declares is property, may be taken from its 
owners, divested and annihilated, and not one cent in 
return paid to the proprietors! 

Mr. REEMELIN. Does the gentleman mean me? 

Mr. CASE. No sir. For once you are at length 
right—you are with me, with the constitution, with the 
law of the land, with the courts, with Blackstone. I 
only wish you would stick and vote right. 

Mr. President: 1 did not intend at this time, to en¬ 
ter so fully into this discussion ; but sir, I could not 
help saying, that the more I have examined this sub¬ 
ject, the more I am satisfied that I am right. Nor do I 
intend to be driven from my position—not even by 
the fire and brimstone threats of the gentleman from 
Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] who goes so far as to fulmi¬ 
nate against me, and my associates—“the twelve,”—not 
only reprobation here, but damnation hereafter. But, 
as I said, not even that, shall ever shake me, nor the 
twelve. Now I like that number twelve. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Will the gentleman tell us how 
he counts it up? 

Mr. CASE. I begin, “one, two, three,” and so on 
up to twelve. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Does the gentleman count the 
gentleman from Muskingum, [Mr. Chambers,] as one 
of his twelve democrats. 

I Mr. CASE. Upon this question, I had rather be 
with him than with you. 

I like as I said, that number “ twelve ”—as the gen¬ 
tleman from Monroe [Mr. Archbold,] says, it is an 
apostolic number without a Judas—then again, there 
are “ twelve ” jurymen—yes, and there is John Rod¬ 
gers, and his wife, and nine small children, and one at 
the breast, making “ twelve.” [Laughter.] 

And we all stand firm in the faith, and upon this; 
great question of principle and right, we shall be found 
together, fighting shoulder to shoulder, in the full as¬ 
surance that the right will ultimately prevail. 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


“Truth crushed to earth will rise again, 

The eternal years of God are her’s : 

But error wounded, writhes in pain, 

And dies amidst her worshippers.” 

But it would not be amiss to inquire how long this 
doctrine of the unconditional repeal of existing char¬ 
ters has formed a part of the democratic creed of the 
State, and how long it has been looked upon as a test 
of purity and soundness. Not very long, I app-'ehend. 
It is not one of those cardinal principles that has come 
down to us from time immemorial. It is not to be 
found in the writing of the fathers, nor in the resolu¬ 
tions and platforms of more recent democratic bodies. 
It certainly was not regarded as a test question, in 
1848, for the Democi'atic 8th of January Conventionof 
that year, could not be brought to adopt it as an article 
of faith. The committee on resolutions of that body, 
consisting of twenty-one persons, when it was proposed 
in committee, voted it down by a majority of nine, as 
I am informed. 

Mr. LEECH The resolution to which the gentle¬ 
man from Licking refers, as I understand, did not as 
sert the general doctrine of repeal. It was limited in 
its chararacter. It related exclusively to the repeal of 
bank charters. It presented substantially this naked 
question: Shall the democracy of Ohio inscribe upon 
their banner, that as soon as they obtain the power in 
the General Assembly, they will repeal all the bank 
charters in the State ? Hence, the conclusion which the 
gentleman from Licking draws from the action of “ the 
committee of twenty-one,” on that resolution, does not 
legitimately follow. His reasoning is disingenuous. 
His logic is unsound. His conclusion is entirely too 
broad for his premiss. 

Sir, the situation of the committee which acted upon 
the resolution now in question, was similar in one re¬ 
spect, to that of this Convention. Some of its mem¬ 
bers who professed democracy, proved treacherous to 
democratic principlesj The gentleman from Licking 
knows very well, that there have always been traitors 
in the democratic camp. 

Mr. CASE. I believe the gentleman from Guern- 
8ey, [Mr. Leech,] is correct. And his statement 
makes the case a still stronger one; for it appears that, 
■even in regard to the obnoxious, irresponsible, rotten 
banks of the State, a committee composed ot twenty- 
one, selected for their purity and radicalism, stood 
filteen against to six in favor of an article declai’ing the 
the legislative right of repeal. This cannot l)e looked 
iupon as a very strong democratic sanction of the prin¬ 
ciple. 

But this is not all. The committee on Corporations 
other than Corporations for Banking, of which the gen- 
tlmen from Clermont [Mr. Norris] is chairman, and 
upon which is the radical gentleman from Hamilton, 
( Mr. Reemelin] made its report last summer; but is 
there in it, a word upon the subject of retroactive re¬ 
peal? Notone. Upon the subject of prospective re¬ 
peal, it is all right; but there it stops. Were there 
traitors in this camp also ? I turn them over to the 
gentleman from Guernsey, [Mr. Leech.] 

I can tell gentlemen how this subject of retroactive 
repeal first came in. If they will look at page 182 of 
the debates, they will see that it first made its appear¬ 
ance in the form of an amendment. It was introduc¬ 
ed by the talented gentleman then representing the 
county of Fairfield, [Mr. Robertson.] He was afaith- 
ful sentinel. He saw the faithlessness and treason of 
the leaders of the party in this important matter. 
He it was, who undertook the enterprise to drag in 
this important—this cardinal—this fundamental princi¬ 
ple of Democracy at the back door, because none^ of 
the new lights—the fathers of the party were willing 
to assume the responsibility of leading it in by the 
front. And thus this doctrine of unadulterated repeal 
crept into the Convention, in the form of an amend- 
jnent! Here was a bold avowal of a principle ! This 
was true Democracy for you! Lasting honor to Rob- 

71 


1121 


ertsou! Faithful he amidst the faithless—bold among 
the timid. 

Here is his amendment, pure, unadulterated, unqual¬ 
ified, untnitigated, retroactive and retrospective re¬ 
peal. 1 read from part 1, page 182, Monday, June 3d, 
in the year of our Lord 1850, and the first year of the 
session of the Ohio Constitutional Convention : 

“ Mr. Robertson presented the following amendment to the 
25th section of the Legislative Report : 

“ Provided, that the General Assembly, in session, shall have 
the power to amend or revoke any charter of incorporation gran¬ 
ted by any preceding General Assembly.” 

Mr. Kirkwood, the gentleman from Richland, was 
shocked and startled at this proposition, and at once 
moved the following as a substitute : 

“ Provided, that all laws and amendments thereto, conferring 
corporate powers or franchises, or special privileges, on individ¬ 
uals, shall contain an express provision, providing that the Leg¬ 
islature shall have power to repeal or amend the same, and no 
law shall have force unless such provision be contained therein.” 

If this was a doctrine of that vital importance which 
gentlemen contend, why was it not then put in the 
platform? 

Mr. LEECH. If the gentleman wants to know, I 
can tell him. That committee was constructed some 
thing as the party is represented in this Convention. 
There were some of the members who had not the 
nerve to come up to the avowed principles of the par¬ 
ty. It was not denied, but that the right of repeal was 
a cardinal principle, but the question before the com¬ 
mittee was, shall the democratic party now inscribe it 
on their banners ? This the radical members were in 
favor of; but there were traitors in the camp. 

Mr. CASE. Pretty good—only six true men out of 
twenty-one— Fifteen traitors ! I have heard of elev¬ 
en obstinate jurymen! (Laughter.) Well, what has 
been done since ? At the Convention of January, 1850, 
w'as there anything about repeal ? Nothing. At the 
Convention of the Fourth of July subsequent, what 
was said upon the subject 1 Not a word. Is that the 
way that democracy proclaims its doctrines to the 
world ? Were there traitors in all these bodies ? Were 
a majority of the members traitors 1 There are a great 
many traitors. We have twelve here, upon whom 
sentence has been passed, of reprobation here, and 
damnation hereafter I (Laughter.) 

I said the other day, and now repeat, that the doc¬ 
trine of repeal, as here advocated, was never heard of 
except on this floor, and I have and do demand the 
proof. 

And to bring the matter nearer home—when did this 
question first arise in this body ? The leport of the 
committee on the Legislative Department, at the head 
of which is the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Saw¬ 
yer,] was made to this body last summer; and although 
there, if anywhere, is the place where this doctrine 
should be declared, it continued nothing upon the sub¬ 
ject. The report was printed, read, debated, and yet, 
not a word—not a syllable was spoken upon the sub¬ 
ject of retroative repeal. Where then were the watch¬ 
men? Where w’erethe fathersof thedemo'cratic faith? 
I protest against such guardians. Have we not reason 
to suspect treachery in our very midst? Here is a 
theme for the gentleman from Gurnsey, [Mr. Leech] 
to spend his wrath on. 

That was prospective in its operation—a sensible 
provision—one that we would all go for. The same is 
contained in the New York constitution. But the doc¬ 
trine which you contend for here is absolute, unquali¬ 
fied, retroactive repeal, which ought never to be found 
in any constitution. The gentleman from Richland 
[Mr. Kirkwood,] was right then, and I hope to find 
him occupying the same position still. But here, when 
w’e voted against this proposition for retrospective re¬ 
peal, the cry went out upon the winds, that we twelve 
men here had voted against repeal, a cry which was 
in part true, and in part false. It might just as well 
have been said, that the thirty who voted against the 
amendment of Judge Vance, voted against repeal, for 
his amendment provided for repeal. 








1122 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. MITCH ELL, (interposing.) I want to know 
when we voted upon Vance’s amendment? 

Mr. Case. I will show you. 

Mr. MITCHELL. That proposition never was vo¬ 
ted upon. ‘It was referred. 

jMrl CASE. Well, I know T advocated it, and vo¬ 
ted against ‘the motion to mutilate it, as well as to re¬ 
fer it. ■ i 

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes sir, you voted all the time 
consistently. 

Mr. CASE. If I did not, I intended to. 

Mr., MITCHELL. You voted, also, against the 
amendment of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. 
Ranney.] 

Mr. Case. If I did not, I intended to. But it was 
reserved for the gentleman then from Fairfield, [Mr. 
Robertson,] now far in the Western wilds, to bring 
forward this doctrine—this doctrine for which Judge 
Vance’s constituents are now, this day, this hour, try¬ 
ing him for repudiating—this doctrine, the genllemun 
from Franklin [Mr. Swan,] gave a dose last evening, 
which has turned this chronic disease of repeal into 
fits, and like the quack doctor, we can now manage 
it, for, like the quack, we are h—11 on fits. (Gi’eai 
laughter ) 

Mr. MITCHELL, (interrupting.) Did not both the 
gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Case,] and the gentle¬ 
man from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] vote directly against 
a proposition that obviated your objection? 

Mr. CASE. That is a very general tpieslion. 

^ Mr. MITCHELL. It is so recorded. 

Mr. CASE. Well, whatever is said in the book, I 
w'ill stand up to. Although they have got me down 
wrong in many particulars, yet these reports have more 
than once already saved me fiom the maw of falsifiers. 
Atone time I was opposed to reporting here; but 1 ani 
thankful now that we have a reporter to save us from 
misrepresentation. 

But I am going to trace the history of this proposi¬ 
tion for unadulterated repeal to its source—and it is 
almost as troublesome as it was to find the source ol 
the Nile—and having found the source, who can trace 
its course ? Its wandering has been like that of Eneas 
after the .sack of Troy, and its fate almost as various 
and hard. Oh ! for a Virgil to put it in song ! 

But Mr. Robertson’s amendment was dropped, and 
then came the amendment of the gentleman from Me¬ 
dina, [Mr. Humphrevii.le.] This was a proposition 
to repeal upon terms. Judge Vance, also, had a pro 
position before the body at the same time. But the 
proposition of the gentleman from Medina, was defec¬ 
tive in this—that it contained no provision fur altering 
or amending charters. 

Mr. LAVVRENCE, (in his seat.) My resolution ob 
viates t( at dilliculty. 

Mr. CASE. Yes; your resolution obviates every 
thing; means any thing; rn^ans nothing; designed. 1 
suppose, to harmonize the democratic party upon this 
question. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Certainly, I meant to do that. 

Mr. CASE. But let me trace this thing along. Bye 
and bye, the amendment of the genileman from Medi 
na is voted down, and thrown overboard; and then, 
after coming down upon us “ twelve” who voted 
against it, like “ ten thousand of brick,” both here, and 
th rough nearly every party press in the State, the com- 
mitt(’e bring in something novel, and of their own, and 
it now lies on our table ready to be acted on when w* 
can reach it. But gentlemen are not content wi.h that. 
Even the committee could not fix the charm exactly 
right—and at last, the gentleman from Guernsey. [.\Ii 
Lawrence,] conies in Iresh Irom the people, with his 
proposition, repudiating Mr. Robertson, the gentleman 
from Medina, and the last report ot the committee on 
which we find the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. 
Sawyer,] and the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Reemelin,] —the gentleman from Guernsey comes in, 
I say, with his amendment, amounting—as is admitted 


by its friends—to any thing, or no hing, to suit custo¬ 
mers, and lo ! the twelve caved in, and voted fur it; 
and I have no doubt this is the cry to-day, in Butler 
county. 

There must be something inherently wrong in this 
thing, or it w'ould not have been driven from pillar to 
post us it has been. But now, I say to gentlemen, fix 
your day, and we will be with you upon this question. 
Do not take us by surprise. Don’t ambush us. That 
is an inhuman kind of warfare. For myself, I do not 
care how quick the contest comes on. I um in harness. 

I can live in a storm as long as any man; and I say 
now, let it come, and let it rage—yes, 

“Double, double, toil and trouble. 

Like a hell broth, boil and bubble.” 

Mr. MITCHELL (interposing.) I desire to ask the 
gentleman one or two questions. 

Mr. CASE. Bring them on. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I want to bring the gentleman 
upon paper. Are you now in favor of retroactive re¬ 
peal ? 

Mr. CASE. Certainly. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. I call to order. I 
do not know tliat we have any rule which authorizes 
this sort of catechism, unless the questions are written 
down. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I am in order, sir. I have my 
questions in writing. 

Mr. CASE. 1 will state the point. The whig par¬ 
ty, as represented here and elsewhere in the State, be¬ 
lieve that you cannot grant to the General Assembly 
the power of repeal, because a charter is, as they say, 
a contract, and it is true that it has been so decided by 
the Supreme Court of the United Stales, no longer ago 
than at tlieir term for the year 1848. 

Mr. REEMELIN (in his seat.) They decided no 
such thing. 

Mr./MITCHELL. No, that is not true ; the courts 
have decided that it is a contract. 

Mr. CASE. If gentlemen will look into G Howard’s 
Reports, they will find that in the case of the Planters’ 
Bank of Mississippi, those renowned Judges of the 
Jackson democratic school. Chief Justice Taney, who 
removed the “deposits.” and Levi Woodbury, who 
isnied the “specie circular,” decided, in that case, that 
a bank charter was a contract, and asserted that the 
(jneslion was not open for argument, in the Supreme 
Court. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Does the genileman say that the 
decision in the DartmouUi College case, and the case of 
the Planters’ Bank of Mississippi, in Gth Howard, are 
good authority ? 

Mr. CASE. I should not hesitate to quote them in 
any court. 

Mr. MITCHELL. You regard it as good authority, 
ihen ? 

Mr. CASE. Undoubted legal authority. 

Mr. Ml ICHELL. Very well. Are you in favor of 
prospective repeal ? 

Ml'. CAbE. I tell you I am ; I have voted for it as 
you know, and always advocated it here, and I am 
going lo bring you up lo that doctrine of the party, and 
I do not intend to let you dodge it. Our position is 
the only position upon wliicb ibis favoriie doctrine of 
reiieal can be carried out—predicating the power up- 
on the right of eminent domain. And let me remark 
here what is worlliy of remark, and of every man’s at- 
feniion, that, fur thirty years past the Su|ireme Court 
of the United States have held a charier to be a con¬ 
tract; and the Slates ol ibis Union have recognized that 
decision to be the law ol the land—every State and 
every court in this country ; and there is no decision to 
be hoind to ihecontrary. Therefore, this is as Hrmly 
>ettled and fixed as any principle of law can be. Is it 
not remarkable llien, that if the people are dissatistied 
with these deci.sion8, that they should have acquiesced 
in them for as hmg a time as thirty yeai's? Not a .sin¬ 
gle Stale has asked that the conaiiiulion of the federal 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1123 


government should be so altered or amended, as to 
remedy the alleged evils resuliing tVom these decisions. 
Every gentleman knows that the Cffiistitution of the 
general government can be amended, upon the de¬ 
mand of the States; every gentleman knows that this 
has been done. In 1790, I think, the State of Georgia 
was made a party defendant in a suit before the fe ler- 
al court, in which it was decided that a sovereign State 
was liable to be sued, by virtue of the provisions of the 
constitution of the United States. And thereupon the 
Legislature ot the State of Georgia raised this question, 
and in less than two years from tliat lime the States 
united and amended the constitution of the United 
States, so that now a State cannot be sued. And now, 
1 venture to affirm that you cannot find one out often 
of these sovereign States in lavor of demanding an 
amendment of the federal constitution, so as to overrule 
these decisions. For myself, the more I examine them 
the more I am reconciled to them. 

Sir, I hold in utter abhorrence every attempt which 
18 made to cultivate amongst the people a contempt for 
our courts of justice. I tell you, sir, that our people 
have settled in their heart a respect for the courts. It 
is there that they look lor the protection of their prop¬ 
erty, of their liberty and rights; and it is there that 
they will always find them more justly appreciated and 
defended than any where else. 

Now, I say, sir, we plant ourselves upon the right 
of eminent domain. We adopt the language of the 
Bill of Rights in our present constitution, which reads 
as follows: 

Sec. 4. That private property ought and shall ever be held in¬ 
violate, but always subservient to the public welfare, provided a 
compensation in money be made to the owner. 

We plant ourselves there, and there we have the Su¬ 
preme Court of the United States with us, and we say 
that any charier can be repealed before it has run out, 
and without any fault of the corporators, whenever the 
public welfare demands it, provided that a compensa¬ 
tion be paid—provided that you make the party who is 
in no wrong, whole in damages for \\ hat injury you do 
him by the repeal. We do not sny that you shall pay 
for the franchise as a separa'e, independent thing; but 
it being mixed up with other real and personal proper¬ 
ty, which cannot be enjoyed without it, that, when yon 
destroy that franchise, you thereby impair such real 
and personal property, and that to that extent the own¬ 
er should be compensated and made whole; for it 
makes no ditl'erence whether one’s property is taken, 
destroyed or impaired for the public weliare—in each 
case the party injured should be made whole. 

No man on this floor has ever contended fora cent of 
compensation, when the charter of incorporation has 
been broken, or where the corporators have broken 
the law. In such case, give the company a fair hear¬ 
ing, and if guilty of an infraction of the law, forfeit 
their charter; and no one has been so foolish as to con¬ 
tend for damages in such case. 

But in all cases of damages, I would give the righ' 
of trial by jury, whereas, those who differ with us, 
would, at least that portion who recogui/.e the docti iue 
of damages at all, send the case to the Legislaiui-e to he 
settled. Strange positions these gentlemen get info, 
when making a constitution, which ginirantces the 
right of ti ial by jury, that they would deprive corpora¬ 
tions of it in these cases—when the j:)roperty of private 
individuals is taken, they, like all of us, are tenacious 
of the rightof trial by jury; but with corporatons they 
have a different rule. Is it possitde, that on this floor, 
in a constitutional convention, where we are all sworn 
to support the constitution of the United States, which 
guarantees the right of trial by jury, that men can be 
found to advocate its abandonment in any case? That 
that most sacred of all rights to an American, should 
be struck down in this body ? That right, without 
which all else in your constitution is comparatively val¬ 
ueless, and without which we should not be entitled to 
bo called a free people. Oh! I love and adore this 


trial by jury—a jury of the vicinage—it never has, in 
this ctiiiniry, been yet put to the test; but who sha'I 
say how long it may be before it shall be put to the 
severest test. In England it has more than once rescued 
the marked and devoted victim of tyranny; more than 
once snatched patriots from gibbet and gallows, erected 
for them by tyrants. 

Look, sir, to your Declaration of Independence, and 
you will there find that among the many grievances of 
which our fathers complained against the mother coun¬ 
try was this— 

“ For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefit of trial by 
jury.” 

And will gentlemen give a large class of our citizens, 
who own stock and shares in the thousands of public 
improvements, scattered over this great State, and 
which have done very much towards placing Ohio in 
her present prospeious condition, I say, will you give 
that class a pretext for holding up that Declaration of 
Independence—the constitution of the United State.s, 
and the constitution of Ohio—and say we have been 
singled out and deprived of the sacred right of trial by 
jury, guaranteed in these instruments—that dearest 
right of an American citizen? No. Let us rather, in 
the language of .Jackson, say: “Equal and exact jus¬ 
tice to all and favors to none.’’ 

Mr. RANNEY. I wish to say a word, by way of 
personal explauat'on, in reference to the attack made 
upon me by the gentleman from Licking, for which I 
never have given liim any occasion whatever. I ex¬ 
pressly stated in the remarks I made, that I supposed 
every gentleman had voted according to ihe dictates of 
his own jud ;ment upon this question, and though I 
have ditl'ered from some of our democratic friends to¬ 
tally and entirely ; though I have maintained my posi¬ 
tion with what zeal I could earnestly and honestly ex¬ 
ert, yet I cannot admit that I have said anything which 
will warrant an acrimonious remark I'roin any quarter 
whatever. 

The gentleman from Licking has asserted that I ap¬ 
peared on both sides of this question—that I have sta¬ 
ted that a charter of incorporation is property, while I 
have been also contending against that idea. The gen¬ 
tleman referred to the published debates to prove his 
assertion. I confess, sir, that I was never more aston¬ 
ished in my life, than to hear that the gentleman made 
this assertion. Because I made some remarks upon 
this subject directly in re[ily to the gentleman from 
Licking, while his seat was right before me, where he 
must have heard what I said, as he frequently interrup¬ 
ted me with questions. He must have known the po¬ 
sition which I took, He could not have been mista¬ 
ken. Still, with this perfect knowledge of my posi¬ 
tion, he affirms that I said that an act of incorporation 
was property. 

Mr. C.^SB, of Licking. I merely read from your 
speech, in the debates aud let that s[)eak for itself. 

Mr. RANNEY. I have hea'-d of pettifoggers palm* 
iug off sjmrious law, upon a Justice of the Peace, by- 
reading a single passage from a book, but I want toseo 
no [letlifoggiiig lu that sense, undertaken here. I will 
now look into our reports a little, for my position upon 
this question, and will read a .ew extracts from my 
remarks ill iliatvery debate. 

Ou page 250, I say: “It is my doctrine, neverthe¬ 
less, that llie Legislature have the power, and the right 
to do away the privileges and franchises they have 
granted, and that without compensation.” The fran- 
( hises, I say—not [iroperly. 

“Any body that cannot di?tinguisb between tbemrrc artificial 
person, the creature of legu-laliye power, and their property can¬ 
not make a very close distinction. I would not touch one cent 
ol the property ol a corpora’ion any sooner than I would that of 
an individual. I would guard the right of property witp the 
same fidelity, whether it were the property ol rich or poor, cor¬ 
porations or private individuals, .'fir, 1 have always claimed, 
that the rights of property should forever remain inviolate, and I 
ti ud that my votes here have given no indication of a willingnosB 
to relinqui h that claim. The acquisition and enjoyment of pri- 
vo:^ property ia a natural right. Government is bound to prot'^ ct 









1124 


CONVENTION KEPORTS 


it. The State does not confer it, and ought not to invade it. The 
State does not gpnfer all corporate powers and privileges. When 
it takes them iiway, it takes nothing but what it has conferred. 
The public good, guided by justice to all, should control, both in 
the grant and its resumption by the State.” 

Again, on page 251, I say : 

“ What is property? We have all been accustomed to regard 
it as something tangible. When we have acquired a horse, or a 
farm, we know what it is. But the idea that you can cheat the 
Legislature into the grant of some exclusive privd(!ge, and call 
that property, is certainly the most absurd of all humbugs.” 

And again, on page 252 : 

‘ ‘ The gentleman Irom Licking puts his whole argument upon 
the ground that a franchise is property, and that we are bound 
to protect the right of property. But I ask the gentleman, if he 
cannot distinguish between property which an individual may 
own and the bare legislative privilege to use it in a particular 
manner? It seems to me there is a very palpable distinction.” 

The genlleinau from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery] re¬ 
plied to me, and, on page 261, he says: 

“ A franchise is not property 1 This I believe was first heard 
in this debate from the gentleman from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] 
who, I am sorry to see is not in his place ; and it was reiterated 
by the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] who I am hap’ 
py to see in his seat. A Doctor of Medicine, and a Doctor of 
Laws, have told us there is no property in a franchise.” 

All these exjdicit statements were Aiade in the hear¬ 
ing of the gentleman from Licking, and yet he under¬ 
takes to catch up a single sentence, incorrectly repor¬ 
ted, to prove that I affirmed an act of incorporation to 
be property. 

Now I come to the passage alluded to by the gentle¬ 
man. It had been argued by certain gentlemen that 
we could repeal an act of incorporation, upon the 
ground that property may be taken for public use. I 
undertook to show, in reply, that we could not take 
property always, even for the public good ; that a pub¬ 
lic use to which it was applierl, must be shown.— 
Therel'ore, that would not cover the ground claimed 
for the power of repeal, even if a charter was all that 
was claimed for it. 

A singlo word put into my mouth, which, as itstauds 
in the isolated phrase, does not express my meaning; 
but taken in connection with other sentences, my mean 
ing is clear, and does not in the least w'arrant the dis¬ 
torted construction attempted to be put upon it. 

Such a thought as that those chirters were to be con¬ 
sidered or treated as property, never entered my mind, 
and such a word never escaped my iips- 

Now% I believe there is not a man upon this floor 
that would stand up and state that I ever admitted here 
an act of incorporation to be property—not one ; and 
if the gentleman from Licking could possibly have 
been misled by this report, I would have forgiven him; 
for I have no personal controversy with him whatever. 
T hate personal controversy above ground. But I can¬ 
not sit here and hear myself misrepresented by a gen¬ 
tleman who must know perfectly well my position. If 
he had not sat there before me and put to me ques¬ 
tions, in answer to which I pronounced the assumption 
of property in a charter to be a humbug, I could have 
excused him. I say, under such circumstances, I could 
have excused him for being misled by a slip of the pen 
in the report. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, (in his seat.) I merely stat¬ 
ed that you were found on both sides in the report. I 
did not say what your opinions may be. 

Mr. RANNEY. Does the gentleman pretend to say 
that he ever hoard me state that a charter was proper¬ 
ty? 

Mr. CASE. I did not hear you make that speech. 

Mr. RANNEY. But you have heard me several 
times in these debates. 

Mr. CASE. I agree to that. 

Mr. RANNEY. Now, what kind of candor is that ? 

I am not so great an ass as to change my position upon 
the same page. I may have been wrong, and 1 may 
have contended for the wrong; but no man gets me 
into this kind of a scrape. And I affirm that every 
man who looks at this report will say that the meaning 
and spirit of it are as I have represented. 


But the gentleman from Licking says he has heard a 
lawyer declare that a man who contends that a charter 
is not property, must be either a knave or a fool. 

Mr. CASE. I said I would not say so. 
j Mr. RANNEY. Why, then, did you lug in this 
I phrase, and apply it to me ? 

; Mr. CASE. Just because I pleased. I applied it to 
1 nobody. I disclaimed adopting it. 

Mr. RANNEY. You must please then to stand re- 
1 sponsible. If a man will make a blackguard of him- 
i self, he must not complain if he is treated as such. In 
j one breath you say I c ontend for that doctrine, and 
j then you bring in the remark of some blackguard law¬ 
yer, and quote, that a man must be either a fool or a 
knave, who would do such a thing. The gentleman 
may be a great lawyer, for all that I know, but I cer¬ 
tainly do not envy the reputation which he will gain 
in this way. Nor do I impeach the gentleman’s cour¬ 
age. He is doubtlesss a very courageous man. I take 
that for granted. But I have heard of boys whistling 
to keep their courage up, when they were going 
through a grave-yard. I do not know but I could 
i point to some eight or ten gentlemen who stand here 
quivering and whistling and shivering in their boots, 
on account of the position which they have assumed 
upon this question. I do not say that this is the fact, 

[ but it may be so. For myself, I stand here the uni- 
from advocate of the doctrine of repeal, without pay- 
I ing for charters upon the ground that they are prop¬ 
erty. 

1 have one word to say to my friend from Morgan, 
[Mr. Hawkins.] That gentleman, for what cause 1 
- know not, made a fling at me by saying that it was out 
j of order, to .suppose me capable of being consistent up- 
! on this question. 

] Mr. HAWKINS, (interposing,) my words were 
I whether it would be in order, to require a man who 
I had spoken so much as the gentleman from Ti’umbull. 
j to prove himself always to have been consistent, 
j .Mr. RANNEY. I remember another remark of the 
j gentleman, applied to me a few days ago. While I was 
! standing up against the report of the committee on the 
j Judicial Department, because, amongst other reasons, 
it did injustice to the country bar, I was told by that 
I gentleman, that I had pronounced the lawyers to be' 

I all a set of rascals. Now, I do not wish to get into 
controversy with that gentleman about consistency. I 
am mclined to believe that that gentleman has been 
consistent upon this question from the time that he vo¬ 
ted against the repeal of that mass of putridity and cor¬ 
ruption, the Canton Bank charter, down to the time he 
moved the reconsideration of the vote of yesterday, 
adopting the amendment of the gentleman from Guern¬ 
sey, [Mr. Lawrence,] with the single exception that 
he voted for that amendment on yesterday. 

I Mr. HAWKINS. I thank the gentleman irom Trum¬ 
bull, for aflbrding me the opportunity of alluding to 
my vote against the repeal of the charter of the Canton 
Bank. The gentleman seems to be desirous of being 
considered very courteous, and he would represent 
himself to be very sensitive. But notwithstanding all 
his sensitiveness, he is willing to take up and rehearse 
here a stale and unfounded slander, got up by a reck¬ 
less newspaper editor of this city. Thus it is, that he 
proves the sincerity of his desire to be courteous. I 
should think that a gentleman of his powers of mind, 
must be hard pressed for matter of reproach against 
me, if that was the only thing that he could light upon, 
which he could employ for the purpose of throwing 
political obloquy upon me, but this seems to be the 
only item which he could broach as an impeachment 
of my integrity as a democrat. And in the instance 
of that vote, not “ for the protection,” but against the 
repeal of the Canton Bank, I had a majority of the 
democratic members of the Senate who voted with me. 
Aye sir, I was sustained in that vote by “hard money” 
democrats—democrats as hard as the nether millstone. 
And more than that, I was sustained in that vote by a 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 1125 


distinguished democrat, (Mr. Tod,) who has since been 
both the hard and the soft money democratic candidate 
for Governor of Ohio* I had as good company in that 
vote as the gentleman from Trumbull himself. 

Well, sir, the author of-this foullibel, (first announced 
in this House by the gentleman from Trumbull,) just 
like the gentleman irom Trumbull was driven to the 
necessity ol taking it up as a reproach against me, in 
the absence of any other vote of mine to which he 
could point, for the purpose of disparaging me as a 
democrat, the author of this material of abuse, which 
has been furnished to the hand by the gentleman from 
Trumbull, is Hiram H. Robinson, one of the pres¬ 
ent editors of the Cincinnati Enquirer, and since it 
appears to be his design, to attack myself and others, 
in a series ot calumnies, I wish to inform the Conven¬ 
tion, and the public at once, who this Hiram H. Robin¬ 
son is. 

Mr. SAWYER. I rise to a ciuestion of order. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I have the floor upon the question 
of privilege. 

Mr. SAWYER. I am not to be brow-beaten in this 
way. I make a question or order, inasmuch as the 
character of Mr. Robinson, has nothing at all to do 
with the question before us. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The gentleman mustputdown his 
point in writing. 

Mr. SAWYER. The gentleman from Morgan will 
please to attend to his own business. 1 am addressing 
the Chair. 

The PRESIDENT. (Mr. Larsh in the chair.) The 
question under consideration, is the reconsideration of 
the vote of yesterday, adopting the amendment of the 
gentleman from Guernsey. The gentleman from Mor¬ 
gan w’ill confine himself to the question. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I wish to ask a question of the 
Chair. When I am attacked both in the House and out 
of the House, by one man in the capacity of a public 
editor, and another in the capacity of a member of this 
Convention, have I not the privilege of the floor for a 
personal explanation ? 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Morgan, 
can proceed by leave. 

Many Voices. “ Leave, leave.” 

Mr. HAWKINS. I know the gentleman from Aug 
laize wants to shield his friend from an exposure of his 
infamy. 

Mr. SAWYER, (in his seat.) I do not. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I rise to the question that there 
is no question of privilege. If there is to be any brow¬ 
beating here, I suppose I can take my share. I ask 
for a decision of the Chair on the point which I have 
made. 

Mr. HOLMES. I hope my friend will allow the 
gentleman from Morgan to proceed. 

The PRESIDENT rapped to order. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Throw your shield over him— 
save him if you can. 

The PRESIDENT. The Convention has given the 
gentleman from Morgan leave to proceed. The Chair 
heard no objection. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The Chair heard no objection! 

I objected, and rose to my feet at the time. 

Mr. LIDEY. I move that the Convention take a 
recess. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The gentleman fromPeny has no 
right to the floor. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Morgan 
will proceed. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I return my acknowledgments for 
the opportunity of being heard, and unless I shall be 
put down by the Chair, I will proceed. I say that I 
have been slandered foully through the medium of the 
Enquirer of this city, and the gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull has been the first to catch up these foul slanders 
and retail them here, and byway of defence—and all 
the defence which I mean to make—I merely wish to 
let the Convention, my constituents, and the public 


know who is the author of these slanders. I deem it 
due to myself and those whom I represent, to make 
this known here. And now I say that Hiram H. Rob- 
inso is the author of these slanderous statements— 
their character leaves no doubt of their author’s iden¬ 
tity—there is none more skilled than he is in falsehood 
and vituperation—none that can compress more of this 
kind of matter in a small compass. Who then, is this 
that has so repeatedly charged us with treachery and 
with violation of our oaths in this chamber? Who is 
H. H. Robinson, whose name is known as widely as 
the circulation of the Cincinnati Enquirer, but whose 
infamy may not be known to the same extent ? 

I have known him from his youth up, and as a pri¬ 
vate individual I am not going to say anything against 
him more than this: that many prayers, and the influ¬ 
ence of much pious precept and example have been 
expended upon him for naught. But it is as a public 
man that I intend to deal with him—as a public jour¬ 
nalist. He published a paper at one time in Morgan 
county, and from my knoweldge of the people of Mor¬ 
gan county, to whom he has appealed in reference to 
my votes here, I can tell him that he has gone to the 
wrong people, for 1 have a double advantage of him 
there ; one of these advantages is, that 1 have been 
known there for thirty years ; and the greater advan¬ 
tage which 1 have over him is, that he also is known 
there. [ Laughter. ] And I stand here in my place and 
proclaim, and assert, that in that county he stands upon 
the indelible public records of that county mulct and 
branded as a libeller. That is the way he stands there, 
and that is not all; there is more, that I do not wish to 
remark upon here; there are suspicions wide-spread 
throughout that county—suspicions that I have not con¬ 
curred in, nor do I desire to strengthen them. 

A ViocE. Give it all. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I will do as the Convention shall 
permit me ; I shall not proceed upon the dictation of 
those who desire to shield a calumniator of this body. 

Subsequently—this Mr. Robinson became the pub¬ 
lisher of the Washington Daily Times, and persevering 
in his vocation of slander and vituperation, he had 
been but a few weeks in that capacity till, for the pub¬ 
lication of a foul article upon the character of the Sen¬ 
ate of the United States, he was arraigned before a 
committee of that body, and after a full and fair hear¬ 
ing, pronounced, without a dissenting voice ol the Sen¬ 
ate, a self condemned, incorrigible libeller, and all who 
had been unfortunately connected with him, together 
with himself, were spurned and expelled from their 
places in the Reporter’s gallery. 

Mr. SAWYER (interposing and Mr. H. giving way.) 
I want the gentleman to tell the Convention what it 
was that was alledged as the cause ol this treatment of 
Mr. Robinson, and I want to ask the gentleman whether 
the same Senate, and about the same time, did not put 
their claws into Father Ritchie’s hair and drag him 
without the bar ? 

Mr. HAWKINS. I do not intend that he shall bring 
Father Ritchie in here to shield this man. These ac¬ 
counts I su{)pose can all be found in the library, as 
they have been copied into the Congressional Globe. 
This Mr. Robinson has long been known as one who 
“ made crooked malice nourishment,” and had not his 
sensibilities been more callous than those of Cain of 
old, he must have felt affliction, on account of the re¬ 
bukes and deep, ineffaceable brands that have been 
stamped upon him. 

Mr. Robinson then comes to this city and assumes 
the conduct of the Enquirer, and now he seems to be 
desirous of perpetuating his name by securing a place 
for himself upon the records of this Convention. Well, 
let him have it. I wish it to be known as wddely at 
least as the circulation of the Cincinnati Enquirer, who 
this individual is, and what he is, that has brought those 
foul charges against us. He is a man who can with 
eqjial relish, damn the memory of the dead and the 
character of the living. And I wish him distinctly to 













1126 


CONVENTION EEPORTS, 


understand, that althougli he may falsely, charge me 
with.entertaiiiiiig “ contempt for ilie [)ress,” and of fa¬ 
voring special privileges, neither my contempt nor his 
infamy, shall secure him an immunity in his 6heribhed 
vocation of daily slander at tl vituperation. 

With rc^gard to tlie other matter \vh ch tlie gentleman 
from 'I'lumbull [Mr. Raknky] has brought up agu nsi 
me, I desiie to say one word. It was u[mn the .Judi¬ 
ciary bill, and I remember I was anxious to get along 
with it. The gentleman had made an elaborate argu¬ 
ment against the bill. And thereu{)on I asked the 
chairman of the committee w hether county terms were 
practicable under the system, and being answered in 
the aflirrnative. I stated that I was satisfied, and should 
vote for tlie bill. In a subsequent reply the gentleman 
from Trumbull stated that the iuHiieuce at the seat of 
government, and other central points in the districts, 
would prevent county terms. Tfiat the lawyers and 
hotel keepers would exercise their influence upon the 
Legislature to juevent the taking away (T the court 
sessions from these central poii 1.s, and tliereby fU'event 
annual county terms. Tlii.s, of course, would he a cor¬ 
rupt influence, and I stated in reply, tliatif'it were ex 
ercised by the lawyers and hotel keeqiers reh rred to, 
they must be a set of rascals It was my inference 
drawn f'’om the remarks of the gentlenidu from Trum¬ 
bull. 1 saw at the time that the gentleman’s feelings 
were touched, and 1 look occasion to meet him at his 
own desk, and then candidly stated to him that I re 
gretted the remark that seemed to have offended him, 
and the gen’leipan seemed to be satisfied. 

Mr. RANNEV. I should never have alluded to the 
subject in the world, if it had not been followed up to¬ 
day, with the remark that it was out of order even to 
suppose that 1 have been consistent. The gentleman 
ihereftu’e must attribute the notice which I have taken 
of this matter, to this attempt to casta slur noon me. 

Mr. HAWKINS. It would require a little construc¬ 
tion to make the remarks of to-day applicable to the 
gentleman from Trumbull. I simply inquired wlietb 
er any gentleman who had spoken as much as the gen¬ 
tleman Irom Trumbull, should be required to establish 
his own consistency. 

On motion, the Convention took a recess. 

3 o’cr.ocK, r. m. 

Mr. REEMELTN. Mr. President—I arise to a ques¬ 
tion of privilege—the que.stion I make, arises iu con¬ 
sequence of the disorderly and improper proc edings 
to which we were compelled to be witness this morti 
ing. My rights, as a member upon this floor, and th“ 
rights of the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] 
w('re trampled under foot, by the decision given i)y 
the gentleman > bo then tenqmranly occupied the 
Chair, and by the disorderly conduct of members all 
around the chatuher. 

The gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. IIawkin's,] in 
stead of debating the question under consideration, 
this morning, went off to indulge iu foul and loath¬ 
some abuse of the editor of a Demnci’atic paper of 
this citg. For thus viola ing all [)riuciples of pro|>riefy, 
and all proy)er rules of order, he was called to order 
by the gentleman from Auglaize and myselt’. and iu 
both instances we were refused a hearing by the Chair, 
and by the Convention. The remarks made by the 
gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] were out ol 
order, even under a que.'ition of privilege, which he 
certainly did not make; but they were, Hurely\ entirely 
out of order in diseiissiiig a mere question of ro-eon- 
sideration. Tlie Chair should at once have ruled hbn 
out of order; the abusive luiisuage then used, should 
have been stopp'd at once. The slander heaped upon 
an absent man (Mr. Robinson,) this morning, should 
have been checked in the bud. 'I'lie fieople bad a 
right to ask that their time iu this Convention should 
not be spent in yiersonal .squabliles and personal quar 
rels. Put such wa.s neither the temper of the Chair, 
or of the Convention, and we were therefore, in spite l 


of oiir endeavors to the contrary, compelled to witness 
scenes such as would disgrace the most disorderly as¬ 
sembly. We were compelled to see .such men as the 
gentleineti from Clark, Ross, Muskingum nud Warren, 

[ Messrs. Mason, Worthington, Chamuers and S.mith,3 
clieeriiig, yea hissing on the gentleman from Morgan, 
[Mr. Hawkins,] in bis course of abuse and defamation, 
cries ol “ leave, leave,” and “proceed, fU’oceed,” re¬ 
sounded from all parts of the Chamber, and especially 
the Whig side. 

As to the quarrel between Mr. Robinson, one of the 
editors of the Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, and the gentle- \ 
man from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] I liave but litlleto 
say. But 1 will say that if the libel charged against 
the former as having been publi.^lied in Morgan coun¬ 
ty, be of a similar character will) tliat for which he i 
wa.s punished by the Senate of the United States, I lor j 
one, envy him (Mr. Robinson) the position he occu¬ 
pies. If the gentleman from Morgan does not know i 
it. permit me to inform him that there are thousands I 
of honest hearts in the State of Ohio, who believed ’ 
'bat the United States Senate w’as wrong, and that Mr. , 
Robinson was right upon that question. At that time, 
the rights of our country to the whole of Oregon, up 
to the line of 54° 40', were in question between our 
government and that of Great Britain. The charge 
made by Mr. Robinson, was, that certain Democratic 
and certain Whig Senators had, at that important ci isis ' 
in our country’s history, dined with the British ambas¬ 
sador at Washington, ai.d at that dinner table, the 
treason was concocted by which the American Eagle 
was made to stoop to the British Lion. 

Sir. subsequent events have unfortunately furnished ' 
irrefragable proof, that such was the fact, and that 
Corwin, Maiigum and Webster, unlearned their duties I 
as American Senators, under the bewitching smiles 
"f the Briti.sh ambassador. The American people I 
have lone ago given their verdict that foul treason then j 
betrayed tliem, and so far Irom believing that Mr. i 
Robinson justly inclined any stigma that was attempt¬ 
ed to be fastened upon liin, they—and especially the 
pe.ople of Ohio—have long ago passed upon his con¬ 
duct with entire approbation. 

As to Mr Rol)ii)soii’8 being turned out of the Sen¬ 
ate cliamber, I have only to say that, although I am not i 
'he owner of an insura ice office, yet for a very small i 
premium [ will insure the gentleman from Morgan, ! 
that he will never be turned out of ihe Senate cham- j 
lier, or any other public body, for an excess of patriot-, i 
ism, such as Mr. Robinson disjilayed upon that occa¬ 
sion. He may be turned out fur other causes, but a , 
forwardness in the discharge of high duties will never I 
be one of the faults of that gentlem id’s life. 

Had the gentleman from Mo'gan defended his vote 
upon the Canton Bank question, I would not have 
laid a straw iu bis way, for that vote is a heavy bur- 
ilien, and I would not uuuecessaiily make it heavier. | 
Nor will I follow bis example by dealing out to him 
foul epithets, in reply to those he hurled against Mr. i 
Robinson. But I cannot permit the fact to escape the 
attcnlii>i) of this Convention, that this morning while i 
the gentleman from Morgan was speaking, a Whig { 
passed round to his desk, and handed a piece of paper, ) 
upon which some hing was written, prompting him on i 
ill his foul course against Democrats. Sir, tliat fact ‘ 
alone is enough to determine me to hold iliat gentle¬ 
man harmless hereafter, from anything I may say to | 
liim. The Democrat that has sunk so low as to be- I 
come the filthy sewer of ^Vhiggery upon this floor, in | 
lieapiti" its abuse upon Democrats, shall hereafter pass f 
‘ scot free ”—he shall have at least, so far as lam 
concerned, an open course iu the downward road from 
'he Democratic party, to his ancient friend.s — the I 
Whigs. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I suppose I may be permitted, un- j 
der the circumstances, to allude to some of the re¬ 
marks of the gentleman from Vlamilton, [Mr. Rkeme- 
EiN.] That gentleiiiau says I have been receiving pro- 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 1127 


positions from the other side—that I have become a 
medium of commuuieation for Whig suggestions upon 
this floor. All I have to say in reply to this is, that 
there is no truth in it, none in the world. 

The gentleman Irom Hamilton asks me to defend my 
vote in relation to the Canton Bank. I voted against 
the repeal of thecharter ot that institution, under these 
circumstances. The Senate had appointed a commit 
tee which had examined into the cunditionof the hank 
and reported favoiably. The Getieral Assembly had 
established a Board of Commisioners. whose duty it 
was to examine into the condition and character o) 
these banks, and a law had been passed providin'*' ful¬ 
ly, as was supposed, against loss from banks in failing 
circumstances. 

Besides all this, the bill was introduced by Mr. Hen- 
diicks, a whig member of the House of Representa¬ 
tives, from Preble county; and he dared the demo¬ 
crats to vote for it. The democrats of the House, be¬ 
ing men who are not to be dared with impunity, passed 
the bill and it came up to the Senate. About this time 
the Bank, seeing that something must be done, found 
means ot procuring specie and commenced redeeming 
their notes. The bill proposed an unconditional re¬ 
peal of the charter. It was jilain, that if the charter 
was repealed the paper of the bank would again de¬ 
preciate. Under these circumstances I voted against 
the repeal, and noton account of any purpose to "‘pro¬ 
tect’’ the bank itself, nor on account of any scrufiles 
as to the right of the Legislature to repeal their char¬ 
ter, but lor very different reasons. The great eucjuiry 
was, what public interest could be subserved by this 
repeal, under these circumstances; and because this 
could not he answered satisfactorily, the bill was rejec¬ 
ted in the Senate. 

Now, I should not have objected to the slanderous 
article to which I have alluded, if the whole truth had 
been told—if it had been stated that I was 6?istained 
in that vote by a majority of democrats in that Senate, 
—that I was sustained, not only by the vote of Mr. 
Tod, who has since been a prominent candidate fur 
governor, but I was sustained by the votes of Messrs. 
Mathews, McLaughlin, Walton, Ihrig, Hosletter, Shan¬ 
non and Thompson, whose democracy had m)t been 
doubted—if tliis fact had been stated, it would have 
removed all the point and effect of the ( harge. 

But I was charged in this newspaper article, with 
having attempted to defend myself for this vote and 
with having failed to succeed. I desire now, a single 
moment longer for this explanation. I returned home, 
but I was not a candidate for re-election. C<)m[)lainis 
were made in some epiarters against my vote, but my 
colleague, .Judge Hanna, of the House of Representa¬ 
tives, voted just as 1 did upon this Bank re[)eal bill. 
We both vote<l the same way without having any con¬ 
sultation upon the subject, and he was a candidate fui 
re-election. .Judge Hanna had been denounced in the 
Muskingum Valley Democrat, of which Mr. Robin¬ 
son was eilitor. Well, as usual in that county, there 
was called a democratic nominating convention. .Judge 
Hanna was a candidate for nomintition, and anothet 
distinguished democrat was also a candidate. Judge 
Ha nna was nominated by a triamf)liant majority. 1 
believe also, that Mr. Robinson was nominatd at the 
same lime for some county office—it might be for coun 
ty treasurer. Well, the objections which had been 
made to Judge Hanna, in the preceding Legislature, 
induced some to believe that he might be superseded, 
and, accordingly. Esq. Bngh, a good democrat, and a 
highly respectable ciiizen, came out against him as an 
independent candidate; and the whigs nominated no 
candidate at all, so that the issue upon that vote wa.- 
fairly made up. Well, how wa.s tlie vole which 1 
gave, sustained by the people? What was the deci 
eion then made by which any one would be warran¬ 
ted in saying that I was not sustained ? There was an 
extraordinary majority of votes cast for .Judge Hanna. 
Is it then, for that vote, under those circumstances. 


that I am to be denounced as no democrat, while no 
denunciation at all falls upon Mr. Tod, Mr. Mathews, 
Mr. McLaughlin, and others, who voted with me, and 
wlio have almost all of them, since that time, received 
public favors at the hands of the democrats. 

This is the sort of evidence upon which gentlemen 
may rely, if they can, for the support of the allegalioa 
that I have never been right in the Democratic party. 
But in a subsequent paper this Mr. Robinson says that 
ever since 1 left llie Whig party 1 have been endeavoring 
to get myself right. Now, if it is a matter of interest to 
this Convention, 1 will state, that with tlie exception of 
one single vote, for the last thirty years I have uniform¬ 
ly voted with those who have been considered exam- 
[)le8 and models of the Democratic party. 

Now, I liave one word more in reply to what I stated 
with regard to the course of Mr. Robinson in Washing¬ 
ton City. I stated that the resolution for the expulsion 
of Mr. Robinson was passed in the United States Sen¬ 
ate without one dissenting voice. Had not Ohio at that 
time a Democratic Senator in that body ? Where was 
tliat Senator when this resolution passed? Will the 
gentleman from Hamilton stand up to the charge that 
we had no honest Democrat iii the Senate of the United 
States at that time? 

Mr. President, 1 can only say, that I regret the occa¬ 
sion that seemed to call upon me to notice this matter 
in the first instance. But Mr. Robinson is now here in 
our presence, and T can speak freely. He and I have 
remained personal friends forthe last thirty years, with 
scarcely an interruption; hut in his examination of my 
public acts he has ever evinced an unfriendly spirit; 
and all his attacks upon me have been like the pres¬ 
ent, unnecesary and unjustifiable, and seem to be the 
promfitings of a malignant heart. I do not deny his 
right to comment freely upon rny public acts, and criti¬ 
cise them with the greatest severity. But, looking 
over all his charges against me as a jiublic man, I am 
unable to regard them otherwise than the prompting of 
inaliceand the spirit of personal unfriendliness. He has 
enjoyed, in liis attacks upon me, free access to the pub¬ 
lic ear through the medium ofihe“ Enquirer,” and my 
apology for rny action here in the premises, is that I 
had no other means for making tlie explanation which 
I desii’ed to make. 

Mr. MASON. The gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 
Rekmklin] seems to have come hereih’s after noon, and 
in great wrath and fnr’y to have taken the floor, prepared 
to assail vvlioms(»ever might come into his mind first; 
and, amongst others, he has reft rred directly to myself, 
by name, as having engaged in disorderly conducihere, 
and as having siistained and upheld a rneniber who 
was occupying the floor iir a distirderly manner. 

Mr Ih-esidenr, if yon w. re present at the time, I 
would want no other witness than youi’self for my jus- 
tifiration in regaid to the pat t which I took. But there 
were present, probably, a few tuuuli'ed wr'nesses, and 
less tharr that number, I apprehend, would be suffi¬ 
cient for my pnrpo.se. 

The member from Morgan was on the floor, and 
when he was about to refer to a particular individual, 
the member from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] arose and 
called him to order. Immediately there were many 
voices ill the hall, saying: Let him proceed ; and the 
member from Morgan said he asked it as a personal 
privilege to make the reference which he bad indicat¬ 
ed, and appealed to the courtesy of the Convention to 
permit him to pr-oceed ; and, the matter being submit¬ 
ted by the temporary occupant of the chair, [Mr. 
Lar.sh,] the Convention agreed that he should goon. 
1'he member li;id recommenced bis remarks, and was 
[iroreedinii in them, when the geritlemau from Hanril- 
toii [Mr. Rekmeun] arose,under great excitement, and 
again called him to order. It was about at that, poirrt, 
that I got up, not having Viefore interfered with the 
coui-se of the debate which has been going on here fur 
one or two days—I got up and remarked to the gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton, in no spirit of unkindness, and in 










1128 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


no oftensive manner, that the member from Morgan [ 
had the leave of the Convention to proceed, and that 
he had commenced his remarks and was proceeding in 
them, when the gentleman from Hamilton got up, [t 
was denied by the gentleman from Hamilton, that the 
gentleman from Morgan had obtained leave to proceed 
—he declaring that the member should not proceed. I 
then took my seat; and now the gentleman iVom Ham¬ 
ilton has said, that the gentleman from Clark and the 
gentleman from Muskingum, and certain other gentle¬ 
men on this side of the chamber, had hissed on the 
member from Morgan in what he regarded as disorder¬ 
ly conduct. The part which 1 took in this matter was 
as I have stated, and, as I understand it, it was parlia¬ 
mentary and orderly; and I have to say, in reference 
to the charge of hissing on, that I heard no such thing 
in this body ; and so far as the charge regards myself, 

I say it is simply false and untrue. 

Mr. LARSH. Inasmuch as I have been singled out 
by the gentleman from Hamilton, I want to present 
my statement of the transaction. Personal explana¬ 
tion had been indulged prior to the time when the 
gentleman from Morgan addressed the Chair, and no 
call to order had been made. Occupying the Chair 
temporarily, in conformity with usage, 1 had not con¬ 
ceived it my duty to call to order. When the gentle¬ 
man from Auglaize, called the gentleman from Morgan 
to order, I started, from the Chair, that the gentleman 
from Morgan could not proceed without leave, unless 
he confined himself to the question pending; and 1 un¬ 
derstood, at the time, that it was the unanimous con¬ 
sent of the Convention that he should proceed. At this 
point the gentleman from Hamilton rose, and, as I con¬ 
ceived, in a disorderly manner called the gentleman from 
Morgan to order, affirming that no leave had been given 
to the gentleman to proceed, and demanding a decision 
from the Chair. I then stated, from the Chair, that the 
gentleman had leave to proceed. 

I make these remarks, Mr. President, simply because 
some account of this matter may be read, perhaps, by 
some who did not witness the transaction, and not be¬ 
cause I have arrived at that bad eminence which makes 
it necessary for me to notice any charge of disorderly 
proceeding, which may come from the source to which 
I have now responded. 

Mr. SAWYER said the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. 
Hawkins,] had stepped entirely outofhis way to make 
this attack upon Mr. Robinson. It would, probably, 
be more appropriate for some delegate from Hamilton 
county, to make the remarks which he was about to 
submit; but he was upon the ground, and participated 
to some extent in the facts to which reference had been 
made, and I am not willing (he continued,) to sit here 
in silence and see a gentleman, who stands prominent 
in society as an individual and a public man, traduced 
before this Convention, when our words are to go be¬ 
fore the public in our reports, and in the public journals 
tof the country, and when the individual has no oppor- 
i inity to defend himself. It is from a sense of strictjus- 
tice that I desire to speak, as well as because I have 
some knowledge of the fact. 

I repeat that the gentleman from Morgan traveled 
out of his way, in order to get a blow at Mr. Robinson. 
The only excuse he could offer for opening this attack, 
he has based upon the remarks of the gentleman from 
Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney] referring to his vote against 
the repeal of a certain bank charter. 

In the opening of his attack upon Mr. Robinson, that 
gentleman said that in more counties than one of the 
State of Ohio, and in the District of Columbia, Mr. Rob¬ 
inson stood upon the public records of the country as a 
public libeller and calumniator. 

I happen, myself, to know some little about the mat¬ 
ter to which the gentleman referred, and which trans- 
])ired in his own county ot Morgan. It occurred at a 
time of high political excitement. In the year 1842 
there was a difficulty between Mr. Robinson and a Mr. 
Teesdale, who was the publisher of a Whig paper, 


published in tde same town where Mr. Robinson was 
a Democratic editor, and Mr. Robinson gave Teesdale 
a licking lor some slander uttered against him. After¬ 
ward another individual undertook to edit the Whig 
paper of that place, and for various newspaper publi¬ 
cations by Mr. Robinson, a suit was instituted against 
him for libel. The suit, how’ever, was never consum¬ 
mated—it never came to the trial—the case being com¬ 
promised by the parties. And if it had been brought 
to trial it wmuld have been nothing more than what has 
happened to hundreds of our citizens, especially about 
those times of political excitement which occurred du¬ 
ring the years of 1841 and ’42. But few individuals of 
any prominence escaped this kind of censure in those 
times ; and it was certainly a most uncalled-for and un¬ 
necessary resort, to bring up this affair to the notice of 
this Convention. 

But the gentleman insinuated that there were other 
grave and damning charges which had been preferred 
against Robinson in an adjoining county ; and when 
he was called upon to name them, by mpelf and oth¬ 
ers, did he do so ? This was a stabbing in the dark, in 
a ])lace where the insinuation will go out upon the 
wungs of the wind, all over the country, into all the 
newspapers of the State. But what is the amount of 
this dark insinuation ? I will give you a little account 
of it. But, by the way, this man Robinson, who is 
here charged as a libeller, was, about the time to which 
this reference has been made, elected by the free de¬ 
mocracy to the office of treasurer of his county 

But with reference to this dark insinuation. Some 
person from some dark corner of the State, had bro¬ 
ken open the safe of Morgan county treasury, and rob¬ 
bed it of some $2,000. Two individuals, upon whom 
suspicion rested, were taken up and charged with this 
offence. A malicious individual, insinuated that cer¬ 
tain persons had acknowledged of the taking of this 
money, and he implicated Dr. Barker, Mr. Robinson, 
and a Mr. Russell. Now, with Dr. Barker, I have an 
intimate personal acquaintance; and I assert here, that 
there is not a man of more strictly honest and upright 
and unexceptionable private character in the State of 
Ohio. Of Mr. Russell, I know nothing. 

Mr. HAWKINS, (interrupting.) I made no charge 
against Mr Robinson, with reference to this matter; 
and the gentleman is entirely mistaken in the state¬ 
ment that Dr. Barker was charged with any thing in 
connection with this matter. 

Mr. SAWYER. I was aware that the gentleman 
made no charge; but he made an insinuation, which 
was ten fold worse. It was a stab in the dark, which 
indicates tfie coward. 

Mr. HAWKINS. If the gentleman wishes to test 
my courage, he shall have the opportunity to do so. 

Mr. SAWYER. I will do so whenever the gentle¬ 
man gives me occasion. If there is any aggression it 
shall be on his part. But I will tell that gentleman, 
that, if he takes offence at what I have said, he can find 
me whenever he desires. I am his humble servant at 
any time, in any place, and upon any occasion which 
he may select. 

Now, I must take some notice of what transpired in 
Washington city, as connected with these charges 
against Mr. Robinson. I happen to know something 
of matters which transpired there at the time referred 
to. At this time the Oregon difficulties were agitated 
in the Senate of t.'ie United States; and whilst this sub¬ 
ject was on hand, Mr. Robinson edited the Times 
newspaper in Washington. And amongst other things, 
in connection with the Oregon question. Mi’. Robinson 
said in his paper, look to the Senate.” It had been 
stated to Mr. Robinson by different individuals, that 
certain meetings had taken place in one of the com¬ 
mittee rooms ol the Senate, and at the BrUish Minis¬ 
ter’s house, at which an agreement was made between 
the British Minister and certain Senators and officers of 
the United States government, giving away our title to 
Oregon between the parallels of 49° and 54° 40'; and 















1129 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


this was published to the people by Mr. Robinson. 
Senators took umbrage at this publication, and Mr. 
Robinson was arrested and brought before the bar of 
that body. 

Now, there were twelve democratic Senators in the 
United States Senate, (a significant number,) who 
were opposed to 54^ 40', opposed to the resolution of 
the Baltimore Convention, which nominated ^ r. Polk 
—and opposed to Mr. Polk and his message, when he 
says, “our title to the whole of Oregon is clear and un¬ 
questionable,” and these democratic Senators went on, 
in spite of the democratic party and the president, and 
the people of this country, and gave away our title to 
Oregon beyond 49 degrees. It was these noble Star- 
Chamber Senators, who caused Mr. Robinson to be ar¬ 
rested for uttering what I believe to be true. And I 
venture to say that there was not at that lime a 54° 
40^ man in Congress, democrat or whig, (and there 
were a great many of the latter,) but who believed 
that Robinson told the truth, and the events of a few 
days gave strong assurances that he did tell the truth. 

But he was brought before that Star-Chamber Sen¬ 
ate, and his case underwent an investigation. It could 
not be supposed that these honorable Senators would 
admit their brothers to be guilty of the charge publish¬ 
ed against them ; and, to exculpate themselves, ttiey 
expelled Mr. Robinson, by a unanimous vote, as the 
gentleman from Morgan has asserted, because the yeas 
and nays were never called upon the question. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I said it was carried by a unani¬ 
mous vote. 

Mr. SAWYER, continuing. I have said it was not 
reasonable to suppose, in the investigation of this case, 
that these Senators, who were all complaisant gentle¬ 
men, would be willing to say that their brothers were 
guilty of the charge. ' 

But, Mr. President, I might appeal to the honorable 
incumbent of the chair of this Convention, and the Hon 
Mr. Faran and Dr. Fries of this city, who were both 
present in Washington city at the time, and cognisant 
of these transactions;—I might appeal to these gentle¬ 
men, whether it was not the unanimous voice of all 
the 54° 40' men in Washington, that Robinson uttered 
nothing but the truth; and whether a few days after¬ 
wards did not develop facts, which most triumphant¬ 
ly sustained him. For the great contracting parties 
soon presented their contract, by which that large por¬ 
tion of the north western territory of the United States 
was sold to Great Britain. 

But that Senate, Mr. President, was in the habit of 
expelling individuals from the privilege of the floor of 
their chamber; and I could wish that I had the elo¬ 
quence of the distinguished Ohio Senator, the Hon. 
Wm. Allen, that I might rehearse here, what I have 
heard from his mouth, depicting in h’s place there, 
these lordly Senators with their hands in the grey hair 
of old father Ritchie, dragging him outside of the bar 
for daring to utter at the time the American troops 
were in Mexico, the sentiment that these Hon. Senators, 
by their speeches against the war, were aiding and 
abetting their country’s enemies. It was for that of¬ 
fence, that father Ritchie and Major Heiss were exclu¬ 
ded from the privilege of the floor of the Senate. Se¬ 
nators who could enact such a piece of tyranny as that, 
do not surprise us much when they exclude from the 
reporter’s gallery an honest and feailess man like Mr. 
Robinson P 

Mr. President, I have done. I rose merely for repel¬ 
ling the attack which has been made here upon Mr. 
Robinson, in order that his vindication may go out in 
the same chapter, with the assertions which have been 
attempted to be cast upon him; and of bearing my 
testimony to the fact, that Mr. Robinson as a man stands 
high in the county where he formerly resided, that he 
stands high now in Hamilton county, and worthily fills 
the conspicuous and important position which he occu- ' 
pies before the people ot Ohio. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. When the gentleman from 


Morgan was permitted to proceed by the unanimous 
consent of the Convention, and when he was proceed¬ 
ing under that leave, the gentleman 1‘rom Hamilton 
rose and called the gentleman from Morgan to order, 
and stated to the chair that no leave had been given— 
that he had himself objected. Flaving an opportunity 
from my position, to observe the gentleman at the time, 
I here take leave to say that this statement of the gen- 
tieman from Hamilton was wholly erroneous and un¬ 
true ; and I therefore then called him to order. 

Mr. REEMELIN, (in his seat,) was understood to 
declare the statement of the gentleman from Ross to 
be simply false. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. If the gentleman wishes to 
put it upon that footing, he is welcome. All I have to 
say to the charge of the gentleman from Hamilton, that 
I have at any time countenanced disorderly conduct is, 
that 1 am willing to submit that question, as well as the 
denial he now makes, to a jury of my neighbors, and 
his, on this, the democratic side of the Hall. There 
were other witnesses of his conduct, besides myself. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair is now constrained to 
decide, that he will not permit another word upon this- 
subject of order; and he appeals to the Convention to- 
sustain him. 

The question pending, being on the motion of Mr. 
Hawkins, to reconsider the vote by which the Con¬ 
vention adopted Mr. Lawrence’s amendment ; 

Mr. BENNETT moved the previous question. 

The question then being “ shall the main question be- 
now put;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the motion ofgMr. 
H4WKINS, to reconsider the vote by which the Con¬ 
vention adopted the amendment of Mr. Lawrence^; 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 53, nays 45— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hawkins, Hamilton, Harlan,. 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hdrton, Hunter, 
Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith ol Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Vance ot 
Champaign, Warren, Williams, Woodbury, and Worthington 
—53. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Dorsey, Farr, Forbes, Greene of 
Defiance,Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hum- 
phreville. Hunt, Jones, Kirkwood, Lawrence, LarwilJ, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCormicit, Norris, Orton,. 
Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble,. 
Swift Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Towushend, Wilson, Wood¬ 
bury and President—45. 

So the motion to reconsider was agreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Lawrence, to-wit; Add at the end of section 2, the- 
following: 

And to alter, revoke, repeal, or abolish, by act ot the General 
Assembly, any grant or law conferring special privileges or im¬ 
munities upon any portion of the people, which cannot reasona¬ 
bly be enjoyed by all. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD moved to amend the amendment, 
by striking out the following words ; “ to alter, revoke, 
repeal or abolish by act of the General Asseiribly any 
grarA or law conterring special privileges or immuni¬ 
ties upon any portion of the people,” and inserting in 

lieu thereof, the lollowing: 

No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted inju¬ 
rious to the public and— 

The question being thenupon agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Lawrence; 

Mr, REEMELIN said: It is high time for us all to 
understand each other. The proposition of the gentle¬ 
man from Monroe, |_Mi'. Archbold, j is to strike out 
what I will now read: 

And to amend, alter, revoke or repeal, by act of the General 
Assembly, any law or grant conferring special privileges or iinmu- 
nities. 

And to insert in lieu thereof, the following: 

And no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, 
injurious to the public, and. 















1130 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


It will, therefore, be perfectly in order, for me to 
discuss, not only what is proposed to be stri -keii out, 
but also what is propcjsed to be inserted. I ask, then, 
what do the words mean that are proposed to be strick¬ 
en out? They give to the peojde of Ohio, through the 
General Assembly, the power to revoke or repeal, what 
“Any grant or law conferring special privileges or im¬ 
munities.” And is this all? No, it is only such priv¬ 
ileges and immunities, which “cannot be reasonably 
enjoyed by all.” 

I unhesitatingly assert that the true construction 
wliich would be given to the proposition of the gentle¬ 
man froai Guernsey, LMr. Lawrence,] which I have 
just nuid, and which has been discussed to day, would 
be that the mere charter—the iriere corporate povveis— 
the mere right of association could not be repealed un¬ 
der its provisions. 1 will read it again. - 

14 . And nitif^nd, alter, revo'te or repeal, by act of the Ceneral As- 
eembly, any law or grant conferring special pridlegea or immu¬ 
nities, which cannot reasonably be enjoyed by all. 

Ja Mark ye, therefore, and mark it well, only such “ spe¬ 
cial privileges as cannot be reasonably enjoyed by all,” 
are i-ulgect to repeal here; and I repeat, ilierefore, that 
the mere corporate rights—the mere franchise—the 
mere charter, unless it contain within it 8[)ecial privi¬ 
leges and immiinliies not capable of being enjoyed by 
all, could not be repealed under the provisions of Mr. 
Lawrence’s amendment. 

Even now, under the old constitution, every mem¬ 
ber of ihi.s Convention is a member of some corpoia- 
tioii or other; some of us are incorporated as Odd Fel¬ 
lows; others as Masons; some belonging to other be- 
iievolent societies; and others belonging to incorpora¬ 
ted churches—and we have among us a goodly number 
of stockholders in railroads, turnpikes, and if I am not 
mistaken, even of baidts. I am suie there is no mem¬ 
ber ot this Convention, who is not a member of some 
incorporation. I, at least, am a member of sevu’al in¬ 
corporations, not counting the county or township in 
which I live. Yea, I doubt whether there is a man, 
woman or child in Ohio, wlio are not, in spite of them¬ 
selves, members of some kind of an incorporation. 

No right is, therefore, even now, more generally en¬ 
joyed tlian the riglit of a-isociatinn, and it, in and of it¬ 
self, could iheielbre not l)e re[)euled; but under the new 
constitution, we are going to provide that all corpora 
tions shall be regulated by general laws cmly, and that 
co:porale rights shall be open to all. They will sinvlv 
then cease to be, in and of themselves, any special f)ri- 
lege Of immunity. It viill be a riglit subject to be rea¬ 
sonably enjoyt d by all, and the mere corporate powers 
—the mere franchise, w'ill surely liave passed clearly 
out of the reach of the section now under considera¬ 
tion. and proposed to lie stricken out. 

There was a time, Mr. President, when I hesitated, 
in my own mind, whether it was a mere error of judg¬ 
ment, or the result of a mere temporary estrangement 
ajul derangement, that had made the gentlemen from 
Monroe and Licking, [Messrs. Case and Archboi.d ] 
vote down tlie right of repeal: but the proposition now 
made by Mr Archbolij, moving to strike out what 1 
have just read, and to insert in lieu thereof a proposi 
tion tliat means nothing, and is intended to mean noth¬ 
ing; or if .strictly construed, ineans more than he him¬ 
self would like, has convinced me that it is not a mere 
tem[>oiary disagreement, hut that there is a fi.xed de- 
tei iiiinaiion to oppose the riglit of repeal. It has now 
become clear that when that gentleman pits against ns 
his “inral districts,” when he talks about his “tiibnta 
ry couniie.s,” when he marshals up in battle array his 
^‘thcMisand poor men,” when he pretends to defend the 
“ poor man’s cau.se,” against the “ power of the weal¬ 
thy,’' vvlien he comes forward a volunteer correspon¬ 
dent of the Daily Gazetto of this city, in the cause of 
the right of association, when he pretends to he the 
particular defender of the rights of property, when he 
does all this, it is nothing hut sheer hypocrisy, nothing 
but a mask to betray his friends and to-strengtheu the 
Whiga. 


The gentleman [Mr. Archbolp] threatens us with I 
war—war to the hdt. Sir, that threat has no terrors; I 
war has come and war shall come, till the ground upon 
which the gentleman stands shall be so narrowed uii- j 
der him that he will be glad to have the war cease 
which he has conjured up. /After he has voted for the | 
reconsideration of the proposition now before us—after i 
he has, even since yesterday morning, changed upon 
this very proposition, let me inform him that we have j 
found him out, and that I, at least, shall treat him here- j 
after always, I tru.st, as a personal friend, but neverthe- ! 
less as an open, an unrelenting political enemy. None 
of his former prudence shall serve him in this instance. ; 
I will tear the mask from his face, and I will make him 
defend special privileges and immunities, without hav- j 
ing the cloak of a “ right of association” to screen him ' 
from the public view. Sir, his “ rural districts and , 
tributary counties,” with all the hairsplitting sopliis- ^ 
tries we have heard from that gentleman’s lips, shall all 
be stricken from under him. He shall be made to i 
stand out in bold relief as a crafty, as an ever watchful i 
friend of special privileges and immunities. I will 
show, by the vote which lie will give upon this occa¬ 
sion, that he is a friend of special corporate privileges, | 
and not the real friend of the right of association. 
When, on yesterday, he dealt blow upon blow, and 
each blow harder, upon the Democratic party, he 
might, if ho had been willing, have seen the smiles 
upon the countenances of the Wliigs, and he might | 

have seen equally the gloomy countenances of his De- i 

mocratic friends. Sir, liis course to-day explains it all. 

All these sophistries about the “ thousand poor men,” 
which he repeats this morning in an article published 
in tlie Daily Gazette, and his fervor for the “ right of j 
association,” will not serve him now; for I repeat that 
the mere right of association, the mere corporate pow¬ 
ers, are perfectly safe from the etlect by the section j 
now before us. Only, if such charters contain special 
privileges or special immunities, only the latter, and i 
not the charter, will be subject to repeal. For, as I 1 
have said before, even now the right of association is 
generally enjoyed, and this will be entirely so under 
the new constitution. I shall, therefore, regard the 
gentleman as having returned to his first love—as hav- : 

ing made his peace with the Whig parly, to which he i 

originally behniged ; and although I may have inclined i 

to the notion that he labored under a little monomania ! 
on this question, I now acknowledge that I was mista- i 
ken, for I find that 

“There is a method in his madness,” &c. ^ 

We are warned, nnle.ss we cease pushing this ques- j 
tion of repeal, and unless we come to some compro¬ 
mise, by which an eternal peace may be made between i 
special privileges and the democratic parly, we shall 
lose the “ softs,” and thereby be compelled to be in a 
minority in tlie State of Ohio; and we are told to be 
less stringent in our princifiles, and to cease denounc¬ 
ing men who do not vote with us upon this question. 

Sir, out upon such nonsen.se. W’ho is not for us on this • 
question, is against us. Between the democratic par¬ 
ty and special privileges, there can be no peace. Even 
if the democratic party were content to conclude an 
armistice, and agree to lay down its arms still, sir, 
these special privileges would necessarily war upon 
tlie democratic party; for they know that so long as 
there is one spark of democratic feeling and principle | 
in Ohio, just so long are their ill gotten powers unsafe. 

You may cry peace, peace, but there will be no peace. 
Between democracy and special privileges there must 
lie eternal war, till one or the other is conqneied.— 
Equal rights and equal burthens are a mere phantom, 
while special privileges or special immunities exist; 
and either the democratic party must conquer or be 
conquered in this struggle. 

Why, then, seek to lull us to sleep by this syren song 
of peace? There will he war as long as special privi¬ 
leges exist, for the democratic party is eternal, and 
though vanquished one day, it will rise the next, and 









CONVENTION REPOETS. 1131 


the day will cnmo when special [)rivileges and special 
immunities will be trailed in the dust, and when the 
bannerol equal rights and equal burthens will lloattri- 
umphantly o’er the capital of Ohio. 

And in the contest between democracy and aristoc¬ 
racy, we want no doubtful allies—none who may be¬ 
tray us in the hour of triumjib. We want no niere 
hangers on, we want true friends, fast friends, friends 
in the “ hard ” fight, and friends of equality, when we 
shall have conquered. I have no tears, therefore, to 
shed for those solts who lag behind—who have ever 
betrayed us—whose errors in ’34, in ’38, in ’41, in ’43 
and in ’50, are a load upon us, which 1, for one, will 
carry no longer. Let them bury themselves in that 
great pidiiical graveyard for renegades, the whig party. 

The gentleman from Licking, [iMr. Case,] stateil to¬ 
day that there was no difi’ereiu e l)etween us, e.xcept 
that we were determined to make the right of repeal 
retroactive—as to the future, he declared himself to 
be in favor of unqualified repeal. He told us that, 
when his li()s had hardly closed in depicting to us the 
danger of entrusting to the General Assembly any sncli 
power—but a little while after he told us, it was the 
exercise of judicial {)ower, he depicted to us the ex¬ 
pense of a jury of one hundred and fifty men, assem¬ 
bled in Columbus, and after he had t ild ns that thus 
to leave the General Assembly the right of re[)eal was 
the very gist of tyranny, against which our father’s re¬ 
volted. 

Sir, if it is wrong to trust the General Assembly with 
the right of repeal as to the past, then all the argu 
ments of the gentleman are equally strong as to the 
future. The principles of repeal will be just as ex{)en 
sive in the future, as in the past—and it is justas tnuch 
a judicial power ia the one case as in the other, and 
what may be just to corporations that now exist, must 
be equally just or unjust to corpoialinns hereafter to be 
created. To be sure, the gentleman tells us that cor¬ 
porations liereaftercreated, are aware ol' the terms up¬ 
on which they accept acts of incorporation ; hnt that 
makes no difference in the principle, for according to 
his opinion, their limits should be adjudicated nf)on be¬ 
fore courts and juries, and not by the General Assem¬ 
bly. Then, sir, I ask the same privileges for corpora¬ 
tions hereafter to be created, as for those in the [)ast. 
It is no excuse, to treat corporations hereafter to be 
created any diti’erent; and that man who would hand 
over to that mercy, and that rapacity of General As¬ 
semblies, which has been depicted to us, corporations 
whose charters may be hereafter granted, shows at 
once that he is not fighting on principle, but merely 
from spite and temporary spleen. 

The gentleman from Licking pretends to be a great 
friend of corf>oralions, and some of them he has pictur¬ 
ed to us as the very lambs in society. But I can tel! 
him that I would trust to bis care no lambs of mine, 
for he seems to have a kind of justice that would send 
one set of lambs to “ mild sheplierds, and to sweet pas¬ 
tures ” while be surrendered others to the heathen. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. There must be some mistake 
abotit this position. 

Mr. RKEMELIN. Aye, I know that yoti will try 
to back out of this position, since I have pointed out 
its absurdity. But it is a matter of notoriety, and 1 
trust a matter of l ecord. Such is the position of the gen¬ 
tleman from Licking, and equally so that of at least 
four or five of the “ twelve,” and I tell them they will 
be held to their position. 

My friend from F'ranklin [Mr. Swan] has said that 
all he claims is that we should not commit “ petit lar¬ 
ceny ” when we repeal special pi'ivileges. 

Mr. SWAN. I don’t think that I used that word. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Well then that wo should not 
commit ‘‘ robbery.” 

Mr. SWAN. 1 did not. 

Mr. RE EMELIN. Well at least that wo should not 
take private property “ without compensation.” 

Mr. SWAN assented. 


Mr. REEMELIN. Now, 1 ask his particular atten¬ 
tion to the points I shall make with reference to this 
particular position of his, for we are getting to exceed¬ 
ingly narrow ground, and it becomes ns all to beware 
how we stand. I say then that all parts of the coiisli- 
tntion must be construed together—that no one section 
will be or can be construed by itscdl; and to show 
what I mean, let me read the first section of the new 
constitution; 


The legislative power shall be vested in a General Asembly, 
composed ot a Senate and House oi Rtipresentatives. 

Here is an unqualified legislative power; but who 
has ever contended that legislative power can be ex¬ 
ercised, regardless of other provisions of the consti¬ 
tution, bearing direclly upon the subject of legislation. 
1 assert, that the legislative [)ower, thus unqualifiedly 
granted ill the first section, is contingent and depend¬ 
ent upon, and therefore qualified hy other sectiijiis of 
ihe same instrument, whenever any ciisis occurs to 
wliich this other section m-ay be appiicable. The con¬ 
stitution must therefore be construed as a whole, and 
any section however unqualified, the riglit ot repeal 
may be therein inserted, still its intent must, just like 
the unqu dified legislative power conferred by the first 
section, be construed to be de{)endeiit as a special 
legislative power, upon all other sections of the con- 
stkiition that refer to the General Assembly. How¬ 
ever unqualified legislative power may be, in any one 
section or another, still it is unqualified by other sec¬ 
tions of the constitution, if any queution arises where 
they may be applicable. I ask my friend from Frank¬ 
lin [Mr. Swan] whether I am right in this? The 
irrn'Ieman neither denies nor afiirms! Will some 
other le^al gentleman then either deny or approve the 
pnsitioiri have just taken? I call upon legal gentle¬ 
men for T find that the only persons here, to whose 
opinions is attached any weight, are those who may 
have secured to themselves the privilege of making 
their living by pleading for otliei mens liglits oi 
wrong's, as the case may be. It is tlieiefoie nutuial 
'or me, who, unfortunately belongs to the laity ol this 
Convention to apply to 'he legal profession for an ap¬ 
proval of the position I have taken. But I see that 
none will answer, and I will ihereloi’e proceed as if 
my position were nncontrovertihle. 

It is nndonb<edly correct, I .^ay then, that all flie 
fears of the geiiHeman from f ranklin. that the proper¬ 
ty of corporation^ may be taken‘‘without compensa¬ 
tion ” exist surelv without cause, for we have alieady 
adopted section "35 of the Legislative Report, vvh.ch 

rotects. ttnqnniiliediv. Hie fights ol property, wheth¬ 
er l.elottging to tndividnnlsor to corpora’un.s That 

section allies eq'iallv to lliescciicn now nnder con¬ 
sideration as to any other general or special legislattve 
oower—the property ol corporations is thereloie as se- 

citre as the property of individuals ... 

can tiie State tvdte iiroperty witlio"t h'st paying there- 
for Section 30 was put into the new consiitntion by 
outvotes, and it is not right „ow to charge upon us 
who are the steadfast and true friends ot the riglits ot 
properly, that we wish to obtain the property ol cor- 

norntions without compensation. , 

Sir that seclinn is clear. It is uneq.tivoca . The 
tenn Wivate property, includes the P;o|>eily .<>1 moor- 
pora'ions-and to show that I am r'ght in this, I will 
merely say. that the term private pf'periy, as u.sed m 
the ronstifntion of the United States, h>u^ by every 
frentleman who has spoken upon this subj, ct, and who 
opposed the riglv of repeal, been construed to include 
ibe property of ineorpnraiioiis. If, then, that term in 
the constitniion of the United States, inCindes the prop¬ 
erty of incorporations, I ask, why does it not do so 
ennally strong in the constitution of Ohio? Away, 
then, with all tliis flummery about pi-niierty. It i-i a 
special privilege, and a special immnntty, that is in 
question, and not property. That specitt' pi'ivlege I 
have already stated, consists in violation of the Innda- 
mental principle of our government. It was, and it is 










1132 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


granted from nothing—and the difficulty between us 
arises just here, that our opponents are determined 
to so qualify the right of repeal, so as to compel us to 
go into court with a construction as to franchises and 
special privileges being property, which we are deter¬ 
mined to avoid. Thus narrow has the ground between 
us become. 

I am glad, Mr. President, that the true question has 
come at last, and that it is no longer a question upon 
the right of association, and no longer a cjuestion as to 
the mere repeal of charters — that the only question 
now is, whether corporate powers in the State of Ohio, 
shall possess within themselves, an exclusive and spe¬ 
cial character. I am glad that we have got upon the 
threshhold, where democracy, ends, and aristocracy 
commences. I am glad that all subterfuge ; all pretence; 
special pleading, has been knocked from under the 
“ twelve,” and that their denunciations of us, as the 
enemies of the mere right to associate and enjoy cor 
porate powers, will no longer answer their purposes. 
Sir, I for one, desire to say, once for all, that 1 deem I 
the right of association for all legal purposes, an inal¬ 
ienable right—one which the government of Ohio should 
not only not restrict; but on the contrary, for which it 
is bound to furnish that mere frame work, which shall 
enable men, under the peculiar construction of our 
laws, to carry out the objects for which they may apply 
to associate. The special privileges; the exclusive¬ 
ness only, I oppose. 

I say to the “ twelve,” they can no longer stand hei'e 
as the friends par excellence, of that valuable right, 
which enables men to associate and oro'anize, to carry 
out the designs and objects which, without .such organ¬ 
ization and association, they could not accomplish. 

Messrs. Swan and Case, have both depicted tons 
the luin that would ensue, in case of mere unqualified 
repeal. If tneir position be true, and if we democrats 
ever had proposed that the repeal of power should thus 
be exercised; or, if it was even a supposable case, that 
the General Assembly would be so blind and foolish 
as merely to exercise the right of repeal, and leave the 
credits and debts of the company unprovided for, then 
their position might be a correct one. ! 

But I have already shown that the right of repeal 
unqualified as it may stand in any section, is qualified 
directly and unavoidably by those other sections of the 
constitution that I have named. But even aside from 
that, Mr. Humphreville’s amendment, for which we 
voted, and against which you voted, provided directly, 
and in terms for the payment and collection of the 
debts, and the disposition of the property. The term 
'' property,” at once brought it under the provision of 
section 3(5 of the legislative report. And it is there¬ 
fore an entire misnomer to tell us that to insert here 
the right of repeal, gives to the General Assembly the 
right to take property without compensation. It is 
true, that in nine ca.ses out of ten, no property might 
be taken by the General Assembly ; but whatever 
rnay be the position of affairs at the time of repeal, the 
General Assembly would have been compelled, under 
our proposition, to make just and equitable provisions 
in reference to the assets of that corporation. And for 
fear that we shall still be misunderstood, I for one, 
now openly and publicly declare it, that I have voted 
for each and every proposition that was at all likely to 
secure the rights of private property, by whomsoever 
held. But if that section is not yet strong enough to 
secure the rights of property, in individuals or corpor¬ 
ations, I am willing to vote for anv reasonable propo¬ 
sition that will strengthen it, and make it still more 
stringent. 

Mi\ SWAN. I will try you when we come to the 
proper place. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Try us, if you please—but take 
care that you don’t find yourselves the tried parties. 

All private property, whether taken for public use, 
or destroyed for public use, I for one, contend the 
Slate should either pay itself, or make provision for 


paying it by the parties to whom the benefit accrues. 
Take it then as you will, either on Mr. Humphre¬ 
ville’s amendment, or on the proposition now under 
consideration, I say that the rights of association on 
the one side, and the interests of corporations with 
them, as well as the interest of the rights of tne people 
on the other side—including again the rights of prop¬ 
erty—including all possible relations that may arise, 
our propositions are more safe, far more ju.st, than the 
propositions that have been submitted from the other 
side. 

I desire now to make another point, to which I call 
the special attention of the gentleman from Franklin, 
[Mr. Swan.] I ask him, as a legal man, whose opin¬ 
ion is certainly entitled to great weight, whether almost 
all our rights, as men, as citizens, ashusbands and fath¬ 
ers, or as holders of jU’operty, are not, to some extent, 
at the mercy of this Convention, and the people who 
shall act hereafter upon our labors? 1 ask him wheth¬ 
er this Convention, and the people after it, may not 
change the principle of inheritance that now prevails 
ill the State of Ohio, as to persons now or hereafter in 
being, and that my children now born might be stript 
of the right of inheritance which they have a right to 
expect under our laws ? I ask him whether the dower 
of my wife, to property to which I now hold, might not 
be taken away by the action of this Convention and the 
people afterwards, and vrliether all my rights as a prop¬ 
erty holder—the rights of property being legal and not 
natural—could not be, nay, may not be affected by the 
action of this Convention ? I ask him to ray farther-— 
he, with myself, having voted to vest unqualified legis¬ 
lative power in the General Assembly—whether all 
these rights and all these interests are not at stake; and 
whether they are not all entrusted to the discretion of 
the General Assembly ? There is no doubt of that. 
But to make myself still better understood, I ask him 
if such a law as now exists in the State of Missouri, 
and such as prevails in my native country, which gives 
to the wife one-half of the property acquired duiung 
marriage, might not, yea, whether it is not very likely 
that it will pass the General Assembly ? 

And if the gentleman from Franklin still fails to un¬ 
derstand me, I will put a case still nearer home to him. 

I understand he has in his drawer a proposition, which 
he will offer as soon as he can get an opportunity, to 
wit: That the right now enjoyed by property holders, 
to lease their property for 99 years, and then renewable 
forever, shall be restricted to 21 yeai’s, and that the 
devise of property shall in no case be permitted to ex¬ 
tend further than to persons in being, and the immedi¬ 
ate descendants of persons in being. 

Now, sir, I am a property holder, to a small extent, 
in the city of Cincinnati. When I purchased that pro¬ 
perty, the right to lease it ^o an unlimited extent exist¬ 
ed, and my right to devise it extended one generation 
further than what is now proposed by the gentleman 
from Franklin. These rights by me now enjoyed, and 
enjoyed by every pro])erty holder in Ohio—rights 
which give to real estate a peculiar value in the eyes of 
men, and which have constituted in many cases the 
principal inducements for purchase, are at once attack¬ 
ed by this proposition. None deny the right of this 
Convention, or of the General Assembly, to pass a law 
of that kind, and I, for one, not only admit the right, 
but will join my friend in his endeavor to secure its 
adoption. But I am not now talking of what should 
be done, but of what might be done ; the point that I 
desire to make being simply this: that this Convention 
and the government existing under the constitution we 
shall frame hold at discretion many of our rights of 
property, the rights of our wives and children, and not 
even excluding some of our personal rights, and that 
the action of government may affect existing relations 
of society—rights which, to some extent, have already 
accrued ; and I ask, since all these rights and all these 
interests are by consent left to the General Assembly, 
whether we may not trust a little to the discretion of 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1133 


that body, to tho same extent—no more and no less— ] 
the interests and rights of those bastard children of 
legislation, whose special privileges and immunities, 
and whose exclusive character, only, we attack ? Or, 
to use a figure of speech, if it is proper and right to 
trust to the General Assembly to apply the pruning 
knife to all the legitimate parts, and especially to the 
roots of the tree and the other most useful portions of 
it, whether we may not trust to that General Assembly 
the power of applying the same pruning hook to lop 
off those wild off-shoots that are the I’esull of negligent 
and improper legislation ? 

The people have a right to alter and abolish their 
constitution—the basis of all law. So says the section 
we pippose to amend, and surely, then, we can equally 
alter and abolish laws passed in pursuance thereof. If 
we can undermine the fiiundations of the edifice, why 
can we not remove the mere ornanienfal part, or the 
cobwebs which collect there ? 

I must not forget to notice the absurdity of another 
of the positions which the gentleman from Licking oc¬ 
cupies. He has sung hosannas to-day for the right of 
trial by jury, and has claimed that in all cases of re¬ 
peal, a jury of the vicinage shall decide upon the rights 
of property held by a corporation. In the same breath, 
when he talks of a jury of the vicinage, and when he 
talked on the supposed Hamilton bridge case, he de¬ 
picted to us the people of Rossville and of Hamilton, 
as a mob that would go about saying, “the owners of 
this bridge have become about rich enough—it is time 
that their power to amass a fortune should be stopped.” 
He depicted to us that people going up to the General 
Assembly, crying repeal! repeal!! repeal!!! and then 
described the General Assembly getting as crazy as the 
people themselves—granting the act of repeal at once, 
at the mere outcry of such a mob. And then he tells 
us that he would send the right of property of that 
bridge company to a jury of twelve men, from the ve¬ 
ry vicinage that cries repeal! repeal!! I will not en¬ 
large upon the absurdity of this proposition; and I 
have only now adverted to it for the purpose of calling 
the attention of the Convention to the fact, that these 
gentlemen, in their ultra zeal for the rights of incorpo 
rations, will overshoot the mark set by themselves, 
and that they ai'e not only unsafe counsellors for the 
people, but of all men the most unfit protectors of cor¬ 
porations. 

I have felt myself at liberty to make these remarks 
of them, although I have once or twice before spoken 
on the question of repeal; but I hold the men who 
have moved the re-consideration—they are lesponsible 
for all loss of time. They were right when they voted 
the amendment in. They are now determined to be 
wrong, by moving and carrying a re consideration. 
Upon their heads be the consequences. 1 have no scru¬ 
ples in using the time of the people in defending their 
rights. Those who attack them must bear whatever 
obloquy may attach for the loss of time. 

Mr. KENNON. I have been alluded to frequently 
to-day, as included in this number “ twelve,” and I 
believe this charge is correct. I certainly am in that 
company, and I expect to remain there. But I had 
rather the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] 
would not find so much fault. It seems that I can 
hardly smile without attracting his notice. And the 
gentleman may as well desist; for he cannot get us all 
into the Whig ranks. For one, I do not intend to go 
there. Whatever bright prospects may be before the 
gentleman from Hamilton, I am not envious. Neither 
can I emulate the proud satisfaction beseems to enjoy, 
of being always right. I never expect to attain to that 
high degree of perfection. 

Mr. President, none of these attacks made upon my¬ 
self, and the other eleven with me upon this question, 
have the least influence upon my feelings at this period 
The time has been, at the commencement of this dis¬ 
cussion, when, I confess, I did not feel exactly right 
about them. But now they have not the least influ. 


ence upon me—not the least. They fall harmless at 
my feet. 

But now let me approach the question. And if any 
gentleman is desirous that I should define my position, 
1 will do so, in such a manner that it shall be impossi¬ 
ble to misunderstand me. I have marked out my 
course, from which I do not mean to deviate—not a 
hair’s breadth. 

The question before us is upon the adoption of the 
amendment to the amendment,, which is a provision to 
the effect that the General Assembly may repeal all 
charters. That is the substance of it, if it means any¬ 
thing. But it is said by some, that it means nothing 
—being in the bill of rights, where we look only for a 
declaration of general principles. That may be so 
and if it should be so, then 1 am against it. But it may 
also mean what the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. 
Reemelin] and others affirm. If they are correct, 
then I am still against it; for they affirm and claim 
that the Legislature may repeal any charter now in ex¬ 
istence. 

One word with reference to what we call here retro¬ 
active repeal, and prospective repeal, and I want the 
attention of gentlemen of the legal profession to what 
I have to say with reference to this distinction. I af¬ 
firm that there is really no distinction between these 
propositions. There are such distinctions as applied to 
law, but none as applied to constitutions. If you au¬ 
thorize the Legislature to repeal charters, and say 
nothing about the future or the past, the authonty ope¬ 
rates as well upon charters passed twenty years ago, as 
upon those which may be passed in the future. Then 
both of the reports which have been presented upon 
this subject, will operate retrospectively. If the sub¬ 
ject of their action is only a charter at the time of its 
consideration, that is all that the General Assembly are 
bound to know about it. 

I know, that amongst lawyers, it is often asked, does 
that law operate retrospectively ? because, if a law is 
retro-operative, it may contravene a clause of the con¬ 
stitution of the State, or of the constitution of the Uni¬ 
ted Slates, and thereby affect pre-existing contracts or 
rights. The Legislature of the State of Ohio posses¬ 
ses all the power of any other deliberative body on 
earth, except as they are, to some extent, restrained by 
the State constitution, or the constitution of the United 
; States. 

I understand the constitution of the State to be en¬ 
tirely different in its character, from what it seems to 
be regarded by some members of this body—entirely 
different in its effects and operations. In its intents 
and objects, a State constitution is nothing but the 
frame-work of government. As far as the judicial 
and executive departments are concerned, their pow¬ 
ers are mostly delegated. But, in regard to the legis¬ 
lative department, I deny that this is the case. It is 
not the business of this body—this Convention of the 
people—to delegate power to the Legislature. What 
then, are our functions in this respect? It you were 
silting as a member of the Legislature, your inquiry 
would be, not whether the constitution has delegated to 
the General Assembly this power or that; but, has the 
constitution taken it away ? But when we come to the 
Congress of the United States, the inquiry in the mind 
of the member becomes the very reverse of this. It is 
this : has the constitution delegated this power to me? 
Because the constitution of the United States is a con¬ 
stitution of delegated powers, and declares that “pow¬ 
ers not delegated to the United States by the constitu¬ 
tion, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to 
States respectively, or to the people.” 

Notwithstanding the last clause of the constitution 
under which we have lived for the last fifty years de¬ 
clares that to guard against the transgressions of the 
high power hereby delegated, we declare that “ all 
powers, not hereby delegated, remain with the peo¬ 
ple,” I deny that there is a single power delegated to 
the Legislature in the whole constitution,except those 












1134 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


wilh respect to corporations. It is declared that Ilje 
legislative power of the State shall be vested in the 
General Assembly of the State. But this clause of the 
constitution of Ohio has never been regarded by the 
people as in the least degree effective, in conferring 
specific power. It only declares in what hcdy the leg¬ 
islative power shall exist. 

Sir, I am not afraid of this proposition. I affirm 
that no pow ers have been granted to the Legislature 
by the former constitution, either to borrow money, to 
make a highway, contract a debt, or to assess taxes, 
nor authority to do scarcely anything they have dune. 
The Legislature of the State pcjssesses all powers not 
taken away by the constitution of the Stale or the Uni¬ 
ted States, and not inconsistent with a republican 
form of government, or the existence of the State. 

I claim, therefore, that in accordance with the prin¬ 
ciples of our government, the Legislature of the Slate, 
unless restrained by the constitution, may do anything 
not inconsistent with the government itself, or the 
constitution ; for it is not the constitution that delegaU s 
legislative power, but it circumscribes and limits that 
power. This last clause in o .r old constitution has 
been deemed a dead letter. It was taken from a con¬ 
stitution of delegated powers; that is to say, the con¬ 
stitution of the United States. 

Sir, I have sa-d thus much of the nature of our con¬ 
stitution—kiiowing what I am doing, about as well, 1 
think, if not a little better, than those gentlemen who 
are looking fifty years ahead for their principles to be¬ 
come popular. 

I have slated that the provision of the gentleman 
from Guernsey. [.Mr. Lawrenck,] ifit means anyihing 
at all, proposes to cooler a power upon the Legisla¬ 
ture which is wholly unnecessary for the I’uture, and 
inoperative as to the past. It {jmposes to ctuifer upon 
the Legislature the power to repeal, unconditionally, 
all charters heretofore existing, or which may be here¬ 
after granted. But whether, being in the Bill of R'ghtF, 
it means anything more than the mere announcement 
of a first i)iinciple, I do not hnow*. I am pretty cer¬ 
tain, however, iliut it means w hat the mover intends it 
sliould mean, and covers all corporations now in exis¬ 
tence. 

1 have said, that in framitig this new constitution. 1 
have marked out my course. We have been called 
here by the people to amend the old constitution. One 
great object in iliis work, w as, to enable the Legisla¬ 
ture ot Ohio to do that w hich, under the old constitu¬ 
tion, they conlJ not do. We have been called here to 
amend the old constitution in respect to the limitations 
which it jtlacc s u| on the Geneial Assembly and the 
people—upon the General Assembly in erecting other 
courts, and the people in voting for all (ffiicers. Tliese 
are some of the objects lor which this Convention 
has been called. But still 1 know we have been call¬ 
ed here to do many things besides this. 

I beg [lardoii of llie Convention, if my thoughts 
should not seem to be arranged in good order, as ] 
proceed, for I am endeavoring to trace the atgntnetils 
of some gentlemen. I juocecd now to lay down a few 
propositions, and 1 mean to stand by them. 

In the first place, 1 (laini that, according to the deci¬ 
sion of the only idiimate liihunal upon earth which 
has a right to decide the (juestion, you cannot refieal a 
cbaiter heretofore granted. I claim that to be the set¬ 
tled law of the land. 

W iiat says the constitution of the United States, 
which we have sworn to sup[)ort ? I beg pardon for 
attempting a shoil explanation here. One clause ol 
that constitution says, that the judicial power of the 
United States shall bo vested in one Supreme Conrl, 
and in such hilei ior courts as Congress may from tinu 
to time ordain and estahlisb; and the n it proceeds t - 
define the ])owers of that court, and prescribes that 
they shall exercise judicial powers in all matter.<», and 
upon all questions of law and equity arising unde r that 
consliluliou. This is the judicial power conferred up¬ 


on the Supreme Court of the United States. But the 
framer^ of this instrument proceed a step further. It 
being supposed that the legislation of the several States 
might possibly conflict with existing contracts, they go 
on to provide, that they shall pass no laws impairing 
the obligation of ccntract.s. 

They go on to provide, also, that the constitution of 
the United States, and the laws of the United States, 
made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made under 
the authority of the United States, “ shall be the su¬ 
preme law of the land; and that the judges in every 
State shall be bound thereby, anything in the consti¬ 
tution or laws of any State to the C( ntrary notwith¬ 
standing.” Any law of an individual State, not in 
pursuance of the comstitution of the United States, is 
void. 

From all this, it is plain, that the constitution of the 
United States is the supreme law of the land. 

But the framers of that instrument, foreseeing that a 
law, such as that you here wisli to put into this con¬ 
stitution, might be adopted, interfering wilh the pro¬ 
visions of the constitution of the United Stales, have 
provided a tribunal to adjudicate upon all siich laws, 
and they have required that every judicial officer, in 
every State of the Union, shall take an oath to support 
the constitution of the United Slates. 

The members of our judiciary, then, are not only to 
be bound by the constitution and laws of the State of 
Chio, but by a solemn oath, they are each and all of 
them to be required to support the constitution of the 
United States, and the laws of the United Stales made 
in pursuance thereof. 

I have said, that State charters of incorporation— 
even bank charters—other species of charters—have 
beet) decided, by the only tribunal which has authori¬ 
ty to dei ide such a question, to be contracts, within the 
meaning of the constitution of the United States. 

Every repeal of a charter by the Legislature of any 
State ot this Union, and the question taken to the Su¬ 
preme Court of the United States, has been held by 
that court to be a violation of that clause of the constitu¬ 
tion oi the United Stales, which says, that no State 
shall pass any law which shall impair the obligation of 
contracts. 

I have been denounced for this opinion of what these 
decisions are, and rny adherence to these dec isions; but 
1 wish gentlemen distinctly to understand, that I cher¬ 
ish no unkind leeling on account oi their denunciations 
-—because I can see my way clear. I know that I am 
right. 

Whenever I define my position upon this subject, I 
poise myself upon these decisions, as being the settled 
law o( the land. \\ helher these decisions w’ere at first 
correctly made, I do not say. 

There must be some ultimate tribunal for the decis¬ 
ion of important questions, in every government. You 
cannot havt* a government of law at all, unless you 
have also some tribunal, where all questions arising 
under the laws can at least be settled and [uit an end 
to. For exanqtle, if you were to start a question in the 
common pleas, and appeal the decision of the common 
pleas tothe Supreme Court, aud the Supreme Court 

the tribunal of last resort, under the constitution— 
should reverse the decision of the common pleas, and 
send back their judgment to be carried out by the court 
below, they do not send down their decision to be 
decided upon, and probably reversed again, by the 
court below; for, il that were the case, there would 
he 110 end to litigation. 

'The wisdom of the land then, has constituted a tri¬ 
bunal, whose decision shall be final, and has fixed the 
Supreme Court of the Uuiteti States, as the ultimate 
expounder of the constitution and laws of the United 
States. 

Well, the Supi-eme court have decided the question 
now belore this body; and there is no propriety in ta¬ 
king uptime to defend :t, or to cavil against it. Let 
any man show a decision to the contrary. I address 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1135 


myself now to lawyers, who know, that so long as these 
decisions remain, they are as binding as the law itself, 
and that every inferior tribunal is bound to decide ac¬ 
cordingly. 

The gentleman from Hamilton declared to day, that 
there was no such decision. Rut I admire more the 
course of the gentleman from Knox, [iMr. Mitchell,] 
who admits the existence of the decision, because he 
has seen it and read it, and there is not a man in this 
hall, who is anything of a lawyer, but knows very well 
that these decisions have been uniform. 

Now 1 will tell you, [Mr. Reemelin,] what it is you 
are asking me to do, and what it is that you would 
turn me over to the whigs for, if I do it not. I am a 
better lawyer than you are ; and it is because I enter¬ 
tain a different opinion of law from yourself, that you 
would turn me over to the whigs. But, sir, I intend to 
turn you out of the democi’atic party—not because of 
your legal opinions, but because I do not believe you 
area good democrat. (Laughter,) I will show you 
that you have been mistaken in supposing that I do not 
understand democracy. 

The gentleman says truly, that in construing this 
clause of the constitution now under consideration, we 
ought to considerijit in its connections and relations 
with other parts of the constitution, and construe all 
together. I say he is right there. But I suppose some¬ 
body must have told him that. (Laughter.) 

The gentleman refers to the 33d and 36th sections of 
the report of the committee on the Legi-slative Depart¬ 
ment, and says, if they were carried out, he would ask 
no more upon this subject in behalf of corporations. 
Let us look at these sections. 

The 33 J section of this report is as follows : 

The General Assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive 
laws, or laws impairing the obligation ol contracts, provided, 
however, that acts of incorporation or corporate franchises, 
privileges or immunities,whether granted by any general or spe¬ 
cial law, shall never be deemed contracts, or irrepealable. 

Mr. REEMELIN (in his seat.) 1 did not refer to 
that section. I referred to the 3Gth section. 

Mr. KENNON. Well, I take them both together. 
The gentleman says, we are to adopt this, though 1 do 
not understand that it is in his substitute. But what 
does this section mean ? Why, that “ no act of incor¬ 
poration, or corporate franchise, privilege or immunity, 
whether granted by general or special law, shall ever 
be deemed a contract, or irre[)ealable.” 

Adopt that section, if you please; but I now tell you, 
sir, and every man in this Convention, that I never will 
vote for it. 

If that makes me a whig, then I am a whig, in the 
estimation of the gentleman ffom Hamilton. But 1 nev¬ 
er will allow him to judge for me. 

This section is drawn with great skill. It has un¬ 
doubtedly passed through the hands of a master. Let 
me explain it. 

In the first place, you provide in another report, 
and dt dare that the Legislature shall never pass any 
special law of incor[)oration. In the second place 
you declare that, whether the charter or act of incor¬ 
poration be special or general, it shall never be deem¬ 
ed a contract. 

Now, we have many acts upon the statute book 
gi-aiiting special charters. But we declare by^ this 
constitution, that there shall be no special act of leg¬ 
islation upon this subject. Now, what does this mean? 
Taken all together, it must be the meaning of this sec¬ 
tion, to reach back, and cover corporations heretofore 
existing under sjtecial acts of incoprporation. It must 
be so intended ; it never was intended to be merely 
prospective. 

But. sir, the great object of all these provisions, after 
all, is to reach tlie present bank corporations; and for 
this object, Ido say that a more skilliul section than 
this 33d section of the legislative report, was never 
drawn up by any deliberative body in the State ol 
Ohio. No corporate franchise, no charter, shall ever 
be deemed a contract. Thia reaches to ail future lime, 


and is intended to coverevery case that can come before 
the courts. And under these circumstances, they must 
not be deemed contracts. If they are to be deemed 
contracts anywhere else, they are not to be deemed so 
by the judicial tribunal of the country. 

But the report goes a step further, and declares that 
these charters and privileges shall not be deemed irre- 
pealable. Irrepealable by whom ? Undoubtedly this 
part of the section is addressed to the legislative body 
of the country. Now this is a little stronger than the 
provision immediately before the Convention; and I 
do not know but it will be adopted. But, it it should 
be adopted, I want to tell some gentlemen here, where 
they will stand. 

Mr. SAWYER, (inbis seat.) Judge Vance will vote 
for that section. 

Mr. KENNON. Well, if he will, I will not. But I 
will tell gentlemen where they will stand. If I am 
right, they will stand as the projectors of a scheme 
which will place ihe country in a predicament some¬ 
thing like llie following; 

You say to the judges, who are hereafter to be elec¬ 
ted to preside in the judicial tribunals of Ohio, you shall 
never deem any charter to be a contract. Now your 
newly elected judge stands up to be sworn, and his 
oath is to support the constitution of the United States, 
and the constitution of the State of Ohio. But in the 
constitution of the State of Ohio, there is this express 
clause, that a charter shall never be deemed a contract; 
a clause in direct conflict with a provision of the con¬ 
stitution of the United States, as construed by the judi¬ 
cial decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. 
And here yon have the same judge sworn to observe 
and 8up[)ort both—required to swear to the support of 
two principles, exactly opposed to each other. 

If 1 am right in this, gentlemen will perceive that 
they need not trouble themselves with the apjirehen- 
sion that a certain class of men will ever sit upon the 
bench of Ohio. You might get men to be judges who 
do not understand the law.. The gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton might serve ; (for it is the intention which makes 
the pei jury;) but you would not get a man understand¬ 
ing himself well, and understanding the law, to get up 
and swear to support two ctuistilulions—the oue di¬ 
rectly in the face and in the teeth o[)posed to the other. 

[ do not think you would be able to get even an ho.ies'J 
Whig to go upon the bench under such circumstances. 
Indeed, 1 am sure you would not, if they were all as 
honest a.s they pretend ; and your provision might be a 
good one for that reason, I'or anght I know. [A laugh.} 
But, as for the Wings generally—although the gentlo- 
man will [ilace me among them—I must say, that I 
cannot have much respect for their jiolitical sagacity, 
as exemplified in their course in this Convention—fori 
have seen them, vs a party, do some very silly things 
here, [Merriment.] 

But, again ; In the event of the adoption of your pro¬ 
vision, every member of the Legislature elected here¬ 
after, if he should happen to believe that the supreme 
court is right upon this subject, would be placed in the 
same situation with the judges, in regard to his oath— 
both being required by the censtitulion of the United 
States to support that instrument, and by our own to 
support this constitution. 

Now, let me turn to the 36th section of the report of 
the Legislative coimriitfee. Jt is follows: 

Sec. 3^ Pnvate properly shall ever be held inviolate, and no 
private propei ty, whether held by individuals or corporations, 
Thallever be taken Ibr public use, unless the public good impera¬ 
tively demands it; but in all cases full and adequate compensa¬ 
tion in money shall first be made to tin: owner or owners, to be 
assessed by a jury, and subject to no deduction for any benefits 
ak-ruing to any property of the owner or owners. 

This is wh.it gentlemen are anxious to carry out, and 
we lire invited to vote for the provision now under con¬ 
sideration, upon the averment of the gentleman from 
Hamilton, that am|»le provision is made ft r the secuii- 
tv of corporations in this section. This is. also, a well 
drawn section, but it iloea not really provide the eecu- 








1136 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


rity which the gentleman has affirmed. The commit¬ 
tee say, “ Private property shall ever be held inviolate, 
and no private property, whether held by individuals 
or corporations, shall ever be taken for public use.” 
■ Sir, you might see a good deal in that w'ord “use;” 
and I have no doubt that the gentlemen of the com¬ 
mittee, who put this word into the section, understood 
- its meaning, and understood it well. 

Mr. SAWYER, (in his seat.) They certainly did. 

Mr. KENNON. They did, I have no doubt. They 
have dropped the word “ welfare” in the correspond¬ 
ing section of the old constitution, and put into its place 
the word “use.” Now I deny ihat in repealing the 
charter of a corporation we take the property for pub¬ 
lic “ use,” but you may take away a franchise for the 
public “ welfare ” when it could not be taken for the 
public use. 

But now we are talking about a franchise, (which 1 
know is property); allow me to suppose a case—becau.se 
this question as I think, can be better understood by 
familiar illustrations Here is a railroad running from 
this city to Columbus. The charter of that railroad 
• company being now in existence, you repeal it, either 
under the authority of the 33d section of the Legislative 
report, or the provision of the gentleman from Guernsey, 
.£Mr. Lawrence.] But why do you repeal that char¬ 
ter ? The Legislature may act in the case, upon their 
conviction that the public good requires it; and they 
might be correct in this, and still it could not be made 
to appear before a judicial tribunal, that the charter 
was taken for public use, because the State does not 
use the road. Although millions may have been ex¬ 
pended upon the road, upon the faith that the charter 
was to run for twenty years, still, because the Legisla¬ 
ture has only taken away the franchise, the State is not 
< compelled to remunerate the company for the loss ol 
their investments of money. I have no doubt, Mr. 
President, that gentlemen understand this; and in such 
case the whole capital would be lost, unless mercy 
should be shown to the corporators. It would be pure 
mercy, for they would have no legal charter. And this, 
I am almost afraid to say, was exactly what was inten¬ 
ded by drop{)ing the word “ welfare,” in our old con- 
.•gtitution, and substituting the word “use” in its stead. 

Now, Mr. President, I affirm that the amendment 
runder consideration asserts the power to repeal the 
tcharters of companies, wherein any special privileges 
are conferred, just whenever it may be the pleasure 
of the Legislature to do so. And I will tell you, sir, 
-upon what terms they may repeal those charters ; and 
ithe gentleman from Hamilton cannot get out of the dif- 
fficulty which I .shall present, to save his life. It is de¬ 
clared here that the Legislature has the right to repeal 
all charters—whether heretofore created or herealtt r 
to be created—provided they contain special privileges 
or immunities, which cannot be reasonably enjoyed 
by all. 

But they take away only the franchise, and because 
that is not property, as the gentleman from Trumbull 
asserts, the company gets no compensation; and if it 
were property, they could get no compensation, be¬ 
cause it is not taken for public use. All I have to say 
further upon this assum])tion is, that I would not like 
to have a judge decide in my case, any very important 
law question, who would avow himself of the opinion 
that a franchise is not property. And whether the 
gentleman is pleased or not jdeased, I will not vote 
here for a proposition in violation of the constitution 
of the United States; and, in this I w’ill be guided by 
the decisions of the supreme court of the United States, 
from which I will not deviate a hair’s breadth. 

The gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Rannby,] allu¬ 
ded to me, in his remarks on yesterday, but did not 
find so much fault with me as others, because, as he 
said, I came square up to the work—I voted the Whig 
doctrine out and out. Now, I consider that the unkind- 
est cut of all. But I was placed under great obliga¬ 
tions to the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] 


for the terms in which he was pleased to refer to me 
and my position upon this question; although in re¬ 
gard to rny intellectual capacity, his notice was rather 
overdrawn. 

But now, what are the great evils in corporations 
against which gentlemen are creating this opposition ? 
No man need tell me that this opposition is directed 
against charters for public improvement and manufac¬ 
turing purposes. I tell you, sir, it is the monopoly of 
the banks against which this war is w’aged. It is the 
right to issue paper money—to substitute paper cur¬ 
rency for silver, and the fact that banks are not taxed 
as other property. It is against these things that gen¬ 
tlemen are anxious to operate, although they do not 
say so. I find no fault whatever with them, for some 
of these opinions. 

Some of these gentlemen think they place themselves 
upon very safe ground, so far as this matter is concern¬ 
ed, by assuming that all banks are unconstitutional. 
But the object is to repeal bank charters; and I do not 
know but the time will come, when all our banks will 
be struck out of existence for their bad conduct. I 
have seen Whigs act veiy unwisely upon this subject; 
and one of the most unwise things which they have 
done, has been their attempt to shoulder the responsi¬ 
bility of taxing banks less than other property, and 
justifying the act as morally right. 

But now, let us suppose for a moment that you want 
to get clear of banks entirely, present and future. 
And suppose that a committee should report to this 
body a proposition, to the effect that no bank shall 
hereafter be created, and that all the existing banks 
shall be wound up; and that no bank paper, whether 
issued in or out of the State, should ever circulate, un¬ 
der severe penalties, and that such a proposition should 
be adopted. But suppose I, as a member here, enter¬ 
taining some donbt whether the people would adopt 
the constitution with such a provision in it, and think¬ 
ing, as I do, that the constitution contains some very 
good things, and suppose I propose to submit this re¬ 
port for the adoption of the people, as a separate clause 
—1 know precisely what gentlemen would say in re¬ 
ply to my proposition. The gentleman from Hamilton, 
[Mr. Reemelin,] would rise in his place, and say that 
all banks were unconstitutional—in contravention of a 
provision of the constitution of the United States, and 
he would not submit to the people a proposition to vio¬ 
late the supreme law of the land. The gentleman from 
Hamilton, and those acting with him, would put this 
clause into the body of the constitution, and say, here, 
now, voters of Ohio, say whether you will accept this 
constitution or not, with this provision in it? But, 
when I propose to submit the same clause separatelj', 
in idi ntically the same words, they would not consent, 
because it would be inconsistent to give an opportuni¬ 
ty for the people to continue the existence of these 
unconstitutional corporations. But, suppose we were 
to make no other amendment than this to the old con¬ 
stitution, would you not submit to the people in that 
case? But still you would not submit identically the 
same proposition by itself! Now, I may be a little 
muddy-headed, but, of all the arguments ever deliver¬ 
ed before a deliberative body, this does strike me as 
the silliest, and yet this is the very thing which has 
been done in this Convention, only nineteen voting to 
submit the question to the people, whether they would 
accept a clause which you propose to be a part of the 
constitution. 

But I have another proposition. I affirm that these 
bank charters which you are going to repeal, are con¬ 
stitutional; and I am going to vote against your propo¬ 
sition to authorize their repeal. I say that the present 
bank, created by the State of Ohio, is constitutional. I 
say that. Who says it is not? 

Mr. REEMELIN, (in his seat.) I do. 

Several Members. “Ido.” “Ido.” 

Mr. KENNON. “ I,” “ I,” all around me, say it is 
not constitutional. Well, I say it is. Now, the gen- 











CONVENTION REPOETS. 


1137 


tleman from Hamilton is going to fix out a constitu¬ 
tion by which individuals may be incorporated to do 
what ? 

Mr. REEMELIN I would incorporate men for any 
lawful purpose. 

Mr. KEiSMON. Then, whcrevtr luuividuals could 
lawfully associate themselves together, for a lawful 
purpose, the gentleman would give them an act of in¬ 
corporation. Well, that is a good principle. But what 
is a lawful purpose, is another question. 

Gentlemen will say to me here—the gentleman from 
Guernsey, perhaps—the constitution of the United 
States says, no State shall emit bills of credit, nor make 
any thing but gold and silver coin a lawful tender in 
the payment of debts; and could any thing be more 
plain than that this was intended to prohibit the States 
from creating banks ? Well, if gentlemen can make 
that out, they can beat me. 

But, what is a bill of credit here made unconstitu¬ 
tional, so that it cannot be a tender in the payment of 
debts—what is it ? Gentlemen ask me, is not a bank 
bill a bill of credit ? In one sense of the word it is; 
and so is a bill of exchange. Gentlemen then say, 
how is it possible, then ; is it not as clear as any math¬ 
ematical proposition, that a State cannot authorize a 
corporation to do that which it would be unlawful for 
the State itself to do ? The inference from these pre¬ 
mises is not true. For a State to authorize the issuance 
of bills of credit does not come within the prohibition 
which says that a State shall not grant letters of marque 
and reprisal. But, if the State of Ohio were to emit 
bank paper, for the redemption of which the faith of 
the State should be pledged, that would be unconstitu¬ 
tional ; and so it would be, if the State were to au¬ 
thorize individuals to insure paper money upon the 
plighted faith of the State. 

Mr. GROESBECK, (interposing.) Could the State 
of Ohio grant a charter to coin money ? 

Mr. KENNON. No, sir, that could not be done, be 
cause that power belongs to the United States. Coin¬ 
ing money is the exercise of a sovereign power; and 
is not only expressly delegated to the United States, 
but taken from the States ; and whoever attempts to 
exercise it, whether State or corporation, exercises a 
sovereign power belonging to the United States alone. 
Not so with bills of credit, as 1 will hereafter show to 
this Convention. 

But what is a bill of credit ? This was as well un¬ 
derstood by the framers of the constitution of the 
United States as a bill of exchange is by the lawyers 
here. But what is the meaning of a bill of credit, as 
used in the constitution of the United States, and in 
the articles of confederation ? Why, every one of the 
original States of this Union—I believe the whole thir¬ 
teen—had issued an immense amount of these bills, for 
the redemption of which they pledged the faith of sov¬ 
ereignty, and the general government also had issued 
more than two hundred millions of dollars in these bills 
upon the sovereignty alone. Nothing else being pledg¬ 
ed for their redemption, no law could compel sover¬ 
eignty to redeem them. 

Here Mr. K. (without concluding) l ave way for 

Mr. LAWRENCE, upon whose motion the Conven¬ 
tion adjourned. 


THURSDAY, February 6 , 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Lord. 

Mr. GILLETT presented a petition from D. Young 
and ninety-four other citizens of Lawrence county, 
praying that a clause be inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors; which, on mo¬ 
tion, was laid on the table. 

RESTRICTION OF DEBATE. 

Mr. LIDEY submitted the following : 

72 


Resolved, That no member shall speak or discuss any one sub¬ 
ject more than ten minutes. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD was against its adoption, till after 
he might have an opportunity of replying to the per¬ 
sonalities which had been directed against him last 
evening. 

The PRESIDENT remarked that, under a rule of 
the Convention, no gentleman could speak out of order 
without unanimous consent; and that rule could not 
be suspended but by a vote of two-thirds. The Chair 
felt constrained to enforce this rule, so that no gentle¬ 
man could speak out of order. No gentleman, there¬ 
fore, could retain the floor but by speaking in order. 
Now that the session was drawing to a close, the 
Chair felt it a <luty to enforce the observance of the 
rules, and to confine gentlemen to the question. He 
hoped this notification would be received as address¬ 
ed to the House, and not to any particular member. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD had no design to indulge in per¬ 
sonalities in his reply. Although he had been arraign¬ 
ed as an enemy of democracy, he should not indulge in 
anything which would be dictated by unfriendliness; 
for he felt none. 

The PRESIDENT, (interrupting.) The question was 
upon the adoption of the resolution. 

Mr. ARC H BOLD then moved to lay the resolution on 
the table; but immediately withdrew the motion at 
the request of 

Mr. MITCHELL, who, promising to renew it, said 
he thought the present a very unpropitious time for 
the adoption of this resolution; for the reason, that last 
evening the Convention was addressed in the first fair 
and manly argument, which had been offered upon 
this floor, in opposition to the doctrine of the repeal of 
charters ; and it would be mariifestly wrong now, to 
j shut down upon us a rule which would prevent any 
reply. That argument, [Mr. Kennon’s,.] was undoubt¬ 
edly susceptible of a fair and manly reply; and there 
were gentlemen prepared to reply to it. He was glad 
to know that a considerably large number of gentlemen 
around him would go for this resolution, as soon as this 
important subject could be disposed of—that was to 
say, as soon as the gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. Ken- 
NOiV,] could complete his argument, and then as soon 
as that could be rej)lied to. 

He renewed the motion today the resolution on the 
table. 

Upon which motion, 

Mr. STICKNEY demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered and I’esulted—yeas 48, nays 44—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett ot 
Preble, Bates, Blickensderler, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Ceilings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Graham, Gray, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hoot- 
man, Humphreviile, Hunt, Johnson, Kcnnon, Kirkwood, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, Leech, Leadhetter, Manon, Mitchell, McCloud, 
Nash, Otis, Perkins, Quigley, Reernelin, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Swan, Thomp- 
son*of Shelby, Warren, Williams, and Worthington—48. 

Nays —Messrs, Barbee, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Cahill, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of De¬ 
fiance, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Horton, Hun¬ 
ter, Jones, Larsh, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, llanney, Riddle, Saw- 
yer, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Taylor 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Wilson and President—44. ’ 

So the resolution was laid on the table. 

BILL OF RIGHTS. 

On motion by Mr. MANON, the Convention now 
took up the consideration of the report of the commit¬ 
tee on the ITeamble and Bill of Rights. 

The PRESIDENT stated the question to be upon 
Mr. Archbold’s amendment to the amendment of Mr. 
Lawrence, to wit: Striking out from the former 
amendment these word.s—“ to alter, revoke, repeal or 
abolish, by act of the General Assemhly, any grant or 
law conferring special privileges or immunities upon 
any portion of the people,” and inserting these words 
“no special piivilege or immunity shall ever be grant¬ 
ed injurious to the public, and ” ; so that the provision 











1138 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


would read as follows—to come in at the end of the 
section ; 

And no special privilege or immunity shall ever be granted, in¬ 
jurious to th(i public, and which cannot reasonably be enjoyed by 
all. 

Mr. KENNON (being entitled to the floor) said: It 
is very unusual for me to occupy the floor so long, but 
I could not define my position upon this question in a 
few words. 

I am under special obligations to the Chair for inti¬ 
mating to me what is the true stale of the question. 1 
shall endeavor to stick to it, and keep in order—a thing 
seldom done in this Convention. 

'I'he amendment of the gentleman from Guernsey, 
[Mr. Lawkenck,] authorizes the Legislature to do cer¬ 
tain things; whilst the amendment of the gentleman 
from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] is to prohibit the Leg¬ 
islature from doing certain things. The one proposes 
to confer authority, and the other proposes to lake it 
away. 

The great object of a constitution is to take away, 
not to delegate powers to the legislative body ; and, to 
my mind, a most conclusive argument could be drawn 
from this fact. I have endeavored to show, that the 
amendment of the gentleman from Guernsey ought not 
to be adopted, because it is retrospective in its opera¬ 
tion. The amendment of the gentleman from Monroe 
looks to what the Legislature should not do. I shall 
now direct my attention to that. 

It is undoubtedly the design of the original amend¬ 
ment to reach back, and assert the power of repealing 
all bank charters; and the principal reason for opera¬ 
ting with this power upon the banks, is, the assump¬ 
tion that they are all unconstitutional. I hope, there¬ 
fore, that I shall be in order whilst I attempt to show 
that banks are constitutional. 

In my argument, on yesterday evening, against the 
amendhlent of the gentleman from Guernsey, I said 
that such a provision as he proposed to put into the 
constitution would look backward, unless it contain¬ 
ed an express provision that it should be only pro¬ 
spective. I showed, also, that the insertion of either 
prospective provision of this character, could not con¬ 
fer a particle of power upon the Legislature, which 
that body does not now .possess—not a particle. It 
would confer no more power upon that body, than a 
resolution of the common council of the city of Cincin¬ 
nati, or.of a ward meeting of this city. This debate, 
therefore, has all the time been a fight about nothing. 
I confess, however, that it has had tliis one effect; the 
effect of turning this body into an inquisition for the 
trial of the political faith of men upon a mere question 
of LAW. 

But when we come to look at what will be the ef¬ 
fect of such a provision upon future charters, it be¬ 
comes a very important question. For we have, un¬ 
doubtedly, the power to prescribe in the constitution, 
that a charter shall never be deemed a contract; and 
that it may be repealed. 

Now, I deny that our banks are unconstitutional, 
and that their charters ought to be repealed for that 
reason. For if they were not constitutional, they 
might be repealed at any time by a writ of quo war 
ranto, or even by act of the Legi8lature,'and they could 
not complain. The whole of them might be blowed 
out by a single dash of a pen. I assert that as my indi¬ 
vidual opinion. 

Has the Legislature of Ohio, or of any other State 
of this Union, the power to create banks of discount 
and issue ? 

Let me suppose a few things here which I think 
must trouble some of our friends very ranch. Let us 
repeal, if you please, all the laws in the State of Ohio 
upon the subj'^ct of banking. Let us have every bank 
in the State out of existence, and start anew. The 
constitution of the United States prescribes that no 
State shall emit bills of credit, nor make any thing but 
gold and silver a tender in the payment of debts. And 
now let Mr. Longworth or Mr. Burnet, of this city, or 


any other man of great wealth, issue his note of hand 
in the precise form of a common bank note; and let 
him sign it. It is payable in specie, on demand. And 
let another man go to him and say, “ Sir, if you will let 
me use this note of yours, I will give you my mite 
payable in six months. I want your note because it 
will pass as currency.” The man of credit consents, 
and the notes are exchanged. All the difference be-' 
tween them being that the one bears interest and the 
other does not. Does any man suppose that w'ould be 
an unconstitutional exercise of power on the part of 
the wealthy individual ? And if one man can do such 
a thing constitutionally, cannot a company of two, 
three or more do the same thing ? It is a common law 
right which every individual may exercise, unless re¬ 
strained by a statute of his own State; and yet no man 
would think he was violating the constitution of the 
United States in so doing. 

It is then allowable by the law of the State, (the 
common law,) and is as much authorized as if a posi¬ 
tive statute of the State had passed in favor of such ex¬ 
ercise of power. But, say gentlemen, the constitution 
of the United States provides that no State shall emit 
bills of credit or make any thing but gold and silver a 
tender in payment of debts. 

One great question in the determination of the mean¬ 
ing of “bills of credit,” is what did the framers of the 
constitution of the United States mean by these words? 
In the articles of confederation which existed at the 
time of the formation of the constitution of the United 
States, the expression “ bills of credit ” is used again 
and again, and the articles themselves provide that the 
“ bills of credit” issued before that time by Congress 
should be redeemed, and the faith of the United States 
was there pledged for their redemption. Not only so 
but the articles of confederation authorized Congress to 
issue “ bills of credit,” all or nearly all the States had 
issued them, and as I have before said, that at the time 
of the adoption of the United States constitution, more 
tl'.an two hundred millions of these “ bills of credit ” 
had been issued by Congress. 

They are the same which were afterwards called 
continental money. They, were not only issued by 
States and the General Government, but they were ex¬ 
pressly made a legal tender in payment of all debts, 
and Congress at one time passed a resolution request¬ 
ing each State to make the bills of credit of each a 
legal tender mall the States. 

There was, at the time of the adoption of the United 
States constitution, bank paper in circulation, known 
as bank paper issued by a corporation. All these bills 
of credit depreciated so that one hundred or a thousand 
dollars could be bought for one dollar. This depreci¬ 
ation continued until they became of no value; and 
yet, both the States and the general government made 
them a tendertin payment of debts, sometimes requir¬ 
ing that thirty continental dollars should pass for one 
dollar in silver, in such tender. 

How were these bills of credit to be redeemed by 
the general government ? It had no means to redeem 
but by taxation, and it had no power to compel a 
State to pay its quota of taxes. All the general gov¬ 
ernment could do, was to request each State to raise, 
by taxation, its share of the debt. The United States, 
under the old confederation, could only act upon sov¬ 
ereign Slates, and not upon the individuals of each 
State. The request was again and again made, but 
the States provided no means to redeem this paper. 
They were wholly unable to do so. They repudiated 
the whole debt. ^ They could not redeem even their 
own bills of credit. Some States made the attempt to 
pay their share of the taxes, by issuing new bills of 
credit on the faith of the Slate, and making them a 
tender in payment of taxes. This but increased the 
evil. The result of the whole matter was, that if the 
citizens of a State, who were themselves holders of 
these bills, consented to be taxed to pay them, they 
were but taxing themselves to pay, in many instances, 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 1139 


a debt due themselves ; and if to pay the debt due to 
another, they felt neither able nor willing. The faith 
of each State of the Union had been forfeited. Their 
solemnly pledged faith had been violated, and the 
holders of their bills of credit injured or ruined. They 
were, in everybody’s hands, wholly valueless. The 
toil of years was lost. There was no remedy. Sov¬ 
ereignty is above all law, and no possible means could 
compel a sovereign State to pay but that of arms, and 
shis last remedy was in the hands of those against 
whom such remedy was to be applied. It would have 
been the people against themselves. 

The great evil was, that a State, the real debtor, 
could not be sued. In this state of things, the Conven 
tion assembled to frame the constitution of the United 
States, every member of which, in all probability, had 
suffered from these bills of credit, which were issued 
by the Congress of the United States, upon the plighted 
and broken faith of the States. The old articles of 
confederation, or old constitution, was before them, 
with the words “ bills of credit, ” again and again writ¬ 
ten upon its face, and the members of that Convention 
wrote down in the new constitution these words: “No 
State shall emit bills of credit.” Can anybody misun¬ 
derstand what was intended by these words? They 
meant that no sovereign State should issue such paper 
as the bills of credit mentioned in the articles of con¬ 
federation. And what was that? It was a bill of credt 
issued by a being who could not be compelled to pay, 
and intended to circulate as money, and which, at that 
time, was made a tender in payment of debts. The 
effect of this clause was twolold. 1st, it took away 
from the States a power which each undoubtedly poss¬ 
essed; and, 2d, it did not confer that power on the 
General Government, as had been done by old constitu¬ 
tion, so that neither now possess that power. But it is 
said that it was intended to include bank bills also. It 
would be strange indeed, if the framers of that instru¬ 
ment had so intended, thatuhey did not say so in so 
many words. Why was it not added, that no State 
shall create any banking incorporation? They well 
knew of the existence of such institutions, and of the 
war which, in some sections of the Union, had been 
carried on between bank bills and bills of credit, the 
friends of bills of credit claiming that bank bills had a 
tendency to depreciate the bilLs of credit. I claim, that 
if bank bills were intended, they would have been 
specifically named. 

In the debates on the adoption of the constitution the 
words banks, bank, bills, or bank notes are, I believe, 
not once even used. The word paper money is, but 
there was at that time no paper money but bills of 
credit, and never had been, for bank notes never were 
considered money, or made -i egal tender in payment 
of debts, so far as I recollect, out bills of credit were 
issued for, and intended to circulate as money, and all 
persons were cpmpelled to take them as money. They 
were paper money. The Convention will perceive 
that I have been attempting to show, from the history 
of the time, what was meant by the words “ bills of 
credit.” I do not stop here. Almost immediately af¬ 
ter the adoption of the constitution, the States commenc¬ 
ed to incorporate banks, and have continued to do so 
down to the present hour. These contemporaneous 
acts are some evidence of the meaningof the constitution* 
But this is not all; no judicial tribunal, so far as I 
know, either of the State or general government, has 
over decided that a State had not the power to incorpo¬ 
rate banks. They have decided that a State cannot is¬ 
sue its own paper to circulate as money in these cases, 
when the faith of the State, and that only, was pledg¬ 
ed for the I’edemption of such paper, but never that a 
bank composed of individuals might not be incorpo¬ 
rated. Let me here put a question to the gentlemen 
of the bar, who claim that a bank is unconstitutional. 
Did any of you ever hear of any lawyer in a'.y State of 
this Union, who ever claimed before any judicial tri¬ 
bunal, that a bank was unconstitutional? Who was 


he—when and where did he do so ? And yet it is as 
plain as noonday, that if these institutions are not con¬ 
stitutional, no bond or note ever executed to them, no 
debt ever due to a bank, could have been collected. If 
unconstitutional, then banks have not even a name to 
sue or be sued by—every act of incorporation itself is 
utterly null and void ; and yet, neither client nor law¬ 
yer, in defending suits at law against these institutions, 
ever attempted to make the defence. Passing strange; 
and yet if any member of this Convention shimld en¬ 
tertain the opinion that they were constitutional, he is 
pronounced Whig and thrown out of the Democratic 
party, by men having far less power to do such an act, 
than banks have to issue paper. I have said this much 
to show that the members of this Convention ought not 
to expect to engraft a clause in the constitution for the 
purpose of repealing banks nowin existence, upon the 
ground that the Legislature had no power to create 
them. 

Mr. President, I have said before, that this Convene 
tion seems well calculated to try men’s faith, to deter¬ 
mine their politics, by taking the opinions of members 
on mere law questions, and if some of the members do 
not agree with others, and do not swear that the law is 
as they claim, tliey are no Democrats. 

Sir, I have some little apprehension that man}' of 
these simou pure Democrats, real professors, w'ould not 
vote as they do if they did not know that the proposi¬ 
tion for which they vote, and which they advocate, 
could not be carried. For instance, if all the Whigs 
and the “ twelve ” were to leave this hall, would gen- 
llemeii insert a clause in this constitution that no debt 
hereafter contracted, in which the creditor voluntarily 
trusted the debtor, should be collected by law, no mat¬ 
ter how able the debtor was to pay ? Would they in¬ 
sert a clause in this constitution, and not submit it sepa¬ 
rately to the people, that no banks should be hereafter 
created, that the present banks should close up, and 
that the paper of banks out of the State should not be 
circulated within this State? I think they would not; 
and in saying so, I have no doubt many »»l them woidd 
vote to insert it, believing banks to be unconstitutional, 
and believing the people would adopt the constitution 
with such clause in it. But, sir, I still think if the 
Whigs and the proscribed “ twelve ” would leave this 
hall, and let the balance of the members constitute a 
quorum, that sucli a clause would find no place in the 
constitution. It might be submitted separately. When 
such a vote was taken and defeated, we heard from the 
[U'ess very little if any complaint. Honors were con¬ 
sidered easy. Although advocated, who would pretend 
to insert a clause in this constitution, that all the con¬ 
victs in the Penitentiary should be paid for all the la¬ 
bor they perform in the Penitentiary, out of the State 
treasury ? 1 say, who would vote for such a clause, if 

he knew it could be inserted ? Some could be found 
who w'ould vote for such a clause when they knew it 
could not be carried. They would vote for it as ex¬ 
pressing their own sentiments, but surely they could 
not suppose the people would agree to such clause. I 
have endeavored to show what a constitution of a S'ate 
is ; lhat it is the mere frame work of a government— 
that if there was no clause in the constitution of the 
United States to the contrary, no higher law opposing, 
the constitution of a State operates upon things as it 
finds them—that if it confers power on the Legislature 
to repeal charters, it could repeal all charters in exis¬ 
tence at the time of the act of the Legislature, no mat¬ 
ter when created—that the Legislatui-e woidd posses.^ 
that power at any rate, unless retrained by the consti¬ 
tution of the United States or of the State of Ohio. 

It is for that reason, and that only, that the clause 
“No ex-post facto law, or any law impairing the validity 
of contracts,” is inserted in a constitution of a State at 
all; it is to take away such power from the Legisla¬ 
ture, without which restrictions they would have 
such power, i have tried to prove that if these char¬ 
ters are caidvacls we have no right to repeal them. 











1140 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


‘‘ any thing in the constitution or laws of any State 
to the contrary notwithstanding.” The constitution 
of the United States is the supreme law of the land. 
That if charters are not contracts, then the Legisla¬ 
ture has power to repeal them, without our saying so in 
this constitution, and that all such clauses are wholly 
useless. 

When the question shall arise as to what power shall 
be conferred on the Legislature to repeal corporations 
hereafter created, I will either give my opinion upon 
the terms on which they should be repealed, or you 
will have those opinions from my votes. 

But sir, I will vote for no proposition which may 
reasonably be constructed to be a violation of the con¬ 
stitution of the United States, and if the question has 
been so decided by the Supreme Court of the United 
States, and uniformly so decided, I will consider that 
a good reason why the clause shall be considered a vio¬ 
lation of thfit supreme law of the land. These are my 
views upon this subject. I find no fault whatever, with 
the opinions of other members. Let them maintain 
their opinions here and elsewhere; all I ask is to allow 
me to entertain my own opinions upon these impor¬ 
tant law questions; more especially, as no man here 
has attempted to show any decision of any court to 
the contrary. I am much obliged to this Convention 
for their patient attention, and will now yield the floor 
to others. 

Mr. DORSEY. In the brief remarks wdiich I shall 
make Mr. President, on the question under considera¬ 
tion, I shall address myself at once to the subject mat¬ 
ter of the debate, having no personal difficulties to 
complain of, and no personal grievances to redress. I 
have no temptation to wander into forbidden paths, but 
I desire simply to call the attention of gentlemen of the 
Convention to an argument which bears vitally on this 
question of Repeal. 

The proposed amendment of the gentleman from 
Monroe, as well as the original amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Guernsey, brings up the whole question 
of Repeal, and I doubt not, was intended so to <lo. 

I have already, sir, given my opinion on this matter, 
in its practical bearing, and I have only been induced to 
trouble the Convention with further remarks, from the 
fact, that in the discussion of this question, we have by 
legal gentlemen on this floor continued reference to the 
decisions of the Supreme Court, and we are continual 
ly reminded by them, that we can never make opera¬ 
tive the doctrine of repeal with these decisions staring 
us in the face, and that court ready to uphold and de¬ 
clare these decisions. 

Now, sir, I have great respect for the legal talent and 
learning on this floor, and am ready^ at all times to yield 
due deference to the opinions of its representatives; 
but I do claim, sir, that iu examining a question like 
this, a question involving the right, the interests, the 
very sovereignty of a State, gentlemen should come on 
this floor without the fear of the Supreme Court before 
their eyes. 

Here, sir, as it seems to me, is the great error which 
has been committed in the discussion of this question, 
which has thus far been mostly confined to gentlemen 
,of the legal profession, that instead of looking to the 
great principles of right and justice, and of the consti¬ 
tution on which this doctrine is based, they have al¬ 
lowed themselves to be stopped in their progress by 
the decisions of the Supreme Court. I hold, sir, that 
in questions like this, there is something beyond the 
authority of the Supreme Court, beyond the decisions 
of any court, either Stale or national, and that is the 
constitution of the United States; and I thank God, sir, 
that in this country we have a written cot stitution, an 
organic law of the Republic, so plain and so intelligible 
when interpreted by its letter, that every man possessed 
of ordinary intelligence, cannot fail to understand and 
interpret it aright, and bold in this belief, I shall feel 
free to express my views on the constitutional questions 
connected with and involved in this subject, now be¬ 


fore the Convention, not given as an opinion on consti¬ 
tutional law, but an opinion on the plain letter of the 
constitution, as expressed in language not easy to be 
misunderstood. 

On what foundation, sir, rests this doctrine of repeal ? 
I answer, on the sovereignty of the j'eople of a sove¬ 
reign State. This is the only foundation, aside from 
the broad principles of natural and inalienable right, 
on which it can be based,- so as to render it effective, 
and the constitution of the United States sanctifies and 
justifies the whole doctrine of repeal, and makes the 
right to exercise it effective in the hands of the Legis¬ 
lature. This instrument is the grant of sovereign 
States, and when we established the doctrine of State 
sovereignty, we established also the right and the pow¬ 
er of a State to repeal all acts of incorporation, even 
in cases where there may have been no violation of the 
terras of the charter. 

We have been told by the gentleman from Belmont, 
[Mr. Kennon,] that the States are sovereign, except so 
far as they have delegated their power to the General 
Government. I agree fully with this declaration of 
the gentleman, and I subscribe to many of the doctrines 
he has laid down, in his speech, but I wish this one to 
be particularly borne in mind by the Convention. The 
General Government is one of limited and delegated 
powers, created by the action of sovereign States, and 
owing to them its existence and its powers. This is an 
important principle, and one of which 1 desire not to 
lose sight, and I am sorry indeed that the gentleman 
from Belmont refuses to carry out this principle to its 
full application in the subject under discussion. Again, 
the same gentleman tells us, and it is another impor- 
tanttrulh,one of which Ifearhedoesnotfully realize the 
extent, that the legislative power is not to be consider¬ 
ed as, properly speaking, a delegated power; the Legis¬ 
lature is the agent of the people, and has all power 
which the people of the State have not previously 
yielded to some other tribunal—in a word, the Legisla¬ 
ture is the representative of the sosereiguty of the 
State. The Legislature then may perform any act 
which a sovereign State may perform, and there"^is no 
power to check the exercise of State sovereignty, ex¬ 
cept the express ju-ohibitions contained in the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States. Let us examine then for a 
moment, the structure of this instrument which sove¬ 
reign States have thus imposed on themselves, as a 
check, or rather as a rule of action iu their relations 
with each other. What is it? It con.sists of various 
powers which have been entrusted to three separate 
departments—the executive, the legislative, and the 
judiciary. The bounds and limits of these depart¬ 
ments have been carefully defined, that they may not 
trespass on one another, and that they may not exceed 
the powers entrusted to them by those who gave them 
their existence; but it is evident that the limits of the 
judiciary have been less carefully defined, and its pow¬ 
ers less carefully limited, than those of the other de¬ 
partments, and hence we find;a continued disposition 
in this department to encroach, not only on the premi¬ 
ses of its fellows, but on the rights of the States them¬ 
selves. 

It cannot bo denied that a spirit ol' centralizatiou has 
sprung up from this Judiciary of the general govern¬ 
ment, which is continually trenching upon the rights 
and privileges of the States, and assuming to itself and 
claiming for the general government, powers never in¬ 
tended to be conferred on either by the States, undyet 
both are but the creatures of the States, holding not 
one solitary power which has not been granted to them 
by the States. And there is no power in any one of 
these departments of the general government, unless 
such powei- has been plainly and specifically granted 
to that department by the States—not one jot, not one 
tittle is possessed beyond the pl-aiu, clear and definite 
letter of the constitution. If any other power is 
claimed or exercised, it is a usurped power and should 
be resisted in its inception, in its progress, and in its 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 1141 


consummation—aye, at every step and in every shape— 
by those who are desirous of upholding the rights, the 
liberties and the sovereignty of the States. If ever 
this nation is desti’oyed, Mr. President, if ever its insti¬ 
tutions are overturned, it will not be from outward 
force or foreign power, it will not be from the con¬ 
tending shock of State interests, or the fierce rivalry of 
sectional factions, but it will be from the slow, the si¬ 
lent, the stealthy, the scarce perceptible aggressions of 
the Federal government, and most of all, I fear, the Ju- 
dicia,ry of that government. And sir, is there not rea¬ 
son for this fear, when we see members on this floor, 
men who have convened here to form an organic law 
for a sovereign State, holding up in ^errorcwi, before 
the view of this Convention the decisions of that Su¬ 
preme Court, which has ever shown itself the enemy 
of State sovereignty, and citing its dicta to confront 
and weigh down the acts of the Legislature and the 
opinions of the people. 

But sir, I have said that if this Judiciary is confined 
within the bounds and limits which are assigned to it 
by the strict line and letter of the constitution, that 
then this doctrine of repeal can be made effective, 
then the rights of the States can be maintained, and 
then all questions arising between a Stale and her own 
citizens can be settled, and settled definitely and be¬ 
yond the power of appeal, by the judiciary tribunals of 
the State itself. For if the Legislature be the real rep¬ 
resentative of the State sovereignty, there is no power 
on earth which has or can have a right to step between 
it and the citizens whom it represents, unless the pow¬ 
er to do so be plainly and specifically granted by the 
State sovereignty itself; this proposition is too plain to 
need farther elucidation. Now let us suppose a case 
in which the Legislature of this or any other State, re¬ 
peals the charter of an association or an incorporation 
granted by the authority of the State—the corporation 
appeals from the decision of the Legislature to the 
courts of the State, the Judges of these courts, acting 
in conformity with the provisions of this constitution 
which we are framing, confirm the act of the Legisla¬ 
ture, and this they must do if this constitution gives 
such power to the Legislature, and they have sworn to 
support this constitution. 

But, says the gentleman from Belmont, no man can 
swear to support such a constitution, and at the same 
time, take an oath to support the constitution of the 
United States, with these decisions of the Supreme 
Court staring him in the face. Well, sir, such is no 
doubt, the opinion—the honest opinion of that gentle¬ 
man ; but I choose to believe, that when a judge takes 
an oath to support the constitution of the United States, 
he does not necessarily swear to support the decisions 
of the Supreme Court—he takes an oath to support the 
constitution of the United States in all its grants and 
powers, as specifically given by the sovereign States— 
but he is not to support any decision of courts, making 
aggressive attacks on the rights of the States, nor is he 
to uphold any claim of power in that constitution, not 
plainly granted in its very letter. 

There is, then, no conflict between the State consti¬ 
tution, and that of the United States, for T hope to 
show, that there is no grant of power in that constitu¬ 
tion, by which the judiciary of the General Govern¬ 
ment has any right to interfere between a sovereign 
State, in the exercise of its authority, through the Leg¬ 
islature, and its own citizens. Sir, there is no such 
power granted—an honest judge may, then, honestly 
take an oath to support both these constitutions. 

I ask, then, wdien the courts of a State, have decided 
a case between that State and her own citizens, can 
such case be constitutionally carried on appeal to the 
Supreme Court of the United States ? I say it cannot. 
I say there is no power given to the judiciary of the 
General Government, to interfere in such case. I am 
not ignorant, Mr. President, that I am preaching legal 
heresy. I expect to be told by lawyers on this floor, 
that I know nothing about this matter—that this mat¬ 


ter has long ago been decided by the courts, and is 
no longer a question to be mooted. But, sir, though I 
am preaching legal heresy, I ask very respectfully the 
attention of the Convention for a few minutes, while I 
attempt to show that such heresy has, at least, a foun¬ 
dation in the constitution, and that I am borne out in 
it by the letter and by the spirit of that instrument. 

Now, sir, let us examine the circumstances and facts 
attending the formation of that constitution. Thirteen 
sovereign States, each one of which claimed to be su¬ 
preme within its own boundaries, met in solemn con¬ 
vention, to agree on the formation of a Federative sys¬ 
tem to serve as a bond of union, and as a greater secu¬ 
rity for the common defence and welfare. To render 
this Federal Government such as should be necessary 
to secure the great ends for which it was established, 
certain powers and privileges, heretofore belonging to 
each separate sovereignty, are, by them, yielded to this 
central power, or Federal head, and these grants of 
power, cai’efully specified, are embodied in an instru¬ 
ment known as the Federal constitution ; but with a 
jealousy natural to those who have long enjoyed su¬ 
preme power, they are anxious to limit this grant to 
the precise terms specified in the instrument, and with 
a cautiousness which forcibly marks the high estimation 
in which their sovereignty was held, they declare, 
“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re¬ 
served to the States respectively, or to the people.” 
Nothing can be more apparent than this jealous parsi¬ 
mony of granting away their powers; nothing can be 
more evident, than that this constitution is a grant of 
power from sovereign States to a Federal head. Is 
this sovereign, then, to permit the exercise of any power 
not granted or delegated ? and shall a sovereign sub¬ 
missively bow to the creature of its own creation ? 
Again, what are the powers granted by the States to 
the judiciary of the General Government? These are 
plainly and expressly stated in the second section of 
the third article, which says; “ The judicial power 
shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising un¬ 
der this constitution; the laws of the United States, 
and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their 
authority ; to all cases alfecting ambassadors, other 
public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty 
and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies, between 
two or more States; between a State and citizens of 
another State; between citizens of different States; 
between citizens of the same State, claiming lands un¬ 
der grants of different States, and between a Slate, or 
the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or sub¬ 
jects.” 

Here we have a plain and concise enumeration of 
all the cases in which the judiciary of the General Gov¬ 
ernment, can constitutionally exercise its authority, and 
there is here no warrant for any interference in a ques¬ 
tion which is to be decided between a State and its 
own citizens. And, if in pursuance of its ju.st powers, 
under a constitutional provirion, a Legislature of any 
State, shall, for the public welfare, see fit to repeal the 
charter of an incorporation, and if that legislative act, 
is endorsed and confirmed by the State courts, there is 
no power in the constitution of the United States, by 
which the judiciary can interfere and reverse such de¬ 
cision. 

The declaration contained in the first clause of the 
section which I have read, that" the judicial power shall 
extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under 
the constitution,” does not apply here, for this is not a 
case either in law or equity, under the constitution of 
the United States—it is a simple question of the State 
sovereignty, for whenever aiiy power attempts to inter¬ 
fere in a case between a sovereign State, and its own 
citizens, a question of sovereignty is involved. 

But I shall be told that the Judiciary act of 1789, 
gave to the Supreme Court, appellate jurisdiction " in 
all cases,” decided in the highest courts of law or equi¬ 
ty, in a State, where there is a question of the validity 











1142 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


of a Statute; but I answer, that Congress could not 
confer any* power on the Supreme Court, which was 
not conferred by the constitution, because all such 
powers are reserved to States, or to the peojde, are 
beyond the control of Congress; therefore, the ex¬ 
pression “ all cases,” means here, only all cases within 
the grant of power allowed to be exercised by the 
constitution, and if it is construed to mean anything 
more, such construction is, by the very terms of the 
case, null and void; Congress can never overstep the 
bounds of the constitution. 

As I said before, sir, I kno%y this is legal heresy—per¬ 
haps scarcely a lawyer on this door will agree with me 
—I shall be told, that I am presenting an impracticable 
remedy—that this matter has long since been decided 
by the courts; I know all this may be, and probably 
will be said; but, sir, I plant myself on the simple let¬ 
ter of the constitution, and on the broad basis of the 
sovereignty of the States, and I say that by this position 
and I fear, by this position alone, will the doctrine of 
Repeal—that doctrine which is invaluable to freemen 
—ever be etfeclively sustained. Every encroachment 
on the rights and sovereignty of a State, is highly dan¬ 
gerous ; we should fence ourselves round with the 
strong guard of the constitution, and whenever, by any 
department of the government, that guard is attempted 
to be overleaped or broken down, we should stand up, 
as one, man, to repel the assault. By this means, 
alone, can the sovereignty of the States be maintained. 
Assumptions of power are ever aggressive—ever prone 
to increase; that which was a pigmy to-day, becomes a 
giant to-morrow ; the right which was barely ceded at 
one moment, is arrogantly claimed at the next, and we 
are in danger, unless this unwarrantable interference 
of the Supreme Judiciary with the rights of States 
can be repealed, of seeing, one by one, our rights and 
our privileges, as States, invaded and destroyed, till 
all are swollovved up in the capacious vortex of the 
pow'ers of the general government. 

Sir, I for one will not stand by calmly while this de¬ 
structive revolution is going on; I have none of that 
holy respect for the precedents and decisions of courts, 
which stands in the way of the progress of so many 
gentlemen on this floor; and I am willing, here in my 
place, to assert that on this question of repeal and the 
power of the Legislature aud of the State courts to 
make that repeal effective, the supreme court of the 
United States has no right, no power, no authority, un¬ 
der the constitution, to interfere; that, at all hazards, 
such interference should be repelled and the sover¬ 
eignty of the States preserved'intact and inviolate. 
The value of State sovereignty, the value of the right 
of appeal, and the value of the liberties of the people, 
which consist so much in the maintenance of these two 
great rights, are essentially one aud the same, and they 
are beyond all price—beyond all computation. 

In the remarks which I have had the honor to sub¬ 
mit to the Convention on a former occasion, I have 
stated the principles by which, in my opinion, the right 
of repeal was to be regulated—that it was to be exer¬ 
cised only for the welfare and benefit of the public, and 
of the necessity for its exercise the Legislature must 
be the judge. I can only now, sir, reiterate this decla¬ 
ration, and repeat that the same power which is com¬ 
petent to judge when powers may be taken from the 
people and granted to corporations, is equally compe¬ 
tent to determine when such powers shall be resumed. 
It is a right founded in the very nature of things, and 
its preservation is a boon for which we cannot pay too 
dearly—which is invaluable to those who would up¬ 
hold and would transmit unimpaired our rights, our 
privileges and our institutions., With these views, I 
am willing to place here, in this declaration of our 
rights, the amendment of the gentleman from Guern¬ 
sey. 

Mr. HOLT said: I wish to exhibit a platform, laid 
upon a firm foundation, upon which myself and friends 
maintaining the doctrine of unqualified repeal can 


stand, uimioved nnd unshaken. I want it in the book 
to justify to our constituents the votes which we give 
upon this question. 

I shall not follow the gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. 
Kennon,] through his train of argument, because it 
was an argument of a cause, not the cause or question 
before the Convention. The gentleman delivered a 
very able lecture on constitutional law. He forged and 
finished a strong chain. But his lecture was not well 
applied, because not applicable to the question under 
consideration—his chain was fastened to the end of a 
log, which it was not proposed to move. I am not pre¬ 
pared to say that 1 should difier with him entirely up¬ 
on a single proposition which he advanced, and yet, if 
he votes as he says he shall, my vote will be directly 
contrary to his. 1 do not consent, lor this reason, that 
he shall be denied a place in the democratic fold; we 
can’t spare him, nor do I despair of him. I do not now 
intend a speech, but a platform. My first proposition 
is the following: 

The State Legislature has plenary power. All that 
is not withheld by the constitution, it possesses. 

My next proposition is : 

The Legislature is the proper department of the 
government to declare and establish the policy of the 
State; to declare what shall be lawful and what un¬ 
lawful, having no check on its action by the judicial 
department, unless it exercises powers withheld by the 
constitution. 

My third proposition is: , . 

That the Legislature, in the legitimate exercise of its 
powers and duties, should encourage all business that 
is promotive of the public prosperity, and prohibit 
every thing that is found injurious to the public welfare. 

From these propositions, which I take lor granted, 
none will dispute, I deduce the doctrine of repeal— a. 
doctrine which 1 had supposed well settled as an arti¬ 
cle of democratic faith. 

I now propose to illustrate the foregoing propositions, 
and show how they necessarily result, in their opera¬ 
tion, in the doctrine of repeal. 

In the absence of prohibitory legislation, the busi¬ 
ness ol retailing ardent spirits, of gaming, aud of issu¬ 
ing paper money would be lawful, open and free to 
all the inhabitants. Each and all of these occupations 
have, at difierent times, and in different States, been 
both licensed and prohibited. Gaming is now a licens¬ 
ed, lawful business in the State of Louisiana. Now, 
I will suppose artificial persons created by acts of in¬ 
corporation, with the privilege of following these sev¬ 
eral occupations. After a while, the business is found 
to be injurious to the public welfare, and the people 
demand of their Legislature that it shall be prohibit¬ 
ed. There is no doubt that the Legislature can pro¬ 
hibit the business to individuals, and to my mind it is 
equally clear it can to corporations. The creation of 
corporations with these privileges, places them on pre¬ 
cisely the same footing with individuals, each having a 
right to engage in and pursue the occupation, subject 
to be suppressed by the Legislature, whenever the pub¬ 
lic welfare shall require it. Shall I be told that there 
is a contract in the way of prohibiting the business to 
the corporation ? This would be conveying the doc¬ 
trine that an act of incorporation is a contract, quite be¬ 
yond and away out of sight of auy decision yet made, 
and gentlemen may be assured that decisions of this 
character have already reached the ultimate limit. So 
far as I recollect the decisions of the Supreme Court of 
the United States, and I do not recollect but two deci¬ 
ded by that court to the effect that an act of incorpora¬ 
tion was a contract, the Dartmouth College case and 
the Mississippi Bank case; in the former it was decided 
that the Legislature could not transfer the property of 
one set of trustees, appointed in an authorized way, to 
another set oppointed in a different way,not authorized 
by the original charter. In the latter case the Legisla* 
ture undertook to change the rights of the corporation 
of jts debtors and creditors, which had apcrued to them 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 1143 


by virtue of the act of incorporation. The point 
whether the Legislature could, or could not suppress 
the business of a corporation, authorized by its charter, 
when, in its opinion, that business had become injuri¬ 
ous to the public welhire of the S^ate, was neither rais¬ 
ed nor thought of. Now 1 put to gentlemen the fol¬ 
lowing case, and ask them t(j respond to the question, 
whether the act of repeal by the Legislature, in the 
case supposed, would be an infringment of any provis¬ 
ion of the cmistitution of the United States. The busi¬ 
ness of retailing ardent spirits, and of issuing paper 
money, being allowed to individuals, and also granted 
to corporations by their charter, having become, in 
the opinion oi the General Assembly, detrimental to 
the prosperity ot the State, the Legislature prohibit it 
somewhat after the following manner : 

Whereas, the retailing nf ardent spirits and the issuing and 
circulation of a paper currency have been found subversive of 
the public morals, and embarrassing to the trade, commerce and 
businps of the State; Therefore, 

Be it enacted That the business of retailing ardent spirits, 
and the' issuing and circulation of a paper currency is hereby 
prohibited, as well to corporations as to individuals, and that all 
powers and privileges heretofore granted to corporations, to re¬ 
tail ardent spirits, and to issue and circulate a paper currency, be, 
and the same are hereby revoked, and the laws granting them re¬ 
pealed. 

I have not attempted to make a proposition, but the 
substance of one. Now will any geiitle.man say and 
so record himself in the book, that such an act would 
be an infringement of the United States constitution ? 
Will any one say that he believes the Supreme Court 
of the United Slates would so decide? Well, gentle¬ 
men, you must say aye or come up and subscribe to 
the doctrine of repeal. This is the alternative, these 
are the horns of llie dilemma, if it be a dilemma. 
Choose between them. The Supreme Court of the 
United Slates will never make the decisions alluded to 
authoritative precedents, except in cases identical cu’ 
exactly parallel. The doctrine of repeal comes far 
short of the principle declared in those decisions. I 
claim now, sir, to have shown that the doctrine of un¬ 
qualified repeal is clearly constitutional, and that it may 
be expedient and even necessary. 

After all, 1 will admit that there may be cases in 
which a remuneration should be made to the corpora¬ 
tors. If such cases should occur, it would become the 
duty of the Legislature to make the proper provision; 
either to send out a commission to assess damage up¬ 
on actual view, or send the cause to a juiy. The ob¬ 
jection of the gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Case,] 
that the General Assembly is an unwieldy body, unfit¬ 
ted and unsuited to try the merits of a cause or claim 
for remuneration, that such a trial would cost $500 or 
$1000 a day, besides being attended by many other 
inconveniences, has no force. No such trial is pro¬ 
posed. 

The General Assembly determine from the character 
and complexion of the case whether it be one calling 
for remuneration. Generally a simple repeal, together 
with a provision for disposing of their property, for col¬ 
lecting and paying their debts, would be all that would 
be required. But if a case should occur when remu¬ 
neration should be deemed proper, it should be provi¬ 
ded for by the Legislature in one of the ways before 
indicated. Assuredly the representatives of the people 
in General Assembly may be trusted to make the de¬ 
cision whether it be a proper case for remuneration, 
and if it be, the proper mode of ascertaining and ma¬ 
king it. I would not place a franchise, a political en¬ 
tity on the same high ground that I do property held 
by natural right. The franchise is created and granted 
by the jxjlitical body'and received upon the implied con¬ 
dition that should the public good require it, it may be 
resumed. But properly held by natural right can only 
be appropriated by the State in cases of emergency.— 
When such property is taken for public use, the owner 
should be entitled to a full hearing before a jury of his 
country. 

I have not gone out of the record to argue or talk 


about questions not before the Convention, having not 
even a remote bearing upon the one under consiuera 
tion. If I am not disqualified by defective sight to dis¬ 
charge my duty, I certainly am from works of super¬ 
erogation, and for buncombe. 

I shall vote for the amendment offered by the gentle¬ 
man from Guernsey, because I think it right, and in the 
right place. It is a declaration of the power of repeal, 
the right of repeal. I know it confers no power on 
the General Assembly which they could not otherwise 
possess; and would deserve no place in the constitu¬ 
tion, but from the fact that a great political party in 
the State deny the power, the General Assembly have 
for many years been embarrassed by it, and its impor¬ 
tance seems to demand that it should be settled by the 
people. 

On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, the Convention 
took a recess. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending being on the amendment of 
Mr. Archbold, to the amendment of Mr. Lawrence. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I suppose sir, that now is to be 
the last time that this vexed question, is to occupy the 
attent'on of this Conventira ; I must say that I hope it 
is. And inasmuch as we have reason to expect that 
this will be the last time that it will occupy our atten¬ 
tion, I beg the indulgence 6f the Convention, while I 
lay before them as briefly as possible, the views which 
1 entertai?! in reference to the icpealability of charters, 
for that, sir, 1 regard as the principal question now be¬ 
fore this Convention. 

But, sir, I hope that I may be indulged for a very- 
little while in replying to some remarks, made here, 
by the gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. Kennon,] which, 
to my mind, aid not seem exactly to bear upon the 
question now before us. In doing so, I shall be as 
brief as possible, and shall go no further than the argu¬ 
ment and remarks of that gentleman necessarily leads. 

I regret that the gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. 
Kennon,] is not in his seat. I notice first that part of 
his remarks in which he makes a complaint about the 
manner in which his fellow members on this floor and 
the party to which he claims to belong, complain of 
his position and action and the position and action of 
others, who have thought it their duty to differ with 
the main part of the democratic party on this floor, on 
this subject. Now, sir, I ask the attention of the can¬ 
did men of this body, to a lair view of this point of 
difference as to what does or does not constitute them 
or us legitimate members of any given sect or party. 
Sir, since the history of man first began, it has been 
always found that his aggregate race has been differing 
upon almost every question that may arise, whether in 
relation to his political or his social condition. The 
manner and extent of that difference have been ex¬ 
ceedingly various, in all ages, and constitute a point of 
distinction between the people and institutions of the 
old and new word. 

As a general thing, sir, among the republics of the old 
world; for it is only to them that you can look for suf¬ 
ficient intellect and attainments, in the arts and scien¬ 
ces to give any prominence to their differences of opin¬ 
ion on "subjects of government, referring, I say, to the 
governments of the old world, which possessed a de¬ 
gree of. freedom such as enabled them to really ,give 
character and markedness to these diflerences, you 
find this very striking peculiarity; Universally, two 
or more parties in their government, and indeed upon 
almost every subject occupying their attention. But, 
sir, in a large majority of cases these differences among 
them were aboirt men. Not so with the parties of 
modern times. We differ more upon principles. Sir, 

I regard it as highly creditable to the institutions of 
our country, that our party divisions are predicated up¬ 
on a different foundation. We, sir, are supposed to 
differ upon principle, and the various parties that are 
formed under this government all claim that they are 












1144 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


separated from each other, not from any particular 
attachment to this or that leader or prominent man, 
but upon this or that principle of government. These 
differences are not confined to politics alone, but ex¬ 
tend to every thing that comes within the range of dis¬ 
cussion among mankind; and in our day there is 
scarcely a subject that has not its various parties, dif¬ 
fering more or less widely on some point or other; so 
that men are found disagreeing with each other on al¬ 
most all subjects of thought and investigation, one 
maintaining one hypothesis, and another another. As 
the consideration of the subject widens and extends it¬ 
self, men are found ranging themselves on this or that 
side, thus constituting distinct parties or sects. How 
then, sir, do you, or can you discriminate between the 
men who are entitled to say that they agree together 
and who are entitled to be called members of this or 
that party, or sect, but bjr inquiring into the particular 
views which they entertain, in reference to this or that 
subject dividing the people into parties. Is not this, 
sir, the way in which the parties of this country have 
grown into an organized form ? Yes, sir, it is; and so 
long as they are maintained on that ground, you may 
rely upon it, that your country is reasonably safe. So 
long as the intellect of the American people is directed 
to the examination of great principles, you need not 
tremble much for the safety of your government; but 
when they lose sight of these and begin to follow er 
ring and ambitious men, then is the time to fear. 

Now, why are men said to belong to this or that par¬ 
ty, distinguished by this or that name 1 Merely be 
cause upon examination, whether of their declarations 
or their acts, we find that there are certain principles 
about which they agree and by which they are govern¬ 
ed in their actions. And in a large majority of instan 
ces if you come to apply this test to the individual 
man, you will find it to be absolutely necessary that 
you should look at his acts in order that you may have 
a reliable criterion. Now, sir, that is all that we ask 
here. We claim the right of applying that test here 
not only looking at the acts of man but also to the 
opinions which they entertain and propagate. Do men 
suppose that the American people in general, or the 
people of Ohio in particular, are so ignorant and blind 
as not to know as clearly and di'-tinctly as they can 
know any fact whatever, the differences in point of 
principle that divide the two great parties of the coun¬ 
try? Sir, it is an insult to the people of the State, to 
speak and act upon the hypothesis that this is so. And 
sir, let me say that the men who talk here and claim 
to belong to one party while they are continually act¬ 
ing with the other, and at the same time have the ef¬ 
frontery to tell the people of Ohio that they do belong 
to the party that they are not acting with, are insulting 
their intelligence, and they are insulting us when they 
complain of us for candidly asserting our conviction of 
their true paternity. Sir, it is undoubtedly a wrong 
or an insult to the people to do this. It is an insult to 
them for a man to stand up in his place here and advo¬ 
cate doctrines that are as well established as any dec- 
trine can be, and yet to say that they belong to that 
party which discards these doctrines. This, sir, I say, 
is as great an insult to the intelligence and understand¬ 
ing of our people as any conduct possibly can be. 

But, sir, they cannot deceive mankind by such a 
course; and when they thus act, they should remem¬ 
ber that it is our right to judge of their real position. 
It is this course of action that gives them their true 
position; and having a right to judge of it, we have a 
right to speak of it, if we do so in a respectful and pro¬ 
per manner. Occasionally, no doubt, in the heat of de¬ 
bate, we may have said things which we ought not to 
have said; but very seldom, I hope, have I so far for¬ 
gotten what was due to this body as to be guilty of 
making remarks which could be regarded as personal 
or oftensive. And, I will now say, Mr. President, that 
it is not my design, in the remarks 1 have to offer to¬ 
day, to say anything that can be construed into person¬ 


alities ; but I do design, both to-day, and for the re¬ 
mainder of the lime which this body may be in ses¬ 
sion, to discuss all propositions which may come before 
us with reference to the principles and to the interests 
of the party to which I belong, with all the freedom I 
may desire; and I hope that gentlemen will not think 
I am trespassing beyond the bounds of propriety and 

right when I do so. • j L 

The gentleman from Belmont complained that we 
were treating some of our own party unfairly and un¬ 
justly, simply because they happened to differ with us 
on a mere legal question. Now, I must say, that con¬ 
sidering the ability of that gentleman and the great in¬ 
telligence which he is known to possess, I was a littte 
astonished at that declaration. Were he_present in his 
place, I would like to refresh his mind with a fact that 
stands out clearly upon the face of the history and the 
politics of the country, that there is not a question of 
principle dividing the parties of this country that I am 
now able to recur to or remember, but revolves itself 
into a legal question. When the parties first started in 
their opposite career, it was on a question as to what 
the constitution of the United States authorized Cen¬ 
to do. The attempt to incorporate the United 
States Bank was the origin of the bitter differences 
between the parties in this country. When that ques¬ 
tion was first mooted the strife was warm, and the lead- 
in*^ men of the day were arrayed in bitter strife and 
he'ated contest on each side. It was raised in the very 
cabinet of President Washington, and was there dis¬ 
cussed with as much jvarmth and heat as other most 
important questions were discussed in that day. It is 
true, indeed, that questions were discussed in a very 
different manner then than now; and sir, I will say 
further, that much higher credit is reflected upon those 
who then occupied the different sides of parties in this 
country than we are justly entitled to appropriate to 
ourselves in this day. I will not say that this Conven¬ 
tion has not sustained its character with more respect 
than is usual. It is true, some things have passed here 
which should not have happened; but, sir, as a general 
thing, personalities have prevailed less here than is usu¬ 
al in our days. In times past ihe contest was for some 
great principle, and so it always should be. 

In that struggle, to which 1 have just alluded, Alex 
ander Hamilton occupied one side, and Thomas Jeffer¬ 
son and Edmund Randolph, the other; and the simple 
question was, as to the constitutionality of a United 
States Bank—and if you want a fair collection of the 
texts that have governed the federal party and their 
lineal descendants ever since, you can find no place in 
which they are so ingeniously wrought together, as in 
the letter from Mr. Hamilton to President Washington, 
upon that memorable occasion. 

The question then, as in all subsequent time, was 
narrowed down to a single point; and that, a point of 
law ; a pure law question. In the discussion of that 
question, Mr. Hamilton laid down a rule by which it 
was to be whether the power was within the 

purview of the constitution. And, sir, that rule was 
broad enough, in all conscience, to meet every claim 
this party might then, or at any time to come, set up. 
It was, would the law be general in its operation, or 
would it bo local ? That question, answered on one 
side, or on the other, determines the power of Con¬ 
gress to pass the law. If general in its operation, then 
Congress has the power; if local, then it has not. 
There, sir, was a legal conclusion that was come to, 
with reference to the entire body of that instrument, 
and upon that distinction, and the other distinctions 
urged in that great controversy, have the two great 
parties been divided from that day to this. 

I would like if the gentleman from Belmont were 
here, that he would point out to me a single marked 
difference between the two parties, from that time to 
this, where that difference did not resolve itself into a 
question of law. What is it with regard to the ques¬ 
tion of Internal Improvements? What is it with re- 
















CONVENTION REPOKTS. 


1145 


gard to the question of the Tariff'? What is it with 
regard to the question of a United States Bank, or the 
right to legislate for the territories, and the banking 
system generally, and the repealability of charters? 
Why, sir, thei’e is not one of them ; not one of these 
differences between the tw'o parties, that does not re¬ 
solve itself into a simple question of law. What is 
right, or what is wrong, what are the powers of the 
General Government, to engage in this, or that, or all 
these policies, and how far that government may go, 
are questions to be settled by the constitution of the 
United States. And in settling these questions, we 
array ourselves into parties. 

Then, sir, vvhen the gentleman complains that we 
are dealing unjustly with him, and his friends, in telling 
them they are not members of our party, because they 
differ with us in regard to a law question, that com¬ 
plaint is unreasonable and unjust. It is simply by de¬ 
termining which side of this law question, these gen¬ 
tlemen take, that we most certainly, most satisfactori¬ 
ly determine whether they belong to the democratic 
party or not. 

Sir, I repeat it, and demand that it be denied if it 
can, with reason and sense, that this is the best test— 
the most sensible and just criterion by which to judge 
to which party a man belongs; and while we judge 
and inai'k parties by that criterion, there is less danger 
of doing wrong to our institutions, and less danger of 
getting wrong ourselves. 

Sir, I felt bound to make these remarks, because of 
the complaints which have been, time and again, utter¬ 
ed here, against members, with whom I agree, because 
of the severity with which we have decried those who 
claim to be of the democratic party, while they do not, 
and will not agree with that party, in sentiment, sym- 
pathy, or action. I feel, sii% as if our complaints were 
reasonable : and those gentleman have no earthly rea¬ 
son to utter one single murmur, in reference to any 
thing we have urged upon this subject, bearing upon 
their conduct and sentiments, as expressed here, and as 
shown by their actions. If we have impugned their 
motives, that, I will admit, was going beyond what we 
ought, under ordinary circumstances, to have done— 
but if we have simply insisted upon it, referring to 
those criterions, that they were not of us—not in truth 
members of our party, then we are within the legiti¬ 
mate bounds of right, and they have no just cause to 
complain of us. 

Now, sir, to the main question arising upon the re¬ 
marks of the gentleman from Belmont. That gentle¬ 
man turned upon us last night with the question of 
the constitutionality of a paper currency, at a time 
when we all had little reason to suspect it, but as he 
made that subject a point in his argument, and has 
sent it forth to the world, for the purpose of injuring 
us who do not agree with him, it is our duty to de-i 
fend ourselves in our position, and from that improp¬ 
er attack. Sir, if that gentleman were here, I would 
like to ask him this question, as I asked the gentle¬ 
man from Franklin the other day. I would like to 
ask him, supposing his mind to be thoroughly con¬ 
vinced that in the submission of a question of this 
sort to the people of the State, to be determined by 
them, and their determination of the question one 
way would be a violation of a constitutional provis¬ 
ion, either in regard to our own constitution or the 
constitution of the United States; whether in such 
case he would be willing to give his vote, here or any 
where else, for such a proposition, namely : whether 
they will nullify the constitution? How, sir, do you 
think that gentleman must answer such a question? 
Is there a man here who believes that the honorable 
gentleman from Belmont, would say that upon that 
hypothesis, he would consent to submit such a ])rop- 
osition to the people? No sir; he would answer as 
the gentleman from Franklin did, and say that he was 
convinced that it was unconstitutional. Well, gentle¬ 
men have a right to say that; but still it does not come 


up to that charity which ought to be evinced; for al¬ 
though they may be convinced of any proposition, 
they ought certainly to concede that gentlemen who 
entertain opinions the reverse of theirs, may be as 
thoroughly convinced of the truth of their opinions as 
they themselves can be. And, sir, if your convictions 
were changed in this matter, and you were called up¬ 
on to submit it to the people whether they would have 
a paper currency or not, if you believed that if they 
resolved in favor of a paper currency, they would re¬ 
solve against a provision of the constitution of the Uni¬ 
ted States, would you submit the proposition? No, 
gentlemen; while you occupy the position which you 
now occupy in this body, you would not do it, because 
your doctrine would be that whatever the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States says, that must be obeyed, 
because it is the supreme law of the land, and all the 
voices of the people of the several States cannot nullify 
the voice of that constitution; the rights of the small¬ 
est minority who claim protection under that constitu¬ 
tion, must be held secure. The united voice of the 
people, it is true, can change it in a proper proceeding 
for that purpose, but whilst it remains, it is the most 
sacred guarantee to that minority that is known to the 
institutions of man. And it was for that purpose sir, 
that this constitution was framed; and I will say fur¬ 
ther, that any man who deliberately proposes to give 
away the rights of that minority, is fit for deeds of 
darkness. When the people have framed their consti¬ 
tution, the humblest n an in the community, or the 
smallest minority, is entitled to the protection which 
it guarantees them until it is changed. 

Sir, I have put a hypothetical case. Now I say that 
I am convinced that the constitution of the United 
States does prohibit a paper currency in this country, 
and to submit to the people whether they will have a 
paper currency or not, is nothing more nor less than 
submitting to them whether they will disregard that 
prohibition or not. Now let us see whether myself and 
those who entertain the same views which I entertain, 
or the gentleman from Belmont and his friends, are 
best supported in our view's by fair and legitimate au¬ 
thority. I contend, sir, that wh<.'n the constitution of 
the United Stales says, “No State shall emit bills of 
credit,” the design was to prohibit paper money forev¬ 
er from being in use under that instrument, or the gov¬ 
ernment formed or resti'ained by it. Now let us look 
at the authority. The gentleman from Belmont gave 
his authority, and what was it? What did he adduce 
to show us that the term “ bills ot credit ” did not 
mean paper money in general? Did he refer you to a 
solitary book ?. Did he cite the debates in Convention 
when this provision was under consideration ? Did he 
direct your attention to the history of that day, or to 
any work on politics or ethics, to show' you that it had 
any other meaning? Have your politicians done this? 
I appeal to you, gentlemen, to say whether any of your 
politicians of this day ever attempted to come up and 
meet the proposition on the position I now take. Do 
you cite any authentic history, or any responsible and 
reliable work on the subject of ethics or of politics, that 
was written about the time of the formation of the 
constitution, to show that the term “bills of credit 
meant solely [)aper issued by the government ? If you 
do I must say that I have never seen anything of the 
kind. I do not believe, sir, that it can be shown; but 
on the other hand, I am fully convinced that the con¬ 
trary can be sliowm. • u 

Now siTj I propose to occupj' tlie 3,ttcntion ot th© 
Convention but a little longer on this point, and I de¬ 
sign to occupy it legitimately, for I am pleased to see 
that the Convention ap[)ear to be attentive. _ I propose 
to enquire, from the best authority I can find in that 
day, what was the meaning attached to the term “ bills 
of credit?” and the first authority I cite, is Rees’En¬ 
cyclopedia, a book which, having stood the test of time, 
may be regarded as a book of undoubted authority. 
The author of that book under the title “ bill of cred- 














1146 CONVENTION HEPORTS. 


it,” cites you first to the term “credit.” Under this 
head, he says it is also a terra applied to the currency 
of a country, circulating in the form of bills, &c.; and 
then he refers again, to the article under the head of 
“ paper moneys” Then sir, turning to that article what 
do you find ? You find that it is divided into two sorts 
—one issued by the government and predicated upon 
the faith of the government alone, the other issued by 
banks and bankers. That is paper money, as it was 
understood ahd explained, and this is bis explanation 
of the term bill of credit, as understood in his day. 
The able collection of men who assisted him to get up 
that work, add greatly to its authority. T have not 
looked into McCulloch, w’ho is an able writer on this 
question, but bein^ a more modern writer, his opinion 
would not be so far from a suspicion of the political in¬ 
fluences which in our day seem to be busy falsifying 
the solemn records of history, in order to support the 
schemes and theories by which the federal party at 
tempt to protect themselves in their doctrines and 
practices. Still, I have no doubt but this author will 
be found sustaining this definition. 

I refer you next to Barber's history of Massachusetts. 
He gives an account of the mode in which bills of 
credit were first put into circulation, and states that it 
was in 1690, after the Canada war, and after staling 
what the Legislature of the Colony of Massachusetts 
had done, he goes on further to state, that this was the 
commencement of the issue and use of paper money in 
this country. You will find that term specificalh' used 
there. 

Turn then, to Hutchenson’s history of the same colo¬ 
ny, and you find him describing the use of paper mon¬ 
ey, from its commencement down to the revolution. 
It is sometimes said to have been issued by private as¬ 
sociations, or bodies corporate; and when he speaks of 
money issued in this wray, he calls them “ bills of cred¬ 
it.” 

Gentlemen need not take my “ say so,” my wmrd lor 
it, but they can examine it for themselves; and they 
will find that the first money of this kind that was is¬ 
sued, was issued by the “ Land Bank of Boston,” and 
he tells you that they issued a hundred and fifty thous¬ 
and pounds of these “ bills of credit,” 

Now I might refer you to Bollman’s history of Penn¬ 
sylvania, and Bailsman’s history of Maryland ; and you 
will find that this term is at all times used as synony¬ 
mous with “paper money.” If any thing can fix the 
meaning of a term, so that that meaning shall be stable 
and reliable, and so that you can with confidence as¬ 
sert that the term means a certain thing, it is the long 
and uniform use that has been made of that term. By 
tracing down these histories that I speak of, you will 
find that the term “ bills of credit,” is used again and 
again ; but it is always used as synonymous with “ pa¬ 
per money; ” and I have shown you that that credita¬ 
ble and reliable author, Rees, in his Encyclopedia, 
gives to this kind of a currency the distinction above 
mentioned—paper money issued by bankers, and pa¬ 
per money issued by a government. I have showui 
you, sir, that in the histories of this government, wdiere 
this term had its application and use, it is used indis¬ 
criminately, to signify the issues of banks, and the is¬ 
sues of paper by governments. The simple question 
was: “Is it a thing designed to circulate as money?’’ 
and not “ does it rest simply upon credit.” 

Now, sir, I feel that I might with great propriety, 
stop here; but I have a much higher author than any 
I have yet cited. It is not the authority of any obscure 
man; It is not the authority of even one great and dis¬ 
tinguished man, but it is the authority of men whose 
names have been made immortal—men that are distin¬ 
guished for all the endowments and mental attainments 
that can distinguish men any where ; it is the opinion 
of the men who framed the instrument we are, I hope, 
anxiously, earnestly, and sincerely seeking the true 
meaning of. To these men I refer you for an explana¬ 
tion of the meaning of that term, as it is used in that 


iusli^iraent, which wm should all desire to understand. 
Sir, I am sincerely desirous of ascertaining the true 
meaning of this term, as it is used in that great instru-' 
ment; and if I find that the meaning which I claim for 
it, is not justly and truly supported by good authority, 
then I will abandon the position I have taken in refer¬ 
ence to it. 

And, reversing the case, I ask of gentlemen on the » 
other side to do the same. If they cannot support the i 
position they have taken by the authority to which I I 
have alluded, then I ask of them whether, in all hon h 
esty, they ought not to abandon that position, and 
come forth fearlessly in behalf of the trutlq'lel it strike j 
down what party it may ? Gentlemen, we are all i 
American citizens, and I trust that when all of us are | 
gone, our government and our example will continue j 
to be a blessing to mankind. The men who will dis¬ 
regard party and advocate the truth, even though they | 
have to abandon party connection and party dogmas, 
to stand in the face of party prejudices, will be the \ 
men who will hereafter be looked upon as patriots, as j 
friends to the country and benefactors to mankind, j 
Then, gentlemen, let us look with earnestness into the || 
proceedings of these men who framed that instrument, i 
and see what they said as to its true meaning. The 
first extract to which 1 call your attention is to be found 
on page 1343 of the 3d volume of the Madison papers. 
When the constitution was first drafted, it declared • 
that Congress should have the power to coin money and 3 
emit bills of credit. 

The absolute prohibition to the States to issue bills I 
of credit was not contained in it then, but it contained 
the proposition to give to Congress the right te issue ] 
bills of credit. Now, according to the position assura- ' 
ed by the ingenious gentleman from Belmont, if they 
had only retained that expression, to “ emit bills of 
credit,” it would have settled the question. He says 
that because Congress has reserved to itself the power 
to coin money, a State cannot confer that power upon 
any body else. By the same course of argument it 
would follow, that had they retained the express pow¬ 
er to emit bills of credit, the States would not have 
had it. That, however, is not to the question. The 
question before the Convention at the time, was this: 
Governeur Morris moved to strike out “ and emit bills 
on the credit of the United States.” 

Mr. Mercer said, “ though he had a mortal hatred to 
paper money, yet, as he could not foresee all emergen¬ 
cies, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legisla¬ 
ture. 

Mr. Mercer said he “was a friend to paper money, 
though in the present state and temper of America, he 
should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. 

It w'as impolitic, also, to excite the opposition of all 
those who were friends to paper money. 

These are some of the remarks of Mr. Mercer, one 
of the most enlightened and able of the men of that 
body. 

Now gentlemen, I ask you to tell me, just at that pe¬ 
riod, what kind of paper money had any friends in 
America? I want you to come up as men, and answer 
that question. What kind of paper money had any 
credit at that time at all ? Was it your continental 
money ? No sir. No sane men would hazard his rep¬ 
utation by asserting anything of the kind. Was there 
any State paper money in credit? No sir; there was 
no State in the Union that had much out; but sir, it 
was the paper money of the Massachusetts Bank, of 
Boston, the bank of New York, and the paper of the 
old bank of North America, at Philadelphia. That 
was the only kind of paper money that had friends, or 
credit iir the United States, and I ask any man to stand 
up on this floor, and show me a particle of history to 
authorize him in declaring that there was any paper 
money issued by the government, which W’as in credit. 
The only paper money then, which had credit in Amer 
ica was the money of the three banks which 1 have 
named, and these three banks were the instrumentali- 



















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1147 


ties by which the worst principles of human nature 
were roused, on behalf of this most artful and insid¬ 
ious of all schemes for fertilizing the rich man’s fields 
by the sweat of the poor man's brow. And this, sir,is 
the paper money which Mr. Mercer refers to, when he 
says that it would excite the opposition of all those 
who were opposed to putting a stop to the circulation 
of paper money. Sir, All eflbrts to issue paper money 
by government, had long gone into discredit, and at 
that time, your continental money was selling at more 
than five hundred dollars for one. This kind of money 
then had no friends in America. 

But sir, other projects for paper money had friends, 
and ardent friends at that very time, and these projects 
were banks of issue. 

What was one of those experiments that had just 
been made, and out of which the people of the State of 
Pennsylvaniahad just come with great excitement, and 
in regard to which the two great parties of the coun- 
ti-v were most bitterly arrayed against each other ? It 
was the notes circulated by the old bank of North 
America, and this incessant excitement continued till 
1787. That, sir, is one of the experiments wdiicli he 
had in his mind, and which the people of the entire 
country had become disgusted w'ith, and which they 
considered to be an attempt to speculate upon the theo¬ 
ry of the government by a set of men who had no 
more right to it than you or! have to-day. ‘‘ Mr. Ells¬ 
worth thought this-a lavorite moment ro shut and bar 
the door against paper money. The raischiet of the 
various experiments which had been made were now 
fresh in the public mind, and had excited the disgust 
of all the respectable part of America. Now, sir, what 
various experiments had been made by the people ol 
this country, th'^ mischiefs of which were so fresh in 
their minds'? Why, sir, clearly bank projects as well 
as government projects. “ Mr. Randolph, notwithstand¬ 
ing his antipathy to paper, money could not agree to 
strike out the words.” 

“ Mr. Wilson. It will have a most salutary influence 
on the credit of the United States to remove the possi¬ 
bility of paper money.” 

Here, sir, are the opinions of the.se men as to the true 
import and meaning of this term, “bill ol credit, ’ at 
the time it was inserted where we now find it in our 
constitution. 

Now, I ask the attention of the members ol the Con¬ 
vention to another fact in close connection w’ith this; 
and that is, to examine the petitions presented by the 
people of Bennsylvania, praying a repeal of the char¬ 
ter of the bank of North America, and then say wheth¬ 
er there is not good ground for asserting, as these men 
did, that this experiment could never succeed ^^ile 
these mischiefs were remembered. The nnschiels 
complained of are truly astonishing, so much so that 
they are almost incredible. The charges brought 
against that bank by the people of Pennsylvania when 
it was not more than three years old, were such, that 
in spite ol a most powerful opposition, headed by the 
wealth of Philadelphia, the Legislature of the Stale did 
repeal that charter. ^ 

Now, I ask the attention of the Convention to that 
part of these proceedings where this question again re¬ 
curs, as to what is the meaning of this term “ bills ol 
credit.” It will be found in page 1442. Here is a 
new authority, and one of no small weight either. 

“ Mr Wilson and Mr. Sherman moved to insert after the words 
‘ coin money’ the words ‘ nor emit bills of credit nor make any 
thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. 

» Mr. Gorham thought the purpose would be as well secured 
by the provision of Article 13; whereas an absolute prohibition ol 
paper money would rouse the most desperate opposition ol its 

‘ **^ow* sir, I wish some gentlemen here would be good 
enough to tell me where were the partisans of conti- 
nental money or its kindred State government money, 
whose desperate opposition was to be aroused by tins 
clause being inserted. Gentlemen, it is trifling with us, 
trifling with your own reputation and character as can 
did men, to assume such utterly untenable ground. 


No man in his senses but knows that in that day nei¬ 
ther continental money nor any other government pa¬ 
per money had what could with the least propriety be 
called a partisan, much less partisans whose desperate 
opposition wouhl be aroused. No, sir,it was the three 
banks above named whose prolific resources for prom 
and speculation with money had just been discovered 
by the wealthy men in this country, which had 
partisans who would raise a desperate opposition. And 
the remarks of Mr. Sherman which here immediately 
follow show satisfactorily that this was the understand¬ 
ing of this remark of Mr. Gorham. 

“ Mr. Sherman thought this a favorable crisis lor crushing pa¬ 
per money. If the consent ol the Legislature could authorize 
emissions of it, the friends ot papi r money would make every ex¬ 
ertion to get into the legislature in order to license it. ’ 

Now, sir, who can doubt, iu his sober moments, that 
these men had in their minds a paper money like our 
own, in this clay, authorized in its emission by^ acts of 
the Legislature. “ Licensed” by them, as Mr. Sherman 
has said. 

Now 1 have shown wdiat w'as said by the tnembera 
of the Convention, who framed this constitution, the 
meaning of which we are here seeking after ; and sir, 
if contemporaneous construction and the use ol lan¬ 
guage clear, well settled and unequivocal, are ot any 
value in ascertaining what the real and true constiuc- 
tion of any written instrument 'ought to be, there cer¬ 
tainly can be no doubt as to what was the meaning of 
these w'ords at the time they were used in our consti¬ 
tution ; and that this object was to put an end to the 
circulation and use of paper money in this country. ' 
Then, sir, if that be so, the bank charters authorizing 
the issue and circulation oi these bills ol credit, here so 
uniformly called paper money, are all wrong and in 

violation of the Constitution ol the United States. Sn, 
if they are not so, then I am unable to say what the 
meaning of any clause of this instrument is, altei the 
men who adopted the term are dead and gone, so that 
I cannot recur to them to consult them as to what they 

did mean. . . . 

Sir, I maintain t'oat if there is a single expression m 
the constitution of the United States better settled )han 
another, from the circumstances surrounding its adop 
tion, it is the expression we are now considering and 
commenting upon, and that this was designed to mean 
paper money. How then can I, it I am sincere in my 
opinion, as to what this instrument was designe to 
mean in this respect, support any proposition that would 
thus directly contravene my settled conviction in regard 
to this matter? Sir, the profoundest conviction ol my 
mind is, that the design of the constitution ol the Uni¬ 
ted States, was to secure to us a gold and silvercurreu- 
cy. in order that the people might be protected Irom 
the ruinous consequences of paper “ion®?"’ ® 

saddest experiments of the evils of which had been 
made in all its varied forms but a very short time be- 

But, sir, one authority more, and I have done. U 
shall be that of Mr. Madison, a elatesman whose ac¬ 
knowledged ability and whose long J 

perience must give weight to any opinion he may 
Certain on this kindreS tubjeCa. opmon m rc- 

gard to this matter we have at length 

this term “ bills of J„n,ber of the Federalist, I have not the book before 
me b^t l am well satisfied that the extract, as I have 
is lTec”y given. Mr. Madison commentmg on 
this part of the constitation, and referring to the mo- 

tion of Mr. Sherman, says: 

portion to his love ot America has sustained, 

ot public pestilentof PAPER MONEY, on 

since the peace, from t necessary cmi- 

tAe necessary co^^ t,,,industry of the people, and the 

fidence in ’ titutes an enormous debt against the 

Republican unadv“ eS meinre. which mu, Hoag 

States chargeaHewUh tto unau ^^^^ if GUILT which 
remain unsa isfied, by a voluntary sacrifice onthe 

Hto of tofe OF TOCrOWEEWHI^ HAS BEEN THE INSTBO. 
MTOT OE IT. in addition to these persuasive considerations, it 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1148 


may be obserred; that the same reasons which show, the neces¬ 
sity of denying^'to the States the power of regulating coin, prove 
with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty TO SUBSTI¬ 
TUTE A PAPER MEDIUM INSTEAD OF COIN. Had every 
State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as 
many currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them 
would be impeded. Retrospective alterations in its value might 
be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and 
animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The sub¬ 
ject of loreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and 
hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion 
of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incide?it to a 
power in the States to emit paper money, than the coin gold and sil¬ 
ver.” 

Now, it must be remembered that this paper was 
written immediately after the presentation of that in¬ 
strument to the people, for their adoption, and while 
its framers were endeavoring to enlighten them as to 
its true nature and import, in order that they might 
say whether they would adopt that instrument or not. 
These were the circumstances under which that paper 
was written. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Will the gentleman from Knox 
allow me to ask him a question ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Certainly. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. After all the opposition alledged 
to have been made by Mr. Madison to any circulation 
of paper money, did he not afterwards sign a charter 
to the United States bank ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Sir, that is such an unworthy 
and disingenious kind of question—such a miserable, 
gammoning subterfuge—as that venerable gentleman, 
with his grey hairs blooming upon him, ought to be 
ashamed to resort to. It is, sir, nothing but the dis¬ 
gusting clap trap of the politician. What of it, if Mr. 
Madisor did sign such a charter? What of it, if he did 
oommit one error in his life? Are you, sir, or any of 
us, infallible? Is there one gentleman here who is wil¬ 
ling to see the institutions of our country overthrown 
and destroyed, inerely because a great man has once 
-changed his opinions? No, sir. The opinion read 
from the Federalist is Mr. Madison’s deliberate opin¬ 
ion—un opinion giving what he regarded as the true 
meaning of that instrument, immediately after its first 
publication. What of it, then, if, after being over¬ 
borne by a majority of two-thirds of your own friends, 
the Federalists and their allies, in 1816, who were de¬ 
termined then to have a United States bank, he sub¬ 
mitted rather than do what few men would have done, 
namely: to have a fight for it, and an excitement that 
would have convulsed the country from one end to the 
•other. I can hardly think of a man, General Jackson 
-excepted, who would have done otherwise than he did. 
8ir, is it to be considered a sufficient answer to all the 
satisfactory evidence we have of the true meaning of 
this sacred instrument, that Mr. Madison committed an 
error once in his life ? Oh, shame upon your disgiist- 
ing subterluge, your political gammoning and clap trap. 
Shame upon you, federalists, one and all. It is a dis¬ 
grace to you, one and all, thus to attempt to meet the 
arguments of your manly and open adversaries, who 
meet you as we are now endeavoring to meet y(;u, with 
calm and legitinjate reasoning. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I beg to state to the gentleman 
from Knox, that I have always been a follower of 
Thomas Jefferson, even from my youth up. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The gentleman from Muskingum 
had better saved his credit by withholding that asser¬ 
tion upon this floor, and in the presence of this body 
and of his Creator. He a follower of Thomas Jeffer¬ 
son, after the life he has spent and the votes he has giv¬ 
en ! Shame upon the tongue that would say so! Sir, 
I regret to speak thus of venerable and hoary-headed 
men ; but the gentleman has interfered with me, and 
I could hardly, with decent respect to the cause of 
truth and propriety, suffer him to e.scape. Yes, sir, I 
reiterate that for him to assert here that he is a follow¬ 
er of Thomas Jefferson, while he repudiates every doc¬ 
trine which he held and practised ; for him to say here 
that, after this, he is a follower of Thomas Jefferson 
and Edmund Randolph; while he follows, stepby step. 


in the tracks of their greatest and most majestic adver¬ 
sary, Alexander Hamilton, is such an insult to the peo-, 
pie of Ohio, and the character of this body, as ought 
not to be tolerated with impunity. He a follower of 
I'homas Jefferson! Sir, he is too well knovvn here. 
Year after year he has made his mark on the journals 
of your State. Those marks are there, sir, and you can 
lake his course and doctrines, as they are there in 
black and white, and those of Mr. Jefferson, also in 
black and white, and compare them, and then say 
whether, truly before God and 'man, that gentleman 
can say, and be innocent, that he is a follower of 
Thomas Jefferson. Sir, there are no doubt, hundreds 
of men born of worthy parents, who were sincerely at-j 
tached to the doctrines of Thomas Jefferson ; but! 
those parents were so unfortunate as to give birth to| 
proud children, who did not feel altogether at home| 
with the humble Democracy of the country, but im-; 
agined it to be more respectable to associate themselves 
with that party calling themselves the Decency party,! 
which has ever despised, defamed, misrepresented and! 
traduced the Democracy. But, sir, the principles oh 
Thomas Jefferson are not to be mistaken—especially 
in regard to this question, and the question of a paper ' 
currency ; and for that gentleman, therefore, to say 
that he is a follower of Thomas Jefferson, while his 
whole public life is in direct opposition to him, on thi8_ 
and all other subjects I can now think of, is an outrage-!, 
which deserves to be characterized, just I have done., 
Perhapt a little less heat might have sufficed. [Laugh-; 
ter.] 

I am now through with that gentleman and his in¬ 
terruption. 

That, sir, is all I design to say in relation to this ques¬ 
tion of the constitutionality of paper money; and I 
have now consumed so much time that I feel as though 
it would be trespassing too much upon the time of the 
Convention to proceed with the discussion of two other 
points to which I had designed to draw their atten¬ 
tion. Trusting and insisting that I have sufficiently 
shown that I and those who act with me, may very 
wel' believe that the proposition to ask the people of ‘ 
Ohio to adopt a paper currency, would be an outrage i 
on the rights of the people—that no honest man would i 
think of perpetrating, 1 now come to the great ques¬ 
tion before us, the question of repeal. I feel that I 
cannot devote the time I would desire, to this point. 
Its great importance and the intense interest it has ex¬ 
cited here and thoughout the State, and the entire >' 
country, demand of us a full examination. This I have 
not now the time to give it; still, I must beg the atten- I 
tion of the Convention while I, as briefly as possible, 
advert to it. 

First, then, as to these gentlemen claiming to be on 
our side of the house who" differ with us. The other 
day I said they were unwilling to adopt this provision, 
unless it were encumbered with some provisions ren¬ 
dering it entirely useless. I shall not press this ques¬ 
tion much at this time, but will only call attention to 
the facts showing the correctness of my former posi¬ 
tion. Among these stands prominent, this: that when 
it was suggested that it would take from corporations 
the means ot collecting debts, take from them their 
property, real and personal, and also deprive them of 
other privileges which no one- denied they had a right 
to enjoy, we proposed an amendment designed to meet 
that objection. But this was voted down by them. 
We then amend it little by little, until we supposed we 
had it ready to meet all their objections, some of which 
I considered just and proper. But all of no avail. I 
did not, it is true, consider it necessary to insert any 
provision in the constitution in regard to these matters, 
for I did not suppose that a just Legislature would re¬ 
peal a charter, and at the same time make no law for 
the preservation of property to its rightful owners. I 
went upon the supposition that the Legislature would 
be honest, wise and just. But, sir, gentlemen have 
said here that they were in favor of the repeal of all 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


charters, prospectively, and in favor of conditional re- j 
peal of past charters. The proposition was got up by 
my friend frorti Medina, which was so worded as to 
look like being merely prospective, some thinking that 
it would not retroact; that it would not reach some 
cci'i'crations which gentlemen said they wished to 
reach. The gentleman from Trumbull moved to 
amend, so as to remove all doubt. Now, sir, don’t let 
it be forgotten that Mr. Humphreville’s proposition 
was deal ly for constitutional repeal. These gentlemen 
can’t shield themselves under their absurd pretensions, 
for here was a proposition contemplating any and all 
conditions which the people, through their General 
Assembly, should determine to be just and equitable. 
Could reasonable men ask any thing better. Above 
all things could men, pretending to be demociats, ask 
for other conditions. Still, sir, the amendment of the 
gentleman from Trumbull was voted down by these 
men in a body. 

The gentleman from Licking has, at least, got him¬ 
self fixed upon the record unequivocally in favor of 
unconditional repeal, to operate prospectively, and only 
insists upon conditional repeal to past charters. Still, 
the proposition of the gentleman from Trumbull was 
voted against by the same men. Sir, I have something 
to say upon this subject, of the justice of uncondition¬ 
al repeal, to act prospectively, and of the sense, and 
propriety, and justice, of the distinction made by these 
gentlemen, on this point. But more of this .at another 
lime. These gentlemen’s acts, on the whole subject, 
did not, to my mind, look right. They appeared to 
me as gentlemen acting uncaudidly—hypocritically. 
Sir, 1 point to the acts and conduct upon which I predi¬ 
cate this charge ; and I demand of them to relieve 
themselves from it—if they can. 

What I have pointed to is but an epitome of the his¬ 
tory of their conduct in this whole matter. The full 
record is before the })eople, and of it they will, in their 
sober moments, carefully and calmly judge an.l review 
it; they will judge these miserable men, and deter¬ 
mine their claim for candor and honesty upon this im¬ 
portant subject. For my own part I have all along 
beeii satisfied that they have been dodging and endea¬ 
voring to escape a direct vote on the doctrine of repeal, 
under any and every proposition, and that there is no 
use in tampering with them ; but we must bring them 
to a direct vote at once, on a declaration of the rightof 
repeal, leaving the Legislature to exercise it according 
to the dictates of a sound and honest discretion. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Do I understand the gentleman 
from Knox to say that that is the effect of the pending 
amendment ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I have no right to say what will 
be, or what will not be, the effect of the pending' 
amendment. I have said to-day, as 1 said yesterday, 
that that is my opinion of its true effect. 

One word as to the manner in which these singular 
distinctions have arisen. I have all the while been 
satisfied that they arose from a distinction, noticed by 
the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesceck,] when 
the subject of taxing Statebonds was under discussion. 
This was, that rather than deny to the Legislature the 
{tower to repeal all laws, he would pay the holders 
of the bonds any loss they might be made to sufi’er 
thereby. I saw then, from the sensation, that it took 
with these men, and from that day to this, they have 
been in chase after this phantom, unwillingly started 
by this gentleman. 

I believe the gentleman from Hamilton to be as uj)- 
right and pure-minded a man as any in this body ; I 
believe that he desires to be right. Pursuing the same 
course of reasoning on this subject, he has fallen into 
the error which now troubles him. 

Sir, I can sympathize with him more fully,for w^hen 
my nlind was first called to this subject, I fell into ex¬ 
actly the same error. The thought occurred to me, 
and I used it in colloquial controversy: You take a 
man’s farm to make your canal or your road over, or 


1149 

his horse or his jjrovisious, to mount and feed your ar¬ 
my , and all without his consent. Why not then take a 
charter? Why not take the property of these corpo¬ 
rate bodies for the public good ? ^ 

But sir, I found that a far-seeing man among my 
adversaries soon ..aw ^h^t this was c^^uivaleiit to abau- 
doning my position. That it would prove so imprac¬ 
ticable that there would be no harm in conceding it, 
as it conld never be brought to bear to do corporations 
any harm, nor afford community any relief. That it 
would only be relieving the people of one burden, to 
impose upon them another more intolerable. On mov- 
ing it, I found that it was a wrong proposition, that the 
true principle is, that private property shall be held 
and used only, so as not to injure therest of the people. 
That no man had any experience to exercise his right to 
property, when that exercise was injurious to his neigh¬ 
bor, or to community at large. That when results 
such as these were found to follow his enjoying any 
property or privileges whatever, that then he must 
abandon them. 

Sir, I never contended that these charters should be 
repealed through mere malice, or spite, or ill-will to 
the corporators. I never contended that they should 
be taken away unless they were doing an injury in 
some form or other; but I do contend that they are 
all such a perversion of the principles of a republican 
government, and tend to create such distinctions and 
inequalities among the peo{)le, who ought to be upon 
an equality in regard to all rights and privileges, that 
there is scarcely one of them that can be rightfully 
maintained. If there be among all the corporations 
existing within the limits of our State, any that have a 
claim of favor, it is those of an eleemosynary charac¬ 
ter—those whose aim is the education of the young 
men of the State. Were I to make any exception, these 
would be the corporations I would except. 

And, sir, I would have to think a good while before 
I would go any farther; because 1 consider there is £; 
wide difference between these corporations, and the^ 
next best you can suggest, in comparison with them. 

I can sympathize then, with rny friend from Hamil¬ 
ton, in the view into which he has fallen ; although this 
is a view which, so far as I am myself concerned, ie 
long since corrected. 

The doctrine of eminent domain, sir, upon which my 
whole tlieory rested, upon which, too, it is most evi¬ 
dent the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. GroesbeckJ; 
rests, is wholly inapplicable to the repeal of a charter,,, 
as it is necessary it should be asserted for the good oi 
this country. This doctrine simply asserts the right 
and power of government to take private property 
forcibly for the positive use of the government, when- 
it may need it in carrying on any given enterprise., 
such as war, public improvements, and the like. It isi 
entirely a differentpewer from that of passing alljustaiidi 
wholesome laws necessary to secure equality and jus¬ 
tice, and promote the public good. 

I now come to the cjuestiou of the constitutionality 
of this doctrine of repeal. 

And, sir. I begin by saying that no man can main¬ 
tain his consistency on this question, as held by the. 
(iemocratic party, but by bringing lus mind up to stand 
firm and direct in the face of the decisions of the su - 
prenie court of the United States. Sii, these decisions, 
are clear and distinct, and are bioad enough to cover 
the whole ground claimed by the adversaries of repeal- 
They clearly assert the doctrine that bj repealing char¬ 
ters you would be passing laws impairing the obliga¬ 
tions of contracts, and necessarily contrary to the con¬ 
stitution of the United States in relation to contracts. 

Sir it is utterly vain to talk about repeal as a practi¬ 
cal and useful principle, without insisting upon a rever¬ 
sal or disret^ard of the celebrated DaiTmouih College 
case, and the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall therein 
delivered# 

I am quite aware, sir, that my friend from Muskin¬ 
gum [Mr. Stilwell,] regards this declaration as in the 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1150 


highest degree presumptive in me, and the next thing 
to blasphemy. But, sir, I feel that truth demands this 
•declaration of me, and I know of no mortal man so 
high or so great as to stand in the way of my declaring 
what I regard as the truth, or a true principle. Sir, I 
think more of the truth than of all the men I ever saw 
or heard of, and more of the preservation of the institu¬ 
tions of the country, and of the Democratic party, than 
of all such men as Chief Justice Marshall who have ever 
lived. Sir, I say that the life of that man, in the posi¬ 
tion in which government was unfortunate enough to 
place him, has been the greatest curse that ever fell 
upon this country. 1 say it is he who has endorsed and 
aanctioned all the errors of the old federal party, and 
thus brought great embarrassment on the Democratic 
party, and the great and glorious principles which have 
ever animated its members in the cause of freedom. It 
has been this man, sir, and his hateful federal doc¬ 
trines, which have, in a great measure, brought into 
contempt and opprobrium the decisions of the highest 
of our courts of justice—a court which ought, I confess 
at all times to be looked upon with respect. Sir, there 
is not an argument or position advanced by any of the 
great Federalists, at the outset of our government, 
which has not been endorsed by this arch traitor to 
Democracy and its principles—this high priest of fede¬ 
ralism ; and the day that he is dethroned in his influ¬ 
ence upon the American mind, and the judicial tribu¬ 
nals of the country, will be a day to be celebrated by 
the true and real Democracy, above any other day that 
has occurred since the government begun, for it will 
be the day of the downfall of their deadliest and most 
powerful enemy. 

Now, sir, I say unhesitatingly, that the Dartmouth 
College case stands in the way of the doctrine of re¬ 
peal ; and if we cannot show thatthatcase is wrong, and 
that it perverts the constitution of the United States, 
then, sir, the conclusion is inevitable that the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States is against repeal. Here, sir, 
let us pause to notice the origin of this doctrine. Sev¬ 
eral years ago, this question arose in a purely political 
contest. There was then no distinction made as to 
whether the principle ought to be applied retroactive¬ 
ly as well as prospectively, or whether it should be ap¬ 
plied prospectively only. The right of repeal, as the 
Democracy advocated it, w^as^ a right vested in the 
Legislature. Whenever the existence of a corporation 
was found to be hostile or injurious to the interests of 
community, that then they should be held to possess 
the power of relieving community fpm this evil, by 
repeal of the ill advised law conferring the franchise 
and creating the evil. 

Now, sir, might I not ask whether a more just, ne¬ 
cessary, and proper principle could be asserted by a 
people claiming to be republicans.- How, sir, can they 
preserve their institutions from degeneracy, and ulti¬ 
mate destruction, but by holding fast to this right of 
correcting the errors of one period, when discovered, 
by the experience of a succeeding age. 

No country on earth, sir, ever had a more impres- 
oive admonition to hold on with a death grasp, to this 
great fundamental principle. Your country is already 
literally shingled over with monopolies and special 
privileges, created by law, and which, in their opera- 
' tion, prove as inconsistent with republican equality 
and justice, as it is possible for any thing to be. The 
country can only be relieved from this reproach and 
injustice by repeal. 

Mr. M. then gave a brief history of the efforts of 
Dr. Wheelock and his friends, in 1757, and of the first 
chartering of Dartmouth College; the efforts of the 
Legislature of New Hampshire to change the charter¬ 
ing of the corporation; the action that followed this al¬ 
teration of their charter, and the appeal that was taken 
to the Supreme Court of the United S.atcs; and he con¬ 
tended that, although this case, looking to its real cir¬ 
cumstances, was decided correctly enough, that the 
decision was predicated upon a point not of necessity 


arising in the case. That in arguing the case, Mr.^ 
Webster placed it prominently and principally upon 
two points, not noticed by the court in their decision; 
each, or both of which, afford a clear and incontrover¬ 
tible ground for its decision, and that being thus deci¬ 
ded upon a point not of necessity arising in the case, 
it could not be relied upon as a creditable and relia¬ 
ble authority, because the authority of a decision could 
only be ascertained by tracing the analogy between 
that and a pending case, which analogy must be judg¬ 
ed by the circumstances attending both cases. If the 
analogy was clear and strong, then the prior decision 
would furnish an authority, but if there was no analo¬ 
gy between them, or if the case already decided, was 
decided upon a point not involved in the case, then the 
case already decided could furnish no authority upon 
which to rely in the case at bar. 

Now, he proposed to show that this very ingredient 
of a reliable autnority was lacking in the Dartmouth j 
College case—a case which had scarcely ever been 1 
heard of, except when adduced as an authority to sup-i j 
port the sanctity of charters. From all the circumstan-f > 
ces connected with that esse, it was clear that a decis-j' 
ion was not called for upon that point. As he had al-j i 
ready intimated, the -able counsel in that case (Mr./, 
Webster) did not rest the case upon that ground withil 
any apparent degree of confidence. He argued, in theJ 
first place, that the act of the Legislature of News! 
Hampshire was void, so far as the circumstances of ' 
that case were concerned, because it was an amend-tj; 
ment to the charter, which had not been accepted by j 
the old corporation, but one which was sought to be ' 
imposed upon them‘against their cohsent. His next?; 
f osiiion was, that the Legislature of New Hampshire ! 
had undertaken to take from these individuals private 
property, without making them any compensation. That" 
was true, and upon principles which have been well 
settled under all civilized governments for two hun¬ 
dred years. That was an act which the Legislature 
could not do, and here they proposed to take their lands, 
buildings, library, apparatus, books of account, and all, 
without making any compensation. Upon either one 
of these principles, the question must have resolved j 
itself in favor of the old Dartmouth College corpora- i 
tion. 

But, sir, it did not suit the purposes of this old fed- j 
eral court to decide this case on that ground. There I 
was a good reason in their mind for deciding this case S 
upon this peculiar ground. The case of McCulloch vs. j 
the State of Maryland, stood upon that court’s docket ■ 
at the same term. In this case naturally arose the T 
question as to the sanctity and inviolability of these ‘j 
charters. But, sir, to put in this sw’eeping principle 1 
for the protection of these aristocratic immunities and 
special privileges, would not be so well received, com- | 
ing in that unpopular and noxious case, and hence 'm 
there it is carefully omitted—not noticed,-and as care- il 
fully stuck into this just and meritorious case, with an 
unnatural and overstrained prominence. This consid- 
eration, of itself, should greatly weaken the authority i 
of this hateful case in every fearless and right minded :j 
American court. i 

Now, sir, in addition to the above objections, I insist i 
that this Dartmouth College case is entirely a new case . 
—that it rests upon no prior authority—that it attempts ’i 
to make a discrimination as to the corporations which j 
shall be regarded as contracts, and hence inviolable, { 
which is utterly senseless, unfounded in reason, and 
contradicted by autln rity. 

The court draw this distinction: that all municipal 
corporations, or corporations formed for the purpose 
of aiding government in carrying on its legitimate 
functions, were not contracts, within the meaning of 
the constitution of the United States. And yet, the 
only case which Justice Washington cites to justi¬ 
fy them in calling a charter a contract, is a case of 
a municipal corporation. It was the case of the King 
vs. Passmore, found in 3 T. E., where Justice Duller 


r 


1 





















1151 


CONVENTION REEOETS. 


incidentally remarks, that these municipal corporations 
are in the nature of contracts between the King and 
the corporators, whereby, in consideration of their un¬ 
dertaking to assist him in the government of his realm, 
he agrees to grant them certain franchises. 

And, sir, I appeal to every candid man living, to say 
if here is not a picture rnore resembling a real and le¬ 
gitimate contract, than is contained in the grants by 
jour Legislatures of bank charters, and other specula¬ 
ting, swindling, private money making corporations. 

Now, sir, I must call attention to the singular asser¬ 
tion of the gentleman from Licking upon this subject. 
Ho says, sir, that he believes in repeal, and yet that he 
regards this Dartmouth College case as an undoubted 
authority ; so he has put himself upon the record, and 
I hold him to it. Believes in repeal, and yet believes 
in the authority of this case, and another which em 
phatically denies it! Oh! shame upon such folly and 
inconsistency ! But, sir, this gentleman has the temer¬ 
ity to assert, in his published speech, the following: 

It is too late to doubt that a franchise is property, and that, as 
such, it may be taken lor public use; but never without compen¬ 
sation. It is the law that we inherited from the mother country, 
and has been the law ot England ever since the days of Magna 
Charta. 

Now, sir, the gentleman is endeavoring to establish 
the point, that charters cannot be repealed, nor their 
frai chises taken away, but upon full compensation be¬ 
ing made. And this, he has the audacity to say, is the 
law of England, and ever has been, since Magna Char¬ 
ta. 

How, sir, can he make this assertion while Black- 
stone remains good authority ? He gives, as one of the 
modes of destroying corporations, by act of Parliament. 
But no doubt his authority will soon be repudiated by 
these redoubtables. 

What else did he maintain ? Nothing else, certainly; 
look at his speech on page 246 of the debates. He 
there insists that you cannot take anything that is 
called a franchise without paying for it, and then he 
goes on to say that an instance of repealability of a 
charter is not known in England ; and when I cited 
him to an instance of the kind, in the reign of Charles 
the Second, I am answered: “Ah, that was in the reign 
of a tyrant.” 

Sir, the gentleman Irom Licking had better have 
thought a little more calmly before declaring against 
the Stuart family. He is proposing to repeat that very 
tyranny. Does he propose to exempt the charters re¬ 
pealed by Charles the Second ? Does he propose to 
save municipal corporations? No sir, by no means. 
By that distinction he escapes some of his dilemmas. 
Sir, for a man to stand up in these days and declare 
that a charter is not repealable, and that the Supreme 
Court, in so deciding, was following the settled law of 
our forefathers since the’’ days of Magna Charta, is to 
draw very largely on our credulity and to make a most 
bold and presumptuous assertion—one that betrays the 
little examination that he must have given to this sub¬ 
ject. Sir, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the country 
was shingled over with these incorporations, much as 
our country now is. The people were suffering from 
these discriminations made among them and they came 
to demand redress. That sagacious sovereign, know¬ 
ing that it was better to do justice than to maintain her 
own will, acceded to their request, and ordered the 
suppression of the whole swarm, thus striking down 
hundreds of them at one time. Here, sir, is one case 
in which these franchises were taken away without 
any compensation being made. But this is not all. 
There is that most distinguished of all charters that 
was ever granted in England, the East India Compa¬ 
ny’s charter, which has been altered without the con¬ 
sent of the Company several different times since its 
creation. Once in the time of the commonwealth, it 
is said it was entirely abolished and the trade laid 
open. Beside this company, there have been a large 
number of these corporate companies in England known 
as trading companies, whose charters have been abro¬ 


gated, and the trade to which they were extensively en¬ 
titled had been thrown open to all the subjects of En«^- 
laiid. I cannot here stop to enumerate them now, nor 
is it desirable that 1 should ; but I simply refer gentle¬ 
men to the history of the associations found in all the 
authentic histories of their time, particularly to Rees’ 
Encyclopedia; Letter—Joint Stock Company; also, 
Jacob’s Law Dictionary; title—East India case, where 
they will find the subject all ti’eated of under one head. 

How, then, does the gentleman from Licking or any 
of his compeers stand here and say that there has nev¬ 
er been an instance known of a franchise being taken 
away from a company without compensation being 
given for it? Sir, with one or two exceptions, there is 
scarcely an instance to be found of compensation being 
made. 

Thus, then, I think I have adduced sufficient histori¬ 
cal authority to show that the doctrine of repeal was 
a doctrine well known to the institutions of our moth¬ 
er country, and that the declaration of the gentleman 
from Licking was exceedingly ill-advised, when he 
said that no such instance was known. Sir, there is 
not an intelligent reader of histoi-y here who does not 
know that such a declaration was most daring. Has 
the genileman from Licking forgotten, or did he never 
know of the so-called bubbles of 1818-’19 and 1820? 
Does he not know that all these—many of them crea¬ 
ted by patent, and others actually incorporated, (see 
Rees’ Encyclopedia, Little Bubbles,) were repealed by 
act of 6th George, the 1st chap. 18. Not, sir, taken 
by virtue of the right of eminent domain. Sir, this 
talk about repeal by virtue of the right of eminent do¬ 
main, is downright nonsense. The principle of repeal 
and this principle are as different as two principles can 
well be. No case he has found on the subject of emi¬ 
nent domain is said to be a case of repeal. No one, 

I venture to say. Sir, if you will examine what these 
bubbles were, you will find that they were exact au¬ 
totypes of the corporations of the present day. Now, 
sir, here are all these facts staring gendemen in the 
face, and yet they say that the Dartmouth College case 
is not a new case, and that the doctrine that you cannot 
repeal a charter without compensation, is not a new 
doctrine! Shame upon men who make such assertions 
when the whole face of history is covered with details 
of such cases as I have just leferred to. Sir, this doc¬ 
trine of making compensation on the repeal of char¬ 
ters is the new doctrine. New, indeed—struck out by 
these fertile geniuses within the last mouth, to aid them 
in covering their treachery to an honest and confiding 
constituency, which they had determined to betray on 
this floor, upon this subject. 

But, sir, it is said that this Dartmouth College case, 
notwithstanding it is a primary case in this ccuntry, 
has been re-endorsed. I grant that it has; and that 
perhaps there ought to be some doubt pervading the 
minds of intelligent men, whether the supreme court 
will revei’se that decision. But, sir, all that does not 
in any degree sanctify the authority of this decision, 
nor ought it to elevate in any degree in the esteem of 
people the character of that supreme court. No, sir, 

I venture to assert that if a few more such cases are 
decided, they will decide the destiny of that abomina¬ 
bly aristocratic court. And for this I shall not much 
lament, 1 assure you. I have long entertained the 
opinion that it was not only useless, but dangerous to 
the purity and safety of our democratic institutions- 
We have I maintain, no more need for such a court, 
than a wagon has for a fifth wheel. We only want, as 
United States courts, those known as maratime and 
militaiy. Sir, in my mind this supreme court has long 
been a blot upon the institutions of America. For 
what purpose do you establish courts? They are esta¬ 
blished for the administration of justice between man 
and man, and not with the view of protecting the go¬ 
vernment in power, or in any manner interfering with 
its operations. 

The government is furnished with powers to protect 











1152 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


itself. It can be guided by its own constitution. 
Hence this or any other court is altogether unnecessa¬ 
ry. Yet, sir, this court has most manifestly long been 
a mere government court, a political machine to sanc¬ 
tion and endorse the right to any power Congress 
might see ht to assume, no dilleieuce how barciciced 
and presumptuous. It has at all times been a most j)o- 
tent and unfailing instrumentality to attack and put 
down the democracy, and to uphold the federalists. 

Now, sir, let me entreat my lellow countrymen to 
look calmly where we are standing, and whither we are 
tending on this delicate and important subject. This 
court has come time and again in direct collision with 
the people in asserting and maintaining their lil^erlies. 
That, too, in some of the most exciting circumstances. 

Sir, no greater calamity could befall a people than to 
have their courts of justice, the tribunal to which they 
should at all times look with the most quiet and unwa¬ 
vering confidence, making decisions bearing injudidi- 
ciously upon the character of their dearly cherished in¬ 
stitutions. If these courts are found to be continually 
struggling to overcome or materially change the peo¬ 
ple’s favorite institutions, or to abridge their dearest 
rights, secured by the blood and treasure of their an¬ 
cestors and their own; if they are found to be continu¬ 
ally seeking to pervert the true construction of the sa¬ 
cred charter of their liberty, they will inevitably at last 
rouse the same people to indignation against them. 
And who of us dare attempt to foretell the sad conse¬ 
quences that shall then follow. This indignation, sir, 
will not stop at one court, but will spread itself to all, 
destroying iheir authority, and of necessity unsettling 
the very loimdalions of peace and society, setting up 
might, instead of justice, to settle the ditierences among 
themselves. 

Sir, of all the disgraceful decisions ever yet madeby 
this Supreme Court, this last one, entitled the case of 
the Planter’s Bank of Mississippi vs. Earl and others, 
found in Gth Howard Reports, is the crowning one. 
This court stands guilty of having attempted to fasten 
upon the people of this country with a double chain 
this most dangerous of doctrines—first promulgated in 
the Dartmouth College case, and I hold them responsi¬ 
ble for it, and I trust the people will hold them re¬ 
sponsible likewise in such manner as will preserve and 
sustain their rights and redress their grievances. I care 
not if it be claimed to be a Democratic court. You 
need not talk to me of Democracy on that bench. Such 
is the aristocratic atmosphere pervading it, literally en¬ 
compassing it, that no Democrat has ever been known 
to live long there as a Democrat. 

You may put your best men there and they are soon 
transformed either to federalists out and out, or to the 
most pliant tools of federalists. 

But, sir, to this case of the Planter’s Bank of Missis¬ 
sippi, in which it is justly said the Dartmouth College 
case has received a full endorsem nt. This case arose 
thus: The State of Mississippi had, previous to 1837, 
chartered a set of Banks. These, as might be expected, 
failed in 1837, and in order to be as superlative as pos¬ 
sible in their villainy they began to transfer all their 
assets, such as bonds, bills, notes, &c., to prevent their 
debtors from setting off the depreciated pa})er of the 
banks, which they may have had on hand. In order to 
put a stop to this unjustifiable conduct on Jlie part of 
the banks, the Legislature of that State, in 1840, pass¬ 
ed an act prohibiting the banks fiorn thus transferring 
their paper. By the act creating the banks, no express 
power to transfer their paper was conferred. 

The question made before the court was ; Did the 
act of 1840 so interfere with the rights of the banks, 
under their charters, as to be void under that clause of 
the constitution of the United States, guaranteeing the 
sanctity of contracts ? 

The entire court agreed thata charter was a contract. 
But three of the judges dissented upon the ground that 
this power, not being contained by express grant in the 
charter, was not entitled to the protection of the con¬ 
stitution as a part of the contract. 


This distinction, taken by these dissenting judges, 
does not in the slightest degi’ee effect the bearing of 
the case as an authority on the subject of charters being j 
contracts, and hence sacred and intangible by any act j 
of the Legislature. ^ | 

Now, bii, 1 aoii. all cauaid meii to look at this case j 
and see what villainy this doctrine is designed to sane- j 
tify and protect. See what a perfect burlesque it must j 
soon make of your republican and democratic institu- j 
tions. You say you have formed a government to es * 
tablish justice, to secure equality, promote the general 
good, suppress villainy and wi’ong, and yet sir, your | 
highest court of judicatory say in solemn judgment, j 
that a set of unmitigated outlaws and sharpers, no bet¬ 
ter in many instances than highwaymen, may purchase j 
from these governments a right to outrage justice, des- ■ 
troy equality, trample upon the rights and interests of 
community, and this right shall be held inviolate to 
them in spite of all the powers known to earth. 

Yes, sir, taking the tenor of the decisions of this Su¬ 
preme Court as your guide, you would conclude that it ' 
was for this peculiar purpose, to protect these contracts i 
almost exclusively, that this clause in the constitution 
of the United States was devised and adopted. I 

Oh shame, shame sir, that such a thing can justly be j 
said of any court in this country of republics, and ‘ 
greater shame that it can be said so justly of the high- j 
est court of justice known to our institutions. Sir, j 
that the true friends of our republican institutions i 
should begin carefully to look to these things and into 
this court, and inquire what sort of spirit reigns there, 
is not only natural but most devoutly to be desired. 
And sir, if it shall turn out that the proud anti-repub- 1 
lican spirit of the old federal party has found a secure 
abiding place there, then it should by all means be i 
driven out, and if need be for this end, the court itself | 
should be abolished. | 

Sir, of all the questions that can be agitated here, ; 
none in my mind, possesses the vital importance of 
this question of repeal. It is, sir, nothing else but a t 
direct contest, a death struggle between the people, in , 
their legislatures, and the corporations of the country 
for the ascendancy. Corporations thus far, have been 
triumphant, and sir, so long as men, claiming to be De¬ 
mocrats, shall allow wealth and its blandishments to 
operate on their sentiments and conduct, so long may ! 
we fear such disastrous results to all our contests in this > 
all-important struggle. When it shall be otherwise, ] 
cannot foresee. Not in this body I fear. Still, sir, 1 
shall cOnlidently hope to yet live to see this great and 
glorious democracy triumphant, in this, as in all their ' 
righteous struggles against the pride, arrogance and in- { 
justice of man. This hope shall encourage me in this 
contest, and to my fellow democrats, I say in conclu- i 
sion, courage, brave men, our cause is the cause of jus- i 
tice and truth, and must in the end be triumphant. | 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I had not intended tf. mingle in i 
this debate, for God knows it has been long and tedious, j 
and much of it out of order and painful to me; but in- i 
asmuch as the gentleman who has just taken his seat, ! 
has thrown out insinuations against my public charac- i 
ter and conduct in the Legislature, in times past, and j 
has stated'that I stand upon the journals as having by i 
my votes endeavored to flood the State of Ohio with j 
paper money, I must be allowed to say that I deny it I 
in tolo, as a groundless charge. | 

He who steals my purse steals trash; 

’ T'w as mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands: j 

But he who filches from me my good name, * 

Robs me of that which not enriches him | 

And makes me poor indeed. : 

And, sir, it appears to me that the gentleman from \ 
Knox would rob me of my good name. Now what are ' 
the facts of the case ? To the best of my recollection, 1 
I never voted for a charter of a bank in the State of 
Ohio, until the act establishing the present bank of Ohio 
was passed In regard to that act, 8ir,|I feel some pride, ! 

pride because my vote contributed to give to the peo- i 

pie of Ohio an institution superior to any other in the j 




















CONVENTION REPORTS 


1153 


United States of America. Now, with regard to my 
having endeavored to flood the State of Ohio with pa¬ 
per money, I have living witnesses to the contrary, 
both among Whigs and Democrats. 

The gentleman from Knox, has lieen very severe no¬ 
on me, and I have said this much in reply, merely to 
show the position in which I stand. Sir, I have al¬ 
ways been an enemy to an excess of paper money; 
and with regard to my democracy, it dates much long¬ 
er back than that of the gentleman from Knox. 1 
have always declared myself to be a follower of Thom¬ 
as Jeftersou; and all my public acts will be found, up¬ 
on examination, to correspond with the doctrines 
which he taught, as well as with those of Mr. Madi-I 
son. Such leaders, Mr. President, I am willing to fol¬ 
low to the day of my death. 

Now, I say, sir, that this debate has taken too 'wide 
a range, and I trust that we shall shortly retrace our 
steps, and endeavor to bring matters to a close—espe¬ 
cially this thing of getting up a family quai-rel, and 
abusing men about their democracy. I know it has 
been said, that I changed my sentiments and became 
a federalist. And what sir if I did? Jefferson has 
well told us, that we are all republicans, and all feder¬ 
alists. Washington was a federalist—Madison was a 
federalist—and does any man denounce them for their 
principles of action? No sir, none. There was a time, 
Mr. President, when I used to talk about the Supreme 
Court in the same manner in which the gentleman 
from Knox has spoken in regai’d to it. Whenever any 
decisions were made that did not exactly accord with 
my notions of what was right, then nothing would go 
down with me but to sweep it off as an incumbrance 
upon our institutions. But, sir, age and experience 
have, I trust, taught me a belter and wiser lesson ; 
and I hope I shall always regard it as I now regard it 
—as one of the bulwarks of the liberty of the Ameri¬ 
can people. I had intended, Mr. President, to move 
the previous question in regard to this debate ; but in¬ 
asmuch as there are yet some gentlemen of ability, 
who desire to express their opinions on the question, 

I will leave that duty for some other gentleman to per¬ 
form. 

On motion of Mr. LAWRENCE, the Convention then : 
adjourned. 

FRIDAY, February 7, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. ♦ 

Mr. BLAIR moved a call of the Convention, which 
was ordered, and the following gentlemen were found 
absent: 

Messrs. Archbold, Brown of Carroll, Clark, Cutler, Dorsey, 
Ewart, Ewing, Florence Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, Horton, Jones, 
King, Leadbetter, Mason, Nash, Perkins, Riddle, Roll, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Taylor, Way and 
Williams. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, all further proceed¬ 
ings under the call were dispensed with. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, presented a petition from 
J. P. Schenck and thirty-seven citizens of Warren coun¬ 
ty, praying that a clause may be inserted in the new 
constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from passing 
any law legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors, which, 
on motion, was laid on the table. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention took up 
the resolution offered by Mr. Lidey, on yesterday, rel¬ 
ative to limiting the debate of the Convention. 

Mr. LARWILL moved to amend the resolution, by 
strikincrout all after the word “ Resolved,” and inserting 
in lieu'thereof, the following: 

That from and after this day, no member shall be allowed to 
speak more than fifteen minutes on afiy one question. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to amend the amendment, 
by striking out the words '' this day,” and insert in lieu 
thereof, the following words: 

73 


The close of the debate on the amendment of the gentleman 
from Guernsey. 

Mr. STANTON demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out the words 
“ this day it was aureed to. 

The question then being on inserting the words “the 
close ol the debate on the amendment of the gentleman 
from Guernsey;” 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were prdered, and resulted—yeas 58, nays 28—as fol- ^ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont* 
gomery. Bates, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, 

I Doi’sey, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Gregg, Groes- 
beck. Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Plitchcock of Cuyaho¬ 
ga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Loudon, t,. 
Mitchell, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Quig- 
ley, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Stebbins, Stilwell, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Shel¬ 
by, Thompson of Stark, Wilson and Woodbury—58. 

'NAYS-^Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Bennett, Blickcnsderfer, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Ewart, 
Gi’lett, Greene of Defiance, Larsh, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, 
Mason, Morehead, Morris, Patterson, Peck, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Stanbery, Stanton, Swift, Townshend, Vance 
of Champaign, Williams, 'Worthington and President—28. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

The question then being on the amendment, as ^ 
amended; 

Mr. FIORTON moved to amend the amendment, by 
striking out all after the words “ from after,” and in¬ 
serting in lieu of the words stricken out, the following: 

This day no member shall speak on any question more than 
twenty minutes the first time speaking, nor more than ten min.' 
utes the second time—nor shall any one speak more than twice 
on any subject, without the unanimous consent of the Conven 
tion. 

Mr. STILWELL moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
be now put?” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on Mr. Horton’s amend¬ 
ment ; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on Mr. Manon’s amend¬ 
ment, as amended; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Lidey’s 
resolution, as amended; 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 74, nays 22— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Monb 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blickcnsderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Cook, Curry, Dor¬ 
sey, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Marfon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, 
Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Highland, Smith ofWarren, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell,Stickney, 
Struble, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Towns¬ 
hend, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury, Wor¬ 
thington and President— 74. 

Nays —Messrs. Bennett, Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, 
Collings, Cutler, Ewart, Farr, Gillett, Gray, Green of Ross, Har¬ 
lan, Larsh, Leadbetter, Morris, Nash, Scott of Harrison, Stanton, 
Swift, Taylor and Williams—22. 

So the resolution was adopted. 

On motion of Mr. MITCFIELL, the Convention took 
up the report of the committee on the Preamble and 
Bill of Rights. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Arch- 
bold’s amendment to the amendment ol Mr. Lawrence, 
to wit: 

Strike out the words “to alter, revoke, repeal, or 
abolish, by act of the General Assembly, any grant or 
law conferring special privileges or immunities, upon 
any portion ot the people,” and inserting in lieu there¬ 
of the following: 

No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, inju¬ 
rious to the public, and.” 

Mr. GROESBECK. Mr. President: I feel called 
upon to say something upon this question before it is 
finally acted upon. The subject before us is one 















1154 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


which has excited a lively interest, and it has seemed 
to me, too much bitterness of feeling and personal con¬ 
troversy. 

The proposition of the gentleman from Guernsey 
[Mr, Lawhenck] was carried by a handsome majority, 
without discussion and without objection. I voted 
w’ith men who have urged the reconsideration of it. 
They have explained themselves, and I desire to ex¬ 
plain myself. 

I have always endeavored to vote, when a question 
has been before us, according to my own conviction ol 
right. Some few weeks ago, when I voted upon the 
question, in the form in wdiich it was then pending, I 
voted against the gentlemen who sit on tins side of the 
dividing aisle of the hall; and I stand here to say, that 
if I were called upon to vole fifty times, I would con¬ 
tinue to vote against them, upon the same question. 
On the other haiul, Mr. President, a few days ago, a re¬ 
solution was offered by the gentleman from Guernsey, 
[Mr. Lawrence,] for which I vcfted. Some gentle¬ 
men with whom 1 voted, say they were taken by sur¬ 
prise; I w’as not, 1 voted, I thought, understandingly. 

And now, this is the condition in which I find my¬ 
self. Two weeks ago, if you jdease, I voted against 
the proposition of the gentleman from Medina; two 
days ago, I voted in favor of iho proposition of the 
gentleman from Guernsey; and 1 am glad to have an 
opportunity of explaining the views I entertained on 
these two several occasions, by which I was induced 
to vote as 1 did. 

I have always voted for repeal. I have always voted 
for it, whether it was to operate prospectively or retro¬ 
spectively; but when it came to the assertion of the 
doctrine in reference to old incoiqtorations, I demanded 
of the Convention, if they saw fit, to assert the doc¬ 
trine in that direction, that a rule should be recognizt d 
by which justice should be done to those who might 
be implicated in its application. I voted for repeal 
prospectively ; I voted lor repeal retrospectively—for 
ihe amendment of the gentleman from Trumbull, by 
which he made the section refer to charters already in 
existence; but when it came to the “rulo of settle¬ 
ment,” offered by the gentleman from Medina, believ¬ 
ing then, as I do now, that it would not, in all cases, 
have done justice to the parties concerned, and tliat it 
would have so tied up the hands of the Legislature, 
that they could not do justice to them, I voted against 
it, as 1 always will, so long tis I continue of the same 
mind. 

1 have not changed one particle upon the subject; 
and if I find, in the vote which I gave upon the [)ropo- 
sition of the gentleman from Guernsey, that I have com¬ 
promised my sentiments in any way,-! prefer.to aban¬ 
don his proposition rather than the one 1 had previous¬ 
ly sustained. 

I should like, Mr. President, if it should turn out 
that lam not inconsistent as to these two votes, and that 
the gentlemen with whom I voted, v\ho have moved 
the reconsideration of this proposition, have done so, 
quite as liaslily as they, in the first instance gave it their 
support. 

Let us look at it. A proposition is offered in connec¬ 
tion with article secoml, of the bill of rights, and the 
substance of it is, “that the Legislature may have a 
right to alter, revoke or repeal, any grant or law by 
which special privileges or immunities are conferred 
upon a portion of the people, which cannot reasonably 
be enjoyed by all.” Thus I find the proposition in the 
second section of the bill of rights. And now, what 
does it mean? and what authority does it confer ujion 
the General Assembly, which may hereafter convene 
under this new constitution ? 

As has been said, in construing the powers conferred 
upon any de(»artinent of this government, we take the 
entire cunstilntion and construe it all, so that it shall 
harmonize. For this purpose, the constitiitinu may he 
regarded as a unit. What then do we find ? In the fiist 
place, let mo remark that tlie very language used here. 


points to tlie future. But what more ? I look over the 
report of the Legislative Department and I find in sec¬ 
tion 33, a provision in which it is asserted diat the Leg¬ 
islature shall not have the right to pass retroactive laws 
or laws impairing the obligation of contracts, and then, 
coupled with that, is a further provision of repeal. 
Now I will admit, if that were the only section on the 
subject of repeal, which it proposed to insert in this 
constitution, by inserting it in that particular connec¬ 
tion, and while we were directly upon the subject of 
retroactive laws, alth mgli the language was not retro- 
.■^pective, it might be, lliat by using it in thatconnection 
it would be considered to give [lower to the Legi.'^latnre 
to go backwards as well as forwards. But, sir, finding 
the doctrine wliere 1 here find it—in the bill of rights 
—finding it here, and by itself as it were, I [uit the 
que.stion to any lawyer in this Convention, who has 
given the subject his consideration, wlietlier there is 
one particle of doubt in regard to the projiosithm, that 
it would be considered to operate prospectively and not 
retrospectively ? 

AVhat is this constitution? It is a fundamental law 
made for tlie future. It is one of the cmdinal piinci- 
ples of all jurisprudence, tliat laws shall ojierale pro- 
sjiectively and not retrospectively; and so strong is 
this doctrine of law, that in many instances, where a 
law has expressly declared that its provisions should 
have a retrospective action, it has been declared to be 
niiconstitulional, without any direct conslilntional [»ro- 
visiou to make it so; and I here assert, and I stand 
ready to be corrected in the declaration, if it be un¬ 
true, that the instance is not to be found of a law ope¬ 
rating retrospectively, unless clearly and exfiressly in 
the body of the law it was so jirovided, or intended. 
Much less is it so, sir, where it is sought to divest rights, 
liy a retrospective operation of the law which have 
been previously granted. Now I ask the gentleman 
from Belmont, [Mr Kennon,] if I am not right. 

Mr. KENNON. 1 think you are entirely wrong, (a 
laugh.) I think that all laws should operate upon all 
subjects just where you find them. 

Mr. GROBSBECK. Mr. President: I have given 
this subject some little reflection, and it does seem to 
me, that I am right beyond all question, in the con¬ 
struction which I give to the phrase inserted here, in 
this connection. 

I am not wanting injudicial authorities, and I repeat 
it, that it is a fuiulameiital principle of all jnrispru- 
dfiice, that legislation shall operate pros[)ectively and 
not retrospectively, and I say that efiect will not be 
given to a law unless in the law itself, expressly or by 
irresistible implication, it is declared to act retrospect¬ 
ively, and more especially where it is sought, by retro- 
.spective operation, to divest rights that have been pre¬ 
viously granted. Sir, I can furnish authority; and when 
I declare that this is a fundamental principle of juris¬ 
prudence, 1 am not using my own language, but the 
language of the courts—not of this, that, or the other 
court—but of all courts. 

Now finding this section here, in this connection, and 
finding a further section in the report of the committee 
on the Legislative De[)artraent, in connection with the 
same subject, and directly in Ci»nnection with the sub¬ 
ject of retroactive law, who will say tome that this 
one, standing in its own place, is to have a retroactive 
ofieration, and also the one contained in section 3-3 of 
the report of the committee on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment? How are these things to be construed ? Hero 
is one provision here, and another provision there. 
There it is in connection with retroactive law ; here it 
is in no such connection. Shall we construe them both 
as meaning only and exactly the same thing? Are 
they both a repetition of the same doctrine, or are 
they two distinctconstitutional provisions ; the one there 
• qieratiiig retroactively, because it is diiedly in con¬ 
nection with that paiTiculrr sultject, the other here, ac¬ 
cording to the fundamental principles of junsjn-udence, 
operating prospectively only, because it is not asserted 


1 














1155 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


in connection with that doctrine, and because it is a 
mere law, and does not say it shall be retroactive in 
its operation. I am ready to stand upon this proposi 
tion, and taking the constitution together, I know that 
the construction which I put upon this section, will be 
su8taine<{ by the courts. 

Mr. President. I wish to vote consistently here. 
When we come to section 33, of the report of the com¬ 
mittee on the Legislative De[)artment, it will be another 
question how I shall vote. And let me say, I desire to 
assert this doctrine of repeal in the constitution, if 1 
can assert it as I have on another occasion explained. 

I do not care to assert it in the constitution at all, in 
reierence to charters that already exist. 1 do not know 
that we can give the Legislature one atom of power, 
which they do not not now possess; and I believe that 
the peciple of the State are ready to take the view 
which I take of it, and to let by-gones be by-gones; but 
they do desire to assert the doctrine to operate upon 
all cliarters that may be hereafter granted. I believe 
that this would give satisfaction, and hope that gentle¬ 
men here will be satisfied with it, and drop repeal in 
seclioa 33. Whether they will do so or not I do not 
know. That, however, is the view which I take of it; 
and in ‘hat view I intend to vote. 

Mr. President. T am free to say—and the gentleman 
from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] does not misrepresent me 
in that connectiim—that I do not regard these charters 
in the same light, nor invest them with the same sanc¬ 
tity, as some gentlemen who have voted with me on this 
question. I do not believe a charter to be a contract; 
yet according to the true meaning of that term, I am 
free to Hckn(»vvledge, and I make the declaration here 
unqualifiedly, that such is the recent opinion expressed 
upon this suliject by the courts. And for the reason 
that I might be considered, as asserting here a strange 
doctrine, and as probably showing some disrespect to 
the decisions of the courts, to winch no one is more 
attached than tnyst^lf—for, sir, to the profession of the 
law, I am devoted as by a vow, and I intend to remain 
go—I ask to be allowed to refer again this inquiry. 

In the view which I take of this question of repeal, 
it makes not one particle of difference in the equities of 
the case, whether you call a charter a contract or not. 
I do not desire to call it a contract, for the reason, that 
if I should, I do not know that I could find a plain path 
of repeal. 

Is a charter a contract? Is it made as a contract ? Is 
there any such treaty entered into between the parties, 
as when a contract is made? No, there is nothing of 
that kind about it. What is a contract? It is “an 
a'^reement, upon a sufficient consideration, to do or not 
to do a particular thing.” That is the definition to 
which every contract must be submitted as a test. 
Where is the consideration for an act of incorporation 
granted by the General Assembly? 

Now let it be observed—and no one knows it better 
than you do yourself, sir—that there is probably not a 
single case to be found—you can look into your stat¬ 
utes year in and year out, and through any period of 
time, and you will not find a single case where one 
dollar has been paid for a franchise. Money, then, is 
not the consideration. And what is the consideration 
given in this so ct lied contract? Whatdoes Chief Jus¬ 
tice Marshall say, iu the Dartmouth College case? 

“ The objects for which a corporation is created, are imiver- 
eally such ns the government wishes to prom ite. They are 
deemed heneticiHl to the country; and this benefit constitutes the 
consideration, and, in most cases, the sole consideration of the 
grant.'* 

Tlie Legislature of Ohio, if you please, incorporates 
A., B. and C., in a particular enterprise, for a series of 
years, they taking upon themselves the [)erformance of 
the particular service mentioned m the articles of lu- 
corporatjon for the time fixed. That is the considera 
,tioii. It is precisely, Mr. rresident, as if you should 
employ me, upon the payment of money, to perform 
fiervice for you for a period of say three years. That 
is a contract. If I perform the service for one year 


and stop, I am liable in damages to you, for not per¬ 
forming the service for the full lime stipulated. Pre¬ 
cisely so must he the law in reference to charters of in¬ 
corporation, if they be contracts. You may search and 
hunt where you will, you will find iu them and about 
ihem no other consideration, except this service for 
ten, twenty, or thirty years, (the duration of the char¬ 
ter) which supports them as contracts. Let me sub¬ 
mit a supposition to these gentlemen, who call a bank 
or other charter a contract. Here is an incorporation 
that has been incorporated for twenty years. They 
prosecute their enterprise for the period of one year, 
and then stop. Can the Legislature compel its specific 
performance ? No. Can they sustain a claim for dam- 
ages upon the breach of such a contract? No. Yet 
there is nothing clearer in law, than the right to do so, 
if this be a contract. You can find no other considera¬ 
tion tlian that I have staled. Hunt where you will, 
turn it over as you may, that is the sole consideration 
which supports it—the public service which is under¬ 
taken by those who accept the franchise. 

I took it upon myself, in voting upon this question, 
to vote as if the charier was not a contract, because I 
did not believe I was altogether disregarding the rule 
of [ireedents on tlie subject. 

In tracing to its early history the law in reference to 
incorporations, you may go back for two thousand 
years. According to the text books, they are said to 
liave been brought into use in the days of Nuraa. They 
first began as municipal institutions, and were subject 
to repeal; and they have continued from that day thro’* 
all the history of the English nation, all the while sub¬ 
ject to repeal. Although they have been extended to 
other and difi'erent enterprises, they continued in Eng¬ 
land, and for ought I know, iu this country, up to the 
year 1819, when the decision was made in the Dart¬ 
mouth College case, subject to the same laws of repeal. 
So stood the law. It would seem, then, I have the au¬ 
thority and precedent of two thousand years on this 
question, against the aubtority and precedent of thirty 
years in this country. 

Loctk into the text books and find the definitions of a 
charter of incorporation. Nowhere ; in not one of them, 
I believe, whether you look into the early or the late 
ones, do you find it defined, in the first instance, by the 
word “ contract.” If they undertake to define the re¬ 
lation of marriage, they call it a contract; if they define 
a partnership, they call it a contract; but when they 
undertake to define this, they have never, in the first 
instance, given such a definition as would convey the 
idea, that it is a contract, but preserve the old definition. 
Yet, let me add, they set up this new doctrine. And 
furthermore, up to this time it has been called a” fran¬ 
chise.” That is one name by which it is known. Up 
to this time, it has also been called an artificial person. 
There are laws to be found in which a corporation has 
been assessed for taxes as a person. I cannot recon¬ 
cile all this, that it should be now an “ artificial per¬ 
son,” and now a “ franchise,” and now a ‘ contract.” 
What is it then ? I take it, as it has been declared to 
be, in the books for centuries back ; and, I repeat, the 
construction which has been put upon it recently will 
not bear the test that all contracts are required to 
bear. I would like to be corrected by some gentleman 
on the other side, if I am wrong, when 1 say that the 
State would be entitled to damages for non-perfor¬ 
mance of services, if this be a contract. 

Mr. President, there is one other idea, I wish to pre¬ 
sent, and then I will pass on. It is this; We are here 
inconvention for the purpose offorminga constitiiiion 
for the people of Ohio. What is our own history upr n 
this subject? In the year I8l)2, we framed the present 
constitution. What was tbe condition of the law in re¬ 
ference to charters of incorporation at that time ? What 
were these incorporations supposed to he when that 
instrument was framed? They were ‘‘franchises,’' 
they were ‘•artificial persons,”!* you please; but never, 
never, had the doctrine been declared in reference to 
















1156 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


them, that their charters were contracts. They are 
called by a ditlerent name in the constitution itself. 
They are there styled " letters of incorporation.” 

Let us look at this thing in an aspect in which it very 
properly presents itself. At the time the constitution 
wlis fiallied, they were “ li-ancliises” or letters of in¬ 
corporation,” and no court in Christendom had de¬ 
clared that they were contracts. I submit this ques¬ 
tion to the Convention. Suxipose at the time the con¬ 
stitution was framed, the law was that a charter of in¬ 
corporation was a mere “franchise” or artificial per¬ 
son,” and suppose, further, that the “ franchise ” was 
unqualifiedly, unconditionably repealable. Here is the 
ques tiou. Has a distant court, a court out of the Slate 
of Ohio, the right, by calling it by a new name, to 
change the uatui'c and extent of the power given by 
the people to their Legislature 1 This may be a seri¬ 
ous ques tion. It is a fair moral question to present to 
this Convention; and it seems to me, that I am not ma¬ 
king an absurd proposition, when I say that if the Leg¬ 
islature in 1802, according to the law as then declared 
in reference to charters, had a right to repeal them, 
you cannot takeaway the power of the Legislature, by 
giving these charters a new name. In other words you 
cannot change the constitution of the State of Ohio, 
and make the power delegated to-day difterent to-mor- 
j-ow—greater or less, by giving that to which it anolies 
a new name. 

It is on this account, in part, IMr. Tresident, that I 
have been willing from the beginning—looking at the 
condition of the law at the time the constitution was 
framed, looking, also, at the law as it is now, and look¬ 
ing again at the long line of precedents on the subject, 
to ass^ert the doctrine of repeal, both prospectively and 
retrospectively; but I say again, that when you come 
to assert it retroactively, I will not assert it, as propos¬ 
ed in the rules and settlements offered by the gentle¬ 
man from Medina, for the reason that I do 7iot think it 
fair and proper. 

Mr. President, this brings me to another question, 
one which was raised and discussed at great length by 
the gentleman from Belmont. He has told us that if 
State banking be unconstitutional, all this doctrine of 
repeal in reference to banks of circulation, is entirely 
proper; and if it be not unconstitutional, then it is not 
proper, and in the course of his ai’gument, which was 
a very able one, I acknowledge, and which I do not 
profess to be able to overthrow, ho made some strong 
hints, I thought, that some of us had been voting entire¬ 
ly wrong. I am one of those, Mr. President, who vo¬ 
ted for what may be called the “hard money section ” 
of the report of the committee on that subject. I voted 
for it, because I believed that section asserted the true 
doctrine. I voted for it because I believed that paper 
money banking, as carried on by the States, is uncon¬ 
stitutional. The gentleman from Belmont alluded to 
me in his argument, I thought, significantly, and seem¬ 
ed to invite me to the discussion. 1 avail myself of the 
opportunity offered by him to explain the vote which I 
gave upon that occasion. I desire to be understood, 
and to present the reasons, or at least some of them, 
which operated upon me in giving that vote, and I shall 
endeavor to do so as briefly as possible. 

1 shall not, Mr. President, go over any of the ground 
which was explored yesterday, by the gentleman from 
Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] but I I’epeat with him, that all 
the early authority on this subject, is one way, and only 
one way, and our way. I shall not bring up these old 
contemporaneous authorities, that are all on one side, 
pleasant as would be this course of argument; but I shall 
content myself, in answer to the gentleman from Bel¬ 
mont, by going into the courts on this subject; by 
looking at the question as it has been presented there. 
I will take a different and difficult part of the question, 
and inquire, not merely what this statesman or that 
one has said upon the subject, not merely what was 
said in the days when our constitution was framed; 
not merely what has been said since, here and there; 


but I go to what has been said by judges under oath, 
aye, even to the testimony of Whig judges, taking it 
in its worst aspect, and I believe that I can thus explain 
the vote which I gave. 

How does this question stand, Mr. President ? The 
people are divided upon it. If you please, there may 
be a small majority against those who assert the consti¬ 
tutionality of our paper money system. The lawyers 
are divided iqion it. I take the liberty of saying that 
I have conversed upon this subject with lawyers with¬ 
out regard to party, and I have heard the declaration 
from them, that the constitutionality of this system 
rested simply upon acquiescence—upon long suffer¬ 
ance, and nothing else. So it stands with the commu¬ 
nity ; so it stands with the legal profession. How then 
does it stand with tlie courts ? 

1 trust that gentlemen will not be startled, when I 
tell them that there is probably no graver question, 
which is presented to the consideration of the commu¬ 
nity, and discussed as this is, and has been, which has 
such slender support as the constitutionality of paper 
money banking. 

I am here this day, Mr. President, with two books, 
and only two, and 1 will go with gentlemen into a li¬ 
brary where there are thousands, and after we have 
ransacked them all, we will come out of it, probably, 
with no other volumes. As I understand the position 
of this question in the courts, there are but two cases, 
that bear clearly and decidedly, and satisfactorily upon 
it. These two cases I have here; and I now ask the 
attention and indulgence of the Convention, while I 
refer to them. 

There are many cases, in which banks that issue pa¬ 
per money have sued, and sustained their suits. I 
speak of cases in which the constitutionality of this 
practice, has been brought directly to the notice of the 
courts, and decided upon. Of such cases, I know of 
no other worthy of notice, than the two, which I pro¬ 
pose to examine; and it is proper to remark in this 
connection, that it is not the practice or duty of courts, 
to inquire into the constitutionality of legislative enact¬ 
ment, any further than they are directly and unavoida¬ 
bly required to do. This is an inquiry they rather 
avoid, and reluctantly approach. And so it should be. 
It woidd be not only immodest, but productive of dif¬ 
ficulties and bad feeling, were the courts, at all hasty 
or eager to supervise and set aside the doings of the 
law making department of government. Hence, it is 
their ordinary practice to carry out a law, where the 
parties themselves treat it as constitutional. The cases 
where such banks as we are considering, have sued 
and succeeded, are not cases to establish the coustitu 
tionality of their charters in this respect, but we go to 
those, where the identical question has been raised and 
decided. 

I said, Mr. President, that I would give the views of 
those who may properly be denominated whig jurists. 
In making that declaration, I do not wish to be under¬ 
stood as implying that those gentlemen, whose opinions 
I will read, were at all operated upon by their politicai 
sentiments in the decisions which they made. Thev 
are men for whom I have the highest respect, and I 
must say here, that I do not, at all, sympathise with 
gentlemen of this Convention, in the denunciations and 
intemperate language they have applied to them.— 
Their attacks are perfectly harmless, however, and do 
not require further notice. 

This question fairly came up before the court—and 
let me say that I do not intend to go into your county 
courts, nor even into your supreme courts of the State 
—but I intend to walk straight up to this great and 
terrible court of the United States, which holds its sit¬ 
tings, as we have been often told, in accents of horror, 
in one wing of what is called the National Capitol. 

I am there, and I now call your attention to the first 
case which brought the question before them for con¬ 
sideration. The claim we make, is that this paper 
money system violates that provision of the constitu 




















1157 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


tiou, which declares that no State shall emit “ bills of 
credit.” 

In 1821, the State of Missouri undertook to emit a 
certain class of certificates, to circulate as money. I 
will read a part of the third section of the law, under 
which they were issued. 

» Sec. 3. Be it further enacted, that the Auditor of public ac¬ 
counts and treasurer, under the direction of the Governor, shall 
and they are hereby required to issue certificates, signed by the 
said auditor and treasurer to the amount of two hundred thous¬ 
and dollars, of denominations not exceeding ten dollars, nor less 
than fifty cents; to bear such device as they may deem most safe, 
in the following form,” &c., &c. 

The law goes on to provide a way by which the cir¬ 
culation of these cirtificates shall be promoted, and their 
ultimate payment secured. In the law under which 
they were issued, they were called certificates—and it 
will be observed that they were issued by the State of 
Missouri, acting through certain agents or officers. 

In this case, and upon this issue, for the first time, I 
believe the Supreme Court of the United States under- 
took to put a construction upon the constitutional pro¬ 
hibition that “no State shall issue bills of credit.” I 
now give you the opinion of the court, and I ask the 
attention of the Convention to it, because it throws 
great light upon the true construction of this constitu¬ 
tional phrase. And whose opinion, is it, sir ? It is the 
opinion of the majority of the court, delivered by Chief 
Justice Marshall, himself. And what does he say? 
The clause ol the constitution, which was said to have 
been violated, is in these words: 

“ No State shall emit bills of credit.” 

What is a “ bill of credit? ” What did the constitu¬ 
tion mean to forbid. This is the great inquiry we have 
to make in this discussion. I read from the decision: 

“In its enlarged, and perhaps its literal sense, the term bill of 
credit may comprehend any instrument by, which a .State en¬ 
gages to pay money at a future day; thus including a certificate 
for money borrowed. But the language of the constitution it¬ 
self, and the mischief to be prevented, which wo know from the 
history of the country, equally limit the interpretation of the 
terms. The word “emit” is never employed in describing those 
contracts by which a State binds itself to pay money at a future 
day for services actually received, or for money borrowed for 
present use; nor are instruments executed for such purposes, in 
common language, denominated “bills of credit.” To “emit 
bills of credit,” conveys to the mind the idea of issuing paper in¬ 
tended to circulate through the community for its ordinaiy pur¬ 
poses as money, which paper is redeemable at a future day. This 
is the sense in which the terms have always been understood. 

At a very early period in our colonial history, the attempt to 
supply the want of the precious metals by a paper medium was 
made to a considerable extent; and the bills emitted for this pur¬ 
pose have been frequently denominated bills of credit. During 
the war of the Revolution we were driven to this expedient, and 
necessity compelled us to use it to a most fearful extent. The 
term has acquired an appropriate meaning; and “ bills of cred¬ 
it,” signifying a paper medium, intended to circulate between in¬ 
dividuals, and between governments and individuals, for the or¬ 
dinary purposes of society. Such a medium has been always li¬ 
able to considerable fluctuation. Its value is continually chang¬ 
ing; and these changes, often great and sudden, expose individ¬ 
uals to immense loss, are the sources of ruinous speculation, and 
destroy all confidence between man and man. To cut up this 
mischief by the roots, a mischief which was felt throughout the 
United States, and which deeply affected the interest and pros¬ 
perity of all; the people declared in their constitution, that no 
State should emit bills of credit. If the prohibition means any¬ 
thing, if the words are not empty sounds, it must comprehend 
the emission of any paper medium by a State government,for 
the purpose of common circulation.” 

He declared the doctrine upon this case as I have 
read it, and the court decided that the issue of these 
“ certificates,” by the State of Missouri, was unconsti¬ 
tutional. Three of the judges dissented from this de¬ 
cision—and I shall probably have occasion hereafter 
to refer to the reasons of their dissent. 

Now, Mr. President, here is the case in wliich Chief 
.lustice Marshall himself, gives a definition of the terms 
which is claimed to be a correct definition by those 
who advocate and sufiport the first section of the report 
of the committee on this subjept. 

No qualifications, whatever, are annexed to his defi¬ 
nition. “ Any paper money intended to pass in the 
community, a.s a circulating medium, is a bill of credit.” 
That is his lauguage; that is the language of the major¬ 


ity of the court in that instance—and one of the judges 
who dissented from him in the delivery of that decis¬ 
ion, comes out clearly and strongly with the declara¬ 
tion, that if the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall be 
right, all the notes of banks, directly under the control 
of a State, or established by its authority, are within 
the prohibition, and unconstitutional. But I will refer 
to that hereafter. 

The next case is that of Briscoe against the bank of 
the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The State of Ken¬ 
tucky incorporated a bank; and it is necessary to read 
one or two of the provisions of that article of incorpo¬ 
ration, in order that the case should be properly under- 
s tood. The fi rst section of the act declares: 

That the bank shall be established in the name and behalf of th^ 
State of Kentncky &,c. 

The second section enacts that the President and Directors shall 
be a coroporation capable of sueing and being sued &c. 

The third section declares the bank to be exclusively the prop¬ 
erty of the Commonwealth, 

The fourth section authorizes the issuing of notes. The notes 
of the bank were issued in the common form of bank notes, in 
which the bank promise d to pay the bearer on demand &c . 

The question was whether these bank notes were 
bills of credit within the prohibition, and if so, wheth¬ 
er, under the state of case, the act of incorporation to 
this extent, was unconstitutional. 

Here, Mr. President, comes a case upon a State bank. 
In the case I have read in relation to the State of Mis¬ 
souri, it was not a bank, it was a State by its officers, 
the Auditor and Treasurer, undertaking to put forth 
“ bills of credit,” as they were declared to be by Chief 
Justice Marshall. Here, then, in the Kentucky case 
we have a State bank, and I beg to call the attention 
of the Convention to the decision, and to the language 
of the judge who expressed it, in regard to the consti¬ 
tutionality of this institution. 

I may say, Mr. President, in reference to these cases, 
that they were argued by the most able counsel. No 
stone was left unturned, no avenue of light and knowl¬ 
edge untraced, no labyrinth unexplored, in order that 
the meaning and extent ol this phrase might be exactly 
ascertained. We may look to such cases with peculiar 
confidence, in regard to such an inquiry as that we 
are now making—namely, what is meant by a bill of 
credit as it is used in the constitution of the United 
States? I will not refer to the language of counsel in 
this case, although there is much that is very interest¬ 
ing in their arguments; but it would take too much 
time, and I pass on to read the decision. 

The case was decided by Mr. Justice McLean. I 
am now, sir, upon the inquiry “ what is a bill of cred¬ 
it?” and I beg leave to read a portion of his decision. 

I read it, because I know it will command more atten¬ 
tion if read from this volume, than if uttered by my¬ 
self without referring to the volume. 

“ It would be difficult to classify the bills of credit .vutch were 
issued in the early history of the country. They were all i^- 
signed to circulate as mouey, being issued under the laws of the 
respective colonies; but the forms were various in the different 
colonies and often in the same colony. _ 

In some cases they were payable with interest, in others with¬ 
out interest. Funds arising from certain sources of taxation 
were pledged for their redemption in some instances; in others 
they were^issued without such a pledge. They were sometimes 
made a legal tender; at others not. They were sometimes paya¬ 
ble on demand; at other times, at some future period. At all 
times the bills were receivable for taxes and in payment of debte 
due the public, except perhaps in some instances where they had 
become so depreciated as to be of little or no value. The court 

^'ro^c'onsttote a bill of credit within the constitution, it must be 
issued by the State, on the faith of the State, and be designed to 
circulate as money. It must be a pajier which circulates on tlie 
credit of the State, and is so received in the ordinary business of 
life.” 

According to this definition, to constitute a bill of 
credit, it must be issued by a State on the faith of the 
State—circulated on the credit of the State. 

I am free to say that Mr. Justice McLean takes issue 
with Chief Justice Marshall, and seeks virtually to over¬ 
turn the definition of a bill of credit, as laid down in 
the case of Craig against the State of Missouri, and I 














1168 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


shall endeavor to show, that it was only by that effort 
they could avoid the conclusion that was pressed upon 
them in this case—that is, that the char'er of the bank 
of the State of Kentucky was unconstitutional, in this 
particular aiiJ to this extent. He says, in regard to 
the definition of this phrase given by Chief Justice Mar¬ 
shall : 

“A definitien eo general as this, that is Marshall’s, would cer¬ 
tainly embrace every description of paper which circulates as 
money.” 

Sir, there is not a doubt about it, and all that we 
have to ascertain is—is that definition right or is it 
wrong? If it be right, then every description of pa¬ 
per that circulates as money is embraced within it, and 
here is the controversy. It all hangs upon the con 
Btruction of this constitutional phrase, “ bills of credit.” 
I wish it to be observed, that when this last decision 
was made. Chief Justice Marshall had left the bench, 
and Justice Story remained. He was upon the bench, 
I believe, when the decision was made in the former 
case, aiid also when it was made in this case, and he 
comes forward as one of the judges of that court and 
gives his opinion. Mr. Justice Story dissents in toto 
from Justice McLean and those who concurred with 
him, and it is to a part of his opinion upon the phrase 
in di.<pute, that I ask the attention of this Convention. 
Here, 1 repeat it. is the great contest: what is meant 
by “ bills of credit?” Here is where the judges seem 
to pause and labor in their opinions; and as they de¬ 
termined this question they appear to have decided up¬ 
on the constitutionality of what was submitted to them 
in connection w'ith it. Justice Story, dissenting, says: 

“ The first question naturally arising in the case is, what is the 
true interpretation of the clause ot the constitution that ‘no State 
shall emit bills ol credit? ’ In other words, whatis a bill of cred¬ 
it, in the sense of the constitution ? Alter the decision of Craig 
vs. the State of Missouri, I had not supposed that this was a mat¬ 
ter which c«)uld be brought into contestation; at least unless 
the authority of that case waste be overturned, and the court 
were to be set adrift from its former moorings.” 

He goes on to quote the definitions, and what w-as 
said in the case, and adds : 

“ One would suppose this language was sufficiently definite to 
rem >ve all possible doubt upon the subject, and it has the more 
weight because it came from one who was himselt an actor in the 
very times when bills of credit constituted the currency of the 
whole country; and whose experience justified him in the expo¬ 
sition.” 

Again he says: 

“ If we look into the meaning of the phrase as it is found in 
the British laws, or in our owm laws, as applicable to the concerns 
of private individuals, or private corporations, we shall find thete 
is no mystery about the matter; and that when bills of credit 
are spoken of, the words mean negotiable paper, intended to 
pass as currency or money, by delivery or endorsement. In this 
sense all bank notes, or as the more common phrase is, bank bills, 
are bills ol credit.” 

Again, in the consideration of this question, I will 
call the attention of the Convention to another clause. 
This is Justice Story who is speaking: 

“In confirmation of what I have already stated, it may here be 
remarked that in the charter ot the bank of England, in 5th and 
6th William and Mary, an express provision is made by which th*? 
bill or bills obligatory, and of credit, of the bank, are declared to 
be assignable and negotiable. Similar expressions are to be found 
in many acts of the American States incorporating banks, as has 
been abundantly shown in the citations at the bar.” 

What is the difference between a bill of exchange 
and a bank bill ? This has been decided long before 
the question arose in this country. Lord Mansfield 
made the distincliou long ago, t.nd there is no doubt 
that the term “ bill of credit” was as well understood 
at the time the constitution was framed as the term 
“habeas corpus,” or any other phrase which we find 
in tlie constitution. Lord Mansfield, speading on the 
subject of bank notes or bills, says: * 

“ That these notes are not like bills of exchange, mere securi¬ 
ties or documents for debt, and are not so esteemed ; but are 
treated as money, &c., by the general consent of mankind ; and 
on payment of them, whenever a receipt is required, the receipts 
are alwaysgiven as for money, notas for securities or notes. And 
indeed so much are they treated as money that thej pass by a 
will, which bequeaths the testator’s cash, or money, or property.” 

Now, Mr, President, I say this, and I believe I will 


be borne out by the true history of this question, that 
the term Bill ot Credit received its signification in the 
first instance, in its connection with a bank bill, and that 
in the acts incorporating banks in early times, the very 
bank notes themselves were called “ Bills of Credit,” 
and the phrase as applied to the issues of the Colonies 
is borrowed. What are the issues of banks in the pres-’ 
mt day? In form, a promissory note. We call them 
“ bank notes” or ” bank bills'^ and by way of abbre¬ 
viation, we have dropped the two words “ of credit'* 

Thus it is shown that this term was used in connec¬ 
tion with bank notes; that it was used in the early 
charters, and that it applies, as well to this species of 
paper as to any other species of paper. Although 
there is much more that is interesting in this book on 
this question, I do not design to read more from it at 
present; but let me say that Justice Story takes up 
this inquiry as to what is meant by a bill of credit in 
the right way and in the right direction. He investi¬ 
gates its history as connected with the Colonies, with 
Congress, with the Confederacy, and with Banks across 
the water and elsewhere, and comes to the conclusion, 
beyond all doubt, that bank bills are bills of credit 
within the meaning of the constitution of the United 
Stales. Bank bills at that time were called bills of 
credit. Every thing was a “ bill of credit” that was 
intended to circulate in the community as currency or 
money. That was the signification, in which it was 
known, and no matter in what form it was issued, no 
matter if there was no fund pledged for its redemption 
—none of these things entered into the signification of 
the term; for these “bills of credit” were issued in 
every possible form. They were issued upon credit j 
they were issued payable upon demand ; they were is¬ 
sued with security, and they were issued without se¬ 
curity ; they were issued upon the faith of colonies, 
and they were issued upon funds provided for their re¬ 
demption; tliey were issued in every possible form that 
human ingenuity could devi.se, having no one common 
quality but the single one, that they circulated in the 
community, as money, and it is by that you know 
them, and nothing else. 

How then do we stand upon this question? I ad¬ 
mit, Mr. President, that in the case from which I last 
read, Mr. Justice McLean seems to qualify and limit 
the definition given by Chief Justice Marshall as being 
too broad. Let us look into that matter and see 
whom we shall trust. Who was Chief Justice Mar¬ 
shall ? and was he or was he not qualified to institute 
an inquiry as to the meaning of the term? I propose 
to institute no comparison between that gentleman and 
the other I have mentioned. J'he first, in his day, stood 
first; the latter, now, I am willing to admit, is equally 
eminent; but I think there is no one who will not say 
that the opinions of the former on this subject are en¬ 
titled to quite as much weight as those of the latter. 
Aye, Mr. President, I must go further, and say, that as 
between the.se two eminent judges we are called upon 
by all the circumstances of the case, to take the defini¬ 
tion given by Chief Justice Marshall in preference to 
that given by Mr. Justice McLean. They are both 
men of uiidoul)ted ability ; but it must be remen>bered 
that Chief Justice Marshall was a contemporary of the 
very times when all these things took place. He saw 
for him.self what was going on; he heard for himself 
what was said. He was not idle that he did not see, 
he was not careless that he did not distinguish ; and 
he comes forward in 1830 and gives his definition of a 
bill of credit. How is it with Mr. Jtislice McLean ? 

He was not contemporaneous with these times. 1 
have no doubt he examined this subject well; but I 
cannot help but say, that Chief Justice Marshall is the 
man to whom we should look for a correct definition 
of this term. 

But, sir, I do not stop here. I have another jurist—= 
one who is worthy of all eulogy—I mean Justice Story; 
and he too labored upon this question, as upon exami¬ 
nation of his commentaries will abundantly appear. 













CONVEN'IION REPORTS. 


He searched it out; he looked into the action of Con¬ 
gress and the confederacy; he looked into bank char- 
tersat home and abroad, and lie brings the conclusion 
liome to every nian that the dehniiiou given by him- 
cell and Chiet Justice Marshall was the true definition, 
and the only one that was entertained at the time the 
phrape was put into the constitution. Now, I submit 
to gentleman—and remember these are all whig jurists 
—whose definition shall we take—the definition given 
by Chief Justice Marshall, the first juristof the country, 
a definition whicli is confirmed and fortified by .Tustice 
Story, or the definition of Justice McLean ? This is a 
fair ijuestioii to put in pursuing this inquiry. I cannot 
surrender the opinion of the two first named gentle¬ 
men, foi I have^ not in my mind the shadow of a doubt 
that Chief Justice Marshall was right, and that Justice 
Story was^ right in reiterating that definition, after 
Chiel Justice Marshall had passed from the stage of 
life, . ° 

I stand then, Mr. President, in this position. I say 
that a bank bill is a “bill of credit.” I say it upon the 
muhority of all history; I say it upon the authority of 
those enmieut v\ hig jurists; I say it upon the authority 
of the federal court; I say it sir, upon all the authority 
tlieie is on this subject, that a bank bill is abill of cred¬ 
it, within the signiticaiion that was given to that term 
in the consiiuition of the United States, and I begtore- 
peat, again, that in the very charters of banks, they 
were so called, here and elsewhere; that this was so, 
at the time the conslitulion was framed. With this 
estahlished, ] come to another branch of the question. 

* No State shall emit hills of credit.” Here is one de¬ 
cision, in the Missouri case, as to the meaning of the 
whole jdirase, a decisinn declaring in a certain case, 
where a State had undertaken to issue these bills of 
credit, (and that too in a form much less ohjectionbale 
than ill the case of a hank issuing note.‘!,)ibat it was nn- 
constitiitioual. Is ihtre any member of the consiitu- 
ion who Will contend, that if the State in her own 
name, and in her own behalf, and upon her own faith, 
fill iuld undertake to issue bank bills, it would not be 
uncoiisliiulioiuil ? I umlerstand the gentleman from 
Belnioni, [Mr. Ken NON,] clearly to make the admission I 
that it would be unconstitutional. That gentleman ad¬ 
mitted it, and I have not yet heard the first person who 
denies it. “No Stale shall emit bills of credit”—bank 
bills, I have shown, are “bills of credit”—therefore 
no State shall emit bank bills. 

Now lA e come a liilh'further, and without reading it 
fnnn the books, I will fall hack again upon the case of 
Cia’g against the State of Mis.sonri. When that case 
was up lor con.sidera’ion, Chief Justice Marshall came 
out boldly and declared that the bills of credit issued 
by the State of Missouri were an uuccnstiintinnal issue. 
From that opinion Justices Thomp.sou and Johnson dis- 
Bentc'd, and I beg to be allowed to read a little from 
their dissenting 0 |)inioiis. Justice Johnson says; 

“The whole history imd Irgielation of the time prove that by 
bills o( credit the powers of the constitution meant pHper money, 
wilh ifferenceto that which had been used in the States from the 
comnii neement of the century down to the time when it ceased 
to pass, before reduced to its innate worthlessness.” 

Again, 

‘•'J he great end and object of this restriction on the power of 
fhe States, will fuinish the best definition of the terms under con 
£id( ration. 'J he whole was intended to exclude everything from 
use as circulating medium, except gold and silver; and to give to 
the U ited .'-tates the ex<-lusive control over the coining and v^al- 
uiiig o( the metallic medium. That the real dollar may represent 
property, and nut the shadow of it.” 

Jus tice Thompson dissented also, and I call the at-j 
tentif n of the Convention to some of the language in , 
width he dissented. The reason which he assigned, 
throw s some light upon the inquiry which we are now 
making. He says: 

“ If three certificates are bills of credit inhibited by the consti¬ 
tution, it appears to me difiicult to escape the conchision, that all 
bank notes, issued by the States or under their authority and 
eimitsion, are hills of credit falling W’ithin the prohibition, 
'h(y are certainly in point of form, as much hills of credit, and 
it Icing used ns a circulating medium or substitute for money, 


1159 

niakes these certificates bills of credit, bank notes are more em¬ 
phatically such. And not only the notes of banks directly under 
the control and management of a State, but all notes of banks es¬ 
tablished under the authority of the State, must fall withiu the 
prot ibition. For the States cannot certainly do that indirectly, 
which they cannot do directly. And it they cannot issue bank 
notes, because they are bills of credit,” &c. lie dissents on this 
ground, and denies that the certificates are bills of credit. 

Here, Mr. President, upon the question whether a 
charter of incorporation, authorized by the Legislature 
to issue bills of credit, is constitutional in that particu¬ 
lar, we have these judges, or one of them at least? in 
dissenting from Chief Justice Marshall, admitting and 
that ifthe definition vy'hich he had given ofabill of 
credit were correct, then it followed, as an irresistible 
t qnsequence, that all bank notes issued by the State, 
directly, or by autliority of the State, were unconstitu¬ 
tional. 

Mr. President, I wish to dwell a little longer on this 
case. Here was the first case—the most important case 
presented in any form to the supreme court of the 
United States. Here was Justice Thompson declaring 
that it the definition of Chief Justice Marshall was 
right, then bank note issues were unconstitutionaL 
VVe have a right to suppose that this question was can¬ 
vassed and turned over, and considered and re consid¬ 
ered by these judges, in their consultations upon the 
case ; and it was so beyond all doubt. And yet, when 
we look to the decision of Chief Justice Marshall, 
made up with great care, although, as we have a right 
to presume this view was pressed upon him by Mr. 
Justice Thompson, he says nothing about it—does not 
intimate it would be otherwise—but comes boldly up 
to the issue, and affirmed the law to be unconstitution¬ 
al. 

But, sir, I have not done with this question yet. We 
come now to the second case, and how do we find it? 
It is worthy of observation, and it is a proper fact to 
slate in this Convention, in ascertaining the true weight 
(if this decision, that Chief Justice Marshall was upon 
the bench when this case was first argued ; that he 
heard all the arguments which were presented to the 
court—that he had all the facts of the case before him, 
and formed his own opinion upon the case also. In 
this case, in 11 Peters, in which Mr. .Justice McLean 
delivers the decision, it is a singular fact, that Chief 
Justice Marshall had considered this case maturely; and 
it is farther a singular fact that while he lived, a ma¬ 
jority of the court had come to the conclusion that this 
very State bank charter was unconstitutional. Sir, I 
do not speak without authority upon this subject. Let 
us hear the dissenting opinion of Justice Story to this 
point: 

“ When this case vi'as formerly argued before this court, a ma¬ 
jority ol the judges, who then heard it, vrere (iecidedly of the 
opinion, that the act of Kentucky establishing this hank, was un¬ 
constitutional and void: as amounting to an authority to emit 
liills of credit for and on behalf of the State, within the prohibi¬ 
tion of the United States. In principle, it w'as thought to be de¬ 
cided by the case of Crais' vs. the State of Missouri. Among that 
majority was the late Chief .lustice Marshall. I’he case has been 
again argued, and precisely upon the same grounds, as at the ter¬ 
mer argument. A majority ol my brethren have now pronounced 
the act of Kentucky to be constitutional.” 

Wc know one thing from tltis dissenting opinion. 
We know in the first jilace, that Chief Justice Marshall 
was prepared to declare an oitinioii in this case. _ We 
know v;hat opinion he declared in the case of Craig 
the State of .Missouri ; and that he had expressed an 
opinion that the charter of the bank of Kentucky was 
unconstitutional. Here is a State hank ; he thought that 
unconstitutional. There a State undertakes to issue 
bills of credit in another form, and he declares that is- 
.sue also to be unconstitutional. But he dies, the court 
18 changed, and we get upon the same argument and 
the same facts a directly diflerent opinion. Sir, this is 
not a case on whith I would rely to determine a ques¬ 
tion of such importance ns this. 

I con’e now to another branch of the argument, and 
then T will clo.ee. What says the enriStitnlion cn this 
.•uihject? “ No State shnll grant letlei s of marque and 
reprisal, coin money, emit bills of credit, or make any 









1160 


CONVENTION EEPOETS. 


thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts.’' 

There stand these lour prohibitions upon the same 
platform. The prohibition in reference to them all, is 
in the same language, in the same paragraph. They 
ai'e all associated, and it is expressly declared, no State 
shall do all or any of them. Take these four prohibi* 
tions 

‘‘ No State shall grant letters of marque or reprisal.” 
Can she authorize a corporation to grant them ? No 
says the gentleman from Belmont—that is clear. “No 
State shall coin money.” Can she authorize a corpora¬ 
tion to coin money 1 No, says the gentleman—thatis 
clear. The courts also say, “no.” Justice McLean, 
too, says, “ no.” “ No State shall make anything but 
gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.” 
Can she authorize otherwise ? No—that is clear. 

“ No State shall‘emit bills of credit.” Can a State, 
then, authorize a corporation to emit bills of credit? 
Here, sir, we come to the single thread by which the 
gentleman from Belmont holds up his great argument. 
Here are these four things, all in the same paragraph. 
The prohibition in reference to them all is in the same 
language, as I have already stated, and yet, while it is 
admitted, that a Slate cannot do any of them herself, or 
authorise the one or the other to be done, it is conten¬ 
ded that she can authorise the doing of just one of them. 

Suppose the State of Ohio should undertake to estab- 
lise within her borders a mint; or rather should ere -1 
ate a corporation to coin money. The charter, if you 
please, is most carefully drawn. Its directions are 
full and specific. It requires that theproportions 
of gold and silver and alloy shall be exact—that 
the metal shall be as pure, just as pure, as that 
used in the national mints. That tliey shall use the 
same machinery, put upon the metal the same stamp— 
rim it in the same way, and so prepare it, that the coin, 
when it comes out, shall be a lac .simile—a perfect im¬ 
itation, of that issued from our mints at Philadelphia, 
New Orleans, and elsewhere. It shall be an indentical 
dollar or half-dollar—precisely as valuable, precisely 
as passable ; so perfect, that it will stand all the tests 
of the scales, the touch, the eye, the ring, the knife, 
and all others. In all these respects, it is genuine, im¬ 
perishable coin. Yet these gentlemen will rise in their 
places here and say, “ you cannot do it; it is unconsti¬ 
tutional,” and notwithstanding this, they press tipon us 
a proposition, that a State may authorize that same cor¬ 
poration to make as much paper money as they please! 
they say, that no harm is done; that no authority is vi¬ 
olated, that this issuing of paper money is all right! 
We cannot authorize you, they say, to make gold or 
silver coin, even if it should be as good in eveiy re¬ 
spect as that coming from the national mint; but you 
may make paper money ad infinitum. 

Sir, I cannot comprehend the philosophy of this. 
We cannot, constitutionally, make pure money, but we 
may make this spurious money. All admit that the 
first cannot be done, and yet many claim that the sec¬ 
ond can be done. 

What, sir, was the argument of the gentleman from 
Belmont on this question ? According to my recollec¬ 
tion of it, it was this: “A State cannot authorize a cor¬ 
poration to grant letters of marque and reprisals, I ad¬ 
mit ; it cannot authorize a corporation to coin money, 

I admit; I so understand it; that is the language of the 
courts.” But, when it comes to making an inferior 
kind of money, something which we may call an adul¬ 
teration of the real coin, then it may be done with im¬ 
punity. A State cannot authorize a corporation to doi 
these things, because the regulation of them is prohib-j 
ited to the State, and reserved to the General Govern¬ 
ment; and then the further pz’oposition is made, that | 
individuals have a “ natural, inherent and inalienable ” 
right, to make paper money to any amount they please. 
That is the argument, and there is a great deal of in- 
genunity in it. j 

But, sir, it will not stand the test. I am not prepar-j 
ed to admit that individuals have the right to issue pa- j 


per money. One thing is certain, that long ago, in eve¬ 
ry age and country, this subject of the currency has 
been considered and treated as exclusively belonging 
to government. They have regulated it—they have 
claimed it, as belonging to their sovereignty. 

In reply to this argument, let us look at the true state 
of the case. Everywhere this right to issue paper 
money is denied by law, to the people. No indi¬ 
vidual, then, can do it. It is forbidden by statute, or 
otherwise. The right, if he had it, is taken away. It 
is upon this state of case the question is to be made. 
Can the State, having no power to do it herself, em¬ 
power—authorize—by incorporation, the citizen to do 
it ? Notice the language of such acts of incorporation. 
They are grants—actual grants of power and privilege 
from the State to the corporators. They assume that 
power goes out of the State, from the State to the citi¬ 
zen. We say the Stale has no such power in her. It 
is all taken out of her—away from her by the prohibi¬ 
tion of the constitution. 

But, Mr. President, there is nothing in the argument. 
I read from the books, and I bring the gentleman right 
up to the case, and condemn the pi'oposition out of the 
mouth of Justice McLean himself. I say again the 
moment you make the admission, that a bank bill is a 
I bill of credit, your whole case is gone, and I am wil- 
' ling to rest my view of it upon the definition that it is 
such, given by these eminent jurists, and approved by 
all history. What does justice McLean’ say ? I will 
read a little more of his decision, and then close my 
remarks. I want to meet the argument of the gentle¬ 
man from Belmont, and I will answer him out of the 
hook. 

Mr. KENNON. What page ? 

Mr. GROESBECK. Page 317. Here it is 

“ A State cannot <io that which the federal constitution declares 
it shall not do. It cannot coin money. Here is an act inhibited 
in terms so precise, that tliey cannot be mistaken. They are sus¬ 
ceptible of but one construction. And it is certain that a State 
cannot incorporate any number of individuals, and authorize 
them to coin money. Eucli an act would be as much a violation 
of the constitution, as if the money were coined by an officer of 
the State, under its authoidty. The act being prohibited, cannot 
be done by a State, either directly, or indirectly.” 

But this is not all. 1 have something more, to which 
I ask the especial attention of the gentleman from Bel¬ 
mont. I read again: 

“And the same rule applies as to the emission of bills of credit 
by the State. The terras here used are less specific than those 
which relate to coinage. Whilst no one can mistake the latter, 
there are great difterences of opinion, as to the construction of 
the former. If the terms in each case were equally definite, and 
were susceptible of but one construction, there could be no more 
difficulty in apply mg the rule in one case, than in the other." 

Here Justice McLean admits the same rule applies 
in the case of coinage and bills of credit; and if he 
would adopt Marshall’s definition of a bill of credit, 
all difficulty is removed. 

And farther. Here is the court directly and flatly 
contradicting the proposition of the gentleman from 
Belmont, and I prefer to answer his argument in this 
way. Out of the mouth of the court, I condemn the 
proposition. Once admit that a bank bill is a bill of 
credit, and I have the Missouri case, and this case, and 
I am inclined to add Justice McLean and Chief Justice 
Marshall, and Justice Story, and others of the jurists of 
the federal court, in favor of the proposition, that these 
issues are unconstitutional. Justice McLean comes 
right square out and says so, and it is only on account 
ot the ambiguity of the phrase, and the difficulty of de¬ 
termining the precise meaning of a bill ef credit, that 
he does not apply the same principle there, that he 
does in reference to coinage. He says so in his own 
words. 

Mr. President, lest it might be supposed that I was 
dealing a little unfairly in tlie examination of this case, 

I consider it proper tf) repeat, that Justice McLean de¬ 
cided this last case in favor of the bank, and to admit 
that Justice Story, who furnishes us with this defintiiou 
in a way and with an authority that makes it unques¬ 
tionable, took occasion to say that while a State could 














CONVENTION REPORTS 


1161 


not bank, and while, in his opinion, the charter of the 
bank of Kentucky was unconstitutional, a State might 
incorporate any number of its citizens to do that kind 
of banking. Let us read what he says: 

“ The States may create banks, as well as other corporations, 
upon private capital, and so far as this provision is concerned, 
may rightfully authorize them to issue notes or bills as currency,” 

I ask the ear of the committee to the remainder of 
this remark: 

^“Subject always to the control of Congress, whose powers ex¬ 
tend to the entire regulation of the currency of the country.” 

What does that amount to? Justice Story says that 
a State per se may not do banking, but that*it may in¬ 
corporate A, B. and 0. to do it, “subject, always, to 
the control of Congress,” &c. The gentleman from 
Belmot, [Mr. Kennon,] takes issue with Justice Story, 
because, if his argument amounts to anything. Congress 
has no control over these issues. What means the 
declaration of Justice Stoiy, but that the ultimate, su¬ 
pervisory, and supreme power over this subject, is 
lodged with the General Government? If the power 
be there, it cannot be in the States, Suppose the State 
to charter a^ bank, and authorize it to issue bank bills, 
say to the amount of one million of dollars. If the 
State can do this—if it has such power—how can Con 
gress interfere ? Can Congress interfere, and say to 
the incorporation, you shall issue but half a million ? 
The States has said a million. If the charter be consti¬ 
tutional, Congress must respect it. It f^eems to me 
that Justice Story, by this qualification, takes back all 
he had previously said. 

Mr. Pi’esident, I will bring my' argument to a close- 
May I not say in conclusion, that no one can look to the 
condition of the colonies, as they were, when the con¬ 
stitution was formed—to the history and character of 
the issues then in circulation, and all the other circum¬ 
stances beai’iug upon the question, without coming to 
the conclusion that the object of all these prohibitions 
in the constitution was to provide for the people of the 
United States one uniform currency. That the dollar 
and the eagle of Maine should be the dollar and the 
eagle of Georgia, and that each and every citizen, in 
each and every State should participate in this blessing 
alike. States shall not coin money—States shall not 
emit bills of credit; States shall not effect the law of 
tender, and in Congress alone shall be vested the reg¬ 
ulation of the currency'. What do these provisions 
mean? What can they mean, but the simple truth 
that our revolution a ly fathers intended to make this 
goverment, in reference to its currency, a “hard money 
government” and nothing else. The colonies had just 
emerged from the war of independence with the blood 
of its battles upon their garments and the crown of 
victory upon their brows. They saw, and felt too, this 
great evil. They saw whence it came—from the States, 
lor there were but two or three—very few banks in 
existence. 

The evil yet stood before them, enormous, threaten 
ing and ruinous, and almost exclusively in the shape of 
State issues, and they therefore declared that “ no State 
shall issue bills of credit.” Sir, did they mean this as 
a mere empty declaration? Did they mean that what 
a sovereign State might not do. an individual might 
do ? or did they think, when they denied the power 
to a State, they denied it also to a lesser body the 
State might incorporate? When they made this great 
denial, did they not intend to wipe out forever, or in 
the language of Chief Justice Marshall, to tear up by 
the roots this mischief of paper money, under which 


doctrine like this does not stand up to its letter, much 
less to its spirit. I understand myself u^on this sub¬ 
ject, and I here declare, and I believe I have the con¬ 
currence of almost every lawyer upon this floor, in the 
declaration that if it were so, in this day, that there 
was but one paper money bank in the United States, 
mid the constitutionality of its charter in this particu¬ 
lar were before the general court, they would not hes¬ 
itate one moment in pronouncing against it. 

1 remember a certain ex^iression in the opinion of 
Mr. Justice McLean. He says: 

“ That the doctrine is startling,” and that it Tvould overturn 
all the banks in the'United States, with a capital of four hundred 
millions of dollars: and he remarks in the same connection, that 
these banks “supply almost the entire circulating medium m the 
country.” He makes the admission that this circulating medium 
of the whole Union, consisted almost entirely of paper money 
just such money as was sought to be prohibited by the constitu¬ 
tion, and yet the doctrine is startling, becpse four hundred mil- 
lions of capital are involved in it. 1 admit it startling. By wng 
acquiescence, by long sufferance, this practice has extended it¬ 
self over the entire country. It is a subject to be handled wim 
care and caution. We may not blame the courts for this. It is 
not the courts that have brought about this state of things. It is 
vour Legislature; and for this very reason it has seemed to me 
especially proper, that this body—a constitutional Convention 
should make a beginning in this reform. 

Mr. President, I now close. I beg that the Conven¬ 
tion will observe, that in the discussion of this question, 

I have used no epithets—none at all that I have em¬ 
ployed no denunciations—none at all. I have not gone 
into the field of exploration, that was so well examin¬ 
ed by the gentleman from Knox, yesterday f 

have undertaken what seemed to me to be more dith- 
cult and less pleasant—to show how this question stood 
in tho courts, where it is commonly supposed it is 
strongly and clearly against us. I have brought here, 

I thii°k, all the cases worthy oi being produced. I 
have reviewed them.. You see what they are, and it 
seems to me, from this view of them, we may take 

^ "TeTmTiy ‘i“hT*ese are not the authorities 
eitheJo^ the great parties-that they are not the au- 
thorities of whigs as such, nor of ^ 

that they are not the authorities of Jeffei sou Madi¬ 
son or of any one of their school-but the opinions of 
eminent whig judges; and naay ^ 
their own mouths I have condemned 
cate a different doctrine? ^oes seem to me that 
out of these two cases themselves, I can make an 

trine which ""^“[‘^ir-and I so voted. 

TwSl no“t Mr- President, dwell longer «Pon *is 
“'jhal" nowravVStdUte whole sub- 

I leave tt in the hope, *at we tvilt la^^^ 

of the gentleman . tbat\uch a course should 

other. I would much ptefe^thatsnc^^ satisfacto.y, 

be taken. I think i subject a further 

and if the Oonventmn will gu 

consideration, I think t«cy w t' ^^.less I 

tofi wt ™ngln s vote 

ThichTdifl Shan repeat that desme to as- 

•'’'■\otsirt‘ft“ tVs'[«ctivrty; but if it should be so 


of 


in ST 


asserted, 


rdVlurfoTrt th; ^-bfieatton which I de- 


they had suffered up to that time ? And is it so, that manded before. a-rwTT T the Convention took a 
by a mere shift and device, it can be brought to pass On motion of Mr. L f 

that all that was intended to be effected, all that was 
designed to be prohibited, maybe evaded, that all this 
can be undone by resorting to the little subterfuge of 
incorporating A.' B. and C ? Sir, if that be so, then 
this declaration in the constitution is an empty sound. 

I would look at that instrument in its letter, and in its 
spirit; and I ^ay, that every onewho will proclaim a 


On motion 
recess. __ 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

A/r n\Qi7 nf Lickinc, on leave, presented the ere- 

Mr. CASE, 0 L.ck.ng, 

Sy’of Buder, to fill the vacancy occasioned by his 
own resignation. 









1162 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


Mr. VANCE being present, came forward and look 
the oath of ofnce, which v/as administered by Judge 
Hitchcock, member Irom the county of Geauga. 

On motion of Mr. CASE, of Licking, the credentials 
were referred to the standing committee on Privileges 
and Elections. 

The question pending being on agreeing to Mr. 
Arch bold’s amendment to the amendment of Mr. Law¬ 
rence ; 

Mr. STILWELL opposed the provision, because its 
terms were ambiguous. He was satisfied that it would 
not bear the construction which had been given to it 
by the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Groesbeck.] If 
the language of the provisien were submitted to the 
ordinary rules of construction, its operation would 
be taken as retrospective ; and if there was a doubt 
about its construction, it would, for that reason, be un¬ 
wise to place it in the constitution. 

But such a provision as this was not in the proper 
place. The bill of rights was not intended as a grant, 
but as a limitation of power. 

He might rest his opposition to the provision wholly 
upon these objections, but he was willing to meet the 
question further. 

The argument upon which the advocates of this 
amendment relied principally was, that the General 
Assembly of the State never had a constitutional right 
to charter any bank; because all banks were prohibit¬ 
ed by the constitution of the United States. This ar¬ 
gument was based upon that clause of the constitution 
of the United States, which declares that no Slate shall 
emit bills of credit. 

He then went into a methodical and extended ex¬ 
amination and construction of this clause of the consti¬ 
tution of the United States, by considering, in the first 
place, the subject matter of the clause; in the next 
place the contemporaneous construction, the nnilorm 
action of the general and State governments and decis¬ 
ions upon it. He considered this branch of the ques¬ 
tion, in all its relations to the history of this country, 
showing that the constitutionality of banks and bank¬ 
ing, as authorized by State Legislatures, had been ad¬ 
mitted by all the leaders of the Democratic party, from 
the time of the adoption of the constitution of the Uni 
led States, down to the close of the administration of 
President Jackson ; and that their constitutionality had 
been uniformly recognized by the practice of every ad¬ 
ministration of the general government, and by all the 
courts. 

He then passed to the other branch of the argument 
by which the amendment had been supported, name¬ 
ly: that no Legislature can grant a charter in such 
terms that a subsequent Legislature may not repeal it, 
without making compensation to the corporators. 

He admitted that the Legislature might repeal any 
charter by making compensation. 

He^ then proceeded to notice the arguments in favor 
of this amendment, advanced by the gentleman from 
Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] and the gentleman from Mont¬ 
gomery, [Mr. Holt.] They both had the merit of 
novelty. 

He should satisfy his own mind, by showing that the 
undoubted decision of the Supreme Court of the Uni¬ 
ted States, was opposed to this doctrine of the repeala- 
bility of charters, for there was not a single instance in 
which the correctness of this decision had been ques¬ 
tioned. Tliis being done, he supposed the argument 
against the provision under consideration to be com¬ 
plete, and that this Convention was not sitting here as a 
mere court of errors, to reverse the decisions of the 
Supreme Court of the United States. 

He then proceeded to reply to the argument in favor 
of the repealability of charters derived from English 
history, as advanced yesterday by the gentleman from 
Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] showing its total inapplicabili¬ 
ty, and affirming that the first time that a State of this 
Union undertook to destroy the validity of contracts liy 
repealing a charter, the principle was distinctly settled, 


that a charter was not repealable, and the exercise of 
the power of repeal was disliuclly denied to the Leg¬ 
islature. 

He closed by referring to the decisions of the Su¬ 
preme Court of the United States, upon the constitu¬ 
tionality of iheCom.noiiweulth Hank of Kentucky, and 
in the case of Clay against the State of Missouri; and 
reading from the o{)inion8 of Mr. Justice Story and 
Mr. Justice McLean—leading to the conclusion that a 
State possesses the power and the right to incorporate 
banks; but that a charter of incorporation cannot be 
repealed at the will of the Legislature, without com¬ 
pensation. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga said : I have little to 
say upon the immediate question now before the Con¬ 
vention. That question is within a very narrow com¬ 
pass, and might, with propriety, have been disposed of j 
without any, or with but litile debate. The whole sub¬ 
ject of repeal,however, has been again agitated. Still, j) 
I should probably have remained silent, but for the ar- ^ 
gumentof the gentleman from Knox. [Mr. Mitchell,] ^ 
delivered on yesterday, and that of the gentleman from ‘ f 
Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] delivered this morning. , 
More especially is it my desire to correct the first nam- i 
ed gentleman, as to matters of fact. 

Before doing this, however, it may be well to pay 
some attention to the question immediately before us. 
What is that question? 

The second section of the declaration of rights, 

as we have agreed to it, is as follows: “ All political 
power is in the people. Government is instituted for 
their equal protection and benefit, and they have a j 
right to alter, reform or abolish the same, whenever 
they deem it necessary.” . 

The gentleman from Guernsey, [Mr. Lawrence,] 
moved to amend, by adding the following: ” and t > al¬ 
ter, revoke, repeal or abolish, by act of the General As¬ 
sembly, any grantor law conferring S'ecial privileges 
or immunities, upon any portion of the people, which 
cannot reasonably be enjoyed by all.” 

The gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] pro¬ 
poses to amend this amendment, by striking out and 
inserting, so that it will read, “ and no special privileges 
or immunities shall ever be granted, injnricus to the 
public interest, and which cannot reasonably be enjoy¬ 
ed by all.” 

To the amendment of the gentleman from Guernsey, 

T object, because it isnot in its proper place. It would 
be more appropriate in the art’cle relative to the legis¬ 
lative department of the government.^ 

I object to it because of its uncertainty. Some gen¬ 
tlemen understand it as intended to have only a pros¬ 
pective operation, while others understand it as intend¬ 
ed to have both a prospective and retros[)ective opera¬ 
tion. If I understand the object of the mover, as ex¬ 
plained by himself, he intends, by the amendment, to 
confer power upon the General Assembly to repeal all 
acts of incorporation, those now existing and those 
which may be hereafter created ; and although the 
amendment, in terms, reaches all corporations, the ar¬ 
guments of gentlemen show that the particular coipo- 
rations aimed at, are banking corporations. 

As to the power of the General Assembly to repeal 
acts of incorporation, a did'erence of opinion exists in 
this Convention. This difference is not as to future 
corporations, but as to existing corporations. N(j one, 
so far as I know, doubts that it is within the legitimate 
power of the Convention to pi'ovide that all future acts 
of incorporation shall be repealable. 

Mr. SAWYER. Will the gentleman from Geauga 
vote for it? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Certainly I will, to a certain, 
and, perhaps, to the full extent. I have voted for it 
heretofore in committee of the whole, and shall proba¬ 
bly again. It is a mere question of policy, and upon it 
I am willing to consult gentlemen, and to do what shall 
seem to be for the best interests of the State, and the 
people of the State. 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 1163 


As to existing bank charti rs, tho (]tu?slion is not of’ 
no much practical impoiiaure. These charters will 
soon e xpire, and this bone of ronieiition will be re¬ 
moved. There are, however, meiiibers of this Cou- 
vention, and peihaps a rnaj<iriiy, who sincerely believe 
that under the constitution of the United States, as con¬ 
strued by the courts of the United Stales, the General 
Assembly does not [lossess the power to repeal existing 
charters, and if they do not [lossess it, we can not, the 
people can not give it to them. 

Having said so much, Mr. President, upon the ques 
tieu immediately before us, I turn my attention to the 
argument of the gentleman from Knox, [.Mr. Mitch- 
ELL.J 1 have already said that it was my purpose to 
correct that gentleman as to his matters of fact. When 
be arose, as is usual with him when he makes an ar¬ 
gument upon this floor, he endeavored to produce the 
unpressiim that this was a controversy between Whigs 
and Democrats—or as he is pleased to denominate 
those of us (.pon this side of the house—Federalists. 
He asserts that the Whigs, or Federalists, as he is 
pleased to denominate them, have always been in fa¬ 
vor of banks—Democrats opjioscd to them—and to sus¬ 
tain his piisition, ho goes back to the early hisloiy of 
the government, not of this State, but of the United 
Slates. He tells ns the first bank of the United States 
was incorporated by Federal votes, in opposition to De¬ 
mocratic votes. 

Now 1 say to the gentleman that at the time of the 
incorporation of the first bank of the Uniltd States, 
there was no party in the United States, known by the 
name of Democratic party. At the formation of the 
government, indeed before its formation, tliere were, as 
now, two gieat parties in the several States, known as 
Federalists and anti-Federalist. And these names were 
assumed from the fact that the Federalists were in 
favor of the adt)plion of the coiistiiutiou, the anti-fede¬ 
ralists opposed to its adojuion. Alter the adop¬ 
tion of the constitution the same party distinction was 
kept up, under the same names, and it so coniinued 
until about the time of the election of Mr. Jefferson. 
After this adopti^m, however, the anti-Federalisis were 
not opposed to the constiluticn, but they insisted upon 
a strict construction of that instrument, while the Fed¬ 
eralists insisted upon a more liberal construction. 

At or about the lime of the election of Mr. Jefl'er- 
SOD, the anli-Federalists assumed the name of Republi¬ 
cans, ai.d from that time i’orward until the Presidential 
election of 1824, the two parties were known as Fede¬ 
ralists and Republicans, 'frue, the Federal party was 
in opposition, after the first election of Mr. Monriie, 
and at his second election there was but a single vole 
against him. 

At the election of 1824 no one of the candidates had 
amajority ofelectoral votes, and Mr.Adams was elected 
the House of Representatives. Tlie opponents ol 
his administration, put forward as their candidate at, 
the next election. General Jackson, and were denomi 
nated by themselves and by others, not the Democrat¬ 
ic, but the Jackson party. That I am right in this, 
every one acquainted with the tiaie.s, or the history oi 
the limes, well knows. Acting under this party name, 
they succeeded in electing their candidate. But to¬ 
wards the close of his second term, when aiinther can 
didate was brouglit forward, who was not as popular as 
the old Hero, and by the use of whose name they would 
gain no strength, acting under the advice of Duff Green 
they abandoned the name of the “Jackson party,” and 
took to themselves liie name of the “ Democratic par¬ 
ty.” Here we have the otigin of the present selt-de 
nominated “Democratic party.” It is not yet twenty 
years old, nor does it by any means contain, nor did it 
ever contain the entire body of the original supporters 
of General Jackson. Multitudes of them are now 
found in the Whig ranks. And it is right and proper 
here to say tliat the Whig, as well as the Democratic 
party, is of modt'rn origin. This name was assumed 
by the party during the second term of General Jack¬ 


son's administration. I admit that our opponents have 
the advantage of us in the name, and it is as I appre¬ 
hend, by the name alone, they tind lavor with the peo¬ 
ple. When I speak then of the Democratic party, it 
IS in reference to this new party. It has no connec¬ 
tion with the Republican party of 1800, nor does it suc¬ 
ceed to any of the principles of that party. So far as 
any of the principles of the old Republican party are 
advocated at the present day, the advocates of those 
principles, are found in the Whig ranks. 

The gentleman from Knox [Mr. Mitchell] says 
that the Whig, or as he calls it, the Federal party, has 
always been in favor of banks, and the Democratic par¬ 
ty opposed to them. In this the gentleman is entirely 
mistaken. On the contrary more than four fifths of tho 
banks created since the Jackson veto of 1832, have 
been incorporated by Jackson or Democratic Legisla¬ 
tures. 

It is true the bank of tho United States wasincorpora- 
ted by the old federal party, and when,in 1811,applica¬ 
tion was mode to Congress for an extension ol its char¬ 
ter, this application was sustained by the same party, 
But the 3U|»pi‘rtol that measure was not confined to the 
members of that party. In 1811, the Republican par¬ 
ty was greatly in the ascendency in Congress. Still a 
decided majority of the House of Representatives was 
in favor of the extension of the charter. In the Sen¬ 
ate the vote was equal, and the bill was defeated by 
die casting vote the then Vice President, George Clin¬ 
ton. 

In 1816 the second bank of the United Suates was 
incorporated, or chartered, and the act ot incorporation 
was approved by James Madison. Was he a federal¬ 
ist ? Were a majority of the members of Congress in¬ 
corporating this second bank lederalistsi Not at all. 
On the contrary, a great majority of that Congress 
were republicans. Not only so, but the few lederal- 
ists who were in Congress, very generally, if not unan¬ 
imously, voted against the bank. Such are the facts, 
and still the gentleman makes the declaration that the 
republicans, or Denuscrats, have always been opposed 
to banks, and tl.e Whigs in their favor. 

Further, in 1832, a bill was passed through Congress 
for the re-charter of this bank—and this bill was enact¬ 
ed by a Congress in which the Jackson party had an 
immense Hiajoi’ify. This act did not become a law, on 
account of tiie Presidential veto, but the fact is well 


iiiowti that it was pas.sed by a .Jackson Congress. 

So fur then as respects the two banks ol the United 
States, one was chartered by the federal, the other by 
he republican party. But how is the maltei ol fact in 
his Stale? All the banks which were chartered in 
his Stale previous to the year 2824, were chartered by 
he republican party. I say this, because previous to 
hat year, no other than that party had the preponder- 
iiice in the State. There were a few federalists here 
ind there, but the great body of the people sustained 
he administrations of Jelferson, Madison and Monroe. 
U’ter the organization ol the State government, there 
vas no well defined federal opposition in the Stale. 

In 1824, however, parties sprung up, and there were 
our of them, each one of the four having its lavonte 
andidate for the Presidency. All these candidates, 
lowever, were ol the old Republican paity. The con¬ 
est had not so much reference to measures as to men. 
n process of time tlicsefour parties have been reduced 
o two, known as the whig and democratic parlies.^ 

At the session of the General Assembly cominencnig 
III the first Monday of December, 1833, some ten or 
welve banks were incorpoiated. Were these banks 
ticorpnratcd by wliigs? Not at all. In that General 
ussemhly.at the time of their incorporation, the Senate 
vas composed of twenty-one Jackson men or derao- 
rats and fifteen whigs. In the House the Jackson or 
emocratic majority was twenty-six. This was the 
lost decided democratic majority we have ever had m 
he Slate, and still numerous banks were incorporated, 
it the very next session of the General Assembly, the 











1164 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


whigs were iiitlie majority and uota single bank wasin- 
corporated. Still the gentleman Irom Knox says that 
the whigs have always been in favor of banks—demo¬ 
crats opposed to them. The gentleman is mistaken as 
to the facts of the case. 

In 1832-’3-’4 and ’5, the democratic cry was, down 
with the bank of the United States, and to effect this 
object the Legislatures of the several democratic States 
were urged to create State banks. This advice came 
from men high in the confidence of General .Jackson, 
and it was adopted and acted uponby his followers, not 
only in this State, but in many of the other States; and 
I venture the assertion, that of the bank capital incor¬ 
porated since the celebrated Jackson veto of 1832, 
more than four-fifths has been incorporated by Jackson 
or democratic Legislatures. 

Does any one doubt the truth of the assertion ? Let 
them examine the matter carefully, and they will find 
that I am not mistaken. Still the gentleman from 
Knox, proclaims that the democratic party has ever 
been opposed to banks, the whig party in favor of 
them. Even at the present time, the democratic party 
in most of the States of the Union are not opposed to 
banks, although I admit that the party in Ohio is pro¬ 
fessedly opposed to them. And when did this opposi¬ 
tion commence ? Not until the United States Bank 
was put down. After that period war was made upon 
our State banks, the banks of their own creation. For 
years the doctrine of bank reform was promulgated as 
the true democratic doctrine. This doctrine, however, 
became stale, and the doctrine of bank destruction was 
substituted instead thereof. 

In this crusade against banks, the whigs, as a party, 
have refused to unite, but have been, and still are wil¬ 
ling that these institutions should enjoy their corpor¬ 
ate privileges. For this, we have been stigmatized 
and denounced as being unworthy of the confidence of 
the public. 

Mr. President, I have made this statement to satis¬ 
fy the gentleman from Knox, that he i.? entirely mis¬ 
taken as to his matters of fact, and to convince others 
that the anti-bank cry cannot be traced back to the 
old republican party, nor to the early days of the 
present democi'atic party. It is of more recent ori¬ 
gin, and confined in a great measure, to the State of 
Ohio. 

The gentleman from Knox, seems to Irave great 
dread, not only of banks, but all other corporations. 
He pronounces them public nuisance.s. If nuisances, 
who is in fault for their creation ? If the gentleman 
will take the trouble to examine the local laws of the 
State for fifteen years past, he will find that at least 
twenty-five per cent, more acts of incorporation have ' 
been passed when his own party have been in the as¬ 
cendancy in the General Assembly, than when the 
whigs have been in the ascendancy. About the time 
of an election, his friends are peculiarly noisy upon 
the subject of incorporations, but the elections over, 
they go up to Columbus and create them without stint. 

Upon this subject of repeal, the difference between 
my friend from Knox and myself is this. He believes 
the General Assembly have the constitutional power 
to repeal all acts of incorporation, as well those now 
in existence as those which shall be hereafter enacted. 
I admit that this Convention may, if it be thought ex¬ 
pedient, provide that all future acts of incorporation 
shall be repealable, but if the General Assembly do not 
now possess the power of repealing existing corpora¬ 
tions, we cannot confer that power upon them. So far 
as our present constitution is concerned, there is noth¬ 
ing in it, according to my understanding, taking away 
this right of repeal, although, if ever exercised, it should 
be done with great caution. But the difficulty grows 
out of our relation to the United Slates. We are bound 
by the constitution of the United States, and that instru¬ 
ment prescribes that no State shall “ pass any law im¬ 
pairing the obligation of contracts.” The same provi¬ 
sion is found in our new constitution. 


Now, the question arises, is an act of incorporation a 
contract. If it is a contract, or in the nature of a con¬ 
tract, its obligation cannot be impaired, nor in any way > 
destroyed by any State law. I hold that an act of ini 
corporation is a conti’act, and therefore irrepealable, 
because its repeal would “impair the obligation”—of 
the contract. The gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitch¬ 
ell,] and the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Groes- 
B£CK,] argue very ingeniously that an act of incorpora¬ 
tion is not a contract. To this argument I shall not 
reply, but say to the gentlemen, this is not an open 
question. It was decided by the supreme court of the 
United States, more than thirty years gone by, and the 
decisions of that court have been uniform upon the sub¬ 
ject ever since. That court holds that an act of incor¬ 
poration is a contract. The gentlemen both admit this, 
but strangely argue that the decision is wrong. We 
have then, the two gentlemen upon one side of this 
question, and the supreme court of the United States | 
upon the other. Which shall be taken as the true ex- i 
pounders of the law. I must give the preference to the i f 
opinion of the court, whose peculiar duty it is to give » 
construction to the constitution and laws of the United , i 
States. 

But the gentleman from Knox claims that the su- ‘ ^ 
preme court of the United States is not entitled to con¬ 
fidence—that it is a useless, and worse than useless 
branch ol the government—that is judges are not wor¬ 
thy of respect^—-that it is an aristocratic court—and ^ 

even that every democrat, jiut upon the bench of that 
court, at once becomes an aristocrat. It may be so, but 
I should not have dared to make the charge. But the ' 
gentleman is better acquainted with the great lights of V 
his party than I am. When they attain office, they i 

may*become aristocrats. I believe, however, they still | j 

claim to belong to the democratic party. 

Now I inquire of my Democratic friends, whether 
they are willing to join in this crusade against the high- , 
est judicial tribunai in the country—whether they are 
willing to take away that which shall destroy the con- ! 

fidence of the people in the integrity of its members? ^ 

If willing, why would you do it ? Simply, as I con¬ 
ceive, to revenge yourselves upon a few paltry banks \ 
in the State of Ohio. ’ 

The two gentlemen before referred to, next argue 
the right of repeal upon the ground that the several 
States have noconsfitutioual right to incorporate banks. 

That this is inhibited by that clause of the constitution 
of the United States which declares that no State shall 
“ emit bills of credit.” This is a new idea. The con¬ 
stitution of the United States was adopted, and the gov¬ 
ernment went into operation more than sixty years 
since, and during the whole of that period, the several 
States have been constantly incorporating banks with 
power to issue bills or notes for circulation. The right 
to do it has never been questioned by Congress. It has 
never been questioned in any court of the United States, 
or of the several States, from the highest to the lowest. 

It may have been questioned in some Carthage Con¬ 
vention, but I believe was never before questioned 
by any deliberative body. 

At the present time there are probably more than 
two hundred millions of dollars of incorporated bank 
capital in the several States. But, say the gentlemen, 
the laws incorporating it are all unconstitutional, and 
therefore null and void. It would seem to me to be 
too late, after this uniform and unquestionable pme- 
tice of more than sixty years, to raise this question. 

But no. Gentlemen, in their extreme hostility to banks, 
would be willing to seize upon any plausible excuse 
for destroying these institutions, although such destruc¬ 
tion should bring ruin upon the whole country. Like 
Sampson of old, they would destroy themselves for the 
sake of destroying those whom they esteem to be their 
enemies, the incorporated bankers. 

But the Supreme Court of the United States stands 
between them and their victims. Hence the enmity 
of the gentleman from Knox to that tribunal. 


















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


What is the argument by which this new light notion 
is sustained? It is in substance this: says the consti¬ 
tution, no State shall “emit bills of credit;” but bank 
bills are bills of credit. A State cannot authorise oth¬ 
ers to do that which it cannot do itself. It cannot of 
ilacii issue “ bias ox creuit,” iherefurc, it caiiuot incor¬ 
porate a cpmpany with authority to issue bank bills, 
which are “ bills of credit.” 

Now I do not propose to argue this question. The 
right of a State to incorporate banks, was sustained in 
an argument by the gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. 
Kennon,] which has not, and which, in my opinion, 
cannot be refuted. 

That the power to incorporate banks is among the 
reserved rights of the States, I cannot doubt. Not be¬ 
cause the notes of banks for circulation, are not in some 
senses “ bills of credit,” but because they are not that 
description of bills of credit which are referred to in 
the constitution. Previous, and during the Revolution¬ 
ary war, the several Colonies or States, had issued pa¬ 
per money, for the redemption of which the public 
faith, and nothing but the public faith, was pledged. 
This paper money, together with similar paper, issued 
by the Congress of the United States, for a considera¬ 
ble length of time, constituted the entire circulation of 
the country. But it was beyond the povver of the sev¬ 
eral States, or of the United States, to redeem it. It 
finally became utterly woiThless, and was an entire 
loss to those who had it in possession. Much, howev¬ 
er, as individuals may have lost by this paper money, 
it operated well for the safety of the country. With¬ 
out it, the war of the Revolution could not have been 
prosecuted. Without it, the independence of the Uni¬ 
ted States could not have been achieved. 

To prevent the emission of paper of this description, 
the clause referred to was introduced into the constitu¬ 
tion. The intention was to prevent the States from 
emitting “ bills of credit,” based alone for their re¬ 
demption, upon the faith of the State. 

But I have said I would not argue this question, pre¬ 
ferring rather to rely upon ihe opinion of eminent citi¬ 
zens, the decisions of the coux’ts of the country, and 
the uniform practice of more than sixty years. So far 
as individual decisions are concerned, we have but few 
of them, and the reason is obvious. Until within a ve¬ 
ry recent pei’iod no one has doubted the power of a 
State to create corporations, and corporations too, pos¬ 
sessing banking privileges. Or if there have been any 
entertaining such doubt, the number has been so small 
that the question has not been raised in any of the 
courts—that is, so far as my knowledge extends, the ques¬ 
tion has not been raised whether a State had the power 
to extend to an association of its citizens the privilege 
of banking. 

The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbbck,] 
has referred to two cases decided by the Supreme 
Court of the United States—one reported in the fourth, 
and the other in the fifth volume of Peter’s Report.— 
Before examining these cases, however, I wish to refer 
to the opinion of a distinguished individual, whose 
opinions have heretofore been held as oracular by the 
democratic party. This individual, is General Andrew 
Jackson. In his elaborate veto message, of 1832, he 
says, “ Banking, like farming, manufacturing, or any 
other occupation or profession, is a business, the right 
to follow which is not derived from laws. Every cit¬ 
izen, and every company of citizens, in all our States, 
possessed the right, until the State Legislatures, deem¬ 
ed it good policy to prohibit private banking by law. 
If the prohibiting laws were now repealed, every citi¬ 
zen would again possess the right. The State banks 
are a qualified restoration of the right which has been 
taken away by the laws against banking, guarantied 
by such provisions and limitations as, in the opinion of 
the State Legislatures, the public interest requires.-— 
These corporations, unless there be an exemption in 
their charter, are, like private bankers, and banking 
companies, subject to State taxation. The manner in 


1165 

which these taxes shall be laid, depends wholly on leg- 
islative discretion. It may be upon the bank, upon the 
stock, upon the profits, or in any other mode, which 
the sovereign power shall will.” 

Such was the opinion of General Jackson in 1832, 
and he fu'ly recognized ‘he right of the State Legisla¬ 
ture to incorporate banks. He says, and says truly, 
that the business of banking is as legitimate as the busi¬ 
ness ol farming, or manufacturing, and equally open to 
every individual in community, unless restrained by 
law; hence that the State banks area cpialified restora¬ 
tion of this right. No doubt is expressed as to the 
power of any State Legislature thus to restore this 
right. _ 

Besides, we have as a matter of fact, that after the 
removal of the deposits of the Bank oflhe United States, 
General Jackson directed the public money to be de¬ 
posited in State banks. It is not possible that he would 
liave done this, unless he had supposed such banks to 
be constitutional. The ti;uth is. General Jackson was 
opposed to the Bank of the United States—but was in 
favor of State banks. He was emphatically a State 
bank man in 1832, and a decided majority of his par¬ 
ty concurred with him in opinion ; and such continued 
to be the opinion of the party, until 1836 or ’37. But 
should a Democrat now express the opinion which 
Jackson expressed in 1832,1 suppose he must, of course, 
be read out of the party. 

The position of the gentlemen upon the other side is, 
that inasmuch as no State can “ emit bills of credit,” 
no State can create banks of issue, because such banks 
“emit bills of credit ”—and they seem to suppose that 
by ascertaining the meaning of the word “ bill of 
crediy’ they arrive at the extent of the meaning of this 
constitutional provision. The gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton has, as before remarked, in reference to two cases 
decided in the Supreme Court of the United States. 
The first is the case of Craig and others, against the 
State of Missouri. (4th Peters 430.) 

The main question raised in that case was, whether 
a certain law of the State of Missouri was constitu¬ 
tional. This law was entitled “ an act for the establish¬ 
ment of loan offices,” and in one of its sections requir¬ 
ed the officers of the treasury, under the direction of 
the Governor, to issue certificates to the amount of two 
hundred thousand dollars, of denominations not ex¬ 
ceeding ten dollars, nor less than fifty cents, in the fol¬ 
lowing form : 

“ This certificate be receivable at the Treasury of any of the 
loan oflices in the State of Missouri, in discharge of debts or tax¬ 
es due from the State, for the sum of-dollars, with interest 

for the same, at the rate of two per cent, per annum, from this 
date.” 

For the one side, it was urged that these certificates 
were “ bills of credit,” and within the meaning of the 
constitutional prohibition, and that the act authorizing 
their emission was therefore unconstitutional—upon 
the other side, this was denied. 

The court. Chief Justice Marshall delivering the 
opinion, decided that these certificates were bills of 
credit, and that the law was unconstitutional. This,, 
however, was the decision of a bare majority of the 
court—three of the judges dissenting. Now, this was 
not a case in which the validity of a bank charter was 
called in question. Unless I am much mistaken, the 
word bank is not used in the opinion of the court. This 
case was decided in 1830. 

The next case referred to, by my friend from Hamil¬ 
ton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] is the case ofBriscoe and others, 
against the Commonwealth Bank of Kentucky, (11th 
Peters 257,) and decided in 1837. 

But, before proceeding to the examination of this 
case, it maybe well to know who were the judges by 
whom it was decided. And I will state their names, 
for the benefit of my friend from Knox, [Mr. Mitch¬ 
ell,] who is so much alanned at the federalism of this 
court. These judges were Story, Thompson, Baldwin, 
Taney, Barber, Wayne and McLean. The first ap¬ 
pointed, as I believe, by Mr. Madison, the second by 












1166 


CONVENTION REFOllTS, 


Mr. Monroe, and iho five others by General Jackson— 
hence, where did General Jackson ever appoint I'ede- 
ralists to ofiice? He undoubtedly a[»pointed many men 
■who had been federalists, but none who were not at 
the time of the appointment, Jackson men, good and 
true. 

The case of Briscoe vs. the Commonwealth Bank 
was decided by a court, five of whose members were 
Democrats, the appointees of Andrew Jackson. 

The facts of the case were these: in November, 1820, 
the Legislature of Kentucky established a bank by 
the name of “ The Bank of the Common wealth of Kt ii- 
tucky." It was established in the name and behalf "f 
the State, under officers to be chosen by the Legisla¬ 
ture. It was declared to be the exclusive property of 
the State—was authorized to issue note s or bills, and 
itsdividends were to be paid into the State Treasury. 
The notes or bdls issued were in the ordinary form of 
bank notes or bills The question presented for the 
decision of the Court was, whether the notes or bills of 
this bank, thus issued, wert? bills of credit” wiihin 
the meaning of the constitution, or in other words, 
whether the act establishing this bank was a constitu¬ 
tional act. 

I'he ctmrt, by a majority of six judges to one, deci¬ 
ded that these bills were not “ bills of credit” wiihin 
the meaning of the constitution, and that the act was 
unconstitutional. The judges who concurred in the 
decision were the Democratic judges, the live who 
had been appointed by General Jackson, and Judge 
Thompson. The dissenting judge was Story. 

True Judge Thoin[>.son does not concur in all the 
reasi.ning of the majority, but he concuis in the opin¬ 
ion, that the bills issued by the bank did not come 
under the denomination of “bills of credit” prohib¬ 
ited by the constitution of the United States, to be 
emitted by the States—hence he says, “if I conside^r- 
ed these bank notes as bills of credit, within the sense 
and meaning of the constitutiorml prohibition; I would 
not concur in the opinion with the majority of the 
court, that they were not emitted by the State.” He 
then assigns the reasons why he would not thus con¬ 
cur, as follows: “The State is the sole owner of the 
stock of the bank, and all private interest in it is ex¬ 
pressly excluded. The State has the sole and exclu¬ 
sive management and direction of its concerns. The 
corporation is the mere creature of the Slate, and en¬ 
tirely subject to its control, and I cannot bring my¬ 
self to the conclusion that such an important ftrovis- 
ion in the constitution can be evaded by mere form.” 
According to the opinion of this Judge, it seems that 
a “ bill of credit,” within the meaning of the constitu¬ 
tion, is a bill issued by a State, for the redemption of 
which, the faith of the Stale alone is pledged. 

Judge Story, and he alone, dissented from the opin¬ 
ion of the court in the decision of the case. The gen¬ 
tleman fiom Hamilton, [Mr. G.,] has passed a high 
eulogium upon the character of that learned Judge, as 
well as upon the character of the late Chief Justice 
Marshall. Not higher, however, than they deserve. 
He has done them justice. And it was refreshing, af¬ 
ter these men have been so much vilified and traduced 
upon the other siile of the House, to witness that there 
was one di.stinguished democrat upon this floor, who 
was ready and willing to do them justice. 

The gentleman [Mr. (L] cites the dissenting decis¬ 
ion of Judge Story with much aftprobation. and I cer¬ 
tainly have no fault to find with it. But why does he 
cite it ? Not to ascertain w hat the Judge tlionght as to 
thepower of aStale to incorporate a bank, but to prove 
what is a bill of credit. Not to prove what is a hill f)| 
credit within the meaning of the constitution, but what 
is a bill of credit, as an abstract proposifiorj. As to 
the question of power in a State to incorporate a bank, 
the opinion of the Judge is decid(“dly opposed to the 
opinion of the gentleman. But let the Judge speak fur 
himself. 

After going through a labored argument to prove 


that the hills issued by the Commonwealth Bank, 
We re bills of credit within the meaning of the p/ohiL- 
iling clause in the constitution, the Judge fU'oceeds: 

“ Rut it may be argued, that if’this hank he unroiislitutionnl, all 
.State hanks, iouiided on privatt^ capital, art* unconstitutional. 
That proposition 1 utterly deny. It is not a legitiruat** conclusion, 
frotn any just reasoning applicable to the prscriit case. 'The con¬ 
stitution docs not prohibit the i mission ol all hills ol credit, but 
only the cmis.*-lon ol liills of credit by a ."^tHte ; and when I say by 
a tftate, I mean by or in behalf of a State, in whai^ever form is¬ 
sued. it does not prohibit privatt* persons, or private paitner- 
ships, or jirivate corporations, (sti ictly so called,) from issuing 
bills of credit.” 

Again he saye: 

“ It was the issue of bills of credit, as a currency, authorized by 
a State on its own lunds, and lor its ow/i purpose, which consti¬ 
tuted the real evil to be provided against.” 

And ngtiin ; 

“The .States may create hanks, as well ns other incorporation®, 
upon private capital; and so far as this proliilntion is concerned, 
may rightfully aiitliorize them to issue bank bills or notes as cur¬ 
rency ; subject always to the control of Congresf?, whose powers 
extend to the entire regulation of the currency of the country.” 

The opinion of Judge Story iu the case referred to, 
vviis decidedly in favor of the right of a Slate to incor- 
[)orate banks, and no judge, so lar as my kuowledgo 
extends, lia.s ever expressed a contrary opiuiou from 
the bench. 

The gentleman from Hamilton is willing to take tho 
opinion of this eminent jurist, as to what constinntes a 
iiill of credit, but he entirely discards dial opinion so 
far as it sustains the power of a State. 

Now, Mr. Bresident, how stands tliis question a.q to 
the [)()Wer of a Stale to incorporate banking institu- 
lion.s? On the one side we liave the uniform practice 
of the country tor teore than sixty year^, the ofdnioD 
of the venerable .lacksun, and liie decision of the su¬ 
preme court of the United States, and on the other 
the opinions of tny friend from Knox, [Mr. Mitch- 
KLi.,] ainl the two gentlemen from llamilion, [M essrs. 
Rkp:meli.''i and Ghoksrkck,] W'hicli shall we fol¬ 
low? which shall predominate? [ ask my frienda 
upon the rither side, wliether upon thi.sdoubtful author¬ 
ity, whether against the decision of the highest j udicial 
inbuiial in the country, they are willing to adopt a theo¬ 
ry which, if carried into full efiect, will throw Jhe 
whole country into confusion; which will destroy tho 
currency, amibilate the circulating medium, ainl bring 
indescribable distn'ss and ruin iqion the entire [leople? 
Well, gentleman doitifyuu will, but remember, in such 
event, you cannot escape the general distres.s. You, 
equally with us, and otliers, must feel the efiect of the 
calamity, thus by your own ads bongtii iqam the coun¬ 
try and brought upon it, too, fur no other [mrpose than 
the destruction of a few banks in the State of Ohio. 

It seetns from a remark of Judge Story, in his opin- 
ifui in the case referred to, that the case had once be¬ 
fore been argneti and submitted. He says, “when this 
cause was formerly argued before tliis court, a majority 
of the Judges, who then heard it, were decidedly of 
opii.ion that the act of Kentucky e8tal)lishing tins hank, 
was nnconstittitional and void ; a.s amonnliim to an au¬ 
thority to emit • hills of credit,’ for and f»n belialf oflho 
S’ate, within die jurisdiction of the coiistitnlion of the 
United Slates.” How the court was coiistitnted at the 
time the cause was formerly argued, we know imt. 
Chief Justice Manshall was one of the number. And 
the court was probably cfuistiiuted, as at the time of 
the decision of the case of Craig rs. Missouri, and deci¬ 
ded as in that case —that is to say, four to three. 

But there had been a change. New Judges had been 
appointed, all of whom were of the Jackson school. 
Can any inference be drawn from this < itciinistatice to 
how wliy there would probably be a different decis¬ 
ion? I think ilierecan. From the earliest period of 
the United State.s government, there has heeti this t ha- 
acteristic di.stinclion, between the two great parties of 
die country. The Federalists w^ere in favorol'a liberal 
construction of the constitution, that is, a construction 
wliith would draw power to the government of ill© 
United States. At least this was the charge against 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1167 


that party. The Kepublicau party were ia favor ol 
strict coiistruciioi), or such coaslruction as would leave 
to the States all tlie powers not expressly granted to 
the Congress ot the United States. The new Judges 
apjruinted w’ere, with the c.xcej)tion of Chief Justice 
Taney, of the Republ cm school, strict constructionist.^. 

The question [nesented to the court was purely a 
question ot power iu a State. The power, not to in¬ 
corporate a nnuiber of individuals as a banking com- 
any, but the power or riglit of a State to establish a 
auk, ot wliich the State itself, in its sovereign capaci¬ 
ty, was the exclusive owner and manager, and the 
profits of which were to bo paid into the treasiuy of the 
Stale. 

The court, ora majority of the court, abiding by the 
rule of strict coustructiou, and refusing to extend the 
meaiiing of the words “bills of credit,” beyond what 
was intended by the constitution, held that the bills of 
the bank were not such bills of credit, and that the 
State had not parted with the power to establish such 
a bank even as the “Commonwealth Bank of Ken¬ 
tucky.” It was a decision in favor of the powers of the 
States—a States’ rights decision. It was a decision op¬ 
posed to a liberal coustructiou of the constitution of the 
United States. 

Now, I would ask the gentleman from Knox, aro you 
in favor of a liberal construction of the constitution of 
the United States? 

Mr. MITCHELL. No sir. 

Mr, HITCHCOCK. If you are not, then you can¬ 
not be in favor of restricting the jiowers of the respec¬ 
tive States, and increasing the powers of the Congress 
ot the United S'ates. And you ought to be found sus¬ 
taining the decision of the court iu the case of the 
Commonwealth Bank. The judges making that deci¬ 
sion, carried out the States’ rights doctrine. They held 
that, iu the words of the teiiih amendment to the con¬ 
stitution of the United States, “the powers not delega¬ 
ted to the United Stales by the comstitution, nor prolii- 
bited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, re¬ 
spectively, or to the people.” 

The great danger of our system, is that the powers of 
the general government will be inrreased, the powers 
of the respective Stales diu)lni.slied. There is a great 
tendency to centralization. The decision of the court 
so often referred to, i.s calcuhited, in some measure, to 
check this tendency. And I say to the gentlemen on 
the other side of the house, if you aro opposed to the 
increase of the powers of the general government, sus¬ 
tain the court. But if you are iu favor of an increase 
of those powers, and as a measure to effect such increase, 
are in favor of a liberal construction of the United States 
constitution, condemn the com t. In such event, how¬ 
ever, I cannot go wiih you. I am, as I ever have been, 
a strict constrnctionist. 

Mr. GREEN, ot Ross, said: He was aware of the 
disadvantages under wliich he proposed to address 
this body at this time, protracted as has been the de¬ 
bate, anu especially as the two distinguished gentle¬ 
men from Muskingum and Geauga, [Messrs. Stilwell 
and Hitchcock,] had just preceded him on the ques¬ 
tion, with much power and effect. Nevertheless, there 
were some considerations proper to enter into our ac¬ 
tion on this question that liad not been as fully presen¬ 
ted as they might be. He should therefore ask the in 
dulgeiice of the Convention for a few moments. 

As the gentleman who had just resumed his seat, 
[Mr. Hitchcock, of Geauga,] had remarked, there 
could be no doubt as to the object intended to be se¬ 
cured by the amendment to the bill of rights, offered 
by the gentleman from Guernsey, [Mr. Lawrence.] 
and now under cmisideraiion. It is one of a series ol 
propositions, which have in one form or another, and 
undei’ one pretence and another, been introduced here, 
having one sole object in view—to reach a certain, par¬ 
ticular class of incorporated institutions now existing 
in the State. Yon, as well as myself, are aware, Mr. 
Tresident, that for several years past, tlie question 


here covertly and indirectly presented, has been em¬ 
ployed as a vveapon of party, political warfare, by the 
means of which, one party has been, to a considerable 
extent, enabled to mislead the peojile, and iheieby to 
obtain, occasionally, supremacy in the State. ' The de¬ 
mocracy has represented itself as tlie ancient, consist¬ 
ent and sworn enemy of “ Bank Monopoly,” as they 
please to term it; and has as constantly charged upon 
the Whigs, in every form which a very progressive im¬ 
agination can devise, that they are the peculiar and ex¬ 
clusive advocates of every sort of monopoly—bank mo- 
riojioly in particular, and the apologist for all the faults 
practised or charged to be practised by those institu¬ 
tions. Now, sir, the history of the past twenty years 
is conclusive on this subject. 

But these gentlemen don’t like history—theie is too 
much of >ober truth in history to suit their progressive 
notions, consequently they preserve a most lofty and 
dignitied silence on ihe historical facts. I intend, be¬ 
fore I sit down, to open the record. I intend to state 
an account, and strike t^'d^lance with these anti-bank 
corporation gentlemen, and unless they repudiate the 
founders of their political church, renounce the arti¬ 
cles of faith wliich were’originally promulgated by the 
tlie fathers and the prophets of Jackson democracy, 
they mast submit to be convicted, pay the costs for 
their false clamor and go hence without day. 

Great latitude of debate has been indulged in, since 
this question came up. Gentlemen who have preceded 
me have seemed not to think the “question” of suffi¬ 
cient importance to claim their attention. If I should, 
therefore, leave the consideration of the amendment 
before us, to follow my illustrious predecessors, 1 shall 
liope to be indulged. 

I desire, first, to address myself to the argument of 
the gentleman trom Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] de¬ 
livered this morning. I do so the more because, from 
indications which I saw and heard around me, at the 
time of its delivery, I am lorl to believe that it produ¬ 
ced some effect. I heard it claimed, iu whispers, that 
ihe gentlamau had most triumphantly established the 
fact, that John Marshall, late Chief Justice of the Su¬ 
preme Court of the United States, was authority to sus¬ 
tain the fallacies asserted here. 

I shall deal with the argument of the gentleman from 
Hamilton, with all the respectit deserves. It was nov¬ 
el, Somewhat, in its doctrines, fallacious iu its reason¬ 
ings, and most erroneous in its conclusions—contradic¬ 
ted by the authorities cited to sustain it—iu short, an 
argument such as I should least have expected from 
that very rsspectable law'yer, the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton. 

Before doing so, however, let me say in advance that 
if I shall succeed in refuting the position of the gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton, out of his own book, I do not liopo 
to carry gentlemen ou the other side with me. The 
gentleman from Knox, [Mr. MiTCUEcr,,] told us the 
other day, in substance, that in his opinion this supreme 
court of the United States is an unnecossary engine of 
power, mischevious in its [u’inciples and practice, a 
foul blot on the fair proportions of our government. 
Tne gentleman from Trumbull, [.VIr. Ranney,] a day or 
two since, commenting ou the opinion of Judge Mar¬ 
shal:, in the Dartmouth College case, told us that he 
[Marshall] was an “old sophist.” Wfiat thatcourt may 
have said, of course will not inffuence those gentlemen. 
Nor do I suppose that the opinions of those who now 
grace that bench, selected as much for their supposed 
uiThodoxy in democracy, as for their superior merits, 
will influence any of the political Iriend.s of those gen¬ 
tlemen. They hold, I believe, the san e opinion said 
to have been expressed by a distinguished politician of 
New York, [Erastiis Root,] when inlbrmed that the 
council of appointment had nominated a federalist to 
I lie bench, he re[)lied ; “ Good ! there’s a democrat sa¬ 
ved. But a democrat on the bench, and you make a 
federalist of him directly.” I do not doubt tliat the 
resolutions of a democratic township meeting would 











1168 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


have more weight with these gentlemen than the sol¬ 
emn opinions of the supreme court. And it may be 
unfortunate for the country, but so it is, the court has 
the advantage of the township democracy, even of 
Hamilton or Knox counties,, it has the power to enforce 
its judguienlo; and T musL, iherdure, bow lo its be¬ 
hests, being a law-abiding man. I say, then, that I 
have no hope of making converts on the other side, if I 
succeed in what I have proposed. But, sir, I shall 
have the proud satisfaction of vindicating, (feebly, I 
admit, but with all my heart,) on this floor, the character 
of that illustrious man—the late chief justice—from an 
attempt to fasten upon him a heresy as gross as could 
well be conceived. I know, sir, I shall say nothing 
new to the legal gentlemen here, though some of them 
do seem to be strangely ignorant of his opinions, but I 
speak that the honest people, who will take the trouble 
to read, may know fairly, and with what truth, opin¬ 
ions have been attributed to tlie illustrious dead, which 
when living no man wouldi£^iye had the hardihood to 
impute to him. 

The gentleman from Hamilton advanced several 
propositions, which he proceeded to sustain by refe¬ 
rence to certain reported cases; and very triumphant¬ 
ly, too, in the estimation of some of his political friends 
near me. In order that I may not do injustice to him, 
1 shall state them as nearly as I can, in his hearing, so 
that, if I have not understood him aright he may cor¬ 
rect me. 

His first proposition is, that that clause of the 10th 
section of the first article of the constitution of the Uni¬ 
ted States, which declares that no State “ shall coin 
money, emit bills of credit,” &c., is a restriction, apro- 
hibition of the right of the States to incorporate banks 
of paper issue. 

2d. That the notes of these banks are bills of cred¬ 
it, within the meaning of the constitution, and so held 
by Marshall, Chief Justice, in the case of Craig vs. the 
State of Missouri, 4 Peters, 410. 

(Mr. Groesbeck assented.) 

3d. That McLean, Justice, in deciding the case of 
Briscoe vs. the Commonwealth Bank of Kentucky, 11 
Peters, 255, had been driven to the necessity of de¬ 
claring that the Chief Justice was wrong in the con¬ 
struction given to this clause of the constitution, in the 
case first cited. 

4th. That in the same case cited from 11 of Peters, 
Justice Story, in his dissenting opinion, adopted the 
construction of Marshall. 

And finally, if Marshall is right, (and the gentleman 
claims that he is) then bank notes, being bills of cred¬ 
it,” within the meaning of the constitution, the bank 
charters in Ohio and the other States of the Union, are 
all unconstitutional. 

Mr. President, I admit that this idea has been asser¬ 
ted by high authority, which I shall presently refer to. 
But that it has ever received the sanction of any judi¬ 
cial tribunal, respectable or otherwise, I utterly deny. 
And I here say in my place, if the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton will produce the opinion of any respectable court, 
from a justice of the peace up to the highest judicial 
tribunals, in any State of the Union—or of the supreme 
court of the United Stales—sustaining the proposition 
he has advanced, I will incontinently ground arms, and 
vole with him for the repeal of charters. 

But to the question, I propose to show that Judge 
Marshall did not, in the case in 4 Peters, nor any where 
else, ever assert the opinion that the notes of a bank 
incorporated by State authority, are “bills of credit,” 
within the meaning of the prohibition in the constitu¬ 
tion. On the contrary, that he held the very reverse. 
That Judge McLean did not, in the case in 11 of Pe¬ 
ters, affirm that the Chief Justice [Marshall] had erred 
in the construction given to the clause of the constitu¬ 
tion in question, in the case reported in 4 Peters—that 
Story did not adopt any such absurdity. That in re¬ 
peated instances that court has directly and indirectly 
affirmed the power and right of the States to create 
these institutions. 


In the outset, it might be proper to y fer gentlemen 
to the history of the evil sought to be c... .ected by the 
prohibition in the constitution in question. T will not 
go into a detail, which would be tedious, as gentlemen 
are, many of them, familiar with the subject. It may 
bu sullicient to say, that Ine attempt to supply tile want 
of the precious metals, by a paper circulation, com¬ 
menced at a very early periud in our colonial history— 
beginning with Massachusett.s, if I remember aright, 
as early as the year 1690—and practiced by most of the 
colonies from that period to the close of the Revolution¬ 
ary War. During that eventful struggle. Congress re¬ 
sorted to it to a most fearful extent to supply the emer¬ 
gencies of the occasion. They issued more than three 
hundred millions of these “bills of credit.” They 
were required by Congre.ss to be issued on the funds 
of the individual States, established for that purpose, 
and the faith of the United States was pledged for their 
payment. The constant depreciation in the value of 
this paper, based upon the credit of governments, some 
of which had no means to pay with, and others refu¬ 
sing to meet their engagements—its ultimate worth 
lessened, because of the want of power to enforce pay¬ 
ment. and the distress consec[uent upon the total loss 
of millions to the people—must be known to every 
gentleman acquainted with our Revolutionary history. 

Such were the circumstances, and such the evils to 
be remedied, which produced the adoption of the clause 
in the constitution we are considering. To prohibit 
the State governments from “emitting bills of credit,” 
based upon the faith and credit of the States—the pay- 
of which could not be enforced—producing disastrous 
consequences upon the credit of the Confederacy—and 
ruinous to the currency and business of the country, 
was the object sought and intended to be accomplished 
by the framers of the constitution. 

The question involved in the case of Craig vs. the 
State of Missouri, cited by the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] brought up directly for con¬ 
struction, this clause of the constitution. 

On the 27th June, 1821, the Legislature of Missouri 
passed an act entitled, “an act for the establishment 
of loan olfices,” by the-third section of which the offi¬ 
cers of the Treasury of the State, under the direction 
of the Governor, were required to issue certificates to 
the amount of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, 
of denominations not exceeding ten dollars, nor less 
than fifty cents. These certificates were in the follow¬ 
ing form: 

This certificate shall be receivable at the treasury of any of the 
loan offices in the State of Missouri, in discharge of taxes or debts 

due to the State, for the sum of-dollars, with interest for 

the same at the rate of two per centum from this date. 

These certificates were, by the law, to be receivable 
at the treasury, and by tax gatherers and other public 
officers in payment of taxes or money due, or to be¬ 
come due to the State, or any town or county therein, 
and by all officers, civil and military, in the State, in 
discharge of salaries and fees of office, and in payment 
for salt made at the salt springs owned by the State. 

The twenty-third section of the act pledges certain 
property of the State for the redemption of these cer¬ 
tificates; and the law authorizes the Governor to nego¬ 
tiate a loan of silver or gold for the same purpose. 
Brovision is made in the law for the m’adual withdrawal 
of the certificates from circulation. The commissioners 
of the loan offices were authorized to makeloans of the 
certificates to citizens of the State, assigning to each 
district a certain portion of the amount of the certifi¬ 
cates, to be secured by mortgage or personal security, 
the loans to bear an interest not exceeding six per cen¬ 
tum per annum, &c. In August, 1822, Craig and oth¬ 
ers made their promissory note, promising to pay, at the 
■oau office in Chariton, on November ist, 1822, one 
hundred and ninety-nine dollars, ninety-nine cents, and 
the two per centum, per annum, the interest accruing 
on the certificates borrowed, from Ist October, 1822. 
Suit was instituted on this note by the State of Mis¬ 
souri. The defence set up was “ that the act of the 
















1169 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Legislature of Missouri, entitled an act for the estab¬ 
lishment of loan olhoes,” is unconstitutional and void, 
being repugnant to the provisions of the constitution 
of the United States, which declares that no State shall 
issue bills of credit. That the State could not recover 
on the promissory note, which was the foundation of 
the action, because the consideration was illegal.— 
Judgment was rendered for the State in the circuit 
court of Chariton. The cause was appealed to the Su¬ 
preme Court of Missouri, the highest judicial tribunal 
of that State, where the judgment of the circuit court 
was affirmed. And the defendants took the case to 
the Supreme court of the United States, by a writ of 
error, under the 25th section of the Judiciary act of 
1789. 

I have thus, Mr. President, given a synopsis of the 
case, that it might be seen what was the question be¬ 
fore him, which Chief Justice Marshall decided. 

I cannot present what he did say in any language so 
clear and comprehensive as his own. I shall therefore 
read from his opinion. I must first say, sir, that it is 
not a little strange that the gentleman from Hamilton 
also read from the same opinion, what he defines to be 
a “ bill of credit; but that parr of the opinion in which 
the Judge (speaking for the Court) applies the prohi¬ 
bition in the constitution to the definition of a bill of 
credit, and then proceeds to show that these certificates 
come, clearly, within his definition and the prohibition, 
the gentleman took care not to give us. 

After having defined what he understood by the 
terra “bills of credit,” in the general, ordinary commer¬ 
cial sense—proceeding to show the evils which result 
ed from the emission by State governments and by 
Congress, of this description of paper—exposing indi¬ 
viduals to immense losses—the source of ruinous spec¬ 
ulation, destroying all confidence between man and 
man. Judge Marshall proceeds to say; 

“ To cat up this mischief by the roots, a mischief which was 
felt through the United States, and which deeply affected the in¬ 
terests and prosperity of all, the people declared in their consti¬ 
tution that no State should emitbills of credit. If the prohibition 
means anything, if the words are not empty sounds, it must com¬ 
prehend the emission of any paper medium by a state govekn- 
MENT, for the purpose of common circulation.” 

Here, then, sir, is the point; and it is strange to me 
that the gentleman from Hamilton seems not to per¬ 
ceive it. It is the emitting by a State government, of 
bills of credit that is prohibited. 

Mr. GROESBECK said that it could not be contro¬ 
verted that Judge Marshall had decided that a bank 
bill is a bill of credit, in which he had been subse¬ 
quently sustained by two or three decisions of Justice 
Story. 

Mr. GREEN. That is not the point at issue here.— 
It is conceded that a bank bill is a bill of credit; but 
the question is, is it a bill of credit in the meaning of 
the prohibitory clause in the constitution of the United 
StatU ? That is the question, and the gentleman dodg¬ 
ed it. Why, sir, nobody ever disputed that a bank bill 
is a bill of credit. My promissory note for the pav- 
ment of money is a bill of credit, that is if anybody 
will give it credit. 

Every form of paper which may pass by endorse¬ 
ment or delivery, promising on its face to pay money, 
is a bill of credit. But is every such paper prohibited 
by the constitution of the United States? Look at the 
absurdity of the thing. In the absence of laws re¬ 
straining it. every man has a right to issue and put in 
circulation bis written promises to pay money. Your 
Slate laws do restrain the exercise of this right by in¬ 
dividuals, but the Legislature confers the right by act 
of incorporation upon assoeiationa of individuals. That 
is, it empowers them simply to do what they might 
have done without aii act of incorporsliou, did not the 
laws of the State prohibit it. Now then, suppose you 
had no restraining laws prohibiting individuals or asso¬ 
ciations from i8,suing paper money for circulation—eve¬ 
ry man then might play banker and issue his notes. 
What then is the argument, and what is the conclusion 


from it ? Congress has declared that no State shall is¬ 
sue bills of credit. Bank notes are bills of credit, 
within the meaning of the prohibition. A State go¬ 
vernment, as it cannot authorize another to do what is 
prohibited to itself, cannot, therefore, by act of incor¬ 
poration, give authority to individuals or associations 
to issue paper, which are bills of credit, for circulation. 
This is the argument—now for the result. The State 
government cannot, (being prohibited by the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States,) by law, authorize individu¬ 
als or associations, to issue bills of credit—but as it is 
not bound to prohibit the exercise of the right by law, 
and has not done so, any individual or association has 
a perfect right to do so! Ergo, a bank note issued by 
an incorporated company is void, there being no power 
in the Legislature to confer the right to issue it; but if 
issued without the sanction of an act of incorporation, 
it is legal, valid and binding. Oh! most lame and im¬ 
potent conclusion! 

I repeat, sir, the point is not whether a bank note, 
i.ssued by a company, incorporated by the State, is, or 
is not a bill of credit—but is it a bill of credit within 
the meaning of the prohibition? Is it emitted by the 
government on its own credit and responsibility 7 I 
read further from the opinion of Judge Marshall, to 
show what he was considering, and what he decided. 
Immediately following what I have quoted, he pro¬ 
ceeds to examine the character of, and manifest object 
intended by the emission of the “certificates,” by the 
State of Missouri, what office they are to perform, and 
then proceeds to say : “ It seems impossible to doubt 

the intention of the Legislature in passing this act, or 
to mistake the character of these certificates, or the 
office they were to perform.” They were put into 
circulation, that is, emitted by the government. [I 
hope I have satisfied the gentleman from Hamilton, 
that this opinion of Judge Marshall, does not sustain 
his position. And I entreat of him never again to 
quote the opinion of that great man, as supporting a 
proposition, without having first endeavored to under 
stand him. It was, perhaps, in this instance, the only 
way he could get along. And whenever any gentle¬ 
man shall attempt to quote that great man, as authori¬ 
ty for an absurdity, it may be safest for him not to 
read.] 

But, I said, sir, that not only had Judge Marshall 
never lent his sanction directly nor indirectly to fuch a 
proposition, but that, on the contrary, he has loft on 
record an opinion directly the reverse. The very vol¬ 
ume to which the gentleman has referred us, contains 
the report of the case of the Providence Bank vs. Bil¬ 
lings et al. The question there was, as to the right of 
the Slate of Rhode Island to tax the bank, there being 
no such power reserved in the charter. At page 500, 
Marshall delivering the opinion of the court, says: “ It 
has been settled that a contract entered into between a 
State and an indiuidual is as fully protected by the 
10th section of the first article of the constitution as a 
contract between two individuals. And it is not de¬ 
nied that a bank charter is a contract.” [Now, sir, if 
the State could not, under the prohibitory clause in the 
constitution charter a bank—it (the charter) could not 
be a contract within the meaning of the clause which 
prohibits a State from passing laws impairing the obli¬ 
gation of contracts. The act of incorporation would be 
a void thing, for the want of power to pass it. And 
void, no question could arise as to the power of the State 
to tax it.] 

I come now to the assertion of the gentleman from 
Hamilton, that in delivering the opinion of the court in 
the case of Briscoe vs. the Bank of the Commonwealth 
of Kentucky, 11 Peters Reports, Judge McLean was 
driven to the necessity of denying the correctness of 
the construction given to this clause of the constitu¬ 
tion, in the case we have been considering in 4ih Pe¬ 
ters. 

The Judge [McLean] examines what is to be under¬ 
stood by “ bills of credit,” within the meaning of the 












1170 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


coustitution—that they must be “ emitted by the State,” 
ou tlie “ credit of the State ”—that the holder cannot. 

by legal means,” compel payment, thus adopting the 
idea, if not the precise language of Marshall. He llien 
proceeds to say : “It is insisted that the principles of 
this case were settled in*^the suit of Craig ef nl vs. the 
State of Missouri.” rroceedmg liien, to examine the 
facts involved in that case and comparing them with 
the facts of the case before him, he says; “ There is no 
principle decided by the court in the case of Craig vs. 
the State of Missouri, which at all conflicts with the 
views here presented. Indeed, the views of the court 
are strengthened and sustained by contrasting the pres¬ 
ent case with that one.” 

The next proposition of the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton, is, that Story, in his dissenting opinion in the case 
last referred to, adopts Judge Marshall’s construction 
of the meaning of a bill of credit. True—he does so; 
but if the gentleman will tuni to jiage 348, he will 
there find that Judge Story, in his own powerful aud 
luminous stylo, repudiated this idea, that the prohibi¬ 
tion in the constitution against the emission by the 
States, of bills of credit, has anything to do with the 
validity of bank charters. Let it be remembered, that 
he is arguing that the Commonwealth Bank of Ken¬ 
tucky was essentially, peculiarly, in every sense, a 
government institution—that its paper was like the 
“certificates” of the State of Missouri, based on State 
cr<. dit emitted by the State; and he is enforcing the 
application of the very principles laid down by Mar¬ 
shall. But he “ utterly denies ” that “ State Banks,” 
formed on private capital, are unconstitutional. He 
says, “ the great inquiry at the adoption of the cousti¬ 
tution, was not whether private banks, corporate or in¬ 
corporate, should exist—-not whether they should be 
authorized to issue a paper currency or not, but wheth¬ 
er the State should issue it un its own account.” 

But the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] 
has answered this branch of the argument, and I pass 
from it. 

The gentleman then comes to this solemn conclu¬ 
sion, that if we adopt the opinion of Judge Marshall, 
and the construction which he has placed upon the 
constitution of the United States, all paper issued by 
banks must be considered “ bills of credit;” within the 
meaning of the prohibitory clause; and then, that all 
bank charters are unconstitutional and void, and, con¬ 
sequently, all debts paid with their paper remain uu- 
cancelled, and there is no remedy. The gentleman 
did say, in his closing remarks, that, to make such an 
authoritative declaration, would be a very dangerous 
exercise of power, aud he would be very careful of 
exercising it. I have no doubt, that he has very weigh¬ 
ty reasons for sayiu" so. It rather strikes me that there 
has been a time in the history of my friend, when he 
would have been very far from the expression of this 
opinion. Sir, he does not now believe it himself. I 
say this, of course, with great personal respect for the 
gentleman. He may, under the pressure of certain in¬ 
fluences, endeavor to torture his mind into such a con¬ 
clusion ; but the operation of his second sober thought 
upon the subject, I can have no doubt, will set him 
right, and he will take the earliest opportunity to set 
himself rectus in curia. 

Well, Mr. President, suppose we adopt this sage con¬ 
clusion of these gentlemen on this floor. Let us see 
where it will land them. A splendid city, of which 
we are all justly proud, has been built up. The howl¬ 
ing wilderness has been made a rare inheritance for 
the abode of civilized man. Yes in two score years, 
less than the prescribed life of man, by one score, a 
great empire has grown, second in importance in this 
confederacy, if the census had been correctly taken, 
and all this has, in the main, been accomplished by the 
use of bank credit. 

You can’t go into any court of justice and remain 
half an hour, but you will hear some question discus¬ 
sed, some judgment rendered on contracts based on j 


this bank paper currency. It enters into every grade 
of business, eveiy department of life—like the atmos¬ 
phere we breathe, it is everywhere, lint it is all un¬ 
constitutional—all void. From our earliest history we 
have been going on, simple minded men as we are, un¬ 
der the supposition that we are getting rich “ accordinsr 
to law.” But it was reserved for the year ol Grace, 
1851, that new prophets should rise up to prophesy in 
this body—and we are now told that all our wealth, 
all our prosperity, all our power, result from a viola¬ 
tion of the constitution. 

Where has been the democratic party of 1851—who 
now denounce this thing? Alas! sir, they were not— 
the democratic party of the day when these things 
were done w’ere engaged, as were their political breth¬ 
ren all over the country, in creating aud fastening the 
evil which they now denounce upon the country, in 
building up an interest which covers five hundred mill¬ 
ions of property in the United States. But they were 
mistaken, all wrong—they had’nt thought of “progress.” 
It did not then occur to their patriotic minds that the 
genius of American liberty is Progression, that what 
was true yesterday is a lie to-day and will be verily 
again to-morrow, (may be, if the 8th of January Con¬ 
vention say so ) But it can’t be helped. Don’t grum 
ble. True they propose in Ohio to strike down four¬ 
teen millions of circulation—to destroy nine millions of 
property, to bring ruin and beggary upon thousands 
who have relied on the faith of this “ accursed bank 
paper ” — “progress ” tells us that the whole theory of 
bank paper is unconstitutional—General Jackson, in 
1842, told “ progress ” so. You must either suppress, 
annihilate bank paper, or “ progress ” must be crip¬ 
pled—aud we have the glorious consolation wherewith 
to fill our bellies when we aie ruined and starving, that 
“ progress ” is going on. 

Now, sir, I am a decided believer in following im¬ 
provement—I would make great efi'ort to keep up with 
Progress—provided it don’t run too fast. But when I 
am upbraided by gentlemen for not sacrificing my peo¬ 
ple to follow them, I am constrained to inquire (yes, 
sir, constrained, for only upon constraint would I doubt 
the wisdom or the honesty of the majority on this 
floor,) I say I am constrained to pause and inquire who 
got us into this difficulty ; and then, heresy though it 
be, to doubt about what I shall do. 

I have HOW', sir, done with the arguments of the 
gentleman from Hamilton. The personal respect I 
have for that gentleman induces regret that he has seen 
fit to make it. 

But, Mr. President, there is another branch of this; 
subject that I desire to say a few words on : If it be 
true that Ohio, with the other States, has for this series 
of years been violating the constitution—if banks are 
unconstitutional—if they are great moral and practical 
nuisances—if their chartered immunities are inconsis¬ 
tent with the rights of the people, and subversive of 
free government—I say then, that the evil of perpetrat¬ 
ing this great wrong lies at the door of the party of 
which these gentlemen who tell us so, glory in being 
members. 

I am surprised, sir, 1 am truly surprised, that these 
gentlemen, instead of complaining of us, aud reviling 
us, do not come over here, and go upon their knees 
and ask forgiveness for having “ brought us into temp¬ 
tation,” and not safely “ delivered us from evil.” Sir,, 
they have a terrible account to settle w’ith the Andrew 
Jackson of 1842. I will try and help them out ol that 
scrape—aud will furnish them with the evidence that 
he had not attained to the full measure of the idea of 
progress in 1832. 

This theory of progress is a capital invention. It af¬ 
fords a snug harbor for gentlemen, when they find 
themselves hard pressed. For example, the Democratic 
party sustained and supported the high protective tarifl' 
of 1828, but they are now against any tariff, aud “ free 
trade” is their hobby. But all right, this is “ progress!” 
Mr. MITCHELL. I tell the gentleman that that old, 















1171 


CONVENTION REPOliTS. 


federal slander has been refuted over and over again. 
It is certain that, in 1828, the first attempt was made 
to support a tariff for protection, and that Mr. Webster 
attempted to charge its origination upon the Democrats; 
but Mr. Calhoun replied to that charge, and the gentle¬ 
man otight to have the candor and good sense to take 
that speech for an answer to his question. 

Mr. GREEN. The gentleman from Knox, is in the 
habit of being courteous, (laughter,) very civil—but 
sir, he labors under a sort of monomania on these ques¬ 
tions, Name “corporation,” and he has a fit—bank, 
and he is rabid. I have no desire to hold a gentleman 
responsible for want of civility, who, on the subject in 
hand, is slightly non compos, (confined laughter.) But, 
I repeat sir, that the gentleman’s party did, from 1828 
to 1832, support the highest protective tariff that the 
country has known. 

It is also a fact, that, in 1816, a Democratic Con¬ 
gress chartered the bank of the United States, and 
that, in 1832, another democratic Congress renewed 
the charter of the same institutifin which Jackson ve¬ 
toed, and such was the “fear of Jackson,’' that, when 
be said, “ I am sir oracle,” no “ dog” durst “ bark.” 

Mr. MITCHELL, (in his seat.) You had better 
not get into a conflict with the gentleman from Geau¬ 
ga, here. He says there was no Democratic party in 
1816. 

Mr. GREEN. I am right and so is the gentleman 
from Geauga. The old Jeffersonian republican Demo¬ 
cratic party existed in 1816. The “new style” De¬ 
mocracy did not come up, until after it was thought 
expedient to drop the cognomen of “Jackson partj^” 
and re-baptize with the name of Democracy. But sir, 
let us to the authorities. I waut to show our friends on 
this floor how old is their constitutional objection, and 
their holy horror against banks. The democracy of 
these gentlemen, is doubtless, very ancient—a little, 
however, doubtful—like the jack knife, of which the 
owner boasted, as an ancient family relic, so old that it 
had had ten new handles and twelve new blades,— 
(laughter.) Well sir, modern Democracy has the right 
to change—it couldn’t live without it—old notions— 

old theories are but 

“ Forts of error to ensconce 
Absurdity and ignorance.’ 

And if I show them that in ten short years, their 
great progenitor and prophet, “jumped the fence,” 
clean—on the subject of banking, and they like sheep 
have followed, I shall, I suppose, but illustrate the 
beauties of progress. 

I shall quote from the Ist volume of the “ People’s 
Reports,” by citizen Samuel Medary~a book of high 
authority. On page 2 will be found a letter written in 
1842, by Andrew Jackson to Moses Dawson, of Cincin¬ 
nati. After alluding to the charge made against him, 
that he had said to Congress, that he could have fur¬ 
nished the plan of a bank, if they had asked him he 
proceeds to say that they did not, because “ they were 
aware of my opinions on the constitutional power of 
Congress in their legislation for the District, and of the 
Stales with regard to re-chartering banks.” “That 
the power of Congx'ess over the District, was equal to 
that of the States over their respective limits, and that 
neither had the constitutional power to charter banks 
of paper issue.” He then goes on to give some illus¬ 
trations of the workings of the system, and very pro¬ 
found reasoning thereon. I will read no more, but if 
gentlemen are curious to learn lessons of wisdom in 
banking, I commend the whole letter to their “ prayer¬ 
ful consideration.” i t i 

Well, sir, here is the democracy of General Jackson 
in 1842*. Turn we back just ten short years, and let us 
make a little examination. Now, 1 know this is not 
clever. I know that what the democracy have said ten 
years ago, they ought not to be held accountable foi 
now. I know it is unprogressive ; but let us, as a mat¬ 
ter of curious research, look into history. tt • ^ 

In 1832, Jackson vetoed the Bank of the United 


States. Duane was removed, because he refused to re¬ 
move the deposits, and Taney appointed Secretary of 
the Treasury, because he agreed to do it. Amos Ken¬ 
dall—ah, venerated name! Who dares to doubt his 
democracy ?—Kendall was employed to make the ar¬ 
rangement in bringing the State Banks into the meas¬ 
ures of government. The public money was removed 
to the custody of the State Banks. No doubts of their 
constitutionality then ! No, sir, they were not only 
constitutional, but honest! On September 26,1833, Mr. 
Taney issued the Treasury circular, to the banks, from 
which I extract the following ; 

“ The deposits of the public money 'will enable you to afford in¬ 
creased facilities to commerce, and to extend your accomoda¬ 
tions to individuals, and as the duties, which are payable to the 
government, arise from the business and enterprise of the mer¬ 
chants engaged in the foreign trade, it is reasonable that they 
should be favored with the additional accomodations, which the 
public deposits will enable your institution to give, whenever it 
can be done without injustice to the claims of other classes of the 
community.” 

In the mean time, there began to rise in the minds 
of the people, some distrust as to the stability and uni¬ 
formity of the currency to be supplied by these insti¬ 
tutions. Accordingly, in October, 1833, Mr. Taney is¬ 
sues another circular to the deposit banks, from which 
I make the following extract: 

“The deposits of the public money, will enable you to afford 
increased facilities to tne commercial and other classes of the 
community; and the department anticipates from you the adop¬ 
tion of such a course respecting your accommodations, as will 
prove acceptable to the people, and safe to the government.” 

This was followed up by the Secretary, in his re¬ 
port to Congress, izi 1833, from which I quote the fol¬ 
lowing : 

“ The banks selected, have severally engaged to transmit mon¬ 
ey to any point, at which it may be required for the public aer 
vice, and to perform all the services to the government, which 
were heretofore rendered by the bank of the United States, and 
by agreement among themselves to honor each other’s notes and 
drafts. They are providing a general currency, at least as sound 
as that of the banks of the Unted States, and will afford facilities 
to commerce, and in the business of domestic exchange, quite 
equal to any which the community have heretofore enjoyed.” 

Every effort that the party could control, was enli.st- 
ed to fortify, to bolster up, and commend to the public 
confidence, tho paper of these local banks. And yet, 
Jackson tells us in the Dawson letter, that it was 
known by Congress, that he entertained the opinion 
that the States had not the constitutional power to char¬ 
ter them. 

At the same session, (1833,) the President, (General 
Jackson,) in his annual message, discourses at length, 
on the subject of the “ experiment.” Strange, indeed, 
that he did not intimate an opinion on this constitution¬ 
al power in the States—so fine an opportunity. But, 
no; not only mum on the subject—he actually felici¬ 
tates the country on the success of the measure, which 
had placed the whole revenues of the government in 
the hands of these “illegal and fraudulent concerns.” 
Hear him: 

“ I am happy to know, that through the good sense of the peo¬ 
ple, the effort to get up a panic has hitherto failed—and that 
through the increased accommodations which the State banks 
have been enabled to afford, no public distress has followed the 
efforts of the bank.” (i. e. the bank of the United States.) 

It will be remembered, that one of the charges 
against the Bank of the United States was, that it was 
speculating on the money of the people. But in the 
hands of these local banks, the money is not only safe, 
but they are stimulated to use it—to speculate upon it. 
And this was done, by the direction of a statesman, at 
the head of the government, who, ten years afterwards, 
gravely tells us that his opinion then was, that the 
States had no authority to charter these banks—that 
they had no legal existence—and that Congress well 
knew that was his opinion. Sir, I do not desire to 
speak disrespectfully of the illustrious dead, but I com¬ 
mend this history to the attention of his disciples here 
and elsewhere. 

But now sir, we come to the gi’and act—the key to 
the existence of this evil that gentlemen so tearfully 








1172 


CONVENTION EEPOETS 


deplore. Matters were all arranged at Washington 
for a grand move. The whole power of the banking 
<!apital of the country was to be brought into the ser¬ 
vice of the party—and the orders were issued—how 
faithfully they were obeyed 1 will presently show. 

Ill the “Globe,” the organ of General .Jackson, of 
December, 1833, will be found an editorial from which 
the following extract is taken : 

“The new coalition, however, have labored in vain. The intelli¬ 
gent peopie of the West knowhow to maintain their rights and 
independence, and to repel oppression. Although it failed in the 
beeinning, every Western State is about to establish a State Bank 
■ Institution. They are resolved to avail themselves of their own 
State credit, as well as of the National credit, to maintain a cur¬ 
rency independent of foreign control. Mr. Clay’s pi esses, in 
Kentucky, begin now to feel how vain are all their efforts to re¬ 
sist th’s determination of the people of the West. The Louis- 
'ville (ky.) Herald, says : ‘From the indications of public opinion, 
as-contained in the papers from the States around us, there is 
•.every probability that banks will be chartered, in the States of 
Ohio Indiana, lilinois and Misesouri, and the effort will be made 
to charter in this State, not only a State bank, with four or five 
branches, but several independent banks.’ So Ohio, Indiana, Illi¬ 
nois Missouri and Kentucky, are resolved to take care of them¬ 
selves, and no longer depend on the kind guardianship of Biddle, ’ 
Clay &. Co. 

And now, Mr. President, w^hat followed ? Let us 
begin with Ohio. 

General Robert Lucas, well known to the Democra¬ 
cy of Ohio, being Governor of this Commonwealth, 
sent his annual message to the General Assembly, 
which was read to that body on December 3, 1833. It 
is a very voluminous document. I will only refer to 
one of the many subjects of which he treats. He 
speaks in glowing terms of the prosperity of the State, 
but intimates that “ there is a deficiency in the circula- 
tin<^ medium that is sensibly felt by the merchant and 
the”mechauic,” &c. He then proceeds to argue that 
this does not proceed from the veto of the Bank of the 
United States, and the withdrawal of the deposits from 
that institution *, but argues that the limitation of ex¬ 
penditures on our public wox'ks, has withdrawn from 
the circulation an amount that is not supplied by the 
gold brought in by emigrants or the increased prices of 
our products. He then proceeds to say, “After the 
most deliberate investigation of this important subject, 
j >iiffi^(^pix^ocoXl'y of opinion that this desiiable object 
(i. e. supplying the deficiency in the currency) can 

best be effected by-.” VVhat do you suppose, Mr. 

President? Shall I read on? Let my friend from 
Knox mourn for the ignorance of that hour, and rejoice 
in the mutability of Democratic public sentiment. I 
finish the sentence—“ by the establishment of a STATE 
BANK, of sufficient capital to meet all the reasonable 
demands of banking within the State, and with a pro¬ 
vision (oh, mischievous heresy !) to increase the capi¬ 
tal as the business and prosperity of the Slate may re¬ 
quire it, with”—(what, Mr. President?) I tremble 
whilst 1 read—“ branches established in every part of 
the State.” 

Oh, fatal error! Oh, presumptuous man ! Had he 
advanced such sentiments at this day, the gentleman 
from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney] would have stripped 

him_the gentleman from Knox [Mr. Mitchell] would 

have flayed him—and the gentleman from Hamilton 
[Mr. Reemelin] would have appeased his indignant 
stomach by swallowii g him whole, without pinning 
back his ears! [Much laughter.] 

But, Mr. President, this is no fiction—truth compels 
us to relate it. And, sir, what followed? Why, sir, 
that General Assembly, in which there were in the 
House 44 Democrats—and in the Senate 21 Democrats, 
proceeded to carry out this stupendous State Bank 
project. The bill failed because those worthies could 
not ac^ree about the division of the spoils—the location 
of the branches. They, however, settled down on a 
compromise, by which they chartered the following 
banks : The Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company, 
with a capital of $4,300,000 ; the Clinton Bank of Co¬ 
lumbus; the Bank of Wooster; the Lafayette Bank of 
Cincinnati; the Bank of Massilon; the Bank of Cleve¬ 


land ; the Bank of New Lisbon; the Bank of Sandus¬ 
ky ; the Bank of Circleviile; and the Bank of Xenia. 
Ugh ! what a dose. Oh, most unendurable, unconsti¬ 
tutional, naughty varlets! If it were not that some of 
my anti-bank friends, members of this body, sit near 
me, who participated, by their votes, in bringing on 
the country this direful woe, I should be tempted to 
urge the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] to 
call an indignation meeting at the Fifth street market 
house, and have the record of this terrible '•'fmx pas ” 
burnt by the hands of the city hangman. But let my 
friends take comfort. It was the “ season of the moon.” 
Madness ruled the hour—and the epidemic (the orders 
from Washington) spread over all the land. In New 
Yoi'k between 1832 and 1836 the banking capital was 
increased $13,467,000. 

In Democratic Maine the same Legislature that elec¬ 
ted Shipley and Ruggles to the Senate of the United 
States, increased the banking capital from $2,650,000 
to $3,549,850. 

New Hampshire increased her banking capital from 
$1,781,670 to $2,655,000. 

Connecticut (old federal Connecticut) slipt up at that 
session, elected .John M. Niles to the Senate of the 
United States, and increased her banking capital from 
$4,485,177 to $7,350,766. 

Democratic Alabama, at the same session that she 
lec ted Win. R. King to the Senate of the United 
States, increased her banking capital from $643,503 to 
$6,107,623!!! 

ssissippi, the home of Foote and Quitman, at the 
same session she elected that prince of Democrats, 
Robert J. Walker, to the Senate of the United States, 
increased her banking capital Irom $950,000 to $5,890,- 
562!!! 

Louisiana, at the same sesion she elected A. C. Nich¬ 
olson to the Senate of the United States, increased her 
banking capital from $5,665,980 to $7,171,145—and in 
1836 to $17,000,000. 

Tennessee followed suit—increase from $757,487 to 
$2,890,000. 

Missouri, the home of Old Bullion, incorporated her 
State Bank with a capital of $5,000,000. 

Pennsylvania incorporated the monster that Jackson 
had crushed, with a capital of $35,000,000. 

And Michigan—the chosen retreat of the hero and 
Democrat Cass, scattered “ Wild Cat ” all over God’s 
creation! 

On sad, humiliating retrospect! may the recording 
Angelas he pens the history of these Democratic viola¬ 
tions of the constitution, drop tears upon the words and 
blot them out forever. 

Mr. President, a few words more and I am done— I 
ask, can my friends on the other side wonder, when I 
express amazement that they should claim that hostility 
to banks is and has been a cardinal doctrine of the 
democratic party? Why sir, I presume they have 
heard of a certain meeting in West Union, in the coun¬ 
ty of Adams, at which the lamented Thomas L. Ha¬ 
mer, a name cherished in the memory of all true dem¬ 
ocrats, figured conspicuously, and offered a series of 
resolutions. In my researches I came across them, I 
doubt whether they were before the democratic hard 
money convention which met in Columbus in July 
last. I have preserved two of those resolutions which I 
now present for the edificatton of my hard money 
friends: 

“ Resolved, That we have seen with regret, for some time past, 
that there was a hard money taction growing up in Ohio, who 
are opposed to all banks of circulation, and whose doctrines, if 
carried out, in the present condition of the people, must be ruin¬ 
ous to the best interests of the community, especially to the whole 
debtor class, who will be crushed by a policy so tatal and de¬ 
structive. 

“ Resolved, That it is high time for the people to take their 
afikirs into their own hands, and that so long as they entrust 
them to reckless demagogues, or to violent, ultra politicians of 
any party, all the industrious, business classes of the community 
must be the sutt’erers.” 

Far be it from me to endorse the sentiments contain 





















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1173 


ed in those resolutions—I consider them scurrillous to 
a degree. 

But sir, I am exhausting the patience of this body—I 
will come to a conclusion. I have endeavored to show 
my hard money friends, that their theory, is not very 
old, and the only way they can escape is to plead guil¬ 
ty and charge to the account of progress. Perhaps they 
may plead the statute of limitation. It never runs 
against the government, however, and as they are the 
people, they can throw themselves upon their sove¬ 
reignity. 

Mr. President, why this unceasing warfare, upon 
eveiy great interest of the community ? Whence 
comes It—-what is to be accomplished? Those associ¬ 
ations lor improvement by roads, &c., and for the trade 
in money, through the instrumentality of which, main¬ 
ly, h^ive arisen the wonders that meet us at every point 
in the physical progress of the country, seem to be es¬ 
pecially odious in the sight of these gentlemen. They 
war against capital wherever it is protected by corpo¬ 
rate rights, and why? They tell us they are monopo¬ 
lies. ludge! They well know that there has nev^er 
been a “monopoly” in Ohio. No, sir. When these 
corporations could be used, then they were all right— 
they can t be used now, therefore they are vile and 
odious, and ought to be crushed. 

Sir, I am in no way under personal obligations to 
—have asked few favors of them— 
which, when granted, I have paid for. I regard them 
as 1 do every other legitimate device for the aid of the 
country in promoting its welfare. When honestly, pru¬ 
dently managed, they are valuable auxiliaries to the 
business of community, and so 1 believe think the large 
body ol the people. And it is a curious fact, in con¬ 
nection with the history of this subject, that though 
since the great blow up in 1839, the Democracy have 
had the power repeatedly in both branches of the Gen¬ 
ial Assembly—though they have denounced banks— 
threatened awfully—sworn teiribly—they never have 
attempted to try their strength with them. We have 

heard much of “bank reform! But “bank repeal!”_ 

never talkedof but when the power to act is lackino-. 

Our friends mi the other side claim to be States’ rights 
men. My friend from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] when 
denouncing the Supreme Court, has urged upon us the 
necessity of resisting this constant tendency of the 
federal Government to encroach upon the rights of the 
States. And yet, ho and others who act with him, 
would strip the States of one of the clearest attributes 
of sovereignty—the right to regulate its currency—upon 
a flimsy^ construction of a prohibitory clause in the 
constitution of the United States. Sir, I tell them that 
all powers not expressly delegated by the constitution 
to the General Government, are reserved to the States 
respectively, and to the people ; and whilst I will sub¬ 
mit to the exercise of all power which rightfully be¬ 
longs to that government, I will resist, at the threshold, 
any invasion upon the reserved rights of the States, or 
of the people. I repudiate and deny their new-fangled 
doctrine, that the State Governments are stripped of 
this most important power—the right to regulate their 
currency. And if that tribunal, the supreme court of the 
United States, should ever be brought, through the 
madness of party, or from any other cause, to announce 
an adverse opinion, for one I should go for a speedy 
change of the court or of the constitution. No, sir. Let 
party and its objects have their influence—let it disturb 
as it may our affairs at home, but when the rights of 
Ohio or her people are assailed, from without from any 
quarter, let us forget our feuds, and stand up, united to 
a man, in their defence. 

On motion of Mr. LIDEY, the Convention adjourned. 


Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, moved a call of the Con¬ 
vention, and being ordered, the following members 
were found absent: 

Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Clark, Ewing, Farr, Green of Ross, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Larsh, Leadbetter, Mason, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Nash, Patterson, Perkins, Roll, Smith of Wyandot, Stan- 
bery, Stidger, Swift, Taylor, Vance of Champaign and Way. 

On motion, Messrs. Hootman and Roll were ex¬ 
cused. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, rose to make a personal ex¬ 
planation. As he passed the seat of the gentleman 
from Hamilton [Mr. Groesbeck] this morning, in a 
short interview that gentleman complained that he, 
[Mr. G.] in the course of his remarks yesterday, had 
charged him with being actuated by dishonorable mo¬ 
tives in the course he had taken and the argument 
which he had presented. He had no recollection of 
having done so, but it was possible that, in the heat of 
debate, he might have said something from which such 
an inference might bo drawn. Certainly he had no 
intention to do so; and if he had, he would say, by 
way of atonement, that he was sorry for it. He had, 
in his reply, endeavored only to deal with the argu¬ 
ments of the gentleman. His motives he had nothing 
to do with. 

Mr. RANNEY said that the gentleman from Ross 
had said, in the course of his argument yesterday, that 
himself and the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Groes¬ 
beck] had both held that the Supreme Court of the 
United States had declared banking unconstitutionaL 
He did not know how the gentleman came by his 
knowledge, for he was sure he had never said a word 
upon the subject. He thought the gentleman from 
Knox [Mr. Mitchell] and the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton [Mr. Groesbeck] had given the gentleman from 
Ross [Mr. Green] enough to do without bringing him 
into the controversy. 

Mr. GREEN said he believed the gentleman from 
Trumbull [Mr. Ranney] went for everything accord¬ 
ing to circumstances. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, from the standing committee on 
Privelges and Elections, to whom was referred the cre¬ 
dentials presented by Elijah Vance, evidencing his 
right to a seat in this Convention, reported- 


SATURDAY, February 8, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
Prayer by Rev. Mr. Miles. 


That they had examined said credentials, and found that Elijah 
Vance was duly elected to a seat in this Convention, as a Dele¬ 
gate from the county of Butler, to till the vacancy occasioned by 
the resignation of Elijah Vance, former member from that 
county: 

[Signed.] S. J. KIRKWOOD, G. VOLNEY DORSEY, 

W. S. BATES, F. CASE, 

ROBERT FORBES, CHARLES McCLOUD, 

S. S. NORRIS, OTWAY CL'RRY. 

Mr. GROESBECK asked and obtained leave of ab¬ 
sence for J. V. Smith, Reporter to the Convention, for 
ten days. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention took up 
the report of the committee on the Preamble and Bill 
of Rights. 

The question pending being on agreeing to Mr. 
Archbold’s amendment to to the amendment, 

Mr. MANON moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
be now put,” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved a call of the 
Convention, which was ordered, and Messrs. Blair, 
Clark, Ewing, Farr, Green of Ross, Holt, Hoot¬ 
man, Horton, Patterson, Roll, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stidger, Taylor, Vance of Champaign, and Way, 
were found absent. 

On motion, Messrs. Blair, FIootman and Roll, we ^ 
severally excused. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, all further proceedings 
under the chll were dispensed with. 

The question then being, “shall the main question 
be now put ? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 46, nays 48— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Meeers. Archbold, Barbee, Bates, Bennett, Blickeneder- 


















1174 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


fer, Cahill, Chambers, Cook, llwart, Florence, Gillet^ Graham, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance. Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Humphreville, Hunter, Lidey, 
Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Norris, 
Orton, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Jleemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Swift, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President—46. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Parnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, 
Case of Licking, Chaney, Collings, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, f'orbes. 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Henderson, Holmes, 
Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Nash, Quigley, 
Ranney, Riddle, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, 
Struble, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Town- 
shend, Vance of Butler, Warren and Williams—48. 

So the demand for the previous question was not 
sustained. 

The question then being on Mr. Archbold’s amend¬ 
ment to the amendment, to wit: 

Strike out the words “ to alter, revoke, repeal or 
abolish, by act of the General Assembly, any grant or 
law conferring special privileges or immunities upon 
any portion of the people,” and inserting in lieu there¬ 
of, the following: 

“No special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, in¬ 
jurious to the public, and.” 

Mr. NASH demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out the follow¬ 
ing words, “ to alter, revoke, repeal or abolish, by act 
of the General Assembly, any grant or law conferring 
special privileges or immunities upon any portion of 
the people;” 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, wished, before the vote 
should be taken upon this question, to say a word in 
elucidation of his own views, and in explanation of 
the vote he should give upon the question now to be 
decided. As he understood it, the motion was to 
strike out the amendment of the gentleman from 
Guernsey, [Mr. Lawrence,] and to insert that of the 
gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,! and a divi¬ 
sion having been called for, the question was first up¬ 
on striking out. Upon the first question he should 
vote in the affirmative, with a view to have it in his 
power subsequently to vote for an amendment, which 
shall be in consonance with the provisions of the con¬ 
stitution of the United States. 

He had risen to guard against an error into which 
gentlemen had fallen a few days siiice, in voting upon 
a proposition of the gentleman from Medina, [Mr. 
Humphreville.] He believed in the right of repeal, 
and that the State had the right to exercise the power, 
but only under and in compliance with the constitution 
of the United States. He believed that the Legisla¬ 
ture might take the property of any citizen, or of any 
incorpoi’ated company in the State of Ohio, wherever 
the public welfare makes it necessary so to do—the 
farm of the citizen, or the chattels and franchises of 
the corporation—but it must be done subject to the 
rule fixed by the paramount authority of the National 
constitution. We cannot therefore, by any act of ours, 
enlarge the power of the Legislature in this particular. 
We have no more power than the people have given 
to us. We can continue in the new constitution the 
power we have, and we cannot by any provision of 
ours, enlarge it in the direction in which it is restrained 
by the paramount law. 

Much has been said upon the question, whether 
charters are contracts. By some the doctrine is affirm¬ 
ed, by others it is denied. But I say that there is not 
a court in any civilized country in the world where a 
charter legitimately granted by the proper power has 
not been held and sustained as a contract, and there is 
no question better settled than that they are to be con¬ 
strued and governed by the law of contracts, wherev¬ 
er faith has been reposed in, and property vested un¬ 
der them. 

I am constrained, therefore to deny the power of the 
Legislature to repeal any act of incorporation already 
granted. In regard to all future charters established 
under a constitution recognizing the right of repeal, it 


may be done, because the constitution and laws of the 
land become a part of the law of the contract itself. 
But still I hold that such repeal must be made upon 
constitutional terms; and where anything that is valua¬ 
ble, whether in property or franchises, is taken or de¬ 
stroyed, full compensation should be made, and I hold 
furthermore, that any attempt of ours, to enlarge the 
power of the Legislature, that is inconsistent with the 
powers granted and delegated to the Union in the con¬ 
stitution of the United States, would be the worst non¬ 
sense of which we can be guiltjr. 

Mr. LAWRENCE had no desire to protract this dis¬ 
cussion, which had already been far too long; nor 
would he pretend to enter into the merits of the ques¬ 
tion, for that ground had been sufficiently covered. 
He rose merely for the purpose of repelling the gross 
imputations that had been cast upon himself, of having 
clandestinely and stealthily introduced the amend¬ 
ment. I deny the imputation totally and entirely. 
There is not a shadow of ground for it. What are the 
facts? On Monday afternoon, the report of the com¬ 
mittee on the bill of rights being under discussion, I 
found recorded therein the declaration of great gene¬ 
ral and fundamental principles. It was, sir, no less 
than the doctrine of a peaceful, a popular, a wholesome 
and salutary revolution. I found it declared in sub¬ 
stance, that the people have the natural and inalienable 
right to alter or abolish their form of government, when¬ 
ever they shall deem it necessary so to do. Finding 
there, as I said, an admission of the principle of the 
whole, which is said to contain in itself every part, I 
thought it a proper place for the insertion of the prin¬ 
ciple of repeal. If the people have the right to abolish 
the whole government, it seemed to me conclusive, that 
they had the right to abolish any part of it—any act of 
the government. 

At the time when the amendment was offered, there 
was no attempt at concealment or privacy. I drew it 
up at my desk, proposed to offer it, and sent it to the 
Chair. It was read by the President distinctly; and 
on the call for the yeas and nays, was read a second 
timeby the Secretary. Can, then, gentlemen be holden 
to have voted innocently and under a misapprehen¬ 
sion, who, in such a case voted, upon a call of the yeas 
and nays, for the proposition ? Is it for them not mere¬ 
ly to get out of their own position by alledging that 
they voted under a mistake, but to charge me with an 
attempt to deceive, in order to help themselves out of 
the difficulty? It comes with a very bad grace from 
them, to say that this matter was sprung upon them. 
No gentleman can spring a question upon me and in¬ 
duce me to vote lor it, on a call of the yeas and nays, 
which will require me to want to change my vote the 
next morning. 

This matter was not sprung upon the Whigs. They 
understood it—not one was mistaken. They saw in it, 
the unconcealed doctrine of rexieal, and they opposed 
it to a man. 

And, Mr. President, I protest against this little amend¬ 
ment of mine being made the pack-horee to bear the 
weight of all the immense quantity of discussion, upon 
every subject, and in every direction, that has taken 
place here within the last four or five days. 1 do not 
want to be held up to the State as responsible for the 
waste of time that had occurred here, which I could 
neither anticipate nor control, and in which, with the 
exception of a very few moments, I have not aided. I 
do not hold myself responsible for it, and do not deem 
the blame to be, in any degree, chargeable upon me. 

Mr. LEADBETTER had a few words to say on this 
Cjuestion, before the vote was taken, which he hoped 
would be put down by the reporter. Had there been 
no attempt to put the gag upon members, he would not 
have had a word to say; but now, as he had twenty 
minutes allowed him to say what he had to say, he 
meant to use them. 

When the proposition of the gentleman from Guern- 
jsey, [Mr. Lawrence,] was up tor adoption, I was per- 














1175 


CONVENTION REPOKTS. 


fectly aware myself, Mr. President, what I was voting 
for. I understood myself exactly, and what I was 
about; and when gentlemen catch me napping at such 
a time, they are at full liberty to take all the advantages 
they can get, and I will not creep out of my position 
by insinuating that I was misled. 

This discussion or argument upon the right of repeal 
has brought a large number of different subjects within 
its vortex. But what has surprised me most is, that 
the opponents of the right have—and they have 
been allowed by its friends—placed the question upon 
the ground of some little railroad or- bridge corpora¬ 
tion, and there the question had been argued. 

Sir, this is all in my eye. It is all a matter of bush¬ 
whacking. There is not one man of common sense, in 
this Convention, who believes that the right of repeal 
will ever be exercised in the case of a railroad or a 
bridge company which attends to its own concerns and 
does its duty to the public. I say, sir, that the war- 
laij 18 not with these. The blow is aimed at banks, 
and not at railroad companies or bridge corporations. 

And now, sir, I have a word to say in regard to 
those companies, where money is incorporated for the 
purpose of dealing in money and controlling the circu- 
; and I say, as I have before said upon 
this floor, that such a repeal cannot be effected, even if 
the right to do so is written on the pages of the consti¬ 
tution. Sir, you cannot get it done. You cannot 
grapple and contend successfully with the money pow¬ 
er. It is too strong for you. The time is past when it 
can successfully be warred against. Sir, place in the 
General Assembly of Ohio a Democratic majority of 
twenty, and bring up in that body the question of the 
repeal of a bank charter, and you will find exactly 
eleven Democrats who will not vote for it. 

Travel back in the history of the State, through the 
jommals of the Legislature, and you wdll invariably 
i^d, that if in the Senate you wanted one, two or 
three Democrats, to help pass a bank bill, you had 
them. And it had been the same in the House. Gen¬ 
tlemen in the Legislature raise the cry of barbarism. 
You are going back to the dark ages—you are all bar- 
l^rians—you go for putting down all banks. What 
then ? The question of the restriction of the Wooster 
bank comes up. Then is heard the cry of the sous of 
toil and labor, and day after day charges are made 
that they are to be destroyed. I tell gentlemen, that 
the barbarism lies in the other direction, and that I for 
one am anxious to escape from it, as I am from the 
other vestiges of tyranny with which its origin was 
accompanied. 

But, Mr. President, we are told that if charters are to 
be repealed, it must be done under the provisions of 
the constitution of the United States ; and in the same 
breath we are told that under that constitution the 
right does not exist. Here is a very pretty kind of an 
argument—for those who do not understand the differ¬ 
ence between reason and sophistry. They say they 
are in favor of repeal. Oh, yes, they are in favor of it; 
but then it cannot be done, because the constitution of 
the United States has very properly phohibited it. 
Well, this is avowing the doctrine of repeal with a 
vengeance! 

Well, a bridge company, which gentlemen are so 
fond of talking about, is one extreme, in the applica¬ 
tion of the doctrine. There must be another. What 
is it? If one case may be supposed, so may another. 
Let us then suppose that the Legislature should take 
upon itself to charter a great corporation, with power 
to collect all the taxes and other revenues of the State, 
and to disburse them, charging and receiving twenty 
per cent, for its agency. 

Here is a great machine! It might work very well 
but the time might come, when the people, distrusting 
the purity of its managers, or the economy of its opera¬ 
tions, might demand its repeal. The question comes 
up in the General Assembly. Well, we have a democrat¬ 
ic majority, and the people confidently expect to see the 


repeal take place. But here are some democrats—save 
the mark—they call themselves democrats—who hold 
thatyouhave no right to repeal, unlessyou make the par¬ 
ty whose franchises are destroyed, whole in damages. 
So, according to their doctrine, the Legislature must 
pay all the damages that will accrue, and twenty per 
cent, on all the money it might have collected and dis¬ 
bursed, down to the end of its existence. Another class 
—still democrats—would take the whole, but would 
pay only the twenty per cent. Another, democrats, 
also, hold that the Legislature has no power to repeal at 
all. The States has created a corporation. To it she 
has virtually transferred the taxing power. The Su¬ 
preme Court of the United States has holden that an act 
of incorporation is a contract, whose obligations, the 
State having established it, has no right to impair nor 
disaffirm ; and, therefore, it may exist and receive twen¬ 
ty per cent, until it expires by its own limitation. 

Now, I hold this doctrine to be true, that whatever 
laws the legislative power may pass, it has the same 
right to repeal: and that whatever error the State has 
committed, it has full power to relieve itself from; and 
I lay down this as a proposition that cannot be success¬ 
fully controverted, that if the government has no power 
to correct its own errors, it has no power to secure and 
perpetuate its own existence. The two are inseparable. 
Destroy the one, and you paralyze the other. The dan¬ 
gers under which governments suffer, arise from the 
errors they have committed. Take away the power to 
rectify these, and the recuperative energies of govern¬ 
ment are annihilated. 

I hope the Convention will indulge rne, for a moment, 
in a few remarks upon a question raised by the gentle¬ 
man from Muskingum, [Mr. Stilwell,] last evening. 
Now there is no thutli more plain, than that the colo¬ 
nies of this country, before the confederation, were 
sovereign. They had power to declare war, to coin 
money, to issue letters of marque and reprisal, and to 
do all the acts which of right and necessity belong to 
sovereign States. But when the present constitution 
was formed, they surrendered their right to emit bills of 
credit. So far wo all agree. It is written, and cannot 
be denied. But gentlemen say, they did not surrender 
the power to grant to individuals or to corporations the 
right to emit bills of credit. 

Let us look at this. In the same clause the States 
surrender to the Union the power to coin money, and 
to issue letters of marque and reprisal. Now will gen¬ 
tlemen contend that the States have also reserved to 
themselves the right to create corporations which may 
coin money, and issue letters of marque ? The sur¬ 
render of all these powers was by the same form of 
words, in the same clause, and in the same connection; 
and there was neither individual nor collective reser¬ 
vation. It will be recollected that I asked the gentle¬ 
man from Muskingum [Mr. Stilwell] the question, 
if the States had not surrendered the power to author¬ 
ize corporations to emit bills of credit, from what he 
inferred that they had surrendered the power to estab¬ 
lish corporations to coin money. He replied that he 
had answered that question already. But nothing can 
be clearer to my mind than that if, by the construction 
of the constitution. States are precluded from directly 
or indirectly coining money, orissuinglettersof marque, 
they are equally precluded from directly or indirectly 
emitting bills of credit. To hold otherwise, would be 
to give two difficult and opposite constructions to the 
same form of words—the same sentence—the same 
provision. From this perfectly plain and obvious re¬ 
sult, it seems to me impossible for the gentlernan from 
Muskingum to extricate himself. At any rate it is per¬ 
fectly clear and satisfactory to my mind; and the whole 
history of the country, from the time of the Revolution 
to the present day, goes to prove it, that it was the de¬ 
sign of the framers of the constitution to make this a 
hard money government. So it commenced—so it con¬ 
tinued—and so it would have remained had not the 
time come when the courts of justice deemed it neces- 














1176 


CONVENTION SEPORTS. 


sary for them to come forward and sustain these paper 
money making machines. 

Mr. President, I had something that I desired to say 
upon the subject of the tendencies of courts to incline 
in the direction of popular sentiment, and the effect 
they have in giving force to a prevailing legislative 
abuse, but upon consideration, I have concluded to de¬ 
fer it to another occasion. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, moved to amend the words 
proposed to be stricken out, by adding after the word 
“ law ” the words “ hereafter made or passed.” 

The question then being on the amendment to the 
amendment; 

Mr. CASE said he had moved the amendment with 
a view to relieve the section of its alledged ambiguity, 
as some gentlemen had contended that its effect would 
be retroactive, others that it would be prospective. 

Mr. VANCE hoped the gentleman from Licking, 
[Mr. Case,] would withdraw his amendment. He be¬ 
lieved the proper course would be, first to strike out, 
and then to perfect the words proposed to be inserted. 
He thought by this means the views of gentlemen 
would be met, and some complexity avoided. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said, he had his doubts whether 
this was the proper place to agitate the question of the 
repeal of charters. He had rather the proposition had 
been made under the legislative or corporation reports. 
He wished however, to make a few suggestions. If 
gentlemen are fearful of perpetual charters, they have 
a very easy remedy in their hands. It is nothing more 
than to put a limitation in the charters themselves. 
He did not deny the right of repeal, but only insisted 
that it should be made upon constitutional grounds. 
Gentlemen say that the courts are corrupt, and that 
they may be bought or biassed by the power or the 
money of a chartered company. Are not the courts to 
be elected by the people ? Is it not the people who 
are to appoint the ju'ies. If he was the last man in 
the State to oppose the doctrine of unconstitutional re¬ 
peal, he would do it. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, asked leave to withdraw his 
amendment. 

Mr. SAWYER was opposed to the withdrawal. He 
had heard gentlemen talk a great deal about prospec¬ 
tive repeal. He wanted to see whether they would 
now stand up and support their own bantling or not. 

Mr. CASE said, he was not afraid to support all of 
his offspring. His doubts in regard to the amendment, 
were whether it was the proper place for the declara¬ 
tion of the principle. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I will vote for the amendment of 
the gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Case,] for these rea¬ 
sons. It appears to be the general wish to insert in the 
constitution, a provision on the subject of repeal, which 
shall operate prospective!}^, and the difficulty is in 
agreeing on a provision touching retrospective repeal. 
I am extremely desirous of inserting prospective repeal, 
at all events, and I'etrospective repeal, if I can get it. 
Let us, then, make this provision prospective. We will 
thus have that point made secure, and we can act on 
the subject of retrospective repeal separately, when 
the matter comes up in the Legislative report. Besides, 
there is a doubt as to the true construction and correct 
meaning of the amendment under consideration. It is 
claimed by some to be retrospective, and prospective 
both—by others, to be prospective only. My opinion 
is, that taken in the connection in which it stands, and 
with the other provisions in the Legislative report, it 
will be construed to be prospective only. At all events, 
we should render the meaning as clear and distinct as 
possible. 

The question then being on the adoption of the 
amendment of Mr. Case; 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered and resulted—yeas 26; nays 65—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Bates, Case of Hocking, Case of Lick¬ 
ing, Ceilings, Cook, Cutler, Gillett, Graham, Groesbeck, Haw¬ 
kins, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Hootmanj Kennon, Kirkwood, Mason, 


Mitchell, Morris, Perkins, Sawyer, Stanton, Swan, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Vance, of Champaign, Warren and Williams—26. 

—Messrs, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet ol Montgomery, Bar- 
net ot Preble, Blickenederfer, Brown of Athens, Brown ot Car- 
roll, Chambers, Chaney, Curry, Dorsey, Florence, Forbes. Greene 
ot Detiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hen- 
derson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, ilolines, Holt, Horton, Humph- 
revill?, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, Larsh, Lawrence, Lar- 
wdll, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Wanon, Morehead, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Peck, Quigley, R®®' 
ney, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith ot Warren, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Struble, Swift, 
Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Wilson, Worthington 
and President—65. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being upon the first branch of the 
amendment of Mr. Archbold, to wit: on striking out; 

Mr. SW'AN said there was certainly a difference in 
opinion among gentlemen in regard to the effect of the 
amendment ot the gentleman from Guernsey, [Mr. 
Lawrence.] If we could be sure that the committee 
on Revision, would alter its terms, and make that clear 
which is now doubtful, it might answer. He would 
move, for the purpose of giving greater certainty to the 
expression, to add to the amendment of the gentleman 
from Guernsey, after the word “law,” the words 
“heretofore made or passed.” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. 1 shall vote for the amendment 
of the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] for one 
of the reasons w’hich influenced me to vote lor the 
amendment which has just been defeated. I desire to 
remove all ambiguity of meaning in the provision un¬ 
der consideration, and I cannot perceive any legitimate 
reason why that should not be done. 

Mr. HUMI’H REVILLB said that it seemed to him, 
this subject had been discussed long enough for the 
Convention to come to a conclusion in what manner it 
ought to proceed. There seems to be some doubt as 
to the practical construction to be given to the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Guernsey. Some are in 
doubt, whether the proposition does actually confer 
the right of repeal. Some think it provides for pro¬ 
spective, and some for reti'oactive repeal, while some 
are at a loss as to which is, and which is not intended. 
It was his opinion that the amendment which he bad 
offered, in its original form, would have been about 
the thing that was wanted. That would have been 
construed by the courts to be prospective only. He 
regretted that the amendment of the gentleman from 
Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] had been incorporated. It 
had been the occasion of a great loss ot time; had it 
not been offered, he believed the amendment would 
have passed at the time, and would not have been mis¬ 
construed. 

He wanted to make his votes in this matter consis¬ 
tent. He believed it would be well to declare the right 
of repeal, both prospective and retro-active. He held, 
that if it became necessary for the public good, for the 
Legislature to repeal an act of incorporation, and to 
take or use its property, it should be paid lor in full; 
and he saw no difficulty in the plan of ascertaining the 
amount by a verdict of a jury of the vicinage. If the 
property of a corporation is rendered worthless, its full 
value should be paid; if it is reduced in value, the dif¬ 
ference .should be paid; but where none ol these things 
were done, he would pay nothing for a mere franchise, 
however valuable it may be, unless it was purchased 
from the State, and a consideration paid for its enjoy¬ 
ment. Had the amendment been to secure prospec¬ 
tive repeal, or repeal prospective and retroactive, he 
should vote for it—but as it looks retroactively alone, 
he should feel bound to oppose it. 

Mr. REEMELIN rose to a question of order, to wit: 
“ he claimed that the amendment of the gentleman 
from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] w’as not in order.” He 
believed it out of order for the following reasons—that 
it was an amendment in the third degree—the bill of 
rights, as returned from the committee ol the whole, 
was the basis of our action. 

To it, the gentleman from Guernsey, [Mr. Lavt- 
rence,] had moved his amendment, that amendment 



















CONVENTION REPORTS. 1177 


the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] had 
moved to amend, that being the second amendment. 
Now, the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] had 
again moved to amend, which amendment, being on 
amendment in the third degree, ho believed out of 
order. 

The PRESIDENT stated the usage, to avoid com¬ 
plexity and embarrassment, had limited amendments 
to the second degree. It was also usual, when words 
are proposed to be inserted, or stricken out, to permit 
them to be perfected by those friendly to them, before 
the question is put. In the exercise of a liberal prac¬ 
tice, the Chair has entertained, from the commence¬ 
ment of the Convention, motions to perf ect amendments 
to amendments, when such motions were merely for 
inserting or striking out a word, believing that much 
time is thereby gained, and as the inconvenience is en¬ 
tirely his own, he is not disposed, unless otherwise 
directed by the Convention, to change the practice. 

Mr. REBMELIN said he should not appeal from 
the decision of the Chairman, but would say, that he 
believed the decision wrong, and directly the reverse 
of what was laid down as the rule in Jefferson’s Man¬ 
ual. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved the previous 
question. 

The question now being, shall the main question 
be now put?” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Swan, to wit: Insert after the word ” law,” 
the words : “ heretofore made and passed ;” 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 46, nays 52 
—as follow's: 

Yeas —Messrs. Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Cook, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, Forbes, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Jones, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon'Ma- 
non, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Sawyer, Scott oi Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, 
Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Wilson, 
Worthington and President—46. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Chaney, Ceilings, Cur¬ 
ry, Cutler, Florence, Gillett, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groes- 
beck, Hamilton, Hard, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Huhut, Johnson, Kennon, 
Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, 
Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith ol Highland, Smith 
of Warz'en, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Vance of Butler, Vance 
of Champaign, Warren, Williams and Woodbury—52. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The quesiion then being on striking out the following 
words “ to alter, revoke, repeal or abolish by act of the 
General Assembly any grant or law conferring special 
privileges or immunities upon any portion of the peo¬ 
ple;” 

Mr. HOLMES demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordei'ed, and. resulted—yeas 54, nays 45—as fol- 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Browu of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gil¬ 
lett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, 
Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, 
McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith 
oi Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, 
Vanceof Butler, Vance of Champaign,'Warren, Williams, Wood¬ 
bury and Worthington—54. 

Nays —Messrs. Bennett, Cahill, Chaney, Dorsey, Farr, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
McCormick, Norris, Orton, Quigley, Raimey, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Wilson and 
President-^S. 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the words “no 
special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted 
injurious to the public, and ”— 

Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded the yeas and nays, which 


were ordered, and resulted—yeas 62, nays 34—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Cahill, Case of 
Hocking, Case of Licking, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Farr, 
Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 
Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Otis, Orton, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stanbery, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of 
Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Vance of Champaign, Wil- 
liams, Wilson, Woodbury and President—62. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Chambers, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Gray, Green 
of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Horton, Hunter, Kennon, Larsh, 
Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Peck, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 'Warren, Stilwell and 
W orthington—34. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Lawrence, as amended, to wit: Add at the end of 
section 2, which reads as follows: 

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is 
instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have 
the right to alter or relbrm the same, whenever they may deem 
it necessary— 

The following: 

And no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted 
injurious to the public, and which cannot reasonably be enjoyed 
by all; 

It was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the report to be 
engrossed; it was agreed to. 

And, on motion, it was ordered to be read a third 
time on Monday, the 10th instant. 

Mr. HOLT submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the following be incorporaUid into the constitu¬ 
tion, as an article thereof: 

The General Assembly have power to suppress any partiplar 
business, hitherto allowed and free to all the inhabitants, which i s 
found to be injurious to the public welfare. 

Corporations privileged by their charter to carry on such busi¬ 
ness, on its being suppressed, can demand no terms at the hands 
of the General Assembly which may not be demanded by indi¬ 
viduals. 

When the business has been prohibited to individuals and al¬ 
lowed to corporation?, and its exercise by the latter has been found 
to be injurious to the public welfare, it may be suppressed. 

The General Aesembly is the proper department of the govern¬ 
ment to determine whether any business is or is not injurious to 
the public welfare, and have power to suppress it, when they find 
it to be so injurious, whether exercised by individuals or corpo¬ 
rations. 

On motion of Mr. HAMILTON, the resolution was 
laid on the table. 


EXTENSION OF THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE. 

On motion of Mr. GREEN, of Ross, the Convention 
3 ok up the report of the committee on the Elective 
' 1*0.11 ch ISO* 

The question pending being on the motion to strike 
ut the word “ white,” where it occurs in the first lino 
f the first section— 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. It will be seen that my name ia 
ot affixed to the report of the committee on the Elec- 
ive Franchise, of wlrich comrnitttee I am a membei. 1 
ould not sign that report consistently with my own 
iews of right, nor consistently with the known wishes 
f a large proportion of my constituents. I did not, 
owever, deem it necessary to make a minority report, 
ecause the changes 1 desire though irnpomnt are 
ut few, but more especially because, by a rule of this 
lonvention, such report could not have been aecorapa- 
ied with the reasons for its presentation. I am, there- 
rre in iustice to myself, and to those I represent, under 
lenecessity of offering at this time ray objections to 
jme of the provisions of the report which has been 

^la^m opposed, Mr. President, to the insertion of the 
mrd “ white” in this report. The first reason I have 
) offer for my opposition is the belief that the intended 
jstriction of the right of suffrage is unjust. 

Sir T not only say, but I believe that “ all men are 









1178 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


created equal,” that is, they are equally eudowecl by 
their Creator with certain inherentrights. These rights 
are essential to our existence; they spring from the ne¬ 
cessities of our being. In order to live, we must have 
a place somewhere, we must have air and food, and 
■each of these and every other necessity imposed on us 
by our Maker, involves a corresponding right, whether 
it pertain to our physical or to our intellectual or moral 
nature. Some of our rights grow directly out of the 
relations we sustain, such as husbands or fathers, &c., 
each of these relations imposing certain obligations or 
duties, and these involving corresponding rights. All 
men have by nature the same necessities and may sus¬ 
tain the same or equal relations, consequently all men 
must have the same natural rights. For the protec¬ 
tion of these natural rights, governments are instituted 
among men, and this single purpose of protection is the 
only legitimate function of government. All the hu¬ 
man governments on earth cannot create a right, nor 
can they take a right away, and the idea that man, on 
entering into jural or civil relations with these, sur¬ 
renders any part of his natural rights, is only one of the 
grand but mischievous blunders of the past. Human 
governments derive all their just authority from the 
consent of the governed; all persons have the same 
rights to protect, and are therefore equally interested, 
and equally entitled to share as principals in govern¬ 
ment, and the consent of one person is just as necessary 
as the consent of another person, in order to constitute 
just authority. 

To attempt to govern men without seeking their con¬ 
sent is usurpation and tyranny, whether in Ohio or in 
Austria. There is a portion of the people of this State 
who have the same right to stand upon this part of 
God’s earth, and to breathe this free air, that you or I 
have, and yet you seek to impose a government upon 
them without consulting them. I can only say that 
they are under no obligation to obey your laws or to 
submit to your authority. You burthen them with 
taxation without representation, and thus inflict upon 
them the identical \vrongfor which the thirteen United 
Colonies threw off the yoke of the mother country. 
To establish a government over them, not based on 
their consent; to subject them to laws they have had 
no voice in framing; to tax them while you deny them 
representation, is clearly and manifestly unjust; and I 
might stop here without urging any further objections 
to the report, for with governments there should be re¬ 
ally but one inquiry—what is just? 

Another objection I have to this limitation of the 
right of suffrage, I believe it anti-democratic. I desire 
to speak on this point with becoming modesty, for I am 
but a young man, while I see around me many whose 
hair has grown gray in the study of democratic princi¬ 
ples. One of these gentlemen has said with Jefferson, 
that democracy consists in doing “equal and exact jus¬ 
tice to all men;” another gentleman has said that dem®- 
cracy concedes to others all it demands for itself, and 
demands for itself all it concedes to others. If the re¬ 
striction of the elective franchise is tested by either of 
these rules, it will be found anti-democratic. To justi¬ 
fy the practice the I’eport recommends, Jefferson’s rule 
should be amended so as to read, “equal and exact jus¬ 
tice to all while men—or to all men except negroes.” 
If I understand genuine democracy, it is neither more 
nor less than the golden rule of Christianity applied to 
politics, or to our civil relations—that is, doing unto 
others as we would have others do unto u.s, and I see 
no reason why democracy is not like Christianity, com¬ 
prehensive enough to embrace the whole family of 
men. I was looking the other day, Mr. President, into 
Noah Webster’s Dictionary for the meaning of demo¬ 
cracy, and I found, as I expected, that he defines a de¬ 
mocrat to be “one who favors universal suffrage.” 
Now, some of our friends here have been busy of late, 
in reading out of the democratic party all who did not 
come up to their standard of democracy. If they were 
justified in that proceeding, 18uppo.se I shall be equally 


justified in reading them out if they do not come up to 
this, the true, authoritative standard. I should regret 
to do it, for some of these gentlemen consider them¬ 
selves pretty good democrats, although in this particu¬ 
lar, they are, as I think, behind the times. Nothing is 
clearer than that genuine democracy must ever be pro¬ 
gressive. 

The rule “equal and exact justice to all men,' per¬ 
haps can never be amended, but in its apfdication our 
measures will change from year to year. The evils and 
abuses to which this rule was first applied, have now, 
many of them passed away, but every succeeding age 
developes abuses requiring new applications of the 
same I’lile, and he only is a genuine Democrat who 
faithfully applies this good Democratic rule to any new 
species of abuse or injustice that appears, and not he 
who having used it once or twice throws it away and 
u.8es it no further. I believe it to be our duty here to 
erect a civil platform upon which the foot of eveiy 
person in the State may stand, and on exactly the same 
level. I have not intentionally given in this body, one 
vote, nor do I intend to give one vote, to place any 
man or set of men above the common level. I will 
vote for no franchise, if by that is meant a something 
which makes one man free to do what may not be done 
by others. I will vote for no privilege, if by that is 
meant a private law for the benefit of the few over the 
many. I will vote for no charters, because I will not 
by my vote give to a part, by a special grant, what be¬ 
longs alike to all; and none of these things have any 
sacredness for me ; I will not give the benefit of my 
vote. I will not give the benefit of holy rood to^ any 
hoary abuse, but right the wrong wherever given. 
But, sir, the same sense of justice which will not per¬ 
mit me to place another man’s foot higher than my own, 
will also prevent me from consenting to place any man 
a hair’s breadth below the common level. If the 
ernment of Ohio is to be in the hands of a privileged 
class, whether that class be large or small, it will be 
an aristocracy, a form of government for which I have 
no partiality; this government ought to be Democrat¬ 
ic—a government shared by all for the good of all. 
Let us then have no limitations of suffrage—for who 
does not know that all such limitations are anti-Demo- 

cratic ? . . • • r i 

Another reason for opposing this restriction of what 
is called the elective franchise—I believe it is impolitic. 

We have already stated that the true function of 
government is to protect rights, or in other words, to 
prevent wrongs. Experience has taught us that igno¬ 
rance is one of the most fruitful sources of crime, and it 
has therefore been found to be good policy to secure the 
education of the whole people, as a means of prevent¬ 
ing crime, which it does at less expense and more ef¬ 
fectually than all the jails or penitentiaries, or scaf¬ 
folds; that were ever erected. I was surprised, when 
we were considering the subject of education, to hear 
some gentleman propose to exclude the children of 
colored persons from the benefits of our common 
school system. Surely, after what we know of the 
good influences of education, to provide for keeping 
one class of our inhabitants in ignorance, would be 
most miserable policy. But it is not enough that all 
should have the means of education ; we ought to give 
to all the inhabitants of the State the full benefit of the 
powerful stimulus of hope and ambition. Let no man 
feel that the law which ought to be his protector, in¬ 
terposes a barrier to his progress, by saying to him, 
“ thus far shalt thou come, but no farther. ^ Rather let 
us off’er the strongest inducements to the intellectual 
and moral elevation of every person, of whatever class 
or condition, by opening the race and offering every 
prize of wealth, or honor, or usefulness, alike to all. 
If, on the other hand, we make it impossible for any 
class of our people to rise—if we consign them to ig¬ 
norance, and wmnt, and degredation, we ought to con¬ 
sider ourselves responsible for whatever invasion of our 
rights may be the consequence ; w’e shall reap exactly 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 1119 


what we sow. To may view, the political clegra-op 
tion of any portion of our people is in the highest -up 
gree impolitic. 

I object also to inserting the word “ white,” because 
for the purpose employed, it is indefinite and ambigu¬ 
ous, and therefore improper. 

For anything I know, this word ” white,” may have 
some fixed legal meaning, known to the lawyers; but 
I would remind gentlemen, that judges of election are 
often plain, common sense men, who will understand 
words in a plain, common sense way. Then, who are 
“ white” persons ? Does it mean only Anglo-Saxons ? 
This would perhaps exclude some members of this 
Convention. Does it embrace all Caucasans? This 
interpretation would include many who are darker 
than some it would exclude. Is itdesignedto exclude 
onljr negroes, and admit all the “ I’est of mankind? ” 
This would receive many as black as the negroes them¬ 
selves. Does it mean to admit to the ballot-box all 
those, and only those, who have a white skin ? This 
Would give the right par excellence to a portion of the 
negro race; for those we call Albinoesare whiter than 
any of us, and it would exclude some of the most illus¬ 
trious men that have ever lived. 

We are accustomed to divide the human family into 
five great divisions—Caucasians, Mongolians, Malays, 
Indians and Negroes. Of the Caucasians, the Celtic, 
Teutonic and Pelasgiaii varieties are comparatively 
fair; the Chaldaic and Hindoslanee, are darker, while 
some of the Nilotic branch, such as the Nubians, Abys- 
sinians, Fellatahs, and Moors, are more or less, and 
some of them perfectly black, though with European 
features. 

Now, how many of these Caucasians will you call 
white? If the Mongolians, and the Chinese are of this 
race, we have recently had some fine specimens in this 
city. Are they white ? This will soon be a practical 
question. Thousands of Chinese have already found 
their way to California, and will soon be citizens of 
that State, unless excluded because they are not white. 
Then there are some mixed races between Caucasians 
and Mongolians, about whom our minds should be 
made up, such for example as many of the Turks. 
What would you do with Amin Bey? He certainly is 
not white, probably not a pure Caucasian. A large 
part of the Hungarians are of Sclavonic origin, which is 
another mixed race. What would you do with Kos¬ 
suth and his compatriots? I fear they are not pure 
Caucasians, yet Ujhazy has already been made a post¬ 
master in Wisconsin or Iowa. Passing over the Malays, 
what will you do with Indians or their descendants? 
I suppose you would not exclude John Randolph, if he 
were living, because he claimed to have descended 
from Pocahontas? 

But suppose we speak of Negroes. What constitutes 
a Negro? You may think this question easily answer¬ 
ed, but I assure you. that those best acquainted with 
the various tribes of Africa, would feel themselves very 
much embarassed if called upon to say, what consti¬ 
tutes a Negro, and which of the African tribes are, and 
which are not Negroes. All these divisions, and almost 
an infinite number of sub-divisions of the race exist, 
but they are all embraced within the pale of humanity, 
and entitled to its common rights. Humanity does not 
depend upon the color of the hair, or eyes, or skin, or 
where a person may have been born, or what his ori¬ 
gin or capacity—the essentials of humanity are inde¬ 
pendent of all these peculiarities; they may be chang¬ 
ed or varied indefinitely, but ^‘a man is a man for all 
that.” 

But it has been said of colored persons repeatedly 
‘‘ this is not their country.” Is it yours ? And if it is 
how did you come by it ? The Caucasian is not the 
aboriginal race here any more than the Negro. Do you 
claim that this is your country because it is the place of 
your nativity ? Were not colored persons born here 
as well as yourselves and many of their families have 
been in the country as many generations as yours. Do 


you call it your country because white men fought to 
achieve its national independence ? Did not black men 
also join in that struggle ? Cretainly they did. I 
have before mo and would read if I were not limited 
for time, a catalogue at least of the many bloody fields 
on which the black man bled and died with the same 
devotion to liberty as did the white. And I might read 
two proclamations written by General Jackson, one is¬ 
sued just before and one just after the battle at New 
Orleans ; in the first calling upon colored men to join 
the army, and defend their country; and in the second 
thanking them for the noble enthusiasm with which 
they responded to his call. I think their right here has 
the same foundation as our own, and is based on the 
fact that every human being has a right to the pursuit 
of happiness and to the enjoyment of all his God given 
rights, wherever ho pleases, and no government, here 
or elsewhere, has a light to say, who shall or shall not 
live in any part of the wide world. There is but one 
particular in which we have a better right than they, 
that is “ the right of the strongest,” a right always rec¬ 
ognized I believe among robbers, but not usually urged 
among honest men. 

We have also been told that different races of men 
cannot dwell together peaceably. The fact that we 
have colored persons in the State was urged some days 
since, as a reason for keeping up the militia system— 
and all history was summoned to testify of the horrors 
growing out of wars of races. I know that terrible 
conflicts have often been witnessed between different 
races, forming parts of the same nation ; but I too will 
appeal to history and defy any one to point out an in¬ 
stance where these conflicts have not grown out of the 
attempt on the part of one race to oppress the others. 
How is it hero ? We have Saxon and Celt, Englishmen 
and Americans in this Convention, associating in perfect 
harmony, and between these nations or races there is 
a perfect good feeling over the whole country, and the 
reason is, we are all upon an equal footing. But how 
is it in Ireland ? Do the Saxon and Celt agree there ? 
Certainly not, and because the Saxon has always been 
the oppressor. How is it in Hungary ? There you 
have had a war of races, and every one is aware that 
the war grew out of the injustice and oppression prac¬ 
ticed by one race upon the others. If you waui to ex¬ 
cite a war of races you have only to pi’actice oppression. 

But I know my time has more than expired. I have 
said I do not believe we have any thing to fear even if 
different races should inhabit this State That one race 
has the same right here as another—that word white is 
indefinite, and ought not to be inserted in the report, 
and that any i-estriction of suffrage is impolitic, anti¬ 
democratic and unjust. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga. When some allu¬ 
sion was made to this subject at Columbus, I took oc¬ 
casion to say, that when this question should fairly 
come up for consideration, I should submit my views 
upon it to the Convention; and I suppose, of course, 
from this announcement, as well as on account of the 
position which it is known that I occupy upon this sub¬ 
ject, that something will bo expected of me at this 
time. But I rise now simply to say, that, on account 
of the state of ray health, I am prevented from fulfill¬ 
ing those expectations, and 1 must content myself with 
casting a silent vote. ^ _ 

I would sustain the motion to strike out this word, 
because I hold, that the distinction which it indicates 
is diametrically opposed to the great principle^ upon 
which our government is based—that great principle of 
action which animated our revolutionary fathers— 
which was acknowledged as a principle of action by 
the framers of all the early constitutions of this coun¬ 
try, even of some of the Slave States, in those fimes 
which tried men’s souls — because that distinction is 
opposed to the principle of equality amongst men, 
which this constitution recognizes; because it is oppo¬ 
sed to the principles of justice and state policy, and hu¬ 
manity, and hostile to everything that elevates and dig- 









1180 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


nifies the name of man; and because it is the indication 
of a principle, which, if carried out, as it might be, it 
would divest every man in the State of his rights. 

All these propositions, I would like to illustrate ; but 
my lack of strength forbids the attempt. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I had intended, (as I be¬ 
lieve I declared when 1 made this motion,) to give a 
silent vote in favor of striking out. But, since the 
adoption of the rule which precludes members w'ho 
desire to speak upon this question, and since, on ac¬ 
count of the adoption of that rule, the question is not 
likely to be fully discussed, I will beg the indulgence 
of the Convention, whilst I offer a very few remarks. 

In addition to what has just been summed up by the 
gentleman from Cuyahoga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] as a sy¬ 
nopsis of the reasons why he should vote for striking out 
this word “ white,” I will say that I shall vote for strik¬ 
ing out, because I believe it is against the constitution 
of the United States. If this word should be retained, 
I believe it would be, substantially, a violation of the 
constitution of the United States, because it makes dis¬ 
tinctions amongst citizens. But I may be wrong. I 
know it might be replied, (probably will not,) that we 
have the right to authorize a part, as well as the whole 
oi the citizens of the State, to enjoy the right to vote. 
But I claim, that under the constitution of the United 
States, w’hatever rights are conferred upon a class of 
citizens should be conferred upon ail belonging to that 
class. The clause from w'hich I derive this conclusion, 
is the first clause of section 2, of article 4, and it is as 
follows: 

The citizens of each State shall he entitled to all the privileges 
and immunities of citizens of the several States. 

Now I take it that the right of sufiVage is one of 
these privileges and immunities, to be conferred upon 
citizens. 

Mr. SAWYER, (in bis seat.) Negroes are not citi¬ 
zens. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. If I have time I will an¬ 
swer that. 

Now, where do we get the right of making this dis¬ 
tinction? The distinction is broader between male and 
female citizens, although we might confer the right of 
suffrage upon both. But have we any right to throw 
into the constitution a line of distinction dividing any 
one class of citizens ? If so, where are we to draw 
this line? What does the word “white” mean? 
Would the constitution authorize a man of one-fourth 
black blood to vote ? He cannot be said to be a white 
man, if the word means any thing, in order to get 
over this difficulty, the courts have been obliged to de¬ 
cide and say the constitution does not mean vvhat it 
says where it uses this word “ white,” and that a per¬ 
son having less than half black blood, shall have the 
rights of a white man. And such, I suppose, would be 
the construction of this clause. 

But the gentleman from Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] 
says that negroes are not citizens. I will read the fol¬ 
lowing from Kent’s Commentaries, vol. 2, page 258, 
section 32, as a complete answer to this suggestion. 
Chancellor Kent says: 

“ Citizens, under our constitution and laws, tnean free inhabi¬ 
tants, born within the United States, or naturalized under the 
laws of Congress. If a slave, born in the United States, be man¬ 
umitted, or otherwise lawfully discharged from bondage, or if a 
black man be born within the United States, and born free, he be¬ 
comes thenceforward a citizen.” 

Then a tregro, if born in the United States, is a citi¬ 
zen, if be is born free. Or if born a slave, and manu¬ 
mitted, or by any lawful mode obtaining his freedom, 
he is a citizen. 

And I know of no reason why a man who might not 
be included within the meaning of the word “ white,” 
might not be naturalized. I say, then, that in my judg¬ 
ment the attempt to deprive any male citizen of the 
rights and immunities of citizenship, is substantially a 
violation of the constitution of the United States. 

By authorizing negroes to vote we would be doing 
no move than what has been done by several of the 


slave State.s. Negroes have had the right to vote in 
New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, 
Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, North Carolina, 
and Tennessee. More than half the original States, at 
one time or other, have given to negroes the right to 
vote—besides the State of Tennessee, which was not 
one of the original thirteen. 

The framers of the old constitution in Ohio, were 
more liberal upmi this matter than the members of this 
Convention. The former Convention voted to author¬ 
ize negroes in the State to enjoy the right of suffra^^. 
To be sure the vote was reconsidered—but upon the 
final vote which defeated the clause, there was only a 
majority of five against it. We are progressing then, 
it seems, in the cause of human liberty, but we are 
progressing the wrong way. 

I shall vote for striking out this word. I cannot, 
however, even hope that it will be stricken^ out, for 
that would be hoping against hope. But I will say to 
gentlemen if they wish to be consistent with their own 
declarations, or if they wish to live up to the rule of 
ren(]ering equal exact justice to all nien, i seems 
to me that they .should vote for this amendment. 

Mr Sawyer. I have given my views upon this 
subject and shall not repeat them. I have now mere- 
Iv to say that I have changed my opinion somewhat, 
of -enfkraen who advocate these peculiar views. ^ I 
bebeve now. that they are hone6t--and according Uiis 
to them I ask the same consideration lor myself, when 
T tbpir vicws. Morcover, I am willing now, to 

IrrrsSnXg the question of neg.-o euffiage^ 
♦ 1 . ^ n senarate clause. But I cannot, consis- 

tenTwUh -i;:: of duty, vote for negroes to afn 
nroach the ballot box, so long as I remember that we 
dtizens are white men, and that we have acquired 
ffiis coLtrv (whether by fair, or foul means, and it 
belongs to i^s. At the same time, t adhere to the mot¬ 
to of “ emial ri-hts to all, exclusive privileges to none. 

I am willing tiratthe colored race should be colonized, 
Ld wTll "oVstr as any man to effect that o^ect ffir 
T believe it is the only proper method of elevating them 
to their iust position. But that negroes have he same 
rights with vS-hite men in this conn ry, I u terly deuy 

Mr NASH Mr. President: I have only a word to 

^ ^ 1 ' t' tEp vote I shall give on this ques- 

sny in explanation ot tne \oi^ ± 

tion-I shall vote against striking out this word white, 
and for the following reasons’. , 1 , • „ ,.j 

And first; I do not believe it would be inaccoidance 
with public opinion. To make tins change would bo 
to’defeat our constitution, whatever 


other merits it 


might contain. Such being puhlic opinion, vve can- 
aot disregard it if we would. No practical statesman 
would disregard the public opinion, and send forth a 
institution with its death warran wi} 

And secondly; I do not believe that it would benefit 
the very ' ov^iation designed to be benefitted. Such 
is the state ot [)Uo.ip feeling, that this right grantei^ 
would inevitably lead to the ofp ession of the colored 

^ The very first election would lead to difficulties and 
iipart-burnings between the white and colored popu a- 
tioT), and probably to open outrages. It would neces¬ 
sarily inflame the antipathies now existing between 
the two races. We may say that these antipathies are 
wrong, unchristian; but foul words will not do away 
with facts; this body must deal with these fac s 
would be regardless ofits duties by assuming to clisre- 
?ard them. " The colored people should seek no o 
mix in politics and involve themselves in the Y 
Jtrifes of the country. Let them quietly pnrsne the 
nolicy of educating themselv^es, and by intelligence 
ind moral worth, seek to remove prejudices and 
tipathies now existing, and existing in strength suth- 
cient to oppress them, if they were once roused into 
"lassionate action. 

Again, this is not a question of right, or morality, 
rhe right of suffrage is a mere question of expediency 
—has ever been so considered. Hence, minors and 













1181 


CONVENTION llEPORTS. 


females are excluded from the exercise of this power 
in the government. The law, when made, protecis all 
alike ; but the question, who shall make our laws, is 
another and dift’erent question. I so regard the ques¬ 
tion, and so regarding it, can have no hesitation in vo¬ 
ting in accordance with a well known public opin¬ 
ion. In doing so, I do not violate any principle of 
right, as I understand the question. Nor is there any¬ 
thing in this word citizen. They may be citizens, and 
yet not be entitled to the right of suffrage. Minors 
are citizens, and yet not voters. This is all I have to 
say. 

Mr. WOODBURY. I am pleased to see those who 
are opposed to this amendment treat the subject with 
BO much candor—feeling no disposition, apparently, 
to prevent a direct vote upon the question. I find no 
fault with any man for opposing the amendment, for 
I am satislied that there are members who are indi¬ 
vidually in favor of the amendment, but whose duty it 
will be to vote against it, on account of the known will 
of their constituents. 

Before the vote shall be taken, I desire to call the at¬ 
tention of the body to the inconsistencies which will 
be found in the constitution if this word “ white " 
should be retained. 

There will be a manifest inconsistency in retaining 
this word, provided it is the intention of the constitu¬ 
tion that this should be a government of the people. 
In the preamble we have used these words: 

We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God 
for our freedom, to secure its blessings, and promote our com¬ 
mon welfare, do establish this constitution. 

But now', in saying thi^, we certainly do not intend 
to reler to a majority of the people, but only those 
who are to give rneir consent to this constitution. Not 
more than one-fifth of the people of tlie State are vo¬ 
ters, and the sanction of a majority of these will be suf¬ 
ficient to make this constitution binding. 

Ill the first section we have this language: 

All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain 
inalienable i ights, among which are those ot enjoying and defend¬ 
ing life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting proper¬ 
ty, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety. 

It must be evident to every man who reflects, that, 
in order to secure to himself, in his rights, in a country 
governed by laws, every person must, to some extent, 
participate in framing the laws. For there are but two 
ways in which he can be protected. He must be pro¬ 
tected either by political or physical power. 

Well, in regard to the second section, that corres¬ 
ponds exactly with my own views. It is as follows: 

Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Gov¬ 
ernment is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and 
they have the right to alter or relorm the same whenever they 
may deem it necessary. 

When this section was under consideration, I offered 
an amendment, which I supposed would accord with 
the iuleiition of the Convention. I proposed to strike 
out the word “people,” and insert the words “free 
white male citizens of the United States residing within 
the State of the age ot twenty-one years.” But the Con¬ 
vention refused to adopt that amendment, thus evincing 
a sense of the impropriety of confining political power 
to this class. Now, from the vote, I might rationally 
suppose, that a large proportion of the body were 
agreed with me, in the language of this section, “ that 
all power is inherent in the people.” And, if this be 
true, then the excluded and disfranchised portion oi 
our peo[)le have a right to assemble themselves togeth¬ 
er and form a government for their own protection. 
We are Jiot hero as their representatives at all. Our 
constituents are the free white male citizens of the 
United States, over twenty-one years of age, residing 
in the State of Ohio. We act for them alone. The 
large majority of the people, (including females, colored 
persons, minors, &c.,) have no means of makitig known 
their wishes to us but by petition. Then have they 
not the same right with ourselves to organize and es¬ 
tablish a constitution? and have we not admitted this 


fact ? They are not parties to this government; nei¬ 
ther are they rightly bound by it. It is a part of our 
Declaration of Independence, that all legitimate gov¬ 
ernments depends upon the consent of the governed. 
But this larger portion of our people have given no con¬ 
sent to our legislation; and if we undertake to ex¬ 
tend this constitution over them, it will be in violation 
of a principle which has been acknowledged by a large 
portion of this Convention. 

But I might be met here by the fact, that we do not 
extend equal rights to a small minority ol the male cit¬ 
izens of the State. That is true. But each generation 
having the right to alter, amend, or abolish their form 
of government—if the rights of this majority are cut 
off' and trampled upon—if they are excluded, as they 
now are, from those employments which are best 
suited to them—they have but one course to pursue for 
the remedy. They have the same right with ourselves 
to the benefit and security of political power; and 
coming together, to form a political constitution of 
their own, they might organize a government which 
would embrace the largest portion of the entire com¬ 
munity. 

But we are told that the disfranchisement of these 
classes is a mere matter of expediency. I look upon 
it as a matter of injustice—a violation of first princi¬ 
ples—which we ourselves have acknowledged and es¬ 
tablished. So far as we can do so in this constitution, 
it is a matter of usurpation on our part to undertake to 
extend this constitution over a class of so large a pro¬ 
portion ol our citizens, without their consent, and claim 
that we have their assent, from the fact that they have 
not given their dissent. Why, they have not had an 
opportunity to do so. 

We say here, that we have the physical power to 
take away the sovereignty from the majority of the 
people of the State, and that it is expedient to do so. 

I do not know but it is so. I thought the gentleman 
was right who last addressed the Convention, [Mr. 
Nash.] I would not go for putting any thing into the 
constitution which would defeat it. 

The gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] has 
expressed his willingness to submit the question of ex¬ 
tending the right of suff'rage in a separate clause. But 
I ask, to whom would he submit this question? There 
could be no propriety in submitting this proposition to 
those who are opposed to it. But if he would submit 
this question to all the people over twenty-one years of 
age, then I would be with him. I would be very glad 
indeed to have this question in relation to the elective 
franchise submitted and acted upon by our entire popu¬ 
lation. 

Mr. REE MB LIN moved that the Convention ad¬ 
journ. 

On which motion Mr. MANON demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 44, 
nays 46—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Bates, Case of Licking, Dor¬ 
sey, Ewart, Farr, Gray, Gi-eene ot Defiance, Green of lloss.Groes- 
beck, Hard, Harlan, HitchcocK of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geau¬ 
ga, Holt, Hootovan, Humphreville, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, Lareh, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Morris, Nash, 
Norris, Otis, Reemelin, Riddle, Smith of Highland, Smith of War- 
ren, Stanbery, Stebbins, Struble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of 
Stark, Townsend, Vance of Champaign and W orthington—44. 

Nays— Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Ben- 
net, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, 
Chambers, Chaney,Ceilings, Cook,Cury, Cutler, Florence, Forbes, 
Gillett, Gregs', Hamilton, Henderson, Holmes, Horton, Hunt, 
Johnson, King, Kirkwood, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Morehead, 
Otis, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Sawyer Scott of Harrison, Scott of 
Au<daize, Sellers, Stanton, Stilwell, Stickney, Swift, Vance of 
BuUer, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury and President—46 

So the motion to adjourn was rejected. 

On motion of Mr. HOLMES, the Convention took a 
recess. 

3 o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending, being on the motion to strike 
out the word “ white,” where it occurs the first time, 
in the first section. 











1182 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga, moved that the Con- 
veution adjourn. 

On which motion, Mr. MANON, demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 21, 
nays 57—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs Andrev.’’?, ■Ratos, Dorsey, Gray, Greene ol Defi¬ 
ance, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Hunter, Kenuon, 
Lareh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Morehead, McCormick, 
Orton, Reemelin, Taylor, Townshend and Worthington—21. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Chaney, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Farr, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, HawEins, Horton, Hum- 
phreville. Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lidey, 
Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, 
Ranney, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stick- 
ney, Struble, Swift, Thompson of Stark, "Vance of Butler, "Warren, 
Wikon, Woodbury and President—57. 

So the motion to adjourn was rejected.. 

The question then being on striking out the word 
“ white 

Mr. WOODBURY demanded the yeas and nays, and 
being ordered, resulted—yeas 12 , nays 66 —as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Cook, Farr, Gray, Humphreville, Hun¬ 
ter, Otis, Perkins, Swift, Taylor, Townshend and "Woodbury—12. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Ca¬ 
hill, Chambers, Chaney, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, 
Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, 
Mitchell, Morehead, McCormick, Nash, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Hairison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stick- 
ney, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, "Wilson, 
Worthington and President—66. 

So the motion to strike out was rejected. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to further amend the re¬ 
port by striking out the word, “male,” where it occurs 
in the first section. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND. Mr. President, notwithstand¬ 
ing the manifest impatience of the Convention, I will 
make a remark or two before giving my vote on the 
motion of the gentleman from Ashtabula to strike out 
the word male. 

It is known to gentlemen that many petitions have 
been presented to this body asking that females may 
be permitted to exercise the right of suffrage. These 
petitions have been signed by several hundred ladies, 
the precise number of these signatures I am not able 
to state, in consequence of the resignation ot the Chair¬ 
man of the committee to whom they were entrusted. 
They were sent from several different counties, and set 
forth, in a respectful and forcible manner, the claims 
and wishes of the petitioners. I believe none of these 
petitions came from the counties I have the honor to 
represent, but I have the happiness to be acquainted 
with many ladies who entertain similar views, and I 
take this occasion to say that I know of none who are 
more refined or more intelligent, nor do I know of any 
who more faithfully discharge all the duties that pertain 
to their families and homes. 

I shall not repeat what I have heretofore said f the 
injustice of limitations of the right of suffrage. I will 
only say that woman has, by nature, rights as numer¬ 
ous and as dear as man. She shares equally with man 
in all the rights that pertain to our common humanity, 
and therefore has the same or an equal interest in all 
that pertains to civil government. I say further, that 
she is man’s equal in intelligence and virtue, and is 
therefore as well qualified as man to share in the re¬ 
sponsibilities of government; and I can see no justice 
in making her merely a subject of government, rather 
than a party to it, especially if she desires such partici¬ 
pation. 

I know it is said that woman is even now represent¬ 
ed, and that her interests are safer in the hands of fath¬ 
ers, husbands ,brothers and sons, than they could be in 
her own. If this is true, how comes it to pass that wo¬ 
man is now, in this enlightened age and in this Chris¬ 
tian country, subject to so many legal disabilities. 
Eveiy one knows, or ought to know, that under the 


common law, woman has scarcely any legal existence, 
and under some circumstances, her rights of person and 
property are utterly disregarded. If woman’s interests 
have suffered so much, even in the hands of fathers and 
brothers, I think it is high time they were entrusted to 
her own keening. 

We hear it said, that woman’s sense of propriety 
would be outraged by giving to her political rights ; 1 
would respectfully suggest, that women themselves are 
the best judges of what comports with female propri¬ 
ety, and I see no difficulty or inconvenience in leaving 
the matter entirely to their own taste, and sense of du¬ 
ty. Leave out the word male, then those ladies who 
think proper, can go to the polls, and those who do 
not choose to go, can stay at home, in this respect pla¬ 
cing them on the same footing with ourselves. I know 
it is also said, that there is something so essentially 
bad and corrupting in politics, and especially that at 
the places of holding elections, such angry passions 
are exhibited, and such vulgar and indelicate language 
employed, that no woman possessed of feminine deli¬ 
cacy could mingle in politics or go to the polls. I do 
not believe in the corrupting tendency of political du¬ 
ties, or associations, but if what is said be true, it fur¬ 
nishes an equally strong reason why men should abstain 
from every thing j)oliiical, and fathers should exhort 
their sons neither to handle nor touch the unclean 
thing. I do admit that there is much that is improper 
in political strife, and much that is unbecoming said 
and done in political meetings, and at the polls, and 
this to my mind furnishes the strongest proof of the 
necessity of woman’s influence and presence, for men 
always behave like barbarians when deprived of the 
refining and moralizing influence of woman. I wish 
then to admit women to political life, not to make 
women worse, but to make politics better, of which 
it is confessed there is some necessity. At the pres¬ 
ent time, ladies can accompany their husbands or fath¬ 
ers or brothers to chui’ch, or public lectures, or enter¬ 
tainments, without fear of receiving any offence or mo¬ 
lestation, and I do not see why they could not as safe¬ 
ly accompany the same persons to the ballot box. 

I do not suppose that the ballot box is the sole pan¬ 
acea for all the sufferings to which woman is exposed ; 
for she suffers from sociel as well as from political 
wrongs. She ought to be admitted by custom, to re¬ 
ceive an equal education with her brother man; and 
various kinds of profitable employment ought to be 
opened to her, from which she is now by custom ex¬ 
cluded ; but for such evils this Convention cannot di¬ 
rectly provide a remedy ; we may however, restore 
to her the rights of which she has heretofore been de¬ 
prived ; with such intention 1 shall vote for the mo¬ 
tion. 

Mr. WOODBURY demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 7 , nays 72—as 
follows: 

Yeas—M essrs. Cook, Gray, Perkins, Stebbins, Stickney, Town¬ 
shend and Woodbury—7. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Cha¬ 
ney, Collings, Curry, Dorsey, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene 
ot Defiance, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hor¬ 
ton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, 
Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, 
Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, 
Otis, Peck, Quigley, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith ot Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stil¬ 
well, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, War¬ 
ren, Wilson, Worthington and President—72. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. TAYLOR moved to further amend the Report by 
adding as an additional section, the following; 

Sec. 7. The General Assembly shall have power to extend the 
right of suffrage to inhabitants of this State not hereby qualified 
as electors. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, moved the previous 
question. 

The question then being, “ Shall the main question be 
now put?” it was agreed to. 
















CONVENTION REPORTS, 


1183 


The question then being on Mr. Taylor’s amend¬ 
ment, 

Mr. TAYLOR demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 11, nays 68— as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yt!;as—M egBTs. .Andrewp, CooV, Gray, Hnmphrpvillp, HuTitpr, 
Ou8, Perkms, 6wut, Taylor, Townsheml find Woodbury—li. 

Nats —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chaney, Ceilings, Curry, 
Dorsey, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Green of 
Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, 
Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, 
lieech, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormick, Nash, Peck, Quigley, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott 
of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, 
Thompson of Stark, Vanoe of Champaign, "Warren, Wilson, Wor¬ 
thington and President—68. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on ordering the report to be 
engrossed; it was agreed to. 

And on motion ordered to be read the third time on 
Monday, the 17th inst. 

On motion of Mr. NASH, the Convention adjourned. 


MONDAY, Feruary 10, 1851- ♦ 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, asked and obtained 
leave to record his vote on the motion to strike out the 
word “ white,” in the first section of the report of the 
committee on the Elective Franchise; and his name 
being called, he voted “yea.” 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER asked and obtained leave 
to record his vole on the several motions to strike out 
the words “ white ” and “ male,” in the fii’St section of 
the report of the committee on the Elective Franchise; 
and his name being called, he voted “ nay ” on both 
motions. 

Messrs. Smith, of Highland, Larsh and Blair ask¬ 
ed and obtained leave to record their votes on the mo¬ 
tion to strike out the word “ white,” in the first sec¬ 
tion of the report on the Elective Franchise, and their 
names being severally called, they voted “ nay.” 

Mr. HOLMES presented a petition from A. M. Rob¬ 
inson and twenty-three other citizens of Hamilton 
county, and from Simon Elliot and twelve other citi¬ 
zens of Clermont county, asking that a clause be incor¬ 
porated in the new constitution prohibiting the Legis¬ 
lature from passing any law legalizing trafhc in spirit¬ 
uous liquors. 

Referred to the select committee on the subject of 
Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. RIDDLE presented a memorial from Rees E. 
Price, praying that a clause be inserted in the new 
coustitution securing to women their rights. 

Referred to the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects 
and Propositions. 

Mr. GILLETT presented sundry petitions from J. 
H. Ross and forty-three other citizens of Lawrence 
county, praying that a clause be inserted in the new 
constitution prohibiting the Legislature from passing 
any law legalizing traffic in spiritous liquors. 

Referred to the select committee on the subject of 
Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. COOK presented a petition from H. Hoover, and 
fifty-eight other citizens of Stark and Portage counties, 
on the same subject; which, on motion, was laid on 
the table. 

Mr. LEADBETTER presented a petition from Win. 
Crow, and twenty-seven other citizens of Holmes coun¬ 
ty, on the same subject; which, on motion, was laid 
on the table. 

Mr. MITCHELL presented a petition from Philo 
Doolittle and two hundred and thirty-eight other citi¬ 
zens from Knox county, on the same subject; which, 
on motion, was laid on the table. 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, presented a petition from 
Michael Clark, and twenty four other citizens of Knox 


county, praying that the new constitution may define 
the basis of government, leaving banking corporations 
and the sale of ardent spirits to be acted upon by the 
people. 

Referred to the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects 
ard Propositionp. 

Mr. McCORMiCK presented a jietition from S. Bart¬ 
lett, and eighteen other citizens of Hocking and Vin¬ 
ton counties, praying that a clause be inserted in the 
new constitution prohibiting the Legislature from pas¬ 
sing any law legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors; 
which, on motion, was laid on the table. 

Report number one of the committee on the Pream¬ 
ble and Bill of Rights, was read the third time. 

The question then being on the passage of the Re¬ 
port, 

Mr. STANBERY moved tore-commit to the commit¬ 
tee that reported it, with instructions to strike out of 
section two, the following words: 

“ And no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, 
injurious to the public, and which cannot reasonably be enjoyed 
by ail.” 

Mr. REEMELIN demanded a division. 

The question then being on re-committing the report, 
Mr. STANBERY. This amendment was adopted by 
a large majority of the Convention, and without dis¬ 
cussion. As a mere abstraction, it is right, and if it 
simply declared a principle or an abstract truth, there 
could be no serious objection. But, sir, I am very 
much mistaken if this provision is not something more 
than has been supposed. It is, or may be construed to 
be, an express limitation upon the legislative power. 
The abstraction is to become a living rule, in a most 
imposing form, in the very fonn which ought to be the 
most guarded and clearly defined. 

“ No law shall be passed conferring any privilege or 
immunity upon any person or persons, iujurious to the 
public, and which cannot reasonably be enjoyed by 
all.” Now who is to judge whether any law may be 
obnoxious to this objection ? The judicial authority— 
the courts—and they are to decide upon a vague gen- 
generality. The wliole field of judgment and opinion 
as to the good or bad tendency of the law, is submit¬ 
ted to the unlimited discretion of the judges. Observe, 
sir, that the language is not simply advisory or caution¬ 
ary. It is not that laws ought not to be [)assed of this 
description, but that such laws shall not be passed. 

In all other limitations upon the law making power, 
as near an approach to a certain rule is made as is pos¬ 
sible. Just as little is left to mere opinion or discretion 
as possible. We say, for instance, that no retroactive 
law shall be passed—that is, no law shall operate on the 
past. We say again, that no law shall be passed to 
impair the validity of contracts. That seems a certain 
rule, and yet in both these cases, great difficulty has 
been felt in settling the true construction of the appa- 
i rently definite limitations upon legislative power. 

Now, some say that this amendment is a vague and 
unmeaning generality. That is precisely the reason 
! for not adopling.it as a limitation upon legislative pow- 

■ er. It gives too great a license to the judiciary—too 
1 ample scope and verge. The judges can mould it and 

apply it as they see proper—ignorantly or corruptly, 
r They become in effect a council of censors. A law 
made by the numerous and immediate representatives 
i of the people, must pass in review before a bench of 
, four judges, elected for long terms, who are to exer- 
I cise an unlimited discretion as to its character and ten¬ 
dency. 

The amendment does not declare all laws conferring 

■ privileges and immunities unconstitutional. On the 
I contrary it proceeds upon the idea that such laws may 

be passed. If the law is not injurious to the people it 

> is to be valid, but if injurious, it is to be unconstitu- 
- tional. After the law is passed, after the representa- 

> lives of the people have decided that it is wholesome 
and beneficial, it then must be submitted to the courts, 

i who are to say whether it is good or bad, wholesome 
c or injurious. That is the very point which it is the pe. 














1184 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 

_ 


culiar function of tlie immediate representatives of the 
people to decide, and which they can decide more sat¬ 
isfactorily than the judiciary, 

Mr. REEMELIN was opposed to the amendment. 
Gentleman had conspired to knock the repeal question 
out of the bill of rights, and now they were ashamed 
of the club they had used for the purpose. Besides, the 
act would justify the sneers of the Ohio State Journal, 
whose editors asserted that they could not tell what the 
constitution was to be, because that which was put in 
on one day was stricken out on the next. 

He thought the position of the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin, [Mr. Stanbery,] would hold good against the old, 
as well as the new bill of rights. That article is in 
many respects a limitation of the legislative power. 
The clause securing the person—the clause restricting 
imprisonment for debt—the clause securing the free¬ 
dom ol the press, and many others are limitations of 
the legislative power. ^ He was willing to put this 
power in the hands of the courts, and believing the prin¬ 
ciple to be a salutary one, he hoped they would take it 
as a hint to look into it, that there may not be special 
privileges or immunities in existence which ought to be 
abolished. 

Mr. NASH said the proposition had been voted in 
on Friday, without an ex'jmination into its meaning, 
or any general understanding of its terms. There was 
a difference m opinion among gentlemen as to its mean¬ 
ing. The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] 
says that it means nothing. If it means nothing, it 
ought to be voted out. No man of sense will consent 
to leave a clause in the constitution that means noth- 

“o- 

But it may mean something—and it it means any¬ 
thing, it goes farther than the gentleman, or any one 
else, wishes to go. It will have no effect in the direc¬ 
tion gentlemen upon the other side seem to have in¬ 
tended—on corporations—for that matter is fully pro* 
ded for, in another article of the constitution, which, 
of course, will govern in all those matters. But it may 
refer to something else, and I ask the attention of gen¬ 
tlemen to another view of the subject. “ No special pri¬ 
vileges or immunities shall ever be granted, which are 
injurious to the people, and which cannot reasonably 
be enjoyed by all.” Now, what privilege or immuni¬ 
ty may be granted, which it is not in the power of 
others to possess ? What is a privilege ? It is some¬ 
thing which one, but not all, may hold. If it were 
holden by all, it could not be a privilege. What is an 
immunity 7 It is an exemption from something. What, 
then, is the effect? It cuts off forever, from the Legis¬ 
lature, the power to exempt any property from taxa¬ 
tion. It runs through the whole legislative power. I 
ask gentlemen to go through all the ramifications of the 
legislative power, and see where this will fall. A li¬ 
cense to keep a ferry, to keep a public house, to sell 
goods at auction, are all special privileges, which can¬ 
not be enjoyed by all. The effects may be innumera¬ 
ble, and as dangerous as they are numerous. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD would vote for retaining the clause, 
in the bill of rights, because he believed not only that 
it meant something, but that it had a proper meaning. 
As he understood it, there were certain special privile¬ 
ges and immunities which, although enjoyed by a por¬ 
tion of the people, were not injurious to the public in¬ 
terest. For instance, the exemption from arrest of 
members of the General Assembly, judges, jurors, and 
attorneys, during the time of their attendance upon 
their public duties. Such exemptions would notbeaf 
fected by this clause. But there are others which are 
injurious to the interest of the public, and as such 
would be comprehended—for instance, the exemption 
from taxation of the money of the citizens of the State 
invested in her stocks—the privileges which some in¬ 
corporated companies have to be taxed in a peculiar 
and unequal mode. These are special privileges—they 
are injurious to the people, and they cannot be enjoyed 
by all; audit is such that the clause will reach. To 


prevent the Legislature, therefore, from conferring such 
hereafter, he was in favor of retaining the provision as 
it is. 

Mr. STANBERY said that the gentleman from Rich¬ 
land, [Mr. Kirkwood,] had cited the privileges of at¬ 
torneys, jurors, &c., from arrest, as among those priv¬ 
ileges that were not noxious. He would inquire if 
there was any guaranty that the courts would take 
that view of the subject, or that they would not think 
otherwise 7 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said that it would undoubtedly be 
for the courts to say. For his own part, he had a 
great deal of confidence in the courts, and was willing 
to leave the matter v/ith them. He did not believe 
they would decide against sound policy, 

Mr. RANNEY was opposed to striking out. We 
commenced by asserting the principle that all special 
privileges and immunities shall be under the control of 
the people of the State, but gentlemen had dwindled 
us down to saying that the General Assembly shall 
not grant them. Now, when we have voted for that 
proposition, and hoped they would be satisfied, and 
thought though we had secured but little, that little 
was better than nothing, they want to strike out the 
whole. 

He hoped it would not be done. You cannot touch 
special privileges without bringing them all out in op¬ 
position. They even doubt whether the Legislature 
may not create special privileges that are injurious. 
He believed the people would eventually come to the 
point, that the Legislature, acting under the influence 
of the popular sentiment, would grant no special privi¬ 
leges whatever. 

Mr. LARWILL hoped the motion to instruct would 
not prevail. He believed the question, at the tinae, 
was well understood. It was presented, and the prin¬ 
ciples it contained fairly stated. He hoped no more 
time would be consumed in voting provisions into the 
constitution and then voting them out again. He was 
surprised to see gentlemen rise in their places and say 
that they had not understood the question presented 
to them. If such should become the practice, it would 
leave members not acquainted with the principles of 
the law in frequent and unpleasant dilemmas. We 
have got but a part of what we asked for, but have de¬ 
termined to be content with it. He hoped the amend¬ 
ment would not prevail. 

Mr. MANON said he voted against the amendment, 
under the operation^ of a rule which he had adopted, 
and which he had before declared in the Convention. 
That rule was to vote nothing into the coustitulion 
which he did not understand. He should n« w, for the 
same reason, vote for the recommitment. He did not 
understand the provision. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, would vote for the 
re-commitment, and hoped it would prevail; not so 
much however for the sake of the instructions of the 
gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery.] for he did 
not much fear the dang-ir apprehended by him. The 
provision he desired to strike out was a mere abstract 
principle, and is correct as it is stated. He so under- 
siood that gentleman to believe. 

But he should vote for the re-commitment for the 
purpose of making another amendment. He had once 
before made a motion for the purpose, but it had been 
voted down; wl.y he did not see. He thought the Con¬ 
vention had been traveling backward instead of for¬ 
ward in regard to the liberty of the press and the law 
of libel. The law now is, that the truth may be given 
in evidence on a charge for a libel, and the truth so giv¬ 
en in evidence is a defence. But what are we saying ? 
That the truth shall not protect the jiublisher. We 
will punish him for publishing the truth, unless he can 
show, not only that it is the truth, but that it was 
published lor justifiable ends. He had said that the 
law as it is, is tenfold more liberal than this constitu¬ 
tion. He wanted this amendment to be made, and 
therefore should vote for the commitment. 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1185 


Mr. HOLT said ho should vote for 'the re-commit¬ 
ment, not with the instructions proposed by the gentle¬ 
man from Franklin, but with such as had been indicated 
by the gentleman from Geauga, at least so far as to pro¬ 
vide that the publication of truth for justifiable ends, 
should protect the publisher, irrespective of his motives. 
He would vote for re-commitment for a further reason. 
He wished to propose a section to the bill of rights in 
the following form : 

It bein^ among the appropriate powers, and duties 
appertaining to the Legislative Department, to deter¬ 
mine whether any business bo injurious to the public 
welfare, the General Assembly have power to suppress 
the pursuit of any business when found to be so injuri¬ 
ous, whether pursued by individuals or by corporations 
in virtue of their corporate charter. But whenever the 
pursuit of any business shall be so suppressed, it ought 
to be done in such manner and accompanied with such 
provisions, not in the opinion of the General Assembly 
inconsistent with the public welfare, as shall do the 
least damage to the individuals or corporations pursuing 
such business. 

Mr. COLLINGS said that certainly next to the fra¬ 
ming of a good constitution, there could be no higher 
object to be sought than to construct one which would 
do away with all difficulties of construction. He 
should vote for the recommitment, because, in the 
clause contemplated by the motion of the gentleman 
from Frmiklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] there was nothing 
definite in the opinions of gentlemen in regard to its 
construction; and he was not satisfied in his own 
mind, that any of them were correct. It is true, as 
gentlemen have said, that it is within the province of 
the courts, to give construction to the constitution as 
well as to the laws; but where difficulties are appa¬ 
rent, they should be provided against here. This pro¬ 
vision is said to be restrictive upon the Legislature, as 
well as upon the coux'ts ; but the functions of the two 
departments are different. To the General Assembly 
is dfelegated the legislative, to the courts the judicial 

f lower. Whose province shall it be, to determine what 
aws are for the general good? It is not so clearly 
within the legislative province, that no court will ever 
undertake to decide upon such a question ? Will courts 
ever undertake to say that a grant by the Legislature 
is injurious to the people ? It is very improbable that 
any court can be induced to say that a law passed by 
the General Assembly is impolitic—is injurious to the 
people, and therefore is void ? In view of all these dif¬ 
ficulties, and differences of opinion, he should vote for 
the recommitment. 

Mr. MASON wished briefly to bring to the attention 
of the Convention, an amendment which he proposed 
to offer to the amendment of the gentleman from 
Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery.] He desired to amend the 
proposition as it stands, by inserting after the word 
granted,” the words which in the opinion of the 
General Assembly, are,” so that it would read, ‘‘ No 
special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, 
which, in the opinion of the General Assembly, are in¬ 
jurious to the people, and which cannot reasonably be 
enjoyed by all.” He would not say that this would 
satisfy all, but it would remove the ambiguity of the 
section as it now stands. It was the opinion of many, 
that it confers upon the courts the right to determine 
upon the constitutionality of a law, on the ground of 
its expediency. He had heretofore known courts re¬ 
fuse to decide such questions, on the ground of public 
policy. They were accustomed to say that they could 
only settle the question of constitutionatity, leaving 
that of policy and expediency to the Legi.slature; and 
there is not a single example in the world, where a 
constitution has transferred to the judiciary the right 
to decide the question of expediency alone. To do so, 
would be to sanction an appeal from the legislative to 
the judicial power. It would place those two func¬ 
tions in positions hostile to each other, and provide 
what would be to all intents and pur{t 08 e 8 , a judicial 
veto upon the acts of the General Assembly. 


Again, under this provision a law may be passed, sal¬ 
utary in its effects, and in no respect injurious to the 
public; but, in the progress of events, ciicumstances 
may arise which may give rise to a claim that it is op¬ 
erating unequally and injuriously to the public. In 
such a case will gentlemen expect a judiciary to set 
aside a law after it has been in operation ten or twen¬ 
ty years ? It is not clear to my own mind, but under 
this provision a law might not be set aside upon such 
ground, and for reasons arising subsequently to its en¬ 
actment. It seems to lire that there can be no objec¬ 
tion, at least to make this provision clear, that there 
may be no doubt as to what it does actually meau. 

Mr. L ARWILLmovedacallof the Convention, which 
was ordered, and the following gentlemen were found 
absent: 

Mesrs. Archbold, Case of Licking, Clark, Ewing, Groesbeck, 
Harlan, Morris, Norris, Patterson, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Warren, Struble, Swan, Way and Wil¬ 
liams. 

On motion of Mr. McCORMICK, all further proceed¬ 
ings under the call were dispensed with. 

The question then being on recommitting the report; 
Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 50, nays 40—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates,Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Ceilings, Cook, 
Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Johnson, Kennon, King, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morris, 
McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stilwell, Vance of Champaign, Warren, £ind Worthington— 50. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Farr, Forbes, Greene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, Jones, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, McCormick, 
Orton, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott 
of Auglaize, Seilers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidg. 
er,-Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Vance of Butler, Woodbury and President— 40. 

So the motion to recommit was adopted. 

The question then being on the motion of Mr. Stan- 
BERY, to instruct; 

Mr. STANBERY, on leave, withdrew his motion. 

Mr. MANON moved that the committee be instruc¬ 
ted to amend the report, in section two of the same, by 
inserting after the woid ” granted” the following words: 

” which, in the opinion of the General Assembly, are.” 

On which motion, Mr. LARWILL, demanded the 
yeas^and nays, which were ordered, and resulted— 
yeas 39, nays 52—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, 
Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene 
of Ross, Hamilton, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock, of Geauga, 
Horton, Larsh, Mason, McCloud, N^h, Otis, Peck, Sawyer, Smith 
of Highland Stanbery, Stanton, StilweU, Vance of Butler, Vance 
of Champaign and Warren—39. 

Nays— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Dorsey, Farr, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunter, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, 
Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbet¬ 
ter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Orton, Perkin?, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers 
Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Wilson, 
Woodbury, Worthington and President— 52. 

So the motion to instruct was rejected. 

Report Number One, of the Committee on the Elec¬ 
tive Franchis, was read the third time. 

The question then being on the Report: 

Mr. ANDREWS moved to lay the Report on the 
table; which was agreed to. 

Mr. LEECH submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the Standing Committee on the Preamble and 
Bill of Rights be instructed to amend their Report as follows : 
strike out all after the word ‘press,’ 

And insert, in lieu thereof, the following: 

In all prosecutions for any publication respecting the official 
conduct of men in a public capacity, or when the matter publish¬ 
ed is proper for public information, the truth thereof may al¬ 
ways be given in evidence, and in all indictments for libels the 

75 














1186 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


jury Bhall have a right to determine the law and the lac ts, under 
the directions of the court, as in other cases. 

]Vlr. MANON moved that the Convention resolve 
itself into a Committee of the Whole, which was disa¬ 


greed tn. 

The question then being on the adoption of ihe reso¬ 
lution ; 

Mr. THOMPSON of Shelby moved that the resolu¬ 
tion be laid on the table; which was disagreed to. 

The question tlien being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution ; ‘ , 

Mr. SAWYER moved the previous question. 

The question then being—Shall the main question be 
now pul? it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution : 

Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 43, nays 46—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas _Messrs. Barnett ot Preble, Bennett, Blair, Brown ot 

Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, 
Collings, Cutler, Dorsey, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gray, Gregg, 
Hamilton, Hard, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock 
ot Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Johnson, Larsh, Lawrence, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Mitchell, McCloud, Quigley, Reemelin, Saw¬ 
yer, Stanbery, Stilv/ell, Tayloi', Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Vance of Champaign, VVilson, Worthington and President—43. 

_Messrs. Andrews. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blick- 

ensderter, Cahill, Cook, Curry, Ewart, Graham, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Green of Ross, Hawkins, Holmes, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, Jones, Keunon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, 
Manou, Mason, Morehead, Nash, Norris, Orton, Perkins, Ranney, 
Riddle, Bcott of Harrison, tscott ot Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Steb- 
bine, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Warren and Woodbury 
—46. 

So the motion was rejected. 

Mr. STILWELL submitted the following: 


Resolved, That after this day, until otherwise ordered, when 
this Convention takes a recess it shall be until half-past two o’clock 
in the alternoon, and when it adjourns, it shall be until hall-past 
eight o’clock in the mornuig. 

Mr. LARSH moved to amend the resolution by stri¬ 
king out all after the word “ afternoon.” 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved that the Convention re¬ 


solve itself into a committee of the Whole; 

On which motion, Mr. STILWELL demanded the 
yeas and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 
24, nays 60, as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Chaney, Dorsey, Ewart, Greene of Defiance, 
Holmes, Hootman, Hunt, Lawuence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Manon Norris, Orton, Riddle, Sawyer, Sellers, Stickney, Stidger, 
Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Wilson and 
Woodb'U.ry“”24. 

j^^YS._Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett oi 

Preble Bennett, Blair, Bhckensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Farr, Flounce, For¬ 
bes Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Haw¬ 
kins Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holt Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, 
Kins Kirkwood, Larsh, Lidey, Mason, Mitchell, McCloud, Nash, 
Otis Quigley, Ranney, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Steb- 
bins Stilwell, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Vance 
of Champaign, Warren, Worthington and President—60. 

So the motion was rejected. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved the previous 

question. . . 

The question then being, Shall the mam question be 

now “ put ?’’it was agreed to. 

The question then being on striking out, all after the 
word, “ afternoon,” in the resolution ; 

Mr! MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 32, nays 57—as fol¬ 


lows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Blickensderfer, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, J ohnson, J ones, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, 
Nash Norris, Orton, Reemelin,Riddle, Sellers, Smith ot Highland, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stidger, Townshend, Vance of 
Champaign and Worthington—32. 

jj^YS_lSie8£rs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble Bennett Blair, Brow n of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Case ol Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, 
Parr, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Hamilton, Hard, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Holt, Horton,‘^lunter, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lidey, 


Loudon, Morehead, McCloud, Otis, Quigley, Ranney, Sawyer, 
Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Warren, Stanton, 
Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Swilt, Taylor, Thompson of 
Shelby, 'Phompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson, 
Woodbury and President—57. 

So the motion to strike cut wr.s rejected. 

The question then beiug on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution ; 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 58, nays 32—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Cham¬ 
bers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Farr, Florence, 
Forbes, Graham, Gray, Gi-egg, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hor¬ 
ton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, 
Lidey, Loudon, Mason, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Quiglej"^, Ranney, 
Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stanton, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson and Presi¬ 
dent—57. 

Nays —Messrs. Bennett, Blickensdei-fer, Brown of Carroll, Dor¬ 
sey, Ewart, Greene of Defiance, Holmes, Hootman, Johnson, 
Jones, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, 
Mitchell, Morehead, Norris, Orton, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stidger, Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, Woodbury 
and Worthington—32. 

So tlie resolution was adopted. 

Mr NASH submitted the following, which was 
agreed to. 

Resolved, That the President fill the vacancy in the committee 
on the Preamble and Bill of Itights, occasioned by the resignation 
of Mr. Vance, of Butler. 

The PRESIDENT appointed Mr. Vance, of Butler, 
to lill the vacancy occasioned by his resignation. 

Mr.^ SAWYER moved that the committee of the 
Whole be discharged from the further consideration of 
the report of the committee on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment ; 

On whicli motion, Mr. WORTHINGTON demanded 
the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and resulted— 
yeas 35, nays 53—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Dorsey, Farr, Forbes 
Greene of Defiance, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Jones* 
King, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Orton, Ranney, Reemelin’ 
Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot* 
Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Townshend, Vance 
of Butler, Wilson, Woodbury, and President—35. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Cook Curry 
Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton* 
Hard, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauo-a! 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Kirkwood 
Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mason, Morehead* 
McCloud, Nash, Norris, Otis, Quigley, Scott of Harrison Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell Tav 
lor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Cham, 
paign and Worthington—53. 

So the motion was rejected. 

Oil motion of Mr. CHAIVIBERS, the Convention took 
a recess. 

3 o’clock p. m. 

Messrs. Gueen, oi Ross, Smith, of Warren, Graham 
NoRRir, and Thompson, of Shelby, asked and obtained 
leave to record their votes on the motion to strike out 
the word white,” in the first section of the report of 
the committee on tlie Elective Franchise, and their 
names being called, they severally voted “ nay.” 

Upon the motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention 
resolved itself into a committee of the Whole, [Mr. 
Horton in the Chair,] and took up the report of the 
committee on the Legislative Department, (No. 2 ) 
submitted by the Chairman, [Mr. Sawyer,! on tho 
14th of January. ' 

On motion by Mr. SAWYER, the committee proceed¬ 
ed to consider the report by sections; and accord 

iugiy, 

The CHAIRMAN read the first section, which 

/111 ' 
as follows: 

Sec, 1. The legislative power of this State shall be vested in 
a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and House of i 
Repreaentativea. 











CONVENTION REPORTS 


1187 


No amendment being offered to this section, the 
Chairman proceeded to read the second section, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Sec, 2. Senators and Representatives shall be elected bienni¬ 
ally, by the electors in the respective counties or districts, on the 
2d Tuesday of October. Their term of offije shall be two years, 
to be computed from the first day of January succeeding their 
election. 

Mr. STILWELL moved to amend this section by 
striking oat the word “ day,” and inserting in lieu there¬ 
of the word “ Monday,” so that it would read“ the first 
Monday in January,” &c. 

Mr. REE ME LIN stated that it was for the purpose 
of fixing the term of members of the General Assembly 
at precisely two years, that the committee had propos¬ 
ed to compute from the first day of January. 

Mr. MITCHELL desired to call attention to the fact, 
that the arrangement for the commencement of the bi¬ 
ennial sessions, would bring the years for the election 
of United States Senators into those years when the 
Legislature v ould not be in session. 

Several Voices. That’s provided for. 

No further amendment being offered to this section, 
the Chairman proceeded to read as follows : 

Sec. 3, Senators and Representatives shall have resided with¬ 
in the limits of the respective county or district, from which 
they shall be chosen, one year next preceding their election, un¬ 
less they shall have been absent on the public business of the 
United States or of this State. 

Sec. 4. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, re¬ 
turns and qualifications of its members. A majority of all the 
members elected to each House, shall be a quorum to doburi- 
ness, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and 
compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and 
under such penalties as shall be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 5. Each House shall, except as otherwise provided in 
this constitution, choose its own officers. Each House may de¬ 
termine its own rule of proceedings, punish its members for dis¬ 
orderly conduct, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel 
a member, but not the second time for the same cause; and each 
House shall have all ether powers necessary to provide for its 
safety, and for the undisturbed transaction of its business. 

Sec. 6. Each House shall keep a correct journal of its pro¬ 
ceedings, and take efficient means to publish the same. The yeas 
and nays shall, at the desire of any two members be entered upon 
tffie journal, and on the passage of every bill in either House, the 
vote shall be taken by yeas and nays, and entered upon the jour¬ 
nal, and no law shall be passed in either House, without the con¬ 
currence of a majority of all the members elected thereto. 

Sec. 7. The printing of the laws, journals, bills, and all legis¬ 
lative documents and papers for each branch of the General As¬ 
sembly, together with the printing required for the executive 
department, and other officers of State, shall be let on contract to 
thel owest responsible bidder, by such executive officers, and in 
such mode and manner as shall be prescribed by law. 

Mr. LEECH moved to amend the report by striking 
out the seventh section. 

The question then being on striking out; 

Mr. LEEO H said. The matter embraced in this sec¬ 
tion had been referred to a select committee of three, 
and it was the intention of that committee to report in 
favor of the election of a State Printer by the people. 
If such should be the will of the Convention, gentle¬ 
men would see the propriety of striking out this sec¬ 
tion. It was, however, for the Convention to deter¬ 
mine whether the printing should be farmed out, or the 
office of Printer created, and made elective. Ho was 
decidedly in favor of the latter course, in order to do 
away with the wrangling upon this subject in the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly. 

Mr. CHAMBERS hoped the amendment would not 
prevail. He had no desire at all to [>ut ihe people to 
the trouble of electing a State Printer; fur, if the office 
of State Printer was thus created, his compensation 
would have to be provided by law. Ho would prefer 
the more economical course of letting out the printing 
to the lowest responsible bidder. It, was also an ob¬ 
ject with him, not only to economise in this matter, and 
to dispense with the vexatious electioneering campaign, 
but also to disconnect this business entirdly from tiie 
subject of politics. For these and other reasons, un¬ 
necessary now to be assigned, he preferred to retain 
the section in its present shape. 

The question being now taken upon the motion to 
strike out, it was lost—yeas 36, nays 40. 


No further amendment being offered to this section 
the chairman proceeded to read the succeeding 
sections, as follows: 

Sec. 8. Any member of either House shall have the right to 
protest against any act or resolution thereof, and such pioUst 
and the reasons therefor, shall, without alteration, commitment 
or delay, be entered upon the journal. 

Sec. 9, All vacancies which may happen in either House, shall 
be filled by election, as shall be directed by law. 

Sec. 10. Senators and Representatives shall, in all cases, ex¬ 
cept treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged from 
arrest during the session of the General Assembly, and in going 
and returning from the same, and for any speech or debate in 
either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. 

Sec. 11. The proceedings of both Houses shall be public, ex¬ 
cept in cases which, in the opinion of two-thirds of those present 
require secrecy. ’ 

Sec. 12. Neither House shall, without the consent of the oth¬ 
er, adjourn for more than two days, Sundays excluded, nor to 
any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be in 
session. 

Sec. 13. Bills may originate in either House, but may be al¬ 
tered, amended, or rejected in the other. 

Sec. 14. Every bill shall be fully and distinctly read, on three 
different days, unless, in case of urgency, three-fourths of the 
House in which the question shall be pending, shall deem it ex¬ 
pedient to dispense with this rule; and every bill shall contain 
but one act and embrace but one object, which shall be clearly 
expressed in its title, and no law shall be revived or amended by 
reference to its title only, but in reviving or amending an act, 
the new act shall contain the entire act revived, or the section 
or sections amended, and the section or sections of the act amen- 
ded or altered, shall be entirely repealed. 

Sec. 15. The style of the laws of this State shall be—“ Be it 
enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio.” 

Sec. 16. The General Assembly shall fix by law, the term of 
office, and the compensation of all officers, not otherwise fixed in 
this constitution, provided that no change therein shall affect the 
incumbent then in office, lor the term of office for which he shall 
have been elected or appointed. 

Mr. RANNBY said he supposed it was the intentiou 
of the latter section to provide against any change in 
the compensation of an officer during the term for 
which he might be elected. But supposing the Legis¬ 
lature might see fit to make a change in the amount of 
fees to be received by a sheriff, might there not be})re- 
sented the difficulty of an old sheriff' receiving differ¬ 
ent fees from those charged by a sherift' elected under 
the new statute? 

A Voice. I suppose so. 

Mr. RANNEY. Then that would be wrong. 

Mr. RE EMELIN suggested that all the sheriffs in 
the State would be elected at the same time, unless it 
might be in the case of the erection of a new county. 

Mr. RANNEY then moved to amend the section by 
striking out all after the word “constitution.” 

Mr. R. recollected, that when the former report from 
the committee on the Legislative Department was un¬ 
der consideration, this provision was stricken out by 
the committee of the Whole, for the reason that he had 
suggested, and which he now stated more at length, as 
likely to induce a state of things in which a diversity 
of fees might be charged by justices of the peace, con¬ 
stables, sheriff's, coroners, &c. He considered that any 
alteration made in the fees of the officers, ought to af¬ 
fect all alike. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, in order to perfect the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, proposed to strike out the 
word “ for,” and insert in lieu thereof the word “in.” 

Mr. K. supposed the object was to secure the incum¬ 
bent 80 that his term of.office could not be touched, 
whilst his compensation might be altered at the will of 
the Legislature. 

Mr. SAWYER could not understand the reasoning of 
his friend from Trumbull. He considered that when 
a man accepted an office,' receiving certain fees, that 
it would not be right to alter those fees during his 
term. If it was wrong that the salaries of the judges 
and higher officers of State should be altered, (and for 
this the gentleman had voted,) how then was it, that 
it would be right to alter the salaries of these minor 
offices ? He would like to know by what rule of mo¬ 
rality the gentleman could justify such dist^iclion’? 

Mr. REEMELIN appealed to the experience of gen¬ 
tlemen who had been members of the Legi.slature, 
whether, in every instance heretofore, where the sala- 

















1188 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


ries ot'county officers were affected by act of the Legis¬ 
lature, it had not been made prospective, so as not to 
affect those in office at the time the act was passed ? 
Such had been his legislative experience. He hoped 
the rtile would be fixed, so that when a man accepted 
office, his compensation could neither be increased nor 
diminished during his term. 

Mr. HOLT said there was more in this question 
than appeared on the first view. Any change in the 
fees of these officers, affected the suitors as well as the 
incumbents. These justices of the peace were elected 
in each township; and if they were elected at differ¬ 
ent times, the case might occur in which each might 
be entitled to receive different rates of fees. Again, in 
the event of the decease of a justice of the peace, his 
successor, who might carry out his unfinished business, 
might be entitled to receive fees computed on a differ¬ 
ent scale from those ol his predecessor; and the same 
remarks would apply to constables, sheriffs and all 
other ministerial officers connected with the adminis¬ 
tration of justice. 

Mr, BENNETT said it seemed to him, that the whole 
object might be accomplished by framing the provision 
so as to apply to salaried officers alone. He was una¬ 
ble to see any reason for its application to these lower 
offices. 

Mr. RANNEY desired only to prevent injustice and 
inequality in the matter of charging fees. He believ¬ 
ed that no great injustice had been done under the old 
constitution, which did not prohibit the Legislature 
from regulating these fees. 

Mr. RE EMELIN said the gentleman was certainly 
mistaken; for the reduction of fees and salaries by the 
Legislature, at one period to which he referred, had 
brought about more public injustice and fraud than any 
other act of the General Assembly to which he could 
refer. 

Mr. RANNEY admitted the truth of this remark, to 
some extent; but went on to give an example of the 
confusion and delay in the matter of auditing the fees 
of justices of the peace in certain criminal cases—the 
necessity of summoning witnesses, perhaps, for the 
purposes of ascertaining whether his fee should be 
charged under one law or the other. Such a provision 
might also interfere with the power of dispensing 
with fees. He would be perfectly satisfied, if the pro¬ 
vision were made applicable to salaried officers alone. 

Mr. CHAMBERS did not think the amendment of 
the gentleman from Richland, [Mr. Kirkwood,] would 
improve the language, and he should vote against it. 
But he also was in favor of modifying the provision, so 
that it would apply only to salaried officers. 

Mr. Kirkwood’s amendment was rejected. 

Mr. HAWKINS, by way of perfecting the words to 
be stricken out, moved to amend, by inserting after 
the word “ the,” where it first occurs in the proviso, 
the words ” salary of the.” 

This amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY then asked and obtained leave to 
witndraw his motion to strike out the proviso. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD proposed further to amend the 
section by striking out the word ” for,” where it first 
occurs in the proviso, and inserting in lieu thereof, the 
word “ or.” 

Mr. NASH suggested that, if this amendment were 
made—and then if the Legislature were to create an of¬ 
fice, and afterwards it should become necessary to 
abolish it, it could not be done during the term for 
which the incumbent should be elected. He did not 
suppose that anybody could desire to have the hands of 
the Legislature tied up in this way. The hands of the 
Legislature are already tied up, with respect to the 
power of altering the compensation of all the higher 
offices of the State. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. So they ought to be. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The Legislature might change 
the term of offices; but not the incumbent’s term. 

Mr STANTON demanded a division of the question. | 


And the first question being upon striking out, it 
was decided in the affirmative. 

Mr. STANTON then moved to insert the word ‘‘du¬ 
ring ;” which was agreed to. 

Mr. STANTON moved further to amend the section, 
by striking out from the proviso, the word “ affect,” and 
inserting in lieu thereof the word “ diminish.” 

Mr. HAMILTON demanded a division of the ques¬ 
tion. 

And then the committee refused to strike out. 

So the amendment was lost. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND proposed further to amend the 
section by striking out from the proviso the words, “ of 
office.” 

This amendment was adopted. 

Mr. EWART now renewed the motion first made by 
the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Rannet,] to strike 
out the proviso. 

Mr. NASH, by way of perfecting the words proposed 
to be stricken out, moved to strike out the last words 
of the proviso, to wit: “for which he shall have been 
elected or appointed.” 

He desired these w'ords to be stricken out, in order to 
avoid the difficulty which he had before suggested. 

This amendment was adopted, and the question re¬ 
curred upon striking out. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE, by way of perfecting the 
words proposed to be stricken out, moved to strike out 
the word “the,” before the woid “term,”and insert in 
lieu thereof the word “his.” 

This amendment was also adopted, and the question 
again recurred upon Mr. Ewart’s motion to strike out. 

Mr. MANON, by way of perfecting the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, moved to insert the word “con¬ 
tinuance,” so that it would read, “during the continu¬ 
ance of his term.” 

Without this modification, he thought the provision 
w’ould be left a little ambiguous. 

This amendment was also adopted, and the question 
again recurred on Mr. Ewart’s motion. 

Mr. ORTON, by way of perfecting the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, moved further to amend, by 
striking out all after the w'ord “incumbent,” to wit: the 
words “ then in office.” 

This amendment was also agreed to. 

The question was then taken upon Mr. Ewart's mo¬ 
tion to strike out the proviso; and it was agreed to—- 
affirmative 48, negative not counted. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND now moved further to amend the 
report by striking out the entire section, and inserting 
in lieu thereof the following: 

Sec. —., The General Assembly shall fix by law, the term of 
office, and the salary, or other compensation of all officers, not 
otherwise fixed in the constitution; provided that no change in 
terms of office or salaries shall apply to, or effect incumbents at 
the time of such change. 

This amendment was rejected. 

No further amendment being proposed to this sec¬ 
tion, the Chairman proceeded to read the 17th section 
as follows: ’ 

Sec. 17. No Senator or Representative, shall, during the term 
for which he shall have been elected, nor during the period of 
one year subsequent to this expiration of his terra of office, be 
elected or appointed to any civil office under this State, which 
shall have been created, or the emoluments of which shall have 
been increased during the term for which he was elected. 

Mr. MANON moved further to amend the report, by 
striking out the entire section. 

He did not know whether it were properly consid¬ 
ered an honor or a disgrace to serve in the capacity of 
Senator or Representative of the people, but he saw 
no necessity for such a restriction as this in the consti¬ 
tution. 

Mr. LARSH, by way of perfecting the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, moved to amend the sectW 
by striking out the following words: “nor during the 
ptriod of one year subsequent to the expiration of his 
terra of office, be elected.” 

Mr. MASON would not be in favor of striking out if 
there was any patronage left to the General Assembly; 










1189 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


and he thought it probable that this fact had been 
overlooked by the standing committee. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, said there would probably be 
less necessity for retaining such a provision hereafter, 
than there had been heretofore. If the section was to 
be retained, he would like to see a provision incorpor¬ 
ated into it, which would determine what an office 
should be, in the meaning of the constitution. He re¬ 
ferred to a difficulty growing out of this question, 
wherein a gentleman who was a member of the Sen¬ 
ate of Ohio, had considerable to do with fixing the 
compensation of public printer, and was afterwards 
himself elected to that office. Subsequently, when a 
proposition was made to repeal the law authorizing 
the election of a public printer, a question was raised 
whether the State printer was an officer. He was 
elected by the General Assembly, commissioned by 
the Governor, and his compensation was fixed by law; 
yet we were told, and successfully too, that he was not 
an officer. 

He hoped the motion of the gentleman from Preble 
would prevail; and then, if something definite upon 
this subject cannot be inserted in lieu of the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, he would be in favor of strik¬ 
ing out the whole section. 

Mr. REEMELIN supposed it was no more than pro¬ 
per to state, that the object of this section was to pre¬ 
serve the purity of the General Assembly. He thought, 
if gentlemen would examine the whole subject, they 
would see that the section might be safely retained. By 
the sixteenth section it was provided, that the General 
Assembly might fix the term and the compensation of 
all officers not otherwise fixed in the constitution; and 
in the seventeenth section, it was provided, that no 
senator or representative, during his term, and one 
year subsequent to the expiration thereof, should be 
elected or appointed to any civil office in the State, 
which might have been created, or the emoluments of 
which might have been increased during his term afore¬ 
said.^ And he gave instances of the temptations to cor¬ 
ruption in this way in connection with the office of ca¬ 
nal commissioner, &c. 

Mr. MASON said it appeared to him that a complete 
remedy for the evil suggested by the gentleman from 
Hamilton, [Mr. Reemehn,] would be found at last 
with the people. For if a senator or a representative 
were actuated from bad motives in creating an office, 
or in fixing the emoluments of an office, he would have 
to submit his claims to the tribunal of public opinion, 
and if he had been guilty of wrong, it would be fully 
pointed out, and he would have but little chance of 
succeeding. 

Mr. REEMELIN desired principally to guard against 
corruption in the case of officers who were appointed. 
So far as elective officers were concerned, he cared but 
very little about this. But he desired the General As¬ 
sembly to be kept clear of all those inducements to 
corruption, which had heretofore existed. 

A provision similar to this was to be found in nine¬ 
teen out of twenty-four State constitutions, which he 
had examined. 

Mr. LARSH intended to vote for the amendment of 
the gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Manon ;] but for 
fear that it would not prevail, he hadmade the pending 
motion. > 

The question was now taken upon Mr. Larsh’s 
amendment, and it was rejected—affirmative 29, nega¬ 
tive 37. 

And then the question recurred upon Mr. Manon’s 
motion to strike out. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD, by way of perfecting the section 
proposed to be stricken out, moved to amend by stri¬ 
king out the words “elected or.” 

This amendment was agreed to, and the question 
again recurred upon striking out the whole section. 

Mr. LIDEY, by way of perfecting the section, mov¬ 
ed to add at the end thereof, these words, “ provided 
that no member of this Convention shall be elected to 


any office in this State during the three years next suc¬ 
ceeding the adoption of this constitution. [Merriment.] 

Mr. CHANEY thought such a provision entirely un¬ 
necessary ; for he considered that no member of this 
body could succeed before the people in that time, if 
he should have the temerity to become a candidate. 

Mr. LARWILL desired to extend the time to ten 
years. [Continued merriment.] 

The CHAIRMAN decided Mr. Larwill’s proposi¬ 
tion to be not in order. 

The question was now taken upon Mr. Lidey’s 
amendment, and it was rejected. 

And then, the question again recurring upon Mr. Ma¬ 
nor’s motion to strike out the entire section, it was de¬ 
cided in the negative. 

No further amendment being offered to the 17th 
section, the CHAIRMAN proceeded to read and an¬ 
nounce the consideration of the 18th section—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Sec. 18. The General Assembly shall determine by law, be¬ 
fore what authority, and in what manner contested elections 
shall be conducted; provided, however, that no elections shall 
be contested before either House of the General Assembly, ex¬ 
cept in reference to members of their own body. 

Mr. RANNEY did not know that he understood this 
section, perfectly. He would like to inquire before 
what tribunal a contested election for Governor was to 
take place. 

Several Voices. That is provided for by law. 

Mr. RANNEY. For the purpose of eliciting infor¬ 
mation upon the subject, he would move to strike out 
the proviso. 

He knew not where a contested election of Gover¬ 
nor could be settled, so as to command the acquies¬ 
cence of the people, so well as before the General As¬ 
sembly. 

Mr. ORTON, by way of perfecting the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, moved to amend by striking 
out the word “their,” in the last line of the proviso, 
and inserting in lieu thereof the word “ its.” 

He desired this amendment, to prevent the anomaly 
of one House of the General Assembly sitting in judg¬ 
ment upon the qualifications of the members of the 
other House. 

This amendment was agreed to, and the question 
recurred upon Mr. Ranney’s motion. 

Mr. REEMELIN said this eighteenth section was 
not in the original report of the committee on the Leg¬ 
islative Department; but it was suggested to that 
committee by the adoption in committee of the Whole, 
of an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Holmes, [Mr. Leadbetter.] The committee had re¬ 
jected the former part of the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Holmes, referring the contested election of 
members to county boards of commissioners, for the 
reason that they believed that the Convention were 
averse to making so direct an innovation upon an an 
cient usage. He could see no greater reason for the 
trial of a contested election for Governor before the 
Legislature than before any other legally constituted tri¬ 
bunal; and the General Assembly certainly was not 
the least expensive tribunal. He adverted to the fact 
that the contested election for Governor before the 
Legislatiu’e, in the year 1818, was continued for a month 
and a half. 

Mr. RANNEY did not yet understand how it was 
contemplated to try contested elections for Governor. 
If the Supreme Court were‘selected as the tribunal, it 
might be that some of the judges of that body had run 
upon the same ticket. At all events, the discharge of 
this duty would involve the highest political excite¬ 
ment ; and it would be to turn the court into a politi¬ 
cal tribunal; and after all, it would not command the 
confidence of the people. He did not believe that any 
more satisfactory tribunal could be devised for deci- 
cing this contest than'the General Assembly itself. He 
was willing that the General Assemldy should decide 
what should be the tribunal in this case, but he was 











1190 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


uot willing that that body should be excluded from be¬ 
coming this tribunal. 

Mr. LOUDON was in favor of striking out the pro¬ 
viso. He was desirous of preventing the Legislature 
from sitting as a tribunal for the trial of contested seats 
of members of their own body. But he was willing to 
leave it to the wisdom of the Legislature to provide a 
board to sit and decide such contests in the several 
counties and districts where the fads were known. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, said in the fourth section of 
this report it was provided thateaph House of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly should be the judges of the elections, 
returns, and qualifications of its own members, and any 
general provision here in the 18th section, would, of 
course, be controlled by the 4th section. If the provi¬ 
so were stricken out still the General Assembly would 
be the judge of the qualifications of its own members, 
under the fourth section. 

It was probable that the Convention would provide 
for the election of the supreme judges by the people at 
large, and supposing one of these elections to be con¬ 
tested, he would like to know what tribunal would be 
established before whom to try the case. Certainly 
not the remaining judges of the Supreme Court. They 
would not be appointed a special board of triers in 
such a case. To his mind the most proper and appro¬ 
priate tribunal would be the General Assembly itself; 
either the Senate or both branches, he thought, would 
be able to award the most satisfactory judgment in 
such a case. 

He did not like this disposition, so frequently mani¬ 
fested here, to take away all power, and authority, and 
trust, and confidence from the General Assembly. This 
body had been slrJpt of all its former glory. But now 
here was a matter which might become of the most vi¬ 
tal importance to the people; and he contended that 
it was but reasonable and right that they should have 
the power, through their representatives, to have some¬ 
thing to say in relation to it. He would say, then, let 
us trust the General Assembly so far as to allow them 
to decide upon the character of all these tribunals for 
the trial of all manner of contested election cases. They 
would undoubtedly exercise a wise discretion. 

Mr. REEMELIN acknowledged that there was 
something in the suggestion with reference to the con¬ 
tested election cases of judges of the Supreme Court. 
He had himself been a little puzzled with the question 
where there would be found a suitable board of triers 
in^ these cases; but he rather thought the difficulty 
might be obviated by calling in judges out of the dis¬ 
trict. But it this were left to the General Assembly 
they would be sure to reserve this power to themsedves; 
and that was indubitably the most expensive mode of 
trying such cases, which could possibly be devised. 
The contests before that body two years ago, cost the 
State not less than ten thf)usaud dollars. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, reiterated his confidence that 
the General Assembly wonld exercise a sound and wise 
discretion in the matter, and deprecated that disposition 
on the part of the Convention wdiich would trust the 
Legislature with a power that could crush atone blow, 
millions and millions of property vested in corporations, 
whilst they would seem to be unwilling to trust that 
body with the discretion of establishing boards of tri¬ 
ors in contested election cases. 

The question being now taken upon Mr. Ranney’s 
motion to strike out the proviso, it was decided in the 
negative. 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens, moved to amend the section 
by inserting after the word “manner,” the words, “the 
trial of.” 

This amendment was agreed to. 

No further amendment being proposed to the 18th 
section. 

The CHAIRMAN proceeded to read the 19lh section, 
as follows: 

_ Sec. 19. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, except 
in pursuance of a distinct and specified appropriation, made by 


law, and no appropriation shall be made for a longer period than 
two years. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, did not exactly understand 
the latter clause of this section—that no appropriation 
should be made for a longer period than two years. 
For the purpose of eliciting information upon this sub- 
iect, ho would move to strike out all after the word 
“law.” 

Mr. SAWYER, (in his seat.) The language explains 
itself. 

Mr. GREEN. Still, he was unable to understand it. 
Would the honorable Chairman of the committee please 
to enlighten him ? 

Mr. SAWYER, (in his seat.) It is very plain—too 
plain for explanation. 

Mr. REEMELIN. This section wms taken from the 
report of the committee on Finance and Taxation. But 
to be candid, as gentlemen ought ever to be, the object 
was to get clear of the jmwer by which the Legislature, 
in 1825, authorized the Auditor of State to levy a tax for 
all time to come, in order to meet the accruing interest 
on the State debt—to take away from the General As¬ 
sembly all control over the people’s money, beyond 
their own term of service. 

Mr. GREEN. Then how wmuld it be if the Gener¬ 
al Assembly should desire to make an appropriation to¬ 
ward the payment of the public debt, to extend more 
than two years into the future? 

Mr. REEMELIN. According to the report they 
could uot do so. It would be the duty of the Auditor 
of State and the Commissioner of the Sinking Fund, 
to report the amount which would benecessaiy for the 
succeeding two years, and then the General Assembly 
would make the appropriation. To be sure, if they 
passed an appropriation at the commencement of one 
session, and the next appropriation at the close of the 
succeeding regular bieunial session, the appropriation 
might run out. 

Mr. NASH, by way of perfecting the words proposed 
to be stricken out, moved to amend by striking out the 
w'ord “ two,” and inserting the word “ three,” so as to 
read “ three years.” 

The remarks of the gentleman from Hamilton had 
convinced him of the necessity of this amendment. 

Mr. REEMELIN, (in his seat.) Agreed to that. 

Mr. Nash's amendment was rejected — yeas 23, 
nays 36. 

And the question recurring upon the motion of Mr. 
Green, of Ross, to strike out all after the word “ law,” 
it was also rejected. 

No furtheramendment being oft’ered to the nineteenth 
section, the Chairman proceeded to read and announce 
the consideration of the twentieth section, which is as 
follows: 

Sec. 20. An accurate and detailed statement of the receipts 
and expenditures of the public money, and of the names of the 
persons who shall have received the same, together with the 
amount and the object for which they have received it, respec¬ 
tively, shall, from time to time be published, as shall be directed 
by law. 

Mr. STILWELL proposed to amend this section by 
striking out all alter the word “ section,” and inserting 
the following: “An accurate statement of the receipts 
and expenditures of the public money, shall be attach¬ 
ed to and published with the laws annually.” 

Mr. S. saill he did not know whetiier the expense 
and trouble attendant upon a compliance with the pro¬ 
visions contained in this section would bo counterbal¬ 
anced by the advantages. And he doubted very much 
its propriety. Perhaps the chairman of the committee 
on the Legislative Department could remove his doubts. 
He would point out some of them. 

The section provided that “ an accurate and detailed 
statement of the receipts and expenditures of the pub¬ 
lic money, and of the names of the persons who shall 
have received the same, together with the amount and 
the object for which they have received it, respective¬ 
ly, shall from time to time be published.” 

He did not exactly understand what w'as intended 















1191 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


here by “ a detailed statement,’’ nor was it at ail cer¬ 
tain what was meant by the “ public money,” and it 
was also doubtlul whether the names of those who 
paid out the public money should be not published, as 
well as those who received it. Therefore, if the sec¬ 
tion should not be stricken out, it would be well to 
limit and define the intention a little more clearly. 

He would like to know, especially, what was meant 
by ‘‘ public money ” here. Public money included not 
only the money of the State, but of counties and town¬ 
ships; and such would be the construction of the sec¬ 
tion, unless the meaning was limited. 

In the first place, he objected to the publication of 
this detailed statement of the receipts and expendi¬ 
tures of the public money—the names, amount, object, 
&c., on account of the great expense which it would 
involve. Had the commi’tee calculated the size of the 
book, that would be required for their detailed state¬ 
ments? The public debt at this time, was about fif¬ 
teen millions of dollars, upon which the interest was to 
be paid semi-annually. He did not know the number 
of State bondholders, but he supposed it \vould be ad¬ 
mitted that these bonds of the State were in the hands 
of as many as one thousand persons. This sum would 
have to be doubled to give the names of those receiv¬ 
ers of the public money on account of the public debt 
alone; and adding to this the names of all those who 
receive the public money annually, on account ot re¬ 
pairs upon the public works, it would extend these 
names alone to a volume of several hundred pages. 

But, if the object of this publication was to be really 
valuable to the State, the expense ought not to be ta¬ 
ken so much into the account. But it seemed to him 
that such a voluminous catalogue of names and objects 
would not receive that examination fx’om the public 
which the committee seemed to esteem of so much im¬ 
portance. 

It was, then, on account of the expense, and the 
small comparative benefit resulting from this publica¬ 
tion, that he objected to the provision. The substitute 
which he proposed was copied from the present con¬ 
stitution. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, suggested the incongrui¬ 
ty in the amendment, proposing to publish the state¬ 
ment annually, when the Legislature only met bienni¬ 
ally. 

Mr. STILWELL. Biennially, it should be. 

Mr. REEMELIN said the gentleman was mistaken in 
the idea that these names were to be published in a 
book annually or biennially. These statements were 
to be published from time to time, as dii'ected by 
law. -For, example the names of all persons receiv¬ 
ing the public money for work done upon the Miami Ex¬ 
tension canal, might be directed by law to be posted up 
once m thi’ee months, or once in six months, along the 
line of that work. The gentleman could see how the 
expense of these statements could be avoided in this 
way.' Either this plan might be adopted, or these 
statements might be published in the county newspa¬ 
per. The section left the whole thing in the hands of 
the General Assembly. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross, said this was not avoiding the 
difficulty. I was only going from one big book to a 
great many little ones. He supposed that every collec- 
tor of tolls upon the National Road would be required 
to post up a statement quarterly, or semi-annually, of 
his receipts and disbursements. The superintendents 
of roads must also make their I’eports. The canal col¬ 
lectors and superintendents, and every officer charged 
with receiving and disbursing public money, must pub¬ 
lish a book. The gentleman’s construction did not ob¬ 
viate the difficulty. It would certainly involve a heavy 
expenditure of money, for surely it would not be re¬ 
quired of all these disbursing agents to perform all this 
additional labor of publishing every copper which they 
may receive and pay out, without additional compen¬ 
sation. Then, why not leave the matter, as in the old 
constitution, according to the amendment proposed by 
the gentleman from Muskingum- [Mr. Stilwell]? 


There had been a great deal of rascality in connec¬ 
tion with the disbursement of the public revenue—at 
least, gentleman well qualified to seek out rascality, 
had told him so. But this rascality had been all in one 
way or another, connected with the construction oft he 
public works. But this body had put an efi’ectual ex¬ 
tinguisher upon that business, and they had guarded 
most carefully all the avenues by which the public 
treasury could be approached by the Legislature—there¬ 
fore, it was not a legitimate argument to refer to what 
had heretofore transpired in connection with the con¬ 
struction of the public works, and apply it to our future 
operations. 

But for what purpose were these books of “ detailed 
statements,” to be stuck up at “ the receipt of custom ?” 
It could subserve no great purpose, whatever. It could 
only be for the gratification of some curious neighbor, 
who might take delight in looking at it, and figuring 
and ciphering about it, if, peradventure, he might find 
out that the State had been defrauded out of a few cents. 
But not one man in ten thousand would ever look at 
these statements. What great public interest could 
there be, in a statement, as to how much A. B. receiv¬ 
ed for three cart-loads of stone, placed upon the Na¬ 
tional Road ? or as to how much C. D. received for one 
day’s work, shoveling dirt upon the canal? If these 
“ details ” were of sufficient public interest to induce 
a man to entertain his family by reading them over, 
of some long winter evening, it might be well enough, 
perhaps, to publish them in a book. But really, it 
seemed to him a most unnecessary and absurd propo¬ 
sition. 

Upon the motion of Mr. LARWILL the committee 
rose, and the Chairman reported no resolution. 

And then on motion, by Mr. CHAMBERS, the Con¬ 
vention adjourned till to-morrow morning, 8.^ o’clock. 


TUESDAY, February 11, 1851. 

8^ o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. MAN ON moved a call of the Convention. 

On which motion Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered and resulted—yeas 58, 
nays 12—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bennett, Blair, 
Brown of Atliens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, 
Collings, Cook, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Kennon, King, 
Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Mitchell,Morohead, McClotid, Orton, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Scott of Auglaize, Smith of VVarren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, 
Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson 
of Slielby, Townshend, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury, and Presi¬ 
dent—59. 

Nays —Messrs. Blickenederfer, Cutler, Florence, Hunter, Lead- 
bettci, Mason, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, and Worthington—12. 

So the motion prevailed, and a fcall of the Conven¬ 
tion was ordered at twelve minutes before 9 o’clock, 
and the following gentlemen were found absent: 

Messrs. Archbold, Bates, Case of Licking, Clark, Curry, Dor¬ 
sey, Ewart, Ewing, Graham, Green of Rcss, Groesbeck, Harlan, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, McCormick, Humpreville, Larsh, Morris, 
Nash, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Roll, Stanbery, Swan, Vance 
of Champaign, Way and Williams. 

Mr. SWIFT moved that all further proceedings un¬ 
der the call be now dispensed with. 

On which motion, 

Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 60, nays 27'—as fol¬ 
lows ; ‘ 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown ot Athens, Cahill, 
Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Cook, Cutler, Farr, Flor¬ 
ence, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hunt, Hunter, Kennon, 
Kirkwood, Larsh, Leadbetter Loudon, Morehead, McCloud, Nor¬ 
ris, Otis, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Smith ot Highland, Smith ot Warren, Smith 


/ 












1192 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Swift, 
Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Vance of Champaign, 
Warren, Way, WiRiams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and 
President—60. 

Nays—M essrs. Bennett, Brown of Carroll, Collings, Ewart, 
Forbes, Gillett, Hard, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Johnson, Jones, 
King, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Wanon, Mason, Mitchell, 
Orton, Quigley, Sellers, Stebbins, Stidger, Thompson of Shelby 
and Thompson of Stark— 27. 

So the motion was agreed to. 

Mr. NORRIS, from the standing committee on Cor¬ 
porations other than Corporations for Banking, submit¬ 
ted the following: 

REPORT NUMBER TWO, 

OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON COSP ORATIONS OTHER THAN 
CORPORATIONS FOR BANKING. 

Sec. 1. The General Assembly shall provide by law for such 
county and township officers, as may be necessary for the efficient 
transaction of business thereof. 

Sec. 2. The terms of office of all county officers, now or 
harea^r provided for by law, and not otherwise fixed in the con¬ 
stitution, shall be for two years, to commence and to be compu¬ 
ted from the first Monday of May succeeding their election, and 
until their successors are elected and qualified; and all such offi¬ 
cers shall be elected by the quEilified electors of the respective 
counties on the first Monday of April, biennially. 

Sec. 3. No person shall be eligible as Sheriff or County Treas¬ 
urer for a longer period than four years, in any term of six years. 

Sec. 4. The General Assembly may confer upon the Boards 
of County Commissioners, or such similar Boards as now are, 
or may be hereafter established by law, such local power of leg¬ 
islation and administration as may from time to time be provided 
by law. 

Sec. 5. The terms of office of all township officers, not other¬ 
wise fixed in this constitution, shall be for one year, and all such 
officers shall be elected on the first Monday of April, annually, by 
the qualified electors thereof, respectively, and their term of of¬ 
fice shall commence and be computed from the Monday suc¬ 
ceeding their election. 

Sec. 6. No money shall be drawn from any county or town¬ 
ship treasury, except in pursuance of an appropriation and order 
drawn for purposes and objects authorized by pre-existing law. 

S. F. NORRIS, 

T. W. EWART, 

B. STANTON, 

CHAS. REEMELIN, 
JOHN SELLERS. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, the Report was laid 
on the table, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. MANON submitted the following : 

Resolved, That, hereafter, the Secretary furnish to the 
editors of the Enquirer and Gazette, of this city, a list 
of the absentees, as noted upon the journal at every 
call of the Convention, with a request that they pub¬ 
lish the same in their respective papers. 

Mr. NASH moved that the Convention resolve itself 
into a committee of the Whole, on the report of the 
standing committee on the Legislative Department; 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. HORTON in the Chair. 

The question being on the amendment of Mr. Stil¬ 
well, otfered last evening ; 

Mr. STILWELL asked and obtained leave to with¬ 
draw his amendment, and to substitute in its place the 
following: 

Sec. 20. An accurate statement of the receipts and expendi¬ 
tures of the public money, by the State, shall be published annu¬ 
ally, in such manner as may be prescribed by law. 

A division of the question having been called for. 
the question was first on striking out section 20. 

Mr. SAWYER said this subject had been so fully dis¬ 
cussed before, that he did not propose to enter upon its 
examination again. The committee had found it dffi- 
cult to please certain gentlemen. When this report 
was up before, a cry was raised against any forced 
publication of the receipts and expenditures of the pub¬ 
lic money. But they could not abandon the principle, 
because they believed it a just and a proper one. A 
great deal of talk had been had as to the expense of 
such a publication, but it mattered not to him how 
much it cost, it should be done if his vote could efiect 
it. He would give gentlemen his idea. It cannot cost 
a great deal, in comparison with the importance of the 
object. Suppose it would cost a thousand dollars.,He 
believed that amount might be saved by the practice, 
on one section of the canal. How is the busine.ssdone 


now? When the superintendent makes up his ac¬ 
counts, he makes a statement of one, two or three hun¬ 
dred dollars expended for repairs, and no body can 
tell from his statement, where the money has gone, or 
for what it has been paid. He wanted to see a list of 
the names, with the sums paid to each, and then, if in¬ 
vestigation becomes necessary, there is a place where 
to begin. As it now is, it is said that the officer goes 
to a man who has performed work, and takes his re¬ 
ceipt. This he uses to settle with the Board, upon 
which settlement he draws the money. He then goes 
back and pays the money to the person to whom it is 
due. And there are said to have been instances where, 
under the pretence that the receipt hasbeen lost, a sec¬ 
ond one has been taken, which has also been used as a 
voucher to draw money from the treasury. He want¬ 
ed to see things done in a different manner, and to have 
the names and sums published and posted up, so that 
when it is said that A, B and 0 has been paid so much, 
the facts of the case can be traced out. 

Go into the counties of the State—are not all the re¬ 
ceipts and expenditures published ? Even the cost of 
the paper, the pens and the sealing wax is set forth to 
the world, to the end that nothing shall be concealed 
or covered up; and there can be no valid reason why 
the State itself should not follow the same rational 
practice. 

Mr. NASH said there was no doubt of the necessity 
of the course contemplated by the section, the only 
difficulty being the expenses of the publication, if made 
as a public document of the State. If the Legislature 
should give the construction intimated by the gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] yesterday, there 
would be no difficulty. He thought, perhaps, that the 
Legislature should appoint an officer to oversee these 
accounts, as at present they were only made upon the 
faith of the superintendents themselves. The true 
course would be, upon the public works to make pub¬ 
lication in the vicinity where the payments are made, 
and if this could be done, the whole object sought 
v/ould be attained. 

Mr. SAWYER said that was all he wanted. 

Mr. NASH said it was all he wanted, also. And 
such a course might be a compliance with the section 
as it is; but if this was the sole object, it would be bet* 
ter to say so, in plain terms ; for if it were made as a 
public document, and published as such, the expense 
would be enormous. 

Mr. LARSH said that even if the publication of re¬ 
ceipts and expenditures should be made as a public do¬ 
cument, the cost would not be so great as gentlemen 
imagined. He had made a little calculation upon the 
subject, and found that one hundred pages of ordinai*y 
size would contain ten thousand names, and there 
would not probably be more than that number of per¬ 
sons who would have their hands to their elbows in the 
public crib. He supposed that a mere statement of the 
names of the payees, and the sums paid, would be suf¬ 
ficient; and il the Board of Public Works .see fit to go 
on and make a big book of it, we are not to blame. He 
would move to amend the section proposed to be strick¬ 
en out,by inserting after the word '‘money,” the words, 
“of the State.” 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Larsh; the same was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out section 20 ; 
he same was disagreed to. 

Sec. 21. The House of Representatives shall have the sole 
power of impeachment, but a majority of all the Representatives 
elect must concur therein. All impeachments shall be tried by the 
Senate, and when sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be 
upon oath or affirmation, to do justice according to law and evi¬ 
dence. No person shall be convicted without a concurrence of 
two-thirds of the Senators. Justices of the peace, and county 
and township officers, may be removed in such manner and for 
such cause as shall be prescribed by law. 

Passed without amendment. 

Sec. 22. The Governor and all State officers, including the 
judges of the difierent courts, shall be liable to impeachment for 
any misdemeanor in office, but judgment shall not extend farther 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 1193 


than removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office o 
trust, honor or profit, under the authority of this State; the par’ 
ty, whether convicted or not, shall, neverthelesss, bo liable to in¬ 
dictment, trial and judgment, according to law. 

Passed without amendment. 

Sec. 23. All regular sessions of the General Assembly shall 
commence on the first Monday in January, biennially, and the 
first session under this constitution shall commence on the first 
Monday of January, 1852. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to amend the foregoing 
section, by striking out all after the word “ biennial¬ 
ly,” and inserting in lieu thereof the following: 

After the first Monday of January, 1853, until which time the 
General Assemffily shall meet on the first Monday of January, 
annually. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said that many changes in the 
laws of the State would doubtless be required, in order 
to provide for the alterations made in the government 
by this constitution, and he thought that as a matter of 
prudence and precaution, the Convention should pro¬ 
vide for annual sessions for a year or two, for that pur¬ 
pose. 

Mr. BENNETT would call the attention of gentle¬ 
men to this effect of the amendment; that as members 
of the General Assembly are only elected biennially 
the members under this amendment would sit during 
two sessions. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE was not convinced of the 
necessity or propriety of the proposed amendment. 
The constitution will place in the hands of the Gover¬ 
nor the power to call extra sessions whenever they are 
necessary, and it will be perfectly easy for him or the 
Legislature to understand if they are needed. He 
saw, therefore, no propriety in prioviding for annual 
sessions for any number of years. 

A division of the question having been demanded, 
the question was first on striking out, which was disa¬ 
greed to—yeas 29, nays not counted. 

Mr. NASH moved to stiake out the whole of the sec¬ 
tion, and insert in lieu thereof the following: 

Sec. 23. The first session of the General Assembly, under 
this constitution, shall be held on the first Monday of January, 
1852, and biennially on the first Monday of January thereafter, 
and at no other time, unless an extra session shall be directed by 
law, or otherwise provided for in this constitution. 

Mr. NASH said there was a provision very similar 
to the amendment he had offered, in the present con¬ 
stitution. It is: “ The General A.ssembly shall meet 
on the first Monday of December, in each year, and 
at no other period, unless directed by law, or provided 
for by this constitution.” He said the proposition of 
the gentleman from Richland [Mr. Kirkwood] provi¬ 
ding for extra sessions lor a limited time, had been vo¬ 
ted down. That gentleman had claimed that there 
would be a probable necessity for annual sessions for 
two years, in order to adapt the laws to the require¬ 
ments of the new constitution. If experience shall 
show that, for any purpose, annual sessions shall be re¬ 
quired, this amendment makes provision that they may 
be holden. The question is, are we willing to trust 
the General Assembly in this matter ? He, for one, 
was willing that it should have the same power as at 
present, so that if it shall be deemed necessary to fix 
the time, and provide by law for an extra session, it 
can be done. There never was any inconvenience 
arising from this power, and there never will be. 

Mr. HAWKINS was not disposed to retract what had 
been already done in this matter. If to the Legislature 
it is left to say, when there shall be an extra session, 
that bod}' will have the entire control of the subject. If 
extra sessions shall be necessary, the Governor no 
doubt can call them, and he thought the duty might be 
safely entrusted to his discretion. 

Mr. REEMELIN would say to the biennial men that 
in this matter, be should vote according to their wishes. 
He had no doubt the amendment of the gentleman from 
Gallia, [Mr. Nash,] would obviate one of the difficul¬ 
ties urged against biennial sessions. He thought such a 
discretion mightsafely be left with the Gq|reral Assem¬ 
bly; and at times might be necessary and beneficial. 


There may be such a thing as a Governor of different 
politics from a majority in the Legislature, who might 
feel an interest in preventing the election of an United 
States Senator for a year, and with that view might re¬ 
fuse to call a session, when it was necessary lor that 
purpose. Again, in case of a suspension of specie pay¬ 
ments by the banks, and the Governor, being in the in¬ 
terest of the banks, might take upon himself to refuse 
to call together the General Assembly, to provide for 
the emergency. He should, however, consult the bi¬ 
ennial men, and vote as they desired. 

Mr. LOUDON thought if there was any question fully- 
fixed and settled by the expressed opinions of the peo¬ 
ple, it was the question of biennial sessions of the Le¬ 
gislature. While the Convention was in session at Co¬ 
lumbus, there seemed but one side to it, and no mem¬ 
ber had dared to get up and oppose it. A very thorough 
discussion had taken place at the time, and he thought 
it useless to go over with it again. He would, how- 
evei*, call on the friends of the principle to be on their 
guard against the insidious attempts, indirectly, to de¬ 
feat it, now being made on all sides. 

Mr. NASH said he had been in favor of biennial ses¬ 
sions all through, and had so voted. He had no desire 
to do away with them now; but he did wish to pro¬ 
vide that if the Legislature should deem an extra ses¬ 
sion necessary, they could secure one to be called. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Cannot the amendment be so 
amended as to provide that extra sessions shall only be 
called upon extraordinary occasions ? 

Mr. NASH. That is precisely what is meant by the- 
terms of the amendment. The expression, extra ses¬ 
sion, means nothing more nor less than a session con¬ 
vened in some uncommon emergency. 

Mr. COLLINGS would vote to strike out, and then 
perhaps would move an amendment to the amendment. 
of the gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash,] providing 
that the first session should commence on the first day 
of January, 1852; the second on the first day of January, 
1853, and that the sessions thereafter should be bien- 
ial. 

The question then being on striking out section 23; 
the same was disagreed to. 

Sec. 24. No person holding any office under the authority ol 
the United States, or any lucrative office under the authority ol 
this State, shall be eligible as a candidate, or have a seat in the 
General Assembly, provided that township officers, justices of 
the peace, notaries public, or officers of the militia, shall not be 
deemed lucrative oilices. 

Passed without amendment. 

Sec. 25. No person shall be elected or appointed to any office- 
in this State, unless he possesses the qualification ol an elector. 

Passed without amendment. 

Sec. 26. No person who shall hereafter be convicted of a de 
falcation or embezzlement ol the public funds, shall be capable 
ol holding any office of trust, honor or profit; nor shall any per¬ 
son holding any public money, for disbursement or otherwise, 
have a seat in the General Assembly, until such person shall 
have accounted lor, and paid into the Treasury, all monies for 
which he may be accountable or liable. 

Mr. SAWYER moved to amend the section, in the 
first line, by striking out the words ” defalcation, or,” 
and inserting the word ‘‘an.” 

Mr. SAWYER thought the section complete, with¬ 
out the words. A man might be a mere defaulter, 
without any criminal act or intent. The public money 
may have been stolen from him. The crime lijy in the 
intention, and he thought the word embeplement 
would express the intention ol the Convention. H© 
had no desire to punish by disfranchisement, a man 
who had been guilty of no intentional olFence. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to amend the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, by inserting the word ” in¬ 
tentional,” before the word defaulter. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Reeivielin 5 

Mr. BENNETT thought if the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] had reflected a moment before 
he offered his amendment, he would have found it un¬ 
necessary. He believed the word “ convicted,” gov- 












1194 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


erned the sense of the provision. No man could be 
convicted of any but an intential offence. 

Mr. REEMELTN thought it rather strange to see the 
gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] retreating 
from the position he had taken in his own work. He 
thought himself, that it would be better that even an 
involuntary defaulter should be occasionally disfran¬ 
chised than that a door be left open for abuse in the 
opposite direction. The actual amount of guilt in such 
cases could not always be ascertained, and he thought 
perhaps, as was suggested, the word convicted, would 
govern the construction of the provision. The section 
he believed, was taken from the constitution of Cali¬ 
fornia, a document held in high respect by the gentle¬ 
man from Auglaize; and he was somewhat surprised 
to see him varying from it. 

Mr. SAWYER said it was true that he had been in¬ 
strumental in inserting the section as it is, in the Re¬ 
port ; and that it was taken from the constitution of 
California, for which in general he had some respect. 
But he was not one of those who would retain an 
opinion, after he was satisfied it was wrong. He thought 
the provision went a little to far. and thinking so, had 
not waited to have some one else move the amend¬ 
ment. 

Mr. KENNON was in favor of the amendment, but 
would say a few words in explanation of i]ie terms 
used in the section. A defalcation is where the party 
merely fails to pay ; an embezzlement is to all intents 
and purposes a larceny, except that the party had the 
money entrusted to his care, and in his hands, at the 
time he applied it. 

The question being on the amendment of Mr. Reesi- 
SLiN ; the same was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking out the words 
“ a defalcation or,” and inserting the word “ an ;”jjthe 
same was agreed to. 

Mr. REEMELTN moved furtner to amend the sec¬ 
tion, by adding at the end the following: “ And the 
General Assembly shall, as soon as practicable, pass a 
law providing for the‘punishment of such embezzle¬ 
ment, as felony.” 

Mr. KENNON would like to inquire of the mover of 
this amendment what he meant by the word felony. 
In England it means a forfeiture of goods and chattels ; 
but what is it to be construed to mean here? 

Mr. REEMELTN supposed the general meaning of 
the word to be well understood. It means such a crime 
as is punishable in the Penitentiary. 

Mr. KENNON. The vyord in this country, and in 
our law means nothing, and never did. 

Mr. IdITCHCOCIC did not believe it the business of 
this body to instruct the General Assembly as to the 
manner in which it should punish any crime or offence. 
If the definition of the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Reemeli.v,] be correct, this would be a constitutional 
provision that all embezzlers of the public funds shall 
be punished by imprisonment in the Penitentiary. He 
thought it the province of the legislative power alone, 
to point out the mode in which crimes are to be pun¬ 
ished. If we are to do so in one case, there is no rea¬ 
son why we should not in another, and the result would 
be that our constitution would become a code of crimi¬ 
nal law. 

Mr. NASH. The word convicted, secures the object 
of the gentleman from Hamilton. To do more would 
be to go beyond the province of constitutional law, and 
fix a punishment for a particular offence. 

The question then being on the amendment, the same 
was disagreedti 

Sec. 27. No divorce shall be granted by the General Assembly 
nor shall any judicial power, not herein expressly granted, ever 
be exet cised by the General Assembly. 

Mr. MANON moved to strike out of this section all 
after the word “shall,” where it first occurs, and insert, 
“ ever be granted in this State.” 

Mr. MANON said that when a man took to himself 
a wife, he took her, according to his contract, for bet¬ 


ter or worse. And though she might be like the Indi¬ 
an’s wife, all the worse, he should be holden to his 
promise, and have no other so long as she lives. 

The question then being on the amendment, the same 
was disagreed to. 

Sec. 28. Columbus shall be the seat of government until oth¬ 
erwise ordered by law. 

Passed without amendment. 

Sec. 29. All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform ope¬ 
ration, nor shall any law be passed to take effect or to be opera¬ 
tive upon the approval of any other authority than the General 
Assembly, except as otherwise provided in this constitution. 

Mr. NASH moved to strike out the word “ law ” and 
insert the word “act;” which was agreed to. 

Mr. GREGG moved to amend the section—after the 
word “ act,’' just inserted, to insert the words for the 
regulation of Public Schools; w'hich was agreed to. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to strike out the whole sec¬ 
tion. 

Mr. REEMELTN was opposed to striking out. The 
evil to be guarded against was one that was becom¬ 
ing very prevalent. Laws, during every session, were 
passed to take eflect after a vote of the people upon 
them. It was an assumption by the people of the func¬ 
tions of the General Assembly. Laws, under such cir¬ 
cumstances, were passed which otherwise never would 
be, and their framers excused themselves under the 
fact that the people were to accept them before they 
were bound by them. The question presented is, shall 
we have a republican government or a pure, unadul¬ 
terated democracy ? and however much he might be 
in favor of democracy, he did not want to arrive at it 
in this manner. 

The question then being on striking out section 29; 
the same was disagreed to. 

Sec. 30. The manner of the election and appointment of all 
officers, and the filling of all vacancies, not otherwise directed by 
this constitution or the constitution of the United States, shall be 
made in such manner as may be directed by law, provided, how¬ 
ever, that no appointing power shall eve! be vested in or exerci¬ 
sed by the General Assembly, except the appointment of officers 
for their own body, and United States Senators, and in all such 
elections the vote shall be taken niva voce. 

Mr. CUTLER moved to strike out of the section all 
after the word “Senators,” near the end of the section. 

Mr. CUTLER said that the report of the committee 
on the Elective Franchise had provided the general 
rule, that all elections shall bo by ballot—and he could 
see no reason for a departure from the rule in this par¬ 
ticular case. 

Mr. REEMELTN said he had no objection to the peo¬ 
ple voting by ballot. It was their right. But the mem¬ 
bers of the General Assembly ai’e the agents of the 
people, and as such, the people have a right to know 
how they vote, as much as to know how they transact 
any other business. 

Mr. NASH was struck with one fact in this connec¬ 
tion, and that was the disposition here manifested to go 
back to old systems which were prevalent fifty or six¬ 
ty years ago, in England and in thi.s country, when ev¬ 
ery man was required to vote openly. If the principle 
was right as applied to the General Assembly, it was 
right every where else. The object of the vote by 
ballot is to insure secrecy, in order that men may act 
with independence, and he was rather surprised to see 
this tendency towai’d a system that had been pronoun¬ 
ced perfectly odious. 

Mr. SAWYER said the geiUleman from Gallia did 
not see the distinction, or at least he did not allude to it. 
The people have a right to vote secretly or openly, as 
they please; hut the legislators are the agents of the 
people, and a plan which allows them to screen their 
acts from the public gaze, is an anomaly and an abuse. 

Mr. NASH did notundertake to say it was notright; 
on the contrary he thought it was. 

Mr. SAWYER. Why, then, does the gentleman talk 
about our going back to old systems of English tyran¬ 
ny and barbarism? On the contrary, we are going 
forward. 

Mr. HUMFHREVILLE disagreed with gentlemen 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 1195 


an to the consti’uction they were giving to this clause 
of the section. He thought the words '‘except the 
appointment of officers for their own body, and United 
States Senators,” were intended to be included in a pa¬ 
renthesis, and to be excluded from the operations of 
the otherwise general rule. 

Mr. NA.SH moved to strike out the words “all such,” 
in the sixth line, and insert in lieu thereof the word 

these; ” which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the motion of Mr. Cut¬ 
ler; 

Mr. STANBERY doubted the propriety of changing 
the mode of election. The only reason given sejjms 
to be, that the General Assembly are the agents '3i the 
people. But there was another power over members 
of the General Assembly greater than the people, and 
of which they were more afraid. That is the power 
of a caucus nomination. But for that there would be 
little danger of the will of the people being defeated. 

The question being on the motion of Mr. Cutler, the 
same was disagreed to—yeas 35, nays not counted. 

Mr. NASH moved to strike out the woi’d “appoint¬ 
ment,” in the fifth line, and insert the word “election;” 
which was agreed to. 

O 

Mr. STANBERY moved to strike out of the first line, 
the words “ the manner of; ” which was agreed to. 

He also moved to strike out the word “ of,” in the 
first line; which was agreed to. 

Sec. 31. No person who shall hereafter send, accept, or carry 
a challenge for, or fight a duel, or assist in the same as second or 
otherwise, shall be eligible or capable of holding any office of 
trust, honor or profit. 

Mr. HOLMES moved to strike out the whole sec¬ 
tion. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON ; moved to amend the section, 
by inserting after the word “hereafter,” the word 
“ knowingly.” 

Mr. LARSH said the word “knowingly” would 
then apply as well to the man who fought a duel, as to 
him who carried the challenge. He should like to see 
the man who could fight a duel without knowing it. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Worthington; the same was adopted. 

The question then being on striking out the whole 
section; the same was disagreed to. 

Sec, 32. Lotteries, and the sale of lottery tickets, for any pur¬ 
pose whatever, shall forever be prohibited in this State. 

Passed without amendment.’ 

8ec. 33. The General Assembly shall have no powert > pass 
retroactive laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts, 
provided, however, that acts ot incorporation, or corporate fran¬ 
chises, privileges or immunities, whether granted by any general 
or special law, shall never be deemed contracts, or irrepealable. 

Passed informally, with the understanding that it 
shall be generally subject to amendment, in Conven¬ 
tion. 

g- Sec. 34. The General Assembly shall never authorize the pay¬ 
ment ot any*extra compensation to any officer, public agent, or 
contractor, alter the service shall have been rendered, or the con¬ 
tract entered iuto; nor grant by appropriation, or otherwise, any 
amount of money, to any individual on any claim, real or preten 
ded, when the same shall not have been provided for by pre-ex¬ 
isting law. 

Mr. N.\SH moved to amend the ection by striking 
out all after the word “into,” in the third line. 

Mr. NASH did not understand what was intended. 
Does the payment refer to the claim or to the appropri¬ 
ation? He supposed that the committee intended 
that the money should not be paid unless the claim 
originated under some law. There may be cases of a 
good and valid claim that has not originated under any 
law. A break in one of the canals of the State may 
overrun a man’s farm, and spoil bis land by a deposit 
of sand or gravel. The claim did not originate under 
'any law, therefore there can be no compensation. He 
thought this matter might be safely left to legislative 
discretion. 

' Mr. GREEN, of Ross, thought the section liable to 
a further difficulty. It might result in this: A man may 
have a good and valid claim against the State, but he 


cannot get the money until the General Assembly has 
first passed one law to decide the claim valid, and then 
another to provide for its payment. For instance: a 
man has a claim for labor upon the public works. 
There is a difficulty between him and the officer in 
charge of the work, and it must be referred to the 
General Assembly. It is there examined, and it is con¬ 
cluded that it ought to be paid. They go on and de¬ 
clare that A. B. is entitled to be paid out of the treasu¬ 
ry, so much money. They cannot go on and say that 
it shall be paid out of any moneys not otherwise ap¬ 
propriated, but must go to work and get up another 
bill to provide for the payment. He thought this con¬ 
clusion to be inevitable. 

Mr. HOLT did not like the rule of morals prescribed 
for the State by this section. He had had occasion to 
say before, and he still believed it true, that the morals 
of a people seldom if ever rise above the standard 
which the law fixes. He was unwilling that the State 
by example should give countenance to dishonesty or 
unfairness in the individual citizen. What do we think 
of the man who, taking advantage of a sharp bargain, 
avails himself of the skill, labor, and money of an 
another, and instead of making him a remuneration, 
compels him to suffer a loss even beyond the loss of his 
time and labor? It might be disorderly to say that 
any member of this body who would do so would be 
dishonest; but he would say that outside of these 
walls, any man who deals thus with his fellow man, 
was not a good citizen. 

Ill respect to the State : take the case of a contract 
with an individual—for instance a job of canal excava¬ 
tion—the character of which was mistaken by the 
State agents and the contractor, the job costing double 
the estimate and the contract price. The contractor 
nevertheless fulfils his contract industriously, skillfully, 
and economically completes the work, at a loss of all 
his time and labor. Now you propose under these cir¬ 
cumstances that the State shall refuse to mako him 
compensation, because under a mistaken apprehension 
of the character of the work, he had contracted to do 
it for half what it was worth. This is the honesty in 
dealing, the murals of trade which you would teach the 
individual citizen, and enforce by example. The State 
is to adopt the rale of the sharper, “ keep what you 
have got and get what you can. “ Get rich, honestly 
if you can, but g6t rich.” As if a man’s value was to 
be measured by his money. His honesty, integrity, 
intelligence, of little account. If he be rich, he is to be 
the true, the safe exemplar. I hope the section will 
be stricken out.j 

Mr. REE ME LIN, said the interests of the State 
should be guarded with the utmost care. An individu¬ 
al might be generous, but a State could be just alone. 
The State must not be guarded in the light of an in¬ 
dividual, but its interests must be guarded with more 
care than those of any individual. Its position is mere 
analagous to that of an infant. It ra ist be holden to 
no contract but such as it clearly makes. A man who 
contracts with the State must do it with his eyes open, 
and must be presumed to know the law. To adopt the 
amendment would be to render the section nugatory. 
“ The General Assembly shall never authorize the pay¬ 
ment of any extra compensation * * * after 

the service shall have been rendered or the contract en¬ 
tered into.” It would go farther than the gentleman 
intends, and would cut off allowances for all claims, 
however meritorious. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the committee rise and 
report; which was agreed to. 

The committee then rose, and the Chairman reported 
that it had had under consideration report No. 2, of the 
standing committee on the Legislative Department, and 
had come to no resolution thereon; and, 

On motion of Mr. GREEN, of Ross, the Convention 
took a recess. 









1196 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


M. 


3 o’clock, p 

Mr. MANON moved a call of the Convention, which 
was ordered, and the following members were found 
absent: 

Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking^ 
Chambers, Clark, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Graham, Groes 
beck, Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holt, Holmes- 
Humphreville, Kennon, Larsh, Loudon, Mason, McCormick, 
Morris, Nash, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Plarrison, Swan, 
Vance of Champaign, Way and Woodbury. 

On motion, Messrs, Ewing, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga,, 
McCormick. Patterson, Peck, Vance of Champaign 
and Way were severally excused. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved that all further proceed¬ 
ings under the call be now dispensed with; which was 
disagreed to. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved that all ab¬ 
sentees not already excused, be excused; Vi/hich was 
disagreed to. 

Mr. BLAIR moved that all further proceedings un¬ 
der the call be dispensed with. 

On which motion, 

Mr. BLAIR demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 50, nays 29—as fol- 
fows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar 
nett of Preble, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens 
CahiU, Chambers, Chaney, Cook, Cutler, Farr, Florence, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holt, Hunt, Flunter, King, Kirkwood, LeadLetter, Morehead, 
McCloud, Norris, Otis, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer, Scott ol 
Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyan¬ 
dot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Towns- 
hend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson, Worthington and Presi¬ 
dent—50. 

Nays —Messrs. Bates, CoUings, Forbes, Gillett, Green of Ross, 
Hamilton, Hard, Hootman, Horton, Humphreviile, Johnson, 
Jones, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Nash, 
Orton, Quigley, Riddle, Sellers, Stebbins, Stidger, Taylor, Thomp- 
sonof Shelby, Thompson of Stark and Williams—29. 

So the motion was adopted. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I rise to a question of privilege. 
In the report of our proceedings of the 5th inst., I find 
that there are several inaccuracies which misrepresent 
me in what I said on this day, and I desire to have 
them corrected. They all occur in the speech of the 
gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Case.] The first in¬ 
stance to which I refer is where that gentleman asked 
me the following question: 

“ Is not a franchise property ?” 

Audi am simply represented as*saying “ Ah!” as 
though I was dodging the question or refusing to an¬ 
swer; whereas I said, “no, it is not in the sense in 
which the word private property is used in this con¬ 
nection in our constitutions.” In another part of the 
same remarks, where I asked him, “ do you regard the 
Dartmouth College case as a good authority?” the an¬ 
swer was, “undoubtedly! do” — I have it written 
down on paper, just as it was given. Then, sir, I asked 
again, “ are you in favor of prospective rej eal, uncon¬ 
ditional?” That is my Cjuestion, for I had it written 
down at the time, and have the paper before me now. 
The word, “ unconditional,” is omitted in the repr rt. 
Mr. Case’s answer to that was, “I am,most certainly.” 
I do not complain of the answer, but 1 desire to have 
these corrections made. I do not design to make any 
charge against Mr. Case in this matter, especially as he 
is not now in his seat, nor have I any complaint to make 
against the Reporter. I saw the manuscript, and in the 
latter instance, at least, to my distinct recollection, it 
was correct. How the errors have arisen, I am unable 
to explain. 

Mr. STANBERY. The last correction made by tlie 


is my own question. He nor any other man-'had any 

right to interfere with it. ■ r i. 

Mr, REEMELIN, also, called the attention ol the 
Convention to another matter. It was to the portion 
of a speech of his read by the gentleman from Lick¬ 
ing. There was only a part of what was read ther^ 
and that part put sentiments into his mouth, which 
were reversed by the portion omitted. Mr. Case had 
attempted the same unfairness during the discussion, 
but Mr. R. had then exposed it, and made him read all 
that referred to the subject. Mr. R. said he was there¬ 
fore astonished to find in the report the extract trom 
his speech, garbled again. If this were the first tune, 
he would let it pass silently, but it had been done by 
the same gentleman before, whom he was sorry not to 
see in his place, and he would not now have risen, il 
the correction had not to be made to-day. 

Mr. STANTON. The gentleman from Licking is 
not here, and I really think it would be better that 
these coiTCctions should be made in his presence, as 
he would then have an opportunity of explaining, and 
the explanation might go with the correction. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I desire to say only, that I avoid¬ 
ed all allusion to the gentleman from Licking, he not 
being in his seat. As I have already said so, I say 
again, that I make no charge against him, but I cannot 
explain how these errors occurred. 

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE DEPART¬ 
MENT. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention then 
went into committee of the whole, Mr. Horton in 
tli0 clitiir* 

The CHAIRMAN stated, that the question before the 
committee, when the committee rose, was a motion to 
strike out of the 34th section of the report of the com¬ 
mittee on the Legislative Department, the following 
words: 

Nor grant, by appropriation or otherwise, any anaount of mo¬ 
ney to any individual, on any claim, real or pretended, when the 
same shall net have been provided for by pre existing law. 

The section, as thus amended, w-ould then read ; 

The General Assembly shall never authorize the payment of 
-y-xtra compensation to any officer, public agent, or contac¬ 
tor, a..'r tae services shall have been rendered, or the contract 
entered into. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said, he believed there was no 
particular use in retaining the words proposed to^ be 
stricken out. The probability was that cases tnight 
arise in which it would be proper for the General As¬ 
sembly to make an appropriation in order to pay the 
claims of public officers, and contractors, although at 
the time the services might be rendered, or the con¬ 
tract performed, no law might be existing in lelation 
thereto. So far as regarded the first part of the sec¬ 
tion, he hoped it would be adopted with the amend- 


ment now proposed. He agreed with the gentl^eman 
from Hamilton, that the General Assembly ought not 
to provide for any extra compensation alter the service 
had been rendered, or the contract made. He had no 
doubt that had there been a provision of this kind in 
the old constitution, many hundreds of thousands of 
dollars would have been saved to the State. In times 
past it had been the case that contractors, after bav¬ 
in" been paid the Ml amount of their contracts, hac 
made application to the General Assembly for fiirther 
compensation; and the practice had been earned so far 
that when a man was about to enter into a contract, he 
cared but little in regard to the amount agreed upon, 
calculating that the General Assembly w-ould 
good bis losses if he sustained any ; but be believed 


gentleman from Knox, is a very important one, and it I that there was never an instance known, of contractors 

- - ■ ■ ■■■ ■' refunding to the State, any portion of the prohts he 

had made on his contract, even though they were ever 


may be that the gentleman from Licking did not so un 
derstand his question. I would suggest to the gentle¬ 
man whether it would not be better, as the gentleman 
from Licking is not present, to withhold the correction 
until he is here. That correction may put the gentle¬ 
man from Licking in a false position. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I shall make the correction. It 


out 


so great. On the other hand, if a contract turned 
to be unprofitable, either from mismanagement, or 
from any other cause, the General Assembly had been 
in the habit of granting compensation. This practice 
had been carried on upon the principle that a great 



















1197 


CONVENTION REPORTS.' 


State ought to be generous. Now he was ready to 
concede to gentlemen that as individuals they might 
be as generous as they pleased. To that he could have 
no possible objection, provided that they were generous 
only with their own money ; but he denied that they 
had any right to be generous with the money of the 
people. \Vhile, therefore, he was in favor of retain¬ 
ing the first part of the section, he was opposed to re¬ 
taining the latter portion of it, because he apprehen¬ 
ded that with such a provision, some claims, founded 
both in equity and justice, might be prevented from be¬ 
ing paid. 

Mr. NASH said that all the cases which had been 
cited by the gentleman from Hamilton were cases 
which were covered by the first part of this section- 
He did not know of one instance in which the General 
Assembly had granted extra compensation, which the 
first part of the section would not cover. This portion 
of the section would avoid all the evils that had arisen 
in the past history of the State, and he did not think 
the last portion of the paragraph ought to be retained 
where claims might arise in anticipation of a law. Sup¬ 
pose, for instance, that any sudden emergency should 
arise, such as an invasion, or a breach in the canal, 
or any misfortune to any of the public works which 
requires immediate attention and repaii*, nothing could 
be done in the matter until the General Assembly 
should meet and make an appropriation to meet the 
exigency. In such a case as that last supposed, it might 
bo absolutely necessary that the public officer should 
go on and make the necessary repairs, and the State 
certainly ought to pay the bill. Now, a great many 
cases of that character might arise, and as the first 
part of the section would do away with all the evils 
complained of, he thought the latter portion ought not 
to be retained. 

Mr. HOLT observed that according to the standard 
of morality exhibited by the State, so must gentlemen 
expect to find the morality of the people. He had al¬ 
ready had occasion to remark that, as a general thing, 
individuals would not be found to be more honest than 
the law made them. The integrity of individuals 
Would be no higher than the example of the Slate made 
them, either by the rule of law governing their con¬ 
tracts, or by the standard by which the General As¬ 
sembly might govern themselves. Now he would put 
a case: Suppose that an individual entered into a con¬ 
tract for the building of a flouring mill, and the con¬ 
tractor had furnished all the materials and done the 
work faithfully in every respect, and carried it on to 
its completion ; but that the party, when the contract 
was made, had so estimated it that, instead of making 
a reasonable profit for his time and labor, he sustained 
a loss. The man who contracted to have the mill 
built is satisfied with the materials and equally satis¬ 
fied with the work; but he is satisfied also that the 
contractor has lost money by the work. I would ask 
whether it would bo reasonable and just that the State 
should hold a man to a contract of that sort? I say, 
sir, it would be wholly unjust, and that no honest man 
would bind his fellow man to such a contract. Then 
jjpply such a case to the State. Say that a contractor 
takes a job on a canal for the sum of a hundred thousand 
dollars. He believes on the outset that the work can 
be completed for that sum, but when the excavation 
comes to be made, he finds it is of a character entirely 
difierent, and the contractor completes the work at a 
loss. The work is not complained of at all, yet the 
contractor, instead of making five thousand dollars, as 
ho perhaj)s ought to do, loses ten or fifteen thousand 
dollars, all of which can be clearly established to the 
satisfaction of the State. Is the State then to set an 
example of moral honesty to the people by saying, 
“ get what you can and keep what you get; get mon- 
ey_honestly if you can, but get money any how! ’’ 
Sir, I do not believe in a doctrine of that kind. 
When you say that an individual may be genei ous, 
but that a Legislature may not, I cannot subscribe to 


any such doctrine. I cannot believe that the people 
of the State of Ohio would sanction any such principle, 
and I should be sorry to see the Convention pass any 
section embracing it. I will admit that there is one 
argument, and 1 must say that it is the only one I can 
conceive of, that is favorable to such a provision as 
that embraced in this section, and that is the great dis¬ 
position which frequently prevails among the people 
to filch money from the State. There are many men 
who appear to think that whatever they can obtain 
from the State is right, and that there is no harm in 
getting all they can. That disposition I will admit, 
does exist, and its existence is to my mind the only ar¬ 
gument that can be adduced in favor of such a propo¬ 
sition as that contained in the section. But, sir, that 
argument should not be allowed to operate against just 
claims; nor should the Legislature, on that account, be 
prevented from recognizing them. That is not the 
kind of morality which we ought to establish—not the 
example we ought to set to the people. I repeat that 
we are apt to think too much of money or property, 
regardless of every other consideration. In my opin¬ 
ion, there is no necessity for this section, and I trust 
the whole of it will be stricken out. 

Mr. HAWKINS said he had had a little experience 
both as a contractor and as a legislator. This provis¬ 
ion aimed to suppress what was well known to be a 
great abuse in the Sta^e of Ohio ; but it was a matter 
of great difficulty to provide any constitutional rule 
that would not be liable to operate unjustly in some 
cases. 

Mr. NASH. I rise to a point of order. The ques¬ 
tion is on striking out the latter portion of the sec¬ 
tion. The gentleman from Morgan, is discussing the 
first. 

Mr. HAWKINS. If I am out of order, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, I was certainly led into the disorder by the gen¬ 
tlemen who had just preceded me, for they certainly, 
discussed the whole question. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I desire to present a few consid¬ 
erations to the Convention, and perhaps when I have 
done so we may still be able to preserve this section. 
Sir, I have never known the State to back out of a bad 
contract. 

Mr. NASH. I call the gentleman to order; he is dis¬ 
cussing the first half of the section. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I am not discussing any thing of 
the kind. The gentleman from Gallia appears to have 
acquired a peculiarly nice sense of order within the last 
half hour. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would decide that the 
gentleman’s remarks, so far, were not pertinent to the 
question. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Then I will endeavour to make 
them so. This paying large sums of money as extra 
compensation for services or losses on contracts, is an 
undoubted evil, which ought to be checked if possible. 
Look at the examples we have had but recently. Look 
at the case of Mr. Ritchie of Washington, in which a 
claim of $127,000 was allowed, though not provided for 
by any pre-existing law. Now I ask members wheth¬ 
er they are willing that this kind of corruption should 
run rampant over the State of Ohio, as it has done in 
years past. Bring the matter closer home, sir, and you 
have the celebrated Galphin claim, which was not pro¬ 
vided for by any pre-existing law, and yet it was al¬ 
lowed. Again, sir, five extra clerks were hired, and 
paid under the plea of necessity, the design of which 
was, no doubt, to give places to these office seekers 
when there was nothing for them to do, they trusting 
to members of Congress to make the appropriation nec¬ 
essary for the payment of their salaries. These are 
some instances of the workings of this system under 
the general government, and scores of instances of the 
kind might be enumerated which have occurred under 
our State government. 

It was remarked a little while ago by the gentleman 
from Montgomery, that we should be guided in our 








-CONVENTION EEPOETS. 


1198 

State affairs as we would be in our individual matters. 
Now, I ask, whether there is any similarity? whether 
the State does not say, “When you deal with me, you 
shall deal with me as my public acts specify ?’' Sir, 
everybody deals with the State just as itspeaks through 
its laws. I ask whether there is any injustice in say¬ 
ing we will only abide by the contracts we have made ? 
I ask whether it is not necessary that we should have 
a provision, which would be worth more for the pre¬ 
venting of corruption than any other section in the con¬ 
stitution ? 

The moment, sir, that this provision struck my eye, 
I saw that it was one that if adopted, would hereafter 
save the State a great deal of money, even though w'e 
may not be engaged in the construction of any public 
works. There is not a gentleman who has spoken on 
the other side who does not say that the section is right; 
and all that they claim is that this is not such a provi¬ 
sion as ail individual w’ould take for his guide. I ad¬ 
mit that in my individual capacity I might not be so 
rigid, but I repeat again, that when it comes to the 
State, it is a difierent question—the State occupying 
precisely the position which it occupies in pursuance 
of law. 

Sir, the insertion of this provision here w'ill not only 
have a good effect in regard to the State, but it will un¬ 
doubtedly be carried down to the city and county cor¬ 
porations, and if it should be, it will save to the city ot 
Cincinnati alone some twenty thousand dollars a year. 
Sir, it is with extreme reluctance that I have said any¬ 
thing on this subject; but deeming it my duty to defend 
this section, which I believe will be productive of much 
benefit, I make these remarks, hoping that some other 
member who feels as I do will rise and defend the sec¬ 
tion from this motion to cut away what I regard as the 
most valuable portion of it. 

Mr. VANCE. I believe it is in order to amend the 
the portion proposed to be stricken out, before that 
question can be taken. I move therefore to insert the 
words “ subject matter of,” between the words “the” 
and “same,” in the 5th line. The latter part of the 
section which it is proposed to strike out, will then read: 

Nor grant by appropriation or otherwise, any amount of mon¬ 
ey, to any individual, on any claim, real or pretended, when the 
subject matter of the same shall not have been provided for by 
pre-existing law. 

This amendment, I think, will be of value. It will 
at least, go to apprise the State of what was intended 
by it. 

The question being taken on the amendment; it was 
agreed to. 

The question then recurred on the motion to strike 
out all after the word “into,” in the 5th line, and a di¬ 
vision being called for, there were for the motion— 
yeas 40, nays 32. 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

Mr. STANBERY moved to strike out all the remain¬ 
ing portion of the section. He said he had not seen 
the evils which the gentleman from Hamilton and oth¬ 
ers had referred to, as arising out of the legislative in¬ 
terference with contracts. The gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton was more familiar with legislative proceedings 
than he w as, but he did not recollect a single instance 
in which the Legislature had given one dollar of extra 
compensation to contractors. He knew that thej had 
authorized contractors to sue the State, and that in some 
instances, in courts of justice contractors had perhaps 
got too high damages. If, therefore, any evil had ex¬ 
isted heretofore, this section would not remedy it at all, 
because all the extra compensation that had ever been 
allowed had grown out of the contracts themselves, 
and the manner in which they were worded. Nothing 
was prescribed in the section indicating what should 
be the form of contracts; and indeed that w'as impos¬ 
sible, for they would necessainly vary wuth every sub¬ 
ject to w hich they related. There w'as generally a pro¬ 
vision or stipulation in these contracts that if the word 
should not be of the character anticipated, then an al¬ 
lowance should be made, and it was generally under 


such a provision that allowances had been made—not 
by the Legislature, but by the Board of Public Works. 
It was not to be denied that in some instances large 
amounts had been unduly paid, as in the case of the 
improvement on Muskingum river, where 16 or 17 
cents per pound had been paid for iron, when cast iron 
worth three or lour cents would have answered all the 
purposes. But because these things had occasionally 
occurred was it right to shut the door againt an honest 
and just claim ? He knew that contracts, had been in¬ 
judiciously entered into, and that might just as likely 
happen hereafter as it had heretofore. The section as 
it stood would not provide against that at all. If, then, 
there had been no evil arising from legislation upon this 
subject, none might be expected to arise ; and where, 
therefore, the necessity or propriety of adopting such 
a section ? Would there never be a case in which an 
honest man might make a contract with the State, and 
go on and perform it, and when he bad got through find 
himself ruined ? 

And what w^as it proposed should be said to such 
a man? Simply this, “you say you are ruined; 
the Stale has got your work and your materials and 
you may get your pay as you can. You shall not have 
a cent more than was agreed to be paid you.” Was it 
not enough to say “ you shall not sue the State,” or to 
put the contractor entirely in the power of the super¬ 
intendent ? And when all this was done, were they wil¬ 
ling to say that the State should never, under any cir¬ 
cumstances, make just compensation when if the case 
had been as between man and man, it should be made ? 
Could not the Legislature be entrusted with the power 
to do right on proper occasions? Had they been in 
the habit of giving away the public money to officers 
or contractors who were not entitled to compensation? 
Most certainly not. Now the State had a great deal 
of work to do which she must do as an individual. 
She was a large holder of property which must be ta¬ 
ken care of and kept in repair. And yet, if a man 
through mistake was to happen to make a contract 
which was unprofitable, he was to have no indemnity 
—no redress! He was opposed to any such provision 
and disposed to leave this matter entirely with the 
Legislature, believing that they would do what was 
right. 

But there w'as apotber point of view in which this 
question should be looked at—another bad effect w'hich 
such a provision would have. If this section were 
adopted, and the State were to become thus stringent 
with contractors, it wmuld be virtually saying to them, 

“ There is no remedy for you, if you make the slight¬ 
est mistake. Be cautious, for if you err, to your own 
ruin, the State is not honest enough to save you;” 
that would be the consequence of such a rule. Why, 
it would cut off all competition—men would not under¬ 
take to w’ork for the State, short of the highest prices, 
and the effect of it would be, to increase the cost of 
everything the State required to be done. He was, 
therefore, of opinion, that gentleman magnified the 
evils they complained of—that the fault was by no 
means in the Legislature, and that to adopt such a rule 
as that proposed, was not only going too far, but would 
have no effect in accomplishing the object which it was 
alledged was sought to be obtained. 

Mr. HAWKINS observed, that be should be glad to 
support a provision of this kind, if it would meet the 
cases which gentlemen appeared desirous to meet, but 
he was firmly convinced, that a general provision of 
this sort would work injustice in very many instances. 
He did not, however, agree with the gentleman from 
Franklin, when he said that when a contract was en¬ 
tered into, the contractor was bound to go on, even to 
his ruin. He believed that the State never had, and 
never would compel any man to go on in the comple¬ 
tion of a ruinous job. They had always been allowed 
to escape from their contracts with the slight penalty 
of ten per cent, deduction on the work done—this pe¬ 
nalty being necessary to ensme the faithful perform- 














CONVENTION liEPOETS. 


1199 


aiice of the contract. One mischief which would 
arise from such a provision, would result in this way : 
Say that a contractor had undertaken to do a piece of 
work, and after progressing with it, he found that he 
had been misled as to its character—in short, that boih 
himselt and the State had been deceived in the mat¬ 
ter. He would then have a right to abandon his con¬ 
tract, or to make a new engagement. Now, the pro¬ 
vision contained in this section, would prevent the 
State from making any new arrangement with him. 
Now, this was not at all desirable; and he believed that 
it was generally in such cases that the Legislature had 
made allowances. 

The gentleman from Franklin, was mistaken with 
regard to the contracts on the Muskingum river, and 
the cast iron. The officers of State did not allow the 
full price of that iron, for cast iron. They were cited 
to appear in the Supreme Court, and it was decided, 
that the term “ iron,” did not apply to castings—that 
that was a distinction made in all commercial transac¬ 
tions, and the officer in charge of the work was not 
compelled to certify the price. He had done some 
little work for the public, and knew what it was to do 
it, and it not unfrequently happened, that after the 
work was commenced, something would be required, 
which was not at all contemplated, involving large ad¬ 
ditional expense, for which extra allowance ought to 
be made. 

There were cases in which a constitutional rule of 
this kind would not work wmll, while in others, it 
would be perfectly right. In cases where there was a 
deception as to the character of the work to be done, 
the Legislature ought to be permitted to make a prop¬ 
er and just exti’a allowance. With his present impres¬ 
sions of this section, he should vote against it, as being 
unnecessary. 

Mr. SAWYER remarked that the gentleman from 
Hamilton had intimated that gentlemen ought to come 
to his relief. He [Mr. S.] would do so, if he thought 
this provision was at all necessary ; but he could not 
avoid entertaining the opinion, that more objections 
were made to this matter of extra compensation, than 
appeared to him to be founded on good grminds. He 
supposed that this section was put into the Report on 
the ground that extra allowances, to a great amount, 
have been made by the Legislature. Gentlemen were 
quite aware, that in many instances, extra allowances 
to more than the original amount of the contract work, 
had sometimes been made, and he had no doubt what¬ 
ever that, in many instances, persons entered into con¬ 
tracts in the full knowledge that they could not com¬ 
plete them except at a loss, and with the full hope of 
receiving an extra allowance. There could be no ob¬ 
jection, he thought, to the section as it now stood. 
He had an objection to the portion which had been 
stricken out, but the portion which yet remained, he 
thought ought to be allowed to stand. Gentlemen 
should bear in mind, that when the agents of the State 
ordered extra work to be done, they were willing to 
pay for it, and it should always be remembered, that 
where work for the State was faithfully done, the 
agents of the State were more willing to pay for it 
liberally than an individual would be, because they 
were not paying away their own money; and yet, in 
the face of the State officers, their were some gentle¬ 
men who wanted ex parte legislation, to pay all the 
claims thus made. 

To his mind, it appeared more in consonance with 
the right course, to leave such matters with the prop¬ 
er officers, who might be appointed to perform this 
duty than to leave it to the Legislature. ^ When men 
engaged in these public works, they certainly ought to 
know what they are about. But it was lamentably^ 
true, that many persons, relying on the liberality ol 
the Legislature, entered into contracts who were no 
more fit to execute them, than he [Mr. S.] was to 
preach, (a laugh,) and that to the exclusion of good 
and competent men. It was seldom seen that a good 


and competent contractor applied for extra compensa¬ 
tion, because he knew what he was about. He did his 
work right, and made his estimates and his bid right, 
and all was apt to go on well and smoothly. 

Mr. GREEM. Tlirre has bepii very general ceu:?- 
plaint, Mr. President, of the amount of money that has 
been squandered away, in the payment of extra allow¬ 
ances ; but, sir, it should be remembered, that this has 
been done by the General Assembly. Nothing, there¬ 
fore, is to be put down to the generosity of that body. 
Whenever they have acted upon these matters, they 
have acted, undoubtedly, from the consideration of 
principles of justice. The allowances have, for the 
most part, been made by your board of officers, and it 
'8 the practice which they have adopted that has pro¬ 
duced all of this difficulty. 

Sir, I heard a well informed gentleman say, the oth¬ 
er day, that the public improvements of Ohio had cost 
one-third more than a faithful administration of the af¬ 
fairs connected with these works would have izivolved; 
that instead of being fifteen millions in debt, we should 
not, probably, be more than ten millions in debt, and 
this has resulted from the very source which the gen¬ 
tleman from Auglaize advocates. For a number of 
years past, the Legislature has referred these cases to 
the courts; and the case referred to by the gentleman 
from Franklin, in relation to the iron, shows the pro¬ 
priety of this course. In every instance in which 
these ca.se8 have been sent to the courts, 1 believe that 
strict justine has been done, and instead of taking away 
the power from the General Assembly, I would pre¬ 
vent them from delegating this power to their agents. 

Sir, go up your Hocking improvement, and your 
Muskingum and Miami improvements, and for every 
dollar’s worth of work done upon these works, a cor¬ 
responding dollar has been given away or stolen, and 
that through the instrumentality of public officers. I 
am not disposed to leave that power in these hands; 
and if, under the construction of this clause, it would 
go as far as some gentlemen think it would go, it 
would not only prevent the General Assembly from 
taking cognizance of these questions, but it would 
cut off their power of transferring them of any other 
tribunal. 

It Las been remarked by the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin, that cases might arise hereafter, where a man may 
fairly have a claim against the State, under a variety of 
circumstances, which no human foresight could guard 
against, and in which, if the case was that of an indi¬ 
vidual and not the State, the courts of justice would 
apply a remedy. It not only cuts off the Legislature 
from applying any remedy, but it prevents them from 
ever referring these claims for adjudication to any 
other tribunal. Let the circumstances be what they 
may—let the claim be ever so honest—ever so fair— 
ever so just—yet there is no remedy. They shall not 
do it themselves, by direct legislation, nor shall they 
authorize the party to go to any other source for 
justice. 

I ask gentlemen on the other side, who are in favor 
of this provision, if they would like to place the State 
in that attitude—whether they would like to see a man 
beggared and his family starving, and his children cry¬ 
ing for bread, having at the same time a just claim 
against the State ? Sii-, I have no particular admiration 
for gentlemen who sneer when such contingencies are 
suggested. This section, sir, is calculated to perpe¬ 
trate a great wrong, for, cases may arise in which, if 
the circumstances had been between individuals, there 
can be no manner of question about the justice and the 
right. Then, sii’, I trust that we will put no barrier in 
the way of the State to do what, by her law'S, she re¬ 
quires individuals to do. 

Mr. NASH thouglit that this section was not under¬ 
stood. He agreed that^ the Legislature could not au¬ 
thorize officers, by law, to make extra compensation. 
This section would, however, cut off all the inconven¬ 
iences which the gentlemen from Ross and Auglaize 
suppose would arise 










1200 


CON VENTION REPORTS. 


It had been argued that the work might turn out to 
be different from what it was supposed to be by the 
parties. Well, what should be done in this case ? 
Not that extra compensation should be allowed, or an 
officer have aright to say how much should be granted 
—a power which might be the source of infinite fraud 
—but that the contractor should have the right to sur¬ 
render his contract, and have the work put up again to 
public competition. 

He would ask, whether it would not bo better, when 
a party having a contract found that it was different 
I from what he expected, it should be settled at once by 
the party abandoning his contract, or continuing it, as 
he saw fit? All these difficulties had originated from 
the fact that, perhaps, some ten years after the work 
was done, and where it was impossible to get the evi- 
'dence of the character of the work, the contractor had 
set up a claim for extra compensation, when the offi¬ 
cers of the State were scattered abroad and where the 
contractor looked solely to his own interest, regardless 
of the interest of the State. If these difficulties should 
arise, let them be settled in the only way in which they 
could be settled, with justice alike to the State and to 
the contractors. 

In the whole history of extra compensations in Ohio, 
there never had been one of them in which fraud had 
not been committed against the State, from the fact that 
the contractor had chosen to go on and do the work at 
a low bid, expecting extra compensation either from 
the State officer or the General Assembly. Cases had 
oven been known where contractiors had refused to 
give up contracts, and would go on with the work, 
abiding the result. He was not willing that this should 
be done. All these difficulties could be obviated by 
the parties themselves, when they found that there 
had been a misunderstanding. He did not conceive 
that any difficulty could grow out of the adoption of 
this section. On the other hand, advantages would ac¬ 
crue from it. When bids on contracts were made, they 
would be hona fide bids, and we would not have con¬ 
tracts like the printing contract in Congress. It were 
utterly idle to say that a contract like that of printing 
should be put out to the lowest bidder, unless it should 
be provided that the General Assembly should never 
have the power to vary its terms. If gentlemen would 
look to the history of contracts on our public works, 
they would find that they had been changed to some 
oxtent, and the public officer had increased the com¬ 
pensation in order to make these contracts lucrative. 
He should stand by the first part of the section. He 
believed it would do good, and all the evils which gen¬ 
tlemen anticipate would be avoided by having all these 
difficulties settled at once. 

Mr. LOUDON did not know that this provision was 
of any great moment now, or that it would be hereaf¬ 
ter; but, if it had existed years ago, he doubted not 
but that it would have been the means of saving a 
great deal of money to the State. He gave sundry in¬ 
stances in which contracts for canal construction had 
been changed to the great loss of the State; and also, 
cases where indemnity had been voted to contractors 
by the Legislature, after their work had been comple¬ 
ted, and they had received their pay according to their 
contract. It was to prevent these things, and the most 
abominable frauds which too often gave success to 
these applications for indemnity, that this section was 
introduced. It was to secure to the State the fulfillment 
of contracts in all her future internal improvement ope¬ 
rations. 

Mr. MASON, by way of perfecting the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, moved to strike out the words 
‘‘entered into,” and insert in lieu thereof the word 
“completed.” ( 

Mr. MASON said this was proposed merely to make 1 
the language conform to the j^eceding part of the sec¬ 
tion, and to cut off the presentation of claims after the i 
v/ork should be completed. i 

The amendment was rejected. ' 


, The question then recurred upon striking out. 

I Mr. GREEN, of Ross, by way of perfecting the words 
proposed to be stricken out, moved to amend by insert¬ 
ing after the word “ into,” these words : “ unless the 
claim for the same shall have been examined into and 
allowed upon equitable principles, in part or in whole, 
by the Supreme Court, as shall be provided by law.” 

Mr. GREEN said it had been the practice of the 
General Assembly, of late years, to refer all these cases 
to the courts; and there were some of them which 
could not obtain a just relief at law, which might be 
readily obtained in equity. He desired merely to 
place the State upon the same footing with an indivi¬ 
dual under like circumstances; and, if gentlemen were 
willing that should be done, this amendment, or some¬ 
thing like it, ought to be adopted. 

The amendment was rejected; and the question 
again recurring upon Mr. Stanbery’s motion to strike 
out the entire section, it was decided in the negative. 

Sec. 5. No new counties shall be created by tha General As¬ 
sembly, containing less than four hundred square miles of terri¬ 
tory, nor shall any county be reduced below that amount, and all 
laws providing for changes in county lines, and for the removal 
of county seats, shall be first submitted to the qualified electors, 
within such county or counties, at a general election, and only 
be valid when approved by a majority of the voters voting at 
such election; provided, however, that any county, either now or 
hereafter, containing a population of one hundred thousand or 
more inhabitants, maybe subdivided whenever a majority of the 
voters residing in each of the subdivisions shall approve of the 
law passed for that purpose. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend this section, by strik¬ 
ing out, after the word “ laws,” these words : “ pro¬ 
viding for changes in county lines, or for the removal 
of county seats, shall first be submitted to the qualified 
voters, within such county or counties, at a general 
election, and only be valid when approved by a ma¬ 
jority of the voters voting at such election,” and insert¬ 
ing the following: “ creating new counties, or provid¬ 
ing for changes in county lines, or for the removal of 
county seats, shall, before the same shall take effect, 
or be in force, be submitted to the electors of each of 
the counties to be affected thereby, at the next general 
election after the passage thereof, and be approved 
and adopted by a majority of all the electors voting at 
such election in each of said counties.” 

The question then being on the amendment, 

Mr. REEMELIN desired to say that the standing 
committee were not responsible for the most part of 
this section. It was a matter which had been referred 
to them by the Convention; except the proviso, which 
he supposed would be understood as referring to Ham¬ 
ilton county. The committee were careful to avoid the 
very thing which the proposition of the gentleman from 
Trumbull would be sure to effect, that was to say, 
they were careful to avoid making enemies to the con¬ 
stitution. If that amendment were adopted, it would 
be sure to array forty thousand active enemies against 
the constitution, whilst, perhaps, it would enlist the 
sympathies of a few luke-warm friends. 

Mr. RANNEY said he did not comprehend the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton. The difficulty was that thip 
section, as now reported, required that all laws for the 
removal of county lines, or county seats, should be first 
submitted to the voters of the county or counties to be 
effected. Now, nobody would understand this as re¬ 
ferred to the lormation of new counties, but only to 
the removal of county lines. Another difficulty might 
arise from the construction of this language: “ and 
shall only be valid when approved by a majority of the 
voters voting at such election:”—that was to say, a 
majority of all the voters of all the counties, not of the 
voters of each county. And it might so happen that a 
larger county would vote down a smaller one. This 
difficulty would be obviated by the amendment which 
he had proposed. 

Mr. MANON was averse to these ambiguous propo¬ 
sitions—meaning this, that, and anything. This was 
not the first section which we had been called upon to 
vote, which admitted of diverse constructions. If the 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1201 


gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] and the 
committee desired that no new county should be form¬ 
ed—why did they not stop at the words “ General As¬ 
sembly f" He should vote for striking out; and if that 
motion succeed, he should perhaps, move to strike out 
three words more. He demanded a division of the 
question. 

The first question then being upon striking out; 

Mr. GREGG, by way of perfecting the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, moved to strike out there¬ 
from, the words “ or for the removal of county seats,” 

This amendment was rejected—and the question re¬ 
curring upon the first branch of Mr. Ranney’s motion 
to strike out; it was decided in the affirmative: 

So the words were stricken out. 

The question then being upon inserting the words 
proposed, it was decided in the affirmative: 

So the amendment was adopted. 

Mr. MANON moved further to amend this section, 
by striking out the words “ and all laws,” together with 
the words just inserted. 

Mr. MANON said that would leave the section just 
as it stands in the old constitution, with the addition of 
the proviso; and I have no objection to that. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Manon ; the same was rejected. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON moved to further amend the 
section, by striking out the proviso. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON said he would like to hear 
some reason for inserting this provision. The county 
and city of Philadelphia, and county and city of New 
York, got along very well with their county organiza¬ 
tions, with more than half a million of inhabitants in 
each. There might be something in this provision like 
the prospect of a sale of town lots for a new county 
seat. 

Mr. REEMELIN had supposed that Hamilton coun¬ 
ty had obtruded herself enough upon the Legislature 
of the State, to inform every man in the State of her 
grievances in this regard. They had officer’s in this 
county with eight or ten deputies. Such was the case 
with their treasurer, clerk, sheriff, and most other offi¬ 
cers. The business of the citizens of the county was 
delayed in the courts, on account of the heavy amount 
coming in from the city. Again, the people of the 
country on the one hand, and the people of the city on 
the other, were dissatisfied — each portion believing 
that they paid more than their just share of the taxes. 
The city could not even control the matter of its own 
taxes. It was all managed by the county officers. 
There was also a difficulty about the building of the 
new court house. The city was desirous of a splendid 
building—such as should be an ornament to the place 
—whilst himself and others of the country, thought a 
buildiu" worth twenty thousand dollars would be suffi¬ 
cient *^But they were compelled by the city to go for 
the splendid edifice. 

With respect to the reference made to Philadelphia 
and New York, he could tell the gentleman from Ross, 
[Mr. Worthington,] that the people of those cities 
were anxious for the very thing contemplated in’ this 
proviso. The people of the city of New York would 
throw off their county organization any day, if they 

could. . . 

Mr. RIDDLE said the time might come when it would 
be advisable to have a division of Hainillon county; 
although, so far as he was concerned individually, he 
would dislike to see it. Still, he would urge no objec¬ 
tion to this proviso. It could do no other portion of 
the State any harm; and the time might come when 
such a provision would be of considerable importance 
to the people of this county. There was a portion of 
the people of this county who had taken this matter 
into consideration; and if they had not relied upon 
their delegates here to act in this matter, he had no 
doubt that many petitions would have been presented 
upon the subject. It was his opinion that a large ma¬ 
jority of the townships were opposed to division; yet 

76 


in the course of perhaps eight or ten years, the proba¬ 
bility was, that the increase of business would demand 
it, and that, in justice it should be acceded. It might 
be necessary, also, to have two or three additional 
courts. That, however, was provided in the Judicial 
Report. The people of Hamilton county had notbeen 
very obtrusive here—not quite so much so as they had 
been before another forum—and he hoped therefore, 
that the Convention would not refuse to grant them 
this boon. 

Mr. STANTON, considering that this discussion had 
been continued as long as it could be profitable, moved 
that the committee rise and report the bill to the Con¬ 
vention. 

This motion was lost—yeas 40, nays 41. 

Mr. LARWILL desired to keep all the cities of the 
State upon the same footing; and, therefore, he was in 
favor of striking out. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, protested against 
the idea that this provision was alone for Hamilton 
county. There were other counties of the State, 
whose population might increase to a hundred thous¬ 
and ; and whenever any county should come up to that 
number, and desire to be divided, he believed it would 
be best to give it the opportunity. He had no doubt 
at all that in the case of Hamilton county, it would be 
more advantageous to the city and county both to di¬ 
vide; and his friend from Wayne, [Mr. Larwill,] 
would think with him, if that gentleman had witness¬ 
ed the numerous cases Irom the county, detained in 
court from six to eight weeks, for want of time to hear 
them, which had come within his [Mr. H,’s] personal 
observation. 

Mr. LAWRENCE desired to ask the gentlemanfrom 
Hamilton what was intended to be understood in this 
proviso by the word “sub-divided ”—would it not ad¬ 
mit of a division into two or more counties? 

Mr. REEMELIN. The meaning was that said coun¬ 
ties might be divided and constituted new counties of 
an area below four hundred square miles. 

Mr. STANBERY suggested the modification—“may 
be sub-divided into two counties,” because, as it stood 
now, any such county might be divided into several 
counties. 

Mr. REEMELIN, by way of perfecting the proviso, 
moved to strike out the word “ sub,” wherever it oc¬ 
curs in the proviso; which was agreed to. 

The question recurred upon striking out. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON still saw nothing in this to 
prevent the city of Cincinnati from being divided into 
as many counties as they have wards now, as fast as 
they might come up to the requisite number of inhabit¬ 
ants. 

Mr. MANON had no fear of that, for one portion of 
the county could not cut themselves off without the 
consent of the balance. 

Mr. COLLINGS, by way of perfecting the words 
proposed to be stricken out, moved to amend by add¬ 
ing after the word “ divided,” the words, into two coun¬ 
ties.” 

Mr. HOLMES objected to the amendment. The 
location of the county seat would be a matter of great 
difficulty, if they were compelled to make but the di¬ 
vision into city and county. The county of Hamilton 
extended some thirty-five miles down the river, and 
but a short distance from North to South, and a divi¬ 
sion throwing one half of the city one way, and the 
other half the other way, instead of a remedy, would 
only make the evil worse. It seemed to him that the 
most desirable and proper division would be into three 
counties. 

If he consulted only his own feelings, he would be 
opposed to this provision. But supposing that the day 
might come when a majority of the people might find 
it necessary to make a division, he was willing that the 
proviso should be retained. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON still contended that, upon the 
principle of convenience, this provision was not at 








1202 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


all desirable. There was the city of London, in the 
county of Middlesex, getting along very well with 
their county organization, with a population exceeding, 
bv several hundred thousand, that of the whole State 
of Ohio. 

On motion of Mr. STANBERY, the committee rose, 
and the Chairman reported that the cummiilee nad 
come to no conclusion. 

On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, the Convention then 
adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY, February 12, 1851. 

8^ o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. MANON moved a call of the Convention, which 
was ordered, and the following gentlemen were found 
absent: 

Messrs. Archbold, Blickensderfer, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, 
Ewart, Ewing, Forbes, Graham, Green ol’Ross, Hamilton, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Hootman, Humphre- 
Tille, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, King, Leadbetter, Mason, Mitchell, 
McCloud, Peck, Perkins, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Stanbery, Stid- 
ger, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Champaign and Way. 

On motion of Mr. NASH, all further proceedings un¬ 
der the call were dispensed with. 

Mr. OTIS presented a petition from Rollin Bosworth 
and twenty-one others, praying that a clause may be 
inserted in the new constitution, prohibiting the Leg¬ 
islature from passing any law legalizing traffic in .spir¬ 
ituous liquors. 

Referred to the select coinniittee on the subject ol 
Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, presented a petition from Cal¬ 
vin Vance and thirty-six othens, citizens of Licking 
county, on the same subject; which was laid on the 
table. 

Report number two of the committee on Corporations 
other than Corporations for Banking was read the sec¬ 
ond time by its title. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the report was commit¬ 
ted to a committee of the whole Convention. 

Mr. Holt submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the standing committee to whom the engrossed 
article on the Bill of Rights has been recommitted, be instructed 
to incorporate into that article as a section thereof, the following: 

It being among the appropriate powers and duties of the Legisla¬ 
tive Department to determine whether any business be injurious 
to the general weltare, the General Assembly have power, by 
general laws to suppress the pursuit of any business, when found 
to be so injurious, whether pursued by individuals or by corpo¬ 
rations ill virtue ol their corporate charter. But whenever tne 
pursuit of any business shall be so suppressed, it ought to be 
done in such manner, and accompanied with such provisions, not 
in the opinion of the General Assembly inconsistent with the 
general welfare, as shall do the least dfunage to the individuals or 
corporations pursuing such business. 

Mr. SAWYER moved to lay the resolution on the 
table, and order it to be printed. 

Mr. MANON demanded a division. 

The question first being on laying on the table ; it 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the resolution 
to be printed; it was disagreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the committee of the 
whole be discharged from the further consideration of 
Report number two of the committee on the Legisla¬ 
tive Department. 

On yi hich motion Mr. Worthington demanded the 
yeas and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 
54, nays 3G—as follow’s: 

Year— Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, 
Blair, Blickensderler, Bt own of Carroll. Cahill, Chaney, Curry, 
Cutler, JCwart, f'arr, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Gregg, Groesheck, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Jones, 
Lawrence, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchel', Morehead, Morris, 
McCloud, McCormick, Orton, Perkins, Quigley, Rniney, Reeme¬ 
lin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott ol Harrison, Scott'ot Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stiinton, Stebbins, Stick- 
ney, Struhle. Swift, Wilson, Woodbury and President—'14. 

Nays _Messrs. Andrews, Barnett of Preble, Brown of Athens, 

Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, 
Florence, Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hum- 


phreville. Hunt, Johnson, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leadbetter, 
Manon, Mason, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Smith of Highland, Stan¬ 
bery, Stidger, Swan, Taylor, Thompson ot Shelby, Thompson 
ol Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, and Worthington—36. 

So the motion was adopted. 

Ou motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention took 
up the Report of the committee on the L»^gislative De¬ 
partment. 

The question being on the first amendment of the 
committee of the whole, to wit: In section 6' in the be¬ 
ginning of the same, strike out the word “ official” and 
insert the word “efficientit was agreed to. 

The question then being on the second amendment, 
to wit: In the beginning of section 16 insert before 
the word “ incumbent” the words “ salary of the it 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on the third amendment, to 
wit: In section 16, toward the end of the same, where 
these words occur, “ then in office for the term,” strike 
out the word “for ” and insert in lieu thereof the word 
“ during;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the fourth amendment, 
to wit: in section 16, where toward the end of the 
same these words occur, “for the term of office for,” 
strike oat the words “of office;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the fifih amendment, to 
wit: In section 16, at the end of the same, strike out 
the following words, “for which he shall have been 
elected or appoinied;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the sixth amendment, to 
wit: In section 16, where towards the end of the same 
these words occur, “then in office for the term of office,” 
strike out the word “the” before the word “term,” 
and insert in lieu thereof the word “ his;” it was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on the seventh amendment, 
to vvit: In section 16, where these words occur, “then 
in office for the term of office,” strike out the word 
“ term ” and insert in lieu thereof the words “ contin¬ 
uance in office ;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the eighth amendment, 
to wit: In section 16, towards the end of the same, 
strike out the words “ then in office;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the ninth amendment, 
to wit: strike out all after the word “constitution,” 
in section 16, where it occurs in the middle of the 
same; 

Mr. BENNETT moved to perfect the words proposed 
to be stricken out by striking out all after the word 
“ change.” when it occurs in section 16, and inserting 
in lieu thereof the following : 

In reference to the compensation of any officer receiving a 
fixed salary shall be made to affect the salary of the incumbeut 
during the continuance of his term of office; 

Which was z’ejected. 

The question then being on the ninth amendment; 
Mr. STANBERY moved to perfect the words propo¬ 
sed to be stricken out by inserting after the words 
“continuance in office” the following: “ for the origi- 
inal term or the altered term, as the case may be;” 
Which was rejected. 

Mr. LARWILL moved to perfect the words propo¬ 
sed to be stricken out by adding at the end of the sec¬ 
tion the following words, “ for the term for which he 
was elected ov a[)poiuted ;” which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the ninth amendment, 
to wit: Strike out all alter the word “constitution,” in 
section 16, where it occurs in the middle of the same; 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted, yeas 27, nays 63—as fol¬ 
lows : 

1 K.As—Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Brown of 
Carroll, Case of Hocking, Collings, Curry, Cuiler, Farr, Gillett 
GiTgg, Hunt, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lidey, Mason, McCloud, McCor’ 
mick, Rnmify, Smith of Higliland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, and Townshend—27. * 

Nays— Messrs Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, Blick¬ 
ensderfer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Cook, 
Florence, F’orhes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Grten of Ross, Ham¬ 
ilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman 
Horton, Humphreville, Johnson, Jones, King, Lawrence, LarwiU*, 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1203 


Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, 
Nash, Norris, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Sirtith 
of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins,* Stickney, Stidger, 
Struble, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Butler, Vance 
oi Champaign, Warren, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury Worthing¬ 
ton and President—63. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on the tenth amendment, 
to-wit: In section 17, where in the middle ol the same 
these words occur, “expiration of his term of office, be 
elected or ” strike out the words “elected or,” it was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on the eleventh amendment, 
to-wit; In section 18, near the end of the same, strike 
out the word “their” and insert in lieu thereof, the 
word “its;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the twelfth amendment, 
to-wit; In section 18, strikeout all after the word 
“ conducted.” 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to perfect the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, by adding at the end of sec¬ 
tion 18, the following; “and provided I'urther, that all 
contests for judges of the supreme court shall be tried 
before the Senate;” which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the twelfth amendment, 
to-wit; to strike out all after the word “conducted;” 

Mr. REEMELIN demanded the and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted yeas 59, nays2G, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown oi Carroll, Case of Hocking, 
Chambers, Cutler, Florence, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, 
Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunt, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, I.eadbetter, Lidey, Mason, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney, Riddle, Smith of VVarren, Stanbery, Stanton, Steb- 
bins, Stilwell, Struble, Swilt, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Town- 
sbend, Vance of Butler, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Williams, 
Woodbury and Worthington—59. 

Nays— Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Blickensderler, Cahill, 
Chaney, Collings, Curry, Farr, Hawkins, Johnson, Jones, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, Leech, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, Or¬ 
ton. Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stidger, Wilson and President—26. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

The question then being on the thirteenth amend¬ 
ment, to wit; In section 18, where these words occur, 
“ andin what manner, contested,” after the word “man¬ 
ner,” insert the words “ the trials of; ” it was agreed 
to. 

The question then being on the fourteenth amend¬ 
ment, to wit; In section 2(5, near the beginning of the 
same, strike out the words “a defalcation or,” and in¬ 
sert in lieu thereof the word “and.” 

Mr. REE ME LIN demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 54, nays 38 as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar- 
nettofPreble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Flo¬ 
rence, Gillett, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Har- 
Ian, Henderson, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, 
Peck, Perkins, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott ot Harrison, Scott of Aug¬ 
laize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stanbery, Stilwell, Taylor Thompson of Stark, Vance of Cham- 
pai'^n, Warren, Williams, Woodbury and Worthington—5t. 

Nays _Messrs. Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Chaney, Farr, 

Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Groe.sbcck, Hawkins, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, 
Larwill, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Orton, Olis, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Sellers, Stanton, Stobbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
Swil t, ITiompson ot Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Wilson 
and President—38. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on the fifteenth amendment, 
to wit; In section 29, where the.se words occur, “ nor 
shall law be passed to take edect,” strike out the word 
“law” and insert in lieu thereof the word “act;” it 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on the sixteenth amend¬ 
ment, to wit: In section 29, in about the middle of the 
same, insert after the word “operative” the words “as 
a law;” it was agreed to. 


The question then being on the seventeenth amend¬ 
ment, to wit: In section 29, where the word “act” 
wasadopted instead of the word “ law,” insert after 
the word “act” the words “except for the regulation 
of common schools.” 

IMr. GREGG moved to amend the amendment by 
striking out the words “ for the regulation,” and insert¬ 
ing in lieu thereof the words “upon the subject;” 
which was agreed to. 

The question then being on the seventeeth amend¬ 
ment as amended; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 57, nays 30—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —IMeesrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hock¬ 
ing, Chambers, Chaney, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Farr, Flor¬ 
ence, F'orbes, Gillett, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Hitch¬ 
cock of Cuyahoga, Holmesj Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Johnson, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larsh, Loudon Manon, Mason, Morris, McCloud, Norris, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stidger, Struble, 
Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, 
Warren, Wilson, Woodbury, VVorthingtou and President—57^ 

Nays —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Brown of Athens, Collings, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Harlan, 
Henderson, Humphreville, Jones, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Mitchell, Morehead, McCormick, Nash, Orton, Patterson, 
Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Warren. Stebbias, 
Stilwell, Stickney, Swift and Thompson of Shelby—30. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on the eighteenth amend¬ 
ment, to-wit: In section 30, where towards the end of 
the same, these words occur: “ for their own body,” 
strike out the words “ all such,” and insert the word 
“ there ;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the nineteenth amend¬ 
ment, to-wit; In section 30, towards the end of the 
same, in the words, “ except the appointment of 
officers,” strike out the word “ appointment,” and in¬ 
sert in lieu thereof the word “ election ;” it was agreed 
to. 

The que.slion then being on the twentieth amend¬ 
ment, to-wit; In section 30, in the first line, strike out 
the words “manner of the ;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the twenty-first amend 
ment, to-wit: In section 30, in the commencement of 
the same, where these words occur: “ all officers and 
of the filling,” strike out the word “ of; ” it was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on the twenty-second amend¬ 
ment, to-wit: In section 31, in the beginning of the 
same, after the words “ accept or,” insert the word 
“ knowingly.” 

Mr. LARWILL demanded the yeas and nays, whl^ 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 48, nays 45 —as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Cook, Farr, 
Florence, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson. Holmes, Holt’ 
Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, .tones. King, Kirkwood, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitch¬ 
ell, Morris, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Ranney, Reem¬ 
elin, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, S.'nith of Wyandot 
Stickney, Struble, Thompson of Shelby, 'I'liompson of Stark) 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington 
—48. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates. Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Collings, Cutler, Ewart, Forbes, Gi'lett, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Greene of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton. Har¬ 
lan, Hitchcock of Cuyahotra, Humphreville, Larsh, Mason, 
Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Riddle, 
Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan¬ 
bery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stidtrer, Swift, Taylor, Towns, 
hend. Vance of Champaign, and President—45. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on the twenty-third amend 
ment, to wit: In section 23, after the article “the,” 
when it occurs the last time, insert the words, “subject 
matter of the;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the twenty-fourth amend¬ 
ment, to wit: In section 34, iii about the same, strike 
out all after the word “ into.” 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 


















1204 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


were ordered, and resulted—yeas 49, nays 46—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, 
Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holt, Horton, Larsh, 
Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, 
Quigley, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor, Thompson of Shel¬ 
by, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Champaign, Warren and Wor¬ 
thington—49. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Chaney, Farr, 
Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, Henderson, Holmes, 
Hootman, Huraphreville, Hunt, .Johnson, Jones, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, 
Morris, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyan¬ 
dot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Townshend 
Vance of Butler, Wilson, Woodbury and President—46. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on the twenty-fifth amend¬ 
ment, to wit: In section 35, strike out the following, 
“ providing for changes in county lines, or for the re¬ 
moval of county seats, shall first be submitted to the 
qualified voters, within such county or counties, at a 
general election, and only be valid when approved by 
a majority of the voters voting at such election,” and 
insert in lieu thereof, the following: 

Creating new counties or providing for changes in county 
lines, or for the removal of county seats, shall, before the same 
shall take effect or be in force, be submitted to the electors of 
eac h of the counties to be afliected thereby, at the next general 
election after the passage thereof, and be approved and adopted 
by a majority of all the electors voting at such election, in each of 
said counties. 

Mr. MANON demanded a division. 

The question being then on first striking out; 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 80, nays 14—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— -Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montmomery, Bar^ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown o'" 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cut 
ler, Ewart, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville 
Hunt, Johnson, ,rones, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Lidey. 
Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead. Morris, McCloud 
Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Rid 
die. Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith j 
of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, 
Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Towmshend, Vance of Champaign, 
Warren, Woodbury, Worthington and President— 80. 

Nays— Messrs. Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chaney, Gregg. Groes¬ 
beck, Hard, Holmes, King, Leadbetter, McCormick, Perkins, 
Reemelin, Thompson of Shelby and Wilson—14. 

So the motion to strike out prevailed. 

The question then being on inserting the words [tro- 
posed by the committee oi the whole; 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 76, tiays 17—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montwornery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
•Caiull, Chambers, Chaney, Cook, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Hard, Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lar 
will, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Rid¬ 
dle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of llighland. Smith 
of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stil¬ 
well, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson 
of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Vance of Champaign, Warren, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, 
Worthington and President—76. 

Nays —Messrs. Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Collings, 
Cutler, Ewart, Gray, Hawkins, Hunt, Johnson, Larsh, Leech, 
Mason, Mitchell, McCormick, Perkins, Reemelin and Scott of Har¬ 
rison—17. 

So the motion to insert was agreed to. 

The question then being on the twenty-sixth amend¬ 
ment, to-wit: In section 35, where, towards the end 
of the same, these words occur, “may be sub-divided, 
whenever,” strilce out “ sub,” in the word “ sub-divi¬ 
ded; ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the twenty-seventh 


amendment, to wit: I n section 35, near the end of the 
same, strike out “ sub,” in the word “sub-divided ; ” it 
was agreed to. 

Mr. STANBERY moved to further amend the report, 
by striking out section 29, and inserting in lieu thereof 
the following: 

Sec. 29. The legislative powers of this State being vested in 
the General Assembly, no law passed by that body shall ever be 
submitted to a popular vote for adoption or rejection, except in 
reference to public schools—and as otherwise provided in this 
constitution. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON demanded a division of the 
question. 

The question then being on striking out— 

Mr. REEMELIN wished to remind the friends of the 
section that this proposition comes from an enemy. If 
they desire to retain the provision in the constitution, 
they had better vote against the amendment. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. The amendment of the 
gentleman from Franklin [Mr. Stanbery,] leaves out 
one very material provision incorporated in the ongin- 
al section. It is, that all laws of a general nature shall 
have an uniform operation. That should be retained. 
He looked upon it as of much consequence. If it had 
been continued iu the amendment, he might have vo¬ 
ted for it. He thought, however, as the proposition 
1 came from an enemy, it should be viewed with suspi¬ 
cion. 

Mr. STANBERY. I would like to know how and 
why the gentleman considers me an enemy to the prin¬ 
ciple of the oiiginal section, and of the amendment ? . 

Mr. REEMELIN. From the speeches you have 
made upon the subject. 

Mr. STANBERY. Will the gentleman say that I 
ever made a speech in favor of submitting laws to a 
popular vote ? 

Mr. REEMELIN. The gentleman made several se¬ 
vere attacks upon the section as I'eported. 

Mr. STANBERY. The reason fur that was, I did 
not like it; but I have never been in favor of submit¬ 
ting the acts of the General Assembly to a popular 
vote. I will go as far as the gentleman does to pre¬ 
serve the republican character of the government, and 
to prevent the Legislature from passing bad laws, to 
put upon the people. The gentleman from Medina, 
[Mr. Humphreville,] admits that he would like the 
section very well if ttie provision that general laws 
should have an uniform operation, had not been omit¬ 
ted. It was omitted because it means nothing. What 
j is it ? “ All laws of a general nature, shall have an 

I uniform operation.” It will not effect the object he 
desires to secure. He says he does not want to give 
the Legislature the power to tax dogs in one county, 
unless it is, at the same time, done in all. This would 
not prevent it. A law to tax dogs iu Hamilton county 
would be a local, not a general law. What I want to 
provide is, that no law shall ever be submitted to the 
popular vote for adoption or rejection. I am willing 
to except laws for the regulation of public schools, and 
that is as far as I will go. I hope the gentleman from 
Flamilton, will now consider me as one of the friends 
of the principle, for the objections I have made, are 
only to the mode of carrying it out. It is not suffi¬ 
ciently direct and positive, as it is expressed iu the sec¬ 
tion as reported. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I recollect when the question 
was up before, the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. 
Stanbery,] had inquired what harm there would be 
iu submitting laws to be voted on by the people. I 
then asked him if he would be willing to submit the 
question of marriage to a popular vote. The gentle¬ 
man may consider himself a friend to the principle, 
but I say to the friends of this section, Timeo Danaos 
et dona ferenies. 

Mr. STANBERY did not know what the gentle¬ 
man meant by his quotation. It could not be intend¬ 
ed for him, for he was neither a Greek nor a German. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr, HUMPHREVILLE moved to amend the sec- 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1205 


tion proposed to be stricken out, by adding after the 
word “ operation,” the words “ throughout the State.” 

The question then being on the motion of Mr. Hum- 
PHREviLLE ; the motion prevailed. 

The question then being on striking out the section; 

Mr. REEMELINdemanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 42, nays 53, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates. Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, 
Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holt, Horton, Hunt, Larsh, 
Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Otis, 
Peck, Ranney, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Vance of Champaign, Williams and Worthington—42. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Farr, Forbe.s, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Harlan, Henderson, Holmes, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
Nash, Norris, Otton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, 
Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury and President— 
53. 

So the motion to strike out was rejected. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON moved to further amend the 
report, in section 35, by striking out all after the word 
•‘election,” where it occurs the second time. 

Mr. GROESBECK moved to perfect the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, by adding, at the end thereof, 
the following: 

“ But no town or city within the same shall be di- 
ivded;” which was agreed to. 

The question then being on striking out; 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 27, nays 67 —as fol¬ 
lows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Hard, Humphreville, Johnson, King, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Stidger, Thompson of Stark and Worthington—27. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens. 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill. Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, 
Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock 
of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Jones, 
Kirkwood, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of 
Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Vance of Champaign, War¬ 
ren, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and President—67. 

So the motion to strike out was rejected. 

Mr. MANON moved to further amend the section by 
striking out the following: 

Containing less than four hundred square miles of territory, 
nor shall any county be reduced below that amount, and all laws 
providing for changes in county lines, or tor the removal of coun¬ 
ty seats, shall first be submitted to the qualified voters within such 
couBty or counties, at a general election, and only be '^ibd when 
approved by a majority of the voters voting at such election. 

Mr. MANON said it should be the object of the Con¬ 
vention to have nothing in the constitution that was 
unnecessary, and he had all along made it a rule to 
vote for nothing that he did not understand. The sec¬ 
tion as it now stands provides as effectually against 
another new county everbeing formed, as if it were pos¬ 
itively provided against, as it would be if his motion 
should prevail. No man would believe that, as it stands, 
another new county can be constructed, unless he is 
hoodwinked and misled by the verbiage it contains. 
It is said that in the territory of the State, there is 
enough, if accurately divided, to make some four or 
five new counties, and there are not less than twenty- 
five different projects to employ it for the benefit of 
as many proposed county seats. Projects ate going 
on in evory diroctioii to cut tho old counties, for the 
purpose of making new ones, and if this provi^sion was 
allowed to stand as it is, it would array the friends of 
every new county plan in the State against the consti¬ 
tution, and he did not believe there would be any 


votes to spare. He thought that if we were to venture 
so much, the provision might as well be positive at 
once, and that would cut off all agitation upon the sub- 
ject. 

Mr. PATTERSON said he had read, “train up a 
child in the way he should go, and when he is old ho 
will not depart from it.” He did not know but the 
gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Manon,] might be an 
exception to the rule. The first lime he recollected 
having met that gentleman, was at Columbus, while 
he was quite young and before his beard was grown, 
during a session of the General Assembly, lobbying for 
a new county. He doubtless understands the iniquity 
of the occupation, and though very zealous in it once, 
seem disposed now to put an end it, not only in his 
own case, but in all others. 

Mr. MANON did not know what the gentleman 
meant by his beard not being grown. He was^at Co¬ 
lumbus, and lobbying for a new county, butnot^to di¬ 
vide^ Licking. He lived in another part of the State. 
He had then no interest in the matter, but was hired 
and paid to go. He had, he also recollected, the in¬ 
fluence of the gentleman, and his vote for his project, 
which he supposed he would take as an evidence that 
the claim was a just one. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD did not agree with the gentleman 
from Licking, [Mr. Manon] that the section wouldfoi- 
ever put an end to the construction of all new counties. 
He thought the principle correct that those interested 
in the question of a new county should decide th® 
question. He desired that all those who were affect 
ed should have a voice in the matter. He believed 
the section a good one, and should vote against any 
change. 

Mr. STANTON said he would go for the amendment 
of the gentleman from Licking. It would cut off his 
occupation as a lobby, and that of lobbies in general. 
The section, as had been observed, would prohibit the 
making of new counties, but would not prevent the 
agitation of the question concerning them. He wanted 
that also to be stopped. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to amend the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out by the motion of the gentle 
man from Licking, by inserting after the word ma 
jority,” where it occurs near the bottom, the following: 
“ Of at least two-thirds of all the votes within the ter- 
ritory, to bo included within the new county, 
vote in each county to be affected, at least one-halt 
larger than the proportion of territory to be taken from 
any such county or counties.” 

The PRESIDENT said this amendment would not 
now be in order, inasmuch as it proposed to amend 
what the Convention had just refused to strike out. 
This could only be done by adding at the end the pro 

posed amendment. • i • r • r 

Mr. MITCHELL said that he then read it forinfor- 
mation, with a view to so amend the section, if strick- 
en out,’under the motion of the gentleman from Lick¬ 
ing, as to embrace the provision above, or something 
like it. Sir, I need hardly say here that I am utterly 
opposed to this corrupting new county mama, as it has 
manifested itself for years past in Ohio, about our Leg¬ 
islature. And, I most devoutly desire to see an ever¬ 
lasting^ end put to this odious and hateful proceeding. 
But, sir, to attain this good and just end, I would not 
resort to an unjust means. 

I cannot, sir, regard the proposition as a just one, 
which attempts to tie to one particular county, a single 
township most inconveniently situated; the position of 
which could be greatly improved, by uniting it with 
other territory, which has agreed to receive it, simply 
because a majority of the county, to which it is attach¬ 
ed, will not consent that it should be relieved from its 

position. - 

Sir, this rule is too severe to meet the approval of a 

just community. , -n . . j 

The proposition T have just read, will, m my judg¬ 
ment prevent the making of all new counties, which 










1206 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


ought not to be made, and a just claim, if any should 
arise, should not be defeated by measures which justice 
cannot sanction. 

I have before submitted my views upon this matter, 
and need not now further repeat them. I had hoped, 
that something such as I have proposed would have 
been matured and olfered by some other member be¬ 
fore this time. I should have proposed this amend¬ 
ment, this morning, at another time, had I not been ta¬ 
ken by surprise by the vote. 

I fear, however, I am in a lean minority on this sub¬ 
ject. The vote on striking out will perhaps show. 1 
shall vote for it only with the design of amending as 
above suggested. I am decidedly in favor of the ob¬ 
ject of this section. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Manon ; 

Mr. RIDDLE demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, aud resulted—yeas 24, nays 69, as fo'- 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Carroll, Case of Hockine:, Collings, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Gil- 
lett. Gray, Hamilton, Hard, Earth, Manon, Miichell, Morehead, 
McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Stan¬ 
ton, Swift and Williams—24. 

Nays — Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet/of Montgomery, 
Bates, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Chambers, Cha¬ 
ney, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Greene ol Defiance, Green of Ross, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leadbetter, Li- 
dey, Loudon, Mason, Morris, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, 
Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reeraelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Stru- 
ble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and 
President—69. 

So the motion to strike out was rejected. 

Mr. NASH moved to further amend the report, by 
striking out section 23, and inserting in lieu thereof, the 
following: 

“ Sec. 23. The first session of the General Assembly, under 
this constitution, shall be held on the first Monday of January, A. 
D. 1852, and biennially thereafter on the first Monday of January, 
and at no other time, unless the General Assembly shall, by law, 
provide for an extra session, or otherwise provided for in this 
Constitution.” 

Mr. LARWILL demanded a division. 

The question then being on sti'iking out section 23; 

Mr. NASH said there were, in regard to this section, 
certain questions which gentlemen had better settle, 
and one was, whether, under this section, the General 
Assembly might not, under a mere resolution to ad¬ 
journ, provide for an extra session. For instance, if it 
should be deemed expedient to hold a session com¬ 
mencing on the first of .January of the next year, all 
that they need do would be to pass a resolution to 
meet on that day, and the thing would be done. Un¬ 
der the proposed amendment, they would be prohibi¬ 
ted from so doing, except under the formality of a law, 
and they could notin effect nullify the provision of the 
constitution, providing for biennial sessions, by a mere 
resolution of adjournment. 

Mr. RANNEY. What would be the difference ? 

Mr. NASH. A law must be introduced with the con¬ 
stitutional formalities. It must be read three times in 
each branch of the Legislature, on three several days, 
and cannot be passed without such notice as will awake 
opposition, if there is any to be made. On the contra¬ 
ry, a resolution may be sprung upon the Legislature at 
perhaps the last moment of the session, and forced 
through without scrutiny or investigation. Such a 
thing ought, if done at all, to be done deliberately. 

Mr. CHAMBERS thought there was force in the re¬ 
marks of the gentleman from Gallia, [Mr. Nash.] He 
thought the matter had better be provided for, than to 
open a door for the practice of having annual sessions 
by a mere adjournment. He recollected the extra ses¬ 
sion of 1842, had been b'ought about in that way. 
There was neither law nor resolution for the purpose, 
but merely an adjournment over to the first day of .Ju¬ 
ly next. 


Mr. RANNEY thought the object of the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Gallia, was to provide by 
law for annual sessions. ^ It is in effect, a surrender of j 
the whole principle of biennial sessions. The gen- ■ 
tleman from Franklin, [Mr- St.anbery,] offered an ij 
amendment yesterday, providing that the matter should il 
bo left to the Legislature. It was voted dovyn. To- ► 
day it is renewed by the gentleman from Gallia, in an- ^ 
other form. Ho hoped the section would not bestricken |i 
out. It w^ould give more currency to the constitution i 
with the people, and enlist their opinions in its support, j 
more than any other section in the constitution. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD proposed to perfect to the words 
proposed to be stricken out, by striking out all after 
the word “ biennially,” and insert as follows : “ from 
and after the first day of January; A. D. 1853, until 
which time the General Assembly shall meet on the first 
Monday of January annually. 

The question then being on the motion of Mr. Kirk¬ 
wood ; 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said it would be seen that his 
amendment would make just this change in the pro¬ 
visions of the section, aud no other. If it stands as it is 
now, there will be one session commencing on the first 
da> of January 1854; under the amendment there 
would be one commencing on the first day of .January 
1853—one session more than would be otherwise hol- 
den. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. Would it not change the 
regular sessions from the even to the odd years? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. It would. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. That ought not to be 
done. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. 1 desire to give the opportunity 
for two sessions of the General Assembly, to adapt the 
legislation of the Slate to the provisions of the new 
constitution. If this is not done, there must necessarily 
be a very long session, which might create a prejudice 
in the people of the State, against the principle. Be¬ 
sides, it may be, that under a new state of things the , 
Legislature may make some laws that ought not to 
stand for two yeais. They might give the machine a 
wrong direction, and the result would be injurious. 

He had as much respect for the General Assembly as 
any other man, but it is fallible and composed of falli¬ 
ble men, and men liable to err even from good motives. 

He could see no objection. It makes only one session 
more, at most. 

Mr. SAWYER said this amendment was offered yes¬ 
terday, in committee of the whole, and voted down, 
by a very considerable majority. It was a singular 
course that gentlemen were pursuing, to offer the same 
proposition day after day, to occupy the lime of the 
Convention in debating and disagreeing to it. He 
hoped it would not prevail, and that gentlemen would 
let us go on, and do our work. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said he did not think to ask liberty 
of the gentleman from Auglaize, when he offered his 
amendment. He had offered it in good faith. He be¬ 
lieved it to be right, and desired to record his vote up¬ 
on it. 

Mr. HOLT concurred with the gentleman from Rich¬ 
land, [Mr. IviiiKwooD.] He had, from the first, been 
in favor of biennial sessions, but he wished to make 
one suggestion further, in support of the amendment. 
The Convention has agreed to the report of the com¬ 
mittee on Jurisprudence, which provides that, at the 
first session of the General Assembly, after the adop¬ 
tion of this constitution, a commission shall be raised, 
whoso duty it shall be to make an entire change and 
revision in the rules of practice of the courts of State. 
Before the provisions of the report of that commission 
can take effect, it must be made to, and acted upon, by 
the General Assembly, and some time must elapse, be¬ 
fore it can be done. It has been said, that in New 
York, the great dilliculties that have arisen under their 
new mode of procedure, have been the result of de¬ 
fective legislation, immediately after their new consti- 
















1207 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


tution was adopted. Under the section as it now 
stands, the committee can make no I’eport under two 
years. With this reason, and that suggested by the 
gentleman from Richland, it seems evident that we 
shall require two or three years of annual sessions— 
and if so, it may as well be provided for in the consti¬ 
tution, as to call on the Governor for the purpose. 

The question then being on the adoption of the 
amendment; 

Mr. KIRKWOOD demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 46, nays 48— 
as follows: 

Y^eas— Messr^ Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar- 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Case 
01 Hocking, Collings, Cook, Cutler, Ewart, Farr, Gray, Green of 
Uj^^^lhon, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, 
Holt, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Kirkwood, Larsh, Leadbetter, Ma¬ 
son, Mitchml, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Peck, Perkins, 
Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith 
ot Warren Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor, Thompson of 
Stark and Worthington—46, 

Nai^—M essrs. Bates, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Cham¬ 
bers, Chaney, Curry, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Groes- 
beck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuya- 
hog^ Humphreville, King, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, 
Loudon, Manon, Morris, McCormick, Orton, Otis, Patterson, 
Quigley, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, 
Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Williams, 
Wilson, Woodbury and President—48. 

So the auieiidment was rejected. 

The question then being on striking out section 23. 

Pending which, on motion of Mr. LAWRENCE, the 
Convention took a recess. 

O CLOCK, P. M. 

The question pending being on the motion to strike 
out section 23; 

Mr. McCORMTCK moved a call of the Convention, 
which was ordered, and the following gentlemen were 
found absent: 

Messrs. Andrews, Arcbbold, Barbee, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Clark, Curry, Dorsey, Ew¬ 
art, Ewing, Farr, Graham, Gray, Groesbeck, Henderson, Hitch¬ 
cock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, 
Horton, Hunter, Jones, Johnson, Kennon, Lawrence, Leadbetter, 
Mason, Nash, Orton, Otis, Perkins, Roll, Smith of Highland, Stru 
ble, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Way, Williams and Worthing¬ 
ton. 

On motion of Mr. RANNEY, all further proceedings 
were disjiensed with. 

The question then being on striking out section 23, 
it was rejected. 

THE PUBLIC PRINTING. 

Mr. LEECPI moved to further amend the Report by 
striking out section, 7, which reads as follows: 

The printing of the laws, journals, bills and legislative docu¬ 
ments and papers for each branch of the Genertd Assembly, to¬ 
gether with the printing required for the executive department 
and other officers of the State, shall be let on contract to the low¬ 
est responsible bidder, by such executive officers, and in such 
mode and manner as shall be prescribed by law. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Leech; 

Mr. LEECH. Mr. President: This is a subject in 
which I feel considerable interest, and I trust the Con¬ 
vention will indulge me in a few general remarks in 
support oi my motion. 

The section which I have proposed to strike out, 
provides that the public printing of the State “ shall 
be let on contract, to the lowest responsible bidder, 
by such executive officers, and in such mode and man¬ 
ner, as shall be prescribed by law.” The select com¬ 
mittee, of which I have the honor to be chairman, and 
to whom was referred the communication from the 
Editorial State Convention, have had this subject under 
consideration, and intend, if the section is stricken 
out, to report at an early day, a section providing for 
the election of a State Printer by the people, whose 
compensation shall be fixed by law. The question, 
then presented for the consideration of the Convention 
is simply this: Shall the public printing be given out 
by contract, to the lowest bidder, or shall a State Prin¬ 
ter be elected by the people, with his compensation 
fixed by law ? 


A large amount of time and money, Mr. President, 
has been spent at nearly every session of the General 
Assembly, in debating, and wrangling, and quarreling 
on the subject of Stale Printing. And in these fierce 
contests, what has been the question at issue ? The 
real qestion has generally been, who shall do the print¬ 
ing, and not what prices shall be paid. Let us, then, 
sir, apply the proper remedy to this evil. Let us pro¬ 
vide in the constitution for the election of a State Plan¬ 
ter by the people, and this disgusting and expensive 
strife must cease. 

Sir, there are numerous and weighty reasons why I 
am opposed to the “ contract system ”—opposed to giv¬ 
ing out the public printing to the lowest bidder. One 
of the most prominent of these reasons is, that this sys¬ 
tem will tend to degrade a highly honorable and pre¬ 
eminently useful profession. If it secures the object 
which its friends and advocates have in view, its ine¬ 
vitable tendency will be to degrade labor. In this po¬ 
sition, I am abundantly sustained by both reason and 
experience. If contractors will agree to do the State 
printing at extremely low prices, they cannot afford to 
pay lair wages to the printers in their employ. The 
result will be, that the wages of the journeyman prin¬ 
ters who do the work, will be reduced below a living 
standard—that they will be ground down to the starv¬ 
ing point, Do gentlemen desire to prevent this state of 
things? If so, let them vote to sustain my motion to 
strike out this section. It should be the object of gov¬ 
ernment, sir, to protect and elevate labor, and not to 
depress or degrade it. 

Why is it, Mr. President, that those who are in favor 
of providing that the State jirinting shall be given to 
the lowest bidder, do not propose to apply the same 
rule to the other public business of the State ? Why 
do they not propose to give the office of Governor, or 
State Auditor, or State Treasurer, or Secretary of State, 
or Attorney General, to the lowest bidder? There are 
doubtless numerous individuals within the limits of 
the State, who would be willing to perform the duties 
of these offices for much lower salaries than are now 
paid to their incumbents. And yet no gentleman on 
this floor would think, for one moment, of “ letting 
them on contract, to the lowest bidder.” Why this 
distinction ? Why this inconsistency ? 

I hope, sir, that my motion may prevail—that the 
section may be stricken out. 

Mr. HAMILTON. I think the gentleman from Guern- 
sey, [Mr. Leech,] is rather under a mistake as to the 
opinion of the select committee to which this matter 
was referred. I was one of that committee, and i cer¬ 
tainly was surprised to hear the gentleman say that the 
committee would I'eport in a certain way. That fact 
was certainly unknown to me. 

Mr. LEECH. The gentleman from Union misun¬ 
derstood me. 1 did not mean to say that the commit¬ 
tee, as a whole, would report in a certain way, but 
that I believed that a majority of the committee would 
do so. And, sir, I certainly believed that the gentleman 
from Union was in faver of the report to be presented 
by the select committee. 

Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. President: nothing but the 
most imperative feeling of duty could induce me to rise 
to my feet in this Convention, to make a single obser- 
servation, or use a single moment of its lime. I had 
hoped to be able to do my whole duty, by voting upon 
the various questions that might arise here, but, sir, I 
find myseff driven into a corner and compelled to ask 
the indulgence of the Convention for a short time, to a . 
few observations on the question now under considera¬ 
tion. 

I look, Mr. President, upon this question as one of 
most vital importance. I have regarded, for several 
years, this matter of public printing as one of the main 
springs, if not the main spring of all those scenes in the 
Legislature, which have brought it into such disrepute 
with the people. I have long wished to see the juess 
and the Legislature divorced, and I hope it will be done. 












1208 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


Their union may, if it has not, lead to mutual corrup¬ 
tion, and I wish to see them so far separated that they 
will be free from temptation, aud the section now pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out eflects what I desire. 

The Chairman of the select committee, [Mr. Leech,] 
to which was referred the communication of the Edi¬ 
torial Convention, announced that the committee inten¬ 
ded to report a proposition to create a State Printer, to 
be elected by the people. As a member of that com¬ 
mittee, I shall not be able to agree to that proposition, 
and I had as well state my reasons here as elsewhere, 
for my reasons for voting against striking this section 
out, are at least, some of the reasons why I am opposed 
to the creation of the office of “State Printer.” 

This matter of a State Printer is not new in Ohio. 
There was such an officer for eight years—from 1837 
to 1845, inclusive, and I have taken the trouble to hunt 
up some statistics in relation to the cost of the public 
printing during these eight years, and also, during a 
period of three years, when the priming of the State 
was let to the lowest bidder, as is proposed in the sec¬ 
tion now moved to be struck out, and I find a most 
striking contrast between the expense under the two 
modes of disposingof it. 

But the expense of the printing proper is not all—it 
is a well known fact, that it has consumed a great deal 
of the time of the Legislature—thereby increasing the 
expense of it largely. Why. sir, w’hat is the usual 
mode of proceeding when the Legislature meets ? It 
organizes—when it can—and then the subject of print¬ 
ing comes up, and for two or three weeks little else is 
done, than discuss the great question—the question for 
which all others appear to be made—“ Who shall have 
the State printing—and what shall he have for it?” 
And in letting it out, it is but too manifest, that the 
man who may have been best qualified to serve the 
public, stood no chance against the man who served the 
dominant party—even though the former would do it 
for less than half the sum that the latter would. In¬ 
deed, to look over the table of the expenses of printing 
in this State, it looks as though the sum given could 
not have been intended as a compensation for printing 
merely, but also, to pay the Editor of the organ of the 
party in power for his labors of love in the service of 
his party. This would not be so objectionable if party 
service was public service. But the most zealous de¬ 
votee of party is not always the most faithful servant 
of the public. There is such a thing as “ giving up to 
a party, what was meant for mankind,”—aud I am op¬ 
posed to taxing mankind to fatten the truckling slave 
of party. While the press and the government sustain 
the relationship that they now do, it should not surprise 
us if both should occasionally exhibit a little lack of that 
highly toned purity of morals which should character¬ 
ize them. 

Why, sir, how is it now ? A partisan press fights, 
and prints, and circulates, and spends money most free¬ 
ly, to get its party into power—what for? For the 
public good ? You cannot tel), for the life of you, 
whether it is the public weal or their own aggrandize¬ 
ment, that they are so zealous for. Their party and 
themselves sink and swim together—or, at least, if 
a party sink, its organ does not go on so “swimming¬ 
ly,” and as “mankind is an unco squad,”with aplenty 
of “ self-love to urge,” and sometimes not much “ rea¬ 
son to restrain,” the disinterested observer is frequent¬ 
ly inclined to think that the reason for all this red 
hot zeal, and this ranting about the interest of the 
masses, is something like the reason given by a dis¬ 
senting minister from the Established Church of Eng¬ 
land why he returned to the Established Church. Said 
be. “ I have eight reasons—myself, a wife, and six 
child reu.” 

If, however, he carries his party into power, then he 
urges his claims to “ public patronage,” and his most 
exorbitant demands must be granted, or those who op¬ 
pose them are denounced as niggards, and ingrates. I 
do not say that anything like this has ever occurred in 


Ohio ; but I hope I shall not bring the displeasure of 
any portion of the press down upon me by saying that 
knowing as 1 do, that its conductors, as well as our le¬ 
gislators, have a great deal of human nature in them, 
from the signs I have seen I tear that such things 
might occur. “Weak, sinful, laymen, are but flesh 
and blood.” 

I will now call the attention ol the Convention to 
some figures I have collected, which show the com¬ 
parative cost of the State printing, when done by a 
State Printer, and let to the lowest bidder. 

In the year 1836-7 a State Printer (Medary,) was 
elected by the Legislature, and he continued in that 
office till it was abolished by the Whigs in 1845-6, 
when the printing was let to the lowest bidder (Scott,) 


for four years. 

But to figures: 



Printer. Senate. 

House. 



Medary. 

Whig. 

Whig. 

1837-8 

$18,129 

U 

Dem. 

Dem. 

1838-9 

19,281 

it 


it 

1839-40 

24,271 

ti 

Whig. 

ii 

1840-1 

27,529 

Medary 

Dem. 

Dem. 

1841-2 

28,791 

ii 

ii 

it 

1842-3 

21,371 

it 

Whig. 

ii 

1843-4 

17,799 

ii 

ii 

Whig. 

1844-5 

16,048 

Scott 

ii 

it 

1845-6 

10,908 

ii 

ii 

it 

1846-7 

10,065 

it 

ii 

it 

1848-9 

10,339 

The above table shows that in the eight 

years that 


the printing was done by a “ State Printer,” the ag¬ 
gregate cost of it was $173,200. Out of this sum I be¬ 
lieve the following sums should be deducted, to wit: 
For paper furnished, $14,500; lor binding, $7,500. 
These sums deducted, leave $151,200, which was paid 
for the printing alone. Divide this by eight, and it 
gives the average cost per year, for the eight years— 
that is $18,900. It will be recollected, that Scott vyas 
not permitted to fulfill his contract, lor in the session 
of 1848-9—the last year of his contract—the printing 
was given to Medary. But it will also be seen, by re¬ 
ference to the above table, that the aggregate cost of 
the State printing, during the three years that it was 
done under the contract with Scott, was $31,312, or an 
average of $10,437 per year, being $7,463 less per year, 
than was paid for the State printing when done by a 
“ State Printer.” 

The very next year, 1848-9, the printing cost $17,- 
015, or $6,578 more than the average cost of the three 
years it had been done under Scott’s contract. And it 
will be seen by relerence to Auditor Woods’ last re¬ 
port, that the printing for 1849-50, amounts to $26,- 
220, or a little more than twice and one half times as 
much as its average cost when done under that con¬ 
tract. For what was this extravagant expenditure 
made? Was it for the public good ? I,leave others to 
answer. And yet, in the face and eyes of all these 
facts, we are asked to continue to give the Legisture 
the control of the State printing. For I apprehend 
that the gentlemen who wish to create the office of 
State Printer, do not intend to give him unrestricted 
control of the public prtnting, and if they do, I should 
feel more opposed to giving it to him than to leaving 
it with the General Assembly. 

Long before this Convention was called, I expressed 
a hope that if it should be called, this eternal bone of 
contention, this eternal theme of wrangling, should be 
taken out of the hands of the Legislature, and I hope 
the Convention will do it in the manner proposed in 
this section. 

There can be no cause to fear that the printing of 
the State will not be well done by letting it to the low¬ 
est bidder. No complaint was ever made, to my re¬ 
collection, when it was done under contract. Certain¬ 
ly the tax payers had no cause to complain. Paltry as 
the sum may have appeared to legislators “ of capa¬ 
cious souls,” and disgraceful as they might have thought 
it for them to interpose to save the trifling difference 
per year of $7,463, the lax payer can see that in the 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 1209/ 


thirteen years which have elapsed since a State Prin¬ 
ter was first created, this difference between the cost 
of the State Printer plan and the contract plan would 
amount to $95,212, to which should be added perhaps 
an equal, or greater sum, to pay for the time spent by 
the Legislature in wrangling about it, much to its dis¬ 
credit. I take no pleasure in making such a statement, 
but is so notoriously true, that it would be very great 
folly in any gentleman to get up here and deny it. The 
people all know these things are so, and they ask with 
one voice that this Convention shall forever separate 
the press and the government, I should, perhaps, ex¬ 
cept from this remark the Editorial Convention, a body 
for which I have a very great respect, and with whom 
I differ with great reluctance. But I know these men, 
and I know they would despise me if I had not the in¬ 
dependence to speak my opinion, though different from 
theirs. 

Gentlemen with whom I have talked on this subject 
appear to entertain fears that printers would bid so 
low, if the printing be let to the lowest bidder, that 
they would ruin themselves. I have no such fears. 
Printers are shrewd chaps, and are not so green as to 
propose to do the State printing at ruinous rates. At 
any rate, if they bite themselves, let them do like other 
people do—suffer the consequences. 

Both plans have been tried, and I believe it is not 
denied but that the printing was as well done under 
the plan of letting it on contract to the lowest bidder 
as it ever was done. And if printers suffered by it, 
it is news to me. I never heard that Scott lost any 
thing by doing the State printing for $10,437 per year, 
or that he ever complained of his bargain. Nor did I 
ever hear that the State Printer (Medary) made any 
thing, though he got $18,900 per year. Some printers 
are like some other people—if they get little they have 
no lack, and if they get much they have nothing to 
spare. 

I do not wish to see a State Pi’inter elected upon 
whom the public money is to be lavished as formerly, 
or who shall have the power to lavish it upon favor¬ 
ites. I love the printers, but I would not levy a tax 
upon the million to make one of them rich. 

I hope I shall not be charged with an intention to 
get up any party feeling on this subject, by contrasting 
the case of the State printing under the plan of elect¬ 
ing a State Printer, and of letting it to the lowest 
bidder, or with an intention to cast odium upon Mr. 
Medary for taking all that the Legislature was willing 
to give him for it. I have no doubt that other men can 
be found who would do the same thing, and I want the 
gate shut. I have stated the facts in relation to the 
State printing heretofore, for the purpose of showing 
what may be done if the section under consideration 
be struck out, and the plan of electing a State Printer 
be adopted. 

If a State Printer be elected, the Legislature must 
have the control of the whole matter, or give it to the 
State Printer. And, in either case, the same results 
might follow that have heretofore followed this mode 
of disposing of the printing. How do gentlemen ac¬ 
count for the increased cost of printing in the last two 
years over the cost of the three years preceding—ex¬ 
cept by party favoritism. This Convention has begun 
to clean out the “ Augean Stables,” and I hope it will 
complete the job, and not leave this, the foulest stain 
of all, untouched. 

Mr. SAWYER. One word, Mr. President, in reply 
to what fell from the gentleman from Guernsey. The 
gentleman says that the design or the effect of this sec¬ 
tion will be to degrade labor, and he asks if the print¬ 
ing for the State is to be let out to the lowest bid¬ 
der, why not let out the office of Governor, and Audit¬ 
or, and Secretary, and Treasurer, and in fact every oth¬ 
er State office ? No doubt, Mr. President, that many 
persons might be found who would accept these offices 
at a much lower rate of remuneration than is now paid 
for the duties performed ; but how such persons would 


discharge the duties of these offices, is another matter. 

Now, sir, in almost all our transactions in life, we let 
out our work to the lowest bidder. It is supposed, of 
course, that mechanics and others, who have work to 
do, are acquainted with their own business, and know 
the value of labor and materials. Now, sir, it is quite 
obvious that we cannot let out the office of Auditor of 
State to the lowest bidder, because men would bid for 
it who are utterly unqualified. The printing, howev¬ 
er, is another matter. It is a piece of mechanical la¬ 
bor only, and like all other mechanical labor, hasi 
its value in the market. We find this is the course 
pursued by many of the State governments, as well as 
by the government of the United States, although in 
the latter case, I will adroit, not with very great suc¬ 
cess, for reasons which are well known to yourself 
and others. I believe that that is the only way im 
which we can get clear of this difficulty. Nor do I 
think that any printers will consider themselves degra¬ 
ded by being asked to state the low’est price for which 
they will do certain work. If Mr. Medary thinks- 
proper to make a bid for the work, he know's at what 
price he can do it, and so it is with Mr. Scott. 1 have- 
no particular objection to the election of a State Prin¬ 
ter by the people, but I think it is not at all necessary. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I rise to say, that I hope 
the section will be stricken out. Sir, although it has; 
been shown that there have been frauds upon the 
treasury under the system of electing a State Printer 
by the Legislature, and fixing his lees by legislation,, 
or allowing him to fix them for himself, it has not yet. 
been shown that gross frauds havenot been committed 
upon the treasury, by letting out the printing to the- 
lowest bidder. 

Sir, there were many reasons which might be as¬ 
signed why we ought not to make it imperative that 
this work should be let out to the lowest bidder. Sir, 
if I could have my way in the matter, so lar from; 
having this work done, as it has been done heretofore,, 
I would adopt a plan something like this: I would elect. 
an officer to be called a State Printer, and by law pre¬ 
scribe his duties, and fix his compensation, and his duty- 
should be to superintend the printing of the State, and 
then, I would establish a State printing office, to do the^ 
business of the State. The materials should be provi¬ 
ded at the expense of the State, under the supervision) 
of the State Printer, and he should go on and employ 
journeymen at a fair compensation, and thus the Stale- 
printing could be done for what it is reasonably worth: 
to do it. Now, I do not believe that there is a man in. 
the State, who would not be willing to pay what the - 
printing is reasonably worth. 

Now, how is it to be ascertained what it is worth, or 
what the lowest bid is? And, sir, until the work is^ 
completed, it is impossible to tell which will be the 
lowest, because, for different branches of the labor,, 
different rates would be proposed, so that, let a man 
who is ever so well acquainted with the subject of 
printing, examine the bids to see which is the lowest, 
and men of the best judgment, in regard to the matter, 
may differ. It has been suggested, also, that where- 
this plan has been adopted in Congress, it has not work¬ 
ed well, and we all know that the public documents- 
which have been primed for Congress, under the con¬ 
tract system, are very inferior, both as to workmanship 
and paper—that the work was such as ought not to 
have been accepted under any contract. 8ir, as one 
evidence of the frauds that may be perpetrated on the 
treasury under this bidding system, I will merely state 
what has been stated to me as a fact, and which, I be¬ 
lieve is a fact pretty well known, for it was mentioned 
in the debate of the Senate of the United States, on the 
subject of the Congressional printing. When the con¬ 
vention of Wisconsin proposed to let out their printing 
to the lowest bidder, who was to give security for the 
due performance of the work, among various bids, 
there was one proposing to set all the types for one 
cent per thousand eras, and to do the press work for 










1210 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


one cent per token, and it is has been said that these 
men made a profitable contract out of it by some mode 
of charging, with which I am not acquainted; so that 
by this mode, wo do not shut the door against fraud, 
as the gentleman from Union desires to do. Then, sir, 

I think the best way is to adopt the plan of having the 
printing done at a reasonable rate, which undoubtedly 
can be done, and save the State a great deal of money, 
under the supervision of an experienced printer, elect¬ 
ed for the purpose, by the people. In that way we 
will open the door lor the election of a competent prin¬ 
ter, anywhere in the State, and it is not necessary that 
he should reside at the seat of government, when 
elected. 

Now, then, as to the advantage of the State furnish¬ 
ing the materials. A certain amount of printing will 
always have to be done for the State, and it appears to 
me, that it would be much cheaper, to have a State 
printing office furnished with the requisite materials, 
with a suitable person in charge, to be elected by the 
people. 

There can be little doubt, that this would be decided¬ 
ly the cheapest way. On the other hand, without such a 
plan as this, there is no use in talking about the elec¬ 
tion of a State printer by the people, because no man 
would be willing to purchase the necessary materials 
and machinery requisite for the work; knowing that at 
the expiration of his term of office, he might be super¬ 
seded by some other person, and have the whole of 
these materials thrown upon his bands, with perhaps 
little or nothing. For these reasons, lam opposed to 
this letting of the public printing by contract. I wish 
to have it done in as economical a manner as possible, 
and at the same time, pay a fair compensation to those 
who are to do the work. 

Mr. LEECH. I have but a few words to say on 
this subject. 

The gentleman from Union, fMr. Hamilton,] con¬ 
tends that the State printing would be done cheaper 
under the system provided for in this section, than by 
a State Printer elected by the people. This might, and 
it might not be the case. I propose that the General 
Assembly shall fix by law, the compensation of the 
State Printer; and that body might fix his compensa¬ 
tion so low that no other person would be willing to do 
the public printing for less. But, if the gentleman’s 
position be correct, it substantiates my argument. It 
proves that the effect of the '‘contract system” would 
be to decrease the wages of printers, and, thereby, tend 
to depress and degrade labor. 

Sir, I am unable to discover any reasonable objec¬ 
tion to the election of a State Printer by the people. 
And as to his compensation, there can be no difficulty 
whatever. That will be left to the General Assembly. 
Surely the representatives of the people can determine 
what is a fair, honest, and just compensation. 

The gentleman from Union has referred to Samuel 
Medary and the State printing. That is an old, hack¬ 
neyed subject. It has long since become too stale to 
excite any interest; and I shall not occupy the time of 
this Convention in noticing that part of the gentleman’s 
argument. The whig slang about “ Medary and the 
State printing,” has long ago " exploded into the air.” 

I understand the gentleman from Union to be in fa 
vor of electing a State Printer by the people, and I 
learn from the other member of the committee, the 
gentleman from Sandusky, [Mr. Orton,] that he so 
understood him. But it appears that we were both 
mistaken. i 

A word now, in reply to the gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize, [Mr. Sawyer.] He claims that we cannot let 
out to the lowest bidder, the several State offices which 
I have named. But he does not assign any reasons 
why this cannot be done. It has never been done, and 
for that reason, I suppose he infers that it is impossi¬ 
ble! If so, I have only to say that I do not admire his 
logic. 

Mr. ORTON. As a member of the Select Commit¬ 


tee on the resolutions of the Editorial Convention, I 
have been referred to by the gentleman from Guernsey, 
[Mr. Leech.] I liave to say that I certainly under¬ 
stood the gentleman from Union, [Mr. Hamilton,] as 
favoring the election of a State Printer by the people, 
but as that gentleman denies that such are or have been 
his sentiments. I am bound to suppose that I have rais- 
udderstood him. 

Mr. HAMILTON (interposing,) I told the gentleman 
from Sandusky, that I was in favor of the recommen¬ 
dation of the Editorial Convention which refers to pub¬ 
lishing the new constitution, but no reference was 
made to the election of a State printer. 

Mr. ORTON. The explanation of the gentleman from 
Union, [Mr. Hamilton,] is entirely satisfactory to me, 
and I wish distinctly to disclaim any imputation upon j 
that gentleman. ] 

While up, I wish to say, that I hope the section will i 

be stricken out, and that the Convention will make i 

provision somewhere in the constitution, for the elec¬ 
tion of a State printer by the people. The reasons 
which operate upon my mind why this should be 
done, are numerous, and I believe the same reasons 
operate upon the minds of almost all the printers in 
the State. Sir, I venture to say, that at least nine out 
of ten of them are in favor of this proposition. And, J 
Mr. President, let me say that it is with no selfish con- 
siderations that most of them entertain this opinion— 
for there are but very few of them indeed, that enter- "1 
tain any idea of being personally benefitted by it. They 
know that it is impossible that many ol them can be 
benefitted. Their opinions therefore, are made up 
from a knowledge of the subject—a knowledge, per- | 
mit me, with great deference to say, superior to that | 
possessed by members here, who do not belong to the i 
profession, and from which therefore, they are better 
capable of judging. 

Now, there are three methods by which the State * 
printing has been done, and in which it may be done, 
one is to elect a State Printer by the Legislature, an¬ 
other to let out the printing to the lowest bidder, and 
the third is to have a State Printer elected by the peo¬ 
ple, and his compensation fixed by the Legislature. 
The two first methods have been tested in numerous i 
instances, and have been entirely exploded as a means 
of getting work well or cheaply'done. They have not 
been found to answer any good purpose. Now, the 
gentleman from Union, favored us with some statistics 
from which it might seem that this contract system 
was the best. These statistics were specious and 
plausible, but experience has proved the conclusion in¬ 
tended to be drawn from them to be false and hollow. 

I will take it for granted, that the printing did cost as 
the gentleman says. There are several reasons for 
that, wffiich would not exist under the plan of having 
a State Printer elected by the people. The State Prin¬ 
ter elected at the time to wh'ch he refers, was elected 
by a parlizan majority of the Legislature, and that ma¬ 
jority also fixed the prices. I do not say that there 
was any corruption on the part of the Legislature. I 
know nothing about it—not having been a resident of 
the State at the time. But that body might have act¬ 
ed under ieelings of party excitement, and prices might 
have thus been paid wdiich would not have been giv¬ 
en if the business had been done by a State Printer, 
elected by the people. 

In the next place it should be remembered that the 
art of printing has greatly improved within the last 
ten years. Materials are better,, and cheaper—the ma¬ 
chinery pertaining to the business cheaper, more per¬ 
fect, and of greater capacity. Paper is 25 per cent, 
cheaper, and machinery has been brought to so high 
perfection that a practical saving of at least 25 per cent, 
in the cost of labor may be effected, as compared with 
the time to which the gentleman rom Union refers. 
The comparison, therefore, made by him in relation to 
the prices then and now, is not a fair comparison; it 
does not place the question in its proper light. Had I 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 1211 


tinovv'u that this question was coining up I would have 
prepared myself with some further observations, but 
being taken as it were, by surprise, I am not able to 
say all that I would desire to say on the question. 
However, I leave it in the hands ol the Convention. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I shall vole for striking out this 
section with the intention of providing, in the proper 
place, for the election of a State printer by the people. 
I shall do so from various considerations, one of which 
is, the tact that I wish to throw open the performance 
of thesedutiestotheconipetition ofthe printers through- 
oiR the State. I see no propriety for, nor any reason 
why the printing should be done by the printers at 
Columbus all the time. Gentlemen may say that it is 
not intended to be so, but it will be so in fact. Besides 
I see no propriety in letting out the performance of 
these duties to the lowest bidder. "tVe know that ev'- 
ery year there is printing for the State to be done; we 
know also, that on everyday, every week, every mouth, 
there will be duties to be performed by the Auditor or 
Secretary ot State, and we elect these officers because 
we know their duties must be performed. Now we 
have just the same certainty that printing will have to 
be done, and why not then make it as much a point to 
have a State printer as any other officer of State ? The 
gentleman from Auglaize says that if we are to electa 
printer to do the Slate printing, which is a piece of 
Kiechanical work, and the price of which varies accor¬ 
ding to the price of labor and material, why not carry 
out the principle to all work to be done for the State, 
and whenever any piece of work was to be done on 
any of your public improvements, call for an election 
by the people of the party to perform it? Sir, the an¬ 
swer to this is very easily given. When work of this 
sort has to be done i t has to be done on some casual 
emergency. We do not know at all that it will be re¬ 
quired to be done next year or the year after; but we 
all know that so long as our government exists as a 
State government printing, will have to be done. 

Now sir, I desire to take this matter of public print¬ 
ing entirely away from the Legislature. Does the sec¬ 
tion which it is proposed to strike out do this ? I con¬ 
tend that it does not. Why ? What do we find under 
the contract system when the contract for printing is 
professedly let out to the lowest bidder? Sir, we Hud 
in the Legislature, parties arrayed against each other, 
striving to get the contract for their fuvurite printer. 
We find one party declaring that the printing of Meda- 
ry was lower than that ot Scotland we find the friends 
of Scott on the other hand making the same claim for 
his printing over thaj of Medary. How did this hap 
pen ? How was it that in either case one could be 
charged with receiving a higher price than the other 
proposed to do it for, when perhaps the bids of these 
two parties might be much about the same ? Simply 
because the people were not acquainted with these 
bids, and because they would often be made, not in 
good faith, but for the purposes of deception. It is, 
sir, with the view of getting rid of these underhanded 
practices and partisan wranglings that I shall vote for 
the election of a State Printer by the people. It is de¬ 
sirable, sir, especially desirable, that the Legislature 
should be removed from any im[)roper influences of the 
public press, especially when that influence might be 
exercised for the aggrandizement of the owners of 
that press. By the mode thus pro^^osed, this would be 
effectually accomplished, for you would have the same 
assurance that this officer, a State Printer, would be as 
far removed from party influences as any other officer 
of the State, elected by the people. 

Besides this, Mr. President, it would be a great sav¬ 
ing of expense to the Stale, not only iu the actual cost 
of the printing in the first instance but in the saving 
of time ill the Legislature. We are all perfectly aware 
that it is usually the custom to debate this question of 
printing, for weeks, at an enormous cost to the State, 
of time and money, which would bo altogether obviated 
by adopting the system proposed. I propose, then, sir, 


that the people themselves, should settle this vexed 
question, and that these discussions and influences, will 
thereby be entirely removed from the Legislature. I 
aver that I support this pro[)osition, from the most hon¬ 
est motives, and I trust not only that this section will 
be stricken out, but that the Convention may ultimate¬ 
ly adopt the plan suggested by my colleague, [Mr. 
Leech,] and so ably supported by other gentlemen, 
who have spoken on the subject. 

Mr. GREGG. I shall not vote in this Convention, 
to put into this constitution, any provision designing to 
bring down any mechanical business to the lowest 
point to which it can be screwed down. In regard to 
the printing, I have seen both the contract system, and 
the mode of election by the Legislature, and I can say 
that the contract system has generally ended iu having 
poor work, and not much money has been saved by it. 
The gentleman from Union, [Mr. Hamilton,] said a 
few minutes ago, that he had never heard of any com¬ 
plaints under the contract system. I do not know 
what he may not have heard, but I am well aware, 
that I have heard complaints, and not a few of them. 
But, sir, whatever may be my opinion, in regard to the 
system hereafter, I shall vote for striking out this sec¬ 
tion from the constitution. 1 do not wish, then, thatthe 
price of printing for our State, or of any other mechan¬ 
ical Work to be done, should be forever fixed beyond 
recall. Let the la w I’egulate this matter, as it does con¬ 
tracts—contracts for work upon your canal, or on any 
other of your public improvements. 

Mr. LARWILL. I cannot agree with the gentleman 
from Union, that this section is going to accomplish any 
valuable end. I am in favor of economy, and I believe 
that the people of the State, are disposed to have the 
government conducted as economically as possible— 
but I do not think that much is to be saved by adopt¬ 
ing this {ilan. If the printing is to be put out to the 
lowest bidder it is certain to go into the hands of the 
two great political parties at the seat of government, 
and whichever is in the ascendancy at the time, the 
printer entertaining the political views of that party, 
will be the lowest bidder. 

And why ? You have no security that if he bids 
lower than the work can be done for, there will not be 
a further compensation given him, and he will there¬ 
fore be secure in bidding below what he really knows 
to be a fair price. 1 hold that the Legislature should 
satisfy themselves by fixing a lair compensation for 
this work, and throw the field open to all the printers 
of the State. Let all have an opportunity to do the 
work for the State at fixed prices, and then we will 
get competent men—not men who have been hovering 
about the cajiital for years, and managing the Legisla¬ 
ture, not only in regard to the printing, but in regard 
to everything else. Sir, I think it is lime that we 
should have some other person at Columbus to do this 
work, without interfering with the members of the Leg¬ 
islature, who have met there for other and more im¬ 
portant purposes. I think it is quite possible, Mr. 
President, that in making these remarks I may subject 
myself to some criticism ; but independently of any such 
considerations, I speak fearlessly, because I regard^ it 
as my duly, and because the people of both parties 
throughout the State desire that the matter should 
be left to them. 1 hope the section will be stricken 
out. 

Mr. HAMILTON. One single word before this ques¬ 
tion is taken. Gentleman have argued this question 
as if the Legislature were to have the control of this 
printing. In that, however, they are entirely mistaken. 
The section says: 

Tlie printiinr of the laws, journals, bills and legislative docu¬ 
ments, and papers for each branch of the General Assembly, to¬ 
gether with the printing required for the executive department, 
and other officers of the Slate, shall be let on contract to the 
lowest bidder, by such executive officers, and in such mode and 
manner as may be prescribed by law. 

That last clause, I take it, applies to the manner of 
the printing. 












1213 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


From the remarks of the gentleman here, one might 
suppose that I was hostile to the printers. I think I 
scarcely need say to gentlemen, that I am far from en¬ 
tertaining any such ieeling, for I am almost a printer 
myself. The first day I ever tried my hand at it I set 
two thousand ems, and I think it is more than likely 
that when I return home from here, I shall go to type 
setting in my own office. I have no hostility to the 
craft. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I have listened to this debate with 
peculiar interest. I differ from the gentleman from 
Union, [Mr. Hamilton] for reasons which I will state 
veiy briefly. It must be admitted, that the responses 
to that gentleman afford pretty good evidence that his 
argument has told upon the opponents of this section. 

It is certain that the people are dissatisfied with the 
present plan of procuring the public printing ; but the 
question with me is, whether the remedy does not lie 
in a different direction from that proposed in this sec¬ 
tion. It is obvious that all who are in favor of the elec¬ 
tion of a State printer, will be constrained to vote 
against this section; because, if this officer is to be 
elected, there is a manifest propriety in having a pro¬ 
vision which shall prescribe the character of the du¬ 
ties of that officer, and how his work shall be compen¬ 
sated. 

If the State printer were to be elected by the peo¬ 
ple, at regular periods, it seems to me that most of the 
evils connected with the subject, of which complaint 
is now made, would disappear. For the trouble is, 
not what shall be the rates of printing, nor how the 
work shall be done, but who shall do the work. This 
has been the whole trouble—the cause of all the em¬ 
barrassment with the Legislature and the people. And 
now, if the people determine who shall do this work, 
it is my belief that all this difficulty would vanish at 
once, and that all parties would concur in forming such 
a tarift of printing as would be equitable and just. 

In reply to the argument of the gentleman irotn Au¬ 
glaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] I have merely to say, that one 
of the effects of the contract system, would be to con¬ 
fine the public printing to the printers at the capital of 
the State. But in reference to his argument, that, be¬ 
cause the contract system had worked well, in respect 
to the public works, therefore, it could not fail in ap¬ 
plication to the public printing—the gentleman should 
recollect that there was another element at work in the 
contract for the public printing, which had no connec¬ 
tion whatever with contracts upon the public works. 
It was a political feeling manifested in the anxiety 
which was felt upon the subject all over the State. 
We all know something of the depth of this feeling as 
it exists between the leading newspapers at Columbus, 
that it is accompanied with a depth of bitterness which 
diffuses itself into every portion of the State. Such is 
the depth and bitterness of this feeling, sir, that, if the 
contract system were fixed upon the State here, as an 
arbitrary rule, you would not be able to get an honest 
bid for the printing at Columbus. Printers would not 
stand there and bid honestly for the work ; but the bit¬ 
terness of party feeling would bring disturbing ele¬ 
ments into operation. 

A good illustration of the effect of the contract sys¬ 
tem, is to be derived from the proceedings at the capi¬ 
tal of the State of New York a few years since, when 
an effort was made by the members of the democratic 
party in the Legislature of that State, to give the Stale 
printing to William C. Bryant, the talented and accom¬ 
plished editor of the New York Evening Post. This 
was the wish of a majority of the democratic members. 
But the other portion of the democratic party concur¬ 
red with the whigs, and determined to give the work 
to the lowest bidder. The consequence of this was, 
that Edwin Croswell, who had been made wealthy by 
the enjoyment of this patronage for a number of years, 
but who, by his infamous political course, had lost the 
confidence of his political party, came forward and 
offered to do the printing of the State for absolutely 
nothing. 


This was a strong case; but it was a legitimate result 
of the operation of the contract system in connection 
with this political element, whicn could not be separa¬ 
ted from the public printing. The effect as affirmed by 
the gentleman from Guernsey, [Mr. Lawrence,] was 
to impair the dignity of labor; in other words, it ends 
in monopoly. A similar state of things would soon be 
found to exist at Columbus, which had been witnessed 
at the capital of the State of New York the rival 
newspaper establishments taking advantage of each 
other, which would be in all respects disreputable and 
injurious. 

Mr. SAWYER would tell the Convention what would 
be the result of the proposition suggested by the gen¬ 
tleman from Guernsey, [Mr. Leech,] unless it should 
be guarded better than had yet been indicated. If you 
elect a State Printer by the people, you must go further, 
and make it obligatory upon the Legislature to fix his 
bill of prices before his election. If this were not 
done before the election, whichever party might bo in 
power, it would be a certain result, that the Legislature 
would provide good round prices for the printer, when 
he happened to belong to the same party with the ma¬ 
jority—they would fix a bill of prices that would make 
him rich. Or, if at any time they should find out that 
the prices were too low for their party favorite, they 
might repeal the law, and give just such prices as he 
might ask. 

Mr. LEECH (interrupting, and Mr. Sawyer yield¬ 
ing.) I propose that the compensation ot the State 
Printer shall be fixed by law, and that it shall be nei¬ 
ther increased or diminished during his term of office. 
This provision will obviate the difficulty which the 
gentleman from Auglaize suggests. 

But in this section which the gentleman is defend¬ 
ing, it is provided that certain executive officers shall 
m ike the contract for the public printing. Now, sup¬ 
pose that a majority of these executive officers should 
be either Whigs or Democrats, and that they should be 
disposed to show favoritism to a party friend, and act 
corruptly, as the gentleman pi’esumes the General As¬ 
sembly would do, might not an abuse similar to that 
which he has pointed out, be perpetrated ? 

Mr. SAWYER. No, sir; and for this reason: the 
constitution is to provide that they shall let the print¬ 
ing to the lowest responsible bidder. The consequence 
of this provision would be that advertisements for pro¬ 
posals would be inserted, and bids would be sent in by 
Medary, Scott, my friend over the way, [Mr. Taylor,] 
and others, printers and publishers throughout the 
State, and the printing would inevitably be given to the 
lowest responsible bidder. There could be no decep¬ 
tion practised, and there could be no injustice done to 
that mechanical branch—(he would not disgrace print¬ 
ing, as some gentlemen had evinced a disposition to do, 
by calling it a profession.) Nor would he say, by his 
vote here, that the printers of the State were incapable 
of making as safe a contract for themselves as were 
other mechanics. Nor did he believe that there was a 
printer in the State who would be very much obliged 
lo gentlemen for the reflections which had been cast 
upon the honesty and fidelity of what might be their 
bids. This was the old Democratic tariff doctrine, to 
buy the cheapest, without inquiring who was the manu¬ 
facturer, or where the article was made. 

Mr. MITCHELL. This section as it stands is cer¬ 
tainly to my mind not very perspicuous ; and in order 
to secure its proper understanding, we ought to send 
some person along always to read it to the people; for 
I find that its meaning depends very much upon the 
emphasis to be placed upon certain words. Now I will 
read the section in one way: “The printing of the 
laws, journals, bills, &c., shall be let on contract to the 
lowest responsible bidder by such executive officers 
and in such mode and manner as shall be prescribed 
by law.” To read it in this way, it would seem to pre¬ 
scribe that the Legislature might point out what execu¬ 
tive officers should let out the contract. But i. discover 











CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


1213 


that by reading the section a little differently, pausing i 
a little after the word “ officers,” it will bear a diffe¬ 
rent construction, meaning the executive officers above 
named in the section, leaving the mode and manner to ; 
be prescribed by law. But there is nothing in the sec¬ 
tion to point out the manner in which it should be read 
in order to a just understanding. 

Upon the whole subject, I am prepared to admit that 
the reforms which we contemplate in this constitution 
will, in a good degree, diminish the necessity for this 
kind ol an affair. I hope we shall not have so large a 
volume of laws nor so much legislative printing of any 
kind in future, as we have had for years past. I hope 
our laws will be fewer and better digested. 

Still, we shall require such an officer as a public 
printer; and I can see no reason why he should not 
be selected by the people in the same way that our 
other public servants are selected. I have not yet 
heard any good reason for making the proposed dis 
crimination. 

This public printer, judging from the excitement 
which has hitherto uniformly attended his appointment, 
might be regarded by a stranger as one of the most im¬ 
portant affairs of the State; and if he is really an inpor- 
taut officer, (a thing which, by the by, I do not at all 
concede,) still, if he is an officer of the State, it is cer¬ 
tainly right that the people should have a hand in elect¬ 
ing him and fixing his compensation. 

1 go for his election by the people for the sake of 
preserving the purity of that most important branch of 
the government—the Legislature; because that body 
has ever seemed to be in danger of corruption when¬ 
ever it has been necessary for them to make this ap¬ 
pointment. And now, this is a proposition to transfer 
this corrupting intluence to the executive branch of the 
government, whose path, of all others, should be strictly 
guarded against even the temptation to corruption. In¬ 
deed, sir, we cannot too carefully guard all the leading 
departments of the government from every temptation 
to depart from the strictest path of rectitude. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I intend to vote against this mo¬ 
tion to strike out. There are one or two difficulties 
connected with the appointment of public printers, 
which is certainly desirable to avoid. The one is, as 
to who shall be the printer; and the other, as to what 
shall be his compensation; and I think that the sec¬ 
tion, as it now stands, will obviate both of these diffi¬ 
culties. The bid of the individual will designate both 
who shall be the printer and what shall be the prices 
paid to him. 

It has been said that by the provision ot this seventh 
section, we are about to degrade labor ; but there are 
a great many other things, and other descriptions of 
work required by the State besides printing. There 
is the article of paper and the article of fuel which are 
obtained upon contract; and I see no reason why the 
printing should be made an exception to this rule. 
Might it not be said with as much reason, that we de¬ 
grade labor, because we require our fuel to be furnish¬ 
ed by the lowest bidder? I have chopped cord wood 
myself at one time in my life, and I am sure that I 
never could feel degraded either by that fact or by such 
a proposition as this. In ray county it is a rule with 
the county auditor to let out the county printing to the 
lowest bidder, and the result has been uniformly satis¬ 
factory to the people. I believe, sir, that the facts and 
figures of the gentleman from Union, [Mr. Hamilton,] 
cannot be contradicted. 

Mr. HOLMES. I look upon this motion as a very 
important one; for all who have had the misfortune to 
be placed in the Legislature at anytime during the last 
ten or twelve years must acknowledge that a constant 
fight, turmoil, and bickering has been kept up from 
year to year upon this subject—upon the question, as 
my friend from Erie has very justly remarked; who 
shall do the public printing? „ , ir • 

I am sorry to be under the necessity of difienug with 
my friend from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawter,] upon this 


subject. I am sure that there is no subject involving 
political and pecuniary considerations which can come 
before the people of the State, in which they will take 
a deeper interest than in this ; and it there is any thing 
which the people of Ohio could desire to see put final¬ 
ly to rest, it seems to me that it should be to put a qui¬ 
etus to this constant fighting and bickering, and most 
expensive wrangling in the Legislature about the office 
of public printer, his duties and compensation. Such 
has been the extent ol this feeling in the Legislature, 
that I recollect myself to have been chairman of a se¬ 
lect committee to examine into what had been proclaim¬ 
ed all over the country as exorbitant charges for print¬ 
ing made by Col. Samuel Medary; and after institu¬ 
ting a correspondence upon the subject with other 
State printers and opening the communications which 
I received, I found that notwithstanding Medary’s char¬ 
ges had been proclaimed to be an hundred per cent too 
high, he was actually working fifty per cent low'er 
than any other public printer in the States with whom 
I instituted the inquiry. 

From these considerations I have come to the conclu¬ 
sion that the people should say who should be the print¬ 
er and that the Legislature should fix his compensation, 
by law. 

Wherever the contract system has been entered in¬ 
to, ill connexion with the public printing, great dissat- 
islaction as to the character of the work and materials 
. has been the result, and the State, like a good fat goose, 
has generally been well picked. I know that the 
commissioners of this county have endeavored to ob¬ 
tain the stationery and printing necessary for the vari¬ 
ous public offices of the county, upon the contract 
principle—lowest bidder—and the result of their ex¬ 
perience and practice satisfied them that the contract 
system was a humbug, so far as economy and the best 
interests of the county were concerned; that the print¬ 
ing has been badly done and upon most indifferent pa¬ 
per, and they have been compelled to abandon the 
system. Sir, let the motion prevail, let the State Print¬ 
er be elected by the preople, your Legislature will fix 
by law', his compensation—and the manoeuvering and 
truckling of partizans will have one important prop 
knocked from under the platform of their political 
squabbles. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, by way of perfecting the 
section proposed to be stricken out, moved to amend 
by striking out the words “ such executive offices,” 
and inserting the words, “ Auditor, Secretary and Trea¬ 
surer of State.” 

Mr. REEMBLIN. I hope the amendment of the 
gentleman from Warren will not prevail, for I appre¬ 
hend that'it would take the subject too much out of the 
bauds of the Legislature. As, the section now stands, 
it preserves the independent control of the General 
Assembly over this subject, while it compels them to 
prescribe that some of the executive officers shall make 
the contract. 

The section was drafted very carefully by my own 
hand. And one reason why I shall vote (very reluc¬ 
tantly) against the motion of the gentleman from Guern¬ 
sey, [Mr. Leech,] is this: I have desired for several 
years to separate the difi'erent jobs of State Printing; 
for instance, to make difierent contracts for the legis¬ 
lative printing, and the executive printing, and the 
printing for the Supreme Court in Bank. I do not 
wish to see one printer, like Aaron’s rod, swallow up 
the whole of these jobs. 

Again, I do not desire that every year, when we shall 
meet in Convention at Columbus, we shall be compell¬ 
ed to decide who shall be our political organ—espe¬ 
cially I do not wish to be compelled to decide that 
our political organ shall be always the State Printer. 
Our family contests are bitter enough without that, 
and therefore I most respecfully decline the job, for 
one, to decide printing questions in our Democratic 
State Conventions. That question would control all 
I others, and instead of a fight on principles, we should 














1214 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


have a more contest for dollars and cents and political 
power. 

I do not think the contract system, in connexon with 
the public printing, has been yet fairly tested; and it I 
am not mistaken there exists at this moment an under¬ 
standing between the nroprietnrs of the Union anrl the 
Intelligencer, at Washington City, by which it is^^deter- 
mined that the contract system, which has been adop- 
by Congress, shall not have a fair chance. The con¬ 
tract system has worked well in its applicat on to every 
thing else connected with the public service; and I am 
in hopes yet of seeing it apfdied to the Post office De¬ 
partment. Make it a constitutional provision, subject 
to be modified by legislative discretion, and it will 
have a fair trial. Then it will be successful! 

Mr. SMITH, of Wari’en. Upon a more careful ex¬ 
amination, I find that the General Assembly are to 
designate the officers who are to let out this printing, 
and, therefore, I will ask leave to withdraw my amend¬ 
ment. 

The amendment was accordingly withdrawn. 

The question then recurring upon the motion to 
strike out, and the yeas and nays being demanded, 
and ordered, resulted—yeas 36, nays 61—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Case of Licking, Chaney, Farr, Forbes, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hum- 
phreville, Johnson, Jones, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbet- 
er, Lidcy, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney, Scott of Auglaize. Sellers, Stickney, Stidger, Swift, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Wilson and 
President—:i6. 

Navs —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
rett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Ceilings, Cook, Curry, 
Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamil¬ 
ton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, King, Kirkwood, 
Larsh, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, 
Pattersen, Peck, Perkins, Reomelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wy¬ 
andot, Stanfaery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Struble, Swan, 
Townshend,Vance of Butler, Warren, Woodbury and Worthing¬ 
ton—61. 

So the motion to strike out wa.s rejected. 

Mr. PATTERSON moved to further amend the re¬ 
port by adding at the eud of section twenty-two, the 
following : 

“The officer against whom the General Assembly may he about 
to proceed, shall receive notice by a copy of the causes alledged 
for his removal, at least ten days before the day on which either 
branch of the General Assembly shall act thereon;” 

Which was disagreed to. 

EX POST FACTO LAWS. 

Mr. STANTON moved to further amend the report, 
in section thirty-three, by striking out the word “ retro¬ 
active,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ cx 
post facto." 

Mr. MASON demanded the yeas and nays upon this 
motion, which were ordered. 

Mr. S. said, although this subject had been hereto¬ 
fore fully discussed, yet it would be reccollected, that 
the vote upon it had been taken when there was not 
a full house. It was for that reason that he had re¬ 
newed the motion at this time. He desired nothing 
but the vote, and demanded the yeas and nays. 

Mr. NASH said: The adoption of these words would 
amount really to nothing at all, for the prohibition was 
just as broad in the constitution of the United States. 
Upon the most deliberate and inaturediscnssion of this 
subject, the Convention had heretofore voted down 
this change by a decided majority. But it seemed that 
thi.’<, like many other questions inihisbody,could never 
be put to sleep. He hoped, therefore, that now a de¬ 
ckled vote would be given. 

The yeas and nays were now taken upon Mr. Stan¬ 
ton’s amendment, and resulted—yeas 49, nays 49—as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Collings, Cook, Cutler, Ewart, Graham. Gray, Green of Ross, 
Hard, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, 


Holt, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Kirkwood, Larsh, Mason, More- 
head, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Riddle, Scott of Har¬ 
rison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stilwell, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Butler, 
Woodbury and Worthington—49. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Curry, Farr, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Ilavvkms, Ileiidersun, Holmes, Hootman, ilumphreville. Hunt, 
Jones, King, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter. Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Patter¬ 
son, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
Swan, Thompson of Stark, Townsend, Warren and Wilson—49. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. GRAY moved to further amend the report, by 
striking out all of section thirty-five, before the word 
“ provided,” and inserting in lieu thereof the follow¬ 
ing: 

Sec. 35, No new county shall be erected by the General As 
sembly containing less than four hundred square miles of lerri' 
tor}', nor shall any county be reduced below that amount, nor 
shall the county seat of any county be changed, until the law au¬ 
thorizing such change shall have been approved of by the major¬ 
ity of the voters of said county—nor shall any township be in 
'corporated into any new county, or be transferred from one 
county to another, until a majority of the votes of such town¬ 
ship shall have been cast in favor of said change. 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded a division of the ques¬ 
tion. 

The question then being first on striking out, 

Mr. PERKINS said this section was very unsatisfac¬ 
tory to him. It amounted to a declaration that no new 
county should ever be erected in ibe State, and that 
no change should ever be made in the county lines. 
Ill fact, it seemed only to have res[»ect to a change of 
county lines, and this was rendered impracticable by 
its terms. Now, it seemed to him, that if the people 
of any township should ever desire to be transferred 
from one county to another, the Legislature should 
have the power to authorize them to express their will, 
and upon that expression, to authorize the transfer to 
be made accordingly. If the Legislature should ap¬ 
prove of such a thing, and the people of such a town¬ 
ship should vote for it, it seemed to him that there 
could be no objection against permitting it to be done. 

The question being now taken, the Convention re¬ 
fused to strike out. 

So the amendment was lost. 

VOTING VIVA VOCE. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to further amend the re¬ 
port by striking out of section Ibirty, the following 
words, and in all such elections the vote shall be ta¬ 
ken viva voce." 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays up¬ 
on this motion, which were ordered. 

Mr. C. would merely say. that the State of Ohio had 
uniformly, from the origin of the government, adhered 
to the principle of the ballot vote; and he thought it 
too late now to adopt the plan of voting viva voce. He 
thought the ballot vote was preferable upon all ques¬ 
tions—that more independent results would be obtain¬ 
ed ; especially in this case of voting for United States 
Senator; for they would not be compelled to vote un¬ 
der the party lash so strictly as though they were re¬ 
quired to vote viva voce. 

Mr. LARWILL hoped these words would not be 
stricken out. It was a satisfaction to the people to 
know the acts of their servants; and especially would 
it be satisfaction to them to know whether upon this 
important elect.on, they voted in accordance with the 
will of their constituents. 

The yeas and nays having been demanded and or¬ 
dered upon Mr. Chambeus’ amendment, being now ta¬ 
ken, the result was—yea.s 38, nays 61—as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett ot Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown ot Carroll, Case ot Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Curry, 
Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of De¬ 
fiance, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Horton, Johnson, Larsh, Manon, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Oti.s, Peck, Scott of Harrison, .'^mith ot Highland, Stanbery, Stil¬ 
well, Swift and Vance of Champaign—38. 

Nays— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Cook, 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1215 


Farr, Forbes, Green of Ross, Grcg^^ Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hun¬ 
ter, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbet- 
ter, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, Orton 
Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer! 
Scott ol Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Taylor 
Thompson of Shelby, Thomp-^on of Sfsrk, Townshrnd, Vanro 
ot Butler, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and Presi¬ 
dent—61. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

DUELLING. 

Mr. LIDBY moved to farther amend the report, by 
striking out section 31. 

On which motion, 

Mr. ANDREWS demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 29, nays 69—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of 
Licking, Gray, Greene ot Defiance, Green ot Ross, Groesbeck, 
Harlan, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Kirkwood, Lawrence, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, 
Perkins, Ranney, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Warren, Stilwell, 
Stidger, Taylor, Thompson of Stark and President—29. 

Nays-— Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, 
Farr, P lorence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, 
Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, 
^^^PBreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, Lar- 
Will, Larsh, Loudon, Mason, Mor 0 head, Morris, McCloud, Norris, 
Orton, Otis, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of 
Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stan 
bery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Vance of Cham- 
paign, Warren, Wilson Woodbury and Worthington—69. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. RIDDLE moved to further amend the report, 
hy adding to the eud of section 31, the following: “and 
shall be punished otherwise, in such manner as the 
General Assembly may prescribe by law\” 

Mr. COLLINGS had no manner of objection to the 
principle involved in this amendment, bat lie did not 
desire, and as far as his vote was concerned, ho would 
not agree to put into this constitution a criminal code. 

Mr. MANON believed he should vote in favor of this 
amendment, in the hope that the committee would get 
so much in this re[)ort that, at last they would he in¬ 
duced to strike out the whole of it. 

The question was now taken upon Mr. Riddle’s 
amendment; and it was rejected. 

CURATIVE LAWS. 

Mr. MASON moved further to amend the report in 
the thirty-third section, by inserting after the words 
"provided however,” these words : “ that nothing here¬ 
in contained shall prevent the enactment of curative 
laws and,” so it will read: 

The General Assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive 
laws impairing the right of contracts, provided, however, that 
nothing herein contained shall prevent the enactment of curative 
laws, and that acts of incorporation or corporate fronchises, 
privileges or immunities, whether granted by any general or spe¬ 
cial law, shall never be deemed contracts, or irrepealable. 

Mr. M. said he did not wish to take up the lime of 
the Convention at all, because the subject matter of 
this amendment has already been fre(|ueiitly before the 
body. He had no objection to the word “ retroactive,” 
if the Convention could see proper to exempt from its 
operations the power to pass curative laws—in other 
words, mere healing statutes, for the curing of delects 
in the acts of ministerial olficcrs, in taking the acknowl¬ 
edgment of deeds and other instruments of writing. 
These curative laws had prevailed throughout the 
Union, as far as his information had extended, and they 
had received a judicial interpretation hy the courts of 
Pennsylvania and Ohio, to the eli'ect that they were 
valid and constitutional. But now, the insertion of 
this word “retroactive,” without any qualification, 
would make tiiese laws unconstitutional in this State. 

From tlie largo vote which had been given hut a 
moment since in favor of striking out this word, (tliere 
being a majority of hut one against it,) he z'alher flat¬ 
tered himself that the house would be willing to insert 


his amendment. He would not go again into this ar¬ 
gument, but content himself with simply calling for the 
yeas and nays. 

Mr. SAWYER desired the gentleman to explain 
what was to be understood by curative laws, iii his 
amendment. 

iVir. MASON. Curative laws had received their 
names from our judicial decisions; their object being 
to cure defects in the acts of ministerial ofiicers. For 
example, the law requiring a magistrate to fix his seal 
to an acknowledgment of a deed, might be neglected 
in this particular—and by this neglect, the purchaser 
might be in danger of losing his estate. In such a case, 
a curative act of the Legislature comes in, and provides 
that all such conveyances shall be good and binding, 
according to the intention of the parties, any law to 
the contrary notwithstanding. 

A Voice. That is the law now. 

Mr. MASON was aware of that—but he was only 
oftering an illustration. He hoped the honorable Chair¬ 
man ot the committee on the Legislative Department, 
would not see any cause now to oppose this amend¬ 
ment. There had always been occasion for this kind 
ot legislation heretofore, and there would he found oc¬ 
casion tor its exercise in the future. 

Mr. STANBERY next obtained the floor, and spoke 
twenty minutes, in favor of the amendment. 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, further to illustrate the ne¬ 
cessity ot the exercise of the power to pass curative 
laws, rehearsed the case of a justice ot the peace, who 
was elected in his own neighborhood, and gave a de¬ 
fective bond without knowing it. And, supposing he 
was proceeding according to law, he went on to take 
the acknowledgment of deeds, marry people, and per- 
torm all the duties incident to his oflke. But it hap¬ 
pened atterwards that a man who was hcdly disposed 
towards him, found out that the penalty of his bond 
was only four hundred dollars, whilst the statute re¬ 
quires that the penalty of a magistrate’s bond shall be 
trom five hundred to twenty hundred dollars. But the 
Legislature happeuiug to be in session at the time, the 
justice ot the peace was only subjected to the inconve¬ 
nience of suspending operations for a few weeks, until 
he could get a little curative law passed, legalizing all 
his acts. Now, but for this iuterposition of a curative 
law, the title supposed to have been conveyed by^ the? 
deeds, the acknowledgment of which he had taken, 
could have been wholly set aside, and the marriages 
which he had solemnized, would have been nugatory 
in law. 

Whilst the decision of the Supreme Court held the 
curative law of 1835 null and void, and when the case 
of Good vs. Zercher was held to be the law, I examin¬ 
ed the acknowledgment of several deeds on the re¬ 
cord of the county where I live, and found many of 
them defective, when I, of my own knowledge, knew 
the sales and transfers made, and intended to he made, 
by said deeds, to have been in good faith, and for a val¬ 
uable Consideration. 

And I may further remark, that about the time for¬ 
tunately we had a revolution in the opinion of the Su¬ 
preme Court, there were several cases iu train, and 
would have been “ dug up,” and suits instituted ; and 
from the rule then lield hy the court, injustice would 
have heeu done to many, and a Court ot Equity made 
an instruinent of iniquity. I shall vote for the amend¬ 
ment of the geutletrian from Clark [Mr. Mason.] But 
wmuld have preferred to have had the word ^‘retroac¬ 
tive ” struck out, and (x post facto inserted. 

Mr. MORRIS was no lawyer, but he should vote for 
this amendment. It was a requisition of law, that in 
the acknowledgment of deeds lor the transfer of real 
estate, the wile should be txainined separate and apart 
from her hushand, and the contents of the deed thus 
fully made known to her; and if the magistrate neg¬ 
lected to state this fact in the acknowledgment, the ti¬ 
tle attempted to be passed to the purchaser would be 
jeopardized. Believing that there would be occasion 













1216 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


hereafter for legislation to cure such defects as this, in 
the acts of our ministerial officers, for this reason he 
should support the amendment. 

Mr. RANNEY. If there was any merit in perseve¬ 
rance, gentlemen who had pressed this question were 
certainly entitled to that credit. For the three last 
times that this question had been under consideration, 
it had been argued only by those who were opposed to 
the section; and gentlemen had been making such 
handsome headway, that they were now by the last 
vote encouraged with the hope of carrying their amend¬ 
ment. 

But there were always two sides to every question, 
(continued Mr. R.,) and until we have looked at both 
sides, we can be but illy prepared to tiecide upon it. 

We have been often lectured upon the value of cu¬ 
rative laws, but no definition has been attempted. And 
now I say that the power to pass curative laws will 
extend to almost everything which we desire to pro¬ 
hibit by the use of the word ^‘retroactive;” and if 
gentlemen succeed in putting in the power to pass cu¬ 
rative laws, I will then go for striking out the whole. 
For there is nothing of value involved in this question, 
but what is connected with the proposition to strike 
iout the word “ retroactive.” 

We divide the powers of government into three de¬ 
partments—legislative, executive and judicial. We 
provide that the legislative department shall have the 
power to prescribe the rules of civil action. And in 
order to prescribe these rules upon just principles, it is 
indispensably necessary that the exercise of this pow¬ 
er should only look ahead, that it should be only pro¬ 
spective in its operation, for the idea of making a rule 
to punish the action of men, or to eftect their rights 
and interests, already past and accrued, would be as 
bad as the practice of the Roman despot, when he 
wrote his laws in small characters, and stuck them up 
so high that the people could not read them. 

But it is the business of the judicial department of 
the government to apply these rules of civil action to 
individual cases, and to work out justice in all its dif. 
fereiit forms under the law. If there was no remedy 
for all these evils so glowingly depicted b)’- the gentle¬ 
man, but by an application to the Legislature, there 
w’ould be some force in their arguments. But such is 
not the fact. This amendment proposes to take away 
from the appropriate tribunal for the administration of 
justice between man and man, the duty which belongs 
peculiarly to that tribunal, and devolve it upon the 
Legislature. The constitution of the courts is such 
that they can easily investigate facts and apply the 
proper remedy. Still they propose to take away from 
them the remedy for cases requiting such investiga¬ 
tions, and confer it upon the legislative department of 
the government, making the General Assembly to sit 
in judgment upon events which have long since gone 
past, instead of attending to their appropriate functions 
of prescribing^rules of action for the future. 

But again, I am opposed to the amendment, because 
it involves an unjust pi’inciple. For instead of investi¬ 
gating matters of fact in open court—bringing the par¬ 
ties together in their own neighborhood, where each 
can have a full and fair opportunity of manifesting the 
truth—the effect of the gentleman’s amendment is to 
transfer the settlement of their rights to another forum, 
which acts ex parte, where deception and misrepresen¬ 
tation may supply the place of evidence. Now, I say, 
give to the parlies an open court—an open field and a 
fair fight before an appropriate tribunal, for the ascer¬ 
tainment of the facts, and the application of a remedy 
appropriate to the justice of the case, in accordance 
with general laws. 

Mr. MASON. Will the gentleman allow me to pro¬ 
pose a modification to my amendment, in order that he 
may have the benefit of it ? 

Mr. RANNEY. Certainly. 

Mr. MASON asked and obtained leave to modify 
his amendment, by proposing to insert these words ; 


“ That nothing herein contained shall prevent the en¬ 
actment of curative laws, affecting only the form of 
instruments, and cai’rying into effect the manifest in¬ 
tention of parties, and.” 

Mr. HOLT. I have voted to strike out the word 
retroactive every time the question has been up, with¬ 
out offering any argument upon it. I will not rehearse 
the arguments of other gentlemen, which are not with¬ 
out weight with me; but I would give this power to 
the Legislature for the purpose of quieting and com¬ 
posing disputed titles arising out of the imperfections 
of wills. 

In the execution of a will the law lequires that it 
shall be signed by three witnesses upon the same day. 
Well, a man goes on to make his will, and calls in his 
witnesses, and it is often the case that two witnesses 
may sign at one time and go about their business, and 
the third witness comes in and signs upon the same day, 
but not in the presence of the other two or of the tes¬ 
tator. Well, I suppose that in after time, some twenty 
years perhaps, a question of title arises from the fact that 
these witnesses did not all sign in the presence of each 
other and of the testator; and the case comes into 
court, and the court decide that the title is not valid 
for this cause. Now what is to be done? There is no 
remedy except in a bill of chancery, upon the princi¬ 
ple advocated by the gentleman from Trumbull. But 
in this time the estate has been partitioned out into the 
hands of many owners and minor heirs, amounting to 
hundreds, perhaps, and there must be a bill of chan¬ 
cery filed in the case of every individual owner. And 
there would be no other way of obtaining a good title 
according to the laws of any State in the Union. Now 
it is for the purpose of quieting a title in such a case, 
that I would confer upon the Legislature the power to 
pass such a law that all wills created in this manner 
shall be good in law. 

With regard to the monstrous c. rruptions in the Le¬ 
gislature, induced by wine and oysters, according to 
the suggestion of the gentleman from Trumbull, I do 
>not suppose that such a thing was ever done in the 
whole history of our Legislature, nor do I suppose that j 
our Legislature ever has been, or ever will be, capable i 
of such an imposition. Nor do I suppose the Legisla- i 
ture ever took up a particular case to examine and de- | 
dare upon the facts of that case alone. I never heard j 
of such a thing. But they inquire into the matter, and j 
make a curative declaration by a general law. ' 

I admit that the exercise of this power is an exception 
to the general scope of legislation; but sometimes, from ; 
the necessity of the case, the public inconvenience, and 
the temptations of fraud would be very great if this 
power did not rest in the Legislature. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. This subject was very fully 
discussed during the summer session of this body, in I 
Columbus. I then expressed my views. Entertaining" ; 
doubts as to the propriety of leaving the unlimited ‘ 
power of passing retroactive laws in the General As- I 
sembly, I then so argued. I said then that there was a I 
class of curative laws highly beneficial to the rights of j 
persons and the good order of community, but the | 
power ought to be defined in order to prevent abuses. I 
Since then I have reflected much upon the subject, and | 
have compared opinions with gentlemen on this floor, i 
in whose judgment I have more confidence than in rny | 
own. I find some of them in the same difficulty with 
myself. i 

But the proposition of the gentleman from Clark, ] 
[Mr. Mason,] if I rightly comprehend it, removes, to 5 
some extent, the difficulty. I repeat, sir, I am not I 
willing to give to the General Assembly the undefined {j 
power to pass retioactive laws; but there is a class of ’i 
curative statutes highly beneficial, and which can work 
wron^ to no one, but which are demanded by every i| 
principle of justice, going not further than affirming 
the rights of parties holding in good faith under a de- qfjj 
fectively executed power of a public officer in a mat- j 
ter of form and the like, where there is no other rem- 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


edy, and where, in the language of Kent, it is clearly 
just and reasonable, and conducive to the general wel¬ 
fare. 

But, sir, I would avoid special legislation for hard 
cases, as dangerous in principle, and tending to those 
corrupt practices alluded to by the gentleman from 
Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney.] 

I can give a notable instance of the application of 
such a law as that of 1835, to which reference has been 
made. A man died in the county of Ross, having de¬ 
vised to his daughter some six or eight hundred acres 
of land. She being married, united with her husband 
in conveying these lands to sundry purchasers, for a 
full, valuable consideration. Her first husband died, 
and she married again—separated from her second 
husband, and returned to Ohio after an absence of some 
years in the State of Illinois. In the meantime, it had 
been discovei’ed that in every instance in which she 
had executed deeds the certificate of the .Justice of 
the Peace was found to be defective, in not stating that 
** that the contents of the deed had been made known 
to her.” The case of Good v. Zercher, decided in 1843, 
had declared the law of 1835, which declared deeds so 
defectively certified by the Justice, to be unconstitu¬ 
tional, and suits were instituted against the holders of 
these lands. Happily, a change of the court reversed 
the decision in Good v. Zercher, and sustained the law. 

No right was affected by this law. The contract, as 
originally made, was not impaired or infringed at all. 
But it was the mere curing of a deficiency in the act 
of a ministerial officer, evidencing the performance of 
a certain duty on his part—a mere informality of the 
certificate of the officer. And this is all that the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Clark proposes. 

The gentleman from Trumbull talks about filing a 
bill in chancery. In this instance there were some six 
or seven different purchasers to which this woman 
gave deeds in the first place, and all these were now 
represented by successors and heirs at law; and, ac¬ 
cording to the gentleman from Trumbull, a bill would 
have to be filed in every instance. I could go into the 
county of Ross and find a hundred cares where an ac-- 
tion could be maintained for some such defect in pass 
ing titles, if it were not for the existing curative law to 
which I have referred. 

Still, this is a power which the gentleman from 
Trumbull affirms should not be exercised by the Legis¬ 
lature, but he would compel the parties to go into 
court to protect themselves from fraud. But where the 
interest of the wile has been defectively transferred, 
without a curative statute, you can have no remedy, 
as the supreme court of Ohio has expressly decided. 

Mr. RANNEY. The Legislature has prescribed, by 
a curative law, that you can go into court. 

Mr. GREEN. Aye. But there is a curative statute. 

Mr. RANNEY. But its action was only prospective. 

Mr. GREEN. And what was the necessity for that? 

Mr. RANNEY. To invest the courts with jurisdic¬ 
tion. 

Mr. GREEN. But I am contending upon the broad 
ground, that the woman’s title could only pass by ope¬ 
ration of law; and that, unless the forms were all com¬ 
plete, the title could not pass, without a curative stat 

ate. 

But the gentleman says as the law exists, it is only 
prospective. Well, if it is right, provident and proper 
to pass such an act, with a prospective operation, would 
it not be equally right, provident and proper, to pass 
such a law which should operate retrospectively upon 
the same description of cases ? 

The Supreme Court have decided, that you cannot 
supply by parol evidence what does not appear upon 
the certificate of the Justice of the Peace. 

Mr. STANTON. I regret exceedingly that the gen¬ 
tlemen from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] has seen proper to 
modify his amendment as he has. For according to 
my judgment, it is now of very little consequence. It 
proposes now, that curative laws shall apply simply to 

77 


1217 


those cases where there is a defect of title on account 
of some informality in the papers. But there are thous¬ 
ands of cases of defective titles, requiring the interven¬ 
tion of curative laws, mostly superior in their magni¬ 
tude of interest and importance to any of these; and 
as a good example of these cases, I might refer again 
to the illegal Connecticut marriage cases. 

I hope, therefore, that upon further reflection upon 
the subject, the gentleman will come up here prepar¬ 
ed to adhere to his amendment, as it was originally of¬ 
fered. 

It being too late now to detain the body with any 
expression of my own views upon this subject, I move 
the Convention adjourn. 

This motion was agreed to; and, accordingly the 
Convention adjourned. 


THURSDAY, February 13, 1851. 

8^ o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. MAN ON moved a call of the Convention, which 
was ordered, and the following gentlemen were found 
absent. 

Messrs. Archbold, Brown of Athens, Case of Hocking, Cham¬ 
bers, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, Kirk¬ 
wood, Mason, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Otis, Perkins, Riddle, 
Roll, Sawyer, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stidger, Swift, Tay¬ 
lor, Vance of Champaign and Way. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, all further proceed¬ 
ings under the call were dispensed with. 

Mr. MORRIS presented a petition from Mary Lay¬ 
man and forty-two other females from Clinton county, 
praying that a clause be inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors. 

Referred to the select committee on the subject of 
Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. BARBEE presented a petition from John Old¬ 
ham and forty other citizens of Miami county, on the 
same subject; which, on motion, was laid on the table. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Stark, presented a petition from 
J. M. Petit, and one hundred and five other citizens of 
Stark county on the same subject; which, on motion 
was laid on the table. 

Mr. EWART submitted the following; which was 
agreed to: 

Resolved, That a select committee of five be appointed to re¬ 
port to the Convention a schedule or article providing for the ex¬ 
piration of the terms of all officers and the termination of courts 
of Justice, under the existing constitution; nnd the transfer of 
business to those elected and organized under the new constitu¬ 
tion. 

Mr. BARBEE submitted the following: 

Resolved, That from and after this day, this Convention shall 
meet at 9 o’clock, A. M. and at 3 o’clock P. M., of each day. 

Mr. SAWYER moved to lay the resolution on the 
table. 

On which motion, 

Mr. EWART demanded the yeas and nays, whicli 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 45, nays 55—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, Brown of 
Athens, Case of Hocking, Chaney, Cutler, Ewing, Farr, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock 
of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Humphre- 
vills. King, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, 
Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Warren, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Struble, Warren, Wilson 
and President—40. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bennett, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Cham¬ 
bers, Ceilings, Cook, Curry, Ewart, Graham, Gray, Green of 
Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Holmes, Hootman, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, 
Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
Loudon, Man on. Mason, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Otis, 
Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of 
Highland, Stanbery, Stickney, Swan, Taylor, 'Thompson of Shel¬ 
by, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Williams, 
Woodbury and Worthington—55. 

So the motion to lay on the table was rejected. 

The question then being on the adoption of the re 
solution; 














1218 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. LARSH moved to ameind the resolution by stri¬ 
king out the word “three ” and inserting in lieu there¬ 
of the words “ two and a half.” 

On which motion, 

Mr. STILWELL demanded the yeas and nays, v*^hich 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 54, nays 42—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, Brown of 
Athens, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Cook, Cutler, Ew¬ 
ing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Gregg, Ham¬ 
ilton, Hard, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Larsh, Lidey, 
Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Pat¬ 
terson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith ot Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stan¬ 
ton, .Stebbins, Stilwell, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance 
of Butler, Wilson and President—54. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bennett, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Col- 
lings, Curry, Ewart, Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Jones, King, Lawrence, Lar- 
will. Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Orton, Otis, 
Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stidger, 
Struble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Warren, Williams, 
Woodbury and Worthington—42. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

The question then being on the adoption of the re¬ 
solution, as amended; 

Mr. BATES demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 57, nays 39—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Bennett, Blair, Blickensder¬ 
fer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Col- 
hngs. Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewai t, Ewing, Graham, Greene of 
Defiance, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, Holmes, Hootman, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Larsh, Lawrence, 
Lai'will, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Mc¬ 
Cormick, Morehead, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Quigley, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of VVarren, 
Stanbery, Stidger, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Williams, Woodbury and Worthington—57. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Brown of Athens, Case of Hocking, Chaney, Farr, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Gregg, Hard, Hailan, Henderson, Hitch¬ 
cock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, King, 
Loudon, Morns, McCloud, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott 
of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Steb¬ 
bins, Stilwell, Struble, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Wil¬ 
son and President—39. 

So the resolution was adopted. 

Mr. MITCHELL submitted the following; which 
was agreed to. 

Resolved, That all standing committees to whom articles may 
have been referred, be instructed to report the same back to the 
Convention, on or before Monday the 24th inst., excepting the 
committee on “ Revision,” 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, rose to a question of privi¬ 
lege. 

He said that during his absence, the gentleman from 
Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] had, as he had been inform¬ 
ed, raised a question of privilege in a matter regarding 
himself. He would be glad if that gentleman would 
state the points upon which he raised his question. He 
would give way to him for that purpose, and when he 
had made his statement, he would endeavor to answer 
him. He had heard‘two or three versions of the mat¬ 
ter, and was anxious to get at the true one before he 
proceeded to reply. 

Mr. MITCHELL said the remarks he had made up¬ 
on that occasion had been reported, and would be pub¬ 
lished, and then the gentleman could see them if he 
should choose. He was glad however, that the gentle¬ 
man from Licking, [Mr. Case,] had called up the sub¬ 
ject, as it would afford him, [Mij Case,] an opportu¬ 
nity to tell what he knows in relation to the changes 
that were made in the report of his, [Mr. Mitchell’s] 
remarks, as they occurred in the report of his, [Mr. 
Case’s] speech. 

In the first place, in my answer to his question, “ do 
you consider a franchise as property?” I am reported 
as having said “ Ah!” My answer was, “ No sir, I do 
not, in the sense in •which the term property is used in 
the constitution.” 

Again, in the answer he made to a question which I 
put to him, whether he considered the Dartmouth Col¬ 


lege case a reliable and undoubted legal authority ; his 
real answer was, “ Undoubtedly I do.” 

Again I asked, “ Do you believe in the right of re¬ 
peal unconditionally ?” In the report, the word “ un¬ 
conditionally ” is struck out of the question—entirely 
changing its force. And now I ask the gentleman if 
he knows any thing about these changes ? An answer 
to this is all I require. I bring no charge against him, 
but it is proper that it should be known where these 
alterations originated. 

Mr. CASE. The gentleman makes three points ; to 
each of which I will endeavor to respond; and to all 
of which I am prepared to answer distinctly and em¬ 
phatically. The first point which he complains of, is ^ 
upon this passage; 

Mr. C.4SE. Is not a franchise property ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Ah ! 

Mr. CASE. Does the gentleman say that he did not 
answer in the way he is reported ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I do not know. 

Mr. CASE. The gentleman speaks of erasures and 
alterations. I ask, has there been any erasure or al¬ 
teration in the Reporter’s manuscript in this question 
and answer ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. As to that particular answer, I 
will not take it ujiou myself to say what the Report 
was. I did not see it. 

Mr. CASE. I will now state that the question and 
answer are precisely the same in the original manu¬ 
script of the Reporter. What the answer was, in point 
of fact, I do not now recollect. 

I now come to the subject of the Dartmouth College 
question. The report, as published, is as follows; 

Mr. MITCHELL. Does the gentleman say that the decision in 
the Dartmouth College case, and the case of the Planters’ Bank 
of Mississippi, in 6 Howard, are good authority ? 

Mr. CASE. I should not hesitate to quote them in any court. 

Mr. MITCHELL. You regard it as good authority then 1 
Mr. CASE. Undoubted legal authority. 

Mr. CASE. Is thisi’ight or is it wrong ? Have there 
been any erasions or alterations here? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I have stated that the gentleman 
said iu answer to my question, “ Do you .regard the 
Dartmouth Collegecaseas good authority ?” “ tfndoubt- 
edly I do. ” 

Mr. CASE. Will the gentleman say that my reply 
is not published as delivered iu this body? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I do not know. I undertake to 
say that that was the way I understood him here at my 
seat and so wrote it down. 

The next point is in regard to the question of pro¬ 
spective repeal. The report reads: 

Mr. MITCHELL. * * Are you in favor of prospective re¬ 

peal? 

IMr. CASE. I tell you I am; I have voted for it as you know 
and always advocatrd here, and I am going to bring you up to 
that doctrine of the party, and I do not intend to let you dodge it. 

Mr. CASE, Is not that the way your question was 
reported by the Reporter ? The gentleman does not 
answer. I assert that it is nothing more and nothing 
less, and I ask the gentleman if he dares to deny it? 

So far as the question is concerned, it is precisely as it 
was taken down by the Reporter, and published in the- 
debates, and as to any questions or answers by others iu 
the manuscript report, there has neither been change, 
alteration or erasure by myself or any body else. I had 
my reasons for abstaining. I knew the men I was 
dealing with, and was aware that charges would be 
made, if even the slightest ground should be given for 
them, and for that reason I was careful not even to dot 
an i, nor cross a t, in their questions or answers. Not 
only so, but I was at Columbus and read the proof 
and compared it with the original, and again I say that 
neither erasure nor alteration was made, either here or 
there, so far as respects the questions and answers of 
others. I cannot therefore see upon what the gentle¬ 
man bases his question of privilege with me. If he 
was not reported correctly it is a matter between him. 
and the Reporter. 















CONVENTION REPOETS. 


1219 


gentleman that when 


The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] 
also had a question of privilege, I understand, in rela¬ 
tion to this matter. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The point which I made was this. 
The gentleman had his speech, as written out bv the 
Reporter, in his hands for the purpose of correction, 
and corrected it. That makes him guilty of any sup¬ 
pressions that took place in the report. If he denies 
that he corrected his speech, I will prove it. He had 
it in his hands to make it correct. He knew that the 
words of the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell.] 
were not reported as they were delivered. Why did 
he not make the correction ? I say he is guilty of all 
the suppressions that were made; such as that of a part 
of certain remarks made by me. He did not insert the 
whole speech, and is therefore guilty of misrepresen¬ 
tation. The gentleman shall be marked, and the truth 
of the case ferretted out. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The whole issue is between the 
gentleman from Licking then, and the Reporter. On 
that occasion, the Reporter, [Mr. Smith] came to me, 
and asked me to furnish the questions, which I put, in 
writing. 1 furnished him this paper now in my hand; 
he took it and in a short time returned to me with the 
report of my remarks; and if I am not mistaken, I sat 
down with him, at the time, and compared my memo¬ 
randum with the repoi't, and I think the word “uncon¬ 
ditional,” in connection with repeal, was retained, I 
gave the Reporter my memorandum, and supposed he 
had used it. As to the conduct of the gentleman from 
Licking, I have nothing to do with it 

Mr. CASE. I will assure the 
he comes to see the original manuscript, he will find 
his mistake, so far as respects the word “ uncondition¬ 
al.” I know it is not nor never was in it. 

The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] 
complains that I have altered my question and his an¬ 
swer to it, in the manuscript. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I say that I saw the report in 
the gentleman's hands, for the purpose of correction, 
and that the quotation from a former speech of mine, 
was not made, as read here. He did not make the 
corrections that ought to have been made, and as it 
stands the whole is rendered the reverse of the doc¬ 
trine I hold. 

Mr. CASE. T deny that I have touched what he said, 
or altered what I said myself in substance. If any gen¬ 
tleman says so he states that which is false; andl want 
here to put the falsehood square in his face. 

Mr. REEMELIN. What I said was, that I seen the 
f^entleman with my own eyes correcting his speech; 
Eie made other corrections, why not these ? 

Mr. CASE. I made quotations from the speeches of 
the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney] the gen¬ 
tleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell] and the gentleman 
from Medina, [Mr. Humphreville] to show that each 
of them had admitted that a franchise is property. 
1 read them for that purpose, and for no other. The 
extracts I had marked, and were fairly taken. It is 
true, that when I had finished reading so much of the 
speech of the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Rkeme- 
lin] as I desired, and had marked for that purpose, he 
called upon me tb read more—not in regard to that 
question, but upon some other matter, foreign to the 
point. When called upon by the gentleman 1 did not 
see fit to refuse to read, but I did not deem it proper to 
insert in my speech that which I had read at his in¬ 
stance, and which had no relation to the subject. He 
had the opportunity to see my remarks as reported, and 
might have done so, if he had chosen to take the trouble, 
and correct his own remarks. I always correct my 
own; never, however, the remarks of others. I knew, 
as I said before, the men I wns dealing with, and ex¬ 
pecting that the subject would be brought up again, 
was prepared on every point. 

While I am up I desire to call the attention of the 
•^entleman from Trumbull to the remarks made by^him, 
fn answer to this very speech. In looking over it, as 


published, I have been struck with surprise. I know 
that gentlemen sometimes get excited in debate, and 
say things that they ought not to say ; and 1 will go as 
far as any one to excuse the harshness of that which 
is said in the heat of debate. But 1 wish to ask the gen¬ 
tleman one question. Here is a remark ot his in the 
debates, reported as follows: 

If a man will make a blackguard of himself, he must not com¬ 
plain if he is treated as such. 

There is, it is true, an “if” interposed, and there 
is no direct reference to me; but I ask the gentleman 
here in public, if he intended in that remark to charge 
me with being a blackguard ? 

Mr. SAWYER. I hope there will be an end put to 
this, and that we may proceed to business. 

Mr. CASE. If the gentleman declines to answer the 
question, I have no more to say about it; but if he has 
no objection, I would like to hear his answer. 

Mr. SAWYER. You had better let it drop, boys— 
let it all go together. 

Mr. CASE. I will say also, that I made no attack 
upon the gentleman from Trumbull, and if he under¬ 
stood me as doing so, he is mistaken. I read a part of 
a speech ot his, as I did of those of the gentlemen 
from Medina and Hamilton. I made no allusion to him 
in debate, and yet the gentleman has charged me with 
having made an attack upon him. He also accuses me 
of having quoted unfairl)- from his speech. I deny it. 
The quotation is fairly made, and any gentleman who 
examines the speech will say so. He charges me with 
having selected a single paragraph, and of giving a 
wrong version to it, for the purpose of effecting a mis¬ 
representation. 

I will for one moment glance at his remarks as they 
are reported, under date of December 2.'i, in page 165, 
ot the reports. We had then reached the consideration 
of the amendment introduced by the former member 
from Fairfield, [Mr. Robertson,] and there had been 
at the time very little discussion of the question. The 
first remarks were made by the gentleman from But- 
l ler, [Mr. Vance.] The gentleman from Hamilton, 
[Mr. Groesbeck,] followed and read from 6th How¬ 
ard, to prove that a franchise is property. The gentle¬ 
man from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] read from .Jacob’s 
law dictionary a definition of the term franchise. He 
thought the assertion of the'gentleman from Hamilton, 
[Mr. Groesbeck,] a little too broad, but did not deny 
it. Then followed the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. 
Ranney.] What did he say ? His remarks are to be 
found on page 173, of the debates. This was before 
members became excited upon this question, and be¬ 
fore certain political policy was brought on to this floor 
in connection with this question. It was as follows : 

“ But what wa!3 a charter ? Gentlemen say it is property. I 
agree that it is property; but because it is property, can il always 
be seized for the public use ? Must there not be first an existing 
necessity ? For instance—I own a horse. Under ordinary cir¬ 
cumstances, the government has no right to take my horse from 
me. But a war suddenly springs up; it becomes necessary to 
send a courier through the country where I reside; my horse be¬ 
comes necessary for the purpose, and it is taken and paid for. 
Here is the necessity, and the true application of the rule. For 
Gentlemen will agree that governments have no power wantonly 
to seize upon individual property. A necessity mustactually ex¬ 
ist.” 

Now here is the entire sentence. It was spoken 
when there was no controversy upon this question on 
either side. The gentleman spoke like a lawyer, and 
as a lawyer would naturally speak on the first presenta¬ 
tion of this question. I will now read further from the 
same speech on the same page. The gentleman said .. 

“ My democracy goes back beyond 1848. I do not know but it 
is an old doctrine, but I never heard of it. But what is property? 
According to Blackstone, property is divided into real and person¬ 
al. 'I here is a sort of property called choses in action, and a char¬ 
ter seems to come as near to that as anything.” 

Now, the gentleman says that the reporter must have 
been mistaken in attributing this sentiment to him. 
The reporters are not lawyers; and nobody but a law¬ 
yer would talk about “choses inaction.” Moreover, 
if the gentleman was mi8-reported,the papers contain- 


















1220 


CONVENTION REPOETS, 


ing the reports are posted up, as they appear on a desk 
in this room, and every gentleman has an opportunity 
to make the proper corrections, and when corrected 
they are sent to the printer, in order to have them re¬ 
formed in the book edition. I say then, that in the 
first debate, there was no controversy upon this ques¬ 
tion ; and it was said, and admitted, and by no one de¬ 
nied, that a franchise is property. And about ten days 
afterwards this fact is taken notice of by the gentleman 
from Franklin, in another debate which then sprung up 
on this question, who, (page 261,) said: 

“ A franchise is not property! This I believe was first heard in 
this debate from the gentleman from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] who, 
I am sorry to perceive, is not in his place; and it was reiterated 
by the gentleman Irom Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] who, I am hap¬ 
py to see, is in his seat. A doctor of medicine and a doctor of 
laws have told us there is no property in a franchise.” 

Now, will any one assert that I have read the gentle- 
anan unfairly? True, he reads from a speech he made 
aome week or ten days after on another occasion, 
where ho takes ground that a franchise is not property, 

Mr. LOUDON rose to a question of order. We have, 
he said, a rule that gentlemen shall speak only twenty 
minutes the first time, and ten minutes the second 
time, upon any question. He believed the rule had 
been already exceeded by the gentleman from Licking, 
[Mr. Case.] If we go on in this manner, we shall 
have all the old speeches said over, and occupy the 
whole day. He thought it the duty of all to attempt to 
get to business. 

The PRESIDENT said the gentleman rose to a ques¬ 
tion of privilege, which was always a privileged ques¬ 
tion. He believed he was now going on to make a 
speech or an argument. He could not see what this 
had to do with his question of privilege. 

Mr. RANNEY said he had too much respect for him¬ 
self and for this body to go back and enter into this 
small potatoe business. What he had said was upon 
record, and by it he was willing to be tried. It was 
correctly reported and explained itself. 

Mr. CASE said that when he rose he had only in¬ 
tended to ask the gentleman from Trumbull [Mi\ Ran¬ 
ney,] a question. That question he has refused to an¬ 
swer. All (said he) that I have to say, is this, that if 
he intended to apply to me that dirty word “ black¬ 
guard,” I hurl it back into his teeth—yes, I cram that 
filthy word down his very throat, to the place from 
whence it came—filth to filth. 

[Cries of “ order,” “order.”] 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman will take his 
seat. 

Mr. CASE. I have said all I had to say. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention took up 
the report of the committee on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment, with the pending amendments. 

The question pending being on the amendment of 
Mr. Mason, to wit: Insert after the word “provided,” 
in section thirty-three, the following words: “ That 
nothing herein contained shall prevent the enactment 
of curative laws, effecting only the form of instruments, 
and carrying into effect the manifest intention of par¬ 
ties, and.” 

Mr. MASON asked and obtained leave to withdraw 
his amendment. 

Mr. MANON moved a re-consideration of the vote 
by which the Convention yesterday refused to strike 
out the word “ retroactive,” and insert the words “ ex 
post facto. 

The question being on the re-consideration; 

Mr. MANON said he had voted with the majority, 
and against striking out. He then believed himself to 
be in the right. In the course of the subsequent dis¬ 
cussion, he had been led to doubt the correctness of 
his conclusion. On this account he had made the mo¬ 
tion. 

Mr. STILWELL had voted yesterday for striking 
out. He preferred the term ex post facto, but he had, 
this morning, been shown the draft of an amendment 
which he thought would harmonize all conflicting opin¬ 


ions. For the purpose of making such an attempt, he 
hoped the gentleman from Licking would withdraw 
his motion. 

Mr. MANON then asked and obtained leave to with¬ 
draw his aineudmeut. 

Mr. MASON moved to further amend the report by 
inserting after the words “provided however,” in sec¬ 
tion thirty-three, the following: “That the General 
Asseinbly may, by general laws, authorize courts to 
carry into effect the manifest intention of jjarties and 
officers, by causing omissions, defects and errors, in in¬ 
struments and proceedings arising out of their want of 
conformity with the laws of this State, and upon such 
terms as shall be just and equitable, and.” 

The question then being on the last amendment of¬ 
fered by Mr. Mason ; 

Mr. STANBERY said. This brings us back to a 
new experiment. He wished he could see as plainly 
as gentlemen, what could be said in favor of this amend¬ 
ment. What it proposes is what the courts have al¬ 
ways had the power to do, except in one or two instan¬ 
ces. They have always had the power to enforce con¬ 
tracts defective for want of form. It gives the Legis¬ 
lature no new power. He hoped we would go back 
to the provisions of the old constitution, which had 
been in force for forty-eight years, and had worked 
well, leaving the power with the Legislature, where it 
always had been. 

Mr. MASON said it was the fault of advocates of a 
proposition to over state its advantages, and of the op¬ 
ponents to underrate them. Such was the nature of all 
argumentation. The gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. 
Stanbery,] says that the amendment contains no pow¬ 
er. It prohibits retrospective legislation; and doing 
that, I ask the gentleman if it does nothing ? 

Mr. STANBERY said he should vote for the propo¬ 
sition, but preferred to vote for a reconsideration of the 
vote taken yesterday, upon striking out the word “re¬ 
troactive.” 

Mr MASON. The object is to provide that the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly may pass curative laws—to cure the er¬ 
rors committed by our own sworn and commissioned 
officers. 

Mr. STANBERY. Does the gentleman say that this 
provision will give to the courts the power to correct, 
in case of a will informally executed? 

Mr. MASON. I was about to say that the provision 
is a very important one, and I do not see but it covers 
all the cases where inteiTerence on the part of the Leg¬ 
islature ought to be allowed. In the case of a will 
made in Virginia, and made in compliance with the 
laws of that State, and devising lands in Ohio, it comes 
to this State, and in consequence of its not being execu¬ 
ted according to the provisions of the statutes of the 
State, it cannot be executed. This provision will 
give redress in such a case, which hitherto our courts 
could not give. 

Mr. STANTON thought there were radical defects 
in the proposition. If he understood gentlemen, they 
objected to the passage of mere private statutes, where 
the interests of particular parties were legislated upon 
in a particular case. If so, though he believed them to 
have been in many cases useful, and knew no case in 
which they had been injurious, he should make no se¬ 
rious objection. The difficulty of providing for excep¬ 
tional cases, is that they are exceptionable. General 
laws cannot be wide enough, and comprehensive 
enough, to meet them all. Any attempt to point out 
and classify cases will be found radically defective. 
The very object is to meet cases that cannot be classi¬ 
fied. 

Again. Here is a declaration of powers in terms 
that have received no judicial construction, and the in 
troduction of new phrases whose meaning has not 
been settled. I had rather the provision had been 
made in general terms, such as these: “ The General 
Assembly shall have power to pass general curative 
statutes. Tins \^^ould cut off the power to pass pri- 







CONVENTION REPOETS. 


1221 


vate statutes for particular cases. I say, in conclu¬ 
sion, that I am sorry to abandon the provisions of the 
old constitution. They have received a judicial con¬ 
struction, and there is not a case, in all the States 
where injustice has been done by the exercise of such 
a power. 

Mr. HOLT moved to amend the amendment of Mr. 
Mason, by striking out all after the word “ may,” and 
inserting the following: ‘‘pass general curative laws.” 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Holt ; 

Mr. HOLT said he had little to say. This subject 
had attracted considerable attention, and he had taken 
a deep interest in its settlement in a proper manner. 
He did not exactly like the amendment he had otfered, 
but would not stop to amend it now. He believed it 
would answer the purpose. The gentleman from 
Clark, [Mr. Mason,] had explained what the legal pro¬ 
fession understood by curative laws. The gentleman 
from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] had mentioned only 
two cases that he thought not provided for by the 
amendment of the gentleman from Clark—those of de¬ 
tective wills, and the contracts of married women. 
Now, I w’ill ask the necessity of such delay and ex¬ 
pense as must inevitably occur, unless we give the Leg¬ 
islature the power to pass laws of this kind. Take the 
case of a defective execution of a deed. The grantor 
intended to convey title, and it is true that a court of 
equity can carr}’^ that intention into effect. But many 
thousands of defective deeds are annually made. How 
many deeds proved defective, when, upon a certain oc¬ 
casion, the Supreme Court decided that all deeds exe¬ 
cuted in a particular manner, were not good? The 
gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] says they may 
all be cured by going into chancery. If you can find 
the grantor, and he is an honest man, he will correct it. 
But he may be dead, or out of the way; you musthunt 
up his heirs, give public notice, and go into a court of 
chancery ; and in every thousand such cases there will 
be at least five hundred such bills in chancery. Now, 
instead of all this delay and expense, I would author¬ 
ize the Legislature to pass a general law, under which 
all deeds executed in this way should be valid. I like 
the old law best, and believe it to be a useful one, and 
in my life I never knew it was abused. 

The question being on the amendment of Mr. Holt, 
the same was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Mason ; the same was adopted. 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER moved further to amend 
the report by adding, as an additional section, the fol¬ 
lowing: 

Appropriations of money may be made for the colonization of 
free people of color residing in the State with their consent, on 
the coast of Africa, whenever, in the opinion of the General As¬ 
sembly it can be done without causing an emigration of such per¬ 
sons from adjoining States.” 

Mr. B. said he desired to say a few words in relation 
to the proposition he now offered, especially as, on a 
former occasion, he had been misapprehended by the 
reporter. He was made to say, that by the adoption 
of a provision of this kind, we should set an example 
for the imitation of other States in philanthropy. On 
the contrary he had stated that other States had set 
the example, and he desired to see Ohio follow in their 
wake, as soon as possible. He said that Virginia had 
already appropriated large sums for the purpose of as¬ 
sisting her colored population to emigrate. Kentucky 
also, had made a beginning to assist her free black pop¬ 
ulation, which in all probability would end in send 
ing them to Africa, and he desired to see Ohio follow¬ 
ing in the wake of these States, and beginning to do 
the same fhing. He did not desire to say anything 
upon the subject of colonization in general. The 
amendment he had offered provides that the General 
Assembly may act, when it can be done without caus¬ 
ing the immigration of colored persons into the States, 
which would doubtless be construed so as to prohibit 
any action, until such a result could be secured. With 


that view of the subject, he had offered his amend¬ 
ment. 

The question being on the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment ; 

Mr. QUIGLEY moved to reconsider the vote by which 
the Convention struck out from section thirty-four, the 
following words: “ nor grant by appropriation or other¬ 
wise, any amount of money to any individual, on any 
claim real or pretended, when the same shall not have 
been provided for by pre-existing law.” 

On which motion, Mr. QUIGLEY demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 49, 
nays 41—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Blickensderf'er, Cahill, Chaney, Farr, 
Forbes, Gray, Greene ol Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hen¬ 
derson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humpnreville, Hunt, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Morris, McCor¬ 
mick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyan¬ 
dot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson of 
Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson, Wor¬ 
thington and President—49. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, 
Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Greene of Ross, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Larsh, Leadbetter, Mason, 
Morehead, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Smith of W’arren, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor, Wiliams and Woodbury—41. 

So the motion to reconsider was agreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment of the 
committee of the whole, to wit: strike out from sec¬ 
tion 34, the following w’ords, “ nor grant by appropri¬ 
ation or otherwise any amount of money to any indi¬ 
vidual on any claim, real or pretended, when the 
same shall not have been provided for by pre-existitng 
law.” 

Mr. QUIGLEY moved to perfect the words proposed 
to be stricken out, by adding, at the' end thereof, the 
following : “ Unless such claim be passed by a major¬ 
ity of two-thirds, in each branch of the General As¬ 
sembly;” which was agreed to. 

The question then being on striking out the amend¬ 
ment, as amended; it was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Blickensderfer ; 

Mr. HOLMES moved to amend the amendment by 
striking out all after the word “Africa,” and inserting 
in lieu thereof, the following: “And the General As¬ 
sembly shall, by law, prohibit black or rnulatto per¬ 
sons from emigrating into, or becoming residents with¬ 
in the limits of this State.” 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Holmes ; 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, would vote against 
the amendment, and hoped that it would not be adop¬ 
ted. He should vote against it in the belief that if it 
should prevail, it would defeat this constitution; or if 
it did not defeat it, would array a great many votes 
against it. It may be that there are many people of 
the State in favor of a proposition such as this; but I, 
for one, certainly will not say that the black man shall 
have no place upon the face of the earth, upon which 
he may set his foot. Such inhumanity as this, I do not 
want to see this in this constitution. 

Mr. HOLMES, at the suggestion of the gentleman 
from Tuscarawas, who desired a vote upon his prop¬ 
osition alone, asked and obtained leave to withdraw 
his amendment. 

The question then being on the amendment ot Mr. 
Blickensderfer ; 

Mr. PERKINS said he had no idea of speaking to 
deaf ears, or ot running his head against a stone wall; 
but he wished simply to ask his democratic friends up¬ 
on the other side, how this amendment comported with 
their doctrine of the true intent and purpose of govern¬ 
ment. He had heard it said by them over and over 
a'^ain, that governments were instituted for certain 
ends,*and that those ends were simply the preservation 
of social order, and the administration of justice ; and 
















1222 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


that the right of taxatiou was limited solely lo those 
objects. I would ask them then, what right they have 
to appropriate my money to carry the negroes of Ross 
county to Africa? If they are shaved by a black bar¬ 
ber, what right have they to tax us, who are shaved by 
a white barber ? Heretofore they have asserted that 
all just governments are confined within certain limits, 
and when those limits are transgressed, the result is 
usurpation; and now they propose to pass this amend¬ 
ment, in direct contravention of that doctrine, and pass 
it with the words “ liberty and equality ” upon their 
lips. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE was not disposed to let this 
amendment pass, without entering his protest against 
it. If the negroes of Ohio want to go to Africa, let 
them go; but he protested against any provision that 
should tax the people against their will, to carry them 
there. He knew that this Colonization Society was 
called a philanthropic society. So is the bible and 
tract society, and he was as unwilling to be taxed to 
aid in carrying on the operations of one of these, as 
another. Some people considered the society lor the 
abolition of slavery, by the purchase and manutnission 
of negroes, as a philanthropic society. It may be so; 
but he protested against being taxed for the further¬ 
ance of its ends. Let all be carried on by tlie proceeds 
ol the charity of the people. They are not proper ob¬ 
jects for the support of the government. If either one 
of these objects are so, none would present so strong 
claims as that of disseminating the surpluses among the 
poor and the vicious of the State; yet no one proposes 
a constitutional provision that there shall be a contribu¬ 
tion from the treasury in aid of the objects of the bible 
society. To keep religion, its truths and promises, in 
the minds of men, may be necessary to keep men in 
order, yet one of the first provisions of this constitu¬ 
tion is that no man, against his will, shall be taxed for 
the support of religion. 

There is another reason why such taxatiou would be 
unjust. The negro population is very unequally dis¬ 
tributed through the State. There may be twenty 
thousand in that part of the State south of the national 
road, while there are not twenty hundred north of it. 
I will guaranty that Medina county shall remove lo Af¬ 
rica every negro within her limits who wants to go 
there. Then why not Ross county do the same? I 
hope the amendment will not be adopted. 

Mr. CHAMBERS said that great exertions were now 
being made to promote colonization; and it was thought 
by many to be the grandest scheme now in existence, 
to build up a nation and erect a free government in Af¬ 
rica. We have bickerings at home upon the subject of 
the black population, and he was sure nothing would 
be done without the concurrence of the States in the 
action of the general government. He believed it to 
be a great and worthy object to transfer the black popu¬ 
lation of this country to Africa, and for one, he was wil¬ 
ling to be taxed for the purpose; and he believed it 
would be perfectly justifiable to tax all the people of 
Ohio for the furtherance of this great measure. He 
hoped the amendment would be adopted. 

Mr. LEADBETTER said he had a few words to 
say on this question, and he hoped the Reporter would 
be careful in taking down his remarks. It is not often 
that he rose to speak in this Convention, and when he 
did, it was seldom that he w'as correctly reported; I 
have been made to say a great many foolish things, and 
a great many things that I never did say—and I have 
this desire, to have my remarks submitted to me be¬ 
fore they are sent off. 

Mr. President, I am not one of those who would 
mince matters. I would meet this question as I would 
all others, square in the face. I will not beat about 
the bush. Now, sir, what is the proposition before us? 
Is it to make the State of Ohio the great thoroughfare 
for all the negroes of all the other States ? Are we to 
make it the great lazar house for all the runaway and 
emancipated negroes from the slave States around us? 


What are the provisions of this amendment ? I under¬ 
stand them, and I am told that by providing for the re¬ 
moval of the negroes now in this State that others will 
not come in. Now, sir, you are beginning in the wrong 
place—if you desire to remedy the evil you must first 
shut down the gate, and prevent any more fromVjoming 
in; if you do not, the slave States will thrust upon us their 
worthless emancipated slaves. Do we not see enough 
that is going on in the States around us. Indiana has 
proposed to shut the door against that kind of popula¬ 
tion, and we see recommendations in the slave States 
to remove the free colored population from their States, 
one of which is only separated from this by a river. 
Then sir, does it not become us to look around and see 
what will be the result if we permit their refuse negroes 
to be saddled upon this State? I repeat, sir, are we 
prepared to make this State the great lazar house for 
this class of people and tax the peoj)le of this State for 
their support ? 

I shall vote against this proposition, because you do 
not begin in the right place—stop them from coming 
in first, and then I would clothe the General Assembly 
with pow’er to remove them wherever they should see 
proper so lo do—and whether they did or not, they 
should be prevented from coming into this State, for 
divers reasons that I wdll not here discuss. 

What do W'e want of this kind of population among 
us ? There is a superstituous notion prevailing with 
some people, that a goat is a good thing about a stable 
to keep off distempers. Sir, if the abolitionists, the 
peculiar friend of the negro, had have expended one 
half of as much in ameliorating their condition, and 
increasing their happiness, as they have in publishing 
and disseminating incendiary publications, by which 
they have been manifestly and unjustly injured in 
their condition, they would have done them incalcula¬ 
ble good. 

Mr. President, I believe that I have as much sym¬ 
pathy as any other man living, but it lies in another di¬ 
rection—not to encourage them here, when they can¬ 
not enjoy the privilege of those with w'hom they are 
surrounded. I would not excite them. I would hold 
out no false hopes—hopes that they can never realize. 
I would not hold out to them the anvantages of run¬ 
ning awa)^, taking the subterranean passages through 
this State for Canada, a climate not over-genial for that 
kind of people. Still, sir, I would not stop a darky 
that was fleeing from his master—my ideas of liberty 
would prevent me. 

If we do not prevent the emigration of freed negroes 
into this State, it will not only be the place of their re¬ 
sort, but the only medium by which the slave States 
can get nd of their free negroes; and what do we pro¬ 
pose to do by this amendment ? If we commence 
sending off, we make room for more to come in; yea, 
invite them. I am ready lo vote to shut the door—ef¬ 
fectually shut the door against their further ingress, 
and then, sir, I will be willing to pay my share of the 
taxes to aid in their removal from the Stale. I would 
rather do that, than to pay for the keeping of them in 
the Penitentiary—costs of prosecution, &c., or to buy 
locks to prevent them from stealing. It might cost 
less. I know that this question has itsdifliiculties, and 
opens a wide field for discussion, which I am not dis¬ 
posed to enter. 

Mr. President, I am inquired of as to how many ne¬ 
groes we have in Holmes county. I answer one, and 
a very likely one too. I do not know whether he was 
ever a slave or not. He says he was not—but if he 
was I doubt much if he be taken away—he minds his 
own business, and takes care of his own money. 

Mr. HOLMES moved to amend the amendment of 
Mr. Blickexsderfer by striking out all after the word 
“Africa,” and inserting the same which he had previ¬ 
ously offered and withdrawn. 

The question then being on the amendment to the 
amendment; 

Mr. HOLMES said he perceived from what he had 












1223 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


heard, the necessity of some provision of this kind. If 
we pass a law appropriating money for the purpose of 
colonizing our colored population on the coast of Africa 
the State of Ohio would be made a point to which all 
who desire to go to Africa would rush from the ad¬ 
joining States. He would vote for the amendment of 
the gentleman from Tuscarawas, and would pay cheer¬ 
fully his portion of a tax to relieve a class that cannot 
be equal with the white population of the State. Hence 
if wo authorize an appropriation let us prevent them 
from coming in here on purpose to be sent to Africa. 

Mr. HAWKINS said this was not a question of phi¬ 
lanthropy merely, but one that demands the wisdom 
and foresight of statesmen. It is a great and growing 
evil that is to be provided against. There are, it is 
said, arrangements on the part of the United States by 
which the means of emigi’ation to Africa will be facili¬ 
tated to all those who desire to go. He would inquire 
of the peculiar friends of the colored race—those who 
voted to extend to them the right of suffrage—what is 
the objection ? Why do they oppose the exercise of 
the power to enable them to emigrate where they can 
have a country of their own, and be free under their 
own government? He could see no valid reason for 
such a course. He was willing to be taxed for a pur¬ 
pose of this kind. Not that he felt any hostility to the 
colored population, but he desired to improve the only 
means at present existing to relieve them and us from 
existing evils. It would be necessary to prevent them 
from coming to Ohio for the purpose of receiving this 
aid. The object of sending them into the free States 
had been avowed by the executive of Virginia. They 
desire to send away those that are becoming helpless 
from age, and which, otherwise, they would be bound 
to support. This should be met with corresponding 
action on the part of the free States. He should vote 
for the amendment, and for the original proposition 
whether amended or not, for he desired to pen up as 
far as possible, the black population of the South in the 
States where it belongs; and he thought it essential to 
the happiness of both races that they should be separa¬ 
ted. 

Mr. LOUDON moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “shall the main question be 
now put?” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved a call of the 
Convention, which was ordered, and the following 
gentlemen were found absent: 

Messrs. Archbold, Clark, Dorsey, Groesbeck, Kennon, Law¬ 
rence, Roll, Swift, Vance of Champaign and Way, 

On motion of Mr. BLAIR, all further proceedings 
under the call were dispensed with. 

The question then being, “shall the main question be 
now’ put ?” 

Mr. TOWNSHEND demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 13, nays 85— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Farr, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Loudon, Mitch¬ 
ell, McCormick, Orton, Ranney, Sawyer, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stebbins, Williams and President—13. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews. Barbee, Bamet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Lick¬ 
ing, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, 
Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuy¬ 
ahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, 
Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mason, More- 
head, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Per¬ 
kins, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, Scott of Har¬ 
rison, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of 
Butler, Warren Williams, Woodbury and Worthington—85. 

So the call for the previous question was not sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then being on the amendment to the 
amendment; 

Mr. BATES. In asking the indulgence of the Con¬ 
vention, to allow me the opportunity of giving my 
opinions on the important question now before us, to 


prohibit the immigration of the colored population, I 
wish distinctly to disclaim the least intention of im¬ 
peaching either the humanity or the patriotism of those 
gentlemen who may happen to differ from me in sen¬ 
timent. 

The present is a question on which there may be a 
wide I’ange of discussion, on the ground of expediency, 
and in which we may differ honestly, as to the best 
method of obtaining an object desired by all parties. 
But I am aware, also, that while we are seeking for 
expedients in diffcult cases, it is very easy to lose sight 
of those great principles which should form the basis 
of our political institutions. I desire, also, to say that 
I regard the policy of the slave States in throwing up¬ 
on us their worn out and degraded slave population, 
when it can be no longer profitable to them, as a dou¬ 
ble act of injustice. If they regard them as a nuisance, 
(as they profess to do,) they ought not to throw that 
nuisance upon us. They have made it what it is. And 
they are bound to dispose of it in a proper manner 
without interference with their neighbors. But while 
their policy is unfair, and highly objectionable in ref¬ 
erence to us—it is cruel in reference to the emancipa¬ 
ted slaves, in forcing them to leave the land of their 
birth, their friends and relations, and all the associa¬ 
tions which have been endeared to them by the cir¬ 
cumstances of life. And it would be cruel in us—if, 
in opposing the policy of the slave holders, we increas¬ 
ed the bitterness of the sufferings of its victims. And 
here I will take occasion to remark, that while I would 
not invite the free colored people of the slave States to 
emigrate to us, I think, as I said on a former occasion, 
that we ought to treat them with the common rights 
of humanity when they do come. 

I think there is also a wide difference between gran¬ 
ting them the rights which humanity demands, the 
right of a home upon our soil, and the means of mental 
and moral improvement, and conferring upon them 
privileges, for the exercise of which they may not be 
prepared. With these preliminary remarks, I will pro¬ 
ceed to give my views on the subject before us. In 
the first place I regard the proposition as behind the 
moral sentiment of the age in which we live. The 
civilized nations of the earth would look with aston¬ 
ishment at such an act, performed by a constitutional 
convention of the free and flourishing State of Ohio. 
And I for one, am not willing to be an agent in fixing 
such a stain upon her reputation. By applying this 
prohibition to the whole colored race, we shall come 
directly into conflict with a provision in the Federal 
constitution, by which the citizens of each State, have 
the broad shield of National protection thrown over 
their rights in emigrating from one State to another. 
Difficulties have already occurred. An open quarrel 
has taken place between two of the States—Massachu- 
settss and South Carolina—and although no irreparable 
mischief has yet been produced, yet they have clearly 
shown that such results may take place. And it could 
not fiiil to be deeply mortifying to a large proportion of 
our constituents if the state of Ohio, should be placed, 
in reference to this subject, with South Carolina. It 
seems to me, that such an act as is now propu.s.^d, 
whatever its advocates may intend, would carry on the 
face of it, very little I’egard for the will of the people. 
It was but recently, that the odious “Black Laws” were 
struck from our statute books, by the almost unanimous 
concurrence of men of all parties. And now to revive 
the same thing, in a worse form, and embody it in the 
constitution, and thus place the subject as far as possi¬ 
ble beyond the power of the people to correct it again, 
could not fail to produce a strong opposition to the 
whole document. 

We proudly boast that our country is the Asylum for 
the poor and the oppressed of all nations. Our invita¬ 
tions, wafted on every wind, and reaching the dee[)est 
recesses of human degredation, have lighted up th(> vis¬ 
ions of hope to millions who were ready to perish. 
And the floodsof emigration are still swelling with the 









1224 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


continual outpourings of Europe. But here is a down 
trodden race—emphatically the victims of oppression— 
not foreigners but natives of the United States, and 
they and they alone are to be prohibited from setting 
their feet upon our soil. 

Why was it that the “ Black Laws” were permitted 
to lie a dead letter upon our statute books ? Plainly 
because they were revolting to the common feeling of 
humanity. And what will be the effect of engrafting 
all the odious features of those laws upon our new con¬ 
stitution? Will it not carry with it an open disregard 
of the well known moral sentiment of the people of 
Ohio ? Will it not do more—and become a virtual en¬ 
dorsement of the system of slavery itself? I am aware 
that the measure is regarded by some gentlemen as a 
rebuke to the slaveholding States, as well as a measure 
to counteract their policy in reference to its bearing up- 
onus. But I think I can see, in the proposed measure, 
an effect directly the reverse of a rebuke of the South¬ 
ern policy. That policy is founded upon the assumption 
—contradicted by historical facts—but still pertinaci¬ 
ously maintained—that the people of color are not ca¬ 
pable of enjoying the benefits of freedom. It is not my 
intention to introduce this subject for discussion, any 
further than in its immediate relation to the proposition 
before us. In this view of the subject, it is proper to 
state the fact that with a large number of Southern 
gentlemen, this dogma lies at the very foundation of the 
system of slavery as it now exists in the United States. 
The motion before us endorses this doctrine—nay more, 
it adopts it—and makes it a part of the organic law off 
the State. And when we look back at the histoiy of 
our country lor the last twenty-five years, I can but 
regard this movement as a progress—a progress of 
Southern policy—extending its influence, its principles, 
and its power, over the Northern portion of our Repub¬ 
lic. And I confess, that when the claim has been open¬ 
ly advanced to the right to extend the institution of 
slavery itself over the territories of the United States, I 
feel jealous of every measure that would give any sanc¬ 
tion to the principles on which that institution is sup¬ 
ported or defended. 

In a case like the present, involving the dearest 
rights ofa portion of the human family, it would seem 
to be necessary to lay down some definite rule by 
which the application of this provision should be regu¬ 
lated. Legal pains and penalties are made to depend 
upon some overt act, of which the party must be duly 
convicted, leaving the burden of proof on the prosecu¬ 
tion. But here is a case, or rather class of cases, in 
which the forfeiture of natural rights is not predicated 
on any overt act of the party. It is the color of his 
skin! Can you define that color precisely which for¬ 
feits a man’s natural rights 7 

We have heard of some ludicrous instances of gen¬ 
tlemen of very high standing who have been taken for 
persons of color. Suppose some legal consequences 
had been involved in the cases to which I alluJe, would 
the question of color have been decided by the eye ? 
No, certainly not. For by color we do not in this 
amendment, mean color at all. It is something with 
which the eye has nothing to do—optics are out of the 
question. What is it then? Why, you must get his 
genealogy from the time of the deluge, and if you can 
discover one single cross with the descendants of Ham 
—he must stand condemned as a person of color; for 
the principle is that the mixture never runs out. Ten 
>r ten thousand times diluted by mixtures with the Cir¬ 
cassian race, and it is still the same. 

Will you, on the basis of such a philosophy as this, 

(ast a reproach upon our State in the eyes of the civ- 
1i?ed world? Will you trample the rights of human¬ 
ity under foot—and aggravate the injuries already re- 
cei\ed by this race? Will you disregard the already 
exfJiessed sentiment of the people of this State on a 
great moral and political question ? Will you endorse 
the whole system of southern slavery^ and embody in 
jlis constitution a flat contradiction to the "bill of 


rights,” on which it is professedly founded ? Or if 
you do, will the people of this commonwealth ratify 
the deed ? We shall see. 

Mr. TAYLOR said he did not rise to claim the atten¬ 
tion of members upon the general merits of this propo¬ 
sition. He was opposed to the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment or of the original section. He was opposed to it, 
because he had an extreme desire to see this constitu¬ 
tion adopted t>y the people. At any rate, this consti¬ 
tution must cany weight; and yet gentlemen ask it to 
assume another burden. 

If it is seriously intended to enter upon the conside¬ 
ration of this question now, and the example that has 
been set shall be followed, then the discussion will 
commence. This is but a preliminary debate. We 
shall be constrained to oppose it to the last extremity. 
We shall be constrained to resist it until we are put 
down by the previous question, and then we will com¬ 
mence that agitation in the public mind that will seal 
the fate of the instrument. I see all around rne, gen¬ 
tlemen who have as yet, kept silence, who will par¬ 
take largely in the debate that must ensue. 

One word m regard to the allusion that has been 
made to myself and others, as the peculiar friends of 
the colored population of the State. We are not the 
peculiar friends of that, or any other portion of the 
people. We stand upon an entirely different basis— 
that of equal rights, without being the peculiar friends 
of any class in particular. We disclaim the term " pe¬ 
culiar.” We ask no peculiar favors for the colored 
race; we are only opposed to peculiar measures against 
them. You have shown yourselves peculiar and spe¬ 
cial in your doings against them. Those who support 
the proposition of the gentleman from Tuscarawas may 
call toemselves peculiar; because they wish to tax the 
people of the State to remove those wTiom they say, 
are unfit to participate with them in a republican gov¬ 
ernment, to another coast, there to build up a model 
republican government. 

We are asked to support this proposition, because 
we are the peculiar friends of the colored race. Sup¬ 
pose a proposition were introduced to colonize and re¬ 
move from the State, the German or the Irish; who 
would fail to see in it the act of an enemy, and not of 
a friend ? 

I will close with a remark that seems to me to be 
applicable at this time. Is it wise—is it prudent to 
embark this instrument upon this discussion, and can 
we secure the support of the people of Ohio, if we in¬ 
sert this untried, this unprecedented provision ? Let 
us take into consideration the fact, that the constitution 
must now encounter various hostility, and not array 
against it, unnecessarily, an undefined degree of op- 
probium. Instead of a cloud as small as a man’s hand, 
the agitation now invoked may prove a tempest, filling 
the whole heaven, and in which the fate of the instru¬ 
ment we propose, may be sealed. 

Mr. RE EMELIN said, that he rose merely for the 
purpose of saying that he should vote for both the 
propositions, not because he believed them right, but 
because they were in accordance with the sentiments 
of his constituents. 

He was not in Ohio last spring, when he was elect¬ 
ed. But previous to his election, instructions had pass¬ 
ed the Convention, which had nominated him, whose 
clear import was an exclusion of negroes from the State. 
Knowing this to be the will of nine-tenths of his con¬ 
stituents he had to obey, believing that it was their vote 
he was giving, not his own. For to me, said Mr. R., to 
know the will of the people, is to obey it! 

Mr. R. said that this implicit obedience he would 
carry even so far as not to speak against the provision, 
however tempting the opportunity might be to give 
his views at large, on all matters having reference to 
the subject. He would merely say, that time would 
show the provisions incapable of being carried into ef¬ 
fect. 

Mr. PERKINS. The object of the proposition is to 









1225 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


prevent the immigration of colored persons from other 
States to Ohio. 

Mr. President, constitutional provisions cannot eti'ect 
this. The Legislature has heretofore passed laws up¬ 
on the subject, but they could not be put in force. 
Would you surround the State with custom houses? 
Would you turn our whole population into negro catch¬ 
ers? Would you stand upon the shoals in the Ohio 
river and thus keep them from crossing ? It cannot 
be done. You may have captains, and you may have 
militia companies, and you may watch all the lords of 
the Ohio river, but you will never be able to guard 
your boundary and to prevent its being crossed any 
rnore than you can prevent pigeons from passing in the 
air. 

But suppose the provison could be enforced, have 
you any moral right to do it? The provision is, that 
the immigration ol negroes may be prevented. If it 
is true in regard to negroes, it is equally true as applied 
to all other classes of persons; and if it is true now, 
when the population of the State is 2,000,000, it was 
true forty years ago. It was true when the population 
of the State was ten or ten thousand. 

Do gentlemen claim that a population indefinitely 
small can enter into possession of an immense domain 
and prevent all the other sons and daughters of Adam 
from acquiring and possessing property within it. God’s 
earth is tree to be possessed by all mankind under the 
operation of just and equal laws, and when the majori¬ 
ty of a people attempt to prescribe to the minority, to 
whom, and to whom only, they shall dispose of their 
estates, they are guilty of an usurpation of tyrannical 
and unauthorized power. 

Gentlemen talk of the Anglo Saxon race. But again, 
if this provision could be enforced, and if it wei’e mor¬ 
ally right and proper, yet it is directly in contradiction 
of the constitution of the United States. That consti¬ 
tution provides that “ citizens of each State shall enjoy 
all the rights and privileges of citizens in the several 
States.” 

Now, negroes are citizens in New York and Massa¬ 
chusetts, and some other of the States, and they claim 
the right to enter this State, and to acquire and pos¬ 
sess property here under the constitution of the Union, 
i The argument. Mr. President, is all on one side. I 
I shall not pursue it further. But before I sit down, I 
wish to advert to this question in another aspect. 

They tell us that it is the dominant race in the 
world, a race superior in endowments, powers and en- 
j ergies, to any other, and they are proud of their dis- 
I tinction as partakers of its blood ; yet it would seem 
they dare not, with all their Anglo Saxon energies, to 
i come into a competition with others upon equal terms 
for the right to labor and to acquire and possess prop¬ 
erty in this great State. They are afraid that this de- 
i graded negro, whom they so despise, will compete for 
i and control the rewards of labor and industry among 
them. Mr. President, I am too proud of my Anglo 
Saxon blood—I have too much confidence in it, to be 
afraid of the competition of a negro, or ol any other 
man or set of men. I am too proud to vote for a prop- 
I osition of this kind. 

I wish now, for a moment, to advert to an argument 
—to the only pretence to an argument that has ever 
been made upon this floor, to justify this negro-hunt, 
these assumptions of power, this crusade against the 
i negro race. It was offered last summer at Columbus, 
by the gentleman from Auglaize, and has been repeat¬ 
ed once or twice since; and it is worthy of some no¬ 
tice as being the only argument, and the only pretence 
to an argument yet offered, to justify this whole tissue 
of encroachments. 

The gentleman says he believes in the Declaration 
of Independence, that all men are free and equal, and 
possessed of certain natural and inalienable rights and 
privileges. But he says the negroes shall enjoy these 
privileges in Africa, and in Africa alone. He is wil¬ 
ling if they will go there, that they shall enjoy free¬ 
dom and equality, but they must go there first. 


Mr. President, this is offered as an argument. The 
gentleman agrees that all men are created free and 
equal, and possessed of inalienable rights. Now, does 
he not see that this admission implies that these 
rights inhere in the person—in the man, that they go 
with him, and exist in him wherever he may be, and 
most of all, they exist in him in the country of his 
birth. And yet he assumes to say to this particular 
man, where, and where only, he may exercise his 
rights. He assumes this, and of course, others may 
assume the same, and the colored race, by the argu¬ 
ment of the gentleman, may be hunted off’ the face of 
the earth, by men who will declaim all the time about 
inalienable rights and privileges. Mr. President; 
there is no getting away from the conclusion. We 
must either admit the negro to the common rights of 
citizenship, or must deny the Declaration of Indepen¬ 
dence, and cast the lie in the teeth of the fathers of 
this republic. 

Mr. LIDEY said he should vote for the amendment 
of the gentleman from Hamilton, because such waB 
the sentiment of his constituents ; but if that was cou¬ 
pled with the amendment of the gentleman from Tus¬ 
carawas, he should vote against the whole. He had 
wished that the proposition of the gentleman from 
Hamilton had been offered separately, for he could 
not vote to tax the people to carry off' the negroes to. 
Africa. 

On motion of Mr. GREEN, of Ross, the Convention 
took a recess. 

2^ o’clock, p. m. 

The Convention resumed the consideration of the- 
amendment pending when the Convention took a re¬ 
cess. 

Mr. CODLINGS. This is a most unfortunate time to- 
address the Convention, especially as I desire that my 
remarks should reach the ears of some gentlemen who 
are absent. 

Mr. MITCHELL. If the gentleman from Adams- 
will allow me the floor, I will move a call of the Con¬ 
vention. 

Mr. CODLINGS. I will give the floor to the gentle¬ 
man from Knox for that purpose. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved a call of the Convention.. 

A call of the Convention being ordered, the roll was- 
called, and 

Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Chambers, Clark, Dorsey, Ewart,. 
Farr, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Green ot Ross, Hitchcock ot 
Cuyahoga, Holt, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Leech, Mason, Nor¬ 
ris, Orton, Perkins, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Stanbery, LarwilL 
Vance of Champaign and Way, 

Were found to be absent. 

On motion of Mr. BLAIR, all further proceedings.* 
under the call were dispensed with. 

Mr. CODLINGS. I regret that neither the gentle¬ 
man from Trumbull nor the gentleman from Hamilton 
is present, as I intended to address a few remarks to* 
the Convention in reference to what passed between 
them this morning; but as they are not present, I shall' 
refrain from alluding to the matter now. 

There is one question, Mr. President, connected with 
the subject under consideration, to which the gentle¬ 
man from Trumbull alluded this morning, and to which 
I wish especially to call the attention of the Conven¬ 
tion. I allude to the constitutional question involved 
in this matter, so far as regards a provision in the con¬ 
stitution of the United States. I _ suppose that those 
gentlemen who are acquainted w’lth me, Avill readily 
admit that I am among the last of those who could be 
suspected of what is called abolitionism; but while I 
claim to be free from participating in the sentiments 
entertained and promulgated by this class of men, I 
am willing to do justice both to the party and to the 

subject. . , 1 T 

Now in my apprehension, the amendment proposed 

by the ’•^entleman from Hamilton, is one which we 
have no ri'^ht to incorporate into this constitution. The 
‘Gentleman'’from Trumbull, alluded, very briefly, to the 















1226 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


constitutional question under the constitution of the 
United States; but I would call the attention of the 
■Convention to the fact, that that question has been 
passed upon judicially. The amendment proposed to 
exclude all persons of color from immigrating into 
■Ohio ; but it should be borne in mind, that in some of 
the States of the Union, colored men are citizens, enti¬ 
tled to all the rights of citizenship; and that question, 
if my memory is not greatly at fault, came up in a case 
before the Court of the United States, held in St. Lou¬ 
ts. I do not recollect now, whether it was in the Cir¬ 
cuit or the District Court, but that precise question 
•came up. There was a colored man who had gone 
from one of the Eastern or Middle States into Missou- 
ri, and an effort was made to thrust him out of the 
.State^ because it was thought he had no right there; 
but the provision of the constitution of the United 
States was interposed, and it was declared by the Uni¬ 
ted States Court that he had the rights of a citizen. 
What may be the rights of a citizen in any State, is a 
•question for each State to determine for itself; but one 
thing is very clear, and that is, that if they had no 
right to thrust him out, they had no right to prevent 
his going into the State. In that aspect of the case, 
therefore, I think we have no right to incorporate any 
■such provision in our constitution. In the aspect of the 
•case proposed by the gentleman from Geauga, I think 
it would be the height of inhumanity to say, that they 
should not come into our State under any circumstan¬ 
ces whatever. Suppose, now, that these people were 
thrust out from the States of Virginia and Kentucky, 
and other neighboring slave States, shall we meet them 
on the Ohio, and say to them, “ you shall not enter our 
borders ; your owners may thrust you out of their ter¬ 
ritory, but if they do, you shall notenter ours ? Shall 
we place them in the position of the Israelites when 
pursued by the relentless King of Egypt, and say to 
them, if your masters thrust you out we will meet 
you on our shore, and you shall be drowned in the 
Ohio, rather than you shall be allowed to put your feet 
upon our shores ? ” Surely, such a course would not 
comport with the ordinary feelings and duties of hu¬ 
manity. 

But, sir, there is an aspect of the case brought to our 
notice by my friettd from Jeffei’son—and I must say 
that to the remarks of that gentleman I ever attend 
with attention and respect. Unfortunately, perhaps I 
did not fully catch his sentiments as he delivered his 
valuable remarks to the Convention this morning; but 
i understood from the course and force of his remarks 
this morning, that he apprehended we were in danger 
here; at least if such were not his own sentiments, he 
made his argument as if such were the fixed sentiments 
of others. I understood him to intimate that there 
was danger of having negroes thrust upon us from oth¬ 
er States to become paupers here and be maintained at 
our expense, or sent by us to the colony of Liberia. 
Now, sir, I think I can with truth say, that I know 
something about the institution of slavery, and the 
rules and feelings which govern slave holders. They 
are perhaps not quite so moral in their feelings and hab¬ 
its as we are, and it may be that we are in this respect 
entitled to use the language of Holy Writ, and say 

stand back for I am holier than thou.” I do not wish 
to combat that sentiment if any gentleman here is dis¬ 
posed to entertain it. I care very little about it. You 
may bestow upon these men what epithets you please ; 
I would meet them all by saying—even if you were 
disposed to apply so odious an epithet to them, which 
I am sure I would not. I would still say there is “hon¬ 
or among thieves;” and I will say to this Convention, 
that, so far as my observation has taught me—and that 
observation has not been very limited on this question 
of slavery, the slaveholder has a higher code of moral¬ 
ity than we are at all times willing to award to him. 
Sir, these men have a code of morals by which that 
slave holder is rendered infamous among his fellow 
slaveholders, who should thrust out his poor old slave 


at the eve of life and say to him “ you must now shift | 
for yourself.” Sir, by the force of public sentiment in i 
the slave-holding States they aie not permitted to do || 
this, and besides that, there is an attachment between j/ 
the slave holder and his family, and the poor slave, 
which we do not at all times appreciate. i 

Mr. BATES. Will the gentleman from Adams al- i. 
low me to explain what I said in regard to this dan- , 
ger ? ! 

Mr. COLLINGS. I think I have explained it suffi- |- 
ciently. I did not say that the gentleman from Jeffer- ! 
son really expressed fears of danger, but that I thought, 
from the course of his remarks, he either entertained 
the fear, or supposed it was entertained by others. | 

Now, I think I have made myself understood, that 
there is such a code of morals existing among these 
men as would prevent any slave holder from thrusting 
away from his guardianship his worn out slave, and 
thei’eby say to the world, “ this slave is no longer 
useful to me, and let the human family now take care 
of him.” They are not at liberty so to do, and were 
they to attempt it, they would be disgraced in the eyes 
of their fellow men. 

Sir, however degrading the institution of slavery may 
be, no reflecting man can seriously suppose that the 
slaveholder is so lost to all sense of decency and hu- ^ 
inanity as to do this. We have, therefore, nothing of 
the kind to fear, which has been intimated in regard 
to being overrun with these worn out negroes, and the 
question then resolves itself simply m this : “ Are we 
required, for our own safety, to insert this provision in 
our fundamental law ?” For my part, I do not believe ; 
that we are ; and then again comes the question ; Are 
we permitted, by the laws of humanity, to insert this 
provision?” I think we are not. 

Now, taking into consideration the constitutional ; 
provision of the constitution of the United States, these 
men being citizens in some of the States, I think we 
have no constitutional right to prohibit their immigra¬ 
tion into the State of Ohio. Then, sir, why adopt a 
provision which may conflict with the constitution of 
the United States, which is above all other laws? 
Why especially attempt to adopt it, when we know ' 
that there is no danger of the slaveholding States (for 
the sake of their own reputation,) attempting to thrust 
these creatures upon us ? Why repeat in our constitu¬ 
tion a law which has been on our statute book nearly 
since the first foundation of our government—a law 
which has been utterly inoperative, and which always 
will be inoperative, so long as it conflicts with a large 
amount of public sentiment? There is no necessity 
for it, sir. It will do no good; and from the very fact 
of its being inoperative, it vvill only tend to bring your 
constitution into disrepute. 

Now, in regard to the amendment of the gentleman 
from Tuscarawas, it is merely removing, if not a con¬ 
stitutional provision at least a constitutional doubt. I 
am quite willing to say that the Legislature shall have 
this privilege, if they do not already possess it, of ma¬ 
king provision by law for removing these persons to 
Liberia, if they wish to go. But, sir, they are here 
among us, and while it is not our fault that they are 
here, it certainly is not theirs. They did not bring 
themselves here; they were brought here by others, 
and all the considerations of humanity require that we 
should treat them with humanity. If we do not choose 
to treat them as equals, that is another consideration; 
but the highest laws of humanity require that we 
should not thrust them out as beasts of the forest or 
beasts of prey. Now, if we remove what is thus con 
sidered to be a constitutional doubt, and if it should be 
found that it is to the advantage of these colored peo¬ 
ple that they should be removed to Africa, let it be 
within the competency of the Legislature to do so. 

I had designed, Mr. President, in the opening of these 
remarks, to address a few words to the Convention in 
relation to what fell from the gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull, but that gentleman was not here in his seat, and 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1227 


I forbore the allusion. Seeing that he is here now, 11 
will say that I am in hopes that what fell from him 
and the gentleman from Hamilton [Mr. Holmks] was 
hastily said. I trust that I have maintained a little con¬ 
science in this Convention, and I am entirely willing 
to concede to all others that they have maintained their 
consciences, also, in reference to this question. But I 
must say that I regretted to hear the remark of my 
friend from Trumbull, when he said that those who 
were opposed to him in sentiment and who would pre* 
vent the immigration of colored people at all hazards 
into the State, were men who were prepared to as¬ 
sert anything in this debate. I hope that, on reflec¬ 
tion, the gentleman will retract that assertion. 

I think he was too hasty and inconsiderate in it; for 
although I do not concur with those who have proposed 
this amendment, I would concede to them all the puri¬ 
ty of motive in offering it, which I would ask them to 
concede to myself. I am quite aware that there is a 
great inconvenience connected with this population, 
and gentlemen may be perfectly in earnest and opera¬ 
ted upon by the best of motives, when they desire to 
exclude them from the State ; but I do think the pro¬ 
vision is a very stringent one, even if we could consti¬ 
tutionally enforce it, of which I have my serious doubts. 
We have tried it by legislative enactment from an ear¬ 
ly period of our government, and if laws passed by the 
General Assembly have been found to fail in this re¬ 
spect, what guarantee have we that a provision in our 
constitution would be attended with any better suc¬ 
cess ? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Sir, I wish that my friend from 
Hamilton had given us a little more information in re¬ 
lation to the proposed amendment. How many colored 
people from the neighboring States have been added 
to our population during the last year ? How many 
during the last two years ? How many during the last 
five years ? What is the magnitude of the evil that we 
are called upon to resist by a constitutional provision ? 
or does the gentleman ask us to act without light upon 
the subject, and contend with an uni’eal antagonist 

as one that beateth the air.” It appears to me, sir, 
that if we are to engraft upon the constitution such a 
provision as this, we ought to stand upon our rendered 
reasons—that we ought to have some array of facts to 
justify our action. 

Sir, as was truly said by my friend on my left, [ Mr. 
CoLLiNGS,] we have had, for forty-two years, a law, 
the express object of which was, to exclude from the 
State the free colored population of the neighboring 
States; and what was the result? Why, sir, after re¬ 
maining during that long period dormant upon your 
statute book, it was repealed—repealed because it 
; could not be enforced, and because the people well un¬ 
derstood that a law that could not be enforced was on- 
! ly contemptible, and ought to be repealed. 

( And now what is proposed by this amendment? 

I Why, sir, to revive a system of legislation which has 
I been condemned by the people, to disinter it from the 
grave to which it has been so properly consigned, and 
i to impart to it vitality, by the life-giving power of a 
' new constitution. But, sir, the effort will be in vain. 
Whether you invest this proposition with the dignity 
of a fundamental law, or place it in your statute book 
as an act of ordinary legislation, it will be alike inope- 
I rative and despised. 

I do not know, indeed, but that even with this pro¬ 
vision inserted in it this constitution might be adopted 
by the people, not because the proposition itself has 
any intrinsic merit, nor because it is regarded with any 
favor—but because the constitution will contain so 
many provisions that the people do desire, that a ma¬ 
jority of them may be willing to accept it, even at the 
expense of giving life to a principle like this. 

But, sir, what will be the effect of the resolution, if 
the proposed amendment prevails? In ten counties 
you will find more than half the colored population of 
tho State. The county of Hamilton, alone, contains 


about one-seventh ol our entire colored population— 
and now, sir, we are asked to provide for the taxation 
of all the people of the State, to enable her to get rid 
of them. 

Sir, the proposition is conceived in the spirit of in¬ 
justice, and ought not to be entertained for a moment. 

Let the people of Hamilton county attend to their 
own colored population, and not attempt to evade the 
moral responsibility which rests upon them to do these 
people good, and to labor for their elevation, by taxing 
other counties of the State for their removal. 

Sir, I will not dwell upon the injustice and impolicy 
of the measure before us, but I must be allow'ed to say 
that I do not at all concur in the remarks made this 
morning by the gentleman from Holmes. 

I have no respect, sir, for that friendship for the col¬ 
ored people, whose professions of regard are followed 
by acts of injustice, nor do I hold in much respect that 
philanthropy which occupies itself in practicing the at¬ 
titudes of humanity, and when the legislation of the 
States upon our border, stimulated to the height of in¬ 
justice, shall drive these people from their midst, would 
counsel us to respond to them with legislation as iniquit¬ 
ous as their own, and crush these misei'able fugitives 
and outcasts, who have been guilty of no crime but that 
of being unfortunate, between the upper and the neth¬ 
er millstone. 

But, sir, admitting the proposed policy to be wise 
and just, what is the necessity for enforcing it by con¬ 
stitutional provisions? We have already conferred up¬ 
on the General Assembly ample power to deal with 
this subject, and to pass such laws in relation to it as 
the people may demand. This, it appears to me, is all 
that the case requires. 

I am not to be understood, sir, as being in favor of 
this species of legislation, but I am willing to leave this 
matter where it was left by the old constitution, with 
the General Assembly, and to let them, when the peo¬ 
ple see a necessity for legislation upon the subject, act 
in accordance with the will of their constituents. But, 
sir, while there is no ascertained evil to grapple with, 
there is no call upon us to force such a provision into 
the constitution. 

We all well know that there is a great diversity of 
opinion among the people of the State, respecting every 
measure aff ecting the people of color. This, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, is a practical question, and must be met like all 
other practical questions, in a spirit of conciliation and 
compromise. 1 have no desire to perpetuate, in this 
instrument, the sympathies of one portion of the peo¬ 
ple, or the prejudices of another. But, sir, it is well 
understood that the people of the noi'thern part of the 
State are utterly opposed to any such provision, and if 
you insert it, you may depend on it that they will vote 
against the constitution as one man. 1 do not know, 
indeed, but that we may be out numbered by the votes 
of other parts of the State, and compelled to submit to 
it for a time; but you may be assured, sir, that with 
this provision in it, your new constitution, instead of 
being an instrument of peace, will be an exhaustless 
fountain of strife and contention ; and that the people 
of the north, whose feelings are thus outraged, will not 
“give sleep to their eyes, nor slumber to their eyelids,” 
until they have stricken out this obnoxious feature. 

Let us then, sir, dismiss from our further considera¬ 
tion, this exciting question. Let us leave the evil to be 
remedied by legislation, when a remedy is demanded, 
and instead of wasting our time discussions like this, 
let us go on with the work committed to us, and be pre¬ 
pared to submit to the people a constitution which ihey 
can unanimously accept—which contains no element of 
injustice, and which will promote the peace and wel¬ 
fare of every portion of the State. 

Mr. NASH. Mr. Bresident, I w'ish to state tho rea¬ 
sons why I cannot vote for the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Holmes.] 

First, the General Assembly has all the power now 
proposed, without this clause. Hence it is useless. 









1228 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Again. The constititon of’ the United States is di¬ 
rectly in the teeth of this amendment. This is with 
me an insuperable objection to it. 

Again. We have tried this legislation for forty 
years, and it has failed. Such a law cannot be exe¬ 
cuted. They will come here; and you cannot take 
them back without violating the laws of the slave 
States, and running directly into the jaws of the Peni 
tentiar}", 

I know the evils of this emigration ; I am aware ol 
the system of emancipation which casts upon our ter¬ 
ritories a degraded and worthless population. I would 
obviate this evil, if I knew how it could be done; I 
would not do it, save as a measure of self-protection; I 
have no spirit of persecution against any (of God’s crea¬ 
tures.) But enough. 

Mr. HOLMES asked, and obtained leave to withdraw 
his amendment. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, moved to amend the amend¬ 
ment, by striking out all after the w'ord “Africa,” and 
inserting in lieu thereof, the following: “ and the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly shall, by such appropriate legislation as 
may be consistent with the constitution of the United 
States, discourage the emigration of the free black pop¬ 
ulation of other States and territories of the Union into 
this Slate.” 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out.all after the 
word “ Africa 

Mr. HOLMES demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 39, nays 58— as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Blair, Case of 
Hocking, Case of Licking, Chaney, Ewing, Farr, Green of Ross, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Henderson, Holmes, Hoctman, 
Johnson, Jones, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of 
Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stidger, Struble, Vance of 
Butler, Wilson, Worthington and President—39. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Chambers, Ceilings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Holt, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, 
King, Larsh, Lawrence, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Perkins, Ranney, Scott ot Har¬ 
rison, Smith ot Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stebbins, Stilwell,.Stickney, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend W'arren, Williams and Wood¬ 
bury—58. 

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected., 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Blickensderfer ; 

Mr. HAMILTON demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 26, nays 71—as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett oi Preble, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Chambers, Col- 
lings, Ewing, Gillett, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hunt, 
Larsh, Mason, McCloud, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stilwell, Stidger, Struble, Williams 
and Worthington—26. 

Nays. —Messrs. Andrews, Bates, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chaney, Cook, Curry, Cutler, 
Ewart, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, 
Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ran- 
ney. Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of High¬ 
land, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Swan, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance 
of Butler, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury and President—71. 

So the amendment waP rejected. ' 

Mr. EWART moved to further amend the report, by 
striking out of section 33, as amended, the following: 

And that acts of incorporation or corporate franchises, privi¬ 
leges, or immunities, whether granted "by any general or special 
l aw, shall never be deemed contracts, or irrepealable. 

Mr. SWAN moved to perfect the words proposed to 
be stricken out, by striking out the following: “ that 
acts of incorporation or corporate franchises, privileges 
or immunities, whether granted by any general or 
special law, shall never be deemed contracts, or ir¬ 


repealable and inserting in lieu thereof, the follow- 
ing: 

All laws now in force creating private corporations may be al¬ 
tered, revoked, or repealed, whenever the public welfare shall 
require it; that just and equitable compensation, to be assessed 
by a jury as in other cases, shall be made for any property of 
such corporation, taken, injured or destroyed thereby, and paid 
in such manner as may be provided by law. 

The question being on the amendment; 

Mr. SWAN said. The amendment that is proposed 
is predicated on the power of eminent domain. I sup¬ 
pose all property, and the incidents of all property, 
and all rights are subordinate to that power. It pro¬ 
vides simply for corporations now existing, and not for 
corporations that may be hereafter created. I do not 
offer this amendment because I desire any provisions 
in the constitution of this State, as to existing corpora¬ 
tions. I did not suppose that I came here either to le¬ 
gislate upon that subject, or to make any provision in 
the constitution in regard to it; but this question has 
been dragged in here, and as there has been a misin¬ 
terpretation in regard to the votes of some gentlemen, 
on this side of the Hall, I desire to make my markup- 
on it. 

I had occasion a few days ago to state what unqual¬ 
ified repeal was—that it was to a corporation, precisely , 
what civil death is to ail individual; that to a stock¬ 
holder in a corporation, it was exactly like a law which 
should declare and enact that a farmer’s farm—paid 
for and conveyed to him by deed, should be transfer¬ 
red to the person from whom he received his deed; 
that his cattle, and stock, and utensils, and crops should 
be transferred to the State of Ohio, and that the debts 
which he owed and the debts which were due to him 
should all be cancelled. Such, undoubtedly, is the le¬ 
gal effect of unqualified and simple repeal to the stock¬ 
holders of a corporation. Sir, the unqualified repeal 
of existing charters is too atrocious a proposition for 
any man seriously to think of introducing into t'his con¬ 
stitution ; and if it was proposed to authorize the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly to deal with the property and debts of 
a farmer in this way, no man would countenance the 
idea for a moment. Its effect would be so atrocious 
as to corporations, that no one would desire to vest in 
the General Assembly any such power over existing 
charters. 

It is not a question, then, whether this power of re¬ 
peal should be qualified or not. It should be quali¬ 
fied, and put upon terms and conditions. What shall 
be the terms and conditions? That is the question, 
and the one upon which there has been a difference of 
opinion on this side of the Hall; and members here 
have been denounced because they could not agree 
with other members as to the terms and qualifications 
on which the revocation of existing charters shall be 
exercised by the Legislature. 

How shall it be qualified? I think, sir, that honest 
and intelligent men may fairly differ upon that ques¬ 
tion. 

But before discussing these terms and qualifications 
I desire to say a word as to what is a franchise, for 
there has been something of a fog thrown around the 
word. The ri^ht of way is a franchise; the right to 
force a road, wmether plank, rail or tuimpike, through 
the land of another without his consent, is a franchise. 
It is a right which cannot be exercised by a citizen, 
without a special grant, and when you repeal o char¬ 
ter you divest the corporation of this right of way or 
franchise. The right to take tolls on a road is a fran¬ 
chise. It cannot be exercised by citizens generally, 
and it is vested in a corporation by its charter; and 
when you repeal the charter you take away this fran¬ 
chise. The use of the property belonging to a corpo¬ 
ration for the period mentioned in its charter is also a 
franchise ; and all the rights growing up under, and in¬ 
cident to the use of the property are franchises ; and 
when you repeal the charter you also take away their 
incidental rights and the use of the property. 

I I return now to the question, what shall be the rule 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 1229 


as to the repeal of charters now existing? What, in 
other words, is the honest rule? Let us see, in the first 
place, how the committee on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment have prov'ided for it. In the words to bo stricken 
out they have proposed to vest in the General Assem¬ 
bly the unlimited, full and unqualified power of repeal. 
And how do they guard and protect the property of 
the stockholders ? They provide that if the property 
of a corporation is taken for the use of the State, it 
should be paid for. But suppose that the General As¬ 
sembly should not choose to take the property for the 
use of the State ? Nothing is to be paid ; nor is it to be 
taken for the use ol the State, unl<?s8the public welfare 
imperatively requires it. Let us see how this will op¬ 
erate, if the use of the property is taken from the 
stockholders, and its value thus destroyed by a simple 
atid unqualified repeal of the charter. Suppose it to 
be a railroad company, what, upon such repeal becomes 
ot the road ? The stockholders have lost the use of it; 
they have lost the right of taking toll; they have lost 
the right of way, and the States does not choose to 
take that property into its possession for its own use. 
The property is thus gone, and there is no compensa¬ 
tion whatever, under the 36 th section or any other 
section of the article. This is, in fact, as if the law 
should authorize a man to take his neighbor’s horse 
and flay it—skin it alive—and then throw back the 
hide and the dead carcase, saying to the owner of the 
horse, “ take your property, I do not want it—I will 
not use it, may it do you much good.” 

The provision of the committee on the Legislative 
Department, which is claimed as lust when the act of 
incorporation is repealed, is as follows: “Private pro¬ 
perty shall ever be held inviolate, and no private pro¬ 
perty, whether held by individuals or corporations, 
shall ever be taken for public use unless the public good 
imperatively demands it, but in all cases full and ade¬ 
quate compensation shall be first made,” &c. 

What was the understanding of stockholders when 
these charters were granted, and under which they 
were induced to vest their properly? It is shown by 
the uniform decisions of our courts. My reasons for 
citing, on a former occasion, the decisions of the Su¬ 
preme Court and the courts of the several States as to 
the power of repealing charter's, were these. It had 
been stated by the gentleman from Trumbull that there 
was “considerable authority” going to show that char¬ 
ters could not be repealed. The gentleman would 
have been more correct in saying the Supreme Court of 
the United States and the courts of every State in the 
Union before whom the question had arisen and whose 
decisions have been reported. Whig and Democratic 
judges indiscriminately, have decided the question one 
way, and had all determined that charters are con¬ 
tracts and could not be repealed. I mention this, not 
only for the purpose of correcting the gentleman from 
Trumbull, but principally to show that under these de¬ 
cisions the Genei'al Assembly had sufficient reasons for 
believing, and the stockholders had also sufficient rea¬ 
sons for believing, that they could not bo repealed— 
that they were contracts, and that the Legislature 
could not interfere with their property or its use du¬ 
ring the period for which the charters were granted. 
Under the sanction, then, of these decisions of the 
courts, with this understanding and belief on the part 
of the General Assembly and the stockholders, the lat¬ 
ter have invested their property in existing corpora¬ 
tions. Cannot gentlemen perceive that it is a breach of 
good iaith, and a violation of this understanding to repeal 
these charters, whether the courts were right or wrong 
in their decisions? For this reason, if for no other, 
nothing but the public welfare and a just and equita¬ 
ble compensation can justify a breach of that under¬ 
standing. 

Examine these decisions of the courts, and then look 
into the charter of a corporation in which the stock¬ 
holders are granted the privilege of using their prop¬ 
erty in the way therein provided, for a fixed period— 


trace out the investment of citizens in the corporations, 
under the belief that their property and its use as pro¬ 
vided in the charter could not be invaded by legisla¬ 
tive enactment—observe that the General Assembly so 
understood it; that the stockholders so understood it, 
that the judicial tribunals of the country so understood 
it. Now does it change the question of good faith, 
does not the fact of the understanding between the 
State and the General Assembly, remain, and have 
you gained one step to justify a violation of this under¬ 
standing, by saying that the decisions of the courts are 
wrong and that you have and therefore will exer¬ 
cise the power of repeal, and strip the stockholders of 
the use of their property. And if you desire thus to 
violate the understanding, where the stockholders have 
committed no breach of their charter—for it is to these 
cases only that you wish to apply this power—what 
terms would be right under these circumstances, and 
what terms have been proposed to settle the rights and 
interests of the stockholders? 

The proposition of the gentleman from Medina (the 
vote upon which by twelve democrats, has been the 
subject of so much remark in and out of this hall,) was 
this: repeal an existing charter, and let the General 
Assembly dispose of the property and provide for the 
payment of the debts as they please. Sell it, and sell 
what? 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE (interrupting.) You do not 
state my proposition correctly. 

Mr. SWAN. I know there is a flourish of words 
about such “ equitable disposition,” &c., as the General 
Assembly may think proper. But I state the proposi¬ 
tion fairly. If you sold the property did you intend to 
transfer to purchasers the use and incidents of that 
property as it was formerly held by the repealed cor¬ 
poration? Certainly not—for then one would only 
transfer the corporation and property from the stock¬ 
holders to other persons. Did you intend to dispose 
of the property by transferring the corporation and 
property to the stockholders ? Certainly not. In ei¬ 
ther case you would effect nothing. The proposition 
was to repeal the charter and thus to divest the stock¬ 
holders and the property itself of the use to which the 
property was applied and then dispose of it, stripped of 
the use, despoiled of all its real value. 

Permit me to illustrate what I mean by all that I 
have said on this subject, and in a way which will 
make me understood by every gentleman in and out of 
this hall. Suppose a neighbor of mine had a mill site 
below my farm, and which he cannot conveniently use 
without digging a race through my farm. He applies 
to me for the privilege,—the special privilege—of dig¬ 
ging his race through my land. I give the privilege, 
stipulating, however, that he shall have it for twenty 
years only, and that he shall never charge more than 
a certain toll at his mill. My neighbor, on the faith of 
this understanding, builds a mill and digs the race 
through ray farm. One year after he has thus expend¬ 
ed his money, I say to him, “ Sir, I revoke and repeal 
your privilege—true, you was to have the privilege for 
twenty years, and you have invested your money in 
the mill on that understanding, but I shall fill up the 
race to-morrow.” With what scorn and contempt 
would every man look down upon me ? The very 
convicts in the penitentiary would rise up in judgment 
against me. And could I justify my conduct, or would 
it change the views of my neighbors as to my honesty 
if I should say to my neighbor, “ I did not, nor did you 
suppose when I granted you the privilege that I could 
revoke it, and you have built the mill on the faith that 
you had the privilege for twenty years.” 

But I am advised by my friends from Knox and 
Trumbull, that the courts are all wrong in their decis¬ 
ions, and that I can revoke when I please—and so, I 
revoke. 

Now, there is not a man in the hall that would be 
guilty of such dishonesty as this; and yet I feel as 
though I was called upon to authorize and sanction the 















1230 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


doing of something very like it, when I confer on the 
General Assembly the power of repealing existing 
charters, when not requit ed by the public welfare,and 
f where a just and equitable compensation is not made. 
But let me pursue this illustration a little further by 
applying to it the proposition oi the gentlen an iroin 
Medina, which was defeated by twelve Democratic 
votes. Suppose ray neighbor, after I have revoked his 
privilege and filled up the race, proposes to leave the 
whole matter to a jury of twelve men—I object—I say 
to him: “ that is not right; I cannot trust them—but 
this I will do, and if you refuse you are not honest. I 
will dispose of your mill without the race, as I may 
think just and equitable, and direct how your debts, 
contracted for building the mill, shall be paid; and if 
you won’t do that, I denounce you as no Democrat.” 

Sir, what is the common saying of the men of hard 
hands and damp brows—“ my word is as good as my 
bond.”—a senliment higher and purer than the cobweb 
morality of the law. Do they induce a neighbor to in¬ 
vest his property, on the faith of their word, and then 
violate that word to the injury of that neighbor and 
refuse '‘just and equitable compensation?” 

It would not enlarge my views upon this subject a 
particle, if every court in the Union, had, on the first 
Monday in December last, determined that former de¬ 
cisions were all wrong and the General Assembly had 
the power to repeal existing charters. Power, might, 
is one thing—right, honesty, is another. Concede the 
power to repeal existing charters, this would not in¬ 
duce men to violate the understanding between the 
General Assembly and citizens who invested their 
property in them on the faith of that understanding, un¬ 
less the public welfare required it, nor unless just and 
equitable compensation were made. This view has 
guided me in every vote I have heretofore given and it 
will guide me in every vote hereafter. 

In making these remarks, I impugn neither the mo¬ 
tives nor the integrity of any gentleman on this floor. 
There are members of this Convention who differ with 
me upon this question, for whose integrity and honesty 
I have the most sincere and the highest respect. I 
claim for myself no more and no less honesty of pur¬ 
pose than I award to them. But, from perversity of 
mind, or from looking at this question from a difi’erent 
point of view from what I do, we wholly differ and 
must continue to differ. 

The gentleman from Knox says there is no difference 
between repealing existing charters and one which may 
be hereafter granted with an express constitutional pro¬ 
vision in it that it may be repealed. I think there is as 
much difference as between right and wrong—between 
light and darkness—belw'een keeping faith with your 
neighbor and breaking it. 

We are not here passing laws like the General As¬ 
sembly who may adopt an unjust principle which will 
have a temporary effect and leave no lasting traces of 
a breach of good faith. But we are here endeavoring 
to utter in endurable words the voice of the public 
conscience. That voice should enunciate principles as 
pure and just as the mandates of God. Shall it sanc¬ 
tion bad faith—shall it authorize the property of citi¬ 
zens to be injured or destroyed without just compensa¬ 
tion, and in violation of the understanding between 
those citizens and the State. No principle which I 
look upon as so wrong, shall be announced in the great 
charter of our rights by my vote. 

The question then being on the amendment; 

Mr. NASH demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out the follow¬ 
ing words: “ that acts of incorporations or incorporate 
franchises, privileges, or immunities, whether granted 
by any general or special law, shall never be deemed 
contracts, or irrepealable. 

Mr. LARWILL moved that the Convention ad¬ 
journ ; which was disagreed to. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I protest against the gentle¬ 
man misrepresenting me, as an excuse for not voting for 


my proposition, offered a while ago, by representing 
that it contained a provision that the State should take 
the property of the corporation, without any provision 
to make a just remuneration, and that the Legisla¬ 
ture should provide for the payment of the debts. My 
proposiiiou contained neiihei of these provisions, but 
only that the Legislature might make such a rule for 
the disposition of the property as they might see fit; 
vesting it where it equitably belongs, in such manner 
as they may provide. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I am glad that this discussion 
has been opened again by the gentleman from Franklin, 
[Mr. Swan,] for he is the kind of man which I like to 
meet, if we must have opposition. He has predicated 
his opposition to the doctrine of unconditional repeal 
upon the ground that we claim for this doctrine what 
never has been assumed by its advocates. He is not 
authorized to say that we have claimed the right to 
take property without compensation; that would al¬ 
ways be a most unjustifiable public act. But he insists 
that w^e are urging that this wicked act should be done, 
and so do all the opposei’s of this doctrine upon the 
other side. 

Now, I affirm that no member upon this floor has 
ever advocated that doctrine; but we claim to stand 
up here simply as the advocates of justice and right. 
We stand here and plead in behalf of an injured peo¬ 
ple. We claim, simply, that when these companies of 
wealthy men become injurious, that then their right 
and power to continue to do so should be taken away 
from them. 

The gentleman desired me to answer this question : 
Would you authorize the taking away of the farm of 
your neighbor, without compensation ? I might answer 
that question by asking him the same question in a ne¬ 
gative form. Would you not authorize the taking away 
of your neighbor’s farm, if, upon a fair trial, it should 
be found that he was making his farm a public nui¬ 
sance ? Aye, sir, he would not only take away a 
man’s farm, but even his liberty and his life, for the 
same or similar reasons without thinking of the matter 
of compensation. And the gentleman would take 
these upon precisely the same principle that we advo¬ 
cate the taking of those charters. 

Will the gentleman say that I have ever claimed 
hat the Legislature should, maliciously and captiously 
take away the property of a corporation without com¬ 
pensation, and without any justifiable cause ? Will he 
refer to the case where 1 have advocated the takinc^ 
away of the charter of a corporation which was not 
injurious? He cannot do it sir. It is only because 
many corporations are injurious that I wish to invest 
the Legislature with power to suppress them. I stand 
upon the same principle which upholds the existing 
laws of the land. I would confer the power to take 
charters upon the same principle that the courts now 
take from a man his mill property or his farm, if their 
occupancy and use should turn out to be injurious to 
the community. I have known a case where a gentle¬ 
man had invested upwards of forty thousand dollars in 
the construction of a mill, and upon complaint beino- 
made that the pool which he had created was injurious 
to the health of the neighborhood, a verdict was ren¬ 
dered against him, and the next day an order of 
the Chancellor was issued for the demolition of the 
dam. And where, I ask the gentleman from Franklin 
[Judge Swan] in this case, was your provision for re¬ 
muneration to the owner? 

The PRESIDENT (interposing,) informed the gen¬ 
tleman that it was out of order to speak of members 
by name. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I beg pardon, Mr. President, and 
I ask the gentleman’s pardon, if he takes any excep¬ 
tion to it. I confess freely, that I was wrong. But I 
will ask the gentleman from Franklin, or any other 
gentleman, to stand up here and tell me where there 
is to be found any provision of law for the compensa¬ 
tion of the owner of the property so destroyed ? 


i 


I 

f. 


\ 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1231 


Well then, Mr. President, it is for the purpose of pro¬ 
tecting the community against the encroachments of 
wealthy men, who have obtained the power to do pub¬ 
lic mischief, in an infinite degree more injurious, that 
we desire to have them brought under the same rule. 
P)V;t when we desire nothing more then this, gentle¬ 
men exclaim against it as an outrage, and declare forth¬ 
with that the State must pay them to the utmost cent. 
They cannot be compelled to cease their oppressions 
and abandon their monopolies—their power to do evil 
cannot be removed without paying these excellent gen¬ 
tlemen to the utmost extent oi their investments. But 
the honest mill owner, or the honest farmer who hap¬ 
pens to have a cranberry swamp—if their property 
should happen to be a public nuisance—it must be aba¬ 
ted, no matter how valuable his mill may be—no mat¬ 
ter how much he may realize fi’om his yearly crop of 
cranberries—the pool and the swamp must be drained 
and the cranberry roots left without a drop of water 
to keep them alive. No difierence how great the in¬ 
jury, how utter the ruin c.f these men’s hopes and 
prospects, it must be yielded for the public good, with¬ 
out compensation. 

Now, it is precisely upon this same principle that we 
propose to act with regard to corporations. We never 
propose to take their charters unless the Legislature 
shall be satisfied, in the exercise of a sound discretion, 
that they are injurious. 

Let us look at the case of a bridge company, where 
their bridge becomes dangerous, so that every man 
thinks it a great outrage which the company are prac¬ 
ticing upon the community, yet if you undertake to 
stop them, by taking away their charter, you must pay 
them for it, eh ? Sir, these companies of avaricious, 
wealthy, and wicked men, least of all, deserve the 
shield and protection of the law. 

But let us see, for example, what we could specify 
against a bank. They realize an enormous interest 
upon their investment; and this, to every philosophic 
mind, must be an evil, because it is known that this 
enormous interest is to be paid by the labor of the 
country. That itself is a sufficient consideration to jus¬ 
tify a demand for the repeal of every bank charter in 
the country. 

I cannot now stop to make specifications ; but Mr. 
President, I might refer you to many banks whose of¬ 
ficers have been guilty in this way to such an extent 
of perfidy and outrage, that they ought to have been 
incarcerated in the penitentiary. But I cannot stop to 
to array charges against this class of incorporations. 

I will mention another feature of evil, just beginning 
to develop itself in this country, in the operations of 
our railroad companies. These companies purchase 
fifty feet upon each side ot their track, and take a re¬ 
lease fi’om the owners; and unless they have reserved 
some common right to get to the track, they have no 
right to approach it without the consent of the compa¬ 
ny or corporation. And these corporations, availing 
themselves of this power, are beginning to develop a 
disposition to monopolize not only all the carrying bu¬ 
siness, but all the produce dealing along their lines. I 
have a letter from a very intelligent Whig gentleman, 
that such is the case with the railroad company whose 
road passes through the town where I live. 

And now I ask, if such is to be the result of grant¬ 
in'^ a railroad charter, does it not call as loudly for 
suppression as the case of the mill dam, which I have 
recited ? If the raising of an unhealthy stench in a 
neighborhood, or if the noisy hammering upon an anvil 
should be abated as nuisances, by the authority of our 
judicial tribunals, I do most respectfully submit, wheth¬ 
er we should not have some authority to suppress eve¬ 
ry monopoly of trade ? I ask the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin to come up and show me his justification for the rule 
of law which would take away an injurious privilege 
in the one case, and allow it to be enjoyed in the other, 

unless fully paid for. ^ ^ -n ♦ 

I have a single word as to the singular—I will not say 


disreputable—distinction taken here with reference to 
existing charters, and unconditional repeal with ref¬ 
erence to future charters. Gentlemen tell us of cases 
of taking away charters of corporations which no just 
mind could approve of—of taking away the charters of 
individual comj)auies, whose charters have been gran¬ 
ted before the exercise of this power was authoiTzed.. 
But now take the same cases with reference to the 
charters of future corporations—if they are unconsti¬ 
tutionally repealed—stript of their property from mo¬ 
tives of mere captiousness—does it make any differ¬ 
ence in the perfidy of the act whether the charter 
has already been granted or shall be granted hereaf¬ 
ter ? The outrage upon the rights and interests of the 
corporators or individuals holding the franchise is cer¬ 
tainly the same in both cases; and 1 say to the gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] that the Stale 
has no right to assail men in the legitimate and harm¬ 
less exercise of their rights in the use of their proper¬ 
ty, large and valuable perhaps, and of a prosperous 
business, and strike down and take it away from them, 
thereby making them beggars to-morrow. 

Sir, I will take their own cases and demonstate that 
unconditional repeal, prospective, is as odious when 
practised upon innocent parties as the same power 
could be when exercised retrospectively. It is not right 
to take property without cause, whether the State may 
have told the owner of the intention to do so or not. 
Nor is it right to take away municipal property in a^ 
captious way; still, it has been repeatedly told us here 
that we may take away a municipal charter without 
compensation—that even the charter of the city of New 
York might be taken in this manner to-morrow, even to 
the destruction of its nineteen millions of property ; but 
I would make an exception in these cases. According^^ 
to the doctrine of the gentleman from Franklin, when- 
you take away a charter you strip the corporation of 
the power to take charge of its property because you- 
destroy their artificial body. 

But now, Mr. President, if it could have so happened 
that no banks had ever existed in this country, you 

ould never have beard any complaint about the doc¬ 
trine of I’epeal; you could never have heard of the Dart¬ 
mouth College case, nor of the case of the Planter’e- 
Bank of Mississippi.' Neither would you have seen the 
spectacle of these eight or nine gentlemen of this Con¬ 
vention torturing themselves, as they have done on this 
tj^uestion. 

Having i-eferred to these gentlemen as eight or aine^ 
I be? to explain what I mean. The gentleman fromi 
Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] has at all times been in 
favor of repeal, but conceiving that cases of injustice 
might arise in the exercise of this power he only de¬ 
sires to see these provided against; that done, I under¬ 
stand him to be in favor of repeal. The gentleman 
from Franklin did not come here making any high* 
claims to democracy, neither did the gentleman fromi 
Belm-ont, nor the gentleman from Coshocton come 
here as partizans. But the residue of these men cams; 
here as low mouthed democrats, and of them we have 
ri^dit to complain. Them we have a right to reproach* 
as'^renegades and traitors to the cause they were sent 
here to represent, to a confiding but deluded and be¬ 
trayed constituency. Of these men only do I complain^ 
and I maintain we'are one and all justifiable in thusdo- 
ing so. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD next obtained the floor, speaking 
a^aiinst the amendment, and defining his position upon, 
the whole subject, to the close of the allotted twenty- 
minutes. 

Mr. RANNEY proposed to amend the amendment of 
the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] by adding 
at the end thereof the following words And all cor¬ 
porations hereafter created, may be altered, revoked or 
repealed, at any time, by the General Assembly, upon 
’such just and equitable terms as they shall see proper.” 

Mr. SWAN accepted the amendment. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler. I have a few words to say 















1232 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


Oil this subject before the vote shall be taken, and I 
could desire to have a little more time than the twenty 
minutes allotted under the rule which has been passed 
in my absence. It will be impossible for me to do jus¬ 
tice to the subject in that time ; but I shall not under¬ 
take to go through with the whole subject in a regular 
course of review, but 1 shall only endeavor to touch up¬ 
on some of the most prominent points, by way of reply 
to one or two of the arguments which have been pre¬ 
sented by gentlemen in opposition to the side which I 
have taken upon this question. 

And first, let me say, that if we read the thirty-third 
and thirty-sixth sections, of this report of the commit¬ 
tee on the Legislative Department, together, I am dis¬ 
posed to think, and have thought from the time when 
they were first reported, they are in substance and in 
legal and constitutional effect precisely equivalent to a 
provision which I had the honor of offering when this 
subject was under consideration some three or four 
weeks since. And the only objection which I could 
have to these sections is, that they are calculated to 
deceive; and in order to secure my vote, it will only 
be necessary that their language be made a little more 
explicit and plain. 

If a charter should be repealed under the provisions 
of these sections, and property should be sacrificed 
without a just compensation, and if the injured party 
should go into a court of justice for damages, the court 
must necessarily decide upon these provisions in ac¬ 
cordance with the constitution of the United States. 
And hence the decision must be, in all such cases where 
the franchise could not be separated from the property 
without impairing in value or destroying the property, 
that to exercise the power of repeal constitionally, a 
just compensation must be made to the owner. Believ¬ 
ing this from the first, I have been willing to sustain 
these two sections, but at the same time, I am com¬ 
pelled to insist that they should be so amended as to 
apprize the people fully of the effect of them ; and es¬ 
pecially that the General Assembly in the exercise of 
the power of repeal, may not be misled by provisions 
of this constitution giving rise to a difference of opinion 
touching the construction of these sections. 

Here is the only objection which I have to these pro¬ 
visions. We are called upon to provide that the Leg¬ 
islature shall have the power to repeal all charters, 
just as far as they may deem the exercise of that pow¬ 
er to be advisable. And here let me make this inqui¬ 
ry : can this Convention confer upon the Legislature 
any power with reference to the subject of the repeal 
of charters which that department of the government 
does not already possess? Gentlemen seem to have 
voted here upon the supposition that the Convention 
had authority to enlarge the powers of the Legislature 
in this particular. But this I deny. All the power 
which this Convention can exercise, is but the power 
which they have received at the hands of the people. 
Of course, then, this body cannot claim to exercise 
powers not reserved to the people in the constitution 
of the United States. They are entrusted with the 
power of framing a constitution for the State. That is 
simply all the power they have. Then let me inquire 
whether the Legislature, being the lawmaking power, 
is not vested with all the power which the people have 
reserved to themselves for the purpose of making laws 
for the State ? If this be true, then it is nonsense, and 
worse than nonsense, for this body to talk about in¬ 
creasing the powers of the Legislature. 

It will be admitted that this Convention may cur¬ 
tail the powers of the Legislative Department, but 
when gentlemen bring us to the inquiry as to whether 
this body can confer upon the General Assembly pow¬ 
er over existing charters and acts of incorporation, 
which that department cannot now exercise under the 
provisions of the existing constitution of the State, for 
myself, I am constrained to answer, that this Conven¬ 
tion has no such power to confer. The General As¬ 
sembly has now the power to repeal every act of in¬ 


corporation within this State. I have admitted this 
power from the beginning of the discussion of the i 
question now under consideration. I have heretofore | 
said that the Legislature may take from the citizen his 
real and personal estate, and may appropriate the same 
for the public welfare. But how can this power be ex¬ 
ercised? It may be exercised upon two conditions: 
First, that the public welfare demands such a thing at 
the hands of the Legislature; and, secondly, that a just i 
compensation shall be made for the property so taken. 

If, then, the Legislature have the power to take 
away the real and personal property of the citizen 
whenever the public welfare requires it, they have 
also the same power, whenever the public welfare re¬ 
quires it, to take away any charter in the State of 
Ohio upon like conditions—upon the requisition of the 
public welfare, and upon the payment of a just com¬ 
pensation for the property so taken or destroyed. This 
is the whole question. As to the question whether a 
franchise is properly, I will touch upon that if I have 
time, before I close. 

But here let me say that the provisions of the con- 
stitiuion of the United States are necessarily paramount 
to any provision we can insert in this constitution, and 
paramount to any law of the General Assembly of the 
State. From this provision we cannot escape ; and we 
never should undertake so to do. If it had not been for 
this question of repeal, I suppose there never would 
have been that difference of opinion with reference to 
the provisions of the Federal constitution, betw'een gen- ' 
tlemen upon this floor, which has developed itself day , 
after day, and time after time in this discussion. There i 
are two provisions of the constitution of the United 
States which bear upon this subject; but I shall have 
time to touch upon only one of them, which is the fol- 
fowing: 

“No State shall pass any cx post facto law, or law impairing 
the obligation of contracts.” 

I need not explain to my professional bi'ethren what 
is meant by an ea; post facto law. But no State shall 
pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. I 
know that the question will be put to me here, wheth¬ 
er I consider a charter granted by the Legislature of 
the State to be a contract within the meaning of this 
provision of the Federal constitution ? This question 
I am prepared to answer. But it will only be neces¬ 
sary lor me to say here, that whenever a grant shall 
have been made by the General Assembly, and accep¬ 
ted by the party for whose benefit the grant was so 
made, and property is vested under the grant, as soon 
as the property is so vested under the grant or fran¬ 
chise, the law of contract applies, and consequently 
the provisions of the constitution of the United States 
apply. Therefore such grants cannot be repealed un¬ 
less compensation is made for the property impaired 
in value, or destroyed by virtue of the act of repeal. I 
am speaking in reference now, to existing acts of incor¬ 
poration, not as to those that may hereafter be grant¬ 
ed—for as to such, I admit the power in this Conven¬ 
tion to fix the ^erras iqibn which future grants may be 
made. 

This is the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court 
of the United States, and by the courts of all the States of 
this Union, so far as these courts have been called up¬ 
on to settle any question of this kind. Is it not, there¬ 
fore, too late now for gentlemen to allow themselves 
to disregard these solemn decisions ? 

^ Is there any thing unjust or inequitable in these di¬ 
visions ? Any thing more than a principle for the pro¬ 
tection of honest and innocent property holders from 
sacrifice and loss by the action of the law making pow¬ 
er ? Why then, should we not uphold and support 
them ? 

I claim, therefore, that these decisions will be sus¬ 
tained upon constitutional principles, as well as upon 
principles of honesty between man and man—between 
the government and the citizen. 

I have not time, Mr. President, to elucidate these 













CONVENTION REPOETS. 


principles, by a reference to the case put by the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swan.] But with regard to 
the argument of the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitch¬ 
ell,] when he contends that the courts have the pow¬ 
er to remove a neighborhood nuisance, because of the 
public inconvenience and injury which it induces, no 
one will deny the doctrine which he lays down. But 
certainly'no lawyer will undertake to apply this rule 
to a case arising out of the grant of a charter by the 
law making power. Because it is not at all applicable 
to such a case—and why is it not applicable ? A char¬ 
ter has been granted by the Legislature to a company 
of men for many purposes, and conferring certain priv¬ 
ileges and powers. This Ijeing done, such a charter is 
afterwards accepted by the company, and property is 
invested under its provisions, so that it is impossible 
for such property to be sepai*ated from the franchise 
without impairing or destroying its value. And here 
the question arises whether the granting power can re¬ 
sume such a charter without compensation for the 
property so destroyed. 

Let us compare this case with that which has been 
stated here, of the individual who erected a mill dam, 
which became a public nuisance. Under what author¬ 
ity did this individual erect this dam 7 Did he proceed 
in this matter, under the authority of those who were 
subsequently injured by his work ? Certainly he did 
not. He proceeded wholly without their authority in 
the work of erecting his dam, whereby he did a pub¬ 
lic injury to the neighborhood, and consequently the 
neighborhood had a just right to go into court and de¬ 
mand that this injurious nuisance should be abated. 
Let us state a case in point. 

We will take the case of the erection of a mill dam, 
where the privilege is not granted by the law making 
power; but we will suppose a case where all the neigh¬ 
borhood interested and to be affected thereby, having 
ample power in themselves, shall make a grant to the 
mill owner of the privilege of erecting his mill; and 
suppose the grantors afterwards stand by silently while 
the owner proceeds to expend his thousands upon the 
erection of his mill. But so soon as the mill is com¬ 
pleted, let us suppose the grantors to turn round and 
say to the owner of the mill: “Sir, your mill is a nui¬ 
sance, and we will take back the grant which we have 
made to you for its erection.” Now, I put the question 
to gentlemen to say whether the grantors have the right 
so to do, unless they make compensation to the owner ? 

I answer they certainly could not. And this would be 
a parallel case. 

Then, I assume the ground that where the grant of 
a charter is made voluntarily and after it has been ac¬ 
cepted by those for whose benefit it was intended,^ and 
after property has been vested under its provisions, 
and the moment property has been so vested, that mo¬ 
ment the law of contract applies: that moment the 
provision of the constitution of the United States ap¬ 
plies ; and that moment the owner or owners of the 
property are protected by that constitution; and there 
is no power in the United States, so long as the consti¬ 
tution of the United States shall remain the supreme 
law, as it now is, that can take away such property 
from the owner or owners, unless a just compensation 
be returned therefor. This being the fact, how are we 
to dispose of the question of unconditional repeal, so 
far as the provision relates to charters heretofore grant- 

^What is to be understood by unconditional repeal? 
First, I ought to say that this amendment will apply 
variously to different corporations. There is as much 
difference between the charter of corporations as there 
is between the light of the sun at noon-day 
darkness of midnight. There are corpor^ions which, 
by repealing their charter, you would affect nothing 
but the bare grant which it might contain. To this 
class belong banks, insurance and manufacturing com¬ 
panies, corporations for commercial purposes, &c. It 
you exercise this power-) f repealt n relation to t^ 

78 


charter of a bank, you take away nothing but their 
bare franchise. You leave all their property to be di¬ 
vided amongst the share holders—their banking house 
—their money—their securities—their bonds, notes, 
and such like property. These are all worth just as 
much after the charter is taken away as they were be¬ 
fore, and they are left to be divided amongst the stock¬ 
holders. Nothing is, therefore, taken away save the 
franchise. 

[The President’s hammer here indicated that the 
gentleman’s time had expired, but by unanimous con¬ 
sent he was permitted to proceed ten minutes longer, 
under the rule prescribing that length of time for the 
second speech upon the same proposition.] 

I was going on to say, Mr. President, that such is the 
case with insurance companies and manufacturing 
companies, &c., that their property is worth just as 
much after their franchise is taken away as it was be¬ 
fore. But there is another class of corporations in our 
State, in relation to which the exercise of the authority 
contemplated in this provision would have a very differ¬ 
ent effect. I allude to all corporations for internal im¬ 
provement purposes. Suppose the Legislature should 
repeal the charter of a turnpike road company, or a 
company for the construction of any sort of a road, 
what is to become of the property of such a company ? 
Is it to be divided amongst the stockholders ? Or what 
is there left of it when their franchise is gone from 
them for ever 7 Gentlemen upon the other side tell 
us they do not propose to take away the property of a 
company ; but when we come to look at the eftects of 
this proposition, it is plain, that to take away the fran¬ 
chise of a road company is to destroy the value of all 
the property of such company. It is to take away its 
availability, whatever may have been the cost of con¬ 
struction. The cost of construction may have reached 
the sum of five million.sof dollars, as in the case of some 
of our raih’oads. Thus we have the case of the Legis¬ 
lature and the people of the State standing by and see¬ 
ing such a company vesting this large sum ot money in 
the construction of a great commercial avenue, and then 
when it is completed, turning round and exercising this 
power of repeal—taking away the entire value of five 
millions of investment, but at the same time taking 
no property for the use of the State, but leaving to the 
stockholders the rails and the timber to be divided 
amongst them or to be used for any other purpose, if 
the company will take them up from their foundations 
and sell them for any price which they may command. 
All the proceeds of this immense outlay of money are 
thus to be swept awayby two or three lines in the stat¬ 
ute book! Such would be the effect of this provision if it 
were not for the intervention of a power paramount to 
our State constitution. 

We affirm, sir, that these stockholders are protected 
by the courts of the United States, and that neither this 
Convention, nor any other power of the State can sac¬ 
rifice the property belonging either to corporations or 
individuals, unless the public welfare require it, and a 
just compensation is paid therefor. I speak now of acts 
of incorporations heretofore granted in this State. I 
might say the same of a bridge company. The act of 
repeal leaves all the property belonging to the compa¬ 
ny—the timber and the stones, the piers and the abut¬ 
ments. The act of repeal takes away nothing but the 
charter; but nine-tenths of the valUe of the bridge is 
taken away from the stockholders, whilst nothing is 
taken for the benefit of the State. But, in all such 
cases it is plain that the State, though it takes nothing 
to itself, does either take away from the stockholders 
their property or destroy its value. Such is the effect 
of the repeal. 

Now, sir, when I first came into this body, the first 
thing that I was required to do—even before I was per¬ 
mitted to take my seat officially upon the floor of this 
Convention—was to raise my hand and swear that I 
would support the constitution of the United States. 
So, also, the very first thing I had to do the other day, 

















1234 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


when I was permitted to come back again to the place 
which I had a few days before resigned, was to raise 
mv hand and take upon myself the same obligation. 
Well, sir, having done this, I cannot consent to gise a 
single vote, if I know it, that shall be in violation of 
any provision of that sacred instrument. I call it a sa¬ 
cred instrument, because the establishment of the prin¬ 
ciples which it contains has cost the blood of many, 
and because it lias been handed down to us by our fath¬ 
ers who have long since passed from this stage of ac¬ 
tion ; and if there is not another man in this State who 
will go with me, still I am resolved to plant myself 
Mpon that constitution, and there I will stand and unfurl 
my banner to the breeze upon which there shall be in¬ 
scribed the inviolability ol the rights of private prop 
erty. 

After taking a brief review of the argument which he 
had passed over; Mr. V. said, in conclusion, that he 
should vote for striking out and inserting the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swan.] 
He would do this, because he believed the amendment, 
though not in the most desirable shape, embraces the 
'substance of what was intended by the committee and 
‘desired by the people, in reference to this subject. 

Mr. SAWYER. I have not said anything on this ques¬ 
tion of any account since it was first agitated in this 
body ; and I would not now say anything were it not 
for the utter astonishment with which I have listened 
to the gentleman who has just now taken his seat. I 
am at a loss to understand his position. I understand 
him to say that the thirty-third and thirty-sixth sections 
of this report are right in principle. And I have under¬ 
stood him to make the same declaration before. I un¬ 
derstand also that he has made the same kind of speech 
before his constituents. I understand him, also, to af¬ 
firm that at the time his constituents were instructing 
him to resign and go home, the democrats here, in 
Convention, were concocting and j)reparing the very 
same matter for which he had been contending. And 
now I cannot see how it is that the gentleraaii can get 
up here, after these declarations and acknowledgments, 
and declare that he will vote for striking out this sec¬ 
tion. But this is a matter w’hich he will have to settle 
with his own conscience. He has already settled the 
question with his constituent,s. But I desire that his 
constituents shall see how he votes here, and with whom 

he votes. _ 

As re^^ards myself, I came here in the spirit of com¬ 
promise^ and I am going to carry it out in every thing, 
exceol that I cannot compromise a principle. 

I ask that there shall be engrafted into this constitu¬ 
tion some provision asserting the power of the Legis¬ 
lature to repeal written charters ; and I will not vote 
for anv constitution that has not that kind of a provis¬ 
ion in'it. After you shall have refused to engraft that 
kind of a provision then I care not what else you do. 

I take this view, that no wicked, or corrupt, or de¬ 
ceived Legislature should be allowed to bind an irre- 
pealable burthen upon the people for all time to come. 
I take the ground that it is to give to the Legislature 
the power to take away all our rights, when we assert 
that one Legislature may pass an act which no succeed- 
in^- Legislature shall have the power to repeal. But 
aentlemen, in the examples which they give, speak of 
nothing but railroad charters and turnpike charters. 
But let me say to these gentlemen that there was a 
charter lately granted to a company in Tiffin, which is 
now being exercised for a different purpose from that 
for w'hich it was granted, and of whicli, I presume, 
no ‘gentleman will say it ought not to be repealed, be¬ 
cause they are not exercising their legal powers. And 
it is this class of charters we desire to reach by this 
principle of repeal. 

We take the ground, that no Legislature would ever 
repeal the charter of an honest corporation—that the 
General Assembly would never repeal the charter of 
a turnpike company, or a railroad company, so long as 
they were doing their duty. 


But these examples and illustrations of gentlemen, 
have always been made for the purpose of diverting 
our attention from the true and only real point in this 
issue. They are conliuually inducing us to follow 
some ignis fatrms, wdiich they are able to throw out in 
the shape of innocent corporations. These gentlemen 
are like the cuttle fish, which, when pursued by its en¬ 
emies, has the capacity of throwing off a dark fluid 
w'hich muddies the w^ater in its rear so as to enable it 
to escape. That is precisely my opinion of what gen¬ 
tlemen are doing, when they are holding up to our 
view^ the injuries which may be inflicted by the adop¬ 
tion of our proviso, upon the stockholders of innocent 
turnpike and plankroad companies, amongst which 
some of them are able to refer to so many oppressed 
widows and orphans. 

The committee was told the other day, by the gen¬ 
tleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] and the gen¬ 
tleman from Belmont, [Mr. Kennon.] that our object 
was to strike at bank charters, and at other kindred 
corporations. Sir, that is as true as the sun shines. 
That is our object; we have no fear that any railroad, 
plankroad, or turnpike charter, will ever be disturbed 
at all. I do not look at what Chancellor Kent, Judge 
Story, or any other judge on earth, has said upon this 
subject. I look only at what is right; I contend that 
the Legislature which shall succeed the present, will 
have just as much power as any Legislature which has 
ever been assembled in the State before it; and that 
one Legislature has no right to enact a law that a 
subsequent Legislature may not repeal. And I hold, 
that the man who does not contend for this doctrine 
is not the man who will be found willing to transmit 
to posterity unimpaired, that boon of liberty which we 
have received from our ancestors. 

Sir, I stand here, prepared to go for these two sec¬ 
tions, just as they as are. They contain no stringent 
provisions. They are not stringent enough for some 
of my friends around me. There are some who want 
to assert this power in positive terms. But I am con¬ 
tent to provide for the time yet to come. Insert these 
pi'ovisions in the organic law, and I am willing to go 
for the amendment of the gentleman from Franklin, 
[Mr. Swan,] with the amendment of the gentleman 
from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney.] I am willing to go for 
these latter, both togethei’—but not for the first with¬ 
out the other. 

Gentlemen have talked about war against this con¬ 
stitution. Sir, I too, will proclaim uncompromising 
war upon this constitution, if you refuse to insert this 
principle. Sir, I look upon this principle, as the cap¬ 
stone, or rather as the key-stone, which supports the 
grand arch of our system—and without this provision, 
I consider that the whole would not be worth any¬ 
thing. 

Mr. KING, by way of perfecting the words proposed 
to be stricken out, moved to amend, by inserting after 
the word “ immunities,” the woi’ds “now, or hereafter.” 

Mr. REEMELIN. It beinsr understood that I am 
the drafter of the section uneJer consideration, 1 ask 
the Conventton to hear me once more, upon this ques¬ 
tion of repeal. And, for fear that I may be misunder¬ 
stood, once for all, I desire to declare, with all proper 
consideration for all who have spoken upon this ques¬ 
tion, that the man, whether here, or elsewhere, who 
asserts that the democrats who have voted, either for 
the amendment of the gentleman from Medina, or for 
this section, or for Robertson’s proposition, are in favor 
of a proposition for repeal, which would allow the 
State to take property wrongfully, and without com¬ 
pensation, asserts what is unqualifiedly untrue. I af¬ 
firm that the 36th section, which secures all private 
property, by whomsoever held, was passed by our 
votes and our speeches, against the efforts of a portion 
of “ the twelve,” acting in connection with many of 
our whig friends. And I say further, that the true 
friends of the rights of private property, are to be found 
amongst the radical democrats of this body. They are 










CONVENTIOjS reports. 


the advocates here, of the section which protects pri¬ 
vate property; they have made it more stringent,than 
any other constitution contains. We have fought and 
voted for this princijile, of the inviolability of private 
property. We have received it. They have read to 
us the constitution of the United States, that private 
property should ever be held inviolate, and that it shall 
never be taken without compensation, nor with com¬ 
pensation unless demanded by the public necessity; 
and I ask, whether the 36th section ol this report, does 
not use the same terms as the constitution of the United 
States, and whether the words in our constitution, do 
not mean the same as they do in the constitution of 
the United States? 

One of the positions of the gentleman from Butler, 
[Mr, Vance,] was, that the right of unqualified repeal 
existed in the Legislature, except so far as that power 
was qualified by the constitution of the United Stales. 
And this povyer of repeal was qualified by that clause 
in the constitution of the United States, wherein the 
inviolability of private property is secured. Now, I 
affirm, that the rule tor the protection of private prop¬ 
erty, is far more stringent in our constitution, and in 
this report, than in the constitution of the United States, 
or of any of the States. 

The difficulty with the other gentleman from Butler, 
[Mr, King,] seems to have originated in not being able 
to discriminate between a proposition coupling directly 
with the right of repeal, a clause in reference to prop¬ 
erty and he connects in his mind the section thirty- 
three and the section thirty-six, which should really 
be regarded as separate. By having them separate 
we get clear from the construction, which by coup¬ 
ling them, we labor under—that to repeal is to take 
property; that the General Assembly must pay, if it 
repeal. 

I affirm, sir, that with such constitutional provisions 
the State cannot take private property under any 
circumstances without compensation. The constitu¬ 
tion of the United States protects private property and 
so does our section, only ours does so more securely; 
so that if we adopt a section for unqualified repeal it 
will be qualified by section thirty-six, just the same as 
the first section is, which contains the unqualified leg 
islative authority. 

I affirm, therefore, that the simple, naked power of 
unqualified repeal, however unqualified it may stand in 
one section, is modified and qualified by other sections 
of the constitution. It has never been claimed here 
that property could be taken without compensation. 
The protection embraced in section thirty-six has al¬ 
ways been safe. 

When I drafted this section, 1 was in hopes that the 
anti-democratic doctrine—that a charter is a contract— 
would not bo broached amongst us. For the true 


1235 


doctrine upon this subject has been asserted by many 
of the “twelve,” and they dare not deny it. Even 
the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. Vance,] before he re¬ 
signed and went home, asserted, in his first speech 
upon this subject, that a charter was not a contract. I 
have that speech now in my possession, and I will 
read. 

Mr, R. then read from page 193, “ Ohio Convention 
Debates 

Now, it may be a serious question, and one worthy of conside¬ 
ration, whether all the acts of incorporation passed by the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly of Ohio are contractu. I do not believe they are. 
Some of them may be, and probably are, contracts; others, I 
know are not. It is ray opinion that this provision has been too 
often misapplied in debate, if not in the decisions of courts. 

But now the gentleman comes back with a new 
construction, and says that when a charter becomes 
connected with property, then it becomes a contract. 
So that while he admitted the right of n-peal. be could 
say that a charter was a contract, and therefore irre- 
pealable. He is, therefore, truly and undeniably an 
enemy to repeal. 

And to this ground must all be driven who shall vote 
now for striking out. Such will have to be the posi¬ 


tion of my friend, (personal, not political friend ) the 
pntleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] and neither 
he nor others can escape from the consequence. If 
this section is to be stricken out, then the repeal is de- 
ieate;d, for the amendment cannot be adopted; and at 
the door of these men shall be laid the sin of defeatine 
all direct repeal clauses. ° 

I have been very much surprised and disappointed 
taken by the gentleman from But- 
ler, [Mr. Va.nce.] When I met him in discussion upon 
his subject, a short time ago, at Westchester, he occu¬ 
pied the position which he has put down upon the pa¬ 
per in my hand, of which he was then distributing 
liundreds of copies amongst the people. I will read aii 
extract. 

It is a document, headed, 

“to my constituents,” 

and was issued by the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. 
Vance,] to his constituents, during the late contest in 
that county. 

that whilst I am assailed in 
ConvPTiHnn spoken and voted my sentiments, (in 

commiuee, (the Legislative Committee,) before 
referred to, composed of a majority of democrats, have si amen- 
dedthe report under consideration, as to embrace precisely the 
p ovisions which I, w^ith others, had advocated from the com- 

Tte two seotion,,w”ioh Iha“ 

^ amended 00 as to read as follows : 

1 he General Assembly shall have power to pass retroactive 
aws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts, provided 
however, thatacts of incorporation, or corporate franchises, priv- 
leges or immunities, whether granted by any general orspeSIl 
lavv, shall ever be deemed contracts, or irrepealable. ^ 

‘Private property shall ever be held inviolable, and no private 
property, either held by individuals or corporations, shall ever be 
taken lor public use, unless the public good imperatively demands 
it .-but m all cases an adequate compensation shall first be made 
to the owner or owners, in money, to be appraised by a jury, and 
sublet to no deduction tor any benefits accruing to any property 
ot the owner or owners. ’ j tr j 

‘‘ In this shape they were reported back to the Convention by 
Wr. ,_AWYER, Mr. Reemelin, and the balance of the committee^ 
the very day on vvhich I resigned. Who can doubt now, but that 
the constitutional guarantee, that private property shall ever be 
held to be inviolable, is a democratic measure. The only difficul- 
^ question, is, that my accusers progress 

more lapidly with the catechism oi democracy, than wiser men 
° attempt to do. Mad they waited until Messrs. 
Sawyer and Reemelin reported, there would not have been the 
necessity of passing sentence upon me without a hearing.” 

Bu t the gentleman, to-day, occupies quite a different 
position from that which he occupied before the peo¬ 
ple. He has just told us, that he will vote to strike out 
the provision, just read, which, to my mind, fully ius- 
tifies the charge, that he not only betrayed his people 
before, but that he is going to betray them again. 

en ^ the charge I now make, I will read 
from a democratic paper in Butler county, which advo¬ 
cated the election of Judge Vance, called the “ Miami 
Democrat.” The paper I read from, was issued on 
the eve of the election. It is headed, “To ike Polls ” 
Mr. REEMELIN read: 

“Remember that to morrow is the day of the election Re 
member that two worthy men are now before you as candidates 
to the Constitutional Convention. Remember that Judo-e Vance 
and ’Squire Clark have each done good service in the democratic 
ranks. Remember that there is no material difference in their 
political views.” . 

But again, look at the following, which I will also 
read. It is from the same paper, from which I read 
just now. It reads— 

“ That a full and perfect understanding may be had of Jud^e 
Vance’s jiroposition, and the proposition now before the Conven 
tion, we re-publish so much of our article as relates to the tw^n 
propositions. 

“ The 35th section of the report on the Legislative Department 
having been under consideration in the Convention, which read^ 
as follows: 

“ The General Assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive 
laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts.’ 

“ Mr. Vance ottered the following amendment : 

‘“Provided, that all acts of incorporation, and acts ffrantinrr 
franchises, may be altered, amended, revoked or repealed by the 
General Assembly ot this State, upon such terms and conditions 
pertaining to the inviolability of private property, as is provided 
in other cases in this constitution.’ ^ 

“ The condition referred to by the words ‘as is provided in other 
cases in this constitution ’ is the 39th section of the same report 
which had already been adopted, and which reads as follows • 























1236 


CONVENTION REPOKTS. 


* « < Private property ehall ever bt held inviolate, and no private 
property shall ever be taken for public use, unless the public 
good imperatively demands it; but in all cases, full and adequate 
compensation in money shall first be made to the owner, to be as¬ 
sessed by a jury, and subject to no deduction for any benefits de¬ 
rived to any property of the owner.’ ” 

“ ‘The foregoing illustrates the proposition madeby JudgeVance 
in the Convention. After his amendment had been discussed for 
some days, at the request of the legislative committee, the whole 
subject was again referred to them. Through Mr. Reemelin, 
chairman of that committee, they again reported, an4 the ques¬ 
tion of repeal is there set forth in the 33d and 36th sections ot the 
report, as follows: 

“ ‘Sec. 33. The General Assembly shall have no power to pass 
retroactive laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts, 
provided, however, that acts of incorporations or corporate fran¬ 
chises, privileges and immunities, whether granted by any general 
or special law, shall ever be deemed contracts, or irrepealable. 

“ ‘Sec. 36. Private property shall ever be inviolate, and no pri¬ 
vate property, whether held by individuals or corporations, shall 
ever be taken for public use, unless the public good imperatively 
demands; but, in all cases, full and adequate compensation, in 
money, shall first be made to the owmer or owners, to be assessed 
by a jury, and subject to no deductions for any benefits accruing 
to the property of the owner or owners.’ 

“ We cannot see any difference in the two propositions. They 
each comprehend the same subject matter, and each point out the 
same remedy and the same mode of applying the remedy. We 
cannot but regard the last legislative report, as an adoption of the 
principles set forth in Judge Vance’s provisp.” 

But now to-day the gentleman will be found voting 
to strike out these provisions. 

1 will state another fact. That gentleman befoie he 
left this Hall and Vv^ent home to the people, took a 
copy of them along with him, read them to his people 
extensively, and told them that he was going to come 
back again and vote for them. Yea, he told Mr. Saw¬ 
yer that those provisions embraced all he wanted, and 
that they suited him exactly. This I state in the pre¬ 
sence of both these gentlemen, and it cannot be de¬ 
nied. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, (interposing.) I deny the 
fact of having told any constituent of mine, that I was 
coming back to vote for these propositions. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Butler has 
not got the floor. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Let men judge for themselves, 
after looking at the documents I have furnished. I 
have only a few words more to say. The proposition 
now under consideration, I hold to be almost as strong 
as the original proposition of Mr. Robertson. They 
contain the unqualified repeal—the rights of private 
property are also most amply protected here. 

I could have little or no objection to protecting pri¬ 
vate property in any reasonable way ; but to do it 
here, in direct terms, and in direct connection with the 
repeal clause, is to say, that to repeal a charter is to 
take property—that is the very construction which I 
desire to avoid. I do not wish to cripple the people 
in their efforts to regain their freedom from the monop¬ 
olies of wealth. All we have to do is to counteract 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, 
and of the courts of Ohio, by quietly asserting the 
right of the Legislature to revoke or repeal any char¬ 
ter that is passed. I do not wish, by voting for the 
amendment now before us, to invite new attacks upon 
our freedom and equality—I do not wish to give this 
advantage into the hands of our spoilers. 

Mr. LARWILL moved that the Convention do now 
adjourn. 

Whereupon Mr. HAWKINS demanded the yeas and 
nays; which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 45, 
nays 56—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Collings* 
Ewing, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groes- 
beck. Hard, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, 
Leech, Lidey, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Quigley, Riddle, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Struble, 
Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Williams, and Wilson—41. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Cook, 
Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Ham¬ 
ilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Horton, Hunter, 
Johnson, Larsh, Leadbetter, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, 


Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Ran- 
ney, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, 
Taylor, Warren, Woodbury, Worthington, and President—56. 

So the Convention refused to adjourn. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD next obtained the floor, but gave 
way, under the rule, upon a demand to be heard by— 

Mr. STxYNBERY. I want to say a few words in re¬ 
ply to the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin.] 
Does that gentleman suppose we are 'so dull as to be 
imposed upon by the position he has now taken. I 
understand the gentleman to say that he has always 
been in favor of the doctrine of repeal, coupled with 
that other wholesome doctrine, that when the property 
of a corporation is taken, it shall be paid for as other 
property taken for the public use is paid for. 

Mr. REEMELIN (in his seat.) I did not say “cou¬ 
pled with.” 

Mr. STANBERY. Well sir, there are members here 
who take the ground that the property of a corporation 
when it is taken by repeal should not be paid for. 
Now I undertake to say that these two sections taken 
together ofter no protection at all to property so takpn. 
The gentleman from Butler, [Mr. Vance,] intimated 
that there might be a doubt whether these two sec¬ 
tions would aflbrd this protection or not. What are 
these sections? The thirty-sixth section is as follows; 

Sec. 36. Private property shall ever be held inviolate, and no 
private property, whether held by individuals or corporations 
shall ever be taken for public use, unless the public good impera¬ 
tively demands it, but in all cases full and adequate compensation 
in money, shall first be made to the owner or owners, to be assess¬ 
ed by a jury, and subject to no deduction for any benefits accruing 
to any property of the owner or owners. 

Property shall not be taken for public use without 
compensation; but the right is asserted to take property 
without compensation when it is not taken for the pub¬ 
lic use. But what does the other section say ? It is as 
follows: 

Sec. 33. The General Assembly shall have no power to pass 
retroactive laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts ; 
provided, however, that acts ol incorporation or corporate 
franchises, privileges or immunities, whether granted by a gen- j 
eral or special law, shall never be deemed contracts or irrepeala- ! 

That is; all such laws may be repealed, and sim¬ 
ply repealed. The State will not devote the property 
of a corporation to public use but simply strike down 
their charter. Where then is the protection—the in¬ 
demnity—the compensation for the property thus 
stricken down by repeal ? It is property stript of its 
value and left unpaid for in the hands of the original 
corporators. 

^ This to my mind is the only true, legitimate construc¬ 
tion of these two sections. 

Mr. A.RCHBOLD now took the floor and spoke ten 
minutes in reply to the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. 
Sawyer,] and in the way of further defining his posi¬ 
tion upon the whole subject. 

When he had concluded, on motion by Mr. HOOT¬ 
MAN, the Convention adjourned. 


FRIDAY, February 14, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. STANTON presented a petition from John J. 
Ackerman, praying that the new constitution may au¬ 
thorize the General Assembly to repeal any law they 
may deem proper, &c.; which, on motion, was laid on 
the table. 

Mr. CHAMBERS presented a petition from J. H. 
Herdmau and sixty-five other citizens from Muskino^l 
urn county, praying that a clause be inserted in tlie 
new constitution prohibiting the Legislature from pass¬ 
ing any law legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors' 
which, on motion, was laid on the table. 

Mr. GILLETT presented a petition from E. W. 
Wakefield and seventy other citizens of Lawrence 
county, on the same subject; which was referred to 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 1237 


the select committee upon the subject of Retailing Ar¬ 
dent Spirits. 

Mr. HUNTER presented a petition from Reuel Well¬ 
man, chairman of a meeting of the Inhabitants of Hart¬ 
ford, Trumbull county, Ohio, upon the subject of tem¬ 
perance; which was referred to the select committee 
on the subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. HUNTER presented a petition from L. Bissel 
and nineteen other citizens of Ashtabula county, pray¬ 
ing that the Convention may fix upon some uniform 
standard by which judges ot election can determine 
the color of those who ask the privilege to vote. 

Mr. HUNTER said this petition was not sent here 
for the purpose of sport or derision, nor to occasion 
any unnecessary waste of time; but it was sent here by 
as honest and judicious a class of men as can be found 
in any community, as I can testify from a long and in¬ 
timate acquaintance with them. They wish, by this 
means, to express their opinion of the ridiculousness 
of such a variable, uncertain and whimsical standard 
of qualification for the elective franchise as color ; in 
which opinion, I wish to say, that I entirely concur. 

Neither, Mr. President, are these petitioners fanatics. 
The charge was several times made yesterday, in the 
discussion of the proposition to remove the colored 
population from the State, and to prohibit others from 
coming in, that anti-slavery people were fanatics. So 
far as Ashtabula county is concerned, where I am per¬ 
sonally acquainted, most emphatically do I deny the 
charge ; and I have no hesitation in saying, that there 
has been exhibited here, during the sitting of this 
Convention, vastly more of real fiery fanaticism in 
reference to banks, corporations, and other subjects, 
than has ever existed among the staid and sober peo¬ 
ple of that county on the subject of human rights, du- 
ring a period of near twenty years that I have lived 
among them. 

Referred to the committee on Miscellaneous Subjects 
and Propositions. 

Mr. HAWKINS presented a petition from Wm. S. 
Brovvns and fourteen other citizens of Morgan and 
Hamilton counties, praying that a clause be inserted in 
the new constitution prohibiting the Legislature from 
passing any law legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors; 
which, on motion, w'as laid on the table. 

Mr. STIDGER presented a petition from .John Dan¬ 
ner, and fifty males and females, on the same subject. 

Referred to the select committee on the subject of 
Retailing Ai’dent Spirits. 

Mr. RIDDLE presented a petition from A. Webb 
and Daniel L. Star, on behalf of the Quarterl)’’ Confer¬ 
ence of Park Street Chapel, Cincinnati, on the same 
subject. 

Referred to the select committee on the subject of 
Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. LIDEY submitted the following; 

Resolved, That no petitions or memorials shall be received after 
the 25th day of February, by this Convention. 

On the adoption of which, Mr. MITCHELL deman¬ 
ded the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and resul¬ 
ted—yea 1, nays 84—as follows: 

Yea—M r. Lidey— 1. 

Nats —Messrs. Andrevs^s, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brovrn of Athens, 
Bro^ of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chambers Chaney, 

1 Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, 
King, Kirkwood, Larsb, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nor¬ 
ris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stil- 
well, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shel¬ 
by, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—84. 

So the resolution was rejected. 

On motion of Mr. McCLOUD, the Convention took 
up the report number two of the committee on the 
Legislative Department, with the pending amendments. 


The question pending being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. King, to wit: insert after the word “ im¬ 
munities,” in section thirty-three, the words “nowand 
hereafter granted;” 

Mr. CAHILL. Mr. President; As many gentlemen 
have defined their positions on the repeal of corpora¬ 
tions, I will ask the indulgence of this Convention a 
few moments, while I define my own position. Sir, I 
believe the General Assembly has the power to repeal 
acts of incorporation, but as that power has been de¬ 
nied, I think we ought to insert a provision in this con¬ 
stitution re-affirming the power of the General Assem¬ 
bly over all acts of incorporation. 

Sir, 1 believe that every generation is born free, and 
has a natural inherent right to govern itself; that the pow¬ 
er to create carries with it or implies the power to des¬ 
troy, and that the power created is not greater than the 
power that created it; that the present General Assembly 
can pass no law that a subsequent Legislature cannot 
alter, atnend, or repeal, whenever the public good de¬ 
mands it. But, sir, whenever the people, through their 
representatives, have asked the repeal of these corpo¬ 
rations, they hnve been met with the cant of vested 
rights, contracts, the decisions of your courts, and fran¬ 
chises ; they are told that their rights and privileges are 
all contracted and frittered away, and that the people, 
the grand source of all political power, cannot resume 
their rights and privileges, unless they first pay corpo¬ 
rations for their franchises, or, in other words, pay cor¬ 
porations for the peculiar and special privileges con¬ 
ferred on them by their acts of incorporation. I would 
ask gentlemen if we came here bound down by the de¬ 
cisions of your courts, and fettered with your vested 
rights and vested wrongs, or if we came herelike free 
men to form an organic law in accordance with the 
views and opinions of those who sent us? 

Sir, if those I represent, or myself, knew anything 
about what this Convention was called for, we knew it 
was in part, to set some bounds to these corporations; 
it was to say to them, thus far shall you go, but no far¬ 
ther ; it was to insert a provision in this constitution re¬ 
affirming the power of the General Assembly over these 
acts of incorporation. But what do we propose to do 
with these incorporations? Why, sir, simply to place 
them in the hands of the General Assembly, subject to 
the will of the people; and ifthe people have theright of 
self-government, why distrust them ? I have no fear 
that the General Assembly will ever execise the power 
of repeal wantonly or in bad faith, but only when the 
public good demands it. But we are told that this is a 
war on corporations—that we propose to take their prop¬ 
erty, or to rob them of their property if you please. Now 
we propose to dono such thing. We make the same 
provision for the property of corporations that we do 
for individuals when their property is taken for the 
public use, as reference to the thirty-sixth section of 
the report of the standing committee on the Legislative 
Department will show, which I will read: 

Private property shall ever be held inviolate, and no property, 
whether held by individuals or corporations, shall ever be taken 
for public use, unless the public good imperatively demands it; 
but in all cases, full and adequate compensation in money shall 
first be made to the owner or owners, to be assessed by a jury, 
and subject to no deduction for any benefits accruing to any prop¬ 
erty of the owner or owners. 

But these franchises—these peculiar and special priv¬ 
ileges, that are taken from the great mass of the peo¬ 
ple, and conferred on the few—these franchises by 
which you enable the rich man to monopolize the v^’a- 
ges of the poor—we are not willing should be consid 
ered as property or paid for us such. 

Now sir, what has been the history of these corpora¬ 
tions Has not the Legislature literally thatched the State 
over with them? and given some of them the most 
special and peculiar privileges? And yet you are un¬ 
willing^ to give them the power to defend the people, 
against the corporations, and the abuses which every 
one must acknowledge all corporations are prone to 
commit. Why should we distrust the re]tresentatives of 









1238 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


the people ? Why should we give them the power to 
intlict a monopoly, and yet deny them the right to abate 
it when it becomes a nuisance. Sir, I will vote for the 
amendment of the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. King,] 
and if that fails, will vote for the section as it now 
stands. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said he felt it his duty to define 
his position, in regard to the present amendment, and 
he intended to do so as briefly and as clearly as he 
could. He did not deem it consistent with his duty 
as a member of this Convention to impugn the motives 
or call in question the political integrity of any gentle¬ 
man upon this floor. His constituents, when they did 
him the honor to choose him from among his fellow-cit¬ 
izens to perform the duties of a member of this body, 
did not impose upon him a duty so disagreeable, and 
even if they had, he would have hesitated long before 
attempting to carry out their instructions. But he had 
looked at this question himself and for himself, and it 
had struck him, in the first place that there was a great 
deal more of importance attached to this question by 
gentlemen on both sides, than its real magnitude de¬ 
manded. It was his opinion, and ever had been, that 
the General Assembly now in session at Columbus, had 
the power to repeal existing charters, as fully as any 
General Assembly can have, irnder this constitution. 
Such was his opinion, and he would not care about the 
insertion of any such provision in this constitution, if 
that power had not been doubted, by some and denied 
by others. He thought, therefore, that, under the cir¬ 
cumstances, the right ought to be asserted and made 
clear, that in future such a question might not arise. 

There is, however, an idea in this connection, which 
is this; I do not know the extent of our powers here 
in this Convention. It is said that in this constitution, 
we cannot make such provisions for the repeal of char¬ 
ters now existing as wmuld be eflectual, and that to do 
so, would be to set aside the provisions of the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States, and the decisions of the courts 
thaf have been made, giving construction to its provis¬ 
ions. The question is this—whether the people, wdien 
they approve of this constitution, and consent to its 
provisions, are not bound by it, and whether they have 
not thus agreed to, and adopted all the principles 
which it declares ? If then we insert this power of re¬ 
peal, (which I admit we have not now got,) and the 
people consent, can any one disaffirm it and say that 
he is not bound by it ? Parties to a contract can alter it 
by consent. Even if these charters are contracts, and 
the assertion of the right of repeal is an alteration of the 
contract, can any citizen say after the adoption of the 
constitution that he did not consent to it and is not 
bound by its provisions? 

I believe the Legislature have power to repeal char¬ 
ters, and I will give my reasons for that belief. The 
power to create acts of incorporation is based upon 
this theory, that the Genei’al Assembly has power, in 
general, to do whateveris for the public good. A., B. 
and C. propose to iindertake a certain enterprize, 
which they say is for the public good, and for that 
purpose, and to serve their own interests, they apply 
to the General Assembly for an act of incorporation. 
The object sought to be promoted is, it is believed, for 
the ])ublic good, as well as for individual benefit. Be¬ 
lieving so, a charter is granted, and the company goes 
into operation. But the General Assembly is not in¬ 
fallible. It might have been mistaken. That which 
was supposed to be for the public good, turns out to be 
injurious to the public. Now the question is this: 
Does the General Assembly possess the power to re¬ 
lieve the public from this injury established under the 
inqjiession that it was a benefit. If the Legislature 
has not this power, it fails to secure the very object 
for which it was created—the public good. If it can¬ 
not correct its own errors, it has ceased to be the 
thing it was intended to be. The public good—the 
very existence of the State, imperatively demands that 
the right should exist. I care not what you call this 


power ? Call it eminent domain, or State necessity, 
or whatever you please, it makes no diflbrence. It is 
all one, and the same thing. 

Then if, as I have contended, this right ol repeal ex¬ 
ists, the tiext question to be considered is, upon what 
terms-it is to be exercised. And here it strikes me, 
that those gentlemen with whom I have acted, and 
with whom I intend still to act if I can, are mistaken. 
Under their views of the case, they would visit the 
consequences of the mistakes of the General Assembly, 
or of the corruption of its members, upon the corpora¬ 
tion alone, and not upon that body which has been 
guilty in enacting the unadvised or injurious charter. 

It seems to me, that this is a wrong view of the morals 
of the case. My ideais this: Myself and ray associates, 
for the purpose of promoting some scheme of private 
benefit, and public utility, receive from the Legisla¬ 
ture the grant of certain powers and franchises neces¬ 
sary and proper to carry our plans into execution. We 
so invest our capital and enterprise in the project that 
a repeal of our charter wmuld inflict upon us great and 
serious injuiy. But we so have embarked our capi¬ 
tal, that the public-is receiving an injury from it. What 
is to be done ? If the question be between our rights 
and interests and those of the public, whose must give 
w'ay ? Ours, certainly. But who is to bear the loss ? 

If the General Assembly conferred upon us more than 
it ought, it is its fault. It will not do to say the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly acted in bad faith, therefore, their act is 
void. Bad 1‘aith cannot be presumed against a govern¬ 
ment, much less can it alledge its own bad faith, its 
own corrupt actions, for the pui*pose of throwing the 
consequences of its acts on others. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Which is the principal in the of¬ 
fense, the seducer, or the person seduced ? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. The person who had the most 
power, and was the worst in fault. i 

Mr. MITCHELL. I would ask the gentleman if 
he is in favor of the principle of repeal ? 

Mr. REEMELIN. It was you that seduced the 
Legislature. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Such an assertion is contrary to 
the theory of a republican government. The idea that 
when the government has done wrong, another party 
must sutler for it, strikes at the very root of all our 
ideas of republican truth and equality. The party 
that has done the wrong is the party that should suf¬ 
fer, and as the people, in this case, through their agents 
have committed the wrong, they should not throw over 
the consequences of that wrong on other persons, but 
should do them strict justice and equity. 

For instance, let us suppose that several gentlemen ! 
—take any number of the radical reformers of this Con- 
venlior.—purchase half a township of land, which we 
intend to occupy for purposes of grazing. j 

On looking at the premises we believe that a mill I 
upon the premises would be valuable to ourselves, and 5 
to the public. But the mill would be useless without 
a dam, and the dam would flow water over one hun¬ 
dred acres of our laud. The gentleman from Wayne 
[Mr. Larwill,] is one of the company, and we apply 
to him to build the mill out of his private funds. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman has spoken out 
his time. 

Mr. ARCHBOLl) moved that the gentleman be al¬ 
lowed to proceed. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman has a right to 
speak the second time, for ten minutes. He may oc¬ 
cupy that time now if he chooses. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I say the gentleman from Wayne 
is invited to build the mill out of his private funds, 
with the privilege of taking toll for his grinding.— 

He concludes to do so, and goes on and invests his 
money in building the mill. After it is done, we find 
that the speculation was not as good as we anticipated, 
and that instead of being benefitted, we have been in¬ 
jured by i^—the loss of the land overflowed by the dam is 
greater than the benefit from the mill, and the result is, 









CONVENTION REPOETS. ' 1239 


we desire to get rid of the dam. Now what shall be 
done with the gentleman from Wayne, who has invest¬ 
ed ten thousand dollar.s in the speculation ? Shall we 
bear the consequences or shall he ?. What does he 
think about it ? I should be glad to hear. iVIy opin¬ 
ion is, that if we found it necessary to take down the 
mill dam, we might do so, but I hold that the gentle¬ 
man should not be made the scape goat, and have to 
bear the loss of the money invested by him at our re¬ 
quest. 

The mere naked assertion of the power of repeal in 
the constitution would suit my views upon this ques¬ 
tion. Then when the charters of incorporated compa¬ 
nies are repealed, I believe that the courts would be 
open for the investigation of their claims, and the just 
and equitable determination of their I’ights. With this 
opinion, and with this opinion alone, I have given ray 
votes upon all the questions connected with this sub¬ 
ject, and if I had not so believed I should not so have 
voted. So long as propositions submitted for our action 
assert the power of the General Assembly to repeal 
charters, leaving our courts open to the parties who 
may consider themselves injured, to seek redress for 
the injury, so long shall I vote for them. If it is sought 
to bar the access of such parties to the courts, or to 
deny them justice and equity in those courts, I shall re¬ 
cord my vote against such propositions. 

The section now under consideration and the thirty- 
sixth section of the report, in my opinion, are sufficient 
to secure what I deem right in the matter. I had some 
fear that the section under consideration might be con¬ 
strued to be prospective only, but the amendment of 
the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. King,] will settle 
that point. I am also of opinion that section thirty-six 
is rather more stringent than necessary, and provides 
unnecessary precautions, but I am willing to waive for 
that, for the sake of getting the question settled. 

One word more as to section thirty-six. Both the 
gentleman from Franklin, [Messrs. Swan and Stanbe- 
RY,] are of opinion that section thirty-six will not ap¬ 
ply to and bear upon the section now under consid¬ 
eration. They say that section thirty-six provides only 
for cases in which property is taken for the public 
use, and that when a charter is repealed the property 
may not be taken for the public use at all. It appears 
to me 'his is an unnecessary fear. Property is taken 
for the public use, when it is injured or destroyed for 
the public good. A house that is burned in war for 
public ends, or a house that is blown up to prevent the 
spreading of a fire, is taken for the public use, and must 
be paid for. Where the location of a railroad injures 
a man’s land, although it does not touch it, he can claim 
compensation. But if these gentlemen yet fear, I will 
aid them to make the application of section thirty-six 
more clear. It is right it should apply. The chairman 
of the committee by which the report was made, the 
gentleman from Hamilton who drafted these sections, 
and others of the committee say it was intended to ap¬ 
ply, and my own opinion is that it does apply. But I 
am willing to make the application more clear, to car¬ 
ry out the intention of the committee, and would sug¬ 
gest the insertion at the end of the second line, of these 
words: “ or injured or destroyed to promote the public 
welfare.” These or some such wmrds, would place the 
matter beyond doubt, if inserted in the proper place. 

I have said that my preference would be for the na¬ 
ked assertion of the power of repeal, believing that the 
results of such action would be such as I have before 
stated; but I will read a proposition I have drawn up, 
covering, I believe, the same ideas, which I have drawn 
up for consideration, in case the present section should 
fail. It is this: 

The General Assembly shall have power, whenever the public 
good may require, to alter, amend, revoke or repeal, any and all 
acts of incorporation now existing, or that may hereafter exist, 
on such terms of compensation as shall be just and equitable, to 
be assessed by a jury, as in other cases. 

Mr. LARWILL desired to say that he was in favor 
of the amendment. He had not been of the belief 


that any grant of power would add to the rights of the 
Legislature to control charters. He believed with 
the gentleman from Richland, that that power resided 
in the Legislature, to be exercised retroactively as well 
as prospectively. He desired, however, to have that 
power definitely settled and distinctly defined. It 
would have a tendency to keep companies within their 
true limits. He did not go so far as some in regard to 
paying compensation for acts of incorporation repeal¬ 
ed. That question has been fully argued by able gen¬ 
tlemen upon both sides. He believed the State would 
do right and justice in all such cases; but he would 
not pay for a franchise, because he would pay nothing 
for that which cost nothing. If the Legislature confer 
upon me a power to build a certain road, they give 
that to me which another may not possess. They do 
this upon the presumption that I will keep within the 
limits of my duty, and while I do so, they will protect 
me. If I do not do so, they will take away the privi¬ 
lege. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Stark, said he was one of the 
committee who reported this bill, and he desired to 
define his position in regard to the question of repeal. 
He was in favor of unqualified and unconditional re¬ 
peal, and supposed the report to set forth that doctrine 
in the most unequivocal manner. In that he now found 
he was mistaken. He should therefore go for the 
amendment of the gentleman from Butler, and if it 
was stronger be should like it better. 

Mr. RANNEY said he should vote for the amendment 
of the gentleman from Butler, though he believed the 
section as it stood was open to the same interpretation. 
He should vote against the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Franklin, as he wished it to be distinctly un¬ 
derstood, though he should give his vote to make it as 
perfect as possible. He would vote for no amendment 
that did not provide for the unqualified repeal of all 
charters, without providing any further for them than 
is now provided. It would be treason to himself and 
the people he represented to depart one hair from the 
position he had taken, and he would vote now and for¬ 
ever for the unlimited right of the legislative power to 
control all grants that have been made by it. 

' Mr. QUIGLEY wished, as other gentlemen were de¬ 
fining their positions upon this question, to define this 
and make a few remarks in relation to the amendment 
of the gentleman from Butler. He had been glad it 
was offered, for the reason that some gentlemen had 
contended, that section 33tinvolved the idea of retrospec¬ 
tive repeal, while others had insisted that it contained 
nothing but prospective repeal. This amendment 
would settle the question, and settle it satisfactorily 
to his mind. He had, in his inquiries into the nature 
of government, been led to believe that all power origi¬ 
nated in and belonged to the people. He had been of 
the opinion that those who deposit their votes this 
year, in the ballot box have all the power that any 
other set of electors ever had under the present or 
any other constitution. He supposed that this Con¬ 
vention possesses all the power possessed by any previ¬ 
ous Convention in the State or any where else, and he 
would now say, that if this Convention should be so 
idle as to put into the constitution the provision setting 
forth that it should forever remain inviolable, the people 
would laugh at our simplicity and scout the proposi¬ 
tion as worse than folly and at once consider that we 
were about to trample upon their dignity and sover¬ 
eign authority. 

If we cannot insert in this constitution the power to 
repeal this instrument, where, I ask, did the Legislature 
acquire the power to enact a number of acts of incor¬ 
poration which cannot be repealed ? We have no hes¬ 
itation to assert in the constitution that the people have 
a right to abolish, at pleasure, their form of govern¬ 
ment ; and if they do, as we all admit, possess that 
power, do they not as an irresistable inference dedu- 
ceable from that fact, possess all minor powers, inclu¬ 
ding that of repealing by the Legislature any law that 













1240 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


a previous Legislature has enacted ? If it were other¬ 
wise, then it follows, that our government contains the 
elements of its own destruction. If one Legislature 
may grant irrevocably one right and another another; 
may not in this manner all the rights of the people at 
length be granted away, and thus the government be 
overthrown and destroyed ? I cannot admit that our 
free democratic government does necessarily contain 
the elements of its own destruction and thus reduce it 
to a mere experiment, and bring about a termination 
of the only fair fabric of freedom in the world. If it 
does not necessarily destroy itself, is not the inference 
plain that it has no right to anniliilate any portion of 
its vitality ? 

Mr. President: I can see no injury or injustice that 
can result fi*om setting forth the principle of unquali¬ 
fied repeal. Has any wrong come from the declara¬ 
tion of the right of the people to abolish the govern¬ 
ment ? The people have the right to abolish; but it 
does not follow that the government must be destroyed 
whether the public good demands it or not, neither has 
the power been exercised, and further it does not fol¬ 
low from a declaration of the power to repeal, that the 
General Assembly must declare a war of extermina¬ 
tion, destruction and ruin upon all corporations in the 
State. 

The people neither possess nor claim the right to do 
wrong, no such right exists anywhere, and the General 
Assembly have no right to act unjustly in repealing 
charters, but in that as in all other cases, are bound by 
moral obligations of justice and equity ; and corpora¬ 
tions, instead of being ruined by the repeal of their 
charters, would have the General Assembly between 
them and danger, and no doubt would have justice 
done in the premises. The only necessity for declaring 
the right of repeal in the fundamental law is, because 
a diversity of opinion exists, and the General Assembly 
do not like to shoulder the responsibility. 

Gentlemen upon this floor have said that if we assert 
the unqualified right of repeal, we come in collision 
with the courts of justice, and some gentlemen have 
gone so far as to talk even of our committing peijury 
on account of the oath we have taken to support the 
constitution of the United States. Mr. President, I de¬ 
sire to pay as much regard to the solemnity of an oath, 
and all due respect to the decision of Jhe courts, and to 
the authority of law, as any other individual; but from 
the remarks of legal gentlemen upon this floor, there 
seems to be a radical difference of opinion in relation 
to the decisions of courts. What are we to do ? When 
legal gentlemen of very high attainment differ, we 
shall be left to act upon our own judgdment; and in 
doing so, shall be governed by our own views of the 
constitution of the United States. 

Many gentlemen regarded acts of incorporation as 
contracts, others do not. In my opinion they are not 
contracts. In regard to this question also, legal gentle¬ 
men disagree, and I am left to be guided by my own 
opinion. I am clearly of opinion that they are not con¬ 
tracts. They are a s^t of one-sided affair. There is 
no reciprocity of consideration; and it is said by law¬ 
yers and by common sense, that in order to make a 
valid contract, there must be a consideration on both 
sides. If they are not contracts, it follows that they 
are not covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court 
of the United States. I shall, therefore, support the 
amendment of the gentleman from Butler. 

And, in short, I believe the unqualified right to re 
peal an inherent power possessed by the sovereign peo¬ 
ple, as lying at the foundation of our government, and 
as necessary to our security. I say as necessary to pub 
lie security. To illustrate this, suppose that the General 
Assembly pass an act of incorporation, which may be 
productive of injury to the public, and suppose the act 
to have been passed without the General Assembly 
foreseeing the injurious consequences resulting there¬ 
from, and suppose the corporators carry out their char¬ 
ter in good faith, and the act irrepealable, it is easy to 


see, that public well-being and security maybe de¬ 
stroyed, and this our government be merely a farce. jj 

I consider the sovereign power to repeal, as secured 
and handed down to us by our forefathers, as remain¬ 
ing with the people in all its plenitude, and^ it is our 
solemn duty to hand it down to posterity inviolate. 

Mr. MANON. I shall vote for the amendment, and 
I shall do so upon the same principle that I vote in 
general—because I want it to show its face, that I can 
see what it means. I will not vote for a proposition 
that has two sides—that one says means one thing and 
another another. I cannot consent to vote for a pro¬ 
position which you may call a pig or puppy, or any¬ 
thing else that circumstances require. 1 shall vote for 
this amendment, and if it prevails, and the proposition 
as amended, come up, I shall then vote as my judg¬ 
ment shall dictate. I shall vote for this for the sole 
purpose of clearing it up, so that we may all agree what 
it means. 

Mr. REEMELIN said he was sorry to see the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. King.] If he 
should vote for it, it would be asserted that without it 
die section as reported did not mean I’etroactive re¬ 
peal, while on the other hand, if he should vote 
against it, he would bo accused of voting against || 
repeal. He would say, however, that except the amend¬ 
ment introduced by Mr. Robertson, this was the stron¬ 
gest repeal proposition that had ever been moved in 
this Convention. Although he had felt some doubts as 
to how he should give his vote, he had now determined 
to vote for the amendment, that in no case his position 
in regard to the right of repeal could be misunderstood. 

Mr. KING said the amendment would put a positive ! 

construction upon the section. One great question B 

had been as to what the true construction was. He 
wanted to speak plainly upon the subject, and for him¬ 
self, he felt that on this question he could occupy no 
middle ground without a violation of his duty to the 
people. If other gentlemen could do sb, he could not. 

If the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] 

> wants retroactive repeal, what is his objection to saying 
so, in so many words. 

Mr. REEMELIN. What is the use of it? 

Mr. KING. Because opinions differ as to the con¬ 
struction of the section, and I want to make it unequic 
vocal. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 

King ; 

Mr. KING demanded the yeas and nays, which were 
ordered, and resulted—yeas 63, nays 33—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Blair 
Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Cook, Ewart, 

Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray,Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, 

Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, 

King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 

Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, McCormick, Norris, Orton, 
Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of 
Harrison, Scott ot Auglaize, Sellez's, Smith of Wyandot, Steb- 
bins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Taylor, Thomp 
son of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Warren, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—63. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, 

Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, 
Ceilings, Curry. Cutler, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hun¬ 
ter, Johnson, Larsh, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Per¬ 
kins, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, and Stan¬ 
ton—33. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

The question then being on striking out the follow- 
ing: 

That acts of corporation or corporate franchises, privileges or 
immunities, whether granted by any general or special law, shall 
never be deemed contracts or irrepealable. 

Mr. SWAN asked leave to withdraw his amendment, 

On which motion Mr. MITCHELL demanded the 
jeas and nays, which were ordered, and resulted— 
yeas 60, nays 36—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont-, 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown * 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Ceilings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Ewing, Flor- 
ence, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Har 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1241 


Ian, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Kirkwood, Leadbetter, 
Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, 
Norris, Orton Otis, Peck, Perkins, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith or Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stilwell, Swan, 
Thompson oi tohelby, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Woodbury and Worthington—60, 

Nays Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Farr, Forbes, Greene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, Holmes, Hootman, Plunt, Jones, 
King, Larsh, Earwill, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Patter¬ 
son, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, Sel- 
Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, 
Struble, Taylor, Ihompson of Stark, and Wilson—36. 

So leave to withdraw the amendment was granted. 

The question then being on Mr. Ewart’s amend¬ 
ment : 


Mr. SWAN moved to perfect the words proposed to 
be stricken out, by striking out the following : “ that 
acts of incorporation or corporate franchises, privileges 
or inamunities. whether granted by any general or spe¬ 
cial law, shall never be deemed contracts or irrepeala- 
ble ; and inserting in lieu thereof, the following: 

AU laws now in force creating private corporations may be al- 
Cered, revoked, or repealed whenever the public welfare shall re- 
qume it; provided further, that just and equitable compensation, 
to be assessed by a jury, as in other cases, shall be made for any 
property of such corporation, taken, injured, or destroyed there- 
and paid in money in such manner as may be provided by 

Mr. HAWKINS demanded a division. 

The question then being first on striking out; 

Mr. CASE, of Hocking, demanded the yeas and 
nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 54, nays 
42—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont- 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of "fnens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gil- 
let, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Har¬ 
lan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hor- 
ton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Larsh, Alanon, Mason, More- 
head, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Har- 
nson, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stilwell, Swan, Vance of Butler, Warren, Woodbury and Wor 
thngton—54. 

Nays— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard,jHenderson, Holmes, Hootman, 
Hunt. Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey 
Loudon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Taylor, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend and Wilson—‘12. 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the following 
words: 

All laws now in force creating private corporations may be al¬ 
tered, revoked, or repealed, whenever the public welfare may re¬ 
quire it; provided further, that just and equitable compensation, 
to be assessed by a jury, as in other cases, shall be made for any 
property of such corporation, taken, injured, or desti’oyed there¬ 
by, and paid in money, in such manner as may be provided by 
law. • 

Mr. RANNEY moved to perfect the words to be in¬ 
serted by adding at the end thereof the following: 

And all corporations hereafter created may be altered, revoked, 
or repealed at any time by the General Assembly, upon such just 
and equitable terms as they shall think proper. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, would ask the gentleman from 
Trumbull [Mr. Ranney] what was the object, in the 
absence of all restraining laws, to give the Legislature 
power which it already possesses ? 

The Legislature has the right, in conferring charters, 
to prescribe the terms; and if the charier is accepted, 
the stipulations form a part of the law of the contract. 
In that manner the right of repeal of all future char¬ 
ters may be secured. 

Mr. RANNEY. The first cui bono is that I want to 
see how much sincerity there is in gentlemen upon the 
question of prospective repeal, and whether they will 
practice what they preach upon that subject. 

The second is to avoid all liability to put a construc¬ 
tion upon this constitution, such as gentlemen insist 
should be put on the constitution of the United States. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, had said hitherto, and 
said still, that he saw no objection to giving the Gene¬ 
ral Assembly the power to repeal all acts of incorpora¬ 


tion. The only consideration was the question of pol¬ 
icy, as to the manner in which it should be exercised. 
Now the General Assembly always had the power to 
retain the right of repeal of each act of incorporation, 
and in his opinion it should have exercised it in nearly 
every instance, except in corporations for internal im¬ 
provements. 

He was sorry an amendment had been offered to the 
amendment of the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. 
Swan.] If that had been offered as a separate propo¬ 
sition, It might have been amended b)'^ something like 
this: “The General Assembly shall provide by gene¬ 
ral laws the terms upon which charters may be repeal¬ 
ed.” He would like to see it done, and if done would 
vote for it. 

Mr. MASON did not intend to argue the merits of 
the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Trum 
bull, [Mr. Ranney ;] but desired the indulgence of the 
Convention for a few moments, for a remark or two 
upon what he understood to be the effect of that propo¬ 
sition, and upon the policy of adopting or rejecting it. 
It would be well to understand, first, what was the end 
which gentlemen desired to secure; and, secondly, to 
what extent the amendment would conduce to secure 
it. The Legislature, as it had been truly said, possess, 
without the amendment, all the powers proposed to be 
conferred by it. This, he believed, had been admitted 
by gentlemen on both sides of the house. The amend¬ 
ment there, cannot operate as an enlargement of that 
power which is already broader than itself. Its effect 
therefore will be a limitation of the exercise of the 
power which the Legislature now holds in its greatest 
amplitude. 

If the proposition had been drawn so as to close 
with the words, “ as may be prescribed by general 
laws,” instead of “as the Legislature may think prop¬ 
er,” he could see no great objection to it. It would 
then express fully the right of the Legislature to pro¬ 
vide by general laws for the repeal of acts of incorpo¬ 
ration. Suppose such an amendment as this should 
be adopted: “All further grants and franchises may 
be repealed and revoked on such just and equitable 
erms as may be prescribed by law.” I submit to 
him if it would not be an express limitation of the 
legislative power, and a limitation in favor of acts 
of incorporation? Now 1 like the gentleman from 
Trumbull, in some respects, and I have no objection 
to saying so. I agree with him most cordially in this 
particular, that I am inherently opposed to the use of 
all covert language and expressions in this constitution. 

I am with him most emphatically in this declaration. 
Whatever the intentions of this body may be, let the 
instrument we are making express them fully, boldly 
and unequivocally. Let us not unintentionally leave 
anything for doubt, nothing that shall not lead directly 
to its own construction. 

I said the proposition was a limitation of the legisla¬ 
tive power as it is now possessed. This may attract the 
attention of some, and lead to a modification of their 
opinions. Let it be so. It ought to be fully under¬ 
stood by all who give their votes upon it. 

And looking upon the amendment as a limitation, 
what shall I say ? That I am in favor of or opposed to 
it ? I had rather the power would exist under such 
a limitation as is expressed in the amendment of 
the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] and if it is 
equitable and right to place corporations now in exis¬ 
tence under such a shield, why not equally so in re¬ 
gard to those in future to be created? There can be 
no doubt that if, as is contended, the General Assembly 
possess the power of providing for the repeal of acts of 
incorporation, whether the same be expressed in the 
constitution or not, that might becomes a part of the 
law of the corporation whether expressed in the act 
or not. 

But, Mr. President, attempts have been made here, 
to argue that an act of incorporation is not a contract 
between the legislative power and the party to whom 













1242 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


the grunt, is inade. Now, an act of incorporation is a 
contract, and there is but one opinion among all men 
who are called to make decisions upon the subject in a 
legal forum. The right reserved to rescind, by the par¬ 
ties to a contaact, is not unknown in practice, and in 
regard to acts hereafter granted, there can be no fraud 
in reserving the right to repeal or rescind at the pleas¬ 
ure of the granting party. There is, however, a high 
question of policy involved in the matter; and if the 
power is to be exercised, I had rather it should be 
exercised under some limitation prescribed in the con¬ 
stitution, because it is wrong and unequal to retain 
the right of repeal on the one side, with no coi’respond- 
ing right or privilege on the other. 

It is advisable, therefore, for the friends of repeal to 
come together, and to endeavor to fix upon some terms 
under which it may be declared in the constitution, 
otherwise the question will be agitated, and agitated 
here; and from here it will go out to be agitated among 
the people, until the State shall be convulsed, and there 
shall be no end to it. Therefore it is, that I say, that 
it is our duty to come together, and frame some provi¬ 
sion that shall put an end to the agitation, I had rath¬ 
er the proposition of the gentleman from Franklin, 
[Mr. SwA.N',] had contained the words, “franchises or 
other property,” because all know that there is a di¬ 
vision of opinion among members of this body, and that 
some will vote for it, believing that the term property 
does not include franchises, and if I vote for it, it will 
be because I believe and know that property does in¬ 
clude franchises. The gentleman from Wayne, [Mr. 
Larwill,] is mistaken, when he says, that the profes¬ 
sion is divided upon this question, and when he inquires, 

“ who shall decide w'hen doctors disagree ?” he is mis¬ 
taken. The text books—the very horn books of the 
profession, are full of the doctrine that a franchise is 
property, and that gentleman shall not escape the re¬ 
sponsibility of his vote, by saying that doctors differ. 
They differ as to whether it ought, by law, to be prop¬ 
erty ; but we are here, not to settle that question. Our 
inquiry is limited to the question of fact—for it is a 
question of fact—whether it is, and not whether it 
should be so. 

Now, as I have said before, the gentleman from 
Trumbull is a bold man. I am glad of it. I like a bold 
man. He is desirous to express fully his opinion, and 
desires to have nothing equivocal in the constitution. 
So do I. I wish to put into the provision the term 
franchise, because I know that it is property, and if 
gentlemen believe otherwise, they are cheated; and 
if it should be decided otherwise, the court that should 
do it would overrule the decisions of two centuries. 
Gentlemen may deny that such ought to be law, but 
that is not the question. If they deny that it is the law 
they offer only their own crude conceptions to contra¬ 
dict what is asserted in every book in a lawyer’s libra¬ 
ry. 11 is a question of fact, and not of law, and a man 
might as well dispute what is in the statute book as to 
deny it. Where a grant is made of a franchise, and it 
has been accepted and a movement is made under it, 
that franchise becomes property, and the fact can nei¬ 
ther be controverted nor disguised. 

Mr. LOUDON. Mr. President, the gentleman has 
spoken his twenty minutes by the clock. 

Mr. SAWYER, (in the chair, looking at his watch.) 
It lacks about minute of it, sir. 

Mr. MASON. I hope my friend from Brown, [Mr. 
Loudon,] will bear with me. I am a very brief man, 
and very entertaining. [Laughter.] 

All I have to say, is that I hope the proposition of 
the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] will be 
modified a little, otherwise I shall not be able to vote 
for it. 

Mr. NASH appealed to gentlemen to get rid of this 
question by putting it where it belongs. It is raised in 
other places, and especially in the report of the com¬ 
mittee on corporations other than corporations for bank¬ 
ing, and there is where it belongs. He protested 


against its being thrust in here, where it had no con- 
gruity with the"subject matter of the bill. The Con¬ 
vention had wasted a month by not adhering to the or¬ 
der of business prescribed by the committees, and if 
he voted against the proposition it would be on the 
single ground that it has no business here. 

Mr. HAWKINS, understanding that the amendment 
applied to future corporations, he should vote for it, 
though he did not believe this the most appropriate 
place for such a provision. But he could not vote fora 
provision which w^ould be nugatory, as contrary to a 
provision of the constitution of the United States, and 
the decisions of the courts. And he should vote upon 
this proposition, without regard to what gentlemen 
here would make of him. He had not been charged 
by his constituents to do what gentlemen here required 
of him, and he did not think it requisite for him to take 
cognizance of the resolutions or platforms of Eighth of 
Januaiy or Fourth of July conventions. He-would 
answer to his constituents, and by them he would stand 
or fall—and he had very little respect for that class of 
politicians who set up their own creed as infallible, and 
like another species described by the poet Burns: 

“ Send ane to heaven and ten to hell, ’ * 

A’ for his glory; 

And no’ for any guid or ill, 

They’ve done afore thee.” 

Mr. CASE of Licking, would not vote for the pro¬ 
position in this place, but would do so in the proper 
one. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD was opposed to the amendment. 

On motion of Mr. LARSH, the Convention took are- 
cess. 

2^ o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending being on the amendment of 
Mr. Ranney to the amendment, to wit, add at the end 
thereof the following: “And all corporations, hereaf¬ 
ter created, may be altered, revoked, or repealed, at 
any time by the General Assembly upon such just and 
equitable terms as they shall think proper.” 

Mr. MORRIS moved a call of the Convention, which 
was ordered, and the following gentleman were found 
absent. 

Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Case of Licking, Chambers, Cha¬ 
ney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, Graham, Groesbeck, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hunter, 
Jones, Kennon, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, Peck, Per¬ 
kins, Riddle, Roll, Stanbery, Stickney, Swift, Vance of Campaign, 
Way, Williams, Woodbury,Worthington and President. 

On motion of Mr. STANTON, the doors were closed, 
and the Sdrgeant-at-Arms despatched for the absentees. 

The Sergeant-at-Arms returned, and reported that 
he had found the following named gentleman, and that 
they were now present, to wdt: ]\^essrs. Farr, Stick¬ 
ney, McCormick, Case of Licking, Riddle, Horton, 
Stanbery, Hootman, Henderson, Mitchell, Jones, 
Andrews, Peck, Chaney and Graham. 

The PRESIDENT, [Mr. Sawyer in the Chair,] ap¬ 
pointed Mr. Vance, of Butler, to fill the vacancy in the 
committee on the Judicial Department. 

The que.stion pending being on Mr. Ranney’s amend¬ 
ment to the amendment, to wit, add to the end thereof 
the following : “And all corporations hereafter crea¬ 
ted may be altered, revoked, or repealed, at any time 
by the General Assembly, upon such just and equita¬ 
ble terms as they shall think proper;” 

Mr. KING demanded the yeas and nays, which were 
ordered, and resulted—yeas 47, nays 43—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Cook, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, 
Hootman, Plumphreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, 
Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struble, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of 
Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler and Wilson—47. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Collings, 
Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett Graham, Gray, Green of 
^ Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, 

















CONVENTION REPOKTS. 


1243 


Johnson, Larsh, Mason, Mopchead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis 
Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Wairen’ 
Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Warren, and Woodbury—43. 

So the amendment to the amendment was adopted. 

Mr. RANNEY proposed farther to amend the amend- 
inent, by inserting the following, after the words “ pro¬ 
vided by law:” 

But the yslue of the act of incorporation, or corporate fran¬ 
chise, so altered, revoked or repealed, shall not be included in 
the estimate for compensation above provided for. , 

that apply to the first or the last 
part 01 the proposition ? 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will read the propo¬ 
sition, as proposed to be amended. 

The proposition, as proposed to be amended, was 
read. 

VANCE, of Butler. I shall vote against this 
amendment as attached to the first proposition, and I 
will endeavor to state, in a very few words, the rea¬ 
sons why I vote against it. It will be seen, by the 
terms of the amendment proposed by the gentleman 
fiom Iianklin, that the power of repeal is to be exer¬ 
cised first upon the condition that the public necessity 
requires the exercise of a power of this kind, and sec- 
ondly, that where it is so exercised, and in consequence 
of Its exercise, property is impaired in value, or taken 
away or destroyed, that property shall be paid for. 
Now, this provision says nothing about the franchise, 

iiot, for this reason; that 
it the holders of a franchise should be protected by the 
provisions of the constitution of the United States, and 
their property should be guaranteed to them under the 
law of contract, and by virtue of that instrument, 
we should undertake to make the law retroactive in 
Itself, that law would be void; because it would be in 
violation of the constitution of the United States. On 
the other hand, if the Supreme Court of the United 
mates, or any other United States court, should settle 
that a franchise is property, as a matter of course, un¬ 
der the provision proposed in the amendment oi' the 
gentlemen from Franklin, they would be entitled to re¬ 
ceive compensation. 

Now, let us inquire into this matter a little further. 
Suppose that a contract is made to-day, no matter 
when it is to be perfected, it must be decided accord¬ 
ing to the law of contracts existing at the time it was 
entered into, as much so as if it embodied the law of 
contracts in it. Just so it is with a grant. If the Leg¬ 
islature should make a grant of a franchise, that grant 
exists in pursuance of the law which might be in force 
at the time it was made; and if you should change 
your constitution the very next day after it is made, 
you still have the rights of the parties to be settled in 
accordance with the provisions of the law of contracts 
and the constitution, at the time the grant was made. 
Consequently, if the supreme court should decide that 
a franchise is property, as they have decided heretofore, 
and will decide again, thus, under the amendment of 
the gentleman from Franklin, that property would have 
to be paid for; and it would be in vain to undertake 
to insert a provision here contrary to the law of con¬ 
tracts and the provision of the cimstitution of the Uni¬ 
ted States having a bearing upon the subject. 

Sir, we could give no such vote, without a violation 
of the constitution of the United States. If this amend¬ 
ment had relation to the latter clause of the section, I 
would care but little about it. If gentlemen are deter¬ 
mined that no encouragement shall be given in any 
way to our citizens to undertake the construction of in¬ 
ternal improvements, well and good; in doing so you 
violate no provision of the constitution of the United 
States, nor any provision of the law of contracts. It 
is a question of expediency, only, not involving a con¬ 
stitutional question—I mean so far as regards the gran¬ 
ting of charters hereafter. But in relation to charters 
already granted, it is out of the power of this Conven¬ 
tion to say that the property holder shall be deprived 
of any portion of his property, unless you make com¬ 
pensation therefor. Now, if a franchise is not property. 


it is not to be paid for according to the provision of the 
first part of the section, because the word “property” 
is there used; and it would be worse than folly in this 
Convention to say that the constitution of the United 
States should thus be changed, and the law of contracts 
existing at the time a contract was made should be al¬ 
so changed, and the rights of the party be taken away. 
Such a provision would be a nullity, and not worth the 
paper on which it was written; and no one could sup¬ 
port it here without a direct violation of the constitu¬ 
tion of the United States and the provisions of the law 
of contracts existing at the time of the making of the 
grant. For these reasons I shall vote against this 
amendment. 

Mr. STANBERY opposed the amendment, contend¬ 
ing that there was no such provisions to be found in 
the constitution of any State in the Union; he regarded 
it as infinitely worse than unconditional repeal. The 
object of it was not only that the Legislature should, 
repeal these charters, but that they should have the 
power of repeal absolutely, and without any power to 
make compensation. The gentleman from Trumbull 
had declared that he must support this amendment, 
otherwise he would be guilty of treason. He [Mr. 
Stanbery] could not support the amendment, because 
in doing so he should be guilty of larceny, robbery, 
plunder—in short a violation of that law which every 
man held as sacred and right; and he was satisfied that 
even on the other side of the chamber gentlemen did 
not consider to what mischief this amendment would 
lead. This provision would tie up the hands of the 
Legislature where it was proper, and right, and just, 
that compensation should be made where a franchise 
were taken away. If gentlemen were ready to go for 
such a provision he would tell them that the people of 
the State were not ready. This was a provision whichi 
even the democrats of Texas would scorn to adopt; 
even the constitution of Texas provides that a charter 
shall not be repealed without making compensation for 
the franchise. 

Mr. RANNEY. The gentleman from Franklin [Mr. 
Stanbery] has I’emarked that by a process of special 
pleading .we have at length reached the real issue in. 
this controversy; and that is, whether the value of cor¬ 
porate acts and franchises shall only be resumed by the 
State, upon being paid for in money to the holders, a& 
much as they may be worth to them. I agree witk 
him that this is an important issue, and I am happy 
that we have reached it, and so distinctly too that it 
can no longer be evaded. Gentlemen can now have 
an opportunity of showing by their votes the sincerity 
of their oft-repeated declarations, made throughout the 
discussion upon the subject of repeal. We have 
been constantly told by certain gentlemen on this side 
of the chamber that they were ready to go for the 
unqualified right of repeal as to future corporations. 
Upon the vote just taken upon that distinct question, 
most of them voted against it. They have further con¬ 
stantly told us that upon the repeal of existing cor¬ 
porations all they demanded was, that the property of 
the corporation should be paid for, without including, 
any pay for the corporate franchises so revoked or ta¬ 
ken away. 

This amendment presents that distinct question, and 
still the indications are that they will assist in voting 
it down—but we shall see. The gentleman from 
Franklin complains that the amendment does not al¬ 
low sufficient discretion to the Legislature. The gen¬ 
tleman has helped to vote down every proposition to 
leave the terras of repeal to the Legislature, to be ap¬ 
plied according to the justice of each case. I have vo¬ 
ted for them, and will still, and if he repents we will 
receive him, although it is at the eleventh hour ; but 
he must not come complaining of us in this particular. 
This attempt to take it from the Legislature, and to 
fix a rule for all cases in the constitution, does not 
originate with the friends of repeal, but with its ene¬ 
mies. I am only responsible for my amendment, not 














1244 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


tor the proposition to which it is appended, for which 
I shall never vote, unless it is radically changed. 

The gentlomaii has called rny amendment by very 
hard names. He affirms that to refuse to pay for the 
franchises of a corporation upon its repeal, is ‘‘ lar¬ 
ceny,” and “ plunder.” He classes it as property, and 
holds it as sacred as the fruits of the industry of the 
private citizen! In order to a correct understanding 
of my amendment, it must be read and considered in 
connection with the proposition of the other gentle, 
man from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,"] to which it is propo¬ 
sed to attach it. By that proposition it is provided that 
all the property of the corporation “ taken, injured, or 
^destroyed,” by the repeal or alteration of its charter, 
shall be assessed by a jury, and paid for in money. To 
avoid all misconstruction, and save the public treasury 
from plunder,” my amendment provides that “ the 
value of the act of incorporation ” shall not be inclu- 
<ded, thus separating the tangible property of the cor 
;poration from the mere privilege conferred by the law 
of its creation. For the first, paying te the “utmost 
•farthing,” but for the last, resuming it, as it was grant 
■ed, “ without money and without price.” The dis¬ 
tinction is too plain to be covered up with sophistry, or 
to be obliterated by denunciation. Ev’ery vote against 
it is, in effect, a vete to compel the people to pay 1 axes 
to redeem a part of their own political sovereignty 
from the grasp of a privileged class. No possible in¬ 
justice could be done to the stockholders. If property 
is taken or destroyed, its value is paid; if injured by 
the repeal, the injury is made good, let it be more or 
less. Whatever of property has been embarked un¬ 
der the charter is fully protected. But, in many ca¬ 
ses, the exclusive privileges conferred for many years 
to come, are worth more by far than all the property 
invested. When the public good requires these to be 
rescinded, we do not esteem it “ plunder” to do so, 
witbout going into the treasury and paying for what 
already belongs to us. It will be seen that the propo¬ 
sition of the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] 
extends to all corporations of every kind, and protects 
them against alterations, as well as the repeal of their 
charters. If, as contended, their franchises are prop¬ 
erty, no bank charter could be repealed under this pro¬ 
vision, without paying what it would be worth until 
its expiration; nor could they be so far “ altered ” as 
to tax them like other property, without paying them 
all damages ! All you got of increased tax, you must 
•tax others to pay back to them ! 

But who are these men whose advocatas on this boor 
are ready to denounce the people as thieves and plun¬ 
derers, should they take from them their exclusive pri¬ 
vileges without paying all damages? What particular 
merit do they possess that justifies such arrogance and 
impudence ? What right to continue to do what is ruin 
ous to others ? What pretence for placing themselves 
above the State and beyond the reach of legislation ? 
All these privileges, when conferred, belonged to and 
were taken from the rights of the whole people. In 
many cases they have been enjoyed until their posses- 
-sors have become rich, powerful and overbearing. No 
consideration was ever paid for them—they did not 
cost one cent, unless it was expending in deceiving or 
corrupting the peoples’ representatives. And still, if 
the people should resolve not to be plundered of their 
rights for the future, they can only apply the remedy 
by laying increased burdens upon themselves to pay 
these men as much as they could make if they were 
permitted to go on! Let those who are willing to levy 
taxes, and drain the State treasury tojedeem this mort¬ 
gage upon the rights and liberties of the people, vote 
against my amendment. I would as soon think of levy¬ 
ing taxes to pay the thief for the goods he had stolen 
before they could be taken from him. 

But if this doctrine of paying for franchises is to pre¬ 
vail, repeals will be asked for in many cases, indirect- 
by the corporators themselves, as the most profita¬ 
ble way of selling out. The old musty volumes of lo¬ 


cal laws will be ransacked to furnish keys to the State 
treasury; and instead of corporations being put upon 
their good behaviour for fear of repeal, they will have 
a constitutional guaranty for perfect impunity. It will 
either abolish all legislative control over corporations, 
or bankrupt the State to pay these wages of iniquity. 

The gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbeux,] ex¬ 
presses his fears for the success of the Democratic par¬ 
ty, if we continue to advocate such doctrines as are 
contained in this amendment, and announces his de- 
termnation to enter upon its defence. I am quite wil¬ 
ling to allow that the gentleman is a fair exponent and 
able advocate of the doctrines of the Whig partjr, but 
if the time shall ever come, with his present principles, 
when he is found operating with us, we shall have oc¬ 
casion to exclaim with an English King, “God save us 
from our friends, we can protect ourselves from our 
enemies.” His sympathy for us is undoubtedly very 
sincere—of this he has furnished us frequent and un¬ 
mistakable evidence. 

I did not intend to have prolonged this debate by 
saying anything in favor of this amendment, and should 
not have done so if it had not been violently attacked 
by others. The very language of the amendment is 
taken almost literally from the speech of the gentle¬ 
man from Butler, [Mr. Vance,] made on a former oc¬ 
casion. I sat at the feet of Gamaliel, and supposed I 
had learned my lesson right. I refer all opposers of 
this amendment hereafter to him, and hope he will 
come to the rescue, and vindicate his own principles 
from their ruthless assaults. 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll. It would hardly seem to 
be necessary to say anything more upon this vexed 
question; it seems to have haunted this Convention 
from the time when we first took our seats upon this 
floor to the present hour. This question has seemed 
to be always before us. Like Banquo’s ghost, “ it will 
never down.” I had contented myself with the op¬ 
portunity of giving a silent vote upon this question. 
But now, since the cloven foot has been exhibited— 
since we have been asked by the gentleman from 
Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] to vote for a proposition that 
rides right over the face of every honest man in the 
country. I, also, am prompted to occupy a share of 
the time which is to be consumed in this discussion. 
The gentleman «ays that my friend behind me here, 
[Mr. Stanton,] is a good representative of the old 
Federal party. T hope then, he will not take it in any 
offensive sense if I tell the gentleman from Trumbull, 
[Mr. Ranney,] that in ray judgment he is a good rep¬ 
resentative of the Locofoco, destructive, agrarian party 
of this country. And this gentleman asks us to sub¬ 
scribe to a constitution, and send it out to the people, 
prescribing that if they can, by hook or by crook, get 
up a majority of the General Assembly for that object, 
they may go to work repealing charters without mak¬ 
ing any compensation therefor. I do not begrudge any 
man his reputation for morality who can hold a doc¬ 
trine of this kind. 

The gentleman from Franklin, on my left, [Mr. 
Stanbery,] has given us some account of this doc¬ 
trine of repeal in the State of Texas. He says they 
have some regard for franchises there—they do not 
rob there either, by the grace of God or by written 
constitutions; but they go at it with bowie knife and 
revolver, they do not attempt to rob in a legal way at 
all. If then we must be I’obbed, I would much pre¬ 
fer to be robbed in this manner. I prefer that these 
public spoilers should come out openly, just as the 
gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] has now 
done. 

There is one practical view of this question. Let 
gentlemen adopt this amendment, and turn it over to 
the people for their acceptance ; and then, following 
the example of the gentleman from Franklin, in my 
own feeble way, I too, will have something to say 
about it, amongst our people inhabiting the green 
hills of the eastern part of the State. My people en- 


Si 














CONVENTION KEPORTS, 


1245 


er their protest against all these ultra doctrines. Not 
one of those who have sent me here, nor many of those 
who voted against me, will support this doctrine. I 
say, therefore, and so help me God, if the Democratic 
party here shall persist in pressing this unconstitution¬ 
al provision upon us, I will go from this city right into 
the field against the adoption of the constitution. 1 
know that my people are watching jealously the course 
of this Convention; for they are inquiring of me, week 
by week: What is to be the determination upon this 
subject? And therefore it is that I tell gentlemen that 
if they will persist in this thing, we will throw our¬ 
selves upon our reserved rights, and thank God that 
the people have to decide upon their work at last. 

Mr. STANTON. I have listened, I think, verj pa¬ 
tiently to the discussion of this question. For about 
thirty days it has been confined to some ten speakers. 
But I confess now, that I am tired of it; and if gentle¬ 
men are disposed to continue it any longer, I have de¬ 
termined to take a hand in it. But if the Convention 
are so disposed, I am ready for the vote, and have not 
a word to say, 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Mr. President, I have desired to 
say something- 

Mr. STANTON. No, sir, if any thing is to be said I 
will claim the floor. But I have no very strong desire 
to make a speech. 

Mr. STANBERY moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
be now put?” 

Mr. LIDEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 31, nays 62—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas — Messra. Blair, BUckensderfer, Curry, Ewart, Ewing, 
Farr, Florence, Gillet^ Gray, Greene ot Defiance, Hard, Holmes, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Lidey, Loudon, Morris, McCloud, Or¬ 
ton, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, Townshend, Wilson 
and Woodbury—31. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chaney, Col- 
lings, Cook, Cutler, Forbes, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Harlan, HawHins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, 
King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence,Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Otis, 
Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stilwell, Stidger, Struble, 
Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance 
of Butler, Warren and Worthington—62. 

So the demand for the previous question was not sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then being on Mr. Ran key’s amend¬ 
ment to the amendment, to wit: insert after the word 
“law,” the words: 

But the value of the act of incorporation or corporate fran¬ 
chises so altered, revoked or repealed, shall not be included in 
the estimation or compensation, above provided for. 

Mr. STANTON. The gentleman from Trumbull, 
[Mr. Ranney,] must place a very low estimate upon 
the intelligence of this body if he supposes such soph¬ 
istry as he has resorted to here, will pass for argument. 

The argument is, that as the corporators pay nothing 
for a franchise, as the grant is without consideration, 
that the corporators are entitled to no compensation 
w’hen it is taken away. Now T suppose there is no 
gentleman who claims, for a moment, that compensa¬ 
tion should be made where there is a naked grant upon 
the faith of which no capital has been invested by the 
corporators. 

The whole argument on the other side amounts to 
this : The State has made a grant to certain corpora¬ 
tors, and upon the faith of that grant, these corporators 
have expended money. The grant may have been 
for the privilege ot a railroad, upon the faith of which 
hundreds of thousands have been expended, and the 
amendment of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. 
Ranney,] provides, that if such a franchise should be 
repealed, its value should not be estimated in making 
compensation for the corporate property. 

Mr. RANNEY, (in his seat.) .1 am willing to pay 
for all the property taken. 


Mr. STANTON. But not for the franchise. But 
what is a franchise ? If in the case of the bridge com 
pany, so often put, the right to take toll shall be taken 
away, the whole value of their bridge is gone, and so it 
would be with the property of a railroad company, up¬ 
on which uullions had ochu expended, the moment 
that the right of transporting merchandize and passen¬ 
gers should be taken away from them, the whole pro¬ 
perty of the road would bo worthless. 

The Convention have prescribed most stringent pro¬ 
visions against the taking away of the property of na¬ 
tural persons without compensation, and I hold, that 
for the very same reasons, the property of corporations 
should not be taken without compensation. 

But now the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ran¬ 
ney,] comes in and says to the General Assembly .;. 
You may repeal charters even where the whole value 
of the property of the company may consist in a fran¬ 
chise alone—you may take away the franchise, but you 
shall have no power to compensate them for it to the 
amount of a single farthing. The gentleman from 
Trumbull may take it as not very courteous to charac¬ 
terize this proposition as it deserves ; and perhaps it is 
not courteous to say that it is a proposition to legalize 
public plunder. But if the State make a corporate 
grant under which the citizen has invested money, re¬ 
lying on the honesty, integrity, and good faith of the 
Legislature of the State, that grant cannot be taken 
away without the practice of dishonesty and the guilt 
of plunder. 

I am for looking this thing right in the face, Mr,- 
President, and I will take another case. A grant ie 
made to an individual by name, and a privilege is 
conferred and money is invested so that the whole 
value of the investment is made to consist in the right 
to take toll or the right to transport merchandize and 
passengers. Yet you say the State may take away that 
grant if the public welfare require it. But the gentle¬ 
man from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] undertakes to say 
that although the public welfare may require it to be 
taken away, yet you shall not restore to the individual 
one single farthing’s worth of his investment. 

Mr. RANNEY, (in his seat.) No such thing has 
been said. 

Mr. STANTON. What then is the proposition be 
fore us? It is that the franchise shall not be included, 
in the estimate of compensation, and the whole value 
of investment is in the franchise. 

The gentleman, from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] hae 
another mode of arguing here, which might do very 
well in the Fifth Street Market, but I can tell him that? 
it will not suit here. He tells you that you are about? 
making compensation for old broken down and rottenu 
corporations, and for charters that have been violated. 
But every man who knows anything of this discussioisu 
must be perfectly aware that no member upon thio 
floor has claimed any such thing. Besides every man; 
knows that a corporation which has violated its char¬ 
ter cannot, in law, be entitled to one farthing in com¬ 
pensation. A breach of a corporate charter is civil 
death to the corporation. They are not only not entitled 
to compensation for their franchise, which is taken- 
away, but they are not entitled to their own property 
any further than as it may be applied to the payment! 
of their debts. 

But the real question is, shall the exercise of thie 
power of unqualified repeal extend to those corpora¬ 
tions who are going on without any violation of their 
charter in the exercise of their appropriate powers and 
duties, as contemplated in the law of their creation. 
When such charter is repealed the question is wheth¬ 
er the General Assembly shall be permitted to remu¬ 
nerate the corporators ? It is not. Will you tnist the 
General Assembly to make compensation ? But will 
you permit them to do it ? The gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull [Mr. Ra^ey,] says no: and that it is federal 
Whiggeiy which makes an affirmative answer. Well, 
I am not only willing, but I shall be thankful ever 













1246 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


to be regarded as a federal Whig upon such a test as 
this. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I am told by some friends around 
me that by the remarks I am about to make, and the 
vote I am about to give, I will kill myself—politically. 
I hope not—certainly I do not so intend. If others 
should think I ought to have execution done upon me 
for these remarks and that vote, I have only to say that 
I hope they will permit it to be done by those who 
alone in ray opinion, have the legitimate right to do it 
—my constituents. 

My opinions upon this subject of repeal are, as I have 
stated on another occasion, that the General Assembly 
should and does possess the power to repeal all exist¬ 
ing charters, as well those which have been acted un¬ 
der in good faith and in strict accordance with their 
terms as those whose terms have been violated—when¬ 
ever the public good shall so require, and that upon 
such repeal the corpoi’ators should have the right to 
go into our courts, and have just and equitable com¬ 
pensation in case any wrong has been done them by 
such repeal. Other gentlemen, (if I understand them) 
•who agree with me about the power to repeal, are, 
however, of opinion that our courts should be closed 
to the corporators, and that the General Assembly 
should have not only the power to repeal but also the 
power to fix finally and conclusively the terms of the 
repeal—to determine whether any, and if any, how 
much compensation shall be given to the corporators. 
In this opinion—closing our courts to these corporators 
—I cannot concur. Let us for a moment examine the 
kind of repealing machine which these gentlemen, 
(who, by the way, claim to be the only fast friends of 
the repeal doctrine,) would fix up. They tell us that 
the General Assembly is an unsafe body—that it can 
be imposed upon, cheated, even corrupted—that mon¬ 
eyed men can procure the passage through that body 
of almost any kind of charter they may desire, for 
•which reason it would be grossly unjust to pay for 
franchises which may be thus improperly obtained. 
Whether the General Assembly has been thus weak or 
corrupt, I cannot say. That they have granted char¬ 
ters such as I could not have voted for, I know, but I 
cannot, for this reason, say they have been corrupt. 
But admit all these gentlemen say, and what then ? 
Why this—that the General Assembly is not a fit body 
to determine the cjuestion of how much compensation, 
if any, should be made upon the repeal of a charter. 
Do not gentlemen perceive that the same weakness or 
the same corruption which was operated on to procure 
the granting of a charter improperly may also be as 
easly—may more easily operated upon to give improp¬ 
er compensation in case of the repeal of a charter ? 

Mr. RANNEY. Who does the gentleman refer to as 
making the charge of corruption? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I do not desire to name gentle¬ 
men in this connection ; but I certainly have understood 
gentlemen who oppose the paying for franchises in any 
case, to assign as thejr reason for that opposition, that 
these franchises are frequently procured by bringing 
improper appliances to bear on the General Assembly, 
and frequently procured through either the weakness 
or corruption of that body, and that therefore it is 
wrong to pay for things thus improperly obtained. 
The argument is theirs—not mine—if it will not work 
well both ways it is not my fault. 

I have always been opposed to taking this question 
of compensation away from the courts. I have not 
voted lor any proposition, the effect of which, as I un¬ 
derstood it, would be to take the question from the 
courts, and I will not so vote. I am willing to send 
this question, as well as all other questions touching 
the rights of our citizens, to the courts—to a sworn ju¬ 
ry acting in presence of an intelligent and independent 
court—that court elected by the people. To such a 
tribunal I trust my life, my liberty, my property, and 
such a tribunal I will trust to do right and justice in 
this class of cases. 


The amendment of the gentleman from Franklin, 
[Mr. Swan,] proposes to send this question of compen¬ 
sation to the courts—whether in just the proper man¬ 
ner is to be hereafter considered—and the amendment 
of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] pro¬ 
poses that in no case shall the franchise of a repealed 
corporation enter into the verdict or be compensated 
for. The effect of the amendment is that although to 
refuse some compensation for the franchise, should do 
an injustice, yet no compensation for the franchise 
shall be made. That gentleman, to show how unjust 
it would be to pay for a franchise, instanced the rej^eal 
of a bank charter. I agree with the gentleman there ; 
but let me give him an instance in which I think a re¬ 
fusal to pay for the franchise would be equally unjust. 
Take the so much talked of case of a bridge company. 
They have expended one hundred thousand dollars in 
building a bridge, and have the privilege—the fran¬ 
chise—to take toll for twenty years to repay themselves. 
Now, without this franchise, this right to take toll, the 
bridge is worth nothing to the corporators—without 
that it won’t yield a cent unless they pull it down and 
sell the materials. Suppose the public good shall re¬ 
quire a repeal of the charter or an appropriation of the 
bridge to the public use, how much shall be paid to 
the corporators? The value of the materials? Would 
that be just? Well, the value of the bridge before the 
repeal? But then you would be paying for the fran¬ 
chise, for it is the franchise that gives it any value 
greater than the value of the materials. Gentlemen 
say such a case will never occur—that if a company 
does its duty—acts in accordance with the terms of 
its charter, the charter will never be repealed. How 
do they know ? Does not the General Assembly some¬ 
times act w'eakly—improperly? These gentlemen say 
so. But these gentlemen and I concur in opinion that 
they should have the power to repeal all charters, and 
I, at least, am of opinion the powder should be exer¬ 
cised whenever the public good shall require, whether 
the charter has been violated or not, and I wish the 
matter so arranged that justice may be done in all cases. 

The gentleman from Trumbull says he desires his 
amendment to prevail lest bank charters may hereafter 
be paid for. Now, I am as desirous of getting rid of 
banks as that gentleman w'ell can be, but I am not wil¬ 
ling, in order to deal a blow at them, to strike through 
others, perhaps innocent institutions. 

Mr. MITCHELL said that so far as the gentleman 
from Richland killing himself was concerned, he, [Mr. 
Mitchell,] had nothing to do with that. It was a 
matter he must leave to that gentleman, and whether 
he shall kill himself here or at home, or elsewhere, 
was nothing to this body. He could not, it was true, 
but feel chagrined and mortified at the late defection 
of that gentleman. That this defection existed was 
not new to him, but he must confess he had not been 
fully acquainted with the full extent to which the feel¬ 
ings of the gentleman from Richland had operated upon 
him. No one, indeed, can realize the extent of these 
feelings but those of us who have just heard his last 
remarks and those of this morning. The feeling, the 
zeal for his new position and its friends, and the bitter¬ 
ness manifested towards his Democratic brethren now 
abandoneij, can only be realized by those who have 
heard his remarks and witnessed the spirit in which 
they were made. 

I have a word or two to say in regard to the position 
assumed by the gentleman from Butler, [Mr. Vance.] 
His course in the last twenty-four hours has placed 
him in a new position. This same subject has been 
before discussed in this Convention, but it has onlv 
been this afternoon that the right side has been taken. 
We have until now been kept away from the true issue 
by the tergiversations of gentlemen upon this side of 
the house. 

Now let us look where the gentleman from Butler 

ands. I hold in my hand a speech delivered by that 
gentleman on the 28th of December, 1850, to be found 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1241 


upon page 19G of our proceedings and debates, and in 
that speech he occupies exactly the reverse of the prop- 


capes from the democratic lips of that gentleman to 
scathe such men as these. No sir, when they have got 


osiiion he assumes now. I will read an extract from i that advantage—procured as the price of their infamy 
page 194 of the report ot the debates and proceedings i —they cannol be asked to part with it—no word of re- 
‘ ^ ig tQ them. Oh no! But if he could only 


of this Convention since its commencement here. The 
gentleman from Butler, [Mr. Vance,] was then dis 


Oh no! 

get hold of those Legislatures which have acted in this 


cussing this very subject, and he said : “Nor would I way he would teach them the just deserts of their mis- 


include in the estimate the value of the franchise.” 
Now, in the name of all that is sacred, is that print¬ 


ed-right? 


doings. But how does this evidence any feelings of 
interest with the great mass of mankind, in most other 
Or has the gentleman lost all recollection of 1 governments dowui trodden and oppressed? Does it 
what he has been doing here? But he goes on in the' not rather give evidence that his heart only beats in 
printed speech : “ Merely the property other than the ' unison with all that which would advance the interests 
iranchise.” 'of the wealthy and influential few of the masses; and 

This is the sum of his speech on 'this very subject' that he belongs to a party well known before the for- 
upon that occasion. Now let him go and reconcile, if | mation of this government, the line of whose descent 
he can, his abuse of the confidence of a deceived peo-i has not been broken for the last two thousand years? 
pie* _ _ I So much for this gentleman's opposition to this invalu- 

This is all the trouble. If you only include the prop-1 able right of repeal, 
ositiou to pay for the franchise, it will all be right. I Now as to the amendment proposed, I sir, think this 
Gentlemen wedded to corporations and their interests, i ])ast the point—the true essential difference between 
would be glad to have the power to repeal often exer-i us on this whole subject. I cannot go for this propo- 
cised. If they ever get pay for their franchises they! sition because I think the people w’ould not receive 
will be content. 1 the restoration of their rights upon such ignominious 

But will gentlemen tell me where the Legislature of; conditions; for if inequality has been created amongst 
the State obtained the pow’er or the right to give to 1 citizens, they ought to have the right to destroy that 
six or eight citizens of the State a piivilege which can- inequality without being compelled to pay a price for 
not be recovered without paying them fifty thousand 
dollars for it ? Who gave them this right to confer priv¬ 
ileges upon particular persons who pay no more taxes 
than others—who are no more ready than others to de¬ 
fend the country in war ? Where did they get the 
right to give to these persons, out and out, so valuable 
a piivilege, in such a manner that it cannot be touched 
unless it is paid for? Aye, sir, the exercise of such a 
power as this by any legislative body representing 


the exercise of that clear and essential right. 


One word as to the doctrine that a franchise is prop¬ 
erty. I have discovered throughout the whole course 
of this argument, that gentlemen are disposed to catch 
up some untenable ground, and dwell upon that; and 
tell us that we are willing that government should have 
the right to take a bridge or a turnpike that has been 
used for a public way, and which has cost a large out¬ 
lay of money on the part of the proprietors; whilst we 
freemen is a disgrace to the land of Columbia, and the 1 deny to the government the right to take a man’s farm 
time will come when it will be so regarded by all. I which he has received from the hand of nature, and 
Sir, the State governments in this country have'no I which has perhaps, cost him little or nothing by way 
right to confer such a privilege; the exercise of such j of improvement. 

a power is usurpation. It is corrupt and unjust! un-i But here these gentlemen labor under a great mis- 
just in all its effects and consequences ; and whenever, I take. The government never conferred upon any 
through want of foresight, or from any other cause, I bridge or turnpike company the right of way. The 
such privileges have been conferred, discriminating be-1 company have to purchase that. It is the right of the 
tween citizens where equality should prevail, they | franchise—the exclusive privilege which the govern- 
ought to be put an end to. Away then with the idea] ment has given, and which they can enjoy only after 
that when these privileges are taken which have been having purchased the right of way. The government 
granted without right, and the exercise of which are 
injurious, we should take the people’s money and pay 
for them. c 

Sir, our governments in this country are not foun¬ 
tains of honors and profits to be conferred upon favor¬ 
ites; but they are simple governments vested with the 
power to pass such laws, from time to time, as the good 
of society may require. These are the limits of our State 
governments; they can rightfully go no further than 
this. They cannot rightfully deal out privileges to a 
few which may not rightfully be enjoyed by all. And 
whenever it is found that they have done so, I would 
like to know the jnan whose mind is so blinded by 
prejudice, that he could stand up here and say that 
those favored few who have got these advantages of 
others in the community, should be allowed to hold on 
to them. Sir, if I desired to test any man’s political 
views, to find out whether they were republican or 
not, I could not propose for this purpose a better test 
question. 

There was one position assumed by the gentleman 
from Richland, [Mr. Kirkwood,] this morning, which 
divulged the true workings of his heart. He did not 
hesitate then to arraign the Legislature, and attack, 
with wonderful zest, its integrity in this matter of 
granting charters, heaping all the odium and blame on 
them. If, sir, in an unfortunate hour, the Legislature 
should so far forget its duty as to grant charters, which 
might have an injurious effect in hindering or utterly 
preventing the development of the true characteristics 
of our republican institutions, the procurers of such a 
charter are to go unvyhipped of justice. Nothing es- 


have no right to take away from them this right of 
way. The government can only take away the fran¬ 
chise. They leave them in the possession of all their 
property to use it as they may see proper. 

It has been contended, that a man cannot purchase 
the right of way, construct a bridge, or a turnpike, or 
a railroad, and take pay for the use of them; but I 
contend, sir, that if a man owns a farm through which 
a stream runs, which is impassable, he may, if he 
choose, erect a bridge, when he will undoubtedly have 
the power to charge for passage over it whatever he 
may contract for. Can there be any difference be¬ 
tween this and constructing a private ferry, a right 
not disputed? If government should choose to appro¬ 
priate its use to the public, as a highway, or other¬ 
wise, they must pay for it most certainly. The case is 
not different with a company. If the State take away 
the franchise of bridge owners, they may shut up then- 
gate. Still they have their right of way, and as pri¬ 
vate individuals in case their property is secured to 
them, as I contend it should be, and always by a just 
Legislature would be, they can contract for its use 
just as if they had never had a charter. 

It is true that the State might make a road around 
such a bridge, but still the owner could have just as 
oood a right to contract lor the use of his property, as 
a private ferryman has to charge for taking a passen¬ 
ger across the river. 

If the State should appropriate the property to pub¬ 
lic use, then it must be paid for as in other cases. The 
State then has no right, I maintain, to take away prop¬ 
erty, except upon the principle argued by myself the 













1248 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


other day, in answer to the position assumed by the 
gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swan.] For taking 
property on such principles, we have abundantly pro¬ 
vided in this report already. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD wished to define his position. He 
was opposed to the whoio matter of buying out coipo- 
lations; and he wished to do the most injury that he 
could to the amendment of the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin, [Mr. Swan,] nor did he like very much the goodly 
features of the amendment ol the gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull, [Mr. Ranney,] and if he voted for putting that 
amendment in, it would be with the expectation of vo¬ 
ting it out again along with the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin. 

Mr. RANNEY next addressed the chair', but gave 
way, [under the rule,] for 

Mr. LARSH, who claimed the floor, unless the vote 
could be then taken. 

Mr. RANNEY. Will you sit down or will you go 
on? 

Mr. LARSH. If the vote is to be taken I will sit 
down, otherwise I will go on. 

Several Voices. —‘'Go on,” “go on.” 

Mr. LARSH, then proceeded to notice the war 
which had been gotten up amongst his friends over the 
way, expressing his desire to pour oil upon those trou¬ 
bled waters of the “ southern hemisphere.” 

He then went into the probable effects of this doc¬ 
trine of repeal if it were to be incorporated in the con¬ 
stitution, as now strenuously insisted upon by his friends 
of the “southern hemisphere.” It would place a large 
portion of the people of the State at the mercy of the 
General Assembly. This power might be held by the 
General Assembly in terrorem over the heads of that 
portion of the State who might be interested in corpo¬ 
rations, with the threat that if they did not vote for 
such judges and such State officers as they might dic¬ 
tate, they would repeal every charter in the State, and 
it seemed to his mind that they wmuld be able to ac¬ 
complish their object most eflectually. 

It has been contended that the General Assembly 
could not pass a law which would bind a succeding 
General Assembly. This declaration seemed to go up¬ 
on the principle that the General Assembly was the 
State; and that whenever the General Assembly should 
adjourn sine die the State would have to die and be re¬ 
vived again by the meeting of the next General As¬ 
sembly. But this was not the doctrine which he had 
been taught. He could not see how the State could go 
out of existence in this way. And if he himself could 
make a contract to-day which he could not repeal to¬ 
morrow, he was unable to see any good reason why the 
General Assembly might not do the same thing. The 
State was a living principle. Its existence was pro¬ 
longed from time to time, and it was not even cut off’ 
by the means of such a Convention as this, which was 
assembled, not to abolish, but to reconstruct and im¬ 
prove the government of the State. If he was right 
in this consideration, the whole argument about the ina¬ 
bility of one General Assembly to bind a succeeding 
General Assembly would have to fall to the ground. 
He supposed this argument had not been materially 
considered by gentlemen. He could not think that 
they believed the doctrine themselves. 

Mr. BARNET, of Montgomery, thought, in all con¬ 
science, that we had had enough of this debate, and 
thereupon he demanded the previous question. 

The demand having been seconded by five members, 
and the question : shall the main question now be put? 
being announced by the Chair; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, and the 
same being ordered and taken, resulted—yeas 44, nays 
50—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgornery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blair, BUckensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case ot 
Hocking, Chaney, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Hard, Hawkins, Horton, Humphreville, Hun¬ 
ter, Lidey, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Patter¬ 
son, Peck, Perkins, Sawyer, Scott ot Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 


Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stantons 
Stebbins, Stidger, Townshend and Woodbury—44. M 

,NAys—Messrs. Andrews, Barnett of Preble, Brown of Athen^ 
Case of Licking, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Farr, Forbes,| 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson,| 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Holmes, Hoo^i| 
man, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill,p 
Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Otis,| 
Quigley, Ranney. Reemelin, Riddle, Smith of Highland, Stilwell,| 
Stickney, Struble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson! 
of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson and VVorthington 
—50. _ I 

So the main question was not ordered. ; 

Mr. KIRKWOOD supposed he ought to feel exceed¬ 
ingly flattered by the declaration of the gentleman from * 
Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] that he Mr. R. had hereto¬ 
fore been following his Mr. K’s. lead, but he must de¬ 
cline the compliment. Perhaps the gentleman had 
made the declaration in order to comfort him under his 
supposed affliction for the speech he had just made. 
Although he fully appreciated the kindness of this 
course, he must be permitted to say it was entirely un¬ 
necessary as he felt quite comfortable. 

He inquired if he had understood the gentleman to 
say, he would pay the members of a bridge company, 
for the injury they might sustain by the repeal of their 
charter? If so, every cent paid to them over and above 
the value of the materials used in building the bridge, 
would be paid for the franchise. Why, what is the in- 
juiy ? The amount of the loss. What is the amount of 
the loss ? The value of the bridge before the repeal, 
with the franchise attached. Now if that be paid for, 
the franchise is paid for. But this was not according to 
the terms of the gentleman’s amendment; for that pro¬ 
vides, that in no case shall the franchise be paid for. 

Mr, RANNEY, (in his seat,) was understood to de¬ 
ny that he had been correctly represented. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD thought that he had understood the 
gentleman correctly, but it appeared he had misunder¬ 
stood him, and other gentlemen on this point. When 
gentlemen had argued the propriety of leaving the 
matter of compensation to the General Assembly, and 
were told the General Assembly would have power to 
refuse compensation in a case such as the one put, they 
had said that the General Assembly would not refuse 
such compensation, and it was not right to distrust that 
body—that that body would do right—and yet these 
gentlemen now desire to deprive the courts of the pow¬ 
er to do the same thing they had said the General As¬ 
sembly would do. They had said in their speeches 
that the General Assembly would compensate for the 
franchise in such cases, and now— 

Mr. MITCHELL. No, sir, the gentleman is mistak¬ 
en again. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Well, “ the book” will settle all 
that. But not only in their speeches, but over and over 
again in private conversation, had he understood these 
gentlemen to say, that the General Assembly would do 
the very thing which they are desirous of depriving the 
courts of the power to do. 

Mr. REEMELIN said the vote, he supposed, was 
now to be taken upon the proposition of the gentleman 
from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] —a proposition which he 
considered dangerous. The object of the amendment 
proposed by the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ran¬ 
ney,] was to protect the tax-payers, and therefore, he 
was disposed to vote for it. He was disposed, as far 
as he was able to go, to protect the people of Ohio from 
being fleeced. 

There were now in the State of Ohio, more than ten 
thousand incorporated companies. The value of their 
franchises was such that the mines of California were 
not rich enough to purchase them. 

Why ! what do these franchises, these exclusive priv 
ileges amount to ? They amount to this, that they have 
a perpetual vested right to the labor of the people of 
Ohio, the labor of two millions of free people even 
now, and soon to be three millions. Exclusive privi¬ 
leges amon^ such apeople are worth a ^ood deal. The 
privilege of standing as toil collector, either as banker 
or in other money making corporations, at the outlets 













♦ 

CONVENTION REPORTS. 1249 


which labor must seek among such a people, is worth 
more than the best mine in California. That is to be 
worked ! The privileges here work themselves! 

He would ask, if it was good morality to require the 
people, whose rights had been triHed with and traded 
away, to require them to pay for the recovery of those 
rights ? 

The gentleman from Richland had made this argu¬ 
ment : The franchises of all incorporated companies 
were obtained from the agents of the people; and that 
the people, as principals, were responsible for the acts 
of their agents. But he affirmed that that position could 
not be maintained for a moment. These agents of the 
people have their written authority—they committed a 
fraud ; and the principal was never bound by the fraud¬ 
ulent act of the agent. Who did not know that fraud 
was practiced in obtaining these charters of incorpor¬ 
ation? Why, the corporators themselves passed their 
own charters, almost. It was notorious that bank pres¬ 
idents and railroad company presidents drafted their 
own charters, and made the General Assembly but the 
register of their will in these cases. Therefore they 
were all frauds upon the community, if they violated 
the great basis of all our laws, equality of rights and 
equality of burthens. 

How, then, could it be right to require the people to 
pay for the repeal of these charters ? I trust 1 will not 
be charged with profanation in making here a refer¬ 
ence to the sacred scriptures, while men are inatten¬ 
tive all around me. But when sophistry is doing its 
best to subdue the people, we must quote the highest 
authority for the doctrine for which we are pleading. 
He could refer to the example of our Saviour, when he 
went up the Temple, and when he found around the 
outside of that magnificent building, stalls and tables 
rented, where men wei’e authorized to sell pigeons 
and trade in money. Did he stop to pay them for 
their franchise ? Did he regard their privileges, which 
they had by law? No! he drove them out with a 
scourge, saying to them, “It is written, my father’s 
house shall be called a house of prayer, but ye have 
made it a den of thieves.” There was no compensa¬ 
tion for the taking away of privileges there. The mild 
Jesus was the first repealer! 

Sir, (he continued,) the people have a right to meet 
here and reform their organic law, and reconstruct 
their constitution by our hands; and we have already 
asserted that all power is in the people. They have 
the right to revolutionize—to dig up the whole struc¬ 
ture of our old government, and scatter it to the winds. 
And to say that the people cannot repeal a charter is 
just about as reasonable as it would‘be to say that the 
proprietors of this building cannot remove the canvass 
which we have suspended in this Hall, whilst they 
might take away the outer walls and the foundation. 
This declaration would be just as reasonable as it is to 
declare that the people may take down the whole 
structure of government, whilst these cobwebs of leg¬ 
islation must remain. 

Sir, should we perpetuate power in the hands of 
those who have robbed us; or when we want to get 
our rights back, must we do it purse in hand ? Gen¬ 
tlemen declare that this would be right, but I will not 
vote for it, because it is not right thus to court legisla¬ 
tion, which is in violation of our rights as freemen. 
It is precisely this class of legislation which we in¬ 
tend to reach; and let me tell you, sir, in behalf of yie 
people of the State of Ohio, that if you do not give 
them a legal means to regain their rights by repeal, 
they will have them back by revolution. “ Privileges 
must have an end, but the people is eternal. 1 rivi- 
leees have been put down by the people of 1 ennsyl- 
vania, and by our people; when the law fails to give 
the remedy, then the people must take the matter in 
their own hands. Congress has put down Nick Bid¬ 
dle’s Bank, but still in the State of Ohio, the charter 
of the Bank of Wooster, and of the Bank of Can^n, 
and the Miami Exporting Company remain But 

79 


where are those men who have opposed their repeal? 
Aye, sir, they hide themselves from the just public 
odium which attaches to their public acts in respect 
to these institutions. Like the gentleman from Mor¬ 
gan, [Mr. Hawki.vs,] they attempt to screen them¬ 
selves behind names, whose sound reverberates hon¬ 
orably iu uemocraiic hearts. 

Sir, I will vole against every proposition which is 
calculated to prop up and support corporations, in their 
special privileges and their vested rights, in this State. 
We should endeavor to enable the people to remove 
anything that is opposed to equal rights. But if, in 
consequence of the repeal of any charter, any bonajide 
property of honest men should be affected by it, then 
that becomes another question. And in such a case 
the Legislature should exercise a wise discretion in the 
matter of repairing the injury. A different rule would 
have it apply in every such case as this—no general 
rule could be provided. The attempt itself would izi- 
volve us in sheer absurdity. This I have frequently 
stated, and I repeat it again—sound truth cannot be 
spoken too often. 

I desire the people to be left as free as the corpora¬ 
tions in this contest against privileges. I do not want 
the people to go into court hand-cufted, or tied hand and 
foot by a construction, which must be the result of the 
adoption of the amendment. There has been one case 
in the present history of Ohio, wherein a corporation, 
through the mandate of the Supreme Court, put its 
hand into the treasury to indemnify itself, in violation 
of the laws of Ohio. Our sovereignty Vas then trail¬ 
ed in the dust. And this precedent may warn the peo¬ 
ple of Ohio, for often hereafter may it occui-, if these 
gentlemen succeed in establishing the rule by which 
the treasury is made chargeable for the indiscretions 
of legislation. I want to guard the treasury! I want 
to restrict the taxing power to its legitimate purpose, 
for I agree with the principle laid down by the gentle¬ 
man from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] that taxation 
should only be resorted to for the support of social or¬ 
der. 

Aye, sir, I tell these gentlemen that we shall meet 
them again at Philippi. We shall see them again be¬ 
fore the people. We shall ask the people of Cuyaho¬ 
ga and Monroe, whether they are willing that they 
shall be taxed forebarters repealed iu old Hamilton? 
Sir, 1 shall put this question to the people, and see if 
they will not scout the proposition to rob them of their 
money after they have been robbed of their rights, 

Mr. HAWKINS remarked that as the lobbies were 
full, it was certainly a very good occasion for gentle¬ 
men to make their ad captandum speeches; and it was 
upon this account, he supposed, that the gentleman 
from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] had seen proper to 
allude to a certain vote which he gave once in the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly. Well, if the gentleman could amuse 
himself and his constituents in this way, he did not ob¬ 
ject; but he denied that he had attempted to shield 
himself behind any man’s name. He needed no such 
shield as that, and had made no such resort. 

But the gentleman had paid a poor compliment to a 
portion of his colleagues of the hard money school, by 
assuming that they had sold out the rights of the peo¬ 
ple ; for he could point to dozens of them upon that 
floor who had aided in the sale of those rights. 

When he had concluded there were loud calls for the 
question on every side, but 

Mr. HUNT moved that the Convention do now ad¬ 
journ. 

Mr. PECK demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 28, 
nays 59—as follows; 

Yeas— Messrs. Blickensderfer, Chaney, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hootman, Hunt, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stick- 
ney, Stidger, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, 
and Wilson—^28. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Athens, 
















CONVENTION REPORTS, 


1250 


Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Collings, Cook, Cur¬ 
ry, Cutler, Ewart, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Humphre- 
ville. Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, Lirkwood, Larsh, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Rid¬ 
dle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Struble, Vance of Butler, 
Woodbury, and Worthington—59. 

So the Oouventiou refused to adjourn. 

Mr. LIDEY moved a call of the Convention. 

Mr, LEECH demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 43, nays 46—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Barbee, Bennett, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Curry, 
Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hitchcock 
of Geauea, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, 
Jones, Kinff, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Mitchell, McCormick, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reeme- 
lin, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, 
Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, War¬ 
ren, and Wilson—43. 

Nays — Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Collings, Cook, 
Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Groes- 
beck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hor¬ 
ton, Hunter, Larsh, Mason. Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, 
Norris, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Riddle, Sawyer, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor, Vance of 
Butler, Woodbury, and Worthington—46. 

So the motion for a call of the Convention was re¬ 
jected ; and then. 

On motion of Mr. SCOTT, of Auglaize, the Conven¬ 
tion adjourned. 


SATURDAY, February 15, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

The President of the Convention, Mr. Medill, be¬ 
ing absent, 

Mr. NASH moved that Mr. Sawyer, member from 
the county of Auglaize, be chosen I'resideiR fro tem- 
fore; which was agreed to. 

Mr. SWIFT presented a petition from Martha J. Til- 
den and one hundred and two other females of Sum¬ 
mit county, praying that the new constitution guaranty 
to women the same rights as are enjoyed by men; 
which, on motion, was laid on the table. 

Mr LOUDON submitted the following: 

Resolved, That from and after Monday next, this Convention 
will hold night sessions, on every alternate evening, unless other¬ 
wise ordered. 

Mr. ORTON moved to amend the resolution, by ad¬ 
ding the following: 

Provided, that no vote shall betaken, nor shall the yeas and 
nays be called, nor shall there be a call of the Convention at said 
night session: provided further, that a President and Secretary 
pro tern, shall be elected each evening. 

Mr. BENNETT moved that the resolution and pend¬ 
ing amendment bo laid on the table; which Was disa¬ 
greed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved that the resolution and 
pending amendment be indefinitely postponed. 

On which motion Mr. ARCH BOLD demanded the 
yeas and nays; which were ordered, and resulted— 
yeas 71, nays 24—as follows: 

Yeas- —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Baraet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll. Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Cham 
bers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Jilvvart, Ewing, 
Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamil¬ 
ton, Hard, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, 
King, Larsh, Law'rence, Leech, Mi'chell, Morehead, McCloud, 
McCormick, Nash, Orton, Otis, Peck, Quigley, Riddle, Scott of 
Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of War 
ren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins,Stilwell, Sticknej, Stidger, Stru¬ 
ble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Tow’nshend, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Woodbury, and 
Worthington—71. 

Nays — Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Farr, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hawkins, Henderson, Kirkwood, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Loudon, Morris,Norris, Patterson, Ranney, Reeme- 
lin, Sawyer, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Swilt, Way, and Wil¬ 
liams—24. 


So the resolution and pending amendment were in¬ 
definitely postponed. 

On motion of Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, the Con¬ 
vention took up the Report No. 2 of the committee on 
the Legislative Department, with pending amendments. 

The question pending being on the amendment of 
Mr. Ranney to the amendment, to wit: Insert after the 
word “law” the words “but the value of the act of in¬ 
corporation or corporate franchises as altered, revoked 
or repealed shall not be included in the estimation or 
compensation above provided for.” 

Mr. SWAN said gentlemen had misconstrued the 
amendment he had proposed. It did not provide, nor 
was it intended, that the State should pay I'or the 
property of existing corporations, when destroyed by 
repeal. It left the General Assembly to say who 
should pay, and this was right. If a bridge corpora¬ 
tion was repealed for the benefit of a township or 
county, and so as to make it a free bridge, the city, 
town or county benefitted by the revocation of the 
charter should pay the damages. And how can the 
gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] consistent¬ 
ly complain, even if it requii-ed the State to pay, when, 
according to his own proposition, in the 36th section 
of the Legislative Report, it is provided generally 
that compensation shall be made to corporations for 
property taken, and he has insisted that this provision 
covers and protects corporations under his section for 
the repeal of existing charters. Has that gentleman, 
or others who oppose the amendment I have submit¬ 
ted, contrived any mode of relieving everybody from 
making the payment which is acknowledged on all 
hands, must be made by somebody, and to some ex¬ 
tent. 

The rule of compensation is also complained of. The 
amendment provides that “just and equitable ” com¬ 
pensation shall be made. Can the wit of man devise 
a more “just and equitable” one 1 

The tribunal to determine the compensation does 
not suit some gentlemen—they would probably prefer 
the General Assembly. The amendment proposes to 

submit the whole matter to a jury of twelve men_ 

the very men who, it is said, will have to bear their 
share in paying the amount of their own verdict. And 
yet gentlemen, eager to repeal existing charters, do 
not seem to like such a tribunal, but prefer to leave it 
to the General Assembly—who are desciibed as a body 
easily misled, liable to the influence of lobbies—as rep¬ 
resented by some, almost corrupt,—prefer leaving the 
whole matter to them. 1 prefer an honest jury of 
twelve men. 

It seems very strange, that upon a diflerence of opi¬ 
nion here about the terms upon which the property of 
citizens shall be taken, or its value destroyed, party 
lines should be drawn, and one member after another, 
and in detail, denounced, because some desire the mat¬ 
ter of compensaiion to be left without provision, and 
to the discretion of the General Assembly, and others 
desire to recognize a just and equitable rule and tribu¬ 
nal to determine the compensation, which all men must 
acknowledge as an honest one. 

No one can, or will deny, that the repeal of the char¬ 
ter of an existing corporation injures, and in some 
cases destroys the value of the properly of the stock¬ 
holders. The franchise consists, among other ihin^^s, 
of the right to use the property and to take the tolls^ 
as provided by the charter. It is a delusion to talk 
about these franchises not being property, for these 
give to the property its real value. What would a title 
to a farm be worth, if held upon condition that itshould 
never be cultivated or used? 

Mr. REEMELIN. What we denied is, that taking 
away a franchise is always an injury to a coporation. 

Mz’. S\yAN., I know it is not always an injury, and 
when no injury, a jury will give no compensation ; but 
vyhat I insist upon is, that when an injury has been in¬ 
flicted, there should be a corresponding compensation. 

Aro the certificates of stock of a railroad or turnpike 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1251 


worth as much after as before the repeal of a chartei’— 
and why ? Because the property of the corporation 
can no longer bo used as before—its franchises—its 
right to use the property as before, is gone and destroy¬ 
ed. 

And now the gentleman from Trumbull proposes by 
his amendment, to value the property of a corporation, 
as if they never had the right to use it in the mode 
prescribed in their charter. 

My amendment proposes a just and equitable com¬ 
pensation for any property of an existing corporation 
injured or destroyed by repeal. The proviso of the 
gentleman from Trumbull flatly contradicts this, and 
says: for all injury or destruction to the value of the 
property, done by taking away the franchise, that is, 
repealing the charter, shall not be computed or estima¬ 
ted. 

Mr. President, I thought it would come to this. I 


have patiently waited for three or four weeks to test 
gentlemen’s rule of compensation upon the repeal of 
existing charters; to bring them to an issue, and to see 
what they meant. We have now got it. It is in fact, 
repeal without compensation. Not what the property 
was worth at the time of the repeal, when it could be 
used, but what the property is worth, stripped and de¬ 
spoiled of its use, of the charter, and all the rights and 
uses incident to the charter. With such an issue, and 
upon such a question, I fearlessly appeal to the peo 
pie, whether this is right, and whether they demand it 
I know they do not. 

Mr. KING. I want to ask the gentleman from Frank¬ 
lin, [Mr. Swan,”] a question. In case of the repeal of 
a bank charter, would he give damages, and by what 
rule ? 

Mr. SWAN. The same rule that I would apply to 
any other existing corporation, or to any injury done 
to a citizen’s properly. If the State Bank of Ohio was 
repealed, and I was called into the jury box to decide 
the compensation, I would first ascertain the market 
value of the stock—suppose it was one hundred and 
twenty dollars on each share. I would then ascertain 
the amount of its surplus fund, and other assets—sup¬ 
pose they amounted to one hundred and fifteen dollars. 
The verdict and compensation would be the difference. 
Take the Ohio Life and Trust Company. Her stock in 
market is worth one hundred and two ; her assets are 
worth one hundred and one ; the compensation would 
be one dollar; or if her assets were one hundred and 
two, the compensation would be nothing. Where 
there was an artificial or false value put upon the stock, 
its value must be reduced to what it was really worth. 
If a turnpike charter was repealed to make it a public 
highway, and the stock was worth only a half or third 
of what the stockholders paid for it, the compenpation 
would be, not what the [stock cost, but what it was 

worth. . 

Some gentlemen here have thrown out the idea, that 
it is claimed that the time for which a charter is to 
run, and prospective profits are to be paid for on its 
. repeal. Such an idea is very strange. It smacks of 
the ridiculous. 

The General Assembly might to-day repeal every 
charter now existing in the State, and take the whole 
property and franchises of every corporation now’ in 
active operation, and use it for State purposes, and 
upon a just estimate of its value, she would not pay 
for the aggregate what it has cost the stockholders. 

The question being on the amendment; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 46, nays 51—as fol¬ 
lows : _ . „ 

Yeas— Messrs. Arcbbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Flolmes, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones. King, Larwill, Leech,Lead- 
better, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCormick, N^orns, Orton, Pat- 
terson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott ot 
Auglaize, SeWrs, Smith of Wyandot, SU'bbins, Stickney, Stidg- 
er, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Ihompson ol 
Stark, Townshend, Way and Wilson—46. „ ^ 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 


nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of 'Licking, Chambers, 
Collings, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, GPlett, Graham, 
Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, Harlan, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, 
Johnson, Kirkwood, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Warren, 
Worthington and Woodbury—51. 

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on Mr. Swan’s amendment, 
as amended ; 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to amend the amendment, 
by inserting after the word “ law, ” the following 
words: 

Franchises as such shall not in all cases be deemed property 
for which compensation shall be made, but in cases where the 
franchise is so connected with other property that a compen¬ 
sation for the other property merely would be unjust and ine¬ 
quitable to the parties, such compensation shall be allowed for 
the franchise, as shall do justice and right in the premises. 

The question then being on Mr. Kirkwood’s amend¬ 
ment ; 

Mr. KIRKWOOD hoped that his firiends on this side 
of the house would deal kindly and leniently with him. 
He had looked at the subject in various lights, and he 
could not, for his life, teach himself to believe that a 
railroad or a plankroad was an injury to the public, or 
that it was not a benefit. He would tell the Conven¬ 
tion some reasons why he had been induced to think 
so. The people of the county in which he resides— 
the county of Richland—one of the strong Democratic 
counties of the State, had voted a subscription of many 
thousand dollars to aid in the construction of a rail¬ 
road through their territory. The people of Democrat¬ 
ic Knox, also, had subscribed still more largely for a 
similar purpose ; and even the strong county of Ham¬ 
ilton—the fortress of Democracy in the State, had con. 
fributed some millions to be invested in enterprises of 
this kind. And then (said Mr. K.) last and worst of 
all, to seduce me into this belief, my friend from 
Wayne here on ray left hand, [Mr. Larwill,] is abso¬ 
lutely a director in one of these abominable corpora¬ 
tions—a railroad corporation. 

Now, Mr. President, is it wonderful that a plain and 
unsophisticated man like me, should become bewil¬ 
dered and bedeviled in this conflict of authority, and 
that I should at length be induced to believe that a rail¬ 


road corporation and a plank road corporation is a 
pretty good thing. My very democratic friend from 
Wayne having given his sanction to one of them, by be¬ 
coming a director, is it strange that I should think they 
were not entirely anti-democratic and should be willing 
that some care should be taken of them ? 

A gentleman asks me if I have any stock in a railroad. 
I answer I have. I have subscribed a small amount of 
stock, upon which I have paid the enormous sum of 
twenty-five dollars, and I want to take care ol it. Am 
I disqualified by interest to act in this matter? Now, 
Mr. President, I will tell you how this thing appears 
to me. When the subject of corporations is up, gen¬ 
tlemen talk all the time about banks. When I talk of 
railroads and plank roads and turnpike roads, and say 
it is right to protect and take care of them, gentlemen 
throw in my face the bloody head of a bank. This 
statement of the question may be very pleasant to gen¬ 
tlemen who desire to choose the ground upon wh'cli to 
make their speeches, when their votes cover other acd 
much broader ground, but its usefulness in developing 
truth is more questionable. By the proposition 1 hayg 
offered, I take this ground from under them—are they 
willing to come to mine and help me protect railroads 
and plank roads? 

What I say, in the amendment which I have ofl'erod, 
is this : that fi-anchises, as such, are not to be paid for, 
but that when they are so connected with other proper¬ 
ty that a compensation for the other property alone 
would not be just and equitable, such compensation 
shall be made as is right and just in the premises. Now, 
gentlemen cannot meet me with the declaration that I 
am in favor of paying for a bank charter, for the fran- 








1252 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


chise of a bank is not connected with other jn-operty— 
or that I am advocating the payment for any franchise, 
even that of a railroad or plank road or tnrnpike road 
or bridge, unless such payment is indispensable, in or¬ 
der to do justice; and if they are willing lo say that 
justice and right shall not be done, they may say so— 
that is all. i wiil not say so. 

There is, Mr. rresident, another thing in this amend¬ 
ment. 1 have called a franchise property. Now I am 
a lawyer, not a very good one perhaps, but a member 
of the bar. I practice in some two or three counties 
in the State, including the one in which I reside. In 
the counties where I practice it is the law that a fran¬ 
chise is property. How it may be in Knox county, 
where my friend on the right [Mr. Mitchell] resides, 
I do not know. Up among us, we look upon a fran¬ 
chise as property, and there we are in the practice of 
calling things by their legal names—whenever we know 
them. 

1 could not vote for the proposition of the gentleman 
from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney] which said that in no 
case should a Ifanchise be paid for, because cases might 
arise in which justice and right would require such 
payment. 

What I mean by my proposition is this, that when it 
shall become necessary' and proper for the General As¬ 
sembly to repeal an act of incorporation, and its fran¬ 
chises are so connected with other property that pay¬ 
ment for the other property alone would not do for the 
parties what right and justice may demand, such com¬ 
pensation shall be made at all events, as right and jus 
tice may demand—that in no case shall compensation 
be allowed for a Iranchise unless right and justice do 
demand it, and if justice shall so demand it, then and 
then only, shall compensation be given. The words 
are plain, and no argument, no construction and no so¬ 
phistry can vary their meaning. 

Mr. REBMELIN said it was strange that gentle 
men could not understand each other. It was perplex 
ing that gentlemen on this side of the house could not 
understand each other. He should vote against the 
amendment and would give his reasons. This Con¬ 
vention will doubtless pass section 36 of this report, 
and by its pas.sage will say that a compensation shall 
be paid for everything that is taken which is properly. 
He should vote for that section; he had drafted it, 
though he had some little misgivings since he saw gen¬ 
tlemen so much more anxious to protect property than 
persons. He would say again that he was willing to 
protect all private property, but to adopt this amend¬ 
ment would be to carry into the constitution a provis¬ 
ion which is obviously' unjust and which he had always 
desired to avoid. He would not vote for a proposition 
that a franchise is property, and to repeal it is to take 
property. 

Mr. NASH. Mr. President. I am somewhat amused 
at the speech of the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Reemelin.] Plis first argument is that the thirty-sixth 
section of this report provided for the very contingency 
designed to be provided for in this amendment. There, 
says he, property is protected from being taken unless 
on a compensation paid. He insists therefore that this 
amendment is needless. And yet before he sat down 
the gentleman argued that this amendment settled a 
disputed question, and settled it in favor of corpora¬ 
tions and against what he calls the poor people. The 
truth is, the first and the last part of the gentleman’s 
speech are indirect contradiction the one being a com¬ 
plete refutation of the other. The secret leaps to light in 
the end of his speech. He does not believe, did not 
intend that this thirty-sixth section should embrace 
cases of repeal. He knows as well as I do that the 
repeal of a charter and the taking of property for public 
use have no earthly similarity, no conceivable relation¬ 
ship. This the gentleman well knows; and his ref¬ 
erence to that section is only with the vain hope that 
such shallov/ sophistry may deceive the erring twelve 
Upon whom his anathemas have hitherto fallen pow¬ 


erless. But, such juggling could not deceive a child, 
much less full grown men with intellects sharpened 
by debate. And sir, it is clear that the twelve wiil 
not relent, and that his efforts, long and incessant as 
they have been, lo violate and conqiel others to vio¬ 
late the constitution of the United States and the plain- 
e&l principles ofeverluotiug justice are about to I’ai., uud 
fail too most signally. The gentleman takes it in very 
bad humor; exhibits in view of it a very bad temper, 
yesterday the gentleman, [Mr, ReebielinJ declared in 
most impassioned tones that this Oonvenliou must adopt 
his I’epeal clause, just according lo his dictation, or we 
says he, will obtain it by revolution. These are 
the gentleman’s words; repeal, as I dictate, or revolu¬ 
tion. The gentleman gives us our choice and requires 
us to elect which alternative we prefer. 

Mr. Fresident, has it come to this 1 And we delib¬ 
erating amid a reign of terror ? Is this a French cham¬ 
ber of deputies, or an American Convention ? And is 
the gentleman the Louis Blanc of the power without ? 
Revolution! Are we citizens of a free country, repre¬ 
sentatives of a free constituency, sent here to reason 
and deliberate for the public welfare ? Or are we the 
creatures of a Parisian mob, forbidden to deliberate, 
commanded to register its lawless decrees 1 The de¬ 
claration is worthy of the gentleman. It is conceived 
in the true spirit of despotism. It wmuld not be un¬ 
worthy of the Russian autocrat, or a Prusian dema¬ 
gogue. It is engendered in the very essence of despo¬ 
tism ; the utterance of a selfish and arbitrary will. Do 
as I bid, is the command. If you refuse, expect Si¬ 
berian exile in the one case, and in the other, the ten¬ 
der mercies of an unreasoning mob. This is the spiiit 
exhibited here day after day, by the member from 
Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin.] He has constituted him¬ 
self the leader of democracy, of his democracy; and 
every man who cannot conscienciously move by his 
standard, is to be shot down like a Russian serf, or an 
Italian bandit. There is no toleration for a difference 
of opinion. You must walk his mark, vote his propo¬ 
sitions without hesitation, or be denounced as aristo¬ 
crats, as recreants, as traitors. And now we are threat¬ 
ened with the ultimate remedy of all despots, the pow¬ 
er of numbers, a power ever the same, whether it re¬ 
sides in a standing army, or a mob. Freedom of 
thought, the glorious birth-right as hitherto we have 
boasted of this land of ours, is alike crushed, annihi¬ 
lated. 

Is this the spirit of modem democracy ? Is this the 
whither it is tending ? I call upon gentlemen upon 
this floor to say whether they follow the lead of this 
self-constituted dictator in the ranks of democracy ? I 
ask them if they can, by silence, lend their counten¬ 
ance to such abomiiialile doctrines as are here daily put 
forth 1 Nay, does it not behoove them to set the seal 
of reprobation upon this threat of revolution, held up 
to terrify this body into a sacrifice of its deliberation 
and free action ? 

Sir, I hurl back the threat with scorn and detesta¬ 
tion. I stand up to vindicate the character of the or¬ 
der-loving, law-abiding people of Ohio. This people 
will scorn the gentleman’s intimation, that he or anv 
other demagogue can rouse them into revolution, to 
pass through ail the bitterness and misery which, histo¬ 
ry shows, follow in its train. Sir, he wiil fail when he 
makes his effort for revolution, come when and where 
it may. Let him go proclaim his revolution in yon¬ 
der market house, and he will soon see the total wreck 
of his wicked ambition. The people will never toler¬ 
ate such a proposition. And if the gentleman dares to 
give the treason utterance he will find to his own bit¬ 
ter experience, repeated once too often, that they will 
neither endure him as preacher of sedition; when his 
own safety may have to be secured by a masterly re¬ 
treat, executed between two days. The people of 
Ohio know too well the blessings they now enjoy, ev¬ 
er to embark upon the uncertain sea of revolution to 
be landed ultimately where all revolutions have ever 
landed, in a military despotism. 














CONVENTION REPORTS 


1253 


There is another matter to which 1 wish to allude ; 
and against which I wish to enter my solemn protest. 
We have heard much uttered during the progress of 
this discussion, against w'ealth, and much in I’avor of 
the people of Ohio. Sir, I deny that the people of 
Ohio are poor; such an assertion is a libel upon them 
and the State. The people of Ohio are rich; rich in 
all the wealth and virtues which adorn and elevate 
modern civilization. The mass are any thing but poor. 
They are owners of property—of real estate, too, to a 
very large extent—and it is untrue, therefore, to call 
the people poor. They need not the false sympathy of 
the gentleman. Nor will they thank him for thus de¬ 
scribing them, as he would describe the pauper popu¬ 
lation of Europe—with the condition of which the gen¬ 
tleman appears to be better acquainted than with that 
of the people of Ohio. But he seems to imagine that 
popularity is to be gained by exciting a prejudice 
against property invested in corporations, and against 
the few possessors of great wealth. We have heard 
language applied here, which might be well enough, 
true enough, if applied to the state of society in Eu 
rope. There property is by law tied up, and kept in 
a few hands. It may be near the truth there, to speak 
of the privileged, the wealthy class—but such language 
has no meaning here; no application, when misapplied 
to American society, and our laws. Here property is 
free. It is not tied up by law; not entailed upon idle¬ 
ness and dissipation. Enterprise, and industry, and 
self-denial, are left free to act, and their reward lies 
open before them. Why then labor to heap odium up¬ 
on the rich man of to-day? Is it a crime to be ricli? 
And who is this rich man ? The poor man of thirty 
years ago; and who, by his enterprise, and industry, 
and self-denial, has made himself wliat he is. When 
railing at the rich man, you are railijig at the arrange¬ 
ments of God, who has ordained that wealth shall at¬ 
tend upon such a life of self-denial and toil. Wealth, 
iri our favored country, is the reward of merit, of some 
kind or other. If you look into the history of the men 
now endeavored to be stigmatized as nabobs, you will 
find that their wealth is not hereditary, but the pro¬ 
duct of their own talents, and industry, and self-denial, 
and economy. Providence ever did, and ever will re¬ 
ward such a life with wealth. To attack such men, is 
to fight against the wisdom and providence of God. 

Nor is this all. If to be rich, is to become an object 
of public hatred—is to be assailed and persecuted, 
wdtat inducement has the young man to follow such a 
life of toil and self-denial, as has built up the mammoth 
fortunes in America ? The sons of the rich, if unwor¬ 
thy, become the poor of the next generation, and the 
sons of the poor, become its rich men. Thus society 
changes—the industrious, and virtuous, and saving, 
inheriting the earth, as they deserve to do. 

Sir, the people of Ohio, have no sympathy with these 
socialist notions, imported from Europe. The rights 
of property—whether it be that of corporations, or an 
individual’s—are sacred in their eyes, and will con¬ 
tinue to be so regarded. Liberty, which did not pro¬ 
tect property, would, in their opinion, cease to be 
American liberty; it would become licentiousness and 
anarchy. And does the gentleman wish to destroy this 
sacred regard for property ? To render the once poor, 
but now rich man, odious to his fellow citizens, instead 
of pointing to him as a pattern for the imitation of the 
young man, just entering upon the struggle of life ? 
Such language is anti-American—unworthy an Ameri¬ 
can citizen—inexcusable in one, born and educated on 
American soil. 

The Chair here intimated that the remarks were not 
revelant to the point. 

Mr. NASH. I am speaking to the point. I am an¬ 
swering the arguments of the gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton ; and if his remarks were revelant, so are mine. 
And certainly we are to be permitted to reply to the 
vituperation of the gentleman. Is he to bo permitted 
to denounce every man upon this floor, who does not 


vote according to his dictation, as the hirelings of cor¬ 
porations and the rich ? and are we not to be pemitted 
to reply ? Can the gentleman be permitted to estab¬ 
lish his reign of terror and denunciation, and can we 
not enter our protest against it ? 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, (in his seat.) Yet that is the gov¬ 
ernment we are under. 

Mr. NASH. Yes. We ai’e under a reign of terror— 
a government of intimidation—and the gentleman from 
Hamilton is the prime demagogue in its administration. 

1 have no more to say. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Kirkwood ; 

Mr. CAHILL demanded the previous question. 

The question then Eeing: shall the main question be 
put? the same was decided in the affirmative. 

The question then being on the amendment; 

Mr. FORBES demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 25, nays 72—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Case of Hocking, Coilings, Cook, 
Ewart, Gray, Groesbeck, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Hunter, Johnson, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lou¬ 
don, Mason, Otis, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Swan, Warren, Woodbury and Worth’ngton—25. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montoginery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Chaney, Curry, Cutler, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, 
Graham, Greene ot Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, 
Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humpbre- 
ville. Hunt, Jones, King, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Mitchell, Morchead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, 
Norris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Keemelin Rid¬ 
dle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith ol Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stid- 
ger, Struble, Swiff, Taylor, Thompsonof Shelby, Thompson of 
Stark, Way and Wilson—72. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on Mr. Swan’s amendment, 
as amended, to wit: 

All laws now in force creating private corporations may be al¬ 
tered, revoked, or repealed, whenever the public welfare shall 
require it; provided further, that just and equitable compensa¬ 
tion, to be assessed by a jury as in other cases, shall be made 
for any property of such corporation, taken, injured or destroy¬ 
ed thereby, and paid in money, in such manner as may be provi¬ 
ded by law, and all corporation^hereafter created, may be alter¬ 
ed, revoked or repealed at any time by the General Assembly, 
upon such just and equitable terms as they shall think proper. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded theyeas and nays, which 
were ordei’ed, and resulted—yeas 22, nays 75—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Blickensderfer, Case of Hocking, Case of Lick¬ 
ing, Collings, Cook, Ewait, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Humphreville, .Tohnson, Loudon, Mason, Otis, Perkins, Sawyer, 
Scott of IlaiTison, Smith of Wyandot, Swan, Taylor, Warren, 
Woodbury, and Worthington—22. 

Nay.s —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Charahei's, Chaney, Curry, Cutler, Ew¬ 
ing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett. Graham, Gray, Greene of 
Defiance, Gredn of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, 
Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Hootman, 
Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, 
I.arwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, Morehead, Morm, 
McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Patterson Peck, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Sh'b- 
hins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stideer, Struble, Swift. Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Way and Wilson—75. 

So the amendment, as amended, was rejected. 

The question then being on the engrossment of the 
report; 

Mr. STANTON demanded a division. 

The question then being on ordering the first section 
to be engrossed ; it was agreed to. • 

The question then being on ordering the second sec¬ 
tion to be engrossed; 

Mr. ANDREWS demanded the yeas and navs; 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 64, nays 32— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett. Blair, 
Blickensderfer, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook. Curiy, Lw- 
art, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene ol Defiance. Gregg, 
Hamilton, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Humpl leville, 
Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Luwrei'< >•, Lar¬ 
will, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchrll, Morris, Mi Cor- 








1254 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


mick, Nash, Norris, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Sawyer, 
Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith ot Highland, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickuey, Stid- 
ger, Struble, Swift, 'J'hompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Warren, Way, Wilson, and Woodbury—64. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montmomery, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Cutler, 
Farr, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuy¬ 
ahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Mason, 
Morehead. McCloud, Orton, Otis, Perkins, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Swan, Taylor, Vance of Champaign, 
Williams, and Worthington—32. 

So the second section was ordered to be engrossed. 
Sections three, four, five and six, were then severally 
ordered to be engrossed, a vote having been taken on 
each section, respectively. 

The question then being on ordering section seven 
to be engrossed; 

Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 58, nays 40—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Baraet of Montgom¬ 
ery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Codings, Cook, 
Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Johnson. Kirkwood, 
Larsh, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, 
Peck, Perkins, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stan¬ 
bery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Vance of Champaign, Warren, 
Way, Williams, Woodbury and Worthington—58. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Cha¬ 
ney, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, 
King, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, 
McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson. Quigley, Ranney, Scott of 
Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby and Thompson of Stark—40. 

So the seventh section was ordered to be engrossed. 
Sections eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve and thirteen 
were then severally ordered to be engrossed, a vote 
having been taken on each section, respectively. 

The question then being on ordering section 14 to be 
engrossed, 

Mr. LOUDON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 85, nays 14—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas. — Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Ham¬ 
ilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, 
King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Stickney. Stidger, Struble, Sw’an, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark Vance of Champtiign, Warren, Way, 
Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—85. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, 
Green of Ross, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Horton, Lidey, Ranney, 
Scott of Harrison, Stanbery, Stilwell and Williams—14. 

So section 14 was ordered to be engrossed. 

Sections fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, nine¬ 
teen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, twenty-three, 
twenty-four, twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven and 
twenty-eight were severally ordered to be engrossed, a 
vote having been taken, respectively, on each section. 

The question then being on ordering section 29 to be 
engrossed; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered and resulted—yeas 64, nays 35—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Cahill, 
Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Hunter, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Lead- 
better, Leech, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCormick, 
Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Quigley,Reemelin, Rid- 
die, lawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, 
Stickney, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Way, Wilson 
and Woodbury—64. 

Navs —Messrs Andrews, Barnet ot Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Blickensderler, Brown of Athens, Brown ot Carroll, Case j 


of Hocking, Case ot Licking, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Florence, 
Forbes, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Henderson, Hitchcock 
of Cuyahoga, Horton, Johnson, Larsh, Lidey, McCloud, Patter¬ 
son, Ranney, Scott of Harrison, Stanton, Stidger, Switt, Taylor, 
Thompson of Stark, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Williams 
and Worthington—35. 

So section twenty-nine was ordered to be engrossed.. 

The question then being ordering section thirty to 
be engrossed : it was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering section thirty- 
one to be engrossed; 

Mr. STIDGER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 72, nays 26—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Cut¬ 
ler, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, 
Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, 
Johnson, Jones, King, Larsh, Larwill, Loudon. Manon, Ma¬ 
son, Morehead, MorrTs, McCloud, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patter¬ 
son, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wy^- 
dot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Swift, 
Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Champaign, VVarren, Way, 
Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, and Worthington—72. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Harlan, 
Henderson, Holmes, Horton, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Mitchell, McCormick, Nash, Perkins, Ranney, 
Scott of Auglaize, Stilwell, Stidger, Taylor and Tliompson of 
Stark—26. 

So section thirty-one was ordered to be engrossed. 

The question then being on ordering section thirty- 
two to be engrossed ; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering section thirty- 
three to be engrossed; 

Mr. HOLMES demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 55, nays 43—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
ot Athens, Brown of Carroll, chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, 
Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, 
Kirkwood, Lawrence, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, Me 
Cloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Scott of Harrison, 
Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stanbery, Stilwell, Swan, Vance of Champaign, Warren, Wood¬ 
bury and Worthington—55. 

Nays —Meesi-s. Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chaney, Ewing, 
Farr, P'orbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Holmes, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, King, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patter¬ 
son, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Stan¬ 
ton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson 
of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Way, Wilhams and Wilson—43. 

So seclion thirty-three was ordered to be engrossed. 

The question then being on ordering section thirty- 
four to be engrossed; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering section thirty- 
five to be engrossed, 

Mr. RANNEY demanded a division. 

The PRESIDENT, [Mr. Sawyer in the Chair,] de¬ 
cided that the question was divisible. 

Mr. REEMELIN appealed from the decision of the 
Chair. 

The question then being, “ shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the Convention?” it was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the first part of 
section tliirty-five to be engrossed, to wit: 

No new county shall be erected by the General Assembly, 
containing less than four hundred square miles of territory, nor 
shall any county be reduced below that amount, and all laws 
providing for changes in county lines, or for the removal of coun¬ 
ty seats, shall first be submitted to the qualified voters within such 
county or counties, at a general election, and only be valid when 
approved by a majority of the voters voting at such election. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 71, nays 24— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett oi 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney 
Collings, Cook, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Har 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 1255 


Ian, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Jones, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mason, Morris,McCloud, Nash, 
Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, 
Smith ol Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stick- 
ney, SUdger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, 
Warren, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—71. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Case of Hocking, Cutler, Ewart, Gray, Groesbeck, Haw¬ 
kins, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Lawrence, Leech, Loudon, Mitchell, 
Morehead, McCormick, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Thompson 
of Shelby and Way—24. ^ 

So the first jiart of section thirty-five was ordered 
to be engrossed. 

The question then being upon ordering the second 
part of section thirty-five to be engrossed, to wit: 

Provided, however, that any county, either now or hereafter, 
containing a population of one hundred thousand or more in¬ 
habitants, may be subdivided whenever a majority of the voters 
residing; in each of the subdivisions, shall approve of the law 
passed for that purpose. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 57, nays 36— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Cutler, Ewart, 
Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Larsh, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, 
Otis, Peck, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, 
Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Warren, Williams and Woodbury 
—57. 

Nays —Messrs. Arohbold, Blair, Chaney, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hootman, Humphreville, John¬ 
son, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Stidgei-, Thompson ot Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Way, Wilson 
and Worthington—36. 

So the second part of section thirty-five was ordered 
to be engrossed. 

The question then being on ordering section thirty- 
six to be engrossed, 

Mr. EWART demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 49, nays 46—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Cahill, Cha¬ 
ney, Collings, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hootman, Hum¬ 
phreville, Hunt, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, McCormick, Orton, Perkins, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, 
Taylor, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and Wor¬ 
thington—49. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Hocking, Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, 
Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, Jones, King, Larsh, 
Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Norris, 
Otis, Patterson, Peck, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stilwell, Struble and Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby—46. 

So section thirty-six was ordered to be engrossed. 

Sections thirty-seven, thirty-eight, thirty-nine and for¬ 
ty were severally ordered to be engrossed, a vote hav¬ 
ing been taken on each, respectively. 

On motion, the report was ordered to be read a third 
time on Tuesday, the 18th instant. 

The PRESIDENT, (Mr. Sawyer in the chair,) ap¬ 
pointed Mr. Vance to fill the vacancy in the committee 
on Rules. 

On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Warren, the Conven¬ 
tion adjourned till Monday morning at 9 o’clock. 


MONDAY, February 17, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 
Prayer by Rev. Mr. Fisher. 

Mr. EWART submitted the following: 

Resolved, That this Convention will adjourn without day on 
Monday the tenth day of March next. 


Mr. LARWILL moved to lay the resolution on the 
table. 

On which motion, Mr. EWART demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 25, 
nays 65—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Blickensderfer, 
Brown ol Carroll, Chaney, Collings, Ewing, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hootman, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, 
Larwill, Manon, Patterson, Peck,Quigley, Kiddle, Stilwell,Thomp- 
sou of Shelby, Thompson of Stark and Woodbury—25. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnetof Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Cham¬ 
bers, Cook, Cutler, Ewart, Farr, Florence, P'orbes, Gillett, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, 
Holmes, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Kennon, King, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, Nash, Orton, Otis, Perkins, Ranney, Roll, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Stidger, Swift,Taylor, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson, 
Worthington and President—65. 

So the motion to lay on the table was rejected. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution ; 

Mr. STANTON moved to strike out the word 
“ tenth,” and insert in lieu thereof, the word “ seven¬ 
teenth.” 

Mr. HAMILTON moved the previous question. 

The question then being “shall the main question 
be put 7 ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment to the resolution; it was rejected. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution, 

Mr. WILLIAMS demanded the yeas and nays; 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 54, nays 38— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, 
Case of Hocking, Chaney, Cutler, Ewart, Farr, Florence, Forbes, 
Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Haw¬ 
kins, Humphreville, Hunter, King, Larsh, Lidey, Loudon, More¬ 
head, Morris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Steb¬ 
bins, Stickney, Swan, Swift, Taylor Way, Wilson, Woodbury 
and President—54. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Ewing, Graham, Green of 
Ross, Hamilton, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mitchell, McCloud, 
Nash, Peck, Riddle, Roll, Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, Thompson 
of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Williams and Worthington— 38. 

So the resolution was adopted. 

Mr. GILLETT submitted the following: 

Resolved, That no member of the Convention be permitted to 
occupy the floor more than fifteen minutes, on any subject, until 
otherwise ordered. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Cuyahoga, moved to amend 
the resolution, by inserting after the words “Resolved 
that,” the words, “from and after this day.” 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved that the resolution and 
pending amendment be laid on the table. 

On which motion, Mr. TAYLOR demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted, yeas 48, 
nays 45, as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont* 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bennett, Bi own of Carroll, Chambers, 
Collings, Curry, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Haw¬ 
kins, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock, of Geauga, Holmes, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter. Jones, Lawrence, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Manon, klason, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, 
Warren, Williams, Woodbury, Worthington and President—48. 

Nays —Messrs. Bates, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chaney, Cook, Cutler, Ewart, Ewing, 
Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Greene of Defiance, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Hendersno, Horton, Johnson, King, Larsh, Lar- 
will, Lidey, Loudon, Morris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, 
Quigley, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scottof Auglaize, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, 
Way and Wilson—45. 

So the motion to lay the resolution on the table was 
agreed to. 

Mr. NASH submitted the following: 














1256 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Resolved, Thut the Etiinding rules he so altered, that, when tho 
call for the previous question has been sustained, the previous 
question shall operate only on the immediate motion, or itroposi- 
tion pending. 

On motion of the same geiilleman, theresoliiti mwas 
laid on the table. 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, the Con¬ 
vention took up the report of the committee on the 
Elective Franchise. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Pre.sident: When this sub¬ 
ject was up the other day, I desired to say a few words 
upioii it; but the state of my health did not then per¬ 
mit me to do so, and I am greatly obliged to the Con¬ 
vention for their indulgence, in laying the report upon 
the table, at my request. 

I believe, sir, that I will ask a little further indul¬ 
gence—that I will venture to request you, if I should 
happen to occupy a few moments more than the time 
allowed by the rule, not to interrupt me, unless re¬ 
quested to do so by^ some member; and 1 trust, sir, 
that the members of the Convention wi.l listen to me 
with quiet consciences, and not interrupt the profitable 
meditations of the President. 

It is not my intention, sir, to extend my remarks be¬ 
yond the prescribed limits, but it is a little embarrass¬ 
ing when setting out upon a voyage, to feel an appre 
heusion that ymu may be compelled to make a harbor 
for want of time to complete it—and I hope my friends 
around me will remember that my position differs from 
theirs—that this is the first opportunity I have had to 
set myself right with posterity, while they, almost all 
of them, have been already embalmed. 

I will proceed to say tlien, that I am opposed to this 
report, because, in my judgment, the right to exercise 
the elective franchise cannot be made to depend upon 
caste or color. It may depend upon intelligence, up¬ 
on attachment to free institutions, upon the relations 
sustained to others, upon all the circumstances that go 
to make up the social condition; but a man’s right to 
vote no more depends upon the color of his skin than 
It does upon the color of his hair. If the word white 
expiessecl with clearness and precision, a particular 
condition, which included all persons who were quali¬ 
fied to vote, and excluded all personsw'ho werenotquali- 
fied to vote, why then, the term might be employed as 
a criterion by wdiichto determine the right of sufi’rage. 
But, sir, the word, by its owm force, means no such 
thing, and experience and observation prove that no 
such meaning can, with propriety, be attached to it. 

I differ, sir, with the gentleman from Gallia, for 
whom I have great respect, in the opinion that the 
question of suffrage is one of mere expediency’^; as a 
general proposition, I consider it a matter of right. I 
mean by that, sir, that a man who is the subject of gov¬ 
ernment, and shares in its burthens, has a right to par¬ 
ticipate in its administration ; and should we insert in 
this constitution a clause limiting the elective franchise 
to persons vvho are five feet six inches high, those who 
were thus disfranchised might w’ell complain that their 
rights were violated. It would be no answer to them 
to say that it was a mere question of expediency, be¬ 
cause it would be an arbitrary and unnecessary exclu¬ 
sion, founded upon a mere physical distinction without 
regard to character or qualifications, and without in¬ 
volving any cpiestion of merit or demerit. I do not re¬ 
gard the phrase with which we are all so familiar, that 
taxation and representation go together, as unmeaning 
declamation—-but as expressive of a general political 
truth. Such is the opinion of all writers, and such cer¬ 
tainly was the opinion of our revolutionary fathers, 
who not only asserted it with a good deal of emphasis, 
but, if I remember rightly, expended a few rounds of 
powder and ball to show that they were in earnest 
about it. 

But, sir, I do not understand this right of suff rage to 
be, as some gentlemen seem to suppose, a natural, or 
an inalienable, or an indefeasible right. Nor do I con¬ 
sider it as resting upon any general declaration of the 


natui al equality of men. It is incident to the relation 
which man sustains to society, and must be exercised 
in subserviency to the general w’elfare, and when 
sound policy, and a just regard to the public interests 
demands its restriction, the majority of the people 
have, in my opinion, a right to restrict it. It is upon 
this principle alone, that the elective franchise is with¬ 
held from females, from minors, and from aliens. 

But, sir, though the government has unlimited powd¬ 
er over this subject, it has no right to exercise it in an 
arbitrary' or capricious manner, nor to exclude any 
portion of our citizens from a representation in the 
Slate, except upon considerations of public policy, that 
look to the greatest good of the greatest number. This 
is the principle upon which we have acted in relation 
to the several classes I have referred to. We exclude 
females upon considerations of public policy’^ that look 
to their position—their happiness—the effect of mar¬ 
riage on their legal rights—and more than all, to the 
peace and harmony of the domestic relation. We ex¬ 
clude minors on account of sujiposed immaturity of 
understanding—amounting, for a considerable part of 
their miuoriiy, to incapacity*; and as some limit must 
be assigned to this disability, we Ibllow’ the rule of law, 
and invest them with the right to vote at the period of 
majority*. And we exclude aliens from a presumed ig¬ 
norance of our institutions, and want of attachment to 
them, and w’hen they have experienced the benefits of 
free government long enough to remove such ignorance 
and awaken such an attachment, w’e hasten to admit 
them to all the privileges of citizenship. , 

Sir, I do not at all agree with a doctrine which seems 
to have obtained some favor among the colored people, 
that if w*e deny them the right of suffrage, they are re¬ 
leased from all allegiance to the government. It is, in 
my opinion, a pernicious error, which, if acted upon, 
will lead to nothing but evil. It may be a sound prin¬ 
ciple, that where there is no protection, there is no al¬ 
legiance. But while the colored jjeople are voluntary 
residents in this State, and enjoy the protection of its 
laws, they must pay the tribute of obedience, and if 
they fail to do so they will forfeit one of their strongest 
claims to a participation in the elective franchise. 

The question then before us, Mr. President, is this: 
whether, upon the principles stated, the colored peo¬ 
ple should be deprived, in this comstitution, of the right 
of suffrage ? You cannot exclude them on account of 
color, or of any physical peculiarity; but I admit that 
if, upon a careful and candid examination of their con¬ 
dition, it appears that they are unfit to share this priv¬ 
ilege, and that the general good demands their exclu¬ 
sion, you may then exclude them. The case resolves 
itself into a mere question of fact, depending upon 
their social condition, including, of course, their rela¬ 
tion to the white race. 

Sir, during our session at Columbus last summer, my 
honorable friend from Franklin dwelt with great pow¬ 
er and eloquence upon the progress of our people du¬ 
ring the life of the old constitution, and upon the un¬ 
exampled growth and prosperity* of the Stale under 
its wise provisions. It was a glow’ing picture, and 
drawn by the hand of a master. But, sir, when you 
consider the difficulties they have had to encounter, 
and the privations to which they have been subjected, 
you will find the progress of the colored people to have 
been quite as remarkable as that of the whites. 

Sir, when the constitution was adopted, the colored 
people were a mere handful—and now they number 
more than twenty*-three thousand. Then they were 
poor, and ignorant and degraded. Now, sir, their tax¬ 
able property, in nineteen counties in the State, amounts 
to three millions of dollars. 

There is a good'degree of intelligence among them. 
They* have churches and schools, supplying abundantly 
the means of intellectual and moral culture—as a class 
(though with many exceptions,) they are industrious 
and thriving, amply 8U])plied with the necessaries of 
life—laboring with great earnestness, and great effect, 







1257 


CONVENTION REPOKTS. 


Jor their own improvement, and at this moment, in all 
hat imparts value to character, and goes to quality 
men for self government, they are superior to the peo¬ 
ple of Mexico, or of Soutix A.merica. 

Why, sir, vve have about three hundred of these peo¬ 
ple in the city of Cleveland, and I venture to sav that 
there is not a man among them who is not qualified to 
vote. As long as 1845 ago twenty colored men in that city 
had property which was estimated at thirty-six thou¬ 
sand dollars. They have various organizations for their 
improvement, and their children are educated in our 
common schools, with the white children. 

The general statement I have made of the condition 
of these people is confirmed by gentlemen here, from 
various parts of the State, who all disagree with me 
upon the question now under discussion; and ev'eu in 
this city the statistics will show that they are in a bet¬ 
ter condition than a considerable portion of the inhab¬ 
itants of Continental Europe. The truth is, sir, that if 
we apply to them the same measure of qualification 
that vye do to the whites, they are Us well qualified to 
exercise the right of suffrage as thousands of white vo¬ 
ter's in Uiis or any other State. 1 cannot go into an ex¬ 
amination of facts. Icannotlinger amongdetails. The 
sword of Damocles is suspended over me, and I must 
go on—‘‘ Tempus fugif, irreparabile tempxis." The col¬ 
ored people are, many of them, native born citizens, 
interested in all the objects of government, and taxed 
for its support, and they now ask us for representation. 
1 say, sir, that they have a prima facie right to it, that 
they are not required to come armed with facts or ar¬ 
guments, but that the burthen of proof is on us to show 
their want of qualifications, and the public necessity of 
their exclusion, before we can deny their request. 

And now, sir, what I complain of is, that the commit¬ 
tee have acted in this matter without investigation. In¬ 
stead of instituting a careful inquiry into the nature 
and foundation of their claims, they have presumed 
everything against them—and without facts—without 
statistics—and without any evidence of unfitness, they 
have denied to those twenty-three thousand free citi- 
izens of the State, the right to be represented. 

Sir, this question has been treated as if we knew 
nothing about it; as if the inquiry was now instituted, 
for the first time, whether colored men can, under any 
circumstances, be permitted to vote. It is a practical 
question, and it is better to dispose of it in the light of 
experience than by speculative reasoning. 

Sir, the constitution of the United States, recognizes 
no distinction of color, as the badge of citizenshij). At 
its adoption, white men and colored men voted side by 
side, as they had before fought side by side, in the rev¬ 
olution that gave it birth. 

In many of the southern States, colored freemen 
were permitted to vote for a considerable period after 
the constitution of the United States was adopted, 
and in North Carolina, there was no distinction be¬ 
tween white and colored freemen, for more than fifty 
years. 

Why, Mr. President, the colored men of the State, 
voted for delegates to the convention, that framed this 
very constitution, under which we live, and in New 
York, and in all the New England States, except Con¬ 
necticut, either with, or without a property qualifica¬ 
tion, they vote now, and have always voted. They 
have discharged this duty as good citizens, without be¬ 
ing molested, and without practical inconvenience to 
any body. 

I say then, Mr. President, that so far as we have ex¬ 
perience upon this subject, it is in favor of putting on 
these people the livery of freemen. 

They are here among us, and here they will remain 
in all time to come. Many of them, as I have before 
said, are native born, strong in their local attachments, 
having no other home on the face of the earth, and 
unable to seek one with the freedom that white men 
can, on account of the prejudice-they everywhere en¬ 
counter, and the spirit of injustice which seems to 


wait upon their movements, in so many of our sister 
States. 

These considerations show that we have a common 
interest with them, in everything that tends to their 
elevation and improvement. 

But it is said, sir, that this doctrine of equality of po¬ 
litical rights between the whites and the blacks, is ut¬ 
terly impracticable, and that there is an impassable 
gulf between the two races. I have heard a great deal 
about this impassable gulf, but it has been bridged so 
often that it has lost its terrors. The experience of 
seven States of the Union, for more than half a century, 
is a suffiicient answer to this objection, at least so far 
as it relates to sufirage. 

Again, it is said that if you confer this right upon 
the colored people, the prejudices against them are so 
strong, in many parts of the State, that they could not 
exercise it. I can hardly comprehend such an objec¬ 
tion as this, but I am bound to believe, from the de¬ 
claration of intelligent gentleman upon this floor, that 
there is something in it. 

But, sir, the people of Ohio are a law-abiding peo¬ 
ple, and when the blacks are clothed with a constitu¬ 
tional right Ip vote, I cannot but think it will be respec¬ 
ted. There may be some practical difficulties at first 
—there may be uneasiness and excitement in some 
places, but if good men stand up, as they always will 
stand up, for the constitution and laws, these etfects 
will be transient, and be followed by a quiet exercise of 
the right. 

Besides sir, my friend from Gallia, in considering this 
question, has overlooked, entirely, those fountains of 
love for the people which are bubbling in the bosom of 
patriots all over the land, and which make them wil¬ 
ling to expend their strength in almost any office, that 
may be conferred upon them. 

Why sir, the moment you give men of color a right 
to vote, and impart to them the power of being useful 
to these persons, the scene will change. 

You will see the very men who now trample them 
underfoot, sitting by their side, discoursing with them 
upon brotherly love, enlarging, with infinite relish, 
upon the beauties of democratic equalityjand whispering 
in their ears grave and serious doubts, whether looking 
at all the facts of the case, it is not better on the whole 
to be black than white. 

Again, it is said sir, that in many parts of the State, 
these people are too ignoi’ant and degraded to exercise 
such a right—but sir the question does not depend upon 
their condition in a few localities, but upon their con¬ 
dition as a class. We extend the elective franchise to 
our foreign population—not because they are all quali¬ 
fied to vote, but because, as a class, there is sufficient 
intelligence among them, to make it safe to admit them 
to citizenship, and because the elective franchise is 
itself an important means to their elevation. 

Finally, sir, it is said that it will not be for their hap¬ 
piness to give them this right. Undoubtedly sir, this is 
a very affecting view of the subject. We can buckle 
on armor against prejudice, but who can contend with 
compassion. It is a peculiar feature however, of this 
species of compassion, that it is confined to people of 
color. We extend this right to foreigners for the very 
purpose of making them happier, and improving their 
condition, and it is not easy to see, why its extension 
to the colored people would not have the same effect. 

But, sir, I will say that, notwithstanding the views 
I have expressed, I would not, if I had the power, in¬ 
sert in this constitution, any provision on this subject, 
which would do injustice to those parts of the State 
most interested in it, or which would put in hazard the 
constitution itself. In a matter so eminently practiced 
as this, and on questions demanding no sacrifice of prin¬ 
ciple, I will stand upon the ground of conciliation and 
compromise. I will vote for every thing which will, 
in my judgment, promote harmony, and against every 
thing that will disturb it, because I desire that this in¬ 
strument, when we send it forth among the people 












1258 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


may be the messenger of peace, and not of dissension. 

These, sir, are the general views, very briefly and 
imperfectly expressed, of my constituents, upon this 
question of free suffrage, and though received by the 
Convention in a spirit of great liberality, I am aware 
that every where else in this part of the State, and all 
around me, they are liable to misconstruction and per¬ 
version. Sir, there is a sensitiveness in this quarter, 
upon every question that relates to the people of color, 
of which I had heretofore no conception. Every move¬ 
ment, and even every throb of sympathy, in their be¬ 
half, seems to be regarded as a direct or indirect at¬ 
tack upon the cherished institutions of the South, and 
as indicating dissatisfaction to the Union. Sir, they 
don’t understand us at all. 

Undoubtedly the people of northern Ohio feel a deep 
interest in the condition of the colored race, but they 
understand perfectly their own position. They know 
that slavery in the States must be left to the exclusive 
control of the people of those States, and cannot be 
abolished without their consent—and though they de¬ 
plored its existence, though they regard it as an evil, 
and bitter thing; though they will labor to prevent its 
existence and mitigate its rigor, yet after all, they will 
adhere in good faith to all the provisions of the consti¬ 
tution that have relation to it, and not permit their 
sympathy to betray them into forgetfulness of their 
obligations. 

But, sir, the condition of the colored people at home 
is widely different, and you may rest assured, that in 
every enterprise, that looks to their elevation and ad¬ 
vancement, the peo[)le of the Reserve will head the 
column, and consider the place where they can do 
them the most good, as the post of duly. 

Sir, let me not be misunderstood in this matter. Let 
it not be supposed, from what I have said, that those 1 
represent, confine their action to the free blacks. No, 
sir. They earnestly desire the emancipation of the col¬ 
ored race, and while life lasts, will labor for its accom¬ 
plishment. But, sir, they will not resort for success, to 
unconstitutional means—that they know would defeat 
the very object they have in view. They rely upon 
other agencies—upon a more enlightened public opin¬ 
ion—upon that great law of progress of which so much 
is said, that is moving upon the minds and purposes of 
men, the world over; and, above all, on the spirit of 
Christianity, which is performing its work of mercy in 
this world, revealing in its own light the features of 
oppression every where, and turning the hearts of men 
** as the rivers of water are turned.” 

But sir, with all their deep feeling upon this sub¬ 
ject, they are good men and true. Their hearts are 
turned to this union, as the heart of one man. They 
will stand by it “ in all time of its tribulation, and in 
all time of its prosperity,” and they will transmit the 
heritage of freedom which they received from their fa¬ 
thers, unimpaired to their children. 

Sir, I will not dwell upon the subject. The tele¬ 
graph of this morning brings us intelligence that con¬ 
tains the promise of good things to come. At this mo¬ 
ment sir, while I am speaking, the first locomotive is 
on its way from Columbus to Cleveland, proclaiming 
that the space between the nothern and southern 
boundary of the State is annihilated, and that the Ohio 
River and Lake Erie are side by side. I hope sir, that 
this great event will be the harbinger of a better state 
of feeling—that it will deepen and multiply the chan¬ 
nels of intercourse between the different sections of 
the State—that it will correct misapprehension and re¬ 
move prejudice on all sides; and be the means of ma¬ 
king us in heart, as we now are, in name, one people. 

Mr. SAWYER said he could not agree with his friend 
from Cuyahoga, [Mr. Andrews,] in his views of this 
subject. He would be glad to do so, were it not for a 
few things that stood in the way. He knew that he 
meant well, but believed him to be misguided, and al¬ 
though he had no doubt but he was a sincere friend of 
humanity, he was afraid that the measures he advoca¬ 


ted, if carried into effect, would operate rather to the 
injury than to the benefit of the race whose condition 
he sought to improve. 

The gentleman wants all the colored population ol 
Ohio to have a vote. Now he had one radical objec¬ 
tion to it. It was this: Every negro in Ohio is a Whig, 
and if he is allowed to vote, the Whigs will get a great 
accession of strength. The Whigs have too many vo¬ 
ters now, for the good of the country. He believed 
that if the Union is to beperpetuated, it is to be through 
the perpetuation of democratic principles, and he did 
not want to put in the hands of the enemies of a repub¬ 
lican form of government, the means to overthrow it. 

His next objection was this: He believed the whole 
continent small enough to try the experiment of adem- 
ocratic or republican form of government. He had, in 
accordance with that opinion, in the whole course of 
his public life, always gone for hewing olf a slice from 
every other country upon the continent, which was 
governed by different laws, and had aided to reduce it 
to the possession of the Union. Texas, Oregon, New 
Mexico and California had been acquired, and he hoped 
that these accumulations would never cease, until we 
have the whole country in which to try the experi¬ 
ment. He believed himself to be a better friend of 
the black man, than the gentleman from Cuyahoga— 
and that gentleman must not lake him for an enemy to 
that people. He was a colonizationist. He would 
send them to another country where they may estab¬ 
lish a government and institutions of their own, and 
enjoy the rights of citizens. 

He would ask gentlemen who were in favor of this 
provision, if they did not believe that if it should be 
engrafted it would defeat the constitution ? Did they 
believe that the colored people of the State, when they 
should come up to give their votes at the polls, would 
be allowed to do so ? He would ask those gentlemen 
if they desii'ed to see the colored race annihilated from 
the face of the earth, as they would be by the adoption 
of this provision. He wished the blacK man a better 
fate. This might not be the case; but he would say 
here, in the presence of God and of this Convention, 
that he believed that the adoption of this principle 
would be the signal for force, for bloodshed, for intes¬ 
tine division and persecution, such as would put an end 
to the colored people of Ohio, or drive them beyond 
the limits of the State. 

He would recur to a fact that happened in this city 
a few days ago. A citizen of a sister State passed down 
the river a few days ago with a slave in his possession. 
He found it necessary to land here, and the moment he 
landed, his slave was kidnapped and taken away from 
his possession by certain pretended friends of the col¬ 
ored race, and hurried away beyond his reach. Now, 
the I'esult of such a practice is this—that a prejudice 
will be raised against the State of Ohio, and the peo¬ 
ple of the Southern slaveholding States will not pass 
through the State and expose their servants to be kid¬ 
napped and taken away. The practice is wrong as its 
consequences are mischievous. It was in bad faith to 
the sister States, and he believed that the people of 
Cincinnati should take club law in their hands and run 
this mischievous set of men out of the city. 

Mr. ANDREWS trusted that the gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize did not understand him as advocating the prac¬ 
tices which he was noticing. 

Mr. SAWYER. No—the gentleman has too much 
high minded honor to be guilty of such an act. 

But the doctrine of negro suffrage is not the doctrine 
of the people of the State, and has been condemned 
by them. Nevertheless, he was willing to try its 
strength with the people, and if the gentleman would 
frame a section to be placed before the people for their 
adoption or rejection, he would do all he could to aid 
him in bringing the question fairly up for trial. But 
he would ask his friend from Cuyahoga, if he was 
willing that the black man should enjoy the same pri¬ 
vileges as the white—whether he would have them 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 1259> 


become officers, and hold the places of justices of the 
peace, judges of courts, or any other that may need to 
be filled? 

Mr. ANDREWS said that if there should be an intel¬ 
ligent colored man in the county of Auglaize, and the 
people of bis township desired him to hold the office of 
justice of the peace, he had no objection to it. 

Mr. SAWYER would object. He was a better friend 
of the colored man, and did not wish to see him driven 
out ol the State by club law, or by any other of those 
violent means that would inevitably result from an at¬ 
tempt to collier political importance upon him. 

Mr. TAYLOR wished to make a single remark in 
reply to the allusion made by the gentleman from 
Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyicr] to the grievances sutfered by 
southern men, in being deprived of their property 
when they brought it into the State. If there was an 
error and a public wrong here, he would say that 
southern courts and southern judiciaries had estab¬ 
lished it as the law of the land. It was the courts of 
the southern States that first established the principle, 
that when a slave is voluntarily taken by his master 
to a free State, the slave is by that act emancipated 
and made free. Louisiana, Kentucky, and Mississippi 
had declared the doctrine, and the courts of other 
States, in concurring in the doctrine, had only follow¬ 
ed in their wake. 

The language of the constitution is this : No per¬ 
son held to service or labor in one State, under the 
laws thereol, escaping into another.” So that it is on¬ 
ly in case of escape that the slave can be reclaimed. If 
a citizen of Virginia or Kentucky voluntarily brings 
his slave into a tree State, he thereby makes him a 
free man. Such is the law of the land, and he was 
willing to lend his feeble aid to enforce that law. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, did not intend to speak 
to the question now under debate, his object being to 
set himself right in regard to a certain proposition of¬ 
fered by himself upon a previous occasion, in relation 
to the qualifications of those w’ho should exercise the 
elective franchise. It had been said, that he had been 
in favor of a property qualification, and that idea had 
gone abroad about the State, and among his constitu¬ 
ents. There was no such thing. His proposition, in 
substance, was that every individual charged with a 
State, county, town, or township tax, or who had per¬ 
formed labor on the public highway, or made a pay¬ 
ment instead of such labor, should be admitted to the 
privileges of an elector. He had now a proposition, 
substantially the same, and he would now, for the pur¬ 
pose of procuring its insertion, move that the report be 
recommitted to the committee that reported it, with 
instructions to strike out the first section, and insert 
the following: 

In all elections, not otherwise provided for in this constitution 
every white male citizen of the United States, of the age oftwen, 
ty-one years, who shall have resided in the State one year next 
receding the election, and who has paid, or is charged with a 
tate, county, township, or ward tax, or who is compelled to labor 
on the public highways, or pay an equivalent, shall have the rioht 
of an elector; but no elector shall vote except in the election dis¬ 
trict in which shall reside at the time of the election 

Now, it will be seen that this amendment contains 
no new proposition, but is substantially the provision 
contained in the present constitution. And I did not 
think that I would subject myself to the charge of 
introducing a property qualification. It says nothing 
about property, but simply that he pays a tax, or be 
charged with one, or be compelled to labor upon the 
public highway. It is, therefore, evident that if he has 
no property upon which a tax can be levied, he cannot 
be compelled to labor on the public roads. It will, 
therefore be optional with him whether he does any¬ 
thing to support the government that affords him pro¬ 
tection, or not. I hold it as a maxim, that an individu¬ 
al who participates in the benefits of government, ought 
to be willing to do something in support of it, and upon 
his willingness should depend his right to exercise the 
elective franchise, and not upon the fact of his being 
the owner of property. 


He would ask gentlemen if this looked like an at- 
temp't to impose a property qualification; and he 
would appeal to his constituents if there was any 
foundation for the charge that had been made against 
him ? He would state his own understanding of the effect 
of the rules by which the rights and qumifications of 
an elector are defined and ascertained. What is re¬ 
quired of an elector ? He must reside in the State one 
year previous to the election. What is the object of 
this regulation? That he may cast his vote properly, 
in view of the interests of the community in which he 
resides. This is all proper and right. Nobody dis¬ 
putes it. It is the same provision we now have under 
the present constitution, and its justice has never 
been questioned. If the person has no property ta 
be taxed, he may still be allowed to enjoy the right of 
sufi'rage, provided he performs labor on the public 
highway, or pays its equivalent. This he is not com¬ 
pelled to do unless he has property, but he may do- 
so if he chooses, and if he is not willing to do this 
much for the support of the government, he should not 
be allowed to vote. This i.s no restriction upon the 
right of suffrage any more than the requirement that 
the individual shall have resided one year in the 
State, or shall have attained the age of twenty-one- 
years, is a restriction. If a man is unwilling to do> 
anything for the support of the government, it is no> 
more than right that he should be deprived of its priv¬ 
ileges. 

The question then being on recommitting the report,, 
with instructions ; 

Mr. WORTHINGTON demanded a division of the- 
question. 

The question then being on the recommitment; 

Mr. WORTHINGTON desired first, to call the atten¬ 
tion of the Convention to the fourth section of the re¬ 
port, for the purpose of suggesting the expediency of 
inserting a provision giving to the General Assembly 
the power to exclude from the exercise of the elective- 
franchise, if it should become necessary, all paupers- 
who are maintained at the public expense. He did not 
know whether this would be deemed a Democratic 
measure or not, but he was sure it would meet the ap¬ 
probation of all who know the manner in which pau¬ 
pers, maintained at the public expense in large cities, 
are brought up to the pollse/i masse, and the influences 
under which they are made to vote. 

Mr. W. said that in regard to the question of negro 
suffrage, he was glad to observe the spirit in which it 
had been treated by the gentleman from Cuyahoga, 
[Mr. Andrews.] To the part of the State which ho 
had the honor to represent, the residence and especial¬ 
ly the immigration of blacks is a serious, practical 
question, and a serious grievance, and we are better 
acquainted with the condition of the colored popula¬ 
tion in the State than he [Mr. A.] possibly can be. He 
would ask him, before he finally decided upon the pro¬ 
priety of striking out the word ‘‘ white,” to listen pa¬ 
tiently to a few reasons which he would render against 
it. 

The gentleman first contends that the term “ white” 
is vague in its signification and has no practical 
meaning. Such might have been the case, if the word 
had not received a practical construction for near 
50 years, but there is now no question that may with 
more safety be submitted to any of our tribunals, from 
the Supreme Court to the Justice of the Peace. Of all 
the races in the world, these tw’o are the most distinct 
and unlike, as well morally and mentally as physicul- 
ly, and there could be no doubt, but of all the causes of 
discord that could exist to render a political communi¬ 
ty divided and unhappy and unfortunate, this was one 
of the most prolific and enduring. Divisions in caste, 
owing to differences in race, have existed for three 
thousand years among the people of India, and they 
remain to this day as distinct, as well marked, and as 
insurmountable as they were at the beginning. 

Now, if there is any form of government which 












1260 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


would seem to demand, in order to ensure its perpetu¬ 
ity, an entire social equality among its citizens, that 
form is the republican, and this because the rights of 
each citizen are greater. It was stated by Plato, as a 
reason why political and social equality existed among 
all the citizens of Athens, that all who were entitled to 
a vote were of the same race, and I cannot remember 
an instance in history where two widely diiFering ra¬ 
ces preserved for any length of time even an approach 
to social and political equality, in countries where po¬ 
litical privileges existed at all. 

The gentleman says that at the time of the revolu¬ 
tion, there was less prejudice against the black race 
than there is at present. That is undoubtedly true ; 
and it is also true that the prejudice, if you will so call 
it, has increased at each successive period of time; 
and the irresistible inference from such a state of facts 
is, that the longer the two i-aces occupy the same soil, 
the greater will be their repulsion, and the stronger the 
prejudice; and the gentleman who would seek to fas¬ 
ten them still more strongly to this land, by conferring 
upon them the privileges of citizenship, may be a very 
kind friend, and a very warm friend of the colored 
race, but he will pardon me for questioning if he be a 
very enlightened friend. 

The gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] is op¬ 
posed to negro suffrage because he says the blacks are 
all Whigs, and the Whigs would by the act gain a 
large accession of force. Now the blacks, in our part 
of the State, are not only mostly Democrats, but near¬ 
ly all Hards. I have lately seen a letter giving the 
opinions of a leader among them, who thinks that Hen¬ 
ry Clay ought to be dead, and with him all the Whig 
party. Tliis, however, is a question above all party, 
and I am surprised to observe gentlemen attempting to 
torture it into a mere party affair. The two races are 
hero upon our soil, to the great injury of both, and es¬ 
pecially of the negro race, and for the sake of both 
he would desire their separation. And he would do 
IDthing having a tendency to induce the blacks and 
mulattoes of the adjoining States to migrate into Ohio’ 

As their true friend, he w'ould far ratlier aid and en‘ 
courage their emigration to another republic—the re¬ 
public of Liberia, in the land of their ancestor’s, where 
they may enjoy undisputed all those social and politi¬ 
cal privileges from which they must for ever be debar 
red in this country, by the universal sentiment of the 
white race—a sentiment the force of which is felt by 
the gentleman from Cuyahoga as well as myself, let 
him reason about the matter as he will. 

And as a friend to this unfortunate race, he would 
say to them that it is all idle to suppose that this senti¬ 
ment—prejudice, if you will—can be expected to de¬ 
crease. On the contrary, all experience proves that it 
is always aggravated and increased by time, so that ir 
the end, if the two races are not separated there wii! 
bo a collision, the result of which may easily be pre¬ 
dicted. 

The fable of the iron and earthen pot will be re-enact¬ 
ed, and the weaker vessel will be dashed in pieces. 

I believe that a res- 


The demand having been seconded by five members 
rising, and the main question having been ordered, 
viz: Shall the report be read the third time ? 

Mr. HOLMES demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered and resulted, yeas 77, nays 11—as fol¬ 
lows : , „ 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgome^, Ben¬ 
nett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown ot Carroil, 
Cahill. Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cutler, Ewart. Ewing, Flor¬ 
ence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Greene of Detiance, Green ot Itoss, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitca- 
cock ot Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, 
Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leatt- 
botter, Lidey, I.oudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, 
ris, McCloud, Nash, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, ^eraelin, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith ot Hign 
land, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, .Stanton, 


Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, 
olution was passed this morning, that the Convention 
would adjourn on the 10th of March. The question 
before us is upon the final passage of a report which 
has been agreed to by the entire Convention with the 
exception of ten or twelve—some gentleman says thir¬ 
teen votes—and we have now taken up two hours of 
time with its discussion, resulting in amotion to recom¬ 
mit. If I understand the subject, it is substantially the 
same as the corresponding provision of the old const! 
tution, about which there has been very little complaint 
except as to one single word. It seems to me there¬ 
fore that we ought to dispense with this discussion, if 
we are to get through with our labors during the pres¬ 
ent year: much more if v^e are to get through by the 
SOth of March. 

From these considerations I am induced to demand 
the previous question. 


Stebbins, 

StilweTl, Stickney, Stidger, Swan,Thompson of Shelby, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson, Worthington and 

Nays— Mes.sr8. Andrews, Barnett of Preble, Cook, Gray, Hkch- 
cock of Cuyahoga, Humphreville, Hunter, Otis, Perkins, Scott ot 
Harrison, and Switt—11. 

So the Report was read a third time and passed. 

On motion, the Report was referred to the committee 
on Revision, Enrollment and Arrangement. 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geapga, the 
Convention re.solved itself into a committee of the 
W'hole, [Mr. Chaney in the Chair,] and took up the 
cousideration of the report No. 2, ol the committee on 
Corporations other than Banking, introduced by Mr. 
Norris,] chairman of said committee, on Tuesday, the 
lllhinst. 

On motion of Mr. STANTON, the committee agreed 
to consider the report by sections, upon their first read¬ 
ing from the chair. 

The CHAIRMAN then read and announced the con¬ 
sideration of the first section, which is as follows : 

Sec. 1. The General Assembly shall provide by law, for such 
county and township officers as may be necessary for the efficient 
transportation of the business thereof. 

Mr. REEMELIN propo.sed to amend, by striking out 
the word “ transportation,” (a clerical error,) aud in- 
inserting ill lieu thereof the word ‘‘ transaction which 
was agreed to. 

No further ameudment being offered to the first sec¬ 
tion, 

The CHAIRMAN proceeded to read and announce 
for consideration the second section, which is as fol¬ 
lows : 

Sec. 2. The term of office of all county officers, now or here¬ 
after provided for by law, and not otherwise fixed in this consti¬ 
tution, shall be for two years, to commerce and be computed 
from the first Monday of May, succeeding their election, and un¬ 
til their successors are elected and qualified; and all such officers 
shall be elected by the qualified electors of the respective coun¬ 
ties, on the first Monday of April, biennially. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD proposed to amend, by striking 
out the word “ are,” and inserting in lieu thereof, the 
words “ shall be,” so that the clause should read “ un¬ 
til their successors shall be elected.” 

The amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK moved to strike out the words: 
be for two years,” and insert in lieu thereof, these 
words: “ not exceeding three years.” 

Mr. REEMELIN. Our present practice of electing 
county commissioners, surveyors and recorders, has 
sometimes given rise to mistakes at the polls, by the 
people supposing that all the officers of the county 
were to be elected for two years ; and to avoid mistakes 
I would prefer that county officers should all be elect¬ 
ed for the same regular term of two years. I am op¬ 
posed to a longer term than two years, because the 
longer the term, the farther we get away from the peo¬ 
ple. I would prefer that the township officers should 
be elected for one year, the county officers for two 
years, and the State officers for three years; and this 
seems to have been the idea of the framers of the old 
constitution. If the gentlemen from Geauga, [Mr. 
Hitchcock,] would modify his amendment, I would 
propose to him the following: Insert after the word 
“ officers,” in the first line, the words ‘‘ county commis¬ 


sioners. 


















CONVENTION REPORTS. 1261 


jVlr. NASH. I woukl suggest that the original 
ameudmeut is the most practical and desirable, because 
it will leave the term of county officers just where 
they are now, to be fixed by law. 

Mr. AKCHBOLD. My conviction is, that we had 
not better array against the adoption of this constitu¬ 
tion, ihe whole army ol county ollicers iii Lnio Slate. 

Mr. STANTON. I think the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] will not har¬ 
monize with the residue of the section. These elec¬ 
tions for counter officers are to be held on the first 
Monday in April, biennially, whilst his explanation 
contemplates the election ol one county commissioner 
every year. If the gentleman would be willing to 
modify his proposition, I have jirepared an amendment, 
which I will read for information, which would meet 
this difficulty, and which I will otfer, if the gentleman 
should be disposed to accept it. It is as follows: 
Striking out the word “ biennially,” and inserting 
these words: “ in such manner as may be prescribed 
by law.” 

Mr. MANON. When the proposition of the gentle¬ 
man from Geauga shall be disposed of, and whether it 
be decided in one way or the other, I shall then move 
to strike out all after the word “ officers,” to the word 
“years,” and insert these words in their place: “not 
provided for in this constitution, shall be provided for 
by law.” 

I have no objection to leaving the whole matter to 
the Legislature. I know of no other officers, except 
county commissioners and the directors of the poor 
house, who should be elected for a longer term than 
two years, and I hope the Legislature would not confer 
a longer terra upon any other county officers. 

Mr. LIDEY moved to amend the amendment by ad¬ 
ding after the word “commissioners,” the words, “ and 
directors of county infirmaries.” 

This amendment was adopted, and the question then 
recurring upon the adoption of the amendment, as 
amended, it was decided in the affirmative. 

Mr. BENNETT proposed further to amend the sec¬ 
tion, by striking out the last word of the section, to 
wit, the word “ biennially,” and inserting these words, 
“ annually, in such manner as may be prescribed by 
law.” 

Mr. BENNETT said the object of this amendment 
was to make the latter part of the section harmonize 
with the preceding part. He desired, also, to obviate 
the necessity of electing all the county officers in the 
same year. He considered that the present practice in 
this respect, could not be very objectionable. 

Mr. REEMELIN suggested, that the gentleman’s ob¬ 
ject could be better efi’ected by a modification of that 
portion of the constitution having reference to the ex¬ 
piration of the terms of office. ^ 

Mr. BENNETT. In the event of such a change, to 
suit his views, the Convention would have to go back 
again and change this section. 

Mr. REEMELIN had no objections to the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Tuscarawas, [Mr. Ben¬ 
nett,] if he would drop the word “ annually.” 

Mr. BENNETT had no objections to such modifica¬ 
tion, and his amendment being modified accordingly; 
it was agreed to. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, proposed further to amend 
the section, by striking out the words, “ shall be for 
two years, to commence and be computed from the 
first Monday of May, succeeding their election, and,” 
and inserting in lieu thereof, these words, “shall hold 
their office.” 

Mr. REEMELIN desired to offer a few considera¬ 
tions which satisfied him that the term of these officers 
should all commence on the first Monday in May. 
The committee had selected this point of time because 
these terms could begin and end at this period of the 
year with the least inconvenience, especially with refer¬ 
ence to the term of the county auditor and county treas¬ 
urer, and he supposed it would make very little dif¬ 


ference with the prosecuting attorney at what time his 
term should commence. They were desirous also 
that these officers should enter upon their duties soon 
after they were elected. According to the arrange¬ 
ments of the existing law, with reference to county 
elections, it was nearly a year after the election of a 
cuuutj Utasurcr beioie he could be invested with his 
office. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, supposed that this difficul¬ 
ty would be obviated by the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Tuscarawas, [Mr. Bennett] but he had 
made this motion with the intention, if it should pre¬ 
vail, of offering another amendment, striking out the 
first Monday in April, and inserting the first Monday 
in October. He should do this because the time of our 
election of county officers was now familiar to all the 
people, and he saw no good reason for changing it. 
He hoped the amendment would succeed. 

Mr. Smith’s amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend, by striking out the 
whole section, and inserting in lieu thereof the follow¬ 
ing: 

fcjEC. 2. There shall be elected in each of the counties of this 
State, on the second Tuesday of October, by the qualified voters 
therein, one sheriff, one coroner, one county treasurer, one coun¬ 
ty auditor, and one county recorder, who shall hold their offices 
respectively, for the term of two years, and until their successors 
are elected and qualified; and shall perform such duties as may 
be required by law. There shall also be elected, at the same time 
and manner, in each county, three county commissioners, who 
shall hold their offices for the term of three years, and shall be so 
aiTanged as that one may be elected annually. 

A division of the question having been demanded, 
and the first question being upon striking out, it was 
decided in the affirmative—yeas 42, nays not counted. 

On motion of Mr. EWART, the committee now rose, 
and 

The CHAIRMAN reported that they had come to no 
conclusion. 

On motion of Mr. BATES, it was ordered that the 
committee of the whole be discharged from the fur¬ 
ther consideration of the subject. 

On motion by Mr. BENNETT, the Convention tcok 
a recess until 2^ o’clock, P. M. 

2 ^ o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending, being on agreeing to the 
amendments made in committee of the whole, to re¬ 
port number two of the committee on Corporations, 
other than Corporations of Banking; 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved a call of the Conven¬ 
tion, which was ordered, and 

Messrs. Archbold, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, Cook, 
Cutler, Dorsey, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holt, Kennon, Kirk¬ 
wood, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Loudon, Mason, McCormick, Nash, 
Perkins, Riddle, Sawyer, Stanbery Stickney, Swan, Thompson 
of Shelby, Townshend, Vance of Champaign and Williams were 
found absent. 

On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, all further proceed¬ 
ings under the call were dispensed with. 

The question being on the first amendment of the 
committee of the whole, to the report of the commit¬ 
tee on Corporations, other than Corporations of Bank¬ 
ing, to wit: In section 1, near the end of the same, 
strike out the wmrd “ transportation,” and insert in 
lieu thereof, the word “ transactionit was agreed to. 

The question then being on the second amendment, 
to wit: In section 2, in the early part of the same, af¬ 
ter the word “constitution,” insert the words “ except 
county commissioners and directors of poor houses.” 

Mr. LARSH moved to amend the amendment, by 
striking out the words “ poor houses,” and inserting 
in lieu thereof, the words “ county infirmary which 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment, as 
amended; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the third amendment, 
to wit: In section 2, in the last line of the same, strike 
out the word “ biennially,” and insert in lieu thereof, 
the words in such manner as may be prescribed by 
lawit was agreed to. 


I 









1262 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The question then being on the fourth amendment, 
!to wit: strike out section 2; 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved to perfect the words 
• proposed to be stricken out, by striking out all after 
the word “ constitution,” in the early part of section 
2, and inserting in lieu of the words proposed to be 
stricken out, the following; 

Shall be for such term as shall be provided by law; and all 
such officers shall be elected by the qualified electors of the re¬ 
spective counties, on the first Monday of April, 

Mr. GREEN said he desired to get rid of the provis¬ 
ion that the term of offices here should commence at a 
particular time. He preferred that the whole matter 
should be provided for by law ; except that these of¬ 
ficers should be elected on the first Monday in April. 
He desired, also, to separate the election of county of¬ 
ficers from the election of State officers. The office of 
sherifi’, for example, was an office of considerable im¬ 
portance in every county, to which the people would 
very much direct their attention, so much so, that he 
bad seen the election of a member of Congress and 
Governor made very much to depend upon the elec¬ 
tion of a certain man to the Sheriffalty. 

He concurred fully with the gentleman from Ham¬ 
ilton, in the desire to divorce these elections of county 
officers from all connection with party politics. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble. If the gentleman from 
Ross was really apprehensive that the sheriff'candida- 
-cy would override and control the election of higher 
•officers, what must be his apprehension when the sher- 
^iff'alty is brought into contact with the election ot town- 
;'( 3 hip and inferior county officers ? 

Mr. BENNETT suggested that the gentleman from 
Ross had not included in his exception the county 
•roommissioners, and the overseers of the poor houses. 

Mr. GREEN then had leave to modify his arnend- 
:tneivt so as to include them. 

Mr. •G^.eek’s amendment was now rejected; and the 
-question recurred upon the amendment of the commit¬ 
tee ctf the Whole, proposing to strike out the entire 
flection. 

Mr. LARWILL advised to strike out the whole sec- 
ticm, as going into unnecessary details, which might 
tie up the hands of the Legislature to the public detri¬ 
ment hereafter. Should the section be stricken out, 
be had proposed an amendment, which he desired to 
-Rubstitute for the first and second sections, and which 
he would read now for information. 

Mr. STANTON had found nothing more difficult in 
an practice than to settle the question when an official 
rCerm should terminate. He desired this point to be 
•fixed in the constitution. All the rest he was willing 
tCo leave to the discretion of the Legislature. 

Mr. LIDEY moved to amend the words proposed to 
fie stricken out, by striking out the words “ the first 
Monday of April,” and inserting in lieu thereof the 
words “the second Tuesday of October;” which was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment of the 
•committee of the Whole, to-wit; strike out section 2; 
it was agreed to. 

Mr. ORTON proposed further to amend, by striking 
out the first Monday in May, and inserting the first 
Monday in November. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE suggested that that would 
require the county Treasurer to go out of office right in 
the midst of his collections. 

Mr. ORTON withdrew his amendment. 

Mr. STILWELL moved further to amend the re¬ 
port by striking out section one, and inserting/in lieu 
thereof the following: 

Provision shall be made by law for the election of the necessary 
county and township ofiicers, at such times and for such terms as 
may be prescribed by law. Provision shall also be made by law 
for filling lemporary vacancies occurring in such offices. 

Mr. MANON demanded a division. 

The question then being first on striking out section 
one; 

Mr. MANON. The only difference between this 


provision and the section stricken out, was the pro¬ 
hibition of the former that the county commission¬ 
ers and sheriff should not hold for more than two 
. terms. 

Mr. REE ME LIN demanded the yeas and nays 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 40, nays 49— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car 
roll. Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, Flo¬ 
rence, Graham, Gray, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Kirkwood, Larsh, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Sawyer, Smith of 
Highland, Smith ot Warren, Stilwell, Thompson of Shelby, Vance 
of Butler, Woodbury and Worthington—40. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Chaney, Ewing, 
Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg Groes- 
beck, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, John¬ 
son, Jones, King, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, ■ 
Matron, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, , 
Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sel- | 
lers, Smith of Wyandot, Starrton, Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Way, Wilson and ! 
President—49. | 

So the Convention refused to strike out section one. 
Mr. RANNEY now proposed further to amend the i 
report by iuserting the following as a new section, in 1 
in the place of section two: ' 

Sec. —. There shall be elected in each of the counties of this | 
State, on the second Tuesday ot October, by the qualified elec¬ 
tors therein, one Sheriff, one Coroner, one County Treasurer, one 
County Auditor, and one County Recorder, who shall hold their 
offices, respectively, for the term of two years, and until their sue 
cessors are elected and qualified, and shall perform such duties 
as may be required by law. There shall also be elected, at the 
same time and manner, in each county, three County Commis¬ 
sioners, who shall hold their offices for the term of three years, 
and shall be so arranged as that one may be elected annually. 

Mr. LIDEY inquired whether the office of prosecu¬ 
ting attorney was included in the longer term. 

Mr. RANNEY intended only to include those officers 
whose services might be required at all times. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. It seemed to his 
mind that by the adoption of the proposition of the 
gentleman from Trumbull, the bill would be placed in 
a singular predicament. It was provided in the first 
section that “the General Assembly shall provide by 
law for such county and township officers as may be 
necessary for the efficient transaction of the business 
thereof.” There was a general provision providing of¬ 
ficers for the discharge of all business in the townships 
and counties. It was proposed, then, to go on with the 
amendment, and prescribe what officers should be 
elected in the several counties, and what terms they 
should serve. First, it was declared that the Legisla¬ 
ture should make provision for doing township and 
county business, and then, in the next place, it was pro¬ 
posed that the Convention should make these arrange¬ 
ments, and that, of course, these being constitutional 
provisions, nothing conflicting with them could be pre¬ 
scribed by the Legislature hereafter. He thought it 
better to leave the whole to the Legislature. It was 
so in the old constitution, except that the sheriff and 
coroner were made constitutional officers. 

Mr. REEMELIN proposed to amend the amend¬ 
ment, by striking out and substituting the following: 

Sec. —. County officers shall be elected by the qualified elect¬ 
ors of each county, respectively, in such manner, and for such 
term, not exceeding three years, as may be provided by law. 

The PRESIDENT remarked to the gentleman from 
Hamilton, that he could not amend by w'ay of substi¬ 
tute, without retaining some portion of the original 
amendment. 

Mr. RANNEY said he was not particular to insist 
upon his atnendn ent, farther than that the time of the 
election should be fixed for the second Tuesday of Oc¬ 
tober. He would withdraw his amendment. 

Mr. Reemehn’s proposition beinguowentertained by 
the Chair, as an original section, 

Mr. RANNEY proposed to amend the amendment by 
adding after the word “ elected,” the words “ on the 
second Tuesday of October.” 

Mr. NASH considered the proposition to change the 
time of these county elections from the fall to spring, 









\ CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1263 


as too much of an experiment to be made a constitution¬ 
al point; but he was willing to leave it to the Legis¬ 
lature to regulate the time of these elections according 
to the suggestion of experience. 

On which motion Mr. REEMELIN demanded the 
yeas and nays, which were ordered, and resulted— 
yeas 51, nays*35—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case of Hocking, 
Chambers, Chaney, Curry, Ewing, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene 
of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hoot- 
man, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Larsh,Lawrei)ce,Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, Otis, Peck, 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of War¬ 
ren, Smith of VVyandot, Stebbins, StilweU, Stickney, Stidger, 
Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Butler, Woodbury and President 
—51. 

Nays —Messrs. Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Collings, Cook, Ewart, Florence, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hai- 
lan, Hawkins, Henderson, Horton, Hunter, Jones, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Loudon, Morris, Nash, Norris, Patterson, Reemelin, Saw¬ 
yer, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Stanton, Struble, Swift, Taylor 
Tliompson of Stark, Warren, Way, Wilson and Worthington— 
35. 

So the amendment to the amendment was adopted. 

The question then being on the amendment, as amend¬ 
ed ; 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 64, nays 24— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee. Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, 
Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Curry, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Hard, Har¬ 
lan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Hum¬ 
phreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lar- 
will. Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ran¬ 
ney, Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stilweli, Stickney, Struble, Thompson of 
Shelby, Vance of Butler. Woodbury, Worthington and President 
—64. 

Nays —Messrs. Bennett, Brown of Carroll, Collings, Cook, 
Florence, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Henderson, Horton, Jones, 
Morris, Patterson, Reemelin. Roll, Sawyer, Smith of Highland, 
Stanton, Stidger, Swif, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Warren, 
Way and Wilson—24. 

So the amendment, as amended, was adopted. 

Mr. OTIS moved to further amend the report by 
striking out all after the word “ than,” in section 3, and 
inserting in lieu thereof the words “ two successive 
terms.” 

Mr. TAYLOR demanded a division. 

The question then being first on striking out all after 
the word “ than it was disagreed to. 

Mr. LARSH said if this amendment were to prevail, 
It would operate as an invitation to the Legislature to 
change the term of county Treasurer, which had been 
fixed at two years ever since the formation of the gov¬ 
ernment. It would also invite a change in the term of 
the Sheriffalty. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, thought it better for 
the resolution to remain as it was, for if the amend¬ 
ment were adopted, it would be an indication, as clear 
as words could make it, that the term of the Sheriff 
and Treasurer should be fixed at two years. 

Mr. BENNETT said, according to to the construction 
of the language of this section, with this amendment, 
these officers could could not hold longer than two 
terms. They would be forever precluded after that. 

Mr. OTIS’ amendment was now rejected. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON moved to further amend the 
report in section 3, by striking out the words “ or 
county Treasurer.” 

Mr. WORTHINGTON said there were reasons for 
limiting the term of the SheritF, which did not apply 
to the office of County Treasurer. The Sheriff was 
constantly in the receipt of money, and could have no 
particular time prescribed for his settlements. It was 
not so with the Treasurer. His settlements were to 
be made at annual periods, both with the Treasurer of 
State and the County Auditor. But he considered the 
provision wholly unnecessary, for the reason that it 
might deprive many a county of the services of a good 


Treasurer. He had taken some pains to inform him¬ 
self on this matter, and had observed, that where the 
Treasurer was continued longest in office, the amount 
of county arrearages were generally the smallest. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE thought these words should 
not be stricken out. There had come to his knowl¬ 
edge instances of County Treasurers holding office for 
a great number of years and turning out defaulters, 
and in some instances it had been ascertained that their 
peculations had commenced early in their term. But 
all had been cancelled by means of borrowing money 
for the occasions of their settlements with the Audit¬ 
ors. He rehearsed one instance of this kind of defal¬ 
cation which occurred in his own county. 

The amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. NASH moved to further amend the report, by 
striking out the third section. 

Mr. LIDEY should vote against striking out, because 
he thought it would encourage stealing. 

The question was then taken on the motion to strike 
out, and it was decided in the negative. 

Mr. LEADBETTER moved to further amend the 
report by adding, as an additional section, the follow¬ 
ing: 

Each and every township now or hereafter erected for road 
purpose 8 shall be a body corporate, capable of contracting and 
being contracted with, of suing and being sued. And each town¬ 
ship shall have charge of all public roads within their respective 
townships—may grant township roads, and shall be liable in dam¬ 
ages for neglect in repairs in roads or bridges. But nothing here¬ 
in contained shall compel townships to build or to rebuild bridg¬ 
es across large streams, which bridges shall be done at the ex¬ 
pense of the counties, in such manner and under such regula¬ 
tions as shall be prescribed by law. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. The gentleman had better 
provide so that they shall not have banking privileges. 
[A laugh.] 

Mr. leadbetter. The proposition mightsound 
strangely in the ears of some men. But those who had 
had their eyes upon the expenditure of the public 
money for objects of internal improvement, without 
themselves enjoying any of these investments, would 
probably understand and appreciate his object. He 
would inquire whether members were acquainted with 
the manner in which the public money was expended 
upon the public roads, and by whom it was expended? 
He affirmed that the Supervisors elected, in nineteen 
cases out of twenty, were irresponsible men, and that 
they run the township to more expense than all their 
services were worth. 

This idea of making townships bodies corporate, and 
liable for the neglect of Supervisors, was not a new 
idea ; and in whatever country the principle had been 
adopted, good roads were invariably to be found. For 
one olthe effects of this proposition was that if a stran¬ 
ger’s horse should break his leg on account of the bad 
condition of a bridge the township wherein the loss 
was sustained would have to pay for it. Such an acci¬ 
dent as this might be considered as the loss of the in¬ 
dividual, but it would have to be so construed upon the 
principle that the neglect of the township officers is 
the misfortune of the individual. The effect of such 
a regulation as this would be to make the people care¬ 
ful who they elect to the place of Supervisor. 

The fact was that in a majority of counties in the 
State the roads were not now in as good a condition as 
they were fifteenyears ago. He knew of no better rem¬ 
edy than that now proposed. The Supreme Court in¬ 
deed, had held that the man though whose land a road 
passes should be compelled to MacAdamize and make 
side walks upon each side; and that perhaps might be 
a better proposition than his own. 

Mr. HAINIILTON said it a^ipeared to him that pro¬ 
positions for the amendment of this report were rather 
fizzling out. He would therefore demand the previou 
question. 

The question then being, “shall the main question bo 
now put?” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Leadbetter ; it was dissagreed to. 










1264 


I 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


The question then being on ordering the report to be 
engrossed; 

Mr. BIDDLE demanded a division. 

Sections one. two and three were severally ordered 
to be engrossed, a vote having been taken on each sep¬ 
arately. 

The question then being on orueriug section four U> 
be engrossed; 

Mr. RIDDLE demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 42, nays 49—as fol¬ 
low : 

Yeas —Messrs. Brown of Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, 
Chambers, Chaney, Cook, Curry, Ewart, Farr, Forbes, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Groesheck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, Hootman, Hunt, Hunter, Kirkwood, Lidey, Norris, Orton, 
Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Recmelin, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Stanton, Stebhins, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, Tay 
lor, Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson and Worthington— 42. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderler, 
Brown of Carroll, Ceilings, Ewing, Gillett, Graham, Green of 
Ross, Gregg, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, 
Humphrevllle, Johnson, Jones, King, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Nash, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Smith ol Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stilwell, Struble, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Way, Woodbury and President—-49. 

So the sectiou was lost on its engrossment. 

Sections five and six were then severally ordered to 
be engrossed, a vote having been taken on each sepa¬ 
rately. 

The question then being on ordering the report to be 
engrossed with the exception of section four; it was 
agreed to. 

And on motion wa.s ordered to be read a third lime 
on Tuesday, the 18th instant. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention took up 
the report of the select committee on the Judicial De¬ 
partment. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the report was commit¬ 
ted to a committee of the whole Convention. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the Convention resolve 
itself into a committee of the W'hole; which was disa¬ 
greed to. 

On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, the Conven¬ 
tion took up the report, number one, of the committee 
on Corporations other than Corporations for Banking, 
with the pending amendments. 

The question being on the first amendment of the 
committee of the Whole, to wit: In section 2, where 
these words occur, “ may be altered from time to time 
or repealed,” strike out the word “or” and insert in 
lieu thereof the word “and;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the second amendment, 
to-wit: In section 3, in the early part of the same, strike 
out the word “ corporators,” and insert in lieu thereof 
the word “ stockholders ;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the third amendment, to- 
wit ; In section 3, in the middle of the same, strike 
out the words “corporator or stockholder,” and insert 
in lieu thereof the word “ stockholder ;” it was agreed 
to. 

The question then being on the fourth amendment, 
to-wit: In section 3, in the last line, strike out the word 
“ ow’ned;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the fifth amendment, to- 
wit : Add at the end of section 3 the following words: 

“ together with a further sum of equal amount.” 

Mr. STANTON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 55, nays 38—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chancy, Cook, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Gjcene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesheck, Hard, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, 
Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Li¬ 
dey, Loudon, Manon, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of AugIaize,[Sellers, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stebhins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, 
TajJor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Warren, Way, Wilson and President—55. 

Nays. —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar- 
uctv ol Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Curry, 


Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, 
Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Larsh, 
Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, [^Wor¬ 
thington and Woodbury—38. ^ „ 

So the amendment w'as adopted. 

The question then being on the sixth amendment, to- 
wit : In sLclIoii 5, iu the last line of the same, strike 
out the word “ or,” and insert in lieu thereof the words 
“ in such manner as it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the seventh amendment, 
to-wit: In section 5, where these words occur, “ full 
compeusatiou therefor be made in money,” insert be 
fore the word “ made ” the word “ first.” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 59, nays 36'— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Cook, Farr, Forbes, 
Gray, Greene ol Defiance, Gregg, Groesheck, Hard, Hawkins Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt^ Johnson, Jones, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Norris, Orton, 
jOtis, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stan- 
on, Stebhins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, 
Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President— 

59. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Browm ol Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Col¬ 
lings, Curry, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of 
Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Loudon, Mason, “ 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Warren and Stilwell—36. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

Mr, BROWN, of Carroll, moved to further amend the 
report by striking out section one and inserting in lieu ‘ 
thereof, the following: 

Sec. 1. Corporations may be formed under general laws, but 
shall not be created by special act except for municipa 1 purposes, ^ 

and in cases, where, in the judgment of the General Assembly, 
the objects of the corporation cannot be attained under general 
laws.4 

Mr. LEECH demanded a division. 

The question then being first on striking out section 
one; 

Mr. BROWN said, the Convention have now fairly 
come to a point at which the eyes of the people must 
be upon us; because there is no subject upon which 
the whole people of the State feel a deeper interest 
than they do in the construction of works of internal 
improvement, by which they may enjoy the facilities 
of transporting the productions of the soil from the 
producer to the consumer. 

This Convention has already prescribed that the State 
of Ohio shall borrow no more money for the construe- » 
tion of works of internal improvement, and they have | 
said further, that the State shall not lend her credit to 
any association of individuals, for auy such object. 1 
This body has further said, distinctly, that the General ! 
Assembly shall not even authorize a vote in any locali- - 
ty of the State, upon the question of raising stock for 
any such purpose 

Now, sir, I think that is going quite far enough. The I 
State has already expended largely on account of pub- j 
lie improvements; and these improvements have not j 
reached every portion of the State; although the tax j 
for the payment of the debt so incurred reaches into I 
every nook and corner. I come from a portion of the I 
State where there never was a dollar of this money | 

laid out; and now, by your stringent rules, you are go- ,! 
ing to prevent and destroy the impulses of our own en¬ 
terprise, in the way of constructing w'orks of internal 
improvement by means of associated wealth. 

The section which I propose to strike out goes oil to 
provide that “ corporations may be formed under gen¬ 
eral laws, but all general laws passed pursuant to this 
section may be altered from time to time, or repealed.” 
There the old question of repeal meets us again full in 
the face. But the section goes on, “ provided, on such 
repeal, the property or credits legally acquired by any 
corporation shall vest in the individual corporators 
subject to the liability of the corporation,” ^ 













CONVENTION EEPOETS. 


1265 


Now, Mr. President, and gentlemen of the Conven¬ 
tion, whether Democrats, Free Soilers, or Whigs, we 
are all embarked in the same vessel, we are all freight¬ 
ed in the same bottom, and I ask if it is good policy— 
if it is fair and honest statesmanship—thus to tie up 
the hands of that portion of the State who have never 
experienced any benefit from the public works 1 

Now, if a number of individuals were willing to as¬ 
sociate themseves together for the purpose of construct¬ 
ing any work of improvement, you hold up to them 
here this power of repeal. Sir, I call upon every mem¬ 
ber in this chamber to answer for himself, if this ought 
not to be made a practical question—a question of po¬ 
licy? I do not propose to go again into this question 
of repeal. I do not wish to speak of it as a legal ques¬ 
tion at all, but I choose to regard it in its plain, simple, 
honest, practical bearings. And I say now, that if the 
Convention are determined that there shall be no more 
railroads, turnpikes, or plankroads laid down in the 
State of Ohio, they could not do anything more effectu¬ 
ally to accomplish this object than to leave this section 
in the constitution as it now stands before us, because 
it is even now a matter of difficulty to get stuck sub¬ 
scribed to any work of public improvement. But now 
if you put in here your repealing, altering, revoking 
clause, and more than that, if you make the corpora¬ 
tors or shareholders liable in double the amount of 
their shares, or still further than that, you will set up a 
perfect barrier against the future construction of all 
these works of public improvement. 

To look at this matter in a plain, sensible way, it 
would seem to me a most just and reasonable demand 
on our part to be let alone ; to be allowed to act as we 
please; to be the directors of our own enterprises, and 
not to be check-mated in this way—not to be treated 
in this step-mother style. Give us a clear field and a 
fair fight—give us the benefit of our own credit, and 
we will construct our own works of internal improve¬ 
ment. I ask whether it is not too much to expect that 
a free people will acquiesce in an attempt to depris'e 
them of this privilege, which they have enjoyed for 
half a century. This section proposes a complete re¬ 
volution in our legislation upon the subject of internal 
improvements. From the organization of this govern¬ 
ment down to the present hour, we have never wit¬ 
nessed such a stringent regulation as this. And I say 
now% that if the Convention are determined not to re¬ 
lax in their application of this iron rule, which shall 
take away the benefit of credit, and shall impose one¬ 
rous and unequal burthens upon the people—I say, 
would it not be better to prescribe at once that there 
never shall be any further construction of works of in¬ 
ternal improvement in the State of Ohio. There would 
be no delusion in that. It would be but saying to the 
people in plain terms what ymu now say in sense in this 

report. . . i 

Sir, upon the supposition that this report is to be¬ 
come a law of the land, I appeal to every gentleman 
upon this floor to ask himself the question, whether 
any reasonable man could ever afterwards expect to 
be able to get up an efficient company for the construc¬ 
tion of any work of internal improvement in this 
State ? I desire every man to ask himself this plain 
question, and when he shall have matured his conclu¬ 
sions thereupon, let him come up to the scratch, if he 
can, and vote for this oppressive and insufferable pro- 

^°Mr!°LEEOH moVed to perfect the words proposed 
to be stricken out, by striking out the word “ special,” 

preceding the word “act.” 

Mr. LEECH. Mr. President: I ask the indulgence 
of the Convention, for a brief period, whilst I express, 
in general terras, my objections to corporations, and as¬ 
sign some reasons why my motion should prevail. I 

The Convention will perceive that if the amendment 
which I have proposed should be adopted, the section 
now under consideration will read as follows. The 
General Assembly shall pass no act conferring corporate 

80 


powers.” The effect of my amendment is apparent— 
it is self-evident. 

Sir, I am opposed to all chartered incorporations, be¬ 
cause they are destructive to political equality—be¬ 
cause they are hostile to freedom—because they are 
utterly repugnant to the great republican doctrine of 
equal rights, on which our Government is founded. 

I lay it down as a truism, that the principle on 
which this Government is founded, is an entire and 
perfect equality of political rights. Its theory is 
“ equal rights to all—privileges to none.” 

I also lay it down as a truism, that every act of in¬ 
corporation is necessarily a grant of privilege. It 
clothes the artificial person with powers, and rights, 
and privileges, and immunities, -which the natural 
person does not possess. 

If these propositions are true—and surely no reason¬ 
able man will dare call their truth in question—it ne¬ 
cessarily follows, that corporations are directly antag- 
onistical to the fundamental principles of our Govern¬ 
ment. As friends, therefore, of republican institutions 
—as friends of equal rights—as friends of human free¬ 
dom, it is a duty incumbent upon us to prohibit their 
creation, in the organic law which we arc now fram¬ 
ing for this great Commonwealth. Our State is at 
present “ shingled all over” with corporations. They 
are rapidly usurping the liberties of the people, and if 
their increase is not arrested, they must eventually sap 
the very foundations of our free institutions. Now is 
the time, and here in the constitution is the place to 
cut up the evil by the roots—to prohibit any increase 
of these “citadels in which the enemies of free Gov¬ 
ernment entrench and protect themselves, and from 
which they carry on their warfare against the institu¬ 
tions of freedom, and the liberties of the people.” 

But, sir, we were told repeatedly, when this sub¬ 
ject was before the Convention, on a former occasion, 
that corporations are absolutely necessary in this coun¬ 
try—that without their agency, our great objects of pub¬ 
lic convenience and necessity cannot be carried out. Is 
this true, sir? If it is, then, it must follow, that there 
exists an absolute necessity for violating the princi¬ 
ples of this Government—that our boasted Kepublrcau 
form of Government, established by the sages and pat¬ 
riots of the Revolution, is impracticable ! Rather, sir, 
than assume this monstrous conclusion, I must believe 
that the advocates of corporations are in error—that 
they have embraced a false doctrine. And in order, 
sir, to prove the utter falsity of their assumption, by a 
practical illustration, we have only to refer to Eng¬ 
land. All, or nearly all the banking, manufacturing, 
insurance and railroad companies in England, if I am 
correctly informed, are either private partnerships or 
joint stock companies, for the payment of whose debts 
the private property of the stockholders is held to an 
unlimited extent. Do not these facts, Mr. President, 
prove that the advocates of corporations are grossly in 
error ? Do they not completely explode the miserable 
humbug, that corporations are absolutely necessary in 
this country ? 

Why, sir, if we could give full credence to the asser¬ 
tions of the advocates of corporations in this chamber, 
we would be led to believe that we are indebted to 
corporations for almost all the blessings which we en¬ 
joy as a people; and that if the new constitution should 
prohibit their creation, “ Old Chaos” would resume his 
ancient reign, and every vestige of our prosperity 
would be destroyed ! It is easy for gentlemen to as¬ 
sert jthat corporations are necessaiy, and that the pub¬ 
lic welfare imperatively demands their existence ; but 
to prove the truth of these assertions would impose up¬ 
on them an onerous task—a task infinitely beyond 
their power. Gentlemen may multiply such arguments 
as these which I have been noticing—-if arguments 
they call them—until they are piled up like Ossa upon 
Pelion, and Pelion upon Ossa, but they will all prove 
to be mountains of mist. They will not stand the test. 
They will vanish before the test of truth and reason, 












1266 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


like vapors before the rays of the morning sun. As 
well might gentlemen undertake to call up spirits from 
the Vasty Deep, as to attempt to convince us that cor¬ 
porations are necessary, or beneficial, or proper, by 
empty declamation and bare assertions. 

Sir, I challenge the friends of corporations on this 
floor to meet this cpiestion like men, and prove to us, 
if they can, by fair and legitimate argument, that cor¬ 
porations are either consistent with the principles of 
this government, or necessary to promote the public 
wellare. I contend, sir, that all our great objects ol' 
public convenience, or utility, or necessity, can be far 
better carried out by joint-stock companies or private 
associations than they can by corporations. 

Mr. President, my position on this subject is strictly 
in accordance with the publicly declared sentiments 
of the Democratic party of this State. In opposing all 
corporations, I stand upon the platform laid down by 
the Democracy of Ohio. That party, in State Conven¬ 
tion, assembled on the eighth of January , 1846, adopt¬ 
ed, amongst other resolutions, the following: 

Resolved, That the Democracy of Ohio are opposed to all char¬ 
tered and special privileges, as destructive to equality and hostile 
to free institutions; and from henceforth and forever, declare 
against them uncompromising hostility. 

This, sir, is the position of the Democracy of Ohio 
upon the subject of corporations. They have declared 
against them “UNCOMPROMISING HOSTILITY.” 
Such is my position. My vote shall attest the sincer¬ 
ity of my professions. And here, I will remark, that 
I trust I will be pardoned for raising this “ test of De¬ 
mocracy.” The Convention will bear witness to the 
fact, that in relation to this matter of “ tests of De¬ 
mocracy,” I have heretofore been exceedingly mod¬ 
est! [Laughter.] I therefore take the liberty, now, 
of calling upon my Democratic friends in this cham- 
Ijer — and particularly upon those who, in the lan¬ 
guage of a certain gentleman in this body, “have 
cracked the party whip, and clanked the party chains” 
—to come up to the support of my amendment, and 
by its adoption carry out what I have shown to be a 
cardinal principle of the Democratic party of this 
State. 

I am well aware, air, that to hope to carry this 
amendment would be vain—that it would be “hoping 
against hope.” I know too well the sentiments ol 
this body, to entertain any such hope or expectation. 
But I shall not be overawed by “the bold array” of 
opposing numbers. I know I am right, and that 
knowledge is sufficient to impel me to action. I 
know, too, that I shall not stand alone in support of 
this motion. There are a few bold spirits on the dem¬ 
ocratic side of the chamber, who will nobly come to 
the rescue on this subject—who will, in good faith, be 
found side by side with me, in this attempt to eradi 
cate error, and confirm truth ; to dethrone special priv¬ 
ileges, and establish equal rights. 

Sir, I am not actuated by any “ new-born zeal ” on 
this subject. I have always been opposed to corpoi-a- 
tions, upon principle. Since my entrance upon the 
stage of political action, I have to the extent of my 
humble abilities, warred incessantly against them; 
and that warfare, I shall continue, so long as my voice 
can be heard or my hand can trace a line—if so long 
there shall be corporations to war against. And I le- 
ioice that here, in a Convention assembled to frame an 
organic law for this great State, I shall enjoy the glo¬ 
rious privilege of recording my vote in favor of a proj)- 
osition to prohibit all corporations. Sir, it will be to 
me a proud vote—the proudest that I shall give in this 
Convention. 

In conclusion, permit me to remind gentlemen, that 
those who vote dowm my amendment must be held re 
sponsible for all the evils which may be inflicted upon 
the people, by corporations hereafter created in Ohio. 

1 wash my hands of all such responsibility. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. In the present condition of 
this repori- shall vote fo 'hemotion of the gentle¬ 


man from Guernsey, [Mr. Lekch.] But lest I may be 
misunderstood, I desire to say a few words in explana¬ 
tion of that vote. 

I saw, sir, recently, in a newspaper published in the 
county of that gentleman, a paragraph lauding him 
for his efforts in carrying on the war against incorpora¬ 
tions in this body—that he was winning “golden opin¬ 
ions.” J'he proposition of amendment which he has 
just submitted, entitles him pre-eminently to the admi¬ 
ration ol all ultra radicals. It is nothing more nor less 
than to prohibit the Legislature hereafter from granting 
any act of incorporation for any purpose 1 Now^ sir, 

I like the gentleman’s spunk ! He is none of your 
timid, time-serving, doubting reformers, who let 
“ I dare not, wait upon I would— 

Like the poor cat i’ the adage." 

He is a “fine, gay, bold-faced reformer; ” and, sir, I 
like his proposition infinitely better than the spurious, 
ill-digested (but nevertheless sufficient for the pur¬ 
pose,) report before us. 

Now, sir, what does this report propose as it now 
stands, and as it will be voted in, I doubt not ? Why, 
sir, it is spurious and false. It 

" Whispers the word of promise to the ear, 

And breaks it to the hope." 

Take it and carefully look into it—it is delusive, false. 
No man in his sane mind would ever take stock in any 
corporation created by it. If any man should, and I 
had any interest in his welfare, I should have a com¬ 
mission of lunacy taken out, a guardian appointed, and 
plead his insanity against the action for the money. 

Sir, I live in a county that (thank Heaven) can’t be 
reached by your wisdom ? we have already secured to 
us, by contract, all that we shall probably want in the 
way of improvement, for which 1 again devoutly ren¬ 
der thanks. But I am not so narrow of vision as to be 
ignorant that every improvement, any where within 
the broad limits of the State, is of advantage to my 
people. It may not immediately benefit their trade 
but it will assuredly bring an additional valuation to 
the taxable property in its immediate neighborhood 
and thereby lighten the burthens of my constituents’ 
Sir, the whole scheme of the report is odious, but par¬ 
ticularly so as it proposes to create, or will in effect 
create, odious distinctions; for under it the Legislature 
may assign to one corporation one rub of individual li¬ 
ability totally different, greater or less, as the case may 
be, from that which they prescribe for another I 
quote from the third section : “ Dues from corporations 
shall be secured by the individual liability of the stock¬ 
holders and other means, as may be prescribed by 
law, provided the liability of each stockholder shall 
never be less than the amount of stock in any corpora 
tion owned by him or her together, with a further sum 
of equal amount.” It shall never be less, but as much 
more as the Legislature may provide. Again in the 
second section you generously provide that corporations 
may be granted by general laws, but such laws may 
at any time be repealed. So to get at an obnoxious 
corporation you repeal the law creating all the others. 

Sir why tins warfare against all that is good and 
valuable—against the only means by which a new 
country ever was or ever can be improved—association 
of small capital for the purpose of beiiefitting the whole 
These gentlemen tell us of the frauds practised by these 
corporations--of the terrible losses and disasters sus¬ 
tained by individuals by their dishonesty. But they 
don’t go into particulars. Let them tell me one im 
stance where any man has lost by the frauds of these 
corfioratioiis. 

Mr. HUAH’HREVILLE, (in his seat.) How was it 
with the Ohio Railroad Company ? ^ < 

Mr. GREEN, Well, sir, I don’t know how they do 
things up in the gentleman’s county; but that, if 1 am 
correct, was a banking concern. 

Mr. smith, of Wyandot, (interposing.) What will 
the gentleman say of the Vermillion and Ashland Kail- 
road Company ? 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1267 


Mr. GREEN, Sir, I have nothing to say about it, be¬ 
cause I don’t know. But I will take it for granted, if 
gentlemen desire it, that there are a great many dishon¬ 
est schemes got up among my Yankee friends in the 
Reserve. But, sir, I am speaking, not of exceptions, 
but a general rule ; and I affirm, that all that has been 
lost by the ‘poor people,” whose rights these gentle¬ 
man are so anxious to guard, has been lost by the fail¬ 
ure of contractors. True, people will trust them on 
the credit of their contracts, but if they fail it is not 
the fault of the company, generally speaking. 

But, sir, I did not intend to discuss this question—it 
was fully discussed last summer. My object now is to 
help the gentleman from Guernsey to carry out, in a 
bold, manly way, what his party friends have not the 
courage to avow. I desire to call the attention of the 
people of Ohio to this subjuct, especially the unim¬ 
proved portions of the State. I desire to fix their at¬ 
tention on the fact, that the propositions of the report 
do, in effect, carry out what the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Guernsey openly proposes, strike a death 
blow at all further improvement in Ohio through the 
means of incorporations—that is it, sir. It can’t be got 
away from—fix it up as speciously as you may, to that 
complexion must it come at last. I say, I want the 
people of Ohio to look into this report on corporations. 
It, in effect, forever, at least so long as this instrument 
we are framing shall last, it adopted, which Heaven 
and the good sense of the people I think, will prevent, 
puts a stop to all enterprise in associated, incorporated 
form. And this is the democracy of 1851! This is 
what you mean—then say so boldly—stand up to the 
gentleman from Guernsey—vote for his proposition— 
and give us the chance to make this issue fairly before 
the people. I shall help you to pass his proposition, 
that we may have that issue. I say again, I greatly 
prefer it to this report, for under it there can be no 
dodging. 

Mr. NASH. Mr. President; the subject of corpora¬ 
tions is one of no ordinary import—and from the abu¬ 
ses incident to an exercise of the power, has attracted 
very much attention; has been very much debated, or 
rather talked about. And yet I have heard no gentle¬ 
man here who has touched the real question—the ve¬ 
ry foundation upon which the exercise of this povyer 
truly rests. There has been great misapprehension 
upon this subject in the public mind, and great mis¬ 
chiefs have resulted from this misapprehension—cor¬ 
porations have been created without any reference to 
principle, merely because they were asked for, and 
were corporations; and they have been refused upon 
no ground of principle, merely because they were cor¬ 
porations. But it is time that the public mind was di¬ 
rected in the right channel of thought, and the con¬ 
duct of public men, governed on this vexed subject 
by the application of correct opinions, and an enlight- 
ed and enlarged view of the whole subject. Then 
will all the good they are capable of, be secured; while 
the evils incident to an abuse of the power will be 
avoided. To attain this golden medium should be the 
wish of all. 

And first, allow me to remark that corporations are 
the product of modern civilization and free institu¬ 
tions. Antiquity never attained to such an idea, to 
the creation of such a legal entity. Nor are they com¬ 
mon under despotic governments. Just as civilization 
and freedom have advanced, just in that proportion 
have corporations been multiplied. There are more 
corporations in the United States than in all the world 
beside. Next to the United States stands Great Bri 
tain next to the United States the freest government 
on the globe. You find no corporations in China, nor 
in Turkey, and very few, if any, in Russia. Under 
such governments, great public works are under the 
direction of the government itself. Associated wealth 
is any thing but welcome to the rulers of such coun¬ 
tries.'^ Thi8°remarkable fact is worthy of especial note, 
and is of deep import. Nothing thus springs up m 


the progress of civilization and freedom, unless to meet 
some necessity, some craving want of society. And 
this necessity is found in the fact, that free govern¬ 
ments stimulate industry and production, while leav¬ 
ing them to their own free action. It does not inter¬ 
fere directly, and hence the principle of association is 
born to supply the vacancy left void by the withdraw¬ 
al of government patronage in the execution of those 
great works—works which require for their execution 
vast means. No such institution or instrumentality of 
society ever did originate in the mere invention of 
man. It was needed ; there was a mission for it to 
fulfill in the development of society; and hence it ex¬ 
isted, and not otherwise. No such institution can 
stand upon falsehood—originate in a lie. You might 
as well suppose that nothing could produce something, 
as that any one of the instrumentalities of modern civ¬ 
ilization could exist without some want or necessity 
calling for its existence. There is then in corporations 
some adaptation to meet the wants of modern progress 
(and civilization. 

What then, is this public want, this social necessity? 
It requires but a moment's reflection to see it, and to 
grasp it in the whole extent of its application. What 
then, is it? It is not individual liability, of which we 
hear so much—it is not the right of repeal, of which 
we have heard more. These questions can never arise 
until the question of corporation or no corporation has 
been settled. It must be first decided whether corpo¬ 
rations shall be created, before you can raise the ques¬ 
tion of how shall they be created—what form will you 
give them. Hence, individual liability and repeal, and 
all similar questions, are only incidental ones; are on¬ 
ly questions as to the how. You must first decide the 
former question, and that once settled, all other ques¬ 
tions are resolved into mere questions of means to an 
end. The utility of corporations, once granted, their 
organization must be such as to attain the end sought 
to be attained by their creation. If made at all, they 
must so be made, as to be able to fulfill the end of their 
existence. Hence, we must first settle whether corpo¬ 
rations ought to be permitted, and if permitted, upon 
what principle of government this permission can be 
justified to enlightened reason. 

Government is established for two great ends, to se¬ 
cure two great necessities of humanity and civilization. 
And first, its duty is to protect the citizen in the enjoy¬ 
ment of his inalienable rights—his rights of personal 
liberty, of property, and the pursuit of happiness. 
This is its repressive duty. 

But this is not all. Humanity is not only to be pro¬ 
tected ; its efforts for improvement, are also to be en¬ 
couraged. The earth is to be subdued—the necessa¬ 
ries of life created—its conveniences and adornments, 
to be secured. In other words, the development of 
humanity is to be promoted, and this is only another 
name for civilization. To accomplish all this, labor is 
to be stimulated, and capital, the product of labor, to 
be invited into channels promotive of progress and the 
public welfare. Roads are to be made, bridges con¬ 
structed, manufactures and commerce, education and 
religion encouraged. These are the great operative 
duties of government — and on these too, rests the 
whole fabric of legislation. The comn.on weal, (he 
public good, is the great end or should be, of all legis¬ 
lation. Whatever then subserves this great end, is a 
fit subject of legislation ; nay, more—it is the duty of 
government to secure these great ends, or rather instru¬ 
mentalities of social progress, of civilization. High¬ 
ways and turnpikes, and canals, and railroads, and 
academies, and colleges, and churches, and commerce, 
are all instrumentalities, without which humanity can 
make no progress. Hence government, if it performs 
its duty, must take care that these agents of civiliza¬ 
tion are created, either directly by its own action, or 
indirectly through the action of others. Some of these 
agencies must be created by the immediate agency of 
government itself; others may be safely left to iudi- 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1268 


vidual enterprise; but others exist, which government 
ought to make—which private enterprise cannot or will 
not make, without the encouragement or aid of the gov¬ 
ernment. Here then, in this large class of institutions, 
which government should not, and individuals cannot 
create, is found the field in which government and in¬ 
dividuals must co-operate, if society is not to become 
stationary—and this co-operation is found earned out 
in modern corporations—corporations, which have been 
created by this very necessity, are adapted to meet 
this very want ol social progress. 

The principle, then, upon which they rest, is the 
public good. When a corporation asks lor an exis¬ 
tence, the first inquiry must be, what does it propose 
to do? Is the thing to be done, one in which the pub¬ 
lic have an interest ? It not, then no corporate grant 
should be given ; corporations should never be granted 
for mere private cupidity, or mere personal considera¬ 
tions. Have the public an interest in what is to be un¬ 
dertaken? should be the veiy first inquiry, and the 
corporation should be granted or refused, just as this 
question is answered in the affirmative or negative. 
For instance, a railroad is one of the great instruments 
of social progress, and one without the aid of which, 
society must become stationary. It must be made- 
society cannot do without it. It can be made only in 
one of three ways; by the State, by individuals, or by 
a co-operation of both. The State ought not to make 

it_private enterprise is not equal to the \york—and 

hence, if made, it must be made by an union of the 
two. Hence, the existence of railroad corporations, 
whereby the State holds out inducements to the capi¬ 
talists, to make this work of prime public necessity. 
A currency is a great national necessity; it is unsafe to 
leave it to individuals; it is improper for the State to 
en^^age in its creation and circulation. Hence the ne¬ 
cessity for banks, whereby private capital is induced 
so to invest itself as to supply this great national want. 
In every case the corporation is grounded on princi¬ 
ples of public consideration, and not on mere private 

cupidity. i i 

Here, then, is the true foundation ot all such legisla¬ 
tion; and here gentlemen should plant themselves. 
Are corporations called for on reasons ol public neces¬ 
sity and convenience ? If not, then no act ol incorpo¬ 
ration should be granted on any terms, whether with, 
or without the right to repeal; whether with or with¬ 
out the individual liability. The arguments of gentle¬ 
men here are, that corporations are not only unneces¬ 
sary, hnl absolutely injurious to the public welfare. If 
this^ be so, then, to be consistent, gentlemen should 
never trouble themselves about repeal and individual 
liability; they should vote dead against all corporations 
—at least such would be my course, if I believed in 
what they say they believe in. The whole argument 
of these gentlemen is against corporations, against their 
utility, against their necessity. Let them then, come 
up to the question, and meet it manfully, lace to face. 
Let them move a provision, prohibiting the creation of 
all corporations in future. 

But, sir, I take issue with these anti-corporation gen¬ 
tlemen. I deny that corporations are injurious to the 
public; but, on the contrary, claim that they have 
^rown up in modern legislation to meet a necessity, a 
want of society. Su'ch, too, is the opinion of the peo¬ 
ple of Ohio. The good sense of our people believe in 
no such absurdity as these gentlemen advocate. They 
believe, and I believe that many enterprises of modern 
civilization could not exist, could not joe created, sav¬ 
ing through the agency of corporations. Believing 
thus, to prohibit all corporations would be to retro¬ 
grade in civilization; to go back two hundred years in 
the career of improvement. 

If these corporations do exist, as a means and instru¬ 
ment of progress and civilization, they should continue 
to be granted on such terms, and upon such occasions, 
as the public good requires. Caution here should be 
exercised, as well as in every other act of government; 


their necessity and utility should be clearly apparent, 
before their creation is allowed. But when this neces¬ 
sity and utility are apparent; when the public wellare 
is clearly to be promoted by them ; then, and n(^ be¬ 
fore, does the question arise upon what terms should 

they be granted. ^ i • .i. 

The answer to this question is very plain; tney 
should be granted on such terms, as will secure the 
existence of the corporation and the performance oi ^ 
the work, for which it is created. To adopt any oth¬ 
er rule is practically either to deny corporate acts al¬ 
together or to grant them improvidently. Either ex¬ 
treme is equally dangerous, equally mischievous. To 
illustrate this proposition, let us put a case or two. A 
new discovery has been made ; a new species of man¬ 
ufacture is proposed. If it succeeds, the public will gain 
immensely ; if it fail, then the capital required to test 
its practicability will be a total loss. Who shall make 
this experiment? Shall the State? Gentlemen say 
no; and I agree with them. Will individuals make it? 
No ; because the chances of loss are too great. What 
then shall be done ? Shall all improvements of this 
nature cease? I think not. Many individuals may 
be willing to venture a limited amount if they are pro¬ 
tected in the business for a limited lime, until the ex¬ 
periment does succeed. An act of incorporation is the 
instrument devised for just such emergencies. It per¬ 
mits a combination of many, and facilitates the trans¬ 
action of the business. The State then grants the act, 
on such terms as men ol capital will agree to, and ^ 
srants it on public grounds alone. If it succeeds, the 
public are benefitted as well as the corporators ; il it 
fails, the individuals lose their investment. Is there 
any thing wrong in such legislation ? 

Again: take the case of a railroad along an impor¬ 
tant line of country. The public are to be benefitted 
by its construction. The Stale declines to embark in 
its construction; individuals cannot—and will not 
without a charter. Still, the public require the im¬ 
provement, and it must be made. How can it be 
done, save by the State’s granting such an act of in¬ 
corporation as will induce the men having the money 
to make it ? Though the road is a public necessity, 
and the incorporation is granted solely on that ground; 
still, the State must make its terras such that men of 
capital will believe that their interests will also be 
promoted. It cannot be expected that men will make 
improvements for the public, unless some equivalent 
advantage is to accrue to themselves. The intei'est of 
the public and stockholder must both be consulted, 
must be made consistent, before capital can be in¬ 
duced to co-operate with the public in the construc¬ 
tion of its improvements. Tour terms, then, must be 
such as capital will accept; otherwise your acts of in¬ 
corporation must fail of the object of their creation. 
These terms should be more or less liberal, just in pro¬ 
portion to the interest which the public has in their 
success. 

There is one class of corporations in which the pub¬ 
lic have only an indirect interest. Such are corpora-* 
tions for various manufacturing purposes. The in¬ 
crease of production in a State is ever an object of pub¬ 
lic concernment; but it is generally within the means 
of private and individual enterprise. But this is not 
alw^ays the case. Many branches of manufacture can 
be successfully prosecuted only by the expenditure of 
a large capital; a larger amount than any one or more 
individuals may possess. Here an act of incorpora¬ 
tion is needed merely to facilitate and encourage this 
branch of business; and the powers granted need be 
little more than the mere right of incorporation under, 
a corporate name. So also with banks. They are cre¬ 
ated to meet a public want, which neither the State nor 
individuals can safely be entrusted to do. Business 
cannot be done—civilization cannot advance without a 
currency. This currency must be had, and it can be 
had only by making it for the interests of capitalists so 
to combine as to supply this public necessity. Your 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1269 


terms and conditions must be such as will induce them 
to invest it in this form; and experience alone can show 
what these terms should be. The terms must undoubt¬ 
edly be different in this class from those in the former; 
the public have a greater degree of interest in the crea¬ 
tion of a currency than in the manufacture of merchan¬ 
dize. Individuals can do the later; they cannot be per¬ 
mitted to do the former. 

There is still another class—corporations for public 
improvements. Here the public stake is very great, 
and private profit somewhat dubious. If, therefore, 
you decide on making public improvements by pri¬ 
vate capital, you must of necessity, grant the most lib¬ 
eral terms. The risk of loss must not be too great, 
and the chance of a reasonable profit must be well se¬ 
cured, and pretty certain. Individual liability increas¬ 
es the risk of a loss, or at least, the amount of that loss 
to an unlimited extent, if a loss does occur, and your 
absolute right of repeal puts the whole investment at 
the mercy of legislation. Will capital, notoriously cau¬ 
tions, be willing to run such risks for the hope of any 
ordinary profit? I fear the result of two such pro¬ 
visions. I fear that they will stop all public improve¬ 
ments by means of private capital and enterprise. I 
fear that the men who have money, will never invest 
it upon any such terms. I am sure the capital from 
abroad will never seek investments in public improve¬ 
ments in Ohio. But these improvements will get 
made; you cannot stop the on-goings of modern civili¬ 
zation of American society. If you make the terms so 
rigid, that private capital cannot be induced to make 
them, the State will be driven to make them. You 
might as well fight against Providence as to fight 
against such a result. Wisdom, then, would seem to 
counsel us to leave so much liberty of action to the 
General Assembly, that its legislation may be able to 
be adapted to the varied circumstances of each partic¬ 
ular case, or class of cases. It is the heiiTht of folly to 
suppose the same iron rule can be applied to all cor¬ 
porations indiscriminately. Conditions which might 
induce capital into banking and manufacturing, will 
never induce it to flow towards your public improve¬ 
ments. The terms of charters must be varied to meet 
the varied contingencies that will arise. This is a self- 
evident truth, and should be received and acted upon 
as such. 

How far then should we go, as framers of an organic 
law ? How much into detail should a constitution de¬ 
scend ? Its object is to enunciate principles, and not 
to elaborate laws. If we believe that corporations 
should never be created, then let us say so ; but if a 
majority, on the other hand, believe otherwise, let us 
say that, and say no more. The law makers should be 
left to adjust the details of the laws, to fix the terms 
on which corporations may be formed. What we may 
now believe to be best, experience may show to be the 
worst. If individual liability and absolute I’epeal de¬ 
ter honest men from becoming parties to corporations, 
whereby their control is thrown into the hands of dis¬ 
honesty and insolvency, then surely some other safe¬ 
guard should be resorted to, instead of this panacea of 
modern Democracy. We, by our constitution, maybe 
precluding the General Assembly from following the 
light of experience—the only light which can be fol¬ 
lowed with safety. Is this wise ? Is this the course 
of a far-seeing prudence? Certainly we may trust the 
wisdom of coming years ; since we believe that pro¬ 
gress is the destiny of humanity, and that the next gen¬ 
eration is to be superior to, and wiser than this. Why 
then struggle to repress their wisdom and experience ? 
Why not leave to posterity scope for the application of 
its own accumulated lights and experience? Cannot 
posterity be entrusted with its own government ? with 
providing, in its own way and according to its own 
wisdom, lor its own wants ? Must we y)rescribe an 
iron rule for its action, strip it of the priceless freedom 
of thought and reason ? Will not society move on, 
changes take place, and new agencies of progress be 


needed, and reveal themselves too, when needed? 
While we are in conflict over this miserable subject of 
corporations, civilization, in its onward flight, may be 
revealing new instrumentalities to supersede those 
over which we are now glorying. We seem but as 
children contending over our pets and playthings; and 
posterity, like the child become a man, will laugh at 
our earnestness over trifles, and our puerile efforts to 
manacle its freedom and action. Let us, then, confioe 
ourselves within the sphere of our duty; let us lay 
down principles, principles known and settled, and 
not waste our time in the elaboration of mere details of 
expediency, and which future experience may show as 
wholly inexpedient—nay, positively injurious. This 
is what duty and the people expect of us, and have a 
right to expect; and in the fulfillment of which, we 
shall so act as to command the respect of the present, 
without drawing upon ourselves the ridicule of a future 
generation. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD said he had listened with great 
attention to the argument of the gentleman from Guern¬ 
sey, [Mr. Leech,] and had no doubt it had been well 
conned and committed. He had, however, been guil¬ 
ty of a slight misnomer in calling it an argument, when 
there was nothing in it in the shape of an argument, 
except the assertion that in England, the railroads were 
made so and so. In this respect, however, he had no 
idea the gentleman was correct. He had some ac¬ 
quaintance with English affairs, as well as the gentle¬ 
man from Guernsey. But even if the statement is true, 
there is nothing in the situation of our country or the 
distribution of its wealth at all analagous to that of 
Great Britain. That is a country of immoderate wealth 
in individual hands, and if great public works can be 
conducted there by the means of single individuals, it 
is no evidence that it can be done here ; and if the as¬ 
sertion that such things are done is true, it would 
not change his opinion in the least. But, he said, it is 
not true. The assertion is not accompanied by any 
proof whatever. There may be such a thing as a rail¬ 
road that is owned by an individual; but that is no rea¬ 
son why the people of Ohio should be deprived of the 
principle of association. I say that the right to associ¬ 
ate wealth is no privilege whatever. What is the object 
of an act of incorporation confeiTed upon an improve¬ 
ment company ? It is a simple abridgement of the 
partnership deeds. An ordinary partnership is incon¬ 
venient in an association of money, because every part¬ 
ner who dies or goes out, and eveiy new partner who 
comes in, works a dissolution of the existing partner¬ 
ship. If the mere ability to avoid this diffi culty is an 
exclusive privilege, who is injured—who is wronged 
—who is robbed by it ? 

The gentleman from Guernsey also reads, as author¬ 
ity for His opinions, the resolutions of some convention, 

I believe, in 1846 . Now all I have to say about this is, 
that if in some wine drinking party collected together, 
anything so wild and so idle has been concocted, why 
did not the gentleman, in charity to its authors, con¬ 
ceal it—why did he not throw it to the moles and the 
bats ? And I can tell him, that' if he brings this doc¬ 
trine into the constitution, its effect will be that there 
will not be a grease-spot left of the Democratic party 
in Ohio. The radicalism and madness of its leaders has 
already deprived it of its working majority in the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, and if this work is to go on it will nev¬ 
er regain its position, so long as grass grows and water 

runs. . . 

Mr. HOLMES was not in favor of the proposition of 
the gentleman from Guernsey, [Mr. Leech.] He be¬ 
lieved there were certain objects of a public nature 
which could not be carried on without acts of incorpo¬ 
ration. For purposes of internal improvement he be¬ 
lieved them necessary, but he would go against all 
those, the object of whose association was mere pri¬ 
vate gain. He was unwilling to go for anything which 
would change the usual relation that legally exists be¬ 
tween debtor and creditor. 














1270 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. HAWKINS demanded the previous question, 
and five members rising in support of the demand, the 
same was sustained. 

The question then being: shall the main question be 
now put ? 

Mr. STILWELL demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 30, nays 61—aslol- 
lows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Cahill, Chaney, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hunter, Johnson, King, Lidey, 
Loudon, Manon, Otis, Patterson, Quigley, Reemelin, iSawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, 
Swift Thompson ot Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Way, Wood¬ 
bury and President—30. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case ot Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, 
Curry, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of 
Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech Lead- 
better, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Nor¬ 
ris, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, 
Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stilw'ell, Stidger, Swan, Taylor, Vance 
of Butler, Warren, Williams and Wortliington—61. 

So the demaud for the previous question was not sus¬ 
tained. 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, moved that the Convention 
adjourn; which was lost. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Leech ; 

Mr. LEADBETTER said he should be under the ne¬ 
cessity of voting with the gentleman from Guernsey, 
l_Mr. Leech,] and the gentleman from Ross, [Mr. 
Green,] upon this question—not exactly for the rea¬ 
sons given by the gentleman from Ross, but for others 
of far more importance. This amendment calls up 
the whole question of corporations. We have got the 
State pretty well shingled over with them, of all kinds, 
from a doggery down to a bank, and the Legislature 
is in a fair way to give us a plenty more. He did not 
see why, under the system as reported, any associa¬ 
tion for any purpose might not be incorporated. A 
house of ill-fame might be incorporated, and thus se¬ 
cure itself from being suppressed by the public au¬ 
thorities. The principle is precisely the same. The 
value of the franchise in such a case would be con¬ 
siderable, and would consist in the immunity from sup¬ 
pression. 

In regard to the third section, he was in favor of re¬ 
taining it, as amended. No honest man, who purcha¬ 
ses stock, is desirous to get rid of the liabilities at¬ 
tending it. It is the gamblers and stock-jobbers who 
want to shirk this responsibility. Men become stock¬ 
holders in corporations for the purposes of profit. The 
idea that men invest their money in such enterprizes 
from merely patriotic motives, is all in my eye. They 
go into it—first, because they expect dividends ; and 
secondly, because it will enhance the value of their 
property. Then they should meet the responsibility 
of their acts, and not attempt to escape it through an 
act of incorporation. 

Mr. SAWYER had a word to say. As at present 
situated, he was like the old woman when she saw her 
husband and a bear fighting—she did not care a cent 
which whipped. He had attempted by every device 
in his power, to introduce into this constitution the 
piinciples of individual liability of stockholders and 
repeal of charters, and that without avail. He had 
done his duty, and did not intend to attempt any fur¬ 
ther exertion in that respect. The affair was in the 
hands of gentlemen on this side and that side of the 
House, and it would have to be with them. But one 
thing he would say—that if the constitution does not 
contain a provision of this kind, he would not affix his 
signature to it when it is completed ; and not only so, 
but he would go home and employ all the powers that 
God had given him to prevent its adoption by the peo¬ 
ple. 

'] he PRESIDENT announced Messrs. Ewart, Smith 
of Warren, King, Townshend and Kirkwood, the com¬ 


mittee under the resolution submitted by Mr. Ewart, 
on the 13th inst., wJiich resolution provides, that^ the 
committee shall report to the Convention a schedule, 
or article, providing for the expiration of the terms of 
all the officers; and the termination of courts of justice, 
under the existing constitution; and the transfer of 
business to those elected and organized under the new 
constitution. 

The question being on the j^amendmeut of Mr. 
Lk kch * 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


TUESDAY, February 18, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. ; 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Mitchell. | 

Mr. GREGG presented a petition from D. W. Gage, 
and one hundred and four other males, and Lucy A. 
Gage, and ninety-nine other females of Lake county, 
praying that a clause be inserted in the new constitu¬ 
tion, prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law 
legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors; which, on motion, 
was laid on the table. j 

Mr. GROESBECK, from the standing committee on i 
Preamble and Bill of Rights, to which was recommit¬ 
ted the report on that subject, reported the same back 
with sundry amendments. 

On motion of Mr. GROESBECK, the report and 
pending amendments were laid on the table. 

Mr. SWAN, from the standing committee on the Ju¬ 
dicial Department, to which was recommitted the re¬ 
port on that subject, reported the same back with sun¬ 
dry amendments. 

On motion of Mr. SWAN, the report and pending 
amendments were laid on the table. 

Mr. LOUDON, from the majority of the standing j 
committee on Finance and Taxation, to which was re¬ 
committed report number one, of the committee on 
that subject, submitted the following, as a substitute j 
therefor: 

REPORT NUMBER TWO, 

OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND TAXATION. 

Sec. 1. That the levying of taxes by the poll is grievous and 
oppressive; therelore the Legislature shall never levy a poll tax 
for county or State purposes. 

Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall provide by law, an uni¬ 
form rule of assessment and taxation, and shall prescribe such 
regulations as will secure a just valuation of all property, both 
real and personal, and moneys and credits, or investments in joint 
stock companies or otherwise, shall be taxed as other propehty is 
taxed; 

Provided, That burying grounds, public school houses, houses 
used exclusively for worship, to an amount not over two thousand 
dollars, institutions of purely public charity, the property of the 
State, of counties, townships, cities and towns, may by general 
]aws be exempt from taxation. 

And the General Assembly may exempt from taxation proper¬ 
ty belonging to the head of each family, not exceeding in value 
two hundred dollars. 

Sec. 3. 3 he General Assembly shall provide by law for taxing 
the capital stock paid in, notes and bills discounted, undivided ^ 
profits, and real and personal estate of all banks now in existence, 
or hereafter coming into existence in this State, deducting there¬ 
from the amount of their circulation. 

Sec. 4. I'he General Assembly shall provide for revenue suf¬ 
ficient to defray the expenses of the State for each year, and also 
a sufficient sum to pay the interest on the State debt- 

Sec. 5. No tax of any description whatever shall be levied or 
enacted, except in pursuance of law, and every law which impo¬ 
ses such tax shall state distinctly the object of the same, to which 
only it shall he applied. 

Sec. 6. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury except I 
in pursuance ot a distinct and special appropriation made by law. 

Sec. 7. The State shall never contract any debt for purposes 
of internal improvement. j 

[Signed,] JAMES LOUDON, 

JOHN EWING, ' 

[E. WILSON, 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the report was laid on i 
the table, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. LIDEY'^, from the standing committee on Militia, 
to which was recommitted report number two, of the 



















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1271 


committee ou that subject, submitted the followin'^ as 
a substitute therefor: 

ARTICLE ON MILITIA. 

Sec. 1. That all white male citizens residents of this State he 
mg eighteen years of age and under the age of fWfiveTear^ 
shall be enrolled in the militia, and shall pirform mditary^dutv 


Sec. 2. Majors General, Brieadiers Genenl t ,• 

Subalterns, shall be ele^ct 
astrict? respective 


their non-comm^sioned officers and musicians. 

^EC. 4. Ihe Governor shall have nower to call forth tLo rv>; 

“V Of '>'" Seatertreurpree taeunection 
JfP Officers of the line, andstaft offic^rraS- 

Spr commissioned by the Governor. 

General Assembly shall provide by law for the nro- 

SSSlm!* "" “• »™‘. “ “oy S deeS 

[Signed,] JOHN LIDEY, 

JAMES LOUDON, 
JOSEPH THOxMPSON, 
SABIRT SCOTT, 

H. W. GILLETT 

Mr. ORTON moved that the rules be suspended, so 
”u™ber three, of the committee on 
Alilitia, to be acted upon without further delay 

On which motion, Mr. MANON demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 39, 
nays 50—as lollows : 

• ^^■‘^hbold, Blair, Cahill, Chambers, Farr, Greere 
"I’l Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard! Henderson, Hootmam 
T cn^Sttc f’• Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 

Leadbettei, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson 

^™ith of Wyandot! 

Oebbins, Smlger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shelby 

Williams, Wilson and Woodbury—39. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
of ?ir’r?if ^.l^^^^ensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 

Collmgs, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Flor- 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, 
?oiS ^lorton. Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, 

Jones, Kennon Manon, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Otis. Peck 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Warren, ^tilwell, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler 
Warren, Way, Worthington and President—50. ’ 

So the Convention refused to suspend the rules. 

Mr. 1AYLOR moved that the report of the commit¬ 
tee on Militia be laid on the table and ordered to be 
pnnted. 

Mr. LOUDON demanded a division. 

The question then being first on laying the report ou 
the table; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the report to be 
pnnted ; it was disagreed to. 

Report number two, of the committee on the Legis- 
tive Department, was read a third time. 

The question then being on the passage of the report; 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved that the report be 
referred to a select committee of one, with instructions 
to strike out the w'ord “ first,” in the thirty-sixth section. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved that the re¬ 
port be recommitted to the committee that reported it. 

Mr. SAWYER moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question be 
now put?” It was agreed to. 

The question then being on the passage of the re- 

Mr. VANCE of Butler, moved to reconsider the vote 
by which the Convention had just sustained the previ¬ 
ous question. 

On which motion, Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 61, 
nays 30—as follows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar* 
uett ot Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown ot Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case ot Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, 
Curry, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of 
Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Jones, 


Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Loudon, Mason, Morehead. 
Morris, McCloud, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley 
Reemehn, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smiih 

f Stilwell, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson 

Vance ot Butler, Warren and Woodbury—61. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Farr, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Hard, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Larwill, Leech, 
LeadbeTter, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Orton, Ranney, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith ot Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Swift, Way, Wilson, Worthington and President—30. 

So the motion to reconsider was agreed to. 

The question then being, ” shall the main question be 
now put?” 

Mr. ARCH BOLD demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 29, nays 61—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Farr, Forbes, Greene of 
Defiance, Hard, Hootman, Hunter, Johnson, Larwill, Lidey, 
Manon, Mitchell, Orton, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sel- 
lers. Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Swift, 
Thompson of Stark, Warren, Way and President—29. 

—Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Col- 
lings. Cook, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Jones, Kennon. King, Kirkwood, Larsh, 1 oudon. Mason, More¬ 
head, Morris, McCloud, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, 
Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Sci tt of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith ot Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, Struble, Thompson of Shel¬ 
by, Vance of Butler, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—61. 

So the demand for the previous question was not sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then being on recommitting the report 
to the standing committee on the Legislative Depart¬ 
ment ; 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 30, nays 62— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Brown of Athens, Chambers, Ewing, 
Gillett, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Hunt Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Loudon, More¬ 
head, Patterson, Quigley, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Smith ot 
Wyandot, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Warren, Wilson and Worthington—30. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble. Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, 
Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Holmes, Hoot- 
man, Hunter, Johnson, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Li¬ 
dey, Manon, Mason Mitchell, Morris, McCloud, Norris, Orton, 
Ods, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Stilwell, Stickney, Swift, Vance of Butler, Way, Woodbury and 
President—62. 

So the motion to recommit the report to the standing 
committee was rejected. 

The question then being on recommitting the report 
to a select committee of one, with instructions to strike 
out the word “first,” in section 36; 

Mr. LEECH demanded a division. 

The question being first on referring the report to a 
select committee of one ; 

Mr. SCOTT, of Auglaize, demanded the yeas and 
nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 58, nays 
36—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Col¬ 
lings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, 
Henderson. Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Humphre¬ 
ville, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Loudon, Manon, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Rid¬ 
dle, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Vance of Butler, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—58. 

Nays— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Farr, Forbes, Greene ot 
Defiance, Hard, Hootman, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, King, Law- 

__ T _ill T T T K!/M*rtQ O'rtnT^ 



Swift, Taylor, Way and President—36. 

So the motion was adopted ; and Mr. Humphreville 
was appointed said committee. 

The question then being on the instructions, to wit; 
“ Strike out the word ‘ first,’ in section 36;” 
















1272 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 47, nays 47 —as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Barnett ot Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderier, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Col- 
lings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Larsh, Loudon, 
Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Perkins, 
Scott ol Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, 
Stilwell, Thompson of Shelby and Woodbury—47. 

Nays —Messrs.Cahill, Chaney, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Hunt, 
Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Siruble, 
Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Way, 
Wilson, Worthington and President—47. 

So the motion to instruct was rejected. 

Mr. SWAN moved to strike out section 36, anddn- 
sert in lieu thereof, the following; 

Private property shall ever be held inviolate, but subservient 
to the public welfare. When in time of war, or other public ex¬ 
igency, imperatively requiring an immediate seizure of private 
property lor public use, a comijensation shall be made to the 
owner in money. And in all other cases in which the public good 
shall require private property to be taken for public use, a com¬ 
pensation therefor shall first be made in money, or first secured 
by deposit of money. And such compensation shall be assessed 
by a jury, and without deduction on account of the nublic use 
being a benefit to any property of the owner. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend the instructions, by 
striking out the words: “or first secured by deposit of 
money; ” 

On which motion, Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas 
and nays; which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 41, 
nays 53—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Browai of Athens, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene 
m Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Holmes, Holt, Ilootman, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lid^, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Quigley, Ranney, Reeme- 
hn. Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyan¬ 
dot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Stiaible, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Stark, Way and President—41. 

—Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chambers, CLaney, 
Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Haidnn, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitch 
cock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon. Kirkwood, 
Laph, Lawrence, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Hi»h- 
land. Smith of Warren, Stilwell, Swan, Vance ot Butler, Warren, 
Woodbury and Worthington—53. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on Mr. Swan’s motion to 
instruct; 

Mr. CURRY moved to amend the instructions, by 
striking out all after the'word “ jury.” 

On which motion, Mr. CURRY demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 25, 
nays 69—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Baniet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Floi'ence, Hamilton, Hor¬ 
ton, Larsh, Loudon, Mason,'^Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Peck, 
Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren and 
Stilwell—25. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chaney, 
Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green 
of Ross, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga,Holmee, Holt, Hoot¬ 
man, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, 
King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
Manon, Mitchell, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ran¬ 
ney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby. Thompson of Stark, Vance 
of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, W’orthington and 
President—69. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved to amend the instructions, 
by inserting after the word “ use,” the following: “ or 
when taken for the purpose of making or repairin'^ 
such public roads as shall be open to the public use, 
without any toll or other charge therefor ;” 

On which motion, Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded the 


yeas and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 
48, nays 45—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Bhckensderfer, 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, 
Collings, Cook, Farr, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of 
Ross, Hamilton, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunter, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Loudon, Mor¬ 
ris, Morehead, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Reemelin, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stilwell, Stidger, 
Struble, Swan, Vance of Butler, Warren and Worthington—48. 

NayS—M essrs. Cahill, Chaney, Curry, Dorsey, Ewing, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Ilawkins, 
Henderson, Holmes, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, Lawrence, 
Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, McCloud, 
Nash, Orton, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Ridde, Sawyer, Sellers, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Way, Woodbuiy and 
President—45. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

The question then being on agreeing to the instruc¬ 
tions, as amended; 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 57, nays 39—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Y’eas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown ot Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, 
Farr, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, 
Kirkwood, Lawrence, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stilwell. Struble, Swan, Thompson 
of Shelby Vance of Butler, VVarren, Woodbury and Worthington 
—57. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Cahill, Chaney, Curry, Ewing, 
Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Hard, Ilarlan, Holmes, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, Morris, 
Norris, Orton, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Stidger, Swift, Taylor, Thompson ot Stark, Way, Wil¬ 
son and President—39. 

So the instructions were adopted. 

Mr. STILWELL submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the select committee be further instructed to 
amend the report, so as to provide that the members of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly and their officers shall receive a fixed and certain 
compensation, to be prescribed by law; and no other allowance 
or perquisite whatever, either in payment of postage or other¬ 
wise. 

Mr. MANON moved to amend the resolution, by 
striking out that part which relates to postage; which 
was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution ; * 

Mr. STILWELL demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 63, nays 33— 
as follows: 

Y"eas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Chambers, Col¬ 
lings, Cook, Curry, Farr, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene 
of Defiance, Gregg, Gi'oesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hunter, 
Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Otis, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swan, 
Struble, Swift, Taylor, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, 
Woodbury, and Worthington—63. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Bennett, Blair, Brown of 
Carroll, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chaney, Dorsey, Ewing, Forbes, 
Green of Ross, Hard, Holmes, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, 
Jones, Larsh, Leech, Nash, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, 
Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stickney, 
Stidger, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson Stark, and President 
—33. 

So the resolution was adopted. 

Mr. W ORTHINGTON submitted the following : 

Resolved, That the select committee on the Legislative Depart- ! 
ment be instructed to amend the same by adding to the end of 
section 35, these words: 

“ Nor shall any new county be laid ofi’ under this proviso, which 
shall contain less than 20,000 inhabitants.” 

On the adoption of which Mr. WORTHINGTON de- I 
manded the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and 
re.sttlted—yeas 58, nays 29—as follows: 

Yeas— ^Messrs. Barbee, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Ca¬ 
hill, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Gil¬ 
lett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Har- 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1273 


Ian, Henderson, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, John¬ 
son, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lidey, Mason, Morehead, 
Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, 
Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stan¬ 
ton, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington, and Pre¬ 
sident—58. 

Nays— Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Ben¬ 
nett, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Chaney, Forbes, Gray, 
Hitchcock ot Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hunter, Kennon, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Leech, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Morris, McCloud, 
Nash, Reemelin, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, and Warren—29. 

So the resolution was adopted. 

Report number two of the committee on Corpora¬ 
tions other than Corporations for Banking, was read a 
third time. 

The question then being on the pa.ssage of the re¬ 
port ; it was agreed to. 

On motion, the report was referred to the committee 
on Revision, Enrollment, and Arrangement. 

Mr. NASH submitted the following, which was 
adopted : 

Resolved, That the following words be added to the end ot 
standing rule thirty-five, to wit: “ Which shall be confined and 
relate to the particular section then under consideration, unless 
the Conventiion shall otherwise direct.” 

And that from the close of rule thirty-two the following words, 
to wit: “but shall not preclude further and different amend¬ 
ments,” shall be stricken. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the Door-keeper be authorized to employ one 
assistant. 

Mr. LARWILL demanded the yeas and nays ; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 45, nays 39—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas — Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Bennett, Blair, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chaney, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Flor¬ 
ence, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Henderson, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Horton, Johnson, Jones, Kennon, 
King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Ma 
son, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Peck, Quigley, Riddle, Sawyer, Sel¬ 
lers, Stebbins, Swan, Way, Woodbury, Worthington, and Presi¬ 
dent—45. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Chambers, Cook, Ewart, Forbes, 
Gillett, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Hootman, Hunt, Hunter, Larwill, Manon, Morris, McCloud, Otis, 
Patterson, Perkins, Reemelin, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stilwell, 
Stickney, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, and Vance 
ot Butler—39. 

So the resolution was adopted. 

On motion of Mr. LEECH, the Convention then 
took up the report number one of the committee on 
Corporations other than Corporations for Banking. 

The question pending being upon striking out the 
word special," where it occurs in section one— 

Mr. MITCHELL said: Mr. President, I desire to 
•ubmit a few remarks upon the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Guernsey, [Mr. Leech,] before 
voting upon it. I regard this amendment as proposing 
to declare most unequivocally, that hereafter no corpo¬ 
rations shall be created in this State. This declara¬ 
tion it would really rejoice my heart to see made; but, 
judging from past manifestations, I cannot promise my¬ 
self, now, this high gratification, from the action of this 
body, 

I feel that we are doomed to renewed disappoint¬ 
ment and deep chagrin at seeing one of the old and 
lately clearly recognized tests of democracy voted 
down : literally repudiated upon this floor. Sir, it is 
painful to reflect upon the defections constantly mani¬ 
festing themselves in a party which always ought, in 
this government, to be largely in the ascendant—glori¬ 
ously triumphant upon all the great and truly republi¬ 
can issues which it makes. But, sir, while men cling 
round it, whose hearts and minds are not sincerely 
imbued with its cardinal doctrines, but whose sole at¬ 
tachment consists in a love of place and power, of the 
loaves and fishes of office, such embarrassment must 
ever attend this justly popular but unfortunate party. 
It has already been clearly shown, that this doctrine 
has been openly and unequivocally promulgated by the 
highest organized body known to our party. In the 


county from which I came, it has been frequently and 
expressly declared. 

Still, sir, I admit that all this is not conclusive argu¬ 
ment in favor of the justice or propriety of this propo¬ 
sition. These things should lead all men claiming to 
be democrats, carefully to examine the subject before 
they conclude aeaiiist these clear declarations of the 
party. 

Sir, I now propose to suggest a few considerations 
which abundantly satisfy my mind of the correctness 
of this doctrine. In doing this, I cannot enter into the 
subject with any degree of fullness, but must content 
myself with the mere statement of points, leaving oth¬ 
ers to think out the manifest reasons which support 
them. 

The first objection I urge against the policy of cor¬ 
porations, is, that the business confided to them will 
never elicit the same circumspection, prudence and 
care on the part of the individuals whose investments 
are concerned, as would be observed in the case of mei'e 
partnerships or private enterprises. 

Hence, the business and interests of the community 
suffer in no inconsiderable degree from want of that 
personal, individual care which constitutes the highest 
guaranty for success and efficiency in its prosecution. 

This, sir, is no slight consideration, simply in point 
of policy. Sir, what has made your entire country the 
wonder of enlightened men thi'oughout the world, as 
it justly is; but this peculiar feature of all your business 
transactions. I mean the great leading business of the 
country. Trade has hitherto been left entirely open to 
the energy and competition of each individual mem¬ 
ber ot society. So have been all the industrial pursuits 
—each man embarking with the capital he may have, 
whether it may consist in the strength of his arm, the 
weight of his purse, or the vigor, energy and foresight 
of his God-given intellect, or all combined. No differ¬ 
ence, sir, which. Heretofore, the institutions of this 
country have kept the door open, wide and free, for aU 
to enter, and secure and enjoy thejust rewards of pru¬ 
dence, energy and diligence, in the prosecution of their 
calling. Leaving, also, at the same time, that highest 
of all incentives to prudence, watchfulnes and zeal in 
carrying on the business of the country the fear of 
loss incident thereto. This most wholesome of all the 
principles of trade, this most sure of all our springs to 
prosperity, is utterly taken away by the policy of cor¬ 
porations. The chief, and in a vast many instances, the 
only real object of obtaining a corporate organization, 
is to relieve the capitalist investing his means, from 
the principal hazards of trade, and to throw this nsk 
upon the innocent community, who may chance to be 
so for duped, as to trust a creditor of whom they can 
know nothing, literally nothing, satisfactorily. _ 

The results, then, of this policy must of necessity be 
o cripple and impede the progress of our country in its 
thigh career of prosperity and advancement in all the 

arts of civilized life. ^ , • 

But sir, another consideration of still higher impoi- 
tance,’and one which ought to weigh mightily with 
men claiming the high regard for morality this body 
does, is the fact that this system of incorporations en¬ 
tirely deprives community of the great benefits ot the 
wholesome restraints of morality upon the business ot 
the country. Sir, the magnitude of this evil is not at 
all comprehended by the men of our day. It would, 
perhaps, if carefully scanned, account for many, very 
many of the alarming moral evils with which we are 
now afflicted. Corporations have no souls to dauin, 
and no bodies to whip, consequently, nothing to which 

moral accountability can attach. They are controlled 

bvunseen hands, whose very names are carefully con- 
c^led from the public. Agents are selected to repre¬ 
sent them with the public, who, it is known, are merely 
representing the prescribed will of these unseen supe¬ 
riors; and hence, are regarded as morally responsible 
only for their fidelity to the behests of this body, in the 
dark who are again but agents of a still greater unseen. 











1274 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


unknown number, who have embarked their interest 
alone for the sake of gain. Gain, then, is their polar 
star, and the attainment of this end constitutes the chief 
aim of all their endeavors, and gives zeal and energy to 
all their efforts. Deeds of the grossest enormity, of 
the most unparalleled iniquity, may be concocted and 
executed without community being able to detector 
point out the guilty perpetrators. 

They are, sir, emphatically beyond the reach of that 
most potent of all powers of restraint appointed by In¬ 
finite wisdom, for the regulation of men’s actions, in 
their dealings with each other. In proportion, sir, as 
you remove or weaken it, you make men devils instead 
of moral beings, in their dealings. Avarice and lust 
for gain assume control, and soon a love for justice, and 
a sense of right literally die out of the hearts of men, 
leaving them monsters, ripe for anything ! 

Sir, look at the manner in which your proud and 
pompous Pharisees of this day receive into their com¬ 
munions men reeking with these iniquities practised 
by your wealthy corporators, in the dark. Ah! sir, let 
not these men think that they, by the guise of their 
corporations, escape the broad gaze of an all-seeing and 
sin-hating God! 

They may, by their wealth and proud position, turn 
away the scrutiny of some, and from their secret ways, 
artfully provided, avoid that of many more, still their 
moral turpitude, in truth, remains, and its blighting 
effects upon society, though also unseen, are none the 
less certainly and fatally going on, sapping its founda¬ 
tions ; rendering it in truth a whited sepulchre, in whose 
gilded vault lies mouldering the remains of all that is 
excellent and praiseworthy among men. Sir, in my 
judgment, this is no fancy picture, but a faithful sketch 
of the fatal effects of this policy now developing itself 
in our midst. 

But, sir, another objection that we are most forcibly 
reminded of in our deliberations here almost every day. 
Sir, I was really astonished, the other day, to hear the 
gentleman from Ross, [Mr. Green,] break forth in a 
perfect rhapsody, in adulation of these corrupt and 
presumptuous combinations of men. Yesterday he 
merely repeated the same encomiums. Nor, sir, is 
he the only one on this floor who indulges in these 
episodes. 

You would think, sir, to hear these gentlemen, that 
these corporations had done every thing for us, and 
hence, are entitled to all the credit to be ascribed to 
any one, for our wonderful prosperity, our happy and 
flourishing condition. 

Sir, my soul becomes ardent with indignation when 
I hear the retainers of these anti-republican combina¬ 
tions doing such provoking injustice to an honest and 
virtuous yeomanry, whose persevering industry and 
prudence have, in truth, produced these creditable re- 
BUltS. 

Sir, it may look like a little thing to be contending 
about who shall have the credit of our great prosperi¬ 
ty. I do not so regard it. One great stimulus to ac¬ 
tion has ever been the consciousness that we shall re¬ 
ceive the just price due to worthy deeds. This, sir, 
with the hope of pecuniary reward, constitutes the two 
powerful incentiv'es to action, in the breast of man. 

Why, then, should the honest and industrious far¬ 
mer, the virtuous and laborious mechanic, the prudent 
and upright merchant—yes, sir, and the faithful day- 
laborer, whose toil and diligence combined alone have 
made your State the pride and glory of the youthful 
Republic of America, be thus violently and unjustly 
robbed—yer, sir, robbed of the praise and honor due 
their virtuous efiorts, in thus working out their coun- 
try’s glory ? 

Sir, I felt chagrined at the thought that members of 
this honorable body should be found guilty of this un¬ 
just and disgraceful conduct towards the great body of 
our people—and this certainly for no very worthy pur¬ 
pose ; but simply to steal a little decent drapery to 
throw over and hide the hideous and loathsome carcas¬ 


es of these personifications of villainy and injustice, 
called corporations. Sir, I call upon the people of this 
State to look at this thing in its reality—to consider 
this presumptuous claim to the honor due to their vir¬ 
tuous and fatiguing souls, by these pimps of a most 
contemptible aristocracy. Read, sir, the remarks of 
the gentleman from Ross, [Mr. Green] whose course 
on this subject rather astonished me. (See his speech 
of February 7, 1851.) Fle says: “Why this unneces¬ 
sary warfare upon every great interest of the commu¬ 
nity ? ” Yes, sir, “ every great interest of community,” 
are his words—constitute his modest claim for these 
objections of his sympathy. But hear him further : 
“ Those associations for improvements by roads, &c., 
and for the trade in money, through the instrumentali¬ 
ty of which, mainly have arisen the wonders that meet 
us at every point in the physical progress of the coun¬ 
try.” Here, sir, is the further exhibition of the modest 
claim of these gentlemen upon this subject. 

Yes, sir, your country’s blessings and glories, great— 
eminently great as they may be, are to be mainly cred¬ 
ited to these vampires and moths upon the honest in¬ 
dustry of men—these drones in the working hive of 
industrious men, with which our country is fifled. 

Yes, sir, from these worthy multitudes whose cease¬ 
less toils have removed from your hill tops the lofty 
forests, and covered them with waving grain; from 
your rich valleys, the deep tangled wild wood, and 
made them vocal with bleating folds and lowing herds 
—the credit is to be stripped away, and turned over to 
these few exclusives! 

Sir, w'hen I contemplate the glowing picture of our 
country’s prosperity, the results of the industry of men 
whose memory I cherish with the liveliest emotions, 
and then remember that a systematic attempt is now 
being made here in this body, and indeed throughout 
the whole country, by the whig party, to rob them of 
their justly earned honors, my feelings of indignation 
rise above my powers of utterance. 

While these multitudes are toiling in the sun, in their 
work shops, and behind their counters, working out 
these wonderful results, where are your finely dressed 
gentlemanlike corporators ? Are they touching the 
burden “ wdth one of their fingers? ” No, sir! But 
snugly seated in their elegantly furnished bank parlors, 
or directors’ room, they plot and contrive how they 
can levy a little heavier stipend upon the product of 
these toiling, unsuspecting millions, to increase their 
already ill-gotten hoards. 

Nor, sir, are these men scrupulous as the means, so 
that the end be attained. • 

This picture, as just and true as I can draw it, shows 
how much of the credit of our prosperity is justly due 
to these presumptuous combinations of men. 

How impious, then, sir, is their claim to all this cred¬ 
it, as set up for them by the mass of the whig party. 
Sir, these things show far more satisfactorily than all 
their direct professions of anxiety for the welfare of 
the people can, where theirreal sympathies are; whose 
interest they really, at heart, cherish. Why then, sir, 
should any real friend of the people tolerate such a 
policy—one which does such gross injustice—-pne 
which seeks to deprive the country of one of the most 
wholesome incentives to action, and to leave our la¬ 
boring classes in the degraded condition to which they 
are doomed in all the monarchies and aristocracies of 
modern times? 

But, sir, my greatest objection to corporations, I 
have before stated here repeatedly. This is, that from 
the very nature of things, they are inconsistent with 
our institutions; inevitably at war with a just republi¬ 
can equality. Governments here are in fact, formed 
by compact among the people—among the individuals 
of society. They are formed, too, for the sole purpose 
of protecting each individual in the enjoyment of those 
rights which lie has not of necessity surrendered, in 
order to form the social compact. The understanding 
with him is, that the road to happiness and fortune is 









CONVENTION KEPORTS. 1275 


to be kept as fully open to him as to any other of his 
fellows. This implies that he shall be entitled to the 
opportunity of contending in his struggle for wealth 
and happiness with his fellow man, in the condition 
they each occupy when forming this compact; name¬ 
ly : their individual condition. Each man against his 
fellow. 

Now, sir, if government so far overlooks or violates 
the spirit of this compact, as to lend its aid to com¬ 
bine a certain favored few to struggle with their uni¬ 
ted force against the isolated masses of individuals who 
are alike entitled to the favor of this same govern¬ 
ment, then a wrong is done to every individual. An 
unnatural opposing force is arrayed against each single 
handed combatant in this strife, which makes his suc¬ 
cess far more doubtful, and that of his antagonists 
more probable. But, Government does not stop here 
in the creation of these corporations. She acts upon 
the grossly false hypothesis that she is the fountain of 
privileges and rights ; and, hence, has a boundless and 
illimitable power of conferring on whom she may 
please just such honors or emoluments as she may 
choose. Sir, a position more positively antagonistic 
to the true design of all republican governments, could 
not be suggested or maintained. And, yet, sir, to our 
disgrace, this is a prevailing notion of our day; not 
confined, I regret to say, to the whig party alone, but 
finding advocates among men claiming to be demo¬ 
crats. “God save such democracy,” 1 repeat! Sir, 
my friend from Guernsey, [Mr. Leech,] has shown 
beyond denial, that this has been most distinctly re¬ 
cognized as a leading tenet of the democratic faith. 

This is no new doctrine, but as old as democracy in 
this country. 

But upon this point I will spend no more time. 

Now, sir, let us inquire a little as to the necessity of 
these corporations. 

My friend from Guernsey [Mr. Leech,] has stated, 
and correctly, too, that the great body of the improve¬ 
ments made in this country, through the instrumental¬ 
ity of corporations, are chiefly done in England by 
joint-stock and other unincorporated companies. 

I am not astonished that this was denied; for sir, 1 
am not astonished at the denial of any historical fact, 
by some members on this floor. Sir, this is a matter of 
history, upon which any one may fully satisfy himself, 
if he will take the pains the gentleman from Guernsey 
has done to inform himself. 

Very fortunately for him, sir, he is fully sustained in 
his statement in this matter, by a very eminent author-; 
ity which I have at hand —the Honorable Edmund 
Burke. 

But, sir, look at the past experience in your State, 
and throughout the country, and answer me whether 
that justifies the assertion, that these combinations are 
necessary for the full development of the country’s re¬ 
sources. 

I have already shown by what means the great body 
of these improvements which indicate our prosperity 
have been made. I refer, sir, to your finely improved 
farms, with their comfortable and neat dwellings— 
your flourshing villages and large towns ? What agen¬ 
cy has corporations had in making these ? What next 
strikes the eye most prominently, in surveying the 
flourishing State of which we are justly proud? Is it 
not, sir, your thousand well-opened, respectably im¬ 
proved highways. How many of these, sir, are made 
by your corporations? 

Look to that part of the State where the impetus 
was first given to this spirit of road making—the West¬ 
ern Reserve, first settled by those good, old fashioned, 
energetic Yankees. How did they chequer their en¬ 
tire country over with the best roads the nature of 
their soil and materials will admit? How many of 
them, sir, were first made by corporate means? Two 
only, can I now recollect! One from Warren to Ash¬ 
tabula—the other from Wooster to Cleveland. In less 
than ten years after the oldest of these was made, there 


were upon each range centre, running just along side 
of this road, others fully as good, made by the energy 
of this mighty working mass of people whose just 
rights and honors I have been, and still am, endeavor¬ 
ing to vindicate and sustain. Nor is it from North to 
South alone, that this Reserve and the other portions 
of the State, are marked with good roads thus made, 
but, sir, from East to West, you find the same. And, 
sir, ninety-nine out of every hundred will be found 
made by this same unincorporated mass of our worthy 
citizens. 

Now, sir, look at the next most striking of the marks 
of our prosperity ; our Mechanic Arts. What propor¬ 
tion of this great source of our national greatness is 
aided or carried on by your corporations? So small a 
share, taking the entire mass, as hardly to justify notice. 

Then, turn to your internal commerce, embracing the 
entire mercantile class—a worthy, useful and highly 
deserving class. What proportion of these men, sir^ 
are carrying on their useful and spirit-stirring business 
by means of corporations? I know of none. Then 
where do you find, for the great and controlling busi¬ 
ness of your country, the necessity for creating these 
sneaking, rogue-concealing corporations? 

Sir, I claim to desire, as sincerely as any man on this 
floor, or in this State, can, the true and real prosperity 
thereof. Sir, it is my native State. To its hills and 
vallies I have ever been most fondly attached. All my 
attachments to my fellow men are confined almost ex¬ 
clusively to the people of this State. Why should I noli 
then, desire their highest good ? I do, sir ! And it is 
because that I believe that this demands the utter aban¬ 
donment of the unjust system of corporations which 
we have allowed to gain so great an ascendancy among 
our republican institutions, that I have thus far occu¬ 
pied the time of this Convention upon this subject. 

Sir, I feel deeply upon this subject, and it is because 
my mind is deeply convinced, that I thus feel. I have 
discharged my duty. I have laid before this body, as- 
briefly as possible, some of the considerations which 
have led me to this conviction. I ask for them only a 
calm and impartial consideration—especially by my de¬ 
mocratic brethren, to whom I look with confidence for 
the protection of all the real interests of the country. 

I shall vote for this amendment, with my braye 
young friend from Guernsey, [Mr. Leech,] and with 
him, can say that let others do as they may, I shall es¬ 
teem it a high privilege thus to bear my recorded tes¬ 
timony in behalf of one of the fundamental principles of 
democracy and free government. I shall give this vote 
with pleasure, though none should vote with me but 
my worthy friend. With him I can say—“It \yill be 
to me a proud vote—the proudest I shall give in thie 
Convention.” 

On motion of Mr. LARWILL, The Convention took 
a recess. 


2^ o’clock, p. w. 

Mr. GRAY moved a call of the Convention, which 
was ordered, and the following gentlemen were found 
absent: 

Me'srs. Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bennett, Blair, Case of Hock¬ 
ing. Case of Licking, Clark, Collings, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ew¬ 
art Farr, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hender- 
son. Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, 
Hunter, Kennon, King, Lawrence, Leadbelter, Loudon, Manon, 
Mason, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Orton, Patterson, 
Perkins, Riddle, Sawyer, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stebbms, 
Stickney, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, Wil- 
lirms, Woodbury and Worthington. 

On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, the doors were 
closed and the Segeant-at-Arms despatched lor the ab- 


SOTl 

On motion of Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, all further 
proceedings under the call were dispensed with. 

The question pending being on the motion of Mr- 
Leech to strike out the word “special,” in section one 
of the report number one of the committee on Coroo- 
ratious other than Corporations for Banking; 











1276 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas and nay.s, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 18, nays 73—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Gray, Iloot- 
tnan, Jones, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Mitchell, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Stickney, Stidger and Thompson oi 
Stark—18. 

JNays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of ISIontgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Bliekensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Chaney, Cook, Dor¬ 
sey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillet, Graham, 
<3reene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hor¬ 
ton, Humpreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Morehead, Morris, Mc- 
'Cloud, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Riddle, Scott 
of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith 
■of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stilwell, Struble, Swan, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, 
Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President—73. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on striking out seciton one; 
Mr. GROESBECK moved to perfect the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, by inserting after the word 
act,” the following words: ‘‘ Except for municipal 
purposes.” 

Mr. GROESBECK said, his intention in offering this 
amendment was simply to avoid what he considered 
would be an embarrassment, if not an absurdity, in 
legislation. The amendment applies only to munici¬ 
pal corporations. It certainly would be an absurdity 
to give to a town of a thousand inhabitants the same 
■charter of incorporation that you would give to a city 
of a hundred thousand. For example: Here is Cincin¬ 
nati, an ocean of power is requisite for their municipal 
regulations; whereas, if the same amount of power 
were conferred upon a little town, it would be almost 
flure to be abused. It appeared to him that no general 
law could be made to apply to all municipal charters 
in the State, and for this reason he had ofiered the 
amendment. 

Mr. REEMELIN had paid a great deal of attention 
to the subject of city charters and city government— 
enough, it might seem, to entitle his views to some lit 
tie weight; and of all things in the State which ought 
to be regulated by general laws, he considered the af¬ 
fairs of towns and cities to be amongst the first. These 
laws should be uniform, for the reason that our farmers 
and country traders need not be perplexed with differ¬ 
ent municipal laws in their communication with differ¬ 
ent places; |ind for the other reason that our lawyers 
v/ould necessarily be better acquainted with municipal 
affairs in general, and better understand the decisions 
of the courts in regard to them, as one decision would 
answer for all; and for the further reason, that by the 
suggestions of the experience of all the towns in the 
State, we would be able gradually to obtain better city 
regulations than we now have. 

Some eight years since, the city of Cincinnati got a 
law passed for the organization of their fire depart¬ 
ment; and that law had, since that time, been passed 
for eleven other cities of this State, and each one of 
them containing some slight improvement. And now, 
after eight years experience, the people of Cincinnati 
were again before the Legislature, asking for an entire 
new law upon this subject, and for the repeal of the 
old one. The reason of this second application was, 
that the old law was not well considered by the Legis¬ 
lature, and that the amendments made since,-were spe¬ 
cially made and not generally. It was drawn up by 
the city Attorney, and passed the General Assembly as 
a mere local measure, without that scrutiny which the 
importance of the subject deserved, and which a gen¬ 
eral law would have received. 

He referred also to the charter of the city of Toledo, 
containing seventy sections, and powers of the most 
enormous extent, which was passed by the General As¬ 
sembly without having been once read understanding- 
ly in either body. The same neglect occurred, and it 
was remarked by many, upon the passage of the char¬ 
ter, that it never could pass as a general law, while it 


did pass as a local law for Toledo, at the request of the 
immediate representative. 

The neglect of proper legislative attention was the 
great complaint against all local and special legislation. 
The provisions of the general laws were much more 
subjected to investigation and scrutiny, in both branch¬ 
es of the General Assembly. He would say, then, give 
us a general law for the regulation of all towns and 
cities, and my word for it, powers will be less apt to be 
granted than by special act. And if we have a good 
law, let us all enjoy the benefit of it; and if there is 
anything wrong iji it, let all be interested in its rectifi¬ 
cation. In this way we could avoid all the trouble and 
difficulty growing out of a too facile method of passing 
special city charters. Special legislation was the great 
evil under which our cities now labored. 

His colleague had told the Convention that we had 
an ocean of pow-er here in Cincinnati, but the fact was 
that the charter of this city was not near as liberal as 
that of many other towns of the State. The charter 
of the city of Toledo was much more liberal, in fact, it 
contained more enlarged municipal powers, than the 
cities of London and Paris — powers of legislation, 
which it seemed to him no man in his senses, could 
think of conferring upon any municipality. 

He would undertake to guarantee, if this report were 
adopted, that in less than ten years hence, good and 
wholesome municipal laws would be enjoyed in every 
town and city in the State of Ohio. For these reasons, 
and from considerations of economy, to which he might 
readily refer, he hoped the amendment of his colleague 
would not be adopted. 

The question as to being able to pass a general law 
regulating cities of a hundred thousand inhabitants, 
and the same law governing cities or towns of only 
five or ten thousand, was easily obviated by classifica¬ 
tion, having two grades for cities, and classifying towns 
and villages. 

The city limits might be fixed by special law, for 
that was not precluded by the section, but it could be 
done by general law, permitting the citizens to vote 
themselves for the limits they desire. At any rate it 
could be done by general law, and if not, then the 
special provision was still open. 

Mr. GROESBECK said the objections which he had 
made to the section, as it now stands, were not answer¬ 
ed by his colleague, although ho confessed that he had 
thrown some light upon the subject. He could not 
yet see how this thing could be conducted by general 
law, although he had never considered the matter as 
he ought, in order to form a very deliberate judgment. 
But the question still recurred : was it proper to give 
to a town of a thousand inhabitants the same power 
which should be exercised by a city of an hundred 
thousand ? Take such a municipal corporation as this, 
with its mayor and council of thirty men, with its ter¬ 
ritorial divisions into wards, its water works, its fire 
department, its extensive police, and other machinery 
of government, which he might refer to, and it seemed 
to him that it was only necessary to look at it, for his 
colleague or any other gentleman, to see that it would 
be entirely improper that such powers should be con¬ 
fided to a town of a small population. Take a town of 
five or ten thousand, with its officers and agents, in 
whom the people confide, was it to be supposed that 
the people of such a town could desire a council in¬ 
vested with all the powers which are required to be 
exercised in a city of the magnitude of Cincinnati? 
Would there not be a strong temptation to abuse? Are 
not gentlemen sati.sfied that the exercise of such pow¬ 
ers in such a town would be both unnecessary and un¬ 
desirable ? 

He was not yet satisfied that every town should be 
put under the same regulations, and that small bodies 
of men should be governed by the same rules as larger 
bodies; one located on a river, another upon a lake 
coast, and another in the interior, and all having differ¬ 
ent interests. It seemed to him there was great pro- 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


priety in allowing to the Legislature the latitude of 
adapting charters of incorporation to the peculiar wants 
of the several communities applying for them. 

He remembered now to have observed, upon former 
examination of this report, that in every one of the 
States which had adopted the plan of general corpora¬ 
tion laws, such as New York. Missouri, Illinois, Wis¬ 
consin, California and others, iliey had been compelled 
to make this exception. In all their constitutions, au¬ 
thorizing general corporation laws, they had been care¬ 
ful to make the exception he had just submitted. 

Mr. RANNEY confessed that he did not fully com¬ 
prehend the report. He would like to know from the 
chairman of the committee, [ Mr. Norris, ] how it 
would work in practice. The first section provides 
that the Legislature shall pass no special act conferring 
corporate powers. Was it intended here, that the Le¬ 
gislature should pass no law incorporating towns and 
cities ? 

A Voic^. “No special law.” 

Mr. RANNEY. But, then, how, when the Legisla¬ 
ture should come to define the limits of towns or ci¬ 
ties, could that be done without a special law ? He 
could see how they could make a law that any city 
coming up to a certain number of inhabitants might 
assume certain municipal powers; but then where 
would be the territorial limits, divisions and subdi¬ 
visions. 

The second section provided for the formation of 
corporations under general laws. Was it the meaning 
of this section that the Legislature should pass general 
laws, authorizing any number of men to get together 
in order to build a railroad, with power to take private 
property for that purpose ? If that was the interpret¬ 
ation, it would be going into the pictures a little fur¬ 
ther than he was willing to go. He did not kow that 
such would be the true interpretation of the section ; 
but it seemed to him that the Convention ought to 
pause and reflect before passing upon this report; and 
he would merely throw out these suggestions to induce 
reflection upon the subject. He would be glad to hear 
from the chairman how these two sections were to 
work together, and learn whether there was any foun¬ 
dation for his doubts. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said there was another considera¬ 
tion of difficulty frequently arising out of the extent 
and limits of towns. It was not unfrequently the case, 
that in order to escape taxation, the citizens of a town 
would build their residences outside of the corporation 
limits, and in process of time it would become desira¬ 
ble to extend the limits of the town, for the purpose 
of including these outsiders; and in order to settle the 
questions continually arising between such portions, 
he was inclined to think that the amendment of the 
gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] was ne¬ 
cessary. 

Mr. RE EMELIN said if his friend from Trumbull, 
[Mr. Ran NEY,] had read these two sections and con¬ 
sidered them in connection with the whole report, he 
would have found no room for doubt or difficulty. The 
first section was a mere declaration that corporate 
powers could not be conferred by a special act of the 
Legislature. 

It was plain that the people of any neighborhood 
might form themselves into a town or city, without the 
help of a special law from the General Assembly, if a 
proper general law was made. And if the gentleman 
would read the sixth section of the report, he would 
find that the general law clause did not refer to corpo¬ 
ration limits, but to the organization and powers of 
towns and cities. It was the mere frame work by 
which they were to be governed, which was to be fur¬ 
nished by general law. 

He proceeded to illustrate the evils of special legis¬ 
lation with reference to the organization of towns and 
cities, by referring to the hislory of the application by 
the Democrats and Whigs of Cincinnati, for the divis¬ 
ion of the city into wards. The former asking that the 


i2n 

division might be made by the General Assembly, and 
.he latter asking for authority to make these divisions 
by the city council. In this application, he considered 
that the Whigs were right, on principle, though the ap¬ 
plication was then made for party purposes. H^ 
other cities been interested in the matter, it would 
have been adjusfpd on the right ground at first, and 
we would have been saved all the various gerryman¬ 
ders which have taken place in this city. He referred 
also, to an ordinance, passed by the council of Cincin¬ 
nati, levying a tax of a quarter of a dollar upon every 
market wagon that might come into the city. This 
matter was regulated by act of the General Assembly 
by specially denying the right to levy such a tax 
while a general law would have regulated it for every 
other town and city in the State of Ohio, and all the 
farmers of the State would have had the benefit of that 
law, while now, other cities might levy such a tax and 
fleece the farmers surrounding, who might visit their 
market. 

The annexation of territory to a town or city migth 
be effected by a special act, which would not be prohi¬ 
bited by these general provisions. But the irame work 
of all municipal governments in the State should be 
regulated by general law. 

Mr. TAYLOR said it was questionable whether a- 
fair construction of the amendment of the gentleman 
from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] would not imply 
distrust of the capacity of the Legislature. It seemed, 
to him that if we admit corporations for internal im¬ 
provement and manulacturing purposes, could be re®’- 
ulated by general law'—if that principle was worth as¬ 
serting at all in this place—it semeed that the gentle¬ 
man ought to be willing to surrender his doubts as tc- 
the practicability of bringing towns and cities under 
the provisions of a general law. 

He concurred fully in the view of the other gentle¬ 
man irom Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin.] He saw noth¬ 
ing in the various municipal corporations of the State,. 
which would necessarily require different formulas of 
government to proceed from the Legislative body. To 
yield the principle in its application to towns and cities,, 
would never do, he would sooner abandon it in refer¬ 
ence to other corporations. 

The question being on Mr, Grossbkck’s amend¬ 
ment ; 

Mr. HORTON demanded the yeas and nays, which^ 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 43,. nays 45—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, BarneS of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Rates, BUckensderfer, Brown of Athens, Case 
Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, 
Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton* Harlan, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Kirkwood; 
Leadbetter, Manon, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, 
Peck, Perkins, Riddle, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren,. 
Stilwell, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Wilson and Wor¬ 
thington—43. 

Nays— Messrs. Blair, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chaney, Dorsey,, 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins,, 
Henderson, Holt, Hootman, Jones, King, Larsh, Lawrence, Lar- 
will. Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson,, 
Quigley, Reemelin, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaizej. 
Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stickney, Stidger, Struble[. 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Warren, Way, Woodbuny 
and President—45. 

So the amendment was rejected, and the q^ueetiom 
recurred upon striking out. 

Mr. EWART moved to further amend the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out by striking out the word) 
“ Legislature,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words* 
“ General Assembly;” which was agreed to. 

The question then being on striking out the whole of 
section one; 

Mr BLAIR demanded the yeas and nays, which were 
ordered, and resulted—yeas 42, nays 53—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, BUckensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Curry, 
Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Har¬ 
lan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Kennon„ 
Larsh, Leech, Leadbetter, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, 












1278 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


McCloud, Nash, Peck, Ranney, Scott of Harrison, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Stilwell, Thompson of Stark and Worth¬ 
ington—42. 

Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Cook, Dorsey, 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance<, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Lidey, 
Loudon, Manon, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quig¬ 
ley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stanton, Stickney, Stidger, Struble Swan, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, 
Woodbury and President—53. 

So the motion to strike out section one was rejected. 

Mr. STILWELL moved to further amend the report. 
Toy adding to the end of section four the following: 

Except in cases where the General Assembly shall, 
by contract heretofore made, have provided a different 
mode or rule of taxation.” 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 36, nays 59—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, Florence, 
Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Kennon, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Mor¬ 
ris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Stanton and Stilwell—36. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Or¬ 
ton, Patters(m, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, 
Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson 
of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Worthington 
and President—59. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD moved to further amend llie Re¬ 
port by striking out all after the word “corporation,” 
in the commencement of section 2, and inserting in lieu 
thereof, the following: 

Shall bo created and governed by general laws. And no cor¬ 
porate powers shall be granted in perpetuity but for a term of 
years only. And the corporate powers of any company associa¬ 
ted tor the construction of a canal, railroad, plankroad, turnpike, 
bridge, aqueduct or other line of internal improvement, shall not 
be revoked or annulled by the General Assembly, on account of 
any breach of the law of incorporation, until the guilt of the 
company} shall have been ascertained in a court of record by the 
Yerdictof a jury, according to the ordinary rules of law and evi¬ 
dence. 

But the corporate powers of any such company may at any 
time be dispossessed and taken away by the General Assembly, 
pnbvided that body shall cause full and adequate compensation to 
be made to the company out of the treasury or treasuries of the 
■county or counties, city or cities, demanding the repeal before 
their corporate powers shall cease. 

And corporations for purposes not herein enumerated, may 
be visited, altered, modified, or repealed in the manner prescribed 
in the act authorizing their creation. 

Mr.STANTON demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
word “ corporations,” in section 2 ; 

Mr. STANTON moved to perfect the words proposed 
to be stricken out, by striking out all after the word 
“ provided,” and inserting in lieu thereof, the follow¬ 
ing : __ 

That upon such repeal the real and personal property, monies, 
end credits of the corporation shall vest in the individual corpor 
ators, subject to the labilities of the corporation. And when any 
franchise has been granted to a corporation, upon the faith ol 
which capital shall have been invested, which franchise shall be 
taken away by the repeal, compensation shall be made to the cor¬ 
porators for the capital so invested, or the franchise so taken, in 
the same manner, that compensation is required to be made when 
private property is taken for public use. 

Mr. FARR demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
word “ju'ovided; ” 

Mr. STANTON said it was difficult lor gentleman to 
vote understandingly upon an important amendment 
with no further examination than could be derived 
from a single reading. He hoped, therefore, to be in¬ 
dulged a moment by way of explanation. 

He had endeavored to get rid of some of the difficul¬ 
ties which had been suggested in the tedious discuss¬ 
ions on the repeal question. 


In the first part of his amendment it was provided 
that upon the repeal of any charter the tangible pro¬ 
perty, money and credits of the concern should vest in 
the individual corporators, subject, however, to all the 
liabilities of the company. So far in the discussion he 
had heard no objection to his provision. It had not 
been claimed that either the visible property or the 
money and credits should be sacrificed by the act of re¬ 
peal. He believed that it had been admitted on all 
sides that these ought to vest in the individual stock¬ 
holders. 

The principal subject of controversy had arisen up¬ 
on the subsequent part of the amendment. It was this, 
that when any franchise had been granted upon the 
faith of which capital had been invested, in the event 
of the taking away of such a franchise compensation 
should be made. This provision excluded all idea of 
paying for a naked franchise which had not been ac¬ 
cepted—under which nothing had been done, and up¬ 
on the faith of which no capital had been invested. 
But in the case where there has been granted a corpo¬ 
rate franchise upon the faith of which capital has been 
invested, and where the charter has not been violated, 
he claimed that the franchise should not be taken with¬ 
out some compensation for the franchise itself, or for 
the capital invested upon the faith of the grant. He 
would not apply the rule when the charter had been 
violated. Such cases properly belonged to the courts. 

The peculiar power ought only to be applied in cases 
where franchises had been improperly granted. 

He desired to offer one word of explanation to his 
colleagues of the committee. He had embodied in 
this proviso what he intended the original proviso 
should mean. But the terms of the original proviso 
left it doubtful as to whether the franchise was proper¬ 
ly included in the word property, and whether the 
franchise itself would not vest in the corporators. 

This was a matter of too much magnitude to be left 
in doubt, and therefore he had submitted a proposition 
which he believed, if gentlemen would take the op¬ 
portunity to examine it, would receive the sanction of 
a majority of the body. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD wished to say a few words in ex¬ 
planation of his motion, which he did not know but 
what it w’as the object of the gentleman from Logan 
[Mr. Stanton] to supercede. He earnestly hoped 
that the amendment of the gentleman from Logan 
would not prevail; for he could see no benefit that it 
would confer. It offered no cure, no plaster for the 
wound. All the benefit it proposed for the loss of 
charters was in the case where capital had been in¬ 
vested ; and besides, it made provision only for exist¬ 
ing corporations. Could not the gentleman cast his 
eyes a few years in the future and regard the inter¬ 
ests of those that are to follow us ? These were some 
of his objections to the gentleman’s amendment, and 
he hoped that it would be rejected and that his propo¬ 
sition would have a fair hearing. 

This was a subject in which the body had been en¬ 
gaged for the last eight days. He supposed gentlemen 
did not wish to force us back again to the old exploded 
intolerable system of State treasury grants for internal 
improvements. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD then proceeded to explain his own 
amendment submitted by him, with rei'erence to his 
proposition that, in the first place, no charter should 
be bestowed on perpetuity, but for a term of years 
only. There was a repeal executed, it was not a pro¬ 
vision meaning anything and nothing, it was a repeal 
throughout. It bound all chartered companies to good 
behavior ; lor if they did not behave well the General 
Assembly would unquestionably refuse to renew their 
charter. This also cuts off'all difficulty about binding up 
posterity in enactment of charters. It was like the 
sword of Damocles forever suspended over the head of 
men to incite them to good conduct. It was a perpet¬ 
ual recognizance of good behaviour and politeness. 

With respect to unqualified repeal to be exerted up- 











1279 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


on corporations individually, he gave it as his opinion 
that if such a constitutional provision were adopted 
there never would be another turnpike road construct¬ 
ed by the money of a corporation in the State of Ohio. 

But parties were liable to quarrel, and complaints 
were likely to be made to the General Assembly against 
the acts of corporations, and he had provided a plan for 
dealing with these accused companies 

If the General Assembly were to take it upon them¬ 
selves to try these cases they would have to decide up¬ 
on them of coarse, either with or without evidence. 

It they decided without proof it would be jbut a mere 
edict, devoid of all the elements of moral strength. 
Who would respect ajudgment, made up withoutproof ? 
Does the Roman law condemn anyjman, without hear¬ 
ing him. 

But he had provided in these cases of accused cor¬ 
porations, a court and a fair trial. He would condemn 
no man without a hearing ; and he did not believe any 
constitution would be acceptable to the people of Ohio 
containing such a provision. 

But if the General Assembly were to try these cases 
upon the evidence, they would constitute a most ex¬ 
pensive court—a court of a hundred and fifty members, 
and which court at least would not be so well qualified 
for the trial as a jury of men in a court of justice. 

Again, a case might arise in which a county might 
petition for the repeal of a charter, in order that they 
might take the improvements of the company to them¬ 
selves. It might be desirable for them to throw open 
the gates of a bridge or of a turnpike road, and in that 
case it was provided in his proposition that the county 
should pay the damages resulting from such repeal, 
and have the advantage of the improvement. 

And finally, Mr. ARCHBOLD said, that as other 
enterprizes, such as the manufactni'e of iron, or wool, 
or cotton, could be carried on by the capital of indi¬ 
viduals, or partnerships, he proposed to leave incorpo¬ 
rations for such purposes, and indeed for all other pur¬ 
poses, except internal improvement, to the repealing 
power of the General Assembly, with one only restric 
lion, and that is, that the mode of repeal should be 
prescribed in the act incorporating them. 

If his proposition should meet with a favorable re¬ 
ception, ho would propose that no corporation should 
be formed under these general laws, without special 
leave of the General Assembly. This was necessary 
in order to prevent the State from being shingled over 
with too many corporations. Without such a provision, 
the numbers that might be formed might bo truly alarm¬ 
ing. 

Mr. STANTON said he had not supposed that it was 
intended in this constitution, to go into detail and pre¬ 
scribe the manner of winding up the business of de¬ 
funct corporations, so minutely as to distinguish wheth¬ 
er the stockholders should hold the property of the 
concern as partners, or as part owners ; nor had he any 
idea of prescribing here a rule for the appointment of 
trustees in such cases, although, if it would make his 
amendment more acceptable, he would be willing to 
strike out the word “ corporators,” and insert “ trus¬ 
tees,” in the place of it. 

The gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] seem¬ 
ed to charge him with a desire to supersede the amend¬ 
ment which that gentleman had offered. But nothing 
could be farther from his purpose than that. The fact 
was, his amendment would have been cut off entirely, 
if he had not offered it at the time he did. 

The gentleman had also affirmed, that his, [Mr. S.’s,] 
amendment, provided only for corporations heretofore 
created, but the fact was, it extended to all corporations 
that should be in existence at the time of the repeal. 
Again, the committee certainly supposed that they 
were preparing an article which should be applicable 
to legislation, which might be had under this constitu¬ 
tion. 

He intimated, in conclusion, that his friend from 
Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] must have changed his mind 


with reference to this report, for upon looking over the 
proceedings last summer, it will be seen that the gen¬ 
tleman headed the column where he stood, and he re¬ 
membered that he, himself, was very glad to serve un¬ 
der the lead of that gentleman. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
word “ provided ; ” 

Mr. HAMILTON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 58, nays 37—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown, of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, 
Curry, Ewart, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, 
Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, 
Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Scott ot Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of War¬ 
ren, Stanton, Stickney, Stilwell, Vance of Butler, Woodbury, 
Warren, and Worthington—58. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Cahill, Chaney, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Jones, 
King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Quigley, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of 
Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stidger, Struble, Swan, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Way, Wilson, 
and Pre8ident~37. 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting the words pro¬ 
posed by Mr. Stanton ; 

Mr. GROESBECK said that he had voted for striking 
out the proviso, simply because he did not desire to re¬ 
tain it. The section as it now stood, a.sserted prospec¬ 
tive repeal; and now the vote upon it would give a fair 
test of the sense of the Convention upon the question. 
He had proposed and asserted the doctrine of repeal as 
it was here, and he was still prepared to assert the same 
doctrine. 

A great deal had been said about this report, and it 
bad been condemned and called monstrous, and a great 
many hard names, but he thought it would turn out 
yet to be a pretty good report, and that it would sur¬ 
vive all these attacks and reproaches. He called it a 
Wery good report; and he thought that if gentlemen 
who had discussed and denounced it, had looked into it 
and examined it as they were wont to examine other 
propositions, they would have hesitated before they ut¬ 
tered such wholesale denunciations against it. He re¬ 
peated, that the question stood now where he wished 
to see the vote upon it. In the constitution of the State 
of New York, adopted four years ago, was to be found 
the doctrine of repeal asserted precisely in the words 
employed in this report. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, (in his seat. The gentleman’s 
reading is very different from mine. 

Mr. GROESBECK. Since the gentleman from Mon¬ 
roe had taken issue upon the question, he would trouble 
the Convention with reading from the constitution of 
New York upon this subject. Mr. G. here read from 
the constitution of New York, a section which closed as 
follows: “All general laws and special acts passed pur¬ 
suant to this section, may be altered from time to time 
or repealed.” 

Hero is precisely the langage of this report. Now 
what was there in that provision so very monstrous ? 
We had here a precedent fur the adoption of this prin¬ 
ciple, furnished by the first State in the Union—-a State 
first in commercial importance and in which internal 
provements had been prosecuted to a larger extent, 
than in any other State; and those works of internal 
improvements were still being prosecuted under this 
very constitution. He might also refer to the constitu¬ 
tion of the State of Illinois—the constitutions of Wis¬ 
consin, low'a, Michigan, Missouri and California—all 
the recent State constitiition.s—and show in each and 
all of them, that this doctrine of repeal was asserted 
precisely in the same sense if not in the same language 
employed in this report. 

Now here was pretty good authority—all the recent 
conslitutior.s which had been formed in the Union—he 
did not know that there could be found an exception. 











1280 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


They had all come forward and asserted the same doc- j Jones, King, Larsh, Lawrence, Larmll, Leech,Leadbetter.Lldey, 


trme. 

He wanted no proviso added to this section. He 
would assert the doctrine in the language which we 
find here. These pi ovisos should be voted out. II the 
General Assembly should take away a charter granted 
under a general law, the terms and conditions of the 
repeal could be just as well settled by the Legislature 
in the law as in the constitution. 

The Legislature would no doubt be careful to say in 
the general law that the terms and conditions of repeal 
should be similar to those now proposed to be affixed 
in the shape of provisos to this section. He could see 
no necessity for their application here. Let us leave 
out provisos. He w-ould amend the section in another 
way—not by way of proviso or qualification. 

Mr. AKCHBOLD in reply to the gentleman from 

Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] said he did not think ____ 

there was any retrospective repeal in the constitution i rison. Smith of Highland, Smith of Warrra, Stanton, Stilwell, 
of New York. The w’ords would not bear such a con-1" 
struction. The language was that all law’s under i 


Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, Norris, Orton. Patterson, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stickney, Stidger, Stmble, 
Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Way, Wilson and President 
—52. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The que.'tion then being on asreeinsr to the amend¬ 
ment ot Mr. Archbold ; 

Mr. SWAN demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
word "corporation; ’ 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 34, nays .58—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Arch bold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Chambers, Collings, Curry, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of 
Ross, Hamilton, Harlan. Horton, Htmter, Johnson, Kennon, 
Larsh, Mason, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Peck, Scott of Har- 


Vance of Butler and Worthington—34. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnett of Preble, Blair, Cahill, Case 

Greene 
Hitchcock of 


siraouou. 1 ne language was mat an taw s uuuer j Hocking, Chaney. Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray, 

which corporations existed m the State ot New York, lot Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Hitci 

might be altered, repealed, &c. But did that efiect ■ Geauga, Holmes', Holt, Hootman. Humpbreville, Hunt, Jones, 

corporations in existence before the adoption of thati^^®^* Kirkwood, Lawrence, LarwiU, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, 

ronstitiitinn ? A New Yorker would cav that it would .Mitchell, Morns, Korns, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Per- 

con-tiTuiion . a New lorker wouia say inal it wouia ^ Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott 

not. But before gentlemen appealed to the constitu- 1 of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stickney, Stidger, Stru- 
tion of New Y’^ork as a precedent, he considered that ble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of .Shelby, 'Jhompson of Stark, 

■ - - - - - ■ Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—58. 

So the motion to strike out was rejected. 

The question then being on ordering the section to 
If he would take the time, he could easily show’ that * be engrossed ; 
the gentleman was nriistaken in his assertion that the j STICKNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
constitution of Illinois contained the doctrine of this i ordered, and resulted—yeas 57, nays 40—as fol- 


it would be better for them to wait until the ink should 
have time to dry upon the paper upon which it was j 
written 


lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair. Cahill, Case of Hockiug, Chaney, Cook 
Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene ot Defiance, Gregg’ 
I Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchccck of Geauga, 
'■ I Holmes, Holt, Hnmpbreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, 
I Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Mahon, Mitchell, 
Norris, Ortcn, Patterson, Perkin.-, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers. Smith of Wy- 
I andot, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Taylor. Thompson of 
! Shelby, Thompson ot Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, 
Bate^, Bennett, Blickei^sderler, Brown i Wilson, Woodbury and President—57. 

Kays —Messrs. Andrews. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgom- 
I Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
' Athens, Broym of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, 

; Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamiltcn, Harlan, 

' Hootman, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon, Larsh, Leadbet- 


report, and he did not know’ but that he was mistaken 
also, in respect to his reference to the constitutions of: 
Michigan, California, and the rest. 

The question then being on inserting the words pro 
posed by Ylr. Stanton ; 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nay 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 19, nays 7i— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee 
of Carroll, Chambers, Curry, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Hamilton, Horton, Msison, Nash, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Highland, Stanton and Stilwell—19. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chaney, Cook, 


Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of! ter. Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott 


Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson. 
Hitchcock of Geouga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, HumphreTille, 
Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Larsh, Lawrence, Larw’ill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, 
McCloud, Orton, Otis, Patterson Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ran¬ 
ney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stickney, Stidger, Stru¬ 
ble, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthing¬ 
ton and President—74. 

So the amendment w’as rejected. 

Mr. STILWELL moved to add after the word “ ro- 
vided,” section 2, the following: 

On such repeal, provision shall be made by law for applying 
the property and assets of the corporation to the payment of 
liabilities, and distributing the residue among the stockholders, 
in proportion to their respective interests. 

Mr. LARWILL moved the previous question. 

The question then being, " shall the main question 
be now put ?” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Stil- 
wxll’s amendment; 

Mr. LOUDON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 41, nays 52—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of CarroU, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, 
Curry, Ewart, Florence, GiRett, Gray, Hamilton, Harlan, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Geaug^ Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Ken¬ 
non, Kirkwood, Mason, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Per¬ 
kins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stilwell, Vance of Butler, W’^oodbury and Worthington—41. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Green of Rose, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Holt, Holmes, Hootma^ HumphrevEle, Hunt, 


of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warrm, 'tfoton. 
Stilwell and Worthington-^0. 

So section two was ordered to be engrossed 
On motion of Mr. HAMILTON, 

The Convention adjourned till to-morrow morning, 
at nine o’clock. 


WEDNESDAY', February 20, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. STIDGER, from the standing committee on Ed¬ 
ucation, to which was recommitted report number one, 
of the committee on the subject, reported the follow¬ 
ing as a substitute therefor; 

REPORT NUMBER TWO, 

OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION. 

Sec. 1.^ The principal of all funds, arising from the sale or oth¬ 
er dispositions of lands, or other property granted or entrusted 
to this State for educational and religious purposes within the 
same, shall forever be preserved inviolate and undiminished 
and &e interest and income, arising therefrom, shall be faithfully 
applied to the specific objects of the original grants or appropria¬ 
tions, and no law shall ever be passed preventing the poor with¬ 
in the several counties, townships and districts of the State from 
an e^al participation in the schools, academies, colleges and uni¬ 
versities, endowed wholly or in part from the revenues arising 
from donations made by the United States for the support there¬ 
of, and the same shall be open to scholars, students and teachers 
of every grade, without any distinction or preference whatever 
contrary to the intent for which said donations were made. * 
Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall provide for the perpetu¬ 
ation of the Board ot Trustees of the Ohio and Miami Universi¬ 
ties, and the exercises of visitorial powers, and shall also provide 
for the suitable superintendence of the common schools of the 
State. 


I 














1281 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Sec. 3. The General Assembly shall make such provisions, by 
taxation or otherwise, as with the incomearising from the school 
trust funds, will secure a thorough and efficient system of com¬ 
mon schools throughout the State, and place the means of instruc¬ 
tion in the common branches ot education for a suitable portion 
of each year, within the reach of all the children therein of suit- 
atKe age and capacity for learning. 

Provided, That no religious or other sector sects shall ever have 
any exclusive right to, or control of any part of the school funds 
of the State. 

Sec. 4. The General-tssembly may by suitable provisions, aid 
and encourage the Ibrmatiou of institutes and departments for 
the traininj* of professional teachers, and affording instruction in 
agricultural and other practical sciences, under such regulations 
and conditions as may be deemed expedient. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, the report was laid 
on the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE, from the select committee 
to which was referred engrossed report number two, 
of the standing committee on the Legislative Depart 
ment, reported the same back with sundry amend¬ 
ments. 

The question being on agreeing to the first amend¬ 
ment, to wit: Strike out section 36, and insert in lieu 
thereof the following: 

Sec. 36. Private property shall ever be held inviolate, hut 
subservient to the public welfare. When in time of war or other 
public exigency imperatively requirint* an immediate seizure ol 
private prtiperiy for public use, or when taken for the purpose of 
making or repairing such public ronds as shall be open to the pub¬ 
lic use without any toll or charge therelor, a compensation shall 
be made to the owner in money. And in all other cases, in which 
the public good shall require private property to be taken for pub 
lie use, compensation therefor shall tirst be made in money, or 
first secured by deposit of money, and such compensation shall 
he assessed by a jury, and without deduction on account of the 
public use being a benefit to the property of the owner. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE demanded a divisitm. 

The question being first on striking out section 36; 

Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 68, nays 25— 
as follows: 

Yeas-— Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown ol 
Athens, Brown of Carroll. Case of Hocking, Chambers, Clark, 
Ceilings, Cook, Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Giay, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton Hard. Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Johnson, Jones, 
Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lanh, Lawrence, l.arwill, Loudon, 
Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash Norris. Orton, 
Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Keemelin, Riddle, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stilwell, Stidger, 
Struble, Swan, Thompson of Shelby Thompson of Stark, Vance 
of Butler, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—68. 

Nays— Messrs. Cahill, Ewing, Farr, Greene of Uefiance, Groes 
beck, Harlan, Holt, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Lidey, McCor¬ 
mick, Perkins, Hanney, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers. Smith 
of Wyandot, Stebbius, Slickney, Swilt, Taylor, Way, Williams 
and President—2.5. 

So it was agreed to strike out section 36. 

The question then being on inserting the first amend¬ 
ment proposed by the select committee ; 

Mr. LIDEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 64, nays 30—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Bennett, Blickensderfer, 
Brown ol Athens, Brown ol Carroll, Case of Hocking. Chambers, 
Chaney, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, 
Graham, Gray, Grten ol Roes, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, 
Hat Ian, Hawkins, Henderson, Hiuheock of Geauga, IJolmes, llor- 
ton. Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Ketmon. King, 
Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Manon, Mason. Morehead. Mc¬ 
Cloud, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Reemelin, Kiddle, 
Smith ol Warren, Smith of Wyandot. Stilwell, Struble, Swan, 
Swift, Taylor, Thompsou of Shelby, Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Way,’wilson, Woodbury and President—64. 

Is’ays— Messrs Barnet of Montgomery, Harnett ol Preble, Blair, 
CabiK, Ewing, Farr, Greene ot Defiance, Holt, Houtman, Larsh, 
Leadb'eltcr, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morris, McCormick, Norris, 
Orton, Peck, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott ol Auslaize, Sellers, Smith ol 
Highland, Stebbms, Stickney, Stidger, Williams and Worthington 
—30. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

The queetion then being on the second amendment, 
to wit: Strike out Beclion 39, and insert in lieu Ihereol 
the following: 

Sec. 39. 1 he members and officers of the General Assernhly 
shall receive a fixed and certain compensation, to be prescribed 
by law, and no other allowance or perquisite whatever, either 

81 


in the paymen tof postage or otherwise; which compensation shall 
not be increased or diminished, to be operative during their own 
term of office. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved the previous 
question. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
be now put?” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the second 
amendment; 

Mr. STILWELL demanded iheyeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 73, nays 20—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas— Messrs, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Chambers, Cha¬ 
ney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Flo¬ 
rence, Gillett, Graham, Greene ol Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Hor¬ 
ton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Kennon. Kirkwood, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitch¬ 
ell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Na.sh, Norris, Or¬ 
ton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin 
Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smiih of Warren* 
Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Swan* 
Swilt, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Warren, Way, Wilson, VV oodbury and Worthington—73. 

Nays —Messrs. Bennett, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case 
of Hocking, Forbes, Green ot Roes, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, 
Holmes, Hunt, Jones, Larsh, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Siidger, Williams and President—20. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

The question then being on the third amendment of 
the select committee, to wii: Add at the end of sec¬ 
tion 35, the following: “ Nor shall any new county be 
laid off under the proviso, which shall contain less than 
twenty thousand inhabitants;” 

Mr. LIDEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 80, nays 17, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown 
ot Athens, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chambers, (.'haney, ( ollings. 
Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, forbes, Gil- 
lett, Gi aham, Greene ol Defiance, (.regg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Uitchcock ol Geauga, IJolmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Horton. Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, 
Kin?, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, 
Mason. M tcheli, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick. Narh, Noiris, 
Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peek, I'erkins, Quigley, Kanney. Reeme- 
lin, Riddle, 8awyer, Bcottol'Auglaize, Sellers, Smith ol Jfighland, 
Smith ot VVarreri, Smith of W^yandot, Stebbins, Stilwell Stirkney, 
Stidger, Struble, Swan, Taylor,'J'hompson of Shelby, Thompson 
of Stark, Vance of Butler, VVarren, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthing¬ 
ton ami President—80. 

Nays— Messrs Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bennett, Blair, 
Brown of Carroll, C^ray, Green of Ho.®s, Ilawkin.«, Jolmson. I.arsh, 
Lidey, Loudon, Motis, Scott of Harrison, Swilt, Way and Wil¬ 
son—17. 

S'I the amendment was adopted. 

7'he question then being on the fourth amendment, 
to-wit: In section 16, near tin* end of the same, sirike 
out all at’ier the word “ iiu umln i)t,” tiud itisert iii lieti 
thereof the fblhjwing words: “ Duiitig hin existing of- 
Hci.'il term, unless such oflice be abolished ;” which 
was agreed to. 

On motion the Binendments were ordered to be eu- 
gro.ssed at the Secretary’s desk. 

1'he question then being on tlio passage of the Re¬ 
port; 

Mr. HENDERSON demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 66, nu} s 30 — 
as follows : 

—Messrs. Arebbohl, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett o 
Preble, Hat's. Bennett, Blair, Blickensdeifer, Bia wn <jf Athena^ 
Cahill, (.Oianibers, Cham y, Collings, Cook, Doivey, Kw art, F.wingi 
Farr, Florem'e, Korbes Gillett, Gregi;. Groesla-ck, Hamilton, Hard’ 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hit'hcoek ol (>eHUga. Holmes, Holt, Hoot' 
man, Morton, Humphreville, Hunt. Hunter, K> nnon, Kirkwood' 
Larwill, Leadheitet. London, Moreheid, Mori is, McCloud, Na-ln 
Ott m Oris, Putters'n P. ck, Perkins, Quigley Reemelin. Kiddle, 
.Sawyer, Sellers. Miiitli ol Highland, .'^mith of Warreii Stebbms, 
■•'^truble. .'•'wilt, Tliompsonol .-^lielby, Vanct* of Rul er, Warri n, 
Way, Wilson, W(»o(il'Ury. Worthington and Presidi nt—66 

Na\ .s— Messrs. Blown ol ('arroll, ('un y, Graham. Gray Gn'eno 
(it Defiance, Gteen ol Boss, Hat Ian JoliUr-on, Jones, K ng, L irth, 
l.arwill. Leech, Li'h y, Maiion, Mason, Mitchell, McG. iniic;, Nor¬ 
ris, Kanney, Scott (*i Hat risen), Scott ol Auglaize, .'niilh ol Wy- 
at dot, Stilwell, Stidger, Swtin, Taylor, Thompson ol St.irk, and 
Williams—.30. 

So the Report was passed. 










1282 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


On motion, the Report was referred to the committee 
on Revision, Arrangement and Enrollment. 

Report No. 3, of the standing committee on the Mi¬ 
litia, was read a second time by its title, and 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, was 
committed to a committee of the Whole Convention. 

Report number two, of the standing committee on 
Finance and Taxation, was read a second time by its 
title, and 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, was committed to a 
committee of the whole Convention. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to take up report number 
one, of the standing committee on Corporations, other 
than Corporations for Banking, with the pending amend¬ 
ment. 

The question being on ordering the report to be en¬ 
grossed ; 

Mr. SWAN moved further to amend the report by 
striking out the fourth section, and inserting in lieu 
thereof, the following: 

Sec. 4. No provision shall be made in any laws creating cor¬ 
porations, other than municipal, for the taxation of their proper¬ 
ty, but the same shall be subject to the same taxation as the prop¬ 
erty of individuals. 

The que'«tion then being on the amendment; 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded a division of the ques¬ 
tion. 

The question then being on striking out; 

Mr. SWAN said, the abstract justice and propriety of 
the principle of taxing the property of existing corpo¬ 
rations the same as individuals, could not be disputed. 
It met his entire approbation. But that was not the 
whole of the question. 

As to the power of doing this ; he had examined the 
subject with some care, and long before he had any ex¬ 
pectation of ever being called upon to express an opin¬ 
ion publicly upon the question. 

The power of taxation is an acknowledged sover¬ 
eign power, derived not from the General Assembly, 
but the constitution, conferred upon the General As¬ 
sembly as such, by the same power to which that body 
is subordinate. The present General Assembly may 
exercise it, but where is their constitutional authority 
to limit, restrain or divest the next General Assembly 
of this sovei'eign constitutional power. I am not speak¬ 
ing of pledges of good faith, but mere constitutional 
power. If, indeed, the General Assembly can, irrevo¬ 
cably, part with the inherent constitutional powers of 
a .subsequent General Assembly, it seems to follow 
that ah constitutional powers may be parted with, un- 
. til. finally, it may be asked, wdio rules—King Mammon 
ar King Democracy. 

But I ougho lO sta^e, in this connection, that the Su 
preme Court of the United States have determined that 
the power of taxation, although conceded to be one of 
the highest and most necessary powers of sovereignty, 
is, however, “ contracted away” by the General As¬ 
sembly to a corporation, if it clearly appears, in the 
charter, that the Legislature intended to limit and re¬ 
strain the amount of future taxation. 

It savors of presumption ; but my own mind is unable 
to perceive the wisdom or the correctness of this de¬ 
cision. But even with that decision, I am unablet o 
find, in some of these charters, anything which clearly 
shows that the General Assembly who passed them in¬ 
tended to limit the amount of future taxation. I have 
not, however, alluded to these questions, or my own 
opinion upon them, to rid myself of the difficulties 
which are to be encountered in voting upon the propo¬ 
sition under consideration. For, behind all this is the 
fact, that the stockholders in the various corporations 
in which the amount of tax is provided, invested their 
property in them under the belief that they could not 
be hirther taxed by the State. 

Wlienever the faith of the State is pledged, directly 
or inq liedly, not to exercise the power of taxation, or 
any other power, it is needless, perhaps, to say that 
faith, like pledges between two honorable men, should 
be kept, if deliberately given, although to the hurt of 


the parties, and should not be violated by a State, un¬ 
less some great public necessity requires it. 

When money induces a citizen to violate good faith, 
all honest men will agree that he has made a bad bar¬ 
gain; and it cannot be imagined that a proud and hon¬ 
est State will ever violate its good faith in letter or in 
spirit. 

For many years past, and at a time when there was 
but little capital in the State, and when public improve¬ 
ments, especially bridges and roads, were felt by all to 
be a public necessity, the members of the General As¬ 
sembly thought it politic and proper to hold out very 
great inducements to citizens to enter into these enter¬ 
prises, and to devote their earnings to them. Among 
these strong inducements was a limitation in the char¬ 
ters upon the amount of taxation. Whether this policy 
was proper or not, perhaps it is somewhat late for the 
State to determine ; but certain it is, that it did induce 
citizens not merely to take stocks in banks, but to take 
stock in bridges, turnpikes and railroads. Now, the 
provision which I propose to strike out, however just 
as an abstract principle, repeals so much of these char¬ 
ters as relates to taxation and violates the original un¬ 
derstanding between the State and the citizens who 
were induced, on the faith of these very provisions, to 
embark their earnings in these public improvements. 

If the provision which I propose to strike out, should 
be stricken out, the General Assembly will have the 
same power to deal with this delicate subject, and in 
detail, as if the provision was retained in the constitu¬ 
tion. It is, in truth, a subject for the General Assem¬ 
bly, and not for a Convention. We can add nothing 
to legislative power over it by inserting it in the organic 
law. We add nothing to their powers by inserting it. 
This would be a sufficient reason for me to \ote to 
strike out the section. Sound policy, however, de¬ 
mands that in erecting the mere frame work of govern¬ 
ment, (and in that consists our whole duty,) we sliould 
avoid the slightest appeai’ance of a departure from good 
faith. 

I voted yesterday against the proviso proposed to 
this section, by the gentleman from Muskingum, [Mr. 
Stilwell,] because I decline expressly recognizing as 
a contract, the tax mentioned in the charters of corpor¬ 
ations. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend the section proposed 
to be stricken out, by adding after the woid “corpora¬ 
tions,” the words, “ now in existence, or hereafter to be 
created.” 

Mr. RANNEY said he was surprised at the position 
taken by the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swan.] 
He admits that the attempt to exonerate corporations 
from sharing the burdens of the State, is not only 
wrong in principle, but inconsistent and unequal in 
practice—to that extent that a State may barter away 
all her power, and leave nothing but a struggle between 
King Mammon and King Democracy. Yet, he is utter¬ 
ly opposed to the only measure that can be taken to 
remedy the e>dl. 

He is opposed to inserting anything in the constitu¬ 
tion which shall impose upon corporate bodies any tax 
beyond what their charters provide for. For his part, 
he desired to be explicit in regard to both past and 
present, and above all, not to admit a principle which, 
according to the gentleman’s own showing, involves 
such serious consequences. 

Mr. SWAN said: The gentleman from Trumbull 
seemed to suppose, that because the Convention could 
not enact all the laws, nor correct all the evils, that the 
General Assembly would never do anything. He was 
willing to leave it to the General Assembly to correc 
this evil. He did not look upon it as the duty of this 
Convention to pass a tax law. 

Mr. COLLINGS could not vote for the amendment 
of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] In 
regard to the real magnitude of the pecuniary interest 
involved in the matter it was very small. It was rath¬ 
er a question of good sense than of good faith. But 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1283 


there is another question. What is necessary to be 
done to equalize taxation? He believed the banks 
paid as much now as they would under general laws. 
The question is not then of consequence sufficient to 
jeopardize this constitution by it. It may bo of some 
moment in Hamilton county, but it is of very little in 
those parts of the State where there are no banks. In 
such a matter, then, where there is such a difference 
of opinion, it would be far better to leave it to the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, rather than for a mere abstraction to 
drive men from the support of the constitution. The 
Legislature has already all necessary power over the 
subject, and if it has not, we cannot confer it. 

Mr. REEMELIN hoped the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Franklin would not prevail, because it 
does not guard against the abuse which he himself ad¬ 
mits to exist. He should vote for the amendment of 
the gentleman from Trumbull, though he was afraid 
that if inserted, it would endanger the entire section. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD was opposed to the amendment of 
the gentleman from Trumbull, because he was afraid 
it would endanger the acceptance of the constitution by 
the people. He would not say that he would not vote 
for the constitution, if it should be inserted, but there 
were many who would not do so. The evil complain¬ 
ed of was one that would shortly remedy itself. The 
banks of the State have but about fourteen years to 
live, and the loss to the treasury, under the present sys¬ 
tem, is not very great. He had always been opposed 
to the present system, and had been the first in the 
General Assembly to raise his voice in favor of a revis¬ 
ion of the constitution; but much as he desired the 
success of his opinions in regard to bank taxation, he 
did not desire to risk the success of this constitution 
upon them. 

Mr. HOLMES would assure the gentleman from 
Monroe, [Mr. Archdoli>,] that, so far from endanger¬ 
ing the success of this constitution with the people, the 
principle involved in the amendment of the gentleman 
from Trumbull would add to the chances of its adop¬ 
tion. 

Mr. LOUDON believed the question a vital one, and 
that many votes would turn upon it. He regretted to 
see the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Auchbold,] ta¬ 
king the back track, after being so long a champion in 
the ranks of those who desired to do away vvuth the 
present corrupt system of bank taxation. To his friend 
from Adams, he would say, that he was mistaken in 
the idea that this amendment would jeopardize this 


the provisions of their charters is exempt from taxation, 
which will not fall short of that of all the banks of the 
State. He thought all should be taxed equally, provi¬ 
ded the law of their creation did not render them ex¬ 
empt, but it seemed to him that this was not the prop¬ 
er place for inserting such a provision. 

But there w^as another abuse existing here in this 
county of Hamilton far greater than this. The whole 
amount of property listed for taxation in this county 
does not exceed ten millions, and yet the aggregate of 
property is four times that amount. But upon this 
subject gentlemen are perfectly easy. It is all right. 
Gentlemen conceal their property, and say nothing 
about it, and in the mean time, go against the banks. 
Besides, the city of Cincinnati is full of private bankers, 
who, unrestrained by any charters, make profits sever¬ 
al times as great as any incorporated institutions; yet 
this is all right. But if an incorporated bank declares 
a dividend of ten per cent., the indignation of gentle¬ 
men is aroused; they are fleecing the people. He, for 
one, was in favor of equal laws, and m favor of having 
the laws enforced in Hamilton, as well as the other 
counties of the State. 

The question being upon agreeing to Mr. Ranney’s 
motion; 

That gentleman demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas .54, nays 40—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hen¬ 
derson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, 
Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, Swift, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—54. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Ewart, Florence, 
Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Kennon, Larsh, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Wil¬ 
liams and Worthington—40. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

The question then being on striking out section four; 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, moved a call of the Con¬ 
vention, which was ordered, and 

Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Clark, Cutler, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Humphreville, Larwill, 
Roll, Stanbery, Stanton, Stickney, Townshend and Vance of 
Champaign, were found absent. 


constitution with the people. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, said that if he supposed this 
section a violation of the constitution of the United 
States, he should certainly vote for striking it out, but 
he believed no such thing. He believed that the pow¬ 
er of taxing the banks of the State in any mode that 
the Legislature might decree, was not restrained by 
the law of the United States, nor by any provision in 
the law of the contract itself. He believed that the 
State could not part with any portion of its taxing pow¬ 
er, except for a good and valid consideration. For this 
reason he was in favor of conferring upon the General 
Assembly the power to tax equally with the other 
property of the State the property of all existing corpo¬ 
rations, just as well as future. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga was not opposed to a 
declaration that all the property of the State should be 
taxed equally and alike, in its proper place. He 
thought the Legislature had pursued an unfortunate 
course in regard to the taxation of banks. It was com¬ 
menced as early as 1816, and had been continued up to 
the present time. The banks incorporated by the 
Democratic Legislature of 1834, were taxed five per 
cent, on their dividends. He thought banks should 
always have been left to be taxed as other propertj^. 
But there are other abuses of the power of taxation in 
existence, compared to which that of the banks is ut¬ 
terly insignificant—other species of corporations, such 
as railroads, plankroads and turnpikes, whose stock by ( 


On moton. Messrs. Andrews, Case of Licking, and 
Roll, were severally excused. 

Mr. RANNEY moved to dispense with all further 
proceedings under the call; 

On which motion, Mr. MANON demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 54, 
nays 39—as follows: 


Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Cook, Dorsey, Farr» 
'orbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard' 
lenderson. Holmes, Holt, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Ken- 
on King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Lou- 
on’ Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Per- 
ing’ Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Au- 
laiz’e Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, 
Swift’ Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Vav Wilson, Woodbury and President—54. 

Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
>rpble Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
.f Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, 
Irahara Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hailan, Hawkins, Hitch- 
nck of Geauga, Hootman, Horton, Larsh, Manon, Masmi, More- 
lead Morris, licCloud, Nash, Otis, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Jighiand, Smith of Warren, Stilwell, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, 
Villiams’ and Worthington—39. 

So further proceedings under the call were dispensed 


The question then being on striking out section four, 

as amended; , • 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, moved the previous ques- 


The question then being, “shall the main question 
be now put? ” 











1284 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


Mr. EWING demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 72, nays 24—as fol¬ 
lows; 

Yeas _Messrs. Barbee. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 

Preble, Bales, Bennett, Blair, Bliekensderler, Brown of Athens, 
Brow u ol Chi ro!l, Cahill, Case ol Hocking, Chaney, Cook. Dor- 
gey, EwaiT, cwiug, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene 
ol bciianee, iiaru, llailan, Hawkins, Hendereon, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootinan, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, J<mes, Ken 
non King, l.iuey. Louden, Manon, Mason, Miuhell, Moieheud, 
Morris, McCormick, Norris, Urton, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, 
Uuigley, Kanney, Ridale, lawyer, treott ol Harrison, Scott of 
Auglaize, Seilert, Smith of VVairen, Smith of Wyandot, Stehbius, 
Stickney, Stidger, Slruble, Swan, Swilt, Taylor, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury 
and Presideni—72. 

_Messrs. Archbold, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Florence, 

Green ol Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hitchcock ol Geauga, Hunt, 
Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Me 
Cloud, Nash, One, Reenielin, Stilwell, Vance of Butler, Williams 
and Worthington—24. 

So the demand for the previous question was sus¬ 
tained. , . , . ^ 

The question then being on striking ot section four, 

as iiUieiiUed ; 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 41, nays 57—as fol¬ 
low s; 

Yeas _Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar- 

neii ol 1 reble. Bales, Beniu tt, Bhcht nsderler, Brown of Athens, 
Brown ol Caiioll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, 
Cuiry, Ewnil, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green ol bots, Haiuil 
ton, Harlan, lliiwhins, Hitchcock ol tieau^a, Horton, Hunter, 
Keilnon, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash. Otis, 
I’eik.ccoU ol Huirison, bmith of Highland, tiuiih ol Warren, 
Stilwell, ftw an, W illiams and Worthington—41. 

Navs— Mebfjs. Blair, CabiU, Chaney, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, 
Foibes, Gray Grtt iie olDehaiue, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hen- 
deifon,' Holnu s, Holt, Hoolinan, lluinpliieville. Hunt, Jones, 
Johnson, King, Kirkwood, Lawience, Larwill, Leech, Leadbet 
ter Lioey, Loudon, Manon, Mitcliell, McCoiinick, Non is, Orton, 
Paiur.-on. P> rkins, Quigley, Raiiney, Reenielin, Riddle, Sawyer, 
Scoil of Auglaize, Sclleis, Miiith ol VV yaiidot. S.ebbius, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struble, ^wllt, Taylor, 'Ihompson of Shelby, Thompson 
ol tlaik, Nance ol Butlei, Way, \Vuii;en, Wilson, Woodbury 
and Pi t sideiit—57, 

So the Coiiveiiiiou refused to sirike out section 4. 

'Jlie question then being ou ordering secliuii 4 to be 
engiD si d, 118 amended ; 

Mr. GREGG dtuuiudtd the yeas and nays, which 
weie uideied, and resulied—yeas 60, iiu) s 37—a.s fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Chaney, Cook, 
Doney , Ewing, Fair, Forbes, Gray , Greene ol 1). tianei', Grogg, 
Groi Bbei k, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Holt. Hooiman, Humpbie- 
Tille Hum, Hunier, Jolinton, Jones, King, Kirkwood, l.awjence, 
Larwill, L»:ech, Leadbetter, Lidt y, Lnudoii, Manon. Miteln I), Me- 
Coimii'k, Norris, Uiton, Pain r.-on Peikins, Quigley, Rai.iuy, 
Rcviiielii’i, Riddle, Sawy er, ecott ot Auglaize, Selleis, Siiiilh ol 
VVyand(-l, Sie. bins, Siickney, Stidger, S.ruble., Swilt, Taylor, 
I hoiiipfon ol Shi Iby, 'I hompson ol .-tai k, Vance ol Builer, War¬ 
ren, VV^y, NViieoii, Woodbury and Presiden'—btl. 

_Metsi b. Arehliold, hai hi e, Harm t ol Montogmery, Bar 

netl ol 1 leble, Bates, Bennett, Hliekensi.mler, liiown ol Alliens, 
Bri.wii ol Gan oil, Cbaiiilieis, Co 1 iigs, Curry, Ewart, Floience, 
Graham Green ol Ross, Harlan, tJaw'kin-. Hitchcock ol Geauga. 
Hoiliii.* Keimou, Laish, Mason, Moreln ad, Morris, .McClond 
Nafli Glis, Peck, Scott ol ilarrison ."inith ol iliglilaiid, Sniiili i-l 
Wairen, Slanlon, Stilwell, Swan, VN'illiams and VVorlli'iigton—37. 

So the section was order, d to be engrossed. 

Tlie quebtluii llieii being on ordering the remaining 
sectiuiis of ibe Repori lobe engrosseJ, lo-wii: secliuiis 
one. tliiee, live ami six. 

On motion of Mr- LIUEY, the Convention took a 
recess. 

2.^ o’clock p. m. 

The question being on ordering sections one, three, 
five ai d six to be engrossed ; 

Mr. STILWELL moved to fiirtlier amenil the Re¬ 
port in Section in the Hr&t paiTof ihe same, by insert 
lug alter ihewoid “iiniiey,” the w uius ‘‘or lii si se¬ 
cured by a ikqiosit ol money.” 

Mr. HARD moved the previous question. 

'1 he quesiiou ilien being ‘ sliull ihe mam question ba 
now put? 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, demanded the yeas and 
nays, wbicli were ordered, and resulted—yeas 65, 
nay 8 38—as follows; 


Yea.s —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Bates, Blair, Blickensderler, Brown of Athens, Cahill, 
Chambers, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gillette 
Greene ol Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Hitchcock, of Ge¬ 
auga, Horton, Humphreville,Hunter. Johnson, King, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Norris, Orton, 
Otis, Patterson,Quigley, Reenielin, .Sawyer, Scott ol Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Way, Wilson, Woodbury 
and President—55. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Blown of Carroll, Chaney, 
Collings, Curry, Florence, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Groes- 
beck, Hamikon, Harlan, Hawkins, Holmes, Holt, Hootman. Hunt, 
Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
McCormick, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Riddle, .Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stidger, Swan, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, and Worthington— 

So the demand for the previous question was sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Stilwell ; 

Mr. STi L WE L L demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 52, nays 48—as fol- 
fows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderler, Brown of 
Athens, Brownol Carroll, Case of Hocking, Chambers, Cook, 
Dorseyr Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green 
ot Ro.'S, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hor¬ 
ton, Hunter, Kennon, Kirkwood, Loudon, Manon, Mason, More¬ 
head, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Sawyer, 
Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbe¬ 
ry, Stilwell, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Butler, War¬ 
ren, Woodbury and VVorlhington—52. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Collings, Farr, Forbes, 
Greene ol Defiance.Gregy, Groesbeck, flard, Henderson, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, 
Larsii. Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, 
McCormick, Norris, Orton, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, 
Stebbins, Stickney, ■'^tidger, Stiuble, Swilt, Taylor, Thompson of 
Stark, Way, Wilson and President—48. 

St) the nmeiidnieiit was adopted. 

The question then being on the engrossment of sec¬ 
tions one, three, five and six ; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded a division. 

'I'lie question then being first on ordering section one 
to be engrossed ; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 58, nays 41—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. .Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Collings, Cook 
Doiecy, F-wari, Ewing, Farr, Foibes, Gray, Greene id Defiance> 
Gri'yg, Grnesht ck. Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt» 
Hoi.tiiiaii, lluiiiplireville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kina, Kirkwood* 
Lawrenci-, Larwill, I id. y, l.oudon, Manon, McCormick, Norris* 
Grton, I’aitersim, P. rkins, Quigley, Reernelin, Riddle, Sawyer, 
.-coll ot Auglaize, S* Hers, .^mith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, 
.'^lickney, Sliulile, Swilt, Taylor, 'Phompson of Shelby, Tbomp 
son of Stal k, Vance ol Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbu 
ry and Tresidi ni—58. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar- 
rieit ol I’n ble, IGtes, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown el Athens, 
Brown ul Carroll, (jbambers, Curry, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
(iriinoi Kiiss, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, 
Hunter, Kennon, Laivli, Leech, Leadbetter, Mason, Mitchell, 
Morehead, Morris, Mi C'oud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Ranney, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith ot Higldand, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stil¬ 
well, Stidger. Swan and Worthington—41. 

8ii the first stciion was ordered to be engrossed. 

Tlie (ine.siion then being on ordering section 3 to be 

eiigms.sed ; 

Mr. MORRIS demanded the jeas and nays; which 
wi'ie ordoretl, and resulted—yeas Gl, nays 38—as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Yeas— Messrs. Arjhbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Collings, Cook, 
Dortey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene ol Detiance, Gregg, Groes- 
tu ck, Hurd, Hawkins, [R riderson. Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hum¬ 
phreville, Hunt, Hunier. Johnson, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, l.awielite, l.arwill. Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon 
Manon, Miti 111 11. McCoi niick Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigleyj 
Rain. I y, Reenielin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers* 
Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney. Stidger, Struble, Swan* 
Swill, Taylor, Ihompson ol' Shelby. Thompson of Stark, Vance 
ot Butler. VVarren, NVay, Wilson and President—81, 

Nays —Me^gl•8 Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett ol Preble, Bate.s, Bennett, Blickensderler. Brown of Athens 
Brown of Carroll, Chamners, Curry, Ewart, Florence, Gillett! 
Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Horton, Larsh, Mason, Morehead,Morris. McCloud, Nash 
Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott ol Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith* 








CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


1285 


bur ^'38 Stilwell, Worthington and VVood- 

So the third section was ordered to be engrossed. 
The question then being on ordering section five to 
be engrossed ; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 57, nays 43—as ful- 
lows: 


''^'Chbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Bateb, Blair, Bhckensderfer, Cahill, Chaney, Cook Dorsey, Kwart, 
„ Forbes, Gillett, Graham Gray, Gregg Groesbeck, 

Henderson, Holm, s, Hootman, Humnhreville, 
iml*’ Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrenee. I.arwill, 

w R McCormick, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Perkins.Quig- 

SM„ni Sawyer, Smith of Wyandot Stickney, 

Wnrrl^’ of Shelby, Vanec of Butler, 

warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President 

Barnett of Preble. Bennett, Brown ol 
Athens, Brown of Carrol], Chambers, Collings, Curry, Florence. 
Gieene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Ho t. Horton. Hunter, Jones, I.arsh, Leech Leadbet- 
^r, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Mor< head, Morris, McCl. ud, Na h 
JNorrie, Pexk, Ranney, Scott of Harrison. Scott of Auglaize. Sel- 
Highland, Smith ol WHrron, Stanln ry. Stanton, 
otebbins, Stilwell, Stidger, Swan and Thompsoi of Stark—43. 

mb section was ordered to be engrossed. 

The question then being on ordering; section six to be 
engrossed ; 

Mr. BROWN, of‘ Carroll, demanded the yeas and 
nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 67, nays 

—as follows : 


Archbold, Barnett of Preble. Bennett, Blair. Ca 
mil, Lhaney, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart Farr, Forbes, Gi'lett, Greene 
ot Defiance. Gregg, Hard. Hawkins, Henderson Holmes, Holt, 
wootman. Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, .lohnson, Jones. Kennon, 
King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Morehead, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patter.-on, Perkins 
Quigley. Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sel- 
lere. Snii^ of Warren, Smith of Wyandot. Stanton. St« libins, 
ou n** ’ Stidger, Struble, t^wan, Taylor. Thompson to 

bhelby, Jhompsou of Stark. Vance ol Butler, Warren, Way, 
Wilson, Woodbury ar d President—67, 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates 
Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, 
Florenc e. Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton. Harlan, Hitch¬ 
cock ot Geauga, Horton, Larsh, Leech, Lea.ibetter, Mason, Mitch¬ 
ell, Morris,^ McCloud, Nash, Peck, Ranney, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Highland, Stanbery, and Worthington—31. 

So Ihe sixth section was ordered to be engrossed. 

On motion, the report was ordered to be read a third 
time on Thursday, the 20lh inst. 


THE JUDICIARY. 

On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, the Conven¬ 
tion resolved itself into a committee of the whole, [Mr. 
Reemelin in the chair,] and look up the report of the 
select committee on the Judicial Department, present¬ 
ed by Mr. Leadbetter on the 5th iiist. 

The report having been read through by the Chair¬ 
man, the consideration of the first section was announ¬ 
ced. It is as follows: 

Sec. 1. The judicial power of this State shall be vested in a 
supreme court, superior courts, courts ol common pleas, county 
courts, justices of the peace, and such other courts, inferior to the 
superior court, as may be created by law. 

Mr LARSH moved to amend this section by striking 
out the word “ superior,” in the last clause, and insert 
in lieu thereof, the word “inferior ” 

This amendment was disagreed to. 

Sec. 2. The Supreme Court shall consist of not less than five 
Judges, who shall be elected by the qualified electors in such man¬ 
ner as shall be prescribed by law; the term of service ol judges 
of the Supreme Court shall be five years, but immediately alter 
the first election under this constitution, the judges then elected 
shall be classified by lot, so that one shall serve for one year ; one 
for two years; one for three years; one for four years, and one 
for five years ; the one having the longest time to serve, shall be 
Chief Judge ; and thereafter the one longest in commission shall 
be Chief Judge; the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdic¬ 
tion in Quo Warranto, Mandamus, Habeas Corpus, Procidenda, 
and such other appellate jurisdiction as shall be provided by law; 
it shall hold at least one term in each year, at the seat of govern 
ment, and such other terms, at the seat of government or else¬ 
where, as may be provided by law, and a majority of the whole 
number of judges shall be a quorum. 

Mr. VANCE of Butler, moved to amend this section 
by striking out the word “ procidenda,” and inserting 
in lieu thereof, the word “ procedendo.” 


Tliis amend ment was adopted. 

Mr. LARSH moved further to amend the section by 
striking out the word “other,” where it ocenrsafter ihe 
word “such,” and hefnre the word “appellate.” This 
amendment was also agreed to. 

Mr. BKOVVN,of Athens, moved further to amend the 
report by striking out the wend “ five,” in the first line, 
and inserting the word “four,” in its place. 

Mr. MANON asked for a division of the question; 
and then 

The first question being upon striking out, it was de¬ 
cided in the negativ’e. 

Mr. HOLT moved further to amend the section by 
striking out the word “chief,” where it occurs before 
I he Word “ jii Ige,” and inserting in lieu thereof, the 
Word “ presiding.” 

lie made this motion merely to make the language 
conform lo iriith. The official distinction “chief judge,” 
was no where el.<ie used in this rcfiort. These oflicers 
were all judges «.f the Su|)ieme Court. 

The amendment was rejected. 

Pec. 3. The Fuperinr Court ehall consist of one of the Tudges 
of tin* Suiiri-mc Court hs Precident, and one or more, ot the Jud¬ 
ges of the (h)’jrt of Common Tleas, as associates; the Superior 
Court i-ha 1 have like original Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court, 
and such further original jurisdi'tion in civil and criminal matters 
at law and in r quity, and such appellaU- juri^dictiot for the trial 
ol issue.'* of law and of facias .‘IihII be provided by law ; t- rms of 
the Superior C( ui t shall be held annually or si mi-annually, as 
shall be directed by law, in each of the counties within this ."^tate, 
and Superior Courts may be holden at the same time in different 
counties. 

Mr, KIRKWOOD moved to amend this section by 
s'rikiiig out the words, “as jiresideiit, and one or more 
of the judges of the court of common pleas, as associ¬ 
ates,” mid insert in lieu thereof, these words; “and the 
three judges of the court of common pleas in each dis¬ 
trict, any three of whom shall form a quorum.” 

Mr. K., in explanation of his ainendmeiit, said: This 
section, as it now stands, makes this superior court to 
consist of one of the judges of the common pleas and 
one of the judges of the court in bank. These two may 
form aquorum lo do business. The amendment which 
I have otlered makes the tliree common pleas judges of 
the district, with one judge of the siqireme court, to 
constitute this court: but anv tbiee of them may form 
a quorum. It will give, at all events, a court of three 
persons instead of a court of two persons. If this 
amendment sliould be adopted I believe it would re¬ 
concile me to the report. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. If gentlemen will take the 
trouble to examine this system carefully, tin y will see 
at once, that the c-immittee have provided for the con¬ 
stant occupation of all the judges. They will find that 
the supreme court is made to consist of one judge of the 
supreme court, and one or more judges of (he court of 
common pleas. The section is very carefully worded 
lieie. We have provided that more than one common 
[ileas court may be sitting at the same time, and in the 
same district with the superior court. 

Gentlemen will perceive, also, that we have guarded 
against a serious objection, which has been taken to a 
report of the standing committee, viz: that no judge, 
who has tried the casein the court below, shall sit upon 
the bench of file appellate court in the same case; and 
this matter the common pleas judges can arrange be¬ 
tween themselves, so that the judge who presided in the 
particular county where the superior court may be sit¬ 
ting, shall not occupy that bench. 

The amendment of the gentleman from Richland, 
[Mr. Kirkwood,] would destroy this arrangement. By 
requiring three judges to constitute a quorum, you must 
compel some of the common pleas judges to sit in the 
trial of the same cases, upon the bench of the superior 
court, which they have already heard and decided in 
the court below. 

On account of the inattention of members generally, 
I do not know whether the present would be a proper 
time to present the views of the select committee, with 
reference to the plan they have submitted. I should, 













1286 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


myself, have preferred the consideration of this subject 
upon a motion to strike out the plan proposed by the 
standing committee, and adopt in its place the plan pro¬ 
posed by the select committee. It seems to me that 
such a motion, in Convention, would atFord a better op¬ 
portunity for stating the plan of the select committee, 
and exhibiting its details. 

I would be willing to move that this order be passed 
over informally, and that the committee proceed to the 
consideration of the next order. 

And one word moi’e. If any gentleman will exam¬ 
ine the report of the committee, he will find that there 
is but one single point of difl'erence between the plan 
of the standing and the jdan of the select committee. 
That difference consists simply in this: by the plan of 
the standing committee, ti'e second jury trial, or in 
other words, a second jury in the trial of questions of 
fact, is dispensed with. 

By the report of the standing commi.tee, parties are 
deprived of this second jury trial upon questions of 
fact. The honorable chairman of that committee, 
[Mr. Kennon,] shakes his head; but if their report does 
not say so, in so many words, the repeated declarations 
of gentlemen upon this floor, and elsewhere, leaves no 
room to doubt that it was the intention of the standing 
committee to cut otf the second trial upon questions of 
fact by a jury. That is the way I understood the re¬ 
port—and that, I believe, is the general understanding 
of it; and if this be not so, then I have been laboring 
under a very great raisumlerstanding. 

Mr. HOLT, (in his seat.) It has been constantly so 
understood all the way through. 

Mr. GREEN. So understood all the way through. 
So I have understood it. The district court proposed 
by the standing committee, is to be simply a court of 
error, to try cases upon the record; a paper court em¬ 
phatically. The plan of the select committee differs 
only in tins regard, except so far as mere formalities 
may be concerned. 

The select committee have adopted several of the 
provisions of the standing committee; which they con¬ 
ceive important and proper to be retained. 

This, then, is the material point of difference between 
the two reports. We have, it is true, adopted differ¬ 
ent names. We have called this court, which is to 
consist of one judge of the supreme court, and one or 
more judges of the common pleas, by the name of the 
superior court. This was done simply for the purpose 
of distinguishing this court from the court of last re- 
resort—which we have here denominated the supreme 
court; this latter court corresponding to what we at 
present understand by the supreme court in Bank. 
But we are not wedded to names, and would acquiesce 
in any name which the Convention might see proper to 
give to this court. 

By the amendments of the report of the standing 
committee, which were adopted by the Convention, 
and which, I suppose, may be considered as matter set¬ 
tled and agreed upon, this district court, according to 
the plan proposed by the standing committee, was to 
go into every county in the district. It is to be com¬ 
posed of three judges of the common pleas, and one 
judge of the Supreme Court, and is simply a court of 
error, a sort of half-way house between the court of 
common plea.s, and the court of final resort. In place 
of this court, we have proposed to substitute another, 
to be composed of one supreme judge, and one or more 
judges of the common pleas; and to give to these 
courts exactly the same jurisdiction in these districts, 
which is proposed by the standing committee. We 
propose that this court shall stop all the cases that 
must come up upon error from the court of common 
pleas. This court will occupy the same position in 
this respect, with that proposed by the standing com- 
mi'tee. But we propose to go a little farther than the 
standing committee—and instead of making it simply 
a paper court, we propose to give it jurisdiction of 
questions of fact; in other words, to make it a nisi pri- 


us court, as well as a court of error, corresponding io 
this respect, to our present Supreme Court, until the 
Legi.slature took away from it that character, and made 
it simply a court for tlie correction of errors. 

I will now undertake to go into the reasons which 
have induced the select committee to submit this re¬ 
port. They are various, and to my mind satisfactory 
and conclusive. But I will reserve them for a future 
occasion. I will here say, that the plan of the stand¬ 
ing committee might be well enough adapted, and 
made to harmonize well enough with our report, by 
simply changing so much of one of the sections, as to 
give this appellate court jurisdiction of the trial of 
matters of fact—by adopting these words in the third 
section of the report of the select committee, to wit; 
“ for the trial of issues of law and of tact, as provided 
by law.” By a few very slight alterations in other 
portions of tlie report, it could be made to conform 
well enough to the plan which we have submitted. 

Mr. COLLINGS. The course which I had propo¬ 
sed to myself, is this: I had proposed that this com¬ 
mittee should go through with the consideration of the 
report of the select committee, and when they should 
have made such amendments as might be deemed de¬ 
sirable, I had proposed that I would move to strike 
out the whole, and offer the substitute which I myself 
have heretofore submitted, and in this way test the 
-sense of the Convention upon my proposition. 

Mr. RANNEY now moved that the committee rise 
and report the bill and amendments to the Conven¬ 
tion. 

Which motion was agreed to, and accordingly the 
committee rose, and the chairman reported the bill 
back to the Convention with two amendments. 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, the bill 
and amendments were laid upon the table. 

On motion of Mr. GREEN, of Ross, the Convention 
took u]) the report of the standing committee on the 
Judicial Department, with pending amendments. 

The question being on agreeing to the first amend¬ 
ment, recommended by the committee, to wit: strike 
out of section one the following words: 

And the proceedings of all courts in this Sate, shall be public 
at all times, and any person having any case pending or businesa 
to transact therein, may appear either for himself or herself, or be 
represented by such citizen, as counsel, as such person may 
choose; any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Mr. LOUDON. I had the honor of proposing that 
amendment, and the satisfaction of seeing it pass the 
committee by a very large majority. I recognize the 
principle, Mr. President, that every citizen of Ohio, 
who is competent to go into court, should be at liberty 
to call upon A, B, C. or whomsoever he will, to advo¬ 
cate his cause. I contend that he ought to have the 
liberty, either of appearing in his own case or if he 
prefer it, of calling upon his friend to appear for him, 
although that friend may not be a practising lawyer. 
And now I want to know if this Convention is prepar¬ 
ed to compel a man to come into court, and then com¬ 
pel him to employ a certain class of professional men to 
attend to his busines for him? I trust, sir, that the in¬ 
telligence o( the people of Ohio, has got a little be¬ 
yond that mark. ' 

Mr. SAWYER. (In his seat.) You had better say 
at once that you will allow a darkey to come into 
court. 

Mr. LOUDON. Well, when you can make a darkey 
a citizen, then I would allow him to come into court, 
whenever he may be called upon. 

Sir, 1 will call for the yeas and nays upon this ques¬ 
tion, in order that we may see who az’e willing to re¬ 
cord their votes against the proposition. 

Mr. LOUDON concluded by referring to a case in 
the circuit court of Brown county, in which he was 
concerned as administrator, but wherein the judge 
would not allow him to appear for himself, and there¬ 
fore he handed over the papers, which he had himself 
prepared, to a lawyer, (the late lamented Gen. Hamer,) 
and they were presented to the court by his hand, 








CONVENTION REPOKTS. 1287 


without the dotting of an i, or the crossing of a t, and 
that, upon his representation of the case tlie decision 
was had ; and the lawyer received his fee for acting 
only in this capacity, between himself and the court. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. I am with my friend from 
Brown in this theory of the largest liberty. I am not 
particularly attached to the practice of the law myself, 
and I would like to quit it, if my poverty would per¬ 
mit. But I want to say to my friend that he is alto¬ 
gether mistaken in his idea. The courts of the State 
ol Ohio are now open to every man. Every man may 
come into our courts. There is no prohibition in the 
old constiution ; nor is there any provision in this Re¬ 
port which is intended to prevent any man from going 
into court and attending to his own business. 

Any gentleman will perceive, from an inspection of 
the terms of this amendment, that it authorizes any 
person—man, woman or child, white or black, to go 
into the courts and be the advocates of their own rights 
or the rights ol those wdio may choose to employ them. 

Now this may be all very correct and proper in the 
estimation of the gentleman from Brown, [Mr. Lou¬ 
don.] But by the amendment every individual has the 
right, in the first instance, to appear in his own behalf, 
or he may employ some citizen to appear for him. 
Why make this distinction? Why prevent a negro 
man or a negro wench from coming into court, either 
to prosecute for others or for their own proper person? 
How does the gentleman think such a nile would ope¬ 
rate in his own county ? I know his views upon a par¬ 
ticular subject, and I am sure, that he does not really 
intend what his proposition would lead to. 

If the gentleman supposes that it is because I am a 
member of the legal profession that I oppose his 
amendment. 1 wish to assure him that he is wholly 
mistaken. I could never make the slightest opposition 
on that account, for this is a matter which works its 
own cure. No man will go into court, or employ any 
body to go into court, to attend to business which he 
does not understand. The matter does not affect the 
bar at all, and I say again, if it is supposed that law¬ 
yers oppose this proposition because they think it will 
militate against their profession, they are mistaken: 
and I regret exceedingly to find a feeling of this sort 
existing in this body. I have seen in the General As¬ 
sembly, those persons who had no more liberality or 
common sense than to impute to gentlemen of the 
bar all sorts of evil things and hold them in utter dis¬ 
repute as members of the community ; who were con¬ 
tinually using all the time and talents they have to 
injure, and to encourage and foment quarrels and liti¬ 
gations. Sir, I tell gentlemen that if it were not for 
the legal profession, you laymen, as you term your¬ 
selves, would find yourselves frequently in most inex¬ 
tricable difficulty. There are more difficulties and dis¬ 
putes leading to litigation, compromised and adjusted 
through the influence of members of the bar, than 
through the influence of any other class of men in the 
community. And allow me to say to you, sir, that the 
great majority of lawyers are honest, [A laugh.] You 
may find, I confess, now and then a black sheep 
amongst them—an unworthy member—a man who 
would be unworthy in any profession in the commu¬ 
nity, but take the profession generally, and I main¬ 
tain that there is no class of more high minded, honor¬ 
able, and honest men in the community, none who de¬ 
vote more of their time and talents to the prevention of 
strife. 

But Mr. President, I do protest and object personally, 
against being compelled to stand up in court, in my 
professional capacity, and litigate with a buck negro, 
or a negro wench. [Laughter.] I do most positively 
and earnestly object to that—[continued laughter]—to 
any such thing as that. I have a little regard for the 
profession to which I belong—so much so as to induce 
me to resist, at the threshold, any proposition to bring 
up that class of the community, and authorize them to 
come into court either in cases where they may be 


themselves interested, or where they might appear for 
any body else, and claim the right of appearing as 
counsel. 

Mr. President, there is no sort of necessity for this 
propo.sition ; because the existing constitution and law 
of the land gives to every man who is capable of at¬ 
tending to his own business, the privilege of coming in¬ 
to court and appearing there in his own behalf^—in his 
own proper person, under such regulations and restric¬ 
tions as the law may provide. 

In conclusion 1 have a word to say to my friend from 
Brown who has offered this proposition. If it shall be 
adopted, I desire that the first case that may arise un¬ 
der the new constitution may bring the whole “ Red 
Oak Seminary ” concern into court, and that he may 
be the opposing party, and that no lawyer will agree 
to appear on either side. 

Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE. I desire to offer a few re¬ 
marks explanatory of my votes upon this question. I; 
agreed in the committee, to report this amendment 
and that, of itself, ought to be enough to induce me to 
vote for it; but I have another reason, and that is my 
principal reason, and which, as I understood, operated 
upon the minds of the committee in recommending this 
amendment; and that is, that the provision is not in its 
proper place. I know some of the members of the 
committee who are in favor of the provision, but who 
will now vote for striking it out, because they desire 
to incoi-porate it in some other place in the constitu¬ 
tion. And I, myself, would prefer to have it in a sep¬ 
arate section, where, in the language of the gentleman 
,rom Franklin, it would not give the report a black- 
eye. 

I will say to the gentleman from Brown, [Mr. Lou¬ 
don,] that I am in favor of the principle of this amend¬ 
ment. I voted for it when it was put in here; and I 
will vote for it again, in its proper place. 

But I must also say to that gentleman that his prop¬ 
osition is imperfect, and that it will not effect what he 
desires to accomplish by it; for, if I understand its 
terms aright, it will give to no man the right to com¬ 
mence his suit. But if he happens to have a suit pend¬ 
ing, then he may either appear for himself or call in 
some other person to his aid. 

I assure the gentlman that if this motion to strike 
out prevails, and if he needs any aid of mine to perfect 
his proposition, I will lend it to him freely and will 
not charge him anything for my services. [A laugh.] 
And after he shall have matured his proposition and 
got it all right I will help him to put it in the constitu¬ 
tion somewhere. For I hold, with that gentleman, 
that no man ought to be compelled to employ any par¬ 
ticular class of men, or any particular attorney or indi¬ 
vidual, to appear for him in the courts. But I will go 
with him to give to every citizen not only the privilege 
of appearing for himself, but by whomsoever he may 
prefer. And if this doctrine of progress extends much 
further, it will not be long before gentlemen will ask 
the privilege of commencing their suits in any courts 
that they may choose. I do not knovy but it may be¬ 
come necessary to give the largest liberty in this re¬ 
spect, and allow a man, if he chooses, to commence his 
suit before the grocery-keeper or the tavern-keeper of 
the neighborhood, rather than before the court provi¬ 
ded by law. ^ 1 

Mr. MANON. The gentleman from Medina says he 
would vote for the proposition if it were in the right 
place. This mode of avoiding an affirmative vote was 
becoming very common in this body. I would like for 
the gentleman to tell us where the right place for this 
proposition is to be found ? 

Mr. MASON. With the leave of the gentleman from 
Licking [Mr. Manon] I will state 
found this right place lor this proposition 

Mr. MANON. Let us have it. 

Mr. MASON. The right place is not in this report, 
nor in this constitution anywhere; but the proper 
place for it to be incorporated, if incorporated at all. 


where might be 











1288 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


would be in the bill of rights. But every man in the 
Slate of Oliio has always enjoyed the light of a[){)ear- 
ing in the courts in his own projier person—the con¬ 
stitutional right to go into courts of justice, and there 
transact any business he may have to do. This re¬ 
mark has often been refloated, but still the gentleman 
from Brown fAlr. Loudon] comfdain.x that no man has 
a right to go into court because, I supfiose, it suits 
his jiurfiose now to lake that view and insist upon it. 

I cannot agree with the gentleman from Medina. 
[Mr Humphkeville] that every man in the communi¬ 
ty should have the riglit to go inio court and set U|) a 
common negro as an advocate before our tribunals ul 
justice. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE, (interposing.) Thegentle- 
man has certainly misunderstood me. 

Mr. MASON. I desire in two or three words to 
state to the Convention the reason why the Standing 
Committee, (sonie of them—I sfieak not for all,—) re¬ 
commended the rejection of this jirovision. I iliink 
there tan be no mistake in saying that this recommen¬ 
dation of the committee of the wliole was agreed to in 
a frolic, on the part of some, and in conseijuence of a 
prejudice against the legal [irofession, on the part of 
others. 

Bu' the reason why the standing committee thought 
it not liest to recommend theadofition of tliis [irovision, 
may be found in the following considerations: 

VVe are about to establish a system of judiciary in 
which the judges are to be elected by the [leople, and 
it was desirable on the [lart of the committee not to 
bring ufion these courts any discredit; not to {ilace 
them in a situation where they would be overrun by 
blackguardism trom which they could not protect 
themselves, and where they could not preserve that 
order and dignity which should always pertain to a 
court of justice. It was the iiiteiitiou ot the committee 
to justify the wisdom of the jieojile iu demanding the 
election of tlieir judges ; and they desired to throw 
around the courts that protection which results from 
having tho.se who are gentlemen and responsible and 
respectable lawyers, as theonly authorized practitioners 
before tliem. But under lids firovision, both the court 
and the profession would be liable to very serious abu¬ 
ses. There is notliiug iu this provision to firotect them 
from the presence ot blackguards who might come iu 
from the cities and large towns; and who would come 
in, or l)e brought in, for the express purpose of black¬ 
guarding the court, or the lawyers, or some particular 
witness. All men are not conscientious, just and up¬ 
right, and a man might be brought before the court 
charged with crime, he might be willing to associate 
with himself and for his defence, a man no better than 
himself—perhaps the last man who has escajied from 
the penitentiary—for the very purpose of bringing dis¬ 
grace upon the bar, or upon the court itself. And the 
gentleman from Brown is willing to adopt a provision 
which must result in making tlie court an arena for all 
manner of abuse and blackguardism—leaving thejudges 
wholly without the power of controllingit, which might 
result in hiinging men intocourt tosteal away the papers 
—to steal the indictment. For the individual charged 
at the bar might be a thief, and he would have the pri¬ 
vilege of bringing in his accomplice to plead his cause. 
And the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr Reemklin,] 
is undoubtedly in favor of the same projiosition, fori 
Bee he is now making suggestions to the gentleman 
from Brown, and I have understood that he is the au¬ 
thor of the proposition. 

But, sir, if this proposition is to prevail, our courts 
will be no place for gentlemen, hut they will become 
the selected arena for blackguards, coming in under this 
provision, so carefully arranged by the gentleman from 
Brown. For if a man may employ any citizen to ap¬ 
pear for him—he might even go so far as to employ a 
strumpet to come into court—all under the solemn 
sanction of a provision, introduced by the gentleman 
from Brown. [Laughter.] That may be the sense of 


propriety of the gentleman from Brown, but it was not 
the sense of propriety of the committee. They desi¬ 
red to protect the courts, which the people shall estab 
lisli, against all suc h loafers and interlopers, of which 
there are many to be found in every corner of the State, 
and in all the grog shops, and coffee houses, of the 
darkest lanes and adeys in our cities. They desired 
to guard against the possibility of such individuals be¬ 
ing engaged in the solemti and responsible business of 
the [uacitce of law ; they desired to protect the courts 
of justice from being turned into so many arenas of dis¬ 
order, and contusion, and U[)roar. 

Si) lar as the tnenihers of the committee are concern¬ 
ed [lersonally, I do not believe that they could he op¬ 
posed to this [U'nvision, on a'‘coui)t of any ajiprchen- 
bion of interference with themselves, professionally, 
riiey f< el no concern at all about that; hut tliey do 
feel a proper concern lor the honor of the people, and 
the protection oi the courts; and that llieir business 
should cotitinue to be conducted with the same order, 
and (ligiiiiy, and learning, and propriety in the courts, 
which have chiiraclerized their proceedings heretofore. 

It i.s true, Mr. President, that I wmnld not practice 
law side by side with any blackguard, who might be 
brought into the court for the purpose of blackguard¬ 
ing me or my client. But I should be very willing to 
litigate wiili the geullemau from Brown. I should be 
very willing for him to transact all the business he may 
have ill tne courts for himself; for he is a gentleman. 
And I would be willing to extend the same privilege, 
(as indeed it is now extended,) to every other gentle¬ 
man in the State. Bui I would not allow a suitor the 
privilege of calling in any body, every body, and no 
body—whomsoever he might choose—to appear and 
[)lead for him. Much less would 1 be willing, (as the 
gentleman seems now anxious to do,) to put such a 
provision into the constitution. For 1 desire merely to 
remark, in conclusion, that a constitution connot be al¬ 
tered with the same facility as an act of the Legisla¬ 
ture. Such a provision in the constitution might result 
in breaking up our whole system of judiciary. And 
I really see no reason why it should not. I doubt ve¬ 
ry much, whether justice could be administered at all, 
w*'re we Jto admit into the courts all sorts of men— 
such as could be (bund in our cities, and amongst our 
river men. I doubt very much, whether lhex*e are ma¬ 
ny judges in the Stale who would even consent to sit 
upon the bench; or whether there are many respecta¬ 
ble or responsible men of the legal profession, who 
would consent to practice law in a court crowded with 
blackguards. 

The [leople, (if I may he permitted to express my 
opinion,) will never thank the gentleman for bringing 
these men into the courts. Tlie people desire to have 
their business done in courts subject to rule. The peo¬ 
ple are not pleased with a licensed tongue, any more 
than they are with a had character; and if lawyers 
now are stigmatized as men of bad character, by the 
prejudices of men, I would like to know how men of 
the same feelings would regard those characters who 
might be brought into the couits under the provision 
before us. 

I hope the gentleman from Brown will derive much 
benefit from suggestions he has been receiving from 
tlie gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin.] But 
I would remind him that that gentleman, is the open 
and avowed enemy of all the courts; and of course 
of all rule and order in the courts. 

Mr. REEMELIN, (interposing.) I call the gentle¬ 
man to order. I make the point that he has asserted 
an infamous falsehood. 

Mr. MASON. That is a mere matter of opinion. I 
consider the gentleman as a deadly enemy of ail the 
courts of justice in the land; and propositions which 
he has submitted to 'his Convention prove him to be 
such—convict him of efforts to destroy the courts and 
the reputation of judges, from Chief Justice Marshall 
down. 











CONVENTION REPOKTS. 


Mr. REEMELIN (interposing.) I ask again if the 
gentleman is in order? 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Clark is 
proceeding by way of explanation. It is the hope of 
the Chair that the gentleman will not give cause for 
any personalities, or any thing unpleasant, in the way 
of reply. The Chair is of opinion that the gentleman 
has been quite too personal. 

Mr. MASON proceeded, in conclusion, to show that 
another etiect of the amendment of the gentleman from 
Brown, would be to take away from the courts the 
power of punishing for contem{)t—the power of pre¬ 
serving the dignity and respectability of the courts, by 
enforcing the observance of its authority with fines and 
imprisonments. 

The committee had concluded they would do no 
more than to recommend to the body not to adopt this 
provision. That was the extent of the action of the 
committee, and he hoped that the body would concur 
in the recommendation 

Mr. TAYLOR. Sir, if this was simply a question of 
the profession, or having respect to the orderly admin¬ 
istration of the courts, it might commend itself to us in 
a ditfererr light from what it seems to me that it now 
does. But the question is, shall wo tolerate in the 
State of Otiio, in respect to this matter, an entirely dif¬ 
ferent rule from what obtains in every other branch of 
business and in every other form of agency—for the 
business entrusted to an attorney is nothing more than 
an agency ? In every other business matter the prin 
cipal has the right to choose his agent, untrammeled 
and unrestricted by law. Why then should we have a 
provision for the proctection of the legal profession 
alone ? What reason is there for preventing the free¬ 
dom of choice in this respect, whilst you allow to all 
men the privilege of selecting their own agents in all 
other cases, irrespective of the fact whether they have 
passed an examination, or hold a written license to 
qualify them for their service? 

There is a [U’inciple in this question; it is opposition 
to the conferment of a special privilege. 

But it has been affirmed that tins provision will 
affect the respectability and dignity of the courts. But 
it has been admitted that the practice of allowing in¬ 
dividuals to go into court and appear there for them¬ 
selves has always been tolerated. Well, if that is the 
case, why is it that the picture so graphically draw'ii 
by the gentleman from Clark has not been realized ? 
Why is it not that scenes of blackguardism and rib- 
aldiy have not heretofore overwhelmed the order and 
dignity of the courts ? Why have not those characters 
gone into court and made riot there, as he has described, 
if individuals may come into court in their own case 
without restriction ? Why have they not done it? I want 
to know the foundation for the ap()rehension that these 
same individuals are going to trust their business in 
more unworthy hands for the future than they have 
done for the past. 

Sir, when a man appeal s with his business in court, 
he has a stake there. He wants to assert his rights, 
and I want to know if he would be likely to employ 
any unworthy, inefficient, or ribald man to appear for 
him there? No, sir, he will look around him and seek 
for the best informed gentleman—the man who can 
best present bis rights to the court and jury, and em¬ 
ploy him. 

All we want is that there shall be no exclusiveness 
in this business, that it shall not be confined to a li¬ 
censed few. but that every person may have the liberty 
of choosing such agents as he prefers, in every depart¬ 
ment of business 

But it has been said that the courts will lose their 
character for order and dignity—that they cannot pro¬ 
tect themselves under such a provision. But is it to be 
supposed, for an instant, that the court will tolerate 
thosecontempts described by the gentleman from Clark 
[Mr. Mason]? Have they not the power to punish con¬ 
tempts? Certainly they have. They always have ex¬ 


1289 


ercised this power, and they must contrive to possess 
:t. And upon the supjiosition that individuals would 
appear and demean themselves as the gentleman has 
described, what would be (he result? Why, in a sum¬ 
mary manner, the dignity and rights of the tril)uual 
would be asserted. Would not the same power re¬ 
main if this exclusiveness were withheld ? 

Whenever a party appears by an authority whom he 
has chosen, we desire that he should have the privi¬ 
lege of being heard by his authorized agent. 

There is another topic to which gentlemen have al¬ 
luded—the prejudice ag dust the legal profession. AuJ 
let me tell gentlemen that that prtjmlice, as far as it 
exists at all, has been excited because of their opposi¬ 
tion to every proposition the tendency of which would 
be to put every man upon the same footing—bciause 
of their aversion to giving a fair field for competition 
in every profession, calling, trade or craft, whether it 
be the business of selling goods, making j)low’sor prac- 
‘ising law. So long as they shall remain the advocuirs 
of special privileges, these jirejudices will remain 
against them. 

Now there is the illustration of the gentleman from 
Brown. There was a case in which he might have ap¬ 
peared for himself, but he was turned aside wfn-u ap¬ 
pearing as a guardian; and the common sense »»f every 
man who witnessed or has lieard of that transaction 
will pass sentence against the profession for this piece 
of illiberality. They will hold that the lawyer's license 
it alien to every just princijile ; and if it is ilio desire 
of the profession to overcome this prejudice, let them 
rest their claims to consideration and enqiloymeul U[)- 
011 the principle of free trade and equal rights, 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot. Mr. Presuleni: This 
• mendment contemjilates the abrogation of all exclu¬ 
sive privileges now enjoyed by the legal profession. I 
should not have said one word upon this (piestiou 
were I nut soon to vote upon it, and for tliat reason I 
wish an ex[)lanation to go with the vote. 1 am willing 
to go as far as the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. Tayl >k, j 
or the gentleman fVom Brown, [Mr. Loudon,] to de¬ 
stroy' the “ distinctions ” and “ exclusiveness ” of which 
i ey so loudly complain, hut I wish to attempt it ra¬ 
tionally—at the right time and in the right place. 

But let us inquire whence arises this disiinciioii? Is 
l from a constitutional provision? Certainly imt— 
n'thing but a legislative enactment; snbjeci (like all 
general laws) to re[)eal at any time. Now if geiiile- 
men desire what they seek for by this amendment, let 
them direct their efforts to the appropriate body. Wo 
cannot incorporate into the new constitution mat ers 
belonging so exclusively to the Legislature, without 
going far beyond our duty, and for these reason.^ I pro¬ 
test against the adoption of this amendment. 

I will here say to the gentleman from Brown that I 
am willing at any time to join with him in an applica¬ 
tion to the Legislature for a repeal of the statute which 
makes the “distinctions ” of wliich he cotnjilains, and 
thus make every one who wishes to jiraciice law, de- 
oend upon his good sense—law knowletlge atidproles- 
siorial skill for his preferment. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. Mr. President, while I ad¬ 
mire the republicanism of my friend from Brown,[Mr. 
Loudon,] still, sir, I think that I admire our republi¬ 
can institutions as much as any other man, and I feel 
as if this Convention would act very unwisely in adopt- 
mo- the provision now under consideration. I am not 
a fawyer; I am not engaged in the practice of the pro¬ 
fession; but I desire to say a few words up m this 
proposition. 

Notwithstanding this question of exclusiveness has 
been lugged in to bolster up this proposition, permit 
me here to state, that lawyers have not been clothed 
with this exclusiveness by any request or desire on 
their part. This exclusive right of lawyers to practice 
in the courts of justice is as old as the law itself. This 
rule was supposed to have been established iu wisdom, 
in order to secure to the court and those who liad bo- 











1290 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


siness therein, the services of’men skilled in the law ; 
and for that purpose they have always been required 
to engage ihemselved in the study of the law, and to 
pass the ordeal of an examination; and in order that 
the courts might be approached and surrounded by a 
class of men over whom they could exercise some de¬ 
gree t)f arbitrary authority, keeping them within their 
p'-oper province. The lawyer being a sworn officer, 
becomes an officer of the court in one sense of the 
term, which, together with the controlling authority of 
the court, has, in my opinion, not only proved to be 
salutary, but it has contributed much in securing to 
our courts much of this dignity and respect, which 
hey now so fully enjoy. 

We would do nothing that would have the least ten¬ 
dency to lessen the dignity and respect for the court; 
for when you lessen respect for courts—when they 
'•annot maintain that independence and dignity which 
is necessary to the commanding of that respect which 
is due to that part of your system of governmeiit, mor¬ 
als will become lax, and when moral sentiment is 
gone, this government of ours has nought whereon to 
stand. And when your courts can no longer command 
respect, your liberties will be endangered—or in other 
words, as popular respect for the dig^iity of the courts 
shall be allowed to diminish in this country, in the 
same proportion your liberties will be found to be on 
the wane. It is in that lorum where the rights of prop¬ 
erty and the rights of the individual man are to be de¬ 
termined; and therefore it is, that whatever else we 
do, or which the Legislature may do, we should do 
nothing that would have a tendency to injure or vio- 
alte a part of our system in the estimation of the peo¬ 
ple. 

If I were engaged in the practice of the law, and de¬ 
sired only to make money, regardless with whom I 
might be associated. I would sustain this proposition; 
nor would I in the least object to a conscientious man 
being allowed to practice if he desired it, and could 
get employed. But before you do this, you should ab¬ 
solve your lawyers from the solemn obligations they 
are under to discharge their duty to their client with 
fidelity, or have all others that proposed to practice 
come under a similar obligation. There is nothing 
now, nor will there be hereafter, to prevent a man from 
attending to his own case. But the gentleman from 
Erie, [Mr. Taylor, j has come to rhe conclusion, that 
there is no danger oi any blackguard, or any one coming 
into court except a lawyer—for no man is going to 
stultify himself. That I suppose is in accordance with 
his knowledge of human nature. But let me tell the 
gentleman, being much older than himself, and notun- 
acqainted with human nature, that, as a general rule, 
he is right; no sane man will trust an important case to 
a man not acquainted with the law; but there are oth¬ 
ers irresponsible, and who would delight in bringing 
ridicule upon the court and all connected with it, as a 
matter of mere licentious revenge, that the election of 
the judges by the people will be an additional reason 
why you should essay to keep the channel of justice 
pure, for some men will claim to take greater liberties 
with a court of their own election, than with one which 
they had no voice in creating. Ill disposed men might 
often bring into court fit subjects to do their dirty 
w’oi’k. This is the resort of human nature, when cor¬ 
rect morals are w’anting; it is a law that has always ex¬ 
ited and will always exist until human nature shall be 
changed. 

Although this exclusiveness, is the wisdom of ages 
past, and still continued, it does seem to me, that those 
who seek to open dooi’s so wide just now, ought by 
some argument, instead of the cry of exclusiveness, 
ofier some good reason for this change ; and if they 
could show any valid reason for this change, the rem¬ 
edy has always been in the hands of the people. So 
far as the State of Ohio is concerned, this exclusive 
privilege to practice in our court is a mere statutory 
provision, and if it is so very obnoxious to the people, it 


does seem to me that our legislative halls would have 
resounded with their discontent. The law'yers them¬ 
selves never sought this privilege, nor was it ever con¬ 
ferred upon them for their benefit; it was done for the 
benefit of those who should be so unfortunate as to be 
compelled to have business in your courts. Now% so 
far as dollars and cents are concerned, it is my candid 
opinion, that it would be a benefit if the door was 
thrown wide open, but it might in the end result in a 
disadvantage to the courts, which by all means, and by 
every interest that should actuate an upright man, 
snould be sustained. 

I have made these remarks, Mr. President, not so 
much for myself as for others, and hope to be pardon- 
ad for the interest I have manifested upon this occa¬ 
sion—for I am not to be here long, but there are those 
who are to come after, in whom I have a deep and 
abiding interest, and full well do I know that their in¬ 
terests and their rights are to be aflected in just pro¬ 
portion, according to the degree of dignity and re¬ 
spect that shall be entertained of your courts of justice. 

Suppose, sir, that I should be mistaken in this, and 
the principle of admitting every citizen to come into 
“court, good, bad or indifferent,” and be permitted|to 
practice, inasmuch as the legal profession, as such, 
rests exclusively upon statutory provisions, had not 
this experimental question better be tried in that bodyS 
where, if it should work well, it could and would be 
continued, and if it should prove otherwise, the reme¬ 
dy could as easily be applied ? But, be that as it may, 
this proposition is entirely too broad; it should at least, 
be so formed as to admit none who had not some char¬ 
acter for honesty and morality at least. I will not pre¬ 
tend to say what I would do were I in the Legisla¬ 
ture; but if my immediate constituents desired it, I 
would vote for it and give them the benefit of a trial; 
but I think that I am too well acquainted with human 
nature to make it a constitutional provision—to throw 
open a door wdiich would seem to invite an exhibition 
of disrepect and contempt for our courts. 

Mr. RANNEY now renewed the demand for the 
previous question. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


THURSDAY, February 20, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Prestley. 

Mr. HUNTER presented sundry petitions from O. 
W. Randall, Aaron Brown and forty-five others, citi¬ 
zens of Ashtabula county, praying that a clause be in¬ 
serted in the new constitution, prohibiting the Legisla¬ 
ture from passing any law legalizing traffic in spirituous 
liquors. 

Referred to the select committee on the subject of 
Retailing Ardent Spirits. 

Mr. NORRIS presented a petition from H. V. Kerr 
and forty-eight other citizens of Clermont county, on 
the same subject; which on motion, was laid on the 
table. 

Mr. SWAN presented a petition from Gustavus S. 
Green and five hundred and sixty-three other citizens 
of Franklin county on the same subject; which on mo¬ 
tion, was laid on the table. 

Report number two of the standing committee on 
Education was read a second time by its title. 

And on motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, 
committed to a committee of the w'hole Convention. 

Report number one of the committee on Corpora¬ 
tions other than Corporations for Banking was read a 
third time. 

Mr. RANNEY moved that the Report be recommit¬ 
ted to the committee, that reported it, w ith instructions 
to strike out the w’ords, “ by general laws,” in the first 
line of section 5, and insert in lieu thereof the following 
words: “ in cases, where the public good imperatively 
demands it by the General Assembly.” 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 1291 


Mr. SWAN demanded a division. 

The question then being on recommitting the Re¬ 
port ; 

Mr. REEMELIN said that it was well known that he 
had not originally supported the Report now made, 
although he had signed it with a view to have it repor¬ 
ted. Nor did he like it now, but he appealed to 
members, whether it’ after discussion a report had be¬ 
come amended so as to secure a majority, when all 
amendments had had a fair chance, whether motions 
to recommit and to re-consider, were to be continually 
made and re-made, we had not better rescind our ad¬ 
journment resolution, and thus again gel at sea upon 
all subjects. 

Sir, (said Mr. R.,) I voted yesterday for engrossing 
the report now before us, not because 1 like it in all 
its parts, but because I regard the report as the final 
result ol various opinions, and as a compromise of 
somewhat of confiicting sentiments, and such a course 
shall govern me in all such matters, and in the final 
vole on the constitution itself, even if it should—and 
it no doubt—will contain many provisions which I dis¬ 
like ; and even if it should not contain matters which 
in my opinion should be in. 

Although, therefore, I do not like all in the report, 
still l am strong in hopes, that its tendency will be to 
simplify and rectify corporate powers, and that specia 
privileges and special grants, at least, will no longer be 
granted, so that the principle of association may be 
stripped of its speciality and its exclusiveness. 

The right of association is a natural right, belonging 
to all, and all Government has to do, is to furnish the 
means to carry that right into efiect with that care and 
regard for other’s rights, the same as it does the right 
to trade, to hold property, or any natural right which 
is perfected and rendered enjoyable by legal and con¬ 
stitutional enactment. 

And let me say here, that this principle of associa¬ 
tion is the great headway of our age. It is the idea 
by which labor will yet be redeemed from the tyran¬ 
ny of capital; it is the means by which labor may yet 
be secured the result of its labor, without feeling sole 
capital; it is the principle by which expense of every 
kind may be saved, by which Jeremy Bentham’s idea 
“ of the least wear and tear for the greatest possible 
object,” may be yet realized. It is the principle of 
socialism; the principle by which the French peoplel 
expect yet to cut the tangled web which capital has 
wove around labor ; the principle upon which Fourier 
has expatiated, and which shall have a fair fight, and 
a fair field, if 1 can give it. 

By it, we have already, and shall hereafter get clear 
of much Government machinery. Yes, I foresee the 
time when the whole Post Office Department will be 
surrendered to the principle of association, and compe¬ 
tition being left free, it will work better than the ma¬ 
chinery of Government. Strip the principle of associa¬ 
tion of the parasites that cling to it; 1 mean the special 
corporate privileges, and the special exemptions—let 
it be a general right again, open to all—and I, for one, 
am willing to bid it God speed, and let it work out its 
own ends. 

And here it is, where I think my friend from Trum¬ 
bull, [Mr. Rannet,] has taken the wrong shute. I ask 
him why, if the right of way be granted to one, it 
should not be open to all ? It may be wrong to grant 
it all to private corporations. I think, myself, that 
granting the right of way to one set of citizens over the 
property of another citizen, is a doubtful policy. The 
right to take for public use, does not mean for private 
use, and it is this prohibition of an originally honest 
principle, that makes all the difficulty in this matter. 
Private property has been taken for private use, under 
pretence of public use, and it is this perversion which 
has given rise to the provisions in the report. By it, 
that right of way cannot be surrendered hereafter by 
special grant; it must be done by general law; and 1 
cannot see why, if it is right to grant it at all, it should 


not be granted to all. When the right of way is thus 
thrown open to all, it will be better guarded than by 
special grants. The public generally, will feel the 
sling of corporations and their special privileges, and 
my word for it, you bring home by a general law the 
question of the right of way, and I warrant you the 
people will guard it better than it has been done here¬ 
tofore. Make those general lavvs subject to alteration 
and repeal, and the people will gradually strike down 
one special right after another, until the mere princi¬ 
ple of association will be restored to its original fair¬ 
ness and equity. This, I have strong hopes, will be 
the result of general corporation laws; they will be 
open to all—and more than that, they will be subject 
to that healthy action of public opinion,, that will trim 
down all its incongruities with our laws and the con¬ 
stitution. The principle of association, or even of in¬ 
corporated association, cannot be put down—it is on 
the increase; it is spreading—generalize it, then; throw 
it open to all; bring it strongly, and fully, and fairly, 
within the control of public opinion, by repeal and al¬ 
teration, and I have no fears but what the people will 
soon rectify those general laws, and the associations,, 
and corporations under them, and bring them to the 
level of all citizens. 

I cannot understand my friend from Trumbull, [Mr.. 
Ranney,] in his course to-day. He tells us he wants 
the General Assembly to grant the right of way by 
special act, and not generally. What! is he willing to 
have the General Assembly tire arbiter, which is to de¬ 
ny to one a right, and grant it to another ? Away with 
such reasoning. If the right of w'ay should be granted 
to one, it should be granted to all on the same condi¬ 
tion. We want general rights—no special rights. We, 
in Hamilton, do not want to have to beg as a favor 
what has been previously granted to Trumbull. 

In conclusion, general laws will be better drafted, 
better watched, and better passed than special laws; 
and if any errors shall occur, the people will rectify the 
general error. If corporate and associate rights are 
right at all, throw them open to labor, as well as to 
capital; to the poor, as well as the rich ; and if it 
prove wrong, deny it altogether. The General Assem¬ 
bly should not discriminate; its acts should be like the 
dews of heaven, capable of being enjoyed by all. That 
body should no longer occupy the attitude of being a 
dispenser of unequal laws, of special privileges and im¬ 
munities. It has done so too much in the past—it should 
not do so in luture. 

Mr. LEECH said: Mr President—In justice to my¬ 
self, I feel called upon to notice a remark made by my 
friend from Hamilton, [Mr. RKEMEUi*?.] I understood 
that gentleman to intimate that I am opposed to the 
principle of association He is entirely mistaken, if he 
so interprets my views. I am not opposed to the prin¬ 
ciple of association, nor is my worthy friend from Kuo.x, 
[Mr. Mitchell,] or any of those gentlemen, I believe,, 
who act with me on this lloor, in opposition to corpora¬ 
tions. On the contrary, I recognize it as the right of 
individuals to associate, and to combine their means, in 
order to efiect any proper, or just, or usetul, or laudable 
purpose; so that, by so doing, they do not interfere 
with, or usurp the rights of others. 

But, sir, I will tell you what I am opposed to._ I am 
opposed to government’s interfering, and by legislative 
enactments, clothing associations with corporate pow¬ 
ers ; constituting them artificial persons, and conferring 
upon them special or exclusive privileges and iramuni- 

tipg_privileges and immunities which natural persons 

are not permitted to enjoy. Such legislation is mani¬ 
festly repugnant to the principles of our government; 
wholly incompatible with the spirit and genius of our 
free institutions, and totally subversive of the equal 
rights of the people. , „ 

It IS for these reasons, sir, that I am opposed to all 
chartered incorporations. It is for these reasons, that 
these vampires upon the body politic, called corpora¬ 
tions, are objects of my direst hostility. 










1292 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


Mr. RE EMELIN. I am sorry that the gentleman 
from Guernsey, [Mr. Leech,] understood me as repre¬ 
senting him opposed to the principle of association. 1 
am aware lhat that gentleman’s position in that regard 
is as he has stated it. 

Mr. SAWYER moved the previous question. 

The quesiion then being “ shall the main question be 
now pul? ” it was disagreed to. 

Alior debate, Mr. MANON moved the luevious ques 
tion. 

The qtiestion then being “ shall the main question 
be now {)ut ?” 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and. nays, winch 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 48, nays 47—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archhold, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, 
Btrn*tr, Blickeusderter, Biown of Athtiis. Brown of Carroll, 
CHhill. Chaml)er8, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ew¬ 
ing, Florence, flillett, Cray, Greene of Di fiance. Hard, Harlan, 
Hawk 118 , Hitchcock of Geauga, Hunter, Lidey, Manon, Mason, 
Morelu ad, Morris, Mct loud, McConiiick.Otis, I'atterson, Perkins, 
Retnulin, Sawyer, Scott ot Harrison, Smith of Wyandot, Stan- 
hery, Stanfnn, Stebhins, Stilwell, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, 
Vance ol HutU'r, Way and Woodbury—48. 

Nays —Mi ssrs. Barnet ot MontL'omery, Bates, Blair, Curry, 
Farr, Forbes, Graham, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, IJam- 
il'on, Hi'iidi rson. Holmes Holt, Hootmen, Humi hreville. Hunt, 
Jines, Keiinon, King, Kirkwood, harsh, l.awrence. Letch, Lead- 
better. Loudou, Mitchell, Nash. Ntirris, Peck, QuiitRy, Ranney, 

R'ddle, Scolt of Auglaize, Seller.-, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warn n, Stickney. '^tidger, Struhle, Swan,'I'hompson, of Stark, 
Warnn, Williams Wilson, Worthington and President—47. 

So the demand for the previous question w'as sus¬ 
tained. 

The qtiestion then being on^ the passage of the report; 
Mr. RANNEY demanded a division. 

The questii.li then being on the passage of the first 
section; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 55, nays 40—as lol- 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Collings. Cook, 
Dorsey, Fwart, Ewinir, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Grega, Gmejbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt,Jones, King. Kirkwood, Lawrence, 
Lidey, Loudon, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, 
Quiak y, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Sndth ol Wyandot, Stanton, Stebldns, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, 
Struhle, Swift, Thompson of Stark. Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—55. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar 
nett ol Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown ot Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Curry, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Hunter, 
Kennun, Larsh, Leadbetter. Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, 
Morris, MeCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Ranney, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Swan, Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Williams and Worthington—40. 

So the first section was passed. 

The question then being on the passage of section 
two ; 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 63, nays 33— 
as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Blair, 
Brown ot Athens, Cahill, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Ewart, Ew’ing, 
Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene ot Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Hawkins, Henderson. Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hoot¬ 
man, Hunt, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, 
Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patter 
son, Pi rkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, lawyer, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebhins, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struhle, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, 
Woodbujy and President—63. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, 
Blickeusderfrr, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Curry, Dorsey, 
Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, 
Humphreville, Larsh, Leadbetter, Manon, Mason, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, Nash, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Williams 
Worth ington—33. 

So the second section was passed. 

Tlie question then being on the passage of section 
three; 

Mr. OTIS demanded the yeas and nays, which were 
ordered, and resulted—yeas 57, nays 40— as follows : 
Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Cook, Dorsey, 


Ewing, Fair, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, Hard, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, Lead- 
t-etter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Mct’ormick, Norris, Orton, Pat¬ 
terson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Au- 
glsize, Sellers, Smith ot Wyandot, Stebhins, Stickney, Stidger, 
struhle. Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson ol Shelby, Thompson of 
Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson and President—57. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble. Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, Florence, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Larsh, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Me 
Cloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Highland, Smith ol Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Williams, 
Worthington and Woodbury—40. 

So the third section was passed. 

The question then being on the passage of section 
four; 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 59, nays 36— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill,Chaney, Cook. Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hen¬ 
derson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt Hunter, 
Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawnmee, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, 

I oudon, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of 
Aualaize, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebhins, 
Stickney, Stidf^er, Struhle, Swift, Taylor. Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, 
Woodbury and President—59. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, 
Florence, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hiichcock 
of Geauga, Kennon. Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Nash, Otis, Peck, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Swan and Worthington—36. 

So sectiou four was passed. 

The quesiion then being on the passage of section 
five ; 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yea.s and nays, which 
w'ere ordered, and resulted—yeas 32, nays 61—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archhold, Cook, Ewart, Farr, Gillett, 
Giofsbeck, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Hunt, Hard, Kennon, 
Kirkwood, Manon, Mason, Non is, Patters(.n, Peck, Perkins, 
Reemelin, Smith of Wyandot, Stickney, Struhle, Swift, Taylor, 
'I’hoinpson ot Shelby, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams, Wil¬ 
son and Woodbury—32. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, 
Blickensderfer, Browned Athens, Brown ol Carroll, Cahill, Cham¬ 
bers, Chan y, Collings, Curry, Ewing, Florence, Forbes. Greene 
of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Holt. Hootman, Humphreville, Hunter, Jones, King, 
Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Orton, Otis, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Selbrs, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stebbins, Stilwell, Stidger, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Way, 
Worthington and Prfsident—61. 

So the Couventioii refused to pass section 5. 

The question then being on the passage of section 6; 
Mr. GREEN of Ross, demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 70, nays 25— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, 
Chambers, Chaney, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, 
Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Lidey,Loudon, Mor¬ 
ris, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, S< ott of 
Auglaize, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struhle, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thomp¬ 
son ot Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Way, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and President—70. 

Nays —Messrs. Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Col¬ 
lings, Curry, Florence, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hum¬ 
phreville, Hunter, Larsh, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mason, 
Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Peck, Sellers, Smith of High¬ 
land, Stanbery and Worthington—25. 

So section 6 was passed. 

On motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the Convention took 
a recess. 


2^ o’clock, p. m. 

The President decided that the report of the com¬ 
mittee on Corporations other than Corporations for 










CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


1293 


Banking, having been passed by a distinct vote upon 
each section, was now no longer before the Conven¬ 
tion, but finally passed, and that no further vote was 
necessary in order to the final passage, and reference 
to the committee on Revision, Enrollment and Arrange¬ 
ment. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD moved to re-consider the vote of 
the forenoon, by which the report ol the committee on 
Corporations other than Corporations for Banking was 
finally passed, and referred to said committee. 

Mr. FARR demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 32, nays 53—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carrol, Cham 
bers, Cook. Ewart, Florence, Green ot Ross, Hamilton, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga. Monon, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, 
Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Williams and Worthington—32. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Chaney, Col- 
lings, Dorsey, Ewing, F»irr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, H'^lmes, Holt, Ilootman, Humphre 
ville. Hunter Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Loudon, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott ol Aualaize, Sellers, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stanbery, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of 
Butler, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—53. 

So file motion to re consider was disagreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER submitted the following: 

Resolved, That a committee of four members be appointed by 
the President, whose duty it shall be to draft an address to the 
people of Ohio on the subject of adopting the new constitution. 

Mr. SAWYER, while he did not expect or desire to 
be placed upon this committee, ho hoped the Conven¬ 
tion would unite in an address to the people upon the 
whole subject of the new constitution. Such had been 
the example of other States, and he hoped the same 
thing would be done here. 

Mr. MANON said he had no faith in these high 
sounding pretensions, which were getting to be far too 
common in this body. He would like to see some 
prospect of getting through, before passing upon such 
a proposition as this. 

Mr. MANON moved that the resolution be laid on 
the table ; which was agreed to. 

Mr. LARSH submitted the following: 

Resolved, 'lhat an election shall be held on the 4th day of July 
next, which shall be opened, conducted and certified in the same 
manner as elections for Governor are now required to be ; at 
which election the qualified electors of the State shall be called 
upon to vote for or against the adoption of the foregoing consti¬ 
tution. 

Resolved, That should a majority of the electors of the State 
voting at said election, vote against the adoption of the constitu¬ 
tion, that fact shall immediately be certified to the (loternor by 
the Secretary of State, who sh-'ll thereupon ifsue his proclama 
tion to the electors ol the State, requiriiig them to vote at the 
election to be held on the second Tuesday oY October next, for 
or against the adoption of Article—, (the Judiciary Article) ot 
this constitution, to be incorporated as an amendment to the ex¬ 
isting constitution. 

Resolved, That should a majority of the electors of the State 
voting on said question at said October election, vote in favor ot 
said amendment, that fact shall be certified to the General Assem¬ 
bly at its next session, and thereupon said Article — shall be a 
part of the constitution of the State, and all provisions contrary 
thereto shall be rescinded ; and the General Assembly shall take 
immediate measures to conform existing laws thereto, and carry 
the same into effect. 

Oil motion of Mr. LARSH, the resolution was laid 
on the table. 

Mr. LEADBETTER submitted the following: 
Resolved, That the Reporter of this Convention adopt suitable 
means to have reported in full the proceedings and debates of this 
Convention until its termination. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. I have but a word (tr two to 
say upon the adoption of this resolution, lii looking 
over the proceedings and debates of this Convoniion, 
you will find tliat some of its members, much more 
able than myself, in some instances, are not only re¬ 
ported as having said but little in arguments of some 
length, but are reported as having said some very silly 
things, and some things that they did not say; and in 
others that some good arguments have not been repor¬ 
ted at all, or barely noticed; and now sir, as we are 


about to draw this Convention to a close, and some of 
the most important questions are yet to be decided, and 
then having the wfiole to pass upon, I for one desire 
that the opinions of members shall, from and alter 
this date, be fully reported—so that whosoever shall 
have occasiuu to inquire into the opinion of any mem¬ 
ber of this body, which has been the subject matter of 
discussion, can do so, by referring to his argument, for 
if any part of your book is ever read, it will be the 
commencement and conclusion. These questions have 
to be decided amid a conflict of opinions, and as our 
proceedings are going out to the world, I for one de¬ 
sire to see a full expression of those opinions upon pa¬ 
per, at least in a manner so intelligible lhat we shall 
be able to recognize them. 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved to refer the resolution to 
the select comrni’tee on Reporting. 

Mr. 1..EADBETTER. I do not know that I have 
any particular objection to the reference of this resolm 
lion; not knowing, however, who are the members 
composing 'his committee on Reporting. 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Hamilton 
[Mr. Reemelin] is chairman. 

Mr LEADBETTER. Very well, sir; then 1 must 
conclude that the honorable chairmain has taken iqion 
himself an undue amount of responsibility, in advising 
the Reporter, lately, to cut down the debates still short¬ 
er. It is true, sir, Irom some cause, the gentleman 
from Hamilton, the chairman of the cf)mmittee, is gen¬ 
erally very fully and ably reported, and in my opinion 
he has occupied more pages in this book than any oth¬ 
er member of the Convention, containing many good 
things and much valuable matter; but, under no rules 
does it appear that his arguments have been razeed. 

I do not institute this resolution by way of complaint-^ 
in regard to the manner in which tlie reports have been 
made ; nevertheless, I am free to admit that they have 
not been as fully reported since we have been iit this 
hall as I could have de.sired. I coidd refer you to the 
debate which took place upon the doctritie of libel; 
the argument and opinions in that discussion expressed 
were valuable. But I perceive that the arguments of 
some of the speakers upon ihatqtn slion were notonly 
cut down, but cut out of the rej>orls entirely. Now, 
sir, our opinions, and the opinions of the mass of the 
people are formed, and they come to the conclusiun of 
the propriety or impropriety of princijdes by diseuss- 
ioii, and examining the discussions and opinions of 
others in a great degret?. 

The object of the General Assembly in furnishing 
us with a reporter was, that the opinions of the mem¬ 
bers of this Convention, by which great and important 
principles sliould be setih d, should he made {)uhlir, 
and tol’urnish the people with the arguments by vvluh h 
those principles were decided by our votes. And I 
regret to say, that in my ojiitiion, iheir object has not 
been fully carried out, es[)ecially since we have been 
in this hull. If it had been I ihiidt that onr debates 
would have elicited more interest. In many instiiiices 
it will he difiicnlt to determine just exactly what the 
member was driving at, (true that may be the fault of 
the speaker,) in other cases you will find langmigo al¬ 
most without an idea, and again, an idea, a good one, 
cut off mid way in delivery. 

So far as I am concerned, T beg leave to state, lhat, 
as tor myself, I care hut little about it,; hut iheieare 
those here whose character and standing entitle them 
to great weight, and have a conimanding influence in 
the State—whose opinions, delivered in argument, I 
desire to see taken down in extmso. This I desire to 
see done if we are to have any leporting at all. The 
idea of the chairman ol the committee strikes me as 
peculi Illy singular, that these reports are to he cut off 
still shorter now, when, more than at any other peril d 
of our session, they will become the most imporiani; 
the opinions of members are belter matured, and wi.l 
be more briefly expressed. The item of expense is 
called into requisition as au aid to lhi.s mandate, or 











1294 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


advice to cut shorter and shorter still. It is now too 
late to commence economizing at this point, after elect¬ 
ing an assistant door-keeper. If it is to be understood 
that this assistant door-keeper was necessary to keep 
this body in order, and the duty is discharged, I shall 
not regret the expense; not imputing, however, any 
very disorderly conduct, other than much loud talking 
occasionally. As I have already remarked, I am not 
very particular about the reference of this resolu¬ 
tion, if the committee shall feel themselves instructed 
to report at an early day. 

Mr. REBMELIN. It is perhaps proper that I 
should state that the committee on reporting, has had 
this matter under consideration for some time, but had 
not thought proj>er to report in the case because of the 
absence of the reporter, in consequence of sickness in 
his family. 

It was known to every member that it was at all 
times difficult to hear a speaker in this hall, and that 
of course it must be difficult reporting. And besides, 
in view of the expense involved in making out exten¬ 
ded reports, several members had expressed a wish to 
the reporter that the debates should be still further con¬ 
densed. But now, according to the proposition of the 
gentleman from Holmes, [Mr. Leadbetter,] there 
might be spread out some sixteen columns of our pro¬ 
ceedings every day of the session, at a cost of perhaps, 
forty dollars per day. In view of this expense, it had 
been proposed in the committee, and privately in con¬ 
versation with others, to discharge the reporter entire¬ 
ly, and require merely a copy of the journal to be sent 
up to the printer. 

In consequence of this conversation, the reporter had 
now concluded to condense the reports to about three 
columns a day; and to get along at a cost of something 
like eight or nine dollars a day, besides the ftr diem of 
the reporter. 

I acknowledge that I desire as much as any member 
.)f the body, to have all, myself included, fully report¬ 
ed. But since all the principal questions before the 
Oonvention have been discussed, I am disposed to think 
that there is a propriety in condensing the reports as 
much as possisle, and I have so advised the i-eporter. 
In thus advising him, I acted only as one member, and 
believing that such wms the general wish of members. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. I think sir, that wo are in¬ 
terfering with a matter over which we have no juris¬ 
diction. The Legislature, in pursuance of the law pro¬ 
viding for this Convention, went on to elect a reporter 
whose duties they had prescribed, simply requiring 
him to take such steps, under the supervision of the 
Convention, as might enable them to embody their sen¬ 
timents in a book of reports, and to provide for his 
compensation. The Convention, to be sure, had affirm¬ 
ed the election of a reporter by the Legislature, w'hich 
was nothing mo4'e than recognizing Mr. Smith as the 
authorized reporter of the body. But unless gentlemen 
could appeal to the law of last winter defining the du¬ 
ties of this officer, I cannot see what they can do with 
the subject. If it is in the power of the Convention to 
override the law and prescribe the duties of this office 
then it might be well enough to refer this resolution to 
a committee. But gentlemen should remember that 
the office of reporter is not of the creation of this body; 
and hence it was plain we could exercise no jurisdiction 
over his work. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. I concur with the gentleman 
from Holmes, in the expression of regret that the de¬ 
bates on the libel article were not more fully reported. 
But it should be recollected that this instance of neg¬ 
lect occurred when the reporter was not in his place— 
being absent, on leave at the time, on account of the 
dangerous illness of his family. But I observe that 
our worthy friend, Mr. Smith is again in his place, and 
I apprehend that such a thing will not be likely to 
occur again. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I deem it but justice to the Re¬ 
porter to state, that, without pretending to control his 


action at all, except so far as concerns myself, I took 
the liberty of suggesting to him some time ago, that he 
might make my remarks just as brief as he could. All 
I required was the substance of what I said. It is true 
that some inadvertencies have escaped in a few cases 
with myself; but, considering the difficulty of hearing 
in this hall, and the noise and confusion which is fre¬ 
quently going on, it is astonishing to me that the re¬ 
ports are so correctly taken. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, moved to amend the reso¬ 
lution by striking out all after the word “ resolved,*’ 
and inserting in lieu thereof the following : 

That the Reporter cease to report the speeches of members 
from and after this daJ^ 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot. I have introduced this 
amendment to the resolution ol the gentleman from 
Holmes, for the purpose designated in its language, that 
is, to cut off the reporting of members’ speeches at the 
expense of the State, but the gentleman from Ross, 
[xMr. Green,] doubts the propriety and power of this 
Convention to carry into eftect the design of this amend¬ 
ment, because it contravenes a part of the law calling 
this Convention, by which a Reporter was appointed. 
But it strikes me that the article providing for future* 
amendments in the present constitution of Ohio, mere¬ 
ly gives to the Legislature the power of providing by 
law, means for calling a Convention ; when it had ful¬ 
ly exercised that power, its duties so far as related to 
the Convention were discharged. But the Legislature 
stopped not where its duty ended, but in its wisdom 
selected for us a Reporter, and dictated other means to 
legally immortalize the members of this body. If I am 
correct in my views upon this subject, there is nothing 
in the present Constitution making it more obligatory 
on the Legislature to provide this body with a Repor¬ 
ter, than with a Sergeant-at-Arms, Door Keeper, &c.; 
the power is inherent in this body to provide for these 
appendages, and whenever this body deems it for its 
convenience or the interest of the State, it can lop them 
off entirely. 

I sincerely regret, Mr. President, that this body ac¬ 
quiesced in the act of the General As.sembly, so far as 
regards reporting the debates—had it not been so that 
members could “ book themselves, define their posi¬ 
tion,” &c., on record at the expense of the State, I am 
of the opinion that our labors w'ould hav'e come to a 
happy close long ago. 

I have but little or no interest in the book of debates 
of this body—but such is not the case with many am¬ 
bitious gentlemen around me. They look to it as the 
record of their towering talent, that will be handed 
down to posterity—but I fear that with many of them, 
that book will hand them down so low with their par¬ 
ty during their lives, that they will be considered unfit 
lor political resurrection. 

I have said more than I intended. I hope this amend¬ 
ment may prevail, and if members hereafter desire 
their speeches reported, let them pay for it, and not 
ride to glory without paying fare. 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved that the resolution and 
pending amendment be referred to the committee on 
Reporting. 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, the 
resolution and pending amendment were laid on the 
table. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention took up 
the report of the standing committee on the Judicial 
Department. 

The question pending being, “shall the main ques¬ 
tion be now put?” 

Mr. BATES, on leave, withdrew his demand for the 
previous question. 

The question then being on agreeing to the first 
amendment proposed by the committee, to wit: 

Strike out of section one the following words: “ and 
the proceedings of all courts in this State shall be pub¬ 
lic at all times, and any person having any case pend¬ 
ing, or business to transact therein, may either appear 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


for him.self or herself, or be represented by such citi¬ 
zen, as counsel, as such person rnay choose, any law or 
usage to the contrary notwithstanding ; 

Mr. MANON moved to amend the amendment by 
strikingout all after the words, “at such times and,” 
and inserting in lieu thereof, the following: 

Every person of good moral character, shall be entitled to ad¬ 
mission to practice law in all courts of justice, any law and usage 
to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, ot Geauga. It will be recollect¬ 
ed that this amendment of the committee of the whole, 
was reported against by the standing committee, from 
the consideration that it was adopted in haste, and tliat 
It would be best to give the Convention an op[)ortunity 
to act upon it again. 01 course, if a majority ol the 
Convention were willing to let the provision remain in 
the bill, the committee would not object further; al¬ 
though they might believe that in practice it would be 
found inconvenient and unjust. 

Mr. STANDERY. I would not have a word to say 
upon this proposition, if it had not passed the commit¬ 
tee of the whole. I can hardly jiersuade myself that 
the vote so given, was given seriously, or with any 
fixed purpose to put this strange provision in the con¬ 
stitution. 

It may be, sir, that some gentlemen really think it to 
be a good thing—a salutary rule. I hope that a little 
consideration will show them that it is anything but 
good, or salutary—that it is in truth very unwise and 
absolutely pernicious. 

The gentleman from Brown [Mr. Loudon] tell us, 
that he wishes to abolish the privilege and monopoly 
of the legal prosession. He would have the practice of 
the law, like every other business or profession, open 
to all—clear of all restraint—free to unlicensed com¬ 
petition. All that sounds very well in the abstract, but 
practically it means nothing. The practice of tlie law' 
requires study and preparation—and it is no more open 
to actual competition than any other profession or 
trade. What if you do open the bar to all comers. 
Does any one suppose that men will seriously enter 
upon this profession without this necessary prepara¬ 
tion? The gentleman from Brown, [Mr. Loudon,] to 
show' how valuable this provision w'ould be, told us 
that if he had a case for trial, he might wish to avail 
himself of the services of his friend near him, who hap¬ 
pens not to be a lawyer. That would certainly be a 
very desirable privilege ! Now' let me ask that gen¬ 
tleman, if having a horse to shoe, he would trust the 
job to a man who had never struck hammer upon an¬ 
vil ? If he had a coat to make would he put his cloth 
in any other hands than those of a regular tailor ? If 
he had a steamboat, would he put a raw hand at the 
w'heel—or at the engine ? Does not the gentleman see 
that every business or calling which requires particu¬ 
lar skill, is necessarily confined to the few who by 
practice, and the necessary preparation, have acquired 
that skill ? Then experts have in fact a monopoly of 
their peculiar trade or profession—and that sort of 
monopoly must always exist. It is precisely so with 
the legal profession—and with those who are educated 
and trained for the bar. The trial of cases requires 
consummate skill—a clear and practical judgment. 
It is .so delicate a matter that it is an old and very true 
saying, that a lawyer who manages his own case, has 
a fool for a client. 

It is therefore a mere delusion to suppose that this 
provision will in fact throw open the bar to any desir¬ 
able competition. It will never have that effect. No 
sensible man wdll ever avail himself of this imaginary 
privilege—but any one can see that it may lead to out¬ 
rage and abuse. , 

I have said that whatever of monopoly or exclusive¬ 
ness,exists at the bar, exists by necessity—and exists 
as well in other trades and professions. 

But here, sir, w’e are met with a particular objection 
to the statutory provisioms requiring a license as an au¬ 
thority to practice the law. Why require a license 


1295 

here, and not for other professions which demand 
skill ? Sir, there is a very good reason for that. No 
man is admitted to the bar without previous study and 
without an examination. He must, besides, show a 
good character—and take an oath faithfully to dis¬ 
charge the duties of the profession. The license is 
granted. 

But sir, what is the reason for all this ? We do not 
require these preliminaries and guards as to other pur¬ 
suits. We do not require a mechanic to take an oath, 
or to procure a permit or license to enter upon his 
trade. Then why require these things of the lawyer ? 
Simply, sir, because the profession of the law is in the 
nature of an office or trust. The lawyer occupies a po¬ 
sition of trust, confidence and immunity. The busi¬ 
ness of his client connects itself with the business of 
other men wdio are not his clients—but faithfully to 
discharge his duties to his client, the lawyer has cer¬ 
tain very necessary and wholesome privileges, which 
must be carefully guarded. He has, among other- 
tilings, a privilege of speech—in which other men are 
deeply concerned—and from the abuse of which they 
must be protected by wholesome guards. 

It is the license—the special authority to practice his 
profession—which is the very guard and restraint up¬ 
on the abuse of a lawyer’s privileges and immunities. 
He holds that license by the tenure of good behavior. 
The moment he violates his oath—or is guilty of fraud 
—or unprofessional conduct—he is liable to be remov¬ 
ed from the bar. His license may be taken from him, 
and with the loss of that, he loses his profession. 

Do you think, Mr. President—does any one think, 
that it would be a wise or wholesome thing to remove 
this guard—this bond for good behavior—and allow 
any one to practice this profession without any re¬ 
straint? For one, I do not. I wish I could say that 
these salutary regulations had made the bar all that it 
should be. I admit that they have not kept the pro¬ 
fession free from the unworthy—but that their tenden¬ 
cy is to elevate the bar, is undeniable. 

Mr. LOUDON. [ was not aware that by submit¬ 
ting this proposition, 1 was about to raise such a buzz 
in this body, or perhaps my natural timidity would 
not have allowed me to present it at all. But I desire 
to assure gentlemen of the bar, that it was not pre¬ 
sented out of any disrespect to their profession; for, 
taking them together, I have the highest regard for 
lawyers. But sir, this provision was presented in the 
discharge of what I esteem a so.emn duty which I 
owe to the people of Ohio. It was a sense of duty 
alone which induced me to offer it. 

Some gentlemen of the bar say that they approve 
of the princi[>le, but because it is not found in the 
right place, they cannot support it. But I hold, sir, 
that when any matter is right in itself, it never can 
be out of place. But this provision is here in the first 
section of the article for the organization of our courts 
of justice ; and as I must be permitted to say, in the 
very place where it ought to be. 

One gentleman of the bar, [Mr. Green,] for whom 
I have the highest regard, would seem to have no ob¬ 
jection to the amendment, if it would not expose him 
10 the danger, in JudgeC ollings’s district, of having to 
litigate with those negroes up there, who are known 
and distinguished as members of the Red Oak Semiua- 
ry. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, (interposing,) said: If the 
gentleman’s proposition were to succeed, I could only 
hope that some graduate of the Red Oak Seminaiy 
might be a party litigant on one side, and the gentle¬ 
man from Brown on the other, and that no lawyer 
would appear lor eitlier. 

Mr. LOUDON. But now it is plain that a negro 
would have no authority, such as the gentleman sup¬ 
poses and dears, because a negro is not a citizen accord¬ 
ing to the constitution. 

Mr. GREEN. I did not say that a negro was a citi¬ 
zen. The gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Rannev,] 












1296 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


gave Chancellor Kent’s definition of a citizen. I spoke 
of negroes only in apolitical sense. 

Mr. LOUDON. I do not care what authority it may 
suit the gentleman from Trumbull to bring in here. 1 
aflirm only what the constitution says. 

But in the estimation oi another gentleman of the 
bar, [Mr. Mason,] 1 8uj)po8e I must have rendered my¬ 
self supremely ridiculous in this business, judging from 
his remarks on yesterday. A.id since there is 

“-a chiel amang U9 takin’ notes. 

And faith he 11 print ’em,” 

I suppose the remarks of the gentleman from Clark on 
yesteiday afiernoon have been carefully taken down, 
and will be spread out all over the country ; and since 
those remarks were directed to me principally, and iii- 
teiidid as a baneful potion, I am disposed to send out 
the antidote along with them. I want it to be under¬ 
stood, that the picture which the gentleman drew of a 
condition of things which would admit blackguards and 
strumpets to come into court, was taken from a desire on 
his pari simply to avoid the force of a piiuciple which 
might bring down the comt and the bar of the State to 
a level with the free citizens of Ohio. 

Mr. MASON, ^interposing.) To a level with those 
persons to whom I referred. I said distinctly, that I 
would be willing to meet the gentleman from Brown 
©n any other question. 

Mr. LOUDON. Aye, sir; but the gentleman is an 
“ancient congressman,” a man who has graced the 
b nch of Ohio in times gone by ; a man who has a repu- 
ta ion as broad as the State its« If. Is it not then most 
singular, that such a man should allow himself to get 
up h< re and draw a picture in w’hich he would make 
it ap|iear that the court and bar of the State, in point 
of dignity and respectability, are entirely above and be¬ 
yond the peopU ? For that is the only inference which 
Can be drawn from hi.s remaiks. He is not willing to 
come do vu to a level wdlh the people who gave him 
ail the power that he has, and who sustain him in its 
enjojment; audio cover up his feeling, he objects to 
b( ing brought down to a level with blackguards and 
strumpets; but all the time he means the honest yeo- 
mamy of the country. And has it come to this, that 
the hard-handed working men of the country, and the 
In in st and bereaved widows, who are compelled to 
come into court, it may be in defence of their title to 
the iiomesteatl of their faiher.s, should be thus insidu- 
oiisly denounced as blackguauls and strumpets, intru¬ 
ding ihem8< lves upon the presence and afi'ecting the 
dignity of the court and the bar of the State of Ohio. 

The gentleman from Clark descended to some per¬ 
sonalities, to which I will not reply ; for 1 wish to ad- 
voca'e this provision only u{)on that principle of equali¬ 
ty and right which belongs to every citizen of the State 
—a j)rinci[)le which should head every page of the 
constitution; and that principle would guarantee to 
e\ery man having business in the courts the right to 
appear there, either in his owii [tro[)er pe son or by any 
other person wdiom he might select for his agent. 

But it Was attempted by the gentleman from Clark 
to rui ke it a(q)ear that I was acting in this matter as 
the < ai’.'^-paw of the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Bkeimki.in]— that he was the real instigator and that I 
was made a mere cat’s-paw to introduce this proposi¬ 
tion Idr I he degradation of the court and the bar. Now, 
Mr. I’resith'iii, I father that thing myself. I am respon¬ 
sible for the whole of it; I wrote it, and I have intro¬ 
duced it. because I think it is right; and I say further, 
that it is my opinion ihal you can insert nothing in this 
ctu siituthm which will be more popular amongst the 
people than that—to be sure, it may be requisite to 
ebange its [)hra8eology, but not the spirit of it. Gentle¬ 
men need not get out of patience or lose their self-con¬ 
trol in the matter, for I can tell them that they must 
piit this into the constitution, or they cannot have any 
thing inserted there for the government of their courts. 

It must go light in there and stick fast. [Laughter.] 

Mr. President, if this amendment would result in 


bringing disgrace either upon our courts of justice, or 
upon the members of the bar, I would back out from 
it. But I have no idea that it would affect the courts 
in the least degree, nor do I believe it would interfere 
with the lawyers. It would leave all these just as they 
are now. For then, as now, any man having a casd 
in court would cast about him, and see who could at-^ 
tend to his business in the best manner, and employ 
such a man, if he could. 

But by the present rules of the courts, the privileges 
conferred upon the ‘bar operate so as to deprive us 
laymen of a portion of our natural rights. I need on¬ 
ly to appeal to ingenious lawyers, whether such is not 
the operation of their rules. I will not go into details 
ol facts here, my ten minutes’ time will not permit me 
to do so. 

But there is another advantage of which the law¬ 
yers avail themselves under these rules. They are not 
allowed to be security for other men. But a lawyer 
is never slow to ask his neighbor to be security for 
him. 

I have time now to recur to but one further advan¬ 
tage which these exclusive rules give to the lawyers. 

I affirm, that, under these rules, our lawyers hold what 
is equivalent to a mortgage upon every man’s property 
in ihe State of Ohio, which yields them about two and 
half per cent, every quarter of a century. Can any 
man deny that ? 

Mr. SAWYER, (in his seat.) Tell us about that 
mortgage. 

A Voice. Yes, w'e want to foreclose that. 

Mr. LOUDON. Well, I’ll explain. By the rules of 
court you compel the heirs of every deceased person 
to go into court and apply for a partition of his real es¬ 
tate. And for this business you compel them to em¬ 
ploy a lawyer; but they have no right to ask the law¬ 
yer how much he will charge. The court fixes his 
fees, and it is usually fixed at two and a half per cent, 
upon the property divided. Now every man knows 
what amount of trouble the lawyer has to take upon 
himself, in filing his bill in court, for the purpose of 
partitioning the land or dividing the money. Every 
man knows that the amount of this labor is very incon¬ 
siderable, yet I have seen a lawyer, for this service, 
pocket two hundred dollars at one operation. 

Here the President interposed, to inform the gen¬ 
tleman that his twenty minutes had expired. 

Mr. HOLT. I voted for thi.s proposition, although I 
do not like it as it is. Still, I wish to vote lor a provi¬ 
sion that any man may employ another to appear for 
him, if he sustains a good moral character, and has the 
qualifications of an elector. I do not think this regu¬ 
lation would have auy other than a salutary influence 
upon the bar, if it would have any influence at all. I 
think the people would still continue to understand 
their interests w’ell enough to employ only such law'- 
yers as would be able to carry their business through 
the courts with safety and success. 

_ But now every lawyer who has a “sheepskin” in 
his pocket is sujiposed to be a proper officer to go into 
court and do business. The people ali* ady know how 
to make their selections from among these; and is it to 
be supposed that they will not retain their judgment 
and discretion, if this matter of the business of prac¬ 
tising law was thrown into the hands every body? 

I go for no special privileges. We have amongst us 
what are called the learned professions—the professions 
of theology, physic, and law. The time ha§ been 
when a man could not employ his own chosen preach¬ 
er, but must trust the inteiests of his soul to the advice 
of some authorized minister. Such was the case in 
the country ^^here I was born. But we have got rid 
of all this exclusiveness now. The time has been, also, 
that a man could not exercise his skill as a practising 
physician without a diploma; and this exclusiveness 
was defended upon the ground that a sick man could 
not exercise a sale and proper judgment with refer¬ 
ence to the employment of a physician; and therefore 


I 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the State should step iu and protect him, by authoriz¬ 
ing only a certain class of men to practice medicine. 
And this argument was held to be a good one for a long 
time. But now, at last, we have got rid of that also. 

Well, then, if we can trust the citizen with the care 
of both his soul and body, I think we may as well trust 
him with the care of his purse. For our spiritual and 
bodily health must certainly be considered of as much 
consequence as our purses. 

There is a kind of special privilege enjoyed by law¬ 
yers in which a certain class of people would like very 
much to particijiate, especially as it regards the trans¬ 
action of some very sim[)le business for which they do 
not like to pay fees. And I think it would not be 
amiss to allow a man who has such business in court 
to employ Viis neighbor, at perhaps little or no expense 
at all,' to go in and attend to this business for him, provi¬ 
ded, only, that his neighbor shall have the qualifications 
which I have mentioned. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. When the people of Ohio sent 
us up here, I suppose they had some definite object in 
view. They had been laboring under some inconven¬ 
iences grievous to be borne, and they sent us up here 
to remove them. But now, I have never heard any 
gentleman say, here or elsewhere, before, that the evil 
here sought to be remedied was considered to be a 
very great evil by the people at large. I am sure that 
the mass of the people whom I represent here, never 
thought of complaining that they had not the right to 
practice law. 

Now, I desire to confine my action here to the remo¬ 
val of palpable, existing evils; but I am satisfied that the 
farmers of Richland county do not ask for the privilege 
of leaving their fiirms and their plows and coming into 
our courts of justice to practice law. But whenever I 
can be convinced that I am mistaken in this, I will sup¬ 
port this provision. 

We have, however, a few men in our county, whose 
complaints I have heard upon this subject—-and who are 
they? I have said that they are not our,farmers, nei¬ 
ther are they our mechanics and working men. They 
do not belong to those classes which make up the 
strength of the country. But they are those men who 
are constantly prowling about our justices’ courts; fo- 
mentin*' quarrels and disputes amongst their neighbors, 
and encouraging litigation. They are the pettifoggers 
of the county. And these are the only men whom I 
have heard complain of the exclusive privileges which 
belong to lawyers. 

Mr. STICKNEY. It seems to me that those ot us 
who are disposed to vote for this provision, are placed 
in rather a delicate position, but I think it would re 
qu're the exercise of less modesty on the part of the 
lawyers to vote for themselves the enjoyment of privi- 
le'^es which would give them a superiority over others 
in'^the community, than for us who are not lawyers to 
vote fora provision which would e evate us to an equal¬ 
ity with them. Therefore I shall vote for the amend¬ 
ment. , 

Mr. Manon’s amendment was now agreed to. 

And then the question again recurred upon the amend¬ 
ment of the committee. ... 

Mr. CHAMBERS. lean have no objection at all to 
a declaration that the courts shall be open to every man 
in the State f<»r the transaction of his own business. 
But I am not willing that every man in the Stale should 
come into our courts of justice as an advocate, in con¬ 
travention of tlie rules ot the court 

Mr. SMITH, of Warrei;. I would remark lor the 
satisfaction of’the gentleman from Muskingum [Mr. 
Chambers,] that we have already adopt< d in the bill 
of rights, a provision that the courts shall be always 

open to every citizen. . 

Mr. HLJMFHREVILLE. T will vote against the 
amendment now, because it does not go far enough. 
Because, in my judgment, il.a man is qualified to prac¬ 
tice law at all, he is (pialified to appear before a court 
of chancery. I will vote against the provision now, 

82 


1297 


and reserve my elForts for a chance to insert it in anoth* 
er place. 

Mr. WOODBURY demanded the yeas and nays upon 
the question of agreeing to the amendment of the com¬ 
mittee, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 56, 
nays 36—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Chambers, Codings, Cook, Curry, Dorst-y, Ewart, Flor¬ 
ence, Gillett, Green of Ross, Groesbcck, IJamilUn, Harlan, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Humphreville, Hunt, Kennon 
Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead' 
McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris Otis, Peck, Ranney, Riddle' 
Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Sta jtori, Stilwell riwan, 
Swilt, Vance of Butler, Way, Williams, Worthington and Presi¬ 
dent—56. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Cahill, Chaney, Ewing, Forbes, Farr, 
Greene of Defiance, Gre^g, Hard, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hun¬ 
ter, Jones, King, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Loudon, Manon, Morris, 
Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quialey, Reemelin, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Taylor, Thompson 
of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, and Woodbury-^6. 

So the amendment was agreed to, and the words 
were stricken out. 

The question then being on the second amendment, 
to-wit: In section one, strike out the words “county 
courts,” and insert in lieu thereof, the words, “ courts 
of probate;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the third amendment, to- 
wit: In section one, where, towards the close of the 
same, these words occur: “ infeiior to the Supreme 
Court,” insert after the word court, the words “in one 
or more counties;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the fourth amendment, 
to wit: In section two, strike out the words “ a Chief 
Justice and three Associate Justices,” and insert in 
lieu thereof the following words: “ five judges;” it 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on the fifth amendment, to 
wit: III section three, towards the close of the first pe¬ 
riod, strike out these words: “in each of which three 
judges of the court of common pleas shill be ehetedby 
the qualified electors therein,” and in.sertin lieu thereof, 
the following: “ And each of said districts, consisting 
of three or more counties, shall be subdivided into 
three parts of compact territory, bounded by county 
lines, and as nearly equal in population as practicable, 
in each of which one judge of the court of common 
pleas for said district, and residing dierein, shall be 
elected by the qualified voters of such sub-division ;” 
it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the sixth amendment, to 
wit: strike out section four, and insert in lieu thereof, 
the following: „ 

Sec. 4. There shall be established in each county a Probate 
Court, which shall be a Court of Rf'cord, and always open, and 
holden by one judge, elected by the qualified voters of the county, 
with jurisdiction in Probate and Testamentary matters, the ap¬ 
pointment of administrators and guardians, and the settlement of 
the accounts of executors, administrators andguardians, and with 
such jurisdiction in Habeas Corpus, the issuing of marr age li¬ 
cense, and lor the sale of land by executors, admiuistrato rs and 
guardians, as may be provided by law. 

T he Juilge of Probate shall hold his office for the term of three 
years, and shall receive such compensation, either payable out of 
the county Treasury, or by fees, or both, as shall be provided by 

Mr. McCormick moved to amend the amendment 
by striking out the following words: “by fees or 
both.” 

Mr. McCORMICK. If this section prevails with¬ 
out my amendment, we shall have determined that 
this judge shall be paid only by fees. No man can 
deny that he may employ a clerk if he will, but it is 
not ri^ht and proper that the judge should receive the 
fees and pay his clerk himself. That would be giving 
him too much power—a power of collusion. 

Mr. SWAN. The duties of this office are such that it 
seems to me that his duties might be prescribed by law. 
It seems to me that no confusion could arise from giv- 
in" to him those fees which are now paid to Clerks 
aifd Masters in Chancery, for the examination of ac¬ 
counts of executors, administrators and guardians.— 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1298 


And that, I think, would be a sufficient compensation 
for this officer. And by permitting the Legislature to 
prescribe that he shall receive such fees, it seems to me 
that the amount of his salary might be saved to the 
county treasury. But as the section is drawn it will 
be altogether discretionary with the Legislature to say 
whether this officer shall he paid in lees, or by a salary, 
or by both; so that if the plan of paying by fees should 
be found to lead to improper collusions, or any species 
of abuse, the Legislature might provide that he shall 
be paid by a salary out of the county treasury. I hope 
the section will be allowed to remain as it is. 

Mr. McCormick’s amendment was disagreed to, and 
the question recurred upon the adoption of the sixth 
amendment. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to further amend the 
amendment, by inserting after the word “ guardians,” 
where it occurs the third time, the following words: 

and such other jurisdiction.” 

Mr. SWAN said; this brings up again, the old ques¬ 
tion of jurisdiction. Under the old constitution if a 
person was charged witn an assault and battery, and 
other inferior offences, it was necessary, unless he plead 
guilty, to bind him over by recognizance or commit 
him to jail to await his trial in the Court of Common 
Pleas. So it was common for transient persons to be 
taken up for stealing property of trifling value, and at 
great expense to tax payers, supported in jail until the 
session of the courts. The General Assembly could 
provide no remedy against this delay and expense, 
without contravening the constitution, for such crimi¬ 
nals could not be convicted except upon indictment by 
the Grand Jury. 

The standing committee on the Judicial Department, 
in view of these just causes of complaint in the old sys¬ 
tem, with much doubt and reluctance provided for the 
trial of these inferior offences by the probate judge 
and thus in some degree disappointed the general ex¬ 
pectation of the people, of having a probate court with 
probate jurisdiction only. 

The Convention, however, by dispensing with indict¬ 
ments by a grand jury, for these inferior offences, have 
relieved this subject from the difficulties which embar¬ 
rassed the committee when they made their original 
report. By dispensing with this cumbersome mode of 
prosecution, persons guilty of these inferior offences 
can be brought to trial before a jury, without delay, un¬ 
der the supervision of two or more justices, or in the 
cities where the greatest expense is incurred by the 
delays of the old system, before a jury, under the su¬ 
pervision of mayors, giving the probate court simply 
and only a probate jurisdiction. The duties of the 
office may be performed by an intelligent and well 
informed person, who has a competent knowledge of 
accounts, and the office will no doubt be held gener¬ 
ally by persons who do not belong to the legal profes¬ 
sion. 

It is also recommended to our approval on account 
of its economy. The moderate fees now received by 
the Clerks of courts and Masters in Chancery in pio- 
bate and testamenlary matters, it is believed would be 
an ample compensation to the probate judge, and if so, 
this court would not add a cent of charge to the tax 
payers. But it the probate judge is compelled to try 
jury cases and appeals, the people would probably, at 
least in many counties, seek lawyers for the office. If 
.«iO, the probate judge having jurisdiction in civil cases 
must necessarily abandon all professional business and 
rely on his salary for his support. A salary of four 
hundred dollars to each judge of probate, would create 
an aggregate expense greater than the aggregate ex¬ 
pense of all the judges of the courts undei the old sys¬ 
tem, and such a salary would not command a very high 
order of learning or talents. 

A county court, if needed in one or more counties 
can be established under the present system by the 
General Assembly 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I do not provide by this 


amendment, that the Legislature shall give to this 
court any jurisdiction. I only leave it open so far that 
they may authorize the courts of probate to license 
marriages, and to take cognizance of such matters as 
cannot be considered strictly belonging to the duties 
of the judiciary. Such as appeals from the decisions 
of towiiohip Trustees, county Commissioneis andcoun- 
ty Auditors. But I would not give to the judge the 
jurisdiction of causes either civil or criminal, where a 
jury is to be called. I wmuld far rather confine it to 
the mere business of a probate court, yet I think it 
might be found necessary, at some future time or other, 
to give to this court some jurisdiction beyond what the 
section now provides. I deny that the question of sala¬ 
ry is raised at all by this amendment. If the Legisla¬ 
ture should give to this court jurisdiction of the trial of 
civil and criminal matters, then they might have to con¬ 
sider something about the pay. But I do not propose 
any such thing. I propose only the jurisdiction of some 
small matters which may be just as well disposed of 
here as in the higher tribunals. I have no objections 
to the mode of payment; and if gentlemen are willing 
to leave this matter open ti the supervision of the Le¬ 
gislature, why may they not leave also with the Legis¬ 
lature the question of jurisdiction. 

The evils of the old system, as it has been frequently 
said here, consisted in a constitutional tying up of the 
hands of the Legislature, so that they could not enlarge 
the jurisdiction of the courts. 

Mr. KENNON. I will say but a word or two in re¬ 
ply to the gentleman from Medina, [Mr. Humphre- 
viLLE.] The great object in the creation of this court 
was this: to prescribe such duties for the Judge, that 
they could be all discharged by any good accountant in 
the county. The object was, that he should not neces¬ 
sarily be a lawyer; and therefore it was thought proper j 
by the committee to confer no more jurisdiction. We 
thought that by makinghim his own clerk, the fees of 
his office would be amply sufficient for his compensa¬ 
tion. I 

But the moment you attempt to confer upon him any 
jurisdiction involving law questions, it would become 
necessary that tliis place should be filled by a lawyer, 
so that as you increase the jurisdiction, you must in¬ 
crease the fees ; and I should not wonder if this amend¬ 
ment were to increase the expense of these courts, to 
the several county Treasuries of tlie State, to something 
like the amount of eighty-seven thousand dollar.s. 

xMr. HUMPHREVILLE, (in his seat.) A mere bug¬ 
bear ffirown in. 

Mr. LARSH. I am in favor of the amendment of 
the gentleman from Medina, [Mr. Humphreville.] for • 
the reason that this report provides that, in certain 
countie.s, where they may be needed, the General As¬ 
sembly may provide county courts. And it seems to 
me that cases might possibly arise, in some counties, 
where their business might not be sufficient to justify 
the establishment of a county court, that they mi«ht 
be relieved from the expense of a county court by ex¬ 
tending the jurisdiction of the probate court. 1 think 
that it could work no harm to give this power to the 
General Assembly. 

The question being now taken upon Mr. Humphrey 
ville’s amendment, and the yeas and nays being or¬ 
dered and taken, resulted—yeas 45, nays 42—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Brown of Athens, Cahill, Curry, Ew^art, Farr. 
Forbes, Greene ot Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Holmes, Holt! 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Larsh, Larwill 
Leech, Leadbetter, Mauon, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Norris' 
Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Reemelin, Roll, Scott of 
Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler' 
Warren, Woodbury, Worthington and President—45. ’ , 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blair, Blickenederfer, Brown of Car- * 
roll. Chambers, Chaney, Ceilings, Cook, Ewing, Florence, Gil- 
lett, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Ilenderson, Hitchcock of Geatx- 
ga, Kennon, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell 
McCormick, Nash, Otis, Peck, Sawyer, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Taylor. Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Way and Williams—42. 














1299 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


8o the amendment was adopted. 

And the question again recurred upon the adoption 
of the sixth amendment. 

Mr. STILVVELL moved to further amend the amend¬ 
ment, by adding to the end of tlie same, as amended, 
the folhtwing words; “Not of a pidicial character.” 

Mr. GtlEEN, of Ross. 1 am aware of the tlisadvan- 
tages which every gentleman must labor under, who 
is not a member of the committee on the Judicial De¬ 
partment, in proposing amendments to this report. I 
Bay this in no invidious spirit, but simply out of the re¬ 
spect which I entertain for the members of that com¬ 
mittee. 

I am surprised, sir, at the proposition of the gentle¬ 
man from Muskingum, [Mr. Stilwell.] The Con¬ 
vention have adopted an amendment, for the purpose 
of giving to the Legislature the power to confer as ex¬ 
tended a jurisdiction upon this court, as they may see 
proper ; and the gentleman now proposes to limit this 
jurisdiction, so that it shall not extend to matters of a 
judicial character. 

Now, I will ask, whathigher judicial function can be 
conferred upon this court, than the committee them 
selves have proposed to give them. They propose to 
give them the right to control and direct the sale of 
land by executors, administrators and guardians. I 
would inquire whether any higher judicial function 
than this can be exercised, in connection with the trans¬ 
action of that desctiplion of business? The power ex¬ 
ercised by the court of probate, in the settlement of the 
accounts of executors, administrators and guardians, is 
certainly the exercise of a very high judicial power, 
and although it i^ true, that the final settlement upon 
the record is not binding after a lapse of time, yet, in 
one aspect of the case, it is the exercise of the very 
highest judicial power. For when the sale is made, it 
has got to be confirmed; and in after time, the legality 
of such a sale might be contested on account of defec¬ 
tiveness either in the record, in regard to the appraise¬ 
ment or the advertisement, and a variety of things 
which might and would occur in unskilled hands—such 
as questions which might arise in regard to the con¬ 
struction of the will—whether the will authorized the 
executor to make the sale, &c. 

Now, since the committee on the Judicial Department 
have proposed to confer upon this inferior tribunal, 
powers which are just as important in their consequen 
ces as those exercised by any judge upon the bench of 
any court in the State,—a power affecting the rights of 
widows, minors and purchasers, since this court is to be 
clothed with such important judicial powers, I ask, 
why does the gentleman seek now to declare that their 
jurisdiction shall not include the exercise of judicial 
powers ? I ask the gentleman if he would be willing to 
trust these tribunals with the sale of real estate where 
a hundred minors are interested,—to orderand confirm 
such a sale, and attend to all other matters which might 
be necessary in order to assure a good and sufficient 
title to the purchaser; and then on the score ot inca¬ 
pacity, deny to these courts such judicial jurisdiction 
as might consist in little road appeals, and those minor 
classes of cases, connected with the administration of 
civil and criminal law which might come up from a jus¬ 
tice of the peace. 

This power of the settlement of decedents’ estates, 
is the most important power which can be exercised 
by any of our courts. It enters into all the business of 
life. There is no branch of the judicial service which 
comes home to the business and the bosoms of every 
man, woman and child in the country, like this busi¬ 
ness of probate. 

Mr. STILWELL (interposing.) We have not given 
to this court all this power. We have merely author¬ 
ized the General Assembly to confer it, if they see 
proper. 

Mr. GREEN. Will the Chair be so kind as to read 
the section ? 

The PRESIDENT read the section and the amend- 
ment proposed by the committee. 


Mr. GREEN. I would like to see the official con¬ 
struction which the gentleman from Muskingum puts 
upon that. The Legislature confer jurisdiction. Well, 
supposing they do: still I put the query to the gentle¬ 
man. Why does he seek to restrain the conferment of 
inferior judicial power, whilst the committee to which 
he belongs have authorized the conferment of the high¬ 
est judicial powers? 

Mr. COOK demanded the yeas and nays, upon the 
adoption of Mr. Stilwell's amendment, and the same 
being ordered and taken, resulted—yeas 45, nays 46— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates Blair, Blickensderfer, Cham¬ 
bers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Ewing, Florence, Gillelt, Groes- 
beck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Ge¬ 
auga, Hunt, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Loudon, Mason, 
Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, Nash, Otis, Peck, Sawyer, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Struble, 
Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, and Way—45. 

Nays —Messrs. Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Curry, Dorsey, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, 
Gregg, Hard, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunter, Jones, 
Larsb, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, McCloud, McCormick, 
Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, 
Scott oi Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stebbins, f-'tickney, Stidger, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Vance of 
Butler, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—46. 

So the amendment was rejected, and the question 
again recurred upon agreeing to the sixth amendment. 

Mr. SWAN proposed further to amend the 4th 
section by adding after the word, “jurisdiction,” 
these words; “ in matters not requiring the trial of 
cases.” 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. Is not that the same thing 
upon which we have just voted ? It certainly amounts 
to the same thing. What is a trial? Or rather, what 
is the duty of a tribunal before which a trial is had? 
It is to exercise judicial power—judicial discretion—ju¬ 
dicial wisdom—judicial nonsense or absurdity. These 
things pertain to a trial; and a trial may be by a jury 
or by an individual judge. Every case requiring a 
judgment decision of the court is a trial; and this is the 
same thing which we have voted against, and it should 
be so decided by the chair. 

Mr. SWAN. It seems to me that the gentleman is 
mistaken in his idea of what constitutes a judicial trial. 
Does it follow that no judicial act can be performed ex¬ 
cept what pertains to the trial of causes. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. No sir, but I was asking 
whether judicial knowledge was not necessarily exer¬ 
cised ill every trial ? 

Mr. SWAN, continuing. My amendment proposes 
thtt this court shall have no jurisdiction in matters 
requiring the trial ot causes. lu other words, that 
there shall not be a jury hanging about this court J 
But this extension of jurisdiction would allow of the 
confession of judgment, and the hearing of all ex parte 
matter. And there are other matters which might be 
done in this court. But, as to keeping this court open 
for the trial of causes at all times; he should protest 
against any such thing ; for such a change as this would 
involve an increase of expense, induced by the neces¬ 
sity for raising the salary of the judge, who would 
have to be selected out of the legal profession, and 
paid out of the county treasury, for the moment you 
c^ive such a placeto ahuvyer,lie must quit his practice. 
It wmuld not do for him to be a lawyer and a judge at 
the same time; therefore the lawyer would have to be 
supported independently of his practice. What kind 
of a salary do you suppose you would have to pay a 
jg^Yvyer who would be fit foi such a place ? 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, here interposed and raised a 
question of order upon the ground that the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] 
was exactly the same in substance with the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Muskingum. 

The PRESIDENT. This is a question of fact more 
than a question of order. I do not know myself, but 
that the gentlemen is correct in saying that the exer¬ 
cise of any judicial authority is a trial. I suppose any- 












1300 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


thing that you cau fix your mind upon, is also a trial 
in the same sense. 

Mr. SWAN. Any matter left to the decision of the 
court, has no relation to the trial of a cause. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair does not like to de¬ 
clare the amendment out of order. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK of Geauga. The Convention has 
decided by two votes in favor of the amendment ol 
the gentleman from Medina, [Mr. Humphreville.] 
Now, it seems to me that after these decisions, my 
friends are pursuing the subject too far, when they un¬ 
dertake to press amendments amounting to about the 
same thing which lias been already deliberately reject¬ 
ed. The action of the Convention to bo sure has been 
different from the opinion of the committee; but that 
action has been duly ascertained, and I dislike to see 
any efibrt made to avoid it. For myself, I do not ap¬ 
prehend the same danger which seems to have taken 
possession of the minds of my friends. There is, at 
last, but a constitutional permit, confided to the discre¬ 
tion of the Legislature; and I am not afraid that the 
Legislature will undertake to give to this court of pro 
bate jurisdiction, the trial of 6ivil causes. It seems to 
me, therefore, that we had better leave it alone, and 
have no more words about it. 

Mr. ‘MASON, (to Mr. Swan.) Withdraw it. 

Mr. SWAN. 1 am willing to withdraw the amend¬ 
ment under this protest, that I ofiered it in good faith, 
and that I believe it should have an entirely different 
interpretation from the amendment of the gentleman 
from Muskingum. I withdraw the amendment. 

Mr. STILWELL moved to further amend the amend¬ 
ment by inserting after the word “justification,” the 
following words: “ In any one county or counties.” 

On motion of Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, the Con- 
tion adjourned. 


FRIDAY, February 21, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, presented a petition from 
John Alexander and 50 other citizens of Butler coun- 

pi*ay^t*D ^ clause be inserted in the new consti¬ 
tution prohibiting the Legislature front passing any 
law legalizing the traffic in spirituous liquors; which, 
on motion, was laid on the table. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention took 
up the report of the standing committee on the Judi¬ 
cial Department. 

The question pending, being on the amendment of 
Mr. Stilwkll to the sixth amendment, to wit: Insert 
after the word “jurisdiction,” the following words, 
‘ in any county or counties; ” 

Mr. McCORMICK thought it would be very unfor¬ 
tunate to give to the same c*urt a different jurisdiction 
in different counties. It would lead to great perplex¬ 
ities in the practice, and might be productive of much 
wrong. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I see no great harm in it. 

Mr. LARSH was desirous to leave a control of the 
matter to the General Assembly. He hoped the Judi¬ 
ciary system would be left in some degree flexible, and 
that the Legislature would not be too much tied down 
by this constitution. The Slate of Indiana, by its new 
constitution, has given the Legislature power to change 
the Judiciary system; and he saw no reason why it 
should not lie done in this State. 

Mr. STILWELL. I do not see what difference it 
makes. In all cases where this court has an original 
jurisdiction, an apjieal lies to the district court in the 
usual manner. It will be in some respects a great ac¬ 
commodation, and certainly can do no one any harm. 
He believed such an arrangement would meet with 
general approbation. 

The qu(.*stion then being on the^amendment of Mr. 
Stilwell to the amendment o>’ the committee; the 
same was agreed to. 


The question then being on the sixth amendment; it 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on the seventh amendment, 
to wit: In section nine, line one, insert after the word 
“increase,” the words “ or diminish ;” it was agreed 
to. 

The question then being on the eighth amendment, 
to wit: In section nine, in the middle of the same, 
where these words occur, “ change of districts,” insert 
after the word “ districts,” the words “ or the subdi¬ 
visions thereof;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the ninth amendment, 
to wit: “ In section nine, near the close of the same, 
strike out the words “ or addition,” and insert in lieu 
thereof the words, “ addition or diminution;” it was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on the tenth amendment, 
to wit: In section seven, near the end of the same, 
strike out these words, “ two years, one for three 
years, one for four years, and one lor five years,” and 
insert in lieu thereof the following words: “ one year, 
one for two years, one for three years, one for four 
years, and one for five years;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the eleventh amend¬ 
ment, to wit: strike out the following: 

Sec. 10. There shall be elected in each of the counties in the 
State, by the electors thereof, one clerk, who shall bold his office 
for the term of three years, and until his successor is elected and 
qualified, and who shall be the clerk of all the courts of record 
held therein ; provided, that the General Assembly may provide 
for the election in any county, of a clerk, for each or any ofsaid 
courts, when in their opinion the business may require it. 

And provided also, that the judge of the county court may be 
authorized to perform the duties of clerk of his county, in such 
cases as may be prescribed by law. 

And insert in lieu thereof, the following: 

There shall be elected in each county, by the electors thereof, 
one ejerk of the court of common pleas, who shall hold his office 
for a term of three years, and until his successor shall be elect¬ 
ed and qualified, lie shall, by virtue of his office, be clerk of all 
courts of record held therein ; but the General Assembly may 
provide by law for the election of a clerk with a like term of of¬ 
fice for each or any other of the courts of record, and may au¬ 
thorize the judge of the probate court to perform the duties of 
clerk for his court, under such regulations as may be directed 
by law. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to amend the amendment 
by adding at the end thereof the following: “The 
clerk of court shall be removable for such cause and in 
such manner as shall be prescribed by law ;” which 
was agreed to. 

Mr. CURRY moved to further amend the amend¬ 
ment by striking out the word “ three,” and inserting 
in lieu thereof the word “ five ;” on which motion, 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 22, nays 72—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Curry, Ewart, 
Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Leadbetter' 
Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Riddle, Scottof Harri¬ 
son, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Swift and 
Williams—22. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrew^s, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barneit of Preble, Bates, Blair, Blickensdetfer, Brown of Athens,’ 
Cahill, Chaney, Codings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett, Greene ot Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard) 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga Holmes, Holt, Huotman, Hum- 
preville. Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Marion, Mitchell, Me 
Cormick, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ran- 
ney, Rcemelin, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilw'ell, Stickney, Slidger Struble, Swan, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson ol Stark, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Warren, Way,Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and Presi¬ 
dent—72. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment as amended, it was agreed to. 

Mr. LEADBETTER moved to further amend the 
report by striking out all of the same alter the words 
“judicial powers of this State,” and inserting in lieu 
thereof the report submitted by the select committee 
on the Judical Department. 

Mr. SAWY'^ER demanded a division. 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1301 


The question then being on striking out all of the re¬ 
port after the words ‘‘judicial powers of this State,” 

Mr. STANTON moved to perfect the words proposed 
to be stricken out, by striking out of section two the 
words, “of the State at large,” and inserting in lieu 
thereof the following; “ in such manner as may be pre¬ 
scribed by law.” 

On which motion, Mr. OTIS demanded the yeas and 
nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 19, nays 
74—as (bllows; 

f * Yeas —Messrs Brown of Athene, Curry, Ewart, Graham, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Larsh, Mason, McCloud, 
Nash, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Stanton, Swift, Taylor, Wilson 
and Worthington—19. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett ot Preble, Blair, Blickensd^rfer, Prown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Flo- 
ence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gr< gg, Groesbeck, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Hitchcock ot Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holt, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, 
Kennon. King. Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Norris, Or 
ton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley Ranney, Reemelin. Riildle, 
Sawyer, Scott ot Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith oi 
Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Sbmbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stick- 
ney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Selby, Thompson ot 
Stark, Vance ot Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, Woodbury and 
President—74. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. RANNEY moved iurlher to amend the word.s 
proposed to be stricken out, by striking out of section 
two the following words : “at the seat of government, 
and such other terms at the seat of government or else¬ 
where,” and insert in lieu thereof the billowing words: 

“ in at least four different places in the State.” 

Mr. B Lie KENS DERFER demanded a division. 

The question then being first on striking out; 

Mr. RANNEY. I desire to remark that the supreme 
court, since this subject was up before, has been enlar¬ 
ged by an addition of one judge. It was before thought 
that there was not sufficient force in that court to per¬ 
form the duty required by the amendment, but that 
difficulty has been obviated. The idea that the su 
preme court can be holden in one place only in the 
State, has been utterly abandoned in all the large 
Slates of this Union. The State of Bennsylvania has 
five places, the State of New York four, and the State 
of Massachusetts seven. 

Mr. STILWELL. I would inquire of the gentleman 
from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] whether this is not a 
matter that may safely be left to the Legislature. There 
will be but a small amount of business lei’ lor the su¬ 
preme court to perform, il the district feature is retain¬ 
ed in the system. Whether the courts are holden in 
one place or four, will make very little difference with 
the mass of the people. It will doubtless be an accom¬ 
modation to the lawyers in three, four, or five places, 
where the courts happen to be holden, but to a party, 
whether he travels thirty, or forty, or lilty miles, to 
attend to his suit, is to him of very little consequence. 

Mr. RANNEY. I wish this constitution to curry on 
its face the evidence that justice is to be carried some¬ 
where in the reach of the people. Besides, il the pro¬ 
vision remains as it is, there will be an eternal conten¬ 
tion in the Legislature upon the question, whether the 
court shall sit all the time at Columbus, or whether it 
shall sit in one or more other places. He wanted to 
settle that difficulty in advance. 

Mr. STILWELL. I think the difficulty anticipated 
by the gentleman from Trumbull, will not be obviated 
by his amendment. It will still be a subject ot con 
lention in what places the court will be holden. It 
will be impossible to anticipate and settle all these 
difficulties here. 

Mr. LARSH could not exactly see how this amend¬ 
ment was to bring justice any nearer to the people. It 
the constitution should provide that the business ot the 
different sections of the State shall be done at the near¬ 
est points, this effect might be produced, but not other¬ 
wise, for it does not appear that any power would be 
left in the Legislature to district the State ffir “le pur¬ 
pose ; and, in fact, the minute provisions of the bill in 


other respects, might he construed to exclude any con¬ 
clusion in favor of the right of the General Assembly 
to do so. If such should he the case, the distribution 
of the business would be merely arbitrary, and in the 
hands of the courts alone, and the result might he in¬ 
convenience instead of convenience, and disorder in¬ 
stead of order. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Ranney; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
wei’e ordered, and resulted—yeas 28, nays 68—as fol¬ 
lows : 


Yeas —Messrs. Farr, Florence, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Hard, Hawkins, Holt, Ilumplireville, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Man- 
on, Mitchell, Orton, Pattersun, Perkins, Quigley, Hanney, Keem- 
elin, Scott of Auglaize, Stanton, ^tebhins, Stidger, Struble, 
Thompson ot Stark, Wilson and Woodbury—‘JP. 

Nays —Mesfrs. Andrews, Archbold, BHinet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble. Bates, Blair, BlickensderftJ’, Brown ol Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Cahill, Chaney, Collings, Cook, 
Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Gill* tt, Graham, Green 
of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Hunt, Hun¬ 
ter, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Lead- 
better, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Norris, Otis, Peck. Riddle, Roll. Sawjer, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith ot Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wy¬ 
andot, Stanbery, Stilwell. Stickney, Swan, Swift, Thompson of 
Shelby Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, Worthington 
and President—68. 

So the motion to strike out was rejected. 

The question then being on striking out all after the 
words “judicial power of the State,” in the first sec¬ 
tion ; T 

Mr. MANON moved that the report and pending 
nmendments be laid on the table and ordered to be 


)rinted. . 

Mr. MITCHELL moved that the Convention take 
i recess; which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on laying the report on the 
able and ordering it to be printed ; it was disagreed to. 

The question then being on striking emt all of the 
"epf rt, after the words “judicial power of the State, 
in the first section ; 

Mr. WOODBURY moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “shall the main question 
be now put ?” 

Mr. HOLT demanded the yeas and nays; whicb 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 53, nays 44 as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Chambers, Chaney, Cook. Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, 
Gillett Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan Haw^kins, 
Henderson, Holmes, Hootman. Hunter, Kennon Kirkwood, Li- 
dev Loudon. Mason, Morehead, Morns, McCormick, Norris, 
Orton, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Reemelin, lawyer, Srfiers, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Switt.ahompsonol Shel¬ 
by Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and 

* AYS— Messrs. Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Collings, Curry, Flor¬ 
ence Forbes, Graham. Green of Ross, Giegg. Groesbeck, Hitch- 
Sot Cuyahoga, Hitchcock ot Geaugk, Ho t, Homphreville, 
Hunt Jones, King, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Manon Mitchell, McCloud, Nash. Otis, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, 
Roll Scott of Harrison, Scott ot Auglaize, Smith of Highland, 
«mith of Warren, Stanhery, Stanton, Stilwell. Stidger. Struble, 
Sw^n, Thompson of Stark, Williams and Worthingtou-44. 

So' the demand for the previous question was^sus- 

^^Idie cinestion then being on striking out all of the 
Report after the words “judicial power of the State, 

in the fifst section; , , , j . 

Mr McCORMlCK demanded the yeos and nays, 
which were ordered, atid resulted—yeas 32, nays 66— 

as follows : , ^ ^ 

Yfas—M essrs. Blair, Chaney, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, 
r- „ Ross Hard, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Jones, 

K[ng Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Patter- 
^ ^n»f<npv Rannev, Scott of Harrison, Scott ot Auglaize, Sel- 
le7s; Stanton. Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Williams, 

^NAv"-^”MP^S!^AnT*ew^ Barbee, Barnet of Montgo- 

V, ««rnptt of Preble, Bates, Blickeiisderler, Brown of Athens, 
Brown^of Carroll, Chambers, Cahill, Collings, Cook, Curr^ Dor- 
fev Twart, Ewing. Florence, Gillett Graham, Groesbeck, .H^amil- 
ten liarlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitch- 










1302 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


cock of Geauga, Holmes, Hunt, Hunter, Kennon, Kirkwood, 
Larsh, Lawrence, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Recmelin, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins. Stilwell, Stickney, Swan, 
Swift, 7'aylor, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Way, Woodbury and President—66. 

So the Convention refused to strike out the Report 
The question then being on ordering the Report lo 
be engrossed; 

Mr. WORTHINGTON moved to lay the Report on the 
table. 

On which motion, Mr. LARWTLL demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 28, 
nays 69—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Cahill, Chancy, Cook, Curry, Forbes, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Hard, Holt, Hunt, .Tones, Larsh, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbeiter, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Paticrson, Quigley, 
Stanton, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Williams, Wilson 
and Worthington—28. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, 
Farr, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Greene of Defiance. Groeabeck, 
Hamilton, Harlan,Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hun¬ 
ter, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Loudon, MaS'n, Mor¬ 
ris, Morehead, McCormick, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, 
Peck, Perkins, Ranney. Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of 
Harrison, Scott ol Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland Smith 
of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, 
St'ckney, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Butler, 
Warren, Way, Woodbury and President—69. 

So the motion to lay on the tal le was rejected. 

The question then being on ordering the report to be 
engrossed ; 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 65, nays 32— 
as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderler, Brown t)f Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Chao hers. Cook, Collines, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, 
Florence, Gillett, Gropsbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, H.'tchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock ol Geauga, Holmes, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, l.,ar8h, 
Lawrence, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Reunelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Roll, Sawyer, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stan'on, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, 
Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of Butler, 
Warren, Way and Woodbury—65. 

Nays —Messrs Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Curry, Farr, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Oi'egg, Hard, Holt, Hootman, 
Jones, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Pat¬ 
terson Quigley, Ranney, Scott of Auglaize, Scott of Harrison, 
Sellers, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Williams, Wilson, 
Worthington and President—32. 

So the report was ordered to be engrossed. 

And, on motion, was ordered to be read a third time 
on Monday, the 24th instant. 

On motion of Mr. REEMELIN, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Col¬ 
lings in the Chair. 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, the com¬ 
mittee took up report No. 2 of the standing committee 
on the Militia. 

The same being under consideration : 

Mr. liEADBETTER moved to strike out the wmrd 
eighteen and insert the words twenty-one. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. I do not know what right we 
have to compel a body to do military duty, and I think 
that so far as numbers are concerned, those betw'ceu 
eighteen and twenty-one are sufficient. I admit, that 
in time of war or invasion, circumstances might favor 
a change of the rule, but do not deem the danger so 
great as to make any change in my vote necessary, or 
in my opinion. To call out men too young, may be of 
great inconvenience in other respects. A call may in¬ 
clude both father and son in the same family, thus leav¬ 
ing it without a male head. If a minor refuses to mus¬ 
ter, there arc no nieans of compelling him to do it, or 
of punishing him for refusing. If you fine him, the 
fine must come out of his fatlier or guardian. The pro¬ 
vision is also hard upon the Quakers, and is of evil ten¬ 
dency, and there are many fathers who do not desire to 


see their sons exposed to the dissipations that attend 
military musters. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I am afraid that the provis¬ 
ions of the section may conflict with the provisimis of 
the laws of the United States. The power of prescri¬ 
bing what persons shall constitute the militia of the 
several Slates is conferred upon Congress by the con¬ 
stitution of the United Stales. 

This report conforms now with the law of Congress, 
but that law may be changed at any time, and mast 
prevail even if it conflict with the constitution of Ohio 
or any other Stale. For the purpose of obviating this 
difficulty, I move the following amendment to the first 
section of the report: 

Strikeout the first, second, third and fourth lines, to 
the word “ miliiia,” inclusive, and insert as follows: 
“ All persons in the State of Ohio, w ho are, or hereaf¬ 
ter may be, required by the laws of the United States 
to perform military duly.” 

The question first being on the amendment of Mr. 
Leadbetter; 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I hope, sir, that the amendment 
will not prevail. We have, sir, imposed the duty of 
preparing a report on military atfairs, on a committee 
composed of several of the most experienced and tal¬ 
ented military gentlemen in the State—g< nllemen who 
have given infinite labor and care in the preparation of 
a perfect report. That report is before the Cciivention, 
and Ls, I believe, as com[)lete as the utmost stretch ot 
human sagacity can make it. Not only so, sir, but at 
a large and respectable meeting of several military 
gentlemen of this city, the report was read, examined 
and unanimously ap[)roved, endorsid, and an opinion 
was expressed tlial it was the best that could be lurra- 
cd. I have, sir, great confidence iii the opinion of the 
committee, and especially in that of tlje honorable 
chairman, and I hope that no changes will be made by 
which tlie time for the cotiimencemeut of the perfor¬ 
mance of militaiy duty sliall he changed from eighteen 
years, and I believe that in that respect at least, this 
system of military affairs will compar>' favorably with 
any that w^e have in the world. Sir, who does not point 
vviih pride and pleasure, to llie deeds of arms performed 
by the gallant sons of Ohio? There is another reason 
again.Nlthe amendment of the gentleman from Holmes, 
[Mr. Leadbetter.] The youngand ardent men ol the 
State—those who are of the age when military ardor 
burns brightest in tlie human breast, will revolt at it, 
and will be tempted by their dislike to vote against this 
constitution. 

Mr. MORRIS hoped the amendment would prevail. 
He did not undeisland what sense there was in calling 
upon a boy of eighteen to be enrolled, or to perform 
military duty. He had no desire t(i see the minors of 
the State going forth with eonis'alks ujion their shoul¬ 
ders, to serve the State in the perfoimance of military 
duty at a militia muster. He had not a cojiy of the 
cou'litulion and laws of the United States by him, but 
he had no doubt but the amendment W'ould be found 
perfectly consistent with those laws. A man must be 
twenty-one years of age before he can exercise the 
privilege of a citizen ; and what reason can be given for 
another rule in rep.ard to a soldier? He has no con¬ 
trol over his time or his actions, and is as unfit for mili¬ 
tary as for civil duty. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. When this motion was 
first made, I was in favor of it; but the arguments of 
the honorable geulleinau from Brown have convinced 
me. I hope that every stand of arms to wliich the 
State is entitled will be drawn, and a» heretofore, dis¬ 
tributed among the counties, in proportion to the [lopu- 
lation. Such was the case in Medina county. VVe 
had a number of guns, swords and pistols, but they 
have been scattered away. The boys used them to 
shoot shot birds with, and some went farther west, 
and some emigrated to California. I am not disposed 
to complain of this disposition of the public property ; 
on the other hand, perhaps it is the best to which it can 
be put. 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. LIDEY. I believe the members of this Con¬ 
vention have taken an oath to support the constitution 
of the Uniter] States. Now what is required by the 
laws of the United States, framed under that constitu¬ 
tion? They provide, that all between the ages of eigh¬ 
teen and forty-five shall be enrolled. It was for that 
very reason that the report was made as it is. As to 
the practice spoken of by the gentleman from Medina, 
of scattering the public arms about the State. I hope 
that a stop will be put to it in the future, and that un¬ 
der this constitution it will be provided against. It 
seems to me, that that gentleman cannot vote for the 
amendment of the gentleman from Holmes, [Mr. Lead- 
BETTER,] without violating the oath he has taken to 
support the constitution of the United States. Not only 
so, but it will reduce the military force of the State. 
The gentleman from Clinton, [Mr. Morris,! talks of 
cornstalk soldiers, and sneers at military organization. 
Sir, the time has been, when the people of the State 
were very much indebted to the cornstalk soldiers of 
the country. He thinks the young men of eighteen are 
not fit for military duty. Sir, I have seen young men 
of sixteen and seventeen holding commissions in the ar¬ 
my of the United States, and I believe that one of the 
Presidents of the United States held a commission in 
the regular army. I hope that the amendment will not 
prevail, but that, on the other hand, the section will 
be so fixed as to comply with the provisions of the 
constitution and laws of the United States. This is the 
only consistent course that we can pursue, under the 
circumstances. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Leadbetter; the same was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Worthington ; 

Mr. LIDEY demanded a division of the question. 

The question then being on striking out; the sante 
was disagreed to. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, moved to amend section 
five, by striking out the words “protection and;” which 
was disagreed to. 

The same gentleman moved further to amend the 
same section, by striking out the words, “ as many as 
be deemed expedient;” which was disagreed to. 

Mr. HAMILTON ihen moved to strike out the 
whole bill, and to insert in lieu thereof, as follows : 

The General Assembly may, from time to time, pass such laws 
in relation to the enrollment and organization of the militia as 
they may think proper. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE demanded a division of the 
question. 

The question then being on striking out; the same 
was disagreed to. 

Mr. REEMEILIN then moved that the committee 
rise and report; which was agreed to, and the commit¬ 
tee rose, and the Chairman reported that the commit¬ 
tee had had under consideration, the report of the 
standing committee on the Militia, and reported the 
same back without amendment. 

The question then being on ordering the report to be 
engrossed ; 

Mr. REEMELIN moved the previous question. 

The question then being, shall the main question be 
now put ? 

Mr. TAYLOR moved that the report be laid on the 
table. 

On which motion, Mr. TAYLOR demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 13, 
nays 71~a8 follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Bates, Cook, Curry, Hamilton, Holt, Leadbetter, 
Nash, Perkins, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, 
Swift and Taylor—13. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Barnett of Preble, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Ceilings, Dorsey, Florence, Forbes, 
Gillett, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Uumphre- 
ville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, 
Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, More- 
head, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patter 
son, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 


1303 


Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, 
Stilwell, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Shelby,Thompson 
or btark, Vance of Butler, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and 
President—71. 

So the Convention refused to lay the report on the 
table. 

The question then being, “shall the main question 
bo put?” 

Mr. CURRY demanded ihe yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 63, nays 25—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Barnett of Preble, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Dorsey, Florence, Forbes, 
Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Humphreville, Hun¬ 
ter, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer, Scott ot Harrison, 
Scott ot Auflaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Steb¬ 
bins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Shel¬ 
by, Thompson of Stark, Vance ot Butler, Way, Wilson, Wood¬ 
bury and President—63. 

Nays —Messrs. Bates, Cook, Curry, Graham, Green of Ross, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Jcnes, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Mitchell, McCloud, Nash, Perkins, Riddle, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor and Wor¬ 
thington—25. 

So the demand for the previous question was sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then being on ordering the report to b& 
engrossed; 

Mr. MORRIS demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 57, nays 30—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs, Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Blair, Brown of 
Athens, Chaney, Dorsey, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene ot De¬ 
fiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Hitchcock ot Geauga 
Holmes, Holt, Humphreville. Hunt, Hunter, Kennon, Kirkwood, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitch¬ 
ell, Morehead, McCormick, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, 
Reemelin, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Sellers, Stanbery, 
Stickney, Sti’uble, Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of 
Stark, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President 
—57. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cook, Curry, Graham, Green 
of Ross, Jones, King, Larsh, Leadbetter, Morris, McCloud, Nash, 
Norris, Otis, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stil¬ 
well, Swift, Taylor and Vance ol Butler—.30. 

So the report was ordered to be engrossed. 

A.nd on motion, ordered to be read a third time on 
Saturday the 22d inst. 

On motion of Mr. RIDDLE, the Convention took up 
the report of the committee on Preamble and Bill of 
Rights, with pending amendments. 

The question being on agreeing to the amendment 
recommended by the committee, to wit: In section 2, 
strike out the following words, “and no special privi¬ 
leges or immunities shall ever be granted injurious to 
the public, and which cannot reasonably be enjoyed 
by all.” 

Mr. SAWYER moved a call of the Convention, which 
was ordered, and 

Messrs. Bennett, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Clark, 
Cutler, Ewnrt, Gray, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Horton, Johnson, 
King, Townshend, Vance of Champaign, Warren and Williams 
were found absent. 

Cn motion of Mr. SAWYER, all further proceedings 
under the call were dispensed with. 

The question then being on the amendment; 

Mr. NASH. The objection to the section is, that 
gentlemen do not understand it alike, and the result 
will be, that there will always remain this difficulty, 
until it receives a judicial construction from the courii- 
Besides this, it leaves to the courts of the State a most 
unlimited discretion. They are, in the first place, 
whenever a law granting any privilege or franchise 
comes before them, to decide whether it is an exclu¬ 
sive privilege, and then whether being an exclusive 
privileo’e, it is injurious to the public, and then wheth¬ 
er it can be reasonably enjoyed by all. All these 
questions of mere opinion are left to be settled by the 
mere discretion of the judges of the courts of the State, 


I 















1304 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Is any gentleman here willing to place in any court a 
discreiiou so enormous and dangerous as under this 
section may be assumed by the courts ? 

Now, as I understand the limit of the powers con¬ 
ferred by the section, I have no objection to it; but it 
is well known that other gentlemen understand it dif¬ 
ferently, and we can give no assurance here as to the 
construction hereafter, and 1 am not willing to repose 
in any court so large a discretion. It may interfere 
with the powers of the Legislature in a great variety 
of cases. It may interfere with the law regarding taxa¬ 
tion. Is not an exemption from taxation a thing that 
cannot be enjoyed by all ? Is not the license of a ped 
lar or an'auctioneer a thing that cannot be enjoyed by 
all? 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. Yes, but it is not injurious. 

Mr. NASH. Who knows that? The courts may 
think otherwise. That opinion is now holdoii by sev¬ 
eral genilemeir upon this floor. One court may hold 
one opinion and another another opinion, and we shall 
have differences of opinion and conflicting decisions. 
I think that these matters are not within the rule, but 
others think otherwi.se. Therefore, 1 say, that if gen¬ 
tlemen desire to cut ofl' all grants of special privileges, 
let them say so at once, and not leave it to any court to 
say what is its own private opinion in regard to them, 
with the power to transform that opinion into the law 
of the land. 

Mr. McCORMICK moved to amend the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, by striking out from them all 
after the word granted,” to wit: by striking out the 
following; “ Injurious to the public, and which cannot 
reasonably be enjoyed by all.” 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
McCormick; 

Mr. McCORMICK. I have made this motion be¬ 
cause I have never liked the provision as it stands. If 
it is left as it is, special privileges may yet be granted 
by the Legislature. The irresistible inference to be 
drawn from the language of the section is, that the 
Legislature may and does possess the power to grant 
privileges that are injurious to the public, upon the sup¬ 
position that, although injurious, tliey are such as may 
be enjoyed by all. Let them be such as every one 
may enjoy, and it matters not how injurious they may 
be, they are fully within the legislative competency. 
Such a power would be too dangerous to confer even 
constructively; and rather than such an implication 
should arise, I have offered this amendment. 


Mr. ARCHBULD. It would be putting Ian guage t( 
the torture to understand the proposition as it is un 
derstood by the gentleman from Adams, [Mr. McCor 
MICK.] The gentleman, if he will think a moment 
will remember that that which may be enjoyed by al 
cannot be injurious to the public. The word “all’ 
comprises the very public which he thinks may be in 
jured by the grant. Enjoyment also pre-supposes ben 
efit; and if all enjoy who is there to be injured ? Again 
there are immunities which cannot be enjoyed by all, 
and which, yet, are not injurious to the public. To b 
a judge, a sherifl', ora county clerk, is an immunity 
and one that cannot be enjoyed by all. But is it inju 
rious to the public? Would the gentleman cut of 
these, and thus, in effect, provide that no man shal 
h^eafter exercise, claim, or perform the duties of tlr 
offices of sherifif, coroner, constable, or judge? 

But the object of this amendment is to cut off tin 
granting of acts of incorporation to improvement com 
pames, upon the ground that such acts operate to ben 
efit the one more than another. Now I protest agains 
that dog in the manger spirit which permits itself to gi 
against that which is of real benefit to the public, be 
cause it benefits some others more than themselves 
If the construction of lines of public improvement i 
for the public good, it is no reason against them tha 
they are the cause of some peculiar benefits to certai 
individuals. The greatest good of the greatest numbe 
cannot always be secured without securing some pe 


culiar good to some one or more of the number; but 
does that furnish any reason why the greatest good 
should not be sought ? 

Mr. McCORMICK. The proposition of the gentle¬ 
man from Monroe [Mr. Arch bold] is not a fair propo¬ 
sition. There shall be no special privileges granted 
which are injurious to the public, and which may not 
be reasonably enjo}ed by all. I assert that under this i 
provision the General Assembly may grant special ' 
privileges as heretofore. Does the Convention desire 
that such shall be the case ? Does it desire to perpet¬ 
uate, and not (Jiily to perpetuate, but to sanction the 
monstrous abuses that have grown out of the legisla¬ 
tion of past years ? Yet, under the proposition of the 
gentleman from Monioe, this evil, so glaring, and so 
much complained of, cannot be remedied ; and in fail- ‘ 
ing to provide a remedy we shall have failed to perform 
one of the most important of the duties expected at ' 
our hands. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I like the proposition of the gen¬ 
tleman from Adams, because it speaks the truth in a 
manner at once clear and distinct. 1 must confess that ( 
the doctrine, that the end and purpose for which gov¬ 
ernments were established is to grant special privileges 
and immunities to individuals and companies, has al¬ 
ready puzzled me. I know*that it is the opinion of 
some, that the peculiar object for which governments i 
are organized, is to dispense these special privileges. 
The doctrine is false, sir. It is the doctrine of the dark 
ages of the past. It originated with the doctrine of the 
divine right of Kings. The sovereign under that sys¬ 
tem is the source from which sjirings and flows all 
power and all privilege. Now I am in favor of doing 
something that shall declaie a difl'erent doctrine, and 
set forth ifie true principle upon which a republican 
government is based—that the great body of rights re¬ 
sides in the people, and that not one of them can be 
transferred, given up or destroyed except by the act of 
the people themselves. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, thought that the 
amendment of the committee, as an abstract proposi¬ 
tion, was correct. No special privileges or immuni¬ 
ties shall be granted that are injurious to the public or 
which cannot reasonably be enjoyed by all. I think 
the declaration correct enough if it were inserted in 
the proper place. But as it is amended by the propo¬ 
sition of the gentleman from Adams, [Mr. McCormick,] 
it effects the darling object of gentlemen—to prevent 
the creation of any more corporations in the 8tate. 

Mr. STANBERY. 1 cannot see the reason why such 
a diflerence of opinion should exist between myself 
and the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock.] 

I look upon the difference between ought not, and shall 
not, as a very important one in that connection. To 
say that the Legislature shall not pass any retroactive 
law, is a very difl'erent thing from saying that it ought 
not to do so. At any rate, the section will be under¬ 
stood as a limitaliou of the legislative power, and the 
question for the courts to decide will be whether the 
Legislature has overstepped the boundaries of its pow¬ 
er or not. It will, in fact, leave to the courts to decide, 
not whether the law is o[»[)osed to any especial provis¬ 
ion of the constitution, but whether it is, in general, ex¬ 
pedient, wholesome and propdr. 

Now, I will never, highly as I esteem and respect 
the integrity and wisdom of the courts of justice, vote 
to transfer this question of the policy, expediency and 
prosperity of the laws, from the one hundred and eight 
men who compctse the General Assembly, to the four 
who compose the supreme judiciary of the State. Yet 
this is the object of the section; and if it does not mean 
this, it means nothing at all. 

Mr. RBEMELIN. I desire to say that this is the 
most conservative body that ever sat in the State. We, 
the friends of the people, have been forced to give 
away and away, and the more w’e have given, the more 
has been asked, until there is scarcely a vestige of the 
rights of the people left. We should not have com- 












1305 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


menced by giving an inch, for by so doing we are in 
danger of losing all. 

Mr. SWAN. If the most apparent and obvious con¬ 
struction is given to the amendment recommended by 
the committee, it places it in the hands of the judiciary 
to judge of and decide upon the correctness of the pol¬ 
icy that dictated the passage of every law of the State, 
and to declare those laws binding or void as they are 
consistent or inconsistent with the views of the public 
interest as entertained by tlie judge. Now I think that 
banks are injurious to the public, and I believe bank¬ 
ing to be a business that cannot be enjoyed by all. With 
this view ot the law, if I were upon the bench, and 
any question came before me, in which the rights of a 
bank were diawn in question, I should deem it my du¬ 
ty to decide that a bank charter is unconstitutional. 
Now I think this should be a rule for the legislative, 
and not fur the judiciary department. If we open these 
questions to the courts instead of the General Assem¬ 
bly, the whole policy of the State will be disturbed. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. I should be opposed to this pro¬ 
vision, if I believed the construction of the gentleman 
from Franklin, [Mr. Swan,] to be correct. If any man 
is radically opposed to any mingling of the legislative 
and judicial powers, that man is myself. But I am not 
convinced by the arguments of the gentleman from 
Franklin. No court would dare to decide upon the 
mere expediency of laws. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
McCormick ; 

Mr. McCORMICK demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 49, nays 45, as 
follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, King, 
Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 
Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Peck, Perkins, Ouigley, 
Ranney, Jleemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebijins, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President— 
49. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Burnett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Chaney, Ceilings, Cook, 
Dorsey, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Ham 
ilton, Hawkins, Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Hum- 
phreville. Hunter, Jones, Kennon, Larwill, Manon, Mason, More- 
head, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Vance of 
Butler, and Worthington—45. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

The question then being on the amendment, as 
amended; 

Mr. RANNEY moved to perfect the words proposed 
to be stricken out, by inserting before the words “and 
no,” the following words, “and to alter, repeal or 
abolish any law hereafter created by it.” 

On motion of Mr. LARWILL, the Convention took 
a recess. 

2^ o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending, being on the amendment pro¬ 
posed by Mr. RANNEY, to wit: To insert before the 
words “ and no,” the following words, “ and to alter, 
repeal or abolish any law hereafter created by it 
Mr. HAWKINS said this proposition reminded him 
of the proposition for draining the black swamp, to 
which one of the members of a western Legislature, 
some years ago, was reported to have been very much 
devoted. The member had brought up his proposition 
day after day, and time after time, during the session, 
and it had been so often voted down; till at last, in the 
very close of the session, when a resolution was offer¬ 
ed complimentary to the speaker, he sprang to his feet, 
and moved to amend, by adding “ five hundred dollars 
for draining the black swamp.” [Laughter.] 

I might be willing sir, for the adoption of a rule al¬ 
lowing the consideration of this subject to come up at 
the close of the consideration of every proposition; for 
members would then know when to look lor it, and be 


prepared to treat it as it ought to be treated ; unless, 
by possibility, the proposition might be passed when 
the house was thin ; and then such a thing would in¬ 
volve a motion to reconsider and discuss upon its mer¬ 
its to the heart’s content of all the friends of I’epeal. 

Mr. SAWYER suggested that this proposition had 
respect only to ju’ospective repeal. 

Mr. HAWKINS. It was a new combination of prin¬ 
ciples. With regard to the prospective repeal, in its 
proper place, and at the proper time, he would vote for 
it. And iurther, if legal gentlemen of this body would 
assure him that it might be done without conHicting 
with the constitution of the United States, he would 
vote for the doctrine of repeal extending into all the 
past. But because he desired to avoid putting into this 
constiiution any thing that would be a nullity—any 
thing that would cause it to stand in future years, like 
an old oak or hemlock, with its upper limbs all bent 
and broken—it was for this reast.u), that he had hereto¬ 
fore voted as he had upon this question. 

Mr. RANNEY. The gentleman Irora Morgan, as 
well as my friend from Franklin, misunderstands the 
amendment. The original section has respect to the 
rights of the jieople. It goes on to declare, that the 
people have the right to alter, abolish, or reform their 
government as they please; and then I propose to add 
this further clause; that they have the right to alter, re¬ 
peal, or abolish, any law which the government may 
enact hereafter. That is just all there is of both the 
section and the amendment, and the one follows as a 
necessary consequence of the other. 

I have gone for the right to repeal all laws which 
have been heietofore enacted; as well as those which 
may be hereafter. But the decision of the Convention 
has been against me in this, and Ido not propose to get 
up that question here again. 

But we have been silting here day after day for the 
purpose of making a constitution, and .sometimes we 
have been told that the Legislature have bound up our 
hand.s—that they have passed such and such laws which 
our authority cannot contravene; and it was but yes¬ 
terday that we had a large vote against the right of 
equal taxation upon all proj erty in the State, because 
of a previous legislative provision upon that subject. 

Now all I desire to effect by this amendment, is, to 
assure the ])eople of Ohio that, if ever they shoidd as¬ 
semble again in Convention to form another new con¬ 
stitution, or if they should be called upon to vote 
amendments, through the General Assembly, they shall 
not be told that the Legislature have, by law, some 
how or other bound up their hands so that they cannot 
do justice to themselves or to posterity. 

Mr. OTIS. I would ask the gentleman from Trum¬ 
bull to explain what it was he meant when he said 
was his desire, that the people in convention hereafter 
might have the right to do thus and so. 

Mr. RANNEY. I will answer the gentleman by 
readin^T the whole section as it stands, with the amend¬ 
ment, which I have proposed. [Reads.] 

In convention the people may exercise their power 
over the constitution in various ways; and they may 
vote upon isolated amendments by the suggestion of 
the Legislature. And I affirm thatthis section, as 1 pro¬ 
pose to amend it, accords strictly with the inherent 
rights of the people. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. I have no objections 
to the amendment of the gentleman from Trumbull, 
and I intend to vote for it. I should have voted for the 
section as originally presented, with the clause which 
has been stricken out. It is true, that on yesterday, we 
asserted the principle of prospective repeal, in another 
place ; but I would be willing to assert it again and 
attain every day, as long as we shall remain here. 

°Mr. DORSEY. I feel anxious, sir, to vote for the 
proposition of the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. 
RA^NEY,] because I believe it contains sound doctrine. 
At the same time, I do not feel disposed to vote for it 
precisely in the shape, or more particularly in the con- 

















1306 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


iiection, in which it stands in this section. It comes 
in before a declaration to which I wish to have some¬ 
thing added, in order to make it express what I wish 
it to express; or rather, to keep it from expressing 
what 1 do not wish to have expressed in this constitu¬ 
tion. 

The amendment of the gentleman from Trnmbull 
provides what I believe is according to the wish of both 
sides of the house; viz; that the Legislature has the 
power to alter, abolish or repeal any law hereafter to 
be created. But then, there comes in a clause that no 
•special privilege shall ever be granted. And I am not 
willing to vote for that declaration, unless I can have 
eomething appended to it which will prevent it from 
acting injuriously. I hold that this declaration would 
put a stop to the formation of all incorporated compa¬ 
nies for the construction of turnpikes, plank roads, 
railroads, or anything of the kind within the bounda¬ 
ries of the State of Ohio. Now, I am not prepared to 
go that far. I do not intend to go that far ; nor do I 
intend that the gentleman shall ])lace me in a false po¬ 
sition, by inducing me to vote for a proposition going 
to that extent. 

But, as I have before said, I wish to vote for the 
amendment of the gentleman from Trumbull. 1 wish 
to see it embodied in the constitution, for I do not be¬ 
lieve that we have yet adopted fully the principle which 
it embraces. But in order to secure my vote it must 
be incorporated in such a way as not to place me in a 
false position. 

I could wish that the gentleman would be willing to 
withdraw his amendment; for if he would do so I 
would offer an amendment in its place, which I be¬ 
lieve would answer the [Uirpose which he has in view, 
whilst it would express with more fairness the opin¬ 
ions of those who think as I do, upon this floor. 

I have b^en anxious to insert a plain and unequivocal 
declaration of the power of repeal, both prospective and 
retrospective, without restriction, but I have give up 
all hope of being enabled to embody such a principle 
in this constitution; and now I wish to bring up a fair 
test as to how far gentlemen are willing to go in the 
eupport of the principle of prospective repeal only. 

If the gentleman from Trumbull would withdraw his 
amendment, I would offer something like this: 1 
would move to amend the section by inserting after the 
word “ granted " these words: “ which may not be re¬ 
sumed or revoked by the same power which granted 
then, under this constitution. 

Now, there is a plain, straight forward expression of 
the doctrine of prospective repeal. And for that 1 am 
willingto vote,for two reasons; fiist. because it embod¬ 
ies precisely thesubstanceof thedoctrineof the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Trumbull; and secondly, 
because it does not take away from the Legislature the 
power to grant charters of incorporation under genera! 
laws, for such purposes as they may deem expedient 
and necessary for the good of the State. I repeat, sir, 
that I do not intend to allow myself to be forced into 
the support of any’^ proposition iiere, which shall take 
away from the Legislature the power of granting such 
acts of incorporation. But I am willing to vote that 
such charters n ay be granted, w’ith the express Jinder- 
standing and reservation that the same power which 
granted them may, at any time, resume or revoke them. 
And, with such a danse as that, I am perfectly willing 
to vote for this section. 

Now, these words which stand at the close of this 
section, to wit: “ no special privileges or immmuniiies 
shall ever be granted —1 recollect where they came 
from. I remember them as part and parcel of a cer¬ 
tain amendment which was made to fake the place of 
an addition to this section introduced by the gentle¬ 
man from Guernsey, [Mr. Lawrfnce.J After the 
amendment of the gentleman from Guernsey, (which 
I was in favor of,) was stricken out, I voted for this 
amendment of the gentleman from Monroe, but at the 
same time, I was not satisfied with it; but still I voted 


for it, because I considered, that, under the circum¬ 
stances, it was perhaps the best thin" we could get. 

But now we have come in here this morning and 
stricken out an important part ot this amendment, 
which makes it a totally diflerent proposition from 
that originally intended. Instead of allowing it to re- 
rnain expressive of the doctrine of repeal in any shape 
or form, it makes it cx|)ressive of a determination to 
take away from the General Assembly the power of 
granting char,ters of incorporation, and that is precisely 
what I am unwilling to do. I hold the power of grant¬ 
ing charters of incorporation to be a valuable power; 
and while I am willing to admit that it is a power 
which may be, and which has been very much abused, 

1 hold that it is a power which ought to be, and whidi 
may be exercised for the good of the people, if retain¬ 
ed amongst the powers of legislation. Should we, 
then, in order to prevent an improper use of this pow¬ 
er, prohibit its exerci.se altogether? Or should we 
not rather prescribe that the .same power which has 
granted any special privilege may also revoke that 
privilege? Isay, let us do that. Let us make that 
[)biin, unequivocal declaration, and that is precisely 
what I have intended to express in my amendment. 

Mr. RANNEY asked and obtained leave to withdraw 
his amendment. Affirmative 42, negative 41. 

The question then being on the amendment propos¬ 
ed by the committee; 

Mr. RANNEY moved t.o perfect the words proposed 
to be stricken out by adding after the w’ord “ granted 
the followdng ; “ that may’^ not be altered, revoked cr 
repealed by the General Assembly." 

Mr. STANTON. I congratulate the gentleman from 
Hamilton over the way,[Mr. Reemei.in,] and the gen¬ 
tleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] that after a 
most protracted and bitter struggle on this long con¬ 
tested question of repeal, iltey have triumphed most 
magnificently. And they have not only succeeded in 
reclaiming their fugitive brethren, who sometimes call 
themselves the “ John Rogers I arnily,” and sometimes 
the “ Tw'elve Apostles," but they have secured at least 
an equal number on this side of the chamber. For if 
there is any practical dilference between the proposi¬ 
tion first adopted by a vote of two to one, and the cele¬ 
brated repeal proposition, which has been discussed at 
least thirty days, and voted down five times, it is one 
which I am not able to comprehend. 

I know That it is said, that w’e have no power to re¬ 
peal charters heretofore granted, which I most cheer¬ 
fully admit. 

But, I also know that these protracted discussions 
have not been upon a 6imj:)le proposition to repeal past 
charters, but u{)on a proviso to secure the corporate 
{iroperty^ to the stockholders. The controversy has not 
been so mucb, whether the General Assembly should 
have the power to repeal, but whether the repeal 
should be absolute or conditional. 

Now it has always seemed to me that if a charter is 
a. contract, that a conditional repeal is just as much a 
breach of it, as an absolute one, though the damage 
may be less. But those who hold that a charter is a 
contract all agree that we have no power over charters 
heretofore granted, and that any provision we may in¬ 
sert in this constitution will he a nullity. It can do no 
harm therefore. It is therefore, so far as we are con¬ 
cerned, a mere abstraction, nothing that we can do will 
have any practical results. But now we have before 
ns a practical question, somellung tangible, that we 
have control over. 

And now when we propose to give some security for 
the corporate property, on the repeal of the charter, it 
is supposed to be a matter of no sort of consequence. 
We have spent all our energie.s on an abstraction, and 
when a practical question is presented, wesurrender it 
without a struggle. The truth is that justice and com¬ 
mon sense make no distinction between charters now 
in existence and those hereafter granted. I know the 
question as to the power of repeal is different. 














CONVENTION REPORTS. ' 1307 


^ Bnt the questiou of the justice of niakiug conipensa- 
tioii for the corporate property, is the same. Suppose 
a charier tor a bridge company is granted this year, 
with the right to take toll for 20 years, and another next 
year fur tlie same term. Both are repealed. Is there 
any justice in making compensation for the franchise, 
in one case, and notiii the other. I know it is said that 
in one case the charter is accepted, and the money 
spent wi h the knowledge that the General Assembly 
have reserved the right of repeal. But 1 also knovv 
that no one would accept such a charter and invest 
money upon the faith of it, without he8uj)posed he had 
good leason to believe that the grant was made in good 
laiih, and that the right of repeal would not be cap¬ 
tiously exercised, or upon terms which would not be 
just and equitable, so long as the chatter was not vio¬ 
lated by the corporators. And let it also be borne iu 
mind, that there is no necessity for exercising the re¬ 
pealing power to get rid of a charter that has been vio¬ 
lated. Tlio courts are the proper tribunals to deal 
with cor{)orations as well as individuals who have bro¬ 
ken the laws. I did suppose while this terrible contest 
about re|)eal was going on, that we were dealing with 
a practical question—that some results or consequen 
ces were to follow its decision. But iu this it seems 1 
was mistaken. VVe have been fighting a shadow—tilt¬ 
ing witli a windmill. The democracy^ of the State has 
been agitated from its centre to its circumference. My 
friend from Butler has been at home for fresh instruc¬ 
tions. 

Mr. President, permit me to say, with the utmost de¬ 
ference, that this whole matter, iu my judgment, has 
turned out to be a most magnificent humbug ; and that 
we have been engaged in a very small business. 

Mr. ORTON moved the previous question, desiring 
that it should apply only to the pending section. 

The PRESIDENT said, as this was the only amend¬ 
ment to the bill, the previous question would reach to 
the final passage. 

The questiou then being, “ shall the main question 
be now jmt 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yea.s and nays; 
which were ordered, and resulted yeas 50, nays 42—as 
follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Blair, Blickensderter, Cahill, 
Chaney, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Ge 
auga, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, 
Kirkwood, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Norris, Orton, 
Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Saw'- 
yer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Strubie Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of 
Stark Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—50. 

Mays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Bates, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, 
Colliugs, Curry,Ewart, Gillett, Graham Green of Ross, Hamilton, 
Harlai), Holt, Kennon, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Mason, Mitchell, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Peck, Raimey, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Staubery, Stanton, 
Stilweil, Sfidger, Swan, Taylor, Vance of Butler, W’illiams and 
Worthington—42. 

So the demand for the previous question was sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. Stilwell; 

Mr. BLAIR demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 34, nays 58—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Prebit', Bates, Blickensderter, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Chambers, Colliiigs, Curry, Ewart, Gillett, Graham, 
Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hunter, Larsh, 
Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stan¬ 
ton, Stilweil, Williams and Worthington—34. 

Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Cook, Dorsey, 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphre¬ 
ville, Hunt, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Pat¬ 
terson. Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, lyddle. Roll, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Stidger, Strubie, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Way, Wilson, 
Woodbury and President—58. 


So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on the amendment of the 
committee, as amended, to wit: 

In section two, strike out the following words “ and 
no special privileges or immunities shall ever be grant¬ 
ed that may not be altered, revoked or repealed by the 
General A.ssembly;” 

Mr. JONES demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered and resulted, yeas 34, nays 58—as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Chambers, Curry, Ewart, Gillett, Graham, Green of Rosa, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Hunter, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilweil, Stidger, Swift and 
Williams—34. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Collings, Cook, 
Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groes¬ 
beck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stickney, Strubie, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Shel¬ 
by, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Way, Wilson, Wood¬ 
bury, Worthington and President—58. 

So the Convention refused to strike out the clause. 

The qne,s!ion then being on the passage of the report; 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, desired to recommit with 
instructions. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair supposes that such 
a motion is out of order, as we are still under the in- 
Huence of the previous question. The Chair has be- 
lore stated that such w’ould be the effect of the previ¬ 
ous question. 

Mr. VANCE. I know that such was the expression 
of the opinion of the Chair, but I thought that was not 
the oi’der. 

The PRESIDENT. That might be the case, and the 
genilemau had then a perfect right to appeal from the 
decision of the Chair. But now he has neither the 
right to appeal, nor to complain of the decision. 

Mr. HOLMES demanded the yeas and nays upon, 
the final passage of the report, which were ordered, and 
resulted—yeas 66, nays 27—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Blair, Brown of Athens, 
Cahill, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hoot¬ 
man, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Mason, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ran¬ 
ney, Reemelin, Ridde, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Strubie, Swan, Swift, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President—66. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Cur¬ 
ry Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Larsh, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilweil, Stidg¬ 
er and Williams—27. 

So the report was passed. 

On motion, the report was referred to the standing 
committee on Revision, Enrollment and Arrangement. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, now said : We have had glory 
enoughforoneday.asithink. The “immortal twelve” 
have been “growing beautifully less,” till they have 
now, at last, almost entirely disappeared in the glory of 
the achievements of this day. I therefore move that 
the Convention do now adjourn. 

Mr. G. withdrew the motion for 

Mr. LAWRENCE, who presented the following writ¬ 
ten communication and request of the gentleman from 
Coshocton, [Mr. Johnson] which request was granted 
by unanimous consent: 

Col. Medill, President Constitutional Convention: 

On the 19th inst. I voted under a misapprehension of the true 
question, upon the amendment of the gentleman from Trumbull, 
[Mr. Ranney,] to section 4 of the Report of the committee on 
Corporations other than Banking. The amendment was to insert 
the words “now existing or hereafter created," in said section. 

After the vote was given, I ascertained that I had voted contra¬ 
ry to my wishes, but concluded to wait until morning and then 
have my vote changed; next morning I was unable to leave my 














1308 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


room on account of illness, and am yet unable. I wish to have 
myself righted before the official report of our proceedings are 
published, and therefore ask the favor of the Convention to permit 
mein this manner to change my vote from nay to yea. 

Respectfully, 

JOHN JOHNSON. 

Franklin Housf, Feb.21,1851. 

Mr. LAWRENCE now renewed the motion to ad¬ 
journ, but gave way for 

Mr. HOLMES, who desired to ask the Convention to 
indulge him in a motion to adjourn till Monday morn¬ 
ing, in order to give the committee on ajiportionmeiit, 
which consisted of twenty-one members, an opportuni¬ 
ty of sitting on to-morrow. The business beiore them 
would require them to remain in ses-sion the whole 
day. 

Mr. HOLMES then moved that the Convention ad¬ 
journ till Monday morning, 9 o’clock. 

On which motion, Mr. RE EMELIN demanded the 
yeas and nays, which were ordered, aiid resulted—yeas 
57, nays 34, as Ibllows ; 

VFas—M essrsrAndrevvs. Archbold, Barbee, Blair, Blickensder- 
fer. Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Curry, Ew¬ 
art, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Green of R >68, llamillon. Hard, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, Nash, 
Norris, Orton, Peck, Quigley, Riddle, Roll, lawyer. Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Smith ot Warren, Stanbery, Stiekney, Struble, 
Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Wil 
liams, Wilson, Worthington and President—57. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Brown of Athens, Cahill, Cook- Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, 
Gillelt, Gregg, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hawkins. Henderson, Hunter, 
Lidey, Manon, Mason, McClnud,Otis,Patter8on,Perkms,Ree- 
melin, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stidger, Thompson of Shelby, and 
Way—34. 

So the Convention adjourned until Monday morning 
next, at nine o’clock. 


MONDAY, February 24, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Robinson. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE presented a petition from 
Thomas Rowe of Medina county, praying that a clause 
be inserted in the new constitution [trohibiting public 
stocks from being made a basis for banking; which, on 
motion, was laid on the table. 

Mr. McCormick, from the select committee on the 
subject of Retailing Ardent Spirits, to which had been 
recommitted report number one of the committee on 
that subject, reported the same back without amend¬ 
ment, and recommended its passage. 

REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SUBJECT OF 
RETAILING ARDENT SPIRITS. 

No license to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be 
granted in this State, but the General Assembly may by law pro¬ 
vide against the evils resulting therefrom. 

The question being on the passage of the report; 

Mr. WOODBURY moved the previous question. 

The question then being: shall the main question be 
now put? 

Mr. RBBMELTN moved to lay the report on the 
table. 

On which motion, Mr. MANON demanded the yeas 
and navs, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 36, 
nays 44—as follows: 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Clark, Farr, 
Graham, Green ot Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, Holmes, 
Hootman, Jones, Kirkwood, Larwill. Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, 
Morris, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer. 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stebbins, 
Stidger, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, War¬ 
ren and President—36. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Chaney, 
Cook, Ewart, Ewing, Forbes, Greene ot Defiance, Hamilton, Haw- 
kins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, 
Kennon, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Manon, Mason, Morehead, 
McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Orton, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Har¬ 
rison, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stilwell, Stiekney, Swift, Way, 
Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—44. 


So the motion to lay the report on the table was re- 

iected. . . , 

The cpiestion then being, shall the main question be 

now [)ut ? 

Mr. REEMELIN moved a call of the Convention. 

On which motion, Mr. MANON demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted yeas 45, 
nays 33—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgonmry, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown ot Athens, Cha¬ 
ney, Clark, Farr, Forbes, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, .lones, 
Kiikwood, l arsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mason, 
Mitchell, McCloud, Patterson, Quigley, Reemelm, Riddle, Saw- < 
yer, Scott of Auglaize, Selhrs, Smith of Highland, .-stanbery 
Stanton, Stebbins, Stidger, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby and 

Thompson of Stark—45. , 

Nays —Messrs. Bennett, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, 
Cook, Ewart, Ewing. Greene ot Defiance, Hamilton, Hawkins, 

Hitc hcock ot Geauga, Hunter, Kennon, Lawrence, Manon, More¬ 
head, McCormick, Nash, Orton, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Sccjtt of 
Harrison, Smith of Wyandot, Stilwell, Stiekney, Swift, Way, 
Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington, and President—33. 

So the motion for a call of the Convention was adop¬ 
ted, and a call being ordered, the following gentlemen 
were found absent: 

Messrs. Blair, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Collings, Cur- 
ry Cutler, Florence, Gillett, Gray, Hard, Harlan, Hitchcock m 
Cuyahoga, Horton, Johnson, King, Loudon, Norris, Roll, ..mita 
of Warren, Struble, Swan, Townshend, Vance ot Butler and 
Vance of Champaign. 

On motion, Messrs. Case of Hocking, Case of Lick¬ 
ing, Collings, Gillett, Hard and Johnson, were sev¬ 
erally excused. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, moved that all further 
proceedings under the call be now dispensed with; 
which was agreed to. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
be now put?” 

Mr. ORTON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 46, nays 36 as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Pre 
ble, Bennett, Blickensderler, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, 
Forbes, Greene of Dtffiance, Hamilton, Hawkins, Holt, Humphry 
ville. Hunt, Hunter, Lidey, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, 
McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Orton, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Scott 
of Harrison, Smith ot Wyandot, Stebbins, Stiekney, Swift, 
Thompson of Stark, Way, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and 
President—46. 

Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Bates, Graham, Green of Ross, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, 
Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbet¬ 
ter, Morris, Otis, i’atterson, Quigley, Reeraelin, Riddle, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith ot Highland, Staubery. Stanton, 
Stilwell, Stidger, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Warren and 
Worthingtou-^6. 

So the demand for the previous question was sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then being on the passage of the re¬ 
port ; 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resubed—yeas 45, nays 39— 
as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Profile, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Chambers, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Hunter, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Manon, Mason, More¬ 
head,’Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Orton, Otis, Perkins, 
Scott of Harrison, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton. Stebbins, Stilwell, 
Stiekney, Swift, Way, Williams, Woodbury and Worthington— 
45. 

Nays —Messrs. Archhold, Brown of Carroll, Cahill. Chaney, 
Forbes, Graham, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Jones, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lead- 
belter, Lidey Mitchell, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reeme- 
lin. Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of High¬ 
land, Stanbery, Stidger, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson 
of Stark, Warren, Wilson and President—39, 

So the report was passed, and on motion, referred to 
the committee on Revision, Enrollment and Arrange¬ 
ment. 

Report number three, of the standing committee on 
Militia, was read a third time. 

The question then being on the passage of the report; 





















1309 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


it was passed, and on motion, referred to the commit n v 
on Revision, Eurollment and Arrangement. 

Report number one of the standing committee on the 
Judicial Department, was read a third time. ; 

Tlie (piestion then being on the i)a8sage of the bill 

Mr. GREEN, ot ROss. I desire, before the question 
is taken upon this report, to solicit the attention of the 
Convention for a few moments, to an expression ol my 
dissent to its provisions. And first, upon the manner 
in which it has been passed througli this body. Seve¬ 
ral other plans for a judiciai’y system have been pre¬ 
sented during the sessions of this Convention; all of 
which have been treated cavalierly enough, and dis¬ 
missed with as little consideration as possible. No op¬ 
portunity has been given for a comparison between 
their provisions, and those of the report of the com¬ 
mittee. Several of them have not even been granted 
the poor privilege of being read through. 1 have 
heard the plan reported by the select committee, char¬ 
acterized by gentlemen, (jocularly, no doubt,) as the 

vastly original plan ” of the gentlemen composing 
that committee. 

The idea has been thrown out, that we had borrow¬ 
ed the principal features of that report, from the labors 
of the standing committee. Now, so far as this charge 
of borrowing is concerned, it seems to me, that both 
committees had better cry quits. If the select lias 
borrowed Irom the standing committee, the standing 
committee has fully retuimed the compliment. But as 
a member of the select committee, I feel bound to re¬ 
turn to those members of the standing committee who, 
the other day, sustained the previous question upon 
our report, the most grateful acknowledgments; and 
especially to the honorable chairman of that commit¬ 
tee, whose name, I observe, recorded among the yeas, 
upon ordering the previous question; the etiect of 
which was to bring the Convention, to a direct vote, 
without discussion—without examination—and without 
any of those means by which gentlemen are supposed 
to become acquainted with subjects which come up for 
action and decision before them. I desire, however, 
that it shall be fully understood, that I have no jierson- 
al feeling upon this subject. It does not affect me more 
than it does any other gentleman upon this floor; but 
were I disposed to be caj>tiou8 and to complain, I might 
say, and say justly, that gentlemen had manifested lit¬ 
tle respect, and far less parliamentary courtesy in their 
course on this subject. 

I am opposed, Mr. President, to the plan of the stand¬ 
ing committee, for several reasons. When it was first 
presented, the only striking feature in its composition 
that appeared at all novel, was the district court ar 
rangement. But this is by no means new. It is an 
old and exploded experiment. It was years ago tried 
in the State of Virginia; and after trial, was abolished 
as cumbrous and useless. It has been tried, also, in 
other States of the Union, whh the like success. Yet 
the gentlemen of the committee seem to cling to it with 
a tenacity calculated to induce the belief that experi¬ 
ence had tested and demonstrated its value, or that 
reason had indicated that it was better than any other 
that could be suggested. And now, after the report 
has been changed and amended from what it originally 
was, until scarcely one of its original features can be 
recognized, they still cling to that feature, as if it were 
the sole beauty of the plan, instead of being as it is, a 
disfigurement. 

In the first place, the report was sadly crippled, by 
reducing the terms of the judges; then again, by stri¬ 
king out the provision fixing the minimum of the sala- 
riesOf the judges, and so on, until, so to speak, it has 
been emasculated; and the “splendid district court.'’ 
has been converted to a county circuit court—no one 
feature is left in its original form. I tell gentlemen that 
if they will only examine it, they will discover that 
they have made the district precisely what the 8n[)reme 
court is at present. The only difference is, that there 
is substituted in the place of one of the supreme judges, 


two ol the common pleas, and this court is to be held 
at least once annually, in every county of this State. 
True, the General Assembly may, when all the people 
ol the district desire it, provide that this district court 
may be held in three or more places in such district. 
But if gentlemen suppose this will ever be done, I think 
they deceive themselves. I venture the [)rediction, it 
will never be done. The great idea of bringing justice 
to every man’s door, will forever prevent it. Gentle¬ 
men, then, by surrendering to this modification of their 
plan, have given up the only feature of their plan hav- 
ing any thing novel in it. Their “splendid court” is 
gone, and in its room we are to have, in fact the pres¬ 
ent system. 

When first reported by the committee, the plan pro¬ 
vided for four judges of the supreme court, and twen¬ 
ty-seven judges of the common pleas. This, it was 
affirmed, would be a force amply sufficient to carry the 
district court into every county in the State. But with¬ 
in the last ten days, it has again been returned to us 
from their hands, with another judge added to the su¬ 
preme bench. Now, I must be allowed to say, that 
I cannot but distrust the calculations of gentlemen 
iR regard to the judicial force necessary for the pub¬ 
lic service, when they thus acknowledge themselves 
to doubt the practicability of the scheme as originally 
reported. 

I took occasion the other day to remark, that the 
only distinctive difference between the plan of the 
standing committee, as at present amended, and that of 
the select committee, related to the matter of appeals 
of questions of fact to the higher tribunal. The report 
of the select committee provided for a return of the old 
system, which admitted of a second trial by jury. So 
long as that practice existed, no complaint was ever 
made. The unfortunate restrictions in our present 
constitution, made the system it provided too small 
for the vastly increasing business of the State, and the 
change to the present practice became necessary ; and 
I believe, but for that unfortunate restricting clause, 
we should not be sitting here to-day. Doubtless more 
than all the other causes put together, this produced 
the call of this Convention; and I believe, that if we 
had turned our attention to the establishment of a ju¬ 
diciary system, founded upon the apparent and well 
kuown^neoessities of the State—had we done nothin^ 
else, this constitution would be triumphantly sustained 
by the people. 

I regret that this system has found so much favor 
with this Convention, because I believe that it cannot 
be permanent. I have no motion to make, and care 
little whether the plan is adopted now, or rejected. ’ 
have done all that I could do, and self-respect, if no 
other motive, would prohibit one from interfering any 
farther. 

The question then being on the passage of the Re¬ 
port ; 

Mr. HOLT offered for adoption, the following restdu' 
tion: 

Resolved, That the article on the judiciary be recommitted to 
the standing committee on that subject, with instruction to report 
a system of judicial courts, leaving their jurisdiction to be tou- 
lerred and regulated by the General Assembly. 

The question then being on the recommitment of tEe 
article, with instructions; 

Mr. HOLT. I desire to occupy the time of the Con¬ 
vention bnt a moment. After the vote ordering .he 
previous question alluded to by the gentleman fi ai 
Ross, I have believed it fruitless to attempt to pro\ ail 
by argument I would barely remark, in regard to the 
[)roposition I have submitted, that I observe that the 
recent constilnlion of Michigan, and also that of Rhode 
Island, in ^their articles establishing a judiciary system, 
barely declare where the judicial power shall be ves¬ 
ted, and i»rovide for the existence of the courts, leaving 
their jurisdic tion to be settled by the General Assem¬ 
bly, from time to lime, as the wants of the people 
shall require. I think that if a proposition something 
like this had been introduced sometime since, it might 












1310 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


have prevailed, but I am convinced that the prolonged 
and tiresome discussions upon mere detail that we 
have had, have rendered the members of this body 
weary of the subject, until they are willing to get rid 
of it on any terms. For myself, 1 cannot believe tha 
the system will work right, in the speedy and rapid 
trial and decision of cases, or that it will be saiistacio- 
ry in bringing justice home to the people of the State. 
And I will say to my Iriends on the left, (Democrat¬ 
ic,) that the time will come, when you will see that 
you have acted a very injudicious part in the establish¬ 
ment of courts of this sort—courts that have the pow¬ 
er to declare void every act of the General Assembly, 
and yet such as was remarked by the gentleman from 
Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] as the people are out of 
place in. 

Mr. STANBERY. I wish to say to the gentleman 
from Montgomery, [Mr. Holt,] that a great deal of 
small capital in regard to this report seems to have 
been made out of remarks charged upon some gentle¬ 
men, which were never made. I never said that the 
people were out of place in such a court. 

Mr. HOLT. 1 understood the gentleman, [Mr. Stan¬ 
bery,] to say, speaking of the district court, that sui¬ 
tors would not desire to be present, and my impression 
is, that he used the expression “ out of place.” Now 
I want a court that shall come among the people, that 
shall sit in their presence and decide matters of fact in 
their hearing. It is true that if mere questions of law 
were the only questions to be considered by courts of 
justice, there would be no need of this ; but such I hope 
will not be the case, and I desire that the district court 
shall be able to empanel a jury and decide questions 
of fact as well as of law. 

Mr. RANNEY. 1 will only say, in regard to the 
whole system, that the people will find it practically 
no change from the old, except in its capacity for 
extension, which the old had not. But as much as I 
dislike it, I will say that I prefer it to what it was when 
it first came from the committee. Its worst points have 
been taken off. Still, the system is inherently wrong. 
It will pile up and protract litigation far beyond what 
is necessary to secure the ends of justice. 

Nor can I say, from what I have learned of the re¬ 
port of the select committee, that I should prefer that to 
the present scheme. I do not look upon the ability to 
have the second jury trial as a very desirable feature. 
What I desire is, a court good enough and strong 
enough to take hold of the business and settle it at once 
and finally. 

The gentleman from Ross, [Mr. Green,] complains 
that the report of the select committee was treated 
somewhat cavalierly by the Convention. I fully sym¬ 
pathize with him, and with all others, in the results of 
the presentation of their several systems. I hope, 
however, that in his animadversions upon members of 
the standing committee, who voted to cut off' debate 
upon the report of the select committee, by sustaining 
the previous question, he will exclude me, who voted 
against it. 

Mr. GREEN. The gentleman, [Mr. Ranney,] is en¬ 
titled to the exception. He did not vote for the previ¬ 
ous question. 

xMr. FIITCHCOCK, of Geauga. The motion of the 
gentleman from Montgomery, [Mr. Holt,] is, as I un¬ 
derstand it, to recommit the report, with instructions 
to strike it out, and to report a general system, with¬ 
out defining the jurisdiction of the several courts. Now 
I, for one, have no particular objection to this course. 
If I understand the gentleman, he desires a provision 
something like that in the constitution of the United 
States. 

Mr. HOLT. That is it. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Suppose such a system as that 
had been reported, the gentleman [Mr. Holt,] would 
have gone against it. The people also, who have been 
accustomed to a different thing, would not have been 
suited with it. 


The gentleman from Ross [Mr. Green,] finds fault, 
because the committee has added another judge to the 
plan. The object of this was to have such a court as 
if a disagreement shall arise, there may be a majority 
upon one side or the other, so that cases shall not go 
out of court in consequence of a division of opinion 
among the judges. 

He also found fault because there is not a provision 
for two jury trials. Now, we do not prohibit this. 
The Legislature may settle the question as it shall 
deem proper. Upon this subject there is a difference 
of opinion. In my opinion a majority of the people 
think one jury trial enough, and so do I. Others think 
differently. I know that under the old system, the 
first jury trial was a mere essay of strength between 
the parties, preparatory merely to the struggle that 
was to take place in the court above. 

Again, the denial of a second jury trial will be in 
many cases a protection to the weaker party. It is not 
every man who is able to take his case up on a ques¬ 
tion of fact, and the difficulties that surround the ap¬ 
peal and the expenses that attend it, will frequently 
operate as a denial of justice in many a meritorious 
case. Under this system this question is left to the 
Legislature, and no one has a right to say that a sec¬ 
ond jury trial is denied, because it is not provided for. 

The difference between the plans reported by the 
two committees is mainly this : In ours, the district 
court will be composed of one judge of the Supreme 
Court, and tw’o judges of the common pleas, while in 
that of the select committee, the appeal will be taken 
to a court composed of two judges, one of whom tried 
the case in the court below. Which will be the more 
likely to be affected by the proceedings of the former 
court gentleman can judge. 

But it is said the system will not operate well. Why 
not? It has been tried in New York, and it is said to 
work well there, and if there, why not here ? 

Mr. STANBERY. The gentleman from Ross, [Mr. 
Green,] thinks he has been treated with a want of 
courtesy by the Convention. 

Mr. GREEN. I speak not in my own behalf, but 
on that of a committee of this body. 

Mr. STANBERY. The gentleman from Ross, [Mr. 
Green,] complains of the want of courtesy to the spe¬ 
cial committee, and refers very distinctly to the mem¬ 
bers of the standing comn}iltee. I suppose the ground 
of complaint is the vote sustaining the previous ques¬ 
tion. For one, sii, I voted against it. 

The gentleman, [Mr. Green,] says that the district 
court; that is, a court made up in part of the judges of 
the inferior and su{)erior tribunals, is an obsolete idea. 
Virginia, ho says, had it, and repudiated it. Now, so 
far as 1 can discover, Virginia never had it. She had 
a court of appeals and a general or superior court, but 
each court was kept distinct from the other. 

Mr. GREEN. II the gentleman, [Mr. Stanbe:ry,] 
will look back for twenty-five or thirty years, he will 
find that there was just such a court that intervened 
between the court ol original jurisdiction and the court 
of appeals. 

Mr. STANBERY. It may be so, but nothing of the 
kind appears in the constitution of 1830. But is this 
district court an obsolete idea ? Obsolete, sir ? Why 
what has New York got? Exactly such a court.— 
What has the United States? What is the circuit court 
but a court that is made up of the local judges, and 
one of the judges of the Supreme Court? 

The practice is gaining ground all over the country. 
The provision of the gentleman in regard to his two ju¬ 
ry^ trials, is in truth an obsolete idea. W^e have had it, 
tried it, got tired of it and abandoned it; and I hope 
forever. A second trial, as a matter of course, without 
regard to the verdict, whether it be good or bad, right 
or wrong, was a singular anomaly. 

The gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] com¬ 
plains of the system because it may occur that a cause 
may be decided by a minority of all the judges. Three 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 1311 


of the five judges of tlie Supienie Court constitute a 
quorum, and a ninjority of them may decide a question, 
when in ids opinion, in order to be binding, it oujiht 
to be concurred in by a majority of the whole. I admit 
that such a concurrence wfjukl be desirable, but it is 
not the practice. The Supreme Court of the United 
Slates is composed of uiim judges, any five of whicii 
constitute a quorum, a majority of which may decide 
upon any (luestion submitted to them. It is true that 
in cases of difficulty the court may withhold its d( cis- 
ion until there is a full bench, and the arrangement ol 
that matter may safely be left to the court itself. In 
most cases, I had much rather a cause should be deci¬ 
ded by three out of five judges, than go over. 

Gentlemen complain that we define too strictly the 
jurisdiction of the courts. That is a mistake, sir. We 
provide for the character of jurisdiction—that is, that 
it shall be appelate only—or original and appellate— 
but we do not pretend to define the limits ot such ap¬ 
pellate or original jurisdiction. We leave all that, very 
properly, to the Legislature. The single exception to 
this IS the probate court. As to that, we do define its 
jurisdiction and fix its limits, and we have done this 
to meet the public expectation and for no other reason. 

Mr. HOLT began to hope that his motion might pre¬ 
vail. He had now the authority of the honorable gen¬ 
tleman from Geauga. That gentleman had said he had 
no personal objections to such an article on the judicia¬ 
ry as was pioposed. Why not then let us have it? 
His only objection seems to be that the delegate from 
Montgomery, at an early period of the Convention, had 
submitted an entirely dillereut plan. He could not 
see why that plan, which the projector had failed to 
get adopted, should be an objection to this, an entirely 
dift'ereut plan. The plan which he had before submit¬ 
ted, he believed a good one. Besides the domestic 
county court, there was really but one court, and that 
a working court—the system was calculated to make 
practical men of your judges. He wished his friends 
ou his left, the right of the ciiair, to remember that in 
making a court of paper judges at the present day— 
judges who never saw the people, and were never seen 
by the people, wfith power, in two of them, to arresi 
the legislation of the State, they were doing what they 
would have occasion to regret. This was not pro¬ 
gress. 

Mr. STIDGER. I desired, when this report and its 
amendmentsreiurned from the committee,that it should 
be laid on the table and printed ; but for some reason 
or other this slight request was denied. The result, 
has been, that since the amendments were made nei¬ 
ther time nor opportunity have been afibrded for that 
careful examination of the subject which its importance 
demands. This is much to be regretted, and it seems 
to me that the course that has been taken is not a little 
I’eprehensible as well as unfortunate. Tlie report has 
been hurried on in hot haste, as if the principal object 
was to get it through, and with little cure, so it passed, 
as to what it should contain. I will not say that the 
act is to be regarded as contemptuous, but I must insist 
that it was not such as would have been dictated by a 
manful and refined courtesy. 

But the subject is before us, and whether we will or 
lict, we mustactupou it. And I feel myself constrain 
ed to say that so far as I understand the subject—the 
bearings of the article, tlie wants of the people, and 
its fitness tosupjdy those wants, I believe that the peo¬ 
ple whom I have the honor to represent would, if this 
shall form a part of the constitution, reject that consti¬ 
tution by a majority far greater than they gave in favor 
of holding this Convention. If there is any one subject' 
in which'they feel a deep and lively interest it is that 
the courts of the State shall be so constituted as to ad¬ 
mit of appeals of questions of fact. That an adequate 
provision for that purpose be incorporated in this in¬ 
strument, they will insist. For myself, I should be 
sorry, indeed, to see the labors of five months destroy¬ 
ed by a single unfortunate provision in an instrument 


in many respects unobjectionable, and I feel pained by 
the cunjiuiciion of circumstances that force me to vote 
against the passage of the article ; but I have no alter- 
uaiive, because I believe that its passage will end this 
constitution with the peo[»le. 

Mr. STIDGER then moved that the report be laid on 
llic Uible, in Older liuiL iL migiil he priuled. 

The question then being on laying the report on the 
table; 

Mr. WORTHINGTON demanded the yeas aad nays, 

which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 36, nays 44_ 

as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Cahill, Clark, Curry, Ewing, 
Greene of Dafiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hitchcock of Geauga* 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, Larwillj 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Orton, Patterson, 
Quigley, Reemelin, Roll, i?cott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Stickney, Stidger, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Wilson 
and Worthington—36. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Breblc, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Chambi rs, Chaney, Dorsey, Ewart, Forbes, Groes- 
beck, Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, Hunter, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Mason, Morebead, Morris, McCloud. McCormick, Nash, 
Otis, Peck, Perkins, Riddle, Sawyer, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Switt, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Way, Woodbury and President—44. 

So the motion to lay the report on the table was re¬ 
jected. 

The question then being on the passage of the report; 

Mr. LARWILL. I regret to say, Mr. President, that 
I shall leel myself compelled to vote against the re¬ 
port. I admit that under the hands of the Convention, 
it has been much improved from what it was when first 
presented ; but still there are features in it so objec¬ 
tionable, that I should not feel justified in the eyes of 
my constituents in giving it my support. Tlie first ob¬ 
jectionable provision is that which creates the district 
court. It is a thing that our people do not want, and' 
that they have not asked for. They want no untried 
experiments. What we want, is the old system so en¬ 
larged as to meet the demand created by the increas¬ 
ing greatness, wealth and population of the State. We' 
would correct the old system so far as to dispense- 
wiih the associate judges of the common pleas, and tc 
constitute a probate court. 

There was another thing that we wanted. We wan¬ 
ted to have restored to us the right of appeal in ques¬ 
tions of fact; and if there is any one thing for the want 
of which the people of the section of the country, 
which I represent will be induced ta vote against the 
constitution, it is this. It does seem to me, that gen¬ 
tlemen ought to be disposed to yield this point to those 
who place so much stress upon it, especially as by not 
doing so, they will endanger the reception of this in¬ 
strument. 

As it is, as I said, Mr. President, 1 shall be under the 
disagreeable necessity of voting against this report. 

Mr. McCORMlCK. There is nothing in this arti¬ 
cle that can prevent the Legislature from giviug the 
higher courts the right to entertain appeals of questioae 
of fact. 

Mr. LARWILL. I want the matter to bo secured 
I want it put in the constitution. 

Mr. GREEN, of Rosa. Does the gentleman from Ad- 
ams, [Mr. McCormick,] think the Legislature will ev¬ 
er exercise that power? 

Mr. ARCIIBOLD. I think that if it is in the power 
( f the General Assembly to give an appellate jurisdic¬ 
tion to the district court, in questions of fact, the gen- 
ilemau fn'rn Wayne, [Mr. Larwill,] ought to be sa¬ 
tisfied. Now, such a provision in the censtitution* 
would be a great objection among my constituents. It' 

' would seem as if that gentleman and myself ought to 
meet halfway, and leave the whole matter to the Leg¬ 
islature. The act of that body in taking away the ap- 
iiellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was popular 
with us; and it seems to me, that with the view of the 
case suggested by the gentleman from Adams, we 
ought to be satisfied. 

The question then being on the passage of the article ; 











1312 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. SAWYER. Other gentlemen having defined 
their positions, I am about to define mine. For that 
purpose, I move the previous question ; which was se¬ 
conded. 

The question then being—shall the main question be 
now put ? 

Mr. LARWILL demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 43, nays 40—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Chambers, Chaney, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, 
Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geanga, Hunter, Kennon, Kirkwood, Mason, More- 
head, Morris, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Perkins, Sawyer, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stanbi'ry, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swift, Taylor, 
Way, Woodbury and President—43. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Cahill, Clark, Cutler, Graham, Green 
of Ross. Gregg, Groesbeck, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphre- 
ville, Hunt. Jones, Larsh, Law'rence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, McCloud, McCormick, Patterson, Quig¬ 
ley. Keemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott ofHarrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith ol Highland, Stickney, Stidger, Thompson of Shel¬ 
by, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Wilson and Worthington—40. 

So the demand for the previous question was sus¬ 
tained. 

The qestion then being on the passage of the Re¬ 
port ; 

Mr. LEADBETTER demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 51, nays 32— 
as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Dorsey, Ew'art, Ewing, 
Graham, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Holmes, Huut, Hunter, Kennon, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Morehead, Morris, Mctlloud, McCormick, Nash, Nor 
vis, Orton, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stick¬ 
ney, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Way and Woodbury 
——SI. 

Nays— Messrs. Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Curry, Forbes, Greene 
of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Holt, Hootman, Jones, Lar¬ 
will, Leech, Leadbetter, l.idey, Manon, Mason. Mitchell, Patter 
flon, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Aug¬ 
laize, Sellers, Stanton, Stidger, Thompson of Stark, Warren, 
Wilson, Worthington and President—32. 

So the Report was passed, and on motion referred to 
the committee on Revision, Enrollment and Arrange¬ 
ment. 

Mr. EWART moved that the Convention resolve it¬ 
self into a committee of the whole on the orders of the 
day; which motion prevailed, and Mr. Mitchell was 
called to the chair. 

The order being report No. 2 of the standing com¬ 
mittee on Education, the same was taken up. 

Sections 1 and 2 were pasred wihout amendment. 

Sections. The General Assembly shall make such provi 
sions, by taxation or otherwise, as, with the income arising from 
the S' hool trust iund, will secure a thorough and efficient system 
ol common shools throughout the State, and place the means of 
instruction in the common branches of education, for a suitable 
portion of each year, within the reach of all the children therein, 
of suitable age and capacity for learning; Provided, that no reli 
gious or other sect or sects shall ever have any exclusive right 
to, or control of any part of the school funds of this State. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD moved to amend the section in the 
fourth line by striking out the word “ common,” and 
inserting in lieu thereof the word “ useful.” 

Mr. ARCH BOLD was afraid the word common 
would in future prove too great a limit on the discre 
tionofthe General Assembly. At the present time 
there is iio difficulty in ascertaining what it means, hut 
the lime might come when, retaining it,s present limit 
of definition, it might stand in the way of further and 
necessary improvements in the school system. He 
hfjpedtosee common schools advance, not only to meet 
such demands as are now made upon them, hut to 
meet higher and greater requisitions. Then the com¬ 
mon of the future will need to be far above the com¬ 
mon of the present. He wanted to see a system of 
schools as perfect as could be devised, and to see it 
improve so as to keep pace with the most rapid pro¬ 
gress of the most rapid element of our social or politi¬ 
cal constitution. Society ought not to be shackled too 


far. He hoped for a higher and holier order of things 
in the future. The idea of what is useful twenty years 
heuce may be far difierent from what they now are, 
while the word common may become a mere defini¬ 
tion, describing what is now present, and striving to 
bind the future within the narrow limit which it pre¬ 
scribes. 

Mr. HUMPH REVILLE. It seems to me the aineud- 
rneut will not in fact obviate the difficulty. There is 
little more danger of the w^ord common being per¬ 
verted than of the word useful. Common schools in 
future will be common schools, that is to say, they will 
not be uncommon schools. They will be schools that 
will hold the same relation to the then state of things, 
that the present common schools do to the present 
state of things. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Some bigot may arise and give 
a different construction to the word. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. So some bigot may arise 
and give a different construction to the word useful. 
Difference of opinion may arise as to what is useful. 
Many believe that there can be no learning that is not 
useful. Carried to an extreme this opinion ' ouldturn 
every little log school house into an university. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Or a mechanic’s shop. 

The question then being on the adoption of the 
amendment; the same was disagreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER moved further to amend the same 
section, by inserting in the fifth line, before the word 
“ children,” the word “ white.” 

The question then being on the amendment; 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens, suggested that such an 
amendment might be construed to be in violation of 
the original compact between the United States and 
Ohio. It was provided that the funds arising from the 
sale of the donated lands, should heap[)lied to the pur¬ 
pose of education, and be free to be enjoyed by all, and 
especially by the poor. He believed the better course 
would be to leave this question to the Legislature. 

The question then being on the amendment; the 
same was disagreed to-—yeas 30, nays 38. 

Mr. LARWILL moved to amend the same section 
in the first line, by striking out the word “shall,” and 
inserting the word “ may;” which was disagreed to. 

Mr. McCORMlCK moved to amend the same sec¬ 
tion in the fourth and fifih lines, by striking out words, 

“ a suitable portion,” and inserting in lieu thereof, “at 
least six months.” 

The (juestiou being on the amendment; 

Mr. HOOTMAN moved to amend the amendment, 
by striking out the word “ six,” and inserting the word 
“ nine,” in lieu thereof. 

The question being on the amendment to the amend¬ 
ment ; 

Mr. MANON said he should vote for six months, be¬ 
cause he feared a longer time might be injurious un¬ 
der some circumstunces. He was for the longest time, 
and if he thought it practicable, he would go for four¬ 
teen months in a year; and he believed some of the 
Yankee school teachers could put in that amount of 
time wiihout mu< |j difficulty. However, as he thought 
six mouths would suit the people best, he should vote 
for that lime. 

The question being on the amendment to the amend¬ 
ment, the same was lost. 

The qiK'stion then being on the amendment of Mr. 
McCormick ; 

Mr. LEADBLTT ER hoped the amendment would 
not prevail; not but that he was as much in favf)r of 
schools MS any maii could he, but because he was aware 
that iht re are many districts in ihe Stale that cannot 
Carry it into pj active. There was not in his county, so 
far as ha knew, one district where it could not be car¬ 
ried out, but there were others whose ciriuiinstances 
were not so favorable—where the districts are large, 
and the popid.itiou s{)arse. The general feeling in Iffg 
section of the State was to have schools as long as pos¬ 
sible, and we want no constitutional provision upon the 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1313 


subject. The Legislature has Tull power over the sub¬ 
ject and that will answer our purpose. If there are 
any who think that their parts of the State cannot take 
care of themselves, he was willing that something should 
be put in for them, but for his own part he wanted to 
be excluded. He thought there was a great disposi¬ 
tion here to suppose that people had no ability to take 
care of themselves. Now, it is worse than useless to 
put in the constitution that which the people cannot 
carry out, and in this case, if they cannot carry it out 
they become losers by that which is simply their mis¬ 
fortune, and which should excite commiseration rath¬ 
er than provoke a penaly. He was opposed to that 
system of eternally binding down and binding down, 
and that in cases where no rule whatever is necessary. 

The question then being on the amendment, the same 
was agreed to ; yeas 42, nays 27. 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, moved further to amend 
the section, by adding at the end of the same, the fol¬ 
lowing : “ nor shall the rights of conscience be in any 
case interfered with.” 

The question then being on the amendment; 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, said he wanted to vote un- 
derstandingly upon this question. He would like to 
have the gentleman [Mr. Thompson] explain what he 
means by it. He supposed that the rights and free¬ 
dom of conscience were effectually secured by provis¬ 
ions in other parts of the constitution, and did not see 
the necessity for the insertion of such a provision in this 
place. 

Mr. THOMPSON said he thought the sentiment ex¬ 
pressed in the amendment would be conceded to be 
correct by every member on the floor. The object of 
the provision was to secure that no religious sect shall, 
in any manner control the dispensation of the school 
flinds of the State. That was a thing he desired to see, 
and to guard against it he thought something of this 
kind was needed. 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, said it seemed to him that 
so far as the rights of that tender and indescribable 
thing called a conscience was concerned, he believed 
they were amply provided for in the bill of rights. 

Mr. REEMELIN said that the provision in the bill of 
rights was in reference to grown up men, but the 
amendment of the gentleman from Shelby, [Mr. Thomp¬ 
son,] was a provision in favor of children. The object 
was that when they came to the public schools, they 
shall not be driven away by attempts to teach any pe¬ 
culiar religious tenets or prejudices. It was obviously 
possible that the common schools might be used for 
purposes of inculcating peculiar religious doctrines, 
and thus their object might be perverted and their good 
effects destroyed. The amendment, at anjr rate, would 
do no harm, and might be productive of much good, 
and he hoped it would prevail, for he had a great de¬ 
sire to promote that kind of harmony which would be 
in danger of being interrupted by the introduction of 
anything calculated to run counter to the religious be¬ 
lief of either children or their parents. 

The question then being on the amendment; the 
same was agreed to. 

M. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, then moved that the 
third section be stricken out. 

The question being on striking out; 

Mr. HITCHCOCK said that he did not see that the 
section conferred any power upon the General Assem¬ 
bly that it did not already possess, except that it re¬ 
quires that body to raise, by taxation or otherwise, 
money enough to sustain the common schools of the 
counties. That may be good policy, but it seemed to 
him better to leave the whole matter to the counties 
and townships to do what they like. The people have 
been going on, perfecting their system as far as they 
can, and it would seem to be better not to interfere in 
a matter where interference may not be favorably re- 

The*question then being on striking out, the ame 
was disagreed to—yeas 23, na^not counted'- 

83 


Sec. 4. The General Assembly may, by suitable provisions, 
aid and encourage the formation of institutes and departments 
for the training of [professional teachers, and atfording instruc¬ 
tion in agriculture and other practical sciences, under such reg¬ 
ulations and conditions as may be deemed expedient. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that section four be strick¬ 
en out. 

The question then being on striking out; 

Mr. REEMELIN said he was afraid of these sec¬ 
tions, couched in such general terms. They contain 
more power than at first sight appears. Under this, 
the General Assembly may employ lecturers to go all 
over the State and deliver lectures upon agriculture, or 
commerce, or manufactures. They may educate black¬ 
smiths, or lawyers, or engineers, or doctors- 

A Voice. Or bankers. 

Mr. REEMELiN. No; that’s not a practical sci¬ 
ence at all. But under this section we may have high 
schools and colleges, support newspapers, &c. Now, 

I believe it would be better to leave this matter to the 
General Assembly than to attempt to control it here. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I am no particular advocate for this 
section, but I wish to call attention to its phraseology : 

‘‘ The General Assembly may.” Arguments are made 
upon the assumption that the General Assembly may not 
do as it pleases, but it is a very significant question— 
what is the power of the General Assembly over sub¬ 
jects not enumerated in the constitution ? Now, I will 
go for giving the Legislature no power but such as is 
expressly delegated to it. At present, so far as ap¬ 
pears, the Legislature has all power unless it is ex¬ 
pressly taken away. I will vote for the section to be 
retained, as a mode of expressing my feeling that the 
limits of legislative power ought to bo canvassed, and 
gentlemen should be able to say whether they are in 
favor of giving vast and unlimited power to the Gener¬ 
al Assembly. 

Mr. REEMELIN. If such an idea is abroad, it is 
preposterous. The legislative power of one of the 
States of this Union is not that unlimited authority pos¬ 
sessed by the parliament of Great Britain, That body 
has, according to the theory of its construction, all 
power that can possibly belong to a legislative body ; 
but such is not the construction put upon the legisla¬ 
tive power in this country. His attention had not been 
called to this view of the subject before, but he had no 
doubt that the construction that would be given to this 
article would be, that the Legislature has no power 
over the subject of schools, but such as is conferred 
by it. 

Mr. McCORMICK. In reference to the construction 
to be given to the provisions of the constitution, in re¬ 
straining the power of the Legislature, I beg leave to 
call the attention of the gentleman from Hamilton to 
the remarks of the gentleman from Belmont, [Mr. Ken- 
NON,] made a few days since upon this floor, which 
should have awakened his attention to the subject.— 
According to that gentleman, the Legislature does pos¬ 
sess the range of powers described by the gentleman 
from Erie, [Mr. Taylor,] unless they are expressly re¬ 
strained by constitutional provisions. He says; 

“1 understand the constitution of the State to be entirely differ¬ 
ent in its character, from what it seems to be regarded by some 
members of this body—entirely different in its eftects and opera¬ 
tions. In its intents and objects, a State constitution is nothing 
but the frame-work of govei'nment. (As far as the Judicial and 
Executive Departments are concerned, their powers are mostly 
delegated.) But in regard to the Legislative Department, I deny 
that this is the case. It is not the business ot this body—this 
Convention of the people—to delegate power to the Legislature. 

n, ***** * 

Sir I am not afraid of this proposition. I affirm, that no pow¬ 
ers have been granted to the Legislature by the former constitu¬ 
tion either to borrow money, to make a highway, contract a 
debt, or to assess taxes; nor authority to do scarcely anything 
they have done. The Legislature of a State possesses all powers 
not taken away by the constitution of the State or the United 
States, and not inconsistent with a republican form of govern¬ 
ment, or the existence of the State.” 

Now it has appeared to be the opinion of gentlemen, 
and 60 they have argued and voted, that no matter 
whether there be a State in actual existence or not, 
















1314 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


.1 ,.A it n legislative power dormant among the wilds 
^^^'t-i'ot.lied'into action, and no matter whether there 
until call there is an ideal Legislature, 

be a constitufon ^ all lc“gislat.ve 

havmg ““ t tmd wide that it ca'mtot be 
EedTo.£rwhich“may be, diminished by express 

turers mtd make^tn 

e,° 1^08 broad, as extensive and as ctonprehenstve, as 

‘‘'mI* GREGG was mTavilr of striking oat the section. 
t„ 1 s option it would be a sciuanderiug of the schoo 
1 ,d nr employ it in the establishment of normal 

seminaries for school teachers. We have 

X^^Statc a law establishing the Union School Sys- 
in the ^]Sorth part of the State, they 

^^“'•ibie to educate all the teachers they retiuire, and 
aic abi times as much to educate a teacher 

;X t No.W SAo:i System as under the Union 

^'SqtStion then being on striking out the fourth 

“‘^mT'^MVYER^ molded'’tLt the committee rise and 
roDOi t* which was agreed to, and the committee rose, 
an’d llU Chairman reported back the bill and amend- 

“ou motion of Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby, the Ctni 
ventiou took a recess. 

2^ o’clock, p. m. 

The fiueslion pending being on the first amendment 


li;: rnnXe S Whole on the report No. 2 of 
“'ot.“mS'of’'Mn”.’ the report and pend.ng 
“'Mr'^ KINGlrom *e standing ccnnniltee on i'niilic 

Ml. V tEo State towhomhaclbeeiirecommit- 

Institutiousof thoS^^^^ subject, re- 

teo ic[ioi Viark with snndrv amendments, 

n'he tie'll l on agreeing to the ilrst 

The gectiou 1, strike out all a ter 

.amendment to t 

the word b< subiect to such regu- 

[I;.":;,:! :^sh«--‘i >’>- ■ 

' Tlu> qae^tion ahe^Le wo^ ^ 

r?:;‘.;SIr l^dS-wm-ds. .shaU be apJi 

poshed or elected in such manner as the General As- 

semblv shall direct;” n was agreed .o. 
scnioi;' situ _Wpve oi 


of the committee of the whole, to wit: In section 3, 
ill about the middle of the same, strike out the words 
“ a suitable portion,” and insert in lieu thereol, the 

words, ** at least six months, o ■> 

Mr McCORMICK moved a call of the Convention, 
which‘was ordered, and the following gentlemen were 

^Tlef«r 3 ^ArcUbol(i, Blair, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking. Col- 
Unas Cuilcr, Florence, Forbes, Gray, Hard; Hitchcock of Cuy^o- 
txa^liorton, .Johnson, Larsh, Leadbetter, Loudon, Ranney, Stan- 
bery, Stilwell, Swan, Townsbend, Vance of Butler, Vance of 
Champaign and Williams. ? t i 

On motion, Messrs. Case of Hobking, Case of Lick¬ 
in'^ and Townshend were sever ally excused. 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, all fiu- 
ther proceedings under the call were dispensed with. 

The question then bein^ on the first amendment ot 
the committee of the whole ; i- . ■ 

Mr. THOMPSON, of Shelby demanded a division. 
The question then being first on striking out the 

words. “ a suitable portion; ” -j t u ; 

Mr HAMILTON said: Mr. President, I hope this 
amendment will not prevail. It certainly involves an 
impracticability. The Report says, that the General 
Assembly shall make provision, “iy taxation or other¬ 
wise ” to provide the means of instruction at least six 
months in each year. Now, how is the General As- 
seinblv to effect'this 1 Admitting that they could as- 
certain what aggregate amount ol money would be 
needed for this purpose—but this they never could tell 
—how is it to be divided among the districts ot the 
State, so as to enable every district to have school for 
six months ? Perhaps gentlemen will say, that it should 
be divided among the districts in proportion to the 
number of children in each district. How will this 
work ? It is frequently the case that one district has as 
mauv as seventy-five children, while one adjoining has 
but twenty-live—and yet the children in the latter may 
be so situated that they must have a dislricl where 
they are, or else have no school. Now, if you divide 
the money according to this rule, you must give to the 
first, three times th<* amount you give to the latter. And 
the amount drawn by the first, may be an amount am¬ 
ply sufficient to keep six months—nay, even nine 
mouths school—and have a good teacher, too ; and I 
take occasion here to say, that the most important pait 
of a school system, is to have good teachers—indeed, 
w-ithout them, no system is worth much ; while the 
the latter will draw so little, that it must contribute 
private means, or else have six months of inferior or 
worthless school. Gentlemen must see that their ob¬ 
ject is nut attainable under this plan. 

Again, it is suggested that the General Assembly 
diould lew a sufficient sum, and so divide it as to em- 


niuiN .'i— - ' in 1>P cn-i rdov a Cf)u'ii>ptent teacher ill every district. They say, 

On motion the amendments weie ore ^1^^- IwentN-five ( hildreu need as good a teacher as 

grossed. , , . , of the report; 1 seventy-live: and they should have one. Do gentlemen 

^ The question then being on the passaf, i | ^ people who have been taught from their 

it was' agreed to- m tl.e com- ’ cradles to believe that the burthens and benefits of tax- 

" Lul oa motiou the repo.- I atiou should be equally shared in by all the people, 

mittee on Revision, Enrollment and ^ P , , would submit to this? I do not suppose so. Our peo- 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, asked and obt d ^t j cheerfully to taxation for purposes of educa- 

r“^Diprtmeul bSig called he voted kn. but they want, and they will have thebenehts of 


lion, but they want, and they will have the benefits of 
taxes levied'^ for these purposes divided among the peo¬ 
ple equally—in other words, among the school districts 
ill proportion to the number of children in each dis- 
record his vote on ; g j met This rule does not always letuni as much tax to 

mHtec or. the subject o Retadm» A^ 1 ' 


“ \r'’«\tTTH of Warren, asked and obtained leave to 
d w! vote m the passage of the report of the com- 
record his VO , . b wonGlLitr Ardent Spirits, anc 


'"\Errs KnvV!.i:aR:'and'stanBla asked and oh 
• 1 Innve to record their votes on the same subject, 

Indlmir namerbeing severally called, they voted 

'TtVgILLETT asked and obtained leave to record 
his :,te on the same subject, and his name being call- 

“‘^On'inotion HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, the Con- 

ventirtook up the report and pending amendments of 

the committee on Educaqon. amendment 

The question pending being on the farst an enrtment 


some districts, as they paid; but this is the rule that all 
classes, who are friendly to public schools, believe to 
be right, and as I said before, they will have it so. 

Then, sir, we are driven back to where we started 
Irom, and if the school tax bo raised by general levy, by 
the General Assembly, it must, I think, be conceded, 
that to have six mouths school, such as is worthy the 
name of school, is impracticable. 

There is but one plan left, and that is for the Legis¬ 
lature to pass a general law requiring liie school direc¬ 
tors of every district, the trustees of every township, 
^or the commissioners of every county, to levy a suffi- 





















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1315 


cient amount of tax to keep a six months school in cv-! 
ery district. If Ihe commissioners attempt it they must 
meet the same difficulties that the General Assembly 
would if they were to attempt it. So, too, the town¬ 
ship trustees, to some extent, for if they were to at¬ 
tempt to levy a tax sufficient to keep school in all the 
districts of any given towmship the burdens and bene¬ 
fits must fall very inequitably on tlie different districts. 
The only thing they could do would be to levy an ag- j 
gregate amount on the township, to be divided among j 
the districts, and while one might get $100 another! 
might get but one-third that sum. So that while the 
first can keep a school without difficulty—and we will 
suppose a good one, too—the last must have an inferior 
one, or raise the deficit by private contributions. So I 
that in the end the proposition to require every dis¬ 
trict to keep six months’ school, is a proposition to in¬ 
crease the quantity, and nothing else. For the district 
that is not able to make up its deficit—and I beg gen¬ 
tlemen to reflect that in the sparsely populated, and 
new poi-tious of the State there are many such districts 
—then the result will be, that the public fund will be 
made to employ such a teacher as will teach six months 
for it; and the result will be, that by requiring every 
district to keep a six months’ school you compel many 
of them to throw what they may get of the .school fund, 
away, upon worthless teachers. But gentlemen ap¬ 
pear to be determined to have six months’ school, 
whether it is worth any think or not. Our schools are 
poor enough now, and if you compel the people of the 
less favored districts to keep six months, the result 
will be, that instead of employing a good teacher for 
three or four months, they will let the job out to the 
jeacher who will teach six. months for what money 
they have. 

My opinion of schools is something like iMiny's opin¬ 
ion of speeches—said he, ‘‘if a speech be a good one 
the more there is of it the more it is worth, and if it; 
be a poor one the less it is worth.” 

I hope gentlemen will not think that I am hostile to 
common schools. I am not. I am indebted to com¬ 
mon schools for nearly all of the little education I have, 
and it is but little, I got in common schools as pupil 
and teacher. I wmuld be glad if every district in the 
State could have nine months’ good school every year— ■ 
but until our State is more densely and equally popu- i 
lated they cannot all have it, and, sir, gentlemen had | 
as well think of forcing an education into a boy’s brain ; 
with a squirt, as to force the people to go ahead of 
their ability in providing the means of education. The 
people are generally awake to the importance of 
schools, and doing the best they can to pericct the s} s- 
tem of common schools. 

Mr. McCOKMICK. I hope the recommendation of 
the committee will prevail; for it is a pro])Osition not 
auv more impracticable, than our present system of 
disU’icting and distributing the school fund of the State. 
A return of the number of the school children in the 
State of Ohio, is made every year to the Secretary of 
State; and also the amount of the school fund expend¬ 
ed. Then, if we have the number of children-—if we 
know how’ much it will require to keep a school in each 
district of the State for three months in the year, we 
may easily make a just estimate for six mouths. I 
h^ve yet to learn it, if there has ever yet been found 
any particular difficulty in the matter of distributing 

the school fund. _ 

One of the arguments made use of here, is, that the 
taxes will be too high, on account of the number of 
school districts. That, to be sure, is a difficulty under 
which we now labor; but one of the objects to be at¬ 
tained by the amendment, (if carried,) will be, to in¬ 
crease the size, and thereby reduce the number of the 
districts““makiug two districts out ot three, or three 
districts out of five, and so making the tax for the 
support of a school six months in the year as light as 

it now is. . 11.1 

Sir, I have felt a good deal interested upon this sub¬ 


ject, in common with those whom I represent hero; 
for we look upon our present school system as posses¬ 
sing but very little vitality. It is my desire, sir, to 
adopt for a school system, something in which the peo¬ 
ple will take an interest—something that they can 
look upon with affection—something that can bring 
solace and comfort to our homes and firesides, instead 
of a cold political machine, the influence of which can 
be felt only at the ballot box. 

Another reason why I desire the adoption of this re¬ 
port, is because I desire, to elevate the scale of com¬ 
mon school education to a higher degree than it has 
ever yet obtained, or is likely to obtain, under the 
present system. 

It has been said, that we ought to trust the manage¬ 
ment of this interest to the General Assembly. But 
now, for forty-eight years the General Assembly has 
been entrusted with this matter. Under the old con¬ 
stitution it is provided that public schools and the cause 
of education shall be forever encouraged; and, under 
this constitutional provision, we have trusted the Gene¬ 
ral Af sembly for forty-eight years; and we may trust 
them for forty-eight years longer, without any good 
result. We have never yet had a law passed upon the 
subject which has not squandered the public school 
funds. Our acts of Assembly upon this subject have 
been either wasteful or impracticable,—like the com¬ 
mon school law of the session before last, which has 
proved utterly impracticable throughout the whole o 
the military district. Our system of common schools, 
instead of improving in legislative hands, has been de¬ 
generating ; and T think it is time that we should take 
the thing in hands ourselves. Either let us establish 
and carry out an efficient system of comm.on school 
education, or abandon the thing entirely to the virtue 
and intelligence of ihe people. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. So far as I am personally in¬ 
terested, I care little about this matter. We support a 
school, now, in my neighborhood, for more than six 
months in the year. But taking the public money and 
the taxation together, they have never yet been suffi¬ 
cient to support the school in our neighborhood. It 
has always required the special contnbutions of those 
wlio send their children to school. 

This proposition, sir, cannot secure good schools. 
You may seek to compel a school to be kept six months 
in every district; but, in many cases, they will not be 
such schools as ought to be encouraged. I would far 
rather have a good school of three or four months’con¬ 
tinuance, than a bad school of six months. If you 
compel the people of ever)’’ district to keep a school six 
mouths in the year, or lose their share of public money, 
they will support a school according to their means; 
they will hire somebody for a teacher, v.’ho is too lazy 
and good for nothing to do any thing else; and, of 
course, good for nothing as a teacher—or, perha|)8 
some female. But I could even wish that more fe¬ 
males would allow themselves to engage in the busi¬ 
ness of teaching, than we can procure now; for, in a 
great many instances, they are far more competent for 
such a pbsition, than many of our school masters, who 
have obtained a certificate of a board of examiners. 

As for this board of examiners, I have no doubt the 
Legi.slature established them supposed that they would 
answer a very good purpose but really they hare 
proved to bo little or no security against the emi)loy- 
ment of indiflerent teachers. Still the same kind of 
men areemployed in this capacity, who were but too 
common in the schools of ten or fifteen years ago. 

To illustrate the operation of this law, creatingboards 
of examiners—here is a district, we will suppose, re¬ 
quired to suppoiT a school a certain time, or lose their 
share of the public funds, and they send up some man 
who is willing to be their teacher, fora small compen¬ 
sation, to a board of examiners to get their certificate ; 
but they tell him he is not quite perfect enough. He 
then goes home and tells his employers the result, and 
they immediately go up and say to the examiners, you 















1316 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


must give us this man for a teacher, or we canuot get 
a teacher at all; and the result of this application is, 
that they give to the man who is not at all qualified, a 
certificate which authorizes him to teach school. The 
consequence is, that the country is overrun with bad 
school teachers; teachers who are even without any 
correct idea or knowledge oi orthography. 1 nave had 
some experience upon these boards of examiners, and 
I remember once to have asked a professional teacher 
this question: How many sounds has the vowel a 1 
And his reply was, that it had but one sound; remark¬ 
ing that he had been a teacher seventeen years, and 
had always got a certificate, but never had such a fool¬ 
ish question put to him in all his life. Many of these 
teachers know absolutely nothing even of the orthogra¬ 
phy of the language. If we attempt thus to force a 
school system upon the people against their will, it 
will do no good, and why enforce a system which will 
evidently prove impracticable ? And because I be¬ 
lieve and know that it will prove impracticable, I hope 
it will be kept out of the constitution. If I thought it 
could prove at all beneficial to the community, or to 
the rising generation, I wmuld go for it. But instead 
of benefittiug them, I am apprehensive that it woulddo 
them an injury. 

Mr. MANON. From the description of teachers and 
schools in Holmes county, w’hich the gentleman has 
just given us, I do not know but I shall have to change 
my opinion somewhat in regard to the people up there. 
Or, it may be, that the gentleman wishes to keep this 
provision out of the constitution, because he is afraid 
it will make it popular, for I have understood that the 
gentleman is rather disposed to oppose the adoption of 
the constitution by the people. For myself, I am dis¬ 
posed to trust this matter to the Legislature, and would 
be glad to see the people compelled to support their 
schools even for a longer time than six months in the 
year. 

Mr. LIDEY. I hardly know what course to take 
upon this particular question. I was in favor of the 
first article which was reported upon this subject, and 
I think now, that I shall be in favor of striking out. I 
am disposed to allow the Legislature to regulate the 
districts, and then allow the people to govern them¬ 
selves in the matter of sustaining a school according to 


serting a provdsion that every district school should 
be kept six mouths in the year; and that that proposi¬ 
tion was voted down. The committee therefore did 
not feel at liberty to embrace such a provision in their 
report. But the language here used w'as intended to 
convey the same idea as near as may be. without pre¬ 
scribing an iron ruie to this efi'ecl—leaviug the Bubject 
open, but rather plainly indicating w’hat should be the 
rule. 

It is true that a rule which might be applicable to 
one location would not be proper for another location. 
I would be in favor of keeping up schools for the lon¬ 
gest time possible ; but I am aw’are that it wmuld be im¬ 
possible to prescribe any nile w’hich wmuld operate 
equally throughout the State. There is also the other 
difficulty alluded to—that of obtaining suitable teach¬ 
ers. I also have had some experience with reference 
to the examination of teachers, as well as the gentle¬ 
man from Holmes ; and I am sensible of the correctness 
of his representations. I know, also, that we must not 
carry forw'ard this matter faster than the people can be 
prepared for its reception; and that it would be in vain 
to prescribe this rule at the present time, for it could 
not be come up to in many parts of the State; although, 
at the same time, there are many parts of the State 
who keep up their school for a larger portion of the 
time than is contemplated here. 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll. In order that my vote 
may be properly understood, I wish to say a few w’ords 
upon this question. There is not a man upon this floor 
more favorable than I am to the general difiusion of 
knowledge by means of common schools. But in my 
opinion, this Convention ought not, by an iron rule, to 
determine absolutely with regard to this matter, what 
could be better done by the General Assembly. I 
think that the purpose only should be asserted here— 
the general principle that there should be schools—and 
that the means for supporting them should be provi¬ 
ded ; and that the details should all be left to the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly. 

But, sir, above ail other questions, this subject of the 
support of common schools must, for all time, depend 
upon public sentiment. 


I would be entirely in favor of a proposition to keep 
_ up schools in every district in the State for six months 
their means. I am decidedly in favor of schools, and a I in the year. If I were sitting in the General Assembly, 
free school system, and I am willing to be taxed lor 11 would vote for such a proposition in that Dbdy, for 
such a purpose; but I am not willing to prescribe in : the obvious reason that, if it did not work well,* the 
the constitution of the State, that each district shall \ remedy would be in the hands of the next Legislature, 
support a school for six months in the year, for I am i But if such a provision were pul into the constitution 
persuaded that a large number ot the districts in the and it should prove injurious, there would be no such 
State cannot do it. .x---!-* 

Mr. BARNET, of Montgomery. I am in favor of 
prescribing the longest time for sustaining common 


facility of remedy. I think we ought not to run into the 
details of legislation here at all. Men, in their ardor to do 
good.somelimesdo a great deal of evil. I can sympathize 


schools. I only regret that I cannot have the oppor-; lully with those who desire to 


establish the longest 
I know their iuten- 


tunity to vote for sustaining common schools nine i time for annual district schools _ 

months in the year. I consider, sir, that the children | tions are good; but I think that instead of advancin- 
of the State are the property of the State; and that it; they will retard the progress of common school educa- 
is the duty of the State to educate them for usefulness. | tion. 

And that the funds of the State are amply sufficient to j I fear that we might jeopardize the interests of a 
educate all the children of the State, no man in his , good cause, by trying to do too much ; for as I said be- 
senses can doubt. I deplore as much as any other fore, I am fully persuaded that this public school ques- 

man, the want of efficient common school teachers, tion should always be left to the current of events_ 

I, too, have witnessed some ridiculous expositions of that it should never be attempted to be carried ahead 
the qualifications of this class of men. A grown up of public sentiment. 

young man was once asked in my presence, if he Mr. BENNETT. I shall go for strikino^ out as a 
knew what a vowel was? to which he replied that he matter of economy. It must be evident to every man, 
believed it was an animal that went about at night that, by keeping a child at school less than six months in 
catching hens. ^ j the year, he will make but very little progress in his 

I am disposed, sir, to commend this matter to the : studies. In other words, I think it must l?e the expe- 
Legislature in such a manner as not only to secure ' rience of every man, that by sending a child to school 
the establishment of good schools m every neighbor- jfor only three or four months in the year, it will re¬ 
hood, but to secure the employment of more efficient ^ quire a longer period of schooling to impart a given 
teachers. " 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens, 
that when this report was before 

former occasion, a motion was made to recommit and 


i amount of instruction, than though the child w-ere sent 
It will be remembered for six months, or upwards, for every year. It is upon 
)re the Convention on a | this principle that I go for striking out as a matter of 


prmciple that l go 
j economy. And when it is 


matter of 
considered that the only 


instruct the committee to bring in an amendment in-. education for the great majority of children of the 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1317 


State is to be attained by means of common schools, 
it seems to me that we should not hesitate, if we adopt 
free schools at all, to recjuire that they should be kept 
up at least six months in the year, they ought to be 
contined for a longer term; but certainlv not for a 
shorter term. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. I feel the force of the re¬ 
marks ol the gentleman from Tuscarawas, [Mr. Bun- 
nett,] but I think he will agree with me when he 
comes to reflect that in the eastern States, where they 
have the best common school education in the world, 
this matter is left entirely to the people themselves. 
There was a time, to be sure, in some of those States 
when every man had to go to meeting once a quarter 
or pay a shilling. But that time is passed. Each 
township there is a corporation, and they vote just 
as much money as they see fit for carrying on their 
schools. 

Now it is plain that where a principle is impractica¬ 
ble it amounts to nothing, and gentlemen should take 
into consideration the fact that our common school sys¬ 
tem is not without its enemies. There is perhaps noth¬ 
ing in the statute book which meets with such deter¬ 
mined opposition from a few, as our system of common 
schools, and this very thing in the constitution, would 
be seized upon by such persons as a pretext for voting 
against the constitution; and I presume it would not 
add a single hour to the amount of school time in this 
State. 

In every district in my county, where it is practica¬ 
ble for them to do so, the people maintain a school for 
six months in the year, and upwards; others for four 
months ; others for three months. The people are ex¬ 
tending their operations in this matter as far and as last 
as they are capable of doing. They need no such urg¬ 
ing in this matter, as is proposed here. And although 
they may not have so many schools as the people down 
in Licking county, (because perhaps we have not so 
many Yankees as there are in Licking. Yankees in 
Holmes county, are very scarce. There are but a few 
families of them, and they are not desirous of becom¬ 
ing school teachers,) I think that I may say that some 
of our Dutch settlements support quite as good com¬ 
mon schools, according to their situation, as can be 
found in that or any other county of the State. But a 
system of common schools is a thing which cannot be 
forced upon the people. If you attempt to drive it fas¬ 
ter than the ])rogres8 of public sentiment, by means of 
constitutional or legislative enactment, you will only 
create dissatisfaction and bring down votes against 
the adoption of the constitution, more than you are 
aware of. 

Mr. McCORMICK demanded the yeas and nays, 
upon the first amendment of the committee, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 37, nays 4.5—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Veas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomeiy, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Case of Licking, Cham¬ 
bers, Cook, Cuny, Ewart, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Hunter, .lones, Larsh, Lawrence, 
Manon, Mason, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Otis, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Swift, Taylor, and Worthington—,'17. 

Nays —Messrs. Arohbold, Barbee, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Cahill, Chaney, Dorsey, Ewing, Graham, Greene of De¬ 
fiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, Holt, Humphrevillei^Hunt, King, Kirkwood, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Mitchell, Morris, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Stilwell, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson 
and President—45. 

So the motion to strike out was rejected. 

The question then being on the second amendment 
of the committee, to wit: Add at the end of section 3 
the following: Nor shall the rights of conscience in 
any case be interfered with; ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the third amendment, to 
wit: strike out section 4; it was agreed to. 

Mr. GREGG moved to further amend the Report by 
striking out of section 3 the following words: ‘‘And 


place the means of instruction in the common branch¬ 
es of education, for a suitable portion of each year, 
within the reach of all the children therein, of suita¬ 
ble age and capacity for leaniing; ” which was agreed 
to. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to further amend the 
Report by striking out of section one the following 
words: 

And no law shall ever be passed preventing the poor within the 
several counties, townships and districts of the State, from an 
equal participation in the schools, academies, colleges and univer¬ 
sities, endowed wholly or in part from the revenues arising from 
donations, made by the United States for the support thereof. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I wish to strike out these words 
because they seem to look to an equal division of the 
school i'und amongst all the people throughout the 
State, and, if this is not the case, I am sure that all 
that these words express is fully embraced by the 
words of the section, which will be left. Another 
reason why I desire these words to be stricken out, is, 
because I dislike the word “poor.” I want nothing of 
the kind in the constitution in reference to the subject 
of education; for I think it will operate as an impedi¬ 
ment to the application of the law. Nobody wants to 
be poor, and 1 hope nobody will be, in reference to our 
School laws. 

Mr. BROWN, of Athens, This provision, sir, is con¬ 
tained in the present constitution, under which we have 
lived for the last fifty years, without discovering the 
evil to which the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Reemelin,] has alluded; it is contained also in the Or¬ 
dinance of 1787, and I hope w’e are not prepared to 
revoke that compact which was entered into between 
the United States and this Stale, while it was under a 
terriiorial government. It was a part of the original 
compact—a condition of the donation of our school 
lands, that the funds arising therefrom should be ap¬ 
plied to the support of schools open alike to all persons 
in the county, township, or district where the lands are 
sitiuated. The thixTy-sixth part of all the land sold in 
every six miles square, was thus set apart by Congress, 

; upon the condition that the law should be passed to 
prevent the poor fi’ora enjoying the benefit of the 
schools to be supported out of the funds ai’ising from 
these lands. 

Mr. BENNETT. I am opposed to striking out; be¬ 
cause if the motion should prevail, the sense of the 
words I’emaining in the section would be rendered 
ambiguous. 

Mr. SAWYER, by way of perfecting the woi’ds 
proposed to be stricken out, moved to strike out the 
word “ poor,” and insert in lieu thereof, the words 
“ white youth.” 

Ml*. SAWYER said: 1 think the gentleman from 
Hamilton should commence sti'iking out where he pro¬ 
poses to leave oft'. I think he should sti-ike out these 
words : “ and the same shall be open to scholars of all 
distinctions or grades,” &c. I think we ought to un¬ 
derstand distinctly, that none shall enjoy the benefit of 
these schools except white children. I think that we 
ought not to hold out to the colored race any hope that 
we shall ever consent to fraternize with them in any 
manner whatever; for I tell gentlemen that whenever 
they undertake to elevate the negro to an equality 
with the white race, they might as well atttempt to 
elevate the moral condition of the monkey or the 
horse. My philanthropy will carry me as far as any 
other man toward ameliorating the condition of the 
neo^rocs; but any attempt to elevate them to an equali¬ 
ty with ourselves, must prove an utter failure, because 
it cannot be done without contravening the ordinance 
of God. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. It has been provided that 
this fund shall be for the benefit of all the peopk . If 
"entlemen dislike the word “ poor,” and would preler 
the word “ people,” the same object would be effVi ted. 
But to say that tlie youth only shall have the bfu.etit 
of this fund, might defeat the object: for if that word 
was inserted, the individual parent, who might bf pre- 















1318 


CONVENTION REPOfiTS. 


vented upon some unlawful warrant from sending his 
children to school, could not complain, because not the 
individual man, but the youth are to be benefitted. 
But as the law of Congress now stands, (and I hope its 
force and validity will be admitted here,) the schools 
must be open for all classes. 1 protest against any at¬ 
tempt here to repeal, not only the constitution and 
laws of the United States, but also the ordinance of 
1787. 

Mr. STANTON. I do not regard this at all as a ques¬ 
tion of policy. It is a question of power. There has 
been a donation of land for educational purposes by 
the General Government; and in that donation great 
pains has been taken to secure the benefits arising irom 
it to all the people, "without discrimination. 

I undertake to say that this Convention has no right 
or power to control or restrict tiie designations which 
have been made for the appropriation of this fund, .nid 
it certainly was so understocd by the framers of the 
old constitution. It seems to me that such an attempt 
must be in direct contravention of the intendon of the 
donors, and of the ordinance of 1787. I shall there¬ 
fore vote against this motion of the gentleman from 
Auglaize, [Mr. Sawykr,] whilst, at the same iiine, ’tis 
known well enough that I have no idea, ndr never had, 
of uniting the blacks in the common schools with the 
whites. 

Mr.tSAWYER, (interposing.) Do I understand the 
gentleman to say, that according to the terms of dona¬ 
tion and the intention of Congress in the case, it was 
designed that all the population of the northwest, black 
as well as white, should be entitled to the privilege of 
going to school ? 

Mr. STANTON. I have not before me theordinance 
of 1787, but I do understand the language of the twen- 
ty-iifth section of the eighth article of the old constitu¬ 
tion, which is as follows: 

The doors of said schools, academies, and universities, shall 
be open for the reception of scholars, students and teachers, of 
every gi'ode, without any distinction or preference whatever, con¬ 
trary to the intent for which said donations are made. 

I undertake to say that we have no power to control 
the destination which Congress has given to this fund 
—that we have no right to deprive any portion of the 
children of Ohio of their proportionate share of this 
fund, and for this reason I shall vote against the amend¬ 
ment. 

Mr. TAYLOR demanded a division. 

The question then being first on striking out the word 
•' poor; ” 

Mr. ORTON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 30, nays 54—as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Earuet of Montgomerj^ Blown of Carroll. Ca¬ 
hill, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Harlan, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Jones, King, Leadbetter, Lidey, Patterson, Peck, R.eem- 
elin. Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stidger, 
Struble, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, William.?, 
Wilson, Worthington and President—30. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Chambers, Clark, Cook, 
Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Greene ot 
Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hitchcock of Geauga, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Hunter, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Manon, Mason, 
Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Orton, 
Otis, Perkins, Quigley, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot. Stanbery, Stanton, Steb- 
bins, Stickney, Stilwell, Swift, Taylor, Warren, Way and Wood¬ 
bury—54. 

So the motion to strike out was rejected. 

Mr, SAWYER moved farther to perfect the words 
proposed to be stricken out, by inserting after the \vord 
“ poor," the word “ white." 

Mr. TAYLOR demanded the yoas and nays upon 
this motion, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 
35, nays 51—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Ca¬ 
hill, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Harlan, Henderson, 
lloltnes, Holt, Hootman, Flunt, Jones, King, Larwill, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Mitchell, Patterson, Peck, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott ol Auglaize, Sellers, Stanbery, Stilwell, Stidger, Struble, 
l hoinpson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Williams, Wilson, 
Wci thington and President—35. 


Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Bates, Bennett, Blickensder¬ 
fer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Clark, Cook, 
Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, FaiT, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Greene of 
Defiance, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Humphre¬ 
ville, Hunter, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Manon, Mason, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Otis, Perkins, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney, Scott of Harrison,Smith of Highland, Smith of War¬ 
ren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Swift, Tay¬ 
lor, Warren, Way-Tind Woodbury— 51. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on striking out the follow¬ 
ing words: “and no law shall ever be passed prevent¬ 
ing the poor within the several counties, townships or 
districts of the State, from an equal participation in the 
schools, academies, colleges and universities, endowed 
wholly or in part i’rom the revenues arising from dona¬ 
tions^ made by the United States, for the support there¬ 
of;" 

Mr. REEMELIN,on leave, withdrew his amendment. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved to further amend the 
report by striking out all after the word “appropria¬ 
tion," in section one. 

On which motion, Mr. HOLMES demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered and resulted—yeas 43. 
nays 42—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, 
Brown of Carroll, Chaney, Ewing, Forbes, Graliara, Green of 
Ross, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Ge¬ 
auga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Jones, King, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
Mitchell, McCloud, Norris, Peck, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stanbery, Stilwell, Stidger, Struble, Thompson ol Shelby, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Warren, Williams Wilson, Worthington and Presi¬ 
dent—43. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Bates, Bennett, Blickensder¬ 
fer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Chambers, Clark, Cook, Curry, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, Gillett, Greene ot Defiance, Hamilton, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Manon, 
Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCormick, Orton, Otis, Perkins, 
Quigley, Ranney, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Swift, Taylor, Way and Woodbury—42. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

Mr. WARREN moved to further amend the report, 
by striking out section two; on which motion, 

Mr. MANON demajided the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 43, nays 39—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas — Messrs. Cahill, Chaney, Clai-k, Cook, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Graham, Gi*een of Ross, Gregg, Harlan,Hawkips, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Flumphreville, Jones, King, Lawrence, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Peck.Ranney, Reem- 
elin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Axiglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, 
Stanbery, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Thompson 
of Stai’k, Wilson and Woodbury—43. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Curry, Ewart, Gillett, Greene of 
Defiance, Hamilton, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hunt, 
Larsh, Lidey, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Otis, 
Perkins, Quigley, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Warren, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor, Thompson of Shel¬ 
by, Way, Worthin^on and President—39. 

So the motion to strike out section two was agreed 
to. 

IMr. EWART moved to further amend the report by 
inserting in lieu of section 2, which was stricken out, 
the following: 

Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall provide for the election, 
by the people, of one Superinfhndent of common schools. 

Mr. GREENE, ot Defiance. The first section of the 
first report of the standing committee upon this sub¬ 
ject, provides for the same thing which is here contem¬ 
plated ; and, as it is rather more pei’fect in its details, 
if I could be in order I wuiuld like to ofier it as a sub¬ 
stitute for the matter ofiered by the gentleman from 
Washingtiui, [Mr. Ewart.] 

Mr. HUMPFIREVILLE, (in his seat.) We won’t 
have eilhcr of them. 

Mr. GREENE, of Defiance. I would like to take 
the sense of the committee upon this section, which I 
will read for information. The section is as follows: 

Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall provide for the election, 
by the people, of a Superintendent of common schools, whose 
term of othce, duties and compensation shall be provided by law, 
and shall provide for the election or appointment of such assis¬ 
tants, or other otficers, as may be found necessary, prescribe their 
duty, term of office and compensation. 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1319 


The PRESIDENT. The gentleman can apply his 
aineridmeut to the amendment of the gentleman from 
Washington, by proposing to strike out all after the 
words “General Assembly,” and inseit the matter 
which he has read. 

Mr. EWART. I will accept the amendment. 

Mr. GREENE, of Defiance. The peopleof the State, 
through the press, and in various other ways, have spo¬ 
ken out, as I think, sufficiently strong in favor of the 
election of such a State officer; and I think that no 
man who is at all acquainted with the condition of our 
schools throughout the several counties of the State, 
will say that county superintendents are not also need¬ 
ed. This experiment was tided some ten or fifteen 
years ago, for a couple ol years, and then discontinued, 
I know not for what reason. But I do know, that the 
published reports of the State superintendent were met 
with the approval of all; and it must be in the recol¬ 
lection of every member that a recurrence to this fea¬ 
ture of our school system was warmly recommended 
by a resolution of a respectable convention of teachers 
which was assembled last summer at Springfield. 

Mr. HOLT. I shall certainly vote for this section; 
and then when I can bo in order, I shall move to strike 
out the whole, and substitute the original report. The 
original report seem.s to have been signed by all the 
members of the committee except one—the gentleman 
from Union, [Mr. Curry,] —who only objected to it 
because he desired to make its provisions broader. If 
we do not have a superintendent, I am decidedly of 
the opinion that our schools will always keep behind. 
Such an officer is needed for two purposes; first, for 
the advantage of his reports, and recommendations 
and suggestions for the improvement of the system, 
which he will be required to make to the General As¬ 
sembly ; and secondly, his services will be needed for 
the sake of economy. 

I am confident that for the last ten years, whenever 
the General Assembly have attempted to mend the 
school laws, two-thirds of that body did not know 
what they were doing. But if they had had the ad¬ 
vice of a competent superintendent of this department 
with reference to the defects and failures of the system, 
they would have been enabled to apply much more 
efficient remedies, and in much less time than that sub¬ 
ject has hitherto occupied their attention. 

And the other advantage of such an officer consistsin 
this, the Legislatuie, from time to time, have been 
making appropriations for the support of common 
schools—such as the proceeds arising from -certain 
fines and forfeitures, which have never been made 
available for this object; and it would be the duty of | 
the superintendent to look after these. 

We have now got decidedly the most important sub¬ 
ject before us which we have considered this winter, 
and I hope it will be so regarded by all. 

Mr. WOODBURY. I hope this amendment will 
not prevail, unless some better reasons can be advanc¬ 
ed for it than those offered by the gentleman last up. 

The expense of these assistant superintendents which 
the section contemplates—one for each county—must 
be something like forty thousand dollars a year, be¬ 
sides the salary of the State superintendent and inci¬ 
dentals. 

But besides this, before voting for this amendment, 
gentlemen ought to look and see the situation in which 
it will place us. These county superintendents would 
have the control of the whole business of common 
school teaching in their respective counties. And who 
does not see that it would be in their power to enforce s 
the adoption of any set of scliool books which either j 
their interest or their judgment might suggest. Impo¬ 
sitions of this kind have already been practiced upon 
one county in the State to my certain knowledge, 
where thousands of dollars worth of books w^ere sold 
by means of an unlawful collusion between the super¬ 
intendent and some eastern publisher. 

But this matter aside. What are the duties which 


we are to expect from a State superintendent and his 
assistants ? The assistant in each county, I suppose, 
would be required to visit every school in each dis¬ 
trict of the county ; and he might be expected to give 
something to each school in the way of advice as to the 
mode and manner of teaching. All of which he would 
set forth in his annual or semi-annual report—giving, 
also, some description of the several school houses, their 
furniture, their accommodations for water, fuel, ventil¬ 
ation, &c., and what kind of books are used. And for 
all this the State is to pay forty thousand dollars a year. 
And now I ask, in all seriousness, what will the Legis¬ 
lature do with such information as this ? 

Mr. MANON. There seems to be a very great dis¬ 
position manifested here to create new State officers. 
1 would like for some one to tell us how many more 
officers it would require to be created to absorb the 
whole amount of the school fund ? 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend the amendment, by 
.striking out all after the word “ law.” 

Mr. STIDGER. We have now reached a point in 
in the investigation of the subject in which, perhaps, it 
may be proper for me to take some part. Hitherto I 
have forborne to take any active part in this matter, 
for this reason: when the report was presented by ray- 
self, I expressly staled that I presented it as the par¬ 
liamentary organ of the committee, and not because I 
was myself in favor of it. The committee had several 
meetings upon the subject of that report, and it seem¬ 
ed to be their general disposition to unite uj^on some 
proposition which wmuld accomodate conflicting views. 
Under these circumstances the report, number two, was 
presented—agreeing gcuei’ally with the first report; 
l3ut there w-ere some features in the report, number 
two, to which I could not consent. But now, by the 
action of the Convention, this second report has been 
made to conform to the original report almost to the 
letter. So nearly does it approach to the first report 
now, that I think the Convention could not do better 
than to adopt it. 

The subject of the appointment of a State superin¬ 
tendent was carefully considered by the committee 
last summer; and I believe the first section of that re¬ 
port met with the concurrence of every member. 

The advantages to be derived from the services ol 
such an officer, it seems to me would naturally occur 
to every mind, by the efficiency and uniformity which 
he w’ould he able to impart to the workings of the 
whole system. The w'ant of nnitormity has been a 
matter of serious complaint—has added largely to the 
expensiveness of the system, and given causfe for most 
of the objections to its adoption by the people at large. 
And this certainly would be obviated by means of a 
State Superintendent and his associates. I have no 
doubt that the reduction of the expenses of the system 
which would result from uniformity in its operations, 
would advance the interests of the school fund, and 
increase it in amount annually far beyond the salaries 
of superintendents. Such was the case I believe when 
this plan was tried iu 1836-7. We had then a most ef¬ 
ficient officer in the capacity of Slate Superintendent, 
[Mr. Samuel Lewis,] and he submitted a document to 
the Legislature, which contains more information upon 
this subject, than could be collected out of all the State 
papers which have been published since. I could wish 
that we had the iulbrmation contained in that report, 
now before this Convention.^ 

I hope the Convention will adopt this first section, 
and then, by striking out the twm first lines of the sec¬ 
ond section, the report number two will be made to 
conform almost exactly to the language of the orig¬ 
inal report. 

Mr. LARSH moved to perfect the words proposedto 
be stricken out. by striking out the word “shall,” and 
inserting in lien thereof, the word “may;” which was 
rejected. 

The question then being on the amendment to the 
amendment; 















1320 . 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


Mr. GREENE, of Defiance, demanded the yeas and 
nays upon this question, which were ordered and re¬ 
sulted—yeas 61, nays 19—as follows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Chambers, 
Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Forbes, Gillett, 
Graham, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
McCormick, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Recm- 
elin. Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stilwell, Struble, Swilt, 
Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Way, W’oodbury and Pres¬ 
ident—61, 

Navs—M essrs. Brown of Athens, Curry, Greene of Defiance, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, Larsh, Lawrence, Manon, Orton, Quigley, Stebbins, Stidg- 
er, Thompson of Shelby, and Wilson—19. 

So the amendment w^as agreed to. 

The question then being upon the adoption of Mr. 
Ewart’s amendment, as amended ; 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. If we had time to 
go on and establish a system of common schools for 
the State, I could have no objection to this proceed¬ 
ing ; and perhaps, if we had began on the first of May 
last, we could have perfected a system which would 
hav e lasted for all time. But really now, since we 
have agreed to adjourn in two weeks from this day, it 
seems to me it would be better to rest this matter of 
a creation of a State Superintendent entirely with the 
people and the Legislature. It is certainly entirely 
competent for the Legislature to authorize the elec¬ 
tion of this officer. They did, at one time, create an of¬ 
fice of this kind, and it was filled by an individual 
who made as good an officer as any that could be se¬ 
lected now for such a place ; and such was the outcry 
against him, that he could not be continued longer than 
two years.. Since that time, many individuals have 
been endeavoring to restore the law for the appoint¬ 
ment of this officer, but it has been steadily resisted 
by the Legislature and the people. So zealously has 
this matter been pressed upon the public attention, 
that if the people had desired it, they certainly would 
have created the office. 

But now the Convention is called upon to create 
this office, and provide for the election of superinten¬ 
dents of common schools, when there is no law to con¬ 
trol them, and define their duties. It seems to me, as 
I have before remarked, that we had better leave the 
whole subject to the General Assembly—not only be¬ 
cause we have not time to mature it, but because the 
present proposition would look too much like providing 
official places merely that they may be filled by par¬ 
ticular indiviJuals. 

Mr. EWART moved the previous question. 

The question then being, ‘'shall the main question 
be now put? ” it was agreed to. 

The question thus being on Mr. Ewart’s amend¬ 
ment as amended; 

Mr. GREENE, of Defiance, demanded the yeas and 
nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 29, nays 
57—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnett of Preble, Bennett, Blickens¬ 
derfer, Brown of Athens, Curry, Ewart, Farr, Greene ot Defiance, 
Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Hunter, Lawrence, Mason, Morehead, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Sawyer, Smith of High¬ 
land, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidgcr, Swift, 'i’aylor, and President 
—29. 

Nays—M essrs. Bai-bee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Cahill, 
Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Forbes, Gillett, 
Graham, Green of Ross, Gi-egg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Humplire- 
ville, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lnrsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter. 
Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Morris, McCormick, Norris, Otis, Peck, 
Perkins, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, stanbery, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Struble, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson ol 
Stark, Warren, Way, Wilson and Woodbury—57. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on ordering the section to 
be engrossed: 

Mr. LIDEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered andr esulted—yeas 67, nays 18—as fol¬ 
lows : 


Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown ol Athens, Cahill, Chambers, 
Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, Gillett, Graham, 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hawkins, 
Hitchcock oi Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, 
Hunter, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Norris, 
Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan¬ 
bery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Struble, Swift,Taylor, Thomp¬ 
son of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Way, Wilson, Wood¬ 
bury and President—67. 

Nays —Messrs. Blickensderfer, Curry, Ewing, Forbes, Groes¬ 
beck, Harlan, Hunt, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Orton, Otis, 
Quigley, Ranney, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Wyandot, Stickney 
and Stidger—18. 

So the report was ordered to be engrossed. 

Aud, on motion, ordered to be read the third time 
on Tuesday, the 25th instant. 

Mr. HOLMES, from the standing committee on Ap¬ 
portionment, to which was recommitted report No. 1 
on that subject, submitted the foliowdng: 

REPORT NUMBER TWO, 

OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON APPORTIONMENT. 

Sec. 1. The apportionment of this State shall be made eVery 
ten years, after the year 1851, in the following manner:—The 
whole population of the State, as ascertained every ten years by 
the federal census, or in such other mode as the Legislature may 
direct, shall forever be divided by the number “ one hundred,” 
and the quotent shall be the ratio of representation in the House 
of Representatives, for ten years next ensuing from such appor¬ 
tionment. 

Sec. 2. Every county having a population equal to one half of 
said ratio shall be entitled to one representative ; every county 
containing said ratio, and three-fourths over, shall be entitled to 
two representatives; every county containing three times said 
ratio, shall be entitled to three representatives, and so on ; requi¬ 
ring, alter the first two, an entire ratio for each additional repre¬ 
sentative. 

Sec. 3. W*hen any county has a fraction, above the entire ra¬ 
tio, so large that, by being multiplied by the number of sessions 
in the decennial period, viz: five, it will produce an amount suf¬ 
ficient to entitle the county to one or more representatives, as 
follows: requiring a whole ratio for each additional fractional 
representative, such additional representatives shall be appor¬ 
tioned among the several sessions of the decennial period, in the 
following manner: if there be only one additional representative, 
he shall be allotted to the fifth session of the decennial period; if 
there are two, they shall be allotted to the fourth and third ses¬ 
sions, respectively ; if three, to the fourth, second, and first ses¬ 
sions, respectively; if four to the fourth, third, second, and first 
sessions, respectively. 

Sec. 4. Every county which shall be joined to any other coun¬ 
ty or counties for a representative district, during one decennial 
period, shall, if at the next decennial period it have acquired suf¬ 
ficient pupulation to be entitled to a separate representation, be¬ 
come a separate representative district; Provided, there shall be 
left in the districtfrom which it shall have been separated a pop¬ 
ulation sufficient tor a representative; but no such change shall be 
made except at the regular decennial period for the apportion¬ 
ment of representatives. 

Sec. 5. If it be found, at the determination of any subsequent 
ratio, that a county heretofore entitled to a separate representa¬ 
tion, has less than the number required for a representative, ac¬ 
cording to the new ratio, then said county shall be attached to the 
county adjoining it having the smallest number of inhabitants, 
and the representation of said district shall be determined as 
herein provided. 

Sec. 6. Any county having within its limits a city or corpor¬ 
ate town, with a number of inhabitants equal to a whole ratio, at 
any decennial period, and still leaving in the county a population 
equal to a whole ratio at such decennial period, such city or cor¬ 
porate town shall be entitled to a separate representation, to be 
determined as herein provided. 

Sec. 7. If, by any contingency it shall ever occur, that in any 
session the number of representatives shall exceed one hundred 
and twenty, then a reduction shall be eftected by withdrawing 
the additional members which shall have been reduced to one 
hundred and twenty. 

Sec. 8. The ratio for senators shall forever hereafter be as¬ 
certained by dividing the whole population of the State by the 
number thirty-five. 

Sec. 9. The same rules shall apply, for apportioning the frac¬ 
tions of senatorial districts, and for separating cities and corpo-' 
rate towns irom their respective counties, and lor annexing dis¬ 
tricts which may hereafter fall below the senatorial ratio, as in 
the House of Representative.s. 

Sec. 10. Whenever any county shall have a sufficient popula¬ 
tion to entitle it to a separate senatorial representation, and also 
to leave in the district from which it is taken a population suffi¬ 
cient to be entitled to a senator, such county shall become a sep¬ 
arate senatorial district at any regular decennial apportionment. 

Sec. 11. Thenumberot senators shall never at any time ex¬ 
ceed forty members, and if it become necessary to afiecta reduc¬ 
tion of the number of senators, it shall be done in the manner 
provided in section seven, for the House of Representatives. 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1321 


Sec. 12. For the first ten years alter 1851; the apportionment 
of senators and representatives shall be as hereinafter provided, 
and no change shall be made in the principles of representation 
as herein established, or in the district^ for senatorial purposes. 

Sec. 13. The Governor, Auditor, and Secretary of State, or 
^ any t’lvo of them, shall, at least six months prior to the October 
election of 1861, and at each decennial period thereafter, ascertain 
and determine the ratio of representation for Senators and Rep¬ 
resentatives in the General Assembly, according to the decennial 
census, upon the principle herein provided, the number each 
county or district shall be entitled to elect to each branch, and for 
what years within the next ensuing ten years, and the Governor 
shall cause the same to be published in such manner as shall be 
directed by law. 

EEPRESENTATIVE APPORTIONMENT. 


COUNTIES. 

Popula¬ 

tion. 

Regular 

Mem¬ 

bers. 

Adams. 

18943 


Allen. 

12116 

1 

Ashland. 

23826 

1 

Ashtabula. 

28767 

1 

Athens. 

18217 

1 

Auglaize. 

11341 

1 

Belmont. 

34599 

2 

Brown. 

27334 

1 

Butler. 

30794 

1 

Carroll. 

17685 

1 

Champaign. 

19743 

1 

Clark. 

22174 

1 

Clermont. 

30449 

1 

Clinton. 

18837 

1 

Columbiana. 

33601 

\ 

Coshocton. 

25671 

\ 

Crawford. 

18177 


Cuyahoga. 

48105 

2 

Darke__ 

20277 


Delaware. 

21814 

1 

Erie..: 

18578 

1 

Fairfield. 

30257 


Fayette. 

12736 

1 

Franklin .. 

42880 

2 

Gallia. 

17064 

\ 

Geauga. 

17823 

1 

Greene. 

21947 

1 

Guernsey. 

30472 

1 

Hamilton. 

41412 

2 

Cincinnati City .... 
Hancock . 

115438 

16774 

5 

1 

Harrison. 

20160 

1 

Highland. 

25781 

1 

Hocking. 

14119 

1 

Holmes. 

20458 

1 

Huron. 

26203 

1 

Jackson ^ 

21976 

1 

Vinton 3 

29133 

1 


28870 

1 

T.ftke. 

14655 

1 


15247 

1 

I.icking... 

38845 

o 

Logan . 

19168 

1 

Lorain. 

26091 

1 

Lucas ^ 

20161 

1 

Fulton 3 

Madison... 

10012 

1 

Mahoning.. 

23733 

1 

Marion. 

12554 

1 

Medina. 

24433 

1 


17960 

1 

Miami. 

24957 

1 

Monroe. .. 

28367 

1 

M on tgomery. 

38207 

o 

Morgan. 

28593 

1 


20240 

1 

Muskingum. 

45053 

o 

Perry. 

20774 

1 

Pickaway. 

21110 

1 

Pike. 

10955 

1 

•Portage. 

24387 

1 

Preble. 

21748 

1 

Richland. 

30877 

1 

Ross. 

32084 

1 

Sandusky . 

14529 

1 

Scioto... 

18729 

1 

Seneca . 

27105 

1 

Shelby. 

13956 

1 


39888 

2 


27481 

1 

Trumbull. 

30540 

1 

Tuscarawas. 

31732 

1 

Union. 

12205 

1 


^ Fractional Members. 

Ist. 

2d. 

3d. 

4th. 

5th. 













1 



1 

1 















1 

1 

1 

1 

.... 

















1 

1 

.... 



1 

1 

1 




1 







1 

1 

.... 















1 

1 

.... 







1 

















1 

1 

.... 



1 

1 

1 

1 

.... 










1 














1 







1 

1 

1 

1 

.... 
























1 









.... 





1 









1 









.... 



1 

1 





1 

1 









1 , 
■ 



















1 ! 







1 

1 

1 


1 

1 


























1 

.... 



1 

1 

1 

1 






Washington. . 

21512 

1 



1 

1 


Wayne 7. 

33045 

1 

1 

1 

1 



Wyandot 1 

. 19420 

1 






Mercer ) 

12505 

1 






Van Wert j . 

Paulding v 

Defiance C. 

16750 

1 






Williams 3 

Putnam ^ 

10653 

1 






Wood ^ 

12457 

1 






OLLuVVcI ^ 







Totals. 


92 

4 

4 

19 

16 

14 


SENATORIAL APPORTIONMENT.—RATIO 56,598. 

1 and 2, City of Cincinnati.115,438 

3. Hamilton county.41,412 

4. Butler and Warren. 56,354 

5. Montgomery and Preble. 59,965 

6. Clermont and Brovra. 57,783 

7. Green, Clinton and Fayette. 53,520 

8. Ross and Highland. 57,865 

9. Adams, Pike, Scioto and Jackson,.61,351 

10. Lawrence, Gallia, Meigs and Vinton. 59,624 

11. Athens, Hocking and Fairfield. 62,593 

12. Franklin and Pickaway. 63,990 

13. Clark, Champaign and Madison.51,921 

14. Miami, Darke and Shelby.59,190 

15. Logan, Union, Marion and Hardin,.51,525 

16. Washington and Morgan.58,105 

17. Muskingum and Perry. 65,827 

18. Delaware and Licking. 60,659 

19. Knox and Morrow.49,110 

20. Coshocton and Tuscarawas. 57,403 

21. Guernsey and Monroe.. 58,839 

22. Belmont and Harrison. 54,759 

23. Carroll and Stark. 57,573 

24. Jefferson and Columbiana. 62,734 

25. Trumbull and Mahoning. 54,273 

26. Ashtabula, Lake and Geauga. 61,245 

27. Cuyahoga. 48,105 

28. Portage and Summit.51,868 

29 Medina and Lorain. 50,524 

30. Wayne and Holmes. 53,503 

31. Ashland and Richland. 54,703 

32. Huron, Erie, Sandusky and Ottawa... .59,310X3,319=62,620 

33. Seneca, Crawford and Wyandot. 56,451 

34. Mercer, Auglaize, Allen, Van Wert, Paulding, Defiance 

and Williams. 52,622 

35 Hancock, Wood, Lucas, Fulton, Henry and Putnam.. 56,703 

G. W. HOLMES, Chairmm, 
WILLIAM LAWRENCE, 

H. S. MANON, 

L. SWIFT, 

JOS. M. FARR, 

G. VOLNEY DORSEY, 
THOMAS PATTERSON, 

H. H. GREGG, 

JOHN E. HUNT, 

E. T. STICKNEY, 

JOHN J. HOOTMAN. 

Mr. HOLMES submitted the following, which was 
igreed to: 

Resolved, That the Printer to the Convention be instructed to 
lave Report No. 2, of the committee on Apportionment printed 
orthwith in advance of all other matters. 

Mr. McCloud submitted the following proposition 
elative to a 

SENATORIAL APPORTIONMENT. 

Sec. 1. For the purpose of Representation in the Senate, the 
Itate shall be divided into thirty-four Senatorial districts, as fol- 

1. The first seven wards of the city of Cincinnati shall con 
titute the first district, and shall be entitled to one Senator. 

2. All that portion of the city of Cincinnati not included in 
tie first district, shall constitute the second district, and be enti¬ 
led to one Senator. 

3. All that portion of Hamilton county, not included withm 
lie corporate limits of the city of Cincinnati, shall constitute the 
aird district, and be entitled to one Senator. 

4. The counties of Butler and Warren shall constitute fourth 
istrict, and be entitled to one Senator. 

5. The counties of Montgomery and Preble shall constitute 
ae fifth district, and bo entitled to one senator 

6. The counties of Miami, Darke and Shelby shall constitute 
10 sixth district, and be entitled to one senator. 

7. The counties of Mercer, Allen, Putnam, Auglaize and Han- 
ock shall constitute the seventh district, and be entitled to one 

enator. „ ,..... 

8. The counties of Van Wert, Paulding, Defiance, Williams 


















































































































































































































































1322 CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


9. The counties of Sandusky, Huron and Erie shall constitute 
the ninth district, and be rntitled to one senator. 

10. The counties of Seneca, Crawford and Wyandot shall 
constitute the tenth district, and be entitled to one senator. 

11. The counties of Richland and Ashland shall constitute the 
eleventh district, and be entitled to one senator. 

12. The counties of Knox, Horrovv and Marion shall consti¬ 
tute the twelfth district, and bo entitled to one senator. 

13. The counties of Hardin, Union, Delaware and Logan shall 
constitute the thii-teenth district, and be entitled to one senator. 

14. The counties of Champaign, Clark and Green shall con¬ 
stitute the fourteenth district, and be entitled to one senator. 

15. The counties of Franklin and Madison shall constitute the' 
fifteenth district, and be entitled to one senator. 

16. The counties of Pickaway and Ross shall constitute the 
sixteenth district, and be entitled to one senator. 

17. The counties of Clinton, Fayette and Highland shall con¬ 
stitute the seventeenth district, and be entitled to one senator. 

18. The counties of Clermont and Brown shall constitute the 
eighteenth district, and be entitled to one senator, 

19. The counties of Adams, Pike, Scioto and Lawrence shall 
constitute the nineteenth district, and be entitled to one senator. ^ 

20. The counties of Jackson, Gallia, Meigs and Athens shall \ 

constitute the twentieth district, and be entitled to one senator. ; 

21. The counties of Fairfield, Hocking and Vinton shall con¬ 
stitute the twenty-first district, and be entitled to one senator. 

22. The counties of Muskingum and Perry shall constitute the 
twenty-second disti'ict, and be entilled to one senator. 

23. The counties ol Licking and Coshocton shall constitute 
the twenty-third district, and be entitled to one senator, 

24. The counties of Wayno and Holmes shall constitute the 
twenty-fourth district, atid be entitled to one senator. 

25. The counties of Lorain and Medina shall constitute the 
twenty-fifth district, and be entitled to one senator. 

26. The counties of Cuyahoga and Lake shall constitute the 

twenty-sixth disti'ict, and be entitled to one senator. [ 

27. The counties of Geauga, Portage and Summit shall con- j 
stitute the twenty-seventh district, and be entitled to one senator. 

28. The counties of Stiuk and Carroll shall constitute the j 

twenty-eightli district, and be entitled to one senator. I 

29. The counties of Tuscarawas and Harrison shall constitute i 

the twenty-ninth district, and he entitled to one senator. ! 

30. The countie.s of Guernsey and Monroe shall constitute the | 
thirtieth district, and be entitled to one senator. 

31. The counties of Morgan and Washington shall constitute 
the thirty-first district, and be entitled to one senator. 

32. The counties of Belmont and Jefferson shall constitute the 
thirty-second district, and be entitled to one senator. 

33. The counties of Columbiana and Mahoning shall consti¬ 
tute the thirty-third district, and he entitled to one senator. 

34. The counties of Ashtabula and Trumbull shall constitute ^ 

the thirty-fourth district, and be entitled to one senator. j 

Sec. 2. The General Assembly at their first session after the 
year A. D. 1850, and at their first session after the taking of the | 
census at each decennial period thereafter, may, for the purpose j 
of equalizing the population in the several districts, but for no j 
other purpose, and at no other times, alter or change the boun -1 
daries of the senatorial districts. C. McCLOUD. i 

On motion of Mr. McCLOUD, the proj^osition was 
laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved that the Convention resolve ^ 
itself into a committee of the whole; which was di.sa-; 
greed to. 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved that the Convention ad¬ 
journ. 

On which motion Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, deman¬ 
ded the yeas and nays, which were r idered. and rc-, 
suited—yeas 51, nays 36—as follows ; ! 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, | 
Blickensderfer, Chambers, Curry, Dorsey, Graham, Greene ‘4'! 
Defiance,Green of Ross, Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geau ga, ! 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Ilumphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, | 
King, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech; Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, More- j 
head, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, ; 
Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Aug- i 
laize. Sellers, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stickney, i 
Stidger, Taylor, 'PhompsoiTof Stai'k, and Woodbury—51. 

Nays— Messrs. Barnet of i\Iontgomery, Bates, Bennett, Brown 
of Athens, Cahill. Chaney, Clark, Cook, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Gillett, Gregg,Groesbeck, IlamUton, Hawkins, Kirkwood, 
Larwill, Manon, Mason, Morris, McCloud, Patterson, Reenielin, 
Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins. .Stilwell, Struble, 
Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Warren, Way, Wilson, end Presi¬ 
dent—36. 

So the moliou prevailed, and the Convention ad-i 
jonrned until to.morrow moraiug, at 9 o’clock. | 


TUESDAY, February 25, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjo'arnrnent. 

Mr. GRAY presented a petition from Milo Harris 
and eiglity-seven other citizens of Lake county, pra.y- 


ing that a clause be inserted in the new constitutioi), 
prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law le¬ 
galizing traffic ill spirituous liquors; which, on mo¬ 
tion, was laid on the table. 

Mr. OTIS presented sundry petitions from John W. 
Foster and eighty-seven males, and Mary Goodhue 
and eighty-oiie females of Summit county, on the same 
subject; which, on motion, were laid on the table. 

Report No. 2, of the committee on Education, was 
read the third time. 

The question being on the passage of the Report ; 

Mr. CURRYL My preference would be to give a 
silent vote upon this question, but the peculiar posi 
tion in which I find myself placed, forbids it. 1 am 
a member of the standing committee on Education, by 
which this report purports to have been made. The 
names of the members of the committee are not ap¬ 
pended to it, but the name of the chairman appears in 
the caption, and the language of that caption is such 
as to convey the impression that the report was con¬ 
curred in, and made by the entire committee. Such, 
however, was not the fact. I never concurred in the 
report, i was not notified of the meeting at which it 
was adopted, if indeed any meeiiug took place. I nev¬ 
er saw or heard of it till this morning, when it was 
laid upon my table in printed form. I raise no ques¬ 
tion of parliamentary courtesy with the chairman ol 
the conimittoe. It had already been ascertained that 
we could not agree, and ihei'efore my presence in 
committee might have been supposed to be unnecessa¬ 
ry. But I protest against being represented as having 
concurred in a report about which I was not consult¬ 
ed, !ind which I never saw or heard of till after it had 
been framed, introduced here, printed, and laid upon 
the desks of member.s. 

I shall feel impelled to vote agamst the passage of 
the article in its present form. Not, I beg gentlemen 
to understand me, from any indisposition to further the 
objects which have called it into existence, but be¬ 
cause, according to the best of my judgment, it will 
prove totally in.sufficieiit and powerless to secure those 
oi)jects. In my opinion, the great object to be attain¬ 
ed is a .system of education, general and complete, 
which shall extend its advantages to all the children of 
the State, and afford to each an opportunity to secure 
all the benefits which it affords. The other day, a 
gentleman upon this floor, in a few words, embodied 
my idea of the whole matter. He said the children 
are the property of the State, and shoidd be educated 
at the expense of the State. 

Mr. HENDERSON. If the children of citizens are 
the pi’o})erty of the State, would the gentleman, [Mr. 
Curry,] employ the public authority to oblige the 
children to attend the schools, or would he leave that 
to the caprice of the children and parents ? 

I\lr. CURRY. I have no idea but that if the proper 
pr!)visions were made, all the children in the State 
would speedily come in and partake of the blessings of 
education. It might not take place immediately or all 
at once, but such influences would be set at work as 
would, by a sure though gradual process, inspire both 
parents and children with a zeal to improve the oppor¬ 
tunities placed before them. 

The Convention will pardon me, Mr. President, 
when I say that it seems to me there is a great deal of 
indifference manifested in this body in regard to this 
matter, which appears to mo so all-important, and of 
such momentous consequence. It is not so upon some 
questions I admit. When the evils of incorporations, 
and the wrongs inflicted upon the people by the banks, 
become the subject of remark, gentlemen become ex¬ 
cited at once, and the interest becomes intense and 
absorbing. Not so, however, in regard to education. 
Yet there is no subject more worthy of their thought— 
not one fraught with an instrumentality more potent 
upon the future destinies of the State, and the happi¬ 
ness of the people. The records of the State show the 
faC|t that, of the whole population of the State, one per- 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


I32a 


son in every thirty-five of the adults can neither read 
nor write ; and in the statistics of the renitentiary, it 
_ appears that more than one-half oi the convicts are en- 
f- tirely illiterate. A multitude of such facts might be 
i adduced to show that ignorance is the fruitful parent of 
' crime, but this is oi itself enough to prove that educa¬ 
tion has a tendency to prevent breaches of the laws, 
<vmd that it has a mighty influence in qualifying and in¬ 
ducing the masses of the people to do those things that 
are best calculated to ensure their prosperity and their 
happiness. Gentlemen seem to overlook this fact. 

Some of them insist that it is not proper for a body 
like this, delegated merely to construct a code of or- 
. ganic law, to go so minutely into detail. It would be 
better they say, to throw the whole matter into the 
hands of the Legislature. This is a very convenient 
argument, and has been found, on some occasion or 

1 > other, in the mouth of almost every member of this 
: Convention. Gentlemen dilfer. And they are some- 
’ times very inconsistent. In some matters they are de¬ 
sirous to go into very great minuteness of detail—and 
those too, matters of infinitely less .consecjuence than 
When a gentleman has a favorite project, he 


this. - „ o—- ———----- 

cares little how minutely its details are fixed in the 
constitution. It is then the opponents of the measure 
who complain of the introduction of matters of detail 
into organic law. In the construction of the Judiciary 
Department, tltere has been a descent into an extreme 
minuteness of detail—they prepare to visit those who 
commit an infraction of the law with condign punish¬ 
ment, while they are unwilling to expend any labor 
upon measures to prevent the crimes they are so anx¬ 
ious to punish. 

There is, Mr. President, another reason why I shall 
feel constrained to vote against this article. When the 
report was in Committee of the Whole, an elTort and a 
successful one was made to strike out that part relating 
to the education of teachers of common schools. This 
was done in the face of facts to show the existence of 
great cause of compdaint on account of the incompeten¬ 
cy of those teachers. Now with these facts in view, it 
must be admitted, that no system can be to a great ex¬ 
tent efficacious, unless it embrace the education of those 
who are to become teachers, and that if some provision 
is not made for this purpose all we can otherwise do 
will he comparatively useless. I must be constrained 
to say therefore, that I sincerely believe that as the 
report now' stands, its operation will be entirely ineffi¬ 
cacious, and its result useless—that it will in fact be, to 
the people of the State, no better than so much blank 
paper. And so believing, I call upon all those who de¬ 
sire to see a sound and efficient system of education in 
the State, to vote against it. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, moved to recommit the 
report to the committee that reported it, with instruc¬ 
tions to strike out the following words—“nor shall the 
rights of conscience be in any way interfered %vilh. 

The question then being on the recommitment with 
instructions; 

Mr. SMITH. I believe that the friends of education 
throughout the State will desire to have this provision 
stricken out. If retained, I believe it will be a source 
of more difficulty in the State than anything which the 
constitution contains. 

Mr. MAiXON. If the report is to be recommitted, I 
should like to have it done with instructions to strike 
out the whole of it. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I will assure the gentleman from 
Wyandot, LMr. Smith,] that if he entertains a desire 
to secure the existence, efficiency and usefulness of the 
common school system of the State of Ohio lor twen¬ 
ty years to come, he had better leave this provision in. 
If it is thrown out, there is infinite danger that such 
quarrels as we have had here in this city will be exci¬ 
ted all over the State. In Cincinnati and in New York 
divisions have arisen which threatened to destroy not 
only the usefulness of the schools, but to disturb the 
peace of society. It is not for me to say how far the 


1 jealousies that gave rise to the disturbance had any 
I real foundation. The fact that they did exist is uotori- 
I oils, and it is equally true that in New York they were 
I healed by a provision like this: And what is the dan- 
i ger from it? It may do a great deal ot good—it cac. 

' do no injury. That the doctrine is a true one, gentle¬ 
men cannot deny. 

I was glad to hear the remarks of the gentleman 
from Union. It is our duty to lay the foundation of a 
system capable of expanding itself as the State advan¬ 
ces, and of supp ying ail its wants; and to establish one 
that shall grow with the growth, and strengthen with 
the strength of the Stale, will be far better than to 
build up a hasty fabric, more rapidly than is required, 
to fall by its own weight before it acquires the strength 
to-stand alone. 

The question then being on the motion of Mr. SMITH,, 
of Wyandot; 

xMr. WOODBURY demanded the previous question,, 
wliich was seconded. 

The question then being, “ Shall the main question be 
now put?” a division was demanded, and the previous 
question prevailed—yeas 54, nays not counted. 

The question tlien being on the passage of the Re- 

1 • -L. 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 54. nays 37—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Beruett of Preble, Blair, 
Brown ot Athens, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Cook,. 
Dorsey, Ewart, GPlett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green 
of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, Hunter, Kennon,. 
King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon,, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Norris, Patterson, Peck, Pmkins, 
i Reeraelin, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Higmand,. 
Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of tobelby, 
Thompson of Stark, Warren, Way, Woodbury and President-—54, 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Curry, Ewng. 
Farr, Forbes, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes. 
Hootman, Iltunphrcville, Hunt, Jones, Lawrence, Leech, Manonj. 
Mitchell, McCormick, Orton, Otis, Quigley, llanuey. Riddle, Scott 
ot Harrison, Smith ot Warren, Smith ot Wyandot, Stilweu, SticE 
ney, Stidger, Williams and Worthington—37. 

So the report was passed. 

And, on motion, referred to the committee on Revis¬ 
ion, Enrollment and Arrangement. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved that the Convention re¬ 
consider the vote by which Uie report of the select 
committee on the subject ot Retailing Ardent Spirits 

was passed. _ • i • 

The question then being on the reconsiueratiou; 

Mr. WOODBURY. I desire merely to state the rea¬ 
sons that have induced me to move i-his i ecousideratioii.. 
In the first place, there can be no doubt but the sub- 
iect is entirely under the control of the General Assem- 
bly. That Jugs not appear to bo deuiotl; auci it such 
is the case, there can be no strong and overruling ne¬ 
cessity for putting it in the constitution—at least, not. 
such a necessity as ought to do away with other streng. 
reasons the other way. The object sought to be ac¬ 
complished, I concur in as fully a.s any member oi this 
Convention, and under the infiueuce of that leelini;, 1 
voted for the passage of the article. But there aie 
other considerations of equal moment. If this provis 
ion should operate to defeat this constitution with the 
people, it would fall with it, aud with tho rest ot the 
{■esults'of our labors, would be destroyed. I am fully 


of the opinion tfiat this provision would create votes 
against the constitu iou, for this reason—that a different 
construction will be put upon it by the people tbaii I 
myself oive it. Now, it appear.s to me, that we are not 
destined to have a great many votes to spare upon the 
submiesion of this constitution, and such being the case, 
it is the part of prudence, at least, to omit everything 
that is fully within tlie power of the Legislature, and 
which, at the same time, is calculated to add a weight 
to the instrument we are constructing. 

The result of the trial obthese temperance questious 
with the people, has not always met the expectation ot 
those who have urged them on. In the partot the 



















1324 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


State in which I reside—and which is as strongly in 
favor of temperance as any other section, the result of 
such a trial was a defeat of the advocates of the aboli¬ 
tion of the traffic. The question was tried in ten coun¬ 
ties, in one of which I reside. In that, the friends of 
temperance were perfectly sanguine of succes.s, yet, 
contrary to all their expectations, they were defeated. 
The people are not aware of all the opposition that 
can be arrayed and combined upon such a subject. 
They do not count the numbers, not only of the drun¬ 
ken, the vile and the abandoned, but of the moderate 
and respectable drinkers who will rise up and defend 
against what they deem an attack upon their liberties. 
Anxious therefore as I am to extend the principles of 
temperance—anxious as I am to secure their final tri¬ 
umph, 1 do not look upon it as wise or prudent, or 
even just to sacrifice this constitution in a vain attempt 
to give them what will be, after all, but a mere tem¬ 
porary ascendency. I hope, therefore, the motion to 
reconsider will prevail. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I hope, Mr. President, that the 
motion of the gentleman from Ashtabula, [Mr. Wood¬ 
bury,] will not prevail. I am unwilling, sir, at this 
moment, when the mails and the magnetic wires have 
been spreading throughout the State the joyful news 
of the step we have taken to banish the monster in¬ 
temperance from the laud—news, sir, that has carried 
hope and pleasure into many a broken heartj—I am 
unwilling, I say, that that news should be contradict¬ 
ed, and those hopes disappointed and dashed to the 
earth’ Sir, I had yesterday my forebodings of a state 
of things like this. I had my fears that the battle was 
not won, fair as the victory seemed to be. I warned 
the friends of temperance not to be napping yet. I 
felt that there was a pressure from without and from 
within upon this Convention, that ere long would make 
itself felt, and which would resist with the force of 
despair the efforts of the friends of temperance. Sir, I 
was not mistaken. The brief victory of yesterday is 
to be followed by a fiercer struggle to-day. We have 
scotched the snake, but have not killed it. It lives 
with its forces ready for a desperate rally, and its ven¬ 
om all undiminished, while in experience it is even 
more potent than before. Still, I say to the friends of 
temperance, be strong, be valiant; trust in the goodness 
of your cause, and the aid of that Providence that ever 
defends the cause of right, and virtue, and morality, 
and you will triumph yet, in spite of force without, 
and false friends within. 

Mr. President, I am surprised at the position of the 
gentleman who made this motion. This subject has 
tor months and months been agitated, both in and out 
of the Convention. Petitions coming from all parts of 
the State have been daily presented in the hearing of 
gentlemen, and read in their presence. They have 
had an opportunity to examine it in all its lights and 
bearings. If time, and duty, and the urgent appeals 
of the interested could have forced upon gentlemen 
the investigation of a subject, it would seem that this 
ought to have been examined. There has been no 
possibility ot surprise, or of mistake, or misappprehen- 
sion. The subject came up in its order, without haste, 
without any of the circumstances which gentlemen 
would claim as a surprise; and the gentleman from 
Ashtabula [Mr. Woodbury] voted for the article. Yet, 
in one short night, he tells us that liis opinions are to¬ 
tally changed. The results of what we are bound to 
believe to be a diligent examination, running through 
months of time, are swept away in a single night, and 
a new opinion has sprung up in its place, diametrically 
opposed to his former one. The conversion of Saul, 
or the rapid luxuriance of .Jonah’s gourd, are the only 
thrallels to so rapid a transformation. Such must be 
a e case, or we are bound to suppose that he has been 
actuated by motives of a character still more question- 
ble. Otherwise, why did he give his vote for the bill ? 
Did he contemplate this motion to reconsider ? Or did 
fie vote for it in the hope that its enemies would be 


stronger than its friends, and that it would be defeat¬ 
ed ? And yet he sustains himself among his temper¬ 
ance friends! 

The gentleman [Mr. Woodbury] gives as the rea¬ 
son for his change of opinion, that if this article is re¬ 
tained, the constitution will be defeated. Not so, sir, 
NOT so ! On the contrary, it will carry strength in its 
favor. The people will be aroused by its provisions, 
and will come up and aid to sustain a constitution that 
has embodied in it so glorious a provision in aid of 
down-trodden and suffering humanity. 

He insists, further, that the whole matter is fully 
within the control of the Legislatui’e. It may be so; 
but is it not also fully within our control ? We want to 
place, it here, if we have a right to do so, and that we 
have that right I appeal to the votes and acts of the 
gentleman himself. He, at least, will not deny that 
he aided to vote this bill into the constitution. But we 
want to place this provision into the organic law, out of 
the reach of the Legislature—out of the vicinity of 
those laws which sanction crime, and give a license to 
commit immorality—that upon one page define and 
punish crime, and upon another provide that, for mon¬ 
ey, it may be committed—that contain an inconsisten¬ 
cy as glaring as if the city of Cincinnati should, by one 
act, make gambling a penal oft'ence, and by another 
provide for the license of gambling houses. 

It seems to me, Mr. President, that in view of the 
evil, the crime and the degredation of intemperance, it 
becomes the friends of the cause to stand shoulder to 
shoulder. I belong, sir, to no temperance society, nor 
have I ever done so. My zeal in the cause is a zeal of 
my own, induced by my belief of its worth and of the 
demand it makes upon all who love their species, and 
who desire to raise man, when he has become fallen 
and degraded, to become again a useful member of so¬ 
ciety, and to carry peace and contentment, and comfort 
and joy to those homes that have been rendered deso¬ 
late by the ravages of intemperance. I hope, there¬ 
fore that the motion to reconsider will not prevail— 
that we shall respond to the prayers of the multitude 
of petitioners who have laid their requests before us, and 
claimed our interposition in behalf of suffering humani¬ 
ty, and that we shall faithfully abide the result of the 
great experiment we yesterday determined to try. To 
the friends of temperance on this floor I again say, 
stand firm! 

Mr. SAWYER. I have a proposition to make to the 
friends of temperance. They are sanguine of the suc¬ 
cess of the experiment they desire to try with the peo¬ 
ple, and I am just as sanguine that if it goes into the 
constitution it will array force against it. I propose, 
therefore, as the easiest and safest mode of settling the 
question, to submit it to a separate vote of the people 
of the State; and then if the people vote it in, well; 
otherwise let it remain out. 

While up I will call the attention of members to this 
report. No license for the sale of intoxicating liquors 
sliall ever be granted, but the General Assembly may, 
by law, provide against the evils arising therefrom. 
The latter clause is extremely vague and uncertain. 
What is the Legislature to do? How is it to provide 
against the evils ? Is there to be an inquisition estab¬ 
lished to learn who gets drunk ?—a set of inquisitors to 
stop the works of the distiller?—a third to arrest the 
farmer on his vray to a distillery to sell a load of corn ? 
—anothei to establish and enfoz’ce a code of excise 
regulations ? If such is to be the construction put up¬ 
on it we shall, by its insertion, raise a feeling against 
this constitution that all the temperance songs in the 
world will not be able to allay. 

Mr. WOODBURY. I, for one, have no objections to 
submitting this question to a separate vote of the peo¬ 
ple. 

Mr. SAWYER. I am satisfied that the people want 
no such provision as this in the constitution. I am sat¬ 
isfied that they will vote down any constitution that 
contains it, that we can make. Neither can I consent 











1325 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


to join in this general execution of all men who are 
engaged in the manufacture or sale of ardent spirits. 
There are as good and as moral men in it as in any 
other; and their iiiHueiice among the better class of 
society, if, by this means, brought to bear against this 
I constitution, will be immense. 

Air. CUililY. 1 uesire to ask the geiiileuiau iroui 
j Auglaize [Mr. Sawyer] a question. Ho says the ten¬ 
dency of this article will be to array the people against 
’this constitution, and that it will prove a burden that it 
i cannot carry. What 1 inquire is, who will it array 
1 against this instrument—those who desire an unlimited 
traffic, or those who are in favor of suppressing the 
I traffic altogether ? 

j Mr. SAWYER. In reply Isay that it will be the 
i independent republican freemen of the State—the whig 
I freemen—the democratic freemen—the men who do not 
I want you or the constitution to say when they shall 
: drink or when they shall not drink. It will be that 
• class. 

Mr. CURRY. The gentleman [Mr. Sawyer] has 
not seen fit to give me a direct reply to my question, 
and has therefore left me to put upon his answer such 
a construction as 1 choose. 

Now, sir, I have been opposed to the article for this 
reason; I am opposed to the traffic in ardent spirits. 
I desire to cut it up by the roots, and drive it out of 
the State, and if I knew how, I would try to do it. But 
for the purpose I want something better, more efficient 
and forcible than this. 

The gentleman from Auglaize has given his opposi¬ 
tion to this article from the beginning, because he be¬ 
lieved it would injure the business of the vender of 
I ardent spirits—a thing he did not want to do. 1 took 
. a dift'erent view of the subject. I did not believe that 
1 it would answer the designs of those who were its ad- 
1 vocates. Therefore, I opposed it. I arrived at the 
. same result with him, but by a ditierent road, and un 
t der the influence of different views and motives. But 
I, the friends of the measure believe that by taking away 
. the sanction of law from the traffic, they shall render 
. it odious and despicable. Here they arrive at the 
; same conclusion with the gentleman from Auglaize. 

1 Therefore they support the measure, and therefore he 
. opposes it. But the double authority as to the tenden- 
. cy of the section, becomes weighty and powerful. 

, Sympathizing in the motives of the friends of the 
measure, I the more readily give way to the opinions 
of the gentleman from Auglaize, and fearing that in 
. opinion I may have been wrong, I have come to the 
. iconclusion that I should sustain that which the friends 
, ;of temperance say will have a tendency to produce 
.K'the result that I desire. I shall therefore vote against 
jthe reconsideration. 

. 1 Air. HOLMES. It seems to me that the effect of 
. ithis measure will be to give to the people of other 
jStates a very strange idea of the people of this. Here, 
'in Ohio, we have a population of more than two mil 
5 'jlions—equal, to say the least, in character, in virtue, 
. land in public and private morals, to the people of any 
of the sister States, and yet a people whose repreeen- 
'■ tatives, when assembled in convention, have not suffi¬ 
cient confidence in them to leave a question like this 
where it belongs—to the Legislature—but are impell¬ 
ed to set it up in the organic law of the State. It 
seems to me that this will be the conclusion to which 
every man in the country will arrive. Now, I for one 
do not wish to place the citizens of Ohio in a position 
so false and so unnatural before their lellow citizens oi 
the Union. 

Again: I am well aware of the evils, the crimes, 
and the misfortunes that follow in the train of intempe¬ 
rance, and I will go as far as any man to sustain the 
Legislature in every legitimate endeavor to put them 
down; but I am unwilling to put a power of this kind 
in the organic law. But there is more in this section 
than appears at the first; and to those who claim to be 
the peculiar friends of temperance, the inquiry is per¬ 


tinent: What are you going to do, when this comes 
to form a part of the constitution? No licenses are to 
be granted — that is plain enough; but what next? 
You surely do not intend to stop here. What then? 
What will, be the next move ? Cannot gentlemen 
give us some project—some plan of operations, to open 
and begin, wneu the irathc is ihrowu tree lo ail who 
desire to engage in it. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Let it be outlawed, as gambling 
is. 

Mr. HOLAIES. Then why not provide for the pun¬ 
ishment of other crimes ? Why not declare that the 
General Assembly shall provide by law a restraint from 
the evils resulting from murder, robbery and theft ? 
Gentlemen must show their hands upon this matter, 
and give us to understand how far they intend to go. 
Let us know where and upon whom their attacks are 
to be made, and where their vengeance is first to fall. 
Is it upon the manufacturer or seller of ardent spirits ? 
Now, i know hundreds of as good, as respectable, and 
as virtuous men engaged in the traffic as in any other 
trade or occupation—men who detest a drunkard and 
drunkenness as much as any gentleman upon this 
ffoor. And I would ask gentlemen if there is intrin¬ 
sically any moral wrong or evil in making or in selling 
ardent spirits. It is not the article that is the evil—it 
is its abuse. 

It was well remarked by the gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] that the insertion of this article 
would bring down upon this instrument a very serious 
opposition. I believe it. And I would ask gentlemen 
if the Legislature has not now an entire control over 
the subject ? Surely no man can say that it has not. 
I shall vote for the reconsideration. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I voted for this article 
honestly and in good faith—not because I was by any 
means satisfied with it, but because I supposed it might 
be what the people desired; and I must say, that I 
feared all along, that it was not right. I wish to say 
to the gentleman from Guernsey, [Mr. Lawrence,] 
that so far as I know, there has been no outside press¬ 
ure on this subject upon this Convention. I have seen 
none, felt none, and heard of none. 

But let me ask; when this article shall form a part 
of this constitution, what then? What has to be done ? 
Is the traffic abolished? Are the evils put an end to? 
No one will claim that. The Legislature can do pre¬ 
cisely what it could before. It can abolish the license 
system, as it established it, and then what will it do ? 
It can leave the traffic open to all, or prohibit to all. 
Which will it do ? There is no middle course. It must 
do one or the other. 

If I understahd the gentlemen from Guernsey [Mr. 
Lawrence] aright, thejriends of temperance intend to 
attempt to close the doors and utterly abolish the traf¬ 
fic. If this is to be done, and the people believe it is 
to be done, it will defeat this constitution by more than 
fifty thousand votes. What then should the friends of 
temperance do ? There can be no course more demo¬ 
cratic than that suggested by the gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize, [Mr. Sawyer] of submitting the question sepa¬ 
rately to the people. As the section now stands it is 
treacherous. It is liable to too many constructions. 
It may be a trap, and I will go against any thing that 
seeks to be supported by making a man believe he is 
voting for one thing, when in fact, he is voting for an¬ 
other. 

The question then being on the motion to reconsider, 
made by Mr. Woodbury; 

Mr* HARLAN demanded the previous question; 
which was seconded. 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved a call of the Convention, 
which was ordered, and the following gentlemen were 
found absent; 

Messrs. Blair, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Cutler, Flor- 
ence, Gregg, Hard, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Horton, Johnson, 
Nash, Swan, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Vance of Champaign, 
and Wilson, 
















1326 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


On motion of Mr. HORTON, all further proceediiigs 
under the call were dispensed with. 

The question then being: shall the main question be 
^low put? 

Mr. BATES demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 47. nays 43—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Dorsey, Ewarti 
Ewing, Farr, Gillett, Graham Hamilton Holt, Humphreville, Hun¬ 
ter, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Mason. Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, 
McCloud, Norris, Ozton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Ranney, Riddle, 
Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize. Sellers, Smith 
■of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Slebbins, Stilwell, 
Struble, Swift, Thompson of Shelby, W'arren, Woodbury and 
•President—47. 

Navs —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet oi Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfei', Brown 
of Athene, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Cook, Curry, 
Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, Kennon, 
Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, McCormick, Per¬ 
kins. Quigley, Stanton, Stickney, Stidger, Taylor, Thompson of 
Stark, Way, Williams and Worthington—-43. 

So the demand for the previous question was sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then being on the re-consideration of 
the vote ; 

Mr. BATES demanded the yeas and nay.s, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 47, nays 45—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs, Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey» 
Farr, Forbes, Graham, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hen¬ 
derson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, 
Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 
Mitchell, Morehead, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Rid 
die. Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Woodbury and Presi¬ 
dent—^7. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett. Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings. Cook, Curry, Ewart, Ew¬ 
ing, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Hunter, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Manon, Mason, 
Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Otis, Peck, Per¬ 
kins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Stilwell, Stickney, Swift, Way, Williams and Worthington—45. 

So the motion to re consider was sustained. 

The question then being on the passage of the article; 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I feel, Mr. President, mortified 
and disappointed at the course that the Convention has 
taken on this motion. I had all along entertained a 
feeling of confidence that the Convention woidd refuse 
to retrace the step so nobly taken yesterday. I felt as 
if the goodness and justice of the cause would go far 
to insure its triumph. 1 may be mistaken, bu: 1 caunol; 
give up the hope I have entertained so long, in a brief 
moment. I regret that the geutkuian from Medina, 
£Mr. Hur'iPHRKViLLE,] has been blessed with that flood 
of light upon this subject that has so very r-cently 
fallen upon his vision, Why, sir, this is a question that 
has most certainly been heard of before in this bedy. 
It is one upon which thousands of petitions have been 

resented here. Many of them have been read at the 

esk of the Secretary. Some have been printed in one 
form or other in the reports. A special committee Las 
bein' raised before our eyes to which they have been 
wfo' red. That committee has made a reiiort, which 
aft;n- much discussion was recommitted to the same 
oommittee. Again it was reported back to the Con¬ 
vention without the dotting of an 1, or the crossing of 
a t: and now I ask what arreal light has shone so bril¬ 
liantly on the gentleman. [Mr. Humphreville,] on his 
pathway to Damascus? Sir, I distrust these sudden 
conversions. They are not always sound—they are 
not invariably sincere—they are not in every case hon¬ 
est. I am certain that first impulses are best and mo.st 
likely to be honest; and I can at least congratulate 
myself on the gentleman’s vote given in the sincerity 
of his first impulse upon this question ; while at the 
same time, I cannot but wonder at his strange, sudden, 
and almost miraculous conversion 

And now a word to the gentleman from Auglaize, 


[Mr. Sawyer.] Behold he comes in with his peace 
ofi'ering. He assumes the part of a conciliator—of a 
great compromiser. I say to the friends of temperance 
beware of his olive branches. I beg of them not to 
taste The husks that he presents. He says that there 
are good men, moral and honest men, whose opinions 
are entitled to consideraion, who are opposed to this 
provision, and think it will work evil. I admit there 
may be. So there are good men and honest, who are 
opposed to any prohibition of banks in this constiti?* 
tion I would ask the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr, 
Sawyer,] why he is not also willing to submit that 
question to a vote of the people ? He may reply that 
banks are unconstitutional. I reply that many men 
believe the sale of spirituous liquors to be unconstitu¬ 
tional. And if he will trust this delicate question to a 
vote of the people, why not also trust the question of 
bank or no bank ? 

A word also, to the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Holmes.] He inquires why it is that we select out 
I one crime to prohibit it by the constitution. We do 
not propose to do so. There are other offences that 
are and ought to be prohibited. Did he not vote in 
favor of a proposition to prohibit the sale of lottery , 
tickets ? f 

Mr. HOLMES. I think I did. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. If the sale of lottery tickets is 
so great an evil as to demand the action of this body, 
is not the sale of intoxicating drinks, and the creation 
of a multitude of drunkards still more so ? I say diere 
are. some crimes of so deep a nature—tha' strike sfl' 
strongly at the very foundations of society, as to de¬ 
mand the interposition of a remedy in the organic law| 
of the State. But gentleman ask; what are we to gatft 
by lui'.tiiig it here? I reply, we shall gain this if noth' 
ing more: There has been a legal sanction thrown 
around this crime. We desire not only to take it away, 
but to demolish at once every hope of its return. i 
Therefore we say to the Legislature : let it alone ; you ' 
shall not license it and thus give it respectability of 
which it is undeserving. 

Is it possilile, Mr. President, that the cries of suffer¬ 
ing humanity are to gain no response upon this floor? 
Oh, sir, I wish that I might, for a brief space, boiro w the 
tongue of an archangel, that I might iiortray as they 
exist, the evils, the sorrows, the wrongs, and the crimes 
that spring from intemperance ! Here we have only 
to will it—to lei the honest impulses of our hearts 
spi-ak out, and the thanks of ten thousand bruised and 
w'idowed hearts would respond in hearty thanks and 
leap for joy at the news. 

And now, sir, in tlie name and on behalf of the 
twenty’’ thousand men and women of Ohio, who have 
petitioned this body on this subject, I beg—let then 
not be disappointed. I L el sir, the weakness incident 
to severe indisposition coming upon me, aud can only , 
add, that, if I had the strength of a Hercules, I would 
gladly spend it in a cause demanding so much from all | 
the better sympathies of our nature. It is a cause j 
well worth our severest studies—our most constant so-» 
licitude. It is one in the prosecution of which we ; 
may, by conferring happiness and benefits upon others, 
secure to our.selvcs the highest pleasure that it is pos¬ 
sible for man here upon earth to enjoy; for no gratifi¬ 
cation can he of a higher power, or a holier nature, j 
than that which springs from the consciousness of ha- ! 
ving done good to our fellow men. In behalf of the i 
friends of teinjzerance—of the friends of down-trodden " 
and suffering humanity throughout Ohio, I beseech, ‘ 
yea, I implore the members of this Convention to i 
pause, to well consider before they crush the hopes ' 
raised in the bosoms of thousands, by undoing to-day 
what we doTie yesterday. 

Mr.^ MANON. I think, Mr. President, that we are 
pursuing, in this matter, about the usual course—at 
least the course that the papers of the State say is the 
usual and every day order of business here. They say 
there is no telling when this Convention will get 


















CONVENTION liEPOKTS. 


1327 


through its business, for what it does ou one day, it 
regularly undoes the next. Now, Mr, President, I am 
tired of this charge,* and still more tired at the truth 
of it. I hope we shall proceed to business, and when 
a thing is done, let it be done. When a thing is voted 
into the constitution, let it stay there. 1 am sure there 
has been discussion enough upon the most of these 
questions for gentlemen to vote understandingly upon 
them, and little good can arise from this constant re¬ 
viewing of questions that have been once settled. 

Gentlemen say that there is no nece.ssity for tliis pro¬ 
vision, because the whole matter is fully witliin the 
power of the liCgislature. Is this not equally true in 
regard to many other provisions that we have incorpo¬ 
rated in this constitution ? Why do we say that cor¬ 
porations shall pay taxes upon their property in the 
same way that citizens are taxed ? Is it because the 
Legislature has not the power to do it? W'hy do we 
provide that certain sums of money shall be raised to 
pay oft' the debt of the State? Is it because the Legis¬ 
lature has no power over the subject? Wdiy cannot 
we leave it to the Legislature to say why the State 
shall or shall not make internal improvements ? Is it 
because the Legislature is powerless to do or refrain 
from doing ? "We provide that the ofticers of the State 
shall be elected by the people—might not the Legisla¬ 
ture. if it see fit, make the same provision in most ca¬ 
ses ? And has it been done ? Why have we provided 
against the submisssiou of the acts of the General As¬ 
sembly to a vote of the people for their ratification, or 
to any other power? Is it because the Legislature bad 
not the right to prevent it, or because it had not the 
moral courage to do so ? 

I ti li gentlemen that this argument concerning the 
power of the Legislature is of no force here. It has 
been disregarded too long to command obedience now. 
Why, if we were to go to work and cut out ol this 
constitution evei'ything that is within the province of 
legislative power, we should have but a small frag¬ 
ment left. There are things to be done that exper¬ 
ience has shown the Legi.slature will not undertake— 
theiis are acknowledged evil.s m which it will apply 
no remedy. Shull we refuse to do so because that 
body does, and secure our neglect behind theirs ? 1 

hope not. 

Mr. STANTON said, that he regretted the motion 
just made to reconsider the vote taken yesterday, on 
the report of tiie standing committee of Temperance. 

The gentleman from Ashtabula, [Mr. Woodbury,] 
wlu) now sees fit to act against us upon this question, is 
entirely convinced that this whole subject .“linuld. be 
left to future legislation. Now, 1 would respectfully 
suggest to that gentleman, that the provisions of sec¬ 
tion six, of the article entitled, the preamble and bill 
of rights,” which forever excludes slavery from the 
State of Ohio, might also be claimed as a fit subject for 
legislative action. With quite as much propriety, might 
vou leave the provisions of that sectfon to the Legisla¬ 
ture, as the entire subject of licensing the traffic in in¬ 
toxicating licjuors. But, sir, the gentleman, [Mi. 
Woodbury,] voted to engraft the provisions of section 
six, of the preamble and bill of rights, in the organic 
law of the Stale, because they express a great and fun¬ 
damental principle of human rights—principles fit to 
be enunciated in the constitution. 

1 know, Mr. President, what influences have had 
their share in bringing about this motion to reconsider. 
I know that the atmosphere surrounding this Conven¬ 
tion, is antagonistic to efforts in behalf of Temperance. 
There is invested in this city of Cincinnati, in the mmi- 
ufecture and traffic in liquors, something like a million 
of dollars, and how do we find the representatives of 
that capital, and of the large class engaged in the traf¬ 
fic in intoxicating liquors, vote upon this floor—they 
come up in a solid phalanx, and vote against all attempts 
to respond favorably to the prayer of the twenty thous¬ 
and petitioners whose prayers have come up to us, 
from all portions of this great State. They place their 


opposition upon the ground that the manufacture and 
sale of liquor is not, iu itself, wrong, and therefore, 
should not be prohibited or restrained 

Mr. HOLMES. I did not say that the traffic in in¬ 
toxicating liquors, ought not to be restrained. I desire 
the gentleman to unfold his programme, and perhaps 
we might go with him. 

Mr. STANTON. We differ radicaEy, and first as to 
the morality of the liquor traffic—I consider it immoral. 

Mr. HOLMES. Perhaps so, as a beverage. 

Mr. STANTON. It is a well known fact, that but 
an exceedingly small portion of all the spirituous liquors 
sold, are for any other purpose than lor a beverage, and 
all the liquor sold for any other purpose will hurt no¬ 
body. 

The geniieman from Ashtabula tells us that one rea¬ 
son why he moved a reconsideration of the vote of yes¬ 
terday upon this subject, is that he fears the adoption 
ot the report of thestandingcommittee on Temperance, 
and its incorporation iu the new constitution would 
endanger the adoption of that instrument, yet he was 
in favor of negro suuffiuge, and, as I understood him, 
he would be willing to engraft such a provision iu the 
new constitution, although he must know that such a 
provision would, beyond all peradventure, defeat the 
instrument that we are about to send out. 

Mr. WOODBURY. At the time that the subject of 
negro suflrage was before the Convention I expressly 
stated that 1 would not vote to place a provision for 
universal sufirage in the new constitution, for the very 
I'easou that it might endanger the adoption of that in¬ 
strument by the people. 1 was only anxious that it 
should be submitted to the people as a separate and 
distinct proposition. 

Mr. RANNEl' inquired of the gentleman from Lo¬ 
gan whether he desired to throw tiie liquor traffic open 
to be engaged in by any and all, indiscriminately ? 

Mr. STANTON. I would withdraw from that bane¬ 
ful traffic the high sanction of legislation—I would 
stamp the manufacture and sale of spirituous liquors 
as a crime—as in the category of base and immoral 
practices, 1 would place that traffic in the category of 
things that the State may not legalize; I would say 
that it is as proper to license gambling establishments 
and houses of prostitution as shops for the sale of alco¬ 
holic poisons. 

I can assure gentlemen that they never labored un¬ 
der a greater mistake than when they supposed that 
tlie insertion of a clause in this constitution, providing 
that the sale of intoxicating liquors shall not be licensed, 
will endanger the chances for the ado{)tioii of that con- 
sutution The existence of such a provision will rally 
h) the enthusiastic support of that instrument the great 
leraperaiu e army of Ohio, of which tlie twenty thou¬ 
sand petitioners to this Convention are but the advance 
guard. 

I trust that the motion may not prevail. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. rrosideiit; I voted for the sec¬ 
tion now under consideration, when it was first before 
the Convention on a former occasion, and against it on 
the question ot its engrossment. I shall now support 
the motion to reconsider the vote by which that sec¬ 
tion was ordered to be engros.sed. 1 desire the indul¬ 
gence of the Convention, while, iu a few words, I state 
the reasons for my action in this regard. 

When this subject was first presented here, for half 
a day, there was but one tone and current to the de¬ 
bate. The friends of Temperance declared that all 
tliat they desired, was that the license system should 
be abolished, ajid that all legislative and munici]>al 
sanction should be withdrawn from the traffic in in¬ 
toxicating liquors. The friends of Temperance—in 
and out of this Hall—announced that the whole con¬ 
test would hereafter bt,* conducted on moral grounds 
alone. I understood that the proposition before the 
Convention, (embraced iu the report of ih§ select com¬ 
mittee.) implied this adjustment of the whole ques¬ 
tion ; and that understanding I am confident was quite 
prevalent. 










1328 


CONVENTION EEPOETS. 


Byit, sir, when I called attention to the fact that I 
was advocating the proposition on these gi’ounds, I 
said that other gentlemen had intimated that they in¬ 
tended to go before the Legislature and agitate for the 
prohibition of the sale ot intoxicating liquors, and I 
pron'ptly and clearly gave notice that if such was the 
understanding, I was opposed to the section, and 
should vote against it. 

I came into this body with a desire, which, though 
strong, was not destined to be realized, that the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly should be limited in its powers to those 
acts of a general nature which could not well be per¬ 
formed by local Legislatures or county boards. I 
wished to see the same thing with reference to the 
Legislature of Ohio, that exists as to the Congress of 
the United States—all powers not expressly delegated 
by the State to the general government were reserved 
to the people of the States. So would I have it with 
the Legislature of Ohio. I would have the people, in 
Convention assembled, confer upon the Legislative 
Department of the State government, certain powers of 
a general nature, while all other powers should be re¬ 
served to the people in their municipal or county or 
gauizations. I wished a plain and distinct enumera¬ 
tion of all subjects of general legislation, and the de¬ 
nial to that general or central Legislature of all other 
powers. I wished then that some measure might be 
adopted by which the people could have a representa¬ 
tive body sitting in their respective counties, to dis¬ 
charge the manifold duties of a legislative character, 
which would devolve upon such a body. 

But, sir, in all those wishes and expectations I was 
disappointed. I favor the pending proposition to re¬ 
consider the vote by which the report of the standing 
committee on Temperance was agreed to, because I find 
that the subject is still to be agitated in the General 
Assembly with an ulterior view to the passage of a law 
prohibiting the sale of all intoxicating liquors. 

I should be in favor of having the General Assembly 
pass laws against the evils resulting from the sale of 
spirituous liquors—not to prohibit, not to suppress that 
traffic—but to pass laws similar to those of Wisconsin 
upon this subject—remedial laws. Wisconsin leaves 
the sale of spirituous liquors open to all, but interposes 
remedial laws by which it is to be ascertained what 
proportion of the public expenditure results from their 
sale and use. That proportion, when ascertained, is 
imposed upon tbe venders of intoxicating drinks in the 
nature of a penalty. More than that and better than 
that, the Wisconsin laws give an action against the 
vender of spirituous liquors for any dan.age resulting 
from that sale to the family of the inebriate. I would 
gladly vote for such laws in Ohio—1 would, as a mem¬ 
ber of this Convention, give the General Assembly 
power to pass law’s similar to those now in force in 
Wisconsin, but I would deny to that body the power 
to prohibit the manufacture or sale of ardent spirits 
and I would seek to prevent agitation in the General 
Assembly for that purpose. 

Now, sir, if the friends of temperance would meet 
me on the ground I have briefly marked out, I w’ould 
vote that the General Assembly should never license 
the liquor traffic. 

Mr. President, I am a friend of temperance, but I 
am not friendly to any efforts to connect that moral 
reform with State politics. I may be asked, “ how are 
the evils of intemperance to be met, if not by legisla¬ 
tive interference?” I reply, by the people of the re¬ 
spective counties and townships in their municipal ca¬ 
pacity, I want no general law of a “ sumptuary ” char¬ 
acter. I do not want the Legislature thus to interfere 
with the people in Erie county—the people of Erie do 
not desire to interfere, in this regard, with other por¬ 
tions of the State. If the people of Erie county choose, 
within themselves, to establish a police regulation pro¬ 
hibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors, it is proper— 
let them do it. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. The friends of this article have 


had the argument almost entirely to themselves. But 
little has been said against its expediency—they pro¬ 
claim themselves the friends of virtue, of advancement, 
of philanthropy, of human happiness. These names 
act upon our pulse like magic—they are names to which 
I also claim to have some regard. If gentlemen claim 
to have ardent desires for a higher, holier and happier 
state of things, I claim to participate with them in the 
feeling. Such have been my themes during my whole 
legislative career. If any man chooses to turn over the 
archives of the Senate and House of Representatives 
of this State, he can inform himself whether I have 
been indifferent to human advancement and human pro¬ 
gress ; whether I have not labored to raise the standard 
of morality; yes, and these things have been done in 
the midst of obloquy and reproach, censure, contume¬ 
ly and abuse, and misrepresentation. These doctrines 
have been proclaimed in the midst of storm and tem¬ 
pest—I have defended them w’hen it required moral 
courage to defend them. 

Our opponents in this argument proclaim themselves 
temperance men. Now listen to another temperance 
man, who takes the other side of the question. I claim 
to have as high and pure a regard for temperance as 
any man that has spoken, and I tell gentlemen that it 
is indiscreet to put this thing into the constitution. It 
is beyond our powers, it is vain to attempt impossibili¬ 
ties. If we put it in the people will put it out, for they 
will reject our constitution. I regret this result as 
much as any man here, but it is inevitable. Gentle¬ 
man talk of the spirit with which they will act and ar¬ 
gue in order to get the people to accept the constitu¬ 
tion containing their cold water clause. I have a high 
opinion of Anglo Saxon spirit, but still it would be 
madness, with two or three Anglo Saxon regiments to 
attack a division of the Grande Armee with Sault or 
Napoleon at its head. The result is inevitable defeat. 
What is the design, what the intention of this article ? 
The General Assembly shall neither license nor regu¬ 
late the traffic in ardent spirits, but may prevent the 
evils arising therefrom. The loss of the power of regu¬ 
lation is a most material diminution of their authority 
—the evils of intemperance will, at first, become enor¬ 
mous—colossal, gigantic. Rum, brandy, spirits, will 
flow from ten thousand fountains—will be retailed from 
countless hovels all over the land, until the evils of in¬ 
temperance will become so urgent as to demand of the 
General Assembly the only remedy in its power, and 
that is the total abolition of the business of making or 
vending spirits; the cold water reformation, in other 
words, is to be forced upon us by an act of the Legis¬ 
lature. The policy is like that of a physician, who 
would reduce his patient to the gates of death to con¬ 
vince him of the necessity of some potent remedy—he 
makes him, in doctors’ phrase, moribund, and then he 
exhibits the last efforts of his skill. The question may 
be whether the cure may not turn out to be worse than 
the disease. 

But have our people no sagacity? can they not con¬ 
nect two ideas ? will they not see that this measure in 
reality amounts to a constitutional prohibition of the 
sale or use of ardent spirits ? Gentlemen must look 
forward, and expect the same opposition to the consti¬ 
tution, as if it contained the most rigorous, the most in¬ 
exorable prohibition of the distilling or sale of ardent 
spirits, and of the branches of business connected there¬ 
with. The distillers, the tavern keepers, the mer¬ 
chants, the carriers, will all take the alarm ; we shall 
have their whole combined influence against our in¬ 
strument, with that of all their friends, connections and 
acquaintances. They w’ill not be decived by the tran¬ 
sitory relaxation contained in the first clause. They 
will know, with unerring certainty, what is to come, 
and they will act accordingly. 

Now I do not believe that we could safely encoun¬ 
ter their combined influence and that of all the other 
men who w’ill vote against us for having stepped out of 
our province and meddled with things not belonging to 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1329 


US. They will all see, in this constitutional provision, the 
embryo of a rigorous sumptuary law—the kind of a law 
that uniformly excites the most violent opposition. 
Probably not more than four thousand voters have pe- 
tioned for these things, the remainder are probably 
women and children. The omission ought to occasion 
no opposition among the voters who have petitioned, 
for it is admitted on all hands, that the whole subject 
is completely within the power of the General Assem 
bly, and, in point of fact, the strongest argument which 
gentlemen advance is, that the General Assembly will 
not act, as it has, at all times past, refused to act. Their 
argument with me is potent against their own conclu¬ 
sions ; why will not the Assembly act? Why will not 
the slave in Kentucky cut down an oak tree ? Because 
his master stands with his lash and forbids him. Why 
will not a clerk in one of your stores sell a pattern of 
broad cloth to a doubtful customer ? Because his em¬ 
ployer says to him, sir, if you sell goods to that man, I 
will instantly dismissyou from my service. 

The General Assembly is a most obsequious body of 
men—I have never seen them lagging behind public 
opinion; they mistake that opinion at times, but they 
are always in advance of it. The intention is to re¬ 
main with the stream, but they sometimes get a little 
faster than the tide. Are gentlemen acquainted with 
the General Assembly ? If not I can testify to them 
that that is not the body to set public opinion at defi¬ 
ance; the error, if any, is the other way. It is a body 
which has scarcely thought, will, or intention of its 
own. At long intervals, perhaps, a man appears there 
with individual opinions, convictions, and sense of du¬ 
ty, and with a will to act upon those individual opin¬ 
ions. The newspapers instantly call him eccentric 
—mad—wicked—profligate and abandoned; and it is 
not in ordinary human nature to withstand such oppo¬ 
sition. 

I tell gentlemen, that if there was even a considera- 
able parly in the State in favor of legal measures to 
abolish the traffic in ardent spirits, the thing would be 
done; the Assembly is often in advance of public opin¬ 
ion, never lagging behind it. 

The question then being on the passage of the Re¬ 
port ; 

Mr. SAWYER moved, that “the Report be commit¬ 
ted to the standing committee on .Jurisprudence, with 
instructions to provide for submitting the question as 
a separate proposition to the people, for their adoption 
or rejection.” 

Mr. HAWKINS said he had hoped this question of 
Temperance was definitely and finally settled on yes* 
terday. But soon after the vote was taken he observ¬ 
ed indications of an attempt at a reconsideration. The 
influence of a great city like Cincinnati, upon the de¬ 
liberations of a Convention upon the particular subject 
of Temperance, was not, in his opinion, of the most 
salutary character. Cincinnati was bribed by the an¬ 
nual payment of twenty thousand dollars into her trea- 
suiw for licenses to sell intoxicating liquors, and she 
would not give up so much revenue without a struggle. 

He [Mr. Hawkins,] did not believe that the inter¬ 
ests of this city ought to have so much weight in the 
counsels of a Slate Convention, convened to deliberate 
for the best interests of all portions of that State.— 
The petitions that had poured in from twenty thousand 
citizens of Ohio, should be regarded. He was sure 
that if a moiety of that number had petitioned for 
“ unconditional and unmitigated repeal,” or for the en¬ 
tire abolition of a paper currency, a vast deal more ot 
respect would have been paid to the prayer ot the pe- 
titioners. But because, forsooth, these petitions are ter 
a prohibition against the licensing of the traffic in spir¬ 
ituous liquors, we are told that the movements are fa¬ 
natical, and this respectable body of petitioners— 
fanatics! I tell gentlemen that they cannot thus si¬ 
lence the clamors of the people by denouncing them 
as fanatics; on the contrary, gentlemen are taking the 

84 


very course to make this Temperance question a po. 
litical question. 

The gentleman from I'nimbull, [Mr. Ranney,] says 
that the people are not going to have this measure 
crammed down their throats—that “ this measure is 
unasked for by the people, who well know that no 
moral reform can be effected through the instrumen¬ 
tality of legislation,” &c. All that I have to say in 
reply to this is, that I have confidence enough in the 
people to believe that they knew what they were peti¬ 
tioning for. 

But again we are told that if this section, which pro¬ 
vides against the licensing of the liquor traffic, becomes 
a part of the new constitution, the next move of the 
friends of Temperance will be to besiege the Legisla¬ 
ture for laws prohibiting the manufacture and sale of 
intoxicating liquors altogether. Sufficient to the day 
is the evil thereof. It will be quite time to devise 
remedies when the evils prognosticated shall assume 
a more tangible shape. We have tried the license 
system for years, aud it has worked out nothin^- but 
misery and pauperism—its track is marked by the 
blood of an army of victims. It is for us to provide a 
remedy for this license system, which has swept the 
State like the simoon of the desert, and which if left 
unchecked, will sap the very foundations of the politi¬ 
cal as well as social structure. 

1 shall oppose the motion to recommit this section. 

I hope the Convention will refuse to recommit and 
again affirm the proposition, giving to the Legislature 
this additional commandment: 

“Thou shalt not license the traffic in intoxi¬ 
cating liquors!” 

Mr. LEADBETTER briefly stated his position, as 
in favor of the motion to recommit. He was decided¬ 
ly opposed to all attempts to legislate people into hab¬ 
its of morality, virtue and temperance. Public opin¬ 
ion did not demand the prohibition of licensiiiw the 
sale of spiritous liquors—if it had been so, the legisla¬ 
ture would long ago have declared that prohibffion 
for that body is ever ready to respond to a well defined 
and clearly expressed public sentiment. 

The only legitimate ground for the true friends of 
Temperance was “ moral suasion.” The history of the 
Temperance movement demonstrated that so Ion" as 
they had confined themselves to that ground, they'had 
succeeded gloriously—when they abandoned it and 
dragged their noble cause into the arena of politics 
they failed miserabljr. ’ 

He hoped the motion to recommit would prevail. 

The question, then being on recommitting the Re¬ 
port ;. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, moved the previous ques¬ 
tion. 

The question then being “ shall the main question be 
now put? ” 

Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 36, nays 50_as fol¬ 

lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart’ 
Ewing, Farr, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Hunter, Manon, Morehead, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Orton, Otis, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Warren, Smith o f 
Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swift, and Way—36. 

Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Curry 
Forbes, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hawkins 
Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman.FIumphreville, Hunt, Jones’ 
Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter 
Lidey, Loudon, Morris, Norris, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley’ 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, SeL 
lere, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stickney, Stidger, Taylor 
Thompson of Stark, Warren, Woodburyand Worthington—50. ’ 

So the demaud for the previous question was not 
sustained. 

The question then being on Mr. Sawyer’s motion to 
commit, with instructions; 

Mr. RANNEY moved that the report and the motion 
to commit with instructions, be laid on the table; 
which was agreed to. 
















1330 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. RANNEY submitted the following:— 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be authorized to em- 
ploy a Clerk, upon such compensation as may be reasonable, 

Which was agreed to. , 

On motion of Mr. LARWILL, the Convention took 

a recess. 


2^ o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. HUNTER moved that the Convention resolve 
-itself into a committee of the whole. 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved a call of the Convention, 
which was ordered, and the following gentlemen were 
found absent; 

Messrs. Andrews, Barnett of Preble, Case of Hocking, Case of 
T irkino' Cutler, Dorsey, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Green ot 
Ros« Hard Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock of Geau¬ 
ga Holmes, Holt, tlorton, Humphreville, Johnson, Kirkwood, 
Mason Nash, Reemelin, Sawyei’, Stickney, Swan, Townshend, 
Vance’of Butler, Vance of Champaign and Williams. 

On motion, Mcs.srs. Case of Hocking, Case of Lick- 
iim Hard and .Johnson, were severally excused. 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved that the doors be closed 
and the Sergeant-at-arms dispatched for the absentees; 
which was agreed to. ' „ , , 

Mr. ORTON moved that all further proceedings 
under the call be dispensed with; which was disa- 

The Sergeant-at arms returned, and reported that he 
had found Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Dorsey, Forbes, 
Green of Ross, Harlan, Graham, and Sawyer, and 
that they were now present. 

On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, all further proceed 
ings under the call were dispensed with. 

The question then being on the motion ot Mr. Hun 
ter, that the Convention resolve itself into a commit 

tee of the whole; , , , , , . , 

Mr MANON demanded the yeas and nays, winch 
were’ ordered, and resulted—yeas 28, nays 55— as 
follows: 

Yf AS— Messrs. Arcbbold, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Farr, Green 
Rom Greeg, Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson. Hootman, Hunt, 
Jones Larwilf,\eech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Mitchell, Patterson, 
iammy kiddle. Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Thompson 

nf Stark Wilson, Woodbury and President—28. ’ 

S-Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Bhckensderfer^, Brown of 
Mhens Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Colhngs, Cook, Curry, 
Fwart Ewing, Forbes, Gray, Greene ol Defiance, Hawkins, Hitch- 
^.3k of Geausa Hunter, Kennon, King, Larsh, Lawrence, Lidey, 
Ma?on SSad, Morll., McCloud, McCormick Norris, Ortoa 
OBs Peck Perkins, Quigley, Sawyer, Scott ot Harrison, Smith 
Warren Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbius, Stil- 
we? SUdSr:stmMe, SwVt, Thompson of Shelby, Warreu, Way, 

and Worthington— 65, _ 

So the motion to go t i.. .. lunuttee ot the Whole was 
reiected. 

the license law. 

On motion of Mr. LAWRENCE, the Convention took 
up the report of the select committee on the subject of 

Retailing Ardent Spirits. f 

The question then being on Mr. Sawyer s motion 
to commit the Report with instructions; 

Mr. HAWKINS demanded a division. 

The question then being on committing the Report 
to the standing committee on Jurisprudence; 

Mr. McCORMICK. I hope the motion will not pre¬ 
vail. ' I Bee no necessity or propriety in referring the 
subiect attain, either to a standing or a select commit¬ 
tee. I can assure the Convention that it will be of 
small avail to place it again in the hands of the special 
committee. Their opinions are finally decided, and 
even should instructions accompany the recommitted 
Report, I do not believe they will be carefully attended 

^ It has been well remarked that this is a purely le- 
crislative question; but it is too late to urge that objec¬ 
tion against this or any other important Report. 

It has been the determination of the Convention, from 
an early hour of its session, to incorporate great or 
singular legislative subjects—purely such—in the fun¬ 
damental law. 


Practising upon this determination, we have de¬ 
clared that any one engaged in a duel shall be forever 
incapable of holding any office of profit or trust. 
sir, we have declared that the only criminal we look 
upon as an honorable man—one whom we would re¬ 
ceive into the closest and most endearing relations of 
friendship—one whom we would receive at our fite- 
sides—permit to become the husbauds of our daugh¬ 
ters—the father of their children, shall be the only 
criminal known to the laws, who shall never be capa¬ 
ble of receiving forgiveness—never be capable of hold- 
inc' honorable trust—never be recognized as an hono¬ 
rable man. The thief, the burglar, the nmrderer, may 
hope for mercy, may become an officer of your govern¬ 
ment, but the mark of condemnation is placed upon 
this crime and criminal forever. The definition and 
punishment of crime is surely a mere legislative ques- 

tion. . 

Of the same nature, also, has been the action of this 
body in relation to lotteries and lottery tickets, without 
embracing any other species of gambling. 

Now, the Convention is, perhaps, justified in its action 
on these two subjects, because they are crimes of a pe¬ 
culiar character, and difficult to be provided against; 
yet, I certainly think neither of them of more impor¬ 
tance as legislative, as purely moral questions, than that 
now under consideratio . 

We have also had another question under considera¬ 
tion for many days, which was purely legislative in its 
character—day after day, and week after week, has 
this body been delving into the details of legislation, 
for the purpose of placing in the constitution matter 
which was reported here from the committee on the 
Public Debt and Public Works of the State, including 
not one particle of principle, but simply the details of 
a law which should belong wholly to pure legislation. 

And I might refer to other cases of legislation by 
this body, between which, and the question now before 
us, there is no difference as to principle. Therefore, if 
we are now trenching upon the functions of the General 
Assembly, we are doing no more than we have done 
heretofore in various other instances; and when gentle¬ 
men offer this consideration as an argument against our 
action upon this report, it falls with but an ill grace from 
their lips. 

But it is said that by putting this article into the con¬ 
stitution, we shall array a strong party prejudice 
against its adoption. I was pleased to hear this argu¬ 
ment coming from the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. 
Rannet.] It sounded well in the mouth of that gen¬ 
tleman. since it is well known that that gentleman has 
occupied twice as much time as any other gentleman 
upon this floor in attempting to get matter into the 
constitution wliicb would certainly array the whole 
Whig party of the State, to a man, against its adop¬ 
tion ; and perhaps many others, who can claim as 
strong and as legitimate affinity with Democratic prin¬ 
ciples as the gentleman from Trumbull himself. Is it 
not a little strange, then, that such a man should now 
declare himself opposed to including this report in the 
constitution, for fear that it will excite a popular feel¬ 
ing which would endanger its ultimate success before 
the people ? Array a hostile feeling against the con¬ 
stitution ! Why, sir, there is not a single proposition 
which we are likely to insert into the new constitution 
against which the same objection might not be as 
strongly urged as against this. 

But it is a minor question, says the gentleman from 
Trumbull. A minor question is it ? It is a question 
which has been discussed with all the force, and feel¬ 
ing, and passion of all the ministers of religion in the 
State—a question which has more or less interested 
every philanthropist and every good man—a question 
which has excited all the holier feelings which belong 
to man, and brought them all to bear with the force of 
a swelling torrent against one of the most insidious 
and dangerous elements of human destruction. 

A minor question! It is a question of opposition to 

















CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


1331 


that which produces more crime, and misery, and hu¬ 
man suffering, and anguish, and tears, than all other 
evil things combined. A minor question ! Why sir, 
I know of no more momentous question which can be 
brought before this, or any other assembled body of 
the State. Why, sir, what should be the action of the 
people what should be the action of the Legisla 
ture ?—what should be the action of this Convention 
upon the subject of the trade and traffic in intoxicating 
drinks?—are questions which, in my opinion, over¬ 
shadow and overtop all other questions. It is a prob¬ 
lem which presses itself upon every mind, and is most 
difficult of solution. We have had thousands and tens 
of thousands of petitioners appealing to us upon this 
subject, asking that the Legislature may be disrobed of 
the power of licensing the sale of ardent spirits, and 
the proposition now submitted by the special commit¬ 
tee is just that and no more. 

There is no difficulty in understanding this proposi¬ 
tion. It is not worth while for the gentleman from 
Trumbull to say that it is vague or uncertain in its 
meaning; for there is neither vagueness nor uncertain¬ 
ty in it. The report proposes simply to repeal all laws 
by which the traffic in ardent spirits has been licensed. 
But beyond this it leaves the matter to the people and 
the Legislature ; including the power to tax the traffic, 
and the power even to go so far as to prohibit the traf¬ 
fic entirely, if the Legislature, in their wisdom, should 
deem it expedient so to do. 

We do not claim—we have never claimed, that the le¬ 
gislation of the country should be used for the pur¬ 
pose of forcing morality and religion upon the people. 
This is not what is asked for by the friends of temper- 
: ance here. This is not what is contemplated in this 
report at all; although the signers of that report have 
no association with any temperance organization. But 
the report does ask, and wisdom asks, that the Legisla- 
' ture of the State shall not sanction and license immor¬ 
ality 

There is a wide distinction in that kind of legislation 
which would force religion or morality upon the peo¬ 
ple, and that kind of legislation which, while it sus¬ 
tains virtue—which, while it lures the heart to better 
thimrs, employs all its force and power to rebuke im¬ 
morality, and punish all crime. Sir, on yesterday, 
when I reported back this article from the hands of 
the committee, it was my intention to have voted 
! against it, for I had some doubts as to its propriety; 
[ but considering the manner in which it has been ai*- 
I -^ued this morning, the character of the opposition, 
\ and the source from which it comes, I am not satisfied 
I but that there must be something better in the report 
I than either the committee or myself at first supposed, 

1 and inasmuch as there can arise no evil out of it—as it 

2 takes from the counties but a small amount of revenue, 
and still leaves the whole subject in the hands of the 
Legislature, I shall now vote to give it a place in the 

constitution. , , , 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. I do not know what 
the select committee upon this subject have done, that 
they are to be thus indirectly censured, by taking this 
report out of their hands; nor do I know what the 
committee on Jurisprudence have done, that they 
should be entitled to the peculiar privilege of having 
I this matter referred to them. 

A Voice. “ To get it into the hands of its enemies. 

Mr. HAWKINS, (in his seat.) Because that com¬ 
mittee reported against it last summer. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Ah ; I had forgotten that. 

H Mr! SAWYER, (interposing.) It has been but a few 
I days since the report of the committee on the Legisla- 
tive Department was taken out of their hands and reler- 
1 red to a select committee—consisting of the gentleman 
(from Medina, [Mr. Humphreville,] I believe, and as 
I that was not taken as any slight on the part ot the 
standing committee, I hope no objections will be taken 
to the proposed reference of the report under conside- 
' ration. 


Mr. HITCHCOCK. I recollect that when the Leg¬ 
islative report was under consideration, it was recom¬ 
mitted for the purpose of striking out the word “ first,” 
and that it was thought that one individual member 
could do that as well as to call the committee togeth¬ 
er for the purpose. It seems to me, sir, that, to 
make this reference, would not be treating the select 
committee civilly, if the committee on Jurisprudence 
have once reported adversely. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, (in his seat.) It never was before 
the committee on .lurisprudence 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I suppose the object of the gen¬ 
tleman from Monroe is to get rid of the report. But, if 
it is to be recommitted at all, I hope it will go again to 
the select committee, for I can have no doubt but that 
they will obey any instructions which may be directed 
to them by the Convention. 

Mr. HOLT. I rise merely to correct the gentleman 
from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold.] This subject was cer¬ 
tainly before the committee on Jurisprudence; and the 
amount of their report was, that it was not a proper 
subject for the consideration of this body. 

Mr. ORTON demanded the previous question. 

The question then being: shall the main question be 
now put ? 

Mr. RIDDLE demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered and resulted—yeas 43, nays 48—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Ceilings, Cook, 
Ewart, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Hawkins, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Hunter, Kennon, Larsh, Lawrence, Man- 
on, Mason, Morehead, McCormick, Orton, Otis, Perkins, Scott 
of Harrison, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery,Stan¬ 
ton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickuey, Swift, Way, and Worthing¬ 
ton—43. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Clark, Curry, Dorsey, Farr, 
Forbes, Graham, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Mor¬ 
ris, McCloud, Norris, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reeme- 
lin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Highland, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of 
Stark, Warren,^ Wilson, Woodbury and President—48. 

So the demand for the previous question was not 
sustained. 

The question then being on committing the report 
to the committee on Jurisprudence; 

Mr. DORSEY. Contrary to my expectations, I find 
myself about to make some remarks upon this subject. 

I voted, in the first place, for the passage of this pro¬ 
vision, because it contained a principle which I wish¬ 
ed to support. But, I confess, that, whilst I voted for 
it, I had some misgivings about the terms in which it 
was expressed. I thought it was not couched in the 
precise language which ought to have been given to it. 
And it was for this reason that I voted this morning 
for the reconsideration. 

I stand in this position. Although I am not over¬ 
much pleased with the idea of forcing this matter in 
this Convention, yet whenever the question shall come 
up, I shall vote for it. 

I have said here before, that I have always been op¬ 
posed to legislative interference in this matter. I am 
not one of those who are in favor of legislating immo¬ 
rality out of the community ; but yet, when this ques¬ 
tion comes up in broad shape, shall the Legislature in¬ 
terpose in this traffic and license it, and legitimize it 
or not? I cannot hesitate in deciding which way I 
ought to vote. 

But I could have wished that this report could have 
been confined to this plain and bare statement of the 
case. If such had been the shape of it, I could have 
voted for it more willinMy than I did; and then I 
should never have voted for a motion to reconsider. 

But the committee did more. Not content with the 
simple declaration that the Legislature shall not legiti¬ 
mize this traffic, they went on to say, that the Legisla¬ 
ture might provide for the suppression of the traffic. 
Now, although the Legislature certainly has all this 













1332 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


power without the grant of this committee, still this 
clause of this report is obnoxious to the objection thal 
it is a call upon the Legislature for the purpose of en¬ 
forcing the observance of good morals in the commu¬ 
nity. On this account I have not been surprised to see 
gentlemen opposing the report. Now, when the sim¬ 
ple question comes up whether the • Legislature shall 
or shall not legalize the traffic in spirituous liquors, I 
am prepared to vote that they shall not do it, upon the 
broad principle that it is wrong to attempt to raise 
revenue from the vices and crimes of the people. I 
am willing to go only so far upon this question, as I 
have stated, and I would be glad not to be asked to go 
any further. 

For this reason I shall vote for the recommitment of 
the report, but not for the instructions of the gentle¬ 
man from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] in the hope that it 
will be returned, if returned at all, without the objec¬ 
tion which I have now pointed out. 

Mr. LARWILL. I am confident that if this report 
were to pass, it will array a very powerful infiuence 
against the constitution. I take a difierent view of this 
subject from that which is commonly expressed. The 
petitions which have been sent up here have been got 
up by those who claim to be friends of temperance, 
and many of these temperance men have made them¬ 
selves exceedingly obnoxious to a large portion of the 
German people of my region of the country. The 
cause which I think, myself, is a good one, has been so 
managed there as to bring it into disrepute; and there¬ 
fore I have said that the incorporation of such a clause 
would arouse a feeling of opposition against the con¬ 
stitution which ought not to be permitted to bear 
against it. 

] have been surprised to see the advocates of tem¬ 
perance upon this fioor appear to be unwilling to sub¬ 
mit this proposition, as a separate clause. But I appre¬ 
hend that the reason of this is that they are afraid the 
question would fail before the people: and gentlemen, 
perhaps, are here advocating what they would not dare 
to advocate as a separate clause before the people. 

Besides this, I have no doubt that many of the peti¬ 
tions received here have been got up to order, although 
justice compels me to say that the petitions which I 
have presented, upon this subject, have been signed by 
respectable temperance men and members of very re¬ 
spectable temperance societies. 

But, sir, I cannot but think that the success of this 
report would have a tendency to demoralize the peo¬ 
ple, and that we should sufier by it even more than we 
suti'ered by the hard cider campaign of 1840; from the 
beneficial effects of which we have not even yet entire¬ 
ly recovered. 

For these reasons, if I can be in order, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, I will move that the further consideration of this 
subject be postponed until the first Monday of May 
next, and demand the yeas and nays upon that ques¬ 
tion. 

The motion having been entertained by the Chair; 

Mr. REEMBLIN said: I wish to reply briefly to 
the insinuations which have been thrown out here, to 
the effect, that the members from Hamilton county are 
opposed to this report because it would deprive the city 
of Cincinnati of one of their sources of revenue. I shall 
at least speak for myself. 

The gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Perkins,] was 
exceedingly courteous upon this subject, but I desire 
to show him that the position he assumed was also ex¬ 
ceeding fallacious. I will ask that gentleman whether 
a special tax, not called license, but by another name, 
might not be levied upon the traffic in liquors ? To 
levy such a tax upon this traffic might be done under 
the present charter of the city of Cincinnati, in spite of 
this clause of the constitution, if it is desired to exer¬ 
cise this power for the sake of raising revenue? 

I have always been opposed to all special taxation, 
except for such purposes as the improvements of streets 
and the like. I would have the revenue of our city to 


be collected wholly from the real estate of our citi¬ 
zens, and from a just valuation of their personal proper¬ 
ty recorded upon the tax duplicate. I would relieve ' 
our coffee houses, our draymen, and all trades and pro¬ 
fessions from the support of any share of this burthen. 

I am opposed to all special tax, because it is taxing 
special industry, special labor, which is always wrong. 
Draw up a proposition which squarely and fairly de¬ 
nies all powers for special taxes upon all or any legal 
pursuit, and I will vote for it. 

But the committee which drafted this report have 
prepared it manifestly with a design to catch votes. 
The gentleman from Logan and the gentleman from 
Trumbull know that the temperance men in this body 
are as such in a miserable minority, and that they could 
not obtain, directly and fairly, more than forty votes 
upon this floor. Many votes were, however, obtained 
for this report with the direct understanding that it 
proposed nothing more than to repeal all laws licensing 
the traffic, and that hereafter it should be left free. I 
myself know' of as many as five members who voted for 
it with this understanding. Whilst at the same time 
my friend from Logan and my friend from Guernsey 
voted for it for the purpose of preparing the way for 
future legislation on the subject, and for declaring the 
selling of liquor to be a crime. 

This one-sided partnership between two extremes is 
being understood—I know the intentions of temperance 
men—I know they have entrapped the friends of free 
trade—I know what is to come—I know the pro¬ 
gramme—and I will illustrate it by an anecdote which 
i read the other day of two brothers traveling togeth¬ 
er, the one delivering temperance lectures, and the 
other getting drunk all the time; and when the latter 
was asked how it was that he could be a drunkard and 
his brother a temperance lecturer, replied: “ Oh, that 
is very easily explained; we are both laboring in the 
same cause ; my brother gives the lectures, and I give 
the horrifying examples.” [Laughter.] And this is 
precisely what the temperance men seek by the adop¬ 
tion of this report. They want to give the “ horrifying 
examples.” 

And to do this, they would not hesitate to adopt a 
measure whose results would make children yet un¬ 
born to blush for their native State; which should 
make us blush when we think that we are the only 
people in the Union to put such a clause and such a 
subject into a State constitution—which would bring 
about such a state of things as w’ould justify the erec¬ 
tion of a coffee house on every corner and in all the 
streets and lanes of our cities, and all along our public 
highways. Sir, we ought to blush to think that we 
are the first people who have seriously proposed to put 
such a word as “coffee house,” or the word liquor into 
a constitution. 

And these temperance men are not shy about tell¬ 
ing us their object; for they know that if we repeal 
the license law, liquor selling will become common, 
and that the land will be filled with crime as a conse¬ 
quence ; and then, having a provision in the constitu¬ 
tion, which permits them to legislate against the evils 
resulting therefrom, their own provision having pro- i 
duced the evils which they desire for effect, they will i 
be ready by Penitentiary clauses to suppress not only i 
the traffic, but the manufacture, and in the end to * 
regulate by law the appetites of the people. They 
want a clause for a general law to suppress the traffic 
entirely throughout the State; for they could set up an 
irresistible claim for such a law, on account of the ne¬ 
cessity to suppress crime. Such would be the result 
of a rash constitutional innovation of this character. 

It is at best an untried step, and no man can tell where 
it would lead us, except that if the traffic be thrown 
open to all, it will lead to sconces, such as would cause 
our cheeks to tingle with shame for having passed such 
a Janus-faced provision. 

Wherever any experiment of this character has 
I been tried, it has signally failed. There are, perhaps, _ 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1333 


many here, who can remember that this experiment 
was once tried in the neighboring city of Louisville. 
The license laws were at one time suppressed in that 
city. The doors were thrown open, and the traffic 
made free, and no tax was allowed to be levied upon 
it. But sir, read the history of that city, which may 
be found in the public newspapers, or go down there 
now and ask their citizens in the street, ask the tem¬ 
perance men themselves, to recur with you to that page 
of their history embracing the period of the prohibi¬ 
tion of their license laws, and see if they will not all 
hang their heads iu shame, and they will all acknovvl- 
edge that they committed an egregious blunder, from 
which they have retraced their steps. 

Sir, I hope this article will not pass. But I desire 
especially, m these remarks, to repel the miserable de¬ 
lusion that the repeal of the license laws has been op¬ 
posed by myself or any body else, because they are re¬ 
garded as a source of revenue. 

As to submitting the article to the people separately, 

I deprecate the prostitution of the ballot-box, and the 
insertion of the clause under consideration. I depre¬ 
cate the question of a separate submission, upon this 
lurther account, because I regard it as the effort of 
designing men to sink the constitution before the peo¬ 
ple. 

now asked and obtained leave to 
withdraw his motion to yiostpone. 

Mr. LAWRENCE would only rise to repel the un¬ 
founded and unjust insinuation of the gentleman from 
Hamilton, [Mr. Reemehn] that any gentlemfiii upon 
this floor was disposed to vote for this proposition for 
the purpose of loading down the constitution and de¬ 
feating it before the people. 

Sir, I cannot for a moment believe that. I must 
think less of human nature than I now do, fo believe 
that any gentleman upon this floor would give his vote 
for such a purpose; for, if there really were such a 
man here, I would freely say that he is unworthy of 
his position. 

Mr. RE EMELIN (interposing.) I spoke of the ef¬ 
fect of such a provision. But the gentleman speaks for 
himself. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I am speaking in behalf ofgen- 
tlernan whom I know to be actuated by the purest 
motives. Whether their action shall tend ultimately 
for the best or not, is another question ? And I will 
say now to our friends, that all we have to do is to 
stand firm and present an undivided front, and resist 
every proposition to recommit or postpone, for the ob¬ 
ject of these motions is either to place the proposition 
beyond our reach, or load it down with amendments, 
which will render it obnoxious to its friends. I hope 
no man will be led astray by this skirmishing. It only 
shows the weakness of their cause, who stand upon 
this question, opposed to the interests of suffering hu¬ 
manity. All we ask is to be met fairly, and we are 
prepared for the battle. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I am apprehensive that there are 
gentlemen upon this floor who are about to vote for 
this proposition without a proper undei'standing of it, 
for I perceive that some have one understanding of it, 
and others have another; it is plain, therefore, that one 
or the other of these parties must be sadly deceived in 
the result. And I fear the gentleman from Trumbull, 
[Mr. Perkins,] will find himself deceived as to the 
construction which he has given to this section. 

Now, suppose we change the wording a little. Sup¬ 
pose that instead of saying the Legislature shall not 
license the traffic, we say the Legislature shall not per¬ 
mit the traffic in ardent spirits. Would we thereby 
really change the sense ? It is true it would be much 
more perspicuous in the latter form. 

The ambiguity of the word license, arises from the 
fact that this word has been so long connected with the 
subject of retailing ardent spirits, that it has come to 
be considered as having somehiug of the same signifi¬ 
cation of the word “ grant ” license, or grant leave to 


do a thing, rather than as implying permission or lib¬ 
erty. But I conceive that if we were to use this word 
in this instrument, it would have to be construed ac¬ 
cording to its ordinary meaning, that is, as a permit or 
a privilege. But ihis, I apprehend, is not the con¬ 
struction which a large proportion of temperance men 
have given to this term. If we look at their petitions, 
it must be perfectly clear that their understanding of 
a provision of this kind, is, that there shall be an entire 
prohibition of the traffic; and if I am not mistaken, 
there are gentlemen who are voting for this proposition 
with the same understanding. But these gentlemen 
should remember that our individual designs and in¬ 
tentions cannot affect the proper and legitimate mean¬ 
ing of the words which we employ in this article. 

Mr. PERKINS, (interposing.) If the gentleman’s 
construction is right, what does the last clause mean ? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I confess the latter clause throws 
doubt on the construction of the former; but still if the 
latter clause can be made to harmonize at all according 
to the rule of construction, it cannot affect the con¬ 
struction of the clear literal meaning of the former 
clause. But if the design of the friends of this report, 
were utterly to prevent this traffic, why did they not 
employ unequivocal language? A single word settles 
it beyond all dispute, if the design is to remove all res¬ 
trictions from the traffic, and leave it open to all, as 
some here contend it is. This word is restrain. Sti’ike 
out the word issue, and insert instead, the word restrain, 
and the meaning will be clear and unequivocal. One 
word sir, as to the policy of inserting any such provis¬ 
ion. The gentleman from Logan says if you remove 
from the traffic, the license law, that you will thereby 
render the business odious. But this is rather a singu¬ 
lar declaration. Does not the gentleman know that a 
large proportion of the business of this country, de¬ 
pends not at all upon any license law ? W hy, sir, the 
very fact that a business is not dependent upon license, 
is a recommendation; and the very moment you place 
any business under a license law, the inference is that 
it is not a harmless business. It is the unlicensed busi¬ 
ness that is creditable, because allowed to be carried 
on unrestrained bylaw. Amongst these, are all the 
useful callings of life; and these were never restrained 
by any free gov’ernment on earth, and to place them un¬ 
der license would be an act of oppression, and instead 
of elevating such callings, therefore, the tendency would 
be to depress them. I do hope this article will be whol¬ 
ly left out of the constitution, for there can be no call 
for it whatever. 

When, sir, will men learn that there are some evils 
that are entirely above ..he reach of mere human law ? 
This, sir, is a moral evil, and cannot, I say cannot, be 
efficiently corrected by any mere human law, or hu¬ 
man instrumentality. No, sir, the All-wise Governor 
of the universe has provided the only true and efficient 
correction and remedy for this evil, and all of akindred 

character. . . . 

His statutes are the only ones which can reach with 
any force or effect, the hearts and consciences of men. 
And, sir, in order to secure any reliable reformation, in 
this or any other immoral practice, you must reach 
those great fountains of vice and immorality, the de¬ 
praved and vicious desires of the heart. Sir, you rnight 
as well undertake to pass laws restraining that majestic 
representation of Omnipotence and Omniscience, the 
sun of the boundless firmament, as that next most 
striking representative of the same August Being, the 
immortal spirit of man. No more, sir, can you, by your 
laws, control the emotions and affections of this im¬ 
mortal spirit, and its consequent moral abberralions, 
than you can control this sun in its course, or the time 
and manner of its .shining. , j . 

He, sir, that would be. innocent before Godin this 
matter, must look away from man for aid in these mat¬ 
ters, and of all kindred nature. 

He, sir, that would rob his Creator of the praise just¬ 
ly due to him, for the pure morality of this, and all oth- 









1334 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


er real Christian countries, is to my mind, the grossest 
of ingrates—guilty of one of the most wicked of acts. 

What then, sir, are these men at here, but just this 
thing ? They are looking to your Legislature—direct¬ 
ing your people to look to this as the only true and re¬ 
liable source of moral reform on this and other sub¬ 
jects. The result is now palpable to every obserying 
eye—God is forsaking them in wrath—leaving them to 
the devices of their own hands and the confusion that 
ever attends the designs of man when thus forsaken by 
a kind and wise-directing Providence. Sir, I do most 
earnestly beseech this Convention not to involve itself 
in a participation in this wicked folly—this wild cru¬ 
sade started by the presumption of man against the in¬ 
strumentalities appointed by infinite wisdom for the 
effectual cure of all the moral evils which affect our 
fallen state. Sir, I have long regarded this temperance 
movement and some others of the wild schemes of our 
day as covert, but none the less direct attacks upon the 
entire Christian system. That great system, sir to 
which we are directly indebted for the highest bles¬ 
sings our country now or in times past has enjoyed. I 
believe, sir, that the most sound, clear-sighted Christ¬ 
ians are beginning to see this scheme in the same light 
I have done. 

Look, sir, at the bedlam-like conduct now attend¬ 
ing your temperance society exhibitions. And let any 
sober Christian say whether that sobriety and order 
attend them which must ever attend all enterprises 
where the spirit of Christianity is concerned. 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays up¬ 
on the motion to refer to the committee on Jurispru¬ 
dence, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 46, 
nays 47—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, Plolmes, 
Holt, Hootnian, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morris, 
Norris, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reenielin, Riddle, 
Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stidger, Struble, Thomp-, 
son of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury 
and President—46. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderler, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Ewart, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Ham¬ 
ilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hunter, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Manon, Mason, Morehead, McCloud McCormick, Or¬ 
ton. Otis, Perkins, Scott of Har rison, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of W’arren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Stilwell, Stickney, Swift, Way, Williams, and Worthington—47. 

So the motion to recommit was rejected. 

The question then being on the passage of the re¬ 
port; 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 43, nays 49— 
as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Moirtgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Gillett, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hiichcockof Ge¬ 
auga, Hunter, Larsh, Lawrence, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, 
McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Otis, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Swift, 
Way, Williams and Worthington—4.3. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Cha¬ 
ney, Clark, Farr, Forbes, Graham, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groes¬ 
beck, Harlan, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
J.oudon, Mitchell, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Holt, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of High- 
land, Smith ol Wyandot, Stanbery, Stidger, Struble, Thompson 
of .-helby, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury and 
President—49. 

So the report was rejected. 

On motion of Mr. MITCHELL, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Smith, 
of Highland in the Chair, and took' up the considera¬ 
tion ot the report (No. 2) of the committee on Finance 
and Taxation, submitted by Mr. Loudon, on the 18th 
in.^lant. 

J he report having been read through, 

T he CHAIRMAN announced the consideration of the 
lirst section, which is as follows : 


Sec. 1. That the levying of taxes by the poll is grievous and 
oppressive; therefore the Legislature shall never levy a poll tax 
for county or State purposes. 

Mr. MANON moved to amend this section by stri¬ 
king out all after the word “ poll,” to wit: by striking 
out the words, “ tax for county or State purposes,” and 
inserting in lieu thereof, the words, “ or a professional 
t3X • 

He said he desired that the taxes should be paid by 
the properly of the State, and not on account of the 
privilege of living or of making a living. He would 
not tax a professional man for his profession. He would 
not tax a lawyer because he had the name of a lawyer, 
for he hoped that they all were to be made lawyers by 
the action of this Convention. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE, (in his seat.) I hope so 
too. 

Mr. LOUDON said the committee on Finance and 
Taxation had adopted this first section as they found 
it in the bill of rights of the present constitution, be¬ 
lieving it to be their duty, whenever they could con¬ 
sistently do so, to adhere to the language of that in¬ 
strument. This section was so old and familiar to 
every man in Ohio, that he did not want to part with it. 

A division of the question having been called for, and 
the committee having refused to strike out, the amend¬ 
ment was lost. 

Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall provide by law, an uni¬ 
form rule of assessment and taxation, and shall prescribe such 
regulations as will secure a just valuation of all property, both 
real and personal; and monies and credits, or investments in joint 
stock companies or otherwise, shall be taxed as other property is 
taxed; Provided, that buying grounds, public school houses 
houses used exclusively for public worship, to an amount not 
over $2000; institutions oi purely public charity, the property of 
the state, of counties, townships, cities, and towns, may by, general 
laws be exempt from taxation. And the General Assembly may 
exempt from taxation property belonging to the head of each 
family not exceeding in value two hundred dollars. 

Ml . MANON moved to amend this section by striking 
out of the proviso, after the word‘‘worship,” these wmrds, 
“ to an amount not over two thousand dollars.” 

Mr. M. said he proposed this amendment because he 
desired to conform his views to what he supposed to be 
the views and wishes of others. He desired to put all 
churches upon an equal fooling ; but if he could ha\e 
his own way exactly he would tax the whole of them. 

Mr. LOUDON said that whilst the committee could 
not agree upon the details of this report, they were 
nearly all agreed upon the principle. They could all 
agree as to the justice ol the principle of taxing church¬ 
es and individuals all alike, according to the value of 
their properly ; but they could not agree upon ex¬ 
empting property in the possession of every church to 
the amount of $2000, and in the possession of every 
individual householder to the amount of $200. The 
amount exempted in the possession of the poorer church 
was the same with that exempted in the hands of the 
more wealthy ; and the amount exempted in the hands 
of the poor householder was the same with that ex¬ 
empted in the hands of the millionaire. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I shall vote in favor of striking 
out, for I am apprehensive that the construction would 
be, that all churches worth more than $2000 would 
not be exempted at all, while all churches under that 
sum would go free. That would work serious injus¬ 
tice to those churches erecting more permanent build¬ 
ings. I allude now particularly to the Roman Catho¬ 
lic churches. I do not know of a single church belong¬ 
ing to that class of Christians that is not worth more 
than $2000. For this reason it might be sup[tosed that 
this clause was intended to be directed against the 
Catholics. 

Mr. AIICHBOLD. Nobody doubts but it is a Catho¬ 
lic persecution. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I do not believe that any such 
intention was in the mind of any member of the stand¬ 
ing committee; but I acknowledge the proposition 
squints that way. But, for myself, I believe that all 
property, intended for a man’s own use—for himself 










CONVENTION REPOETS. 


1335 


alone—and which may be denied to all others—proper¬ 
ty that does not belong to the public—should all be 
taxed. With respect to church property, which is all 
private property, as contra-distinguished from public 
property, it is well known that I am in favor of taxing 
them all alike. 

I have heard the arEjument of the gentleman from 
Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] in support of his allegation 
that this is an attack upon the Catholics. But it is 
well known that Protestant churches, in this country, 
are much more numerous than Catholic ; and Protes¬ 
tants would be very great fools to tax themselves more, 
for the sake ol taxing the Catholics less; and, besides 
this, I know that the chairman of the committee mak¬ 
ing this report would be incapable of intending any 
special injury to Catholics. But it is an unjustifiable 
discrimination, to tax a church worth more than $2,000, 
and exempt those worth less. 

I suppose that all pi’operty of churches in this coun¬ 
try is generally held as private property—intended for 
personal, individual comfort—as opposed to property 
designated wholly to the public use. If any gentle¬ 
man doubts this, let him recur to the newspaper ad¬ 
vertisements for the sale of pews. Apprehending that 
my position here might be controverted, I have collec¬ 
ted a few advertisements, which I will read. 

Mr. R. read the following advertisements : 

P EW IN CIIllIST CHURCH. —A central pew in the 
central aisle ot Christ Church, will be sold on reasonable 
terms. Apply at the Gazette office. octl2-tf 

P UBLIC SALE OF PEWS. —The sale of Pews, in the 
New Stone Church, Dr. Willis Lord’s, on Seventh street, be¬ 
tween Westprn Row and John, is advertised for this evening, 
(the 20th,) 7 o’clock. Gentlemen desirous of securing pews, 

are requested to be present with their tamilies. Pews remaining 
unsold, should there be any, will be rented at the close of the 
sale. 


P EWS IN CHRIST CHURCH.— No. 65, middle aisle ; 
good location. No. 108; step east side. For sale low, by 
HENRY HOCKEY, 

dec21-lw No. 21 East Front street. 

I believe the practice of selling pews prevails with 
all the churches in this country except the Methodi.sl, 
and there it is beginning to be adopted. I introduce 
these advertisements only for the purpose of showing 
that churches are considered as private property to all 
intents and purposes, and being used for the comfort 
and enjoyment of individuals, they should be taxed as 
j the property of individuals. 

1 While 1 am upon this subject, I will express the 
i hope that if the word “ exemption ” gets into the con- 
1 stitution, a provision will be engrafted into it requiring 
; that all property in the State of Ohio, not taxed as otln 
i er property, shall be reported and published annually 
under the authority of the State. Such a regulation as 
this in the State of Pennsylvania, shows that in the 
city of Philadelphia alone, there is the vast amount of 
$3,192,180 worth of property exempt from taxation, 
the majority of it being divided amongst the churches 
of that city. 

Governments heretofore have acted upon the princi¬ 
ple that no man should have any political rights unless 
' he held a pecuniary interest, to be enjoyed and pro¬ 
tected. That was the idea that a man must have a 
stake in society as a property holder, or else he had no 
rights. We have, T am happy to say, repudiated that 
doctrine ; but I will ask if we are not rapidly depart¬ 
ing from the true principle of free government, and 
whether we are not now leaning on the other side, 
when we throw the burthen of taxation too heavily 
upon a part of the community, or when we place the 
hand of taxation hard upon a few interests of the State 
and lightly, or not at all, upon others ? All interests 
share in the proceeds of taxation ; and if there is any 
ditference, those interests which are exempted from 
taxation have the highest advantages from taxation, 
and is it not a false policy which permits so many pe¬ 
culiar interests which have an interest to increase tax¬ 
ation, but which do not support an equal share of this 


burden? I refer now particularly to banks, to railroads, 
and to other property exempted. I ask whether it 
would not be right to compel all the private property 
in the State to feel its proportionate share of the weight 
of taxation ? I ask whether, by bringing all property in 
churches, banks, roads, and every species of property 
in which money is invested, upon the tax list, we would 
not very much contribute to that very desirable object, 
a general vigilance about expenditures, and whether it 
would not conduce to an economical administration of 
the government? 

But, by exempting this description of property, I 
ask whether we are not going backward to results 
which are realized in other governiments ? In the gov¬ 
ernments of Europe, in the exercise of the taxing pow¬ 
er, they have discriminated in favor of capital and 
against labor; but here we are discriminating in favor 
of capital, and in favor of other property, and against 
real estate. The number of voters who are interested 
in our amount of taxation, is rapidly diminishing. I 
hope we will retrace our steps, and by subjecting all 
property to taxation make it the interest of all to have 
a cheap government. 

For these reasons I hope the amendment will pre¬ 
vail, and that the section will be so shaped that there 
shall be no exemptions from taxation but property be¬ 
longing to the State, county, township, town, or city, 
or to the United States. 

Mr. GROESBECK. I shall sustain this amendment 
because it seems to me to be obviously right. The 
proviso to this section is in these words: 

Provided, That burying grounds, public school houses, hou* 
ses used exclusively for public worship, to an amount not over 
$2000; institutions of purely public charity, the property of the 
State, of counties, townships, cities and towns may by general 
laws, be exempt from taxation. And the General Assembly may 
exempt from taxation property belonging to the head of each 
family, not exceeding in value two hundred dollars. 

“ To an amount not over two thousand dollars,” are 
the words proposed to be stricken out. The provision 
is: that if the house and grounds shall be valued at 
any sum above two thousand dollars, the church shall 
be taxed on the excess. In other words : it proposes 
to exempt from taxation the property of all churches 
to the amount of two thousand dollars. That is my 
construction. Now the question is whether this is 
right. I understand that this provision asserts the prin¬ 
ciple,! that it is right to exempt churches to a certain 
extent. Aye, more, this provision is so carefully word¬ 
ed, that it will wholly exempt from taxation, perhaps, 
nine-tenths of all the churches in the State, and tax the 
remainder. The report asserts the principle, that it is 
right to exempt churches from taxation, then goes on, 
carefully, to provide for the exemption of a certain 
amount of church property, which will cover a large 
majority of all the churches, and taxes the few chur¬ 
ches which, by reason of their locality, are worth more 
than that specific amount. 

Now I propose to examine the fairness of this report, 
in this particular. I will come right home here and 
consider its effect upon the churches in Cincinnati. 
There are, say one hundred churches in this city, dis¬ 
tributed in the various wards ; just as the school houses 
are distributed—in the centres of their respective con¬ 
gregations. Now is this distribution right or is it 
wrong? Is it right, that the churches should be loca¬ 
ted in the dillerent wards in the city, where they will 
be most convenient to the congregations worshiping in 
them? Certainly, you will say, this is right. What 
then? There is a church, (pointing through the win¬ 
dow in the direction of the 1st Presbyterian church,) 
located in the se(;ond ward. The church, itself, occu¬ 
pies a lot of say, seventy feet front and one hundred 
feet deep. That is not too large a lot for a church— 
certainly not loo large a lot for a building suitable for 
the congregation worshiping there — and the bai’e 
‘^round upon which that house now stands, is worth 
From 15 to $20,000, and 1 might say the same of many 
other ciiurch-lots in this city—the bare ground being 
















1336 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


worth $20,000, without computing the value of the 
building erected upon it. It is plain, then, that we 
must either renounce the right of the chmxhes here, to 
locate their houses of worship conveniently—we must 
either say, that there shall not be any churches erect¬ 
ed in the city or repudiate the principle of the report. 
But I say these churches are rightfully located where 
they are. 

Mr. RE EMELIN, (interposing.) The re^^ort does 
not say a word about the lot. 

Mr. GROESBECK. Well, I know enough of law to 
understand that this phrase covers the value of the lot, 
upon which the house stands. But as 1 was saying— 
there is that church which has occupied that locality 
for half a century. When it was located in that place, 
this city was but a mere village. Some are still living 
who assisted in putting up the church, which has re¬ 
cently been torn down upon that lot; and when they 
put the church there originally, the lot was worth only 
a few hundred dollars. But since that time, the lot 
has increased in value, and because it has increased in 
value, shall it be that that congregation shall not wor¬ 
ship there ? 

Again, are we prepared to condemn the architec¬ 
ture of that building ? Are we prepared to say, that 
city churches shall not be permitted to conform to the 
style of architecture around them ? There is such a 
thing as church architecture; and shall we banish it 
from our midst? Shall we declare that other public 
buildings shall be erected with proper architecture, but 
the churches shall have none of it ? Will you expend 
millions upon your State Capitol at Columbus, and 
upon your court houses and other public buildings, and 
require that your churches shall be mere barns ? No, 
sir, I affirm that it is proper for our churches to be 
erected in conformity with approved styles of ai'chi- 
tecture. There is the Catholic Cathedral, which, I 
believe, has already been alluded to. I always look 
with pride upon that noble structure, with high-ascen- 
(^ng spire pointing to the throne of that Being who is 
worshiped within. 

Yet the principle of this report amounts to a decla¬ 
ration, that we should go to work and batter to the 
plain every work of public improvement and ornament 
of the kind. 

But, sir, go into any of the churches of this city—I 
have been in nearly all of them—and see if you can 
find in their interior any display of extravagance or of 
luxury, which any gentleman here could reasonably 
condemn. You will find in most of them, long, straight 
pews, so illy suited for comfort that I would far rather 
occupy my chair at this desk. 

No, sir; the distinction proposed in this report is all 
wrong. It is just as impoiTant that a house of wor¬ 
ship should be properly located, as that a school house 
should be properly located; and any principle that, 
would disturb this arrangement is all wrong. 

Sir, if we are to incorporate into this report the prin¬ 
ciple of protection at all, we should extend it to all the 
churches, without limitation or discrimination. It 
does seem to me, that w'e cannot rightfully make any 
distinction whatever. If you protect one church, pro¬ 
tect all—if you tax one, tax all. If you protect a 
church in one county, protect them in all counties—if 
you exempt them in the country, exempt them in tlje 
city. Let your rule be uniform. 

Mr. HUMPIIREVILLE. If I tjiiderstand the pro¬ 
posed amendment, it is to strike out all discrimination 
between the value of churches, so as to exempt all 
houses of worship from taxation. I will go for this 
amendment, sir, and I beg leave to offer a few reasons 
which have brought me to this determination. 

I care but very little about this question whether 
church property shall Ite taxed or not; but I can see 
no good reason for making the proposed di8criminatir)n. 
Here in Cincinnati, a church edifice and the groundup 
on which it stands may be worth an hundred thousand 
dollars, whilst another church in the little towq where 


I live may not be worth one thousand dollars. They 
are both places for the worship of God; and I would 
make no discrimination between them on account of 
their respective values. The little house in which L 
worship may not be worth more than one thousand 
dollars ; and there is another house of worship in the 
same little town which cost some six or seven thousand 
dollars, yet that house is no more than sufficient for the 
congregation worshiping in it. Where is the propriety 
then in taxing the latter congregation and not the for¬ 
mer—for a house which answers their purpose no better 
than the smaller house answers the purpose of the 
smaller congregation. 

But I wish to look at this question from another 
point. And let me ask you, Mr. Charman, wdiat would 
be the effect upon the tax list of the city of Cincinnati, 
if you w^ere to strike all the churches within the limits 
of the corporation out of existence, and turn all their 
houses of worship into stores and grog shops ? What 
would be the result of such a policy ? Would not every 
Christian family be removed without the limits of the 
city ? And w'ould not every man be deterred from the 
idea of buying property and settling here with the ex¬ 
pectation of bringing up a family ? If this would be 
the result of such a policy, then it is an advantage to 
the city revenue, to have these church edifices located 
in every neighborhood for the convenience of the peo¬ 
ple. I may be w'rong, I do not know but property 
1 would be just as valuable hei*e without the churches as 
with them; but it is my sincere belief, that if the 
churches w'ere all removed, every description of real 
estate would immediately degenerate more than fifty 
per cent, in value. Indeed, I believe that opr goodly 
State would soon become a howling wilderness again, 
it it were not for the salutary influence of the churches 
and schools. 

From considerations like these, I am induced to say 
that if the churches in the little town of Medina are to 
be exempted from taxation, the churches of Cincinnati 
ought also to be exempted ; and if the churches of Cin¬ 
cinnati are to pay a tax according to the value of their 
church property, the owners of all the houses of wor¬ 
ship throughout the State ought to do the same. 

But, if the amendment recommended by the com¬ 
mittee IS to be adopted, if there is any doubt about in¬ 
cluding the laud in the value of the house, that doubt 
ought to be removed before the vote is taken. 

Mr. REE ME LIN. I protest against fighting men of 
straw upon this C|ue8lion. Who has proposed to strike 
the churches out of existence? No such a thing can 
be inferred from a jtroposition to tax them. I have no 
doubt but that gentlemen are correct in saying that if 
the churches were taken away, the value of property 
would depreciate. But who has said anything against 
the churches ? Who has blamed any body for build¬ 
ing churches ? I have not heard a word of that kind. 
All I have heard, amounts to this ; that when men ex¬ 
pend their money for this kind of property, they ought 
to pay a tax upon it just as they do upon any other 
property they hold. Our citizens build for themselves 
splendid mansions, and I want their buildings taxed, 
but not because I hate their style or magnificence, 
.lust so long as the burthens of taxation are to be laid 
upon property, just so long will I contend that all pri¬ 
vate properly should be taxed. Whenever I can be 
convinced that churches are public property, I will 
then go against taxing them. 

Sir, this proposition to tax the churches is not a hos¬ 
tile proposition. If it is hostility to tax them, then tax¬ 
ation is an attack upon everybody, and being an attack 
upon every body, it is no attack at all. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE, (in his seat.) I hope the 
gentleman did not understand me to allude to anything 
that has been said here to-day ? 

Mr. REE ME LIN. I know of nothing that has been 
said here at any time which could be understood as 
an attack upon the churches. It is only the principle 
of exemption from taxation that we war against. All 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1337 


we desire in this proposition, is a declaration, not that 
all the private property in the State shall be taxed, 
blit that it shall be subject to taxation, that is, all prop¬ 
erty which is used for private emolument or private 
comfort, private pleasure, or subject to private owner- 
shi[u 

When Mr. Reemelin had concluded; 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the committee rose, 
and the chairman reported progress; then. 

On motion ol Mr. GRAY, the Convention adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY, February 26, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by Rev. Mr. Jewell. 

Mr. LARSH presented a petition from John A. M. 
King, George D. Hendricks and thirty-five other voters 
of Preble county, praying that a clause be inserted in 
the new constitution proliibiting the Legislature from 
passing any law legalizing traffic in spirituous liquors. 

R^f^iied to a select committee of one, (i\'Ir. Law¬ 
rence.) 

Mr. McCORMICK submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the Judiciary committee be instructed to report 
to the Convention a plan of Judicial Districts in accordance 
with the Report. 

On motion, Mr. Townshend was excused from 
serving on the select committee on the Schedule. 

The PRESIDENT announced Mr. Humphreville to 
fill the vacancy. 

Mr. REEMELIN submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to in- 
sert in section two of the Report number two of the committee 
on “Corporations, other than Corporations for Banking,” after 
the words, “on the second Tuesday of October,” these words, 
“until otherwise ordered by law.” 

On the adoption of which, Mr. STANTON demanded 
the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and resulted— 
yeas 46, nays 43—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, 
Farr, Forbes, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, 
Hunter, Jones, Kennon, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Loudon, Manon, Morris, Norris, Reemelin, Riddle, Sellers, Stick- 
ney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Way, Williams, Wilson and 
W orthington—16. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Chambers, Codings, Curry, 
Ewing, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamil¬ 
ton, Harlan, Humphreville, Larsh, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, 
McCloud, McCormick, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, 
Quigley, Sawyer, Scott of Handson, Scott of Auglaize, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Wa’Ten, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Steb- 
bins, Stilwell, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Wood¬ 
bury and President—43. 

So the resolution was adopted. 

Mr. MANON submitted the following as a separate 
article of the new constitution; which w'as read the first 
time ; 

Every person of good moral character, being a voter, shall be 
entitled to admission to practice law in all courts of justice, any 
law to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Mr. LAWRENCE, from the select committee, to 
whom had been referred the petition of thirty-seven 
voters of Preble county, on the subject of granting li¬ 
censes to sell intoxicating drinks, submitted the fol- 

Resolved, That at the next general election, and at the same 
time when the votes of the electors shall be taken lor the adop¬ 
tion or rejection of the new constitution, the additional section, 
in the words following; 

“ ‘ No license to traJiic in intoxicating liquors shall hei-eafter be 
granted in this State, but the General Assembly may by law pro¬ 
vide against the evils arising therefrom,’ shall be submitted sepa¬ 
rately to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection, in 
form following, to wit: A separate ballot may be given by every 
person having^the right to vote for the new constitution, to be 
deposited in a sejiarate box. 

Upon the ballots given for the adoption of the said separate 
amendment shall be written or printed, or partly written or part¬ 
ly printed, the woi’ds ‘ license to sell intoxicating liquors—yes,’ 
and upon the ballots given against the adoption ol the said sepa¬ 


rate amendment, in like manner, the words ‘ license to sell in¬ 
toxicating liquors—no.’ 

If at the said election a majority of all the votes given for and 
against the said separate amendment shall contain the words ‘li¬ 
cense to sell intoxicating liquors—no,’ then the said separate 

amendment shall be a s^eparate section of Article-of the 

constitution in full force and effect—anything contained in the 
constitution to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Resolved, That the last preceding resolution be caused to be 
published in the manner specified in the resolution of the Con¬ 
vention relating to the notice of the time and manner of voting 
for the new constitution.” 

On motion of Mr. HOLMES, the. Report was laid on 
the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. RIDDLE moved that the Convention resolve it¬ 
self into a committee of the whole upon the report 
of the standing committee on Finance and Taxation, 
which was agreed to—Mr. Smith, of Highland, in the 
chair. 

The question then being on the amendment offered 
by Mr. Manon, to strike out the fourth and fifth lines 
of the second section of said report, the following 
words: “ Not exceeding in value the sum of two thou¬ 
sand dollai’s;” the same was agreed to. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to strike out of the same 
section the following: “Houses used exclusively for 
religious worship.” 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Woodbury ; 

Mr. WOODBURY. I have moved to strike out these 
words, Mr. Chairman, because I believe that justice to 
the people of the State demands that they shall be 
stricken out. If I had not believed before that an ex¬ 
clusion like this was wrong and unjust, the argument 
of the gentlemen from Franklin, [Mr. Stanbery,] yes¬ 
terday, would have convinced me of it. He stated that 
there were churches in this city, standing on ground 
that originally cost not more than two or three thousand 
dollars, that is now worth from twenty to fifty thou¬ 
sand. The proprietors of this vast estate have done 
nothing to enhance the value of their property; but it 
has merely risen on their hands and has increased in 
value more than twenty fold. Whether it was iutended 
originally or not, the proprietors of these churches have 
made a large speculation, and put heavy sums of mo¬ 
ney in their pockets. They rent the pews at a price 
augmented by the favorable position of their church. 
They receive and enjoy the protection of the laws and 
of the authorities of the State and the police of the 
city. Then why should they not pay taxes upon this 
pi’operty that is affording them a profit, and receiving 
the protection of the government? Why should they 
not aid in sup[)orting that government without which 
they could not exist ? 

The gentleman from Franklin told us that if taxes 
were imposed, the churches would be destroyed, and 
that the people would be driven to the hills, to wor¬ 
ship. I do not know but such might be the case here, 
and in a few other places, but it is not so in the part of 
the country in which I reside, and I believe that in 
general the charge is a libel upon the people. I do 
not believe that the people at large ask either bonus or 
exemption for their churches. 1 have frequently con¬ 
versed with gentlemen from the part of the State 
which I represent, and they have invariably said that 
they could see no reason why churches should not be 
taxed. 

But, Mr. President, if the provisions of this section 
are to prevail, I shall Ise ready to go for allowing every 
man in the State to have a certain portion of his pro¬ 
perty invested in churches, to be exempt from taxation. 
That would be just and right, because it would put all 
upon an equal footing: but I say that it is manifestly 
unjust and unequal to make such provisions that ten, 
twenty, fifty, or an hundred thousand dollars—the pro¬ 
perty of the able and the rich, are exempt from taxa¬ 
tion, while every cent of the property of the poor man 
is to be taxed for the support of that government that 
extends its protection to all. Yet, if a movement is 
made to touch the churches—if the debt they owe to 














1338 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the government that protects them is spoken about, 
gentlemen are in arms upon the subject, and the epi¬ 
thets of deist, atheist, unbeliever and infidel, are thrown 
upon those who are in favor of the proposition, as if 
even the throne of heaven itself had been attacked and 
was in danger of being pulled down. Now, sir, I fear 
no such opprobious names. It is not by such means 
that just causes are argued or advocated. The princi¬ 
ple of taxation is the same, whether applied to the 
splendid church in the city, vt^ith its gilded pulpit and 
its velvet cushion, pr to the little homestead of the 
poor man by the way side, in the country. And this 
is a doctrine that applies equally to all sects and all de¬ 
nominations. I care not where it falls—whether upon 
Presbyterian or Methodist, Baptist or Catholic—it is all 
the same. Equal taxation for the support of the gov¬ 
ernment upon all the property of the State is the only 
doctrine of the people—the only one that can be sus¬ 
tained. 

' Mr. EWART. I hope that this amendment will 
not prevail. I hope sir, that it will not prevail, be¬ 
cause I believe that if it does, it will be productive of 
great and serious injustice. I am opposed to the adop¬ 
tion of the amendment, for the same reason which the 
gentleman from Ashtabula, [Mr. Woodbury,] urges in 
its favor. I am opposed to it because I believe that 
the interests of religion are important to the govern¬ 
ment itself. You have so declared in your Bill of 
Rights. We establish courts of justice. We expend 
large sums of money in sustaining them, and in sup¬ 
porting a Judiciary. We provide for the punishment 
of crimes, and appoint officers to bring offenders to 


just. Yet it has been attempted in various ways and 
has been clung to with the tenacity of desperate deter¬ 
mination. If the churches do not render an ample 
equivalent for their exemption from taxation, say so; 
meet this question fairly. Say at once that their influ¬ 
ence is not for the good of the community. Let the ad¬ 
vocates of this measure stand forth boldly as the oppo¬ 
nents of the churches. No gentleman has placed it on 
this ground, however. The essay has been made in 
the insidious form of a general proposition. Every¬ 
thing is to be brought in under one general provision, 
that all property shall be taxed equally. Now I am in 
favor of equal taxation myself, but this is unequal. It 
is imposing an additional tax upon those who are alrea¬ 
dy taxed—who have already taxed themselves for the 
benefit of the community; and all this matter about 
equal taxation turns out to be a mere clap-trap, to de¬ 
ceive those who either cannot, or will not, see the in¬ 
justice of the whole proceeding, or who are willing to 
obtain a momentary popularity by the commission of 
an act of injustice. 

Again, it is said by gentlemen that there are good 
men, judicious men and pious men—members of reli¬ 
gious societies, who are in favor of the taxation of 
churches, and that the adoption of this principle would 
enlist such men in support of this constitution. Sir, I 
know some of these men who are in favor of this prop¬ 
osition. I have seen them, and conversed with them. 
They say that the Catholic churches of Ohio and espe¬ 
cially in this city, are rich—that they have vast amounts 
of property, that should be taxed, and this is the bait 
that is holden out to induce a general taxation of the 
justice. We create and keep in order a police to pre-1 property of all religious societies. I warn these good 
vent, as far as possible, an infraction of the laws, and j men that they are led astray, unconsciously perhaps, 
to arrest oftenders against the statutes of the State. | by their prejudices, and that they are laying a trap for 
And yet not one of all these institutions is half so use-1 their own feet, in which they will certainly be caught, 
ful, half so efficient in keeping the peacq, in promoting I These designing men who now run a tilt against the 
good order, and in preventing breaches of the law as Catholic churches, with their help, will be found at- 


the churches. What are your courts of justice worth 
without the sanction of the moral sense of your citi¬ 
zens ? What gives efficiency to all your police regula¬ 
tions ? What sustains your officers in executing your 
laws? It is the countenance and support of the virtu¬ 
ous and intelligent who are taught in your churches. 


tacking the others so soon as they are successful with 
the Catholics. Those who now point their artillery 
against the Catholic because it is a rich church to-day. 
Will to-morrow be ready to attack the Protestant, be¬ 
cause it is a Christian church. 

Gentlemen have seen fit to talk here about the fine 


And yet the churches ask no aid of the government. I churches, the splendid pulpits, and cushioned seats of the 
They do not come here asking for privileges. All they j churches, as if that were a subject of complaint and 
ask is that they shall not be taxed upon their charities ■ furnished legitimate ground for taxation. This also is 
—that is all. They ask that the government shall not 1 one of the humbugs of the day—useful only as a means 
stand in the way of that good which they are organiz-jof exciting prejudice, and never used for any other 
ed to do. All they ask of the State is, that unimpeded, | purpose. If a man occupies a seat in a church, why 


unburdened, they may be left to perform, in a quiet 
and unobtrusive manner, the important part of an aux¬ 
iliary of government in doing good to mankind, and 
preserving the peace of society.' Is this an exorbitant 
demand ? It has been said by several gentlemen upon 
this floor that the property that is invested in churches, 
is private property, and that it pays a profit to its pro¬ 
prietors frequently as high as ten per cent. This is 
not the fact. The properly of churches is in general 
vested in trustees. The only individual property is in 
the seats, and that is a mere right of occupancy. There 
is no income accruing to the pew owners, that they 
can put in their pockets. If there is an income from 
anything it is for the benefit of the church, and not to 
enrich the members that compose it. It goes to pay 
the necessary expenses of the society—to pay in part 
the salary of the minister, or is expended in charity. 

It would seem as if we had got along well and fast 
in Ohio, when, in addition to the tax which every man 
pays upon his property, he must also pay for the privi¬ 
lege of supporting the gospel and attending upon re 
ligious worship. We impose upon ourselves, first, an 
onerous tax for the support of those institutions of re¬ 
ligion that are of more salutary eflqct upon society 
than anything that it contains, and then the government 
comes in and imposes upon us an additional and extra¬ 
ordinary tax in consideration of the investment we have 
made. Such a practice is unequal. Such a law is un¬ 


has he not a right to fit it up for the comfort and con¬ 
venience of his family as he pleases ? Why cannot he 
be allowed the meager privilege of worshiping God 
according to the dictates of his own conscience, and in 
such a church or seat as suits his taste or his means ? 

The objects for which churches are organized is the 
worship of God, and the promotion of the pure princi¬ 
ples of the bible in society. In providing the means 
for these, they promote charity, do good to men, add 
to the peace and good order of society, and contribute 
to the safety of the community. In so doing they give 
a higher sanction to the laws, and throw a guard around 
the institutions of the State more impregnable than all 
the institutions of courts or other tribunals for the pre¬ 
vention or punishment of crime; and shall it be said 
that government cannot afford to let this great auxilia¬ 
ry go without taxation, or that because one society has 
to its church a higher steeple or a heavier bell than 
another, that therefore it shall be taxed for it ? 

There may be cases of useless expenditure. I do not 
say there are not. Ithink there are. Butdo these cases, 
these exceptions justify the taxation of all the churches 
in the State 1 

Mr. REEMELIN said that he could not help return¬ 
ing his most respectful thanks to the gentleman from 
Washington,-[Mr. Ewart.] forfurnishing so early anap- 
plication of the remarks he [Mr. R.] had made on a 
former occasion, w’hen the same subject was under 
' consideration. 


I 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 1339 


I then remarked, said Mr. R., that nothing but the 
merest prejudice would prevent tiie adoption of the 
honest principle “ that all property in the State should 
be taxed equally.” That gentleman’s remarks are the 
quintessence of the prejudice I have referred to. Just 
listen to him. He asks; Why should churches be tax¬ 
ed? In reply, I ask him why should I be taxed?— 
why should steamboats be taxed? Why should our 
farms be taxed? Why our workshops? Why our 
mechanics? Why our crops? Why should anybody 
be taxed ? 

The answer is easy to all such inquiries. The rea¬ 
son lor all taxation is that our government, which pro¬ 
tects all property alike, must needs have money to 
carry on its operations, and contributions are therefore 
levied upon our citizens for the pui’pose of supporting 
our government. 

To say that to tax churches is to persecute them, is 
to say also that to tax the farmer, the mechanic, the 
merchant and the manufacturer, is to persecute them. 
Or, can any man tell me, why to tax a church is perse¬ 
cution, and why it is not also persecution to tax the 
other property of our citizens ? All this talk about 
“ attacks upon religion ’’—all this cry about '• persecu- 
cution,” is the veriest humbug of our day ; and the 
gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Ewart,] need not 
talk so loudly about demagogueism, “ lor men who live 
in glass houses should not throw stones.” 

Fbr I ask what is it but the appeal of a demagogue, 
and one of the most dangerous character, because 
clothed in the religious garb, to talk of the application 
of an equitable principle of taxation to all property as 
an act of persecution ! Why, the saddle is on the oth¬ 
er horse ! We attack nobody—we persecute nobody 
—on the contrary, we are on the defensive. All we 
have contended for is that all the property in the State 
not belonging to the public, and which is only to be 
enjoyed exclusively by the individual citizens, or which 
afford to individuals especial ease, comfort, or emolu¬ 
ment, or pleasure, should be subject to taxation. We 
have not singled out churches—we do not want them 
taxed any more than any other property ; and I. at 
least, should vote against any pro})osition which would 
in the least, throw a heavier burthen, or a special bur¬ 
then upon church property, otlier than upon any other 
species of property. 

We are now defending ourselves against propositions 
which are intended to exempt property from taxation ; 
for be it ever remembered that we do not tax here—we 
can pass no tax laws—all we have to do is to settle the 
general principle. It is a great error to sui)p()8e even 
that we can levy a tax—all we should do is to settle 
the principle; and all we should say is that “ all prop¬ 
erty shall be subject to taxation.” There we should 
stop; and leave to the General Assembly the applica 
tion of the principle thus laid down. 

It is another error to suppose that the quc.stion is as 
to how much money should be raised by taxation. The 
amount will in all cases be the same. The question is 
not, therefore, whether an additional tax shall be levied 
upon churches, or whether they shall pay a special tax. 
No such proposition is before us—no such can find any 
favor with me. The question is only who shall pay the 
taxes necessary for the support of government? We 
on the one side contend that properly should be the 
measure of every man’s taxes ; and that the term should 
include with every individual all property which con¬ 
tributes to hi,s private emolument or is subject to ])ri- 
vate ownership. You on the other hand, contend that 
certain property shall not bear its portion of the bur¬ 
thens of society. These exemptions we oppose, be¬ 
cause they work serious injustice, and because they 
violate all correct princi{>les of equity. 

To show that we are right in this, let me illustrate : 
The property of the State which will be on the dupli¬ 
cate at the next general revaluation, will amount to 
$600,000,000. A tax of two mills on the dollar produ¬ 
ces $1,200,000; which covers the amount of tax nec¬ 
essary for the support of the State Department. 


Now if you exempt $100,000,000 from taxation, it 
will leave on the duplicate $500,000,000; and it will re¬ 
quire 2^ mills on the dollar to bring about a revenue of 
$1,200,000; or an increase of taxation of 25 per cent, 
to every individual in the State for every dollar of 
property he holds. It will, I suppose, not be denied 
that there is at least one hundred millions of property 
exempt from taxation throughout the State. The re¬ 
sult, therefore, of these exemptions, is an increase of 
taxation to individuals. 

Or agaiu, to get nearer home. There would be next 
year upon the duplicate of Hamilton county, if all 
property were assessed, $50,000,000 ; and an average 
tax of 1 per cent will produce $500,000. 

Now it will not be denied, that in this county there 
is exempted from taxation, property to the amount of 
$5,000,000, and therefore, there will remain a dupli¬ 
cate of 45,000,000; and to raise $500,000, it will take 
a tax of 1^ per cent., and a citizen of Hamilton county 
worth $10,000, would in the one case pay $100 per an¬ 
num, tax ; while under your exemptions, he wiy have 
to pay $125. 

Now *I ask upon what principle do you take these 
$25 from this individual citizen ? Upon what princi¬ 
ple do you tax him involuntarily for the support of 
churches, state works, banks, or any other species of 
property ? Upon what principle can it be defended, 
except upon the same principle which justifies a union 
of church and State ? 

But still further to illustrate. There is in Zanesville 
a school fund called the “ McIntyre Fund,” amounting 
to $80,000, a tax of three mills on the dollar; which, 
at our present State taxes, amounts to $240. 

That fund has often asked to be exempt from taxa¬ 
tion. and I ask, if it were exempt, why we in Hamil¬ 
ton county should pay $30 per annum, for that would 
fall to our share, for having schools in Zanesville. 

Or, again; there is in the Western Reserve, the 
Western Reserve College, whose property amounts to 
near a million of dollars. 

Mr. ANDREWS, (interposing.) The property of 
that College amounts to about one hundred thousand 
dollars. 

Mr. REEMELTN. Well, $100,000 then, for the 
principle is the same for one dollar as for a million. 
The tax on that $100,000 would be three hundred dol¬ 
lars for State purposes, and I ask why we in Hamilton 
county should pay forty dollars lor that college. 

1 do not single out these institutions because I dis¬ 
like them. No, I bid them God speed ! All I want to- 
do is to illustrate the results of exemptions, and I trust 
I have shown that all exemptions are really exactiono 
from other portions of our people, and that the only' 
honest rule is to tax all property ecjually, for thus only 
can you equalize taxes. For, I repeat, it is not a ques¬ 
tion as to how much taxation shall be levied, the only 
question is: who shall pay it? and what shall be the 
measure of taxation ? 

And do not let us forget, that as yet we are but on 
the threshold of the evil. It is rapidly increasing, and 
the time will come when the people of Ohio will bit¬ 
terly repent that they had a majority of special ex- 
emptionists in this Convention ! 0, how sickening is it 

to my heart, that the bitter experience of France, of 
England, of Germany, of Spain, is to be again the bit¬ 
ter experience of this people, and that we will never 
improve our action by the beacon light of the bitter 
exf)erience of others!! 

The special exemptionists are adroit in their move¬ 
ments—they raise the cry of persecution—they are 
calling .^upon Hercules to help them. The Catholics^ 
too, must be dragged into this controversy—w^e must 
be held up as the enemies of the lofty spires of their 
churches—as the enemies of architecture, as atheists, 
and I hardly know what other raw-head and bloody 
bones they are cunjuriug up. All this does not disturb 
me. We can bide our time, and that time will yet show 
who is the friend of all—the special exemptionist, or 











1340 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the friend of equal rights and equal laws ! Yea, that 
time will show, that no cause can have a bitterer ene¬ 
my than [lira who, amidst an equal participation of bles¬ 
sings, asks for any property special exemptions. 

1 can only say that I admire architecture, and that 
for me the loftiest spire is only an incentive to elevate 
my principles of liberality, with which I respect all 
religious denominations. With me the painter’s pen- 
oil is but an instrument of labor, just the same as the 
blacksmith’s hammer. When I discuss a question of 
taxation, then I will not be drawn into a discussion of 
the relative merits or demerits of any interest or of any 
institution. It is a question of dollars and cents, and 
to that point will I recur at all times and at all haz¬ 
ards. I do not hate the farmer, but still my general 
principle includes his property; nor do I hate charters, 
because their property comes within the same general 
principle. To tax is not to persecute, and the man 
who talks at random, instead of discussing a ques¬ 
tion of political economy, is discussing a question not 
relevant to the subject. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I do not expect to get clear of 
denunciation—that is part of the game to be played 
upon the subject. But after members will have ex¬ 
hausted all their high-toned words of reproach, after 
they shall have bandied French infidelity into your 
ears, I modestly ask that some one of them will discuss 
the true question, which is—Why exemptions should 
be made ; and if made, whether they do not amount to 
an involuntary contribution towards the support of the 
interest so exempted ? 

This question I would like to have answered, and 
if not, I shall regard it as an admission that a fog is to 
be raised, and that intimidation is to frighten men from 
a full and fair consideration of the subject. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. Mr. President: the gentleman 
from Hamilton [Mr. Reemelin] has endeavored to 
prove that it is one of our privileges to tax the temples 
ot God—to sell them for the taxes and turn them into 
stables, if we see fit. This is one of our undisputed 
privileges—but another question remains, will the ex¬ 
orcise of this privilege make us more happy ? Happi¬ 
ness, be it remembered, is the only rational object of 
men or nations. I have very little respect myself for 
those rights and privileges, the exercise of which ren¬ 
ders us unhappy. 

Such policy reminds me of the inimitable sarcasm of 
Byron on those old Predestinarians who, as he says, 
guarded with such sedulity “ the privileges of their 
damnation.” [Laughter.] What! has it come to this . 
Is the great State of Ohio, with its millions of people, 
to adopt the habits of a Ranter—of a field preacher— 
in collecting its revenues ? Have gentlemen been pres¬ 
ent on such occasions, and if so, what have they wit¬ 
nessed ? Why, after all our lower passions have been 
appealed to, after we have been stirred up to emula¬ 
tion, wrath, strife and passion against other sects—in 
one word, after all our low animal passions have been 
moved, the hat is sent round for a collection, and thus 
this ghostly dispenser of hate and malignity secures his 
revenues. Gentlemen are about to inti’t'iduce similar 
scenes into our churches, into the sacred temples of 
God, and that by constitutional provision. Under this 
system we will, on the holy Sabbath day, perhaps, at¬ 
tend the services in a Methodist, a Baptist, or a Pres¬ 
byterian church. After we have been electrified—af¬ 
ter all our better feelings have been roused by sacred 
eloquence—after we have been inspired with greater 
reverence towards God, and superior benevolence to¬ 
wards men—after we have made ten thousand vows 
to be better men, better citizens, and better Christians, 
we are doomed to hear the voice of the preacher in 
woful dissonance with the sacred occasion. 

“ My brethren ” says he, “ it is well known to you, 
that our house of worship is in arrearages for taxes 
[laughter]—the original amount is already swelled 
by interest and penalties, and if we suffer it to go to 
sale, the expenses and penalties will be much greater. 


We must make a collection. I entreat you to give lib¬ 
erally, do not think of your private property, think 
only of your pious liberality and generosity, [renevved 
laughter.] It is unfortunately true that some rich 
men will refuse to give; we may lament over the hard¬ 
ness of their hearts, but the remedy must come from a 
higher source than is in our power, and, alas I alas!! 
we have no hopes that the cure will take place in time 
for this present emergency, [continued laughter.] 
Therefore my dear brethren, consult nothing but your 
l)iety, and give, give, GIVE liberally, without reference 
to your pecuniary means. 

May I not appeal to you in the most moving accents? 
Is there a man within these walls, who has here parta¬ 
ken of the sacred elements, and who has listened to 
the Words of Life around this Altar, that can bear the 
thought of seeing our beloved Temple of God sold to a 
speculator and turned into stables ? Give therefore, I 
say ! Consult not your worldly circumstances—you may 
be possessed of a mere pittance, yet give a part of that, 

and Heaven will bless the I’est-. Brethren — send 

round the hat I'' [Bursts of laughter.] 

Is this the mode which the great State of Ohio is 
to collect her revenues ? Oh national degradation! 
Oh descent from every idea of national gi’eatness and 
dignity ! Oh gentlemen, afflict not my eyes with such 
a spectacle as this. Afflict not my children with such 
a spectacle as this. They have hot, generous and Anglo 
Saxon blood running in their veins. Who will not 
blush to be a citizen of Ohio, when she begins to col¬ 
lect her revenues in such a beggarly manner as this ? 
High spirited men will leave the State, they will not be 
citizens of such a Commonwealth. 

Gentlemen take it for granted, that every man is born 
a legislator—no need of reading, meditation or any 
preparatory study—the w'hole art comes by intuition. 
If they would come down from the clouds and deign 
to consult the voice of experience, they^ would be as 
little inclined towards this vexatious mode of collect¬ 
ing the revenues as I am. What are our books of po¬ 
litical economy except drafts on the history, the expe¬ 
rience of all nations? They are well digested tables 
of statistics; they proceed upon the principles of philos¬ 
ophy, drawing inferences from well established facts. Of 
such a character are the works of Smith, Say, Mills, 
Bentham, Carey, and a host of others too tedious to 
name. If they will condescend to consult Adam Smith, 
they will find that he lays down several principles of 
taxation, one of which is, that the tax should not be 
vexatious in the collection. Now, could any tax be 
so vexatious in the collection as this church tax ? It 
has every circumstance of difficulty and embarrass¬ 
ment. As among the contributors the payments will 
not be proportioned to the property of the person paying, 
but to his pious liberality. But the tax also has the 
odious feature of the poll tax—it is a tax levied with¬ 
out regard to the ability of an individual to pay. It 
makes an injurious distinction against the professors of 
religion and iu favor of non-professors. The church it¬ 
self has been built by the pious bounty of communi¬ 
cants, then you take the guage and measure of that 
bounty and levy a tax upon it. All men ought to stand 
equally in the eye of the law; but you tax the civil and 
secular property of the communicant and thenou-com- 
municant alike—you tax them in the same degree as to 
everything that can minister to their personal or family 
comfort. Then is it not evident that if you levy a tax 
on the bounty of the communicant bestowed in build¬ 
ing a church, you tax him more heavily than the nou- 
professor ? You tax him by a standard that has no re- 
fererence to his private, civil property—that neither 
rises nor falls with his ability,—is not this in the nature 
of a poll tax? The old, abominable hearth tax of Eng¬ 
land was a tax upon property; yet, as every family, 
however poor, must have a hearth in that severe cli¬ 
mate, it became one of the taxes most abhorred by 
England and by Englishmen. To the poor, the gospel 
has been preached since the days of the Apostles; if 














CONVENTION REPORTS, 


1341 


the government shall thus consent to torture the pious 
liberality of individuals, it will often be seen in the 
odious attitude of collecting more money from the man 
of small property than from the man of large property. 

A late writer has computed the average property of 
every family in Ohio at $2,000, and it is believed that 
one halt the adult popuiaiiun aio chuion comuiuilicants, 
the other half non-communicants. Now suppose a vil¬ 
lage or settlement of 100 families, the 50 families of 
church members, will, of course, possess $100,000, the 
50 families of outsiders will possess the same amount. 
The State collects the same tax on the total civil prop¬ 
erty of each class—on every thing that they can devote 
to their emolument or comfort. Now if she goes far¬ 
ther and collects a tax on church property, is it not evi¬ 
dent that she makes an injurious distinction against 
piety and religion and in favor of impiety and irre- 
ligion ? 

Do not gentlemen know that this tax will be most 
afflictive to the pious prejudices of a great part of our 
own community ? The Czar of Russia has to pay some 
attention to the prejudice of his subjects. He does not 
disregard them. Shall republican statesmen, alone, be 
reckless as to the feelings, the sympathies, and the 
prejudices of their people 1 Why, what affliction has 
not this very debate caused to our minds? 

I have said that this proposition is the vile spawn of 
atheism, begotten upon infidelity. I intend no imputa¬ 
tion upon the friends of this tax—I am well aware that 
they are not acquainted with the consequences of their 
own doctrines. They do not see where their princi¬ 
ples land. The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Reemelin,] has argued that the cobbler, the hatter, the 
carpenter, and the blacksmith, must all pay taxes upon 
their shops and tools of trade, thus directly comparing 
the temples of God to a cobbler’s shop. Can we listen 
to this language without affliction, without the viola¬ 
tion of every early, and cherished, and pious prejudice? 
Is not this putting no diflerence between the sacred 
and the profane? Gentlemen can understand this 
principle when it is proposed to give the unfortunate 
African race, equal political privileges. Their feelings 
revolt—they say that prejudice is too strong—that it is 
invincible. They will not eat, or sleep, or go to the bal¬ 
lot box with the son of Ham. In common with them I 
am compelled to respect this prejudice. Under present 
circumstances I count opposition useless, yet this prej¬ 
udice is, in the abstract, unjust; the other is sanctified 
by every pious—by every generous feeling. 

The newspapers are fond of representing political 
men as immoral and reckless—they may put out what 
diatribes they please. With me they have lost the 
faculty of giving testimony. [Laughter.] It is true 
we are mere politicians, mere men of the world, and 
we pretend to nothing else ; but is it to be supposed 
that we can forget our early and Christian education— 
that we can forget principles instilled in infancy—the 
most holy and the most generous ? See that wild, reck¬ 
less, wayward boy, on the common; he is at his sports, 
perhaps, in disobedience to his mother’s commands. 
Do you imagine that he has no affection for his mother? 
Offer her insult and indignity and you will soon discov¬ 
er what his feelings really are. So in our case, politi¬ 
cians, and men of the world, as we are. No remem¬ 
brances ever steal into our bosoms so soft, so kindly, so 
generous, so elevating, as the remembrance of the pe¬ 
riod when our mothers took us by the hand and guided 
our little pattering feet to the sacred temples of God. 
In looking back through the long vista of years, there 
is no green spot so pleasing as this: 

Oh we think of the old church towers, 

And the sound of Sabbath bells, 

Oft heard amidst the bowers 
Where our childhood loved to dwell. 

Now if this system of taxation is so grievous, so un¬ 
welcome to our feelings, what must it be to the feel¬ 
ings ‘of professors of religion ? If we revolt at it, will 
not they be shocked?— 


[Here the President’s hammer fell, which announced 
to the speaker that his twenty minutes had expired.} 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. In the report of the committee 
on Corporations other than Corporations for Banking, I 
find the following section : “ The property of corpora¬ 
tions shall be forever subject to taxation, the same as 
the properly oi maiviauais.” Here then, is a general 
clause that ai)plies to all the property of corporations^ 
We have said that it shall all be taxed the same as the 
property of individuals. Now a great portion of the 
churches of the State have been incorporated by an act 
of the General Assembly, and if this clause applies to 
them, and their property should be taxed as that of 
individuals, it would amount to a very consderablfr 
sum. 

This clause also reaches all the corporations of the 
State, established for the purpose of internal improve¬ 
ment. All railroads, plank roads, turnpike companies 
and bridges, are to be taxed upon their property, as in¬ 
dividuals are taxed. I apprehend that a tax so levied 
will be very unequal. It would be difficult to make it 
otherwise. Suppose it is the property of a railroad 
that is to be taxed. That property consists of cars and 
depots and rails on the road, amounting to one, two ov 
three millions. All the rest of its property is in the 
franchise, and a franchise is said here, not to be pro¬ 
perty, You tax the railroad upon its cars, depots, &c.,. 
and upon nothing else. If such is to be the case, the 
churches in Cincinnati will pay double the tax upon, 
their property of the most costly railroad in the Slate.^ 
You can tt x the church upon all the property it has, 
and it has no franchise ; and you cannot tax the fran¬ 
chises of a railroad, because they are not property. 

Mr. REEMELIN. Does the gentleman [Mr. Hitch¬ 
cock] say that a franchise is not property ? 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. The gentleman from Hamilton 
[Mr. Reemelin,] said so, and so did all upon that side 
of the house except eight or ten, and they were called 
traitors. 

The gentleman from Hamilton complains of the vast 
amount of church property in Cincinnati, and insiste 
that all the church property in the State shall be taxed, 
because he thinks that of Cincinnati ought to be. Now,. 
Mr. Chairman, the question is, are we to make a consti¬ 
tution for the county of Hamilton alone, or the city of 
Cincinnati, or are we to make a constitution for the State 
of Ohio? In other sections of the State, not one hun¬ 
dredth part of the property of the people is in the 
churches. It is a mere trifle out of the city. Shall we- 
then construct a constitution to meet the wants of the- 
State, or shall we confine our labors to the county of 
Hamilton and the city of Cincinnati? For myself, I am 
disposed to believe that the rights and interests of the- 
whole State are not and ought not to be sacrificed to 
any city, county, or part of this territory. 

The gentleman from Ashtabula, [Mr. Woodbury,} 
had a curious theory upon the subject of church taxa¬ 
tion. He was anxious that churches should be taxed 
because he thought it was the only way in which peo¬ 
ple could be made to pay anything for the privilege o5' 
worshiping God according to the dictates of their owis 
consciences. 

Mr. WOODBURY. The gentleman, [Mr. Hitch¬ 
cock,] is mistaken. I never said any such thing. 

Mr. FIITCHCOCK. I do not profess to repeat the 
precise woi’ds used by the gentleman. I could not re¬ 
collect them; but the idea is that men ought to be tax¬ 
ed a little for the privilege of worshiping God accord 
ing to the dictates of their consciences, and that for that 
purpose he would lay a tax upon the places where 
they worship. Now 1 had supposed that those places 
ought to be free. I had not understood that it was in 
accordance with the principles of justice, that because 
a man has contributed a little to build up a place of 
worship, he should be taxed upon his contribution. As 
the section now stands, it provides that the property of 
the State and of the counties shall be exempt from tax¬ 
ation. Now there may be a reason for the exemption. 











1342 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


of the property of the State; but why that of the coun¬ 
ties ? Why not compel the property of the counties to 
contribute to the revenues of the State? It is because 
the property of the counties is public property. Yet 
there is a great appearance of inequality in this. Gen¬ 
tlemen who are disposed to find an intentional injustice 
in every equality ought to cry out against it. Some of 
the counties have expended large sums of money in 
beautifying their property. Some of them h 4 ve built 
expensive court houses—more expensive than their 
necessity required. Yet these are not taxed, because 
they are the property of the public, and do not belong 
to individuals. Now I say that in the same point of 
view, the churches are public property. Altliough in¬ 
dividuals are interested in them they are to all intents 
and purposes, the property of the public, built for a 
public purpose, and intended for a public use. They 
are open to all. No man is ever refused a seat in them. 
The privileges they offer are free to all who desire to 
enjoy them. Then why lay a tax upon them? Gen¬ 
tlemen insist that they are for ])rivat(! emolument, be¬ 
cause the pews are sold. Those who hazard this re¬ 
mark can have had little experience in the establish¬ 
ment of churches and the support of the gospel. .What 
are tliey sold for? Why to pay the salary of the min¬ 
ister, and for nothing else. 1 have never known an 
instance where they have been sold for the purpose of 
private gain. I do not wish to take up the time of the 
Convention; but it seems to me that gentlemen who 
insist upon the taxation of church property are going 
beyond what any other constitutional convention has 
ever gone. There is not a single constitution in any of 
the States, that contains such a provision. And the 
only reason given is that there is so much church pro¬ 
perty in Cincinnati—that there is half a million of dol¬ 
lars in it. No, I say it should not be taxed, and wheth¬ 
er a large amount or a small one—whether invested in 
elegant and splendid edifices or in those that are more 
humble and less pretending, it would seem to me to be 
far more in accordance with the spirit of the age to ex¬ 
clude the whole. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I desire to correct one statement 
of the gentleman from Geauga. He stated that the 
movement started in Hamilton county. Now, the first 
petitions uj)on the subject came from the Western Re¬ 
serve. It started there. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. That may be the case, Mr, 
Chairman. There ax’e a great many good things in the 
Western Reserve, and a great many new things take 
tlieir start in that quarter. I do not, however, stand up 
here to justify everything that comes from the Western 
Reserve. Some gentlemen have asserted, that they 
have a great deal of fanaticism in that quarter, and the 
gentleman from Hamilton does not in general look 
there for examples. There is doubtless some fanati¬ 
cism even there, as there are fanatics all over the State ; 
and it is the fanatics who are so desirous to impose a 
burden of taxation upon the churches, and if not to 
break them down, at least to make those who support 
them pay for the privilege of worshiping God accord¬ 
ing to the dictates of tlieir own consciences. I hope 
the amendment will not prevail. 

Mr. BARNET, of Montgomery. Mr. Chairman, I 
desire the indulgence of the committee for a few mo¬ 
ments only, while I express my views upon the subject 
now under consideration. I must say, that I am hear¬ 
tily sorry that this efibrt to tax church property has 
been made, and that it has come from a source where 
it ought to have been better considered. And I wish 
here to return my thanks to the gentleman from Mon¬ 
roe, for his observations upon the question, and to say, 
that they were such as, in my opinion, did honor to his 
head and to his heart. He gave a true picture of the 
effect of an attempt to carry this proposition into prac¬ 
tice. Gentlemen upon the other side have shown great 
ignorance of the matter they have attempted to di.s- 
cu^s ; and had they been connected with a religious 
society, they would not have said what they did. Their 


deviation from the truth is only excusable upon the 
presumption of their total ignorance of what they 
were'talking about. 

Gentlemen have carried the idea that churches are 
built by rich capitalists, for the purpose of speculation, 
and that a great profit is realized. They are mistaken. 
In almost every case, the pews of a church, if sold, 
would not pay the cost of its erection. It is not, and 
cannot be built for the purpose of profit, and no man 
ever heard of a church built on speculation. The usu 
al course is this: When a church is to be built, a fund 
is raised for the purpose, among those who take an in¬ 
terest in the enterprise. These persons take the pews 
at a price sufficiently high to cover the cost of the edi¬ 
fice, and I never heard in any one instance, that they 
in their market or real value, exceeded it. Those who 
belong to religions societies, have taxes to pay for the 
support of ministers, and for other purposes, which 
gentlemen here appear to know nothing about. It is 
a pity that we have so little practical knowledge upon 
a subject of so much importance to the people and to 
the State. 

The question, Mr. Chairman, for us to determine is : 
Are the churche.s a benefit, or an injury to the commu- 
nit)" ? If they are an injury, in God s name, tax them. 
Let them be taxed, until they break down under the 
operation. But, on the other hand, if they are a bene- 
efit—if tlieir tendency is to make better men and citi¬ 
zens—if they aid in the preservation of the peace of 
society—if they stand as the conservators of the public 
morals—if they make men more obedient to the laws, 
let them be sustained. Let not even governments be 
afraid or ashamed to aid the efficiency of so potent, and 
at the same time, so inoffen.sive agents, in promoting the 
public welfare. 

It should be remembered in this connection, that 
those who give their aid in support of churches, have 
also, in general, other benevolent objects which demand 
their assistance, and that those only who pay nothing 
in support of the ordinances of religion, are able to as¬ 
sert that proud independence which exonerates them 
from all obligation to do good to their fellow men. If 
churches do their duty, they contribute to the support 
of their own poor, (and I should not estimate that 
church very highly, that did not do so.) and I will ven¬ 
ture to hazard the assertion, that members of churches 
and religious societies, who contribute to the support 
of their churches, as anj’^ other class of men. And will 
taxation of churches add to their ability or their effi¬ 
ciency in this matter? Will it not, on the contrary, be 
taking from that very [loor, whose interests gentlemen 
seem to have so much at heart, when they talk about 
corporations and banks, and all the clap traps of the 
day ? 

Mr. President, I hope the amendment will not pre¬ 
vail. 

Mr. WOODBURY. It would seem, Mr. Chairman, 
as if gentlemen were determined to mistake my posi¬ 
tion upon this question. Now, sir, I did not attempt 
to sustain the proposition attributed to me, by the gen¬ 
tleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] nor did I as¬ 
sert it. I said nothing about taxing a man because he 
desired to worship God according to the dictates of his 
own conscience—not a word. 

I said it was a question whether certain species of 
property should be taxed. I held that the true doc¬ 
trine is, that all the properly of the State should aid in 
defraying the exyienses of government. I stated, that 
churches, in as hi^h a degree as any otherproperty, re¬ 
ceived the protection of the laws and the government; 
and I inquired whether, under these circumstances, 
they ought not to pay their share of the public expen¬ 
ses ? That was all. I said nothing about the taxa¬ 
tion of a man’s faith—nothing about making him pay 
for liberty of conscience, and nothing either for or 
against any sect or denomination of Christians what¬ 
soever. 

And now, I ask again ; Why shall not a man who has 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1343 


invested his property in u church be taxed? They are 
free agents; they choose to invest their estate in that 
form ; but shall they by doing so, escape taxation ? If 
they are permitted to do so, the I'esult is inequality. 
One man is taxed upon his property, the other is not. 

I have the highest respect for the Christain faith—too 
high to see it pleaded as a ground u[)on which men 
ask to be exonerated from the duties of citizens. 

Gentlemen say that they know of no instance where 
pews in a church have been sold at private sale. Now 
I have, and have known suits brought to recover the 
price for which they were sold. The thing is not un¬ 
common, and I am surpiised at the assertions of those 
who seem so ignorant of a very common occurrence. 

Mr. LOUDON. Remarks have been made here, Mr. 
Chairman, which, if suffered to go abroad without ex¬ 
planation, may place the committee that reported this 
bill, in a wrong light before the people of the State. 
On this account, as a member of the committee, I de¬ 
sire the indulgence of this body for a moment. AVe 
had no prejudice, whatever, any of us, in favor or 
against any religious denomination. We regarded 
them all in the same light, whetlifer Presbyterians, 
Methodists, or Catholics, and we were only guided in 
our action in this matter by what we regarded as the 
sentiments of the people of the State. We believed 
that the wants of the State required at our hands a 
provision that should secure the largest possible amount 
of revenue, and we were induced to adopt this section 
because we believed that it was best calculated to se¬ 
cure the object in view. 

The section provides for an uniform rate of taxation 
on all property, real and personal, provided burying 
grounds, public school houses, houses used exclusively 
for public worship, to an amount not over two thous¬ 
and dollars, should be exempt. The latter clause, fix¬ 
ing the amount of church property to be made ex¬ 
empt from taxation, was inserted in obedience to what 
w'e believed to be the public sentiment of the State. 
That, after much discussion in committee, has been 
stricken out. Our object was to bring as much prop¬ 
erty upon the duplicate as possible, and we had no 
other. We had no desire to reach the property of the. 
Catholics, any more than any other religious denomi¬ 
nation. I am willing to extend, and as far as possible, 
to secure to all the right to worship God according to 
the dictates of their own consciences, and would be 
the last man to vote to give one denomination an ad¬ 
vantage over the other. 

I am at a loss to know, Mr. Chairman, why it is that 
the gentleman from Monroe [Mr. Archbold] has be¬ 
come so sensitive upon this matter, and why he is so 
tender and anxious, whenever he deems the Catholic 
religion is in danger. I remember, it is true, that since 
the sessions of this body commenced, a certain Catho¬ 
lic newspaper, called the Telegraph, was down upon 
him, in regard to certain votes that he had given. I 
do not know what effect it had upon him, but I have 
sometimes been induced to believe that its strictures 
have caused that Anglo Saxon blood of his to freeze 
in his veins. I hope it is not so. Events may unfold 
the truth. But I rose to say, that I wash my hands of 
any intentional disrespect towards the Catholics, Meth¬ 
odists, Presbyterians, or any other sect or denomina¬ 
tion of Christians, either in Hamilton county or in any 
other part of the State. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the question of the 
exemption of the property of the State, of counties and 
of townships from taxation, we believed it would be 
useless to tax the property of the State. We have a 
public square, an unfinished State House, also, an Uni¬ 
ted States’ Court House, in which the State has an in¬ 
terest our public institutions, and perhaps other pro- 
prerty at Columbus; the counties have also their pub¬ 
lic squares and their court houses—and the townships, 
in some cases, their town houses. These might be 
taxed, it is true, but the taxation would be only a pro¬ 
cess of taking from one pocket to put into another. 


while the percentage would stick to the fingers of the 
officers who collected the tax. 

Now, sir, I am opposed to the amendment of the 
gentleman from Ashtabula, to strike out the words 
“ houses used exclusively for public worship,” and I 
should have retained the words to an amount not over 
two thousand dollars.” If all the projierty of churches 
is taxed I know that demagogues will take hold of the 
fact and use it against this constitution, and therefore 
I shall agree that all may be exempt, whether the 
amount be one thousand or half a million. 

Mr. HOLMES. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that is a 
question of expediency merely, and that it does notin- 
volve a single particle of right. I am aware, sir, that 
any attempt to provide in an organic law that the Leg¬ 
islature shall impose a tax upon church property, will 
meet with strong opposition from many; and if we are 
to believe the assertion of the gentleman from Monroe 
[Mr. Archbold] we shall have all the church mem¬ 
bers in the State, and every member of every philan¬ 
thropic society, arrayed, in one unbroken phalanx, 
against this constitution. Now I can say that among 
my own constituents 1 have met and consulted with 
many members of the churches, who are anxious that 
a provision to tax church property shall be engi’afted 
in the constitution. They are not mere outsiders—they 
are not men who despise religion or repudiate morali¬ 
ty ; my consultations have not been with men of that 
class; but the opinion comes from the sober-m.iuded, 
the thinking and the pious. They say that the princij)le 
of the bill, as reported by the committee, is right, and 
that it is but just and proper that churches should be 
taxed. And some have even gone so far as to say 
that if this principle is not incorporated they will vote 
against this constitution. 

Now, sir, as I said before, this is a question of expe¬ 
diency, and so we must look at it. 

We have got to combat the common prejudices of 
(he people against any novel form of taxation, before 
it will be well received by all. But this difficulty is 
not a formidable one, and when men have seen that 
the princixde upon which it is founded is correct, their 
prejudices will .subside. 

Sir, if it be correct in principle that property be tax¬ 
ed according to its true value, I go lor this taxation. 
We who reside here in Cincinnati, more than those of 
any other part of the State, feel the burdens of taxa¬ 
tion. The assessor makes his annual round, and we 
must either commit perjury or list and pay taxes upon 
all our real and personal estate, our moneys and credits. 

Now sir, 1 regard all churches alike. There is a 
great deal of pride in them all, and an extravagance 
and splendor frequently little in consonance with 
Christian humility ; and I believe that where an indi¬ 
vidual makes his election, and invests his five hundred 
or his thousand dollars in them, if he is disposed to do 
so, in preference to any other investment—that can 
be no good reason why he should not be taxed upon 
it, so long as the merchant, the mechanic and the la¬ 
borer are taxed. I do not oppose or wish to prevent 
the building of magnificent churches, though I confess 
that it has seemed to me that the more gorgeous (he 
edifice, the less piety it contained; but I do say that 
if men will invest their money in these structures, 
they ought to be willing to bear their portion of the 
burdens of the State. They enjoy the protection of 
the government, and they could not subsist without it. 
I hope, sir, that' the amendment will prevail, and 
though T do not say that I will not Vote against the con¬ 
stitution if this principle is not recognized, I will say 
that I shall support this instrument far more cheerfully 
if it is. 

Mr. OTIS. Will the gentleman from Hamilton, 
[Mr. Holmes] be kind enough to state his reason for 
the exemption of school houses from taxation, while 
churches are taxed ? 

Mr. HOLMES. In reply, I say that the one is the 
product of involuntary taxation, and of course the prop- 








1344 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


erty of the public, while the other is the result of vol¬ 
untary donation, and is the property of individuals, 
would be willing to exempt all buildings that are built 
by taxation, as well as the public buildings of counties 
and townships. 

Now, sir, there are, in this city, a number of institu¬ 
tions that dispense a charity as wide as that of any 
church. Yet these are taxed, and they do not com¬ 
plain. They are willing to pay it. They dispense 
charity to hundreds and thousands of the poor, the 
wretched, the abandoned and the homeless. Then if 
these institutions are taxed, why, I ask, should church¬ 
es be exempt ? 

Mr. OTIS. The gentlemen from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Holmes,] objects to the exclusion of the property of 
churches from taxation,upon the ground that churches 
are erected by the voluntary contributions of those 
who are interested in them, while he is willing that 
school houses shall be exempt because they are the 
products of involuntary taxation. Now’ this may be a 
good reason, why school houses should not be taxed, 
but it is not the ground upon which the fathers of the 
country placed it. They held and declared that reli¬ 
gion and morality are essential to good government, 
and that because without religion and morality no gov 
ernment can exist—they held it to be a high and im.- 
perative duty to sustain the means by which religion 
and morality are secured and promoted. For this rea¬ 
son they made both churches and school houses exempt 
from taxation, and for this purpose they made both 
the subjects of the fostering care of the government.— 
Religion and morality render a powerful assistance in 
support of government, and it is due irom the State in 
return that the means of education and the means of 
moral improvement should be encouraged and sup¬ 
ported. Where there are a plenty of churches and 
school houses a police becomes unnecessary, and the 
criminal court is rarely appealed to ; and instead of its 
being a mere question of expediency, whether or not 
the churches of the State shad be taxed, I hold it a 
matter of right they they should be exempt; and that 
taxation w’ould, in fact, be an act of injustice. 

It is probable, Mr. Chairman, that the churches of 
the State include about one-fourth of its population.— 
They purchase their ground, and build their edifices 
by voluntary contribution. They ask no aid from the 
government, and contribute largely to give it strength 
and permanency. They dispense charity in various 
ways, and scatter blessings in every direction. There 
is no reason in the ends they seek to promote—none 
in the results which they produce—none in the func¬ 
tions they perfoi'm, which should bring them under a 
different rule from that which applies to seminaries of 
education. In lact they are seminaries of education— 
of the highest, the noblest, the most valuable species 
of learning. 

The difference pointed out by the gentleman from 
Hamilton, [Mr. Holmes,] is merely accidental, and not 
intrinsic. It is not founded in principle, but merely in 
incident. Government undertakes the support of ed¬ 
ucation, because it is necessary for its existence, and 
because the people, without its aid and supervision, are 
supine, and will not come up and support those insti¬ 
tutions of learning which are necessary for the public 
welfare. 

Government does not levy taxes to build churches 
and support the teachers of religion and morality, be¬ 
cause the people, feeling an interest in the subject, 
have relieved it of the burden. But there is nodifter- 
ence in the functions of the two—no difierence in the 
objects they are intended to secure—no difference in 
the duties they perform. Both look to the happiness 
and well-being of man, in this life and hereafter. They 
are parts of the same system, dependent upon each 
other, and each aiding the other to reach the end that 
both are aiming at. 

Why then should we impose an additional tax upon 
those who have assumed this extraordinary burden. 


for the public good ? Gentlemen have visions of splen¬ 
did churches, and cannot attempt to reason upon this 
subject, without imagining that members of churches 
are nabobs, rolling in wealth—that churches are pal¬ 
aces, shining in all that is gorgeous and costly—that 
pew-holders are like the stock-holders in banks, with 
immense w’ealtii invested in pews for the purpose ol 
speculation, realizing from them an enormous income. 
They talk of pulpits, and cushions, and carpets, as if 
neatness were a crime, and taste and comfort were 
atheism and idolatry, or—what is worse—aristocracy. 
Why, where do gentlemen get all this ? Have they 
ever been to church? Do they not know that, as a 
general rule, men in moderate circumstances contribute 
to such objects more, in proportion to their means, than 
men of wealth ? It is true, whether they know it or 
not. And would you lay an additional burden of tax¬ 
ation upon those who are contributing to support those 
institutions of religion and morality, which lie at the 
very foundation of the State ? I hope, sir, that the 
amendment may not prevail, as well for the sake of 
justice, as for the sake of expediency. 

The question then being on the motion of Mr. Wood¬ 
bury, to strike out the following: “ houses used exclu¬ 
sively for public worshipthe same was disagreed to 
—yeas 17, nays not counted. 

Mr. BARBEE moved further to amend the section, 
by striking out the following: “Provided that burying 
grounds, public school houses, houses used exclusively 
for public worship, institutions of purely public chari¬ 
ty, the property of the State, of counties, townships, 
cities, and towns, may, by general laws, be exempt 
from taxation;” and to insert in lieu thereof, the fol¬ 
lowing : “ The General Assembly may, by general laws, 
exempt the property of the State, counties, and town¬ 
ships, real and personal, and such other property for 
municipal, educational, religious, and charitable pur¬ 
poses, as, in their wisdom, may be for the general 
good.” 

Mr. BARBEE. I have offered this amendment with 
a view of leaving the whole matter in the hands of the 
General Assembly, without specifying any kind of pro¬ 
perty. In the bill, the words “public school houses” 
are used. Now, it may be questionable whether the 
exemption is broad enough to be just, t o in relation 
to churches, it may be doubtful 
they stand on is exempt. 

Mr. TAYLOR moved to amend the words proposed 
to be stricken out, by striking out of the eighth line the 
words, “may by general laws be exempt from taxa¬ 
tion,” and inserting in lieu thereof, the following, in 
the fifth line: “the General Assembly may, by general 
laws, remit the taxes upon ”— 

The question then being on the amendment; 

Mr. TAYLOR. The object is to save the principle 
that all property shall be taxed for the support of the 
government. We assert the principle in regard to all, 
but leave to the Legislature the power to remit in cer¬ 
tain cases, that are enumerated. 

The question being on the amendment; the same was 


whether the ground 


disagreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Barbee; the same was rejected. 

Mr. STILWELL moved further to amend the sec¬ 
tion, by inserting in the seventh line, after the word 
“State,” the words, “or of the United States;” it was 
agreed to. 

Mr. STILWELL moved further to amend the sec¬ 
tion, by inserting in the fifth line, after the words 
“public school houses,” the words, “or property used 
exclusively for educational purposes, and not for pri¬ 
vate or individual profit.” 

The question being on the amendment; 

Mr. STILWELL. I have my doubts of the compre¬ 
hensiveness ot the provision as it stands. The gentle¬ 
man from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] insists thatunder 
it, all school houses are exempt from taxation. That 
is not my idea. 








CONVENTION REPORTS, 


We have now declared that all the churches in the 
State shall be exempt from taxation, and all places of 
public worship, and I think gentlemen will have no 
objection to make the exemption of school houses as 
broad as that of the other. The object of the amend¬ 
ment is to include all those educational establishments, 
that are intended for purposes purely educational, and 
for no private emolument. By the phrase public school 
house, we include all our colleges and academies. Is 
it not advisable to do so ? It is true, that if we were 
forced to select between the common schools and the 
higher seminaries, it would be our duty to choose the 
former; but no such necessity exists. But the others 
are important—I had almost said equally important. 
Indeed die one cannot well exist without the other. It 
may be said that this exemption in favor of the higher 
schools and colleges, will only operate for the benefit 
of those who are rich, and who can, when they send 
their sons to college, alford to pay the ditference in the 
expense occasioned by the taxation of the institution. 
It is not always so. It is true that it will make no dif¬ 
ference to the man of wealth. He can afford to pay the 
five or ten dollars, and will not feel it; but to a poor 
young man who is calculating whether he will be able 
to overcome the difficulties of his situation, and obtain 
a college education, the small sum of live or ten dollars, 
may make a very great difference. I am satisfied that 
if we wish that the common schools of the State should 
advance, we must Ibster the high schools. 

There isunother thing; all lunds devoted exclusive¬ 
ly to educational purposes, and which are of no profit 
to others, should be exempt from taxation. And this 
leads me to speak upon a subject connected with a 

articular fund of which I know something, and which 

os been already alluded to. The city of Zanesville 
has a fund, left to it by a benevolent individual, 
amounting at present to about thirty thousand dollars. 
Circumstances that may take place, will probably in¬ 
crease this sum to nearly, or quite eighty thousand ; 
but gentlemen wdll make no charge of aristocracy 
against the fund, or to the city to which it was dona¬ 
ted, when they are informed that it was given exclu¬ 
sively for the education of poor children; and I trust 
that iio local feeling will operate upon any of us, to in¬ 
duce us to go for taxing funds of this sort, either there 
or elsewhere. To do so, wmuld be to deter meu from 
investing their funds for the benefit of the poor. Such 
interests as these w'e are all bound to foster, without 
reference to one locality more than another. It is 
true that the funds are expended in one location, but 
the men that are educated are the citizens of the State, 
and in that sense, the whole State is the gainer by the 
charity. It is to be hoped, therefore, that .such provi- 
aions will he made as shall, as far as possible, secure 
and foster every pure educational interest, whether 
general or local. 

Mr. LOUDON. I am glad that the gentleman from 
Muskingum, [Mr. Stilwell,] has made this motion. 
By so doing, he has called up a subject which he un¬ 
derstands, and into v/hich I wish to inquire. It is said 
that the Ohio University, at Athens, h id donated to it 
by the State, two towmships of land. This land is 
leased out to tenants at seventy-five cents per acre, and 
the occupants pay to the institution six jiercent. on the 
value of the lands leased. These laiuls pay no taxes 
for cither State or county purposes. Now, this, if true, 
seems unjust. Can the gentleman, [Mr. Stilwell,] 
inform us a.s to the facts? 

Mr. STILWELL. The Secretary of the Institution 
—the «rentleman from Athens, [Mr. Brown,] is pres¬ 
ent and can give much fuller information than myself. 
There were two icmiisliips of land donated to the Uni¬ 
versity, which in 1800 or 1801, were valued atone dol¬ 
lar per acre. It was leased out to indiviiluals, the oc¬ 
cupants to pay six per cent, upon the a|)praisal _ 

Mr. BH.OWN, of Athens. The two townships of 
land were by the donation committed to the care of 
the State. The act of incorporation of the college 

85 


1345 


provided that the land should ever remain free from 
taxation for State purposes. The lands were leased at 
a rent of six per cent, upon their valuation. This is 
now low it is true; but a contract was entered into, 
and it cannot be changed. Under the law, the lands 
are taxed for county but not for State purposes, and it 
is neither in the power of this Convention nor of any 
other body to im[)ose taxes for State purposes. 

Some of the lands have been sold, and the money 
received from the sale has been deposited in the State 
treasury, and is now loaned out to the canal sinking 
fund. These lands have been taxed for State purposes. 
A question was made upon the subject, and the mat¬ 
ter, after being carried through the courts of the State, 
went up to the Supreme Court of the United States, 
where it was decided that after they had become indi¬ 
vidual property they were subject to taxation for State 
purposes; but so long as they remained the property 
of the University they were exempt from State tax¬ 
ation. 

Mr. LOUDON. I am obliged to the gentleman, [Mr. 
Brown,] for the information. These lands then, it 
seems, which pay the University an income of six per 
cent, upon their valuation, can never be made to pay a 
tax tor the support of the government of the State. 

Ml'* HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. Is section sixteen, 
while it remains the property of the township, ever 
taxed for State purposes ? It is when it is sold and 
becomes the properly of individuals, but not while it 
belongs to the the township. 

Mr. LOUDON. We come here to make anew start 
in government and to correct the errors of the past. It 
is not right that these two townships of laud, worth 
thirty or forty dollars per acre, should be exempt from 
taxation to support the goyernment of the State, while 
the homestead of the poor man is taxed t.) the last cent 
that it is worth. This may, sir, be right in the opinion 
of courts, but I am not prepared to say that the courts 
are correct in this matter. I desire to place the citi¬ 
zens upon the same ground with the citizens of Brown. 

I desire the aid of the gentleman from Monroe, and I 
call upon him to come up and sustain the rural dis¬ 
tricts. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Stilwell ; 

Mr. LOUDON moved that the committee rise, report 
progress, and ask leave tositagain; which was agreed 
to; and the committee rose, and the chairman reported 
that the committee had had under consideration report 
No. 2 of the standing committtee on Finance and Tax¬ 
ation, and had come to no resolution thereon. 

On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, the Conven¬ 
tion took a recess. 

2j^ o’clock, p. m. 

On motion of Mr. HUNTER, the committee of the 
whole was discharged from the further consideration 
of report No. 2 of the committee on Finance and Taxa¬ 
tion. 

TAXATION OF CHURCHES. 

On motion of Mr. HUNTER, the Convention took up 
the report of the committee on Finance and Taxation. 

The question being on the first amendment proposed 
by the commiitee ol the whole, to wit: In section 2 
strike out the words “ to an amount not over two thou¬ 
sand dollars;” 

Mr. SAWYER. I shall vote for this amendment. I 
believe that the words ought to remain in the section. 

I cannot see any reason why a church should enjoy a 
constitutional right of being exempt from taxation in 
all their property in ftossession, above a certain sum, as 
well as an individual. We propose to exempt $2,000; 
and I think every church m the State ought to be sa¬ 
tisfied with that. For, if they liave a surplus above 
that, the greater portion of it must be for display or in 
lerested speculation. 

The churches certainly cannot reasonably complain 
of this so long as it is remembered that there are other 















1346 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


instilulionsamongst UB, (the orders of Free Masons and 
Odd Fellows,) which dispense charities wiih a very lib- 
eaal hand, and are taxed to the extent of their proper- 
ty- 

I have not much to say upon this subject, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent. and lam willing to give over every disposition to 
debate if we can have the vote. 1 wxli content myseit 
with demanding the yeas and nays. 

Mr. DORSEY. I had concluded this morning not 
to say anything upon this subject, thinking that it had 
been already amply discussed, but the subject has been 
brou'^ht up again, and the discussion has taken such a 
ranoe that the probability is we shall have to go over 
some of the same ground of debate which has been 
occupied before. 

I hope, sir, that the amendment of the committee 
will be sustained, and that the words “ to an amount 
not over two thousand dollars,” will be stricken out. 

If gentlemen will read this proviso attentively, I 
think they will see that a construction may be put up¬ 
on it ditterent from any which has ever been given to 
it. The language is: “Provided that burying grounds, 
public school houses, houses used exclusively for pub¬ 
lic worship, to an amount not over two thousand dol¬ 
lars.” This language may be legitimately construed 
as prescribing that neither burying grounds, public 
school houses, nor houses for public worship, shall be 
exempted beyond the value of two thousand dollars. 
I have not heard that construction put upon it before, 
but it certainly would be fair and legitimate. But I 
will not insist upon it. I will take the construction 
which confines this limit to houses used exclusively for 
public worship. 

But let us look at the remainder of the proviso. It 
provides further, that “institutions of purely public 
charily, the property of the State, of counties, town¬ 
ships, cities and towns, may, by general laws, be ex 
empt from taxation.” Your court houses and jails, for 
the preservation of law and order, are to be exempted. 
You do not say that these buildings, costing only two 
thousand dollars and under, shall be exempted, but 
you exempt the most costly edifices of this character; 
and there is as much difference in the cost of court 
houses, as there is between the cost of churches. Yet 
you allow the former to be exempted to the whole 
amount of their cost. This may be right. I do not 
say that it is not. But I do say that when you exempt 
these buildings and tax the chuiches, you begin at the 
wrong end of the work. You exempt those buildings 
which are reared for the trial and punishment of crime, 
whilst you impose a tax upon those institutions which 
are doing more for the preservation of law and social 
order in the community, than all your court houses and 
jails erer have done or ever will do. 

I was surprised to hear an argument, this morning, 
a'^ainst this amendment, coming from the gentleman 
from Ashtabula, [Mr. Woodbury.] We of the south¬ 
ern counties have been accustomed to look upon our 
fellow citizens of the north as belonging to the moral 
portion of the State. Our northern fellow citizens are 
mostly from the land of steady habits, and by common 
consent they are held par excellence as the moral {tor- 
lion of the Slate. Therefore, I say, it sounded very 
strangely in my ears to hear an argument of the kind 
that came from the gentleman from Ashtabula. I could 
not avoid thinking that we, as the southern portion of 
the State, might fear to be overwhelmed by a torrent of 
Vandalism, such as came down from the north upon 
the southern part of Europe in days of old. I looked 
for better things from that gentleman, and I ho{ie still 
that he will be convinced he has not taken the right 
course for the maintenance of law and order in the 
State of Ohio, for I do know, and that gentleman must 
also be aware, that his Puritan fathers were guided by 
far different principles. When they landed in New 
England, the first institutions which they founded were 
not jails and court houses, but temples for the wor¬ 
ship of the Living God, foi’ they knew that if they 


established religion they established also morality, law 
and order. They began to cure the evils of society at 
the right end, and the consequence has been an untold 
amount of benefit to the peo{de of this country. Now, 
It seems to me, that this simjxle view of the amount of 
good accruing to the community from these institutions, 
ougljt alone to be a sufficient aigumeni for the exemp¬ 
tion of all the churches in the State from taxation, not 
only to the amount of twm thousand dollars, but to 
whatever amount the churches may see proper to in¬ 
vest in their houses of worship, so far as these invest¬ 
ments are devoted exclusively to public worship. But 
we were told here this morning that these edifices 
should be taxed because they belonged to a certain 
portion of community, and there were others in the 
community who had no connection with them, or in¬ 
terest in the matter. But this allegation is not true in 
any Christian country. There is no man living in this 
community who can say that he is wholly unconnected 
with these establishments of religion, and with that 
religious influence which is spread abroad throughout 
this country. A man might just as well say that he 
has no connection with the atmosphere he breathes, 
for this influence has pervaded all the interests of life, 
social as well as political. And there is no man who 
lives in this community, I care not what his connections 
may be, who is not influenced by the Christian re¬ 
ligion, and who does not receive, directly or indirect¬ 
ly, a very large amount of benefit flowing from these 
very institutions which you are now proposing to 
tax, whilst you allow large portions of the proper¬ 
ty of those who are enjoying these benefits to go un¬ 
taxed. 

For these reasons I hope the amendment of the com¬ 
mittee of the whole will be sustained. I hope gentle¬ 
men will not allow themselves to incorporate anything 
into the constitution which is calculated to array a re¬ 
ligious feeling—the influence of a good religious' prin¬ 
ciple—against this constitution. And if this amend¬ 
ment should be incorporated, I could not but regard it 
as striking a blow at those institutions which are doing 
an incalculable amount of good to the whole commu¬ 
nity—an amount of good of which we all are the un¬ 
conscious recipients. We do not value the influence of 
the churches as we ought; but if we could once be 
bereft of this influence, then we might know, to some 
extent, the vast amount of benefit wi.ijh we are dei iving 
from it. ® 

But it has been said that some churches hold prop¬ 
erty which is not part or parcel of their place of wor- 
shi{i. Well, if they have property from which they 
derive a revenue, I certainly could have no objections 
to all such property being taxed. But, in the name of 
the good people of Ohio, I ask that no revx n le shall 
ever be raised by imposing a tax upon those sacred 
places where the people gather themselves together to 
worshif. God according to the dictates of their own con¬ 
sciences. 

Mr. REEMELTN. I have all along expected that 
this argument would at last come to just what the gen¬ 
tleman from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] has at last disclosed. 
But let it always be understood that we are acting up¬ 
on the defensive: that w’e are defending ourselves 
against any attempt to put into the constitution any 
special exemptions. ^ 

Ihe gentleman from M'ami places our churches upon 
the same footing with our public edifices. It is true 
that there are countries in the world where churches 
are instituted and supported by the State; and in all 
such governments, there is a good reason why the 
churches should be free from taxation, becau.se they 
are the {»roperty of the State—because ihi y were insti¬ 
tuted by the State and are supported by the State. 

Mr. DORSEY, (interposing.) I did not say that 
the churches stood upon the same foundation with our 
public buildings; I said they exercised a similar influ¬ 
ence. ; 

Mr. REEMELIN. Upon the same argument you 


















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1347 


might support the doctrine of the union of church 
and State. The same argument which would be nece.s- 
sary to support the exemption of churches from taxa¬ 
tion would support the proposition; and upon this very 
argument the whole question turns. Prove to me that 
churches ai*e public property and I will agree not to 
tax them. 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays upon 
striking out, which were ordered, and being taken, re¬ 
sulted—yeas 62, nays 25—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs, Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett ol Preble, Bates, Bennett,Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Ceilings, Cook, Dorsey, 
Ewart, Ewing, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Gregg, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, 
Horton, llumphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, King, Kirkwood, 
Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Me 
Cloud, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott 
ol Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Stanton, Stil- 
well, Stickney, Stidger, Thompson of Shelby, Warren, Way, Wil¬ 
son, Worthington and President—62. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Farr, Greene of 
Defiance, Henderson, Hootman, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 
Mitchell, Morris, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Sawyer, Sellers, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stebbins, Struble, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Towns 
bend and Woodbury—25. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

The question then being on the second amendment, 
to wit: In section two, after the word “ State,” insert 
the words “ of the United States;” which was agreed 
to by unanimous consent. 

Mr. SAWYER moved to further amend the report, 
in section two: by inserting after the word compa¬ 
nies ” the words State and United States stocks.” 

Mr. OTIS. I would like to ask the gentleman from 
Auglaize whether the Supreme Court of tho United 
States has not decided that the bonds of the United 
States are not taxable? 

Mr. SAWYER. That is the old question again; and 
I say to the gentleman that I care no more for the de¬ 
cisions of the Supremo Court upon this subject, than 
for the idle wind which passes me by. 

Mr. OTIS. If the money only which is vested in 
these stocks is to be taxed, I would like to know how 
such stocks as may have been bought for fifty cents on 
the dollar, are to be assessed ? 

Mr. SAWYER. According to whatever they may 
be worth at the time. 

Mr. OTIS. But the proposition is to tax money so 
invested. Now, at one lime, Ohio bonds were only 
worth fifty-five cents on the dollar; but now they are 
worth fifteen cents premium. Your section ought cer¬ 
tainly to be framed that you would know what you are 
about. I suppose you should prescribe that the stocks 
shall be taxed, and not the money invested in them, so 
that if their value should fluctuate, you would still 
have a uniform rate of taxation. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD moved to amend the amendment, 
by striking out the words and United States.” 

Mr. LOUDON desired particularly to call the atten¬ 
tion of lawyers to the former part of this section, and 
to this question, whether the language, as it stood with¬ 
out the amendment of the gentleman from Auglaize, 
would iHJt auihhrize the taxation of moneys invested in 
State and United States stocks ? In the clause, “ and 
naoneys and credits or investments in joint stock com¬ 
panies or otherwise,” the words "or otherwise,” were 
intended to include those stocks, and these words were 
u.sed because of the difficulty which seemed to hang 
upon some men’s minds, whenever you mention State 
Stocks or United States Stocks as objects of taxation. 
He desired also, to know whether tliis tax would not 
lie against the current valuation of these stocks; and 
if they were only worth fifty cents on the dollar, would 
not that have to he taken by the Assessor, according 
to the terms of ibis section ? The object of the com¬ 
mittee was simply to put all that the individual might 
be worth upon the tax duplicate. 

He confessed that he preferred .he language used in 
the former report of the committee, and if prolessional 


gentlemen would tell him that the language now em¬ 
ployed did not amount to the same thing, he would 
vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Aug¬ 
laize. 

Mr. HAWKINS should vote against both these amend* 
meuts. He did not desire to command the Legislature 
to do that which, up to this day, had been held by all 
the courts in the country, to be legally impo.ssible. 
He did not want to incorporate any legal absurdity in¬ 
to the organic law. Whatever power might be exer¬ 
cised with respect to taxing these bonds, was included 
in the terms of the section without the amendment. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. Mr. President: The question 
under consideration is one of the most important that 
this Convention will be called upon to decide during 
its deliberations: and one which ought to be well con¬ 
sidered before it receives the final rejection or the sol¬ 
emn sanction of this deliberative assembly. It should 
be considered with direct reference to the individual, 
social, political and sovereign rights of the people of 
this State. The short time allowed by your rules will 
prevent me from examining this question as elaborate¬ 
ly as I could wish, and which will of necessity com¬ 
pel me to articulate with great rapidity and only to give 
each idea a passing notice. 

In my opinion, my valued friend from Brown, [Mr. 
Loudon,] was laboring under an error when he con¬ 
ceived the idea, that the word " otherwise ” would 
bring upon the duplicate for taxation, money invested 
in State stocks or United States bonds. And I would 
inquire of him, if the wily holder of stocks or bonds 
would not most likely tell your assessor that they are 
exempt from taxation by the laws creating them, or by 
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States ? 
And in barely noticing the remarks of the gentleman 
from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] I would say that I can¬ 
not see the force of his argument, only, as it applies to 
the United States, in hereafter borrowing money; it 
may be compelled to pay a higher rate of interest, or 
rather its bonds may sell lower in market. 1 think 
;that may be somewhat doubtful, and I doubt if the 
bonds of the general government will soon, if ever, be 
again hawked about the streets for sale, as they were 
under the Tippecanoe administration. But if true, I 
would inquire of the wise ones here, if the greater the 
amount that appears upon the duplicate, does not lessen 
the per cent, levied, and will it not go so far in reliev¬ 
ing the poorest class of lay payers? Most certainly it 
would. 

Now, sir, I will submit a propositition, a fair one, un¬ 
der the constitution and laws of the United States, and 
that all laws constitutional in themselves, passed by 
Congress and approved, become the supreme law of 
the land, I am free to admit—it is this: if Congress 
should pass a law directing the issue and sale of bonds 
or stocks, and the same law should provide, that nei¬ 
ther the bonds nor the money invested in them should 
ever be taxed by the United States, or by the States, 
which would of necessity, bring up the question direct 
between the power of the general government and the 
sovereignity of the States. And I now submit, whether 
such ail act of Congress would not be a direct and pos¬ 
itive interference with the sovereign and inherent right 
of a State to tax its own inhabitants, uniformly, accor¬ 
ding to the wealth of each, for the support of that gov¬ 
ernment which protects them? I am not going to dis¬ 
cuss this proposition at this time, but I know that I 
shall be answered, that the power to borrow money was 
constitutionally conferred upon the general government, 
and as a sequence, the general government has the 
power to fix its own terms. Without admitting the cor¬ 
rectness of the answer, I will dismiss this question by 
propounding the following for consideration. Did the 
Slates or the people thereof, in conferring the power 
upon the federal government to borrow money, confer 
the power of exempting any particular, any kind, or all 
kinds of property belonging to the individual inhabi¬ 
tants of a State, from taxation by that State, for State, 











1348 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


county, or township purposes ? I admit that this would 
be a lair and open contest between the powers, and 
one upon which the court of last resort might well de¬ 
liberate before it decided the^ question in a way by 
which the most wealthy man in a State could place 
his wealth beyond the reach of the taxing power of the 
State in which he may happen to reside, to the injury 
of his poorer and laboring tax paying neighbors ; al¬ 
though it might be one, which, with some degree of 
propriety, might be acquiesced in. But I can conceive, 
that when the question is left open by Congress—no 
restriction upon the taxing power of the State, that the 
right of the State to tax their own inhabitants who may 
have money invested in bonds of the United States, is 
not only right and just, but clear and unquestionable, the 
opin)ons ol the supreme court oi the Ui^ited States to 
the contrary notwithstanding. 

This question of the right and power of taxation is 
a kindred subject of the right of repeal, which has oc¬ 
cupied the attention of this Convention so long, both 
of which have been most strenuously opposed by the 
advocates of the moneyed power, to the exclusion oi 
right and even handed justice ; and who have predica¬ 
ted their most specious objections upon the opinions 
and decisions of the supreme court of the United States, 
as if the opinions of the judges thereof were possessed 
of the same infallibility that is claimed for the Pope of 
Rome. But sir, I have but little faith in the infallibili¬ 
ty of man, in any situation of life where his interest or 
his prejudices can be brought to bear upon his opin¬ 
ions. Sir, this court has been held up to our view as 
an object of the highest veneration, and when we ap¬ 
proach its presence, we should pull the shoes from oil 
our feet, as if standing upon holy ground. Sir, that 
court is not entitled to all that has been claimed for it; 
it is not infallible. They have decided first one way, 
and then in another, in matters the most important and 
most vital, atfecting the greatest of our political inte¬ 
rests and rights of the citizens. They have decided 
that any species of paper that is designed to circulate 
as money, is a bill of credit under the constitutional 
prohibition of thefundamental law of the United States. 
They have decided that a bank of a State, issuing bills 
of credit, bills circulating as money, is constitutional. 
They have decided that a Slate has the power to pass 
insolvent laws, extending to the full discharge of indi¬ 
vidual indebtedness, but not to act retroactively, but 
in prospect only. And they have decided that Con¬ 
gress has not only the power to pass a law impairing 
the obligation of contracts, but to absolutely destroy 
them. 

Mr. STILWELL, (interposing.) Will the gentle¬ 
man please to mention cases ? 

Mr. LBADBETTBR. Most certainly; and my friend 
will find that I presume to understand myself. 

In the case of Craig vs. the State of Mi.ssouri, Chief 
Justice Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the court, 
holds this sentiment in relation to what constitutes a 
bill of credit: “ Any paper money intended to i)a8s in 
the community, as a circulating medium, is a bill of 
credit;” and so the court decided. Again, sir—after 
Chief Justice Marshall had closed his career in death, 
Justice McLean, in the case of Briscoe against the Bank 
of the Commonwealth of Kentucky; which bank w'as, 
by the terms of the law creating it, declared exclusive¬ 
ly the property of the commonwealth; in delivering 
the opinion of the court, reverses the opinion held by 
Chief Justice Marshall; and the court decided that the 
bank and its issues were constitutional; notwithstand¬ 
ing the dissenting opinion of Justice Story, the associ¬ 
ate of Marshall, and who informed his compeers of the 
direct analogy between the two cases, and went in full 
into the history of bills of credit, for the purpose of 
setting himself right, and vindicating the unsullied ho 
nor of the founder of our federative system. I cannot 
follow the cases any further; my friend from Hamil¬ 
ton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] has not only placed this ques¬ 
tion in its true light ;^but has exposed the sophistry of 


Justice McLean, and made the case too plain to be 
misunderstood by any man of common sense, much 
less a lawyer. 

Again sir—the State of New York enacts a law for 
the relief of insolvent debtors ; by which the insolvent 
debtor, upon a fair delivery of all of his effects into the 
hands of the commissioner, shall be forever discharg¬ 
ed from all his indebtedness, and her courts decided 
that this law was retroactive in its opperation; and in 
the case of Sturges against Crowninshield, which was 
taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, 
where it was decided that the State had the power to 
pass such a law, but it could only operate upon debts 
to be created after its passage, and not retroactively; 
that it was not only impairing the obligation of exist¬ 
ing contracts, but destroying them altogether; and in 
this the court was right. 

But sir, it will be recollected, that Congress passed 
a general bankrupt law during the Tippecanoe admin¬ 
istration, which your boasted court of infallible judges 
not only decided that it was retroactive—that it not 
only impaired the obligation of contracts, but actually 
destroyed them—yet it was constitutional. Can gen¬ 
tlemen reconcile these two adverse decisions? Are the 
individual and political rights of the people to be eter¬ 
nally subject to those vacillating decisions, without an 
effort at redemption ? 

The great end and aim of all governments should be 
equality—the scales of justice should bo held in exact 
equipoise—granting neither privileges or favors to one, 
and withholding from another—observing strict equal¬ 
ity in all its exactions for its support or defence, accor¬ 
ding to the wealth and means of each, and equality in 
its protec-ion, and in the ditiusion of its blessings. 

This question necessarily involve.s the extent of 
that power which is of necessity, not only an incident 
to, but inherent in all governments, and one of the 
highest attributes of sovereignty that belongs to this 
or any other government—the sovereign power of tax¬ 
ation. 

By the decisions of our courts, both State and nation¬ 
al, I am free to admit, in sustaining the monopolist, 
and the men of money, they have shorn the State of her 
right to tax, equally, all property within their jurisdic¬ 
tion, and to exempt money invested in the United 
States bonds altogether. 

And, sir, we are now called upon, as tl;ie representa¬ 
tives of the people of this great State, in Convention 
assembled, to decide how far the General Assembly 
niay go in bartering away this inherent right of taxa¬ 
tion ; whether the General Assembly is invested with 
the power to barter this right away, in whole or in part; 
and whether if it has bartered this right away in whole 
or in part, the same can, or cannot be resumed again 
by an act of the sovereign power of the State. The fore¬ 
going remark is more applicable to the taxing of State 
stocks, and incorporations, than it is to the taxing of 
money invested in bonds of the United Sta'-es, but it 
constitutes a part and parcel of the same subjects, and 
isj predicated upon the same hypothesis, to which I 
have already alluded, and becomes a proper subject 
matter for discussion here. 

I hope, sir, that I may be here permitted to indulge 
in an expression of my surprise at the opinions that 
have been here expressed by some gentlemen who 
have preceded me ; and on the other hand, that if my 
historical remini.scences serve me, lam not surprised at 
the arguments of others, made use of to sustain their 
long-cherished opinions. Nor is it my purpose to pass 
in judgment upon the opinions of those with whom I 
am here associated, but their arguments are legitimate 
subjects of review. We have been gravely reminded 
that we should frequently recur to hist principles, and 
if there is truth and force in the remark, why not re¬ 
cur to those great leading principles which gave this 
nation birth? Why not recur to those just, elementary 
principles upon which the broad foundations of the go¬ 
vernment were laid, and upon which it must ever reg 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1349 


main, if you would give it Strength or durability. If, 
by the action of your government, either kState, nation¬ 
al, or both, violence to its principles and manifest in¬ 
justice to man shall bo the result, (and for which, a 
corrupting influence in its departments can alone ac¬ 
count,) this great and splendid fabric, the work of our 
fathers and the admiration of the world, will be endan¬ 
gered, and nothing can save “ it from tottering to its 
fall but a speedy return, extending justice and ecpiality 
to all, as it was originally designed.” 

And here, permit me to express my surprise, that 
there should, in all this land, an individual be found, 
much less within the body of this Convention, around 
whom the broad a)gi3 of American liberty has thrown 
her ample lolds, within whose breast dwells one sen¬ 
timent of justice, within whose heart one pulsation in 
favor of liberty ever beats, in this our day, and upon 
this floor, openly and boldly contending for that most 
odious and detestable doctrine of all doctrines, the doc¬ 
trine of vested rights, or exclusive privileges, by which 
one class of men have a legalized rigVit to prey upon 
the hard earned substance of others, and array them¬ 
selves in the panoply of pride and arrogance, against 
the highest attribute of Heaven—justice—justice to the 
individuality of man. And this, sir, is to be endured 
by a peo[)le, constituting the only nation upon earth, 
where, by its own fundamental principle.s and laws, 
the mind of man is irresistably led to the sublime idea, 
planting itself upon the broad platlorm of justice and 
equality, that here and here only has man the power 
of asserting his own native dignity—untrammeled and 
disencumbered from everything except those voluntary 
restrictions which he has thrown around himself for 
the benefit of the whole. Would to God that in this 
there were no delusion. 

Whenever you either establish or permit a rule of 
taxation, by which the property of one man shall be 
taxed, and the property of another, in the whole or in 
part, shall go untaxed, you have a rule which operates 
unjustly and falls most heavily upon the poorest part 
of yoar tax payers, the laboring community, and in just 
the proportion, you exempt the bonds of this State and 
of the United States from taxation, you increase the 
burthens upon the industry of the community. Ca[)i- 
itil produces nothing—labor is the great producer—it 
furnishes the aliment upon which your bankers, your 
money shavers and lenders, your merchants, your law¬ 
yers, your doctors, and tho whole fry of non-producers 
not only accumulate va.st fortum s, but depend for their 
existence in their vocations ; and yet, sir, the history 
of your legislation, backed by the opinions of men 
clothed in judicial ermine, have been but little less 
than a continuous attack upon the labor and industi'}’ of 
the country. 

Upon the questions of taxing money invested in State 
and United States bonds—the right to repeal an act of 
incorporation, or the revocation of a franchise, as a 
right of the people, we have been read homilies upon 
plighted faith, honesty, justice, and morality, and a^ a 
last resort have been referred to the decisions of our 
own courts and of the Supreme Court of the United 
Stafe.s, as a final and insurmountable objection to the 
efficiency of those provisions which the friends of jus¬ 
tice and to the individual rights of man have labored 
to introduce into the provisions of the instrument which 
we propose to submit to the consideration of an honest 
and confiding people. They have been plead in the 
bar, ns legal, ovevwhelming objections against our pro¬ 
ceeding any further in our eflbrts, not only in relieving 
tho labor of the State from unjust taxation, but to guar¬ 
anty unto the people their just rights. It is wii]j the 
most profound regret that I am compelled to admit that 
thi.s plea in bar has not been filed in vain. 

I have not time to scan the motives w’hich induced 
the filing of this plea, instead of going to a jury of the 
people upon the naked merits of the case. Why is it 
that the attorneys for the defence are not willing to go 
before tho people, and there read the homilies which 


have been read to this Convention. The jieople are 
honest in their politics, and are capable of discrimina¬ 
ting between truth and error. Sii’, I should like to hear 
those gentlemen before the people, defending those 
powers which have originated through and by legisla¬ 
tive enactments, or by the legislation of our courts— 
powers which are antagouistical to the rights of the 
people, socially, politically, individually and collective¬ 
ly. I refer to the money power with all its ramifica¬ 
tions and connections—a power sure and felt in its tyr¬ 
anny and in its corruptions. It is the advocates ol this 
money power who have been preaching justice and 
honesty, and have labored most sedulously to make us 
believe that it was not only honest, but just and right, 
to tax the man with his forty acres, his cow and his 
pig, to its fullest extent; aye, increase his burthens lor 
the purpose of removing the burthens from the shoul¬ 
ders of his more fortunate neighbor, who hadmeansto 
invest in public slocks. 

Is this your morality?—is this your justice? is this 
your honesty, to tax the laborer for the purpose of swel¬ 
ling the income of bloated wealth and arrogance? 

Sir, you must deal honestly and fairly with the peo¬ 
ple, if you desire their confidence and support in main¬ 
taining good order—you must do justice to the masses, 
if you would have the masses do justice to the lew. 1 
am gratifieef, sir, that the plaintiffs, the people, in this 
case have much abler advocates than myselt, and who 
will never relax their energies. But as feeble as I am, 
they shall have my services, as long as God shall give 
me power and strength to enunciate. 

These gentlemen are afraid to go before the people. 
They know that they cannot so sophisticate the most 
simple and honest hearted man in the State, as to make 
him believe that it is riglit, just or honest to tax him 
for what little he may own, and let the man who is 
wortli a hundred thousand dollars, and that all invested 
in State bonds, go untaxed; or, what is still w’orse, 
that the poor widow with a half-dozen children to sup¬ 
port, using every possible exertion to save her little 
piece of land and raise her children, should be taxed 
lo tho utmost, not merely for the support of the civil 
list of the State, but to help pay the six thousand dol¬ 
lars which her neighbor draws semi-annually from the 
treasury of the State, and pays no taxes. Is this the mo¬ 
rality, is this the honesty, is this the justice lor which 
these gentlemen have appealed to Heaven? If this is 
to be the morality, tho honesty ,i d the justice, v, ith 
which they are to approach the celestial gate, I strong¬ 
ly suspect that (jld Saint i’eter w’ould say to them as 
he did to George the Third— 

“Tliat the key whs rusty and the lock was dull, 

“Not by any means, that the place was full, 

“ But few came that way of later.” 

[A laugh.] 

To all other of those kindred subjects, the right ofre- 
peal and the revocation of franchises, this plea in bar 
has been eminently successful, and may so prove in 
this case 5 but I hope not. I want one question to be 
carried in favor of the people. But for whom have 
^gentlemen put in this plea? For the honest and in¬ 
dustrious laborer of the State? No, sir—no. It is for 
the money power, and yet I defy any gentleman lo sat¬ 
isfy the mind, that the principle of uniform taxation is 
not just and right in itself. 

Upon a former occasion, I remarked that the judges 
of our court.?, as a general rule, were inclined towards 
pj^^ver—the power of tho legislator and the creatures 
of their creation. This principle runs through their 
decisions, wherever it conics in conflict with the rights 
of the people; and in connection therewith, we have 
been charged as repudiationists, because we desire to 
tax money invested in stocks of the Stale—over and 
over a‘^ain has this imputation been rung in our cars ; 
and because power has been conferred upon the gen¬ 
eral rrovernment to boirow money, we cannot tax it, 
because it would be taxing the credit of the United 
States, if we should tax the mor.ev invested by our 
citizens in United States bonds. 












CONVENTION REPOETS. 


1350 


Mr. ARCHBOLD (in his seat.) Can't the gentleman 
see that this tax will compel the general government 
to bori’ow money at a much higher rate of interest? 

Mr. LEADBETTER. I stated in the commence¬ 
ment of my argument, that the force of the gentle¬ 
man’s remarks w'ent to that point, and to that point 
only, and “ that it was my opinion that it would ” have 
but little or no eHect upon the sale of bonds. I recol¬ 
lect the speeches of my friend from Monroe [Mr. 
Aiichbold] upon this and its kindred subjects, hereto¬ 
fore made, that by adopting the proposition under con 
sideration we were taxing the labor of the community 
—that we were raising upan antagonistical principle in 
direct opposition to the decisions of the Supreme Court 
of the United States. Why sir, that gentleman seems 
to think that when honest labor shall approach the pre¬ 
cincts of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the 
United States he must approach with reverence and 
awe—that the ground whereon he stands is holy ground 
Sir, I am not to be impressed with any holy horror, 
dread or fear of any tribunal or department, either State 
or national, nor shall I fail to express my ideas or feel¬ 
ings when they shall transcend their legitimate au¬ 
thority, or bring to their aid their political prejudices 
and predilections, and crush, by high authority, the sa¬ 
cred rights of the people. “ Rising up an antagonisti¬ 
cal pow’er!” Who is it that has or proposes to raise up 
an antagonistical power? Not the Democracy, sir. 
Not those who think, feel and act with myself. We 
are contending against power; that is the antagonist of 
justice, honesty, right and fair dealing. We are con¬ 
tending for the principles of our primitive fathers—the 
principles established in the formation of our govern¬ 
ment—the principles by which right and justice should 
be administered to every individual over whom floats 
the flag of freedom. “ Antagonistical power !” Sir, if 
contending for the inherant and constitutional right of 
the many against the incorporated and wealthy few, is 
raising up an antagonistical power in this government, 
then am 1 guilty of the charge, if guilt can be attached 
to a contest for justice, hberty and equality. Sir, I am 
willing to assist in building up a power, now over¬ 
thrown, as antagonist to the power which has chang¬ 
ed the designs of the founders of this great republic of 
freemen, and to enforce it at all hazards, until your 
petty tyrants shall acknowledge the just rights and 
powers of the people—manifesting in practice what 
all admit in theory—that all poliiical power resides 
with and must emanate from the people. 

I will give gentlemen the full benefit of their argu¬ 
ments and the cases put in time of war. When hostile 
navies are hovering upon our coasts, and invading ar¬ 
mies approaching our frontier, we are triumphantly 
asked, ‘.‘if, at such a time as lhi.s, we would tax the 
bonds of the United States?” And why not? Let 
us suppose that at such a lime the General Govern¬ 
ment should propose to borrow money to carry on the 
war. Many of the citizens of our State are becoming 
wealthy, and at such a time some democrat should be 
found who would invest in the bonds of the United 
States, the sum of one hundred thousand dollars—;i 
good investment in a good cause. Again, and the red 
cloud of war looms higher and still higher in the hori 
zon—and the General Government calls, not for mon¬ 
ey, but for men to resist the invasion of our soil by a 
hostile army*. 

Will that case reach your men who can lend y’our 
government money ? Will they betake themselves to 
the tented field in response to this military requisition? 
No, sir—no ; they are able out of their abundance to 
procure substitutes—men good and true, who are able, 
willing, and not afraid to meet the enemies of their 
country. These calls for men at such times, although 
ostensibly made to all, yet, it is self-evident that it i.s 
intended for the working class of our citizens—men of 
your “ rural districts ”—men accustomed to labor, ei¬ 
ther poor or ill moderate circumstances, such as are 
not able to procure a substitute. Sir, it is your labor¬ 


ing class that must do your fighting, and when that is 
done they must foot the bill. It is those men who 
volunteer their services—it is those men who are draft¬ 
ed into the service. The losses and inconveniences of 
leaving home are not taken into consideration ; an 
aged father and mother, dependent upon his exertions 
for support, plead iu vain—theteai’s and sighs of a ten¬ 
der wife and loving children are uuavailing ; the hand 
of government in its extremity is upon him, and to the 
post of danger he must go—not with the blandishments 
and pay accompanying uniform and epaulettes—his 
uniform a knapsack—liis defence a musket; he bares 
his bosem to the shock of battle, nerved with the pow¬ 
er with which freedom alone can nerve a man—he 
presses on, and at the moment when victory is about 
to perch herself upon the standard of our country, he 
falls to I’ise no more. The shout of victory has gone 
up—to every corner of this confederacy has the news 
been exultingly borne upon the lightning’s wing, and 
the nation celebrates the event. But how little of its 
joys can this widowed one partake! She has now to 
labor, to economise, and to use her utmost exertions to 
support herself and children, and keep her home of a 
few acres—for which she is taxed for State purposes. 

But, sir, the picture is not finished—and again, the 
general government, by* a system of direct taxation lays 
its merciless hands upon the property of this widow, 
and exacts a tax from her—for what? To carry on the 
war? not exclusively ; it Is not enough that you have 
taken from her the partner of her bosom—her protec¬ 
tor and the father of her children, but you must enter 
the abodes of grief and drag from her the scatiiy pit¬ 
tance she needs to shield her from the pitiless storms 
of winter, in order to pay the interest on the money 
which the man of wealth has invested in United States 
bonds, and who pays nothing for the support ot that 
government which protects him, or for the support of 
the war waged in his defence! This, sir, is no over 
wrought picture; it is true to the letter and must be 
admitted. And this sir, is the justice that has been 
meted out to y’^our honest laboring class, and the kind 
of justice that is proposed to be continued. This sir, 
is the system of morals taught iu this Convention—this 
sir, is to be the right and only right that freemen are 
to enjoy*, if their frieiuhs here shall fail in their efforts 
—poor privilege indeed,—and tliis sir is justice, justice 
with a vengeance and the honesty of a brigand. 

Is this the banquet to which my* friend from Monroe, 
whose heart appears to be right, has invited “ the sons 
of labor and of toil.” I doubt much if they will thank 
him for the invitation. The widow whose house is 
made desolate by* war will scarcely thank him. The 
laboring class ask for no such feast as this. They ask 
for nothing but an open field and a fair fight. Your 
more wealthy and highly favored will wear the epau¬ 
lettes, but the rank and file must come from the field 
of labor, and you will tax their little all, in order to 
swell the amount you pour into the lap of bloated 
wealth and arrogance. And, sir, the genileman from 
Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] withmuc.hporaposity, pleads 
the opinion of Chief Ju.stice Marshall in support of such 
manifest injastice; priding himself as a disciple ot the 
great apostle of liberty, Thomas Jeft'erson. Sir, if the 
gentleman had read that great man carefidly, he could 
not have failed to observe that Mr. .Jeflerson entertain¬ 
ed more fears for the liberties of' the [)eople, by the 
constitutional organization of the Supreme Court of the 
United States, than from all other of the departments 
combined, and his fears are daily becoming realized. 
That great man solved the problem of self government 
as he would have done a problem in Euclid. He had 
his fears when he saw the life tenure of its judges and 
the immense jiowers conferred upon it—the power of 
passing upon, or of pulling a construction upon every 
act of State and national legislation that might be passed 
by the repre ^entatives of the people. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD, (in his seat.) I have not men¬ 
tioned the name of Marshall. 













CONVENTION REPORTS 


1351 


Mr. LEADBBTTER. Well do I recollect the gen¬ 
tleman’s argument upon this and its kindred subjects, 
and. if he will but read tho book, he will be apt to find 

it. 

Mr. ARCH BOLT). Thave not used his name. 

Mr. LBADBETTER. To make the matter short, I 
repeat that lie did use the name of Marshall, of Story, 
of Thompson, of Sydney, and of others—and he can 
make the most of it. Marshall was but the appointee 
of the alien and sedition administration; a political 
friend of the President, and of course a high-toned fed¬ 
eralist; which may account for the character of some 
of his decisions. 

It appears that the advocates of the moneyed power 
in this contest, do not alone consist of attorneys; but 
many of the lay members of this Convention, as they 
have been termed, have come up to the help of the 
lawyers—the help of the lawyers against the people; 
and among them there is none more prominent than 
my friend from Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins.] Tt seems 
that he, too, is utterly opposed to engrafting this propo¬ 
sition, or anything else into this constitution, that may 
be lopped otF or stricken out of this constitution by the 
Supreme Court of the United States, or leave it stand¬ 
ing, like tlie blasted hemlock of the forest, or like the 
sturdy oak that has been killed by the later frosts ot 
spring, there to remain a dead letter, as a monument of 
our folly. 

Sir, if a due sense of justice and the rights of the 
people are to be disregarded, I desire not only to see 
this provision, but all others of a kindred subject, en¬ 
grafted into this instrument, and let the question be 
raised direct, between the arbitrary dictum of judicial 
supremacy and the assertion of the inherent rights ot a 
free people through the fundamental law of their own 
creation. And I here repeat that if the people either 
desire to maintain their own supremacy, or recover that 
which has been wrongfully wrested from them, they 
must meet lliis question somewhere, and there is no 
place better to meet it than heie, and unqualifiedly as¬ 
sert it in this constitution. 

And if the Supreme Court shall refuse to review their 
decisions, and still persist in doing injustice to the 
people—then let this provision stand like the blasted 
hemlock of the forest, blasted by the mildew of judi¬ 
cial injustice—or if the figure is more pleasing to the 
eye, let it stand like the sturdy oak, with its huge tiunk 
and wide distending lirnhs, killed by judicial frosts. 

S r, this towering himlock and the sturdy oak are fit 
emblems of the majesty of the people; and no better 
figures can be drawn ()y friend or any other man, to 
represent the blasting influence or the killing frosts of 
judicial decisions, affecting the sovereign and inheient 
rights of the people. Sir, for one, I desire to see this 
question met, and boldly met—I desire to see your 
legislation to sustain this provision if we shall incorpoi- 
ate it into this instrument. I am aware of the enorts 
that have been made to drive us from our position. 
We have been gravely told that you cannot repeal an 
act of incorporation, or revoke a franchise a mere 
grant from the General Assembly, because the Supicine 
Court have decided them to be contracts, and you can¬ 
not imfiair the obligation of contracts. The General 
Assembly has granted away the right of taxation, and 
the Supreme Court has decided that the same cannot 
be resumed. The people, or the States have confei- 
red upon the general government the powder to borrow 
money, and the Supreme Court has decided that to 
tax the money invested in the bonds of the United 
States would be taxing the credit of the nation, and the 
money shall not be taxed. 

Sir, we have been most gravely told that it we 
should succeed in engrafting those provisions into tins 
constitution, we cannot succeed in our object--lhat the 
Supreme Court will never change their decisions, and 

the result will be that we must submit. . . „ 

What do they mean by the term submission ? Sir, 
I understand them—they might as well have portray¬ 


ed before our eyes, tramping steeds, bristling bayonets, 
deploying squadrons, the rush of arms, and the roar of 
artillery, as to have aroused our sensibilities by the de¬ 
grading term, submission. Who is there among ns but 
knows that the decrees and orders of the Supreme 
Court of the United States cannot be enforced where 
there is positive resistance, only by the military pow¬ 
er of the United States. If right and justice cannot be 
done without it, let it come ; and then, peradventure, 
the judiciary may take into consideration the just and 
inherent rights of the people. 

But, sir, the dread alarm of \var was not all that was 
called in requisition by these attorneys. ^ Sir, we have 
had our attention directed to the repulsive frowns of 
Heaven—and then downward, to the liorrors of the 
damned, with the purpose to frighten us from our pur¬ 
pose. We, sir, by voting for this proposition, are to be 
guilty of moral perjury. For this purpose we disregard 
the power of the General Government, and have no 
fears of invoking the indignation of Heaven. The man 
who is conscious of the rectitude of his intentions, who 
knows that he is right, can know no fear; and that peo¬ 
ple who, knowing their rights dare not maintain them, 
are unworthy of the name and place of freemen. If it 
is desirable that the people should maintain the gov¬ 
ernment they must be protected iu the full enjoyment 
of their rights. And now, sir, if this proposition shall 
succeed here, and shall be stricken by the killing frosts 
of judicial decisions, let it be done. But permit me to 
tell the gentleman that there is a democracy among us 
who will cling to the trunk of the sturdy oak, and, like 
the ivy, we will cling to its trunk and keep it green 
until it rots down by time, and when it falls liberty it¬ 
self will be entombed in its ruins. 

I warn gentlemen ot the dangerous tendency of iheir 
arguments, placing the decisions of the Supreme Couit 
()f\he United Sta’es, as the paramount law of the laud, 
high over constitutions and laws, by the power of con¬ 
struction, and ill utter disregard of the rights of man, 
constituting the great State of Ohio, with all its varied 
and diversified interests, a mere colotdal dependency 
upon the Supreme Court of the United States. ^ Those 
who are opposed to submitting to this degradation will 
vote with me upon this occasion, and rather than to 
see this provision lost I would prefer seeing tho hostile 
banners of the federal government bearing down upon 
us in the plentitude of their power; and when the con¬ 
flict shall come—when we shall be brought to that 
point in the contest—between the inherent and inde¬ 
feasible rights of the people, and the decisions of the 
mere judicial tribunal, there can be no doubt but right 
will prevail, and you will find a “power behind the 
throne greater than the throne itself.” _ _ 

Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, should vote against striking 
out, as proposed by the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. 
Akchuoi.d ;] for if it was the fixed purpose of the Con¬ 
vention to do any thing ridiculous he would help them, 
for it was a rule of life^with him either to be very right 
or very wrong. He had listened with amazement at 
the pictures of poverty, drawn by the gentleman from 
Holmes, [Mr. Leadbkttkr,] and especially at llie ar- 
‘Ttiment of that gentleman, which went to show that 
poor women and children who enjoyed more rags than 
dollars were likely to sufier from the operation of our 
tax laws. He did nolknow how it might beiu Holmes 
county, but iu the county where he lived, it made but 
very little odds to the poor what were the character 
of the tax laws, for the very obvious reason that they 
paid no taxes all. 

He could not tell for the life of him, what was the 
insane object of the gentleman, in pressing the propo¬ 
sition to tax these public stocks with so much zeal and 
ardor, if the motive was not covert or attempted to be 
concealed. But he believed he knew what the real 
motive was. 

A Voice. “What is it?” 

Mr. BROWN. I may tell you after a while, or I 
may not. But I think I know what it means. 












1352 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. LEADBETTER, (in his seat.) 1 would have 
told you what it was if my twenty minutes had not ex¬ 
pired too soon. 

Mr. BROWN. I may or may not tell it. It’s a 
question of privilege, I suppose ; or a privileged ques¬ 
tion—which you please. (Laughter.) But it is a ques¬ 
tion about which it is well known that as often as it 
has been considered in this body, the decision has gone 
against the position taken by the gentlemen on the 
other side. 

Mr. B. continued, to the close of his twenty minutes, 
to illustrate the injustice and immorality of the princi¬ 
ple advocated by the gentleman from Holmes, [Mr. 
Leadbetter.] Among other things he charged, home 
on the democracy the purpose of taxing State stocks, 
to be a desire on their part, to drive out of the State 
the State bonds, which lorm the Imsis for the issue of 
bank bills, by the independent banks of the State 
at this time, thereby decreasing the amount of our 
circulation and driving the bonds and capital from the 
State. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, spoke twenty minutes in re¬ 
ply to the gentleman from Holmes, [Mr. Leadbetter 1 
and in opposition to the report. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD next obtained the floor, and de¬ 
fended the position which he had heretofore taken, 
namely: that the taxation of United States bonds bv 
the State government would necessarily depres.s their 
niaiket value. He denounced this principle as anti¬ 
democratic. 

Mr. Si AN TON moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “sliall the main question 
be now put?” ^ 

Mr. HnCHCOCK, of Geauga, demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—veasSO, 
nays 39—as Ibllows ; 

Andrew? Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett ol 
u r i^lit-kensderterf Brown of Athens, 


Greene oi Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, 
Hoolman, IJumphreville, Hunt, Jones, King. Kirkwood, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitch¬ 
ell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wy¬ 
andot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Shelby, 
'Ihompsoii ot Stark, Townshend, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and 
President—50. 

—Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgom- 
ery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brown ol Carroll, Chambers, Ceilings, Cook, Curry, Ew¬ 
art, Gillett. Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud,Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Smith ot Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, War¬ 
ren, Williams and Worthington—42. 

So the amendment was adopted. 

The question then being on ordering the section to 
he engrossed ; 

Mr. OnS demauded the yeas and nays; whicb 


-yeas b 2 , nays 42 —as 


art- T-'nrr ’ Cook, Dorsey, Ew- 

Inn’ iioJi Gillctt, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, IJar- 

Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Sawyer, 
Wyandot, Stanberv, fctanton, Steb 
Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Wor- 

thington and President—50. 

Pollings, Curry, Green of Ross, Greg?, 
Gioesbeck, Hamilton, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, 
T o S Hunt, Joiiefc:, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwdll, 

Leech Leadbetter, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Otis, 
Middle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
shin ? stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Town- 

ehend, Warren and Williams—39. 

bo the demand for the previous question was sustain¬ 
ed. 

1 he question then being on the amendment to the 
amendment; 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays; 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas IG, mivsZd — 
as follows: , 

of Preble, Bates, Chambers, 
Giabdin, Hoi ton. Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud Otis, Peck, 

^ SdBvell and Williams—16. 

Barbee, Barnet of iMontgoracry, Ben 
clb’ili^ Lrown of Athens. Brown of Carroll, 

Cihilj, Chaney, Colhngs, Cook, Curry, l)orse\', Ewart, Farr 
Porbes, Gillen. Gray, Greene of Defiant, Green of Ross. Gregg! 

Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock 
ter b/- 1^‘^n’Pla-eville, Hunt, Hun- 

Leadbener ^ if’ m Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 

ri« Oi tmf Mitchell, McCormick, Nor- 

Sawvel RoemeJin, Riddle, Roll, 

toav3,ei, ...cott ol Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Hisihla' cl Smith of 

ThmnSn of^r'u- Stickney, Stidgerr Struble, Swift, 

Ibompeon ol stark, lownshend, Warren, Way, Wilson Wood¬ 
bury, Worthington and President—74. vviison, wood 

00 the amendment to the amendment was rejected. 

I he question then being on the amendment proposed 
Mr. Sawyer, to wit: insert after the word 
pames, m section 2, lhe.se words: “ 

Stales stocks ;” 

Mr LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays; 
as fullow^^^ ordered, and resulted—yeas 50, nays 42— 

VE-^s-Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Dorsey, Farr, Forbes, 


corn 

State and. United 


where ordered, and resulted 
follows: 

Yeas ^Jlessrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Cook, Dorsey, 
Ewing, I^arr, Forbes, Greene ol Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck 
Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville* 
Hunt, Hunter, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech I.ead- 
better, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Pat- 
terson, Perkins, Quigley, Reenielin, Sawyer, Scott ot Augiaize, 
fcelieis. Smith ol Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble 
Thompson ot Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend; 
Way, Wilson, W oodbury and President—52. 

Kays— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett ol Breble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Clark, Collings, Curry, Pi wart Gil- 
lett. Graham, Gray, (treen of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Horton, Jones, Larsh, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Mor- 
^ Peck, Riddle, Boll, Scott of Harrison, Smith 

ot Highland, Sianbei-y, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Warren, Williams 
and Worthington—42. 

So the section wa.s ordered to be eugros.sed. 

^ All. HOOTMAN iiioved to further ame/id. the Report, 
Ill Section 3, by striking out tin-Ibllowiiig : “deducting 
therefrom the amount of their circulatiou ;” 

On which nudiou, Mr. BATES demauded the yeas 
and na} s; whicli were ordereii, and resulted—yeas 19, 
nays C5—as fullow.s: 

Yeas Messrs. Cahill, Cook, Greene of Defiance fe'oll- TTnnr 

Lidey, Mitchell, Quigley, .Sellera, Thompson oh ithelby 'Town^ 
shend, Wilsrn, and President—19. -I'cmy, 1 own- 

Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates Blair 
Lhekensderter,. Brown ol Athens, Brown of Carroll Chan here* 
Chaney Clark.^ Collings, Curry, Dor-.ey, Ewrng. ptrr, Forbes^ 
iillctt, Gia}’, Green ot ltos.s, (ire?g, Gi*o(-sbeck. llarlnn 
Ills, Henderson, ILtchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton Hunter' 
Jones, Kirkwood, i.awrenee, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morehead* 
Morns, McCloud, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck Pei kins 
B“B, eawyer, l^cott ol Harrison, t;cott of Auglaize t^mitb 

Pticl 'iiv*‘”<t’ Wyandot, Stanbery, i^teblifns, Stilwell 

v\r^' tstiub.e, ...wan, bvvilt, Thompson of Stark 

Warren, Way, Wiihams. W^oodbury and WorthingU}n--65. ‘ ^ 

So the ameiidmeut wa.s rejected. 

Mr. LOR 8 EY moved luitiier to amend the Report, 

ly slnkmg out all aiiei the word “taxing,” in the lira 
ine ol section 3, and inserting in lieu tliereof, the fob 
lowing: ’ 

The notes and bills discounted, surnlus enntinoPT,n-„r,ci „ j 
undivided profits without any deduction ol all banks now hi 
istence or hereafter to be created in this State, in the same man 
ner as the property ot individuals is taxed. 

Mr. BARBEE demanded a division. 

The question then lieiug, first, on striking out all af- 
ter the word “ taxing,” in section 3 ; 

Mr DORSEY said ho had oflered this amendment 
which, as he thouglit, provided a suitable mode for 
taxing banks-a thing wliich he was exceedingly anx- 
ions to seo done by this Convention. He was sorry to 
perceive that this matter was regarded here us a party 
question, for it was not so regarded by the peoi)le of 
-he btate at large. The people of Oliio, both whigs 
and democrats, demanded that the banks should pav 
axes precisely m the same manner as individuals 
He, himself, knew something of this feeling, even in 
the whig party. He represented a district in which 
there vyas a whig majority of some six hundred votes 
His opinions were well known there, and he received 
many votes on that account. Because of his opinions 


















1353 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


upon this subject, he knew perleclly, that he had re¬ 
ceived many whig votes. And he had got to find the 
first man, unless he was very deeply and intimately 
connected with banks, who was opposed to the system 
of taxing banks in the same manner as individuals.— 
The system was right and just, and proper in itself, 
and he hoped it would be agreed upon. He did not 
I know how the \yhig party here would vote ; but rep¬ 
resenting a whig constituency, as he did, he would 
dislike to vote against a measure of this kind, and re¬ 
tain and answer for that vote before the voters of Mi¬ 
ami, Darke and Shelby. 

Mr. BARBED moved to perfect the words proposed 
I to be stricken out, by striking out the words ‘‘ now in 
existence. ’ 

Mr. B. said he could hardly content himself to sit 
down without making a single remark in reply to his 
colleague, [Mr. Dorsey,] It was true that his col- 
' league re{)resented a inucti larger constituency than he 
did. His colleague represented the counties of Miami, 
Shelby ami Darke, winlst he represented the county of 
Miami alone. The position of that gentleman, and his 
own position in reference to this, and to almost every 
imp(>rtant measure, were taken as wide apart as they 
could w ell be. But he claimed here to represent the 
views and feelings of the wlr.gs ol Miami county, and 
he woidd beg leave to difi'er widely with his colleague 
in the lepresentation which he had given of whig sen- 
I timeuts. He believed that if the question were put to 
the citizens of Miami county, whether bank capital 
V should be taxed or not, contrary to the organic law un¬ 
der which those banks w'ere created—-if the people 
, understood the question in its true import, there w'uuld 
be a decided majority who would declare themselves 
opposed to the measure—opposed to taxing banks in 
any other manner than as they were taxed by the law 
i creating them, as it would be a violation of contract 
and good faith. 

However, he considered it not worth his while to 
I make avery formalohjection, because he considered the 
question could not be settled here, as this was not 
I the competent tribunal. But he would say, that for 
I himself, he was unwilling to see any rules passed in this 
I Convention which looked directly toward a repudia- 
i tion of the authority of the United States, 
f He had a small interest in the bank located in Mia¬ 
mi county, and he declared most solemnly that, if the 
i Convention were to pass the present bill without the 
{ amendment which he proposed, and the Legislature of 
; Ohio were to impose a tax upon that hank in conformi¬ 
ty with the provisions of this sectinn; as one of the 
managers of that hank, he would resist such a tax ; and 
he w'as proud to say, that he would feel strong 
where he should make such u resistance, planting 
himself behind the strong bulwark of the constitution 
of the United States. He w'ould ajjpeal to that instru¬ 
ment; and he would not permit a single innovation to 
he made upon his rights which were granted by that 
instrument. 

Sir. WOODBURY demanderl the previous question, 
and there was a second; 

The question being, “ shall the main question be now 
put?” 

Mr. WOODBURY demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 50, nays 35, 
as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, 
Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, f'orbes, Gillett, Gr(iy,Greene of Dcti- 
ance, Gregg, Hawkins, IJohnes, Holt, Hootman, Ilumphreville, 
Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
Morris, Morris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Quisley, Kiddle, Boll, 
Sawyer, Scott ol Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of VVyandot, Stebbius, 
Stickney, Struble, Swilt, Townshend, Warren, Way Wilson, 

I Woodbury, Worthington and President—50, 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Chambers, Collinge, Curry, Ewart, Graham, Green of Ross, 
Hamilton, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, 
Larsh, Lawrence, Leadbefter, Manon, Mason, McCloud, Otis, Per¬ 
kins, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark and Williams—35. 


So the main question was ordered. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Barbee; 

Mr. OTIS demanded the yeas and nays, which were 
ordered, and resulted—yeas 30, najs 57—as follows i 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown ol Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, Graham, 
Green ol Ross, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitchcock ol Geauga, Hor¬ 
ton, Larsh, Mason, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Bmith of High¬ 
land, fctanbery, t>tanton, Stilwell, and Worthington—30. 

Nays— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Cook, Clark, Dorsey, 
Ewing, tarr, forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, ilumphreville, 
Hunter, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Pat¬ 
terson, Perkins, Quigley, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
Swilt, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Warren, Way, Wilson, 
Woodbury and President—57. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The quesstion then being on striking out all after the 
word “ taxing,” in the first line of section 3; 

Mr. BARNETT, of Treble, demanded the yeas and 
nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 46, nays 
40—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Bates Blair, Cahill, Collings, Cook, Dorsey 
Farr, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Rossi 
Gregg, Henderson, Holme?, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, King, 
Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Loudon, Manon, McCloud, Norris, 
Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Roll, tiuwyer, Kcott of Auglaize, Smith 
of Highland, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
riionipson ol Stark, Townshend, Way, Wilson, Woodbury Wor¬ 
thington and President—4d. 

Rays—M essrs. Andrew, Barbee, Barnet of Mont-gomery, Bar¬ 
nett ol Preble, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown ol Athens, Brown 
ol Carroll, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Curry, Ewart, Ewing, 
Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunter, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mason, Mitch¬ 
ell, Morris, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Riddlt', Scott ol Harrison, Sel 
lers. Smith ol Wyandot, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift, Thompson of 
Shelby, Warren, and Williams—40. 

So ihe motion t'> strike out prevailed. 

Tiie question then being on inserting the word prop!>- 
sed by Mr. Dorsey; 

Mr. BRuWN, of Carroll, demanded the yeas and 
nay.s, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas53, nays 
35—as lelluws: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene ol Defiance, Gregg, Hender¬ 
son, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humpiireville, Hunt, Jones, King, 
Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Riddle, 
Roll, Sawyer, Scott ol Auglaize, Sellers, Smith ol Wyandot, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swilt, 'rhempson of Shelby, 
'Ihompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, Way, Williams, Wil¬ 
son, Woodbury and President—53. 

Nays —Messrs. .Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Jlonrgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Hates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, Gillett, 
Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geau¬ 
ga, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of llorrison. Smith of Highland, Stan¬ 
bery, Stanton, Stilwell and Worthington—35. 

So the amendment was adopted 

The question then being on ordering the section to 
bo engrossed; 

Mr. KIRKWOOD demandedtho yeasand nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 51, nays 35—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Calull, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Henderson, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones,. King, Kirkwood, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Mitchell, Norri.?, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struble, Sw’iit, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, War¬ 
ren, Way, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and President—51. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, Gillett, 
Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Mason, Morehf'ad, Morris, McCloud, Otis, 
Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stilwell and Worthington—35. 

So the seclioii was ordered to be engrossed. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 




















1354 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


THURSDAY, February 27, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved a call of the Convention; 
which was ordered, and the following gentlemen were 
foimd absent; 

Messrs. Ai-chbold, Barbee, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chaney, Clark, Cutler, Florence, Groesbeck, Hard, Hitchcock of 
Cuyahoga, Holmes, llumphreville, Kennon, Larwill, Leadbetter, 
Man on. Mason, Nash, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Smith of Warren, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stickney, Vance of Butler, 
Vance of Champaign, Williams and Woodbury. 

On motion, Messrs. Case of Hocking, Case of Lick¬ 
ing and Ranney, were severally excused. 

On motion of Mr. BLAIR, all further proceedings 
ander the call were dispensed with. 

Mr. GILLETT presented a petition from A. Nichols 
and 352 other citizens of Lawrence county, praying 
that a clause may be inserted in the new constitution 
prohibiting the Legislature from passing any law le¬ 
galizing traffic in spirituous liquors; which, on motion, 
was laid on the table. 

Mr. GILLETT presented a petition from Lydia Proc¬ 
tor and 262 other females of Lawrence county, on the 
same subject; which was laid on the table. 

Mr. McCORMICK, presented a petition from D. 
Oreenley and 39 other citizens of Adams county, on 
the same subject; which, on motion, was laid on the 
table. 

Mr. RIDDLE presented a memorial from James 
Frestley, on behalf of the Queen City Temperance So¬ 
ciety, praying that the question of licensing the sale 
of spirituous liquors be submitted to a separate vote 
of the people; which, on motion, was laid on the ta¬ 
ble. 

Report No. 2 of the committee on Apportionment, 
was read the second time; and. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, was committed to a 
committee of the whole Convention. 

The following article, submitted by Mr. Manon, 
was read a second time : 

Every person of good moral character being a voter, shall be 
•entitled to admission to practice law in all the courts of justice ; 
any law to the contrary notwithstanding. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the article was contmit- 
ted to a committee of the whole Convention. 

On motion of Mr. LOUDON, the Convention took 
np the report of the committee on Finance and Taxa 
don. 

The question being on ordering the remaining section 
of the report to be engrossed ; 

Mr. REEMELIN moved further to amend the report 
by striking out section 6; which was agreed to. 

Mr. OTIS moved to further amend the report by 
striking out section 5; on which motion, 

Mr. FARR demanded the yeas and nays, which were 
ordered, and resulted—yeas 16, nays 69—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Gillett, 
Gi'een of Ross, Hortou, Larsh, McCloud, Otis, Stanbery, Stanton 
and Stilwell—IG. 

Nays —Messrs. Arcbbold, Bennett, Blair, Cahill, Chambers. Cha¬ 
ney, Codings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Graj’’, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hender¬ 
son, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Hunter. Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, I.eech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, 
McCormick, Nash, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quisfley, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Highland, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, 
Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President 


that mode to be abolished altogether. We have said 
that there shall be lu' [toll tax ftir county and State pur¬ 
poses, yet you would tax doctors and lawyers upon 
their professions, and what is that but a poll tax? And 
you would force every man to work on the highways, 
whether he owns a cent of property or not. Tliis is 
not right, it is not just; it is not consistent with the 
declaration with winch you sat out. 1 do not want to 
see a poll tax of any kind, and I look upon one as just 
as wrong as the other. 

The question then being on the amendment; 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, demanded a division of 
the question. 

The question then being on striking out; 

Mr. MITCHELL .said : I should like to bear from 
gentlemen a reason for the section as it stands at pres¬ 
ent. We have declared that taxation by the poll is 
grievous and oppressive. We have provided that in 
all State and county matters, such a tax shall never be 
levied, and yet we have left the subject open to the 
heavy and grievous burdens that may be imposed in 
this manner in boroughs, cities and towns. It is there, 
and there only, that there is any danger of abuse and 
oppression. In the mere matter of labor on the road, 
it is a minor all'air; but the danger is in the borough 
taxes; and, it seems to me, while we are providing 
against the thing in one place, wo ought, under the 
influence of the same reasons, to provide against it in 
all others. To be consistent, we should wholly abolish 
it. 

Mr. LOUDON. This little provision, Mr. President, 
forms a part of the present constitution of the State. 
It is almost the only clause of the old that we have in¬ 


corporated into the bills for creating the new constifa- 


—69. 


So the motion to strike out section 5, was rejected. 

Mr. MANON moved to araeud the report by striking 
out “tax for county or State purposes,” and inserting 
in lieu thereof, the following: “Or professional tax.” 

The question being on the amendment; 

Mr. MANON said. We have declared taxation by 
the poll to be grievous and oppressive, and in that 
declaration I perfectly agree, I am so fully convinced 


tion. It is a small matter; it has always worked well, 
and I must say that I feel as if it were bard to part 
with this old section or to see it mutilated. Why gen¬ 
tlemen have become so fearful that they are about to 
be oppressed with taxation by the poll, I cannot under¬ 
stand. Why sir, we never had a poll tax in the State 
—not one. It is true that gentlemen tell us that the 
two days’labor upon the public road.-, imposed by law, 
is a poll tax. It is not so, sir. If it is, then the perfor 
mance of military duty is a poll tax; and our fithers 
and fellow citizens, who in the war of 1812, went to . 
meet the British forces upon the Canada line, did so ■ 
for the payment of a poll tax. Now, sir, what is the 
effect of this tax of which such grievous complaint is • 
made? Why a little work upon the road entitles a 
poor man, whether he has property or not, to all the 
civil and political ; rivileges that can bo enjoyed by the 
millionaire. Besides the poor man uses the roads 
as much as the rich one—frequently a great deal 
more, and the benefit which he receives from them is . 
just as substantial. 

I was in bf)pes, Mr. President, that we should retain ^ 
this fragment of the old constitution—as a memento of : 
that instrument, constructed in 1802, by the honest old j 
fathers of the State. I have been often afraid that we 
have departed loo much from that instrument, and that 
vve have done wrong when instead of correcting the 
few defects which it contains, and preserving its whole¬ 
some features, we have launched out iuto a wide sea of 
untried experiment. 

Mr, BARNETT, of Preble. I am surprised, Mr. 
President, that the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. 
Hitchcock,] should suppose, that under this constitu¬ 
tion, a poll tax can be levied in this State; and the ob¬ 
ligation to labor on the highway is really and truly a 
poll tax, whatever may he the opinion of the gentle¬ 
man from Brown, [Mr. Loudon,] upon the subject. 

In my opinion the gentleman Irom Lickhig, [Mr. 
Ma NON,] also is mistaken, when he thinks that the 
poor man has no interest in good roads. The prices of 
agricultural produce and the profits of the farmer are 
all affected by the quality of the roads over which the 
surplus is transported. Increase the facility of trans-. 


of its truth, that I want every species of taxation by \portation, and you raise the price of the article. Raise 



















CONVENTION REPORTS. 1355 


the price of the article and you increase iho profit ofl 
tho fanner. With an increase of profit the hireling 
is better [)ai(l; so that even the farm laborer has an 
interest in this subject. If it is true, as has been so 
frequently argued by the gentleman from Hamilton, 
that it is the labor of the State that pays the taxes, 
in this case, at least there is a return of the benefit to 
the person of the laborer; because good roads are 
for his interest, as they tend to increase the rate of wa- 
ges. 

Under the old constitution, there is a provision for 
the levying of a poll tax for the benefit of roads. This 
we have stricken out; and as we can never have a poll 
tax, the roads 1 hope will hereafter be made by means 
of a tax upon property. 

Mr. HOLMES. 1 am astonished, Mr. President, at 
the position taken upon this question by tho gentleman 
frorn Brown, [Mr. Loudon,]— a gentleman who has 
not in general allowed any one to cut under him in the 
matter of democracy. What has changed his views 
upon this subject I know not; but I apprehend his ex¬ 
perience has not been so great and so practical upon 
this subject, as some other gentlemen of tliis body. We 
have in this city collectors employed by the corporation 
who go around at stated periods and collect a dog tax 
and a poll tax. which are assessed for the benefit of the 
highways. This is to all intents and purposes a griev¬ 
ous tax, and every resident, whether he have a dollar’s 
worth of pr(>perty or not, is liable to be run by these 
collectors. The tax upon property in this city is elev¬ 
en mills or thereabouts. Now suppose that in addition 
to this, there is levied a poll tax, under which every 
man, whether or not he have a dollar in the world, is 
obliged to pay in support of the city government. Is 
not this grievous and oppressive, in the highest degree? 

I was once a resident in the State of Kentucky, where 
according to the law as it then existed, every man of 
the age of twenty-one, who liad resided in the State 
twenty days, was taxed by the pf)ll, without regard 
to property, to labor on the public highways, and had 
to pay as much of the couiity expenses, as if he owned 
half the property in it. I was a young man then, and 
had little property; yeti was assessed to pay twelve 
days labor on the roads of a county in which I owned 
nothing. 

Let us provide, I say, that taxation shall be upon 
property. If a man hf s wealth, let him pay faxes up¬ 
on it; but if he has nothing but his head, for Heaven’s 
sake, let us not tax that. Some heads are worth some¬ 
thing —others are not. I go upon the ad valorem prin 
ciple; and I would ask my friend from Brown, [Mr. 
Lo UDON,] how he is to discriminate between those who 
have a real head upon their shoulders and those who 
have a thing that is little better than a gourd ? I hope 
sir, that this section will be so fixed that there shall 
never be levied, in this State a poll tax for any pur¬ 
pose. 

The qu' Stion then being on striking out; 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to amend the words pro¬ 
posed to be stricken out, by inserting after the word 
“State,” the words “township, city or borough.” 

The question being upon the amendment of Mr. 
MitchKLT.; 

Mr. MITCHELL. I will read the section according 
to its meaning, anil according to the practical construc¬ 
tion that may be given it: “The levy of taxes by the 
poll isgrievious and oppressive; therefore, the General 
Assembly may provide for the levying of a poll tax for 
township and other purposes.” This is the correct 
reading of the section as it stands; and it is against 
these very township and borough taxes that I desire to 
provide. 

The gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] did 
not state my position correctly. I said that it was the 
borough and city taxes that were so much the heaviest 
and most burdensome. Is it right that it should be so ? 

I shall be astonished if the people believe it. If the 
levy of taxes by the poll is grievous and oppressive, is 


it right, in any form, to leave the people subject to the 
grievous and oppressive tax? It may be very heavy 
indeed; it may, in (act, become an instrument of 
tyranny, by which the government may inflict a load 
of oppression upon the people. As to the mere mat^ 
ter of working two days upon the road, it is of itself 
an insignificant atfair, and I care little about it; but I 
oppose the section from principle, and because it is lia¬ 
ble to abuse. 

Mr. SAWYER. When this question was before the 
Convention once before, in the same form as now, it 
was decided against by a veiy considerable majority. 
I want to say in this constitution what is said in the 
old one upon this subject. There have never any abu¬ 
ses grown out of that that I am aware of. I do not I ook 
upon this aft'iiir of working two days upon the road as 
very oppressive. Let us look at it a moment. Here 
is my friend from Ross, [Mr. Worthington,] and my¬ 
self—we are the nabobs of this Convention—the rich 
men, and there my friend from Hamilton, [Mr. Groes- 
cECK,] is one of the poor men. We work our two days 
upon the road, and so does he. Here we are alike. 
But we—the nabobs—in addition to this, pay our ten 
dollars of taxes for the support of the I'oads; while he, 
the poor man, pays nothing. Now is there any great 
inequality in this? We are both benefitted by the 
roads, and perhaps in an equal degree. If they are 
open lo coaches, they are equally so to the waggon of 
my friend in moderate circumstances. 

They are necessary, and I have never yet heard a 
man complain of the labor be was called on to perform. 
And I have often observed, when poor men came up on 
the day of election to present their tickets to the ballot 
box, 1 have known them appear to gam a confidence 
in their right to participate in the privileges of freemen 
from the fact that although thei'^ had no property, and of 
course, had fiaid no taxes, they had performed their 
quota of service upon the public highway. It was a 
goad plea and an available one. Besides, I had rather 
not cut off this professional tax, especially since the 
proposition of the gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Man- 
on,] came up, providing that every man, woman and 
child in the State shall be lawyers. 

Mr. MANON. The gentleman, [Mr. Sawyer,] makes 
his statement a little too broad. It was only voters 
who were to be entitled to practice law. 

Mr. SAWYER. But I believe that gentleman, [Mr. 
Manon,] voted to make the women voters. [Laugh¬ 
ter.] At any rate, I want to preserve this professional 
tax. I have, in my eye, an object to which 1 desire to 
apply it. 

Mr. MA^'ON. If it is equal and just that every 
man in the State should pay a tax of some kind, sup¬ 
pose vve say that every mau shall pay an equal pro¬ 
portion. We have then only to go one step further, 
and divide the property of the State among the citi¬ 
zens. 

‘ Mr. LEADBETTER. I am in favmr of the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell.] 
If an abuse or tho chance fur an abuse existed under 
the old constitu'ioii, 1 am in favor of abolishing it. If 
the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. S\wyer,] has 
[)ledged himself to go against every abuse, I will 
show him how this provision has been abused. So far 
as taxation in the counties is concerned, no wrong has 
to my knowledge grown out of this provision; but it 
must be remembered that there are other governmeuts 
ihat have this power. The State is full of municipal 
corporations, and in these the power of taxation for 
munici{>al purposes is exercised. Under these acts of 
incorporation, it is in the power of the council of a 
little town to compel the owner of a lot to build a 
costly side walk in front of his property,-or to pay for 
grading a street that leads past it. Is uot this a poll 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. No. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. What was it then? A taxon 
the lot ? 
















1356 CONVENTION llEPOETS. 


Mr. ARCHBOLD. Yes. 

Mr. LEADBETTER. I tell gentlemen that the tax 
is frequently more than the value of the lot. The 
price of four would not pay for grading one. I tell 
gentlemen that it is, to all intents and purposes, a poll 
tax. Let them not tell me that it is an abuse of the 
right of taxation. I know better. It is frequently the 
case that the owner is not able to pay for grading the 
streets according to the directions of authorities.— 
What is done ? They sell his lot and pocket the pro¬ 
ceeds, and then get judgment against him for the bal¬ 
ance, which is collected out of other property, if he 
has any. Is that not a poll tax? If the judgment 
were only against his lot, it would be some I’elief, for 
he would only lose that. 

Sir, I want to see the whole system cut up by the 
roots. If the streets of a town require to be graded, 
it is right that the whole population pay for it; be¬ 
cause it is for the benefit of the v. hole. I have known 
cases, where a poor woman has been the owner of a 
little side hill lot in a town, that would not pay half 
the cost of grading, and in order to pay the tax that 
has been imposed upon her, she has been sold out of 
house and home, for the benefit of those who held pro¬ 
perty in more valuable situations. We have no right 
to compel those who do not desire it, to perform labor 
for the benefit of others, I hope that every thing that 
squints at inequality in this matter will be put down ; 
and I am disposed to complain of the Supreme Court 
of the State for sustaining municipal corporations in 
this assumption of power, Htw does it work? A 
man who has money goes into a town and selects lots 
in the most eligible situations, and such as require lit¬ 
tle expenditure for tht'ir improvement, and these he 
holds on to for speculation. iTie mechanics and labor¬ 
ers come in and settle around him, on such property 
as they can get upon the sides of the hills, and the re¬ 
sult is that they are forced to pay heavily for improving 
the lots ol the other. I hope therefore, that the amend¬ 
ment will prevail. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Ishrdl vote against the amendment, 
to the amendment, and for the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Licking, [Mr. Maxon.] The amendment 
to the amendment, proposes to prohibit what rarely 
occui’s — the assessment of taxes for local purpn.^e.s. 
What I desire to provide against, is the practice of ma¬ 
king a man perform labor on the road, who has no pron- 
erty. 

The question then being on the amendment to the 
words proposed to bo stricken out; the same was dis¬ 
agreed to. 

The question then being on th.o amendment ef the 
gentleman from Licking, [Mr. Maxon,] 

Mr. HAWKINS demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 40, nays 43—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Cook, Farr, Gray, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Harlan, Hawkins, flenderson, Holmes, Hootman, Hum-, 
phreville, Jones, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbotler, Lidey, 
Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Perkins, Quigley, Rannoy, 
Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney. Stidger, Stru- 
ble. Swan, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Way, Wilson, Wood¬ 
bury and President—40, 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet ol Montgomer}’^, Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Atbens, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Curiy, Dorsey, Ewart, Ew¬ 
ing, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Ilitih- 
cock ol Geauga, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, 
Loudon, Morehcad, Morris, McCloud, Orton, Otis, Patterson, 
Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stil- 
well, Swift, Taylor, Williams and Worthington—43. 

So the molion to strike out was rejected. 

Mr. PERKINS moved further to amend the Rection 
by striking out all but the first word—“ That’’—a,.)d 
inserting as follows; ‘'Special and discriminating tax¬ 
es are grievous and oppressive; therefore, all taxation 
in this State shall be upon property in proportion to its 
value.” 

The question being on the amendment; 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded a division. 

The question being first on striking out; 


Mr. REEMELIN. As now advised, I shall vote 
against the proposition. The lime, I hope, is not far 
distant when we shall get rid of ihi.s odious and mis*- 
chievous principle of taxation upon property, and sub¬ 
stitute ill its place the true piinci{)le—that ot taxation 
upon income. That is the only true basis of taxation 
—to tax a man upon what he makes and not upon what 
he has. Take for instance Smead, the banker in this 
city. He is making forty or fifty thousand dollars a 
year, and yet in proportion to that, he pays taxes upon 
a very small amount of capital. The only true princi¬ 
ple, and one that I hope to see adopted, is a tax upon 
income. 

The question then being on the amendment; 

Mr CHAMBERS demanded a division of the ques¬ 
tion. 

The question then being on striking out; 

Mr. MORRIS demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 2C, nays 57—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— l^Iessrs. Barbee, Bennett, Cook. Ekirr, Gray, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins. Hendi^i eon, Holt, Humphreville, Leech, l.eadbetter, Manon, 
Mitchell, Norris, Urton, Otis, Perkins, Ranney, Sellers, Star,ton, 
Stickney, Stidger, Towmshcnd, Woodbury and President—26. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet ot Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Blickensderler, Brown ol Athens, Cahill, Chambers, 
Chaney, (Jolling.s, Curry, Dorsey, Ewing, Forbes, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Greene of Defiance, Gr(*en ol Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, King, 
Larsh, Lidey, Loudon, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCorm ck, 
Nasli, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith ol Highland, Stau- 
hery, Stelibine, Stilwell, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson ot 
Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Way, Wilson, and Worth¬ 
ington—57. 

So the motion to strike out was rejected. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to further amend the re¬ 
port, by adding as an additional section tlie lollovving; 

The General Assembly may confer upon the boards of county 
commissioners, or such similar boards as now are or may here¬ 
after be established by law, such local power of taxation as may 
from time to time be necessary to defray the expenses of the re¬ 
spective counties, townships, towns, cities, and schools, and foi 
making public improvements therein; but all taxes levied in pur¬ 
suance to laws passed in pursuance to this section, shall be ap¬ 
plied to tlie specific object for which taxes are authorized to be 
levied. 

The qui'sfioii tlien being on the amendment propos¬ 
ed by INIr. Rkemelin ; 

Mr. LEEMELIN. I tim fully aware of the aversion 
thpt gentlemen will feel to any provision of this kind 
in the constitution, but I feel it my duty, as a represeij* 
lative of the city of Ciiiciniiati, to do all I can to save 
her from a constant succession of hiwsuils with her cit¬ 
izens—ill which she is always the loser—which have 
resulted from the absence of such a provision in the old 
constitution; and I will venture to say, that if it fails 
ill the city of Cincinnati, and perhaps in several other 
cities in the State, not one dollar of special tax can 
ever becollected undertliis constitution ; and that men 
who are taxed for the improvement of streets and al¬ 
leys will invariably escape the payment when they are 
rich enough to go to court and resist it. We, however 
poor fellows, who hate a lawsuit as we do the devil, 
must pay our shave, while the rich litigant is able to 
escape. 

Mr. SAWYER. I would inquire of the gentleman 
[Mr. Reemelin] if, under such a provision as this, the 
county cdminissioners of every county of the State 
might not go into a general system of internal improve¬ 
ments, and build railroads, and plaiikroads, and every 
tiling else that could be thought of? 

Mr. REEMELIN. I bavo no doubt but such might 
be the consequence, and T have no objection toil. I do not 
understand there is any danger in levying of taxes for the 
purpose of internal imfirovement. The objection that I 
liave is to tlie creation of debts for the purpose. It is 
not the public improvements, but the public debt that 
is dangerous and objectionable. If the tax is levied 
and paid before the money is expended, the thing will 
regulate itself. Counties and townships must build 
roads, and how are they to be built ? They must raise 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1357 


the means by taxation, or they must steal it. They 
cannot get it otherwise. I tell gentlemen that the time 
will come when we shall see that we are all wrong, 
and shall want to wash our hands of the dilliculties 
that will follow the course we have taken. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. I must confess, Mr. President, 
that I am surprised at this sudden improvement of the 
gentleman from Hamilton. I had always supposed 
him to be a great stickler for the power of the General 
Assembly. Here is a section in the report of the com- 
aiittee on the Legislative Department, which he drew 
himself. It begins: “All laws shall have an uniform 
operation;” and now ho wants to introduce into the 
constitution a clause empowering cities and counties to 
levy taxes for internal improvement. I say I am sur¬ 
prised, and I am opposed to the provision, and hope it 
will not prevail. 

Mr. AROHBOLD. There is one part of the propos¬ 
ed section that I approve of; that relating to the local 
police; but there is another to which I cannot consent; 
that which clothes the county commissioners with the 
power to levy taxes and expend the money in internal 
improvements. I must say that I am surprised at the 
new-born zeal of the gentleman from Hamilton. I 
have my suspicions of it. So sudden a conversion is 
well calculated to excite distrust—to excite suspicion. 
Ido not wish to introduce the plunder system into the 
counties of this State. Gentlemen will remember that 
[ do not.call that little law by which the State became 
a partner in certain moonshine projects and local im¬ 
provements the plunder system. I call that the plun¬ 
der system which was first introduced by De Witt Clin¬ 
ton, and which has led the State ofOliio into an enormous 
debt for public works—taxing all for the benefit of a 
part. Tliat was the true plunder system. The other 
was a mere trifle in comparison with it; and I do not 
want to introduce this immoral, this flagitious, this 
cursed system into the constitution. 

The gentleman, [Mr. R.'';emklin,] in his new-born 
zeal, has become afraid that we have cut off works of 
internal improvement. Strange, indeed! We have 
seen that gentleman standing upon this floor, like a 
flaming demon, setting himself against those who have 
desired that the people of the unimproved sections 
should have the poor privilege of clubbing together 
their means for the purpose of constructing works of 
internal improvement in their own vicinity. He has 
held the scourge blood red over us, and told us that 
we shan’t do it; and if we attempt it, we are apostates 
and traitors, and shall be cast out of the democratic 
party. And now, he professes at this late hour, to 
patch up the matter, by introducing the old, exploded 
Olintonian system of fraud and folly into the counties. 
He will not succeed. I tell him that he can’t come it. 
I tell him that until we learn to love dishonesty, fraud 
and chicanery, it cannot be done. 

The question then being on the adoption of the sec- 
tion; 

Mr. QUIGLEY moved the previous question; which 
was seconded. 

The question then being; “ shall the main question be 
now put?” 

The same was agreed to, on division—yeas 52; nays 
not coiuited. 

The question then being on the adoption of the sec¬ 
tion ; 

Mr. REEMELIN demanded the yeas and nays; 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 15, nays 71— 
as follows; 

' Yeas —Messrs. Brown of Athens, Ewart, Gillett, Gray, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Jones, Mauon, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Roll, ritruble, Bwift and Taylor—15. 

2^ays _Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 

nett of Treble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderler, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Farr, 
Forbes, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Holt, Hootman, llum- 
threville. Hunt, Hunter, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, 
Larwill, Leech, Lead better, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Pa^ 


terson. Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stanton, Stebbin8,Stilwell, Stidger, 
Swan, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Way, 
Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President—71. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on ordering sections one, 
four, five and seven, to be engrossed; 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded a division. 

The question then being first on ordering sections 
four and five to be engrossed; it was lost. 

The question then being on ordering section seven to 
be engrossed; 

Mr. LEADBETTER demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 61, nays —28 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Cahill, 
Chaney, Collings, Cook, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, King, Kirkwood, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, McCor¬ 
mick, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, 
Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, 
Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President—61. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Blickensderler, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll,Cham- 
bers, Curry, Ewart, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton Harlan, 
Hawkins, Holmes, Hunter, Jones, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Mor¬ 
ris, McCloud, Nash, Riddle, Roll, Staubery, Stanton and Stil- 
well—28. 

So section seven was ordered to be engrossed; and 
on motion, was ordered to be read a third time on the 
28th inst. 

Mr. RANNEY moved that two additional members 
be added to the committee on Revision, Enrollment 
and Arrangement; which was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT announced Messrs. Horto.v and 
Groesbeck, as the additional members of said commit¬ 
tee. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the Convention resolve 
itself into a committee of the Whole, on the order.s of 
the day ; which motion prevailed. 

The Chair was taken by Mr. Swan. 

The first order being report number two, of the 
standing committee on Apporiioument; 

Mr, MANON hoped that it would not now bo taken 
up. As he was a tnember of the committee that made 
the report, he might be expected to be prepared to de¬ 
fend it, but he had not yet had time to become perfect 
ill the big speech he intended to deliver. 

Mr. STAN BE RY said that as the gentleman, [Mr. 
Manon,] had now become a lawyer, it was necessary 
that he should learn one part of the duties of the pro¬ 
fession, and that, is, that aj lawyer should always be 
ready with his speech. [Laughter.] 

The report was then taken up and read through by 
the Chairman. 

Sec. 1. The apportionment of this State shall be made every 
ten years after the year 1851, in the following manner: The 
whole population of the State, as ascertained every ten years by 
the tederal census, or in such other mode as the Legislature may 
direct, shall forever be divided by the number “ one hundred,” and 
the quotient shall be the ratio of representation in the House of 
Representatives, for ten years next ensuing Irom such apportion¬ 
ment. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved to amend the section 
by striking out the word “from,” where it last occurs; 
which was agreed to. 

Sec. 2. Every county having a population equal to one-half of 
said ratio, shall be entitled to one representative; every county 
containing said ratio and three-fourths over, shall be entitled to 
two representatives; every county containing three times said 
ratio shall be entitl id to three representatives, and so on, requi- 
ring,’after the first two, an entire ratio for each additional repre¬ 
sentative. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to amend the section by 
strikin" out the words, “said ratio and three-fourths 
over,” and inserting in lieu thereof, the words, “ twice 
the ratio.” 

The question then being on the amendment; 

Mr. WOODBURY. I liope the amendment will pre¬ 
vail. I can neither see the justice nor the expediency 
of the provision as it stands. 














1358 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. LAWRENCE. I hope the amendment will not 
prevail. Gentlemen will observe that we have given 
to the smaller comities a representative for half the ra¬ 
tio We did this under the idea of the necessity of a 
local representation. Standing by itself, it appears at 
first sight, and to a certain extent, an act of injustice to 
the larger counties. To compensate for this—and it 
is the only advantage that we give in return—we allow 
the counties next in size, a representative additional for 
three-fourths the ratio. The principle is a just ( ne, and 
it would not be right that a county, with a ratio and 
three-fourths, should not have two, whilstcounlies with 
only one half, are allowed one. I had my doubts, in 
the beginning, as to the propriety of allowing any coun¬ 
ty a representative, until its population came uj) to the 
ratio ; but in this I have conceded my opinion to the 
better judgment of others. I think the proportion has 
been as well preserved as the nature of the case will 
admit, and hope that will not be disturbed. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I hope that one thing will pre¬ 
vail; and that is, to strike out that unequal and unac¬ 
countable feature, giving a county thathas but half a 
ratio a whole representative. I have not, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, had any time to get acquainted with the thing 
before us. It was laid on our tables but a few minutes 
since, and no one has had time to read it through, much 
less to learn what it contains; but there are some fea¬ 
tures in it that are very apparent. They stick out bold¬ 
ly. It may be, that it will be in the power of the com¬ 
mittee to smooth them down. If so, very well; I hope 
it may be done. 

I desire to call the attention of the committee to 
some of the features of this report; and first, as it ap¬ 
plies to my own county of Monroe. In 1830, it had a 
population of 8,750 ; in 1840, of 18,741; and it has, by 
the last census of 1850, an aggregate of 28,367. Before 
this constitution is adnpted, and the first representa¬ 
tives to the General Assembly are elected and take 
their seats under it, it will doubtless have more than 
30,000. Now, there are counties of eight thousand in¬ 
habitants, or less, that will, on that occasion, have a re¬ 
presentation equal to that of Monroe. Every gentle¬ 
man can see that it is a combination of the smaller 
counties against the larger. Now, there is in Guernsey 
county, which has a little more population than Mon¬ 
roe ; but who cannot see that Monroe will be much the 
larger county in ten years? 

Mr. HOLMES. Guernsey and Monroe have both the 
same population. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I know it. That is what I com¬ 
plain of It ought not to be so. It is wrong; it is un¬ 
just ; it is wicked to do it. But I complain for Guernsey, 
too. She has been treated badly. What does the 
gentleman from Guernsey, [Mr. Lawrence,] say to 
this ? Is it any consolation to him, that other counties 
have been treated as badly or worse than his own? 

Monroe, with her 28,367, has only one representa¬ 
tive for the whole time, and another for three or four 
years, during the worst part of the ten years, while 
Montgomery, which has 38,217, is furnished with two 
re[)resentatives all the time: and the little counties of 
Tike, Fulton, and perhaps Ottowa, are made equal to 
us, for much the longest period. 

Let me give another specimen. Hamilton county, 
without the city, has a population of 41,412, has tw’o 
representatives, while Monroe, with her 28,375, has 
one representative and two-fifths. Is this just? Is it 
right ? Is it fair? Is it honest? Where is the justice 
of giving Montgomery two while Monroe has only one? 

I have no doubt, Mr. President, but there.are other 
instances equally glaring; but as I said before, this 
thing had but just fallen under my notice, and I have 
had no time to make an examination into its features. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. I am sorry that the gentlemaji 
from Monroe [Mr. Archbold] did not take the time 
to examine into the principles of this report before 
ho began to denounce it. I think that if he will take 
the time to make the investigation he will find that 


the charges which he makes are unjust. In regard to 
the insinuation that I have abandoned the interests of 
Guernsey county, I deny it, and rejjel the imputation. 
How is the case? Monroe receives the same as Guern¬ 
sey, and I asked no more. So far the apportionment 
is even,fair and just. Thegenileman [Mr. Archbold] 
talks about the increase in the population of IVlonroe 
for the ten years past. I admit it; but I can tell him 
that the sceptre is about to depart from it. There is 
little more land to be taken up. The tide of emigra¬ 
tion that set towards it from Guernsey and the neigh¬ 
boring counties, is now turned in another direction, 
and he must not expect so rapid an increase in future. 
He gets all now that he is entitled to, and what he 
will be entitled to ten years hence must be left to con¬ 
jecture. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. Will the gentleman say that Au¬ 
glaize county is as well entitled to one representative, 
as Monroe is to one and two-fifihs? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. There is in the counties a muni¬ 
cipal interest, beyond what appears by the mere num¬ 
ber of their population; and I can tell the gentleman, 
that the population in the new counties will increase 
faster than it does in Guernsey and Monroe. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. I say it has never done so. 

M-. LAWRENCE. That is true; but the tide of em¬ 
igration has turned. It is absurd to suppose that the 
increase will be as great as it has been. The time will 
come when it will stop altogether. It is not impossi¬ 
ble that it may in fact decrease for ten years to come. 
The reason is this; the farmers are becoming wealthy. 
The large farmers are buying out the small ones, and 
the small ones are emigrating to the the counties of the 
northwest. Farmers are turning their attention to the 
raising of sheep, which requires a large amount of laud 
in proportion to the population. There are in Guern¬ 
sey to-day, 81,000 head of sheep, and in ten years no 
doubt the number will be increased to two hundred 
thousand ; and they will drive out the population. By 
a paper that has been hauded to me, I learn that in 
1830, Hancock county had a population of only eight 
hundred and thirty, and now it has a fraction less than 
sixteen thousand. That shows the increase in the new 
counties. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. It is no greater than that of the 
county of Monroe. 

Mr. DORSEY. I desire to say a few word.s in expla¬ 
nation of the report, and in reply to the objections rais¬ 
ed against it by the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. 
Arch BOLD.] And first a word in regard to county 
representation. 

In the first place, the scheme proposes to give, as 
nearly as possible, a representative to every county in 
the Statv-. I was myself in favor of this plan, and I 
believe that the more nearly we could approach to this 
result, the more nearly we should make a fair report. 
But the population in^ some of the counties fell so far 
below the ratio that it seemed impossible to do it in 
every case. On this account, we formed seven districts 
in the State by uniting counties together. In every 
other case they are represented singly. For this pur¬ 
pose, we gave to every county that had half a ratio, a 
representative. The question i.s, is this fair, oris it un¬ 
fair in regard to the other counties ? 

Now there are two things to be represented in the ; 

Legislature of the State. First, the people of the coun- I 
ties, and secondly, the counties themselves in their mu- I 
nicipal interests; and in order to give a fair representa¬ 
tion to those interests, we determined to give those 
counties that had one half the ratio, a representative. 

No one will contend but that the municipal interest to 
be protected is as great in the large as in the small 
counties. In every other respect, ‘he interest is in pro¬ 
portion to the population. Again I ask, is this fair or 
is it not? , 

The next feature is that we give to those counties ' 
that have one and three fourths of the ratio, two rep¬ 
resentatives. Why is this? For the purpose of equal j' 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 1359 


iziiig the representation oi the small and the large 
couniies; and to compensate the counties of the sec¬ 
ond grade fur that which has been given to those ol 
the lower. I think if the principle is established, it 
will work fairly and equitably tliroughout the Stale, 
and that its «fleets oiiglit not to be complained of. li 
the principle is a just one, the question is, has it been 
fairly and equitably carried out ? I say the principle 
is a lair one—first, we represent the men in the coun¬ 
ties—second, the municipal interests of the counties 
themselves; and third, if any wrong is done to the 
large couniies by giving a representative to each of the 
smaller ones, a compensation is made by giving to the 
couniies of the second grade two representatives for a 
ratio and three-fourths. 

Objections cati easily be suggested to any report that 
can be framed, on account ol its inequality; and the 
only way in which a fair report can be made, is, first, 
to lay down a correct and equitable principle, and then 
w'ork to it. Any one who is captious can by compar¬ 
ing one period with another, and anticipating a future 
that cannot be foreseen, find what he may deem objec¬ 
tions to the detail; but I ask gentlemen to look fairly 
at the principle upon which the report is based, and 
say if it is not correct. 

Mr. WOODBURY. I have but one word to say.— 
The gentleman from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] says that 
the committee established the principle, first to repre¬ 
sent the people of the counties, and second, the muni¬ 
cipal interests of the counties themselves ; and that he 
intended that many counties should be represented 
and as few remain unrepresented as possible. Now 
he has seen fit to deviate from his principles, and not 
only so, but from all principle and all justice. If the 
principle is correct, it ought to be carried out, and ev¬ 
ery county of ten thousand inhabitants ought to have a 
representative. This he has not done. Now, the diffi 
cullies of the task he undertook are undoubtedly great, 
and perfection is not to be expected, but while we al 
low the difficulties, we are entitled at least to a candid 
admission of the errors into which he has fallen, when¬ 
ever we point them out. 

Hr. ARCHBOLD. The gentleman from Miami, 
[Mr. Dorsey,] when we point out to him the injustice 
he has done to some of the counties, stands up and 
tells us that it is all lair to give to a county that has 
ten thousand inhabitants as much power as another 
that has twenty-eight thousand. When the King of 
Dahomey was told that he ought not to eat men—that 
it was unconstitutional to do it, he replied : “ Uncon¬ 

stitutional! What is that to me.” “ What is all this 
whining with the wo^nen about murder for,” said Pea- 
cham. “Gentlemen must expect to be murdered, it 
they will not give up their purses without.” The 
gentleman, [Mr. Dorsey,] with a like spirit, seems de¬ 
termined to do as he pleases. To some counties he 
gives more than they are entitled to, and to others 
less, and the reason is, because it was his pleasure to 
do so. 

He "gives to Montgomery and Licking more than 
they are entitled to, but is that any compensation to 
those who have been deprived of a part of their politi¬ 
cal })Ower? There is a manifest intention to combine 
the interests of the smaller counties to do an act of in¬ 
justice. 

Mr. STANTON. I wish to ask the gentleman from 
Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] a question. He says that the 
committee have adopted principles which they consid¬ 
er just, and that any injnstite that may happen in par¬ 
ticular instances is unavoidable. I wish to know what 
principle it is tliat required the committee to attach 
Ottawa county to the Senatorial District composed ol 
the counties of Huron, Erie and Sandusky, which has 
a surplus without it, and while the two districts ad¬ 
joining Ottawa county on the west, both have a defi¬ 
ciency ? 

Mr. DORSEY. I have, in my remarks, spoken of 
the principle that had been adopted, in regard to its 


application to Representative apportionment only. That 
principle has been, as far as 1 know, in all cases faith¬ 
fully' and honorably applied. There api)ears in the 
printed bill one exception, but that is a misprint. By 
it, Belmont county is given two Representatives, when 
it ought to be rme and fliree-fourths. 

But in reply to the gentleman i'rom Logan, [Mr. 
Stanton,] in his question in regard to Ottawa county, 

1 wish to say a word in regard to the views of the com¬ 
mittee upon the Senatorial apportionment. In group¬ 
ing die counties for the formation of Senatorial districts, 
the intention of the committee was, as far as possible, to 
apply the same principle that had been ado[)ted for the 
Representative. I said that in appropriating the Rep¬ 
resentatives, we did not in any instance depart from 
that principle, and we have not done so where it was 
possible to do otherwise, in apportioning for Senators. 
There was a very great difficulty in grouping counties 
for this purpose, and I have myself made thirteen or 
fourteen different plans for the purpose, without being 
able entirely to satisfy myself; but alter much consul¬ 
tation, a majority of the committee fell upon this one as 
best suited to the state of the case—the nearest approx¬ 
imation to the principle, and the least calculated to do 
injustice to any part of the State. We did our best to 
carry out the principle in every possible respect. 

The gentleman from Logan complains of an act of in¬ 
justice done by the committee in one particular case. 
There may have been errors in judgment, for we do 
not claim to be infallible; but there has been no inten¬ 
tional deviation from the principle, nor the least desire 
to favor one section or county at the expense of another- 
1 ask that gentleman to make the attempt to di’aw up 
a scheme for apportionment, and see if he can do bet¬ 
ter than has been done by the committee. It is wrong 
and unfair to pick out individual instances whei’e per¬ 
haps a slight inequality appears, which after all, is only 
apparent and not real. Let him look over the whole 
scheme, and say if it is unjust or unequal. The ques¬ 
tions presented are : first, has a correct principle been 
adopted; and secondly, has it been justly and equitably 
carried out ? To these questions I desire to direct hie 
attention. 

Mr. STANTON. I asked the gentleman from Miami 
a question, and he has made me a speech, but not an¬ 
swered it. He should be as ready to defend and ex 
plain his practice as his principles. 

Mr. LIDEY moved that the committee rise and re-, 
port, which was agreed to; and the committee rose, 
and the Chairman reported that it had had under con¬ 
sideration Report No. 2, of the standing committee on 
Apportionment, and had come to no resolution thereon, 

Mr. LARSH submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the resolution heretofore adopted, limiting the 
length of speeches to twenty and ten minutes be suspended as to 
the committee of the whole, while the report of the committee 
on Apportionment is under consideration. 

Mr. LIDEY moved that the Convention take a re¬ 
cess; which was rejected. 

The question being on the adoption of the resolu¬ 
tion; 

Mr. LIDEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 19, nays 59—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cur¬ 
ry, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hunt, Larsh, Lawrence, Man- 
on, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Otis, ticott of Harrison, Stanton, 
Williams and Worthington—19, 

isj ays— Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Blair, Brown ot Athens, Cahill, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, 
Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene ot Detiance, (tregg, Harlan, 
Haw kins, Henderson, Hitchcock ol Geauga, Holmes, IJoolman, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, Kii kwood, 
Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, MoTis, Norris, Patterson, Peck, 
t'erkiiis, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Highland, Stobhine, Stilwell Stickney, Struble, 
Swan, Switt, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Warren, Wilson, Woodbury and President—59. 

So the resolution was rejected- 

Ou motion of Mr. ROLL, the Convention took a re¬ 
cess. 












1360 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


2^ o’clock, P. M. 

Oil motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the Whole, Mr. Kirkwood 
in the chair, and resinned the consideration of the sec¬ 
ond report of the committee on Apportionment, submit¬ 
ted by Mr. Holmes, on the 24th inst. 

The CHAIRMAN said: The question pending, when 
the committee rose, was upon agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Ashtabula [Mr. Wood¬ 
bury] to wit: proposing to strike out from the second 
section the words: “said ratio and three-fourths over,” 
and insert these words; “twice the ratio.” This 
amendment was rejected. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD moved further to amend the sec¬ 
ond fection in the first line thereof, by striking out the 
words “ one-half of,” so that the first clause would 
read: “Every county having a population equal to said 
ratio, shall be entitled to one Representative.” 

Mr. DORSEY hoped the motion of the gentleman 
from Monroe [Mr. Arch bold] would not prevail, for 
the reasons which he stated this morning, and which 
he thought now were hardly necessary to be reiterated. 
But this rule was adopted by the committee for the 
purpose of enabling them to make the apportionment 
as equitable as possible, for the purpose ol making it 
permanent and self-acting, and for the purpose of avoid¬ 
ing the difficulty resulting from grouping counties to¬ 
gether. The committee desired also to avoid the hard¬ 
ship which this grouping would devolve upon those 
who desired that the municipal interests of their coun¬ 
ty should be represented ; and they considered the mu¬ 
nicipal interests of a small county to be of as much 
importance as the municipal interests of a laige one. 
But, in continuing the argument, it was considered on¬ 
ly as an act of justice to make some compensation to 
the larger counties, therefore, it was regarded by the 
committee as a good rule to allow to each county of 
the second class, having a population equal to one and 
three quarters of the ratio, two members in the House 
of Representatives. The gentleman’s amendment 
would utterly derange the principle upon which the 
committee had proceeded. 

He then proceeded to consider some of the instances 
pointed out by the gentleman from Monroe, in which 
that gentleman complained of injustice. He took first, 
the county of Monroe, itself, with a population of 28,- 
367, which gave it one repi-esentative and two-fiftbs, 
that is, one representative for every session and two 
fractional representatives within the decenial period; 
namely, for the third and fourth sessions, and if that 
county were to increase in population as the gentle¬ 
man had supposed it would do, at the close of the de¬ 
cennial period, the proposed scheme of apportionment, 
would entitle her to two z'epresentativcs. Was there 
any injustice in that? 

He then proceeded to explain how it happened that 
a few errors had crept into the tabular statement by 
means of the inaccuracies in newspaper census tables, 
which the committee were compelled to use before 
they were furnished with the official abstract. 

Mr. McCloud hoped, also, that the amendment of 
the gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. Archbold,] would 
not prevail; for, as had been remarked by the gentle¬ 
man from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] tf this amendment 
should prevail, it would virtually destroy the jirinciple 
of representation fixed upon by the unanimous consent 
of the committee as far as the House of Representatives 
were concerned. For if they were compelled to group 
together those twenty-nine counties to which the gen¬ 
tleman has referred— 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, (in his seat.) Some of them are 
districts—twenty-nine districts. 

Mr. McCLOUl). If they were compelled to group 
these into other districts so as to entitle each dist.ict 
to one representative, they would virtually do away 
with the principle upon which the report proceeded. 
The amendment would drive them back to the old sys¬ 
tem of allowing the apportionment to be fixed by the 


General Assembly. And that was the very thing which 
the committee sought to avoid. They sujiposed pub¬ 
lic opinion required at their hands that if it were pos¬ 
sible this thing should be taken away from the Geue- 
lal Assembly. 

The gentleman from Monroe seemed to be troubled, 
and seemed to think that his fellow' citizens of Monroe 
county would be troubled also, if his amendment should 
not prevail; and he referred to the fact that there was 
a single county in the State, of a population of about 
eleven thousand, wdiich would be entitled to one rep¬ 
resentative by the proposed apportionment, whilst the 
county of Monroe, of a population of about twenty- 
eight thousand, would be entitled to but one represen¬ 
tative and two fifths. He supposed the gentleman had 
reference to the county of Madison, which he, [Mr. C.] 
represented. 

Now he desired to ascertain, if it were really a fact, 
how it was that the county of Monroe would be made 
to suffer by permitting Madison county to have but one 
representative? The report of the con rnittee allowed 
to the county of Monroe seven representati'-es in the 
{•eriod of ten years, and to the county of Madison, five 
representatives in the same period. He then looked 
over the report of the Auditor of State for the year 
1851, and inquired how much the county ot Monroe 
paid into the State Treasury in the way of taxes for the 
support of the State government—for the pay of the 
common representation 7 Also, what amount of taxes 
was paid for the same purposes by the county of Mad¬ 
ison ? and he found that the county of Madison had 
j)aid into the treasury during the preceding year the 
sum of $11,754, whilst the county of Monroe had paid 
in precisely $8,246 40. Now, whilst the county of 
Madison jiaid, in taxes what might be sufficient to 
pay the share of expenses for the General Assembly 
which ought to be paid by the county of Monroe; and 
the county of Monroe only paid the just proportion of 
that expense for the county of Madison, he could not 
see why the gentleman should be so much aggrieved 
in the case as to induce him to go against the report, 
if his amendment should not prevail. 

Mr. ARCH BOLD, in reply to the gentleman from 
Madison, [Mr. McCloud;] showed that population was 
the true basis of a just scheme of apportionment, and 
not money. 

When he had concluded— 

The question was taken upon the adoption of Mr. 
Arch bold’s amendment, and it was decided in the ne- 
gative. 

Sec. 3. When any county has a fraction above the entire ratio 
so large that, by being inultii..lied by the number of sessions in 
the decennial period, viz: five, it will produce an amount suffi¬ 
cient to entitle the county to one or more representatives, as fol¬ 
lows : requiring a whole ratio for each additional Iractional rep¬ 
resentative, such additional representatives shall be apportioned 
amontr the several sessions of the decennial period, in the lollow- 
ing manner: if there be only one additional representative, he 
shall be allotted to the fifth sessiou of the decennial period; if 
there arc two, they shall be allotted to the fourth and third ses¬ 
sions respectively ; if three, to the fourth, second' and first ses¬ 
sions respectively ; if four, to the fourth, third, second and first 
sessions respectively. 

Mr. HU.MPHREVILLE moved to amend this section 
by striking out the word “third,” in the last clause, 
and inserting the word “ fifth ” in its place. 

Mr. H. explained, and showed that the effect of this 
amendment would be to equalize tlie fractional repre¬ 
sentation for the first ten years. 

Mr. DORSEY suggested that the evil complained of 
by the gentleman from Medina would be obviated by 
the operation of the .system itself, after the expiration 
of the first decennial period. 

Mr. SAWYER would like to inquire of the Chair¬ 
man of the standing committee, whether that commit¬ 
tee was unanimous or not in their recommendaiimi of 
the scheme of a[)portionment submitted for the House 
of Representatives. The answer to this question might 
have an important bearing upon his views. 

Mr. HOLMES. So far as the scheme for the House 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


of Representatives was concerned, he heard no dissen¬ 
ting voice in the comuiittee 

f was enough. He had under- 

stood that was the fact from the remarks of the ‘Gentle¬ 
man from Madison, [Mr. McCloud.] With this under¬ 
standing he felt better prepared for the vote 

Mr. HOLMES said in justice to his friend’ from Ash¬ 
tabula, [Mr. Woodbury,] he supposed ho ouo-ht to 
state that, at an early period of the session, that gentle¬ 
man desired the adoption by the committee of a 
scheme of representation by the House of Representa 
tives, to be arranged by single districts, disregarding 
county lines. That gentleman was the only member of 
the committee whom he remembered of having at anv 
time objected to the .scheme of House representation 
now under consideration. 

Mr. Humphreville s amendment was then rejected 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, proposed to amend by strikine 
out the whole of the third section, and iiisertiuff in lien 
thereof, the following: ^ 

Sec. 3. Every county, city or incorporated town, havine- a 
population sufficient to entitle it to two or more Representatives 
according to the provisions of sections two and six, of this 
article, shall be divided in such manner as shall be prescribed bv 
law, into single districts, equal in number to the number ot Rep. 
resentaUves to which such county, city or town may at any time 
be enUtled. And for the purposes of the first election under this 
constitution, such divisions shall be made ot counties by the 
county commissioners therein, and of cities and towns by the mu- 
nicipal authorities thereof, 

Mr. GREEN said gentlemen would perceive that this 
was a proposition which brought up directly the theo¬ 
ry of single di.stricts. It could be adopted here with¬ 
out deranging the symmetry of the*report at all, or af¬ 
fecting it in any way except in so far as the proposed 
floating members are concerned, which bad been most 
arbitrarily assigned iu the report. This amendment, 
then, presented the bare consideration whether the 
Convention would adopt the theor}’^ of .single districts 
or not. 

He was pledged to the support of tliis theory, and he 
undertook to say that there was no proposition upon 
whicli the mind of the people was more definitely 
made up with reference to the proposed amendments 
to the constitution than upon this. One of the great 
any crying evils which led to the call of this Conven¬ 
tion was the difficulty growing out of the mismanage- 
ment of parties in the General Assembly in regard to 
the apportionment of representation—the majority in 
that body always taking advantage iu that matter, so 
as, if possible, to defeat the will oi* the majority at the 
polls—leading, in some instances, to scenes of confu¬ 
sion—of most disgraceful conduct—approaching almost 
to riot. 

Mr. G. proceeded to the close of the allotted twenty 
minutes, pointing out his objections to the fractional 
renresentations nroDO.sed in tha renort. nnrl finfnrrM'no- 


1361 


of the geutleman from Ross was niade on ournose tn 

eternal ‘he 

waj as to equa izo the representation, by an approaoh 
as near as could be obtained, to perfect equality^ and it 

oing a rnatter which was regulated by mere^figures 
and calcu.ation, it was impossible to make it subservi- 
ent to any scheme of unfairness in the hands of design¬ 
ing men. But the gentleman from Ross, [Mr. Green I 
w ^ ^ was another resort to the old system of floats 

He affirmed that it had neither relation, nor approach 
nor Slim arity, to that old system. It was a system of 
liactional representations which could not, by any pos 
sibihty be used for political purposes, and he was com- 
peiled to attribute the gentleman’s apprehensions, upon 
this subject, to the fact that he could not have examin 
ed the report. 

Mi^ p. proceeded to the close of the ten minutes al- 
lotted foi a second speech upon the same proposition 
m reply to some exceptions taken by the gentleman 
from Ro. 8, [Mr. Gree»,] agaiost the aystem of f“ac“ 

a mlTsTaTeTseSr “ “““ 

Qow again took the floor, and 
affirmed again tnat the sytem of fractional representa- 
nons was a proposition to revive the old system of 
floats in Its most odious form. He continued to re- 
hearse and enforce the positions which he had before 
taken to the close of the ten minutes allotted for a se¬ 
cond speech. 

Mr. LAWRENCE, next obtaining thefloor, advanced 
a. levv considerations to show that it was impossible for 
the charge of political unfairness to lie against the com¬ 
mit; ee which had submitted this report. 

Mr. OTIS supported the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Ross, [Mr. Green,] and proceeded tSshow 
that Its application iu the place of the third section 
would not nuerfere with the principles laid down in 
the report. He claimed to know something about that 
leport, froiu the fact that the principle upon which it 
was founded, originated with himself: The committee 
had borrowed it from him, but the plan had been so 
mutilated in their hands that he would hardly know it 
It he were not acquainted with its liistory. And he 
proceeded to point out the discrepancies between the 
report and the plan which he had matured, with much 
labor, last summer. 

Mr. DORSEY explained that the scheme of appor- 
tionraent presented by the gentleman from Summit 
[Mr. Otis,] during the summer session, v.^as scarcely 
m any respect,^ similar to that of the report of the 
standing committee. The committee, to be sure did 
not claim to have originated this plan altogether 


minutes, pointing out ins objections to the fractional not claim to have originated this plan altogether 
representations proposed m the report, and enforcing amongst themselves ; but it did not come from the 
the propriety of tne adoption of the single district sys- tleman from Summit by a long ways. ^ 

Mr. DORSEY was opposed to striking out for the 
purpose of inserting the proposition of the geutleman 
from Ross, [Mr. Green,] from the fact that it would 
destroy an important principle in the report of the 
Standing Committee—the principle of fractional repre¬ 
sentations. 

With regard to the division of cities and counties, it 
was provided in the sixth section of the report that 
‘ auy'couiity having within its limits a city or corporate 
rown with a number of inhabitants equal to a whole 
ratio, at any decennial period, and .still leaving in the 
county a population equal to a whole ratio, at such de¬ 
cennial period, such city or coporate town shall be eu- 
' titled to a .separate representation.” There was no 
I'provision made in this report, (and iu his opinion there 
ought not to be,) for the division of cities, towns or 
counties, as such. There was a propriety in dividing 
Scities from counties, but he could not see any propriety 
;in dividing a city iuto two different representative dis¬ 
tricts. And ho could not but think that the proposition 

86 


With regard to the amendment of the gentleman 
from Ross, [Mr. Green,] he remarked that he was not 
much opposed to the plan of single districts, if the gen 
tleman would not propose to divide cities. But he 
was principally opposed to the motion of the gentle 
man from Ross, because it proposed to strike out the 
third section. 

He read from the project of the gentleman from Sum¬ 
mit, submitted last summer, to show that the report 
was not borrowed from that source. The plan, how- 
ever, was practically derived from the thiref article of 
the constitution of the State of Missouri; which he 
read. It was true that the committee had borrowed 
the mode of ascertaining the number of representa- 
tives due to the fractional portions from the third sec¬ 
tion of the plan submitted last summer, by the gentle¬ 
man from Summit; but this was the only idea°taken 
from that report, and for this he had taken the earliest 
opportunity to make his acknowledgments to that ‘Gen¬ 
tleman. ^ 

Mr. REEMELIN should be glad if the gentlemau 


i 





















1362 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


from Ross would consent to so modify his amendment 
as to insert his proposition without striking anything 
out; for^then he could support it most[cheerfuily. 

He then proceeded to explain the reasons which in¬ 
duced him to favor the principle ot single districts in 
the apportionment of representation;—showing that 
neither property nor territory is the true basis of repre¬ 
sentation, but population—living men, women and 
children. 

He was glad to learn that the States of Pennsylva¬ 
nia and New York had made some progress in the adop¬ 
tion of this principle of popular representation. It be¬ 
ing granted that population was the true basis of repre¬ 
sentation, the contest was easy for the success of the 
argument for single districts. 

Mr. RANNEY should vote against the proposition of 
the gentleman from Ross, because he regarded it as in¬ 
volving a dishonest principle. Should there be no pro¬ 
vision against fluctuations in our representation ? Should 
not such a guard be fixed in the constitution ? But 
was not this proposition to continue the same old sys¬ 
tem of changeable districts which had heretofore been 
so much abused by the log-rolling schemes of gerry¬ 
mandering in the General Assembly? For, if the dis¬ 
tricting was to be committed to the hands of county 
commissioners, that would only be to carry out the 
same schemes of corruption on a smaller scale. 

He protested against dividing the political organiza¬ 
tion of counties. He would make this one principal 
element, and population the other principal element in 
the apportionment of representation. He could not 
even go with the committee in their proposition to di¬ 
vide the county of Hamilton. He then proceeded to 
discuss the principles of the report, in which he coin 
cided generally, although he might be constrained to 
dissent from some of the details. 

Mr. STANTON. Mr. President, I am much grati¬ 
fied with the information given us by the gentleman 
from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] that he was not influenced 
by political considerations in framing this report. 

For I confess that in looking over the report, some 
slight shade of suspicion of political bias had passed 
over my mind. I am, therefore, very happy to be re¬ 
lieved on this subject. I hope the gentleman will 
recollect, however, that next to a quiet conscience, 
nothing is more desirable than an unspotted reputa¬ 
tion. That being chaste, it is very desirable to be also 
above suspicion. I would, therefore, call the atten¬ 
tion of the gentleman to a few matters appearing on 
the face of the report, which might be resorted to by 
evil disposed persons, for the purpose of assailing his 
reputation. They are doubtless capable of a satisfac¬ 
tory explanation, and I call the gentleman’s attention 
to the matter to enable him to make it. In the first 
place the genlleman will find b)^ reference to the fifth 
section of the report, that in future apportionments 
when a county shall not have sufficient population to 
entitle it to a representative, that it shall be attached 
to the county adjoining it having the smallest number 
of inhabitants. It has been suggested that if this be 
a sound principle for future apportionments, it ought 
to be applied in the present. 

And it is said that the county of Fulton is attached 
to the county of Lucas, which has a population of 12,- 
381, while the district composed of the counties of 
Henry and Putnum, adjoining Fulton on the south, 
have a population of only 10,053. It is also suggested 
that Lucas alone would elect a whig representative, 
whilst with Fulton attached, it would elect a democrat. 

I would also call the gentleman’s attention to a similar 
departure from the principles laid down for future ap¬ 
portionments in the Senatorial apportionment. The 
Huron, Erie and Sandusky district, without the county 
of Ottawa, has a population of 58,310. The Hancock 
district, adjoining Ottaw^a on the west, has a population 
of 56,903. Yet Ottawa is attached to the Huron dis¬ 
trict, giving it a population of 62,620, making a differ¬ 
ence between the two districts of about 6000, while if 


it had been attached to the Hancock district, the differ¬ 
ence would only have been about 700. 

In this connexion it is also whispered that it was 
necessary to make this departure from the principles 
laid down in this report, to make the Huron district 
certain for the democracy. I would also call the atten¬ 
tion oi the gentlemen to the large number of wing 
counties that are swallowed up by being attached to 
adjoining democratic counties, and how few democrat¬ 
ic counties are swallowed up by being attached to whig 
counties, I will ndt now go into detail on this subject. 
These remarkable features of the report are doubtless 
the result of accident or some laudable design, but as 
they may give rise to unjust surmises and suspicions, I 
felt it my duty to call the gentleman’s attention to it, 
that he might give the proper explanation, and s xve 
himself from unjust and unfounded imputations. 

Mr. MITCHELL was not at all surprised to perceive 
that the gentleman from Ross and the gentleman from 
Logan were so ready to seize upon some idea of po- 
|litical intrigue in connexion with a matter in which 
they had performed so conspicuous a part hitherto. 
They could see nothing but some scheme of gerryman¬ 
dering in everything about this report that has been 
touched by the hand of a Democrat. 

He then proceeded, (although he himself had some 
well-founded objections to the report,) by looking at 
the political character of many counties in the group¬ 
ing of senatorial and representative apportiontment, to 
point out the impossibility that the committee could 
have been influenced by any disposition to gain the 
slightest political advantage, for the political party to 
which a majority of them belonged. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, next obtained the 
floor, and upon his motion, the committee rose and re¬ 
ported no resolution; and then. 

On motion of Mr. HOLMES, the Convention adiourn- 
ed. 


FRIDAY, February 27, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved a call of the Convention, 
which was ordered, and ^ 

Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Case of Hocking, Case 
of Licking, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Groesbeck, 
Hard, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, Kennon, 
Mason, Nash, Orton, Otis, Roll, Smith of Warren, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stidger, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Vance of Butler, and Vance of Campaign, were found 
absent. 

On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, all further proceed¬ 
ings under the call were dispensed with. 

Mr. McCloud presented a petition from G. M. 
Clover, and ninety-two other citizens of Franklin and 
Madison counties, praying that a clause be inserted in 
the constitution, prohibiting the Legislature from pass¬ 
ing any law legalizingtrafficinspirituousliquors; which. 

on motion, was laid on the table. 

Mr. McCLOUD presented a petition from Mary A. 
Mills annd one hundred and three other females of 
Madisoucounfy, on the same subiect; which, on motion 
was laid on the table. 

Mr. LAM RENCE presented a petition from Harriet 
Nail and one hundred and seventy-six other males and 
females of Belmont county, on the'same subject; which 
on motion, was laid on the table. ’ 

Report number two of the committee on Finance and 
Taxation was read a third lime. 

The question being on the passage of the report; 

Mr. HAM’KINS moved that the same be committed 
to a select committee with instructions to strike out of 
section two the words “ belonging to the head of each 
family,” so that the clause will read: “And the Gene¬ 
ral Assembly may exempt from taxation property not 
exceeding in value two hundred dollars.” And also 

















1363 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


to strike out section seven of the report, which reads 
as follows; 

“The State shall never contract any debtfor purposes of inter- 
nal improvement.” 

The cpiestion being on the commitment with instruc¬ 
tions ; 

Mr. STILW ELL demanded' a division of the ques¬ 
tion. ^ 

Ihe question then being on the commitment; 

Mr. HAWKINS. Under the provisions of the sev¬ 
enth section no debt can ever be contracted by the 
j State for purposes ol internal improvement; but it is 
I pi;ovided in the first section of the report of tlie com¬ 
mittee on 1 ubiic Debts and Public Works, that a debt 
! contracted to the amount of seven hundred and 

■ fifty thousand dollars. The two sections seem to con- 
I flict; and I desire, if possible, not to leave to the com¬ 
mittee on Kevision the privilege of selecting which 
shall be retained and which rejected. If such shall be 
the case, and the other section should be stricken out, 

\ the operation of this might produce great injury. A 
serious breach in the canal might occcur, requiring the 
expenditure of a large amount of money ; and ni order 
to save the public interest, a loan may be absolutely 
necessary. Now, this provision might prevent a resort 
to such a measure ; and the result would be disastrous 
in the exti’eme. 

In relation to the other branch of the instructions— 
to strike out the words, belonging to the head of each 
family,” I desire to get rid of it, because I do not think 
It just or necessary. 

Mr. STLIWELL. 1 would suggest to the gentle¬ 
man [Mr. Hawkins,] so to modify his motion as to 
permit the bill to be re-committed to the committee 
that reported it. It was passed through the Conven¬ 
tion in haste, and there are several errors in it that 
ought to be corrected if possible. 

The PRESIDENT. Will the gentleman modify his 
motion ? 

Mr. HAWKINS. I have no objections to doing it, 
if the gentleman from Muskingum [Mr. Stit.well.1 
desires. 

The question then being on the re-commitm^t of 
the report to the committee that reported it; 

Mr. STILWELL. This report, as I remarked, pass¬ 
ed sornewhat hastily through the Convention underthe 
operation of the previous question. I do not complain 
of this, for I concurred in it at the time. At the time 
when the bill was under consideration in committee 
of the Whole, I introduced a proposition to exempt 
school property—all property used for the purposes 
of education, and that produced no profit to individu¬ 
als from taxation. It was a proposition that deserved, 
and seemed at the time to receive the favorable notice 
of gentlemen, and I hope that it may ^et be adopted. 

I would therefore move that the committee be instruct¬ 
ed to amend the report by inserting after the words 
“ school houses,” in the fifth line of the second section, 
the words, “ property used exclusively for educational 
' purposes and not for private or individual profit.” And 
after the word ‘‘ otherwise,” in the fourth line, to in¬ 
sert the words, “ except such as by this constitution is 
directed to be otherwise taxed.” 

There is another part of the rejtort which I desire to 
amend, and I will read the instructions which I pro¬ 
pose. I propose to add at the close of the third section 
the following: “except in cases where the General 
Assembly shall, by contract heretofore constitutionally 
made, have provided a different mode of taxation ; and 
no property shall be subject to taxation wdiich by the 
ij constitution of the United States is exempted there¬ 
from.” 

I presume that there is no intention on the part of 
I this body to put such provisions in the constitution as 
that any property of any kind must necessarily be tax- 
. ed twice; yet under this section as it now stands, such 
f a thing may occur. It may occur that the stocks of 
; the banks in the State may be taxed first in the hands 


of the owners as their proiierty, and again, as a part of 
the capital of a bank subject to taxation in that form. 
I presume such is not the mtenliou of the Convention. 

I desire to provide that in cases where a contract nas 
been constitutionally made which is intended to ex¬ 
empt any unperTy tr corporation from taxation, that 
it shall be faithfully observed on the part of the State 
and when any thing is exempt under the provisions of 
the constitution of the United States that it shall not be 
taxed. I want, if possible, so to settle the provisions of 
this constitution, that I can consistently vote for it. 
Under such a provision as I propose, all property can be 
taxed that ought to be, and we should insert no provis¬ 
ion that, without doing any good, or securing that for 
which it purports to fu’ovide, will drive many members 
of this Convention, as well as citizens, from the support 
of this instrument. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I shall vote in favor of the re¬ 
commitment of the report; and I desire to call the at¬ 
tention of the Convention to a single fact regarding its 
provisions. Section the third provides that the banks 
of the State shall be taxed in future upon the aggre¬ 
gate amount of their capital stock and surplus fimd. 
This, although it may be a perfectly just rule at pres¬ 
ent, may become a very unjust one, in case the rule of 
taxation is changed. Such alterations may be made 
in the system of taxation that it will be proper to tax 
banks upon their capital stock only. 1 do not want to 
be unjust even to the banks. I know that the matter 
will be under the control of the General Assembly, but 
I should prefer to fix it here if possible, because diffi¬ 
culties that we cannot foresee may arise to prevent its 
adjustment by that body. 

Mr. GREGG. I am opposed, Mr. President, to any 
change in the mode by which banks are to be taxed 
by which it shall vary from the mode of taxation of 
other property. I want all the property in the State 
whatever be its description, to be taxed alike. If an 
individual loans to another one hundred dollars,! want 
that he should be taxed upon it. If a bank loans one 
hunuicci dollars, I want it to be taxed iu the same man- 
ner. I observe by the report of the Auditor of State, 
that the amount of notes and bills discounted by the 
banks in the State amounts to the sum of eighteen mill¬ 
ions of dollars, and I see no reason why they should 
not be taxed upon that amount, as an individual would 
under like circumstances. 

Mr. REEMELIN. A word in explanation. I be¬ 
lieve the proposed system of bank taxation is correct • 
but in case the rule of taxation should be changed, I 
want it changed also in regard to the banks.° The 
equity of the rule by which banks are taxed consists 
in its consonance with the rule by which other prop¬ 
erty is taxed ; and vyhen one is changed the other ought 
to be also, or injustice is done to one party or the oth¬ 
er. The difficulty is that this section three fixes an 
iron rule by which banks are to be taxed so lono- as 
this constitution endures. It is right now, but the very 
reason that makes it so now may make it wroncr here¬ 
after. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. If there is any intention to give 
suoh instructions as are moved by the gentleman from 
Morgan, [Mr. Hawkins,] I shall feelconstrained to vote 

against the recommitment. Why, what is it that he 
wants to strike out? The provision that the State 
shall never contract debts for public improvement. 
■What does it mean ? It means just this—that the 
State shall never undertake any new enterprise. Every 
body knows what it means. There is no danger of 
mistaking it. But the gentleman, [Mr. Hawkins 1 
has strayed away off to find an example of an abuse 
that may occur under it. and has taken one totally for¬ 
eign to the case. His illustration put me in mind of 
the story of the girl who was found by her mistress sit¬ 
ting away and crying bitterly. When inquired of 
what the matter was, she replied, with a fresh burst of 
sorrow, that she had been thinking what a terrible 
thing it would be if, when she had grown up she 


















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1364 


should get married and have a little baby, and after it 
£jot big enough to run alone, it should go out and fall 
into the bake oven and get burnt up. [Laughter.] 

Now, sir, there are other modes by which, in case of 
breaches in the canal, the repairs may be made, with- 
out resorting to a loan. One is, that a sufficient margin 
may be left in the contingent fund for that or any simi¬ 
lar purpose; and another is, that the superintendent 
may go on and incur the debt, and leave to the Legis¬ 
lature to make a suitable provision for its payment. I 
will go against every attempt to again introduce the 
old, abandoned, exploded, stealing power of making 
public works at the cost of the many for the benefit of 
the few; and I hope no such amendment will be made. 

Mr. SAWYER. I think that we have spent as much 
time upon this ciuestion as it deserves. I therefore 
move the previous question—which was seconded. 

The question then being, ‘‘ Shall the main question be 
now put?” 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I suppose the previous 
question cuts off the motion to recommit? 

The PRESIDENT. The efiect of the previous ques¬ 
tion will be to cut off all amendments, and to bring 
the Convention to .a vote upon the article. 

The question then being, Shall the main ciuestiou be 
now put?” 

Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded the the yeas and nays, 
which were oi'dered, and resulted—-yeas 34, nays 55 
as follows: 


Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blah, Cahill, Chaney, Cook, Dorsey, 
Forbes Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hootman, Jones, King, 
Larsh, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patter¬ 
son. Quigley, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stanton, Steb- 
bins. Swan, Swift, Thompson ot Stark, Way, Wilson, Woodbury 
and President—B4. ^ ^ t> 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Baniet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Bhckensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, CoUings, Ewart, Florence, Graham, 
Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Peck, Per¬ 
kins, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Smith ot Highlano, St^bery, 
Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, Towns- 
hend, Warren, Williams and Worthington—55. 

So the motion for the previous Cjneslion was not sus¬ 
tained. . . , -n 

The question then being on recommitting the Re- 

port j 1 1 • 1 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 

were ordered, and resulted—yeas 59, nays 30—as fol¬ 


lows: 

Yeas _Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 

nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Bhckensderfer, Browm ot Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, CoUings, Cook, Curry, Ewart, 
Florence, Gillett, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leadbetter, 
Manon, Mason, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash Otis, Patter¬ 
son, Peck, Perkins, Reemelin, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, bmith 
of Highland, Stanbery, Stilwell, Struble, Swan, Switt, Taylor, 
Thonipson of Shelby, Townshend, Warren, Wilhams, Woodbu- 
rv, Worthington and President—59. ^ 

Nats— Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Dorsey, Farr, 
Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hootman, Jones, King, Larsh, 
Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Quigley, Itanney, 
Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Thompson of Stark, Way and Wilson—30. 

So the Report was recommitted. 

The question theu being on the instructions proposed 
by Mr. Hawkins; 

Mr. HAWKINS, on leave, withdrew his instructions. 

Mr. BENNETT moved that the committee on Fi¬ 
nance and Taxation be instructed to report the follow¬ 
ing as an additional section: 

Sec. —. No professional tax shall ever be levied in this State. 

On motion of Mr. KIRKWOOD, the instructions 
were laid on the table. 

Mr. HOLMES moved that the committee be instruc¬ 
ted to strike out all after the word “ provided,” in sec¬ 
tion two, and insert in lieu thereof the following: “ The 
General Assembly may by law remit the taxes on the 
following property, viz:—All property belonging to the 


State, public school houses, the libraries connected there* 
with, the lands upon which said school houses are erected, 
all burial grounds used expressly for pui’poses of inter¬ 
ment, all public property belonging to counties, cities, in¬ 
corporated towns and townships, now owned, or which 
may hereafter be acquired by purchase, gift, grant or 
devise, the household and kitchen furniture of every 
family in this State, not exceeding in value the sum of 
two hundred dollars.” 

On motion of Mr. LARWILL, the instructions were 
laid on the table. 

Mr. BARBEE moved that the committee be instruc¬ 
ted to strike out all in section two before the vvord 
“ provided,” and insert in lieu thereof the following: 

Property being the true basis for taxation, the General Assem¬ 
bly shall provide by law an equitable rule of valuation and assess¬ 
ment of all property, real and personal, (exempting only such as 
may be exempt by the constitution of the United States, and such 
as may be necessary to preserve inviolate the pledged faith of this 
State, also such as may be exempt under this constitution,) so 
that each resident of the State pay a tax on the amount so valued 
and assessed in proportion to the amount he, she or they own, 
deducting bona fide liabilities. 

The same gentleman moved that the instructions be 
referred to the committee on Finance and Taxation. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the instructions be laid 
on the table ; which was agreed to. 

Mr. MASON submitted the following: 

Resolved, That jthe committee on Revision be instructed to in¬ 
quire into the expediency of inserting in the report on the Exe¬ 
cutive Department the lollowing provision: There shall be estab" 
lished in the Secretary ot State’s office a bureau of statistics, un 
der such regulations as may be provided by law. 

The question being on the adoption of the resolu¬ 
tion ; 

Mr. MASON. I will take up the time of the Oonven 
tion for but a moment. I desire merely to state, that 
gentlemen may understand what the resolution is, and 
the purpose it is intended to subserve; and from the 
favor with which the proposition has heretofore been 
received, I have strong hopes that it will be adopted. 
And I hope that it will be adopted now, especially as 
there is no other report now belorethis body, m which 
it can properly be inserted. I have had the pleasure 
of conversing with a number of the members of this 
body, £^d found the proposition had the approbation of 
a large*majority of those with whom I conversed, and 
I think it would of all, if all had had an equal opportu¬ 
nity of considering the subject. I would say something 
upon its importance, but am afraid of consuming time, 
and I think its nature is understood. It would add 
little or nothing to the cost of government. At most, it 
would be merely the salary of a clerk, and perhaps not 
even that. The mode of collecting the information 
would be through the assessors, and by a correspond¬ 
ence with citizens of difierent parts of the State. 

At present w^e have no means under the control of 
the State, by which the people in one section can be¬ 
come acquainted with the wealth and resources of an¬ 
other. And in regard to the health of the State, the 
prevailing local or general diseases, and their reme- 
dies, much valuable information might be collected and 
disseminated. 

Mr. SAWYER. I would suggest to the gentleman 
from Clark, [Mr. Mason,] that the resolution is imper¬ 
ative upon the committee to make the amendment. I 
should prefer that it should be only a resolution, mak. 
ing it the duty of the committee to inquire into the ex¬ 
pediency of the amendment. 

Mr. MASON. In compliance with the suggestion of 
the gentleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] I will 
do so. 

Mr. GILLETT. We have now a State Board of Ag¬ 
riculture organized, or professing to be organized, in 
Ohio; but it has no head. Its object is to collect a wri- 
cultural intelligence, and to send it through the St^e • 
but it fails iu a great measure, to effect the design of its 
creation—at least to the extent that it ought to. Cir¬ 
culars are issued by the board, and sent to one and an¬ 
other throughout the State, requiring answers to certain 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1365 


interrogatories. These persons are frequently chosen 
by the board, without any knowledge on the part of 
that body as to their knowledge, capacity, pursuits, ex¬ 
perience or ability, to answer the questions that are 
propounded to them. They frequently know nothin‘s 
of the extent of the agricultural interests ol the county 
in which they live, and the reports that they make are 
a mere guess-work affair. In consequence of the want 
of an officer whose duty it is to attend to it, the pro¬ 
ceedings of the board are often very dilatory, and the 
reports of the year are delayed until they are of little 
value. I observed, last July, when the Convention 
was m session in Columbus, cords of the report of last 
year lying piled up in the hall of the House of Repre-1 
sentatives, which will probably never be disturbed. I 
ffimk, therefore, that power should be given to the 
General Assembly to establish a bureau to superintend 
these mattei's, and to see that the annual report is made 
in time, and by persons competent to discharge the du¬ 
ty, and to see that it is transmitted so that it may reach 
the people in time to render some benetit to the State; 
and that unless some more efficient means are adopted 
than those now in operation, we had better dispense 
with the board, and dispense at once with the enor¬ 
mous expense that attends its operation. 

The question then being on the adoption of the 
resolution of instruction; 

Mr. LIDEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
I were ordered, and resulted—yeas 51, na 5 ^s 32—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 

> Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Ew¬ 
art, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of 
Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, 

1 Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Loudon, Manon, Mason, McCloud, 

) McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Perkins, Ranney, Reeme- 
( lin. Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Stebbins, Stil- 
f well. Swift, Thompson of Shelby, Townshend, Williams and Wor- 
thington—51. 

j Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Dorsey, Farr, 

|: Forbes, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Humphreville, Hunt, 
t Jones, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetten Lidey, Mitchell, Morris, Pat- 
f tersoB, Quigley, Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stanbery, 

I Stickney, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Way, Woodbury 
|: and President—32. 

So the resolution was adopted. 

Mr. MANON moved that the Convention resolve it¬ 
self into a committee of the whole; which was agreed 
to, —Mr. Kirkwood in the chair. 

The subject under consideration being Report No. 2 
of the committee on the Apportionment, the question 
: was upon the motion made yesterday by Mr. Green, 
of Ross, to amend the third section of the report. 

Mr. COLLINGS moved to amend the words propos- 
I ed to be stricken out, by sinking out all after the word 
“ three,” in the eighth line, and inserting in lieu there- 
1 of, the following;—“ to the second, first and fifth ses- 
: sions respectively; and if four, to the fourth, third, se- 
1 cond, and first sessions respectively.” 

The question being on the amendment; 

Mr. COLLINGS. I hope that the amendment which 
1 have proposed will meet the approbation of the com- 
I mittee that made the report. I do not concur in the 
opinion of the gentleman from Ross, in his remarks 
made last evening, that this is an attempt at the revival 
of the old, exploded and odious plan of floats. His 
objection to the plan was that he thought that the floats 
had been created for a particular purpose. This is not 
a plan to create floats, but to provide for the disposi¬ 
tion of them when they arise. In contriving for their 
disposition, it is necessary first to take an arbitrary step, 
and having taken it, to proceed systematically and con¬ 
tinuously. This the committee commenced to do, and 
I have no objection to the proceeding except that they 
have not gone on as they should have done, systemati¬ 
cally and continuously. They commenced to dispose 
of the fractions at the fifth year. I do not object to 
that. . It was probably on some accounts better to com¬ 
mence at the fifth year than at the first. These coun¬ 
ties that have but one fraction ^in the period of five 


years, have that in the fifth year. To those that have 
two are assigned the fourth and third years. This far 
the committee proceeded continuously, but no further. 
They have placed counties having three fractions in the 
second and first years, and those having four in the 
fourth, second, third and first; whereas had the rule 
been followed out, counties having three fractions 
would have had them in the second, first and fifth years. 
Those having four would have had them in the fourth, 
third, second and first, and those having five, would 
have them in the fifth, fourth, third, second and first. 
If this rule had been carried out, (and I see no reason 
why it should not have been adhered to,) the third, 
j fourth and fifth years would have been equal, each 
having sixteen members; as it now is the third has 
nineteen, the fourth sixteen, and the fifth fourteen. I 
hope, as I said before, that as such a change would 
bring the report more nearly to an equality than it is 
now, it will meet the approbation of the committee 
that framed it. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, desired to modify the motion 
he made yesterday, in ofiering his amendment, so that 
instead of striking out a portion of the section, it 
. should come in at the end of the same; which was per¬ 
mitted. 

There being then no words to be stricken out, the 
motion of Mr. Collings was decided not in order; and 
the question was upon the amendment of Mr. Green. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. I am very glad that 
the gentleman from Ross has changed his amendment 
so as to leave the third section as it was reported by 
the committee, and so as to leave the naked question 
whether we are to have nine single districts in Hamil¬ 
ton county, or whether we are to have double districts 
as heretofore. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that al¬ 
together too much importance is attached to the politi¬ 
cal character of the districts, so far as representation in 
the General Assembly is concerned. 

Heretofore, I admit, that it has been of very great 
importance; but now all the patronage is taken from 
the General Assembly except that of electing an Uni¬ 
ted States Senator, and its only duty is to enact laws 
for the government of the State, under which, what¬ 
ever party may predominate, all must live, and which 
ai'e as binding and as heavy upon the legislator as up¬ 
on the constituent. When therefore all the patronage 
is taken away, the subject of political supremacy will 
not and cannot excite the same feelings as when all 
the patronage and all the appointments of the State 
are in the hands of the Legislature, to be distributed 
out among the friends of the majority. There is no 
doubt it IS true, that political parties will exist, and 
that they will desire to gain and hold power; but that 
desire will not, as heretofore, be the ground of strife 
and contention. 

Neither is there any ground for the supposition that 
political parties will continue for any^ great length of 
time in the same position, either positive or relative, 
that they hold at present. Mutations are continually 
going on. New questions are coming up, and no par¬ 
ty has the assurance that it wdll be what it was, in 
numbers or in position, at any day in the_ future. It 
is futile then to attempt to make any provision for such 
contingencies. We have lived under the present con¬ 
stitution tor fifty years, and although there was little 
party spirit for the first twenty-five years, there has 
been a good deal of party spirit and a good many 
changes in the last; and ten years to come still great¬ 
er changes may take place. 

As to the plan of apportionment^ reported by the 
committee, I must say that I am afraid that they seem 
to have acted a very little under the influence of a de¬ 
sire to aid their own political party. That there was 
any design entertained by the members either to break 
down one party or to build up anod^er, I am not pre¬ 
pared to say, but it would be very natural for them to 
rejoice after making a district, to discover that it be¬ 
longed to their own party. I do not say that there was 















1366 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


any design in it; but I think if it should so happen, 
they would easily make up their minds not to regret it. 
Andjl am disposed to believe, lurthermore, that enough 
might have been done to secure their political prepon¬ 
derance in the State, without sinking quite so many 
votes in some of the counties, in the heavy majorities 
of the other counties with which they have been 
grouped. 

But, Mr. Chairman, there is in this report a princi¬ 
ple to which I feel a very strong objection. It strikes 
at the root of the principle of the division of counties 
in such a manner that there shall be no other than sin¬ 
gle districts in the State. Now, sir, if there is any one 
thing upon which the people have felt and expressed 
an opinion, it is upon the subject of the division of the 
State into single districts for representation in the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly. And that opinion seemed to be almost 
universally concurred in, by the members of this body. 
There was scarcely any division of sentiment in Co¬ 
lumbus last summer, and with only one or two excep¬ 
tions, all were in favor of the single district system. 
This is what the people want—it is what they have 
asked for, if they have asked for any thing; and in this 
they ought to be gratified; because it is right; be¬ 
cause it can be done without injury or injustice to any, 
and be at the same time a benefit to the State. 

The principle seems to me, Mr. Chairman, to be a 
republican one—I will not say democratic—I am not 
.allowed to say that; but it seems to be a republican 
principle, because it gives to all an equal vote, and an 
equal share in the government of the State. Is this 
not right 1 It seems to me so. Divide the State into 
single districts, and each man votes for his own officers 
—his own Senator and his own Representative. De¬ 
part from it, and you destroy the principle of equality. 
Is that right ? 

Let us look at this matter, Mr. Chairman, a little 
closer. Under the plan as reported by the committee, 
every elector in the county of Hamilton has eight votes 
for Senators and three for Representatives, while the 
voters in the other parts of the State are confined to 
one of each. A man who happens to be located in 
Hamilton county has eight times as much influence as 
if he lived in the county that I represent, or in the 
other counties of the Slate. I do not think this is right. 
If it is democratic equality, it is not republican equali¬ 
ty ; and I do not think it is democratic. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, the idea of single districts is by 
no means original with us, or in the State of Ohio. It 
has been promulgated years and years, not only here, 
but in all parts of the Union. Originally, members of 
Congress were elected by the people of the whole State, 
by general ticket, but one State after another became 
dissatisfied and changed the mode of election. The 
consequences of this was that those States that elected 
their Representatives by general ticket had an undue 
share of power in the Union, until at leiigth. Congress 
took the matter in hand and made the single district 
system uniform throughout the State. 

Some of the Slates kicked at it a little, but they were 
at length brought in, and now Congress is entirely 
composed of members elected in single districts. So 
in New York; the State, by the constitution, is divided 
into single districts, by means of a system much like 
that presented by the amendment of the gentleman 
from Ross, and even the city has been divided, and 
elects now its Senators and Representatives, under the 
single district system. And what is the result? The 
city of New York, which by its large number of dele¬ 
gates before governed the State, has ceased to do so. 
The operation of this republican principle has destroy¬ 
ed its supremacy. Yet, gentlemen say that Hamilton 
county must not be divided. Hamilton county must 
give a solid vote altogether, while the other parts of the 
State must be divided. Now, Mr. Chairman, is this 
right ? If it is permitted, one thing is certain—Hamil¬ 
ton county will govern the State, so long as this consti¬ 
tution endures. It always has done it, and it always 


will. It may be that it will govern wisely, but the pro¬ 
bability is, that it will govern a little too much for its 

own interest. , i. • 

Now what is the difficulty in the single district sys¬ 
tem? The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. RanneyJ 

seems to think that there is some charm in couutylines. 

Old Hamilton, gentlemen say, old Hamilton must be 
preserved as it is. Gentlemen may rely upon it, it this 
is to be the case, that the policy of the State will be 
controlled by a single county, and that merely because | 
it is surrounded by a county line. I know that the bill | 
provides lor the division of the city from the rest of 
the county, but I know also that there will be an at- . 
tempt to break down this provision; and as for furth¬ 
er divisions, they are not to be thought of. Gentlemen 
can agree upon no tribunal by which they may be 
made. They can trust none. The danger ol corrup¬ 
tion is too great to permit such a power to be vested 
any where. One would think from their remaiks that , 
there is nothing but corruption among public officers; 
and I sometimes think, we talk so much corruption, | 
that the outsiders who hear these debates will begin I 
to think that there is some corruption here amongst us. | 
The principle, I say, is a good one, and if the officers 
whose duty it is to carry it out, violate their oaths, the 
worst is their own; but we have no right to depart ' 
from our duty, and violate our oaths because other 
men may be corrupt. j* • • ^ 

Now the reason why gentlemen oppose the division . 
of Hamilton county is plain. They would lose a p®rt i, 
of their political influence. It is not from their love of i 
the right, but from their love of power, that they op- H 

pose it. 1 T j ‘ 

Mr. DORSEY. I have a few words now that i de- ^ 
sire to say upon this subject, and but a few. It is prop¬ 
er for me to state a large number of the members of 
the committee on Apportionment were strongly in fa¬ 
vor of the single district system, and the subject was 
commended to the favorable notice of the committee, 
by the opinions of the members of the Convention. , 
But I have been induced to believe that while the plan | 
that we have reported approximates, in a very consid- ; 
erable degree, to such a system, it obviates the objec¬ 
tions that would raise, were the principle of single dis- ■ 
tricts fully carried out. 

Perhaps the greatest abuse in the old system, by i 
which the State has been districted, is this: that it of¬ 
ten happened that two counties were united, with the ! 
power to erect two representative-s. Then a contest j 
arose, asTo whether both should come from one couu- i 
ty; or whether each should have one. This difficulty 
is obviated by the report. If gentlemen will look at i 
it, they will find that no two counties have been uni- j 
ted to elect two representatives. II there are double j 
districts, they are composed of one county alone, so j 
that there can be no strife between dili'erent municipal | 
interests. j 

Gentlemen may say wha-they please about the fa- j 
cility with which counties and cities may be divided; 
but I say, that when they attempt it, they will find 
that it is a diflicult matter. In order that it may be 
done, there must be a power somewhere ; and what- j 
ever that power may be, it will be subject to political 
influences ; and our intention has been, as far as possi¬ 
ble, to get rid of such influences. As far as the com¬ 
mittee could do it, they have divided. Where corpo¬ 
rate towns could be cut off, it has been done ; and 
though several members of the committee were not in 
favor of it, I think it is right to cut them oft. Upon 
that state of the case, the objections of the gentleman 
from Geauga will fall to the ground—and I think he 
has an incorrect view of the political power of Cincin¬ 
nati, or of Hamilton county, because they happen to 
have a large number of representatives. Nor is it a 
fair statement, to say that every citizen of Cincinnati 
has six—not eight—votes, to one ot the citizens of 
other parts of the State. The citizen of Cincinnati j 
votes for six representatives, it is true; but he is rep¬ 
resented but by one. 
























CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1367 


And now a word as to the political efl'ect of the re¬ 
port. I believe the grouping of counties is as fair and 
as correct as it could be made. Let gentlemen exam¬ 
ine the political complexion of the counties, and then 
say if there is any reason to charge the committee 
'With any dishonest bias whatever, in favor of their own 
party. 

And ill this connection, let me call the attention of 
gentlemen for a moment, to the counter-report o^ the 
minority of the committee. And I ask the members 
of the minority, if they did not feel pleased, when out 
ot thirty-four senators, they found they were able to 
give twenty to the whigs? 

But I will answer directly the question put to me by 
the gentleman from Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] with re¬ 
gard to the reason why the county of Fulton was an¬ 
nexed to the county of Lucas, for representative pur¬ 
poses ; and while I do so, I desire that gentlemen wdll 
look at their maps that they may more fully appreciate 
my remarks. It will be perceived that Fulton touches 
two other districts besides Lucas—the district of Paul 
ding, Defiance and Williams on the west, and that of 
Putnam and Henry on the south. The first of these 

districts contains - inhabitants; and by addin<^ 

Fulton thereto, it would have-, a number far 

greater than the ratio, and entitling it to a fractional 
representative ; which would be entirely different from 

any^ other district, formed of more than one county_ 

besides this the amount of territory included in thedis. 
trict, would be enormously large, as compared with 
that of Fulton and Lucas. 

Again, if united to Putnam and Henry the number 
would, it is true, fall below the ratio, but the objection 
of a very great disparity of territory and also of inter¬ 
est would still remain—in as much force as in the for¬ 
mer case. ^ Now let it be remembered that almost the 
whole territory of the county of Fulton came originally 
from Lucas—they were origbially one people, united in 
interest, and are still united by the ties of trade and 
commerce, having their roads and traveling facilities 
in common, and in regard to the territory it will be 
seen by looking at the map that Lucas has, independ¬ 
ent of her constructive territory lying under the waters 
of Lake Erie, little over tw'o hundred square miles, and 
with the county of Fulton has far less territory in the 
representative district than can be made by attaching 
Fulton in any other direction whatever. Now I ask 
every gentleman present if these plain reasons are not 
sufficient to satisfy the mind of any reasonable man— 
any one whose mind was not thoroughly imbued with 
with all the prejudices which naturally belong to a tra¬ 
ding politician, that other than political reasons weigh-i 
ed in the minds of the committee in attaching together 
in one district, the counties of Fulton and Lucas, more 
especially where w'e consider, that attaching Fulton to 
either of the two first districts could have made no 
possible change in their political character, and it is 
exceedingly doubtful if any political change is effected 
by attaching it to Lucas. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. T did not intend, in my remarks, 
to make any reflection upon the integrity of the com¬ 
mittee. I give the gentlemen credit for their industry 
and calculation. I merely expressed my opinion that 
they would feel gratified if, after having grouped togeth¬ 
er several counties into a district, they should find that 
it was theirs. In the lower house I look upon it as ex¬ 
tremely doubtful which party would have the majori¬ 
ty. Tliat side undoubtedly will say it is wdth the 
Whigs, this side, that it is with the Democrats. I think 
that with the Senate, the difference is greater. It is 
in favor of the Democrats, though not so greatly as 
some gentlemen on this side suppose. 

As to the subject of single districts, it is clear that if 
the city and county here are divided, the vote in Cin¬ 
cinnati is six to one, and if they remain together, it is, 
eight to one. The gentleman from Miami, [Mr. Dor¬ 
sey,] I know, says that though a man votes for six, he 
has but one representative. Now I ask, which of the 
six is his representative ? 


Mr. DOR'SEY. He has one-sixth of the whole—that 
is all. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. He has six votes for six repre¬ 
sentatives in the House, and two votes for tw'o in the 
Senate, and those eight votes will control the policy of 
the State, as was the case in New York. It is the prin¬ 
ciple that I go for, for I do not believe that the Whigs 
would gain in numbers by the division of Hamilton 
county into single districts. If it should be done, other 
counties would have to be divided, and the gain in one 
would be compensated by the loss in the others. 

Mr. OTIS. I shall, Mr. Chairman, support in its 
present shape the amendment offered by the gentle¬ 
man from Ross, [Mr. Green,] as I remarked yester¬ 
day that I would do so as far as it asserted the single 
district principle. I intended to say that the report of 
the committee, so far as its general plan was concern- 
ed, was not only consistent with a system of represen¬ 
tation upon that foundation, but that there was no diffi¬ 
culty in making the application. The great State of 
New York is divided into single districts, and the city 
is under the operation of the same rule, being subdivid¬ 
ed by the board of supervisors; and if the city of New 
York can be divided, there can be no difficulty in di ¬ 
viding any city in Ohio. And what objection can there 
be to the practice? Gentlemen seem afraid that if 
they admit the practice, (for they do not deny that the 
principle is a correct one,) the sceptre of political pow¬ 
er will depart out of their hands. 

That the result of the provisions of this constitution 
will be to reduce the importance of the General As¬ 
sembly, in a party point of view, there can be no 
doubt; and if the single system is adopted, much that 
has embittered party strife and fanned contention will 
be done away. I hope that we shall never have in 
that body that tendency to strong political feeling and 
high party measures that there have been hitherto. 
Except the election of an United States Senator, its pa¬ 
tronage will all be taken away, and its principal and al¬ 
most sole duty will be the passage of laws of general 
application. Why then are gentlemen so tenacious of 
party power as to seek to embalm it in the constitution, 
and be willing to establish a false principle, or at least, 
to refuse to establish a true one in order to secure their 
ends? 

The great advantage of the single district system 
will be tliat it will give to every man in the State an 
equal influence in the public councils, and that it will 
secure an accurate representation of the real state of 
popular sentiment, by taking the representative from 
tlie immediate body of his constituents. 

Mr. NASH. The question is: whether representa¬ 
tion shall be by single districts, or whether there shall 
be some double districts. A majority of the people, 
as I believe, are in favor of the single district system. 
Party calculations have no legitimate connection with 
the subject. Why not elect members of the General 
Assembly by general ticket? Because the opinions of 
nearly one-half the people of the State would be sti¬ 
fled—the despotism of the majority would prevail in 
onr State Government. The true principle is to give 
to all parts of the State respectively, as full a repre¬ 
sentation as practicable; and tho single district system 
would effect this object better than any other. The 
more and the farther all the various opinions in the 
State are represented in the government, the more at¬ 
tached will all classes of the people become to that 
government, whether or not, their peculiar views were 
carried out. 

He [Mr. Nash] was decidedly in favor of the divi¬ 
sion of Hamilton county into separate election districts 
—unless this is done, Hamilton county will continue to 
control the legislation of the State. 

Mr. HOLMES said, there had been a great latitude 
of discussion upon the amendment, (proposing the .<in- 
gle district system,) offered by the gentleman from 
Ross, [Mr. Green.] The principles of the Report 
had been before the people of the State, since last 


















1368 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


June, and as yet no serious objections had been made 
to the Report. But at this time it is claimed that it is 
defective, inasmuch as it does not provide for single 
districts. He was opposed to the division of counties, 
and to the single district system ; and had so declared 
himself in committee as early as during the summer 
session of this Convention. He had, it was true, con¬ 
sented to the division of Hamilton count 3 ^ 

Mr. HOLMES said, that he diifered with his col¬ 
league, [Mr. Reemelin,] if he clearly understood him. 
If his colleague intended to say that the German pop¬ 
ulation of Hamilton county, for instance, should have 
a Representative in the General Assembly, exclusively 
their own, he was opposed to him. If he meant that 
the merchants of the city should have a separate and 
exclusive representative, he was opposed to him—if he 
meant that the mechanics or any other class of the 
population should have a separate representation, he 
must say that he was opposed to him in ioto. He [Mr. 
Holmes] believed that in all well regulated societies, 
in all cities, counties and townships, there must, to a 
certain extent, be a community of interests. Their 
interests must be mutual. He was decidedly opposed 
to the principle of an unmiied representative interest. 

So far as a political tendency or object in the report 
under consideration was concerned, he could assure 
gentlemen that the thing was not thought of. Political 
considerations, [said Mr. Holmes,] did not enter mj" 
head. I was desirous only to perfect a scheme of ap¬ 
portionment, based upon fair and equitable principles, 
always keeping in view the political sacredness of 
county lines. 

Mr. REEMELIN said : It has become obvious to 
every observer, that I, for once in my life, have got 
into strange company, and on listening to the remarks 
of the gentleman from Ross, [Mr. Green,] and from 
Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] I was ready to exclaim, “Lord 
what have I done, that my enemies should praise me” 
—and if I were the mere party hack, which men, who 
don’t know me, may have supposed me to be, I might 
be in a sad predicament—but as it is, having careful¬ 
ly surveyed the whole ground, having weighed all 
sides, having scanned every suppoeable contingency^ 
and every bearing the question has, I have no fears of 
the result. I have coolly and calmly determined to 
sustain, by vote and voice, the single district system, 
as both honest and fair. 

I submitted a few remarks j-esterday, on this sub¬ 
ject, and a part of these remarks have been seized up¬ 
on by the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] 
to perpetrate a very pretty play of words upon “ Mo¬ 
hawk,” a word I happened to mention yesterday. 
Permit me to inform my friend, that that district, set¬ 
tled as it is by democrats, gives us in this county oc¬ 
casionally an agreeable surprise in sending across the 
canal to our head quarters the very comfortable ma¬ 
jority of 800, and if my friend is hereafter a candidate 
for Governor, he will regret having treated so cavalier¬ 
ly young Mohawk, when she sends him greeting, that 
she has given him a 1000 majority over his whig oppo¬ 
nent. [Laughter.] 

My friend has also misrepresented my remarks. He 
says that I claimed for every interest and every party- 
shade, a representation in the General Assembly,— 
What I did say was, that any population of 20,000, if 
It could be found within a county, capable of being 
severed and singled out, without dividing county, town 
ship or W’ard lines, that then such 20,000 population, 
being the quotient of representation, should have its 
own representation, without being swamped by other 
quotients of the same county. Such constituencies can 
be found in Hamilton and other counties, not wnth very 
various interests, but with various feelings, various sen¬ 
timents, and various rights and principles, which can 
be better attended to and better represented directly, 
than indirectly ; or in other words, these people can 
speak better through their own direct representative, 
than through a mixed and indirect representation of 


two or seven. I wish, therefore, that this quota of 
population shall be permitted to utter their own senti¬ 
ments through their own immediate representative, 
and not to be stifled by other parts of the same county. 
For instance, the 9th and 10th wards of Cincinnati are 
principally^ settled by Germans. I claim that these 
two wards, having the requisite population, and being 
distinct in habits, feelings and principles, should have 
the right to have as a representative whomsoever they 
please, without begging it as a favor from the other 
wards of Cincinnati, or from the country portion of 
Hamilton county. Or reverse the illustration. Here 
are the 2d and fifth w’ards of the city, having also a 
distinct constituency, of full population, settled princi¬ 
pally by the mercantile community. Now, I ask, should 
they go a begging to the 9th and 10th wards, to per¬ 
mit them to have that personas a representative whom 
they like, and to which the county is entitled, in con¬ 
sequence of the population resident therein ? Shall 
we be made to beg of others our own property, and 
our own rights ? I think not, and I shall vote to give 
to the river men living in the 3d and 4th a chance to 
speak through their own representative their wishes 
and sentiments—the wards already referred to, theirs 
—the country theirs—and the Germans theirs. 

I want no more swamping of constituencies, no 
more stifling of voices, no more court house centre in¬ 
fluences ; I want a true, thoroughly radical, separate 
and distinct single constituency for every representa¬ 
tive who sits in Columbus. This is the true method— 
this is honest—it is right. 

My friend from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] is very 
careful never to touch the true question. I said yes*, 
terday’’ that the dividing line between us single district 
men and our opponents is, whether the people,—God’s 
living bodies and souls,—shall be represented, or the 
corporation lines, brick houses, streets, banks or any 
other mere material interest. And I then said, that 
once grant to us that population is the basis, and we 
could drive you from position to position, for the oppo¬ 
sition to single districts can get no foot hold, unless it 
plants itself upon the old idea of a borough represen¬ 
tation. I then called upon my friend to refute my po 
sitions, based as they all were upon this principle, that 
population is the acknowledged basis of representa¬ 
tion. But he has been very careful to go all around 
my arguments, but equally careful to never touch them. 

I expected as much, and to this hour not one of the 
debaters has dared to approach our impregnable posi 
tion. 

True! captious objections have been made to the de¬ 
tails of the plan, to which, if seriously urged, I may 
reply hereafter, but the principle has not been even 
touched, and my friend, [Mr. Ranney,] with his usu¬ 
al caution in debate, knowing that not to say something 
would not do, and that he dare not deny that popula¬ 
tion is the true basis of representation, has admitted it, 
but he claims at the same time, that the county as a 
county, had some claims (which by-the-by, he did not 
’define,) for representation, and he has thus adroitly 
avoided both burns of the dilemma, by^ getting on both. 

My friend then means to say that the county gets the 
representatives. I say it is the people within it. A 
slight difference, but one which makes all the differ¬ 
ence in this discussion, if members will but consider it. 

But my friend has tried to throw me on the defen¬ 
sive by charging upon me a treble inconsistency. First 
he says that I denied the right to submit questions to 
the people in the counties,—that next I tried to get lo¬ 
cal legislative authority for county boards, and that 
now I am again back, claiming for every man to be 
represented in his peculiar whims, interests and views. 

A plain statement will set this all right. I did not 
draft the section as now in the constitution, (sec. 29, 
Leg. Rc]).) and I have now some doubts w'hether it 
should be retained. All local power of taxation and 
legislation has been denied and the section, as drafted 
by me originally, having the reference to local boards 













CONVENTION EEPORTS. ^ 1369- 


and local regulation of all local alfairs, may now, in its 
present shape, be mischievous in its character. I tried 
to remedy all these evils, and I do not knov/ but what 
I may yet vote to strike it out. 

But what inconsistency is there in all this ? I have 
tried_ to make the legislative power an integral whole, 
that is, I have endeavored that the various portions of 
Ohio should each be represented,—each representative 
speaking the voice of his locality, and all these voices 
together to be the law-making power. You might as 
well accuse me of unfairness and inconsistency, be¬ 
cause I refuse to call the Little Miami River, the Mis- 
sissipi, although indirectly it is a tributary to the latter. 
Nor is there any inconsistency involved in the fact that 
I determine that the Little Miami shall seek its own 
channel to the Ohio, and not to be forced through the 
Scioto valley or Great Miami valley—that each tribu¬ 
tary should fructify its own shores, murmuring its own 
melody, and carrying out its own purposes. It may 
be inconsistency with old notions of county representa¬ 
tion, but it is consistent with true principles of rep¬ 
resentation. 

I ask, what is the idea of our whole government? It 
18 that every man, woman and child in the State is rep- 
resented in the government, not in their peculiar 
whims; but their rights, and our General Assembly is 
at least supposed to reflect the will of our people. 
That is the basis of a representative Democracv. The 
reason is this, that we cannot all meet, we cannot all 
be heard; subdivisions are therefore made, but even 
there we cannot all bo heard, therefore we elect Rep¬ 
resentatives, and these men represent us and not them¬ 
selves. They speak our voice, or should do so. Now 
I ask my friend, since we cannot all meet in Columbus 
and speak our own sentiments, whether we should not 
come as near to it as we can, consistent with other re¬ 
lations of society, and I know from his Democracy, 
that he will grant this, and then I ask him whether sin¬ 
gle districts do not approximate nearer to the people, 
whether through them we will not get nearer to the 
will of the people than through his system which piles 
seven representatives on top of each other, and which 
makes us swallow not only often a representative we 
don’t want, but also others, with whom we are remote¬ 
ly only concerned. The dominant majority in a coun¬ 
ty select repx-esentatives for all portions of the county, 
under your plan,—in ours, each part selects its own. 
Which is most republican, the county plan or the sin¬ 
gle disti’icts ? I leave to others to decide. 

I have been upbraided for voting against the will of 
my constituents. In reply, a briel statement: I have 
long held these sentiments, and took occasion to ex¬ 
press them in the Senate in the session of ’47-8. I 
then stated that I opposed the division of Hamilton 
county only; 

1st. Because it is unconstitutional. 

2d. Because it did not even give us single districts, 
as for instance, Ross and Pickaway were put together, 
while each was entitled to one. 

3d. It divided Cincinnati, with a view to give cer¬ 
tain interests the pi’eponderance. 

4th. Because it was unfair in the then state of par¬ 
ties and other matters in the State. 

I then stated, that I liked the single district system 
—that I would sustain it as a provision in the new 
constitution, and I then predicted, that the dishonest 
application of that honest principle, then made and 
then resisted by me, would prejudice the minds of the 
democrats against it, and that for that reason espe¬ 
cially, I deprecated the then proposed division of old 
Hamilton. 

My fears have been realized. All around me I see 
scowling faces, and I see plainly that my remarks are 
not viewed with pleasure by my party friends. The 
single district system has few friends among the dem¬ 
ocrats, not becau.se it is not right, but because deep 
prejudice precludes even an examination of the sub¬ 
ject. Thus wrong always begets wrong. May the fu¬ 
ture save this honest principle. 


But not only in the Senate did I utter these senti¬ 
ments, but also at home, through the columns of our 
party organ, and I have reason to believe that my 
views were well known to my constituents. I stated 
them again last summer, when I introduced the sched¬ 
ule, upon which this whole apportionment report is 
based ; but I have yet to hear the first whisper, either 
through the papers or otherwise, against my position 
on this subject. 

I have, therefore, the right to conclude that my views 
are not disapproved, and that there is a strong, general 
public sentiment in favor of it. Still I felt the unpleas- 
ness of my position, in standing alone in the Hamilton 
delegation. My colleagues say that they are equally 
certain that they represent the views of our common 
constituents. I have given the facts upon which I base 
my conclusions. I shall act upon them, and my col¬ 
leagues must act upon theirs. Let the future decide 
between us. I would merely hint, however, that this 
discrepancy among common representatives of a com¬ 
mon constituency, should warn us that this seven-fold 
mixed and indirect representation involves us in incon¬ 
sistencies and contradictions, which could at once be 
avoided by the single district system. A similar in¬ 
consistency now exists in the Butler representation, on 
the Repeal question. A little cool reflection would set 
us all right. 

I may hereafter say something upon the party view 
of this matter, and also upon the general interests of our 
people in Hamilton. But I will now close, trusting 
that the opponents to the single district system will ap¬ 
proach a little nearer the true argument in this matter, 
and that they will yet tell us whether our people or our 
county corporations are to be represented in the new 
government. 

Mr. TAYLOR. I am the friend of the single district 
system, and because I am and have been, I welcomed, 
within the first fortnight of May, the discussions which 
then occurred upon the resolutions introduced by the 
gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin.] If at that 
time it could have been anticipated that the Whig par¬ 
ty on this floor—if I may use such an expression— 
would be in favor of single districts, I believe that a dif¬ 
ferent direction mighthave been given to the debate up¬ 
on the subject at that time. When discussion upon this 
subject first arose, the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Reemelin,] and myself, in advocating the single dis¬ 
trict system, pointed out the only agency which could 
secure that reform. What was that agency ? A local 
board or legislature within each county, composed of 
representatives of the people in different townships and 
wards, constituting the only proper agency for dividing 
counties into election districts. What other agency 
can be instituted ? Can the Legislature at Columbus 
divide the State into election districts? Every dis¬ 
criminating mind at once sees the impropriety of this. 
Shall the State be districted by a court of justice ? The 
employment of such a tribunal for such a purpose 
would be a violation of every correct principle. 

A board of county commissioners, three in number, 
under the influence—as such boards almost invariably 
are—of court house cliques, would certainly be objec¬ 
tionable. What other and suitable body, then, is there 
for the formation of election districts than a body of re¬ 
presentatives elected by the people in their diflerent 
townships and wards ? This would constitute a proper 
and effective agency for districting the State. 

But, Mr. President, the proposition for such local tri¬ 
bunals was voted dowm immediately—the seal of re¬ 
probation was promptly placed upon that scheme. 
And, sir, I tell gentlemen, that when they refused to 
authorize the Legislature to confer such powers upon 
local boards, they sealed the fate of the single district 
system. If gentlemen are now desirous of “ single dis¬ 
tricts,” they must give us the agency desired—the only 
agency by which that system can be realized. 

I object, also, to the machinery contemplated by the 
present amendment. First, we have a division of cities 















1370 


CONVENTION EEPOKTS. 


from the rest of a county—and then a subdivision on 
each side of the dividing line. Such an aiTangement 
complicates and prejudices the proposed reform. I 
prefer that the county should remain undivided, unless 
a pure system of single districts is adopted. I will read 
for information what would be effectual, in my judg¬ 
ment, to secure single districts: 

Whenever, at a decennial period, a county Is entitled to two 
or more representatives, the trustees of the townships, and the 
Council of every incorporated city, (not exceeding three rep¬ 
resentatives of each ward therein,) shall assemble at such time as 
may be prescribed by law, and divide their respective counties 
into representative districts, equal to the number ot members to 
which such counties may be entitled, and shall cause to be filed 
in the oflices of the Secretary of State, and the Clerks of their re¬ 
spective counties, a description of such representative districts, 
specifying the number of each district, and the population there¬ 
of. Each representative district shall contain, as near as maybe, 
an equal number ot inhabitants, and shall consist of convenient 
and contiguous territory; but no town or ward shall be divided 
in the formation of representative districts; provided, that if 
there shall be a fractional excess of population sufficient to give 
additional representation, as provided in the 3d section, such 
represenlative or representatives shall be elected by the entire 
county. 

On motion, the committee rose and repovtea; and 
then. 

On motion of Mr. HOLMES, the Convention took a 
recess. 

2^ o’clock, p. m. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention resolved 
itself into a committee of the Whole, (Mr. Kirkwood 
in the Chair,) and resumed the consideration of the 
second Report of the committee on Apportionment, 
submitted by Mr. Holmes on the 26th instant. 

The CHAIRMAN said the question pending when 
the committee rose, was upon the adoption of the 
amendment of the gentleman from Ross, [Mr. Green,] 
proposing to strike out the third section, and insert a 
plan of representation for the House of Representatives 
by single districts. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, said ho had submitted a gen¬ 
eral principle in relation to the subject of representa¬ 
tion, which no gentleman had yet attempted to resist. 
But the main argument of gentlemen on the opposite 
side had been predicated upon the difficulty of settling 
upon a plan by which these county divisions should 
be made. The gentleman from Trumbull has been 
pleased to remark that he, [Mr. G.] having been a 
member of the General Assembly, must be familiar 
with tricks and frauds in connection with this subject; 
and that gentleman apprehended that, therefore, there 
must be some unfairness in this proposition, which 
nobody else had discovered. But the gentleman took 
care to tell ns that he, himself, having never served in 
the Legislature, was not accustomed to such things. If 
he had not told us this, the facility with which he 
smells mischief, and the glowing style in which he de¬ 
scribes how frauds might be perpetrated, and combi¬ 
nations for the purposes of fraud might be entered in¬ 
to, would have led to suspicion in the minds of some 
that he had much familiarity with such things. 

After some further reflection upon thi.s subject, he 
[Mr. G.] had drawn up a proposition which he held 
in his hand, and wdiich he would ask leave to substi¬ 
tute for the section submitted by himself on yesterday. 
He^ thought he should be able, by the modifications 
\vhich he desired to make, to disj^ose of some of the 
difficulties stated by the gentleman from Trumbull, 
and his great fears of the corruptions which might be 
connected with this single district system. In his 
proposition, as he desired now to modify it, he had 
provided as follows: 

Sec. 3. Every county, city, or incorporated town, having a 
population sufficient to entitle it to two or more representatives, 
according to the provisions of sections two and six of this article, 
shall be divided into single districts, equal in number to the num¬ 
ber of representatives to which such county, city or town may, 
at any time, be entitled—within each of which districts there 
shall be elected one representative. Such division shall be made 

counties, b y the trustees of the respective townships therein, 
and of cities or towns by the municipal authorities thereof—of 


compact territory, and as near as possible of equal population— 
and, when the same shall be practicable, without dividing town¬ 
ships, wards, or other election precincts ; provided, that if in any 
such county, city, or town, there shall be a fractional excess of 
population sufficient to give an additional representative for any 
portion of the decennial term, such representative shall be elect¬ 
ed by the entire county, city or town. 

~Ii would be seen, that he had adopted the suggestion 
made this morning by the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. 
Taylor.] When he first introduced this proposition, 
on yesterday, iie thought it were better not to go into 
detail at all, but merely to provide for the permanent 
division of counties, &c., into districts; because he ap¬ 
prehended that if he went at all into the details of the 
matter, he might endanger the principle. 

But what possible objection could there be to this 
arrangement for districting, if it could be done with¬ 
out involving greater evils than those which sometimes 
arise out of a system of representation by entire coun¬ 
ties ? Every gentleman must admit that the principle 
was correct, and ought to be adoj)ted. 

He then proposed the plan for dividing into districts, 
which he had read. He proposed that the division of 
counties should be made by the township trustees—a 
large body of men, he confessed, w’here there might 
be eighteen or twenty townships in a county—but, 
still it was an important trust, the execution of which 
was to occur but once in ten years. Could there be 
any danger in trusting those men, elected annually by 
the people for their political standing and respectabili¬ 
ty, with this important service ? If it were safe to trust 
this Convention, of one hundred and eight men, with 
the representation of the entire interests of the State 
of Ohio, extending indefinitely into the future, he 
could suppose there would be no danger in entrusting 
these county sub-divisions, once in ten years, to such a 
body of men as he had indicated. And in regard to 
cities and towns, this matter of sub-division would be 
entrusted to their ward representatives. And lest 
gentlemen might apprehend danger here, he had gone 
on to provide that their districts shall be equal in pop¬ 
ulation, as near as may be of compact territory ; and 
that both the city and county representations, in ma¬ 
king these divisions, shall do so, as far as practicable, 
without disturbing the integrity of ward or township 
lines. 

By reference to the bill, it will be seen, that there 
were a number of counties entitled to two representa¬ 
tives, within a fraction. To meet this difficulty, he 
had provided that in such county or town, where there 
shall be a fractional excess of population sufficient to 
give an additional representative for any portion of 
the decennial period, then such representative shall 
be elected by the entire city, county or town. It 
would not be safe to throw these large fractions into 
districts by themselves, for it would destroy the prin¬ 
ciple of giving to each portion of the county or town 
its proyier weight and itifiuence. He admitted that so 
far as this fractional member was concerned, his section 
did not conform to his own idea of single districts. 
But he had not been able to determine upon any mode 
of disposing of these fractional portions in a more sat¬ 
isfactory manner. 

Another reason which induced him to ask for this 
modification wa.^ to be referred to the jirinciple involv¬ 
ed. It was in strict conformity with all our notions 
of republicanism, that the representative should be 
brought as near to his constituents as possible, in order 
to secure all the benefits to be derived from a just and 
wholesome responsibility. 

It was remarked on yesterday by the gentleman from 
Miami [Mr. Dorsey] that this proposition would not, 
perhaps, have been offered, had not some tempting rea¬ 
sons existed for such a movement, such as the division 
of the county of Hamilton and the city of Cincinnati. 
But if gentlemen would only look to the report which 
they themselves had presented they might perceive 
that other cities and counties of the State would, of 
necessity, be divided in the manner proposed. 









CON VENTION REPORTS. 


1 


1371 


There were some six or eight of these counties, such 
as the counties of Muskingum, Cuyahoga, Franklin, 
Montgomery, &c. 

He supposed that it was hardly necessary to detain 
the committee with any formal argument upon the sin¬ 
gle district system, for it was most manifest that even 
here in the city of Cincinnati there were different loca¬ 
tions of diversified speculative interests which were 
entitled to distinct representations in the State Legis¬ 
lature, as was very correctly illustrated on yesterday 
by the gentleman from Hamilton, fAIr. ReejielIiV.T 
He would not go so far (nor did he so understand the 
g6Utlenif)ii from Hamilton) as to say that because a 
certain portion of the city of Cincinnati happened to 
be settled by German emigrants they should be enti¬ 
tled to a separate representation simply because they 
were foreigners. By no means. But, sir, (he contin¬ 
ued) we do know that there may be peculiarities of 
habits, feelings, pursuits, associations, and local inter¬ 
ests, which ought to be consulted in the Legislature of 
the State, and which could not be fully and fairly con¬ 
sulted and represented by an agent elected by people 
of different habits, feelings, pursuits, associations, and 
local interests. 

I care not, Mr. President, if the committee have been 
influenced by political considerations in the prepara¬ 
tion of this report. I look only to results. I am not 
going to war against this scheme, for the simple reason 
that I am sensible that I should be wasting both my 
time and the time of the Convention by so doing; for 
I am entirely satisfied that the principle of the report 
will be adopted by the Convention, and I have very 
little doubt that it will be adopted also in its details. 

I will, therefore, content myself with submitting 
the substitute which I have read, and ask leave of the 
Convention that it may be considered as a modification 
of the section which I offered on yesterday. 

The leave having been granted accordingly, and the 
section, as modified, having been read through by the 
Chairman, 

Mr. GROBSBECK said: I desire to vote correctly 
and properly upon this question, if I can. T have al¬ 
ways been opposed to the division of counties for the 
purpose of representation, unless absolutely necessary. 
The county is a territorial organization, which I have 
no doubt will always be kept up in this State. I love 
the county. I have always been attached to these po¬ 
litical organizations; yet, it may happen in a county 
that different interests may arise which may be entitled 
to different representations, and, as I understand the 
report, these cases are provided for. 

According to my recollection, the report provides, 
that where the amount of population shall be sufficient 
for the purpose, a city may beset apart from the coun¬ 
ty in which it is situated for the purpose of a separate 
representation—that is, where the county outside the 
city shall have enough, and where the city shall have 
enough, to command a separate representation. If I 
understand the committee upon this subject, they do 
not report in favor of the division of a city into two or 
more separate representative districts. And I think, 
Mr. Chairman, they are right in that. 

Let us take, for example, the city of Cincinnati. The 
great argument in favor of single districts, if I under¬ 
stand it, is, that there are distinct interests, within the 
limits of a city corporation, which should be entitled 
to their own representation. But then, if you proceed 
to divide and sub-divide within the corporate limits, 
you at once war against that pi’inciple upon which you 
advocate a distinct city representation. Suppose the 
city of Cincinnati to be entitled to six representatives; 
three of them representing Democratic and three of 
them representing Whig districts. There would be a 
representation neutralized to all intents and purposes, 
I can see nothing more, in this result, than a division of 
the city interests—a house divided, and divided against 
itself. 

I am, therefo*'®> totally opposed to the division of a 


city. Yet I am free to say, that a case may exist, where 
it may be proper to give to a city its own representative, 
and to the county outside of the city its own represen¬ 
tative. And I understand that is all the division of 
counties which is advocated by the gentleman from Mi¬ 
ami, [Mr. Dorsey,] and those other genlleraeu with 
him, who have presented this Report. 

But what need have we, at all, ofgoing into this sub¬ 
ject of separating cities from the remainder of their 
counties, in the consideration of this Report? As I 
understand the action of this body heretofore, we have 
already made all the constitutional provision upon this 
subject which the gentleman from Miami desires. If 
we look into the legislative report. Sec. 35, it is there 
provided that counties of a certain amount of popula¬ 
tion may be divided. The provision is in this langu age: 

Provided, however, that any county, either now or hereafter 
containing a population of one hundred thousand or more inhab¬ 
itants, may be sub-divided, whenever a majority of the voters 
residing in each of the sub-divisions shall approve of the law 
passed for that purpose. 

Here is a constitutional provision, by which any 
county, when it shall come to have a population which 
will entitle it to two or more representatives, may be 
divided into two or more counties. Whenever the pop¬ 
ulation of a county, consisting of one hundred thousand 
or more inhabitants, shall desire to be divided—when 
those who dwell upon this side of the proposed line of 
division, and those who dwell upon that side, shall concur 
in the desire to have a division—whenever they shall be¬ 
come convinced, that it is for their interest to divide, 
here is a constitutional provision, by which such a di¬ 
vision may be effected. And what more do we want ? 
We want a little more and we have it. If gentlemen 
will read a little further, they will find that it is provi¬ 
ded that “no town or city shall be divided, nor shall 
any new county be laid off under this provision, which 
shall contain less than 20,000 inhabitants.” 

There we have a provision, by which every twenty 
thousand inhabitants in a county, containing a popula¬ 
tion of one hundred thousand, shall be entitled to one 
representative. It seems to me that there is wisdom in 
this provision; and I commend it to the consideration 
of the gentleman from Ross. 

I ask again, what need have we of anything further? 
Every twenty thousand inhabitants within the county 
when it shall have one hundred thousand inhabitants, 
shall be entitled to a repi'esentative, if throughout the 
county it is desired. There is the principle, fixed in 
the constitution—and when the division is made, it is 
into counties, not districts, so that all our representa¬ 
tives will go up to Columbus as representatives of 
counties, not as I’epreseutatives of towns, cities, bor¬ 
oughs and single districts. It seems to me there is no 
need of going one step further, in the way -of constitu¬ 
tional provision upon this subject; and it is on this ac¬ 
count that I shall oppose the doctrine of district repre¬ 
sentatives within one and the same county, as contem¬ 
plated in this amendment of the gentleman from Ross, 
and in this report. We have made sufficient provision 
foritinthe legislative report. Counties may be divided 
according to it, not into districts but into counties, and 
this when the people themselves desire it, and not be¬ 
fore. Let us so leave it, and say nothing in this report 
about separate representatives fur cities wiihin a coun¬ 
ty. Let the inhabitants in such counties fix this mat¬ 
ter for themselves, under section 35, of the legislative 
report. 

Mr. MASON. I think we have reason to complain 
that those gentlemen who are opposed to single dis¬ 
tricts, have so uniformly failed to meet the arguments 
advocated by the friends of that policy. Gentlemen 
have multiplied their arguments against the policy of 
single districts for representation in the General Assem- 
l)ly, but they have wholly failed to meet the friends of 
the measure upon the grounds which they have as¬ 
sumed. And the gentleman [Mr. Groesbeck,] who 
has occupied the attention of the committee, seems to 
me to have avoided the issue in the same way. 










1372 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The ground assumed by the friends of single dis¬ 
tricts is, that we have made population, not property 
or territory, the basis of representation. Hence, it fol¬ 
lows that every community possessing a number of 
inhabitants equal to the ratio proposed, should be enti¬ 
tled to one representative, who shall be the exponent 
of the political principles of the constituent body, and 
possess an intimate knowledge of the business and pe¬ 
cuniary interests of those whom he represents. 

We say it is unjust for the voice of one, two, or 
more constituent bodies, sufficient to be entitled to one, 
two or more distinct representatives, to bo stifled by 
the majority with whom they may happen to be asso¬ 
ciated, whether they be Democrats or Whigs. We 
s&y it is wrong that the political principles of such con¬ 
stituencies should be suppressed, or their voice silen¬ 
ced, by associating them with others holding differ¬ 
ent principles, and having, it may be, different inter¬ 
ests. 

With respect to the arguments that have been ad¬ 
vanced by tiie gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Groes- 
BBCK,] against the single district system, each and 
every one of them might be employed just as effect¬ 
ively in support of the system of electing members of 
Congress by general ticket. Yet the general ticket 
system has been abolished by Congress, and its rejec¬ 
tion has been acquiesced in by all the States in the 
Union; so that now, throughout the country, every 
member of Congress is elected in a single and separate 
district. 

The gentleman argues that here, in Cincinnati, the 
interests of the people are not so much in conflict with 
each other as to require separate representation. But 
that is not the point. The question is: whether there 
is, in this city, a sufficient portion of its population 
who, if they had the opportunity of a separate repre¬ 
sentation, would elect a representative of different po¬ 
litical principles from those who would be forced up¬ 
on them, if the whole city and county were to consti¬ 
tute a single district, and required to elect by general 
ticket ? 

Sir, I know of nothing more just and equitable— 
nothing more righteous in principle—than that every 
community of a population sufficient to entitle it to a 
representative, should have the privilege of being rep¬ 
resented—of having their voice heard, and their feel¬ 
ings represented, in the Legislature of the country. 

There is no impracticability in the [)roposition of the 
gentleman from Ross, [Mr. Green.] It proposes the 
single district system, and it does not derange the plan 
of the standing committee; it throws r.othing they 
have done into disorder; it can be adopted without the 
slightest disturbance of the plan they have submitted; 
and why should it not be adopted ? Is it desirable to 
gentlemen representing the “ rural districts,” to have a 
great concentrated and controlling political power built 
up in Hamilton county, that shall have the power to 
shape the legislation and policy of the country ? Is it 
desirable that the representatives from the country dis¬ 
tricts of the State should be obliged to consult the 
Hamilton county delegation, to conciliate their good 
will and approbation, for every measure they may 
choose to introduce for the benefit of their constituents ? 
For the amount of representative force from this coun¬ 
ty would be so large that, if thrown into the scale on 
either side, it would give a preponderance which wmuld 
control the civil policy of the State ; and, as far as they 
might possess political influence, they would exercise 
absolute control. 

But the gentleman says that a representation by sin¬ 
gle districts in the city might have the effect to neu¬ 
tralize each other. That is just what ought to be the 
effect of representation everywhere. Is it desirable to 
suppress the political wishas of two, three or more con¬ 
stituencies in Hamilton county, and compel them to be, 
whether they are so or not, all Democratic? That is 
what the gentleman would say. But I say, let them 
be Whigs or Democrats, I desire no such rule. I hold 


that every district large enough to be entitled to a Rep¬ 
resentative should have their political feelings and 
wishes distinctly represented in the Legislature of the 
country. 

There could be no doubt, that in the election of a 
United States Senator, the members of each party 
whether elected by single or double districts would 
act together; and to that extent, of course, it would 
not be objectionable that they should do so. Party 
sympathies would be sure to bring them together upon 
such occasions. 

I esteem this to be a question of great importance to 
the State, although politically, the party with whom 
I act wdll not be beuefitted by it. It is possible that 
they may lose one or more representatives by it. Nev¬ 
ertheless, what is right ought to be done even if the 
right should operate temporarily against the party to 
which I belong. My friend over the way [Mr. Groes- 
beck,] wDl not say that the separate interests of the 
Whigs of Hamilton county should not be represented 
in the General Assembly. He never has said it; and 
he never will say it. It is their principles that the peo¬ 
ple desire to have represented more than their prop¬ 
erty, if they could not have both represented. 

1 commend the gentleman from Ross for introducing 
the principle of single districts; for it is the only true 
■ principle of apportionment. It is desired and expected 
by the great bodv of the people of all parties. But the 
committee have reported a scheme by w'hich the coun¬ 
ty of Hamilton and some eight or ten other counties in 
the State are to elect all their representatives, and in 
Hamilton county all their senators by a general ticket. 
Now, sir, in the State of New York, they were obliged 
to break up that mighty influence which came up to 
the legislature every year from the city of New York. 
That city had obtained the control of the legislation and 
policy of the Empire State. To take away this over¬ 
shadowing influence of the city, it was divided into as 
many single districts as it was entitled to senators and 
representatives. And it will soon be so here, if not to 
the same extent, still in an aproximating ratio. So 
great as to render it certain that without the adoption 
of the single district system, the whole State of Ohio 
will be brought into subserviency to the policy of Ham¬ 
ilton county. 

Mr. HOLMES was obliged to the gentleman from 
Ross for presenting his project. But he would ask that 
gentleman to look with him a little into the practical 
workings of his plan of sub-dividing the county, by 
township trustees and the municipal authorities of 
towns and cities. The very wmrst feelings would be 
brought to bear in these bodies, assembled for this pur.> 
pose. In a county of some twenty-five or thirty town¬ 
ships, three trustees coming up from each township 
would give a body of ninety men ; and there was not 
a conceivable political difficulty which they would not 
get themselves into. All manner of political intrigue 
would be the order of the day amongst them. Parties 
and partizans would give and take all manner of ad¬ 
vantage, so as to sweep away either the whig or the 
democratic influence of the county, according to the 
strength of parties which might happen to sit in the 
county board. To adopt this principle, would be to 
encourage the very thing which they had been warring 
against, and which the people had deprecated so much 
in the Legislature. 

Mr. H. continued his remarks at some length, by 
way of review of the single district system, illustrating 
its political application to the counties of Coshocton 
and Muskingum, alledging that the fractional portions 
of these and other counties could not be fairly repre¬ 
sented under it. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble. I suppose that I may be 
allowed to make a few remarks upon this subject, in¬ 
asmuch as I come from a county which is in favor of 
the single district system. 

The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Holmes,] who 
has just taken his seat, has alledged that, in the case of 








CONVENTION REPORTS. 1373 


tbe county of Muskingum, gross injustice would result 
from any attempt to divide that county into two dis¬ 
tricts, because of the fractional representations which, 
he supposes, cannot be fairly adjusted. But now let 
us take that county, divide it, under the provisions of 
the amendment of the gentleman from Ross, into two 
equal districts, or as nearly so as township lines will 
permit. Let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, 
that the two districts are not exactly equal. These two 
districts, then, will elect their two representatives un¬ 
til the last session of the decennial period, when this 
extra representative will be elected by the two dis¬ 
tricts in common—^Just exactly according to the prin¬ 
ciple upon which the representatives are proposed to 
be elected by the report. Now, let it be recollected 
that this county of Muskingum is a Whig county, and 
it is fair to suppose that the various township trustees, 
going up for the purpose of districting the county, 
would constitute a majority of Whigs in the county 
board. W^as it possible then for such a Whig board 
to turn round and gerrymander the county so as to di¬ 
vide it into two Democratic districts ? Certainly not. 
But they would leave the political character of the 
county precisely as it now stands. But it might so hap¬ 
pen that, in spite of all they could do, they would di¬ 
vide the county so as to make one Democratic and one 
Whig district. Such, it had been suggested to him, 
would be the inevitable result in Montgomery county ; 
and the same result might follow elsewhere 

But this Convention was met here for the purpose 
of making a just and equitable constitution; and not a 
constitution of party. No, sir; we have met here for 
the purpose of making a constitution that shall be for 
the w'hole State of Ohio, entirely fair and equitable. 
We ere sworn to do this. It is lor ourselves, and per¬ 
haps, for our children, and children’s children, that we 
have been called up here to establish the principles of 
law upon just and equitable foundations. Andidesire so 
to acquit myself in the discharge of this duty, as that I 
may not be ashamed of my votes herealter. Sir, I de¬ 
spise, from my very soul, the slightest truckling to par¬ 
ty feelings, in our attempts here to establish the fun¬ 
damental law, where we are sworn to the observance 
of equal and exact justice, under the requisitions of the 
constitution of the United States. 

I desire to say one word in reference to the argument 
of the other gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Groes- 
BECK.j There is no gentleman upon this floor for 
whom I have a higher re8i:)ect. I believe there is no 
gentleman more scrupulously honest. But I must say 
that in his last argument, he has made a more signal 
failure than I have observed in him upon any other 
question. He treated the question as though the vari¬ 
ous interests of the community were necessarily antag- 
onistical. Now I take a different view from that. I 
understand that our agricultural, commercial and man¬ 
ufacturing interests are each promotive of the other 
and that all attempts to represent them as antagonisti- 
cal in our legislative halls is manifestly wrong. But it 
is certainly right and proper to make good and whole¬ 
some laws with respect to every interest of the State; 
and, in order to do so, it is necessary to fetch represen¬ 
tatives from every interest, and, at the same time, to 
keep them as near to their respective constituencies as 
possible; and to make them directly responsible for 
their conduct as representatives. Here, lor example, 
is the commercial interest of this city which needs to 
be represented, and of course, none can so well select 
a man for this purpose, as the people of the central 
portion of this city where this interest is the strongest. 
So of the manufacturing interests. The people of the 
eastern part of the city, where this interest is the strong¬ 
est, are the best qualified to elect and send up their 
representative. There certainly can be nothing antag- 
onistical between these interests, when they are repre¬ 
sented in this way. And if the city were divided into 
representative districts, according to the plan of the 
gentleman from Ross, all the various interests of the 
city would be so represented. 


In the gentleman’s reference to the provisions of the 
Legislative Report, he seemed to overlook the fact, that 
a county of a population of an hundred thousand could 
only be divided into twm counties. 

But there is a very serious objection to these county 
divisions, which the gentleman passed over entirely. 
The people who might be entitled to a separate repre¬ 
sentation, might not be always willling to incur the ex¬ 
pense of the necessary buildings which must follow 
upon the erection and organization of every newcoun- 

Although I could not agree with the committee so 
far as to allow myself to sign the Report, yet I must 
say, in justice to the members of the committee on 
Apportionment, that I have seen nothing like a wish 
or an attempt, on the part of any gentleman, to intro¬ 
duce any principle which would sanction any scheme 
of gerrymandering, so far as the representation in the 
House of Representatives is concerned. But when we 
shall come to consider their Senatorial apportionment, 

I may tell another story. But, ‘‘sufficient unto the 
day is the evil thereof.” I hope some gentleman more 
competent than myself, will take upon him to examine 
that subject. I hope that every adherent to the 
schemes of mere party advantage upon this subject, 
will be carried down to political infamy; and I here 
^ivo the pledge of my poor ability to make this declara 
tion good. 

Mr. MITCHELL was glad to hear such a declara 
tion coming from the other side of the chamber; but 
it was notorious that, often as it had been repeated 
over there, there had never yet been manifested in this 
body any proof of its sincerity. 

He proceeded to recount the proceedings of the 
Convention, to show that from Andrews to Worthing¬ 
ton, the Whigs of this body had been as true as the nee¬ 
dle to the pole upon every political question upon which 
they had been called upon to vote. 

The original formation of counties could be affected 
by no political considerations; but when you came to 
make subdivisions for representatives, the door was 
opened for all the political corruptions to which human 
nature could descend. 

He then proceeded to express his dissent from the 
views expressed upon this subject by the gentleman 
from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck.] 

He argued tijat the system proposed by the standing 
committee, was as close an approximation to a perfect¬ 
ly fair political representation of the State as could be 
attained, avoiding at the same time, the temptations to 
corruptions in the apportionment of representation to 
which he had referred, and which he had condemned, 
as embraced in the amendment of the gentleman from 
Ross, [Mr. Green.] 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, then took the floor in reply to 
the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Groesbeck,] and 
the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. Taylor.] 

The former gentleman based his notions of the ba¬ 
sis of representation, not upon population, but upon 
territory and territorial lines?—an absurdity which 
needed no formal refutation here. 

The latter gentleman had advanced a theory of di¬ 
vision, which he might have adopted, but he did not 
wish to war too much against tbe report of the com¬ 
mittee. That gentleman quarreled with the priciple 
of single districts, because he could not have it carried 
out by the conjoint action of the city and county; 
and because the city and county were separately con¬ 
sidered in the division. But he, [Mr. G.] was ob¬ 
liged to regard this division of the county from the 
city, in order to make his amendment conform to the 
report. 

Mr. SAWYER demanded that the committee rise 
and report the bill to the Convention; upon which mo¬ 
tion the vote was taken, with the following result—af¬ 
firmative 30, negative 37. 

Several Voices. “No quorum.” 

Mr. SAWYER demanded that the rule be enforced. 











1374 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


which requires that, upon finding themselves without 
a quorum, the committee of the whole shall rise and 
report this fact to Convention, but several members 
insisted that there was a quorum present. 

The CHAIRMAN took the count over again, with 
the following result—affirmative 31, negative 43. 

So the motion was lost. 

Mr. GROESBECK responded to the gentleman from 
Ross, [Mr. Green,] explaining and sustaining the 
views which he bad before taken. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved that the committee now 
rise and report the bill to the Convention. 

The motion was lost. 

The question was then taken upon the adoption of 
the amendment of Mr. Green, of Ross, and it was de¬ 
cided in the negative—affirmative 39, negative 40. 

Mr. CODLINGS moved to amend the third section, 
as follows: Strike out all after the word “thence,” 
and insert these words; “ to the second, first and fifth 
sessions respectively ; and if four to the fourth, third, 
second and first sessions respectively.” 

Sec. 4. Every county which shall be joined to any other coun¬ 
ty or counties lor a representative district, during one decennial 
period, shall, it at the next decennial period, it have acquired 
sufficient population to be entitled to a separate representation, 
become a separate representative district; provided, there shah 
be left in the district from which it shall have been separated, a 
population sufficient lor a representative, hut no such change 
shall Pe made, except at the regular decennial period lor the ap¬ 
portionment ot representatives. 

Sec. 5. 11 it he lound at the termination ol any subsequent 
ratio, that a county, beretolore entitled to a separate representa¬ 
tion, has less than the number required lor a representative, ac¬ 
cording to the new ratio, then said county shall be attached to the 
county adjoining it having the smallest number ot inhabitants, 
and the representation ol said district shall be determined as 
herein provided. 

This amendment was also disagreed to. 

Mr. CODLINGS moved to amend the fifth section by 
substituting the word “ previously,” instead of the 
word “ heretofore which was disagreed to. 

No further amendment being proposed to the sec¬ 
tion ; 

The CHAIRMAN proceeded to read and announce 
for consideration the sixth section; which is as follows; 

Sec. hi Any'county having within its limits a city or corpor¬ 
ate town, with a number ol inhabitants equal to a whole ratio, at 
any decennial period, and still leaving in the county, a population 
equal to a whole ratio at such decennial period, such city or cor¬ 
porate town shall be entitled to a separate representation, to be 
determined as herein provided. 

Mr. LARWILL proposed to amend the report by 
striking out this entire section. 

The motion was rejected—affirmative 36, negative 

39. 

Sec. 7. H, by any contingency, it shall ever occur that in any 
session the number ol representatives shall exceed one hundred 
and twenty, then a reduction shall be eflected by withdraw-ing 
the additional members which shall have been added lor the 
smallest tractions, successively, ,until the number ol members 
shall be reduced to one hundred and twenty. 

Mr. OTIS moved to strike out this entire section. 

Mr. OTIS said he made this motion out of a sincere 
desire to improve the report, and to get rid of a diffi¬ 
culty which might arise in the event that it should ever 
be necessary to make the proposed reduction. 

Mr. DORSEY though the genileman from Summit, 
[Mr.. Otis,] did not, perhaps, exactly comprehend the 
meaning of this section. It only proposed to reduce the 
number of representatives to an hundred and twenty 
for the particular session, when, under this scheme that 
number might rise above one hundred and twenty. 

Mr. OTIS, (in his seat.) I understand that perfectly. 

Mr. DORSEY proceeded to say that this section was 
introduced as matter of compromise in the committee, 
between those who were in favor of a larger and those 
who were in a favor of a smaller number ot represen¬ 
tatives, and he went on to show that it was hardly 
probable the number of representatives would ever rise 
above one hundred and twenty, under this self-regula¬ 
ting plan. He did not, himself, regard this section as 
of any great importance; yet, because it was a com¬ 
promise, which had satisfied the minds of some gentle¬ 


man, he thought it would be better not to strike it out. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD was in favor of striking out the 
section because it operated oppressively upon the sec¬ 
ond rate counties, and might compel them to submit to 
an unjust diminution of their strength in the General 
Assembly. 

Mr. REEMELIN also hoped that the section would 
be stricken out; for, if the principle of representation 
adopted in the report was right, why not adhere to it? 
If it should Irappen, once in a great wdiile, that more 
than one hundred and twenty members should be re¬ 
turned to the House of Representatives, he would not 
like to see any of the poor fellows sent home in this 
w'ay. It was one“of the great evils of the old constitu¬ 
tion, that it fixed the number of representatives so that 
they never could go beyond seventy-two members. If 
it had not been for this constitutional restriction, it was 
his opinion that much iiolitical injustice would have 
been avoided. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD would like to see some scheme pro¬ 
posed for calling these supernumerary members, and 
turning them out. 

A Voice. That would be the business of the Gover¬ 
nor. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. But if the Governor were to go 
up to the House of Representatives with his “train 
bands,” to turn out these fellow^s, there might be some 
difficulty in the case. At all events, the members 
themselves, and their people at home, would always 
regard it as a great hardship; and it was his opinion 
that the thing could not be done at all in this slip shod 
manner. 

Mr. MANON hoped the section would not be strick¬ 
en out. It was very hard for him to agree to the pro¬ 
posed increase of the number of representatives. His 
constituents were opposed to any increase beyond the 
old constitutional number. The provision for appor¬ 
tionment in the second session was so plainly set forth 
that the fractional members themselves could tell who 
amongst themselves w^ould have to be sent home, in 
the event of the increase ol the number of representa¬ 
tives above one hundred and twenty. 

Mr. WOODBURY desired to know whether the sec¬ 
tion would not be subject to this construction, namely: 
that all the representatives which might be returned to 
the fifth session ol the decennial period should be de¬ 
prived of their seats, whenever the whole number re¬ 
turned should amount to more than one hundred and 
twenty? It might be exceedingly convenient to insist 
upon such'a construction, if it should happen that such a 
reduction would change the political character of the 
body. 

Mr. HAWKINS saw’ no difficulty at all in the opera¬ 
tion of this section. 

Mr. DORSEY stated that this apportionment was to 
be made only once in ten years, according to the pro¬ 
visions of the thirteenth section of the report, which 
he read ; and if it should be perceived that, at any one 
of the five sessions, the whole number of members 
w’ould exceed 120, that number would be reduced by 
cutting oil’ the members representing the smallest frac¬ 
tions of the ratio; and for the satislaction of the gen¬ 
tleman from Monroe, he suggested that such smallest 
fraction might occur in a county sending three repre¬ 
sentatives as well as in a smaller county. 

Mr. OTIS objected to this principle of injustice which 
was clearly involved in the section. Whenever there 
should happen to be one or two members above 120, 
its operation would necessarily deprive some one or 
two counties of their just weight in the representa¬ 
tion of the State. And now the only question was, 
whether it would be well to violate a general principle, 
by depriving some counties of this proportionate share 
of representation in the Legislature, simply for the 
sake of preventing the number of representatives from 
remaining, for a single session, beyond the number of 
120. If the provision had been to reduce only when 
the average representati6n might come up to 120, he 
would not have made the motion. 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 1375 


The question was now taken on the motion to strike 
out the seventh section ; audit was agreed to—affirma¬ 
tive 40, negative 37. 

Sec. 8. The ratio of Senators shall forever hereafter be ascer¬ 
tained by dividing tlie whole population of the State by the num- 
her thirty-tive. 

Sec. 0. The same rules shall apply, for appcrt'onirg the frac¬ 
tions of Senatorial districts, and lor sepaiating cities and corpo¬ 
rate towns from their respective counties, and tor annexing dis¬ 
tricts which may hereafter fall below the Senatorial ratio, as in 
the House of Representatives. 

Mr. STILWELL proposed to amend the ninth sec¬ 
tion, in the latter clause thereof, by striking out the 
word “ the,” and inserting these words : “ three-fourths 
of a full,” so that it would read: “and for annexing 
districts which may hereafter fall below three-fourths 
of a full senatorial ratio.” 

Mr. STILWELL explained his amendment. 

Mr. OTIS was satisfied that this plan of representation 
with respect to senators would not work well. He 
had made himself somewhat familiar with this subject 
by two weeks’ hard labor last summer, and he thought 
it would be better to fix the number of senators per¬ 
manently. If the number thirty-five were a favorite 
number, he had no objections. He made this sugges¬ 
tion as a fi'iend to the report; and because he thought 
he saw, plain enough, that, between this and the time 
when the constitution would have to be again submit¬ 
ted to the people, no part of the State would be enti¬ 
tled to an extra senator, except, perhaps, the city of 
Cincinnati. 

Mr. DORSEY hoped the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Muskingum would prevail. It would be 
perceived, in looking over the report, that the commit¬ 
tee did not feel themselves bound to come up to the 
full ratio. He thought, therefore, it would be entirely 
proper to provide lor annexing districts, in cases where 
they do not come up to the lull ratio. 

Mr. Stilwell’s amendment was now agreed t'J 
Mr. LARWILL proposed further to amend the re¬ 
port, by striking out the 9th section, as now amended. 
This motion was lost. 

Sec. 10. Whenever any county thall have a sufficient popula¬ 
tion to entitle it to a separate senatorial representation, and also 
to leave in the district from which it is taken a population suf¬ 
ficient to be entitled to a Senator, such county shall become a 
separate senatorial district at any regular decennial apportion¬ 
ment. 

Sec. 11. The number of Senators shall never, at any time, 
exceed forty members, and if it become necessary to eflect a re¬ 
duction of the number of Senators, it shall be done in the man¬ 
ner provided in section seven, for the House ot Representatives. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to amend, by striking out 
the 11th section; which was agreed to. 

Sec. 12. For the first ten years after 1851, the apportionment 
of Senators and Representatives shall be as hereinafter provi¬ 
ded, and no change shall be made in the principles ot represen¬ 
tation as herein established, or in the districts tor senatorial pur¬ 
poses. 

Mr. STANTON moved further to amend the report, 
by striking out the whole of the 12th section; which 
was lost. 

Mr. REEMELIN proposed to amend the 12th sec-j 
tion, by adding thereto, the followi ng :_ 

“And all territory belonging to a county at the time of appor¬ 
tionment, shall as to the right of representation and sutirage, re¬ 
main an integral part thereof during the decennial period. 

Mr. OTIS said: If he understood the amendment, it 
proposed that in the formation of new counties, no 
change should take place in the representation. 

The CHAIRMAN. During the period of ten years. 
Mr. Reemelin’s amendment was then agreed to. 

Sec. 13. The Governor, Auditor, and Secretary of State, or 
any two of them, shall, at least six months prior to the October 
election of 1861, and at each decennial period thereafter, ascer¬ 
tain and determine the ratio of representation for Senators and 
Representatives in the General Assembly, according to the de¬ 
cennial census, upon the principle herein provided ; the number 
each county or district shail be entitled to elect to each branch, 
and for what years within the then next ensuing ten years, and 
the Governor shall cause the same to be published in such man¬ 
ner as shall be directed by law. 

But uo amendment being proposed thereto; 


On motion of Mr. RANNEY, the committee rose, and 
the Chairman reported that the committee had again 
had under consideration report number two, of the 
committee on Apportionment, and had instructed him 
to report the same back, with sundry amendments; 
and then. 

On motion by Mr. HAWKINS, the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


SATURDAY, March 1, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

On motion of Mr. MORRIS, the Convention took up 
the Report No. 2, of the committee on Apportionment, 
with the pending amendments. 

The question being on the first amendment of the 
committee of the whole, to wit: In section one, in the 
last line of the same, strike out the word “ from;” it 
was agreed to. 

The question then being on the second amendment, 
to wit: In section five, in the first part of the same, 
strike out the w ord “ heretofore,” and insert in lieu 
thereof, the word “ previously ;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the third amendment, to 
wit: Strike out section seven ; it was agreed to. 

The question being on the fourth amendment made 
in committee of the whole, to wit: Strike out the word 
‘•the,” where it occurs before the words “senatorial 
ratio,” in the third line of the ninth section of the re¬ 
port, and to insert in the place thereof, the words 
“ three-fourths of a full.” 

A division of the question having been demanded; 

Mr. STILWELL moved to amend the amendment, 
by striking out the words “ three-fourths,” and insert¬ 
ing the words “ two-thirds ” in their place. 

The question then being on the amendment to the 
amendment; 

Mr. RANNEY. The effectof the amendment would 
be to destroy the contemplated proportion between 
the two Houses of the General Assembly, increasing 
the number of the Senators, while the Representa¬ 
tives would remain the same. I am therefore opposed 
to it. 

Mr. STANTON. It seems to me that the most stri¬ 
king effect of the proposed amendment, would be tu 
diminish the power of the small counties, and add to 
that of the larger. I do not wish to see that done.. 
Like the gentleman from Monroe, I go for sustaining 
the rural districts. 

Mr. HOLMES. I hope that it will not pass. I do 
not see the necessity for the change in the provision 
reported by the committee. If the number of the 
Senators is to be increased by a provision of this 
sort, we ought to do the same by the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives. 

Mr. BENNETT. It seems to me that is in some 
respects inconsistent with the other provisions of the 
bill. 

Mr. RANNEY. The effect of the provision will be 
upon the older counties, which have in a measure ceased 
to increase in population, and not upon those that are 
newer and subject to a more rapid improvement. It 
will not affect the apportionment of the State, under 
the present bill, but the future ones. 

Mr. STILWELL. The object of this article ought, 
it seems to me, to be, to fix the senatorial districts so 
that if possible there shall be neither-* necessity nor 
temptation to tamper with them in future. I believe 
that unless it shall prevail, or something of the same 
character shall be adopted, the senatorial apportion¬ 
ment of the State will be afloat at every decennial 
period. 

Mr. MANON. I am in favor of the amendment. 
We have in the scheme of apportionment reported in 
this bill made at least one district that falls in popula¬ 
tion below three-fourths of the ratio that has been 
fixed upon ; and Ido not want to lay down for the fu- 


















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1376 


ture a different rule from that which we ourselves prac¬ 
tice under. 

A division having been called for, the question was 
first on striking out the word “and;” which prevailed. 

The question then was upon striking out of the 
amendment of the committee of the whole the words 
“three-fourths,” and inserting the words “ two-thirds” 
in lieu of the same. 

Mr. HOLMES. I hope the amendment will not 
prevail, because I am not disposed to make amend¬ 
ments to the bill merely to meet the circumstances of 
certain counties. That is not the way to establish, an 
uniform system throughout the State. If you admit a 
senator to be elected by three-fourths the ratio, why 
not allow a member of the House by the same rule ? 
And why not change the whole plan in the same man¬ 
ner ? If it is right for a member of the Senate, it is 
also right for one of the other house. I cannot see 
any reason for such a change, and I am unwilling that 
any thing shall be done that shall move the city of 
Cincinnati out of the county of Hamilton. It was said 
by the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] yes¬ 
terday, that the county of Hamilton by being all in 
tine district, governs the State ; and for this reason he 
seems disposed to take old Hamilton, and to sacrifice 
her here. Our object is to establish an uniform sys¬ 
tem, and I hope that we will not travel out of our way 
and change it even to meet the case of the county of 
Hamilton 

In this matter, if gentlemen desire to go into the con¬ 
troversy, I am ready, and I declare war to the knife 
against any such project, whoever it may come from. 

Mr. OTIS. I hope the gentleman from Hamilton, 
[Mr. Holmes,] will postpone that knife business ofhis 
until after the tenth day of the month. (Laughter.) 

Mr. President, this amendment of the gentleman 
from Muskingum, [Mr. Stilwell,] was offered yester¬ 
day in committee of the whole, and on that occasion re- [ 
ceived the approbation of the gentleman from Miami, 
[Mr. Dorsey.] The rule of apportionment fixed for 
the House is an arbitrary one, having in view not po¬ 
pulation merely, but municipal interests, and for that 
and other reasons it has no application to the subject 
of Senatorial distribution. Take the rule as it stands 
in the amendment of the committee of the whole, and 
apply it, for instance, to the county of Hamilton, with¬ 
out the city of Cincinnati, and what is the result ? Ham¬ 
ilton county has 41,412 inhabitants; three-fourths the 
ratio would be 42,446, so that having less than that 
amount she would have no Senator. Take, however, 
two-thirds the ratio, which is 37,732, and it gives her 
one. It is true that Hamilton county, receiving a Sena¬ 
tor under this apportionment, does not now need the 
application of this rule, but at some future decennial 
eriod she, or some other county, may do so, and it is 
y no means impossible that it may fall to her lot. 

It seems to me that, looking at the practical workings 
of the amendment, it commends itself to the approval 
of all, and I cannot see how, in any respect, it can work 
unequally, either in disfranchising the older counties, 
or reducing their force at some future period, as some 
gentlemen have urged, or in operating against the in¬ 
terests of the rural districts, as has been imagined by 
others. It is merely this and nothing more : The re¬ 
port of the committee, as amended, provides, that when 
a county falls below two-thirds, it shall be merged in a 
neigboring district; this amendment secures against 
such a merger, if it has two-thirds the ratio 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. It seems to me Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, that this amendment is both proper and necessa¬ 
ry, and I hope that gentlemen who are in favor of the 
plan reported by the committee, will not stickle for it 
with so much tenacity as to oppose any efforts to 
make it better. As amended in committee of the 
whole, the section provides that if any district in ex¬ 
istence at any one of the decennial periods, shall fall 
below three-fourths the ratio fixed for the apportion¬ 
ment at that time, it shall be annihilated, and its ter¬ 


ritory annexed to the neighboring district having the 
smallest population. Now, it requires no great stretch 
of the imagination, to suppose that the adjoining dis¬ 
trict to which it is annexed, may have a population of 
one and one-fourth the ratio; and if such should be 
the case, there being two full measures in the collec¬ 
tive district, it would be entitled to two Senators of 
course. Yet I do not see any provision for such a con¬ 
tingency. 

Again: I want this scheme, after it is perfected, to 
remain in operation as long as possible; but if we shall 
fix upon a high fractional ratio, we may be assured 
that it will be necessary to remodel it every ten years; 
and unless we make it lower than three-fourths, some 
of the districts will have to be annihilated at the next 
decennial period. I hope, therefore, Mr. President, 
that it will be done. I believe that it is just; I believe 
it will secure a more equal and uniform representation, 
and more than all, I believe it to be demanded by con¬ 
siderations vital to the peace and harmony of the com¬ 
munity. 

Mr. MANON, I profess, Mr. President, to be a friend 
to this bill; yet I do not claim that the committee has 
made it perfect. It has, doubtless, more than one de¬ 
fect ; but at the same time, it may be that things will 
be charged as imperfections that are not so. 

And I wish to say to the gentleman from Hamilton, 
[Mr. Holmes,] that if he wishes to bring the county of 
Hamilton and the city of Cincinnati together, he had 
better say so at once, and go directly at it, and not take 
a round about course to secure it. 

Now’ there are, according to the plan of apportion¬ 
ment fixed by this Report, sixteen districts that fall 
below the ratio that it adopts, which, under the pro¬ 
visions of the Report, would have to be attached to 
other districts, so that if it were carried into present 
practice, instead of some thirty-four or five Senators, 
we should have eighteen or nineteen. It seems to 
me that w’e ought not to make such provision for the 
future, as we are not willing to put in practice at 
present. The district composed of the counties of 
Clark, Champaign and Madison, for instance, now falls 
some three or four thousand below the ratio; and I 
would ask if there is any probability that within the 
next ten years it will so increase in population as to 
come up to it ? If not for the next ten years, it will 
have to be attached to the neighboring district, for the 
ten years to come. The counties of Knox and Morrow- 
have a population of 49,000—about seven thousand 
below the ratio; and cannot every man see that at 
the end of the ten years they must be annexed? Are 
not Portage and Summit in the same situation? And 
Medina and Lorain? Looking at the matter in the 
light of these facts, I am in favor of the amendment. 

Mr. STANTON. It is easy to see what the gentle¬ 
man from Licking is at: Pie wants to give Licking a 
Senator. Now sir, I am opposed to the whole matter. 

If it is right to give a Senator for two-thirds a ratio in 
future, it is right to do so now. The effect of it will be 
to give the large counties an undue influence in the 
counsels of the State. All this comes of the attempt of 
the members to legislate to meet particular cases and 
counties. If Muskingum and Franklin are to have a 
Senator, Stark and Licking must have one also, aud 
the result will be that the exceptions will be more nu¬ 
merous than those that come under the rule. I sub¬ 
mit that it will not do to legislate in reference to par¬ 
ticular cases. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I desire as fully as possible, to un¬ 
derstand the provisions of the bill, and what the effect 
of those provisions will be, and then I am prepared to 
vote upon it. As I understand the sectionas reported, 
whenever a district falls below the ratio, it is to be an¬ 
nexed to another. Now suppose the other is already 
so far above that both together they make twice the 
ratio—w’hat then? 

Mr. HOLMES. Such an occurrence may, I admit, 
be possible, but it is not at all probable. If it was 










1377 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


probable to arise, something should be done to meet it. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I want to know what would be 
done in such a case. Would the two Senators be 
jointly elected by the two counties, or would some 
division of the territory be made other than by countv 
line ? 

Mr. OTIS. It seems to me that such a contingency 
as that supposed by the gentleman from Morgan, [Mr. 
Hawkins,] could never take place. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Why not ? 

making up this report, the committee 
divided the whole population of the State by thirty- 
five—the number of Senators to form a ratio. This 
ratio they applied to the territory of the State, subdi¬ 
vides as it is, into municipal divisions, and the object 
was or should have been, without interfering with the 
municipal divisions, to make the districts as nearly uni¬ 
form in population as possible. The object in future 
is to preserve or increase the equality of these distri¬ 
butions. Now, another element in this calculation 
must be looked at. In the course of coming time, 
the population of the State will increase, the ratio will 
increase in proportion, regularly, while the districts 
and counties will increase also in population, but ir¬ 
regularly as compared with each other. If the in¬ 
crease in the population of all parts of the State could 
be equalized, a rigid rule might be made, which op¬ 
erating well at first, would continue to do so; and jus- 
1 tice to every section would be self-acting and exact. 
L But such a result we cannot calculate upon; and in- 
! stead of a rigid and iron rule, the true wisdom would 
be to fix one somewhat flexible, which, while it is sta¬ 
ble enough to preserve the principle, admits of suffi- 
1 cient variation to meet the facts. This is the object of 
! of the amendment—which I hope will prevail. 

If the gentleman from Morgan [Mr. Hawkins,] will 
; look at the districts as they are formed, he will find 
f that that which is composed of the counties of Muskin- 
! gum and Perry has the largest population of any in the 
I State, to wit—65,827. In all probability, with the 
I present ratio, its population will so increase that wheth 
• er the second Senator were elected for two-thirds or 
1 three-fourths the ratio, they will gainit. But take from 
I its population the ratio—56,698, and you leave 9,229 
I of its population unrepresented at every session of the 
I Legislature—multiply that sum by five—the number 
of sessions in each decennial period, and the result is 
45,195 voters not represented in the ten years—more 
than two-thirds or three-fourths of the ratio. In other 
districts, however, the surplus will fall below, and it is 
for such cases that the amendment is moved. 

Mr. HOLMES. The proposition is simply whether 
a Senator shall be given for two-thirds or three-fourths 
the constitutional ratio, to those counties that would 
otherwise have to be absorbed. 

Mr. HAWKINS. Or the original report, which re¬ 
quired a whole one. 

Mr. STILWELL. The gentleman from Hamilton, 
[Mr. Holmes,] made a remark indicating that he con¬ 
sidered this amendment as an attack upon the county 
of Hamilton. I think if he had examined the subject, 
he would have come to a different conclusion. Not 
only was there no attack meditated, but none has been 
made. Tho amendment does not afiect the apportion¬ 
ment provided in the bill. Its operation is only in the 
future. I do not understand the position of the gentle- 
I man, [Mr. Holmes,] in regard to the division of Ham- 
! ilton. It seems somewhat equivocal, to say the least. 

I In looking at the Report, I find among the names cf 
other membm-s of the committee, one that I suppose 
' to be his—‘‘ G. W. Holmes, Chairman.'' The Report 
divides Hamilton county, and he went for it;—he gave 
it his name, a.nd it appears under his auspices. Yet 
' that gentleman, [Mr. Holmes,] declares war to the 
knife against those who shall attempt to divide Hamil- 
I ton county. 

The gentleman, [Mr. Holmes,] complains of my 
I amendment b ecause, he says it is disproportionate. He 

87 

i 


does not appear to have had any objections to givin^^ a 

representative to a county with but.half the ratio; but 
he cannot see the justice of giving a Senator to a dis¬ 
trict that has two-thirds. 

The gentleman from Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] looks 
upon this amendment as the initiatory step of a plan 
to give to the counties of Muskingum and Franklin each 
an additional Senator. Now I never heard any thing 
of the kind. The motion was my own, made without 
any such intention, and without any bearing upon such 
a plan as he speaks of, as it would neither affect in one 
way or the other. I trust therefore, that he will with¬ 
draw his imputation. I do intend at the proper time 
and place to offer an amendment to give Muskingum 
and Franklin each an additional Senator, and I intend 
to do it openly. I have made no concealment of my 
intention, and never intended it as a covert measure. ^ 

Mr. RANNEY. At the close of the first decennial 
period, the ratio, which for present purposes is fixed 
at about fifty-six thousand, will be raised in proportion 
to the increase in the population of the State. By the 
provision as it now stands, any district of the whole 
thirty.five, into which the State is divided, if its popu- 
lutipn shall fall below the ratio then fixed, will be 
blotted out. I do not myself see why it it is not just 
as likely that one half the districts will fall below the 
ratio as that the other half will rise above it; and I do 
not see but it will be just as likely that the Senate will 
be reduced to^ one half the regular members, as that 
more than half will be continued. It would seem as 
if there was a necessity for some alteration ; and what 
is to be done? I do not want to destroy ihe system 
that has been prepared with so much care, and upon 
which so much labor has been bestowed. Take the 
cases of the counties of Lorain and Medina, with a pop¬ 
ulation of fifty thousand. They have less than the rV 
tio but under the provisions of this bill are entitled to 
a Senator. Suppose these counties do not increase in 
population during the next ten years; but the State in 
the meantime increases, and the ratio is raised to sev 
eniy-five thousand. Suppose three fourths the ratio 
were reciuired in order to entitle the district to a rep- 
resentalion. Three fourths of seventy-five is fifty-six 
thousand, and the district not having that aggregate 
would be stricken out. If it was two-thirds, the result 
would be fifty thousand, and the district woJld remain 
The question is, how low will you permit the districts 
to come, rather than to destroy them. Now we have 
been exceedingly liberal in regard to representation in 
the lower house. Counties that have half the ratio are 
permitted a representative, and it is only those that 
fall below one half that are annexed. I propose that 
the Senate shall be treated in the same way, and that 
unless the districts fall below two-thirds they shall not 
be annihilated. There are some counties in the State 
that, being settled, will grow far less rapidly than here¬ 
tofore, while there are others that will increase with 
speed for years to come ; and I think the old counties 
taking all things into consideration, are entitled to no 
little forbearance from the new. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I desire to call attention to one 
fact. Every alteration of this report in this part will 
induce the necessity for an alteration all throu<^h' and 
it seems as if there was a determination amont^ gentle¬ 
men upon the other side to begin )iere for the purpose 
of eventually breaking down the system, that they may 
introduce one of their own. Now I would like to have 
gentlemen on the other side, when they have ^ot their 
projects fixed, to submit them at once. Let us know 
what they are, that we may see what we have to en¬ 
counter. Don’t attack us from behind the bush. Sev¬ 
eral gentlemen have projects—the gentleman fr'omLo* 
gan [Mr. Stanton] has one—the gentleman from Mus¬ 
kingum [Mr. Stilweel] has seen it. 

Mr. STILWELL. I have never seen it. 

Mr. MITCHELL. This report has been considered 
with the utmost care and industry by the committeeF 
It has been months in preparation. Every chan‘^e in 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1378 

this place will induce the necessity for a change all 
through. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. Really the gentleman from Kiiox 
[Mr. Mitchell] has very strong smelling faculties. A 
whig cannot introduce the simplest proposition by way 
of an amendment but the gentleman smells something 
behind it. If he judges the whigs by himself, I do not 
know but he comes to a correct conclusion, for I do 
not believe he has taken a single step but with a direct 
view to operate against the whigs. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I wnll tell the gentleman [Mr. 
Hitchcock] what my principles are, at the proper 
time. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. If the gentleman [Mr. Mitch¬ 
ell] should set out and detail his principles truly, he 
would not find half a dozen members of this Convention 
that would agree with him. 

This proposition, whatever may be the opinion of the 
gentleman, is intended to be fair, and the gentleman 
from Miami [Mr. Dorsey] assented to it yesterday, as 
proper to carry out the principles of the report. The 
only objection of the gentleman from Knox is, that the 
whi^^s are in favor of it. That may be a good and suf¬ 
ficient reason for him, but I trust that in general it 
will be otherwise. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I will ask the gentleman from 
Muskingum if he has not a plan for giving the counties 
of Franklin and Muskingum one senator each ? 

Mr. STILWELL. 1 stated in my remarks this morn¬ 
ing that I intended to make such a motion. I do in¬ 
tend to do so at the proper time. 

Mr. MITCHELL. The gentleman [Mr. Stilivell] 
stated that he had no plan. 

Mr. STILWELL. I had none—I have no general 

plsTi* . , . . 

Mr. MITCHELL. I will, as I intimated to the gen¬ 
tleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock] that I would 
state the principles that have governed my actions in 
this body. I believe, Mr. President, that the doctrines 
of democracy are right. I glory in that belief—I glory 
Sir* 

Mr. HORTON. I rise, Mr. President, to a point of 
order. The doctrines of the Democratic party are not 
now under consideration. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amend¬ 
ment of the gentleman from Muskingum, to the amend¬ 
ment of the committee, to wit: strike out three-fourths 
and insert two-thirds. Gentlemen will please to con¬ 
fine their remarks to the question. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I w^as merely explaining the rea¬ 
sons that governed my action, and in reply to the re¬ 
marks of the gentleman from Geauga. 

I have not said that I would discourage party spirit 
in this assembly, and I will not do so. I will support 
my party here as I would in the General Assembly, or 
in any other body. 

Gentlemen talk of party action and party measures. 
There are none who are more prone to support their 
party docrines and their party measures than the 
Whi'^s in this body. I do not blame them for it. What 
I complain of in them is that they say they do not do 
it. The proposition of the gentleman from Musking¬ 
um, for instance, is well calculated to support section 
al and party interests. 

The clear duty of this Convention in making an ap¬ 
portionment is, to express the entire rights of the people 
of Ohio—of that body that bears the burden of the 
government. When that has been done their friends 
will have a majority in the representative body. If the 
Whigs are a majority in the State it is our duty to give 
h em a majority in the Legislature—if the Democrats, 
to give them a majority. I want to hear nothing more 
about this matter of no party, and when I hear it from 
gentlemen upon this side, I fear that they have no re¬ 
gard for the doctrines of democracy; and when I hear 
it from the Whigs I know that something is behind, 
that some movement is to be made for the purpose of 
catching Democratic votes. 


Mr. BENNETT. Gentlemen appear to be opposed 
to every movement that is made to correct the princi¬ 
ples or the provisions of this report. Why is this? 
Admitting the general doctrine that every thing of hu¬ 
man construction is imperfect, they must, at^ least, al¬ 
low' that it is possible to make it better than it is. Let 
us look at the provisions of the bill a moment. There 
are some thirteen districts now established that fall below 
the ratio, in population, and they have each a Senator 
awarded to them. I do not complain of this ; but let 
us look forward a little. Suppose that these do not 
increase in numerical force any faster for ten years to 
come (for it wdll not do for them to increase just as 
fast,) the result will be, that at the next decennial pe¬ 
riod, whatever the ratio may be, they will all fall be 
low it, and be annihilated. There are, as I said, some 
thirteen or fourteen now established, which, by that 
process, will be annihilated as districts, and their ter¬ 
ritory will be annexed to that which is contiguous. 
Now^ it will often happen that by aggregating districts 
in this manner, a population will be accumulated suf¬ 
ficient to entitle the district so increased to two Sena¬ 
tors ; and it must have two Senators, or a fraction as 
large as the ratio, and perhaps larger, will be disfran¬ 
chised ; for I take it the Legislature, under this arti¬ 
cle, will have nothing to do vrith creating new dis¬ 
tricts, but only with regulating those that we create. 

It would seem as if it were our duty to furnish a rem¬ 
edy for what appears to me to be a very serious diffi¬ 
culty. 

Mr. CHAMBERS. The Convention is well aware 
that I have said less in this body than in any other pub¬ 
lic assembly with which I was ever connected. One 
reason for this has been, that there are in this Conven¬ 
tion a large number of able and learned men, who are 
as well or better qualified to introduce and advocate 
original measures than myself. Another reason has 
been, that the whigs are in a minority here, and una¬ 
ble, of course, to carry any measure of their own, and 
under the circumstances it is our duty to throw the re- 
) sponsibility upon the other side, where the power is 
deposited. Our duty is to guard, as far as possible, the 
interests of our constituents, and when we have done 
that, we have performed all that can be expected of 
us. But when the gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitch¬ 
ell,] because we thus endeavor to secure an equal 
representation for all parts of the State, charges us with 
being hypocrites, and calls us Greeks, I have no reply 
to make, but to say that I despise him for the charge. 
When that gentleman renders himself ridiculous by 
making a personal attack on me, I can laugh him to 
scorn. But when he makes a charge of want of good 
faith, and hypocrisy, against the entire representation j 
of the whig party, who represent at least a moiety, 
and a very respectable portion of the people of this 
State, I cannot but repel such insinuations with indig¬ 
nant scorn. I 

And what is it that has begot all this jealousy ? 
What is the cause that has induced the gentleman to 
sound the alarm to his democratic friends, and to ful¬ 
minate this new discharge of his w'ordy artillery. It 
is this: My colleague, [Mr. Stilwell,] has intimated 
his intention to introduce an amendment to this appor¬ 
tionment, which in itself is so unfair, that we could I 
not, by any means, submit to it. Here we have the , 
the county of Muskingum attached to the county of j 
Perry; thus giving it tlie largest population of any Sen¬ 
atorial district in the State. Why is this? Muskingum j 
is among the largest counties in the State—there being 
but two others of a larger population—to wit: Ham- ^ 
ilton and Cuyahoga. Muskingum is grouped with 
Perry with a joint population of 65,827. Muskingum 
county alone has a population of 45,053, and from her 
prospective increase of population, is now entitled to 
a Senator independent of Perry, if the county of Ham¬ 
ilton, (exclusive of the city,) be entitled to a Senator 
with a population of only 41,412. If we even throw 
out an intimation of a desire to relieve ourselves ofj 
















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1379 


this burden and embarrassment, we are charged with 
dishonesty and injustice; are called hypocrites and 
Greeks; and the tocsin of the gentleman from Knox 
[Mr. Mitchjell] is solemnly sounded, to give notice to 
the democrats throughout the world that the minority 
of this Convention are about to waylay, entrap, cheat 
and overthrow the majority; and that die only way in 
which it can be avoided is to shut their ears entirely to 
any reason, argument, suggestion or appeal that may 
come from this side of the house. 

The gentleman, [Mr. Mitchell,] says that the De¬ 
mocracy is always right. It may be that Democratic 
principles are right; but, admitting that they arc, it is 
necessary to prove that he is the embodiment of Demo¬ 
cratic principles, before his opinion can be received as 
infallible. I would ask if the Democracy were right 
in their apportionment law of 1836, when, with about 
6,000 votes, they gave the old county of Muskingum 
one representative, and the county of Perry, with 
about 3,000, two representatives ? Was that honest— 
was that right? Perhaps the gentleman from Knox 
might have thought so, seeing at that particular period 
an United States Senator had to be elected, and this 
very movement ensured the election of a Democratic 
United States Senator. In the presence of this Conven¬ 
tion, I pronounce that apportionment to have been one 
of the most rascally and unjust measures ever concoct¬ 
ed or carried out by any political party. 

There is one feature of this report that deserves a 
word of special notice. It is signed by every Demo¬ 
cratic member of the committee, and by not another 
member of the Whig party. The dose was, as a 
whole, too strong for any but Democratic stomachs to 
swallow. The gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] 
might perhaps find in this a strong evidence of its ex¬ 
cellence, and of the pureness of its Democracy; for 
that gentleman seems to estimate the excellence of the 
principles he advocates precisely in proportion as they 
are hated by those opposed to his views, and is not 
contented to enjoy his garbage alone, but must be 
holding it up to the nostrils of those who have no taste 
for the repast. But the fact that I have alluded to is at 
least as worthy of consideration by the Whigs, as the 
gentleman’s signs and wonders are by his political 
friends; and it it means nothing else, it means emphati¬ 
cally that we have no favors to expect. 

Mr. HORTON. If I have a right understanding of 
the provisions of this apportionment scheme, there will 
be, during the first decade of years, a Senate composed 
of thirty-five members; and, if I understand the effect 
of the amendment of the gentleman from Muskingum, 

, [Mr. Stilwell,] the number for the next ten years, 
under its operation, would be about the same. I ob- 
, served yesterday to the gentleman from Miami, [Mr. 

1 ; Dorset,] that such would be the result, and he acceded 
I to the proposition. It is incomprehensible to me why 
|i the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Holmes,] is op- 
i posed to this amendment. It takes no effect upon the 
I apportionment of the next ten years, but, as far as pos¬ 
sible, secures the samefer the succeeding ten. I hope 
I the amendment will be adopted. Its tendency will 
; certainly be to render the workings of the system after 
I 1860 far more complete and equal. So far from militat- 
' ing against the fundamental idea upon which the plan 
is built, it aids to carry it out. If I am correct in this 
I opinion, I cannot understand why the gentlemen from 
I Hamilton and Knox oppose the amendment. It must 
|i be because they do not understand it. I hope, incon- 
I elusion, that the gentleman from Knox will not find it 
necessary to accuse me of any sinister or covert design 
, regarding my own county or those that lie around it; 

for I can assure him, upon ray honor, that it is not pro- 
! bable that either of them will be at all aflPected by the 
I provisions of the report, whether amended or not. 

Mf. HOLMES. I did not fully apprehend the force 
f of the amendment when it was offered. Understand- 
I ing it better, I am constrained to withdraw my objec¬ 
tions to it. 


Mr. DORSEY. I prefer the amendment of the 
committee to that of the gentleman from Muskingum, 
for this reason—there are no thirds in any other part 
of the report, and to introduce them here would be in¬ 
congruous. 

The question being on the amendment to the amend¬ 
ment ; 

Mr. HAWKINS demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 44, nays 48—as fol¬ 
lows: 


Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery Ben¬ 
nett, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of C^rolL 
Chambers, Collings, Cook, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Grahara 
Gray, Green ot Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holmes, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Manon 
Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins’ 
Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stilwell. Wil’ 
hams, Woodbury and Worthington—44. 

Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Curry 
Dorsey, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbnek. 
Henderson, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, I.eech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Nor¬ 
ris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Aug- 
laize, Sellers, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, 
bwitt, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren. Wav 
Wilson and President—48. ’"“O'* 


So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on inserting the words 
“three fourths of a lull;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the first amendment, to 
wit: Strike out section 11; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the sixth amendment, to 
wit: Add at the end of section 12, the following words: 
“ and all territory belonging to a county at the time of 
apportionment, shall as to the right of representation 
and suffrage, remain an integral part thereof, during 
the decennial period ;” which was agreed to. ' 

Mr. SAWYER moved further to amend the bill un¬ 
der consideration, by striking out section six, which is 
as fohows: 


Any county having within its limits a city or corporate town 
with a number of inhabitants equal to a whole ratio, at any decen¬ 
nial period, and still leaving in the county a population equal to a 
whole ratio, at such decennial period, such city or corporate 
town shall be entitled to a separate representation, to be deter¬ 
mined as herein provided. 

And also to strike out in the ninth section the words: 
“and for separating cities and corporate towns from 
their respective counties.” 

Mr. SAWYER. This amendment must be made, in 
order to render the report at all tolerable to me. Let 
us have all single districts at once, or else let us leave 
counties undivided. I will not vote for the bill as it 
now stands, no way you can fix it, and if this motion 
does not succeed, I will go in for a general system of 
single districts throughout the State. 

Mr. LARWILL. I hope the section will be stricken 
out. If there is anything upon which I feel myself in¬ 
structed by my constituents, it is upon this point. It 
would, if pul into practice, introduce discord into eve¬ 
ry township in the county that was divided. There 
must be no more attempts to divide counties—no more 
removal of the old ramparts—no more gerrymandering, 
juggling, or trickery. It is true, that if the plan is once 
permitted, it may be used by both parties, and will be 
as likely to be used for the profit of the one as the other; 
but I do not wish to see the temptation placed before 
either. Whatever may be the practice in the State of 
New York, I have no desire to see it introduced in Ohio; 
and I must be permitted to say that I cannot give my 
vote for this report. 

Mr. TAYLOR moved to amend the motion to strike 
out section six, by inserting in the place of the same, 
when it should be stricken out, the following: 

Sec. 6. Whenever at a regular decennial period, a county Is 
entitled to two or more representatives, the trustees of the town¬ 
ships. and the common council of every incorporated city, or 
town in the county, (not exceeding three representatives ot each 
ward therein) shall assemble at such time as may be prescribed 
by law, and divide their respective counties into representative 
districts, equal to the number of members to which such coun¬ 
ties may be entitled, and shall cause to be filed in the offices of the 
Secretary of State and the clerks ot their respective counties, a. 














CONVENTION REPORTS. / 


1380 

description of such representative districts, specifying the num¬ 

ber ot each district, and the population thereof, according to the 
last preceding enumeration. Each representative district shall 
contain, as near as may be, an equtd number of inhabitants, and 
shall consist of convenient and contiguous territory, but no town¬ 
ship or -ward shall be divided in the formation of representative 
^stricts. 

The question then beiug upon striking out section 

Mr. LAWRENCE. As a member of the committee 
that made this report, and a friend ot the provisions of 
the section proposed to be stricken out, I desire to say 
a word or two. In the committee I urged the adop¬ 
tion of the section, and gave at length the reasons for 
the opinion I had formed—one or two of which I de¬ 
sire to notice. .1,1 T_ 

It is very readily to be conceived that there may be, 
and that, m general, there must be, distinct and sepa¬ 
rate interests between the city and the county, and the 
division would in most cases be as favorable to the one 
as to the other. The rural districts have an interest of 
their own to defend, and it is proper that they should 
have the best possible facilities for doing so. So ihe 
cities have their commercial and manufacturing inler- 

ggtg_their corporate and municipal ati'airs to uphold— 

matters that can scarcely be appreciated but by a resi¬ 
dent within their borders. 

There is another and a controlling reason which has 
had an influence upon my opinion. I wish, as far as 
possible, to give to the counties a protection against the 
influence of cities. I know that in a majority of cases 
that come up before the General Assembly, the dele¬ 
gates from the county of Hamilton have given a solid, 
undivided vote. Divide the county from the city, and 
it will be as likely to differ in opinion, as those who 
represent the ditfeient counties of Champaigh and 
Guernsey. It would give to each its proper weight in 
the Legislature. Because the city of Cincinnati is a 
great city, it is not right that it should so use its great¬ 
ness as to stifle the voice of other portions of the State; 
and it is still less right to aid its ambition by enabling 
it not only to consolidate its own vote, but to add to it 
the strength of a large and populous county. I believe 
that it is perfectly right, just and equitable to divide 
this or any other part ot the State, and so believing, I 
shall vote against striking out. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. If there were to be 
no other divisions of the territory of the State, for 
legislative purposes, 1 should have no great objection 
to striking out, but I hope that we shall not come to 
the conclusion to make no more subdivisions until the 
people call for such a conclusion, and I know no part 
of the State where they have done so, except in the 
county of Wayne, whose representative, [Mr. Lar- 
wiLL,] looks upon liimseU as specially instructed up¬ 
on this point. In my opinion, there was no one thing 
that was so general'y demanded by the people, and 
it was advocated in th<- democratic organ of the State 
as warmly as by any one. But the times have changed, 
and it is said men” change with them ; it seems so, at 
least, in this case. Aiul why is it ? Gentlemen sup¬ 
pose’that by keeping the city of Cincinnati united 
to the county ol Hamilton, there will be lodged there 
a power that will control ihe destinies of the State; 
and gentlemen seem 'o be willing to keep the State 
under this kind of guardianship, provided that at the 
same time their parly may retain the political su¬ 
premacy. 

Mr. SAWYER. I do not seek such a result. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. No; the gentleman 
[Mr. Sawyer,] does not seek it—that is not necessary. 
He knows, however, that such will be the effect of the 
measure. He know’s that it has been so. Now, what 
are the facts, as shown by the action of this body ? 
When a proposition to divide the State into single dis¬ 
tricts was up, the six members from the county of 
Hamilton voted against it. Deduct those six votes, and 
the voice of the Convention would have been in favor 
of the principle. 


Mr. President, I do not want, as I said, to retain this 

section, unless we can go further. I like the propo¬ 
sition of the gentleman from Erie better, but I do not 
think that that goes quite far enough. If the section- 
is stricken out, I shall go for the amendment of that 
gentleman, or something like it; and I will now read 
for information, one that I have myself drawn up. It 
is as follows: 

Sec. 6. The representatives provided for in the second and 
third sections of this article, shall at all times be elected in single 
representative districts. 

The trustees of the several townships in such counties of the 
State as are, or may be entitled at the first election under the 
constitution to more than one representative, and if in any of said 
counties there shall bean incorporated town or city the represen¬ 
tatives of the several wards of said city or town, in the common 
council of the same, shall assemble at the seat of justice of their 
respective counties, on the first Tuesday of August next, and 
the trustees of townships, or trustees of townships and represen¬ 
tatives of w-ards, as the case may be, shall divide their respective 
counties into representative districts, equal in number to the 
number of repiesentatives to which such counties are or maybe 
entitled at the first election under the constitution, and shall cause 
to be filed in the ofiices of the Secretary of State and of the 
clerks of the courts of common pleas, of their respective counties, 
a description of such representative districts, specifying the num¬ 
ber of each district, and the population thereof, according to 
the last preceding United States census, as near as can be ascer¬ 
tained. 

Each representative district shall consist of convenient and 
contiguous territory, bounded by townships or ward lines, and 
shall contain, as nearly as may he, an equal number of inhabit¬ 
ants. 

But for the formation of such districts, no township or ward 
lines shall be divided, nor shall any district be changed or altered 
during the decennial period. 

If at any time during the first decennial temi, the number of 
representatives shall be increased or diminished in consequence 
of the provisions of the third section of this article, the trustees 
of townships and representatives of wards in such counties, the 
representation of which shall be so increased or diminished, shall 
convene as aforesaid, on the first Tuesday of August, next prece¬ 
ding the election at which such increase or diminution shall take 
place, and shall divide their respective counties into districts 
equal in number to the number of representatives to be elected 
in said counties, upon the same principles and in the same man¬ 
ner herein before presci'ibed; which districts shall remain un¬ 
changed so long as the representation of the counties aSected 
thereby shall remain the same. 

In all cases where any county or counties are entitled to but 
one representative, such representative shall be chosen by the 
electors of such county or coimties at large. 

At all subsequent apportionments for representatives in the 
General Assembly under this constitution, the several counties in 
the State, entitled to more than one representative, shall be divi¬ 
ded into single districts in the same manner as hereinbefore de¬ 
scribed. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is upon striking 
out section six. 

Mr. STANTON. What is the state of the question 
in regard to the aineudments that have been offered ? 

The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from Erie, [Mr. 
Taylor,] has submitted a proposition, which he wish¬ 
es to substitute in the place of the section, in case it 
shall be stricken out, and the gentleman from Geau¬ 
ga has read another for information, with the same ob¬ 
ject. 

Mr. STANTON. I wish the gentleman from Geauga 
would offer his as an amendment to the words proposed 
to be stricken out. If it should be adopted, the first 
part of the section may afterwards be stricken out, if 
gentlemen desire it. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. I have no objection to that 
course. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, what is the ques¬ 
tion ? 

The PRESIDENT. The question is upon striking 
out section six. If section six should be stricken out, 
the motion of the gentleman from Erie is in order. 

Mr. MORRIS. Question. 

Mr. TAYLOR. 1 read for the information of the 
Convention, in the course of my remarks last evening, 
the project that I have now oft'ered as a substitute for 
the section proposed to be stricken out. Those who 
attended to its reading on that occasion will observe 
that I have omitted a proviso which then formed a part 
of it, in regard to the disposition of fractional floats. 
In its general character, the project of the gentleman 






CONVENTION REPORTS. 1381 


from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] is similar to mine. It 
provides for a division of the counties by a board of 
commissioners at each decennial period, and when 
there are floats the same board shall be assembled and 
shall make the proper distribution. I wish also to say 
that when it can be done, and when the question really 
comes up for consideration, I am willing to withdraw 
my amendment in favor of that of the gentleman from 
Geauga. It is drawn more minutely, and more in ac¬ 
cordance with legal phraseology, and presents my own 
views in a more satisfactory manner than my own. 

Ml. LARWILL. I wish to say a few words in reply 
to the remarks of the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. 
Hitchcock.] My opinions of the views of the democ¬ 
racy of the State of Ohio, upon this subject, are not 
confined to the county of Wayne, by any means. Gen¬ 
tlemen talk of their fears of the overshadowing influ¬ 
ence of the county of Hamilton, and the city of Cin¬ 
cinnati. Now, I have far less fears of the county of 
Hamilton, in this respect, than I have of the Western 
Reserve. Large cities are far less likely to come under 
the influences of the Whigs than the country, and it is 
our duty to keep the city and county together, in order 
to counteract the strong aristocratic influences that grow 
up in large cities and towns. It is a democratic doc¬ 
trine, and as such I am bound to support it. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. I had hoped, Mr. President 
that the proposal which I made to the gentleman from 
Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] would be concurred in, and 
that the proposition would be brought into such a shape 
that we could vote directly upon the question. I shall 
therefore be forced to vote against striking out. If I 
had the assurance that when the section is stricken out, 
the amendment would be adopted, I should do other¬ 
wise. 

The question then being on striking out section six ; 

Mr. SAWYE R demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 49, nays 40—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Curry, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Au- 
glaize. Sellers, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidser, Struble, 
Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, 
Way, Wilson and President-^49. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, 
^Blickensderfer, Brown ot Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, 
Collings, Cook, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green 
of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock ot 
Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Mor¬ 
ris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith 
of Highland, Stanbery, Stilwell, Williams, Worthington and 
Wood bury—40. 

So the sixth section was stricken out. 

Mr. TAYLOR then asked, and obtained leave to 
withdraw his amendment. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK moved that the section which he 
had previously read, be inserted in the place of the 
section that had been stricken out. 

The question then being on the motion of Mr. Hitch¬ 
cock; 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to amend the section offer¬ 
ed by Mr. Hitchcock, by striking out the words: 
^Muring the first decennial period;” which was agreed 

to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the section 
as amended; 

Mr. DORSEY. I hope this motion will not prevail. 
If it should, we might as well throw away the whole 
report at once ; for its whole excellence will be destroy¬ 
ed. The features which, more than any other, have 
been attacked, are its powers of self-regulation. Take 
that away, and all the abuses that have existed under 
the old system will return; and the changes that take 
place, will always be made under the operation of 
political motives. It will make no difference whether 
the apportionment is made by the General Assembly, 
or by boards of commissioners of counties, and coun- 


cilmen of cities. For my own part, if there is to be a 
system of gerrymandering, I had rather it would be 
done by one than eighty-seven different bodies. I am 
therefore, opposed to the proposition; and hope it will 
be voted down 

Mr. RANNEY. If I understand this proposition it is 
the worst that has been offered—worse even than that 
presented by the gentleman from Ross. If I under¬ 
stand it, it requires of every county that has more than 
one member of the Legislature to elect, to assemble its 
trustees and councilmen and make a division of the 
county for the purpose. The thing involves an absur¬ 
dity in principle. For instance: a county is entitled 
during the greater share of the decennial period to two 
representatives. You assemble the trustees of the town¬ 
ships and the councilmen of the towns, and make a di¬ 
vision of the territory into two parts. But it so hap¬ 
pens that, during one year of the ten, the county be¬ 
comes entitled to a floating representative. What is 
to be done? You must call together your congress of 
officers and set off' this member to some corner of the 
county, and create a single district of the proper popu¬ 
lation for the purpose. 

Another thing: This section, if adopted, would in¬ 
volve the necessity of the assembling of about one hun¬ 
dred diff’erent congresses, who are to meet in the coun¬ 
ties three times in every ten years to divivide them up. 
1 tell gentlemen that they are going to elect in each 
county a board of political corruption. Suppose there 
are twenty townships in each county, and in each 
township three trustees, and that in the county there 
are three municipal towns with five councilmen in each, 
the whole number of officers to constitute this assem¬ 
bly will be just one hundred. To say nothing of the 
expense that would attend the meeting of such a body, 
the different local feelings and interests, the petty am¬ 
bition of those who desire to bo candidates, and the 
bold chicanery of those who wish to rule, would make 
this one of the most corrupt bodies that could possibly 
be assembled. 

Now, I never heard that there was any demand for 
this cutting up of territory; and if there is one senti¬ 
ment in the State that is universal in one party and 
nearly so in the other, it is against this splitting up of 
counties. It was once tried in the General Assembly, 
and the result was a commotion, and nearly a revolu¬ 
tion ; and so great was the political indignation upon 
the subject that the Legislature was forced to retrace 
its steps. I say, therefore, if there is such a demand I 
never heard of it. 

Mr. MANON. So far as I know, the people of the 
county 1 represent are opposed to any subdivision of 
counties. I have been figuring a little as to the cost of 
one of these assemblies, and find that it would cost the 
sum of twelve hundred and ninety-six dollars to divide 
Licking county. 

Again: We elect the trustees of onr townships now 
without much regard to their politics, endeavoring on¬ 
ly to get good men; but if this plan should be intro¬ 
duced, it would bring the strife and contention of a po¬ 
litical election into every little canvass that takes place 
for the election of a township trustee. It seems to me 
that the proposition is one of the most ridiculous and 
absurd ideas ever introduced into tins assembly. I do 
not know what other gentlemen ffiiuk. but I am sure 
that I want no General Assembly of one hundred and 
eight men, (for that is the number that we should 
have,) to meet in my county for sucii purpose. 

Mr. TAYLOR. The gentleman from Miami, [Mr. 
Dorsey,] says that this proposition will interfere with 
the other features of the report. It will not interfere 
with it. It is an amendment, and will carry them out 
more fully. The gentleman from '1'. umbull [Mr. Ran- 
NEY,] has another objection. He V Us us of cabals in 
townships and wards to dispose of this merely local 
question. Now, Mr. President, the report necessarily 
"ives all the representatives of a <.u)nnty to the same 
political party. The effect of tlie amendment will be 
















1382 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


to relieve the stringency of this i*ule. The gentleman 
attempts to draw a ludicrous picture of the congress, 
(as he calls it,) that will assemble to divide a county 
into districts, and speaks of the corruption that will 
reign and revel there. I wish to point that gentleman 
to another clique—another cabal existing under the 
present system, and with whose chicanery and corrup¬ 
tion he may have had a slight acquaintance. 1 refer 
to the court-house clique, devised to distribute amongst 
members the honors, patronage and offices of the coun¬ 
ties.’ There is not a county in the State but has such 
a one; but among them all, for every unfortunate, dis¬ 
graceful and reprehensible feature, the county of Ham- 
ilton stands pre-eminent. Now, what will be the ef¬ 
fect of the provisions of the report ? It will be to con¬ 
tinue and strengthen this central influence in every 
county in the State. I say that the same reason ap¬ 
plies whether you take this power from the capital of 
the county, or from the capital of the State; and you 
destroy, in either case, this tendency to legalize pow'er 
and concentrate influence. 

Mr. President, as a Democrat, I am in favor of this 
proposition. It brings the power home to the people 
themselves. If there is any principle that is truly re¬ 
publican, it is to remove the power as far as possible 
from the centres. 

Gentlemen have seen fit to speak in terms of ridicule 
of the board that will assemble to divide tho county 
into districts. It is very large. What if it is? It will 
all the more truly represent the sentiment of the mas¬ 
ses. They will come from the people with a full un¬ 
derstanding of what they are to do, and with but one 
duty to perform. It may be seventy-five or one hun¬ 
dred in number, and it may not be half that. It is of 
no earthly consequence. It will be a popular board, 
elected by the people—representing the rights of the 
people, and I am certain that there can be in no respect 
a better tribunal for the performance of the duties that 
will be required. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Hitchcock; 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved that the Convention ad¬ 
journ ; 

Upon which motion, Mr. MANON demanded the 
yeas and nays, which were ordered and resulted— 
yeas 20, nays 69—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Barbee, Blickensderler, Brovi^n of Carroll, Cham 
bers, Groesbeck, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, Larsh, Lawrence, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Morris, Norris, Stickney, Stidger, Wil¬ 
liams and Worthington—20. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben 
nett, Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Clark, Collings, Cook, Cur¬ 
ry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene 
of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Henderson, _ Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, 
Johnson, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Loudon, Manon, Mason, 
Mitchell, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stebbins, Stilwell, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President— 
69. 

So the motion to adjourn was rejected. 

On motion of Mr. HOLMES, the Convention took a 
recess. 

2^ o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending being on agreeing to the 
amendment piopnsrd by Mr. Hitchcock, of Geauga; 

On motion of Mr. HOLMES, a call of the Convention 
was ordered, and die following gentlemen were found 
absent: 

Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Cahill, Case of 
Hocking, Case of Licking, Clark, Curi-y, Cutler, Graham, Gray, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holt, Kennon, Lou¬ 
don, Morris, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Ranney, Reemelin, Stan 
ton. Smith of Wyandot, Stidger, Thompson of Shelby, Vance of 
Butler, Vance of Champaign, Williams and Woodbury. 

On motion, Messrs. Case of Hocking, Case of Lick¬ 
ing, Hard, Kennon, McCormick, Smith of Wyandot 
and Stidger were severally excused. 


On motion of Mr. LARWILL, the doors were clos¬ 
ed, and the Sergeant-at-Arms was despatched for the 
&I360I11©08# 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved that all furth¬ 
er proceeding under the call be dispensed with; which 
was disagreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved that the Convention ad¬ 
journ. 

On which motion, Mr. FLORENCE demanded the 
yeas and nays; which were ordered, and resulted— 
yeas 44, nays 42—as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Bennett, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Chambers, Cook, Ewing, Gregg, Groesbeck, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Jones, King, Larsh, Lawrence, 
Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mason. Mitchell, Morehead, 
Orton, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Scott ot Harrison, Sel¬ 
lers, Stanbery, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, -Struble, Swan, Tay¬ 
lor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Woodbury, and Worthing¬ 
ton—44. 

Nays— Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, Blickens- 
derfer, Brown of Athens, Chaney, Collings, Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, 
Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Humphreville, Hunter, Kirkwood, Loudon, Manon, McCloud, 
Otis, Patterson. Peck, Perkins, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Aug¬ 
laize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Swift, Warren, Way and President—42. 

So the motion prevailed, and the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


MONDAY, March 3, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Mills. 

Mr. CHAMBERS presented sundry petitions from 
William Burch and seventy-six males, and E. T. Buck¬ 
ingham and two hundred and ninety-five other females 
of Muskingum county, praying that a clause be insert¬ 
ed in the new constitution prohibiting the Legislature 
from passing any law legalizing traffic in spirituous 
liquors; which, on motion, was laid on the table. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, from the standing committee on 
Miscellaneous Subjects and Propositions, submitted the 
following report: 

REPORT NTMBER ONE, 

OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS 
AND FEOPOSITIONS. 

The commissioners of counties, the trustees of townships, and 
similar boards, shall have such power of local taxation lor police 
purposes as may be prescribed by law. 

The report submitted by Mr. Holt on the subject 
of banking and currency, was read a second time, and 
on motion of the same gentleman, committed to a com¬ 
mittee of the whole Convention. 

On motion of Mr. GILLETT, the Convention took 
up the resolution offered by him some days since rel¬ 
ative to the limiting the time of speaking in the Con¬ 
vention. 

Mr. SAWYER submitted the following, as a sub¬ 
stitute for the resolution, which was accepted by Mr. 
Gillett: 

Resolved, That no member, after this day, be allowed to speak 
longer than ten minutes on any question before the Convention. 

The question being on the adoption of the resolu 
tion ; 

Mr. SAWYER. We have a number of questions to 
be decided, and considerable business yet to be acted 
upon, and by to-morrow morning we ought to be ready 
to receive the report of the committee on Revision, 
The subjects yet to come under our examination are as 
follows: the report on schools—the division of the State 
into judicial districts—the report of the committee 
on Temperance—and the report of the committee on 
Finance and Taxation. All these will require more or 
less time. There is also the resolution upon the sub¬ 
ject of a bureau of statistics, which will cost some la¬ 
bor. Now, sir, I cannot indulge in the idea that this 
session is to continue after this day week, for if it 
should, we may be assured that we shall be without a 
quorum; and if we expect to get through it is absolute¬ 
ly necessary that some such resolution be adopted. 














CONVENTION REPOETS. 


The question then being on the adoption of the res¬ 
olution : 

Mr. HOLT moved the previous question. 

The question then being “shall the main question be 
now put?” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution ; it was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. LAWRENCE, the Convention took 
up the report of the committee on the subject of Tem¬ 
perance. 

On motion of the same gentleman, the report was 
committed to committee of the whole Convention. 

On motion of Mr. LARSH, the Convention took up 
the resolution submitted by himself, some days since, 
proposing to submit to the people the new constitution 
for adopting or rejection on the 4th day of July. 

On motion of the same gentleman, the resolution was 
referred to the select committee “on the Schedule.” 

Mr RANNEY moved that the report of the commit¬ 
tee on the Apportionment be taken up; which was 
agreed to. 

The question being on the amendment of Mr. 
Hitchcock, of Geauga, to substitute the section of¬ 
fered by him in lieu of section 6, which had been strick¬ 
en out; 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. So far as the general 
principles of the amendment are concerned, it is not 
necessary to say more than has been said, and I only 
rise to notice a few of the objections that have been 
urged against it. It seems to me that the principle as¬ 
serted is just and wise, and that under ordinary cir¬ 
cumstances the only inquiry should be whether it is 
strictly consistent with republican principles. Difier- 
ent gentlemen have objected to the proposition, and for 
different reasons, not, in every case consistent with each 
other. The objections have not been to the principle— 
for that is not to be attacked with impunity; but to the 
. details and their probable working and effect. 

The gentleman from Miami [Mr. Dorsey,] thinks 
it would destroy the whole principle of the report. I 
do not believe that it will produce any such effects. It 
will leave it precisely as it is, except when a county is 
entitled to more than one representative, when it pro¬ 
vides that it shall be divided. 

My colleague, [Mr. Ranney,] does not say that it 
is unjust, but that it is absurd and ridiculous. He 
says that the proposition of the gentleman from Ross, 
[Mr. Green,] is absurd, and that mine is absurd and 
ridiculous. Well, Mr. President, it may be so; but 
there are a great many things in this Convention that 
draw from my colleague precisely the same decision. 
He is in the habit of affirming that everything that 
does not come from himself, or does not comport 
with his ideas of what ought to be done, is absurd and 
ridiculous. 

Now, Mr. President, I ask where is the absurdity of 
saying that representatives shall be elected in single 
districts? If it is, it is an absurdity that has been 
adopted in the State of New York, in Kentucky, in 
Wisconsin, and perhaps in several other States of the 
Union. The framers of the constitution of those States 
did not, it seems, deem it either absurd or ridiculous to 
declare and provide that each representative should be 
elected by his particular constituency. 

I am satisfied that my colleague does not understand 
the proposition. He tells us that the trustees of the 
township and the councilmen of corporate towms will 
have to meet three or four times in each decennial 
period, to divide the county into districts. He is mis¬ 
taken. In not more than two or thi’ee counties will 
they have to meet more than once, and in no case 
more than twice. In Cuyahoga county, it may be ne¬ 
cessary to meet twice, as that county has two occa¬ 
sional representatives, for which provision is to be 
made. How it would be in Hamilton, as an entire 
county, I do not know ; but I think that it would be 
entitled to only eight representatives, and that one ap¬ 
portionment only would be necessary. In Muskingum, 


''1383 


there being at the last terra an occasional representa¬ 
tive, it would be necessary to assemble twice; and I 
think this is all. 

The gentleman from Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] objects 
to the proposition because it is going back to the old 
borough system of England. That is a strange objec¬ 
tion, The gentleman's knowledge of history must be 
at fault some where. Is it possible that a provision 
that would give to every constituency of twenty thou¬ 
sand a representative, is going back to an old system, 
under which mere locations and not men were repre¬ 
sented, and which, in many instances gave a represen¬ 
tation to a place where there was not perhaps half a 
dozen voters? 

Mr. MITCHELL. The remark alluded to by the 
gentleman [Mr. Hitchcock] was made upon the mo¬ 
tion to strike out. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. It was upon the motion to strike 
out; but what is the difference ? If applicable to any 
thing it was to the question of inserting the proposition, 
or something like it. 

Here is a city of say twenty thousand inhabitants, 
and its people want to elect their own representative; 
and what is the objection? The gentleman [Mr. 
Mitchell] says it is going back to the old borough 
system of England. If he will go back to history he 
will find that the borough system represented mere 
territory, without reference to inhabitants; and that 
we are endeavoring to give a representative to each 
constituency; and when he does not agree with us, 
instead of meeting us with arguments, he cries out— 
“ Shame ! Shame! ” Now this may be with the gen¬ 
tleman a knock ’em down argument, and if it is such 
he is entitled to all the benefit he can derive from it. 

My colleague [Mr. Ranney] is very apprehensive 
of the corruption that will attend the sessions of this 
body that meets but once in ten years, to divide a coun¬ 
ty. Few men are more skillful in anticipating corrup¬ 
tion than he, or in smelling it afar off, but I do not en¬ 
vy that man who, in the light of his own experience, 
looking forward to political events that may occur, 
sees nothing in the motives by which men are to be 
governed, but knavery and deceit. 

' My belief when I introduced this proposition was, 
that it was more in accordance with republican prin¬ 
ciples than any that had been presented. I supposed, 
when this Convention assembled, that there was not 
the slightest doubt that the system of single districts 
would be introduced into the constitution. Such was 
then the appearance, but it has changed—the reason 
may in time transpire, but I desire, whatever may be 
its fate, to record my vote in favor of the proposition. 

Mr. RANNEY. I desire to correct my colleague, 
[Mr. Hitchcock,] in certain matters wherein he has 
misstated my language. T did not say that the system 
of representation by single districts was absurd ; but I 
did say that the method proposed for the division of 
counties for that purpose is absurd; and in that I was 
correct. What is the principle upon which the propo¬ 
sition of my colleague is based ? It is absolute equality 
of representation, in proportion to numbers. Now, sir, 
whoever examinines it will find that at its very first 
step it sets out with a violation of this principle. A 
town, whether it have one hundred or five thousand 
inhabitants, is to be represented by its three trustees. 
Is that right? An hundred men have as much as five 
thousand ? My colleague complains of the system of 
the report, because ft I'epresents towns. The same 
defect that is observable in regard to townships exists 
in regard to corporate towns; and the result is, that 
you start out with a congress composed of three trus¬ 
tees from each township, whether large or small, and 
the Lord knows how many councilmen from the differ¬ 
ent petty corporations, in which there is not the slight¬ 
est shadow of a fair representation. 

Now, the true basis of representation is not numbers 
merely. It never was—it never will be—and it never 
ought to be. It is right and proper to recognize as such 














1384 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


the municipal subdivisions of the State, and the political 
organizations of counties; but this sinks the whole—vi¬ 
olates every principle of justice—creates a tendency to 
cabal and corruption, and is in fact a blow at the re¬ 
presentative system itself. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. I think this discussion must 
have satisfied every gentleman upon this floor, that the 
principle involved in this proposition is impregnable. 
Gentlemen attack the detail of the section, but let the 
principle alone. That they do not seem inclined to 
meet. The gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] 
is a shining example of this mode of warfare. When 
I offered a proposition the other day, providing for the 
division of counties by the county commissioners, the 
gentleman, [Mr. Ranney,] made a speech, of which 
the one he has just delivered is a very accurate copy. 
When I modified it, so that it was something like the 
one offered by his colleague, [Mr. Hitchcock,] he said 
that was better, and coming nearer the true principle. 

Now, if the principle is correct, and consistent with 
republican ideas, it should go into the constitution, and 
gentlemen on all sides ought to come up and aid in 
perfecting its details. Why will not the gentleman 
from Trumbull come up and aid to carry out this great 
republican principle ? Why will he not aid in perfec- 
ing its details, instead of standing aloof and caviling at 
them? 

In the proposition that I submitted I avoided viola¬ 
ting the integrity of election precincts. That of the 
gentleman from Geauga [Mr. Hitchcock] goes further, 
and expressly provides that no change in town lines 
shall interfere with the apportionment. Now, if coun¬ 
ties are to be divided what better mode can be devis¬ 
ed than to commit the duty to a boai’d composed of the 
trustees of townships and the councilmen of towns ? 
The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney] says 
that it will violate the principle of representation in 
proportion to numbers. He has very recently become 
a very great stickler for that principle. The report he 
is advocating violates it all through. It gives to coun¬ 
ties having half a ratio, a representative. Now, I say 
to that getleman that it is a mere figment of the imagi¬ 
nation to suppose that the municipal interests of a coun¬ 
ty divided into districts will not be represented as ful¬ 
ly and as well as if all the representatives were elect¬ 
ed for the whole territory. 

Let us look at the effect of the plan of the committee. 
In Hamilton county each voter has nine times as much 
influence as in the other counties. In every local mat¬ 
ter of interest he aids to send nine members of the 
General Assembly. 

The gentleman [Mr. Ranney] must be hard run for 
an argument when he talks of the immense corruption 
that will attend the sessions of a body that meets once 
in ten years to peform a single ministerial act. When 
gentlemen are driven to arguments such as these to 
sustain their side of the question, they, in effect, admit 
their own weakness, and the strength of the other 
party. 

Mr. President: I will say in conclusion, that in all 
sincerity, from the time I came into this body, I was in 
the hope that this republican theory would form a part 
of this constitution. I have done so without regard 
to the strength it would give to one party or the other; 
for so far as its party aspect is concerned, I have never 
looked into it, and know nothing about it. 

Mr. SAWYER. I think this question has been de¬ 
bated about long enough. We all understand it, I 
presume, by this lime; 1 therefore move the previous 
question. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question be 
now put ?” 

Mr. REEMELIN. I hope my friend from Auglaize 
[Mr. Sawyer] will withdraw his motion for a moment. 
He knows the peculiar position in which I stand, in re¬ 
gard to this question; and ought not, under the circum¬ 
stances, to insist upon it; especially as this is probably 


the only opportunity that I shall have to define my po¬ 
sition upon this question. 

Mr. SAWYER. I am disposed to indulge the gen¬ 
tleman for a moment. I therefore ask leave to with¬ 
draw ray motion. 

So the motion for the previous question was with¬ 
drawn. 

The question then recurring upon the amendment ot 
Mr. Hitchcock; 

Mr. REEMELIN. Being the only member of this 
Convention from the county of Hamilton voting in fa¬ 
vor of the principles of the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] I am constrained 
to beg the indulgence ot gentlemen for a few moments, 
to an explanation of the position which I hold; and 
the reasons that have induced me to adopt the opinions 
by which my action is governed. 

Mr. President, what is the business in which we are 
engaged ? We are framing a constitution for the peo¬ 
ple of a sovereign Stale. What is the part now under 
consideration? It is that which fixes the mode in 
which the people of the State are to be represented in 
their Legislative Assembly. No old constitution now 
in the way—no old landmarks to deter us from start¬ 
ing in the right direction, and to adopt as a new basis, 
an honest princijde. And what is the first process 
that we adopt in the proceeding ? We divide the pop¬ 
ulation of the State by the number one hundred, and 
the quotient thus obtained is the ratio by which it is 
determined how many of the people are necessary to 
give a county its quota of representatives. The ques¬ 
tion then arises, has not each one hundredth part of 
the citizens of the State, a right to be represented, 
without regard to the wishes or opinions of any other 
hundredth part? Has not each twenty thousand of 
the people such a right, and having that right, ought 
it to be affected by the whims or the caprice of any 
other twenty thousand? It would seem as if there 
were but one answer to this question. It seems to me 
that no one can contend successfully, that any twenty 
thousand people of Ohio have not a perfect right to a 
Representative in the General Assembly, irrespective 
of the control of the whole or any part of the remain¬ 
der of the State, unless strong and conclusive impedi¬ 
ments can be shown. 

Now, I admit, Mr. President, that we must have 
subdivision; such as counties, townships, or wards, 
and that such subdivisions ever will be. The State is 
divided into counties and townships, each of which, 
has its own local purposes to subserve and protect. 
These civil subdivisions must be admitted, because 
they are necessary for various purposes, and as a mat¬ 
ter of convenience, and I would not wantonly break 
over or disregard them. I would not sever county, 
nor township, nor ward lines, but I would in every 
case, where there are twenty thousand people within 
the limits of any county easily defined by township, 
precinct or ward lines, give them a representative of 
their own, uncontrolled by any other part of the same 
county—that is, I would divide the county into single 
districts, so as to give each district its own utterance 
through its own representative. 

The gentleman from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] objects 
to the plan proposed of subdividing counties for repre¬ 
sentative purposes, because as he thinks the corrup¬ 
tions and contentions of the General Assembly will be 
revived in the county bodies. I am convinced that his 
argument is not a sound one, and that there is no ana¬ 
logy between the two cases. It was the falsity of 
the principle upon which the apportioning power 
formerly was vested in the General Assembly, that 
was the cause of its corruptions. It is unsound in 
principle to give to a representative or any other body, 
the power in any manner to control the political com¬ 
plexion of the body that is to succeed it, or the charac¬ 
ter or personality of its successors; and the corruption 
in the Legislature was but the natural consequence of 
the fiilsehood of the principle upon which, under the 










CONVENTION REPOliTS. 


1385 


then constitution, they were compelled to act. The 
power was placed in the hands of the General Assem¬ 
bly, to a considerable extent, to render the supremacy 
ot Its party and of its legislation permanent in the 
otate. Ihe motive to do so was constantly before it 
and the result 18 one that might easily have been fore¬ 
seen and anticipated. Now, with boards composed cf 
the trustees of counties and the councilmen of wards 
^ch motives cannot be to any great extent operative! 
They will not be acting with reference to their own 
successors; the men to be elected will not control their 
own special local hobbies. Thpy will have nothing 
directly to gam by it, as is the case with the General 
ssembly, and although, to a limited extent, political 
teeimgs and motives will enter and affect their acts 
and deliberations, still, under the rule that is estab¬ 
lished, requiring the districts to be composed of com¬ 
pact and contingent territory, not outstepping township 
lines or breaking into election precincts, and requiring 
he districts to be of equal population, there can be 
little danger that gross injustice will be done. The 
principal cause that has produced the gerrymander is 
gone—-the main temptation is gone—and, though I do 
say that they wdli be entirely uninfluenced by par¬ 
ty politics—and while I freely admit that thev will 
stretch the principles of this report in favor of their 
own party, and that they would district the counties 
so as to favor the dominant party therein, while the 
ettect will at worst, be very slight, in comparison with 
tbe gigantic corruption in the General Assembly on 
such occasions, it would bo local, creating no general 
excitement. These bodies are elected by the people 
and are to them directly- responsible—they are ac¬ 
quainted with the localities, and they would not dare 
to violate too grossly the rights of their respective citi¬ 
zens. 

Mr. SAWYER. I wish to ask the gentleman from 
flamiiton, [Mr. Reemelin,] a question. Suppose that 
In the ten years between one apportionment and the 
next, one of the districts into which a county may be 
divided should increase twice as fast as another—how 
would you remedy that? 

Mr. REEMELIN. We are discussing the principle 
and not settling the details of a proposition. If the 
principle shall be found to be correct, and shall prevail, 
there can be no difficulty in obviating every objection 
to details, such as is hinted at in the question of the 
gentleman, [Mr. Sawyer.] But I submit to him 
whether it is a fair mode of argumentation, to attack 
a new principle, which has to adapt itself to existing 
relations of society, and in the drafting of which all 
contingencies may be at once provided for, through the 
mere details of its operation, especially as they are 
open to change and amendment. Is it fair to stran^^le 
an honest principle by spurious and captious excep¬ 
tions, which may easily be remedied hereaf ter. 

Mr. SAWYER. Will the gentleman alter the sec¬ 
tion so that there shall be an apportionment once in 
five years ? 

Mr. REEMELIN. I have no objection to an ap 
portionment, once in five, four or tliree years, nor to 
any other change in the details that is consistent with 
the principle of the section; and I had intended, if not 
cut off by the previous question, to have moved an 
amendment, providing for the taking of a county- cen¬ 
sus, once in four years, for that purpose. We cannot 
in my opinion, ascertain too often the population of the 
State and re-adjust representation in accordance with it. 
Any thing to make this principle not only fair in itself 

9Q it* la 1 ^ ^ ^ .... A * _ . . _ *. . 


as it is, but consistent w-ith all legitimate relations in 
he State. 

But I was speaking of the danger of corruption in 
the county assemblies. We have provided that the 
districts shall be composed, as far as possible, of com¬ 
pact territory and equal population, and within the op¬ 
eration of that rule, a county meeting but once, or at 
most, twice in ten years, and then for one purpose 
alone. I do think they would not and could not be 


influenced by that great variety of interested motives 
that sway the opinions and control the action of the 
General Assembly, and that therefore their action 
would bo purer. But let me ask, which is most to be 
dreaded, to be gerrymandered a little, but still preserve 
the substance of representation, or lose all by being 
swamped entirely. 

The gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] afraid 
to meet the principle, attacks too the detail and endea¬ 
vors to point outparticularinstances where abuses will 
arise. But is he borne out by the facts? We have 
such assemblies often. We have the board of equali¬ 
zation, we have city councils, school boards, &c., are 
these corruptions ? Again the very system is in ope¬ 
ration in New York, and has he, can he show'^ me in 
any of the public papers, or in any public or private 
document, even the scratch of a pen going to show or 
even declaring that any abuse, corruption or dishones¬ 
ty has been the result of the application of the system 
of single districts there. Let him look at Albany, or 
if New York will not do, let him go to Philadelphia, 
and prove, if he can, thatcorruption, such as he depicts, 
has been the result. That gentle.nan can draw on his 
imagination as long as he pleases, but we want facts, 
which are easily within reach and which can be ascer¬ 
tained easily. I assert, that not only no charge of cor¬ 
ruption has been made, on the contrary both in New 
York and Phildelphia, the system has given general 
satisfaction, and evils of long standing and of much 
complaint are thereby obviated—all parties are satis¬ 
fied with it, as fair and equitable to all. 

But w’hy wont gentlemen reply to our positions or 
principles? Will they, have they—nay dare they as¬ 
sert, that each quotient of 20,000 within a county has 
not a right to be represented by its own representative? 
They have not done so,—they dare not do so. They 
wont come near the principle by a 1000 miles. Still 
this is the principle of the amendment—nothing more 
—nothing less. 

And now let me ask why do we not admit the prac.> 
tice that is allowed in England and in France—where 
a man in London or in Paris may represent a constitu 
ency that perhaps he has never seen, and a district 
that he has never entered. The reason is this: The 
representative is here taken from the body of the peo¬ 
ple he proposes to represent, because they know him 
better, and because he is supposed to know their in¬ 
terests ; because he is more likely to understand their 
wishes ; because he sympathises more strongly with 
their feelings; and because he has an interest in com¬ 
mon with those whom he represents. And has it not of¬ 
ten happened, that quotients of representative districts 
have been deprived of their own immediate represen¬ 
tation, by being swamped by a dominant majority in 
a county. Each constituency should be represented 
by men living among them, and being of their own free 
choice. Or else why do we insert into the new con¬ 
stitution a provision that each Representative shall 
have resided one year among the constituents he pro¬ 
poses to represent. Why should we, in the western 
part of this county, ask those in the eastern who we 
are to have to represent us ? Or why should the east 
ask the west? Why should the city ask the country— 
the country the city ? Why the German the native— 
why the native the German ? As it now is, men in 
the county vote for representatives in the city who 
know but remotely their feelings and interests, and 
who are selected with a view to represent the city, 
and whom the country does not know fully; and on 
the other hand, men in the city vote for representatives 
in the country under the same circumstances. Is this 
right ? Is it according to the principles of a republi¬ 
can government? Is it not, on the contrary, in direct 
opposition to the very first principles upon which the 
representative system is founded ? 

The gentleman from Trumbull [Mr. Ranney,] has 
drawn a horrid picture, approaching a caricature of 
this county Congress, as he calls it—but suppose we 














1386 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


take him to other and more familiar scenes. Suppose 
you accompany me to the common nominating ground 
of both parties in tnis county. Attend a convention 
with me, and there see how often it is a mere chance 
that all parts of the county are represented on the tick¬ 
et—how the feelings of one section are swamped by 
the caprice of the majority—how whole sections re¬ 
main unrepresented—how very often men are selected 
for special sections, who are very obnoxious to those 
very sections. I ask, sir, whether it may not often 
happen, that whole constitutional constituencies are 
either not represented at all, or misrepresented. I 
will not say that such has been the case, but I say it 
may so happen, and the danger even of such a constit¬ 
uency should be guarded against. All the seven rep¬ 
resentatives of Hamilton county may be taken from the 
city or county, while injustice to all, each constituen¬ 
cy ought to have a district representative of its own. 

But how is it at the polls? There sir, we must vote 
for seven men, not only for our immediate representa¬ 
tive, but for six others besides. We may vote plump¬ 
ers or for two only. We may force upon others, by 
our votes, representatives which they do not want, and 
we may have forced upon us representatives a majori¬ 
ty of iis do not want. This seven fold constituency, 
with a seven fold representation,—this mixed repre¬ 
sentation is, I repeat it, an unmixed political absurdi¬ 
ty, which the old constitution required, but which we 
should now repudiate in the adoption of the new. 

You talk of pipelaying.' Why what is this voting for 
each other’s representatives but pipelaying ? What is 
it but voting for other representatives than your own ? 

The gentleman from Knox [Mr. Mitchell] talks of 
the borough interests, and accuses the friends of the 
position of attempting to revive the borough system of 
England. The idea is a rich one. Just think for a 
moment. What are we doing? We are attempting to 
give each living constituency of ihe constitutional mag¬ 
nitude, in population, its own separate representative. 
We give representation to the living men and women 
of Ohio—not to corporations, not to counties, not to 
court houses or county organizations. And is this a 
return to that system that gave the representation to 
the mere location, to a certain quantity of brick and 
mortar, without regard to numbers, and irrespective of 
the fact whether there was any constituency or not? 
Call you ours a borough representation ? Surely not 1 
And if there are any that favor the borough system it 
is the gentleman from Knox himself; who, in his ad¬ 
vocacy of imaginary municipal interests makes an at¬ 
tack upon the vital principles of republican representa¬ 
tion. 

A word in regard to the position in which I find my¬ 
self placed in respect to that of my colleagues. I make 
no charge against them, nor have the least desire to 
impugn their motives, "rhey have the full right to act 
as to them may seem best, but I must say that those 
who oppose the single district system, in consequence 
of its effect upon old Hamilton, are neither wise friends 
to their party nor are they true friends to the constitu¬ 
ents they represent; and if they hereafter find tbat, 
like the dog crossing the stream with a piece of meat 
in his mouth, they lose the substance by snapping at 
the shadow, 1 wash my hands of all blame or agency 
in the matter. Our party has already within it more 
of the elements of discord than any party can well 
carry, and if they give way to the temptation to secure 
seven representatives, when they can have five with¬ 
out difficulty, and thereby lose the whole, it will be no 
fault of mine, and they will not have done it without a 
fair and sufficient warning of the danger they incur. 

Let members around me reflect, that in this matter I 
can speak but by hints, for I will not throw the least 
impediment in the way of the party to which I am 
proud to belong; for I love, I cherish the Democratic- 
party. I think, with its existence, with its success, is 
involved the safety of the Union, the happiness of the 
States, and the prosperity of the people. On the other 


hand, I look upon the Whig party with aversion, and I 
deem the ascendancy of that party, at any time, as a 
great misfortune. Still, I will not violate a ^ood and 
honest principle to favor the one, or to injure the other, 
for the Democratic party never will prosper by doing 
wrong; nor is a triumph, gained by a violation of the 
principles of representation, a triumph for the Demo¬ 
cratic party. But, on the other hand, I will not need¬ 
lessly deal blows even sideways at my party, and so 
on this occasion I desire to avoid all irritation, and I 
want to state nothing but what is absolutely necessary 
to fortify the principle^! advocate. 

I have already enlarged upon the principle, and de¬ 
sire now only to submit a lew remarks by way of ward¬ 
ing off the party attacks that may be made upon me, 
and in reply to appeals which are made to members 
on party grounds. And in this connection I have ask¬ 
ed, and I ask again, is it wise to attempt to stifle the 
voice of a minority such as we have in old Hamilton? 
They are rich, and powerful in talent and means. Such 
a minority, whose utterance is completely checked, is 
always restless, and fighting as it does for special rights 
and for pecuniary interests, it will stop at nothing to 
accomplish its purpose. Permit me to state a few facts 
in our history, tbat may illustrate what I mean. In 
1828 Jackson had 1,800 majority in this county. In 
1834 Mr. Storer beat Mr. Lyttle by 93 votes. In 1838 
we had some 600 or 800 majority. In 1840 Harrison 
had 28 majority in this county. In 1844 we had 1,- 
920 for Polk. In 1848 our majority was but little over 
half that, and a part of the Democratic ticket was de¬ 
feated. I do not mention these matters with a view to 
hurt anybody’s feelings, nor with a view to persuade 
members to do anything wrong. I mention it merely 
to show that party appeals, as made on this question, 
are not pure, unadulterated wisdom, and that there are 
prudential reasons, as well as reasons of principle, for 
the single disirict system, and to remind my colleagues 
that ttiey disapprove a principle that is not only right, 
but wise, not only wise in genera], but wise under the 
present circumstances, and as such, whatever may be 
the opposition, it will ultimately prevail. 

But there is another consideration that is worthy of 
consideration—not in a party view, but it should have 
some weight with us as delegates of a large commer¬ 
cial city. I ask gentlemen whether, when the whig 
party is in a majority at Columbus, if it is not for our 
interest to be represented in that party ? The voice 
of a whig is heard and listened to by the members of 
his party, when that of a democrat is not. I have had 
some experience in this matter, and I know that prop¬ 
ositions, just in themselves, and of benefit to our whole 
constituency—which benefit had to be granted by the 
majority — that our propositions have been received 
with distrust, because they came from a member of 
the opposite politics. I ask, therefore, if in this point 
of view, one or two whig representatives from this 
county, which are made up to the party in other coun¬ 
ties, would be such a great misfortune to our common 
constituents? These are prudential reasons, and I 
only offer them as auxiliaries to an honest principle. 
Were single districts in themselves wrong, these pru¬ 
dential reasons would have no weight with me, nor 
would I urge them, and I now urge them only because 
I have been attacked here as lacking that high regard 
for the rights and the interests of my constituents 
which should always characterize a representative. 

My proposition then is this: Each one hundredth 
part of the citizens of Ohio — each constituency of 
twenty thousand inhabitants, where they can, without 
the severance of the boundaries of civil divisions, such 
as counties, townships or wards, be formed into a dis¬ 
trict, and that such district should be entitled to be 
represented by their own representatives, and by no 
one else. If this is not right it can be controverted by 
argument, but any objection relating to mere detail is 
neither good argument nor fair. If the proposition is 
lost here, it is not, for that reason, done with. We 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1387 


have got to meet it; and how is it to be done? Not 
on account of its inconsistency or unfairness, for it is 
neither inconsistent nor unfair. Every constituency 
having the constitutional quotient has a right to be rep¬ 
resented. 

Mr. President; Permit me, in conclusion, to say that 
I have examined this question in all its aspects, and I 
am convinced that the principle is right. I am satis¬ 
fied that the amendment ought to prevail, and I shall 
vote for it, be the consequences what they may. 

Mr. HOLMES. I desire the indulgence of the Con¬ 
vention a lew moments to a few brief remarks in which 
I shall endeavor to define my position upon this ques¬ 
tion, and place myself right in view of the remarks 
made by my colleague, [Mr. Reemelin.] And first, 
Mr. President, I will state that this report has been be¬ 
fore the people of Ohio since June last, and up to this 
day, I have never heard of any objection to the princi¬ 
ples upon which it is based. They seem to me to be 
correct and just, and it seems to me that the inevitable 
operation of the system of measures prescribed, will 
have a tendency to allay and prevent those scenes of 
disgraceful bickering and chicanery that have hitherto 
occurred in the Legislature at every four years’ appor¬ 
tionment. 

The gentleman from Ross [Mr. Green,] observed 
in the course of his remarks that he had never heard 
an objection to the principle upon which the amend¬ 
ment offered by the gentleman from Geauga [Mr. 
Hitchcock,] is founded. Now, sir, I have had objec¬ 
tions to the principle from the time when it was first 
asserted, and the more I have reflected upon it since, 
the stronger have rpy objections become, and I am as¬ 
tonished, under the circumstances, that my colleague, 
[Mr. Reemelin,] should take a different view of the 
matter. 

Now, what does this amendment propose ? Itseems 
to me that the division of Hamilton county is its sole 
object. I can come to no other conclusion than that 
it was designed merely to mutilate old Hamilton, and 
for no other purpose—and it is in this scheme that my 
colleague has joined. 

My colleague thinks that no corruption and trickery 
will result from this mode of division. I am astonish 
ed to hear him express such an opinion. Look for a 
moment at the body of men who will be collected to 
divide the county of Hamilton. Who are they, sir, and 
who and what will they represent ? The gentleman 
[Mr. Reemelin] is not ignorant of the character of the 
men who form the city council of this city. They are 
men who are posted up on all the petty and local po¬ 
litical questions of the day; and here we are attempt¬ 
ing to offer a premium for political managers in the 
boards of township trustees, and such men will be 
hunted up for the particular purpose of performing the 
service that is required of them. It will be a repeti¬ 
tion of the performances of political demagogues in the 
Legislature, only on a smaller and meaner scale. It 
will be a sine qua non, to assemble such a board at the 
county seat of this county, and the result will be, to 
sink and swamp every Whig vote in it. 

Now, let us look, for a moment, at the equality and 
fairness of the principle upon which this board will be 
assembled. There will be, in Hamilton county, some 
eighty-one or two members. The three trustees of 
Milcreek township, will represent a population of six 
thousand, while the three trustees of Spencer will rep¬ 
resent only sixteen hundred. Is this fair? Is this all 
perfectly right? Is this one of those beautiful speci¬ 
mens of republicanism of which gentlemen speak ? Is 
this one of their specimens of carrying out the princi- 

S le of equal popular representation ? Then, here, in 
le city, is the eighth ward with a population of 14,000, 
and the first with a population of 6,000—each represen¬ 
ted by its three Councilmen, with a difference between 
the two of eight thousand votes. The three represen¬ 
tatives of the fourteen thousand have no more force 
than the three representatives whose constituents are 


not half that number. The eleventh ward, also, has 
upwards of 19,000, while the fifth has 5,000—yet they 
are alike in their representation. Gentlemen start out, 
as they say, on the principles of right and justice, yet 
they violate those principles the very first move they 
make. 

Now, a word or two to my colleague, [Mr. Reeme¬ 
lin.] He says that he is biased by no local or section¬ 
al interest, and that be goes for the general benefit of 
the whole. I hope he does. But I ask what is a coun¬ 
ty ? It is a municipal body established for certain pur¬ 
poses. What would be the effect ol this proposition 
upon the interests of such a body ? Would it not be to 
raise up sectional feelings—to produce divisions of sen¬ 
timent and distractions, in local matters, and thus ope¬ 
rate to the injury of the very interests promoted and 
fostered by those municipal divisions? Would it not 
operate in this county to set one section against another 
—the upper against the lower, and the lower against 
the upper ? Sir, I am satisfied that the section is fraught 
with mischief, and that it is inimical to the interests of 
the people, both of city and county, and I hope it will 
be voted down. 

Sir, I am astonished at the course my colleague has 
seen fit to pursue upon this question. Hitherto he has 
always battled in opposition to the Whigs ; but he has 
mined himself to them as allies, and in opposition to 
the opinions and interests of the men who elected him 
to a seat on this floor. I have not conversed with one 
who is not opposed to him in sentiment. That ques¬ 
tion, however, is his own—it is between himself and 
his constituents; but for myself I intend never to 
swerve from what I believe to be the sentiments of my 
constituents. If he does otherwise the affair is his 
own. 

And now I desire to ask him, if the county has not 
always had a fair representation? 

Mr. REEMELIN. No sir. 

Mr. HOLMES. Mr. President, I say it has. The 
county has now one Senator and the city one. The 
population of the county is forty thousand; that of 
the city one hundred and fifty thousand. The county 
has three representatives, and the city two; and the 
representation has generally been in the same propor¬ 
tion. 

The gentleman, [Mr. Reemelin,] also gives as one 
of his reasons for supporting this proposition, that 
there are discordant elements at work in the Demo¬ 
cratic party which will eventually prove its over¬ 
throw. His course puts me in mind of the lame cap¬ 
tain, who told his soldiers, when a battle was about to 
commence, to fight bravely; but as they would un¬ 
doubtedly be beaten in the end, and have to run, as 
he was a little lame he would start first. So it is with 
my colleague. He sees the evidence of discord, he 
believes his party will be beaten, and he has started 
first. 

The question pending being on agreeing to the 
amendment proposed by Mr. Hitchcock, of Geauga; 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to amend the amendment 
by inserting after the word “ State,” where it occurs 
the first time in the first part of the amendment, the 
following words, “or such other officers within the 
county as shall be prescribed by law.” 

Mr. WOODBURY moved the previous question. 

The question then being. Shall the main question 
be now put ? it was agreed to. 

Mr. HAMILTON demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 45, nays 51 — 
as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Ewart, 
Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Har¬ 
lan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Ma¬ 
son, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Sawyer, Scott 
of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Woodbury and Worthing¬ 
ton—45. 

Nays— Messrs. Blair, Case of Licking, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, 








1388 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


Curry, Dorsey, Ewing, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groos- 
back. Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Patterson, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott oi Auglaize,^ Sel¬ 
lers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark 
Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson and Presi¬ 
dent—51. 

So the amendment to the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on the amendment propo¬ 
sed by Mr. Hitchcock, of Geauga. 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 47, nays 50— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
BrowTi of Carroll, Chambers, Ceilings, Cook, Curry, Ewart, 
Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Har¬ 
lan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hun¬ 
ter, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Per¬ 
kins, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, Taylor, 
Williams, Woodbury and Worthington-^7. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Cha¬ 
ney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Patterson, 
Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Vance of Butler, Wairen, Way, Wilson and Presi¬ 
dent—50. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

Mr. COL LINGS moved to further amend the re¬ 
port, by striking out of section 3, in the last part of 
the same, the words “third, second and first,” and in¬ 
serting in lieu thereof, the words “ second, first and 
fifth.” 

Mr. STANTON moved to re-consider the vote by 
which section 6 was stricken out. 

On which motion he demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 47, nays 49— 
as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Baniet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett ot Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Col- 
lings, Cook, Curry, Ewart, Florence, Graham, Gray, Green ot 
Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Ge¬ 
auga, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Larsh, Lawrence, Mason, More- 
head, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Highland, Smith ot Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stil¬ 
well, Swan, Williams, Woodbury and Worthington—47. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Holt, 
Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, 
Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, 
Norris, Patterson, Quigley Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Stru¬ 
ble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren, 
Way, Wilson and President—49. 

So the motion to reconsider was rejected. 

The question then being on the amendment submit¬ 
ted by Mr. Collings ; it was agreed to. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to further amend the report 
by adding at the end of section 1 the following: 

Provided, that the General Assembly may provide by law for 
a State census and re-apportionment, lour years after the federal 
census above referred to, and every ten years thereafter; provi¬ 
ded, however, that such apportionment shall be made in strict 
accordance to the principles of apportionmfmt herein contained.” 

Mr. MANON moved the previous question on sec¬ 
tion 1. 

The question then being, “Shall the main question be 
now put ? ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment proposed 
by Mr. Reemelin ; 

Mr. MANON demanded .the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 8, nays 80—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Chambers, Greeneof Defiance, Hitchcock of Ge. 
auga, Horton, Otis, Reemelin, Stebbins and Worthington—8. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Can-oli, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Col¬ 
lings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, 
Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, 


l.arwill. Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitch¬ 
ell, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Patterson, P(^ck, Quigley, 
Ranney. Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidg¬ 
er, Struble, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of 
Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and Presi¬ 
dent—80. 

So the amendment was rejected. 

The question then being on ordering section 1 to be 
engrossed; 

Mr. HENDERSON demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered and resulted—yeas 74, nays 14— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews. Archbold, Barnet of Montgonaery, Bates, 
Bennett, Blair, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Cook, 
Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Grah^, Greene 
of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, McCloud, 
Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stidger, Struble, 
Swift, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butier, Warren, 
Way, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and President— 74. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Athens, Brown of Carroll, Gray, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Nash, Reemelin and Worthington— 14. 

So the first section was ordered to be engrossed. 

Mr. SAWYER moved to reconsider the vote by which 
section 7 was stricken out; 

On which motion, Mr. MANON demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 37, 
nays 53—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Brown of Athens, Case of Licking, Chambers, 
Curry, Ewing, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Hawkins, Henmes, Hunter, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Leech, 
Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Patterson, Quigley, Riddle, Roll, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott oi Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of War¬ 
ren, Stebbins, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Stai-k, War¬ 
ren, Williams and President—37. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, 
Florence, Forbes, Gray, Green of Ross, Hard, Harlan, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Johnson, Lawrence, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mason, 
Morehea I, McCloud, Morris, Otis, Peck, Ranney, Reemelin, Smith 
of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, Townshend, 
Vance of Butier, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington— 53. 

So the motion to reconsider was disagreed to. 

Mr. MANON moved a call of the Convention. 

On motion of Mr. LAWRENCE, the Convention took 
a recess. 

2^ o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending, being the motion for a call of 
the Convention; 

Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 59, nays 25—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Bates, Bennett, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Cha¬ 
ney, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, 
Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, Norris, Orton, Otis, 
Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, War¬ 
ren, and Way—59. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Brown of Athens, Chambers, Florence, Gillett, 
Gray, Green of Ross, Hawkins, Henderson, Hunter, McCloud, 
Peck, Reemelin, Smith of Highland, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, Vance 
of Butler, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—^25. 

So a call of the Convention was ordered, and the fol¬ 
lowing gentlemen were.found absent: 

Messrs. Archbold, Blickensderfer, Case of Hocking, Cutler^ 
Graham, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Kennon, Mason, McCormick, 
Nash, Perkins, Smith of Wyandot, Thompson of Shelby, Vance 
of Champaign, and Williams. 

On motion, Messrs Case, of Hocking, and Thompson^ 
of Shelby, were severally excused. 

On motion of Mr. BLAIR, all further proceedings un¬ 
der the call were dispensed with. 

Mr. SAWYER moved to further amend the report, 
by striking out the following words in section 9, “ and 













CONVENTION REPORTS, 1389 


for separating cities and corporate towns from their re¬ 
spective counties.” 

Mr. HOLMES said that since his friend from Tusca¬ 
rawas, [Mr. Bennett,] had not himself signed the re¬ 
port, he hoped the gentleman would not think strange 
of it, if he should sanction this amendment. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, thought this amend¬ 
ment ought not to be made but he supposed this report 
was going to be passed under the singular state of fact, 
in which all the members of the committee on Appor¬ 
tionment would be found voting against certain portions 
of their own report. 

Mr. REEMELIN desired the words to be stricken 
out. It would involve a strange absurdity to retain 
them. He desired either counties or single districts— 

, nothing between. 

Mr. BENNETT hoped these words would not be 
stricken out. The gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. 
Holmes,] the chairman of the committee on Appor- 
, tionment, had told us this morning, that, although this 

f report, or a report like this, in this particular respect, 

and in nearly all others, had been before the people, 

1 since some time before the close of the summer ses- 
i sion, that he had not yet heard any complaint against 

I it. Now, since this proviso for the separation of cities 

and incorporated towns under certain contingencies, 
had been so long before the people without meeting 
i with any complaint, he thought the Convention w’ould 
be justified in retaining it. 

I Mr. MANON hoped the words would be stricken 
, out. He should vote for the amendment, and doing 
so he would not be acting more inconsistently than 
members of other important cuminittees of this body, 
who had voted against certain provisions of their own 
reports. 

The question being taken upon Mr. Sawyer’s amend¬ 
ment ; 

Mr. STANTON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 56, nays 33—as fol¬ 
lows: 


Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, 
Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groes- 
beck, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Or- 
ton, Patterson, Quigley, Kanney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins. Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—56. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown ot Carroll, Case of 
Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Florence, Gray, 
Green of Ross, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Horton, 
Hunter, Larsh, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stan 
ton, Stilwell and Worthington—33. 

So the motion to strike out prevailed. 

Mr. GREENE, of Defiance, moved to further amend 
: the report, by adding, as an additional section, the fol- 

; lowing: 

_Returns when two or more counties are joined in Sena- 

j torial or Representative districts shall be sent to that county hav- 
I ing the greatest pop ulation. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved the previous question on 
the remaining sections of the report. 

The question then being, “Shall the mam question be 

now pul I j 

Mr. HAWKINS demanded the the yeas and nays; 

which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 52, nays 41— 


as follows: 

Was—M essrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, 
noraev Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, 
Sees ^roes^beck, Hard, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, 
I eStter, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Norris Urton, Patterson, 
PeS QuiRley, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
SthbiM stickney, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Stark, 
T?wKnd Warren, Way, WUson, Woodbury and President- 


52. 


Navi—M essrs Andrews, Barhee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brnwn of Carroll Chambers, Collings, Curry, Florence, Gillett, 
Cmv Green of Ross, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of 
G^Sga^ Holt, Horton, Larsh, Lidey, Mason, Morehead, Morris, 


McCloud, Nash, Oti8,Ranney, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, 
Taylor, Vance of Butler and Worthington—41. 

So the demand for the previous question was sus^ 
tained. v 

The question then being on the amendment pro¬ 
posed by Mr. Greene, of Defiance; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the report to be 
engrossed; 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, demanded a division. 

The question then being on ordering sections 2, 3, 4 
and 5 to be engrossed ; 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 68, nays 29—as fol¬ 
lows : 


Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Blair, 
Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Cook, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, 
Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Ma¬ 
non, Mitchell, McCloud, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Warren, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—68. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensder¬ 
fer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Curry, Florence, Gillett, 
Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson, 
Horton, Larsh, Lidey, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Nash Otis, Scott 
of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell and 
W orthington—29. 


So sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 w^ere ordered to be engross¬ 
ed. 


The question then being on ordering sections 8, 9, 
10 and 12 to be engrossed ; 

Mr. TAYLOR demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordex'ed, and resulted—yeas 58, nays 38—as fol¬ 
lows: 


Yeas —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Bennett, Blair, Brown of Car- 
roll, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Manon, 
Mitchell, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reeme 
lin. Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Worthing¬ 
ton and President—58. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Baraetof Montgomery, Bates, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Chambers, Collings, 
Curry, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hun- 
ter, Larsh, Lidey, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, 
Scott ot Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan¬ 
bery, Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor and Worthington—37. 

So sections 8, 9, 10 and 12 were ordered to be en¬ 
grossed. 

The question then being on ordering sections 13 and 
14 to be engrossed; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the Represen¬ 
tative Schedule to be engrossed; 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 59, nays 38—as fol¬ 
lows : 


Yeas— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, 
Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, 
King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, 
Manon, Mitchell, McCloud, Norris, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, 
Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith 
of Warren, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Town¬ 
shend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and 


rreblufcjiii— dj?. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet ot Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of 
Ross, Harlan, Haw'kins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hor¬ 
ton, Jones, Larsh, Lidey, Mason, Morehead, Morris, Nash, Orton, 
Otis, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, Swan, Thompson of Stark, and Wor¬ 
thington—38. 

So the Representative schedule was ordered to be 
engrossed. 

The question then being on ordering the Senatorial 
schedule to be engrossed; 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays, 












1390 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


which were ordered and resulted—yeas 48, nays 49—as 
follows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, 
Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leadbetter, 
Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stick- 
ney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Townsbend, Warren, Way, Wilson 
and President—48. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown ot Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Chambers, Curry, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, King, Leech, Lidey, Ma¬ 
son, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Orton, Otis, Peck, Reeme- 
lin, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan- 
bery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Vance 
of Butler, Williams, Woodbury and Worthington—49. 

So the Convention refused to order the Senatorial 
schedule to be engrossed. 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, asked to be excused from 
serving on the select committee “on the Schedule;” 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY moved that the committee on Revis¬ 
ion, Enrollment and Arrangement be excused from 
attendance during the session of the Convention, when¬ 
ever they might deem it necessary; which was agreed 
to. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD asked to be excused from serv¬ 
ing on the committee on the Schedule; which was 
agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT announced Messrs. Nash and 
Mitchell to fill the vacancies in the committee on the 
Schedule. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, moved to reconsider the vote 
by which the Convention refused to engross the sena¬ 
torial schedule. 

Mr. REEMELIN should vote against the reconsid- 
tion of the vote by which the engrossment of this sena¬ 
torial schedule was ordered for the reason that “a 
burnt child always dreads the fire.” He knew that 
this matter would have to go into the constitution just 
as it is. It was necessary for the public safety, for it 
was a well known principle of law, that the construc¬ 
tion which the law-makers send out with the law it¬ 
self shall remain as the true construction. He had vo¬ 
ted for this report as it is, because he desired to avoid 
all idea of a borough representation. He would not 
support any proposition which would recognize any 
other than living, human beings, as the basis of repre¬ 
sentation, Either put Hamilton county and the entire 
State into single districts, or avoid the single district 
system altogether—he would go either way; but he 
would not acknowledge any approach to the borough 
system of representation. 

Mr. HOLMES said this table of lines and figures had 
been drawn up merely for the convenince of mem¬ 
bers. It was certainly not expected that it would go 
into the constitution in its present shape. He hoped 
that the consideration would prevail for the reasons as¬ 
signed. 

The question being now taken upon the motion to 
reconsider, it was decided in the affirmative. 

And then the question recurred again upon the en¬ 
grossment of the senatorial schedule. 

Mr. STANTON moved to amend the same, by stri¬ 
king out the word “ Ottowa,” where it occurs in the 
thirty-second line of the same, and adding the same at 
the end of the thirty-fifth line. 

Mr. S. said if this amendment were made, it would 
equalize the population of the Lucas and the Sandusky 
districts, making them both to contain about 59,000 in¬ 
habitants, whereas, now the former contains about 56,- 
000 and the latter about 62,000. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, said the strongest ob¬ 
jection which he had to this schedule was proposed to 
be obviated by this amendment. The county of Otta¬ 
wa was to be counted and always had been counted 
with the county of Wood, to constitute a representa¬ 
tive district; and now, he could not see any good sea¬ 
son that, for senatorial purposes, this county should be 


taken away from its connection with Wood county, 
and that senatorial district, and attached to the district 
composed of the counties of Huron, Erie and Sandus¬ 
ky. Now the counties of Huron, Erie and Sandusky 
make a district of 59,310 inhabitants, whilst the ad¬ 
joining district of Wood, Lucas, Henry, Putnam, &c, 
has a population of only 56,703; and if you add Ot¬ 
tawa to the districts of Huron, Erie and Sandusky, you 
increase the population to 62,620—making a difference 
between these two adjoining districts of 5,917 inhabi¬ 
tants. But if Ottawa were taken from the district to 
which it had been now assigned by the committee, and 
attached to the district composed of Wood, Lucas, 
Putnam, &c., it would increase the number of inhabi¬ 
tants in that district to 60,013, and leave the district of 
Huion, Erie and Sandusky with a population of 59,310 
—making a difference of but 708—making them as 
nearly equal, he apprehended, as any two contiguous 
districts in the State. 

Mr. TAYLOR show^ed that there were several dis¬ 
tricts in the State containing a largernumberof inhabi¬ 
tants than the proposed district of Huron, Erie, San¬ 
dusky and Ottawa; and with regard to the counties of 
Hancock, Wood, Lucas, Fulton, Henry and Putnam, 
although their aggregate population was now but a lit¬ 
tle over 56,000, it was fairly to be presumed that the 
increase of population in these counties would be far 
greater than that of the counties of Huron, Erie, San¬ 
dusky and Ottawa; and that, in the course of five or ten 
years, the numerical preponderance might be the other 
way. He showed, also, that from the locality of the 
county of Ottawa and their business connection with 
Sandusky city, it would be much more convenient for 
them to be attached to the district of Huron, Erie and 
Sandusky, as proposed in the report. 

Mr. STANTON said it would be seen by reference 
to the 5th section of the report, that the committee had 
adopted a principle regulating the size of representa¬ 
tive districts ; and in the 9th section it was provided, 
that the same rule should obtain for the apportionment 
of senatorial districts; that is, that counties shall be 
grouped together so as to make them approximate as 
soon as may be to the senatorial ratio. Here was a 
rule which they had agreed to lay down for the regu¬ 
lation of future apportionment. And if it w^ere a sound 
rule, why not carry it out. Consistency now required 
this at their hands, for they had already endorsed the 
principle with their votes. 

Any gentleman turning to the map, would perceive 
that the county of Ottawa was as convenient to the 
counties of Lucas and Wood, for all their business con¬ 
nections, as to the county of Erie, or any other county ; 
and it always had been attached to county of Wood 
for repi-esentative purposes. 

In regard to the increase of population; all exper¬ 
ience proved that in commercial places, like Sandus¬ 
ky City, the increase of population was always greater 
than in the agricultural regions. 

Mr. HOLMES said that so far as the members of the 
committee were concerned, they had no feeling in this 
matter beyond a desire to equalize the population in 
all the districts, and to have a suitable regard to com¬ 
pactness of territory; but that they had consulted the 
feelings and wishes of members from the northwest in 
the assignment which they had given to this county. 
If gentlemen would but refer to the map of the State, 
they would perceive that the county of Ottawa was 
much more conveniently districted, as in the report, 
than it would be if it were attached to the 35th dis¬ 
trict, as proposed by the amendment of the gentleman 
from Logan. 

Mr. HAWKINS should vote for this amendment. 
This Convention was now attempting to prevent the 
recurrence of great evils which had heretofore been 
experienced in the State, in connection with this mat¬ 
ter of apportionment; and he wished to do so in such a 
manner as not to violate any rule which they them¬ 
selves had laid down. The amendment proposed a 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1391 


compliance with one of these rules, by equalizing the 
number of inhabitants in these two districts; and he 
hoped it would receive the support of those who had 
taken it upon themselves to say so much about the im¬ 
portance of making population the basis of representa¬ 
tion. He was himself ready to vote for the remedy of 
any similar discrepancy between districts, in any oth¬ 
er part of the State, provided it could be had by con¬ 
necting contiguous territory. 

Mr. DORSEY said if gentlemen were to look simply 
to the column of figures in the schedule, he acknowled¬ 
ged there might seem to be some little justice in the 
amendment of the gentleman from Logan ; but if they 
were to look one hair’s breadth beyond these figures, 
they would see that there was not one jot or tittle of 
right or reason in it. 

The committee made their apportionment upon the 
principle of compactness of territory and equalization 
of the number of inhabitants. He asked gentlemen to 
observe, in the first place, that the report of the com¬ 
mittee had every advantage over the amendment upon 
the score of compactness of territory. And then he 
proceeded to show, by reference to the table, that there 
were several other districts in the State which had a 
larger population than this district, which it was now 
proposed to reduce. 

With regard to the objection taken from the fifth sec¬ 
tion of the report, which the gentleman from Logan 
had attempted to apply to this dicti-ict, the committee 
well knowing that they could not be made answerable 
for the changes which might take place in the popular 
strength; provided in the first place, to make all the 
districts as nearly equal as they could with respect to 
population, and having regard, at the same time, to 
compactness of territory. And if population should 
increase or diminish, they had provided a certain rule 
by which the formation of districts might be regulated 
for the future. 

He believed he would now state the true reason 
which had induced the gentleman from Logan to pro¬ 
pose this amendment. It was not because he objected 
to any discrepancy in regard to population. It wasnot 
because the mathematical eye of the gentleman was 
ofiended for want of compactness of territory in this 
arrangement; but simply because he had an inkling 
that by attaching the county of Ottawa to the district 
of Huron, Erie and Sandusky, we might happen to 
make a democratic district. Now I wish to say plain¬ 
ly, (continued Mr. D.,) that since a question of this na¬ 
ture has been broached, I intend to vote for this dis¬ 
trict simply for the reasons which I have stated, and 
for the additional reason that I hope this arrangement 
will make a Democratic district. 

Mr. CHAMBERS said the gentleman had been very 
fair and candid in making this avowal: and he doubted 
not but that it was for the very reason which the gen¬ 
tleman assigned that the committee had made this ap¬ 
pointment in the first place. 

Mr. DORSEY, (in his seat.) It was not. 

Mr*. CHAMBERS. But the gentleman has affirmed 
that this arrangement was made with reference to con- 
tif^uity of territory. Well if this statement was to be 
taken, how did it happen, that the counties of Ottawa 
and Wood, which had been always hitched together for 
representative purposes, should be separated now for 
the purpose of senatorial representation. He wanted 
that answered. . 

Mr. DORSEY. I will answer it. But— 

Mr. SAWYER, claiming the floor; demanded the 
previous question, and there was a second. 

The Convention, however, refusing to order the mam 

*^^M^°GREEN, of Ross, said the gentleman from Mi¬ 
ami had told us that compactness of territory was the 
rule by which the committee had acted in this matter, 
without any regard to political results. But now he 
desired to be informed whether the committee, when 
they made this last report, really supposed that they 


had made it in accordance with the design which the 
gentleman had told us they kept constantly in view. 
He found, upon looking at the report made by the 
committee last summer, that the counties of Huron, 
Erie and Sandusky were associated together as one sen¬ 
atorial district; and now he would like to known how 
it was, that, by attaching the county of Ottawa, the dis¬ 
trict was better compacted ; how it was thereby ren¬ 
dered a more beautiful ‘ district,—more comely to look 
upon? But he supposed the gentleman had given the 
true reason which induced this change, in the very last 
words he uttered. That was the doctrine — 

Mr. DORSEY (in his seat.) That is the doctrine, 
sir. 

Mr. GREEN. Well then, I am done 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. The gentleman from 
Miami, after having said the committee had no 
views of policy in connection with this arrangement, 
turns round and, before he closes his remarks, assigns 
that as the great object which he had in view. 

Mr. DORSEY, (in his seat.) Not that. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK. The gentleman might not have 
said it in those very words, but no mortal man, hearing 
the declaration, could have understood it differently. 

It was amusing to hear the various explanations, of 
the Chairman and his armor bearer upon this subject. 
The Chairman had said that the committee cared noth¬ 
ing at all about the political character of the district, 
but that they merely consulted the wishes of two or 
three delegates from that section of the State, although, 
therefore, we had been informed that the committee 
had acted wholly without consultation with anybody. 
But now, when we come to the scrivener, the speaker 
and writer for the committee, we had a different ac¬ 
count. 

The gentleman had alledged that this arrangement 
was necessary, in order to conform to the rule which 
they had laid down for the grouping of the counties, 
if any gentleman would look at the map, he would see 
a fine district of compact territory, taking the counties 
of Mercer, Auglaize, Vanwert, Paulding and Defiance, 
clear to the north-western boundary, and then taking a 
set ofl’ from that. There was one district composed of 
compact territory. And then, again, the committee 
had taken the county of Ottawa, which had always 
been connected with Wood county, and included in the 
same Senatorial district, and, for the sake of compact¬ 
ness of territory, had attached it to the district of Hu¬ 
ron. Erie and Sandusky. Now, he challenged any man 
to take the map and go back through all the history of 
the State apportionments, and find a more excellent 
gerrymander than this. 

There was no doubt but the natural connection of 
Ottawa was with Woad county, but they could not go 
directly from Ottawa into Erie county without crossing 
the water. The gentleman had certainly to go out of 
his way to get this county into the Erie district, and 
thereby to make a difference between the two adjoin¬ 
ing districts, of 6,000 inhabitants. And now the gen¬ 
tleman had told us plainly that he made this change in 
order to constitute another democratic district, and he 
had told us that he would vote for this apportionment 
with that view—actuated by that principle. God de 
liver him from men professing such principles. 

Mr. DORSEY. What had he said? The gentleman 
from Logan, [Mr. Stanton,] had offered his amend¬ 
ment, giving no other reason for it than that he hoped 
thereby to secure another Whig district. 

Mr. STANTON, (interposing.) The gentleman was 
incorrect in ascribing that motive. 

Mr. DORSEY, refusing to yield the floor, continued. 
Inasmuch as he believed this amendment to have been 
offered with a view of this kind, he intended, by the 
remark he made, to meet the mind of that gentleman 
with a counter mind. Was there anything dishonest 
in that, that it should call forth the solemn prayer of 
the gentleman from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] to be 
delivered from all such men? It might be that gen« 









1392 


CONVENTION KEPORTS, 


tlemen on that side of the house had reason to be afraid 
of men who were in the habit of expressing their opin¬ 
ions honestly. 

But he had been asked why this county of Ottawa 
was not attached to the Huron district, in the report 
which was made last summer. Was the gentleman 
from Logan really so little acquainted with the history 
of this apportionment as to render it necessarry for him 
to ask a question of this kind ? Did not that gentle¬ 
man know that when the committee met last summer 
they were furnished with an incorrect table of the cen¬ 
sus of Ohio, and that they acted then upon information 
that the State contained a hundred thousand inhabi¬ 
tants more than had appeared from the official returns? 
And did not the gentleman also know that in the first 
arrangement there were but thirty-three districts, 
whilst there were thirty-five proposed in the present 
report ? 

The gentleman from Muskingum [Mr. Chambers] 
had asked him how it happened that the committee 
had connected Ottawa with Wood county for repre¬ 
sentative purposes and not for senatorial purposes ? To 
this he replied, let any gentleman look at the map, and no 
unfairness of political motive could possibly be ascrib¬ 
ed to the committee. It was impossible for the county 
of Ottawa to be connected with any other county than 
Wood for representative purposes. 

But it seemed really that gentlemen were determin¬ 
ed to find some political gerrymander in this arrang- 
ment. They looked for nothing else, and all their 
amendments were ofiered with that view exclusively. 

Mr. TAYLOR said the city of Toledo was, in all re¬ 
spects, as much a commercial place as Sandusky City; 
so, giving to the gentleman from Logan the full force 
of his argument, to wit: that population was mo^jt like¬ 
ly to increase in commercial districts—the probabilities 
of an increase of population were, in this respect, 
equally balanced in the two districts. 

It was true, that he had consulted with others in re¬ 
lation to the arrangement of this district; but with re¬ 
spect to the political aspect of the question, the gentle¬ 
men of the committee would bear him witness that he 
was entirely indifferent as to that. He represented the 
counties of Huron and Erie, and he had the honor of 
being returned to this place by a majority of 350. If 
it were of any avail to express his own personal feeling 
upon this subject he would say, that for himself, he 
would rather be placed in a minority distret. 

It was true, as he had before said, that the business 
associations of the county of Ottawa were with the 
people of Sandusky city, and that wherever Sandusky 
went they ought to go for all the purposes of represen¬ 
tation; but, by the rule, Sandusky was already enti¬ 
tled to one Representative in the House, and Wood 
county being smaller, it was expedient that Ottawa 
should be attached to the latter for representative pur¬ 
poses. 

He was surprised to hear the gentleman from Mus¬ 
kingum, [Mr. Chambers,] interpose an objection to 
this arrangement, when his own district contained a 
population of nearly three thousand more than would 
be contained in the district of Huron, Erie, Sandusky 
and Wood. 

Mr. NASH still insisted that this was a most singular 
arrangement by which the county of Ottawa was at¬ 
tached to one county for Representative purposes and 
to another for Senatorial purposes; and also that this 
county was attached to the Huron district in violation 
of a rule, which the committee themselves had laid 
down, by which they were required to attach this 
county to that contiguous Senatorial district which 
contained the smallest number of inhabitants. By this 
rule the county of Ottawa should have been attached 
to the district of Wood, Lucas, &c., for the population 
of this district was some 3000 less than the district of 
Huron, Erie and Sandusky. If the committee had 
laid down a rule of apportionment which was to ope¬ 
rate irrespective of party, all he asked of them was to i 
stick to it ' 


Mr. MITCHELL ridiculed the amendment proposed 
by the gentleman from Logan, holding up and de¬ 
scribing the shape of the district it proposed upon the 
map. 

He affirmed that no injustice had been done to the 
Whig party in this scheme of apportionment, because 
the Democratic districts generally contained the largest 
number of inhabitants. But those gentlemen, perhaps, 
had need to catch at every little objection of this sort, 
and to gain any political advantage which they might, by 
this report. When the American people should come 
to know the fact, that their great object was to pro¬ 
tect capital to the exclusion and oppression of labor, 
they would not leave them with so much as a corpo¬ 
ral’s guard. 

Mr. OTIS said there were two arguments, if argu- 
ments'they could be called, which had been urged 
against this amendment. The one was adduced by 
the gentleman from Erie, [Mr. Taylor,] derived from 
the fact that there were some five or six districts in 
the State which were larger than this. But this could 
not be taken as a good reason against making the pro¬ 
posed equalization of population in these two districts. 
He held that the amendment ought to be adopted as a 
moral duty, since it was admitted that population was 
the only true basis of Senatorial representation. 

The other objection to the amendment was taken by 
the gentleman from Miami. [Mr. Dorsey,] who had 
put it upon the ground that the gentleman from Logan 
had made this motion from political motives; and 
therefore, with motives of the same character, he 
would resist it. But now, his friend from Logan, and 
those who acted with him in this matter, were very 
much in the situation of the lamb in the fable, when 
the wolf which came to drink at the same stream * 
above him, complained that the lamb had riled the 
stream, and was going to take vengeance upon him for 
the offence. 

But what business had we to look at the motives of 
gentlemen here ? It was a rule of law, that, if the 
judgment was right, no question could be raised about 
the motive, and this was a pure question of right. He 
considered that this amendment was so correct, and 
proper and reasonable, that it should be acceded to, 
without a word, by those having the control in this 
matter. 

Mr. SAWYER here made another demand for the 
previous question; and there was a second, but the 
Convention again refused to order the main question. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Stanton; 

Mr. HOLMES demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out the word 
“ Ottawa;” 

Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 43, nays 55— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Ewart^ 
Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Har¬ 
lan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Ma¬ 
son, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott 
of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Vance of Butler, Williams and Woodbury—43. 

Nays— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hen¬ 
derson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, 
Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Swan, Taylor, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Way, Warren, Wilson, Wor¬ 
thington and President—55. 

So the motion to strike out was rejected. 

Mr. LEECH moved to amend the “ Senatorial Sche¬ 
dule” by striking out the word “ Tuscarawas,” where 
it occurs in connection with the word poshocton,” 
and inserting, in lieu thereof, the word “ Holmes.” 

Mr. DORSEY was opposed to the amendment; he 
I would like the gentleman from Guernsey to let us know 









CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1393 


what he was 5 U 1115 
and Tuscarawas ? 


DEMOCKATIC DISTEICTS. WHIG DI3TBICTS. 

Hamilton county.GjMontgomery and Preble 

Warren and Butler. l' 


going to do with the counties of Wayne j districts, and he can examine for himself. 

I follows: 

Mr. LEECH, (in his seat.) He would leave Tusca¬ 
rawas and Wayne entirely with the gentleman from 
Miami. 

Mr. DORSEY was much obliged to the gentleman, 
but he had work enough to do without this assignment 
of the gentleman from Guernsey. If the committee 
were to have a couple of districts tom up in this way, 
they might as well have the whole apportionment torn 
up at once. 

Mr. STANTON asked for a division of this question. 

And then, the first question being on striking out the 


They are as 


Clermont aud Brown. 

Adams, Pike, Scioto and Jack- 

son. 

Athens, Hocking and Fair- 

tield. 

Franklin and Pickaway-*.. 

Knox and Morrow. 

Coshocton and Tuscarawas.. 


1 

Greene, Clinton and Fayette.. 1 

Ross and Highland. 1 

Clark, Champaign and Madi- 1 

eon. 1 

Miami, Daike and Shelby.1 

Logan, Union. Hai'din and Ma¬ 
rion..1 

Delaware and Licking.1 

Belmont and Harrison.1 


Guernsey and Monroe.1 Ashtabula, Lake and Geauga.. 1 


word “ Tuscarawas 

Mr. STANTON. Mr. President, I ask a division of 
the question, and that the vote may be first taken on 
striking out. If the motion to strike out prevails, I 
shall then move to insert Licking in the place of Tus¬ 
carawas. I agree tiial gentlemen have a right to know 
w’hatis to be done with the other districts, that are af¬ 
fected by the amendment, before they vote upon this 
motion. If this motion prevails, I propose to follow it 
up with a series of amendments, which will equalize, 
the population and change the political complexion of 
but one district. I shall propose to add Harrison to 
Tuscarav^’as, which will make" a Whig district. I then 
propose to put Jefferson to Belmont, iMahoiiing to Co¬ 
lumbiana, Ashtabula to Trumbull, Lake to Geauga and 
Portage, Summit to Medina, Lorain to Huron, Erie to 
Sandusky' and Seneca, CrawTord to Wyandot, Marion 
and Hardin, Delaware to Union and Logan, and such 
combination of the small counties in the Northwest, as 
will best equalize the population, and .suit the wishes 
of the members representing them. 

Tliese changes will only give one "Whig district more 
than the report of the committee. 

The residue of the report I do not propose to inter¬ 
fere with. 

Mr. President, while I should bold myselt forever de¬ 
graded if I could descend so low as to attempt to make 
a political gerrymander in a tundamenlal law, I hold it 
to be my duty to so far examine the political bearings 
of the report of the committee as to see that it does no 
iniustice to the party to which I belong. All I ask is, 
that something like fair and even-handed justice shall 
he done, aud that the voice of the people shall not bo 
stifled by an unjust and iniquitous apportionment. 

I may as well say frauklyr that I have no expecta¬ 
tion that this or any other amendment will prevail. 
The votes taken to-day indicate that it is the intention 
of the majority to make a constitution which no mem¬ 
ber on this side of the hall can support, either here or 
af the ballot box. The majority have determined to 
have a party constitution, and to rely tipou their party 
for its adoption by the people. 

It is therefore important for us to place, upon the l e- 
cord our ohiections to this apportionment, not only 
that the people may jufige of them, hut that you may 
not be able to plead ignorance, and say that you would 
have remedied them if they had beeu pointed out to 

^°The gentleman from Knox attempted to show that 
the Whigs had the advantage in the population of the 
districts. He is calculating without his host. The 
facts and figures will not bear him out. It is utterly 
vain and useless fur gentlemen to stand up here aud 
say that this Senatorial apportionment does justice to 
the Whigs of the State. 

Taking the Governor’s vote in 1848 as the test of the 
strength of parties in the State, this apportionment 
eives'^the democrats nineteen districts, and leave six¬ 
teen to be divided between the Whigs and Free Sell¬ 
ers. If any gentleman doubts it, I will give him the 

88 


CarI'oll and .Stark.1 

.Jefferson aud Columbiana... 1 


Trumbull and Mahoning.... 1 

Wayne and Holmes. 1 

Ashland and Richland. 

Seneca, Crawford and Wyan¬ 
dot.. 

Mercer, Allen, Auglaize, Van 
Wert, Paulding, Defiance 

and Williams.. li 

Hancock, Wood, Lucas, Ful¬ 
ton, Henry and Putnam. .. 1 


Cuyahoga. ’... 1 

Portage and Summit.1 

Medina and Lorain.1 

Huron, Erie, Sandusky and Ot- 


1| tawa. 

Lawrence, Gallia, Meigs and 

1 Vinton. 1 

1 Washington and Morgan.1 

Muskin^m and Perry.1 

Total Whig Districts.,...16 


Total Dem. Districts... .191 

Tested by the Governor’s election last fall, this report 
gives the D-.-mocrats 22 Senators, the Whigs 12,. and the 
Free Soilers 1. 

At both these elections the democracy were in a mi¬ 
nority of the popular vote. Taking the election of 
1849 as the best test, and the most favorable to the de¬ 
mocracy, it will be seen that the WTiigs carried the 
di.sUiois composed of the counties of Delaware and 
Licking, aud of Huron, Erie, Sandusky aud OtlowaJ; 
which there is no probability they could now carry. 
On the other hand the Democrats then carried the 
Franklin and Pickaway district, and the Adams and 
Scioto district, which the Whigs might possibly carry 
now. But of the sixteen districts then carried by the 
WTiigs, it is certain that the Ashtabula district, the Me¬ 
dina and Lorain district, and the Summit and Portage 
district would be carried by the Free Soilers or the 
Democrats. 

The utmost the Whig jjarty can expect under this 
apportionment, is 13 districts, unless there should be 
some unlooked for revolution in public opinion. 

If they should carry the State by a popular majority 
of 25,000, they would probably still be in a minority 
in the Senate. It will also be recollected that at both 
of these elections that are taken as tests of the political 
complexion of thi.s apportionment, the democracy were 
in a minority of the popular vote. Ford was elected 
in 1848, and Judge Wood was elected by a plurality 
only last fall. 

The Whigs ought, therefore, in an apportionment 
tested by these elections, to have the odd Senator, in¬ 
stead of having two and a fraction over one-third. 

Gentlemen will recollect that there is no guess work 
about this matter; but that it is a mathematical demon¬ 
stration, which no sophistry or evasion can escape from, 
or get rid of. It may also be well enough to say that 
the'"sixteen Whig districts contain an aggregate popu 
lation of 907,983, while the nineteen Democratic dis 
tricts contain an aggregate population of 1,072,975 
This leaves the democracy three Senators for a popu 
lation of 164,992, after assigning to them the same pop 
Illation in sixteen districts that there is in the sixteen 
Whig districts. Thus, while the ratio of the Whig dis 
tricts is 56,749, the democracy have then three extra 
districts with a ratio of 54,997. This may be consid¬ 
ered no great matter; but the result of it is to disfran¬ 
chise 5256 Whigs. If this was a matter of necessity, 
I should not be disposed to complain of it; but it is not. 
But there is no difficulty in so arranging the districts 
as to give them a full and fair representation. 













































1394 


CONVENTION REPOllTS, 


There is another view oi the subject. By this re¬ 
port the Whig counties of Warren, Athens, Tuscara¬ 
was, Carroll, Jetierson and Trumbull; making six 
Whig counties, with an aggregate population of 152,867, 
are swallowed up by being attached to Democratic 
counties. On the other hand, the only Democratic 
counties that are swallowed up by being attached to 
Whig counties, are Shelby, Marion and Terry, with an 
aggregate population of 47,254. 

In this computation I have omitted several counties 
on both sides that are in doubtful districts, in which it 
is very doubtful whether the whale will swallow Jo¬ 
nah or Jonah swallow the whale. 

Notwithstanding the unfairness of this scheme, I 
should not have been disposed to make any serious op¬ 
position to it, if the Convention had adopted the single 
district system. The principle is a sound one, and I 
should have been willing to trust it to work out correct 
results, notwithstanding disadvantages under which it 
would have been applied. But the Convention have 
rejected it and adopted the villainous system of double 
districts in which the voice of large masses is stifled by 
beingthrownintoelection districts with still larger mass¬ 
es of diflerent political principles. But eveir this is not 
the worst feature of the scheme. It is not only unjust 
and unfair in its combinations and iniquitous on ac¬ 
count of having double districts, but it is to be perpetu¬ 
al and unalterable. 

No change can be made in the districts at the de¬ 
cennial apportionments, unless it shall happen that 
two counties that now form a district shall each have a 
sufficient population to entitle it to a senator. But if 
any one or three or more counties shall, on a re-apppor- 
tionment, be entitled to more than one senator they 
must all be elected in common. It perpetuates its own 
deformity. Gentlemen no doubt suppose it gives them 
the control of the Senate for all time to come. This 
may be true. But no one can predict with any cer¬ 
tainty what will be its political complexion ten years 
hence. But it is based upon unsound principles, and 
therefore cannot lail to work injustice. 

But of one thing gentlemen may rest assured-—there 
is no one thing that you can insert in this constiution 
that will make it so odious to reflecting and conscien¬ 
tious men of all parties as a political gerrymander-. 
Whatever may be meji’s political opiriions or prejudi¬ 
ces their moral sense revolts at injustice, even where 
it is inflicted by their friends upon their political oppo¬ 
nents. Fair play is a jewel that is prized by the multi¬ 
tude above all price. 

But if gentlemen are determined to stake the desti¬ 
nies of their party upon such an issue, upon their heads 
be the consequences. 

The previous question was now demanded. And 
there was a second. 

The question then being, ‘‘Shall the main question 
be now put?’' it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment propo¬ 
sed by Mr. Dorsey; 

Mr. CODLINGS df-rnauded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered and r suited—yeas 54, noes 43—as fol- 

Yeas— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, 
Cook Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene ol Defiance, Gregg, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Holmes, Holt, Hoolman, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Johnson Jones, Kine, Ivirkvvood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Loudon, Manon, Mitchr 11, Norris, Patterson, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swilt, Taylor, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Way, Wilson and President—54. 

Navs— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Bamet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderter, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, Florence, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Lidey, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stan¬ 
ton, Stilwell, Williams, Worthington and Woodbury—43. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The question being on ordering the resolution to be 
engrossed, as amended; 


Mr. STANTON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 53, nays 44—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, 
Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Gioeebeck, Hard, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humplireville, 
Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Lead- 
better, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell,Norris, Patterson, Quigley, Ran¬ 
ney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thompson of 
Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson and 
President—53. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Baraet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, CuiTy, Ewart, Florence, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Roes, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Leech, Lidey, Ma¬ 
son, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott 
ot Harrisem, Smith ol Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor, Worthington and Woodbury—44. 

So the Senatorial schedule w^as ordered to be en¬ 
grossed. 

And on motion, the report was ordered to be read a 
third time on Wednesday, the 5th inst. 

Mr. LARWILL moved that the Convention adjourn, 
which was disagreed to. 

TEMPERANCE REPORT-OPEN CLAUSE. 

On motion of Mr. LAWRENCE, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into committee of the whole, Mr. Per¬ 
kins in the chair. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the committee took up 
the consideration of the report of the select committee 
on Temperance, submitted by Mr. Lawrence on the 
26th of February; which was read by the Chair¬ 
man, and is as follows; 

Resolved, That at the next general election, and at the same time 
when the votes of the electors shall be taken for the adoption or 
rejection of the new constitution, the additional section in the 
words following: 

“No licence to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be 
granted in this State, but the General Assembly may by law, pro¬ 
vide against evils resulting therefrom,” shall be separately sub¬ 
mitted to the electors of this State for adoption or rejection in 
form following, to wit: 

A separate ballot mav be given by every person, having the 
right to vote for the new constitution, to be ^posited in a sepa¬ 
rate box. 

Upon the ballots given for the adoption of the said separate 
amendment, shall be written or printed, or partly written and 
printed, the words, “License to sell intoxicating liquors. Yes,” and 
upon the ballots given against the adoption of the said separate 
amendment, in like manner the words, “License to sell intoxica¬ 
ting liquors. No.” 

If at the said election, a majority of all the votes given for and 
against the said separate amendment, shall contain the words, 
“License to sell intoxicating liquors, No,” then the said separate 
amendment shall be a separate section of article'— ol the consti¬ 
tution, in lull force and effect, any thing contained in the consti¬ 
tution to the contrarv notwithetandiug. 

Resolved, That the last preceding resolution be caused to be 
published in tlie manner specified in the resolution of the Conven¬ 
tion, relative to the notice of the time and manner of voting for 
the new constitution. 

Mr. MANON proposed to amend by striking out 
from the first line of the report these words, “at the 
next general election and,” so that it would read: 

^^Rcsolved, That at the same time when the votes of the electors 
shall be taken,” &c. 

The amendmend was agreed to by a unanimous con¬ 
sent. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to amend by striking out, 
ill the second paragraph, the word ‘‘ granted,” and in¬ 
serting in lieu tliereol the word “ required.” 

He made this motion for the purpose of relieving the 
terms of the section, as much as possible, from objec¬ 
tion and difficulty on the score of ambiguity. 

Mr. LAWRE.NCE hoped the motion of the gentle¬ 
man from Knox would not bo agreed to. The report 
submitted every plain proposition, which any gentle¬ 
man could understand upou the first reading. Even 
an ordinary schoolboy could comprehend its meaning 
perfectly. All that it meant was, that this traffic should 
not be licensed by law—should not be legalized. And 
that was all he wanted. For himself, although many 
of the friends of temperance objected, he would be 
perfectly willing and satisfied to dispense wholly with 










1395 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


the latter clause of the proposition. The amendment 
of the gentleman from Knox, instead of removing ob¬ 
jections and difficulty, on the score of ambiguity, wmuld 
only make the proposition still more ambiguous. 

Mr. MANON also hoped that the motion of the gen¬ 
tleman from Knox would not prevail. And he gave 
notice, that it no other gentleman would, he intended 
to move to strike out the latter clause of the proposi¬ 
tion. The proposition would then express plainly and 
unequivocally what it has upon its face, and nothing 
more nor less could be made out of it by any attempt 
at construction. 

Mr. MITCHELL was astonished at the saying of the 
gentleman from Guernsey, [Mr. Lawrence,] that an 
ordinary schoolboy could have no difficulty in under¬ 
standing this proposition, when the gentleman could 
not but remember that very respectable scholars of 
this body have been unable to agree upon its construc¬ 
tion. 

The gentleman from Jefferson, [Mr. Bates,] had 
understood the design of the proposition to thx’ow open 
the doors of the trade entirely—leaving the trade in 
all quantities beneath a quart just as it stands now, 
with reference to all quantities above that measure. 
But he could tell that gentleman that good lawyers 
were unable to agree upon what should be the inter¬ 
pretation of the proposition. For, looking at the speech¬ 
es of the gentleman from Gallia, the gentleman from 
Logan, and the gentleman from Guernsey—they seem 
to understand the proposition as a grant of power to 
the Legislature by which the traffic might be prohib¬ 
ited. 

Mr. LAWRENCE, (in his seat.) No sir; 1 never 
said that. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Why, the gentleman said as much 
as that but just before he took his seat. He had but 
just said that he did not want the traffic legalized by 
license. 

He maintained that the construction of the gentleman 
from Jefferson, [Mr. Bates,] was the only just and 
proper construction, and he desired to secure that, by 
the modification which he had proposed. But, so long 
as the proposition remained susceptible of two con¬ 
structions, it was plain that votes might be improperly 
obtained in favor of it. 

Mr. COLLINGS, said there seemed to be a difler- 
ence of opinion in regard to the true course which 
ou'^ht to be pursued by the friends of temperance; but 
he°did not understand how there could be any difier- 
ence of opinion in regard to the meaning of the words 
herein reported. We knew that in several of the Ju¬ 
dicial districts of the State, no license was now grant¬ 
ed. The eftect of license, was that no man should sell 
spirituous liquors at a less quantity than a quart, with¬ 
out being subject to a fine; and he supposed that the 
effect of the adoption of this report would be simply to 
remove that prohibition. 

Mr. LAWRENCE thought there would still remain, 
after taking away the sanction of the law, a small dif¬ 
ference between this traffic and ordinary merchandi¬ 
zing. But still he was willing to take no notice of that 
in law. No man was required to take out a license for 
selling his horse. Now he wished the traffic in spirit¬ 
uous liquors to be left in this way. Take away the 
license law, and leave it in the power of the Legisla¬ 
ture to pass such laws as might prevent the evils ari¬ 
sing from this traffic. 

Mr. Mitchell’s amendment was now rejected. 

Mr! MANON proposed further to amend the report, 
bv striking out the latter clause of the proposition, to 
wit; these final words, “but the General Assembly 
may? by provide against evils resulting there- 

Mr. LAWRENCE feared that the construction which 
the striking out of this clause would give to the propo¬ 
sition, would prevent the Legislature froin passing 
any law for the suppression of the evils growing out ol 
the traffic. But still he should vote for striking out 


Mr. HAWKINS said as this matter was to go up to 
the high court of the people, upon an appeal, he would 
like to see it go up just exactly in the shape in which 
it had been presented to this Convention. He hoped 
the amendment wc-uld not bo made. 

Mr. TAYLOR hoped the amendment would not pre¬ 
vail. He should forever contend that this clause pro¬ 
posed now to be stricken out, was a limitation upon 
the power of the General Assembly, to the effect that 
they may not prohibit the traffic, but that they may 
pass laws providing against the evils resulting from the 
existing traffic. 

Some time ago he had put this construction upon the 
clause, and he was pleased to find himself sustained by 
the newspapers. 

Mr. SAWYER thought there was a fair and honor¬ 
able understanding amongst all parties, that this prop¬ 
osition was to go to the people exactly in the shape in 
which it was reported. He was willing to adhere to 
that understanding; and therefore should go against 
any and every amendment. 

Mr. BATES said: The gentleman from Auglaize, 
[Mr. Sawyer,} was certainly correct. And although 
there were many objections against allowing the prop¬ 
osition to go into the constitution, yet, so long as its 
friends entertained a different opinion, he considered 
that it was due to them and to the cause, that they 
should have an opportunity of presenting the question 
to the people just as it is. 

He would therefore move that the committee rise 
and report the bill to the Convention. 

This motion was agreed to. 

And thereupon the committee rose and the Chairman 
reported that the committee had had under considera' 
tion the i-eport of the select committee on the subject 
of Temperance, and had instructed him to report the 
same back with one amendment. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of the committee of the Whole, to wit: strike 
out of the first line, the following words: “at the first 
general election;” f 

Mr. WOODBURY moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “shall the main question 
be now put?” it was agreed to. 

The question first being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of the committee of the W hole; 

On motion of Mr. GREEN of Ross, the Convention 
adjourned. 


TUESDAY, March 4, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

The PRESIDENT laid before the Convention a com^ 
munication from Alphonso Taft, tendering an invitation 
to the members and officers of the Convention to visit 
the House of Refuge. 

Also, an invitation from L. M. Lawson, M. D. to 
attend the exercises of the Medical College of Ohio ^ on 
the evening of the fourth instant. 

Mr. LOUDON, from the standing committee on Fi¬ 
nance and Taxation, to which bad been recommitted 
report number two, of the committee on that subject, 
reported the same back with sundry amendments. * 

The question being on agreeing to the first amend¬ 
ment proposed by the committee, to wit: In section 
two, after the word “ taxation,” insert the word “ per¬ 
sonal;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the second amendment 
to wit: In section two, strike out the words, “ the 
heads of each family,” and insert in lieu thereof the 
word “individuals.” ^ 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER demanded the yeas and 
nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 59, nays 
31—as follows:] ' ^ 

“'Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case ot Licking, Chambers, Cha¬ 
ney, Curry, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Graham, Gray, Gregg, Groea- 













1396 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


beck, Hamilton, Harlan, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humph- 
reville. Hunt, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Ptcemelin, Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, 
Struble, Swan, Swift, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Way, Wil¬ 
son, Woodbury, Worthington and President—59. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Cahill, Clark, Collings, Ewart, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Hard, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Jones, King, Larsh, Lead- 
better, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of 
Harrison, and Smith of Highland—31. 

So the amendment wa.s disagreed to. 

The question then being upon agreeing to the third 
amendment, to ’ivit; In section thre<?, after the word 
“ profits,” in the fourth line, insert: “ or money loaned 
at interest in any manner whatever.” 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I am not able to foresee what 
will be the effect of the section or of the amendment, 
because I do not profess to be acquainted with the 
mode of doing business by banks. I should like to 
hear from the members of the committee their views 
upon the subjbct, and also from other gentlemen who 
are acquainted with the business of banking. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I was not present in the commit¬ 
tee when this section was adopted—if I had been, I 
should have voted against it. It may be right in its 
ap[)lication under the present system of taxation, but 
if the system should ever be changed, it would be 
wrong, and work injustice. 

The source from which the banks derive their profits, 
is their notes and bills discounted. If they make mo¬ 
ney by any other menaiis, I do nut know it. The ob¬ 
ject to be atlained is to tax them as individuals are 
taxed—no more and no less. 

Mr. HORTON. As a member of the committee that 
made this report, I feel it a duly which I owe to myself, 
to say a few words in relation to what I believe will 
be the effect of its provisions. The second section 
provides that all moneys ar.d credits or investments in 
joint stock compari’es. Slate and United States stocks, 
or otherwise, shall be taxed as other property is taxed. 
The effect of this is, that all who own stock in a bank 
will be taxed upon it, in the same manner as other 
property is taxed. In this manner the stock is taxed 
once. But in order to do up the business of taxing 
banks the more effectually, the third section provides 
that the capital, notes and bills discounted, surplus, 
contingent fund and undivided profits, without any de¬ 
duction, shall be taxed in tiie same maimer as the pro¬ 
perty of individuals is taxed. This section taxes the 
capital stock the second time, as an aggregate. And 
that is not all. The notes and bills discounted, which 
also represent the capital, are taxed, and the surplus 
fund, which appears in the form of notes and bills dis¬ 
counted, also a part of the capital, pays its tax under 
that form. Then, again, under the second section, the 
real and personal estate, forming also a part of its capi¬ 
tal stock, pays taxes in the form of real and personal 
estate; so that the result of the provisions, of the report 
is that the capital of the State invested in banks will 
pay taxes three times over—first, in the hands of its 
holders; second, as the capital stock of the bank taxed 
in the name of the bank, and third, in the form of notes 
and bills discounted, surplus, contingent fund, undivided 
profits and real and personal estate. 

And, now, in'order that there shall be no possibility 
of escape, the Convention in committee has gone on 
still further to enumerate, as subjects of taxation, 
“money loaned at interest in any manner whatever,” 
which, if adopted, will prevent every bank in the State 
from putting its own bills in circulation, and in fact, ef¬ 
fectually wind up the affairs of every bank in the State. 

Mr. OTIS. Gentlemen on the other side of the Hall 
say that this subject of bank taxation is one which 
they do not understand, and about which they desire 
information; and that they wish to tax bank capital 
only to the same extent that the property of individu¬ 
als is taxed. If this is really what they desire, there is 
no difficulty in arriving at it. It is only necessary to 


incorporate a general declaration to that effect into the 
constitution, and leave the details to the General As¬ 
sembly. Their actions, however, do not comport at 
all with their declarations; for wuile they profess a 
desire to tax banks only as individuals are taxed, they 
are endeavoring to fix in the constitution, a rule for 


taxing banks, 


altogether 


different from the rule for 


taxing individuals, and which, if adopted, will compel 
bank capital to pay more than twice the amount of 
taxes paid by any other property in the State. Whether 
intended or not, the section now under consideration 
is directly calculated to destroy the banks. Let us 
look at what the majority on this floor have already 
done, and what they still propose to do on the subject 
of taxing banks, and see whether this statement is sus¬ 
tained or not. Aside from the report now under con¬ 
sideration, the report on corporations, which has been 
adopted by this Convention, provides that the property 
of corporations shall be taxed in the same manner as 
the property of individuals. This provision embraces 
banks as well as other corporations, and places all 
kinds of corporations and individuals upon the same 
footing. In addition to this, the Convention has just 
adopted the second section of the report under consid¬ 
eration, which provides that individuals owning stock 
in joint stock companies shall be taxed therefor as they 
are taxed for monies, credits or other property. This 
of course includes bank stock, and requires the owner 
of it to list it for taxation as money at interest. What 
next? Alter having thus provided that individuals 
owning stock in banks should be taxed therefor, the 
majority of the committee on Finance and Taxation 
proceeded to report the section now under considera¬ 
tion for taxing banks! The section as originally re¬ 
ported, required that banks should be taxed upon their 
capital stock paid in, their notes and bills discounted, 
their undivided profits, and their real and personal es¬ 
tate, deducting therefrom their circulation. If the 
committee kneiv anything about the matter referred to 
them, they must have known that they were not only 
lequiiing the banks to be taxed over and over again 
on the same property, but also requiring them to be 
taxed on the monies deposited with them by individu- 
ids for safe keeping. The real and personal estate of a 
bank, necessary to carry on the business of bankin'^ 
are taken from its capital stock and constitute a part 
of It. The undivided profits, which are retained to 
meet losses, are not separated from the other funds or 
monies of the bank, but constitute a part of the notes 
and bills discounted, and the capital stock paid in. 
circulation and deposits constitute the residue. Who ■ 
can fail to see that if you tax the notes and bills dis¬ 
counted, and the capital stock specifically, you tax the 
capital stock twice; so if you tax the notes and bills 
discounted and the undivided profits specifically you 
tax the undivided profits twice; and, so if you tax the 
capital stock, and the real and personal estate specifi- 
^^dy, you tax the real and. personal estate twice 
When this section of the report was under conside- 
ration in the Convention, a few days ago, the gentle¬ 
man from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] moved to strike itout 
and insert in lieu of it, a provision that banks should be 
taxed upon their notes apd bills discounted, surplus con¬ 
tingent fund, and undivided profits, without any deduc¬ 
tion whatever, and he accompanied his motion with a 
statement that his amendment was not only more fa¬ 
vorable to the banks than the original section, but that 
It furnished a just and equitable mode of taxing the 
banks, and one with which they ought to be satisfied, 
j ® and the gentleman’s rule was 

adopted. The amendment of the gentleman from Mi¬ 
ami, instead of being better, was much worse than the 
original section. 

_ From the official report of the Auditor of State, show- 
mg the condition of the banks on the first Monday of 
May, 1850, which has been placed in my hands, I am 
able to show the practical operation of the section as 
originally reported, and also, as amended on motion 










1397 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


of the geulleraaii from Miami, as a rule for taxing the 
banks, so far as it relates to the State bank of Ohio : 


Capital stock paid in. $4,601,256,00 

Undivided profits. 289,086,00 

Real and personal estate. 204 118 00 

Notes and bills discounted. 10,546,088',00 


Aggregate basis of taxation. $15,640,548,00 

Deduct circulation. 7,829,052.00 


Actual basis of taxation. $7,811,496 00 

By the section as originally reported, then, the State 
Bank of Ohio would be required to pay taxes on 
$7,811,496,00, which is $2,921,154,00 more than the cap¬ 
ital stock and undivided profits combined. This ex¬ 
cess is obtained by taxing the deposits, which amount¬ 
ed to $2,361,995,00, and taxing twice over the undivi¬ 
ded profits and real and personal estate and a part of 
the capital stock. 

The amendment of the gentleman from Miami re- 
uires the State bank to be taxed on its notes and bills, 
iscounted and undivided profits, without any deduc- 
tion.^ These amount to $10,835,174,00, and which is 
considerably more than double the amount of its capi¬ 
tal stock and undivided profits ! An individual loaning 
money would be taxed upon his capital and undivided 
profits, and not upon his deposits, 

I wish to have bank stock taxed according to its act¬ 
ual value, as the property of individuals is taxed, and 
. neither more nor less. This rule would embrace the 
capital stock, the undivided profits ou hand, and the 
value of the franchise, or the privilege wdiich banks 
enjoy under their charters—all of which go to form the 
actual value oi bunk stock. This rule is already twice 
secured ; first, in the report on corporations, and next 
in the second section of this report. And now, after 
taxing bank stock in the hands of its ownei'S, as the 
property of individuals is taxed, in the second section 
of this report, it is still pi’oposed, in the section under 
consideration, to tax the same stock over again as the 
[ property of the bank, and that too at much more than 
double its actual value ! 1 amnnwiiiing to believe that 

i the commttee,and the gentleman from Sliami, intended 
so great an absurdity, and so gross an outrage. The 
proposition is wholly inconsistent with their profes¬ 
sions. I wish to believe—charity leads me to believe— 
that they do not understand this subject. 

Mr. DORSEY. I hope to show in a few moments, that 
the mode of bank taxation, as provided in the amend¬ 
ment which I offered, is not so unjust as it is represen¬ 
ted by the gentleman from Meig.s, [Mr. Horton.] and 
Summit, [Mr. Otis.] Of course, if there is an incon¬ 
gruity ill the report by which they are taxed once in 
one section, and again in another, I do not hold myself 
responsible for it; but as I understand it, flie third sec¬ 
tion is the one that regulates the taxation of those insti¬ 
tutions. That section provides that the General As¬ 
sembly shall provide by law, for taxing the capital 
stock paid in, the notes and bills discounted, surplus 
contingent fund and undivided profits, without any de¬ 
duction, of all banks now in existence, or hereafter to 
be erected in this State, in the same nnumer as the 
property of individuals is taxed. It is objected to this 
provision that its effect is to tax the same p'rc>perty 
twice, inasmuch as the notes and bills discounted, rep¬ 
resent a part of tlie capital stock of the bank, and is 
otherwise taxed as such. NeVW I do not desire to lay 
upon the banks of the State, a pin's weight more of 
the public burdens than are borne by individuals,,and 
the only object of all these provisions, is to secur'e that 
they shall bear just as much and no more. _ 

1 believe that it is perfectly just and right that the 
banks of the State should be taxed upcm their notes 
and bills discounted, and that that element at least 
should enter into and form a part of the sum upon 
which the assessment is levied. And I wish to d,irect 
particular attention to the fact that their property al¬ 
most solely consists in their iiote.s and bills discounted. 


The other element is the surplus contingent fund and 
undivided pi’ofits, but this is small in the comparison. 
The amoimt of notes and bills discounted, as shown by 
the report of the Auditor of State, is $16,339,000, while 
the surplus contingent fund and undivided profits 
amounts only, in round numbers, to $669,000. For 
myself, I am willing to strike out this sum of $669,- 
000, forming, as gentlemen say, a part of the capital 
stock, from the sum to be taxed, and to tax only the 
notes and bills discounted, and all other sums due to 
them from which they derive profit. The only object 
is that they should be fairly taxed, and I am perfectly 
willing that this change should be made. 

Section second, which provides that the stock in 
corporations shall bo taxed as other property is taxed, 
real!)' means nothing as applied to banks, for the rea¬ 
son, that there is a difference between the cases, which 
renders any comparison impossible. The difference is 
this: An individual pays interest on his debts, while 
a bank receives interest upon hers, and therefore, some 
specific provision, applicable to the circumstances, is 
necessary; and I am willing, as I said, that they shall 
be taxed upon their notes and bills discounted, that be¬ 
ing the thing from which they derive profit, and upon 
every other source of gain that does not come under 
that head. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. The constitution ought to pro¬ 
vide that banks shall be taxed justly, and no more; but 
here is the danger in these multifarious provisions—the 
danger of evasion. Gentlemen seem to think that by 
making specific provisions they shall meet the difficul¬ 
ty—it may be the very means by which they will de¬ 
feat the object they have in view. Why not leave the 
whole matter to the General Assembly, providing mere¬ 
ly that they shall be taxed as individuals? By this 
means the Legislature will discover aiidpi’ovide against 
those evasions, which if they happen in regal’d to a con¬ 
stitutional provision cannot be remedied. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD then moved that the report be re¬ 
committed to the committee that reported it, with in¬ 
structions to strike out the third section and to insert in 
lieu thereof, the following: 

The property, rights and credits of banks shall be taxed to 
the same extent and upon the same principles ot assessment as 
the property of individuals. 

The question being ou the recommitment with in¬ 
struction.?; 

Mr. AROHBOLD demanded a division of the ques¬ 
tion. . • 

The question then Ixdng on the recommitment; 

iMr. LOUDON. I am afraid this question of banking 
will never be disposed of. It has been returned to the 
hands of that ignorant committee that reported it, again 
and again, and they have never made any alteration in 
if, and .strange as it may seem, it has been sustained by 
the ignorant Couveution—the last time, onacall ot the 
yeas and nays, by a vote of 53 to 41. 

It is said by genliemeu on this floor, that we do not 
understand this business of banking. Well, 1 believe 
that is true. Nobody, I believe, but his Satanic majes¬ 
ty himself, is capable of understanding the deep, dark 
iniquity of those institutions. 

Bat, sir, I desire to say, and I want tho reporter to 
put it down, that I congratulate the country in general 
and the people of Ohio in particular ou the services 
which they are entitled to looic for, from the talents, 
and ability of the gentleman from Summit, [Mr. Otis.] 
The country and this Convention is ignorant upon the 
subject ot banking: but I douLt not ho understands it. 
He comes from a part of the country v/here the people 
undersTaml well the art of making money by their wits, 
out of nothing or out of franchises, which is the same 

thing. I Ti -1 

A word to the gentleman from Meigs, [Mr. Horton.] 

He is known to be a mau of talents and of experience 
in financial affairs. He is a member of the committee, 
and ho tells us that he never heard froin the members 
of the majority any reason for the provisions of this re- 
























1398 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


port. Now T never heard that gentleman say that he 
was not in favor of taxing banks as individuals are 
taxed; on the contrary, I have heard him say that he 
was. 

Mr. HORTON. I am. 

Mr. LOUDON. Then why not attempt to give the 
committee some light in this matter? I must say that 
the gentleman gave us very little aid. His name is not 
to be found to any of the reports of the committee; and 
I can tell gentleman, that whenever you touch State or 
United States bonds, or levy a tax on special privileges, 
you will not find the gentleman fi'om Meigs or the gen¬ 
tleman from Summit giving any aid or comfort in the 
naatter. No sir : they have adopted the principle that 
it is right to throw the burden of taxation upon the la¬ 
bor and industry of the country. 

Now, Mr. President, what is the principle of this re¬ 
port in regard to bank taxation ? It is this: That all 
property shall be taxed equally to bear the burdens of 
the State. We do not propose to tax State bonds, nor 
bonds of the United States, but to tax the money of 
citizens in whatever it may have been invested." Is 
there any injustice in that? 

Sir, I object to any change in this third section. I 
say that does not place banks in a situation worse than 
individuals. The proposition is to place all upon the 
same platform and for that purpose we tax, first, their 
notes and bills, then their surplus contingent fund and 
undivided profits, and then, knowing that they will use 
every possible means to shrink from and evade the op¬ 
eration ot the laws, we have added a provision to tax 
their money loaned at interest in any manner what¬ 
soever so that if they see fit to change their business 
and go into operations like those of the Trust Company 
here, the Legislature will be able to meet them. 

I trust, sir, that that which has, on two occasions, 
been done by this Convention in regard to this report, 
will be done on the third, and that the matter will be 
disposed of now and forever. 

Mr. MANON. I am not in favor of recommitting 
this repoi't to the same committee. It has had it alrea¬ 
dy twice and has done nothing with it. I would, 
therefore, suggest to the gentleman from Monroe so to 
modify his motion as to have it referred to a select com¬ 
mittee. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I accept the suggestion, and 
will, if the Convention is agreed, modify my motion 
accordingly. 

No objection being made, the question was upon re¬ 
committing the report to a select committee. 

Mr. GREGG. The subject of bank taxation seems 
to me to be a very plain matter, and I trust that no one 
on either side of the chamber is willing to do any thing 
but what is just. All we want, on this side, is to tax 
every cent of money that is loaned by the banks, and 
for myself I can say that I will vote for nothing less 
than that. I would inquire if it would be in order to 
strike^ out the words, “ surplus or contingent fund and 
undivided profits?” 

The PRESIDENT. Not at present. The question 
18 on the recommitment. 

Mr. LARWILL. I hope the motion w’ill not prevail. 
I have no fear of any great injustice to the banks. 
There are loo many loop holes for them to creep out 
of, to suffer much. 

Mr. ARQHBOLD. That is what I fear from these 
provisions. I fear we shall not succeed in taxing them 
at all. ^ 

Mr. REEMELIN. Would it be proper to renew 
the motion to recommit this report to the standing com¬ 
mittee? ® 

The PRESIDENT. Such a motion would take pre¬ 
cedence of the one now pending. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I would then renew the motion 
to recommit the report to the standing committee that 

reported it. 

Mr. REEMELIN. I do not intend to make a speech 
upon this question, nor to move to instruct the com¬ 


mittee ; but there are certain provisions that I should 
like to see embodied in the report, in the place of the 
section under consideration. My views upon this sub¬ 
ject will be found on page 548 of the journal of the 
Senate for the session of 1846-7 a passage from which 
I will read as containing, in my opinion substantially 
the provision that ought to be made: 

“ The cashier or other principal accounting officer of 
every incorporated bank or banking company in this 
State shall, on or before the first Monday of July in 
each year, make out and verify by his oath a statement 
of the average amount of the entire indebtedness to 
each bank or banking company from time to time dur¬ 
ing the year previous to the time of making such state¬ 
ment, which amount shall include all the loans and dis¬ 
counts of such bank or banking company, whether 
originally made or renewed during the year aforesaid, 
or at any time previous; whether made on bills of 
exchange, notes, bonds, mortgages, or any other evi¬ 
dence of indebtedness; whether due previous to, dur¬ 
ing or after the period aforesaid ; and on which such 
bank or banking company has at any time reserved or 
received, or expects to receive any interest or discount 
or other consideration whatever.” 

The principles of this provision I should like to in¬ 
corporate in this report. I would add something like 
the following: Provided that any bank or banking 
company may nevertheless deduct such deposits on 
which such bank or banking companies allow five per 
cent, or more interest per annum. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. After the remarks of gentlemen 
upon both sides, I am still not satisfied with the provi¬ 
sions of the report. The second section provides that 
every individual who is the owner of bank stock, shall 
list it for taxation. It says ail investment in joint stock 
companies shall be taxed as other property is taxed. 
Then the third section requires that the assessor shall 
visit the corpoi'ate body and ascertain the full amount 
of its capital stock, its notes and bills, discounts and its 
surplus contingent fund, and undivided profits, and this 
is also listed for taxation. That seems to me to be 
rather more than twice its capital. We tax the capital 
once in the hands of the individual, and twice in the 
hands of the corporate body. This is putting it on 
rather too heavily, and I must be allowed to say, that 
I did not see the subject in the same light when it was 
previously before the Convention. The principle is 
not a correct one ; and I cannot vote for the provision 
until it is changed, because it is not taxing banks as 
individuals are taxed, but is taxing them much higher. 

The questiou then is, what wmuld be an equitable 
mode, under the circumstances, of taxing banks, hold¬ 
ing it right that they should be placed on an equality 
with individuals ? Some gentlemen suppose that an as¬ 
sessment ujK)n the capital alone vvoula produce the 
proper result. 1 do not think so. The merchant is 
taxed, not upon his capital merely, but upon his cred¬ 
its. A farmer who has purchased a farm at ten thou¬ 
sand dollars, upon which be has paid but five thou¬ 
sand and owes for the balance, is taxed upon the whole 
value of the property. Now, to tax a bank upon its 
capital alone, while it has property in other things be¬ 
sides its capital, is not fair. I will tell gentlemen what 
seems to me to be a fair proposition. Set down the 
capital stock, add to this the amount of notes and bills 
discounted; from that deduct the circulation and as¬ 
sess the remainder for taxation. It seems to me that 
this w'ould be fair for all parties. 

Mr. GREGG. I wish to ask the gentleman from 
Richland a question. If an individual had eighteen 
millions of dollars loaned out at interest, and a bank 
had eighteen millions loaned out at interest, would he 
make any difference between the two cases? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. I would not; but if the individ¬ 
ual ow’ed a snm of hioney, I wmuld deduct the amount 
from his eighteen millions. 

The difference between the plan I pi’oposed and that 
of the committee is about this: They would tax the 

1 








1399 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


I banks of the State on about eighteen millions; I, on 
j about fourteen. They would tax the capital stock over 
! about two and a half times, I not quite twice. 

I Mr. HAWKINS. I am astonished at the course of 
I gentlemen upon this question. They say they only 
want the banks taxed as individuals; yet they are un- 
' willing to trust to a simple constitutional provision to 
that effect. I have voted against these specific provis- 
consequence have suffered some. I am 
I glad, however, to find that some begin to see as I have 
done. Why are they not willing to trust this matter 
in the hands of the General Assembly? Their hatred 
me in mind of an expression of .John 
Randolph, vvho, when a certain woolen bill was under 
consideration in Congress, said that he hated the sub¬ 
ject so bad that he would go forty rods out of the way 
to kick a sheep. Why, I suppose some of the gentle¬ 
men would hardly be willing to take a river farm as a 
^u, because there are banks to it. I hope, sir that 
this motion will prevail. 

I hope that the rnodon to recom¬ 
mit will prevail. I do not propo.se to say anything 
upon the subject of bank taxation; that has already 
been ably handled, but there are other matters of very 
great imjiortance, in relation to which the report ought 
to be amended. 


But there is another subject which, in my opinion, 
needs the action of the committee. The provisions of 
me constitution \yill impose a tax upon all property 
^longing to institutions of learning, and devoted to 
the purpose of education, public school houses alone 
excepted. Now what is section sixteen ? It is land 
donated by the United States for the piu’po.se of educa¬ 
tion. It must be taxed, for it is not a public school 
house. There is a large amount of property donated 
for the support of academies, high schools and colleges, 
all ot which will be taxed under this bill unless it is 
amended in that respect. I, on a previous occasion, 
sailed the attention of the Convention to this subject, 
^nd was induced to believe that an amendment in ac- 
ordance with my views would have been reported by 
le committee. In that I was disappointed, and the 
andal spirit that seems to prevail in the committee 
duces me to believe that further argument would be 
eless. I say, therefore, that this question is not safe 
th the committee that reported the bill. 

And what will be the effect of this provision? It 
11 prevent new institutions from going into opera- 
i, and curtail the usefulness of those ah’eady estab- 
ed. Its effect will not be upon the rich, for they 
not feel the additional cost which it makes in the 
cation of their sons, but it is the sons of the poor 
will be hindered from availing themselves of the 
hies of the schools by the additional expense which 
*ax will impose upon them. My proposition was, 
^^mpt from taxation all property used exclusively 
^^ucational purpose s, and not for any private emol- 

re is another matter, in regard to the power of 
^”ite to tax the stocks of the State, and of the Uni- 
'^‘^.tes, I know that some gentlemen think that 
e a right to do it; the Supreme Court of the 
States has thought otherwi.se. I do not pro- 
pds gfjy they shall not be taxed, but merely to 
"^.he question with the Legislature. If the pro- 
visic not constitutional it cannot be enforced, but 
the itiou of a phrase giving the General Assembly 
a disjnn in the matter, will enable some of us to 
hames to this constitution, who otherwise can¬ 
not di 

"^^’^estion then being on committing the report 
to the^(jjnCT committee that reported it; 

Mf'jlCHBOLD demanded the yeas and nays, 
whichv-e ordered, and resulted—yeas 9, nays 76 
as foil/ 

YEAS-igrg. Cahill, Dorsey, Holt, Johnson, Kirkwood, 
Reemeh1^.ypj.^ Scott of Harrison and Struble—9. 

NAYs-lgi-g. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar. 
nett of Bates, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 


we 

Un 


Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, 
Ceilings, Cook, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Graham, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Hor¬ 
ton, Humphrevillp, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, King, Larsh, Lawrence, 
Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, 
Mopis, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, 
Quigley, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stidger, Swift, 
Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, War¬ 
ren, Way, Williams, Wilson, Worthington and President—^76. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

The question then being on committing the report 
to a select committee of five ; 

Mr. LARWILL demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 57, nays 29—as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, 
Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Graham, Gray, Hamilton, Hard, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hoot- 
man, IJorton, Humphrevillc, Hunter, Johnson, Kirkwood, Law- 
lence, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, 
Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Reeraelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stilwell, Swift, Taylor, 
Towuishend, Vance ot Butler, Warren, Way, Williams and Wor¬ 
thington—57. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Clark, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Holmes, Hunt, Jones, King, Larsh, Larwill Leech, 
Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Patterson, Quigley, Roll, Scott of Aug¬ 
laize, Sellers, Stanton, Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of 
Stark, Wilson and President—29. 

So (he motion to commit to a select committee waa 
agreed to, and Messrs. Archboi.d, Bennntt, Woodbu 
RY, Reemelin and Gregg were apppointed said com 
miltee. 

Report number one, of the committee on Miscella¬ 
neous Subjects and Propositions, was read a second 
lime, 

And on motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, com-, 
milted to a committee of the whole Convention. 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved that the report of the se¬ 
lect committee on the subject of Temperance, with the 
pending amendment, be taken up. It was agreed to. 

The question being on agreeing to the amendment 
of the committee of the whole, to wit: Strike out of the 
first line the following words, “ at the first general elec¬ 
tion it was agreed to. 

Tiie question then being on ordering the report to be 
engrossed ; 

Mr. HAWKINS demanded tlie yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 55, nays 30, as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 
Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown ot Carroll, Ca¬ 
hill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clianey, Collings, Cook, Ewing, 
Farr, Florence, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Holt, Hunt, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, 
Loudon, Manon, Morri.s, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, 
Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quialey, Sawj-er, Smith of Warren, 
Stebbins. Stickney, Stidger. Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Warren, VVay, Williams, Wilson, VVoodbury, Worthington and 
President—55. 

NAYS—Messrs. BaiTiett of Preble, Di)r.«ey, Ewart, Greene of 
Defiance, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Hor¬ 
ton, Humphreville, Hunter. Jones, King, Larsh, Larwill, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Mitchell, Otis. Reemelin, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Highland, Shmtou, Stilwell, Struble, Swift, Tay¬ 
lor and Wnce of Butler—30. 

So the report was ordered t(^ be engrossed, 

And on motion w'as ordered to be read a third time 
on the 5th iiist. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, tb;- Convennoii lesolved 
itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Greene, of 
Defiance, in the chair. 

Mr. MANON moved that the coMunittee take up the 
resolution offered by him upon r-uhject of the prac¬ 
tice of the law ; which was agreed to. 

The resolution is as follows : 

Resolved, That every person of good moral character, and en¬ 
titled to vote, shall have permission to practice law, any law to the 
contrary notwithstanding. 

Mr. MANON. Mr. President, I mn fully convinced 
that the principle of this resoiniiut! is right, because I 
do not believe that it is right in this country for any man 

















1400 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


to have anything like an exclusive privilege that can¬ 
not be enjoyed by another. I do not understand why 
a man should be required to read a given number of 
pages or spend a given length of time in a lawyer’s office, 
before he can be permitted to make his appearance in 
the courts of justice with a green bag in his band and 
undertake to prosecute and defend causes. The prin¬ 
ciple has been tried in other States of the Union, 
and so far as I know, there has been no complaint 
about it. Is it the law in Indiana, as provided in 
the new constitution, and in several other States, and 
there is just as much reason in obliging a man to serve 
an apprenticeship, before he can be permitted the far¬ 
ming, as the law business. 

Why, Mr. President, a man cannot hold a plow well 
without practice, but is that any reason why he should 
not hold a plow if he should happen to be called on by 
somebody who wanted to employ him for that purpose? 
This is a question entirely between the employer and 
the employed, and between them alone. If a man 
whom I hire to manage a cause for me manages 
it wrong and I lose my case, itis hislnisiness and mine, 
and I do not know what business the other lawyers 
have to say wlietiier I shall employ him -or not. Every 
man has a natural right to engage in any legal and hon¬ 
orable business. Is it true that this provision,'if adop 
ted, may interfere a little with the business of some of 
the members of this body; but I hope that this consid¬ 
eration will liaA'e no elTect upon their votes ; and I hope 
that as lawyers they will take the same view of their 
case, that 1 as a farmer would of mine. 

Mr President, I feel a good deal of interest in this, 
question. There are some of the courts of the State 


Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of 
Stark and Woodbury—32. 

Nays —Mesers. Barbee, Bai'net of Montgomery, Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Bates, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, Collings, Cook, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gillet, Hamilton, Harlan, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hootman, Hunter, Kirkwood, 
Lawrence, Leadbetter, Mitchell, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, 
Otis, Peck, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Smith of Warren, Stilwell, 
Swift, Townehend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, 
Wilson and President—47. 

So the Convention refused to order the article to be 
engrossed. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved that the Convention resolve 
itself into a committee of the Whole; which was agreed 
to —Mr. Gray in the Chair. 

The order being the report of the standing commit¬ 
tee on Miscellaneous Subjects and Propositions, the 
same was read: 

Sec. —. The commissioners of counties, the trustees of town¬ 
ships, and similarboards, shall have such power of local taxation 
for police purposes, as may be prescribed by law. 

Mr. CHAMBEKS moved that the committee rise and 
report; which was agreed to. 

The committee then rose, and the Chairman reported 
that the committee had had under consideration the 
report ot the committee ou Miscellaneous Subjects and 
Propositions, and had instructed them to report the 
same back without amendment. 

The question being on ordering the report to be eiv 
grossed; 

Mr. GREGG moved to amend the report by addinj 
as an additiof^al .section, the following: 

Sec. 2. Tribunals of conciliation shall be established by tf 
General Assembly, with such powers and duties as may be pr 
scribed by law ; but such tribunals shall haveno power to rend 


where I am desirous that all who wisii to practice may ! judgment to be obligatory on the parties, except they voluntar 
be allowed to come. I do not know much about these 
paper courts, that gentlemen talk so much about, but 
have no doubt that even in those there would be no 
difficulty. It is only the man who has read a great 
pile of books who is supposed to have sense enough to 
come into court and take his seat among the lawyers? 

Now, Mr. President, I do not, by any means, wish to 
bring down the legal profession in its intelligence or 
respectability. Ou the contrary my object is of an en¬ 
tirely different character. It is to bring np the people 
to the same level. This experiment has been tried in 
regard to the medical profession. Every man is now' 
allowed to practice' medicine who desires to do so, if 
he can find any boily to em[)loy him. I would a.sk if 
the physicians have suffered in consequence of this 
practice? And wi)ich i.s of the most consequence to a 
man, his money or bis life? If I am mistaken in em- 


submit their matters in difference, and agree to abide the ju( 
ment, or assent thereto in the presence of such tribunal in sv 
case as shall he prescribed by law. 

IMr. PERKINS moved tiie previous question. 

The question then being, “ Shall the main quest 
be now' put ? ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being ou agreeing to the aun 
meut of Mr. Gregg ; 

2\Ir. GREGG demanded the yeas and nays, w 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 42, nays 39—a 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, G 
of Beiiauce, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Holt, Ho(^> 
Hunter, King, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Loudon, Mnnon, Mitchell, McCormick, Otis, Patterson, Q^> 
Reemelin, sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott o.*"'Auglaize, ®’ 
Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, ’G 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Warren and "Way—42. 

Nays — Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Ba 



restrict them in the mere matter of property is not 
only a departure iVorn the principle, but seems an ab¬ 
surdity. 

Mr. HAMILTON moved that the committee rise and 
report; which was agreed to. 

The committee rose and the CHAIRMAN re¬ 
ported that the con uiittee had had under considerati(>n 
the article submit’■,! by Mr. Maxox, and hod instruct¬ 
ed him to report the .=ame back without amendment. 

The question then, being on ordering the article to be 
engrossed ; 

Mr. WOODBUhY moved tJie previous question. 

The que.?tiou th. n i>eing: Shall the main questiem be 
now put ? the sann’ vas agreed to. 

The question Uic’'! being on orderiugthe article to be 
ngrossed ; 

Mr. MANON clf Ei inded the yens and 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 32. nays 47—as fol 
lows: 


Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Chaney, Forbes, Gray, Greene of De¬ 
fiance, Gregg, Hard, Hav'kins, Holmbs Holt,* Humphreville, 
Jones, King, Larsh, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Morris, Pat¬ 
terson, Perkins, Quigley, Reemelin, Scott of Aiiglaize, Sellers, 


well, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and 
—39. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on ovdeiing the 
be engrossed ; 

Mr. ARCHBOLD demanded a division. 

The question then being on ordering the fii-JGtion 
to be engrossed ; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on orderiugthe 
tion to be engrossed ; 

Mr. GREGG demanded the yeas and n 

-as fol- 


were ordered, aud resulted- 
lows: 


-yeas 41, nays 


_ Yeas— .Messrs. Archbold, Clark, Cook, Corsoy, 0® ot De¬ 
fiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Holmeslb Hpot- 
nian, Hunter, Kmg, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leaf-G 
Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Otis, Patto- Quigley, 
lays, which Reemelin, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Scott of AuN Sellers, 
Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, b Taylor, 
Thompson Cl Stark, Townshend, and Way—41. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, ‘6t of Pre 
ble. Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer. Bro^f Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, CahiU, Chambers, Chaney, Gge, Ewart, 
Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham Gray, Harl Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, R Kirkwood, 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1101 


Morris, McCloud, Norris, Peck, Perkins, Sawyer, Smith of High- 
land. Smith oi Warren, Stilwell, Williams, Woodbury. Worth- 
mgton and President—39. ^ 

So the second section was ordered to be engrossed 5 
and on motion, - - 

the 5th inst. 

On motion of 
recess. 


ordered to be read a third time on 
Mr. LIDEY, the Convention took a 


_ _ 2^ o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. REEMELIN submitted the followincr; 

Resolved, That Stephen Mohtor and J. B. Stallo be, and they 
are hereby appointed translators for the purpose of translating 
the new Constitution into the German language, and that said 
translators fiirnish to each German paper in the State a correct 
copy thereof, and also a fair copy to be deposited with the Eno’- 
lish copy, as directed by law. ° 

Resolved, That a select committee of — be appointed whose 
duty it shall be to compare carefully the translation thus made 
and the respective copies thereof, and that the select committee 
thus appointed be, and the same is hereby authorized to allow to the 
translators such compensation as may be deemed reasonable not 
to exceed thiity dollars in all; and that such allowance be paid 
out of the fund appropriated to defray the expenses of this Con¬ 
vention, on the order of the President. 

On motion of the same gentleman, the resolutions 
were referred to the select committee 011 Printing, 

On motion of Mr. PIAWKINS, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Leech 
in the chair, and resumed the consideration of Mr. 
Holt’s resolution upon the subject of Banking and 
Currency, submitted by that gentleman on the 24th day 
of January. 

The resolution is as follows: 

Resolved, ^hat the following be incorporated into the new con¬ 
stitution, as an article thereof: 

ARTICLE. 

Sec. 1. Taxes shall be levied upon the productive capital or 
the hanks in this State, whether such capital consists of money, 
debts, or credits, in such manner and for such purposes as shall 
be levied upon other property. 

Sec. 2. The General Assembly, at its first session after the 
adoption of this constitution, shall provide by law for the ascer¬ 
tainment of the rate and amount of interest which shall thereaf¬ 
ter be received, annually, by the several banks in this State, on 
the amount of their actual capital in good faith paid in, whether 
received by means of a loan of money, of paper currency or by 
any other device, expedient, or mode of doing business; and if 
any bank shall have received, after deductingoxpenses, an exhil> 
it of which shall be annually made to the Auditor of State, and 


rency, or by any other device, or expedient, or mode of doing 
business, a rate or amount of interest on the actual capital in good 
faith paid in, greater than shall be by law allowed to the citizens 
generally of the State; nor shall any such grant or law exempt 
any individual corporator or banker from liability in his private 
capacity for the payment of all the debts of the corporation, bank¬ 
er or bankers, with whom, as a banker, he shall have been associ¬ 
ated at the time of contracting such indebtednes; Provided, al¬ 
ways, that no such grant or law shall have any force or effect un¬ 
til the same shall have been submitted to a vote of the electors of 
the State at some general election, and approved by a majority of 
the votes cast at such election. 

Mr. REEMELIN, pro forma, proposed to amend the 
report by striking out the first section. 

Mr. REEMELIN said that much as he generally dis¬ 
liked all half way measures, such as the one now un¬ 
der consideration, still he welcomed the proposition 
now under consideration, as it enabled him to make 
some remarks for which he had,as yet, had no oppor¬ 
tunity. 

It has [continued Mr. R.,] been long a matter of 
doubt with me, whether the assertion so often repeat- 
^ ed, “ that banks of issue facilitated trade by increasing 
'the amount of capital,” was true or not, and I directed 
my inquiries therefore to such statistics as I could 
reach, to either satisfy me that paper money did in¬ 
crease capita], or that the reverse was true. Early last 
summer, while we were yet in session in Columbus, I 
examined carefully the journals of our legislative bod¬ 
ies, and the public reports of our officers, with refer 
ence to that subject. I also examined various other 
documents, and after a patient, careful and impartial 
inquiry, I came to the firm conviction that banks of is- 
.sue did not only not increase our means, but that they 
really have been the only impediments to an uninter¬ 
rupted prosperity. I found that they always disorder¬ 
ed the regular course of trade—that they banished le¬ 
gitimate credit—that they have thrown great losses up¬ 
on the body of our people—and that without them 
Ohio wouki now be richer in the constitutional cur¬ 
rency—richer in real capital—richer in a regular trade 
—in short, our prosperity has been produced by hard 
labor, and not by backing ; and what good we have 
exists in spite of paper money banking, and not as the 
result of it. 

I found that no words have cost us, as a people, 


by him i-eported to the General Assembly, a rate or amount of I more motley than these delusive words : “ There is not 
interest on such capital, over and above the rate and interest money enough in the country to do the business of the 


which shall be allowed by law to the citizens of the State gener¬ 
ally, the excess of such interest shall be paid into the treasury of 
the State for the use of the State, 

Sec. 3. At the same session, the General Assembly shall by 
law, prohibit the circulation, as money, within this State, every 
species of paper currency of a denomination less than three dol¬ 
lars, after the fourth day of July, in the year one thousand eizht 
hundred and fifty-two; and of a denomination less than five ciol- 
lars, after the fourth day of July, in the year one thousand eight 
hilndi-ed and fifty-four; and of a denomination less than ten dol¬ 
lars, after the fourth day of July, in the year one-thousand eight 
hundred and fifty-seven ; and of a denomination less than, twenty 
dollars, after the fourth day of July, in the year one thousand 
eight hundred and sixty; and of every denomination after the 
fourth day of July, in the year one thousand eight hundred sixty- 
six, until the question of “ bank or no bank,” shall have been sut- 

tate, as is pro 


mitted to, and voted upon by the electors of the 
vided for in this article 

Sec. 4. No payment made in paper currency, circulating as 
money contrary to the provisions of this article, for property 
bought or sold, or on any contract, shall be a bar to an action 
brought for the recovery of the price or value of such property, 
nor to an action brought upon such contract, and such payment 
shall, to all intents and purposes, be held void. 

Sec. 5. After the fourth day of July, in the year one thousand 
eia:ht hundred and seventy-one, the General A-sembly may sub¬ 
mit to the electors of the ^tf.te, at any general election, the ques¬ 
tion of “ bank or no bank,” and if at such election a majority of 
the votes cast shall be against banks, the General Assembly shall 
not therefgre authorize, create, or incorporate, by any general or 
special lav.’, any bank, banking power or privilege, ucr any insti¬ 
tution or corporation having any banking power or privilege 
whatever, and shall, by law, prohibit forever the circulation as 
money, of every species of paper currency; but if the majority of 
all the votes cast at such election, shall be in favor of i.anks, then 
the General Assembly may grant bank charters, of pass a general 
banldng law, with such restrictions and under such regulations 
as they may deem expedieut and proper for the security of the 
bill holder; but no such grant or law shall ever authorize any 
such corporation, banker or bankers, to demand or receive di¬ 
rectly or indirectly, by means of a loan ol money, of paper cur¬ 


coiuitry.” The history oi' our State points to wreck 
after wreck of both public aiul private wealth, as the fa¬ 
tal result of these honied phrases. Whenever the State 
attempted to “ create a currency,” fatal results to bu- 
sine 8 .s always followed, and the higher the expansion, 
the deeper the distress; the lower the contraction, the 
easier our monied allidrs. 

There have been, in this Stale, three severe crises in 
our monied aflairs, and it is strange, but true, that our 
greatest distress always prevailed when we had the 
most paper money, and that business matters always 
righted themselves as we returned from paper money 
to the currency of the constitution. 

I need but mention 1814 to 1816, 1820 to 1822, 1837 
to IS il, to at once find a responsive affirmative in every 
mind to my assertion. 

In 1814, the money loaned by banks to the people 

amounted to about.$3,000,000 

In 1822 . 5,000,000 

In 1837 .19,000,000 

Each time the greatest proportionate increase of 
bank facilities—each time a high expansion of curren¬ 
cy—and each time, too. Governor’s messages speak of 
distress; our Auditors’ reports speak of financial diffi¬ 
culties; and during each of these periods our public 
papers are full of Sherift' gales; each such period is 
marked by banks breaking, and by a general wreck of 
public and private wealth. 

On the other hand, our public records and the news- 
pfipers of the day, bear the unmistakable evidence that 
as we reduced our paper money circulation, and with 
Them, .proportionately, our bank facilities, that in the 






















1402 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


same ratio the amount of real coin increased, and with 
the return of the constitutional currency came a revi¬ 
val of business, and with it a credit based upon a legi¬ 
timate and sure basis. 

I acknowledge, freely, that it is impossible to get at 
entire accuracy, for previous to 1814, there is no report 
to be found on banks and paper money. Mr. Craw¬ 
ford’s report, as Secretary of the Treasury, throws the 
first light upon the subject. 

He states the capital of Ohio banks in 


1814 to have been.$1,433,819 

1815 “ 1,932,108 

1816 “ .:. 2,806,737 

1817 “ 2,000,369 

1818 Mr. Hammon reports it at. 2,000,000 

With discounts amounting to. 4,000,000 


The operation of the United States bank, during its 
early period, in this State, are hard to ascertain; but 
Mr. Hammond states, in his report, that that bank made 
$293,340 per annum, having no real capital, and the 
same distinguished gentleman then held the correct 
doctrine: “ that the issues of the United States bank of¬ 
fice were of absolute necessity charged upon the capi¬ 
tal of the Slate.” 

Tt is plain that the discounts of the United States 
bank from 1800 to 1821, could not have been less than ' 
$2,000,000, and this was in addition to our own banks, 
so that from 1800 to 1822, it is most probable that the 
bank discounts of Ohio must have amounted to some 
$ 6 , 000 , 000 . 

The history of that period is well known to our peo¬ 
ple; and although we have no data between 1820 and 
1831, still the prosperity which subsequently returned 
to Ohio, cannot be the result of bank facilities, for most 
of the banks had gone out of existence, leaving the 
United States Bank master of the field. 

In 1819 the reports of public officers show “ that no 
specie, nor notes of specie paying banks, were paid 
into the treasury,” and the same year the Currency 
committee, in reporting upon the return of banks made 
to them, say: “These returns were not made to be 
laid before the Legislature; the committee therefore 
decline making an abstract.” 

In fact, the desire to conceal from the people all cor¬ 
rect information on the subject of paper money, is ob¬ 
vious to every person who will take the pains to inves¬ 
tigate the subject. 

During this same period it is evident that our bank 
notes had no value abroad; for such is the statement 
repeatedly made in Niles’ Register. 

^ There is also a strange fact, which any one may as¬ 
certain by calculation, that the profits of the United 
States Bank, which brought no capital, did often ex¬ 
ceed the expenses and revenues of the whole State 
government; for so Mr. Hammond states in liis report; 
and on further inquiry, that with but a few exceptions, 
the dividends declared by the banks have exceeded the 
whole revenue of our government in any one year. 

These facts led me to endeavor to make a calculation 
of how much the people of Ohio have lost by banks; 
and although I could not, from difficulties which will 
become obvious to all who make the inquiry, arrive at 
exact correctness; still I am sure that I have impartial¬ 
ly examined the facts in the premises; and that where 


I was compelled to estimate, I did so against my argu- ' 
raent, and in favor of banks. 

I took down— 

1. The name of every bank in the State. 

2. Date of its charter. 

3. Expiration of it. 

4. The time during which it existed. 

5. Average capital paid in during the several periods. 

6. The average discounts. 

7. I estimate the loss by breaking or by the several 

depreciation in their not es. 

8. The average circulation. 

I repeat that I do not claim entire accuracy, but I 
showed ray table privately to members, and corrected 
it, where facts were exhibited to me justifying the 
change. I will also state that, in arriving at the period 
of<?xislence, I may have set down a too long period of 
existence, since some of them ceased to exist after 
1822 and up to 18^6 ; but, on the whole, I am sure I am 
as correct as I could be in trying to follow the laby¬ 
rinth of our bank statistics, w’here concealment was 
the motto. 

In estimating the amount paid to bank officers, I 
know I am generally below the truth. * 

The loss by bank notes is estimated by the average 
circulation, and the depreciation during the several 
periods, and adding, where the bank failed, the amount 
at that particular period. Some banks, like the Miami 
Exporting Company, failed twice. 

Of the following banks I could find no traces in the 


official report: 

Bank of Cincinnati.Broke. 

Farmers’ and Mechanics’ bank of Cin’ti_ do 

.Tefferson bank at New Salem. do 

Farmers’, Mechanics’ and Manufacturing 

bank at Cbillicothe. do 

Lebanon Miami Exchange Company. do 

Lebanon Miami bank. do 

Zanesville Canal and Manufacturing bank.. do 

Bank of Mansfield. do 

Butler County bank. do 

Exchange bank at Cincinnati. do 

Savings do do. do 

Hamilton County bank. do 

Hamilton and Ros8^^11e Manufacturing Co. do 

Kirtland Safety Society bank. do 

Merchants’ and Traders’ bank, Cincinnati., do 
Monroe Falls Manufacturing Company.... do 

Ohio Railroad Company, Richmond., __ do 

Owl Creek bank, at Mt. Vernon. do 

Piatt’s bank. do 

Orphan’s Institute. do 

Washington bank, at Miamisburgh. do 

Western Reserve bank, at Brighton. do 

Canal bank, at Middletown. do 

Western bank, in Cincinnati. do 

Farmers’ bank, at New Salem. do 

Newton Library... do 

New Bank, at Circleville. do 

Maumee Insurance Company. do 

Franklin Silk Company. do 


Nor could I find any regular reports for the United 
States Bank. 

Mr. REEMELIN then submitted the following state¬ 
ment : 











































CONVENTION REPORTS 


1403 



This Statement, and the list of banks preceding, 
shows, if careftdly examined, 

1. That we have had, up to 1844, sixty-seven banks 
in existence. 

2. That of these, about forty broke with heavy loss¬ 
es to the people. 

3. That not more than five ot the whole number of 
banks have ever yet finally and honorable settled up. 

4. That the people have paid for the use of a paper 


currency, in dividends, at least.$14,070,000 

In depreciation of bank notes. 5,000,000 

Amount paid to bank officers.1,660,000 


$20,530,000 

Now we must further estimate the losses sustained 
by the people, through the use of a paper currency in 
the purchase of bills of exchange. I ascertained the 
premiums paid during the several periods when I 
could find them, and I find they differed a good deal. 



































































































1404 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


They varied from 1 to as high as 14 per cent., having 
paid the latter sum myself. I could not ascertain the 
amount of exchange annually purchased, but 1 am sure 
no one acquainted will think my estimates as hereafter 
put down, too high. 

I also estimate the loss by shinplasters, and I am 
sure that is not too high, and that in fact it should be 
put down at double that sum, for the shinplasters of 
the Exchange Bank were shaved so often that their 
amount was made some twice or three times before 
they broke. The same is true of West Union iSliaini 
Exporting Company, at Ooniieaut. I continue my ta¬ 
ble thus: 

Brought from above.$20,730,000 

Loss for premiums paid for exchange in 48 

years. 12,000,000 

Loss by Shinplasters. 3,000,000 

Amount of profits drawn by United States 
Bank, being for 18 years, $300,000 per 

annum. 5,400,000 

Salaries of United States Bank officers.... 90,000 
Profits divided under present banking system, ac¬ 
cording to tax paid: 

In 1846.275,000 j 

1847.400,000 I 

“ 1848.....550,000 | 

1849.800,000 i 

“ 1850.880,000- 2,905,0001 

44,125,000 $44,125000 i 

The interest of the real bona fide capital employed j 
in these banks should, 1 suppose, be deducted, which j 
would have amounted to about 8,000,000, which de-j 
ducted leaves as the cost of the use of paper money to [ 
the people of Ohio, thirty-six millions of dollars. j 
In reference to the estimate of losses for premium j 
paid on bills of Exchange, it is proper to add that tiie j 
Banking Companies of 1841 value that loss at 10^ 
millions in about eight years. See vul. 8, Pub. Doc., 
page 71, which may be rather high, but I am sure that 
it needs but for a person to consider the amount of 
money transmitted East annually to convince him, that 
my estimate, being based on 40 year, is too low. I 
have myself paid 14 per cent, premium during the last 
suspension, and Exchange has but seldom been below 
10 per cent., half of which must be charged to the use | 
of paper money, for without it Exchange would be | 
putper cent, or less. ' 

I have not been able to get anything like a fair esii-! 
mate for brokerage, nor ior losses sustained by the 
public through bank notes lost by fire and otherwise. 
This loss is not small, and I am told the Trust Compa¬ 
ny his now outstanding of its own circulation $50,- 
000, or equaltto 10 per cent, on the whole average cir¬ 
culation. j 

Nor have I been able to arrive at any correct esti i 
mate of the losses sustained by stockholders, nor those 
sustained by depositors, but taking all things into con-1 
sideration, and the losses sustained by the people of 
Ohio, cannot amount to less than forty millions in forty- 
eight years ; all paid for the chimera that there is not 
money enough in the country to do the business of the 
country. 

And do not let us forget that half of the dividends 
paid went abroad, and that therefore up to ’44 there 


were sent abroad.$7,000,000 

And by the U. S. Bank. 5,000,000 

And by the present system. 1,000,0001 


Making in all..’.$13,000,000 


While the highest amount of capital ever held in 
this State from abroad, never exceeded 3^ millions, or 
about half of our bank capital. 

The calculation in relation to bank dividends, and to 
the stock held by foreign stockholders, is based partly 
On reports, but generally on the amount of taxes paid, 
as for instance from Mr. Brough’s report, on bank taxa¬ 
tion. 


So far then from getting any capital into the State 
we have got it out, and every bank law should be 
called a law to diminish our means—to rob labor—-to 
feed idlers at home and abroad, &.c.—to destroy legiti¬ 
mate credit. . , i • u 

But look to the future ! We are again on the high 
road of expansion,—we have again fifty-six banks in 
existence, and the cry is still for more. 

The capital invested amounts to.$ 7,300,000 

The circulation higher than ever. 10,000,000 

The amount of money at interest is.. 16,300,000 
Or double their real capital. 

The nett profits made annually are not less per an¬ 
num than $50,000. , 

Our banks have fifteen years to run, and the divi¬ 
dends they will divide will amount to not less than 
fifteen millions. . * 

Then count brokerage, count the money paid lor 
bills of exchange more than should be, and we will find 
that the use of a paper currency will cost us immense 


And half of all this extra gain goes abroad for divi¬ 
dends, and it so happened that in the last lour years 
our foreign stockholders have got half their capital 
back in dividends, and by 1865, when the present 
banking system expires, they will have received their 
capital back again twice, at least, in dividends. ^ 

And do not let us suppose that the foreign capitalists 
furnish us capital,—no, they furnish only our bonds, 
which, so far as they are concerned, may as well lay 
in Columbus as in their own offices. It is, therefore, 
a mere extra privilege conferred, for which we pay an¬ 
nually dearer than for any thing else we enjoy. 

I venture to repeat the assertion, that the use of pa¬ 
per moneys costs us annually more than our government, 
and that before all is ended, it will cost us more than 
double the same. 

But this may be set down as a mere assertion; por- 
mit me, therefore, to submit a few’ facts, which will 
show undeniably the correctness ot my position. 

The banks paid last year, as per Auditor’s report, 

the following tax.$57,004 98 

This tax is the result of a tax at 6 per cent 
u}»on the profits, and for every 6 dollars 

of tax, the banks have made. 100 

Now then to have paid the above sum their net pro¬ 
fits must have amounted to.$950,055 

There are 56 banks in the State, and the expenses 
for tffiicers to each can not be less than $3,000—making 
$168,000 per year. 

The imports into the State, which must be paid in 
eastern Exchange, and on every dollar of which we 
have to pay ^ of extra premium, in consequence of our 
using a paper currency, amount to at least 30 millions; 
makiu" 150,000 dollars per annum, most of which goes 
to brokers. 

The banks have a surplus fund of undivided profit 
amounting to $669,865 95; so that their nett profits 
cannot be less than $1,100,000 per annum. 


Now let us recapitulnte : 

Dividends. $950,055 

Amount paid to Officers. 168,000 

Extra premium on eastern Exchange. 150,000 

Surplus annually. 100,000 


1,368,055 

Now the e.xpenses of our State government, interest, 
and a part of it payment of debt, amounted in all to 
$1,350,000; sustaining the assertion, that the use of paper 
money costs us more than our government. But will 
the paper money system now in operation in this State, 
settle up finally ? Has any banking system ever done 
so ? Are we not piling up misfortune for our chil¬ 
dren ? 

Again I may be told, that paper money being now in 
existence, a return to the constitutional currency, would 
work serious evils to trade, to commerce, and to all 
business relations. In reply, I can only say, that the 












































CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1405 


facts I have submitted, prove the reverse, but lest there 
may be some stubborn mind, which cannot be reached 
by plain facts, I would ask this question: whether, if 
every bank bill in Ohio perish in one night, either by 
fire or otherwise, whether oim dollar of value would 
thereby be destroyed, whether there would be any less 
bread, any less meat, any less clothing, any less labor, 
any less religion, any less talent, any less industry ? 
No ! a change might occur in the relative wealth of our 
citizens, but in six weeks the general face of society, 
would be calm, and in three months, business, credit, 
and all other relations would re-establish themselves on 
a firmer aad surer basis Our w’ealth is the result of la¬ 
bor, and of the continued accession to our population. 
Banks are a clog, and not an auxilary to our means 
Such were the early opinions of our statesmen, for so 
Mr. Hammond says in his report, and such is the real 
result. Every bank established, is an absorption of 
real capital, and a substitution in lieu of it, of fictitious 
capital, and the establishment of a banking system, is 
in itself a derangement of the existing relations of so¬ 
ciety. This vacuum created in the real capital of our 
people, cannot be restored by paper money credit. 

Capital is the result of labor, and true legitimate 
credit should be based on individual character and the 
probable results of industry. Ail mere arbitrary cre¬ 
ations of capital, such as paper money, not being the 
result of industry, and being ephemeral in their char- 
i acter, are creating individuous competition with indus¬ 
try; and all capital, fictitious or otherwise, bears, by 
our existing relations of society, an income to the owui- 
ers, and therefore a ci’eation of fictitious capital is, as 
Mr. Hammond correctly remarked, in reference to the 
issue of the United States bank, “of necessity, a charge 
upon the real capital of the State;’’ they are forced 
loans from the whole community, for the especial bene¬ 
fit of the bankers. This is clear, for every man of Ohio, 
to obtain capital, must either work tor it, trade lor it, 
or inherit it—but the banker gets it by special power, 
arbitrarily conferred upon him. 

There is annually, a certain amount of capital crea¬ 
ted by the people of Ohio. This is the result of labor. 
But to create paper money does not increase that capi- 
tal—for it is not value, it is only the representative of, 
it—and the conclusion is therefore inevitable, that the ' 
special creation of fictitious capital is nothing more 
nor less, than to enable a few, who enjoy special privi¬ 
leges to enjoy a capital which they did not labor for, 

'r which is the result of no labor on their part, nor of any 
f other industry, and therefore a charge upon the labor 
of others, and upon the real capital created by labor. 
In short, capital created by special law is^ the enemy 
of capital created b; 
industry, to enable : 
industry, what others 
A committee of t 
Seabury F ord was ch 
ings of our people at 
' 801 , 820 , and from th( 

1 earnings pay our tax 
» ble spread by the in* 
j joys the fictitious ca] 
j and enjoys by speci 
of any industry of t 
[. But to make this 6 

) few facts. The Auc 
1 May, 1850, states : 

{ The capital of bank 
\ And the loans and d 
i 

j Here is a different 

‘ I ask where does 

Whence the enjoyi 
Whence else, excep 
4 money ? Whence e 
! capital created by £ 

I tent exactly do thes 
j upon the industry of 


But I may be told that being surrounded by paper 
money States, we must protect ourselves by a counter 
creation of paper money. A fev/ facts will dispjel thi.s 
illusion. When Ohio, in 1841, had reduced her cur¬ 
rency, Indiana had inceased her’s. The result was, 
that the merchants of Indiana discounted at home, and 
they had to pay the discount. When we were flush in 
bank facilities, w^e discounted here and we had to pay 
the discounts. And it is no use to tell me, that it w^as 
charged upon goods, for it is not so, there being an av¬ 
erage profit-say one half cent per pound profit on coffee, 
and say 5 per cent, on dry goods, out of w’hich the dis¬ 
counts has to be paid. 

But again, in the fall of 1840-’41-’42, when Indiana 
sent us her scrip, and wdieii her banks issued largely, 
w’hat did the Indiana farmers take home for their hogs ? 
They took home their own fictitious capital, which we 
enjoyed at their expense and for whose use they had 
to pay. 

And, again, permit me to refer to a case in point, 
which happened in the last two years. Austria is well 
known to have now more paper money than any oth¬ 
er country in the world; Bavaria, also, has created 
large amounts of paper money, and France has increas¬ 
ed its paper circulation. These countries surround the 
republic of Switzerland—the only republic of any ac- 
j count in Europe, and strange, but true, also, the only 
I hard money State in Europe. According to Whig log- 
i ic, that republic should have been drained of its specie. 
It should have been the plunder ground for Austrian 
and French paper money. But not so ! The reverse 
did happen, and will happen any where else where 
the experiment may be tried. Switzerland was filled 
with specie, and of this I speak by actual ocular dem¬ 
onstration. The metallic currency of Switzerland re¬ 
sisted all attempts of amalgamation, and it became, not 
the plunder ground, but the common ground, whence 
fled much of the gold and silver of France and Aus¬ 
tria. And so it will always be. New York got the 
specie of Pennsylvania, when the latter followed the 
false lights of Nick Biddle, and so will any hard money 
State, surrounded by soft money States, get the advan¬ 
tage in trade, and in every other way affecting business 
relations. 

Why, sir! it does not take half as much money as 
most folks suppose to carry on our business relations. 
I have lived and done business in hard money countries; 
and I can say, that all this talk about a scarcity of mo¬ 
ney, and the difficulty of carrying it about, are mere 
humbugs. Bills of exchange supply all these wants, 
and men not accustomed to business matters would be 
astonished to find, on examination, that the largest of 
our transactions even now are conducted without mov¬ 
ing a single dollar of money. The only difficulty lies 
here, that by the action of paper money we have cre¬ 
ated an unnatui’al demand for money—an entirely un¬ 
natural state of affairs. Withdraw paper money, and 
matters will assume a regular order. The credit of 
our merchants would be better east, for the mercantile 
men there know, that business in all hard money States 
is more regular, and has a surer basis. No deceptive 
appearances can be used by bank credit at home and 
every man enjoys precisely his legitimate credit, and 
’ ' ■ te credit always goes farther than bank credit; 

ve should enjoy here a larger amount of eaat- 
tal. 

n for myself in this matter some little expeii- 
} a merchant formerly, not only here, but in 
too, I have closely watched the workings of 
ir money system, and I can freely state, that I 
. low recollect a merchant using bank credits 
lio remained solvent long; nor do I now recol- 
lerchant, who used his credit sparingly, that 
Nor do I now recollect a single merchant, who 
much connected with banks, that has been 
.. il in bi’-^iness. Those of our merchants who 
tcted upon the hufd> nioi^y principle have been the 
most successful. ' ■ 


cnarge upon 
joy, without 
e manner, 
f which Mr. 
annual earn- 
erty at $43,- 
live. These 
)ounteous ta- 
eats and en- 
, and he eats 
as the result 


iit 

1 , 












1406 


CONVENTIOJ^^ REPOfiTS. 


This, sir, is my experience! I have ionnd all the 
cant phrases of bankites, on scrutiny, to be mere un¬ 
meaning terms; or more properly speaking, meaning 
the reverse. “Regulate the currency,” should be read, 
disorder the currency—“ create capital,” means destroy 
it—“bank facilities” should be bank difficulties—in 
facts short, banks bring about results directly the re¬ 
verse of what is claimed for them by their proceeds. 

I do know that our trade, our business, our wealth, 
our prosperity, our happiness and of the generations af¬ 
ter us, is jeopardized by the creation and the use of pa¬ 
per money. Knowing this, I can not and I will not 
vote for any proposition that sanctions paper money in 
any manner whatever. The State has not the power 
to charter banks and if it had, it should not use it. I shall 
therefore vote against the proposition submitted by the 
gentleman from Mongomery, [Mr. Holt.] 

In conclusion, permit me to say, that 1 had one ob¬ 
ject in view in this matter, which I trust I have ac¬ 
complished and that was to square the accounts be¬ 
tween the people and the banks under the old constitu¬ 
tion. X trust I have given the name of every bank and 
I believe my estimates are fair and correct. Perhaps 
howevei-, some other peison more able than myself 
will finish more fully, what I have undertaken, and 
that thus the fallacies of the friends of paper money 
may be more fully exposed. 

I repeat, then, as my conviction after a careful exam¬ 
ination, that the history of paper money in Ohio teach¬ 
es this fact clearly that the people of Ohio have lost, 
during the existence of the present constitution, forty 
millions of their hard earnings, by the use of paper 
money instead of the currency of the constitution. 

Mr. LAWRENCE, by way of perfecting the words 
proposed to be stricken out, moved to insert after the 
word “ resolved,” these words, “ that there be appropri¬ 
ated to Col. Hawkins five hundred dollars, for the pur¬ 
pose of draining the black swamps. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN said he could not entertain the 
amendment. 

Mr. LAWRENCE, (in his seat.) I appeal from that 
decision. 

Mr. SAWYER, (in his seat.) The gentleman has no 
right to appeal. [Merriment.] 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. The gentleman from Hamil¬ 
ton says he has just given us the heads and outlines of 
a speech which he intends to elaborate in print. I sup¬ 
pose, of course, the gentlemen does not expect a reply 
to that speech; and therefore I suggest that the speech 
of the gentleman from Hamilton, be laid upon the table 
and ordered to be printed and distributed on the first 
Monday of December next. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HAWKINS said the amendment of the gentle¬ 
man from Guernsey was in contravention of a clause 
which was acted upon this morning, forbidding any 
special appropriations of money for purposes of inter¬ 
nal improvement. [Continued merriment.] 

The CHAIRMAN said the amendment was already 
ruled out of order. 

Mr. TAYLOR. If this motion succeeds, I suppose it 
will be equivalent to an expression of a determination 
on the part of this Convention to pass over the whole 
subject of banking and currency in silence. 

I am not disposed to dissent from this disposition 
of the report. The report of the standing committee 
on Banks and Currency was not concurred in by the 
Convention, and such, I believe, would have been the 
fate of every proposition which might have been offer 
ed upon the subject. 

I have risen to express very briefly my views upon 
this subject which have not been expressed upon any 
previous occasion. Upon the subject of repeal I have 
not uttered a syllable; upon the subject of banks I have 
interposed no remarks. But, early in the summer ses¬ 
sion I offered to the Convention a series of resolution 
embodying the views which are entertained by m' 
constituents and myself upon ♦bis «abject; an i I 
simply ask the attention c/ the Convention whiieAwiiail 
rehe^^gQ jmy views upon that subject 


I believe that a proposition of the character with 
that which I hold in?my hand would be a very proper 
subject for the action of this Convention. As an expo¬ 
sition of correct opinion I will read it: 

ARTICLE —. 

No system or institution of banking, by which bills or notes are 
authorized to circulate as money, shall exist in the State after 
the first day of January, 1854, or be established by the General 
Assembly, unless the act or acts creating the same shall have 
been previously submitted to the people, and a majority of ail the 
votes at a general election shall be in favor thereof. 

A section to that effect would, it seems to me, Rave 
a tendency very much to reconcile confficling opinions 
upon this subject. No system of banking should exist, 
or be authorized, without having been first expressly 
sanctioned by a popular vote. Under such a proposi¬ 
tion the friends of tlie State Bank system would be in 
vited, prior to the year 1855, to present their system of 
a Stale Bank in its most favorable aspects before the 
people, and if our Whig friends are in the right, they 
would thus have a fair opportunity of gaining the popu¬ 
lar sanction. If, however, this system should not re¬ 
ceive the popular sanction, the friends of the banks 
would still have an opportunity to submit another sys¬ 
tem ; and if any system could receive the specific sanc¬ 
tion and approval of the people, then the matter would 
rest quietly; whereas now, it certainly will not thus 
rest. But if, ou the other hand, a majority should de¬ 
cide against any system of banking, we would still have 
the benefit of the result of a full and free utterance of 
the will of the people of the State. 

Before I take my seat I wish to make another state¬ 
ment in reference to this subject. I believe it is our du¬ 
ty, as representatives of the sovereignty of the people 
of Ohio, to present before the Congress of the nation a 
resolution of this body, reminding them of their duty 
to regulate the currency of the country and furnish us 
with a constitutional standard of value; and request^ 
ing our Representatives and instructing our Senators to 
vote for a law suppressing all bank bills of the denomi¬ 
nation of any description of our national coinage,— 
thus making gold and silver as the prevalent, as it is 
the only constitutional standard of value. 

If this body were to pass such a resolution, it would 
be a revival of the currency issue, which was insisted 
upon by Jackson, and which affords a practicable mea¬ 
sure. 

Sir, if Congress were to tax out of existence all the 
small bank notes of the countiy—tax them fifty or a 
hundred per cent.—tax them out of existence, as pro¬ 
posed by Thomas H. Benton, in his great speech upon 
the veto of the bank of the United States, we would 
Very soon have ample scope and verge enough for a 
genuine California currency. Sir, I look back toward 
the efforts upon this subject, of 1832 and 1834, for the 
true solution of this question. Give us a gold and sil 
ver currency; suppress small bank paper by Congres¬ 
sional action ; and then I am willing to leave the whole 
question of banking and currency to the action of a 
free people. 

I shall vote for striking out, because I believe the 
section to be inadequate; because I believe this ques¬ 
tion must rest, in a great degree, upon the action of 

Congress; because- 

[Here the teu minutes expired.] 

The question now being taken on the motion to 
strike out the first section, it was decided in the 
negative. 

And then, o^i^motion by Mr. HAW KINS, the commit¬ 
tee rose, an^'. , ' chairman reported the article to the 

Convent,-o- w 

the ^ recurring upon the engrossment 

Proposed to ameiid the report by 
sident^ niotion bavin ^ been entertained by the Pre- 

Mr. ® aid : I am satisfied that no pro¬ 
vision oi adopted in this Convention 


/ 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1407 


which will have ihe ehect to restrict the power of the 
General Assembly hi the creation ol banks hereafter. 
Some eentlerneii will oppose such provision because 
they ^uo not desire such restriction; others because 
they are unwilling to recognize the power of the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly to create banks. Believing such to be 
the sense ol the Convention, I have made the present 
motion for the purpose of saving time. It is known 
that I am not of the same opinion as those on this side 
of the chamber, who will not vote for restrictions on 
banking in future, lest thereby they should recognize 
the power ol the General Assembly to create banks. 
We all know—at least I think I know, that unless we 
deprive the General Assembly of the power to create 
banks herealter that body will create them. I also 
know that heretofore these institutions have been 
granted privileges which never should have been con¬ 
ferred upon them. Knowing these facts to exist, 1 am 
unwilling to shut my eyes to them and their conse¬ 
quences, but am desirous to restrict, so far as I may be 
able, that power which I cannot entirely destroy. En¬ 
tertaining these opinions I shall vote against the motion 
I have made. I have made it a test question. If it 
shall not prevail I shall consider it as an expression of 
opinion by the Convention, that we are willing to act 
in this matter, and I shall then be willing to go on and 
perfect the sections. If the motion shall prevail, I 
shall have discharged my duty, 

Mr. DORSEY. I do not know whether I understand 
precisely what will be the effect of the proposition of 
the gentleman from Richland, [Mr. Kirkwood,] but 
I am desirous that some action should be taken upon 
this subject w'hich shall be satisfactory to the people ol 
Ohio. I have no doubt but that the people expect some 
action ; and they have a right to expect from this Con¬ 
vention that they will not adjourn without taking some 
action upon this subject. I do not think that the peo¬ 
ple expect a recognition here of the principle that the 
Legislature have no power over the subject of banks; 
but I believe the people of Ohio do expect that this 
Convention, before the termination of the session, will 
proceed to place some restrictions upon the Legislature 
with regard to the x’ower they shall exercise in refer¬ 
ence to the banking institutions. But as we have spent 
a good deal of time upon this subject without coming 
to any result; and as I believe the people will be bet¬ 
ter satisfied with having this matter submitted to them¬ 
selves in a separate form, so that they may determine 
for themselves the question whether the Legislature 
shall exercise this power or not, I propose to amend 
this resolution of the gentleman from Montgomery, 
[Mr. Holt,] by striking out all after the word “ resol¬ 
ved ” and inserting the propositions which 1 hold in my 
hand and which 1 will ask the privilege of reading. 

The PRESIDENT said the amendment would not be 
in order, until the pending question should be dispo¬ 
sed of. 

Mr. DORSEY. I will read then, for information, 
what I will now give notice that it is ray intention to 
offer, as soon as I may have an opportunity. 

Mr. D. then read the following: 

Resolved, Vhat at the election which shall be held for the adop¬ 
tion or rejection of this constitution, the following propositions 
shall be submitted to the electors of this State, in the mode fol 

lowincT^ to wit • • I ■* 

A separate ballot shall be given by every person entitled to vote 
At such election, to be deposited in a separate box, on which shall 
he written or printed or partly written and partly printed, the 
words, “ exclusive hard money—yes," or “ exclusive hard moii- 

such election, a majority of all the votes, given for and 
Affainst such proposition, shall contain the words “ exclusive hard 
_yes," then the following section shall be inserted in this 

*^°From^^d after the adoption of this constitution, it shall be un¬ 
lawful for any person within this State, to make, emit, receive, 
^yeulate, or pay out any bank note, bill, or other evidence ol 
debt or any paper medium intended or calculated to circulate as 
money, and the Legislature shall, by law, provide proper penal¬ 
ties againsts the same." . r j 

If at such election a majority of all the votes given for and 
against such propositions shall contain the words, “ exclusive 
hard money—no," then the Legislature shall provide at its first 


session af ter the adoption of this constitution a general banking 
law, embodying the following principles: 

1. No person shall be allowed to issue any bill or evidence of 
debt to circulate as money, until he shall have deposited with 
the Treasurer of State, or such other officer as may be designa¬ 
ted by law, a security for the whole amount of such issue, which 
shall consist of United States stocks or stocks of this State, or 
such county or other stocks within this State as may be deter¬ 
mined by law, and bills to circulate as money equal to the actual 
par value of such securities, but to no greater amount, shall be 
furnished by such officer, as above designated only, subject to 
such provisions as may be established by law. 

2. No bill or evidence of debt of less denomination than five 
dollars, shall be issued or circulated as money in this State. 

3. Individual liability of all stockholders in banking institu¬ 
tions shall be provided by law. 

4. The Legislature shall have no power to pass any act sanc¬ 
tioning, directly or indirectly, the retusal of any individnal or as¬ 
sociation issuing bank notes of any description, to pay the same 
on demand, and provision shall be made by law, in case of the 
refusal of any individual or association to pay such demand as 
above, for the immediate liquidation of the same from the pro¬ 
ceeds of the securities deposited as above. 

5. In case of the failure of any individual, or any association 
issuing bank paper, the amount of security deposited with the 
State shall fir st be applied to the redemption of the circulation 
of such individual or association, and the remainder, if any shall 
be payable on demand to such individual or association, deduct¬ 
ing therefrom the amount of any expenses accruing to the State, 
in process of liquidating such claims. 

If this proposition were adopted here, I believe it 
would effect all that the people desire and expect at 
the hands of this Convent’on. It will secure to the 
people, if they desire any banking system at all, the 
power of determining that question at the polls, and if 
they should adopt it, the system will go into effect 
under such a close and rigid restriction, as to prevent 
every possibility of fraud ; and I hazard the assertion, 
that in a very great degree, a large amount of the evils 
which the gentleman from Hamilton intends to depict 
in the speech which he has promised to publish, would 
be altogether cured under such a system as this. 

In the first place, the plan which I propose would 
allow of no system of banking which did not deposit 
ample security against failures. It would not allow a 
bank to raise one dollar upon security, and two or three 
dollars without security ; and it would require that 
such security should be deposited where it would be 
secure to the bill holders. 

But, sir, it does more, far more than this; for I claim, 
sir, for this system, that it offers to us the only means 
for arriving ultimately at a hard money system in Ohio. 
To that system, sir, I am willing and ready to come, 
so soon as the people and the circumstances by which 
they are surrounded will allow such a thing to be 
done. It will be observed that the secunty which I 
propose to give for every single dollar, which the banks 
shall issue, is the stocks of this State, or of the United 
States. No dollar of money would issue from any 
bank in this State which would not have, as its basis, 
and pledged for its security and redemption, an equal 
amount of stocks at their par value, deposited with the 
proper officers at the capital of the State. 7'hen the se¬ 
curity would be ample, and the greatest danger of su¬ 
perabundance of paper issues would be guarded against 
—this is one important step towards a metallic curren¬ 
cy. But, again, the amoant of these securities them¬ 
selves is, by their very natui’e, limited; the State debt 
is, by this constitution, put in a speedy process of li¬ 
quidation, and can never again, except under very pe¬ 
culiar contingencies, be brought into existence; our 
State bonds, in twenty or twenty-five years, will, in a 
great measure, have ceased to exist. As the basis cea¬ 
ses, the circulation founded on it is withdrawn, and 
specie fills the vacant channels of trade ; and thus, by 
a slow and gradual, but by a certain process, we come 
to a metallic cunency; we have no sudden changes, 
no violent revulsions, such as must take place to a most 
ruinous degree, whenever wo attempt, by violent 
enactments, to force a change of currency on the peo¬ 
ple, and bring with it, as it necessarily must, a sudden 
change in the value of all properly ; but the wants of 
commerce and the people accommodate themselves to 
gradual changes, and neither evil nor suffering follows 
















1408 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


in their train. It is for this reason, sir, among many 
others which might be mentioned, did my limited time 
permit, that I would propose this as one important re¬ 
striction in the system of banking, which shall hereaf¬ 
ter become operative in this State. 

The system provides also against the issuing of small 
notes—which must be be regarded as a very important 
regulation. 

It requires also the individual liability of the stock¬ 
holders, in such manner as the Legislature shall pre¬ 
scribe. 

It provides that there shall be no suspension of specie 
payments. 

It also provides, that in the event of a failure, the 
bill holders—the community at large who have taken 
their promises to pay—shall be the first creditors paid 
ofl‘; so that they shall be secured at all hazards. 

Now, I affirm that the people of Ohio are willing to 
accept of a banking system of this kind; and I may 
say in conclusion, that one of two things will be done 
here. This Convention will either do what the people 
want or what the people do not want. Either they 
wall separate without doing anything on the subject of 
banking, which has heretofore been a crying evil in 
this State, and leave the Legislature the power of in¬ 
corporating into some general law all the evils of the 
old system of banks under special charters, and wnth 
this culpable neglect of duty, I say the people wall not 
be satisfied : or else they^ wall have some restiictions 
in the constitution by wdiich the Legislature would be 
resti'ained from the imprudence wffiich has heretofore 
marked their proceedings upon this subject, and that j 
will be exactly wdiat the people will be satisfied with, 
and what they most ardently desire. 

Now, I believe that this body knows enough of the 
views, opinions, and interests of the people, to fix upon 
some plan of legislative restriction here, w-hich will ex¬ 
actly answer the wishes of the people. I believe that 
the proprtsition of which T have here given notice of 
my intention to offer, contains a sufficient amount of 
restriction upon this subject. I believe that I have 
here made out the skeleton of a banking system, which 
can be filled up by the Legislature in such a way as to 
meet all the reasonable wants and wa'shes of the peo¬ 
ple upon this subject. 

Mr. HOLT. I concur fully in the saying of the gen¬ 
tleman from Miami, [Mr. Dorsey,] that the people ex¬ 
pect something from the Convention upon this subject; 
and I believe they wall be sadly* disappointed if we 
should adjourn wathout anything being done. 

I am not tenacious about this particular plan. I am 
not a banker. I profess not to be even a good finan¬ 
cier. But, having some general notions upon the sub- 
ject, I have prepared a scheme wffiich I believe may 
be amended and modified so as to bring about what 
the people desire. 

My proposition is this—and I beg the attention of my 
democratic friends, for they must be responsible for the 
action or non-action of this body upon this subject. I 
desire that the people of Ohio, at some period, shall be 
brought into the adoption of a metallic currency, and 
that alone, excepting bills and drafts introduced by 
the mercantile business and banks of deposit for busi¬ 
ness purposes. I wish to bring the people of Ohio, at 
some time, to this point; not too suddenly, but gradu¬ 
ally, to effect what the majority of the standing com 
mittee on this subject sought, in vain, to bring thepeo 
pie to at once. I have stated my objection to the prop- 
osition of the standing committee to be, not because I 
objected to a hard money’- currency, but because I be¬ 
lieved the people were not prepared for it. I would 
not proceed so gradually, if I did not believe that an 
attempt to make a more rapid movement would be to 
retard our progress. For I am entirely convinced that 
we need no banks of issue and circulation in this 
country, and I would be ready to make any effort to 
dispense with them, which I could think would suc¬ 
ceed. 


I have proposed therefore to dispense with these in¬ 
stitutions gradually until the close of the term, wffiich 
has been fixed for the continuance of the {^resent bank¬ 
ing system; and then, by the operation of the princi¬ 
ple w’liich I have here introduced, to bring the people 
to a pure metallic currency. 

I wish to see this tried. I have great confidence in 
the experiment. I believe, if the people could once 
have the privilege of trying this currency for five years, 
in the manner I have proposed, that this question w’ould 
be put to rest, and that there wmuld be no further diffi¬ 
culty about it. 

There are two or three sections in the amendment 
of the gfiitieman from Miami, which 1 w’ould most cor¬ 
dially accept as modifications of my’ proposition. One 
cf these is, that the Legislature shall never legalize a 
suspension of specie payments. Another is the exclu¬ 
sion of all notes of circulation below’ the denomination 
of $5; but I w’ould say, that no bills should circulate 
of the same denomination of any coin of the United 
States. 

There is another provision in this proposition which 
I desire the Convention to regard, in all their votes for 
a banking system ; which is, that there shall be no ma¬ 
chinery about them by* which they can ever receive a 
greater rate of interest than the statute allow’s to every 
citizen. I am particularly attached to this provision. 
The privilege W’hich a banker enjoys of receiving 
twelve per cent, interest, whilst the citizen can only’ 
receive six per cent., is a privilege which every man 
—not to say every* democrat—ought to oppose with 
all his might. In fact, in many cases, the banker now 
is able to realize three times the rate of interest which 
is allowed to a private individual. 

I have little objection to the amendment of the gen¬ 
tleman from Miami, further than this, it brings the 
people, in my judgment, to vote upon an important 
question at the w*rong time. The i)reseut are the pal¬ 
miest days of the State Bank system, and 1 cannot but 
think that it would be a most unpropitious period to 
submit the question. I believe that the people will 
yet change their opinions upon this subject very ma¬ 
terially ; and for this reason I should greatly prefer to 
submit the question in the manner I have proposed. 

If the people should vote in favor of banks. 


w’e 


would be compelled to have them. The gentleman 
says that his system is well guarded, but I defy the 
pow'er of man so to guard any system of banking that 
they may not take usury. Our statute has been full of 
amendments and provisions of law to keep the banks 
honest, but still entirely without effect. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved the i3revious question. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
bo now put?” it was agreed to. 

The question being on striking out all after the first 
section; 

Mr. HOLT demanded the yeas and nays w*hich 
were ordered, and resulted—veas 55, nays 19—as fol 
lows: 

n Garnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble 

Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown ot Carroll. Chambers, Chanev Pni 
Cook, Dorsey Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Gr^SlUke of 
Defiance, Green ol Ross, Gregg. Hamilton, Hard, Harlan Haw- 
kins, Henderson Hitchcock of Geauga, Hootman, Hunter LaT- 
will Leech, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Morris, McCloud m’cCot- 
mick, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin Roll cjnw 
yer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of W^reT Stknton S' 
bins, Stnwell, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Tow^hen^ Vanc?Jf 
Butler, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington —55 

NAYs-Messrs Blair, Cahill, Clark, Ewing, Farr, lorb^Grav 
Holmes, Holt, Humphreville, Hunt, King. Kirkwood La^enll' 
Norn;, Stickney, Struble, Taylor and Way—19. ’ ^a^ence, 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the first section 
to be engrossed; 

Mr. HOLT demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 54, nays 19—as fol- 
lows: 


Yeas -— Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble 
Bates, Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Chaney, Ceilings Dorsev’ 
Ewart, Farr, Forbes, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, HamB^ 














140& 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


ton, Hard, Hawkins, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hoot- 
man, Hunrphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Kinar, Kirkwood Lawrence, 
Larwill, Leech, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick. Norris, 
Otis, Patterson, Peck, Reemedn, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
^Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swift Taylor, Thompson of 
Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Way, Woodbury and Wor¬ 
thington—54.' 

Nays— Messrs. Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Ewing, Florence, 
Gillett, Green of Ross, f tegg, Harlan, Henderson, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Nash, Quigley, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stanton, Stilwell, Williams and Wilson—19. 

So the section was ordered to be engrossed. 

And, on motion, was ordered to be read third time 
on Wednesday, the 5th instant. 

Mr. LAWRENCE submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the Messenger boys to this Convention be al¬ 
lowed one dollar and tiity cents per day, from the commence¬ 
ment of the sessions of the Convention,in compensation for their 
services. 

Mr. REE ME LIN moved to lay the resolntion on the 
table ; which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the ado{)tion of the res¬ 
olution ; 

Mr. FORBES moved to amend the resolution by in¬ 
serting after the word “ Convention,” when it occurs 
the second time, the words in the city of Cincinnati 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. GRAY moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ Shall the main question 
be now put? ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution, as amended; 

Mr. REE ME LIN demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 71, uays 10—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Ykas —Messrs. Andrews. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, 
Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of 
Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, 
King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 
Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, 
Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance 
of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and 
President—71. 

Nays- Messrs. Chambers, Clark, Collings, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Larsh, Larwill, Morris, McCloud and Reemelin—10. 

So the resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. Patterson submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to in¬ 
sert the following clause in the constitution: 

“Peaceful adverse possession of real estate, for the period of 
twenty one years, accompanied with apparent paper title there¬ 
to, shall vest the lee simple thereof absolutely in the occupant 
holding the same; but statutes for the limitation of actions, en¬ 
acting a shorter limitation than twenty-one years, shall be consti¬ 
tutional.” . 1 . 

Mr. PATTERSON said he had received instructions 

from a number of his constituents in reference to this 
matter. He did not desire to detain the Convention 
with any speech upon a proposition so well understood 
as this. He would content himself with saying, that 
this resolution was so worded as to obviate tho objec¬ 
tions which were taken to the same subject, when it 
was under consideration the other day. He hoped it 
would now meet with the approbation of the body, and 
called for the yeas and nays upon its adoption. 

Mr. LEADBETTER was opposed to all statutes of 
limitations. They only increased the facilities of steal¬ 
ing land titles, the Legislature might, ho sometimes 
thought, just as well pass a law allowing a man to steal 
a horse, as to pass a statute of limitations. 

He was especially opposed to the idea of conferring 
title on account of the mere act of possession. There 
was neither sense, propriety nor justice in it. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, said the question in- 
\ yolved in the adoption of this resolution was simply, 
whether it would be proper to change our limitation 
laws or not. The proposition here submitted was a 
law of the land now, with this exception, that, under 
the statute of limitations, peaceable possession for twen- 
ty.on« years vests the title in the possessor, whether 

89 


he has any paper title or not. But here this is propo 
sed to be changed, so that the occupant must have, at 
least, an apparent paper title. 

Mr. PATTERSON rehearsed the particular case of a 
gentleman from Ross county, whom he met with when 
he was a candidate for this Convention, who, with his 
pocket full of “ blocks,” confidently expected to suc¬ 
ceed in ousting an occupant of forty years. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK knew there was a great deal in 
these “ block laws.” But, if he were going to give a 
construction of this proposition, he would say that it 
would present the difficulty of legalizing the claim of 
a squatter upon laud belonging to the United States. 
The law, as it now stood, was precisely what the gen¬ 
tleman desired, except that possession could not secure 
a title against the United States. 

Mr. STANTON could see no objections to a consti¬ 
tutional provision securing to a man the title to his 
home, upon principles of equality and justice. But, as 
he did not see anything in the resolutions which was 
not now contained in the statute of limitations, in order 
to put it into such a shape that he could vote for it, he 
would move that it be referred to a select committee 
of three ; which was lost. 

The question then being upon the adoption of the 
resolution ; 

Mr. PATTERSON demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 35, nay,—38, 
as follows; 

Yeas— Messrs. Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case of Licking, 
Dorsey, Ewing, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Holmes, Hunt, Jones, King, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Loudon, Mason, Morris, Patterson, Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Stanton, Stickney, Stidger Struble Swift, 
Townshend, Warren and Way—15. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Bennett, Brown ot Athens, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Chaney, 
Clark, Collings, Cook, Ewart, Gillett, Green of Ross, Harlan, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, 
Hunter, Larsh, Leech, Leadbetter, Mitchell, McCloud, Norris, 
Otis, Peck, Quigley, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stil¬ 
well, Thompson ot Stark, Vance of Butler, Woodbury, Worthing- 
and President—38. 

So the resolution was rejected. 

Mr.. EW4RT, from the select committee oji the 
Schedule, submitted the following Report; which was 
read the first lime : 

REPORT NUMBER ONE, 

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE SCHEDULE. 

Sec. 1. All laws of this State in force on the first day of Sep¬ 
tember, 1851, not inconsistent with this constitution, shall contin¬ 
ue in force until amended or repealed. 

Sec. 2. Tho first election for members of the General Assem¬ 
bly under this constitution shall be held on the second Tuesday 
of October, 1851, to hold their offices for oneyear,—to commence 
on the first Monday of January, following their election, until 
which time the members of the General Assembly now in office 
shall hold over, and no longer. 

Sec, 3. The first election for Lieutenant Governor, Auditor of 
State, and Attorney General for the State shall be held on the 
second Tuesday of October, 1851; the Lieutenant Governor to 
hold his office for one year from the first Monday of January fol¬ 
lowing his election. The Auditor of State and Attorney General 
for the State, in office, shall hold their offices until the first Monday 
in April, 1852. 

Sec. 4. The first election for Governor, Treasurer and Secre¬ 
tary of State shall be held on the second Tuesday of October, 1852. 
The Governor in office on the first day of September, 1851, shall 
hold his office until the first Monday of January, 185.3. The Treas¬ 
urer aud Secretary of State in office to hold their offices until the 
first Monday of April, 1853. 

Sec. 5. The first election for judges of the supreme conrt, 
courts of common pleas and probate courts, aud clerks of the 
courts of common pleas shall be held on the second Tuesday of 
October, 1851', Judges and clerks of the courts of common pleas 
and supreme court in office on the first day of September, 1851, 
shall contiimo in office with their present powers and duties un¬ 
til the second Monday ot February, 1852. All suits and proceed¬ 
ings of every description pending in any of the courts of this 
State shall remain unchanged by the taking effect of this consti¬ 
tution. 

Sec. 6. Members of the Board of Public Works, Directors of 
the Penitentiary, Directors of the Benevolent Institutions of the 
State, and the State Librarian in office on the first day of Septem¬ 
ber, 1851, shall continue in office until their terras eiJpire respec-l 
lively, unless the General Assembly shall otherwise provide. ‘ 
Sec, 7. The superior and commercial courts of Cincinnate 
and the superior court of Cleveland shall remain until otherwisi 
provided by law, with their present power and jurisdiction; and 













1410 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


the judges and clerks of said courts in office on the first day of 
September, 1851, shall continue in office until the expiration of 
their terms of office respectively, or until otherwise provided by 
law. 

Sec. 8. All county and township officers and justices of the 
peace in office on the first day of September, 1851, shall continue 
in office until their terms expire respectively. 

Sec. 9. All vacancies in office accruing after the first day of 
September, 1851, and before the elections provided for in this ar¬ 
ticle, shall be filled, as is now provided by law. 

Sec. 10. This constitution shall take effect on the first day of 
September, 1851. 

Sec. 11. All officers shall continue in office until their succes¬ 
sors shall be chosen and qualified. 

Sec. 12. The suits pending in the supreme court in bank shall 
stand transf-^rred to the supreme court provided for in this con¬ 
stitution, and be proceeded in according to law. 

Sec. 13. The district courts provided for in this constitution, 
shall be the successors of the present supreme court, in the same 
counties, and all suits, prosecutions, judgments, records and pro¬ 
ceedings pending in said supreme court in the several counties in 
any district, shall stand transfer-red to the district court in which 
any county may be included, and be proceeded in as though no 
change had been made in said supreme court. 

Sec. 14. The courts of common pleas provided for in this 
constitution shall be the successors of the present courts of com¬ 
mon pie as in the several counties, except as to the jurisdiction 
given by this constitution to the probate courts created by it; 
and all suits, prosecutions, proceedings, records and judgments 
pending or being in the present courts of common pleas, except 
as above, shall stand transferred to the courts of common pleas 
provided for in this constitution, and proceeded in as though no 
change had been made in the present court of common pleas. 

Sec. 15. The probate courts provided for in this constitution, 
shall be the successor in the several counties of the present courts 
of common pleas as to all probate and testamentary matters, the 
appointment of administrators and guardians, and the settlement 
of the accounts of executors, administrators and guardians, and 
the records thereof shall stand transferred to said courts of pro¬ 
bate, and be there proceeded in according to law. 

THOS. \y. EWART, 

SIMEON NASH, 

MATTHEW H. MITCHELL, 
NORTON S. TOWNSHEND, 
JAMES B. KING. 

On motion of Mr. EWART, the rules were suspend 
ed and the report was read a second time. 

Mr. EWART moved that the Secretary be author 
ized to have the report printed forthwith ; which was 
agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, of G^-auga, the re¬ 
port was committed to a committee of Whole Conven¬ 
tion. 

Mr. EWART, from the select committee on the 
Schedule, submitted the following: 

REPORT NUMBER TWO 

OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OX THE SCHEDULE. 

Resolved, That the foregoing constitution shall be submitted to 
a vote of the electors of the State of Ohio, at an election to be 
held on the fourth day of July, 1851, in the several election dis¬ 
tricts of this State. The ballots at such election to be written or 
printed as follows, viz : Those in favor of the adoption of the 
foregoing constitution, “New Constitution, Yes,” and those 
against its adoption, “ New Constitution,No.” Said election shall 
be conducted, and the returns thereof made and certified to the 
Secretary of State, as provided by law for annual elections of 
State and’county officers. Within thirty days after said election, 
the Secretary of State shall, in the presence of the Governor, 
open the returns made to his office; and if it shall appear that a 
majority of all the votes given at said election are in favor of the 
adoption of the foregoing constitution, the Governor shall issue 
his proclamation setting forth that fact, and the said constitution 
shafi be the constitution of the State of Ohio, and not otherwise. 

On motion of Mr. NASH, the report was laid on the 
table, and the Secretary was authorized to have the 
same printed forthwith in this city. 

Mr. STANTON submitted the following; which was 
agreed to; 

Resolved, That the current printing of the Convention, until the 
final adjournment, shall be done in this city, under the direction 
of the Secretary. 

On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Warren, the Conven¬ 
tion adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY, March 5, 1851. 

^ 9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. LEECH, from the select committee on the sub¬ 
ject of Printing, submitted the following report: 


REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SUBJECT OF 
PRINTING. 

The select committee on the subject of Printing, to which was 
referred a communication from the Editorial State Convention, 
have had the same under consideration, and now respectfully re¬ 
port. 

The communication contains two recommendations, which are 
substantially as follows: 

First, that the constitution now being framed by this Conven¬ 
tion be published in at least one newspaper of each political par¬ 
ty in every county in the State where such paper exist, for at 
least four weeks preceding the day of voting upon the question 
of the adoption of said constitution. 

Secondly, that this Convention make provision for 
the election, by the people of a Printer to the State, 
the rate of whose compensation shall be fixed by law. 

The majority of the committee [Messrs. Lkech and 
Orton] were decidedly in favor of carrying into ef- 
lect the second recommendation embraced in the com¬ 
munication. But the Convention has decided that the 
State printing shall be “ let on contract to the lowest 
responsible bidder.” The majority of the committee 
are therefore compelleil, with great reluctance, to yield 
to that decision. 

In the first recommendation the committee unani¬ 
mously concur, and recommend the adoption of the fol¬ 
lowing resolutions: 

Resolved, That the publiBhers of one weekly newspaper of each 
political party printed in the English language in every county of 
this State where such paper exist, be authorized to publish in 
their respective weekly journals the constitution now being fram¬ 
ed by this Convention, for lour consecutive weeks preceding the 
day of voting upon the question of the adoption of said constitu¬ 
tion. 

Resolved, That the publishers of all the weekly newspapers in 
this State, printed in the German language be authorized to pub¬ 
lish said constitution in their respective weekly journals for the 
same length of time and in the same manner as prescribed in the 
foregoing resolution. 

Resolved, That the Auditor of any county, in %vhich there ex¬ 
ists more than one newspaper of the same political party printed 
in the English language, be authorized to designate the paper 
which shall publish said constitution ; provided that he shall, in 
all cases, select the one having the largest general circulation in 
the county where published. 

i?esoZrerf, That such publishers of newspapers as may, in com¬ 
pliance with the foregoing resolutions, publish said constitution 
be paid therefor the sum of seventy-five cents per thousand ems 
for each insertion, out of any money which is now or which may 
hereafter be appropriated to defray the expenses of this Conven- 
non, on presentation of theii- respective accounts to the State 
Treasurer. ’ r. LEECH, 

C. J. ORTON, 

C. S. HAMILTON. 

Ou motii u of Mr. LEECH, the rules were suspend 
ed, and the report was read a second time. 

And, on motion of the same gentleman,‘the report 
vyas committed to a committee of the whole Conven¬ 
tion. 

The report of the select committee on the subject of 
Temperance was read a third time. 

The question then being on the passage of the re¬ 
port ; 

Mr. QUIGLEY moved the previous question. 

The question then being; Shall the main question 
be now put? it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the passage of the re- 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and navs 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 51, nays 31 
—as tollows ; 

Yeas— Messrs. Baniet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, Blickens- 
derfer. Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll Cahill naca f 
Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Collinge, Cook Ewini Vlnvf® 
rorbe, n.rd, Hawkin., Heideraon, hIi? 

Manon, Morris, McCloud, McCormick 
Nash Norris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley Sev‘ 
Riddle, Sawyer, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stickney, sfiS 
^ruble. Swan, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Wafren Way 
Wilson, Worthington and President—51 rren, way, 

NAYs-Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Gray 
Greene of Defianc^Green of Ross, Harlan, Hitchcock of GeaS 
ga Holmes, Hootman Horton, Huniphreville, Hunter, Jones 
King, Larsh Larwill Lidey, Mitchell, Otis, R^melin, Sco?t of 

t’ of Highland, Stanton, Stebbins Stih^B 

Switt, Taylor and Vance of Butler—31. ■='i.uweii, 

So the article was passed. 

And, on motion, referred to the committee on Revi¬ 
sion, Enrollment and Arrangement. » 













CONVENTION REPORTS. 1411 


Report number one, of the committee on Miscella¬ 
neous Subjects and Propositions, was read a third 
time. 

The question then being on the passage of the re¬ 
port ; 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved that the re¬ 
port be recommitted to the standing committee on the 
subject; which was agreed to. 

The article submitted by Mr. Holt, on the subject 
of Banking and Currency, was read a third time. 

The question being on the passage of the article; 
LOUDON moved that the article be committed 
to the select committee on Finance and Taxation. 

On which motion, Mr. KING demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 47, 
nays 39—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Blair, Brown of Athens, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, 
Ewart, Farr, Gillett, Gra}^ Hard, Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, Kirk¬ 
wood, I/arsh, Lawrence, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormick, Norris, Otis, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, 
Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Town- 
shend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Wilson, Worthington and Pres¬ 
ident—47. 

Nays —Messrs. Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Cham¬ 
bers, Chaney, Florence, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Green of 
Roes, Hamilton, Hawkins, Holmes, Holt, Hunter, King, Larwill, 
Leech, Lidey, Mitchell, Nash, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, 
Quigley, Ranney, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaiae, Sellers, 
Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, 
Struble, Swan, Swift and Way—39. 

So the motion to recommit to the select committee 
was agreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY, .from the standing committee on Re 
vision. Arrangement and Enrollment, submitted the 
following report; 

REPORT NUMBER ONE, 

Of the Committee on Revision, Arrangement and 
Enrollment. 

Preanible and Bill of Rights. 

Section 1. All men are by nature free and independent, and 
have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoy¬ 
ing and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and pro¬ 
tecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety. 

Sec. 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Govern¬ 
ment is instituted for their equal protection and benefit; and they 
have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same, whenever 
they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immuni¬ 
ties shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked or re¬ 
pealed by the General Assembly. 

Sec. 3. The people have the right to assemble together, in a 
peaceable manner, to consult for their common good, to in.struct 
their representatives, and to petition the General Assembly for 
the redress of grievances. 

Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their de¬ 
fence and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are 
dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up ; and the military 
shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. 

Sec. 5. The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate. 

Sec. 6. There shall be no slavery in this State; nor involunta¬ 
ry servitude, unless for the punishment of crime. 

Sec. 7. All men have a natural'and indefeasible right to wor¬ 
ship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own con¬ 
science. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect or sup¬ 
port any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, 
against his consent; and no preference shall be given by law to 
any religious society ; nor shall any interference with the rights 
of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required 
as a qualification for office, or shall any person be incompetent to 
be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing here¬ 
in shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Re¬ 
ligion, morality and knowledge, however, being essential to good 
government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pass 
suitable laws to protecteveryreligious denomination in the peace¬ 
able enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to en¬ 
courage schools, and the means of instruction. 

Sec. 8. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpits shall not be 
suspen ied, unless in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public 
safety require it. , 

Sec. 9. All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, un¬ 
less for capital offences, where the proof is evident, or the pre- 
nri* 0 at. Excessive bail shall not be required; nor excess¬ 
ive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 

Sec. 10. Except in cases of impeachment and cases arising in 
the army and navy, or in the militia, when in actual service, in 
time of war, or public danger, and in cases of petit larceny and 
other inferior offences, no person shall be held to answer for a 
capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or 
indictment of a grand jury. In any trial in any court, the par¬ 
ty accused shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and 


with counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation 
against him, and to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses 
face to face, and to have compulsory process to procure the at¬ 
tendance of witnesses in his behalf, and a speedy public trial by 
an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offence is 
alledged to have been committed; nor shall any person be com¬ 
pelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, or be 
twice put in jeopardy for the same oflence. 

Sec. 11. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish 
his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of 
the right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the 
liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions 
or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the 
jury, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter chai-ged 
as libelous is time, and was published with good motives and 
for justifiable ends, the parly shall be acquitted. 

Sec. 12. No person shall be transport cl out of the State, for 
any offence committed within the same; and no conviction shall 
work corruption of blood, or forfeiture of estate. 

Sec. 1.3. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in 
any house, without the consent of the owner; nor, in time of 
war, except in the manner prescribed by law. 

Sec. 14. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 
houses, papers, and possessions, against unreasonable searches 
and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, 
but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, par¬ 
ticularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and 
things to be seized. 

Sec. 15. No person shall be imprisoned tor debt in any civil 
action, or mesne or final process, unless in cases of fraud. 

Sec. 16. All courts shall be open, and every person, for an in¬ 
jury done him in his land, goods, person or reputation, shall 
have remedy by due course of law; and justice, administered 
without denial or delay. 

Sec. 17. No hereditary emoluments, honors or privileges, 
shall ever be granted or conferred by this State. 

■ Sec. 18. No power of suspending laws shall ever be exerci¬ 
sed, unless by the General Assembly. 

Sec. 19. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to 
impair or deny others retained by the people; and all powers, 
not herein delegated, remain with the people. 

Sec. 20. Private property shall ever be held inviolate, but sub¬ 
servient to the public welfare. When taken in time of war, or 
other public exigency, imperatively requiring its immediate seiz¬ 
ure, or for the purpose of making or repairing roads, which shall 
be open to the public use, without toll or charg(; therefor, a com¬ 
pensation shall be made to the owner, in money; and in all oth¬ 
er cases, where private property shall be taken for public use, a 
compensation therefor shall first be made in money, or first se¬ 
cured by a deposit of money ; and such compensation shall be 
assessed by a jury, without deduction for benefits to any proper¬ 
ty of the owner. 

Legislative. 

Section 1. The Legislative power of this State shall be vested 
in a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and House 
of Representatives. 

Sec. 2. Senators and representatives shall be elected bienni- 
ally, by the electors in the respective counties or districts, on 
the second Tuesday of October; their term of office shall com¬ 
mence on the first day of January next thereafter, and continue 
two years. 

Sec. 3. Senators and representatives shall have resided in 
their respective counties, or districts, one year next preceding 
their election, unless they shall have been absent on the public 
business of the United States, or this State. 

Sec. 4. No person holding office under the authority of the 
United States, or any lucrative office under the authority of this 
State, shall be eligible to, or have a seat in, the General Assem¬ 
bly; but this provision shall not extend to township officers, jus¬ 
tices of the peace, notaries public, or officers of the militia. 

Sec. 5. No person hereafter convicted of an embezzlement of 
the public funds shall hold any office in this State; nor shall any 
person, holding public money for disbursement or otherwise, 
have a seat in the General Assembly, until he shall have account¬ 
ed for and paid such money into the treasury. 

Sec. 6. Each House shall be judge of the election, returns 
and qualifications, of its own members; a majority of all the 
members elected to each House shall be a quorum to do busi¬ 
ness ; but, a less number may adjourn from day to day, and com¬ 
pel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and un- 
der-such penalties as shall be prescribed by law. 

Sec, 7, The mode of organizing the House of Representa¬ 
tives at the commencement of each regular session, shall be pre¬ 
scribed by law. 

Sec. 8. Each House, except as otherwise provided in this 
constitution, shall choose its own officers, may determine ita 
own rules of proceedings, punish its members for disorderly con¬ 
duct; and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member, 
but not the second ti?ne for the same cause; and, shall have all 
other powers necessary to provide for its safety and the undis¬ 
turbed transaction of its business. 

Sec. 9. Each House shall keep a correct journal of its pro¬ 
ceedings, which shall be published. At the desire of any two 
members, the yeas and nays shall be entered upon the journal ; 
and on the passage of every bill, in either House, the vote shall 
be taken by yeas and nays, and entered upon the journal; and 
no law shall be passed, in either House, without the concurrence 
of a majority of all the members elected thereto. 















1412 


CONVENTION REPOETS, 


Sec. 10. Any member of either House shall have the right to 
protest against any act, or resolution thereof; and such protest, 
and the reasons therefor, shall, without alteration, commitment 
x)T delay, be entered upon the journal. 

Sec. 11. All vacancies which may happen in either House, 
shall be filled by election, as shall be directed by law. 

Sec. 12. Senators and representatives, shall, in all cases, ex¬ 
cept treason, felony, or breach of the peace, be privileged Irom 
arrest during the session of the General Assembly, and in going 
to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate 
in either House, they shallnotbe questioned elsewhere. 

Sec. 13. The proceedings of both Houses shall be public, ex¬ 
cept in cases which, in the opinion of two-thirds of those present, 
require secrecy. 

Sec. 14. Neither House shall, without the consent of the oth¬ 
er, adjourn for more than two days, Sundays excluded; nor to 
any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be in ses¬ 
sion. 

Sec. 15. Bills may originate in either House ; but may be al¬ 
tered, amended or rejected in the other. 

Sec. 16. Every bill shall be fully and distinctly read, on three 
different days, unless in case of urgency, three-fourths of the 
House in which the question shall be pending, shall dispense with 
this rule. No bill shall contain more than one subject, which 
shall be clearly expressed in its title; and no law shall be revived, 
or amended, unless the new act contain the entire act revived, 
or the section or sections amended; and the section or sections 
so amended shall be repealed. 

Sec. 17. The presiding officer of each House shall sign, pub 
licly, in the presence of the House over wdiich he presides, while 
the same is in session, and capable of transacting business, all 
bills and joint resolutions passed by the General Assembly. 

Sec. 18. 'Ihe style of the laws ot this State shall be : “ Be it 
enacted by the General Assembly of the Stale of Ohio.” 

1 Sec. 19. No senator or representative shall, during the term 
for which he is elected, nor for one year thereafter, be appoint¬ 
ed to any civil office under this State, which shall be created, 
■or the emoluments of which shall have been increased, during 
the teiTn for w'hich he was elected. 

Sec. 20. The General Assembly, in cases not provided lor in 
this constitution, shall fix the term of office, and the compensa¬ 
tion of all officers; but no change therein shall aflectthe salary of 
any officer during his existing term, unless the office be abol¬ 
ished. 

Sec. 21. The General Assembly shall determine by law be¬ 
fore what authority, and in what manner the trial ol contested 
elections shall be condiu^ted. 

Sec. 22. No money shall be drawn from the treasury except 
in pursuance of a specific appropriation made by law ; and no ap¬ 
propriation shall be made fora longer jjeriod than two years. 

Sec. 23. The House of Representatives shall have the sole 
power of impeachment, but a majority of the members elected 


must concur therein. Impeachments shall be tried by the Sen- * 


ate; and the senators, when sitting for that purpose, shall be upon 
oath or affirmation to do justice according to law and evidence. 
No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two- 
thirds of the senators. 

Sec. 24. The Governor, judges, and all State officers may be 
impeached for any misdemeanor in office; but judgment shall 
not extend farther than removal from office, and disqualification 
to hold any office under the authority of this State. The party 
impeached, whether convicted or not, shall be liable to indict¬ 
ment, trial and judgment, according to law. 

Sec. 25. All regular sessions of the General Assembly shall 
commence on the first Monday of January, biennially. The first 
session under this constitution shall commence on the first Mon¬ 
day of January, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two. 

Sec. 26. All laws of :i general nature, shall have a uniform op¬ 
eration throughout the State; nor shall any act, except such as 
relates to puMc schools, be passed, to take effect upon the ap¬ 
proval of any other authorit 5 ’ than the General Assembly, -ex¬ 
cept as otherwise provided in this constitution. 

Sec. 27. The election and appointment of all officers, and the 
filling of all vacancies not otherwise directed by this constitution, 
or the constitution of the United States, shall be made in such 
manner as may be directed by law; but no such power shall 
be exercised by the General Assembly, except as prov'ided for in 
this constitution, and in the election of United States Senators; 
and in these cases the vote .shall be taken “rtra voce.” 

Sec. 28. The General .fssembly shall have no power to pass 
retroactive laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts ; 
but may, by general laws authorize courts to carry into effect, 
upon such terms as shall be just and equitable, the manifest in¬ 
tention of parties, and officers, by curing ouiissions, defects, and 
errors in instruments and proceedings, arising out of their waut 
of conformity with the lav, .s of this State. 

Sec. 29. No extra ccir.pcnsation shall be made to any officer, 
public agent, or contracloV, alter the service shall have been ren¬ 
dered, or the contract bnterod into ; nor, shall any money be 
paid, or any claim, the subject matter of which shall not have 
been provided for by pre-existing law, unless such compensation, 
or claim be allowed by two-thirds of the members in each branch 
pf the General Assembly. 

Sec. 30. No new county shall contain less than four hundred 
square miles of territory, nor shall any county be reduced below 
that amount; and all laws creating new counties, changing coun¬ 
ty lines, or removing county seats, shall, before taking effect, be 
submitted to the electors of the several counties to be effected 
thereby, at the next general election after the passage thereof, 


and be adopted by a majority of all the electors voting at such 
election, in each of said counties; but any county now or here¬ 
after containing one hundred thousand inhabitants, may be divi¬ 
ded, whenever a majority of the voters, residing in each of the 
proposed divisions, shall approve of the law passed for that pur¬ 
pose ; but, no town or city within the same shall be divided, 
nor shall either of the divisions contain less than twenty thou¬ 
sand inhabitants. 

Sec. 31. The members and officers of the General Assembly 
shall receive a fixed compensation, to be prescribed by law, and 
no other allowance or perquisites, either in the payment of post¬ 
age or otherwise; their compensation shall not be changed to 
take efl'ect during their term of office. 

Sec. 32. The General Assembly shall gi-ant no divorce, nor 
exercise any judicial power not herein expressly conferred. 

Executive. 

Sec. 1. The Executive Depai-tment shall consist of a Gover¬ 
nor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasur¬ 
er, and an Attorney General, who shall be chosen by the electors 
of the State on the second l uesday of October, and at the place 
of voting for members of the General Assembly. 

Sec. 2. The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of 
State, Treasurer, and Attorney General, shall hold their offices for 
two years, and the Auditor for four years. Their terms of office 
shall commence on the second Monday of January next after 
their election, and continue until their successors are elected and 
qualified. 

Sec. 3. The returns of every election for the oflicers named in 
the foregoing section, shall be sealed up and transmitted to the 
seat of Government by the returning officers, directed to the 
President of the Senate, who, during the first week of the session, 
shall open and publish them, and declare the result in the presence 
of a majority of the members of each House of the General Assem¬ 
bly. The person having the highest number of votes shall be de¬ 
clared duly elected; but if any two or more shall be highest, and 
equal in votes, lor the same office, one of them shall be chosen by 
the joint vote of both Houses. 

Sec. 4. Should there be no session of the General Assembly 
in January next after an election for any of the officers aforesaid, 
the returns of such election shsll be made to the Secretary ol 
State, and opened, and the result declared by the Governor, in 
such manner as may be provided by law. 

Sec. 5. The supreme executive power of this State shall be 
vested in the Governor. 

Sec. 6. He may require information, in writing, from the offi¬ 
cers in the executive department, upon any subject relating to 
the duties of their respective offices, and shall sec that the laws 
are faithfully executed. 

Sec. 7. He shall communicate, at every session, by message, 
to the General Assembly, the condition ol the State, and recom¬ 
mend such measures as he shall deem expedient. 

8. He may, on extraord.nary occasions,convene the Gen¬ 


eral Assembly by proclamation, and shall state to both Houses 
when assembled, the purpose for which they have been con* 
vened. 

Sec. 9. In case of disagreement between the two Houses in 
respect to the time of adjournment, he shall have power to ad¬ 
journ the General Assembly to such time as he may think proper 
but not beyond the regulai- meetings thereof. ^ 

Sec. 10. He shall be commander-in chief of the military and 
naval forces of the State, except when they shall be called into 
the service of the United States. 

Sec. 11. He shall have power, after conviction, to grant re¬ 
prieves, commutations, and pardons, for all crimes and offences 
except treason and cases of impeachment, upon such conditions 
as he may think proper, subject, however, to such regulations as 
to the manner of applying for pardons, as may be prescribed by 
law. Upon convictions lor treason he may suspend the execu¬ 
tion ot the sentence, and report the case to the General Assem¬ 
bly at its next meeting, when the General Assembly shall either 
pardon, commute the sentence, direct its execution, or grant a 
further reprieve- He shall communicate to the General Assem¬ 
bly, at every regular session, each case of reprieve, commutation 
or pardon granted, stating the name and crime of the convict, the 
sentence, its date, and the date of the commutation, pardon or 
reprieve, with his reasons therefor. 

C5EC. 12. In case of the death, impeachment, resignation re¬ 
moval, or other disabilitj' of the Govcimor, the pow'ers and duties 
of the office for the residue of the term, or until he shall be ac¬ 
quitted, or the disability removed, shall devolve upon the I.ieu- 
tenant Governor. 

Sec. 13. There shall be a seal of the State, which shall be 
kept by the Governor and used by him officially, and shall be 
called “The Great Seal of the State of Ohio.” 

Sec. 14. All grants and commissions shall be issued in the 
name, and by the authority of the State of Ohio, sealed with the 
Great Seal, signed by the Governor, and countersigned by the 
Secretary of State. 

Sec. 15. No member of Congress, or other person holdiuo 
office under the authority of this State, or of the United States'* 
shall execute the office of Governor, except as herein provided ’ 

Sec. 16. The Iheutenant Governor shall be President of the 
Senate, but shall vote only when the Senate is equally divided • 
and in case ot his absence or impeachment, or when he shall ex* 
ercise the office of Governor, the Senate shall choose a President 
pro tempore. 

Sec, 17. If the Lieutenant Governor, while executing the 
office of Governor, shall be impeached, displaced, resign, or die 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 1413 


or otherwise become incapable of performing the duties of the 
office, the President of the Senate shall act as Governor until the 
vacancy is filled, or the disability removed ; and if the President 
of the Senate, for any of the above causes, shall be rendered in¬ 
capable ot performing the duties pertaining to the office of Gov¬ 
ernor, the same shall devolve upon the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives. 

Sec. 18. Should the office of Auditor, Treasurer, Secretary, or 
Attorney General, become vacant, for any of the causes specified 
in the twelfth section of this article, the Governor shall fill the Va¬ 
cancy until the disability is removed, ora successor is elected and 
qualified. Every such vacancy shall be filled by election at the 
first general election that occurs more than thirty days after it 
happens, and the person chosen shall hold the office for the full 
term fixed in the second section of this article. 

Sec. 19. The officers mentioned in this article, shall at stated 
times receive for their services a compensation to be established 
by law, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during 
the period for which they shall have been elected. 

Sec. 20. The officers of the executive department, and of the 
public State institutions, shall, at least five days preceding each 
regular session of the General Assembly, severally report to the 
Governor, who shall transmit such reports with his message, to 
the General Assembly. 

Judiciary. 

Sec. 1. The judicial power of the State shall be vested in a 
Supreme Court, in district courts, courts of common pleas, courts 
of probate, justices of the peace, and in such other courts infe¬ 
rior to the Supremo Court, in one or more counties, as the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly may from time to time establish. 

Sec. 2. The Supreme Court shall consist of five judges, a ma¬ 
jority of whom shall be necessary to form a quonim, or to pro¬ 
nounce a decision. It shall have original jurisdiction in quo war¬ 
ranto, mandamus, habeas corpus, and procedendo, and such ap¬ 
pellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law. It shall hold at 
least one term, in each year, at the seat of government, and such 
other terms, at the seat of government or elsew'here, as may be 
provided by law. The judges of the Supreme Court shall be 
elected by the electors of the State at large. 

Sec. 3. The State shall be divided into nine common pleas 
districts, of which the county of Hamilton shall constitute one, of 
compact territory and bounded by county lines, and each of said 
districts consisting ot three or more counties, shall be subdivided 
into three parts of compact territory, bounded by county lines, 
and as nearly equal in population as practicable, in each of which 
one judge ol the court of common pleas for said district, and re¬ 
siding therein, shall be elected by the electors of said subdivis¬ 
ion. Courts of common pleas shall be held by one or more of 
these judges, in every county in the district, as often as may* be 
provided "by law, and more than one court on session thereof may 
be held at the same time, in each district. < 

Sec. 4. The jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas and 
of the judges thereof, shall be fixed by law. ’ 

Sec. 5. "District courts shall be composed of the judges of the 
court of common pleas of the respective districts, and one of the 
judges of the Supreme Court, any three of whom shall be a quo¬ 
rum, and shall be held in each county therein, at least once in 
each year ; but if it shall be found inexpedient to hold such court 
annually in each county of any district, the General Assembly 
may for such district, provide that said court shall hold at least 
three annual sessions therein, in no less than three places; pro 
vided, that the General Assembly may by law authorize the judg¬ 
es of each district to fix the times of holding the courts therein. 

Sec. 6. The district court shall have like original jurisdiction 
with the Supreme Court, and such appellate jurisdictiipn, as may 
be provided by law. 

. Sec. 7. There shall be established in each county a probate 
court which shall be a court of record, open at ail times, acd 
holden by one judge elcated by the voters ol the county, who 
shall hold bis officii for the term of three years, and sh<all receive 
such compensation, payable out of the county treasury, or by 
fees,, or both, as shall be provided by law. 

Sec. 8. The probate court shall have juri.«diction in probate 
and testamf^tary matters, the appoinment ol administrators and 
guardians, the settlement of the accounts of executors, adminis¬ 
trators and guardians, and such jurisdiction in habeas corpus, the 
issuing of marriaYe licenses, and for the sale of land by executors, 
administrators and guardians, and such other jurisdictionjn any 
county or counties, as may bo provided by law. % 

Sec. 9. A competent number of justices ot the peace shall be 
elected by the electors in each township in tlie several counties. 
Their term of office .shall be three years, and their powers and 
duties shall be regulated by law'. 

Sec, 10. All judges, other than those provided for in this con¬ 
stitution, shall be elected by the electors cl the judicial dUti'ict 
for which they may be created, hut not tor a longer term of office 
than five years. 

Sec. li. The judges of the Supreme Court shall, immediately 
after the first election under this constitution, be classified by lot; 
so that one shall hold for the term of one yeai', one for two yeai’s 
one for three years, one for fouryears and one one lor five years ; 
and at all subsequent elections the term ot each of said judges 
shall be for five years. 

Sec. 12. The judges of the courts of common pleas shall, while 
in office, reside in the district for which they arc elected; and 
their term of office shall be for five years. 

Sec, 13. In case the office of any judge shall become vacant 
before the expiration of the regiilar terra for which he was elect¬ 
ed, the vacancy shall be fillcd'by appoinment by the Governor, 


until a successor is elected and qualified, and such successors 
shall be elected for an entire term, at the first annual election 
that occurs more than thirty days after the vacancy shall have 
happened. 

Sec. 14, The judges of the Supreme Court and of the court of 
common pleas shall, at stated times, receive for their services 
such compensation as maybe provided by law, which shall not be 
diminished or increased during their teim of office, but they shall 
receive no fees or perquisites, nor hold any other office of profit or 
trust under the authority of this State, or the United States. All 
votes for either of them,” for any elective office, except a judicial 
office under the authority of this State, given by the General As¬ 
sembly, or the people, shall be void. 

Sec. 15. The General Assembly may increase or diminish the 
number of the Judges of the supreme court; the number of 
districts of the court of common pleas ; the number of Judges in 
any district; change the districts or the subdivisions thereof, or 
establish other courts, whenever two-thirds of the members 
elected to each House shall concur therein, but no such change, 
addition, or diminution shall vacate the office of any Judge. 

Sec. 16. There shall he elected in each county, by the electors % 
thereof, one clerk of the court of common pleas, who shall hold 
his office for the term of three years, and until his successors 
shall be elected and qualified. He shall, by virtue of his office, 
be clerk of all other courts of record held therein ; but the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly may provide by law for the election of a clerk with 
a like term of office, for each or any other of the courts of re¬ 
cord, and may authorize the Judge of the Probate Court to per¬ 
form the (luues of clerk for his court, under such regulations as 
may be effected by law. Clerks of courts shall be moveable for 
such cause, and in such manner, as shall be prescribed by law. 

t-EC. 17. Judges may be removed from office by concurrent 
resolution of both Houses of the General Assembly, if two-thirds 
of the members elected to each House concur therein; but no 
such removal shall be made, except upon complaint, the sub¬ 
stance of which shall be entered on the journal, nor until the 
party charged shad have had notice thereof, and an opportunity 
to be heard. 

Sec. 18. The several judges of the Supreme Court, of the 
common pleas, and of such other courts as may be created, shall 
respectively have and exercise such pow’er and jurisdiction, at 
chambers, or otlierw/ise, as may be directed by law. 

Sec. 19. The style of all process shall be “The State of Ohio.” 
All prosecutions shall be carried on in the name and by the au¬ 
thority of the State of Ohio, and all indictments shall conclude 
“against the peace and dignity of the Stale of Ohio.” 

PUBLIC DEBT AND PUBLIC WORKS. 

Sec. 1. The State may contract debts to supply casual deficits 
or failures in revenues, or to meet expenses not otherwise provi¬ 
ded for, but the aggregate amount of such debts, direct and con- 
tingem, whether contracted by virtue of one or more acts of the 
; General Assembly, or at difierent periods of time, shall never ex¬ 
ceed seven hundred and fifty thousand dolhu'S, and the money 
arising from the creation of such debts shall be applied to the 
purpose for v.diich it was obtained, or to repay the debts so cou- 
tracted, and for no other purpose whatevei’. 

Sec. 2. In addition to the above limked power, the State may 
contract debts to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, defend 
the State in war, or to redeem the ])rcsent outstanding indebted¬ 
ness of the State, but the money arising from the contracting of 
such debts siiall be applied to the purpose for which it was rais¬ 
ed, or to repay such debt?, and to no other purpose whatever; 
and all debts incurred to redeem the present outsiimding indebt- 
ednes.s of the State, shall be so contracted i-.s to be payable by the 
sinking fund hereinafter provided for. us die same shall accumu¬ 
late. 

Sec. 3. Except the debts above ‘ peeifird in sections one and 
two of this article, no debt, whatever, shall hereafter be created 
by, or on behalf of the State. 

'Sec. 4. The credit of the State siiall i-ot in any manner be 
given, or loaned to, or in aid of any iniiividual. association or 
corporation whatever, nor shall the State I'ver hereafter become 
a joint owner or stockhoi<i'*r in any coniptciy, or association, in 
tliis State or elsewhere, formed for any purpose whatever. 

Sec. 5. The State shall n ver as.-ume lii-.--debts ol any coun¬ 
ty, city, town, or towiashiji, or of any co-p.iration whatever, un- 
b'.-.s such debt shall have heen created t" i fuel invasion, suppress 
insurrection, or defend t'e.e State in war. 

Sec. 6. The General Assembly sh-.I' ri'ver authorize any 
county, city, town, or township, by voi-- .»( iu citizens or other¬ 
wise, to become a stockholder in any joint stock '•ompany, cor¬ 
poration or association whstover. or to r d -e money for, or loan 
its credit to, or in aid of any such eoir.pa :; , eorpoi ation or asso¬ 
ciation. 

Sec. 7. The faith of the State beiiv: v. . .Igt-dfor the payment 
of its public debt, in order to proviri.- i u'l-efdr, there shall be 
created a sinking fund, which shall be tu:';. ienr to pay the accru¬ 
ing interest on such debt, and anriuai'} ' r-‘duco the principal 
thereof by a sum not less tliau one 1;,thousand dollars, 
increased yearly, and each and every yc ■. , y compound interest 
at the rate of six per cent, per annuui. 'D u -ed .sinking lund shall 
consist of the net annual income of the , ii i:c worLs, and stocks 
owned by the State, of any other fund; ■ -.'muroes that are or 
may be provided by law; and of tucli tui ia;r sum. to be raised 
by taxation, as may be required for the ■, ir, o.se8 aforesaid. 

Sec. 8. The Auditor of State, Seerc . of .State, and Attor¬ 
ney General, arc hereby created a boaro ol commissioners, to be 
styled “the Commissioners of the Sink:; . I'und,” 

-Sec. 9. The commissioners of the Sinkimr Fund shall, imme- 













1414 


CONVENTION REPOllTS, 


diately preceding each regular session of the General Assembly, 
make an estimate ol the probable amount of the fund provided 
for in the seventh section of this article, from all sources except 
irora taxation, and report the same, together with all their pro¬ 
ceedings relative to said fund and the public debt, to the Gover¬ 
nor, who shall transmit the same, with his regular message, to 
the General Assembly ; and the General Assembly shall make all 
necessary provision for raising and disbursing said sinking fund, 
in pursuance of the provisions of this article. 

Sec 10, It shall be the duty of the said commissioners faithfully 
to apply said fund together with all moneys that may be by the 
General Assembly appropriated to that object, to the payment of 
the interest as it becomes due, and the redemption ot the princi¬ 
pal of the public debt of the State, excepting only the school and 
trust funds held by the State. 

Sec. 11. The said commissioners shall semi-annually make a 
full and detailed report of their proceedings to the Governor, who 
shall immediately cause the same to be published ; and shall also 
communicate the same to the General Assembly, iorthwith, if it 
be in session ; and if not, then, at its first session, after such report 
shall be made. 

Sec. 12. So long as this State shall have public works which 
require superintendence, there shall be a Board ot Public Works, 
to consist of three members, who shall be elected by the people, 
at the first general election, after the adoption of this constitution ; 
one for the term ot one year; one for the term ot two years, and 
one for the term of three years; and one member ot ^aid board 
shall be elected annually thereafter, who shall hold his office for 
three years. 

Sec. 13. Thepowers and duties ot said Board of Public Works, 
and its several members, and their compensation, shall be such as 
now are or may be prescribed by law 

Corporations. 

Sec. 1. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the 
election of such county and township officers as may be neces¬ 
sary. 

Sec. 2. County officers shall be elected on the second Tues¬ 
day of October, until otherwise directed by law, by the qualified 
electors ot each county, in such manner, and for such term, not 
exceeding three years, as may be provided by law. 

Sec. 3. No person shall be eligible to the office ot Sheriff, or 
County Treasurer, tor more than four years in any period of six 
years. 

Township officers shall be elected on the first Monday of April 
annually, by the qualified electors of their respective townships, 
and shall hold their offices for one year from the Monday next 
succeeding their election, and until their successors are qualified. 

Sec. 5 No money shall be drawn from any county or town¬ 
ship treasury, except by authority of law. 

Sec. 6. Justices of the peace and county and township officers 
may be removed in such manner, and lor such cause, as shall be 
prescribed by law. 

Jurisprudence. 

Sec. 1. The General Assembly, at its_ first session alter the 
adoption of this constitution, shall provide lor the appointment 
of three Commissioners, and prescribe their tenure of office, 
compensation, and the mode of filling vacancies in said com¬ 
mission. 

Sec. 2. The said Commissioners shall revise, reform, simplify 
and abridge the practice, pleadings, forms and proceedings of 
the courts of record ot this State; and, ns lar as practicable and 
expedient, shall provide for the abolition of the distinct forms of 
action at law, now in use, and for the administration of justice 
by a uniform mode of proceeding, without reference to any dis¬ 
tinction between law and equity. 

Sec. 3. The proceedings of the Commissioners shall, from 
time to time, be reported to the General Assembly, and be subject 
to the action of that body. 

Elective Franchise. 

Sec. 1. Every white male citizen of the United States, of the 
age ol twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident ol the 
State one year preceding the election, and of the county, tovvn- 
ship or ward in which ife resides, such time as may be provided 
by law, shall have the qualifications of an elector, and be entitled 
to vote at all elections. 

Sec. 2. All elections shall be by ballot. 

Sec. 3. Electors, duiing their attendance at elections, and in 
going to and returning therefrom, shall be privileged from ar¬ 
rest in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace. 

Sec. 4. The General Assembly shall have power to exclude 
from the privilege of voting, or of being eligible to office, any 
person convicted of bribery, perjury, or other infamous crime. 

Sec. 5. No person in ihe military, naval or marine service of 
the United States shall, l.y being stationed in any garrison or mi¬ 
litary or naval station within the State, be considered a resident 
of this State. 

Sec. 6. No idiot or insane person shall be entitled to the privi¬ 
lege of an elector. 

AMENDMENTS. 

Sec. 1. Either branch of the General Assembly may propose 
amendments to this cmif-titution, and if the same shall be agreed 
to by three-fifths of the members elected to each House, such 
proposed amendments be entered on the journals, with the 
yeas and nays, and shall be published in at least one newspaper 
in e’chcounty of the State where a new’spajier is published fcr 
8tx months preceding the next election for Senators and Repre¬ 
sentatives, at which time the same shell be submitted to the elec¬ 


tors for their approval or rejection, and if a majority of the elec¬ 
tors voting at such election shall adopt such amendments, the 
same shall become a part of the constitution. When more than 
one amendment shall be submitted, at the same time, they shall 
be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote on each amend¬ 
ment separately. 

Sec. 2. Whenever two-thirds of the members elected to each 
branch of the General Assembly shall think it necessary to call a 
Convention to revise, amend, (,r change this constitution, they 
shall recommend to the electors to vote, at the next election for 
members to the General Assembly, for or against a Convention, 
and if a majority of all the electors voting at said election, shall 
have voted for a Convention, the General Assembly shall, at their 
next session, provide by law, for calling the same. The Conven¬ 
tion shall consist of as miiny members as the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, who shall be chosen in the same manner, and shall 
meet within thiee months after their election, for the purpose 
aforesaid. 

Sec. 3. At the general election to be held in the year one thou- 
•’and eight hundred and seventy-one, and in each twentieth year 
thereatter, the question “Shall there te a Convention to revise, 
al er, or amend the constitution ? ” shall be submitted to the elec¬ 
tors of the State, and in case a majority of all the electors voting 
at such election shall decide jn favor of a Convention, the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, at its next session, shall provide by Jaw for the 
election ol delegates, and the assembling ot said Convention, as 
is provided in thi preceding section ; but no amendment of this 
constitution, agreed upon by any Convention assembled in pur¬ 
suance ot this article, shall tak;: eti'ect until the same shall have 
been submitted to the electors of the State, and adopted by a 
majority of those voting thereon 

On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the report was laid 
on the table and ordered to be printed. 

Report number two of the committee on Apportion¬ 
ment, was read a third time. 

The question then being on the passage of the report; 
Mr. HENDERSON offered for adoption the follow¬ 
ing resolution: 

Resolved, That the report under consideration be committed to 
the committee that reported it, with instructions to amend the 
same by inserting the word “ white ” after the word “whole,” in 
the second line of the first section. 


The question being upon the resolution to recommit 
with instructions; 

Mr. HENDERSON. I have made this motion, Mr. 
President, because, though a motion to amend in this 
respect was made when this report was under consid¬ 
eration in the committee on Apportionment, I thought 
the fact had escaped the attention of gentlemen; and 
that the motion did not receive that notice which its 
importance deserves. I trust, therefore, the Conven- 
vention will review the course which it has taken, and 
listen with indulgence to a few reasons which I shall 
give why the proposed amendment ought to be made. 

Gentlemen will better understand the bearing of the 
amendment if I read the section to which I propose it 
shall be made. If amended,it will read as follows: 

Sec 1. The apportionment for this State shall be made every 
ten years after the year 1851, in the following manner: — The 
whole white population of the State, as ascertained every ten 
years by the federal census, or such other mode as the Legisla¬ 
ture may direct, shall forever be divided by the number “one 
hundred,” and the quotient shall be the ratio of representation in 
the House of Representatives for ten years next ensuing from 
such apportionment. 

_ My proposition, tlien, is simply this, that as the ba¬ 
sis of representation in the General Assembly, we shall 
not take the entire population of the State, but simply 
the white population 

It may be said that this suggestion comes in, like 
the proposition for an appropriation, in the General 
Assembly,%o drain the Black Swamp—“at the eleventh 
hour.” I admit, Mr. President, that there is something 
similar in the two cases. This amendment proposes, 
it not to drain the Black Sw'amp, to drain something 
equally black from this report, and I trust that, late as 
it makes its appearance, it may not be treated so sum¬ 
marily as the celebrated enterprise to which I have 
alluded. 

It will perhaps be remembered that, when this re¬ 
port Was before the Convention, I demanded the yeas 
and nays upon this section ; but as it was then under 
tlie operation ot the previous question. I was not per¬ 
mitted to state the reasons tor my action and opinion. 

I desire, therefore, to do so now. 

It must on all hands be admitted, Mr. President, 










CONVENTION REPORTS. 1415 


‘hat the provision, as it stands in the report, is an in¬ 
novation upon the previous rule that has existed in the 
State ; and that nothing of the kind is contained in the 
constitution now in force. In that the entire popula¬ 
tion is not embraced in the enumeration. The census, 
for re{)re8entative distribution, includes only “ white 
male inhabitants above twenty-one years of age.” 
Such, indeed, is the express language of the constitu¬ 
tion. So faras the proposed change is a question between 

the entire white population, and the number of adult 
white males, it is of no consequence; for it is well 
known to those who are acquainted with the subject, 
that there is a great uniformity of proportion, by which) 
the one being known, a close approximation may be 
made to the other. This proportion may be stated at 
about one to six, in this State. I do not, then, object 
to embracing the entire white population in the enu¬ 
meration for legislative apportionment. It, indeed, 
has Its advantages, as it enables us to avail ourselves 
of the national census, which is something gained on 
the score of economy, and the accuracy of which is 
as reliable as though procured by the authorities of the 
State. 

It does not appear to me, Mr. President, that this in¬ 
novation was contemplated by any one, at the time 
when this Convention was called. Amid all the chan¬ 
ges I heard suggested, I must be permitted to say that 
I heard no one suggest that it was necessary, or even 
proper, that the basis of representation in our Legisla- 
should be altered. I never heard that 
the rule in operation was deemed unjust, or that it 
wrought wrong or injury to any individual or class in 
the State. Such, then, being the case, I hope the Con¬ 
vention will not suffer itself to pass upon what I deem 
this great, and, to speak in the mildest terms, unneces¬ 
sary innovation, silently, or without a full expression 
of views and opinions. 

There are, Mr. President, several considerations which 
induce me to wish that the colored population of this 
State should not form an element in the basis of its 
representation. I would ask, who are the blacks? 
‘‘They are not people of our own race or color; they 
are negroes—Africans, and the descendants of Afri¬ 
cans.” Such were the terms used in relation to them 
by a distinguished statesman and Senator of the Uni¬ 
ted States, [Mr. Clay ;] on a recent occasion; one 
whose exalted character and eminent abilities have 
rendered him an object of respect and admiration to 
all, and especially to gentlemen on the opposite side of 
the chamber, who look upon him as the very embodi¬ 
ment of their political principles. By him, the blacks 
are conceived to be mere outsiders, with little or no 
knowledge of, or interest in institutions of govern¬ 
ment, or sympathy with the political welfare of the 
country. Such being the case, it must be apparent to 
all that they cannot, with any propi'iety, be made a 
part of the basis of our representation. 

Again, I ask, Mr. President, who are they? They 
are not voters. We have here already determined that 
they shall not enjoy the privilege of the elective fran¬ 
chise. We have determined that they shall in no sense 
of the word be represented in our legislative assembly. 
We exclude them from the polls, and does not that fact 
itself, I ask gentlemen, furnish a strong reason why they 
should form no part of the basis of our representation? 
I, sir, can see no reason why they should foi-m a part 
and parcel of those who are supposed to be represented 
when representation, in fact, is totally and constantly, 
denied. And I can imagine no principle on which they 
can ever be presumed to be represented, unless upon 
the principle of usurpation and power. 

But it is said that the colored population of the coun¬ 
try are recognized and represented by the constitution 
of the United States; and that they should, therefore, 
form an integral portion of the basis of representation 
in a single member of the confederation. In such a 
proposition, there is too manifest a want of logical se¬ 
quence between the predicate and the conclusion, not 


to be apparent. Besides, the constitution of the United 
States, was formed rising of sixty years a^o; and such 
has since been the progress of constitutional reform 
that there are doubtless more than one of the provis¬ 
ions which it contains, that, if now submitted, would 
not be accepted without essential modification. Who 
believes that if it was to be pi'ovided for again, the 
President and Vice President would be elected through 
the interposition of electoral colleges, or that it would 
be provided that senators of the United States would 
be elected by the General Assembly and not by the 
people? Gentlemen admit the weakness of their cause, 
when they endeavor to strengthen it by an appeal to an 
instrument which is acknowledged to be defective. 

Again, Mr. President, it is urged as argument in fa¬ 
vor of the provisions of this report, in this respect, that 
we admit aliens, foreigners, who have just reached 
our State from the shores of Europe, to form part and 
parcel of our basis of representation. I admit it, sir; 
but I insist that the two cases are not parallel. The 
European is one of our own race and color. He is con¬ 
nected with us in blood, and similar to us in the spe¬ 
cies and degree of civilization in which he has been 
nurtured. A few years, and every feature that distin¬ 
guished between us is worn away; and the common 
lineaments of the common ancestry become percepti¬ 
ble and distinct. He becomes one of us, in manner, 
in feeling, in interest, and in sympathy, while the ne¬ 
gro, after many generations, is still regarded as an alien 
and a foreigner. 

Again, an argument is attempted to be drawn from 
the fact, that this Convention has made the women and 
children of the State a part of the basis of representa¬ 
tion, while it has not conferred upon them the right of 
suffrage. It is hard when gentlemen are driven to jus¬ 
tify one palpable inconsistency by attempting to plead 
another. But women and children are, in truth, part 
of ourselves—“ our better part’ —and are, in fact,{re¬ 
presented in the persons of their husbands and fathers; 
and, for these reasons, there can be no possible evil in 
their enumeration. Their numbers, too, being a pro¬ 
portion to the whole, that is very uniform, the result 
cannot be in any degree unequal. But such is not the 
case with the colored population. We have denied 
them a representation in toto ; and their numbers, as I 
shall show hereafter, are not uniform throughout the 
State ; and we may as well take any other accidental 
element to swell our numbers, as to take them. 

We are told, again, that while the convict is exclu¬ 
ded from the elective franchise, he is still enumerated, 
and that the same rule should apply in this case. I do 
not, Mr. President, so understand it. The disfranchise¬ 
ments of the law are to be construed strictly, and ex¬ 
tend no farther than is defined by express declaration. 
The right to be enumerated, therefore, is not taken 
away by the disfranchisement, but still remains to be 
enjoyed. Besides, the convict may be pardoned, and 
restored to the rights of an elector; and whatever his 
loss of privilege may be, it does not descend to his 
children, lor we do not admit the doctrine of the cor¬ 
ruption of blood, and his rights re-assert themselves in 
the persons of his offspring. But it is not so with the 
blacks ; and so long as our proposed constitution may 
remain unchanged, they will be excluded from the 
elective franchise, not only in their own persons, but 
in those of their descendants. 

Another argument that I have heard urged, is this, 
that as the blacks in the State occupy, in their several 
localities, a space which w’ould otherwise be occupied 
by white inhabitants, they should, on the principle of 
compensation, be enumerated in such localities, for 
representative purposes. This argument, it seems to 
me, proves too much. There may be other obstruct¬ 
ions to the increase of the white population, which, if 
removed, their numbers would be greater, and their 
representation more full. I need but instance the St. 
Mary’s Reservoir, embracing an area of about 16,000 
acres, in Mercer and Auglaize counties, w'hich, if drain- 














1416 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


ed, and brought under cultivation, their population 
would be much larger, and their representation pro¬ 
portionately increased. Does it, therefore, follow, that 
this Reservoir should bo embraced in the basis of rep¬ 
resentation? To such absurdities are the advocates of 
ne^ro enumeration driven, in attempting to sustain 
their position. 

Again, Mr. President, the effect of the provision will 
be very unequal, as is shown by the late census of the 
State. There are, in forty-three counties of southern 
Ohio, a negro population of 20,840, while in forty-four 
counties of northern Ohio, thei’e are but 2,696, show¬ 
ing an increase in the south, of 18,144. This species 
of population has increased during the last ten years 
more than eight thousand throughout the State, and it 
no measures are taken to prevent it, we may anticipate 
that this disproportion between the nortli and the south 
will continue and increase, and, in its political bear¬ 
ings, become still more sectional and offensive. 

The causes of this tendency of the blacks to in¬ 
crease, in our southern counties, are numerous. South¬ 
ern Ohio is more contiguous to the slaveholding Stales; 
and as the blacks are not very enterprising, they have) 
a disposition to locate as nearly to the States from 
which they came as circumstances will permit. The 
climate is, also, more congenial to their constitution ; 
and the population of that section having emigrated, 
principally, from the States to the South, the blacks 
prefer to reside among them. Though treated with 
more respect, in the more northern counties, they 
alledge that they are treated with more kindness in 
the more southern; and that they prefer to live among 
their friends. 

But there are other causes for their disproportionate 
increase, existing without, as well as within the State. 
The policy of the States of Kentucky and Virginia is 
that of drivifig their emancipated slaves into the free 
States; and to their immigration into ours, w'e, by the 
repeal of the black laws, and by the non-action of this 
Convention, as is known to gentlemen, have placed no 
barrier. So long, then, as we remain in this condi 
tion, this evil will grow and increase, until at length, 
it will imperatively demand the attention and the ac 
tion of the people, and the authorities of the State. 

Mr. President, I do hope that the amendment which 
I have proposed will be adopted. It will in no man¬ 
ner militate against the general provisions or the de¬ 
tails of the report; but, on the contrary, will cut off 
an excrescence which has been attached to it; and 
make the report itself, to many, much more unexcep¬ 
tionable. 

It may be said that this is a small matter, that the 
whole black population of the State exceeds but a few 
thousands the ratio required for one member iu the 
House of Repi'esentatives. That mav be true, sir; 
and if it. be so small a matter, I trust that it will be 
conceded. But I must acknowledge that I have taken 
a somewhat different view of this subject. The prin¬ 
ciple we have adopted is wu’ong, and its political evils 
will, at every returning census, develope themselves 
more fully, and become more formidable. With me, 
it has always been a rule, that, whatever ought to be 
abated, should, if possible, be crushed iu the bud; and 
in this instance, I trust the Couveniiou will coincide 
with me in this rule of action. 

But it may be said, as the negroes will be distribu-1 
ted something like equally between the two grej-t po¬ 
litical parties iu southern Ohio, no harm can result 
from their enumeration. This, 1 conceive, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, is begging the. whole question. Wlio can pre¬ 
dict what will be the political complexion of southern 
Ohio in ten, twenty, or forty years? It should he re¬ 
membered that we are deliberating for, or should be 
deliberating for posterity; and that our action should 
be based on principle, and not a miserable expedi¬ 
ency; and that our labors here should be so Iramed as 
to stand “ the test of Imm^u scrutiny, of talents, and ol 
time.'- 


Mr. President, I have not often trespassed upon the 
time of this body, but I felt constrained to do so on 
this occasion. I was unable to vote for this report, 
until I had an opportunity to deliver my sentiments; 
and have the amendment I propose, engrafted upon it. 
In conclusion, I thank the Convention for the attention 
that ii has bestowed upon my remarks. 

The question being on the adoption of the resolu¬ 
tion ; 

Mr. LARW ILL demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 31, nays 57—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Ca¬ 
hill, Cook, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hender- 
son, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hootman, Humpbreville, Kirkwood, 
Larsb, Larwill, Lidey, Mitchell, McCormick, Quigley, Sawyer, 
Scott ot Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stanton, Stidger, 
Thompson of Stark, Williams and Wilson—31. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett ot Preble, Bates, Blair, Brown of Athens, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Flor¬ 
ence, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Har¬ 
lan, Holmes, Holt, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, King, Lawrence, Loud¬ 
on, Manon, Mason, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Orton, Otis, Patter¬ 
son, Peck, Perkins, Reemelin, Riddle, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Starbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Swift, 
Taylor, Townsfaend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Woodbury, 
Worthington and President—57. 

So the resolution was disagreed to. 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved that the Convention re¬ 
solve itself into a committee of the whole ; which was 
agreed to. 

Mr. McCloud in the Chair. 

'I he order of the day being Report No. 2, of the 
committee on the Schedule, the same was taken up 
and read. 

Mr. LARWILL moved to amend the section, by 
striking out the words “ Fourth day of July,” and in¬ 
serting in lieu thereof, the words “ sixth day of Sep¬ 
tember,” as the day upon which the people of the 
State were to meet in primary assemblies, and vote 
upon the adoption of the constitution. 

The question being upon the amendment; 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded a division of the ques¬ 
tion. 

The question then being on striking out the Fourth 
day of July;” 

Mr. LARWILL. The reason why* I am in favor of 
giving this length of time is that the people may have 
a full opportunity to determine upon the merits and de¬ 
merits of the instrument w'e are about to present for 
their adoption. The general expression x)t the public 
sentiment as it appears in the newspapers of the day, 
seems to be that as this Convention has been a long 
time in session, and it has taken a very considerable 
period for us to determine what shall be the provisions 
of the new constitution^ they should also have ample 
op[)ortunity to ascertain what it contains and make up 
their minds as to the effect of its provisions. It seems 
to me that for this purpose the time fixed in the amend¬ 
ment is not too long. Besides I look upon the Fourth 
of July as an unfortunate selection. It is a holiday. 
The minds of the people will not be prepared by the 
occasion for the serious business which such an act de¬ 
mands at their hands. 

Mr. MANON. I agree that the Fourth •f July is not 
oxactlv the jjroper time, but instead of a later, I should 
prefer an earlier day. I would suggest the twenty-first 
I of June. 

I Mr. IiITCriCOCK, of Geauga. 1 have no objection 
to the amendment of the gentleinan from Wayne, but 
he will recollect that iu thirty days from the day upon 
which the new constitution is voted on, the returns of 
the election are to be opened, and if the constitution 
shall have been adopted by the people, proclamation 
shall be made by the Governor to that effect, and the 
constitution is to go into operation, and tho first elec¬ 
tion under it On the tenth day of October. This will 
leave but four or five clays botweeu tho day on which 
the proclanihtiou is made and the day of election, a 
very short time for the people of the Stale to become 
acquainted with the fact whether it has been adopted 
or n('t; 











1417 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


I have no objection to the fourth of July. It is a 
leisuie day, and may be as well used for that purpose 
as any other, and if gentlemen see fit to prefer it, I have 
no objection. Or the matter may be postponed to 
another year, and let the ratification by the people take 
place on the second Tuesday of October. 

Mr. LARWILL asked and obtained leave to amend 
; his motion by substituting the seventh day of June for 
j the sixth day of September. 

The question then being on striking out the fourth 
day of July, the same was disagreed to ; yeas S>8, nays 

I Mr. EWART moved to amend the section, by strik¬ 
ing out the word “ thirty/' and inserting in its place 
the vvord “twenty,”—as the number of days after the 
; election, before the returns shall be opened, and pro¬ 
clamation made by the Governor; which was agreed 
to. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved that the committee rise and 
report; which was agreed to. 

The committee then rose, and reported back the 
resolution of the committee, to strike out the word 
“ thirty,” and insert the word “ twenty ” in lieu there¬ 
of. 

The question then being on the amendment made 
by the committee; the same was agreed to. 

I The question then being on the engro.ssment of the 
i report; 

t Mr. WOODBURY demanded the previous question; 
which was seconded. 

The question then being, “Shall the main question be 
now put?” 

Mr. BLICKENSDERFER demanded the yeas and 
nays; which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 32, 
nays 52—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Gil- 
: lett, Greene of Defiance, Groesbeck, Hard, Hootman, Humphre- 
ville. Hunter, King, Lidey, Mitchell, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Reeme- 
‘ lin. Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Steb 
: bins, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
i Vance of Butler, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—32. 

V Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, 

Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, 

I Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ew¬ 
art, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Har- 
• Ian, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hunt, 
Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Loudon, 

' Manon, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Quigley, 
Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilweil, 
Stidger, Swan, Taylor, Warren and Worthington—52. 

So the demand for the previous question was not 
> sustained. 

The question then being on the amendment pz’oposed 
; by the committee of the Whole; to wit: Strike out the 
' word “thirt}’-” before the word “days,” uud insert in 
' lieu thereof, the word “twenty;” it was agreed to. 

Mr. NASH moved to further amend the report, by 
b striking out the words : “ fourth day of July," and iu- 
j sorting in lieu thereof, the words: “twenty-fourth day 
ii;of June.” 

it Mr. MANON demanded a division. 

J: The question then being first on striking out; 
f: Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays; which 
If were oi’dered, and resulted—yeas GS, nays 18—as fol- 
} lows: 

h Yeas— Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, r>ates, Bennett, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Charn- 
i bers, Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Flor- 
j ence, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, 
Grege, Groe6beck,Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Humphreville, Hunt, IIunhT, Jones, King, 
Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey,MRnon, Ma¬ 
son. Mitchell, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Otis, Peck, 
Quigley, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Btebbins, Stilweil, Stickney, Stru¬ 
ble, Swift, Taylor, W’arren, Williams, Woodbury, Worthington 
and President—68. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Brown of Athens, 
Farr, Hard, Hootman, Loudon, Morris, Patterson, Sawyer, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Stidger, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Way and Wilcon—18. 

So the motion to strike out was agreed to. 

The question then being on on filling the hiauk with 
the words, “ twenty-fourth day of June;” 


Mr. LAWRENCE suggested the words “first Mon¬ 
day of August.” 

Mr. MANON suggested the words “ second Satur¬ 
day of June.” 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE suggested the “second Mon¬ 
day of June.” 

Mr. MORRIS suggested the words, “ third Friday of 
June.’’ 

The question first being on filling the blank with the 
words, “ first Monday of August 

Mr. MITCHELL. I should prefer the fourth day of 
July. Hook upon it as important that this constitu¬ 
tion be voted on at as early^ a period as possible, and 
this seems to be the only leisure day in what is, with 
farmers, a hurrying season of the year. 

Mr. LOUDON. It seems to me, Mr. President, that 
this is the most appropriate day that could be selected 
for putting this great question to the people of Ohio. 
It is a day of general jubilee, not only over the whole 
State but over the whole of this great country, and 
there are more men who calculate to spend this day in 
the service of their country than any day in the year. 
As has been remarked, from the first of June to the 
first of August is a very busy time for the farmers of 
the State, and there is no day within the period, ex¬ 
cept the fourth of July, when they feel as if they are at 
leisure. 

Mr. FLORENCE. I would suggest a later day, say 
the first of August or about that time. I would select 
a day in the latter part of the week as farmers are more 
willing to leave their work than at the beginning, and 
more people will come out on this occasion. 

Mr. HENDERSON. I do not want the fourth day of 
July turned into a day of political coiiteution; and if 
there is any danger of that I had rather some other 
day of the three hundred and sixty-five should be 
chosen. 

The question then being on filling the blank with 
the words “ third Friday of June,” the same was 
agreed to. 

Mr. LARSH moved to further amend the report by 
adding to the end thereof the following: 

Resolved, That should a majority of the electors of the State vo¬ 
ting at said election, vote against the adoption of this constitution, 
that fact shall immediately be certified to the Governor by the 
Secretary of State, who shall thereupon issue his proclamation to 
the electors of the State, requiring them to vote at the election to 
be held on the second Tuesday of October next for or against the 

adoption of articles-of this constitution, to be incorporated 

as an amendment to the existing constitution. 

Resolved, That should a majorty of the electors of the State 
voting on said question at said October election, vote in favor of 
said amendment; that fact shall be certified to the General As¬ 
sembly at its next session, and thereupon said article-shall 

be a part of the constitution of this State, and all provisions con- 
trary thereto, shall be rescinded; and the General Assembly shall 
take immediate measures to conform existing laws thereto, and 
carry the same into elfect. 

Mr. LARSH. So far as I am acquainted, Mr. Presi¬ 
dent, the people of the district that I represent had but 
one object in voting for the calling of this Convention, 
and that object wa.s the reorganization of the judiciary 
department. I am inclined, sir, to think that there are 
things in this constitution that will induce them to vote 
a:;ainst its adoption, and 1 desire, if possible, if such 
should be the case, that they may have an opportunity 
to reorganize the judiciary separate and apart from the 
rest of the instrument. 

The law under which this Convention was called 
gave it the power to alter, amend or change the consti¬ 
tution, and we are about to ofier to the people for their 
adoption an instrument totally difiereut from the other 
in all its provisions, and I want, in case they shall re¬ 
ject it, to retain (he power to change the judiciary sys¬ 
tem, and then I believe the people of the State can live 
under the old constitution for the next fifty years as 
well as they have done for the last fifty. 

I do not feel that we have consulted the wishes of 
the people in these changes which we are attempting 
to make in the organic law of the Slate. I do not be¬ 
lieve that they desired them, and I do not expect they 


i 



















1418 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


will sustain them; and I do not want that their desire 
for the reorganization of the judiciary shall sustain the 
other obnoxious provisions of this instrument. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lutions; 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved to amend the first re¬ 
solution by adding the words “ and the article provid¬ 
ing for future amendments to the constitution.” 

Mr. LARSH. I accept the amendment. 

Mr. GREEN. I have been more anxious to secure 
to the people of the State the benefit of the article re¬ 
lating to future amendments than any other. We 
have, Mr. President, been in session five months, at a 
large expense to the State, and a great sacrifiee to indi¬ 
vidual members ; and, if this constitution shall be reject¬ 
ed, I am unwilling to subject the people to the expense 
and trouble of calling another Convention. The article 
providing for future amendments gives a remedy for 
such defects in the constitution as time and experience 
shall show to be necessary. I have often said that, in 
my opinion, we have gone farther than the people de¬ 
sired ; but I still hope that a spirit of compromise will 
prevail, by which members, on the two sides, can come 
upon common ground in regard to some of its provi¬ 
sions. While 1 will adhere to the great principles of 
right and justice, no one will go farther than myself to 
encourage a spirit of compromise. I should look upon 
it as a great misfortune if this constitution should be re¬ 
jected ; and I desire, if possible, that it shall be so fram¬ 
ed, as not to be so far objectionable that a large portion 
of the State will be forced to vote against it; but in 
view of the possibility of such a result, I hope that at 
least that portion of the resolution regarding future 
amendments will be adopted. 

Mr. LARWILL. I shall vote against the resolutions, 
and I hope gentlemen will not attempt to palm off 
upon us any more movements of this kind. I trust 
that we are not going to show our fears of the rejec¬ 
tion of this constitution by any such course. The indi¬ 
vidual members of this body, after they go from here, 
can do as they please in regard to their approval or 
disapproval of it; but I hope they will do nothing here 
having a tendency to discredit what has been done. 

Mr. RANNEY. Gentlemen need not be trying to 
provide against the contingency of the rejection of this 
constitution by the people. I tell them that this con¬ 
stitution is not going to be rejected. Do they suppose 
that this instrument, which does a great act of justice 
by returning to the people the power they have over 
their officers, will be defeated by them? Do they be¬ 
lieve that a constitution that limits and suppresses the 
power of running into debt and piling upon the people 
loads of taxation, will be voted down by them ? Do 
they suppose that a constitution that provides for equal 
taxation all over the State, and that banks shall be ! 
taxed as the property of individuals, is going to be re¬ 
jected ? The gentlemen need not lay this flattering 
unction to their souls. The gentleman from Ross may 
throw himself before the advancing car of public judg¬ 
ment, and be crushed, but I defy him to make any 
question before the people of the State by which this 
constitution shall be decided against. He need not be 
calculating to defeat this constitution on any of his hair 
c splitting notions in regard to corporations, and I tell 
gentlemen that if there is any part of this instrument 
that will go down hard with me, it is the very part 
they are so anxious to preserve—the judiciary system. 

Mr. SAWYER moved the previous question. 

The question then being “shall the main question 
be now put?” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to Mr. Larsh’s 
amendment; 

Mr. LOUDON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 24, nays 60—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Col- 
lings, Curry, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Larsh, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Scott of Harrison, Smith 
of 'Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell and Worthington—24. 


Nays —Messrs. Bennett, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, 
Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene oi Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hotmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, kmch- 
ell, Morris, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Qui^ey, Kan- 
ney, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury 
and President—60. 

So the resolutions were disagreed to. 

The question then being on ordering report number 
two, of the committee on the Schedule, to be engros¬ 
sed ; it was agreed to. 

And on motion, ordered to be read a third time to¬ 
morrow. 

Mr MANON moved that the Convention resolve it¬ 
self into committee of the whole, on the orders of the 
day ; which was agreed to : Mr. Stickney in the chair. 

On motion of Mr, MITCHELL, the resolutions of the 
select committee on the subject of Printing, were taken 
up and read. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved to amend the second reso¬ 
lution, by adding at the end (in reference to the num¬ 
ber of German papers in any county, in which the con¬ 
stitution shall be published) the words, “ not exceed¬ 
ing two in any one county.” 

Mr. REEMELIN. I hope the gentleman from Mus¬ 
kingum will withdraw his motion, after he hears the 
reasons that I shall give for so doing. There is proba¬ 
bly no county in the State in which there are more 
than two German newspapers, except the county of 
Hamilton. 

There is, in this city one paper exclusively Catholic, 
and another exclusively Methodist, and the great mass 
of the people belonging to those communions take no 
other paper, and that one is taken very extensively 
among them, but very little by any others. Then there 
are the commercial, business, and political papers pf the 
city, which also have their class of readers ; and if it is 
the object of publication to reach all the people, in this 
city at least the publication will have to be made in 
more than two. 

Mr. LEECH. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this 
amendment will not be agreed to; for the reason, that 
there is a large portion of the German population of 
the State, who cannot read English. If it is important 
that they become acquainted with the provisions of the 
constitution, it is proper that the means of information 
be placed within their reach. 

Mr. LARSH. I observe that the General Assembly 
has taken this matter in hands, and that a bill has been 
introduced in one of the houses, in regard to this pub¬ 
lication. I am inclined to think that we had better 
leave the matter to that body, especially as there may 
■ be a doubt whether we have the power to do any thing 
in regard to it. 

Mr. MANON. If the General Assembly will attend 
to its own business, and pass the proper appropriation 
bills to pay us off, we will attend to our own business, 
so far as this constitution is concerned. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I have heard this cry of no pow¬ 
er in this body, until I am tired of it. Why sir, what 
is this Convention ? Does it not represent the sover¬ 
eign power of this State ? Does it not represent the 
majesty of the people. Sir, we are the highest body 
in power of any that exists or can exist in the State. 

Mr. NASH. The gentleman had better bring in an 
appropriation bill, and let us raise our own funds. 

Mr. ORTON. 1 have noticed the provisions of the 
bill in the General Assembly, and observe that they do 
not conflict with the resolutions offered. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. It strikes me that this is the pe¬ 
culiar province of the General Assemby. How are 
we to pay for this printing if we cannot appropriate 
money. 

Mr. ORTON. The publishers of papers may do it 
on their own risk, and the State will doubtless make 
the payment. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. T should not think that the pub 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1419 


lisher of a public paper was doing his duty, if he did 
not put this constitution in his paper, as a matter of 
general interest. 

Mr. ORTON. From what I know of the opinions of 
the people of the State, and of the members of this 
Convention, I am satisfied that it is looked upon as a 
matter of the utmost importance, that this constitution 
be fully spread before the people. This must be done 
^ through the public papers. It is well known that the 
greater number of the people take only one paper, and 
that the paper of their county, and if w’e conclude to 
make the publication in a pamphlet form, we can hard¬ 
ly imagine the number of copies that would be suffi¬ 
cient for the purpose. 

j The next question is, whether the printers who per¬ 
form this labor for the public are to be paid for it or 
not. I take it that if we are honorable men we will 
most assuredly pay for whatever is necessary to be 
done. 

i The gentleman from Richland, [Mr. Kirkwood,] 

11 thinks that the publishers of newspapers ought to pub- 
1 lish this constitution as a matter of new’s, and he would 
be ready to discontinue a paper whose editor did not 
give it an insertion. Now, sir, there are a great many 
reasons urged for the discontinuance of newspapers. 
There was once an old lady who stopped her paper 
because there was not a chapter of the Bible in it eve- 
1 ry week. 

I The gentleman, [Mr. Kirkwood,] also finds fault 
\ ‘ with the manner in which we propose to pay for the 
I, services performed. The proposition is to pay out ql 
i ; any moneys of the Convention not otherwise appropri- 
! ated. That is the only way that we can do it, and by 
■ so doing, we are placing the publishers of the papers 
i I on the same footing in regard to payment with our- 
! ' selves. 

Mr. LOUDON. Can any gentleman inform us how 
much this publication wull cost ? 

Mr. LAWRENCE. About five thousand dollars. 

Mr. LEECH. If the gentleman from Brown, [Mr. 
Loudon,] will tell me exactly how many thousand 
1 ems this constitution will contain, I will tell him ex- 
' actly how much it will cost to publish the instrument. 

' Mr. CHAMBERS asked and obtained leave to with- 
i draw his amendment. 

Mr. EWART moved to amend the fourth resolution 
by striking out the word “ each,” and inserting the 
words “ the first,” in lieu thereof, so that it would read, 

1 << seventy-five cents per thousand ems foi the first in- 
; insertion.” 

Mr. LEECH thought that the proposition of the gen¬ 
tleman from Washington, [Mr. Ewart,] was manifest¬ 
ly unfair, and unjust. 

Mr. EWART. It is the same price paid to the pa¬ 
pers for publishing the law’s of the State. They are 
published only once, and I see no necessity for pub¬ 
lishing the constitution more than once. 

Mr. HAWKINS thought one publication enough. 
He did not want so many copies in the papers he re¬ 
ceived. , . • 1 

• Mr. NASH moved that the committee rise and re¬ 
port ; which was agreed to. 

The committee rose, and the Chairrnan reported 
that the committee had had under consideration the 
’ report of the select committee on Printing, and had in- 
' stiTicted him to report the same back without amend- 




The question then being on ordering the report to 

)e engrossed; , , . 

Mr LAWRENCE moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ Shall the main question be 

low put ? ” 1 • I 

Mr LIDEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 

vere’ordered, and resulted—yeas 38, nays 45—as fol- 
Yeas— Messrs. Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Forbes, Gillett, 

Jrly, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, H^ilton, 

leauea Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunter, Jones, King, Law. 
^ncefLafwill, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, 


Perkins, Quigley, Riddle, Sawyer, Sellers, Swift, Taylor, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Vance of Butler, Wilson, Woodbury and President 
-38. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderler, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, 
Curry, Ewing, Ewart, Florence, Graham, Green of Ross, Haw¬ 
kins, Henderson, Hunt, Kirkwood, Larsh, Leech, Lidey, Mmon, 
Mason, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan- 
bery, Stanton, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Townshend, Warren, 
Way and Worthington—45. 

So the demand for the previous question was not 
sustained. 

On motion of Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, the 
Convention took a recess. 


2^ o’clock, p. m. 

The question being on ordering the report to be en- 
goossed; 

Mr. MANON moved that the report be laid on the 
table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. BARNETT, of Preble, demanded a division. 

The question then being first on ordering the report 
to be laid on the table; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the report to be 
printed; 

Mr. GRAY moved a call of the Convention, which 
being ordered, the following gentlemen were found 
absent: 

Messrs. Archbold, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, (^am¬ 
bers, Curry, Cutler, Farr, Graham, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuya¬ 
hoga, Holt, Kennon, Larsh, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Morenead, 
McCormick, Nash, Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Reemelin, Sawyer, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stidger, Thompson ot 
Shelby, and Vance of Champaign. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, all further proceedings 
under the call were dispensed with. 

The question then being on ordering the report ot 
the select committee to be printed; it was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee ot the ^Yhole, Mr. Ma¬ 
nor in the chair. . . j 

The committee rose and the CHAIRMAN reported 
that the committee had had under consideration report 
number one of the committee on the Schedule, and 
had instructed him to report the same back with sun¬ 


dry amendments. , 

The question being on the first amendment proposed 
by the committee of the Whole, to wit: In section 
two, strike out after the words, “ eighteen bundled and 
filty-one it was agreed to. 

Mr. STRUBLE moved to re-consider the vote just 


iken; it was agreed to. a * 

The question then being on the second amendment, 
0 wit: In section three, near the end of the same, ai- 
er the word“ office,” insert the words, ” at the time of 
be adoption of this constitution;” it was disapeed to. 

The question then being on the third amendment to 
vh: Ill section 4, where these words occur, shall 
old his office until the first Monday of January, 1853, 
trike out the woVd first,” and insert in lieu thereof, 
he word “ second;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the fourth amendment, 
j wit: In section one, line one, insert the word 
any,” before the word ” officerit was agreed to. 
The question then being on the fifth amendment, to 
vit: In section 9, strike out the words ” the election, 
nd insert in lieu thereof, the words “and before the 
ame is filled as;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the sixth amendment, 
^ wit: In section 13, in the middle of the same, after 
be word “ pending,” insert the words “ and reraain- 
lor;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the seventh amendment, 
D wit: In section 15, near the end of the same, after 
le words “ records thereof,” insert the following. 
and all business proceedings, bonds, papers, and re- 
ords of the charter aforesaid;” it was agreed to. 

Mr EWART moved to further amend the report, 
y inserting after the word ” office ” in section 3, the 







1420 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


following words, “ on the let day of September, 1851 
which was agreed to. 

5) Mr. MANON moved to further amend the report, 
by inserting in section one, line one, after the word 
“ for,” the word ” Governor.” 

Mr. HAWKINS demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 39, nays 41—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, 
Bates, Blickensderter, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cham¬ 
bers, Ceilings, Cook, Farr, Florence, Gray, Green of Ross, Hor¬ 
ton, Hunter, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Manon, Mitchell, Mc¬ 
Cloud, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reeme- 
lin. Sellers, Smith of Highland, Stilwell, Struble, Swan, Thomp¬ 
son of Stark, Warren, Wilson and Woodbury—39. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Bennett, Cahill, Case 
of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Ewing, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Hen¬ 
derson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, King, 
Kirkwood, Larsh, Loudon, Morris, McCormick, Nash, Norris, 
Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Warren, Stanton, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Way 
6 md Pr esident—41. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. GREENE, of Defiance, moved to further amend 
the report by inserting after the word “ works,” in the 
first line of section G, the words “Register and Re¬ 
ceiver of Land Office;” which was agreed to. 

Mr. MANON moved to further amend the report, by 
adding as an additional section the following; 

The first session of the General Assembly under this Consti¬ 
tution, shall commence on the first Monday of November, eighteen 
hundred and fifty-one. 

Mr. NASH demanded the yeas and nay.s, which were 
oi’dered. and resulted—yeas 39, nays 43—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Case of Licking, Clark, Ceilings, Cook, Ewart, Ewing, 
Farr, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Holt, Larsh, McCormick, Nash, Patterson, Ranney, Scott 
of Auglaize, Smith of Highland Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Taylor, 
'fhompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Woodbury 
and Worthington—39. 

Nays —Messrs. Blickensderfer, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney. Dor¬ 
sey, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Ham 
ilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Hun¬ 
ter, Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Loudon, Manon, 
Mitchell, Morris, McCloud, Norris, Otis, Perkins, Quigley, lleeme- 
lin. Riddle, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, 
Swift, Townshend, Wilson and President—43. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

Mr. NASH moved to further amend the report by 
adding as an additional section the following: 

,^The firs': session of the General Assembly under this Consti¬ 
tution, shall convene on the second Monday of November, 1851 
which was disagreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved to further amend the report 
by striking out section G ; which was disagreed to. 

Mr. STANTON moved to further amend the report, 
in section 5, by striking out the words “ second Tues¬ 
day of October, 1851,” and inserting in lieu thereof, 
the words “ first Monday of April, 1852.” 

Mr. WOODBURY moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “bhallihe main question be 
now put ?” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 

Stan ton ; 

Mr. ARCH BOLD demanded a division. 

The question then being first on striking out the 
words “second Tuesday of October, 1851;” 

Mr. LARSH demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 29, nays 55—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs, Barbee, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Car- 
roll, Case of Licking, Cook, Dorsey, Florence, Gillett, Gray, 
Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock ol Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Larsh, Lawrene, 
Mason, Nash, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Swan, Swift, Taylor, 
and Worthington—29. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Brown ot Athens, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, 
Collings, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Graham, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Gregg, Hard, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, King, 
Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Loudon, Mauon, Mitchell, Morris, 
McCormick, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, 
Roemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of | 


Highland, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Thornpson of Stark, Town- . 
shend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and ' 
President— 55. j 

So the motion to strike out was disagreed to. j 

The question then being, on ordering the report to be ; 
engrossed; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded a division. 

The question then being, first on ordering sections 1, 

2, and 3, to be engrossed; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering section four to 
be engrossed; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which : 
were ordered, and resulted — yeas 44, nays 43 — as 
follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett 
ot Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Cook, , 
Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green ot Ross, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hunt, Hunter, 
Johnson, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Morris, 
McCormick, Smith ot Warren, Stilwell, Struble, Swan, Swift, 
Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Woodbury and Presi¬ 
dent—44. 

Nays— Messrs. Barbee, Cahill, Clark, Collmgs, Farr, Forbes, 
Gray, Greene 6f Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Horton, Jones, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, 
Mitchell, Nash, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perking, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Thompson of 
Stark, Warren, Way, Wilson and Worthington—43. 

So the fourth section was ordered to be engrossed. 
The question then being, on the engrossment of sec- 
tions 5 and G ; it was agreed to. 

The question then being, on ordering section 7 to be 
engrossed ; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 4G, nays 38—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett ot Preble, Bates, 
Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case 
of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, 
Gillett, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson. Kirkwood, Larsh, Man¬ 
on, Mason, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Peck, Per¬ 
kins, Riddle, Sawyer, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stil¬ 
well, Stanton, Swan, Switt, Taylor, Townshend and President 
—46. 

Nays —Messrs. Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holt, 
Holmes, Hootman, Jones, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Mitchell, Norris, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Thompson of Stark, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and Wor¬ 
thington—38. 

So the seventh section was ordered to be engrossed. 
The question then being on ordering the remaining 
sections of the report to be engrossed ; it was agreed 
to; and on motion, the report was ordered to be read 
a third time to-morrow. 

Mr. EWART submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to 
amend the article on the Legislative Department, so that the 
members of the General Assembly first to be elected, shall hold 
for one yetir, and that there be held a session ot the General As¬ 
sembly cm the first Monday of January, 1853, and biennial ses¬ 
sions thereafter. 

Mr. SCOTT, of Auglaize, moved to lay the resolu¬ 
tion on table ; which vvas agreed to. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved to take up the 
resolution just laid on the table- 

Pending which, Mr. LIDEY moved that the Conven¬ 
tion adjourn; which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on taking up the resolu¬ 
tion ; 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 38, nays 48—as fol¬ 
lows: , 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, BrovTi ol Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Mason, Morris, 
Nash, Otis, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift, Taylor, Townshend 
and Woodbury—38. 

Nays —Messrs. Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case of Licking, Cha 
ney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance 














CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1421 


Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard,Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Jones. 

^o«don, Manon, Mitchell, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormick, Norris, Patterson, Peck, Perkins. Quielev 
^imey. Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, StebbS 

W^iS-P^’w " 0 ^' Stark, Vance of Butleri 

Warren, Way, Wilson, Worthington and President— 48. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

A.nd then, on motion of Mr. HOOTMAN, the Con¬ 
vention adjourned. 


THURSDAY, March 6, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Prayer by the Rev. Mr. Sheperdson. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, from a majority of the select com¬ 
mittee to which was committed the report on Finance 
and Taxation, reported the same back with the follow¬ 
ing amendments : 


FIRST AMENDMENT. 


Strike out section 2, of the report, and insert in lieu 
thereof the following; 

Sec. 2. Uniform laws shall be passed upon the subject of tax 
ation, embracing all property according to its true value in mon¬ 
ey; provided that hurrying grounds, public school houses, and 
houses UAed exclusively for public worship, and property held by 
the public or open to public use without any charge therefor, 
and a limited amount ot personal property, not exceeding two 
hundred dollars to any one individual, may be exempt from taxa¬ 
tion by general law, but the value of all property so exempt shall 
annually be published as may be directed by law, and all such 
exemptions shall be subject to modification, alteration or repeal, 

SECOND AMENDMENT. 

Strike out section 3, of the report, and insert in lieu 
1 ^ thereof the following. 

1 Sec. 3. The General Assembly shall provide by law for tax- 
I ing the property, capital, money, credits, and effects of all bank- 
! ers and banks now or hereafter existing in this State, so that the 
: same shall bear a burthen of taxation equal to that imposed upon 
the same amount of property, capital, money, credits and effects 
r belonging to individuals. 


On motion, the report and amendments were laid on 
the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. REEMELIN, from the minority of the select 
; committee on Finance and Taxation, submitted the fol¬ 


lowing : 

j Substitute the following for the second amendment proposed 
! by the majority of the Select committee on Finance and Taxa- 
I tion: 

i TTie General Assembly shall provide by law for taxing all 
j banks or banking companies, now or hereafter in existence, for 
all purposes where located, on the average amount of their 
I notes and bills discounted, or monies or credits in any manner 
i or form secured or invested, and for which there shall have been 
j at any time, reserved or received, or expected to be received, 
any interest, profit or other consideration whatever, with no de- 
i duction therefrom except for bona fide deposits, for which not 
• less than five per centum per annum interest shall have been al¬ 


lowed. 


C. REEMELIN, 
H. H. GREGG. 


! On motion of Mr. REEMELIN, the amendment was 
j laid on the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, submitted the following as a 
substitute for section 2, of the majority report of the 
Select committee on Finance and Taxation ; 


Sec. 2. All property in this State, including investments in 
all kinds of stocks, whether owned by individual or corpora¬ 
tions now or hereafter existing, shall be taxed upon its value, 
which shall be ascertained in such manner as may be provided 
bv law making taxation equal and uniform; provided, that the 
Genera’l Assembly shall exempt from taxation all property, which 
maybe exempted by virtue of the constitution ot the United 
States the property ot the State, the public property of coun¬ 
ties cities, towns and townships, and it may exempt from taxa¬ 
tion burying grounds, houses U‘ed for religious worship, and 
nrooerty devoted to educational, literary, scientific and charita¬ 
ble nurnoses, together with an amount of personal property not 
exceeding in value $200, in the case of each individual subject 
to taxation. 

On motion of Mr. CASE, of Licking, the amend- 
ment was laid on the table and ordered to be printed. 

Report number two, of the Schedule, was read a 

third time. _ ' r ♦ 

The question being on the passage ot the report, 

Mr. LIDEY moved that the report be committed to 


a select committee of three ; which was disagreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY moved that the report be committed 
to the committee that reported it. 

On which motion, Mr. MANON demanded the yeas 
and nays ; which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 38 
nays 57—as follows : ’ 

Yeas— Messrs. Cahill, Cl aney. Cook, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, 
Gregg, Henderson, Holmes, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Patterson, Perkins 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sellers, Stebbins, Stilwell’ 
Suckney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Vance of 
Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson and President_38. 

Nays—M essrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens 
Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, Collinge’ 
Cu^y, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene 
of Defiance, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Haw¬ 
kins, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Holt, Horton, Humphreville, Himter, 
Johnson, Lareh, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morenead, Morris, Mc- 
C oud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Peck, Sawyer, 
Scott of Harrison, Scott of Augl.ize, Smith of Highland, Srnith 
of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Wood¬ 
bury, and Worthington—57. 

So the motion to recommit was dissagreed to. 

The question then being on the passage of the Re¬ 
port; it was agreed to. 

On motion, the Report was referred to the committee 
on Revision, Arrangement and Enrollment. 

Report number one, on the Schedule, was read a 
third time. 

The question then being on the passage of the Re¬ 
port; 

Mr. MANON moved that the Report be recommit- 
tedto the committee that reported it; which was agreed 

Mr. RANNEY submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on the Schedule, to which has 
been recommitted Report number one, of the committee on that 
subject, be instructed to strike out the seventh section. 

On motion of Mr. SAWYER, the resolution was re- 
ferred to the committee on the Schedule. 

Mr. STILWELL submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the select committee on the Schedule be re¬ 
quested to add to the end of section 7, of the Report of the com¬ 
mittee on that suuject, the following ; “but neither of said courts 
shall be continued after the first day of April, 1853, and no suit 
shall be con.menced in either of said courts after the first dav of 
October, 1852. 

On motion of Mr. HOLMES, the Resolution was re¬ 
ferred to the select committee on the Schedule. 

Mr. SCOTT, of Auglaize, submitted the following : 

Resolved, That the select committee on the Schedule be re¬ 
quested to provide for the election the present year, of the fol¬ 
lowing officers, to wit: Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Auditor 
lYeasurer, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Members of the 
General Assembly, Judges and Clerks of Courts, and members 
of the Board of Public Works. 

On motion of Mr. SMITH, of Warren, the resolution 
was referred to the select committee on the Schedule. 

Mr. STICKNEY submitted the following: 

O 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to 
change the ime of voting on the constitution from the 3d Fridav 
to the 2d Tuesday of June, 1851. 

On motion of Mr. SWAN, the resolution was refer- 
red to the select committee on the Schedule. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, submitted the iollowing: 

Resolved, That the three hard money sections reported by the 
committee on Banking and Currency, as amended in Convention, 
and finally voted therein, ought to be separately submitted to the 
voters with the new constitution, so that they may become a part 
thereoi, provided a majority of the voters should vote for said 
sections. 

Mr. SAWYER moved that the resolution be referred 
to the committee on Banking and Currency. 

On which motion Mr. CASE, cf Licking, demandetl 
the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and resulted 
—yeas 40, nays 49—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Brown of Athens. Cahill, Chaney, Ewing, Farr 
Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson’ 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwillj 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Patter¬ 
son, I’erkins, Knnney, Reemelin, Kiddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of 
Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins Slickney, Stidger, Struble, Way, Wil¬ 
son and President—40, 

Nays—M essrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Case of 






















1422 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


1 


Licking, Chambers, Clark, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Gillett, 
Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hard, Hawkins, Horton. Hum- 
phreville. Hunter, Johnson, Larsh, Lawrence, Loudon, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Quigley, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stii- 
well. Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Warren, Williams, Woodbury and Worthington—49. 

So Ihe motion was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the res¬ 
olution ; 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved that the resolution be re¬ 
ferred to a select committee of three. 

Mr. LARWILL moved to lay the resolution on the 
table. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered and resulted—yeas 43, nays 52— 
as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, 
Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, Holt, 
Hootman, Hunt, Hunter, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Lidey, 
Morehead, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Patterson. Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickuey, Struble, Thompson 
of Stark, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—43. 

Nats —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Licking, Clark, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, 
Florence, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Haw¬ 
kins, Holmes, Horton, Humphreville, Johnson, Jones, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Leadbetter, Loudon, Manon, Mason. Mitchell, Morris, 
Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stilwell, Stidger, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Town¬ 
shend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams and Worthington—52. 

So the motion to lay on the table was disagreed to. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, moved the previous question. 

The question then being: Shall the main question be 
now put? 

Mr. LARWILL demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 50, nays 46—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, 
Florence, Gray, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Horton, Humphre- 
ville. Hunter, Johnson, Larsh, Lawrence, Loudon, Manon, Ma¬ 
son, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Otis, Perkins, Sawyer, Scott 
of Harrison, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Swan, 
Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Warren, Williams, Wilson and Woodbury—50. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, 
Curry, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Greene of Defiance, 
Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hoot¬ 
man, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Mitchell, Morehead, McCormick, Patterson, Peck, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Highland, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Way, Worthing¬ 
ton and President—46. 

So the demand for the previous question was suslain- 
ed. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution; 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, demanded the yeas and nays, 
w’hich were ordered, and resulted—yeas 32, nays 64— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Case of Lick¬ 
ing, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Gillett, Gray, Hard, 
Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Humphreville, Johnson, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Loudon, Manon, Nash, Otis, Perkins, Scott of Harris¬ 
on, Stanton, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Warren, Williams and Worthington—32. 

Nats —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Ben¬ 
nett, Blickensdei fer. Brown of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Chambers, Curry, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes,Graham, 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, 
King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mason, 
Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Pat¬ 
terson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, | 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
Stanbery, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of 
Stark, Way, Wilson and President—64. 

So the resolution was disagreed to. 

Mr. HOLMES, on leave, from the standing commit¬ 
tee on Apportionment, to which had been recommitted 
the report number two of the committee on that sub¬ 
ject, reported the same back with sundry amendments. 

The question being on the first amendment proposed 
by the committee, to wit: In section three, in the last 
line of the same, transpose the words “fourth and 


third,” so that it will read “third and fourth;” it was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on the second amendment, 
to wit: In section three, in the last line of the same, 
transpose the words “third, second and first,” so that 
it will read “first, second and third;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the third amendment, to 
wit: In section three, in the last lines of the same, 
transpose the words “ fourth, third, second and first,” 
so that it will read “ first, second, third and fourth ;” 
it was agreed to. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved that the report be re¬ 
committed to the standing committee on Apportion¬ 
ment, with instructions to provide in the article on Ap¬ 
portionment that every county in the State, which may 
be entitled, by the first and all future apportionments 
for representation in the General Assembly under this 
constitution, to more than one representative, shall be 
divided into single districts, equal in number to the 
representatives to which such counties may be enti¬ 
tled during the respective decennial periods within 
each of said districts, there shall be elected one mem¬ 
ber to the House of Representatives. 

Mr. MANON demanded a division. 

The question then being on recommitting the report; 

Mr. HOLT moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
be now put 

Pending which, on motion of Mr. LARWILL, the 
Convention took a recess. 


2^ o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending being, “ shall the main ques¬ 
tion be now put? ” 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved a call of the Conven¬ 
tion: which was ordered, and the following gentlemen 
were fouiid absent: 

Messrs. Bates, Blair, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Clark 
Cutler, Dorsey, Gray, Harlan, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Holt, Kennon, Loudon, Mason, Nash, Perkins, Saw¬ 
yer, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Taylor, Thompson of Shelby, 
Vance of Champaign, Way and Woodbury^. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved that the doors be clo¬ 
sed, and that the Sergeant-at-Arms be dispatched for 
the absentees; which was disagreed to. 

Mr. HORTON moved that all further proceedings 
under the call be dispensed with. 

Mr. STANBERY demanded the yeas and nays; 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 58, nays 27— 
as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
ot Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, 
Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance,’ 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hun¬ 
ter, Johnson, Lawrence, Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
Morehead, Morris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Rid¬ 
dle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Stehbins, Stilwell, Swan, 4 
Swift, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way and Wor- ' 
thington—58. 

Nays— Messrs. Chaney, Curry, Graham, Green of Ross, Ham¬ 
ilton, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Leech, Leadbetter, Manon, 
McCloud, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Reemelin, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stidger, 

Struble, Thompson of Stark, Williams, Wilson, and President 
_ 07^ 

So all further proceedings under the call were dis¬ 
pensed with. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
be now put ? ” 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays; which 1 
w'ere ordered, and resulted—yeas 47, nays 43—as fol- ^ 
Isws: 

Yeas— Messrs. Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Blickensderfer, Ca- 
hill. Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Cook, Dorsey 'j 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck! ) 
Hard, Hawkins, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, John- | 
son, Jones, Leadbetter, Mason, Morehead, Norris, Patterson f 
Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers! 1 
Stebbins, Stickney, Swan, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Town- I 
shend, Vance of Butler, Wairen, Way, Wilson and Pres dent_47. * 

NAYS-^Messrs, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates Ben! 1 












CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Of Carroll, Chambers, Curry 
FJorence, Graham, Green of Roes, Hamilton, Henderson 
Oeauga, Horton, Hunter, King, Larsh, Lawrence! 
C?Jrd ^\};p ^f“°on, Mitchell, Morris, Me 

rr Feemelin, Scott of Harrison. 

Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton Still 
well, Stidger, Struble, Taylor, Williams and Worthington-^3. 

So the demand for the previous question was sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then being on the passage of the re¬ 
port ; ° 

Mi\ BROWN, of Carroll, demanded the yeas and 
nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 53, nays 
42—as follows; 

^'■‘^fibold, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chanev, 
Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Holmes, Holt, Hootraan! 
Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Lawuence, Lar- 
will, Lewh, Leadbetter, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patter- 
son, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize’ 
Sellers, Stebbins, btickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Thomp* 
son of Stark, Townsbend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wil¬ 
son, Woodbury and President—53. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Ewart, Florence, 
Oulett, Graham, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Horton, Hunter, King, Larsh, Lidey, Manon, Mason, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Smith ot Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stilwell, Taylor, Williams and Worthington-^2. 

So the report passed. 

And, on motion, the report was referred to the stand¬ 
ing committee on Revision, Arrangement and Enroll¬ 
ment. 

Mr. RANNEY, from the standing committee on Revi¬ 
sion, Arrangement and Enrollment, submitted the fol¬ 
lowing report: 

REPORT NUMBER TWO, 

OF THE COMMITTEE ON REVISION, ARRANGEMENT) AND EN¬ 
ROLLMENT. 

EDUCATION. 

Sec. 1. The principal of all funds arising f rom the sale or other 
disposition of lands or other property granted or entrusted to 
this State for educational and religious purposes, shall forever be 
preserved inviolate and undiminished, and the income arising 
therefrom shall be faithfully applied to the specific objects of the 
original grants or appropriations. 

Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall make such provisions, by 
taxation or otherwise, as with the income arising from the school 
trust fund, will secure a thorough and efiicient system of com¬ 
mon schools throughout the State, but no religious or other sect 
or sects shall ever have any exclusive right to or control of any 
part of the school funds of this State. 

MILITIA. 

Sec. 1. All white male citizens, residents of this State, being 
eighteen years of age, and under the age of forty-five years, shall 
be enrolled in the militia, and perform military duty, in such 
manner, not incompatible with the constitution and laws of the 
United States, as may be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 2. Majors general, br-gadiers general, colonels, lieutenant 
colonels, majors, captains and subalterns, shall be elected by the 
persons subject to military duty, in their respective districts. 

Sec. 3. I’he Governor shall appoint the Adjutant General, 
Quartermaster General, and such other staff officers as may be 
provided for by law. Majors general, brigadiers general, colonels 
or commandants of regiments, battalions or squadrans, shall seve¬ 
rely appoint their staff; and captains shall appoint their non¬ 
commissioned officers, and musicians. 

Sec. 4. The Governor shall commission all officers of the line 
and staff ranking as such, and shall have power to call forth tlie 
militia to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrection, 
and repel invasion. 

Sec. 5. The General Assembly shall provide by law, lor the 
protection and safe keeping of the public arms. 

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS. 

Sec. 1. Institutions for the benefit of the insane, blind, and 
deaf and dumb, shall always bo fostered and supported by the 
State, and be subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by 
the General Assembly. ^ ^ . . „ , . , 

Sec. 2. The Directors of the Penitentiary shall be appointed 
or elected in such manner as the General Assembly may direct, 
and the Trustees of the benevolent and other State institutions, 
now elected by the General Assembly, and of such other State in¬ 
stitutions as may be hereafter created, shall be appointed by the 
Governor, by, and with the advice and consent of tho.Senate, and 
upon all nominations made by the Governor, the question shall 
be taken by yeas and nays, and entered upon the journals of the 

Senate. , ,, , „„ „ 

Sec, 3. The Governor shall have power to fill all vacancies 
that may occur in the offices aforesaid until the next session of 
the General Assembly, and until a successor to his appointee shall 
be confirmed and qualified. 


1423 


On motion of Mr. RANNEY, the report was laid on 
the table, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. MANON submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision^ be instructed to 
strike out and so change the 11th, 16th and 17th districts and 
make lour districts out of the three, by putting Muskin^m o“e 
Perry and Morgan one, Washington and Athens one, leaving Fai^l 
held and Hockmg as one district. ° 

The question then being, shall the main question be 
now put ? it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the res¬ 
olution ; 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
<fcere ordered, and resuiled—yeas 32, nays 56—as fol¬ 
lows : 

u C^ai^bere, Chaney, Gregg, Hawkins, Henderson. 

Holt, Horton, Jones, King, Lawrence. Larwill, Leech, Leadbet- 
ter, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, Morris, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle 
Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stilwell, Stidger. Struble, Swift’ 
Taylor,Thompson of Stark, Vauce of Butler, Wilson and Presi- 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderler, Brown ot Carroll Cahill 
Case of Licking, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey Ew¬ 
art, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Hitchcock 
of Geauga. Holmes, Hootmau, Humphreville, Johnson, Larsh 
Loudon, Mason, Morehead, McCloud, McCormick Nash Norris’ 
Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins. Swan 
Townsbend, Way, Williams, Woodbury and Worthington—56. ’ 

So the resolution was disagreed to. 

Mr. KING submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to re¬ 
port the following senatorial districts, to wit; Butler and Preble 
Montgomery and Greene, Warren, Clinton and Fayette. ’ 

Mr. CAHILL. Mr. President: I shall vote against 
the instructions now proposed, and hope that the Con¬ 
vention may see tit to disagree to the same. It is true 
that I do not like the senatorial apportionment. So far 
as ray own district is concerned I should have prefer¬ 
red other arrangements, but the scheme was passed 
under the operation of the previous question, and there 
was no opportunity to discuss the matter. And, sir, it 
is quite evident that every member of this body can¬ 
not be entirely suited as to the apportionmeut of the 
State. There must, where no principle is involved, be 
mutual concession and just compromises in order to 
pass any scheme at all. 

So far as the political complexion and partisan fea¬ 
tures of this scheme of apportionment are concerned, I 
think neither party can claim the advantage. I think 
that neither party have any just cause of complain' . 

There are now remaining but two days of the ses¬ 
sion of this Convention, and it is all important that we 
should promptly dispose of this matter. I shall vote 
against the motion to instruct, and hope it may not 
prevail. 

Mr. BENNETT moved the previous question. 

The question then being “shall the main question be 
now pul ?’' it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the res¬ 
olution ; 

Mr. KING demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered and resulled—yeas 33, nays 54—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Chaney, Farr, Gregg, Hawkins, Henderson 
Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, King, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbet- 
tor, Lidey, Manon, Mitchell, McConhick, Norris, Quigley Reem¬ 
elin, Riddle, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Warren Steb¬ 
bins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Taylor, Thompson of ’starlc 
Yance of Butler, Williams and Wilson— 33. ’ 

Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderler, Brown of Carroll Cahill 
Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, Collings, Curry, Dorsey Ew¬ 
art, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gillett. Graham, Gray, Greene of 
Defiance, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hard, Hitchcock of Geauga 
Holmes, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Larsh Lou¬ 
don, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peek Per¬ 
kins, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Stanbery 'stan- 
ton, Stilwell, Swift, Townsbend, Way, Woodbury, Worthiuizton 
and President— 54. ° 

So the resolution was disagreed to. 

Mr. GRAY submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to preit 






















1424 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


vide for the division of the State into single districts for repre¬ 
sentation in both branches of the General Assembly. 

Tbe question then being 6h the adoption of the reso- 
ution; 

Mr. GRAY. Mr. President: The resolution which 
I ha^’n 3 just presented, and which I hope will be allow¬ 
ed to pass, provides that the committee on Revision be 
instruqted so t amend the article fixing the apportion¬ 
ment of the State for representative purposes, as that 
it shall be divided into single districts for ‘he election 
of members to both branches of the General Assembly. 
And I hope sir, that although this subject is by no 
means a new one to the gentlemen composing this bo¬ 
dy, they will, in consideration of the fact that hithertoi 
I have occupied little of the time of this Convention, 
consent to hear with indulgence, the few remarks that 
I shall offer, in which I intend merely to give the rea¬ 
sons which have hitherto, and will in future control 
my action, and dictate my vote. 

It w’ould seem to me sir, that if there are any indices' 
by which the state of the public sentiment upon any 
subject of public concern can be ascertained with pre¬ 
cision and certainty, gentlemen can hardly, at this day, 
deny that the people of the State have, during several 
years past, given strong and conclusive testimony of 
their preference for the single district system, as appdied 
to the Senate as well as to the House of Represeuta- 
dves; nor can it be denied that during the canvass 
which resulted in the election of members of this body, 
this was one of those measures of reform which ob- 
taiued universal acquiescence, and which was advoca¬ 
ted and demanded by all the political parties in the 
State. Now, sir, there are measures of change which 
are not measures of reform. There are changes which 
are urged under the influence of the magic, but some- 
w’hat indefinite term “ progress,” which are any thing 
but progress in the right direction, and when any ma¬ 
terial alteration in existing systems is proposed, it is 
proper to look at it, not as a mere name, but as a thing, 
and to ascertain first if it be really demanded by a 
wholesome public sentiment, and secondly, whether in 
principle it is consistent with the theory upon which 
the institutions of the goveniment are founded. I say 
that it is proper first to ascertain if it be demanded by 
a wholesome public sentiment, because I hold that pub¬ 
lic sentiment, when it springs spontaneously upon the 
unbiased conclusions of the people themselves, (and 
that is what 1 mean by wholesome public sentiment,) 
is invariably right. The people when left to their own 
suggestions, never progress backwards, and in all past 
histoi'y the instance cannot be found where they have 
beeh detected in looking one way while they were 
rowing another. 

Well, sir, what have been the indications of public 
sentiment in the State of Ohio, during several years 
past ? This subject was brought before them, (to go 
no further back,) during the agitations which resulted 
from the action of the General Assembly, at its last ap¬ 
portionment, in dividing Hamilton county. I am aware 
that these events have been cited as evidence of a con¬ 
trary tendency; but in charity to those who allude to 
them for that purpose, we are bound to believe that 
they are little acquainted with the facts of the case. 

During the whole of the stormy discussions in regard 
to the violation of old Hamilton, which commenced 
with the breaking up of the Legislature, continued in 
a revolutionary assembly at the seat of government, 
and ended with the close ot the second stormy session 
of the General Assembly, not one word was said in op¬ 
position to the principle of single district representa¬ 
tion, Not even the members from old Hamilton itself 
—leaders as they always aspired to be in the legista-* 
tive halls—were heard to utter a word against it. They 
complained that its operation was unjus. as applied to 
Hamilton county alone, and that the prs ' ’le was un¬ 
constitutional under the existing organic law. But while 
they made these claims, they always admitted the prin¬ 
ciple to be correct, and were frequently heard to express 


their regret that, under our existing institutions, it ^ 
could ,not be put into practical operation throughou'^Hj^ 
the State. The Democracy of Ohio was then in favor 
of single districts. 

The subject thus, at that time, brought before the 
people, had the effect to arouse their attention, and 
probably more than any other induced them to vote in 
favor of calling this Convention. They felt that discre¬ 
dit had been done to the State by the distractions of 
the Hamilton county question, and were anxious to be 
insured against a repetition of the scene; and this very 
apportioument bill, Mr. President, is the legitimate off¬ 
spring of the desire of the people that a permanent ob¬ 
stacle should be placed in the way ol any more events 
of a similar character. 

During the canvass for the election of members to 
this body, the matter of single districts was frequently 
the subject of remarks and re:-olutions. There was 
no controversy upon it, for there was no division of sen¬ 
timent ; and he would have been an unpopular man 
indeed who had raised his voice in favor of retaining 
the old system of representation, or any other of a simi¬ 
lar character. While thousands of voices were raised 
in favor of single districts, not one was raised agriinst 
it. Like the subjects of abridging the patronage of the 
Genera] Assembly by making State and aii other offi¬ 
cers elective, and that of judicial reform, there was 
among the whole people an unanimity of sentiment 
that relieves this body from all embarrassment upon the 
subject. 

And while I have no desire to call in question the 
motives for the great change of sentiment that has tak- , 
en place in this body, since its first organization, I must 
be allowed to allude to that change as a matter of fact. 
We were, when fresh from the people, nearly or quite 
unanimous in favor of single districts; but we have pro¬ 
gressed. I fear that time and the people will both de¬ 
termine that the progress has been made in the wrong 
direction. 

Let us, sir, pursue, for a moment, the second inquiry. 

Is the single district principle consistent with the theory 
upon which the institutions of the government are foun¬ 
ded ? Our form of government is republican. Its fun¬ 
damental principle is the natural equality of man. The 
citizens of the State are the governing party as well as 
the party governed. The obligations of all to obey are 
equal, and so are the rights. Every citizen is entitled 
to the same representation, both in' character Jand 
amount, and the nearer that representation is brought 
home to himself, and the more directly he acts in se¬ 
lecting his own representative, the more perfectly is 
the republican system carried out. 

Gentlemen will not dispute the justness of these po¬ 
litical truisms—their trutn is too apparent to be contro¬ 
verted or denied. Yet, from them inevitably springs 
the doctrine that each several constituency in the State 
is entitled to demand its separate representative. If 
republicanism means any thing, it means precisely this 
—it may almost be said to mean but this. ’ A 

Mr. President, I do not propose to attempt to replv * 
to the arguments of the gentleman who have taken the 
other side of this question,for this simple reason; I have 
heard no argument. I have no desire to dispara'^e the 
eff orts of any member on this floor; but I must be per¬ 
mitted to insist that they have not met the single dis¬ 
trict principle with argument. Gentlemen will not un¬ 
derstand me as asserting that nothing has been said 
upon the subject. There has been a great deal said ; 
still there has been no argument. The details of the , 
difterent plans of single district apportionment have i 
been examined, attacked and criticised. There have 
been assertion, declaratiou and denunciation, but amid 
all, the great principle that every constituency in the 
State of the legal amount, is entitled to its own separate 
representative, stands as it always has stood, not impreg¬ 
nable merely, but beyond the reach of attack. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso 
lution; 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1425 


Mr. MITCHELL moved the previous question. 

The question then heing^, “Shall the main question 
be now put?” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the res'^- 
lution; 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 47, nays 49— 
as follows: 

T EAs-—Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar 
nett ot Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Ewart, Flo 
^nce, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green ot Ross, Hamilton, Hawkins 
Henderson, Hitchcock ot Geauea, Horton, Hunter. Larsh, Ma 
son, Morchead. Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Per- 
kins, Reemelin, Scott ot Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Wil¬ 
liams, Woodbury and Worthington—47. 

Nays Messrs. Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Cregg, Groesbeck. 
Hard, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, 
Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson and President—49. 

So the resolution was disagreed to. 

_Mr. SWAN, from the standing committee on the .lu- 
dicial Department, submitted the following: 

REPORT NUMBER TWO, 

OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAL 
DEPARTMENT. 

The Standing committee on the Judicial Department have had 
under considemion the resolution instructing them to divide the 
State into Judicial Districts, and to subdivide such districts for 
election purposes, and, in pursuance of said resolution, report as 
follows: 

Sec. 1 . The first judicial district shall consist of the county of 
Hamilton, which shall not be subdivided for election {purposes; 
and the judges therein may hold separate courts, or separate 
sittings of the same court, at the same time. 

Sec. 2. The second judicial district shall consist of the coun¬ 
ties of Butler, Preble, Darke, Montgomery, Miami, Champaign, 
Warren, Clinton, Greene and Clark, which shall be subdivided 
for election puposes, as follows: Butler, Preble and Darke shall 
elect one judge ; Montgomery Miami and Champaign shall elect 
one judge; and Warren, Clinton, Greene and Clark shall elect 
one Judge. 

Sec. 3. The third judicial district shall consist of the counties 
of Shelby, Auglaize, Allen, Hardin, Logan, Union, Marion, Mer¬ 
cer, Van Wert, Putnam, Paulding, Defiance, Williams, Henry, 
Fulton, Wood, Seneca, Hancock, Wyandot and Crawford, which 
shall be subdivided for election purposes, as follows : the coun¬ 
ties of Shelby, Auglaize, Allen, Hardin, Logan, Union and Marion 
shall elect one judge; the counties of Mercer, Van Wert, Put¬ 
nam, Paulding, Defiance, Williams, Henry and Fulton shall elect 
one judge; and the counties of Wood, Seneca, Hancock, Wyan¬ 
dot and Crawford shall elect one judge. 

Sec. 4. The fourth judicial distiict shall consist of the coun¬ 
ties of Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Erie, Huron, Lorain, Medina, 
Summit and Cuyahoga, which shall be subdivided for election 
purposes, as follows; the counties ot Lucas, Ottawa, Sandus¬ 
ky, Erie and Huron shall elect one judge; the counties of Lo¬ 
rain, Medina and Summit shall elect one judge; and the county 
of Cuyahoga shall elect one judge. 

Sec. 5. The fifth judicial district shall consist of the counties 
of Clermont, Brown, Adams, Highland, Ross, Fayette, Pickaway, 
Franklin and Madison, which shall be subdivided for election pur¬ 
poses, as follows: the counties of Clermont, Brown and Adams 
shall elect one judse; the counties of Highland, Ross and Fayette 
shall elect one judge; the counties of Pickaway, Franklin and 
Madison shall elect one judge. 

Sec. 6 . The sixth judicial district shall consist of the coun¬ 
ties of Licking, Knox and Delaware, Morrow, Richland, Ashland, 
Wayne, Holmes and Coshocton, which shall be divided for elec¬ 
tion purposes, as follows : the counties of Licking, Knox and 
Delaware shall elect one judge; the counties of Morrow, Rich¬ 
land and Ashland shall elect one judge ; and the counties of 
Wayne, Holmes and Coshocton shall elect one judge. 

Sec 7. The seventh judicial district shall consist of the coun¬ 
ties of Fairfield, Perry, Hocking, Vinton, Jackson, Pike, Scioto, 
-Gallia, Lawrence, Meigs, Athens and Washington, which shall be 
subdivided for election purposes, as follows: the counties of 
Fairfield, Perry and Hocking shall elect one judge; the counties 
of Jackson Pike, Scioto and Lawrence shall elect one judge ; and 
the counties of Gallia, Meigs, Athens and Washington shall elect 
OQO JudfiC 

Sec 8 The eighth judicial district shall consist of the coun¬ 
ties ofMuskingum, Morgan, Guernsey, Belmont, Monroe, Jeffer¬ 
son, Harrison and Tuscarawas, which shall be subdivided for elec¬ 
tion purposes, as follows: the counties of Muskingum and Mor¬ 
gan shall elect one judge; the counties of Guernsey, Belmont and 
Monroe shall elect one judge; and the counties of Jefferson, Har¬ 
rison and Tuscarawas shall elect one judge. 

90 


s. MASON, 

P. HITCHCOCK, 

R. P. RANNEY, 

S. HUMPHRENILLE, 
GKO. J. SMITH. 


districtshall consist of the counties 
ot btark, Carroll, Columbiana, Mahoning, Portage, Trumbull Ge- 
auga. Lake and Ashtabula, which shall be subdivided for election 
purposes, as follows: the counties of Stark, Carroll and Colum- 
bianna shall elect one judge ; the counties of Trumbull, Portaee 
and Mahoning shall elect one judge; and the counties of Geauga. 
Lake and Ashtabula shall elect one judge. “ 

Sec. 10. The General Assembly shall attach any new counties 
which may hereafter be erected to such of said judicial districts 
and to such subdivisions thereof as shall be most convenient. 

J. R. SWAN, 
s. J. KIRKWOOD, 

R. STILWELL, 

ELIJAH VANCE, 

W. S. GROESBECK, 

On motion of Mr. SWAN, the report was laid on the 
table and ordered to be printed. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, the rules were sus¬ 
pended, and the report was read a second time. 

On motion of Mr. CHAMBERS, the report was com¬ 
mitted to a committee of the whole Convention. 

Mr. DORSEY submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to add 
the following section to the Article on Corporations in this consti¬ 
tution : 

“ No act of the General Assembly authorizing the formation of 
associations with banking powers shall go into effect, or in any 
manner be in force, unless the same shall be submitted to the peo¬ 
ple at the general election next succeeding the passage of the 
same, and be approved by a majority of all the votes cast at such 
election for or against such law,” 

Mr. DORSEY moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ Shall the main question 
be now put? ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the res¬ 
olution ; 

Mr. L AWRENC E demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 50, nays 45—as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Cook, 
Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gray, Gregg, Hard, Hen¬ 
derson, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, King, 
Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Norris, Orton, 
Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Sellers, Stebbins, Stick¬ 
ney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, 
Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson, 
Woodbury and President—50. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Collings, Curry, Florence, Gillett, 
Graham, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamil¬ 
ton, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Hunter, 
Jones, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Nash, Peck, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Scott of 
Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stan¬ 
ton, Stilwell and Worthington—45. 

So the resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. LIDEY submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to in¬ 
sert the following resolution in report number two of the select 
committee on the Schedule: 

Resolved, That said election shall be opened between the hours 
of eight and ten o’clock, A. M., and close at six o’clock, P. M. 

Mr. LIDEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered and resulted—yeas 52, nays 36—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, 
Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Johnson, 
Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Steb¬ 
bins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson, Worthington 
and President—52. 

Nays— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Chambers, Clark,Collings, Curry, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Greene of Defiance, Green ot Ross, Hitchock of Geauga, Horton, 
Humphreville, Hunter, Larsh, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Otis, 
Peck, Perkins, Riddle, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Warren, Stan¬ 
bery, Stilwell, Swan, Swift, and Woodbury—36. 

So the resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. STANTON submitted the following: 

Resolved, That at tho time of submitting this constitution to the 
people for ra^fication, the question of single representative and 
senatorial districts shall be submitted to a separate vote of the 
people in manner following, to wit: 

Those who are in favor of dividing the State into single dis- 




















1426 


CONVENTION EEPOETS 


* 


tricts for the election of senators and representatives, shall en? 
dorse on their tickets these words—“ single districts, yesthose 
who are opposed to dividing the State into single districts shall 
endorse on theirtickets the words—“single districts, no.” 

The result shall be ascertained by the Secretary of State, and 
reported to the Governor on or betore the fourth day of July; 
and the Governor shall, within ten days therealter, announce the 
result to the people ot the State by proclamation. If a majority 
of the votes given on the question shall be in favor of single dis¬ 
tricts, the following provision shall be incorporated into, and be¬ 
come part of this constitution, to wit: 

Sec. — . In each county of this State, which by this constitu¬ 
tion shall at any time be entitled to more than one senator or rep¬ 
resentative in the General Assembly, the trustees of each town¬ 
ship, and the trustees or councilmen of each ward or election 
district in any incorporated town, city or borough, shall appoint 
one of their members, who shall meet at the court house in their 
respective counties on the second Tuesday in October next pre¬ 
ceding the election at which such county will be entitled tomore 
than one senator or representative, and divide their respective 
counties into as many senatorial and representative districts, as 
such counties may respectively be entitled to senators or repre¬ 
sentatives, which shall not be altered during the decennial peri¬ 
od in which it is made, unless the number of senators or repre¬ 
sentatives to which such county is entitled, shall be increased or 
diminished during the current decennial period in which it is 
made. And on the second Tuesday in August, next preceding 
the election at which the number of senators or representatives 
from any county, shall be increased or diminished, the represen¬ 
tatives from the several townships, wards or election districts 
aforesaid, shall in like manner meet and divide their respective 
counties into as many senatorial and representative districts as 
such counties may respectively have senators and representa¬ 
tives ; and in all such apportionments, the senatorial and repre¬ 
sentative districts shall be composed of entire townships, wards, 
or election districts, ot compact and contiguous territory, and as 
nearly equal in population as practicable. The General Assembly 
shall have power to prescribe the time and manner of appointing 
the representatives of the several townships, wards and election 
districts aforesaid. 

Mr. STANTON moved that the resolution be laid 
on the table and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. SCOTT, of Auglaize, demanded a division of the 
question. 

The question being first on laying the resolution on 
the table; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the resolutions 
to be printed; 

Mr. SCOTT, of Auglaize, demanded the yeas and 
nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 40, nays 
52—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Chambers, Ceilings, Cook, Curry, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, 
Graham, Gray, Green of Eoss, Hamilton, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Ma-son, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Nash, Otis, Perkins, Eeemelin, Scott of Harrison, Smith of War¬ 
ren, Stanton, Stilwell, Taylor, Vance of Butler, Wilson, Wood¬ 
bury and Worthington—40. 

Nays —Messrs. Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Greene of Defiance. Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Holmes, Holt, liootinan, Humphreviile, Hunt, John¬ 
son, Jones King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Or¬ 
ton, Patterson, Quigley, Eanney, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stickney, Stid- 
ger, Struble, Swift, Thompson ot Stark, Townshend, Warren, 
Way and President—52. 

So the motion to print the resoluliona was disa¬ 
greed to. 

Mr. EWART, from .he select committee on the 
Schedule, to which had been recommitted the Report 
No. 1, of the committee on that subject, reported the 
same back with sundry amendments. 

Mr. RANNEY moved that the report, and pending 
amendments, be laid on the table, and ordered to be 
printed; which was ngieed to. 

On motion of Mr. RANNEY, the Convention took 
up the report of the committee on Revision, Arrange¬ 
ment and Enrollment. 

Mr. LEADBETTER moved to amend the report by 
adding, at the end of section fifteen, of the Article 
on the Preamble and Bill of Rights, the words “ or 
trespass.” 

Mr. WOODBURY demanded the previous question. 
The question then being—Shall the main question 
be now put ? it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend- 
meht proposed by Mf. LjEAbBisTTifirt 5 


Mr. LEADBETTER demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 37, nays 47— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Bennett, Bro'wm of Athens, Brown of 
Carroll, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Ceilings, Cook, Ewart, Ew¬ 
ing, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Hawkins, Hootman, Humphreviile, 
Johnson, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Ma¬ 
son, Moi'ehead, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Peck, Smith of Warren, 
Stickney, Stidger, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Warren, Williams 
and Wilson—37, 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Cahill, Case of Licking, Curry, Florence, 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Hunter, Jones, 
King, Larsh, Larwill, Manon, Morris, McCloud, Norris, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith ot Highland, Stanbery, Steb¬ 
bins, Stilwell, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Way, 
Woodbury and President—47. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the first 
amendment proposed by the committee on Revision^ 
Enrollment and Arrangement, to wit: 

In section one, line one, of the article on the Legis¬ 
lative Department, after the word ” proceedings,” in¬ 
sert the words ” which shall be published it was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on the second amedmeut, 
to wit: 

In section sixteen, in the middle of the same, of the 
article on the Legislative Department, after the word 
“contain,” insert the words “ more than one subject;” 
it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the third amendment, 
to wit: 

In section two, line one, oi the article on the Judici¬ 
ary, insert, after the word “judges,” the following: 
“ a majority of whom shall be necessary to form a quo¬ 
rum, or pronounce judgment;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being, on the fourth amendment, 
to wit: in section thirteen, in the middle of the same, 
of the article on the Judiciary, after the word “elec¬ 
ted,” insert the following words: “for an entire term.” 

Mr. STANTON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 47 , nays 45 —as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Brovra of Carroll, Chambers 
Ceilings, Curry, Dorsey, Lwart, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gillett’ 
Gray, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, 
Humphreviile, Hunt, Johnson, Kirkwood, Laurence, Loudon 
Manon, Mason, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Peck, Quigley, Ranney’ 
Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Smith ot Highland, Smith of Warren, Stil¬ 
well, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of B’utler 
and Way—47, 

Nays— Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Cahill, Case of Licking, Cha¬ 
ney, Clark, Cook, Farr, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross 
Hamilton, Hawkins, Henderson, Holt, Hootman, Hunter, Jones’ 
King, Larsh, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Mitchell, McCorl 
mick, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Perkins, Reemelin, Scott of Harri¬ 
son, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stid¬ 
ger, Struble, Swilt, Warren, Williams, Wilson, Worthington and 
President—44. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on the fifth amendment, to 
wit: in section fifteen, towards the close of the same 
of the article on the Judiciary, after the word mem¬ 
bers,” insert the words, “elected to each House;” 
which was agreed to. ’ 

The question then being on the sixth amendment 
to wit: in section seventeen, in the first part of the 
same, of the article on the Judiciary, after the words 
“two thirds of,” insert the words “ the members elec¬ 
ted thereto;” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the seventh amendment, 
to wit: in section four of the article on Corporations, 
add at the end of the same, these words, “and until 
their successors are qualified; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the eighth amendment 
to wit: in section five, of the article on Corporations’ 
add at the end of the same, “except by authority of 
law;” it was agreed to. 

Mr. HUMPH RE VILLE moved to recommit the Re¬ 
port to the standing committee on Revision, Arrano^e- 
meift and Enroliment; which was agreed to. ^ 













CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


1427 


Mr. GREEN, of Ross, moved that the committee on 
Revision be instructed to strike out the wonls “for 
debt,” in section fifteen, of the article on the Preamble 
and Bill of Rights; which was disagreed to. 

On motion of Mr. GRAY, The Convention then ad¬ 
journed. 


FRIDAY, March 7, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met j)ursuant to adjournment. 

On motion of Mr. ARCH BOLD, the Convention took 
up the report of the select committee on Finance and 
Taxation, with the pending amendments. 

The question being first on agreeing to the first 
amendment proposed by the committee, to wit: Strike 
out section two and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
“Uniform laws shall be passed upon the subject of tax¬ 
ation, embracing all property according to its true val¬ 
ue in money, provided that burying grounds, public 
schools houses and houses, used exclusively for public 
worship, and properly held by the public or open to 
public use without any charge therefor, and a limited 
amount of personal property, not exceeding two hun¬ 
dred dollars to anyone individual, may be exempt from 
taxation by general law, but the value of all property 
so exempt shall annually be published as may be di¬ 
rected by law, and all such exemptions shall be subject 
to modification, alteration or repeal 

Mr. MANON demanded a division. 

The question turning first on striking out section two; 

Mr. McCORMlCK moved to perfect the words pro¬ 
posed to be stificken out, by adding to the end thereof 
the following: “But the value of all property so ex¬ 


empt shall annually be published as may be directed I action, or mesne or final process, unless in cases of fraud. 


Sec, 8. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not 
be suspended, unless incases of rebellion or invasion, the public 
safety require it. 

Sec. 9. All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, ex¬ 
cept for capital offences, where the proof is evident, or the pre¬ 
sumption great. Excessive bail shall not be required ; nor ex¬ 
cessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments in¬ 
flicted. 

Sec. 10. Except in cases of impeachment, and cases arising 
in the army and navy, or in the militia, when in actual service in 
time of war or public danger, and in cases of petit larceny and 
other inferior oflences, no person shall be held to answer for a 
capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or 
indictment of a grand jury. In any trial, in any court, the party 
accused, shall be allowed to appear and defend in person and 
with counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation 
against him, and have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses face 
to lace, and to have compulsory process to procure the attend¬ 
ance of witnesses in his behalf, and a speedy public trial by an 
impartial jury of the county or district, in which the offence is 
alledged to have been committed ; nor shall any person be com¬ 
pelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, or be 
twice put in jeopardy lor the same offence. 

Sec. 11. Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish 
his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of 
the right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the 
liberty of speech, or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions, 
for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury, and if it 
shall appear to the jury, that the matter, charged as libelous, is 
true, and was published with good motives, and for justifiable 
ends, the party shall be acquitted. 

Sec. 12. No person shall be tr-uisported out of the State lor 
any offence committed within the same; and no conviction shall 
work corruption of blood, or forfeiture ot estate. 

Sec. 13. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in 
any house, without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, 
except in the manner prescribed by law. 

Sec. 14. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 
houses, papers, and possessions, against unreasonable searches 
and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, 
but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, par¬ 
ticularly describing the place to be searched, and the person and 
things to be seized. 

Sec. 15. No person shall be imprisoned for debt, in any civil 


by law, and all such exemptions shall be subject to 
modification, alteration or repeal. 

Bending which. On motion of Mr. RANNEY, the 
Report and pending amendments were laid on the 
table. 

Mr. RANNEY, from the standing committee on Re¬ 
vision, Arrangement and Enrollment, reported back 
the article on Preamble and Bill of Rights, as follows: 

We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God 
for our freedom, to secure its blessings, and promote our com¬ 
mon welfare, do establish this Constitution: 

ARTICLE —. 

Bill of Rights. 

Sec 1. All men are, by nature, free and independent, and 
have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoy¬ 
ing and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and 
protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and 

2. All political power is inherent in the people. Gov¬ 
ernment is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and 
thev have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, when- 
pVer thev may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or 
hnmunities shall ever be granted, that may not be altered, revo- 
ked. or repealed by the General Assembly. 

Sec 3. The people have the right to assemble together, in a 
neaceable manner, to consult for their common good; to instruct 
Sieir representatives; and to petition the General Assembly lor 

the redi^ss of grievances. ^ j 

The people have a right to bear arms for their de- 

fen^ce and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are 
dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military 
shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. 

9ec 5 The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate. 

Sec 6 There shall be no slavery in this State; nor mvolun- 
tarv servitude, unless lor the punishment pt crime. 

7 All men have a natural and indefeasible right to 
shin Almighty God according to the dictates of their own con- 
sSencr No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or sup- 
nort Sv place of worship,,or maintain any form of worship, 

Vurconsent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to 
Sv religious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of 
^nscSe be permitted. No religious test shall be required as 
fouSation for office, nor shall any person be inconi^petont to 
be a witness on account of his rehgiousbelief; but nothing here¬ 
in Rhftll be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Rt- 
hefon moraS and knowledge, however, being essential to good 
hverament if shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pass 
fuitable laws to protect every religious denomination m the 
peaSle e" oymeSt of its own mode of pub^ worship, and to 
encourage schools and the means of instruction 


Sec. 16. All courts shall be open, and every person, for an in¬ 
jury done him in his land, goods,person, or reputation, shall have 
remedy by due course of law, and justice administered without 
denial or delay. 

Sec. 17. No hereditary emoluments, honors, or privileges, 
shall ever be granted or conferred by this State. 

Sec. 18. No power of suspending laws shall ever be exercis¬ 
ed, except hy the General Assembly. 

Sec. 19. Private property shall ever he held inviolate, but sub¬ 
servient to the public welfare. When taken in time of war, or 
other public exigency, imperatively requring its immediate seiz¬ 
ure, or for the purpose of making or repairing roads, which 
shall be open to the public without charge, a compensation shall 
be made to the owner, in money; and in all other cases, where 
private property shall be taken for public use, a compensation 
therefor shall first be made in money, or first secured by a depos¬ 
it ot money, and such compensation shall be assessed by a jury, 
without deduction ibr benefits to any property of the owner. 

Sec. 20. This enumeration of rights shall not bo construed to 
impair or deny others retained by the people; and all powers not 
herein delegated remain with the people. 

The question then being “shall the article be now 
enrolled ?” 

Mr. BENNETT inquired if the report was open to 
amendment generally. 

The PRESIDENT. When this report was before 
the Convention yesterday, the chair had some difficul¬ 
ty under the rule in determining what should be done 
with it. The forty-seventh rule of this body provides 
that every article which it is proposed shall form a part 
of the constitution, shall be read ihe first and second 
times,and be referred to the committee of theWhole; and 
after it shall be considered in committee of the Whole, 
by sections, and after the amendments by the commit¬ 
tee of the Whole shall have been acted upon, the same 
shall be open for amendment in the Convention ; after 
which the question shall be on ordering the article to 
be engrossed for its third reading; and after the article 
has been read a third time and passed, it shall be refer¬ 
red to a committee of Enrollment, who shall also serv’e 
as a committee of Revision and Arrangement, who 
shall report to the Convention all such verbal amend¬ 
ments as shall, by said committee be deemed expedi¬ 
ent, not however changing the substance of the article; 
provided, that this rule shall not be so construed as to 
I prevent a majority of the Conventicn from taking up 

















1428 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


said matter, and committing, re-committing or refeiring 
the same to any appropriate standing or select commit¬ 
tee, or making any alteration or amendment to the 

^**^The article now under consideration has been first 
reported to the Convention by one of the standing 
committees, read the first and second times, passed 
through the committee of the Whole, acted upon in the 
Convention, engrossed, read the third time, passed, and 
referred to the committee of Enrollment, from which 
it has returned with certain verbal amendments which 
the committee deemed it expedient should be made. 
The report thus amended is now before the Conven¬ 
tion, and the business first before the Convention is 
upon agreeing to the amendments made by the com¬ 
mittee of Revision. . T 

Mr. BENNETT. To save time, I would inquire it 
amendments in general will be in order, after those of 
the committee have been acted upon. 

The PRESIDENT. We will go over the report the 
first time, at any rate; after which that question may 

be raised. ^ . .n , 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I wish to inquire if the 
bill is now open for amendment. I wish to make a 
motion to strike out section fifteen. 

The PRESIDENT. The section I have once read, 
provides that nothing shall prevent a majority of the 
Convention from taking up said matter and committing, 
re-committing or referring the same, or making any 
alteration or amendment. The view which the Chair 
has taken of the construction of this rule, is this: 
This article has passed through its regular order, and is 
now ready for enrollment. It does not of itself come 
before the Convention for amendment; but may be 
taken up by a majority. If gentlemen desire, the 
Chair will entertain a motion to take up the article for 

amendment. , , i i 

Mr. STANBERY. I hope that the door for amend¬ 
ment to this constitution may not be shut down now. 
There may be subjects of great importance that have 
been overlooked. - It seems to me that it should be 
kept open to the last moment. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON moved that the report be ta¬ 
ken up. , , . p 

The question then being on taking up the report, tor 

amendment; , • i * 

Mr. SAWYER. I should like to know in what le- 
spect the gentleman wants to amend this report. I 
have no desire to pass hastily over the duties we h 
to perform, but gentlemen must remember that our 
lime is short here. We have but two more working 
days and I will never vote to rescind the resolution 
to adjourn on the 10th. Let gentlemen wait a while 
■ until the other reports of the committee on Revision 

.come in. , i , 

The PRESIDENT. I would observe that the article 

is now up for enrollment. If any amendments are to 
be made, this is the last opportunity. ^ 

Mr. STANBERY. I have an objection to this enroll¬ 
ment on parchment. The object of the rule read by 
the President was to secure an opportunity for amend¬ 
ment to the very last moment. Now here are in the 
article on the legislative department several sections 

SAWYER. The gentleman will find them in 
another place. 

Mr. STANBERY. That is probably true, and 1 have 
no doubt it is. But how are we to have such kuowl- 
ed'^e of the fact, as to justify action under it? We 
ou^ht to know. We ought to have the sections, in the 
place where they have been put, before us. After the 
article has been enrolled, it is out of our power. I 
would suggest that it be laid aside until all the reports 
of the committee of Revision are in. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. I would suggest to 
the gentleman from Franklin, that he had better begin 
by moving to rescind the resolution by which we 
agreed to adjourn on the 10th instant. 


Mr. NASH. The report of the committee on the 

Bill of Rights is now before the Convention. There is 
all in it that there ever was. Why can we not dispose 
ofit? 

Mr. CHAMBERS. Unless gentlemen specify what 
amendments they desire to move, I shall vote against 
taking up. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I want to make a motion 
to strike out section fifteen, but rather than throw open 
the article to general amendment, I will vote against 
the motion. 

The question then being on taking up; 

Mr. STIDGER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 10, nays 77—as fol¬ 
lows : 


Yeas —Messrs. Arclibold, Bates, Hootman, Larsh, Lawrence, 
Leadbetter, Manon, Otis, Stidger and Worthington—10. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Colllngs, Cook, Cur¬ 
ry, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Forbes, Gillet, Graham, Gray, 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton 
Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock ot Geauga, Holmes, Holt 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, King, 
Kirkwood, Larwill, Lech, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ran- 
ney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of 
Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan- 
bery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Thompson 
of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wood¬ 
bury and President—77. 

So the Convention refused to take up the article. 

The question then being: Shall the article be enroll¬ 
ed ? It was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the Convention took up 
the report of the select committee on Finance and Tax¬ 
ation, with the pending amendments. 

The question pending being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment of Mr. McCormick; 

Mr. PERKINS moved the previous question. 

The question then being: shall the main question be 
now put? 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 43, nays 42—as fol¬ 
lows 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Car 
roll, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewait, Farr, Forbes, Gillett 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, Hard, Hitchcock of Geau 
ga, Holt, Humphreville; Hunt, Hunter, Mitchell, Morehead, Mor 
ris, McCloud, Nash, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Roll, Saw 
yer. Sellers, Stanton, Stebbins, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark 
Vance of Butler, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and Presi 

desire to pass hastily over the duties we have ^ -o * v ^ 

1 .1 Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett o 

Preble, Bates, Brown of Athens, Case of Licking, Chambers, Col 
lings. Cook, Florence, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Harlan 
Henderson, Hootman, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence 
Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Manon, McCormick, Norris 
Otis, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Scott ot Auglaize, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Staubery, Stickney, Stilwell, Struble 
Townshend, Warren and Way—42. 

So the demand for the previous question was sus 
tained. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment proposed by Mr. McCormick; 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 37, nays 53—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, Col- 
lings, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Hard, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, 
Hunt, Jones, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mc¬ 
Cormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, 
Struble, Taylor, Townshend, Way and President—37. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athene. 
Bro^vn of Carroll, Chambers, C(^)k, Curry, Dorse}’^, Ewart, Farr, 
Floience, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamil¬ 
ton, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hum- 
phreville, Iluntez-, King, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Manon, More- 
head, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Quigley, Sawyer, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Staubery, Stan¬ 
ton, Stilwell, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Vance of Butler, War¬ 
ren, Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—53._ 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

The question then being cm striking out section two ; 
Mr. SCOTT, of Auglaize, demanded the yeas and 















1429 


CONVENTION REPOETS. 


uays; which were ordered, and resulted — yeas 4G 
nays 46—asioilows: ^ ’ 

Earnet of Montgomery, Bar- 
nettoi Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athena 
Blown oi Carroll, Case ot Licking, Chambers, Collinos Cook’ 
Curry, Ewart, Horence, Gillett, Graham, Gray Greenif Ross 
Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hwton LaSh Ma’ 
non. Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloudf Nash, Oti’s Peck Pe?' 
kms Reenielm Riddle, Sawyer, Scott’of Harrison Smith 

W„*otb°vfryS “'“I"'"' 

K-twooTLav.?rnco: 

miJk NorrR. 0,’tfm P«tJ Mitchell, McCor- 

Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Roll Scott of 

Stebbins, Stickney, STidger’ Struble 
Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler Way’ 
Wilson, and President— 46 . ox ouuei, way, 


So the motion to strike out was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the second amendment 
proposed by the majority of the committee, to wit: 
strike out section three of the report, and insert in 
lieu thereot the following: 

The General Assembly shall proyide by law for taxing the 
property, capital, moneys, credits and effects of all bankers and 
liereafter existing in this State, so that the same 
shall bear a burthen of taxation equal to that imposed upon the 
same amount of property, capital, moneys, credits and effects 
belonging to individuals; 


Mr. RELMELIN moved to amend the amendment, 
by striking out all after the word taxing,” and insert 
in lieu thereof the following: 

All banks or banking companies now or hereafter in existence, 
for all purposes where located, on the average amount of their 
notes and bills discounted, or moneys, or credits, in any manner 
or form secured or invested, and for which there shall have been 
at any time reserved, or received, or expected to be received, any 
interest, profit, or other consideration whatever, with no deduc¬ 
tion therefrom except lor l/ona fide deposits, lor which not less 
than five per centum per annum interest shall have been allowed 


The question being on the motion of Mr. Reemelin ; 

Mr. ARCHBOLD. I want to occupy a moment in 
an explanation of the section reported by the majority 
of the select committee. The section, as it stands in 
the report of the committee, is as follows : 

The General Assembly shall provide by law for taxing the notes 
and bills discounted, surplus contingent fund, and undividedprof- 
its, without any deductions, of all banks now in existence, or 
hereafter to be created in this State, in the same manner as the 
property of individuals is taxed. 

The majority of the select committee, it will be ob¬ 
served, has not meddled with the principle of the sec¬ 
tion so far as the taxing of banks now in existence is 
concerned. In that there is no difference from the 
provisions of the original section. But the section of 
the report enters into mere detail, and every word of 
detail is a word of weakness. It takes away instead 
of adding to the power of the General Asembly, and in 
this respect it is dangerous. Any one who has been a 
reader of legislative history know's the danger of too 
great minuteness even in legislative enactments. 

I do not believe that this enumeration of notes and 
bills discounted, and surplus contingent fund, and un¬ 
divided profits, includes every article of bank assets 
that under some circumstances may and ought to be 
the subject of taxation. If w'e defeat the object we in¬ 
tend to secure we shall have nobody but ourselves to 
blame. 

The amendment of the majority of j_the select com¬ 
mittee is as follows: 


The General Assemoiy Bhall provide by law lor taxing the 
property, capital, moneys, credits and effects of all bankers and 
banks now or hereafter existing in this State, so that the same 
shall bear a burden of taxation equal to that imposed upon the 
same amount of property, capital, moneys, credits and effects be¬ 
longing to individuals. 


Now, this is giving plenary power to the General As¬ 
sembly. It was drawn with a direct view to the histo¬ 
ry of legislation for a thousand years—with a direct 
view' to the shifts, the evasions, and the chicanery of 
banks. It was drawn under the influence of the re¬ 
flection that whatever is worth doing, is worth doing 
well. 

Mr. REEMELIN. The gentleman from Monroe, 


[Mr. Archbold, j says that his amendment was draw'u 
with a view to place plenary power in the hands of the 
General Assembly. In my opinion it does give plena¬ 
ry power in one respect—that of preventing the banks 
from paying any taxes whatever. Under such a sec¬ 
tion as this, gentleman may be assured that it will be 
so fixed-that not one dollar of tax will ever be paid by 
any banks in the State of Ohio. The banks do notown 
anything. Their exhibits are only a sheet, with debits 
on one side, and credits on the other. The amendment 
looks as if it were drawn with a direct intention to 
prevent the banks from being taxed, and under it all 
their property will be exempt. Take up any bank re¬ 
port, and what will you see? You will find several 
different items, making up an aggregate of debts on 
the one side, and several other items, making up an ag¬ 
gregate of credits on the other, and this is all. By say 
ing that they shall be taxed to the same amount as in¬ 
dividuals, you evade the whole matter of taxation.— 
The proposition reported by the minority, is much 
more plain and comprehensive, and easier to be under¬ 
stood than that of the majority, and will far more ef¬ 
fectually provide for the just and equitable taxation of 
the banks of the State. 

Mr. LOUDON. I think that gentlemen will find the 
provisions of the report of the committee to be about 
right, after all. They are so framed as, in my opinion, 
to cover all the property that banks do or can possess, 
and they are so guarded that there can be little or no 
danger of evasion. The gentleman from Monroe, [Mr. 
Archbold,] seems to think the phraseology broad 
enough to cover the whole ground. Do gentlemen in 
this body, who are men of business, and understand 
the operations of banks, vote against this provision be¬ 
cause it does not catch all the capital of the banks? 
No, sir, they are all agreed that it does so, too effectually 
to be evaded. 

Let us look at the case. Here is a bank with a cap¬ 
ital of one hundred thousand dollars, but by virtue of 
the privileges and the franchises which it enjoys, it is 
enabled to enjoy the profits of a much larger sum of 
money. Is there any injustice in taxing it upon that 
which it enjoys as the effect of these privileges and 
franchises? The object of this section is to reach eve¬ 
rything of this kind, and I hope that it will not be 
stricken out. 

Mr. RANNEY. If I understand the amendment of 
the majority of the select committee, it is a total aban¬ 
donment of the principle of bank taxation, as I sup¬ 
posed it settled in this Convention. On the contrary, 
it appears to me that the report of the minority de¬ 
clares the true doctrine. I was not exactly pleased 
with the section as it stands in the report of the stand- 
ding committee, but the amendment of the minority, 
to which I have alluded, obviates the difficulty, and I 
hope that it will be adopted. One diflicully was, T^did 
not know but the surplus fund and undivided profits 
of a bank might be rexiresented by the notes and bills 
discounted, and thus a certain portion of the capital of 
the institution would be taxed tw-ice over. Another 
w'as in relation to those deposits upon which interest 
is allowed. The section of the minority remedies both 
these objections. The true rule of taxation would 
seem to be this : Whatever a bank receives interest 
upon, over and above what it pays interest for, should 
be taxed. If I loan a hundred dollars, and receive in¬ 
terest for it I am taxed upon the sum, arR why, I ask, 
should not the same rule apply to a bank? I hope that 
we are not about to recede from a principle which we 
have once declared—a principle that is honest and fair, 
and that only requires of the banks that they should 
pay such taxes as injustice they ought to pay. 

Mr. BARBEE. I would inquire of the gentleman 
from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney,] whether ho would 
place the credits of banks and the credits of individu¬ 
als upon the same platform? 

]Mr. RANNEY. I do not understand the gentlman. 

Mr. BARBEE. I take it for granted that we would ; 















1430 


CONVENTION REPORTS 


and where is the difference between the two cases ? 
A bank is authorized to issue its own notes to the 
amount of two for one upon the amount of its securi 
ties. You levy a tax upon its circulation, and when it 
has exchanged its currency lor the notes and bills of 
individuals, you levy a tax upon them. Is that right? 
You tax merchants in this way. Suppose that l buy, 
in New York, ten thousand dollar’s worth of merchan¬ 
dize, upon my own credit, and for which I give my in¬ 
dividual obligation. I bring this merchandize west, 
and go into business with it, and am taxed upon it. I 
again ask the gentleman if he w’ishes to tax banks upon 
the same platform ? 

Mr. RANNEY. I do. 

Mr. BARBEE. Then wdiy does the gentleman op¬ 
pose the report of the majority of the committee, which 
proposes precisely the same thing ? 

The question then being on the amendment; 

Mr. WOODBURY moved the previous question. 

The question then being “ shall the main question be 
now put?’’ 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 53, nays 37—as fol¬ 
lows ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Bennett, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Cha¬ 
ney, Collings, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Graham, 
Greene of Defiance, Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Ge 
auga, Holmes, Holt, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, King, Larwill, 
Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Har¬ 
rison, Sellers, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stebbins, Taylor, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Woodbury Worthington and 
President—53. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Chambers, Clark, 
Cook, Dorsey, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hender¬ 
son, Hoolman, Horton, Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Manon, Nash, Norris, Perkins, Ranney, Riddle, Scott 
of Auglaize, Stilwell, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Swift, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, WilUams, and Wilson—37. 

So the demand for the previous question was sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr. 
Reemelin ; 

Mr. RE EMELIN demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 42, nays 52— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing,* Farr, 
Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, King, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, 
Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Quigley, Ranney, Rnemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Thompson, of Stark, 
Way, Wilson, and President—42 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, 
Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Ewart, Florence, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, 
Larsh, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, 
Peck, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highan^, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Stidger, Swan, Taylor, 
Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams, Woodbury, 
land Worthington—52. 

So the amendment was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the second amendment, 
proposed by the majority of the committee; 

Mr. MANON demanded a division. 

The question then being first on striking out sec. 
tion 3; 

Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered and resulted—yeas 51, nays 43—as fol¬ 
lows :* 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnett of Preble, 
Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Athens, Brown of Car- 
roll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Ewart, Florence, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, 
Larth, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, 
Peck, Perkins, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Taylor, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams, Woodbury, and Worthing¬ 
ton—51. 

Nays —Messrs. Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, 

orbes, Gr-^ene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Holmes, Holt, Hoot¬ 
man, Humphreville, Hun,t Jones, King, Lawrence, Larwill, 

ecch, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitcirell. Nonis, Orton, Pat¬ 


terson, Quigley, Ranney^ Reemclin, Riddle, Roll, Scott ot Au¬ 
glaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, 
Thompson ol Stark, Way, Willson, and President—43 

So the third section was stricken out. 

The question then being on inserting the words pro¬ 
posed by the majority of the committee, to wit: 

Sec. 3. The General Assembly shall provide by law for tax¬ 
ing the property, capital, moneys, credits and efiects of all bank¬ 
ers and banks, now or hereafter existing in this state, so that the 
same shall bear a burthen of taxation equal to that imposed upon 
the same amount of property, capital, moneys, credits and effects 
belonging to individuals. 

Mr. LIDEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 48, nays 47—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Ewart, 
Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, Hun¬ 
ter, Leech, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Oti8,Peck, Perkins, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Warren, 
Stanbery, Stilwell, Swan, Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, 
Warren, Williams and Woodbury—48. 

Nays —Messrs. Brown of Carroll, CahiU, Chaney, Clark, Dor¬ 
sey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, 
Gregg, Hard, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, King, Larsh, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Nash, Norris, 
Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Stanton, Stebbins, Stiek- 
ney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Way, Wilson, 
Worthington and President—47. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. KIRKWOOD moved to reconsider the vote, by 
which the Convention refused to strike out section 2. 

The question being on the reconsideration ; 

Mr. KIRKWOOD said : I find myself in a situation 
somewhat peculiar. I have always voted to tax banks 
and want to vote so still, and was in hopes to see the 
second section of this bill so amended as to enable me 
to give it my support, but the previous question was 
sustained upon it, and that cut off all amendment. 
The effect of the second section is to tax every dollar 
of bank stock in the hands of the stockholder. That 
is once that the stock is taxed. The next section pro¬ 
vides in addition that the bank shall bo taxed, as a 
bank upon its notes and bills discounted. Now I can¬ 
not vote for this bill while one section provides to tax 
a bank once upon its stock, and a second time upon its 
stock, in the form ol notes and bills, and I. will not. I 
want to see the second section amended, and that part 
which relates to the taxation of the stock in the hands 
of the stockholders stricken out. I do not profess to 
know much about the business of banking, but I know 
enough to understand that this is not right. I am wil¬ 
ling to withdraw my motion to reconsider, if gentle¬ 
men desire it, and this amendment can be made in 
some other manner, but otherwise not; for I am sure 
that a large majority of this Convention must agree 
with mo that something must be done. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Can it be possible that the mem¬ 
ber of this body who has the honor to represent the 
democracy of good old Richland—a county always in 
favor of correct and democratic principles—should be¬ 
come so recreant to his duty as to opjiose the system 
of taxation provided in this section? But T think the 
attempt will prevail, thi.s time, to destroy it. 

Gentlemen u])on the other side want to get rid ot the 
provision in regard to the taxation of State and United 
Slates slocks. They now can vote for section three, 
and if they can get section two stricken out, they will 
be fixed. Can the gentleman from Richland, [Mr. 
Kirkwood,] assert that these sections, taken together, 
provide for the taxation of banks more than individu¬ 
als are taxed ? 

Mr. KIRKWOOD. Double over. 

Mr. MITCHELL. I think not, unless the property 
of individuals is also taxed double over. The two 
sections are to be taken together, and section two will 
not be construed to apply to the taxation of banka. 
The special pi*ovisions of the latter section will con¬ 
trol the general expressions of the former. 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1431 


On motion ot Mr. MANON, the Convention took 
recess. 


2^ o’clock, p. m. 


The question pending being on the motion of Mr. 
Kirkwood, to reconsider the vote by which the Con¬ 
vention refused to strike out section two ; 

Mr. KIRKWOOD asked leave to withdraw his mo¬ 


tion. 


Mr. STILWELL moved a call of the Convention; 
which was ordered, and the following gentlemen were 
found absent: 

Messrs. Barbee, Blair, Case of Hocking, Cutler, Ewart, Har¬ 
lan, Hitchcock ot Cuyahoga, Holmes, Holt, Humphreville, Ken- 
non, McCormick, Orton, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Swift, 
Thom pson of Shelby, Vance ot Champaign and Williams. 

On motion of Mr. RANNEY, all further proceedings 
under the call were dispensed with. 

The question then being on granting leave to with¬ 
draw the motion; 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, demanded the yeas and 
nays; which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 49, 
nays 42—as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ew¬ 
ing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, 
Henderson, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, 
Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCor¬ 
mick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Roy, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struble, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance 
of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, and President—49. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderter, Brown of Athens, Brown 
of Carroll, Case of Licking, Collings, Cook, Curry, Florence, Gil- 
lett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Manon, Mason, More- 
head, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins,Scott of Har¬ 
rison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stilwell, Swan, Taylor, Woodbury and Worthington—42. ^ 

So leave to withdraw the amendment was granted. 
Mr. KIRKWOOD moved that the report and pend¬ 
ing amendments be recommitted to the standing com¬ 
mittee on Finance and Taxation. 

On which motion, Mr. RANNEY demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 52, 
nays 42—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Cahill, Case of 
Licking. Chaney, Clark, Ewing, Forbes, Farr, Greene of Defiance, 
Gregg Hard, Henderson, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Plumphreville, 
Hunt? Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lead- 
better Lidev. Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Or- 
tonfFatterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Rid(Re Roll, Sawyer, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, fctickney, Stidger, Stable, 
Thompson ot Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, W arreu. Way, 

^Nays— Sfes^sr?Andl-ew8,* Archbold, Barnett of Preble, Bates 
Bennett, BUckensderfer, Brown Athens, Brown of Carroll, 
Chambers, Collings, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Floie^e, Gillett, Gra¬ 
ham Grav GreenofRoss,Gioesbeck,Hamilton,Hawkins, Hitch- 

Sof Geauga Sunter,’Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris Me- 
Cloud Nash Otis, Peck, Perkins, Scott ot Hairison, k.mith ot 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stilwell, Swan, Swilt, 
Taylor, Woodbury and Worthington—42. 

So the motion to recommit was agreed to. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, submitted the following: 
Resolved, That the committee on Finance and Taxation be in¬ 
structed to amend their report, as follows, to wit: . , „ 

Strike out all of section two to the word “ provided, 
and insert in lieu of the words stricken out, the lollow- 

ing: ... 11 

c,TiT All nroperty in this State, including investments in all 
kinds of'stock? whether owned by individuals or corporations, 
S)w or hereafter existing, shall be taxed upon its . 'vhich 

Thai! be ascertained in such manner as may be 
making taxation equal and uniform. Provided, that the Gener¬ 
al Assembly shall exempt from taxation all property which may 
be exempt^iy virtue of the constitution of the United States, and 
that buTy-grounds, public school-houses, houses used exclusive- 
Iv for public worship, institutions of purely public chanty, the 
proSrty of the State, of the United States, of counties town- 
Fhip^s cities and towns, may by general laws be exempt from 
taxation And the General Assembly may exempt from taxation 
prope??y binging to e.eh indmclnal, tubjeetto tanafon, not 
exceeding in value two hundred dollars. 

Mr. LARWILL moved that the resolution be refer¬ 
red to the standing committee on Finance and Tax¬ 
ation ; 


On which motion, Mr. CASE, of Licking, demanded 
the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and resulted— 
yeas 49, nays 49—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Holt, 
Holmes Hootman, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, 
Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCor¬ 
mick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark Townshend, 
Warren, Way, Wilson and President—49. 

Nays —Mesers. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Baniet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gfl- 
let, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Larsh, Manon, Ma¬ 
son, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins, 
Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan¬ 
bery, Stanton, Stilwell, Swan, Vance of Butler, Woodbury and 
Worthington—19, 

So the motion to refer was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the res¬ 
olution ; 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren, moved the previous ques¬ 
tion. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
be.now put?” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution ; 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 47, nays 50 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case ot Hocking, Case of Lickmg, 
Chambers, Collings, Cook, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, 
Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Larsh, Manon, Mason, More¬ 
head, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Perkins,Scott of Ham- 
son, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, 
Stilwell, Swan, Vance of Butler, Warren and Worthington-^7. 

Nays —Messrs. Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Curry, Dorsey, Lwng, 
Farr, Forbes, Greene ot Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hen¬ 
derson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Hunt, Jones, King, 

Lawieuce. Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, ^eme- 
lin, Hiddle, Roll, Scott ot Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, 
Stidger, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, 
Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—50. 

So the resolution was disagreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY, on leave, from the standing commit¬ 
tee on Revision, Arrangement and Eurollment, report¬ 
ed hack the article on the Legislative Department, as 
follows, to wit: 

ARTICLE II. 
legislative. 

Sec. 1. The Legislative power of this State shall be vested 
in a General Assembly, which shall consist of a Senate and House 

of Representatives. , „ , , j u- 

Sec 2 Senators and representatives shall be elected bienni¬ 
ally, by the electors in the respective counties or districts, on 
the second Tuesday of October; their term of ofhee shall com¬ 
mence on the first day of January next thereafter, and continue 

Se^. 3. Senators and representatives shall have resided in 
their respective counties, or districts, one year next preceding 
their election, unless they shall have been absent on the public 

business of the United States, or this State. 

Sec. 4. No person holding ofhcc under the authority of the 
UiTiteci States, or any lucrative office under the authority of this 
State, shall be eligible to, or have a seat in, the General Assem¬ 
bly but this provision shall not extend to township oftcers, jus¬ 
tices of the peace, notaries public, or oliicers ot the militia. 

Sec 5. No person liercalter convictod of fin embezzlement ol 
the Dublic funds shall hold any office in tiii.s State ; nor shall any 
oerson holding public money for disbursement or otherwise, 
have a’seat in the^General Assembly, until he shall have account¬ 
ed for and paid such money into the treasury. 

Sec 6 Each House shall be judge ol the election, returns 
and qualifications, of its own members; a majority of all the 
mem^rs elected to each House shall be a quorum to do busi- 
neos' but, a less number may adjourn ti oin day to day, and com¬ 
pel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and un¬ 
der such penalties as shall be prescribed by law. 

«EC 7 The mode of organizing the House of Representa¬ 
tives at the commencement of each regular session, shall be pre- 

%Ec*^8^Each House, except as otherwise provided in this 
constitution, shall choose its own otticers, may determine lU 
own rules of proceeding, punish its n.o.nbers lor disorderly con- 
duct- and with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member, 





















1432 


CONVENTION KEPORTS. 


but not the second time for the same cause; and, shall have all 
other powers necessary to provide lor its salety and the undis¬ 
turbed transaction of its business. 

Sec. 9. Each House shall keep a correct journal of its pro¬ 
ceedings, which shall be published. At the desire of any two 
members, the yeas and nays shall be entered upon the journal; 
and on the passage of every bill, in either House, the vote shall 
be taken by yeas and nays, and entered upon the journal; and 
no law shall be passed, in either House, without the concurrence 
of a majority of all the members elected thereto 

Sec. 10. Any member of either Hoiise shall have the right to 
protest against any act, or resolution thereof; and such protest, 
and the reasons therefor, shall, without alteration, commitment 
or delay, be entered upon the journal. 

Sec. 11. All vacancies which may happen in either House, 
shall, for the unexpired term, be tilled by election, as shall be di¬ 
rected by law. 

Sec. 12. Senators and representatives, during the sessions of 
the General Assembly and in going to and returning from the 
same, shall be privileged from arrest in all cases, except treason, 
felony, or breach of the peace; and for any speech or debate, 
in either House, they shall not be questioned elsewhere. 

Sec. 13. The proceedings of both Houses shall be public, ex¬ 
cept in cases which, in the opinion of two-thirds of those present, 
require secrecy. 

Sec. 14, Neither House shall, without the consent of the oth¬ 
er, adjourn for more than two days, Sundays excluded ; nor to 
any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be in ses¬ 
sion- 

S£c. 15. Bills may originate in either House; but may be al¬ 
tered, amended or rejected in the other. 

Sec. 16. Every bill shall be fully and distinctly read, on three 
difi'ere m wuich it in case of urgency, three-fourths of the 
House shall be pending, shall dispense with this 

rule. No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall 
be clearly expressed in its title; and no law’ shall be revived, 
or amended, unless the new act shall contain the entire act re¬ 
vived, or the section or sections amended; and the section or 
se ctions so amended shall be repealed. 

Sec. 17. The presiding officer of each House shall sign, pub 
licly, in the presence of the House over which he presides, while 
the seine is in session, and capable of transacting business, all 
bills and joint resolutions passed by the General Assembly. 

Sec. 18, The style of the laws of this State shall be : “ Be it 
enacted by the General Assembly df the State of Ohio." 

Sec. 19. No senator or representative shall, during the term 
for which he is elected, nor lor one year thereafter, be appoint¬ 
ed to any civil office under this State, which shall be created, 
or the emoluments of w'hich shall have increased, during the 
term for which he w’as elected. 

Sec. 20. The General Assembly, in cases not provided lor in 
this constitution, shall fix the term of office, and the compensa¬ 
tion of all officers; but no change therein shall affect the salary of 
tmy officer during his e.xisting term, unless the office be abol¬ 
ished. 

Sec. 21. , The General Assembly shall determine by law be¬ 
fore w'hat authority, and in what manner the trial of contested 
elections shall be conducted. 

.5ec. 22. No money shall be draw’n from the treasury except 
in pursuance of a specific appropriation made by law; and no ap¬ 
propriation shall be made for a longer period than tw'o years. 

Sec. 23. The House of Representatives shall have the sole 
power of impeachment, but a majority of the members elected 
must concur therein. Impeachments shall be tried by the Sen¬ 
ate ; and the senators, w'heu sitting for that purpose, shall be upon 
oath or affinnation to do justice according to law and evidence. 
No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two- 
thirds of the senators. 

Sec. 24. The Governor, judges, and all State officers may be 
impeached for any misdemeanor in office; but judgment shall 
not extend farther than removal from office, and disqualification 
to hold any office under the authority of this State. The parly 
impeached, whether convicted or not, shall be liable to indict¬ 
ment, trial and judgment, according to law. 

Sec. 25. All regular sessions of the General Assembly shall 
commence on the first Monday of January, biennially. The first 
session under this constitution shall commence on the first Mon¬ 
day of January, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two. 

Sec. 26. All laws of a general nature, shall have a uniform op¬ 
eration throughout the State; nor shall any act, except such as 
relates to public schools, be ptisscd, to take effect upon the ap¬ 
proval of any other authorit}’ than the General Assembly, ex¬ 
cept as otherw’iseprovided in this constitution. 

Sec. 27. The elec tion and appointment of all officers, and the 
filling of all vacancies, not otherwise provided for by this constitu¬ 
tion, or the constitution of the United States, shall be made in such 
manner as may be directed bylaw ; but no appointing power shall 
be exercised by the General Assembly, except as provided for in 
this constitution, and in the election of United States Senators; 
and in these cases the vote shall be taken ^‘viva voce." 

Sec. 28. The Geno al Assembly shall have no power to pass 
retroactive laws, or laws impairing the ohligation of contracts ; 
but may, by general laws, authorize courts to cany into effect, 
upon such terms as shall be just and equitable, the manifest in¬ 
tention of parties, and officers, by curing omissions, defects, and 
errors in instruments and proceedings, arising out of their want 
of conformity w'ith the laws of this .‘•'tute. 

Sec. 29. No extra compensation shall be made to any officer, 
public agent, or contractor, alter the service shall have been ren¬ 


dered, or the contract entered into ; nor, shall any money be 
paid, on any claim, the subject matter of which shall not have 
been provided for by pre-existing law, unless such compensation, 
or claim be allowed by two-thirds of tne members elected to each 
branch of the General Assembly. 

Sec. 30. No new county shall contain less than four hundred 
square miles of territoiy, nor shall any county be reduced below 
that amount; and all laws creating new counties, changing coun¬ 
ty lines, or removing county seats, shall, before taking effect, be 
submitted to the electors of the several counties to be effected 
therebj’, at the next general election after the passage thereof, 
and be adopted by a majority of all the electors voting at such 
election, in each of said counties; but any county now or here¬ 
after containing one hundred thousand inhabitants, may be ^vi- 
ded, whenever a majority of the voters, residing in each of the 
proposed divisions, shall approve of the law passed for that pur¬ 
pose ; but, no town or city within the same shall be divided, 
nor shall either of the divisions contain less than twenty thou¬ 
sand inhabitants. 

Sec. 31. The members and officers of the General Assembly 
shall receive a fixed compensation, to be prescribed by law, and 
no other allowance or perquisites, either in the payment of post¬ 
age or otherwise, and no change in their compensation shall 
take effect during their term of office. 

Sec. 32. The General Assembly shall grant no divorce, nor 
exercise any judicial power not herein expressly conferred. 

The question tlieii being, “ Shall the report be en¬ 
rolled?” it was agreed to. 

Mr. ARCHBOLD, from the standing committee on 
Miscellaneous Subjects and Propositions, to which had 
been recommitted report number one, of the commit¬ 
tee on that subject, reported the same back with one 
amendment. 

The question being on agreeing to the first amend¬ 
ment, to wit: In section 2, line one, strike out the 
word “ shall,” and insert in lieu thereof, the word 
'' may.” 

Mr. LARWILL demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 80, nays 10—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Mont¬ 
gomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown 
of Athens, Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Chambers, Cha¬ 
ney, Clark, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, Flo¬ 
rence, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, 
Groesbcck, Hard, Hawkins, Hendersdn, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, 
Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Ma¬ 
son, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCloud. McCormick, Nash, 
Otis, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Slebbins, Stilwell, Struble, Swan, 
Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Wairen, Way, Wil¬ 
liams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President— 80. 

Nays —Messrs. Cahill, Larwill, Lidey, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Reemelin, Stickney, Stidger and Thompson of Stai'k— 10. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The question ihen being on the passage of the re¬ 
port ; 

Mi. GREGG demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 54, nays 19—as loi- 
low's: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgo¬ 
mery, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Cas(^ of Licking, Collings, Cook, 
Farr, Forbes, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, 
Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hun¬ 
ter, Jones, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Otis, 
Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Har¬ 
rison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, 
Struble, Swift, Taylor, Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance 
of Butler, Warren, Worthington and President— 58. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Bates, Blickensderfer, Brown 
ot Carroll, Chambers, Chaney, Curry, Ewart, Florence, Green 
of Ross, Groesbeck, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, King, Lar¬ 
will, Leadbetter, Mason, McCloud, Nash, Peck, Sawyer, Smith 
of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stilwell, Wil¬ 
liams, Wilson and Woodbury— 29 

So the Report was passed ; and, on motion, referred 
to the committee ou Revision, Arrangement and En¬ 
rollment. 

Mr. SAWYER submitted the following :| 

Resolved, That the Secretary ot tli^ Convention be instructed 
to transcribe, or cause to be transcribed, so much of the journal 
as may remain unfinished at the close of the session, and to de¬ 
posit the same, with all papers pertaining to the business of the 
Convention, in the office of Secretary of State, and that the Pre¬ 
sident be authorized to audit his account for performing said 
labor. 

Tlie question being on the adoption of the resolu¬ 
tion ; 















CONVENTION REPOETS. 


1433 


Mr. LEECH. There are other duties required el’ 
the Secretary. Under the law, he is obliged to deposit 
the journals and documents that remain in his hands. 
The resolution, therefore, merely contemplates the con¬ 
tinuance of the Secretary in office, until all the duties 
necessary to be performed are complete. 

Mr. PERKINS. I would merely state that the com¬ 
mittee on comparison of the journal have had this sub¬ 
ject under consideration, and will report a resolution 
upon the subject in the morning. 

Mr. HAWKINS moved that the resolution be re¬ 
ferred to the committee on comparison of the journal. i 

Mr. MANON moved that the resolution be laid on 
the table, which was disagreed to. 

Mr. SAWIER. T under.stood there was a resolution 
of some kind about to be otiered, by which the duties 
of the Secretary were to be taken out of his hands. 
Now, I am not willing to consent to anything of the 
kind ; and I will not allow an attempt to pass a censuie 
upon one of the otlicers of this Convention, in this indi¬ 
rect manner, to pass without my strenuous opposition. 
The Secretary of this body has performed his duties 
well. He is fully competent to their performance. If 
he has done wrong, let us proceed directly against him 
—if he has not done wrong, he must be sustained. 

Mr. PERKINS. I wish to say a word in explana¬ 
tion. The committee, whose duty it was to compare 
the record of the proceedings of this body with the 
journal kept bj^ the Secretary, had intended to offer a 
resolution providing that the Seci'etary be instructed to 
employ Mr. D. H. Mortley to complete that portion of 
the record which will remain after the Convention has 
adjourned. The object of the committee in coming to 
this conclusion is this: In examining and comparing 
the record with the journal, the committee were struck 
with the extreme correctness and elegance with which 
the work has been performed. In examinig the first 
volume, now complete, scarcely an error has been de 
tected, and as a specimen of neat and elegant penman 
ship, It excels anything we have ever seen of the kind. 
We could not but feel a desire that the second volume 
should be equal to a. d like the first; and, without in¬ 
tending any disrespect to the Secretary, we did not 
deem it improper on our part to take such measures 
as we thought calculated to secure the end so much to 
be desired. The Secretary of this Convention has, so 
far as I am aware, performed his duties to the satis¬ 
faction of all; and in the resolution we intended to of¬ 
fer. we had no desire either to censure him, or to im 
pute, in any degree, either improper conduct, or a de¬ 
sire to do wrong. But while we were disposed to do 
justice to the Secretary, we would do justice to the as¬ 
sistants also. 

Mr. REEMELIN. This seems to me to be simply a 
question of authority. The Secretary is the officer of 
the Convention to whom the duty of making up the 
journal belongs. He and he alone is responsible for its 
correctness. He is the one who is only qualified to 
sign and certify it. Now, whatever may be due to the 
recording clerk, he is in the hands of the Secretary, 
and one of his assistants, and we have no right to infer 
that he will either perform his duty improperly, or do 
injustice to those that are under him. For myself, I 
cannot vote to take the journal of this body out of the 
hands of the Secretary. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. The object of the resolu¬ 
tion now under consideration, appears to be to re-at- 
firm the appointment of the Secretary. If that is the 
object it is not necessary. If its object is to take from 
that officer any portion of his duties, I will not vote 
for it. The Secretary has performed all the duties of 
his office, and I will neither directly nor indirectly sup¬ 
port any resolution that shall have a tendency to dis¬ 
honor him by taking from him any of those duties or 
powers which appertain to his office. 

Mr. LARSH. So far as I am concerned, nothing of 
the kind was intended. There was no intention to 
cast any imputation upon the Secretary ; and our only 


object was to secure that the second volume shoud be 
completed in the same manner as the first. 

The question being on the adoption of the resolu¬ 
tion; * ft 

Mr. MANON moved that it be laid on the table ; on 
which motion, 

Mr. LARSH demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and aesulted—yeas 38, nays 51—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnett of Preble, Case of Licking, 
Chambers, Clark, Collings, Curry, Ew’art, Florence, GiUett, 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holmes, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Jones, 
Larsh, Manon, Mason, Morehtad, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Perkins, 
Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stilwell, Swift and Vance 
of Butler—38. 

Nays —Messrs. Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery,Bates, 
Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chaney, Cook, Dorsey, 
Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hootman, Hunt, 
Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Mitchell, Morris, McConnick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Sawyer, Sellers, Stanbery, 
Stebbins, Stidger, Struble, Swan, Thompson of Stark, Town- 
shend, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthing¬ 
ton and President—51. 

So the motion to lay on the table was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution ; 

Mr. WOODBURY moved the previous question. 

The question then being shall the main question be 
now put? ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the res¬ 
olution ; 

Mr. HAWKINS demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 67, nays 14—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Archbold, Barbee, Barnet of Montgom* 
ery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Brown of Athens, Cahill, Chambers. 
Chaney, Collings, Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Farr, Florence, Forbes, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Hunt, Kirkwood, Lawrence, 
Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Mor¬ 
ris, McCloud, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ran¬ 
ney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Stickney, Struble, 
Thompson of Stark, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, 
Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President--67. 

Nays —Messrs. Brown of Carroll, Ewing, Gillett, Hawkins, 
Hunter, Jones, Larsh, Manon, Morehead, Nash, Perkins, Scott of 
Harrison, Stanton and Swift—14. 

So the resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. MITCHELL submitted the following; 

Resolved, That the Convention will this night and hereafter du¬ 
ring its continuance, hold night sessions. 

Pending which, Nlr. GREEN, of Ross moved that 
the Convention adjourn. 

On which motion Mr. MITCHELL demanded the 
yeas and nays, which were ordered, and resulted— 
yeas 51, nays 42—as follows: 

■"Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, 
Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Gillett, Greene of 
Defiance, Gray, Green of Ross, Gregg, Hamilton, Henderson, 
Holt, Hunt, Jones, King, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidey, J.oudon, Manon, Mason, Morehead, McCormick,_ 
Nash, Norris, Orton, Perkins, Quigley, Reemelin, Roll, Scott of 
Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Stidger, Struble, 
Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams, Wor¬ 
thington and President—51. 

Nays— Messrs. Archbold, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnettot Pre¬ 
ble, Bates, Bennett, Brown of Athens, Case of Licking, Collings, 
Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Hard, Haw¬ 
kins. Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, Kirkwood, Mitch¬ 
ell, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Ranney, Riddle, Saw- 
ver Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stebbins, Stil- 
wel’l, Stickney, Swift, Thompson of Stark, Way, Wilson and 
Woodbury—4a* 

So the motion prevailed, and the Convention ad¬ 
journed. 


SATURDAY, March 8, 1851. 

9 o’clock, a. m. 

The Convention met pursuant to adjournment. 

Mr. STILWELL asked and obtained leave of ab¬ 
sence for himself and Mr. Thompson, of Stark, during 
the remaining sessions of the Convention. 














1434 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Mr. STANTON. Mr. President; I voted yesterday 
against striking out the second section of the report 
on Finance ^nd Taxation. I did not vote against stri¬ 
king out because I was in favor of the section as it 
stood. On the contrary, I was entirely opposed to it, 
and intended to put myself right on the record, by vo¬ 
ting against the entire report. But as the report was 
recommitted without a direct vote upon its adoption, 
my vote placed me in a false position upon the record. 

I therefore wish to change my vote, and vote for stri¬ 
king out the section. 

Mr. PRESIDENT. The gentleman voted in the 
negative, and desired to vote in the affirmative. As 
the vote, however, on striking out the section was a 
tie, under the rules, leave cannot be granted to change 
the result. 

Mr. RANNEY, from the standing committee on Re¬ 
vision, reported back the article on the Executive De¬ 
partment, as follows, to wit: 

ARTICLE III. 

' EXECUTIVE. 

Sec. 1. The Executive Department shall consist of a Gover¬ 
nor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasur¬ 
er, and an Attorney General, who shall be chosen by the electors 
of the State on the second Tuesday of October, and at the places 
of voting for members of the General Assembly. 

Sec. 2. The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of 
State, Treasurer, and Attorney General, shall hold their offices for 
two years, and the Auditor for four years. Their terms of office 
shall commence on the second Monday of January nest after 
their election, and continue until their successors are elected and 
qualified. 

Sec. 3. The returns of every election for the officers named in 
the foregoing section, shall be sealed up and transmitted to the 
scat of Government by the returning officers, directed to the 
President of the Senate, who, during the first week of the session, 
shall open and publish them, and declare the result in the presence 
of a majority of themembers of each House of the General Assem¬ 
bly. The person having the highest number of votes shall be de¬ 
clared duly elected; but if any two or more shall be highest, and 
equal in votes, for the same office, one of them shall be chosen by 
the joint vote of both Houses. 

Sec. 4. Should there be no session of the General Assembly 
in January next after an election for any of the officers aforesaid, 
the returns of such election shall be made to the Secretary of 
State, and opened, and the result declared by the Governor, in 
such manner as may be provided by law. 

Sec. 5. The supreme executive power of this State shall be 
vested in the Governor. 

Sec. 6. He may require information, in writing, from the offi¬ 
cers in the executive department, upon any subject relating to 
the duties of their respective offices, and shall see that the laws 
are faithfully executed. 

Sec. 7. He shall communicate, at every session, by message, 
to the General Assembly, the condition of the State, and recom¬ 
mend such measures as he shall deem expedient. 

Sec. 8. He may, on extraordinary occasions, convene the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly by proclamation, and shall state to both Houses, 
when assembled, the purpose for which they have been con¬ 
vent. 

Sec. 9. In case of disagreement between the two Houses in 
respect to the time of adjournment, he shall have power to ad¬ 
journ the General Assembly to such time as he may think proper, 
but not beyond the regular meetings thereof. 

Sec. 10. He shall be commander-in chief of the military and 
naval forces of the State, except when they shall be called into 
the service of the United States. 

' Sec. 11. He shall have power, after conviction, to grant re¬ 
prieves, commutations, and pardons, for all crimes and offences, 
except treason and cases of impeachment, upon such conditions 
as he may think proper, subject, however, to such regulations as 
to the manner of applying for pardons, as may be prescribed by 
law. Upon convictions for treason he may suspend the execu¬ 
tion of the sentence, and report the case to the General Assem¬ 
bly at its next meeting, when the General Assembly shall either 
pardon, commute the sentence, direct its execution, or grant a 
further reprieve. He shall communicate to the General Assem¬ 
bly, at every regular session, each case of reprieve, commutation 
or pardon granted, stating the name and crime of the convict, the 
sentence, its date, and the date of the commutation, pardon or 
reprieve, with his reasons therefor. 

Sec. 12. There shall be a seal of the State, which shall be 
kept by the Governor and used by him officially, and shall be 
called “ The Great Seal of the State of Ohio.” 

Sec. 13. All grants and commissions shall be issued in the 
name, and by the authority of the State of Ohio, sealed with the 
Great Seal, signed by the Governor, and countersigned by the 
Secretary of State. 

Sec. 14. No member of Congress, or other pefson holding 
office under the authority of this State, or of the United States, 
shall execute the office of Governor, except as herein provided. 

Sec. 15. In case of the death, impeachment, resignation, re¬ 
moval, or other disability of the Governor, the powers and duties 


of the office for the residue of the term, or until he shall be ac¬ 
quitted, or the disability removed, shall devolve upon the Lieu¬ 
tenant Governor. . r- , 

Sec. 16. The Lieutenant Governor shall be President of the 
Senate, but shall vote only when the Senate is equally divided; 
and in case of his absence or impeachment, or when he shaR ex¬ 
ercise the office of Governor, the Senate shall choose a President 
p?'o tempore. 

Sec. 17. If the Lieutenant Governor, while executing the 
office of Governor, shall be impeached, displaced, resign, or die, 
or otherwise become incapable of performing the duties of the 
office, the President of the Senate shall act as Governor until the 
vacancy is tilled, or the disability removed ; and if the President 
of the Senate, for any of the above causes, shall be rendered in¬ 
capable ot performing the duties pertaining to the office of Gov¬ 
ernor, the same shall devolve upon the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives. 

Sec. 18. Should the office of Auditor, Treasurer, Secretary, or 
Attorney General, become vacant, for any of the causes specified 
in the fifteenth section of this article, the Governor shall fill the va¬ 
cancy until the disability is removed, or a successor is elected and 
qualified. Every such vacancy shall be filled hy election at the 
first general election that occurs more than thirty days after it 
shall have happened; and the person chosen shall hold the office 
for the full term fixed in the second section of this article. 

Sec. 19. The officers mentioned in this article, shall at stated 
times receive for their services a compensation to be established 
by law, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during 
the period for which they shall have been elected. 

Sec. 20. The officers of the executive department, and of the 
public State institutions, shall, at least five days preceding each 
regular session of the General Assembly, severalljr report to the 
Governor, who shall transmit such reports with his message, to 
the General Assembly. 

The question then being, “ Shall the article be now 
enrolled ?’' 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to take up the article for 
amendment; which was disagreed to. 

The question then being, “ Shall the article be now 
enrolled ; it was agreed to. 

The Convention then took up the article on the Ju¬ 
diciary, as reported back by the committee on Revi¬ 
sion, Arrangement and Enrollment. 

ARTICLE IV. 

Judicial. 

Sec. 1. The judicial power of the State shall be vested in a 
Supreme Court, in district courts, courts of common pleas, courts 
of probate, justices of the peace, and in such other courts infe¬ 
rior to the Supreme Court, in one or more counties, as the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly may from time to time establish. 

Sec. 2. The Supreme Court shall consist of five judges, a ma¬ 
jority of whom shall be necessary to form a quorum, or to pro¬ 
nounce a decision. It shall have original jurisdiction in quo war¬ 
ranto, mandamus, habeas corpus, and procedendo, and such ap¬ 
pellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law. It shall hold at 
least one term, in each year, at the seat of government, and such 
other terms, at the seat of government or elsewhere, as may be 
provided by law. The judges of the Supreme Court shall be 
elected by the electors of the State at large. 

Sec. 3. The State shall be divided into nine common pleas 
districts, of which the county of Hamilton shall constitute one, of 
compact territory and bounded by county lines, and each of said 
districts consisting ot three or more counties, shall be subdivided 
into three parts of compact territory, bounded by county lines, 
and as nearly equal in population as practicable, in each of which 
one judge of the court of common pleas for said district, and re¬ 
siding therein, shall be elected by the electors of said subdivis¬ 
ion. Courts of common pleas shall be held by one or more of 
these judges, in every county of the district, as often as may be 
provided lij' law, and more than one court or sitting thereof may 
be held at the same time, in each district. 

Sec. 4. The jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas and 
of the judges thereof, shall be fi.xed by law. 

Sec. 5. District courts shall be composed of the judges of the 
court of common pleas of the respective districts, and one of the 
judges of the Supreme Court, any three of whom shall be a quo¬ 
rum, and shall be held in each county therein, at least once in 
each year; but if it shall be found inexpedient to hold such court 
annually in each county ot any district, the General Assembly 
may for such district, jirovide that said court shall hold at least 
three annual sessions therein, in not less than three places; pro¬ 
vided, that the General Assembly may by law authorize the judg¬ 
es of each district to fix the times of holding the courts therein. 

Sec. 6. The district court shall have like original jurisdiction 
with the Supreme Court, and such appellate jurisdiction, as may 
be provided by law. 

Sec. 7. There shall be established in each county a probate 
court which shall be a court of record, open at all times, and 
holden by one judge elected by the voters ol the county, who 
shall hold his office for the term of three years, and shall receive 
such compensation, payable out of the county treasury, or by 
fees, or both, as shall be provided by law. 

Sec. 8. The probate court shall have jurisdiction in probate 
and testamentary matters, the appoinment ol administrators and 
guardians, the settlement of the accounts of executors, adminis- 














1435 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


trtitors and guardians, and such jurisdiction in habeas corpus, the 
issuing 01 inariiage licenses, andtor the sale of land by executors 
administrators and guardians, and such other jurisdiction in any 
county or counties, as may be provided by law. 

Sec. 9. A competent number of justices of the peace shall be 
elected by the electors in each township in the several counties 
Their term ot oliice shall be three years, and their powers and 
duties shall be regulated by law. 

Sec. 10. All judges, other than those provided for in this con¬ 
stitution, shall be elected by the electors of the judicial district 
for which they may be created, but not for a longer term of office 
than five years. 

Sec. 11. The judges of the Supreme Court shall, immediately 
after the first election under this constitution, be classified by lot; 
so that one shall hold for the term of one year, one for two years 
one for three years, one for four years and one one lor five years ; 
and at all subsequent elections the term ot each of said judges 
shall be for five years. 

Sec. 12 . The judges of the courts of common pleas shall, while 
in office, reside in the district lor which they are elected; and 
i their term of office shall be for five years. 

I Mr. LARWILL moved to reconsider the vote by 
which the Convention agreed to insert in section 13, 
of the article on the Judiciary, the following words, 
^‘for an entire term.” 

Mr. WOODBURY moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “Shall the main question 
be now put?” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the motion to reconsider; 

Mr. McCORMICK demanded the yeas and nays, 

I which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 47, nays 43— 
as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Archbold, Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Cha¬ 
ney, Clark, Curry, Dorsey, Farr, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Ham¬ 
ilton Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Hunter, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwiil, Leech, Lidey, 
Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Patterson, Per¬ 
kins, Quigley, Riddle, Roll, Smith ot Wyandot, Stebbins, Stick- 
ney, Stidger, Struble, Swift, Townshend, Wilson, Woodbury and 
President— 47i 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cham¬ 
bers, Codings, Cook, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, 
Graham, Green ot Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, Harlan, Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Horton, Larsh, Lawrence, Leadbetter, Mason, More- 
head, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Ranney, Reemelin, 
Sawyer, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Swan, 
Taylor, Vance of Butler, Way and Williams—43. 

So the motion to reconsider was agreed to. 

The question then being on inserting in section 13, 
after the word “ elected ” the words “ for an entire 
term 

Mr. WOODBURY moved to perfect the words to be 
inserted, by striking out the words “ an entire,” and 
insert in lieu thereof the words “ the residue of the uu- 
expired.” 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded a division. 

The question then being on striking out the words, 
“ an entire;” 

Mr. WOODBURY moved the previous question. 

The question then being: Shall the main question be 
now put ? it was agreed to. 

The question tlien being on striking out the words, 
“ an entire;” 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 51, nays .37— 
as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Archbold, B\ air, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, 
Clark, Ewart, Farr, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hamilton, 
Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunt¬ 
er, Jones, Kinff, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwiil, Leech, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Patterson, Perkins, 
Quigley, Roll, Scott oi Auglaize, Sellers, Smithy ot Wyandot, 
Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Swiit, Taylor, 
Townshend, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, Woithington and 

President—51. r. -n 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Bro wn of Carroll, Cham¬ 
bers Collings, Cook, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Green of Ross, 
Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Hor¬ 
ton Lawrence, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, Nash, Otis, 
Peck, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Smith ot Highland, 
Smith of Warren,Stanbery, Swan an d Vance of Butler—37. 

The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment proposed by Mr. Woodburt; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the section 
as amended ; it was agreed to. 

'' SecT 13. In case the office of any judge shall become vacant 


before the expiration ot the regular term for which he was elect¬ 
ed, the vacancy shall be filled by appoinment by the Governor, 
until a successor is elected and qualified, and such successors 
shall be elected for the residue of the unexpired term, at the first 
annual electionthat occurs more than thirty days after the va¬ 
cancy shall have happened. 

Sec. 14. The judges of the Supreme Court and of tho courtof 
common pleas shall, at stated times, receive for their services 
such compensation as maybe provided by law, which shall not be 
diminished or increased during their tci ra of office, but they shall 
receive no fees or perquisites, nor hold any other office of profit or 
trust under the authority of this State, or the United States. All 
votes for either of them, for any elective office, except a judicial 
office under the authority of this State, given by the General As¬ 
sembly, or the people, shall be void. 

Sec. 15. The General Assembly may increase or diminish the 
number of the Judges of the supreme court; the number of the 
districts of the courtof common pleas; the number of Judges in 
any district; change tho districts or the subdivisions thereof, or 
establish other courts, whenever two-thirds of the members 
elected to each House shall concur therein, but no such change, 
addition, or diminution shall vacate the office of any Judge. 

Sec. 16. There shall be elected in each county, by the electors 
thereof, one clerk of the court of common pleas, who shall hold 
his office for the terra of three years, and until bis successor 
shall be elected and qualified. He shall, by virtue of his office, 
be clerk of all other courts of record held therein; but the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly may provide bylaw for the election of a clerk with 
a like term of office, for each or any other of the courts of re¬ 
cord, and may authorize the Judge of the Probate Court to per¬ 
form the duties of clerk for his court, under such regulations as 
may be directed by law. Clerks of courts shall be moveable tor 
such cause, and in such manner, as shall be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 17. Judges may be removed from office by concurrent 
resolution of botli Houses of the General Assembly, if two-thirds 
of the members elected to each House concur therein; but no 
such removal shall be made, except upon complaint, the sub¬ 
stance of which shall be entered on the journal, nor until the 
party charged shall have had notice thereof, and an opportunity 
to he heard. 

Sec. 18. The several judges of the Supreme Court, of the 
common pleas, and of such other courts as may be created, shall 
respectively have and exercise such power and jurisdiction, at 
chambers, or otherwise, as may be directed by law. 

Sec. 19. The General Assembly may establish courts of con¬ 
ciliation, and prescribe their powers and duties, but such courts 
shall not render final judgment in any case except upon submis¬ 
sion, by the parties of the matter in dispute, and their agreement 
to abide such judgment. 

Sec. 20. The style of all process shall be “The State of Ohio.” 
All prosecutions shall be carried on in the name and by the au¬ 
thority ot the State of Ohio, and all indictments shall conclude 
“ against the peace and dignity of the State ot Ohio.” 

The question then being “shall the article be en¬ 
rolled ; ” 

Mr. NASH moved, that the article be taken up for tho 
purpose of amendment; whicli was disagreed to. 

The question then being “shall the article be now 
enrolled? it was agreed to. 

The Convention then took up the article “on Public 
Debts and Public Works,” as reported back by the 
committee on Revision, Arrangement, and Enrollment, 
as follows, to wit: 

ARTICLE VIII. 

PUBLIC DEBT AND PUBLIC WORKS. 

Sec. 1. The State may contract debts to supply casual deficits 
or failures in revenues, or to meet expenses not otherwise provi¬ 
ded for, but the aggregate amount of such debts, direct and con¬ 
tingent, whether contracted by virtue of one or more acts of the 
General AssembJy, or at diflereut periods of time, shall never ex¬ 
ceed seven hundred and tiity thousand dollars, and the money 
I arising from the creation of such debts shall be applied to the 
I purpose for which it was obtained, or to repay the debts so con- 
1 traded, and to no other purpose whatever. 

Sec. 2. In addition to the above limited power, the State may 
contract debts to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, defend 
the State in war, or to redeem the present outstanding indebted¬ 
ness of the State, but the money arising from the contracting of 
such debts siiall be applied to the purpose for which it was rais¬ 
ed, or to repay such debts, and to no other purpose whatever; 
and all debts incurred to redeem the present outstanding indebt¬ 
edness of the State, shall be so contracted as to be payable by the 
sinking fund hereinafter provided for, as the same shall accumu- 
Idtc* 

Sec. 3. Except the debts above specified in sections one and 
two "of this article, no debt whatever, shall hereafter be created 
by, or on behalf of the State. 

Sec. 4. The credit of the State shall not in any manner be 
given,* or loaned to, or in aid of any individual, association or 
corporation whatever, nor shall the State ever hereafter become 
a joint owner or stockholder in any company, or association, in 
this State or elsewhere, formed for any purpose whatever. 

Sec. 5. The State shall never assume the debts of any coun¬ 
ty, city, town, or township, or of any corporation whatever, un¬ 
less such debt shall have been created to repel invasion, suppress 
nsurrcction, or delend the State in war. 












1436 


CONVENTION RKi'ORTS. 


Sec. 6 . The General Assembly shall never authorize any 
county, city, town, or township, by vote of its citizens or other¬ 
wise, to become a stockholder in any joint stock company, cor¬ 
poration or association whatever, or to raise money for, or loan 
its credit to, or in aid of any such company, corporation or asso¬ 
ciation. 

Sec. 7. The faith of the State being pledged lor the payment 
of its public debt, in order to provide therefor, there shall be 
created a sinking fund, which shall be sufficient to pay the accru¬ 
ing interest on such debt, and annually to reduce the principal 
thereof by a sum not less than one hundred thousand dollars, 
increased yearly, and each and every year, by compounding at 
the rate of six per cent, per annum. The said sinking lund shall 
consist of the net annual income of the public works, and stocks 
ovraed by the State, of any other funds or resources that are or 
may be provided by law; and of such further sum, to be raised 
by taxation, as may be required for the purposes aforesaid. 

Sec. 8 . The Auditor of State, Secretary of State, and Attor¬ 
ney General, are hereby created a board of commissioners, to be 
styled “the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund.” 

Sec. 9. The commissioners of the Sinking Fund^ shall, imme¬ 
diately preceding each regular session of the General Assembly, 
make an estimate of the probable amount of the fund provided 
for in the seventh section of this article, from all sources except 
from taxation, and report the same, together with all their pro¬ 
ceedings relative to said fund and the public debt, to the Gover¬ 
nor, who shall transmit the same, witli his regular message, to 
the General Assembly; and the General Assembly shall make all 
necessary provision for raising and disbursing said sinking fund, 
in pursuance of the provisions of this article. 

Sec 10. It shall be the duty of the said commissioners faithfully 
to apply said fund together with all moneys that may be by the 
General Assembly appropriated to that object, to the payment of 
the interest as it becomes due, and the redemption ot the princi¬ 
pal of the pubhc debt of the State, excepting only the school and 
trust funds held by the State. 

Sec. 11. The said commissioners shall semi-annually make a 
full and detailed report of their proceedings to the Governor, who 
shall immediately cause the same to be published; and shall also 
communicate the same to the General Assembly, forthwith, if it 
be in session ; and if not, then, at its first session, after such report 
shall be made. 

Sec. 12. So long as this State shall have public works which 
require superintendence, there shall be a Board of Public Works, 
to consist of three members, who shall be elected by the people, 
at the first general election, after the adoption of this constitution; 
one for the term ot one year; one for the term of two years, and 
one for the term of three years; and one member of taid board 
shall be elected annually thereafter, who shall hold his office for 
three years. 

Sec. 13. The powers and duties of said Board of Public Works, 
and its several members, and their compensation, shall be such as 
now are or may be prescribed by law 

The question then being, “shall the Article bo en¬ 
rolled;” 

Mr. SAWYER moved to take up the Article for the 
purpose of amendment or recommitment. 

On which motion Mr. MANON demanded the yeas 
and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 39, 
nays 50—as follows; g 

Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Blair, Chaney, 
"Clark, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Graham, Greene ot Defiance, 
Gregg, Holmes, Hunt, King, Kirkwood, Leadbetter, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Nash, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Saw¬ 
yer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Stru- 
ble, Taylor, Townshend, Warren, Williams, Worthington, and 
President—39. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blick- 
ensderfer. Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, Collings, Cook, 
Curry, Florence, Gillett„Green ofRoss, Hamilton. Hard, Harlan, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Horton, Humphre- 
ville, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Larsh, Lawrence, Lurwill, Leech, 
Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead Morris, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Smith of Wyandot Stanbery, Stanton, Swift, Vance 
of Butler, Way, Wilson, and Woodbury—50. 

So the motion was disagreed to. 

The Convention then took up the Article on County 
and Township organization, as reported back by the 
committee on Revision, Arrangement atid Enrollment, 
as follows, to-wit: 

ARTICLE' X’. 

COUNTY AND TOWNSHIP ORGANIZATIONS. 

Sec. 1. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the 
election of such county and township officers as may be neces¬ 
sary. 

Sec. 2. County officers shall be elected on the second Tuesday 
of October, until otherwise directed by law, by the qualified elec¬ 
tors of each county, in such manner, and for such term, not ex¬ 
ceeding three years, as may be provided by law. 

Sec. 3. No person shall be eligible to the office of sherifl' or 
county Treasurer for more than four years, in any period of six 
years. 

Sec. 4. Township officers shall be elected on the first Monday 


of April, annually, by the qualified electors of their respective 
townships; and shall hold their offices for one year from the 
Monday next succeeding their election, and until their successors 
are qualified. 

Sec. 5. No money shall be drawn from any county or town¬ 
ship treasury except by authority of law. 

Sec. 6. Justices of the peace, and county and township offi¬ 
cers, may be removed in such manner and lor such causes as 
shall be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 7. The commissioners of counties, the trustees of town¬ 
ships, and similar boards, shall have such power of local taxation 
for police purposes as may be prescribed by law. 

The question then being, “Shall the article be now 
enrolled? ” 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the Article be taken 
up for the purpose of amendment or recommitment; 
which was agreed to. 

Mr. GROESBECK moved to add a.s an additional 
section the following: 

Sec. — . The General Assembly shall provide for the organi¬ 
zation of cities and incorporated villages, by general laws, and 
restrict their power of taxation, assessment, borrowing money, 
contracting debts, and loaning their credit, so as to prevent 
abuses in assessment and contracting debts by such municipal 
corporation. 

Which was agreed to. 

The question then being, “ Shall the article be now 
enrolled ? ” it was agreed to. 

The Convention then took up the Article on Jurii^ 
prudence as reported back by the committee on Re 
vision. Arrangement and Enrollment, as follows, to 
wit: 

ARTICLE XIV. 

^ Jurisprudence. 

Sec. 1. The General Assembly, at its first session after the 
adoption of this constitution, shall provide for the appointment 
of three Commissioners, and prescribe their tenure of office, 
compensation, and the mode of filling vacancies in said com¬ 
mission. 

Sec. 2. The said Commissioners shall revise, reform, simplify 
and abridge the practice, pleadings, forms and proceedings of 
the courts of record of this State; and, as far as practicable and 
expedient, shall provide for the abolition of the distinct forms of 
action at law, now in use, and lor the administration of justice 
by a uniform mode of proceeding, without reference to any dis¬ 
tinction between law and equity. 

Sec. 3. The proceedings of the Commissioners shall, from 
time to time, be reported to the General Assembly, and be subject 
to the action of that body. 

The question then being, “ Shall the Article be now 
enrolled ? ” it was agreed to. 

The Convention then took up the Article on the 
Elective Franchise, as reported back by the committee 
on Revision, Arrangement and Enrollment, as follows, 
to wit: 

ARTICLE V. 

Elective Franchise. 

Sec. 1. Every white male citizen of the United States, of the 
age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of the 
State one year preceding the election, and of the county, town¬ 
ship or ward in which he resides, such time as may be provided 
by law, shall have the qualifications of an elector, and be entitled 
to vote at all elections. 

Sec. 2. All elections shall be by ballot. 

Sec. 3. Electors, during their attendance at elections, and in 
going to and returning therefrom, shall be privileged from ar¬ 
rest in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace. 

Sec. 4. The General Assembly shall have power to exclude 
from the privilege of voting, or of being eligible to office, any 
person convicted of bribery, perjury, or other infamous crime. 

Sec. 5. No person in the military, naval or marine service of 
the United States shall, by being stationed in any garrison or mi¬ 
litary or naval station within the State, be considered a resident 
of this State. 

Sec. 6. No idiot or insane person shall be entitled to the privi¬ 
lege of an elector. 

The question then being, “Shall the Article be now 
enrolled ? ” it was agreed to. 

The Convention then took up the Article on Amend¬ 
ments, as reported back by the committee on Revision, 
Arrangement and Enrollment, as follows, to wit: 
ARTICLE XVI. 

AMENDMENTS. 

Sec. 1. Either branch of the General Assembly may propose 
amendments to this constitution, and if the same shall be agreed 
to by three-fifths of the members elected to each House, such 
proposed amendments shall be entered on the journals, with the 
yeas and nays, and shall be published in at least one newspaper, 
in eech county of the State where a newspaper is published, fer 











CO MENTION REPORTS. 


1437 


81 

se 

to I 

ti.i 

8H 

Oil 

l- 

ni 


months preceding the next election for 
f'tives, at which time the same shall be 
tor their approval or rejection, and il 
voting at such election shall adopt s 
< shall become a part of the constitut' 
amendment shall be submitted, attii 


i) submitted as to enable the elector 
.separately. 

' c. 2. Whenever two-thirds of thf 
;b of the General Assembly shall t 
Convention to revise, amend, or chan 
siiuli recommend to the electors to vo 
members to the General Assembly, f< 


' ators and Rep re¬ 
mitted to the elec- 
i ajority of the elec- 
h amendments, the 
. When more than 
tame time, they shall 
< vote on each amend- 


b U: 


! embers elected to each 
nkit necessary to call a 
this constitution, they 
at the next election for 
I or against a Convention, 


and it a majority oi all the electors v ting at said election, shall 
have voted for a Convention, the Ge ral Assembly shall, at their 
next session, provide by law, for ca 
tion shall consist of as many me 
sentatlves, who shall be chosen in 
meet within three months after to 
aforesaid! 

Sec. 3. At the general electio 
sand eight hundred and seventy 
thereafter, the question “ Shall 
alter, or amend the constitutio- 
tors of the State, and in case 


rg the same. The Conven¬ 
ers as the House ol llepre- 
be same manner, and shall 
ir election, for the purpose 


at such election shall decide i 
eral Assembly, at its next se 
election of delegates, and th 
is provided in th 2 precedin 
constitution, agreed upon i 


1 0 be held in the year one thou- 
ne, and in each twentieth year 
ere he a Convention to revise, 
’ shall be submitted to the elec- 
. ajority of all the electors voting 


lavor of a Convention, the Gen 
on, shall provide by law for the 
assembling ot said Convention, as 
ection ; but no amendment of this 
any Convention assembled in pur 


suance of this article, sha. take eflect until the same shall have 
been submitted to the el tors of the State, and adopted by a 
majority of those voting tnereon 

The question then being, “shallthe Article be now 
enrolled ?” 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to take up the Article for 
the purpose of the amendment or recommitment; which 
was disagreed to. 

The question then being, “ shall the Article be now 
enrolled ?” it was agreed to. 

Mr. STANBERY moved to reconsider the vote by 
which the Article on the Elective Franchise was order¬ 
ed to be enrolled. 

On whicli motion, Mr. STANBERY demanded the 
yeas and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 
29, nays .52—as follows; 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Blickensderfer, 
Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Farr, Florence, Gray, Green of 
Ross, Gregg, Harlan, Henderson, Holmes, Jones, Lawrence, 
Leech, Manon, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Peck, Quigley, Reemelin, 
Riddle, Roll, Smith ot Highland, Stanbery, Vance of Butler and 
Worthington—29. . ^ ^ ^ t , - 

Nays— Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, 
Chaney, Clark, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Forbes, 
Graham, Greene of DeHance, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Hitch 
cock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunter, 
Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, Lidey, Mitchell Morehead, Morris, 
McCormick, Otis, Patterson, Ranney, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Stickney, Stldger, Struble, Swan, Swilt, Taylor, Townshend, 
Warren, Way, Woodbury and President—»62, 

So the motion to reconsider was disagreed to. 

Mr. LOUDON, from the standing committee on Fi¬ 
nance and Taxation, to which had been recommitted 
Report, number two, on that subject, reported the same 
back with sundry amendments. 

The question being on agreeing to the first amend¬ 
ment, to wit: - „ 1 • 

Section two, after the word “ companies, where it 
occurs the first time, insert the words ‘‘ not otherwise 
provided for in this constitution;” 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauge, moved that the re¬ 
port and pending amendments be laid on the table. 

On which motion, 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 38, nays 49 as fol¬ 
lows 


aie, noil. Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, 
Warren, Way, Woodbury and President—49. 

So the motion to lay on the table wa.s disagreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the first 
amendment; 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE moved the previous question. 

The question then being, Shall the main question be 
now put? 

Mr. GRAY moved a call of the Convention ; and be¬ 
ing ordered, the following gentlemen were found ab¬ 
sent: 

IMessrs. Arclibold, Brown of Athens, Case of Hocking, Cutler, 
Gillett, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Hunt, Kennon, King, Perkins, 
Stilwell, Thompson of Shelby and Vance of Champaign. 

The question then being. Shall the main question be 
now put ? 

Mr. CASE, of Licking demanded the yeas and nays; 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 45, nays 48— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewingf 
Farr, Forbes, Greene of Deliance, Gregg, Plard, Henderson* 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Johnson, Jones, King, 
Kirkwood, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, 
Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Sellers, Smith ot Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, 
Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and Presi¬ 
dent—45. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Case oi Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Curry, Ewart, Flo¬ 
rence, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Haw¬ 
kins, Hitchcock of Geauga, H'orton, Hunter, Larsh, Lawrence, 
Leech, Manon, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, 
Nash, Otis, Peck, Reemelin, Scott of Harrison, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stidger, Swan, Vance 
of Butler, Warren, Williams and Worthington—48. 

So the demand for the previous question was not 
sustained. 

On motion of Mr. CASE, of Licking, the Convention 
took a recess. 


Yeas— Messrs. AndrewsTBm-bee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Chambers, Collin-s, Cook, Curry, Ewart, Florence Graham 
Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock ol 
Geauga, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Manon, Morehead, Morns Mc¬ 
Cloud, Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Vance ot Butler and Worth- 

^^Cl^Lssrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Haid, Hen¬ 
derson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Jones, Knkwood, 
Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, 
.McCormick, Norris, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, IleemeliiijJM- 


2.^ o’clock, p. m. 

The question pending being on agreeing to the first 
amendment, to wit: in section 2, afier the word “com¬ 
panies,” where it occurs the second time, insert the 
words: “not otherwise provided ftr in this constitu¬ 
tion ; ’it wi^as agreed to. 

The question then being on the second amendment, 
to wil: -‘nking out the following section: 

. EC. 3. The General Assembly shall provide by /aw for taxing 
the property, capital, moneys, credits, and eti'ects of all bankers 
and banks now or hereafter existing in this State, so that the 
same shall bear a burthen of taxation equal to that imposed upon 
the same amount of property, capital, moneys, credits and effects 
belonging to individuals. 

And inserting in lieu thereof, the following: 

The General Assembly shall provide by law for taxing all notes 
and bills discounted or purchased, moneys loaned, and all other 
property, effects, or dues, of whatever description, (without de¬ 
duction,) of all banks now existing or hereafter created, so that 
all property employed in banking, shall always bear a burthen ol 
taxation equal to that imposed on the property of individuals. 

Mr. STANTON. Mr. President: I do not intend 
that any gentleman shall vote under a misapprehen¬ 
sion of my position on this question. The amendment 
now under consideration, professes to tax existing banks 
by a rule different from that prescribed in their char¬ 
ters. This is to me an insuperable objection to voting 
for the Report. It has been argued here time and 
again, and multitudes of authorities quoted in its sup¬ 
port, that a charter i.s a contract that cannot be altered 
or repealed. 1 entertain that opinion beyond any 
doubt. I will not surrender this constitutional ques¬ 
tion for any consideration of a greater or less amount of 
tax that may be proposed. With me it is not mainly 
a question whether banks or stock-jobbers shall pay a 
greater or less amount of tax. Tins is to me a matter 
of secondary importance. It is the question of power 
that I stand upon, and 1 am not disposed to surrender. 

I think it due to fairuess therefore to say, that what¬ 
ever amendments I may vote tor, I will not vote for 

















1438 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


the Report whilst it contains this piovision, which I 
regard as unconstitutional. 

The question being on the adoption of the amend¬ 
ment; 

Mr. HORTON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 76, nays 12—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews,Eamet of Montgomery, Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Chambers, 
Chaney, Clark, Coliings, Dorsey, Ew'art, Ewing, Farr, Florence, 
Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of 
Ross,Gregg,Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Henderson, Hitchcockof 
Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, HumphreTille, Hunt, Hunter, 
Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris, McCormick, Nash, 
Norris, Orton, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Riddle, Roll, 
Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Steb- 
bins, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Vance of 
Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury and Presi¬ 
dent—76. 

Nays —Messrs. Bates, Case of Hocking, Case of Licl?ing, Curry, 
Hawkins, Lidey, Mason, McCloud, Otis,Smith of Warren, Stan¬ 
ton and Stidger—12. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. SA.WYER moved that the report be committed 
to a seiect committee of one. 

Mr. SMITH, of Wyandot, moved the previous ques¬ 
tion. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
be now put ?” 

Mr. NASH demanded the yeas and nays, which be¬ 
ing ordered, resulted—yeas 40, nays 54—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, 
Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Jones, King, Lawrence, Lar¬ 
will, Leadbetter, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Townshend, Way, Wil¬ 
son, Woodbury and President—40. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Coliings, Cook, 
Curry, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Horton, Hunt, Hunter, Kirkwmod, Larsh, Lidey, Manon, Mason, 
Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, Peck, Per¬ 
kins, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Stidger, Swan, Taylor, Vance of But¬ 
ler, Warren, Williams and Worthington—54. 

So the demand foi' the previous question was not sus- 
stained. 

The question then being on the motion to commit to 
a select committee of one ; 

Mr. MITCHELL demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 56, nays 40—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Hocking, Case ol Licking, Chambers, Coliings, Cook, 
Curry, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Haw-kins, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Kirkwood, Larsh, Manon, 
Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Otis, 
Peck, Perkins, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Town- 
ehend, Vance of Butler, Warren, WilUams, Woodbury and Wor¬ 
thington—56. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chancy, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, 
Hootman, Jones, King, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ran- 
ney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Way, Wilson and 
President—40. 

So the motion to commit to a select committee of 
one, was agreed to; and Mr, Sawyer appointed said 
committee. 

On motion of Mr. BENNETT, the Convention re¬ 
solved itself into a committee of the Whole, Mr. Har¬ 
lan in the Chair, and after some time spent therein, 
the committee rose, and the Chairman reported that 
the committee had had under consideration report num¬ 
ber two, on the Judicial Department, and had instruct¬ 
ed him to report the same back with one amendment. 

The question ])eing on agreeing the amendment; 
Mr. HAWKINS moved the previous question. 


The question then being, “ Shall the main question 
be now put?” 

Mr. STANTON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 60, nays 25—as fol 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, Bates, 
Blair, Blickensderfer, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, 
Coliings, Cook, Dorsey, Ew-art, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitch¬ 
cock of Geauga, Holmes, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunter, Hunt, 
Lawrence, Leadbetter,Lidey, Loudon, Morehead, Morris, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ran- 
ney, Reemelin, Roll, Sawyer, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stan¬ 
bery, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Way, Woodbury, Worthington and President 
— 60 . 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Bennett, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Cur¬ 
ry, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Horton, Johnson, 
Jones, King, Larsh, Larwill, Manon, Mitchell, McCloud, Scott of 
Auglaize, Smith of Warren, Stanton, Stidger, Swan, Williams 
and Wilson—25. 

So the demand for the previous question was sustain¬ 
ed. 

The question then being on the amendment proposed 
by the committee of the Whole, to wit: Insert the 
w-ord Vinton” after the w-ord “Jackson,” in the sev¬ 
enth section; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on ordering the z-eport to be 
engrossed ; it was agi'eed to. 

On motion, the rules were suspended, and the report 
w-as read a third time. 

The question then being on the passage of the re¬ 
port ; 

Mr. CURRY moved that the report be recommitted 
to the standing committee that reported it. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ Shall the main question 
be now put ?” 

Mr. CURRY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ox’dered, and resulted—yeas 56, nays 36—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Licking, Chambers, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, 
Forbes, Gillett, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunter, 
Lawrence, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mason, Mitchell, Morehead, 
Morris, McCormick, Norris, Otis, Patterson. Peck, Perkins, Quig¬ 
ley, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Sellers, Smith of Wy¬ 
andot, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Townshend, Vance of 
Butler, Way, Woodbury and President—56. 

Nays— Messrs. Barbee, Cahill, Chaney, Coliings, Curry, Flor¬ 
ence, Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Rosa, Hamil¬ 
ton, Harlan, Holmes, Horton, Hunt, Johnson, Jobes, Larsh, Lar¬ 
will, Leech, Manon, McCloud, Nash, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Scott 
of Auglaize, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stidger, Swan, Williams, Wilson and Worthington—36. 

So the demand for the previous question was sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then being on the passage of the Re¬ 
port ; 

Mr. STANTON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 66, nays 23—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Chambers, Chaney 
Clark, Coliings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Forbes’ 
Giliett, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg’ 
Groesbeck, Hard, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Hoot- 
man, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Kirkwood, Lawrence 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Morehead, Morris’ 
McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney’ 
Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Sellers. Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stickney, Stru¬ 
ble, Swilt, Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Way, Williams 
Woodbury and President—66. ^ auums. 

Nays— Messrs. Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Cur¬ 
ry, Gray, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Holmes, Johnson, Jones, 
harsh, Larwill, Manon, Norris, Otis, Patterson, Roll, Scott of 
Auglaize, Stanton, Stidger, Wilson and Worthington—23. 

So the Report v^as passed, and, on motion, was refer¬ 
red to the committee on Revision, Arrangement and 
Eni’ollment. 

Mr. NORRIS submitted the following ; which was 
agreed to: 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to 
insert the following, as a section in the article j^on Corporations 








CONVENTION EEPORTS. 1439 


No right ot way shall be appropriated to the use of any corpo- 
lation until a lull compensatiou theretor be first made in money, 
11 respective ot any benefit or advantage to the owner from any 
improvement proposed by such corporation ; and provided fur- 
ther, the amount ol compensation shall be ascertained by a jury 
of twelve men in a court of record, as shall be prescribed by law. 

Mr. LEECH, from the select committee on the sub¬ 
ject of Priming submitted the following: 

REPORT 

OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SUBJECT OF PRINTING. 

The select committee on the subject of Printing, to which was 
referred the resolutions submitted by Mr. Reemf,lin, in relation 
to translating the new constitution into the German language, 
&c., have had the same under consideration, and now report 
back the resolutions and recommend their adoption, with the fol¬ 
lowing amendment: Fill the blank in the second resolution with 
the words, “ two members.” 

(Signed) R. LEECH, 

C. J. ORTON, 

C, S. HAMILTON. 

The question being on agreeing to the recommenda¬ 
tion of the committee ; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on agi’eeing to the resolu¬ 
tion, as amended, to wit: 

Resolved, That Stephen Molitor and J. B. Stallo be and they are 
hereby appointed translators, for the purpose of translating the 
new constitution into the German language, and that said trans¬ 
lators furnish to each German paper in the State a correct copy 
thereof, and also a fair copy to be deposited with the English 
copy, as directed by law. 

Resolved, That a select committee of two be appointed, whose 
duty it shall be to Compare carefully the translation thus made, 
and the respective copies thereof, and that the select committee 
thus appointed be and the same is hereby authorized to allow to 
the translators such compensation as may be deemed reasonable, 
not to exceed thirty dollars in all, and that such allowance be 


paid out of the fund appropriated to defray the expenses of this 
Convention, on the oi der of the President. 

The resolution was agreed to. and the President ap¬ 
pointed Meisrs. Reemelin and Blickensderfer the 
committee, in accordance with the second resolution. 

Mr. SAWYER, from the select committee to which 
had been committed the report of the committee on 
Finance and Taxation, reported the same back with 
one amendment, to wit: Strike out section two, and 
insert in lieu thereof the following: 


Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas G2, nays 43—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Ewart, Florence, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Hunter, 
Larsh, Mason, ^iorehead, Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, 
Otis, Peck, Perkins, Reemelin, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith 
ot Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Swan, Swift, 
Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams, Wood¬ 
bury and Worthington—52. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Law¬ 
rence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitch¬ 
ell, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Riddle, Roll, Scott 
of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stickney, Stidger, Stru- 
ble, Way, Wilson and President—43. 

So section two was stricken out. 

The question then being on inserting the amend¬ 
ment proposed by the select committee ; 

Mr. SAWYER demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 53, nays 41—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Ewart, Florence, 
Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Hunter, 
Larsh, Law’rence, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Peck, Perkins, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, Scott of 
Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stan¬ 
ton, Swan, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, 
Williams, Woodbury and Worthington—53. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg. Hard, Henderson, Holmes, 
Hootman, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larwill, Leech, Lead- 
better, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Otis, Pat¬ 
terson, Quigley, Ranney, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith 
of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, Way, Wilson 
and President—41. 

So the amendment was agreed 1o. 

The question then being on the passage of the re¬ 
port ; 

Mr. LARWILL demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 55, nays 40—as fol¬ 
lows ; 


Uniform laws shall be passed upon the subject of taxation, em¬ 
bracing all moneys and credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint 
stock companies, or otherwise, and all real and personal proper¬ 
ty, according to its true value in money; provided, that burying 
grounds, public school houses, and houses used exclusively for 
public worship, and property held by the public open to public 
use without any charge therefor, and a limited amount ot per¬ 
sonal property, not exceeding tw'o hundred dollars to any one 
individual, may be exempt from taxation by general law; but 
the value of all property as exempt, shall annually be published 
as may be directed by law, and all such exemptions shall be sub¬ 
ject to modification, alteration or repeal. 

Mr. WOODBURY moved ihe previous question. 

The question then being, shall the main question be 
now put ? 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 55, nays 36—as lol- 


lows; 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Browm of 
Carroll, Chambers, Chaney, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, karr, Flo¬ 
rence, Gillett, Graham, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Hitchcock of 
Geauga, Holt, Hunt, Hunter, Kirkwood, Lidey, Mason, Morehead, 
Morris, McCloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, leek, 1 er- 
kins, Quigley, Reemelin, Riddle, Sawyer, facott of Harnson, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stickney, Swan, Swiii, 
T?ylor, Warren, \Vayj^WilEon, Woodbury, Worthington and 

^""NAYS-Messrs. Ca^Case o'f Licking, Collin-s, Cook^orbes, 
Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg,Harlan Hawkins, 
Henderson, Holmes, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Jones, 
King, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, Leadbetter,^ Loudon Manor., 
Otis’ Rannev, Roll, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smiih ot Highland, 
Smith ot Warren, Stidger, Struble, Towmehend, Vance ot Butler 
and Williamfi—36. 

So the demand for the previous question was sus¬ 


tained. 


The question then being on agreeing to the amend¬ 
ment proposed by the committee ; 

Mr. MANON demanded a division. 

The question then being first on striking out sec 

lion two; 


Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of 
Preble, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Cahill, Case 
of Licking, Chambers, Clark, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, 
Florence, Gillett, Gray, Gregg, Groesbeck, Ilamilton, Hard, Har¬ 
lan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Humphreville, Hunt, 
Hunter, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCor¬ 
mick, Nash, Orton, Peck, Perkins, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, 
Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Wyandot, Swan, Swift, Tay¬ 
lor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams, Woodbury, 
Worthington and President—55. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Bates, Blair, Chaney, Ewing, Forbes, 
Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Henderson, Hootman, Hor¬ 
ton, Jones, Larsh, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, 
Mitchell, McC oud, Otis, Patterson, Quigley, Roll, Scott of Aug- 
1 ize, Sellers, Smith ol Highland, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, 
Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Sti-uble, Way and Wilson 
—40. 

So the report was passed. 

And, on motion, was referred to the committee on 
Revision, Arrangement and Enrollment. 

Mr. VANCE, of Butler, submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to 
amend the proviso in the second section ol the report on Finance 
and Taxation, as to add after the word “worship,” the words 
“contributions of purely public charity.” 

Mr. LIDEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 64, nays 15—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of ktonfgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Farr, 
Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray. Groesbeck, Hamihon, Hard, 
Harlan, Hawkins, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hortor, 
Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, Kirkwood, Leadbetter, Lou¬ 
don, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, l^lcCormick, Nash, 
Norris, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Highland, Smith ol Warren, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stanbery, Stanton, Swan, Townshend, Vance of Butler, War¬ 
ren, Way, Wiliiame, Woodbury, Worthington and President 
—64. 

Nays— Meflsre. Blair, Cahill, Ewing, Forbes, Greene of Defi¬ 
ance, Gregg, Hootman, King, Larwill, Lidey, Orton, Scott of 
‘ Auglaize, Stebbins, Stickney and Stidger—15- 


















1440 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


So the resolution was agreed to. 

On motion of Mr. RANNE\, the Convention took up 
Report No. 2, of the committee on Revision, Arrange¬ 
ment and Enrollment, as follows, to wit: 

ARTICLE VI. 

EDUCATION. 

Sec. 1. The principal of all funds arising from the sale or other 
disposition of lands or other property granted or entrusted to 
this State tor educational and religious purposes, shall forever be 
preserved inviolate and undiminished, and the income arising 
therefrom shall be faithfully applied to the specific objects of the 
original grants or appropriations. 

Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall make such provisions, b}' 
taxation or otherwise, as with the income ari,sing from the school 
trust fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of com¬ 
mon schools throughout the State, but no religious or other sect 
or sects shall ever have any exclusive right to or control of any 
part of the school funds of this State, nor shall the rights of con¬ 
science be in any case interfered with. 

ARTICLE IX. 

MILITIA. 

Sec. 1. All white male citizens, residents of this State, being 
eighteen years of age, and under the age of forty-five years, shall 
be enrolled in the militia, and perform military duty, in such 
manner, not incompatible with the constitution and laws of the 
United States, as may be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 2. Majors general, br-gadiers general, colonels, lieutenant 
colonels, majors, captains and subalterns, shall be elected by the 
persons subject to military duty, in their respective districts. 

Sec. 3. The Governor shall appoint the Adjutant General, 
Quartermaster General, and such other staff officers as may be 
provided for by law. Majors general, brigadiers general, colonels 
or commandants of regiments, battalions or squadrans, shall seve¬ 
rally appoint their staff'; and captains shall appoint their non¬ 
commissioned officers, and musicians. 

Sec. 4. The Governor shall commission all officers of the line 
and staff' ranking as such, and shall have power to call forth the 
militia to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrection, 
and repel invasion. 

Sec. 5. The General Assembly shall provide byelaw, tor the 
protection and safe keeping of the public arms. 

public institutions. 

Sec. 1. Institutions for the benefit of the insane, blind, and 
deaf and dumb, shall always be fostered and supported by the 
State, and be subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by 
the General Assembly. 

Sec. 2. The Directors of the Penitentiary shall ue appointed 
or elected in such manner as the General Assembly may direct, 
and the Trustees of the benevolent and other State institutions, 
now elected by the General Assembly, and of such other State in¬ 
stitutions as may be hereafter created, shall be appointed by the 
Governor, by, and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and 
upon all nominations made by the Governor, the question shall 
be taken by yeas and nays, and entered upon the journals of the 
Senate. 

Sec. 3. The Governor shall have power to fill all vacancies 
that may occur in the offices aforesaid until the next session of 
the General Assembly, and until a successor to his appointee shall 
be confirmed and qualified. 

The committee on Revision recommended that the 
following words, “ nor shall the rghts of conscience be 
in any case interfered with,” be stricken out of section 
two, of the Article on Education. 

The question pending being on the recommendation 
of the committee; 

Mr. WOODBURY moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “shall the main question be 
now pul ?” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the recommendation of 
the committee; 

Mr. REEMELIN demanded the yeas and nays; 
wdiich were ordered, and resulted—yeas 55, nays 24— 
as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Colling.«i, Curry, Ewart, Ewing, Flor¬ 
ence, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross. 
Gregg, Grocsbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins. Hitchcock 
of Geauga, Holt, Horton, Hunt, Kirkw-ood, Larsh, Loudon, Ma¬ 
son, Morehead, McCloud, Nash, Norris, Otis, Peck, Quigley, Rid¬ 
dle, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of Highland,Smith oi War¬ 
ren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stebbius, Stickney, Swan, 
Townshend, Warren and Worthington—55. 

Nays— Messrs, Blair, Clark, Farr, Henderson, Hootman, Hun¬ 
ter, Jones, King, Larwill, Lidey, Mitchell, Morris, McCormick, 
Patterson, Ranney, Recmelin, Roll, Sellers, Stnible, Vance of 
Butler, Way, Williams and Worthington—23. • j 

So the recommendation was agreed to. 

The question then being, “shall the articles on ‘Ed-! 
ucation,’ ‘ Militia’and ‘Public Institutions,’ be sever¬ 
ally ordered to be enrolled,” it was agreed to. 


Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga, moved that report 
No. 1 on the Schedule, with the pending amendments, 
be taken up; which was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the first 
amendment proposed by the committee, to wit: 
Strike out section 3, and insert: “ The first election for 
Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Auditor of State, and 
Attorney General for the State, shall be held on the 
second luesday of October, 1851. The Governor, 
Auditor and Attor ey General in office on the first day 
of September, 1851, shall hold their offices until the 
second Monday of January, 1852, and no longer;” 
which was agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the second 
amendment, to wdt: Strike out 4tli section and insert: 
‘‘The fii’st election for Treasurer and Secretary of 
State shall be held on the second Tuesday in October, 
1852. The Treasurer and Secretary of State in office 
on the fiivst day of September, 1851, shall hold their of¬ 
fices until the second Monday of January, 1853, and 
no longer;” 

Mr. SAWYER. There has been a distinct under¬ 
standing that if any of the officers now in place, go 
out of office before the expiration of the term for which 
they w’ere elected, there should be a provision that all 
should go out. I therefore call upon gentlemen to car¬ 
ry out their pledges. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Wh t pledges ? 

Mr. SAWYER. I understand the insinuations, and 
I tell him, [Mr. Mitchell,] that I disregard them and 
everything coming from that source. I refer simply to 
the understanding that there should be an equality in 
the provisions of the new constitution relative to the 
expiration of the terms of those now holding office. 

Mr. NASH. I thought it was distinctly understood, 
v\ hen the vote was taken, not to have annual sessions 
of the General Assembly for two or three sessions, that 
the Auditor and Treasurer of State were to be elected 
on alternate years. The object of this was solely to 
promote the public interest. It would seem to be very 
necessary to provide that the Auditor and Treasurer 
should not go out of office at the same time. It is all 
wrong so to provide that an entire board of public 
works shall be elected at once, instead of one each 
} ear, and grows out of the desire of some gentlemen to 
make a clean sweep of all the officers at once. If we 
had in view solely the welfare of the State, we should 
be careful how we mingle the political elements of the 
State in that confusion which must be the result of a 
complete change in all the officers of the State at once 
I think the resolution of the gentleman from Auglaize 
ought to prevail, and that it is demanded by the public’ 
mterest, while nothing but an unnatural appetite for of- 
hce can be the reason for opposing it. 

Mr. SCOTT, of Auglaize. It is too late now to agree 
to that resolution, [Mr. Sawyer’s.] 

'j “"fusion here 

tlidt not a word can be heard. 

The PRESIDENT. The Convention will please pre¬ 
serve order. ^ “cpic 

Mr. MITCHELL. In regard to this matter it is ob¬ 
vious that the comnuttee has reported the amendment 
as It IS with the design to make the Auditor and Trea¬ 
surer go out on different years, and that was all they 
had m view so far as I know anythingof their designJ 
So far as the resolution is concerned I hope it will p^s' 
Now for a few of the arguments just delivered by the 
gmitleman from Auglaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] and the ex- 
plamtions that have been made by the Gentleman in 
roganl to pledge* and promise*. I law ale we"!™" 
IhmgB this morauig at tliat gentleman’s desk, and heard 
some singular expressions which excited mv apprelien 
aions no little. But I did not comprehend fheffimpo” 
until the movements conceriiiiig the tax reports took 
place some hour or so since, 

I do not choose now to speak further of what I then 
heard and saw. It is sufficient to know that this after 
noon, at a most critical moment, that gentleman aban 














CONVENTION REPORTS, 


1441 


doned his old party friends on a matter of most vital 
importance. And now I demand to know the reasons 
for this abandonment of his democratic position, on 
the part of the member from Auglaize—how will he 
account for all his tergiversations here of late on this 
and some other subjects ? [Cries of “order!” order!”] 

Sir, I shall endeaver to keep in order. 

Sir, I am very glad to know that that gentleman’s 
disregard for me, and mine for him, is so cordial. I 
have a very good reason, sir, for eschewing all con¬ 
nection with men who thus desert their friends in the 
hour of danger and trial. 

In my school-boy days, I read a fable of two 
friends, about to set out on a journ^ through a dan¬ 
gerous forest, infested by wild and ferocious beasts, 
\yho, apprehending an attack, mutually agreed to as¬ 
sist each other. They had not proceeded far, until 
they discovered a bear in great rage pursuing them. 
One of them—when both were in imminent danger of 
their lives—betook himself to a tree, leaving his com¬ 
panion to be devoured by the enraged beast. 

Just such, sir, is the case now manifested betwen 
the gentleman from Auglaize and the Democrats on 
this floor who have remained true to principle—they 
have traveled together during five months of the ses¬ 
sion of this Convention, and now, at the last hour— 
the hour of our greatest danger and trial—the mem¬ 
ber from Auglaize deserts us and leaves us to the ten¬ 
der mercies of the wild beasts surrounding us on the 
opposite side of this House. The moral of this story 
is familiar to all. It is something like this: That 
when you find a man so lost to a sense of honor and 
duty, as thus to desert his friend in the hour of peril 
and distress, never again trust him—never again have 
any confidential intercourse with him. This, sir, is 
not in the letter of the fable—but it is so near it in 
substance that I hope gentlemen will be able to make 
the application. Now, so far as the gentleman’s disre¬ 
gard of what I may say here or hereafter, is concern¬ 
ed, I have only to say that while this body has life and 
this tongue has utterance, he may rest assured that I 
shall not cease to warn an honest, true hearted, and 
confiding Democracy against the danger of trusting 
such treacherous friends. It has been the cause of 
their sad discomfiture on more occasions than one, and 
while I live, it shall be, as it always has been, my en¬ 
deavor to save them from such fatal results. 

Mr. SAWYER. Agreed, agreed. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved to amend the amendment 
by striking out the words “ and no longerwhich was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on agreeing to the second 
amendment as amended; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the third amendment, 
to wit: 

Insert in section five, line three, after “ 1851,” these 

words: , , . , v „ 

And the official term of said judges and clerks so elected, shall 
commence on the second Monday of February, 1852; 

It was agreed to. 

The question then being on the fourth amendment, 

to wit: . 1 

Strike out of section five, line one, these words: 
“Members of the Board of Public Works;” it was 
agreed to. 

The question then being on the fifth amendment, to 

wit: . 

Add at the end of section seven, these words: 

But neither of said courts shall be continued after the second 
Mnndav of 1853; and no suit shall be commenced in either of 
Scourts after the second Monday of February, 1852 ; 


It was agreed to. 

The question then being on the sixth amendment, to 

Add as section sixteen, the following: 

Until otherwise provided by law, elections for judges andclerks 
shall be held, and the poll books returned, as is provided, for 
Governor, and the abstract therefrom certified to the Secretary 
of State, to be by him opened in the presence of the Governor, 

91 


who shall declare the result and issue commissions to the parties 
e’ected; 

It was agreed to. 

The question then being on the seventh amendment,, 
to wit: 

Insert in section six, line three, after “ Librarian 
“ and all other officers not otherwise provided for in 
this constitution it was agreed to. 

On motion the amendments were ordered to be en¬ 
grossed at the Secretary’s desk. 

The question then being on the passage of the Re¬ 
port ; 

Mr. SCOTT, of Auglaize, moved that the report be 
re-committed to the committee on the “ Schedule,” 
with instructions to report an amendment, “ requiring 
the Treasurer and Secretary of State to be elected in 
the year 1851.” 

Pending which, Mr. WOODBURY moved the previ¬ 
ous question. 

The question then being, “Shall the main question 
be now put? ” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the passage of the re¬ 
port; it was agreed to. 

And on motion, the report was referred to the com¬ 
mittee on Revision, Arrangement and Enrollment. 

Mr. STANBERY submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on Enrollment, be instructed to 
add the following proviso, to the third section of the article on- 
“ Corporations other than corporations for bankingProvided,, 
that in respect to corporations for religious, charitable, or literary 
purposes, or for roads, bridges, (or other public improvements,*) 
such rule of individual liability may be established as the Gener¬ 
al Assembly may seem proper and expedient. 

Mr. LIDEY moved to amend the resolution by stri¬ 
king out the words, “ or other public improvements.” 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the resolution and pen¬ 
ding amendment be indefinitely postponed. 

Mr. STANBERY demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 41, nays 39— 
as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Ewing, Farr, 
Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hender¬ 
son, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, Jones, King, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, Norris, Patterson, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swift, 
Townshend, Way and President—41. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Licking, Chambers, Curry, Cutler, Ewart, Florence, Gil- 
lett, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Hitfchcock of 
Geauga, Horton, Larsh, Mason, Morehead, Morris, McCloud, 
Nash, Otis, Peck, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Swan, Vance of Butler, Wilson, 
Woodbury, and Worthington—^9. 

So the motion to indefinitely postpone was agreed to. 

Mr. STANTON submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the Convention do now take a recess 'until 7 
o’clock this evening. 

On motion of Mr. STANTON, the resolution was laid 
on the table. 

Mr. STICKNEY submitted the following; which 
was agreed to: 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to 
change the time of voting on the constitution from the 3d Friday 
to the 3d Tuesday of June, 1851. 

Mr. SCOTT, of Auglaize submitted the following:'"/ 

Resolved, That the committee on the Revision be instructed to- 
so amend the article on the Schedule, that the State Treasurer 
and Secretary of State shall be elected in October 1851. 

Mr. SCOTT, of Auglaize, moved a call of the Con¬ 
vention ; which was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution ; 

Mr. LIDEY moved that the Convention'adjourn; 
which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the res¬ 
olution ; 

Mr. SCOTT, of Auglaize, demanded the yeas and 
nays, which were ordered and resulted—yeas 60, nays 
19—as follows: 

Yeas— Messra. Barbee, Bamet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, 










1442 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


Blickensderfer, Cahill, Chambers, Chaney, Curry, Florence, j census, or in such other mode as the General Assemblj” may direct, 
Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, shall be divided by the number “ one hundred,” and the quotient 
Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, | shall be the ratio of representation in the House of Representa- 
Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter. Jones, King,! tives for ten years next succeeding such apportionment. 

Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Leadbetter Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, ' Sec. 2. Every county having a population equal to one-half of 
Morris, Norris, Patterson, Peck, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Rid- j said ratio, shall be entitled to one representative; every county 
die. Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Harrison, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of ■ containing said ratio and three-fourths over, shall be entitled to 
Wyandot Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swan, ' two representatives; eveiy county containing three times said 


Way, Williams, Woodbury and Worthington—60. 

Nays —Messrs. Barnett of Preble, Bennett, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Lickin,g Clark, Collings, Green of Ross, Hawkins, Ma- 
non. Mason, Morehead, McCloud, Nash. Otis, Smith of Highland,, 
Smith of Warren, Swift and Townshend—19. 

So the motion was agreed to. 

Mr. HOLT gave notice that on Monday he would J 
move to amend the first standing rule of the Convention i 


ratio, shall be entitled to three representatives, and so on, requi¬ 
ring, after the first two, an entire ratio for each additional repre¬ 
sentative. 

Sec. 3. When any county shall have a fraction above the ratio 
so large that, being multiplied by five, the result will be equal to 
one or more ratios, additional representatives shall be appointed 
for such ratios among the several sessions of the decennial period 
in the following manner: If there be only one ratio, a representa¬ 
tive shall be allotted to the fifth session of the decennial period ; if 


fourth and third sessions respectively ; if three, to the third, sec¬ 
ond and first sessions respectively; if four, to the fourth, thii'd, 
second and first sessions respectively. 

Sec. 4. Any county forming with another county or counties, 
a representative district, during one decennial period, if it shall 
have acquired sufficient population at the next decennial period, 
shall be entitled to a separate representative, if there shall be left 
in the district from which it shall have been separated a popula¬ 
tion sufficient for a representative; but no such change shall be 
made except at the regular decennial period for the apiiortion- 
ment of representatives. 

Sec. -5. If, infixing any subsequent ratio, a county previously 
entitled to a separate representation, shall have less than th=; num¬ 
ber required by the new ratio for a representative, such county 
shall be attached to the county adjoining it, having the least num- 


so that a majority of the Convention would make a' there are two mios? a representative shall be allotted to the 

^ tlnirrl coacinr>a ynaridntiv’/alxr • I'Tfn ♦•Viifi'} oar%. 

quorum. 

Mr. GREENE, of Defiance, submitted the follow- 
ing: 

Resolved, That when the Convention adjourns it adjourn to 
meet at 8 o’clock on Monday morning; which was agreed to. 

Mr GROESBECK submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the President of the Convention, in auditing the 
accounts of the Secretary and the assistant Secretaries, be au- j 
thorized to allow such extra compensation as he may deem just I 
and proper. ! 

Mr. GROESBECK said: I have had no conver.sation; 
with the Secretary or his assistants upon this subject,, 

but I have ascertained that the compensation allowed' ber of inhabitants; and the representation of the district so form 
to the Secretary of this Convention is less than that al-i c‘d shall be determined as herein provided. 

lower! tn Ibft S«mp nffirer of rhp Virolriin Mavvlmid cEC. 6. The ratio for a senator shall forever hereafter be as- 
iowea to tne same omcei ot tne Viij.nna, Mai j Jana certained by dividing the whole population of the State by the 

and Indiana Conventions; and 1 have onered this reso- number thirty-five. 

lution merely as a matter of justice Sec. 7. The State is hereby divided into thirty-three senato 

Mr. LARWILL said he would rather the Convention : districts, as follows : The county of Hamilton shall constitute 

1 1 ^ .V J 1 4.1 ‘i_*T I tne tiret senatorial district: the counties of Butler and Warren 

would fix the compensation, and take the lesponsibili-, ).jjg second; Mont gomeryand Preble the third; Clermont and 

ty upon itself. He would not vote to impose so disa-' Brown the fourth; Greene, Clinton and Fayette the fifth; Ross 
greeable a duty upon the President. I and Highland the sixth; Adams, Pike, Scioto and Jackson the 

The question then being upon agreeing to the reso-; Vinton the eighth; Athens, 

-I , e t - & I Hocking and Frarfield the ninth; Franklin and Pickaway the 

lunon , p,, ^ tenth; Clark, Champaign and Madison the eleventh: M'iami, 

Pending which,on motion of Mr.LARWILL. tneCon- Darke and Shelby the twelfth; Logan, Union, Marion and Hardin 

the thirteenth: Washington and Morgan the fourteenth; Mus 
kingum and Perry the fibeeiith; Delaware and Licking the six 
teenth ; Knox and Morrow the seventeenth; Coshocton and Tus 
carawasthe eighteenth; Guernsey and Monroe the nineteenth 
Belmont and Harrison the twentieth; Carroll and Stark the tweii 
ty-first; Jefferson and Columbiana the twenty-second; Trum 
bull and Mahoning the twentj’-third; Ashtabula, Lake and Geau 


veution adjourned. 


MONDAY. March 10, 1851, 

8 o’clock, a. si. 

The Convention met pur.suani to adjournment, 


n 1^1 n- ga twenty-fourth; Cuyahoga the twenty-fifth; Portage and 

Mr. MANON moved a call of the Convention, wdiich; Summit the twenty-sixth ; Medina and Lorain the twenty-sev- 
v.^as ordered, and the following gentlemen were found I enth ; Wayne and iioimes the twenty-eighth: Ashland and'llich- 
ab«;eiu • ' the twenty-ninth; Huron, Erie, Sandusky and Ottawa the 

■ A 1 ■ ij r. 1 m ■ T) 1 AO thirtieth: Seneca, Crawford and Wyandot the thirtv-first • Mer- 

Messrs. Archbold. Barbee Blair, Brown of Athens,. cer, Auglaize, Alien, Vanwert, Paulding. Defiance aid Williams 
Case of Hocking, Curry, Cutler, Dorsey, Ewing, Green! the thirty-second; and Hancock, Wood, Lucas, Fulton, Henry 
of Ross, Henderson, Hitchcock of Cuyahoga, Holmes. i aiid Putnam the tln-ty-third. For the first decennial period after 
Holt, Hunter, Johnson, Keunoii, Leadbetter, ^'lason, | {-If 

McCormick, Nash, Patterson, Perkins, Riddle, Roll,; tied to three senators. ut enu 

Sellers, Stanbery, Stebbins, Stilwell, Struble, Swift, j Sec. 6. The same rules shall be applied in apportioning the 
Thompson of Shelby. Thompson of Stark and Vance i ^'actions of senatorial distiicts, and in annexing districts which 
nf ChjTmnfliVn * may hereafter havelessthau three-fourths of a senatorial ratio, as 

oi^nampaign. : are applied to representative districts. 

On motion of Mr. BENNEll, all lurtlier proceed-, Sec. 9. Any county forming part of a senatorial district, hav¬ 
ings under the call were dispensed with. ! ing acquired a population equal to a full senatorial ratio, shall be 

Messrs. Larsh and Stanton asked and obtained j at any regular decennial ap- 

leave to change their votes on the amendment submit-; lS°wlfic?it'shVbe^Sem district 

ted by Mr. Sawyer, from a select commiltee, to which ' Sec. 10. For the first ten years after the year one thousand 
was committed the report of the commiltee on Finance j Qight hundred and fifty-one, the apportionment of representatives 
and Taxation, and their names being severallywalled, provided in the schedule, and no change shall ever be 

m the principles of representation as herein established, or ' 

ine> \otea iidj. • j , - i the senatorial districts, except as above provided. All territo- 

Mr. LARSH asked aud obtained leave to change Ins ry belonging to a county at the time of any apportionment shall, 
vote on the motion to reconsider the vote by which the! I’epresentatiou and suffrage, remain an integral 

words “ for an entire term” were inserted in section! thereof during the decennial period. 

thirteen of the article on the Jiidicial Department, and j any two of them, sS,Tlet?t sS'mmffhf pHoAo the oftobS' 
his name being called, he voted “ yea. ; election in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, 

Mr. EWART asked and obtained leave to change his i ^t each decennial period thereafter, ascertain and determine 

vole outlie same subject, aud his name beiug called, 11,® according to the decennial census, the 

\ ^ 1 n ^ ^ ot Representatives and Senators each county or district 

Be \oteci nay. , ,, . ta i entitled to elect, and lor what years wdthin the next en- 

Mr. R.YNNEY, from tne standing committee on Re-| suing ten years, and the Governor shall cause the same to be pub- 

ision, Arrangement and Enrollment, reported back ; hshed in such manner as shall be directed by law. 


Vision 

the article on Apportionment, as follows, to wit 

APPOBTIOXMENT. 

The apportionment of this State for members of the 


Sec. 1. 


JUDICIAL APPOBTIONWEXT. 

Sec. 12. For judicial purposes, the State shall be apportioned 
a.s follows: 

ihall be mad, ewy rear, after .he 
thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, m the following manner: „ . nr senarate sitHnn-a nf the anfnp ^ 

The whole population of the State, as ascertained by the federal | , The’eount^s of Butlef, -Preble and Dark' shauVonTtiturth 













CONVENTION REPOETS. 


and Marion, the first subdivifion Ale^^^^^^^^ 

pssis^lgs 

iliiltpsS'Sa-: 

trict. ^ ^ together shall form such dis- 

t), Clermont, Brown and Adams shall cons'-itute ' 

^^gfilland, Ross and Fayette the second- 
and P ckaway, Franklin and Madison the thirdsubdiSon^he 
fifth district and together shall form such district 

Looking, Knox and Delaware shall constitute 
\v! on ; Morrow, Richland and Ashland the second • 

Coshocton the third subdivision of the 
sixth district, and together form such district. 

th J fi^rs? sShdfvfinf Hocking shall constitute 

tne nrst subdivision; Jackson, Vmton, Pike, Scioto and Taw. 

theThi>d and Washington 

form 8ufh j£?S°“ seventh district, and together s^hall 

firJt^uS?Sn°^rMorgan shall constitute the 
find iSf, S’ ®.oo^“sey Belmont and Monroe the second; 
the aod Tuscarawas the third subdivision of 

arid together shall form such district. 

Columbiana shall consti 
ennd^^ fijst Subdivision; Trumbull, Portage and Mahoningthe se- 
f^^.Hfauga, Lake and Ashtabula the third subdivfsion of 
the ninth dish’ict, and together shall form such district. 

1 ® General Assembly shall attach any new coun- 

inn. i to districts. Or subdivis¬ 

ions thereof, as shall be most convenient. 


144.3 


SCHEDULE. 

«. this State in force on the first day of Sep¬ 

tember, 1851, not inconsistent with this constitution, shall contin- 
ue in force until amended or repealed. 

Sec. 2. The first election for members of the General Assem- 
Dly under this constitution shall be held on the second Tuesday 
of October, 1851. •' 

Sec. 3. The first election for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, 
Auditor, Treasurer and Secretary of State, andxittorney General, 
shall be held on the second Tuesday of October, 1851. The per¬ 
sons holding said offices on the first day of September, 1851, snail 
continue therein until the second Monday of January, 1852. 

Sec. 4. The first election for judges of the supreme court, 
courts of common pleas and probate courts, and clerks of the 
court of common pleas shall be held on the second Tuesday of 
October, 1851: and the official term of said judges and clerks so 
elected, shall commence on the second Monday of February, 1852. 
Judges and clerks of the courts of common pleas, and supreme 
court, in office on the first day of September, 1851, shall contin¬ 
ue in office, with their present powers and duties, until the sec¬ 
ond Monday of February, 1852. No suit or proceeding pending 
in any of the courts of this State, shall be afi'ected by the adop¬ 
tion of this constitution. 

Sec. 5. The Register and Receiver of the Land Office, Direc¬ 
tors of the Penitentiary, Directors of the Benevolent Institntions 
of the State, the State Librarian, and all other officers not other¬ 
wise provided for in this constitution, in office on the first day of 
September, 1851, shall continue in office until their terms expire 
respectively, unless the General Assembly shall otherwise pro¬ 
vide. 

Sec. 6. The superior and commercial courts of Cincinnati, 
and the superior court of Cleveland, shall remain until otherwise 
provided by law, with their present powers and jurisdiction ; and 
the judges and clerks of said courts in office on the first day of 
September, 1851, shall continue in office until the expiration of 
their terms of office respectively, or until otherwise provided by 
law; but neither of said courts shallcontinueafter the second Mon¬ 
day of February, 1853, and no suit shall be commenced in said 
two first mentioned courts after the second Monday of February, 
18.52, nor in said last mentioned court after the second Monday in 
August, 1852, and all the business in either of said courts, not 
disposed of within the time limited for their continuance as afore¬ 
said, shall be transferred to the court of common pleas. 

Sec. 7. All county and township officers and justices of the 
peace in office on the first day of September, 1851, shall continue 
in office until their terms expire respectively. 

Sec. 8. Vacancies in office occurring after the first day of Sep¬ 
tember, 1851, shall be filled, as is now prescribed by law, and un¬ 
til officers are e elcted or appointed, and qualified under this con- 


"» "'-8eha“/Kan 

Sec. 13. Thesaid courts of common pleas shfliniofLao 
of the present courts of common pleas in the sev^al . 
except as to probate jurisdiction aL all suS proslm; 
ceedmgs, records and judgments pending m’ Ef S 
mentioned courts, except as aforesaid, shfll be ?i^nffen-ed ? In 
courts of common pleas created by this constitution 
ed m a, thourt the «mc had bo/n therch^iSaCted 
HEC. 14. The probate courts provided fnr in 
as to all matters within the iurisdiction r-nnfi^ constitution, 
courts, shall be the successors ffi the several coumk? 
ent courts of comim.u pleas; and the record.^ files am] 
business and proceedings appertaining to said’ jurisdictinn^^u^ll 
be transferred to said courts of probate and hp thpn shall 
in according to law. ’ ^ then proceeded 

Sec. 15. Until otherwise provided by law elpct-innc ■ j 
es and clerks shall be held, and the iioll books lemriS^ 
provided for Governor; and the abstracts therefrom ce^HfipH f 
the Secretary of State, shall be bv him opened in tKesenS If 

S'th^on; commissions 

rial, RepresentatiVeror Judkiaf dlS^^ Ae^riturns 

county having the largest population® 

Sec.1i. The foregoing constitution shall be submiH-ori «■ 
vote of the electors of the State at an election to bp^S f 
third Tuesday in June, 1851, in the several ^ ^ 

this State, lie 

follows : Those in favor of the constitution, “ New 


tioii. Yes, ” and those against the ®coSuuion, ‘‘^Ne^SSsS’ 
tion. No The polls at said election shall be open bet^veen 
hours of eight and ten o’clock, A. M., and closed a? a.v ^ 

P. M.: and the said election shall be conducted, lud the letirna 
* certihed to the Secretary of State as pro 

videdby law for annual elections of State and counS’oKrs' 
^\l hm twenty days after such an election the Secreta^ of «tate 
shall open the returns thereof in the presence of th^ rr,.i, 
and if it shall appoar that a majority oV o® a^S 

election are m favor of the constitution, the Governor shall is«ue 
his proclamation stating that fact, and said constitution 6hai^be 
the constitution of the State of Ohio,- aud not otherwi=e ^ 
SEC. 18 At the time when the votes of the elector shall be 
aken for the adoption or rejection of this constitution^^ add® 
tional section, in the words following, to wit: “No license to 
traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be granted ffi fhS 
.-tatc, but the General Assembly may bylaw provide against evils 
arising therefrom,; shall be separately subniitted to tHSctorl 
for adoption or rejection, in form following, to wit; A separate 
bal ot may be guven by every elector, and deposited in a selUllt 

shall be written, or printed, or partly written and partly primed 
the words, “ License to sell intoxicating liquors-vL; "iSd upon 
the ballots gnen against said amendment, in like manner ^he 
words, License to sellintoxieatiugliquors—No.” If at the’said 
decision, a majority of all the votes |iven for and against sSd 
amendment shall contain the ^vords, “License to sefl ntoxS 
ting hquors-No,’’then the said amendment shall be a separate 
section of article fifteen of the constitution separate 

Sec. 19 


The apportionment of the House of Representatives 
asMllws-^ decennial period under this constitution, shall bl 


stitution. 

Sec. 9. This constitution shall take effect on the first day of 


September, 1851. 

Sec. 10. All officers shall continue in office until their succes¬ 


sors shall be chosen and qualified. 

Sec. 11. Suits pending in the supreme court in bank shall be 
transferred to the supreme court provided for in this constitution, 
and be proceeded in according to law. 

Sec. 12. The district courts shall, in their respective counties, 
be the successors of the present supreme court, and all suits, pros¬ 
ecutions, judgments, records and proceedings pending and re- 


The counties of Adams, Allen, -4thens, Auglaize Carroll ChAm 
pa.fn, Clark, Clinlon, Crawford, Uarko Dolawa^rSe 4«S' 
Gallia Geauga, Greene, Hancock, Harrison, Hocking, hXS’ 
Lake, Law-rence Logan Madison, Marion, Meigs, Morrow PeS 
ry, Pickaway, Pike, Preble, Sandusky, Scioto, Shelby and Unioi 

of alSe';Sa‘’l'pS‘;' taLah.es.&“.; 

The counties of Franklin, Licking, Montgomery and Stark 
Jail each be entitled to two Representativei in each session of 
the decennial period. oaiuu oi 

The counties of Ashland, Coshocton, Highland, Huron, Lorain 
Mahoning, Medina Miami Portage, Seneca, Summit and VVa?! 
rp. shall severely be entitled to one Representative in each seL 
Snnid pmi^^^^^ Representative in the fifth session of & 

The countiM of -Ashtabula, Brown, Butler, Clermont,-Fairfield 
Gumnsey.Jefferson Knox Monroe, Morgan, Richland, Trnm^ 
bull,lMscarawas and Washington, shall severally be entitlMT« 
one Representative in each session, and two additional Sp? 
sentatives-one in the third and one in the fourth session oFtbe 
decennial period. * 

The cou^ntiesof Belmont, Columbiana, Ross and Wayne shall 
severally be entiged to one Representative in each sesSu, aS 
three additional Representatives—one in the first, one in tho spp 
ond, and one in the third session of the decennial period 

The county of Muskingum shall be entitled to two ReDresentA 
Uvesineach jssion, and one additional Representative irtlS 
fifth session of the decennial period, “ 

The county of Cuyahoga shall be entitled to two Represents- 
ires in ea J session, and two additional Representatives —odp 

D thfi third and nnp in t>ip frmi-tL 


in ffie third and one in Je fourj session of thrdecennrpeTk.d® 
The county of Hamilton shall be entitled to seven RepreSta- 
Uves in each session, and four additional Representatives--^ 
the first, one in the second, one in the third, and one in thefoSth 
session of the decennial period. »ut-*uurtn 





















1444 CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The following counties, until they shall have acquired a suffi¬ 
cient population to entitle them to elect, separately, under the 
fourth section of the eleventh article, shall form districts in man¬ 
ner following, to wit: The counties of Jackson and Vinton one 
district; the counties of Lucas and Fulton one district; tr,ecoun- 
ties of Wyandot and Hardin one district; the counties of Mercer 
and Van Wert one district; the counties of Paulding, Defiance 
and Williams one district; the counties of Putnam and Henry 
one district; and the counties of Wood and Ottawa one district: 
each of which districts shall be entitled to one Representative in 
every session of the decennial period. 

The question then being, “ Shall the article be now 
enrolled?” it was agreed to. 

The Convention then took up the article on Corpora¬ 
tions other than Corporations for Banking, as reported 
back by the committee on Revision, Arrangement and 
Enrollment. 

Mr. REEMELIN moved that the article be recom¬ 
mitted to the committee on Revision, &c., with instruc¬ 
tions to strike out of the title tin; words, “other than 
corporations for banking.” 

Mr. MASON. I am opposed. Mr. President, to stri¬ 
king out that which has accompanied this bill from the 
beginning, and which forms a part of it, giving direc¬ 
tion and character to the whole. This article has al¬ 
ways been acted upon and dealt with as relating to 
corporations other than banking, and the proposition 
now is, in elfect, to extend its provisions to the banks, 
and to give it a different character and operation from 
that which it has hitherto borne. We have-already 
other provisions regarding banks and their mode of 
taxation. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The only inquiry to be made is, 
whether the title of the article corresponds with its 
promises. If the article does not include banks, it 
ought not to be made to do so by a change of title. 

On which motion, Mr. CHAMBERS demanded the 
yeas and nays, which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 
57, nay 31—as follows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Cha¬ 
ney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Forbes, Farr, Gray, Greene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hootman, 
Humphreville, Hunt, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, McCormick, 
Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, llanney, Reemelin, 
Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stanton, 
Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Swift, Townshcnd, Vance of 
Butler, Warren, Way, Worthington and President—57. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, Collings, 
Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of Rosa, Hamilton, Henderson, 
Holmes, Hunter, Johnson, Jones, Mason, Morris, McCloud, Otis, 
Peck, Peck, Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Stanhery, Williams and Woodbury—31. 

So the motion ti> recommit, with instructions, pre¬ 
vailed 

Mr. McCORMlCK submitted the following: 

Jtesohed, That the committee on Revision, &c., be instructed 
to transfer the section on hanking to the Article on Corporations.’ 

On the adoption ot the resolution, 

Mr. HOLMES demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 44, nays 35 —as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Hawkins, Holt, 
Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lawrence, 
Larwill, Leech, Leadl otter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitchell, 
McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Ranney, Pwecmelin, 
Scott of Auglaize, i^ellers, ^mith of W’yandot, Stebbins, Stick¬ 
ney, Struble, Townshcnd, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way and 
Woodbury—44. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett of Pre¬ 
ble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Chambers, Collings, 
Florence, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Hamilton, Harlan, Holmes, Hun¬ 
ter, Jones, Larsh, Mason. Morris, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Perkins, 
Riddle, Roll, Scott of Harrison, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
Warren, Stanhery, Stanton, Swift, Williams and Worthington—35. 

So the resolution wa.s adopted, 

Mr. MASON subuiitted tlie following: 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to 
strike out the fifth section of the report on Corporations other 
than Banking. 

Mr. MASON. I desire to make a few remarks, in 
regard to the manner in which this amendment was in¬ 
troduced and carried through this body. 

Mr. HUMPHREVILLE. I rise to a question of or¬ 


der. This amendment was introduced and adopted by 
a deliberate vote, in the identical form in which it now 
stands. I submit if jt is in order to move now to strike 
it out. 

The PRESIDENT. Under the rules, it is not exact¬ 
ly clear whether strictly speaking it may be done or 
not. The bill has been taken up, and has been recom¬ 
mitted, and it would seem that as long as the power to 
recommit remains, the pow'er to instruct exists. The 
question is now on the instructions offered by the gen¬ 
tleman from Clark, [Mr. Mason.] 

Mr. MASON. The record will show with what de¬ 
liberation the amendment was passed, and by how 
large a vote. At the time it was introduced the arti¬ 
cle had been engrossed as a part of the constitution. 
The effect of the amendment is to exclude companies 
from making a deposit of the money, in the case where 
the right of way is sought by a company, and refused 
by the proprie'or of the laud, and fixes it so that how¬ 
ever lengthy the litigation, and however strenuous the 
resistance, the money must actually be forced upon 
the land-owner before his property can be made use 
of or occupied. It takes away also the provision that 
these questions shall be submitted to the adjudication 
of a court of record. This subject has engaged the at¬ 
tention of this body for three or four weeks in quarrel¬ 
ling and disputation before it was settled to the satis¬ 
faction of this body. It was at length so adjusted, and 
the report passed through all the processes preparato¬ 
ry to its final passage—it was engrossed and made a 
part of the constitution on Saturday evening, when 
this amendment was sprung upon the Convention. I 
say that it is repugnant to the other provisions of the 
constitution. The provision providing for the taking 
of private property for the public use, allows a deposit 
of the money, and an assessment of the damages in a 
court of record. This does not. There can be no uni¬ 
formity in the practice under them. And I say that it 
is a fraud upon the deliberations of this body, in thus 
by springing an amendment at such a time, changing 
those provisions that have been deliberately settled af¬ 
ter weeks of debate. 

Mr. RANNEY. The gentleman from Clark, [Mr. 
Mason,] is mistaken as to the repugnancy in the two 
sections. The first regulates the taking of private pro¬ 
perty for the public use, but a different provision was 
thought to be necessary where a mere private corpor- 
lion takes the property of the citizen, and converts it 
to its own use. This section refers exclusively to the 
taking of property by a mere private corporation. 
When the gentleman from Clark talks about this 
amendment being sprung upon the Convention, and 
being a fraud upon this body, he should remember by 
whom this amendment was advocated, and who voted 
for it. It was voted for by learned and venerable col¬ 
league from Geauga, [Mr. Hitchcock,] who said that 
he admitted that the property must be paid for before 
it was taken, but he wished the legislative power over 
corporations to be recognized, and he wanted to guard 
the interest of the citizen whose property had been ta¬ 
ken until it was paid for. Such a course is not mere¬ 
ly just, but it is politic. 

Mr. STANBERY. The gentleman from Trumbull 
makes a distinction between private property taken by 
the State for its use, and private property taken by a 
corporation for a work of improvement, as timber for a 
bridge or land for a Railroad. 

Mr. RANNEY. Judge Hitchcock makes such a dis¬ 
tinction. 

Mr. STANBERY. There is no such distinction 
Whethei the property is taken for the public use by the 
State or for public use by a corporation, there is no dif¬ 
ference. Why this provision that the money must not 
only be paid, but first paid? Suppose the line of the 
road passes through the lands of a non-resident, or a 
minor, must you stop a great public work until the one 
can be found or the other come of age? 

Mr. RANNEY. That’s all a fudge. 









CO ' MENTION REPORTS. 


1445 


Mr. STANBERY. All a fudge ! Then why did you 
change it? Why not allow the money to be deposfte 

Gained? amount is^ropld^'^ascS 

Mr. NORRIS. I should say nothing but for the abu- 
siye manner in which the committee has been treated 
by the gentleman from Clark. Isay th^kHTwIng 
what I say, that a charge of fraud and chicanery, under 
such circumstances, could haye come from no one up 
on this floor but the gentleman from Clark, [Mr. Ma- 

opinion of every other mem- 

gentlem^a™^ except that silver-mouthed 

Mr NORRIS r 

♦ 1 , wb «o explanations. I know 

that the gentleman from Clark never speaks but in the 
heart. I introduced the amendment my- 
selt. It was the embodiment of the original fifth sec¬ 
tion ot the report of the committee on Corporations. 
1 am not going now to advocate the propriety of the 
measure, which in itself is honest and proper, and have 
only to say to gentlemen of this body that if they 
want any better evidence of its honesty they may find 
It in the fact that it is opposed by the gentleman from 
Clark. [Cries of Order. Order.] It is a practicable 
and an important provision and I believe the honest 
portion of the Convention will adopt it. [Cries of Or¬ 
der. ] 

Mr. STANBERY. I rise to a question of order. 

Mr. NORRIS. I have nothing, (order, order.) I 
nave said all I intended. 

Mr. MASON. Mr. President— 

Cries of order. 

Mr. MASON. Mr. 
a word in explanation 
fusion.) 

The PRESIDENT. 

make an explanation ? [Cries of leave, 
leave—proceed, order, order.] 

Mr. MASON. The gentleman from Clermont was 
mistaken if he supposed that I intended to charge 
fraud upon him or any other member of this bodj^. I 
said the proposition was a fraud in its effect. It was 
introduced after the article was in fact disposed of, late 
on Saturday evening, just as business was being wound 
up. As to the fiery arrows which the gentleman, 
[Mr. Norris,] supposes he lias sped at me, I will only 
remark that they spent their force before reaching 
their object, and have fallen harmless at my feet. 

The question being on the adoption of Mr. Mason’s 
resolution; 

Mr. WOODBURY demanded the previous question. 
The question then being, “shall the main question 
be now put?” 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted, yeas 57, nays 27—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Barbee, Bennett, Blair, Blickensdeiier, Brown 
of Carroll, Cabill, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Ewing, 
Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, 
Hawkins, Henderson, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, 
Hunt, Hunter, King, Larwill, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Ma¬ 
son, Morris, ktcCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, 
Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins Stickney, Struble, 
Swift, Townsbend, Vance of Butler, Way, Wilson, Woodbury 
and President—57. 

Nays —Messrs. Baraet of Montgomery, Barnett of Preble, 
Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Collings, Cook, Curry, Flor¬ 
ence, Gray, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Harlan, Horton. John¬ 
son, Jones, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Manon, Mitchell, McCloud, 
Otis, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Staubery, Swan, and 
Worthington—27. 

So the demand for the previous question was sus¬ 
tained. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution; 

Mr. LIDBY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas37, nays 49—as fol¬ 
lows : . . 


President. I desire leave to say 
. (Cries of order, and great con- 

Has the gentleman leave to 
leave, not 


'iEAS—Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, 
Barnett of Preble, Bennett, Blickeusderfer, Brown of Caz-roll, 
i-ase ot Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, 
curix Florence, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, Hamilton, Har- 
ian, .Hawkins, Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Larsh, Manon, Mason, 
Morris, McCloud, Otis, Perkins, Smith of Highland, Smith of 
ton^^s"’ Swan. VVarren, Williams and Worthing- 

Nays Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Dorsey, Farr, 
r orbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Holmes, 
Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Lawrence, 
Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Mitchell, McCor¬ 
mick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley. Ranney, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Roll, Sawy^er, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, 
w-tebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Vance 
of Butler, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and President—49. 

So the resolution was disagreed to. 

Mr. LAWRENCE submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the committee of Revision be instructed so to 
change sec.—, of the report on Miscellaneous subjects, thatit shall 
require a majority of all the voters voting at such election, to ap¬ 
prove of the law incorporating banking institutions, before the 
same shall go into eflect. 

Mr. W OODBURY moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “ shall the main question 
be now put?” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the res¬ 
olution : 

Mr. LARWILL demanded the yeas and nays, which 
vvere ordered, and resulted—yeas 50, nays 39—as fol¬ 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Collings, Farr, 
Forbes, GUlett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg. Groesbeck, Hender¬ 
son, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, King, 
Kirkwood, Law'rence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, 
Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sel¬ 
lers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Tay¬ 
lor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Wilson, Woodbury and Presi¬ 
dent—50. 

Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickeusderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Cook, Curry, Dor¬ 
sey, Florence, Graham, Gray, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, 
Horton, Hunter, Johnson, Larsh, Manon, Mason, Morris, McCloud, 
Otis, Peck, Perkins, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Stan- 
bery, Stanton, Warren, Williams and VVorthington—39. 

So the resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, submitted tlie following: 
Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to so 
modify the 5th section of the report of the committee on Corpo¬ 
rations, other than Banking, as to make the rule of compensa¬ 
tion therein provided, correspond with that established in the 
last p<art of section 20th, of the Bill of Rights, except as to trial by 
a jury in a court of Record. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking. If we are to leave the pro¬ 
vision as it stands, I should.Jook upon it as saying that 
there shall be no more railroads cojjstrucled in the 
State. Its eflect will be to force every railroad to 
cease its operations at the instance (if an obstinate prop- . 
erty holder, and to throw out at the same time an in¬ 
ducement to interested and obstinate men, to interpose 
obstacles for the very purpose of obtaining large sums 
of money. If the money is safely deposited and se¬ 
cured to be paid at the moment tlie amount is ascer¬ 
tained, that ought to be suflicient to sai.isty the demands 
of justice in the premises. There is a ease in my own 
county where the proprietor of land has taken upon 
himself to go into litigation for tlu' juice of property 
taken for the line of a railroad. The case has been 
tried some three times already, and \< ars may elapse 
before it is finally settled: neveitlieiess the road is 
made and cars are running upon ii. Under this jiro- 
vision, the work would have been .flopped, and the 
operations of the company would be awaiting the ter¬ 
mination of the suit. 

Mr. LARWILL. I agree with the gentleman from 
Licking, [Mr. Case,] upon this suhj> ci. If provisions 
are made for the deposit of the mnnev it seems to me 
that all has been done that justice requires. Immense 
public injury and private loss may ai ise from the stop¬ 
page of a great line of improvement, and that, too, 
merely to satisfy the caprice or perhtips the malice of 
a single individual. It would seem if the proper pro¬ 
visions are made for the deposit ol the money, no one 
will have a right to complain. 



















1446 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


The question being on the adoption of the resolution 
of Mr. Oase, of Licking; 

Mr. JONES demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and I’esulted—yeas 49, nays 38—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderler, Brown of Carroll, 
Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, Chambers, Collings, Cook, 
Curry, Dorsey, Ewing, Florence, Gillett, Graharn, Gray, Green of 
IlosSiGroesbeck, Hamilton, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Horton, Hun¬ 
ter, Johnson,Kirkwood, Laish, Larwill,Manon, Mason, Morris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormick, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Smith of Highland, Smith 
of Warren, Stanbery, Swan, Vance of Butler, Warren, Williams, 
Woodbury and W^orthington—49. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair,Cahill, Chaney, Clark, Farr, Forbes, Greene 
of Defiance, Gregg, Henderson, Hohnes, Holt, flootman, Humph- 
reville. Hunt, Jones, King, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 
Mitchell, Norris, Orton, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, 
Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney 
Struble, Swift, Townshend, Wilson and President—38. 

So the resolution wa.s agreed to. 

Mr. RANNEY submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to 
strike out the whole of section five, on corporations. 

Mr. RANNEY moved the previous question. 

The question then being: Shall the main question 
be now put? it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the res¬ 
olution ; 

Mr. RIDDLE demanded the yeas and nays; which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 30, nays 59—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs, Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Biickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Chambers, Collings, Curry, Gillett, Graham, Gray, Green of Ross, 
Hamilton, Horton, Hunter, Larsh, Mason, Morris, McCloud, Otis, 
Smith of Highland, c-mith of Warren, Stanbery, Stanton, Swan, 
Williams and Worthington—30. 

Nays —Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Hocking, Case of Licking, 
Chaney, Clark, Cook, Dorsey, Ewing, Farr, Forbes, Greene of 
Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Holmes, Holt, Hoolman, Humphreville, Hunt, Jones, King, Kirk¬ 
wood, Larwiil, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mitch¬ 
ell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ran¬ 
ney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, 
Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Town¬ 
shend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Wilson, Woodbury and 
President—59. 

So the resolution was rejected. 

Mr. ROLL submitted the fodowhig : 

Resolved, That James Pollock, lamp-lighter, iVc., to the Con¬ 
vention, be allowed the sum of one dollar and fifty cents per day 
for his services during the session of the Convention, in the city 
of Cincinnati. 

Mr. MANON demanded tiie yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 45, nays 37—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews. Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Ben- 
. nett, Blair, Brown of Carroll, Curry, Dorsey, Farr, Florence, 
Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Henderson, Holmes, Horton, Hunt, 
Johnson, Jones, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Lidey, Lou¬ 
don, Mason, Mitchell, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, 
Quigley, Riddle, Rell, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, Stickney, Taylor, Williams, 
Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington and President—45. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Cahill, Chambers, 
Chaney, Cook, Collings, Ewart, Ewing, Forbes, Gray, Greene 
of Defiance, Gregg. Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Hootman, Humph¬ 
reville, Hunter, King, Larwill, Manon, Morris, McCloud Per¬ 
kins, Reemelin, Seilers, Smith of Wyimdot, Stanton, Stebbins, 
Struble, Swift, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren and Way 
—36. 

So the resoluiiuii wa.s agreed to. 

Mr. RAinNEY, from the standing committee on Re¬ 
vision, reported back the article on Corporations, 
amended in accnulunce with the instructions given by 
the Convention, as follows : 

ARTICLE XIII. 

COKPOBATIONS. 

Sec. 1. The General Assembly shall pass no special act con¬ 
ferring corporate powers. 

Sec. 2. Corporations may be formed under general laws, but 
all such laws may, from time to lime, be altered or repealed. 

Sec. 3. Dues from corporations shall be secured oy such in¬ 
dividual liability ol the stockholders, and other means, as may 
be prescribed by law, but, in all cases, each stockholder shall be 
liable, over and above the stock by him or her owned, and any 
amount unpaid thereon, to a further sum, at least equal in amount 
to such stock. 


Sec. 4. The property of corporations now existing, or here- 
after created, shall forever be subject to taxation the same as the 
property of individuals. , -u i- 

Sec. 5 No right ol way shall be appropriated to the use ot 
any corporations until full compensation therefor be first made 
in money, or first secured by a deposit of money, to the owner, 
irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by 
such corporation, which compensation shall be ascertained by a 
jury of twelve men, in a court of record, as shall be prescribed s 

by law. ., , , 

Sec. 6. The General Assembly shall provide for.4lie organiza¬ 
tion of cities and incorporated villages by general laws, and re¬ 
strict their power of taxation, assessment, borrowing money, 
contracting debts and loaning their credits, so as to prevent the 
abuse of that power. 

Sec. 7. No act of the General Assembly, authorizing associa¬ 
tions with banking powers, shall take efiect until it shall be sub¬ 
mitted to the people, at the general election next succeeding the 
passage thereof, and be approved by a majority of ail the elec¬ 
tors voting at such election. 1 

The question then being, Shall the article be now ! 
enrolled ? ” | 

It was agreed to. 

The Convention then took up the report of the com¬ 
mittee on Finance and Taxation, as reported back by 
the committee on Revision, &c., as follows, to wit: 

ARTICLE XII. 

FINANCE AND TAXATION. 

Sec. 1. The levying of taxes by the poll is grievous and op- 1 
pressive ; therefore, the General Assembly shall never levy a poll 
tax for county or State purposes. 

Sec. 2. Laws shall be passed, taxing, by a uniform rule, all - 
moneys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks, joint stock compa¬ 
nies or otherwise; and also all real and personal property, ac- i 
cording to its true value in money; but burying grounds, public 
school nouses, houses used exclusively for public worship, insti¬ 
tutions of piety, public charity, public property used exclusively 
for any public purpose, and personal property to an ^ount not ; 
exceeding in value two hundred dollars for each individual, may, 
by general laws, be exempted from taxation; but all such laws 
shall be subject to alteration or repeal, and the value of all prop¬ 
erty so exempted shall, from time to time, be ascertained andpuo- 
lished as may be directed by law. 

Sec. 3. The General Assembly shall provide, by law, for tax¬ 
ing the notes and bills discounted or purchased, moneys loaned, 
and all other property, eftects or dues, of every description, 
(without deduction,) of all banks now existing or hereafter cre¬ 
ated, and of all bankers ; so that all property employed in bank¬ 
ing shall always bear a burden of taxation equal to that impo- 
' sed on the property of individuals. 

Sec. 4. The General Assembly shall provide lor raising reve¬ 
nue sufficient to defray the expenses of the State for each year, 
and also a sufficient sum to pay the interest on.the State debt. 

Sec. 5. No tax shall be levied, except in pursuance of law; 
and every law imposing a tax shall state distinctly the object of 
the same, to which only it shall be applied. 

Sec. 6, The State shall never contract any debt for purposes 
of internal improvements. 

The committee on Revision, &c., recommended that 
the words “or property,” be inserted after the words 
“public property,” in section 2, of the report. 

Rending which; 

Mr. RANNEY moved to amend section 2, by stri¬ 
king out the words “ or property open to public use. , 
and without charge therefor,” and inserting in lieu 
thereof, the words, “ used exclusively for any public 
purpose.” 

Mr. GROESBECK. It will be remembered, that I 
have always contended that the property of citizens * 
should be paid for in money, before it is taken for the- 
public use, and I have been unwilling to adopt any 
other rule applied to corporations. Here is a proposi- ; 
tion regarding the right of way only, and the question 
is whether in regard to this, corporations should be ■ 
placed in the same position that other corporate bodies 
are placed in when they take property for public use. 
The city of Cincinnati. Dayton, Columbus, or Cleve 
land, for instance, may proceed and condemn one hun¬ 
dred feet square of land in any part of the city for a ; 
public hall, or a quantity of ground for a market house 
or like purpose, and it has a right to do so, and under 
the provisions in the bill of rights, it is not required to ‘ 
pay the money, until the amount is ascertained, being ( 
obliged only to deposit it as directed. Now it would * 
not be right to allow a cit)", such as Cincinnati, Dayton, ? 
or Columbus, to do that which is refused to a railroad | 
or other internal improvement corporation. The true-; 
course would be to apply the same rule to all, and 11 


















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1447 


think the Convention should be willing to make the 
same rule for both cases. 


Mr. WOODBURY moved the previous question. 

The questionthen being, “Shall the main question be 


The question then being on Mr. Holt’s amendment; 
Mr. EWART demanded the yeas and nays; which 


Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, 

1 Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Wyan- 
I dot, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swift, Townshend, Vance of 
I Butler, Way, Woodbury, Worthington and President—56. 
i Nays —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Bates, Blair, 
i Brown of Carroll, Case of Licking, Cook, Ewart, Florence, Gil- 
* lett, Graham, Green of Ross, Groesbeck, Hamilton, Harlan, Haw* 
kins, Horton, Hunter, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lidey, Mason, McCloud, 


If the amendment were so modified as to say that I now put?” it was agreed to. 

the money shall be first deposited, leaving the balance "" 

ot the section as it is—that is, allowing no deduction 
for benefits, requiring the money to be first paid or de- were ordered, and resulted—yeas 56, nays 32—as 
posited, and securing to the citizen a jury of twelve ;follows: 

men in a court of record, I can see no obiection to it i Yeas— Messrs. Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Blair, Cahill, Cham- 
Let me be understood. I prefer that the money should i Chaney,Clark Ceilings, Ourry,Dorsey, Ewing, Farr Forbes, 

^ ' Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Henderson, Hitchcock of 

be Hi st paia ail cases, and have so argued and vo- i Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, 
ted; but let us have the same rule or as good a rule for | Jones, ffing, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Loudon, Manon, Morris, 
an internal improvement corporation as for a town or ' ^ - u i... 

city. The people have no more partiality for cities 
than they have for turnpikes or railroads; and it is 
better that we should be uniform—treat the city no 
better than the turnpike. 

Mr. SAW\ER. 1 desire to ask of the committee __ 

whether it has changed the phraseology of this amend- ! McCormick, Otis, Peck, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, 
ment from that which was contained in my resolution 
of instructions upon this subject. If it has I will no 
longer stand god-father to it. Inasmuch as the gen¬ 
tleman from Knox [Mr. Mitchell] has taken me un¬ 
der his especial care, and is about to write a book for 
my benefit. I desire to be set right upon the subjeci. 
and if I am to vote upon the amendment, I want itiust 
as I offered it. 

Mr. RANNEY. So far as the first branch of the 
amendment is concerned, a slight modification in the 
language has been made, making the obligation direct, 
which was circuitous. The amendments were made 
by the majority of the committee, and I did not concur 
in theni. In the others some alterations have been 
made, in which I did not concur. I look upon the ex¬ 
clusion from taxation of all public property open to 
public use, without compensation, as too broad. 


?tanbery, Stanton, Swan and Williams—32. 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

The question then being on the recommendation of 
the committee; 

Mr. LIDEY demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 41, nays 47—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Carroll, 
Chambers, Ceilings, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Graham, Green of 
Ross, Hamilton, Harlan, Hitchcock of Geauga, Holmes, Holt, Hor¬ 
ton, Humphreville, Hunter, Johnson, Kirkwood, Larsh, Manon, 
Mason, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Riddle, Smith of Highland, 
Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Swan, 
Swift and Williams—41. 

Nays— Messrs. Blair, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chaney, Clark, 
Cook, Curry, Dorsey, Farr, Forbes, Gillett, Gray, Greene of De¬ 
fiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hootman, 
Hunt, Jones, King, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, Lidey, Loudon, 
McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Perldns, Quigley, Ranney, 


Mr. RIDDLE. Unless the amendment prevail the j Re^ehn" Roif, Sawyer, ’scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Stebbins, 

public institutions at Columbus and the Commercial ' Stickney, Struble, Vance of Butler, Way, Woodbury, Worthing- 
rr___*111 1* ..1 .. ft rl /•! _ ATi 


Hospital here will be subject to taxation. 

Mr. LOUDON. I am not satisfied with the amend 


ton and President—47. 

So the recommendation of the committee was not 


ment. I wish the phraseology to be plain and so as , agreed to. 


to be easily understood. It seems to me to be too 
broad—to embrace too much, and under it we shall 
have the State shingled over with exclusions. 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Mr. President: I have one w'ord 
to say, before this report passes beyond our action. 

It will be perceived that the terms bonds and stocks, 
where they first occur in the section, are now inserted 
in place of the terms used in the original report, which 
received the sanction of a majority of this Convention 
upon several occasions. Why was this change made ? 
As I understand, and as I have no hesitation in saying 
it is so understood by this Convention, the change in 


“ shall the Article be now 


The question then being, 

I enrolled ?” it was agreed to. 

( Mr. STANTON submitted the following, which was 
I agreed to : 

i Resolved, That the Secretary be required to furnish copy from 
the enrolled copy of the consiitution as the enrollment progres¬ 
ses, and have 1,000 copies of the constitution as it is finally adop¬ 
ted, printed immediately for theuse of members, and that for tli'' 
purpose of furnishing copy he may employ such additional cleri¬ 
cal force as may be necessary. 

Mr. SAWYER submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the Secretary of this Convention be allowed 
two dollars per day in addition to the sum heretofore pres in* 
bed, for his services; and that each ot the Assistant Secretaries 


phraseology was made to obviate the technical objec- i allowed one dollar per day in addition to the sum heretofore 
tions of certain members, without wishing or intending j prescribed for their services, 
to change the substance of the original report. I voted 
at the time against the change, believing as I did that 
much of evil in future constructions of this provision 


Mr. PERKINS. I have no desire to oppose the 
adoption of the resolution, nor to express an opinion 
1 as to the merits of the parties contemplated in the res- 


would be the result. I now only wish to say, Mr. i ohition, but I will merely read the twenty-ninth sec 


President, that I wish a clear and unequivocal con 
structionof those terms to go out from this Convention. 
I then, here in my place, and in the presence of the 
members of this body, declare as the judgment of this 
Convention, as previously determined, that those terms, 
as used in this section, are understood and intended to 
be so understood, to mean United States bonds and 
State Stocks. 

The question then being on agreeing to the recom¬ 
mendation of the committee; the same was agreed to. 

The committee on Revision, &,c., also recommended 
that the following words be inserted in section two, 
after the words “ public purpose,” to wit: “ Public li¬ 
braries, and houses or buildings used exclusively tor 
literary, scientific and educational purposes.” 

The question then being on agreeing to the recom¬ 
mendation of the committee; 

Mr. HOLT moved to amend the amendment, by add- 
incr at the end thereof, the following : “ from which no 
private profit shall be derived.” 


tion of the constitution we have made, which is to bo 
I the rule of action to the Legislature upon this subject. 

1 It is as follows: 

i No extra compensation shall be made to any officer, public 
I agent, or contractor, after the service shall have been rendered, 

I of the contract entered into ; nor shall any money be paid, or 
I any claim the subject matter of which shall not have been provi¬ 
ded for by pre-existing law, unless such compensation or claim 
be allow'ed by two-thirds of the members elected to each branch 
of the General Assembly. 

I hope, therefore, Mr. President, as we have adopt¬ 
ed the democratic rule, requiring a two-thirds majori¬ 
ty, we shall not break it ourselves. 

Mr. SAWYER. I am well aware of this feature in 
the constitution, neveitheless, I desire that we shall 
pay our assistants, and pay them well; and I believe 
from my own knowledge of their services, that they 
are justly entitled to additional compensation. 

The gentleman from Hamilton. [Mr. Gkoksbeck,] 

' referred the other day to the compensation paid to the 
i Secretaries ot other bodies similar to ours, from which 


















1448 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


it appears that in Maryland, Virginia, New York, and 
Indiana, a larger number ol assistants were employed, 
at a higher rate of compensation, and however desir¬ 
ous I am, (and gentlemen will give me credit lor some 
vigilance in that respect,) to keep a close guard over 
the treasury, I am neither ashamed nor afraid to allow 
men in official positions a full compensation where they 
have merited it. 

Mr. MITCHELL moved the previous question. 

The question then being, “shall the main question be 
now put?” it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution ; 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 31, nays 52—as fo! 
lows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnett ef 
Preble, Blair, Farr, Green of Ross, Groesbnek, Holmes, Hootman, 
Horton, Hunt, Jones, King, Larsh, Lawrence, Leech, Mason, 
Mitchell, McCormick, Orton, Peck, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Sel.ers, 
Smith of Highland, Stanbery, Swan, Williams, Wilson and Wor¬ 
thington—31. 

Nays— Messrs. Barbee, Bennett, Blickensderfer, Brown of Car- 
roll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambciis, Chaney, Clark, Collings, 
Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, Graham, 
Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, 
Hitchcock of Geauga, Holt, Humphreville, Johnson, Kirkwood, 
Larwill, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Morris, McCloud, Norris, Otis, 
Patterson, Perkins, Quigley, Reemelin, Scott of Auglaize, Smith 
of Warren, Stanton, Stebbins, Struble, Swift, Taylor, Townshend, 
Vance of Butler, Warren and Woodbury— 52. 

So the resolution was disagreed to. 

Mr. LAWRENCE submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be tendered to 
the Clergymen of this cit}', through whose kindness and attention 
the daily sessions of the Convention were opened with prayer.— 
And that a copy of the bound debates be furnished by the Secre¬ 
tary of State to each of the Clergymen who have officiated in 
Columbus and Cincinnati. 

Which was agreed to. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, submitted the following. 

Resolved, That the President in auditing the accounts of the 
Secretary, his Assistants, the Door-keeper, and Sergeant-at-Arms, 
allow them mileage to and from this session of the Convention, 
as is allowed to the members of this body. 

Mr. LAWRENCE moved to amend the resolution by 
addingafterthe words, “Sergeant-at-Arms,” the words 
“ and messenger boys ; ” which was disagreed to. 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lution ; 

Mr. CLARK demanded tlie yeas and nays, which 
were ordered and resulted—yeas 89, nays 3—as follows: 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett of Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Collings, 
Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gillett, 
Graham, Gray, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, Hamilton, 
Hard, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphi'eville, Hunt, Hunter, 
Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Leech, Leadbettcr, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, I^Ioi'ris, Mc¬ 
Cloud, McCormick, Nash, Norris, Orton, Otis, Patterson, I’eck, 
Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Ptiddlc, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Au¬ 
glaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of 
Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swan, 
Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, 
Wilson, Woodbury and Worthington—88. 

Nays —Messrs. Clark, Reemelin and Swift—3. 

So the resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. CHAMBERS submitted the following, which 
was agreed to: 

Resolved, That a committee of two members be appointed to 
take charge of the State propeity, of every kind, remaining in 
College HMl after adjournment. That such portions thereof as 
may be suitable for future use, shall be transj)orted to Columbus, 
and placed in charge of the Secretary of State ; and the residue 
of such property to be sold to the best advantage, at private or 
public sale, to the highest bidder, and the proceeds (after depuc- 
ting all reasonable expenses and charges) to be paid into the 
Treasury of the State, and the Treasurer’s receipt therefor, shall 
be dep osited with the Auditor of State. 

The PRESIDENT appointed Messrs. Chambers and 
Jones the committee under the foregoing resolution. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. I rise to offer a resolution, 
which I presume will receive the approbation of every 
gentleman upon the floor. It sufficiently explains it¬ 
self, and comment, therefore, might seem unnecessary. 


I desire, however, to say a few words. It is usual ou 
such occasions to ofler a complimentary expression o 
approbation to the presiding officer—often it is a mere 
empty compliment. I desire that it shall not be so con¬ 
sidered on this occasion. 

It would have been best, doubtless, if nothing of par¬ 
tisan spirit had been permitted to mingle in the debates 
of this body. Under the circumstances, with the influ¬ 
ences operating upon us, and in view of the' nature t)f 
man, controlled and governed by such causes, this was 
not to be expected. That there has been occasionally 
something of asperity in our discussions, is not a subject 
of w’onder. Whether the great work in which we have 
been so long engaged, and which we are about to sub¬ 
mit to the constituency, shah prove for good or other¬ 
wise, time will alone determine. I do not desire at 
his time to enter upon that question. My purpose is, 
as one of a political minority upon the floor, taking an 
humble but attentive part in the business, and from a 
constant and unbroken attendance upon the sessions of 
the body, authorized to speak of all that has transpired, 
to bear my testimony to the fidelity, patience, dignity 
and ability with which, undisturbed by party and per¬ 
sonal strife on the floor, the arduous duties of the Chair 
have been discharged. I do this, sir, the more cheer¬ 
fully, because of certain misgivings which I may have 
given utterance to, during the first days of our delibe¬ 
rations in Convention. I repeat, therefore, I desire to 
express more than a formal compliment—to offer the 
well-deserved meed of praise to a meritorious public 
I officer. I therefore offer for adoption the resolution 
which I send to the Chair. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross,then submitted the following: 
“ Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention are due, and 
are hereby tendered to the Hon. William Medill, for the dig¬ 
nity, courtesy, patience and ability with which he has presided 
over its deliberations.” 

Mr. CHAMBERS asked if the word “ patience” was 
in; if not, he thought it should be, with an emphasis. 
[Laughter.] 

Mr. WILLIAMS. As a farther mark of respect for 
the President of this body, I propose that the resolu- 
tioi, record the remarkable fact, that during a session 
of five months and a half, during which, at times, 

1 party spirit has run high, and personal feelings fre- 
j quently aroused, not one appeal has been taken from 
the decisions of the presiding officer of this Convention. 
Several Voices. Agreed—agreed. 

Mr. HITCHCOCK, of Geauga. The debates and pro¬ 
ceedings will show the lact alluded to by the gentleman 
from Warren, [Mr. Williams.] 

The question being on the adoption of the resolution 
offered by Mr. Green ; 

Mr. LAWRENCE demanded the yeas and nays, 
which were ordered, and resulted—yeas 89, nays none 
—as follows: 

Yeas— Messrs. Andrews, Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Bar¬ 
nett ot Preble, Bates, Bennett, Blair, Blickensderfer, Brown of 
Carroll, Cahill, Case of Licking, Chambers, Chaney, Clark, Col¬ 
lings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Florence, Forbes, Gil- 
, lett. Gray, Greene of Defiance, Green of Ross, Gregg, Groesbeck, 

( Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Hunter, 
Johnson, Jones, King, Kirkwood, Larsh, Lawrence, Larwill, 
Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morris, McCloud, 

: McCormick, Norris, Orton, Utie, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quig¬ 
ley, Ranney, Reemelin, Riddle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, 
Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of Warren, Smith of Wyandot, 
Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Stickney, Struble, Swan, Swift, Tay¬ 
lor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, Williams, Wil¬ 
son, Woodbury and Worthington—89. 

So the resolution was uiianimouslv adopted. 

Mr. STANBERY submitted the following, which was 
agreed to unanimously; 

Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be and they are 
hereby tendered to William H. Gill, the Secretary, and his Assis¬ 
tants, for the faithful and efficient discharge of their duties as offi¬ 
cers of the same. 

Mr. STANBERY submitted the following, wdiich was 
agreed to unanimously: 

Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be and they are 
. hereby tendered to J. V. Smith, the Reporter, and to his Assis- 

















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1449 


tants for the faithful and efficient discharge of their official duties 
IVlr. E\^ ART submitied the followiijg; 

Resofoed That the committee on Revision^e instructed so 
Rn^r!f nf ® Works that the members of the 

their offices until their tei-i 

that same committee amend the Schedule so 

^ secretary ot State shall hold their olficS 

until th6 second Monday ot Februry, 1853. 

On motion of Mr. KANNEY, the 'resolution was laid 
on the table.- 

Mr. CASE, ot 


Licking, submitted the following; 


which was agreed to: 

Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention be and they are 
hereby tendered to the Sergeant-at-Arms, Door-keeper an^Mes- 
senger Boys for the faithful discharge of their duties 

The Convention then took np the article on Miscel- 


The committee to which was referred a resolution respecting 
the binding of the debates of this Convention, reports by resolu¬ 
tion, as follows: 

Resolved, That immediately on the final adjournment of this 
ms the Reporter prepare the lettering, title page, pre- 

lace and index to said debates, including in the preface apian of 
this hall, a list ol members, and the present constitution of this 
State, and that he iurnish the same properly arranged to the 
Printer of this Convention, at the earliest day practicable. 

_ Resolved, That the Printer, on receipt of the matter above pro¬ 
vided for, and after printing the same as a part ot said debates 
proceed at once to bind up in style and material substantially like 
a specimen volume furnished by the Printer to the chairman of 
this committee, three thousand sets ot said debates, in two vol¬ 
umes each, and that he deposit the same, when so bound, with 
the Secretary of State, for the use of the State, for all which, in¬ 
cluding lettering, folding, gathering, collecting, transportation, and 
all claims for extras of every kind, he shall be allowed-cents 


PropositioDS, as reported back by i ^^Res'^oS, ThiTacTperson who is, or has been a member of this 


the committee on Revision, as follows, to wit: 

ARTICLE XV. 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

seat of government until Oth¬ 
erwise directed by law. 

Sec. 2. The printing of the laws, journals, bills, legislative 
documents, pd papers for each branch of the General Assembly, 
witli the printing required for the executive and other depar't- 
ments of btate, shall be let on contract to tlie lowest reponsible 
bidder, by such executive officers and in such manner as shall be 
prescribed by law. 

Sec. 3 An accurate and detailed statement of the receipts and 
expenditures of the public money, the several amounts paid, to 
whom, and on what account, shall, from time to time, be publish¬ 
ed as shall he prescribed by law. 

• person shall be elected or appointed to any office 

m this State, unless he possess the qualifications of an elector. 

Sec. 5. No person %vho shall hereafter fight a duel, assist in the 
same as second, or send, accept, or knowingly carry a challenge 
therefor, shall hold any office in this State. 

Sec. 6. Lotteries, and the sale of lottery tickets, for any pur¬ 
pose whatever, shall forever be prohibited in this State. 

Sec. 7. Every person chosen or appointed to any office under 
this State, before entering upon the discharge of its duties, shall 
take an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the 
United States, and of this State; and also an oath of office. 

Sec. 8. There may be established in the secretary of State’s 
office a bureau of statistics, under such regulations as may be 
prescribed by law. 

The question then being, “ shall the article be enroll¬ 
ed it was agreed to. 

Mr. RIDDLE submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the committee on Revision be instructed to in¬ 
sert the following provision in the article on “ Miscllaneoiis 

“ The Governor shall have power after five years to pardon all 
persons, who shall in any wise participated in a duel, either as 
principal or seconds, and restore him or them, to all the rights 
and privileges, to which they were entitled before such partici¬ 
pation.” 

On motion of Mr. MANON, the resolution was laid 
on the table. 

Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. President: I rise to correct 
an error in the debates. 

In the published report of my remarks, on the sub¬ 
ject of the retail of ardent spirits, 1 am made to say, 

the courts inherit their jurisdiction in matters of di¬ 
vorce, from the common law.” 

I hope this Convention does me the justice to be¬ 
lieve I could not have made so foolish a remark ; and 
I do not wish others to whom I am a stranger, should 
be so informed. 

Mr. MITCHELL submitted the following : 

Resolved, That when this Convention takes a recess this day at 
noon, it shall be till four o’clock, P. M., and that hereafter no prop¬ 
osition for alteration or amendment shall be made, except upon 
the unanimous consent of this Convention. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, demanded a division. 

The question then being on the first branch of the 
resolution ; it was agreed to. 

The question then being on the second branch of the 
resolution ; 

Pending which, on motion of Mr. GREEN, of Ross; 

The Convention took a recess until 4 o’clock. 

4 o’clock, p. m. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, from the select committee to 
which was referred the resolution relative to binding 
the debates and proceedings of tlie Convention, submit¬ 
ted the following: 


Convention, including the Secretary and Reporter to the same, be 
and he is hereby authorized to receive, each, 12 sets of said bound 
debates; one set lor his own use, and the balance for distribution, 
in such manner as he may judge will best subserve the public. 

Resolved, That the Sergeaut-at-Arms, the Doorkeeper, each as¬ 
sistant Secretary, and each assistant Reporter of this Convention, 
be and they are hereby authorized, each, to receive one set of said 
bound debates for his own use. 

Resolved That the General Assembly now in session at Colum¬ 
bus, be and it is hereby requested to provide for the delivery ot 
the debates herein distributed, at the same time of the delivery of 
the laws, journals, &c., of the present General Assembly, unless 
the persons entitled thereto, shall, before that time, receive their 
respective portions of the Secretary of State. 

Resolved, That the Secretary of this Convention transmit to the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives of Ohio, a copy of these 
resolutions. 

On motion of Mr. FARR, the blank in the resolution 
was filled with the word “fifty.” 

The question then being on the adoption of the reso¬ 
lutions ; they were agreed to. 

Mr. LARSH, from the select committee appointed to 
compare the recorded proceedings of the Convention, 
submitted the following: 

REPORT 

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE REVISION OF THE JOURNAL. 

The committee to compare the recorded Journal of the pro¬ 
ceedings of the Convention with the original rolls, as read and 
corrected each day at the Secretary’s desk, ask leave to report, 
that they have examined and compared the first volume of the 
Journal, which brings the proceedings up to the third day of Feb¬ 
ruary, 1851, and find the same to be correctly recorded. They 
beg leave further to say, that the Record, as made up by Mr. D. 
H. Morthey, Recording Secretary, is an admirable specimen ot 
accuracy, care and elegance, and reflects great credit upon the 
gentleman named, evidencing a competency, as a Record Clerk, 
seldom equaled. 

We recommend the adoption of the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the Secretary of this Convention is hereby au¬ 
thorized to make a complete index to the Journal ot this Con¬ 
vention. J. D. JONES, 

THOS. LARSH, 

B. P. SMITH, 

J. PERKINS. 

The question being on the adoption of the resolu- 
tioiLS reported by tlie committee ; it was agreed to. 

Mr. SAWYER submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the Printer to this Convention be and he is 
hereby directed to print, Icr the use of the members and officers 
of this body, and lor such general distribution as the General 
Assembly may direct, three thousand copies of the Journal of 
this Convention. 

Mr. PERKINS. Before the question is taken on the 
resolution of the gentleman, [Mr. Sawyer,] I wish to 
make a few statements in order that gentlemen may 
vote understandingly. 

On tlie 16th of May last, a select committee of this 
body, appointed to consider the subject of the report¬ 
ing and publication of the debates and proceedings of 
this Convention, submitted the following resolution, as 
a par! of their report: 

~ Resolved, That it is inexpedient to publish the Journal of this 
Convention, in book form, separate and apart from the proceed¬ 
ings and debates. 

This resolution was unanimously concurred in, and re¬ 
commended by the committee, consisting of Messrs. Or¬ 
ton, Groesbeck, Taylor, Stanton, an^ Blickensder- 
FER, and was agreed to by the Convention, with but a 
single vote in the negative. In consequence of this de¬ 
cision of the convention, the Reporter, has, in addition to 
























1450 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


his report of the debates, kept able and perfect journal of i 
the proceedings, omitting nothing. This journal is i 
properly interspersed throughout the debates, by which 
it is fully explained. The journal kept by the Repor¬ 
ter is exactly the same as that kept by the Clerk. It; 
will be seen, then, that no useful purpose can be sub- ^ 
served by the publication of the journal separately, un¬ 
less, indeed, it is to be done for the sole and exclusive i 
benefit of the Printer to the Convention. ' 

The journal, as it is already printed with the debates, i 
is in a much more readable form and much better for j 
reference than it would be separate and by itself. 

Mr. MANON. I am decidedly opposed to this res- 
olution, for the separate printing of the journal. A j 
perfect journal of this Convention is interwoven with i 
the debates, and of this we have already ordered three | 
thousand copies to be printed. To print the barejour- j 
nal of this Convention separately, wmald be rediculous j 
—nobody would read it, but like the journals of the 
Legislature, would lumber up the shelves of the pub¬ 
lic libraries. For my own part, I would not accept of 
the journal of the Convention as a gift, if printed sep¬ 
arately, because we have it printed with the debates, 
where it properly belongs. 

The question then being on the adoption of the res- j 
olution, [Mr. Sawyer’s,] 

Mr. MANON demanded the yeas and nays, which; 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 32, nays 52,—as fol-, 
lows: ; 

Yeas —Messrs. Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Chaney, Ewing, i 
Farr, Forbes, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Hard, Holmes, Hoot-' 
man. Hunt, J^ones, King, Lawrence, Leech, Lidey, Loudon, Ma¬ 
son, McCormick, Norris, Orton, Patterson, Quigley, Riddle, Roll, 
Sawyer, Stickney, Wilson, Woodbury and President—32. 

Nays —Messrs. Barbee, Barnet of Montgomery, Barnettof Preble, 
Bates, Bennett, Brown of Carroll, Chambers, Clark, Collings, 
Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Florence, Gillett, Graham, Green of Ross, 
Hamilton, Harlan, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holt, Horton, Humphreville, Johnson, Kirkwood, Larsh, Larwill, 
Leadbetter, Manon, Morris, McCloud, Otis, Peck, Perkins, Reeme- 
lin, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of Highland, Smith of War¬ 
ren, Smith of Wyandot, Stanbery, Stanton, Stebbins, Struble, 
Swift, Taylor, Townshend, Vance of Butler, Warren, Way, and 
Worthington—52. 

So the resolution was disagreed to. 

iMr. CASE, of Licking, submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the President ot the Convention be authorized 
to audit the accounts of the Reporter of the Conventiota for ser¬ 
vices performed, in concluding the reporting and publishing of 
the debates and proceedings, and in preparing an index, 6ic., to 
the same. 

Which was agreed to. 

Mr. LAWRENCE submitted the following: 

Resolved, That the thanks of this Convention are due and are 
hereby tendered to the “ Young Men’s Mercantile Library Asso¬ 
ciation” of this city, for their kindness and liberality in granting 
to the members the free nse of their Library and free admission 
to their course of Lectures, which have been delivered under 
their direction during the past winter. 

And that the Secretary o f State be authorized to furnish the 
Association with a bound copy of the Debates of the Convention. 

Which was agreed to. 

Mr. RIDDLE submitted the followin'?: 

Resolved, That the committee to which was assigned the duty 
of comparing the recorded Journal of the proceedings of this 
Convention with the Journal as read and corrected, each morn¬ 
ing, by the Secretly, be instructed to meet the Secretary at Co¬ 
lumbus,on his notification, and there compare the second volume of 
said Journal, and append thereto their certificate, as to its correct¬ 
ness, and their compensation lor such services shall be audited 
and paid on the certificate of the President. 

On motion of Mr. HAWKINS, the resolution was 
laid on the table. 

Mr. BENNETT submitted the follovving, which was 
agreed to: 

Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to distribute 
the pamphlet copies of the Constitution among the members of 
the Convention, by mail or otherwise. 

PERSONAL EXPLANATION. 

Mr. CASE, of Licking, said that before this Con¬ 
vention adjourned, he wished to make a correction in 
a portion of the debates of this body. On page 570 
of the debates of this session, (said Mr. Case,) I find 
the following remarks of the gentleman from Knox, 


[Mr. Mitchell,] after specifying some points in my 
speech on a previous occasion, in which he claims not 
to have been correctly reported—he slates as follows : 
“Then, sir, I asked again, ‘are you in favor of pro¬ 
spective repeal, unconditional?’ This is my question, 
for I had it written down at the time and have the pa¬ 
per before me now. The word unconditional is omit¬ 
ted in the report. Mr. Case’s answer to that was ‘ I 
am most certainly.’ I do not complain of the answer, 
but I desire to have these corrections made. I do not 
design to make any charge against Mr. Case in this 
matter, especially as he is not now in his seat; nor 
have I complaint to make against the Reporter. I saw 
the manuscript, and in the latter instance, at least, to 
my distinct recollection, it was correct. How the er¬ 
rors have arisen, I am unable to explain.” 

Knowing that the question put by the gentleman in 
the original manuscript, did not contain the word “ 
conditional," I sent to the printer and got the original 
manuscript of my speech, and have it herein my hand, 
and will send the page of it which has that question 
on it, to the Reporter, that he may identify it. 

Mr. CASE sent the manuscript to Mr. Smith, Repor¬ 
ter for the State, of the debates and proceedings, and 
said, “ Is that the manuscript copy of your report of 
the debates?” 

The REPORTER. It is. 

Mr. CASE. Is there, upon the sheet which I sent 
you, a question, propounded by the gentleman from 
Knox, [Mr. Mitchell,] with regard to prospective re- j 
peal ? , 

[Cries of order—order.] j 

Mr. RANNEY. I rise to a question of order. This \ 
is not a court of justice, and I know of no right in the ' 
gentlemen [Mr. Case,] to catechise or cross question ‘ 
the officers of this body 

The PRESIDENT. [The Chair being temporarily ' 
occupied by Mr. Larwill.] I would suggest to gen¬ 
tlemen that this proceeding might be considered out ^ 
of place, if not out of order at this time. , 

Mr. CASE. If the President decides me out of or¬ 
der, I will take an appeal from the decision the Chair. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. Does the gentleman from 
Licking rise to a question of privilege ? If he does, a 
question of privilege is always in order, and he has a 
right to proceed. 

Mr. CASE. I have risen to a question of privilege. 
The PRESIDENT. Then the gentleman is in order, 
and must be allowed to proceed. 

Mr. CASE. I again ask the Reporter if the question 
with regard to prospective repeal is upon the sheet I 
have sent him ? 

The REPORTER. There is. 

Mr. CASE. Has the manuscript been changed since 
it passed from your hands ? i 

The REPORTER. There has been no alteration— j 
the questions and answers have been printed as re- j 
i orted. * I 

Mr. CASE. That is all I have to say. I felt bound j 
in duty to myself to see that the truth appeared in 
these debates. The gentleman [Mr. Mitchell] stated 
that he saw the manuscript referred to, and that the ; 
! word “unconditional” was in his question—I have - 
j shown that it is not there and never was. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President: this is really too 
I small business and of comparatively too trifling mo- 
j ment to detain the Convention with it at this time, 
j I have only to say that the questions I put to the 
; gentleman [Mr. Case] on the occasion referred to, ] 
I were previously written down by myself, and when I ' 
j examined the Reporter’s copy of that debate I felt sure j 
I that his report of the questions was exactly the same ' 
with my own copy. Plow the discrepency has occur- i 
red I cannot tell. | 

But I now say openly and before the world that the i 
gentleman [Mr. Case] did declare that he was in fa¬ 
vor of prospective repeal, unconditional. ; 

Mr. CASE. Certainly I always so declared. 















CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1451 


Mr. MITCHELL. lu favor of prospective repeal, 
unconditional 1 

Mr. CASE. Certainly, and I have always so de¬ 
clared. 

Mr. MITCHELL. Then for what has the gentle¬ 
man been making a fool of this Convention, just now 
at the eve of our adjourument 1 

THE CONSTITUTION. 

Mr. LEECH moved that the enrolled copy ot the 
constitution be now taken up and read; which was 
agreed to. 

^The Secretary then proceeded to read the constitu¬ 
tion, as follows : 

CONSTITUTION 

OF THE STATE OF OHIO. 

We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God 
for our freedom, to secure its hlessings, and promote our com¬ 
mon welfai'e, do establish this Constitution: 


ARTICLE 1. 

BILL OF RIGHTS. 

Sec. 1. All men are, by nature, tree and independent, pd 
have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoy¬ 
ing and defending life and liberty; acquirmg, possessing and 
protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and 

^^^E^ 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Gov¬ 
ernment is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and 
they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, when¬ 
ever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or 
immunities shall ever be granted, that may not be altered, revo¬ 
ked, or repealed by the General Assembly. . 

Sec. 3. The people have the right to assemble together, in a 
ueaceable manner, to consult for their common good; to instruct 
their representatives; and to petition the General Assembly lor 

the redress of grievances. . , , , 

^EC 4. The people have a rigiit to oear arms lor their de- 
fence and security; but standing arrnies, in time of peace are 
dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the militaiy 
ehallbe in strict subordination to the civil power. 

Sec o. The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate. 

Sec 6 There shall be no slavery in this State ; nor mvolun- 
tarv servitude, unless for the punishment of crime. 

Sfc 7 All men have a natural and indefeasible right to wor- 
shrn AWigbty God according to the dictates of their own con- 
sc Ltr No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or sup- 
Dort any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, 
against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law^ to 
al^-eligious society, nor shall any interference with the rights of 
JSiielce be permitted. No religious test shall be required as 
rJuSification for office, nor shall any person be incoiupetent to 
Se^rwuSes on account of his religious belief; but nothing here- 
• Lo’i pnnstrued to dispense with oaths and affirmations He- 
lf.fon mSrand knowledge, howeTei-, being essential to good 
gliemment, U shall be the duty ol the General Assembly to pass 

enconrage schools and the mean^^ 

be stSpenJd, nSSs A ease, of rebellion or invasion the pubho 
safegr require it be bailable by sufficient snrette ex- 

oorrit^^ntfpnces where the proof is evident, or the pre¬ 
cept for capital shall not be required; nor ex- 

Swells imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments in- 

10 Except in cases of impeachment, and cases arising 
feEC. 10. the militia, when in actual service in 

in the army and nai 7 , ’ea,es of petit larceny and 

bmo of Pgtnces nfp4rin shall be hefd to answer for a 

other inienor ^ crime unless on presentment or 

capR^ or “in any trial in any court, the party 

indictment of a rand j \o appea/and defend, in person and 
accused demand the nature and cause of the accusation 

withcounsel, todema at meet the witnesses 

against him, and to ha com®JJory process to procure the atten¬ 
dee to face, and^^^ h^ speedy public trial by an 

impartial jury of the or district, m 

Srfnin^c'SSraSrbe a agaiJs^himself, or be 

?wice put in jeopardy for the same and publish 

SEC. 11. Sects ^bem<rResponsible for the abuse of 

his sentiments on all subject^ restrain or abridge the 

the right; and no law P criminal prosecutions, 

t'ffiMjniay be 

fr^ ^nd for ;u,.iliab,e 

ends, the party shall be g„orted out of the State for 

work corruption of blood, oi 10 of peace, be quartered m 

.nfh'iuie. vMl -Mf “ ^ 

Sceptin the manner prescribed by law. 


Sec. 14. The right of the people to be secure in their pejso“®’ 
houses, papers, and possessions, against "“reasonable searches 
and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warr^t shall nsue, 

Supon probable cause, supported by o"th “r 

ticularly describing the place to be searched, and the peisons 

and things to be seized. . ^ r-ivil 

Sec. 15. No person shall be imprisoned for debt, in any civil 

action, or mesne or final process, unless in cases of fraud. 

Sec 16. All courts shall be open, and every person, for an in 
jury done him in his land, goods,person, or reputabon, shall have 
remedy by due course of law, and jusUce admimstered without 

denmLor^deky. emoluments, honors, or privileges^ 

l'“l- eve, be exerci,. 

ed exceptbyffie^Gener^^^^^^^^ 

se?vieittotho public welfare. u. imme°diar «’e.?- 

other public exigency, imperatively '«'l“"“f ® 

ure or for the purpose ot making or repairing roads, wmen 

shall be open to the public without charge a ““S^cL^es Vhere 
ViP moflp to the owner, in money; and in all othei cases, wnere 
mi^Srnroperty sSbe taken tor public use, a compensation 
therefor =haU first be made in money, or first secured by a ^epo 
it ot money, and such compensation shall 

without deduction for benefits to 8?^ fSued to 

Sec 20. This enumeration of rights shall not be conswuea to 

impair or deny others retained by the people ; and all powers not 
herein delegated remain with the people. 

ARTICLE 11. 

legislative. , 

Sec. 1. The Legislative power of this State shall be 
int General Assembly, which shall consist of a fcenate and House 

°^SEmT^fe^aR?rs and representatives shall be J 

flllv bv the electors in the respective counties ot districts, ^ 
tl^l^secOTd TSay of October; their term of office shall co^ 
mence onVe tot Jay of January next thereafter, and centmue 

Senators and representatives shall have resided in 
their respective counties, or districts, one year next preceding 
tbeir elertion, unless they shall have been absent on the public 

l‘Sg° olft^ndrihe auffionty 0^0 

lSSrbut,hUpro«.lonshjUnotex«^^^^^^^^^ 


I the public funefs shall hold auy office in this State ; 

ledffir,,nap^..d«chme.my into. hew 

' “eUto“ r «ch rot “eThan a to do bn«. 

S . less number may adjourn from day to day, and com. 
pr.ho\t\'en^areTt«\sen/^^^ 
der such penalties as shall be prescribed by law 

The mode of organizing the House ot Repfffonta- 
tives at the commencement of each regular session, shall be pre- 

scribedbylaw-h otherwise provided in this 

“Jv^'rlachTotosMiTep a correct journal of its pro. 

SSr“e?s“‘ln?na'y“^ 

Md on Passage entSl^up^Hhe'jwraffi ;"and 

nr'aw“hS beTaased, in eijher House, without the concurrence 
“ WXI .he right to 

S'to"mS?thtofor%hS,w^^^^^ 

rectedbylaw and representatives, during the sessions ol 

reqmre secrecy ^^r House shall, without the consent of the oth- 

tsEC. i . rnm-fx than two days, Sundays excluded; nor tG 
Sy ote"r ?llce SrthSn'Sch^h'e twol/ouse. shall he in see- 

15 Bills may originate in either House ; but may be al- 

“iW^lve^ hirsts*" d disHnctlj read, on three 

























1452 


OOMVENTION REPOETS. 


urgency, three-iburths of the 
SisSle” ".hich tlift question shall be pending, shall dispense with 
tnis rule h o bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall 
be clearly expressed in its title; and no law shall’be revived 
or amended, unless the new act contain the entire act revived’ 

or sections amended; and the section or sectimis 
so amended shall be repealed. »«eiions 

"^^^0 pi esiding officer of each House shall sign, pub- 
he^same fs^nthe House over which he preside!, WTile 
bills aSdioimvP^^ transacting business, all 

1 , ^tyle of the laws of this State shall bp • « ni> it 

enacted by the General Assembly of the Stale of Ohio ” 

^.0 Sf^fitor or representative shall, during the temi 

ed to MV e|vn'’lv'"*' T ■>”/ y™-' ttetoX™ e 

^ under this State, which shall be created 

thetermSThTcfi\ewI??^^^^^^^^ bave been increased, during 

thifeonStuSn, ?S"fiv fffte.m'of Xe “ 

tion of all officers • Vn,f otnee, and the compensa- 

anv officer duofi;. ffis p • afJeetthe salary of 

ffiied ® hisexispng term, unless the office be abol- 

fofe^whahnTw,?®"®'^^ Assembly shall determine by law be- 

SS.SXfbTXd“cVd” 0* comes,od 

thirds of the senators. ^ ^ without the concurrence of two- 

4?X"ed fo?«ny 4Setori„"o"ffiei'‘'n 

not extend further than removal fmm nffie’ Judgment shall 
to hold aov olhee under thfeutholto ot toiXfe'’ 
impeached, whether convicted or not shall bp linbi <• ®. P?.r^y 

proval of any other authoritv S ^ upon the ap- 

“S'? oiKt^rv*“■ 
fflltogof ail vacMcie4X”4K“ov“ 

r=SS,HSs~ 

pSRSiailisS 

5 ;rSSSift~ 

branch of the General issemSy 

mmmrnm 

tiiprphv nf tVi« -rtn^ t- 1 tliG sc^ crfll counties to be jitJbeted 

mXo'id'oy.edhra ^'i '■‘“‘“t' 

SSSsPSHS 

take effect during their term of Xe compensation shall 
ARTICLE III. 

Q 1 rr, executive. 

cr. an, ,„n„ey General. whSalfbrcToWi“y»So“r. 


of the State, on the second T uesday of October, and at the places 
of voting for members of the General Assembly. 

Sec. 2. The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of 
State, Treasurer, and Attorney General, shall hold their offices for 
two years, and the Auditor for four years. Their terms of office 
shall commence on the second Monday of January next after 
I their election, and continue until their successors are elected and 
; qualified. 

j Sec. 3. The returns of every election for the officers named in 
the foregoing section, shall be sealed up and transmitted to the 
j seat of Government by the returning officers, directed to the 
I President of the Senate, Avho, during the first week of the session, 
shall open and publish them, and declare the result in the presence 
of a majority of the members of each House of the General Assem¬ 
bly . The person having the highest number of votes shall be de¬ 
clared duly elected; but if any two or more shall be highest, and 
equal in votes, for the same office, one of them shall be chosen bv 
the joint vote of both Houses. 

Sec. 4. Should there be no session of the General Assembly 
m January next after an election for any of the officers aforesaid, 
the returns of such election shall be made to the Secretary of 
State, and opened, and the result declared by the Governor in 
such manner as may be provided by law. ’ 

Sec. 5. The supreme executive power of this State shall be 
vested in the Governor. 

Sec. 6. He may require information, in writing, from the offi- 
executive department, upon anv subject relating to 
the duties of their respective offices, and shall see that the laws 
are faithfully executed. 

Sec. 7. He shall communicate, at every session, by message 
to the General Assembly, the condition of the State, and recom¬ 
mend such measures as he shall deem expedient. 

extraordinary occasions,convene the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly by proclamation, and shall state to both Houses 
when assembled, the purpose for which they have been con- 
vened. 

Sec. 9. In case of disagreement between the two Houses, in 
respect to the time of adjournment, he shall have power to ad- 
journ the General Assembly to such time as he may think proper 
but not beyond the regular meetings thereof. ’ 

Sec. 10. He shall be commander-in chief of the military and 
naval forces of the State, except when they shall be called into 
the service of the United States, 

Sec. 11. He shall have power, after conviction, to grant re¬ 
prieves, commutations, and pardons, for all crimes and offences 
except treason and cases of impeachment, upon such conditions’ 
as he may think proper, subject, however, to such regulations as 
to the manner of applying for pardons, as may be prescribed bv 
law. Upon conviction for treason, he may suspend the execu¬ 
tion of the sentence, and report the case to the General Assem¬ 
bly at its next meeting, when the General Assembly shall either 
pardon, commute the sentence, direct its e.xecution, or grant I 
reprieve. He shall communicate to the General Assem! 
regular session, each case of reprieve, commutation 
or pai don granted, stating the name and crime of the convict the 
sentence, its da^, and the date of the commutation, pardon or 
reprieve, with his reasons therefor. . 

L-nSf ^ which shall be 

kept by the Governor and used by him officiallv and shall ho 
cafied “The Great Seal of the State of Ohio” 

name?a^by o?;hTs4\Tof ^Mo,^^eMeTwiffi Se 

S”etao4 S Governor, and countersigned by the 

of Gongress, or other person holding 
B^iif authority Of this State, or of the United States^ 

shall execute the omce of Governor, except as herein provided ’ 
fcEC. lo. n case of the death, impeachment, resignSion re- 
nTt'lfi’ disability of the Governor, the powers and duties 

of the office, lor the residue of the term, or until he shall be nc 

tTn^nfC-^rno?”^^ 

Sec. 16. The Lieutenant Governor shall be President of the 
Senate, but shall vote only when the Senate is equally dividS 
and in case of his absence or impeachment, or when he shall ex’ 

. PrSaS 

Lieutenant Governor, while executing the 
office of Governor, shall be impeached, displaced, resign, or die 
nffin n® ’^.ecoi^eincapable of performing the duties of the 
office, the President of the Senate shall act as Governor until the 
vacancy is filled, or the disability removed ; and if the President 
ol the benute, from any of the above causes, shall be rendered in^ 
capable of performing the duties pertaining to the office of Go?* 

Sec. 16 . Should the office of Auditor, Treasurer Secretarv or 
Attorney General, become vacant, for any of the cans?? speeffied 

c?n^? Governor shall filfthe va- 

oualifi*??^ disability is removed, or a successor is elected and 
qualified. Every «uch vacancy shall be filled bv election at th? 

that occurs more than thirty days aft 

f?r hpTlw • shall hold the office 

m second section of this article. 

mentioned in this article shall, at stated 
bv their services a compensation to be established 

tlfp shall neither be increased nor diminished durine 

the period for which they shall have been elected. curing 





















1453 


CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


The officers ol the executive department, and ot the 
pubhc State institutions, shall, at least five days preceding each 
regular session of the General Assembly, severally report to the 
Governor, who shall transmit such reports, with his message, to 
the General Assembly. ® 

ARTICLE IV. 

JUDICIAL. 

Sec. 1. The judicial power of the State shall be vested in a 
Supieme (Jourt, in district courts, courts ot common pleas, courts 
ot probate, justices of the peace, and in such other courts, infe¬ 
rior to the Supreme Court, in one or more counties, as the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly may from time to time establish. 

Sec. 2 . The Supreme Court shall consist of five judges, a ma¬ 
jority ot whorn shall be necessary to form a quorum, or to pro¬ 
nounce a decision. It shall have original jurisdiction in quo war¬ 
ranto, mandamus, habeas corpus, and procedendo, and such ap¬ 
pellate jurisdiction as may be provided by law. It shall hold at 
least one term, in each year, at the seat of government, and such 
other terms, at the seat of government or elsewhere, as may be 
provided by law. The judges of the Supreme Court shall be 
elected by the electors of the State at large. 

Sec. 3. The State shall be divided into nine common pleas 
districts, of which the county of Hamilton shall constitute one, of 
compact territory and bounded by county lines, and each of said 
districts consisting ot three or more counties, shall be subdivided 
into three parts, of compact territory, bounded by county lines, 
and as nearly equal in population as practicable, in each of which 
one judge of the court of common pleas for said district, and re¬ 
siding therein, shall be elected by the electors of said subdivis¬ 
ion. Courts of compion pleas shall be held by one or more of 
these judges, in every county of the district, as often as may be 
provided by law, and more than one court or sitting thereof may 
be held at flie same time, in each district. 

Sec. 4. The jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas and 
of the judges thereof, shall be fixed by law. 

Sec. 5. District courts shall be composed of the judges of the 
court of common pleas of the respective districts, and one of the 
judges of the Supreme Court, any three of whom shall be a quo¬ 
rum, and shall be held in each county therein, at least once in 
each year; but if it shall be found inexpedient to hold such cm^rt 
annually in each county ot any district, the General Assembly 
may, for such district, provide that said court shall hold at least 
three annual sessions therein, in not less than three places; pro¬ 
vided, that the General Assembly may by law authorize the judg¬ 
es of each district to fix the times of holding the courts therein. 

Sec. 6. The district court shall have like original jurisdiction 
with the Supreme Court, and such appellate jurisdiction as may 
be provided by law. 

Sec. 7. There shall be established in each county a probate 
court, which shall be a court of record, open at all times, and 
holden by one judge elected by the voters of the county, who 
shall hold his office for the term of three years, and shall receive 
such compensation, payable out of the county treasury, or by- 
fees, or both, as shall be provided by law. 

Sec. 8. The probate court shall have jurisdiction in probate 
and testamentary matters, the appoinment of administrators and 
guardians, the settlement of the accounts of executors, adminis¬ 
trators and guardians, and such jurisdiction in habeas corpus, the 
issuing of marriage licenses, and for the sale of land by executors, 
administrators and guardians, and such other jurisdiction in any 
county or counties, as may be provided by law. 

Sec. 9. A competent number of justices of the peace shall be 
elected by the electors in each township in the several counties. 
Their term of office shall be three years, and their powers and 

duties shall be regulated by law. 

Sec, 10. All judges, other than those provided for in this con¬ 
stitution, shall be elected by the electors of the judicial disti-ict 
for which they may be created, but not for a longer term of office 

than five years. , ,, . , . . , 

Sec. 11. The judges of the Supreme Court shall, immediately 
after the first election under this constitution, be classified by lot; 
so that one shall hold for the term of one year, one for two years, 
one for three years, one lor four years and one for five years; 
and at all subsequent elections the term of each of said judges 

shall be for five years. i i, i 

Sec. 12, The judges of the courts of common pleas shall, while 
in office, reside in the district for which they are elected; and 
their term of office shall be for five years. 

Sec. 13. In case the office of any judge shall become vacant 
before the expiration of the regular tei-m for which he was elect¬ 
ed the vacancy shall be filled by appoinment by the Governor, 
until a successor is elected and qualified, and such successors 
shall be elected for the residue of the unexpired term, at the first 
annual election that occurs more than thirty days after the va¬ 
cancy shall have happened. . j r.u i. i- 

Sec 14 The judges of the Supreme Court and of the court of 
common pleas shall, at stated times, receive.for their services 
such compensation as maybe provided by law, which shall not be 
diminished or increased during their teim ot oftc^butthey shall 
receive no fees or perquisites, nor hold any other office of profit or 
Iru^Lder the aiithmdty of this State, or the United States A1 
votes for either of them, for any elective office, except a jufficial 
office, under the authority of this State, given by the General As¬ 
sembly, or the people, shall be void. j- - • 1 , * 1 , 

Sec 15. The General Assembly may increase or diminish the 
number of the Judges of the supreme court; the number of the 
districts of the court of common pleas; the nuinber of Judges in 
any district; change the districts or the subdivisions thereof, or 


establish other courts, whenever two-thirds of the members 
elected to each House shall concur therein, but no such change, 
addition, or diminution shall vacate the office of any Judge. 

Sec. 16. There shall be elected in each county, by the electors 
thereof, one clerk of the court of common pleas, who shall hold 
his office for the term of three years, and until his successor 
shall be elected and qualified. He shall, by virtue of his office, 
be clerk of all other courts of record held therein; but the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly may provide by law for the election of a clerk with 
a like term of office, for each or any other of the courts of re¬ 
cord, and may authorize the Judge of the Probate Court to per¬ 
form the duties of clerk for his court, under such regulations as 
may be directed by law. Clerks of courts shall be removeable for 
such cause, and in such manner, as shall be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 17. Judges may be removed from office by concurrent 
resolution of both Houses of the General Assembly, if two-thirds 
of the members elected to each House concur therein; but no 
such removal shall be made, except upon complaint, the sub¬ 
stance of which shall be entered on the journal, nor until the 
party charged shall have had notice thereof, and an opportunity 
to be heard. 

Sec. 18. The several judges of the Supreme Court, of the 
common pleas, and of such other courts as may be created, shall 
respectively have and exercise such power and jurisdiction, at 
chambers or otherwise, as may be directed by law. 

Sec. 19. The General Assembly may establish courts of con¬ 
ciliation, and prescribe their powers and duties, but such courts 
shall not render final judgment in any case except upon submis¬ 
sion, by the parties of the matter in dispute, and their agreement 
to abide such judgment. 

Sec. 20. The style of all process shall be “The State of Ohio 
all prosecutions shall be carried on in the name and by the au¬ 
thority ot the State of Ohio, and all indictments shall conclude 
“against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.” 

ARTICLE V. 
elective franchise. 

Sec. 1. Every white male citizen of the United States, of the 
age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of the 
State one year next preceding the election, and of the county, 
township or ward in which he resides, such time as may be pro¬ 
vided by law, shall have the qualifications of an elector, and be 
entitled to vote at,all elections. 

Sec. 2. All elections shall be by ballot. 

Sec. 3. Electors, during their attendance at elections, and in 
going to and returning therefrom, shall be privileged from ar¬ 
rest in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace. 

Sec. 4. The General Assembly shall have power to exclude 
from the privilege of voting, or ot being eligible to office, any 
person convicted of bribery, perjury, or other infamous crime. 

Sec. 5. No person in the military, naval or marine service of 
the United States shall, by being stationed in any garrison or mi¬ 
litary or naval station within the State, be considered a resident 
of this State. 

Sec. 6 . No idiot or insane persons shall be entitled to the privi¬ 
lege of an elector. 

ARTICLE VI. 
education. 

Sec. 1. The principal of all funds arising from the sale or other 
disposition of lands or other property granted or entrusted to 
this State lor educational and religious purposes, shall forever be 
preserved inviolate and undiminished, and the income arising 
therefrom shall be faithfully applied to the specific objects of the 
original grants or appropriations. 

Sec. 2. The General Assembly shall make such provisions, by 
taxation or otherwise, as with the income arising from the school 
trust fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of com¬ 
mon school.? throughout the State, but no religious or other sects 
shall ever have any exclusive right to or control of any part 
of the school funds of this State. 

ARTICLE VII. 
public institutions. 

Sec. 1. Institutions for the benefit of the insane, blind, and 
deaf and dumb, shall always be fostered and supported by the 
State, and be subject to such regulations us may be prescribed by 
the General Assembly. 

Sec. 2. The Directors of the Penitentiary shall be appointed 
or elected in such manner as the General Assembly may direct, 
and the Trustees of the benevolent and other State institutions, 
now elected by tlio General Assembly, and of such other State in¬ 
stitutions as may be herealler created, shall be appointed by the 
Governor, by, and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and 
upon all nominations made by the Governor, the question shall 
be taken by yeas and nays, and entered upon the journals of the 
Senate. 

Sec. 3. The Governor shall have power to fill all vacancies 
that may occur in the offices aforesaid until the next session of 
the General Assembly, and until a successor to his appointee shall 
be confirmed and qualified. 

ARTICLE VIII. 

PUBLIC DEBT AND PUBLIC WORKS. 

Sec. 1. The State may contract debts to supply casual deficits 
or failures in revenues, or to meet expenses not otherwise provi¬ 
ded for, but the aggregate amount of such debts, direct and con¬ 
tingent, whether contracted by virtue of one or more acts of the 
General Assembly, or at different periods of time, shall never ex¬ 
ceed seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and the money 
arising from the creation of such debts shall be applied ^to the 



















1454 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


purpose for which it was obtained, or to repay the debts so con¬ 
tracted, and to no other purpose whatever. 

Sec. 2. In addition to the above limited power, the State may 
contract debts to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, defend 
the State in war, or to redeem the present outstanding indebted¬ 
ness of the State, but the money arising from the contracting of 
such debts shall be applied to the purpose for which it was rais¬ 
ed, or to repay such debts, and to no other purpose whatever; 
and all debts incurred to redeem the present outstanding indebt¬ 
edness of the State, shall be so contracted as to be payable by the 
sinking fund hereinafter provided for, as the same shall accumu¬ 
late. 

Sec. 3. Except the debts above specified in sections one and 
two of this article, no debt whatever, shall hereafter be created 
by or on behalf of the State. 

Sec. 4. The credit of the State shall not in any manner be 
given or loaned to or in aid of any individual, association or 
corporation whatever, nor shall the State ever hereafter become 
a joint owner or stockholder in any company, or association, in 
this State or elsewhere, fonned for any purpose whatever. 

Sec. 5. The State shall nevef assume the debts of any coun¬ 
ty, city, town, or township, or of any corporation whatever, un¬ 
less such debt shall have been created to repel invasion, suppress 
insurrection, or defend the State in war. 

Sec. 6. The General Assembly shall never authorize any 
county, city, town, or township, by vote of its citizens or other¬ 
wise, to become a stockholder in any joint stock company, cor¬ 
poration or association whatever, or to raise money for, or loan 
its credit to, or in aid of any such company, corporation or asso¬ 
ciation. 

Sec. 7. The laith of the State being pledged lor the payment 
of its public debt, in order to provide therefor, there shall be 
created a sinking fund, which shall be sufficient to pay the accni- 
ing interest on such debt, and annuallj’- to reduce the principal 
thereof by a sum not less than one hundred thousand dollars, 
increased yearly, and each and every year, by compounding at 
the rate of six per cent, per annum. The said sinking fund shall 
consist of the net annual income of the public works, and stocks 
owned by the State, of any other funds or resources that are or 
maj’’ be provided by law; and of such further sum. to be raised 
by taxation, as may be required for the purposes aforesaid. 

Sec. 8. The Auditor of State, Secretary of State, and Attor¬ 
ney General, are hereby created a board of commissioners, to be ; 
styled “ the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund." | 

Sec. 9. The commissioners of the Sinking Fund shall, imme¬ 
diately preceding each regular session of the General Assemblj', 
make an estimate of the probable amount of the fund provided 
for in the seventh section of this article, from all sources except 
from taxation, and report the same, together with all their pro¬ 
ceedings relative to said fund and the public debt, to the Gover¬ 
nor, who shall transmit the same, with his regular message, to 
the General Assembly ; and the General Assembly shall make all 
■necessary provision for raising and disbursing said sinking fund, ! 
in pursuance of the provisions of this article." : 

Sec. 10. It shall be the duty of the said commissioners faithfullj’ 
to apply said fund together with all moneys that may be by the 
General Assembly appropriated to that object, to the payment of 
the interest as it becomes due, and the redemption ot the princi¬ 
pal of the public debt of the State, excepting only the school and 
trust funds held by the State. 

Sec. 11. The said commissionei’s shall semi-annually make a ; 
full and detailed report of their proceedings to the Governor. Vv-ho ' 
shall immediately cause the same to be published : and shall also 
communicate the same to the General Assembly, forthwith, if it 
be in session ; and if not, then, at its first session, after such report 
shall be made. | 

Sec. 12. So long as this .State shall have public works which I 
require superintendence, there shall be a Board of Public Works, ! 
to consist of three members, who shall be elected by the people, ' 
at the first general election, after the adoption of this constitution : j 
one for the term ot one year ; one for the term of two years, and j 
one for the term of three years; and one member of said board i 
shall be elected annually thereafter, who shall hold his office for 
three years. 

Sec. 13. The powers and duties ot said Board of Public Works,, 
and its several members, and their compensation, shall be such as : 
now are or may be prescribed by law I 

ARTICLE IX. I 

MILITIA. 

Sec. 1. All wdiite male citizens, residents of this State, being 
eighteen years of age, and under the age of forty-five years, shall 
be enrolled in the militia, and i)erform military duty, in such ' 
manner, not incompatible wdth the constitution and laws of the 
United States, as may be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 2. Majors general, brigadiers general, colonels, lieutenant 
colonels, majors, captains and subalterns, shall bo elected by the 
persons subject to military duty, in their respective districts. 

Sec. 3. The Governor shall appoint the Adjutant General, 
Quartermaster General, and such other stati:' officers as may be 
provided by lawL Majors general, brigadiers general, colonels 
or commandants of regiments, battalions or squadrons, shall seve¬ 
rally appoint their staflf; and captains shall appoint their non¬ 
commissioned officers, and musicians. 

Sec. 4. The Governor shall commission all officers of the line 
and staff', ranking as such, and shall have power to call forth the 
militia to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrection, 
or to repel invasion. 

Sec. 5. The General Assembly shall provide by law, for the 
protection and safe keeping of the public arms. 


ARTICLE X. 

COUXTV AND TOWNSHIP OEGANIZATIONS. 

Sec. 1. The General Assembly shall provide by law for the i 
election of such county and townshijis officers as may be ne¬ 
cessary. 

Sec 2. County officers shall be elected on the second Tuesday 
of October, until otherwise dii-ected by law, by the qualified elec¬ 
tors of each county, in such manner, and for such term, not ex¬ 
ceeding three ypai's, as may be provided by law. 

Sec. 3. No person shall be eligibla to the office of sheriff’, or 
county treasura', for more than four years in any period of six 
years. 

Sec. 4. Tow’nship officers shall be elected on the first Monday 
of April annually, by the qualified electors of their respective 
tow'iiships. and ^hall hold their offices for one year from the Mon¬ 
day next succeeding their election, and until their successors are 
qualified. 

Sec. 5. No money shall be drawn from any county or towm- 
ship treasury except by authority of law. 

Sec. 6. Justices of the peace and county and township officers 
may be removed in such manner, and for such cause, as shall be 
prescribed by law. 

Sec. 7. The commissioners of counties, the trustees of town¬ 
ships, and similar boards, shall have such power of local taxa¬ 
tion, for police purposes, as may be prescribed by law. 

ARTICLE XL 


Sec. 1. The apportionment of this State for members of the 
General Assembly shall be made every ten years, after the year one 
thousand eight hundred and fitiy-one, in the following manner; 
The whole population of the State, as ascertained by the federal 
census, or in such ot’ner mode as the General Assembly may di¬ 
rect, shall be divided by the number “ one hundred,” and the 
quotient shall be the ratio of representation in theHouse ofRepre- 
sentatives for ten years next succeeding such apportionment. 

Sec. 2. Every county having a population equal to one-half of 
said ratio shall be entitled to one representative; every county 
containing said ratio and three-fourths over shall be entitled to 
two representatives; every county containing three times said 
ratio shall be entitled to three representatives, and so on, requi¬ 
ring, after the first two, an entire ratio for each additional repre¬ 
sentative. 

Sec. 3. When any county shall have a fraction above the ratio 
so large that, being multiplied by five, the result will be equal to 
one or more ratios, additional representatives shall be apportioned 
for such ratios, among the several sessions of the decennial pe¬ 
riod, in the lollowdng manner : If there be only one ratio, a rep¬ 
resentative shall be allotted to the fifth session of the decennial 
period; if there betwo ratios, a representative shall be allotted to 
the fourth and third sessions respectively ; if three, to the third 
second and first sessions respectively; if lour, to the fourth.’ 
third, second and first sessions respectively. 

Sec. 4. Any county forming with another county or counties 
a representative district, during one decennial period, if it have 
acquired sufficient population at the next decennial period, 
shall be entitled to a separate representation, if there shall be 
left in the district from wffiich it shall have been separated, a 
population sufficent for a representative; but nto such change 
shall be made except at a regular decennial period for the appor- 
ment of representatives. 

fc-EC. 5. II, in fixing any subsequent ratio, a county previous¬ 
ly entitled to a separate representation shall have less than the 
number requireu by the new ratio for a representative, such 
county shall be attached to the county adjoining it, havins the 
least number of inhabitants: and the'representation of the dis¬ 
trict so formed shall be determined ag herein provided. 

Sec. 6. The ratio for a senator shall forever hereafter b'^ as¬ 
certained by dividing the whole poinilation of the State bv the 
number thirty-five. 

Sec. fflie State is hereby divided into thirty-three senato¬ 
rial districts, as follo%vE.- The county of Hamilton shall consti¬ 
tute the first senatorial district; the counties of Butler and War 
ren the second; Montgomery and Preble the third; Clermont 
and Brown the fourth; Greene, Clinton and Favette the fifth- 
Ross and Highland the sixth ; Adams, Pike, Scioto and Jackson 
the seventh; Lawrence, Gallia, Meigs and Vinton the eighth- 
Athens, Hocking and Fairfield the ninth ; Franklin and Pickaway 
tile tenth; Clark, Champaign and Madison the eleventh • Miami 
Dark and Shelby the twelfth; Logan, Union, Marion and’Hardin 
the thirteenth; Washington and Morgan the fourteenth - Mus 
kingum and Perry the fifteenth ; Delaware and Lickino the six 
teenrii; Knox and Morrow'the seventeenth; Coshocton'and Tu« 
caraw'as the eighteenth; Guernsey and Monroe the nineteenth • 
Belmont and Harrison the twentieth; Carroll and Stark the 
twenty-first; Jeff’ersoii and Columbiana the tw'enty-second - 
Irumbull and Mahoninig the tw-enty-third; Ashtabula Lake and 
Geauga the tw’enty-lourth; Cuyahoga the twenty-fifth - Portaee 
and Summit the twenty-sixth; Medina and Lorain the fiveutv- 
seyenth ; \\ ayne and Holmes the twenty-eighth; Ashland and 
Richlaud the twenty-ninth; Huron, Erie, Sandusky and Ottowa 
the thiitieth; Seneca, Crawford and Wyandot the thirty-first- 
Mercer, Auglaize, Allen, Van Wert, Paulding, Defiance and Wil- 
hams tlie thirty-second; and Hancock, Wood, Lucas, Fulton 
l^nty' and Putnani the thirty third. For the first decennial peri¬ 
od after the adoption of this constitution, each of said districts 
shall be entitled to one senator, except the first district which 
shall be entitled to throe senators. * 

Sec. 8. The same rules shall be applied in apportioning the 











1455 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


fractions of senatorial districts, and in annexing districts which 
may hereafter have less than three-fourths of a senatorial ratio, as 
are applied to representative districts. 

Sec. 9. Any county forming part of a senatorial district, hav¬ 
ing acquired a population equal to a full senatorial ratio, shall be 
made a separate senatorial district at anv regular decennial ap¬ 
portionment, if a full senatorial ratio shall be left in the district 
from which it shall be taken. 

Sec. 10. For the first ten years after the year one thousand I 
eight hundred and fifty-one, the apportionment of representatives 
shah be as provided in,,the schedule, and no change shall ever be 
made ih the principles of representation as herein established, or 
in the senatorial districts, except as above provided. All territory 
belonging to a county at the time of any apportionment, shall, as 
to the right of representation and suffrage, remain an integral 
part thereof during the decennial period. 

Sec. 11. The Governor, Auditor, and Secretary of State, or 
any two of them, shall at least six months prior to the October ! 
election, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, j 
and at each decennial period thereafter, ascertain and deter¬ 
mine the ratio of representation according to the decennial cen¬ 
sus, the number of Representatives and Senators each county or 
district shall be entitled to elect, and for what years within the 
next ensuing ten years, and the Governor shall cause the same to 
be published in such manner as shall be directed by law. 

JUDICIAL APPOKTIOXMENT. 

Sec. 12. For judicial purposes, the State shall be apportioned 
as follows: 

The county of Hamilton shall constitute the first distract, which 
shall not be subdivided, and the Judges therein may hold sepa¬ 
rate courts, or separate sittings of the same court, at the same 
time. 

The counties of Bufter, Preble and Darke shallj constitute the 
first subdivision; Montgomery, Miami and Champaign the sec¬ 
ond ; and Warren, Clinton, Greene and Clark the third subdi¬ 
vision of the second district, and together shall form such dis¬ 
trict. 

Tire counties of Shelby, Auglaize, Allen, Hardin, Logan, Union 
and Marion shall constitute the first subdivision; Mercer, Van 
Wert, Putnam, Paulding, Defiance, Williams, Henry and Fulton 
the second; and Wood, Seneca, Hancock, Wyandot and Crawford 
the third subdivision of the third district, and together shall 
form such district. 

The counties of Lucas, Ottawa, Sandusky, Erie and Huron 
shall constitute the first subdivision; Lorain, Medina and Sum 
mit the second; and the county of Cuyahoga the third subdi 
vision of the fourth district, and together shall form such dis 
trict. 

The counties of Clermont, Brown and Adams shall constitute 
the first subdivision; Highland, Ross and Fayette the second; 
and Pickaway, Franklin and Madison the third subdivision of the 
fifth district, and together shall form such district. 

The counties of Licking, Knox and Delaware shall constitute 
the first subdivision ; Morrow, Richland and Ashland the second ; 
and Wayne, Holmes and Coshocton the third subdivision of the 
sixth district, and together shall form such district. 

The counties of Fairfield, Perry and Hocking shall constitute 
the first subdivision; Jackson, Vinton, Pike, Scioto and Law¬ 
rence the second; and Gallia, Meigs, Athens and Washington I 
the third subdivision of the seventh district, and together shall 
form such district. 

The counties of Muskingum and Morgan shall constitute the 
first subdivision; Guernsey, Belmont and Monroe the second: 
and Jefferson, Harrison and Tuscarawas the third subdivision of 
the eighth district, and together shall form such district. 

The counties of Stark, Carroll and Columbiana shall constitute 
the first subdivision; Trumbull, Portage and Mahoning, the sec- ; 
ond ; and Geauga, Lake and Ashtabula the third subdivision of | 
the ninth district, and together shall form such district. 

Sec. 13. The General Assembly shall attach any new counties ^ 
that may hereafter be erected, to such districts or subdivisions i 
thereof as shall be most convenient. ' 


article XL 

FINANCE AND TAXATION. 

Sec. 1. The levying of taxes by the poll is grievous and op¬ 
pressive ; therefore, the General Assembly shall never levy a poll 
tax for county or State purposes. , „ 

Sec. 2. Laws shall be passed, taxing, by a uniform rule,' all ] 
moneys, credits, investments in bonds; stocks, joint stock com- ; 
panies, or otherwise ; and also all real and personal property, ac- j 
cording to its true value in money ; but burying grounds, public 
school houses, houses used exclusively lor public worship, insti¬ 
tutions of purely public charity, publib property used exclusive- j 
Iv for any public purpose, and personfll property' to p ainount 
not exceeding in value two hundred dollars lor each individual, ^ 
may by general laws, be exempted from taxation ; but all such : 
laws’shall be subject to alteration or rfepea-l, mid the value of all 
property so exempted, shall, from time to time, be ascertained j 

.and published as may be directed by law, ^ 1 

Sec, 3. The General Assembly shall provide, by law, lor tax- , 
in<^ the notes and bills discounted or purchased, moneys loaned, , 
and all other property, eflects or ddea, of every description, 
(without deduction,) of all banks now existing or hereafter crea- 1 
ted, and of all bankers ; so that all property employed m bank¬ 
ing shall always bear a burden of taxation equal to that imposed | 
on the property of individuals. 

Sec. 4. The General Assembly shall provide for raisiug reve- j 


nue sufficient to defray the expenses of the State for each year, 
and also a sufficient sum to pay the interest on the State debt. 

Sec, 5. No tax shall be levied, except in pursuance of law; 
and every law imposing a tax shall state distinctly the object of 
the same, to which only it shall be applied. 

Sec. 6 . The State shall never contract any debt for purposes 
of internal improvement. 

ARTICLE Xm. 

CORPORATIONS. 

Sec. 1 . The General Assembly shall pass no special act con¬ 
ferring corporate powers. 

Sec. 2. Corporations may be formed under general laws, but 
all such laws may, from time to time, be altered or repealed. 

Sec. 3. Dues from corporations shall be secured by such indi¬ 
vidual liability of the stockholders, and other means, as may be 
preicribed bylaw, but in all cases each stockholder shall be lia¬ 
ble, over and above the stock by him or her owned, and any 
amount unpaid thereon, to a further sum at least equal in amount 
to such stock. 

Sec. 4. The property of corporations now existing, or hereaf¬ 
ter created, shall forever be subject to taxation the same as the 
property of individuals. 

Sec. 5. No right of way shall be appropriated to the use of any 
corporation until full compensation therefor be first made in 
money, or first secured by a deposit of money, to the owner, ir¬ 
respective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by 
such corporation, which compensation shall be ascertained by a 
jury of twelve men, in a court of record, as shall be prescribed 
by law. 

Sec. 6 . The General Assembl}' shall provide for the organiza¬ 
tion of cities and incorporated villages, by general laws, and re¬ 
strict their power of taxation, assessment; borrowing money, con- 
tracting debts, j and loaning their credit, so as to prevent the 
abuse of such power. 

Sec. 7. No act of the General Asembly, authorizing associa¬ 
tions with banking powers, shall take clfect until it shall be sub¬ 
mitted to the people, at the general election next succeeding the 
passage thereof, and be approved by a majority of all the electors 
voting at such election. 

ARTICLE XIV. 

JURISPRUDENCE. 

Sec. 1. The General Assembly, at its first session after the 
adoption of this constitution, shall provide for the appointment 
of three Commissioners, and prescribe their tenure of office, 
compensation, and the mode of filling vacancies in said com¬ 
mission. 

Sec. 2. The said Commissioners shall revise, reform, simplify 
and abridge the practice, pleadings, forms and proceedings of 
the courts of record ot this State; and, as far as practicable and 
expedient, shall provide for the abolition of the distinct forms of 
action at law, now in use, and for the administration of justice 
bj* a uniform mode of proceeding., without reference to any dis¬ 
tinction between law and equity. 

Sec. 3. The proceedings of the Commissioners shall, from 
time to time, be reported fo the General Assembly, and be subject 
to the action of that body. 

ARTICLE XV, 

MISCELLANEOUS. 

Sec. 1. Columbus shall be the seat of government until oth- 
erwist' directed by law. 

Sec. 2. The printing of the laws, journals, bills, legislative 
documents, and papers for each branch of the General Asse -nbly, 
with the printing required for the F.xecutive and other depart¬ 
ments of the State, shall be let on contract to the lowest bidder; 
by such executive officers, and in such manner as shall be jire- 
scribed by law. 

Sec. 3,’ An accurate and detailed statement of the receipts and 
expenditures of the public money, the several amounts paid, to 
whom, and on what account,, shall, from lime to time be publish¬ 
ed, as shall be prescribed by law. 

Sec. 4 No person shall be elected or appointed to any office 
in this State, unless he possess the qualifications of an elector. 

Sec. 5. No person who shall hereafter fight a duel, assist in 
the same as second, or send, accept, or knowingly carry a chal¬ 
lenge therefor, shall hold any office in this State. 

Sec. 6, Lotteries, and the sale of lottery tickets, for any pur¬ 
pose whatever, shall forever be prohibited in this State. 

Sec. 7. Every person chosen or appointed to any office under 
this State, before entering upon the discharge of its duties, shall 
take an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the Uni- 
ted States, and of this State, and also an oath of office. 

Sec. 8 . There may be established in the Secretary of State’s 
office a bureau of statistics, under such regulations as may be pre¬ 
scribed bv lav.. 

article XVI. 

amendments. 

Sec. 1. Either branch of the General Assembly may propose 
amendments to this constitution, and if the same shall be agreed 
to by three-fifths of the members elected to each House, such 
proposed amendments shall be entered on the journals, with the 
yeas and nays, and shall be published in at least one newspaper, 
in e ch county of the State where a newspaper is published, for 
six months preceding the next election for Senators and Repre¬ 
sentatives, at which time the same shall be submitted to the elec¬ 
tors for their approval or rejection, and if a majority of the elec- 
ters voting at such election shall adopt such amendments, tlie 
sfme shall become a part of the constitution. Whon more than 



























1456 


CONVENTION EEPORTS 


o^e MDendment shall be submitted, at ti e same time, they shall 
be 80 submitted as to enable the elector; to vote on each amend- 
nsent separately. 

8 c. 2. Whenever two-thirds of the members elected to each I 
branch of the General Assembly shall thiokit necessary to call a 
Coiivention to revise, amend, i r change this constitution, they 
shail recommend to the electors to vote, at the next election for 
members to the General Assembly, for or against a Convention, 
and it a majority of all the electors voting at said election, shall 
have voted for a Convention, the General Assembly shall, at their 
next session, provide by law, for caTiogthe same. The Conven¬ 
tion shall consist of as many members as the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, who shall be chosen in tbe same manner, and shall 
meet within three months after iheir election, for the purpose 
aforesaid 

Sec. 3. At the general election to be held in the year one thou- i 
sand eight hundred and seventy-o ue, and in each twentieth year 
thereafter, the question “Shall there t e a Convention to revise, 
alter, or amend the constitutioi ?” shall be submitted to the elec¬ 
tors of the State, and in case a majority of all the electors voting 
at such election shall decide i i iavor of a Convention, the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, at its next scssoin, shall provid*; by ;aw for the 
election of delegates, and tbe assembling of such Convention, as 
is provided in the preceding section ; but no amendment of this 
constitution, agreed upon by any Convention assembled in pur¬ 
suance of this article, shall take efl'ect until the same shall have 
been submitted to the electors of the State, and adopted by a 
majority of those voting thereon. 

SCHEDULE. 

Sec. 1. All laws of this State in force on the first day of Sep¬ 
tember, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, not inconsist¬ 
ent with this constitution, shall continue in force until amended 
or repealed. 

Sec. 2. The first election for members of the General Assem¬ 
bly under this constitution, shall be held on the second Tuesday 
of October, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one. 

Sec. 3. The first election tor Governor, Lieutenant Governor, 
Auditor, Treasurer, and Secretary of State, and Attorney Gener¬ 
al, shall be held on the second Tuesday of October, one thousand 
eight hundred and fifty-one. The persons holding said offices on I 
the first day of September, one thousand eight hundred and fifty- 
one, shall continue therein until the second Monday of January, 
one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two. 

Sec. 4. The first election for Judges of the Supreme Court, 
courts of common pleas, and probate courts, and clerks of the 
courts of common pleas, shall be held on the second Tuesday of 
October, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one : and the offi¬ 
cial term of such judges and clerks, so elected, shall commence 
on the second Monday of February, one thousand eight hundred 
and fifty-two. judges and clerks of the courts of common pleas 
and Supreme Court in office on the first day of September, one 
thousand eight hundred and fifty one, shall continue in office with 
their present powers and duties, until the second Monday of Feb¬ 
ruary, one thousand eight hundred and fifty two. No suit orpro- 
ceeding pending in any of the courts of this State, shall be affec¬ 
ted by the adoption of this constitution. 

Sec. 5. The Register and Receiver of the Land Office, Di¬ 
rectors of the Penitentiary, Directors of the Benevolent Insti¬ 
tutions of the State, the State Librarian, and all other officers, 
not otherwise provided for in this constitution, in office on the 
first day of September, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, 
shall continue in office until their terms expire respectively, un¬ 
less the General Assembly shall otherwise provide. 

Sec. 6. The superior and commercial courts of Cincinnati 
and the superior court of Cleveland, shall remain until otherwise 
provided by law with their present powers and jurisdiction, and 
the judges and clerks of said courts in office on the first day of 
September, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, shall con¬ 
tinue in office until the expiration of their terms of office respec¬ 
tively, or until otherwise provided by law; but neither of said 
courts shall continue after the second Monday of February, one 
thousand eight hundred and fifty-three, and no suit shall be com¬ 
menced in said two first mentioned courts after tbe second Mon¬ 
day of February, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two, nor 
in said last mentioned court after the second Monday in August, 
one thousand eight hundred and fifty-two, and all business in 
either of said courts, not disposed of within the time limited for 
their continuance as aforesaid, shall be transferred to the court 
of common pleas. 

Sec. 7. All county and township officers and justices of the 
peace, in office on the first day of September, one thousand eight 
hundred and fifty-one, shall continue in office until their terms ex¬ 
pire, respectively. 

Sec. 8 . Vacancies in office, occurring after the first day of Sep¬ 
tember, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, shall be filled 
as is now prescribed by law, and, until officers are elected or ap¬ 
pointed, and qualified under this constitution. 

Sec. 9. This constitution shall take efiect on the first day of 
September, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one. 

Sec. 10. All officers shall continue in office until their succes¬ 
sors shall be chosen and qualified. 

Sec. 11. Suits pending in the supreme court in bank, shall be 
transferred to the supreme court provided for in this constitu¬ 
tion, and be proceeded in according to law. 

Sec. 12. The district courts shall, in their respective counties, 
be the successors of the present supreme court, and all suits, pro¬ 
secutions judgments, records and proceedings, pending and re- 
naaining in said supreme court in the sevi ral counties of any dis¬ 


trict, shall be transferred to the respective district courts of such 
coumies, and be proceeded in as though no change had been made 
in said supreme court. 

Sec. 13. The said courts of common pleas shall be the succes¬ 
sors of the present courts of common pleas in the several coun¬ 
ties except as to probate jurisdiction ; and all suits, prosecutions, 
proceedings, records and judgments pending, or being in said 
last mentioned courts, except as aforesaid, shall be transferred to 
the courts of common pleas created by this constitution, and pro¬ 
ceeded in as though the same had been therein instituted. 

Sec. 14. Thcprobate courts provided for in this constitution, 
as to all matteiu within the jurisdiction conferred upon said 
courts, shall be the successors, in the several counties, of the 
present courts of common pleas ; and the records, files and pa¬ 
pers, business and proceedings appertaining to said jurisdiction, 
shall be transferred to said courts of probate, and be then pro¬ 
ceeded in according to law. 

8ec. 15. Until otherwise provided by law, elections for judges 
and clerks shall be held, and the poll books returned, as is provi¬ 
ded for Governor; and the abstracts therefrom, certified to the 
Secretary of State, shall be by him opened in the presence of the 
Governor, who shall declare the result, and issue commissions to 
the persons elected. 

Sec. 16. Where two or more counties are joined in a senato¬ 
rial, representative, or judicial district, the returns of elections 
shall be sent to the county having the largest population. 

Sec. 17. The foregoing constitution shall be submitted to the 
electors of the State, at an election to be held on the third Tues¬ 
day in June, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, in the 
several election districts of this -State. The ballots at such an 
election shall be written or printed, as follows : Those in favor 
of the constitution, “ New Constitution,” “ Yes those against 
the constitution, “ New Constitution,” “ No.” The polls at 
said election shall be opened between the hours of eight and ten 
o’clock, A. M., and closed at six o’clock, P. M.; and the said elec¬ 
tion shall be conducted, and the returns thereof made and certi¬ 
fied to the Secretary of State, as provided by law for annual elec¬ 
tions of State and county officers. Within tw'enty days after such 
an election, the Secretary of State shall open the returns thereof 
in the presence of the Governor, and if it shall appear that a ma¬ 
jority' of all the votes cast at such election are in favor of the con¬ 
stitution, the Governor shall issue his proclamation, stating that 
fact, and said constitution shall be tbe constitution of the State 
of Ohio, and not otherwise. 

Sec 18. At the time when the votes of the electors shall be 
taken for the adoption or rejection of this constitution, tbe addi¬ 
tional section, in the words following, to wit; “No license to 
traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be granted’ in this 
State, but the General Assembly may by law provide against 
evils resulting therefrom,” shall be separately submitted to the 
electors for adoption or rejection, in form following, to wit: A 
separate ballot may be given by every elector, and deposited in 
a separate box. Upon the ballots given for said separate amend¬ 
ment shall be written or printed, or partly written and partly 
printed, the words “ License to sell intoxicating liquors, “ Yes 
and upon the ballots given against said amendment, in like man¬ 
ner, the words “ License to sell intoxicating liquors. No.” If at 
the said election a majority of all the votes given for and against 
said amendment shall contain the words “License to sell intoxi¬ 
cating liquors. No,” then the said amendment shall be a separate 
section of article fifteen of the constitution. 

Sec. 19. The apportionment for the House of Representatives, 
during the first decennial period under this constitution, shall be 
as follow's: 

The counties of Adams, Allen, Athens, Auglaize, Carroll, Cham¬ 
paign, Clark, Clinton, Crawford, Darke, Delaw'are, Erie, Fayette, 
Gallia, Geauga, Greene, Hancock, Hairison, Hocking, Holmes, 
Lake, Lawrence, Logan, Madison, Marion, Meigs, Morrow, Per¬ 
ry, Pickaway, Pike, Preble, Sandusky, Scioto, Shelby and Union, 
shall severally be entitled to one Representative in each session 
of the decennial period. 

The counties ot Franklin, Licking, Montgomery and Stark shall 
each be entitled to tw'o representatives in each session of the de¬ 
cennial period. 

The counties of Ashland, Coshocton, Huron, Highland, Lorain,- 
Mahoning, Medina, Miami, Portage, Seneca, Summit and Warren 
shall severally be entitled to one representative in each session 
and one additional representative in the fifth session of the decen¬ 
nial period. 

The counties of Ashtabula, Brown, Butler, Clermont, Fairfield, 
Guernsey, Jefierson, Knox, Monroe, Morgan, Richland, TrumbuUl 
Tuscarawas and Washington shell severally be entitled to one 
representative in each session, andtwo additional representatives 
one in the third and one in the fourth session of the decennial 
period. 

The counties of Belmont, Columbianna, Ross and Wayne shall 
seA'erally be entitled to one representative in each session, and 
three additional representatives—one in the first, one in the sec¬ 
ond and one in third Session of the decennial period. 

The county of Muskingum shall be entitled to two representa¬ 
tives in each session, and one additional representative in the fifth 
session of the decennial period. 

The county of Cuyahoga shall be entitled to two representa¬ 
tives in each session, and two additional representatives—one in 
the third and one in the fourth session of the decenial period. 

The county of Hamilton shall be entitled to seven representa¬ 
tives in each session, and four additional representatives—one in 
the first, one in the second, one in the third and one in the fourth 
session of the decennial period. 










1457 


CONVEN'IION REPORTS. 


The following counties, until they shall have acquired a suffi¬ 
cient population to entitle them to elect, separately, under the 
lourth section ol the eleventh article, shall lorm districts in the 
manner lollowing, to wit: The counties of Jackson and Vinton 
one district; the counties ol Lucas and Fulton one district: the 
counties ol Wyandot and Hardin one district; the counties of 
Mercer and Van Wert one district; the counties of Paulding, De- 
hance and Williams one district; the counties of Putnam and 
I Henry one district; and the counties of Wood and Ottowa one 
district; each of which districts shall be entitled to one repre¬ 
sentative in every sesson of the decennial period. 

Done in Convention at Cincinnati, the tenth day of March, in 
tne year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and lilty-one, 
and of the Independence of the United States the seventy-lifth. 

Mr. SAWYER offered a resolution to the e ifect, that 
“ the Convention do now adopt and sign the constitu¬ 
tion.” 

Mr. SMITH, of Warren. Mr. President: Before the 
question on the final adoption of the constitution is tak- 
! en, I desire to say one word explanatory of the vote I 
I am about to give. From the commencement of the 
I session of this Convention, until this time, no member 
I of this body has been more solicitous than myself, that 
I the result of our labors should be the formation of a 
j constitution which would meet the approbation of this 
I body, and receive the deliberate and intelligent sanc- 
j tion of the people. I regret to say, that so far as my 
I own judgment is concerned, this great obiect has not 
been fully attained. With many ol the provisions of 
! this constitution I am well satisfied. In many respects, 
1 believe we have made great improvements on the 
present constitution ; there are other provisions in this 
instrument to which 1 have most serious and weighty 
I objections. But however objectionable as mere mat- 
I ters of policy or expediency, I shall defer very much 

I to the opinion of others, and these objections might 
not be insurmountable. There are other provisions to 
which I have more serious objections. There are pro- 
H visions contained in this instrument which, as far as I 
am now capable of forming an opinion, I am seriously 
apprehensive are in conflict with the constitution of 
the United States, which I have solemnly swoim tosup- 
port. As at present advised, I am conscientiously sci’u- 
pulous in giving my vote in favor of this instrument as 
a whole. 

I should be most happy, were it in my power to over¬ 
come these scruples, as I greatly desire to sustain the 
constitution, could I do so conscientiously. These dif¬ 
ficulties arise out of the question of constitutional pow¬ 
er, rather than upon the ground of policy or expedien¬ 
cy; though upon the latter ground, as before remark¬ 
ed, I have very great objections. 

Upon a careful and deliberate examination of the 
whole instrument, these difficulties and objections may 
1 hereafter be measurably removed; should such be the 
case, I may hereafter, when called upon, as a private citi- 
; zen, sanction it by my vote. I shall not, here or else¬ 
where raise any factious opposition to this instrument; 
my present objections are founded upon what I deem to 
be principle. As at present advised, therefore, I have, 
after much deliberation, deemed it to be my duty, as 
a delegate in this Convention, to cast my vote in the neg¬ 
ative. I need not say that I have come to that conclu- 
i with great regret. It would be one of the happiest events 
' in my public life, could I give my cordialand deliberate 
sanction to this constitution. I shall make no addition¬ 
al efibrts to impress these views upon any of my fellow 
members. Every gentleman will, I have no doubt, be 
! governed by his own sense of right and duty ; and in 
giving this vote, I do it for myself, and upon my own 
■ responsibility as a member of this body. 

I Mr. STANTON. Mr. President, I am now called 
j upon to say by my recorded vote, whether, taking this 
constitution as a whole, I am in favor of its adoption. 
As I find myself in a position which will probably 
compel me to vote with a very small minority, if not 
entirely alone against the adoption of this constitu¬ 
tion, I must ask the indulgence of the Convention to 
i enter upon the record my reasons for this vote. I be- 
I lieve I do not underrate the delicacy and responsibility) 


of the position which I occupy. And whilst I yield 
to every member of the Convention the same integ¬ 
rity of purpose which I claim for myself, and to many 
of them a character for experience and intelligence to 
which I make no pretensions, I nevertheless feel bound 
to act upon my own convictions of duty, upon full and 
mature consideration of the whole subject. Upon a 
careful and deliberate examination of the result of our 
labor, I find with the deepest regret, that it contains 
provisions which, in my judgment, are not only unwise 
and impolitic, but that it also contains provisions that 
are in direct conflict with the constitution of the United 
States, which I was sworn to support upon taking my 
seat as a member of this body. 

So far as mere questions of policy or expediency are 
concerned, I suppose the true question for considera¬ 
tion is whether the happiness and prosperity of the 
State would be best secured and promoted by the 
adoption of this constitution, or by continuing the one 
under which the people of the State have lived in 
peace, happiness, and prosperity, almost unparalleled, 
ibr half a century. 

As to questions of power arising from any supposed 
conflict with the constitution of the United States, T 
have supposed there was no room for hesitation or 
compromise. 

If any provision is incorporated into this constitu¬ 
tion which is in conflict with the constitution of the 
United States, I suppose I am bound by my oath of 
office, and my allegiance to the Federal Constitution 
to oppose its adoption. 

And first as to questions of policy or expediency. I 
believe there was no provison of the old constitution 
which imperatively demanded a change, except in the 
Article in regard to the Judiciary. It is undoubtedly 
true that there were very many of the people of the 
State, who believed that other parts of the old consti¬ 
tution might be changed for the better. But 1 believe 
I hazard nothing in saying that if the old constitution 
had not so trammelled the General Assembly as to 
prohibit the organization of a judiciary system, ade¬ 
quate to the business of the State,that this Convention 
would not have been called at this time. This Con¬ 
vention, however, has changed radically and funda¬ 
mentally almost every feature of that constitution. In 
many respects I believe these changes were proper 
and necessary. In others they are not only uncalled 
for and unnecessary, but in my judgment, highly per¬ 
nicious, and will be found to work great injury to the 
people of the State. The judiciary system provided 
lor in this constitution, is, in many respects, vastly 
preferable to our present system. I believe, with the 
aid of judicious legislation, it will be adequate to the 
speedy and efficient transaction of the business of the 
State. 

But I greatly fear that its independence and purity 
is greatly endangered. In the first place, all the 
judges are to be elected by the people. The judges of 
the court of last resort by the people of the whole 
State. Their term of office is reduced two years. 
Their compensation is under the control of the General 
Assembly. 

It is greatly to be feared that a judiciary so con¬ 
structed, will be contaminated and corrupted by the 
demoralizing influence of party politics. When place, 
and power, and promotion, are to be procured by sub¬ 
serviency to the behests of a dominant party, and lost 
by a faithful and independent discharge of official duty, 
it does seem to me that there is great danger of 
the courts becoming the mere tools of faction, and 
sacrificing the rights of individuals, to personal ag¬ 
grandizement and promotion. I make no objection to 
the election of the judges, if this provision had been 
accompanied with a longer term of office and a cer¬ 
tain and adequate compensation, which would have 
rendered them to some extent independent, by dimin¬ 
ishing the temptations to do wrong. 

I have always been taught to regard an independent 














1458 


CONVENTION REPORTS. 


judiciary as one of the greatest safeguards of personal 
liberty, which ought on no account to be surrendered 
or placed in jeopardy. I am aware that there is a 
strong current of public opinion against me on this sub¬ 
ject, and I most earnestly hope that my apprehensions 
may prove groundless. 

The old constitution conferred upon the General As- 
'sembly the unlimited power of taxation for all purposes 
within the range of governmental expenditure. 

There is no doubt but this power has been very of¬ 
ten abused, and that onerous, and unequal taxes have 
very often been levied. But it is also true that it is to 
this power that the State owes the development of 
its resources, and the increase of its wealth and popu¬ 
lation, with a rapidity that is almost, if not quite un¬ 
paralleled. 

Without the aid of the power of taxation in some 
form for the purposes of internal improvement, the 
State would have been to-day very little in advance of 
what it was twenty years ago, in population and wealth 
and in every thing that makes a people prosperous and 
happy. , . . 

I believe it was the duty gf this Convention to re¬ 
strain and guard against the abuse of the taxing pow¬ 
er. But we have gone far beyond that. We have pro¬ 
hibited the General Assembly, by the most stringent 
provisions, from exercising this power at all, or Irom 
permitting its exercise by local or municipal authori¬ 
ties, except for the mere purpose of supporting the gov¬ 
ernment and preserving social order. No appropria¬ 
tion shall be made by the Legislature for works of in 
ternal improvements. No State debt shall be contract¬ 
ed. No city, county, town or township, shall le\'y a 
tax for any such purpose. The State shall not assume 
the debts of any county, city, town or township, or be- 
ccome a stockholder in any company incorporated for 
works of internal improvement. No city, county, town 
or township, by the unanimous consent of the entire 
population, can ever tax themselves one dollar for works 
of internal improvement. 

I admit that this power ought to have been limited 
and restrained within such limits as would have pre¬ 
vented oppression and abuse. But a total prohibition 
I believe was not only wholly unnecessary, but will 
prove highly pernicious. The improvement of the 
country hereafter, is thrown entirely upon private en¬ 
terprise. And every one knows that private enter¬ 
prise can only effect it through the instrumentality of 
incorporated companies. 

This gives to the provisions of this constitution, on 
the subject of corporations, an importance which they 
would not otherwise have had. 

The article on corporations gives to the General As¬ 
sembly the unconditional right of repeal, as to all cor¬ 
porations hereafter created. The corporate property 
and franchises are committed to the tender mercies of 
the party who may happen at any time to have a ma¬ 
jority. Every corporation in the State may be struck 
out of existence at a single blow, and every dollar of 
property owned by them be confiscated. An uncondi- 
tional and simple repeal of a charter not only destroys 
and takes away the franchise in which its whole capi 
tal may be invested; but its real estate reverts to the 
grantor, its personal property escheats to the State, its 
debtors are discharged from their debts, and its credi¬ 
tors lose their claims against it. 

Whilst the constitution carefully guards private pro¬ 
perty, and forbids its being taken for public use with¬ 
out compensation to the owner, corporate property is 
left without the slightest protection upon the repeal of 
the charter. 

And this same article makes every stockholder or 
owner of a share of slock in any corporation individ¬ 
ually liable, not only for his original subscription, but 
for an additional sum, equal to the amount of his stock. 
These provisions cannot fail to deter many capitalists 
from investing their capital in corporations for internal 
improvements. 


1 believe thatthese provisions, bearing upon the sub¬ 
ject of internal improvements, will put a stop to all 
such improvements for the next twenty five years. 
The provision for apportioning Senators and Represen¬ 
tatives to the General Assembly, is, in my judgment, a 
gross and wanton outrage upon the political equality 
of the people of the State. There is, and always has 
been, and always will be, political parties in this and 
every other country where the people have any con¬ 
cern with the ati’airs of government. There are always 
some men who are in favor of novelty, innovation, 
change—who generally delight in the cognomon of 
“Reformers,” and who suppose that every change is 
necessarily “ reform.” 

On the other hand the antedeluvians, who see de¬ 
struction in every change, or improvement, no matter 
how clear the necessity for it may be. Between these 
stand the million, where you may find every shade and 1 
variety of opinion between these two extremes. Men ^ 
fall in with that side, whose opinions ai)proximate most 
nearly to their own, and where they suppose they can ; 
best promote the public welfare. ^ j 

Of course there are many who are influenced in , 
choosing their political associations, from motives of ] 
passion, prejudice or interest. But these are the ex- j 
ceptions—the rule is as I have stated it. J 

Believing, as I do, that the danger to be apprehen- i 
ded in this country, arises from the rage for innovation | 
and change, and relaxing the bonds of society until w’e | 
run into anarchy, I have believed that I could best ;| 
subserve the interests of the country by uniting with 
the conservative influence. 1 have always acted with ’ 
that party. These parties are so nearly balanced in , 
this State, that no man can say with any certainty | 
which is in the majority. In some counties and locali* j 
ties one party is in the ascendency, and in others, tho ^ 
other. As a general rule each has preserved its as- j 
cendency in its particular locality, from the organiza- ] 
tion of parties to the present lime. Temporary dis- j 
turbing causes may sometimes interfere and change J 
the face of things in a particular county or locality, for j 
a time; but when these have passed away, things re j 
turn ordinarily to their accustomed channels. j 

This senatorial apportionment so combines the coun- j 
ties of the State into districts as to give to a voter of 1 
the party in the ascendency here, vactly more weight 
in this branch of the General Assembly than a voter of j 
the party represented by the minority. To effect this ^ 
object in both branches of the General Assembly, all <i 
just principles of representation are disregarded. 

In some counties of the State the elector has no par¬ 
ticular representative to either branch of the Legisla- ' 
ture, but votes in common wuth a constituency large 
enough for ten or twelve members, for that number 
of members, while in others each voter votes for but a 
single member to each branch. 

By these skillful combinations of counties, and by 
double districts, one half the population of the State is 
deprived of that political equality which is declared by 
the Declaration of Independence to be their “ natural, ' 
inherent, and inalienable right.” Tliis is no temporary 
inconvenience, but it is to last as long as this constitu¬ 
tion remains in force. There is no power of correc¬ 
tion or change left to the General Assembly, where we 
might hope these inequalities would be corrected ; nor 
is there any adequate power to change it as the popu¬ 
lation of the State may fluctuate. It is a perpetual in- ' 
jury which can only be got rid of by a change of the 
constitution. 

So far I have only spoken of those objections which 
arise from an improper exercise of the powers clearly 
conferred upon us. 

But there are others of a different character, which 
arise from attempts which we have made to exercise 
powers which do not belong to us; by incorporating 
into this constitution provisions which are in direct 
conflict with the constitution of the United States. The 
article on Finance and Taxation provides that all mon- 











CONVENTION REPORTS. 


1469 


ey invested in stocks, joint stock companies, &c., shall 
be taxed as other property. The terms of the section 
upon their face, include money invested in the stocks of 
the United States and of this State. It was voted for on 
one side of the chamber with the full conviction that 
this would be the construction put upon it by the Leg¬ 
islature, and upon the other with a faint hope that it 
would not be so held. 

I believe it does include them, and that they cannot 
be made subject to taxation without a violation of the 
cousiitution of the United States. This section also 
provides that all banks and property of corporations, 

“ now in existence or hereafter created,” shall be tax¬ 
ed in the manner therein prescribed. It is well known 
that the bank charters as well as some charters for 
turnpikes and plank roads have a mode of taxation pre¬ 
scribed in their acts of incorporation. This is an alter¬ 
ation of the charter. If there is any question that must 
be considered as settled by judicial decision, it is that a 
charter for a private money corporation is a contract, 
which cannot be altered or repealed without the con¬ 
sent of the corporation. 

This has been admitted on all hands, and those who 
have claimed in argument the right to alter or repeal, 
have not denied that the question has been so settled 
by uniform judicial decisions, but they claim that the 
Convention have a right to put their own construction 
on the constitution of the United States, in defiance of 
the courts, whether State or national. 

In this I differ with them radically and fundamental¬ 
ly. I hold that the construction of the federal consti¬ 
tution belongs to the federal judiciary, and that the 
State authorities are bound to conform to that construc¬ 
tion. I have long believed that the federal constitu¬ 
tion and the federal courts, were the sheet anchor of 
our safety from the radical and destructive theories of 
charlatans and demagogues. I hold it to be my high¬ 
est duty, therefore, to stand by them and sustain them 
in every position in which I may be placed, whether 
public or private. I will not, therefore, for any con¬ 
sideration that can be presented to me, or under any 
pressure that may be brought to bear upon me, lend 
my name and influence, however trifling they may be, 
to this assault upon this charter of our liberties. 

If a constitution containing such provisions as these 
is adopted by almost the unanimous votd of this Con¬ 
vention, it cannot fail to have a powerful influence in 
imparting public confidence in the sincerity of the par¬ 
ty who have advocated these constitutional doctrines. 
If charters may be altered in one particular they may 
in another. If the mode of taxation and the amount of 
taxes may be changed, banks and all other corpora¬ 
tions now in existence are at the mercy of the General 
Assembly. They may be prohibited from issuing 
notes ; the rate of interest upon loans and discounts may 
be reduced. The rates of toll upon turnpikes, plank- 
roads or railroads may be reduced, and I cah see no 
reason why charters may not be repealed altogether. 
For it is just as much a violation of a contract to change 
its terms as to rescind it altogether. And it should be 
borne in mind that this Convention has no more pow¬ 
er over a question of this kind than the General As¬ 
sembly. 

It seems to me that this Convention has by what I 
cannot but regard as a usurpation of power, struck a 
heavy blow at the guaranties designed to be thrown 
around us by this provision of the constitution of the 
United States. Whether these provisions shall be bus 
tained by the judicial tribunals of the country or not 
the moral force which the action of this Convention will 
exert cannot fail, in my judgment, to be highly perni¬ 
cious. 

For these reasons I feel impelled by an imperative 
sense of duty to record my vote against the adoption of 
this constitution. I do not propose to make any fac¬ 
tious opposition to its adoption, either here or before 
the people. If it shall be adopted with great unanim 
ity here, it cannot fail to have a powerful influence up 


on the question of its adoption by the people. I do 
not propose to interfere with that question after I leave 
this Hall. I shall vote against its adoption, both here 
and at the ballot box, and spread before my constitu¬ 
ents my reasons for my course. I shall then leave them 
to the calm and unbiased exercise of their own judg¬ 
ments on the subject. 

With the verdict of the people, whatever it may be, 
whether for or against this constitution, I shall be sat¬ 
isfied. 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross, said there were many provis¬ 
ions in the new constitution of which he heartily ap¬ 
proved, but there were some provisions engrafted up¬ 
on it which, much as he regretted so painful a necessi¬ 
ty, would compel him to vote against it. He would 
say, however’, that his objections to the instrument were 
not based upon the ground gratuitously assumed for 
^him, [Mr. Green,] and those who held similar views, 
by the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr. Ranney.] 

Mr. RANNEY. To what does the gentleman allude? 

Mr. GREEN, of Ross. I will tell you, sir. A few 
days since, when the gentleman, [Mr. Ranney,] allu¬ 
ded to a proposition of mine, he demanded to know if 
gentlemen on this side of the House would venture to 
oppose the adoption of the new constitution, and if so, 
on what grounds? “Will they,” said the gentleman, 
[Mr. Ranney,] “think to defeat its adoption on the 
ground that it provides for the election of all officers 
by the people ? Or because of the provision for bien¬ 
nial sessions? Do they imagine they will defeat this 
instrument because it provides that banks shall be tax¬ 
ed equally with the property of individuals ? Or be¬ 
cause it takes away from the General Assembly the 
power to grant exclusive privileges ? ” 

These questions, Mr. President, were asked in a tone 
and with an air of triumph that must have excited the 
attention of all. Now, sir, I will reply to the gentle¬ 
man that neither one nor all of the provisions to which 
he alluded, form the basis of my opposition to the new 
constitution. But neither the time nor the occasion 
will permit me to go as fully into the discussion of this 
subject as I could desire. I must content myself with 
assigning my reasons, for opposing this instrument, to 
my constituents. Allow me here to remark, that I im¬ 
pute none but worthy motives to gentlemen who 
differ with me. As I desire to have the purity of my 
own motives, of which I am conscious, admitted and 
acceded to, so I accord to all others on this floor the 
same. I have, thus far, had no personal difficulty with 
any delegate in this body—some things have, perhaps, 
been unwisely said, but I desire to preserve no record 
of them. 

I am aware, sir, that a large majority of this body 
are prepared to give the instrument, now perfected, 
their sanction and support—I know that in voting as I 
shall, I must be content to stand in a very lean minor¬ 
ity. I am sure that I sincerely regret that I, for one, 
cannot accord to the new constitution my sanction or 
support. 

But, sir, I wish it to be distinctly understood that I 
do not refuse to support it for the reasons imputed by 
the gentleman from Trumbull, [Mr, Ranney.] I will 
briefly state that I object to that provision in the arti¬ 
cle under the head of “ Public Debt and Public Works,” 
which restrains counties from the use of their credit 
for the construction of public improvements. I think 
that prohibition will tend to discourage the construc¬ 
tion of works of public improvement by private en- 
prise. 

I have strong objections to the scheme of apportion¬ 
ment adopted by the Convention. It is well known 
that I have earnestly insisted for the adoption of the 
single district system. 

I cannot say that I have constitutional scruples on 
the subject of the taxation of stocks, strong enough to 
induce me to vote against the newc onstitution on that 
account. It is true, sir, that it is made imperative up¬ 
on the General Assembly to impose a tax upon various 

















1460 


CONVENTION REPORTS, 


subjects, which, in my judgment, are protected from 
taxation by the constitution of the United States, and, 
by the pledged faith of the State of Ohio. Yet I 
think that provision, if not inoperative, may, perhaps, 
have its fatal effects obviated by the Courts of the 
country. 

I hope that the resolution of the gentleman from Au¬ 
glaize, [Mr. Sawyer,] wiil be withdrawn and that we 
may proceed to vote upon the adoption of the new con 
stitution as a whole. 

Mr. WOODBURY said he had no doubt but that 
many gentlemen were desirous of defining their posi¬ 
tions, but as the hour fixed for a sine die adjourment 
was near, he would move the previous question. 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair would suggest, that 
if the Convention is agreed, that it would be the pre¬ 
ferable course to vote directly on the adoption of the 
constitution. 

Several Voices. Agreed—agreed. 

Mr. SAWYER said he was not tenacious as to the 
resolution he had offered—he was willing to adopt any 
course that should seem for the best. 

Mr. CHAMBERS moved that the Convention take a 
recess. 

The PRESIDENT. We must be careful to take no 
steps that might involve us in difficulties at this hour 
of the session, without a resolution first passed, fixing 
an hour for evening sessions, the motion of the gentle¬ 
man from Muskingum would not be in order. 

The motion, [Mr. Chambers’,] was ruled out of or¬ 
der. 

The question then being upon the adoption of Mr. 
Saw yer’s resolution; 

Mr. RANNEY said he did not wish to be attacked 
n the last hour of the session without making a brief 
teply. With regard to the remarks of the gentleman 

om Auglaize, I will only say that it has been the 
arthest from my intentions to say anything reflecting 
upon the motives by which he has been actuated or to 
make any statements calculated to place him or any 
other gentleman in a false position with regard to the 
adoption of this constitution. 

I will say that after a careful review of the whole in¬ 
strument—of all its parts—of every line and word, I 
believe before God and man that it is one of the best, 
if not the best of the constitutions of American States. 

I shall therefore vote for its adoption here, and earn¬ 
estly labor for its adoption by the people. 

I frankly admit that some things have been left out 
of this constitution which I could wish to have seen 
incorporated in it—there may be some features of it 
which I would have modified—but I speak of it as a 
whole. If, hereafter, the people of Ohio are badly 
governed, it will be the fault of the people, for the 
whole responsibility now and hereafter is upon them. 

The question being upon the resolution offered by 
Mr. Sawyer; 

Mr. STANBERY proposed to amend the same. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is now, neces¬ 
sarily, on the adoption of the constitution as enrolled. 
A resolution to adopt and sign the constitution is out of 
order. Our rules expressly recognise the fact that this 
instrument is open to amendment up to the last stage 
of proceeding. The different sections and articles of 
the constitution which have been severally adopted, 
have been put together, and the question now is, as a 
matter of course, on the adoption of the whole. 

After the vote upon the adoption of the constitu¬ 
tion a resolution relative to the manner in which the 
instrument shall be signed will be in order. 

The question then being, “ shall the constitution be 
adopted ?” 

Pending which, Mr. WOODBURY moved the previ¬ 
ous question. 

The question then being, “shall the main question be 
now put ?’’ it was agreed to. 

The question then being, “ shall the constitution be 
adopted 7” 


Mr. LEECH demanded the yeas and nays, which 
were ordered, and resulted—yeas 79, nays 14—as fol¬ 
lows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Andrews, Barnet of Montgomery, Bennett, 

Blair, Blickensderfer, Cahill, Case ol Licking, Chambers, Cha¬ 
ney, Clark, Collings, Cook, Dorsey, Ewart, Ewing, Farr, Flo¬ 
rence, Forbes, Gillett, Greene of Defiance, Gregg, Groesbeck, 
Hamilton, Hard, Hawkins, Henderson, Hitchcock of Geauga, 
Holmes, Holt, Hootman, Horton, Humphreville, Hunt, Johnson, 
Jones, King, Kirkwood, Lawrence, Larwill, Leech, Leadbetter, 
Lidey, Loudon, Manon, Mason, Mitchell, Morris, Norris, Orton, 

Otis, Patterson, Peck, Perkins, Quigley, Ranney, Reemelin, Rid¬ 
dle, Roll, Sawyer, Scott of Auglaize, Sellers, Smith of High¬ 
land, Smith of Wyandot, Stebbins, Stickney, Stidger, Struble, 
Swan, Swift, Taylor, Townehend, Vance of Butler, Warren, 

Way, Williams, Wilson, Woodbury, Worthington, and Presi- i 
dent—79. 

Navs —Messrs. Barbee, Barnett of Preble, Bates, Brown of 
Carroll, Curry, Gray, Graham, Green of Ross, Harlan, Larsh, 
McCloud, Smith of Warren, Stanbery, and Stanton—14. 

So the constitution was adopted. 

Mr. LAWRENCE submitted the following; ? 


“ Resolved. That the foregoing constitution be signed by the | 
President and Secretary, and that the members present now pro- ~ 
ceed to sign the same in attestation thereof, and that the mem- 1 
bers who are absent, have the privilege of signing it in the office A 
of the Secretary of State, at any time between this and the first ^ 
day of September next.” 

The question being on the adoption of the resolution; 
it was agreed to. 

And, in accordance with the same, the President, ^ 
Secretary and members present proceeded to sign the 
constitution, as follows; i« 

WILLIAM MEDILL, President. 


Wm. H. Gill, Secretary. 

S. J. ANDREWS, 

WILLIAM BARBEE, 
JOSEPH BARNET, 

DAVID BARNETT, 

WM. S. BATES, 

A. I. BENNETT, 

JOHN H. BLAIR, 

JACOB BLICKENSDERFER, 
VAN BROWN, 

R. W. CAHILL, 

L CASE 

DAVID CHAMBERS, 

JOHN CHANEY, 

H. D. CLARK, 

GEORGE COLLINGS, 
FRIEND COOK, 

OTWAY CURRY, 

G. VOLNEY DORSEY, 
THOS. W. EWART, 

JOHN EWING, 

JOSEPH M. FARR, 

ELIAS FLORENCE, 
ROBERT FORBES, 

H. N. GILLETT, 

JOHN GRAHAM, 

JACOB J. GREENE, 

JOHN L. GREEN, 

HENRY H. GREGG, 

W. S. GROESBECK, 

C. S. HAMILTON, 

D. D. T. HARD, 

A. HARLAN, 

WILLIAM HAWKINS, 
JAMES P. HENDERSON, 
PETER HITCHCOCK, 

J. McCORMICK, 

G. W. HOLMES, 

GEO. B. HOLT. 

JOHN J. HOOTMAN, 

V. B HORTON, 

SAMUEL HUMPHREVILLE, 
JOHN E. HUNT, 

JOHN JOHNSON, 

J. DAN JONES, 

JAMES B. KING, 

S. J. KIRKWOOD, 

JHOS. J. LARSH, 


WILLIAM LAWRENCE, 

JOHN LARWILL, > 

ROBERT LEECH, 

D. P. LEADBETTER, 

JOHN LIDEY, 

JAMES LOUDON, H 

H. S. M4NON, i, 

SAMSON MASON, j 

MATTHEW H. MITCHELL, J 
ISAIAH MORRIS, 

CHARLES McCLOUD, 

S. F. NORRIS, 

CHAS. J. ORTON, 

W. S. C. OTIS, 

THOMAS PATTERSON, 

DANL. PECK, 

JACOB PERKINS, 

SAMUEL QUIGLEY, 

R. P. RANNEY, 

CHS. REEMELIN, 

ADAM N. RIDDLE, 

EDWARD C. ROLL, 

WM. SAWYER, 

SABIRT SCOTT, 

JOHN SELLERS, 

JOHN A. SMITH, 

GEORGE J. SMITH, 

B. P. SMITH, 

HENRY STANBERY, 

B. STANTON, 

ALBERT V. STEBBINS, 

E. T. STICKNEY, 

HARMON STIDGER, 

JAMES STRUBLE, 

J, R. SWAN, 

L. SWIFT. 

JAMES W. TAYLOR, 

NORTON S. TOWNSHEND, 
ELIJAH VANCE, 

WM. M. WARREN, 

THOMAS A. WAY, 

J. MILTON WILLIAMS, 

ELZEY WILSON, 

JAS. T. WORTHINGTON, 

E. B. WOODBURY, 

H. C. GRAY, 

EDWARD ARCHBOLD. 


Mr. TOWNSHEND. Mr. President, (Mr. Larwill 
in the Chair,) I hold in my hand a resolution which, I 
presume, will be adopted informally and unanimously. 
It is as follows: 

Resolved, That the President of this Convention be requested 
to accept the chair he has occupied during the session of this 
body. 

Mr. TOWNSHEND continued. I trust, sir, that 
every gentleman on this floor will join with me in 










CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


wishing that our worthy President may long live to 
enjoy the pleasure of exhibiting this chair to his friends, 
and, finally enjoy the higher pleasure of transmitting 
It to his posterity. [Great applause.] 

The resolution was agreed, to unanimously. 

Mr. REEMELTN submitted the following; which 
was agreed to: 

Revived, That the President of this Convention be and he is 
hereby direc^d to take the official copy of the constitution just, 
passed, into his custody, and that he deliver the same to the Sec¬ 
retary of State. 

Mr. GREENE, of Defiance, submitted the following; 
which was agreed to. 

Resolved, That a bound copy ofthe debates of this Convention 
be delivered by the Secretary of State to each of the clergymen, 
who have opened the morning sessions with prayer. 

Mr. MORRIS submitted the following; which was 
agreed to : 

» Resolved, That the reporters of the daily press of this city, who 
have attended the Convention—Messrs. Crippen, Coggshall, Mil¬ 
ler, Mussey, King, Shinkwin, Hine and Seidensticker—be fur¬ 
nished one copy each of the debates of the Convention, to be de- 
i livered in the same manner as members receive them. 

ij Mr. HOOTMAN submitted the following; which 
I was agreed to : 

i. Resolved, That the Messengers to the Convention be each fur- 
' nished with a copy of the debates. 

f Mr. LOUDON submitted the following: 

•1 Resolved, That John W. Carrollton, former Sergeant-at-Arms 
? of the Convention, (who was compelled from private circum- 
^ stances lo resign his situation,) is entitled to the respect and es¬ 
teem of the members ol this Convention, for the able manner in 
\yhich he discharged his duty while connected with this Conven- 
« tion, and that he be furnished with a bound copy of the debates 
■ of the Convention. 

Which was agreed to. 

^ Mr. TAYLOR suggested, as an oversight in the dis¬ 
tribution of the Debates, that the Libraries of the 
Young Men’s Mercantile Association, and Mechanics’ 
Institute, were not included in the enumeration ofsaid 
fj gifts. He hoped that it might be supplied as a correc¬ 
tion to the resolution extending that courtesy to the 
clergy of the city. 

It was agreed to unanimously. 

1 Mr. LEADBETTER submitted the following : which 
: was agreed to. 

I Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-Arms be directed to transmit 
41 all papers and documents to the several members and officers of 
this Convention, and that the postage thereon be paid by the 
State. 

Mr. GREEN of Ross moved that the Convention do 
now adjourn sine die. 

Previous to the vote taken on the adjournment, the 
I’resident rose and addressed the Convention, as fol¬ 
lows : 

! Gentlemen of the Convention: When by your 
kindness and partiality I was first called to the chair, 

; from which I am now about to retire, I expressed to my 
i grateful acknowledgements for the honor which you 
thereby conferred upon me, and the distrust in my 
i own abilities with which I entered upon its arduous 
I and responsible duties. 

I Our labors are now closed, and you have laid me un- 
' der renewed and still greater obligations by the reso- 
i lution which you have just adopted. For this express- 
ion of you approbation and continued confidence, and 
the additional compliment which you have been pleased 
to pay me in the presentation of the beautiful chair 
which, as the presiding olficer of the bod y, I have oc- 
t cupied so long, I beg to return you my sincere and 
' heartfelt thanks. 

i The formation of a constitution of civil government 


for a State comprising so large a population, and in 
which there is so great a diversity of interests and pur¬ 
suits, is an undertaking of no ordinary magnitude. Ref¬ 
erence has sometimes been made to the briefness of the 
period that was occupied by the framers ofthe present 
constitution, but it should also be recollected that the 
country was then new, and the members unembarrass¬ 
ed in their deliberations and action by the existing 
state of things. The past and the present were neces¬ 
sarily forced upon our consideration as well as the fu¬ 
ture. 

The constitution which we are now about to submit 
to our constituents for their examination and approval, 
sufficiently attests the industry, zeal and fidelity with 
which you have applied yourselves to the great object 
for which you were convened; and although it may 
not be as perfect and satisfactory in some particulars, 
as a portion of us desired it should be, it is believed to 
embody most of the principles and safeguards, which 
have been suggested by the spirit and corresponding 
improvements of the age. I trust that our highest and 
most favorable expectations in the wisdom and benefi¬ 
cial tendency of its provisions may be realized by the 
people. 

The kindness and uniform courtesy which you have 
invariably exhibited towards me, both personally and 
officially, during the whole period of our intercouise, 
will always be held in grateful remembrance; and 
now, as we are about to separate and to return to our 
respective homes, permit me, gentlemen, to tender you 
my best wishes for your happiness and prosperity. 

The PRESIDENT suggested that the session of this 
Convention be closed with prayer by the Rev. .James 
Prestley; who came forward, and having said : “ Let us 
unite in prayer,” addressed the Throne of Grace, as 
follows: 

Great God, our Father in Heaven; we desire tO’ 
approach into thy presence now, as at all times, with 
reverence and godly fear; and with grateful hearts, in 
view of thy glorious perfection and wonde.ful works;, 
and of all that goodness which thou hast made to pass 
before us, and of which we have been participants 
from infancy to the present moment. We. desire to 
bless thee as our creator, preserver, and bountiful ben¬ 
efactor, and especially, as our great and glorious Re¬ 
deemer. We approach thy presence, remembering our 
unworthiness and sinfulness in thy sight. We have 
done wickedly—we have committed iniquity by de¬ 
parting from thy holy law. WewouliFsay with thy 
servant, ‘ I am ashamed, and blush to lift up my face to 
thee, my God,’ for our iniquities are increased over 
our head, and our tresspass is grown up unto the hea¬ 
vens. Lord, have mercy upon us—have mercy upon 
us, we beseech thee, for we are miserable offenders in 
thy sight. Wilt thou spare us, O God? We confess 
our sins, our faults, and our errors. Visit them not in 
judgment upon us, we pray thee ; but look upon us in 
the face of thine anointed Son, our Lord and Saviour,. 
Jesus Christ; and for his sake, pardon our sins; pass by 
our iniquities, and remember them no more against us^. 
Pour out on us thy Holy Spirit, that we may be good 
men—that, denying ungodliness and worldly lust, we- 
may live soberly, righteously and godly,, in the present 
world—that our influence in society may be beneficial- 
—that we may live to do good. And, 0< Lord, forbid 
that we should, by our wicked conduct^ curse our gen¬ 
eration. Sanctify our hearts, purify our lives, and 
bring every power of our bodies and minds into sweet 
subjection to the mind of Christ. 

Look, in thy great mercy, 0 Lord, upon, thy servants- 











1462 CONVENTION REPOETS. 


here assembled, whose long and aiduous session is 
drawing to a close. Grant that thy blessing may rest 
upon them. May their labors,.now matured, receive 
the seal of thine approbation. May those labors be 
promotive of thy glory, and advance the cause of true 
religion, morality and education, in this great State. 
O Lord, if this organic law be agreeable to thy mind, 
if it shall promote thy glory, and advance the best in¬ 
terests of thy people here represented, let it be estab¬ 
lished ; if not, not. Great God, we pray that thou 
wouldst forgive thy servants here assembled all their 
sins and imperfections, and the errors into which they 
may have fallen. Sanctify their hearts and lives. 
Make them an honor and a blessing to their country. 
Dismiss them from this place in peace. Accompany 
them to th''ir respective homes. Be with them in their 
journey thither. May they be united to their respect¬ 
ive families, irom whom they have so long been sepa¬ 
rated, and find them in the enjoyment of all temporal 


and spiritual good. And may thy servants be able, 
through divine grace, to visit their habitations, and not 
sin. 

We thank thee that thou hast granted to thy serv'ants 
a good degree of health and strength; and that, altho’ 
they have been exposed to many dangers, the majority 
of them in a strange place, tlaey all I'emain as at this 
day alive, not one wanting. 0 Lord, for these, and all 
thine other blessings, greater than we can conceive, 
more numerous than we can express, vve would again 
return thee most sincere a nd heartfelt thanks. We 
would devote our lives to thee. Strengthen us by thy 
grace. Be our guide, our protector ; and, 0 Lord,our 
everlasting portion, for Christ’s sake. And thine shall 
be the glory for ever. Amen. 

The question then being on the motion of Mr. Green , 
of Ross, the same was agreed to 

And the Convention adjourned sine die. 




COMMUNICATION FROM THE REPORTER, 

RELATIVE TO THE DEBATES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION. 


To the Hon Wm. Medicj., 

President of the Convention; 

In accordance with a requirement of section 4, of theact to pro¬ 
vide for the calling of a Convention “to revise, amend or change 
the constitution, and the election and compensation of members 
thereof,” the undersigned, appointed Reporter in conformity with 
a provision of said bill, would respecttully submit the following 
Report; 

Understanding the principal object of the appointment by the 
Legislature to be, to ensure the preparations necessary to the 
taking of a full and faithful report of the debates and proceedings 
of the Convention, ihe undersigned, soon after the passage of the 
bill, advertised lor assistants, requiring skillful and experienced 
short hand writers. On account of these advertisements, I re¬ 
ceived a number o> applications for employment as assistants, but 
they were for the most part from gentlemen without the requi¬ 
site skill and experience. 

On the first of April I had not succeeded in securing assistance, 
and deed ing it unsafe to wait longer and rely upon correspon¬ 
dence, I proceeded to Washington, New York, and other eastern 
cities for the purpose of giving my personal attention to the en¬ 
gagement of Reporters. 

I found that owing to the long session of Congress and other 
causes, nearly every skillful Reporter was permanently engaged, 
and at the highest prices. I succeeded, however, in engaging Mr. 
C. B. Collar and Mr A. E. Drapier, who are now with me; and 
i have conditionally engaged two others, whose services I may 
command in about ten days from this time. Until the length of the 
daily sessions is determined upon, and un'il I shall be instrue'ed 
as to the fullness of my reports, I shall be unable to state the ex¬ 
act amount of assistance that will be absolutely necessary, to ac" 


complish the work, and on this point I respectfully ask leave to 
report again. ^ 

The compensation allowed to assistants will vary according to 
the skill and experience of the persons employed. The person em¬ 
ployed to report the proceedings, copy resolutions,'&c., need not 
be a shorthand writer; his compensation I presume the Conven 
tion will fix so as to correspond with th=it of the clerk or assistant. 

The most advisable mode is, probably, to pay ass stant report¬ 
ers by the newspaper colu nn of printed r poi^t This has been 
found to be the most satisfactory to all parties, and is decidedly 
the most economical mode for the State. The reports of debates 
will probably cost from two to three dollars per solid column, 
(small type,) of a newspaper of the size of the Daily Ohio States¬ 
man. 

By a provision of the bill above referred to, the Reporter is 
authorized to publish the debates and proceedings of the Con¬ 
vention in the Ohio Statesman and Ohio State Journal, of this 
city, and to pay therefor the sum of twelve and a half cents each 
per one thousand ems of composition. The proprietors of said 
papers agree to publish the debates and proceedings in full, and 
under the direction and control of the Convention, in considera¬ 
tion of the sum above mentioned. 

The undersigned would remark that he has carefully abstain¬ 
ed from taking any steps, or making any arrangements not ne¬ 
cessary to be made prior to the organization of the Convention. 

The number of assistants, the fullness of reports, <fec., will de¬ 
pend upon the expression of the sense of the Convention, or up¬ 
on direct instructions. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

J. V,. SMITH. 

Columbus, May 7, 1850. 













CO ' MENTION REPORTS. 


1463 


I 


remarks op niR. ARCHBOED, 

In Convention^ February bth, 1851. 

The question then being on the amendment of Mr 

T General 

or law conlerring special Drivilpees nr im 

bly beenjl)>^dby^anr^^°“°^ the people, which cannot reasona- 

1 ^t*. AKCHBOLD moved to amend the amendment 

alter.revoke,' 

errant 1 ^ct of the General Assembly any 

^rant or law, conferring special privileges or immuni 

upon any portion of the people,” and inserting 
heu thereof, the following: u iqseriing 

privileges or immunities shall ever be 
^ranted injurious to the public, and,” so that as amend 
ed the proposition would read, - and no special privi 
""/‘y ever be granted injurious to the 
public, and which cannot reasonably be enjoyed by 

Mr. ARCH BOLD. I bespeak the kindness of the 
Convention while I reply to the personalities of the 
gentleman from Hamilton. That gentleman has seen 
lit to discover a great want of partisan fidelity in the 
amendment which I have proposed to the proposition 
ot the gemtleman from Guernsey, [Mr. Lawrknce,! to 
amend the I reamble and Bill of Rights. He sees all 
kinds of wickedness in that amendment, and amongst 
the rest rank aristocracy. And in his zeal to read me 
out of be political church by “ bell, book and candle 
light, he has seen fit to bring up all my juvenile 
these and my present obstinacy,” are all arrayed 
against me, and in the frightened imagination of the 
gentleman from Harnilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] make out 
a patent case of glaring aristocracy. [Laughter.] 

I have great respect for the talents of the gentleman 
from Hamilton, and sometimes cordially lament that 
those talents are entirely misapplied. He [Mr. Keeme- 


LiN,] ought to act on another stage—his 


- _ o- — talent for low 

comedy and broad farce are unrivaled. [Laughter.' 
He is eminently skillful in “letting on”—he discovers 
principles and motives in my humble self of which I 
am utterly unconscious. He discovers aristocratic bear¬ 
ings and tendencies, and announces them with such a 
shovv of sincerity that it is exceedingly difficult for us 
to withhold our assent. 

There is a little old book which amused my child¬ 
hood, which, if I remember aright, was “ Dr. Clarke’s 
introduction to the study of Latin,” perhap.s I am mis¬ 
taken in the title, but some gentlemen here will remem- 
ber.it as the next in the course after “ Corderius’s Col¬ 
loquies.” This book contains the story of the twelve 
gentlemen traveling to Richmond—not Richmond in 
Virginia, but Richmond in England—one of whom, 
named Poole, the son-in-law of Faunus, was a bit of a 
wag, and was determined to put an imposition upon his 
eleven companions. He stopped suddenly in the mid¬ 
dle of the road, as if struck dumb with astonishment. 
As soon as he recovered the power of speech and mo¬ 
tion, he began to cross his brea$t with the sign of the 
cross, and to utter words of amazement and terror! 
“ Oh, dire portent, oh, prodigy unexampled—immortal 
•gods avert this omen! ” All this while he was gazing 
intently upward at the stars. His companions very na¬ 
turally inquired what it was that so powerfully arres¬ 
ted his attention ? “ Don’t you see,” said Mr. Poole, 

pointing with his finger, “ that gbeat fiery dragon in the 

sky ? ” His companions could not see any thing._ 

Then he pointed out the place where the dragon’s head 
was—then the place of the tail at an enormous distance 
from the head—he described and pointed out the loca¬ 
tion of each claw, [laughter,] and spoke of its flaming 
eyes, interlarding his descriptions with expressions and 
ejaculations of unbounded terror. At last one gentle¬ 
man, ashamed not to be able to see what appeared so 
plain, affirmed that he saw it also. Then another one, 
letit he should seem dim sighted, made the important 
discovery, and then another, until finally the whole 
eleven had given their unqualified assent to the appear 


anceof the marvellous dragon in the sky I [greatlaugh- 
ter.] Then rumor went abroad through the whole 
country, that twelve men traveling to Richmond had 
seen in the heavens a great fiery dragon, and every ap¬ 
pearance portended “ war, pestilence and famine,” 
[laughter. ] Every man amongst the travelers believed 
most religiously, that his companion had really seen the 
monster—all believed this, except the veracious Mr. 
Poole himself, who secretly and heartily laughed in 
his sleeve at their gullibility. 

It is just as easy for the gentleman from Hamilton, 
[Mr. Reemelin,] to discover my anti-democratic and 
in aristocratic principles, as it was for Mr. Poole to 
discover his great, red, fiery dragon among the stars. 
[Renewed laughter.] 

I repeat once more that this absolute, dogmatical 
manner of laying down what gentlemen assert to be 
the doctrines of the democratic party, is always, to say 
the least, superfluous. If the doctrines for which they 
contend, are true and useful, and calculated to promote 
the happiness of this great people, the gentlemen should 
be able to show it; the partisan argument is, in that 
case, entirely superfluous. It is superfluous because 
we will do everything for the happiness of the people, 
whether or not bound by partisan ties. 

_ But, sir, if gentlemen urge us to adof>t measures per¬ 
nicious to the people, we cannot, in decency, su{)pose 
>that the democratic party demands our compliance; 
love and affection for that party forbids us to believe 
that it has adopted mischievous doctrines and princi¬ 
ples. Do gentlemen consider how difficult, how al¬ 
most impossible it is for a good and generous man to 
act against his conscience—and contradict his sense of 
duty ! 

If the gentleman from Hamilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] 
when he rolls in his splendid and gilded coach over to 
Saratoga Springs, will spend a small portion of his 
enormous and superfluous wealth in extending his jour¬ 
ney to the shores of Long Island, he will probably see 
the beach still whitened by the bones of eleven tlious- 
aud American prisoners who were starved to death on 
board the Guernsey, and Jersey prison ships. Amongst 
them were my humble ancestors. The British offi¬ 
cers made them the most tempting offer if they would 
change their service—if they would desert the stars 
and the stripes, and fight under the red banner of old 
King George. Starvation and misery should instantly 
be changed to plenty and happiness—full pay, large 
emoluments and military honors. The reply was mut¬ 
tered through their clenched teeth—“ w'e will die 
first!” [Applause.] And, sir, they did die—they 
ate their lime cake until death came to their relief, 
but they kept their faith—their truth—their allegiance 
to their country. 

In the war of 1812, I have reason to believe that 
every man on the continent, who bore my humble 
name—every man, a drop of whose blood I inherit— 
of military age, was engaged in the contest from the 
beginning to the end. Where the decks of the Wasp 
and the Frolic, the Hornet and the Peacock ran slip¬ 
pery with blood, there they w’ere in the hottest of the 
strife. On the shores of Lake Erie, on the Canada 
shore, on the Atlantic coast, wherever battles were to 
be fought or danger faced, they were in the strife for 
their country. Amongst the North Point defenders 
my brothers were enrolled, and in Fort McHenry they 
watched the Star Spangled Banner “by the dawn’s 


arly light” and “the 


twilight’s 


last gleaming,” so 


graphically described in Marshall Key’s inimitable 
song. I have every reason to believe that as the hard¬ 
ships of the revolutionary war made my immediate 
parents orphans; so the hardships of that war for “free 
trade and sailor’s rights ” made me an orphan. But 
these were men of humble name, and history erects 
its monuments over the heads of the proud and the 
mighty. 

With such examples before mv eyes it is to be ex 
pected that I can disobey the dictates of conscience 
and duty? Why, the appeals of the gentleman from 
















U64 CONVENTION EEPORTS. 


Hamilton, [Mr. Rekmelin,] are nothing but appeals 
to the priiiciples of sellishuess ! If sorrow and an¬ 
guish can invade heavenly bosoais, a weak compli¬ 
ance on my part would produce pain in heaven. My 
ancestors and my brothers would look down and 
say, “ 0, degenerate scion of a hardier stocit! we 
faced hardships and death in every appalling form, 
at the call of our country, in obedience to the voice 
of duty, but that man, whom we left behind us to in¬ 
herit our name and blood, has shrunk back from dan¬ 
gers and difficulties inliuitely more considerable. He 
palters and falters in the path of duty for fear of the 
loss of a little personal and political popularity, whic’ 
no good or generous man would have on dishonr ' 
ble terms.” “ We staked our lives at our country 
call; he will not hazard even his own personal in 
ests.” 

These appeals to mere personal considerations, ih^^e 
warn ngs that we are endangering our future electh 
are perfectly superfluous and unnecessary. All n 
are sufficiently selfish. It is useless and jierniciuus ' 
fan the flame of selfishness—it is the languishing fi 
of patriotism and philanthropy that need the aid o a 
breeze. There is at all times and in the best of mei 
downhill tendency of human nature—a disposition to 
indulge in indolence, and sloth, and in one word a dis¬ 
position To graiily all the inferior animal impulses of 
our nature. But every man needs and feels that he 
needs encouragement to be interested, to be self-deny¬ 
ing, to be patriotic, to be humane and benevolent. A 
poisonous weed will grow spontaneously, but a useful 
plant must be. cultivateii. Virgil, the Matituan Poet, 
has admirably touched upon this trial of human nature. 
Dryden’s translation, which is a close copy of the orig¬ 
inal makes him say, 

“ The gates of hell stand open night and day, 

Smooth the decent and easy is the way; 

But to return and view the cheerlul skies. 

Oh, then; the work, oh, there the labor lies-” 

This is a question of repeal; the effort made by the 
gentleman from Hamilton and his coadjutors is to intro¬ 
duce what they call “unqualified and unmitigated” 
repeal into the Bill of Rights. Any sagacious man, ac¬ 
quainted with the actual condition of the different sec¬ 
tions of this State, might have predicted from what 
quarter this doctiine would be opposed. I do not pre¬ 
tend, that there is actual antagonism of interests be¬ 
tween the different sections of this State, but there is 
diversity. Can any man believe, that the same identi¬ 
cal regimen which will suit the county of Hamilton, 
with its vast net work of internal improvements and 
its millionaires ready to make more, will tuit the coun¬ 
ty of Monroe, which is not in the possession of so much 
as a single turnpike, and is inhabited almost exclusive¬ 
ly by small land-holders. It is in vain to say that the 
representatives of the people have no conception of 
the interests or wants of the people. Under any sys¬ 
tem which can be devised, the county of Hamilton will 
have every facility for internal communication. 1 much 
fear, that under the rigorous system pi’oposed by the 
gentleman, the county of Monroe, and many others sim¬ 
ilarly situated, will never possess any such facilities. 
How can they make lines of commercial communica¬ 
tion in the face of the gentleman’s “ unmitigated ” re¬ 
peal, his “ unmitigated individual liability,” and his 
one-sided rule of evidence? 

le interests of all the different sections ought to be 
dercd a little, the rich and improved sections ought 
bsolulely to domineer over the unimproved sec- 
—yet, in the name of fraternity, in the name of 
lerly kindness, I ask what slightest regard, what 
test consideration has been extended to the inter- 
)f the unimproved sections? The gentleman from 
ilton, [Mr. Reemelin,] himself,sometimes tells us 
le will go as far in the line of indulgence as prin- 
will permit him; that he will go to the thresh- 
hold, and teach his hand inside; his speech of last eve¬ 
ning consists of “ hooka, angles, crooks, and involutions 
wild.” 


Take the doctrines interspersed through one-half of 
that speech, and he would seem to be granting us all 
that we demand. One sentiment is liberal, is frater¬ 
nal, and we say in our hearts, “ we ask no more;” but 
in the next sentence, he remembers some newspaper 
paragraphs on the doctrine of repeal, and he retracts 
all. His speeches reminds us of the fate of Tantalus. 
Sweet, cool and clear water wells, forever rising to his 
lips, but parched with thirst, he is utterly unable to 
taste. Accordingly, the gentleman’s speeches treat the 
^nresentatives of the Colonial, unimproved sections, 
ely as Lorenzo Dow’s theological hero treats the 
poor sinner: 

“You can and you can’t. 

You will and you won’t. 

You shall and you shan’t. 

You’ll be damned if you do. 

And you’ll be damned if you don’t.” 

The gentleman from Hamilton concedes in words 
ad professions merely, but in actual facts, he and his 
lends never concede the ten thousandth part of -a 
lair’s breadth. A system is laid down which has the 
ere negative merit of not being absolutely pernicious 
to the rich and improved counties in the middle and 
western portions of the State, but which treats w-ilh 
the utmost rigor, the interests of all the unimproved 
sections, and ihe representatives of these latter sec- 
tipus are warned, by sight of the bloody scourge, by 
all the terrors of party proscription to come right up 
to the line, to vote death and annihilation to the dear¬ 
est interests of their constituents. Is this concession ? 
Is this fraternity ? One section must yield its convic¬ 
tions, on its own strongest and dearest interests; the 
other section will not even yield its wildest caprices, 
and it is for refushig to give instant adhesion to these 
wild caprices, backed by a few flaming newspaper pa¬ 
ragraphs, that we are to proscribe. Our only crime is, 
that we defend what we verily believe to be the dear¬ 
est interests of our constituents, wiih something like 
manly boldness, and to the risk of personal suffering. 

It is said that during the late civil war in Hungary, 
a raw recruit, ilrafted into the Austrian service, as soon 
as he gained his regiment began to shout “ Elly" ott Kos¬ 
suth,” (long live Kossuth.) He was tied up and scourg¬ 
ed in the most cruel manner. As soon as he was let 
loose he again raised the cry, “ Elly ott Kossuth.” 
Again he was scourged more brutally than before. 
Still his spirit was unbroken, and again he cheered 
“ Elly ott Kossuth” His captain, more humane than 
the field officers, remonstrated with him ; “ Why, you 

fool, have you no regard for yourself ? They will whip 
you to death.” “ Oh, well,” he gasped out, “ my poor 
carcass, I suppose, belonjis to the emperor of Austria, 
but my heart belongs to Kossuth.” So I say, my repu¬ 
tation, my political prospects, my hopes of advancement, 
all belong to a set of men who are determined not to 
permit the slightest freedom of thought, or of debate, 
or of individual opinion, in this body, but my heart, my 
soul, my affections, all belong to the people, whose ser¬ 
vant I am. 

The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Guernsey [Mr. Lawrence] is ambiguous—some say 
that it contains the doctrine of absolute, unmitigated, 
unqualihed repeal. The gentlemen from Franklin and 
Belmont [Messrs. Swan and Kennon] believe that 
such is its effect. I do not concur with them. On the 
contrary, I believe the proposition to be nearly" harm¬ 
less, still, I must feel great deference for the ojnnion 
of those two gentlemen, and that of a great many oth¬ 
ers who coincide with them. If we are even now en¬ 
gaged in hot dispute about the meaning of these words, 
how will other men, in other times and other places, 
be able to understand or construe them. Must not the 
construction which other men put upon them be a mat¬ 
ter of the utmost doubt and uncertainty ? Now, what¬ 
ever my private opinion may be as to the real mean¬ 
ing of an article, if I foresee that it is to be the parent 
of endless doubts and disputes, I must, therefore, vote 
against its insirtion in the constitution. 1 


fc re 06 












I 


* 


V 









I 


I 



11 


ipj 



• L*' 





4 




> 







I 




V 


f , 


I 4 

t 



• 1 • V 


I 




• « 






I 













o 




* V '^. •» 


.0* ' O , t 

c ^ j^/rpp^ ^ 

-fU. Q<i ‘ ’ 


r . ^'^^■V ' “ ■i’’ » 

<. ,&^ -V 

- ^ ^ o ^ Q V ^ L i a ^ **^0 c ® ^ ^ ^ 



Acx 



^ ** ,0"^ ■^o, ” .4' o»"». 

C ^ o^JTTT^ ^ ^ ^ 

- ^O K 

o jO rt, 

0-0 ^0 ^ . , , * 

6*.^ o. .n~ -<*o^ '«^j> <> 

* K >j - 4 '!> r5> -V' V', o 

o 0 ° “ « O 0^ .•'"-» ‘j>'^ 

O ^.. ^ ‘•.^WVCSS^.’ ,> ' 

^ o,,- '0-0' U- V " 


/ -4^ ■^<?> 

O "O . ^ ^ 

• ^ ^ ^ O -A^^ O ® ** ® ♦ 

'*b V 


*/ \*^-] 

.Vl 



c> vP 

V vA, ■ 

Tte 

o X o - 

.O' .•*■"- i 



9 

•1 























• NT 


' * 


- ■>* <Lr " 

^ 'o, * * A 

. t / - 'K 


1^ % 

^' • -» a 6 ° “ « ^ 

-ov^' f 

o iP 'Tj ^ -^^y/.ny^p ^ 


O 


- 7 ^ 






A Ok 

*? > v<V •« 


4 O. 

!.> Xv 


\ 


- V 


’ * •' 




C, sf^ 

^Tk *'..*" 'o.,- A X -.-r/s" 0’ 

’’ ^ A^ -- ^ . 

o V 


0’ 


An, 




-T>t^ - .'^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^■ O <»> 

. , . * O^ - „ „ o " ^0 ^ ° 

^ ««^ "^r. ^ly V ^ A. V * 


> 




V\ 




An a 
An , 9 -^ 

vP <b 




t * 9 


^ C> 

7 > y<v »A 


,. '^N"V 

, -V ^ ->«,B^-. <1 

>* A <*. '^.' .(? 

A .’■li^'."% A > 

■^ov* A^< 

o V . . -^0 • ^ 




A' 


0^ A *»- v> V^ s* •-• ' 

^ ^ ^ V I 

vV-A ^ ® C^'^yT' ° 

<D . '0,1 


o. A' 


0 ^ o 

=.”- ^0 "^ *'■’■ \^^ .. <«- 

•» -^0^ .>•<■- ^> v' .A^'- <^4 

.>V/k- -f 

aV-^ - c,^ ° WW\\^ ^ 

^ '-cT.:'* A 


X ^v'y/s^ A^ 'O^ ''o. A A <> ^'*'**’ A' q, '°*‘ \ 

O « e , t » « ^ O ° “ “ -* 0^ .'•'*♦ o 

c ,Vv7:^" o ^'0- ^ ^'s^tfr?^. <A 

'X 


j' •y’. 


q) V 




O' 


o > 


\0 

' A ^ 

"’*<■?>'■ A° * ' ' ’ ■ . °-«' 

v' A'*'. A A .;•«' > N> 

^ A ♦ A- ‘ -A"^AA .,v ♦ 


O 


o • A 


A 


♦ <0- ^ ^ 

^ <}y ^ • 

\> 


i°-V 

- o'N A 

,0 A * ° 






'vPS- 


* A V 

I • <<' 


A o ® ® -» 

■ A ,'.^-»k'-. 

Or » 


•» O 




• ^ A V T. . 

A 0 ^ 

A .*^-' 

'^o V*' .” 


g* ^ 






' ... ’■.O'' ^ * " ’ ■ ^ 

^ A ’'■aWa" ' 

v*^ -»® A ° 

■<^ ^ 4* * 

♦T^a* cA 

° " ® -» t • O. 

^ vl_ Vj ♦ ~ 


Xv 




O « O 


.0 


V" . ^1.ALa o. 


. V . 



nil ly > 

//viP ♦ 


- ♦ 

rf> • « 

v' 




* •-• C' 




'•/ . 


“ A ° 




A'.‘At%''^'f> 

A «. *5^. 






,-iq, 




O H ^ 


^AR"^ 6 »% 



' ><> ' 


\> ^ t • 


V 





• - F 

/ 

’: v^ : 

v” '^^xk ^• 

A” q^ * ® - ® ’ 

O' A.M'-. AA«- 'O 


* VV 


^ ^ ^ A * —/A G 


“ 5 ’ ”'Ci ” 



. A^ .* 


■'^j' ■i'’ > 


• vV.^ 



i)||^ 






s 


A 























































